Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
GRIVAS METHOD
MIDDLEGAME STRATEGIES
Akoglaniz para Immortal
Chess
Evo ution
l
Cover designer
Piotr Pielach
Typesetting
Piotr Pielach <'Arww.i-press.pl>
e-mail: info@chess-evolution.com
website: www.chess-evolution.co1n
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE
KEY TO SYMBOLS 5
INTRODUCTION 7
EDITORIAL PREFACE 9
BIBLIOGRAPHY 11
Underdevelopment 174
A BACKWARD PROBLEM
Modern backward pawns are not considered as bad as, let's say,
30 years ago. Modern approaches and 1nethods are very much
concerned with the so-called 'activity' 1neasure.
As long as the possessor of a backward pawn can preserve an
elastic and potentially-active position, his deficit is not that
important, as the opposing side cannot 'concentrate' on it.
A good strategy is to exchange pieces, preserving only those that
could be useful in pressuring the backward pawn. In this case,
the backward pawn side will hardly find any activity, while
passivity is something that they ,,vill have to live with!
Well, this of course doesn't guarantee a win, but mostly
a pleasant, non-dangerous, middlegame or endgame.
Let's examine some cases with a back,,vard black d -pav.rn:
o Karpov Anatoly
■ Gheorghiu Florin
Moscow 1977
1.c4 cs 2 ..!bf3 .!bf6 3..!bc3 e6 4.g3 b6 5..ig2 .ib7 6.0-0 .ie7 7.cl4 cxd4
8.Wxd4 cl6 9.b3 0-0 10.�dt .!bbd7 11..ib2 a6
12.YNe3!?
An interesting set-up. \,Vhite plans to play lLJd4 and then get his
queen on the diagonal.
12 ...YNb8
Not bad, but more 'logical' is 12 .. .',®'c7 13.lLJd4 i.xg2 14.*xgZ !l:fe8
15.*gl if8 16.fi:acl flac8 17.liie4 liixe4 18.'�xe4 Wb819.a4+=
Timman,J-Lobron,E Brussels 1992.
13..!bd4 .ixg2
13... tZ:ieS 14.h3 .ixg2 15.*xgZ Wb7+ 16.*gl flab8 17.fi:acl a'.fe8, as
in Anelli,A-Szmetan,J Buenos Aires 1978, seems to be more
accurate.
14.*xg2 Wb7+
The text allows \,Vhite a pleasant endgame and I feel that Black
slhould go for something like 14...lLJeS 15.f3 Wb7 16.WdZ fi:fd8 l7.e4
dS 18.exdS exdS 19.We2+= Rubinetti,J-Szmetan,J Quilmes 1980.
Logical was 21... @f8! when White should avoid 22.eS? dxeS
23.t2:ixe6+ @e7+
22 .ia3!
. l3bc7 23.<tlce2!
23 ...!bcS
. 24J!d2 g6 25.tl:Jc2 .ig7 26.tl:ie3!
26...fS?!
The text doesn't add anything to Black's cause. More logical was
26...bS 27.h3 hS 28. g 4 hxg4+ 29.hxg4+=
29 ..l3f7
.
33...a5
34.�g6 '.!le7? !
35.fS! :Sf6
Although not pleasant, Black had to opt for 37...es 38.ixcS bxcS
39J'ih2 a4 40.li:le4±
38..ixcS!
38...bxcS
39.fxe6 ©xe6
10
-
oSuba Mihai
■ Nicholson John
Malaga 2001
1.c4 q)f6 2.�f3 cs 3.�c3 e6 4.g3 b6 5.i.g2 i.b7 6.0-0 i.e7 7.d4 cxd4
8.Wxd4 d6
9.i.gS
15...ltlc6
16.l'.U3 0 0
- 17 tt:l
. xc6 Wxc6 18.f5 �c719.b3
19 ...�b7
34.�a7
34...�a2?!
Winning material.
39.l!?f3!
11 ... b6
12 . b3 :Sa7
15 ...0-0 16.!bft
. i.b717..!be3 :Se8 18.�cdS �xdS 19 .!bxdS
. hdS
20.YNxdS
White has exchanged many pieces, but the ones left are all quite
useful to him, so he holds a nice advantage.
25 ...gxf4?
Black's last not only doesn't solve any of his problems, but it
opens up the g fi
- le for White. Black's serious lack of space and
mobility means that he cannot s·witch from one side to the next
as quickly as his opponent. Had he left it to White to exchange,
then it would have been the f -file opened, and it ,,vould be far
easier to keep control ot both.
29..icl!
31...�c6 32.hS !!b7 33 ..ie3 �b8 34..id4 !!c7 35 J!g1 .ig7 36.:Sg6 �f7
37 ..ie3
37...�d7?
42...�f8 43.aS!
Black resigned due to 50 ... fi:xdS 51.cxdS+ lt>xdS 52.lt>fS ci!?c6 53.h6.
1-0
CONCLUSION
The 1naterial is so limited and 1nost players would think that the
draw is near. But here the side to move dominates the game and
it is \,Vhite's turn!
1.Wb2+!
1 ...Wg7
3 ...Wf7
7...*h8
Study 2
Kasparian Genrikh
1968 0
Adding an extra rook for both sides makes the right to the first
move even 1nore important; domination is in sight...
1.:Sh3+!
1 ...:Sh7
l...'i!?g8 loses to 2.!i:gl! and next moving the king to the h -file!
2.Wc3+!
3.:Sg3+ :Sg7 4 W
. b3+! Wf7
.•..•.•.,•�
If 4...!i:ff7, then 5.i!a8+ @h7 6.Wbl ++-
■ • ��
•- • .•
-�•.•.-�. .
• �
5.:Sa7! Wxb3
I ■ ■ ���
••••••••
no■ � ■
■ ■:■ -�
•.•.•-�-
•
••••
Here the 7th rank domination by the white rooks is rather
important. The white king is more flexible and this factor leads
to the win.
1 J!aa7!
Full domination!
1 ...f3+ 2.@f2!
2 ...:Sg6
2 ..Jl:h6 now loses to 3.b7! (3.£lg7+? @h8 4.b7 f1:h2+ 5.@e3 f1:e2+
6.@d3 !1:d8+= ) 3...l::'!h2+ 4.@g3! (4.�e3? �b21 5.!l:a8 f2= ) 4 ... f2
(4...:!:tg2-r S.<Jih3 f2 6.b8� fl=� 7.Wb3-r 1Yh8 8.�h7ll ; 4...�b2 s.�a8)
5.f1:g7+ @h8 6.f1:f7!+-
. . ��
After 4...�b2 White wins b5.fl:a8 flbl + 6.�;,f2 f1:b2+ 7.s!?g3! f2
8.f1:xf8+ s!?xf8 9.@g2 @e8 10.f1:c7.
��- ·-
•••••••·•
·
•-�.
• •
. .�.i.�•
� �-
5.:Sf7!!
Not only the only 'Arinning but also the only not losing move!
5 ...:Sb8 6.:Sa8 !
6.f1:c7 �f8!
1.Wf7! .ie3!
2.We7+! gs 3 . ©h2!
5 ...Wxe1+ 6 . *h2
And now \,Vhite threatens mate v.rith either tg3 or g3. When the
black g -pawn moves to g4, 1nate follo,11/s with i.d8 - full
do1nination!
6 ...Wf2 7..td6!
Study 5
Reti Richard
1922 0
1JLJd4+! ©CS
1-0
Study
Rinck Henri
1903 0
1 J!a8!
1...Wa2
l..J1h7 2.ig6!+-;
l...Wxa8 2.if3++ -;
l...We6 2.�a6++ -;
l...Wc4 2J�c8++-
2 J!xa4! Wg8
2...�xa4 3 ..te8++-
3 .:Sa8!
But now the black queen has no square at all - note the above
variations, so White wins material.
1-0
o Zhu Chen
■ Stefanova Antoaneta
Nalchik 2011 0
87.:Sh6!
And Black is dominated by White's mighty knight!
87...a4
Passive defence ,111ith 87...l::-id2+ 88.l!?c3 !i:d8 does not help: 89.tbc4
%!.b8 90.l:ff6 l!?c5 91.!i:fS+ l!?c6 92.%1.hS !l:b7 93.l!?b2 �b8 94.l!?a3 �b7
95.l'.:'ig5 !l:b8 96.lt:ieS+ ®b7 97.®a4!: ®a6 98.§g6 !l:b7 99.lt:ic4 !i:b8
10 0 .iLJxaS !i:h8 101.t2:lc4 J;b8 10 2.%i:xb6+ �xb6 10 3.t2:ixb6 l!?xb6
104.l!?b4+- 87...l::'lg2 also loses to 88.iLJc4 !i:g4+ 89.l!?c3 !i:g3+ 90 .l!?b2
a4 91.iLJd6+ (the octopus controls the rook) 91...l!?aS (91...l!?cS
92.t2:ie4++ -) 92.!i:hS+ l!?a6 93.bxa4+-
88..!bc4! axb3
90...�eS+
90 ...b2?! 91.!i:b4#
□ Alekhine Alexander
■ Nimzowitsch Aron
San Remo 1930
12.b4! cxb4
14...fS?!
Black had to opt for 14...as 15.bS (15.ibS axb4 16.0-0 looks also
good) 15...lt:ib416.id3 fS 17.0-0 +=, but of course his position
would be rather unpleasant. Black would be passive, squeezed
and without a proper plan...
15.aS! tl:Jc8
15...bxaS 16.bS /2Sd8 17J!:xa5±
18 .ib5!
. <!b8e7 19.0- 0
21...YNeS?!
Good or bad, I think that Black should try to unpin the c-file, so
21...lbdS should be tried: 22.l;acl !i:xc2 23.l;xcZ log6 (23..J:'lc8?
24.l;lxc8! [24..id7? :iaxc2 25.Wxc2 lt:ig6 26.Wc7 lt:if8 27.Wxa7 lt:ic6
28.Wxb6 Wxd7] 24...lt:ixc8 25.Wc3 li:Je7 26.Wc7+ -) 24.Wcl±
22.�acl
27..ia4!
Black will soon run out of moves - a zugzwang and end of the
game.
30...VNe8
31.bS
Heavy material losses ensue so Black resigned. An impressive
and classical example of full domination...
10
-
□ Beliavsky Alexander
■ Bareev Evgeny
Minsk 1987
1.d4 fS 2.c4 �f6 3.g3 e6 4..ig2 dlS 5.�f3 c6 6.0-0 .id6 7.M4 0 0
-
8..ixd6 �xd6 9.Wc2 b6 10.�a3 li:Ja6 11J!ac1 .ib7 12.cxdS cxd5
13.�bS �e7 14.�a4 �e8 15.:Sc3 <tiec7 16.�xc7 �xc7
17.h3!
17...!Uc8?!
White has a nice advantage after 18... li::ie8 19J1:xc8 hc8 20.gxfS
e:xfS 21.li::ieS, as the black d-pawn has turned into a weak one.
19.gxfS gxfS
20.li::ie5
White's idea is revealed - the white rooks will deal with the
newly-opened g fi- lel
23 ..l3c7
.
The 7th rank needs protection. After 23... a6? 24.�b41 White
wins material: 24.. Jtc7 (24... �xb4?? 25.li::if7#) 25. �xb6+-
24.if3 ic6
25...�g8
26.�h5?!
26...Wf8?!
27 ...�xg8
28 .YNg3
The text is winning, but White also had 28.YNa3! YNxa3 29.bxa3
h6 (29...ibS 30 .iLJf7++ -) 30 .a'.cl 0,e7 31.ie8+-
28 ..�b5
.
29 .YNh4! tZlf6
INITIATIVE
With the term initiative we tend to describe the possibility of
creating direct or indirect threats that cannot be ignored.
The player v.,rith the initiative thus puts his opponent in the
position of having to use his turns responding to threats rather
than making his own.
A player with the initiative v.rill often seek to 1nanoeuvre his
pieces into more and more advantageous positions as he
launches successive attacks.
The player v.,rho lacks the initiative may seek to gain (or regain
it) it through counterattack.
The concept of tempo is closely tied to initiative, as players can
acquire the initiative or buttress it by gaining a tempo.
The initiative is ilnportant in all phases of the ga1ne, but 1nore
important in the endga1ne than in the middlegame and more
important in the middlega1ne than in the opening (Euwe &
Meiden 1966). Having the initiative puts the opponent on the
defensive.
GM Larry Evans considers four ele1nents of chess: pawn
structure, force (material), space (controlling the centre and
piece mobility), and time.
As ti1ne is measured in tempi, having a time advantage is
having the initiative. The initiative should be kept as long as
possible and only given up for another advantage.
The following ga1ne is full of 1nemories. It comes from the
annual team championship of the Balkan countries (men,
women, junior and girls sections), v.,rhich was quite popular in
those days.
It was played in the men's section (Romania vs. Yugoslavia) and
I was lucky to watch it live, as I vvas playing in the junior section
at that time - I was just 18 years old...
Mihai Suba was a great Romanian GM v.,rith a lot of successes
and an original way of playing and thinking.
He love<l an<l s11nnorte<l the 'He<le-ehoe-' in times wh ere
everybody else neglected it. He wrote some books, among others
the 1nust-read 'Dynamic Chess Strategy' - an excellent and
unique book!
o Suba Mihai
■ Cebalo Miso
Skopje 1984
1.c4 cs 2.ltJf3 €if6 3.ltJc3 ltJc6 4.g3 dS 5.cxdS ltJxdS 6..tg2 e6 7.0-0
!i.e7 8.d4 0-0
9.:Sbl!?
9...cxd4?!
I do not like the text move - White scores quite well after it. An
i
interesting alternative is 9...'WaS 10.idZ!? (10.Wd2!? cxd4 11.ltJxd4
ib4 [11...ltJxd4? 12.ltJxdS!+-] 12.tbb3 Wa6 13.%1d1+=) 10...ti:ixc3
(10... cxd4?! 11.ibxd4 ti:ixc3 12.ixc3 Wxa2 13.ltJxc6 bxc6 14.ixc6
:!!b8 15.Wd4 .if6 16.Wif4 E!b6 [16... es 17.heS±] 17.ixf6 gxf6
18.Wg4+ 4?h8 19.Wf3 @g7 20.b4±) 11.hc3 Wxa2 12.ti:id2 Wa6
(12 ... cxd4 13.%1a1 Wxal 14.Wxal dxc3 15.bxc3±) 13.dxcS WbS 14.b4
aS! 15.bxaS WxcS 16.Wcl eS (16...lt:lxaS? 17.E!al i.d8 18.WbZ f6
19.l;fcl +-) 17.WbZ+= In all the above variations we can easily
observe hov,r well the white rook stands on the b - file.
10.lbxd4 lbxd4
14.ie3!
.
14..Wxc3
. 15.Wa4
15 ...id8!
.
16.ixa7?!
.
16...id7?!
.
Concrete calculation is not ah,vays precise! Here bad vvas
16...Wc7?! 17.Wd4 Was 18.icS '.8:e8 19.a3± or 16...WaS?! 17.WxaS
ixaS 18.icS �d8 19.�7 ixb7 20Jtxb7 '.8:d2 21.1;1.fbl! hS 22.'.8:7b2±
but Black could go for 16 ...Wd2! 17.ixb7 (17.'.8:xb7 hb 7 18.�7
fuca7 19.Wxa7 Wxe2=; 17.if3 id7 18.Wd4 Wxd4 19.hd4 �a2
20.l:�xb7=) 17...ixb7 18.E!xb7 Wxe2 19.Wd7! Wc2! or 19...Wxa2
20.icS if6 21.ixf8 flxf8 and it is difficult to see how White ,II/ill
get so1nething 1nore than the better side of a draw.
17.Wxd7 �xa7 18.Elfc1
19.!k8! bS?
19...WxaZ? loses to 20Ji: d1 +-, but maybe 19 ... :!%a8 was the lesser
evil: 20.:!%xa8 Wxa8 21.Wd2±, as \Nhite wins the b7-pavvn. But who
·wants to defend this unpleasant opposite-coloured bishop ending
forever...
20..ib7!
20....ie7
Black's back rank is rather weak and this can be proven after
20...b4 21.l'!dl! ie7
21.�bc1!
21. ..Wib4
On 21. ..idS White wins vvith 22.!1:b8! (22J�dl?! ie7 23.l'!e8 �4)
22 ...Wa3 23.l%cc8 ie7 24.l'!xf8+ hf8 25.:!::tc8! (with the idea l'!c7 -
Black's 7th rank is vveak as well!) 25 ...Wb4 26.�g2 !1:xa2 (26...We4+
27.�h3!+- ) 27.%tc7+-
25.VNxf7+ @h8
26.YNg6
26.l;1c8 YNbl + 27.@g2 vge4+ 28.f3! vgxe2+ 29.@h3 YNfl + 30 .@g4 �a4+
31.f4+-
26..J�a4 27J:!:c8
10
-
oSuba Mihai
■ Petursson Margeir
Thessaloniki 1 984
1.c4 cs 2.�f3 ti::lf6 3.�c3 e6 4.g3 <tic6 5.�g2 �e7 6.0-0 0 0- 7.d4 dS
8.cxdS �xdS 9.�b1
9...�f6
10..!bxdS W!xdS
11.dxc5 Wxc5
12.W!a4!
14.Wfe4!
14...gac815.b4
15 ...b6 16 .�d2!
20..ixaS!
20...bxaS 21.bxa6
A critical 1nistake. Black had to opt for 23 ..J!aS 24.a7 i.dS 25.�c7,
where \!Vhite stands better but nothing is clear-cut yet.
24.a7 a4 25.�eS!
28.lbd7!
28....ib2
ctJ
34.4?h3! VlifS+ 35.g4+-
-�■
. ....
'ti'■ �&
.
0 ■ ■ .t. ■ .t.
,.
•*- ••••••�:�••m•
•
� .
■■ w�
,. , ,·1 - � g
�O'i
,,.,.,, ii�
m:a • m
, ,. ,., ,. ,
29.Vlixa3?!
34.qJe4 ha7
35.qJg5
White wins a good pawn and the case of knight vs. bishop with
pawns on one side is quite favourable for him.
38.tuxh7? i.e 7.
38...h6
39.�f7!
1-0
□ Portisch Lajos
■ Matanovic Aleksandar
Adelaide 1971
24...�f6
White's advantage is indisputable. He is better co-ordinated and
has two advanced pawns. The only technical proble1n see1ns to
be that both pawns are under attack.
25.h6?
25..JJxd6
Black cannot live with this nasty pav,rn on d6. The main
alternative was 25 ...i.xf3? when White can introduce a nice
combinative line: 26.d7! Wxd7 (26...hg2 27.Wxf6!+-) 27.Wxf6 Wd4
28.fleS!+-
26Jbe5!
26....ieS
27..!bg4! �hS
28..idS!
28....id7
This natural 1nove spoils the game! Stronger was 29.l:l:dl! .½e6
(29 ...\We7? 30.ixf?+! \Wxf7 31.ti:ieS+- ) 30.ti:if6+ ti:ixf6 31.\Wxf6 \Wf8
32.ixe6 fxe6 33.\Wxe6+ Wf7 34.Wxf?+ ©xf7 35.'.E:d7+ ©f6 (35 ...@g8
36.a'.xa7+-) 36.%!:xa7 gs 37.%!:g7! when Black is in deep trouble:
37..J:ta8 (37...bS 38.%!:xh7 @g6 39.%!:c7+-) 38.�xh7 ©g6 (38...'.E:xa2
39.l�b7 bS 40.%1:xbS @g6 41.1:!b6++- ) 39.1:!b7 ©xh6 40.'.E:xb6++-
32...gf8?!
And now the difference is obvious; the queens are still on the
board and the black king is not secure.
35...�h6?
Black cracks. 35...Wd2! was his only move to stay in the game:
36.<tg2 (36.WdS WxdS 37..ixdS+ *h6 38.*g2+=) 36....id7! 37.WdS
i.c6! 38..igS+ :Sf7!! 39.!l:xfl+ *xg8 40.Wxc6 �xf7= But this
variation is not 'hu1nan' and cannot really be found over-the
board and with limited time...
1-0
CONCLUSION
D Short Nigel
■ L:Ami Erwin
London 2009
3....tg4
I do not like the idea of giving-up the bishop pair so easily. More
combative is 4...ihS 5.d41? (This is a rare continuation and not
without reason. 5.g4 ig6 6.exdS cxdS 7.ibS+ lt:c6 8.�es :acs is
another theoretical discussion....) S ...e6 (5...dxe4?! 6.�xe4 i.xf3
7.Wxf3 Wxd4 8.ie3 Wxb2 9.ic4 Wb4+ 10.t2:ld2 t2:lf6?! [10 ...e6 11.a'.bl
We7 12.t2:le4iii] 11.l;bl Wd6 12Ji:xb7± Short,N-Adianto,U Internet
2000) 6.id3 t2:if6 (6 ... dxe4 7.tbxe4 �d7 followed by 8...�gf6 is
a solid option. Black's position is slightly worse, but free of
weaknesses) 7.eS! tbfd7 8.g4 ig6 9.hg6 hxg6 10.tbe2 cs 11.c3 t2:lc6
12.i>fl += Short,N-Postny,E Kolkata 2009.
6 ...dxe4
I think that Black has to go for this. After 8...ti:id7 9.0-0 e6, White
can play 10.b4I tbf6 11.Wc4 ie7 12.bS cxbS 13.¥9xb5+ Wd7 14.�bl
WxbS lS.hbS+ �d8 16.d4 @c7 17.c4+= Frolov,A-Horvath,C Siofok
1990.
11.Wa4
White has tried two other moves here: 11.Wg3 e6 12..if3 Wd6
13.Wxd6 hd6 14.b4! a6 1S.a3 @e7 16J.l:b1 a:ac8 17.flel gs 18.d3
ffilg8 19.�b2 'LidS 20.g3+= Mitkov,N-Adamson,R Wheeling 2012
and 11.Wb4 Wd7 12.d3 e6 13.Wh4 i.e7 14.Wg3 0-0-0 1S.i.e 3 cs
16.b4+= Borosova,Z-Hladik,L Banska Stiavnica 2013. In both cases
Black can improve.
11...We4
12.Wxe4 ltlxe4
13...g6
14.d4!
17.ie3 0-0
18.�adl
18 ...e6 19.g4!
19 ..h6
. 20.h4
White simply wants to kick the black knight away from control
of the dS-square, so his future dS advance will be easier and
1noreeffective.
20...�fe8
21...lbd7?!
22.d5!
Direct and good, although the simple 22.b3 and then dS, might
be even stronger!
22 ..lbe5
.
Again this helps \,Vhite. More stubborn was 22 ... exdS 23.cxdS
cS!? (23...cxdS 24.%1:xdS±), although after 24.M4! tt:leS 25.b3±,
White is still very much on top.
23.dxc6!
It was once said that the advantage of having the bishop pair is
that at a certain moment you can return one of them! Well, not
for free of course!
23...�xf3
After 23...�xc6 24.b3, White enjoys the bishop pair with an open
centre and a flexible majority on the queenside; advantages
which according to the classical principles should bring the point
home...
25...as
26.gS!
28.:Sd7!
Not only attacking the pawn, but preparing the lethal l%dd7.
Black will also not survive after 31...:g(ab8 32.:iadd7 :axb3 33.fxf7
�c3 34.!i:f6 !!:xc4 35.!i:xg6+ @h8 36.©e2!
Black could try to 'fish' with 33 ... cSI? 34.hc5 l'!b8 (34...hcS?!
35.§xcS �b8 36.%1:bS+-), where \!Vhite has to find 35..ie3I (the rook
ending after 35.@e4 ixcS 36.l'!xcS �xb3, offers Black some
survival chances) 35 ...!!xb3 36.§c8+-
35...fS
36.gxf6 @f7 37.@e4 S:b7 38.i.d4 gs 39.cS S:bl 40.c6 �cl 41..ie3
1-0
21...�xd7
22.Wxd7 ti:leS
23..ixes hes
24.�fl!
24...hS ! 25 ..ie2!
I think that Black should opt for 25...aS! 26.Wc6 (26..ibS!? might
be better) 26....ixh2+ 27.iixh2 Wxe2 28.Wxe6+ <tlg7 29.WeS+ iih6
30 .iigl. White retains a small advantage due to the weaker black
king, but Black should be able to hold.
27....id4?!
28..ic4! :Sxf2?
A clear blunder. P.Svidler had to go for 28...MZ+ 29.©hl Wa3!
when after 30 .1/Id7! White has the upper-hand but he would still
be very much in the game, but for no more than a draw in any
case... His king re1nains rather vveak and as it is well-known the
opposite-coloured bishops always help the attack!
29 .YNxe6+ ©h7
30.YNd7+
1-0
CONCLUSION
o Botvinnik Mikhail
■ Sorokin Nikolay
Moscow 1931
19...es
23.�cl!
23 ... .ixf3
24.gxf3
28.@f2!
33.b3!
33JJa7 0ic4 34.b3 lt:ib6 35.:ll:xa6 lt:ixdS 36.exdS also wins, but there
is no need to allow the badly-placed as-knight to be exchanged!
33...gds 34.�g3
34JH7 also looks good: 34...:i!d6 35.�g3 0ic6 36.�g4 lt:ib4 37.�fS
0ixd5 38.exdS !l:xdS 39.�g6 �g8 40J;i:a7 �f8±, but there is no need
to go after such pawns. The white king will deliver the decisive
blow.
34...fS 35.�h4 fxe4 36.fxe4 gd6 37.�hS gf6 38.h3 gd6 39.h4 �b6
40.�g4 �f6 41.�a7 �b6 42.:Se7 gd6 43.�c7 :Sf6 44.:Sa7 gb6 45_gc7
�f6 46.�hS gd6
47.i.f7!
47...gf6
1-0
24...lbb8
White seems to stand better. He has gained the bishop pair and
he can put p:ressure on the weak, backward black d -pavvn. Well
all this sounds good for some future 'handling'... V.Smyslov
thought about the present and he proceeded accordingly...
25.�xe6!
Giving up the strong bishop is very effective. White is using the
temporary disconnection of Black's pieces to his advantage.
White wins a good pawn and Black's days are numbered ...
Under the protection of his pawns the white king calmly goes
into the enemy ca1np.
46 ...a2 47.eS ©g8 48.©fS :Sf1 49.:Sxa2 �xf3+ S0.©g6 ©f8 51.:Sa8+
@e7 52.:Sa7+
1-0
□ Rogozenco Dorian
■ Morozevich Alexander
Istanbul 2000
21.g3
An about equal position at first sight, as White just needs to
castle to feel comfortable.
21...V9f6!
23...h6!
It is too early for 23...:ad3 24.idl (24.h6 �b3 25Jfu4 !i:xb2 26.:i!d4
©f8+) 24...ib3 25.l!?e2 ic4 26.l!?el ib3 (26 .. J!dS 27.:E!h4+= ) 27.©e2=
24.�h4! cS!
25.�e2?!
25...�b3!
33.�f41 @es 34.%1.fS+ @e6 35.!!:f4, when Black still has to find
a way to break through.
33....ie6!
34..ie2
37.lU3
38...�e6-+ 39.�c3
39... c4 40.f3 ©f4 41.�c2 :Sd4 42.idt b4 43.axb4 axb4 44.�e2 ©e3
45.�cl
0-1
o Khalifman Alexander
■ Chiburdanidze Maia
Bazna 2007
1.d4 lbf6 2.c4 e6 3.lbf3 .tb4+ 4.�c3 c5 5.g3 �c6 6.�g2 �e4 7..td2
hc3 8.bxc3 �xd2 9.Wxd2 d6 10.0-0 0-0 11.�fdl We7 12.�ab1
:Sb8
An original position. Black is aiming to go for ...b6 and ...ia6,
putting pressure on White's weak queenside pawn-structure.
A logical plan and White has to do something about it...
White's two last moves looked a bit strange, but the real aim is
to make Black's development uncomfortable!
19...f5
19....\ka6 20 .i.bS! .ic8 21.f4±
Black thought that she might hold this ending, but the possession
of an open file and a more active king are decisive factors.
24.@f2! es
25.:Sd8! :Sxd8?!
2s ...@f7 29.@f3 gs
30.h4! @e6
Black could try 30...h6 31.hxgS hxgS 32.e4 @e6, but White is on
the right track after 33.c4! �xeS 34.exfS @xfS 35.g4+ ©eS
36.�e3+-, as the opposition decides.
19...VNh6!
20.VNxh6
24..VNh6!
.
25.VNxh6 gxh6
26.!U3
26... �c7?!
29.lbd6
29...€:ic6!
30.�e3 @g7!
31.E:f6? tZlxeS!
31...lbe7
32.�bS?!
33....½c6? 34.!1:c4+-
34.c4
38.c4 hc4
39.lb e4 .ixb5!
CONCLUSION
Stereotypes do not make the 1naster; think outside of the box and
try to find the best move!
THE BAD BISHOP
Normally, a 'bad bishop' is a serious dravvback in one's position
- but not always. In fact, possession of the initiative or other
assets can sornetimes outv,reigh the presence of a bad bishop; this
bishop can so1netimes take an active part in an attack.
Moreover, when defending, as GM Mihai Suba once noted,
sometimes 'a bad bishop defends good pawns' (although it would
be more accurate to say 'important' or 'necessary' pawns), and
thus becomes a valuable piece, which the stronger side is forced
to exchange in order to break through the defence.
The great, deep-thinking researcher and Master Isaac Lipnitsky
commented in his book 'Questions of Modern Chess Theory'
(Kiev 1956): 'It would be wrong to say that a creatively concrete
approach to the position lessens the influence of the rules of
chess or contradicts them. The whole point is that in any given
position, the contradiction of any rules (or generalities) occurs
only at the price of the reaffinnation and victory of other
(rules)... Chess dogmatism does not occur only when:
1. Established rules are follo'1ved without regard for
circumstances of the position; it also occurs when:
2. The evaluation of a particular position is made primarily on
the basis of only the obvious, the already known and established
rules and generalisations.'
Keep in mind that the dynamic approach characteristic of
modern chess has in effect made general rules and principles
'useless' for the purpose of malting decisions in the majority of
concrete positions.
Of course, a thorough acquaintance with the general principles,
techniques and methods enriches and sharpens our intuition,
but still every position is rather unique and it should be
examined as such.
The first example is rather illuminating:
o Sznapik Aleksander
■ Bukal Vladimir
Zagreb 1979 •
19...�c4!
20.�xc4?!
White should not have taken the pawn. 20.�xb7 !Efb8 21.�d6
(21.b3? �bS!+ or 21.lucS :iaxb2 22.a3 flab8=+) 21 ...tDxd6 (21. ..!Exb2!?
22.�xc4 dxc4 23.Wxc4 :iac8 24.Wa6 i':!:cc2�) 22.exd6 Wxd6 23.Wc3
Wb4= was better, proving that Black's position is not bad at all!
For a mere pa\lvn, Black has solved all his proble1ns and he even
holds the initiative due to his powerful bishop! Yes, the
previously 'bad' one has now come to life!
26.�d3
26...WhS 27.Wf4
27....ie4
30 .. .VNxf4 31.gxf4 �d5 32.l!>fl �b5 33.:Sc2 l!>f7 34.hS l!>e7 35.l!>e2
@d7 36.<.!ldl
36...:Sa8! 37.tlld2
o Knaak Rainer
■ Plachetka Jan
Bratislava 1983
Freeing his f p
- awn ,.vith gain of tempo.
12 .0-0 cs 13.f3!
14.i.b2
14..i?fd7
.
15.e4!
17.e5
20...fS
21.g4! ilbg6
22.gxf5 WxfS
23..icl!
Or 29...t2:lb4 30.t2:ih5+-
o Kimelfeld Rudolf
■ Dvoretsky Mark
Moscow 1972 O
19.f4
19 ..d4!
. 20 . .!be2
20...�c2
21 .fS?!
23...g6! 24.:Sc7
24...�eS! 25.�f3
0-1
o Grivas Efstratios
■ Sarantos Vasilios
Athens 2001 C
24..Wc8
. 25.Wb2 �6a7 26.h3! hS
36.hxg4 h4+
40... ©f7 41.:Sxc6 Wg4+ 42.©f2 Wh4+ 43.©e2 Wg4+ 44.©el Wh4+
45.©e2 Wg4+ 46.@d2 Wxg2+ 47.©c3 !:ixc6+ 48.Wxc6 !:ie7 49.b7 Wf1
50.©b2! We2+ 51.©a3 Wd3+ 52..ic3 Wb1 53 ..ib2
The 'bad' bishop secured the white king in the end! And in
general it was proved to be 1nuch 1nore valuable than the black
rook...
1-0
Well, if the bad bishop can prevail so easily, then it might be
a good thought to exchange it as soon as is possible!
A bit of a strange thought indeed, but let's have a look at the
next two games, which might change your approach!
The ex-\!Vorld Cha1npion Bobby Fischer was an expert in
handling the bishop. He has played many beautiful ga1nes and
his contribution to the 'handling theory' is enonnous.
But you have to keep in 1nind that, although he was fond of
bishops, he also knew what to do with the knights! The next
example is good proof:
22...E!Xd7 23.!kl
23..J�d6
24.EIC7
25.E!e2 g6 26.@f2!
White needs all his pieces for the final assault! The king is an
important piece and we should always think about how to make
it work more effectively.
26...hS 27.f4 h4
28.@f3 f5 29.@e3
29...d4+
30.�d2 ti:Jb6
Or 30 ...ti:Jf6 31.ic4! lbe4+ 32.�d3 �ad8 33.a3 and Black has run
out of useful moves. The harmonious co-ordination of the white
forces is extraordinary.
The text 1nove was enough to force Black to resign, but there
was also a mate starting with 34.:§.h7! A famous and ,,vell-known
example, which can teach us to think outside of the box,
so1nething that matures the trainee and allow hi1n to climb the
mountain!
1-0
o Goetsche Frank
■ Grivas Efstratios
Dortmund 1991 •
17...<!bxd3!
22..icl .if7?
With his last few moves Black exchanged two clear strategic
advantages (bishop pair, isolated e-pawn) for a 1nore decisive
one, the possession of the open e fi
- le, through which he will
invade the enemy lines. The limited material complicates White's
defensive task, as he cannot control all possible entry points (,e2,
el). The position can be considered won for Black.
Such instances of transformation of advantages are quite
common in 1nodern chess. Knowledge of all the strategic
elements and their correct application in practice allow for
several such operations. Naturally, experience also has its say!
The final detail. White ,,vill either lose material or allow Black
a passed e-pawn, a much more active king and possession of the
7th rank; these are obvious advantages that suffice for victory.
0-1
CONCLUSION
□ Alekhine Alexander
■ Capablanca Jose Raul
Buenos Aires 1927
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3 . t"tJf3 �d7 4.�c3 t"tJgf6 5 ..ig5 .ie7 6.e3 0-0 7.!k1 c6
8.Wc2 a6 9.a3 h6 10..ih4 �e8 11.cxd5 exd5 12.�d3 �h5 13.�xe7
�xe7 14.0-0 t"tJhf6 15.h3
It v,as all the way back in 1927 when the great Capa first
introduced this very important idea:
This is a really superb post for the knight, as it's now very
difficult for White to achieve any of his desired pawn levers (b4-
b5 or e3-e4). The ga1ne now sees steady simplification after
which neither side has much to play for.
23.Ax!S �xfS
½-½
□ Bobotsov Milko
■ Petrosian Tigran
Lugano 1 968
1.d4 llbf6 2.c4 e6 3.llbf3 dS 4 .cxd!S exdS 5.e£Jc3 c6 6 ..igS .ie 7 7J�fc2
g68.e3 .ifS 9 ..id3 hd3 10.'Wxd3 llbbd7
11 i
. .h6
Another try is 11.0 -0 0 -0 12.h3 fl:e8 13.i.f4 .if8 14.tbeS ig7 15.�h2
tZ:ixeS 16.heS ti:le4 17.hg7 �xg7 18.ti:ixe4 fl:xe4 19.b4 a6 20.a4
Wd6 21.bS cs 22.dxcS WxcS 23.bxa6 El:xa6 24.:i�fbl fl:axa4 25.�xa4
:i!xa4 26JXxb7 d4 27.exd4 Wcl+ 28.�h2 Wf4+ 29.Wg3 Wxg3+
30 .�xg3 fl:xd4 31.�f3 �c4 32.�g3 !!:d4 33.�f3 Z!c4 34.�g3 !!:d4 ½ ½ -
Bu,X-Wei,Y Wuxi 2016.
37...gxf3 38.lt::ixf3
0-1
o Andersson Ulf
■ Atalik Suat
Kusadasi2006
1.ti:if3 dS 2.d4 lt::if6 3.c4 e6 4.l'llc3 c6 5.cxdS exdS 6.�gs �e7 7.Wc2
g6 8.e3 �fS 9.�d3 hd3 10.Wxd3 lt::ibd7 11.0-0 0-0 12.:Sabl as
13.Wc2 Ele8 14.a3 tob6 153 Da4?!
This move looks really bad - and it has to be bad. White has to
opt for 15.lDeS lDfd7 16. .ixe7 �xe7 17.lDxd7 :E:xd7 18.lt'.'Ja4 lt'.'Jc8!oo, as
in Kaposztas,M-Szalai,K Hungary 20 07.
15....!bxa4 16.Wxa4
Black is ready to place his knight on d6 and then try his chances
on both sides.
25...@f7
26.@d3 @e6 27.h4 @cl6 28.g3 h6 29.:Shl :Sfe8 30.:Sbet :Sc8 31J�b1
©e6 32.:Sb2 @d6 33.E(bbt :Sce8 34.:Sbet :Sc8 35.:Sbt :Sees
½-½
o Nikolic Predrag
■ Kramnik Vladimir
Monte Carlo 1 998
1.d4 �f6 2.c4 e6 3.tZ'Jf3 dS 4.tZ'Jc3 c6 S.cxdS exdS 6..igS .ie7 7.e3
.ifS 8..id3 .ixd3 9.'%Vxd3 tZ'Jbd7 10.0-0 0-0 11.�abl as 12.a3 �e4
13..ixe7 '%Vxe7 14.b4
14...bS!
Black prepares the full occupation of the a-file (or not?). His
active pieces and plans secure the advantage.
23.Wi'd1 hS 24.�h1 Wi'gS 25.e:bb1
It's quite clear that something went wrong for White in the
middlega1ne. He succeeded neither in his minority attack, v.,rhich
Black managed to properly halt, nor in a central break. Black's
reactions were excellent and, as a result, he has taken over the
important a-file and has placed his knights on excellent central
squares. Black has a great advantage, but no position can be won
just by sitting back and waiting - a typical mistake that we see
in a lot of games. Having achieved a huge advantage only means
that we have the better chances of winning, but not that we have
already won! Black must form a plan to convert his huge
advantage.
25 ...e:ae7!?
..,.
-E�•
■
�-
� .t.
�"·
m ■ 9
"t o
9,,
'.'•';'
-
t:,
m
· ,,,,, .�
"...-�
- '��
= ---" �
"".?,_,
;�!"'- •�
30...lDxd4
31.�cfl?
31.t2:id3? t2:ib3-+ was not a real alternative, but White had to opt
for 31.<;i;/gl ti::ifS 32.t2:ie2 Wf6, transposing to the line mentioned
above on White's 30th move.
31...t2:if5! 32.furfS
32...gxfS 33.lbdl
□ Portisch Lajos
■ Kasparov Garry
Skelleftea 1989
1.d4 d5 2.<tlf3 lbf6 3.c4 e6 4.cxdlS exdS 5.<tlc3 c6 6.Wc2 <tla6 7.a3
.!iJc7 8..tgs g6 9.e3 .tf5 10..td3 .txd3 11.VNxd3 .te 7 12.0-0 0-0 13.b4
.!iJe4 14..tf4 <tixc3
15JNxc3?!
Very clever. No,,v Black's knight gets to the ideal square and it
becomes much easier for him to advance on the kingside than it
is for White to make progress on the other flank.
The knight will be driven away from here via ...f7-f6. 19.g3
might have been a better plan, intending to reinforce White's
king position ,,vith 'bf3-h4-g2. It would have been very difficult
for Black to make progress after that, but of course he would be
the only one to have chances.
24...VNhS! 25.Wb3
25...f6 26.�d3
This loses. \,Vhite's best try V1ras 32.hxg4 Wxg4 33.l1Jf4 after which
33...@h6 34.l!?h2 �g8 gives Black very dangerous attacking
chances, but nothing that's crystal clear.
32...�xc2
Or 40.fxg3 ltlc4-+
49.@xel �al+ 50.@e2 hxg3 51.<tlel �a2+ 52.@dl Eld2+ 53.@cl Ele2
54.@dl �xe3 55.Elxe3 �xe3+ 56.*eZ <tlf5 57.<tlc2 -!i::ih 4 58.�b4
58.4?fl *gS 59.ti:ib4 -..!Jf4 60.�xc6 *e4-+ \A/ould see Black's king
make a decisive entrance.
□ Wang Yue
■ Carlsen Magnus
Dresden 2008
19...Wxc2
27.�ccl
38. gxh4+
38...ll:lxh4+ 39.:Sxh4!?
39...©xh4
40.�g8
40.bxc6 bxc6 41.'.gg8 %ta7oo.
40..lU7
. 41 .f3
41...:Sxf442.exf4cxhS!
43 :S
. xg4+
43.fxg4 fla6! 44.fS (44.@f3 %ta3+ 45.@e2 b4= ) 44...b4 45.@f3 !l:al !
46JJh8+ @gS 47.'.ghS+ @f6 48.�h6+ @gS 49.'.gg6+ @h4 50.@f4 rlfl+
51.@eS bS! 52.'.gb6 @xg4 53.f6 @gS=
43 ..@hS
. 44.:SgS+ @h445.�g7!
45.gxdS?! '.gb6!
45 ..@hS
. 46.:Sxb7:Sa647.�xbS @h4!
48.:Sb2
48.!!xdS fla2+ 49.@fl @g3 50.fS @xf3 51.@el @e4= or 48.@f2 fla2+
49.@e3 !l:a3+ 50.@e2 fla2+ 51.@d3 !l:a3+ 52.@c2 (52.@d2 @g3 53.fS
@xf3=) 52 ...!l:xf3 53.�xdS @g4 54.!l:dS @fS! 55.dS @e4 56.d6 @dS=
48 ... �a4 49J�d2 @hS
S0.@g3 �b4 51.�dl Ela4 52.@h3 Ela3 53.�hl Eld3 54.@g3+ @g6
55.Elh4 �d2 56.Elg4+ @f6 57.fS ½ ½
-
o Artemiev Vladislav
■ lnarkiev Ernesto
Sochi 2015
1.d4 �f6 2.c4 e6 3.�f3 dS 4.�c3 �bd7 5.cxdS exdS 6..tf4 c6 7.e3
�hS 8.�gs �e7 9.he7 Wxe7 10.�e2
10... g6!
11.�d2 �g7 12.a3 0-0 13.b4 a6 14.0-0 �fS 15.Wcl �b6 16.Wb2
�d6
Black has completed his usual plan, but \,Vhite also stands fine
as many 1ninor pieces are still on the board.
19...VNf6 20.aS
White now stands better and Black should organise his defence.
24...�g8
25..id3?!
25...�g7 26.�e2 We7 27.�fl �f6 28.�cs �ag8 29.Wbl .ic8 30.Wel
We8 31.Wg3 Vfle7 32..ic2 �h7 33.Vflh3 We8 34..id3 We7 35.Wg3 Vfle8
36.VNh3 Vfle7 37.Wg3 :Shg7 38.Wh3 :Sh7 39.<!lhl We8 40.@gl
½-½
CONCLUSION
1.�a7!
White won without much trouble; the a -file and his chances to
win are fairly increased.
10
-
Well, the constructed example is nice, but what about the real
world? We do not really know when this concept was firstly
implemented, but we can take a good look at the next game for
the FIDE World Championship (Candidates):
□ Spassky Boris
■ Karpov Anatoly
Leningrad 1 974 •
31...f4
White already occupies the a-file (the only open one), but Black's
rooks are not so badly placed and even pressing down the c-file.
32..ia7!
This is the first tilne that this concept was used between such
strong players.
32...gbb7
33.Wel!
36..ib6 We7
39.*fl!
41...:Sxa7 42 .ixa7
. Wd8 43.Wb6 Wc7 44.Wxc7 lt:)xc7
45..ib8 lLJe8 46.lLJcl .id8! 47..ia7 .ia5 48.c4 bxc4 49.hc4 iof7
50.lLJb3 .ic7 51..if2 gs 52 .iel
. h5 53.lLJcl lLJf6 54 .lLJ d3 iog6 55 .ia6
.
g4 56.hxg4 hxg4 57.liJb2 liJh7 58.liJc4 lLJg5 59 . @f2 @f6 60 ..ib4 4:lf7
½-½
Not long afterwards, in the Nice Olympiad, a classical and very
well-kno\o\rn game was played:
o Karpov Anatoly
■ Unzicker Wolfgang
Nice 1974
23...�rl&
24..ia7!
24...<!be8 25..ic2
28.<!be2 �d8
White's spatial advantage is great but Black's position is solid and
defensible. So, White uses the rule of the two weaknesses: as he
cannot ,.vin (at least directly) on the queenside, he opens
a second front on the kingside. And that's the power of the
spatial advantage, as pieces can be transferred to either side in
no time.
31.fS! gS?!
32.!J.c2!
33...hS looks like the only move, but in fact helps White to
completely open the kingside: 34.idl h4 35.lcigfl ie8 36.g3 hxg3
37.tbxg3 ifl 38.tz:if3 �f8 39.h4 gxh4 40.lbxh4+-
34.�d1 h6
35..ihS!
37.�a3
As Black has no useful move, White takes his time to 1nake the
first time-control (move 40) and will only then decide how to
finish the job!
If 41. ..Wxf7 then 42.WhS WxhS 43.loxhS @f7 44..ib6! and the end
is near...
42.VBhS €id8
42...'2lh8 keeps Lhe while queeu away fruu1 g6, bul ca1111ul :;ave
the ga1ne: 43.log4 WxhS 44.loxhS @f7 45.ib6+-
The concept was seen in another top ga1ne, this time for the FIDE
World Cha1npionship of 1985:
o Kasparov Garry
■ Karpov Anatoly
Moscow 1985
Too passive. Black should opt for 27.. JJ.g7 28.ifS E!gg8 29.lt'.lg3+=
34..ifS? !
Now White has lost most of his advantage and the game steers
towards the safe waters of a draw.
38.e4 0.f7 39.0.g4 <tld6! 40.0.e3 dxe4 41.fxe4 b6 42.b4?!
White's last inaccuracy. He should opt for 42.eS lt:lf7 (42...lt:le8?!
43.0.e4±) 43.lt:lg4 fxeS 44.dxeS cs 45.@d3+=
o Tu Hoang Thong
■ Komliakov Viktor
Moscow 1994
23....ie7
24..ia6!
Not exactly the a7-square but one very near to it; the idea
remains the same.
24... !k7 25.l:!aS :Sca7 26.�hal
Both sides have done their duty and doubled their rooks on the
a fi - le. White k:eeps tlie advantage, as anytime lie 1noves his a6-
bishop Black will be obliged to hand \1\/hite a passed pawn after
.. .:!:(xaS as White will reply bxaS.
26...@e8?
27.@e2?
27...�b8 28.�bS!
28...�xaS?
30....!bc8 31.bS
White wins.
31...�d6?! 32.lbd7! 1-0
o Trifunovic Petar
■ Aaron Manuel
Beverwijk 1962 O
31.�g8!
o Jussupow Artur
■ Karpov Anatoly
London 1989
29 ... �d7
The forepost has worked well and White has been able to double
rooks on the open d -file.
30.�xf7!?
30...<.!?xf7
31.Y9d2
33.bxc4? !
33Jld6! with ideas like Wxa6 and :!!e6 or simply !l:xh6, ,,vas much
better.
33...�cc8?! 34.Wia4!
34...!k7?
Black had to opt for 34...�b8! when still nothing is clear after
35.'1Wc6 �b6 36.V!Jc7 '1We6 37.l�dS.
Hastening the end, but also losing was 36...i>d8 37.Elf3 i>c8
38.�f7 or 36...V!Jf7 37.Wxf7+ ©xf7 38.:i:i:xd7+ £lxd7 39Jl:xd7+.
37.!U3+ 1-0
□so Wesley
■ Shirov Alexei
Malmo 2011
1.d4 dS 2.c4 c6 3.<!bf3 <tlf6 4.e3 e6 5.b3 <tlbd7 6 ..id3 .id6 7..ib2
V!Je7 8.<tleS .ib4+ 9.�d2 �xeS 10.dxeS <tld7 11.a3 .iaS 12.0-0 f6
13.<!bf3 .ic7 14.exf6 <tixf6 15.<tleS 0-0 16. f4 .id7 17J!f3 .ie8 18.Wc2
hes 19.heS <!be4 20..ixe4 dxe4 21.�ffl .tg6
White stands somehow better, as he has much the better bishop.
22 .c S!
Now Black has to accept passivity and White can prepare plans
both in the centre and on the kingside, while the queenside also
co1nes to mind!
24..iJS
. 25.�d4 �d7 26.h3! hS
31...l'.U7
White's 1nain idea is to attack the black king with something like
Vlid2, !!b8 and 'md8. But some preparations must be made first, as
Black might have ...Vfig6-g3 and ....ixh3, as counterplay. Anyway
Black cannot improve his position and White is in no hurry.
44.Wf2!
48...e s 49.fxes :Sf7 S0.e6 �f2 S1.hg3 !:!:xg2 S2 . fi.f4 gs 53.@fl S:c2
S4.fi.xg5 1':lxcs SS.h4 �g6 S6.e7 �fS S 7.�b8 �es S8 . �f8+ �g4
S9.�g2
1-0
□ Sasikiran Krishnan
■Yu Vangyi
Tabriz 201 4
1.d4 lbf6 2.c4 e6 3.lbf3 b6 4 .a3 Aa6 S.Wb3 <tlc6 6.Wc2 lba5 7.e4
�b7 8.<tlc3 cs 9.dS exdS 10.exdS fi.e7 11.fi.d3 fi.a6 12.b3 0-0 13.0-0
<tlb7 14.�el <tld6 15.M4 �e8 16.h3 fi.f8
Black has a passive position and lacks space, so he wants to
relieve the pressure somewhat by exchanging off pieces ...
17.i.eS!
28.<.!lh1! �f6
Well done by now and I think that the concept has been fully
understood.
But I am always of the opinion that a trainer or an author
should back his opinion and prove that he knows his subjects.
And what better vvay than the implementation of the subject in
his/her ovvn games?
So, five games of mine will follow. Although I wasn't successful
in all of them, I ,,vas able to improve by learning from my
mistakes and keeping an objective mind.
o Komljenovic Davor
■ Grivas Efstratios
Munich 1987
1.d4 fS 2.6bf3 <tif6 3.g3 g6 4..ig2 .ig7 5.0-0 0-0 6.c4 d6 7.lillc3 We8
8.dS 6ba6 9.�e3
9 ...c6 10.l:!b1
10.a'.cl and 10.V?ib3 are also possible, and more in the spirit of
the position.
10....id7 11.§d2?!
It beco1nes evident that White is not operating on the basis of
a specific plan but is just making some 'simple' moves. This
approach cannot bring any positive results.
11 ...lbg4! 12 .id4
. .ih6!
This had escaped White's attention. The next fe\lv moves are
forced.
Black has obtained the bishop pair and his position strikes one as
more harmonious in general. His immediate plan is to start play
on the queenside. The only plan apparently available to White is
the advance e4, v,rhich requires a lot of preparatory 1noves (h4,
f4, Wd3); still, it is his only decent plan.
16 . b4?
As mentioned above, this cannot be the right idea. With this
move White further v,reakens his dark squares and offers Black
the semi-open c-file, with a ready-made target on it (the c4-
pawn).
20.�bS
26...�e4!
6 ..igS!
7.cxdS! cxdS
7... exdS?! 8..ixf6! Wxf6 9.tllc3 <!t:id7 10..ig2 followed by 0-0, :!:!fel
and e4 promises a clear advantage to White.
Threatening 14.lt:leS!
16...0-0 17.l:'k2!
23....ie7
26..!bxe6+ ! !
1-0
In the next game the forepost is not a central one but a mere
'edge' one. But it still helps!
o Grivas Efstratios
■ Kolani Leonard
Ankara 1993
1.d4 d6 2.e4 �f6 3.f3 g6 4..ie3 c6 5.c4 �bd7 6.�c3 a6?! 7.a4!
Black has already developed the queen's knight to d7, so he does
not have the standard manoeuvre ...lt:i a 6 b
- 4 at his disposal after
7 ... as.
11 .�bl!
14...axbS 1S .axbS cS 16 d
. S
16 ..i.
. b717J�a1 �f8?!
18 W
. b2 �6d7 19.g3 f6 20.�a4!
White us,es the a4-knight as a forepost. His spatial superiority
allows him to develop an initiative on both sides of the board
but, for this venture to prove successful, he must refrain from
exchanging pieces; this \vould help Black, who is suffering from
a lack of space.
23...@f7 24.Wc2 ci>g8 25.6bc1 Wd8 26.kft @f7 27.kh3 Wb8 28.ttid3
Wd8 29.l::!et kc8 30.�eat kb7 31.�ft kc8 32.f4
Another good option was 34.fS gs 35.i.g4! intending h4, �g2 and
%!hl.
39.lbc3!
The tilne has co1ne to re1nove the forepost, since White has,
thanks to his purposeful strategy, increased his advantage (in
addition to his spatial plus, better bishop and forepost, he now
also has a protected passed pawn). Naturally, the white rooks will
not manage to infiltrate into the enemy camp as they will be
pro1nptly exchanged. However,. the occupation of the a -file by the
white queen will prove just as significant, in combination ,,vith
the advance of the ,,vhite pawns on the kingside (minority
attack!) this will further increase White's plus.
The queen's mission on the a-file has ended, as new and n1ore
significant inroads have been created on the kingside.
50...'lle8 51.'llfS <tld6 52.VNg3 Wf8 53.'llxd6 VNxd6 54.hS Wf6 55.Wg4
�g8 56..iel Wd8 57..ig3 Wf6 58.WfS WxfS 59.exfS e4
1-0
The next tvvo games you certainly can't call a success for the
author!
o Grivas Efstratios
■ Gabriel Christian
Budapest 1 994
1.d4 dS 2.c4 e6 3.tt:lf3 <tlf6 4.tt:lc3 .te7 5.i.gS 0-0 6.e3 h6 7..th4 b6
8..id3 dxc4
12.lbxe4! .ixe4
Both sides have played useful moves, preparing for the eventual
...cs advance.
Black should refrain fro1n releasing the tension and wait with
19...as 20.WfbS E'.ab8.
20.dxc5! e£Je4 21.!:!:c4 e£Jxc5 22.e£Jd4! VNf8 23.b4! e£Jd7 24.�c6 :Se8
There was no reason for this move. Much better was 26.a4! or
even 26.E!4c3 and !;!a3.
26...b5!? 27.:Sc5 a6
28.VNc2?!
White has strayed fro1n the right path. After 28.a4! bxa4 29.VNc4
he would retain his advantage.
o Nikolaidis loannis
■ Grivas Efstratios
Karditsa 1998
1.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 .tg7 4..tg2 0-0 5. � f3 d6 6.0-0 �c6 7.q:ic3 .tfS
8 ..tgs q:ie4??
11.exf3!
11 ..lbeS
. 12 .!kl b6?!
13 .�el .if614.h4!
16..lbcS
. 17..ih3 <JJg7 18.h5 h6
19 �
. 6+ exf6
20.Y!fd4!
If Black '"'ere given time to play 20.. .fS, shutting out the white
bishop, a great part of his difficulties would vanish.
24.�e6!
CONCLUSION
o Lukacs Peter
■ Horvath Gyula
Budapest 1989 O
White should feel happy due to his more centralised pieces. But it
is essential to force the es advance, activating his rooks and his
knight as well. The not-so-\ivell-placed knight should be
transferred to a better square, namely c6 or e6.
29.g4!?
29...V!Ja6?
Although Black has lost time with his queen, he should again
opt for placing his knight on cs: 31..J:!c 7 32.�g3 lt:\d7 33.li:ifS V!Ja6
34.lt:\e7+ @h8 35.lLJc6+=
34...�cc8 35 J!dl?
Here White could play 3S.f5! After 35 ... gS (3S... a6 36.fxg6 hxg6
37.!lfl V!Je7 38.lt:\e6±) 36.tbe6, and ideas as V!Jd4 and h4-�h3, he
would have a nearly decisive advantage.
35...tt:la4! 36.tt:lc6?!
Again '.in.fS! ti\r.S '.i7.ti\en w011lrl he preferahle. R11t White was
focused on the es-advance...
40J�xeS?
40...�xc6?
1-0
I was lucky to watch the 2nd example live, as I was present at the
2013 Tata Steel event:
□ Nikolic Predrag
■ Rapport Richard
Wijk aan Zee 2013 O
31.VNd2
Black's knight looks more-or-less OK, but still it lacks any good
attacking square. And passivity is not welcomed by the new
generation!
31. ..gS!?
32.!k2?!
32...VNb4!
34...lbh8!
36...Wxa4 37.�b2?!
37...gxf4 38.exf4?
38...c4?
39.fS?
40...VNf4+ 41.<J;;el
0-1
□ Ghaem Maghami Ehsan
■ Salem AR Saleh
. ■
Khanty-Mansiysk 2013 0
■ ■ �
.,:;;;
■ •
.\lll,�,�-� �-� ��,;.,
I
·.��....
-�!P.nn�-�•
■
.t. 'll .t.
,,,,�
- ��lb
.t. �
· - � �
�
■!:r,r•-,,
t:,
�
-
��
�■��
½ -�
t:,
-
• • • rm
vVhitc's spatial advantage is an ilnportant factor in this position,
as it deprives Black of any form of counterplay. But something
can still be improved!
31.it}hl! :SfS 32.lt}g3 it}e7!?
33.€ixf5 exfS 34.�d2 lt:le6 v,ras Black's idea, although after 35.h4I
\!Vhite should win. But the Hungarian Knight looks too important
to exchange it for a rook...
33...<J;>g8 34.hS gxhS
Very well-played and decisive, as now the blockade on fS will be
broken.
35...YNbS
□ lljin Artem
■ Wilschut Peter
Leiden 2013 O
And now the Black centre '\Nill fall under heavy attack.
24.lbg3
The knight has completed its mission and now the black centre
is rather weak ...
24...ih6 25.:Sdl
Also good \A/as 25.aS bS 26.i.fl hfl 27J!.axf1 t2)g4 28.i:l:xf8+ i:l:xf8
29Jlxf8+ i.xf8 30 .cxbS cxbS 31. � xe4±
25...�ad8 26.�d2
26...as
27..ifl?
27 ....ig4?
2 8...lU7 29..!bxe4 lil xe4 30JNxe4 VNxe4 31..ixe4 .id7 32.�xf7 @xf7
33.cS g4 34.@f2 1-0
CONCLUSION
o Alekhine Alexander
■ Betak Miroslav
Czechoslovakia 1925
o Osieka Udo
■ Schienmann Bruno
Germany 1990
32.e4
33.�xf3?
37.a3 .td3+?!
38.@f2 Wxd4+ 39.i.e3 Wxc4 40.d6 :Sxa3 41.Wg3 .tfS 42.Wf4 l3a2+
43.@gl Wc2 44.Wf2 Wc3! 45.i.d4 Wb4 46.We3 �d2 47.l3fl .th3
o Skjoldan Benjamin
■ Minina Veronika
Malmo2003
27.e4
Of course Black is lost; his pieces are uncoordinated and the
white centre is impressive.
27 ...c6
28. d 6?!
28 ..�e6
. ?!
Black had to try 28...ixd6, although he \"!ill lose after 29.h4 �hS
3 0 .�c3 ie7 31.dS.
29 d
. 5! cxd5 30.exd5 �c5 31.e6! fxe632.dxe6?!
35.l:'!e8 1-0
□ Piche Guy
■ Dumont Felix
Repentigny 2008
17...VNh4 18.YNf3 f6
18..J:!f8 19..ia3+-
19.e6
□ Fekete Albert
■ Egedi Istvan
Hungary 2008
In the endgame this centre is not so strong, as it can be
considered as a deficit of doubled, useless pawns! Here it is not
easy for White to create a passed pavvn, ,,vhile Black can think of
his tvvo majorities on either side of the board (a7-b6 vs a3 and h6-
g7 vs h2).
47...ght 48.©e3 ©e7 49.eS !:!:et+ 50.©d4 :Sdt+ 51.©e4 :Set+ 52.©fS
�f1+ 53.@g4 :Sgt+ 54.@f3 :Sf1+ 55.@g2
SS...lUS?
S6.d6+ @f7
S7.e6+
S7...@ xg6 S8.d7 :SdS S9.e7 �xd7 60.e8W+ �f7 61.@g3 @ g7 62.WeS+
@h7 63.We6 @g7 64.We8 �f8 6S.YEeS+ @g6 66.Wd4 :Sf7 67.Wh8 hS
68.Wg8+ �g7 69.We6+ @h7 70.Wf6 @g8 71.Wh6 g4 72.WxhS @f8
73.WdS �c7? 74.Wd6+?
74.Wd8++-
74...�e7 7S.@ xg4 @e8 76.@fS :Sd7 77.Wc6 @d8 78.@e6 �c7
79.Wa8+ !:!:c8 80.WdS+?
D Dazj Andrea
■ Cocciaretto Marco
Porto Sant Elpidio 2008
31.d4
31...�b8 32.�b4?
32...c3?
33.�xc3?!
33...�xb5 34.Wf2?
:Blundering a piece...
34...Wixc3
35.V£fe3 Wic2 36.We2 Wic3 37.:!!dl e:b2 38.�d3 �bl+ 39.©f2 �fl+
40.Wixfl Wic2+ 41.We2 Wcl 42.Wel Wc2+ 43.e:dz Wc3 44.d6 .tg4
45.Wie3 Wcl 46.dS Whl 47.h4 Wh2+ 48.©fl .th3+ 49.©el Whl +
50.Wigl Wxgl+ 51.©e2 Wfl+ 52.<i>e3 Wgl+ 53.<i>d3 .tfl+ 54.©c3
Wxg3+ 55.©d4 Wxa3 56.d7 Wb4+ 57.©e3 Wc3+ 58.©f2 Wixd2+
59.©xfl Wf4+ 60.©gl Wg3+ 61.©f l Wxh4 62.e6 fxe6 63.dxe6 <i>f8
6 4.eS ©e7 0-1
1-0
□ Fizzotti Mario
■ Moroni Luca Jr
Robecchetto 2008
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.tof3 �f6 4.tbc3 .tb4 5. .tgs �c6 6.e3 .td7 7.cxd5
exdS 8.Wb3 hc3+ 9.bxc3 e:b8 10.hf6 Wxf6 11.Wxd5 We6
12.Wixe6+ he6 13.e4 �e7 14.dS .td7 15.�d3 tog6 16.0-0 0-0
17.e:fel e:fe8 18.tbd4 toes 19.�fl c6 20.f4 cs 21.fxeS cxd4 22.cxd4
Of course this case is easy, as White has the impressive centre
with two good pav,rns up and Black has no counterplay!
22...�e7 23.�acl .tg4 24.d6 :Sd7 25.h3 i.hS 26Jk7 �xc7 27.dxc7
E!c8 28.!kl ©f8 29.dS a6 30.d6 ©e8 31.i.c4 ©d7 32..tdS b5 33.i.b7
1-0
o Hoareau William
■ Stephan Victor
Aix les Bains 2009
1.d4 g6 2.g3 l£lf6 3..tg2 .tg7 4.l£lf3 o-o s.o-o d6 6.b3 es 7..tb2 e4
8.tt:ifd2 dS 9.c4 e3 10.fxe3 .th6 11.e4 l£lg4 12.cxd5 l£le3 13.Wcl
l£lxf1 14.Wxf1 l£ld.7 15.e5 l£lb6 16.e4
White has sacrificed an exchange, but this looks too little for
a position with such an impressive centre. Black must find an
active plan.
16...fS! 17.exf6?!
40...�xeS+!
41.@d3 �cs 42.@e4 �c2 43.h4 Ele2+ 44.@d3 �g2 4S.@c4 �xg3
46.aS :Sg4 47.a6 lt>f7 48.a7 @e6 49.@bS �xh4 S0. .ib6 �xd1 S1.a8�
:SclS+ S2.@a6 �f4 53.VNe8+ @f5 S4.�f7+ ©e4 SS.�xh7 l3f6 S6.�h4+
©e5 57.Wg3+ g,f5 58.Wf3+ ©e5 59.VNe2+ ©fS 60.<J?b7 gs 61.VNf3+
©e6 62.We4+ .\3e5 63.Wxb4 ©fS 64.�c7 .\3f7 65.Wid6 :See7 66.WidS+
©g6 67.Wc6+ ©h5 68.Whl+ ©g6 69.Wc6+ ©h5 ½-½
o Howell David
■ Nielsen Peter Heine
Amsterdam 2010
1.e4 es 2.�f3 .!llc6 3.�bS a6 4.hc6 dxc6 5.0- 0 ec,e7 6.�xeS Wid4
7.Wih5 g6 8.Wig5 �g7 9.�d3 fS 10.eS cs 11.b3 b6 12.�b2 Wig4
13.Wie3 t"ildS 14.Wiel f4 15.f3 Wigs 16.c4 .ifS 17.t"ilxcS bxcS 18.cxdS
.id3 19.t"ilc3 0-0 20.l?ie4 WifS 21.�xcS .ixfl 22.©xfl �ad8 23.We4
�fe8 24.d4 Wxe4 25.fxe4
1-0
D Tikkanen Hans
■Andreasson lngvar
Sweden 2012
1.c4 es 2.g3 t"ilc6 3.�g2 g6 4.�c3 �g7 5.e4 d6 6.tlige2 .ie6 7.�dS
t?ige7 8.0-0 0-0 9.h3 Wd7 10.©h2 .\3ae8 11.Wia4 f5 12.d3 �f7 13.�g5
�c8 14.Wb5 f4 15.gxf4 h6 16.�h4 �ef8 17.�g3 a6 18.Wib3 �d8
19.fxeS dxeS 20.f4 c6 21.fxeS .\3xf1 22.:Sxfl .\3xf1 23..ixfl cxdS
24.cxdS �f7 25.d4
Three pa,111ns for a piece for White, but here the pawns are worth
more, as they are central and dominating. It is obvious that at
some certain moment Black will have to return the piece for at
best two pawns...
27...V9e7?!
1.c4 es 2.tl:ic3 tl:if6 3.e3 tl:ic6 4.g3 .tcs s..tg2 0-0 6.tl:ige2 d6 7.0-0
.tg4 8.d3 .ixe2 9.WxeZ .ib4 10..id2 hc3 ll.hc3 dS 12.�adl Vfle7
13.cxdS �b4 14.e4 tl:Jxa2 1S.f4 Wes+ 16.d4 .!ilxc3 17.bxc3 Vflb6
18.fxeS tl:Jd7
19.e6
19...fxe6 20.dxe6?
23.�xft bS 24.WhS?
28.�xc6
½-½
CONCLUSION
The Royal Centre is not a joke! It gives full control over the board
and usually limits our opponent's counterplay to a minilnum.
It is a concept we would love to have but we shouldn't dare
allow it our opponent, although in chess nothing is absolute -
take things case by case!
THE SUPERF LUOUS KNIGHT
One of the most intriguing ideas that has actually been codified is
the brainchild of the Russian trainer, the late IM Mark Dvoretsky.
In quite a nu1nber of excellent editions and books, he discusses
positions in which one side conquers a key square (an outpost,
for instance) and is able to occupy it with a number of pieces.
Very often, he points out, a defender will more or less blindly
exchange at least one pair of pieces on that square, even though
he cannot contest it enough times to rid himself of all the pieces
which may eventually settle there. But the defender has an
alternative strategy which is often superior:
'If the square cannot be won back by 1neans of exchanges, then
one 1nay...forget about exchanges altogether (after all, only one of
the opponent's pieces will be able to occupy the 'important high
ground', and the others v.rill turn out to be, so to speak,
superfluous' -Mark Dvoretsky.
He called the 1nultiple claimants to a single outpost 'superfluous
pieces'.
Example 1
Suba Mihai
1991 0 e
1.c4 e6 2.e3 lilf6 3.0.f3 b6 4.�e2 .tb7 5 . 0 -0 d5 6.d4 �d6 7.lilc3 0-0
8.b3 lilbd7 9.�2 Wffe7 10.<!i:lb5 <!i:le4 11.<!i:lxd6 cxd6 12.�d2 �df6
13.f3?!
1.c4 g6 2.g3 !J.g7 3..ig2 d6 4.�c3 es 5.d3 �c6 6.e3 �f6 7.tz:lge2 0-0
8.0-0 .ie6 9.�dS Wd7
10...Ah3
11.6Zlxf6+ !
□ Dolmatov Sergey
■ Romanishin Oleg
Minsk 1979 O
White has a spatial advantage, but Black has at his disposal the
strong point es, for which both his knights and the dark-squared
bishop are contending. White cannot and should not fight for the
es-square - one of the opponent's pieces vvill occupy it, but the
other two will prove 'superfluous' - M.Dvoretsky.
27..ic3
0-1
34...lt:le7? !
35.:Sa6 Wd7
.m:■�-�-
-�
•
-
ai2i�
� ��
-
if
•••
•
� • •
LS- �■ �
,, ,, , �
a a ■■'!'Unm LS
• • -:�
t/,U;
- ,.•� -��('"
� � "····" LS i®-1
-
�
• W,@ jJ/J
• � P-1¼ �
White's advantage has increased. All his pieces are much more
active, with the knight's superiority over the poor bishop at f8
being particularly acute.
39.�e2 :Sc6
o Grivas Efstratios
■ Halldorsson Gudmundur
Reykjavik 1 994
1.d4 fS 2.'bf3 �f6 3.g3 e6 4..ig2 dS 5.b3 c6 6.0-0 i.e7 7.i.a3 0-0
8.c4 t2)bd7 9.Wc2 1xa3 10.l!bxa3 We7 11.WbZ b6 12J�acl 1b7
13.�c2 �e4 14.�ce1
14...lbgS?!
20.l'.Udl!
20...:Sc7
21.dxcS <tixcS
o Lautier Joel
■ lvanchuk Vassily
Monte Carlo 1996
1.d4 .!bf6 2.c4 g6 3.<!l:lc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6..igS <!l:lc6 7.<!l:lge2 a6
8.Wd2 .id7 9.h4 hS 10.0-0-0 bS 11.<!l:ldS bxc4 12.<!l:lec3
12...<!l:lh7!?
Again the dS-knight is kicked away, while the black queen will
join the attack.
½-½
o Kurajica Bojan
■ Trkulja Goran
Sarajevo 1998 O
Black has two knights but only one perfect square: e6. The c7-
knight is placed very badly; it does not have any future and it is
also far from the queenside where White plans to start an attack.
25.<!bhS!
33...ltJbS 34.�b4
□ Schandorff Lars
■ Nielsen Peter Heine
Aalborg 2006
1.d4 .!bf6 2.c4 e6 3..!bc3 i.b4 4.e3 0-0 5..!bge2 �e8 6.a3 M8 7.tl:if4 d6
8.i.e2 es 9.dxes dxeS 10.VNxds gxd8 11..!bfdS
11. ..lbe8!
After the coming ...c6, the d S -knight will not have any good
squares to retreat to.
12.0-0 tl:ia6
13.�dt .ie6
14.qJe4 c6 15.lbdc3
Now ,,ve have the same situation but with a different square: e4.
15....ie7 16.�xd8 .!3xd8 17.g4
17...tbf6
0-1
The following exa1nple shm.vs how Black traded one knight from
the lt:ld5-tZ:ic3 couple when he was fully prepared.
At first he avoided the trade, since the other knight would end
u p landing on dS, but later he traded when the dS-knight would
no longer be favourable for White.
The position is from 'Sicilian Defence - Sveshnikov Variation'
structures: White ovvns the dS-square, and as long as a piece can
remain there, he should stand vvell. Ideally, \I\Thite would want to
leave a dS-knight vs an f8-bishop and trade all the other minor
pieces, but this is still a wish...
o Swiercz Dariusz
■ Damljanovic Branko
Plovdiv 2008
12...<lbg4!
23...Wfb6
26....ic8!
28JBf2!co.
31.lt:ixdS f3!-+
33..J:1a8!-+
34.Wxf2?!
18.�e3 as
19 .b4
While this stops b4, one thing which is certain is that White's
king is quite exposed now.
Black has won a pawn and looks pretty solid, although White
with his excellent knights does have some compensation.
30.gS?!
Black has got rid of his bad bishop and his king is also safe. Add
to it the fact that he is a pawn up and you will realise that the
rest is just a matter of technique for a player of A.Giri's calibre.
36.gdl Wa7 37.@b2 i,c4 38.We4 @c7 39.t:f:JdS+ @b8 40.0.c3 @c7
41.Wf3 Wa8 42.We3 Wc6 43.Wg3 gas 44.1:!al gxal 45 .�xal Wb6
46.Wh4d5 47.@b2 Wd6
47...e4! 48.lili'gS (48.Wlf4+ Wd6 -+) 48...Wd4 49.Wg7 @d6 50 .Wf8+ @es
51.W/e7+ iifS would have been quite an easy win for Black. His
king escapes the perpetual and the e -pawn marches towards the
last rank.
48.©cl Wa6 49.WgS @d6 50.Wg8 Wa3+ 51.@d2 Wa7 52.We8 Wd7
53.VNg8 Wb7 54.We8
54...Wd7?
Again 54... e4! was good: 55.Wg8 V!la7 56.We8 V!ld7 57.V!lg8 lt>eS-+ It
is important to activate the king in order to win. The f6-pawn
will fall now.
55.Wg8 e4 56.Wg3+ @c6 57.�·es Wc7 ss.�·es+ @b6 59.�'e7
Quite a depressing drav, for A.Giri, who was better for almost
the entire game.
½-½
CONCLUSION
o Bras Emanouel
■ Grivas Efstratios
Khania 2000
t.d4 �f6 2.�f3 g6 3.c4 �g7 4.�c3 0-0 5.e4 d6 6.�e2 �bd7 7.0-0 es
8.dxeS
11.b3?!
14.V!id2?!
14...i.g4!
. dd1 <tid4
17 ...ixf3! 18.ixf3 <te6 19 E!
Black has completed his plan and occupied the outpost on d4.
Moreover, he preserves the better minor pieces: \I\Thite's bishop
is bad. Ho,,vever, in order to improve his position further, Black
has to initiate play on at least one of the flanks, aiming
eventually to invade the white ranks there.
20.�e2 <tid7 21.!:!:acl <tics
After 22.b4 ti:ice6 Black \Nill continue with 23 ...aS! This ,,vill
either open the a-file for the black rooks or force the surrender
of the cs-square to the mercy of the black knights (after 24.bS).
22...aS! 23.<.!?f2
23... fS!
24.�d3?!
35 ..l3g4
. 36..id3?! .!bf3+ 37.gxf3 e:xgl 38.a4 �g639..ie2 �xg5
40.�c3 c5 0-1
□ Trifunovic Petar
■ Teschner Rudolf
Dortmund 7967
15....ixf6 16..ie4!
16....ixe4
17.tZlxe4 .ie7? !
19...�a8
Black's chances would also be slim after 19.. .fS 20.tZlc3 e4 21.tZldS
Wb7 22.Wc2! �f6 23.Wb3.
20..!bc3 f5 21.e4!
21.tZldS would also be fine, but why not fix another pawn on the
same colour as the bishop?
21...�xal 22.S:xal f4
White's advantage is obvious and consists of;
1. Good knight vs bad bishop;
2. Control of the weak central dS square;
3. Control of the open a-file;
4. Control of the light squares.
Now v,re are entering the technical phase of the game, ,,vhere
\!Vhite should transform his positional advantage into a material
one.
23.Wg4�d8
27...gs 28.h3
28...Wf7 29.b3
36.Wf7! h4 37.�e7
o Anand Viswanathan
■ Kamsky Gata
Sanghi Nagar 1 994
White also stands better after 37...i.dS 38.l:%c4 flc8 (38...@g7 39.b4
axb4 40.furn4 Wa7 41.%1:xbS Wxb8±) 39.b4.
38.g3?!
Following the principle of 'not hurrying', White gradually
'improves' his position. But 38.b4! axb4 39.�c7 Wa8 v-ras critical,
as now \,Vhite has the pleasant choice between two good moves:
a) 40.Wb3 (40 .Wf3 '.B:f8) 40...WaS! 41.g31 (41.tbb6 :;;!f8 42.'.B:c6 hSoo
43.tbc4? Wa8 44.'.B:xd6 Wxe4 45.'.B:dl '.B:d8+) 41. ..:;;!f8 (41 ...�d2? 42.Wf3
:!:!.f8 43.Wf6+ ii>h6 44.lt:le7! or 41. ..id8 42Jid7 are excellent for
White, but maybe Black's best practical chance lay in 41..J:(a81?
42.h4 id8 43.'.B:d7 Wxa4 44.Wxa4 '.B:xa4 45.1!xd8 b3 46Jl:b8 gxe4
4 7.l':lxb3±) 42.�b7 id2 43.Wf3 igS (43...Wd8 44.aS!) 44.h4 i-d8
45.Wb3±, but still this position looks quite unpleasant for him.
b) 40 .Wc4!? and now another split:
bl) 40...Wxa4? 41.�+I <;i;,h6 (41...<;!;,xf7 42.lLJb6+) 42.1!xh7+!
<;!;,xh7 43.Wc7+ <;i;,h6 44.Wxb8±
b2) 40...�d8 41.'.B:d7 b3 (41. ..Wxa4 42.'.B:xf7+! <;i;,h8 43.rlf8+ <;!;,g7
44.�g8+ <;i;,h6 4S.lLJe3!+-) 42.tbb4 <;i;,h6 43.Wxf7 Wxe4 44.Wxh7+ �gs
45_gxd6+-
b3) 40...WaS 41.lLJf4 dS 42.tbxdS b3 43.0ic3 %\f8 44J1:b7±
b4) 40...b3 41.lLJb6 dS! 42.:Sxf7+! 'i!lxf7 43.Wc7+ i.e7 44.lLJxa8 gb4!
45.tbb6! b2 46.tbc8 blW+ 47.<;i;,h2 1!b7! 48.0id6+ <;i;,f6 49.Wxb7 Wcl
S0. W c7! I Wxc7 51.tbe8+ 47f7 52.tbxc7 dxe4 53.aS icS 54.0ib5 hf2
55.g31+-
38 ....id8!
39.VNf3 Wd7
40...hS
It is too early for 42.b4 axb4 43J1xb4 as Black can sacrifice his
queen with 43...Wixb4! (43...Wia8 44.l%b5!±) 44.lcixb4 :l:l:xb4,
retaining decent chances to survive: 45.Widl f!d4 46.Wic2 h4. But
good enough is the other option ,,vith 42.h4! ;gcs (42 ...Wixb3
43.Wixb3 ii:xb3 44.;gcs i.f6 45.r:l:a8 gs 46.hxgS ixgS 47.f!xaS ;ga3
48.fla6 id2 49.:l:l:xd6 ii:xa4 S0.li:lf6±) 43.Wic3 �c4 44.Wixc4 Wia7
45.b4+=
44....idS!
48.g4?!
48...hxg4 49.hxg4
49...!k8!
52...VNa7
½-½
□ Polgar Judit
■ Anand Viswanathan
Wi jk aan Zee 1998
With precise play, White has achieved her strategic goal - the
'eternal' knight on dS vs Black's rather poor bishop. As the knight
should not just sit on dS and watch, \,Vhite needs to organize an
attack in which it can take part.
30... lkS 31.'�e3 �e7 32.�d3 �d8 33.Wd2 �c6 34.'�dl '.!?g8 35.h4!
White understands that she will not win by \vorking only on the
central file. So, she opens a 'second front' on the kingside - in
complete accordance 'Arith the \vell-known 1nethod of realising
one's advantage, the 'two weaknesses principle'.
35... '.!?g7? !
This 'sit & wait' policy is faulty, as White will ahivays find ways to
get through. Black should have stopped the further advance of
White's h-pawn by playing 35 ...hS. Then White can try to
penetrate through the queenside: 36.�al Wg4 37.f3 �c8 38.Wa4
Wb7 39.tbe3±
36.hS
�
-�.-
■•■�'i'-
■E • -�.t.
■ ■.t. �
�l■�r.--.. �
�-- · � wz�• w)t._�... ...;.
l1'Ri
n ■n is"
•.,,. J.�•. �;,,
-�-
a
�» - �
u
-
e • �-•
4 4.cS!
Once the position of the black king has been weakened, White
does not mind opening the c fi
- le.
46...4?f7? !
S3...�f6
S4.VNe3+ �gS?!
SS.f4! exf4
S6.�h8+!
1-0
o Smyslov Vassily
■ Rudakovsky losif
Moscow 1945
1.e4 cs 2.li�f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lbxd4 lbf6 S..!bc3 d6 6.�e2 �e7 7.0-0
0-0 8.�e3 lbc6 9.f4 Yflc7 10.Wel lbxd4 11.�xd4 es 12.�e3 �e6
13.fS �c4 14.�xc4 Wxc4
15..igS!
18.c3
21...@h8? !
For good or bad, Black had to play 21...f6. After 22.a4 (yes, White
can play on both sides!) 22...a6 23.axbS axbS 24.'.9.h3 White's
position is supe,rior but Black is not losing quite yet.
22.f6!
22...gxf6
■ �m....■ L...• �
■ i ,m;;t� - •R
•
��._,,,,�
%1( ,m
25.l3g3! �xf6
and Black has no defence to White's idea: fucd6, fucg7 and !1:d8+.
27...dS 28.l3xg7
1-0
o Fedoseev Vladlmlr
■ Bocharov Dmitry
Moscow 2016
14.�fdl!
14...l'.3fd8
15...V!ixcS
16.lb fl!
18.�xa4 .ic6
19.�c4! Wb6 20 . � e3 as
White is better, there is no doubt about that, but how to increase
the advantage?
21.g4!
23J�xc6!
24....if8
25.V9f3!
Surprisingly it is extremely difficult to 1neet lLJh6+.
Or 26.� g6 27.lLJh4+-
28...hxg6 29.�xg6
1-0
o Adams Michael
■ Esen Baris
Konya 2010
22...<J;,g7
23.i.c4
The ,,vhite bishop takes up its position; the first and permanent
target is the ft-square (and not by 'force' the ft-pawn) and
generally the a2-g8 diagonal. Black has no counterpart to defend
with...
23...�f8
25.!U3 We8
Nov, 25.. .fS?! fails to 26.exfS gxfS (26 ...l;xfS 27Jl:xf5 gxfS 28.Wf7+
'ith8 29.ha6+- ; 26 ...WaS 27.Wxa8 !l:xa8 28.i.dS �f8 29.c4 gxfS
30.l:�b3 gbs 31.aS bS 32.cxbS axbS 33.a6±) 27.We6 �h8 28.ha6+-
26.�b3
26...f6
27.Vb'd2
27...as
28.l'.k3?
31...fS!
32.exfS �xfS
This is the plan that was discussed above. \,Vhite tries to weaken
Black's kingside defence by organising an attack on the g6-pawn.
39...�f6?!
Now after 42...�f8 comes 43.hxg6 hxg6 44.ic4 ie7 4511:xf8 .txf8
46.id3 Wf7 47.c4 and \Nhite wins a pawn with the upco1ning
48.Wc6.
43.Wig4 :ScS
44.c4
Nov, it's all over; Black has no real defence against \Nhite's
kingside threats.
46.We6
51.f4
vVhite wins as the black king will not find any shelter.
1-0
o Adams Michael
■ Van Wely Loek
Hoogeveen 2013
28.i.dS '.Yd7
29.exfS!
34.a3!
37.a4! �cs 38.:r!:xcS dxcS 39.Eib3! \II/as perhaps better, as Black has
difficulty holding on to all his pawns.
37 ..ll:b6?
.
A bad mistake. 37...:1:1.cS! v._ras the only way to play for Black:
38.*a2 :1:!.b81 (halting b4), and White still has to prove his
advantage.
39...hxg4 40.fxg4 e4
41..ixe4
41.gS+! was stronger: 41. ..*fS 42J;1e3 and White wins a pawn
while Black's king is still not feeling co1nfortable.
46..d5
. 47.ixd5
. �d748J!a8 �f6 49.i.e4 ll:f1+ 50.�a2 �f2 51.i.f5+
@e752.h6.tb653.h7id4 54.h8=�
1-0
□ Botvinnik Mikhail
■ Pomar Salamanca Arturo
Varna 1962
14...0-0- 0
Although the text 1nove is not satisfactory, Black can barely play
something better. An exa1nple is 14...�g8 15.Wg4 if8 16.li:lg6!
hxg6 17.fxg6 li:lf6 18.�xf6! gxf6 19.�xf6+ @d8 20.g7 �g7 21.Wxg7
;ges 22.igS+-
17.!U-2
20.<!bg6! hg6
27...VJie7 28.e:afl
28....!bf4?
o Pilnik Herman
■ Geller Efim
Gothenburg 1955
22...e4!
1••��•im
based on the following compensating factors:
-■
.••
�■-z:· • "a■
��·� ••
�
!�:•
•• -,,¼.•�-1'V
■
• �,, •
>,,,,, "
.t. LS lS �
LSD LS� .
..
Black is coming!
30.h3
30...hS 31..te2
A nice tactical shot to finish the game. Having stressed that the
strength of the outpost lay partly in the role it plays in supporting
operations against the f3 square, it comes at an appropriate
1noment. But 34...Wxh3 was also winning: 35.gxf4 g3 36.We3 Wh2+
37.'itlfl g2+
1.d4 li:Jf6 2.c4 g6 3.<tlc3 1i.g7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.1i.e3 es 7.dS c6
8.Wd2 cxdS 9.cxdS <tibd7 10.<tige2 a6 11.<tlc1 <tihS 12.1i.d3 f5
13.li:Jte2 ltidf6 14.exfS gxfS 15.lt:ig3
15... e4!?
Same stuff.
19.h3
Handing over the bishop pair is not a good sign. White should
consider 23Jl:hel .ixc3 (23...tI:ixe2 24.'llxeZ f3 [24...Wg6 25 . Wd3+=]
25.gxf3 Wxf3 26..id4 Wxe4+ 27.�al �ae8oo) 24.Wxc3 Wxc3 25.bxc3
'llxe4 26.i.d4 ifS 27.�b2 :!!ac8=
30....if4! 31.Wb4
31....ibS
34....ieS 3S.�cl
35.li:id2 as-+
o Kotov Alexander
■ Gligoric Svetozar
Zurich 1953
1.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 �g7 4.e4 d6 S.f3 0-0 6.�e3 es 7.ds cs
8.�d3 �hS 9.�ge2 f5 10.exfS gxf5 11.VNc2
130th sides were 'happy' with tihe draw (Black is n,vo pa,,vns
do,,vn), but I think that Black could continue: 41...%lf8 42.ltlel
(42..ig2 i.g4! 43.tbel .ic3 44.h6 hel 45.:l!xel .ixf3 46J1fl WeS!-+)
42...i.c3 43.t2:id3 Wxf3 44.?9xf3 �xf3 45.h6 .ie8 46.i.e2 !i:e3 47.l�:h2
gxe4 48.!i:f2 @g8 49.lbf4 i.d4 S0J!g2+ @h8 51.li:ie6 .ie3=+
½-½
□ Boleslavsky Isaak
■ Lisitsin Georgy
Leningrad 1956
1S.c4!?
1S ...ixc416.
. lbc3 Wb317.hc 4 Wxc4 18..igS! We619 .ixf6
. Wxf6
20 tci
. dS
At the cost of a mere pawn, White has achieved an excellent
outpost on dS and he can now concentrate on the attack against
the black king, as Black see1ns to have no counterplay...
1-0
CONCLUSION
Example 1
Athens 2006
1-0
o w. Winter
■ J.R. Capablanca
Hastings 1919
1.e4 e5 2.€:if3 €:ic6 3.ltlc3 €:if6 4..ib5 i.b4 5.0-0 0-0 6.i.xc6 dxc6
7.d3 i.d6 8.i.g5 h6 9.i.h4 c5 10.ltld5 g5 11.ltlxf6+ VNxf6 12.�g3
20.hxgS hxgs
21.b3 c6!
22.�a2 bS 23.!!hal
■ ■
■•■ ■ ■
E� ■
23...c4!
The decisive thrust after vvhich the d6-bishop can breathe and
participate actively in the game.
24.axbS
24...cxb3 25.cxb3
Now the white king and bishop are mere spectators, who can
only ,,vatch the black pieces conquering the queenside.
0-1
□ Alexander Kotov
■ Isaac Kashdan
USA 1945
White holds the advantage, as his bishop pair and the possession
of the only open file are great pluses. But in general, the 1nain
problem for Black is his lack of counterplay, as his pieces and
especially his g7-bishop are quite restricted and in1mobilised.
There was not 1nuch to do, as the alternative 33 ... if6 34.h4 @g7
35.�c6 ltld8 36.fl:a6 a4 37..idS± see1ned equally unsatisfactory.
34..ixe6!
34...fxe6 35 J!b8!
39.g4!
Game over! The miserable black bishop will never 1nake it back
to the game, allowing its counterpart to operate without
opponent.
1-0
o Anatoly Karpov
■ Lubomir Kavalek
Nice 1974
31.@c3?!
Defending against Black's ...1%aS-a3 threat, but this allows Black
to reduce the pressure. Correct was 31.gS! !l:aS 32.!�bl! �a3+
33.a:b3 gxa2 34.i.dl (planning a;b8, i.b3 and cs or �b8 and i.a4-
d7-e6) 34..J�al 3S. * d2 as 36J;Eb8 a4 37.�a8 with an easy win.
31... fxg4!
Black cannot really allow 31.. .l�as 32.*b3 !l:cS? 33. g S, when
a typical variation could run 33 ...*f7 34J!el !l:c7 3S.a3 �cs 36.§e6
©e8 37.*c3 *d7 38.@b4 @c7 39.i.dl 'i!td8 40.i.a4 !l:c7 41.ic6 !l:c8
42.a4 1%b8+ 43.'i!taS and White's a-pawn will promote.
32.ixg4
32...@f7!
The 1nost active try. A passive defence like 32 ... a:aS? 33.ie6+ �h8
34.@b3 :f!cS 3S.fS !l:c7 (3S...gS 36.�hS+ -) 36.1%h2 gs 37.:f(hS Z;b7+
38.@a4 �b8 39.@aS �a8 40.*b6 as 41.a4 would only play into
White's hands.
37....ig7?
□ Gennadi Sosonko
■ Bosko Abramovic
New York1 986
30.h3
Opposite-coloured bishops are on the board, but the difference in
their activity is obvious.
30... g6!
31.g4 h4!
o Anthony Miles
■ Vassily Smyslov
Dortmund 1986
26...gs
31.<.!?c2 �a3 32.4'xb2 !ixa4 33.e3 would also have sufficed, but
Black could try to sacrifice his useless bishop with ...!!aS and
...i.xeS. There is no need to allow that!
34..ib3!
After the naive 34.IDcb2? !l:xb2 35.@xb2 it is not clear how White
would penetrate. White needs to preserve the rooks on board.
34...gxf4 35.gxf4 @d7 36.rtxb2 @e8 37.S:bl @f7 38.S:gl il.h8
39..ic2!
Black resigned. After 41...a'.b8 42.r!d7 '.!;1.f8 43.e3 the dual threats of
�a7 or Y:Jc7 win.
1-0
o Gabriel Sargissian
■ Alexander Areshchenko
Bundesliga 2005
15.�d3 Wixh4
16.Wixe6!
25.eS!
29.�fcl a4
30..ia2 b4
31.�c6?!
Buried alive forever! Now White just needs to collect the black
queenside pa\lvns.
37...:SbS 38.@c2 :Sb6 39.:Sc4 !!:b3 40.:Sc3 :Sb6 41 .i.a2! i.f8 42.:Sc4 gs
43.fxgS @g6 44.:Sb4
1-0
22..ixe6!
Not good was the 'typical theme' with 24.h4? hSI (24... gS? 25.hS!)
25.�f2, as we will see later in the game. In such positions, this
early 'lockout' of the bishop is usually good only when there is an
extra piece for both sides on the board. We shall see why in the
proceeding play.
24...hS?!
25.�e3 �e8
25...gs 26.fxgS txes 27 ..ic3 i.d6 28. g 6 ©g8 29.©f3 ©f8 30.h4 ©g8
31.g4+-
White would still be in the driver's seat even after the relatively
'active' 29 ...gS 30..id2! gxf4 31..hf'4 ig7 32.c4
30.c4 @e8 31.cS bxcS 32.�xcS a6 33.@e4 �f8 34.@d4 @d7 35.@c4
@c6 36.i.b4 @b6 37.a4 @c6 38.i.aS i.h6
39.h4?
It looks like the end, as the bishop will be locked in forever. But
White had to go for 39.id2 ig7 40.g4! hxg4 41.hxg4 .th6 (41 ...gS
42.fxgS ixeS 43..tc3+- ) 42.gS! (now the bishop is also locked in!)
42...ig7 43.ib4 if8 44.icS @b7 45.@b4 @c6 46.ie3 ig7 47.@aS
@b7 48.i.f2 i.f8 49.icS and Black is in zugz,.vang: 49 ... @c6
(49 ....ig7 SO.he? @a7 Sl ..if6 .if8 S2.fS !+-) SO.'i!?xa6! @xcS Sl.@b7+-
It seems that it should be easy from now on, but the placement
of the white pawns on the 'vvrong' colour does not help.
47...!J.h6 48.@b4 @c6 49.@c4 !J.g7 50.@d4 @d7 51.!J.b4 @c6 52.@e4
@d7 53.@f3 @e8
54.g4
This plan leads to a draw, but the truth is that there is no other
satisfactory plan.
54...@f7?·
There was no win after the simple 54... hxg4+ 55.l!)xg4 ih6!
(55 ...@f7? 56.@gS ih8 57.l!)h6+-) 56.icS @f7, as \,Vhite cannot
make progress and his a p - awn is also on the wrong file in
relation to his bishop.
55.!J.d6?
o Garry Kasparov
■ David Navara
Saint Louis 2017
1.e4 c6 2.d4 dS 3.es .ifs 4..!bc3 e6 s.g4 .ig6 6..!bge2 cs 7.i.e3 .!be7
8.f4 hS
9.f5!
11...a6
13...�xd4?!
18 ..V. Nxc3 19.Wc5! Wxc5 20 l:". !xcS 0-0 21.hc6 bxc6 22.:Sdl
22...:Sab8 23.c4
34...�e3 35.�d2?
But that's bad! White could again be in the driver's seat after
35.c6! f4 36.!l:a8+ �e7 37.c7 .½xd3 38.!i:e8+! (38.c8=W? MS++)
38...@xe8 39.c8W+ �e7 40.@d2+-
35...�h3?
35 .. .f4! 36 ..!bxf4 !l:xeS 37.c6 !l:cS 38.li:ixg6 fxg6 should hold for
Black.
38.e6?
42 ...�d2+?
Black could preserve equality with 42 ...!1c1! 43.tbdS+ l!lxe6
44.tbxf4+ iifS 45.0xg6 @xg6 46.IDiliZ !i:xc6 47.�gZ �a6.
43 @
. cS �e4?
Now Black is easily lost, so he should have tried 43.. .fxe6! 44:.c7
hl =W 45.c8= tb+! (45 J%xh1? \!ld7) 45...\!ld7 46.tbb6+ i>c7 47.!i:xhl
�g2 48.tbc4±
44.c7 .tb7
45.i> b6?
45 ..i,c8!
. 46.EIXC8
. hl=W 47.1:!e8+
49..Jixc6+! SO.Wxc6
so...�d6 0 - 1
o David Bronstein
■ Alexa111der Beliavsky
Yerevan 1975
1.e4 c6 2.d4 dS 3.ltlc3 dxe4 4.ltlxe4 .ifs S.ltlcS Wb6 6.g4 .ig6 7.f4
e6 8.We2 .ie7 9.h4 hS
Black seems to be doing well ...
13 ... 0-0-0 14.�f4 .id6 15.Wh2! tZlf8 16.0- 0-0 tZle6 17.hd6 :Sxd6
18.£c4! tZle7 19.tZlf4?!
22...l'.l:he8?
23.tZlcS!
37....!bd6?!
44... f6?!
1-0
□ Giorgio Porreca
■ David Bronstein
Belgrade 1 954
12..!bd3
Black's position with all these sidelined pieces does not look rosy,
but as there is nothing concrete for Wh!ite it can only be
improved!
16.VNf3?!
White loses his ·way. He should have tried 16.tZlf4!? i>d8! (16 ...0-
0-0? 17.ixe6 fxe6 18.'1Jg6 Wb4 19.c3+ -) 17.'1Je3 ih7 18.a4 <J?c7t
Back to life!
18.a4
18....ixd3?
22.hS Wf4
23.VNe2 <tic7
29...ggs
o Veselin Topalov
■ Viswanathan Anand
Sofia 2010
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.<!bf3 �f6 4.<!bc3 dxc4 5.a4 �f5 6.iLJe5 e6 7.f3 c5
8.e4 i.g6 9.�e3 cxd4 10.Wxd4 Wxd4 11..ixd4 iLJfd7
12..!bxd7!
15.h4
All these ideas (...f!:g8, h4, @e2) are quite com1non for this
variation and not hard to see played or to be met! The pre-ga1ne
training motifs that both opponents are 'taught' are helping them
to choose probably the most accurate move-order.
16....id6
17.hS .ih7
18.aS!
18...'tkle7!
And what about the 'obvious' 18...ib4? I think that Topalov was
planning to sacrifice his a-pawn with 19.li:ia4!? (19.:l!al !1:c8 20.ib3
li:icS 21 ..ic2 @e7=; 19.tubSI? axbS 20.ixbS has 21.l!hdl) 19 ... haS
20.lt:icS (20.b4!? id8 (20...hb4 21.!!:bl;;t;) 21.ib3;;) 20...tt:ixcS
21.ixcS;; as it will be hard for Black to complete his
develop1nent. Obviously Anand doesn't feel it should be right to
go in for co1nplications before he is done with his development
and piece coordination - this is a co1nmon attitude in the great
players' thinking process.
19..!ba4 f6 20.b4!?
20..J�gc8
Accepting the pawn sacrifice with 20....txb4 could be proven
dangerous after 21.lThl .txaS 22.);'!.xb7 (or 22.tDcS bS 23.he6 lt:lxcS
24.!xg8 !xg8 25.hcS+ and 1naybe this is what Anand was mostly
afraid of.) 22 ...�gb8 23.:Shbl l:i'.xb7 24.:Sxb7 with strong pressure
along the 7th rank and im1nediate threats like lLlcS. But is seems
that Black can hold \-Vith
21..icS
21. ...ixcS
The safest, but Black could also go for 21...lt:lxcS 22.bxcS ic7
(22 ...hcS? 23.ixe6! ±) 23.0ib6 .txb6 24.cxb6 a:cs 25.ixa6! :Sxcl
26.fl:xcl :Sxa6 (26...bxa6? 27.:!'Kc7++-) 27.fi:c7+ 4;>d6 28.:Sxg7 he4
29.fxe4 �as 30.g4!? (30Jtxb 7 fl:xhS=) 30 ... fi:gS! and he will be able
to draw: 31.E(g6!? E'.xg6 32.hxg6 <;%Je7 33.l!?d3 <;%Jf8 34.<;%Jd4 l!?g7
35.<;%Jc5 <;%Jxg6 36.l!?d6 l!?f7 37.@c7 fS 38.gxfS exfS 39.eS f4 40.@d7 f3
41.e6+ <;%Jg7 42.e7 f2 43.e8=W fl =W=
22.bxc5 :Sc7
Silnple and nice, preparing ... !l:ac8. Black should avoid either
22...li:ixcS? 23.li:ib6+- or 22 ...!'!c6 23.E'.hdl !l:ac8 24.!l:xd7+ l!?xd7
25.ti:ib6+ E'.xb6 26.cxb6 ig8 27.eS±
23...�d8
24...�dxd7!
It seems that 24...!icxd7 would give White some chances after
25.c6! bxc6 26..ixa6 !l:a7 27.!l:xc6 �d6 28.Elxd6 �xd6 29.Eldl+ @e7
30.ic4 (30..icS !l:c7!) 30 .. .:t:!xaS 31.�bl as Black's h7-bishop still
remains a bad piece, but the liberating 31. ..fSI would do the job:
32.fill7+ �f6 33.exfS .ixfS= With the text move Black is perfectly
safe and might even try for something more if White overdoes
things.
25..id3 .ig8
26.c6
26...�d6
29.@e3
It is true that it took Black a lot of time to fully activate his bishop
(. ..if5-g6-h7-g8-f7-e8-d7) but in the meantime White couldn't do
much. Full equality and the opponents could easily shake hands
but not in this match... Playing till the very end is a 'must' for
both players - Topalov made it completely clear before the
match and Anand would love to follow!
32.lk5 �b5
34.�bl
After 34.:!!c7+ il:d7! Black would be OK. (34 .. J:1xc7? 35 J!xc7+ f1:d7
36.l;!cS! (36.:!!xd7+? <.!?xd7 37.<.!?d3 <.!?c6 38.<.!?c3 <.!?b7! = ) 36 ...f1:b7
3 7. <.!? d3 <.!?d6 38.:!:!dS+ <.!?c6 39.�c3±).
Novv, after some further forced exchanges, the game will end in
a draw.
41.�e3 E!:a3+ 42 .�f2 Ela2+ 43.�e3 :Sa3+ 44.©f2 �a2+ 4S.©e3 E!:a3+
46.©f2
1/2
CONCLUSION
o Efstratios Grivas
■ Emanouel Pandavos
Chania 1987
3 ...h6
A 'principled' line for Black, who gets the bishop pair while
White gets the centre and easier development. It's a matter of
taste by the way... 3 ...dS or 3... cs are other popular choices.
4.hf6
4 ...Wxf6 5.e4
5 ...b6
7...dS?!
8.We2!
8...dxe4
9 ..ixe4
9 ...c6
10.6be5
Aggressive and natural, but also 10.a4 Wd8 11.aS, looks great for
White - Black's queenside is a mess ...
10...id6
.
11.f4!
ll.�dc4 i.c7 12.a4, looks excellent for White as ,,.,,ell, but the text
is also good, and it is supported by s1nall tactics.
11...0-0
12.0-0
12...V�fe713.�dc4
13...�e8?
14.VNh5?
15JU3
Another 'natural' attacking 1nove, bringing more forces to join
the attack. But probably 1nore direct was 15.lt:lg4! fS (15 ...ti:id7
16.lllxh6+ gxh6 17.Wxh6 fS 18J:1:f3 flf7 19.:!!g3+ �g7 20 .flxg7+ Wxg7
21.Wxe6+ i>h8 22.lllxd6 fxe4 23.4:'lf7+ i>h7 24. Wxd7+-) 16.lllxd6
fxe4 (16...Wxd6 l7.lllxh6+ gxh6 JL8.Wg6+ �h8 19.Wxh6+ �g8
20 .Wg6+ i>h8 21.l;!f3 Wxd4+ 22.�hl Wg7 23.l;!h3+ @g8 24.Wxe6++ -)
1 7.lllxb7 Wxb7 18.Wg6 �h8 19.lt:l.eS �f6 20 .Wxe4+ -. Well, 14.WhS
and 15.l:!f3 can be called 'human' moves, but of course computer
engines will always be stronger than humans in tactical battles.
15...fS
15...heS 16.fxeS WgS, could be tried, but \I\Thite holds a decisive
advantage here as well: 17.WxgS (17.Wh3+-) 17...hxgS 18.lbd6 .ia6
19.c4+-, as Black is not in a position to complete his development
satisfactorily and without losing material.
20.�d1!
20...VNbS
21.Y¾h4
21.Wg4 :!!e8 22.llleS was another way to win. Here Black is even
a pa'Arn up, but a king do,"ln... White will win '"'ith a direct attack:
22...WeZ (22 ...ltla6 23.�d7+ -) 23.\Wg6 ltla6 24.Wf7+ ©h8 25.l:!:h3 ggs
26.ltlg6+ (26.Wxb7+-) 26 ... @h7 27.g4! Wxc2 28.�xh6+! @xh6 29.tbfS!
21...�e8 22.fS
Opening lines against the blacik king. Well, here White has 1nore
than one way to win, such as 22.ltleS We2 23.WhS.
22...cs
23.�g3 exfS
A nice picture arises after 23... i'.ib2 24.ltlg4, '"'hen the white
knights are ready to kill the black king...
24.ltle7+ ©h8
25.YNhS
25... lbc6
26.�xg7!
1-0
1.e4 es 2.<tlf3 ltJc6 3.i.bS a6 4.i.a4 ltJf6 5.0-0 ltJxe4 6.d4 bS 7..ib3
dS
8.<tlxeS
8...<tixeS 9.dxeS
9 ...�b7
1 1...0ixd2!
bl) 11 ...i.fS 12.itlf3! .ig4 1 3.h3 .ihS (13 ...hf3 14.Wxf3 0-0 15.c3t
Ciocaltea,V-Kristinsson,J Vrnjacka Banja 1972) 14.g4 (14.c3 i.cS
1 5.ixcS ti:JxcS 16.ic2 0-0= Yudasin,A-Chekhov,V Soviet Union
1981) 14...ig6 15.itld4± Wc8? 16.lt:ixc6 Yfixc6 17.�xdS Wc8 18.Wf3±;
b2) 11 ...li:lcS 12.f4 (12.c3? 0id31 13.f4 iLJxb2 14.Wf3 ifs+ Boey,J
Mikhalevski,V Ann,verp 1998) 12...0-0 13.c3 f6 14.ic2!t Sautto,D
Lacrosse,M Cutro 2005;
12.WxdZ 0-0 (12....ifS 13.c3 0-0 14.icZ .ixc2 15.Wxcz Wd7
Martidis, A -Grivas,E Chania 1982) 13.Wc3!? ib7 (13...id7 14.icS
!!e8 15.f4 .ixcS-t 16.WxcS We7= Ciocaltea,V-Shvidler,E Netanya
1983) 14.f4 (14.icS !%e8 15.f4 hes+ 16.WxcS We7 l7.Wxe7 fuce7
18J'!ael 1::i.ae8 Gligoric, S -Matanovic,A Monte Carlo 1967) 14...aS=
Fischer,R-Addison,W New York 1966;
10...�cs 11.0id2 (11.We2 o-o 12.ie3 ifs 13.t2:id2 Wb6 14.iLJxe4 ixe4
15.filel �ad8 16.f3 ifs 17.l;!adl he3+ 1 8.Wxe3 Wxe3-t 19.fuce3 !l:d7
20.,t,f2 �fd8 21.�e2 cs Keres,P-Korchnoi,V Moscow 1973)
11...li:lxd2 12.ixd2 MS 13Jtel 0-0 14.ie3 ie7 15.a4 Wd7 16.Wi'd2
Hort,V-Karpov,A Bugojno 1980;
9 ...ie6 10.c3 (10.ie3 icS 11.hcS lt}xcS 12.f4 lcixb3! (12...g6 13.ti:ld2
0-0 14.lt}f3 ti:lxb3 15.axb3 cs 16.b4!;t (16.Wd2= Kieninger,G
Bogoljubow,E Schwelm 1950)) 13.axb3 ifS=) 10...icS ll.lt}d2
ti:lxd2!
a) 11...ifS?! 12.ti:lf3 c6 13.lt}d4 .ixd4 14.cxd4 0 -015.ie3 f616.f3
ti:lgS 17.hgS fxgS 18.�cl �c8 19.Wd2± Smejkal,J-Kchouk,B Lugano
1968;
b) 11. ..0-0 12.lt}f3 f5 13.lt}d4 hd4 14.cxd4± (14.Wxd4 cs 15.Wi'dl f4
16.f3 ti:igS l7.a4 c418.ic2 ifS= Ehlvest,J-Ma1nedyarov,S Kocaeli
2002);
12.ixd2 Wh4 13.Wf3 0-0 14.ie3 he3 15.Wxe3 c6= Caro,H
Cohn,W Bannen 1905. So Black seems to be fine without much
effort in all lines, proving that 8.lt}xeS is not dangerous. Maybe
the above opening analysis looks irrelevant to the examined
theme, but it is always useful to get to know some theoretical
lines, especially if you are an 'Open Ruy Lopez' enthusiast!
10 .ie3
.
Not dangerous for Black is 10.c3 icS 11.lt}d2 lt}xd2 12.ixd2 0-0
13.Wg4 We7 14.Wg3 f6 15.e6 id6 16.if4 fl:ad8 17.�fel :afe8oo
Vasiukov,E-Grivas,E Athens 1987.
10 ...icS
.
Aggressive and good, although not bad either is 10 ...i.e7 ll.lt:ld2
li:ixd2! 12.hd2 (12.Wxd2?! d4 13.Wxd4? Wxd4 14.hd4 cs 15.ie3
c4-+) 12 ...cs 13.c3 0-0=. As we can note, Black already has two
good continuations at his disposal.
11.Wg4?
11....ixe3!
12.YJ!xg7?
14...Axf2+!
15.l!?hl
15...�g8!
The re1naining black rook joins the attack. Meanwhile, the
white queenside pieces ( a l -rook and bl- knight) are out of play
and still not developed...
16.Y!fh3
Forced: 16.g3 li:ixg3+ l7.hxg3 (17.*g2 li:ie4+ 18.*h3 Y!fg4#) l7 ... d4+
16...�g3+?
An incredible blunder that turns the tables! It was time for the
.
last black piece, the b 7 b
- ishop, to join the attack and this could be
-�-
done with the simple 16...d4!. White is helpless: l 7.�a3
-.lL
,-,�.�."�,-. �
•�a!.·�,1
�'II- .
- "' i1i.%1 {I{;@, �
�
;··'.
- • y �
- - %W, -
.� -� -�-)§(
-'1"9-,-o-,
\!Vhat else other than finally develop the poor bl-knight? But
now Black can end the ga1ne in style: l7 ...Wxg2+! 18.�xg2 li:ig3+
19.hxg3 �h8#. I knew about this opening trap already 35 years
ago, but unfortunately I was never able to benefit fro1n it, as no
one proved that helpful!
17.VNxg3?
17...VNxg3
0-1
o Aron Nimzowitsch
■ Simon Alapin
Petersburg 1914
1.e4 e6
A 'tricky' move order. The posiition could also arise from the
'Sicilian Defence': Nimzowitsch proposes here 5 ...�e7, with the
idea ...0-0, ...b6 and ...�b7, effecting restraint on the centre;
Another ga1ne between the two opponents went as follows
S ...tbxc3 6.bxc3 ie7 7.id3 tbd7 8.0-0 0-0 9.We2 !l:e8 10.a4 as 11.!1:el
c6 12 ..if4 li:Jf8 13.c4 .id6 14.i.xd6 Wxd6 lS.cS Wd8 16.We4 .id7
17.�abl f5 18.We3 bS 19.cxb6 :rfu8 20.b7 Wc7 21.ia6 cs 22.WeS Wc6
23.ibS Wxb7 24.dxcS !l:bc8 25.tbd4 ixbS 26.axbS li:Jg6 27.c6 Wb6
28.We3 f4 29.We4 �cd8 30.li:Jf3 l::(d6 31.h4 Wes 32.li:JeS l3d4 33.V¼e2
t2:ixh4 34.b6 �b4 3S.l';lxb4 axb4 36.b7 Wc3 37.We4 t2:if5 38.li:Jd7 lLJd4
39.b8=W 1 - 0 Nimzowitsch,A-Alapin,S St Petersburg 1914.
6.�xd5 Wxd5
The alternative 6... exdS 7.ibS+ id7 8.hd7+ tbxd7 9.0-0 !J..e7
10.dxcS lLJxcS 11.�el±, would lead to a risk-free position for
White, who could easily play for tvvo results, Black only for one...
7.�e3
7...cxd4
8...a6
Preventing it:idbS, but given a ? by Nimzowitsch, ..vho
recommends 8...it:ic6.
9.�e2!?
9 ...�xgZ
10."3 �g6?
The real mistake of the game! Black had to go for 10 ... �h3
ll.�d3 ie7 12.0 -0 -0 �. In general White's position seems to be
preferable, but as long there is nothing concrete, the battle would
have just started!
11.�d2
11...es
12.0-0- 0 !
13...<!bc6
So, another one of those 'usual' cases, where the 'centralised'
king comes under heavy fire. Of course some silnple tactics must
be performed ... 13 ...ie7 14J%hg1 WfS 15.We3! is winning as vvell.
14.i.f6!
14...Wxf6
15.�hel+
15 ..i
. .e7
15...ie6 16.Wd7#
16 i
. .xc6+ \!;>f8
16...bxc6 17.�d8#. Time for the impressive end...
17.VNd8+! .ixd8 18J!e8# 1 - 0
CONCLUSION
Well, there is nothing new under the sun; we \<\<'ill always meet
gan1es \IVhere the underdevelopment factor will be present,
giving rise to brutal attacks.
Even good players, in the heat of the fight for the initiative, have
omitted the ilnportance of develop1nent and piece coordination!
But mainly this disaster happens to lo\<\<'er-rated layers, who
,vrongly think that they can get away with it!
When they do understand - it is already too late...
UNFORTUNATE BISHOP
The annual Isle of Man Masters ended on October 1st. A quite
interesting and prestigious tournament, won by the FIDE World
Champion Magnus Carlsen followed by Hikaru Nakamura and
Vishy Anand.
In the last round my friend Ivan Sokolov wasn't so successful
and lost a rather one-sided game, ,,vhere the the1ne of a bad piece
once 1nore proved its misery.
o Dennis Wagner
■ Ivan Sokolov
Isle of Man 2017
12...0-0-0
13.f4!?
13...�e8?!
Nov,, the bishop gets into trouble. I would prefer to opt for
13.. .fSI? 14.�d3 ltlf6 15.hfS+ .txfS 16.tbxfS ib4, where Black has
invested a useless pawn for central control and activity. But of
course a pa\>vn is always a pav.1n - and a healthy one here!
21.g4!
26..!hel
29..!hf4
White wants to force the exchange of the rooks and Black insists
on sacrificing the exchange...
44.dS
44...cxdS 45.�xdS �h7 46.�c3 .!bd6 47.�e4 .!bc4 48.a4 �d6 49.�dS
ttld2+ 50.�e2
50...�g8?!
50 .. .t'Z\ bll was the only vvay to continue the fight: 51.hf? 8xc3+
5 2.bxc3±
54..!bfe4?!
73.gS
73....ixgs 74.lb xgs @d4 7S..ie6 ,;!;,e3 76.@eS ,;t,d3 77..iclS @c3
78.@e4 @d2 79.@d4 @c2 80.lb e4 @b2 81.lbd2 @c2 82.lbft ,;t,b2
83.lbe3 @cl 84.@c3 @bl 8S.lbc2 @ct
86.�a2!
88.ltJe2+ @dl 89.l!?d3 *el 90.@e3 @dl 91.�b3+ @el 92.�f4 @fl
93.ic2 and Black resigned : 93...@el 94.ll)d3+ l.t>fl 95.li>f3 l!?gl
96.@g3 @fl 97..idl l!?gl 98..ie2 �hl 99.ll)f2+ @gl 100.lt)h3+ @hl
101.M3#
1-0
o Matthias Bluebaum
■ Arkadij Naiditsch
Minsk 2017
Here Black hasn't inserted the 1nove ...h6, but of course the
position is almost similar.
12.f4 h5 13.©f2 �c8
14.fS
14....ih7 15.h3!
22...hxg4+ 23.hxg4
23...�xfS!
Black plays his last card to get rid of the bishop. Maybe it is not
e.nough but it was the best practical chance indeed.
SURVEYS ON TACTICS
ATTACK VIA THE EDGE FILES
Opening files and diagonals around one's own king cannot be
a healthy attitude. A naked king is the butter on the bread of the
opponent and should be avoided at nearly any cost.
The usual file to be opened for a successful attack is the rook
file, at least as practice has proven. And this is natural; open files
and diagonals should be difficult to defend, so they 1nust be
located far away...
Let's see a primitive example to fully understand the concept:
Example 1 •
Black has sacced his queen for only one minor piece, but his
threats down the h fi
- le are tre1nendous...
1 ...:Sah8
2.f4
2.g3 !l:hl+ 3.4?g2 �8h2#
or 2.f3 g3, lead to 1nate.
2 .. J!h1+
D Bok Benjamin
■ Rapport Richard
Riga 2014 e
White's bishop pair should be decisive in an ending, so Black
must act in the 1niddlegame. He is helped somewhat by the
weaknesses around the white king, especially on the light
squares.
o Suer Nevzat
■ Hort Vlastimil
Athens 1969 O
27..ixh6!
27...gxh6?
28.YNxh6+
21.i.xg6!
23...fxgS 24J�f7.
24.1/!1h7+
24...@fS 25.1/!1h8#
1-0
33...�a3+!
34... �a7+
0-1
□ Bernstein Ossip
■ Kotov Alexander
Groningen 7946 O
Black feels confident, as his king looks much safer and White's
weaknesses are ready to be attacked...
But that's a blunder! Black had to opt for 47..J�c4! 48.r:l:xc4 dxc4
49.l'.:ld8 hS 50 .4?g3 Wbloo.
50.fS+!
1-0
□ Lederle Vitus
■ Mertens Heiko
Bonn 2011 O
26.. .:11xg2 ..vould have required ,i\Th ite to choose the right
discovered check, viz. 27.ti::lg4+! (instead, wrong v.rould be
27.ti::lfl+? g;,g8 28.ti::lh6+ g;,fg 29.:i!fl+ or 29.Wfl + since now Black
can go for the counterstrike: 29...fil2+! 30 .g;,gl ixh2+! 31.g;,xf2
Wg3#) which after 27 ... @gS leads to mate by force: 28.We6+! g;,f8
(28...Wfl 29.lcih6+ @f8 30 .W/xfl#) 29.Wf6+ Wfl 30 .Wh8+ Wg8
31.ig7+ �fl 32.ti::lh6#
27.�gl!
The ilnmediate 27.Wxg2 �xg2 would give the black king the
escape square g8, preventing any lethal discovered check by
White.
27...gg7
28.ti::lg4
White should have scaled the g file: 28.�gG+! hxg6 29.Wxg2 with
a clear advantage.
28...�xh2+
29... .tf3+
30... he2+ 31 J!xe2 Wif4+ 32.�f2 Wcl+ 33.@e2 �e8+ 34.@f3 VNe3#
0-1
vVhite has already sacced a piece and nov-r offers even more!
19.El:f6 ! !
Down two pieces, \,Vhite ensures the kingside remains cut off
with this move. After the naive 19.hxg3?! fS, the attack is harder
to conduct.
19...l!?g7
20.�g4!
24.d5 �h8
And novv White is given the chance to perform a 'Windmill'!
25.YNg6+!!
Just incredible.
25...fxg6
26.�xg6+ @h7
1-0
A clear 'king in the cage' situation.
35...�dl+ 36.@g2!
40...�es 41.h4 �as 42.a3 :Sa4 43.@g3 :Sc4 44J!a8 l1:c7 45.h4 1-0
□ Wang Yue
■ Grischuk Alexander
Istanbul 2012 •
20.hxgS?
22.b4 f4- + is already decisive, with the idea of ...YNh3. White 1nust
be careful.
The idea is to play l::ihl and battle for the h -file. However, this is
too slov,r and A.Grischuk exploits this beautifully. 24.ih6+ @e7
leaves the bishop on h6 in a terribly awk,-vard situation. 24.hf6
Wxf6 and White can't stop the 1nultitude of deadly threats.
24...�xgs 25.VNxgs
25...�h2+!
28.@fl Wh7!
0-1
21...VNc7!
22..ag6
22...lt:ixe5 23.he4
And yet another quiet move to seal the deal. The threat is
obviously ..J::Xhl, and it cannot be stopped.
28.©e2 �h1 29..id2 :Sxa1 30..ixdS cxd5 31.YNh7+ ©d8 32.©d3 Wg4
o lvanchuk Vassily
■ Wang Hao
Istanbul 2012 O
21. ..exfS 22.fucfS ids 23J'l!af1 gfg 24.WgS! gives White a winning
attack for free. It's possible that Wang Hao simply 1nissed 22.fxg6.
We see in this variation why it was so important to keep the
queen on e7 and not c7 - the pressure on the f-file is too great.
22.fxg6!
24.gxh7+!
28.dxeS+!
28.'WxeS+? <J:Je7 leads to no more than a draw. After the text Black
resigned. If 28...�dS (28...'i!?cS 29.We7+ 4?d5 30 .E1dl + �e4 31.WgS
with unstoppable 1nate) then 29.E1dl + �e4 30.WgS!
1-0
24.�xf7+!
24...i>xf7
24...Wxf7 25.�h8+.
25.Yfi'f3+ i>g8
All three white pieces ailn at tlhe black king and black has no
defence against the beautiful finale.
28...�f8
29 .if6
. !
1-0
□ Grivas Efstratios
■ Farinata
Internet Chess Club 2017 O
As said, Internet blitz is interesting for tactical training. The
black player hasn't identified himself, so we "vill use his
nickname.
20..ixc6! Wxc4?
The only vvay for Black to stay in the game was with 20 ...bxc6
21.tt:ieS±
21.�xg7!
21...¥Nh4
10
-
□ Kamsky Gata
■ Seirawan Vasser
Saint Louis 2012 O
16.<.!lbl
16...cs
17. g4 ltixg4
17... ltJh7!? 18.l:".lhgl cxd4 19.ltJxd4 \!Nb6 20 ..ic3 %!fd8 21.f4 %!d5=+
Zhang,X-Guo,Q Xinghua 2014.
18JNe2
It is not easy to determine what Black's best is, but the text is
obviously not it! Paikidze,N-Girya,O Chennai 2011 followed
18...Wb6 19Jl:hg1 f5 20.tDe5 cxd4 21.lt:ld7 (less a1nbitious is
21.ti:lxg4!? fxg4 22.ixh6 gxh6 23.Wxg4+ ig5 24.f4 d3 25.cxd3 f!f5
26.Wg3 'i£?h7 27.fxg5 ½ -1/i Sutovsky,E-Solak,D Biel 2015) 21 ...Wa6,
and here important is the complex endga1ne which arises after
22.Wxa6 bxa6 23.ti.Jxf8. After 18 ...Wd5?! unpleasant for Black is
20.dxcS! Wc7
21.<tleS!
21....ixcS?
22..ixh6! gxh6
23.�d7! ! Wxd7
o Hovhannisyan Robert
■ Akopian Vladimir
Plovdiv 201 2
1.e4 c6 2.d4 dS 3.lLJc3 dxe4 4.€Jxe4 .ifs 5.lLJg3 .ig6 6.h4 h6 7.lLJf3
lLJd7 8.h5 .ih7 9 ..id3 hd3 10.Wxd3 e6 11..id2 �gf6 12.0-0-0 .ie7
13.�e4 lLJxe4 14.Wxe4 lLJf6 15.Wd3 0-0 16.g4 lLJxg4 17.�hg1 lLJxf2
18.We2
22.Wh2
22...Wxf3!
24...Wxgl? 25.Wh8#
29.©cl �ad8 30.a3 r!g8 31.Wh4+ '.!?g6 32.Wg4+ '.!?f6 33.Wh4+ <.!?xg7
34.Wg3+ ®f8 35.Wb8+ ©g7 36.Wg3+ ½-½ Baratosi,D-Manole,S Baile
Olanesti 2013.
28...axb3?
29.g6!?
� ■ R ■ ■ �ffl
■��'i'■w•l•x�:•
··�·
� -- .
·-'•'···
mw■ �it•
,•.1.-.,
30 ...al=tb+! 31.:1:1.xal (31.�c3 !c1Xc4+! 32.©d2 [32.�xc4 Wc6+ 33.12.cS
WxcS# ; 32./uxc4 Wb4#)) 31. ..Wxb6+! 32.ixb6 lild4+ 33.@c3
(33.hd4 a'.cb8+ 34.filJ6 rixb6+ 3S.<;!,c3 ib4+ 36.4?b3 tel#)
3 3..J:!xc4+1 34.�d2 (34.@xc4 !clC8+ 35.ic 7 'i1xc7#) 34...tbxf3+ 35.�e2
li:ixh2-+
30.YNxhS .ia3+
31.@xb3
1-0
□ Aronian Levon
■ lvanchuk Vassily
Istanbul 2012 O
25.b4!
2 8... Wg7
Basically any move here wins. Silnply Z!c8 creates too many
threats. But L.Aronian forces ilnmediate resignation:
CONCLUSION
Violent attacks via open files and diagonals are spread all around
and are quite co1nmon in all of chess history.
One should be aware of their mechanisms and use prophylaxis
to avoid them, or take advantage of then1 if in the driver's seat.
BODEN'S MATE
Baden's Mate is a 1nating pattern characterised by bishops on
two criss-crossing diagonals (for example, bishops on a6 and f4
delivering 1nate to a king on c8), with possible flight squares for
the king being occupied by friendly pieces.
Most often the mated king has castled queenside, and is mated
on c8 or cl. Many variants on the mate are seen, for example
a king on e8 mated by bishops on g6 and a3, and a king on fl
1nated by bishops on h3 and b6.
Often the mate is immediately preceded by a sacrifice that opens
up the diagonal on ·which the bishop delivers mate. The mate is
named for Samuel Boden, who played a famous early game.
o Schulder R.
■ Boden Samuel
London 1853
1.e4 es 2.<tlf3 d6 3.c3 fS 4.ic4 ti::if6 5.d4 fxe4 6.dxe5 exf3 7.exf6
Wxf6 8.gxf3 qJC6 9.f4 .id7 10..ie3 0-0-0 11.�d2 :Se8 1Z.Wf3 .ifS
13.0-0-0
1...�b8! 2.:Sxd5?
2 ... c6?
1-0
1.e4 dS 2.exdS WxdS 3.q)c3 Was 4.d4 c6 S.qjf3 .ig4 6..if4 e6 7.h3
.ixf3 8.Wxf3 .ib4 9..ie2 q)d7 10.a3 0-0-0
1.d4 dS 2.e4 dxe4 3.q)c3 lt:Jf6 4.f3 exf3 S.Yfixf3 Wxd4 6..ie3 Wes
7.0-0-0 c6 8.h3 .ie6 9..id3 <tlbd7 10.<tlge2 0-0-0 11..if4 YfihS
1.e4 e5 2.�f3 .!bc6 3..!bc3 �f6 4..ib5 .!bd4 5..!bxe5 We7 6.�f3 .!bxe4
7.0-0 �xc3 8.dxc3 .!bxf3+ 9.Wxf3 Wc5 10.!:!:el+ ie7 11.�d3 d5
12.ie3 Wd6 13.if4 Wf6 14.WxdS c6 15.We4 ie6 16J�e3 icS
17.ie5 Wh6 18J!g3 �f8 19.:Sdl 0-0-0
□ Morphy Paul
■ Thompson James
New York 1859
1.e4 e5 2.�f3 .!bc6 3.ic4 ic5 4.b4 ixb4 5.c3 iaS 6.0-0 �b6 7.d4
d6 8.dxe5 <!iJxeS 9..!bxe5 dxeS 10.ixf7+ @e7 11.Wb3 .!bf6 12.�a3+
cs 13.E!dl Y!Jc7 14. f4 !:!:f8 15.ic4 E!d8 16.!:!:de1 id7 17.�c1 E!f8
18.fxeS Wxe5 19.if4 Y!Jh5 20.:Sdl @d8 21.eS <!iJe8 22.Yfla4 Wg4
23.e6 .!bf6 24.:Sxd7+ @c8
2S.Wc6+! bxc6 26.�a6# 1-0
17..ixd7?
17...l3xc3+!
0-1
o Stroud A.F.
■ Fraser Alistair
CCCA Corr 1961
1.d4 dS 2.c4 �fS 3.�c3 �f6 4.li:lf3 e6 5.e3 �b4 6.�d2 0-0 7.�es
�bd7 8.f3 �xeS 9. dxeS �d7 10.f4 li:lcS 11.Wf3 d4 12.exd4 Wxd4
13.0-0-0 �fd8 14.�e3
0-1
o Alekhine Alexander
■ Vasic
Banja Luka 1931
o Elyashov
■ NN
Paris 1948
1.e4 e5 2.ltlf3 t!i::ic6 3.i.b5 ltlge7 4.c3 d6 5.d4 .id7 6.0-0 t!i::ig6 7.ltlg5
h6 8.t!i::ixf7 @xf7 9.i.c4+ @e7 10.Ytfh5 Y!fe8
11.VNg5+! hxg5 12.i,xg5# 1-0
o Pandolfini Bruce
■ NN
United States 1970
1.e4 e5 2.<tif3 Cbc6 3.i,b5 a6 4..ta4 ltJf6 5.0-0 ltJxe4 6.d4 exd4
7.:Sel d5 8.<tlxd4 .td6 9.<tixc6 hh2+ 10.@hl Wh4 11.�xe4+ dxe4
12.Wd8+ Wxd813.�xd8+ @xd8 14.@xh2
14...f5?
15.i,g5# 1-0
□ Balk Oscar
■ Barnes Richard James
New Zealand 1 926
Study 1
• • • •
Selezniev-Alexey-Sergeevich
-� -.
Tidskrift for Schach 1921 O
■
••••••••
®'d! �
.....�
. �
-� m
' !w.
�
-
�
!W� g
� � •
• Wf
•j/li
••••
,t. . �� .
•�
,.;
§ -
�
d%,
W®
-
� !,Jj •
,Mm
�
-
�
1.d7!
But this is not the case! Wrong \,vould be 1.0-0-0? :Sa2! 2.d7 flal+
3.lt>c2 :Sxdl 4.�xdl �c7=
1 ...lt>c7 2 . d8=W+!
2 ...lt>xd8
3.0-0-0+
And with this 'unexpected' move, White vvins the black rook!
1-0
So, after the prilnary - and most important for the explanation
of the combination - example, we will move on to rather 1nore
complex stuff:
Study 2
�■��,-■••• •
Katsnelson-Leonard
Moscow 1 980 O
-?&.-•.•• •
• •
- �,.•-,?&.
1:t
�-
••••
� .•. • . •
A passed pa-\,vn is always a threat. ..
1.a7!
l.%!:h7? looks like it's killing, but Black can continue ,;,vith 1...0-0-
0! 2.a7 !'le2+ 3.'i!?b3 %!:d3+-+
1...:Se2+
And not the naive 4.©d3? -vve will see later the reason.
4...0- 0 -0+
S.:Sd7!
s...@xd7
5 ...!l:xd7+ fails to 6.l!?xe2+-
6.:Sd3+ !
6...l!?c7 7.:Sxd8
o Dunbar
■ Sjavkin
Poland 1925
o Matisons Hermanis
■ Millers R.
Karalauci 1926
1.e4 c5 2.g3 ti:ic6 3..ig2 ti:if6 4.tilc3 e6 5.f4 d5 6.e5 d4 7.exf6 dxc3
8.fxg7 cxd2+ 9.Wxd2 �xg7 10..ixc6+ bxc6 11.Wxd8+ �xd8 12.c3
12.tbf3 '$;Jc7 13.0- 0, as in Haselhorst,H-Lamby,P E1nsdetten 2015,
is another story.
12...gbs 13.�e3!
o Feuer Otto
■ O'Kelly de Galway Alberic
Liege 1934
11 .dxeS dxeS?
•.a���
would simply stand better after 12.exf6 Wi'xf6 13.ltJe2!
. �-
,., • • •
B
..
� ½,, n � .. �
;�, ., .,�;,
�� _ ,,,,
�
� -
� � ��
� � '!"¥
o Kantardzhiev Mikhail
■ Kiprov Alexander
Sofia 1937
The wrong idea! Black should .have opted for 12 ...WaS+! 13.id2
.ixf2+! 14.�xf2 Wb6+ 15.ie3 Wx,e6=
15 ...ixbS
. 16.E(xbS Wxdl+ 17.�xdl 6bd5
18 !. �xb7?
White falls into the trap! Fine ,,vas 18.�d2 b6 19.c4 ltlxe3
2 0 .�xe3=
18 ..6bxe3+
. 19.f:xe3 0-0-0+! 0-1
□ Borbely Istvan
■ Kovach
Oradea 1948
1.e4 cs 2.6bf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Wxd4 6bc6 5..ibS .id7 6.hc6 bxc6
7 .6bc3 ti:lf6 8..igS �b8 9.es dxeS 10.6bxe5
10...�xb2?!
11.�xf6?
11...gxf6 12.�xd7
12...VNxd7?
1-0
oNN
■ Abrahams Gerald
Moscow 1949
o Jagelski
■ Kohler
Munich 1952
1.ltlh3 d5 2.g3 e5 3.f4 exf4 4.ltlxf4 i.d6 5.d4 ltlf6 6.c4 i.b4+ 7..td2
.txd2+ 8.ltl xd2 dxc4 9.ltl xc4 lbd5 10.Wd3 lb xf4 11.gxf4 Wh4+
12.Wg3 Wxg3+ 13.hxg3 .ie6 14..tg2 .ic8 15.ltla5 c6 16.d5 cxdS
17..ixdS ltl d7 18.lb xb7 hb7 19.i.xb7 !!:b8
20.�c6! :Sb6
Or maybe not?
□ Schroeder
■ Rudy
New York 1958 e
18...a6! 19.l:!xb7?
19 ..0-0-0
. !
0-1
o Sznapik Aleksander
■ Adamski Jan
Gdynia 1973
32..ic4?
White should stand slightly better after 32.@eZ .icS 33..tc4, but
so1nehow messed-up ...
o Kupreichik Viktor
■ Kapengut Albert
Minsk 1978
1.e4 e6 2.<tlf3 dS 3.es cs 4.c3 Ad7 S.tba3 .!bc6 6.ttlc2 :Sc8 7.d4 cxcl4
8.<tlcxd4 <tige7 9.�cl3 ltJxd4 10..!bxcl4 tbg6 11.YNeZ .icS 12.<tlb3 .ib6
13.h4 <tlxh4 14.YNg4 ltJg6 1S.�xg6 fxg6 16.:Sxh7
16....ixf2+! 17.1.>e2
17...l3xh7?1
21.Ae3 b6 22.a4 �c4 23.aS �e4 24.�fl+ 'i!?e8 2S.sf4 �bS+ 26.'it>f3
.ia4 27.�xe4 dxe4+ 28.'i!?g4 .ixb3 29.'i!?xh4 bxaS 30.�xa7 .ids
31.g3 a4 ½-½
o Tuor Gallus
■ Hugentobler Patrick
Silvaplana 1982 O
17.:Sxb7?
17...0-0- 0+ ! 0-1
o Neely Elizabeth
■ Levit Roman
Chicago 1989
10.�xe5?! Wf6!
□ Mestek Igor
■ Voscilla Adriano
Pula 201 6
But here things are different. Black had to opt for 10 ... g6.
11.€lxe5! dxe5?
CONCLUSION
17.0-0- 0
Black has an extra pawn, but the position is quite sharp as the
kings are on different wings. Now P.Morphy started an amazing
combination:
17...�xf2?!
I raise 1ny hat to the great chess artist, but the crude l7....tg4!
was correct - G.Kasparov. It looks to me that P.Morphy
consistently liked to be down pieces when such offers gave him
open lines and brilliant mating nets. His prodigious memory
allowed him to calculate moves far in advance. Thus he did not
consider being down in pieces a true detriment. But \A/hen eagle
eyed P.Morphy goosed H.Bird "INith the text move, the game had
migrated to a completely different level - one that left White
wandering around like a duck hit over the head.
18.hfZ
18...VNa3!
19.c3!
19...VNxaZ!
19...e3? is refuted by 20.ixe3 i.fS 21.Wc2!
Black's attack has flowed along nicely until this critical point.
(�A ■ -�■
-;�1:
i �//W
.
1 �
-
� .
�
; •
:,.,..,,. j1 �
,
,I
{!f - �-
■,■.,�■B
•�•:• a:
28.E'.hgll (28.ig3? ih6 29.ieS !1:a8 30.!1:hgl ifS 31.�dfl ig6 32.h4
id2!-+ ; 28.iel? E'.a8 29.ic3 Wb8 30.!1:dfl ih6 31.idl ia6 32.hb3
Wb7 33Jl: dl �b8 34.4?a2 ie2 35.l�hel hdl 36.�xdl if4 37.!1:hl J.e3
38.ia4 Wa7 39.Wa3 �a8+) 28...!1:a8 29.ih4 MS! 30.:1;!gfl ! e3+ 31.*cl
ic2 32J:txf4 ixdl 33.ixdl Wal+ 34.Wxal !l:xal+ 35.@b2 !1:xdl
36J:!f3 !1:xd4 37.ie7!=
c) 25 ...Wa4!? 26.c4 b3 27.cS if4 28.ig3 ih6 29.Wall �xal +
305t>xal ri:a8+ 31.�b2 �a2+ 32.©xb3 1:!xe2 33.'.9:aloo.
d) 25 ...ia6 26.1;!.hel! Wxb2+ (26...he2 27.1:!xeZ Wa4 28.1:!gl ixh2
29.l!cl b3 30.c4 id6 31.cS ie7 32.ie3oo) 27.*xb2 bxc3+ 28.�xc3
ib4+ 29.*c2 ixel 30.�xel ixe2 31.l!xe2=
e) 25 ...Wxc3 26J!cl Wh3 (26 ...Wa3 27.ig3) 27.ig3 ifS 28.Wb3oo.
So it seems that P.Morphy's amazing sacrifice does not win
objectively.
22...i.xb4'. !
23.cxb4 :Sxb4+
24.Wxb4
o Levitsky Stepan
■ Marshall Frank James
Breslau 1 9 1 2
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.toc3 c5 4.tof3 lbc6 5.exd5 exd5 6..ie2 tZlf6 7.0-0
.ie7 8..ig5 0-0 9.dxc5 �e6 10.tZld4 �xc5 11.tZlxe6 fxe6 12.�g4 VNd6
13..ih3 e:ae8 14.Wd2 .ib4 15..ixf6 �f6 16.:Sadl Wc5 17.We2 .ixc3
18.bxc3 Wxc3 19.El:xdS lbd4 20.WhS :Sef8 21.El:eS �h6 22.WgS :Sxh3
23.El:cS
Here Black actually has no less than five clear wins, but the 1nove
played is astonishing and one of the most beautiful in chess
history...
23...Wg3!
0-1
The following game does not present any 'strange' queen 1nove
around the ene1ny pawns. But it is aesthetically beautiful, as the
white queen moves into the attack from far away.
□ Bogoljubow Efim
■ Mieses Jacques
Baden-Baden 1925
1.d4 fS 2.g3 lt:lf6 3..ig2 e6 4.lbf3 dS 5.0- 0 .id6 6.c4 c6 7.lbc3 0.bd7
8.Wc2 <tie4 9.@h1 Wf6 10.i.f4 i.xf4 11.gxf4 Wh6 12.e3 <tidf6
13.lLJeS <tid7 14.�g1 <tixe5 15.dxe5 lLJxc3 16.bxc3 i.d'7 17.�ad1 bS
18.WbZ 0 -0 19.Wa3 �fd8 20.cxhS cxbS 21.Wa6 WhS
22.�xdS!
22...exdS 23.�xg7+!
27...�dcS 28.e6 i.c6 29.Wf7+ @h8 30.f6 :Sg8 31.Wc7 :Sacs 32.WeS
d4+ 33.@gl .ids 34.f7+ :Sg7 35.WxdS
o Alekhine Alexander
■ Supico
Lisbon 1941
1.e4 es 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.�xc3 .ib4 S..ic4 ffe7 6.lbge2 lbf6
7.0-0 0-0 8..igs Wies 9..txf6 fixf6 10.�ds fid6 11.eS fies 12.:Scl
ffaS 13.a3 .ixa3 14.bxa3 c6 1S.lbe7+ '.!lh8 16.'elid6 fid8 17.lbd4 b6
18.!k3 cs 19.�dfS .ta6
20.fig6!
As said, Black played horribly and White would have won easily
anyway, but the text move still looks spectacular. It's quite
a common the1ne when a castled king is surrounded by knights
and a 'lifted' rook is ready to come in: 20...fxg6 (20..Jig8 21.\Wxh7+
'.!lxh7 22J1:h3#; 20...hxg6 21.!%h3#) 21.lbxg6+ hxg6 22.!%h3+ Wh4
23.!!xh4# By the vvay, 20.lbg6+ fxg6 21.Wxg6 :!:1.xfS 22 J!h3 mates as
well.
1-0
□ Rossolimo Nicolas
■ Reissmann Paul
San Juan 1967
23 W
. g6!
23 ..Wc2
. 24.:Sh3
1-0
□ Darga Klaus Viktor
■ Dueckstein Andreas
Lucerne 1963 O
26.Wfg6! 1-0
CONCLUSION
Study 1
Timman Jan
2007 0
1.h4+!
Preparing the cage for the black king... 1.hxg4? i.d6+ 2.�h3 hS,
should be OK for Black.
1 ...©hS 2.�fS! .if8
3.h3 .idt
1.g7+!
t ...hg7
No better is 1...©xg7 2.dS+ (the computer wants to play 2.if3+
but V.Bron's variation is easier to understand. In the co1nputer
variation Black's knight is captured) 2...©g6 (after 2 ...@g8 3..ixh8
li:ixhl 4.d6!+- the passed pawn decides) 3.hh8 tuxhl 4.ieS+- and
the knight is caught in the corner.
4.©f2
5.hhl
10.gS+! hgS
11 .if8#
.
Certainly the 1naterial balance is enough for a draw, but Black
has a small positional issue preventing it - he is checkmated!
1-0
Study 3
Korolkov Vladimir
Trud 1935
1st Prize 1935 O
1...@e7 2J'.{b8!
2....ixg3!
White must be very careful now, as the line we just sa,,v will
turn out to be a draw if White takes the bishop, so he 1nust bring
his rook to a secure place. Taking on g3 is the best defence, as
othen,vise White wins easily with his g-pa,,vn: 2...fl=W? 3.d8=W+
r!ixd8 4..ia6+ @c7 5.ixfl @xb8 6.gxh4+- and the pawn pro1notes
soon.
3.:Sa8!
3 ...f1=VN
Black can't be too clever: 3...ib8 4.ia6+- wins easily but not
4.:l!xb8? fl = W S.d8=W+ ,;1;,xd8 6.i.a6+ 'i!Jc7= again.
i0,- .
�-· - �--
:: ■ iL■ • •
w---
---""•■
•••••■•
• • � ffl
@•
�•-• .1.•
� - 1%.lla'f 1Wl
6.hfl
But not the other way round, as Black's pawn ,vill drav,r: 7.ie2?
i?b7 8.if3 e2!=
9.i.1:3! @xa8
10.Axc6#
And eventually \,Vhite is a pawn dovvn, which is not too much of
an issue as Black is checkmated...
1-0
If White was on the 1nove he could draw with 23.:!;1hel. But Black
to 1nove can create troubles for the exposed white king.
22...:Se2! 23.:Sad1 :Sf2+
Also good is 23 ...hS 24.l;Ehfl �h2 25.a4 13:eS, when Black wins
material.
24.<.!?g4 hS+?!
Black goes for uncertain tactics. Better vvas 24...id6! 25.if4 ixf4
26.gxf4 rig2+ 27.©h4 !l:xc2, when Black "vill prevail.
25.©xhS
25...g6+?
But this is too rnuch. Black's last try was 25 ...!l:xfS+ 26.©g4 �f2
27.lThel a:xel 28.hel !l:xc2 29Jid2I when he has chances, but
White should probably defend.
Not losing directly, but better was 28.©hSI f4+ 29.©g4 fxg3
3 0 .4?xg3 !l:ee2 31.ih6! .td6+ 32.�d6 cxd6 33.!l:bl and now Black
must go for perpetual check.
2 8...@g7 29.i.f4?
0-1
o Gelfand Boris
■ Shirov Alexei
Odessa 2007 •
A Rapid game, but still the beauty of the final touch is extra
ordinary!
41...Wif4+ !
42.gxf4
42.fua4 fxgS# is out of the question...
42....if2+ 43.�g3 .ixg3+ 44.©xg3 al=W
CONCLUSION
The bishop is a long-range piece and delivers from afar. So, the
need to keep an open eye on the entire board is a necessity and
an obligation as well!
LONG TERM SACRIFICES
With the description long-term sacrifice we tend to mean
sacrifices which are not easy to evaluate in a fev-1 1noves and
1night take much more time to reach a final conclusion.
Usually these sacrifices demand a high price; normally a minor
or heavy piece!
In the Gashimov Memorial which was held in Shamkir,
Azerbaijan (April 2017), we came across two very interesting and
impressive games.
In the first game Vladilnir Kra1nnik tried to catch his opponent
in one of his pet lines. As this didn't work out, he had to go for
complications, sacrificing 1naterial.
o Kramnik Vladimir
■ Harikrishna Penteala
Shamkir 201 7
Notes based on those of GM Tiger Hillarp-Persson.
1.e4 es 2.<tlf3 .!bc6 3.i.b5
3•..a6!
P.Harikrishna also has the 'Berlin Defence' in the repertoire, but
to play it against V.Kra1nnik? Not good advice!
6.d3
6Jiel is still the 1nain move, but after 6...bS 7.ib3 0-0 8.c3 (8.a4
is the most challenging move for those who prefer to avoid the
'Marshall Gambit') 8...dS no one above 2600 has lost with the
black pieces in the last half year.
6...bS 7.�b3 d6
8.a3
White must save the light-squared bishop. And since the other
options such as 8.ll)c3?! ti:iaS! have been found to set Black
few(er) problems, this see1ningly 1neek 1nove has become the
latest fashion. 8.a4 i.d7! is a neat point behind 7 ... d6. After 9.c3
ti:iaS 10..½c2 cS ll.d4 V.ib8 12.igS h6 13.txf6 ixf6 14.axbS axbS
15.dxcS dxcS 16.WdS Wc8 17.b4 i.e6 18.WxcS WxcS 19.bxcS c;i-,,d7!
Black was doing very v,rell, in Morozevich,A-Vitiugov,N Novi Sad
2016, and went on to win. 8.c3 0-0 9J!el ll)aS 10.ic2 cs is
a position that can also arise in the 'Prussian Defence' (3..½c4
0f6).
8...0-0
9.<tlc3
There are few positions in chess \\There there are more than 4-5
decent 1noves, but in this position there are no less than 7
perfectly reasonable moves for Black! It is also notable that this
position vvas reached 4 times in the last FIDE-WC match between
M.Carlsen and S.Karjakin, with M.Carlsen, as Black, scoring three
drav.rs and one win!
9...<tlb8!?
The start of the 'Breyer' plan. Black is aiming for a harmonious
set-up with ...lt:ibd7 and ...�7, before continuing - usually
with ...fl:e8, ...if8, ... g6 and ...ig7. For someone who has played the
'Pirc/Modern Defence' for many years, it gives rise to a kind of
deja vu; haven't we seen something similar son1ewhere? 9...ie6
10.ie3 dS 11.igS! has scored ,,vell for White, vvhile 9 ...lt:iaS 10 .ia2
ie6 (playing 'Chigorin' style with 10 ...cs, makes more sense when
White has spent time on moves like c3 and h3. Here White is
ready to fight for the dS-square ilnmediately: ll.b4 !2Jc6 12.tLidS+=
This is possibly the reason why M.Carlsen played ...ll\b8, ... cs and
...lZ:ic6 in an earlier game. Here it actually helps White to have the
bishop kicked back to a2) was played by M.Carlsen in two of the
FIDE-WC ga1nes: ll.b4 (11.d4 ha2 12.fl:xa2 fl:e8 13.1,;l.al ll\c4 14J1el
%1.c8 1S.h3 h6 16. b 3 tbb617.ib2 .if8 18.dxeS dxeS 19.a4 c6 20 .Wxd8
%!.cxd8 21.axbS axbS 22.lDe2 ib4 23.ic3 hc3 24.ll\xc3 ll\bd7
25J�a6 1,;!.c8 26.b4 !!e6 27.!lbl cs 28.!!xe6 fxe6 29.tbxbS cxb4
30.fucb4 !!xc2 31.li:id6 !!cl+ 32. © h2 :!!c2 33.\!?gl ½ 1-12 Karjakin,S
Carlsen,M New York 2016) ll .. .lL1c6 12.tbdS li:id4 13.lt:lgS hdS
14.exd5 ll\d7 15.ll\e4 fS 16.lt:ld2 f4 l7.c3 lt:lf5 18.lt:le4 We8 19.ib3
Wg6 20.f3 .th4 21.a4 lt:lf6 22.We2 as 23.axbS axb4 24.id2 bxc3
25.ixc3 lt:le3 26.!!fcl :!!xal 27.l!xal We8 28.ic4 <Jlh8 29.lt:lxf6 hf6
30J'ia3 e4 31.dxe4 ixc3 32Jl:xc3 Wes 33.!!cl %1.a8 34.h3 h6 35.©h2
Wd4 36.Wel Wb2 37.ifl %1.a2 38J1xc7 !lal 0 1 - Karjakin,S-Carlsen,M
Ne,,v York 2016.
10 6b
. e2
The start of the 1nost fa1nous 1nanoeuvre knm,vn to chess. The
end station is the g3-square, where the knight is bolstering e4,
stopping ... 0ihS, and 1naking sure that a future ...ig4 will be well
and truly kicked with h3; all this while not being in the way of
any other pieces.
10....!bbd7
11.c3
11. ..Ab7
14.!bfS!?
.
This move changes the flow of the game and takes it into
unclear waters. More logical and reasonable are 14..ia2 or
14.ic2.
14...c4! 15.dxc4
If 15.i.c2 cxd3 16.hd3 f!e8 17.fd.c2, then 17...tLicS 18.i.gS .if8 and
Black's pieces are too harmonious for \,Vhite to even dream of an
advantage: 19. ti:i d2 g6 20.l2:ie3 .ie7 21.hf6 hf6 22.a4 igS=
15 ...txe4
.
Black can also consider 15 ...bxc4?! 16 ..icZ tbcS, but after 17..igS
'fJ.c7 18..ixf6 .ixf6 19.Wxd6 it seems that he doesn't have enough
compensation for the pawn.
16.!bxe7+
.
16..Wxe7
. 17.cxbS axbS
18..igS!
This must be played before Black gets the chance to shut it out
of the game ,,vith ...h6.
18 .. .!bcS
. 19 .ta2
.
19.ic2 hc2 20.Wxc2 lt:le6 looks balanced.
19 ..h6
. 20.i.h4!?
22 W
. e2
22 ..�g7!
.
Black's plan is simple but effective: to evacuate the knight from
f6, play ...f6 in order to bury the bishop on g3, and then occupy
the light squares. White needs to co1ne up ,,vith an antidote to
this scenario.
23.�adl?!
23...lbfe4! 24.1'.�dS
White doesn't have the tilne to play 24.�xbS, since 24...fS! leaves
the g3-bishop in mortal danger and 25.h3 :iab8 26.We2 f4 27..½h2
tba4 28J!b1 tbecS is game over-ish. To play something like 24.h3,
is paramount to resignation: 24...fS 25.i.hZ f4 26.i.b1 Wb7 27.tbdZ
tbf6 and Black has the most terrible domination.
24...fS
25.�xeS!!
25...dxeS 26 ..ixeS+
26...�f6?!
27.WxbS!
What to do now?
29.h3!
What a cool move. It is still not clear what Black should do, so
airing the king cannot be wrong.
29...�b8 30.We2
There seem to be so many good moves for Black, but which one
wins?
30....ig8?!
31..ibl Wb7
33...VNc6?
This move allows White to get fully coordinated. The last chance
for an advantage was 33...VNa6! but things are still not as clear as
the engine would like you to think: 34.bS!? (34.VNb2 hc4 35.:1:1.cl
i.dS 36J'.!:c7+ @g8 37.he4 fxe4 38.li:ih2 tbhS 39.li:ig4 l:c'lb7+) 34...Wd6
(34...Wxa3?! 35.ixe4 :Sxe4 36.Wd2 :Sbe8 37.:Sal�) 35.Wb2 hc4
36.a4 :Sa8 37.ixe4 :Sxe4 38.l:c'lxe4 fxe4 39.li:ieS ie6 (39 ...El:d8 40.tuc6)
40.b6 :Sxa4 41.tuc6 :Sxd4 42.lbxd4 @f7 43.b7 li:id7 44.li:ixe6 4?xe6
45.Wg7 and White will probably get a dra\-v.
34.VNb2
With this move Black's position goes fr01n hard - t o -handle to just
worse.
34...�bd8?!
34... 4?h7! is a good chance for Black, but after 35.cS (35.ieS !!bd8
36.tbd4 Wxc4 37.lbxfS :Sd2 38.li:id6 :Sxb2 39.hb2 Wb3 40.ixf6
Wxbl 41.:Sxbl tuxd6 42.a4oo), Black still needs to find a few exact
moves: 35...if?! (35 ... li:id7?! 36.tud2 ids 37.li:if1;5) 36.tbeS WdS
37.tbxf7 Wxf7 38.f3 li:ig3 39.ieS tbfhS 40.©h2 WdS 41.Wc3 li:ifl+
42.©gl tbfg3 43.ixb8 \Wd4+! 44.Wxd4 :1:1.xel+ 45.4?f2 :Se2+ 46.4?gl
:§:el+=
35.cS
35.bS Wd6 36.:!:!cl !l:c8 37.he4 !l:xe4 38.cS We7 39.c6 is even
better. Black is balancing on the edge of the abyss.
35...VNe6 36.bS!?
36...l!.>f8?
37.c6
37...g4?
This accelerates the end, but White's pav.rns were too advanced
for a remedy to be found. The feeling is that Black was already
psychologically 'destroyed'; after the rook sacrifice he felt obliged
to ,,,..,in at any cost; a typical misfortune of the defender!
1-0
In the second game the sacrificed material wasn't that high; just
an exchange!
Well, nowadays exchange sacrifices are spread around like
1nushrooms, so nothing new under the :sun!
Veselin Topalov kept his opponent's king unsafe and soon
delivered a deadly blow.
o Wojtaszek Radoslaw
■ Topalov Veselin
Shamkir 201 7
Notes based on those of GM Aleksandr Lenderman.
1.d4 dS 2.c4 c6 3.lbf3 tilf6 4.e3 �fS
9.11�b3
V.Kra1nnik also played this. Since the game was in 2005, it's
possible that V.Topalov had even analysed this position back
when he was preparing for his FIDE vVC match against
V.Kramnik.
9...'1Wd7
11...�c6!
R.Wojtaszek had his first big think here, for about 15 1ninutes.
He had alternatives: 12.lila4!? (trying to hold on to the pawn)
12... li::ie4! 13.ixe4 dxe4�, would lead to good compensation for
Black, since he has annoying threats like ...tbeS and ....'Wg4, and
he can castle quickly with ...0-0-0, while White's pieces are
uncoordinated. White's only move not to be worse now is 14.t2:'!c3
0-0-0 (14...fSI?) 15.t2:'Jxe4 %th4 16.f3 f5 17.0.fZ i.xcS and from
a practical standpoint we should prefer Black, even though the
position is dyna1nically equal. Another vvay is 12.Wa3 Wg4! 13.@fl
(13.0- 0?? !1:xh2 14.@xhZ Wh4+ 15.@gl t2:'!g4- +; 13.g3 i.e7�) 13 ...ie7�
with good compensation for the pawn.
12....ixcS
Now Black is able to avoid the queen trade, and therefore avoid
the slightly unpleasant endgame.
13.l'.3c1
13...l'.3d8
Interesting is 13 ...d4!? 14.tDa4 (14.ltJe4 dxe3!) 14... dxe3! 15.ti:lxcS
exd2+ 16.g;,xd2 Wd6 17.:l�hel+ g;,fS 18.liJxb7 Wf4+ l95!?dl ltJeS
20.liJd6 Wd4 21.�xeS Wxd6 ,,vith very complex play. Of course this
is just a sample line and not all the moves are forced here.
16...d4?!
17..ib5?
18.�xc6 bxc6
19.f3?!
19...Y!fe7
20.lk2
20.E'.xc6 dxe3 21.ib4 Wd7 22.E'.d6 Wc7 23.Wc3 Wb8 24.Wd4 tbdS!
25.l::ixd8 l::ixd8 26.i.aS li:ib6+ is very dangerous for White. Here the
e3-pa\Jvn is very strong.
20....!bdS 21.©f2 gbs 22 . Wa3
22...�xb2!?
23.Wxb2!
25...Wf4+
26.@f2
The last piece joins the fray. Without this move, Black is not
even better. Nov.r, however, his attack is unstoppable. A typical
situation when three pieces attack the exposed king and the king
can't defend successfully.
29 ..ll:b2
. 30.:Sgl ll:xa2 31.h3 Wid6+ 32.f4 Wid3 33.@h2 VNe4 34.:SgS
34..ll:c2!
.
And \,Vhite resigned since he's about to lose the f4-pawn and
Black will have both a material advantage and an unstoppable
attack, which will lead to more and bigger material gains: 3 5 � . el
�xf4+ 36.Wig3 (36J!:g3 ltlfS-+) 36...flxg2 + (36 ... ltlfl + 37.:1:1.xfl Wixf1 -+)
3 7.flxg2 ltlf1 +-+
0-1
CONCLUSION
Example 1 0
1. ..�h8 2.hxg6.
2.hxg6+ ©gS
2 ...�g7 3.!!:xh7#
1-0
□ Carlsen Magnus
■ Karjakin Sergey
New York 2016 O
Of course White is ,-vinning her,e, but why not use some small
tactics to finish-off the game in style?
49.:Sc8+! @h7
□ Neumann Augustin
■ Przepiorka David
Vienna 1904 O
43JNxh6+ ! @xh6
43...gxh6 44.fum8#
35...fxg3?
36.fxg3?
36...YNfS?
37.�f8? We6?
38.�e8? YNf7?
41 l3
. h8+ @g642.Wxa6+ �d6 43.Wc8 We6 44.Wc3 �d3 45.Y�·as We3+
46.@hl 0-1
□ Popov Nikolay
■ Novopashin Arkady
Beltsy 1979 O
1-0
□ Vyzmanavin Alexey
■ Tukmakov Vladimir
Soviet Union 1986 ®
White seems to have lethal threats, but Black has seen deeper...
0 1-
The great Jan Timman was inspired as usual (!) and created tvvo
nice studies. I am copying the1n fro1n the 1nagazine 'New In
Chess', with his notes:
White 1nates in three moves. The key move is easy to find, at least
if you know what it's all about.
Blocking the back rank and opening the way for the white
queen to h6. Insufficient was 1.Wbl in view of l ... d3! and there is
no mate in n,vo.
2...s1>xh6 3J1:h8#
3.:S5c7# 1-0
2 ....igS
3.f6!
Opening the f fi
- le.
3 ....txf6
Afte3... gxf6 4..ih4! .ixh4 5.lbg6+! hxg6 6.'�h6+ the white queen
will hoover up the board.
4 ..th4!
The open file was still blocked. The bishop sacrifice re1nedies
this.
4 ....txh4 5.lLJg6+!
5 ...hxg6 6 ll:
. f8+ �h7 7.Wh6+!
1-0
THE G-POINT CHECK
An easy combination to be learned is the following one:
Example 1 0
1-0
.•ilk.·•.■.■--��--·"-���w-,.�■
■ Portisch Lajos
m■t
Mar del Plata 1982 O
�-- -, �❖
. . � .
,, �
• • ·.!l.-��
Bn�• ■ � ■n■ is
f,,;,
35.VBc8
35...VBgZ+ !
0-1
o Short Nigel
■ Blomqvist Erik
Malmo2017 •
34...YNfl
35.YNg4+ !
35...<.!lh8 36.YNg7+ !
1-0
1-0
□ Givon Asaf
■ Wieczorek Oskar
Batumi 2010 O
White stands much better here, but as both kings are unsafe,
blunders can appear at any time!
38.'tYf8?
And that's a decisive one! After 38.1:1.a81 Black would be in
trouble.
38...VNbZ+!
And \,Vhite resigned after realising the cruel truth: 39..½xb2 :r:l:gl +
40.Wfl �xfl + 41..icl !!xcl#
0-1
o Spivack Simon
■ Astaneh Lopez Alex
London 2010 O
Black is on the attack, but White felt that he could create so1ne
counterplay...
32.�xe7+ 'i!lg8!
34...VNgZ+ !
□ Admiraal Miguoel
■ Vedder Henk
Belgium 2017 •
A typical lost position for Black; the fS-knight is a monster
. . ,. . ,.
compared to the 'poor' f 8 b- ishop...
l ■ B � Sl
.. .. .
p t� � •
�
■'if■�■tb■
- "' " , ,,_ , ¾ -
■�.■,m.■ D �
•• � m
@� " · '�
,,_ } �
37...VNxdS?!
This loses easily. Black had to try to fight with 37...Wb2 38J;1:e4
(38.a:e8? V.ibl + 39.©g2 WxfS 40 .�xf8+ iig7) 38...'.8.cS 39.tbe3 Wb8
40 .iig2+-
1-0
□ Collas Silvia
■ Schoucair Henry
Rochefort 2005 O
27.Wxg7+?!
1-0
THE PONY EXPRESS
The knight is a tricky piece, especially when it is close to vvhere
the action is, meaning it is best used in areas of the board where
the opponent's pieces are clustered or close together.
As we perfectly well know, pieces are generally more povverful
if pJ.:ir.erl ne;:ir the centre of the hor1rrl, hut this is p;:irticulrlrly true
for a knight.
A knight on the edge of the board attacks only three or four
squares (depending on its exact location) and a knight in the
corner only two.
The mnemonic phrases 'A knight on the riln is grim' or 'A knight
on the rim is dim' are often used in chess instruction to reflect
this principle.
But things are quite different when the opponent's king is
located near the knight! Especially in cases when both knights
can co-operate to deliver deadly kisses. Then the pony express
c01nes by!
o Enevoldsen Jens
■ Nimzowitsch Aron
Copenhagen 1933
24.�xa3!
The ,,vhite rook is not r1 vr1h1r1ble piece for the r1ttr1ck, while the
black bishop is a good defender, so this exchange sacrifice is fully
justified.
24....ixa3
The ,,vhite knights are dancing around the black king, capturing
pawns which could defend him!
29.WhS f5 30.exf6+ @f7 31.ltl gS+ @xf6 32.Wf3+ @e7 33.Wf7+ @d8
34.Wxg8+ li:lf8
39...i>xe6 40.Wf6#
40.Wxa3 1-0
o Ftacnik Lubomir
■ Cvitan Ognjen
Germany 1997
1.d4 tZlf6 2.tZlf3 g6 3.c4 �g7 4.li:lc3 0-0 S.e4 d6 6.�e2 es 7.0-0 tZlc6
8.ds tZle7 9.�d2 tZle8 10.b4 f5 11.cS tZlf6 12.f3 f4 13.li:lc4 gs 14.a4
€:lg6 1S..ta3 �f7 16.bS dxcS 17.�xcS hS 18.aS g4 19.b6 g3 20 ...t>hl
€:lh7 21.d6 Wh4 22.�gl �h3
A difficult position to play over-th e b
- oard ...
23.bxc7?
This position has been played before and \,Vhite should opt for
23.gxh3! Wxh3 24.�f2 gxf2 25.M2, achieving the better position:
25...axb6 26.tbdS! (26.it:lbS �d8 27.axb6 c6 28.tbc7+= Dall
Orsoletta,A-Gotz,K Sao Bento do Sul 2015) 26...cxd6 27.it:lxd6 it:lgS
(27...il:ff8 28.tbxb6 �ad8 29 ..tfl ilti'e6 30 ..tc4+-) 28.tbxf7 ti:ixf7 29.Wb3
'ii?h7 30 .ti:if6+ hf6 31.Wxf7+ i.g7 32.f1gl 1-0 \iVarner,D-Denny,K
Bridgeto,,vn 2 0 0 4. Note that 23.dxc7? also loses to 23 ...hg2+
24.©xg2 Wh3+ (0 -1 Peralta,E-Roselli Mailhe,B Montevideo 20 0 1)
25.©xh3 ti:igS+ 26.©g2 tbh4+ 27.<.!?hl g2# 0-1 Tie1nann,T
Tiemann,C Willingen 2007.
This nice queen sac is the prelude to a 1nating attack, but not
24...tbgS? 25.�f2 ! +-
White resigned due to 27.l!?hl g2# Well, Black didn't deliver the
1nate with the knight-pair but it obviously helped the tricky g
pawn!
0-1
oNN
■ Blackburne Joseph Henry
Great Britain 1871
1.e4 es 2.�f3 .!bc6 3.i.c4 i.c5 4.0-0 �f6 5.d3 d6 6.h3 lt\ e7 7.i.g5 c6
8.i.e3 i.b6 9.�c3 �g6 10.V�'d2 i.e6 11.i.b3 0-0 12.�adl VNd7
13..!bh2 hh3 14.ixh6 ixg2 1S.�xg2 tliJf4+ 16.�hl axh6 17.f3
<t\6h5 18.�f2 �g3+ 19.�gl VNh3 20.d4
□ Grivas Efstratios
■ Piluso
Internet Chess Club 2013
1.c4 c6 2 ..!bf3 dS 3.e3 .!bf6 4.b3 �g4 5.h3 i.hS 6.i.b2 e6 7.i .e2
<t\bd7 8.0-0 i.d6 9.cxd5 exd5 10.eid4 he2 11.VNxe2 VNc7 12.�f S 0-
0 13.�c3 �fe8 14.�acl i.f8 15.Wf3 �es 16.VNg3 �ac8
White's pride is the fS-knight but it needs help to be effective.
17.f4
Maybe not the best, but keep in mind that this was a 3-minute
game and accuracy wasn't easy. \,Vhite wants to open the long
diagonal.
17...lbd3?
18.lbxdS! li::ie4
18...lt:ixcl loses to 1 9.�xf6+ ct?h8 20.!&h4. But now all four knights
attack something!
22..!bh6# 1-0
o Clemenz Hermann
■ Eisenschmidt Elen
Dorpat 1890
1.e4 e5 2.�f3 .!bc6 3.i.c4 i.cS 4.b4 .txb4 5.c3 i,cS 6.d4 exd4
7 .cxd4 i.b6 8.0-0 d6 9..!bc3 i.d7 to.es dxe5 11.i:i:e1 �ge7 12.�g5
i,e6 13.he6 fxe6 14.�xe6 Wd6 15.�xg7+ @f8 16.Wg4 .ixd4
17..!be4 Wb4
21..ia3 Wxa3?
The only way to prolong the fight was with 21 ...i.xfZ+ 22.@xf2
Wxg4 23.€ixg4+-
22.We6! �d8 23.Wf7+! �xf7 24.t!:l e6# 1-0
□ Lechtynsky Jiri
■ Kubicek Jaromir
Prague 1968
1.e4 d6 2.d4 �f6 3.�c3 g6 4.f4 .ii.g7 5.�f3 0 0 - 6 ..ii.d3 c6 7.0-0 Wb6
8.�hl .ig4 9.es �e8 10.�e2 �d7 11.We1 f6 12.e6 .ii.xe6 13.fS W
14.lbf4 tuc7 15.fxg6 hxg6 16. o:!i:lxg6 1::ife8 17.Wg3 lt:le6
1-0
o Prince Andrey Dadian of Mingrelia
■ Bitcham M.
Zugdidi 1892
16.lLid7+ �g817.Wg4! h5
1.e4 es 2..ic4 li:Jf6 3.li:Jf3 li:Jc6 4.0-0 .icS S.d3 d6 6.i.gS i.g4 7.h3 hS
8.hxg4 hxg4 9.li:Jh2 g3
10.li:Jf3?
□ Tarrasch Siegbert
■ Romberg
Nuremberg 1893
17...©h4 18.g3#
□ Hodgson Julian
■ Mahia Gustavo
Internet 2016
1.d4 fS 2.�gs cs 3.dxcS 6ba6 4.e4 fxe4 5 . 6bc3 �xcS 6..ic4 Wb6?!
A dubious novelty. Black has also tried 6...WaS 7.i.d2 6bf6 8.qJxe4
Wc7 9.qJxf6+ gxf6 10 .i.e3+= Benjamin, J D - e Fotis,G New York 1985,
and also 6.. .li:lf6?! 7.i.xf6 exf6 (7 ... gxf6? 8.V.ihS#) 8.WdS We7 9.0-0-0
a610 .qJh3±
12 ..<.!?f7
. 13 W
. hS+ g6
14.!bd8
. + <.!?g715 ..!be8# 1-0
CONCLUSION
1.Wg8+!
oNN
■ Greco Gioacchino
Italy 1620
1.e4e5 2.<tif3 <tlc6 3..ic4.ic5 4.0-0 <tlf6 5.�et 0-0 6.c3 We7 7 .d4
exd4 8.e5 6bg49.cxd4 <tixd4 10 .. <tlxd4Wh4 11.<tlf3 ¥Bxf2+ 12.�hl
0-1
These two games of the great Gioacchino Greco were the first to
be recorded with the theme of the smothered mate, long before
F .Philidor presented it.
But let's see how another great of those tilnes, P.Morphy, handled
it:
□ McConnell James
■ Morphy Paul
New Orleans 1849
o Morphy Paul
■NN
New Orleans 1856
1.e4 es 2.f4 exf4 3..ic4 Wh4+ 4.�fl gs S..!bc3 Ag7 6.d4 �c6 7..!bf3
WhS 8..!bdS @d8 9.c3 �f6 10.�xf6 Axf6 11.eS Ag7 12.h4 f6 13.�gl
g4 14.�h2 fxeS 1S.�xg4 exd4 16.i.xf4 �f8 17..tgs+ �e7 18.We2
:Se8
o Morphy Paul
■ Bryan Thomas Jefferson
New York 1859
1.e4 es 2.�f3 .!bc6 3.i.c4 .tcs 4.b4 .txb4 S.c3 .tcs 6.0-0 d6 7.d4
.ib6 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.VNb3 Wf6 10 ..ib5 .ie6 11.Wa4 �ge7 12.i.g5 Wg6
13.�xe7 c.t>xe7 14..txc6 bxc6 15.�xe5 Wf6 16.�xc6+ @f8 17.e5
Wg5 18.h4 Wg4
1-0
D Morphy Paul
■ Schrufer
Paris 185,9
1.e4 e5 2.�f3 �c6 3.i.c4 �f6 4.d4 exd4 5.0-0 �xe4 6.�e1 d5
7..txd5 Wxd5 8.�c3 Wh5 9.�xe4 i.e6 10.�eg5 .tb4
And after the two old greats, we v.rill examine some more
examples, which are useful to keep in mind:
o Saalbach August
■ Pollmaecher Hermann
Leipzig 1861
1.e4 cs 2.lbf3 e6 3.lbc3 lbe7 4.d4 fS S.dS fxe4 6.�xe4 lbxdS 7.tlbeS
g6 8.Wf3 V9c7 9.V9f7+ @d8 10..igS+ tlbe7
□ capon C.H.
■ Taylor J.O.H.
Norwich 1873
1.e4 es 2.�f3 tlbc6 3.c4 .icS 4.�c3 .id4 S.lbbS d6 6.�bxd4 exd4
7 .b3 .ig4 8.h3 .ixf3 9.Wxf3 t£ie5 10.Wg3 t£if6 11..ie2 t£ixe412 W
. xg7
�h4 13.0-0d3 14.hd3 t£if3+ 15.@hl
15 ..Wxf2
. 16.Wxh8+ @d7 17 W
. g7 'Wgl+ 18J !xgl <ilf2# 0-1
o Chigorin Mikhail
■ Solov Alexander
Moscow 1884 O
o Bird / Dobell
■ NN
London 1886
1.e4 es 2.f4 exf4 3.�f3 gs 4.q)c3 g4 s.�es Vfih4+ 6.g3 f:xg3 7.Vfixg4
g2+ 8.Vfixh4 gxhl=W 9.WhS i,e7 10.'�Xf7 q)f6
o Mason James
■ NN
London 1900
1.e4 es 2.f4 ..acs 3.q)f3 d6 4.c3 .ig4 S..ic4 q)c6 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0
dxc3+ 8.@hl qJd4 9.qJXC3 i,xf3 10.gxf3 �e7 11 ..ie3 �e6 12.fS
.ixe3 13.fxe6 0-0 14.exf7+ @h8 1S.f4 <tig6 16.�dS .icS 17 .b4 i,b6
18.fS �es 19.WhS Wd7 20 JU4 Wxf7
o Bernstein Ossip
■ Metger Johannes
Ostend 1907
1.c4 es 2.eilc3 <tlf6 3.g3 dS 4.cxdS �xdS S.�f3 <tlc6 6..tg2 .!bb6 7.0-
0 !J.e7 8.a3 .ie6 9.d3 0-0 10.b4 f6 11..ib2 Wc8 12.!kl �d8 13..!be4
<tlc414.Wc2 CLJxb2 1S.Wxb2 .ih3 16.hh3 Wxh3 17.b5 �aS
18.Wa2+ �h8 19.�xc7 �d7
□ Hallmann H.
■ Schneider W.
Correspondence 1931
1.e4 e5 2A:lc3 �f6 3..ic4 .tb4 4.d3 d5 5.exd5 .ixc3+ 6.bxc3 lt:lxd5
7.Wh5 0-0 8.lt:lf3 lt:lc6 9..ia3 �e8 10.lt:lg5 �f6
o Koltanowski Georges
■ Salazar J.
Ciudad Guatemala 1940
1.d4 lt:lf6 2.<!Ilf3 ,e6 3.e3 d5 4..id3 .ie7 5.t2lbd2 tZlbd7 6.0-0 0-0
7.We2 �e8 8.e4 dxe4 9.<!Ilxe4 c5 10.c3 b6 11.tZle5 .ib7 12.tZlxf7 Wc7
13.<!Ilfg5 .ixe4 14..ixe4 <!Ilxe4 15.Wxe4 0.f6 16.Wxe6+ l!?h8
o Najdorf Miguel
■NN
Rafaela 1942
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.tbc3 tbf6 4.tbf3 a6 5.cxd5 tbxd5 6.e4 tbxc3
7.bxc3 i.e7 8.�d3 0-0 9.0- 0 c5 10.VNe2 cxd4 11.cxcl4 S:e8 12.!!dl
tbc6 13.i.b2 b5 14J!ac1 �b7 15.d5 exd5 16.exd5 tbb4 17.i.e4
�xa2 18.eie5 tbb4 19.hh7+ �f8 20.VNh5 hd5
o Lasker Edward
■ Horowitz Israel Albert
New York 1946
1.d4 eit6 2.�f3 d5 3.e3 c5 4.c4 cxd4 5.�xd4 e5 6.tbf3 eic6 7.tbc3
d4 8.exd4 exd4 9.tbb5 �b4+ 10.�d2 0 - 0 11.�4 eixb4 12.tbbxd4
0-1
1.e4 cs 2 . ltlf3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lbxcl4 �f6 S . ltlc3 d6 6..ie2 e6 7.0-0
.ir.e7 8.�hl a6 9.f4 Wic7 10.£r.f3 .ir.cl7 11.ltlde2 0-0 12.b3 bS 13.a3
�ac8 14..tb2 :Sfd8 1S.:Scl ltlaS 16.We l �e8 17.eS .tc6 18.�e4 .txe4
19..txe4 dS 20..id3 g6 21.:1:!f3 ltlc6 22.:Sh3 f5 23.exf6 .ixf6 24.£r. x f6
�xf6 2S.:Se3 :Se8 26.�gl es 27.fxeS �xeS 2 8.'�h4 ltlfg4 29.:Seel
1.g4 dS 2 .tg2
. c6 3.gs e s 4.h4 .id6 S.d3 .te6 6.e4 ltle7 7.ltld2 0-0
8 ..th3 .ixh3 9.ltlxh3 f5 10.gxf6 �xf6 11.exdS ltlxdS 12.�e4 :Sf7
13..tgs .te7 14.Wg4 WiaS+ 1S.c3 £1.xgs 16.�hxgs :Sf8
17.YNe6+ @h8 18. .!bf7+ i>g8 19.�h6+ �h8 20.YNg8+ gxg8 21..!bf7# 1-
0
□ Robatsch Karl
■ Bisguier Arthur Bernard
Hastings 1961 e
38 ...YNgl+ 0-1
□ Vepkhvishvili Varlam
■ Magalashvili Dimitri
Tbilisi 1966
1.e4 d6 2.d4 g6 3.eic3 �g7 4.�gs .!bd7 5. .!bf3 ei gf6 6.�c4 0-0 7.e·5
dxe5 8.dxe5 .!bg4 9.e6 fxe6 10.� xe6+ �h8 11.�xg4 �cs 12.�xc8
�xc8 13.0-0 :Se8 14.:Se1 e5 15.YNd5 .!be6 16..!be4 eixg5 17.�exgs c6
18.<!bf7+ ©g8 19.<!bh6+ ©h8 20.Wfg8+ �xg8 21.<!bf7# 1-0
□ Unzicker Wolfgang
■ Sarapu Ortvin
Siegen 1970
1.e4 cs 2.<!bf3 �f6 3.es <!bdS 4.<!bc3 e6 5.<!bxdS exdS 6.d4 <!bc6
7.dxcS .ixcS 8.'!WxdS VHb6 9..ic4 .ixf2+ 10.©e2 0-0 11.�fl .icS
12.<!bgS �d4+ 13.©d1 <£ie6 14.<£ie4 d6 15.exd6 .ixd6 16.<£ixd6 S:d8
17..if4 �xf4
o Hendriks Richard
■ Welling Gerard
Sittard 1977 e
o Murey Jacob
■ Mortensen Erling
Randers 1982
1.c4 tZlf6 2.lbc3 g6 3.e4 d6 4.d4 i.g7 5.f3 0-0 6.�e3 es 7.tZlge2 c6
S.Wd2 exd4 9.�xd4 dS 10.cxdS cxdS 11.eS tZleS 12.f4 f6 13.lbf3
ttic7 14.0-0-0 f:xeS 1S..ic4 ©h8 16.li:lxd5 ttixdS 17.WxdS Wc7
18.lbxeS ..ifS 19..icS ttid7
20.Wg8+ 1-0
□ Timman Jan
■ Short Nigel
Tilburg 1990
1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 lbf6 4..ig2 .ie7 S.lb:f3 dS 6.0-0 0-0 7.b3 .id7
8..ia3 li:lc6 9.Wc1 as 10..ixe7 Wxe7 11.ftlc3 .ie8 12.We3 dxc4
13.bxc4 :Sd8 14.�fdl ttig4 1S.Wf4 M7 16.�ab1 es 17.dxeS gxd1+
18.�xdl �cs 19.ttigS .ixc4 20.lbdS lbd8 21.e6 .ixdS 22.�xdS Wa3
23.�d7 lbc6 24.hc6 bxc6 2S.e7 �e8
o Bischoff Klaus
■ Mueller Karsten
Hoeckendorf 2004
1.e4 cs 2.<tlf3 d6 3.<tlc3 lt:lf6 4 ..ic4 g6 5.d4 cxd4 6.lt:lxd4 .ig7 7.0if3
0ic6 8.0-0 0-0 9..igS .id7 10.WdZ :Se8 11.:Sfel a6 12..ih6 .ih8
13.<tlgS lt:leS 14.WeZ lt:lfg4 15.f4 <ti xc4 16.VNxc4
□ Lanka Zigurds
■ Radjabov Teimour
Mainz2005 •
oNN
■ McCracken Terry
Internet 2007
19 ..li:lh3+
. 20. ©hl Wg1+ 0-1
□ Disawal Vishwas
■ Anshuman M.
Nagpur2008
□ Reefschlaeger Helmut
-�■ltJ•·• �
■ Astengo Corrado
Bad Wiessee 2008 O
■ A■ 8
.■·■·-•�� -- ·
•• • � • ».i
J.
1if �tr.<;>d;�t" "•I
•
[¢'
,$
Aal:l ■.t� 9
•Ir• ■ ■
� �
1.e4 e5 2.�f3 6bc6 3.d4 exd4 4.� xd4 .ic5 5..ie3 Wf6 6.c3 �ge7
7 .�c4 6be5 8.�e2 d6 9.0-0 Yfig6 10.f3 .ih3 11J!f2 0-0 12.©hl .ie6
13.6bd2 Yfih5 14.l'ilf1 c6 15.�xe6 .ixe3 16.�xe3 fxe6 17.Yfixd6 VNg5
18.l'il c4 l'ilf7 19.Yfixe6 �g6 20.�d6 We3 21.l'ilxf7 �f4
*��-..■.'-7:l�■..•
■ Navara David
Porto Carras 201 1 O
.. . ..,$/.�..•
�
d•...•
• • • •
�
•••• �
o Hosticka Frantisek
■ Bartos Miroslav
Prague 201 5
1.d4 6bf6 2.c4 es 3.dxeS 6bg4 4.�f4 .ib4+ S.6bd2 6bc6 6.6bgf3 We7
7.a3
CONCLUSION
o Rath Ulrik
■ Plaskett James
Esbjerg 1982
1.ti::if3 �f6 2.c4 b6 3.g3 .ib7 4. i . g2 g6 5.b3 !J.g7 6.!i.b2 0-0 7.0-0li:la6
8.ti::ic3 cs 9 J!c1 dS 10.li:lxdS ti::ixdS 11 .ixg7
. 'i!lxg7 12.cxd5WxdS
13 d . 4:Sfd8 14.dxc5 li:lxc515.Wc2 Wd6 16.b4 �e6 17.Wb2+ f6
18 li:l
. gS hg2 19. �xe6+ Wxe6 20.'i!lxg2
This ga1ne was played in the 2nd round of the Esbjerg Open B
Tournament back in 1982. White's non-ambitious play made
things easy for Black, but is there something more to look at than
the better side of the draw? The pawn structure is symmetrical
and after so1ne more heavy pieces exchanges there will be
nothing left to play for...
20..JNe4+ 21.f3
24...�dl
26...�gl+?
2 8...Wie3!
29.g5?
There is no clear mind anyn1ore, otherwise White would have
found his only continuation ,,vith 29.Wcl! :!1xcl 30 .�xcl Wxe2
31.�g3 hS 32.gxhS WeS+ 33.�gZ WgS+ 34.©hl WxhS 35JJ1c3 WdS+
2 9... Wixg5 30J!g4 Wh5+ 31.:Sh4 Wf5+ 32J!g4 h5! 33.:Scc4 g5!
0-1
16..tbe617.VNb2+
.
17 .. £6
.
20..hS!
.
Well, Black did his ho1nework,. as the text move offers better
chances than the 20 ...We4+ of the 2nd round!
21 h
. 4
23 .�c2
If White had opted for something like the previous game ,.vith
23J3c3 Y41e5 24.1:1:fcl �ac8 25J'!lc2, then 25 .. J!.dl would work
perfectly after 26J�xc8? (26.�a3 Y41xb2 27.E'.xb2 E'.c7=+) 26...We3t-+
A passive move. \iVhite had to opt for 26Jlc6! �es 27.�c8 �8d5
28.Y.ic2! Wie6! (28..Ji:d2?! 29.�g8+ @xg8 30.Wxg6+= ) 29.l�c6 Y.ie3
30.i'Jc3 and probably Black has nothing better than to accept the
draw...
26...�dl!
27J9b3 Y.ieS
28.@f2?
30...�ddl
31...�h2# 0-1
Well, the previous 'couple' was what I call perfect twins! But this
case is quite rare, at least coinpared to cases of identical ideas
and positions fro1n different openings.
In the 'Acropolis 2007' international tournament held in Athens,
the following games were played in rounds 1 & 2:
□ Parginos Vassilios
■ Grivas Efstratios
Athens 2007
1.cl4 fS 2.h3 dS 3.g4 liJf6 4.q:Jf3 liJc6 5.q:Jc3 e6 6J�g1 liJe4 7.g.xfS
e.xfS 8.liJg5 q:Jxc3 9.bxc3 i.e7 1O.e4 fxe4
White has sacrificed a pawn trying to gain the initiative but
Black is well-prepared to defend properly.
11.Wh5+?!
Keep this diagra1n in mind; you v.rill need it for the next ga1ne!
15....if5
15 ...hxgS 16..ixgS Wd6 17..if4 Wl.e7 18..ixg6+ @f8 was also
winning, but Black wanted to play it safe.
16.VNf4 Wd7
o Malakhatko Vadim
■ Parginos Vassilios
Athens 2007
14...Wa5+
It seems that the Black player loves this kind of check. The
alternative was 14..Jk8 15.ieZ ie6 16.VlibS VlixbS 17.hbS rJie7=+
15.Vlic3 �b4?!
15 ...Wxc3+ 16.bxc3 rJ,e7 \A/as \A/hat Black should have opted for.
Placing his pieces on the edge is not a good sign for Black.
17...b6 ·was better: 18.a3 lilc2+ 19.lilxcZ %1xc2 20.VlixaS bxaS 21.b4
axb4 22.axb4 0-0 23.id3 �b2 24.0-0 Z!xb4 25.'.!;1xa7 ibS 26.ixbS
%1xb5 27.g3±
18.b3 0-0?!
19.a3!
1-0
o Reti Richard
■ Grau Roberto
London 1927
1.c4 cs 2.�f3 q,f6 3.d4 dS 4.cxdS cxd4 S.VNxd4 �xdS 6.�c3 Wxd4
7.�xd4
7...a6!
s ...es
More-or-less forced, in conjunction with his previous move.
After 8...�d7?! 9.�g2 ti:ic6 10.lt:lxc6 �xc6 11.�xc6+ bxc6 12.�gs,
White \Vill enjoy a permanent advantage due to Black's shattered
queenside pawns.
9.<!i:lb3 <!i:lc6?
12...0-0 13.�fdl
All the vvhite pieces come into a play with some threat.
Although the Silicon Monster considers this position as slightly
better for White, the truth is that Black faces unsolvable
problems.
13...�fd8
14..ixf6! gxf6
16.lbcS!
Is this a knightmare?
16..@f8?!
.
1 7.lt:lxf6!
□ Grivas Efstratios
■ Pountzas Hrisanthos
Kalavryta 1998
1.d4 .!bf6 2.c4 e6 3..!bf3 cs 4.g3 cxd4 5 ..!bxd4 .!bc6 6 ..ig2 .ic5 7..!bb3
.ie7 8..!bc3
Many years after the previous game I played the present one -
note the similarities...
8 ...d6
Maybe 8...b6 is a better try: 9.0-0 0-0 10.lt:idS .ia6 11.li:Jxe7+ W!xe7
12.lt:id2 d5 13.Wfa4 .ib7 14.b3 !i:fd8 15 ..ia3+= Morozevich,A- Leko,P
Zug 2013.
9.0-0 .id7?
10.�f4 W!b8
11.cS!
11.lt:icS was possible as well, but opening the centre can only be
to White's benefit.
11...es 12.cxd6 �xd6?!
Good or bad, Black had to opt for 12...exf4 13.dxe7 fxg3 14.hxg3
ti:Jxe7 15.W!d4 and pray - White still has to prove his advantage.
13....ie7 14..ixf6!
14...gxf6
18.e3!
19...fxe6 20.WhS+
20...l!?d7?!
21.ltJxf6+ !
The same move as in the previous game and Black resigned 'as
usual': 21....ixf6 22.Wf7+ ie7 23J%fdl + l!?c7 24.Wxe7+.
1-0
o Tylkowski
■ Wojciechowski Antoni
Poznan 1931
1.f4 dS 2.e3 cs 3.�f3 tbc6 4..ibS .ig4 5.0-0 e6 6.d3 .ie7 7.tbc3 d4
8.ti'lbl �f6 9.e4 0-0 10.hc6 bxc6 11.c3 dxc3 12.tbxc3 .ixf3
13.:Sxf3 tbg4 14.�hl �d4 15.�gl �xgl + 16.�xgl .id8 17..ie3
�xe3 18.�xe3 .ib6 19.�dl h6 20.eS f6 21.exf6 :Sxf6 22.:Sf3 c4+
23.d4 c5 24.d5 exd5 25 J!xd5 �h7 26.!l:d7 ll:d8 27.�b7 :Sg6 28.�g3
:Sxg3 29.hxg3
29...:SdZ! 30.tba4?
31..!bxb2 c3 32.�xb6
• •
. -� �-
pawns are unstoppable.
� �
, :_ , :-
� �-
�
�
32...c4! !
33.�b4 a5!!
34..!bxc4
36...WcS!
Black wins the knight. It is not sure that Black had foreseen this,
but luck favours the brave!
37.�b2
The point is that after 37J%a4 (37J !b3 Wxa5 38.a3? Wh5+ 39.�gl
Wdl+) Black wins with 37... WhS+ 38.�gl Wdl +.
0-1
Two years later and in a far-away town and an era in vvhich
there \A/ere no publications (allnost), databases or internet (!)
a similar combination took place. This is the version that was
published in some sources:
1 ...:Sd2! 2.eila4?!
But here White could save hilnself with 2.a4! l!xb2 3.as :!!b3
4.axb6 axb6 S.tt:ia4 �a3 (5...bS? 6.tt:ixcS !l:bl + 7.�f2 c3 8.tbd3+-)
6 J:1:xb6 !i:xa4 7.!l:bS=
The saving 1nove. If the ,.vhite ih-pawn was on h3, then White
would lose this position.
9 ...@g6 10.a3
Here John Nunn thought that Black can win by taking his pa,,vn
to a4, his king to c4 and then liquidating into a ,.vinning pawn
ending. But this is not true, as White can defend:
10...a4 11.�g3+ @f5 12.�f3+ @e4 13.@g3 @dS 14.h4! Wb3 15.@h3
©c416.@h2
18.f4 @xa3 19.fS @b3 20.f6 gxf6 21.hS a3 22.h6 a2 23.h7 al=W
24.h8=W ½-½
But 'of course' this was the 'wrong version' of the game. Years.
later the plain truth was revealed; the follo,,ving \Nas the actual
game:
□ Ortueta Esteban Martin
■ Sanz Aguado Jose
Madrid 1933
1.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3.ti:ic3 ti:if6 4.e5 �fd7 5.f4 .tb4 6..td2 0-0 7.ti:if3 f6
8.d4 c5 9.ti:ib5 fxe5 10.dxe5 !!:xf4 11.c3 ge4+ 12..te2 .ta5 13.0 0 -
€l xe5 14)ti xe5 gxe5 15..tf4 !!:f5 16..id3 �f6 17.Wc2 h6 18..te5 �d7
19..ixf6 �xf6 20.�xf6 ¥Nxf6 21.:Sft ¥Ne7 22..th7+ �h8 23.Wg6 il.d7
24.gf7 Wg5 25.Wxg5 hxg5 26.gxd7 �xh7 27.�xb7
27....ib6?!
29...gds 30.h3
Here again we have the case of the previous game 1nore-or-less!
30...gdz! 31.�a4
0-1
Study 1
Timman Jan
1997 0
White is a pawn-up but his queenside faces proble1ns, so he has
to act.
1.f6! gxf6
Forced. If l..Jl:xb3 then 2Ji:h8+ ig8 3.f7 and if l....tg8 White wins
with 2.fxg7+ <j:Je7 3Ji:h8 :i!xb3 4.l!xg8 lt>f6 5.ti:le61
2J�xf7+ <j;Jg8
3.:Sxb7! ! lbxb7?
7 ...g4+ 8.�h4!
1-0
Study 2
Timman Jan
1999 0
1.c6 �xb4 2 .cS! !
It is a draw after 2.axb4? lt:ld6 3.cs lt:lfS+ 4.*g4 lt:lxe3+ 5.47f3 cods
6.lt:le6 47ft 7.c7 lt:le7 8.lt:ld8+ ©e8 9.lbc6 lbc8.
1-0
Study 3
TimmanJan
1999 0
As far as material is concerned, the situation is roughly equal.
White obviously depends on his passed c -pavvns.
1.�b4!
1...:Sbl
2.a3!
2...as 3.c6
3...axb44.c5!!
4...bxa3
4...tbxcS fails to 5.c7 t2Je4+ 6.fxe4 !l:cl 7.axb4 and a white pavvn
will promote.
5.c7
Now the black rook has to hurry back to the bottom rank to stop
the \'Vhite passed pawns.
5...:Sgl+ 6.©h3!
For two reasons, both of which will become apparent, the only
good square for the king.
6...:Sg8
Here is our theme again! Now we see why the king had to go to
h3; on the second rank a check on d2 vvould be annoying.
8...:Sg8
9.cxb7 a2
10.b8=YN!
This is the only way to queen which wins, as 'Arill become clear
in a while. The alternative 10.c8=W? only draws after 10...al= V.i
11.Wxg8+ ©xg8 12.b8=V.i+ ©f7 13.Wc7+ ©e6.
The other option with 13 ...i>f8 also loses: 14.V.ig7+ 'i!?e8 15.Wg8+
©d7 16.Wxh7+ i>d6 17.We4+-
And this is the second reason for White's sixth move; the white
king assists in weaving a mating net!
Study 4
Timman Jan
2017 0
A near twin position of the study 1; there are just some extra
pawns on the kingside...
And \,Vhite wins, as his king enters e6, so be-cause of this wrong
would be 16.c6? 'ii>d6=
1-0
Study 5
Hanssen L.
1932 0
1.ttld6 ttic7
2.d5!
Taking the e6 square away from the black knight, while at the
same tilne preparing the final combination.
1-0
Study 6
Timman Jan
2017 □
1. <tlcS E!f8
Stopping 2.e7.
2.<tlf4!
Again the only path! 4.@g2? fails to 4...'.E:h8 5.tcie6 t2:id7! 6.es ©a7
7 .tcif8 f1xf8 8.e6 Elxf2+! 9.©xf2 lt:lf6-+