EVERYMAN CHESS

www.everymanchess.com
First published in 2009 by Gloucester Publishers pic (formerly Everyman Publishers
pic), Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1 V OAT

Copyright© 2009 Timothy Taylor

The right of Timothy Taylor to be identified as the author of this work has been
asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a re­
trieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic,
magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of
the publisher.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN: 978 1 85744 584 8

Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480,
246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480.

All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Northburgh House,
10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT
tel: 020 7253 7887 fax: 020 7490 3708
email: info@everymanchess.com; website: www.everymanchess.com

Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this
work under licence from Random House Inc.

To my beautiful wife Liz

EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES

Chief advisor: Byron Jacobs
Commissioning editor: John Emms
Assistant editor: Richard Palliser

Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton.

Cover design by Horatio Monteverde.
Printed and bound in the UK by Clays, Bungay, Suffolk.
Contents I

Bibliography 5
Introduction 7

1 The Critical Move 9

I'm a rook up, I must be lost! 13

If I had known better, I wouldn't have developed a piece 19

Two rooks on one square? That should work! 27

A blunderful opportunity 33

Rooks belong behind passed pawns -sometimes! 38

2 Opening Preparation 48
Dreev who? 50
I'm special - someone prepared just for me! 55
Inadequate preparation and positional
misevaluation leads to victory 63
Chess has come to this! 70

"I won it last night, at two in the morning!" 74

3 The Endgame and the Clock 82
Seventeen moves in two seconds 85
Blitzin' don't pay 95
I think too much 103
Thirty second buzzer chess 110
Saved by Anand! 120

4 Winning the Won Game 130

Unlucky thirteen 132
"But darling, why didn't you play it?" 139
"You mean all I get is one measly pawn?" 145
"Material is even, how about a draw?" 150
Three pawns ain't enough 156

5 Beating a Grandmaster 163

Bobby Fischer would have killed me 163
Grandmaster dodges phantom punch 175
The Nimzowitsch implodes 180
I take the master class -but don't pass! 184
Routine play don't pay 193

6 Underground Innovation 198

Never trust a kid eating muesli 199
Play at your own risk! 203

Index of Openings 206

Index of Complete Games 207
[ Bibliography I

Books
Chess World Championships, James H. Gelo (McFarland 1988)
My Sixty Memorial Games, Bobby Fischer (Simon and Schuster 1969)
Leonid Stein, Master of Attack, Raymond Keene (Caissa Books 1988)
The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal, Mikhail Tal (Everyman 2003)
Tal-Botvinnik 1960, Mikhail Tal (Russell Enterprises 2003)
Beating the King's Indian and Grunfeld, Timothy Taylor (Everyman 2006)
Bird's Opening, Timothy Taylor (Everyman 2005)
Pawn Sacrifice, Timothy Taylor (Everyman 2008)
Chess for Zebras, Jonathan Rowson (Gambit 2006)
Maneuvers in Moscow, Raymond Keene & David Goodman (MacMillan 1985)
Play the Queen's Gambit, Chris Ward (Everyman 2005)
Carlsbad International Chess Tournament, Aron Nimzovich (Dover 1930/1981)
The World's Championship Chess Match Played at Havana between Jose Raul Capablanca
and Dr Emanuel Lasker, Jose Raul Capablanca (no publisher listed; 1921)
Think Like a Grandmaster, Alexander Kotov (Batsford 1971)
Sicilian Dragon, Classical and Levenfish Variations, Attila Schneider (Caissa Chess
Books 2000)
Der Komplette Drachen, Der Jugoslawische Angriff9.i..c4, Attila Schneider (Caissa
Chess Books 2001)
Danish Dynamite, Karsten Muller & Martin Voigt (Russell Enterprises 2003)

Computer Programs and Databases:

Chessbase.com, Fritz 11, Chessbase 9, Megabase 2008

Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Joe Cepiel for pushing me to make this book better.

5
 Introduction I

"The way of combat is never based on personal choice and fancies, but constantly
changes from moment to moment"- Bruce Lee

After my internet chess column, True Combat, was terminated with extreme
prejudice in January 2007, I received many encouraging emails. Most of these
were simple and welcome expressions of support, such as "this was my favourite
column on the site" or "I hope you can continue the column somewhere else", etc.
However, the more detailed letters touched on what I think is the heart of what
made True Combat a popular feature among chess aficionados who actually play.
The essential point is simply this-my problems were their problems.
The players who wrote me were not IMs or GMs, but their struggles were es­
sentially the same as my own. I have a hard time beating GMs -a B player has a
hard time beating A players. I get a bad pairing or the tournament director makes
a bad call-my readers have had the same experience. I get a won game- and
don't win -everybody who plays knows this one.
In other words, I'm in the trenches, battling through modern chess as it is actu­
ally played. Meanwhile, some other, perhaps more famous chess authors, gave up
tournament chess -gave up true combat - so long ago that they have never
played a serious game with a digital clock!
The brave new world of computers has seriously changed the way we prepare
for our games, but as for actual play- let's think again about that digital clock.
Nothing has changed the actual combat experience of tournament chess more than
the digital clock and its companion, one session chess.
When Capablanca challenged Lasker for the World Championship, the time
limit was fifteen moves per hour with the session limited to four hours. Then the game
Tru e C o m b a t C h ess

was adjourned, and played off the next day, at that same slow rate of speed. No
wonder the old masters played the endgame so well!
I realize that adjournments are a thing of the past, due to the fear of computer
assistance -but one must also recognize the loss of chess quality that comes with
this necessity.
Here in the USA, the standard rate of play for a "serious" game is forty moves
in two hours (averaging to five moves faster per hour than Lasker-Capablanca)
followed by one hour of sudden death. This means that if the game goes a total of
one hundred moves, the last sixty would be played at the rate of... sixty moves per
hour, or four times the speed of Dr Emanuel and Don Jose! This sort of "speed at
all costs" way of playing chess can turn a theoretically drawn position into a loss
(Game 11 in this book), or even worse, a player with much better over the board
chances might lose on time (see Game 13).
Furthermore, instead of one four-hour session per day, most American tour­
naments feature two six-hour sessions per day! And then we are supposed to play
perfectly in the twelfth hour, especially since we had a ten minute break between
rounds!
I love to play (on the rare occasions when I get a chance) in international tour­
naments where there is one game a day, and I particularly love to play in the First
Saturday tournaments in Budapest. But the time limit played there -game in two
hours, with a thirty second increment-comes with its own set of new problems.
A player with no advantage on the board, but a big advantage on the clock (see
Game 14) can play virtually eternally, with no chance of running out of time­
while the player on the bad side of the chronometer can't so much as sprint to the
rest room, for fear of losing on time! And with no second time control, that bath­
room break is never going to come- until the game is over. This is not the pretti­
est form of combat, but it's the reality of twenty-first century chess.
I've been there- I'm going back into the trenches in two weeks to play in a six
round Swiss system event-yes, 40/2, SD/1, two games a day.
I'll report back on another day, if I survive!

Timothy Taylor
Parma Heights, Ohio,
January 2009

8
[ Chapter One
The Critical Move
Before I begin discussing the theme of
this chapter- that single critical move
that changes everything- ! want to
send a shout-out to the readers and
players who appreciated my online
column. This book is for you! So I'm
not going to simply republish what has
already been seen on the net. Every
game in this book is new!
I have looked for high quality, in­
structive games, particularly against
titled players (Excepting, of course, the
five games played by my wife in the
"Winning the Won Game" section). Of
the twenty-two games that feature my
own play, twelve of my opponents are
Grandmasters, five are International
Masters, leaving only five untitled, and
all are at least national master strength.
However, the quality of the opposi­
tion doesn't mean I don't have plenty
of new screw-ups - and the occasional
success- to entertain, and I hope, in­
struct you!
I
Note that while each individual
game is new, I will deal with some of
the same eternal chess themes that I
covered in the Internet column: open­
ing preparation, converting endgame
advantages, and so forth.
Which brings us to the subject of
this chapter: What is "the critical
move" if not an eternal problem? Eve­
ryone who plays chess has this experi­
ence: "If only I had played this move
instead of that, I would have won the
game! I played thirty great moves­
and one bad one- and I lost! Chess is
not fair! Life is not fair!" Agreed.
Let's say you look at a chess prob­
lem, "White to play and win". You
know right off that the first move for
White is critical. It might be subtle to
the point of obscurity, but you can
search for it, and in most cases, find the
winner eventually.
True combat doesn' t work that way.
When analyzing these games, I saw
9
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s
over and over that the real problem
was not finding the critical move-but
rather recognizing that the critical
moment was there-in other words,
knowing when to look.
If someone showed me the position
after move 28 in Game 1, and said,
"Black to play and win" - I would
laugh! "This is easy!" I'd say, and I'd
be right. The answer is an obvious two
mover, no tricks, no sacrifices, nothing
special at all.
And yet I missed this during the
game! Why? The answer is not so sim­
ple; it's more than just not knowing the
critical move was upon me, I was also
affected by the previous course of the
game, which led me to a misevaluation
of the position: namely, I didn't know I
was winning! If you know you're win­
ning, you'll look for a winning move. If
you think you're losing, or barely
drawing, as I did, then you won't look
hard enough to see an easy two mover!
I will go into more detail about the
mental factors as I take you through
the game analysis, but before that, I
want to show you a similar fiasco that
befell my friend Takashi Kurosaki- at
just the moment when he had a forced
win against the Mongolian Grandmas­
ter Dashzeveg Sharavdorj!
D.Sha ravdorj-T.Kurosa ki
National Open,
Las Vegas 2005
Classical Benoni
1 d4 c5
10
The Classical Benoni is Takashi's
favourite defence: we've contested this
opening position no less than eleven
times! So Tak had plenty of experience
against an IM, and was ready to take
on a GM.
2 dS es 3 e4 d6 4 c4 i.. e 7 s tLlf3 tLlf6 6
tLlc3 0-0 7 i.e2 tLlbd7 8 0-0 a6 9 a3 tLle8
10 b4 b6 11 l:.b1 g6 12 ..th6 tLlg7 13
'iid 2 f6 14 tLle1 'iic 7 15 tLld3 �f7 16 ..te3
fs 17 f4 ..tf6 18 bxcs bxcs 19 ..tf3 �e7
20 exfs gxfs 21 fxes tLlxes 22 tLlxes
..txes 23 ..tgs l::!.e8 24 tLle2 ..td7 25 tLlf4
�ab8 26 h4 �xb1 27 �xb1 �b8 28 �f1
l:.b2 29 'ilVe1 'ilVb8 30 hS 'ilVb3 31 h6 tLle8
32 'ilVg3 'it>h8 33 'ilVh4 llb1 34 l:.xb1
'iixb1+ 35 Wh2 'ir'c1 36 g3 'ir'xa3
Black takes a pawn and, if White
can't generate concrete kingside
threats, will have serious winning
chances with his outside runner.
37 'iih s 'it>g8 38 ..th4 'iib 2+ 39 ..tg2
..tf6!
Black coordinates his pieces with
this defensive block, and ...
40 i.. gs as!
Heads for the goal line!
41 tLle6 a4 42 tLld8 ..txd8

With the elimination of this danger­
ous piece, Black gains a decisive ad­
vantage.
43 �xdB 'i!Ves 44 'i!VgS+ 'it>fB 45 'ir'c1 tt:Jf6
46 �f3 tt:Jg4+ 47 'it>g2 'i!Ve3 48 'ir'b2 tt:Jes l
The black knight rules!
49 �h5
After the game was over Tak put it
on his chess computer- as everyone
does these days-and later still told me
(looking like the Cat in the Hat who
has just been sent out of the house) that
Fritz had him up plus 5 and he still
hadn't won!
This certainly piqued my curiosity,
so I took a look at the game myself. I
could see that right here, Tak had an
easy win- and by the time of the next
move, GM Sharavdorj had counterplay
and the easy win was long gone -yes,
right here, right now is the critical
move.
I didn't think it was too hard to
find - the winning move was also the
most consistent and logical continua­
tion- and I asked Tak how he had
missed it. He gave a very intelligent,
honest explanation, that went about
T h e C r i t i c a l Mo ve
like this: "When you're playing a
Grandmaster (let me note, aside, that
the rating difference in this game was
about 400 points!) you're not so much
trying to win, but trying not to lose. So
when I saw the clear draw, I didn' t
look further for the clear win."
This goes back to what I was saying
about misevaluation of the position- if
you don't think you're winning, you
won't find the winning move! And
here, Tak still has that 400 rating point
difference in his mind, so he doesn't
realize that his position on the board is
overwhelming, GM opponent notwith­
standing.
If he were playing a weaker player,
he certainly would have looked for a
"forward" move instead of a "back­
ward" secure the draw move.
The other critical factor about criti­
cal moves is that once again, they don't
announce themselves! Asked to find a
forced win in this position, Tak, an ex­
cellent tactician, would find it in sec­
onds-but he simply didn't look long
enough to realize that he had a forced
win!
49 ...'i!Vxh6??
The only thing good about this
move is that Black maintains a perpet­
ual check if White plays his only
counter-chance, 50 'i!Vb8. Bu t wait! With
the black queen even more strongly
placed right where it is on e3, the per­
petual is still there if one needs it-so
instead of taking an unimportant
pawn, can't Black play something more
active? What is that logical, consistent
move? Hasn' t Black been advancing
11
T r u e Co m b a t C h e s s
his best asset, the passed a-pawn, every
chance he could get for the last ten
moves? Wouldn't it be strong to move
it to the sixth rank, just two squares
from queening- with tempo?
The only question is if 50 'ifb8
works - ah, but then we have some
very interesting checks ...
Here is the win: With the correct
49 ... a3! Black either mates White or gets
a new queen. White has only two de­
fences: counter-attacking with 50 1Wb8
or passively defending the second rank
with 50 'iic2.
Anything else loses virtually imme­
diately, e.g. 50 'ifb1 'iid2+ 51 Wg1 a2
etc.
Let's see the critical counter-attack
first:
a) 50 1ib8 'ii'd2+
51 Wf1 (if 51 Wh3 f4+! forces mate in
five moves or less, e.g. 52 g4 'i!Vd3+ 53
Wh4 lt:'lf3+ 54 Wh3 'iifl mate) 51...'iic l +
52 Wf2 1Wh2+! . The advanced a-pawn
supports this check, and Black gets an­
other queen. That's pretty decisive-by
now Fritz is up to + 13!
b) Can White defend? 50 'iic2 f4!
12
gives u s the answer- No!. Every
black piece is attacking: 51 gxf4 (or 51
'ii'xh7 i.h3+! and mates) 5l...lt:'ld3 52
Wh2 'iixf4+ 53 Wh1 'iifl + 54 Wh2 'iih3+
55 Wg1 'itg3+ 56 'ii'g2 ii'xg2+ 57 �xg2
a2 58 ..1f6 lt:'le5 and once again the a­
pawn goes through.
So Black was absolutely winning;
Anand could not have saved that posi­
tion against Tak - if my old pal had
gone forward with 49 ... a3!.
50 '1Wb8 'ii'd 2+
Black might still be able to make a
complicated attempt to win with
50 ... ..te8, but the easy one is gone.
51 Wf1 'iic1+ 52 �g2 'iid 2+ 53 Wf1
'iic1+ Yz-Yz
So Tak missed the critical move by
too much "GM respect"! Yes, GMs do
deserve our respect, but we must re­
spect the truth of the position more­
and after all, passed pawns must be
pushed!
And now on to my debacle, which
shares some key features with Tak's
game- most importantly, I underesti­
mate my position at the critical mo­
ment.

I'm a Rook Up, I Must Be Lost!
Camel
M.Lee-T.Taylor
US Open, Chicago 2006
English Opening
Unlike Tak, I was not "playing up"
(playing a higher-rated opponent) but
"playing down" against a lower-rated
foe. This doesn't necessarily mean
much when, as here, the opponent is
young and improving!
But I did start the game with a kind
of conditioned imperative: "I must win
with Black against this lower-rated
player." This kind of attitude, as com­
mon as it is-and as necessary, in
American Swiss opens like this-can
lead to some serious over the board
mistakes.
I wish all my tournaments were in­
ternational events where there is no
shame in drawing with Black, so one
can simply play the best move without
such concern over the result!
1 C4
About a year later I faced a similar
opening against a much higher-rated
opponent: fellow IM John Donaldson.
The tournament situation and the qual­
ity of the opponent made a draw ac­
ceptable, and with that in mind I equal­
ized easily in the opening and drew
without any difficulty: 1 l2Jf3 fS 2 c4
liJ£6 3 ltJc3 d6 4 g3 c6 5 ..tg2 eS 6 d3 'ii'c7
(Black has no problems; the early ...c7-
c6 blunts the g2-bishop, White has no
The C r i t i c a l Mo ve
central outpost for his queen's knight,
and Black's centre withstands early
assaults)
7 0-0 ..te7 8 l:tb1 aS 9 a3 0-0 10 b4
axb4 1 1 axb4 ..th8 12 bS i.e6 13 bxc6
bxc6 14 'il!Vb3 ltJa6 15 'il!Vb7 l:tfb8 16 'ii'xc7
ltJxc7 (dead even, but not the kind of
position I would like against a lower­
rated opponent, since Black has virtu­
ally no winning chances) 17 l:txb8+
l:txb8 18 ltJgS ..td7 19 cS ..tg8 20 cxd6
..txd6 21 ltJf3 l:tb3 22 i.d2 :b2 23 l:!.b1
.l:txb 1 + 24 ltJxb 1 tt::lcdS 25 tt::lc3 ..tf7 26
..tf1 ..te7 27 ..tel V2-V2 J.Donaldson­
T.Taylor, Joshua Tree 2007.
1 fs 2 tt::lc 3 ltJf6 3 g3 d6 4 ..tg2 es s d3
...
..te7
Better is 5 ... c6 which could trans­
pose to the Donaldson game, but as
you will soon see, I was determined to
win, and so embarked on sharp and
risky play instead of solid equalization!
6 .l:tb1 o-o 7 b4 'ii'e8
Probably too primitive, but at this
point I underestimated my opponent.
8 e3 ltJc6
This move is both a chess mistake
and a psychological one: Black is essen-
13
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s
tially saying, "I can ignore your pres­
sure on the long diagonal, I don't care
about your d5-square, I'll win with
piece play!"
This is not, to put it kindly, an ob­
jective analysis of the position. Black
should still block White's activity with
8 ... c6, or at least manoeuvre into such a
position on the next move -but I rather
arrogantly dismissed the idea of mak­
ing such "defensive" moves.
9 ltJge2
9 ..te6? (DDT!)
...
One could say that this is one too
many risky moves, or just bluntly state
the fact that this move is a serious mis­
take!
Black invites the white knight into
d5, its preferred outpost in the English
Opening, and (because of the latent
fork Black set up himself) makes it im­
possible to exchange knight for knight.
Now White is just better.
Also bad is the wild 9 ..e4, which is
. looking in any direction for the best
tactically sound (taking the pawn gives
Black good play: 10 dxe4 fxe4 11 ltJxe4
..tf5 12 ctJ2c3 ltJxe4 13 ltJxe4 'ii'g6 and
Black has tremendous pressure against
14
the pinned white knight) but strategi­
cally suspect. After the quiet 10 0-0
Black is overextended and soon stands
worse: 10 .. .'�f7 1 1 b5 ltJe5 12 dxe4
12 .. .'i¥xc4 (12 ... fxe4 13 ltJxe4 shows
the problem -White is getting a centre
pawn for a wing pawn) 13 f4 ltJd3 14
exf5 ..ixf5 15 ltJd4 ..ig6 16 'ii'b3 'ii'xb3 1 7
axb3 ltJxcl 1 8 .!:tbxcl and Black's posi­
tion is full of holes.
Best is the above referenced volun­
tary retreat (defence!) 9 . .ltJd8, when
.
Black is only a little worse. Yes, White
will obtain the long-term advantage of
the two bishops after 10 ltJd5 ltJe6 1 1
ltJxe7+, but a t least it's Black's less ac­
tive bishop that goes, and Black can
block the dangerous g2-bishop with
... c7-c6 -the move I stubbornly
avoided!
Of course, I don't remember even
considering ...ltJd8 - I wasn't looking
for a retreat, but I should have been
move.
Instead, I quickly "developed" with
9 .....te6, and as soon as White played
his next move I realized right away

that I had lost the opening battle.
One more thing: I didn't notice this
until I had finished the whole book,
and went back to reread it-but I dis­
covered then that a very very common
mistake in my games was making a
"natural developing move" like 9 . .i.e6
. .
instead of a thoughtful "non­
developing move" like 9 .. lLld8!. I am
.
sure I'm not the only person with this
problem: one is conditioned from an
early age to "get the pieces out", but at
a high level that "rule" breaks down.
There are so many exceptions to the
idea that "rapid development is good"
that one might do better to "unlearn"
that concept, as Jonathan Rowson
would advise. In general, one must
look for the best move, every move:
which means in this case, and many
others throughout the book, that one
must not quickly and automatically
make a developing move-one must
think through the position first, and if
the best move means moving an al­
ready developed piece twice or thrice,
go for it!
I decided to come up with a name
for this type of mistake - realizing that
I was traumatized by the discovery of
these numerous errors, the name ap­
peared of its own accord: Dubious De­
velopment Traumatizes!
Or DDT (poison!) for short.
Thus the parenthetical note right af­
ter 9 ...i.e6, and unfortunately, we will
. 10 ... .a.c8, using a whole rook to defend
see those letters several more times in
this book.
Most of these mistakes are mine­
some belong to my wife-but we'll also
T h e Critica l Mo ve
see one GM get a DDT!
10 tLldsl
Let's count the ways White is better:
1. Black can't exchange knight for
knight, as lO . . lLlxdS? loses a piece to 11
.
cxdS.
2. 10. . .i.xd5 is positionally terrible,
.
as White has an unopposed light­
squared bishop that controls the centre
and blockades Black's queenside, while
the black c-pawn is backward on a
half-open file.
3. Since the dominant white knight
can't be taken, this bold steed has be­
come the most powerful minor piece
on the board.
4. White threatens to win a pawn on
c7, or trade advantage for advantage
by taking on e7. If Black meets both
threats with 10 ... .i.d8, Black loses the b­
pawn to a simple manoeuvre.
5. The objectively best move is ex­
tremely ugly! Black can hang on with
a pawn, but I felt this move lacked aes­
thetic charm.
What should I do with this self­
created mess?
15
Tru e C o m b a t C h e s s
10...�d81
Now I would call this (according to
my categories in my recent Pawn Sacri­
fice! book) a "confusion" sacrifice.
Black makes an objectively unsound
pawn sacrifice just to create confusion!
11 bs CfJe7 12 CfJxf6+
White is already slightly confused!
Simpler is 12 CfJxe7+ �xe7 13 �xb7,
when White not only gets the pawn,
but the c6-square as well.
12 ....l:txf6 13 �xb7 .l:.bB 14 i.g2 c6!
The difference between 12 CiJxe7+
and the game continuation appears­
Black finally gets this move in (utilizing
the undefended white rook on b1) and
my position immediately improves!
Of course there is still no real com­
pensation for the pawn, but at least
Black has some activity (I'm counting
the minor threat ... �aS+), and White's
position is no longer so easy to play.
15 a4 ds 16 f4!?
This is not such a bad move, but
makes the game still more complicated
and confusing, which generally bene­
fits the higher-rated player. I was much
more afraid of the simple 16 cxdS,
16
which gives White a clear advantage in
every line: 16 ...CiJxdS (after 16 ... cxdS 17
0-0 Black has nothing for the pawn) 17
0-0! (White gives back the pawn, but
completes his development and can
attack numerous targets in Black's cha­
otic position) 17... cxbS 18 axbS .l:.xbS 19
'ii'a 4 CfJc7 20 .l:.xbS CiJxbS (if 20... 'ii'xbS 21
'ii'xbS CiJxbS 22 �b2 and Black looks
like he's heading for a pawn down
ending) 21 CiJc3 a6 22 �b2 and the
middlegame is as bad as the ending;
White has an ideal Sicilian structure,
while Black's e- and a-pawns are obvi­
ous targets.
On the other hand, what I would
have liked to see was 16 �b2?! �aS+ 17
�fl i.c7 18 f4 dxc4 19 fxeS .l:.h6, when
Black has good counterplay in a messy
and confusing position (the antithesis
of the simple and clear White plus seen
after 16 cxdS).
16...exf4 17 CiJxf4 dxc4 18 CfJxe6 .l:.xe6
19 dxc4 �aS+ 20 �2 CfJg6
21 �xc6?
Too greedy: White throws away his
advantage with this unnecessary pawn
grab.

With an extra pawn already in
ha nd, White should concentrate on
consolidating his position and complet­
ing his castling by hand.
Best is the simple but not very ob­
vious 21 'i!Vc2!. White develops while
eyeing Black's f-pawn; prepares c4-c5
in the event of ... j_b6; and most impor­
tant, defends the bl-rook, which is the
main reason Black has some play.
White is then really threatening to take
on c6, but more importantly, can play
.l:fl and 'it>gl, with a solid extra pawn.
Black has no good counter (Fritz al­
ready claims White is winning), e.g.
2l...lZJe5 (2l ...f4 22 exf4! j_b6+ 23 c5!
shows the value of White's queen de­
velopment, or if 22 ... .l:el 23 .l:el 'i!Vel +
24 �f3 and Black can't take advantage
of the white king's strange position,
while White's material advantage
should bring home the point) 22 l:.fl g6
(if 22 .. .£4 23 'it>gl ! coolly consolidates,
and no compensation for the missing
pawn can be seen) 23 'it>gl and Black
has nothing for the pawn.
21 ....l:xc6 22 bxc6 .l:xb1 23 'i!VdS+ 'it>h8 ?
Blunders back! But that doesn't
really matter, since I haven't yet
reached the critical move!
Where is that elusive beastie? All I
can say is, it will appear soon!
Objectively I should take the draw
with 23 ...'ii'f7 24 'ii'x a5 'i¥xc4 25 .l:dl
.l:xcl 26 !hcl 'i!Vxcl 27 "ir'd5+ 'it>f8 28
'ii'xf5+ and White gives perpetual
check.
But I had some crazy idea I could
win, so I back-ranked my king in the
corner... and created a lost position!
Th e C r i t i c a l Mo ve
24 'i!Vxas lZJes
With a one-move threat of ...lt:Jd3+
which White...
25 c7??
Completely misses!
Correct is the obvious 25 .l:dl, com­
pleting his development while threat­
ening 26 .l:d8. After the forced
25 ...lt:Jxc6 White takes another pawn, 26
'ii'xf5, also attacking Black's rook, and
the best Black can do is 26 ...l::tb4 27 c5
.l:txa4 28 j_b2, when White has an extra
pawn and the better position.
The problem with being the higher­
rated player in the game so far is that I
saw through my own moves! I didn't
like my opening; I didn' t believe in my
pawn sacrifice; I saw winners for White
and nothing special for Black on almost
every move - I just got depressed.
Even though White's mistakes were
keeping me in the game, were even
now handing me the game- I still could
not be happy.
It's a problem I have, which I ad­
dressed in one of my Internet columns:
I hate to "win ugly" . And this is cer­
tainly one of my ugliest games!
17
True Com b a t Chess
Now, for no logical reason, I have a
winning position -but I was too de­
pressed to realize it!
2S ctJd3+
...
The computer says Black is winning
in all variations, and the computer is
right-but this human remained blind
to the victory sign before my eyes!
26 'it>e2
Other tries are even worse: 26 'it>f3
'We4+ 27 'it>e2 ctJxcl + 28 .!:i.xcl .!:i.b2+ 29
'it>dl 'iif3+ 30 'it>el 'iie2 mate; 26 'it>g2
'We4+ 27 'it>h3 tLlf2 mate; 26 'it>fl .!:i.xcl +
etc.
26 ttJxc1+ 27 .!:i.xc1
...
The only try, as king moves lose
immediately: 27 'it>f2 ctJd3+ or 27 'it>dl
tLlb3+.
27 .l:lxc1 28 'iid 2
.••
And without any fanfare, the criti­
cal move is upon us.
I should be looking for a win! I
should be rejoicing! I have come out of
an ugly opening and a pretty well lost
middlegame to be a rook up!
All White has for it is a single dan­
gerous pawn, but that can be neutral­
ized.
18
It hardly takes a genius to solve the
problem of this single pawn, and an IM
should hardly be challenged by this
"Black to play and win" position. Cor­
rect is 28 .. Jlxc4 29 'iid8 'iig8! and
White can resign, or if he wishes, can
wait a few moves for Black to play
...h7-h6, 'it>h7 and then a combined
queen and rook attack will force mate
or win the c-pawn.
But I missed it!
The question is, "Why?"
The best answer I can come up with
is that my mind's eye was still dwell­
ing on the previous part of the game. A
few moves ago, I was about ready to
resign if White had played the evident
25 l:tdl. I was still kicking myself for
my risky and failed opening strategy. I
doubted I would have even been able
to confuse things had White played 12
tLlxe7+... and on and on, I'm a fish,
whine whine whine, etc.
But this is ridiculous! The time for
self-recrimination is later, crying in
your beer in your hotel room! At the
board, one must fight!
Furthermore, every new move in
chess is like a new spin of the roulette
wheel - anything can happen.
One can even win!
But I, moping, just thought my op­
ponent had found a different way to
win (seeing only 28 .. Jhc4 29 'i!Yd8 "and
wins" without even looking further),
and so came to the despairing conclu­
sion that I should now (after avoiding
the half-point at all costs earlier) play
for a draw by giving back my rook!
28 'iih 5+?? 29 'it>d3 .l:txc4
.•.

I saw 30 �xc4 'i*'f7+ 31 'it'dS 'i*'xc7+
with the worse half of a draw -but
leaving one's king in the comer while
not defending the back rank is a recipe
for disaster.
30 'ii'b41
And so I am cooked.
30... h6
There are no saves.
31 'ii'xc4 'ii'd 1+ 32 �c3 'ii'e 1+ 33 �b2
'iid 2+ 34 'ii'c2 'ii'b4+ 35 �a2 1-0
The best lesson you can learn from
this game - and I can learn from this
game - is the idea of the "new posi­
tion" . Each move is a new spin, and it
is better to delight in one's present for­
tune than to whine about the past!
If I Had Known Better, I
Wouldn't Have Developed a Piece
Game 2
S.Ovsejevitsch-T.Taylor
First Saturday (November),
Budapest 2003
Queen 's Gambit Declined
T h e C r i t i c a l Mo ve
There's no rule as to when the criti­
cal move may appear. You might think
that it's likely to show up later in the
game (as in the previous game, where
the crisis came at move 28), but it's also
possible to win- or lose - a game right
in the opening.
Here the game turns on move seven!
I had no idea that I was already in a life
or death struggle and made an innocu­
ous developing move- which gives
White an overwhelming positional ad­
vantage! Meanwhile, the correct, very
hard to see non-developing move would
have given me an excellent game!
1ll\f3 d5 2 c4 e6 3 d4ll\f6 4ll\c3 ll\bd7
5 cxd5
In the article I wrote for Chess Life
about my first experiences in Hungary
("My Hungarian Adventure"), I la­
mented over the fact that my opening
of choice against 1 d4, the Cambridge
Springs (which I had prepared very
well), did not once occur in any of my
games!
In every game where I faced the
Queen's Gambit, White opted out with
the Exchange Variation, as here, when
Black has a hard time equalizing, let
alone finding counterplay.
I shouldn' t have been so sur­
prised -or to put it another way, my
opening preparation was deficient. It's
a characteristic of modem chess that
you try to get "your" opening, and
keep your opponent out of his comfort
zone. Furthermore, the players with
White try more and more to avoid forc­
ing, prepared lines, where they might
19
Tru e C o m b a t C h e s s
run afoul of some Fritzian innovation.
The solid Exchange Variation is
ideal (for White) from this modem
point of view. Who wants to lose to the
sharp Cambridge Springs (as Karpov
did to Kasparov in their first World
Championship match), when you can
keep a lid on the position and grind
away with plus-equals?
Just for the record, here's the Kar­
pov-Kasparov game, which started
with a slightly different move order,
but could have been reached here after
S i.gS c6, and then 6 e3 �aS 7 cxdS
tt:lxdS 8 'ir'd2 tt:l7b6 9 tt:lxdS 'ir'xd2+ 10
tt:lxd2 exdS 11 i.d3 aS 12 a4 i.b4 13
'it>e2 i.g4+ 14 f3 i.hS 1S h4 0-0 16 g4
i.g6 17 b3 i.xd3+ 18 'it>xd3 .l:tfe8 19
.l:.acl cS
20 i.f4 .l:tac8 21 dxcS tt:ld7 22 c6 bxc6
23 .l:.hd 1 tt:lcS+ 24 'it>c2 f6 2S tt:lfl tt:le6 26
i.g3 .l:.ed8 27 i..f2 cS 28 tt:ld2 c4 29 bxc4
tt:Jcs 30 e4 d4 31 tt:lb1 d3+ 32 'it>b2 d2 0-1
A.Karpov-G.Kasparov, World Cham­
pionship (47th matchgame), Moscow
198S.
One very good reason to avoid the
Cambridge Springs!
20
Note that in his excellent book, Play
the Queen's Gambit, GM Chris Ward
recommends that White avoid the
Cambridge Springs and other counter­
attacking systems with the Exchange
Variation.
But I was not aware of these
trends - sure, I played the Exchange
Variation myself as White from time to
time, but to me it wasn't the main line.
I didn't realize that (when preparing
my Black defence), instead of delving
into the razor-sharp Cambridge lines I
enjoyed, I should have immersed my­
self in the intricacies of the Exchange
Variation. I should have been aware of
one important sideline as well ... but I
wasn't, and while this game was a
learning experience, it wasn't a very
enjoyable one!
s ... exds 6 i.f4
I thought then, and still now, that
the normal 6 i..gS, pinning the f6-
knight, puts more pressure on Black.
This is the main line of the Exchange
Variation.
I must add that (looking from the
opposite side of the board for a mo­
ment) in the last two years or so I, too,
have joined the crowd and taken up
the Exchange Variation full-time. I be­
lieve my results are quite typical for
the line: of seven games played, I have
scored three wins and four draws, with
no losses. The draws came against the
two GMs and two IMs I faced -I beat
all the untitled players rather easily.
Even when facing my highest-rated
opponent- famed GM and super­
model lover Eric Lobron -I was never

in danger of losing, and certainly stood
somewhat better out of the opening.
The Exchange Variation is formidably
solid!
Here's Taylor-Lobron in full - the
position after move 10 is also of interest
for the main game: 1 d4 tt:'lf6 2 c4 e6 3
tt:'lc3 d5 4 cxd5 exd5 5 i.g5 i.e7 6 e3 c6
7 'iic2 tt:'lbd7 8 i.d3 tt:'lh5 9 i.xe7 'ii'xe7
10 tt:'lf3 tt:'lf4
11 i.fl tt:'lb6 12 0-0-0 tt:'le6 13 i.d3
tt:'lc7 14 tt:'le5 g6 15 h4 i.e6 16 h5 0-0-0 17
hxg6 hxg6 18 f4 tt:'ld7 19 'ir'e2 Wb8 20
'iif3 c5 21 tt:'lxd7+ i.xd7 22 dxc51hh1 23
nxh1 'ii'xc5 24 Wb1 neB 25 e4 dxe4 26
i.xe4 i.f5 27 g4 i.xe4+ 28 tt:'lxe4 'ir'd5 29
:d1 'ii'c6 30 tt:'lg5 'ii'xf3 31 tt:'lxf3 tt:'le6 Vz­
Vz T.Taylor-E.Lobron, Manhattan Chess
Club International, New York 1985.
The lesser version of the Exchange,
with i.f4, as played by Ovsejevitsch, is
not bad, though I think Black should
equalize with correct play -but there
are tricks!
Unaware of my opponent's devious
intentions, at this point in the game I
wasn't worried at all - for some years
before I had drawn easily against a
Th e C r i t i c a l Mo ve
strong GM in this variation.
6 c6 7 'ir'c21?
.•.
Here is that tricky sideline - and the
critical move of the whole game is
upon us with no waiting and no warn­
ing!
The most popular move here is the
simple 7 e3, which I had faced before:
Black answers 7...tt:'lh5 8 i.g5 i.e7 9
i.xe7 'iVxe7 10 it'c2.
Compare this position with Taylor­
Lobron above, where White's bishop
leaped to g5 in one move. In that game
the same position is reached after
White's tenth move, but White has a
very useful extra tempo: his other
bishop is already at d3. One might
think Lobron regains the tempo with
his following knight move, but this is
not correct. After 10 ...tt:'lf4 11 i.fl tt:'lb6
(1l . ..tt:'lh5 would not have induced a
repetition; I would have answered 12
i.e2, when the black knight is badly
placed on the rim) 12 0-0-0, the black
knight on f4 is still badly placed and
must move again. After 12 ... tt:'le6 13
i.d3 the white bishop is happy, but
Lobron still didn't like his knight, and
21
True Co m b a t C h e s s

so moved it for the fifth time: 13 ...t2lc7
14 lLleS and White was better.
However, in the .i.f4 variation,
White moves his bishop three times in
order to exchange it (.i.f4-g5-e7) and so
Black has the extra tempo and can use it
to good effect with 10 ... g6!, preparing a
later ... .i.f5. After 1 1 0-0-0 l2ldf6 12 .i.d3
t2lg7 13 h3 .i.f5 14 .i.xf5 t2lxf5
throw i t in straight away; that is, in­
stead of Shamkovich's 7 e3, or Obse­
jevitsch's 7 'ii'c2, play 7 h3!?. Unfortu­
nately for White, if Black changes his
plan he can make this pawn move look
like a loss of tempo. Black counters in
Cambridge Springs style with 7... 'ii'a5!
8 'il'c2 .i.b4 (the bishop goes straight to
this active square) 9 lbd2 0-0 10 e3 lbe4
1 1 .l:!:cl lbdf6 12 f3

Black had equalized in

L.Shamkovich-T.Taylor, New York (so far J.Oms Pallise-S.Skembris,
1982, and my GM opponent offered me Paretana 2000) and now Black could
a draw which I accepted. An older, have equalized with 12 ... lbxc3 13 bxc3
very high quality example shows .i.a3 14 l:.b1 lbh5 15 .i.e5 'il'd8, when
White playing on a few moves to no Black has active play on both sides.
avail: 15 g4 t2ld6 1 6 t2le5 t2ld7 1 7 t2ld3 Now back to our main game.
lbe4 1/2-V:z S.Gligoric-L.Pachman, War­
saw 1947.
Note that in Taylor-Lobron, the
analogous plan with 10 ... g6 would fail
miserably after 1 1 0-0-0 lbdf6 12 h3
lbg7 13 g4 and the black bishop never
gets to f5.
We will see this motif again in the
main game.
Now a move order question arises:
if White has success with the h2-h3, g2-
g4 manoeuvre, wouldn't it be useful to

22

The new (to me) 7 �c2 position was
staring me in the face, as was a Ukrain­
ian GM! I saw right away that if
7...lZJh5, as I had played against
Sha mkovich, White can keep his
bishop alive with 8 i..d 2. It didn't seem
logical to me to send the knight to the
rim when I wouldn't catch White's
dangerous bishop, so I thought I
should just develop with 7 ...i..e7, and
then if 8 e3 I have 8 ...lZJh5, which is
even stronger than usual, as I get
White's bishop for a knight.
Without much further thought,
played the critical - and losing ...
7 i.e7?? {DDT)
...
Swing and a miss! One strike, and
you're out!
I had no idea that this move was
critical-but that's what good opening
preparation is all about.
It would be hard for anyone to find
7...lZJh5 over the board -yes, that move
I cavalierly dismissed is by far the best
move in the position- but one should
prepare, at home, not only the main
lines but the sidelines as well! Yes, I
had made a solid draw vs.
Shamkovich, but that doesn't mean the
White players have to play as he did.
They might try to trick me; but tricks
without surprise won't have much ef­
fect.
Before I present some variations,
let's look at an astonishing pair of sta­
tistics. According to the Mega, if Black
plays the obvious development move
7... i..e7 (as I did) White scores a power­
ful 66%. But if Black plays the anti­
positional non-developing 7 ...lZJh5,
Th e C r i t i c a l Mo ve
White scores a miserable 41%!
I'm not saying that White wins by
force after 7 ... i..e7, or loses by force
after 7... lZJh5, but what these statistics
tell me is that 7 �c2 is a trap opening.
White plays it, hoping to score quickly
with a trick, and if he gets his position,
he feels powerful and most of the time,
scores a win.
However, when Black shows him
up with the correct 7 ... lZJh5, White feels
disheartened, wishes he had played the
solid 7 e3, and most of the time, falls
apart!
I'll examine why White is better af­
ter 7... i..e 7 in the next note, but for
now, let's look at why 7...lZJh5 is best:
one needs more than a cursory look,
but as mentioned above, I had no idea
the critical move was already upon me,
perhaps just one minute into the game!
The knight attack forces a decision
on White: the dark-squared bishop has
to move. Defending with a pawn seems
illogical, as Black gets the two bishops
and a solid position: 8 g3!? i..e7 9 h4
lZ:\x£4 10 gxf4 lZJ£6 11 0-0-0 g6 12 e3 V2-1/2
E.Bareev-V.Kramnik, Biel Interzonal
23
Tru e Co m b a t C h es s
1993. Black has solved all his opening
problems, especially that of the light­
squared bishop, which is about to come
out to f5 or g4.
So the bishop must move. If 8 �g5
.te7 with a likely transposition to
Shamkovich-Taylor; in this case there is
no special point to 7 'ii'c2.
This means that the only consistent
reply to 7...l'bh5 is 8 .td2, and yes, this
keeps the cone-headed priest alive, but
is it doing anything? No! It's badly
placed, in the way of various white
pieces, and will be shut in entirely if
White follows with the natural e2-e3 to
develop his other cleric.
Practice shows (and I would have
known, had I studied this position) that
Black has no problems here (after
7...l'bh5 8 .td2) - following are a few
examples. Note that Black has had suc­
cess with a variety of eighth moves; the
critical, only move has already passed,
and now Black can just play chess!
a) 8 ... l'bhf6 (a cheeky reply: Black
says, "Your bishop is so bad on d2 that
I can just reposition with impunity - or
did you want to repeat with 9 .tf4 l'bh5
24
?") 9 0-0-0 (White tries to justify the
bishop placement but gets nowhere)
9 ... .tb4 10 e3 0-0 11 .td3 �e8 12 l'be2
.td6 13 l'bg3 l'b£8 14 �b1 'ii'e7 15 .tc3
l'be4 16 �xe4 dxe4 17 l'bd2 f5 18 l'bc4
.txg3 19 hxg3 .te6 20 b3 .td5 21 .tb2
Vi'e6 22 .ta3 tbd7 23 iVc3 1/2-V2
V.lvanchuk-U.Andersson, Istanbul
Olympiad 2000.
b) 8 ... .te7 (Black provokes a king­
side attack, then goes the other way!) 9
g4 l'bhf6 10 g5 l'bh5 11 0-0-0 l'bb6 12 e4
dxe4 13 iVxe4 .te6 14 �g1 g6 15 tbe5
tbd5 16 'i!Vf3 l'bg7 1 7 h4 l'bf5 18 h5 'i!Vb6
19 ..ic4 0-0-0 20 l:.ge1 l'bxd4 21 'i!Ve4
tbxc3 22 ..ixe6+ l'bxe6 23 ..ixc3 ..ixg5+
24 �b1 �xd1+ 25 �xd1 l:.d8 26 l:.e1
'i!Vxf2 27 hxg6 hxg6 28 a3 ..id2 29 l:le2
'i!Vfl+ 30 �a2 ..ixc3 31 bxc3 l:.d1 0-1
V.Chuchelov-I.Sokolov, Dutch Team
Championship 2001.
c) 8 ...l'bb6 (simplest: Black gets a
free development for all his pieces) 9 e4
dxe4 10 l'bxe4 ..ie7 1 1 l'bg3 ..ig4 12 ..id3
..ixf3 13 gxf3 l'bxg3 14 hxg3 'i!Vxd4 15 0-
0-0 tbd5 16 ..ixh7 'i!Vf6 17 ..ie4 l:lxh1 18
l:.xh1 0-0-0 19 a3 �b8 20 �b1 'i*'e6 21 f4
..if6 22 f5 'i!Ve5 23 .tel Vi'd4 24 ..i£3 'i!Vb6
25 ..ixd5 l:lxd5 26 l:lh8+ l:.d8 27 .l:txd8+
'i*'xd8 28 'i*'e4 �c8 29 g4 'iWe7 30 Vi'c4 a6
31 �c2 �d7 32 Vi'd3+ �e8 33 f3 b5 34
Vi'e4 �d7 35 ..ie3 'ii'e5 36 'ii'xe5 ..ixe5 37
f4 ..id6 38 b4 f6 39 �c3 �c7 40 g5 ..ie7
41 ..id4 1h-V2 E.Bareev-N.Short, Linares
1992.
So knight to the rim would have put
me in the swim, but alas ... Ovsejevitsch
could hardly keep from chortling as he
immediately played ...
8 h31

The Megabase helpfully informs us
that White's winning percentage from
this position has moved up to a re­
markable 70%!
Why is White so much better here?
Let me count the ways:
1. Counterplay against c3 (as in the
Skembris game given above) doesn't
work as that plan requires the bishop
on b4; having lost a tempo with
7...i.e7, Black can't make this work,
e.g. 8 ... Vi'a5 9 e3 i.b4 10 i.d3 and since
Black can't get ... tt:Je4 in, White will
castle out of the pin and stand much
better.
2. The ... tLlhS attack no longer
works, as White preserves the bishop
on its strong diagonal with i.h2.
3. Black can't develop his queen's
bishop to fS, as in Shamkovich-Taylor,
for White will slam the door with a
timely g2-g4- see the following note.
That's a lot of pluses for one little
rook pawn move!
s tt:Jfs
..•
8 ... 0-0 led to the following execution
by slow torture: 9 e3 tLlhS 10 i.h2 g6 1 1
i.d3 tLlg7 1 2 0-0-0 tt:Jb6 13 g4!
Th e C r i t i c a l Mo ve
(Black can't get his light-squared
bishop to a good square- see point
three above; the only thing amusing
about this game is that my fellow suf­
ferer is a 2633 GM!) 13 ... i.e6 14 'it>b1
�c8 15 �cl cS 16 dxcS i.xcS 17 i.eS
'iie7 18 'iie2 a6 19 i.d4 i.d7 20 i.xcS
�xeS 21 tt:Jd4 tLle6 22 f4 tLlxd4 23 exd4
'ii'xe2 24 i.xe2 �cc8 25 i.f3 i.c6 26 b3
�feB 27 %thel f6 28 'it>c2 �f7 29 a4 �xel
30 %hel aS 31 'it>d2 l:id8 32 .l::!.c l 'it>e6 33
tLldl 'it>d6 34 tt:Je3 tt:Jc8 35 fS gS 36 tLldl
�e8 37 �cS b6 38 �cl tLla7 39 tLlc3 tLlc8
40t:bdl tLla7 41t:bc3t:bc8 42 h4 gxh4 43
.l:.hl h6 44 1:1xh4 �h8 45 �h2 t:be7 46
�e2 'it>d7 47 'it>d3 �g8 48 �h2 �h8 49
�hl �h7 50 'it>e3 'it>d6 51 �cl lbg8 52
i.xdS! (this tactical blow finally ends
the torture) 52 .. J:te7+ 53 i.e6 1-0
R.Dautov-V.Milov, Essen 1999.
9 e3t:be6 10 i.h2 g6 11 i.d3 t:bg7 12 g41
Just like Milov, I get the door
slammed in my face!
12 'iia s?l
...
I think it's already time for despera­
tion! Black should lash out with 12 ...h5,
which the computer disdains, and re­
futes as follows: 13 gS lbh7 14 h4 i.fS
25
Tru e Co m b a t C h es s
15 0-0-0 �xd3 1 6 'i!r'xd3 'i!r'aS 1 7 ..ieS
:g8 18 e4 0-0-0 19 exdS cxdS 20 'i!r'c2
with a decisive advantage. But still, I'd
rather play this line than the game, as
White's moves are not so obvious, and
at least Black got the light-squared
bishops off the board.
13 0-0-0
Now my smiling GM has an easy
attacking game, while I have no serious
counterplay.
13 ...�e6 14tZ::le s cs
If 1 4...0-0 15 �b1 and White sets up
an attack, or 14 ... 0-0-0 15 tZ::lbS 'i!r'xa2 1 6
tZ::lxc6 and wins.
15 �b5+ �fB 16 dxcs �xes 17 gS!
26
I'm playing without my king's rook,
while White's last move undermines
my isolated queen's pawn.
This is enough for any GM, and
Ovsejevitsch finishes efficiently.
17 ...�f5 18 �d3 tZ::le4 19 �xe4 dxe4 20
tZ::ld 7+ �xd7 21 .!:i.xd7 tZ::le6 22 �xe4
White has an extra pawn plus a
winning attack, and so ...
22 .. J�c8 23 'iVxb7 1-0
I resigned!
What a debacle! I hardly felt that I
was in the game after 8 h3, and discov­
ering that a 2600 GM (who apparently
also didn't do his homework!) shared
my doghouse was not a great comfort.
What can we learn from this? Two
things: Once again, it's important to
remember that the critical move can
come at any time. Note that it's impera­
tive that Black find 7...tZ::lh5, but after 8
�d2 he has his choice of several rea­
sonable moves. Second, to play chess at
a high level these days, one is simply
required to study one's openings thor­
oughly -even the sidelines that only
score 41 %!

Two Rooks on One Square?
Th at Should Workl
Came 3
L.Lju bojevic-T. Taylor
New York lnternational1984
Sicilian Defence
I have played three Grandmasters
who were more than just your regular
GM- Larsen, Korchnoi, and Ljubo­
jevic- all of them were, at the time of
our games, rated in the top three in the
world.
I scored 0-3, as might be expected,
but I might well have got on the score­
board in this game -had I just found
the critical move.
In this case the move in question is
strategical, rather than tactical, and it
was completely possible to find at the
IM level. I simply failed to look deeply
enough- I should have been looking
forward to my middlegame piece ar­
ray, rather than to immediate tactical
consequences.
1 e4 cs 2 lLJf3 lLJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLJxd4
lLJf6 5 lLJc3 d6 6 ..tgs e6 7 �d2 1L.e7 8 o­
o-o o-o 9 f4 lLJxd4 10 'i!Yxd4
Undoubtedly my esteemed oppo­
nent expected the normal 10 .. .'ii'a5 here
(our friend the Mega tells us there are
1305 games in the database with that
move), but I had a surprise ready! I had
been testing it out for a while in speed
games at the Manhattan Chess Club,
and this was its first tournament try­
out. In fact, I was the first player (again
T h e C r i t i c a l Mo ve
according to the Megabase) ever to play
this move at this point, though the ba­
sic position after my next move had
been reached before by transposition.
My idea was simply to prepare
...b7-b5 - almost always necessary in
this form of Sicilian- without commit­
ting my queen. On the other hand the
move is much slower than the normal
.. .'ii' aS, so White has a "free move" to
decide how arrange his pieces.
10 a6!?
•••
Nowadays effective retorts have
been found against my innovation, but
right then, Mr Ljubojevic was stunned!
Finally he composed himself, and sank
into deep thought for almost a full
hour!
11 ..te2
After that gargantuan think, Ljubo
finally settled for the quietest continua­
tion- my opening surprise was a suc­
cess!
White has three more testing
moves:
a) 1 1 i.c4 (as played by the very
strong Peter Svidler) 1 l ...b5 12 ..ltb3 and
then:
27
T r u e Co m b a t C h e s s
al) 12 ...�b7 13 lthel !tc8 (possible is
13 ... h6! ? 14 �xf6 �xf6 15 "ii'x d6 "ii'x d6
16 l:txd6 !tfd8 with "two bishops"
compensation for the pawn) 14 £5 eS 15
"ii' a 7 "ii'c7 1 6 ..tx£6 ..tx£6 1 7 lL'ldS ..txdS
18 �xc7
(White has obtained a slightly better
ending and squeezes out the win with
fine technique) 18 .. Jhc7 19 !txdS ..te7
20 a3 .:f.fc8 21 �d2 .:f.cS 22 �d3 l:t5c6 23
c3 ltb8 24 %:.d 1 .l:tcb6 25 �e2 %:.a8 26
%:.5d3 .!:.ab8 27 �f2 �f8 28 g4 �h4+ 29
�g2 ..te7 30 <it'g3 <it'e8 31 h4 h6 32 <it'h3
aS 33 .:f.g1 f6 34 %:.al <it'd7 35 �g3 b4 36
cxb4 axb4 37 a4 %:.a6 38 %:.cl %:.c8 39
..te6+ 1-0 G.loakimidis-C.De Francisco,
Graz 1981.
a2) 12..."ii'c7 13 �b1 .l::r.e8 14 eS dxeS
15 fxeS lL'ld7 1 6 ..txe7 l:lxe7 1 7 lbe4 lb£8
18 lL'ld6 "ii'a7 19 "ii'g4 "ii'cS 20 !thfl %:.b8 (if
20 ... "ii'e5 21 "ii' f3 l:.b8 22 lbf7 wins) 21
'ifuS (Black has no real counterplay
against White's attack) 21...1li'c7 22 %:.d2
aS 23 !td£2 g6 24 "ii'h4 a4 25 lbxf7 lhf7
26 .l:txf7 ii'xf7 27 ltxf7 �xf7 28 ..txa4
bxa4 29 ii'xa4 lbd7 30 ii'h4 hS 31 c4 ..tb7
32 'i!Vd4 �e8 33 g3 ..tc6 34 <it'cl .l:.c8 35 b3
..tg2 36 'i�Vd3 .l:tcS 37 'i�Vxg6+ <it'e7 38 'i�VgS+
28
<it'e8 39 "ii'xhS+ �d8 40 "ii'gS+ �c7 41
"ii'd2 ..th3 42 "ii'h6 ..tfs 43 "ii'g7 :xeS 44
g4 !tel+ 45 <it'b2 !tgl 46 h3 .l:.g2+ 47 <it>c3
..tbl 48 h4 eS 49 hS e4 50 h6 e3 51 h7
l:tc2+ 52 'itb4 e2 53 "ii'e7 .:tel 54 "ii'xe2
l:.h1 55 gS ltxh7 56 'i�Vel ..tg6 57 'i�Vg3+
�c6 58 ii'f3+ <it'c7 59 'i�Vf4+ �b7 60 'ifd6
..tbl 61 g6 .l:.g7 62 "ii'd4 1-0 P.Svidler­
A.Lugovoi, St Petersburg 1997.
b) 1 1 ..txf6 ..txf6 (Black has to sacri­
fice the pawn, but he gets good play for
it; much weaker is 1 1 ... gxf6 as Black has
no compensation for his weakened
kingside, e.g. 12 ..te2 lWaS 13 !thfl 'ii'cS
14 "ii'd3 bS 15 l:t£3 �h8 1 6 l:.h3 b4 1 7 eS fS
18 lbe4 'i�VdS 19 .:.xh7+! �xh7 20 llt'h3+
�g7 21 WVg3+ 'it>h6 22 lL'lf6 1-0 S.Djuraev­
S.Sai, Tashkent 2007) 12 "ii'x d6 "ii'aS (en­
tering the endgame is not advisable:
12 ... 'i�Vxd6?! 13 .:txd6 ..txc3 14 bxc3 .:tb8
15 ..td3 g6 16 <it>d2 bS 17 a4 ..tb7 18 axbS
axbS 19 l:tb1 .l:.fd8 20 .:f.xd8+ l:txd8 21
�e3 ..tc6 22 ..txbS ..txbS 23 .:txbS �f8 24
c4 �e7 25 .:tb7+ l:ld7 26 .:txd7+ �xd7 27
<it'd4 f6 28 �cS �c7 29 eS fxeS 30 fxeS h6
31 h4 1-0 H.Westerinen-P.Kittel, Kra­
kow 1964) 13 'i�Vd2 ..txc3 14 'i�Vxc3 'i�Vxa2
15 b3 bS 16 1Wb2 "ii'aS

1 7 h4 .i.b7 18 .i.d3 .:tac8 19 hS h6 20
g4 l:tc3 21 g5 l:.fc8 22 gxh6 gxh6 23 ..t>bl
'Wb4 24 fS eS 25 f6 ..t>h8 26 .l:.hg1 .l:.g8 27
'iic l .l:.g5 28 l:txg5 l:txb3+ 29 cxb3 'iixb3+
30 'it>a1 'iia4+ 31 ..t>b2 'i*b4+ 32 ..t>c2
'iic5+ 33 ..t>b3 1-0 T.Besztercsenyi­
I.Kovacs, Hungary 2000. Even though
White won this game, my feeling is
that Black has to have an improvement
somewhere, since the white queen was
blocked out of the game for many
moves.
c) 1 1 .i.d3 (possibly best- White
uses his "free tempo" to go over to di­
rect attack) 1 1 ...1Wc7 12 e5 dxe5 13 fxe5
ltJd5 1 4 lDe4 l:td8 15 �xe7 'i¥xe7 1 6 l:thfl
b5 1 7 lDf6+!
(a fine long-term sacrifice) 1 7... gxf6
18 exf6 'i¥d6 19 ifu4 ..t>f8 20 'ii'xh7 ..t>e8
21 g4 'iies 22 ..t>b1 ..t>d7 23 l:tde1 'i¥d6 24
'ii'xf7+ ..t>c6 25 g5 ..t>b6 26 1Wh5 'i*b4 27
a3 'i¥a5 28 'iig4 e5 29 'iig 1+ ..t>c6 30 l:txe5
b4 31 .i.e4 bxa3 32 'ilid4 axb2 33 .i.xd5+
'iii>c7 34 l:te7+ l:td7 35 'ir'e5+ 1-0 D.Pruess­
N.Delgado Ramirez, Cappelle Ia
Grande 2007. An excellent attacking
win by the young California IM, who
will probably be a GM by the time you
Th e C r i t i c a l Mo ve
read this!
When I look at my innovation now,
I can see why it never caught on! But it
was great for one game, as my oppo­
nent was unwilling to enter the sharp
waters where he might have been able
to find an opening advantage.
11 'ir'as 12 ..t>b1
...
Again avoiding the sharp but prom­
ising complications of 12 e5.
12 ... h6 13 �h4
White has played too slowly for the
13 h4 sacrifice to work: Black can an­
swer 13 ... .l:.d8 14 g4 b5 15 a3 .i.b7 when
my attack is more real, while the g5-
bishop might be taken at any moment.
13 ... es 14 1\Vf2
White's last chance to make some­
thing of the opening was 14 fxe5 dxe5
15 'i!te3 l:td8 16 �xf6 �xf6 1 7 ltJd5 �h4
18 .l:.d3, with a slight pull due to the d5-
square.
14... exf4
I break up White's centre and stand
fully equal -not bad when Black
against one of the world's elite!
Unfortunately, that critical move
will come soon ...
29
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s
1s lLlds
White has no choice, as 15 'ii'xf4
loses to 15 ... g5.
1s ...l2Jxds 16 l:txds ..txh4 17 'ii'x h4 bS
Since Black has excellent counter­
play after 18 .!:.xd6 ..te6 19 b3 l:tfd8 20
:hd1 :xd6 21 l:txd6 l:tc8, White takes
the f-pawn with his queen - and qui­
etly, without formal announcement,
the critical move of the game is upon
us.
18 'ii'xf4
The tactical features of this position
are simple: White is threatening Black's
d-pawn with two pieces, while Black
has a potential X-ray attack ( .....te6 will
30
attack a2 through the rook a t d5).
A forcing tactical variation can eas­
ily be worked out (I saw this in my
mind, and played it in the game). Black
plays 18 ...i.e6, White must reply 19
'ii'd2 'ii'a4 20 b3 (again forced) 'ii'xe4 21
..tf3 Q somewhere, and White takes my
d-pawn with material equality.
That seemed OK to me (superficial
evaluation!) and I went for it... and got
the worse game!
As I mentioned in the introduction,
this was a strategical error; the tactics
were fine, but as will soon be seen,
Black ends up in a bad position.
It's not enough to see that a tactical
operation, as here, ends up with mate­
rial equality. When the position is criti­
cal, as this one is, one must also think
strategically. Here Black should be
wondering how he will develop in the
future, particularly where will his
rooks go?
For one of them, the answer is easy:
this is a Sicilian, so one black rook will
go to the half-open c-file, attacking
White's king. All well and good. Where
does the other rook go? Uhhhh ...
It's clear that White is doubled on
the d-file and Black can't oppose on
that file. White even has room to triple
on that file, and may have back rank
threats. With the rook (on d6 after tak­
ing Black's pawn) in front, White's d­
file will have more weight than Black's
c-file with one rook on it...
Do you see the solution? Shout
"Eureka!"
Answer in the next note.
1B ..te6? (DDT)
...

Black allows White to dominate the
d-file and keep two rooks for the at­
tack.
However, the key strategical idea,
which I'm sure you've all seen by now,
is that if Black exchanges a pair of
rooks, the d-file will mean nothing
more than the c-file, and might even
mean less, in view of Black's attacking
chances. In other words, Black is still
going to let the d-pawn go -but he
should insist on an exchange of rooks
before it drops!
Correct is 18 ...l:!.d8! and Black has
easy play, courtesy of one strategically
exact rook move. Black is equal or bet­
ter in all variations:
a) 19 eS? i.e6 20 i¥d2 i¥xd2 21 l:!.xd2
dxeS and wins
b) 19 .l:!.xd6 i.e6 20 b3 .l:!.xd6 21 i¥xd6
.l:!.d8 22 i¥g3 b4 23 .l:.d1 lhd1+ 24 i.xd1
i¥c5 with full positional compensation
for the pawn
c) 19 a3 i.e6 and again if 20 .U.xd6
then 20 ... .l:!.xd6 21 'ii'x d6 l:!.d8 is strong­
note how important the exchange of
rooks is, so that Black gains the tempo
off the (now) leading white queen.
T h e C r i t i c a l Mo ve
d) 19 l:thdl �e6 (now this is cor­
rect!) 20 'i¥d2 'i¥a4 21 b3 i¥xe4 22 �f3
'i¥g6 23 .l:!.xd6 l:!.xd6 24 'iix d6 l:!.c8 and
Black's strategical plan comes to frui­
tion.
White's control of the d-file means
nothing with the queen in front; in­
stead of Black's rooks fighting with
each other over the one good square on
the back rank, Black's one rook goes
harmoniously, with tempo, to the key
square- in general all Black's pieces in
this position are coordinated and ac­
tive.
A possible continuation is 25 .l:!.d2 aS
26 i.b7 .l:!.f8 27 'iVb6 a4 28 i¥xb5 axb3 29
axb3 l:!.b8 30 'ita2 ..tfS 31 c4 'ii'f6 and
Black's safe king and open files mean
his attack is worth more than White's
extra pawn .
Nimzowitsch said it best, referring
to the fact that it might be the best
move just to defend a pawn with a
rook: "Such discreet use of the rook is
not common in a gambit, but very nec­
essary when one wants to win first
prizes." Or when one wants to beat one
of the top three in the world!
31
Tru e C o m b a t C h e s s

19 'ili'd2 'ili'a4
Exchanging queens just leads to a
worse ending. 19 ... 'ir'xd2 20 l:!.xd2 l:!.fd8
21 l:!.hd1 etc.
20 b3 'ili'xe4 21 �f3

21...'ili'h7
21...'ili'g6 is better, but it doesn't
make that much difference. After 22
l:!.xd6 l:!.ac8 Black doesn't even gain a
tempo as c2 is defended (unlike in the
analogous line above where the white
queen, after exchange of rooks, is down
on d6), and Black has no good square
for his king's rook. Meanwhile White
can utilize his second rook and answer
23 l:!.e1, preparing �e4 to shut off
Black's attack.
White is obviously better.
22 l:!.xd6 l:!.ac8 23 g4
White prevents ... �fS and . . .
2S ...'ir'h8?
I could have resisted longer with
25 ... g6, preparing to fianchetto the
queen, but nonetheless White obtains a
clear advantage with 26 gS! . As far as I
can see best play after this is 26 ... hxgS
27 'ili'xgS 'ili'g7 28 �xg6 'ili'xg6 29 'ili'xg6+
fxg6 30 l:!.dxe6 l:!.f2 31 l:!.6e2 l:!.cf8, when I
could have tested Ljubo's pawn up
technique!
26 l:!.xe61
Now the conclusion comes in the
middlegame.
26 ...fxe6 27 'ili'd7 :ce8 28 �g61 1-0

23 ... as 24 :e1
... brings his second rook into play!
Note that, unlike Black, White has
good squares for both rooks­
meanwhile I have to look at the sad
creature at f8, unable to take part in the
game. Talk about helpless rooks! The black
24 ... a4 25 �e4 rook on f8 never moved after castling.

32

Chess is more than accurate tactical
calculation, more than just counting.
The strategical elements - to exchange
or not to exchange, how will I develop
my pieces, above all what is my plan
for the future- all of this matters.
I was happy to play a forcing move
against the great Ljubojevic (my mis­
taken 18 ... i.e6) but if I had thought
more deeply, and made sure a pair of
rooks left the board, I would have ob­
tained a harmonious position with at­
tacking chances.
Sometimes the first move you look
at (of course anyone would see ... i.e6
first) is not the best.
And sometimes chess logic is sim­
ple: how many good squares do I have
for my rooks? One. How many rooks
do I have? Two.
Then exchange one of them!
A Bl underfu l Opportunity
Game 4
M. Bighamian-T.Taylor
La Palma 2007
Reti Opening
The following game is all about il­
logic.
Many authors, including myself,
like to praise the logical flow of a
game. The first note below shows an
example of this from one of my games:
White gains a central advantage out of
the opening, uses his central superior­
ity to prepare a kingside attack, opens
a file in the critical region, breaks
T h e C r i t i c a l Mo ve
through with a fine sacrifice, and fin­
ishes with a nice mating combination.
All very impressive and logical,
but- my opponent was much lower
rated than myself, and he played a par­
ticularly bad opening. He got in such a
deep hole so fast that even in a rapid
game it was easy to play logically and
"brilliantly".
But games against equals, or near
equals, rarely take this kind of "logi­
cal" course (my opponent in this game
is a US Senior Master). The slightest
mistake is pounced on by your foe­
and so the game starts looking like a
seesaw instead of a logical progression!
This lack of logic can blind you to a
critical move that would otherwise be
obvious.
1 tt:lf3
Before we get going with the main
game, let's look at the above-mentioned
"logical" encounter: 1 d4 tt:lf6 2 c4 g6 3
tt:lc3 i.g7 4 e4 d6 5 i.e2 0-0 6 f4 e6 (to
have any chance against the Four Pawns
Attack one must defend fiercely and
actively-this and the next two moves
hardly meet that criteria!) 7 tt:\£3 c6 8 0-0
tt:le8 9 i.e3 tt:lc7 10 'i¥d2 f5 11 e5 d5 12 b3
l:te8 13 l:tad1 i.d7 14 'i¥e1 b5 15 c5 aS 16
'ii'g3 l:te7 17 'ii'h3 �f8 18 �h1 (logical
preparation for the attack: White in­
tends to open the g-file) 18...%:.g7 19 l:tg1
i.e7 20 i.d3 i.e8 21 g4 i.£7 22 l:td2 �h8
23 l:tdg2 tt:le8 24 tt:le2 b4 25 tt:lg3 fxg4 26
'i!i'xg4 tt:ld7 27 'ii'h3 tt:lf8 28 'ii'h6 l:tg8 29 f5
exf5 30 tt:lxf5 (sacrificing a piece to open
Black's kingside - logical and brilliant!)
30 ...gxf5 31 i.xf5 l:txg2 32 .l:txg2 i.g8 33
33
Tru e Co m b a t C h ess
e6 i..f6 34 wt'xf8 i..g7 35 e7 wt'c7 36 i..h6
(and a stylish finish, just as you were
expecting!) 36... i..xf8 37 l:txg8+ 1-0
T.Taylor-N.Lagemann, Los Angeles
(rapid) 2008.
I can't get excited over this game at
all now, since it was too easy. The logic
came about because Black put up no
resistance.
In the main game there is a different
story; though I get the advantage out of
the opening, I fail to follow up cor­
rectly- and the seesaw begins!
1... ds 2 g3 tt:lf6 3 i..g2 i..g4
I play Capablanca's defence system,
which has an excellent reputation to
this day.
4 c4 c6 5 b3 tt:lbd7 6 i.. b2 e6 7 o-o i..e 7
Now White should probably play 8
d4, seizing his share of the centre with
equality, but that would not be
"hypermodern"!
8 d3 o-o 9 tt:lbd2 as 10 a3 'ili'b6 11 'i!i'c2
llfc8 12 i..c 3 h6 13 'i!i'b2 cs
Without doing anything special,
Black is already somewhat better- the
better centre and space on the queen­
side are nice advantages to have!
34
14 cxds exds 1 5 wt'c2 wt'e6 1 6 e 4 d 4 17
i.. b2 a4 18 l:!.fb1
The lesser evil is 18 bxa4 tt:lb6 19 aS
llxa5 20 a4.
18 ... axb3
Larsen style! I gain positional qual­
ity as my a-pawn captures toward the
centre.
19 tt:lxb3
19...i.. h 3?
Mr Spock would find 19 ...b5 to be
faultlessly logical - and he would be
right! Black activates his queenside
majority before White restrains it with
a3-a4, gains space on his strong side
(continuing the strong plan that began
with 13 ... c5), and prepares both a fu­
ture break with ... c5-c4 as well as an
attack against White's isolated a-pawn.
But I did not play logically!
The idea of the text was to switch
wings quickly while my opponent was
engaged on the queenside -but the fact
is, there is no kingside attack given
White's space advantage there, and the
exchange of light-squared bishops
positionally favours White.
20 a41
 Th e C r i t i c a l M o ve

23 ..J!Ve6 24 .te1 b6 25 tt:'le4 �dB 26 �d2

My side of the seesaw, which had

been going up, suddenly starts to go All of White's pieces have reached
down! Now I can't form the c5-b5 duo, good squares. White has the better
and if I exchange bishops at g2 (which bishop, a strong knight, and the black
is my new plan) then my other bishop b-pawn is weak and backward.
starts to become bad, as my queenside 26...tLld7 27 f4 "if'e6 28 fS?l
pawns look like they are getting fixed Now my seesaw starts to come back
on dark squares. up! This lets Black exchange his bad
20 ... .txg2?l bishop and equalize. Instead White
The computer suggests that I might should have played consistently on the
want to admit my mistake (how inhu­ queenside (!) - did we hear this be­
man!) and play 20 ... ..tg4!, retaining my fore? - with the manoeuvre 'ir'b3-b5
good bishop, and even finds a slight which either gains space or obtains a
advantage for Black after 21 tLlbd2 "if'a6. better endgame.
Alas, I was unable to muster the 28 ....l::.a 6 29 l:r.b2 !:teaS 30 l:.ba2 ..tgs! 31
mental effort to play so logically! ..tf4
21 'it>xg2 tLles?!
Loses time with the queen, which
lets White rearrange his pieces and
play against Black's now backward b­
pawn, which should be strong at bS,
but becomes weak at b6!
Better is 21...tLlg4 22 tLlbd2 ..tf6 23
tLlc4 tLlgeS 24 tLlfxeS tLlxeS 25 tLlxeS
..txeS 26 ltcl with equality.
22 tLlxes 'ir'xes 23 tLld2
The horror! The illogic! Black is now
struggling to equalize.

35
Tru e Co m b a t C h es s
31 .. .'ii'f6?
After going to all the trouble to ex­
change the bad bishop, Black eschews
the capture. Faultlessly illogical! And
what is stranger still is that only be­
cause of this blunder do I get a win­
ning position later!
Of course the Mr Spock/Mr Fritz
approved line is 3l...�xf4 32 gxf4 g6 33
fxg6 fxg6, which is completely equal.
Then the black b-pawn is no weaker
than the white a-pawn, and both kings
are slightly exposed - ! suppose the
logical result would be a draw!
32 �d6
Did you see my seesaw sinking?
White is clearly better again.
32 .. .'Wd8 33 'ii'b 3 li'lf6 34 h3 l:t8a7 3 5
J:.b1 'ii'd 7 36 �bB l:.b7 37 �es bsl?
I was sick of my position and didn't
want to play the objectively best
37 ...li'le8 - with the hope that I might
eventually hold a draw - and lashed
out with the move I should have
played back on move 19!
This move would have a lot going
for it-if it didn't happen to lose by
force!
36
But my opponent was stunned by
my completely illogical move (attack­
ing on what is now White's strong
side) and failed to find the refuta­
tion(s). Yes, there are two of them!
38 �xf6
White can win by taking, 38 axbS,
and now Black has only three possible
moves: the two captures on bS, and the
capture on a2. On any other move
White is a pawn up with a winning
position.
Let's take a look at the unholy three!
a) 38 ...'ii'xb5 39 'ii'xb5 l:txbS 40 l:txbS
l:.xa2+ 41 �f3 (White wins a pawn)
41 ...l:.c2 (41...li'ld7 42 �d6 is just as bad)
42 l:.xcS and the ending presents no
problems in view of Black's bad
bishop.
b) 38 ....!:txbS 39 .l:.xa6 .l:.xb3 40 .l:.xb3
(White's attack on the eighth rank will
win a piece; note Black's helpless
bishop here, in contrast to White's
strong centralized cleric) 40 ...li'lh7 (a
quicker way to lose is 40 ... h5 41 l:.a8+
'it>h7 42 .l:.bb8 g6 43 .l:.h8+ 'it>g7 44 .l:.ag8
mate) 41 l:tb8+ li'lf8 42 �d6 �e7 43
�xe7 'ii'xe7 44 �aa8 and Black can re­
sign.
c) 38 ....!:txa2+ 39 'Wxa2 l:.xbS (if
39 ...lt:Je8 40 b6 wins easily) 40 ..txf6 (re­
moves the guard) 40 ...l:txbl (the only
move, for if 40 ... �xf6 41 'ii'a 4 l:.b7 42
'ii'a8+ or 41...l:tb2+ 42 li'lxb2 wins a rook)
41 �xgS with a decisive material ad­
vantage, e.g. 4l...'Wb5 42 �f4 'Wb3 43
'We2 .!:tal 44 g4 .l:.a2 45 li'ld2 'Wb4 46 eS
and White's two pieces will beat
Black's rook.
38 ... �xf6

39 es??
White can win by taking (am I re­
peating myself?), 39 axb5, and now
Black has only three possible moves:
the two captures on b5, and the capture
on a2. On any other move White is a
pawn up with a winning position.
Let's take a look at the unholy three!
a) 39 .. .'ikxb5 40 'ii'xb5 l:xa2+ 41 'ittf3
.:txb5 42 lhb5 �e7 43 l:.b8+ 'ith7 (even
worse is 43 ... �f8 44 tt'le5 l:.a7 45 l:.d8
and White wins at least the exchange)
44 l:.b7 and White wins a pawn with an
overwhelming positional advantage.
b) 39 .. .l:txb5 40 l:.xa6 l:.xb3 41 l:.xb3
is winning for White, e.g. 4l...'ti'c7 42
tt'ld6 and there is no defence to White's
threats on the seventh and eighth
ranks.
c) 39 ...l:.xa2+ 40 'ii'xa2 l:.xb5 41 'ii'a4
wins heavy material.
After White misses his second clear
win, Black takes over the advantage.
39 ...'ii'd 5+ 40 'itt h 2 �xes
One may recall my previous com­
ment, "And what is stranger still is that
only because of this blunder do I get a
winning position later!" I was referring
T h e C r i t i c a l Mo ve
to the way that I kept my bad bishop
against all logic- and here it is, a pow­
erful bishop, aiming right at White's
king!
41 l:te2
Amazingly enough, 41 axb5 l:.xb5!
works for Black now, so White should
just accept that he stands worse and
take off my dangerous bishop -but he
lets that piece live for one more move,
and now Black is just winning- if he
sees the critical move!
41 ...'ii'f 3??
I didn't.
Think back to the first note, to Tay­
lor-Lagemann. If the attack that I have
now had come about through logical
play, as in that game, I would have
seen the winning move in a flash. I've
probably made a hundred "exposing
the king" sacrifices in my career, like 30
tt'lxf5 against Lagemann, and
4l...�xg3+ that's available here.
What if the present game had gone
this way: If I had wisely obtained
strong bishop for weak knight, and
opened a diagonal toward the oppos­
ing king; if I had meticulously weak-
37
Tru e C o m b a t C h ess
ened the pawns around said king; if I
set up a rook lift so the heavy pieces
could combine to give mate- then I
would never ever have missed the
winning tactical blow.
But I got this winning position ­
How? By blowing an opening advan­
tage, obtaining a worse position, fight­
ing back to equality, blundering not
once but twice (31 ...'i¥f6, 37...b5), and
by some illogical miracle I now have a
good bishop, a weak target king, and a
check that destroys the enemy barri­
cades!
Black should sense the critical mo­
ment and strike with 41...J..xg3+! 42
�xg3 (the sacrifice can't be declined: 42
�gl 'iixfS 43 axbS �g6 mates) 42 ...'iixf5
and with both rooks coming over to
attack the denuded king, it's obvious
that Black wins, though the variations
are entertaining. White can try:
a) 43 axbS (White has no time for
this) 43 ....l:.g6+ 44 'it>h2 'iif4+ 45 'it>hl
1Yf3+ 46 'it>h2 "i¥xe2+ 47 �hl 'ir'g2 mate.
b) 43 �h2 1Ie7! 44 Itxe7 (or 44 ng2
�g6 45 lhg6 'iixg6 46 'iid l bxc4 and
wins) 44 ... 'iif2+ 45 �hl 'iif3+ 46 'it>h2
38
�g6 47 �e8+ �h7 48 'iib2 'iig3+ 49 �hl
'iixh3+ 50 'iih2 'iif3+ and mates.
c) 43 �e4 �e7! 44 Itg4 (or 44 �bel
�g6+ 45 �g4 �xel 46 �xg6 �gl+ 47
'it>h4 'iif2+ 48 'it>hS fxg6 mate) 44 ...�e2
and mates.
d) 43 .l:!.g2 bxc4 44 'iVxb7 'ii'eS+ and
mates in at most seven, e.g. 45 'it>h4
'iVf4+ 46 l:tg4 'iif2+ 47 �g3 (or 47 'it>hS
g6+ 48 'it>xh6 �e3+ 49 l:.gS 'i¥xh3+ 50
�hS 'iVxhS mate) 47...'iif6+ 48 'it>hS g6+
49 'it>xh6 'iih4 mate.
e) 43 lbe5 �e7 44 �bel �xeS mates.
My actual move, 41...'i'f3, forces not
a win -but a draw!
42 l:xes 'iVf2+ 43 �h1 'iif3+ 44 �h2
Since 44 �gl �xa4 is clearly too
dangerous, White accepts the draw.
44...'iVf2+ Yz-Yz
Brilliant, beautiful combinations
like 4l...J..xg3+! do not always come
from logical, well-prepared play.
Sometimes they come seemingly out of
thin air, as the result of a random col­
lection of illogical accidents!
As long as chess is played by hu­
mans, such seesaw games will exist: the
trick is to recognize when you're up!
Rooks Belong Behind
Passed Pawns - Sometimes!
Game s
R.Bogdanovic-T.Taylor
Lone Pine1978
Ruy Lopez
So far in this chapter we've seen the
critical move raise its crocodile eyes
 T h e C r i t i c a l Mo ve

barely above the water in the middle­

game and once in the opening-but in
this encounter, which was very even
for a very long time, criti-cat doesn't
show up until the endgame; and this
time I find it!
However, I need to make a dis­
claimer: this game is from 1978, and
there was an adjournment after 45
moves- so I was fresh and rested
when the game resumed. Furthermore,
there was no sudden death, so there
was no rush to finish the game. In fact, 24 ..tf6+! �xf6 25 'ir'd8+ 1-0
it was possible to play quality chess to R.Bogdanovic-A.Suetin, Yugoslavia-
the end! USSR match, Budva 1967.
In Chapter Three, "The Endgame So I was expecting a sharp game...
and the Clock", I'm going to deal 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 ..tbs a6 4 ..ta4 lLlf6 s o-o
strictly with the effects of the present ..ie7 6 ..ixc6
day sudden death endgames, so we And then I got this DERLD! For
can look forward to a lot of blunders some reason I always remember this
there! acronym from when the present varia­
tion had a brief vogue: Delayed Ex­
1 e4 e5 change Ruy Lopez Deferred!
When this game started, my tour­ White's idea is that Black has to
nament situation was simple: I abso­ block his pieces with the following
lutely had to win with Black to main­ awkward knight defence; but beyond
tain my chances for my first IM norm. that, there's not much to it.
I knew Bogdanovic from the follow­ 6 ...dxc6 7 d3 lLld7
ing spectacular game which had been
published everywhere: he beat the fa­
mous Russian theoretician Suetin with
a pretty bishop sacrifice. 1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3
e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 lLlc6 5 lLlc3 'iic7 6
.ie3 a6 7 .ie2 b5 8 lLlxc6 1ixc6 9 f4 .ia3
10 .id4 .ixb2 1 1 lLlxb5 .ixa1 12 .ixa1
axb5 13 ..ixg7 'iixe4 14 0-0 l:txa2 15 .id3
'iie3+ 1 6 �h1 .1b7 17 .1xh8 lLlh6 18
.ixb5 ..td5 19 l:tf3 'iVc5 20 c4 .1c6 21
..ixc6 'iixc6 22 'iib1 .!:te2? (22 ...'ir'a8!) 23
li'h8+ �e7

39
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s
So my knight moved backward for
a moment, but this is clearly only a
temporary problem. White has slight
pressure and no weaknesses- but it
would be stretching a Fritz to even get
to plus equals here.
Unlike in the regular Ruy Lopez
Exchange variation, White is not aim­
ing for a quick d2-d4, with a subse­
quent double-edged clash of bishop
pair vs. pawn majority. In this case
White sits back, with his pawn on d3,
solid as can be, and manoeuvres about
with his pieces. Since Black is also
solid, it's hard to make headway like
that-but since the position is fairly
closed, it's also hard for Black to get his
bishops going.
In other words, this variation is for
those who want to keep the draw in
hand for White, and indeed, White
barely scores over 50% with this line.
I looked up the line in the current
Mega, just to see if the DERLD had be­
come any less boring in the last thirty
years, but no such luck! The last ten
games in the database give these re­
sults: two wins for White, two wins for
Black, and six draws!
I knew back then, without consult­
ing any mechanical aids, that I was go­
ing to have a hard time winning this
with Black - and in fact, my opponent
could have forced an early draw on
move 26 -but fortunately for me, he
started playing for a win!
8 ttJbd2 o-o 9 l2Jc4 �f6
Later this same year (1978) I was a
member of the US student team com­
peting in the team world champion-
40
ship in Mexico City. Our coach was IM
Kim Commons-and when I proudly
showed this recent win to him, he went
ballistic over my last move! In effect, he
said it was impossible to play this way,
with the bishop blocked by its own
pawn, and that I must play the "ap­
proved" 9 .. .f6 instead.
I attempted to point out that a move
played by Reshevsky, Gligoric, Geller,
and Stein (see the following note,
where Stein beats Botvinnik with
... �f6!) could not be that bad, but
Commons was unmoved - and I didn't
get much playing time in that event,
which was fine: I've never seen chess
as a team event anyway!
As for the actual merits of the move,
I think it's slightly less boring than ... f7-
f6, and furthermore, has an active plan
attached: Black would like to play ... g7-
g6, ... �g7, and eventually ... f7-f5,
which might lead either to an opening
of the position, or a kingside attack.
However, the plan is slow, and if
White prepares properly, the drawish
nature of the position overrides any
potential activity.

10 b3
Here is Stein's big win: 10 b4 'it'e7 1 1
a4 l:te8 1 2 ..ia3 bS 13 lt:JaS 'ir'd6 1 4 c4
lt:Jf8 15 cS 'ii'e6 1 6 l:te1 l:td8 1 7 'it'c2 lL'lg6
18 �cl lt:Jh4 19 lt:Jxh4 �xh4 20 �b2 .t:!.e8
21 l:te2 'fig6 22 f3 l:te6 23 ..ic3 'it'hS 24
'fib2 ..igS 25 �fl ..if4 26 g4 'iih3 27 ..id2
l:!.g6 28 ..ixf4 exf4 29 .l:lg2 hS 30 'it'eS
hxg4 31 'fixf4 bxa4 32 l:tg3 gxf3 33 l:txg6
fxg6 34 .l:lxf3 'ft'g4+ 35 'ir'xg4 ..ixg4 36
.l:lg3 ..id7
37 .l:lg2 l:tf8 38 lt:Jc4 ..ih3 39 .l:lf2 .l:ld8
40 .l:lf3 ..ie6 41 lt:Ja3 ..ib3 42 <t>f2 l:tb8 43
.t:f.g3 .1H7 44 <t>e3 .l:lxb4 45 .l:tg1 l:tb2 46
l:tb1 l:ta2 47 l:tb8+ <t>h7 48 lt:Jc4 ..ixc4 49
dxc4 a3 0-1 M.Botvinnik-L.Stein, Mos­
cow 1965.
10...l:te8 11 ..ib2 g6 12 h3 i.g7 13 lL'lh2
Now that the knight moves away
from the centre, Black is able to trade
his awkward knight for White's best
piece. Better for White is 13 'fid2, still
with some slight pressure.
13 ...lt:Jb6 14 lL'lxb6
White doesn't have much choice,
for if 14 lt:Je3 'figS and Black threatens
both ... �xh3 and .. .£7-fS, with some real
kingside activity.
T h e C r i t i c a l Mo ve
14...cxb6 15 f4 exf4 16 �xg7 'it>xg7 17
l:txf4 f5
Black breaks up White's centre, and
stands ... dead equal!
That's a nice opening success -but
how to win?
18 exf5 �xf5 19 'it'd2 'ii'e 7 20 l:taf1
:adS 21 lL'lf3
Or 21 g4 'ii'cS+ 22 l:tlf2 (if 22 d4
'it'xc2 or 22 <t>h1 i.e4+) 22 ... i.e6 with
equality.
21 ... <t>gs 22 'ir't2
There's nothing to do: White's pres­
sure is building up, so I have to get the
queens off.
I think my attitude here was more
mature than in some recent games! I
didn't try to force the position, but just
tried to make the best move, even
though that best move (in this case) led
to a very drawish position.
22 ..Jlie3 23 'ir'xe3 l:txe3 24 g4 i.d7 25
lLlg5 c5
The moment of truth -yes, this is
White's critical move!
Black's last pawn advance cleared
the c6-square for the bishop, which in
this semi-open position could easily
41
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s
become stronger than White's knight.
Therefore White should act imme­
diately, before Black consolidates with
... ..tc6- and what could be more natu­
ral than advancing to the seventh rank?
After the obvious 26 �:t£7, threatening
the h-pawn, Black's must answer
26 ...h6 (trying to give a pawn for coun­
terplay with 26 ... i.c6 fails miserably to
27 ::tl£6, and either Black's entire king­
side collapses, or I would have to play
27...::td7 28 ::txd7 ..txd7 29 ::txb6 and
White wins a pawn for nothing).
Back to the main line: so White
plays the natural and forcing 26 ::tf7,
Black has to play 26 ...h6, then (again,
very natural) White simply doubles on
the seventh rank with tempo by play­
ing 27 ::th7, hitting the h-pawn again ­
and the writing is on the wall.
Here is the complete variation: 26
::tf7 h6 27 ::th7 hxg5 28 ::tff7 and draws
by perpetual check.
I saw it; I'm sure Bogdanovic saw it;
all I could do was wait, while he
thought and thought and thought
some more. Finally, when he had got
himself into some mild time pressure,
he picked up his rook - and moved it
sideways!
26 ::te4?! ::txe4 27 t"Dxe4 ..tc6
While I admire Bogdanovic's fight­
ing spirit, I have to disagree with his
positional judgment. With only one
rook, White's control of the f-file
doesn't mean anything. While the cen­
tralized knight holds off the black
bishop for now, in the long run (as
previously mentioned) the cleric might
take over the game. The most impor­
tant factor is that mysterious quality of
"play" -Black has play here, with po­
tential pawn breaks on a4 or c4, both of
which might open lines for the bishop.
Yes, the position is objectively still
drawn, but I think that only Black has
winning chances.
The problem goes back to White's
opening: he played a super-solid, cau­
tious opening against a lower-rated
player (me!) and then, when I played
solidly in return, he reached a position
with no winning chances -and so
should accept that reality, and take a
draw.
By trying to win without good rea-

son, he tilts the board (just slightly for
now) in my direction.
28 tt::lf6+ 'it>g7 29 g5 h6 30 gxh6+
Since 30 h4 fails to 30 ...l:!:d4, White is
unable to keep up a solid pawn protec­
tion for the far-flung knight. Although
the exchange of pawns brings us closer
to a draw, on the other hand, any ex­
change of pawns opens the board a
little more for the bishop.
30 'it>xh6 31 'it>h2 'it>g7 32 tt::lg4 .!:!:eS 33
••.
.l:.f2 b5 34 C4
White didn't want to give Black a
chance for the ... c5-c4 break, but now
White's d-pawn is slightly weak. The
position is still well within drawing
parameters, but it's getting harder for
White to play - and courtesy of his
long think earlier, Bogdanovic is slip­
ping deeper into time trouble.
34 b4
.•.
Not 34 ...bxc4 35 dxc4 with equal­
ity -but now I have the idea of ... a6-a5-
a4.
35 'it>g3 i.d7 36 l:td2 ..tf5 37 tt::lt2
White has to go over to passive de­
fence, as 37 d4 cxd4 38 .!:!:xd4 .!:!:e2 is
good for Black.
The C r i t i c a l Mo ve
37 ... a5 38 'it>f4 b6
Premature is 38 ...a4 39 tt::le4 b6 40
tt::l d 6.
39 tt::lg4 .!:!:dB 40 tt::lf2 .!:!:e8 41 tt::lg4 l:ta8
42 'it>g3?
Time pressure: I'm sure Bogdanovic
now wanted the draw he had spurned
earlier, but he didn't have time to real­
ize that the half-point was again within
his grasp: 42 d4! cxd4 (otherwise White
gets a strong passed pawn) 43 l:txd4 a4
44 l:td6 axb3 45 axb3 l:ta3 46 l:.xb6 .!:!:xb3
47 c5 .!:!:xh3 48 l:!:b7+ 'it>f8 49 .!:!:xb4 .!:!:h4
(49 ....l:.c3 50 tt::le3 .tf.xc5 51 tt::l xf5 l:lxf5+ 52
'it>g4 is also dead drawn) 50 'it>g5 l:!.xg4+
51 l:lxg4 ..txg4 52 Wxg4 We7 53 Wg5
'it>d7 54 'it>xg6 'it>c6 55 'it>f6 'it>xc5 56 'it>e5
and White even takes the opposition!
42 .!:!:h8
•..
I realized that 42 ... a4 43 bxa4 .!:!:xa4
44 tt::le3 ..te6 45 h4 l:la8 46 Wf4 didn't
really give anything, so I just kept the
pressure on.
43 tt::lf2 l:le8 44 'it>f3 .!:tel 45 'it>g3 l:lgl+
46 Wf3 .!:tel
Adjourned.
47 d4
I could expect this: if White remains
43
Tru e C o m b a t C h e s s
passive, Black can advance his king
along the long dark diagonal.
47 ...cxd4 48 .l:.xd4 .l:.c11
With the idea 49 .l:f.d2 .l:f.c2! and all
my "bishop vs. knight on open board"
dreams would be realized-but Bog­
danovic has a drawing plan in mind.
49 .l:f.d61 .l:f.c3+ 50 �f4 .l:.c2 51 lt:Jg4 .l:f.xa2
52 .l:.xb6 .l:.b2 53 .l:.b7+
Drives the black king to the back
rank, and so sets up a slightly leaky
"drawing net".
53 ... �f8
54 �e5
Up to here was probably adjourn­
ment analysis of my opponent, and no
doubt he expected a draw after
54...l:txb3 55 'ito>f6 'it>e8 56 lt:Je5 'iti>d8 57
lt:Jf7+ �e8 58 lt:Jd6+ �d8 59 lt:Jf7+ �c8 60
lt:Jd6+, which is pretty clever, I admit­
except. ..
But before we get to that exception,
one should note that White can proba­
bly draw in a similar manner by invert­
ing his moves: 54 lt:Je5 .l:.xb3 55 �g5
.i.e4 (55 ... .l:.xh3? 56 �f6 �g8 57 .l:.b8+
�h7 58 lt:Jf7 wins everything) 56 .l:.a7
'iti>e8 57 �f6 'it>d8 58 lt:Jf7+ �c8 59 l:txa5
�d7 60 �e5 .i.g2 61 �d4 .l:.xh3 62 lt:Je5+
�c7 63 lt:Jxg6 etc.
54 ... ..txg41
It's easy to see why my opponent
missed this move: for practically the
whole game (or at least since 6 .i.xc6 !) I
have been trying to prove that my
bishop is better than his knight. I've
spent the entire endgame working re­
lentlessly on that theme- so just taking
the knight off (and so destroying his
well-prepared drawing machine) was a
shock to my opponent, and he imme­
diately made a serious error.
55 hxg4 .l:.xb3
To my opponent's consternation, I

am now a pawn up in a rook endgame,
and I have connected passed pawns!
But Bogdanovic should have re­
membered the old line that "all rook
endings are drawn" and this one is no
exception to that rule!
White still draws with 56 c5!
(passed pawns must be pushed!)
and:
a) 56 ... l:f.b1 ? (now White's passed
pawn is too dangerous) 57 c6 b3 (or
57 ... l:f.e1+ 58 Wd6 l:f.d1+ 59 Wc7 :d2 60
'iti>b8 l:f.d8+ 61 Wa7 and the white c­
pawn goes through) 58 c7 :c1 59 :b8+
We7 60 c8'ii' l:f.xc8 61 l:.xc8 a4 62 l:!.b8
and it's White who wins.
b) 56 ... 'iii'e8 57 l:a7 l:b1 58 c6 l:f.cl
(58 ...b3? 59 l:f.a8+ We7 60 c7 and White
wins again- one sees how much coun­
terplay White gets with his strong
passed pawn) 59 Wd6 b3 60 .l:.e7+ Wf8
61 l:.b7 a4 62 c7 l:f.c2 63 l:.b4 a3 64 l:.xb3
a2 65 l:f.a3 l:f.d2+ 66 Wc6 l:f.c2+ 67 Wb7
l:b2+ 68 'iti>c8 'iti>e8 draws.
c) 56... a4 57 c6 a3 58 c7 l:tc3 59 l:txb4
l:f.c7 60 l:f.a4 l:f.c3 61 'it>f6, and with both
king and rook more active than their
counterparts, White draws easily.
T h e C r i t i c a l Mo ve
d) 56 .. Jk3 57 �d6 .l:.d3+ 58 �e6!
(but not 58 Wc7? b3 59 c6 a4 60 �b8
l:!.c3 61 c7 a3 62 l:f.xb3 l:.xb3 is with
check and Black wins, or 62 c8'iV+
l:f.xc8+ 63 Wxc8 b2 and the passed
pawns beat the rook) and even if Black
pulls out all the stops he still can't force
the win:
58 ...b3 (58 ...l:f.c3 59 Wd6 just repeats)
59 llb8+ Wg7 60 llb7+ Wh6 61 c6 a4 62
c7 .l:.c3 63 Wd7 l:f.d3+ 64 We7 (not 64
Wc8?? a3 and the pawns go through)
64 ... l:f.c3 65 �d7 �g5!? (65 ...l:f.d3+ draws
by repetition again) 66 c8'iV l:f.xc8 67
Wxc8 Wxg4 68 l:.b4+ Wh3 69 l:f.xa4 g5 70
l:f.b4 g4 71 l:f.xb3+ g3 and finally drawn
anyway!
S6 l:!.a7?
So for fifty-six moves White had the
draw in hand, but this last move­
seemingly so normal, attacking an un­
defended pawn- actually sets up the
critical move.
Nobody put up a sign that said,
"Black to play and win" -but some­
how I felt it.
The answer was not in the box!
56 .l:.b1II
...
45
T r u e Co m b a t C h ess
Rooks are supposed to belong be­
hind passed pawns (like White's rook!)
so I don't know how I found this. After
all I could move behind White's passed
pawn (56...l::tc3), or I could defend my
a-pawn while clearing the way for my
b-pawn (56 ... :a3), but neither of those
wins.
My "out of the box" rule breaker­
pushing the rook straight down the
board in front of my pawn, while leav­
ing another pawn to its fate- wins by
force!
The only explanation I can think of
now - as to why I saw this one and
missed others-is that my mind was
open to possibilities, and I never lost
faith that somehow I might get a
chance to win.
But there's one more factor, that
I've already mentioned, and it's worth
repeating: One reason I could look
with "fresh eyes" at this position was
that I wasn't tired! There was that nice
adjournment break! Nowadays the
56th move would probably come in the
sixth hour of play, and while one
should always be open to this kind of
46
unusual opportunity -exhaustion can
make the mind close in rather than
open out.
57 cs
One move too late! But nothing else
saves White either:
a) 57 l:ha5 b3 58 l::tb5 b2 and the
white king has no shelter from the
coming deadly check.
b) 57 'it>d4 l::td 1+ 58 'it>e3 b3 and the
black pawns are unstoppable.
c) 57 'it>f6 :n +
58 'iti>e6 (or 58 'it>xg6 b3 59 l::tb 7 a4 60
%:.b4 a3 wins a rook) 58 ...b3 59 llb7 (also
losing is 59 %:.a8+ 'it>g7 60 l::tb8 l::tf6+ 61
'it>d5 a4 62 c5 l::tf l 63 g5 a3 64 l::tb7+ 'it>f8
65 l::tb8+ rJi;e7 66 l::tb7+ 'iii>d8 67 :bB+ 'iti>c7
68 l::txb3 a2) 59 ... %:.e1+ (Black gains a
tempo to defend against a possible
mate) 60 'it>d6 (if 60 Wf6 a4 61 l::tb4 l::tf l+
62 rJi;xg6 a3 63 l:lxb3 a2 or 62 rJi;e6 a3 63
l::tb8+ 'it>g7 64 .l:.xb3 a2 65 .l:.b7+ 'it>h6
wins in now familiar style) 60 ... a4 61 g5
:d1+ 62 rJi;e6 (62 'it>c6 %:.d3 is even more
crushing than the usual ... a4-a3)
62 ...'it>e8 63 l:tb8+ l:td8 64 .l:.b4 (if 64 .l:tb7
%:.a8 65 .l:.h7 l'b6+ continues the theme
of defending mate with a timely check,

and an easy win for Black) 64 ....:!.a8 65
c5 a3 66 .:!.xb3 a2 67 .U.h3 a11!1'! and the
new queen covers the mating square at
h8!
57 ... b3 58 c6 b2 59 c7 .l:tc1 60 .l:tb7 l:txc7
61 .l:txb2 .l:ta7
What was that about rooks belong­
ing behind passed pawns?
Black now wins in classical style.
62 .U.a2 a4 63 .U.a3
White can also try 63 'it>f6, planning
to give up his rook, but this falls just
short: 63 ... .l:ta6+ 64 'it>g5 a3 65 'it>h6 'it>f7
66 .l:.f2+ 'it>e6 67 l:ta2 'it>e5 68 g5 'itd5 69
'itg7 'it>c4 70 l:txa3 l:txa3 71 'it>xg6 'it>d5 72
'it>f6 l:ta6+ 73 'it>f7 (if 73 'itf5 'itd6 74 'it>f6
l:tal 75 g6 l:tfl+ wins) 73 ...'it>e5 74 g6
l:ta7+ and Black catches the last pawn.
Could this have been calculated in a
T h e C r i t i c a l Mo ve
sudden death time control?
63 ...'it>e7 64 'itd5 'itf6 65 'it>c6 'it>g5 66
'itb6 l:taB 67 'it>b7 l:.fB 68 .l:!.xa4 .l:tf4
69 l:ta1 'it>xg4 70 'it>c6 g5 71 'it>d5 'it>h3
72 'it>es l:tfB 73 l:ta3+ 'ith4 74 l:ta7 g4 75
'it>e4 'it>h3 76 'it>e3 g3 11 'ite2 Wh2 78
l:tg7 g2 79 .l:.h7+ 'it>g1 80 .l:.g7 l:te8+ 81
'itd2 1:1e5 o-1
Black achieves the Lucena position.
Bogdanovic resigned.
I made the norm!
I still enjoy seeing that black rook
run down to b t in defiance of the
rules - and forcing the win!
I'm also still not sure how I sensed
the critical move, what drove me to
push my mind past the obvious -but
the satisfaction was so great I must do
this more often!
47
 Chapter Two
O pe ni n g Pre paration
I was reading Chessbase.com today,
and came across the following article:
"Daniel Stellwagen confronted Ev­
geny Bareev with a fine piece of open­
ing preparation. Together with his sec­
ond, Dutch champion Jan Smeets, he
had looked at a side-line of the Caro­
Kann with which the Russian grand­
master had been successful last year in
his Candidates' match against Judit
Polgar in Elista. Their time was well­
spent, as Smeets could tell the audience
during the game in his capacity of
commentator. Stellwagen's 22nd move,
22 g4, was still part of his preparation
and after the game he showed one of
its points: 22 .. .t2Jxg4 23 ..tg3 l2'lf6 24
lt::lxf7 l:tf8 25 'ii'es l:hf7 26 'ii'b8+ 'it>d7 27
'ii'xb7+ and White wins. Well, actually
his preparation only ended after 27
'ii'cl when last night, after a quick
check, he had concluded that White
has a most promising position. Black
was certainly still in the game, but
48
I
Bareev started to slip downhill with
29 ... c5? (better was 29 ... �f5). His mis­
take hit on the strong 30 �g5! and after
the exchange of rooks White had a se­
rious advantage that he converted
without many problems."
That is the nature of modem open­
ing preparation! Note that the "open­
ing" in this case- the home prepara­
tion- continued until move 27 (!),
which the uninitiated among us might
consider the middle of the middle­
game! Also note that the game was be­
tween a team of young players (Rising
Stars) and older Grandmasters (Experi­
ence). The Rising Stars thoroughly
trounced the Experience, and one rea­
son for the result was that the young
players excelled at this kind of deep,
computer-assisted opening prepara­
tion. Finally, one can admire some fine
tactics near the end of the game (35
lt::lx f7!) which Stellwagen found over
the board, but if you can make your

first 27 moves as fast as you can play
them, you'll have plenty of time for
calculating tactics later!
D.Stellwagen-E.Bareev
Amsterdam 2008
Caro-Kann Defence
1 e4 c6 2 d4 ds 3 lLlc3 dxe4 4 l2Jxe4 �fs
s lLlg3 .tg6 6 h4 h6 1 lLlf3 l2Jd7 s hs
�h7 9 .id3 .txd3 10 'ii'x d3 e6 11 .td2
l2Jgf6 12 o-o-o Wic7 13 l2Je4 o-o-o 14 g3
l2Jxe4 15 'ii'xe4 l2Jf6 16 'ii'e 2 .l:lds 17 c4
Bareev's earlier game continued 1 7
tL\eS lhd4 18 .tf4 .l:le4 19 'ii'd3 .tcs 20
tL\g6 1:.xf4 21 lLlxf4 li'aS 22 £3 'ifxa2 23 c3
.tb6 24 Wc2 'ii'aS 25 Wb1 'figS 26 tlJe2
.:td8 27 'ii'c2 l:.xd1+ 28 llxd 1 'ii'xhS
29 g4 'ii'cS 30 'ii'd3 'ii'd S 31 Wc2
'ii'xd3+ 32 �xd3 hS 33 gxhS lLJxhS 34 b4
a6 35 c4 .tc7 36 l:r.h1 g6 37 cS aS 38 bxaS
.txaS 39 l:!:a1 .tc7 40 Wc4 l2Jf6 41 l:th1 b6
42 cxb6 .txb6 43 l2Jc3 �d7 44 .:th8 �d6
45 Wd3 i.aS 46 tL:le4+ l2Jxe4 47 Wxe4
�b4 48 l:[b8 �a3 49 l:td8+ We7 50 l:!:a8
.tcs 51 l:.b8 f6 52 .l:r.b7+ �dB 53 f4 .te7
54 l:.a7 �e8 55 l:!:c7 cS 56 :b7 �f8 57
Op e n i n g Pre p a ra t i o n
l:tb8+ �£7 5 8 .:tb7 'ito>f8 5 9 .l:.b8+ wg7 60
.:tb6 �f7 61 .l:tb7 �e8 62 .l:tb6 1/2-%
J.Polgar-E.Bareev, Candidates semi­
final (1st matchgame), Elista 2007.
17 ... .l:lxhs 18 .tf4 'ii'd 8 19 l:the1 .tb4 20
lLJes 'ii'e 7 21 l:.g1 gs 22 g4 l:th3 23 Wif1
l:ta3 24 bxa3 .txa3+ 25 Wc2 gxf4 26
.:td3 .td6 27 'ii'c 1
End of preparation, Fritz says plus­
equals.
21 ... hs 28 gxhs l:txhs 29 'ifxf4 cs 30
l:tgs l:txgs 31 'ii'xgs cxd4 32 f4 �c7 33
l:th3 .idS 34 l:.h8 �c7 3 S lLlxf71 'ii'xf7 36
'ii'c s+ �d7 37 'ii'xd4+ lLJds 38 cxds exds
39 'ifd3 �f6 40 'iffS+ 'ittd 6 41 %!h6 'itte 7
42 l:th7 �g7 43 'figS+ 1-0
Compare this game with those of
our heroes Lasker and Capablanca,
who hardly did any opening prepara­
tion at all! It's a different world today,
and opening preparation is one of the
deadliest weapons of modern chess.
And if one doesn't prepare prop­
erly? In the first game of this chapter, a
rising young GM explains to me what
happens then!
49
Tru e C o m b a t C h ess
Dreev Who?
Came 6
E.Perelshteyn-T.Taylor
North Ame rican Open,
Las Vegas 2005
Caro-Kann Defence
1 e4 c6 2 d4 dS 3 tt:Jc3 dxe4 4 tt:Jxe4 i.fs
5 lt:Jg3 i.g6 6 h4 h6 7 lt:Jf3 lt:Jd7 8 hS
i.h7 9 i.d3 i.xd3 10 'ii'x d3 e6 11 i.f4
At this time the Caro-Kann was my
main defence against 1 e4, and I was
having quite a bit of success with it, as
the following game shows: 1 1 i.d2
tt:Jgf6 12 0-0-0 i.e? 13 �bl 0-0 14 lt:Je4
c5 15 c3 b5 16 dxc5 tt:Jxe4 17 'ifxe4 tt:Jxc5
18 'ii'd4 'ii'b6 19 i.e3 l:tad8 20 'ifg4 f5 21
'ii'h3 b4 22 c4 'ii'c6
23 tiJ d2 lt:Je4 24 'ii'f3 l::td 3 25 tt:Jxe4
fxe4 26 'ii'g4 e5 27 b3 aS 28 'ii'e2 l:tfd8
29 i..c 1 a4 30 'ii'c2 axb3 31 axb3 'iVd7 32
l:.xd3 exd3 33 'iid2 .i.gs 0-1 F.Chen­
T.Taylor, Los Angeles 2005.
One can see that my opposite side
castling worked well against my oppo­
nent's quiet play-but my opponent
50
was not a GM!
11...tt:Jgf6 12 o-o-o tt:Jds 13 i.d2 tt:Jb4 14
i.xb4 i.xb4
I had also reached this position
against a GM, and came out of the
opening with a slight edge: 15 'ii'b3
'ii'h6 1 6 lt:Je5 i.d6 (a good move here, as
the queens come off) 17 f4 'ifxb3 18
axb3 lt:Jf6 19 f5 0-0 20 fxe6 fxe6 21 �he1
l:tad8 22 .l::.d3 lt:Jd5
(Black is somewhat better in view
of White's weak kingside pawns) 23
tt:Je2 l:tf2 24 g3 .:!.d£8 25 tt:Jc3 l:tg2 26 tt:Je4
i.xe5 27 dxe5 l:.£5 28 l:td2 .:!.xd2 29
�xd2 .:!.xeS 30 tt:Jc5 l:txh5 31 tt:Jxb7 l:th2+
32 l:te2 l:txe2+ 33 �xe2 lt:Je7 34 lt:Jd8 e5
35 �e3 h5 36 'itg>e4 g5 37 'itg>xe5 'itg>g7 38
tt:Je6+ 'itg>g6 39 c4 h4 40 gxh4 gxh4 41 �f4
'itg>f6 42 tt:Jgs c5 43 tt:Jf3 tt:Jg6+ 44 'itg>g4
lt:Je5+ 45 tt:Jxe5 'itg>xe5 46 'itg>xh4 �d4 47
'itg>gs 'itg>d3 48 'itg>fS aS 49 'itg>eS �c2 50 'itg>ds
'itg>xb2 51 'it>xc5 'it>xb3 52 �b6 'it>xc4 1/2-Vz
M.Khachian-T.Taylor, Los Angeles
2005-but this was a rapid game!
15 �b1
Now I'm facing a GM in a slow
game - a young, weii-prepared GM at
that- and I didn't know what to do!

He had made his first fifteen moves in
a fraction of a second, not bothering to
conceal that he was well prepared ­
while I had no idea what the next book
move was (assuming there was a
book!).
This in itself was not so bad: the po­
sition is not some tactical morass navi­
gable only with a Fritz GPS, but rather
(at least at the moment) a quiet, strate­
gical position.
To find Black's next move, one can
simply remember what the 2600+ rated
GM and Caro expert Alexei Dreev
played here - or in my case, since I
didn't have that answer in my memory
banks, I could have analyzed the na­
ture of the position and come up with
the right move that way too.
The first alternative is quicker!
But I like to think with my own
head, so let's see what I should have
been thinking.
White has more space and a lead in
development, but Black has the best
minor piece, an unopposed dark­
squared bishop, that could easily be­
come strong after just one pawn ex-
Op e n i n g Pre p a r a t i o n
change (Black's c-pawn for White's d­
pawn would be nice!). White's knight
on g3 is badly placed, so he will proba­
bly move it to e4 at the first opportu­
nity. This frees White's g-pawn, which
means that if Black castles kingside,
White will have an easy can-opener
assault against Black's point of attack,
h6, namely g2-g4-g5. Given White's
advantage in space and the aforemen­
tioned lever, castling kingside is out of
the question.
Clearly Black needs to connect his
rooks, so evidently, as in many main
line Caros, Black needs to move his
queen and castle long.
Where to move the queen? 15 ...'iWa5,
developing to the open rank, looks
most active.
Yes, that is the best move, as played
by Dreev and another one of those 2600
guys, Zvjaginsev.
One can see their correct play- and
a horrible example of the immediate
15 ...0-0, in the next note.
However, I played the seemingly
inexplicable ...
1S .i.d6?!
...
Why? The bishop was not attacked,
and by "attacking" White's bad knight
at g3, I simply force it to go where it
wants to go anyway (e4) with tempo!
What's even worse is that, two
moves later, I follow up by castling
short right into White's potential, and
soon very real attack!
Here's what I think is the mecha­
nism of the mistake: I had had success
with ....i.d6 against Khachian, and with
opposite side castling against Chen.
51
Tru e C o m b a t C h e s s
Going only on my limited experience
with the line, I mashed these two past
games in my mind.
Furthermore, I hadn't done my
homework: I had no business playing
this line if I didn't know Dreev's
games. I could have learned a lot­
before I sat down to play Perelshteyn!
Correct play: 15 ...'iVa5
(I'm sure my well-prepared oppo­
nent had something against this move,
but now we don't know what it was!)
16 c4 (or 16 t"Lle4 0-0-0 1 7 c4 l::the8 18
'ir'c2 �f8 19 c5 'iVc7 20 l:.hel 'it>b8 21 l::te3
and now, instead of the weakening
2l...f5? 22 t"Lled2 e5 23 'iVxf5 when
White was clearly better and went on
to win in E.Dervishi-C.Garcia Palermo,
Turin Olympiad 2006, the thematic
idea was 2l...t"Llf6 with a slight edge to
Black) 16 ... 0-0-0 and then:
a) 1 7 'ir'e3 �d6 18 l"Lle4 i.. c7 (note
how Dreev keeps his bishop which
soon... ) 19 c5 t"Llf6 20 t"Llxf6 gxf6 21 l::td 3
�b8 22 t"Lld2 .l:!.dg8 23 'ir'f3 f5 24 d5 cxd5
25 c6 bxc6 26 !tel 'it>d7 27 t"Llb3 'itb4 28
l"Lld4 i..e5 29 a3 'iVxd4 30 l::txd4 i..x d4
( ... becomes the star black piece!)
52
31 'iVd3 c5 32 b 4 l::txg2 3 3 'iVbS+ 'it>e7
34 bxc5 �e5 35 'it>c2 l::txf2+ 36 'it>d3 .l:.g8
37 .:tel f4 0-1 Ye Jiangchuan-A.Dreev,
Dubai (rapid) 2002.
b) 17 'ir'e2 i.. d 6 18 t"Lle4 �c7 19 c5
l"Llf6 20 l"Llxf6 gxf6 (again this knight
exchange which evidently helps Black)
21 l::td3 �b8 22 t"Lld2 .:td7 23 t"Llc4 'ii'd 8
24 .:thdl 'iVg8 25 'iVf3 'iVg5 26 g3 .:tg8 27
l"Lle3 f5 28 t"Llc4 f4 29 gxf4 'iVxf4 30 'iVxf4
i.xf4 31 l::tf3 l::tg4 32 'it>c2 l::td5 33 t"Lle3
�xe3 34 fxe3 f5 35 l::tf4 l::tg5 36 .:th4 e5
37 b4 e4 38 .:td2 'it>d7 39 l:.f2 'it>e6 40 a4
l:.g3 41 l:te2 .l:td7 42 b5 l::tdg7 43 l:.hh2
'it>d5 44 'it>d2 .:t7g4 45 bxc6 bxc6 46 l:!.hf2
.:tg5 47 .:th2 aS 48 .:tef2 .:tgl 49 'it>c2 'it>c4
50 'it>b2 l:.el 51 l:.c2+ 'it>d5 52 .:th3 l:.ggl
53 l:!.f2 'it>c4 54 l:thh2 l::txe3 55 l:!.xf5 l:!.f3
56 .:te5 e3 57 l:tc2+ 'it>d3 0-1 A.Zontakh­
V.Zvjaginsev, Yugoslav Team Cham­
pionship 2000, was a high profile win
for Black.
Having seen how a couple of 2600
GMs handle the position, let's see a
debacle almost as bad as my main
game: 15 ... 0-0? (castling into it!) 16 t"Lle4
�e7 17 g4 f5 18 gxf5 exf5 19 l"Llg3 f4 20
l"Llf5 .:tf6 21 .:thgl �f8 22 l"Ll3h4 t"Llb6 23

ltJg6 'it>h7
24 l'Llxh6! .l:hg6 25 hxg6+ Wxh6 26
'fib3+ 1-0 L.Ruan-V.Wijesuriya, Asian
Women's Championship, Calicut 2003.
It would have helped a lot to know
this game too! And there it is, in the
Megabase!
A player more than twenty years
younger than mysel( like my oppo­
nent, would know these games, simply
because they are accustomed to absorb­
ing a great amount of computer mate­
rial.
I don't reproach myself so much for
lack of memorization and computer
study as I do for misevaluation of the
position.
15 ... 'ii'a5 is absolutely findable over
the board -but one must look at the
position with fresh, unprejudiced eyes,
not through the rose-coloured glasses
of past successes!
16 l'Lle4
Of course.
16 ...l'Llf6
I should fight harder to keep the
strategically important bishop.
17 l'Llxd6+ 'ir'xd6 18 tt:Jes
O p e n i n g Pre p a ra ti o n
18 0-0?
...
Horrible! As in the Ruan-Wijesuriya
game above, Black castles straight into
the attack.
I'm sure I was thinking that I
wanted a sharp game with opposite
side attacks-but given that White
needs only two (!) moves, g2-g4-g5, to
breach Black's fortress, it's obvious
there will be only one attack, not two.
Black can stay in the game with the
correct 18 .. .'iVe7, preparing queenside
castling. After 19 l:th3 0-0-0 20 1't'e2 �d6
21 l:.g3 Black probably has to play the
awkward ...l:tg8, but still stands only
slightly worse, and the famed Caro
solidity means Black has reasonable
drawing chances.
Of course I don't like playing for
draws, but in that case the Caro was
probably not the right opening for me!
19 g41
Perelshteyn doesn't wait for an invi­
tation!
19 cs
...
During the game I actually thought
I was fine here, "undermining the
knight", but actually Black is, accord-
True Com b a t Chess

ing to Fritz and probably my opponent,

lost!
Proper opening preparation in­
volves understanding of key middle­
game ideas as well. If I had understood
the strength of the g2-g4-g5 attack, I
would have never have gone short.
By the way, even after the relatively
best 19 ... tt:ld7 20 tt:lxd7 'ir'xd7 21 f4
White is clearly better, while if 19 ...tt:lh7
20 f4 f6 21 tt:lg6 �f7 Black will only suc­
ceed in prolonging the game.
20 gS! 22 ... 'ir'ds
If 22 ... g4 23 tt:lxg4 tt:lxg4 (or
23 .....Wxf4 24 hxg7 Wxg7 25 tt:lxf6 Wxf6
26 �hfl wins the queen) 24 hxg7 Wxg7
25 'iih7+ Wf6 26 'tli'h4+ Wf5 27 'ir'g5+ 'it>e4
28 �del+ tt:le3 29 ..Wg2+ 'it>xf4 30 'iih2
and the queen falls again.
Alternatively, 22 ... gxf4 23 hxg7
'it>xg7 (23 .....Wxe5 24 gxf8..W+ Wxf8 25
..Wa3+ c.t>e8 26 l:.h8+ drops a rook plus
an exchange, while 23 .. JHd8 allows 24
l:tdgl and mates) 24 l:tdgl+ tt:lg4 25
tt:lxg4, and White has an extra piece
A king attack sacrifice, that I could and is threatening mate in one.
have used in my last book, if I weren't 23 hxg7 �xg7 24 fxgs
intending to use it here! Because of
Black's pawn on h6, lines open by
force.
20 ... hxgs 21 h6 cxd4
If 21.. . ..Wxd4 22 h7+ �h8 23 tt:lxf7+
.!:txf7 24 'ir'g6 wins material due to the
double attack on Black's queen and
rook, while trying to keep things closed
with 21 ...g6 fails to the obvious 22
tt:lxg6.
22 f4!
The line opening theme continues.
Black has no serious defence. 24... 'ir'xes

54

After the game Perelshteyn pointed
out the following beautiful variation:
24...l2Je4 25 l:th7+ �xh7 26 'iih3+ �g8 27
l:th1 l2Jd2+ 28 �cl ! 'ir'xh1+ 29 1ixh1 and
wins as the black knight is trapped.
I'm glad he was having fun!
25 gxf6+ �xf6 26 'ir'a3!
There is no escape!
26 ..JWe3 27 l:.df1+ �g6 28 'ir'e7 f5 29
.l:tfg1+ 1-0
I would have liked to see what
Perelshteyn had prepared against
Dreev's 15 ...'iia5, but I would have
been even happier had I found said
move over the board.
Modern opening preparation is not
just memorizing moves; the opening
has extended well into what used to be
the middlegame, and so one must fully
understand typical middlegame posi­
tions that arise from your opening - or
don't play your opening!
After this horrific defeat, I gave up
the Caro-Kann; but really, neither Mr
Caro nor Mr Kann should be blamed,
but only IM Taylor!
Op e n i n g Pre p a r a t i o n
I'm Special -
Someone Prepared Just For Me!
Game l
R.Akopian-T.Taylor
Los Angeles (rapid) 2008
Nimzowitsch Defence
When you belong to a chess club, as
I did for many years (the Los Angeles
Chess Club) one cannot help but play
the same people over and over. Before I
moved to Ohio, I used to play in the
LA Masters tournament practically
every Saturday night: this was a four
game rapid tournament (G/25 with five
second delay).
One of my regular opponents was a
rising young master named Robert
Akopian. When I got Black, I almost
always played the Nimzowitsch De­
fence; in fact by the time the main
game was played, we had contested no
fewer than five Nimzowitsch Defences:
I won four and gave up only a single
draw. Most of the time the opening, as
well as the final result, did not go well
for him (see the note to Black's fourth
move-both the sample games there
were essentially decided by move 15).
Akopian's opening problems are easy
to understand: As a 1 e4 player, he was
no doubt spending all his time study­
ing the Sicilian, the Ruy Lopez, the
French, and other mainstream open­
ings. But he kept getting the pesky
Nimzowitsch from me- an opening
that didn't have a great reputation, but
I kept getting great positions from it.
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s
So for our last encounter in LA, he
arrived at the board-it was obvious
from his whole demeanour- fully pre­
pared for my offbeat opening.
1 e4 tbc6 2 tbf3 d6 3 d4 ttJf6 4 tbc3
4...�g4
Our last encounter before this one
saw me going for a Nimzowitsch-Pirc
hybrid: 4 ... g6 5 h3 (5 �b5 is better)
5 ... �g7 6 �e3 0-0 7 li'd2 e5 8 d5 tbe7 9
0-0-0 tbxe4!? 10 tbxe4 f5 1 1 i.h6? fxe4
12 i.xg7 Wxg7 13 tbg5 tbxd5 14 tbxe4
tbf6 15 tbc3 i.e6 and Black was a pawn
up for nothing and went on to win:
R.Akopian-T.Taylor, Los Angeles
(rapid) 2007.
Previous to that we followed the
main game for one more move: 4 ...�g4
5 �e2 (not as strong as the present
game's 5 �e3) 5 ... e5 6 dxe5 dxe5 7 �g5
i.xf3 8 �xf3 i.b4 9 0-0 �xc3 10 bxc3
iixd1 1 1 l:Ifxd1 �dB 12 l:!.d3 h6 13 �e3
b6 14 �ad1 We7 15 'ili>fl tba5 and Black
had the better minor pieces and much
better pawn structure and again won
without major difficulty: R.Akopian­
T.Taylor, Los Angeles (rapid) 2007.
56
s �e3
As mentioned above, this is better
than 5 �e2, but the sharpest move has
to be 5 d5 as played by GM Fontaine,
which we will see in Game 21 of this
book.
s ... es
I tried 5 ... g6 against GM Varga - see
Game 23.
6 dS
GM Stripunsky played 6 �b5
against me here, which is also quite
strong.
6 ... ctJe7 7 h3 �d7
Black wants to keep his good
bishop, but the position is rather con­
gested.
8 g4
All these White moves came with
amazing speed, each piece and pawn
set down with a confident flourish!
I had faced this very line just three
months before in a high profile tour­
nament: the Southern California Open,
which I won. Unfortunately, this meant
the game in question had been pub­
lished, available to anyone who
wanted to prepare against me!

This is the game: 8 ...h6 9 'ifd2 tt:Jg6
(weaker is 9 ... g5 10 0-0-0 tt:Jg6 1 1 ..ie2
.tg7 12 tt:Jel a6 13 f3 bS 14 .tfl b4 15
tt:Je2 aS 1 6 tt:Jg2 tt:Jh7 1 7 tt:Jg3 tt:Jf4 18 h4
'Wf6 19 hxgS hxgS 20 ..ic4 tt:Jf8 21 .U.dfl
.:xhl 22 l:txhl lLJ8g6 23 lLJhS lLJxhS 24
.txgS 'ir'xf3 25 gxhS tt:Jf4 26 h6 .th8 27
.:gl 'ii'xe4 28 tt:Jxf4 'ir'xc4 29 ..ih4 �f8 30
h7 .tg7 31 .tgS �xa2 32 'ir'h2 exf4 33
h8'ir'+ 1-0 L.Perez Rodriguez-J .Salgado
Gonzalez, Vila de Padron 2000) 10 0-0-
0 .te7 1 1 ..id3 cS 12 dxc6 bxc6 13 i.c4
.te6 14 .tb3?! (much better is 1 4 i.xe6
fxe6 15 gS hxgS 16 tt:JxgS �d7 1 7 l:thgl
lLJhS 18 tt:Ja4 'ii'c8 19 tt:J£3 'iit£7 20 i.gS
lLJ£6, when Black holds for the moment,
but after 21 'i!Vd3 White indirectly de­
fends h3 and has good long-term play
down the g-file) 14 ...i.xb3 15 axb3 'ii'aS
16 'iti>bl l:td8 17 l:thgl �4 18 tt:Jel dS
(Black has not only solved all his
opening problems but stands better
with his strong centre) 19 exdS cxdS 20
ltJe2 'ii'x d2 21 i.xd2 ltJe4 22 .U.fl tt:Jxd2+
23 l:txd2 0-0 24 ltJg3 i.gS 25 I:.e2 .fl.fe8 26
lD£3 e4 27 tt:JxgS hxgS 28 l:te3 ltJf4 29 £3
ltJg2 30 lle2 ex£3 31 l:tx£3 tt:Jf4 32 llh2
:el+ 33 �a2 d4 34 .l:Ihl l:te3 35 .U.xe3
Op e n i n g P re p a r a t i o n
dxe3 36 �bl .fl.d2 37 tt:Je4 llg2 38 lle1
tt:Jxh3 39 l:txe3 Ihg4 40 tt:Jd6 .U.g1 + 41
�a2 g4 42 tt:Jfs �h7 43 c4 g6 44 cS 0-1
M.Cassella-T.Taylor, Los Angeles 2007.
White resigned in view of 44 ... gxf5 45
c6 .U.cl 46 .U.c3 l:te1 47 c7 .U.e8 48 c8�
l:txc8 49 llxc8 g3 and the passed pawns
will cost White his rook.
This was a nice game, but as one
sees, White has a serious improvement
on move 14.
Furthermore, White might strike at
once with 9 gS hxgS 10 lLlxgS ltJg6 1 1
.U.g1 ltJh4 1 2 ..ie2 ..ie7 1 3 'ir'd2 ltJh7 14
ltJf3 lLlxf3+ 15 i.xf3 g6 1 6 ltJe2 ltJf6 1 7 0-
0-0 i.xh3 18 .U.h1 �d7 19 ltJg3 .l:Ih7 20
.te2 i.g2 21 .U.xh7 ltJxh7 22 :gl i.h3 23
.:f.hl ltJ£6 24 £3 0-0-0 25 'Was
25 ... c5 26 dxc6 bxc6 27 i.xa7 'ii'e6 28
i.b6 �d7 29 'ir'a7+ �e8 30 .txd8 ..ixd8
31 i.fl 'ii'd 7 32 'ii'a8 i.e6 33 a4 'iti>f8 34
aS 'iti>g7 35 a6 'ir'c7 36 �7 �aS 37 i.d3
l2ld7 38 b4 'ii'a3+ 39 �dl ..ib6 40 'ir'xc6
'ir'xb4 41 'ii'a8 tb£8 42 a7 dS 43 'ii'b8 dxe4
44 tt:Jxe4 �1+ 45 �e2 �xhl 46 �xeS+
'iti>h6 47 �gS+ �g7 48 a8'iW tt:Jd7 49 tt:Jf2
'ii'h2 50 'iVai+ �f8 51 'ir'agl 'ii'h8 52 'ir'f4
�c3 53 'ir'xg6 1-0 I.Armanda-
57
Tru e C o m b a t C h e s s
Z.Mestrovic, Croatian Team Champi­
onship 2002.
This game is not completely con­
vincing, but it's noteworthy that the
main exponent of this variation, IM
Mestrovic, goes down in flames against
a lower-rated opponent.
I didn' t know if Akopian had pre­
pared an improvement on my game
with Cassella, or the Mestrovic game,
but whatever he had, he looked aw­
fully eager to play i t!
Was there any alternative to 8 ... h6 ?
Clearly 8 ...tt:Jg6?! allows the black
pieces to be driven backward, and that
is too much space to give up, e.g. 9 g5
tLlg8 10 h4 h6 11 .l:tg1 a6 12 'ilt'd2 h5 13
.1e2 tt:J6e7 14 0-0-0 g6 15 tt:Je1 .1g7 16 f4,
when White already has a decisive ad­
vantage and won smoothly in S.Cicak­
H.Kaulfuss, German League 1995.
I had to find something new!
8 g61?
...
That whooshing sound you just
heard was Akopian's preparation go­
ing out the window!
The move may not be that great, but
it forced my opponent to think with his
58
own head, and quickly! Remember,
this was a rapid game.
The idea of my move is simple: if
White plays 9 g5, Black doesn't have to
go back, but can move somewhat for­
ward, 9 ... tt:Jh5, and hope to get to f4
eventually.
9 .te2
White takes aim at the h5-square,
and tries to make g4-g5 a threat.
Also good is 9 'i1Vd2 .1g7 10 0-0-0
10 ... h5?! (clearly 10 ... 0-0 is an im­
provement, but I still like White after
11 .1d3; note that Black can't play the
sac on e4- which worked in the previ­
ous Akopian-Taylor encounter given in
the note to move 4- as White can re­
fute it by 10 ... tt:Jxe4? 1 1 tt:Jxe4 £5 12 gxf5
gx£5 13 tLleg5 £4 14 .1xf4 ex£4 15 'ilt'x£4
.l:tf8 16 'i*'g3, and White has an extra
pawn plus better position) 1 1 g5 (now
White uses his overwhelming space
advantage to set up a brilliant attack)
1 1 ...tLlfg8 12 tt:Jh4 tLlc8 13 .1d3 a6 14
tLle2 b5 15 f4 ex£4 16 tt:Jx£4 tLlb6 17 .1xb6
cxb6 18 tt:Jfxg6! fxg6 19 e5 .1£5 20 exd6
'i*'xd6 21 .tx£5 gxf5 22 tt:Jxf5 'i*'g6 23
'i*'e3+ 'it>d8 24 .!:the1 .l:ta7 25 d6 .1xb2+ 26

'it>xb2 .l::tb7 27 CLJe7 1-0 A. Vorovic­
I.Mede, Nyiregyhaza 1996.
g cs?!
.. .
Too risky, as Black loses a devel­
opment tempo and weakens d6. Better
is 9 ... �g7 10 'i!Yd2 0-0 1 1 0-0-0, which is
a little better for White, but Black has
some Pirc-style play.
Now White has two ways to get the
advantage.
10 'iid 2
This is good, but White also gets the
edge with the forcing 10 dxc6
when all recaptures have their
drawbacks:
a) 10 ...bxc6 is worst, as White just
plays 11 'iix d6 with an extra pawn.
b) 10 .. .tt:lxc6 1 1 gS lLJhS 12 'iVd2 'iVaS
13 a3 .i.e6 14 0-0-0 0-0-0 15 �b1 and
White is better in view of Black's
backward d-pawn, e.g. 15 ... �g7 1 6 lLlb5
'ili'xd2 1 7 �xd2 dS 18 exdS �xdS 19
lLlxa7+ lLlxa7 20 �xa7 and again White
wins a pawn.
c) 10 ... �xc6 1 1 'iVd3 �g7 (if 1 l ...d5?
12 lLlxeS dxe4 13 'ili'c4 wins for White)
12 0-0-0 0-0 13 gS lLJe8 (13 ... lLJh5 14
'i*'xd6 is another clean pawn) 14 'it>b1
Op e n i n g Pre p a ra t i o n
and White can play against d6, while
the h3-h4-h5 attack is also inviting.
10 a6
...
Black can't counter immediately on
the queenside: 10 ...b5? 1 1 gS b4 (or
1 1...lLlh5 12 �xbS and White wins a
pawn) 12 gxf6 bxc3 13 'iVxc3 lLlc8 14
lLlxeS and White crashes through.
This type of sacrifice against Black's
seemingly solid pawn wall is always in
the air in these kinds of positions, and
especially so here, given White's lead
in development (see the following
note).
11 g5
White has three alternatives to this
move, but only one of them is danger-
ous:
a) 1 1 lLlxeS dxeS 12 .i.xcS lLlexdS 13
�xf8 lLlxc3 and Black wins.
b) 11 �xeS dxcS 12 gS lLJhS 13 lLlxeS
�g7 is about even.
c) 11 0-0-0 is very tricky. At first this
looks like White is just allowing 1 l ...b5
with attack, but then comes the sneaky
idea: 12 gS lLlhS 13 lLlxeS! (this works
now because, since the last move, White
has gained an important developing
59
True Co m b a t C h e s s
move, 0-0-0, while Black has played
what now looks like a weakening pawn
move, namely 1 l ...b5) 13 ...dxe5 14 d6
lbc6 15 ..txh5 gxh5 16 tt:Jd5 with a tre­
mendous attack for the piece.
As White I might have played this
way, but I must admit Akopian's move
is quite strong.
u tt:Jhs 12 lDh4
...
No doubt White expected me to re­
act to his "threat" to double my pawns
with 12 ...lbg7, when White has an over­
whelming game after 1 3 f4- but he got
a surprise!
12 .'1li'c8l
..
focus on the one weakness of
White's manoeuvre: the h-pawn, block­
ed by his own knight, is now doubly
attacked, and can't move forward.
What is White to do? Clearly 13
.i.xh5 doesn't solve the problem of the
pawn (and also gives Black the g6-
square for his remaining knight) - and
the only way to defend the sick pawn
is with the retrograde ..tf1 .
13 ..tf1?
White gives in, and this is fatal.
Perhaps if my last book (Pawn Sacri-
60
flee!) had come out earlier, Akopian
would have found the right move here.
White must sacrifice!
Correct is 13 0-0-0!, when it turns
out that Black's poor development
doesn't support a pawn grab: 13 ... ..txh3
14 lba4! (suddenly the weakness of b6
tells - Black must struggle not to lose
material) 14 ...l:.b8 15 lbb6 'ii'c7 16 l:.xh3
'ft'xb6 1 7 .i.xh5 gxh5 18 'ife2 'ifb4 19
..td2 1Wa4 20 <ot>b1 ..tg7 21 l:.a3 11i'h5 22
11i'xh5 and White recovers his pawn
with a decisive positional advantage.
And if Black doesn't take the pawn,
why is my queen on c8 (and why did I
give it an exclamation mark?).
So 13 0-0-0 would have refuted my
risky opening. One of my mantras in
Pawn Sacrifice! was that it can be very
risky not to sacrifice (as here). One can
see that after the sacrifice White has all
the play, all the fun -while Black's
risky play looks like sheer recklessness.
13 ..tg7
...
Now Black calmly completes his
development, and can look to the fu­
ture with confidence.
14 tt:Je2 o-o 15 o-o-o bS
 Op e n i n g Pre p a ra ti o n

Move 15 and Black is already better: Lines open on the queenside: Black
my opponent must have experienced a has a decisive advantage.
horrible sense of deja vu, and all his 24 'ii'f2
opening preparation had gone for If 24 bxc3 bxc3 25 'ii'e2 .l:tb8 is the
nothing! simplest win.
16 tt:lg3 24 cxb2+ 25 �bl
..•

16 f4 exf4 17 tt:lxf4 tt:lg3 is also good 25 �xb2 'i!Vc3+ is a quicker way to

for Black. lose.
16...tt:lxg3 2s ... a4
16 ... tt:lf4 is a playable pawn sacrifice,
but unlike 13 0-0-0 above, it's hardly
necessary: Black can get the advantage
with simple moves. There's already
little White can do about Black's
queenside pawn storm.
17 fxg3 aS 18 g4 C4
Like ants marching down the
board!
19 tt:lfs

The ants keep coming!

The rest features some fairly simple
tactics, as almost anything works once
the pawns connect.
26 �d3 e4 27 �bs b3 28 �c6
White gets mated after 28 cxb3 axb3
29 a4 .l:txa4! 30 �xa4 'i!Va6 31 �xb3
'ilr'a1+ 32 �c2 l:tc8+ 33 �d2 �c3+ 34 �c2
�aS+ or 34 �e2 'Wa6+.
28 bxa2+ 29 �xa2 a3
•..

This "Benoni jump" sacrifice works Connected! And our friend Mr Fritz
in many similar positions, but not here: goes to +4.
White doesn't really have any kingside Trifles like a rook no longer matter.
attacking pieces. 30 �d4
19 ... gxfs 20 gxfs tt:lxfs Taking the rook is quickly fatal: 30
There's no reason to allow White to �xa8 'ii'c4+ 31 �xa3 (31 �b1 a2 is mate
lock in my g7-bishop by f5-f6, or to do by ant!) 31..Jha8+ 32 �a7 e3! 33 'Wxe3
it myself with 20 .. .f6. �xc2 and mates.
21 exfs �xfs 22 h4 b4 23 hs c3 30 'i!Va6
..•

61
True C o m b a t Ch ess
31 'ii'f1
White prolongs the game. Taking
material leads to some familiar mating
positions:
a) 31 'ir'xfS 'iic4+ 32 'iti>b1 a2+ 33
'iti>xb2 'iib4+ 34 'iti>cl (or the pretty 34
'iti>a1 'ii'c3+! 3S .i.xc3 .i.xc3 mate)
34... a1'ii'+ 35 .i.xa1 :xa1 mate.
b) 31 .i.xa8 'ir'c4+ 32 'it>xa3 (if 32 'it>b1
l:tb8! and there is no reasonable defence
to 33 ... a2 mate) 32 ....l::!.xa8+ 33 'it>xb2 (or
33 �a7 e3! 34 'ir'xe3 .i.xc2 and mates)
33 ... e3! (the thematic blow) 34 'ii'xfS
.i.xd4+ 3S .l:.Xd4 'iixd4+ 36 c3 :bS+ 37
'it>c2 'ii'd2 mate.
31..Ji'xf1 32 l:!.hxf1
If 32 .I:.dxf1 b 1 'if+ 33 lhb 1 (or 33
'it>xb1 a2+ 34 'it>b2 .i.xd4+ and wins)
33 ... .i.xd4 34 .i.xa8 l:!.xa8 and the bish­
ops rule.
32 ... .i.g4 33 .i.xg7 'it>xg7 34 .i.xa8
Not every rook ending is drawn!
But if 34 :d4 :as 3S .l:txe4 (or 3S h6+
'it>g6 36 .I:.xe4 .i.fS 37 l:.c4 l:.b8 38 l:tg1
l:!.b6 39 :c3 :cs 40 :xeS dxcS 41 .i.a4
l:tb4 42 .i.b3 c4 43 'it>xa3 cxb3 44 Wxb4
bxc2 and queens) 35 ... .i.xh5 and Black
has a decisive material advantage.
62
3 4....i.xd1 3S l:l.xd1 1:1.xa8 3 6 c4 h61
Black's king breaks into the game.
White could resign here, but continues
through a few more time pressure
moves.
37 gxh6+ 'it>xh6 38 l:.e1 fs 39 l:!.f1 l:!.b8
40 'it>b1 .I:.c8 41 .I:.xfs l1xc4 0-1
I never found out what White's
opening surprise was!
Note that White could have refuted
my new line with a timely pawn sacri­
fice (13 0-0-0!) but he had no home
preparation (for that position) and,
over the board, couldn't muster the
mojo to go for it.
I suppose the moral of this story is
that while good opening preparation is
an essential part of the modem player's
arsenal, that by itself isn't enough to
win -for not everyone will just sit
there and wait for your new, and un­
doubtedly Fritz-approved move!
On the other hand, I should have
questioned my own preparation (re­
gardless of result) for this game cer­
tainly showed that my Nimzowitsch
Defence was vulnerable.

Inadeq uate Preparation and
Positional Miseva luation
Leads to Victory
Game B
T.Taylor-B.Molnar
Paks 2003
English Defence
This game is one of my first at­
tempts at serious preparation for a par­
tiallar opponent. My prepared open­
ing didn't go too deep, but it was a
start-and I can't reproach myself too
much, since I did all I could on a small
town library computer in Hungary!
l d4 e6
I had noticed that Molnar liked this
defence, ... e7-e6 followed by a quick
...b7-b6, with the king's knight devel­
opment delayed.
He seemed very comfortable in
such positions when I walked past his
board during the tournament. I saw
that he had a few more games with his
pet line on Chessbase.com at the li­
brary.
My problem, as our game ap­
proached, was this: "How do I get him
out of his comfort zone, and into
mine?"
The one opening where I was hav­
ing great success on this Hungarian
trip was the Kasparov Nimzo-/Queen's
Indian line that starts like this: 1 d4 tt:'lf6
2 c4 e6 3 tt:'lf3 b6 4 tt:'lc3 .Jtb7 5 .ig5 .Jtb4.
From this tabiya I had already scored
two most enjoyable wins: 6 tt:'ld2 .ixc3
Op e n i n g Pre p a r a t i o n
7 bxc3 h6 8 .ih4 d6 9 f3 tt:Jbd7 10 e4
10 ... g5 1 1 .if2 tt:'lh5 12 a4 a5 13 g3
iVe7 14 .id3 f5 15 0-0 f4 1 6 e5 0-0 1 7 g4
tt:'lg7 18 exd6 cxd6 19 :b1 h5 20 h3
�ab8 21 'i!Ye2 hxg4 22 hxg4 'it>f7 23 'it>g2
tt:'le8 24 :h1 tt:'lef6 25 d5 tt:'le5 26 dxe6+
iVxe6 27 .if5 iVe8 28 :xb6 tt:'lexg4 29
iVxe8+ :fxe8 30 .ixg4 :e7 31 'it>fl 1 -0
T.Taylor-Nguyen Ngoc, Budapest 2003;
and from an earlier round of the pre­
sent Paks tournament, I scored again
after Black varied on the tenth move:
10 ... e5 1 1 .id3 iVe7 12 0-0 g5 13 .if2 c5
14 :e1 tt:'lf8 15 tt:'lfl tt:'lg6 16 tt:'le3 .ic8 17
g3 iVc7 18 tt:'lf5 tt:'le7 19 1!Yd2 .id7 20
tt:'lg7+ 'it>f8 21 tt:'lf5 tt:'lxf5 22 exf5 .ic6 23
d5 .ib7 24 h4 g4 25 .ie3 'it>g7 26 fxg4
tt:'lxg4 27 f6+ tt:'lxf6 28 l:tfl .l:.ag8 29
.ixh6+ 1-0 T.Taylor-A.Toth, Paks 2003.
So I conjured up a way to inveigle
him into my favourite line!
2 C4
This is what I didn' t want to hap­
pen: 2 tt:'lf3 c5 3 g3 b6 4 .ig2 .ib7 5 0-0
tt:'lf6 6 c4 cxd4 7 tt:'lxd4 'i¥c8 8 b3 .ixg2 9
'it>xg2 'tib7+ 10 f3 a6 1 1 e4 d6 12 .ie3
tt:'lbd7 13 lt:Jc3 .ie7 14 iVe2 0-0 15 'it>g1
l:tfe8 16 l:tacl d5
63
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s
1 7 cxdS exdS 18 tLlxdS tLlxdS 19 exdS
�xdS 20 �f2 �cS 21 .l:.fd1 tLleS 22 tLlc2
�xf3 23 �xeS bxcS 24 \i'xf3 tLlxf3+ 25
'i3i>g2 tLlgS 26 h4 tLle6 27 tLle1 .l:.ed8 28
.l:.xd8+ .l:.xd8 29 .l:.c2 hS 30 'i3i>f2 f6 31 'i3i>e3
.l:.e8 32 'i3i>f2 l2Jd4 33 l:.xcS .l:.e2+ 34 'i3i>fl
l:txa2 35 b4 'i3i>f7 36 l:!.aS l:!.xaS 37 bxaS
tLlb3 0-1 C.Bognar-B.Molnar, Budapest
2002.
2 b6 3 tLlf3 �b7 4 tLlc3 �b4 5 �gSI
...
My prepared trick! Now if Black
plays the natural S ...l2Jf6, I have suc­
cessfully transposed to my two wins
given above! Alternatively, S ... l2Je7
looks less active and blocks the queen,
while S .. .f6 weakens the kingside, and
64
5 ...\i'c8 loses a development tempo, as
the queen is certainly worse placed on
that square.
He already had to think!
s tLle7
...
Molnar had probably done some
walking around himself: having seen
my destruction of Toth, he didn't want
me to get "my position".
6 e3
Unfortunately, I had reached the
end of my opening preparation with
the previous move (and White is bet­
ter!), but while that aside is true, one
must play accurately to prove it.
If I were preparing this now-with
my trusty laptop, Megabase and Fritz - I
would certainly go deeper.
In the database I would find that
Ivan Sokolov had done serious damage
to this rare line with 6 'ti'b3!.
White essentially wins the two
bishops, without giving Black the usual
doubled pawns compensation, because
of a clever tactical trick that exploits the
bad knight on e7. If Black tries to main­
tain both bishops with 6 ... �d6, White
unexpectedly wins a full piece with 7

c5! . The b-pawn is pinned, and Black
can't wriggle out with 7...Jtxf3 because
8 cxd6, attacking the e7-knight, wins
easily.
Sokolov gained an enduring edge in
the following three games:
a) 6 ...h6 7 i..d 2 a5 8 a3 i..xc3 9 i..xc3
was I.Sokolov-J.Speelman, Hastings
2000: White has a nice two bishops ad­
vantage.
b) Speelman came back for what
should have been more punishment­
he had barely escaped with a draw in
the above game, and now he tried
6 ... c5, but after 7 0-0-0 i.x£3 8 gx£3
.ixc3 9 'iixc3 cxd4 10 'iixd4 f6 1 1 .if4!
White had an even bigger advantage in
I.Sokolov-J.Speelman, Dordrecht 2002:
two bishops and a big hole at d6. Un­
fortunately, much later, in a completely
winning position, Sokolov blundered a
rook and lost! Neither opening prepa­
ration nor a 2600 rating can protect you
from a fingerfehler!
c) Finally, after 6 ... a5 7 a3 .ixc3+ 8
'ii'xc3 h6 9 .ih4 0-0 10 e3 'iie8 11 i..d3
lZJf5 12 .ixf5 exf5 13 d5, Sokolov shut
off the enemy bishop and went on to
win: I.Sokolov-Z.Rahman, Turin
Olympiad 2006.
Note that Sokolov only broke even
from those three favourable open­
ings - one should always remember
that a good opening doesn't win the
game by itself!
But I regret not having known or
found 6 'iih3 - that is the very defini­
tion of an extremely annoying move!
6...f6 7 Jth4 .ie41
Black equalizes the game. I was
O p e n i n g P re p a r a t i o n
looking forward to 7... lbf5 8 .i.g3, when
if Black takes my bishop, I will get the
h-file and attacking chances because
Black's ...f7-f6 has weakened his king­
side.
But now Black occupies the centre
and successfully defends the b1-h7 di­
agonal.
I suppose I could play the computer
pick here, 8 i.d3, but I doubt White has
much of anything after 8 ...i.. xc3+ and
9 . . i.xd3.
.
8 lZJd2 i..x c3
Black in turn plays an inaccuracy:
there is no reason to take on c3 volun­
tarily, as White will have to force the
exchange eventually with a2-a3 - so
best is the immediate 8 ...i.. g6 with ap­
proximate equality.
9 bxc3 i..g6 10 e4 cs 11 i. d3
I should just play 11 d5 here, when
the central pawns interfere with Black's
development, and my space advantage
gives White a slight edge.
I didn't want to let Black lock the
position up with 1 l ...e5, but that's
really all White has.
Now Black develops his knight to
True C o m b a t C h e s s
its best square, and my continued
overaggressive play could boomerang.
11 . ..tt::l bc6 12 lLlb3 l::tc 8 13 0-0 cxd4 14
cxd4 l2Jb4 15 f4?1
This is a classic example of trying
for too much when the opening advan­
tage is just not there. White can obtain
a perfectly reasonable game with the
solid 15 .l:tcl.
While I love my four pawns attack
against the King's Indian, in this posi­
tion White has too many obligations
(defending the e- and c- pawns) to get
any joy out of the position -unless
Black blunders into my trap, of course!
I had a sneaky tactic in mind, and
Black falls right into it-but a little
more caution on my opponent's part,
and I would have been in trouble!
15 ... l2Jxd3
This and the following move show
that Black doesn't see my trick.
Correct is to complete development
with 15 ... 0-0!, when I simply can't find
a good move for White.
a) 16 g4 d5 17 f5 exf5 18 exf5 dxc4
and Black is a pawn up with the better
game.
66
b) 16 't't'e2 l2Jxd3 1 7 'ti'xd3 d5 and the
pin gives Black the advantage - note
that Black is a tempo ahead of the
game continuation, so White doesn't
have the trick check on b5.
c) 16 f5 exf5 1 7 exf5 �f7 18 d5 b5
and Black successfully undermines
White's centre, e.g. 19 d6 bxc4 20 dxe7
't't'xe7 wins back the piece with advan­
tage.
d) 16 c5 d6 and White is just overex­
tended.
16 'ifxd3 d5
Black continues along the wrong
path until...
17 cxds exds
18 f51
He sees that his intended 18 ... dxe4
would lose a piece to 19 'ifu5+! .
Of course this doesn't work if Black
is castled, as in variation 'b' above.
18 ...i.hs 19 es
My opening preparation was in­
adequate, and my early middlegame
play overaggressive to the point of un­
soundness-but one successful tactic
and I'm practically winning!
And the advenhtres won't end here!

19 0-0 20 l:r.ae1 ltc6
...
21 'iie 3??
One of the hardest things to get
right in chess is correct evaluation. It's
just as dangerous to underestimate as it
is to overestimate.
A glance at the position shows that
White is better; and I acted on that kind
of "analysis" -White is better, I'll im­
prove my position, maybe get a strong
protected passed pawn two squares
from queening!
But that's nothing but a static
evaluation that doesn't get to the root
of the problem: in fact, White is just
winning, and it's time to put the game
away.
How can we tell? It's the open lines
that matter. White can play 21 exf6
forcing ... gxf6, and suddenly all is
clear: White has the open e-file, a
weakness at e6 to attack, and a king­
attacking square has opened up right
near his dark majesty on h6!
White's only disadvantage is his
poorly-placed knight, but when you
think about it, said knight could take
three quick jumps to f4, from where it
Op e n i n g Pre p a r a t i o n
hits e6 and h5 with decisive effect.
White wins by force with 21 exf6!
gxf6 22 'iie3! (eyeing e7 and h6) 22 .. JH7
(22 ...l2Jc8 23 'iih6 �e8 24 .l:!.f3 is too
easy) 23 h3! (taking the black bishop's
last square) 23 ...'iif8 (23 ...l:tg7 24 'ifu6
gets the f-pawn for starters) 24 l2Jcl !
and the knight enters the game with
decisive effect- White is not side­
tracked by 24 g4 .l:!.g7.
At this point (after 24 l2Jcl) the Teu­
tonic marvel has already given White a
decisive advantage, but for the sake of
my human readers, I will give a sample
finish: 24 ....l:!.g7 25 l2Jd3 .l:!.c2 26 l2Jf4 -as
was said of one of Fischer's hapless
opponents, Black's entire position is en
prise! White's threat is 'iie6+ (on any
innocuous move) which wins decisive
material, but if 26 ...'iic8 27 'iie6+ 'iixe6
28 fxe6 and the f6-pawn, and every­
thing else, falls.
White could have won by a simple,
forcing, four-move sequence: Black has
no choice, no reasonable replies. White
simply opens the game, attacks the
weaknesses ... and wins!
21 'iid 7 22 e6?
...
67
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s
22 'if'h3, preparing exf6, still wins
similarly to the above variation.
But I advanced without looking for
alternatives: I seriously overestimated
the protected passed pawn on e6.
While such a pawn is a powerhouse in
the ending, in the middlegame it can
turn into a dead point if it's blockaded,
as here.
The black knight stops the pawn
cold, while maintaining a threat to the
support pawn at fS. Meanwhile Black
gets play down the c-file, while the
white knight still has nothing to say
(and its best square, e6, is now blocked
by a white pawn!).
This doesn't mean Black is better
(yet!) as that pawn must still be re­
spected. In fact, I would say White still
has a slight edge, but nothing even
close to the winning position I had a
few moves ago.
The important thing is Black is back
in the game. Furthermore, while I un­
derestimated my position (when I had
the four-move win) I am now overes­
timating my position because of the
protected passed pawn-which won't
win the game by itself!
22 .'iVd6 23 h3?
..
Correct is 23 'if'h3, which guards the
important f-pawn while also threaten­
ing 24 �g3 winning a piece. After
23 ... �e8 24 .l:tf2 White holds his second
rank and maintains some advantage.
23 .. .l:tc2 24 :t2 :feB
. way, this line would really have
Black has evident counterplay, and
after White's next mistake, stands bet­
ter!
25 g4?
68
White should play 25 'iVd3.
Instead, the text move loses the h­
pawn to a simple X-ray.
Kotov said, in Think Like a Grand­
master, that before you move, you
should take a quick look to see if there
are any checks or attacks on your
queen- I forgot that sage advice,
tripped, and fell into a gold mine!
25 ...l:r.8c37?
The wrong rook! After the correct
25 ...%:.2c3, hitting the queen with that X­
ray to h3, White is in serious trouble.
White has his choice of bad lines:
a) 26 'ii'd2 %:txh3 27 �xf6 gxf6 28
gxhS �h8 and Black is better in view of
White's wide open king and weak
pawns at h5 and f5.
b) 26 �f4 is no improvement, for af­
ter 26 ...�xf4 27 :xf4 �e8 28 �f2 .l:txh3
Black wins a pawn for nothing. Even
worse is 28 �g2 g5 29 fxg6 tt'lxg6 and
Black picks up the exchange. By the
pleased the great Nimzowitsch: the
threat effect of the blockader is mani­
fest, while the reserve blockader (the
bishop at e8) renders White's passed
 Op e n i n g P re p a r a t i o n

pawn meaningless. its worth!

In none of the above variations is 29 ..tg3 'iie4 30 .U.c7
White's protected passer any kind of
serious factor.
z6 .U.xc21

Unexpectedly wins a piece! But

even more important is the destruction
of the blockade, which means
Now I win quickly because of my (Nimzowitsch again, from the other
blunder! White gets two rooks for the side) we are now dealing with the
queen, and succeeds in attacking passed pawn's "lust to expand"!
Black's blockader-which means 30...'iid 3
White's pawn is suddenly "all it can No better are 30 ... <it>f8 31 ..td6 and
be" ! 30 ...ltJc6 31 l:!.2xc6 ..txc6 32 l:!.c8+ and
26....l:f.xe3 mates.
If 26 ....:xc2 27 ..tg3 (but not 27 31 �h2 hs 32 l:!.d2 'iie 3 33 lbe7 ..tbs
gxhS?? 'ii'h2+ 28 <it>fl 'it'g2 mate) 34 gxhs ..te2 35 h6 gxh6 36 .l:f.c21
27...'it'c6 28 gxhS wins a piece.
27 .l:f.xe3 'iif4?1
Better is 27... ..te8 28 ..tg3 'iib4 when
the vital blockading knight is de­
fended, but after 29 .l:f.c7 I don't think
Black can save the game anyway, as
the queen is ill suited to such a defen­
sive role.
28 .l:f.ec3 ..teB
My opponent was frustrated that I
had lucky tactics just when I needed
them, for example 28 ... ..txg4 29 l:!.c8+!
forces an unusual back rank mate, I use one of my favourite manoeu­
where the passed pawn finally proves vres, the "switchback theme". First the

69
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s

black bishop is forced to the queenside,
then the rook switches back to the
kingside faster than the minor piece
can follow.
36 ..tc4 37 .l:!.g2 'lt>h8 38 .l:!.f7 1-0
...
All blockaders vanish, and I wind
up with connected passed pawns, as
38 ...ifg5 fails to 39 .l:!.xf6! and White
wins by pin.
Therefore, Black resigned.
Note that I never got my knight into
the game!
And I certainly didn't win because
of the opening, though that went well
up to a point. Nowadays I would be
ready to Sokolov anyone who would
try this again- but anyone who seri­
ously prepares for me (see Game 14)
will probably read this book, so I will
never see this line again!
One must also recognize the limits
of opening preparation: Sokolov only
scored 50% from three advantageous
openings, and I only won this game
due to the two tactical blows (18 fS and
26 l:hc2) that made up for my multitu­
dinous sins!
innick in the next round of the Ameri­
can Open. So what did I do? I went to
the database and looked up his games!
This is what I found out: against 1
d4 he answers l . ..dS, he likes the Semi­
Slav system with the immediate ... e7-e6
and ... c7-c6, and has defended success­
fully against Marshall's Gambit: 1 d4
dS 2 c4 e6 3 lt:Jc3 c6 4 e4 (Marshall's
move, and the sharpest try against
Black's move order-but nowadays it's
very double edged and booked up;
Tredinnick looked well prepared)
4 ... dxe4 5 lt:Jxe4 ..tb4+ 6 ..td2 ifxd4 7
..txb4 ifxe4+ 8 .te2 c5 9 .txc5 ifxg2 10
..tf3 ifg5 11 i.d6 lt:Je7 12 lt:Je2 lt:Jbc6 13
.l:!.g1 ifa5+ 14 lt:Jc3 tt:\f5 15 ..ta3 i.d7 1 6
ifd2 0-0-0

Chess Has Come to This!

Game 9
T.Taylor-M.Tred innick
Ame rican Open,
Los Angeles 2006
Dutch Defence
I knew I was going to have White
against the Australian master Tred-
1 7 0-0-0 lt:Je5 18 'iie2 lt:Jxf3 19 W!Vxf3
i.c6 20 iff4 .l:!.xdl+ 21 .l:!.xdl .l:!.d8 22
�xd8+ ifxd8 23 lt:Je4 i.xe4 24 'it'xe4
'i*'d4 25 'tWxd4 lt:Jxd4 26 i.d6 'lt>d7 27
i.eS lt:Jf5 28 '1t>d2 'lt>c6 29 'lt>d3 f6 30 ..tc3
b5 31 cxb5+ 'lt>xb5 32 f4 a6 33 .tel 'lt>c5
34 i.d2 �d5 35 ..tc3 lt:Jd6 36 b3 lt:Jf5 37
i.b2 eS 38 fxe5 fxe5 39 .tc3 g6 40 a4 e4+
41 'lt>e2 gS 42 h3 hS 43 'lt>f2 g4 44 hxg4
hxg4 45 'lt>g2 tt:ld4 46 b4 'lt>c4 47 .td2

70

lLlfS 48 .tel e3 49 �fl lLld4 50 b5 axb5
51 axb5 �xb5 52 �g2 lLlf5 0-1 T.Reilly­
M.Tredinnick, Sydney 1999.
If White plays in Colle style, my
opponent would add the f-pawn to his
c6-d5-e6 triad, and so create a Stone­
wall Dutch. He made an easy short
draw in the following game: 1 d4 d5 2
lLlf3 c6 3 e3 e6 4 .id3 fS 5 0-0 lLlf6 6 b3
.id6
7 .ib2 0-0 8 ltJbd2 .id7 9 c4 ltJe4 10
l:tcl .ie8 1 1 ltJeS ltJd7 12 f4 l:tf6 13 ltJxe4
fxe4 14 .ie2 'iie7 15 .ig4 l:th6 1 6 ltJxd7
.ixd7 17 'iie l l:.f8 18 l:tc2 l:thf6 llz-Vz
N.Lane-M.Tredinnick, Australian
Open, Penrith 2003.
However, I noticed right away that
White could have obtained a slight ad­
vantage by playing 7 .ia3, exchanging
Black's good bishop, rather than her
played 7 .ib2.
Furthermore I saw that Tredinnick
did not in general strike back at
White's centre with ... c6-c5, but kept
his solid Stonewall at all times.
This was enough!
1 d4 ds 2 lLlf3 e6 3 e3 fs
O p e n i n g P re p a r a t i o n
My opponent proceeds as was to be
expected.
4 .id3 lLlf6 5 o-o .id6 6 b3 "fle7
This delays but does not prevent
.ia3.
7 a4
7 0-0
...
If Black were more flexible in his
opening set-up, he might find 7...ltJa6
with the idea 8 .ia3 ltJb4 9 c3 ltJxd3 10
'ii'x d3 0-0 11 .ixd6 cxd6, which is good
for Black, as he covers the Stonewall
hole at eS .
White could instead try 8 c4, hoping
to induce 8 ... c6 (so Black will be unable
to capture with a pawn on d6), but
Black can answer 8 ... dxc4 9 bxc4 b6
with a messy position that may be
about equal.
But the "mess" is not a Stonewall!
8 C4
Again, I do not want 8 .ia3 lbc6 9
.ixd6 cxd6 when Black is fine - I want
to induce ... c7-c6, which is in fact a
classical Stonewall move.
8 c6
...
Black sticks to his system.
9 .ia3 .ixa3 10 lLlxa3
71
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s
10 ..i..d 7 11 l'Llc2 as 12 'i!We1 i..e B
. 14 ... c5, as it's not part of his system.
Not 12 ... l'Lla6? 13 ir'xa5.
13 b4
White is a little better.
13 . axb4
..
13 ... i..h5 doesn't really get the
bishop into play because of the simple
answer 14 l'Lle5.
14 ir'xb4
14...1Wxb4?!
Defensive chance number one:
Black could have played 14 ... c5 here
with counterplay. If White takes the
pawn it's easy to see Black gets one
back soon - either one of the doubled
c-pawns or the now weak a-pawn. No-
72
tice that Black's light-squared bishop
has a diagonal now, threatening said
pawn. A sample variation is 15 'i!Wxc5
ir'xc5 16 dxc5 t'Lla6 17 cxd5 t'Llxc5 18
i..b5 exd5 19 l'Llcd4 l'Llfe4 with equality.
Therefore White must play 15 'i!Wb3,
when I might claim a slight edge based
on Black's somewhat shaky centre, but
this is nothing like the virtually win­
ning advantage White will have in just
three more moves.
But Black didn't play the sharp
15 t'Llxb4 l'Lle4 16 l:tfc1
16 l'Lld7?!
...
Defensive chance number two:
Black's best move - and really, his last
chance - is 16 ...c5, when I intended 17
dxc5 t'Llxc5 18 cxd5 l'Llb3 19 dxe6 l'Llxcl
(but not 19 ... t'Llxa1 20 e7! which surpris­
ingly gives White an immediate win­
ning attack, due to the participation of
the cl-rook, e.g. 20 ... l:tf7 21 l:tc8 l:txe7 22
l'Lld5!) 20 l:.xcl t'Llc6 21 t'Lld5 with excel­
lent play for the exchange, but it's still
a game.
Instead Black maintains his faith in
his solid wall, which reminds me of the

French Maginot Line!
17 cxdSI exds
Or 17 ... cxd5 18 �c7.
18 aS!
Now what do we have? The pawn
structure is similar to the Orthodox
Exchange Variation, with a White mi­
nority attack, now known to be very
strong. Black can't play ... c6-c5 any
more, as the vital d-pawn drops. White
will get in a5-a6, so the black c-pawn
will become weak and backward on
the open file. Once the a-pawn is ex­
changed, White will have a single well­
shaped pawn island, while Black's
structure will be split in two. Finally,
Black's bishop plays only a defensive
role, and will be unable to defend the
pawns on its own colour.
This really is a case where one can
say, "The rest is a matter of technique."
18...ltJb8 19 a6 bxa6 20 ttJxa6 ttJxa6 21
.:txa6 .:f.bB 22 ttJes
Compare the bishops and the re­
spective pawn structures!
22 .. J:tb3 23 .:taB g6 24 h3 ltJd6 2S �e2
.:Ib2 26 �f3 ltJe4 27 ltJxc6 �f7 28 .:txfB+
�xfB 29 ttJes l:.b7 30 g4 tt'lgs 31 �g2
O p e n i n g Pre p a r a t i o n
fxg4 32 hxg4 �e6 3 3 .!:Xes tt'le4 34 �xe4
dxe4 3 S ds �f7 36 d6 �e6 37 lias �d7
38 .t:l.a8+ �g7
I knew I had had a winning game
now for many moves, but I didn't feel
much satisfaction - I was reminded of
the Hemingway quote that introduces
Winner Take Nothing: "Unlike all other
forms of lutte or combat the conditions
are that the winner shall take nothing;
neither his ease, nor his pleasure, nor
any notions of glory; nor, if he win far
enough, shall there be any reward
within himself."
39 l:.d81 1-0
This was the only move in the game
that really gave me pleasure. The fol­
lowing tactical wins are quite pretty:
a) 39 ....i.b5 40 d7 �h6 41 tt'lf7+ 'it>g7
42 .:f.g8+ �xg8 43 d8�+ �xf7 44 �d5+
and the black bishop finally gets some
open space, but can't defend against
the queen.
b) 39 ... �a4 40 d7 l:.b1+ (or 40 ...�h6
41 ltJf7+ as in the above line) 41 �g2
.:f.d1 42 .:f.a8! and Black has two ways to
lose: 42 ... �xd7 43 l:ta7, or 42 ...�f6 43
l:.xa4 �xeS 44 .U.d4!.
73
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s
c) 39... �e6 40 d7 �h6 (the only new
try, for both 40 ...h5 41 l:lg8+ and
40 .. J:tb1+ 41 �g2 l:td1 42 !ta8 are wins
we have already seen) 41 �g2! (White
brings his last piece to the attack!)
41...l:ta7 (if Black tries to blockade the
white king, he falls into yet another
tactic: 4l...g5 42 l:lf8! ..txd7 43 l:tf6+ �g7
44 l:tf7+ wins a piece) 42 �g3 l:tb7 43
�f4 l:ta7 44 gS+ �hS 45 l:th8 and wins.
I had almost forgotten my opponent
while I worked my way through these
variations - until he broke into my rev­
erie by announcing his resignation!
Yes, chess has come to this. Every
master in the world (not just GMs and
IMs) has a significant number of games
in the database. It's possible, as I did
here, to prepare both strategically and
psychologically - possible to practi­
cally win the game at home!
The next example I will show,
Game 10, is even worse than this one!
How can one avoid this kind of de­
bacle? In the database age, it is abso­
lutely imperative to be flexible.
You must be willing to play differ­
ent openings, and use different strate­
gical motifs.
"Favourite" lines are death, as it's
too easy to prepare against them.
The only exception I can see is if
you are the world's greatest expert on a
particular line- then maybe you can
get away with repeating it, as Bobby
Fischer did in past days when every­
one knew he would play the Najdorf
Sicilian... yet even Bobby ran into a
prepared variation (Game 1 1 in Reyk-
74
javik) and lost quickly. And nowadays
every kid with a computer can find
Spassky's 14 ll:lb1! .
"How Did You r G a m e G o Today?"
"Actua l ly I Won it Last Night, at
Two in the Morning!"
Came 1 0
T.Taylor-K.Solomon
First Saturday (May),
Budapest 2008
Modern Benoni
Kenny Solomon, IM from South Af­
rica, had a hard time getting into Hun­
gary for the famous First Saturday
tournament due to some bureaucratic
visa problems- then when he finally
made it to Budapest, he found out that
his Euros were no good, as Hungarians
prefer their own currency, the Forint!
He reminded me of myself when I
played in my first First Saturday back
in 2003 - lost and a long way from
home! I loaned him some money for
subway fare - a little nervously, as I
didn' t know him, but he seemed like a
good guy. I shouldn't have worried.
Kenny is a stand-up guy; I got my
money right back; and he became a
good friend to my wife and myself,
and especially to our little boy, Niko­
lay.
Of course, as First Saturday organ­
izer Laszlo Nagy has said, "In my
tournaments, everyone wants to kill
each other!"
As much as I liked Kenny, I did

want to kill him -over the board -but
as it turned out, I killed him in my ho­
tel room the night before the game.
1 d4 l2Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 l2Jc3
In the second round of the tourna­
ment Kenny used the Benoni to score a
sharp draw - the game went 3 lD£3 c5 4
dS exdS 5 cxdS d6 6 l2Jc3 g6 7 h3 i.g7 8
e4 0-0 9 i.d3 bS 10 i.xb5 l2Jxe4 1 1 l2Jxe4
'it'aS+ 12 l2Jfd2 'it'xbS 13 l2Jxd6 'it'a6 14
l2J2c4 �d8 1 5 i.f4 l2Jd7 1 6 0-0 l2Jb6 17
l2Jxb6 �xb6 18 l2Jxc8 �axeS
(I was amazed at how fast Kenny
made these moves, indicating his excel­
lent preparation-he continued confi­
dently and made his draw) 19 .U.b1 'iib 7
20 d6 i.f8 21 'i*'d3 i.xd6 22 i.xd6 .:tc6
23 .:!.fd1 'i*'d7 24 'i*'a3 .l:.xd6 25 l::tx d6
'it'xd6 26 'ir'xa7 �e8 27 a4 'i!Vd4 28 aS �e2
29 'ir'a8+ '#i;g7 30 a6 'ir'xf2+ 31 <#i;h2 h5 32
'ir'dS 'it>h6 33 .:tg1 h4 34 a7 Vz-1/z
P.Prohaszka-K.Solomon, Budapest
2008.
But what newbies to the First Sat­
urday don't realize - I know it took me
a while to understand this -is the
depth of opening preparation that your
Op e n i n g Pre p a ra t i o n
opponents will undertake.
Having been a victim of such
preparation before, I now switched to
the other side!
I was pretty sure Kenny would play
the Benoni again, in view of his success
against the high-rated Prohaszka. But if
he did, he was making a mistake ...
In 2003 I made a draw with Black in
the first round of my first First Satur­
day with the sharp Larsen variation of
the Philidor Defence. My opponent
was the high-rated IM (now GM)
Csaba Balogh. Emboldened by this, I
played the line again against GM
Anka. The well-prepared GM even im­
proved on Larsen's analysis - and
crushed me!
Sharp, forcing openings, like the
above-mentioned Larsen variation or
Kenny's Benoni, are actually easy to
prepare against: one simply looks for a
razor-sharp, not very popular, make
one wrong move and you're dead line;
commit it all to short-term memory;
and play and win!
When Kenny surprised Prohaszka
early in the tournament; when I sur­
prised Balogh early in the tourna­
ment- such risk taking can work.
But one should be happy with such
a good result, and not repeat the open­
ing -
Your next opponent will be ready.
Here I play 3 l2Jc3, anticipating the
Benoni, when I have the option of play­
ing what is considered the strongest
line against it, the Taimanov variation,
with a quick f-pawn (my favourite!)
advance.
75
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s
Prohaszka, with his cautious 3 tiJf3,
did not have this option.
3 cs
...
Most high-rated players who like
the Benoni won't play it here-only
after 3 tiJf3 as above - as they have a
well-grounded fear of the Taimanov
variation. But Kenny is fearless!
4 ds exds s cxds d6 6 e4 g6 7 f4 �g7 8
�bS+ ltJfd7
Taimanov's point is that Black has
to make this self-blocking move, as
8 ... �d7 or 8 ... lt:lbd7 both allow the ex­
tremely powerful 9 e5.
This is the position where my open­
ing preparation began, the night before
the game, while Liz and Nikolay slept.
I saw that White had four main
moves: in order of popularity, 9 a4, 9
�d3, 9 ltJf3 and the quite unpopular
but high scoring fourth, 9 �e2.
To me e2 is a natural square for the
bishop; I used to develop it there in the
similar line of the Four Pawns Attack,
e.g. T.Taylor-E.Yanayt, Agoura Hills
2004: 1 d4 tiJf6 2 c4 g6 3 lt:\c3 �g7 4 e4
d6 5 f4 0-0 6 ltJf3 c5 7 d5 e6 8 �e2 exd5
9 cxd5 .l:te8 10 e5 dxe5 11 fxe5 lt:lg4 12
76
i.g5 'ifb6 13 0-0 liJxe5 14 liJxe5 i.xe5 1 5
i.c4 tiJd7 16 d6
16 ... �d4+ 17 Wh1 ltJe5 18 ltJd5 'ii'x d6
19 ltJf6+ Wf8 20 �h6+ We7 21 ltJd5+
Wd7 22 ..tb5+ lt:lc6 23 l:.xf7+ We6 24 'ii'fl
1-0.
But since 9 �e2 was such a distant
fourth, I doubted Kenny had done any
serious study of it-and he had to learn
all the main lines! Meanwhile, I only
had to learn this one!
I discovered that a GM I admire,
Viktor Moskalenko, played the 9 �e2
line regularly: the database showed
that out of ten games, he had won nine
and given up only one draw! This
sounded like someone to emulate: I
went through each of the games, and
saw that he gained the advantage out
of the opening in all of them.
I especially liked that this was "my
kind of position", in that I would often
have chances for a direct attack on the
king.
After more or less memorizing
(short-term memory) the opening, and
learning the attacking ideas-easy for
me, as I have played many similar

openings in the past-! turned to
Kenny's games.
While he had faced the Taimanov
before, he had never run into 9 ..te2.
One thing particularly struck me:
the vital black piece of the Benoni is the
fianchettoed dark-squared bishop -but
in one of his games Kenny had given
this up for a knight, snatched a pawn,
and went on to win!
Here is the game: 9 a4 (the main
line) 9 ... 0-0 1 0 lbf3 lba6 1 1 0-0 lbc7 12
..tc4 a6 13 l:e1 l:.e8 14 h3 .:.b8 15 'ii'd3
lbb6 16 ..tb3 l2Jd7 17 i.c4
17 .....txc3? (beyond risky, but Kenny
gets away with it-better is 1 7... l2Jb6
with equality) 18 bxc3 (I think White
has a clear advantage after 18 'ilixc3,
e.g. 18 ...b5 19 axbS axbS 20 ..td3 c4 21
..tc2 lbcS 22 ..td2 with tremendous dark
square play) 18 ... b5 19 axbS axbS 20
..ta2 c4 21 'ii'd 4 lbcS 22 fS f6 23 ..th6
gxfS (fearless Kenny weakens his king­
side to win a pawn) 24 exfS i.xfS 25
l:.xe8+ (25 l2Jh4 is stronger) 25 ... lbxe8 26
'ii'f4 ..tg6 27 l:tfl 'ir'e7 28 'i!th2 lbd3 29
iVg3 iVe2 30 l2Jd2 iVeS 31 ..te3 'ii'xg3+
(Black gets the queens off and wins
Op e n i n g Pre p a r a t i o n
with his extra pawn) 32 'it>xg3 tl:leS 33
..tb1 lbc7 34 ..txg6 hxg6 35 lbe4 fS 36
lbxd6 lbxd5 37 ..ta7 .U.a8 38 i.d4 lbc6 39
lbxb5 lbxd4 40 cxd4 .:.a4 41 'i!th4 .:.a2 42
g4 f4 43 �gS .:.as 44 .:.b 1 lbc3 0-1
L.Bouah-K.Solomon, Cape Town 2007.
I thought this was extremely dubi­
ous play. I noticed that in the Tai­
manov ..te2 line, Black would have just
this kind of chance to take a pawn­
but I am always ready to sac in this
kind of situation .
So instead of fearing that he would
take a centre pawn, I was psychologi­
cally prepared for it- in fact, I was
hoping he would snatch it!
9 ..te21
g a6
...
Two examples of Moskalenko's
crushing play:
9 ... 0-0 10 lbf3 lba6 1 1 0-0 lbc7 12 a4
.:.e8 13 'ii'c2 l2Jf6 14 .1d2 .1g4 15 .:.ae1
lba6 16 .1c4 lbb4 17 iVh3 .1xf3 18 .:.xf3
l2Jg4 19 g3 fS 20 h3 fxe4 21 l2Jxe4 l2Jh6
22 g4 l2Jf7 23 'it>g2 .1d4 24 .1c3 'ifh4 25
.1xd4 'i'xe1 26 l2Jf6+ 'i!th8 27 i.c3 .:.e2+
28 .1xe2 'ii'xe2+ 29 .:.f2 iVe7 30 'ii'c4 1-0
V.Moskalenko-E.Magerramov, Rostov
77
Tru e C o m b a t Ch ess
on Don 1993.
In a later game Moskalenko's oppo­
nent tried 12 ... a6, but to no avail: 13
�d2 .l:!.b8 14 aS .l:!.e8 1S 'iVc2 'iVe7 16 .l:!.ae1
bS 17 axb6 l:hb6 18 �c4 lt::lbS 19 eS dxeS
20 fxeS lt::lxeS 21 lt::lxeS �xeS 22 lt::lxbS
axbS 23 d6
23...'ifu4 24 �x£7+ rJilg7 2S .l:!.xeS
'iVd4+ 26 rJilh1 .l:!.xeS 27 �c3 'iVe3 28 'iVd1
b4 29 i.xeS+ 'iVxeS 30 d7 i.xd7 31 'if'xd7
.l:!.f6 32 �c4+ rJilh6 33 'ii'd2+ rJilg7 34 .l:!.el
.l:!.d6 3S 'it'd 'tlfd4 36 b3 .!:.d7 37 h3 1-0
V.Moskalenko-J.Alonso Moyano, Bar­
bera 1999.
I love these beautiful attacks!
10 a4 'iVh4+ 11 g3 'iVe7
78
The black queen attacks my e­
pawn? Dare I hope?
12 lt::lf3 0-0 13 0-0 �xc3?
He goes for it!
This is obviously very very risky,
but White also got the advantage
against the more logical 13 ....l:!.e8 14 .l:!.e1
'iV£8 1S 'iVc2 b6 16 i.e3 lt::lf6 17 'it>g2 .l:!.a7
18 �g1 .l:!.ae7 19 lt::ld 2 i.b7 20 'ii'b3 h6 21
�f2 gS 22 �f3 g4 23 �e2 lt::lb d7 24 �d3
.l:!.b8 2S rJilg1 .l:!.ee8 26 i.fl hS 27 'iVc2
lt::lh 7 28 lt::l c4 i.c8 29 lt::le3 lt::lhf6 30 l:tab1
bS 31 axbS axbS 32 �xbS .l:txbS 33 lt::lxbS
lt::lxe4 34 b4 lt::lxf2 3S rJilxf2 lt::lf6 36 bxcS
lt::le4+ 37 �g1 lt::lxcS 38 lt::lfS i.xfS 39
'iVxfS l:txe1+ 40 l:xe1 'if'b8 41 l:te7 'ii'f8 42
.l:!.c7 1-0 A.Aleksandrov-A.Minasian,
Yerevan 1988.
14 bxc3 'if'xe4
Kenny has his pawn, but I have
"my position". This is the kind of game
I play especially well, where I have
sacrificed a pawn for a direct attack on
the king.
I hadn't used any time so far, but
now I took a long think. It's important
to find the best plan of attack, for
White is down a centre pawn, and if I

don't play accurately, I could lose just
as in the Cape Town game given
above.
When the character of the game
changes radically like this (instead of a
regular Benoni with a strong g7-bishop
fighting against a broad White centre,
Black now has no bishop and White
has lost a centre pawn!), it's worth
spending some time acclimatizing one­
self, and evaluating the new structure.
Here's what I came up with: White
has two basic plans of attack. First, lin­
ing up on the long diagonal with
moves like c3-c4, i.b2, 'ii'd2-c3 etc. Sec­
ond, and sometimes this plan can work
in tandem with the other, is a line
opening attack on the kingside with
moves like i.d3 and f4-f5.
However, it seemed to me that the
second plan had to be delayed; for ex­
ample, the immediate ..td3 would lose
the d-pawn (which could be supported
by c3-c4, which pawn move also opens
the long diagonal for White's unop­
posed dark-squared bishop) and fur­
thermore, a precipitous f4-f5 could al­
low Black to block the long diagonal
with ...l2Je5. If White plays the diagonal
attack, the white f-pawn should stay on
f4 for now, preventing said block.
This led me to believe that 15 c4
was White's best, as it facilitates both
attacks (opens the diagonal for the
dark-squared bishop, defends d5 so as
to allow i.d3) without committing a
piece.
There is no rush to gain a tempo on
the black queen; Her Majesty is so
badly placed that I'll be knocking her
Op e n i n g Pre p a r a t i o n
around like a Palin pinata!
15 C41
After a half an hour's thought-just
now I put it on Fritz and one billionth
of a second later, 15 c4! "clear advan­
tage to White".
We now return to the human brain!
Another advantage of 15 c4 is that it
inhibits Black's standard Benoni break
of ...b7-b5 - and in this non-standard
Benoni, that means Black's extra pawn
has nothing to say.
1S ...lZ'lf6
The black knight on d7 (a legacy of
the Taimanov blow 8 i.b5+) has to
move to free the queenside pieces, but
now White gains three tempi.
16 ..td3
It's important not to commit the
queen's bishop just yet, as it can still
develop on the cl-h6 diagonal.
16 ..Ji'e7 17 l1e1 �c7
If instead 17 ... 'ir'd8 White takes ad­
vantage of the position of Black's
queen with my aforementioned f4-f5
break: 1 8 f5! i.xf5 1 9 i.xf5 gx£5 20 i.g5!
and the bishop comes out this way!
The pin is so strong that Black will
79
Tru e Co m b a t C h es s
have to start pitching material just to
survive - in any case, clear advantage
to White.
18 .i.b2
Since there is no pin and the black
knight is undefended, I finally commit
this piece, gain a third tempo- and
now it seemed clear that I could win
with plan A, the diagonal attack.
1B .. .t2Jbd7 19 'iVd2 :es 20 1Yc3
With the f-pawn at f4, Black can't
block my diagonal attack: I threaten
l:he8+ followed by the long mate on h8,
thus forcing the further concession of
the e-file.
20 ... :xe1+ 21 :xe1 bs
A desperation pawn sacrifice, but at
this point I have no interest in pawns,
only in a certain king!
I thought for a little bit, and found
the forced win.
22 �e8+ 'iiig 7 23 g4! 1-0
White threatens to win a piece with
24 g5, and after Black's only reasonable
counter, 23 ...b4, I had prepared the
easy but pretty queen sacrifice 24
'iixf6+!! l"Llxf6 25 g5 h5 26 .i.xf6+ 'iiih7 27
:h8 mate.
80
Kenny saw m e looking hungrily at
the f6-square; he cheated the spectators
by resigning right now!
During my opening preparation I
didn't analyze in detail after Black
takes the centre pawn, but I knew that
such a position would play into all my
strengths. In my pre-game work I sim­
ply found a new (to my opponent) po­
sition where I felt comfortable, and
where I had the Moskalenko games to
guide me (though no one took the
pawn against him.)
All in all, this was a near perfect ex­
ample of opening preparation - i t can
truly be said I won the game the night
before!
Yes, 15 c4 and the unplayed queen
sacrifice at the end were nice moves,
but I could probably find them in any
game- the important thing was getting
the position where such moves could
be played.
There is a sad coda to this game. In
a later round of the same tournament, I
saw that Kenny was Black against the
strong Swedish GM Ralf Akesson- a 1
 O p e n i n g Pre p a r a t i o n

d4 player! When I looked at the game again at

I stared in horror as the opening this point, I noticed that White already
moves unfolded, sending thought had a significant advantage - and that
waves, "Don't do it, Kenny!" Akesson had used virtually no time on
But my inaudible warning was also his clock! I tried not to look at the rest.
unheard. 18 ... tt:le8 19 ..1c4 l:tb8 20 1i'd3 tt:lc7 21
l:tae1 'ifi>h8 22 as tt:le8 23 tt:le2 fs 24 exfs
gxfs 2S g4 bs 26 axb6 tt:lxb6 27 gs
R.Akesson-K.Solomon
tt:\xc4 28 bxc4 1i'd7 29 l:i.b1 l:i.a8 30 ..tas
First Saturday (May),
'iti>g8 31 l:tfe1 'ifa4 32 ..1c3 ..txc3 33
Budapest 2008
'i!Vxc3 1i'd7 34 tt:lg3 tt:lg7 3S h4 'ili'f7 36
Modern Benoni
'iff3 as 37 hs a4 38 h6 tt:le8 39 'ifc3 a3
40 l:ta1 a2 41 :e2 1-0
1 d4 tt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 tt:lc3 cs 4 ds exds s
cxds d6 6 e4 g6 7 f4 ..tg7 8 ..tbS+ tt:lfd7
9 a4
I'm sure that Kenny was now pre­
pared for my 9 ..1e2, but Akesson
played the main line, and he had obvi­
ously, like me, done his homework.
9 .. JIVh4+ 10 g3 'ili'd8 11 tt:lf3 o-o 12 o-o
a6 13 ..1d3 tt:lf6 14 'ifi>g2 ..1g4 1S h3
..txf3+ 16 'ifxf3 tt:lbd7 17 ..td2 .l:.c8 18
b3

I wish Kenny all the best-he's now

learned the same rough lessons that I
learned my first time out in Budapest.
One simply can't repeat openings that
allow this type of home preparation. In
other words, you have to have enough
reserve openings to get through a thir­
teen round tournament full of laptop
armed chess killers- or you will spend
a lot of time looking sadly out over the
Danube!

81
 Chapter Three
The E n d game and the Clock
I have already promised a lot of blun­
ders in this chapter, and I will deliver!
World-class GM putting a rook en
prise -you got it!
I have seen some chess writers be­
moan the poor state of endgame play
today, even at the GM level, but I think
this is a spurious accusation. If we all
played at fifteen moves per hour, we'd
all play much better! However, now
we see Grandmaster events where the
endgame is played off at fifteen minutes
(not moves) of sudden death! No one
can play like Capablanca under such
conditions, not even Capablanca!
The games in this chapter were
played under three different time con­
trols: Game 1 1 was played under the
standard American time control of 40/2
then Sudden Death/1 with a five sec­
ond delay: that is, after the first time
control is reached at move 40, you have
to play all the remaining moves in the
next hour. Your clock will not start
82
I
counting down until five seconds have
elapsed, but there is no increment, thus
you don't gain any time. For example,
when I had two seconds left on my
clock vs. Khachian (Game 1 1) I was
able to make a large number of (not so
good!) moves by always moving
within my "five second grace period".
This meant I could keep the game go­
ing, but my two seconds stayed the
same. If I would ever take six seconds
to move, I would lose one of my pre­
cious seconds; if I took seven seconds
on any particular move, I would lose
the game. Just let Don Jose try that!
Game 13 featured the same first
time control, but the second time con­
trol was the abysmal Sudden Death/30,
that is just thirty more minutes for all
the rest of the moves, with no incre­
ment and thus no way to gain time.
One might expect more horrible blun­
ders in this game, and you will get
them.

Games 12, 14 and 15 feature the
FIDE/Budapest time limit of Game/2
with a thirty second increment. This
means that one gains thirty seconds
each time you move, or if the Khachian
game had been played at that time
limit, I could have made one move and
my two seconds would have gone to
32! So that sounds good for the time
pressure person, but there is a dark
side: your opponent gains time too, on
his moves. So if your opponent, who
has an attacking position, enters a
complex ending with a time advantage,
he can keep gaining time, while the
defender, with the more difficult role,
might have to spend more than thirty
seconds thinking on each move, and so
will still lose time. Furthermore, thirty
seconds won't get you to the bathroom
and back! This means that the oppo­
nent can apply "biological warfare"
while you struggle with the time short­
age.
At this point it's worth quoting a
few lines from an interview with Nigel
Short -who played a match with Kas­
parov for the World Championship ­
conducted by Frederic Friedel of
ChessBase. The subject is a one-move
blunder committed by Short in a mod­
ern day World Championship tourna­
ment in which the endgame was
played out at fifteen minutes for the
entire rest of the game, with a thirty
second increment (game follows).
Short: But it would be absurd to
think of these beautifully played end­
games, which one remembers from
T h e E n dg a m e a n d t h e C l o c k
history, being played under this time
control. You simply have no opportu­
nity for great depth of thought. When
you play an extremely long game, like I
did, it is very unpleasant indeed.
Friedel: But Nigel, you dropped a
piece in one move!
Short: Well, one of the problems
was that a little bit earlier I was thirsty,
a bit dehydrated actually. But I had no
time to get up and get a drink. I tried to
go a couple of times, but then he would
make a move. Remember you are play­
ing 30 second chess for a huge amount
of time. Even going to the bathroom is
a severe problem. From a certain point
in the game you can simply forget
about going to the toilet. You go to the
bathroom after move 40, then you get
the extra 15 minutes, and once that has
gone you can forget about the bath­
room for the rest of the game.
To me, as a person who loves chess,
loves the art and beauty of chess, this is
simply appalling. Short's haunting line:
"think of these beautifully played end­
games, which one remembers from
history" seems to indicate his own de­
spair, and I simply don't know what to
do about it.
Endgame play is no longer "end­
game play" - it is "the endgame and
the clock" which is why I have used
that chapter title. It features different
rules from past games, a different style
of play-and can be decided by one
player or the other not being able to go
to the bathroom, not being able to get a
drink of water.
83
True C o m b a t Chess
At the very least, could we not have
a five minute break (with both clocks
stopped) every hour so that the players
could use the facilities, get a drink, in
general bring chess just a tiny bit closer
to the civilized game of the past?
Here is Nigel's game:
N.Short-M.Krasenkow
F I D E World Championsh ip,
Tripol i 2004
Sicilian Defence
1 e4 es 2 tLlf3 tt:Je6 3 d4 exd4 4 tt:Jxd4
tt:Jf6 5 tt:Je3 es 6 tt:Jdbs d6 1 i.gs a6 8
tt:Ja3 bS 9 i.xf6 gxf6 10 tt:Jds fS 11 i.d3
i.e6 12 o-o i.xds 13 exds tt:Je7 14 :Le1
e4 15 i.f1 i.g7 16 e3 o-o 17 'iVhs 'iVeB
18 l:tadl tt:Jg6 19 g3 :es 20 .i.h3 l:tes 21
tt:Je2 'ii'e4 22 tt:Je3 'i!Vxa2 23 'iVe2 f4 24
l:tal 'iVb3 25 l:ta3 'ii'x a3 26 bxa3 fxe3 27
�xe3 tt:Je7 28 �b6 tt:Jxds 29 'iVe6 .!:IaeB
30 f4 exf3 31 'i!Vxe8+ l:txeB 32 l:txe8+
i.fB 33 :Le8 tt:Jb6 34 l:te6 ds 3 5 �g4 tt:Je4
36 l:txa6 i.es+ 37 Whl f2 38 ..te2 i.xa3
39 .!:If6 .i.b2 40 l:txf2 ..txe3 41 l:tfs tt:Jes
42 .i.xbs Wg7 43 h3 f6 44 'it;lg2 .i.d2 45
l:tf2 i.e3 46 l:te2 h6 47 l:te7+ 'it>g6 48
l:te7 ..tes 49 .l:i:e8 ..te3 so 'it>f1 d4 51 l:te7
'it>fs 52 'it>e2 i.gs 53 l:tes <it;g6 54 l:!.dB
..te3 55 �a4 'iii'f7 56 ..te2 'it>e7 57 :as
'iii'f7 58 ..tfs 'it>e7 59 h4 .tel 60 .l:.a7+
Wd6 61 l:ta6+ rti;e7 62 :tal .i.e3 63 ll:bl
'it>d6 64 :Lb6+ rtl;e7 65 :Le6+ rti;f7 66 l:ta6
'it>e7 67 �e4 rti;f7 68 l:ta7+ rti;e6 69 :as
rti;f7 10 .idS+ rti;g6 71 ..te6 Wg7 72 ..tfs
rti;f7 73 :La7+ rti;fS 74 l:te7 rtl;es 75 .Uh7
'it>fS 76 :b7 'it>e8 77 l:th7 rti;fS 78 l:te7
rti;eS 79 g4 rti;f8 So llh7 rti;gS 81 .l:.e7 'it>fS
84
82 l:te6 Wf7 83 :Ld6 'it>e7 84 :tds 'it>f7 85
hs 'it>e7 86 gs ..txgs 87 l:txd4 .tel 88
Wdl ..tgs 89 'it>e2 ..te3 90 l:tdl rti;f7 91
rti;e3 'i;;fS 92 :Ld6 We7 93 lie6+ rti;f7 94
'it>b4 ..if2 95 l:ta6 rtl;e7 96 WbS ..ie3 97
!ie6+ Wf7 98 rti;a6 ..tes 99 rti;b7 ..te7 100
rtl;e7 rti;fS 101 lla6 Wf7 102 ..te6+ Wg7
103 l:ta2 tLlf3 104 rti;d7 �es 105 l:tg2+
tt:Jgs 1o6 ..tfs ..tfs 107 rt;;es i.d6 1os
I:td2 i.es 109 l'Ld7+ 'it>gs 110 ll:e7 i.b4
111 rti;d7 rt;;t7 112 ..tg6+ rt;;gs 113 rti;e6
..ta3 114 l:tb7 ..t>fs 115 'it>ds rt;;gs 116
l:ta7 ..ib4 117 l:te7 ..ta3 118 l:te6 rti;g7
119 rti;d4 ..tb2+ 120 rti;e3 ..tes
121 l:te6??
Rogozenko comments at this point:
"The consequence of the FIDE time­
control. From a certain point, one finds
oneself under time pressure for the en­
tire game. Then everything becomes
possible, even such incredible blunders.
The right plan was indicated by Short
himself-to bring the rook on g6: 121
l:ta6! rti;f8 122 .lla8+ 'it>g7 123 l:te8 i.d6
124 ..tc2 ..tes 125 .i.b3 ..td6 126 l:tg8+
rti;h7 127 ll:g6 .ieS 128 ..ic2 and wins."
Instead, here is the sad end:
121... tt:Jxe6 122 ..tfs tt:ld4 0-1

The game can be summed up as fol­
lows: Short outplayed his opponent
and obtained a material advantage; he
reached a difficult but winning ending;
under enormous clock and biological
pressure he blundered and lost, while
under an "old school" time limit he
would have won.
This is the way we decide the world
championship now.
Even worse, the recent match be­
tween Anand and Kramnik could have
featured (according to the official rules)
an Armageddon playoff- blitz chess! ­
for the title, in which the two best
players in the world would have been
reduced to (in Irina Krush's far too cor­
rect phrase) "clock punching mon­
keys" !
That groaning sound you hear is
Capablanca turning over in his grave!
Seventeen Moves in
Two Seconds
Game 1 1
T.Taylor-M.Khach ian
Los Angeles 2003
Grunfeld Defence
Before we get into the game, I'd like
to point out that this chapter will be an
anomaly in the book: in all the other
chapters I analyze the game as a whole,
but here I'm only going to give brief
notes on the first part of the game, and
put the primary focus on the ending.
The reason is that, with modern time
controls, the ending is played under
Th e E n dg a m e a n d t h e C l o c k
different rules and different condition,
even though you are still sitting at the
same table! In the first part of the
game, there is no problem if you want
to get up, stretch your legs, walk
around a bit. In the ending, all such
manoeuvres might be prohibited by
the clock situation. Again, because of
the clock, one might play the first forty
moves like a GM, and the last forty
moves like a patzer-you're still the
same player, but no one plays well in
time pressure.
And we all need a break from any
work - right now I'm in time pressure
with my editor, but I don't think he'll
forfeit me if I step out of the library
where I'm working and take a slow
walk past the closed swimming pool,
over by the children's park, then
around the tennis courts and back.
I wish I could have enjoyed such a
relaxing walk after move 76 in this
game!
One further note: Along with my
own annotations I have included a few
comments from GM Hecht, courtesy of
the Megabase. The important contrast is
that Hecht's comments do not reflect the
state of the clock (he would have no way
of knowing this) and so do not give a
complete picture of the game. How­
ever, they do reflect the inhuman per­
fection of the five-piece tablebase he
was no doubt using!
1 d4 ti:lf6 2 C4 g6 3 ti:lc3 dS 4 tiJf3 ..tg7 5
cxds tt:lxds 6 ..tgs
I had prepared this novelty for my
Griinfeld-loving opponent-at least I
85
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s

thought it was a novelty! I did not own have obtained one half-point more
a computer at the time, and came up than I actually received!
with the move independently-but
now I see that it had been played a few
times before I "invented" it.

17 :tel gs 18 �g3 .l:tec8 19 h4 f6 20

hxgs hxgs 21 �c7 �f7 22 l2Jd2 g4 23
.l:lcs es 24 dxes fxes 2S a4 ..te8 26 tt'lb3
In any case, it was new to Melik, �f8 27 .l:tcc1 �e6 28 as �bS 29 �b6
which was the important thing! �c4 3o ttJd2 �bs 31 tt'lf1 �b4 32 �h2
6 ... h6 7 �h4 c6 8 e3 0-0 9 �d3 tt'ld7 10 �c4 33 l:.a4 �d6 34 e4 �b3 3S l:.xc8
tt'lxds cxds 11 o-o .l:te8 12 'ii'b 3 'ii'a s 13 l:.xc8 36 exdS+ �xds 37 l:.xg4 e4+ 38
�bs tt'lg3 .:c2 39 :g6+ �d7 40 .:g7+ �c6 41
My opening surprise has been a �h3 l:.xb2
success! Now I decided to cash in and
win a pawn, but 13 .l:f.fcl with posi­
tional pressure might have been even
stronger.
13 ... a6 14 �xd7 �xd7 1S 'ii'x b7 'fibs 16
'ii'x bs �xbs
Somewhere around here my oppo­
nent offered a draw, which I refused: I
had scored in the opening and by­
passed the middlegame to obtain a
pawn up ending, for which my oppo­
nent has only a nebulous amount of
compensation. "The endgame and the clock" battle
Of course one can hardly improve has begun!
at chess if one takes draws in better After numerous complications, I
positions, but with perfect hindsight­ have made it through the tactical stage
if I had so wimpily accepted - ! would and reached the time control at move

86

40 with a much improved position.
White is still just one pawn up, but
it is passed (the g-pawn) and can be
supported by rook and knight. My
only weaknesses (at aS and f2) are effi­
ciently covered by my bishop.
So even after a preliminary look, we
can safely assign a mental "clear ad­
vantage to White" to my position ­
now let's move on to the clock.
We are now in Sudden Death, with
an hour for each player for the rest of
the game. There is a five second delay
on each move, but this only gives you a
short grace period in which to move­
no time will be added to the clock.
I made the time control with sec­
onds to spare; my opponent still had
about a half-hour.
So the actual time control is:
White- Sudden Death/60 minutes,
Black-Sudden Death/90 minutes.
This will be a very serious time ad­
vantage if the game goes a significant
number of moves. (If you're the kind of
person who peeks ahead in a book to
see whodunnit, you'll see the game
went 93 moves -not a good sign!)
So how should White win this end­
game? Using the experience that I have
now, I would give the following ad­
vice: First, seriously analyze the posi­
tion, take the time that's needed, and
properly evaluate White's chances.
OK, let's go deep. As mentioned
above, White has an extra, passed
pawn - but that's not all to the story.
The g-pawn is an outside pawn, sup­
ported by White's rook, knight and
king- while Black has nothing to
Th e E n dg a m e a n d t h e C l o c k
blockade it, and can only slightly im­
pede said pawn's advance with his
bishops.
Does Black have any advantages?
The famous "two bishops" are obvi­
ous-but again, what happens if White
plays the most obvious and best move,
42 liJfS ?
Then this knight on its fifth rank
outpost (it will be supported by the
advancing g-pawn) is clearly the equal
of either black bishop. On fS, it can
only be exchanged by the light-squared
bishop, leaving same-coloured bishops
(always a help when trying to win end­
ings), and furthermore, the remaining
black bishop will not be able to defend
the vulnerable a6-pawn. White has
chances to win that pawn by combin­
ing an attack on the kingside (advanc­
ing the g-pawn) and a rook attack on
the queenside.
Can Black then exchange off the
dark-squared bishops? No, for after the
planned 42 liJfS, Black can't play ... iJ... c7,
and obviously 42 ... iJ...cS loses to 43
l:k7+.
Furthermore, 42 liJfS threatens to
87
True Co m b a t C h e s s
win a piece with 43 .l:tg6!.
Does Black have any threats? In a
word, no. Any checks will just drive
the white king up the board where it
wants to go, e.g. 42 ... .l:tb3+ 43 Wg4 �e6
44 .l:tg6 .i.f5+ (or 44 ... Wd5? 45 .l:he6!) 45
Wf5 and another black weakness, the
isolated e-pawn, shows up, while the
white g-pawn has a clear run.
To sum up, White is not just better:
White is absolutely winning. White has
a clear plan of advancing on the king­
side with both pieces and the g-pawn,
and a secondary plan to pick up Black's
weak a-pawn - and one should keep in
mind the e-pawn might also drop.
This correct evaluation is a great
help in handling the clock. In other
words, after one long think (though my
next move 42 lL'lf5 is obvious, it's impor­
tant to know the plans and merits of the
position), I could say this to myself:
White has a decisive advantage. I can
afford to use some time here (a half­
hour to forty-five minutes over the next
few moves) in order to accurately work
out the win. It's clear that after a few
correct moves, White will either win a
second pawn or force Black to give up
a piece for my passed pawn. At that
point, it will be easy to win the game
(assuming my opponent doesn' t re­
sign) even in some mild zeitnot.
That would be correct play, han­
dling the endgame and the clock with
equal skill.
Now here's what I actually did: I
didn't evaluate the position so well, in
that I didn't realize my position was as
crushing as it was. Secondly, I didn't
88
look for the plans (it wasn't until I got
home that I realized Black's a-pawn
was a serious weakness). Third, and
worst of all, I didn't calculate accu­
rately enough to put my opponent
away- I allowed him to drag out the
game, and the longer the game lasted
(without any decisive change like gain
of further material), the more the time
difference between us mattered.
42 lL'lfs
Correct, but this much was easy.
42 ....i.e6 43 g4
White unpins the knight and creates
the threat 44 lL'ld4+. Since taking my
horse is obviously bad for Black
(43 ....i.xf5 44 gxf5 .i.e5 45 f6! and the
passed pawn will not be denied), Kha­
chian prevents the first threat...
43 ....i.es
But now White should win by force.
44 l!g6?
This superficial move allows Black
to drag out the game.
The quickest way is the best way, as
Capablanca would say. And in this
case-battling Sudden Death-finding
the quickest win is essential.

Black's motley position (three unde­
fended pieces on the e-file!) indicates
the presence of a tactic, but the tactic is
based on the full board strategy out­
lined above (which, I repeat, was not
clear to me during the game). This cor­
rect strategy involves advancing the
passed pawn while maintaining threats
to Black's weak a-pawn. With this
strategical underpinning in mind, the
tactic is easy to see: a skewer.
White wins with 44 !:te7!, skewering
all those undefended pieces. Black can
only try 44 ... Wd5 (44 ... �xf5 45 gxf5
�d5 makes no difference: White con­
tinues with 46 l:ta7 l:tb3+ 47 Wg4 and
wins as in the main line) 45 l:.a7- the
point: now that Black's king has been
diverted, the a6-pawn falls as Black
can't play 45 ... �c8? because of the fork
on e7. A sample line is 45 ...l:tb1 46 l:txa6
.:thl+ 47 wg2 .l:lh2+ 48 Wgl
and Black's checks run out. About
all he can do is 48 ... �xf5 49 gxf5 .:f.h5 50
l::ta8 l:txf5 51 a6 Wc6 52 �e3 �c7 53 a7
l:!.a5 54 l:tb8 l:txa7 55 �xa7 �xb8 56
i.xb8 and White comes through with
an extra piece.
Th e E n dg a m e a n d t h e C l o c k
Some notes on this final position:
White has an absolute dead win, a
piece up, on move 56. Even if I used all
my time to get there and had, let's say,
two seconds left, I would easily win
that position with the five second de­
lay.
In other words, using some time
now (on moves 42-56) would lead to an
absolutely forcing win that would
henceforth require very little thought.
The ideas of 44 l:te7 (skewer and di­
vert the black king from the a-pawn)
are simple in the extreme, and can only
be missed by someone who has not
figured out the strategical impera­
tives-namely me!
44...Wd7
Of course White still has a winning
position, but it's not cut and dried
forced like before.
45 �h4 l:.bs 46 .:th6 �xfs?l
Better is 46 ...�c4, when the two
bishops give Black a little compensa­
tion.
Now White should again win fairly
easily.
47 gxfs �c3
89
T r u e C o m b a t Ch ess
48 .U.h7+
48 'i1i>g4! wins. The idea is simplicity
itself: White protects his powerful
passed pawn, exchanges the rook
pawns, and then wins by using all
three of his pieces to push the passed
pawn forward. In some variations the
white king will pick up Black's e-pawn
as well.
A quick glance at the variations
shows Black has no defence:
a) 48 ... 'i1i>e8 49 'i1i>f4 ..txa5 50 ..td4
..tc7+ (50 ... ..td2+ 51 ..te3 ..txe3+ 52 fxe3
is an easily won rook ending) 51 'i1i>xe4
aS 52 .U.h8+ 'it>d7 53 f6 ..td6 54 f7 a4 55
f8'1W ..txf8 56 l:hf8 l:ta5 57 1:tf7+ �c6 58
l:.a7 and White has a "two second" win
with the extra piece.
b) 48 .....te5 49 l:.h7+ �c6 50 f6! and
the passed pawn goes through.
c) 48 ...'it>e7 49 �f4 ..txa5 50 ..td4
i.d2+ 51 ..te3 .i.xe3+ 52 fxe3 aS 53 :a6
�f7 54 �xe4 l:.b4+ 55 �e5 a4 56 .l:!.a7+
�f8 57 e4 and once again the rook end­
ing is routine.
d) 48 ... ..txa5 49 ..te3 -the key:
White wins the a-pawn and pre­
serves the bishop, which can cover the
90
queening square at f8. Strangely
enough, I never saw this idea during
the game, but saw it immediately when
I got home. After 49 ... .i.c3 50 l:.xa6 .i.eS
(if 50 ... �e7 White demonstrates the
attacking power of three pieces - !
count the king! - plus a passed pawn:
51 .i.gS+ 'it>f7 52 l:.a7+ 'itg8 53 f6 .U.b8 54
l:tg7+ 'i1i>f8 55 ..th6 �e8 56 f7+ 'it>e7 57
f8'1W+ �xf8 58 l:tb7 wins a rook, or
54 .. .'�'h8 55 <li>fS l:.g8 56 l:txg8+ 'iti>xg8 57
�g6 .i.b4 58 f7+ and White either
queens or mates) 51 �g5 l:tdS (51 ...l:tb8
52 f6 ..tc3 53 �g6 .i.b4 54 ..th6 ..tcs 55
f7 .i.e7 56 .U.a7+ 'itd6 57 .U.xe7 'itxe7 58
f8it'+ l:txf8 59 ..txf8+ �xf8 60 �f5 �f7 61
�xe4 �e6 62 �f4 �f6 63 f3 is a win­
ning pawn ending) 52 f6 .i.h2+ 53 'iti>g6
.U.d6 54 l:txd6+ .i.xd6 55 f7 ..tf8 56 ..th6
We7 57 ..tg7 and Black can't hold the
queening square.
So twice White has had the chance
to win Black's rook pawn (here and on
move 44), but since I wasn't looking for
that idea (I hadn't looked deep enough
into the position to see that the vulner­
ability of this pawn was part of my
winning plan) I didn't see the required
moves.
48 ... �d6 49 ..tc7+??
There is no possible reason to move
the bishop off the protected square ­
but my frustration with the position
was causing me to bum time and make
bad moves!
Correct is the evident 49 'it>g4 which
should still win: 49 ... ..txa5 50 l:th6+ �d5
51 ..te3 l:tb3 52 .l:Ixa6 and White gets
back into the winning variation.
49...'i1i>c6 so 'i1i>g4??

It's sheer insanity to allow the pin;
my idea was 50 ...l:!.b7 51 l:!.h3, but it's
absurd to rely on such a tactic in time
trouble (especially when it has a big
hole in it!). Correct is to admit my mis­
take and play 50 i.b6 i.xa5 51 i.xa5
l:f.xa5 52 �g5 l:ta2 53 l:!.h4 .:f.xf2 54 l:txe4
with a dead draw.
50... e3!
A fine interference move: now Black
wins a piece, but loses all his pawns.
The position has changed completely:
it's still a draw, but now White has to
be careful.
51 fxe3 l:tb7 52 l:th6+ r:J;;xc7 53 l:txa6
l:tb5
Th e E n dg a m e a n d t h e C l o c k
It's time to re-evaluate this com­
pletely new position - and I didn't
have that much time left. However, one
doesn't need that much time. I had a
few minutes left, and in that I could (or
should) quickly see: White has three
pawns for the piece, but will soon lose
the a-pawn, so really two pawns for the
piece. Therefore, in point value, Black
is a little better. The conclusion is that
White must now play for a draw.
How? While R+B vs. R is a theoretical
draw, it's not easy, especially in time
pressure. What are White's assets? His
connected passed pawns of course, and
one should now remember
Nimzowitsch's maxim about such
pawns, that they should advance to­
gether like good soldiers. Furthermore,
one can see that if White plays 54 e4, he
creates a solid structure that Black's
bishop can't attack (all on light
squares). Finally, with the last point in
mind, where does the white rook be­
long? Obviously on the protected cen­
tral light square e6. Then White threat­
ens to advance his connected passers,
and Black, to avoid loss, will probably
have to exchange rooks with a draw.
Again, as after the time control,
once one sees the strategy, the individ­
ual moves are easy: in short, White
draws simply with 54 e4! i.xa5 (if
54 ... l:!.xa5 55 J:!.xa5 draws) 55 r:J;;g5 .ltc3
56 'it>g6 l:te5 (or 56 ...l:tb 1 57 r:J;;f7 l:!.e 1 58
l:te6 r:J;;d 7 59 f6 .:f.h1 60 e5 l:th7+ 61 �g6
and Black barely draws) 57 l:te6!, and
Black must play 57...l:txe6+ with a
draw, as 57...l:tc5 58 f6 could be dan­
gerous for him.
91
T r u e Co m b a t C h es s
54 f6?
Just as 44 1:tg6 did not throw away
the win, so this move does not throw
away the draw-but it makes it more
difficult, and prolongs the game, which
can be fatal when one has less time
than the opponent.
Here "clock strategy" is important:
Black has much more time, so White
must look for a quick draw or an easy
draw. Both of those can be found with
54 e4. But having missed that, White
should look for the simplest R+B vs. R
draw.
54...�d7 55 .l:.a7+ �e6 56 f7 i.. b4 57 a6
.l:.as 58 .:.b7 i..e 7 59 a7 �xf7 60 e4 �e6
61 .:.b6+ .i.d6 62 .:.b7 .l:.a4 63 �f3 ..tcs
64 .l:.h7 ..txa7
65 .l:.h6+
White is playing without a plan, but
this planlessness is partly caused by
my time trouble (I have under five
minutes now).
It's clear we're heading for the no­
torious R+B vs. R ending at this point.
How can I actually draw this theoretical
draw? On the chessboard, there are
two main defences: the Cochrane de-
92
fence and the second rank defence.
We'll see the second rank defence later
in the game; for the record, John Nunn,
in Secrets of Pawnless Endings, gives the
basic Cochrane as corning from this
type of position: White �e5, .:.a7, i..e4;
Black �e8, .l:.e2. White can't play 1 �e6
due to 1 . ..1:txe4+, but if 1 'iti>d5 'it>f8
(moving away from the white king) or
1 'it>f5 'it>d8 and Black draws.
However, before that defence is
needed, the defending king should stay
in the centre as long as possible- as
ultimately the basic defence to R+B vs.
R is the fifty-move rule, which states
that the game is drawn if 50 moves go
by without a piece being taken or a
pawn moved. Therefore, from a pure
"rules of chess" standpoint, White's
extra pawn in my game is a handicap.
Best would be 65 'it>e2! .l:.xe4+ 66
'it>d3 .l:.a4 67 .l:Ih6+ 'it>d5 68 1:th5+ and
White has an ideal drawing position. It
will take forever (or maybe near fifty
moves) to force my king to the side,
and then, starting with such a good
position, it will be easy to set up the
Cochrane defence and draw by the
fifty-move rule ...
But wait!
No!
I can't do that. The old rules no
longer apply. I have less than five min­
utes now, and so by American rules I
am not required to write my moves
down. In any case, I don't have time to
write my moves down. How can I
claim the fifty-move rule with no
scoresheet?
My opponent, to his credit, kept

writing the moves down, which is why
I have this complete score now, but in
fact (again by current American rules)
he is not required to- even though he
had more than five minutes. The rule
says that if one player has less than five
minutes, neither player has to keep
score, and most do not.
In this particular case, I suppose I
might have tried to use my opponent's
scoresheet to claim the fifty-move rule,
but I'm not sure that's legal.
In any case, in the game in question,
I am swimming- not sure what to do,
while the rules are vague or irrelevant.
With successive time controls as in
Lasker-Capablanca, one would simply
aim for the fifty-move rule. Here, with
no time to write moves down, I was
aiming for ... nothing.
Clearly I would run out of time far
before my opponent, in which case I
would be doomed to make every move
in under five seconds - this is what
happened.
Forget about bathroom, drinks,
walks or even the basic rules of chess ­
everything has gone out the window,
except that I have an unpleasant de­
fence and no time to think.
6s ... 'iftes 66 l:ths+ 'iftf6 67 l:tfs+ 'ifte6 68
l:tbs l:ta3+ 69 'iftg4 jLd4 10 l:tb8 jLcs 71
l:te8+ jt_e7 72 l:tc8 jLd6 73 l:.c6 l:.g3+ 74
Wh4 :!g1 75 Wh3 'itte s 76 l:tc2
I am now down to two seconds on
my clock, and the rest of the game was
played (for me) at the "delay time
limit" of five seconds per move. My
opponent, who had moved quickly
after the first time control, and who
T h e E n dg a m e a n d t h e C l o c k
entered the second time control with
an extra half-hour, had plenty of time.
76 'iftxe4
••.
Hecht comments: "Theoretically the
position should be drawn."
But with two seconds, Grandmas­
ter?
77 l:tg2 l:th1+ 78 Wg4 �f4 79 l:.e2+ �e3
I knew there was something called
a "second rank defence" and I knew it
was based on a stalemate trick -but I
had never studied it! (I have now of
course.) This lack of crucial knowledge
was a big part of my loss, but I'm not
sure I could have successfully de­
fended even with my current knowl­
edge, with two seconds on the clock, or
five seconds per move.
Anyway, the mechanism of my
coming mistake is as follows: knowing
that the second rank defence was based
on a stalemate, I moved my king to­
ward the comer, thinking that most
stalemates occur there. Unfortunately,
this particular stalemate works best in
the middle of the last rank (we'll see an
example in the note to move 89) and
moving the king to the comer puts his
93
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s
majesty in grave danger.
80 'it>g3?1
Hecht helpfully comments that 80
.l:.g2 is clearly drawn.
80...l:th8 81 'it>g2?
Again this blunder (looking for the
nonexistent corner stalemate), when 81
.:f.g2 is the clear draw.
81....:.g8+ 82 'iti>h1 .:.ds s3 1:tg2
83 ...l:td1+?
"Missed chance number one" says
Hecht, who gives 83 ....l:.h8+ 84 .Uh2 l:tf8
85 l:lg2 ..tf2 86 l:lg7 'ito>f3 87 .l:.h7 ..tg3 88
'it>g1 l:ld8 89 .:tf7+ i.f4 and wins.
Why does my opponent miss this?
Because he is now "blitzing" me, mov­
ing as fast as he can write the moves
down. I have no time to think, and so
he's trying to push me into using six or
seven seconds on a move - when Black
will win on time -instead of looking
for a forced win on the board.
84 'ito>h2 ..tf4+ 85 'ito>h3
I escape, and Hecht agrees I have
once again reached a drawing position.
Still two seconds though!
ss ... 'iti>fs 86 .:tg8 'it>e4 87 l:lg2 .l:.d7 88
.l:.g4 .l:.d3+
94
89 'ito>g2?
"Crash no. 2"' says Hecht.
What I should play (but could never
find in two seconds unless I really
really knew this ending well) is 89 'ito>h4
l:ld1 90 'ith3 'itf3 91 l:tg3+!!, which is
indeed the key stalemate trick (on the
side, not in the comer) of the second
rank defence. Black could make other
attempts (in fact, without my having a
scoresheet, he could play on for his
whole last hour!), but over the board
White cannot force the win if Black
knows this defensive method well.
89...We3?
Hecht: "Missed chance no.2". Kha­
chian is still blitzing, and so misses this
second forced win: 89 ... .l:.a3! 90 l:r.g8
.l:.a2+ 91 'ito>fl 'ito>f3 92 .l:.e8 .:.h2 93 .l:.g8
..th6 94 l:lg6 ..te3 95 l:tf6+ .if4 96 .!:tg6
l:tf2+ 97 'ito>el .l:.c2 and it's all over.
90 l:lg8?
"Crash no. 3" says Hecht.
I've got nothing to add, but for the
record, Hecht's 90 .l:.g6! is correct.
Melik sensed his chance- suddenly
stopped blitzing, thought for a few
minutes -and forced the win.

90..J�d2+1
91 �h1
Or 91 �h3 .l:th2+ 92 �g4 l:tg2+ 93
�fS l:!xg8, but if the white rook were
on g6, this variation would not win for
Black.
91....l:th2+ 92 �g1 �f3 93 .l:tfB l:tc2 0-1
What can one say about this trag­
edy? Almost twenty percent of the
game was played at the rate of five
seconds per move (for me) and this
time pressure distorted the play of both
players, as Khachian missed wins by
blitzing just as I missed draws.
I suppose the moral is that one must
know basic endings like R+B vs. R ab­
solutely cold, so that one can play them
at blitz tempo!
But wait: let's say I knew the second
rank defence then as I know it now.
How could I have legally claimed a
draw after fifty moves with no score­
sheet? I believe one is entitled to ask
the TO to count for you, but this is
practically difficult and we are getting
far afield from pure chess.
Going back a bit to the actual game,
when White had a dead won ending
T h e E n dg a m e a n d t h e C l o c k
after the first time control, one cannot
overstress the importance of making a
strategical plan. If I had correctly
evaluated the position, and correctly
planned for victory - that is, set up the
winning method of two-sided play,
advancing on the kingside while look­
ing to snag the black a-pawn- I would
not only have avoided the debacle at
the end, I would have actually won the
game!
Blitzin' Don't Pay
Game 12
W. Wittmann-T.Taylor
First Saturday (May),
Budapest 2008
Ruy Lopez
One recalls from the previous game
that all the blunders were not on my
side. When Khachian obtained a win­
ning position (in my time pressure) he
blitzed his way right past a couple of
forced wins, and at least theoretically,
let me out into a drawing position.
I had no time to punish him for his
sins, but was in turn punished myself
in the present game!
I can't really see any advantage in
blitzing your moves in your oppo­
nent's time pressure: you have time,
use it! If you act like you're in the same
time trouble as your opponent, you
will probably blunder just like he will.
But if you take your time and make the
best move, he will never be able to de­
fend under the clock pressure.
95
Tru e C o m b a t C h es s
1 e4 es 2 lLlf3 lt:lc6 3 ..tbs a6 4 ..txc6
dxc6 5 0-0 ..td6
I can't seem to help myself! In the
Ruy Lopez, I always seem to end up
defending a pawn with a blocked
bishop! Now it's not an IM who chas­
tises me, but rather Bobby himself: In
My Sixty Memorable Games, Fischer
gives this move a question mark, calls
it a "lemon" and offers the following
refutation: 6 d4 exd4 7 �xd4 f6 8 lt:lbd2!
(Fischer's exclam) 8 ...lt:le7 9 lbc4 etc.
One can feel Bobby's disdain dripping
off the page.
However, the modern player plays
8 .....te6, preventing 9 lbc4 in view of
9 .....txh2+ and stands fully equal.
If one wants more proof of the vi­
ability of the ... ..td6 move, one need
only note that it has been played by
Wonderboy himself, Magnus Carlsen!
s .....td6 6 d4 exd4 7 �xd4 f6 8 ..te3 lbe7
9 lbbd2 ..te6 10 .!:Iadl lbg6 1 1 lbc4 ..txc4
12 'ir'xc4 'ir'e7 13 .!:Ifel 0-0-0 14 ..td4
.l:the8 15 ..tc3 'it>b8 16 a4 .l:td7 17 b3 .l:ted8
18 g3 hS 19 h4 'iie8 20 'it>g2 .!:Ie7 21 aS
.!:Idd7
22 .!:Id4 lbf8 23 .!:Id3 lbg6 24 .!:Ide3
96
lLleS 25 ..txeS ..txeS 26 .l:td3 ..td6 27
l:.de3 l:.e6 28 c3 .l:tde7 29 lbd4 .l:teS 30 b4
'it>a8 31 lbf5 .!:Id7 32 f4 .!:Ie6 33 lt:ld4 .!:tee?
34 lt:lf3 gS 35 hxgS fxgS 36 lbxgS .!:Ig7 37
eS ..te7 38 �e6 �d8 39 lbe4 h4 40 g4
h3+ 41 'it>h2 ..th4 42 .!:Ile2 .!:Ide? 43 'iffS
.!:Igf7 44 �5 .!:Ih7 45 'iifS V2-V2
K.Larsen-M.Carlsen, Tromso 2007.
6 C3
I don't understand this move, as it
only seems to help Black get rid of his
only weakness, the doubled c-pawns,
but Wittmann had played it before and
made a quick draw.
6 ...cs 7 d4 cxd4 8 cxd4 exd4 9 �a4+
I also don't understand the reason
for this check, as opposed to the simple
9 �xd4.
9 ...�d71
Since the exchange of queens is
good for Black (the two bishops with
no weaknesses, and the king can
quickly castle long), Black gains a de­
velopment tempo on the queen, and
White must fight for equality.
Wittmann probably expected
9 ... ..td7, as in his previous game, which
continued with 10 'iWxd4 f6 1 1 .!:tel ..te6

12 e5 �xeS 13 'ir'e3 'ifd6 14 lZ:Ic3 lZ:Ie7 15
lZ:Ie4 'ii'd 5 16 lZ:IxeS fxe5 17 li::lc3 and
White was slightly better, but took a
draw in W.Wittmann-M.Chiburdan­
idze, Graz 1991.
10 'ii'xd4 li::le 7 11 es
White could lose quickly if he gets
too greedy: 1 1 'ii'x g7 llg8 12 'ii'xh7
!txg2+! 13 'it>xg2 'ii'g4+ 14 '>t>h1 'ii'xf3+ 15
'it>g1 .th3 16 'i*'g7 li::lg6 17 'ii'g8+ .tf8 and
wins, though White might hold a draw
with 12 'ii'f6.
11...li::lc 6 12 llff4 .te7 13 li::lc 3 o-o 14
.l:.d1
Here my opponent offered me a
draw. This was the last round, and I
suppose I could have just taken it-but
I like to play! Besides, Black stands
equal or slightly better (because of the
bishops), so from a chess point of view,
I should play on ... But (you know the
drill!) if I had taken the draw here, I
would have ended up with a half-point
more than I actually received!
14 ...1Vts 1s li::ld s .tds 16 llfg3 llfg4
With two bishops and no doubled
pawns, I head for the ending.
17 .tf4 li::le 7 18 tbe3 'i*'xg3 19 .txg3
T h e E n dg a m e a n d t h e C l o c k
li::lfs 20 lZ:Ixfs �xfs 21 llac1 �e6 22 a3
c6 23 li::ld 4 .tds
Let's begin our full "endgame and
clock" analysis here.
First, our traditional analysis of the
position: Black has the two bishops in a
half-open position and almost no
weaknesses (the almost is due to b7,
which is not a factor now, but surpris­
ingly shows up later). On the minus
side, Black's rooks are not developed at
all. Meanwhile White's rooks are well
placed, but his knight and bishop are
ineffectual.
Generally speaking, Black is on the
verge of advantage (if I can open the
position a little more and get my rooks
into play- and it would be great to
activate the queenside pawns), but it is
White's move and he can use his lead
in development to reposition his knight
and equalize.
Correct is 24 li::le 2! f6 25 li::l c3 .i.e6 26
li::le4 when White has essentially re­
placed the opposing light-squared
bishop with his own knight in the cen­
tre. White's knight controls g5 and so
limits Black's dark-squared bishop.
97
T r u e Co m b a t C h es s
While the computer still gives Black
a tiny edge here, I must admit it is near
invisible to the naked eye!
24 tt::lfs?l f6!
I open the game and take advantage
of White's loose knight.
25 tt::le3
Unbalancing the game is good for
Black's bishops: 25 tt::ld 6 fxe5 26 tt:lxb7
.i.g5 27 l:b 1 (or 27 �c5 .l:r.fb8 28 tt:la5
.Ub5 29 .Uxb5 axb5 30 tt:lb7 e4 with a
similar advantage) 27... e4 and Black
breaks with ... e4-e3, when White will
have a hard time holding the bishops
back.
2S ... ..te6 26 tt:lc4
Instead of ending up on the strong
central square e4, White's knight is
vulnerable on c4.
It's easy for Black to get the advan­
tage here: all one has to do is keep the
strategical motifs in mind. Black wants
to open the game for his bishops, and
also neutralize White's main asset, his
so far unopposed rooks.
This can be accomplished as fol­
lows: 26 .. .fxe5! (open the game) 27
..txe5 (even worse is 27 tt:lxe5 ..tg5 28
98
Ilal .Uad8 and Black is clearly better:
the important thing to notice is that if
the rooks come off, Black's bishop pair
dominates the bishop and knight, es­
pecially given the queenside pawn ma­
jority) 27... .i.g5! (again, the formerly
badly placed bishop enters the game
with tempo) 28 .U.c2 .U.ad8 (and now
either the rooks go off the board or
Black gets the open file) 29 !tel (not 29
tt:ld6? ..tb3) 29 ... Ild7 and Black has the
d-file and active bishops, while White
has no counterplay: 30 .i.g7 fails to a
back rank mate, while Black has many
active possibilities like ... .U.fd8 or .. J:.£5.
All in all, after this simple, active
manoeuvre, Black would have good
prospects.
26.....tc7?
But after this silly move, I lose the
bishop pair plus any objective winning
chances!
27 tt:ld6
Suddenly attacking b7!
27 ... .Uab8 28 exf6 .U.xf6 29 tt:le4 Ilf7 30
ii.xc7
There goes my bishop pair!
30..Jbc7 31 f3
 Th e E n dg a m e a n d t h e Clo c k

And worse yet, the white knight has though he answered very well, his time
magically found its way to its ideal shortage became more acute.
square on e4, which is now protected!
White has a solid fortress, but not
much active play. Black has the only
long-range minor piece, but can't do
much on the solo colour.
In short, the game is equal, and now
should be drawn... in that perfect
world without the clock!
I have talked of the endgame only
so far, now what of the clock? We are
playing in Budapest with the Game/2
time limit, where a thirty second in­
crement is added on each move. 36 :es .tb3 37 'iiii>g 3 'ith7 38 :d6 .tds
Wittmann has had to struggle to 39 lLlcs :cs 40 lbe6?!
reach his present equality, so I am well The effect of time trouble: White
ahead on the clock. I decided to just steps into a pin. Actually White stands
play on, and hope for some kind of better here, and if he just sits tight with
time pressure blunder. 40 'itf2, it's hard for Black to find some­
31 ...:e7 32 :d2 :be8 33 'itf2 h6 34 h4 thing constructive to do, while White's
:ts?l pressure on b7 is becoming annoying.
This move is dubious from a chess 40..J:tf6 41 f4?
point of view- Black tries to get some­
thing on the kingside where there is
nothing to get-but I am playing the
clock, trying to confuse my opponent.
Objectively Black has his ideal set­
up now, and should take the draw
with 34 ... .td5 35 lbc3 .tb3 36 lbe4 .td5
and a repetition.
3 5 l:tcs l:tef7
When I look at the game now, my
moves look like "nonsense play" - and
that is probably the best way to de­
scribe it! Black moves his rooks off the One mistake leads to another: Cor­
strategically important e-file and dou­ rect is 41 h5 preventing a check on g6,
bles on a solidly protected pawn! when White has nothing to fear. Black
But the very senselessness of my can't exploit the pin, as 41...l:te8 is bad
moves cost my opponent time, and after 42 l:tdxd5 cxd5 43 lbg5+.

99
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s
This series of moves shows that my
IM opponent is not playing like an IM
at the moment-he is fighting the
clock, and not succeeding! He is mak­
ing all these moves with about two
minutes on his clock, with the 30 sec­
ond increment- that is, he thinks for
about thirty seconds, makes a move,
and is right back where he started!
41 .. J�g6+
Black wins a pawn.
42 ..t>h3 i.xg2+ 43 ..t>h2 �ds
44 fsl?
This costs another pawn, but White
gets some counterplay.
44...�g2+ 45 ..t>h3 �xb2 46 �d7 c;i;>hS 47
tt::\xg7 .l:.gB 48 .:.ee7?
A fatal mistake in continued time
pressure: remember that there is no
time control, so Wittmann must make
all the rest of the moves of the game ­
however many - in his two minutes +
increment.
The best chance is 48 �e8, to get one
rook off and try to set up a "drawing
machine" of rook and knight against
Black's back-ranked king, and this plan
would be hard to meet-but Wittmann
1 00
has no time to figure out the subtleties
of the position. He simply doubles on
the seventh rank with some ideas of
mating on h7- and hopes for the best.
48...�f211
Decisive!
I was so proud of myself for finding
this move, which basically kills all
White's counterplay. I particularly
liked the mate which would occur if
White tried to break through to h7: 49
tt::\h5 ..tg2+ 50 c;i;>h2 ..te4+ 51 c;i;>h3 ..txf5
mate!
I also noted that I could destroy 49
.l:t.xb7 with 49 ...1:tfl 50 .:.a7 �h1 + 51 ..t>g3
.1:1xg7+ 52 �xg7 �g1 + winning a piece.
The time situation was Taylor, 18
minutes; Wittmann, 2 minutes ... 1 min­
ute ...
I was expecting resignation when
with a desperate hand motion he
shoved his f-pawn forward.
49 f6
This looks like sheer desperation ­
and it is -but it also contains one trick.
49 ...�xf6??
Thinking this was just a bit of time
pressure nonsense, I took it off imme-

diately - in other words, I blitzed, and I
blundered!
A little thought (and remember, I
had time, eighteen minutes worth)
would reveal that the f-pawn advance
was a vacating pawn sac: after my pre­
cipitous capture, White will have 50
lt:'lf5, when Black has no good checks,
but White will not only have the usual
:h7 mate threat, but also the attacking
idea (if the black rook on g8 moves
away to stop the mate) of 51 l:th7+ 'iti>g8
52 lt:'lxh6+ with fresh mating threats.
Having seen this, Black can end the
confusion by forcing White's king to a
bad square: Correct is the evident
49 ...!H3+! when Black wins in all varia­
tions, only one of them difficult. An
easy one is 50 'iti>g4 l:txf6 51 h5 (the
white knight is pinned) 5l...J.. f7! (a
typical motif: the seventh rank is neu­
tralized and massive exchanges ensue)
52 l:txf7 l:txf7 53 l:txf7 l:xg7+ and the
king and pawn ending does not exactly
present any problems.
Therefore White must answer
49 ...l:tf3+ with 50 'it>h2, whereupon
Black takes the pawn: 50 ... l:txf6.
Th e E n dg a m e a n d t h e C l o c k
If the knight moves to f5 now, then
Black answers .. J�g2+! defending
against any mates with tempo.
White, two pawns down, has no
chance. Here are a few sample varia­
tions.
a) 51 lt:'lh5 l:f2+ 52 Wh3 J..g2+ 53
Wh2 J..e4+ 54 'it>h3 ..tf5 is the now fa­
miliar mate.
b) 51 J;lxb7 l:f2+ 52 'it>h3 (52 'it>g3 .l:tf7
53 1hf7 J..xf7 54 l:xf7 l:xg7+ is a win­
ning king and pawn ending) 52 ....l:tfl 53
Wg4 l:xg7+ 54 l;lxg7 l:g1+ and wins a
piece, as we have also seen before.
c) 51 lt:'lf5 (as in the game - this is
the only difficult try, but here Black is
prepared) 5l...l:g2+. I want to stress
that, from a practical point of view, this
is all Black needed to see: the mate is
stopped with tempo, Black maintains
material advantage, and that coupled
with the big time advantage would
mean one point for Black!
But for those of us who still like to
play chess, I think the following ending
variations are quite interesting and in­
structive.
After 5l...l:tg2+ White must play 52
'it>h3 (not 52 'it>h1 l:tg4+ and White must
give up the exchange) 52 .. Jhf5 53
J;lxd5 (obviously forced) 53 ...l:!.xd5 54
'it>xg2 and we reach this interesting
ending by force (had I played the cor­
rect 49 .. J1f2+).
The position is obviously winning
for Black, but it's not so obvious how
best to win it! In fact, when I lazily
made a few random moves, I noticed I
quickly blundered into a draw, or in
one case, a loss!
101
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s
Here are some bad lines:
Bad line # 1 . 54 ...l:tb5 55 a4 l:tb4 56 aS
l:txh4 57 l:txb7 .:f.g4+ 58 'it>£3 l:.a4 59 l:.b6
l:txaS 60 l:txc6 and White has reached
the dreaded two rook pawn draw!
Bad line #2. 54 ... b5 55 l:.a7 .:f.d2+ 56
'it>£3 lid3+ 57 'it>g4 lha3 58 'it>fS 'it>g8 59
'it>f6 hS 60 'it>g6 'it>f8 61 'it>xhS aS 62 'it>gS
a4 63 hS l:th3 64 h6 cS 65 h7 c4 66 l:.a8+
'it>e7 67 �f4 c3 68 h8'W lhh8 69 :xh8 b4
70 c;i;>e3 and White is even winning!
Now that's a really horrible false trail!
This got me interested, and after
some serious thought, I found a clear
win: the main ideas are to activate the
black king, and to prevent the destruc­
tion of the queenside pawns, so White
has no hope of trick draws like the two
rook pawns, or rook and bishop
pawns.
Winning is 54 ...b5! (as in Bad line
#2, but with a different plan) 55 l:ta7
l:td4! ! - the key idea: Black keeps his
queenside pawns together, and White
must either give up a second pawn,
which will be a fatal material loss, or
allow the black king into the game,
which is also fatal.
1 02
Here are the main lines: 56 :xa6
.l:.c4 and now:
a) 57 .l:.a7 (White gives up a pawn)
57....l:.xh4 and Black wins by putting his
rook back on c4, advancing the h-pawn
to h4 (so everything is protected) and
then moving the king to d8. Try it
yourself-you'll see that something has
to give at that point!
b) 57 c;i;>g3 (White holds material)
57...h5 58 .!:ta7 (or 58 .l:.b6 c;i;>g7 and the
free black king enters the game with
decisive effect) 58 ... :g4+ 59 Wh3 .l:.a4 60
lha4 bxa4 61 'it>g3 c;i;>g7 62 c;i;>£4 'it>£6 63
c;i;>e4 'it>e6 and Black wins the king and
pawn ending.
Interesting, no? I wish one could
play fine endings like that today, but
really, if I had played the correct
49 ....:f.f3+, I'm sure (because of my op­
ponent's time trouble) I would have
won the game quickly with no such
refinements.
50 l2Jf51
And now back to the real, and sud­
denly, horrible game! I had missed this
move completely, and failed to find my
only defence- while Wittmann gained

confidence with every moment of my
confusion.
5o .. J:tg1?
The computer informs me that I can
make a difficult draw as follows:
so .. J:tgg6 s1 hs l:tgs s2 l:th7+ �gs 53
tt:Jxh6+ .l:txh6 54 l:.xh6 1:txh5+ 55 l::txhS
.i.e6+ 56 �g3 i.xd7 57 �f4 bS 58 �eS
aS and Black should be able to get rid
of White's last pawn.
51 1:lh7+ �g8 52 tt:Jxh6+ l:txh6 53 l:txh6
White keeps the h-pawn, unlike the
Fritz line above.
53 .. J�b1 54 l:tc7 l:tb3+ 55 �g4 l:txa3 56
.l:td6 l:ta4+ 57 �g5 il..f7 58 1:tdd7 ..tea 59
.l:td8 �f8 60 l:txb7
The E n dg a m e a n d t h e C l o c k
White, moving quickly, is gaining
thirty seconds a move, while I, mired
in a difficult or hopeless defence, am
burning time to no avail.
6o...�e4 61 l:ta8 l:te7 62 l:txe7 �xe7 63
l:txa6 �d6 64 h5 ..txh5 65 �xh5 �d5 66
�g4 c5 67 �f3 �d4 68 �e2 �c3 69
�dl C4 70 �Cl l-0
All I can say (to slightly misquote
Huck Finn) is that "blitzin' don't pay".
I had the time (and the win) in my
pocket: a little more thought on move
49, and I could have accurately refuted
my opponent's desperation sacrifice.
I Think Too Much
Game 13
T.Taylor-R.Fontaine
Las Vegas Masters 2006
Bird's Opening
I entered this tournament with the
high hope of making a GM norm. This
is so difficult in the US, as there are
virtually no international tournaments,
and the few available are usually Swiss
1 03
Tru e C o m b a t C h e s s
systems like this, where you have both
to play well - and win the lottery, that
is, play enough GMs and foreigners.
I was thrilled that I hit the exacta in
the very first round: I'm playing a GM
and a foreigner, French champion
Robert Fontaine.
Unfortunately, not too many hours
later, I was going to run afoul of the
tournament's already mentioned and
lambasted time limit: first, the standard
40/2, then only 30 minutes for the re­
mainder of the game, with a five sec­
ond delay.
In this case, that meant I played the
last 42 moves of the game in 30 min­
utes.
1 f4 d5 2 l2Jf3 g6 3 e3 ..tg7 4 ..te2 l2Jf6 5
o-o o-o 6 d3 c5 1 a4
In my book on Bird's Opening, I
had given 7 l2Jc3 as the main move, and
the text as an interesting sideline. It
certainly worked here, but I can no
longer recommend the move in view of
GM Golod's improvement, which will
be seen in Game 22.
7 ...l2Jc6 8 l2Ja3 ..tg4 {DDT)
1 04
For once it's one of my opponents
who gets a DDT! This natural develop­
ing move fails to counter White's plans
and helps White get the two bishops.
Best is Golod's 8 . a6! shutting out
..
the a3-knight.
9 c3 l:tc8 10 h3 ..txf3 11 ..txf3 d4 12
cxd4 cxd4 13 e4 l2Jd7 14 �d2
White has gained some advantage
out of the opening, with the two bish­
ops and the better centre.
14.....th6?!
A rather primitive idea, aiming for
... e7-e5 and play on the dark squares ­
but I had two strong counters to hand ...
15 g3?
Pity I didn' t play either of them!
White has a serious advantage after
15 g4 e5 16 g5 ..tg7 17 f5, as well as
with the equally primitive 15 e5 which
mechanically prevents Black's idea,
while limiting all of the black minor
pieces.
I think this last move would have
been my best chance for a normal win
(that is, not distorted by the clock).
15 ... l2Jc5 16 �g4?
This and the next move are just ri-
 T h e E n dg a m e a n d t h e C l o c k

diculous, opening the diagonal for the ble attack and Black is better once
Black's dark-squared bishop, and mak­ more!
ing 14 ....th6 look good! I can't say this was a well-played
Correct is the simple and solid 1 6 game!
J.e2, maintaining the advantages of 30 l1af1 lLlces 31 'iid 4 ii'xd4 32 .l:txd4
White's position. �xg3
16 ... e6 17 fs .te3+!
Now Black gets his dark square
play.
18 .txe3 dxe3 19 �c1 exfs 20 exfs e2
21 J.xe2 �d4+?
I doubt I would have survived to
the ending had Black played the best
move 21...lLld4, which threatens b3, e2
and £5!
22 'iii>h 1 �ce8 23 lLlbs 'ifds+ 24 ..tf3
'ii'xfs 25 ..tg2 'ii'e s 26 �c4 a6 27 lLlc3
�d6
White loses a pawn and must fight
to draw.
33 �d1 �c8 34 lLle4 �e3 35 lLld6 �c2 36
l2Jc4 �ee2 37 ..txb7 �h2+ 38 'iii>g 1 .l:txh3
39 b5 axb5 40 axbs :g3+

28 b4?!
After Black's mistake I could obtain
some advantage again with 28 l:!adl!
lLld4 29 b4 lLld7 30 l2Je4 Wt'es 31 �del,
when White has classical Bird £-file
pressure plus the strong and unop­ I made the time control with sec­
posed light-squared bishop on the long onds to spare, and now was able to
diagonal. sprint to the bathroom: thirty minutes
28... lLld7 29 l:tf4 l1e3 for the rest of the game.
Now this move comes with a dou- On the way back to the board, my

1 05
T r u e C o m b a t Ch ess
opponent accosted me, and made a
surprising request. In somewhat halt­
ing English, he asked me to, "Please
stop breathing." (!!)
Now I'm sure some opponents have
wished that I would drop dead, but no
one put it so bluntly!
However, it gradually became clear
that Mr Fontaine was offended by the
loudness of my breathing, not the life
giving act itself. Apparently, while
rushing to reach the time control, I had
taken loud breaths! This was a new one
on me, but I promised to breathe more
quietly in the future!
The bathroom run and breath dis­
cussion took about five minutes. So
let's start our traditional endgame
evaluation with the clock: I have a bare
25 minutes left for the rest of the game.
My opponent, who had moved much
faster, had a full hour left.
The position is equally easy to as­
sess: I'm a pawn down with a lost posi­
tion, but I have "human counterplay"
in view of my outside passed pawn
and strong bishop.
Clearly I can't go into the corner, as
after 41 '>t>h1 ltJg4 Black has both mat­
ing and forking threats, so my next is
forced.
41 '>t>f1 ltJg4?
Fontaine, perhaps rattled by my
breathing, fails to put me away:
4l..J1h2! is practically a forced win.
The variations are fairly simple, but he
moved too fast (even with more time
than me, he was clearly concerned
about the sudden death time control ­
his blitzing continued throughout the
106
rest of the game).
Anyway, as 15 e5 would have given
me a clearly advantageous position,
and chances for a "non-clock" win, so
here 4l..J1h2 should put me away in
normal fashion:
a) 42 l:td2 l:txd2 43 ltJxd2 l::tx d3 wins
a second pawn.
b) 42 b6 ltJg4 43 l::td 2 (not 43 l::tx d7?
l1f2+ 44 '&t>e1 l:.g1 mate) 43 ... l1xd2 44
ltJxd2 ltJxb6 and again Black wins a
decisive second pawn.
c) 42 .tc6 ltJxc4 43 dxc4 ltJeS 44 .tdS
(if 44 l::te 1 ltJg4 45 l:te2 ltJe3+ 46 '&t>e1
ltJc2+ 47 '>t>d 1 l::tg 1 + 48 '>t>xc2 l:txe2 and
Black comes out the exchange and a
pawn ahead; while after 44 i.d7 '>t>g7
45 c5 l::tc3 46 c6 ltJf3 47 l:14d3 l:tcc2
mates, or 45 b6 :f3+ 46 '>t>g1 !H£2 with a
mating attack) 44... ltJg4 45 l::txg4 l::txg4
46 b6 .l:tb2 47 b7 .l:txc4 48 ..txc4 l:txb7 49
'>t>f2 Wg7 50 '>t>g3 h5 and there may be
slight drawing chances, but practically
speaking White is going to have a ter­
rible time holding back both pawns
and clock!
I was lucky he blitzed me!
42 l:td21

Forced but good: I block the second
rank attack that was so dangerous in
the previous note.
42 ....:!.c1+ 43 �e2 tt:Jde5 44 .:!.b2 .:!.gg1
45 lLlxe5 lLlxe5 46 b6 .l:.b1 47 .l:.xbl?l
Lets the black rook get behind my
pawn, but I was already in time pres­
sure!
White has better drawing chances
with 47 .:.bb4, which might reach the
following miracle save: 47 ....:!.ge1+ 48
�d2 .:!.ed1+ 49 �e2 lLlxd3 50 ..i.d5 lLlxb4
51 %:.xd1 %:.xd1 52 b7 lLla6 53 'it>xd1 'it>f8
54 �d2 �e7 55 �e3 f5 56 �d4 lLlb8 57
�c5 g5 58 ..tc4 h5 59 Wd5 f4 60 �e4 h4
61 ..tfl and draws.
Hardly forced, but it does show
White's only helpful idea: I have to
make the b-pawn as big a threat as
Black's mass of kingside pawns.
47 ....:!.xb1 48 .:!.d6 �fB 49 .taB!
I saw that I would lose at once after
the seemingly more natural 49 ..te4?
'it>e7 50 1:.d5 lLld7 51 b7 1:.xb7 and wins
easily, as my own rook blocks my
bishop.
This is why my bishop must go to
the strange a8-square, which it never
Th e E n dg a m e a n d t h e C l o c k
leaves!
49 ... We7 50 .l:.d5
5o... .l:.b2+
Simplest is 50 ... lLlxd3! 51 .:!.xd3 .l:.xb6
after which White has no pawns and
no counterplay -Black can't lose and
will probably win, especially with his
time advantage- but Fontaine kept
blitzing away, hoping for the blunder
that never came-but (and it's a really
big but) his tactic did have the conse­
quence that I kept losing time with
each move.
51 �d1 lLld7 52 b7 h5 53 �c1 .:tb6 54
�d2 f6 55 �e3 g5 56 Wf3 h4 57 �g4
�e6 5B l:.a5 1:.b4+ 59 Wf3 .l:!.b3
Black has his second forced win
here: 59 ... g4+ 60 �e2 g3 61 �f3 lLle5+ 62
�e3 h3.
Simple enough, but he was moving
almost instantly, while I had to look for
a few seconds each time, just to make
sure I was more or less defending!
60 �e4 f5+ 61 'it>d4 1:.b6 62 .tta 1 h3 63
.:!.el+ �d6 64 .l:!.e8 g4 65 .l:.h8 .:!.b1
Again Black could win simply by
pawn advance: 65 ... f4 66 1:.h4 f3 67 'it>e3
lLlf6 68 b8'ir'+ .l:!.xb8 69 ..txf3 .l:!.b4 70 .:!.h6
107
 True Co m b a t C h ess
'it>eS and White can't give up a piece for
both passed pawns.
His actual move indicates his inten­
tion to win on time without calculating.
66 'it>e3 'it>e6 67 .:th6+ 'it>e7 68 'it>f4 l::!. b s
69 l:ths 'it>d6 70 l::!. h 6+ ctJc7 71 l::!.c6+ 'it>b8
72 l::!.c8+ 'it>a7 73 l::!.h 8 tt::lb 8 74 l::!.h 6 :ds
75 d4 l:txd4+
Black's last forced win is here:
75 ...l:tb5 76 l:th8 .:!.bl 77 dS (or 77 'it>xfS
g3 78 l:txh3 g2 and the pawn queens)
77...:n + 78 'it>g3 :tf3+ 79 'it>h2 f4 80 d6
�f2+ 81 'it>gl l::!.d2 82 l::!.h4 .:tdl+ 83 �h2
g3+ 84 'it>xh3 l::!.h l + 85 'it>g4 g2! and
wins.
76 'it>xfs
Now I've reached a drawn position,
but I'm down to my traditional two
seconds!
76 l::!.a4 77 l:!:h8 l:tb4 78 l::!.h 7 l::!.a 4 79
•••
llh8 tt::lc 6 80 l:th7 ..t>b6!?
Black should take the better half of
a theoretical draw with 80 ... tt::l a5 81
b8'ir'+ 'it>xb8 82 il.e4 tt::l c4 83 ..t>xg4 tt::ld 6
84 l::!.xh3 tt::lxe4.
It would have been extremely diffi­
cult to hold this, as Black could play on
forever using the five second delay,
108
and any tricky threat that pushed me
beyond five seconds would win - even
though the position is objectively com­
pletely drawn.
Instead, Fontaine's actual move
loses a piece!
81 .:!.h61 �a7
The only move in view of my threat
82 bS'ir'+.
82 l::!.xc6 g3
I can remember my thought proc­
esses exactly after this move: "Wow, I
think 83 l::!.b 6! wins! He can't take the
rook! He has to play 83 ... ..t>b8. Then I
go over and -
"Time!" said Fontaine.
0-1
My sudden excited thoughts had
taken seven seconds: the five second
delay, and the two seconds I had left­
and so I lost.
Before we go back to the practical
result, let's take a look at what is
chesswise going on with this position.
First of all it's clear that White wins
both of Black's pawns- the following
moves are forced: 83 l:tb6! 'it>bS 84 l::!.h 6

'it>a7 85 l:.xh3 l:.a3 86 'it;f4 l:ld3 87 l:lxg3
and Black can't exchange rooks be­
cause 87 .. Jhg3 88 'it;xg3 'it;b8 89 'it;f4
'it;c7 90 'it;eS 'it;b8 91 'it;d6 'it;a7 92 'it;c7
wins, but can nonetheless defend with
87...l:.d8.
What is the verdict on this position?
Everyone at the tournament assumed
this was a win, and it was so noted in
the tournament bulletin-but I alone
had my doubts.
I tried over and over to win it with
White, but could find nothing clear,
e.g. 88 'it;fS l:td2 89 .!:tc3 l:tb2 90 .l:tc8 .l:tb1
etc.
Yes, in this line it's possible to play
89 b8'iV+!? 'it;xb8 90 i.e4 with practical
winning chances, as Game 1 1 showed
us, but this is not a forced win.
The computer likewise gave White
a three or four point advantage, but
found no winning method.
Who would know the answer to
this mystery?
I could think of only one man, the
renowned endgame artist and com­
poser, GM Pal Benko -but I didn't
want to ask him, and here's why. The
T h e E n dg a m e a n d t h e C l o c k
last time I played Benko (previous to
this, I had only lost or drawn with him)
I won- on time! - in a position that
was better but not clearly winning.
Benko was displeased, to put it mildly.
This game took place in New York
around 1980. Then I moved from New
York, and I did not see Benko again for
over twenty years - until I walked
right by the Hungarian born Benko at
the First Saturday tournament in Bu­
dapest in 2003! I was heading down the
stairs after yet another horrible loss,
and Benko was heading up. I was in
too bad a mood to make small talk - so
while I recognized Benko immediately,
he did not appear to recognize me, so I
just proceeded sadly downward.
Then, when he was about a flight
and a half above me, recognition! He
leaned over the railing and called
down in a loud voice, with what
seemed like much too much satisfac­
tion, "You're not playing very well, are
you?" Without waiting for a reply­
and indeed I had nothing to say, except
that it was true - he cheerfully contin­
ued up the stairs!
I was afraid he would bite my head
off if I asked about my position, but
then again -no one else could solve the
problem, and even a six piece tablebase
was baffled.
So I wrote to Benko- and I asked
the right man.
First of all, his letter was gracious,
so no worries there-then, on the chess
issue, he astonished me by stating that
he had worked on this ending years
before, and referred me to a problem in
1 09
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s

his book, My Life, Games, and Composi­ den death, make the first good move
tions. Indeed, there it was, number 218 you see and make it fast!"
on page 634: the first prize winner from I thought too much- I moved too
Sakkelet 1997! The verdict? A "posi­ slow - I lost the game - I didn't make
tional draw". the norm.
Who else in the world would have
worked on such an obscure ending! Thirty Second Buzzer Chess
So now we know what the result of
the game should have been, from a
Game 14
pure chess standpoint: if both players
T.Taylor-Bui Vi n h
continue correctly from the final posi­
First Saturday (May),
tion, we have a draw, which seems jus­
Budapest 2008
tified in that I was much better out of
Bird's Opening
the opening, Fontaine much better
through the middlegame and early
ending, and the last stage of the ending I much prefer the thirty second in­
was just a mess! crement to the five second delay, but as
However, I am also concerned with I have previously mentioned, this time
the practical realities of chess with the limit also can create a distorted game.
varied time limits we have today. When one goes over a hundred moves,
Clearly the 30 minute sudden death as in this game and Short-Krasenkow
distorted the play; Fontaine played to which we saw earlier, the biological
win on time rather than over the board, pressures of not being able to get up
and he succeeded - though on the for any reason take their toll.
board he only had the worse half of a
problem draw at the end. 1 f4 ltJf6 2 ltJf3 cs
What if I had played 83 .:tb6! in­
stantly? Could I have won this, making
every move in under five seconds? I
can't if Black defends accurately, but
could Fontaine have kept up a Benko­
level defence under those conditions?
I find it hard to say anything con­
structive or positive about the ending
of this game, but I think it was typical
of modern chess. The only advice I can
give is the opposite of the great Lasker:
He said, "When you see a good move,
wait, don't play it- look for a better 3 ltJc3?
one!" But I say, "When you're in sud- I don't think anyone will say I don't

110

know Bird's Opening - I have written a
book on the avian attack! One can rest
assured that the text move, rather text
lemon, is not in the book. The reason is
the simple fact that Black's next move
makes the knight look foolish -I
would say White (!) is struggling for
equality after move three!
There are three better moves:
a) 3 e3 (I had played this before
with success; White carries out a classi­
cal Bird development and prepares to
fianchetto the queen's bishop) 3 ... g6 4
b3 i.g7 5 i.b2 0-0 6 i.e2 lLlc6 7 0-0 b6 8
a4 i.b7 9 lLla3 a6 10 'ii'e 1 e6 1 1 lLlc4 dS
12 lLlceS lLle8 13 lLlxc6 i.xc6 14 i.xg7
lLlxg7 15 d4 cxd4 16 exd4 lLlfS 17 i.d3
lLld6 18 :d1 i.b7 19 lLlgS 'ii'e7 20 'ii'e3
.l:.ae8 21 .l:.de1 h6 22 lLlf3 lLle4 23 lLld2 fS
24 lLlf3
V2-lh T.Taylor-E.Sevillano, Los An­
geles 2007; White still stands better but
drawing secured first place in the tour­
nament.
b) 3 g3 (the favourite of Bird High
Priest Henrik Danielsen; White contin­
ues flexibly and can reach a reversed
Leningrad Dutch or Closed Sicilian
T h e E n dg a m e a n d t h e C l o c k
depending on how Black plays) 3 ... ttJc6
4 i.g2 dS 5 0-0 g6 6 d3 i.g7 7 c3 -
according to modern theory, the pawn
is better than the knight on this square.
The following game (which actually
reached this position by transposition
from 1 c3!?) shows a typical Bird
Danielsen win: 7 ... 0-0 8 lLla3 l:f.e8 9 lLlh4
eS 10 fS lLle7 1 1 fxg6 hxg6 12 'ii'b3 aS 13
e4 a4 14 'ii'c2 dxe4 15 dxe4 i.e6 16 lLlf3
lLlh7 17 i.e3 'i'aS 18 'i'f2 l:f.ac8 19 lLld2
l:f.ed8 20 l2Jdc4 'i'a6 21 i.xc5 i.f8 22 b3
l:f.xcS 23 'ii'xcS lLldS 24 'ii'f2 lLlxc3 25
.l:.acl i.xa3 26 .l:.xc3 l:f.c8 27 'ii'f3 i.cS+ 28
Wh1 i.d4 29 l:f.ccl axb3 30 axb3 'i'a2 31
h4 b5 32 lLld6 l:f.xcl 33 l:f.xcl 'ii'a3 34
.l:.c8+ lLlf8 35 l:f.c6 'ii'b4 36 i.fl 'ii'e 1 37
l:f.c7 lLld7 38 .:.xd7 i.xd7 39 'i'xf7+ Wh8
40 'i'f8+ Wh7 41 'ii'e7+ Wg8 42 'i'd8+
'it>h7 43 'ii'xd7+ Wh6 44 lLlf7+ 'it>hS 45
'iWh3 'li'xe4+ 46 'i'g2 1-0 H.Danielsen­
J.Eriksson, Torshavn 2000.
c) 3 d3 (as recommended in my
book, and I had previously played this
with success) 3 ... d5 4 g3 e6 5 i.g2 i.e7 6
0-0 0-0 7 lLleS lLlbd7 8 lLlxd7 i.xd7 9 e4
dxe4 10 dxe4 i.c6 1 1 'i'xd8 .!:i.fxd8 12
lLlc3 c4 13 eS tLldS 14 lLlxdS i.xdS 15
111
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s
�e3 �xg2 16 �xg2 g6 1 7 .U.ad1
17 ... �f8 18 �f3 �e8 19 �e4 a6 20
.i.b6 l:td7 21 g4 f5+ 22 exf6 �xf6 23
:xd7 �xd7 24 ..td4 �e7 25 .i.xf6+ �xf6
26 :d1 �e7 27 a4 .l::tc8 28 �e3 .l::tc5 29
:d4 b5 30 axb5 axb5 31 l:td1 h5 32 h3
hxg4 33 hxg4 .:.c8 34 l:th1 �f6 35 :h7
l:tc5 36 g5+ �f5 37 Wf3 e5 38 .l:tf7+ �e6
39 .l::tf6+ 'it>e7 40 l:txg6 exf4 41 �xf4 .l::td5
42 l:tb6 �f7 43 c3 lk5 44 l:tf6+ �g7 45
.l::tf5 1-0 T.Taylor-C.Lee, Los Angeles
2007.
So why do I, Bird's Opening expert,
play 3 ll'lc3 ? This was an emotional
decision at the board: in the first round
I had played against a similar varia­
tion, and I saw now that if I continued
with my pre tournament preparation 3
d3, I would most likely transpose to
that game: Black answers 3 ... g6 4 e4 d6
5 ..te2 ..tg7 6 0-0 and we are in
T.Taylor-Nguyen Huynh Minh, from
round one!
Now there's nothing wrong with
that position, in fact I got some advan­
tage out of the opening-but in the end
I lost the game! I had a sudden emo­
tional reaction to repeating the line-
112
though I could have played the per­
fectly reasonable 3 e3 or 3 g3. Instead,
out of a perversity only Edgar Allan
Poe would understand, I dropped the
lemon on the board!
3 ...d s! 4 d3
Perhaps White can best struggle
toward equality with 4 e3 d4 5 �b5+
..td7 6 exd4 ..txb5 7 lbxb5 a6 8 ll'la3
cxd4 9 ll'lc4 e6 (9 ... d3 10 cxd3 l2Jc6 is an
interesting try for Black) 10 0-0 �c5 1 1
d3 which is OK for White.
4 ... g6 5 g3 ..tg7 6 ..tg2 d4
This is why one prefers the pawn
on c3!
7 ll'le4
7 ll'la4? 'iia5+ 8 c3 ..td7 9 b3 dxc3
wins for Black.
7 ...ll'lxe4 8 dxe4 ll'lc6 9 o-o o-o 10 e3
'iib 61
There is a game in my book that
reaches this position by transposition,
but I only give the game move 10 ... e5,
when White got some advantage after
11 f5! gxf5 12 exf5 ..txf5 13 ll'lxe5 in
P.Ricardi-L.Dominguez, Bled Olym­
piad 2002.
It's entirely possible Bui Vinh had

read my book: he played his last move
instantly, then looked up and gave me
a little smile!
11 exd4 cxd4 12 'it>h1 �e6
I already felt Black was better, with
his strong central pawn and two bish­
ops. I saw that he could easily increase
the pressure by bringing his rooks to
the d- and c-files, so I decided my only
chance was to mix it up.
13 fS �c4 14 .l:Ie1 �a6 15 a4 l::tac8 16
fxg6 hxg6 17 es tLlb4 18 tt:Jxd4
I have no choice but to let the com­
bination run its course.
18 .U.fd8 19 �e3 tt:Jxc2 20 tLlxc2 l:.xd1
•.•
21 �xb6 .U.xe1+?1
T h e E n dg a m e a n d t h e C l o c k
Black's advantage would become
much more real after the correct
21...l::tx al!, when White has no path to
equality: 22 tLlxal (worse is 22 l::Ix al
axb6 23 tLlb4 �xeS 24 .:.el ..i.d6 2S tLlxa6
bxa6 26 �b7 .U.c4 27 b3 .l:Ic3 28 �xa6
.U.xb3 29 'it>g2 and objectively Black
should win) 22 ... axb6 23 b4 bS 24 axbS
(if 24 aS ..1xeS 2S tLlb3 �d6 26 l:.e4 b6 27
axb6 .U.c3 28 tLld2 .U.cl + 29 tLlfl �b7!
wins for Black) 24 ... ..1xbS 2S �xb7 l::tb8
26 �e4 ..1a4 27 tLlc2 ..1xeS 28 'it>g2 ..1c3
29 .!:l:e2 �xc2 30 �xc2 ..1xb4 and White
faces a tough struggle to make a draw.
22 J:txe1 axb6 23 tLlb4 �xes 24 tt:Jdsl
My knight is so strong that I am
able to get through the following com­
plications with material equality.
24 ....l:.c2 25 b4 �e2
White draws easily by means of a
desperado after 2S ... e6 26 tLle7+ 'it>f8 27
tt:Jxg6+! fxg6 28 bS ..1c3 29 nbl .laa2 30
bxa6 bxa6 31 �fl .U.xa4 32 l:.xb6 with
equality.
26 tt:Jxe7+ 'it>f8 27 tt:Jds .l:!.b2 28 bS �d4
29 tLlf4 �c4 30 �xb7 .l:.a2 31 l::!.d 1 �cs
32 tLld3 �b3 33 .l:.e1 ..1d4 34 tLlf4 �xa4
35 �c6 �b3 36 llf1 'it>e7 37 h4 'it>d6 38
113
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s
nbt ..ltc4 39 :dt :at 40 :xal .Jtxal
I have managed to restrict my op­
ponent's advantage to that of "two
bishops on an open board" . Not incon­
siderable, but I doubt it should be
enough for a win either.
41 �g2 i.f6 42 'it>f3 gs 43 hxgs i.xgs
Black exchanges another pawn, but
makes a little more room for his bish­
ops.
Since this basic pawn structure will
now last for the next forty moves or so,
it's time to begin our full endgame
analysis here- that is, the endgame
and the clock!
The latter was already a major fac­
tor: due to my lame opening play, and
my oppone11t's excellent preparation,
there was an absolutely huge time dif­
ference: eight minutes for me, and
about ninety for my opponent!
I took a moment to sprint to the
bathroom here, knowing it would be
my last chance for the rest of the game!
I came back and quickly played the
obvious king centralization ...
44 'it>e4
And now it's time to analyze the
1 14
chess merits of the position, but re­
member, while I can analyze at my lei­
sure now, at the board I only had eight
or maybe seven minutes.
For now let's assess from the "objec­
tive truth in chess" standpoint: the first
factor we see is that Black has two
bishops vs. a bishop and a knight on a
wide open board. So it's obvious Black
is a little better. But what can he do
with this advantage?
The two direct tries fail: 44...�c5 45
tt'ld3+ and the black king is driven
back, or 44 ... i.xf4 45 gxf4 �c5 46 i.e8
with a dead draw.
What does Black have in mind?
44... i.d8
Ah ha! Black's plan becomes clear.
He intends to manoeuvre around and
around, back and forth, to the front,
sideways and sideways back -his
bishops have room to do this forever,
and he can make this type of move
quickly, as the position contains no risk
for him -but there is risk for White.
While the text, 44 ... ..itd8, is a genu­
ine "nothing move", every once in a
while he can throw in a threat- and

then I have to watch out, for the black
king might get to c5 under favourable
circumstances, or the light-squared
bishops might be exchanged when the
black king can invade, etc.
In short, White has to be hyper
alert, but Black can just mess around
for hours and hours and hours.
His time will never go down, as he
can move quickly. My time will go
down, for I have to watch carefully for
every hidden trick, and must guard
against the real threat that might be
masked by ten nothing moves.
Can White hold the draw? Yes! But
the task is difficult.
How can White draw? I could offer
a draw, and I did, but he refused. OK,
that's out! He knows he can take his
time, stop in the restroom any time, get
a drink-but I can't, for the moment I
get up, he can come back and make a
quick move, which will cost me pre­
cious time.
I have to find a way to draw on the
board. Basically there are three possi­
bilities:
One, I exchange my knight for his
light-squared bishop. This gives oppo­
site-coloured bishops, and should draw
even if I lose a pawn in the process.
Two, I could get rid of all the
pawns. Since the white g-pawn and
black f-pawn are not on the same file,
an exchange is possible. If I can then
sac my knight for the black b-pawn, I
reach an easily drawn two bishops vs.
bishop ending. I must not, in the above
scenario, sac my bishop for Black's re­
maining pawn, for then his two bish-
Th e E n dg a m e a n d t h e C l o c k
ops should defeat my lone knight, as
the latest tablebases attest.
Three, I could set up a fortress that
would prevent any penetration of my
position. I could then make "nothing
moves" of my own within the thirty
second increment.
During the game I felt this last idea
was a real possibility, and I first tried
to set this up-with considerable suc­
cess -but it took me some time to play
the following extremely accurate seven
moves.
45 g4 �b3 46 lLld3 �c2 47 �e8!
A key part of my plan is to force the
black f-pawn to f6, where it hinders the
dark-squared bishop, and is more vul­
nerable to a possible pawn exchange
on g5.
47 ...'ite6 48 �c6 'itd6 49 �e8 f6
Black has no choice, for if 49 ... �b3
50 �c6 or 49 ...'ite6 50 �c6 and I can
start looking for a three-time repetition.
50 �f71
My bishop reaches the key diago­
nal, as I had planned.
50 ... �d1 51 'itf4 �e2 52 �c41
Fortress! This position is an abso-
1 1 <;
True Co m b a t Ch ess
lutely, incontrovertibly dead draw ... if
White has time that is!
From a pure chess point of view,
the mechanism of the fortress is as fol­
lows: the white bishop and knight
combine to prevent any black king in­
cursion. The knight can only be re­
moved by an exchange into an even
deader drawn bishops of opposite col­
our ending. If Black's dark-squared
bishop moves into range of the knight
(e7) favourable exchanges can be
forced, while if said bishop moves to
c7, the f- and g-pawns disappear, like­
wise with a simple draw.
All White has to do is remember all
of the above, and the draw is easy­
easy, that is, at fifteen moves per hour!
But it cost me time to play those last
seven perfect moves- probably seven
minutes! I'm down to my last minute
now, but I was sure that I had indeed
created the fortress, and that I had the
draw in hand - and I was correct.
Let's call this Draw Number One.
52 �d1
...
Nothing Black can do can disturb
the balance of the position:
116
a) 52 ... ..te7 53 lDb2! ..txc4 54 tbxc4+
Wc5 55 tbe3 �xb5 56 lDd5 �d8 57 'iti>f5
�c5 58 tDxf6 i..xf6 (or 58 ... �d6 59 g5)
59 'it>xf6 with dead equality.
b) 52 ... ..tc7 53 g5 fxg5+ 54 �xg5 and
there is nothing even for Bui to play
for.
c) 52 ... 'it>e7 53 g5 with the same ver­
dict.
d) 52 ...�d7 53 tbc5+ and the oppo­
site bishops show up.
e) 52 ... 'it>c7 53 tDb2 ..txc4 54 tbxc4
�d7 55 �f5 �e7 56 tbxb6 �xb6 57 g5
and all Black's pawns disappear.
f) 52 ... ..tfl 53 'it>f3 and again White
forces the opposite-coloured bishop
draw.
One notices that Bui made the only
move (52 ...i.dl) that did not allow an
immediate forced draw. In other
words, one of his famous "nothing"
moves- and I, with my perfect fortress,
should make a "nothing" move in re­
turn! Correct is 53 i.f7 and if 53 ... �c2
or 53 ... i.e2, then 54 �c4 with the same
dead draw as above.
But I didn't realize that the fortress
was so perfect that I shouldn't move
anything except the bishop (unless a
forced draw was available) and so I
advanced with my king.
This is not a chess mistake­
bettering one's king position in the
ending is hardly bad -but it's a hor­
rendous clock mistake! Now Black can
break the fortress with ... ..tf3, which
means all my thought in setting up this
particular draw goes for naught, and I
have to find a new draw with one
minute left!

Yes, the new draw is there, but this
will cost me more time... and worse
yet, the game will continue until I am
under the no bathroom/biological at­
tack!
53 Wf5?? i.c2 54 Wf4 i.d1 55 o;t>f5
Black should have played 53 ...i.f3,
but, blitzing, he missed it- and now I
could have rebuilt my fortress with 55
i.f7 with a dead draw as above-but I
missed the i.f3-d5 idea in my time
pressure.
55 ... i.f3
56 o;t>f4
It took me forever- or at least al­
most all of my last minute - to calcu­
late that 56 ... i.d5 didn't work. I would
then draw with 57 i.xd5 �xd5 58 o;t>f5
o;t>c4 59 ltJf2 o;t>xb5 60 ltJe4 etc.
However, while I was preoccupied
and time crunched with Black's
threat- or in this case, pseudo threat­
I forgot that I myself could play ac­
tively! Did I not just improve my king
position on the last move? Yes! I am
right next to the vulnerable black f­
pawn, and I can force a draw by attack­
ing it.
T h e E n dg a m e a n d t h e Clo c k
Best is 56 ltJf4! (which incidentally
prevents ... ..td5 while planning to at­
tack f6 with ltJh5) 56 ...o;t>c5 (56 ...i.e7 57
ltJh5 o;t>c5 58 i.fl i.d 1 59 i.h3 o;t>xb5 60
ttJxf6 ..tc2+ 61 �e6 ..ta3 62 g5 .tel 63 g6
i.xg6 64 i.£5 i.xf5+ 65 o;t>xf5 o;t>c4 66
o;t>e4 b5 67 ttJd5 i.d2 68 ttJb6+ o;t>c5 69
ltJd7+ o;t>d6 70 �d3 i.g5 71 ttJb8 ..te7 72
ltJa6 o;t>d5 73 o;t>c3 'ite4 74 ltJc7 b4+ 75
o;t>b3 o;t>d3 76 ltJa6 and the draw is dead)
57 i.fl i.e7 (57... i.d1 ?? 58 ltJe6+ wins
for White) 58 �e6 ..tf8 59 ..te2 .i.xe2 60
ttJxe2 o;t>xb5 61 o;t>xf6 o;t>c4 62 g5 b5 63 g6
b4 64 ttJcl with drop dead equality;
let's call this one Draw Number Two.
Mentally this one was hard to see: I
had to switch from fortress solidity to
attack mode!
56 ....i. b71
Bui plays the clock perfectly, as
only someone with great experience at
this time control can do. He avoids the
forcing, calculable 56 ... i.d5, and just
makes another "nothing" move.
In the absence of any direct threat, I
have to come up with a new plan.
57 ltJf2
First, a note on the time. My last
117
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s
move cost me almost all my seconds,
so I finally made the move just before a
time forfeit- and was rewarded with
the thirty second increment.
So now I have 31 or 32 seconds, and
for the rest of the game (forty-plus
moves!) I will be playing what my edi­
tor John Emms calls "thirty second
buzzer chess", in which I have to make
each move within that thirty seconds,
but I never gain time because the posi­
tion is still complex enough that I have
to think that long on each move to play
correctly.
Having missed two forced draws, I
now decide on a third plan: I will bring
my knight to h3 and play g4-g5, to try
and exchange the kingside pawns.
This is also a completely viable
plan, and should draw - let's say it
would definitely draw, without a thirty
second buzzer hanging over my head!
57 ...'itc5 58 ..te2 'itd4 59 lt:lh3 .tea 60
i.f1 'itc5 61 lt:lf2 'itd4 62 lt:lh3 i.c7+ 63
'itf3 i.b7+ 64 'itf2 'ite5 65 g5 f5
Of course Black avoids the immedi­
ate exchange, but now my passed
pawn is not weaker than Black's, and I
118
should be able to force an indirect ex­
change down the road.
66 'ite3 .i.d6 67 .i.c4 .i.c5+ 68 'ite2 f4 69
g6 f3+ 70 'itfl 'itf6 71 .i.d3 .i.e3 72 lt:lf2
'itg7 73 lt:lg4 i.d4 14 lt:lf2 .i.d 5
75 lt:le4
This is a good spot on the road! In
fact, White can force a favourable ex­
change, indeed can force a draw, with
the accurate 75 i.e4!. The idea is that
Black's f-pawn (while avoiding ex­
changes) has now advanced too far
into my position, so its exchange will
be forced anyway, as the following
analysis shows: 75 ...i.c4+ (Black
doesn't have enough to work with if
the bishops come oft as he will soon be
left with only one pawn: 75 ... i.xe4 76
lt:lxe4 'itxg6 77 lt:ld2 f2 78 lt:le4 'itf5 79
lt:lxf2 i.xf2 80 'itxf2 'ite4 81 'ite2 with a
dead drawn king and pawn ending, or
if 79 ... 'ite5 80 lt:ld3+ 'itd5 81 'ite2 'itc4 82
Wd2 'itxb5 83 Wc2 and White will be
able to give his knight for the last
pawn) 76 .i.d3 i.b3 77 i.e4 .i.a4 78
i.xf3 i.xb5+ 79 i.e2 i.a4 80 i.d1 b5 81
.i.xa4 bxa4 82 lt:ld3 a3 83 lt:lb4 ..tc5 84
lt:la2 'itxg6 85 'ite2 Wf5 86 'itd3 'ite5 87

'iti>c3 'iti>d5 88 'iti>b3 'it>d4 89 lZ'lc3 'it>d3 90
ltJb5 and the last of the Mohicans falls.
Let's call this Draw Number Three.
I think I missed this because I was
afraid to burn my time calculating
whether or not the bishop exchange
worked -but playing a non-forcing
move gave Bui the opportunity to ma­
noeuvre around some more!
75 ..te6 76 lZ'lf2 ..td7 11 'it>e1 ..tc3+ 78
..•
'it>f1 ..te5 79 lZ'le4 ..td4
so lZ'lf2?
I thought I was repeating the posi­
tion reached after move 76, but it's not
quite the same! There the Black's light­
squared bishop was on e6, here it's on
d7 - and that small change makes all
the difference.
Instead of trying to repeat moves, I
should attack Black's advanced and
vulnerable f-pawn - and take advan­
tage of a hidden tactic.
White can force the draw as follows:
80 lZ'lg5! ..tg4 81 i.e4 f2 82 i.f3 ..tf5
(82 ...i.xf3 83 lZ'le6+ 'it>xg6 84 ltJxd4 ..tg4
85 'it>xf2 is a dead draw) 83 ..te4 ..td7 84
.i.c6 i.c8 85 ..tb7! (the hidden tactic!
White draws by fork) 85 ... .i.xb7 (or
Th e E n dg a m e a n d t h e C l o c k
85.....td7 86 i..c6 etc) 86 lZ'le6+ 'it>xg6 87
lZ'lxd4 'it>£6 88 'it>x£2 'it>e5 89 'it>e3, and Bui
might play on, but I could draw this
with a five second delay, let alone an
increment- let's call this Draw Num­
ber Four- the last of a great line.
so ... ..tes
This works in the game, but
80 ... 'it>h6 is objectively better.
81 ..te4??
In an almost successful effort to in­
duce my suicide, line editor Jonathan
Tait pointed out that I actually had a
fifth draw here, namely 81 lZ'lg4 ..1xg6
82 i.. xg6 'it>xg6 83 lZ'lh2! f2 84 lZ'lg4 etc­
but enough already!
81 ..txb5+
..•
At least this ends the agony: Bui
spotted my blunder immediately and
happily chopped off this pawn.
With no real time, against an oppo­
nent with GM technique, the ending is
hopeless.
82 lZ'ld3 .i.c4 83 'it>e1 b5 84 'ito>d2 f2 85
..tg2 'itxg6 86 ..tf1 'itf5 87 'itc2 'ite4 88
'it>d2 'it>f3 89 ..te2+ 'it>g2 90 lZ'lf4+ 'it>g3 91
lZ'ld3 ..tb6 92 .i.f1 ..td4 93 i.e2 'itg2 94
lZ'lf4+ 'ith2 95 ..txc4 bxc4 96 'ite2 c3 97
119
Tru e C o m b a t C h e s s
'it>f1 c2 98 tLld3 �e3 99 'it>e2 'it>g1 100
tt:Jxf2 c1'iV 101 tLlh3+ 'it>h2 0-1
The game lasted six and a half
hours. The last three of those were
played under such time pressure (for
me) that I had no time to get up, no
breaks whatsoever.
My opponent masterfully played
the clock, so that I was never given a
chance to make an easy draw. Yes, I
missed four (or five, but who's count­
ing) forced draws, but none of them
was of the automatic variety.
An interesting thought is that one
can evaluate the position completely
differently according to different time
controls. Consider the position after 44
'it>e4, where I have eight minutes on the
clock, and I make the "chess merits of
the position" comment. Under a classi­
cal time limit (that I grew up on), let's
say 40/2, 20/1, 20/1 etc, until the game
is decided - or if there were an ad­
journment- the game is close to dead
drawn. If the position were played at
the American sudden death with five
second delay, the position is virtually a
forced win for Black, as no one is going
to hold that moving at five seconds per
move. With the increment, as played,
the result could go either way, in that
both a draw or a win for Black is possi­
ble. Which will happen is based mostly
on a couple of non-chess, or perhaps
tangential to chess factors: physical
conditioning and the ability to sit for
three hours without a break!
And I finally broke down- after
maintaining a drawn position for forty
moves! -but is this chess? It is as the
120
game is played now!
One might say I paid dearly for my
mistake on move three, which caused
me to fall behind on the clock while I
tried to solve my opening troubles ­
unaware that solving them just meant I
survived to face hours of torture!
Saved by Ana nd!
Game 15
Duong The-T.Taylor
First Saturday (May),
Budapest 2008
Trompowsky Attack
My next book for Everyman Chess
is going to be on the Budapest Gambit,
and so I decided, knowing that my
next opponent The Duong (as opposed
to The Rock) was a d-pawn player, that
I would surprise him with the Buda­
pest!
I had had good results with this
years before, but I hadn't played it re­
cently in any game that had made it
into the databases, so I felt confident of
at least gaining some time on the clock
when, after 1 d4 l2Jf6 2 c4, I hit him
with 2 ... e5! .
Then, in the middle o f the night­
terror! What if he played the dreaded
Trompowsky, and so avoided my Bu­
dapest? My panic subsided slightly
when I realized relief was at hand,
namely Joe Gallagher's book, Beating
the Anti-King's Indians, which has a
long section on the Tromp.
Needless to say I was overjoyed

when I saw his recommendation led to
a "dynamic game" .
Joy htmed to sadness when I played
the actual game... and so learned an­
other lesson. While GM Gallagher's
book was no doubt great in 1996 when
it was published, other conclusions
have been drawn since. I'm not knock­
ing the Grandmaster; as I've already
pointed out in this volume, my Bird's
Opening book already needs updating
in a couple of lines. Opening theory
never stands still, especially when eve­
ryone is following The Week in Chess!
1 d4 tLlf6 2 .tgs
I am Trompified! No Budapest!
2 ...tLle4
I begin to follow Gallagher's rec­
ommendation.
3 J.f4 C5 4 f3 'iVaS+ 5 C3 ltJf6 6 ltJd2
cxd4 1 lLlb3 'ii'b 6 8 'i¥xd4 tLlc6
Gallagher gives this move an ex­
clam and goes on to say ...
9 'i¥xb6 axb6
"Black's central superiority should
compensate for his weakened queen­
side", but once I had played the move
Th e E n dg a m e a n d t h e C l o c k
at the board, I failed to see any central
superiority -for Black! It wasn't hard
to make out a central superiority for
White though!
10 tLld4 ll:lxd4
The radical 10 ...e5 1 1 ll:lxc6 exf4
looked like too many doubled pawns
for me, and Gallagher ends up favour­
ing White in his commentary, so I con­
tinued to follow his main line.
11 cxd4
At this point I thought it might be
best to think with my own head, as I
decided I didn't like Gallagher's next
move, 1 l ...d5, at all. After that Galla­
gher analyzes a complicated pawn sac­
rifice with 12 �c7-but what if White
doesn't go after the pawn? It looks to
me like I then have a static position
with no counterplay, and a serious
long-term weakness on the b-file.
My trepidation was justified: in fact,
according to my Mega 2008, White
scores 65% after 1 l ...d5. It appears that
White can just play quietly (no pawn
snatching!}, and then the long-term
benefits of the better pawn structure
will bear fruit.
121
T r u e C o m b a t C h es s
Here are a couple of instructive ex­
amples:
a) 12 e3 �d7 13 ltJe2 e6 14 ltJc3 �b4
1S 'it>d2 �c6 16 �d3 'it>d7 17 a3 �d6 18
�xd6 'it>xd6 19 �c2 l1hc8 20 b3 ltJe8 21
�b2 �e7 22 g4 h6 23 h4 ltJd6 24 l:.hg1
nh8 2S .:tae1 !:tad8 26 l:!e2 �f8 27 !:th2
1/z-1!2 A.Hauchard-M.Hebden, Elista
Olympiad 1998. White's been a little
better all the way, and is still better at
the end. Black never had any play in
view of his doubled pawns and bad
bishop.
b) 12 ..i.d2 e6 13 e3 ..i.d7 14 g4 h6 1S
�d3 �c6 1 6 ltJe2 �d7 1 7 �f2 i.e7 18
ltJc3 ltJe8 19 b4 ..i.xb4 20 ltJxdS exdS 21
..i.xb4 ltJd6 22 l1hb1 ..i.bS 23 ..i.xbS+
ltJxbS 24 ..i.cS �c6 2S a4 bxcS 26 l:hbS
b6 27 !:tab1 !:ta6 28 aS cxd4 29 !:txb6+
!:txb6 30 !:txb6+ �cS 31 l1b7 l::ta8 32 !:tc7+
�d6 33 !:txf7 d3 34 'it>e1 l:haS 3S 'it>d2
.:!.a2+ 36 �xd3 l:.xh2 37 !:txg7 !:th3 38 f4
�cS 39 !:tc7+ �d6 40 !:ta7 !:th4 41 �d4
l:hg4 42 l::ta6+ 'it>d7 43 l:.xh6 l:.g3 44 :hs
�c6 4S :xdS l:.xe3 46 :cs+ �d6 47
�xe3 �xeS 48 �e4 1-0 P.Wells-H.Ziska,
European Championship, Dresden
2007.
122
I didn't know these games, but the
more I looked at the board, the less I
liked my position! Furthermore, I knew
my opponent was a grinder, and I
knew he would enjoy just that kind of
plus equals for life position.
So I decided to go out on my own­
or out on a limb - and at least block the
f4-bishop.
11 d6!? 12 e4 g6 13 i.d3 i.g7 14 ltJe2
•..
o-o 15 i.e3!
White aims straight at my weak
pawn - 1 wondered where my "dy­
namic game" had gone!
15 i.d7 16 �d2 J:.as 17 a3 l:.faB 18
.••
l:.ac1
What a nightmare! There is a clear
"central superiority", but it's in White's
hands, not Black's. White also has the
more active bishops, his c-file is more
important than my a-file, and above all
he has that target at b6, while Black has
nothing to shoot at.
But if playing in the First Saturday
had taught me one thing, it was this:
stay out of time trouble! In a one ses­
sion game this is of paramount impor­
tance, as otherwise you will never sur-

vive (see previous game) "the endgame
and the clock" !
I resolved to simply stay active and
keep enough time in reserve.
18 tbe8 19 .U.c3 e6 20 .U.b3 bs 21 .U.c1
.•.
�c6 22 'lt>e1 ds 23 es tbc7 24 tbc3 �f8
25 ..id2 f6!?
Quickly played!
This move is a chess mistake, but
it's not a clock mistake! You see, I'm
learning!
White can refute my move with 26
exf6! Wf7 27 �f4 tbe8 (if 27....U.c8 28
tbxbS wins by pin) 28 �xbS and White
is up a good pawn for nothing.
But I thought Duong was too com­
fortable in his grinding to calculate
here, and expected that he would an­
swer my quick move with one of his
own, the natural...
26 f4
Of course White is still better after
this, but now I open the £-file, which
might become useful later (it does!),
and I have learned something about
my opponent, in that he is wedded to
his conservative style; he doesn't seem
comfortable making a less than aes-
Th e E n dg a m e a n d t h e C l o c k
thetic random tactic move like 26 exf6!.
26...fxes 27 fxes Wf7 28 tba2 11a41
I knew that passive defence would
be hopeless against Duong, so I de­
cided to I mix it up by attacking the
base of his chain, which will force (if he
doesn't want to make a defensive
move) just the kind of unbalanced po­
sition that seemed to be anathema to
my very dry, careful opponent.
29 tbb4 �xb4 30 �xb4 tba6 31 �d6
.U.xd4 32 �xbs
Now that I've created chaos (if not
fire!) on board, let's begin our serious
endgame analysis here. Taking the
clock first, we both had about an hour
left. So far we had moved quickly, but
as the game wore on Duong would fall
farther and farther behind on time.
Now for pure chess: yes, Black has
created an unbalanced position, but
which side does the imbalance meter
point to?
One can see Black has a protected
passed centre pawn, and an active
rook-but that's about it. My defects
include a bad bishop, a worse knight
(stalemated by White's powerful dark-
123
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s
squared bishop) and a weak king.
On the other hand, White has two
strong bishops, two strong rooks, and a
direct threat to c6. The most dangerous
possibility for White is to invade the
seventh rank with one or both rooks.
In plain English, I'm in big trouble!
Clearly straightforward defence
doesn't work, e.g. 32 ... i.xb5 33 .:.xb5
l:ta7 34 l:tc8 l:th4 (not 34...l:tf4 35 l:tf8+)
35 l:tb3 g5 (worse is 35 ...l:txh2 36 l:tf3+
'it>g7 37 i.f8+ 'it>g8 38 i.h6 mate) 36 .l:.f3+
l:tf4 37 l:txf4+ gxf4 38 l:tf8+ and White
emerges a pawn up with a winning
ending in view of Black's stalemated
knight.
We will see this typical winning
ending for White in many notes to fol­
low!
What can I do in this desperate
situation? Call on the World Cham­
pion, that's what!
At this point a vision - a chess dia­
gram -popped into my head. Diagram
5.23 of Glenn Flear's most excellent
new book, Practical Endgame Play: Be­
yond the Basics, to be precise: a diagram
from the following game between
Svidler and Anand, where the cham­
pion had carried out a positional ex­
change sacrifice:
1 e4 c5 2 tLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt::lx d4
tLlf6 5 tt::lc3 tt::l c6 6 i.g5 e6 7 'iid2 i.e7 8
0-0-0 0-0 9 f4 tt::lx d4 10 'iix d4 ii'a5 1 1
i.c4 i.d7 1 2 e5 dxe5 1 3 fxe5 ..tc6 14
i.d2 tLld7 15 tLld5 'iid 8 16 tt::lxe7+ 'iixe7
17 l:the1 l:tfd8 18 'iig4 tLlf8 19 i.d3
l:txd3!? 20 cxd3 ii'd7 21 i.b4 tt::l g6 22
i.d6 f5 23 'iig5 i.d5 24 b3 'iic6+ 25 'it>b2
'iib6 26 g3 'iid4+ 27 'iit>b 1 .l:.c8 28 'iie3
124
'iixe3 29 .l:.xe3 f4 30 gxf4 lLlxf4 3 1 .l:.fl
tt::lg6 32 l:tcl .l:.xcl+ 33 �xcl -the dia­
gram position.
Flear's comment reads: "The next
case should be a warning for those who
are dogmatic about material advan­
tages." Note that the diagram features
a very similar structure to my game,
with another seemingly very strong
white bishop on d6-but it's actually
the black bishop on d5 that rules the
roost. While Black does not have so
much as a single pawn for the ex­
change, he has plenty of play - and
nearly wins the game!. The game con­
tinued as follows: 33 ...tt::lh4 34 l:te2 g5
35 'it>d2 'it>g7 36 l:tf2 tLlf5 37 i.c7 'it>g6 38
i.d8 h6 39 'it>e1 'it>h5 40 'it>f1 'it>g4 41
Wg1 'it>h3 42 b4 g4 43 a4 h5 44 l:tf4 a6 1!2-
V2 P.Svidler-V.Anand, Linares 1998.
Flear says, "White was only fighting
for equality" -yet White was the ex­
change up through the whole ending!
I thought it would certainly be
worth an exchange if I could activate
my moribund bishop, Anand style!
Now if I could just get my opponent
to go to the right square...

By the way, this is a classic case of
it's better to have a plan than no plan.
It seemed to me that White just wanted
to win material - and had no plan be­
yond that-but I had a certain type of
position in mind (the Svidler-Anand
diagram) and I was able to reach my
goal.
Furthermore, I had time for such
diagram remembrances and positional
ideas- note that against Bui I found
pretty good moves, but failed to find
(because of my time shortage) precise
drawing plans.
32 ....l:te4+
It looks like I'm playing for a draw,
but I know Duong won't take the repe­
tition... so I will guide his king to a
square where there are no checks ­
which is just where I want him!
33 'it>d2 l:.d4+ 34 'it>e3 .l:te4+ 35 'it>f3
The "safe haven" - there are no
checks, but White does not see my
idea.
The white king is on the same di­
agonal as my so far dead bishop -but
soon it will come alive!
If my opponent had been alert, he
Th e E n dg a m e a n d t h e C l o c k
could have won most cleanly with 35
'it>d3! and then:
a) 35 ... ..txb5+ 36 l:.xb5 .l:ta7 37 .l:tfl+
'it>e8 (if 37 ... 'it>g7 38 .l:tf6 and the e-pawn
goes) 38 .l:tb3 l:.c4 39 .l:.c3 lhc3+ 40 'it>xc3
and wins, as White threatens both b2-
b4-b5 and a kingside rook invasion,
while Black's stalemated knight means
there is no effective defence.
b) 35 ....l:tc4 36 ..txc4 dxc4+ 37 .l:txc4
..txg2 (37... ..td5 38 l:tf4+ escapes the
skewer) 38 l::!.f4+ 'it>g7 39 l:lc3 ..td5 40 h4
i.c6 41 .l:.f6 ..td5 42 b4 and in this posi­
tion Black has no compensation for the
exchange-blame the bad knight again,
e.g. 42 ...b5 43 a4 bxa4 44 b5 tt:ib8 45
.l:tc7+ 'it>h6 46 l:tf4 wins a piece in view
of the mate threat ..tf8+ and l:.xh7.
c) 35 ...tt:lb4+ 36 .U.xb4 .U.xb4 37 ..txc6!
l:txb2 38 .l:.fl + 'it>g7 39 ..td7 l:txg2 40
i.xe6 l:txh2 41 l:.f7+ 'it>h6 42 ..txd5 and
the rook and two bishops easily defeat
Black's two rooks.
Alternatively, even 35 'it>f2 ..txb5
(35 ....l:.c8 36 ..txc6 bxc6 37 l:.b6 is the
stalemated knight win again) 36 lhb5
.l:ta7 37 .l:tc8 should win.
3S ... l:tc4!1
125
Tru e Co m b a t C h ess
What a shock for my opponent! I
had scarcely made a single active move
so far, and now I suddenly threaten his
rook, while my castle, hit by two
pieces, is completely immune in view
of a potential discovered check from
my bishop that has risen from the
dead!
Duong began to bum time here, but
he was unable to come to grips with
such a seemingly irrational position­
whereas I began playing quickly and
confidently, in Anand style.
36 l:lf1
More forceful (and creative and
imaginative) is for White to sacrifice
the exchange himself with 36 ..txc6!.
Since 36 ... bxc6 37 %:.b7+ Wg8 38 l:txc4
dxc4 39 lle7 is our familiar pawn
up/stalemated knight/White wins, I
would have to take the rook, 36 .. Jhcl,
but then White can devour pawns with
check: 37 l:hb7+ Wg8 38 �d7! and it
transpires that Black has no way of
guarding the e-pawn. 38 ... lt::\c5 fails to
39 l:tc7, and worse yet, if 38 .. .'it>f7 39
..txe6+! 'it>xe6 40 l:te7+ 'it>fS 41 g4+ WgS
41 h4+ mates in three.
126
Therefore I would have had to let
the e-pawn go too, so White would end
up with two pawns for the exchange
and a powerful pair of bishops- all
this equalling good winning chances.
36 ... wgs 37 Wg3
White's materialism (recall the Flear
note!) gets the best of him. White is still
much better if he takes my dangerous
bishop and plays to win a pawn: 37
�xc6 bxc6 38 l:tc3! (Black is left with no
active pieces) 38 .. Jhc3+ 39 bxc3 lbb8 40
l:tb1 lbd7 41 l:Ib7 lbf8 42 l:tc7. The black
knight isn't quite stalemated here, but
otherwise it's pretty much the same as
White reaches a winning pawn up R+B
vs. R+N ending.
However, White was determined to
take the exchange.
3 7 ttJcs!
...
My knight escapes!
38 �xc4 dxc4
And so White got his exchange, but
look at my minor pieces! The formerly
stalemated knight is heading for a
wonderful outpost on e4, and my
"bad" bishop is now a powerhouse on
c6. I have a position very much like

Svidler-Anand now, if still not quite as
favourable ...
39 �b6?
But my opponent is reeling! White
no longer has any pressure on the b-file
(as he has had for most of the game)
and so this move makes no sense; in
the game it appears the rook's only
function is to give itself up for the
monster bishop on c6 (though there
was another hidden possibility).
Still, much better was the centraliz­
ing 39 �e3 lLle4+ 40 �h4 .l:.d8 41 :dl,
when White maintains some advantage
as the black knight can be ejected by
�d4.
39...lLle4+ 40 �h3 �dB 41 ..tb4
White should try to break his rook
out of prison with 41 .l:tb4 b5 42 a4!
bxa4 43 �xc4 ..tb5 44 �xe4 ..txfl 45
�xa4, when the ending might be
drawn, but if there are any winning
chances, they're on White's side.
41...l:f.d3+ 42 �h4
Black draws after 42 g3 lLlg5+ 43
�h4 lLlf3+ 44 �h3 lLlg5+.
42 ...�d4
Another thing I learned in Budapest
T h e E n dg a m e a n d t h e C l o c k
was not to force the position. Although
I was clearly equal now (if not better) I
was still willing to take a draw (43 �h3
�d3+ etc).
43 �xc6?1
White finally recognizes that his
"material advantage" is a sham, in that
the black bishop is certainly as strong
or stronger than White's rook.
However, he misevaluates the posi­
tion in that he thinks he can play for a
win- White should just take the draw
with 43 �h3.
43 .. bxc6 44 g4 g5+ 45 �h3
.
The white king is forced back, for if
45 �h5 �d3 and Black wins a rook
with a pair of rhyming variations: 46
h4 lLlg3+ or 46 �f8+ �g7 47 h4 �h3 48
.tel �xf8.
45 ...�d3+ 46 �g2 �b3!
Suddenly Black is winning material,
as 47 �bl would fail to 47... c3.
The psychological effect of this re­
alization was too much for my oppo­
nent-he finally began to play for a
draw, but nervously, while consuming
much time- and so I went on to win.
47 �cl
127
Tru e C o m b a t Ch ess
Better is 47 ltd1, but it's hard to ad­
just to playing for a draw when you
were winning earlier. White draws af­
ter 47...l:txb2+ 48 'it>f3 tt'lf2 49 l:td8+ 'it>f7
50 l:td7+ �g6 51 J.f8 tt'lxg4 (5l ...c3?? 52
l:tg7+ 'it>h6 53 l:.g8 mate) 52 l:tg7+ (52
'it>g4 h5+ should also be a draw)
52 ...'it>f5 53 l:.f7+ 'it>g6 (53 ... 'it>xe5?? 54
�g7+) 54 l:tg7+ with a perpetual.
47 ...l:txb2+ 48 'iW3 cS
49 'it>xe4
The clock is ticking, and Duong
can' t find the draws against me any
more than I could find them against
Bui: 49 �e1 tt'ld2+ 50 �xd2 l:txd2 51
l:txc4 l:txh2 52 l:txc5 l:th3+ 53 'it>f2 l:txa3
54 l:tc6 'it>f7 55 l:tc7+ 'it>g6 56 1k6 is a
draw.
49 ...cxb4 so axb4 l:txb4 51 l:tc3 l:tb2 52
h3
A very complicated draw is: 52
l:txc4 .l:.xh2 53 l:tc6 l:te2+ (if 53.. ..l:!h6
White can draw at will: 54 l:tc8+ 'it>f7 55
l:tc7+ 'it>f8 56 lk8+ 'it>f7 57 l:.c7+ etc, or
55 ... 'it>e8 56 l:tg7 and White wins his
pawn back with a totally dead draw)
54 'it>d4 l:.g2 55 l:txe6 l:.xg4+ 56 'it>d5 .U.f4
57 lld6 g4 58 e6 l:.f5+ 59 'it>c6 'it>£8 60
128
�d7 l:.e5 6 1 lld4 h5 62 l:f4+ 'iti'g7 63 e7
g3, and now White can go wrong with
64 e8'ii' l:txe8 65 'it>xe8 'it>g6! and wins
for Black, as the tablebase tells us, but
he can draw with the key deflection 64
l:tf5!.
The draws are getting harder!
52 ...ltf2
Black finally seizes the £-file that I so
riskily opened on move 25!
53 l:tf3?
White's materialism finally does
him in. This move recovers his pawn­
and loses by force.
He could draw by staying a pawn
down in the rook endgame: 53 l:txc4
l:.f4+ 54 'it>d3 l:tf3+ 55 'it>d4 l:txh3 56 l:tc8+
'it>f7 57 l:tc7+ 'it>g6 58 l:te7 llg3 59 l:.xe6+
'it>f7 60 l:t£6+ 'it>g7 61 'it>d5 l:txg4 62 l:t£1
l:tg2 63 e6 g4 64 e7 l:te2 65 'it>d6 h5 66
l:.£2! (not yet 66 l:.f8? g3! and wins)
66... l:te3 (otherwise if 66... l:te1 67 .l:.fl ! or
66 ...l:te4 67 l:t£4!) 67 l:tf8 g3 (Black is not
quite quick enough after 67... h4 68 e8'ti'
l:txe8 69 lhe8 g3 70 .l:te4) 68 lt£3! (the
point of forcing the black rook to e3;
not 68 e8'ti'? lhe8 69 llxe8 g2 70 lte1 h4
and wins) 68 ... l:.xe7 69 'it>xe7 (or 69

.1:1xg3+ 'it>f7 70 l:.f3+ 'it>e8 71 .1:1h3 .:th7 72
�e6) 69 ... h4 70 l:r.f4 'it>g6 71 .1:1xh4 'iti>fS 72
.:th1 with a draw.
53 .:txf31
•.•
The pawn ending is winning as
Black gets the opposition by force.
54 'iii>xf3 �7
55 'ite4 'ite7 56 'iii>d 4 'iii>d 7 57 'iti>c3 'iti>c7
58 'itb4 'iti>b6
White is finally compelled to take
the pawn.
59 'itxc4 'iti>c6 60 Wd4 Wb5 61 h4 h6
Th e E n dg a m e a n d t h e C l o c k
There is no reason to confuse the is­
sue by taking the proffered pawn- all
Black needs is the opposition.
62 'iti>d3 'iti>c5 63 'iti>e4 'iti>c4 0-1
White resigned, for if 64 hxgS hxgS
65 'iti>e3 'itdS 66 'itf3 'itxeS 67 We3 'iti>dS
68 'itd3 eS 69 'ite3 e4 70 'iti>e2 'itd4 71
'iti>d2 e3+ 72 'iti>e2 'iti>e4 73 'iti>e1 'itf3 and
wins White's last pawn.
This game could have gone into the
book as an example of bad opening
preparation, but it ends up going in as
an example of good endgame play!
Even though I started the endgame
much worse, I played imaginatively
(with an assist from Anand!). Mean­
while my opponent's materialistic
stance backfired on him, as an ex­
change up position was not better for
him, and an even material pawn end­
ing was lost!
But most important for me was that
I finally had enough time on the clock
to play creatively late in the game.
129
 Chapter Four
Win n i n g the Won Game
"The hardest thing i n chess i s to
win the won game."
Everyone knows the above quote,
and everyone who plays chess has had
the experience of absolutely crushing
your opponent, and then - somehow,
someway, not winning the game ­
sometimes even losing the game!
You think World Champions don't
have this problem? Surely, in a World
Championship match, with the ex­
traordinarily high level of play, and the
whole world watching, no chess god
would actually lose a won game -
Ha!
It has happened, and happened
more than once - right now let's take a
look at the eighth game of one of the
most famous World Championships
ever played, where the young wizard
from Riga, Mikhail Tal, challenged the
patriarch of Soviet chess, Mikhail Bot­
vinnik.
130
I
M.Botvi nn ik-M.Ta l
(8th matchgame),
Moscow 1960
Modern Benoni
1 d4 tLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lLlf3 cs 4 ds exds s
cxds g6 6 lLlc3 �g7 1 �gs o-o 8 e3 �es
9 tLld2 d6 10 �e2 a6 11 a4 tLlbd7 12 0-0
�C7 13 �C2 lLJb6 14 ..tf3 C4 15 ..txf6
..txf6 16 as tLld7 17 tLlce4 �es 18 'ii'xc4
�dB 19 �a2 fs 20 lLlc3 gS 21 tLlc4 g4 22
�e2 �f6 23 tLla4 ..t>hs 24 g3 hs 25 f4
�d4 26 'i¥a3 l:!bS 27 tLlab6 h4 28 �ad1
�xb6 29 axb6 tLlcs 30 gxh4 �d7 31 'ii'c 3
�xc3 32 bxc3 �bs 33 �fe1 tLle4 34 �c1
And now Black, the great Tal, is just
winning. His relentlessly imaginative
play has driven Botvinnik to the wall.
The champion has only three minutes
left to reach move 40, while Tal has
thirteen minutes left.
Tal had earlier sacrificed a pawn for

activity, but now he wins material by
force- and he saw the combination!
And he lost!
How did this happen? I bet I can tell
you his thought process- it probably
went something like this: "I attack his
knight with my rook. The knight has to
go somewhere. Then I take off his
bishop and play ...lLlxc3. No matter
where he moves his rook, I play ... lLle2+
and I win the exchange. He's busted!
I'm winning!"
And so Tal played . . . and White queens first) 44 hS �e8 4S
34 ... .:f.bc8 3 5 lLla 5
The knight moved somewhere.
35 .....txe2 36 l:be2 lLlxc3 37 .l:.xc3 .l:.xc3
Win n in g t h e W o n G a m e
Black wins the exchange.
38 lbxb7 .:f.exe3 39 .:f.xe3 .:f.xe3 40 lLlxd6
.l:.d3 41 lLlf7+ 1-0
Finally, Black resigned (!) since
White queens in all variations:
a) 4l...�h7 42 d6 aS 43 b7 .l:.b3 44 d7
and one of the pawns goes through.
b) 4l...�g8 42 b7 .l:.b3 43 lLld8 aS 44
d6 a4 45 d7 a3 46 lLle6 and White
queens with check.
c) 4l...�g7 42 b7 .l:tb3 43 lLld8 �f8
(or 43 ... aS 44 d6 a4 45 d7 a3 46 lLle6+
h6 �xd8 46 h7 and Black can't stop
both far separated pawns.
What happened to the win?
I'll let Tal tell it: he's describing how
he and his second, Koblencs, were
looking over the game back at their
hotel. "Then we reached the position
given in the diagram, and almost im­
mediately various unrepeatable words
were uttered. We had both noticed
that, by continuing 34 ....l:.ec8 instead of
34 ....l:i.bc8, Black would have won in­
stantly. It is hardly worth mentioning
the fact that I never closed my eyes that
night."
131
Tru e Co m b a t Ch ess

For the record, the correct variation Unl ucky Thirteen

goes like this: 34 .. J:tec8! 35 tt:la5 �xe2
36 .!:!.xe2 tt:lxc3 37 �xc3 (or 37 �ec2
Game 1 6
tt:le2+) 37... �xc3 and Black, with his b­
L.Taylor-R.Henderson
pawn protected (which is why the e8-
Los Angeles (rapid) 2006
rook must move, and not the b8-rook)
Danish Gambit
is the exchange up for a pawn, and
given White's wayward knight and
many pawn weaknesses, Black has an 1 e4 es 2 d4 exd4 3 c3
easy win.
How did this tragedy happen? First
of all I think Tal was carried away by
the sight of the combination, and went
for it without thinking it through more
concretely. He probably had that vague
"knight moves somewhere" in his
mind, but if he had thought more pre­
cisely, and asked himself, "Where does
the knight go?", he would have real­
ized that it could go to a5, attacking b7.
At that point he could correct the
variation and move the right rook. At this time Liz was rated 1619 to
Furthermore, even after moving the her opponent's 1908 - I had advised
"wrong rook" Tal could probably still her in such cases to go for broke, for
draw, but he clung to the belief that he the stronger player would probably not
was winning -until it really was too be able to handle her wild aggression.
late. So she lashes out with the Danish
While I have messed up many won Gambit, and scores a huge opening
games in my time, in this chapter I am success- though one must remember
going to follow tradition and present the opening is not the whole game!
only games of my wife, who is now 3 .'ife7
..

rated 1800. In fact I was writing a well­
received chapter of Liz's games online
when my column was terminated.
So now the reader can see five new
games of my lovely lady -but I fear
she has more than her share of misad­
ventures!
But then again, all that proves is she
plays like Tal!
Rosentreter's Defence: this has been
played by grandmasters and, despite
its odd appearance, is not bad. The idea
is 4 �d3?! d5 when Black is better, so
White is obliged to continue in gambit
style.
The problem with this defence, in
my opinion, is not its soundness, but
rather that it gives White the kind of

132

game she wants- obviously the point
of Black's move is to gain material, and
he doesn't care about losing time with
his queen- exactly the kind of play
that gambiteers relish!
Black could have defanged the
gambit with Capablanca's positional
retort: 3 ... d5 4 exd5 'ii'x d5 5 cxd4 liJc6 6
liJf3 .ig4 7 .ie2 .ib4+ 8 liJc3 .ixf3 9
.ixf3 �c4
when Black is fully equal, and
White has no attacking chances to
speak of, as the following three games
show:
a) 10 .ie3 .ixc3+ 1 1 bxc3 �xc3+ 12
'i1i>fl �c4+ 13 'i1i>g1 liJge7 14 .U.cl �xa2 15
.U.a1 'ii'c4 16 l:.cl V2-V2 F.Marshall­
J.R.Capablanca, Lake Hopatcong 1926.
This is the stem game of this whole
variation: one can see Black drew eas­
ily.
b) 10 .ixc6+ bxc6 1 1 �e2+ �xe2+ 12
'i1i>xe2 0-0-0 and Black was already
slightly better in J.Timm-T.Taylor, US
Open 1975.
c) 10 'ifb3 (the modem move, but
White barely equalizes with it, and
scores, according to the Mega, a measly
Win n in g t h e W o n G a m e
43%) 10... 'ii'xb3 1 1 axb3 ltJge7 1 2 0-0 a6
13 ..te3 0-0-0 14 l:tfd1 �b8 15 g3 l:the8
16 d5 liJe5 17 .ig2 liJf5 18 .if4 .ic5 19
.U.a4 .ib6 20 .ih3 liJd6 21 'i1i>g2 h6 22
.tel f5 23 'it>fl l:.e7 24 l:th4 l:.de8 25 l:th5
g5 26 f4? (but if 26 .U.xh6 liJf3) 26 ...liJd3
27 .id2 g4 28 .ig2 .ie3 29 'i1i>e2 liJxb2 0-
1 D.Mastrovasilis-Z.Sturua, European
Championship, lstanbul 2003 .
4 cxd4 iixe4+
Black's queen has voluntarily
stepped out where she will be at-
tacked - all for a pawn!
5 .ie3 ..tb4+ 6 liJc3 liJf6
More solid is 6 ... d5 which was
played by the great Rubinstein. Here a
modern Grandmaster falls victim to the
gambit-but one can be sure he was
playing under a faster time control
than Rubinstein! 7 liJf3 .if5 8 .U.cl �e7 9
.id3 .ixd3 10 'ir'xd3 liJf6 1 1 0-0 0-0 12
.ig5 c6 13 .U.fe1 'ir'd6 14 liJh4 liJbd7 (the
Grandmaster is careless: after one more
defensive move - 14 ... g6 -it's hard to
see any compensation for White) 15
liJf5! ("What can this knight do to me?"
Black might have asked) 15 ...'ii'c7 16
'iih3 .ixc3 17 bxc3 l:.fe8
133
True C o m b a t C h e s s
18 tLlxg7! (this!) 18 ...'it'xg7 19 �6+
'it'g8 20 ..ixf6 tLlxf6 21 'ii'g5+ Wh8 22
�xf6+ 'it'g8 23 h4 �d8 24 �f4 �d7 25
h5 .l:Ie6 26 .l:le5 lhe5 27 dxe5 'ii'e6 28
l:te1 l:te8 29 :e3 h6 30 �f3 'it'g7 31 1Wg3+
Wf8 32 �f6 'ilixe5 33 'ii'g6 �e7 34 'ii'xh6+
We8 35 l:.f3 'ilie1 + 36 Wh2 'ilie5+ 37 g3
'ii'e2 38 Wg2 \i'e4 39 'ifd6 'it'f8 40 h6 'it'g8
1-0 M.Voigt-I.Rausis, Hamburg 2000.
Black resigned without waiting for 41
'ii'f6 'ii'e5 42 h7+ 'it'xh7 43 'ifh4+ Wg8 44
ne3 which wins a rook.
1 lLlf3 tLlds s ..id3I
Liz comes up with a novelty over
the board.
8 'ifd2 is always played in the
134
Megabase, but White only scores 36%
with it!
That move is also given, without
any alternative suggestion offered, in
the book Danish Dynamite by Karsten
Muller and Martin Voigt. The authors'
main line is this sequence: 8 'ii'd 2 tLlxe3
9 fxe3 �e7 10 ..id3 d5 1 1 0-0 ..ixc3 12
bxc3 0-0 13 �ae1 f5
and state that despite Black's efforts
to "lock down" the e4-square, "White
nevertheless should be able to take ad­
vantage of the better development and
dark squares."
Well, maybe... maybe not. In any
case, it's clear that in this variation
Black got through the opening alive
and kicking, with an extra pawn in his
briefcase.
I think Liz's move is just as good as
8 'ii'd2 -which seems rather defensive
for a gambit - and has practical advan­
tages as well. Her opponent may well
have had the "main line" memorized,
but now had to think with his own
head - and immediately blundered!
8 �e7?
...
Taken aback by this "nice girl" try-

ing to kill him, Liz's opponent reels
backward -but he should move for­
ward! Correct is 8 ... lL'lxe3! which gets
the queens off. After 9 �xe4 lL'lxd1 10
l:txd1 0-0 1 1 0-0 White obviously has
good development compensation for
the pawn in the queenless middle­
game, but "queenless" is the key word.
White might well get her pawn back
down the road, but a mating attack is
pretty much out of the question.
Interestingly enough, Black even
has a second move that is better than
the text: 8 ... lL'lxc3!? 9 bxc3 �xc3+ 10 'Ot>fl
'ti'e7 1 1 l:.cl �aS 12 'ti'a4 'ti'b4 13 'ti'c2
'ti'd6, which actually looks consistent
from a Rosentreter Defence standpoint:
Black makes many queen moves- his
position is ugly-but as far as I can see,
quite defensible.
9 0-0
Now White castles and keeps the
queens on- Liz has won the opening
battle against her three hundred point
higher-rated opponent.
9 ttJxe3?
...
But this and the following two
moves make matters much worse for
Win n i ng t h e W o n G a m e
Black: yes, he gains a second pawn, but
exchanges off all his developed pieces,
leaving only a vulnerable queen.
10 fxe3 �xc3 11 bxc3 ..Wxe3+?
1 l ...d5 would transpose to the
Mi.illerNoigt main line if White plays
12 �d2, but obviously here White has
gained a tempo by omitting that move,
and can play 12 e4! dxe4 13 �xe4 with
a clear advantage.
Best is 1 1 ...0-0, but after 12 e4 White
has the centre and development- more
than enough for one pawn.
12 'Ot>h1 0-0
It's not hard to see that White al­
ready has a won game.
Consider the evidence: Four black
queen moves in twelve moves- and
her Majesty has ended up in a thicket
of white pieces and will have to flee yet
again!
Not a single black minor piece is
developed, and development is clearly
going to take a while- and the black
rooks are dog years from connecting.
Meanwhile White controls the cen­
tre, has all the open lines she needs (f­
file, b1-h7 diagonal), and every white
135
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s
piece except the queen's rook is taking
part in the attack- and that last piece
can come over quickly, long before
Black develops.
The two extra pawns that Black has,
for now, take no part in the play - and
never will, if White acts decisively.
So White is winning: ask me, ask
Mr Fritz, ask Vishy Anand -
But how does White win?
13 'i!Vc2?? (DDT)
Apparently the number 13 is only
lucky for Kasparov!
Liz makes what seems like a per­
fectly reasonable move: she develops
her queen with tempo, and prepares to
bring in the queen's rook.
All very logical - and yet this move
is a horrendous blunder that throws
away the win!
Now Black is able to both meet
White's threat to h7 and rush his queen
away from the danger zone- in other
words, White's queen attack was a one­
move threat that improved Black's po­
sition.
Again the question: White is win­
ning -we can see the crushing position
before our eyes -Liz can see it-but
she can't see how to break through -
Ah, that's the answer.
The position will not win itself.
Quiet play, steady development just
won't do it.
White has to break through, and to
break through she has to sacrifice, and
sacrifice almost immediately, for her
advantage is one of time: remember,
big lead in development, open lines,
sleeping black pieces... all wonderful
136
for one or two moves, but soon gone
like dust motes in the sun.
White wins with 13 tt::le5! .
Black has no reasonable defence to
the coming sac on f7.
White breaks through.
Here are the variations, with the
key tactical motifs noted: 13 tt::le5 and
now:
a) 13 ...tt::lc6 (Black tries simple devel­
opment) 14 tt::lxf7! (Bang! -simple de­
velopment doesn't stop the sac)
14 ...l:txf7 (declining the sac is just as bad
or worse: 14 ... g6 15 �c4 Wg7 16 l:tf3 'i!Ve7
17 �d2 mates or wins the queen, or if
14 ... d5? 15 ..ixh7+ and mates) 15 l:txf7
Wxf7 1 6 'if'fl+!. This precise check is the
key to the combination: The white
queen must remain on the back rank to
support the queen's rook which is com­
ing over with tempo. Since 16 ...We7 ob­
viously loses the queen to 1 7 11e1 with a
pin, Black has no choice. 16 ... Wg8 17 :e1
and it turns out that White picks up the
overused black queen anyway -her
Majesty has no way to hold the mating
square on e8.
This variation is the essence of the

combination: if Black does nothing spe­
cial, White just crashes through!
b) 13 ... d5 (Black tries to block the
a2-g8 diagonal) 14 l:tf3 (a slight refine­
ment so that the coming lLlxf7 will hit
the black queen) 14 ... 'i!Yg5 15 lLlxf7!
and Black must move his queen for
the sixth time (!), for once again accept­
ing the sac loses immediately: 15 ...l:txf7
16 .:txf7 'ito>xf7 17 'iWf3+ with a winning
attack, e.g. 1 7...'ii'f6 (17... 'ito>g8 18 .l:tfl is
too easy) 18 'iVxdS+ i..e6 (or 18 ...'ii'e6 19
.l:tfl+ 'ito>e7 20 'ir'gS+ 'ito>e8 21 i..xh7 and
White gets the queen to start with) 19
'ii'xb7 and White wins the exchange
while maintaining her attack.
So after 15 lLlxf7, Black's best try is
15 ...'ir'e7, but this will hardly hold in
the short run, and there won't be a long
one! 16 lLleS l:tf6 (Black still can't de­
velop, as 16 ...lLlc6 loses immediately to
17 i..xh7+ 'ito>xh7 18 'ikb1+ 'ito>g8 19 lLlg6
etc) 1 7 'ifc2 g6 18 �xf6 't!Vxf6 19 .Uf1 'ifg7
20 1ib3 c6 21 1ib4 lLld7 (Black loses all
his pieces after 2l...i..e6 22 'ii'd 6 i.. d 7 23
.l:tf3 aS 24 ..ixg6 hxg6 25 lLlxd7 lLlxd7 26
'ir'e6+ 'ito>h8 27 l:th3+ "iVh7 28 1hh7+ 'ito>xh7
29 'if'xd7+) 22 'ir'd6 lLlf8 23 'ir'd8 and
Win n i n g t h e W o n G a m e
Black i s so tied u p that material loss is
inevitable.
c) 13 ...'i!Vh6 (Black runs for safety) 14
lLlxf7! (it still works!) 14 ...l:txf7 15 1ib3
dS (15 ...'ir'e6 1 6 ..tc4 is just as bad) 16
'iVxdS i..e6 1 7 'ir'd8+ .l:tf8 18 l:txf8 mate.
d) 13 ... f6 14 "iVhs 'i!Vh6 15 ..ic4+ �h8
1 6 lLlf7+ l:txf7 1 7 'ir'xf7 mates.
e) 13 .. .f5 14 i..c4+ 'ito>h8 15 "iVhS+ etc.
f) 13 ... d6 14 lLlx£7 g6 (Black can of
course lose in familiar ways, e.g.
14 ... i..e6 15 i.. xh7+ 'ito>xh7 16 "iVhS+ etc,
or 1 4 .. ..lhf7 15 .l:txf7 �xf7 1 6 'ii'f l+ and
so on) 15 i..c4 dS (if 15 ... 'ito>g7 1 6 .l:tf3
'ir'e4 1 7 'ir'd2 "iVh4 18 l:tf4 "iVhS 19 .l:tafl
with a winning attack) 16 i..x dS c6 1 7
lLlh6+ �g'Z 18 l:hf8
("Black can only take one piece at a
time," as Tal use to say!) 18 .. .'it>xf8 19
'if'f1+ �g7 20 .l:te1 'ir'xc3 21 l:te7+ �xh6
22 'if'f4+ g5 23 'iif6+ WhS 24 l:txh7+ 'ito>g4
25 i.. f3+ 'ir'xf3 26 gx£3 and White mates
with a pawn, while Black doesn' t have
a single developed piece.
There are actually more variations
than this, but you get the point: once
White breaks through on f7, Black can't
hold the position.
137
Tru e Co m b a t Ch ess
The key to winning the won game
was to see that idea; see that develop­
ment wasn't enough; see that sacrifice
wasn't just good, but necessary.
13 ..J�'h61
Black moves the queen out of the
danger zone, and with two extra
pawns, has every chance to defend,
though he may not have a real advan­
tage yet.
14 l:tae1
14 l2Je5 is still a good try, e.g. 14 ... d5
15 l2Jxf7 l:.x£7 16 ..txh7+ 'ilixh7 17 'ilixh7+
'iitxh7 18 l:txf7 with play, but obviously
this would have been much stronger
on the previous move- and Liz is
completing her idea (bring the last
piece into the game) and so is not look­
ing for sacs.
14...d6 15 l:.e4?1
White's win is gone, and her attack
is gone-but what is left is her big lead
in development. It sounds like quite a
comedown, but what White should do
is play 15 l:te7 and try to regain one
pawn. If she's down one, not two, her
superior pieces probably give equality.
But Liz still wants to mate, like Tal
138
still trying to win after moving the
wrong rook- and so, like Tal, she goes
down in flames.
15 .....tt5
Black develops and defends h7.
White has one more chance ...
16 nh4
But, chasing the mating attack, Liz
misses it. Correct is 16 l:te7 ..txd3 1 7
'ifxd3 l2Ja6 18 ifuS (I'm sure she wasn't
looking in this direction!) 18 ...'ilif6 19
l:.fe1 l:l.ab8 and it's hard to see how
Black frees himself, despite the two
extra pawns.
16 .....txd3 17 'ilixd3 'ilig6 18 'ilie3
Now 18 'ilibS is too late: 18 ... l2Ja6! 19
'it'xb7 'ifd3 and Black attacks.
18 ... l2Jd7 19 'ilie7 'ilie6 20 'ilig5 h6 21
'ii'g 3 f5
Black finally gains enough space on
the kingside to defend, which means
that, all else being equal, he is just up
two pawns.
Liz plays on, but no miracle saves
appear.
22 l:.e1 'iff6 23 a3 l:.ae8 24 l:.f4 l:.xe1+
25 'iVxe1 g5 26 'ir'g3 'ir'g7 27 l2Jxg5
'ti'xg5 28 'iVe3 l:tf7 29 'ii'e8+ �g7 30 l:tf1

tt:Jf6 31 'ife1 tt:Jg4 32 l:r.f3 l:r.e7 33 �b1
�h4 0-1
The game needed to be won on
move 13!
If your opponent makes bad moves,
anti-positional moves, you must look
for the win right away, regardless of
rating difference.
Consider the cruelty of chess for a
moment: after her sharp and excellent
opening play, Liz was absolutely win­
ning on move 13.
After her natural and developing 13
'ii'c2, she was fighting for a draw!
The effects of DDT are spreading!
"I Knew I Was Winning!
I Saw the Move!"
"But Darling, Why Didn't
You Play It?"
Game 1 7
L.Taylor-R.Oiiver
Ashev i l le 2007
Centre Game
1 e4 es 2 d4 exd4 3 'it'xd4 l2Jc6 4 'it'e3
Wi n n in g the Won G a m e
4...d6
Black's most challenging reply is
4 ... tt:Jf6; the text is usually played by
someone who is surprised, and doesn't
know the opening, like Karpov!
With the black centre pawn com­
mitted to d6 (preventing the active de­
velopment ... ..tb4, and giving up the
possibility of ... d7-d5 in one) White
gets a free hand in the centre and dan­
gerous attacking chances.
5 tt:Jc3 tt:Jf6 6 ..td2 ..te6
Karpov's game continued 6 ... ..te7 7
0-0-0 0-0 8 �g3 a6 9 f4 b5 10 e5 tt:Jd7 1 1
tt:Jf3 l:r.b8 1 2 tt:Jd5 tt:Jc5 1 3 ..te3 tt:Je4 14
'it'e1 f5 15 h3 ..te6 1 6 :g1 �h8 1 7 g4
dxe5 18 l2Jxe7 'it'xe7 19 l2Jxe5 l2Jxe5 20
fxe5 :bd8 21 ..td3 ..td5
and here it was evident to the future
World Champion that he stood worse,
and so he had to resort to the Higher­
Rated Player defence: offer a draw!
Therefore, 1/2-V2 J.Hase-A.Karpov,
Skopje Olympiad 1972 -bu t after 22
..tf4 it's hard to find a save for Black.
His knight is being undermined, White
is breaking through on the g-file, and
the two white bishops are poised to
139
Tru e C o m b a t C h e s s
run amuck. Fritz 11 oscillates between
clear advantage to White and decisive
advantage. The following variations
show how quickly Black could have
lost this: 22 ... tt::lc5 (22 .. .fxg4 23 i.xe4
.:.xf4 24 i.xd5 wins a piece) 23 i.xf5 g6
24 e6! with a winning attack.
That was one timely draw offer!
7 o-o-o a6
This move can cost Black, if he later
castles queenside-but after White's
next, the kingside hardly looks invit­
ing!
s f4 g6 9 ts i.d7
10 tt::ld s?J
Liz has quickly and aggressively
gained an opening advantage, but this
move and the following give her op­
ponent a way out. When one's oppo­
nent is cramped, as here, one should
keep the pieces on, e.g. 10 tt::l f3 i.g7 1 1
l:tg1 0-0 ( 1 1 . . .h5 1 2 fxg6 fxg6 13 'iig5 is
even worse) 12 g4, when Black has no
compensation for White's space advan­
tage, and a kingside attack is coming
fast as well!
10...i.g7 11 tt::lxf6+ i.xf6?1
Black bobbles the ball in turn -
140
correct i s the somewhat surpnsmg
1 1...'il'xf6, as Black has a block on e5
and a latent threat of ...i.h6, e.g. 12 i.c3
tt::le5 13 tt::lf3 gxf5 14 'itib1 (not 14 exf5?
i.h6) 14 ... f4 and Black is slightly better.
12 tt::lf3 'iie 7 13 g4
13 ... h6
Black should probably minimize the
damage by getting the queens off:
13 ... gxf5 14 exf5 (not 14 gxf5 0-0-0 with
equality) 14 ...'iixe3 15 i.xe3 0-0 16 g5
:feB 1 7 gxf6 l:.xe3 18 l:.g1+ 'itif8 1 9 tt::l g5
i.xf5 20 i.d3 .:.xd3! (Black has to give
up the exchange but it's not the end of
the world: much much worse is
20 ... i.xd3 21 .:.xd3 .:xd3 22 tt::lxh7+ 'itie8
23 .l:.g8+ 'itid7 24 .l:.xa8 .l:.h3 25 tt::lf8
mate!) 21 cxd3 tt::ld4, and while Fritz
says White is slightly better, I see An­
and-style compensation as in Game 15.
14 i.c4 o-o-o 15 'il'b3
White mixes up her move order: she
should play 15 .:.he1 first, then 'iib3 .
1S ....l:. hf8?
It goes without saying Black must
venture 15 .. .'ii'xe4- or accept the worse
position seen in the game, where he
has no counterplay.

16 :he1
Now everything is fine for Liz: as
mentioned in a previous note, Black
has no compensation for White's space
advantage; the d7-bishop is particu­
larly choked by the white pawns; and
White has, in this position, a queenside
attack!
16 gs 17 1Ya3!
...
This powerful move targets both a6
and e7.
Black has no fully satisfactory an­
swer: if he defends against the sac on
a6 with 17 ...4Jb8 he is then crushed in
the centre by 18 e5! .
1 1 ttJes
.. .
Win n i ng t h e Won G a m e
Liz knew she had a won game here:
to reiterate, White has a crushing space
advantage, which means that every
white piece has the manoeuvring room
to take part in a direct attack. And
speaking of attack, Black's king is vir­
tually unprotected; Oliver's last sortie
took his one good defensive piece
away from the threatened sector.
The aforementioned a6-pawn sticks
out like a sore thumb and invites a
demolition sac; the white rooks are dy­
ing to lift themselves into the king
hunt.
From talking to Liz afterward, and
going over the game with her, it was
clear that she was aware of all these
things.
As she said herself, she saw the
winning 18 i.xa6! straight away.
Yet she didn't play it!
18 ttJxes??
Loses all her advantage in one
move.
A quick look shows that 18 i.xa6 is
winning, and a slow, computer­
assisted look says the same.
Liz saw it; the big question is why
she didn't play it.
The best answer again comes from
Tal. In his candidates match with
Korchnoi, Moscow 1968, Tal reached a
winning position - again, I'll let Tal
describe the debacle in his own words:
"Here I wrongly made the mistake of
not believing myself. I wrote down the
winning move 28 e5, but then decided
to work out all the variations literally
to mate. To do this proved not at all
easy ...
"
141
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s
Tal was unable to calculate every­
thing, lost faith in the move he intui­
tively and correctly believed to be win­
ning - played some lemon, and drew!
Much the same thing happened to
Liz here: her heart, her intuition, told
her that 18 �xa6
had to be correct and winning. But
then she realized Black had no less
than four plausible answers ( ...bxa6,
...liJxf3, ... �c6 and ... ltJxg4) and she de­
cided to calculate all of them, and "this
proved not at all easy". Finally (after a
long think, that cost her later in the
game) she lost faith in her initial feeling
and played some lemon- and eventu­
ally even lost the game.
My advice to her was that only two
variations needed to be calculated, the
rest could be taken on faith: If he takes
the bishop, we have 18 i&.xa6 bxa6 19
'ti'xa6+ Wb8 20 l:r.e3 and wins. Simple!
And if he tries to divert the white
queen with 18 ... liJxf3, then 19 il.c4 (or
even 19 �fl, in general some bishop
retreat) and due to the mate threat at
a8, White recovers the piece. Also sim­
ple!
142
Two three-move variations that Liz
could easily handle.
She says she was particularly
thrown by the possibility of 18 ...liJxg4,
taking a pawn back, but I wouldn't
analyze that move at all - the impor­
tant thing is White has taken a king­
protecting pawn, so losing something
on the opposite wing doesn't mean
anything, even if White doesn't have a
tactic-but she does!
Even the great Tal could not calcu­
late everything like a computer- Liz
couldn't, and I know I can't!
So you're just going to have to trust
yourself!
Now here are the variations: After
18 i&.xa6 Black has:
a) 18 ... bxa6 19 'ii'xa6+ Wb8 20 l:r.e3
and there is no real defence to l:r.b3+.
b) 18 ...liJxf3 19 i&.c4 (threatens mate)
19 ... i&.c6 (if 19 ... i&.xf5 20 'ifa8+ Wd7 21
il.b5+ c6 22 'ii'xb7+ WeB 23 exf5 liJxe1 24
il.xc6+ .:!.d7 25 .:!.xe1 i&.e5 26 f6! 'ir'd8 27
�aS is cruel and unusual punishment;
even more fun is 2l...We6 22 exf5+ Wd5
23 c4+ Wc5 24 i&.b4+ Wxb4 25 'ii'a3 mate)
20 'ir'xf3
 Win n i ng t h e W o n G a m e

one move closer to it!

and White is a pawn up with a

much better position, e.g. 20 .. J:tdeS 21 Here White wins with 19 e5!!.
i.d5 etc. Black must take with the knight, as
c) 1S ...i.c6 19 t"Llxe5 i.xe5 (19 ... �xe5 19 ... dxe5 is crushed by the savage 20
20 i.c4 i.xe4 21 :xe4 'ili'xe4 22 'i!i'aS+ i.b4 �eS 21 i.b5, and 19 ... i.xe5 loses
'iii>d 7 23 �a4+ wins the queen, or if material to 20 h3 -note the diagonal
20 ... �xh2 21 i.d5 i.xd5 22 exd5 'iii>b S 23 pin on the d6-pawn.
l:.e4 wins, and if Black avoids this his So we have 19 ...t"Llxe5 20 i.c3 and
king position is permanently damaged, then:
e.g. 2l ...�e5 22 i.xc6 bxc6 23 l::te3 'iii>d 7
24 i.c3 �e7 25 i.xf6 �xf6 26 e5 wins
again) 20 i.c4 i.xh2 21 i.d5 'i!i'eS (if
2l...i.xd5 22 exd5 i.e5 23 'IlVaS+ 'iii> d 7 24
�xb7 with a pawn and a winning at­
tack) 22 l::th 1 i.f4 23 l::txh6 and White
has an extra pawn and positional ad­
vantage.
d) 1S ... t"Llxg4 is the line that worried
Liz, but my point is that even if White
didn't have the following crushing
blow, she could just play the simple 19
i.c4 with advantage. The point is to d1) 20 ... g4 21 i.f1 'iitb S 22 t"Llxe5 dxe5
trust the position, play the strong move (if 22 ... i.xe5 23 l::txe5 wraps it up) 23
(1S i.xa6) and if your opponent an­ i.b4 'liVeS 24 i.c5 b6 25 i.g2 i.c6 26
swers with some sideline like taking l::txdS+ i.xdS 27 i.xc6 �xc6 2S i.xfS
the g-pawn, take a hard look at that and one extra rook should do the job.
exact position, and the winning move d2) 20 ...i.xf5 21 i.c4 'iitbS 22 t"Llxe5
will be easier to calculate when you're dxe5 (amusing is 22 ... i.e6 23 t"Llc6+ bxc6

143
Tru e C o m b a t Ch ess
24 l:he6! fxe6 2S �a6 and mates, as no
black piece can defend the beleaguered
king!) 23 �b4 'ir'e8 24 �hd8+ 'ir'xd8 2S
�xf8 with the traditional extra rook.
d3) 20 ... cS 21 lL\xeS �xeS 22 �bS
�xbS 23 'ir'a8+ Wc7 24 i.aS+ Wc6 2S
'ir'a7! - a nice quiet move in the midst
of the mayhem! Black has no real de­
fence: a typical finish would be
2S ... �a6 26 'ir'h6+ Wd7 27 'ir'c7+ We8 28
l:txeS dxeS 29 l:txd8+ 'irxd8 30 'irxd8
mate.
d4) 20 ...bxa6 21 'ir'xa6+ Wb8 22 l:td4
cS 23 �xd6 and wins.
I think all these variations are most
entertaining, and they show the over­
whelming strength of White's posi­
tion-but from a practical, True Combat
point of view, I want to emphasize that
the only lines that matter are 'a' and 'b'­
and these are the easiest to calculate! So
Liz (and Tal!) should have trusted
themselves and made the right move­
and accepted the fact that it is not pos­
sible to calculate everything out to
mate while sitting at the board!
18 ..Jlfxe5
19 �C3
144
White could draw with 19 �xa6
bxa6 20 'irxa6+ 'it>b8 21 �c3 'irf4+
(2l ...'ir'e7?? 22 �xf6 'ir'xf6 23 l:te3 wins
for White, as she no longer has to
worry about a check on b2) 22 �d2
'ireS 23 �c3-but she bravely plays on
for a win.
The problem with the rest of the
game (which I will only lightly anno­
tate) is that, from this point on, both
players (who clearly sensed they had
dropped the ball somewhere) begin
playing extremely erratically, until fi­
nally someone makes the last blunder.
19 ...'irf4+ 20 'iii> b 1 �xc3 21 'irxc3 f6 22
a3
22 h3 is better.
22 ... l:tde8 23 'irb3 �c6 24 �e6+ Wb8
25 l:td4?
2S h3 is still equal.
25 'irxh2 26 l:.c4 �bs 27 i.ds 'ird2 28
...
l:tc1 WeB
Black wins with 28 ... c6 29 �xc6
bxc6 30 a4 �b7 31 l:tb4 :es 32 axbS
axbS, when he is a pawn up for noth­
ing.
29 :c3
29 a4 �xc4 30 "ii'xb7+ Wd8 31 �xc4

'ir'aS 32 i..x a6 'ir'b6 33 l:thl would give
White good play for the exchange.
29 l:tes?
.•.
Black should now prevent a3-a4 by
29... 'ir'd4.
30 a4 �xds 31 exds .te2 32 'ii'b 6?
Better was 32 'iVb4! 'ii'x dS and only
then 33 'iVb6 with a strong attack.
32 ...'ii'xc3 33 'ii'a 7 'ii'e s 34 'ii'a B+ 'it>d7 35
..WxfB .txg4 36 ..Wxh6 .txfs 3 7 'ii'g 7+
'Wie7 38 'WihB 'ii'h 7??
Black should probably win after
38 ...i.e4, maintaining his connected
passed pawns, but both sides are in
time trouble.
39 'ii'a B??
39 'ii'x£6 wins easily for White.
39 ...'ii' h4 40 b3 'ii'b4
41 "ilia7?
The last blunder-41 'it>a2 is better
for Black, but White is still in the game.
41 ...'ii'x b3+
Now Black gets too much material.
42 'it>a1 'ir'xa4+ 43 'ito>b2 'ir'bS+ 44 'it>c3
'Wixds 45 'ii'd 4 'ii'xd4+ 46 'it>xd4 .te6 47
�h1 cs+ 48 'it>c3 .tds 49 �f1 'it>e6 so
.U.e1+ 'it>f7 51 �f1 �e7 52 .!:tel+ i.e6 53
.U.h1 ds 54 �h7+ .tf7 ss .t:.hs d4+ 56
Win n in g t h e W o n G a m e
'it>d2 .i.ds 5 7 l:th7+ �e6 5 8 l:r.h6 �5 59
l:th2 'ito>g4 60 �e1 fs 61 'it>f2 'ito>f4 62 'it>e1
g4 63 �d2 g3 64 �f1 'it>g4 65 'it>g1 .te4
66 �e2 c4 67 l:td2 d3 68 c3 f4 0-1
All I can say is "Trust yourself" ­
and don't calculate unnecessarily!
"You Mea n Ali i Get is
One Measly Pawn?"
Game 1 8
R.Read-L.Taylor
US Open, Ch icago 2006
Budapest Gambit
1 d4 tt:Jf6 2 C4 e5 3 dxe5 tt:Jg4 4 t2Jf3
Undoubtedly the most challenging
answer to the Budapest Gambit is 4
i.f4, when it's not so easy for Black to
get her pawn back -but White is sur­
prised by the Budapest.
4...i.cs
Now White must block his queen's
bishop, so the extra e-pawn can't really
be defended.
5 e3 tt:Jc6 6 .te2 tt:Jgxes 7 o-o o-o 8 tt:Jc3
as
145
True Co m b a t C h e s s
Black doesn't play the natural 8 ... d6,
as she was inspired by Swedish GM
Jonny Hector's crushing win given in
the note to move 12- the idea is to lift
the queen's rook via a6 to h6 and attack
the white king!
9 b3 tt:Jxf3+ 10 i.xf3 tt:Jes 11 i.e4
A Grandmaster would be more cau­
tious: 1 1 i.e2 (the bishop is not ex­
posed) 1 l ...�a6 12 f4 tt:Jg6 and the black
knight blocks his own rook's path, as
seen in M.Quinteros-J.Szmetan, Rio
Hondo 1987.
11 �a6
...
12 'ifhs?
White thinks so little of the Buda­
pest that he assumes his opponent has
allowed a simple double attack (on h7
and e5) -or perhaps he was misled by
the rating difference (1900 to 1 607).
In any case, after this blunder,
White is already lost on move 12!
A slightly better defence was seen
in the aforementioned Hector game: 12
g3 l:th6 13 tt:Ja4 i.a7 14 i.g2 d6 15 'iVe2
.l:.e8 16 f3 'iVg5 1 7 ti:Jc3 'iVh5 18 i.h1
tt:Jxc4! 0-1 T.Karolyi-J.Hector, Copen­
hagen 1985. White resigns in view of 19
146
bxc4 .l:.xe3! 20 i.xe3 i.xe3+ 21 l:tf2
'iixh2+ 22 �fl 'iVxh1 mate.
Clearly best is 12 f4 a la Quinteros,
where again Black must at least tempo­
rarily block the path of her rook.
12 .l:.h6!
...
The first of a three-move winning
sequence.
13 'iVe2
White suddenly discovers that the
"forked" black knight is actually im­
mune! If 13 'ir'xe5 i.d6
(another advantage of not having a
pawn on this square) and now any
queen move loses horribly, e.g. 1 4 'iid5
i.xh2+ 15 �h1 i.e5+ 16 �g1 :h1+! 1 7
�xh1 'iVh4+ 18 �g1 'iVh2 mate; o r just
slightly better, 14 'ir'f5 i.xh2+ 15 �h1
i.e5+ 16 �g1 i.xc3 and Black restores
piece equality, while threatening both a
full rook, as well as winning a piece
with 16 ... d5- and can meet 17 i.a3
with 17 ... d6, while ...'iVh4 is also in the
air... in other words, Black wins easily.
This leaves only (after taking the
knight) 14 'iixd6, but after 14 ... cxd6 15
.l:.d1 b6 White does not have enough
for the queen.

13 ...'11r'h 41
The second correct move! The mate
threat forces White's next.
14 h3
14 d6?? (DDT)
...
Black should complete the trifecta
with 14 ... ..tb4 (she should move a de­
veloped piece again, rather than pre­
pare the development of a new piece!),
but we'll get to the analysis of that in a
moment.
First, what is the anatomy of this
blunder that loses most of Black's ad­
vantage?
Once again, Liz knew she had a
winning position, and it's easy to see
why: When she played 12 .. J�h6 she
essentially gained two tempi, since the
white queen retreated to a worse
square, while the black rook was going
to h6 anyway- and after the queen
retreat, it was still Black's move! Then
she developed her queen with effect,
threatening mate and eyeing White's
poorly defended light-squared bishop.
However, she did not think of the
latter advantage.
Since her last two moves involved
Win n i n g t h e W o n G a m e
an attack on the h-file, she wanted to
continue that plan - and the idea of her
unfortunate 14 ... d6 was to sac her
queen's bishop on h3, and win with
direct attack (I wonder where she
learned such ideas??).
However, this plan is simply too
slow: the Quinteros f2-f4 move, even
delayed, is still an important resource
for White in this kind of position. Not
only does this pawn move gain time by
driving Black's knight out of the centre,
it also gains space on the kingside so
White has room to defend.
Liz should have been thinking that
her queen was so strong that it at­
tacked in two directions, not just one­
and oh, what is this? The e4-bishop is
only defended by a knight that is itself
undefended!
At first sight Black wins a piece by
14 ... J.b4- it's a little more complicated
than that, but if you see the idea the
rest comes naturally.
Here are the variations: 14 ...J.b4!
(the third and last link in the chain)
15 'llr'c2-other moves lose virtually
immediately:
147
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s
a) 1S �b2 �xc3 16 �xc3 'ifxe4 17 £3
1i'd3 18 1i'h2 1i'xe3+ 19 �h1 tt::\ d3 20 'lic2
tt::\b4 and as the knight reaches a pro­
tected square, Black wins easily with
her extra piece.
b) 1S 4:::\dS �xe4 is simple enough.
c) 1S £4 �xc3 16 �a3 l:te8 17 nac1
�b4 18 �xb4 axb4 19 fxeS 'ii'xe4, again
with a clean extra piece.
Now back to the forced 1S 'ii!Vc2,
which does save the piece, but not the
game: 1S ...�xc3 1 6 'ifxc3 1i'xe4 17 f3
tt::\x f3+! (17... �fS 18 e4 �e6 19 �xh6
gives White too much play) 18 �xf3
(forced, as 18 gxf3 1i'h4 wins at once)
18 .. J::tg6 (this and the next move guard
Black's only weak points at g7 and aS
with gain of time) 19 �h2 b6
and Black has a winning position
due to the extra pawn and better pawn
structure.
For example, 20 �d4 �e7! - this is
an exceptional case where with the ex­
tra pawn, Black does not want to ex­
change queens. In the middlegame her
opposite-coloured bishop is very
strong, and she can revive her attack.
White can' t prevent the development
148
of this deadly piece: 2 1 'ifdS �b7! 22
1i'xb7 'ireS+ and wins, so White has to
play something like 21 'lif4 �b7 22 �g3
d6 and the win should be a matter of
technique.
But! Liz was not happy!
I told her that her intuition was cor­
rect, she was absolutely winning right
out of the opening -but when I ex­
plained the win, she exclaimed, "You
mean all I get is one measly pawn?"
I tried to tell her that there was also
attack, and better pawn structure,
and... but she was not mollified.
Couldn't she mate him? Couldn't she
win a whole piece?
It certainly felt that way to her at
the board, but I can't find anything
better, and neither can our friend Mr
Fritz.
Sometimes an extra pawn is all you
get! And that should be- if you prac­
tice your technique - enough to win.
15 f4! tt::\ d 7 16 .td2 l2Jf6 17 �f3
Black is still somewhat better here,
and Liz has three ways to maintain
some kind of advantage:
a) 17 ...1i'g3 also snags a pawn, but

the win is not nearly as clear as after
14 ... �b4. Play continues 18 'ii'f2 llxh3
19 'ii'xg3 l:txg3 20 tt:'!a4 �b4 21 �xb4
axb4 22 'it>£2 l:tg6 23 e4 tt:'!g4+ 24 ..txg4
..txg4 25 f5 l:tg5 26 a3 bxa3 27 ll:xa3 l:ta8
28 htfa1 (White has some compensation
for the pawn due to the a-file) 28 ... g6 29
tt:'!c3 l:txa3 30 l:txa3 gxf5 31 l:ta7 fxe4 32
tt:'!xe4 �g6 33 llxb7 and Smyslov would
probably find a way to win this for
Black, but one can see it won't be
easy-on the other hand, White is only
struggling for a draw.
b) 17 ... 'ii'x f4!? (the simplest- this
one doesn't need to be calculated) 18
i..xb7 'ir'e5 and the weak dark squares
on the kingside and White's weak
pawn at e3 won't go away, so Black
will have a long-term positional plus.
c) 17 ... g5 (my favourite!) 18 fxg5
'ii'xg5 19 'it>h2 'ii'e5+ 20 'it>g1 'it>h8 and
Black has good attacking chances down
the half-open g-file.
17 ...lle8? (DDT-again!)
Instead of taking sharp and imme­
diate action, Liz develops a piece­
horrible! - and her ad vantage disap­
pears. White now equalizes with...
Win n i n g t h e W o n G a m e
18 1i'f2
And surprisingly enough, Black
must now exchange queens and enter
an equal ending.
1B...'ii'xf2 + 19 'it>xf2 tt:'!hs 20 �xhs :xhs
21 l:th1
21..JUs?
Black's concern should be for her
hectic Hector rook, which is strong in a
middlegame attack, but could be out of
play in the ending if immediate meas­
ures are not taken.
Liz should correct that feature of
her position without delay!
Best is 21...l:th6! when White has no
way to stop the castle's prudent retreat
to e6.
After, for example, 22 'it>f3 i..b4 23
e4 .l:the6 24 �he1 ..td7 25 £5 .:.6e7 26
l:tad1 �xc3 27 �xc3 �c6 28 l:td4 b6,
Black might claim a marginal advan­
tage due to the pressure on e4, but it's
hard to imagine this becoming some­
thing real in view of the opposite bish­
ops.
22 'it>f3 b6?
Oblivious to the danger- Black
might still slip out by means of
149
True C o m b a t Chess
2 2... �b4with the idea ... .l:1c5-c6.
23 e4 �b7 24 tLld5 �xd5
It's time for desperation with
24 .. Jhd5 25 exdS c6, but I doubt Black
has enough.
25 cxd5 l:tf6 26 �c3 l:th6 21 f5
27 ... l:!.h4 28 .!:!.ae1 �b4 29 �xb4 axb4
30 g3 .!:!.h6 31 h4 .!:!.f6 32 .!:!.c1 g6 33 g4
.!:!.e7
33 ...gxf5 34 gxfS .l:lc8 35 l:tc4 cS 36
dxc6 dS 37 exdS l:hfS+ 38 'iti>e4 .!:!.f2 39
d6 frees the rook, but it's too late in
view of White's connected passed
pawns.
34 g5
A rare case of pawns winning a
1 50
rook - and a sad day for Liz.
34... gxf5 35 gxf6 fxe4+ 36 'iti>f4 .l:le5
37 .l:i.xc7 h5 38 i:!g1+ 'iti>h7 39 .!:!.xf7+ 'iti>h6
40 .!:i.g8 e3 41 .!:!.fg7 1-0
Sometimes, even when attacking
the king, it's worth taking a moment to
look in another direction- there might
be a loose pawn somewhere!
"Material is Even,
How About a Draw?"
Game 19
L.Taylor-D.Bin nix
American Open,
Los Angeles 2006
Caro-Kann Defence
This game features what is beyond
doubt the strangest material balance I
have ever seen. From a strict, "winning
the won game in the quickest and most
accurate way" view, this crazy finish
has no merit.
But who could fail to enjoy Liz's
moving Chinese wall of pawns, and
her Petrosian king that slays piece after
piece!
1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 t2Jc3 dxe4 4 l2Jxe4 �f5
5 �d3
The normal move in the Caro-Kann
is S l2Jg3 (see Game 6), when the knight
is often out of play for a long time, and
usually goes back to e4 anyway. Eve­
ryone would play the text- if it didn't
sac a pawn!
Black's best is to accept the gambit,
as otherwise he reaches an atypical
 Wi n n i ng t h e W o n G a m e

Caro where White has made no con­

cessions, and so already stands better.
s e6
...

But Don prefers Karpovian ma­

noeuvres to risky pawn snatches! If
5 .. :ihd4 6 lt:\f3 and one has the usual
gambit question: does White's devel­
opment advantage compensate for the
missing pawn?
6 lt:\f3 CiJe7
Black can restrict White's advantage
to the minimum with the more solid
6 ...CiJf6, but then White can switch 9 .tgs f6?
gears from gambit play to "grind all
night" as Alekhine shows us: 7 .1g5
.1e7 8 .1xf6 .1xf6 9 c3 .1e7 10 0-0 lt:\d7
1 1 'ii'e2 'ii'c7 12 .l:!.ad1 0-0 13 lt:\eg5 .1xd3
14 .l:!.xd3 .l:!.fe8 15 .l:!.e1 .l:!.ad8 16 h4 �f4 1 7
l:.e3 .1f6 18 �c2 g6 19 'irb3 �c7 20 h5
lt:\f8 21 lt:\e4 lt:\d7 22 lt:\e5 .1xe5 23 dxe5
.l:!.f8 24 f4

But one must say that Karpov

24 ...<iit'g7 25 <iit'h 1 lt:\b6 26 .l:!.f3 �e7 27
g3 .l:!.d5 28 c4 .l:!.d7 29 lt:\d6 <iit'g8 30 'ii'c3
.l:!.fd8 31 %:td3 lt:\a4 32 �a3 lt:\b6 33 .l:!.cl
a6 34 �aS lt:\c8 35 c5 llJa7 36 a4 lt:\c8 37
:cd1 lt:\a7 38 ifb6 1-0 A.Alekhine-A.De
Oliveira, Carrasco 1938.
7 o-o lt:\c8 8 .l:!.e 1 lt:\d 7
would never have played this move!
After the correct 9 ... .1e7 forceful meas­
ures get nowhere, e.g. 10 .1xe7 �xe7 1 1
d5 cxd5 1 2 lt:\c3 .1xd3 13 lt:\xd5 'iWd6 14
�xd3 lt:\cb6 15 lt:\f6+ <&t>e7 1 6 'iWxd6+
<iit>x d6 17 .l:!.ad1+ <iit'e7 18 lt:\xd7 lt:\xd7 19
lt:\d4 l:thd8 with equality, so White
should just retreat with 10 .1f4 and
maintain an Alekhine grind.
10 lt:\xf6+1
White seizes her moment! It's not
going too far to say that White has a
won game already. It's obvious that all
of Black's Caro solidity has been shat-

151
Tru e C o m b a t C h e s s
tered at the cost of just one piece.
1o ... gxf6 11 ..txfs fxgs
Black must take, as otherwise he is
material down with a busted position.
12 l1xe6+
12 lL:\e7
...
The two other reasonable moves
lose as well:
a) 12 ... Wf7 13 lL:\e5+ lL:\xe5 14 'ir'h5+
Wg8 (14 .. :�g7 fails to 15 dxe5 with the
deadly threat l:tg6+, and of course if
14 ... lL:\g6 15 .l:txg6 wins immediately) 15
l:txe5 with a winning attack.
b) 12 ... ..te7 13 lL:\xg5 Wf8 (if 13 ...lL:\f6
14 l:!xf6 and the white queen comes in
with a mating attack) 14 l:.xe7!
152
and Black has no good recapture:
b1) 14 ...lL:\xe7 15 lL:\e6+ wins the
queen.
b2) 14 ... 'ifxe7 15 lL:\e6+ WeB 16 'iih5+
'iff7 17 lL:\c7+ Wf8 18 'ifh6+ and the
queen goes: 1 8 ...Wg8 19 ..i.e6, or
18... 'iVg7 19 lL:\e6+, or 18... �e7 19 l:te1+
Wd8 20 lL:\e6+ We7 21 lL:\g5+.
b3) 14 ...�xe7 15 'iVg4 lL:\£6 16 .l:.e1 +
Wd6 (if 16 ... Wf8 17 lL:\e6+ and Black's
queen goes with check) 17 'iV£4+ Wd5 18
..i.e6 mate.
It's clear that all these variations are
unequal struggles, as Black's king has
no shelter and he is playing without his
rooks (the knight on c8 doesn't help ) ­
the only way this move could have
been justified is with exceptionally cau­
tious play, e.g. 9 ... ..te7 instead of the
provocative 9 ... f6.
13 lL:\xgs
A threat of mate in one usually gets
the opponent's attention!
13 ... 'iVas 14 'iVhS+ wds
It's hard to imagine a more won po­
sition: White is not even material down
anymore (she has three pawns for the
piece) and her other advantages in-

elude: the black king can't castle and
has no safety; the black rooks are not
connected, and won't be for a while;
every white piece is attacking or can be
in one move; White threatens tZ'lf7+ to
win a rook; Black's only advanced
piece, his queen, is unprotected and
threatened by various tactics.
Against all this Black has one single
threat: to take the bishop on f5.
It goes almost without saying that
White can win at once with 15 il.g4,
which removes said threat, protects
White's queen, and threatens to win
Black's queen with a knight check,
threatens to win the h8-rook with a
knight check, and threatens .l:td6 to win
the d7-knight.
Black has no serious defence to any
of this-note that even 15 .. .'it>c7 makes
no difference after 16 .!:!.d6!.
15 tZ'lf7+
Cashing in one move too early!
This and the following move lose all
of White's advantage, and so I should
give Liz two question marks here-but
if she had played correctly, we would
have been deprived of the entertaining
finale!
1S Wc7 16 tZ'lxhB
...
The computer claims White can still
win with 16 d5! here, and offers inhu­
man variations, but that was clearly not
White's idea when she checked on f7.
16 ... 'iVxfs 17 'iVxfs tZ'lxfs 18 c3!
It's amazing that Black had a re­
signable position three moves ago - 15
il.g4, and with Fritz at plus 5, Black's
best move probably was resigns! ­
whereas now White has to play accu-
Win n i ng t h e W o n G a m e
rately not to lose! She could go astray
with 18 lZ'lf7 tZ'lxd4 19 .l:f.e4 tZ'lxc2, when
Black's two pieces are better than
White's rook.
Liz's move shows that she under­
stands that pawns will be paramount
in the ending.
18 tZ'ld6 19 .l:f.ae1 il.g7 20 l:f.e7 il.xhB 21
...
.l:.xh7
I should note here that Liz and Don
are on very friendly terms: At the time
of this game, Don had been my student
for two years, and in fact he was my
best student, gaining two hundred rat­
ing points! He certainly deserved them
after I tortured him for so long by mak­
ing him go through every single dia­
gram in Paul Keres' Practical Chess End­
ings !
So anyway, Liz had met Don many
times before, and it was a bit strange
for them to play, since I was also teach­
ing Liz (for free of course!).
While one would probably not do
this when playing Korchnoi, Don felt
comfortable enough to try to collect his
bearings as to what the material bal­
ance was - it was certainly hard to tell
1 '> 3
Tru e C o m b a t C h es s
with a quick look!
So he lined up the captured pieces,
which were as follows (the parentheti­
cal number after each reflects the ap­
proximate point value usually taught
in the US):
White: one pawn ( 1), queen (9), two
bishops (6), two knights (6), for a total
of 22.
Black: five pawns (5), queen (9),
rook (5), bishop (3), for a total of, you
guessed it, 22!
He looked up at Liz who was be­
musedly watching the set-up, and said,
"Material is even, how about a draw?"
Looking at the board, Liz saw the
equally bizarre material situation of the
pieces that were still playing: she had
two rooks and seven pawns for 17
points, and Don had a rook, a bishop,
two knights and three pawns, also for
17 points.
She felt this was a once in a lifetime
occurrence, and she was simply enjoy­
ing herself too much to stop now - she
played on so she could find out the end
of the story!
21 ... ..tf6
1 54
In general Black has to do two
things to activate his position before
the pawns crawl all over him like Dr
No's crabs: He has to blockade the
pawns and create a target for himself
on White's queenside.
In the game he doesn't succeed in
either, and falls under the weight of
four plus pawns-but objectively he
might be slightly better, if he plays
sharply.
This is Black's first chance to give
the game his own turn, rather than re­
act to White: 21...tt::lc4 22 �e2 (winning
a piece doesn't really help White, as it's
the pawns that matter: 22 �ee7 �d8 23
�xd7+?! �xd7 24 �xh8 tt::lxb2 25 h4 tt::la4
26 h5 tt::lxc3 27 h6 tt::lxa2 28 h7 'itb6 29 g4
�g7 30 Wfl tt::lc3 31 g5 tt::ld5 32 g6 tt::lf6
33 �a8 tt::lxh7 34 gxh7 �xh7 is clearly
better for Black) 22...l::.g8 23 h3 'itd6 24
f4 c5 25 l:lh6+ tt::lf6 26 dxc5+ Wxc5 27 g4
tt::ld5, and Black is a little better as the
kingside pawns can be blockaded on
dark squares, and b2 is a target.
22 g4 l:lh8 23 l:lxh8 ..txh8 24 f4 tt::lc 4?1
Black can blockade at once: 24 ... tt::lf6
25 h3 tt::ld 5 26 f5 (here 26 �fl i.f6 27 g5
..te7 28 h4 Wd7 29 h5 We6 30 h6 Wf7 31
h7 Wg7 32 g6 ..tf6 33 f5 tt::le7 would be a
Nimzowitschian win for Black) 26 ... ..tf6
27 .:.e6 i.g5, and the successful dark
square blockade means Black is a little
better.
25 l:le2 tt::lf6?
This move is tactically faulty, block­
ing the bishop, and strategically sus­
pect as well. If Black can't blockade, he
must immediately create a target via
25 ...b5, followed by ...b5-b4 and ... c6-c5.

26 h3?
White could win a piece! 26 g5 lLld5
27 l:.e8 i..g7 28 l:.g8 and Black's bishop
falls, when the white rook plus pawns
should defeat the black knights.
26 ...lLld6
Better is 26 ... lLld5 27 �h2 (27 f5 i.f6
is the familiar blockade) 27... lLJxf4 28
l:.e7+ �d6 29 .l:!.xb7 with a messy, but
approximately equal position.
27 �g2 ttJfe4
Black can still stay in the game if he
sees the correct idea: 27... lLld5 28 �g3
b5 29 a3 aS 30 h4 b4 with counterplay.
But now he loses an important
tempo, and Liz is winning again- and
this time she doesn't let go.
2s �f3 lLlf6 29 h4 �d7 30 gs ttJhs 31
�g4 ttJfs
Clever, but... hopeless! In the long
run the pawns can't be blockaded on
light squares, as the black bishop can't
help -but the crabs have sidled right
past the formerly possible dark square
blockade on the h4-d8 diagonal.
32 l:.e1 lLlxh4
All blockades can be broken, for ex­
ample 32 ...lLlhg3 33 h5 or 32 ...lLlfg3 33
Winn ing the Won G a m e
f5.
33 �xhs
Black now loses each of his three
pieces in tum.
n ttJfs 34 �g6 lLlh4+ 35 'it>h7
...
One is reminded of the famous fifth
game of the Petrosian-Botvinnik world
championship match, when Petrosian's
king also took it upon himself to anni­
hilate the entire enemy position: 1 c4 g6
2 d4 lLlf6 3 lLlc3 d5 4 lLlf3 i.g7 5 e3 0-0 6
i..e2 dxc4 7 i.xc4 c5 8 d5 e6 9 dxe6
'if'xd1+ 10 �xd1 i..xe6 1 1 i.xe6 fxe6 12
�e2 lLlc6 13 l:.d1 l:.ad8 14 l:.xd8 l:.xd8 15
lLlg5 .:.e8 1 6 lLlge4 lLJxe4 17 lLlxe4 b6 18
l:tb1 lLlb4 19 .td2 lLld5 20 a4 l:.c8 21 b3
i.f8 22 l:.cl i.e7 23 b4 c4 24 b5 �f7 25
i.c3 i.a3 26 l:.c2 lLlxc3+ 27 l:.xc3 i.b4 28
l:.c2 We7 29 lLld2 c3 30 lLle4 i..a5 31 Wd3
l:.d8+ 32 �c4 l:.d1 33 lLlxc3 l:th1 34 lLle4
l:txh2 35 �d4 �d7 36 g3 i.b4 37 �e5
l:th5+ 38 Wf6 i.e7+ 39 Wg7 e5 40 l:tc6
l:th1 41 �f7 l:ta1 42 l:te6 i.d8 43 l:td6+
�c8 44 �e8 i.c7 45 l:tc6 .:td 1 46 lLlg5
l:d8+ 47 �f7 l:td7+ 48 �g8!
See following diagram
155
Tru e C o m b a t C h es s
1-0 T.V.Petrosian-M.Botvinnik, Mos­
cow 1963.
35 ...lL:\g2 36 l:!.e4 lL:\xf4 37 ltxf4 1-0
The last black piece falls, but one
white kingside pawn is left to queen.
An amazing ending, but one must
remember that the game should never
have gone that far: White's beautiful
attacking play should have forced res­
ignation on move fifteen!
By rashly allowing counterplay
(giving up the key bishop on fS) Liz not
only created a wildly zany position,
she also gave her opponent serious
chances to save the game- or more­
so she should have gone for the simple,
winning, 15 ..1g4. But the materially even
ending was fun - and there's not
enough of that in chess these days.
Three Pawns Ain't Enough
Game 20
L.Taylor-R.Yeung
Agoura H i l ls 2007
Centre Game
156
Back in the days when I drove a cab
in New York City, there was a restau­
rant at the end of Fifth A venue that
proclaimed, on a huge banner over the
door, that "Too Much Ain't Enough!"
And it ain't, or isn't (in case there's
an English teacher in the house), be­
cause sometimes the only way to win is
to pretend you're back in grade school,
chopping all the wood you can- take
all his pieces, get a new queen, and
mate him!
1 e4 es 2 d4
Liz and I joke that the Centre Game
wins by force, since almost every time
she plays it she gets a winning position
by move fifteen or so.
2 exd4 3 'iixd4 ltJc6 4 'iie 3 d6
•••
We discussed this in Game 1 7,
where Liz wasn't clearly winning until
move 1 7!
5 lL:\c3 ltJf6 6 ..1d2 lL:\es
This and the following are nonsense
moves that more or less force White to
gain tempi, set up an attacking posi­
tion, and move her queen to a better
square.
 Win n in g t h e W o n G a m e

Nonetheless they are typical of the tre. All White needs to do is give a little
way players react to the Centre Game, push, and Black will fall over.
as though a weapon employed by
Morozevich and Shirov was so un­
sound that any random move could
defeat it.
7 f4 ttJeg4 8 'if'f3 hS 9 o-o-o i.d7

Winning is the direct 15 g4! when

White takes over the entire board and
simply threatens g5, driving the luck­
less black queen's knight back to the
king's knight's original square!
10 i.c4 Black doesn't even have anything
White's advantage is already close that looks like a defence -here are a
to decisive, and Liz could win material few samples:
with our materialistic Fritz's recom­
mendation of 10 h3 c6 (or 10 ...l2Jh6 1 1
e5 i.c6 1 2 i.b5 i.xb5 13 l2Jxb5 l2Jd7 14
'if'xb7) 11 l2Jge2 'ifc7 12 l2Jg3 and a
pawn goes.
But there's nothing wrong with
Liz's move: she builds up and prepares
to win even more decisively.
10 i.c6 11 l2Jh3 l2Jh7 12 l2Jf2 'ifd7 13
•..

h3 l2Jgf6 14 'if'e3 i.e7

Move fifteen and White has a win­
ning position. Note that Black moved
his queen' s knight four times to get to
the king's knight's natural square,
while the king's knight has been
shunted off to the abysmal "outpost" at
h7. White has a crushing advantage in
space and complete control of the cen-
a) Black can't castle kingside:
15 ... 0-0 16 g5 l2Je8 17 g6 and White
wins the exchange while opening the
g-file for attack.
b) Black can't castle queenside:
15 . 0-0-0 16 g5 l2Je8 17 'lixa7, when
..

157
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s
White is a pawn up and threatening
mate in one.
c) A queenside demonstration is fu­
tile: 15 ... b5 16 �d3 b4 17 tt::'le2 aS (or
17 ... h4 18 �xb4 and White has an extra
pawn plus attack) 18 gS tt::'lg8 19 tt::'ld4
with a decisive positional advantage
d) Black can't fight back in the cen­
tre: 15 ... d5 1 6 exdS tt::'lx dS 1 7 tt::'lxdS
�xdS 18 �xdS �xdS 19 l:.he1 �e6 20
'iVd4 wins a piece.
e) Finally, Black can't even take the
pawn: 15 ... hxg4 1 6 hxg4 tt::'lxg4 1 7 tt::'lxg4
'iVxg4 18 l:tdg1 'iVd7 19 .l:txg7 wins a
piece at least.
That's all I can find for Black: noth­
ing! So with some sharp play on
White's part, there really didn't need to
be an endgame!
15 l:.he1?!
Too solid.
1s ... bs 16 �ds
As in Game 1 7, Liz exchanges when
she has a space advantage- much sim­
pler is 16 �b3 still with a decisive posi­
tional advantage.
16 ...0-0
Better is 1 6 ... �xd5 with some
158
hope - as now .. .
11 fs?
17 �xc6 'iVxc6 18 g4 just wins for
White.
But Liz doesn't get around to play­
ing g2-g4 until move 36!
17 ... b4?
Black must play 17... �xd5 18 tt::'lx dS
tt::'lx dS 19 exdS �gS 20 'iVf3 �xd2+ 21
.l:txd2 l:tfe8, when he might survive due
to successfully exchanging most of
White's good pieces.
18 �xc6 'iVxc6 19 tt:Jds l:.fe8 20 tt:Jxb4
Liz didn't play completely accu­
rately, but she has succeeded in trans­
forming the huge opening advantage
into a middlegame with a good plus
pawn -a "won game"!
Her next few moves are very good:
she consolidates her position while
maintaining kingside threats, and picks
up more material as Black gets ever
more desperate.
2o.. Jibs 21 'ii'g 3 h4 22 'ii'd 3 'ii'x d3 23
tt::'lfxd3 cs 24 tt:Jds tt:Jxds 25 exds �f6 26
�f4 c4 27 tt::'lf2 l:.eb8 28 c3 �gs 29 l:te4!
This rook becomes a rye-catcher for
errant pawns!

29 ... I1e8 30 l:.xc4!
Correct! Black can't make anything
of the seventh rank, so White can de­
vour without risk.
30...l:r.e2 31 l:r.d2 .i.xf4 32 l:txf4 l:te1+ 33
'iPc2 l2Jf6 34 .U.xh4
White is now three pawns ahead,
and has the much superior position.
Black has no threats whatsoever, and
no play anywhere on the board.
Now if I told you that before long
White would lose her entire advantage,
you would no doubt think I am pulling
your leg-but alas, 'tis true.
Yes, "the win is routine" -but noth­
ing is truly routine in chess.
Win n ing the Won G a m e
It's not for nothing that I started this
chapter with the ancient quote that
"the hardest thing in chess is to win the
won game."
The problem is that the game does
not win itself: after putting in all the
mental effort to reach a winning posi­
tion, it is sometimes difficult to muster
the necessary mojo to actually bring
home the point.
Here White is, yes, three pawns up.
But the whole purpose of pawns in the
ending is to become queens -what
doesn 't White have?
Despite her enormous material ad­
vantage, White does not have a passed
pawn.
Three pawns ain't enough- she
needs one more!
After all, as I always tell my stu­
dents (until they're sick of it!) "We win
endings by queening pawns. "
34 ... l:tae8 35 .:a4 ttJhs 36 g4 ttJf6
37 l2Jd3?
Liz herself has no explanation for
this move, but I think it was simple
fatigue. This was the last round of a
tiring tournament, and it was hard to
159
T r u e Co m b a t Ch ess
put forth any mental effort in such an
easily won position. But she should, as
a good Russian, have remembered So­
logdin's dictum of the "Final Inch" ­
which essentially says that in any en­
deavour, the last inch will be the hard­
est, and will require the most effort.
Here she somehow could not bring
herself to take the fourth pawn, al­
though there is nothing against it- and
two big reasons in favour of said cap­
ture. Up to now she has not had a
passed pawn, but once she takes the a­
pawn she has not one but two connected
passed pawns.
By mustering the will to take this
pawn, she would put any difficulties
aside and win by straightforward
pushing.
A couple of examples show how
easy it is-Black still has no play what­
soever, but while Black is shuffling (or
capturing meaningless pawns) White
just makes a queen.
White should play 37 lha7
and then:
a) 37....U.c8 38 b3 l:tcS 39 c4 lt:JxdS
(losing this pawn means nothing; the
160
important thing is White's connected
passed pawns roll through) 40 l:txdS
l:txdS 41 cxdS l:te2+ 42 'it>c3 lhf2 43 b4
l:tf3+ 44 'it>c4 l:txh3 45 a4
45 ... l:tg3 46 aS l:txg4+ 47 'it>bS .l:.f4 48
a6 l:txfS 49 l:td7 lhdS+ 50 'it>c6 lldl 51
a7 l:tal 52 :d8+ 'it>h7 53 a8'ii' :xa8 54
:xa8 gS 55 bS g4 56 b6 g3 57 b7 g2 58
:al fS 59 b8'ii' f4 60 'Wxd6 f3 (Black
connects his pawns in time for his own
mate) 61 :a7+ 'it>g8 62 'ii'b8 mate.
b) 37...:le2 38 c4 .:.xd2+ 39 'it>xd2
lt:Je4+ 40 lt:Jxe4 :xe4 41 l:tc7 l4f4 42 b4
l:tf2+ 43 'it>d3 l:txa2 44 cS dxcS (or
44...:a6 45 .l:.d7 dxcS 46 bxcS 'it>f8 47 d6
'it>e8 48 l:te7+ 'it>f8 49 :e3 and White
wins at least a rook, e.g. 49 ... :al 50
'it>c2 liaS 51 d7 .l:i.xcS+ 52 'it>b3 .l:i.bS+ 53
'it>c4 l:tb8 54 'it>dS f6 55 'it>c6 etc) 45 bxcS
l:ta3+ 46 'it>c4 llxh3 47 d6 l:thl 48 d7 l:tdl
49 l:tc8+ and again White comes out a
rook ahead.
In short, after the direct 37 l:txa7 the
win is straightforward and easy.
But Liz has lost the thread...
37...l:th1 38 lt:Jf4 l:the1 39 gS
Of course 39 :xa7 still wins easily.
The text just weakens White's king-

side pawns - Liz is drifting.
39 ... tLle4 40 l:tg2 l:tf1 41 l:tg47?
Panic! Liz abandons the second
rank that she has firmly defended since
31 l:td2. Now Black gets counterplay,
and White's advantage just about van­
ishes.
Consider how little it takes- a cou­
ple of moments of indecision, and the
win is gone!
One should note that even on this
move White can win cleanly with 41
tLle6, but that is not as easy to see as 37
.l:.xa7 or 39 l:txa7.
41...llf2+
42 'it>d1
W i n n in g t h e Won G a m e
Suddenly White i s in danger! I f 42
'it>b3 tLlc5+ 43 'it>a3 tLlxa4 44 'it>xa4 l:te4+
wins a rook, or 42 'it>cl (or 42 'it>b 1)
42...tLlxc3! and Black threatens mate.
42 ...l:txb2 43 'it>c1
43 ...l:th2?
And now it's Black's turn to miss
two chances in a row. He should play
43 ... tLlxc3, when a second pawn goes­
which means White is only one up,
since she missed her chance to go plus
four. Black has drawing chances, e.g.
44 'it>xb2 (not 44 l:txa7? l:tf2 with mating
threats) 44 ...tLlxa4+ 45 'it>c2 tLlc5 and
although White is still a pawn up, the
win is not clear, in view of the strong
black knight and weak white pawns.
44 l:tg2 l:th1+?
The second chance goes: this allows
White to defend everything. Correct is
44 ...l:txg2 45 tLlxg2 tLlxc3 46 l:ta3 tLlxd5
47 l:txa7 g6 48 f6 l:te5 with counterplay
and excellent drawing chances.
Fortunately for Liz, her opponent
also rejects free gifts!
45 'it>c2 tLlcs 46 l:txa7!
Finally, finally! Just take it! Now the
win is clear again, and the passed a-
161
True Co m b a t C h e s s
pawn will be decisive in Liz's victory.
46 .l:.b8 47 g6 f6 48 'it>d2 'it>fB 49 .l:.e2
•••
.l:lb2+ so �e3 l:tbB 51 tt:\e6+ tt:\xe6 52
dxe6 laxh3+ 53 �d4 �eB
Black has no choice, for after
53 ...l:tcS 54 l:tf7+ 'it>gS (54... �eS 55 e7
l:thS 56 l:txg7 is, dare I say, routine!) 55
e7 l:!.eS 56 �fS+ .:Z.xfS 57 eS'ii'! leads to
mate.
54 l:txg71
Just take it off! Liz is getting the
hang of this.
54... l:.bs ss l:.h7 l:.g3 56 e7 l:!.g4+ 57
162
'it>d3 .l:.es sa l:.xes dxes 59 g7 1-0
White gets the rooks off and wins
with her outside passed pawn.
Black resigns in view of 59 ...�f7
(not 59...�xe7 60 gS..W+, or 59 ....:Z.g3+ 60
'it>e4 l:tg4+ 61 �dS e4 62 �e6 and mates,
while 6l...�d7 62 e8'ii'+ �xeS 63 l:th8+
'iitf7 64 g8�+ .!:.xg8 65 .:Z.xgS �xgS 66 a4
is just like the main line) 60 e8'ii'+ �xeS
61 :t.hS+ �f7 62 g8'if+ l:txg8 63 l:txgS
'iitxgS 64 a4! and the black king is out of
the square, so the free a-pawn (since
Liz finally took the black one!) will be­
come a queen: 64...�f8 65 aS �e7 66 a6
'iitd 7 67 a7 'iitc7 6S aS'ii' etc.
And that's how we win endgames!
This game is proof that even with
three extra pawns, the "won game"
might be hard to win -one must con­
centrate fully until you hear the magic
words "I resign".
Before that, you might just want to
take off anything that's not nailed
down!
 C h apter Five I
Beati n g a Gra n d master

So far in this book I haven't paid any Bobby Fischer Would Have
attention to the actual chronology of Kil led Me
the main games- in other words, the
games are arranged by "instructive
Game 21
order", rather than date.
R.Fonta ine-T.Taylor
However, chronology is important
National Open,
in this last section, so the games are
Las Vegas 2006
given in the order in which they were
Nimzowitsch Defence
played, from June 2006 to May 2008.
One effect of this is that instead of
starting a chapter with the usual loss, 1 e4 tZ:lc6 2 tZ:lf3
this time we'll start out with a win! I
beat GM Robert Fontaine- yes, just
two weeks after the "loss on time in a
better position" debacle of Game 13, I
got my revenge!
Unfortunately, things went down­
hill from there.
Beating a Grandmaster is tough;
beating GMs consistently is tougher­
let me show you what I've learned in
the True Combat school of hard knocks.

This move is critical for the

1 63
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s

Nimzowitsch Defence. Against the

natural 2 d4, both Nimzowitsch's 2 ... d5
and Kevitz's 2 ... e5 are playable -but no
clear equalizer has been found against
White's simple text move.
By far the most popular answer is
2... d6, as I played, but this game and
accompanying analysis calls its value
into question.
In his book, Play 1...ti:Jc6!, Christoph
Wisnewski recommends 2 ...ti:Jf6 3 e5
t'i:Jg4-but I tried it a couple of times
and moving the king' s knight three 5 exd6 (better is 5 h3! ti:Jh6) 5 ...'t!Vxd6
times to get to h6 looks rather doubtful 6 i.d3 g6 7 c3 i.g7 8 0-0 0-0 9 ti:Jbd2
to me. t'i:Jce5 10 ti:Jxe5 i.xe5 1 1 dxe5 'iix d3 12
I've also tried the ambitious 2 .. .f5, ti:Jf3 'ir'xd1 13 .:txd1 'iti>g7 14 i.f4 c6 15
but the weakness of e5 and e6 caused l:td2 i.e6 1 6 ti:Jd4 i.d5 1 7 b3 f6 18 e6 g5
me pain, despite my good results in 19 i.g3 f5 20 f3 f4 21 fxg4 fxg3 22 h3
this line. :f2 23 :xf2 gxf2+ 24 'iii>xf2 c5 25 ti:Jf3
2... d5 is possible, but in the Scandi­ 'iii>f6 26 :e1 h6 27 ti:Jd2 b6 28 ti:Je4+ i.xe4
navian one usually would prefer a 29 :xe4 :dB 30 :e2 :d1 31 c4 :d3 32
pawn to a knight on c6. :e3 .:.d2+ 33 :e2 :d1 34 'iii>f3 :n + 35
I doubt that a French plan with %:.f2 %:.a1 36 %:.e2 %:.f1+ 37 l:.f2 %:.a1 Y2-Y2
2 ... e6 is correct when White still has the K.Zhang-T.Taylor, Los Angeles 2007.
option of c2-c3, severely limiting the b) 2 .. .f5 3 exf5 d5 4 d4 i.xf5 5 i.d3
c6-knight. 'iid 7 6 i.f4 0-0-0 7 0-0 ti:Jh6 8 c3 ti:Jf7 9
If 2 ... g6, Black gets a Pirc-style posi­ b4 :g8 10 b5 ti:Ja5
tion, where his knight looks prema­
turely placed on c6, inviting d4-d5 or
i.bS.
If my analysis of the present game
holds up, it may be that the best move
in the position before us is 2 ... e5! with a
return to open games-but that is not a
Nimzowitsch Defence!
Here are some examples where I
play the sidelines - my results aren't
bad, but nevertheless I don't trust ei­
ther opening!
a) 2 ...ti:Jf6 3 e5 t'i:Jg4 4 d4 d6 1 1 i.e2 (better is 1 1 i.xf5 'iixf5 12

1 64

�g3 gS 13 li'a4 b6 14 tZ'lbd2 'it?b8 1S tZ'lb3
l2Jc4 16 �xc7+! 'it>xc7 1 7 li'xa7+ 'it>c8 18
tZ'lcS bxcS 19 dxcS with a very danger­
ous attack) 1 1 ...gS 12 tZ'leS tZ'lxeS 13
�xeS �g7 14 �xg7 l:txg7 1S tL'ld2 eS 1 6
'ii'a4 b 6 1 7 tL'lb3 �c2 18 :acl 'iVfS 1 9
li'a3 �xb3 20 axb3 exd4 2 1 b 4 d 3 22
�d1 tL'lc4 23 "it'xa7 :g6 24 h3 tL'leS 2S
"it'a8+ 'it>d7 26 'ii'xd5+ :d6 27 'iib3 h5 28
c4 d2 29 :c3 g4 30 c5 :d4 31 h4 :f8 32
cxb6 cxb6 33 "it'a4 tL'lc4 34 "it'a7+ 'iti>e8 35
"it'b8+ :d8 36 "it'c7 .l:.c8 37 "it'g3 'it>e7 38
�b3 tZ'le5 39 :e3 'it>f6 40 �d1 :c1 41
:a3 tL'lc4 42 :a7 :f7 43 l:!a8 'iWe5 44
'iid3 "it'd6 45 'iWe4 :e7 46 l:!f8+ 'it>g7 47
'iVa8 :e1 48 :g8+ 'it>f7 0-1 M.Coleman­
T.Taylor, Chicago 2006.
2 d6 3 d4 tL'lf6 4 tL'lc3 � g4
...
This is by far the most common
move here, and is what gives the posi­
tion a unique, Nimzowitsch Defence
flavour. The late Tony Miles champi­
oned this way of playing, and took on
the highest-rated GMs with it.
However, he did run into problems
when White played the best line (see
Timman-Miles in the note to Black's
fifth move) and whether he would still
B e a ti n g a G ra n d m a s te r
be playing this opening in the age of
Fritz is a question we can't answer.
I have played 4 ...�g4 no less than
28 times, with 18 victories, 2 draws,
and just 8 losses. This is a great result
for Black -mathematically speaking
Black scores 68%! - but most of those
wins were against weaker players. That
success rate can be misleading! And
just because one beats a "surprised"
GM doesn't mean one will defeat a
"well-prepared" GM!
What can Black do if 4 ... �g4 just
doesn't work? Black has done very
well when he transposes to the Pirc
here with 4... g6 (see the note to move 4
in Game 7) - unless White answers with
5 �b5!, when the first player scores
65% according to the Mega- a couple
of debacles follow 5 ... a6 6 �xc6+ bxc6 7
0-0 �g7 and then:
a) 8 e5 tL'ld5 9 tL'le4 0-0 10 :e1 �g4
1 1 h3 �xf3 12 "it'xf3 dxe5 13 dxe5 �xeS
14 �h6 �g7 15 �xg7 'it>xg7 16 c4 tL'lb6
1 7 :ad1 "it'c8 18 tL'lc5 :d8 19 :xe7
.l:.xd1 + 20 'iWxd1 'ii'f5 21 'ii'd4+ 'it>h6 22 g4
"it'b1 + 23 'it>g2 .U.f8 24 g5+ 'it>xg5 25 'WWe3+
'it>h5 26 tZ'le4 1-0 M.Ashley-A.Dunne,
165
Tru e Co m b a t C h ess
Philadelphia 1992.
b) 8 h3 0-0 9 .l:te1 .l:!b8 10 .l:!b1 tbd7 1 1
..tgs h6 1 2 ..th4 g5 1 3 ..tg3 e5 1 4 dxe5
dxe5 15 'il'd3 'if'e7 16 lLla4 .l:!e8 17 'il'c3
lLlf8 18 b3 'iVf6 19 lLlcS lLlg6 20 .l:!bd 1
..t£8 21 l2Jd3 ..td6 22 �xc6 ii.xh3 23
l2Jdxe5 lLlxeS 24 ..txe5 .l:!xe5 25 lLlxeS
'if'xe5 26 l:txd6 cxd6 27 gxh3 'if'e6 28
'iVxa6 �xh3 29 �xd6 l:r.c8 30 l:!.e3 �g4+
31 .l:!g3 'il'h4 32 'il'd3 �f4 33 'it'g2 �c7 34
�a6 'it'g7 35 :h3 .l:!h8 36 .!:!.£3 �e7 37
'i!Vc6 .l:!d8 38 .l:!d3 :b8 39 :d7 �e8 40
'iVdS .l:!c8 41 c4 g4 42 'it>g1 .l:!a8 43 .l:!xf7+
�xf7 44 �xa8 �f3 45 'il'd5 h5 46 'if'eS+
'it'g8 47 �g5+ 1-0 B.Vuckovic­
Z.Petronijevic, Serbian Team Champi­
onship 2003.
My feeling is that Black has to seek
an earlier improvement.
5 dS
Beyond doubt the sharpest move:
White attacks before Black is set up in
the centre.
Also good is 5 ..te3 as played in the
above-mentioned Game 7; and I will
face it again in Game 23.
s lLlbs
...
The major alternative is to move
1 66
forward with the knight, which I have
also played, but if White resists the
allure of the queen sacrifice he seems to
have good chances for an advantage:
After 5 ...lLle5, White scores extremely
well with 6 ..ib5+ (actually 74% in the
Mega!) and i t's hard to see a clear
equalizer for Black. Meanwhile 6 lLlxeS
doesn't seem to come to anything if
Black is prepared: 6 ... .1i.xd1 7 ..tbS+ c6 8
dxc6 dxe5
9 cxb7+ (9 c7+ �d7 10 ..txd7+ 'it'xd7
1 1 'it'xd1 e6 12 f3 'it'xc7 13 'it'e2 'it'c6 1 4
lLld1 ..tcS 15 ..te3 l2Jd7 16 lLlf2 ..txe3 1 7
'it'xe3 lLlc5 18 .l:!hd1 !tad8 19 l:txd8 l:.xd8
20 :d1 .!:th8 21 l2Jd3 lLlxd3 22 .!:txd3 h5
23 l:tc3+ 'it'd6 24 .!:ta3 a6 25 .!:td3+ 'it'c6 26
.!:tc3+ 'it'd6 27 a4 g5 28 :d3+ 'it'c7 29
.!:tc3+ 'it'd6 30 aS .l:r.g8 31 l:!.d3+ <tic7 32
.!:tc3+ 'it'd7 33 .!:tb3 'it'c7 34 .l:.c3+ 'it'd7 35
l:!.d3+ 'it'c7 36 :c3+ was a fairly easy
draw in O.Renet-A.Miles, Linares 1995)
9 ... lbd7 10 bxa8'if' �xa8 1 1 'it'xdl, and
now 1 l ...e6 12 'it'e2 gave White com­
pensation in E.Sevillano-T.Taylor, Los
Angeles 2006, but after the correct
1 l...a6! 12 ..ta4 'it'd8! 13 �e3 e6 14 'it'e2
lLlcS 15 .l:.hd1+ 'it'c7 White would not
 B e a t i n g a G ra n d m a s te r

have had enough for the queen. 0-0 �g7 10 l:!.el 0-0
Now back to the dangerous 6 �bS+.
Miles tried two answers to this.
a) 6 ... c6 7 dxc6 tt:lxc6 (if 7...bxc6 8
tt:lxeS �xd1 9 �xc6+ and White comes
out a piece ahead) 8 eS dxeS 9 'i!Vxd8+
�xd8 10 ..txc6+ bxc6 1 1 tt:lxeS

1 1 a4 c6! Vz-Vz V.Anand-A.Miles,

Cannes 1989, bu t if Anand had seen the
tactic and played 1 1 ..t£4! to prevent
... c7-c6, Black would still be on the
short side of equalizing.
6 -tgs
(White goes straight for an ending I think this is sharpest and best, but
position that Black, due to his split White could also play more solidly for
pawns, can only hope to draw - a hope positional advantage with 6 h3, which I
that is not realized here) 1 l . . . ..td7 12 faced about a year after battling
..te3 tt:ldS 13 ..txa7 tt:lxc3 14 bxc3 ..te6 15 Fontaine.
a4 f6 1 6 tt:lxc6 l:!.a8 1 7 tt:ld4 ..tc4 18 ..tb6 The game continued 6 ...�xf3 7 ..Wxf3
eS 19 tt:lfS 'iii>d 7 20 aS 'iii>c6 21 tt:le3 ..ta6 g6
22 'iii>d 2 g6 23 c4 .Jtb4+ 24 c3 ..td6 25
'iii>c2 fS 26 'itb3 :hc8 27 :thd 1 :ab8 28
�d2 f4 29 tt:lc2 'itd7 30 cS l:.XcS 31 tt:lb4
..tc4+ 32 'iii>c2 �c6 33 �adl �bxb6 34
axb6 �xb6 35 :el �bS 36 �a1 �b7 37
%:.a8 �e6 38 tt:lc6 ..tb3+ 39 �cl l:!.b6 40
�b2 ..tcS 41 tt:lb4 ..tc4 42 .!:!.c8 .!:!.bS 43
tt:la6 ..ta3 44 tt:lc7+ 'itd6 45 tt:lxbS+ ..txbS
46 'iii>c2 ..ta4+ 47 'iii>b l ..txb2 48 �xb2 e4
49 c4 e3 50 fxe3 fxe3 51 'it>c3 ..tc6 52 g3
�f3 53 �e8 e2 54 'itd3 'iii>cS 55 l::teS+ 'iii>b4
56 �bS+ 'ita4 57 'it>d2 gS 58 lhgS 1-0
J.Timman-A.Miles, Tilburg 1981. 8 ..tbS+ (White has two noteworthy
b) 6 ...tt:led7 7 h3 .Jtx£3 8 'ili'xf3 g6 9 alternatives here: 8 ..te3, which trans-

167
T r u e C o m b a t Ch ess
poses to a still more recent game,
Varga-Taylor, Game 23 in this book;
and 8 �g5 �g7 9 0-0-0 ctJbd7 10 'ii'e2 c6
1 1 f4 'ii'c7 12 g4 h6 13 �h4 tt::\h7 14 e5 g5
15 dxc6 'ii'xc6 1 6 i.g2 'ii'c8 1 7 exd6 e6 18
f5 gxh4 19 fxe6 0-0 20 exd7 'ikxd7 21
'ii'e7 .U.ad8 22 i.xb7 i.xc3 23 'ii'x d7 .U.xd7
24 �c6 �xb2+ 25 'it>xb2 l:.b8+ 26 'it>a1
l:tdd8 27 .l:the1 tt::\g5 28 d7 tt::\xh3 29 l:.b1
1-0 E.Sutovsky-P.Jaracz, Koszalin
1999 - in both of these games White got
the edge in the opening) 8 ...ctJbd7 9 g4
a6 10 i..e2 c5 1 1 'it'g3 h5 12 g5 (he
should simply defend his rook with 12
'ii'g2, when Black has no real compen­
sation for White's space advantage and
two bishops) 12 ... tt::\h7 13 f4 i.. g7 14 0-0
'ii'c7 15 i..e3 0-0-0 1 6 .U.ad1 h4! 1 7 'ii'e 1 f6
and I obtained surprising counterplay
and went on to win in R.Francisco­
T.Taylor, Asheville 2007.
The chronology (as I mentioned in
the introduction to this chapter) is im­
portant: I defeated Fontaine in this
main game in the spring of 2006 (but I
had the worse opening, even if I didn't
clarify that fact in my mind). I defeated
Francisco in the spring of 2007 (but I
had the worse opening there too!).
These wins (remember my gener­
ally overwhelming score with this
opening) will encourage me to play
this same line of the Nimzowitsch De­
fence in 2008 - against a well-prepared
GM - which will result in the debacle
of Game 23!
I fear that in my mind I was "anno­
tating by result" and, as long as I kept
winning, I didn't look deeply enough
at the opening problems.
1 68
6 tt:lbd7
...
7 'il'd2
Once again I am convinced that this
move is both sharpest and best, but 7
i..e2, avoiding structural damage while
preparing 'ii'd2, is also good, e.g. 7 ... g6
8 'ii'd 2 c6 9 h3 i..xf3 10 i..xf3 cxd5, and
now 1 1 exd5 would have given White a
safe positional advantage, instead of
the simplifying and soon drawing line
1 1 tt::\x d5?! tt::\ x d5 12 exd5 i..g7 13 c3 0-0
14 0-0 i..£6 15 l:.fe1 i..xg5 16 'iVxg5 e5 Vz­
Vz D.Minic-D.Gliksman, Yugoslav
Championship, Kraljevo 1967.
7 �xf3
...
Virtually forced, as otherwise White
plays ctJd4 stranding the g4-bishop.
8 gxf3 g6
White has space, the two bishops, a
lead in development, and the open g­
file. All I've got against that-in a pure
chess sense- is the better pawn struc­
ture.
I should have been worried, but I
wasn't!
What I had was twenty plus games
of experience with this type of position,
which Fontaine did not.

Since this was an American Swiss
system tournament, he had no idea he
would be playing me this round, and
so hadn't had time to prepare.
Yes, he was playing the best moves,
but I was the one with the feel for the
position.
9 0-0-0
Natural and good, but White has an
interesting tactical opportunity here: 9
.txf6 lLlxf6 (or 9 ... exf6 10 0-0-0 hS 1 1
'iii>b 1 .th6 12 f4 and with both sides
having doubled pawns, I rate White's
attacking chances higher than Black's,
which means the opposite-coloured
bishops should favour White) 10 .tbS+
lLld7 1 1 it'd4 f6 12 it'e3 and Black has
too many weaknesses: bad bishop,
weak e6-square, and it's dangerous to
castle either way.
Such "extra" possibilities show the
strength of White's position.
9 .tg7
...
Continuing our chronology, let's go
forward a little more than a year, to the
summer of 2007, when I faced this po­
sition again.
Slightly dissatisfied with the result
B e a t i n g a G ra n dm a s te r
of the opening here, I followed Miles,
the great champion of this variation,
who played the immediate ... c7-c6 and
won - and I won too!
Here are the games: 9 ... c6 10 'iii>b 1
.tg7 11 .th6 .txh6 12 'ii'xh6 'irb6 13
.th3 lLle5
14 f4 (or 14 :hg1 'ii'x£2 15 f4 lLlc4 16
eS lLlhS 17 exd6 it'x£4 18 d7+ 'iii> d8 19
:gs lLlxb2 20 'iii>xb2 it'b4+ 21 'iii>c l it'xc3
22 :d3 'ii'e 1+ 23 'iii>b2 'irb4+ 24 :b3
'ii'd4+ 25 'iii>b 1 fS 26 Itxb7 'ii'd 1+ 27 'iii>b2
it'xdS 28 :xhS cS 29 it'g7 it'xb7+ 30 'iii> cl
'ii'h 1+ 0-1 M.Rohde-A.Miles, US Mas­
ters, Chicago 1990) 14 ... lLleg4 15 .i.xg4
lLlxg4 16 'Wg7 0-0-0 17 dxc6 bxc6 18 :d2
:df8 19 lLla4 'WaS 20 lLlc3 lLlf6 21 eS
dxeS 22 fxeS 'ii'xeS 23 .l:te2 'ii'f4 24 lhe7
�hg8 25 'ii'xf7 Ihf7 26 .l::!.xf7 'ii'xf2 27 a4
l:.e8 28 'iii>a2 'Wd4 0-1 R.Del Pilar­
T.Taylor, South California Champion­
ship, Los Angeles 2007.
Two nice wins by Black in thirty
moves or less! What could be better?
Well, what might be worse is if
White played (instead of the lackadai­
sical 10 'iii>b1 seen in the above games)
the strong development 10 .th3!
1 69
T r u e Co m b a t C h es s
when White's bishops are alarming
to say the least. I can't find anything
good for Black:
a) 10 ...ltJe5 11 f4 ltJ£3 (if 1 1...ltJc4 12
'ii'e2 cxd5? 13 exd5 ltJb6 14 i.xf6 and
White wins a piece, or 12 ... tLlb6 13 dxc6
bxc6 14 e5 and White breaks through
and wins before Black completes his
development) 12 'it'e3 tLlxg5 13 fxg5
ltJd7 14 e5! (White exploits his lead in
development and opens lines)
14 ...ltJxe5 15 f4 tLlc4 (or 15 ... tLld7 1 6 tLle4
with a winning attack) 1 6 'it'd4 (forking
knight and rook) 1 6 ...'ti'b6! 17 'ti'c4! (not
17 'ti'xh8?? 'it'xb2 mate) 17 ... 'ife3+ 18
Wb1 'it'xh3 19 dxc6 and wins.
b) 10 ... cxd5 1 1 tLlxd5 ltJxd5 (1l ...i.g7
12 i.xd7+ 'ti'xd7 13 i.xf6 shatters
Black's pawns - the fact that a normal
developing move like 1 l ...i.g7 fails
here shows how bad Black's position
is) 12 'ti'xd5 'i!Vc7 13 f4 (13 'ifd4 l:tg8 14
c3 is also strong) 13 ...l:tc8 14 c3 and
White is clearly better with the power­
house bishops and the threat of e4-e5.
c) 10 ... �g7 1 1 dxc6 bxc6 12 f4 0-0
(12 ... tLlb6 is probably best, even though
it leads to the loss of a pawn: 13 i.g2 0-
1 70
0 14 e5 tLlfdS 15 i.xd5 cxd5 1 6 ltJxdS
ltJxdS 17 'it'xd5 and Black doesn't have
enough for the pawn) 13 e5 when
White's advantage is close to deci­
sive - 1 3 ...ltJe8 14 'i!Ve2 anyone?
In all these variations White's un­
opposed light-squared bishop is very
strong- which shows that 9 ... c6 (to
obtain quick counterplay) has an un­
fortunate side effect: it tends to open
the game for White's bishops.
When all is said and done, I don't
think there is a real difference between
9 ... i.g7 and 9 ... c6-in both cases White
can get the advantage with correct
play.
But when I was winning game after
game, I didn't really do that kind of
objective analysis!
10 i.h6!?
An example of non-objective analy­
sis: after I won this game, I pointed to
this move as an example of a prema­
ture attack, and opined that in some
way this was White's losing move! Of
course such loose talk was superficial
to say the least.
My friend Joe Cepiel, an excellent

analyst, decided to take a look at the
position himself, and found many re­
sources for the attack.
This in turn caused me-before I
committed something to print-to do
an extremely thorough analysis of my
own. I finaVy reached the conclusion
that Joe was right!
The direct attack seen in the game is
sound and extremely dangerous -but I
must add it's also dangerous for White.
If White does not play exactly - if the
attack never breaks through, which is
what happened in the game- then
White has put all his eggs in the pro­
verbial single basket, and Black's
counter-attack will be deadly.
Nonetheless, there is a point-move
1 5 -when White could have broken
through, and so justified this immedi­
ate assault.
On the other hand, the positional
move I recommend here is also strong
and far less risky: White can play 10
..th3 as in the previous note. Then
10 ... c6 is a direct transposition, but if
10 ... 0-0 11 f4 is also clearly better for
White, as Black has no good answer to
White's central pressure and two bish­
ops.
10 ...0-0!
Probably the best try, for if
10 ... ..txh6 11 'ii'xh6 c6 12 ..th3 Black gets
even less king safety, and his rooks are
not connected.
Now the stage is set for a do or die
struggle: White either breaks through
and mates- or he doesn't!
11 h4 tDhs
Necessary: Black must blockade this
B e a t i n g a G ra n d m a s te r
pawn as long as possible, for if White
gets the break in with enough force
behind it, White will win quickly.
12 ..th3 c6 13 ..tg4 4Jdf6
Black brings up a reserve blockader
just in time!
14 .l:.dg1
Joe recommends 14 ..txh5 when, as
near as I can tell, best play would go as
follows: 14 ... ..txh6! 15 'ii'xh6 lDxhS 1 6
l:.hg1 '1t>h8 1 7 f4 'ii'b6 18 f5 l:tg8 (not
18 ...'ii'xf2? 19 .l:.d£1 'iYd4 20 fxg6 and
wins due to the f-file that Black opened
for his opponent) 19 fxg6 fxg6 20 f3 and
White has all the play, and can build
up on the g-file while his centre is se­
cure.
That said, there's nothing wrong
with Fontaine's move- it's his next
sortie that is mistaken!
14... cxds
I took this off quickly: if I don't get
some play on the c-file, I'll have no
game at all.
The position is now extremely con­
fusing and complicated. White has his
choice of three plausible captures:
..txh5, tbxdS and ..txg7, none of which
1 71
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s
are easy to calculate.
One can hardly blame Fontaine for
losing his way here- this is a position
where you need to have the feel for the
best move.
The way he continues seems logical,
but in fact it's the worst alternative, as
will be seen.
15 ..txhS?
White's first mistake in the game,
and a critical one. By exchanging his
light-squared bishop, White loses con­
trol of c8, so Black can put a rook there,
on the newly opened c-file. This
wouldn't matter if White was able to
get in a timely h4-h5, but he never
manages it.
Of the two alternatives, 15 ll'lxd5!? is
not bad, but the direct attack doesn't
go through: 15 ... �xh6! 16 �xh6 �h8 17
ll'lxf6 ll'lxf6 1 8 h5 :g8! and Black holds.
Better in this variation is the surprising
retreat 17 �e3!, when Black is not out
of the woods. I still would not be able
to put a rook on c8 (taking on g4 allows
White to undouble his pawns and en­
force h4-h5 with a big advantage) and
taking on d5 allows e-file pressure.
1 72
There is no mating attack, but one has
to say that White is a little better, with
positional pressure.
But this is not the best White can
do!
Very strong is the sharp and accu­
rate 15 ..txg7!!, when Black is in trouble
after either recapture:
a) 15 ... ll'lxg7 16 h5!
White shouldn't count pawns ­
remember Fischer? He said, referring
to positions like this, "Pry open the h­
file and sac, sac, mate!" Black has no
good defence.
a1) 16 ... gxh5 17 ..tfS! with a mating
attack, e.g. 17 ... e6 18 'ilfu6 or 17 ... �h8 18
ll'lxd5 ll'lxd5 19 'ili'h6 ll'lxf5 20 exf5 :g8
21 �xh7+! and mates.
a2) 16 ... ll'lxg4 17 .:txg4 dxe4 18 hxg6
hxg6 (no better is 18 ... fxg6 19 'ilfu6 �f7
20 �xh7 with a winning attack) 19 �6
f6 20 �xg6 and wins.
a3) 16 ... dxe4 (the best try in this
line, but with the h5-lever in place,
White's attack can't be denied - a typi­
cal variation follows) 1 7 ll'lxe4 ll'lxe4 18
fxe4 e6 19 'ilfu6 �f6 20 ..te2 .:tac8 21 l:tg3
e5 (Black loses faster after 21...l:tc6 22

hxg6 fxg6 23 'i!Vxh7+ 'Ot>f7 24 �f3) 22 �g4
b6 23 'Ot>b1 aS 24 hxg6 fxg6 25 'i!Vxh7+
'it>f7 26 .l:!.xg6 'ii'xg6 27 ..thS wins the
queen.
b) 15 ...'1t>xg7 (relatively best) 1 6
ltJxdS!
(with f6 and hS under pressure,
Black can't maintain the blockade of
the h-pawn) 16 ...lt:\xd5 (or 16 ... e6 1 7
lt:\xf6 lt:\xf6 18 hS with a strong attack)
17 exd5 ltJf6 18 hS and again White gets
this in with a violent attack. After
18 ....!:th8 19 ..tfS! Black would be under
tremendous pressure, while the white
bishop still prevents ....!:tc8, so I would
be deprived of counterplay too!
What fun!
But with a choice of what looked
like many good lines, Fontaine missed
this Fischeresque onslaught.
1s ... lt:\xhs 16 ..txg7 'Ot>xg7 17 lt:\xds e6!
18 lt:\f4 lt:\xf4 19 �xf4 't!Vf6!
White has removed the blockading
knight, but at too high a cost. The bal­
ance has shifted to Black, though my
opponent probably does not realize
that yet.
The question the GM should be ask-
Beating a G r a n d m a s ter
ing himself is this: How can I draw
this?
I think the best answer is to ex­
change the queens. Then Black is
slightly better in the ending, with a
sound Sicilian-type pawn structure, but
with four rooks and many open lines
White should probably make a draw.
Another idea is to take on d6: After
20 'if'xd6 'if'xf3 (also possible is
20 ....l:!.fd8 21 't!Vg3 hS with some com­
pensation for the pawn) 21 hS (21 'iVeS+
'if'f6 is equal) 2l...'ii'xe4, Black has a
pawn and can defend, but White will
certainly have tactical opportunities
with the heavy pieces, and he has the
hS-break in hand.
20 'ii'e 3? hS!
Again, one should remember
Fischer's words: the first part of his
mantra was "pry open the h-file" ­
now that won't happen in this game.
With the text move Black blockades
White's isolated rook pawn, and fixes
this pawn as a weakness. Also the
black king is now secure (or it takes too
long to get at it, which is the same
thing) as Black's counter-attack, cour-
1 73
Tru e C o m b a t C h ess
tesy of the open c-file (note that there is
no longer a white bishop monitoring
c8) will come quickly.
Black is better.
21 f4
White "attacks" through inertia, but
even defensive play may not hold in
the long run. If 21 'it>b1 :tac8 22 :tg5 (22
'ifxa7 'ifxf3 is evidently better for Black,
as White has opened lines for my at­
tack) 22 ... e5 23 l:!:d1 l:!:c5 24 :td3 l:tfc8 25
c3 b5 and Black is clearly better with a
typical Sicilian-style attack.
Note how the white rook on g5
looks so misplaced in this variation­
there is no longer any attack on the
kingside.
21 .. JUc8 22 1:tgs
As noted above, the rook has noth­
ing to do here-but White is dreaming
of an attack that no longer exists.
22 ...l:.c41
Every move is accurate: Black pre­
pares both to double on the c-file and
attack on the fourth rank.
23 C3
If 23 'it>b1 �d4 with a clear advan­
tage, as White's rook on g5 has a hard
1 74
time defending the weak pawns on the
fourth rank.
23 ...ds!
Black breaks through in the centre;
and White's doubled pawns from the
opening come back to haunt him, for
24 e5 fails to 24 ... 'i*'xf4.
24 exds exds 25 fs
25 l:txd5 .:txf4 wins a pawn, as the
counter-attack 26 l:!.d7 fails to 26 ...l:txf2
27 l:txb7 'Wlff5 and wins.
2S ... d41
Black gets there first.
26 ife4 l:.ac8 27 �xb7
If 27 fxg6 dxc3 (but not 27 .. .fxg6? 28
.:thg1 and White revives his attack) 28
'it'e5 (White loses immediately after 28
gxf7+? 'Wlfxg5+ 29 hxg5 .:f.xe4) 28 .. .fxg6
and Black has an extra pawn.
27 ...l:t8c7
I saw his desperate trick: if
27... dxc3?? White actually wins with 28
lhg6+!.
28 �ds dxc3 29 b3
Even worse is 29 fxg6 cxb2+ with a
mating attack, e.g. 30 'it>d2 ifxf2+ 31
'it>d3 l1c3+ 32 'it>e4 l:le3+ 33 'it>d4 'it'd2
mate.

29 ... .1:.4c5 30 'it'd3 c2 0-1
The passed pawn's "lust to expand"
(Nimzowitsch) carries the day. A sam­
ple finish could be 31 fxg6 'ii'a 1+ 32
'iii>d2 c1 'i!V+ 33 l:!.xcl 'ii'xcl + 34 'iii>e2 %:tc2+
35 'iii>f3 .1:.7c3 36 gxf7+ 'iii>xf7 37 .l:.f5+ 'iii>e6
and Black wins everything- and there­
fore, White resigned -
And I beat a GM!
I played the last fifteen moves of the
game about as well as I've ever played
chess in my life-but what about the
first fifteen?
As the result of deep and painful
analysis, I don't see this line of the
Nimzowitsch Defence (1 e4 tLlc6 2 tLlf3
d6 3 d4 tLlf6 4 tLlc3 ..tg4) holding up
against high-level play.
Had Fontaine found the precise,
Fischer-style 15 ..txg7!, he would
probably have won the game, and I
would have been cursing the opening!
But I won - I didn't look deeply for
White alternatives- and so I kept play­
ing the defence. I continued to rack up
wins against masters (Del Pilar and
Francisco), but objectively, my opening
Bea ting a G r a n d m a s t e r
was still suspect.
Finally I went to Hungary for the
May 2008 First Saturday event... well,
skip to Game 23 if you must!
But since we are following strict
chronology here, let's go to the game
that was played just an hour or two
after this one. My euphoria had barely
cooled, and I was paired with an even
higher-rated GM, Vitali Golod!
Another victory over a GM would
give me first place in the National
Open!
A draw would bring in some
money ...
And a loss would give me the con­
solation prize of a free book.
Let's see what happened.
Grandmaster Dodges
Pha ntom Punch
Game 22
T.Taylor-V.Golod
National Open,
Las Vegas 2006
Bird's Opening
1 f4 d5
I have already noted in Game 13
that I will repeat 7 a4- which had been
an opening success there -with disas­
trous effect in this game.
But the a2-a4 idea can be strong in
the Bird -if the pawn has something to
bite on! Consider this game against
another GM: 1 f4 b6 2 tLlf3 ..tb7 3 e3 g6
4 ..te2 ..tg7 5 0-0 tLlf6 6 a4! c5 7 d3 tLlc6 8
tLla3 0-0 9 c3 d5 10 .l:.b1 e6 1 1 b4 'it'e7 12
1 75
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s
tt:'lc2 .l:tfc8 13 �a3
and White had a strong queenside
initiative and went on to win in
T.Taylor-A.Ivanov, Reno 2004. One
should note also the comfortable de­
velopment of White's queen's knight,
and furthermore, how Black was un­
able to counter with ... e7-e5.
Basically everything that worked
well in the above game, will work
badly in the present game! The main
reason is the concept of "information"
as expressed in John Watson's book,
Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy. When
Ivanov played l ...b6, he gave me criti­
cal information: he was giving me a
pawn to attack, and a possible lever
with a4-a5.
In the main game, Golod give me
no such information -but I supply too
much to my opponent! I play a2-a4
without provocation, and follow with
tt:'la3. These two moves have a specific
plan of queenside action - one could
even argue the point that in this par­
ticular game, the extra tempo hurts
White. Since Golod was not committed
on the queenside, he was able to neu-
1 76
tralize my play and then counter in the
centre, something Ivanov was never
able to do.
2 tt:'lf3 g6 3 e3 i.g7 4 i.e2 cs 5 o-o tt:'lc6
6 d3 tt:'lf6 7 a4
There is nothing like a loss to focus
attention on a misplayed opening. At
the time I played this move quickly,
without a thought, because I had used
it just two weeks before to get the
opening advantage against Fontaine
(Game 13).
What I had not done in those two
weeks was to subject the move to a
deep opening analysis. As we know,
Taylor-Fontaine continued (via a slight
transposition of moves) 7 ... 0-0 8 tt:'la3
i.g4 9 c3 .l:tc8 10 h3 i.xf3 1 1 i.xf3 d4 12
cxd4 cxd4 13 e4 and White was better
with a good centre and the two bish­
ops -note also that the a3-knight is
ready to enter the game via c4 or bS.
But Black is not forced to play this
way!
When I look at the position now,
with unprejudiced eyes, I see that 7 a4
attacks nothing and weakens the b4-
square; and that my following 8 tt:'la3

puts the knight rather out of the game.
So what should White play? Or
more precisely, the question is this: We
are in a Classical Dutch with an extra
tempo- how best can we use that extra
move?
After the game, I came to the con­
clusion that 7 lbe5 was best: White
plays the Dutch line championed by
GM Simon Williams with a useful extra
move. White gives nothing away, as
the knight leap to e5 is standard in the
Bird, and Black has one less move to
deal with this invasion.
I played my new move at the first
opportunity, against another high­
rated GM, Alex Yermolinsky: 7 lbe5!
lbxe5 8 fxe5 lbd7 9 d4 0-0 10 lbc3 e6.
At this point it became clear to my
opponent that my plan had succeeded:
White has more space, an extra pawn
in the centre, and the hole at d6 is
beckoning my knight- and so Yermo
offered a draw! I played it safe, and
took it- lh-1!2 T.Taylor-A.Yermolinsky,
American Open, Los Angeles 2007-
but I should definitely have played on.
What does one accomplish by playing
B e a t i n g a G ra n dm a s t e r
it safe?.
7 . 0-0 8 lba3
..
Golod had been playing slowly so
far, but at this provocation, he really
put his head in his hands!
While Fontaine had briskly re­
sponded with a natural development
move (8 . i.g4), Golod was having
. .
none of that "make a quick move so
you won't be in time pressure later"
modernity.
He was after nothing less than the
truth of the position - fifty minutes
later, he found it, and uncorked ...
8... a611
Before the game, I had joked to my
friends that Golod's rating of 2699
didn't scare me- though I ventured
that if he had been 2700, I'd have wor­
ried!
But I have to admit he played this
like a 2700 player (and I guess he was,
after he beat me!).
One of the advantages of the Bird is
that usually one's opponents burn time
in the opening- Golod burned a lot of
time -but his move was great!
g lbes
1 77
T r u e Co m b a t C h e s s
Other lines are also uncomfortable.
One can see that White spent two
moves on the a2-a4 and tLla3 idea, and
Black knocked it out with one very
simple Picasso move, so basically
White is now playing Black!
Perhaps best is to reposition the er­
rant queen's knight at once: 9 c3 'ikc7 10
i.d2 (also possible is to enter the Stone­
wall with 10 d4, but then the knight
would rather be at d2 - though per­
haps the slow nature of the wall would
allow White to reposition) 10 ... eS 1 1
fxeS tLlxeS 1 2 tLlxeS 'ikxeS 13 tLlc2 and
White has a harmonious, if passive
formation.
White is too far behind the curve to
attack: 9 'ike1 'ikc7 10 'ikh4 eS 1 1 fxeS (if
1 1 e4 c4 and Black opens the game and
takes advantage of his better develop­
ment) 1 1 ...tLlxeS 12 e4 dxe4 13 dxe4
tLlxf3+ 14 ..ixf3 ..ie6 1S ..tf4 'ikb6 16 ..ieS
l2Jd7 17 ..ixg7 'it>xg7 18 b3 (18 .l:!.ab1 ..ia2
19 .l:!.bd1 tLleS is also good for Black)
18 ... c4+ and the discovered check gives
Black a clear advantage.
Lastly, 9 c4 (hoping to activate the
knight) is unimpressive after 9 ... b6 10
..id2 d4 1 1 e4 l2Jxe4! 12 dxe4 d3 13 ..ie3
dxe2 14 'ikxe2 ..ig4, when Black is bet­
ter due to the weakness of the d4-
square.
9 . 'ikc7 10 t2Jxc6 bxc61
. .
Accurate: Black plays for ... e7-eS,
and does not allow 10 ... 'ikxc6 1 1 aS with
some counterplay.
11 ..if3
Better is 1 1 c3 eS 12 fxeS 'ikxeS 13
tLlc2 as in the note to move 9.
It's important to note that Black's
1 78
8 ... a6 doesn' t win by force-but I had
to switch gears from playing a Bird
Attack to a Dutch Defence!
11... es 12 ..id2
If 12 fxeS 'ikxeS 13 e4 dxe4 14 dxe4
..ie6 and Black's activity counts for
more than his doubled pawns.
12 .. J:te8 13 .l:!.e1?
Now Black gets an overwhelming
space advantage and the game is basi­
cally decided.
White can still defend with 13 fxeS
'ikxeS 14 c3 ..ifS 1S 'ike2 aS 1 6 b3 .l:!.ab8
17 g4 ..id7 18 .l:!.ab1 which holds the
position-Black will have a lot of work
ahead of him if he wants to win this!
13 ... e4 14 ..te2 .l:!.b8
Black not only has space, but play
all over the board.
15 .l:!.b1
If 1S ..ic3 exd3 attacks the weakness
at e3 - White is missing a knight on c2
to defend, and said knight is now do­
ing absolutely nothing!
1s ... hs 16 .l:!.f1 tLlg4
This move attacks my weaknesses
at b2 and e3; my queen's knight is not
playing, and the pawn at a4 does not

help my position at all.
17 c3 exd3 18 .txd3 c4 19 .tc2
If 19 .ie2 lt:Jxe3 and White has noth­
ing for the pawn, but now the a3-
knight is still blocked from coming
back into play.
19 ...tt:Jxe3 20 .txe3 l:txe3 21 fS
White finally gets in the classical
Bird break, but Golod's centralization
is too powerful.
21 ... ii'es 22 fxg6 fxg6 23 .txg6 .ig4 24
�C1
Nothing saves White: 24 l'i'd2 l:te2 is
like the game but worse, or White can
suffer in an ending: 24 �d4 �xd4 25
cxd4 l:teb3 26 lt:Jc2 c3! 27 h3 .id7 28
B e a t i n g a G r a n d m a s te r
..ixh5 cxb2 29 l:tf4 l:.c3 30 ..ig6 (30 .tf7+
'it>h7 31 l:th4+ .th6 doesn't help) 30 ... c5
31 dxc5 .teS 32 l:tf3 (if 32 l:!.h4 'it>g7 wins
a piece) 32 ...l:txc5 and Black wins the
errant a-pawn for starters - the two
passed pawns are much stronger than
White's connected but inoffensive
kingside duo.
24...l:!.e2 25 lt:Jc2
Finally, and too late!
2S ....ih31 26 lt:Je1 :C.f8 27 lt:Jf3
If 27 l:.xf8+ .txf8 and Black's dark­
squared bishop decisively enters the
game, e.g. 28 b4 .th6! and wins.
27 ...:C.xg2+ 28 Wh1 l:.xf3 0-1
This was an excellent game by
Golod, which shows what a 2699
player can do! He took his time in the
opening, and refuted (as a winning
attempt) the a2-a4/lt:Ja3 idea.
I should have just repositioned my
offside knight and gone over to solid
defence -but I was unable to adjust,
and lost quickly.
Unlike in the previous game, I had
no opportunity to outplay my GM op­
ponent in the middlegame.
1 79
Tru e C o m b a t C h ess
Of course the real culprit was in­
adequate opening preparation: had I
done a correct analysis of Taylor­
Fontaine, I would have seen the simple
8 . . a6! -and probably would have
. play the Nimzowitsch, but I would
come up with 7 lL'leS when I really
needed it!
Oh, by the way-my consolation
prize: I picked up The Hedgehog by Mi­
hai Suba!
The Nimzowitsch I m plodes
Game 23
Z.Va rga-T.Taylor
First Saturday (May},
Budapest 2008
Nimzowitsch Defence
1 e4 lbc6 2 lL'lf3 d6
I have already related in Game 21
how I continued to play this line be­
cause I was having tremendous success
with it. Though I had doubts about
certain lines, I suppressed them be­
cause I won game after game. As the
reader knows, I defeated GM Fontaine
with this very opening, and then four
American masters, Akopian (Game 7),
Cassella, Francisco and Del Pilar. The
latter three games are given in the
notes to Games 7 and 21 .
All through this time I was working
toward my big chance of making the
GM norm (this would be my first GM
round robin tournament in five years)
by playing in the famous First Satur­
day tournament in Budapest, Hungary.
Obviously I needed a strong de-
1 80
fence to 1 e4. While I knew everyone
would be able to prepare for me, based
on my previous games, I thought I had
found a way around that: I would still
steer the game toward a Nimzo-Pirc
hybri d - in other words, I would aim
for a structure I liked, but the exact po­
sition would be different.
I had a new move order in mind,
and I tried it out, just a week before I
left for Budapest (so the game
wouldn't show up in any databases,
and I didn't think TWIC was going to
cover a rapid tournament in Los Ange­
les!).
I scored another big win, against the
fierce young woman master Tatev
Abrahamian (the game is given in full
below, in the note to White's fifth
move).
So I arrived in Budapest believing I
was well prepared against 1 e4- I
knew I had the feel for the
Nimzowitsch, I had a big assortment of
wins in my pocket, I had already
beaten a GM with it- and I had a new
move ready, one I had studied and al­
ready tried out with success.
In the second round, I was paired
against GM Varga - time to put my
ideas to the test!
3 d4 lL'lf6 4 lL'lc3 j_g4
As I have previously mentioned, the
immediate attempt to switch to a
Pirc -4 ... g6 - has not done well against
s j_bs.
My new idea was to put more pres­
sure on White's position, with the text
pin, and only then play . . . g7-g6.

5 i.e3
This is one of two dangerous White
moves in this position, the other being
Fontaine's 5 d5 -but again, I wasn't as
worried about that as I should have
been, as I had won that game!
And here is my "variation try out"
game from right before the First Satur­
day: 5 i.e2 (not as strong as 5 i.e3, so
not a perfect test!) 5 ... g6 (my idea) 6
..ie3 ..ig7 7 'iWd2 (if White plays 7 0-0
here, then after 7... 0-0 Black has trans­
posed to a pure Classical Pirc, which
James Vigus in his magnum opus, The
Pirc in Black and White, pronounces
"fine for Black.") 7... 0-0 8 d5 tt:lb8
(this is an idea of Chernin's, who
plays it in the similar Classical Pirc po­
sition) 9 h3 ..ixf3 10 ..ixf3 c6 (now in­
stead of castling short, as in the Classi­
cal Pirc, Tatev castles long and tries to
attack -but it transpires that my
queenside counter-attack is more dan­
gerous) 1 1 0-0-0 tt:lbd7 12 ..ih6 'it'a5 13
h4 cxd5 1 4 exd5 :ac8 15 ..ixg7 'it>xg7 1 6
h5 tt:\e5 (obviously Black i s a few tempi
ahead of the similar Fontaine-Taylor
p osition) 17 hxg6 fxg6 18 i.e2 (if 18
B e a t i n g a G ra n d m a s t e r
'it'h6+ 'it>g8 19 tt'le4 :f7 20 tt'lg5 'it'xa2 21
tt:lxf7 tt'lc4! and mates, or 21 :h4 'it'a1 +
22 'it>d2 'iVxb2 with a winning attack)
18 .. Jhc3! 19 'ifxc3 'ifxc3! 20 bxc3 tt:\e4
(Black has a strong attack, even with­
out queens) 21 :d4 tt:lxc3 22 ..id3 :xf2
23 l:te1 tt:\xa2+ 24 'it>b2 tt:lb4! 0-1
T.Abrahamian-T.Taylor, Los Angeles
2008.
My confidence level was high!
s g6
...
I continue as planned - previous to
this, I had always played 5 ... e5 as in
Game 7.
There was not a single game in the
database where I played this move!
Just as I had expected, Varga - who
had had been moving briskly up to
now - stopped to think for a bit. He
didn't think too long though -it was
clear he was well prepared for the posi­
tion in general, and he wasn't about to
play the quiet 6 ..ie2, which would
transpose into that "fine" line of the
Pirc and my recent win over Abraha­
mian.
6 dS!
Fontaine style! I still didn't feel any
181
T r u e C o m b a t C h ess
danger, and continued as I had
planned.
6 ...tt:lb8
I didn't intend to go to e5 anyway,
but the reader may be interested to
know that, while 5 d5 tt:le5 is playable,
here it doesn't work at all: 6 ...tt:le5? 7
tt:lxe5! (now this is strong) 7... �xd1 8
�b5+ c6 (forced, as 8 ... tt:ld7 loses a
piece to 9 �xd7+ 'i:Wxd7 10 tt:lxd7 �xd7
11 l:1xd1) 9 dxc6 a6 (if here 9 ... dxe5 10
cxb7+ tt:ld7 1 1 bxa8'W 'Wxa8 12 .l:!.xd1
and White gets too much for the queen;
or 9 ...�xc2 10 cxb7+ tt:ld7 1 1 i..xd7+
'Wxd7 12 bxa8'ir'+ and mates) 10 c7+
axb5 1 1 cxd8'ir'+ .l:!.xd8 12 .l:!.xd1 dxe5 13
�xd8+ 'iti>xd8 14 f3 b4 15 tt:lb5 'iti>d7 16
'iti>f2 with a solid endgame plus.
7 h3
I had already had this type of posi­
tion vs. Francisco (see 6 h3 in Game
21), but I still wasn't worried, as I had
won that game too.
Objectively one should note that
White can also play 7 'ir'd2 �xf3 8 gxf3
�g7 9 0-0-0 which is better for White,
analogous to Fontaine-Taylor.
7 ..ixf3 8 'ir'xf3 �g7 9 0-0-0
...
1 82
g c6?
...
Overlooking a tactical blow based
on the opposition of white rook and
black queen. 9 ... tt:lfd7 is no good be­
cause of 10 h4, so best must be
9 ...tt:lbd7. But is this position good for
Black? As I look at it now, I think not!
White can simply play 10 g4 (or even
10 �e2 0-0 1 1 h4 which is primitive but
dangerous) 10 ...0-0 1 1 i..g2 c6 12 �e2
and White maintains an advantage
with the two bishops, space plus, and
possible attacking chances on the king­
side down the road.
In general, White has a very sound,
Karpovian position -Black has a long
struggle ahead of him.
If White is prepared - and every­
body prepares at the First Saturday ­
then White's moves are easy to find.
Is the above position (after 12 'ilie2,
which is evidently about the best Black
can do in this line) what Black wants
out of the opening?
10 e5!
I had missed this.
Now I was worried - seriously, se­
riously worried, but really it was al-
 Beating a Grandm aster

ready too late. �e4 �as 17 'it>b1

Right now I'll take this to a "higher
authority" -but Fritz says White has a
decisive advantage already.
Yes, I made a tactical mistake -but
one should not be lost after ten moves
of a favourite opening!
But I was - my preparation was
faulty. My "favourite opening" had
intrinsic flaws that I was blind to, be­
cause of my positive results with it.
Botvinnik would have lambasted
me- correctly - for my lack of self­
criticism. White is up a good passed pawn.
And after all that, I still have to try Any hopes I had of breaking
to hold this terrible game! through on the queenside were foiled
10.. /Lixds by Varga's exact play.
Other losing moves are 10 ... tl:lfd7 1 1 17 ....l:!.fd8 18 J:!.d2 tl:les 19 .1i.. b 3 �a6 20
exd6 exd6 1 2 dxc6 tl:lxc6 1 3 tLlbS and .l:!.hd1 tl:lc4 21 i.xc4 .l:!.xc4 22 �d3 l:Id7
White wins a pawn with a better posi­ While 22 ... b5 doesn't lose any more
tion, and lO ... dxeS 1 1 dxc6 which wins material, after 23 d7 White's passed
heavy material. pawn will decide the game.
11 tl:lxds cxds 12 �xds 23 .1i..x a71

12 ... tl:lc6 White wins a second pawn.

Black must lose a pawn: another 23 ... bs 24 .1i..e 3 ii..e s 25 'iie 2 l:!.xd6
way is 12 ... -txeS 13 f4 .1i..f6 1 4 1Vxb7 25 ... .1i..x d6 is a better try, which tem­
tl:ld7 15 ii..bS .l:!.c8 16 �xa7. porarily restores the damage to one
13 exd6 0-0 14 .1i..c4 .l:!.c8 15 c3 e6 16 pawn -but after 26 .1i..h6 White should

1 B 'l
True C o m b a t C h ess
win anyway: by combining kingside
threats with the d-file pin on Black's
bishop.
26 j_h6 .l:tcs
Too easy is 26 ... l:!xd2 27 'iixd2 l:!c8
28 'i!Vd8+ and mates.
27 'i!Vxesl
A stylish finish.
27 ....l:txes 28 .l:txd6 1-0
There is no good defence to the
back rank mate, and so I resigned.
After this debacle, I stopped play­
ing the Nirnzowitsch in the First Satur­
day, but my second string defences
were just that.
But here's a funny thing: after I
1 84
carne back to the US, I still had no solid
defence to 1 e4-but for financial rea­
sons, had to play in a few local tour­
naments. Having nothing else, I played
the Nirnzowitsch Defence three more
times- and won every game!
But none of my opponents were
well-prepared Grandmasters.
I Take the Master Class -
But Don't Pass!
Game 24
T.Taylor-Z. IIincic
First Saturday (May),
Budapest 2008
Dutch Defence
The whole point of playing in the
First Saturday tournaments is to try to
make a norm, and after starting with
two losses (Game 23 was the second
one) my prospects looked bleak. But
then my third round opponent, IM
Vitaly Pesotsky, dared me to play my
deadly Four Pawns Attack against his
King's Indian- I dared, I sac'ed a
piece, I conquered!
Buoyed up by this success, I eagerly
dove into preparations for my next op­
ponent -the highest-rated player in the
tournament! This was the very strong
GM Zlatko Ilincic.
I knew that he played the Dutch;
my line against that is 2 1i.g5; and so I
set to work.
The following four games were the
keys to my preparation: the first two
come from books I had written, Bird's

Opening and Pawn Sacrifice! respec­
tively. The last two were sharp at­
tempts with my planned variation as
played by the husband and wife team
Vasik and Iweta Rajlich, better known
to chess engine fans as Mr and Mrs
Rybka!
What do these four games teach us?
1) A.Ferreira-R.Damaso, Portuguese
Team Championship 1993: 1 f4 dS 2
ll:lf3 .i.g4 3 e3 ll:ld7 4 .i.e2 ll:lgf6 S 0-0
.i.xf3 6 .i.xf3 eS 7 fxeS (as I point out in
my Bird book, 7 d4 is correct here, as
played by Larsen) 7...lL:lxeS
8 d3 c6 9 ll:ld2 lic7 10 ll:lb3 0-0-0 1 1
a4 hS 1 2 ll:ld4 ll:leg4 13 g3 l:te8 1 4 lie2
'ir'eS 1S �e1 g6 1 6 c3 .i.h6 1 7 e4 .i.xcl 18
�axel 'WgS 19 .i.g2 dxe4 20 dxe4 lL:leS
21 ll:l£3 ll:lxf3+ 22 'Wxf3 ll:lxe4 23 l:tcd1
�cS+ 24 .l:td4 lL:lgS 2S 'ii'f2 lhe1 + 26
lixe1 l:rd8 27 'ii'e3 ll:le6 28 �h3 �xd4 29
cxd4 lidS 30 aS fS 31 �g2 'Wxd4 32
'Wxd4 ll:lxd4 33 'it>£2 a6 34 .i.fl 'it>d7 3S
�c4 ll:le6 36 h4 'it>d6 37 'it>e3 'it>eS 0-1 .
One sees that Black got the advan­
tage early (move 7) after a single mis-
B e a t i n g a G ra n d m a s t e r
take by White. The correct move for
White at that turn was 7 d4. With re­
versed colours, White (with an extra
tempo as first player) can take one
more move -let's say e2-e3 and then
e3-e4 - to reach the same position. Ilin­
cic likes the Leningrad Dutch, with a
pawn on d6. If he has to play it to dS,
he will lose a tempo, so the e3-e4 and
... d6-dS will cancel each other out ­
which means, a s White, I might get a
position like the Portuguese game with
an extra tempo!
2) T.V.Petrosian-P.M.Nielsen, Nim­
zowitsch memorial, Copenhagen 1960:
1 d4 fS 2 i..gS g6 3 ll:ld2 .i.g7 4 c3 ll:l£6 S
e3 d6 6 ll:lgf3 ll:lc6 7 lib3 h6 8 .i.xf6
.i.x£6 9 e4
(Petrosian uses two moves to get to
e4, but the attack is still very strong, as
in the above game) 9 ... eS 10 .i.bS 'iit £8 1 1
i..xc6 bxc6 1 2 dxeS dxeS 13 'ii'a 4 'Wd6 1 4
ll:lb3 .i.d7 1S �d1 'ife7 16 lL:lcS �e8 1 7
b4 'it>g7 18 0-0 l:tf8 19 'ii'a6 fxe4 20 ll:ld2
e3 21 ll:lde4 exf2+ 22 l:txf2 i..gS 23 l:txf8
'it>xf8 24 lL:lxgS hxgS 2S lib7 1-0.
White employs the "anti-Bird rec-
185
Tru e C o m b a t C h es s
ipe" as an anti-Dutch! When Petrosian
was able to double Black's pawns on
c6- in addition to his central pres­
sure- the win became easy.
3) I.Rajlich-Z.Ilincic, First Saturday
(September}, Budapest 2006: 1 d4 fS 2
.1i.g5 g6 3 h4 (very bold, but probably
premature) 3 ... h6 4 .1i.f4 lt:Jf6 5 .1i.e5 .1i.g7
6 g4 fxg4 7 'i¥d3 'it>f7 8 lt:Jh3 gxh3 9 .!:.g1
gS
10 .1i.xh3 d6 1 1 .1i.xc8 'ii'xc8 12 hxgS
hxgS 13 lt:Jd2 g4 14 lt:Je4 lt:Jxe4 15 i.xg7
fifS 16 f3 'it>xg7 17 fxe4 figS 18 e3 lt:Jd7
19 0-0-0 .!:.h4 20 .!:.g3 .l:.h3 21 .!:.g2 .!:.ah8
0-1 .
Ilincic is a cool customer in defence!
He doesn't get flustered by a sharp at­
tack, so I will have to prepare carefully
before I go for his king.
4) V.Rajlich-Z.Ilin:cic, First Saturday
(October}, Budapest 2006: 1 d4 fS 2 i.gS
g6 3 e3 .1i.g7 4 lt:Jd2 lt:Jf6 5 lt:Jgf3 d6 6 c3
.1i.e6! (best- 6 ... lt:Jc6 would transpose to
the Petrosian game, where White got
the advantage with 7 iib3)
186
7 ..td3 lt:Jbd7 8 .1i.h4 c6 9 'ii'c2 dS 10
lt:JgS .1i.g8 1 1 f4 lt:Jg4 12 lt:Jfl lt:Jdf6 13 h3
lt:Jh6 14 lt:Jd2 lt:Je4 15 lt:Jgxe4 fxe4 16 ..ie2
lt:JfS 1 7 .1i.f2 hS 18 g3 fiaS 19 a4 i.f6 20
lt:Jb3 'i:Vc7 21 0-0-0 gS 22 g4 lt:Jxe3 23
.1i.xe3 gxf4 24 gS .1i.xg5 25 .!:.hg1 .1i.f6 26
.1i.xh5+ .1i.f7 27 i.xf7+ 'it>xf7 28 'ii'h2 iib6
29 .1i.xf4 'iixb3 30 .1i.e5 .!:.h6 31 .!:.dfl l:t.g8
32 .!:.xg8 �xg8 33 'iVg3+ �f7 34 .l:.g1 �e8
35 figS+ �d7 36 fig4+ �d8 37 'iWfS
.1i.xe5 38 'iVf8+ �d7 39 'ii'xh6 fixa4 40
'it>b1 .1i.f6 41 fie3 bS 42 h4 b4 43 iih3+
e6 44 1:.fl bxc3 45 .l:f.xf6 fid1+ 46 �a2
'Wa4+ V2-1h.
Ilincic seems well prepared: he
adroitly avoided the Petrosian game
(6...i.e6 instead of 6 ...lt:Jc6) and easily
equalized in the opening. Yes, he did
get in trouble later, but that was due to
his own over-aggressive play.
I found a way to put all this knowl­
edge together, and created an opening
plan - then I grabbed a couple of hours
sleep!
I had already realized that playing
in the one-game-a-day First Saturday­
with full preparation every night- was

more exhausting than a two-game-a­
day American Swiss!
1 d4 fs 2 �gs g6
As expected.
3 tt:'ld2 �g 7
4 e3
4 c3 was played by Petrosian, but 11-
incic was clearly ready for that: what I
wanted to do was mislead my oppo­
nent (with the early e2-e3) into think­
ing I had no interest in "losing a
tempo" by playing e3-e4.
I had played the immediate 4 e4 in
this position in the past, and won, but
the game was in the database: 4 ... fxe4 5
tt:'lxe4 tt:'lf6 6 tt:'lxf6+ exf6 7 �e3 dS 8 h4
�fS 9 g4 �e6 10 tt:'lh3 'il'e7 1 1 tt:'lf4 �f7
12 'ii'd2 tt:'ld7 13 0-0-0 0-0-0 14 ..Was �b8
15 tt:'lxdS 'iVe4 16 'iVxc7+ �a8 1 7 tt:'lc3
'iVxh1 18 �bS 'iVxh4 19 �xd7 �h6 20
tt:'lbS �dS 21 'ii'cS b6 22 'ii'xdS+ �b8 23
'ii'd6+ �b7 24 'it'c7+ �a6 25 'iVxa7 mate,
T.Taylor-G.Young, Los Angeles 2007.
I was sure that Ilincic would be
prepared for anything that was pub­
lished.
4... h6 5 �h4 tt:'lf6 6 tt:'lgf3 d6 7 �xf61
B e a t i n g a G ra n d m a s te r
�xf6 8 e4!
I strike with my opening surprise!
Despite White's seeming loss of tempi
(�g5-h4xf6 and e3-e4) White actually
has a lead in development and full con­
trol of the centre: in short, White is bet­
ter, though just slightly so far.
s es
...
I have finished my preparation, and
Ilincic is surprised but ready to fight.
He makes a natural move to block my
central advance, although after this he
won't be able to castle kingside.
Our friend Herr Doktor Professor
Fritz offers the curious 8 ... g5 9 eS �g7
as the best defence (with White only
slightly ahead}, but few humans would
allow that central advance.
9 dxes dxes 10 �c4
At least for the moment, Black's
king is caught in the centre.
10...f4
Ilincic tries to block the position.
Also possible is 10 ...tLlc6 1 1 c3 �d7
12 exfS �xfS (12 ... gxf5?! 13 tt:'lh4 �xh4
14 ifuS+ wins at once for White, or if
13 ...h5 14 tt:'lg6 with a powerful attack,
e.g. 14 ...l:th7 15 �g8! l:tg7 16 'iVxhS
1 R 7
Tru e C o m b a t Ch ess
:xg8 1 7 lbxe5+ <J;;e7 18 'itf7+ <J;;d 6 19
l2Jdc4+ �c5 20 l2Jd3+ <J;;b 5 21 a4+ 'Ot>a6 22
lbc5 mate!) 13 'ii'e2 and White is better
due to the e4-square, but still only the
famous plus-equals.
11 'ii'e 2 tLlc6 12 o-o-o 'ii'e 7
Not 12 ... tLld4? 13 tLlxd4 'ii'x d4 14 g3!
fxg3 (14 ... g5 15 'ith5+ is even worse) 15
hxg3 and White has great play down
the d- and h-files.
13 .i.ds .i.d7 14 'itbs
Black now errs under pressure. Cor­
rect is the optically dangerous queen­
side castling (see the following note)
when Black can hold. Instead he goes
for the "safer" retreat, and I get an at­
tacking position against the black king
stuck in the centre... I could ask for
nothing more.
14...tLld8?!
Better is 14 ... 0-0-0 15 tLlb3 'ii'b4 16
'ttxb4 lLlxb4 1 7 tLlc5 and the knight pair
gives me a small edge in the ending,
but probably not more than the better
half of a draw.
15 'ir'as!
To weaken Black's line of queenside
pawns.
1 88
15 ...c6
Black doesn't really have another
good move, but now the weak d6-
square invites my queen's knight.
16 ib3 b6 17 'ir'c3
18 tLlc4 is a deadly threat, so Black
must weaken himself still more.
11 ... bs 18 g31
I open a second front against
Black's compromised game. Premature
is 18 'ita5 tLlb7 19 'ir'c7 tLlc5, as the white
queen doesn't have enough support to
do any real damage.
18 ...gs 19 gxf4 gxf4
Forced, for if 19 ... exf4 20 e5 .i.g7 21
tLle4 and the knight enters decisively.
Now let's assess the position: White
has just opened the g-file, which is ex­
tra favourable as Black can't oppose
rooks (White controls g8 with his
bishop). White already has a rook on
the other open file, and Black is a long
way from opposing it. Black's f6-
bishop is like a tall pawn, tied to de­
fence of e5. Black's knight blocks his
rooks. Black can't castle kingside at all,
and the queenside is breezy. Black's
pawns stick out every which way, and

are easy to attack.
In other words, White has a clear
advantage, in fact, I would say it's bor­
derline decisive.
It would be very hard to improve
on White's first nineteen moves. My
opening preparation was first class,
and I found a new continuation that
my opponent had not anticipated. I
immediately put my GM opponent
under pressure, and so induced a mis­
take (14 ... ltJd8). I took accurate advan­
tage of said mistake (15 'iVaS, 18 g3),
and now I need to make one more ac­
curate move - and the house of cards
that is my opponent's position will
topple.
But before we get to that move, let's
consider something else: my opponent
is, as I mentioned, a strong GM, in fact,
the highest-rated player in the tourna­
ment. He didn't get those rating points
for nothing! He has probably survived
many bad positions in the past, and
will survive more in the future. Some­
one like Ilincic will not just give away
the game- one has to "drive home the
advantage unmercifully" as Fischer
says.
Only one move will do the job here,
and ...
20 �hg1? (DDT)
This isn't it!
What bothers me most when I think
of this game - which could have turned
the whole tournament around for me­
is that I made this so critical move so
quickly. I don't think I spent more than
a few seconds on it! I had just opened
the g-file; this favours White, as Black
B e a t i n g a Gra n d m a s t e r
can't oppose - so I put my rook on said
file. What could be more natural?
But the point is "Black can't op­
pose" - so White doesn't need to play
�gl . Right at this moment, the move is
superfluous.
Meanwhile there is something ur­
gent going on at the opposite side of
the board! That something is, Black
wants to castle. Kingside is impossi­
ble - so he needs to go queenside to
connect his rooks. If he succeeds, he
gets back in the game.
White should prevent this - and
take over the full board with the pow­
erful 20 a4! .
White threatens to exchange on bS,
which both obtains the dS-square for
my pieces and opens the c-file to pene­
trate with my queen.
This is seen most clearly if Black
plays as in the game with 20 ...lt:'lb7.
White answers simply 21 axbS cxbS 22
�c7 ttJc5 23 ii.dS �c8 24 �xa7 and wins
a pawn.
If Black's attacked b-pawn moves
forward -20 ...b4 - I answer 21 �d3,
eying infiltration with both 'tia6 and
189
T r u e Co m b a t C h ess
tlJc4-d6, while Black's queenside
pawns have lost all cohesion.
This means that 20 ... a6 to shore up
b5 is practically forced, but then I an­
swer 21 'ir'a5 and if Black answers
2l...tlJb7 (as in the note to move 18) I
penetrate decisively with 22 'itb6! (this
square was not available on move 18).
After 22 'itb6 I don't think even Ilin­
cic's excellent defensive ability could
hold this position - White has threats
all over the board (yes, .l:tg1 can come
in!) and Black is playing without either
rook.
20 a4 is a killer! 20 :hg1 is a lousy
little developer!
20...lLlb7!
Suddenly Black is going to castle
queenside and there's nothing I can do
about it!
Black is certainly not better, but he's
come back from the dead!
Now if 21 a4 a6, White can't get in
with the queen.
21 :tg6 0-0-0
Somehow, despite his ragged posi­
tion, Black has completed his devel­
opment- which one might not have
190
thought possible a few moves ago­
and wouldn't have been possible, had I
played correctly.
22 a4
The exchange sacrifice on f6 is now
in the air, but it never seems to really
work, for example 22 .l:txf6 'ii'xf6 23
lLlxe5 .l:th7 and it's hard to see where
White goes from here- on the other
hand, if White wants an approximately
equal but unbalanced position, this is
fine.
22 a6 23 axb5 axbs
...
24 i.ds
Probably best, but White's advan­
tage is minimal.
Still possible is 24 lhf6 'ir'xf6 25
lLlxe5 i.e8, but I'm not convinced that
Fritz's evaluation of plus equals is ac­
tually accurate. Yes, White has a nice­
looking position now, but in the long
run, all those open files will help Black.
Maybe dynamic equality is the best
evaluation.
24...cit'c7!
The king is a strong defender, and
Ilincic is a strong defender! He avoids
the tactic I had in mind: 24 ...'itb8 25

l:lxf6 'ii'xf6 26 tLlxeS (threatening t:Lld7+)
with a tremendous attack.
25 t:Llb3?
This destroys the harmony of my
pieces by cutting off the retreat of my
bishop (which one must not forget, is
under attack and only held by pin).
Black now forces me to sac the ex­
change - though my position is so
good that it's hard to see a Black ad­
vantage even after he gains material.
It's only after my next mistake that
Black is better!
Instead of my self-blocking move,
White can maintain a small plus with
the simple and good 25 b4, which both
limits Black's pieces and creates a com­
fortable haven for my own on b3.
In this way White's game is safe,
and I still have active possibilities ('itb2
and !tal, or �a2 and t:Llb3-c5), while
Black's game is still somewhat ragged.
2S ..te8
...
Now if the rook retreats, I lose a
piece: 26 :ggl 'itb8 27 ..txc6 l:lc8 is
quite convincing.
This means I have to sacrifice the
exchange, though this is hardly the end
Bea ting a Gra n d m a s ter
of the world. I will get one of Black's
bishops, and I'll have attacking chances
against Black's breezy king.
For which bishop should I trade the
rook?
It's obvious that Black's light­
squared bishop is the better of the two,
so White should play 26 l:ldgl! 'ii'd 6
(first Black has to defend c6, for if
26 ...�xg6? 27 �xc6+ 'itb8 28 l:lxg6 with
a winning attack) 27 'itbl (not 27 �g8?
'itb6 28 l:lxh8 ..txh8 29 ..tg8 ..tg6 and
the white bishop is still trapped)
27... ..txg6 28 l:lxg6 b4 (if 28 ...'it>b6? 29
tLlxeS! and White exploits a whole gal­
axy of pins) 29 'ikc4 (the ending is not
good for White: 29 �xc6+ 'iVxc6 30
..txc6 �dl + 31 t:Llcl !tf8 and Black is
better in view of the weak white pawn
at f2) 29 ...'itb6 30 lhf6 'ikxf6 31 'ikxb4+
Wc7 32 tLlaS
and White's attack might well be
worth two exchanges. One sees also
that Black had to play very carefully to
wend his way through the complica­
tions.
Note that in the final position of the
above variation White has the same
1 Q 1
Tr u e C o m b a t C h es s
number of pieces as Black; in the game,
White gets a similar position after 29
tba5, but is missing a rook and eventu­
ally runs out of pieces.
26 .:f.xf6?
This is not only a strategical mis­
take- White gets Black's bad bishop
rather than his good one- it's also a
tactical error, as I will discover on the
next move.
Two mistakes in a row is too much!
26.. .'ill'xf6 27 tbxes b4l
This move blind-sided me.
When I had looked at the exchange
sacrifice before, this move had not been
a factor-but now it is!
First, the resource I always had be­
fore to answer this move - a possible
variation when the sac was first in the
air could go 22 .:f.xf6 'ill'xf6 23 tbxe5 b4! ?
and here's the resource: 24 tbxd7! -is
no longer available as the bishop is no
longer available to be taken! Second,
my queen must keep up the pin on c6.
In other words, I have no desper­
ado, and now my queen is overloaded:
she can't stay on the c-file (saving the
bishop by pin) and also stay on the
192
long diagonal (saving the knight) This
means Black goes a full rook up, albeit
at the cost of a very breezy king. I
thought for a while my attacking
chances would compensate for the ma­
terial, but Ilincic's excellent defence
shows otherwise.
28 'ill'xb4 'ill'x es 29 tbas
29 ...tbd6!
If 29 ... tbxa5? 30 'ill'xa5+ wins, e.g.
30 .. .'it>c8 31 ..te6+ 'il'xe6 32 l:.xd8+ cit>b7
33 l!a8 and mates. This shows how
dangerous the position still is for Black,
and Ilincic deserves great credit for
accurate and active defence.
30 'il'cs
Another try is 30 tbxc6 ..txc6 31 'ill'c5
'il'e8 32 l:tg1 tbb7 33 l:tg7+ <it>b8 34 'il'xc6
(White runs out of checks after 34 'ii'b4
..txd5 35 exd5 l:td7 36 'ill'xf4+ <it>c8 37
'ill'c4+ <it>d8 38 'ill'h4+ .:f.e7 when Black's
material advantage is decisive)
34 ... 'ill'xc6 35 ..txc6 tbd6 36 ..td5 and
Black should win, though it's not that
easy.
30.. J:tb8 31 'il'a7+ l:tb7! 32 tbxb7 tbxb7
This strong defensive knight holds
off White's attack.

33 nd3
If 33 .tc4 .thS 34 .ta6 l1b8 and
Black defends just in time.
33 cxd5 34 exds 'iie1+ 3 5 l:Id1 'iia s 36
..•
d6+ 'lt>c6 37 'iYd4 .ths 38 'iVe4+
White doesn't win a rook: 38 'tlixh8
'tlial+ etc.
3B 'it>b6 39 nd4
.•.
39 'iid4+ is best, but after 39 ...'iic5 40
'tlixh8 .txdl 41 Wxdl 'iixd6+ Black
should win eventually.
39 ...'iia 1+
Now Black gets an attack, and his
extra material decides.
40 'it>d2 'iid 1+ 41 'it>c3 ncB+ 42 'it>b4
'tlia1 43 d7 'tlixb2+ o-1
B e a t i n g a G ra n d m a s t e r
I think this game was kind of a
"master class" of true combat. One sees
how hard it is to win a game at this
level (around 2600 Elo). My opening
preparation was top notch, as was the
early middlegame-but when I missed
one subtle move, Black manoeuvred
his way right back into the game - and
when I started to play inaccurately, he
took ruthless advantage.
One must play all phases of the
game extremely well to defeat a strong
Grandmaster.
Routine Play Don't Pay
Game 25
R.Akesson-T. Taylor
First Saturday (May),
Budapest 2008
Dutch Defence
1 d4 e6 2 tZ::lf3 f5 3 g3 tZ::lf6 4 .tg2 .te7 5
0-0 0-0
A very well-known position: if now
White continues with the most testing
move, 6 c4, Black has many possibili­
ties, including the Alekhine variation,
6 ... tZ::le4. White scores best against this
by challenging the knight (7 tZ::lb d2 or
tZ::lc3) or by gaining space in the centre
(7 dS). When White just lets the black
knight sit there with 7 b3, the first
player barely scores above 50% and
Black has no problems.
So when White played ...
6 b3
Which is a very quiet, inoffensive
move, I should have seriously consid-
193
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s
ered 6 ...l2Je4. In Simon Williams' book,
Play the Classical Dutch, he calls that
move Black's "most reliable" reply,
adding that one point in its favour is
that Black keeps the option of moving
his d-pawn to d6 or d5.
Williams also points out that even
the sharp 6 ...l2Jc6 is possible, as 6 b3
(instead of 6 c4) means White can't
counter this knight move with d4-d5.
Williams gives 7 .tb2 d6 8 c4 lt:Je4 9
'il'c2 (if 9 d5 .1f6! with sharp counter­
play) 9 ... .tf6 10 �d1 'it'e7 1 1 a3 - so far,
S.Halkias-G.Vlahos, Chania 1995- and
then Black should play 1 l ...e5 with
equality.
I would also like to mention that
White's quiet system is similar to that
played by Alex Ivanov against my
Bird, which one might remember from
the note in Game 22, which I'll quote
again: After 1 f4 b6 2 l2Jf3 .tb7 3 e3 g6 4
.te2 .1g7 5 0-0 l2Jf6 6 a4! c5 7 d3 l2Jc6 8
l2Ja3 0-0 9 c3 d5 10 .l:Ib1 e6 1 1 b4 'iVe7 12
l2Jc2 �fc8 13 .1a3 White had a strong
queenside initiative and went on to
win in T.Taylor-A.Ivanov, Reno 2004.
This might give us the idea that a
1 94
similar queenside attack might work
here- indeed, this is possible!
6 ... a5! 7 c4 l2Je4 8 .1b2 .1£6 9 'ir'c2
l2Jc6 10 a3 'iie8 1 1 e3 d5 12 l2Jc3 l2Je7 13
l2Jd2 c6 14 f3 l2Jd6 15 'iVd3 b5
(Black plays on the queenside with
the a- and b-pawns, a la Taylor-Ivanov,
then switches to a kingside attack) 1 6
c5 l2Jf7 17 b4 e5 18 dxe5 l2Jxe5 19 'ii'c2 f4
20 gxf4 l2J5g6 21 l:tae1 axb4 22 axb4 l2Jf5
23 'il'd3 l2Jxf4! 24 ex£4 .1d4+ 25 'it'xd4
(Black's point is 25 �h1 l2Jg3+ 26 hxg3
'iih5+ 27 .th3 'il'xh3 mate!) 25 ...l2Jxd4 26
�xeS lhe8 27 �£2 l2Jc2 28 .l:Ig1 .tf5 29
.tfl g6 30 h4 l2Jxb4 31 h5 l2Jd3+ 32
.txd3 .txd3 33 l:re1 �xe1 34 �xe1 b4 35
l2Je2 .1xe2 36 �xe2 gxh5 37 ..t>d3 h4 38
f5 h3 39 l2Jfl �£8 40 �d2 �f7 41 .td4 b3
42 l2Jh2 l1g8 43 �cl .l:r.g2 44 .te5 h5 0-1
S.Husari-K.Shirazi, Paris 2003.
6 ...d6
There's nothing wrong with this
move, but in retrospect I feel I played it
too automatically. If 6 c4 I will play my
repertoire move, 6 ... d6-but after the
non-testing 6 b3, I have many options
which should be considered.
7 .tb2

I had faced the inconsistent 7 lt:\bd2
before- this move gives Black the
chance for a little tactic, due to the
momentary weakness of the long black
diagonal: 7 ... eS!
8 e3 (not 8 dxeS dxeS 9 lt:\xeS? iVd4)
8 ...e4 9 lt:\e1 dS 10 c4 c6 1 1 lt:\c2 ..te6 12
'iVe2 tLla6 13 ..tb2 ..tf7 14 Itacl ..thS 1S
'iie 1 cS 16 cxdS tLlxdS 17 a3 .!:tc8 18 lt:\c4
�f6 19 'iiaS 'iie7 20 l:!.fe1 tLldc7 21 �fl
b6 22 'iWd2 l:Hd8 23 b4 tLle6 24 bxcS lUgS
2S ..tg2 lUxeS 26 tLlb4 tLlb3 27 iVc2 tLlxcl
28 l:hc1 bS 29 'iib3 bxc4 30 .!:txc4 ..tf7 31
..tfl ..txc4 32 ..txc4+ �h8 33 h4 lLlf3+ 34
�h1 tLld2 0-1 D.Kishinevsky-T.Taylor,
Westwood (rapid) 2006.
B e a t i n g a G ra n dm a s t e r
1 'iVe8
...
Too primitive. Black has three better
moves:
a) My earlier opponent, Varga (one
remembers the debacle of Game 23!)
shows that 7...aS is also strong here: 8
c4 a4 9 tLlc3 a3 10 .tel lt:\e4 1 1 liJbS dS
12 cxdS exdS 13 ..tf4 c6 14 lt:\c7 gS 1S
..teS l:i.aS 16 lt:\xdS .l:.xd5 17 ..txb8 g4 18
lt:\d2 .!:txd4 19 lLlxe4 .Uxd1 20 .l:.axd1
..td7 21 lt:\c3 iVxb8 22 .!:txd7 ..tb4 23 .!:td3
.!:td8 24 .!:tfd1 .!:txd3 25 l:i.xd3 ..txc3 26
.l:lxc3 'iY'eS 0-1 A.Szeberenyi-Z. Varga,
Zalakaros 2001.
b) 7 ...lt:\c6 transposes to Williams'
sharp recommendation, seen in the
Halkias-Vlahos game given above.
c) 7...lt:\e4 could reach one of my
own previous games by transposition:
8 c4 ..tf6 9 tLlc3 tLlc6 10 'iVd3 lt:\xc3 1 1
..txc3 eS 12 dxeS dxeS 1 3 'iVdS+ �h8 1 4
'iix d8 :f.xd8 15 :fd1 with dead equality
in L.Murzin-T.Taylor, Las Vegas Mas­
ters 2006.
I consciously rejected variation 'c'
as being too drawish, but didn't con­
sider 'a' or 'b' - as I look back on my
play now, I feel it was too routine to
beat a GM.
8 c4 'iVhs 9 lLlc3 tLla6 10 e3 cs 11 .1:te11
There is a method in White's slow
build-up! Now Akesson threatens e3-
e4 with positional advantage.
Black's best is to block the square,
but it doesn' t fully equalize (though
playing the knight to this square would
have been fine several moves earlier!):
1 1 ...lt:\e4 12 lt:\d2! 'iVxd1 13 .l:.axd1 lt:\xc3
14 �xc3 l:!.b8. Black can be happy (!) to
reach a plus equals (for White) ending.
1 95
True Co m b a t C h e s s
11 i.d7
•..
Now I was expecting 12 e4 when
White is slightly better, but Akesson­
instead of playing the first good move
he saw - thought long and hard and
suddenly uncorked ...
12 ttJes!
No more quiet play!
12 ... l2Jg4
This very tactical move will ulti­
mately fail; it may be that 12 ...'1Wxd1 13
.I:taxd1 dxe5 14 dxe5 i.c6 15 exf6 i.xf6
16 i.xc6 bxc6 is best, with another plus
equals ending.
Let's say that's true: then it occurs
to me that if the end result of ... '1We8-h5
is to exchange on d1 and bring White's
a1-rook into play, the whole manoeu­
vre was wasted!
13 t2Jxg4
White doesn't need to go into the
complications of 13 tL'lxd7 '1Wxh2+ 14
'>t>fl �fd8.
13 ...fxg4 14 h3 'i*'fs 15 �f1 gxh3 16
i.xb7 tL'lb4 17 i.e4!
White's deep idea finally becomes
clear: he doesn' t intend to take on a8,
which would give Black long-term at-
196
tacking chances on the light squares.
Instead, Akesson' s plan is this: he will
play solidly, keep his king safe, and
pick up Black's h3-pawn down the
road.
Neither over the board nor in front
of the computer have I found any real
counterplay against this plan.
11 ...'i*'gs 18 dxcs
Now 18 ...'i*'xc5 19 'i*'g4 is a typical
variation where the h-pawn falls for
nothing, and White ends up a pawn
ahead with a good position.
Therefore I decide to mix it up, but
White's defensive technique does not
fail him
One thing I noticed about the GMs I
faced was how good they were in de­
fence- an area where I could use some
work!
1B ... ds!? 19 cxds i.xcs 20 '>t>h2!
Typically excellent defence: Akes­
son secures his king against sacs on e3
or f2.
2o ...�ad8 21 f4 �h6 22 'ii'f3 exds 23
tL'lxds i.g4
Black also runs out of counterplay
after 23 ... i.e6 24 tL'lxb4 l::td2+ 25 �f2

l:txf2+ 26 'ii'xf2 ..txb4 27 1i'f3.
24 1i'xg4 ttJxds 25 ..txdS+I
The simple solution: White takes off
Black's only dangerous piece and sim­
plifies on the d-file.
2S ....:txds 26 .:tadl .:xdl
I can't defend the file because of the
following forced variation: 26 ... .:tfd8 27
.:xdS .!:txdS 28 'ii'c8+ �f7 (if 28 ... ..tf8 29
'ii'c4 'ii'e6 30 .:td1 :d6 31 .:xd6 'ii'xc4 32
bxc4 ..txd6 33 �xh3 with two extra
pawns!) 29 1i'h7+ �e6 30 ..txg7 .:d2+ 31
�h1 with a winning attack.
27 .:xdl ..txe3 28 l:td7
28....:f7
Another long variation that goes
nowhere is 28 ... ..1lg1+ 29 �xg1 h2+ 30
�h1 'ii'c6+ 31 �xh2 �c2+ 32 �h3 'ii'xb2
33 'ii'e6+ �h8 34 iVeS 'ii'xeS 35 fxeS with
a winning rook ending.
29 l:.xf7 �xf7 30 'ii'd 7+ �f8 31 ..ta3+
�g8 32 '�WeB mate
I think it's safe to say that one can
B e a t i n g a G ra n d m a s t e r
never defeat a GM with routine play.
But how can one defeat a GM? And
from my point of view, what do I need
to do to perform so successfully against
GM opposition that I can make the re­
quired norms and become a GM my­
self? Clearly a score of 20% (as seen in
these games) won't do it!
The first element is simple to say,
but very hard in reality: practice. I need
to practice against the strongest oppo­
sition available, that is, I simply need
to play in more GM norm events, and
face Grandmasters on a regular basis.
This is much harder than it seems, as
the US has very few such tournaments.
I have been able to play in Hungary in
2003 and 2008, thanks to two generous
sponsors, but such opportunities are
obviously rare. Possibly a lottery win is
the answer to this one!
The second element is what one
might call "universal chess skill". One
sees in the last two games the great
defensive ability of Ilincic and Akes­
son. Remember Golod thinking
through the opening problem, and
Varga's relentless technique with an
extra pawn.
The GMs I face clearly play all parts
of the game well. By contrast, I often
play one part of the game well, and one
part badly. I have to work on every part
of the game- then I have to find the
opportunity to test myself- and then,
just maybe, I will make the big title!
197
 Chapter Six I
U n dergrou n d I n novation
That last chapter was serious as a heart
attack, and I can't end the book on that
note! So let me tell you a true story
about The Kid, The Sicilian Dragon and
me.
When I was in Hungary (without a
computer) in 2003, I decided to learn
the Sicilian Dragon. One might say this
was ambitious to the point of mad­
ness -but I didn't know any better!
I found a book on the Yugoslav At­
tack with 9 ..ic4 -written in German,
which I can read fairly well -by the
late Hungarian IM Attila Schneider. As
I read and studied, I constantly looked
for new moves that were not in the
book, hoping to surprise a future op­
ponent.
I was delighted when I found such
a move! In fact, it was more than a sin­
gle move, but rather a complete attack­
ing idea: first I sacrifice the exchange,
then a knight, and finally, a full rook
down, launch a winning attack!
198
Fritz could have checked this in one
second -but back then it took me days
of moving the pieces and writing my
conclusions in a spiral notebook for me
to be sure my idea worked - and it did!
I had a fabulous innovation!
Where could I check it out before
playing my new move in a tournament
game?
The answer, of course, was deep in
the Budapest Subway system. Down in
the bowels of the Metro, chess hustlers
lurked, hoping for unwary tourists.
These hustlers were, as far as I could
tell, about 2300 in strength - ideal!
I tried my new move (see Game 27,
the final game of this book) and won in
spectacular style! The hustler was
dumbfounded, and only after several
languages were tried was he finally
slightly mollified by discovering that I
was an 1M -but the opening and the
attack looked like GM level.
Now I was ready. I saved my inno-

vation for a highly touted kid, just thir­
teen years old, who was playing in the
First Saturday for the first time. I knew
that, like most chess kids, he played 1
e4 and was heavily booked up.
I decided to teach him a lesson.
Never Trust a Kid Eating Muesli
Came 2 6
The Kid-T.Taylor
First Saturday (December),
Budapest 2003
Sicilian Defence
The kid was already at the board
when I got there- and he had his food
ready: a whole plate of what looked
like muesli cereal with some raisins on
the side, and juice to wash it down. I
supposed that schoolboys do need a
good lunch, and shook hands-my
hand almost completely covering his.
1 e4 cs 2 lL\f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLJxd4 lLJf6
5 lLJc3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7 f3 o-o 8 'Wi'd2
lLJc6
Everything was going well: I smiled
to myself, thinking that the kid was
unknowingly walking to his doom.
Then my opponent crunched a few
nuts, choked them down with fruit
juice, and played ...
9 0-0-0
What? ?
White is supposed to play 9 �c4 to
prevent ... d7-d5! Didn't Bobby Fischer
say so? Didn't I just study an entire
book in German that started with 9
�c4? Didn't I have a history-making,
U n d e rg ro u n d I n n o va ti o n
double exclam smacking innovation
that only occurred after 9 �c4??
The kid was starting to look evil to
me: crunching his muesli, drinking his
juice, castling like he knew what he
was doing- what kind of kid is this?
I knew 9 ... d5 was the move here; if
White doesn' t prevent it, you should
play it.
But the kid looked booked.
I thought I'd fool him with...
9 �d7? (DDT)
...
Only after the game did I find out
that Attila Schneider had written a sec­
ond book on the Dragon, and this vol­
ume covered everything except 9 �c4.
I eventually bought an English
translation, and found out what he had
to say about my ninth move: "This
move is such a flagrant error that it
almost cries out. White has several
strong continuations, of which I will
only present one so as not to squander
paper and ink."
Apparently Attila the Hun was not
on my side.
10 g4
The one line Schneider gives is 10
199
Tru e C o m b a t C h e s s
h4 �aS 11 g4 lifc8 12 4Jb3 �eS 13 gS
liJb4 14 ..td4 �e6 1S gxf6 exf6 1 6 'it>b1
aS 17 ..th3 'iVe8 18 .i.xd7 'iVxd7 19 a3
lLlc6 20 liJdS ltJxd4 21 4Jxd4 �d8 (Black
decides to play on, thinking he might
have a chance--after alt he's only a
piece down against Anand!) 22 hS bS
23 hxg6 hxg6 24 l2JfS! gxfS 2S l:.dg1 1-0
V.Anand-M.Apicella, Champigny sur
Marne 1984.
However, the kid's move is not bad
either.
10 ...'iVas 11 'it>b1 .Ufc8 12 h4 l2Jes 13
..te2 l2Jc4 14 ..txc4 l:.xc4 15 h5
White was coming awfully fast
there seemed to be something wrong
with my game.
15 ...l:.ac8 16 l2Jb3 'iVd8 17 hxg6 hxg6 18
es l2Jxg4
Or 18 ... dxeS 19 gS, so I made a
"typical Dragon sacrifice" -except that
it doesn't work here.
19 fxg4 ..txg4 20 'iVh2 ..txes 21 �h7+
'it>f8 22 ..td4 l:.xd4
I can't defend without my dragon
bishop: 22 ... ..txd4 23 l:.xd4 'it>e8 24
'ii'g8+ '>t>d7 2S 'ili'xf7 and wins.
23 l:.xd4 ..tfs 24 l:.ds
200
24...e6
Since I can't play 24 ... ..tf6 2S l:txfS
gxfS 26 .Ugl ...
25 l:.xe5
The kid gets my dragon anyway!
25 ...dxes 26 'iVh8+ '>t>e7 27 'ir'xes '1Wd6
28 'iVe3 'it>f6 29 l2Jd2 'iVes 30 l2Jde4+
i.xe4 31 l2Jxe4+ 'it>e7 32 �a3+
Kid has technique! His muesli was
almost gone, I guess he knew he
wouldn't need another plate.
32 ...'>t>d7 33 l:.d1+ 'it>c6 34 'ii'a4+ 'it>b6 35
'ii'b4+ 'it>a6 36 l:.d3 b6 37 l2Jd6 I:tcs 38
l:.a3+ l:.as 39 ifc4+ 1-0
What can I say, this thirteen year
old kid crushed me! I shook hands and
signed the scoresheet as quickly as
possible, and headed for the exit, and
the stairs to the street.
I'm six feet talt and I can cover a lot
of ground quickly, even at a walk.
Much to my surprise, the kid
chased after me! Half my size, he
couldn't keep up by walking, so he
started this weird sort of half walking,
half running, bouncing step - trying to
bounce high enough to make eye con­
tact-he had no idea he was the last
person I wanted to talk to right then!
Even as we were dashing along, he
started explaining- though not a native
English speaker, he spoke English per­
fectly, albeit in a high, squeaky voice.
"Do you want to know where you went
wrong?" the kid asked. No answer from
me, I'm still trying to escape.
He took my silence as assent: "You
see, in the main line my bishop takes
three moves: ..tc4-b3 then to c4 to take
your knight. But here, I only took two!"

He was beaming with delight at his
cleverness; he seemed to want me to
share his pleasure.
"I play ..te2, then I take your knight
with ..tc4. Two moves!!"
He could hardly contain himself!
His eyes were shining with love of
chess, with the pure unselfish urge to
instruct, to help me see the light!
What could I do?
I was at the top of the stairs!
Right then, I didn't want to think of
the game at all -but now, five years
later, I took another look.
Everything the kid said was right.
If Black plays as I did, and the white
bishop takes three moves to capture
the knight on c4, then the line is per­
fectly playable. I found some very cool
wins with it: here are two by the greats
Korchnoi and Geller from 1967, and a
modern one from last year (40 years
later!) by the 2600+ GM Gashimov.
Amusingly enough, all three games
end with surprising trick mates!
Clearly Black can hold his own in this
line - there are 665 games in the
Megabase.
U n de rg ro u n d I n n o va t i o n
After 1 e 4 cS 2 lL:\f3 d 6 3 d 4 cxd4 4 lL:\xd4
l2Jf6 5 lL:\c3 g6 6 .i.e3 ..tg7 7 f3 0-0 8 1i'd2
lL:\c6 9 ..tc4 ..td7 10 0-0-0 1Wa5 1 1 .i.b3
l:tfc8 12 �b1 lLJeS 13 h4 l2Jc4 14 ..txc4
J:txc4 (see Diagram above), this is how
the games continued:
a) 15 t2Jb3 'iVa6 16 eS l2Je8 17 lLJdS
..txeS 18 l2Jxe7+ �f8 19 lLJdS ..tfS 20
.i.h6+ l2Jg7 21 l2Je3 l:tac8 22 l2Jxc4 l:txc4
23 l:tcl l:ta4 24 f4 ..tf6 25 ..tgs ..txgS 26
hxgS l:txa2 27 l:txh7 ..te6 28 'iVc3 l:ta1 +!
0-1 R.Byrne-V.Korchnoi, Sousse Inter­
zonal 1967.
b) 15 hS lLJxhS 16 g4 l2Jf6 17 t2Jb3
'iVd8 18 eS l2Jxg4 19 fxg4 ..txg4 20 l:tdg1
dxeS 21 'ii'xd8+ l:txd8 22 lLJaS .!hc3 23
bxc3 hS 24 l2Jb3 e4 25 lLJcS l:td6 26 tt::lxb7
l:tc6 27 lLJcS fS 28 t2Jb3 l:txc3 29 ..tgS �f7
30 �cl l:f.c4 31 �d2 i.c3+ 32 �e3 eS 33
l:tfl aS 34 l2Jd2 ..td4 mate! S.Bouaziz­
E.Geller, Sousse Interzonal 1967.
c) 15 l2Jb3 'i!Vc7 16 g4 �c8 17 eS l2Je8
18 lLJdS 'iVd8 19 c3 i.c6 20 hS i.xeS 21
hxg6 hxg6 22 'ii'e2 ..txdS 23 l:txdS i.g7
24 'ifh2 e6 25 l:td3 �f8 26 t2Jd2 l:t4c6 27
..th6 ..txh6 28 'it'xh6+ �e7 29 f4 tt::lf6 30
fS gxfS 31 gxfS eS 32 'ifu4 �d7 33 lbe4
201
Tru e Co m b a t C h e s s

ltJxe4 34 'ii'xe4 <j;c7 35 l:th7 'ii'f6 36 l:tg3 them i s mine- and worse yet, White
�b8 37 l:tgg7 l:tc4 38 'ii'd 3 .U.4c7 39 a3 wins all four!
.l:!.d8 40 c4 l::.d c8 41 �a2 a6 42 'ir'd5 .U.f8 Here is the evidence 1 e4 c5 2 ltJf3
43 'ii'e4 l:le7 44 l:lg3 l:lc7 45 l:lb3 l:tfc8 46 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 ltJ£6 5 lbc3 g6 6
l::.b 6 .U.c6 47 .l:txc6 l:lxc6 48 'ii'g4 llc8 49 ii.e3 ii.g7 7 f3 0-0 8 'ii'd2 ltJc6 9 0-0-0
'i!Vh5 .l::tf8 50 l:lh6 'ir'e7 51 'ir'dl l:td8 52 ii.d7 10 g4 'ir'a5 1 1 'it>bl l:!.fc8 12 h4 ltJe5
'ir'd5 'ir'c7 53 l:lh7 l:ld7 54 l:lh8+ �a7 55 13 ii.e2 ltJc4 14 ii.xc4 l:lxc4 15 h5:
f6 �b6 56 b4 'ii'c6 57 'it>b3 .:.c7 58 'it'd3
'it>a7 59 .l::td 8 l:ld7 60 l:lxd7 'ir'xd7 61 'it'd5
'it'h3+ 62 'it>b2 'it'h2+ 63 'it>b3 'ir'g3+ 64
'it>a4 'ifc3 65 'it'xf7 'ir'c2+ 66 'it>a5 'it'b3 67
a4 'ir'xc4!

a) 15 ... l:lac8 16 tt::lb3 1Va6 17 hxg6

hxg6 18 e5 tt::lxg4 19 fxg4 ii.xe5 20 ii.d4

0-1 W.Arencibia Rodriguez-

V.Gashimov, Havana 2007.

However, if the game goes as I

played against the kid, then after
14 ...l:lxc4 White has an extra tempo: he
has replaced the extra move by his
king's bishop with the very useful g2-
g4, which means the kid's 15 h5 is not a
sacrifice - as it was in the Geller game, 1-0 S.Nielsen-M.Domany, Eger
where Black was able to massacre all of Agria 1996.
White's kingside pawns. b) 15 ... l:tac8 16 tt::lb3 'it'e5 17 ii.d4
Black does not hold his own in this l:lxd4 18 'ir'xd4 'i!Vf4 19 h6 ii.h8 20 'it'xa7
variation: the position after the kid's 15 ii.e6 21 l:lhfl ii.c4 22 'it'xb7 l:!.£8 23 l:lfel
h5 is found not in 665 games but in i.xb3 24 axb3 'it'xf3 25 g5
only four games of the Mega- one of

202

1-0 A.Grischuk-S.Solovjov, Russian
Championship, Moscow 1999.
c) 15 .. Jhc8 16 hxg6 fxg6 17 tt:lb3
�c7 18 i.d4 bS 19 i.xf6 exf6 20 �xd6
�xd6 21 l:txd6 b4 22 tt:ld5
22 ...i.xg4 23 fxg4 l:txe4 24 tt:lxf6+
i.xf6 25 l:txf6 �xg4 26 .l:f.f2 hS 27 a3 bxa3
28 bxa3 h4 29 l:thh2 g5 30 l:tfg2 l:tcc4 31
l:txg4 l:hg4 32 tt:ld2 l:tg3 33 tt:le4 :g1+ 34
'it>b2 'it>g7 35 c4 l:tg4 36 tt:ld2 :g3 37 cS
l:te3 38 c6 l:te6 39 tt:lf3 l:!.xc6 40 tt:lxg5
'it>h6 41 tt:lf3 1-0 Z.Bona-M.Vrabel, Slo­
vakian Junior Championship 2006.
One tempo gained means a 100%
score!
U n d e rg ro u n d I n n o va t i o n
So this means the line with 9 ... �d7
really does cry ou t-in pain for the
Black players -and if White plays 9 0-
0-0, then Black must not develop a
piece, but must instead move his d­
pawn for the second time (!) and go
into the very booked up but correct
gambit line 9 ... d5!, when again Black
holds his own.
But I learned all this later: at that
moment in 2003, I was standing at the
top of the stairs, and this bright eyed
kid was looking up at me-wanting
some kind of acknowledgement for
helping me out (by crushing me, I
thought to myself).
I had to say something -
"Thanks, Magnus," I said insin­
cerely, and then I bounded down the
stairs.
Play at Your Own Risk!
Game 2 7
Hungarian Hustler-T.Taylor
Budapest Metro 2003
Sicilian Defence
Bruce Lee was right! As I quoted in
the beginning, "The way of combat is
never based on personal choice and
fancies ... "
If it had been my choice, I would
have ended this book with a big win
over Magnus Carlsen (I'm sure every­
one has figured out by now that "The
Kid" I played in the previous game
was Wonderboy himself, now one of
the very best players in the world) -
203
T r u e Co m b a t C h e s s

but instead I got crushed!

Yet I still had my fabulous innova­
tion! Here is its one and only outing ­
deep in the Budapest Metro!
By the way, I base the above state­
ment on the 2008 Megabase, which says
that there is only one game that follows
my line part way (included in the
notes), and no game at all that com­
pletes the picture with my rook sacri­
fice.
But I invented it, and I played it!
19 �xf7+? (White can win with 19
1 e4 c5 2 tt:lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:lxd4 tt:lf6 tt:lxf3) 19 ... Wxf7 20 tt:lxf3 tt:lxe4 21 tt:lgS+
5 tt:lc3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7 f3 o-o 8 'ir'd2 tt:lxgS 22 �xgS l:.cS 23 :dfl + WeB 24
tt:lc6 9 �c4 �xe7 l:.bS+ 25 Wcl 'iVxa2 26 'ir'd3 l:.dS
At least this guy plays like Fischer! 27 "iY'xdS 'iYxdS 28 �xd6 'ii'x d6 29 l:.e1+
g ...�d7 Wf7 30 l:.xh7 'ir'a3+ 31 Wd1 'ir'a1+ 32 We2
And now this is correct! 'iVxc3 33 .:hh1 'ir'xc2+ 34 We3 'ii'c3+ 35
10 o-o-o 'ii'a 5 11 �b3 l:.fc8 12 h4 tt:le5 'it>e4 aS 36 l:.b1 'ii'c6+ 37 Wd3 a4 38 l:.hcl
13 'it>b1 l:.c5 'ii'dS+ 39 We2 �eS 40 l:.fl+ 'it>e7 41 l:.bd1
'iVe4+ 42 �f2 a3 0-1 I.Saric-D.Brajdic,
Rabac 2003.
16...tt:lxf3!!

A rare but known sideline.

14 g4 l:.ac8 15 h5 l:.xc31
The beginning of my idea.
16 bxc3
The one game that approaches my
line continued as follows: 16 ... �xg4? 1 7
hxg6 �xf3 18 gxf7+ tt:lxf7
There's my double exclam!
This is the never before seen point! I
practically filled up a whole notebook
full of variations and hopeless de-

2 04

fences; my hustling opponent nearly
fell onto the subway tracks; Fritz takes
one second and pronounces that Black
is winning!
17 'it'f2
My opponent uses human intuition
and declines the piece-but now I get a
typical Dragon exchange sac position
where everything is working -one
could say Black is winning regardless
of how White plays.
For the record, the computer gives
the following as best for both sides if
the sac is accepted -yes, Black is down
a full rook, but the attack cannot be
stopped! 17 lll xf3 lllxe4 18 'ifh2 lllxc3+
19 'it>cl lllxa2+
20 �xa2 (20 'it>b1 'ifa3 is mate in six,
says Fritzie) 20 ...'t!Vxa2 21 �d4 't!Va3+ 22
U n de rg ro u n d I n n o va t i o n
'it>d2 'it'xf3 23 �xg7 i.a4 24 .l:.cl 'it'dS+
25 'it>e1 'it>xg7 26 hxg6 'it'e4+ 27 'it>d2
.l:.xc2+ 28 .U.xc2 'ir'xc2+ 29 'it>e3 'ir'xh2 30
.U.xh2 Wxg6 and Black wins the ending.
11 ... llle s
Black is clearly better and my op­
ponent is in shock: the rest is easy.
18 hxg6 hxg6 19 gS lllxe4 20 1Vh2
lllx c3+ 21 'it>c1 lllxd1 22 'it>xd1 'ii'c 3 23
'it'f2 �g4+ 24 'it>c1 'it'a1+ 0-1
I won 200 forints! (Not even a dol­
lar.)
Now one of you lucky readers is go­
ing to run out and beat a GM with this;
and the next unlucky reader will run
out- a week later- and lose to the
hidden refutation found by Fritz Rybka
Junior!
That's True Combat in 2008!
205
 I n dex of Open i n gs I

Bird's Opening 103, 110, 175

Budapest Gambit 145
Caro-Kann Defence 49, 50, 150
Centre Game 139, 156
Classical Benoni 10
Danish Gambit 132
Dutch Defence 70, 184, 193
English Defence 63
English Opening 13
Gri.infeld Defence 85
Modern Benoni 74, 81, 130
Nimzowitsch Defence 55, 163, 180
Queen's Gambit Declined 19
Reti Opening 3 3
Ruy Lopez 38, 95
Sicilian Defence 27, 84, 199, 203
Trompowsky Attack 120

206
 I ndex of Complete G a mes I

Akesson.R-Solomon.K, First Saturday (May), Budapest 2008 ............................... 81

Akesson.R-Taylor.T, First Saturday (May), Budapest 2008 ................... ............... 193
Akopian.R-Taylor.T, Los Angeles (rapid) 2008 .............. . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . ......... 55
Bighamian.M-Taylor.T, La Palma 2007 . . . . . . . ....... . . .......... ................. ................ .......... 33
Bogdanovic.R-Taylor.T, Lone Pine 1978 . . . . .................................... ............................ 38
Botvinnik.M-Tai.M, World Championship (8th matchgame), Moscow 1960 .... 130
Duong The-Taylor.T, First Saturday (May), Budapest 2008 ................................. 120
Fontaine.R-Taylor.T, National Open, Las Vegas 2006 . . . ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Hungarian Hustler-Taylor.T, Budapest Metro 2003 ............................................... 203
Lee.M-Taylor.T, US Open, Chicago 2006 .................................................................. 13
Ljubojevic.L-Taylor.T, New York International 1984 ............................................... 27
Ovsejevitsch.S-Taylor.T, First Saturday (November), Budapest 2003 .................. 19
Perelshteyn.E-Taylor.T, North American Open, Las Vegas 2005 50
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .

Read.R-Taylor.L, US Open, Chicago 2006 . . . . . ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Sharavdorj.D-Kurosaki.T, National Open, Las Vegas 2005 ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Short.N-Krasenkow.M, FIDE World Championship, Tripoli 2004 ....................... 84
Stellwagen.D-Bareev,E, Amsterdam 2008 ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Taylor.L-Binnix.D, American Open, Los Angeles 2006 ............ . . ............ ............... 150
Taylor.L-Henderson.R, Los Angeles (rapid) 2006 ......... ......................................... 132
Taylor.L-Oiiver.R, Asheville 2007
. ............................................................................ 139
Taylor.L-Yeung.R, Agoura Hills 2007. . . . . . . . . . ..................... . . . . . . ....................... . . . . . . . . . . 156
Taylor.T-Bui Vinh, First Saturday (May), Budapest 2008 ..................................... 110
Taylor.T-Fontaine.R, Las Vegas Masters 2006 .................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Taylor.T-Golod.V, National Open, Las Vegas 2006 ............................................... 175
Taylor.T-IIincic.Z, First Saturday (May), Budapest 2008 ....................................... 184

207
T r u e C o m b a t C h ess

Taylor.T-Khachian.M, Los Angeles 2003 . . . . ................................ ............................... 85

Taylor.T-Molnar.B, Paks 2003 .............................. ....................................................... 63
Taylor.T-Solomon.K, First Saturday (May), Budapest 2008 74
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Taylor.T-Tredinnick.M, American Open, Los Angeles 2006 ................................... 70

Varga.Z-Taylor.T, First Saturday (May), Budapest 2008 . . . . . . ............ .................... 180
Wittmann.W-Taylor.T, First Saturday (May), Budapest 2008 ............................... 95

208
 If you thought
EVE RY M A N C H ES S
books were g reat . . .
they a re now coming t o l i fe a s

BOOKS
Read the complete book, play through the ga mes, analyse the m oves using
your favourite analysis engine . All fully interactive i n ChessBase fo r mat .

� Quick and easy to buy - available for download within a few c l icks .
In less than a minute you can be using the ebook .

e Special offers - Buy 9 ebooks and get 1 ebook absolutely free .

4t Free samples of every book we are g iving away a sample of eve ry

-

ebook we publish, so download one now and try before you b uy.

G reat e b o o k s fo r a l l levels of p layer starting from o n ly $ 1 9 . 9 5

EVE RYMAN C H ESS . C O M

 I S BN 9 7 8 - 1 -8 5 7 44-584-8

I I I II I I
52495

9 781857 445848