Twentieth-Century
planning
Some time ago, we looked at this one:
[Event “rooks on ranks and files”][Site “-, Leipzig”][Date
“1894.??.??”][Round “?”]
[White “Tarrasch”][Black “von Scheve”][Result “1-0”]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3
Be7 5.Bf4 c6 6.e3 Nbd7
7.h3 Ne4
Tarrasch: “The decisive error. After the exchange of
Knights, Black’s capturing Pawn becomes weak, and needs protection
by …f5. It is then attacked by f3, forcing Black to exchange and
open up the Knight file for White. Thereupon there ensues a
combined attack of White’s Queen, both Rooks and the Queen Bishop
against the Knight Pawn (the keystone of the Castled position) an
attack which is irresistible.”
He adds modestly: “I know of no game in all the chess
literature in which it is possible to conceive of so detailed a
plan, leading almost to mate, and in which the remaining 20 moves
lead up to a catastrophe.”
8.Nxe4 dxe4 9.Nd2 Bb4 10.a3 Bxd2+
11.Qxd2 O-O 12.Qc2 f5 13.Bd6 Re8
14.O-O-O Nf6 15.Be5 Bd7 16.f3 exf3 17.gxf3 b5 18.Rg1 Rf8 19.Rd2 Rf7
20.Rdg2 a5
The prediction fulfilled.
21.Qf2 Ne8 22.Rg5 Qe7 23.Qh4 Nf6
24.Qh6 Ra7 25.Bd6 Qxd6 26.Rxg7+
Kf8 27.Rxh7+ Ke7 28.Rxf7+ Kxf7 29.Rg7+ Kf8 30.Qxf6+ 1-0
This is an unusually clear example. But do you have to go through
all this planning stuff? You do if you want to get better results.
Of course, you have been planning for ages – all that stuff about
K-side pawn storms, Knight outposts and Bad bishops was all basic
planning. But you do need to do it.
Unplanned chess
[Event “?”][Site “Zurich”][Date “1953.??.??”][Round “?”]
[White “Petrosjan”][Black “Euwe”][Result “1-0”]
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 d5 3. Bg2
Bf5 4. d3 e6 5. Nbd2 h6 6. O-O
Bc5 7. Qe1 O-O 8. e4 BRONSTEIN comments:
‘Black’s last few moves seem rather inconsequential
to me. By move ten Black should not only have formed a plan, but
should be sticking to it as well.’
KOTOV adds: ‘…the pawn exchange was illogical. He should have
retreated the bishop to h7, maintaining the tension in the centre.
If, however, he had decided to exchange pawns in this way which was
a possible line, he should have followed it up by getting rid of
his bishop by exchanging it for the White N at e4.’
The B got stuck on h7, and the other pieces couldn’t get
going. Eventually White’s better pieces supported a general advance
which won a pawn and the game.
8…dxe4 9. Nxe4 Nxe4 10.
dxe4 Bh7 DIAGRAM
We now have a classic ‘offside piece’ position.
11. b4 Be7 12. Bb2 Na6 13. a3 c6
14. Rd1 Qc8 15. c4 Nc7 16. Qc3 Bf6
17. Ne5 Rd8 18. Bf3 Ne8 19. Rxd8 Qxd8 20. Rd1 Qc7 21. c5 a5 22. Bg2
axb4 23. axb4 Rd8 24. Rxd8 Qxd8 25. Qc2 Nc7 26. Bf1 Nb5 27. f4 Kf8
28. Kf2 Bxe5 29. Bxe5 f6 30. Bb2 Ke7 31. Bc4
31…Bg6 32. Ke3 Bf7
33. g4 Qc7 34. e5 Qd8 35. exf6+ gxf6 36. h4 Nc7 37. Qc3 Nd5+ 38.
Bxd5 Qxd5 39. Qxf6+ Ke8 40. Qh8+ Kd7 41. Qg7 Ke8 42. Bf6 Qb3+ 43.
Bc3 Qd1 44. Qh8+ Kd7 45. Qb8 Qc1+ 46. Bd2 Qg1+ 47. Kd3 Qf1+ 48. Kc2
Qa6 49. h5 Qa2+ 50. Kd3 Qb1+ 51. Ke2 Qe4+ 52. Kf2 Qd4+ 53. Be3 Qxb4
54. Qf8 Qb2+ 55. Kg3 Qf6 56. Qd6+ Kc8 57. Bd4 Qd8 58. Qxd8+ Kxd8
59. Bg7 Kc7 60. Bxh6 b6 61. cxb6+ Kxb6 62. Kh4 1-0
[For this and other games below from the Zurich 1953 tournament,
Kotov and I are relying on Bronstein’s great book.]
Here is another example of a good plan, played against a
player who didn’t have much of a plan:
[Event “?”][Site “ussr ch’p SF”][Date “1939.??.??”][Round “?”]
[White “Sokolsky”][Black “Botvinnik”][Result “0-1”]
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.e3 O-O
6.Be2 e6 7.O-O b6 8.cxd5 exd5 9.b3 Bb7 10.Bb2 Nbd7
11.Qc2
“It gradually becomes clear that White has no plan and merely
concerns himself with developing his pieces. You might hve been
able to play that fifty years ago, but nowadays, when every master
makes a plan after the first six to eight moves of the game, there
is no better way of getting into a cramped and passive position
than thinking of development alone.” – BOTVINNIK
11…a6 12.Rac1 Rc8 13.Rfd1 Qe7 14.Qb1 Rfd8
15.Bf1 c5 16.dxc5
“Yet another positional error. It is not possible to
exploit the hanging pawns at c5 and d5 with a large number of minor
pieces on the board by attacking them from the back line! Meanwhile
White parts with his last strong point in the centre – the strong
point at d4. This brings Black’s Bb7 to life, and the tempo of the
game speeds up” – BOTVINNIK
Black expoits his extra space with a vigorous attack on
the K-side. He cleverly realises he needs the Bg7 to pressurise e3,
so fearlessly gives up the long diagonal a1-h8 to White.
16…bxc5 17.Ne2 Bh6 18.Ba3 Ng4
DIAGRAM
White’s natural moves have let him drift into a passive
position.
19.Qd3 (19.Nc3 Bxe3)
19…Nde5 20.Nxe5 Qxe5 21.Ng3 Qf6 22.Nh1 d4 23.Qe2 Ne5
24.exd4 cxd4 25.Rxc8 Bxc8 26.Re1 d3
White’s position has continued to slide while Black has
been getting more menacing… Time for the final push:
26… d3 27.Qd1 Bg4 28.Qa1 d2 29.Rxe5 d1=Q
30.Re8+ Rxe8 31.Qxf6 Be2 And Black won easily …0-1
One more example – losing a better game by playing without a plan.
[Event “?”][Site “Zurich IZT”][Date “1953.??.??”][Round “?”]
[White “Gligoric, S.”][Black “Kotov, A.”][Result
“0-1”]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4
4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.g3 e5
7.Nde2 Be6 8.Bg2 b5 9.O-O Nbd7 10.a4 b4 11.Nd5 Nxd5 12.exd5 Bg4
13.Bd2 a5 14.c3 bxc3 15.Bxc3 Qb6 16.h3 Bh5 17.Kh2 Be7 18.f4
DIAGRAM
“White has a plus. Sometimes ‘natural’ moves suffice, but
against able and determined defence the attack may need to be
pursued along a tightrope of only moves. 18 g4! first then f4 would
have been more incisive, if more risky.” BRONSTEIN
18…Bxe2 19.Qxe2 Bf6
20.Qc4 O-O 21.Qc6 Rfd8 22.Rae1 Qb8
DIAGRAM
“Backing up for a running jump… the initiative has
passed to Black.” BRONSTEIN
23.Rb1 Ra7 24.Qc4 Rc8 25.Qe4 Qb3
(threats …Rc4 and
…exf4/…Bxc3) 26.fxe5 Bxe5 27.Qf5
Rf8 28.Qf2 DIAGRAM
“It is because of such one-move threats that all of
White’s advantage has evaporated.” BRONSTEIN
28…Raa8 29.Qf5 Qxa4
30.Rf4 Bxf4 31.gxf4 g6 32.Qg5 Rae8
33.Rg1 Re2 34.Kh1 Qc2 35.Qg4 Nc5 36.Qh4 Ne4 37.Bd4 Nf2+ 38.Kh2 Ne4
39.f5 Qd3 40.fxg6 fxg6 41.Bb6 0-1 (41…Nd2)
Kotov has been much exercised by this notion of planning, and in
his books gives lots of examples of planless play being punished.
You can often see glorious examples of well-planned play – like in
the old master games of Tarrasch and Steinitz, where a plan
conceived early in the game was carried out to perfection and
gradually overwhelmed the opponent. Tarrasch and Steinitz also
showed how to form a plan – where to find weak points, and how to
attack at the weakest point. I’ll discuss this in more detail
below, but first another word from Kotov and Bronstein on planning
in general. Kotov describes reading over a game of Romanovsky’s
against Vilner, which made a powerful impression on the young Kotov
– here, a plan, which Romanovsky stuck to over 5 hours, eventually
resulted in victory. ROMANOVSKY commented on his own game:
” ‘The last and main conclusion to be
drawn and the main one is as follows. In every game we ought to
have a single basic plan, and by carrying out this plan we ought to
get a prolonged initiative. The initiative so gained will tend to
increase until it reaches the stage where it is sufficient to force
a win.‘ …
“My own reaction” says KOTOV, “was immense
admiration. Everything foreseen and planned from the first move to
the last… I tried to start playing in a planned fashion… but I
got precisely nowhere! I would envisage a long siege of my
opponent’s pawn at a6 but was distracted by threats on the
f-file… My games still consisted of isolated episodes which I
feverishly tried to knit together into a harmonious
whole…
“It was only much later … that the question of a
single plan became clear to me… In the Vilner game it was a
struggle between unequal sides. When, however, you meet a strong
inventive opponent and he counters every one of your intentions not
only by defensive but also by counter-attacking measures, then it
is far from simple to carry out a single plan…
“… I finally concluded: ‘A single plan is the sum
total of strategic operations which follow each other in turn and
which each carry out an independent idea that arises logically from
the demands of a given position’. …
The definition given above is supported by the
following quotation from Bronstein: ‘Due to
Tarrasch * an idea grew up that is still
prevalent nowadays, the idea that there are the so-called logical
games in which one side carries out a logical plan from beginning
to end rather like a theorem in geometry. I do not think that there
are such games between opponents of the same strength and the
annotator who gives that impressions is often the winner of the
game who makes out that what happened is what he wanted to
happen‘ “
Znosko-Borovsky says much the same thing in his
How Not To Play Chess lecture. So, in the examples
I gave above (and more below), read and believe when I say you need
a plan, but remember that real chess is likely to be more messy and
less smooth. Unless you are playing an opponent who hasn’t got a
clue you will have to keep chopping and changing plans to cope with
the changing situation on the board. That’s life…
Modern chess planning
This century has not produced any great new theorists like Steinitz
or Nimzovitch, rather an approach to chess which takes no theory
for granted. Novel play in the opening has become increasingly
sophisticated, and players will defend the most dreadful-looking
pawn structures if they get some sort of activity for it. Chess has
become more concrete, more dynamic, and more difficult. Let’s have
a look at a couple of examples:
This position, arising after 1 e4, c6; 2 d4, d5; 3 Nc3,
dxe4; 4 Nxe4, Nf6; 5 Nxf6, exf6 (now we more often play
5…gxf6); 6 Bc4, Bd6; 7 Qe2, Be7; 8 Nf3, O-O; 9
O-O, was well-known to players and theorists of the 19th
century. Lasker, for example, comments:
“White’s plan consists in realising his pawn
superiority on the Queen’s side while remaining passive on the
King’s side. Black, on the other had will attampt to force his
opponent to advance one of his pawns on the King’s wing, in order
to start play against White’s King’s side with his pawns.”
Lasker has in mind moves for White such as c4 and d5 to
create a passed pawn, and for Black …Bg4, …Bd6, …f5 and
…Qh5. In fact play went 9 …Bd6; 10 Re1, Bg4; 11 Qe4!
Bh5; 12 Nh4, Nd7; 13 Qf5. Steinitz and Lasker would
undoubtedly have criticised White’s crude and ‘unjustified’ attack.
What’s going on? Ragozin, a strong and experienced Soviet master,
must have been aware of Lasker’s views, and of the theories of
Steiniz, so why is he playing on the ‘wrong’ side? He has made in
fact a much more dynamic and concrete assessment of the position
which notes, not just the Q-side majority, but also: the awkwardly
placed bishops, missing Nf6, the compromised f-pawns and White’s
development and control of space. Given time, Black could no doubt
disentangle his pieces. Ragozin gives him no time at all.
13…Nb6; 14 Qxh5, Nxc4; 15 Bh6!! Qd7
(can you find the win after 15…gxh6?); 16 b3, Nb6; 17
Nf5, Kh8; 18 Re4, Bxh2+ 19 Kh1 and Black resigned.
This is the real contribution of the 20th century to
chess theory, in which SOVIET players have been dominant. Players
look beyond the geometry of pawn formations and have moved to a
more flexible and more dynamic style of play. There are no new
general principles, because modern players do not believe in
general principles. Players like BRONSTEIN and BOLESLAVSKY turned
established ideas on their heads in the 1950s, championing Black’s
dynamic chances in the King’s Indian and Sicilian.
There is another good example of modern planning from
Bronstein’s superb book on the 1953 Candidates tournament
The Chess Struggle in Practice.
In this line of the King’s Indian, an opening he and Boleslavsky
more or less re-invented, White has a significant space advantage,
and Black has a ‘backward’ d-pawn on an open file, although he has
covered the outpost on d5. Black has some good pieces: the Bg7 and
Nc5 are well-placed, and the Bc8 and Re8 also have some
potential.
Bronstein comments:
“I think now is the time to acquaint the reader with
the mysteries of the Black d-pawn in the King’s Indian. Even though
it is situated on an open file and therefore always exposed to
attack, it is not a very easy nut to crack. The simplest method for
White is apparently to retreat the Knight from d4, but d4 is
precisely where the Knight needs to be: its jobs are to supervise
b5, c6, e6, and f5 and to buffer the influence of the Bg7. Only
after White has taken steps against possible Black attacks (…a3,
…Be6, …f5) can his Knight leave the centre, but during that
time Black can regroup to cause worries elsewhere.
“So the weakness of the d-pawn proves to be
imaginary. Contemporary methods of play in the opening recognise
the illusory weakness of such pawns. But it was exactly this
‘eternal’ weakness of the Pd6 that led to the King’s Inidan being
regarded as dubious.
The most dramatic recent example of this is Evgeny
Sveshnikov’s cherished variation of the Sicilian, sometimes known
as the Pelikan: 1 e4, c5; 2 Nf3, Nc6; 3 d4, cxd4; 4 Nxe4,
Nf6; 5 Nc3, e5; 6 Nb5, d6; 7 Bg5, a6; 8 Bxf6, gxf6; 9 Na3,
f5!? Black will use the extra central pawns and piece
activity to stop White getting a proper hold on the weaknesses on
…d6 and …f6/…h6.
Zinn-Sveshnikov, Decin 1974: 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4
4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6. Ndb5 d6 DIAGRAM
Black has an obvious hole on d5; White sets out, in textbook
fashion, to occupy it. 7. Bg5 a6 8. Na3 b5 9. Bxf6 gxf6 10.
Nd5 Mission accomplished! DIAGRAM
But at what cost? The outpost stands unsupported by any other White
pieces, and the Na3 is at present a bit lost. Black’s pawns are
very muddled but control a lot of key squares (c4,d4 and f4). The
muddling also gives Black the open g-file.
Let’s see how things unfold
10… f5 11. Bd3 Be6 12. Qh5 Bg7 13. O-O f4 14.
c3 O-O 15. Nc2 f5 DIAGRAM
The muddled pawns dominate the centre and the King’s side, while
White’s pieces are still looking for a decent plan. Black now
attacks down the open g-file. 16. Ncb4 Nxb4 17. Nxb4 d5 18.
exd5 Bd7 19. Bc2 Be8 20. Qe2 Kh8 21. Rad1 Qh4 22. f3 Rf6 23. Qe1
Qg5 24. Qxe5 Bd7 25. Qe7 Rg8 26. Qxd7 Rf7 0-1 DIAGRAM
Games like this may make the classically-trained chessplayer
despair, but they have added a richness and excitement to our
understanding of the game.
” Their point of view can be summarized as follows:
what had for generations been accepted as a weakness, such as a
hole or an isolated pawn, was not weak unless or until the
opponent began to attack it; a much smaller hostile weakness which
could be attacked first was in fact a greater weakness. Thus the
dynamic approach brought about a radical adjustment in the views on
weakness and strenght. It was no longer possible to measure one’s
weakness against those of one’s opponent by the old method, but it
was necessary to assess also the potentialities and speeds of the
relative attacks. This called for a new degree of acute positional
judgement, and in this was the Russian school has specially trained
itself.“
— Dynamic Chess by R.N. Coles; I am grateful to
Ariel Quinatana for supplying this quote.
Bibliography:
Kotov: Think like a Grandmaster &
Plan like a Grandmaster
Bronstein: The Chess Struggle in Practice
Botvinnik: 100 Selected Games
Euwe and Kramer: The Middle Game, Volumes I and
II