Bishop Endgames

Posted on August 28, 2000 by DrDave

Bishop endings are generally easier to win than rook endings
because there is no way for the defending side to exclude the
attacking King, and neither is there a perpetual check. But perhaps
because they are less common, they may be neglected in a player’s
study.

General Advice for bishop
endings

(1) The easiest endings to draw are those with opposite coloured
bishops.

(2) Do not place pawns on the colour of your bishop.

(3) BB vs. BN or NN are usually a real advantage.
In open positions the two bishops are murder: in most other
positions they are a real advantage.

[See Double Bishop Endings.]
(4) In open or semi-open positions a lone bishop is usually
superior to a lone knight.
The knight is superior to the bishop in blocked positions or when
the bishop is hemmed in by pawns on the same colour squares as the
bishop.

K+B vs. K+P

Normally the bishop can keep an eye on the P from far enough away
to keep the draw in hand, even two Ps if the opposing K is not
close

K+B+P vs. K

A simple win unless it’s an a-/h-P when the lone K can blockade on
the colour square opposite to the B. Similarly, K+B vs. K+B+gP+hP
may be drawn for this reason if BxgP is allowed.

K+B vs. K+B+P

Often a draw unless the P is far advanced. The side with the P must
try to drive the B from covering the path of the P. This can
usually be done only if the Bs travel on the same colour squares –
bishops of opposite colours usually can set up immovable blockades
or threats of sacrifice – and even then, only if the Pawn is not a
central one and the defending K is not close.

K+N vs. K+B+P

The bishop can try to create zugzwang positions when the N must
move away, and although blockades are possible the ending is
promising. K+N vs. K+B+gP+hP may be drawn for the reason noted
above if NxgP is allowed.

K+B vs. K+N+P

The N+P have far more difficulty winning against the B, but again
on the wing the B may run out of squares and the K may be distant.

Key ideas in bishop
endings:

sacrifice to draw, running out of space at the edge, draw with
a-/h-pawns, draw with opposite coloured bishops, controlling the
diagonals leading to the queening square

space to dodge

The White King cannot control the bishop from here. 1 Bd8 Bf4, 2
Be7 Bc7, 3 Bd6! Ba4 holds.

With both Kings distant it’s the same; with wKe8, Bke1
1.Bb4! wins (threat Be7) [thanks to Bart Robeyns for rescuing this
example].

no space at the edge

1 Bb8 Bd4, 2 Bc7 Ba7, 3 Bb6! 1-0

draw with bishops of opposite colour

White cannot control the squares d5 or f5 and chase away the bishop
at the same time:

1 Kd6 Bg8, 2 Ke7 and if later Kf6, …Bh7! when d5 is no
threat.

controlling diagonals

The short diagonal can be dominated by the White King.

1 Bf6 Kc2, 2 Be7 Be3 3 Bd6 Bg5, 4 Be5! and 5 Bf6

Studies

These comprise the selection given by John Littlewood in
Chess Coaching. Littlewood also gives an ABC for
Pawn, Knight, Rook and Queen endings.

128 BP
W to play wins

The bishop is poorly placed. 1 c6! Be5; 2 b6
winning

129 BP
W to play draws against best defence

Better bB position: 1 c6 Bd8! or 1 b6 Bd4! 2 b7
Be5

130 BP
W to play draws

The wK is just close enough to hold. 1 Kc2! f4; 2 Kd1
f3; 3 Ke1, f2+; 4 Kf1, Kf3; 5 Bd4, g3; 6 Bxf2,
gxf2 stalemate or 2…g3; 3 Ke1, g2; 4 Bxf4+! draws

131 B
W to play wins

If Black can control e7 with the B, the pawn can never
advance without …Bxe7 drawing. White must drive off the B:
1 Bf6+ Kc8; 2 Be7, Bf2; 3 Bd6, Bh4; 4 Be5 (1…Kc7; 2 Be7, Bf2; 3
Bd6+!)

132 B
B to play draws
The bK is closer to the pawn, and can nip round to prevent 6
Bf6:
1…Kd5! 2 Bf6, Ke4! 3 Be7, Bf2; 4 Ba3, Bh4; 5 Bb2, Kf5!

133 B
W to play wins

(check)

1 Kg8! controlling the ‘short side’ and threatening 2
Bf8, Be3; 3 Ba3, Bh6; 4 Bb2 and 5 Bg7,
so 1…Kf5, but 2 Bf8, Be3; 3 Ba3, Bh6; 4 Bc1!

134 B
W to play wins

(Centurini)

Take a deep breath…

If White’s bishop were on a7, 1 Bb8, Bg1; 2 Bg3, Ba7; 3
Bf2! wins
But 1 Bh4, Kb6! 2 Bf2+ Ka6 and wB can’t get to a7.
If the bB was on g3, 1 Bh4! Bh2; 2 Bf2 and 3 Ba7, 4 Bb8 wins.
It’s not quite zugzwang, since with Black to move 1…Bd6!
2 Be7, Bh2 holds (3 Bc5 isn’t possible here)
So, zugzwang would be on if one of the squares h2 or d6
were taken away from the bB.
1 Bh4, Kb5; 2 Bf2, Ka6; 3 Bf5! Bg3; 4 Be7, Kb5; 5 Bd8, Kc6; and now
6 Bh4! Bh2 when 7 Bf2, Bf4; 8 Ba7, Bh2; 9 Bb8, Ba7; 10 Bg3, Ba7; 11
Bf2! bingo!

135 NB
W to play wins, B to play draws

1 Ke7, Nd8; 2 Be4, Nf7; 3 Bf3, Nd8; 4 Bd5!
zugzwang
1… Nd6+; 2 Ke7, Nc8+! 3 Ke6, Nb6 draws
[This is a common drawing resource in Knight endings]

136 NB
W to play wins, B to play draws

1 Bb4+ Ke6; 2 Kc7, Kd5; 3 Ba3! zugzwang

1…Ne7+ 2 Kd8 Nc6+ 3 Ke8, Ke6 draws

137 NB
W to play wins

If the bK were on b5, 1 Bd4 would be an immediate
zugzwang, so

1 Bc3! Kb6! 2 Ba5+! Kb5! 3 Bd8! (guarding f6) 3…Kc5; 4
Bg5, Kb5! (4…Kd5; 5 Be7 or 4…Kb6; 5 Be3+ Kb5; 6 Bd4!) 5 Bh4!
Kc5; 6 Bg3+ Kd5; 7 Bd4! Nd6; 8 c7 wins

138 NB
W to play wins

1 Nc6! Kf2; 2 Kd6 ( threat 3 Ne7, Bg3+; 4 Kc6)

2…Bg3+! 3 Kc5! and now
3…Bc7? 4 Kb5! heading for b7
or 3…Bh4; 4 Kd5! with 5 Ke6 and 6 Ne7 winning

139 NB
W to play wins (Kosek)

1 Ng5! Bg8; 2 Nf7!! Kd2; 3 Kf8, Kh7; 4
Ng5 and now
4…Bg6; 5 Kg7, Be8; 6 Ne4+ Ke3; 7 Nd6, Kh5; 8 Kh6!
4…Bd3; 5 Ne6! Bg6 (5…Bf5 loses as above); 6 Nf4! Bb1; 7 Ke7,
Ba2; 8 Ne6 winning

140 NB
W to play wins (Horwitz)

1 Nc7, Bh1; 2 Ne6+ Ke5; 3 Nd8, Ba8! 4 Kc7,
Kd5! (idea 5 Kb8? Kd6! 6 Kxa8, Kc7! drawing)

5 Nb7! Ke6! (idea 6 Kb8, Kd7; 7 Kxa8,
Kc8! drawing)

6 Na5! Ke7; 7 Kc8! Ke8; 8 Nc4! Ke7; 9 Kb8, Kd8;
10 Nd6, Kd7; 11 Nb7! Kc6; 12 Kxa8, Kc7; 13 Nd6!
zugzwang

Example Bishop
Endings

Fischer – Taimanov #4 [B47]
Bishop Ending: B/N, 1971

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Qc7 5. Nc3 e6 6. g3 a6 7.
Bg2 Nf6 8. O-O Nxd4 9. Qxd4 Bc5 10. Bf4 d6 11. Qd2 h6 12. Rad1 e5
13. Be3 Bg4 14. Bxc5 dxc5 15. f3 Be6 16. f4 Rd8 17. Nd5 Bxd5 18.
exd5 e4 19. Rfe1 Rxd5 20. Rxe4+ Kd8 21. Qe2 Rxd1+ 22. Qxd1+ Qd7 23.
Qxd7+ Kxd7 24. Re5 b6 25. Bf1 a5 26. Bc4 Rf8 27. Kg2 Kd6 28. Kf3
Nd7 29. Re3 Nb8 30. Rd3+ Kc7 31. c3 Nc6 32. Re3 Kd6 33. a4 Ne7 34.
h3 Nc6 35. h4 h5 36. Rd3+ Kc7 37. Rd5 f5 38. Rd2 Rf6 39. Re2 Kd7
40. Re3 g6 41. Bb5 Rd6 42. Ke2 Kd8 43. Rd3 Kc7 44. Rxd6 Kxd6

White has the classic advantage of Bishop against Knight with pawns
on both sides of the board. Black also has the disadvantage of
having his pawns advanced and fixed, with an entry point on the
Queen’s-side.

45. Kd3 Ne7 46. Be8 Kd5 47. Bf7+ Kd6 48. Kc4 Kc6 49. Be8+
Kb7 50. Kb5 Nc8

Black is being stretched.

51. Bc6+ Kc7 52. Bd5 Ne7 53. Bf7 Kb7 54. Bb3 Ka7 55. Bd1
Kb7 56. Bf3+ Kc7 57. Ka6 Nc8 58. Bd5 Ne7 59. Bc4 Nc6 60. Bf7 Ne7
61. Be8

zugzwang

61… Kd8 62. Bxg6 Nxg6 63. Kxb6 Kd7 64. Kxc5 Ne7 65. b4
axb4 66. cxb4 Nc8 67. a5 Nd6 68. b5 Ne4+ 69. Kb6 Kc8 70. Kc6 Kb8
71. b6 1-0

Walther – Fischer [B99] Bishop
Ending: OCB As Draw, 1960

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4
Be7 8. Qf3 Nbd7 9. O-O-O Qc7 10. Bd3 b5 11. Bxf6 Nxf6 12. Rhe1 Bb7
13. Kb1 Rc8 [13…b4] 14. g4 Nd7 15. g5 Nb6 16. f5 e5 17.
f6 gxf6 18. gxf6 Bf8 19. Nd5 Nxd5 20. exd5 Kd8 21. Nc6+ Bxc6 22.
dxc6 Qxc6 23. Be4 Qb6 24. Qh5 Kc7 25. Bf5 Rd8 26. Qxf7+ Kb8 27. Qe6
Qc7 28. Re3 Bh6 29. Rc3 Qb7 30. f7 Bg7 31. Rcd3 Bf8 32. Qxe5 dxe5
33. Rxd8+ Ka7 34. R1d7 h5 35. Rxb7+ Kxb7 36. c3 Kc7 37. Ra8
[37. Re8!] 37…Kd6 38. Rxa6+ Ke7 39. Re6+ Kxf7 40. Rxe5
b4 41. cxb4 Bxb4 42. h3 Kf6 43. Rb5 Bd6 44. Be4 Re8 45. Rf5+ Kg7
46. Bf3 Re1+ 47. Kc2 Rf1 48. Rd5 Rf2+ 49. Rd2 Rxd2+ 50. Kxd2

50… h4 51. Kd3 Kf6 52. Kc4 Ke7 53. Kb5 Kd7 54. a4 [54.
b4] 54… Kc7 55. b4 Kb8 56. a5 Ka7 57. Kc4 Bg3 58. b5 Bf2 59.
Be2 Be3 60. Kb3 Bd2 61. b6+ Kb7 62. Ka4 Kc6 63. Bb5+ Kc5 1/2-1/2

Capablanca,Jose –
Janowsky,Dawid (NY 03) [D15] B ending: same colour, 1916

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d5 3. c4 c6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. e3 Bg4 6. Bxc4 e6 7. h3
Bh5 8. O-O Be7 9. Qb3 Qb6 10. Ne5 Nbd7 11. Qxb6 axb6 12. Nxd7 Kxd7
13. Bd2 b5 14. Bd3 Bg6 15. Bxg6 hxg6 16. Rfc1 Ra6 17. a3 Rha8 18.
Na2 Nd5 19. Rab1 f5 20. Kf1 Ra4 21. Nc3 Rc4

Concedes the exchange for some attack

22. b3 Rxc3 23. Bxc3 Rxa3 24. Be1 Bf6 25. Ke2 e5 NEXT
DIAGRAM

Black’s pieces are placed as well as they can be, so now we see the
break. However, this may only serve in the long run to open lines
for the Rook.

26. dxe5 Bxe5 27. f4 Bd6 28. Bc3 Ra2+ 29. Kf3 Bc5 30. Rd1
Ke6 31. Rd3 Bf8 32. Be5 b4 33. Rc1 g5 34. g4 g6 35. e4 fxe4+ 36.
Kxe4 Re2+ 37. Kf3 Rh2 38. Kg3 Re2 39. h4 gxh4+ 40. Kxh4 Be7+ 41.
Kg3 g5 42. Kf3 Rh2 43. Re1 Rh3+ 44. Ke4 Rh4 45. fxg5 Bxg5 46. Kf3
Rh3+ 47. Bg3+ Kd7 48. Kg2 Rh7

White decides to give back the exchange to get chances to advance
the g-pawn. 49. Re5 Bf6 50. Rexd5+ cxd5 51. Rxd5+ Ke8 52. Rb5 Rd7
53. Rxb4 Kf7 54. Rb6 Bd4 55. Rd6 NEXT DIAGRAM

Forcing the exchange of Rooks, which are often a strong drawing
factor, giving a pure Bishop ending.

55… Rxd6 56. Bxd6

56… Kg6 57. Kf3 Bf6 58. Bf4 Kf7 59. Ke4 Ke6 60. Be3 Be7 61. g5
Bd8 62. Kf4

Bc7+ 63. Kg4 Be5 64. Kh5 Kf7 65. Kh6 Kg8 66. Bb6 Bc3 67. Kg6 Bd2
68. Kf6 Bc3+ 69. Ke6 Bd2 70. g6 Bc3 71. Kd5 Bd2 72. Bd4 b5 73. Ke4
b4 74. Be3 Bc3 75. Kd3 Be1 76. Bd2 Bf2 77. Ke4 Bc5 78. Kd5 Be7 79.
Kc4 Kg7 giving up the g-pawn for the b-pawn 80. Bxb4 Bd8 81. Bc3+
Kxg6 82. b4 Kf5 83. Kd5

The change of front has left White with a pawn which can Queen on a
dark square, and the Black King with difficulties in approaching.
Black resigned, but Averbach later showed an amazing save (used by
Fischer vs. Taimanov) which was known to Centurini in the last
century!

[83. Kd5 Kf4 ! and Black rushes around the
back.]

Menchik,V – Capablanca,JR
(Hastings 1930/31) [A47] bishop ending: same colour, 1996

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 b6 3. e3 Bb7 4. Bd3 c5 5. O-O Nc6 6. c3 e6 7. Ne5
d6 8. Nxc6 Bxc6 9. Qe2 Be7 10. Bb5 Qd7 11. Bxc6 Qxc6 White is
slipping behind in development and activity. 12. Nd2 O-O 13. dxc5
dxc5 14. e4 Rad8

White would of course like to move her Knight, but the next puts a
pawnon a dark square.

15. e5 Nd5 16. Nf3 Rd7 17. Rd1 Rfd8 18. Bd2 b5 19. Kf1
Nb6 20. Bf4 h6 21. Rxd7 Rxd7 22. Rd1 Rxd1+ 23. Qxd1

Black’s next pushes the Bishop out of action on g3, then Black
makes a raid on the Queen’s-side.

23… Qe4 24. Bg3 Qc4+ 25. Qe2 Qxe2+ 26. Kxe2 Na4 27. Kd2
Nxb2 28. Kc2 Nc4 29. Nd2 Nxd2 30. Kxd2

The Bishop ending that follows is very difficult for White: a pawn
down with a duff Bishop.

30… c4 31. Bf4 a6 32. Be3 Kf8 33. Bb6 Ke8 34. Ke3 Kd7
35. Kd4 Kc6 36. Ba7

White is running out of squares for the Bishop.

36… f5 37. a4

Doing Black’s work for him.

37… g6 38. f4 h5 39. axb5+ Kxb5 40. g3 a5 41. Ke3 Bc5+
42. Bxc5 Kxc5 1-0

Beating the Anti-Indians

Posted on October 28, 1999 by DrDave

Playing Black in Indian systems without c2-c4: a repertoire for
the …g6 and the …e6 player

Daniel Hill, Dave Regis and Steve Webb (Credits)

A. Colle System

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 and 3. e3

White will play slowly for the e2-e4 break, opening up the game.

There is a club booklet on the Colle.

Black plays …g6 against the
Colle

This is well-known as a good system: the Bd3 bites on granite and
e3-e4 results in a Pirc-style game satisfactory for Black.

The Colle proper is a system which follows 1. d4 d5,
which is not the Indian move-order, but you may end up in the line
below:

4. c3

4… g6 5. Nbd2 Nbd7 6. Bd3 Bg7 7. O-O O-O

Now Fine says White is best advised to play

8. b4=

Since

[8. e4 dxe4 9. Nxe4 cxd4 10. Nxd4 Ne5 11. Nxf6+ Bxf6
12. Be2 Bd7 is =+]

Colle system vs. King’s
Indian

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. e3

Now e2-e4 just loses a tempo on the Pirc, if that’s in your
repertoire (which it should be! White has more than one way to try
and transpose…). Otherwise White can try to get into a main line
as below:

Belavanets – Bronstein 13th USSR
semi-final, 1941

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 d6 3. Nc3 e5 4. Nf3 Nbd7 5. g3 g6 6. Bg2
Bg7 7. O-O O-O 8. b3 Re8 9. e3 c6 10. Qc2 Qa5 11. a4 Nf8 12. Ba3
Bf5 13. Qb2 Rad8 14. Rfd1 e4 15. Nd2 Ne6

The Qa5 is not typical, but we can see several themes here:

fianchetto of the King’s bishop

use of the e-pawn to gain an initiative on the
K-side

over-protection of the advanced
e4-pawn

move all the pieces to the K-side in a committal
attack

16. b4 Qc7 17. Rdb1 Qd7 18. c5 Ng5

More over-protection

19. cxd6 Bh3 20. Bh1 Qf5 21. Ne2 Nd5 22. b5
Bg4

23. Kf1

Two sword-swipes with the Knights decide the game.

23…Nxe3+ 24. Ke1 Nf3+ 0-1

Black plays …e6 against the
Colle

3. e3

Of course 3…e6 gives Black a problem developing the Bc8. It can
hold back and wait for …e6-e5, but it is more natural to develop
it either on the long diagonal or immediately (after …d5 and
before …e6).

3… Bg4 4. Nbd2 Nbd7 5. h3 Bh5 6. c4 e6 7. Qb3
Rb8

about equal: Kovacevic-Timman 1984]

Colle with …b6

2… b6 3. e3 Bb7

“The Queen’s Indian formation against the
Colle-Zukertort has a reputation for reliability; Black indeed had
a good plus score in the games examined.” TRENDS

4. Bd3 e6 5. O-O c5

6. Nbd2

[6. c3 is the traditional recipe]

6… Be7

is the main line but others are known:

[6… cxd4 7. exd4 Be7 8. Re1 O-O 9. a4 a6 10. Nf1
d6= Kovacevic-Hulak, 1985 (BCO)]

[6… d6 is known to theory]

[6… Nc6!? 7. b3

[7. a3 Be7 8. Re1 O-O 9. b3 d6 10. Bb2 Re8 11. c4 Nb8
Yusupov-Sax, 1988 (1/2-1/2, 63)]

7… cxd4 8. exd4 Nb4 9. Be2 Rc8 10. c4 d5
Yusupov-Chernin, 1987 (1/2-1/2, 18)]

Example Game:

Colle,Edgar – Capablanca,Jose
(18) [A47] *Karlsbad, 1929

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 b6 3. e3

3… Bb7 4. Nbd2 e6 5. Bd3 c5 6. O-O Nc6 7. c3 Be7 8. e4
cxd4 9. Nxd4 O-O 10. Qe2

10… Ne5 11. Bc2 Qc8 12. f4 Ba6 13. Qd1 Nc6 14.
Rf3

14… g6 15. N2b3 Nxd4 16. Nxd4 Bb7 17. Qe2 Bc5 18. Rh3 Qc6
19. e5 Nd5 20. Qf2

20… Bxd4 21. cxd4 Rac8 22. Bd1 f6 23. Qh4 Rf7

24. Bf3 Qc4 25. Be3 Nxe3 26. Bxb7 Nf5 27. Qe1 Rc7 28. Be4
Qxd4+ 29. Kh1 fxe5 30. Bxf5 exf5 31. fxe5 Re7 32. Re3 Qxb2 33. e6
dxe6 34. Rxe6 Kf7

White is two pawns down with still the worse position, so:

0-1

B. London System

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 and 3. Bf4

White holds the centre and develops quickly, attacking on either
side as the opportunity arises.

Black plays …g6 against the
London System

The Bishop rather invites …d6 and …e5.

3… Bg7 4. e3 d6

[4… d5 is recommended by Varnusz, but may not sit
easily in the repertoire of a KID player. Also anecdotal evidence
suggests that …d5 may suit a London player’s style]

5. h3

To preserve the Bf4, but it has at the moment little
scope and its position even invites …e5. We will look at an
example game:

Polugaevsky-Gufeld,
1979

5… O-O 6. Be2 c5 7. Nbd2 cxd4 8. exd4 Nc6 9. O-O Bf5 10.
c3 Rc8=

The Bf5 is awkward while it stays and awkward to remove.

11. Bh2 a6 12. a4 Re8 13. Nc4 d5 14. Nce5 Qb6 15.
Ra2 Ne4 16. Nxc6?!

[16. g4!?]

16… bxc6 17. a5 Qb7 18. g4 Bd7 19.
Ne5

19… Bxe5

An unusual exchange!

20. Bxe5

[20. dxe5 e6 /\ …c5]

20… f6 21. Bh2 c5 22. f3 Ng5 23. h4 Nf7 24. Re1
Bb5 25. b3 cxd4 26. cxd4 Rc3 27. Kg2 e5 28. Bxb5 Qxb5 29. Rae2
Rd3

30. Rd2 Rxd2+ 31. Qxd2 Qxb3 32. Re3 Qb5 33. g5 Nd6 34. Re1
Nc4 35. Qf2 exd4 36. Rxe8+ Qxe8 37. gxf6 Ne3+ 38. Kg1 Qb5 39. Be5
Qb1+ 40. Kh2 Qf5 41. Bg3 Qc2 42. Qxc2 Nxc2 43. Be5 Kf7 44. Kg2 d3
45. Kf2 d2 46. Ke2 Ne3

0-1

White’s poor Bishop could do nothing about the Black
attack, and finally dies on what should be its best square!

Hills-Webb 1995

5… Nbd7

for 5…O-O see below

6. Be2

[6. Bd3 is deterred by the Pawn on g6]

6… O-O 7. c4

[7. c3 and Nbd2 is a slower way to play the system;
Black can play the Bc8 to b7 as in the game.]

[7. O-O Qe8 is recommended in the book (Varnusz),
planning …e5]

[7… c5 8. c3 b6 9. a4 Bb7 10. Bh2 a6!
Varnusz]

7… c5

Thematic, playing to pressurise the long diagonal.

8. Nc3 cxd4 9. exd4 b6 10. O-O Bb7 11. Qc2 Rc8
12. b3

Defends the c4 Pawn but weakens the dark squares.

12… a6

/\ …b5

13. a4 Re8 14. Rfd1 Nb8

/\ …Nb8-c6-b4

15. d5 Nxd5

draw agreed (!)

[15… Nxd5 16. Bd2 Nb4-+ ]

One last one with a slightly different move order.

Short,N-Kasparov,Gary/Skelleftea (4) 1989

2… c6 3. Bf4 d6 4. h3 Qb6 5. b3 c5 6. dxc5 Qxc5
7. c4 g6 8. Nc3 Bg7 9. Rc1 Bf5

Black is fine here: both Bishops are better than White’s, Black has
control of e4 and can enjoy the discomfort of White’s King, which
is at least three moves from castling.

10. Be3 Qa5 11. Bd2 Qd8 12. Nd4 Be4 13. e3 Nc6
14. Nde2 Bd3 15. Nf4 Bxf1 16. Kxf1 O-O 17. g3 e6 18. Kg2 d5 19.
cxd5 exd5 20. Qf3 d4 21. Ncd5 Nxd5 22. Qxd5 Qe7 23. Rhe1 Rad8 24.
Qc5 Qd7 25. e4 Ne5 26. Red1 b6 27. Qc7

27. Qc7 Qb5 28. Qxa7 g5 29. Qa4

Sacrificing the Knight for some play

29… Qxa4 30. bxa4 gxf4 31. gxf4 Nd3 32. Rc6 Nb2
33. Rdc1 Nxa4 34. f5 Rfe8 35. f3 Ra8 36. Kh1 Nc5 37. Rg1 Kh8 38.
Rc7 Rf8 39. Bf4 Rac8 40. Re7 Rce8 41. Rc7 Nd3 42. Bd6 Rg8 43. Rxf7
Be5 44. Rxg8+ Rxg8 45. Rd7 Nf2# 0-1

Black plays …e6 against the
London System

3. Bf4

3…b6

[3… d5 4. e3 Bd6 5. Bg3 c5 6. c3 Ne4 7. Bxd6 Qxd6
8. Nbd2 Nxd2 9. Qxd2 Nc6 = Osmanovitch-Lputian, 1983]

4. e3 Bb7 5. Bd3

[5. c4 is Miles’ variation in the Queen’s Indian 5…
Ne4]

5… Be7 6. h3 O-O 7. Nbd2 c5 8. c3 d5 9. O-O Qc8
10. Re1 Ba6 11. Bc2 Rd8 12. Ne5 Nc6 13. Bg5 h6 14. Bh4 Qc7 15. f4
Rac8 16. Qf3 Ne4

1/2-1/2 Gulko-Browne, 1988 (Given in The London
System by Soltis)

C. Torre Attack/Torre System
vs. King Fianchetto

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 and 3. Bg5

The founder of this system scored a famous victory over Lasker with
a ‘windmill’ combination. It has similar ideas to the London
System, and chooses perhaps a better square for the Bishop. It also
tempts Black to chase the bishop.

Black plays …g6 against the
Bg5 system

3. Bg5

3… Bg7

White can try and fiddle c2-c4 or Nb1-c3 with 4. e3, but
this forgoes e2-e4.

4. Nbd2 c5

White can now try

5. Bxf6 or

5. c3:

we’ll look at a game with each.

5. Bxf6 e.g.
Spiridonov,N-Kasparov,Gary/Skara (4) 1980

5. Bxf6 Bxf6 6. Ne4 Bxd4! 7. Nxd4 cxd4 8. Qxd4 O-O 9.
c4

Although Black lacks the dark-squared Bishop, his position is fine.

9… Nc6 10. Qd2 d6 11. Nc3 Be6 12. e4 Qb6 13.
Rd1?!

Over-ambitious: Black spies the traditional weakness on f2

13… Ne5 14. b3 f5! 15. Be2 f4!-+

Cementing the post on e5.

16. Nd5 Bxd5 17. Qxd5+ Kg7 18. O-O Rac8 19. b4
Qxb4 20. Rb1 Qa3 21. Rxb7

White seems to have developed some uncomfortable threats…

21… Kf6!!

…but they are all one-move deep, and this stops the
lot!

22. h4 h6

[22… Qxa2? 23. Bg4]

23. Rd1 Rb8

[23… Qxa2?? 24. Qxd6+ exd6 25. Rxd6#]

24. Rc7 Rfc8 25. Rxc8 Rxc8 26. Qb7 Qc5 27. Qb2
Qb6 28. Qc1 g5 29. Rd5 e6 30. hxg5+ hxg5

31. Rd1 Ke7 32. Qc2 Rb8 33. Qa4 g4 34. Qa3 Qc5 35. Qc3 g3
36. Rf1 gxf2+ 37. Rxf2 Rb1+ 38. Bf1 Qe3 39. Qxe3 fxe3 40. Rc2 Nxc4
0-1

5. c3
Bisguier,Arthur-Fischer,Robert/New York ch-US Rd: 5 1965

5… cxd4

This capture is best and common in these systems after Nbd2, since
White cannot play Nb1-c3

6. cxd4 Nc6 7. e3 O-O 8. a3 h6 9. Bh4 d6 10. Bc4
Bf5 11. h3 Rc8 12. O-O e5 13. e4 Bd7 14. dxe5 dxe5 15. Ba2
g5

with the e-pawn fixed, the light-squared Bishop lacks
access to f5 and related squares, so this is quite safe here.

16. Bg3 Qe7 17. Re1 Rcd8

Black’s position is harmonious with central control; White’s pieces
lack scope by contrast. White would like to sink a Knight into f5
but it’s going to have to be the one on f3, which is going to give
Black the d4 point.

18. Nh2 Be6 19. Bxe6 Qxe6 20. Nhf1 Rd3! 21.
Re3

takes e3 away from the Nf1.

21… Rd7 22. Qb3 Qe7 23. Nf3 Rfd8 24. Rae1 Nh5
25. Rc3 Qf6 26. Ne3 Nd4

A nice example of over-protection, the Knight cannot be left, and
the exchange will give Black’s pieces extra scope.

27. Nxd4 exd4 28. Ng4 Qg6 29. Rd3
Nxg3

White faces an uncomfortable choice

30. fxg3 Rc7 31. Nf2 Rdc8 32. Re2 Rc1+ 33. Kh2 h5
34. Qxb7 Be5 35. Qd5 R1c5 36. Qd7 h4 37. Nh1 Rc1 38. Rf3
g4

Mate is threatened

39. Qxg4 Qxg4 40. hxg4 Kg7 41. Rf5

41… Rxh1+!

0-1

Another recent game featuring …g6 was this encounter:

Short Nigel D-Kasparov
Gary/Cup World, Reykjavik (Iceland) 1989

2… c6 3. Bf4 d6 4. h3 Qb6 5. b3 c5

An interesting tempo-loss

6. dxc5 Qxc5 7. c4 g6 8. Nc3 Bg7 9. Rc1
Bf5

Black is fine here: his dark-squared Bishop is better than White’s,
has control of e4 and can enjoy the discomfort of White’s King,
which is at least three moves from castling.

27…Qc7 Qb5 28. Qxa7 g5 29. Qa4

Sacrificing the Knight for some play

Torre Attack (Bg5 against
…e6)

3. Bg5

3. … c5

…b6 systems tend to be upset by d4-d5

4. e3

There are two alternatives:

[4. e4 Wagner Gambit, a sharp line 4… cxd4 5. e5 h6
6. Bh4 g5 7. Bg3 Nh5 8. Qxd4 Nc6 9. Qe4 Bg7 Marshall-Nimzovitch,
Berlin 1928. /\ …Nxg3 and x e5]

[4. c3 4… cxd4 5. cxd4 Qb6 6. Qc2 Nc6 7.
Nc3?

[7. Bxf6 gxf6 8. e3 d5 9. Nc3 Bd7 10. Be2 Be7 11. O-O
O-O 12. Na4 Qc7 13. Nc5 Rfc8 14. Nxd7 Qxd7 15. Qa4 Ne5 16. Qxd7
Nxd7 17. Rfc1 Nb6=/+ “Black’s Knight is more powerful” – BELLIN
Larsen-Portisch, Tilburg 1980]

7… Bb4

[7… Nxd4]

8. e3 d5 9. Bd3 Bd7 10. O-O Be7

“By now you should realise that this game lacks
quality” – Daniel 11. a3 h6 12. Bxf6 gxf6 13. b4 Rc8 14.
Rfc1 f5 15. Qe2 O-O

and now White blundered with

16. Na4?

[16. Nd2+/= x c5]

16… Nxd4! Stenhouse-Hill, Portsmouth 1996]

After the main line with 4. e3, Black has two
alternatives:

Risky 4…Qb6

Positional 4… cxd4

One rare alternative:

4… Be7 5. Nbd2 Nc6 6. c3 cxd4 7. exd4 O-O 8. Bd3 b6
9. O-O Bb7 10. Re1 h6 11. Bxf6 Bxf6 12. Ne4 Be7 13. Bb1 d5 14. Ng3
Bc8= R Ye-J Ye, Jakarta 1994

Risky 4…Qb6

4… Qb6

“This is undoubtedly the most critical variation of the Torre
Attack” – BELLIN.

White must now decide whether to sacrifice the b2
pawn,

5. Nbd2,

or to defend it with the passive-looking

5. Qc1.

Passive 5. Qc1

5. Qc1 Ne4

[5… Nc6 6. c3

[6. Bxf6 gxf6 7. c3 d5 8. Nbd2 Bd7 9. Be2 Rc8 10. O-O
cxd4 11. exd4 Bh6= Holmov-Anikayev, Tbilisi 1976]

6… Ne4 7. Bf4 d5 8. Bd3 Be7 9. Nbd2 f5

and Black’s position is fine: Petrosian-Cherepkov, USSR
1961.]

6. Bf4 d5 7. c3 Nd7

[7… Nc6]

8. Nbd2 Ndf6 9. h3 Bd6 10. Ne5 c4?!

(This type of move often leaves White free to ignore the
centre and attack elsewhere)

11. g4 Nxd2 12. Qxd2 Ne4 13. Qc2 Bxe5 14.
Bxe5

and now I played the weakening

14… f../strong>

Aggressive 5. Nbd2

5. Nbd2

5… d5

[5… Qxb2 This looks unwise. 6. Bd3 cxd4 7. exd4 Qc3
8. O-O d5 9. Re1 Be7 10. Re3 Qc7 11. Ne5=/and with a nice position
for the sacrificed pawn.]

6. Bxf6 gxf6 7. c4 cxd4 8. exd4 dxc4 9. Bxc4 Nc6
10. O-O Bd7 11. d5

Although Black has played a safer line I would say that this
position is good for White. The problem for Black after 5. Nbd2 the
Knight on f6 can no longer go to e4, and therefore Black is likely
to end up with doubled pawns.

Positional 4… cxd4

4… cxd4

Bronstein-Ward, Maidstone 1994
/0-1

5. exd4 Be7 6. c3 b6 7. a4 O-O 8. Na3!? Nc6 9. Bd3 Bb7 10.
O-O Nd5 11. Bd2 Rc8 12. Re1 Qc7=

This position is equal, although the first thing that struck me was
that White’s position looks a little easier to play. Perhaps Black
can leer at the Knight on a3 and work in a raid based on …Bd6 and
…Nf4. I don’t know how the game went, but Black won.

Summary

If you think that your opponent will defend the
pawn with 5. Qc1 then 4…Qb6 is clearly worth a try. However,
after 5. Nbd2, White is likely to achieve a better position because
no time has been wasted. This is not to say that you can’t take the
b-pawn, if you are looking for a sharp game. For those who prefer a
more positional type of game, then 4…cxd4 is ideal.

D. Trompovsky

1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5

An even earlier Bishop move, and now only 2…e6 and 2…Ne4 can
stop White from kicking a hole in the Black pawn formation. In the
‘seventies Hort and Jansa often adopted it with a positional
approach, but a more brawling style has been characteristic of
Hodgson’s revival of the line in the ‘nineties.

Black plays …g6 against the
Trompovsky

Ah, now – this booklet has got a big hole in it – you can hardly
play …g6 against the Trompovsky.

2…g6 3. Bxf6 exf6

and I think Black already has some problems getting
organised.

2… c5

is the sort of move that might appeal to a KID player,
particularly if you have a quick look at

3. d5?! Ne4 4. Bf4 Qa5+

A better idea for White is

3. Bxf6! e.g.

3… gxf6 4. d5 Qb6 5. Qc1

which is probably the funny sort of position that White may feel
more comfortable than you, although I don’t think White can claim a
plus here, e.g. 5… f5

[5… d6]

6. c3

[6. e3]

[6. g3]

6… Bg7 7. e3 e6 8. Nh3

Hort says this is unclear. I believe him.

I recommend

2… Ne4

Now I think the best for White is

3. Bf4

Alternatives:

[3. Bh4 g5 4. f3 gxh4 5. fxe4 is the old theory on
this line: White will struggle to hold the dark squares]

[3. h4 is Hodgson’s favourite]

3… c5

[3… d5 4. f3 Nf6 5. e4 dxe4 6. Nc3 is a
Blackmar-Diemer Gambit a tempo ahead for White!]

[Another idea for Black is3… Nc6!? /\ 4.
f3

[4. d5 e5!]

[4. Nf3!]

4… e5! 5. dxe5 g5! 6. Bc1 Nc5

/\ …Bg7]

After 3…c5:

4. f3 Qa5+ 5. c3 Nf6

when

6. d5

transposes above.

Black plays …e6 against the
Trompovsky

2. Bg5 e6

3. e4

[3. Nf3 is the Torre]

Now

3… h6

is the most common move, but not the only one:

[3… c5

is almost entirely untested. One known example went

4. e5

[4. Nf3 is the Wagner Gambit]

4… h6 5. Bc1 Nd5 6. c4 Nb6 7. dxc5 Bxc5 8. Nf3 d5
9. exd6 Qxd6

[9… Bxd6!?]

10. Qxd6 Bxd6 11. Nc3 Nc6 12. Bd2 Nd7 13. O-O-O Ke7
14. Nb5

1/2-1/2 Soffer-Yudasin, Israel 1994.

Black could have played on with

14… Bc5]

After 3…h6:

4. Bxf6 Qxf6

5. Nc3

White can try the Knight on d2:

[5. Nf3 b6 6. Bd3 Bb7 7. Nbd2 a6

[7… c5 8. e5 Qd8 9. Be4 Qc7 10. O-O Be7 11. Re1 O-O
12. dxc5 bxc5 13. Bxb7 Qxb7 14. Nc4

Levenfish-Rabinovitch, Petrosgrad 1921]

8. Qe2 d6 9. O-O-O Nd7 10. Kb1 e5

Lots of pawn moves, but he must have thought White
couldn’t rush the centre.

11. c3 Be7 += Korchnoi-Karpov, Hastings
1971/72]

5… Bb4 6. Nf3

[6. Qd2 c5 7. a3 Bxc3 8. bxc3 d6 9. f4 O-O 10. Nf3
Nc6 11. Bb5 Na5 12. Bd3 b6 13. O-O Bb7 Hodgson-Yudasin,
??]

6… d6 7. Qd2 Nd7 8. a3 Ba5 9. Bd3 O-O 10. O-O
c6 11. b4 Bc7 12. Ne2 e5 =

Bezold-Bischoff, Altensteig 1994

Summary

I believe 3…c5!? is well worth a try, in order
to try and transpose into the Torre. Of course, White can go for a
Torre immediately with 3. Nf3, and it will be interesting to see
how many White players opt for this. 3…h6 is also OK, although
Karpov sank rather against Korchnoi in the game given in the
Custer’s Last Stand handout.

[Footnote from Frederick Prost: is
3…c5 really so easy?]

E. Systems with g3

1. d4 Nf6 2. g3

Transpositional except against the King’s Indian where the double
fianchetto system is known (with b2-b3).

Against the …e6 systems it usually transposes into the
Catalan, where Black may have problems whether the centre is closed
(Botvinnik) or open (Keene).

Black plays …g6 against
g3

The system with g3 and b3 (without c4) is one to know about:

3. b3 Bg7 4. Bb2 d6 5. g3 O-O 6. Bg2

6… e5

Black has an important alternative here:

[6… Nbd7 7. O-O e5 8. dxe5 Ng4

9. Qd2

[9. Nc3 Pirc 9… Ngxe5!

[9… dxe5 10. Nd2+/= Pirc]

]

[9. c4 Re8 10. h3 Nh6 11. Nc3 dxe5 12. e4 c6 13. Qc2
f6 Holmov-Gufeld, about equal]

9… Ngxe5?!

[9… Re8! 10. h3 Nh6 11. Na3 dxe5 12. Nc4 f6 which
is probably OK for Black]

10. Nxe5 dxe5 11. Nc3 c6 12. Rad1../em>

[12. Ba3+/= ]

]

7. dxe5 Nfd7 8. O-O

8… dxe5

[8… Nc6 9. Qd2 Miles-Ristic, 1988 9… Ndxe5
Marovic]

9. e4 Nc6 10. Nbd2 b6 11. Qe2

Now Polugaevsky-Medina, 1972, continued:

11… Qe7

[11… a5 Marovic]

12. Rfd1 Nc5 13. Nf1 Ba../strong>

1-0, 39

[13… Be6 was better, acording to Marovic]

Of course, White might sidle over into the main line with
g3:

Arkell-Nunn/London
1992

3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. O-O

[5. c4 d6 was the game move order]

5… d6

6. c4

[6. c3]

6… Nbd7 7. Nc3 e5 8. Qc2 Re8 9. b3 c6 10. e3
exd4 11. Nxd4 h5

Intending …h5-h4xg3, when White will be reluctant to play f2-f4
to dislodge a Knight on e5.

12. Ba3 Qe7 13. Rad1 Nc5 14. b4 Nce4 15. Nxe4
Nxe4 16. b5 c5

(forced, but the Ba3 needs another post now)

17. Ne2

x d5: Black needs play on the King’s-side

17… Bf5 18. Qb3 h4 19. Nf4 Qe5 to prevent Bb2
20. Rd5 Qf6 21. g4 Bxg4 22. f3 h3

23. Bh1

[23. Nxh3]

[23. Bxh3]

23… Nc3 24. fxg4 Qh4 25. Rd3 Qxg4+ 26. Kf2 Bd4
27. Rxc3 Qxf4+ 28. Ke2 Qxh2+ 29. Kd1 Bxc3 30. Qxc3 Re5 31. Bb2 Rae8
32. Bd5 R8e7 33. Qd2 Qxd2+ 34. Kxd2 Rf5

[34… Rxe3 35. Bf6<-/-> ]

35. Rxf5 gxf5 36. Ke2 h2 37. Kf2 Re6 38.
Bc1

[38. Bxe6 h1=Q]

38… Rg6 39. Bg2 Rg4 40. Bd2 Rxc4
0-1

Black plays …e6 against the g3 system

2. g3 e6

This system with c2-c4 is well known: it is called the Neo-Catalan.

2. g3 e6

3. Nf3

3… c5

[We looked at 4. dxc4 in the Custer booklet: the only
other independent line is]

4. c4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Nc6

which is the English Opening: g3 systems have become
fashionable against the Nimzo and so they are another one to slot
into your repertoire

6. Bg2 and now 6… d5 is the Tarrasch Defence to the
Queen’s Gambit

One complex line which offers hances to both sides is

6. Nc3 Qb6!?

[6… Bb4 is safe, 6…Bc5 is uncommon]

7. Nb3

[7. Nc2 d5!? is an approved gambit]

7… Ne5

[7… Bb4!? and 7…d5?! have also been
tried]

8. e4 Bb4 9. Qe2

with a complex position that is given in few Nimzo books! DR has
played either side with pleasure, and some lines he recalls go:

9… a5 10. f4

[10. Be3]

10… a4!? Nunn 11. fxe5 axb3 12. exf6
Rxa2

Pick the bones out of that!

F. Systems with a delayed c4

Even if White has c2-c4 lines in their repertoire, it may reduce
Black’s options to delay this, e.g. in the Catalan.

This is a transpositional device and your main openings
books should help you here.

G. Stonewall Opening

1. d4 2. e3 3. Bd3 4. f4

White locks up the centre and rolls down the King’s-side

1. d4 d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. Bd3

[3. f4 is sometimes played to avoid the 3…Nc6 line,
but then Black can always play …Bf5]

Black plays …g6 against the
Stonewall

The Stonewall is not pointless, particularly after …d5/…e6. But
an early …g6 deadens the attack from d3, and Black can try …d6
and …e5 to blow up the centre, e.g.

1… g6 2. e3 Bg7 3. Bd3 d6 4. c3 Nd7 5. f4 e5 6.
Nf3 Ngf6 7. fxe5 dxe5 8. dxe5 Ng4 9. e6 fxe6 10. Nd4 Nde5 11.
O-O

[11. Be2 O-O 12. Bxg4 Qh4+ 13. g3 Qxg4 14. Qxg4
Nxg4=/+ …1/2-1/2 Jordan,D-Regis,D/Devon vs.Glos 1995]

11… Rf8 12. Rxf8+ Kxf8 13. Qf1+ Kg8 14. Bc2 c5
=+

Black plays …e6 against the Stonewall

2. e3 d5

[2… e6 immediately has no special virtues, unless
you really want to play a …b6 system]

3. Bd3 c5

[There is also the system with 3… Nc6 e.g.

4. f4

[4. c3 e5!]

4… Nb4! 5. Nf3 Nxd3+ 6. cxd3 g6 7. Nc3 Bg7 8. O-O
O-O=]

4. c3 Nc6

[4… e6 5. f4]

5. f4

5… e6

blocks the Bc8 better is:

5… Bg4 6. Nf3 e6 7. Nbd2 Bd6 8. h3 Bh5 9. b3
cxd4 10. cxd4 Rc8

when Black is comfortable

H. The Richter-Veresov system

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 (Other moves transpose into
e.g. the Pirc or French)

This is another system emphasising piece play – again with the
threat of doubling the f-pawns, or reserving King’s-side chances.

Against the Veresov itself:

3…Nbd7

3…Bf5 and

3…c5

are independent lines with some little theory
attached.

e.g.

[3… Bf5 4. f3

[4. e3]

[4. Bxf6]

4… Nbd7 5. Nxd5 Nxd5 6. e4 h6 7. Bh4 N7b6 8. exf5
Ne3 9. Qd2 Nxf1 10. Kxf1=/+ ]

[2… c5 is another idea again, which might appeal to
the KID/Benoni player]

Black plays …g6 against the
Veresov

2… g6

Black offers a Pirc. If White declines we probably get a Torre
where the move Nc3 forgoes some of White’s best ideas, like Nbd2
and moves of the c-pawn.

Black plays …e6 against the
Veresov

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e6

3. Bg5 d5

3…c5

You will find White players who head for the French here,
as pure Veresov ideas like 4. e3 and 4. Nf3 look insipid. These are
all playable, particularly at club level (what isn’t!).

Credits:

Dan composed the repertoire for the …e6 player.

Steve composed the repertoire for the …g6 player

Dave typed it up, and is responsible for all mistakes
that are not the responsibility of the other authors

Twentieth-century planning

Posted on November 8, 1998 by DrDave

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

The Queen’s-side Attack

Posted on October 19, 1998 by DrDave

Pawn Majorities, Pawn Rollers,
blockade and restraint

I will give several illlustrative games here – fairly
straightforward games from Capablanca, Alekhin, Korchnoi and
Karpov showing pawns mobile and dangerous, and the others (e.g.
Nimzovitch’s) showing them stuck and vulnerable.

“The most important feature of the chess position
is the activity of the pieces. This is absolutely fundamental in
all phases of the game (opening, middlegame and
especially endgame). The primary constraint on a
piece’s activity is the Pawn structure.“

— Michael STEAN, in Simple Chess.

Pawn
majorities

If you have a pawn majority – say, three pawns to your opponent’s
two on one side of the board – you should be able to create a
passed pawn. By advancing the pawn, you should be able to create
enough pressure to win. Steinitz was the first great exploiter of
pawn majorities, particularly on the Queen’s side where they can
often advance without fear of exposing the king. Some people regard
the Queen’s side majority as an advantage in itself, but
realistically it depends on where and what the other pieces are.
Here’s how it’s done, by the man whose chess Lasker regarded as the
perfect expression of Steinitz’ theories. Capablanca makes it all
look so smooth:

marshall-capablanca, 1909

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 Be6 7.Bg2 Be7
8.O-O Nf6 9.Bg5 Ne4 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.Ne5 Nxd4 12.Nxe4 dxe4 13.e3
Nf3+ 14.Nxf3 exf3 15.Qxf3 O-O 16.Rfc1

“He should have advanced his K-side pawns at once to
counterbalance the advance of Black on the Q-side. White’s
inactivity on his stronger wing took away all the chances he had of
drawing the game.” CAPABLANCA

16…Rab8 17.Qe4 Qc7 18.Rc3 b5 19.a3 c4 20.Bf3 Rfd8
21.Rd1 Rxd1+ 22.Bxd1 Rd8 23.Bf3 g6 24.Qc6 Qe5 25.Qe4 Qxe4 26.Bxe4
Rd1+ {!} 27.Kg2 a5 28.Rc2 b4 29.axb4 axb4 30.Bf3 Rb1 31.Be2 b3
32.Rd2 Rc1 33.Bd1 c3 34.bxc3 b2 35.Rxb2 Rxd1 36.Rc2 Bf5 37.Rb2 Rc1
38.Rb3 Be4+ 39.Kh3 Rc2 40.f4 h5 41.g4 hxg4+ 42.Kxg4 Rxh2 43.Rb4 f5+
44.Kg3 Re2 45.Rc4 Rxe3+ 46.Kh4 Kg7 47.Rc7+ Kf6 48.Rd7 Bg2 49.Rd6+
Kg7 0-1

Now, that’s not all there is to be said. At risk of putting poor
Frank Marshall in the stocks again, here is Alekhin showing how to
play when you have a King’s side majority, and using it for attack.

[event “?”][site “?”][date “1993.??.??”][round “?”]

[white “Alekhin, alexander”][black “marshall,
frank”][result “1-0”]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.e4 {?!}
(hasty)4…Nf6 5.Bd3 e5 {!} 6.dxe5 Ng4 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.Bg5 {!}
8…Be7 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Nc3 Ncxe5 11.Nxe5 Qxe5 {?} 12.h3 Nf6 13.Qd2
{!} 13…Bd7 14.Qe3 {!]

(stops 0-0-0) 14…Bc6 15.O-O-O O-O 16.f4 Qe6 17.e5 Rfe8
18.Rhe1 Rad8 {?!] (better …Nd7) 19.f5 Qe7 20.Qg5
Nd5 21.f6 Qf8 22.Bc4 {!} 22…Nxc3 23.Rxd8 Rxd8 24.fxg7 {!}
24…Nxa2+ 25.Kb1 {!} 25…Qe8 26.e6 {!} 26…Be4+ 27.Ka1 f5 28.e7+
Rd5 29.Qf6 Qf7 30.e8=Q+ 1-0

Pawn
mobility

A group of pawns that isn’t a majority but has the potential to
advance is sometime called a qualitative majority,
that is, is has the quality if not the substance of a majority.
Some games seem to illustrate how the whole pawn front of one side
can act as a majority.

[event “pawn mobility?”][site “”][date “1963.??.??”][round “?”]

[white “korchnoi”][black “szabo”][result “1-0”]

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 Bc5 4.Bg2 O-O 5.e3 Re8 6.Nge2 Nc6 7.O-O d6
8.d4 Bb6 9.h3 Bf5 {?} 10.d5 Nb8 11.g4 Bd7 12.Ng3 h6 13.Kh2 a5 14.f4
exf4 15.exf4 Nh7

16.g5 Na6 17.gxh6 Qh4 18.hxg7 Nf6 19.f5 Be3 20.Nce4 {!} 20…Nxe4
21.Nxe4 Bxc1 22.Rxc1 Nc5 23.Qg4 Rxe4 24.Bxe4 Qxg4 25.hxg4 Nxe4
26.Rce1 Nc5 27.f6 Re8 28.Rxe8+ Bxe8 29.Re1 Ba4 30.Re3 (threat Rh3)
1-0

This game made a very powerful impression on me as a young player –
for years I never put a piece in front of a pawn, and instead
developed as Korchnoi did. Here’s a direct parallel to the Szabo
debacle:

[Event “?”][Site “Cambridge”][Date “1981.??.??”][Round
“?”]

[White “dodd, n.”][Black “regis.d”][Result
“0-1”]

1. d4 e6 2. c4 b6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 Bb7 6. Bf4 d6 7.
e3 Nd7 8. Nf3 Qe7 9. Be2 Ngf6 10. O-O Ne4 11. Bd3 O-O-O 12. Qc2 f5
13. h3 h6 14. Nd2 Nxd2 15. Qxd2 g5 16. Bg3 h5 17. f3 Rdg8 18. Kf2
g4 19. Bf4 gxh3 20. Rg1 e5 21. Bh2 hxg2 22. Bg3 h4 23. Bh2 e4 24.
fxe4 fxe4 25. Be2 h3 26. Ke1 Nf6 27. Kd1 Qd7 28. Kc1 Ba6 29. Kb2
Qa4 30. Bd1 Qxc4 31. Bb3 Qe2! 32. Qxe2 Bxe2 33. Bxg8 Rxg8 34. Bf4
Bf3 35. Rac1 Rh8 36. Bh2 Ng4 0-1

Here’s Karpov in the driving seat of a mean set of pawns: this is
the classic central pawn roller, often associated with Botvinnik.

[karpov-miles]

1 c4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.d5 e6 4.a3 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bd6 6.Nf3 exd5 7.cxd5 O-O
8.Bg5 Re8 9.e3 Be7 {!?} 10.Bc4 {!} 10…h6 11.Bf4 Nh5 12.Be5 Bf6
13.Bd4 Ba6 14.Bxa6 Nxa6 15.O-O c5 16.Bxf6 Nxf6 17.Qd3 Qc8 18.Nd2 d6
19.Nc4 Rd8 20.e4 Nc7 21.b4 Na6 22.b5 Nc7 23.a4 Qd7 24.f4 Re8
25.Rad1 Rad8 26.h3 Qe7

The pawn formation is like a Benoni, without a shred of
counterplay for Black. In the Benoni Black can usually get the
Q-side majority going if there are no tactical chances on the
K-side.

27.e5 dxe5 28.d6 Qf8 29.fxe5 Nh7 30.Qf3 Ne6 31.Qb7 Ra8 32.Nd5 g6
33.Ne7+ Kg7 34.Nc6 1-0

Immobile pawns

The Nimzo-Indian is named for its founder, Aaron Nimzovitch. His
idea was to play the move …Bb4, usually following up with
…Bxc3, bxc3 when White has doubled pawns. The front c-pawn may be
attacked, and if White cannot generate some activity elsewhere
risks having the whole position grind to a halt. Against
unsuspecting opposition Nimzovitch made his ‘defence’ look more
like an ‘attack’!

[White “mattison”][Black “nimzovich”][Site
“carlsbad”][Date “1929.??.??”][Result “0-1”]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nf3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 d6 6. Qc2 Qe7 7.
Ba3 c5 8. g3 b6 9. Bg2 Bb7 10. O-O O-O 11. Nh4 Bxg2 12. Kxg2 Qb7+
13. Kg1 Qa6 14. Qb3 Nc6 15. Rfd1 Na5

16. Qb5 Qxb5 17. cxb5 The doubled pawn have gone but the weaknesses
remain.

17…Nc4 18. Bc1 a6 19. bxa6 Rxa6 20. dxc5 bxc5 21. Ng2
Nd5 22. Rd3 Rfa8 23. e4 Ne5 0-1

Against more aware opponents you won’t find it so easy. While
you’re busy winning the c-pawn White can create attacking chances
with the two bishops on the other side.

[Event “?”][Site “budapest ct”][Date “1950.??.??”][Round “??”]

[White “bronstein, David”][Black “najdorf, M.”][Result
“1-0”]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 c5 6. e3 Nc6 7.
Bd3 O-O 8.Ne2 d6 9. e4 Ne8 10. O-O b6 11. f4 Ba6

12. f5 e5 13. f6 Kh8 14. d5 Na5 15. Ng3 gxf6 16. Nf5 Bc8 17. Qh5
Bxf5 18. exf5 Rg8 19. Rf3 Rg7 20. Bh6 Rg8 21. Rh3 1-0

Let’s see these two plans in opposition, by two opponents who know
each what they’re doing, and more to the point, what the other is
trying to do. Spassky-Fischer illustrates a popular modern line,
popularised by Hubner. Black reverts to the original Nimzo formula,
refraining from early castling but investing the tempo in …Bxc3.
White then strikes back with an advance of the e- and f-pawns. The
game is decided strategically when Black immobilises the K-side
pawns, making weak points of his own but in a position where White
cannot attack them and can only sit tight. In the event, White
blunders on #27.

[Event “?”][Site “rekjavic world ch”][Date “1972.??.??”][Round “?”]

[White “spassky, b.”][Black “fischer, rj”][Result
“0-1”]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nf3 c5 5. e3 Nc6 6. Bd3 Bxc3+ 7.
bxc3 d6 8. e4 e5 9. d5 Ne7

10. Nh4 h6 11. f4 Ng6 12. Nxg6 fxg6 13. fxe5 dxe5 14. Be3 b6 15.
O-O O-O 16. a4 a5

Another Black weakness but the last opportunity for White to
develop any activity. 17. Rb1 Bd7 18. Rb2 Rb8 19. Rbf2 Qe7 20. Bc2
g5 21. Bd2 Qe8 22. Be1 Qg6 23. Qd3 Nh5 24. Rxf8+ Rxf8 25. Rxf8+
Kxf8 26. Bd1 Nf4

27. Qc2 Bxa4 0-1

In fact modern GM games often don’t feature the classic doubled
c-pawns, or White may quickly undouble them. The play in the main
lines is rich and subtle – in fact, it is the Queen’s-side
equivalent of the Ruy Lopez in terms of its depth and variety of
plans available to each side. Typical main lines are 1 d4 Nf6, 2 c4
e6, 3 Nc3 Bb4, 4 e3 c5, 5 Bd3 d5, 6 Nf3 O-O, 7 O-O Nc6, 8 a3 Bxc3,
9 bxc3 dxc4, 10 Bxc4 Qc7 when White’s pawns are OK but …e5 and
…Bd7-c6 leaves Black solid, or an even more solid approach 1 d4
Nf6, 2 c4 e6, 3 Nc3 Bb4, 4 e3 b6, 5 Bd3 Bb7, 6 Nf3 O-O, 7 O-O d5, 8
a3 Bd6. Here’s a game illustrating modern trends.

The game shows White using a move order which avoids Nf3
to allow f3/e4, to which Black responds by making a run with the
e-pawn to slow up White in the centre. The general tension around
the mobility of White’s pawns has thus given rise to vigorous plans
from both sides. Black grabs the c-pawn, and in successfully
defending against White’s initiative returns the material with
minor disadvantage. Determined play with White increasingly
frutsrated brings the game right round for a Black victory in the
endgame.

[event “riga ch-su”][site “?”][date “1958.??.??”][round “?”]

[white “spassky”][black “tal, mikhail n.”][result
“0-1”]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 c5 6. e3 Nc6 7.
Bd3 e5

8. Ne2 e4 9. Bb1 b6 10. Ng3 Ba6 11. f3 Bxc4 12. Nf5 O-O 13. Nd6 Bd3
14. Bxd3 exd3 15. Qxd3 cxd4 16. cxd4 Ne8

17. Nf5 d5 18. a4 Nd6 19. Nxd6 Qxd6 20. Ba3 Nb4 21. Qb3 a5 22. O-O
Rfc8 23. Rac1 Qe6 24. Bxb4 axb4 25. Kf2 Qd6 26. h3 Kf8 27. Rc2
Rxc2+ 28. Qxc2 g6 29. Rc1 Qd7 30. Qc6 Qxc6 31. Rxc6 Ra6 32. a5 b3
33. axb6 b2 34. b7 b1=Q 35. Rc8+ Kg7 36. b8=Q Ra2+ 37. Kg3 Qe1+ 38.
Kh2 Qxe3 39. Rg8+ Kf6 40. Qd6+ Qe6 41. Qf4+ Qf5 42. Qd6+ Qe6 43.
Qg3 Qe3 44. h4 Re2 45. Qd6+ Qe6 46. Qf4+ Qf5 47. Qh6 Ke7 48. Qf8+
Kf6 49. Qg7+ Ke7 50. Ra8 Qd7 51. Qf8+ Kf6 52. Ra6+ Re6 53. Qh8+ Ke7
54. Ra8 Re1 55. Kg3 h5 56. Kf2 Re6 57. Rc8 Rd6 58. Qf8+ Kf6 59. Re8
Re6 60. Qh8+ Kf5 61. Qh6 Kf6 62. Qh8+ Kf5 63. Rd8 Qc6 64. Rc8 Qa6
65. Kg3 Qd6+ 66. Kh3 Re1 67. g3 Rg1 68. f4 Re1 69. Rc2 Qe6 70. Rf2
Rh1+ 71. Kg2 Qe4+ 72. Rf3 Kg4 73. Qc8+ f5 0-1

Last two doubled pawn games: one from me, about a month after
reading Nimzo’s My System, the second a classic
blockading game from that book by the man himself. Once I’d read
about doubled pawns and outposts, I could suddenly beat 120+ grade
players without doing more than applying the rules in positions
that I understood and my opponents didn’t.

[Event “march vs st.neots ‘b’,1978”][White “pope, m.
“][Black “regis, d”]

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. e3 Bb4 4. a3?! Unnecessary, particularly
since Black has a good central stake.

4…Bxc3 5. bxc3 d6 6. d4 Nf6 7. d5? A reflex move, but
creates horrid weaknesses.

7…Nb8 8. f3 Nbd7 9. Bd3 b6 10. Qc2 Nc5 11. Ne2 Nxd3+
12. Qxd3 Qe7 13. e4 Nd7 14. O-O Nc5 15. Qc2 Ba6 That’s about it.
Black will win a pawn and White hasn’t any counterplay organised in
the centre or K-side. In fact, …f5 looks good for Black. 16. Be3
Bxc4 17. Bxc5 Bxe2 18. Qxe2 dxc5 19. Qb5+? Qd7 20. Qxd7+ Kxd7 21.
c4 a6 22. a4 Rad8 23. f4? Another weakness appears on e4. 23…exf4
24. Rxf4 f6 25. Raf1 Rde8 26. h4 Re5 27. Kf2 Rhe8 28. Kf3 c6
{Clocks: 60,15} 29. Rd1 cxd5 30. Rxd5+ Rxd5 31. exd5 Re1 32. Re4
Ra1 33. Re6 Rxa4 34. Rxb6 Rxc4 35. Rxa6 Rxh4 36. Ra7+ Kd6 37. Rxg7
Kxd5 38. g3 Rh1 39. Kg4 c4 40. Rf7 c3 41. Rc7 Kd4 42. Rd7+ Ke3 43.
Rc7 Kd2 44. Rd7+ Kc2 45. Rd6 Rd1 46. Rxf6 Rd4+ 47. Kh3 Kc1 48. Ra6
c2 0-1

[johner-nimzovich]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 O-O 5.Bd3 c5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.O-O Bxc3
8.bxc3 d6 9.Nd2 b6 10.Nb3 e5 11.f4 e4 12.Be2 Qd7!?

Here’s the tricky bit, a mysterious Queen move. White’s natural
plan is to play g4. White wouldn’t dare if there was a Black rook
on the h-file. There isn’t, but Black moves his Queen(!) to h7,
slowing up White’s plan until Black takes the initiative on that
wing for himself.

13.h3 Ne7 14.Qe1 h5 15.Bd 2 Qf5 16.Kh2 Qh7!? Told you.
17.a4 Nf5 18.g3 a5 19.Rg1 Nh6 20.Bf1 Bd7 21.Bc1 Rac8 22.d5 Kh8
23.Nd2 Rg8 24.Bg2 g5 25.Nf1 Rg7 26.Ra2 Nf5 27.Bh1 Rcg8

White’s #28

28.Qd1 gxf4 29.exf4 Bc8 30.Qb3 Ba6 31.Re2 Nh4 32.Re3 Bc8
33.Qc2 Bxh3 34.Bxe4 Bf5 35.Bxf5 Nxf5 36.Re2 h4 37.Rgg2 hxg3+ 38.Kg1
Qh3 39.Ne3 Nh4 40.Kf1 Re8 0-1

Three opening themes that are all about pawns

1. Let’s look at majorities first. Lasker and
Fischer have both employed the apparently tame Exchange Variation
of the Ruy Lopez. 1 e4 e5, 2 Nf3 Nc6, 3 Bb5 a6, 4 Bxc6. Black
replies 4…dxc6 so as to be able to answer 5 Nxe5 with 5…Qd5!
Instead White goes 5 d4 exd4, 6 Qxd4 Qxd4, 7 Nxd4. White has a
clear Q-side pawn majority, but Black has no corresponding way to
make a passed pawn on the other side. Black isn’t lost in this
position – it’s not so much an ending as a queenless middle-game,
and Black can put the bishop pair to active use. But White’s
advantages in the position are easy to understand and make use of.
There is a comparable line of the Caro-Kann: 1 e4 c6, 2 d4 d5, 3
Nc3 dxe4, 4 Nxe4 Nf6, 5 Nxf6 exf6 (?!), where Black has only a
defensive slog to look forward to.

2. Now let’s look at a line where
mobility is the theme. Here’s a line of the King’s
Indian in the Four Pawns variation. 1 d4 Nf6, 2 c4 g6, 3 Nc3 Bg7, 4
e4 d6, 5 f4 O-O, 6 Nf3 c5, 7 d5 e6, 8 Be2 exd5, 9 exd5. Now here
Spassky devised a plan to rob the White position of its potential.
9…Nh4! 10 O-O Bxc3! 11 bxc3 f5! 12 Ng5 Ng7. Black has effectively
restrained White on both sides, at cost of the bishop pair, and a
weakness on e6. In this blocked position the bishop pair is of no
account and the last move adequately defends e6. Chances are
equal.

3. There are many lines where the key pawn feature is the
isolated Queen’s pawn (IQP). For example:

QGA: 1 d4 d5, 2 c4 dxc4, 3 Nf3 Nf6, 4 e3 e6, 5 Bxc4 c5, 6
O-O cxd4 7 exd4 and White has the IQP

QGD Tarrasch: 1 d4 d5, 2 c4 e6, 3 Nc3 c5, 4 cxd5 exd5, 5
Nf3 Nf6 and a later dxc5, Bxc5 gives Black an IQP

French Tarrasch: 1 e4 e6, 2 d4 d5, 3 Nd2 c5, 4 exd5 exd5
and a later dxc5, Bxc5 again gives Black an IQP

Typical manoeuvring against the IQP involves posting a
knight on the outpost in front of it; the side with the IQP will
usually try to make use of any space or attacking chances rather
than defend passively. Two examples, decades apart:

[Event “wch”][Site “USA”][Date “1886.??.??”][Round “9”]

[White “zukertort”][Black “steinitz (IQP)”][Result
“0-1”]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 dxc4 5. e3 c5 6. Bxc4
cxd4 7. exd4 Be7 8. O-O O-O 9. Qe2 Nbd7 10. Bb3 Nb6 11. Bf4 Nbd5
…etc., or

[Event “ct final”][Site “moscow “][Date “1974.??.??”][Round “16
(part – IQP)”]

[White “karpov”][Black “korchnoi “][Result “Q-Q”]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. exd5 exd5 5. Ngf3 Nc6 6.
Bb5 Bd6 7. O-O cxd4 8. Nb3 Nge7 9. Nbxd4 O-O 10. c3 Bg4 11. Qa4 Qd7
…etc.

4.6.3.4 The minority attack (Tough stuff-level K players
only).

BCF Certificate of Merit

Class 4 (Advanced)

BCF Certificate of Merit

Class 3 (Higher)

This, if you like, is the opposite of a majority attack.
In positions with no open file separating the two sides of the
board (for example after 1 d4, d5; 2 c4, e6; 3 cxd5,
exd5), the side with the majority on one side cannot
advance the pawns to create a guaranteed passed pawn. The best that
can be achieved may be some open files, but the single extra pawn
may be left as a backward pawn on a half-open file. Now, if this is
true, it may be possible for the side with the minority to advance
their pawns with the hope of creating this very weakness, or some
other weak point. This is the minority attack. So, in these
positions with only half-open files, we often see each side
attacking on the side where they are supposed to be weaker – where
they have the minority – and remaining passive on the majority
side. Let’s see this in action: play over the games fairly quickly
to get a ‘feel’ for the flow of the games.

evans – opsahl (CHERNEV) [D51]

minority attack in the QGD exchange, 1950

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Bg5 Nbd7 5. e3 Be7 6. Qc2
O-O 7. cxd5 exd5 8. Nf3 c6 9. Bd3 Re8 10. O-O Nf8 11. Rab1 Ne4 12.
Bxe7 Qxe7

The classic setting for the minority attack. 13. b4 a6 14. a4 Nxc3
15. Qxc3 Bg4 16. Nd2 Qg5 17. Rfc1 Re6

Drumming up some King’s-side counterplay. 18. b5 ! 18… axb5 19.
axb5 Bh3 20. g3 Rae8 21. bxc6 bxc6 22. Bf1 ! 22… Bxf1 23. Nxf1
Ng6 24. Rb6

A critical moment – if Black has to go back now he is really up
against the ropes. 24… Ne7 [24… Nh4 25. Rxc6 The Rook on c6
stops the Black Rook on e6 joining the attack. I think the White
King is safe here. 25… Nf3+ 26. Kh1 h5 27. Qb3 [27. Qd3]] 25. Qb4
h5 26. Rb8 Rxb8 27. Qxb8+ Kh7 28. Qf4 ! 28… Qxf4 29. gxf4
[The h-pawn cannot really be attacked, and with Queens
off White can use the King] 29… g6 30. Nd2 Rd6 31.
Kf1 Kg7 32. Ra1 Rd7 33. Nb3 Rb7 34. Nc5 Rb2 35. Ra7 Kf6 36. Ra6
Rb1+ 37. Kg2 Rb2 38. Ra7 Rb1 39. Rc7 Ra1 40. Nd3 Ke6 41. Nc5+ Kf6
42. Nd7+ Ke6 43. Nf8+ Kf6 44. Nh7+ Ke6 45. Ng5+ Kd6 46. Rb7

46… f6 ? [46… f5] 47. Nh7 Ke6 48. Nf8+ Very neat 48… Kf7
[48… Kd6 49. Rd7#] 49. Nxg6 Kxg6 50. Rxe7 White has a pawn and
hopes of collecting more. 50… Kf5 51. Rc7

51… Rc1 52. Rc8 Kg6 53. Kg3 Rc2 54. h4 Kf5 55. Rh8 Kg6 56. f5+
Kxf5 57. Rxh5+ Now White has a passed pawn. 57… Kg6 58. Rh8 Kf5
59. Rg8 Rc1 60. Kg2 Ra1 61. h5 Ra7 62. Rg3 Rh7 63. Rh3 Kg5 64. Kf3
Offering to trade the pawn for a winning King raid. 64… Rh6 65.
Rh1 Kf5 66. Kg3 Kg5 67. Rh4 Kf5 68. Rf4+ Kg5

69. Rg4+ ! Again offering the pawn, but again Black dare not
accept. 69… Kf5 [69… Kxh5 is rather like the game continuation:
70. Rh4+ Kg5 71. Rxh6 Kxh6 72. Kf4 Kg6 73. f3 Kg7 74. Kf5 Kf7 75.
f4 Ke7 76. Kg6 Ke6 77. f5+ Ke7 78. Kg7] 70. Kh4 Rh8 71. Rg7 Ra8 72.
h6 Ra1 73. Rg3 Rh1+ 74. Rh3 Rg1 75. Rf3+ Kg6 76. Rg3+

The winning clearance 76… Rxg3 77. Kxg3 Kxh6 78. Kg4
Kg6 79. Kf4 Kg7 80. Kf5 Kf7 81. f3 1-0

vogt – andersson (STEAN) [B84]

minority attack in the Sicilian, 1996

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 This is nearly
always Black’s fourth move in the Sicilian, to force the N on b1 in
front of the c-pawn. Left alone, White may play c2-c4, stopping
counterplay with d7-d5 or b7-b5, and removing danger on the c-file.
5. Nc3 e6 6. Be2 a6 7. f4 Qc7 8. O-O Be7 9. Kh1 Nc6 10. Be3 Nxd4
11. Qxd4 O-O 12. Rad1 b5 Already making use of the minority. The
move b7-b5 is sometimes a way of threatening the e-pawn, but more
often keeps the c-pawn backward on an open file. 13. e5 !? 13…
dxe5 14. Qxe5 Qb8 ! 15. Qxb8 Rxb8 16. Ba7 Ra8 17. Bb6 Bb7 18. a3
Rfc8

! Chess magazines are full of quick White kills against the
Sicilian. Why do players bother with it, then? Because the longer
games where the attack founders and Black wins the endgame are too
long for magazines. Watch… 19. Ba5 g6 20. h3 ? 20… h5 21. Bf3
Bxf3 22. Rxf3 h4

Now White has a weakness on g2 as well as c2. 23. Rd2 Rc4 24. b3
Rc6 25. a4 b4 26. Ne2 Rac8 27. c4 bxc3 28. Rxc3 The weakness has
been replaced by one on b3. 28… Nd5 29. Rxc6 Rxc6 30. Rb2 Bf6 31.
Ra2 Rc8 32. Bd2 [32. b4 Rb8] 32… Rb8 33. Nc1 Nb4 34. Bxb4 Rxb4
35. Rf2 The risks of the h2-h3 move is now clear. 35… Be7 36. Rf3

36… Bd6 37. Ne2 Re4 38. Rd3 [38. Rf2 Bc5] 38… Bc5 39. Rc3 Bf2
40. Rc2 Kg7 41. Ng1 Rxf4 ….0-1 vogt-andersson 1978

In both games we saw that the end result of the minority attack was
pawn weaknesses. Once these appear, you can carry on as we’ve
already seen in section 4.3.2.1. This may go some way to explaining
(a) why such an apparently helpful exchange is so often made by
White in the Queen’s Gambit, and (b) why the half-open defences
such as the Sicilian are so popular.

Contempt for Pawns

Posted on April 15, 1998 by DrDave

“The most important feature of the chess position is the
activity of the pieces. This is absolutely fundamental in all
phases of the game (opening, middlegame and especially
endgame).” — Michael STEAN, in Simple Chess.

“One of the main aims has been to highlight the
differences in approach between a Grandmaster and a weaker player,
and to try and narrow the gap. To some extent this comes down to
technical matters – more accurate analysis, superior opening
knowledge, better endgame technique and so forth; but in other
respects the difference goes deeper and many readers will find that
they need to rethink much of their basic attitude to the game. One
example of this would be the tremendous emphasis which is placed on
the dynamic use of the pieces, if necessary
at the expense of the pawn structure, or even of material. This is
no mere question of style; it is a characteristic of the games of
all the great players.” — Peter GRIFFITHS, Introduction to
Secrets of Grandmaster Chess (Nunn/Griffiths).

Introduction

A while ago I bought a collection of the writings of Cecil
Purdy, to whom I was introduced by Irving Chernev. Chernev is
better known, but Purdy was the better player (a world
correspondence champion) and at least as good a writer. I’m always
quoting his “Examine moves that smite!”, and while reading
his book came across another memorable piece of advice:

“We all play a great deal of rotten chess – some more
than others – and one if the roots of the trouble is the tyranny of
the Pawn.

“There are still many players whose idea of winning a
game consists in grabbing a Pawn and struggling through somehow to
an endgame – where, they fondly believe, a Pawn plus is an
automatic win. Here we see the tyranny of the Pawn in its vilest
and most nauseating form. But there are degrees, and even in master
play we find weak moves being made through an insufficient contempt
for Pawns.” – CJSP

What is on Purdy’s mind is the same thought expressed
more temperately by Stean and Griffiths above. Pawns are no use
without active pieces.

Capablanca,J – Lasker,E [C80] St.Petersburg, 1914

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5
7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6 9.Nbd2 Nc5 10.c3 d4 11.cxd4 Nxd4 12.Nxd4 Qxd4
13.Bxe6 Nxe6 14.Qf3 Rd8 15.a4 Qd5 16.Qxd5 Rxd5 17.axb5 axb5 18.Ra8+
Nd8 What would you play here?

+-----------------+

19.Ne4!!

hitting c5, allowing f2-f4, threatening Nc3…

[19.Nf3 “Tarrasch says that 99 players out of hundred
would have played this“]

19…Rxe5 Now White’s pieces get into
good positions. 20.Rd1 Be7 21.f3

+-----------------+

“This quiet move shows how silly it is to lose your head just
because you have given up a Pawn.”

21…Rf5

“(?) Black caves in” – Tydoki & Long.

22.Rc8

“And Black must give up the c-Pawn“

It remains to be seen if White’s continuing initiative is
enough to bring more than recovery of the Pawn deficit.

22…0-0 23.Rxc7 Bb4 24.Be3 Ne6 25.Rcd7 Rc8
26.R1d5 Rxd5 27.Rxd5 Rc2 28.b3 Rb2 29.Rxb5 Rxb3 30.Bd2 Bc5+ 31.Rxc5
Nxc5 32.Nxc5 Rb2 33.Be3 Re2 34.Bf2 f6 35.Kf1 Ra2 36.g4 Kf7 37.Ne4
h6 38.Kg2 Ra3 39.f4 Rb3 40.Ng3 Ra3 41.Nf1 Rd3 42.Ne3 Rc3 43.Kf3 Ra3
44.f5 Ra2 45.Nd5 Rb2 46.Nf4 Ra2 47.h4 Ra5 48.Bd4 Ra3+ 49.Be3 Ra5
50.Nh5 Ra4 51.Ng3 Kg8 52.Ne4 Kf7 53.Bd2 Ra1 54.Bc3 Rf1+ 55.Nf2 Rc1
56.Bd4 Re1 57.Ne4 Rf1+ 58.Bf2 Ra1 59.Kf4 Ra4 60.Bc5 Rc4 61.Kf3 Rc1
62.Bf2 Ra1 63.Kf4 Ra4 64.Kf3 Ra3+ 65.Be3 Ra5 66.Nc5 Ra1 67.Ne6 Ra3
68.Ke4 Ra4+ 69.Bd4 Rb4 70.Kd3 Rb3+ 71.Ke4 Rb4 72.Kd5 Rb1 73.g5 hxg5
74.hxg5 fxg5 75.Nxg5+ Kg8 76.Ne6 Rd1 77.Ke4 Kf7 78.Ng5+ Kg8 79.Ke5
Re1+ 80.Kf4 Rf1+ 81.Kg4 Rd1 82.Nf3 Rf1 83.Be5 Kf7 84.Kf4 Kg8 85.Ke4
Rd1 86.Ng5 Re1+ 87.Kd5 Rd1+ 88.Ke6 Re1 89.Nh3 Rb1 90.Nf4 Rb6+
91.Ke7 Rb5 92.Ng6 Rb6 93.Bd6 Ra6 94.Ke6 Rb6 95.Ne7+ Kh7 96.Nc8 Ra6
97.Ne7 Rb6 98.Nd5 Ra6 99.Nc3 Kg8 100.Ne4 Rb6 1/2-1/2

Actually, no.Another Purdy example to rub the point
in:

Nimzowitsch,A – Capablanca,J [C62] St
Petersburg (1), 1914

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 d6 5.d4 Bd7 6.Bxc6!? Bxc6
7.Qd3 exd4 8.Nxd4 g6!? 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Qa6 Qd7! 11.Qb7 Rc8 12.Qxa7
Bg7

+-----------------+

Black has two tempi for the a-Pawn, but no real weaknesses to
attack and faces a passed a-Pawn.

“Any woodshifter would consider himself in clover in
White’s position… Nimzovitch played quite reasonably all the
time, and yet found himself dead lost within a dozen more moves.
(…) It is always very difficult to play correctly when the enemy
has the initiative.” – CJSP

13.0-0 0-0 14.Qa6 Rfe8 15.Qd3 Qe6 16.f3 Nd7
17.Bd2 Ne5 18.Qe2 Nc4 19.Rab1 Ra8 20.a4 Nxd2 21.Qxd2 Qc4 22.Rfd1
Reb8 23.Qe3 Rb4 24.Qg5 Bd4+ 25.Kh1 Rab8 26.Rxd4 Qxd4 27.Rd1 Qc4
28.h4 Rxb2 29.Qd2 Qc5 30.Re1 Qh5 31.Ra1 Qxh4+ 32.Kg1 Qh5 33.a5 Ra8
34.a6 Qc5+ 35.Kh1 Qc4 36.a7 Qc5 37.e5 Qxe5 38.Ra4 Qh5+ 39.Kg1 Qc5+
40.Kh2 d5 41.Rh4 Rxa7 0-1

Here is perhaps an example of the dangers of reading… a
game I played shortly after reading this Purdy piece.

Regis,D – Laker,L [D00] Devon vs. Dorset,
1998

1.e4 d5

+-----------------+

This godforsaken opening ought to be banned.

2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3

A Pawn sacrifice for development and open
lines.

4…exf3 5.Nxf3 Bg4

[5…Bf5 6.Ne5 e6 7.g4 Bg6 8.Bg2 c6 9.h4]

6.h3 Bh5 7.g4 Bg6 8.Ne5 +/-

+-----------------+

Euwe 8…e6 9.Bg2 c6

[9…Nd5 1-0 Schug H-Chmelik/cr eu Mkl 1992 (20); 9…Be4
1-0 Tiemann-Zimmer/BGD -WFT – Gruppe 30 1987 (23)]

10.0-0!?

[10.h4 transposes to a position from the
Tartakower-Gunderam line. 10…Bb4! 11.0-0 +/- Korchnoi]

10…Nbd7

[10…Bd6 1-0 Velimirovic D GM-Andrejevic IM/Yugoslavian
CS sf 1984 (41);

10…Bxc2 11.Qd2 (11.Qxc2 Qxd4+) 11…h6 12.Nxf7
Kxf7 13.Qxc2 Qxd4+ 14.Kh1 Bd6 15.Bd2+/- Holwell]

11.Nxg6 hxg6 12.Qf3 Qb6

[12…Qe7]

13.g5 Be7

[13…Nd5 14.Qxf7+ Kd8 15.Nxd5 exd5 16.c3+/-]

14.gxf6 gxf6

+-----------------+

[14…Bxf6 15.Be3 Qxb2 16.Ne4]

15.Qd3 0-0-0 16.Be3 Qa5

+-----------------+

17.b4!?

A sacrifice for open lines.

17…Bxb4 18.Ne4 Nc5 19.Nxc5 Bxc5 20.Rab1 Qc7 21.Qc4 Bd6
22.Qa4 a6 23.Rxf6 Rh7

+-----------------+

[23…Rh4 24.Rbf1]

24.d5!?

Opening the diagonal.

24…Bh2+?

A reflex check: the rest is easy.

[24…cxd5! 25.Bb6 Bc5+!;

24…exd5!? 25.Bb6 Qe7 26.Bxd8 Qe3+! (we both missed this
in analysis) 27.Kf1! Bc5 28.Rxc6+! Kxd8 (28…bxc6 29.Qxc6+
Kxd8 30.Rb8+ Ke7 31.Re8#) 29.Rxc5 Qxc5+-]

25.Kh1

[25.Kf1? Qe7 26.dxc6 Qxf6+]

25…Rdh8 26.dxc6 Rxh3

[26…bxc6 27.Qxa6+ Kd8 (27…Kd7 28.Rb7)
28.Bb6]

27.cxb7+ Kb8 28.Bxh3 Rxh3 29.Qe8+
1-0

A deeply imperfect game, of course, but one which I hope
shows the spirit if not the rigour of Purdy’s advice.

We can and should sacrifice Pawns
for:

Development
Open lines for the attack
Initiative
Activity
Counterplay
To make a mess

We can see examples of all of these below.

Pawn sacrifices for development in the
opening

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3

[3…d3 4.Bxd3 declining a gambit in this way is quite
common, although probably not the best method in this case]

4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2

+-----------------+

White’s pawn sacrifices have yielded a dangerous attacking
position. How should you defend against a gambit like this?

5…d5

(i) do not be afraid to return some or all of
your gains in order to catch up in development

[5…d6 6.Ne2 (6.f4) 6…Nc6 7.0-0 Be6 neutralising the
glare of the Bishop towards f7 and seeking exchanges 8.Bd5 Nf6
9.Qb3 Qc8 10.Nf4 Bxd5 11.exd5 Ne5 12.Re1

+-----------------+

12…Be7 !

absolutely the correct and modern idea. Black returns
material to complete development, and will emerge with the upper
hand

13.Bxe5 dxe5 14.Rxe5 Qd7 ! 15.Qg3 (15.Qxb7 0-0
when White’s position is uncoordinated and
under-developed) 15…0-0-0 16.Qxg7 Qd6 17.Qg5 Rhe8 18.Nd2
Nd7

+-----------------+

Black has exchanged his extra material for a superior position.
White’s strategy has been a shambles, and must concede the
exchange.

19.Rxe7 Qxe7 20.Qg3 Qb4 21.Nf3 Rg8 22.Qh4 Qc3 23.Rb1 Qxf3
resigns: Mieses-Maroczy, Monte Carlo 1902.

The exact moves have been improved on since, but this
strategy of Black was the death-knell for the romantic sacrificial
openings.]

6.Bxd5 Bb4+

[6…Nf6 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qxd8 Bb4+ 9.Qd2 Bxd2+ 10.Nxd2
Re8

+-----------------+

the rival majorities look exciting, but the opposite-coloured
bishops dampen it a little. Chances in any event are even]

7.Nc3 Bxc3+ 8.Bxc3 Nf6

(ii) seek to reduce the attacking potential
of your opponent through exchanges

9.Qf3 Nxd5 10.exd5 0-0

+-----------------+

white still has some attacking chances but Black looks secure (no
weaknesses and has an extra pawn: =+ keres

Related ideas in other gambit
openings:

[2.Nf3 Nc6

A) 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4
Bb4+ 7.Nc3

+-----------------+

7…Nxe4

(iv) don’t snatch material in the opening,
but destroying central pawns is allowed

(7…d5

(iii) don’t snatch material in the
opening

8.exd5 Nxd5 9.0-0)

8.0-0 Nxc3 9.bxc3 Bxc3

+-----------------+

a famous gambit position (9…d5

(i) don’t be afraid to return material to
complete your development)

10.Qb3 or 10.Ba3 and now Black’s greed for material must be
tempered with caution since 10…Bxa1 yields a fine
attacking position for White (Bernstein);

B) 3.d4 3…exd4

B1) 4.Bc4 Scotch Gambit 4…Bc5 5.0-0 d6
6.c3 dxc3 7.Nxc3 Be6 (7…Nf6 8.Bg5) 8.Bxe6 fxe6 9.Qb3 Qc8
10.Be3 Bxe3 11.fxe3 Nf6 12.Ng5 Nd8 13.Rac1 a6 14.Na4 Qd7 15.e5
h6

(15…dxe5 16.Nc5; 15…b5 16.exf6 bxa4 17.Qc2 gxf6
18.Ne4 0-0 19.Nxf6+ Rxf6 20.Rxf6)

16.Nf3 b5 (16…Nd5)

17.exf6 bxa4 18.Qc2 gxf6

+-----------------+

19.Qg6+ Ke7 ? (19…Qf7 20.Qxf7+ Nxf7 21.Rxc7 0-0
+/-)

20.Ne5 dxe5 21.Qxf6+ Staunton-von Jaenisch, 1853;

B2) 4.c3

+-----------------+

the Goering gambit 4…dxc3 (4…d3 not quite satisfactory
according to modern theory) 5.Bc4 Nf6

(5…cxb2 6.Bxb2 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Nf6 8.Qc2 d6 9.0-0-0
yields a vigorous initiative for the pawns)

6.Nxc3

+-----------------+

6…Bb4 7.0-0 Bxc3 8.bxc3 d6 9.e5 dxe5 10.Ng5 Be6 11.Bxe6 fxe6
12.Qb3 with some initiative and a promise to regain the pawn;

2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5

(3…Be7 a more modern approach like the
Cunningham Variation is more awkward for White)

4.Bc4 g4

+-----------------+

the famous Muzio Gambit: White does not shrink from sacrifice of
pieces as well as pawns 5.0-0 gxf3 6.Qxf3 Qf6 7.e5 Qxe5

+-----------------+

interestingly, the most promising line may be to sacrifice some
more

A) 8.Bxf7+ the double Muzio Gambit –
outrageous! 8…Kxf7 9.d4 Qxd4+

(9…Qf5 10.g4 Qg6 11.Bxf4 Nf6 12.Be5 d6 13.Bxf6 Bxg4
14.Qg2 Rg8 15.Kh1 Bf5 16.Qd5+)

10.Be3 Qf6 11.Nc3 Ne7 12.Nd5

+-----------------+

with an attack for the material – is it enough? 12…Nxd5 13.Qxd5+
Qe6 14.Rxf4+ Kg8 15.Qg5+ Qg6 16.Rxf8+ Kxf8 17.Rf1+;

B) 8.d3 8…Bh6 9.Nc3 Ne7 10.Bd2 Nbc6
11.Rae1

+-----------------+

still with some initiative]

Pawn sacrifices for open lines

Gausel,E – Davies,N [B06] *Oslo, 1988,
1988

1.d4 d6 2.e4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.Bc4 Nc6 5.Be3 Nf6 6.h3
e5

[6…Ng4]

7.dxe5 Nxe5 8.Bb3 0-0 9.Qd2

+-----------------+

9…b5! 10.f3 b4 11.Nd5 Nxd5 12.Bxd5 c6 13.Bb3 a5 14.a4 d5
15.exd5 Nc4! 16.Bxc4 Bxb2! 17.Ne2 Qh4+ 18.Bf2 Qxc4 19.Rb1 Bc3
20.Nxc3 bxc3 21.Qd3 Re8+ 22.Kd1 Qa2! 23.Rc1 Ba6 24.Qxc3 Qxd5+
25.Qd2 Rad8!

+-----------------+

0-1

Lorinczi P – Browne Walter S [A58] Olympiad,
Siegen (Germany), 1970

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.bxa6 Bxa6

[5…g6 is now thought more accurate in case of
b2-b3]

6.Nc3 d6 7.Nf3 g6 8.g3 Bg7 9.Bg2 0-0 10.0-0 Nbd7
11.Qc2 Qa5 12.Re1 Nb6 13.e4 Nfd7 14.Bg5 Rfe8 15.Nd2
Ne5

+-----------------+

A fairly typical Benko position: here the Rf8 must go to e8 not
b8.

16.Nb3 Bd3 17.Qc1 Qb4 18.Bh6 Bh8 19.Nd2 Nec4
20.Nxc4 Nxc4 21.a4 Qxb2 22.Qxb2 Nxb2 23.Rec1 Reb8 24.a5 Rb3 25.Bd2
Nc4 26.Be1 Na3 (cutting off the a-Pawn) 27.Bf1
Bxf1 28.Kxf1 Rxa5 29.Ra2 Ra7 30.f3 Nb5 31.Rxa7 Nxa7 32.Kg2 f5
0-1

Basman,M – Benjamin,J [B15], 1976
[MJB]

“Greatly under the influence of Chinese Chess, which is like
our chess but with fewer Pawns, I decided to try its methods out in
my own games.”The following encounter can be understood
strategically in this way: White saddles his opponent with as many
Pawns as possible so that they will hamper the action of the Black
pieces; meanwhile the White pieces, particularly the Rooks (alias
chariots), invade the position and deliver a knockout blow.” –
MJB.

1.e4 g6 2.d4 c6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bg5 h6 5.Bf4 Bg7 6.Qd2
dxe4 7.0-0-0 Nf6 8.f3 exf3 9.Nxf3 g5 10.Be5 Bf5 11.h3 Nbd7 12.Qe1
Nb6 13.g4 Be6 14.Rg1 Qd7 15.d5 Nbxd5

[15…cxd5 16.Bb5]

16.Nxd5 cxd5

[16…Bxd5 17.c4]

17.Nd4 a6 18.h4 Bxg4 19.hxg5 hxg5

+-----------------+

20.Rd3! “The distinctive chariot
move…”

20…Be6 21.Rb3 g4 22.Rb6 Rg8 23.Qb4 Bh6+
24.Kb1

+-----------------+

“It’s time to take stock of White’s strategy, which seems on
the brink of success.” 24…a5??

[24…Be3! 25.Rg3! (25.Rxb7 Bxg1 26.Rxd7 Bxd7 27.Bxf6
exf6) 25…Bxd4 26.Qxd4 Ne4 27.Rgb3 Ra7 28.Bxa6]

25.Qa3! Qd8 26.Bxf6 Rg6

“Black has at last discovered how Rooks move, but
it’s too late.”

[26…exf6 27.Bb5+ Bd7 28.Re1+]

27.Bb5+ Bd7 28.Re1 Rxf6 29.Rxf6 Bd2
30.Rh1

+-----------------+

1-0

Pawn sacrifices for squares

Kopec – Staub [B30] Ivy league Team NJ
1973

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bd3 Nf6 4.Nc3 d5 5.e5 Nd7

+-----------------+

6.e6 fxe6 7.Ng5 Nf6 8.Bxh7 Nxh7 9.Qh5+ Kd7 10.Nxh7 Kc7
11.d4!

+-----------------+

“Maintaining a grip on e5, if only by tactical means, is
important in demonstrating Black’s problems.” – DK

11…b6 12.Bf4+ Kb7 13.Qg6

“and Black was all bound up.”

Kotov – Gligoric,Z [E87], 1953

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 e5 7.d5
c5 8.Bd3 Nh5 9.Nge2 f5 10.exf5 gxf5 11.Qc2

+-----------------+

White looks to have powerful pressure against the exposed Black
pawns.

11…e4

Startling!

12.fxe4 f4 (the point) 13.Bf2
Nd7 14.Ng1 Qg5 15.Bf1 Ne5

+-----------------+

…when Black’s coup has yielded a stranglehold over the Black
squares. White is struggling to draw… two Pawns up!

16.Nf3 Qe7 17.Nxe5 Qxe5 18.0-0-0 Nf6 19.h3 Bd7
20.Bd3 a6 21.Nb1 f3 22.gxf3 Nh5 23.Nd2 Nf4 24.Bf1 b5 25.h4 Kh8
26.Rg1 Bf6 27.Nb3 Rab8 28.Be1 b4 29.Kb1 Ra8 30.Bg3 Rg8 31.Qh2 Rxg3
32.Rxg3 Ne2 33.Qxe2 Qxg3 34.Nc1 a5 35.Nd3 Bd4 36.h5 Qh4 37.Bg2 Rg8
38.Rh1 Qg3 39.Bf1 a4 40.Kc2 a3 41.b3 1/2-1/2

Pawn sacrifices for activity in WC
matches

Karpov,A (2705) – Kasparov,G (2715) [D53]
Wch31-KK1 Moscow (19), 1984

1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bxf6 Bxf6
7.Qd2 Nc6 8.e3 0-0 9.Rc1 a6 10.Be2 dxc4 11.Bxc4 e5 12.d5 Na7
13.Qc2

+-----------------+

13…Nb5!?

“A typical Kasparov decision, offering a Pawn to try
and free his position.” – Speelman/Tisdall.

[13…Bd7; 13…c6? 14.dxc6 Nxc6+/-]

14.Nxb5 axb5 15.Bb3 e4 16.Nd4 Bxd4 17.exd4 c6
18.dxc6 Qxd4 19.0-0 bxc6 20.Qxc6 Bd7 21.Qd5 Qxd5 22.Bxd5 Ra6
23.Rfd1 Be6 24.a3 Bxd5 25.Rxd5 Rb8 26.Rd4 Ra4 27.Rcd1 Rc8 28.Kf1
Rc2 29.R4d2 Rxd2 30.Rxd2 Rc4 31.Ke2 b4 32.Kd1 bxa3 33.bxa3 Ra4
34.Ra2 f5 35.Kc2 f4 36.Kb3 Rd4 37.Ra1 Kf7 38.a4 e3 39.Kc3 Rd8
40.fxe3 fxe3 41.Re1 Ra8 42.Kb3 Rb8+ 43.Kc2 Ra8 44.Rf1+ Ke6
1/2-1/2

Kasparov,G (2715) – Karpov,A (2705) [A33]
Wch31-KK1 Moscow (26), 1984

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 e6 6.g3 Qb6
7.Nb3 d5 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Bg2 Nxc3 10.bxc3 Be7 11.0-0 e5 12.Be3 Qc7
13.Nc5 0-0 14.Qa4 Bxc5 15.Bxc5 Rd8 16.Rfd1 Be6

+-----------------+

17.h3! Rxd1+!?

“Karpov surrenders a Pawn but is able to emerge with
excellent compensation.” – SPEELMAN/TISDALL

18.Rxd1 Rd8 19.Rxd8+ Qxd8 20.Bxa7 Qa8 21.Bxc6
bxc6 22.Kh2 h5 23.Qa5 f6 1/2-1/2

Karpov,A (2720) – Kasparov,G (2700) [B85]
Wch32-KK2 Moscow (10), 1985

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 e6
7.0-0 Be7 8.f4 0-0 9.Kh1 Qc7 10.a4 Nc6 11.Be3 Re8 12.Bg1 Rb8 13.Qd2
e5 14.Nb3 Na5 15.Nxa5 Qxa5 16.Ba7 Ra8 17.Be3 Qb4

+-----------------+

What’s Black up to here?

[17…Rb8; 17…exf4 18.Rxf4 Be6]

18.Qd3 Be6 19.f5 Bd7 20.Ra3 Qa5 21.Rb3 b5!
22.axb5 axb5 23.Nxb5 Bc6 24.Bf3 Rab8 25.c4 Qa8!

+-----------------+

One of the points of the whole sequence. Black recovers his Pawn
and some central influence.

26.Bg5 Bxe4 27.Bxe4 Nxe4 28.Bxe7 Rxe7 29.Ra3 Qc6
30.b4 h5

[or 30…h6 when Black may even be better]

31.Na7 Rxa7 32.Rxa7 Rxb4 33.Qf3 Rxc4 34.Qxh5 Nf2+
35.Kg1 Nh3+ 36.Kh1 Nf2+ 37.Kg1 1/2-1/2

Karpov,A (2705) – Kasparov,G (2715) [D58]
Wch31-KK1 Moscow (31), 1984

1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3
b6 8.Rc1 Bb7 9.Be2 Nbd7 10.cxd5 exd5 11.0-0 c5 12.Qa4 a6 13.dxc5
bxc5 14.Rfd1 Qb6 15.Qb3 Qa7 16.Bg3 Rad8 17.Ne1

+-----------------+

17…d4

“Unwilling to await a further intensification of the
pressure by 18. Bf3, Kasparov unleashes a tide of murky
complications.” – SPEELMAN/TISDALL

18.exd4 cxd4 19.Na4 Rc8 20.Rxc8 Rxc8 21.Bc4 Rf8
22.Qd3! Bc6! 23.Bb3 Ne4! 24.Qxd4 Qb7! 25.Bd5! Ndf6 26.Bxc6
Qxc6

+-----------------+

“So Karpov has won a Pawn. Black has reasonable if amorphous
compensation in the excellent centralisation of his forces, and
with time trouble approaching this is not to be
underestimated.” – SPEELMAN/TISDALL

27.b3 Re8 28.Qd3?! h5! 29.Qc4 Qb7 30.Nf3 Rc8
31.Qe2 Ng4 32.Ne5 Nxg3 33.hxg3 Qb5! 34.Nc4 Bf6 35.Nab6
Re8

+-----------------+

A time trouble draw. 1/2-1/2

Kasparov,G (2715) – Karpov,A (2705) [C42]
Wch31-KK1 Moscow (28), 1984

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Nc6
7.0-0 Bg4 8.Re1 Be7 9.c4 Nf6 10.cxd5 Bxf3 11.Qxf3 Qxd5 12.Qh3!?
Nxd4! 13.Nc3 Qd7 14.Qxd7+ Kxd7 15.Be3 Ne6

+-----------------+

“For his Pawn, White has the two Bishops and a significant lead
in development. Chances are even.” – SPEELMAN/TISDALL

16.Rad1 Bd6 17.Bf5 Ke7 18.Nb5 Rhd8 19.Nxd6 cxd6
20.h3 b6 21.g4 h6 22.Bd4 Rac8 23.Bc3 g6 24.Bc2 h5 25.f3
1/2-1/2

Kasparov,G (2700) – Karpov,A (2720) [E20]
Wch32-KK2 Moscow (13), 1985

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 c5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Ne4
7.Bd2 Bxc3 8.bxc3 0-0 9.0-0 f5!

+-----------------+

10.Be3!

“An excellent move found after [34m] thought. White
must gambit the Pawn to stay active.” – KEENE

10…Nxc3 11.Qd3 cxd4 12.Nxd4 Ne4 13.c5 Nxd4
14.Bxd4 b6 15.Bxe4 fxe4 16.Qxe4 Ba6 17.cxb6 axb6 18.Qe5 Qf6 19.Qe3
Qh6 20.Qxh6 gxh6 21.Rfe1 Bc4 22.a3 b5 23.Rad1 Rf5 24.Bb2 Rd5
1/2-1/2

Karpov,A (2700) – Kasparov,G (2740) [D88]
Wch34-KK4 Sevilla (9), 1987

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7
7.Bc4 c5 8.Ne2 Nc6 9.Be3 0-0 10.0-0 Bg4 11.f3 Na5 12.Bxf7+ Rxf7
13.fxg4 Rxf1+ 14.Kxf1 cxd4 15.cxd4 Qb6 16.Kg1 Qe6 17.Qd3 Qxg4
18.Rf1 Rc8 19.h3 Qd7 20.d5 Nc4 21.Bd4 e5 22.dxe6 Qxe6 23.Bxg7 Kxg7
24.Nf4 Qd6 25.Qc3+ Kh6 26.Nd5 Qe5 27.Qd3 Kg7 28.Nf6 Qd6 29.Qc3 Qe5
30.Qd3 Qd6 31.Qc3 Qe5 32.Qb3 Rc7 33.Qd3 Rf7 34.Qxc4 Rxf6 35.Rd1 b5
36.Rd7+ Kh6 37.Qe2 Qc5+ 38.Kh2 Qe5+ 39.g3 Qc3 40.Kg2 Qc4 41.Qe3+ g5
42.Rd2 Qf1+ 43.Kh2 Qf3 44.Qd4 Re6 45.e5 Qf5 46.Re2

+-----------------+

46…a5!

“An outstanding method of active defence.” –
KEENE.

47.Qd5 b4 48.Qxa5 Qd3 49.Rg2 Qd4 50.Qa8 Qxe5
51.Qf8+ Kg6 52.Qxb4 h5 53.h4 gxh4 54.Qxh4 Rd6 55.Qc4 Rd4 56.Qc6+
Kg7 57.Qb7+ Kh6 58.Qc6+ Kg7 59.Rc2 Rh4+ 60.Kg2 Qe4+ 61.Qxe4 Rxe4
62.Rc7+ Kg6 63.Ra7 Re3 64.Kh3 Rc3 65.Ra8 Rc4 66.a4 Kg5 67.a5 Ra4
68.a6 Kh6 69.Kg2 Ra3 70.Kf2 Kg7 1/2-1/2

Capablanca: Master of Attack

Posted on March 23, 1998 by DrDave

Peter Lane, 23 March 1998

“…go back a quarter of a century and look for the
culmination of the art of the attack on the king in the play of
Alekhin and Capablanca”

— Vladimir VUKOVIC, The Art of Attack in
Chess (1965).

Alekhin’s attacking prowess is well known, but what
about Capablanca’s? Here, to redress the balance, are some examples
from Capablanca. The first two games show a surprise knock-out from
what may look a fairly balanced position, and a shock sacrifice
leading to an overwhelming positional bind. The last two games show
sustained attacking play, with sacrifices to open up the king,
relying on relative piece mobility to force the checkmate. All the
games are taken from The Unknown Capablanca by
Hooper and Brandreth (H&B) — notes are based on their
comments.

84) Capablanca,J – Funaroff,M [C66]

New York, 17.06.1918

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 d6

The Scotch opening aims for open play, and black’s
attempt to keep the game closed can only be a temporary
measure.

4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Bb5 Bd7 6.0-0 Be7 7.Re1
exd4

This move is now forced — after white’s defense of his
e-pawn he is threatening Bxc6 Bxc6: dxe5. The pressure on e5 is a
recurring theme in e-pawn openings.

8.Nxd4 Nxd4

Trying to simplify, but encouraging white’s better
centralisation. Best is 8… O-O.

9.Qxd4 Bxb5 10.Nxb5 0-0 11.Qc3

“Instead of applying the old principle of developing
his pieces as quickly as possible” RETI — Capablanca puts
each piece to optimum effect. Thinking about the position we might
be attracted by a ‘mate on g7: the N is bound for f5, and the Q for
g3. Subtle …

11…c6

This move weakens d6 and encourages the Nb5 to move as
planned. Maybe …Ne8 with …Bf6, but white maintains a space
advantage.

12.Nd4 Nd7 13.Nf5 Bf6 14.Qg3 Ne5 15.Bf4 Qc7
16.Rad1 Rad8

+-----------------+

“Playing on the basis of a spatial advantage is in a sense a
question of blind faith.” STEAN

White’s pieces exert maximum impact, but it is hard to
see how this could be increased. Indeed, black’s only weakness is
at d6 — put the c-pawn back to c7 and all is perfect — but who
would dream of a decisive combination in this position? The key is
the inter-relation of g3, f5 and e5 with d6 and g7. Even when you
know, the next move is stunning.

17.Rxd6

“As usual, tactics flow from a positionally superior
game.” FISCHER

17…Rxd6 18.Bxe5

The bishop strikes through to c7 and g7 — note now white
has taken over black’s e5 strong-point.

18…Rd1

A spirited counterblow. 18…Bxe5 19. Qxe5 with ‘mate on
g7 or an extra piece after Qxd6. 18…Qa5 was best, when 19. f4
Bxe5 20.fxe5 Rg6 21.Ne7+ leaves white an extra pawn, but many
problems in converting it.

19.Rxd1 Bxe5

And now white moves his queen, and either h2 or b2 falls,
with equality… Not likely!

20.Nh6+ Kh8 21.Qxe5 Qxe5 22.Nxf7+

A beautifully clear theme: back-rank ‘mate.

1-0

85) Capablanca,J – Chase,A [C33]

New York, 23.02.1922

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Qf3

Surely the queen is in the way here?

3…Nc6 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 d5 6.e5 Ne4 7.Bxf4 g5 8.Be3
h5

+-----------------+

“The one inconvenient feature of this position is the awkward
situation of his queen in the centre of the board. This can be
easily removed, if the queen is sacrificed.” TAL

I wonder whether Tal would say the same about this
position?

9.Nd2

“Is that sound?” CHERNEV

“Wait and see.” JRC

9…Bg4 10.Nxe4 Bxf3 11.Nf6+ Ke7 12.Nxf3 Bh6
13.Nxg5 Bg7 14.Bd3 Bxf6 15.0-0

White’s position is quite secure, with pressure on the
f-file. If now 15…Bxe5 16.Nxf7 with a winning attack.

15…Qg8 16.Rxf6 Rf8 17.Raf1 Nd8

Black’s pieces are powerless. White begins a Q-side
break.

18.b4 Qg7 19.h4 Ke8 20.b5 b6 21.Be2 Ne6 22.Bf3
Nxg5 23.Bxg5 Qh7 24.Bxd5 Qd3 25.Bc6+

If 25…Ke7/d8 26.Rxf7+ Kc8 27.Rxf8+ Rxf8 28.Rxf8
‘mate.

1-0

83) Capablanca,J – Anon [D37]

New York, 11.01.1916

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 Bd6

This bishop is mis-placed, better 4…Be7

5.Bg5 c6 6.e3 0-0 7.Rc1 dxc4 8.Bxc4 Nbd7 9.Bd3
Be7

If 9…e5 10.Ne4, see move 4!

10.0-0 b6 11.Qc2 Bb7 12.Ne5 g6

White threatened Nxd7 Qxd7: Bxf6 Bxf6: Bxh7+, but 12…h6
looks less weakening.

13.Bh6 Re8 14.Rfd1

Capablanca loves piece play: 14.f4-f5 looks strong.

14…Nxe5 15.dxe5 Nd5 16.Nxd5 exd5

+-----------------+

Not 16…cxd5 17.Bb5 winning the exchange. White is well
centralised, looking at some holes on black’s K- and Q- sides. The
dark squares around the black king look especially tender, but how
to get at them? Here we see the pre-conditions for an attack, and
can now watch Capablanca exploit them.

17.e6 f5

Avoiding 17…fxe6 18.Bxg6 hxg6 19.Qxg6+ Kh8 20.Qg7
‘mate.

18.Bxf5 gxf5 19.Qxf5 Bf6

Averting the threat of Qg4/f7+ – g7 ‘mate.

20.e4 Qe7 21.exd5 cxd5

Perhaps 21…Rac8 is sounder, when white has compensation
for the piece, e.g.22.Rc4 cxd5 23.Rf4 Bxb2 24.Qg4+ Kh8 25.Rf7 Qxe6
26.Rf8+ Rxf8 27. Qxe6. White’s next move is not too obvious —
forcing black to surrender his dark-square control.

22.Rc7 Qxc7 23.Qxf6

+-----------------+

In this game we have a `real’ rook sacrifice, i.e. there is no
forced sequence leading to ‘mate, and so the evaluation depends on
our feel for combinations. They say two connected passed pawns on
the 6th are worth a rook, and I think one on the 6th is worth an
out-of-play piece!

23…Qe7

Most natural. H&B give 23…Re7 24.Rd3 Rg7 25.Rc3
(25.Bxg7?? Qc1 and ‘mate!) Rxg2+ 26.Kxg2 d4+ 27.f3 dxc3 28.e7 and
wins, e.g. 28…Bxf3+ 29.Kxf3 Qb7+ 30.Kf2 with Qf8+.

Tarrasch claimed the sacrifices as unsound due to:
23…Rac8 but then 24.Qg5+ Kh8 25.Re1! (Qf6+ draws for the nervous)
when a) 25…Re7 26.Qf6+ Kg8 27.Bf4 and b) 25…Qe7 26.Qe5+ Kg8
27.f4 each give white a strong attack. Worth a rook? Think about
f4-f5-f6.

24.Qe5 Rf8 25.Rd3 Qf6 26.Rg3+ Kh8
27.Bg7+

Brilliant — and part of a 32-board simultaneous
display!

1-0

Capablanca,J – Stahr,J [D05]

Chicago, 26.03.1915

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3 c5
5.c3

“For his less serious encounters Capablanca often
played this opening. It was later invented by Colle.”
B&H

White plans Nbd2:O-O:Qe2 and e4. The delayed punch in the
centre often causes Black problems.

5…c4

Black should never release the central tension — it
gives white a free hand to attack. Better are …Nc6 or …Be7

6.Bc2 Bd6 7.Nbd2 Nbd7 8.Qe2 Qc7 9.e4 dxe4 10.Nxe4
Nxe4 11.Qxe4 Nf6 12.Qh4 h6

If 12…O-O 13.Bg5! Black’s knight exchange on e4 has
brought the white queen out, and castling is impossible. The first
game shows a similar mis-timed exchange, with catastrophic
consequences.

13.0-0 b5 Now if 13…O-O 14.Bxh6!
14.a4 b4 15.cxb4 Bxb4 16.Bf4 Bd6 17.Be5 Bb7

Black begins a nearly successful counterattack —
“the best policy against a simultaneous player”
B&H.

18.Bxf6 gxf6 19.Qxf6 Rg8 20.a5 Bxh2+ 21.Kh1 Bd6
22.Rfe1 Bxf3

+-----------------+

Not 22…Qd8 23.Rxe6+ fxe6 24.Ba4+ or 22…Rg6 23. Rxe6+ fxe6
24.Ba4+ etc. But 22…Qe7 with an ending was sound. Black’s king is
stuck in the centre, and Capablanca treats us to a long attack
leading to a central breakthrough — always careful, as his own
king is none-too-safe.

23.Qxf3 Qd8 24.Kg1 Rc8 25.Ba4+ Ke7 26.d5 Rg6
27.dxe6 fxe6

And not 27… Rxe6 28.Rxe6+ fxe6 29.Re1 when black has
lost a defender of e6 and the g-file. e.g. 29…Rc5 30.Qg4 or
29…Qg8 30.Qe3.

28.Rad1 Qxa5 29.Qe4

Prepares the combination, now that all the pieces are in
play. If immediately 29.Qb7+ Qc7.

29…Rcg8 30.Qb7+ Bc7 31.Rd7+ Kf6 32.Qf3+
Qf5

+-----------------+

Black has defended well, and the anticipated 33.Qxf5+ exf5 34.Rxc7
Rxg2+ 35. Kh1 Rxf2 or even 33. Qc3+ Be5 34.Rxe5 Rxg2+ (…Qxe5
35.Rf7+ Kxf7 36.Qxe5 wins) lead to draws. But look again for
Capablanca’s heart-stopper.

33.Rxe6+ Kxe6 34.Qc6+ Ke5 35.Rd5+
1-0

“As 35…Kf4 36.Qxc4+ Qe4 27.Qc1+ Kg4 38.Bd1+ Kh4 39.
Rh5 is ‘mate.“

“Yet another rook sacrifice to open up a king, this
time into the centre of the board. The backward moves of the Q and
B should be noted, they are often the ones missed when calculating
a combination. Capablanca’s breakup of the black king’s
pawn-shelter is instructive, especially in the face of threats to
the white king down the g-file.“

Summary

What we have seen is a genius at play — admiration is natural. But
a lot can be learned from such games. Our combinations may not be
as deep or as imaginative, but we can play for sound positional
advantages and keep an eye out for the odd brilliancy. Capablanca’s
sacrifices are unnerving, but if we try to understand the judgement
that stands behind the sacrifice — the trade-off between material
value and activity — we will learn a lot about the dynamics of
chess combat. Above all, Capablanca’s games are about the
initiative — once he has the initiative, he will attack whatever
weakness exists to force a resignation.

Simple Chess

Posted on February 11, 1998 by DrDave

by Mark Blackmore

The aim of this session is to suggest some simple rules for how to get from 100 grade to the dizzy heights of 150. If applied firmly, I am convinced they will lead to better results without any extra study.

This first game is more or less the opposite of how you ought to model your play: an unattainable standard of mayhem…

Ivanchuk,V – Yusupov,A [E67] (cm 1/4), 1991 [MB]

1.c4 e5 2.g3 d6 3.Bg2 g6 4.d4 Nd7 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Nf3 Ngf6 7.0-0 0-0 8.Qc2 Re8 9.Rd1 c6 10.b3 Qe7 11.Ba3 e4 12.Ng5 e3 13.f4

+-----------------+

13…Nf8 14.b4 Bf5 15.Qb3 h6 16.Nf3 Ng4 17.b5 g5 18.bxc6 bxc6 19.Ne5 gxf4 20.Nxc6 Qg5 21.Bxd6 Ng6 22.Nd5 Qh5 23.h4 Nxh4 24.gxh4 Qxh4 25.Nde7+ Kh8 26.Nxf5 Qh2+

+-----------------+

That’s the first move I’ve expected so far!

27.Kf1 Re6 28.Qb7 Rg6 29.Qxa8+

[29.Bxf4 Qxf4+ 30.Kg1 Qh2+ 31.Kf1 Qh1+ 32.Bxh1 Nh2+ 33.Ke1 Rg1#]

29…Kh7 30.Qg8+ Kxg8 31.Nce7+ Kh7 32.Nxg6 fxg6 33.Nxg7 Nf2 34.Bxf4 Qxf4 35.Ne6 Qh2 36.Rdb1 Nh3 37.Rb7+ Kh8 38.Rb8+ Qxb8 39.Bxh3 Qg3 0-1

Wonderful, exciting chess – but not, I believe, the way to get results. In fact, not even Yusupov believes this is the way to get results – this was actually a quickplay tie-break where nerves count as much as chess. Normally, Yusupov prefers the bear-hug.

Fischer, although very sharp, was also a very strong positional player, achieving good results with apparently straightforward means. As an example, we can cite:

Fischer – Panno, 1970

1.c4, Black resigns

After a solid opening by White, Black found he was unable to organise a defence. This illustrates how you needn’t do anything very complicated to win games, just applying good sense may be enough.

Let’s see that approach at work in a slightly longer game.

Fischer – Spassky WCh [D59] (we (6), 1972 [MB]

1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.Bh4 b6 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.Rc1 Be6 12.Qa4 c5 13.Qa3 Rc8 14.Bb5 a6 15.dxc5 bxc5 16.0-0 Ra7 17.Be2 Nd7 18.Nd4 Qf8

+-----------------+

19.Nxe6 fxe6 20.e4! d4 21.f4 Qe7 22.e5 Rb8 23.Bc4 Kh8 24.Qh3 Nf8 25.b3 a5 26.f5 exf5 27.Rxf5 Nh7 28.Rcf1 Qd8 29.Qg3 Re7 30.h4 Rbb7 31.e6 Rbc7 32.Qe5 Qe8 33.a4 Qd8 34.R1f2 Qe8 35.R2f3 Qd8 36.Bd3 Qe8 37.Qe4 Nf6 38.Rxf6 gxf6 39.Rxf6 Kg8 40.Bc4 Kh8 41.Qf4 1-0

This game makes chess seem so smooth, so easy – even so attainable.

If nothing else it should reinforce the importance of positional sense. Why did Gary Lane beat us all in the Simul., without seeming to do anything remarkable? I think one of the biggest obstacles to good positional play is muddy thinking – and I think there are three rules to avoid muddiness and improve your game.

Blackmore,M – Lane,P [C02] (Exeter Club Ch’p (6)), 1997 [MB]

The three rules of good positional play:

(1) respect your opponent (don’t play for cheapos)

(2) ask yourself: what will the reply be?

(3) think about a move before you make it – not after (Taimanov).

From Game 1 we can add Rule (0): don’t hack!

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bd7 6.Bd3 Rc8 7.a3 f6 8.0-0 fxe5 9.Nxe5 Nf6

Illustrating the importance of rules (1) and (2). Peter was never going to miss the cheapo, so what else would he play?

[9…cxd4 10.cxd4 Nxd4 11.Qh5+]

10.Bg5 c4 11.Bxf6 Qxf6

Rules (1) and (3): White sees an opportunity to prevent Black from castling.

12.Nxd7 Kxd7 13.Bc2 Bd6 14.f4

Rule (2).

14…Kc7

The Black King is perfectly OK here.

15.a4 Rule (2) again:

15…Rcf8 If White was hoping for …a5 he was disappointed.

16.Na3 Rule (2) again: what one-move threat does this move make, and what one-move reply is at least adequate?

16…a6 17.b4 Rule (2): White again is hopeful (…cxb3 e.p.)

17…Bxf4 18.Qg4 Rule (2): does this move really embarrass Black?

18…Be3+ 0-1

Of course, you can argue that I was always going to lose to Pete, but I think my point stands. If I’d followed my own rules, I would at least have put up a better fight.

Ayress – Blackmore,M [C02] (5), 1997

The way to improve, I believe, is to do simple things well. Solid, harmonious moves, emphasising good piece play and good defence, provides the best basis for attacking and can win games just on its own merits. The ability to do this is, I am convinced, the main difference between a 100-grade and a 150-grade player.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 Nf6 4.d3 Be7 5.Be2 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.Nbd2 Bg4 8.h3 Bh5 9.Nh2 Bxe2 10.Qxe2 d5 11.a3 dxe4 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 13.dxe4 Bc5 14.Be3 Qe7 15.Rad1 Rad8 16.Nf3 Kh8 17.Rd2 Rxd2 18.Nxd2 Rd8 19.Kh2 Bxe3 20.Qxe3 Qd7 21.Nb3

+-----------------+

Without trying at all hard, Black has been gained a nice juicy open file. 21…b6 22.f3 a5 23.Rf2 Qd1 24.Nc1 f6 25.Re2 a4 26.Re1 Qd7 27.Re2 Na5 Adding to his collection of advantages. 28.Qf2 h6 29.Qe3 Nc4 30.Qf2 Qd1 31.Na2 c5 32.Rc2 Rd7 33.Kg3

+-----------------+

33…Rd2 34.Rxd2 Nxd2 winning because of the embarrassed White Knight. But it gets better: 35.Kg4 Nxe4 36.Qe3 Qd7+ 37.Kh4 g5+ 38.Kh5 Ng3+ 0-1

Now here I obeyed all the rules and the game fell into my lap. Do the same, along with plenty of practice and you’ll find you’ve picked up a lot of the basic positional stuff Dave keeps banging on about.

I’m convinced your results will improve.

The ideas behind the Modern Defence

Posted on February 6, 1998 by DrDave

+-----------------+

References:

BOTTERILL/KEENE The Modern Defence
(Batsford)

DAVIES The Modern Defence (British
Internet Chess Server, Warwick)

HORT The Modern Defence
(RHM)

NORWOOD Winning with the Modern
(Batsford)

NUNN The Pirc for the Tournament Player
(Batsford)

NUNN The Complete Pirc (Batsford)

NUNN New Ideas in the Pirc
(Batsford)

SOLTIS Black to play and win with 1…g6
(Chess Digest)

The basic idea
behind the Modern Defence:

First Black allows White to set up a Pawn centre.

+-----------------+
(This is the simplest kind of Pawn centre that White can set
up.)

Then Black hits back at it.

+-----------------+

Black’s pieces are all on good squares and Black even has a share
of the centre. White can try and grab more of the centre than this,
but the more White tries to grab, the bigger target you have
got!

This is quite a fun idea and often leads to more
unbalanced battles than boring old 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.
Bc4 Bc5…

[I must add that there are lots of ways to unbalance
the old Italian game (4. c3, 4. b4) and you can always try
something else at move 3 (3. Bb5, 3. d4)]

Good points for Black about the Modern
Defence:

It is unusual and White may not have a clue how to behave
It is difficult and unbalanced and so is a good system to play
for a win with.

Good points for White in the Modern
Defence:

White is given a free hand to set up the centre just as they
like.
White holds the centre so it is much easier for White to get
pieces from one side to the other.
White can use the big centre to attack down the middle of the
board with e4-e5 or f4-f5
Black has weakened the King’s-side and White has a little start
towards a King’s-side attack down the h-file.

Bad points about the Modern Defence:

The Modern Defence is one of the most difficult and awkward
defences played by Grandmasters, and you can often lose games
without ever understanding why you lost.

Juniors and amateurs may have much more fun, and learn
much more about the basics of chess, when playing the familiar open
games beginning 1. e4 e5. One more caution:

Non-governmental
health warning

One of the first times I ever saw the Modern Defence played was in
1980 at the Cambridge Open. Local expert Erik Teichmann had the
Black pieces against an opponent, who, while a strong County
player, was graded far below Erik.

Game 1: Charity,A – Teichmann,E [B09]
(Cambridge Open), 05.1980

1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.f4 Nf6 5.Nf3 0-0

+-----------------+

White plays a direct attacking line against Black’s hypermodern
opening.

6.Bd3 Nc6

White breaks in the centre.

7.e5 dxe5 8.dxe5 Nd5 9.Bd2 Nb6 10.0-0
f6

Black shouldn’t open lines on the King’s-side, that’s
just what White wants!

11.exf6 Bxf6 12.Ng5 e6

+-----------------+

White plays a temporary sacrifice: White’s centralised pieces can
attack Black’s King while the Black Queen’s-side pieces cannot get
back to defend.

13.Nxh7! Kxh7 14.Qh5+ (at this point
Erik ceremoniously tore up his score sheet) 14…Kg8
15.Qxg6+ Bg7 16.Qh7+ Kf7 17.Bg6+ Ke7 18.Qxg7+ Kd6 19.Ne4+ Kd5
20.Qc3 Qe7 21.Qb3+ Nc4 22.Qb5+ Kd4 23.Bc3+ (Resigns)

[23.Bc3+ Ke3 24.Rae1#]

1-0

Rather an abrupt game. Now, most of your opponents can’t
play as well as Alec Charity, but if Erik can be blown away using
this defence so can you. What went wrong here? Well, if you think
about it, White’s most basic plan in the opening is:

1. Develop quickly and grab as much of the centre
as you can

2. Use your development and space advantage to
attack the opponent’s King

3. Attack by opening up lines for your better
pieces.

Now, in the Modern Defence Black seems to help White do
all these things! All right, it isn’t quite that simple, but if
White is determined to attack Black it is very difficult to stop it
happening, and there are several sharp White systems which come
very close to delivering mate almost by force. All you need is one
little mistake and Black is finished.

In playing the Modern Defence you are playing a very
risky, dangerous system with rules all of its own. To rub this
point in, I give below a few master games where strong Black
players just get smashed right out of the opening (Hue-Donner,
Hessmer-Haefner, Fischer-Udovcic). You must be aware that this
can happen to you, and what the do’s and don’ts are of these
positions.

Here’s Steve Haataja:

Good lines, in some sense, are ones that your usual
opponents cannot refute. If you are having trouble dealing with
early queen sorties, then your opponents are playing “good lines”
by bringing out the queen early. If handling this situation gives
you trouble, I suggest playing more offhand games against players
who do this, and trying it out some yourself. You will learn how to
deal with such situations by a combination of observing others
handle it and good old trial and error.

Here is a personal example. When I began playing the
Modern Defence, things went pretty well at first. But then I ran
into a fellow at the club who would quickly castle Queen’s-side,
play h2-h4, then h5. The h-file would open up and he’d checkmate me
in maybe fifteen more moves. These were five-minute games, BTW. He
did this to me several times that first night.

It became terribly frustrating. Nobody else attacked
as savagely as he did, and I did fine against less violent
variations. He went so far as to play 1.e4 g6 2.h4 (a slap in the
face) a couple times, with great success. But after about four
weeks of beatings, I finally timed the counter-punch in the centre
correctly (the general principle: counter a flank attack with play
in the centre). His attack lost steam and I won. He soon stopped
single-mindedly playing for checkmate down the h-file as I was
winning every such game. That was one of the best chess lessons I
ever learned. Quickly hitting back in the centre became an
instinctive reaction to the dreaded h2-h4. You can read the
principle 100 times in books, but until you actually experience it
firsthand, it’s just somebody else’s theory. — Steve
Haataja

White Pawn
centres

Classical centre

+-----------------+
This is the most modest centre that White can build up. Black can
easily get a share of the centre with …e7-e5 but that doesn’t do
the Bg7 any good, so Black must also be careful to keep White’s
pieces under control and look for any active play that is going.
It’s actually quite an annoying system to play against! (See
the games Cramling-Yrjola, and Kauranen-Richardson)

Geller
system

+-----------------+
This is another quiet system – White does not bite off more than
can be chewed, and supports the d-Pawn against any pressure from
the Bg7. Black can play …c7-c5 and/or …e7-e5 which may open up
the long dark diagonal again. (See Filip-Bronstein).

Three-Pawn
centre

+-----------------+
This centre takes a little while to set up but is quite solid and
can be dangerous once White gets some pieces behind it. Black must
hit back with moves like …c7- c5 and …e7-e5. (See the games
Stein-Suttles and Byrne-Donner below.)

Pseudo-Austrian
centre

+-----------------+
This is one of the most dangerous systems for White (as we saw
in Charity-Teichmann), and many Black players try to move into
a solid Hippopotamus or Gurgenidze system in response (Games:
Hippopotamus: Barczay-Ivkov, Keres-Navarovsky, Engedal-Davies,
Gurgenidze: Herrera-Garcia)

Pseudo-Samisch
centre

+-----------------+
White can play quietly behind this centre but can also use it to
launch a King’s-side Pawn storm with moves like g2-g4 and h2-h4.
Black must try to keep this storm under control while hitting back
in the centre or on the Queen’s-side.

Averbakh
centre

+-----------------+
White can transfer the weight of the attack to the Queens’-side by
playing c1- c4 before developing the Queen’s Knight. This can be
very like – even become – lines of the King’s Indian Defence
(Games: Korchnoi-Fischer).

Ideas for
Black

Dark square strategy

+-----------------+

This is the most common sort of central counter-attack. Black must
be careful to get the King out of the way before opening up lines
in the centre. (Games: Kauranen-Richardson,
Cramling-Yrjola)

Light square
blockade (Gurgenidze)

+-----------------+

This is a very solid system which Black players often play against
dangerous White systems like the Pseudo-Austrian. Black should aim
to hold things tight on the King’s-side and gradually move into
White’s Queen’s-side.

This is almost a separate opening, and can actually arise
commonly from the Caro-Kann Defence. Below I give several whole
games to give you a feel for this way of playing, and if you want
to take up this strategy, I recommend you play over all of them
(as notes to Herrera-Garcia).

Queen’s-side
attack

+-----------------+

Black hopes to make trouble on the Queen’s-side – either opening a
file or nudging the Knight away from the defence of e4. Black must
be careful though, because White can also try to make use of open
lines there if White has not castled Queen’s-side. But if the White
King is to be found there, the Black Bg7 is already pointing
straight at him!

(Games: Crawley-Hodgson, Nunn-Shirov,
Polajzer-Davies)

Hippopotamus
strategy

+-----------------+

Black can set this arrangement up against more or less any White
system. It is not a strategy in itself, just a way of waiting. It
is very flexible and Black can try to make a break at any point on
the board, but Black can get stuck without any active play because
Black cannot get enough pieces to any one spot on the board. White
can then pick a time and place to break through. So Black cannot
just curl up, but should aim to break up White’s centre with moves
like …c7-c5 (Games: Barczay-Ivkov, Keres-Navarovsky,
Engedal-Davies).

Variations of
the Modern and Pirc Defences

Byrne variation: 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3
d6 4. Bg5

White can play with pieces or follow up with f2-f4.

System with Be3: 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3
d6 4. Be3

Usually White plays Qd2, maybe with a Samisch-style centre, maybe
not.

System with h3: 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6
4. Nf3 Nf6 5. h3 O-O 6. Be37

One idea is to play a sort of classical variation with Bc4.

Classical variation: 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3.
Nc3 d6 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Be2

A modest system aiming for quick development and a small edge.

Austrian Attack: 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3
d6 4. f4

An aggressive line grabbing space in the centre and King’s-side.

Gurgenidze system: 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3
c6 4. f4 d5

A blockading line, useful against the Austrian Attack.

Monkey’s Bum: 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 c6
4. Bc4 d6 5. Qf3

An anti-Gurgenidze idea: “If that works, then I’m a Monkey’s
Bum!” (Nunn-Shirov)

System with Bc4: 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3
(or 3. Nf3) 3…d6 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. Qe2

White often follows with e4-e5; with early Nf3 White may play
quietly with c3

Geller’s system: 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. c3 d6
4. Nf3

Another modest system hoping to blot out the Bg7

King Fianchetto variation: 1. e4 g6 2. d4
Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. Nge2 Nf6 5. g3

A quiet line with slow play: Black can play standard moves.

Three Pawns attack: 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. c3
d6 4. f4

Another space-grabbing line, but not very good on piece
development.

Variations with an early Be2: 1. e4 g6 2. d4
Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. Be2

White intends to follow up with h2-h4 or g2-g4, hoping for an
attack.

Averbakh Variation: 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. c4
d6

A move towards Queen’s-side openings like the King’s Indian or
Benoni

P.S. The Modern
Defence and related openings.

The Modern Defence is just the fianchetto of the King’s Bishop
while delaying the development of the King’s Knight. If the King’s
Knight is played to f6 early on, we may have transposed into one of
two other openings: the Pirc Defence or the King’s Indian Defence.

The Pirc Defence is usually played with
the move order 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3, which
stops White moving into a Queen’s-side opening with c2-c4. With a
Modern Defence move order White can play something like 1.
e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. c4 when a later …Nf6 will transpose
into the King’s Indian Defence. This is a good
fighting defence to the Queen’s-side openings, which many
Grandmasters like to play, and usually begins 1. d4 Nf6 2.
c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 (see
Korchnoi-Fischer).

If you don’t like playing the King’s Indian Defence (it
is very complicated – whole books have been written about single
variations of the Defence!) but still want to play the Modern
Defence, you don’t have to play …Nf6 and instead you can find
some other move after 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. c4 d6 4.
Nc3, like 4…Nc6, 4…Nd7 or even 4…f5. On the other
hand, Black’s side in these various lines of the Averbakh Variation
can be tricky to handle.

One clever move order is 1. e4 g6 2. d4 d6 3.
c4 when 3…e5 is the idea. If White now
pushes on here with 4. d5 you can play 4…f5, and
if White plays 4. dxe5 dxe5 5. Qxd1+ Kxd1 then
your King’s Bishop can come out to c5 instead of being stuck on g7.
If you don’t want to White to be able to move over to a
Queen’s-side opening at all, you can always play the Pirc Defence
with an early …Nf6 and Nb1-c3.

Example games:

White’s King’s-side attack

Game 2: Liu Wen Hue – Donner H [B07] Buenos
Aires ol. FS, 1978

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be2 Bg7 5.g4 h6?

Weakening the King’s-side even more; 5…c6 6. g5
Nfd7 is better, or 5…Na6 planning …c5.

Oddly, in reply to 5. h4, Black
can reply 5…h5, because it is difficult
for White to open a file without creating weaknesses in White’s own
position. 5…c5, hitting back in the
centre, is also a good reply.

6.h3 c5 7.d5 0-0?

Having weakened the King’s-side so much, that’s the last
place Black should put his King! Perhaps Jan thought that White had
given up the idea of a King’s-side attack after 6.h3, but…

8.h4! e6

+-----------------+

9.g5 hxg5 10.hxg5 Ne8 11.Qd3 exd5 12.Nxd5 Nc6 13.Qg3 Be6
14.Qh4

+-----------------+

14…f5 15.Qh7+ Kf7 16.Qxg6+! Kxg6 17.Bh5+ Kh7 18.Bf7+
Bh6 19.g6+ Kg7 20.Bxh6+

[20.Bxh6+ Kh8 21.Bxf8+ Qh4 22.Rxh4#]

1-0

Game 3: (75) Hessmer – Haefner Th. [B09]
Corr., 1986

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.f4 Bg7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.e5 Nfd7 7.h4
c5 8.h5 cxd4 9.hxg6

+-----------------+

9…dxc3 10.gxf7+ Rxf7 11.e6 cxb2 This may win
by force but Black is taking an awful risk playing this way. This
game was played by correspondence, so he may have thought he could
find his way out of any trouble, or he may just have trusted his
books…

[11…Rf6 12.exd7 Bxd7 13.Bd3 h6 14.bxc3
Nc6[[threesuperior]]]

12.exf7+ Kf8 13.Bxb2 Bxb2 14.Bc4 Qa5+ 15.Kf1 Nf6
16.Rb1 Qc3 17.Bb3!?

[17.Ne5 Bf5; 17.Bd3 Bg4]

17…Bg4 “with great advantage to
Black” – Botterill & Keene. 18.Ng5!
Bxd1

[18…Qxb3 “better, but still winning for White”
– Nunn]

19.Rxh7 Nbd7 20.Ne6# 1-0

Game 4: (77) Fischer,R – Udovcic,M [B06]
Rovinj/Zagreb Rd: 12, 1970

1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.f4 Nc6 5.Be3 Nf6 6.h3 0-0
7.g4

+-----------------+

An enormously bold – even arrogant – way of playing. White
intends to swamp the Black King’s-side.

The first rule of these positions is:

Hit back in the centre!

7…e5! 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.f5 gxf5 10.gxf5 Nd4

Exchanging Queens first was safer! 11.Nf3 c5
12.Bg5 Qb6 13.Bxf6 Qxf6 14.Nd5 Nxf3+ 15.Qxf3 Qh4+ 16.Ke2 Be6 17.Ne3
Rad8 18.Rg1

+-----------------+

Black has some ideas for counterplay, but is in too much trouble
on the open g-file. 18…Kh8 19.fxe6 fxe6 20.Qg3 Qf6
21.Qxg7+ Qxg7 22.Rxg7 Kxg7 23.Ng4 Rf4 24.Ke3 Rdf8 25.Be2 h5 26.Nxe5
Rh4 27.Rg1+ Kh7 28.Rh1 Rhf4 29.Nd3 R4f7 30.Nxc5 Rc8 31.Nxe6 1-0

Black’s dark-square strategy

Game 5: Kovacevic,V – Seirawan,Y [B07] Wijk,
1980

1.d4 g6 2.e4 d6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.Be2 Nf6 5.g4 c6 6.g5 Nfd7 7.h4
b5 8.h5 Rg8 9.hxg6 hxg6 10.Nf3 b4 11.Nb1 a5 12.a4 c5 13.d5 Nb6
14.c4 Kd7 15.Nbd2 Rh8 16.Rg1 Kc7 17.Rb1 Rh3 18.b3 Qh8

+-----------------+

Black’s control of the dark squares is complete. 19.Nf1
N8d7 20.Bf4 Ne5 21.Nxe5 Bxe5 22.Bxe5 Qxe5

+-----------------+

The disappearance of Black’s monster Bishop has not saved White,
the dark squares still belong to Black. 23.f3 Bd7 24.Qc2
Qd4 25.Rg2 Rh1 26.Rf2 Qh8 27.f4 Qh4 28.Rd1 f6 29.gxf6 exf6 30.e5
fxe5 31.fxe5 Rf8 32.exd6+ Kb7 33.Bd3 Re8+ 34.Be2 Rxf1+ 35.Kxf1 Qh1#
0-1

Game 6: Cramling,D – Yrjola,J [B08]
It shv., 1984

1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Be2

[5.h3 0-0 6.Be3 a6 7.a4 b6 (7…Nc6; 7…d5!?)
]

5…0-0 6.0-0 Bg4

[6…c6]

7.Be3 Nc6 8.Qd2 e5

+-----------------+

This standard position has been largely abandoned by White,
while bored Blacks have been experimenting with an early …c6.
9.dxe5

[9.d5 Ne7 10.Rad1 Bd7 11.Ne1 b5! 12.a3 (12.Bxb5
Nxe4) 12…a5 13.Nd3 c6 14.dxc6 Bxc6 15.Bh6 b4 16.Bxg7 Kxg7
17.axb4 axb4 18.Nb1 Qb6 19.Kh1 Rab8 Barlov-Jansa, Bor 1985: Black
is at least equal, according to John Nunn]

9…dxe5 10.Rad1 Qc8 11.Qc1 Rd8 12.Rxd8+
Qxd8

[12…Nxd8!?]

13.Rd1 Qf8 14.h3 Bxf3 15.Bxf3

+-----------------+

15…h5!? with the idea of exchanging the B on
h6. 16.Nb5 Rc8 17.c3

[17.Nxa7 Nxa7 18.Bxa7 b6 and the Bishop is buried ]

17…Kh7 18.Na3 Bh6 19.Bxh6 Qxh6 20.Qxh6+ Kxh6
21.h4 Kg7 22.Nc4 a5 23.Kf1 Kf8

+-----------------+

This is quite OK for Black. 24.Ke2 Ke7 25.Ke3 b5 26.Na3
Na7 27.Be2 c6 28.Nb1 Ne8 29.Nd2 Nd6 30.g3 Rd8 31.f4 exf4+ 32.gxf4
Nac8 33.Nf3? Nc4+ 34.Kf2 Rxd1 35.Bxd1 Nxb2 36.Be2 Na4 37.c4 b4
38.Nd4 Kd7 0-1

Knocking out White’s big centre

Game 7: Stein ,L – Suttles,D [B06] Sousse
Tunisia, 1967

1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.c3 d6 4.f4 c5

+-----------------+

A bold but hopefully temporary Pawn sacrifice. 5.dxc5
Nf6!? 6.cxd6 exd6 7.e5

[7.Nf3 0-0 8.Bd3 Black can exploit the act that he has
already castled: 8…Nxe4! 9.Bxe4 Re8]

7…dxe5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.fxe5 Re8
10.Nf3

+-----------------+

Duncan Suttles may have chosen wrongly here:
10…Nc6?

[10…Ng4!? (Botterill/Keene) 11.Bg5+ f6 12.Bh4
(12.Bf4 fxe5 13.Bg5+ Kc7) 12…Nxe5 e.g. 13.Nxe5 Rxe5+
14.Kf2 Rf5+! with easy equality, since White has no good square for
his King.]

11.Bb5 Bd7 12.Bxc6 Bxc6 13.0-0 Ng4 14.Bg5+ Kc8
15.Nbd2 h6 16.Bf4 g5 17.Bg3 Ne3 18.Rf2 Nf5 19.Nc4 Bd5 20.Nfd2 Nxg3
21.Nd6+ Kd7 22.Nxe8 Rxe8 23.hxg3 Bxe5 24.Rd1 Kc6 25.Nb3 b6 26.Nd4+
Kc5 27.g4 Bf4 28.Nf5 Re5 29.g3 Rxf5 30.gxf5 Bxg3 31.Rfd2 Bf3 32.Rf1
Bf4 33.Rxf3 Bxd2 34.Rd3 Bf4 35.Rh3 Kd5 36.Rxh6 Ke5 37.Rh7 f6
38.Rxa7 Kxf5 39.Kf2 Bd6 40.Rb7 Bc5+ 41.Kg2 1-0

Game 8: Byrne ,R
– Donner ,J [B07] San Juan Puerto Rico, 1969

1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.c3 d6 4.f4 Nf6 5.Bd3 e5 6.Nf3 exf4
7.Bxf4 0-0 8.0-0 c5 9.Nbd2 cxd4 10.cxd4 Nc6

+-----------------+

White still has his centre but none of the advantages that can
go with it. Black has good development and an equal game.
11.Qb3 d5 12.e5 Ne4 13.Nxe4 dxe4 14.Bxe4 Nxd4 15.Qe3 Ne6
16.Bg3 Qb6 17.Qxb6 axb6 18.b4 b5 19.Rf2 Re8 20.Rc2
1/2../strong>

Game 9: Filip,M
– Bronstein,D [B07] Moskva, 1967

1.Nf3 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.e4 d6 4.c3 Nf6 5.Nbd2 0-0 6.Be2
b6

+-----------------+

Preparing …c5 7.0-0 e6 8.Re1 Bb7 9.Bd3 c5 10.dxc5 bxc5
11.e5 dxe5 12.Nxe5 Nc6 13.Ndc4 Nxe5 14.Nxe5 Qc7 15.Qe2
Rab8

+-----------------+

Black’s split Pawns are not weak because White is not organised
to attack them – in fact, the half-open b-file gives Black a little
initiative. 16.Bd2 Ba8 17.Nc4 Nh5 18.Be4 Bd5 19.b3 Rfd8
20.Rad1 Nf6 21.Bc2 Qb7 22.Na5 Qb6 23.Nc4 Qa6 24.Ne3 Qxe2 25.Rxe2
Bc6 26.f3 a5 27.Be1 Rxd1 28.Nxd1 a4 29.bxa4 Ra8 30.Bf2 c4 31.Bd4
Nd5 32.Bxg7 Kxg7 33.Be4 Rxa4 34.Bxd5 Bxd5 35.Ne3 Bc6 36.Rc2 Kf6
37.Kf2 Ke7 38.Ke1 Kd6 39.Kd2 Kc5 40.Kc1 Ra8 41.Rd2 f5 42.Rd4 Ra4
43.Kb2 e5 44.Rd8 Ra8 45.Rxa8 Bxa8 46.Nd1 Bc6 47.Kc1 g5 48.Kd2 Bd7
49.Ke2 f4 50.Nb2 h5 51.Kf2 g4 52.g3 Bc6 53.fxg4 hxg4 54.gxf4 exf4
55.Kg1 Bf3 56.Kf2 Be4 57.Kg1 Bc2 58.Kf2 Bb1 59.a3 Bc2 60.Ke1 Kd5
61.Kf1 Bd3+ 62.Kf2 Bg6 63.Nd1 Be8 64.Nb2 Bb5 65.Ke2 Ke4 66.Kf2 Kf5
67.Kg1 Kg5 68.Nd1 Kh4 69.Kg2 Ba4 70.Nf2 g3 71.hxg3+ fxg3 72.Kg1 Bc2
73.Kf1 gxf2 74.Kxf2 Kg5 75.Ke3 Kf6 76.Kd4 Bb3 77.Kc5 Ke7 78.a4 Kd7
79.a5 Kc7 80.Kb5 Kb7 81.Kc5 Ka6 82.Kb4 Ba2 83.Ka4 Bb1 84.Kb4 Bd3
85.Ka4 Bc2+ 0-1

Black’s Queen’s-side play

Game 10: Nunn John D M,J – Shirov Alexei,A
[B06] Bundesliga, 1996

1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 c6 4.Bc4 d6 5.Qf3 e6 6.Nge2 b5 7.Bb3
a5 8.a3 Ba6 9.0-0 Nd7 10.Bf4 Qe7 11.Rad1 e5 12.Bg5 Ngf6

+-----------------+

Black insists on a share of the centre as well as a
counter-attack on the Queen’s-side. 13.d5 c5 14.a4 b4
15.Nb5 Nb6 16.Qd3 c4 17.Bxc4 Nxa4 18.Ra1 Nxb2 19.Qb3 Nxc4 20.Qxc4
Rc8 21.Qd3 Qd8 22.c4 0-0 23.Ra2

+-----------------+

A tense position where all the play is on the Queen’s-side, and
Black must be pleased with the two connected passed Pawns. Black
sacrifices the exchange to remove White’s last Queen’s-side Pawn…
23…Rxc4 24.Bxf6 Bxf6 25.Qxc4 Qb6 26.Qc7 Qxb5 27.Qxd6 Kg7
28.Rc1 Rd8 29.Qc6 b3 30.Rb2 Qd3 31.Rcb1 Rc8 32.Qa4 Rc2 33.Rxb3 Qxe2
34.Rf3 Bd3 35.Qd7 Bxe4 36.Rxf6 Kxf6 37.Qd6+ Kf5 38.Rf1 Bd3 39.Qd7+
Kf6

+-----------------+

Black has nibbled in a circle all the way around the board to
finish off the White King! 0-1

Game 11: Crawley
,G – Hodgson,J [B07] 1989

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 c6 4.g3 g6 5.Bg2 Bg7 6.a4 0-0 7.h3
b6 8.Nge2 Bb7 9.0-0 Nbd7 10.Bg5 a6 11.Re1

+-----------------+

An unusual opening by White: Black starts his Queen’s-side play
as usual.

11…b5 12.Qd2 b4 13.Nd1 a5 14.Bh6 e5 15.Bxg7
Kxg7 16.Ne3 c5 17.d5 Ba6 18.c4 bxc3 19.Nxc3 c4 20.Nb5 Nc5 21.Qc2
Rb8 22.Nxc4 Bxb5 23.axb5 Rxb5 24.Bf1 Nb3 25.Ra3 Nd4 26.Qc3
Qb8

+-----------------+

Black has a comfortable initiative on the Queen’s-side.

27.Kg2 Rc8 28.Rxa5 Rb3 29.Qc1 Qb4 30.Ra6 Rxb2
31.Qxb2 Qxe1 32.f3 Nxf3 33.Ra1 Qxe4 34.Nxd6 Rc2+ 0-1

Black’s light-square blockade

Game 12: Herrera C – Garcia G [B15] Ch Cuba,
1989

1.e4 c6

[1…g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 c6 4.f4 (4.Bc4!? when 4…d6
may be best) 4…d5 5.e5 h5 is the Modern Defence move
order.]

2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 g6 4.e5 Bg7 5.f4 h5 6.Nf3
Nh6 (6…Bg4!?)

cuuuuuuuuC

(rhb1kDw4}

70pDw0pgw}

6wDpDwDph}

5DwDp)wDp}

&wDw)w)wD}

3DwHwDNDw}

2P)PDwDP)}

%$wGQIBDR}

+-----------------+
7.Be3 Qb6

[7…Bg4 is more usual: 8.Be2 (8.h3!?)

A) 8…e6 9.Qd2

(9.Bf2 Nf5 10.g3 Bf8 11.Qd3 Nd7 12.h3 Bxf3 13.Bxf3 c5
14.Ne2 Qb6 15.b3 Nxd4 16.Nxd4 cxd4 17.c3 Rc8 18.Bxd4 Bc5 19.0-0 Nb8
20.Rf2 Bxd4 21.cxd4 Nc6 22.Rd1 Kd7 23.Kg2 Ne7 24.g4 hxg4 25.hxg4
Rc6 26.Qe3 Qb4 27.Qd2 Qb6 28.Qe1 a6 29.Rfd2 Qb4 30.Qf2 Rc3 31.Rc2
Rxc2 32.Qxc2 Rc8 33.Qd2 Qxd2+ 34.Rxd2 Rc3 35.Kf2 Kc6 36.Be2 Kb6
37.Rd3 Rc2 38.a3 Ra2 39.b4 Kc7 40.Ke3 Kd7 41.Rc3 Nc6 42.b5
Nxd4 0-1 Aseev Konstantin N-Titov German/Kostroma Russia
1985)

9…Nd7 10.g3 Nf5 11.Bf2 Bf8 12.h3 Bxf3 13.Bxf3 Bb4!

(13…h4!? 14.g4 Ng3!? with counterplay for the
Pawn that will be lost on g3. 15.Rg1 Qb6 16.0-0-0 Qa6 17.Qd3
Qxd3 18.Rxd3 c5 19.Nb5 c4 20.Rdd1 Rc8 21.Bxg3 hxg3 22.Rxg3 a6
23.Nc3 b5 24.Rh1 Rh4 25.Ne2 Nb6 26.g5 c3 27.b3 a5 28.Bg4 Bb4 29.Ng1
a4 30.Rh2 Ke7 31.Kd1 Ra8 32.Nf3 Rhh8 33.Ne1 Nd7 34.Nd3 axb3 35.cxb3
Ba5 36.Nc1 Nb8 37.a3 Bb6 38.Ra2 Rc8 39.Rd3 Nc6 40.Rxc3 Bxd4 41.Rd3
Bb6 42.b4 Nxb4 43.axb4 Rxc1+ 44.Kxc1 Rxa2 0-1 Arnason Jon
L-Christiansen Larry M/It open 1986)

14.a3 Qa5! 15.g4 hxg4 16.hxg4 Rxh1+ 17.Bxh1 Ne7 18.Bh4
Nb6 at least equal if not better for Black: Pasman-Ciocaltea,
1982;

B) 8…Nd7;

C) 8…Nf5 9.Qd2 e6 10.Nd1 Nd7 11.0-0
Bh6 12.Nf2? Bxf3 13.Bxf3 Nxe5 14.dxe5 d4 15.Bxd4 Qxd4 16.Qxd4 Nxd4
17.Nd3 Nxc2 18.Rac1 Nd4 19.Kf2 0-0-0 20.Rfd1 Nxf3 21.Kxf3 Rd4 22.g3
Rhd8 23.Nf2 Bf8 24.Rxd4 Rxd4 25.Rc2 Kc7 26.Ke3 Rd5 27.Ne4 Be7
28.Rc1 a5 29.b3 b5 30.h3 a4 31.g4 h4 32.bxa4 b4 33.Rb1 Ra5 34.Nd6
Rxa4 35.Nxf7 Rxa2 36.Nh8 Bc5+ 37.Kd3 Ra3+ 38.Ke2 Re3+ 39.Kd2 Rxh3
40.Nxg6 Rg3 0-1 Morris-Norwood, 1990]

8.Rb1!? Bg4 9.Be2 e6 10.b4 Nf5 11.Bf2
Bf8

+-----------------+

“Black has done everything right.” – Norwood. 12.0-0 Nd7
13.Na4 Qc7 14.c3 Be7 15.Nb2 a5 16.a3 Kf8 17.Ng5 Bxe2 18.Qxe2 Kg7
19.g3 Qd8 20.Qd2 axb4 21.axb4 Ra2 22.Kg2 Nb6!

+-----------------+

This is good for Black, White has no real idea what he can do next.
23.Qc1 Bxg5 24.fxg5 Nc4 25.h4 Qd7 26.Kh3 Re8 27.g4 hxg4+
28.Kxg4 Rh8 29.Rh1 Qd8 30.Rh3 Qg8 31.Nxc4 dxc4 32.Rb2 Rxb2 33.Qxb2
Qh7 34.Kf4 Qh5 35.Qd2 Ra8 36.Rh1 Ra3 37.Be1 Ne7 38.Kg3 Ra1 39.Rh2
Rd1 40.Qf2 Nf5+ 41.Kf4 Rd3 42.Qe2 Ne7 43.Qxh5 gxh5 44.Ke4 Nd5
45.Bd2 Kg6 0-1

The Hippopotamus

Game 13: Barczay Laszlo – Ivkov Borislav
[B06] Sousse Tunisia, 1967

1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nf3 d6 4.Bc4 a6 5.0-0 e6 6.Bg5?!
Ne7 (Black was going to do this anyway) 7.Qd2 h6
8.Be3 Nd7 9.Nc3 b6 10.Rfe1 Bb7 11.a4

+-----------------+

Black may be crouching but his position is solid. White, having
achieved more or less complete development, just decides to try and
hack through straight away, but it all goes wrong …
11…Nf6 12.e5 Nfd5 13.Bf4 Nxc3 14.Qxc3

[14.bxc3]

14…0-0 15.exd6 cxd6 16.Qa3

+-----------------+

White’s attack has produced a threat to the d-Pawn, but Black is
ready to counterattack. 16…Nf5 17.c3?

[17.Rad1]

17…Bxf3 18.gxf3 e5! 19.Bg3

[19.dxe5 dxe5 20.Bxe5 Bxe5 21.Rxe5 Qg5+ 22.Kh1 Qf4]

19…h5 20.dxe5 dxe5 21.Kh1 Qg5

[21…Qg5 22.Rg1 (22.Bxe5 Bxe5 23.Rxe5 Qf4)
22…h4 23.Bxe5 Qh5]

0-1

Game 14: Keres,P
– Navarovsky [B06] Luhacovice (13), 1969

1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.Nf3 a6 5.Bc4 e6 6.Bg5 Ne7 7.0-0
h6 8.Be3 Nd7 9.a4 b6 10.Re1 Bb7 11.Ra3

+-----------------+

Paul Keres was one of the greatest attacking players of the
game, but grinds to a halt against the Hippopotamus… 11…Nf6
12.Bd3 0-0 13.h3 c5 14.dxc5 bxc5 15.e5 dxe5 16.Nxe5 Nfd5 17.Bxc5
Nxc3 18.Rxc3

+-----------------+

A confused position where both sides have loose pieces.
18…Qd5 19.Bf1 Qxd1 20.Rxd1 Bd5 21.Bxe7 Rfe8 22.Rc5 Bb7
23.Rc7 Bd5 1/2../strong>

Game 15: (80)
Barczay Laszlo – Suttles Duncan [B06] Izt., 1967

1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nf3 d6 4.Bc4 c6 5.Nc3 b5 6.Bb3 b4 7.Ne2
a5 8.c3 Nf6 9.e5 dxe5 10.Nxe5 0-0 11.0-0 Nfd7 12.Ng4?! a4! 13.Bc2
c5 14.Bh6 a3!

+-----------------+

Black is determined to open up the long dark diagonal!
Nimzovitch always used to say that a Pawn chain should be attacked
at its base, which in this case is b2. 15.Bxg7 axb2
16.Rb1

[16.Bxf8 bxa1Q 17.Qxa1 Nxf8 18.Nh6+ Kg7 19.cxb4 Kxh6
20.dxc5 Wade says this is better for Black.]

16…Kxg7 17.cxb4 Nb6 18.Ne5 cxd4 19.Bb3? f6
20.Nd3 e5 21.Rxb2 Nc6 22.a4 Qd6 23.Qc2 Bf5 24.Ng3 Bxd3 25.Qxd3 Nxb4
26.Qb5 Rfb8 27.Ne4 Qe7 28.a5 Nd7 29.Qc4 f5 30.Ng5 Qxg5 31.Qf7+ Kh6
32.Qxd7 Nd3 33.Rbb1 Nc5 34.Qd5 Rxa5 35.Bc4 Rxb1 36.Rxb1 Qe7 37.Bf1
Ra7 38.Re1 Rd7 39.Qg8 e4 40.Bc4 0-1

Black’s active pieces

Game 17: Povah Nigel – Nunn John [B08]
1977

1.e4 d6 2.d4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.Bc4 Nc6!?

[4…Nf6 is a normal Pirc]

5.Nf3 Nf6 6.h3 0-0 7.Qe2 e5 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.0-0 Nd4
10.Qd3 Nd7 11.a4?! Nc5 12.Qd1 c6 13.b3 Nce6 14.Nb1 Qf6 15.Nh2 Nf4
16.c3 Nde6 17.Ng4 Qh4 18.Nd2 Ng5 19.f3

+-----------------+

19…Ngxh3+

[19…Ngxh3+ 20.gxh3 Qg3+ 21.Kh1 Qg2#]

0-1

Black’s King’s-side attack

Game 18: Kauranen,R – Richardson,K [B08] CC
WM 10,F FS 1978

This game was played in the world correspondence championship.

1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nf3 d6 4.Be2 Nf6 5.Nc3 0-0
6.0-0 Bg4 7.Be3 Nc6 8.Qd3 e5 9.d5 Ne7 10.Rad1 Bd7

+-----------------+

Black wants to keep the ‘good’ light-squared Bishop on the
board. It’s not quite a King’s Indian but in this game Black
eventually fires off a classic KI-style King’s-side attack.
(Compare Korchnoi-Fischer 1970) 11.Nd2 Nh5 12.g3 a6 13.Bf3
b5 14.a3 Qe8 15.Qe2 Nf6 16.b4 h5 17.Nb3 Ng4 18.Nb1 f5 19.exf5
gxf5

+-----------------+

Recapturing with a Pawn leaves Black in control of lots of
central squares, and gives him the g-file to attack down.
20.Bg5 Bf6 21.Bxf6 Nxf6 22.Bg2 Qf7 23.Qd2 Kh7 24.Na5 Rg8
25.c4 bxc4 26.Nc3 h4 27.Kh1 Qh5 28.Qe2

+-----------------+

28…Ng4 29.Bf3 Qh6 30.Bxg4 Rxg4 31.f3 Rg7 32.gxh4 Rag8
33.Nxc4 Qxh4 34.Ne3 f4 35.Ng4 Nf5 0-1

Game 19:
Kortchnoi,V – Fischer,R [E97] 1970

This exciting game was played in a blitz tournament.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 0-0
6.Nf3 e5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.d5 Ne7 9.Nd2 c5

+-----------------+

Black blocks the Queen’s-side so it is harder for White to
attack there. 10.a3 Ne8 The Knight gets out of the
way of the f-Pawn. 11.b4 b6 12.Rb1 f5 13.f3 f4 14.a4
g5

+-----------------+

In this typical King’s Indian position with a blocked centre,
it’s as if each side has their own private arena for action.
15.a5 Rf6 16.bxc5 bxc5 17.Nb3 Rg6 18.Bd2 Nf6 19.Kh1 g4
20.fxg4 Nxg4 21.Rf3 Rh6 22.h3 Ng6 23.Kg1 Nf6

+-----------------+

24.Be1 Nh8 The real Grandmaster touch.
25.Rd3 Nf7 26.Bf3 Ng5 27.Qe2 Rg6 28.Kf1 Nxh3 29.gxh3 Bxh3+
30.Kf2 Ng4+ 31.Bxg4 Bxg4 It’s easy to see the appeal of
the KID after such a game. 0-1

My adventures with the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit

Posted on December 12, 1997 by DrDave

Exeter Chess Club: My adventures with the Blackmar-Diemer
Gambit

Introduction

If you haven’t met this spendid opening before, do check out Tom
Purser’s BDG
World magazine for games, variations, stories and a chance to
meet the characters of the BDG community.

The opening is named for Blackmar, who described
the gambit 1. d4 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3. f3 , and for
Diemer, who improved the line by avoiding the defence
3…e5, suggesting and practicing instead 3. Nc3
Nf6 4. f3 [4…e5 e.g. 5. d5].

I have a book and a
database on the BDG, and in each White scores about 80%! This
must be too good to be true, I thought (and it is), but certainly
worth a look. So, I entered Tom Purser’s BDG
e-mail theme tournament to find out more about this opening,
which survives despite the scepticism. Here are my games in a
preliminary section (BDG-P01, 1997) [where, for the record I used
Andres Valverde’s cracking little ECTOOL programme to keep track
of the games.].

One key line I didn’t get to try was the Teichmann Defence,
5…Bg4. During the tournament I played the BDG in blitz against an
IM, and guess what he came straight back with? Anyhow, here’s how
the games went. I won’t get into the opening theory too much, apart
from noting known or speculative alternatives, and will concentrate
on what I thought were the critical moments of the games. When he
knew I was planning this session, Pete Lane e-mailed me the
following quote:

‘It should also be noted that there are openings
where I feel the chances for theoretical rebirth are extremely
poor. An obvious example is the Blackmar-Diemar Gambit: 1.d4 d5
2.e4. Sacrificing a prime central pawn for a tempo in the face of a
healthy, solid Black position cannot be sound.’ —
MEDNIS

There is of course, LOMBARDY’S Defence to Mednis’ System:

“At amateur level, all openings are
sound.”

I remain like Mednis a sceptic about the theoretical status of the
line, but no player from a country where also lives Mike Basman can
possibly dismiss the practical chances afforded by unorthodox
lines.

Anyhow, I enjoyed the games, and I learned not just about
the BDG but some general lessons as well. Check out the games from
the links above.

Summary of lessons:

play with a plan: plausible or visually appealing moves are not
good enough, OTB or CC
Playing by analogy is OK but notice the differences.
you can accept a gambit Pawn and win
“Don’t believe all you read” and
“Look before you leap!”
Play good moves, not good-looking ones.
Don’t drift, waiting for your opponent to build up: hit back
when you can!
Don’t panic! You must search for an answer to your opponent’s
threats. Juniors are sometimes very worried by opponent’s
king’s-side attacks, and go into a hedgehog posture, and it’s the
posture that kills them. I sometimes say, oh, don’t worry about
that, they’re only threatening mate.
Fight back! You must not drift when you are worse, you must
fight a way to create problems, and think seriously about our
opponent’s counters.
“Don’t believe what you read!” (again)
Passive play is difficult; Mednis calls it “awaiting the
undertaker”
Maybe it’s really true, the only way to refute a gambit is to
accept it!
Long aside…
Don’t hope, don’t fear: analyse and find out!

Dave Regis 0-1 Unes Hassim

My first game did not proceed quite the way it goes in the Books.
White’s attack doesn’t get started and the counterattack was rapid
and lethal.

BDG Vienna Defence

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 Bf5

Black aims to pick up the Pe4 without developing the
Ng1.

5.fxe4

[5.g4!? I tried in my other match with this defence.
Several of the games rapidly slid out of the gambit accepted (which
surprised me, as this must be the real test of the line) so I
played the text move which turns the game back into a gambit
again!]

5…Nxe4 6.Qf3 Nxc3 7.bxc3 Qc8 8.Bc4

[8.Bd3! 1-0 Leisebein P-Kneipp G/DDR/M\927 1989 (20
moves) “very good for White” – Theo. Hommeles.;

8.Rb1 1-0 Dahlen-Alfredson/Stockholm 1963 (16);

8.Ba3 1/2-1/2
Evers,L-Cramling,Pia/Essen-Simultanveranstaltung (+24,=6,-5) 1987
(55);

8.Bb5+ 1/2-1/2 Cody P-Burk D/corr ESMT 1988/9 (01) 1989
(25)]

8…e6

[8…c6 1-0 Zechiel David-Brodersen BF/corr Golden
Knights SFs 1982 (41);

8…g6 1-0 Schmidt H-Wolfram R/corres-GT 118 1983
(19);

8…Bg6 1-0 Peilen M-Koons C/ESMT prelim 1988 (21)]

9.Nh3

[9.Ne2!? untested 9…Be7 (9…c6 10.0-0 Nd7 11.h4
Nb6? 12.Bd../em> Lane 12…Qd7 13.Bxf5 exf5 14.Qxf5 Qxf5
15.Rxf5 Bd6=) 10.Ng3 Bxc2 (10…Bg6) ;

9.Rb1 As played by Diemer himself in two short wins e.g.
1-0 Diemer Emil-Stehle/Schwenningen 1937 (18). It seemed to me the
Rook would be better placed immediately on the King’s-side without
exposing itself to later discomfort after …Bxc2, but what do I
know.;

9.g4 0-1 Laengl-Varga Z/Nuernberg (3-6) 1989 (28)]

9…Bd6

[9…Nd7 1-0 Sammet-Bachmann/Biel cc 1952 (24);

9…Be7 1/2-1/2 Voelker James-Echert Doug/Crestwood March
Rapids 1992 (32) 10.Qg3]

10.0-0

[10.g4 Bxc2 (10…Bg6 11.Ng5 h6) 11.0-0 0-0
12.Ng5 Bg6 13.d5 e5]

10…0-0

[Now this next one was encouraging: 10…Nd7 11.Ng5 0-0
(11…h6? 12.Nxf7) 12.g4 Bg6 13.h4 Nf6 14.h5 Bxc2 15.h6
Be7 16.hxg7 Kxg7 17.Bd3 Bxd3 18.Qxd3 Rh8 19.Qf3 Qg8 20.Ba3 Nd5
21.Bxe7 Nxe7 22.Nxe6+ 1-0 Diemer Emil-Synave H/SMX Ghent 1956:
after Ng5 White’s position looked great!]

CRITICAL POSITION: White needs to come up
with an attacking plan.

11.Ng5?!

In this position, rather an aimless swing. Playing by
analogy is OK but notice the differences.

[11.g4!? Bxc2 (11…Bg6) ;

11.d5!? c6! 12.Ng5 cxd5 13.Bxd5 Bxc2 (13…Bg6)
;

11.Nf4?! Bxc2 12.Nh5]

11…h6! 12.g4 Bg6

[12…Bxc2?! rather invites 13.Nxf7 ;

the apparently awkward defence 13…Bg6 fails to 14.Nxd6
cxd6 15.Bxe6+ Qxe6 16.Qxf8+ Kh7;

12…hxg5? 13.gxf5 exf5 (13…e5 14.f6 g4
15.Qe3) 14.Qxf5 Qxf5 15.Rxf5]

I played the obvious reply without much thought:

13.Ne4

Now I think this is rather good for Black; the Knight is almost in
the way here.

13…Nd7 14.h4 Nb6

Best, I thought. In fact I had the dubious merit of
predicting almost all of my opponent’s remaining moves, without
seeming to break out of the spell!

[14…f5 15.Bxe6+; 14…Kh8; 14…Bxe4 15.Qxe4]

15.Bd3?!

I realised Black’s reply would be very strong here but I
didn’t know what else to play!

[15.Bb3 a5 16.a4 Be7 (16…Bxe4 17.Qxe4 c5 may
be awkward) 17.g5 looks unconvincing]

15…f5!

[15…e5 16.h5]

16.Nxd6

[16.gxf5 looked the right one to analyse first. I became
discouraged after 16…Bxf5! and Black should be able to cover
everything. (17.Rb1; 17.h5; 17.Qg2 Kh8 18.Be3
Qd8)]

16…cxd6 17.Bd2

[17.Ba3? Qxc3 18.Bxd6?? Qxd4+;

17.h5? Qxc3]

17…Nc4! 18.Bxc4

[18.Rad1 Nxd2 19.Rxd2 Qxc3]

18…Qxc4 19.h5

[19.Qxb7 fxg4 20.Qe7 leaves Black completely in
control.]

19…Be8 20.g5

[20.gxf5 Bc6]

20…hxg5 21.Bxg5 Rc8

White is still down by his gambit Pawn and the counterattack is
starting to boil over. Black always has …Bc6 available.

22.Rae1

[22.Be7 Rf7 23.Bxd6 Qxc3; 22.Bf4]

22…Qxc3

[22…Qxa2; or 22…Bc6 23.Qg3 Qd5 24.h6 Qh1+ 25.Kf2-
+]

23.Rxe6 Hoping for a blunder more than
anything else

[23.Qxc3 If White heads immediately for the exchange of
Queens 23…Rxc3 24.Be7 Rf7 25.Bxd6 Rxc2 26.Rf2 Rxf2 27.Kxf2 Bd7 he
soon runs out of counterplay]

23…Qxd4+!

[But if Black goes for the endgame 23…Qxf3 24.Rxf3 Bxh5
25.Ra3 a6 26.Rxd6 White may be escaping]

24.Be3 Qh4 25.Rxd6

[25.h6 Rxc2; 25.Rf2?? Bc6]

25…Rc4 Black is taking over.
Everything wins…

[25…Rxc2; 25…Bxh5]

26.Bf4 Bc6 0-1

Lessons:

play with a plan: plausible or visually appealing moves
are not good enough, OTB or CC

Playing by analogy is OK but notice the differences.

you can accept a gambit Pawn and win

Dave Regis 1-0 Volker Drueke

An abrupt end; in a slightly uncommon line White moves pieces
across to the King’s-side until a combinational break can be
launched.

All according to plan, but for a moment White’s edifice
may have proved vulnerable to a Black central break.

BDG Bogolyubov Defence

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 g6 6.Bc4 Bg7
7.0-0 0-0 8.Qe1 Bg4 9.Qh4 Bxf3

[9…Nc6 often transposes]

10.Rxf3 Nc6

This is a very well-known type of position for the BDG fraternity,
although the combination of an immediate …Bxf3 and …Nc6 is not
so common. Conventional attacking approaches risked playing into my
opponent’s hands, so I resolved to play a less commonly-tried
approach.

11.Ne2 Qd7

[11…Nd5 has been tried a few times, e.g. 1-0 Schuh H
FM-Kohler/Baden Team CS 1982 (23);

11…e5 12.Bg5+/-]

12.Bg5

[12.Rh3? Qg4-+;

12.Bh6? Qg4]

12…Ng4

[12…Rad8 13.c3 Na5 14.Bd3 Rfe8 15.Raf1 Qc6 16.b4 Nc4
17.Kh1 Nb6 18.Rh3 h5 19.Rhf3 Nbd7 20.b5 Qe6 21.h3 Nf8 22.R1f2 Qd7
23.Bc4 Ne6 24.Nf4 Nxf4 25.Rxf4 Rf8 26.Qg3 c6? 27.Bxf6 Bxf6 28.Qxg6+
Kh8 29.Qxh5+ Kg8 30.Rg4+ 1-0 Hall A-Wells PK/London 1977;

12…h6 I was quite worried by this move during the game,
perhaps needlessly e.g. 13.Bxh6 Nxd4 14.Nxd4 Bxh6 15.Rd3 Bg7
16.Ne6!]

13.c3

[13.Rh3?! h6 (13…Bxd4+ 14.Nxd4 Qxd4+ 15.Be3 Qxe3+
16.Rxe3 Nx../em> 14.c3 transposes below.;

13.h3? Bxd4+;

13.d5? Nce5]

13…h6

CRITICAL POSITION: Quite right! Now what is
White to do?

I knew 14.Bf4 had a precedent but I thought I had
to be sure before playing it… but in fact, I’m still not
sure!

14.Bf4!?

Alternatives:

[14.Raf1?! hxg5 15.Qxg5 Nge5 (15…Nf6 16.Qxg6 Nd8
17.Rg3 Ne8 18.Rh3 Nf6 19.Rxf6 Qxh3 20.gxh3 exf6 21.Nf4)
16.dxe5 Nxe5 17.Rh3 Qg4! (17…Nxc4 may also be good
enough) 18.Qxg4 Nxg4 19.Rg3 (19.Nf4 Ne5 20.Bb3-+)
19…Ne5 20.Bb3 Rad8 21.Nf4 e6 22.h4 Bh6 23.h5 Kg7 24.hxg6 Bxf4
25.Rxf4 Nxg6 26.Rb4 b6 27.Rc4 c5 28.Ra4 a5 29.Bc4 Rd1+ 30.Bf1 Rfd8
31.b4 cxb4 0-1 Mondragon-Gu Muller/corres ch we BDG 1975;

14.Rg3!? cf. Mondragon above 14…hxg5! 15.Qxg5
(15.Qxg4 Qxg4 16.Rxg4 Bf6 17.Ng3 e5 18.d5 Na5 19.Bd3 Be7)
15…Nge5 16.dxe5 Nxe5 17.Bb3 Bf6-+;

14.Rh3-+ e5! 15.Rd1]

14…h5!?

[14…g5!? was the line to check: 15.Bxg5 hxg5 16.Qxg5
Nf6 (16…Nh6 17.Raf1 Kh8 18.Rh3 Qd6 19.Bxf7 Rad8 20.Rg3 Rg8
21.Bxg8 Rxg8 22.Qh5+/-) 17.Rg3 Ne8 18.Nf4!? (idea Nh5)

A) 18…e6!? Opening up the second rank
to defend g7 looks the toughest defence; the Black Knights prove
very awkward for White. 19.Nh5 f6! 20.Qh6 Rf7 21.Rxg7+ (21.Re1
Nd8) 21…Nxg7 22.Nxf6+ Rxf6 23.Qxf6 Rf8;

B) 18…Nxd4?! 19.Nd5 Nc6 20.Re1]

So I might have been quite wrong to offer the Bishop, and
Volker was wrong to trust me (or Sneiders).

15.Raf1?!

Just to be different, but without immediate threats. Shades of the
last game, I fear: a good-looking move rather than a good one.
Black has a window of opportunity…

[15.Qg3? e5 16.dxe5 Ncxe5-+;

[15.Qg5? e5-+]

[Sneiders, to whom credit or blame for the idea of
sacrificing the Bishop is due, had played a game with: 15.h3!? Nf6
16.Qg3 e6 (16…Kh7) 17.Re1 (17.Raf1 Ne4 18.Qh4 Ne7
19.g4&=) 17…Ne4 18.Qh2 This position didn’t appeal to me
at all. 18…Rae8 19.Bb5 e5 20.dxe5 Qd5 21.Bxc6

A) 21…bxc6 1/2-1/2 Sneiders
E-Frings/corres I.BDG Weltt 1968. Although a draw was agreed here I
quite like White’s position. 22.Re3 f6 (22…Bxe5 23.Bxe5 Rxe5
24.Nf4+/-) 23.Ng3+= But:

B) 21…Qxc6! seemed better to me 22.Re3
(22.Nd4 Qd5 23.Rfe3 Bxe5 24.Bxe5 Rxe5 25.Nf3 Re7) 22…Qb6
23.Nd4 f5 24.exf6 Nxf6 25.Bxc7 Rxe3 26.Rxe3 (26.Bxb6 Rxe1+
27.Kf2 Ng4+) 26…Qxb2-+]

15…Na5

Decentralising but not bad, I think.

[15…e5? 16.Bg5 intending Be7 with an attack on f7
(16.h3 e4) 16…exd4 (16…Nd8 17.Be7 Re8 18.Bxd8 Qxd8
19.Qxd8 Rexd8 20.Rxf7 Ne3 21.Rxc7+ Nxc4 22.Rxc4 Rd7 23.dxe5
Bxe5) 17.Rxf7 Rxf7 18.Rxf7 Qxf7 19.Bxf7+ Kxf7 20.h3 dxc3
21.Nxc3 Bd4+ 22.Kf1;

15…Rad8;

15…Nf6 16.Qg5 Kh8;

15…Rac8!? looking after c7 also looked OK to me, when
White still has it all to prove. However, I was most afraid of the
text move.]

16.Bd3 b6?!

[The move that I was anxious about at the time was
16…e5!?

17.dxe5 (17.Bg5 Rae8; 17.Bg3 exd4) 17…Nxe5
18.Bxe5 Bxe5 when I could see nothing very convincing for White;
Black needs to avoid to obvious knockouts however and on second
glance may not find it easy to do so.

19.Qg5 Rfe8 (19…Nc6 20.Bc4!; 19…Rae8 20.Bxg6!
fxg6 21.Rxf8+ Rxf8 22.Rxf8+ Kxf8 23.Qxe5) 20.Rxf7 Qxd3 21.Qh6
Qe3+ 22.Qxe3 Bxh2+ 23.Kxh2 (23.Kf2 Rxe3 24.Kxe3)
23…Rxe3]

After Black has declined (or missed) this oppportunity,
White is allowed to build up a powerful attack.

17.h3

Back to the Sneiders game, more or less.

17…Nf6

[17…e5 obviously now fails to 18.hxg4 exf4
19.gxh5+-;

17…Nh6 looked interesting but unnatural]

18.Ng3

[18.Be5 first could have been tried, or 18.Qg3]

18…c5

looks the right strategy, trying to break up White’s
centre and get some active play, because there seems no immediate
prospect of Black achieving exchanges.

[18…Nc6 19.Bg5 was another critical line. I didn’t
analyse it much at the time, waiting for Volker’s actual choice to
arrive.

A) 19…e5?? 20.Bxf6;

B) 19…Nh7 20.Nxh5 gxh5
(20…Nxd4) 21.Bxh7+ Kxh7 22.Qxh5+ Kg8 23.Bh6;

C) 19…Rad8 20.Bxf6 exf6 21.Nxh5 Nxd4
22.Nxf6+ Bxf6 23.Rxf6 Ne6]

19.Be5

[19.dxc5; 19.Bg5]

19…cxd4

[19…Nc6 now meets the same reply.]

20.Bxf6 1-0

This move provoked Black (who perhaps anticipated the
immediate recapture on d4) into resigning(!). Black is certainly
beset with threats but can hope to steer out into a simplified if
inferior position. The variations are I guess quite thematic for
the BDG but I’m not confident that I haven’t missed something
familiar to readers.

But let us look at what might have happened:

20…exf6!

White now has a choice of sacrificial lines:

[20…Bxf6?! 21.Rxf6

A) 21…dxc3 22.R6f3 Rac8 23.Nf5 f6
24.Rg3 c2 25.Qxh5 Kf7 (25…e5 26.Nh6+) 26.Qxg6+ Ke6
27.Re3+ Kd5;

B) 21…exf6 22.Nxh5 gxh5 23.Qg3+ Kh8
24.Rxf6]

21.Bf5!?

getting the Bd3 out of the way of the Qd7

[21.Rxf6? is not the right one at all: 21…Bxf6 22.Qxf6
Qe6;

21.Nxh5!? was the one I looked at first and longest
21…dxc3! exposing the Bd3 (21…Nc6 22.Nxg7 Kxg7 23.Qxf6+ Kg8
24.Bc4 Nd8 25.Qxg6+ Kh8 26.Qh6+ Kg8 27.Rg3+;

21…gxh5 22.Qxh5 Rfe8 23.Qh7+ Kf8 24.Rg3 Ke7 25.Rxg7
Qe6 26.Bg6 Rf8 27.cxd4 Ke8 28.Bxf7+ Rxf7 29.Qg8+ Ke7 30.Rxf7+ Qxf7
31.Re1+;

21…Qd6!? covering g3 and f6, not to mention
d4, but allowing White to capture on f6 with gain of time.
22.Nxf6+ Bxf6 23.Rxf6 Qe5 24.Bxg6)

Now 22. Qxf6 is an idea, or 22.Nxg7 Kxg7
23.Qxf6+ Kg8 24.Rf4 Qc6 (24…Qe6 25.Qxe6 fxe6 26.bxc3)
25.bxc3 is worse for Black but not losing. So White should think
again:(25.Rh4 Qxf6 26.Rxf6 cxb2;

25.Qxc6 Nxc6 26.Be4 Rac8) ]

21…Qd6!

covering d4, g3 and f6 again, and without being exposed
to Rxf6. White has to spend a while organising a threat on the
g-file.

[21…gxf5? 22.Nxf5 dxc3 (22…Rfe8 23.Qg3)
23.Nxg7;

21…Qa4? 22.Nxh5 gxh5 23.Qxh5 Rfe8 24.Qh7+ Kf8 25.Rg3
Ke7 26.Qxg7! (26.Rxg7 Qxa2) 26…Qxa2 27.Re1+ Kd6
28.Qxf6+]

22.Nxh5 gxh5 23.Rg3

[23.Qxh5 Rfd8]

23…Rfd8

[23…Nc6 24.Rff3 Ne5 25.Rxg7+ Kxg7 26.Qg3+ Kh8 27.Qf4
Ng6 28.Qh6+ Kg8 29.Bxg6 fxg6 30.Qxg6+ Kh8 31.Rf5 Qe7 32.Rxh5+ Qh7
33.Rxh7#]

24.Rff3 Kf8

[24…dxc3 25.Qxh5 Kf8 26.Qh7 Qc5+ 27.Kh2 cxb2 28.Qxg7+
Ke8 29.Qxf6 Qd6 30.Re3+]

25.Qxh5

Does White really win in all variations from here?

25…dxc3 26.Qh7

which looks very risky for Black, e.g.

26…Qc5+ 27.Kh2 Nc4

[27…c2 28.Re3]

28.Qxg7+ Ke7 29.Bg6 Rf8 30.Qxf6+ Kd7 31.Bf5+
Kc7 32.Rxc3…

Lessons:

“Don’t believe all you read” and

“Look before you leap!”

Play good moves, not good-looking ones.

Don’t drift, waiting for your opponent to build up: hit
back when you can!

Dave Regis 1-0 Kevin Kent

This was a fairly smooth game where for once I saw the problem
coming and successfully avoided it.

BDG Vienna Defence

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 Bf5 5.g4 Bg6 6.g5 Nd5
7.Nxe4

Here I ran to the databases for some guidance. White has
no Pawn deficit but needs a plan. The model game is Tartakower’s,
but Black can improve.

[7.Nxe4 e6 8.c4

A) 8…Bb4+ 9.Ke2 (9.Kf2? Nb6 10.c5
Bxe4 11.fxe4 Bxc5-+) 9…Nb6 10.c5 Nd5 11.a3 Ba5 12.Qa4+ Nc6
13.Qc4 Bxe4 14.fxe4 Nde7 15.Be3 1-0 Gedult #-Gorfinkel/Vittel
1973;

B) 8…Nb6 9.Be3 Nc6 (9…N8d7
10.h4) 10.a3 (10.h4) ;

C) 8…Ne7 9.Ng3 (9.Bg2 1-0
Sneiders E-Vashegyi E/corres ICCF/m 1969 (27)) 9…Nbc6
10.Be3 Nf5 11.Nxf5 Bxf5 12.Bh3 Bxh3 13.Nxh3

C1) 13…Ne7! Muller 14.Qd2 Nf5 15.Bf2
a5

C1a) 16.c5 b6 17.Rd1 (17.Nf4)
;

C1b) 16.a3 ;

C2) 13…Be7?! 14.Qa4 Bb4+ 15.Kf2 0-0
16.Rad1 (16.c5 e5) 16…Bd6 17.c5 Be7 18.Rhg1 Rb8 19.Rg4
Qd5 20.Nf4 Qf5 21.Ne2 Rbd8 22.b4 a6 23.Nc3 Rd7 24.h4 Rfd8 25.Kg2
Bf8 26.Qb3 Ne7 27.Re4 Nd5 28.Ne2 Nxe3+ 29.Qxe3 Qd5 30.Nc3 Qf5
31.Rd2 Qg6 32.Ne2 Qf5 33.Rb2 Qd5 34.Nc3 Qc6 35.a4 b5 36.axb5
axb5

Black is being strangled. I love to play this way as White, even
more perhaps than winning by a Queen sacrifice! Tartakower now gets
in through the a-file while Black is too cramped to oppose it.

37.Qd3 Rb8 38.Ra2 Qb7 39.Re1 c6 40.Rea1 Rbd8 41.Ra7 Qb8
42.Rxd7 Rxd7 43.Qe4 g6 44.Ra6 Qd8 45.Ne2 Rd5 46.Rxc6 Bg7 47.Ra6 Bf8
48.Rb6 h6 49.f4 hxg5 50.hxg5 Bg7 51.Kg3 Bxd4 52.Nxd4 Rxd4 53.Qe5!
Rd3+ 54.Kh4 Qe8 55.c6 Rd8 56.c7 Rc8 57.Qd6 Kh7 58.Rb8 Kg7 59.Qd8
1-0, Tartakower-Simonovitch, Paris 1954]

7…e6 8.c4 Nb6 9.Be3 Nc6

… This reminds me of an Alekhin’s Defence: Black has no central
foothold but White’s centre is loose and may be undermined.

10.h4 Bb4+ 11.Kf2

[11.Ke2 0-0 12.c5 Nd5 13.a3]

11…0-0 12.Rc1

[12.c5 Nd5 13.a3 Ba5 14.b4 f5 15.gxf6 Bxe4

A) 16.fxe4 Qxf6+ 17.Nf3 (17.Kg2
Nxe3+;

17.Ke2 Nc3+) 17…Nc3 18.Qe1 Qxf3+;

B) 16.fxg7 16…Rxf3+ 17.Nxf3 Nxe3
18.Kxe3 Bxf3 19.Kxf3 (19.Qxf3 Qxd4+ 20.Ke2 Qxa1) 19…Qd5+
20.Kg3 Qxh1]

…all looked fine for Black. Since then I hear from
Jyrki
Heikkinen that he can improve with 12.c5 Nd5 13.a3 Ba5
14.Qd3…

12…Bxe4

[12…e5 13.d5]

13.fxe4 f5

[13…f6]

14.exf5

[14.gxf6 e5 (14…Qxf6+ 15.Nf3 e5 16.Bg5 Qg6
17.c5) 15.c5 Qxf6+ 16.Nf3;

14.c5 fxe4+;

14.e5]

14…exf5

[14…Rxf5+ 15.Nf3 e5 16.Bd3 (16.Bh3 Rf8 17.Kg2)
]

15.Nf3

[15.c5 f4]

15…f4

[15…g6 16.d5 Ne7 17.a3; 15…Qe7; 15…Qe8; 15…Be7
16.d5 Nb4]

16.Bd2 Qe7

[16…Bxd2 17.Qxd2 Qe7 18.Bh3 Qe3+ 19.Qxe3 fxe3+ 20.Ke2
(20.Kxe3 Rae8+ 21.Ne5 Nxe5 22.dxe5 Rxe5+ 23.Kd4 Rfe8=+)
20…Rae8 21.d5 Ne5 22.Nxe5 Rxe5 23.Be6+ Kh8 24.Rhf1;

16…Be7 17.Bc3+=]

Now the position reminds me of a King’s Gambit!

CRITICAL POSITION: Black has an advanced
protected passed Pawn, but needs to find a way of making use of it
– or else he will be driven back. I spent a long time analysing
this move, because if a planned finesse at move 21 doesn’t work,
this is the place to repair it.

17.Bh3

[17.d5 Ne5 18.Bxb4 (18.Nxe5 Qxe5 19.Bxb4 Qe3+ 20.Kg2
Qg3#) 18…Qxb4 19.Nxe5 Qxb2+ -+]

17…Bxd2

[17…Rae8 18.Re1 Qf7 (18…Qd6 19.Rxe8 Rxe8
20.c5) 19.Bxb4 Nxb4 is also critical;

White may still be able to claim an edge because of the
unstable Black Knights. 20.a3]

18.Qxd2 Qe3+ Tempting but probably
mistaken.

[18…Rae8 19.Rhe1 Qf7 20.d5 Rxe1 (20…Nd8)
21.Qxe1 Nd8 22.Ne5 (22.b3 Re8 23.Qa5 a6;

22.Qd2 Re8 23.b3) 22…Qe8 23.b3 Kh8 24.Rd1 Nf7
25.Nxf7+ (25.Be6 Nxe5 26.Qxe5 Qh5 27.Rh1 c6) 25…Qxf7
26.Be6 Qh5]

19.Qxe3 fxe3+ 20.Ke2

[20.Kxe3 Rae8+ didn’t detain me long, so White must
concede the Pawn another step forward. I think Black must have
mis-assessed this line with Ke2, or surely he would have chosen
something else earlier.]

20…Rae8

Now Black has a little opportunity to play …Rxf3 and
…Nd4+, so White must anticipate this by enabling Be6+ interfering
with the line of the Re8.

21.d5!?

[21.b3 Rxf3 22.Kxf3 Nxd4+ 23.Kg2 e2 24.Kf2 h5 25.gxh6 gxh6]

21…Ne5

[21…Rxf3!? looked alarming but 22.Kxf3 (22.dxc6
Rf2+) 22…Nd4+ 23.Kg2 e2 (else Rd1) 24.Be6+ and I think White
comfortably survives to win.]

22.Nxe5 Rxe5

[22…Rf2+ 23.Kxe3 Rxb2 24.Be6+]

23.Be6+ Kh8 24.Rhf1

Now it’s all over: White will consume the e-Pawn and the poor
Knight still has nowhere to go. Black has rather drifted into this
lost position without having a definite plan for counterplay. Don’t
drift, but fight back!

24…Rd8

[24…Rf2+ 25.Rxf2 exf2+ 26.Kxf2 Re4 27.Kg3! (27.c5
Na4 28.b3 Nb2 29.Rf1) 27…Rxc4 (27…Nxc4 28.Rf1 Re3+
29.Kg2;

27…h6 28.g6 Re3+ 29.Kg2 Re2+ 30.Kg1)
28.Rf1]

25.Rf3 g6

[25…c6?? 26.Rcf1 h5 27.g6 Nd7 28.Bxd7]

26.Rcf1

[26.Rxe3 Rxe3+ 27.Kxe3 Kg7 (27…c6 28.Ke4 Kg7)
28.b3 (28.Ke4 Rf8) 28…Re8 29.Kd4 Rf8 30.c5 Nc8 31.Ke5
Ne7]

26…h5

[26…Nxc4 27.Rf8+ Rxf8 28.Rxf8+ Kg7 29.Rg8#;

26…c6 27.Rf8+ Rxf8 28.Rxf8+ Kg7 29.Rg8#]

27.Rf8+

[27.b3 c6 28.Rxe3 Rxe3+ 29.Kxe3 cxd5 30.cxd5 Nxd5+
31.Bxd5 Rxd5 32.Rf7]

27…Rxf8 28.Rxf8+ Kg7 29.Rf7+ Kh8 30.Rxc7+-
Re4

[30…Na4]

31.b3 Rxh4 32.Kxe3 Rh2 33.c5 Nxd5+

[33…Rxa2 34.cxb6 axb6 35.d6 Rg2 36.d7]

34.Bxd5 Rxa2 35.Rxb7 Rc2 36.c6 1-0

Lessons:

Don’t panic! You must search for an answer to your
opponent’s threats. Juniors are sometimes very worried by
opponent’s king’s-side attacks, and go into a hedgehog posture, and
it’s the posture that kills them. I sometimes say, oh, don’t worry
about that, they’re only threatening mate.

Fight back! You must not drift when you are worse, you
must fight a way to create problems, and think seriously about our
opponent’s counters.

Volker Drueke 0-1 Dave Regis

The lure of a good example. White follows the precedent of a
dramatic win by Sneiders, but unfortunately ends up playing, not
some hacker from Exeter, but GM Joe Gallagher.

BDG Euwe Defence

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 e6 6.Bg5 Be7
7.Bd3

A less common approach.

7…c5

As played by Diemer as Black!

[7…Nc6;

7…Nbd7 8.0-0 (8.Qd2/ JG 8…c5
9.0-0-0) 8…c5 9.dxc5 Bxc5+ 10.Kh1 h6 11.Bh4 0-0 12.Qe2 =
Liesebein, -+ Gallagher 12…Be7 13.Rad1 Qa5 14.Ne4 Qxa2 15.g4 Qxb2
16.g5 hxg5 17.Nfxg5 e5 18.Nxf6+ Nxf6 19.Rxf6 Be6 20.Qh5 Bd5+ 21.Kg1
Qd4+ 22.Bf2 1-0 Leisebein P-Friedrich G/DDR-corr-Meisterklasse
1990]

8.dxc5

[8.Qd2 cxd4 (8…Nc6 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.0-0-0 0-0 11.Rhf1
Be7 12.Qf4 Nd5 13.Nxd5 Bxg5 14.Nxg5 f6 15.Bxh7+ Kh8 16.Qh4 fxg5
17.Qh5 1-0 Bent Scott-Neumeier Michael/Cincinnati, Annual Gold
Cup Benefit O 1991) 9.Nxd4 Bd7 10.0-0-0 Nc6 11.Nf3 Qa5
12.Bc4 0-0-0 13.Qe2 h6 14.Bd2 Bb4 15.a3 Bxc3 16.Bxc3 Qc7 17.Ne5
Nxe5 18.Bxe5 Qa5 19.Rd3 Bc6 20.b4 Qb6 21.Rc3 a6 22.Rf1 Rhf8 23.g4
Rd7 24.Rf4 Nd5 25.Bxd5 Rxd5 26.Bxg7 Rfd8 27.Rxf7 a5 28.Bf8 Rd1+
29.Kb2 axb4 30.Bxb4 Kb8 31.Qxe6 Re8 32.Qxh6 Ree1 33.Qf4+ Ka7 34.Rc5
Re4 35.Ra5+ Qxa5 36.Bxa5 Rxf4 37.Rxf4 Rh1 38.Bc7 Rxh2 39.Rf5 1-0
Roos-Soller/corres ch we BDG 1975]

8…Qa5

[8…Bxc5 9.Qe2 (9.Ne4 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.Bb5+ Nd7
12.Nd6+ Ke7 13.Qd2 a6 14.Qb4 a5 15.Nxc8+ 1-0 Merkl
K-Riesen/unknown 1955) 9…Be7 10.0-0-0 Nd5 11.Bb5+ Bd7
12.Rxd5 exd5 13.Nxd5 f6 14.Nxf6+ gxf6 15.Bxf6 Bxb5 16.Qxb5+ Kf7
17.Qh5+ Kxf6 18.Qh6+ Kf7 19.Ne5+ Kg8 20.Qe6+ Kg7 21.Qf7+ Kh6
22.Ng4+ Kg5 23.h4+ 1-0 Diemer Emil-Terzi/Rastatt BDG 1953;

8…Nc6 9.0-0 Bxc5+ 10.Kh1 h6 11.Bh4 g5 12.Nxg5 hxg5
13.Bxg5 Nh5 0-1 Penk-Diemer Emil/corr [Fp 1955]

9.0-0 Qxc5+ 10.Kh1 Nbd7

[10…h6]

11.Qe1 a6

CRITICAL POSITION 1: That’s a funny little
move by Black: can you see what the idea is?

12.Qh4 Qb4!

Ha! Now White has to exchange Queens or throw in another
Pawn.

13.Nd4

[13.Ne4]

13…Qxb2 14.Nce2 Ne5 15.a4 Qb6

CRITICAL POSITION 2: You’re nearly on your
own here: there is only one recorded game, where White won in
twenty moves after 16. Rxf6. What do you do?

16.Rxf6?

Nearly on your own, but not quite. I fear Volker hasn’t
seen Joe Gallagher’s “Beating the Anti-Indians“, which
analyses this move. In fact, he assesses White’s position as simply
lost even before this move! So White has to bale out before
somewhere earlier, or, if you don’t believe JG, then find an
improvement here.

[16.Be3; 16.Rab1 Qd8;

16.Bxf6!? Drueke 16…gxf6 17.Rab1 Qc7 which still has
some play in it, however White cannot preserve the Bd3 by 18.Be4?
f5!]

16…gxf6!

[16…gxf6! White now assessed his chances as zero and
resigned, which may be appropriate if Gallagher
was playing all the rest of my moves, but I’d have to start
thinking for myself soon! I had to check all the lines before and
after this point, of course, or I might fall into the very trap
that I hoped Volker was making – of trusting the books.

16…Nxd3? 17.Rff1 f6 18.Be3 Nc5? (18…Ne5)
19.Nb3 Qc6 20.Bxc5 Bxc5 21.Qh5+ 1-0 Sneiders E-Breunig O/corr 1BDGW
1970/71 (02) 1971 I guess Volker was hoping to go all the way down
the line following this game.]

Possible continuation:
17.Bxf6

[17.Be3 there might be some nibbles in this line still:
17…Nxd3 18.cxd3 Bd7 19.Nf5 Qd8 20.Ng7+ Kf8 21.Qh6
(21.Bh6) 21…Kg8 22.Rf1 Qf8]

17…Qd8! 18.Rf1 (“what else?”,
asks JG)

[18.Bxe7 Qxe7 19.Qg3 Nxd3 20.cxd3 Bd7 e.g. 21.Qc7 Bc6
22.Qb6 Rc8 23.Rc1 Bxg2+ 24.Kxg2 Rxc1 25.Nxc1 Qg5+ 26.Kf2 Qxc1
27.Nxe6 Qd2+ 28.Kf3 Qxd3+ 29.Kf4 Qd2+ 30.Kf5 Qd5+]

18…Bxf6 19.Rxf6 Ng4!-+
20.Nxe6

[20.Qxg4 Qxf6 21.Ng3 (21.Nf4 Qxd4) 21…Bd7
22.Nh5 Qe5]

20…Qxf6 21.Nc7+ Kd8 0-1

Lessons:

“Don’t believe what you read!” (again)

Unes Hassim 1/2-1/2 Dave Regis

Black wimps out of accepting the BDG to try a solid defence and the
hope of gaining some small positional pluses later. Just when Black
starts to feel more confident the Queen discovers she cannot
settle, and the game ends in a draw by repetition.

BDG Langeheinecke Defence

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 e3 5.Bxe3 e6

[I had played my first ever BDG against my esteemed
Exeter clubmate Richard Towers. Rich seems to have made a move from
gambit play to anti-theoretical and solid chess, hoping to outplay
his opponent in the middlegame, and so I made a determined effort
to play very actively against him by playing 1. e4, which of course
met with his Scandinavian 1…d5, “sucking all the life out of
the position” as someone once said. Now 2.d4: I assumed Rich
knows no more about the Caro or French than I do, but that need not
be true. 2…dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 e3 5.Bxe3 c6 Still playing the
Scandinavian! 6.Bd3 (6.Bc4) 6…Nbd7 7.Nge2 e6
(7…e5?!) 8.0-0 Nd5 To develop the Bc8, but shedding
another tempo. (8…Nb6; 8…Bd6 9.Ne4 Bc7 10.c4; 8…Be7)
9.Nxd5 exd5 10.Re1 Be7 11.Ng3 0-0 12.Nf5 (12.Qe2; 12.c4)
12…Bf6 13.Qd2 Nb6 14.b3!?

CRITICAL POSITION: Should Black go solid or
try to force the issue here?

[On 14…c5!? I had resolved to play 15.dxc5 Bxa1 16.cxb6 Bf6
(16…Qf6?! 17.Nd4 Bb2 18.c3 Ba3 19.bxa7 Be6?? 20.Bg5)
17.bxa7 when I though White had good compensation and has succeeded
in unbalancing the game]

14…Be6 15.c3 Nc8 (15…Qd7 16.Qc2) 16.Re2 Ne7
17.Ng3 g6 18.Rae1 Qd7 19.Bg5 Bg7 (19…Bxg5 20.Qxg5)
20.Qf4 Rae8

I’ve seen Richard win happily from dozens of these
passive-but-solid positions.

21.Bf6 (This took me 20 minutes!) Another

CRITICAL POSITION: can you find a way to
hold the line?

21…Kh8??

(21…Nf5; 21…Bxf6; 21…a5!? “Pass”.;
21…Nc8! (idea Qd6/Qe7))

22.Nh5 It took me ages to realise (a) that Nh5 was a
useful candidate (it was useless before), and (b) that it won,
although the first move I though of was Qh6!

22…gxh5 23.Qh6 1-0

Richard might well have battled on after e.g. 21…Nc8!
but White has an easy game to play; the way to play for a result is
with moves like 14…c5!

Lessons:

Passive play is difficult; Mednis calls it “awaiting
the undertaker”

Back at the main game: 6.Bd3 Be7

[6…Nbd7 1-0 Fuller RA-Dilworth V/British CS OA/ 1965
(38);

6…Bb4 Richter_Mendau J-Roos B/5/23 cr 1BDGW fnl 1972/74
(03) 1974/1-0 (65);

6…Nd5 1-0 Schuh H FM-Treffert/BndLiga 1984 (22);

6…Nc6]

7.Nge2 Nbd7 8.0-0 0-0

[8…c5 9.f4 cxd4 10.Nxd4 Nc5 11.Be2 Nd5]

9.Bf2

[9.Qe1 is more normal:

A) 9…c5 is analysed at BDG world:
10.Rd1 cxd4 11.Bxd4 Qc7 12.Qh4 Bc5 13.Ne4 Nxe4 14.Qxe4 Nf6 15.Qh4
e5 16.Bxc5 Qxc5+ 17.Kh1 Be6 18.Nc3 h6 19.a3 Rad8 20.f4

A1) 20…exf4 21.Qxf4 (21.Rxf4
Nd5) 21…Qg5 (21…Nd5 22.Qe4 g6 23.Qh4+=) 22.Qxg5
hxg5=;

A2) 20…Rd4?! 21.Ne2 Rd7 22.b4 Qc7
23.fxe5 Qxe5 24.Nf4 Bg4 25.Rde1 Qg5 26.Qf2 b6?? (26…Bf5 27.h4
Qg4 28.Be2 Ne4) 27.h4 1-0 Hommeles-Ligterinck, NDR 1992;

B) 9…Nd5 0-1 Bachl E-Bocki/Germany?
1978 (34)]

9…c5 10.Qe1

[10.Qe1 cxd4 11.Nxd4 (11.Bxd4 Bc5 12.Qf2 Bxd4 13.Qxd4
e5 14.Qd6 Re8) 11…Nc5 (11…e5 12.Nf5 Bc5 13.Bxc5 Nxc5
14.Qxe5);

10.Be1; 10.Ne4; 10.dxc5]

10…cxd4 11.Nxd4

[11.Bxd4]

11…a6

[11…Nc5; 11…e5?! 12.Nf5; 11…Bc5? 12.Na4; 11…b6?
12.Nc6; 11…Qa5!?]

12.Rd1 Qc7+=

White’s active pieces give him a small edge, but Black has no
weaknesses and can work towards equality.

13.Kh1

[13.Ne4]

13…Nc5

[13…Ne5; 13…Bc5; 13…Qe5 14.Qd2; 13…b5!?]

14.Bg3

[14.Bh4; 14.Bc4]

14…Qb6

[14…Nxd3 15.Bxc7 Nxe1 16.Rfxe1 Bb4 17.Be5 Bxc3
18.bxc3+=;

14…Qd8 15.Qe3 Qb6 16.Nb3 Na4 17.Qxb6 Nxb6+=]

15.Nb3 Nxd3 (two Bishops!)

[15…Nxb3 16.cxb3 Rd8 17.Bf2]

16.Rxd3 Rd8

[16…Bd7 17.Qe5 Rac8 18.f4 Bc6 19.f5]

Black is holding the line, and the game grinds to a
halt.

17.Rxd8+ [17.Bf2 Qc7 18.Bg3]
17…Bxd8 [17…Qxd8] 18.Bf2
[18.Qe2] 18…Qc7 19.Qe3 Bd7 [19…b5 20.Nc5]
20.Rd1 Bc6

I felt confident that Black had equalised and was start to think
about playing for a win with the two Bishops, but…

21.Bg3

[21.Nd4 Be7]

21…Qb6 22.Qe1 Be7 23.Bf2

[23.Bd6]

23…Qc7 24.Bg3

[24.Nd4]

24…Qb6 It is difficult for White to
play for a win and the Black Queen has no comfortable hiding place;
if the c5 point is conceded Black may find himself worse.
1/2../strong>

Lessons:

Maybe it’s really true, the only way to refute a gambit
is to accept it!

Long aside…

…Steinitz said, The best way to refute a gambit is to
accept it, and Lasker added, especially centre Pawns. But I
sometimes imagine that accepting a gambit is the best way to fall
into the main idea of something nasty that your opponent knows all
about. That may still be true, but I’m starting to think that
Steinitz is absolutely right. That is, if you want only equality,
decline by all means, but if only who dares wins.
There are one or two gambit lines which I am seeing in junior
matches that I cannot see a good way to play for a win against by
declining, which seem relevant here.

I was looking at the Max Lange attack and was struck by
Black’s fundamental choice at move 5:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.0-0: now: 5…Bc5
or 5…Nxe4 ?

5…Bc5 just seems a glorious mess, just the sort of
thing to be avoided, but I couldn’t see a way for Black to play for
a win after 5…Nxe4

e.g. 5…Nxe4 6.Re1 d5 7.Nc3 dxc3 [7…dxc4 8.Rxe4+
Be7 9.Nxd4 f5 10.Rf4 0-0 11.Nxc6 Qxd1+ 12.Nxd1 bxc6 13.Rxc4 Bd6
14.Nc3 = Botvinnik] 8.Bxd5 Be6 [or 8…Bf5 9.Bxe4 Bxe4
10.Rxe4+ Be7] 9.Bxe4 Bb4 10.b3 Qxd1 11.Rxd1 Rd8 12.Be3 a6:
Black has an extra pawn which is hard to keep and hard to make use
of.

Also after 1.e4 e5!? 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 The Goring
Gambit. Black can readily equalise with 4…d5 but cannot hope for
a win. The moral is once again, that the best way to refute a
gambit may be to accept it.

Kevin Kent (0-1) Dave Regis

This was a good scrap; White was always one move short of landing
the final blow and Black wriggles out into a better endgame. This
is I guess how you are supposed to play with Black; easier in
correspondence than OTB! It also confirms my prejudices about the
line: in my games Black scored 2/3 in the gambit accepted!

BDG Bogolyubov Defence

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 g6 6.Bc4 Bg7
7.0-0 0-0 8.Qe1 Nbd7

This is a well-known position, and both sides have tried several
alternatives. I was heading for a position which Harding assesses
as =+ but White is by no means obliged to comply.

9.Qh4 Nb6

[9…c5 looks the only realistic alternative here.]

10.Bb3 a5 11.a4 Nbd5

This is the first CRITICAL POSITION. White
has an apparent opportunity to win back the Pawn, but Harding
thinks this gives Black slightly the better position.

12.Nxd5 Nxd5 13.Bxd5 (13.c4) 13…Qxd5 14.Qxe7 Qc6
(14…Bxd4+ 15.Nxd4 Qxd4+ 16.Be3 Qd7;

14…Qd7) 15.c3 Be6 16.Bf4 Rac8 17.Ne5 Qd5 =
Lane, =+ Harding

I hoped White would try and win the e-Pawn, but instead
he goes for a slow build-up in the familiar manner. All the books
give only 12. Nxd5, but White actually has lots of
alternatives:

(12.Bg5; 12.Bh6; 12.Ne5 Be6 13.Bh6 c6; 12.h3; 12.Ng5
h6)

12.h3

An interesting move, the motivation of which it is worth
pondering. Black often has trouble developing the Bishop on c8, and
in the BDG it is often useful to send this Queen’s-side piece out
to g4 and exchange it for the dangerous Knight on f3.

I probably wouldn’t have gone for …Bg4: I don’t really
approve of giving up the two Bishops like this and the offer to
bring the Rf1 into play on f3 also seems unnecessarily helpful.

12…c6

[12…Qd6 13.Nxd5 Nxd5 14.c4 Nf6 15.Bf4 Qb6;

12…Be6 13.Ng5 Ra6?? 14.Nxd5 Bxd5 15.Rxf6]

13.Bh6

[13.Ng5 h6]

13…Nxc3

Black has many alternatives here but this looked
clearest.

14.bxc3

[14.Ng5 Ne2+ 15.Kh1 Qxd4]

Another CRITICAL POSITION: White has a
straightforward plan of Ng5, Bxg7, Rxf6 and Qxh7 against routine
tries by Black. So Black must both avoid this idea and make sure
nothing worse awaits him.

14…Nh5

It was hard to see much else. I looked at a long forcing
line here which White played straight down the middle of. Black can
and should have confidence in the position to face attacks like
this, look them in the eye, and find the way to safety. Neither
hope nor fear are friends to the chess player, only judgement and
analysis!

15.Bxg7

With hindsight White should have preferred:

[15.Bg5 or; 15.Be3, when it’s still a fight]

15…Kxg7 16.Ng5

[16.g4 Nf6 17.Ng5 h6 18.Nxf7 Rxf7 19.Bxf7 g5 20.Qg3 Kxf7
when Black might make something out of the material imbalance.
21.Rab1]

16…e6

provocative! – but importantly pins the Knight to the
Queen

17.g4

[17.Nxe6+ Bxe6]

17…h6 18.Nxe6+

[18.Nf3 Qxh4 19.Nxh4 Nf6;

18.gxh5 hxg5 (18…Qxg5+ 19.Qxg5 hxg5 20.hxg6
Kxg6) 19.h6+ Kh7 20.Qe4 f5 (20…Qd6 21.Rf3) 21.Qe3
Qf6 22.Rae1 Bd7 23.Bxe6 Rae8]

18…Bxe6 19.Qxd8 Raxd8 20.Bxe6 Ng3! 21.Rf3 Ne2+
22.Kf2 Nxc3 23.Rxc3

[23.Bb3 Ne4+ 24.Ke3 Ng5 (24…f5 25.gxf5 gxf5 26.Rg1+
Kf6 27.Rgf1 Nd6 28.c4 Rde8+ 29.Kd3) 25.Rg3 Rfe8+ 26.Kd3 Ne4
27.Rf3 Nc5+ 28.Kc4 Nxb3 29.Rxb3 is rather like the game
continuation in the end!]

23…fxe6+

… and Black has wangled his extra pawn back. If I had been
frightened of the attack at move 14-18 I might have had to back out
of the whole line, but I couldn’t see a way through, and wanted to
prove the point. This is easier in correspondence than OTB, I
admit, but you must have this attitude. Even if you are wrong and
are proved wrong about the variations, your attitude is still
right.

24.Ke3 e5! 25.dxe5 Rd5 26.Rb1

Probably best?

[26.Ke4; 26.Rb3]

26…Rxe5+ 27.Kd4 Rd5+ 28.Kc4??

throwing away another Pawn because of the loose Rb1.
White seemed to lose heart here but some of the Rook endgames could
have been awkward for Black.

[28.Ke4! and Black has to decide if he is going to go
passive or try for activity. Although the books say in general you
should go for activity I think uncoiling from a stonewall is
Black’s best hope here. 28…Re8+ 29.Kf3 Re7 30.Rcb3 Rdd7 Now Black
can transfer the King to c8 and get a Rook free to harass White’s
loose Pawns.]

28…Rf4+ 29.Kb3 Rb4+

[29…b5 30.Rxc6 (30.axb5 cxb5) 30…Rxa4 31.Re1
looked less in control]

30.Ka2 Rxa4+ 31.Kb2 Rb4+ 32.Ka2

[32.Rb3; 32.Kc1]

32…Rdb5

forcing an exchange and on Black’s terms.

33.Rxb4

[33.Rd1 Ra4+ 34.Ra3 Rxa3+ 35.Kxa3 Kf6]

33…Rxb4 34.Rd3

[34.Rc5 Rb5 35.Rc4 Kf6]

34…Kf6

Just in time. The Queen’s-side Pawns are all little monsters; White
cannot stop them without bringing the Rook back, and if he brings
the Rook back, the Black King will nibble the King’s-side Pawns.

35.c3 Rc4 36.Kb3 b5 37.Kb2 a4 38.Ka3 Ke5 39.Kb2
h5 40.gxh5 gxh5 41.Ka3? Ke4 42. Rg3 h4 0-1

Lessons:

Don’t hope, don’t fear: analyse and find
out!

Rook and Pawn endings – a spot of theory

Posted on August 25, 1997 by DrDave

Rook and Pawn endings – a spot of theory

All Rook Endings are Drawn… (except for those that aren’t!)

Here’s what got me started on this session. After an entertaining earlier struggle, Black is trying to win a Rook ending in a quickplay finish. I say “trying”: the first move made the spectators wince…

Position 1: Bartlett, S – Regis, D, Devon vs. Cornwall, 08.11.1997

  [Event "Position 1: Bartlett, S - Regis, D, Devon vs. Cornwall, 08.11.1997"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/5pp1/8/8/5Pkp/R5P1/6KP/1r6 b - - 0 50"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

50…Rb2+?
[50…h3+! would have helped! 51.Kf2 Rh1 52.Ra7 Rxh2+ 53.Ke3 g6u 54.Rxf7 Rg2 55.Rg7 Rxg3+ 56.Kf2 Kxf4 57.Rf7+ Kg4]

51.Kg1 g6 52.Rc3 hxg3 53.hxg3 Kh3 54.Kf1 Rg2 55.g4+ Rg3 56.Rc4

[56.Rc7 Rf3+ 57.Ke2 Rxf4; or

56.Rxg3+ Kxg3 57.f5 g5]

56…Kxg4 57.Ke2 f5?

[57…Rf3! 58.f5+ Rf4 PCL] 58.Rb4 Rf3?! [58…Rg2+!?] 59.Rb6 Kxf4 60.Rxg6 Rb3 [60…Rg3 61.Ra6 Kg4 62.Kf2 holds – PCL]

61.Re6 [61.Ra6= PCL] 61…Rb2+ 62.Kf1 Kf3 [DIAGRAM]

  [Event "Diagram 2"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/8/4R3/5p2/8/5k2/1r6/5K2 w - - 0 63"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

63.Re1

“Draw claimed; draw agreed” says my score sheet. Thereby hangs a tale: I was the last board to finish, with two minutes to his one, and White decided I was trying to win a drawn position just on time, and claimed a draw.

I was indeed trying to win, and the clock may have helped, but White has lots of ways to lose: his last move was actually the last chance to draw!

Quite exactly why we’ll see in a bit, but on the day a bit of discussion broke out amongst the audience (yertis notisnt yertis notisnt…) and we decided we’d had enough.

It’s certainly true that some very similar positions are drawn, and are maybe even claimable under the “two minute” rule, but not this one! The interesting thing is, nobody there knew it well enough to carry the day, and I’ve had positions like this lots of times. If my opponent knew how to draw it he would never have played Re1; Capablanca won two positions similar to this where his opponent did not know the drawing technique in one year, 1931 (one against Turover). Moral: know your onions!

Another thing that decided me on having another crack at a session on Rook endings is, well, a bit of a tease:

“…the number of positions that must be known exactly is relatively small. It is only in Rook endgames that it is essential to memorise thirty or forty concrete positions; in other types of endgame there are even fewer.”

Mark Dvoretsky in Dvoretsky & Yusupov, Technique for the Tournament Player

Forty sounds quite a few to me, but, OK Mark, which forty? He doesn’t say! I still don’t know, really, but here is my suggestion for some of them.

One way to work your way into this is to get a chessboard and a few pieces and see if you can work out some of the basic rules for yourself. You should quickly discover that, in common with many other endings, two passed Pawns pretty well always win, and so situations with a single Pawn are most critical. Also, if both Kings are distant, one Rook can’t force through a Pawn against another Rook (not like Queens, for instance).

So, we quickly get to our first two critical positions out of Dvoretsky’s forty, where the Kings are in range: Lucena’s position and Philidor’s position. Oh, and you need to know about Rook’s Pawns, and checking distance.

Position 2: Lucena 1496

  [Event "Position 2: Lucena 1496"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "2k5/4K3/8/4P3/8/8/3R4/5r2 b - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

White has control of the sixth/seventh with the King and the Black King is cut off: Lucena’s position is won for White is two ways…

First, White can get the Pawn to the seventh:

1…Kc7 2.Rc2+ Kb6 3.e6 Rd1 4.Ke8 Rg1 5.e7 Rf1

Now what?

  [Event "Diagram 4"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "4K3/4P3/1k6/8/8/8/2R5/5r2 w - - 0 6"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

6.Rc4 the critical manoeuvre: ‘BUILDING A BRIDGE’

[6.Rh2 although the ‘bridge’ manoeuvre is always emphasised in the books, there is also a win by getting the king out on the short side, e.g. 6…Kc7 7.Rh7 Rf2 8.Rf7 Rh2 9.Rf8 Rh7 (9…Re2 10.Kf7) 10.Rf1 Rh8+ 11.Kf7 Rh7+ 12.Kf8 Rh8+ 13.Kg7 Re8 14.Kf7 This is important because the bridge-building manoeuvre may not be available]

6…Rf2 7.Kd7 Rd2+ 8.Ke6 Re2+ 9.Kd6 Re3 10.Rb4+ Ka7 [10…Ka5 11.Rb8] 11.Rb5 Rd3+ 12.Ke6 Re3+ 13.Re5 1-0

Position 3: Philidor’s position

  [Event "Position 3: Philidor's position"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "4k3/R7/1r6/4PK2/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

Black’s King holds the Queening square, and the Black Rook holds the sixth rank. This is Philidor’s position, which is drawn without too much trouble by Black.

Once the White Pawn goes to the sixth, Black runs back to the first rank:

1.Kf5 Rb1 2.e6 now there is no shelter on the board from the checks

[2.Ke6 Rb6+ 3.Kd5 Rb1]

2…Rf1+ 3.Ke5 Re1+ 4.Kd6 Rd1+ 5.Kc6 Re1 1/2-1/2

Position 4: Rook’s Pawns

  [Event "Position 4: Rook's Pawns"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "R7/P5k1/8/8/8/8/6K1/r7 w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

Rook’s Pawns are a strong drawing factor.
So, here, even with the Black King distant, White can force nothing.

Oddly, Black must not try to approach with the King because of Ra8-h8; instead the Black King sticks to g7/h7, and the Rook checks the White King when it approaches.

1.Kf3 Ra4 2.Ke3 Kh7 3.Kd3 Kg7 4.Kc3 Kh7 5.Kb3 Ra1 6.Kb4 Kg7 7.Kc5 Rc1+ 8.Kb6 Rb1+ 9.Kc6 Ra1 10.Kb7 Rb1+ 11.Kc7 Ra1 1/2-1/2

Position 5: Rook’s Pawns 2

With the Pawn further back White can create trouble with the King because it can hide on e.g. a6 from check on the files (Tarrasch), but Black can then check along the ranks. Euwe and Alekhin struggled with one of these in their 1935 match. Although we can’t easily summarise the analysis of this type of position there is a summary of results possible.

If the White King is closer than the marked area, White wins: in the marked area, Black should draw.

Even further back, and we’re into a lot of ifs and buts…

Position 6: checking distance

  [Event "Position 6: checking distance"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "4K3/4P1k1/8/8/8/8/8/r4R2 b - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

You can draw without getting Philidor’s position, by checking along the ranks. With a central Pawn this is just possible as long as you take the furthest possible file: here the a-file.

1…Ra8+ 2.Kd7 Ra7+ 3.Kd6 Ra6+ 4.Kd5 Ra5+ 5.Kc6 Ra6+ 6.Kb7 Re6 1/2-1/2

Checking distance is three empty files.

Position 7: checking dist. (2)

  [Event "Position 7: checking dist. (2)"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "4K3/4P1k1/8/8/8/8/1r6/5R2 b - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

The b-file (two empty files) fails by a whisker:

1…Rb8+ 2.Kd7 Rb7+ 3.Kd6 Rb8 4.Kc7 Ra8 5.Ra1! 1-0

It is popularly supposed that Q vs. R is difficult: it surely is difficult against an opponent who plays perfectly, like a computer (as GM Browne once discovered), but in actual play it may be easier. Black can be herded to the edge, when a Rook on the third (sixth) rank must keep out the White King. You can achieve positions like the following:

Position 8: Aside: Queen vs. Rook

  [Event "Position 8: Aside: Queen vs. Rook"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "5k2/3Q4/7r/5K2/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

1.Kg5
The Black Rook is shut out from the third rank, and is vulnerable to forks:

[1…Rh1 2.Qc8+ Kf7 3.Qb7+;

1…Ra6 2.Qc8+;

1…Rh2 2.Qd6+]

And if 1…Rh8 2.Kg6 Rg8+ 3.Kf6 1-0

Position 9: Study (Lasker)

  [Event "Position 9: Study (Lasker)"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "4k3/R7/3K4/4P3/8/8/8/7r b - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

Here is an instructive study: Black to move.
A tense position: on whose side will it resolve? 5-piece Rook endings (KRP/KR) all hinge around access of the sixth and seventh ranks in front of the P by the attacking King – if it can be kept out, the defence holds, but if not…

1…Re1

[1…Rh6+ 2.e6 +-;

1…Rd1+ 2.Ke6 Kf8 (2…Kd8 3.Ra8+ Kc7 4.Ke7 Rh1 5.e6) 3.Ra8+ Kg7 4.Ke7 Rd2 5.e6 +-;

1…Rh2 2.Ra8+ Kf7 3.e6+ Kf6 4.Rf8+ Kg7 5.e7 +-]

2.Ke6 Kf8

Critical – on the other side the Black King gets in the way of checks from the Black Rook, and the White King can make a little shelter for itself behind the Pawn. When the defending king ‘takes the short side’ there is no refuge for the White King.

3.Ra8+ Kg7 4.Re8 [4.Kd6 Kf7 =] 4…Ra1 5.Rd8

[5.Kd7 Ra7+ 6.Kc6 Ra6+ 7.Kb7 Ra1 =]

5…Re1 6.Re8 Ra1 = the White K is in, but has no escape from the checks! 1/2-1/2 Remember this type of draw, we’ll be meeting it later.

Position 10: Meanwhile…

  [Event "Position 10: Meanwhile..."]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/8/4R3/5p2/8/5k2/1r6/5K2 w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

Now, back in Liskeard, how do we compare? We can see that compared to the last few drawing ideas White is badly placed: the defending Rook is passive (no harassing checks) and the King threatened with mate. White must run for the short side with the King, and send the Rook away to draw:

[63.Kg1! f4 64.Re8 (64.Ra6) 64…Rb1+ 65.Kh2 Kf2 66.Ra8 f3 67.Ra2+ Ke1 68.Kg3;

Instead 63.Re1? f4! wins for Black:

A) 64.Kg1 Kg3 65.Rc1 (65.Kf1 Rh2 66.Re8 Rh1+ 67.Ke2 f3+ 68.Kd3 Rd1+ 69.Kc2 f2) 65…f3 66.Ra1 Rh2 67. Kg1 f2+;

B) 64.Ra1 64…Kg3 B1) 65.Kg1 f3 66.Rc1 (66.Kf1 Rh2) 66…Rg2+ 67.Kf1 Rh2; B2) 65.Ra8 65…Rb1+ 66.Ke2 f3+ 67.Ke3 Re1+ 68.Kd2 f2;

[63.Ke1? on the long side is an obvious no-no: 63…f4 64.Re8 Rb1+ 65.Kd2 Kf2 66.Rf8 f3 67.Kd3 Kf1 68.Ke3 Rb3+ 69.Kd2 f2 70.Rg8 Rb5]

For other positions it really depends who can get their King in first, or at all; if the side with the Pawn can keep out the defending King they can win. John Nunn has written a whole book about positions with just one Pawn on the board, so you will forgive me, I hope, if I say they are sometimes tricky. We have seen a hint of this when we looked at Rook’s Pawns above. There is, however, a guiding principle:

Position 11: The rule of five

  [Event "Position 11: The rule of five"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "r7/8/6k1/1K6/8/2P2R2/8/8 w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

If the sum of the number of the rank on which the Pawn stands and the number of files that separate the Black King from the Pawn is five or less, then it’s a draw; greater than five, it’s a win. (Dvoretsky)
Here the Black King is cut off by three files = 3

The Pawn is on the third rank = 3

The sum is = 6

6 > 5, so it should be a win. But how? White keeps out the Black King and advances the Pawn; Black defends with harassing checks, this time from the front. The White Rook would be even better placed on f7, cutting the Black King off from the last rank and ready to intervene on the other side.

OK, how are we doing? Could you bear another Pawn on the board? Positions with a Pawn on each side may readily simplify to some fairly obvious simpler state, but not always…

Position 12: Lasker, 1890

  [Event "Position 12: Lasker, 1890"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/1KP4R/8/k7/8/8/2r4p/8 b - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

draw?
1… Rb2+ 2.Ka7 Rc2 3.Rh5+ Ka4 4.Kb6 Rb2+ 5.Ka6 Rc2 6.Rh4+ got the idea? we’ve gained another rank 6…Ka3 7.Kb6 Rb2+ 8.Ka5 Rc2 9.Rh3+ Ka2

  [Event "Diagram 14"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/2P5/8/K7/8/7R/k1r4p/8 w - - 0 10"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

10.Rxh2 ! 10…Rxh2 11.c8Q 1-0

What about another Pawn on the same side? I claimed above that two passed Pawns on the board pretty well always win, and so they do. The exceptions, as we might expect, involve Rooks Pawns.

Position 13: drawn RP+NP (same side)

  [Event "Position 13: drawn RP+NP (same side)"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/8/6r1/kP3R2/P7/1K6/8/8 w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

This is an important blockade: White, oddly, can do nothing.

Consider the drawn position with just an a-Pawn above, and now add a Pawn:

Position 14: drawn RP+NP

  [Event "Position 14: drawn RP+NP"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "R7/P5k1/6P1/r7/8/8/6K1/8 b - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

1…Ra5 the a-pawn is nearly there, but with a distant White King everything can (just) be held

[1…Kxg6?? 2.Rg8+]

1/2-1/2

With the Pawns further back we have another realm of headaches: White is generally better placed to manoeuvre and Black less well.

Position 15: won RP+BP

  [Event "Position 15: won RP+BP"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "R7/P5k1/8/5P2/8/8/6K1/r7 w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

This is quite different – with the other White Pawn further away from the short side there is a skewer opportunity. once you know you can steer for this one you can win from more complex positions 1.f6+ Kf7 2.Rh8 Rxa7 3.Rh7+ 1-0

Position 16: win with a – pawn + 2 f-pawns

  [Event "Position 16: win with a - pawn + 2 f-pawns"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "R7/P5k1/8/5p2/5P2/8/r7/3K4 w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

1.Kd1 DIAGRAM

(1) break the blockade

(2) win the f-pawn

(3) win as we know how

1…Kh7 2.Kc1 Kg7 3.Kb1 Ra3 4.Kb2 Ra4 5.Kb3 Ra1 6.Kb4 Ra2 7.Kb5 Ra1 8.Kc6 Ra5 9.Kd6 Kh7 10.Ke7 Ra6 11.Kf7 Ra4 12.Ke6

  [Event "Diagram 19"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "R7/P6k/4K3/5p2/r4P2/8/8/8 b - - 0 12"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

this is the critical bit: zugzwang!

12…Ra5 13.Kf6 Ra1 14.Kxf5

nearly there now

14…Ra5+ 15.Ke4 Ra4+ 16.Kd3 Ra3+ 17.Kc2 Ra2+ 18.Kb3 Ra1 19.f5 1-0

Smyslov, V – Botvinnik, M [C17] 1954

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Ba5 6.b4 cxd4 7.Nb5 Bc7 8.f4 Ne7 9.Nf3 Nbc6 10.Bd3 Bb8 11.Nbxd4 a6 12.Be3 Ba7 13.0-0 Nxd4 14.Bxd4 Bxd4+ 15.Nxd4 Qb6 16.Kh1 Bd7 17.c3 Rc8 18.Qe1 h6 19.a4 a5 20.Nb3 Qc7 21.Nc5 Bc6 22.Qf2 0-0 23.Nb3 Bd7 24.Qc5 Qxc5 25.Nxc5 Rc7 26.Nxd7 Rxd7 27.bxa5 Ra8 28.a6 bxa6 29.c4 dxc4 30.Bxc4 Rd4 31.Be2 Nd5 32.g3 Nc3 33.Bf3 Rb8 34.Ra3 Nb1 35.Ra2 Nd2 36.Rf2 Nc4 37.h4 g5 38.hxg5 hxg5 39.fxg5 Nxe5 40.Be2 Rb1+ 41.Kg2 a5 42.Rc2 Rb3 43.Rf4 Rd5 44.Re4 Kg7 45.Bh5 Ng6 46.Rg4 Re3 47.Bxg6 Kxg6 48.Rf2 Rf5 49.Rxf5 exf5 50.Rc4 Re4 51.Rc7 Rxa4 52.Ra7 Ra3

  [Event "Smyslov, V - Botvinnik, M [C17] 1954"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/R4p2/6k1/p4pP1/8/r5P1/6K1/8 w - - 0 53"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

A relevant position has arisen. In the event Black won quickly:

53.Kh3? f4 54.Kh4 fxg3 55.Ra6+ Kf5 56.Rf6+ Ke4 57.Kh3 Rf3 58.Ra6 Rf5 0-1

But White did not pick the best defence! Let’s try another:

Position 17: analysis of Smyslov-Botvinnik (RP+BPs)
53.Kf2 (Euwe’s suggestion)

  [Event "Position 17: analysis of Smyslov-Botvinnik (RP+BPs)"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/R4p2/6k1/p4pP1/8/r5P1/5K2/8 b - - 0 53"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

53…a4 54.Kg2 Ra1 55.Kf3 a3 56.Kg2

(56.Kf4 a2 57.Kf3 Rf1+)

56…a2 57.Kh2 Kxg5 58.Kg2 Kf6 !

(58…f4? only draws)

59.Ra5 Ke6 60.Kh2 f4 61.gxf4 f5

which we should know how to win.

(58…f4? 59.gxf4+ Kg4 60.f5 f6 61.Ra5

  [Event "Diagram 22"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/8/5p2/R4P2/6k1/8/p5K1/r7 w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

no zugzwang is now possible with the White Pawn on the 5th)

  [Event "Diagram 23"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/8/4k3/R4p2/5P2/8/p6K/r7 w - - 0 62"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

My faithful analyst Fritz successfully embarked on:

62.Kg2 Kd6 63.Kh2 Kc6 64.Kg2 Kb6 65.Ra8 Kc5 66.Ra4 Kb5 67.Ra8 Kc4 68.Kh2 Kd4 69.Ra4+ Kd3 70.Kg2 Ke3 71.Kh2 Kf3 72.Ra8 Kxf4

As you might expect, adding a Rook’s Pawn to a Rook’s Pawn doesn’t make it much more promising.

Karpov An – Yusupov A [A18] Linares 51/18, 1991

1.c4 e6 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.e4 d5 4.e5 d4 5.exf6 dxc3 6.bxc3 Qxf6 7.d4 e5 8.Nf3 exd4 9.Bg5 Qe6+ 10.Be2 Be7 11.cxd4 Bxg5 12.Nxg5 Qe7 13.Qd2 0-0 14.0-0 h6 15.Nf3 Bg4 16.Rfe1 Nc6 17.h3 Bxf3 18.Bxf3 Qf6 19.Re4 Rad8 20.Rd1 b6 21.Qe3 Na5 22.Rc1 Rd7 23.h4 Qd8 24.h5 Nc6 25.d5 Ne7 26.Rg4 f5 27.Rf4 Nc8 28.c5 bxc5 29.Qxc5 Nb6 30.Rd4 Rf6 31.a4 Rfd6 32.Rcd1 Re7 33.a5 Nd7 34.Qxa7 Ne5 35.Qc5 Nxf3+ 36.gxf3 Qe8 37.Rh4 Red7 38.Qc4 Qa8 39.Qc3 Rxd5 40.Rxd5 Qxd5

  [Event "Karpov An - Yusupov A [A18] Linares 51/18, 1991"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "6k1/2pr2p1/7p/P2q1p1P/7R/2Q2P2/5P2/6K1 w - - 0 41"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

41.a6 Qa2 42.Qc4+ Qxc4 43.Rxc4 Rd1+ 44.Kg2 Ra1 45.Rc6 Kf8 46.f4 Ra3! 47.Kf1 Ra2 48.Ke1 Ke8 49.Kd1 Kd8! 50.Rg6 c5 51.Kc1

“There comes a point when you have to stop making your moves by common sense, and instead, after analysing a concrete path to a draw, you must force events.” – AY

  [Event "Diagram 25"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "3k4/6p1/P5Rp/2p2p1P/5P2/8/r4P2/2K5 b - - 0 51"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

51…Kc7! 52.Rxg7+ Kb6 53.Rg6+ Ka7 54.Rc6

[54.Rxh6 Rxf2]

54…Rxf2 55.Rxc5 Rxf4

[55…Kxa6 may be better, except that Black would have to keep thinking carefully how to draw with time running out.]

56.Rc6 Rg4 57.Kd2 Rg5 58.Rxh6 f4 59.Ke2

Position 18: Karpov-Yusupov 1991 (RP+RP)

  [Event "Position 18: Karpov-Yusupov 1991 (RP+RP)"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/k7/P6R/6rP/5p2/8/4K3/8 b - - 0 59"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

59…f3+
“Black has absolutely no need for this Pawn, then try not to be distracted by non-essential details (like, a ‘non-essential’ Pawn)” – AY

Artur has confidence because he has studied this position. GM Gurevich actually managed to lose one of these in the US Championship in 1989 (and I don’t think he was the first). Miles wrote it up in NIC, commenting: “This ending is of course drawn, but the defence is not easy”. Dvoretsky interjects: “No, it is very easy” – if you know what to do!

60.Kxf3 Rc5 61.Rh8

(adjourned: the game could be given up here but Karpov saw no reason not to test Yusupov’s technique.)

White will attack the side away from the defending King with his own King. Black cannot touch the Pawn with the King here, but will keep the Rook away from the opposing King for checking distance: here the c-file is best so it can check from the seventh rank.

The White Rook is passively placed which is the downfall of his winning hopes. Black draws just as he would without the a-Pawn on the board.

(N.B. With the White Rook active and the Black Rook passive White can and should win by getting the King in.)

61…Rg5 62.Ke4 Rc5 63.Kf4 Rc4+ 64.Ke5 Rc5+ 65.Ke6 Rg5 66.Kf7 Rc5!

[66…Rd5? lacks checking distance and loses 67.h6 Rd6 68.h7 Rd7+ 69.Ke6]

67.Rh7

[67.h6 Rc7+! (67…Rh5? 68.Kg7) 68.Kf6 Rc6+]

67…Kxa6 68.h6 Rc7+ 1/2-1/2

Now, adding a Bishop’s Pawn on the same side as Rook’s Pawn is a real borderline case: theoretically drawn, but quite possible to lose it if you’re muddle-headed.

Marshall, F – Rubinstein, A [D32] San Sebastian (4), 1911

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Bxe7 Ngxe7 8.e3 cxd4 9.Nxd4 Be6 10.Nxe6 fxe6 11.Qg4 Nf5 12.e4 d4 13.0-0-0 Qh4 14.Qxh4 Nxh4 15.Nb5 0-0-0 16.e5 Rhf8 17.Nd6+ Kb8 18.f4 g5 19.Bb5 gxf4 20.g3 Nf3 21.Bxc6 bxc6 22.Rhf1 fxg3 23.hxg3 Kc7 24.Ne4 Kb6 25.b4 Rf5 26.Nd6 Rff8 27.Ne4 Kb5 28.Nc5 Nxe5 29.Rxf8 Rxf8 30.Nxe6 Rf2 31.Rxd4 Rxa2 32.Nc7+ Kb6 33.Ne6 Rg2 34.Ng5 Rxg3 35.Nxh7 Kb5 36.Kc2 Nc4 37.Rd7 Ra3 38.Rb7+ Nb6 39.Nf6 Kxb4 40.Nd7 Kb5 41.Kb2 Ra4 42.Kb3 c5 43.Ne5 Rb4+ 44.Kc3 a5 45.Rb8 Ka4 46.Kc2 Nd5 47.Rc8 Kb5 48.Nd7 Rc4+ 49.Kb2 Nb6 50.Nxb6 Kxb6
Position 19: Marshall-Rubinstein 1911 (RP+BP)

  [Event "Position 19: Marshall-Rubinstein 1911 (RP+BP)"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "2R5/8/1k6/p1p5/2r5/8/1K6/8 w - - 0 51"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

This is the game that made this type of ending notorious; not the first time that it had occurred, but Rubinstein, such a master of endings and particularly Rook endings, may have fancied his chances here…
51.Kb3 Rb4+ 52.Kc3 Kb5 53.Rb8+ Ka4 54.Rc8 Rb3+ 55.Kc2 Rb5 56.Rh8 Kb4 57.Rh1 a4 58.Kb2 a3+ 59.Ka2 Ka4 60.Rc1 Ra5 61.Rb1 c4 62.Rb8 Rc5 63.Ra8+ Kb4 64.Rxa3 c3 65.Rb3+ Kc4 66.Rb8

1/2-1/2

Keres Paul GM (EST) – Sokolsky A [C71/14] Moskva Chigorin-mem (28.11.4, 1947

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 d6 5.c4 Bg4 6.d3 Nge7 7.h3 Bxf3 8.Qxf3 Ng6 9.Nc3 Be7 10.Be3 Bg5 11.0-0 0-0 12.Qg4 h6 13.Ne2 Bxe3 14.fxe3 Qg5 15.Qg3 Qxg3 16.Nxg3 Nge7 17.Kf2 g6 18.Ke2 Kg7 19.Kd2 h5 20.a3 h4 21.Ne2 f5 22.Nc3 fxe4 23.Nxe4 Rf5 24.Rg1 Raf8 25.Bd1 Rf1 26.Bf3 Rxa1 27.Rxa1 Nd8 28.b4 Ne6 29.Rb1 b6 30.a4 Rb8 31.Nc3 Ng5 32.Nd5 Nxf3+ 33.gxf3 Nxd5 34.cxd5 Ra8 35.Rc1 Ra7 36.e4 Kf6 37.Ke3 g5 38.d4 exd4+ 39.Kxd4 Ke7 40.e5 dxe5+ 41.Kxe5 Kd7 42.Rg1 Ra8 43.Rxg5 Re8+ 44.Kd4 Re1 45.Rg7+ Kd6 46.Rg6+ Kd7 47.Rg4 Kd6 48.Rg6+ Kd7 49.a5 Rb1 50.Kc4 Rc1+ 51.Kd3 Rd1+ 52.Ke3 Rxd5 53.axb6 cxb6 54.Rxb6 a5 55.Ke4 Rh5 56.Kf4 axb4 57.Rxb4 Ke6 58.Kg4 Rh8 59.Kg5 Rg8+ 60.Kxh4
Position 20: Keres-Sokolsky 1939 (RP+BP)

  [Event "Position 20: Keres-Sokolsky 1939 (RP+BP)"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "6r1/8/4k3/8/1R5K/5P1P/8/8 b - - 0 60"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

You can win these positions, by working your pieces right in and trying to achieve “Lucena” without allowing the “short side draw”. This cannot be forced. Black should resist the advance, get the King to the King’s-side and only once the Pawns are advanced send the Rook away to a1.
60…Kf5 61.Rg4 Rh8+ 62.Kg3 Ra8 63.h4 Ra1

Right square, wrong moment. White gets the Rook active behind the h-Pawn and threatens to run it with the King cut off.

64.h5 Ra6 65.Rh4 Rh6 66.Rf4+ Kg5 67.Rg4+ Kf5 68.Kh4 Rh8 69.Rg5+ Kf6 70.Kg4 Kf7 71.Rf5+ Kg7 72.Kg5 Rg8 73.Rf6 Kh7+

Well, the King has made it to h7 but the Black Rook now need to be on the far rank (a1-h1). White whips the King in to win.

74.Rg6 Ra8 75.f4 Ra1 76.Re6 Rg1+ 77.Kf6 Rf1 78.f5 Rf2 79.Re5 Rh2 80.Re7+ Kh6 81.Re8 Kh7 82.Ke6 Re2+ 83.Kf7 Ra2 84.f6 Ra6 85.Ke7 Ra7+ 86.Kf8 Ra6 87.f7 Ra7 88.Rc8 Ra1 89.Ke7 1-0

Here’s a successful defence.

Bondarevsky I – Keres Paul GM (EST) [D95/04] Leningrad-Moskva (25.01.39), 1939

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.e3 Bg7 5.Qb3 c6 6.Nf3 0-0 7.Bd2 e6 8.Bd3 b6 9.0-0 Bb7 10.e4 c5 11.exd5 cxd4 12.Na4 e5 13.Nxe5 Nxd5 14.Nc5 Ne7 15.Nxb7 Qc7 16.Ng4 h5 17.Nd6 Qxd6 18.c5 bxc5 19.Nh6+ Bxh6 20.Bxh6 Rd8 21.Bc4 Kh7 22.Bd2 Nbc6 23.Bxf7 Rab8 24.Qh3 Ne5 25.Bf4 Rf8 26.Rae1 N7c6 27.Bxg6+ Qxg6 28.Bxe5 Rbe8 29.Bd6 Rxe1 30.Rxe1 Qxd6 31.Re6 Qd5 32.Qd3+ Qf5 33.Qxf5+ Rxf5 34.Rxc6 Re5 35.Kf1 d3 36.Rd6 c4 37.b3 Rb5 38.Ke1 cxb3 39.axb3 Rxb3 40.Kd2 Rb2+ 41.Ke3 Re2+ 42.Kf3 Rd2 43.Ra6 Rd1 44.Kg3 Kg7 45.Rxa7+ Kf6 46.Rd7 Kf5 47.Kf3 h4 48.h3 d2 49.Rd8 Kf6 50.Rd3 Kf5 51.Rd6 Ke5 52.Rd8 Kf6 53.Rd4 Kf5 54.Rd7 Ke6 55.Ke2 Rg1 56.Rxd2 Rxg2 57.Rd4 Kf5 58.Rxh4

  [Event "Bondarevsky I - Keres Paul GM (EST) [D95/04] Leningrad-Moskva (25.01.39), 1939"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/8/8/5k2/7R/7P/4KPr1/8 b - - 0 58"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

58…Rg1 59.Kf3 Ra1 60.Rg4 Ra3+ 61.Kg2 Rb3 62.f3 Rb2+ 63.Kg3 Rb1 64.h4 Rg1+ 65.Kh3 Rb1 66.Kg2 Rb2+ 67.Kg3 Rb1 68.h5 Rb6 69.Rh4 Rh6 70.Ra4 Rb6 71.Ra5+ Kf6 72.Kg4 Rb1 73.Ra6+ Kg7 74.f4 Rg1+ 75.Kf5 Rh1 76.h6+ Kh7 77.Re6 Rb1 78.Ke5 Rb5+ 79.Ke4 Rb1 80.f5 Rb2 81.Kf4 Rg2 82.Ke5 Ra2 83.Rb6 Ra1 84.Kf4 Rg1

  [Event "Position 21: Bondarevsky-Keres 1939 (RP+BP)"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/7k/1R5P/5P2/5K2/8/8/6r1 w - - 0 85"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

Black is in a good defensive position.

85.Ra6 Rg2 86.Rc6 Rg1 87.Rd6 Rg2 88.Ra6 Rg1 89.Re6 Rg2 90.Ke5 Ra2 91.Kd6 Ra5 92.f6 Kg6 93.Re8

  [Event "Diagram 31"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "4R3/8/3K1PkP/r7/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 93"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

And now a cute finish to draw.

93…Ra6+ 94.Ke7 Rxf6 95.Rg8+ Kh7 96.Rg7+ Kh8 97.Kxf6 stalemate

1/2-1/2

Example games: more complex Rook Endings

Alekhin, A – Capablanca, J [D51] Wch13-Buenos Aires (34), 1927: active Rook in attack

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 c6 6.a3 Be7 7.Nf3 0-0 8.Bd3 dxc4 9.Bxc4 Nd5 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.Ne4 N5f6 12.Ng3 c5 13.0-0 Nb6 14.Ba2 cxd4 15.Nxd4 g6 16.Rc1 Bd7 17.Qe2 Rac8 18.e4 e5 19.Nf3 Kg7 20.h3 h6 21.Qd2 Be6 22.Bxe6 Qxe6 23.Qa5 Nc4 24.Qxa7 Nxb2 25.Rxc8 Rxc8 26.Qxb7 Nc4 27.Qb4 Ra8 28.Ra1 Qc6 29.a4 Nxe4 30.Nxe5 Qd6 31.Qxc4 Qxe5 32.Re1 Nd6 33.Qc1 Qf6 34.Ne4 Nxe4 35.Rxe4 Rb8 36.Re2 Ra8 37.Ra2 Ra5 38.Qc7 Qa6 39.Qc3+ Kh7 40.Rd2 Qb6 41.Rd7 Qb1+ 42.Kh2 Qb8+ 43.g3 Rf5 44.Qd4 Qf8 45.Rd5 Rf3 46.h4 Qh8 47.Qb6 Qa1 48.Kg2 Rf6

  [Event "Alekhin, A - Capablanca, J [D51] Wch13-Buenos Aires (34), 1927: active Rook in attack"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/5p1k/1Q3rpp/3R4/P6P/6P1/5PK1/q7 w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

It’s all in the details. White swaps Queens when he can keep his Rook active. 49.Qd4 Qxd4 50.Rxd4 Kg7 51.a5 Ra6 52.Rd5

  [Event "Diagram 33"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/5pk1/r5pp/P2R4/7P/6P1/5PK1/8 b - - 0 52"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

52…Rf6 53.Rd4 Ra6 54.Ra4!

  [Event "Diagram 34"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/5pk1/r5pp/P7/R6P/6P1/5PK1/8 w - - 0 60"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

That’s the one. Now White wants his King in. 54…Kf6 55.Kf3 Ke5 56.Ke3 h5 57.Kd3 Kd5 58.Kc3 Kc5 59.Ra2! (pass: Black decides to put the King on guard duty) 59…Kb5

[59…Ra7 60.a6 Kb6 61.Kb4]

60.Kb3 Kc5

[60…Rxa5 61.Rxa5+ Kxa5 62.Kc4]

61.Kc3 Kb5 62.Kd4! Rd6+ 63.Ke5 Re6+ 64.Kf4 Ka6 65.Kg5! Re5+ 66.Kh6 Rf5 67.f4

[67.Kg7 Rf3 White triangulates. 68.Kg8 Rf6 69.Kf8 Rf3 70.Kg7 Rf5 71.f4!]

67…Rc5! 68.Ra3 Rc7 69.Kg7 Rd7 70.f5! gxf5 71.Kh6 f4! Black’s doing his considerable best. 72.gxf4 Rd5 73.Kg7 Rf5 74.Ra4 Kb5 75.Re4! Ka6 76.Kh6 Rxa5 77.Re5 Ra1 78.Kxh5 Rg1 79.Rg5 Rh1 80.Rf5 Kb6 81.Rxf7 Kc6 82.Re7! 1-0

Bakulin – Dvoretsky,M, Moscow, 1974 (active Rook in defence)

  [Event "Diagram 35"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "5rk1/pp2nppp/4r3/3p4/N7/8/PPP2PPP/3RR1K1 b - - 0 18"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

18…Re6
I tried to think of something after

[18…Nc6 I became suspicioous of the endgame after 19.c4 d4 20.Nc5 b6 21.Nd3 Vaganian, a specialist in the French Defence, assessed this position as highly unfavourable to Black.]

19.Nc5 Rxe1+ 20.Rxe1 Another intriguing idea immediately occurred to me: 20…Rc8!

[20…Ng6 21.Nxb7 Rb8 22.Nc5 Rxb2 23.Re8+ Nf8 looks very dubious 24.g3 f6 25.Nd7 Kf7 26.Rxf8+ Ke7 27.Rb8]

21.Rxe7 Kf8 An eye for combinations is sometime essential even in ‘boring’ endgames! 22.Rxb7

[22.Re2 Rxc5=]

22…Rxc5 23.c3 d4 24.Kf1

[24.Rb3?? d3 25.Kf1 Re5]

24…dxc3 25.bxc3 Rxc3 26.Rxa7 Rc2

  [Event "Diagram 36"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "5k2/R4ppp/8/8/8/8/P1r2PPP/5K2 w - - 0 39"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

I knew for certain that this was a draw, and a fairly simple one at that, and so went for my combination without hesitation. 27.g3 g6 28.Kg2 Kg7 29.Kf3 h5 30.h4 Kf6 31.Ke3 Rc3+ 32.Ke4 Rc2 33.f3 Re2+ 34.Kf4 Rb2 35.Ra6+ Kg7 36.Ra3 Kf6 37.Ra6+ Kg7 38.Ra4 Kf6

[38…Rf2!?]

39.g4 hxg4 40.fxg4 Rf2+ 41.Kg3 Rc2 42.Rf4+

[42.g5+ Ke5]

42…Ke6 43.a4

[43.Rf2 Rc3+ 44.Kf4 f6]

43…f5 44.gxf5+ gxf5 45.Rf2 Rc4 46.Ra2 Rc3+ 47.Kf4 Rc4+ 48.Kg3

[48.Kg5 Rg4+ 49.Kh5 Kf6 50.a5?? Rg8]

48…Rc3+ 49.Kg2 Rc4 50.h5 Rh4 1/2-1/2

Duras, O – Capablanca, J [D37] rook ending: 4P/3P on same side (11), 1913

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e3 a6 6.Bxc4 b5 7.Bd3 Bb7 8.a4 b4 9.Nb1 c5 10.0-0 Nc6 11.dxc5 Bxc5 12.Qe2 Qd5 13.Rd1 Qh5 14.Nbd2 Na5 15.Nf1 0-0 16.Ng3 Qg4 17.e4 Nb3 18.Rb1 Rfd8 19.Be3 Nxe4 20.Bc2 Bxe3 21.Qxe3
[21.Bxb3 Bxf2+ 22.Kh1 Bxg3]

21…Nbc5 22.h3 Qg6 23.Nxe4 Rxd1+ 24.Rxd1 Bxe4 25.Bxe4 Nxe4 26.Qd4 h6 27.Qxb4 Nf6 28.Qb7 Qe4 29.Qxe4 Nxe4 30.b4 Nc3 31.Rd3

[31.Ra1 Rb8 32.Ra3 Nd5]

31…Nxa4 32.Ra3 Nb6 33.Ne5 Kf8 34.Nd3 Nd5 35.Ra4 Rb8 36.Rxa6 Nxb4 37.Nxb4 Rxb4

  [Event "Duras, O - Capablanca, J [D37] rook ending: 4P/3P on same side (11), 1913"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "5k2/5pp1/R3p2p/8/1r6/7P/5PP1/6K1 w - - 0 38"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

Capa’s play in this ending was so strong and convincing it took people a while to realise that this type of ending is probably a draw in theory

38.Ra7 h5 39.g3 h4 40.gxh4 ?

[40.g4]

40…Rxh4 41.Kg2 e5 42.Kg3 Rd4 43.Ra5

[43.h4]

43…f6 44.Ra7 Kg8 45.Rb7 Kh7 46.Ra7 Kg6 47.Re7 Rd3+

[47…Rd3+ idea 48.Kh4 Rf3]

48.Kg2

[48.f3 Kf5 49.Rxg7 e4 50.h4 Rxf3+;

48.Kg4 f5+ 49.Kh4 Kf6 50.Ra7 g5+ 51.Kh5 Rxh3#]

48…Rd5 49.Kg3 f5 50.Ra7 Rd3+ 51.Kg2 e4 52.Ra4 Kg5 53.Ra5 g6 54.Rb5 Kf4 55.Ra5 Rd2 56.Ra4 Kg5

[56…g5 the game from Chernev gives this move as the game continuation, and then… 57.Rb4 Ke5 58.Rb5+ Rd5 59.Rb8 f4 60.Rg8]

57.Kg1 Kf4 58.Kg2 g5 59.Rb4 Ke5 60.Rb5+ Rd5 61.Rb8 f4 62.Rg8

  [Event "Diagram 38"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "6R1/8/8/3rk1p1/4pp2/7P/5PK1/8 w - - 0 63"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

this is the same position as in Chernev ‘s book 62…Kd4

[62…Rd2 this also looks good: 63.Rxg5+ Kf6 64.Rg4 Kf5 65.Kf1 f3 66.Ke1 Re2+ 67.Kf1 Ra2 68.Ke1 Ra1+ 69.Kd2 Rf1 70.Ke3 Re1+ 71.Kd4 Re2 72.Rg8 Rd2+ 73.Ke3 Rd3#]

63.Kf1 Kd3 64.Ra8 e3 65.Ra3+ Ke4 66.fxe3 f3

[66…fxe3 this looks good, but fails: 67.Ra8 Rf5+ 68.Ke2 Rf2+ 69.Ke1 Kf3 70.Rf8+ Kg3 71.Re8 Rf3 72.Ke2]

67.Kg1

[67.Kf2 Rd2+ 68.Kg3 Rg2#]

67…Rd3

[67…Rd3 IDEA 68.Rxd3 Kxd3 69.Kf2 Ke4 70.Kf1 Kxe3 71.Kg1 Ke2]

68.Ra8

[68.Ra5 Kxe3 69.Re5+ Kf4 70.Ra5 g4 71.Ra4+ Ke3 72.Ra1 g3]

68…Kxe3 69.Re8+ Kf4 70.Rg8 Rd1+ 71.Kf2 Rd2+ 72.Kf1

[72.Kg1 g4 73.Rxg4+ Ke3 74.Rg8 having been lured to g4 there is no check for the rook on the e-file 74…Rd1+ 75.Kh2 f2 76.Re8+ Kd2 77.Rd8+ Kc2 78.Rxd1 else the Black K will run up the Q-side at the checking White rook 78…Kxd1 79.Kg2 Ke2]

72…Rh2 73.Kg1 Rxh3 74.Rg7 g4 75.Rg8 Kg3 …and White resigned. So impressive was Capa’s play that for years books suggested that this ending R+4P v. R+3P was a win, even with all the pawns on the same side of the board. Now, improvements for Duras are known.

[75…Kg3 76.Rf8 f2+ 77.Rxf2 Rh1+ 78.Kxh1 Kxf2 79.Kh2 g3+]

0-1

Capablanca, J – Kreymbourg, A [D02] 1910: a double Rook ending

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 e6 4.e3 c5 5.c3 Nc6 6.Bd3 Bd6 7.Bxd6 Qxd6 8.Nbd2 e5 9.dxe5 Nxe5 10.Nxe5 Qxe5 11.Bb5+ Bd7 12.Qa4 Qc7 13.0-0-0 0-0 14.Bxd7 Nxd7 15.Nf3 Qc6 16.Qxc6 bxc6 17.Nd2 Ne5 18.Kc2 c4 19.Rhf1 f5 20.Nf3 Nxf3 21.gxf3 Rae8

  [Event "Capablanca, J - Kreymbourg, A [D02] 1910: a double Rook ending"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "4rrk1/p5pp/2p5/3p1p2/2p5/2P1PP2/PPK2P1P/3R1R2 w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

Black appears to have better Rooks, but the Q-side pawns are advanced and vulnerable. This vulnerability costs Black the a-file, and that costs him the activity of his Rooks. 22.Rd4 Rf6 23.b3 cxb3+ 24.axb3 Kf7 25.Kd3 Re7 26.Ra1 Ke6 27.Ra6 Rc7 28.Rda4 g5 29.h4 g4 30.Ke2 gxf3+ 31.Kxf3 Rff7 32.Ke2 Kd6 33.b4 Rb7 34.h5

  [Event "Diagram 40"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/pr3r1p/R1pk4/3p1p1P/RP6/2P1P3/4KP2/8 w - - 0 0"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

White is well placed to attack several Black pawns. 34…h6 35.f4 Rg7 36.Kd3 Rge7 37.Ra1 Rg7 38.Kd4 Rg2 39.R6a2 Rbg7 40.Kd3 Rxa2 41.Rxa2

  [Event "Diagram 41"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/p5r1/2pk3p/3p1p1P/1P3P2/2PKP3/R7/8 w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

We are now in a single-Rook ending. Black now gives up the open file. 41…Re7 42.Rg2 Re6 43.Rg7 Re7 44.Rg8 c5 45.Rg6+ Re6 46.bxc5+ Kd7 47.Rg7+ Kc6 48.Rxa7 Kxc5 49.Rf7 1-0

Capablanca, J – Tartakower, S [A80] NY, 1924

1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Nc3 0-0 6.e3 b6 7.Bd3 Bb7 8.0-0 Qe8 9.Qe2 Ne4 10.Bxe7 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Qxe7 12.a4 Bxf3 13.Qxf3 Nc6 14.Rfb1 Rae8 15.Qh3 Rf6 16.f4 Na5 17.Qf3 d6 18.Re1 Qd7 19.e4 fxe4 20.Qxe4 g6 21.g3 Kf8 22.Kg2 Rf7
[22…Qc6 23.Qxc6 Nxc6 24.c5 Re7]

23.h4 d5 24.cxd5 exd5 25.Qxe8+ Qxe8 26.Rxe8+ Kxe8 27.h5 Rf6

[27…gxh5 28.Rh1 Kf8 29.Rxh5 Kg8 30.Rxd5]

28.hxg6 hxg6 29.Rh1 Kf8

[29…Ke7 30.Rh7+ Rf7 else 31.Rg7 31.Bxg6]

30.Rh7

  [Event "Capablanca, J - Tartakower, S [A80] NY, 1924"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "5k2/p1p4R/1p3rp1/n2p4/P2P1P2/2PB2P1/6K1/8 b - - 0 31"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

rook on the seventh 30…Rc6 31.g4

[31.Rd7 ? 31…Nc4 32.Rxd5 Ne3+]

31…Nc4 32.g5 Ne3+ 33.Kf3

  [Event "Diagram 43"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "5k2/p1p4R/1pr3p1/3p2P1/P2P1P2/2PBnK2/8/8 b - - 0 33"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

33…Nf5

[33…Nd1 this counterattack fails, because of White’s strong King and K-side pawns 34.Rh6 Kg7 35.f5 Nxc3 36.Kf4 Ne4 37.Bxe4 dxe4 38.f6+ Rxf6+ 39.gxf6+ Kxh6 40.Kxe4 Kh7 41.Kd5 Kg8 42.Kc6 g5 43.Kxc7 g4 44.d5 g3 45.d6 g2 46.d7 g1Q 47.d8Q+ Kh7 48.Qe7+ Kh6 49.Qg7+ Qxg7+ 50.fxg7 Kxg7 51.Kb7 Kf7 52.Kxa7 Ke7 53.Kxb6 Kd7 54.Kb7]

34.Bxf5 gxf5 35.Kg3 Rxc3+ 36.Kh4 Rf3 37.g6 Rxf4+ 38.Kg5 Re4

  [Event "Diagram 44"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "5k2/p1p4R/1p4P1/3p1pK1/P2Pr3/8/8/8 w - - 0 39"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

39.Kf6 using the f-pawn as cover 39…Kg8 40.Rg7+ Kh8 41.Rxc7 Re8 42.Kxf5 Re4 43.Kf6 Rf4+ 44.Ke5 Rg4 45.g7+

  [Event "Diagram 45"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "7k/p1R3P1/1p6/3pK3/P2P2r1/8/8/8 b - - 0 45"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

45…Kg8

[45…Rxg7 46.Rxg7 Kxg7 47.Kxd5 Kf7 48.Kd6 ! 48…Ke8 49.Kc7 Ke7 50.d5]

46.Rxa7 Rg1 47.Kxd5 Rc1 48.Kd6 Rc2 49.d5 Rc1 50.Rc7 Ra1 51.Kc6 Rxa4 52.d6

  [Event "Diagram 46"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "6k1/2R3P1/1pKP4/8/r7/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

[52.d6 ! by declining the Kxb6 capture White’s K gets shelter 52…Rd4 53.d7 Rc4+ 54.Kb7 Rd4 55.Kc8]

1-0

Capablanca, J – Kupchik, A [C49] rook ending: various themes, 1913

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bb4 5.0-0 0-0 6.Bxc6 bxc6 7.Nxe5 Qe8 8.Nd3 Bxc3 9.dxc3 Qxe4 10.Re1 Qh4 11.Qf3 Ba6 12.Bf4 Rac8 13.Be5 Bxd3 14.cxd3 Qg4 15.Bxf6 Qxf3 16.gxf3 gxf6

  [Event "Capablanca, J - Kupchik, A [C49] rook ending: various themes, 1913"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "2r2rk1/p1pp1p1p/2p2p2/8/8/2PP1P2/PP3P1P/R3R1K1 w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

An early Rook ending: White is better not just because of the neater pawns but because he can immediately activate the Rook. 17.Re4 Rfe8 18.Rae1 Re6 19.R1e3 Rce8 20.Kf1 Kf8 21.Ke2 Ke7 22.Ra4 Ra8 23.Ra5 d5 24.c4 Kd6 25.c5+ Kd7 26.d4 f5 27.Rxe6 fxe6 28.f4 Clearing the third rank for the Rook. 28…Kc8 29.Kd2 Kb7 30.Ra3 Rg8 31.Rh3 Rg7 32.Ke2 Ka6 33.Rh6 Re7 34.Kd3 Kb7 35.h4 Kc8 36.Rh5 Kd7 37.Rg5 Rf7 38.Kc3 Kc8 39.Kb4 Rf6 40.Ka5 Kb7 41.a4 a6 42.h5 Rh6 43.b4 Rf6

  [Event "Diagram 48"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/1kp4p/p1p1pr2/K1Pp1pRP/PP1P1P2/8/5P2/8 w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

White is poised on both fronts. 44.b5 The only break, which also allows Black to become active. 44…axb5 45.axb5

  [Event "Diagram 49"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/1kp4p/2p1pr2/KPPp1pRP/3P1P2/8/5P2/8 w - - 0 46"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

Defend or counterattack? 45…Rf8

[45…Rf7 46.h6 Re7 47.Rg7 is hopeless: so Black must counterattack.]

46.Rg7 Ra8+ 47.Kb4 cxb5 48.Kxb5 Ra2 49.c6+ Kb8 50.Rxh7 White has an h-pawn. Can the lone Black Rook do enough to compensate? 50…Rb2+ 51.Ka5 Ra2+ 52.Kb4 Rxf2 53.Re7 Rxf4 54.h6 Rxd4+ 55.Kb5 Rd1 56.h7 Rb1+ 57.Kc5 Rc1+ 58.Kd4 Rd1+ 59.Ke5 Re1+ 60.Kf6 Rh1 61.Re8+ Ka7 62.h8Q Rxh8 63.Rxh8 Kb6 64.Kxe6 Kxc6 65.Kxf5 Kc5 66.Ke5 c6 67.Rh6 Kb5 68.Kd4 1-0

Selected games in play-through format

   [Event "NY State CA Winter-ch32"]  [Site "New York"]  [Date "1910.02.26"]  [Round "4"]  [White "Capablanca, JR."]  [Black "Kreymborg, Alfred"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "D02"]  [Annotator "endgames: double rook"]  [PlyCount "97"]  [EventDate "1910.02.22"]  [EventType "swiss"]  [EventRounds "4"]  [EventCountry "USA"]  [SourceTitle "Capablanca"]  [Source "ChessBase"]  [SourceDate "2002.11.25"]  [SourceVersion "1"]  [SourceVersionDate "2002.11.25"]  [SourceQuality "1"]   1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 e6 4. e3 c5 5. c3 Nc6 6. Bd3 Bd6 7. Bxd6 Qxd6 8.  Nbd2 e5 9. dxe5 Nxe5 10. Nxe5 Qxe5 11. Bb5+ Bd7 12. Qa4 Qc7 13. O-O-O O-O 14.  Bxd7 Nxd7 15. Nf3 Qc6 16. Qxc6 bxc6 17. Nd2 Ne5 18. Kc2 c4 19. Rhf1 f5 20. Nf3  Nxf3 21. gxf3 Rae8 {[#] Black appears to have better Rooks, but the Q-side  pawns are advanced and vulnerable. This vulnerability costs Black the a-file,  and that costs him the activity of his Rooks.} 22. Rd4 Rf6 23. b3 cxb3+ 24.  axb3 Kf7 25. Kd3 Re7 26. Ra1 Ke6 27. Ra6 Rc7 28. Rda4 g5 29. h4 g4 30. Ke2  gxf3+ 31. Kxf3 Rff7 32. Ke2 Kd6 33. b4 Rb7 34. h5 {[#] White is well placed to  attack several Black pawns.} h6 35. f4 Rg7 36. Kd3 Rge7 37. Ra1 Rg7 38. Kd4 Rg2  39. R6a2 Rbg7 40. Kd3 Rxa2 41. Rxa2 {[#] We are now in a single-Rook ending.  Black now gives up the open file.} Re7 42. Rg2 Re6 43. Rg7 Re7 44. Rg8 c5 45.  Rg6+ Re6 46. bxc5+ Kd7 47. Rg7+ Kc6 48. Rxa7 Kxc5 49. Rf7 1-0   [Event "San Sebastian International Masters-01"]  [Site "San Sebastian"]  [Date "1911.02.24"]  [Round "4"]  [White "Marshall, Frank James"]  [Black "Rubinstein, A."]  [Result "1/2-1/2"]  [ECO "D32"]  [Annotator "endgame: RPfPhvR"]  [PlyCount "131"]  [EventDate "1911.02.20"]  [EventType "tourn"]  [EventRounds "15"]  [EventCountry "ESP"]  [SourceTitle "HCL"]  [Source "ChessBase"]  [SourceDate "1999.07.01"]  [SourceVersion "2"]  [SourceVersionDate "1999.07.01"]  [SourceQuality "1"]   1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. Bg5 Be7 7. Bxe7 Ngxe7 8.  e3 cxd4 9. Nxd4 Be6 10. Nxe6 fxe6 11. Qg4 Nf5 12. e4 d4 13. O-O-O Qh4 14. Qxh4  Nxh4 15. Nb5 O-O-O 16. e5 Rhf8 17. Nd6+ Kb8 18. f4 g5 19. Bb5 gxf4 20. g3 Nf3  21. Bxc6 bxc6 22. Rhf1 fxg3 23. hxg3 Kc7 24. Ne4 Kb6 25. b4 Rf5 26. Nd6 Rff8  27. Ne4 Kb5 28. Nc5 Nxe5 29. Rxf8 Rxf8 30. Nxe6 Rf2 31. Rxd4 Rxa2 32. Nc7+ Kb6  33. Ne6 Rg2 34. Ng5 Rxg3 35. Nxh7 Kb5 36. Kc2 Nc4 37. Rd7 Ra3 38. Rb7+ Nb6 39.  Nf6 Kxb4 40. Nd7 Kb5 41. Kb2 Ra4 42. Kb3 c5 43. Ne5 Rb4+ 44. Kc3 a5 45. Rb8 Ka4  46. Kc2 Nd5 47. Rc8 Kb5 48. Nd7 Rc4+ 49. Kb2 Nb6 50. Nxb6 Kxb6 {[#] This is  the game that made this type of ending notorious. Rubinstein, such a master of  endings and particularly Rook endings, may have fancied his chances here...}  51. Kb3 Rb4+ 52. Kc3 Kb5 53. Rb8+ Ka4 54. Rc8 Rb3+ 55. Kc2 Rb5 56. Rh8 Kb4 57.  Rh1 a4 58. Kb2 a3+ 59. Ka2 Ka4 60. Rc1 Ra5 61. Rb1 c4 62. Rb8 Rc5 63. Ra8+ Kb4  64. Rxa3 c3 65. Rb3+ Kc4 66. Rb8 1/2-1/2   [Event "Havana"]  [Site "weak pawns: pawn islands"]  [Date "1913.??.??"]  [Round "7"]  [White "Capablanca, JR."]  [Black "Kupchik, Abraham"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C49"]  [Annotator "pawn islands"]  [PlyCount "135"]  [EventDate "1913.??.??"]  [EventType "game"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Bb4 5. O-O O-O 6. Bxc6 bxc6 7. Nxe5 Qe8 {  [#]} 8. Nd3 Bxc3 9. dxc3 Qxe4 (9... Nxe4 10. Re1) 10. Re1 Qh4 11. Qf3 Ba6 12.  Bf4 Rac8 13. Be5 {(idea /\ Nc5)} Bxd3 14. cxd3 Qg4 15. Bxf6 Qxf3 16. gxf3 gxf6  {[#] Assessment: +/- better Pawns, fewer Pawn islands, more active pieces. The  weakest spot in the Black position is the isolated a-Pawn, and it is here that  an attack should be directed.} 17. Re4 {First, Capablanca mobilises and  centralises his pieces. There is never any sense of rush when Capa plays an  ending. This ease of mobilisation is a dynamic advantage to add to the static  ones just listed.} Rfe8 18. Rae1 Re6 19. R1e3 Rce8 20. Kf1 Kf8 21. Ke2 Ke7 {  [#] Now, White can attack the a-pawn.} 22. Ra4 Ra8 23. Ra5 {restrains the Pawns  } d5 $5 {I can sympathise with the bid for space but this is not forced and  has the disadvantage of leaving the c-Pawns without support.} 24. c4 $1 Kd6 (  24... dxc4 {leaves all Black's Pawns isolated and most of them doubled!}) (  24... d4 25. Re4 Kd6 26. b4 Re5 27. Ra6 {'hopeless', said Capa}) 25. c5+ Kd7  26. d4 {Black's pawns have become fixed, cutting off the Queen's-side.} f5 {  Hoping to nip out to h6 with some play.} 27. Rxe6 $1 fxe6 28. f4 {Clearing the  third rank for a Rook} Kc8 29. Kd2 Kb7 $6 {[#] Black has achieved a solid  defence of the a-Pawn and Whiite can achieve little else there. But White has  access to both sides of the board via the third rank.} (29... Rb8 $5 30. Kc3 (  30. b3 {blocks the third rank}) (30. Kc2 Rb4 31. Kc3 Rc4+ 32. Kd3 Rb4) 30...  Rb7 {may have been better}) 30. Ra3 Rg8 31. Rh3 Rg7 {This defence from the  side keeps the Black Rook more active than moving it to defend from h8, but  I'm sure Black also considered ...Rg1!?, giving up a Pawn to get the Rook  active. It looks a bit speculative here but is the right sort of idea to have  in mind.} 32. Ke2 Ka6 33. Rh6 Re7 34. Kd3 Kb7 35. h4 Kc8 36. Rh5 Kd7 37. Rg5  Rf7 {[#] Again, Black has achieved a solid, if passive, defence. White now  returns his attention to the Queen's-side.} 38. Kc3 Kc8 39. Kb4 Rf6 40. Ka5 Kb7  41. a4 a6 42. h5 Rh6 {[#] White is poised on both fronts but can improve the  position of his pieces no further. It is time to try and force the issue. '[#]  White can improve the position of his pieces no further. It is time to try and  force the issue.'} 43. b4 Rf6 44. b5 $5 (44. Rg7 $1 Rh6 {first would have been  better, according to Capa:} 45. b5 axb5 46. axb5 cxb5 (46... Rxh5 47. b6) 47.  Kxb5 {e.g.} Rxh5 48. c6+ Kb8 49. Ka6) 44... axb5 45. axb5 Rf8 {Off to sieze  the a-file!} (45... Rf7 46. h6 Re7 47. Rg7 {is hopeless: so Black must  counterattack.}) 46. Rg7 Ra8+ 47. Kb4 cxb5 48. Kxb5 Ra2 {[#] Black has gained  some activity. Of course, White does not retreat and defend with Rg2.} 49. c6+  Kb8 50. Rxh7 {White has an h-pawn. Can the lone Black Rook do enough to  compensate?} Rb2+ 51. Ka5 Ra2+ 52. Kb4 Rxf2 53. Re7 Rxf4 $6 {Natural, but not  exact.} (53... Rb2+ 54. Kc3 Rh2 55. Rxe6 Ka7 56. h6 Kb6 {which isn't great but  Black is also fighting with the King now}) (53... Rh2 $2 54. Rxe6 Rxh5 55. Re5  Ka7 56. Kc5) 54. h6 Rxd4+ 55. Kb5 Rd1 56. h7 {A Pawn on the seventh seems  worth three in the bush! Black can only hope to harass the King with checks,  but these are soon exhausted.} Rb1+ 57. Kc5 Rc1+ 58. Kd4 Rd1+ 59. Ke5 Re1+ 60.  Kf6 Rh1 61. Re8+ Ka7 62. h8=Q Rxh8 63. Rxh8 Kb6 64. Kxe6 Kxc6 65. Kxf5 Kc5 66.  Ke5 c6 67. Rh6 Kb5 68. Kd4 {1-0 (68) Capablanca,J-Kupchik,A Havana 1913} 1-0   [Event "New York Rice Chess Club"]  [Site "New York"]  [Date "1913.07.27"]  [Round "4"]  [White "Duras, Oldrich"]  [Black "Capablanca, JR."]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "D27"]  [Annotator "endgame: R4vR3 one side"]  [PlyCount "158"]  [EventDate "1913.07.02"]  [EventType "tourn"]  [EventRounds "13"]  [EventCountry "USA"]  [SourceTitle "EXT 2017"]  [Source "ChessBase"]  [SourceDate "2016.10.25"]  [SourceVersion "1"]  [SourceVersionDate "2016.10.25"]  [SourceQuality "1"]   1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. c4 e6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. e3 a6 6. Bxc4 b5 7. Bd3 Bb7 8. a4  b4 9. Nb1 c5 10. O-O Nc6 11. dxc5 Bxc5 12. Qe2 Qd5 13. Rd1 Qh5 14. Nbd2 Na5 15.  Nf1 O-O 16. Ng3 Qg4 17. e4 Nb3 18. Rb1 Rfd8 19. Be3 Nxe4 20. Bc2 Bxe3 21. Qxe3  (21. Bxb3 Bxf2+ 22. Kh1 Bxg3) 21... Nbc5 22. h3 Qg6 23. Nxe4 Rxd1+ 24. Rxd1  Bxe4 25. Bxe4 Nxe4 26. Qd4 h6 27. Qxb4 Nf6 28. Qb7 Qe4 29. Qxe4 Nxe4 30. b4 Nc3  31. Rd3 (31. Ra1 Rb8 32. Ra3 Nd5) 31... Nxa4 32. Ra3 Nb6 33. Ne5 Kf8 34. Nd3  Nd5 35. Ra4 Rb8 36. Rxa6 Nxb4 37. Nxb4 Rxb4 {[#] Capa's play in this ending  was so strong and convincing it took people a while to realise that this type  of ending is probably a draw in theory} 38. Ra7 h5 39. g3 h4 40. gxh4 {?} (40.  g4) 40... Rxh4 41. Kg2 e5 42. Kg3 Rd4 43. Ra5 (43. h4) 43... f6 44. Ra7 Kg8 45.  Rb7 Kh7 46. Ra7 Kg6 47. Re7 Rd3+ {idea} 48. Kg2 (48. f3 Kf5 49. Rxg7 e4 50. h4  Rxf3+) (48. Kg4 f5+ 49. Kh4 Kf6 50. Ra7 g5+ 51. Kh5 Rxh3#) (48. Kh4 Rf3) 48...  Rd5 49. Kg3 f5 50. Ra7 Rd3+ 51. Kg2 e4 52. Ra4 Kg5 53. Ra5 g6 54. Rb5 Kf4 55.  Ra5 Rd2 56. Ra4 Kg5 57. Kg1 Kf4 58. Kg2 g5 {the game from Chernev gives this  move as the game continuation, and then...} 59. Rb4 Ke5 60. Rb5+ Rd5 61. Rb8 f4  62. Rg8 {[#] this is the same position as in chernev's book} Kd4 (62... Rd2 {  this also looks good:} 63. Rxg5+ Kf6 64. Rg4 Kf5 65. Kf1 f3 66. Ke1 Re2+ 67.  Kf1 Ra2 68. Ke1 Ra1+ 69. Kd2 Rf1 70. Ke3 Re1+ 71. Kd4 Re2 72. Rg8 Rd2+ 73. Ke3  Rd3#) 63. Kf1 Kd3 64. Ra8 e3 65. Ra3+ Ke4 66. fxe3 f3 (66... fxe3 {this looks  good, but fails:} 67. Ra8 Rf5+ 68. Ke2 Rf2+ 69. Ke1 Kf3 70. Rf8+ Kg3 71. Re8  Rf3 72. Ke2) 67. Kg1 (67. Kf2 Rd2+ 68. Kg3 Rg2#) 67... Rd3 {IDEA} 68. Ra8 (68.  Ra5 Kxe3 69. Re5+ Kf4 70. Ra5 g4 71. Ra4+ Ke3 72. Ra1 g3) (68. Rxd3 Kxd3 69.  Kf2 Ke4 70. Kf1 Kxe3 71. Kg1 Ke2) 68... Kxe3 69. Re8+ Kf4 70. Rg8 Rd1+ 71. Kf2  Rd2+ 72. Kf1 (72. Kg1 g4 73. Rxg4+ Ke3 74. Rg8 {having been lured to g4 there  is no check for the rook on the e-file} Rd1+ 75. Kh2 f2 76. Re8+ Kd2 77. Rd8+  Kc2 78. Rxd1 {else the Black K will run up the Q-side at the checking White  rook} Kxd1 79. Kg2 Ke2) 72... Rh2 73. Kg1 Rxh3 74. Rg7 g4 75. Rg8 Kg3 {...and  White resigned. So impressive was Capa's play that for years books suggested  that this ending R+4P v. R+3P was a win, even with all the pawns on the same  side of the board. Now, improvements for Duras are known.} 76. Rf8 f2+ 77. Rxf2  Rh1+ 78. Kxh1 Kxf2 79. Kh2 g3+ 0-1   [Event "Match Capablanca-Kostic +5-0=0"]  [Site "Havana"]  [Date "1919.03.25"]  [Round "1"]  [White "Capablanca, JR."]  [Black "Kostic, Boris"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C42"]  [Annotator "endgame: R & B"]  [PlyCount "171"]  [EventDate "1919.03.26"]  [EventType "match"]  [EventRounds "5"]  [EventCountry "CUB"]  [SourceTitle "HCL"]  [Source "ChessBase"]  [SourceDate "1999.07.01"]  [SourceVersion "2"]  [SourceVersionDate "1999.07.01"]  [SourceQuality "1"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. Qe2 Qe7 6. d3 Nf6 7. Bg5 Qxe2+ 8.  Bxe2 Be7 9. Nc3 Bd7 10. O-O O-O 11. Rfe1 Nc6 12. d4 Rfe8 13. Bb5 a6 14. Ba4 b5  15. Bb3 Na5 16. Re3 c6 17. Rae1 Kf8 18. Bf4 Nb7 19. h3 h6 20. Bh2 Bd8 21. Rxe8+  Bxe8 22. a4 c5 23. Ne4 Nxe4 24. Bd5 Ra7 25. Bxe4 Be7 26. axb5 axb5 27. dxc5  dxc5 28. Bb8 Ra8 29. Bg3 Ra7 30. Bb8 Ra8 31. Bg3 Ra7 32. Ne5 Nd8 33. b3 Ne6 34.  Bd5 Nd4 35. c3 Nf5 36. Bh2 b4 37. g4 Nd6 38. c4 Ra3 39. Re3 Nc8 40. Bb7 Na7 41.  Bd5 f6 42. Nf3 Nc6 {[#] Black is rather hamstrung. White now weaves his way in,  and swaps off Black's active pieces.} 43. Nh4 Nd4 44. Nf5 Nxf5 45. gxf5 Bd7 46.  Be4 Ra6 47. Rd3 Bc6 48. Bxc6 Rxc6 49. Kg2 Ra6 50. Kf3 Ra2 51. Bg3 Ke8 52. Bf4  Ra6 53. Be3 Ra1 54. Kg4 Ra7 55. Kh5 Kf7 56. Rd5 Ra3 57. Rd7 Ke8 58. Rd3 Kf7 59.  h4 Ra7 60. Rd5 Ra5 61. Rd7 Ke8 62. Rd3 Kf7 {[#] Black is in nearly in zugzwang:  his only choice is how to die.} 63. Rd5 Ra3 64. Bxc5 Bxc5 65. Rxc5 Rxb3 66.  Rc7+ Kf8 67. Kg6 Rf3 68. Rf7+ Ke8 69. Rxg7 Rf4 70. h5 Rxc4 71. Kxh6 {[#] Both  sides have a passed pawn, but White has more active pieces.} Kf8 72. Rb7 Rg4  73. f3 Rg5 74. Rxb4 Kf7 75. Rg4 Rxf5 76. f4 Ra5 77. Rg7+ Kf8 78. Rb7 f5 79. Kg6  Ra6+ 80. Kxf5 Ra5+ 81. Kg4 Ra6 82. Kg5 Rc6 83. f5 Kg8 84. f6 {RP and BP are  sometimes drawn...} Rc8 85. Rg7+ Kf8 86. h6 {not this one!} 1-0   [Event "New York International Masters-01"]  [Site "New York"]  [Date "1924.03.23"]  [Round "6"]  [White "Capablanca, JR."]  [Black "Tartakower, S."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "A85"]  [Annotator "endgame: rook"]  [PlyCount "103"]  [EventDate "1924.03.16"]  [EventType "tourn"]  [EventRounds "22"]  [EventCountry "USA"]  [SourceTitle "HCL"]  [Source "ChessBase"]  [SourceDate "1999.07.01"]  [SourceVersion "2"]  [SourceVersionDate "1999.07.01"]  [SourceQuality "1"]   1. d4 e6 2. Nf3 f5 3. c4 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. Nc3 O-O 6. e3 b6 7. Bd3 Bb7 8. O-O  Qe8 9. Qe2 Ne4 10. Bxe7 Nxc3 11. bxc3 Qxe7 12. a4 Bxf3 13. Qxf3 Nc6 14. Rfb1  Rae8 15. Qh3 Rf6 16. f4 Na5 17. Qf3 d6 18. Re1 Qd7 19. e4 fxe4 20. Qxe4 g6 21.  g3 Kf8 22. Kg2 Rf7 23. h4 d5 24. cxd5 exd5 25. Qxe8+ Qxe8 26. Rxe8+ Kxe8 27. h5  Rf6 28. hxg6 hxg6 29. Rh1 Kf8 30. Rh7 Rc6 31. g4 Nc4 32. g5 Ne3+ 33. Kf3 Nf5  34. Bxf5 gxf5 35. Kg3 Rxc3+ 36. Kh4 Rf3 37. g6 Rxf4+ 38. Kg5 Re4 39. Kf6 Kg8  40. Rg7+ Kh8 41. Rxc7 Re8 42. Kxf5 Re4 43. Kf6 Rf4+ 44. Ke5 Rg4 45. g7+ Kg8 46.  Rxa7 Rg1 47. Kxd5 Rc1 48. Kd6 Rc2 49. d5 Rc1 50. Rc7 Ra1 51. Kc6 Rxa4 52. d6  1-0   [Event "World-ch12 Alekhine-Capablanca +6-3=25"]  [Site "Buenos Aires"]  [Date "1927.11.26"]  [Round "34"]  [White "Alekhin, Alexander"]  [Black "Capablanca, JR."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "D51"]  [Annotator "endgame: rook + a-pawn"]  [PlyCount "163"]  [EventDate "1927.09.16"]  [EventType "match"]  [EventRounds "34"]  [EventCountry "ARG"]  [SourceTitle "MainBase"]  [Source "ChessBase"]  [SourceDate "1999.07.01"]  [SourceVersion "2"]  [SourceVersionDate "1999.07.01"]  [SourceQuality "1"]   1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Nbd7 5. e3 c6 6. a3 Be7 7. Nf3 O-O 8. Bd3  dxc4 9. Bxc4 Nd5 10. Bxe7 Qxe7 11. Ne4 N5f6 12. Ng3 c5 13. O-O Nb6 14. Ba2 cxd4  15. Nxd4 g6 16. Rc1 Bd7 17. Qe2 Rac8 18. e4 e5 19. Nf3 Kg7 20. h3 h6 21. Qd2  Be6 22. Bxe6 Qxe6 23. Qa5 Nc4 24. Qxa7 Nxb2 25. Rxc8 Rxc8 26. Qxb7 Nc4 27. Qb4  Ra8 28. Ra1 Qc6 29. a4 Nxe4 30. Nxe5 Qd6 31. Qxc4 Qxe5 32. Re1 Nd6 33. Qc1 Qf6  34. Ne4 Nxe4 35. Rxe4 Rb8 36. Re2 Ra8 37. Ra2 Ra5 38. Qc7 Qa6 39. Qc3+ Kh7 40.  Rd2 Qb6 41. Rd7 Qb1+ 42. Kh2 Qb8+ 43. g3 Rf5 44. Qd4 Qe8 45. Rd5 Rf3 46. h4 Qh8  47. Qb6 Qa1 48. Kg2 Rf6 {[#] It's all in the details. White swaps Queens when  he can keep his Rook active.} 49. Qd4 Qxd4 50. Rxd4 Kg7 51. a5 Ra6 52. Rd5 {[#]  } Rf6 53. Rd4 Ra6 {'[#]'} 54. Ra4 {'!' [#] That's the one. Now White wants his  King in.} Kf6 55. Kf3 Ke5 56. Ke3 h5 57. Kd3 Kd5 58. Kc3 Kc5 59. Ra2 {'!'  (pass: Black decides to put the King on guard duty)} Kb5 (59... Ra7 60. a6 Kb6  61. Kb4) 60. Kb3 Kc5 (60... Rxa5 61. Rxa5+ Kxa5 62. Kc4) 61. Kc3 Kb5 62. Kd4 {  '!'} Rd6+ 63. Ke5 Re6+ 64. Kf4 Ka6 65. Kg5 {'!'} Re5+ 66. Kh6 {'[#]'} Rf5 (  66... Re7 67. Kg7 Rd7 68. Kf6 Rc7 69. Re2 Kxa5 70. Re7 Rc2 71. Rxf7 Rxf2+ 72.  Kxg6 Rg2 73. Rf3) 67. f4 {'?!'} (67. Kg7 Rf3 {White triangulates.} 68. Kg8 (68.  Rd2 $1 Kxa5 69. Rd5+ Kb6 70. Rd6+ Kc5 71. Rf6) 68... Rf6 (68... Rf5 69. f4 Rf6  70. Kf8 $1 (70. Kg7 Rf5 71. Ra3)) (68... f5 $1 69. Kg7 f4 70. Kxg6) 69. Kf8 Rf3  70. Kg7 Rf5 71. f4 $1) 67... Rc5 {'!'} 68. Ra3 Rc7 69. Kg7 Rd7 70. f5 {'!' '?!'  } (70. Kf6 Rc7 71. f5 Rc6+ 72. Kxf7 gxf5 73. Rf3) 70... gxf5 71. Kh6 f4 {  '!' Black's doing his considerable best.} 72. gxf4 Rd5 73. Kg7 Rf5 74. Ra4 Kb5  75. Re4 {'!'} Ka6 76. Kh6 (76. Kg8 Kb7 (76... Rf6 77. Kf8 Rg6 (77... Rf5 78.  Kg7) 78. Kxf7 Rg4 79. Re6+ Kxa5 80. f5) 77. Re7+ Kc6 78. Rxf7 Rxa5 79. Kg7 Kd6  80. Kg6) 76... Rxa5 {'?'} 77. Re5 Ra1 78. Kxh5 Rg1 79. Rg5 {'!'} Rh1 80. Rf5  Kb6 81. Rxf7 Kc6 82. Re7 {'!'} 1-0   [Event "Leningrad & Moscow"]  [Site "Leningrad & Moscow"]  [Date "1939.01.25"]  [Round "14"]  [White "Bondarevsky, I."]  [Black "Keres, Paul"]  [Result "1/2-1/2"]  [ECO "D95"]  [Annotator "endgame: R BP RP"]  [PlyCount "193"]  [EventDate "1939.01.03"]  [EventType "tourn"]  [EventRounds "17"]  [EventCountry "URS"]  [SourceTitle "HCL"]  [Source "ChessBase"]  [SourceDate "1999.07.01"]  [SourceVersion "2"]  [SourceVersionDate "1999.07.01"]  [SourceQuality "1"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. e3 Bg7 5. Qb3 c6 6. Nf3 O-O 7. Bd2 e6 8. Bd3 b6  9. O-O Bb7 10. e4 c5 11. exd5 cxd4 12. Na4 e5 13. Nxe5 Nxd5 14. Nc5 Ne7 15.  Nxb7 Qc7 16. Ng4 h5 17. Nd6 Qxd6 18. c5 bxc5 19. Nh6+ Bxh6 20. Bxh6 Rd8 21. Bc4  Kh7 22. Bd2 Nbc6 23. Bxf7 Rab8 24. Qh3 Ne5 25. Bf4 Rf8 26. Rae1 N7c6 27. Bxg6+  Qxg6 28. Bxe5 Rbe8 29. Bd6 Rxe1 30. Rxe1 Qxd6 31. Re6 Qd5 32. Qd3+ Qf5 33.  Qxf5+ Rxf5 34. Rxc6 Re5 35. Kf1 d3 36. Rd6 c4 37. b3 Rb5 38. Ke1 cxb3 39. axb3  Rxb3 40. Kd2 Rb2+ 41. Ke3 Re2+ 42. Kf3 Rd2 43. Ra6 Rd1 44. Kg3 Kg7 45. Rxa7+  Kf6 46. Rd7 Kf5 47. Kf3 h4 48. h3 d2 49. Rd8 Kf6 50. Rd3 Kf5 51. Rd6 Ke5 52.  Rd8 Kf6 53. Rd4 Kf5 54. Rd7 Ke6 55. Ke3 Rg1 56. Rxd2 Rxg2 57. Rd4 Kf5 58. Rxh4  Rg1 59. Kf3 Ra1 60. Rg4 Ra3+ 61. Kg2 Rb3 62. f3 Rb2+ 63. Kg3 Rb1 64. h4 Rg1+  65. Kh3 Rb1 66. Kg2 Rb2+ 67. Kg3 Rb1 68. h5 Rb6 69. Rh4 Rh6 70. Ra4 Rb6 71.  Ra5+ Kf6 72. Kg4 Rb1 73. Ra6+ Kg7 74. f4 Rg1+ 75. Kf5 Rh1 76. h6+ Kh7 77. Re6  Rb1 78. Ke5 Rb5+ 79. Ke4 Rb1 80. f5 Rg1 81. Kf4 Rg2 82. Ke5 Ra2 83. Rb6 Ra1 84.  Kf4 Rg1 {[#] Black is in a good defensive position.} 85. Ra6 Rg2 86. Rc6 Rg1  87. Rd6 Rg2 88. Ra6 Rg1 89. Re6 Rg2 90. Ke5 Ra2 91. Kd6 Ra5 92. f6 Kg6 93. Re8  {[#] And now a cute finish to draw.} Ra6+ 94. Ke7 Rxf6 95. Rg8+ Kh7 96. Rg7+  Kh8 97. Kxf6 1/2-1/2   [Event "Chigorin Memorial-01"]  [Site "Moscow"]  [Date "1947.11.28"]  [Round "3"]  [White "Keres, Paul"]  [Black "Sokolsky, A."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C71"]  [Annotator "endgame: rook BP RP"]  [PlyCount "177"]  [EventDate "1947.11.26"]  [EventType "tourn"]  [EventRounds "15"]  [EventCountry "URS"]  [SourceTitle "MCL"]  [Source "ChessBase"]  [SourceDate "1999.07.01"]  [SourceVersion "1"]  [SourceVersionDate "1999.07.01"]  [SourceQuality "1"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. c4 Bg4 6. d3 Nge7 7. h3 Bxf3 8. Qxf3  Ng6 9. Nc3 Be7 10. Be3 Bg5 11. O-O O-O 12. Qg4 h6 13. Ne2 Bxe3 14. fxe3 Qg5 15.  Qg3 Qxg3 16. Nxg3 Nge7 17. Kf2 g6 18. Ke2 Kg7 19. Kd2 h5 20. a3 h4 21. Ne2 f5  22. Nc3 fxe4 23. Nxe4 Rf5 24. Rg1 Raf8 25. Bd1 Rf1 26. Bf3 Rxa1 27. Rxa1 Nd8  28. b4 Ne6 29. Rb1 b6 30. a4 Rb8 31. Nc3 Ng5 32. Nd5 Nxf3+ 33. gxf3 Nxd5 34.  cxd5 Ra8 35. Rc1 Ra7 36. e4 Kf6 37. Ke3 g5 38. d4 exd4+ 39. Kxd4 Ke7 40. e5  dxe5+ 41. Kxe5 Kd7 42. Rg1 Ra8 43. Rxg5 Re8+ 44. Kd4 Re1 45. Rg7+ Kd6 46. Rg6+  Kd7 47. Rg4 Kd6 48. Rg6+ Kd7 49. a5 Rb1 50. Kc4 Rc1+ 51. Kd3 Rd1+ 52. Ke3 Rxd5  53. axb6 cxb6 54. Rxb6 a5 55. Ke4 Rh5 56. Kf4 axb4 57. Rxb4 Ke6 58. Kg4 Rh8 59.  Kg5 Rg8+ 60. Kxh4 {[#] You can win these positions, by working your pieces  right in and trying to achieve "Lucena" without allowing the "short side draw".  This cannot be forced. Black should resist the advance, get the King to the  King's-side and only once the Pawns are advanced send the Rook away to a1.} Kf5  61. Rg4 Rh8+ 62. Kg3 Ra8 63. h4 Ra1 {Right square, wrong moment. White gets  the Rook active behind the h-Pawn and threatens to run it with the King cut  off.} 64. h5 Ra6 65. Rh4 Rh6 66. Rf4+ Kg5 67. Rg4+ Kf5 68. Kh4 Rh8 69. Rg5+ Kf6  70. Kg4 Kf7 71. Rf5+ Kg7 72. Kg5 Rg8 73. Rf6 Kh7+ {Well, the King has made it  to h7 but the Black Rook now need to be on the far rank (a1-h1).} 74. Rg6 Ra8  75. f4 Ra1 76. Re6 Rg1+ 77. Kf6 Rf1 78. f5 Rf2 79. Re5 Rh2 80. Re7+ Kh6 81. Re8  Kh7 82. Ke6 Re2+ 83. Kf7 Ra2 84. f6 Ra6 85. Ke7 Ra7+ 86. Kf8 Ra6 87. f7 Ra7 88.  Rc8 Ra1 89. Ke7 1-0   [Event "World-ch19 Botvinnik-Symslov +7-7=10"]  [Site "Moscow"]  [Date "1954.03.16"]  [Round "1"]  [White "Smyslov, V."]  [Black "Botvinnik, M."]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "C18"]  [Annotator "endgame: rook"]  [PlyCount "116"]  [EventDate "1954.03.16"]  [EventType "match"]  [EventRounds "24"]  [EventCountry "URS"]  [SourceTitle "MainBase"]  [Source "ChessBase"]  [SourceDate "1999.07.01"]  [SourceVersion "2"]  [SourceVersionDate "1999.07.01"]  [SourceQuality "1"]   1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Ba5 6. b4 cxd4 7. Nb5 Bc7 8. f4 Ne7  9. Nf3 Nbc6 10. Bd3 Bb8 11. Nbxd4 a6 12. Be3 Ba7 13. O-O Nxd4 14. Bxd4 Bxd4+  15. Nxd4 Qb6 16. Kh1 Bd7 17. c3 Rc8 18. Qe1 h6 19. a4 a5 20. Nb3 Qc7 21. Nc5  Bc6 22. Qf2 O-O 23. Nb3 Bd7 24. Qc5 Qxc5 25. Nxc5 Rc7 26. Nxd7 Rxd7 27. bxa5  Ra8 28. a6 bxa6 29. c4 dxc4 30. Bxc4 Rd4 31. Be2 Nd5 32. g3 Nc3 33. Bf3 Rb8 34.  Ra3 Nb1 35. Ra2 Nd2 36. Rf2 Nc4 37. h4 g5 38. hxg5 hxg5 39. fxg5 Nxe5 40. Be2  Rb1+ 41. Kg2 a5 42. Rc2 Rb3 43. Rf4 Rd5 44. Re4 Kg7 45. Bh5 Ng6 46. Rg4 Re3 47.  Bxg6 Kxg6 48. Rf2 Rf5 49. Rxf5 exf5 50. Rc4 Re4 51. Rc7 Rxa4 52. Ra7 Ra3 {[#]}  53. Kh3 (53. Kf2 {[#] euwe} a4 54. Kg2 Ra1 55. Kf3 a3 56. Kg2 (56. Kf4 a2 57.  Kf3 Rf1+) 56... a2 57. Kh2 Kxg5 58. Kg2 Kf6 {!} (58... f4 59. gxf4+ Kg4 60. f5  f6 61. Ra5 {[#] VARIATION: no zugzwang is now possible with the wP on the 5th})  59. Ra5 Ke6 60. Kh2 f4 61. gxf4 f5 {[#] which we know how to win. My faithful  analyst Fritz successfully embarked on:} 62. Kg2 Kd6 63. Kh2 Kc6 64. Kg2 Kb6  65. Ra8 Kc5 66. Ra4 Kb5 67. Ra8 Kc4 68. Kh2 Kd4 69. Ra4+ Kd3 70. Kg2 Ke3 71.  Kh2 Kf3 72. Ra8 Kxf4) 53... f4 54. Kh4 fxg3 55. Ra6+ Kf5 56. Rf6+ Ke4 57. Kh3  Rf3 58. Ra6 Rf5 0-1   [Event "Buenes Aires"]  [Site "Douglas ENG"]  [Date "1970.08.01"]  [Round "9"]  [White "Szabo"]  [Black "Tukmakov"]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "D71"]  [Annotator "endgame: R BP RP"]  [PlyCount "148"]  [EventDate "2019.??.??"]  [EventType "tourn"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. g3 Bg7 6. Bg2 Nb6 7. e3 Nc6 8.  Nge2 e5 9. d5 Ne7 10. e4 c6 11. O-O cxd5 12. exd5 O-O 13. b3 Bf5 14. Ba3 Qd7  15. Qd2 Rfd8 16. Rad1 Rac8 17. Qg5 Re8 18. d6 Nc6 19. Nb5 Red8 20. Qe3 Bg4 21.  f3 Be6 22. Nc7 Bh3 23. Bc5 Bxg2 24. Kxg2 Na8 25. Nd5 Re8 26. Nec3 f5 27. Qg5  Qf7 28. Rfe1 Rcd8 29. b4 h6 30. Qd2 Nd4 31. b5 Nb6 32. Nc7 Rf8 33. f4 Nc4 34.  Qc1 Nxd6 35. fxe5 Qxc7 36. Bxd6 Rxd6 37. exd6 Qxd6 38. Qe3 f4 39. Qe4 f3+ 40.  Kf2 Qb4 41. Qd3 Ne2 42. Nxe2 fxe2+ 43. Kxe2 Qb2+ 44. Qd2 Qxb5+ 45. Qd3 Qh5+ 46.  Kd2 Rf3 47. Qc4+ Kh7 48. Rb1 Rc3 49. Qe4 Qxh2+ 50. Re2 Qxg3 51. Rg2 Qd6+ 52.  Ke2 Rc5 53. Rxb7 Ra5 54. a4 Re5 55. Rxg7+ Kh8 56. Rg8+ Kxg8 57. Rxg6+ Kh7 58.  Rxd6+ Rxe4+ 59. Kf3 Rxa4 60. Kg3 h5 61. Kh3 Kg7 62. Rd5 h4 63. Rd6 a5 64. Rd5  Kf6 65. Rh5 Ke6 66. Kg2 Kd6 67. Kf2 Ra2+ 68. Ke1 Ra1+ 69. Ke2 a4 70. Rh6+ Ke5  71. Rh5+ Kf6 72. Kf2 a3 73. Kg2 Rc1 74. Ra5 Rc3 {0-1 (74) Szabo,L-Tukmakov,V  Buenos Aires 1970} 0-1   [Event "Moscow"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1974.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Bakulin, N."]  [Black "Dvoretsky, Mark"]  [Result "1/2-1/2"]  [Annotator "ending: rook"]  [SetUp "1"]  [FEN "5rk1/pp2nppp/3r4/3p4/N7/8/PPP2PPP/3RR1K1 b - - 0 18"]  [PlyCount "65"]  [EventDate "1974.??.??"]  [EventType "tourn"]   {[#]} 18... Re6 (18... Nc6 19. c4 d4 20. Nc5 b6 21. Nd3) 19. Nc5 Rxe1+ 20. Rxe1  Rc8 (20... Ng6 21. Nxb7 Rb8 22. Nc5 Rxb2 23. Re8+ Nf8 24. g3 f6 25. Nd7 {  "looks very dubious", e.g.} Kf7 26. Rxf8+ Ke7 27. Rb8) 21. Rxe7 Kf8 22. Rxb7  Rxc5 23. c3 d4 24. Kf1 (24. Rb3 d3 25. Kf1 Re5) 24... dxc3 25. bxc3 Rxc3 26.  Rxa7 Rc2 {"I knew for certain that this was a draw, and a fairly simple one at  that."} 27. g3 g6 28. Kg2 Kg7 29. Kf3 h5 30. h4 Kf6 31. Ke3 Rc3+ 32. Ke4 Rc2  33. f3 Re2+ 34. Kf4 Rb2 35. Ra6+ Kg7 36. Ra4 Kf6 (36... Rf2) 37. Ra5 Kg7 38.  Ra4 Kf6 (38... Rf2) 39. g4 hxg4 40. fxg4 Rf2+ 41. Kg3 Rc2 42. Rf4+ (42. g5+ Ke5  ) 42... Ke6 43. a4 (43. Rf2 Rc3+ 44. Kf4 f6) 43... f5 44. gxf5+ gxf5 45. Rf2  Rc4 46. Ra2 Rc3+ 47. Kf4 Rc4+ 48. Kg3 (48. Kg5 Rg4+ 49. Kh5 Kf6 50. a5 {??} Rg8  ) 48... Rc3+ 49. Kg2 Rc4 50. h5 Rh4 1/2-1/2   [Event "USA-ch"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1989.??.??"]  [Round "4"]  [White "Rachels, Stuart"]  [Black "Gurevich, Dmitry"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "B07"]  [WhiteElo "2385"]  [BlackElo "2490"]  [Annotator "endgame: R RP RP"]  [PlyCount "199"]  [EventDate "1989.??.??"]  [EventType "match"]  [SourceTitle "CBM 019"]  [Source "ChessBase"]  [SourceDate "1990.12.01"]  [SourceVersion "1"]  [SourceVersionDate "1990.12.01"]  [SourceQuality "1"]   1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. g3 Bg7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. Nge2 e5 7. h3 Nbd7 8. O-O  Re8 9. Be3 exd4 10. Bxd4 a6 11. f4 c5 12. Bf2 Qc7 13. g4 Nb6 14. Qd3 Bd7 15.  Rad1 Bc6 16. Qxd6 Qxd6 17. Rxd6 Nc4 18. Rxc6 bxc6 19. e5 Nd5 20. Nxd5 cxd5 21.  Bxd5 Nxb2 22. Bxa8 Rxa8 23. Rb1 Nc4 24. Bxc5 Rc8 25. Be7 h6 26. Nd4 g5 27. fxg5  hxg5 28. Nf5 Nxe5 29. Nxg7 Kxg7 30. Rf1 Ng6 31. Bxg5 Rxc2 32. Bf6+ Kg8 33. Rf2  Rc4 34. Kg2 Ra4 35. Bg5 Ra3 36. Bf6 Ra4 37. Bg5 Ra3 38. Re2 f6 39. Be3 f5 40.  gxf5 Nh4+ 41. Kh2 Nxf5 42. Bc1 Rc3 43. Bb2 Rc4 44. Rf2 Kh7 45. Rxf5 Rc2+ 46.  Kg3 Rxb2 47. Ra5 {[#]} Rb6 48. h4 Kg6 49. h5+ Kf7 50. Kf4 Rc6 51. Ke5 Ke7 52.  Kd5 Rh6 53. Kc4 Rh8 54. Re5+ Kf6 55. Rc5 Ke7 56. Kb4 Rh6 57. Ka5 Kd6 58. Rg5  Kc7 59. a4 Kd7 60. Rg7+ Kc8 61. Rg5 Kd7 62. Rc5 Kd8 63. Rd5+ Ke7 64. Kb4 Ke6  65. Kc5 Ke7 66. Rg5 Kf7 67. Kd5 Kf8 68. Re5 Kf7 69. Ke4 Rc6 70. Kf5 Rc4 71. Ra5  Rc6 72. Kg5 Kg7 73. Rd5 Rc4 74. a5 Rc6 75. Rd7+ Kg8 76. Ra7 Rd6 77. Kf5 Rd5+  78. Kf6 Rd6+ 79. Ke5 Rc6 80. Rd7 Rh6 81. Kf5 Rc6 82. Re7 Rc5+ 83. Re5 Rc1 84.  Ke6 Kg7 85. Kd6 Kh7 86. Rc5 Rb1 87. Kc6 Kh6 88. Rd5 Rb2 89. Rd7 Rb5 90. Rd6+  Kh7 91. Rd5 Rb1 92. Rd7+ Kh6 93. Rb7 Ra1 94. Kb6 Kxh5 95. Kxa6 Kg6 96. Rb5 Kf7  97. Kb7 Re1 98. a6 Re7+ 99. Kb6 Re6+ 100. Ka5 1-0   [Event "Linares 09th"]  [Site "Linares"]  [Date "1991.??.??"]  [Round "4"]  [White "Karpov, A."]  [Black "Jussupow, Artur"]  [Result "1/2-1/2"]  [ECO "A18"]  [WhiteElo "2725"]  [BlackElo "2605"]  [Annotator "endgame: RPaPhvR"]  [PlyCount "136"]  [EventDate "1991.02.??"]  [EventType "tourn"]  [EventRounds "13"]  [EventCountry "ESP"]  [EventCategory "17"]  [SourceTitle "CBM 022"]  [Source "ChessBase"]  [SourceDate "1991.06.01"]  [SourceVersion "1"]  [SourceVersionDate "1991.06.01"]  [SourceQuality "1"]   1. c4 e6 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. e4 d5 4. e5 d4 5. exf6 dxc3 6. bxc3 Qxf6 7. d4 e5 8. Nf3  exd4 9. Bg5 Qe6+ 10. Be2 Be7 11. cxd4 Bxg5 12. Nxg5 Qe7 13. Qd2 O-O 14. O-O h6  15. Nf3 Bg4 16. Rfe1 Nc6 17. h3 Bxf3 18. Bxf3 Qf6 19. Re4 Rad8 20. Rd1 b6 21.  Qe3 Na5 22. Rc1 Rd7 23. h4 Qd8 24. h5 Nc6 25. d5 Ne7 26. Rg4 f5 27. Rf4 Nc8 28.  c5 bxc5 29. Qxc5 Nb6 30. Rd4 Rf6 31. a4 Rfd6 32. Rcd1 Re7 33. a5 Nd7 34. Qxa7  Ne5 35. Qc5 Nxf3+ 36. gxf3 Qe8 37. Rh4 Red7 38. Qc4 Qa8 39. Qc3 Rxd5 40. Rxd5  Qxd5 {[#]} 41. a6 Qa2 42. Qc4+ Qxc4 43. Rxc4 Rd1+ 44. Kg2 Ra1 45. Rc6 Kf8 46.  f4 Ra3 {'!'} 47. Kf1 Ra2 48. Ke1 Ke8 49. Kd1 Kd8 {'!'} 50. Rg6 c5 51. Kc1 {  [#] "There comes a point when you have to stop making your moves by common  sense, and instead, after analysing a concrete path to a draw, you must force  events." - AY} Kc7 {'!'} 52. Rxg7+ Kb6 53. Rg6+ Ka7 54. Rc6 (54. Rxh6 Rxf2)  54... Rxf2 55. Rxc5 Rxf4 (55... Kxa6 {may be better, except that Black would  have to keep thinking carefully how to draw with time running out.}) 56. Rc6  Rg4 57. Kd2 Rg5 58. Rxh6 f4 59. Ke2 {[#]} f3+ {"Black has absolutely no need  for this Pawn, then try not to be distracted by non-essential details (like, a  'non-essential' Pawn)" - AY Artur has confidence because he has studied this  position. GM Gurevich managed to lose one of these in the US Championship in  1989. Miles wrote it up in NIC, commenting: "This ending is of course drawn,  but the defence is not easy". Dvoretsky interjects: "No, it is very easy" - if  you know what to do!} 60. Kxf3 Rc5 61. Rh8 {(adjourned: the game could be  given up here but Karpov saw no reason not to test Yusupov's technique.) White  will attack the side away from the defending King with his own King. Black  cannot touch the Pawn with the King here, but will keep the Rook away from the  opposing King for checking distance: here the c-file is best so it can check  from the seventh rank. The White Rook is passively placed which is the  downfall of his winning hopes. Black draws just as he would without the a-Pawn  on the board. (N.B. With the White Rook active and the Black Rook passive  White can and should win by getting the King in.)} Rg5 62. Ke4 Rc5 63. Kf4 Rc4+  64. Ke5 Rc5+ 65. Ke6 Rg5 66. Kf7 Rc5 {'!'} (66... Rd5 $2 {lacks checking  distance and loses} 67. h6 Rd6 68. h7 Rd7+ 69. Ke6) 67. Rh7 (67. h6 Rc7+ $1 (  67... Rh5 $2 68. Kg7) 68. Kf6 Rc6+) 67... Kxa6 68. h6 Rc7+ 1/2-1/2   [Event "rook ending: pfleger 1"]  [Site "rook ending: pfleger 1"]  [Date "1994.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "KRP/KR: drawn a"]  [Black "pawn(theory into practice)[t5"]  [Result "1/2-1/2"]  [Annotator "endgame: rook (Pfleger1)"]  [SetUp "1"]  [FEN "R7/P5k1/8/8/8/8/6K1/r7 w - - 0 1"]  [PlyCount "22"]  [EventDate "1994.??.??"]  [EventType "tourn"]   {[#] nothing happens} 1. Kf3 {[%mdl 4096]} Ra4 (1... Kf7 $4 2. Rh8 Rxa7 3. Rh7+  ) (1... Kg6 $4 2. Rg8+ Kf7 3. a8=Q) 2. Ke3 Kh7 3. Kd3 Kg7 4. Kc3 Kh7 5. Kb3 Ra1  6. Kb4 Kg7 7. Kc5 Rc1+ 8. Kb6 Rb1+ 9. Kc6 Ra1 10. Kb7 Rb1+ 11. Kc7 Ra1 1/2-1/2   [Event "XX"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1998.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "King, Queen"]  [Black "King, Rook"]  [Result "1-0"]  [Annotator "endgame: Q v R"]  [SetUp "1"]  [FEN "5k2/3Q4/7r/5K2/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]  [PlyCount "5"]  [EventDate "1998.08.??"]  [EventType "swiss"]  [EventRounds "9"]  [EventCountry "USA"]   {[#] Black is trying to hold out the White King} 1. Kg5 Rh8 (1... Rh1 2. Qc8+  Kg7 3. Qb7+) (1... Rb6 2. Qd8+) (1... Ra6 2. Qc8+) (1... Rh2 2. Qd6+) 2. Kg6  Rg8+ 3. Kf6 1-0

space to dodge

no space at the edge

draw with bishops of opposite colour

controlling diagonals

Playing Black in Indian systems without c2-c4: a repertoire for the …g6 and the …e6 player

Torre Attack (Bg5 against …e6)

Capablanca,J – Lasker,E [C80] St.Petersburg, 1914

by Mark Blackmore

Playing Black in Indian systems without c2-c4: a repertoire for
the …g6 and the …e6 player

Torre Attack (Bg5 against
…e6)