Five Sicilians in Club Play

by Bob Martin

Bob sent me these games with his own notes to illustrate both some
nice amateur games with the Sicilian Defence, but also to
illustrate what sorts of thinking and assessment goes on at club
level. Bob is about an {A} player, so if that’s where you want to
be, this is the level of judgement you should be capable of.
Thanks, Bob!


(28) Martin,R [B78]

  1997

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4
g6

  (1) This initiates a dark-square game.

  Black will try to keep White’s center dark squares clear
of pawns and pieces.

5.Nc3 Bg7

  (2) With my king bishop on g7, I will do everything I can
to open the long diagonal h8-a1, and avoid exchanging the bishop
unless I can secure an overwhelming advantage with its loss.

  This bishop will be my second most powerful piece in this
type of opening.

6.Be3 Nf6 7.f3

  (3) This is a key move in the Yugoslav attack against the
Sicilian Dragon.

  I does three things for him: a) reinforces e4, b) keeps
the black knight off of g4 where it could challenge the Be3, c)
prepares g2-g4-g5 with a kingside pawn storm attack.

7…Qa5

  (4) An early queen move, but it does three things for me:
a) shifts the queen to the queenside where my attack will come
later, b) helps watch the kingside and center, c) to chase the
queen White will have to put the knight on b3 where it will be
subject to harassment by a later Black a7-a5-a4.

8.Bc4 0-0 9.Qd2 d6 10.0-0-0 Bd7

 

 

-------------------
|R+-+RK-+|
|PP+-QPPP|
|-+PB-N-+|
|+-+PNB+-|
|-+-+-+-q|
|+pn-pn+-|
|pbppb+pp|
|+kr-+-+r|
-------------------

11.h4

  (5) Too soon.

  White is not prepared for this early attack.

  He should get his king off the half-open “c” file with
Kb1 instead.

  Believe it or not my next move is a direct attack on his
king

  (an x-ray attack).

11…Rac8 12.h5

  (6) Better is Kb1 now.

12…Ne5

  (7) If instead Nxh5 White will play RxN and have an open
“h” file for a ready made attack; thus sayeth Fischer.

  Amen! Believe me, if you do it, it will come.

  Ne5 begins my queenside attack since I already have an
open file.

13.Bb3 Nc4 14.Bxc4 Rxc4 15.g4

 

 

-------------------
|R+-+RK-+|
|+-+-QPPP|
|-+PB-N-+|
|+P+PNr+-|
|P+-+-+-q|
|+pn-p-+-|
|pbppb+pp|
|+kr-+-+-|
-------------------

 

  (8) The last chance to get the king to b1 and off the hot
“c” file.

  My pieces now become too active.

15…Rxc3 16.Nb3

  (9) This move gives him more problems than it gives me,
better was QxR.

  But even then I’ll clean up on all his pawns: QxQ, Nxg4,
Bxg4, Bxc3, Bxh5.

  In the Sicilian, Black usually has the better endgame
pawn structure.

16…Rxc2+ 17.Qxc2 Qxa2 18.Kd2 Rc8

  (10) After this White will have no protection for his
king.

  Count the number of Black pieces that can attack the
white king: queen, rook, bishop

  (g7), knight, and bishop

  (d7) = five pieces, but I must be prepared for the coming
Ra1.

19.Ra1 Nxe4+

  (11) Opens the diagonal and brings down the curtain on
the White king.

  There are too many open lines into the White
position.

20.fxe4 Rxc2+ 21.Kxc2 Qxb2+ 0-1

 

 


(29) Martin,R [B73]

  1997

1.e4 c5

  (1) Black’s strategy will be to fight for the dark
squares, especially d4.

2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6

  (2) I will put the bishop on g7 and work to control the
a1-h8 diagonal.

  I won’t exchange this bishop without some sort of
advantage in return.

  In most cases, the bishop on g7 will be almost as
powerful as the queen.

5.Nc3

  (3) If White exchanges knights on c6 I will capture with
bxN and have more central influence with my pawns.

5…Bg7 6.Be3 d6

  (4) Getting control of e5 and vacating d7 for the
bishop.

  Also, if Nf6 instead of d6, then White can play NxN bxN,
e5 and my knight must return to g8.

  I don’t like the looks of that.

7.Be2 Nf6 8.0-0 0-0

 

 

-------------------
|-KR+Q+-R|
|PPPB+PPP|
|-+-B-N-+|
|+-+PN-+-|
|-+-+-+-+|
|+pn-pn+-|
|pbpp-+pp|
|+kr-qb+r|
-------------------

 

  (5) The plans for both sides are fairly simple: Black
will use the half-open “c” file for possible queenside expansion,
and White will use the “d” file and center for his attack.

  White must prepare his attack carefully so that his pawns
don’t become weak, and Black must watch that White doesn’t lock the
queenside.

9.a3

  (6) A waiting move and making preparations to stop Black
queenside tricks.

  This move is not as good as f4.

9…Bd7 10.Qd2 Rc8

  (7) Black has the classic Sicilian Dragon attacking
position.

  I need to decide how to start my attack.

  I should consider d5.

11.Rad1

  (8) If White had castled queenside

  (as in the last game) this rook would already be here and
he would be a move ahead.

  But with kingside castling he takes a more cautious
approach to the game since his king will not be worried about the
bishop on g7 and rook on c8.

11…Ne5 12.f4

  (9) Black must now play aggressively before the White
pawns get too far into his position.

  But this move brings with it a weakness: the e4 pawn is
only defended by the knight on c3, and the f4 pawn blocks the
bishop on e3.

12…Nc4

  (10) Forces an exchange of pieces

  (always good for the defender).

  I would now consider Ng4 instead of Nc4.

13.Bxc4 Rxc4

  (11) Black should have decided the rook’s ultimate fate
before the recapture on c4 since it will be subject to attack here
and to move it again will only help White’s coming attack.

14.f5

 

 

-------------------
|-KR+R+-+|
|PP+-QPP-|
|-+-B-N-P|
|+-+PNr+-|
|-+P+-+-+|
|+pn-p-+-|
|pbppb+pp|
|+kr-q-+-|
-------------------

14…Rxc3

  (12) This exchange sacrifice forces White to make a long
range decision: a) ruin his queenside pawns and subject them to
attack by Black’s queen on a5, and rook on c8 or b) recapture with
queen and wait for Black to attack with the bishop on g7, queen on
a5 and rook on c8.

  Either way he must be careful.

15.bxc3 Nxe4

  (13) The point of the rook sacrifice on c3.

  White’s pawns are an endgame nightmare.

  He must go for a middlegame win.

16.Qd3 d5

  (14) Look at the bishop on g7 and its potential on the
open long diagonal.

17.fxg6 hxg6 18.c4

  (15) This allows Black to establish two connected passed
pawns on open diagonals.

  Certainly nothing to sneeze at.

18…Nc5 19.Qe2 e5 20.Nb3

  (16) This repairs the doubled pawns, but Black’s center
pawns will become monsters.

20…Nxb3 21.cxb3 d4

 

 

-------------------
|-KR+R+-+|
|PP+Q+-+-|
|-+-B-+PP|
|+-+-pP+-|
|-+-p-+-+|
|+p+-+-+-|
|-bp+b+pp|
|+kr-q-+-|
-------------------

 

  (17) It’s been a dark-square game from the beginning;
where does he put the bishop: on f2 or d2 a rook gets blocked.

22.Bc1 Qb6 23.b4

  (18) This solves one problem, but doesn’t do anything
about the center.

23…d3+

 

 

-------------------
|-KR+RB-+|
|PP+Q+-+-|
|-+-+p+-P|
|+-+-+PP-|
|-+-p-+-+|
|+p+-+-q-|
|-bp+b+pp|
|+kr-+-+-|
-------------------

24.Qe3

  (19) The only move.

  Be3 doesn’t work.

24…Qxe3+ 25.Bxe3 e4

  (20) The real purpose behind Qb6.

  White thinks the bishop will blockade the pawns.

26.h3

  (21) Wastes time.

  White is worried about Bg4 and a future f5.

26…Ba4

  (22) The bishops have more freedom of movement than do
the two White rooks.

  Notice how White doesn’t have time to pick off the pawn
on a7.

27.Rd2 Bc3 28.Rdf2

  (23) He thinks he can tie the remaining Black rook to the
defense of f7, but the bishops show their stuff.

28…Bb3 29.c5

  (24) Now the bishop holds f7 and frees the rook for pile
driving duty.

29…Rd8 30.b5 d2

  (25) White loses material.

0-1

 

 


(30) Martin,R [B20]

  1997

1.e4 c5

  (1) Begins the fight for the dark squares, especially d4
2.Bc4

  (2) The only problem with this move is it allows Black to
play an early d5

  (knights before bishops).

  If I had played 1.

  e5 it would be okay.

2…e6 3.f4 Nc6 4.Nf3

  (3) Nc3 would strengthen his grip on d5 and prevent my
next move.

4…d5

 

 

-------------------
|R+-KQBNR|
|PP+-PPPP|
|-+N+-+-+|
|+-PP+B+-|
|-+-+pp-+|
|+-+p+n+-|
|ppp+-+pp|
|rnbkqb+r|
-------------------

 

  (4) Frees Black’s game and forces White to move the
bishop again.

5.exd5 exd5 6.Bb5 Bd7 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 Nf6
9.d3

  (5) Maybe d4 would be better.

9…0-0 10.Bxc6

  (6) Three moves invested in the bishop and now he has
nothing to show for it.

10…Bxc6 11.Ne5 Rc8 12.b3

  (7) In view of a possible d4 this move is a waste of
time.

  The bishop should go to d2 not b2.

  The e3 square will become an outpost

  (a la Nimzowitsch) for four pieces! 12…Re8
13.Bb2 d4 14.Nxc6

  (8) Pretty much forced.

  White can’t leave the bishop on the open diagonal since
he has no way to oppose it.

14…Rxc6

 

 

-------------------
|-KR+Q+-R|
|PP+-+PBP|
|-+-+PNP+|
|+-P-p-+-|
|-+-+-p-+|
|+-n-+r+-|
|pppb-+pp|
|+k+rq-+-|
-------------------

 

  (9) The rook replaces the bishop and can swing to the
kingside if necessary.

  What replaced white’s knight and bishop? Nothing.

  White has nothing to show for the six moves invested in
those pieces.

15.Ne2

  (10) If instead Ne4 then Black still plays Nd5.

15…Nd5

  (11) Heading for e3 ever since 13 d4.

16.Bc1

  (12) Somehow White must try to hold e3.

  The early 3.

  f4 looks a bit silly now.

16…Bf6

  (13) To give e3 additional support from the Re8

  (overprotect) and prevent a possible c3 pawn break.

17.g3

  (14) Supports f4 but creates another open diagonal into
the king position.

  It’s difficult to find good moves for White now.

17…Ne3 18.Bxe3 Rxe3

  (15) Black replaces each piece traded with another.

  White on the other hand develops a piece then trades it
off.

19.Rb1

  (16) With the bishop of f6, White is afraid to leave the
rook on a1.

  White has no plan, he is simply reacting move by move to
Black’s threats.

  Black has been centering his play around the e3
square.

19…Rce6

  (17) Threatening the knight on e2, but actually
reinforcing his grip on e3.

  White’s position is rather sewn shut.

  Black must now focus on the weak kingside.

20.Rf2 Qe8 21.Kf1 Qc6

  (18) The real reason for Qe8.

  Black wants the h1-a8 diagonal that his bishop used to
own.

22.Kg1

  (19) White has given Black two free moves: Qe8 and
Qc6.

  The position is the same as on White’s 20.

  Rf2, except now Black’s queen has gone from d8 to c6!
22…h5

 

 

-------------------
|-K-+Q+R+|
|P-RN+P+P|
|-P-rP+P+|
|+-P-p-+-|
|p+-+-p-+|
|+-br+q+-|
|-pp+-+pp|
|+k+-+-+-|
-------------------

 

  (20) This pawn will probe the kingside.

23.Qd2 Rf3

  (21) To make e3 available to the other rook.

  If 24.

  RxR, then QxR with the rook going to e3 anyway.

24.f5 Ree3 25.Nf4 h4

  (22) White must prevent hxg.

  If 26.

  gxh, then Bxh4 with other problems, while h3 sets up
mating threats on g2 with the Black queen.

26.g4 Bg5

  (23) White must be extremely careful, the bishop attacks
the knight and threatens the White queen.

27.Ng2 h3 28.Ne1

  (24) If NxR, then dxe gets a free piece or the queen.

28…Rxe1+ 29.Qxe1 Be3

  (25) The fourth piece to use the e3 square.

30.Qxe3 dxe3 31.Re2 Rf2 0-1

 

 


(31) Martin,R [B20]

  1997

1.e4 c5 2.Bc4

  (1) Knights before bishops! At this point in the game
where is the best square for the bishop? It’s too early for the
bishop move here.

2…e6 3.Nf3 d5

  (2) Center pawn break, creates a pawn duo and forces the
bishop to move again.

4.exd5

  (2a) This gives Black the only center pawns.

4…exd5 5.Bb5+

  (3) What does check do for White? For Black it get
another piece in the game.

5…Bd7 6.a4

  (4) What does this do for his piece development?
6…Nf6 7.d3 Be7

 

 

-------------------
|R+-KQBNR|
|PPP-+PP-|
|-+N+P+-+|
|+-+-+-+P|
|-+-+ppB+|
|+-n-+-+-|
|pppbb+pp|
|r-+kq-nr|
-------------------

8.Bxd7+

  (5) White invested three moves in the bishop and now
removes it from the board and gets another Black piece in the
game.

8…Nbxd7

  (6) This also helps hold the White knight off e5.

9.h3

  (7) What does this move and a4 have in common? h3 weakens
the kingside pawn cover.

9…0-0 10.d4

  (8) White now has four pawn moves that do nothing to
further his development; d4 gives Black the e4 “outpost”.

10…Re8 11.0-0 Qc7 12.Qd3 Ne4 13.g3

  (9) After this, what protects h3? White’s kingside pawns
are very weak.

13…Ndf6 14.Bf4

  (10) e3 would have been a better squar at this point;
what is the bishop going to do here? 14…Bd6
15.Bxd6

  (11) Just like the king’s bishop, the queen’s bishop
suffers the same fate: two moves invested in the piece are now
gone.

15…Qxd6 16.Ne5 cxd4 17.f4

 

 

-------------------
|-KR+-+NR|
|+-+-+PP-|
|PP-+Q+-+|
|+-Pnp-+P|
|-+-Np+-+|
|+-n-q-+-|
|ppp+-+pp|
|+k+r+-+r|
-------------------

 

  (12) Now what is the fate of the knight? It was either
this or move the knight again.

17…Nh5

  (13) The Black knights begin to overwhelm the kingside
pawns.

18.Nd2 Nexg3

  (14) Black is basically finished.

19.Ndf3 Nxf4

  (15) The winning combinations begin to appear.

20.Nxf7 Re2

  (16) Does Black need his queen at this point?
0-1

 


(32) Martin,R [B21]

  1997

1.e4 c5 2.d4

  (1) White gambits a pawn.

  In exchange for material White will get open lines and a
lead in development.

2…cxd4

  (2) Black accepts the offered pawn.

  His strategy should be: a) rapid development and quick
castling, keep the extra pawn and go for an endgame advantage by
trading pieces, or b) develop his pieces, castle as soon as
possible and return the pawn to catch up in development.

3.c3

  (3) If Black declines this pawn White will have a center
pawn duo.

  By taking the pawn he aids White’s development.

3…dxc3 4.Nxc3 e6

 

 

-------------------
|rnbqkbnr|
|pp+p+ppp|
|-+-+p+-+|
|+-+-+-+-|
|-+-+P+-+|
|+-N-+-+-|
|PP-+-PPP|
|R-BQKBNR|
-------------------

 

  (4) Opens a diagonal for the bishop, but seriously
weakens d6.

  Better is d6.

5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bc4

  (5) The most aggressive square for this bishop.

  The gambiteer must be aggressive.

6…a6

  (6) Prepares a later b5 to chase the bishop on c4, but
really prevents a knight excursion by: Nc3-Nb5-Nc7 along with a
White rook on c1.

7.0-0

  (7) White has an ideal position; he hs all the open
attacking lines.

  He needs to decide where to place the queen bishop and
queen.

  If Black allows an e5 push by White then d6 is
doomed.

7…Nge7

  (8) This does two things: allows the knight to go to g6
to hold back White’s coming e5, and might allow Black to get in d5
especially if the other knight can get to b4.

8.Bg5

  (9) Prevents Ng6 and d5.

  In order to chase the bishop Black must weaken a pawn
around the king.

  d6 is staring White is the face shouting “Use Me!!!” How
many pieces does Black have in play? How many moves is he from
castling? 8…b5

 

 

-------------------
|r+bqkb-r|
|+-+pnppp|
|p+n+p+-+|
|+p+-+-B-|
|-+B+P+-+|
|+-N-+N+-|
|PP-+-PPP|
|R-+Q+RK-|
-------------------

9.Bxb5

  (10) Is this really a threat? Examine the consequences in
your mind’s eye.

  Write down variations on paper to keep track of the
moves.

9…f6

  (11) Black saw the results of axBb5 and didn’t like the
knight on b5 after the recapture.

  Instead, he makes the weakening pawn move anticipated by
eighth move.

  At this point Black is too cramped, and White has too
many pieces in play for him to play timidly.

  White needs to open lines to the Black king even if he hs
to sacrifice additional material.

10.Bxc6 Nxc6

  (12) Better than dxB If dxB, then White could play:
12.

  Qe2 fxB, 13.

  Rfd1 Qc7?, 14.

  Nxg5 with a later Qf3, e5 and Nce4.

11.Bh4 Bc5

  (13) The wrong square for the bishop.

  Black needs to bolster his king position to ward off any
White attack.

  Better was Be7 which would prevent White’s next move.

12.e5

  (14) Vacates e4 for the knight, attacks f6 and puts
additional pressure on d6.

  White has several options: Ne4 with Rc1.

  A knight on e4 would also allow White to pressure f6.

  Notice that the e5 pawn is immune to capture because of
the pin on f6.

  g5 by Black would allow White’s queen in through the open
h5-e8 diagonal.

12…Be7

  (15) Too late for this now.

  Examine Black’s position if he had made this move instead
of Bc5 and White had pushed e5 anyway.

  Black could have responded with f5, forced a piece trade
and castled on his next move.

13.exf6

  (16) This forces the Black queen to a bad square and
brings another White piece into the vicinity of Black’s king.

13…Bxf6 14.Bxf6 Qxf6 15.Ne4

 

 

-------------------
|r+b+k+-r|
|+-+p+-pp|
|p+n+pq-+|
|+-+-+-+-|
|-+-+N+-+|
|+-+-+N+-|
|PP-+-PPP|
|R-+Q+RK-|
-------------------

 

  (17) The real point behind e5.

  With the Black king bishop gone, White can attack from
d6.

15…Qxb2

  (18) The last thing he should do is waste moves on white
pawns.

  Every pawn Black removes opens another possible attacking
option.

16.Nd6+ Ke7 17.Rb1

  (19) Rb1 gives White new ideas: Nb7 BxN, and RxB together
with the queen on d7.

17…Qa3 18.Nf5+

  (20) If Kf7, then Nd6+, NxB and Rb7; or Kd8, then Nxg7,
Nxe6+; or Kf8, then Rb6, Rxc6, and Qd8.

18…exf5 19.Re1+ Kf6 20.Rb3

  (21) This rook can go to g3, or d3 then d6.

20…Qxa2 21.Qd6+ Kf7 22.Ng5+ 1-0

Winning a drawn endgame

Two observations:

1.

When you look at the games of club players, you often see draws agreed in positions which are clearly better for one side, e.g.:

Blackmore – Isaac (116) (3), 1995

Black to move
Move chosen: draw agreed

Better move(s): 33…c4

Commentary:
Black has generally better pieces and two Bishops, while White has little play. If you look around the position there are lots of little ideas for Black (…Rb3, …Be2) and few for White. The pawn move suggested gives the Black Knight a superb post and releases the Bishop on e7. I don’t mean to pick on Mark, I’ve done the same myself (more than once!), but the point must be made.

2.

When you read books about Capablanca, you read comments like:

“Whether this advantage is decisive or not does not interest Capablanca. He simply wins the ending! That’s why he is Capablanca!” — EUWE

Can we become more like Capablanca?

Most people would say no, because Capa is a genius, with almost faultless insight into the theory of endgames. But you don’t need to be a genius to win drawn endgames. Have a look at this one from “Chess for Tigers”:

Miles,AJ – Webb,S (Birmingham) 1975
(wKg2,Qd4,Rb1,d1,Pa2,f2,g3,h2; bKg7,Qf5,Rc8,f7,Pa7,f6,g6,h7)

Webb was surprised and I guess a little peeved that Miles refused a draw in this position.
23… Rc2 24. a3 Qc5 25. Rb3 Qxd4?

Simplifying but going on the defensive – a needless concession.

[25… Re7]

[25… Rc7 26. Rf3 Qc6]

26. Rxd4 Re7 27. Ra4 Kf7 28. Ra6

White has contrived a little threat, which costs nothing, and Black might be careless…

28… Rce2 29. Rb4

[29. Rf3 R2e6]

29… Rd7 30. Rba4 Ree7 31. g4! h5?

Creating targets on the King’s-side – another concession. Holding tight would have allowed a weakened square on f6 but White has no way through.

[31… Kg7 32. h4 Kf7 33. g5 fxg5 34. hxg5 Kg7 35. Rf6]

32. gxh5 gxh5 33. R4a5 Kg6 34. h4

Now, this is probably still drawn, but Black has slipped a long way back since the first diagram.
34… Rc7? Careless.

[34… Rf7]

35. Rg5+ Kf7 36. Rxh5 Kg7

Now it’s lost. The technical phase may give White problems, but that’s not the point: Black should never have lost the Pawn.

37. Rf5 Rf7 38. Kg3 Rc3+ 39. f3 Rc1 40. Rfa5 Rcc7 41. Kg4 Rc4+ 42. f4 Rcc7 43. Kf5 Rb7 44. a4 Rbc7 45. h5 Rb7 46. h6+ Kxh6 47. Rxf6+ Kg7 48. Rxf7+ Kxf7 49. Ra6 Rc7 50. Kg5 Kg7 51. f5 Rd7 52. a5 Rc7 53. Rd6 Kf8 54. Rd8+ Ke7 55. Rh8 Kd6 56. Kg6 Rc1 57. Ra8 Ke5 58. Re8+ Kf4 59. f6 Rg1+ 60. Kf7 Ra1 61. Kg7 Kf5 62. f7 Rg1+ 63. Kf8 Kg6 64. Re6+ 1-0

What’s going on here? It’s not chess theory or insight, but psychology.

White was playing as though he was going to win. He kept trying to put pressure on the opponent, collecting little advantages, looking for opportunities.

Black was playing as thought he was trying to draw. In fact, he tried and failed. He kept solid, but passive, and kept making little concessions – and the biggest concession really was his attitude.

Black should have been playing much more assertively, not thinking about the result, but the position, trying to play the strongest and most active moves, making concessions only when forced to. In fact, it is said in truth that the best way to draw is to play for a win. Not in a reckless way that Tarrasch wryly termed “playing for the loss”, but rather like Miles did – keep playing actively – and not like Webb did – don’t give an inch that you aren’t forced to.

Once we have realised this, we can see it in other games:

Cooper – Hebden (Lutterworth) 1986
(wKg1,Qf4,Rf2,Pa2,b2,g2,h2; bKg8,Qe6,Rf8,Pa7,f7,g7,h6)

Completely drawn, but probably so is the starting position of a game of chess! You must play actively, make the most of your assets, and set your opponent problems. White has a Queen’s-side majority, which must be advanced. Black must advance his majority on the King’s-side.
1. b3 Rd8 2. Qf3 Rc8 3. g3 Rc1+ 4. Kg2 Re1 5. Qa8+ Kh7 6. Qf3

[6. Qxa7 Qe4+]

6… Kg6 7. Qd3+ f5 8. Qf3

White is just hacking about, perhaps thinking vaguely about perpetual check, waiting for the draw to turn up. These hopeful checks are actually time-wasters, and hope gradually fades…

8… Re3 9. Qb7 Kh7 10. Rf3 Re1 11. Rf2 h5 12. Qf3 g6 13. Qb7+ Kh6 14. Qf3

 

Black is making progress, White none. Compare the first diagram!
14… Re4 15. Qc3 g5 16. Qh8+ Kg6 17. Qc3 Qd5 18. Kg1 h4 19. Qd2 Rd4 20. Qe2 Rd1+ 21. Rf1 Qd4+

 

White is almost lost.
22. Kh1

[22. Qf2 Qxf2+ 23. Kxf2 Rd2+ loses a Pawn, but that may have been the best chance.]

22… Qd5+ 23. Kg1 Rd2

 

Winning? White must go for perpetual, Black must make a break for the Queen’s-side.
24. Qe8+ Kg7 25. Qe7+ Kh6 26. Qf6+ Kh5 27. Qh8+ Kg4 28. Rf4+ gxf4 29. Qxh4+ Kf3 30. Qxf4+ Ke2 31. Qf1+ Ke3 32. Qf4+ Kd3 0-1

And, if you will forgive the immodesty, once you have seen this done, you can even imitate it.

Wilcox, RJ (154) – Regis, D (168) (Paignton #3) 1996

I did have the advantage earlier, but was now struggling to draw.
40. b4 Re4

Time control, and I offered a draw. Declined! So, Black must fight like fury. Activity is everything, going passive is equivalent to resigning.

41. b5

[41. Rf1]

41… Qd3 42. Qa2

 

I had to seal a move here. While I was fiddling with envelopes, Peter overheard him say to a friend of his “I should win this one pretty quickly” (!). Black is genuinely in difficulty (once that Pawn takes another step, Black can start to worry!) But Black has the move.
42… Re2 (Sealed)

43. Qa8+?

This “hopeful check” actually just exposes the Rook.

43…Kh7 44. Rf1 Re7

White obviously hoped Rf1 was strong; he and his colleagues had overlooked Black’s best reply. This can be seen as a simple oversight, but also as reward for Black using his pieces as actively as possible.

45. Qf3 Qxb5 46. Qf6=

OK, we have have now a new phase. This is objectively a drawn position, I believe. I thought this at the time, but was happy to play on, knowing that White had to adjust his mood to suit the new situation. I had the example of the Miles-Webb game very much in my mind while playing.

46…Qe2 47. Ra1 Qe6! 48. Qd4

[48. Qxe6 fxe6 obtaining a passed Pawn is very much what I hoped for]

48… Qe5!? (bluff)

49. Qa4?

[49. Qxe5 Rxe5 50. Ra7= is absolutely level. Normally you try to keep pieces on when trying to draw, but while Black has an extra Pawn, with Pawns on only one side, it’s a draw. White should have known this.]

49… Qd5 50. Rf1?

Passive. [50. Rd1]

50… Re2 51. Rg1 Re3 52. Kh2 Qe5+ 53. Kh1

[53. g3 Re2+ 54. Rg2 Rxg2+ 55. Kxg2 Qe2+ 56. Kg1 Qf3 57. Kh2 Qf2+ 58. Kh1 Qxg3-+ ]

53… Qf5 54. Qa2 h4

Collecting another advantage (weak g-Pawn, maybe a passed f-Pawn if White exchanges g- for h-Pawn).

[54… Rc3 55. Qe2 Rc2]

55. Qd2?

Another do-nothing move, and this time it’s fatal. The position is still interesting and may be no more than drawn, but I hope you can see the same attitudes at work here.

55… Qe4 56. Qf2 Rxh3# 0-1

A couple from Capa: the first is the game about which Euwe made his remark.

Capablanca,Jose – Vidmar,Milan sr [New York ] (12) [C98] 1927

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 Na5 9. Bc2 c5 10. d4 Qc7 11. Nbd2 O-O 12. h3

These days played before d2-d4, otherwise a fairly typical Lopez position.
12… Nc6 13. d5 Nd8 14. a4

A typical undermining thrust in the Ruy Lopez; Black’s Pawns offer a target for White and counterplay for Black!

14… b4 15. Nc4 a5

 

16. Nfxe5! Ba6 17. Bb3 dxe5 18. d6 Bxd6 19. Qxd6 Qxd6 20. Nxd6 Nb7 21. Nxb7 Bxb7

White has the two Bishops and pressure against Black’s advanced but rather immobile Queen’s-side Pawns.
“Whether this advantage is decisive or not does not interest Capablanca. He simply wins the ending! That’s why he is Capablanca!” — EUWE

22. cxb4 cxb4 23. f3 Rfd8 24. Be3 h6 25. Red1 Bc6 26. Rac1 Be8 27. Kf2

KUFTE – “King Up For The Ending”!

27… Rxd1 28. Rxd1 Rc8

 

Poor Black’s Rook has no entry point, as the unmoved White Pawn on b2 secures the c3 square. This is a concrete example of Tarrasch’s statement that every Pawn move loosens the position.
29. g4 Bd7 30. Bb6

Decisive. Now there are a couple of exchanges, which leave only White’s best piece (Bb6) and Black’s worst piece (Nf6) on the board! 30… Be6

[30… Ra8 31. Bc7 snookering the Rook [31. Rc1 and Rc5]]

31. Bxe6 fxe6 32. Rd8+ Rxd8 33. Bxd8 Nd7 34. Bxa5 Nc5

 

35. b3 Nxb3 36. Bxb4 Nd4 37. a5 1-0
Capa seemed born with this facility at endgames.

Capablanca,Jose – Corzo y Principe,Juan (Havana m ) (09) [A83] 1901

1. d4
This is the ninth game of the match for the Cuban Championship, which Capa played at the age of 12. He took 24 minutes over this game.

1… f5 2. e4 fxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 c6 5. Bxf6 exf6 6. Nxe4 d5 7. Ng3 Qe7+ 8. Qe2 Qxe2+ 9. Bxe2 Bd6 10. Nf3 O-O 11. O-O Bg4 12. h3

Black could try to play for a win with the two Bishops, but instead exchanges apparently seeking a draw.

12… Bxf3 13. Bxf3 Bxg3 14. fxg3 Nd7 15. Rfe1 Rae8 16. Kf1 f5 17. Rxe8 Rxe8 18. Re1 Rxe1+ 19. Kxe1 Nf6

 

20. Kd2 (tempting…) Ne4+ 21. Ke3 Nd6
[21… Nxg3 22. Kf4 Ne4

[22… Nf1 23. Be2 Nd2 24. Kxf5]

23. Kxf5]

22. Be2 Kf7 23. Kf4 Kf6

Chernev comments “The position may look drawish, but it is to Capablanca’s liking; he often manages to squeeze a win out of a theoretical draw”. I haven’t seen a GM assessment of this position and Chernev (by no means a weak player) does not commit himself as to the ‘proper’ result of this endgame. Without wishing to enter the (possibly fruitless) debate about whether this position is in fact drawn, White does have the advantage of Bishop over Knight, with play on both sides of the board. If White can create tension in more than one area of the board, Black’s Knight will find itself over-committed. While all the Black Pawns are on the board and are all on light squares, White’s Bishop lacks scope, but if things open up a little, the Black Pawns may become vulnerable.

24. h4 g6

[24… h6 25. h5]

25. g4 h6 26. g5+ hxg5+ 27. hxg5+ Ke7 28. g4 fxg4 29. Bd3

 

Now the King’s-side has opened up the strength of the Bishop begins to show itself.
29… Nf5

concedes a passed Pawn

[29… Kf7 (Hooper) 30. Kxg4 Nb5 31. c3 Nc7 “with good drawing chances”; neither Bishop nor King have an obvious entry point.]

30. Kxg4 Nxd4

[30… Ke6 31. Bxf5+ gxf5+ 32. Kf4 and who has the most tempi to lose on the Queen’s-side? Chernev assumes Black will run out of moves, but it’s worth being sure! Perhaps..

32… a5

[32…b6 33. b4 a6

[33… a5 34. bxa5 bxa5 35. a4]

34. a4 a5 35. bxa5 bxa5 36. c3]

33. a4 b6 34. b3 b5 35. c3 b4 36. cxb4 axb4 37. a5]

31. Bxg6 c5 32. Kh5 Ne6 33. Kh6 Kf8 34. Bf5 Ng7

[34… Nd4 35. Bd7 Nxc2 36. g6 Kg8 37.

Be6+ Kh8 38. g7#]

35. Bc8 b6 36. g6 d4

 

Black’s only hope is to do something with the Queen’s-side Pawns, but they lack support.
37. b3 Kg8 38. a4 Kf8 39. Bg4 Ne8 40. Kh7 Ng7 41. Kh6 Ne8 42. Be2 Ng7 43. Bc4 Ne8

 

White begins a long King-march
44. Kg5 Ke7

[44… Kg7 45. Bb5 Nd6 46. Bd3 Ne8 47. Kf5]

45. Kf5 Ng7+ 46. Ke5 Nh5

[46… Kd7 47. Kf6 Ne8+ 48. Kf7 Nd6+ 49. Kf8]

47. Be2 Ng7 48. Kd5 Ne8

[48… Kd7 49. Bg4+]

49. Kc6 Ng7 50. Kb7 Kd6

 

White attacks the Pawn chain at the base!
51. Kxa7 Kc7 52. Ka6 Ne8 53. Bf3 Ng7 54. Bd5 Ne8

[54… Nf5 55. Be4 Ng7 56. Kb5 Ne8 57. a5 Nd6+ 58. Ka6 Nxe4 59. axb6+ Kb8 60. g7 Nf6 61. Kb5 Kb7 62. Kxc5 Ng8 63. Kxd4]

55. Bf7 Ng7 56. Kb5

Now the White King covers the break at a5, and the Pawns at b6 and d5. 56… Nf5

 

57. a5 Nd6+
[57… bxa5 58. Kxc5]

58. Ka6 bxa5

[58… Nf5 59. axb6+ Kb8 60. Kb5]

59. g7 1-0

 

Two last examples, which illustrate the same problem, although at rather different levels of the game…

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

There are some bones to pick in the details of this game, but the flow of it is very convincing. I believe that it is helpful to play over the whole of games like this quite quickly to start with, and then go back over the moves more slowly. Knowing what happens later can help you unpick the thread of the game to the point where a mistake was made, although here Capa points his finger firmly at the move of the King’s Rook to defend the King’s-side.

 

Democrito – DrDave: EICS rated blitz game EICS, Aarhus, Denmark (-), 1997

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Bc5 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. d3 O-O 6. O-O d6 7. Bg5 h6 8. Bxf6 Qxf6 9. Nd5 Qd8 10. c3 a6 11. Ba4 b5 12. Bc2 Ne7 13. Ne3 f5 14. exf5 Nxf5 15. Nxf5 Bxf5 16. d4 Bxc2 17. Qxc2 exd4 18. Nxd4 Qf6 19. Rad1 Rae8 20. Rfe1 d5 21. Qd2 Bd6 22. Nf3 c6 23. Qd4 Qxd4 24. Nxd4 Rxe1+ 25. Rxe1 c5 26. Nf3 Kf7 27. Ne5+ Bxe5 28. Rxe5 Rd8

Very much analogous, I think. Black can create a passed Pawn straight away, but I would advise White to try and create trouble or at least force some exchanges with f2-f4, Kg1-f2, g2-g4 and so on. Instead, my opponent plays “safe”, which is actually fatal!
29. Kf1?! Kf6 30. Re2?

That Rook was fine where it was.

30…d4 31. cxd4 cxd4 32. f3?

Again, merely solid, not active.

32…d3 33. Rd2 Ke5 34. Ke1 Kd4 35. Kd1 Rd5 36. g3 Ke3 37. f4 g5 38. fxg5 hxg5 39. h4 Rf5 40. Ke1 gxh4 41. gxh4 Rf1+ 42. Kxf1 Kxd2 43. h5 Kc1 44. h6 d2 45. h7 d1=Q+ 46. Kf2 Qh5 White resigned 0-1

The French Defence ‘little centre’

Exeter Chess Club: H: The French `Little’ Centre

Peter Lane, 11th October 1996

The prime example of this formation arises in the Tarrasch
Variation, as a means of avoiding the isolated queen’s pawn.

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. exd5 Qxd5 5. Ngf3
cxd4 6. Bc4 Qd6 7. O-O Nf6 8. Nb3 Nc6 9. Nbxd4 Nxd4 10. Nxd4
a6

 

t+l+jL-T
+x+-+xXx
x+-DxS-+
+-+-+-+-
-+bN-+-+
+-+-+-+-
pPp+-PpP
R-Bq+rK-

r1b1kb1r/1p3ppp/p2qpn2/8/2BN4/8/PPP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1

Black loses time with his queen (…Qc7 will be
her third move) to obtain a better pawn formation for the endgame.
In fact, the position looks more like a Sicilian, with
…a6 and …b5, …Bb7, …Rc8
to come. And, as in a Sicilian, White’s lead in development can
turn into a nasty attack.

  eg: after 11. Re1 Qc7 12. Bb3 Bd6 13. Nf5! Bxh2+ 14.
Kh1 Kf8 15. g3
threatening Bf4-d6, but Black does
have a pawn.

  If the game is less sharp, Black will hope to gain a
little time off the white bishop and develop for the endgame. All
is not peace and tranquillity though, and a careless White can fall
badly.

  e.g.: from the diagram

S. Gilmour vs. P.C. Lane (Maidenhead,
1992)

11. c3 Qc7 12. Qe2 Bd6 13. g3? e5! 14. f4? Bg4!

  and wins a piece, as the queen is overloaded, pinning the
e-pawn (so it cannot take the knight) and defending a bishop.

15. Nf3 e4 16. Bd3 O-O 17. Bxe4 Rae8
(perfect timing!)

  and black won comfortably a little later. This line is
interesting in proving that the e-pawn may move, if the Bishop on
c8 spies a light square weakness.

  Assuming that Black can survive, what sort of endgame are
we looking at? The pattern is simple: The sole central pawn on e6
acts as a buffer to white attacks, and provides a support on d5 for
a knight. The half open c-file and the minority attack generate a
comfortable initiative on the queen side for black. We can see this
in action in the game

L.Vogt vs U.Andersson (Havana, 1975)

-Tl+-Tj+
+-+-LxXx
x+-+xS-+
+x+-+-+-
-+-+-P-+
+-N-B-+-
pPp+b+pP
+-+r+r+k

1rb2rkRbppp/p3pn2/1p6/5P2/2N1B3/PPP1B1PP/3R1R1K

This position derived from a Sicilian, but illustrates the theme in
an easy to understand example of the minority attack.

1. Ba7 Ra8 2. Bb6 Bb7 3. a3 Rfc8

  White may own the d-file, but black’s minor pieces keep
the rooks out, and now the knight on c3 is pinned to the c2-pawn,
and …Bxa3 is threatened! “Half-open files do not need entry
points. They naturally generate pressure.
” (Stean)

4. Ba5 g6 5. h3? (weakening)
5…h5 6. Bf3 Bxf3 7. Rxf3 h4!

  suddenly the aggressive f-pawn is looking lonely.

8. Rd2 Rc4 9. b3 (forced, else
…Rac8…Nh5xf4) 9…Rc6 10. a4 b4 11. Ne2 Rac8 12. c4
bxc3 13. Rxc3 Nd5 14. Rxc6 Rxc6

  The finish of this game is given in Stean’s Simple
Chess
, with further notes on the minority attack in general.
Black wins by manoeuvring against the two weaknesses. My games are
not so well controlled, but black has ongoing play, and can often
gain the full point merely by planting a knight on d5 and pushing
the pawns down the right.

  These lines are used further in the Rubinstein lines,
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 though …c5 can be
harder to achieve. But for those wanting to shock the
Exchange-players, and to prove a missing d-pawn does not imply a
dull endgame, there is:

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nc3 Bb4 5. Nf3
Nf6 6. Bd3 Ne4 7. O-O Nxc3 8. bxc3 Bxc3

  for his pawn white has a lead in development, and that
queen is still exposed, the books give Kotkov vs. Bukhman, 1966 (by
transposition)

9. Rb1 Nc6 10. Rb5 Qd6 11. Be3 Nb4 12. Ng5 c6 13.
Ne4 Qd8 14.Qg4 Kf8 15. Rg5

 

t+lD-J-T
Xx+-+xXx
-+x+x+-+
+-+-+-R-
-S-Pn+q+
+-LbB-+-
p+p+-PpP
+-+-+rK-

r1bq1k1r/pp3ppp/2p1p3/6R1/1n1PN1QQbBB3/P1P2PPP/5RK1

which is supposedly in white’s favour

  but 15…f5 16. Qg3 fxe4 17. Rxg7 Qf6! wins

  or 16. Qf3 Bxd4 and the Black-side holds, so I
find this unclear at worst.

  This last line highlights the basic strengths of the
Black position. After the queen recapture, White has to gambit a
pawn in order to gain an initiative, else Black develops
comfortably, and patiently waits to begin his minority
attack…

The Sicilian Defence

Ideas behind the Sicilian Defence

vogt – andersson (STEAN) [B84] minority attack in the Sicilian,
Capa memorial 1975


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 are 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 42. Nf3 Bg3 43. Kg1 Re4 44. Kf1 Re3 45. Rb2 e5 46. Rb1 e4 0-1

Exeter Chess Club: White’s attacking chances against the
Paulsen/Scheveningen

White’s attacking chances against the
Paulsen/Scheveningen: Ljubojevic,L – Andersson,U (Wijk Aan Zee),
1976

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Qc7 6. Be2
a6 7. O-O Nf6 8. Be3 Be7 9. f4 d6 10. Qe1 O-O 11. Qg3 Bd7 12. e5
dxe5 13. fxe5 Nxe5 14. Bf4 Bd6 15. Rad1 Qb8 16. Rd3 Ne8 17. Ne4 Bc7
18. Rc3 Nc6 19. Bxc7 Nxd4 20. Bd3 Qa7 21. Nc5 Bb5 22. Be5
Nc6

t+-+sTj+
Dx+-+xXx
x+s+x+-+
+lN-B-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-Rb+-Q-
pPp+-+pP
+-+-+rK-

White’s initial lead in development and control of the centre has
has got better and better.

23. Bxh7+ Kxh7 24. Rf4 f6 25. Rh4+ Kg8 26. Qh3
Nd8 27. Bd4 b6 28. Nxe6 Nxe6 29. Qxe6+ Qf7 30. Qe4 g5 31. Rh6 Ra7
32. Rch3 Qg7 33. Rg6 Rff7 34. c4 1-0


Black’s chances in the Paulsen/Scheveningen:
Renet – Taimanov, Montpellier 1986

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be2
Qc7 7. O-O Nf6 8. Kh1 Bb4 9. Nxc6 bxc6 10. f4 O-O

[10… Bxc3 11. bxc3 Nxe4 12. Qd4 Nf6 13.
Ba3]

11. e5 Bxc3 12. bxc3 Nd5 13. Rf3
[
13. Bf3] 13… c5 14. c4 Ne7 15. Rb1 Nf5
16. Bd3 Bb7 17. Rh3 g6 18. Bd2 Rab8 19. Rb3 d5

-T-+-Tj+
+lD-+x+x
x+-+x+x+
+-XxPs+-
-+p+-P-+
+r+b+-+r
p+pB-+pP
+-+q+-+k

Always this blow in the Scheveningen. White is tempted by a
King’s-side attack, but this soon comes to an end because the bad
Bd2 cannot help.

20. Bxf5 ? 20… exf5 21. Rbg3 f6 22. exf6
[
22. Qh5 Qg7] 22… d4 23. Rb3 Rxf6 24.
Qb1 Re6 25. Rhg3 Re2 26. Qd1 Rbe8

-+-+t+j+
+lD-+-+x
x+-+-+x+
+-X-+x+-
-+pX-P-+
+r+-+-R-
p+pBt+pP
+-+q+-+k

the difference in the power of the two bishops is enormous, and
White will never be able to play a light-squared bishop to f3 to
exchange off the Bb7

27. h3 Qc6 28. Rbf3 Qe6 29. Rb3 Bc6 30. Kh2 Qxc4
0-1


White’s chances in the Dragon : Karpov –
Korchnoi, Moscow 1974

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3
Bg7 7. f3 Nc6 8. Qd2 O-O

  White intends to hold the centre and attack the King.
There is a recipe fr these attacks: play Bh6xg7, h2-h5xg6, Qh6 and
Qxh7 mate! Black has got about ten moves to arrange an upset
in…

9. Bc4 Bd7 10. h4 Rc8 11. Bb3 Ne5 12. O-O-O Nc4
13. Bxc4 Rxc4 14. h5 Nxh5 15. g4 Nf6 16. Nde2 Qa5 17. Bh6 Bxh6 18.
Qxh6 Rfc8 19. Rd3

-+t+-+j+
Xx+lXx+x
-+-X-SxQ
D-+-+-+-
-+t+p+p+
+-Nr+p+-
pPp+n+-+
+-K-+-+r

The first new move of the game! All this was known to theory.

19… R4c5 20. g5 Rxg5 21. Rd5 Rxd5 22. Nxd5 Re8
23. Nef4 Bc6 24. e5 Bxd5 25. exf6 exf6 26. Qxh7+ Kf8 27. Qh8+
1-0

  Karpov’s team later claimed they had worked out the whole
game beforehand in analysis!


Black’s chances in the Dragon: Prokopp –
Deuel (corr. 1986)

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3
Bg7 7. f3 Nc6 8. Qd2 O-O 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. h4 Rc8 11. Bb3 Ne5 12.
O-O-O

-+tD-Tj+
Xx+lXxLx
-+-X-Sx+
+-+-S-+-
-+-Np+-P
+bN-Bp+-
pPpQ-+p+
+-Kr+-+r

a typical Dragon line

12… Nc4 picks up a bishop

13. Bxc4 Rxc4 14. g4 b5 15. h5 b4 16. Nd5 e6 17.
Nxf6+ [
17. Nxb4] 17… Qxf6 18. hxg6 hxg6
19. Qh2 Rfc8 20. Rd2 e5 21. g5 Qd8 22.
Nb3 [22.
Nf5
] 22… Qc7 23. Kb1 a5 24. Qf2 Rc6

-+t+-+j+
+-Dl+xL-
-+tX-+x+
X-+-X-P-
-X-+p+-+
+n+-Bp+-
pPpR-Q-+
+k+-+-+r

you can see the potential of the half-open c-file when White
castles Q-side

25. f4 ?

  allows opening of long diagonal

25… a4 26. Nd4 b3 27. f5 exd4 28. Qh4 bxc2+ 29.
Kc1 Qb6 30. Qh7+ Kf8 31. Rdh2 gxf5 32. exf5

-+t+-J-+
+-+l+xLq
-DtX-+-+
+-+-+pP-
x+-X-+-+
+-+-B-+-
pPx+-+-R
+-K-+-+r

32… Qxb2+ 33. Kxb2 dxe3+ 0-1

Let’s look at the finish again:

-+t+-J-+
+-+l+xLq
-+tX-+-+
+-+-+pP-
x+-+-+-+
+-+-X-+-
pKx+-+-R
+-+-+-+r

34. Kc1

[34. Qxg7+ Kxg7 35. Rh7+ Kf8 is lost]

  34… Bb2+ 35. Kxb2 Rb8+ 36. Ka1 c1=Q+ 37. Rxc1 Rxc1#
0-1

White’s chances if allowed to play c4 (The
Maroczy Bind): Portisch-Reshevsky, Petropolis izt 195

1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 g6 3. e4 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Nf6 6.
Nc3

  We have arrived at a Sicilian by transposition from the
English; White has played Nc3 behind the c-pawn. White has more
space, which he will try to maintain by preventing Black from
playing freeing moves like …b5. Then, when Black is passive and
White is fully developed, he will move to the attack.

6…Nxd4 7. Qxd4 d6 8. Bg5 Bg7 9. Qd2 O-O 10. Bd3
a5 11. O-O a4 12. Rac1 Be6 13. Qc2 Nd7 14. f4 Rc8 15. b3 axb3 16.
axb3 Nf6 17. Kh1 Qa5 18. f5 Bd7 19. Nd5

 

-+t+-Tj+
+x+lXxLx
-+-X-Sx+
D-+n+pB-
-+p+p+-+
+p+b+-+-
-+q+-+pP
+-R-+r+k

White invites the exchange of Knights, which would only serve to
open lines of attack for the Bishops and Rooks.

19…Qd8 20.Qf2 Bc6 21.Qh4 Bxd5 22.exd5 Re8
23.Rf3 Nd7 24.Rcf1 Bf6 25.Rh3 Nf8 26.fxg6 fxg6 27.Bxg6 hxg6 28.Rxf6
1-0

The Variations of the King’s Gambit

Here’s a zip-through the main lines of the King’s Gambit, using complete games. I have tried where possible to use games from Joe Gallagher’s popular book.

Play through games here:
x/pgn4web/collection.html?pgnfile=x/pgn/booklets.pgn?initialGame=115

  There are three basic classes of defence:

 

  • accept the Pawn

 

  • counter-gambit

 

  • get on with development

 


Accept the Pawn

Steinitz always said that the best way to refute a gambit is to accept it, and accepting the Gambit is probably the most popular response at all levels. Steinitz would hang on to Pawns with total commitment, but the pragmatic Lasker advised letting your opponent waste time and effort getting it back, when you may have material equality but a superior position.

  Because of the check at h4, White normally plays 3. Nf3, but there are some alternatives.


King’s Bishop’s Gambit

Polgar,J – Flear,C [C33] Hastings/SW,11,22,/1989

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Nf6

After 3…d5 the Polgars have been playing 4. exd5, getting into a line of the Modern Defence.

4. d3

 

rnbqkb-r

pppp-ppp
-----n--
--------
--B-Pp--
---P----
PPP---PP
RNBQK-NR
This modest move intends to reach a playable middlegame with an extra central Pawn. Black is objectively equal but can be outplayed.

4… d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. Nf3 Nb6 7. Bb3 Bd6 8. Qe2+ Qe7 9. Nc3 Bg4 10. Qxe7+ Kxe7 11. Ne4 Bxf3 12. gxf3 Nc6 13. Nxd6 cxd6 14. Bxf4 Nd4 15. Kf2 Nxb3 16. axb3 a6 17. Ra5 Kd7 18. b4 Rhe8 19. c4 Re6 20. b5 axb5 21. Rxb5 Kc6 22. Rc1 Ra2

 

--------

-p---ppp
-nkpr---
-R------
--P--B--
---P-P--
rP---K-P
--R-----
23. Rb3 Nd7 24. d4 Rf6 25. Bg3 b6 26. Re1 d5 27. cxd5+ Kxd5 28. Re7 Kc4 29. Rc3+ Kb4 30. Rc2 Kb3 31. Rd2 Ra7 32. d5 b5 33. d6 Rf5 34. Rd3+ Kc2 35. Rc3+ Kxb2 36. Rc7 1-0

 


King’s Knight’s Gambit

Again, there is a basic choice of strategy:

  hang on to the Pawn (Kieseritsky Variation (3…g5), Becker Variation (3…h6))

  central counter (Modern Defence (3…d5))

  get on with development (Schallop Defence (3…Nf6), Defence with 3…Nc6, Cunningham Variation (3…Be7))


Kieseritsky Variation (3…g5)

Holmes,D – Hebden,Mark [C39] British/Championship, 1989

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4

The alternative 4. Bc4 leads most often to the Hanstein variation, which JG reckons is no winning attempt after e.g.

Groeneveld K – Jerabek P (corres TT/88\3, 1991): 1.e4/e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 Bg7 5.h4 h6 6.d4 d6 7.c3 Nc6 8.0-0 Bg4 9.Qb3 Na5 10.Bxf7+ Kf8 11.Qa3 Kxf7 12.Qxa5 Bxf3 13.Rxf3 c5 = (Hoi) 14.Qxd8 Rxd8 15.d5 Be5 16.g3 g4 17.Rf1 f3 18.Bf4 Bxf4 0-1

Oddly, BCO2 gives the archaic Double Muzio Gambit the nod e.g.

Shirov,A – Lapinski,J: Daugavpils, 1990: 1.e4 e5 2.f4/exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.0-0 gxf3 6.Qxf3 Qf6 7.e5 Qxe5 8.Bxf7+ Kxf7 9.d4 Qxd4+ [9…Qf5]10.Be3 Qf6 11.Bxf4 Ke8 12.Nc3 Nc6 13.Nd5 Qg6 14.Rae1+ Be7 15.Bd6 Kd8 16.Qf8+ Bxf8 17.Bxc7# 1-0

4…g4

5. Ne5

  The Allgaier gambit

5. Ng5 h6 6. Nxf7

  is a brave but probably insufficient try; the idea though is sound in other positions (see 3…h6).

Terry – Barlow B (corres GBR, 1988)

/

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ng5 h6 6.Nxf7 Kxf7 7.Nc3 d6 8.Bc4+ Kg7 9.d4 Be7 10.Bxf4 Bxh4+ 11.g3 Bg5 12.Qd2 Bxf4 13.gxf4 Bd7 14.0-0-0 a5 15.f5 Be8 16.Nd5 Nd7 17.e5 Ra6 18.Nf4 1-0

  White gets good practical chances in any event; the line reminds me of Cochrane’s line in the Petroff. (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nxf7).

5…Nf6 6. d4 d6 7. Nd3 Nxe4 8. Bxf4 Qe7 9. Qe2 Nc6 10. c3 Bf5

 

r---kb-r

ppp-qp-p
--np----
-----b--
---PnBpP
--PN----
PP--Q-P-
RN--KB-R
This is the critical line of the Kieseritsky. Black does not stand badly and the most that JG claims for White here is that Black will find it difficult to win after 13. Nxe4 (!). The main game is widely cited as the antidote to White’s plans. I offer some recent experiences as a starting point for folk who hope to win as White with it.

11. Nd2 O-O-O

[11… Nxd2 12. Kxd2 h5 13. Bg5 Bh6 14. Bxh6 Qxe2+ 15. Bxe2 Q-Q Vockler M – Sobeck G/corres DDR/BRD 1972/(25)]

12. O-O-O

[12. Nc4 h5 13. Ne3 Bg6 14. O-O-O Bh6 15. Bxh6 Rxh6 16. Nd5 Qf8 17. Qe3 Re8 18. Qf4 Nd8 0-1 Wittmann W – Rodin E/corres/ARG 1980]

[12. Nxe4 Qxe4 13. Qxe4 Bxe4 14. Nf2 Re8

[14… f5 15. Nxe4 fxe4 16. h5 Be7 17. Kf2 Rdf8 18. Kg3 d5 19. Be2 Rhg8 0-1 Schmelz – Hanison/corres CIF 1990/(27)]

15. Kd2 f5 16. Nxe4 Rxe4 17. g3 Ne7 18. Bd3 Re6 19. Rae1 Kd7 Q-Q Bangiev A – Neumann G/corres USSR 1989 (26)]

/

12… Re8 13. Re1

[13. g3 Nxc3 14. Qxe7 Nxa2+ 15. Kb1 Rxe7 16. Kxa2 Bxd3 17. Bxd3 Nb4+ 18. Kb3 Nxd3 0-1 Hajek – Buresh/cr/1961]

[13. Nc4 Qf6 14. Ne3 Bh6 15. Qe1 g3 16. Nd5 Qg7 17. Qe3 Bxf4 18. Qxf4 Bg4 19. Re1 f5 0-1 Skotorenko V – Reprinuev/corres ARG 1983 (44)]

[13. h5 Nxc3 0-1 Pantaleoni L – Bonatti A/corres/ITA/CSA 1983]

[13. d5 Nxc3 14. Qxe7 Nxa2+

[14… Nxe7 15. bxc3 Nxd5 16. c4 Nc3 17. Re1 Rxe1+ 18. Nxe1 Nxa2+ 19. Kb2 Nb4 0-1 Craig T – Ivanez Rico F/corres EUR/1991 (40)]

15. Kb1 Nxe7 16. Kxa2 Nxd5 0-1 Hurt,E – Baca,D/cr/1987]

[13. Nxe4! = Qxe4 14. Qd2

[14. Qxe4 Rxe4 15. g3 Bg7 16. Bd2 Re7 17. Nf4 Be4 18. Bg2 f5 19. Rde1 Rhe8 20. Re2 Bh6 21. Bxe4 Rxe4 22. Rxe4 Rxe4 23. Nd5 Bxd2+ 24. Kxd2 Nxd4 0-1 McLean – Hindle/corres GBR/1990]

14… Bg7 15. h5 h6 16. Rh2 Qd5 17. Kb1 b5 18. Ka1 a5 19. g3 Be4 … 1-0 Pablo – Gilg,J/Tarrassa (2) 1989 (42)]

/

13… Qe6 14. a3 Qa2 15. Qd1

[15. g3 Bg7 16. Nxe4 Rxe4 17. Qxe4 Bxe4 18. Rxe4 Qb3 19. Rh2 a5 0-1 Maes W – Winants L/Huy op 1992 (38)]

/

15… h5 16. g3

[16. Qb3 Qa1+ 17. Nb1 Be7 18. Qd5 Bg6 19. Rxe4 Bd8 0-1 Carroll C – Curnow D/corres GBR 1989 (35)]

/

16… Bg7 17. Rh2 Nxc3 18. bxc3 Qxa3+ 19. Kc2 Bxd4 20. Qa1 Nb4+ 0-1

 


Becker Variation (3…h6)

Vrenegoor T – Van Gisbergen S [C34] Enschede,/1991

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 h6

  Black signals an intention to hang on to the Pawn with …g5 and …Bg7.

4. d4 g5 5. Nc3 d6 6. g3 fxg3 7. h4 g4 8. Ng1 g2 9. Bxg2 Be7 10. h5 Bh4+ 11. Ke2 Bg5 12. Bxg5 Qxg5 13. Qd2 Qxd2+ 14. Kxd2 Ne7 15. Nge2+/=

 

rnb-k--r

ppp-np--
---p---p
-------P
---PP-p-
--N-----
PPPKN-B-
R------R
better for White, says Korchnoi, but…

15… Na6 16. Rhf1 O-O 17. Rae1 Kg7 18. Nf4 c6 19. Rg1 Rg8 20. Bf1 Nc7 21. Be2 Kf8 22. Rg2 d5 23. Rf1 Bd7 24. e5 Rg5 25. Rfg1 Ne6 26. Nxe6+ Bxe6 27. Bxg4 Bxg4 28. Rxg4 Rxh5 29. Ne2 Rh2 30. Rf4 Re8 31. Rgf1 f5 32. exf6 Rxe2+ 33. Kxe2 Ng6+ 34. Kd3 Nxf4+ 35. Rxf4 Kf7 36. c4 dxc4+ 37. Kxc4 Re2 38. Kc3 Re6 39. d5 cxd5 40. Rf5 Rxf6 41. Rxd5 Kg6 42. Rd7 Rf7 43. Rd6+ Kg5 44. Rd5+ Kg4 45. Rd1 Rc7+ 0-1

 

Bangiev A – Karolyi T [C34] Kecskemet,/1987

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 h6 4. b3

 

rnbqkbnr

pppp-pp-
-------p
--------
----Pp--
-P---N--
P-PP--PP
RNBQKB-R
A recently popular counter, which meets no effective opposition in this game.

4… d6 5. Bb2 Nf6 6. Nc3 Nc6 7. Qe2 Be7 8. O-O-O O-O

 

r-bq-rk-

ppp-bpp-
--np-n-p
--------
----Pp--
-PN--N--
PBPPQ-PP
--KR-B-R
9. g3 Bg4 10. Qf2 Ne5 11. Be2 fxg3 12. Qxg3 Nh5 13. Qf2 Bxf3 14. Bxf3 Bh4 15. Qf1 Nf4 16. Rg1 c6 17. Bg4 Nfg6 18. Bf5 Bg5 19. Kb1 Ne7 20. d4 N5g6 21. Bc1 Bxc1 22. Kxc1 d5 23. e5 Nxf5 24. Qxf5 Ne7 25. Qg4 g6 26. Rdf1 Qc8 27. Qh4 Nf5 28. Qf6 Kh7 29. Ne2

 

r-q--r--

pp---p-k
--p--Qpp
---pPn--
---P----
-P------
P-P-N--P
--K--RR-
29… Qe6 30. Rxg6 Qxf6 31. Rxf6 Ng7 32. Rxf7 Kg8 33. Rxf8+ Rxf8 34. Rxf8+ Kxf8 35. Kd2 Ne6 36. Ke3 Kf7 37. c4 Nc7 38. Nf4 b5 39. Kd3 a5 40. cxd5 cxd5 41. a4 b4 42. Ke3 Ke8 43. Nd3 Ne6 44. Nc5 Nd8 45. Nd3 Nc6 46. Nf4 Ne7 47. Ne2 Kf7 48. Kf4 Kg6 49. Ng1 Nc6 50. Nf3 Kf7 51. Kf5 Ne7+ 52. Kg4 Ke6 53. Nh4 Nc8 54. Nf5 Nb6 55. Nd6 Nd7 56. Nb5 Nb8 57. Kf4 Nc6 58. h4 Ne7 59. Nd6 Nc6 60. Nf5 h5 61. Kg5 Nxe5 62. Ng7+ Kd6 63. dxe5+ Kxe5 64. Nxh5 Kd4 65. Nf4 Kc3 66. h5 Kxb3 67. h6 Ka2 68. h7 b3 69. Nd3 1-0


Modern Defence (3…d5)

Long thought an effective reply, but I sense players of Black are finding this less promising than other lines. White has two Bishop moves at move 5, and JG claims both are good.

Kinlay,J – Nunn,J [C36] London,/1977

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d5 4. exd5 Nf6 5. Bb5+ c6 6. dxc6 Nxc6 7. d4 Bd6 8. O-O O-O 9. Nbd2 Bg4 10. c3 Bc7 11. Nc4 Ne7 12. Ba4 b5 13. Bxb5 Qd5 14. Na3 Qh5

 

r----rk-

p-b-nppp
-----n--
-B-----q
---P-pb-
N-P--N--
PP----PP
R-BQ-RK-
Nunn is so dangerous with the attack.

15. Bd3 Ned5 16. Nc4 Rae8 17. h3 Ne3 18. Bxe3 fxe3 19. hxg4 Nxg4 20. Nce5 Rxe5 21. dxe5 e2 22. Bxe2 Bb6+ 23. Qd4 Qh6 24. Rae1 Rd8 25. Bc4 Rxd4 0-1

 

Hebden M – Geller E [C36] Moscow,/1986

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 exf4 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bc4 Nxd5 6. O-O Be6 7. Bb3 Be7 8. c4 Nb6 9. d4 Nxc4

 

rn-qk--r

ppp-bppp
----b---
--------
--nP-p--
-B---N--
PP----PP
RNBQ-RK-
10. Bxf4 O-O 11. Qe2 b5 12. Nc3 a6 13. a4 Nc6 14. axb5 Nxd4 15. Nxd4 Qxd4+ 16. Kh1 Rab8 17. Rxa6 Bd6 18. Ra4 Bxf4 19. Bxc4 Qd6 20. Rd1 Qe5 21. Bxe6 fxe6 22. Re4 Qg5 23. g3 Bd6 24. Rxe6 Qf5 25. Kg2 Bc5 26. Rd5 Qf2+ 27. Qxf2 Rxf2+ 28. Kh3 Bd6 29. Re2 Rxe2 30. Nxe2

 

-r----k-

--p---pp
---b----
-P-R----
--------
------PK
-P--N--P
--------
Better for White, but in the end Hebden was struggling to draw.

30… Re8 31. Nc3 Re6 32. Kg2 Kf7 33. Rf5+ Kg6 34. g4 Re3 35. Rh5 h6 36. Kf2 Rd3 37. Ke2 Rd4 38. h3 Rb4 39. Nd1 Kf6 40. Kd3 Be5 41. Nc3 Rxb2 42. Ne4+ Ke6 43. g5 g6 44. Rxh6 Kf5 45. Rh7 Rxb5 46. Rf7+ Ke6 47. Rh7 Rd5+ 48. Ke3 Ra5 49. Kd3 Ra3+ 50. Kc4 Kf5 51. Nc5 Rc3+ 52. Kb4 Rc1 53. Nd7 Bg3 54. Nf6 Rb1+ 55. Kc4 Rh1 56. Kd3 Be5 57. Ng4 Bg3 58. Nf6 Ra1 59. h4 Ra3+ 60. Ke2 Ra4 61. Rf7 Bh2 62. Kf3 Rf4+ 63. Kg2 Rxh4 64. Nh7+ Kg4 65. Nf8 Bd6 66. Nxg6 Rh2+ 67. Kf1 Kxg5 68. Ne7 Rd2 69. Nf5 Bf4 70. Ng7 Q


Schallop Defence (3…Nf6)

An unpopular line, but the games aren’t always as one-sided as this one!

Bangiev A – Podrezov [C34] corres ARG,/1986

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e5 Nh5 5. d4 d5 6. c4 g5 7. g4 Ng7 8. Nc3 Bb4 9. Rg1 h5 10. h3 dxc4 11. Bxc4 c5 12. d5 Nd7 13. Bd2 Nb6 14. Qe2 hxg4 15. hxg4 Bd7 16. a3 Ba5 17. Ne4 Bxd2+ 18. Nfxd2 Qe7 19. d6

 

r---k--r

pp-bqpn-
-n-P----
--p-P-p-
--B-NpP-
P-------
-P-NQ---
R---K-R-
1-0

 


Defence with 3…Nc6

Not a popular line – I could find no games in my database, although/this may be because after 4. Nc3 we are in a line of the Vienna Gambit.

Gallagher,J – Hresc,Vladimir [C34] Gent/ (07), 1991

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Nc3 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng5 h6 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.d4 f3 9.Bc4+ d5 10.Bxd5+ Kg7 11.gxf3 Bb4 12.Be3 Nf6 13.Bc4 Qe7 14.Qe2 gxf3 15.Qxf3 Bg4 16.Rg1 h5 17.e5 Nxe5 18.dxe5 Qxe5 19.0-0-0 Bc5 20.Rd7+ Nxd7 21.Qf7# 1-0

 


Cunningham Variation (3…Be7)

This venerable line is considered a safe way to play for equality.

IbbencanCoRqoBaM1FeRNaNqezGaRciak[C35]banPabman,1987

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7 4. Bc4 Nf6! 5. e5 Ng4 6. O-O Nc6 7. d4 d5 8. exd6 Bxd6

[8…Qxd6 is always the alternative]

9. Qe1+

 

r-bqk--r

ppp--ppp
--nb----
--------
--BP-pn-
-----N--
PPP---PP
RNB-QRK-
9… Kf8 10. Nc3 Bf5 11. Nh4 Qg5 12. Nxf5 Qxf5 13. Qe4 Qxe4 14. Nxe4 Rd8 15. c3 Na5 16. Nxd6 Rxd6 17. Be2 Ne3 18. Rxf4 Re6 19. Bf3 c6 20. b3 Nd5

 

-----k-r

pp---ppp
--p-r---
n--n----
---P-R--
-PP--B--
P-----PP
R-B---K-
21. Ba3+ Kg8 22. Bxd5 cxd5 23. Rf5 Ra6 24. Rxd5 g6 25. Rd7 Nc6 26. Bb2 1-0

 


Fischer Defence (3…d6)

This move was Fischer’s famous “bust”, hatched after a stinging defeat by Spassky. He describes it as a “high-class waiting move”. After some peculiar digressions, players of White have settled on a fair strategy with 4. d4/ 5. h4, although JG suggests an intertesting alternative with 4. Bc4/5. d3.

Gallagher J – Jackson S [C34] GBR-ch/Blackpool, 1988

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. d4 g5 5. h4 g4 6. Ng1 Bh6 7. Nc3 c6 8. Nge2 Qf6 9. g3 f3 10. Nf4 Qe7 11. Bd3 Bg7 12. Be3 h5 13. Qd2 Nd7 14. O-O-O

 

r-b-k-nr

pp-nqpb-
--pp----
-------p
---PPNpP
--NBBpP-
PPPQ----
--KR---R
This is one of those peculiar positions that make the Gambit difficult to get a feel for. Black can make no use of the protected passed Pawn on the sixth(!).

14… Nf8 15. Rhe1 Bd7 16. e5 dxe5 17. dxe5 Ne6 18. Ne4

 

r---k-nr

pp-bqpb-
--p-n---
----P--p
----NNpP
---BBpP-
PPPQ----
--KRR---
White obedience to the principle of centralisation is striking.

18… Bxe5 19. Nxe6 Bxe6 20. Bc5 Qc7 21. Nd6+! Bxd6 22. Rxe6+ Be7 23. Bd6 Qxd6 24. Rxd6 Bxd6

 

r---k-nr

pp---p--
--pb----
-------p
------pP
---B-pP-
PPPQ----
--KR----
25. Ba6 O-O-O 26. Qc3 Ne7 27. Rxd6 bxa6 28. Rf6 Rhf8 29. Qc5 Rd7 30. Qxh5 Rfd8 31. Qxg4 Kb7 32. Qxf3 Nd5 33. Rxf7 Nb6 34. b3 a5 35. h5 a4 36. Kb2 axb3 37. axb3 a5 38. h6 a4 39. h7 axb3 40. cxb3 Ka7 41. Rxd7+

1-0

 

Gallagher J – Lane G [C34] Hastings Masters,/1990

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 h6 5. d3 g5 6. g3

 

rnbqkbnr

ppp--p--
---p---p
------p-
--B-Pp--
---P-NP-
PPP----P
RNBQK--R
A classic undermining.

6… Bh3 7. Nd4 d5 8. exd5 Bg7 9. c3 Bxd4 10. cxd4 Bg2 11. Rg1 f3 12. Be3 Nf6 13. Nc3 O-O 14. Qd2 Re8 15. O-O-O

 

rn-qr-k-

ppp--p--
-----n-p
---P--p-
--BP----
--NPBpP-
PP-Q--bP
--KR--R-
15… Ng4 16. Rge1 Nd7 17. Bg1 Ndf6 18. h4 Rxe1 19. Rxe1 Nh5 20. Ne4 gxh4 21. gxh4 Qxh4 22. d6 cxd6 23. Nxd6 f2 24. Bxf2 Qxf2 25. Bxf7+ Kf8 26. Bxh5 Qxd2+ 27. Kxd2 Nf6 28. Bd1 h5 29. Re6 Ng4 30. Bb3 Rd8 31. Rg6 Ke7 32. Nf5+ Kd7 33. Rg7+ Kc8 34. Rh7 Nf6 35. Rh6 Rf8 36. Ng7 Nd5 37. Bxd5 Bxd5 38. Rxh5 Bxa2 39. Ra5 Bg8 40. Rxa7 Kc7 41. Ra5 Rd8 42. Kc3 Kb6 43. Rc5 Bd5 44. Nf5 Be6 45. Ne3 Bf7 46. Rf5 Bg8 47. Rc5 Bf7 48. Nc4+ Ka7 49. b4 Bg8 50. b5 Bd5 51. b6+ Kb8 52. Rc7 Bg2 53. Ne5 Bh1 54. Nd7+ Ka8 55. Rc5 1-0


Minor Variations accepting the gambit

It is important to have an idea how to proceed after these odd lines.

Schlechter C – Teichmann R [C34] Vienna gt,/1903

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 f5 4. e5 g5 5. d4 g4 6. Bxf4 gxf3 7. Qxf3 Qh4+ 8. g3 Qg4 9. Qe3 Nc6 10. Be2 Qg6 11. Nc3 Bb4 12. d5 Nd8 13. O-O-O h6

 

r-bnk-nr

pppp----
------qp
---PPp--
-b---B--
--N-Q-P-
PPP-B--P
--KR---R
14. g4 Ne7 15. d6 Ne6 16. dxe7 Bc5 17. Qg3 Bxe7 18. gxf5 Qxf5 19. Be3 Bg5 20. Nd5 Bxe3+ 21. Qxe3 Kd8 22. Rhg1 Qf8 23. Rdf1 Qc5 24. Qf3 Rf8

 

r-bk-r--

pppp----
----n--p
--qNP---
--------
-----Q--
PPP-B--P
--K--RR-
25. Rg8 1-0

 

Spassky,Boris – Seirawan,Yasser [C34]/Montpellier ct, 1985

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Ne7 4. d4 d5 5. Nc3 dxe4 6. Nxe4 Ng6 7. h4 Qe7

 

rnb-kb-r

ppp-qppp
------n-
--------
---PNp-P
-----N--
PPP---P-
R-BQKB-R
8. Kf2! Bg4 9. h5 Nh4 10. Bxf4 Nc6 11. Bb5 O-O-O 12. Bxc6 bxc6 13. Qd3 Nxf3 14. gxf3 Bf5 15. Qa6+ Kb8 16. Nc5 Bc8 17. Qxc6 Rxd4 18. Rhe1! Rxf4 19. Qb5+ Ka8 20. Qc6+ Kb8 21. Rxe7 Bxe7 22. Rd1 Rf6 23. Nd7+ Bxd7 24. Qxd7

 

-k-----r

p-pQbppp
-----r--
-------P
--------
-----P--
PPP--K--
---R----
24… Rd8 25. Qb5+ Kc8 26. Rxd8+ Bxd8 27. Qa4 g5 28. Qxa7 Rf4 29. Qa6+ Kb8 30. Qd3 Be7 31. Qxh7 g4 32. Kg3 1-0


Counter-Gambits If the Gambit is not accepted, it is usually met by one of these lines. For years the Falkbeer held centre stage, but White seems to have good chances in the main lines. But the recent fashion has been for 3…c6, attributed to Nimzo.

Falkbeer Counter-Gambit

David Bronstein – Tal,Mikhail [C32] URS-TCH/Riga, 1968

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 e4 4. d3 Nf6 5. dxe4 Nxe4 6. Nf3 Bc5 7. Qe2 Bf5 8. Nc3 Qe7 9. Be3 Nxc3 10. Bxc5 Nxe2 11. Bxe7 Nxf4 12. Ba3 Nd7

r---k--r

pppn-ppp
--------
---P-b--
-----n--
B----N--
PPP---PP
R---KB-R
13. O-O-O Be4 14. Ng5 Bxd5 15. g3!?
[15. Re1++/- ]
15… Bxh1 16. gxf4 c5 17. Bc4 Bc6 18. Nxf7 b5 19. Nd6+ Ke7

r------r

p--nk-pp
--bN----
-pp-----
--B--P--
B-------
PPP----P
--KR----
20. Nxb5 Rhf8 21. Nd4 Bb7 22. Ne6 Rf5 23. Rg1 Be4 24. Nc7?
[24. Re1+- ]
24… Rd8 25. Rxg7+ Kf6 26. Rf7+ Kg6 27. Re7 Nf6 28. Ne6 Rc8 29. b3 Rh5 30. Ng5 Bd5 31. Bd3+ Kh6 32. Bb2 c4 33. Bf5 c3 34. Bxc8 cxb2+ 35. Kxb2 Rxh2 36. Rxa7 Rf2 37. Ra4 Kg6 38. Rd4 h5 39. a4 h4 40. a5 Bg2 41. a6 Nh5 42. Bb7 Nxf4 43. Rxf4 1-0

Nimzovitch Counter-Gambit

Illescas Cordoba M – Nunn J [C31] Dubai ol,/1986

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 c6 4. Nc3 exf4 5. Nf3 Bd6 6. Bc4 Ne7 7. dxc6 Nbxc6 8. d4 O-O 9. O-O Bg4

r--q-rk-

pp--nppp
--nb----
--------
--BP-pb-
--N--N--
PPP---PP
R-BQ-RK-
10. Ne4 Bc7 11. c3 Nd5 12. Nc5 Rb8 13. Qe1 Re8 14. Qh4 Qxh4 15. Nxh4 Ne3 16. Bxe3 Rxe3 17. Rae1 Rxe1 18. Rxe1 g5 19. h3 Bh5 20. Nf5 Bg6 21. Ne7+ Kg7 22. Nxc6 bxc6 23. Na6 Rc8 24. Nxc7 Rxc7 25. Re5 f6 26. Rc5

--------

p-r---kp
--p--pb-
--R---p-
--BP-p--
--P----P
PP----P-
------K-
26… Be4 27. d5 Rd7 28. dxc6 Rc7 29. Bb5 Kf7 30. b4 Ke6 31. a4 Kd6 32. a5 h5 33. h4 Bxc6 34. Bxc6 Rxc6 35. hxg5 fxg5 36. Rxg5 Rxc3 37. Rxh5 Rc4 38. b5 Rc5 39. Rxc5 Kxc5 40. b6 1-0

Spassky,Boris – Polgar,Zsuzsa [C31]/Wellington, 1988

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 c6 4. Nc3 exf4 5. Nf3 Bd6 6. d4 Ne7 7. dxc6 Nbxc6 8. d5?! Nb4 9. Bc4 Bf5 10. Bb3 O-O
[10… Qb6]
11. O-O Bg4 12. Ne4 Nf5 13. c3 Na6 14. Bc2 Bc7 15. Nf2 Bxf3 16. Qxf3 Ne3 17. Bxe3 fxe3 18. Ng4 Qg5 19. Rae1 Rae8 20. Kh1 e2 21. Rxe2 Rxe2 22. Qxe2 Qxd5 23. Bb3 Qd7

-----rk-

ppbq-ppp
n-------
--------
------N-
-BP-----
PP--Q-PP
-----R-K
White has good attacking prospects, not least because Black cannot oppose Bishops.
24. Ne5 Bxe5 25. Qxe5 Nc7 26. h3 Qc8 27. Qe7 Kh8 28. Rxf7 Rxf7 29. Bxf7 b6 30. b4 a5 31. b5 h6 32. a4 Na8 33. Be6 Qb8 34. Bd5 Nc7 35. Bc6 Qc8 36. c4 Na8 37. Qb7 Qxb7 38. Bxb7 Nc7 39. c5 bxc5 40. b6 Ne6 41. Bd5 Nf8 42. Bc6 1-0 Get on with Development

Classical Gambit Declined

This is the safe way to proceed. Short and Speelman slid into this line (from the Vienna) a couple of times in their Candidates’ Match, without Short showing anything special. This is not to say it’s harmless…

Hebden – Lane [C30] London, 1987

1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. Nc3 Nc6?!
It’s got to be worth a punt with the King’s Gambit when a player like Gary Lane can go wrong on move four.
5. Na4 Bb6 6. Bb5 Bd7 7. Nxb6 axb6 8. d3 Qe7 9. O-O Nf6 10. Kh1 h6 11. Qe1 O-O-O 12. a4 exf4 13. Bxf4 Nb8 14. Nd4 c6 15. Qc3 Ne8 16. a5 bxa5 17. Rxa5 Nc7 18. Bc4

-nkr---r

-pnbqpp-
--pp---p
R-------
--BNPB--
--QP----
-PP---PP
-----R-K
18… b5? 19. Bxb5 cxb5 20. Ra7 1-0

Hebden M – Martinovsky E [C30] London op,/1986

1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Bc4 Nc6 6. d3 O-O?! 7. f5

r-bq-rk-

ppp--ppp
--np-n--
--b-pP--
--B-P---
--NP-N--
PPP---PP
R-BQK--R
Another natural-looking move by Black is stamped as a mistake.
7… h6 8. Nd5 Nd4 9. Nxf6+ Qxf6 10. Nxd4 Bxd4 11. c3 Bb6 12. Qh5 c6 13. Rf1

r-b--rk-

pp---pp-
-bpp-q-p
----pP-Q
--B-P---
--PP----
PP----PP
R-B-KR--
13… d5 14. exd5 e4 15. d4 c5 16. g4 e3 17. dxc5 Bxc5 18. Ke2 b5 19. Bd3 Re8 20. g5 hxg5 21. Rf3 Bd7 22. b4 Qxc3 23. Rh3 Kf8 24. bxc5 Qxa1 25. Bxe3 Qxa2+ 26. Kf1 Qa1+ 27. Kf2 Qa2+ 28. Be2 Qxd5 29. Qh8+ Ke7 30. Qxg7 Kd8 31. Qxg5+ Kc8 32. Rh6 Qxf5+ 33. Qxf5 Bxf5 34. Bxb5 Rxe3 35. Kxe3 Rb8 36. Rc6+ Kd8 37. Bc4 Bg6 38. Ra6 Rb7 39. Kd4 Kc7 40. Bd5 Rb4+ 41. Kc3 Rh4 42. Rxa7+ Kb8 43. Re7 Rxh2 44. c6 Rc2+ 45. Kd4 f6 46. Rb7+ Kc8 47. Be6+ Kd8 48. Rd7+ Kc8 49. Rg7+ Kd8 50. Rxg6 Rxc6 51. Bf5 Ke7 52. Rg7+ Kf8 53. Ra7 Rc1 54. Kd5 Re1 55. Kd6 Re2 56. Be6 Rb2 57. Rf7+ Ke8 58. Rxf6 Rb6+ 59. Ke5 Rb5+ 60. Bd5 Ke7 61. Rf7+ Ke8 62. Rf6 Ke7 63. Ra6 Rb1 64. Ra7+ Kf8 65. Be6 Ke8 66. Kf6 Rf1+ 67. Bf5 Kd8 68. Rd7+ Ke8 69. Rd2 Rf3 70. Rc2 1-0

Variation with 2…Nf6

An uncommon line with transpositional possibilities.

Fischer,Robert – Wade,Robert [C30] Vinkovci/Rd: 1, 1968

1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nf6 3.fxe5
[3.Nf3 Nc6 (3…exf4 is the Schallop) ]
3…Nxe4 4.Nf3 Ng5 5.d4 Nxf3+ 6.Qxf3 Qh4+ 7.Qf2 Qxf2+ 8.Kxf2 Nc6 9.c3 d6 10.exd6 Bxd6 11.Nd2 Be6 12.Ne4 Be7 13.Ng5 Bxg5 14.Bxg5 h6 15.Bh4 g5 16.Bg3 0-0-0 17.Bb5 f5 18.Bxc6 bxc6 19.Be5 Rhg8 20.h4 g4 21.h5 g3+ 22.Bxg3 Rg4 23.Rh4 Rdg8 24.Rxg4 Rxg4 25.Re1 Kd7 26.Re5 f4 27.Bh2 Rh4 28.Bg1 Bd5 29.g3 Rg4 30.Bh2 f3 31.b3 a6 32.c4 Rxd4 33.cxd5 Rd2+ 34.Kxf3 Rxh2 35.dxc6+ Kxc6 36.Re6+ Kd7 37.Rxh6 Rxa2 38.Rg6 1-0 Minor Variations declining the Gambit

Keene’s Variation

McDonald N – Bachmayr P [C30] Zug,/1991

1. e4 e5 2. f4 Qh4+
JG recalls advising NM about this move just before the game: “Don’t worry, Neil, nobody plays that line!”
3. g3 Qe7 4. fxe5 d6 5. exd6 Qxe4+ 6. Qe2 Qxe2+ 7. Nxe2 Bxd6 8. Nbc3 c6 9. d3 Nf6 10. Bg5 Nbd7 11. Bg2 h6 12. Bf4 Bxf4 13. Nxf4

r-b-k--r

pp-n-pp-
--p--n-p
--------
-----N--
--NP--P-
PPP---BP
R---K--R
13… O-O [13… Nc5] 14. b4! Re8+ 15. Kd2 Ne5 16. b5 Bg4 17. bxc6 bxc6 18. h3 Bf3 19. Rhf1 Bxg2 20. Nxg2 Rad8 21. Rae1 c5 22. Rf5

---rr-k-

p----pp-
-----n-p
--p-nR--
--------
--NP--PP
P-PK--N-
----R---
22… Nc4+ 23. Kd1 Rxe1+ 24. Kxe1 Re8+ 25. Kf2 Ne5 26. Ne3 Re6 27. Rf4!
with the exchange of Rooks the active White Knights and weak Black Pawns add up to a difficult game for Black.
27… Ra6 28. Ra4 Rxa4 29. Nxa4 Ned7 30. Nc4 Nd5 31. a3 Nc7 32. Nd6 Kf8 33. Ke3 a6 34. Nb7 Nb5 35. Naxc5 Nxc5 36. Nxc5 Nxa3 37. c4 Nc2+ 38. Kd2 Nb4 39. Kc3 a5 40. d4 Nc6 41. d5 Ne5 42. Kd4 f6 43. d6 h5 44. Kd5 Ke8 45. Ke6 1-0

Bucker’s Variation

Jenal J – Grossen K [C30] corres EUR,/1987

1.e4 e5 2.f4 Qf6

rnb-kbnr

pppp-ppp
-----q--
----p---
----PP--
--------
PPPP--PP
RNBQKBNR
An entertaining punt from the Vulture man.
3.Nc3 Qxf4
[4.d4 Qh4+ 5.g3 Qd8 6.dxe5 Nc6 7.Nf3 d6 8.Bg5 f6 9.exf6 gxf6 10.Bf4 Bg4 11.Be2 Qd7 12.Nh4 Bxe2 13.Qxe2 0-0-0 14.0-0-0 Nge7 … (62) 1-0 Berthelot Y – Bucker S [C30] Eger op, 1989]
4.Bc4 Bb4 5.Nf3 Bxc3 6.0-0 f6 7.dxc3 Qg4 8.Bf7+ Ke7 9.Qd5 c6 10.Qb3 Nh6 11.h3 Qg3 12.Bh5 g6 13.Bxh6 gxh5 14.Ng5 1-0

The ideas behind the King’s Gambit

tSlDjLsT
XxXx+xXx
-+-+-+-+
+-+-X-+-
-+-+pP-+
+-+-+-+-
pPpP-+pP
RnBqKbNr

Introduction

Play through games here:

The King’s Gambit has a romantic reputation which is both
attractive and misleading. It has had a romantic history, but has
not passed through chess history unchanged. On the contrary, each
generation has had its own opinions and favourite variations, and
the King’s Gambit has evolved into a fully modern opening. It does
have some peculiarities, but this makes it a useful hunting ground
for the specialists like Joe Gallagher and the Spanish GM Illescas.
But Nunn and Short have also dabbled with it, and its virtues have
been defended in correspondence play by Bangiev.

  Below, I will introduce the main ideas for each side, but
try to draw out some of the development of modern positional
ideas.

 


Ideas for White


The King’s-side attack


MacDonnell Alexander – De la Bourdonnais
Louis [C37] London m 54, 1834

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. Nc3 gxf3 6. Qxf3
Bh6 7. d4 Nc6 8. O-O

 

t+lDj+sT
XxXx+x+x
-+s+-+-L
+-+-+-+-
-+bPpX-+
+-N-+q+-
pPp+-+pP
R-B-+rK-

8… Nxd4 9. Bxf7+ Kxf7 10. Qh5+ Kg7 11. Bxf4 Bxf4 12. Rxf4
Nf6 13. Qg5+ Kf7 14. Raf1

 

t+lD-+-T
XxXx+j+x
-+-+-S-+
+-+-+-Q-
-+-SpR-+
+-N-+-+-
pPp+-+pP
+-+-+rK-

14… Ke8 15. Rxf6 Qe7 16. Nd5 Qc5 17. Kh1 Ne6 18. Rxe6+
dxe6 19. Nf6+ 1-0

  Great panache from the legendary Scot.


The King’s-side attack: the open
f-file


Spielmann R – Tarrasch S [C30] Karlsbad,
1923

1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. c3 Bg4 5. fxe5 dxe5 6. Qa4+
Bd7 7. Qc2 Nc6 8. b4 Bd6 9. Bc4 Nf6 10. d3 Ne7 11. O-O Ng6 12. Be3
b5 13. Bb3 a5 14. a3 axb4 15. cxb4 O-O 16. Nc3 c6 17. h3 Qe7 18.
Ne2 Bb8 19. Kh2 Ba7 20. Bg5 h6 21. Bxf6 Qxf6 22. Nfd4 Qd6 23. Nf5
Bxf5 24. Rxf5

 

t+-+-Tj+
L-+-+xX-
-+xD-+sX
+x+-Xr+-
-P-+p+-+
Pb+p+-+p
-+q+n+pK
R-+-+-+-

24… Nf4 25. Rf1 g6 26. R1xf4 exf4 27. e5 Qe7 28. Rf6 Kg7
29. d4 Bxd4 30. Bxf7 Bxe5 31. Qxg6+ 1-0

 


The King’s-side attack: vulnerable f7
point


Bronstein,David – Dubinin 15th USSR Champ
(??), 1947

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 h5 6. Bc4 Rh7
7. d4 Bh6 8. Nc3 Nc6

 

t+lDj+s+
XxXx+x+t
-+s+-+-L
+-+-N-+x
-+bPpXxP
+-N-+-+-
pPp+-+p+
R-BqK-+r

9. Nxf7 Rxf7 10. Bxf7+ Kxf7 11. Bxf4 Bxf4 12. O-O Qxh4 13.
Rxf4+ Kg7 14. Qd2 d6 15. Raf1 Nd8 16. Nd5 Bd7

 

t+-S-+s+
XxXl+-J-
-+-X-+-+
+-+n+-+x
-+-PpRxD
+-+-+-+-
pPpQ-+p+
+-+-+rK-

17. e5 dxe5 18. dxe5 Bc6 19. e6 Bxd5 20. Rf7+ Nxf7 21.
Rxf7+ Kh8 22. Qc3+ Nf6 23. Rxf6 Qxf6 24. Qxf6+ Kh7 25. Qf5+ Kh6 26.
Qxd5 Kg6 27. Qd7

1-0


The central majority


Bangiev A – Podrezov [C34] corres ARG,
1986

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e5 Nh5 5. d4 d5 6. c4 g5
7. g4 Ng7 8. Nc3 Bb4 9. Rg1 h5 10. h3 dxc4 11. Bxc4 c5 12. d5 Nd7
13. Bd2 Nb6 14. Qe2 hxg4 15. hxg4 Bd7 16. a3 Ba5 17. Ne4 Bxd2+ 18.
Nfxd2 Qe7 19. d6

 

t+-+j+-T
Xx+lDxS-
-S-P-+-+
+-X-P-X-
-+b+nXp+
P-+-+-+-
-P-Nq+-+
R-+-K-R-

1-0


The King’s Gambit Endgame

King’s Gambit endgames sometimes seem to be a law unto themselves,
with Black often having an extra Pawn they can’t make use of –
namely, a backward f-Pawn. White may have some returns for the Pawn
in central control and extra piece activity, and out of these a win
can be spun. These are of course all good general positional
principles, rather than anything peculiar to the gambit, it’s just
that entering an ending a Pawn up is usually more promising!


Spassky B – Matanovic A [C32] Belgrade,
1964

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 e4 4. d3 Nf6 5. dxe4 Nxe4 6. Be3
Qh4+ 7. g3 Nxg3 8. Nf3

 

tSl+jL-T
XxX-+xXx
-+-+-+-+
+-+p+-+-
-+-+-P-D
+-+-BnS-
pPp+-+-P
Rn+qKb+r

8… Qe7 9. hxg3 Qxe3+ 10. Qe2 Qxe2+ 11. Bxe2

 

tSl+jL-T
XxX-+xXx
-+-+-+-+
+-+p+-+-
-+-+-P-+
+-+-+nP-
pPp+b+-+
Rn+-K-+r

Black has two Bishops but White has better central control, better
development and will find good posts for the Knights. The upshot is
that White can make better progress with his Pawn majority.

11… Bg4 12. Nc3 Bb4 13. Ng5 Bxe2 14. Kxe2 Bxc3
15. bxc3 h6 16. Kd3 Rf8 17. Nf3 Na6 18. Rae1+ Kd7 19. c4 f6 20. Kd4
b6 21. f5 Nc5 22. Nh4 Rfe8 23. Re6!

 

t+-+t+-+
X-Xj+-X-
-X-+rX-X
+-Sp+p+-
-+pK-+-N
+-+-+-P-
p+p+-+-+
+-+-+-+r

23… g5 24. Ng6

[24. Ng2 Nxe6+ 25. fxe6+ Ke7 26. Ne3 Rh8 27.
g4]

24… Nxe6+ 25. fxe6+ Rxe6 26. dxe6+ Kxe6 27.
Rxh6 Kf7 28. Ne5+ fxe5+ 29. Kxe5 c5 30. Kf5 Ke7 31. Kxg5 Rf8 32.
Rh2 Kd6 33. g4 Rg8+ 34. Kf4 Rf8+ 35. Kg3 Ke5 36. Re2+ Kd4 37. g5
Kxc4 38. Kg4 Kc3 39. g6 c4 40. Kg5 b5 41. g7 Q

 


Ideas for Black


The vulnerable White King


LaBourdonnais L – Cochrane J [C37] Paris,
1821

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. Ne5 Qh4+ 6. Kf1
f3 7. g3 Qh3+ 8. Kf2 Qg2+ 9. Ke3

 

tSl+jLsT
XxXx+x+x
-+-+-+-+
+-+-N-+-
-+b+p+x+
+-+-KxP-
pPpP-+dP
RnBq+-+r

9… Bh6+ 10. Kd3 d5 11. Bxd5 Na6 12. c3 c6 13. Bxf7+ Ke7
14. Bb3 Nc5+ 15. Kc2 Nxe4 16. Qf1 Bf5 17. Qxg2 Nf2+ 18. d3 fxg2 19.
Rg1 Rd8

 

-+-T-+sT
Xx+-J-+x
-+x+-+-L
+-+-Nl+-
-+-+-+x+
+bPp+-P-
pPk+-SxP
RnB-+-R-

20. Bxh6 Nxh6 21. Rxg2 Nxd3 22. Nxd3 Bxd3+ 23. Kc1 Rhf8 24.
Nd2 Nf5 25. Bd1 Ne3 26. Rg1 Bf1 27. b3 Rf2

 

-+-T-+-+
Xx+-J-+x
-+x+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+-+x+
+pP-S-P-
p+-N-T-P
R-Kb+lR-

28. Rxf1 Nxf1 29. Nxf1 Rxd1+ 30. Kxd1 Rxf1+ 0-1


The vulnerable White King’s diagonal
e1-h4

tSlDjLsT
XxXx+xXx
-+-+-+-+
+-+-X-+-
-+-+pP-+
+-+-+-+-
pPpP-+pP
RnBqKbNr

We can see this in its simplest form in the Classical:
2…Bc5 3. fxe5?? and 3…Qh4+ reminds
White that the f-Pawn opens up the King’s-side with risks for both
Kings. This isWhy White nearly always plays 3.
Nf3,
or, if not, a move of the Queen or Bishop to create a
flight square.

  A more complex instance of the same thing is seen in the
Cunningham:

 

tSlDj+sT
XxXxLxXx
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+pX-+
+-+-+n+-
pPpP-+pP
RnBqKb+r

Now 4. Nc3 Bh4+ and we have more trouble for the
King (by no means fatal here).

4. Bc4 and now rather than snatch at the
check, 4..Nf6! (Euwe) and now 5. e5
Ng4!
, with 6. h3 being ruled out because of the
vulnerable diagonal.


Hang on to the f-Pawn


Kinlay,J – Nunn,J [C36] London,
1977

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d5 4. exd5 Nf6 5. Bb5+ c6 6.
dxc6 Nxc6 7. d4 Bd6 8. O-O O-O 9. Nbd2 Bg4 10. c3 Bc7 11. Nc4 Ne7
12. Ba4 b5 13. Bxb5 Qd5 14. Na3 Qh5

 

t+-+-Tj+
X-L-SxXx
-+-+-S-+
+b+-+-+d
-+-P-Xl+
N-P-+n+-
pP-+-+pP
R-Bq+rK-

The play on the Queen’s-side has distracted White’s pieces, and the
f-Pawn forms the apex of a King’s-side attack.

15. Bd3 Ned5 16. Nc4 Rae8 17. h3 Ne3 18. Bxe3
fxe3 19. hxg4 Nxg4 20. Nce5 Rxe5 21. dxe5 e2 22. Bxe2 Bb6+ 23. Qd4
Qh6 24. Rae1 Rd8 25. Bc4 Rxd4 0-1

 


Central counter


Spielmann,R – Bogoljubov,E [C33] Carlsbad,
1923

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Nc3 c6 5. d4 Bb4 6. Qf3
d5!

  In so many King’s-Pawn openings, this is the recipe for
Black.

7. exd5 O-O 8. Nge2 cxd5 9. Bd3 Bg4

 

tS-D-Tj+
Xx+-+xXx
-+-+-S-+
+-+x+-+-
-L-P-Xl+
+-Nb+q+-
pPp+n+pP
R-B-K-+r

10. Qxf4 Bxe2 11. Kxe2 Nc6 12. Be3 Re8 13. Rhf1 Qe7 14. Rf3
Rad8 15. Kf1 Rd6 16. Qh4

 

-+-+t+j+
Xx+-DxXx
-+sT-S-+
+-+x+-+-
-L-P-+-Q
+-NbBr+-
pPp+-+pP
R-+-+k+-

The game approaches its crisis.

16… Bxc3 17. Bg5 Bxd4! 18. Bxf6 Qxf6 19. Qxh7+
Kf8 0-1

 


Return the Pawn for development
(counter-sacrifice)


Hartston,William – Spassky,Boris [C36]
Hastings, 1966

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d5 4. exd5 Nf6 5. Bb5+ c6 6.
dxc6 Nxc6 7. d4 Bd6 8. Qe2+ Be6

 

t+-Dj+-T
Xx+-+xXx
-+sLlS-+
+b+-+-+-
-+-P-X-+
+-+-+n+-
pPp+q+pP
RnB-K-+r

Black has developed with lightning speed.

9. Ne5 O-O 10. Bxc6 bxc6 11. Bxf4 Nd5 12. Bg3 f6
13. Nf3 Bxg3+ 14. hxg3 Re8

 

t+-Dt+j+
X-+-+-Xx
-+x+lX-+
+-+s+-+-
-+-P-+-+
+-+-+nP-
pPp+q+p+
Rn+-K-+r

White’s development still lags.

15. Kf2 Bf5 16. Qc4 Kh8 17. Nc3 Ne3 18. Qc5 Ng4+
19. Kg1 Qd7 20. Rf1 Bxc2 21. Rh4 Ne3 22. Rc1 g5 23. Rh6 Bg6 24. Na4
Ng4 25. Rh3 Qe6 26. Qc3 Qxa2 27. Nc5 Re3 28. Qd2 Rae8
0-1


The flight to the Queen’s-side


Rubinstein A – Hromadka K [C30] Mahrisch
Ostrau, 1923

1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. d3
Bg4 7. h3 Bxf3 8. Qxf3 Nd4 9. Qg3 Qe7 10. fxe5 dxe5 11. Kd1 c6 12.
a4 Rg8 13. Rf1 h6 14. Ne2 O-O-O

 

-+jT-+t+
Xx+-DxX-
-+x+-S-X
+-L-X-+-
p+bSp+-+
+-+p+-Qp
-Pp+n+p+
R-Bk+r+-

Although in this game Black falls prey to Rubinstein’s mastery, the
switch must always be anticipated by White.

15. Nxd4 Bxd4 16. c3 Bb6 17. a5 Bc7 18. Be3 Kb8
19. Kc2 Ka8 20. Rf3 Nd5 21. Bg1 Nf4 22. Qf2 Bb8 23. g3 Nxh3 24.
Rxf7 Qd6

 

jL-T-+t+
Xx+-+rX-
-+xD-+-X
P-+-X-+-
-+b+p+-+
+-Pp+-Ps
-Pk+-Q-+
R-+-+-B-

And a blow long anticipated by White makes fitting use of the
f-file invasion:

25. Qb6 Rd7 26. Bc5 Rxf7 27. Bxd6 Rf2+ 28. Qxf2
Nxf2 29. Bc5 1-0

 

 


The development of the King’s
Gambit


The Romantic King’s Gambit

The playing-over of games like these is always a pleasure.


Anderssen,A – Kieseritzky,L [C33] London
“Immortal game”, 1851

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Qh4+ 4. Kf1 b5 5. Bxb5 Nf6 6.
Nf3 Qh6
[6… Qh5] 7. d3 (?) [7. Nc3]
7… Nh5 (?) [7… Bc5] 8. Nh4?
[8. Rg1 /\ 9.g4 8… Qb6 9. Nc3 c6 10. Bc4 Qc5 11. Qe2+- ] but not
[8. Ke2?! Qb6 9. Nc3 c6 10. Bc4 Ba6and ] 8… Qg5
[8… g6] 9. Nf5 c6 (?) [9… g6] 10.
g4?
[10. Ba4] 10… Nf6 (?) [10… g6]
11. Rg1 cxb5? [11… d5?][11… h5] 12.
h4
[12. Qf3? h5]12… Qg6 13. h5 Qg5

[13… Nxh5? 14. gxh5 Qf6 15. Nc3 Bb7 16. Bxf4 g6 17.
Nxb5+- ]

14. Qf3 Ng8

[14… Nxg4 Euwe 15. Rxg4 Qxh5 16. Bxf4+- ]

15. Bxf4 Qf6 [15… Qd8 Reti]
16. Nc3 Bc5

 

tSl+j+sT
X-+x+xXx
-+-+-D-+
+xL-+n+p
-+-+pBp+
+-Np+q+-
pPp+-+-+
R-+-+kR-

17. Nd5 (?)
17.d4! /\ 18.Nd5
17… Qxb2 18. Bd6?

[18. d4][18. Be3][18. Re1]

18… Bxg1 19. e5 Qxa1+

[19… Ba6 20. Nc7+ Kd8 21. Nxa6 Qxa1+ [21…
Bb6 22. Qxa8 Qxc2 23. Qxb8++- ] 22. Ke2]

20. Ke2

 

tSl+j+sT
X-+x+xXx
-+-B-+-+
+x+nPn+p
-+-+-+p+
+-+p+q+-
p+p+k+-+
D-+-+-L-

1-0

 


Rosanes,J – Anderssen,A [C39] Breslau,
1863

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5

 

tSlDjLsT
XxXx+x+x
-+-+-+-+
+-+-N-+-
-+-+pXxP
+-+-+-+-
pPpP-+p+
RnBqKb+r

5… Nf6 6. Bc4 d5 7. exd5 Bd6 8. d4 Nh5 9. Bb5+?

[9. Nc3! Qe7!] or [9. O-O!]

9… c6 10. dxc6 bxc6 11. Nxc6 Nxc6 12. Bxc6+
Kf8!

 

t+lD-J-T
X-+-+x+x
-+bL-+-+
+-+-+-+s
-+-P-XxP
+-+-+-+-
pPp+-+p+
RnBqK-+r

[12… Bd7 13. Bxd7+ Qxd7 14. O-O]

13. Bxa8 Ng3 14. Rh2 [14. Kf2!]
14… Bf5 15. Bd5 Kg7 16. Nc3 Re8+ 17. Kf2 Qb6 18.
Na4

[18. a4 Be5 19. Nb5 a6-/+ ]

18… Qa6 19. Nc3

[19. c4 Qxa4 20. Qxa4 Re2+ 21. Kg1 Re1+ 22. Kf2
Rf1##]

19… Be5

 

-+-+t+-+
X-+-+xJx
d+-+-+-+
+-+bLl+-
-+-P-XxP
+-N-+-S-
pPp+-KpR
R-Bq+-+-

20. a4

[20. dxe5 Qb6+ 21. Ke1 Qg1+ 22. Kd2 Qe3##]

20… Qf1+!! 21. Qxf1 Bxd4+ 22. Be3 Rxe3 23. Kg1
Re1## 0-1

 


The Classical King’s Gambit

This is not to say that nineteenth-century games were without
science. As well as being spiced with a fiery imagination, the
Gambit of this era was also tempered and hardened with cold
reasoning.

 


Morphy,P – Medley,G, London, 1858

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 Nf6 6. Bc4 d5
7. exd5 Bd6 8. d4 Nh5

 

tSlDj+-T
XxX-+x+x
-+-L-+-+
+-+pN-+s
-+bP-XxP
+-+-+-+-
pPp+-+p+
RnBqK-+r

9. Nc3!

  Morphy so often showed how the correct path in an opening
was to ignore the immediate attack in favour of development.

[9. Bb5+ trying to force a win, was previously
played]

9… Bf5 10. Ne2 Qf6 11. Nxf4 Ng3 12. Nh5 Nxh5
13. Bg5 Bb4+ 14. c3 Qd6 15. O-O Ng7

 

tS-+j+-T
XxX-+xSx
-+-D-+-+
+-+pNlB-
-LbP-+xP
+-P-+-+-
pP-+-+p+
R-+q+rK-

16. Rxf5 Nxf5 17. Qxg4 Ne7 18. Re1 h5 19. Qf3 Rh7 20. Bb5+
c6 21. dxc6 bxc6 22. Nxc6 Nbxc6 23. Bxc6+ … 1-0

 


Steinitz V – Zukertort I [C39] it,
1882

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 Nf6 6. Bc4 d5
7. exd5 Bg7 8. Nc3 O-O 9. d4 Nh5 10. Ne2 c5

 

tSlD-Tj+
Xx+-+xLx
-+-+-+-+
+-XpN-+s
-+bP-XxP
+-+-+-+-
pPp+n+p+
R-BqK-+r

This is a move of Paulsen’s, whose positional sense was
surprisingly modern. The motive is to break up the White centre,
which here crashes with disastrous results for the White King.

11. c3 cxd4 12. cxd4 Nd7 13. Nxd7 Bxd7 14. Qd3
Rc8 15. Nxf4 Re8+ 16. Kd1 b5

 

-+tDt+j+
X-+l+xLx
-+-+-+-+
+x+p+-+s
-+bP-NxP
+-+q+-+-
pP-+-+p+
R-Bk+-+r

17. Nxh5 bxc4 18. Qa3 Bxd4 19. Bd2 Qb6 20. Bc3 Re3 21.
Re1

 

-+t+-+j+
X-+l+x+x
-D-+-+-+
+-+p+-+n
-+xL-+xP
Q-B-T-+-
pP-+-+p+
R-+kR-+-

21… Bxc3 22. Rxe3 Qxe3 23. bxc3 Qg1+ 24. Kd2 Qxg2+ 25.
Ke3 Re8+ 26. Kd4 Qe4+ 27. Kc5 Qe7+ 28. d6 Qe5+ 29. Kxc4 Qe4+ 30.
Kb3 Rb8+ 31. Qb4 Rxb4+ 32. cxb4 Qd3+ 33. Kb2 Qd4+ 0-1

 


Steinitz W – Schlechter C [C39] Vienna,
1897

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 Bg7 6. d4 Nf6
7. Bc4 d5 8. exd5 O-O 9. Nc3 Nh5 10. Ne2 c5

 

tSlD-Tj+
Xx+-+xLx
-+-+-+-+
+-XpN-+s
-+bP-XxP
+-+-+-+-
pPp+n+p+
R-BqK-+r

A few years later, Steinitz, and the Gambit, have moved on. The
next move, due to Blackburne, abandons the centre in order to
dispose of the f-Pawn and exploit the loose Black set-up.

11. Nxf4 Ng3 12. Ne6 fxe6 13. dxe6 Bxe6 14. Bxe6+
Kh8 15. Qxg4 Nxh1 16. Be3

 

tS-D-T-J
Xx+-+-Lx
-+-+b+-+
+-X-N-+-
-+-P-+qP
+-+-B-+-
pPp+-+p+
R-+-K-+s

16… cxd4 17. Bxd4 Qxd4! 18. Qxd4 Nc6 19. Nxc6 bxc6? 20.
Qc4 Rab8 21. O-O-O! Bxb2+ 22. Kd2 Nf2 23. Rb1 Rbd8+ 24. Ke2 Bg7 25.
Rb7! Rd4 26. Qxc6 Re4+ 27. Kd2 Rd4+ 28. Ke3 Nd1+ 29. Ke2 Bh6 30.
Bf7! Rdd8 31. Qxh6 1-0

“A fascinating game, and because of its surprising
twists, quite foreign to present-day play. … We can appreciate
the ability of the old-time masters to assess far quicker than we
are able today, a sound evaluation of intricate variations of this
nature.” — Konig.


The Modern King’s Gambit

In the last Gambit tournament in 1914 the King’s Gambit was not
played once. Had the opening died?

  Rubinstein, the arch-classicist, Reti, the
hypermodernist, and Spielmann, the last Romantic, were invited to
revise the Larobok i Schach after the war. They thought
they had only to add a few wrinkles to the old lines, but found
that many lines were incompatible with the new views of the centre.
Rubinstein in particular took up the variation to defend his
conclusions in practice, and added many brilliancies to the canon
of the Gambit. The Swede Stoltz read and believed…


Stoltz,G – Samisch,Fritz [C39] Swinemunde,
1932

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 Nf6

 

tSlDjL-T
XxXx+x+x
-+-+-S-+
+-+-N-+-
-+-+pXxP
+-+-+-+-
pPpP-+p+
RnBqKb+r

6. d4

  Rubinstein concluded that this was the correct way to
proceed, although the move was known to Philidor.

[6. Bc4, played previously, is met of course by
6…d5]

6… d6 7. Nd3 Nxe4 8. Bxf4 Qe7 9. Qe2 Bg7 10. c3
h5 11. Nd2! Nxd2 12. Kxd2 Qxe2+ 13. Bxe2 Bf5 14. Rhf1
Nd7

 

t+-+j+-T
XxXs+xL-
-+-X-+-+
+-+-+l+x
-+-P-BxP
+-Pn+-+-
pP-Kb+p+
R-+-+r+-

Despite the Queen exhange, the attack thunders on.

15. Nb4 Nf6 16. Bb5+ Bd7 17. Rae1+ Kd8 18. Bg5
Bxb5 19. Rxf6 1-0


Rubinstein,Akiba – Yates,Frederick [C34]
Hastings, 1922

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6.
Nxd5 Qxd5 7. d4 Be7 8. Bd3 g5 9. Qe2 Bf5 10. Bxf5 Qxf5

 

tS-+j+-T
XxX-Lx+x
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+dX-
-+-P-X-+
+-+-+n+-
pPp+q+pP
R-B-K-+r

11. g4!? Qd7 12. Bd2 Nc6 13. O-O-O O-O-O 14. h4 f6 15. c4
Qxg4?! 16. hxg5 fxg5 17. d5 Nb4 18. Qxe7 Nd3+ 19. Kc2 Qxf3 20. Qe6+
Kb8 21. Rh3

 

-J-T-+-T
XxX-+-+x
-+-+q+-+
+-+p+-X-
-+p+-X-+
+-+s+d+r
pPkB-+-+
+-+r+-+-

21… Qxd1+ 22. Kxd1 Nf2+ 23. Ke1 Nxh3 24. Qxh3 h5 25. Bc3
g4 26. Qh4 Rhg8 27. Qxh5 g3 28. Bd4 Rde8+ 29. Kd2 Ref8 30. d6 cxd6
31. Qh6 Ka8 32. Qxd6 Rd8 33. Qc5

 

j+-T-+t+
Xx+-+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-Q-+-+-
-+pB-X-+
+-+-+-X-
pP-K-+-+
+-+-+-+-

33… Rxd4+ 34. Qxd4 g2 35. Qg1 Rg3 36. b4 a6 37. Ke2 f3+
1/2-1/2

 


The Contemporary King’s Gambit

Our understanding of the positional ideas behind the Gambit has not
advanced much, but progress continues to be made. The positional
advantages that the Gambit offers can be pursued through modern
endgame technique as well as if they arose through any other
opening (Bronstein-Ragozin), and the sundry variations are by no
means exhausted.

  So these days, you can play to out-prepare
(Hebden-Geller) or out-play (Polgar-Flear) your opponent. Even if
the preparation goes astray (Spassky-Fischer), the win for Black
will not be always a matter for technique, as the game remains open
and complex.

 


Bronstein D I – Ragosin V [C36] izt,
1948

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 exf4 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bb5+
Nbd7?!

  A failure of nerve.

6. O-O Nxd5 7. c4 N5f6 8. d4 Be7 9. Bxf4 O-O 10.
Ba4 Nb6 11. Bb3 Bg4 12. Nc3 c6 13. Qd2

 

t+-D-Tj+
Xx+-LxXx
-Sx+-S-+
+-+-+-+-
-+pP-Bl+
+bN-+n+-
pP-Q-+pP
R-+-+rK-

13… a5 14. a3 a4 15. Ba2 Nbd7 16. Rae1 Re8 17. Ng5 Bh5
18. Kh1 Bg6 19. Nf3 Nh5 20. Be3 Qc7 21. Qd1 Qa5 22. Bd2 Qa7 23. c5
b6 24. Bg5 Bxg5 25. Nxg5 Nhf6!? 26. Rxe8+ Rxe8 27. Qxa4 Qxa4 28.
Nxa4 bxc5 29. dxc5 Re2 30. Bc4 Rc2 31. Bb3 Re2 32. Nf3 Ne4 33. Bd1
Re3 34. Kg1 Ndxc5 35. Nxc5 Nxc5 36. Re1 Rxe1+ 37. Nxe1

 

-+-+-+j+
+-+-+xXx
-+x+-+l+
+-S-+-+-
-+-+-+-+
P-+-+-+-
-P-+-+pP
+-+bN-K-

37… Kf8 38. Kf2 Ke7 39. Ke3 Kd6 40. b4 Na6 41. Be2 Nc7
42. Nf3 Nd5+ 43. Kd4 Nf4 44. Bf1 f6 45. Nd2 Ne6+ 46. Kc3 Nc7 47.
Nc4+ Ke7 48. Nb6 Nb5+ 49. Kb2 Bf5 50. a4 Na7 51. Kc3 h5 52. Kd4 Kd6
53. Nc4+ Kc7 54. Kc5 Bd7 55. Nd6 h4 56. Be2 f5 57. g3 hxg3 58. hxg3
Nc8 59. Nxc8 Bxc8 60. Bf3 Bb7 61. a5 g5 62. Bg2 f4 63. gxf4 gxf4
64. Bf3 Ba6 65. Bxc6 Be2 66. b5 f3 67. a6

 

-+-+-+-+
+-J-+-+-
p+b+-+-+
+pK-+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+x+-
-+-+l+-+
+-+-+-+-

[67. a6 f2 68. b6+ Kd8 69. a7 f1=Q 70. a8=Q+ Ke7 71. Qe8+ Kf6
72. Qf8+ Kg5 73. Qxf1 Bxf1 74. b7]

1-0

 


Hebden M – Geller E [C36] Moscow,
1986

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 exf4 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bc4 Nxd5 6.
O-O Be6 7. Bb3 Be7 8. c4 Nb6 9. d4 Nxc4

 

tS-Dj+-T
XxX-LxXx
-+-+l+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+sP-X-+
+b+-+n+-
pP-+-+pP
RnBq+rK-

10. Bxf4 O-O?! 11. Qe2 b5 12. Nc3 a6 13. a4! Nc6
14. axb5 Nxd4 15. Nxd4 Qxd4+ 16. Kh1 Rab8 17. Rxa6 Bd6 18. Ra4!
Bxf4 19. Bxc4 Qd6 20. Rd1 Qe5 21. Bxe6 fxe6 22. Re4 Qg5 23. g3 Bd6
24. Rxe6 Qf5 25. Kg2 Bc5 26. Rd5 Qf2+ 27. Qxf2 Rxf2+ 28. Kh3 Bd6
29. Re2 Rxe2 30. Nxe2

 

-T-+-+j+
+-X-+-Xx
-+-L-+-+
+p+r+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-Pk
-P-+n+-P
+-+-+-+-

This is better for White, although by the end Mark was fighting for
a draw.

30… Re8 31. Nc3 Re6 32. Kg2 Kf7 33. Rf5+ Kg6
34. g4 Re3 35. Rh5 h6 36. Kf2 Rd3 37. Ke2 Rd4 38. h3 Rb4 39. Nd1
Kf6 40. Kd3 Be5 41. Nc3 Rxb2 42. Ne4+ Ke6 43. g5 g6 44. Rxh6 Kf5
45. Rh7 Rxb5 46. Rf7+ Ke6 47. Rh7 Rd5+ 48. Ke3 Ra5 49. Kd3 Ra3+ 50.
Kc4 Kf5 51. Nc5 Rc3+ 52. Kb4 Rc1 53. Nd7 Bg3 54. Nf6 Rb1+ 55. Kc4
Rh1 56. Kd3 Be5 57. Ng4 Bg3 58. Nf6 Ra1 59. h4 Ra3+ 60. Ke2 Ra4 61.
Rf7 Bh2 62. Kf3 Rf4+ 63. Kg2 Rxh4 64. Nh7+ Kg4 65. Nf8 Bd6 66. Nxg6
Rh2+ 67. Kf1 Kxg5 68. Ne7 Rd2 69. Nf5 Bf4 70. Ng7
1/2-1/2

 


Polgar,J – Flear,C [C33] Hastings/SW,11,22,
1989

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Nf6

After 3…d5 the Polgars have been playing 4. exd5,
getting into a line of the Modern Defence.

4. d3

 

tSlDjL-T
XxXx+xXx
-+-+-S-+
+-+-+-+-
-+b+pX-+
+-+p+-+-
pPp+-+pP
RnBqK-Nr

This modest move intends to reach a playable middlegame with an
extra central Pawn. Black is objectively equal but can be
outplayed.

4… d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. Nf3 Nb6 7. Bb3 Bd6 8.
Qe2+ Qe7 9. Nc3 Bg4 10. Qxe7+ Kxe7 11. Ne4 Bxf3 12. gxf3 Nc6 13.
Nxd6 cxd6 14. Bxf4 Nd4 15. Kf2 Nxb3 16. axb3 a6 17. Ra5 Kd7 18. b4
Rhe8 19. c4 Re6 20. b5 axb5 21. Rxb5 Kc6 22. Rc1 Ra2

 

-+-+-+-+
+x+-+xXx
-SjXt+-+
+r+-+-+-
-+p+-B-+
+-+p+p+-
tP-+-K-P
+-R-+-+-

23. Rb3! Nd7 24. d4 Rf6 25. Bg3 b6 26. Re1 d5 27. cxd5+
Kxd5 28. Re7 Kc4 29. Rc3+ Kb4 30. Rc2 Kb3 31. Rd2 Ra7 32. d5 b5 33.
d6 Rf5 34. Rd3+ Kc2 35. Rc3+ Kxb2 36. Rc7 1-0

 


Spassky,Boris – Fischer,Robert (2) [C39] Mar
del Plata, 1960

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 Nf6 6. d4 d6
7. Nd3 Nxe4 8. Bxf4 Bg7 9. Nc3?! Nxc3 10. bxc3 c5

 

tSlDj+-T
Xx+-+xLx
-+-X-+-+
+-X-+-+-
-+-P-BxP
+-Pn+-+-
p+p+-+p+
R-+qKb+r

11. Be2 cxd4 12. O-O Nc6 13. Bxg4 O-O 14. Bxc8 Rxc8 15. Qg4
f5=/+ 16. Qg3 dxc3 17. Rae1 Kh8 18. Kh1 Rg8 19. Bxd6 Bf8 20. Be5+
Nxe5 21. Qxe5+ Rg7 22. Rxf5 Qxh4+ 23. Kg1

 

-+t+-L-J
Xx+-+-Tx
-+-+-+-+
+-+-Qr+-
-+-+-+-D
+-Xn+-+-
p+p+-+p+
+-+-R-K-

23… Qg4

[23…Qg3-/+]

24. Rf2 Be7 25. Re4 Qg5 26. Qd4 Rf8 27. Re5 Rd8
28. Qe4 Qh4 29. Rf4 1-0

Is a doubled c-pawn worth a Bishop?

Is a doubled c-pawn worth a Bishop?

Peter Lane

This is one of the great themes of the Nimzo-Indian and French
Winawer. We will look at it in both contexts: First, the
Nimzo-Indian.

 

Doubled c-pawns and the Bishop pair in the
Nimzo-Indian


Spassky,B (2660) – Fischer,R (2785) (05)
[E41] Wch28-Reykjavik, 1972

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nf3 c5 5. e3 Nc6 6. Bd3
Bxc3+

  This method, developed by Huebner, forces the exchange
before White can escape by castling. Black then creates a blockade
on the dark squares.

7. bxc3 d6 8. e4 e5

 

t+lDj+-T
Xx+-+xXx
-+sX-S-+
+-X-X-+-
-+pPp+-+
+-Pb+n+-
p+-+-PpP
R-BqK-+r

Black tempts d4-d5.

9. d5 Ne7 10. Nh4 h6 11. f4

 

t+lDj+-T
Xx+-SxX-
-+-X-S-X
+-XpX-+-
-+p+pP-N
+-Pb+-+-
p+-+-+pP
R-BqK-+r

White tries to open up the King’s-side for attack, hoping to use
the Bishops.

11… Ng6!

  Black exchanges White’s remaining Knight, leaving White
with two Bishops but in a closed position where Bishops lack
scope.

Black is not tempted by [11…exf4 12. Bxf4 g5 13. e5
Ng4 14. e6! Nf6 15. Bg3 => with a strong attack]

12. Nxg6 fxg6 13. fxe5 dxe5 14. Be3 b6 15. O-O
O-O 16. a4

 

t+lD-Tj+
X-+-+-X-
-X-+-SxX
+-XpX-+-
p+p+p+-+
+-PbB-+-
-+-+-+pP
R-+q+rK-

Still trying to get some play.

16… a5

  Another Black weakness but the last opportunity for White
to develop any activity. And if White cannot or does not attack b6,
it is not really weak!

17. Rb1 Bd7 18. Rb2 Rb8 19. Rbf2

  Perhaps White would have been better sticking to pressure
on the b-file.

19…Qe7 20. Bc2 g5 21. Bd2 Qe8 22. Be1
Qg6

 

-T-+-Tj+
+-+l+-X-
-X-+-SdX
X-XpX-X-
p+p+p+-+
+-P-+-+-
-+b+-RpP
+-+qBrK-

Only Black can undertake anything in this position.

Impertinent note from typist: when I first came
across this game as an example of weak pawns I was confused – whose
pawns are supposed to be weak? The answer really is White’s,
because his Bishops are hemmed in, and can neither easily defend
the White weaknesses nor attack the Black ones – hence the Black
weakness are more apparent than real.

23. Qd3 Nh5 24. Rxf8+ Rxf8 25. Rxf8+
Kxf8

  With the Rooks off White can only wait and defend.

26. Bd1 Nf4 27. Qc2??

 

-+-+-J-+
+-+l+-X-
-X-+-+dX
X-XpX-X-
p+p+pS-+
+-P-+-+-
-+q+-+pP
+-+bB-K-

Under pressure, White blunders.

27… Bxa4 0-1

 

  What does our noted theoretician, Nimzovitch himself,
have to say about this?

 

-+-+-+-+
XxX-+xXx
-+-X-+-+
+-+-X-+-
-+-+p+-+
+-+p+-+-
pPp+-PpP
+-+-+-+-

With this pawn formation White might plan c2-c3, d3-d4-d5, c3-c4,
b2-b4 and c4-c5.

 

-+-+-+-+
XxX-+xXx
-+-X-+-+
+-+-X-+-
-+-+p+-+
+-Pp+-+-
p+p+-PpP
+-+-+-+-

But here d4-d5 and c3-c4 can be met with …b7-b6. So this
formation lacks dynamism. But this dynamic weakness is
conter-balanced by a static strength, as a Pawn on d4 cannot be
forced to advance, being propped up by the c-Pawn. (However, adding
to this we see c4 is weak and hard to defend, and the a-pawn is
isolated. These factors lend Black an endgame advantage.

  We can now make a few comments about Spassky’s play:

  Firstly, White obligingly pushed d4-d5 blocking the game,
whereas any attempt by Black to exchange on d4 would open the
position for the Bishop pair.

  Secondly, the Knight’s development on f3 impedes the push
of the f-Pawn

  Thirdly, the rapid blocking tof the position by fxe5 and
a2-a4 worked against the Bishops.

  Lastly, a continued assault on b6 was needed to constrain
Black’s deployment in some way.

  Let us consider an alternative system of development
based upon the Deferred (Closed) Saemisch Variation, a sometime
recommendation of Keene, and a game with an interesting strategic
point.


Peter Lane – RJJ Gibbons, Exeter Vs.
Kingston, 1995

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 c5

  White loses a move playing a3 to force the chosen
formation.

5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 O-O

(too early? – DR’s notes from the Express and
Echo)

7. Bd3 d6 8. Ne2 e5 9. e4 Qc7

  White leaves the f-pawn free to advance; Black’s reply
avoids the pin on g5.

10. O-O Nc6

(Black is playing normal Nimzo-Indian moves, but
White’s opening (with Ne2 rather than Nf3) is too dangerous for
normal methods. …Ne8 and f5 was called for – DR)

11. f4 Bg4?

[11… cxd4 12. cxd4 Nxd4 13. Nxd4 exd4 14. Bb2 Qb6
15. Qc2 and e5]

  Anyone else want to call this a losing move? Note that
Black threatens to exchange on e2, and take at d4. If White takes
dxc5 and fxe5, c4 and e4 become vulnerable to the Knights.
Otherwise White must play d5 – but doesn’t this lead to a blocked
position with White’s Bishop ineffectual as we saw before?

12. d5! Ne7 13. f5!

  Isn’t the first commandment, “Bishop like open
spaces, Knights like closed positions
“? – But White controls
so much of the board, can you find a good square for a Knight? Note
that fxe5, “opening the position”, woud have been a serious error,
allowing …Nd6 and …Ba6.

13…Nd7 (else Bg5) 14. Qe1 Bxe2
15. Bxe2 f6 16. Qh4!

  Now Black sees the idea!

16…Rfd8 17. Rf3 Nf8 18. Rg3 Nc8?

  Dropping a vital Pawn, but:

[18…Nd7 19.Qh6 g6 20.fxg6 hxg6 21.Rh3;

18…Kh8 19.Bh6

A) 19…g5 20.Bxg5 fxg5 21.Qxg5 Neg6 22.fxg6 Nxg6
(22…hxg6 23.Rh3+ Kg8 24.Bg4) 23.h4;

B) 19…Ng8 20.Bxg7+;

18…Kf7 19.Bh5+ g6 20.fxg6+ hxg6 (20…Nexg6 21.Rf3
Qe7 22.Bg5 Nd7 23.Raf1 anyone fancy Black?) 21.Rf3 Ng8 22.Bxg6+
Kxg6 23.Rg3+ Kf7 24.Qh5+ Ke7 25.Rg7#]

19. Qxf6 Rd7 20. Qg5 Qd8

 

t+sD-Sj+
Xx+t+-Xx
-+-X-+-+
+-XpXpQ-
-+p+p+-+
P-P-+-R-
-+-+b+pP
R-B-+-K-

21. Qxd8 Rxd8 22. Bg5 Rd7 23. f6 Ng6 24. Bg4 Rc7 25. Be6+
Kh8 26. Rf1 gxf6 27. Bxf6+ Rg7 28. Bxg7+ Kxg7 29. Rf7+ 1-0

  The ‘interesting strategic point’ is that while the
Knights still always require outpost squares in blocked positions,
the Bishops can work around all but the tightest blockade to find a
diagonal (unless they are required for defence of pawns
attacked by active enemy Knights – DR
).

 


Lane, PC – Bartlett,J

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3
O-O 7. Bd3 d6 8. Ne2 e5 9. e4

 

tSlD-Tj+
Xx+-+xXx
-+-X-S-+
+-X-X-+-
-+pPp+-+
P-Pb+-+-
-+-+nPpP
R-BqK-+r

9… Re8 10. Ng3 Nc6 11. d5 Ne7

[11… Na5 12. Bg5 h6 13. Bxf6 Qxf6 14. Qa4]

12. Bg5 Ng6 13. Nh5 Bg4 14. Nxf6+ gxf6 15. Bxf6
Bxd1 16. Bxd8 Rexd8 17. Rxd1 Nf4 18. Bf1!

  Hanging on to the Bishop! 18… Kf8 19. g3 Nh5
20. Bh3

 

t+-T-J-+
Xx+-+x+x
-+-X-+-+
+-XpX-+s
-+p+p+-+
P-P-+-Pb
-+-+-P-P
+-+rK-+r

White went on to win: the ‘bad’ Bishop has a fine diagonal and the
Knight has no good squares.

…1-0

  The ideal structure for Black actually looks quite
different to the Huebner, with f7-f5 in place of d6/e5, and an
assault on e4, i.e. forget about blocking the Bishops, and instead
fight for chances in a more dynamic set-up.

 

Doubled c-pawns and the Bishop pair in the
French Winawer


Debbage, I – Lane, PC (Thamesdown vs.
Exeter)

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 Qd7 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3
b6 7. Qg4 f5 8. Qg3 Ba6 9. Bxa6 Nxa6 10. Qd3?!

[10. Ne2! Nb8!? 11. Nf4 Nc6! 12. Nxe6!?
“Discuss…”]

10… Nb8

[10… Qa4 prevents c4 11. Nf3 Ne7 12. Ng5 Kd7 13. h4
Nb8 14. Rg1 Nbc6 15. g4 Na5 16. Rb1 Nc4 White’s King’s-side
counterplay is not enough: -+ Atkinson-Cooke 1965]

11. Ne2 Nc6 12. O-O Na5 13. Nf4 Nc4 14. Qe2 O-O-O
15. Nd3 h6 16. a4 a5 17. Nb2 Qc6 18. Nxc4 Qxc4 19. Qxc4 dxc4 20.
f4?? Ne7 21. Rf3 Nd5

 

-+jT-+-T
+-X-+-X-
-X-+x+-X
X-+sPx+-
p+xP-P-+
+-P-+r+-
-+p+-+pP
R-B-+-K-

Black wins with a Queen’s-side advance: the Bishop is very bad and
the Knight holds sway on both sides of the board. As in the
Spassky-Fischer game, the White Pawns have become blocked and an
obstruction to his own pieces.

…0-1

 


Thomas, N – Lane, PC

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 Qd7 5. Qg4 f5 6. Qh5+
Qf7 7. Qf3 b6 8. h4 Ba6 9. Bxa6 Nxa6 10. Qd3 Bxc3+ 11.
bxc3

[11. Qxc3]

11… Nb8 12. Nh3 Nc6

 

t+-+j+sT
X-X-+dXx
-Xs+x+-+
+-+xPx+-
-+-P-+-P
+-Pq+-+n
p+p+-Pp+
R-B-K-+r

13. c4!

  makes good use of the Queen on d3

[13. Nf4 Na5 and Black has achieved a favourable
blockade]

13… dxc4 14. Qxc4 Qd7

 

t+-+j+sT
X-Xd+-Xx
-Xs+x+-+
+-+-Px+-
-+qP-+-P
+-+-+-+n
p+p+-Pp+
R-B-K-+r

White’s Bishop still has some problems, and the struggle for
dominance by the minor pieces is still determined by the pawn
structure, the legacy of the exchange on c3.

15. Be3 Na5 16. Qb4 Qc6 17. Nf4 Ne7 18. c4 Nxc4
19. Rc1 b5 20. Nxe6 Nd5 21. Qc5 Qxc5 22. Nxc5 Kf7

 

t+-+-+-T
X-X-+jXx
-+-+-+-+
+xNsPx+-
-+sP-+-P
+-+-B-+-
p+-+-Pp+
+-R-K-+r

Dynamic equality: Black’s knights have achieved favourable outposts
but Black has not enough play on the Queen’s-side for a win, given
the backward c-pawn and strong White Knight. (The weak c-Pawn
prevents a5-b4-a4-b3 and White managed to create play on the
King’s-side.)

1/2-1/2

Summary

I find that in the Winawer, White’s small spatial advantage
allows Black’s Knights room to manoeuvre and blockade the doubled
Pawns. In the Nimzo-Indian it is harder for the Knights to get to
work.

  The Pawns are not good or bad in themselves, only
in how they determine the relative strengths of the opposing
pieces.

  Silman’s ‘Re-assess your chess’
advises:

  When considering an exchange of Bishop for Knight,
ask yourself:

  1. is the position open or closed?
  2. Will there be support points for the Knight(s)? and if
    so:

    1. can the Knight(s) get there?
    2. does it matter if they do? [i.e. are they away from the
      main arena of play?]
    3. what can you do in the meantime with the
      Bishop(s)?

Bishops: good, bad and both

good bishops: active bishop used for
attack

Euwe – Thomas, 1934

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 O-O 6. Nf3
Nbd7 7. Rc1 c6 8. Bd3 dxc4 9. Bxc4 Nd5 10. Bxe7 Qxe7 11. O-O Nxc3
12. Rxc3

 

t+l+-Tj+
/x/x+sD/x/x/x
-+/x+/x+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+bP-+-+
+-R-Pn+-
pP-+-PpP
+-+q+rK-

This was the main continuation from this opening, although it is
now considered pretty played out. Black has a bad bishop on c8,
so…

12… e5 13. dxe5 Nxe5 14. Nxe5 Qxe5 15.
f4

Black has a choice of several queen moves. In the
first game we examine what happened after 15…Qe7 [next
diagram]

 

t+l+-Tj+
/x/x+-D/x/x/x
-+/x+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+b+-P-+
+-R-P-+-
pP-+-+pP
+-+q+rK-

White has the better bishop, currently pointed at Black”s King’s
side, but this is only a temporary advantage. Left alone, Black can
play …Be6 or move the b-pawn and play …Bb7. White’s only hope
of a win is to keep Black on the hop.

16. f5

  Stops …Be6 well enough, but Euwe has further plans for
this pawn – namely, to run it to f6, disrupting the K-side and
using the good bishop for attack.

16…b5 17. Bb3 b4 18. f6! gxf6 19. Rxc6 Qxe3+
20. Kh1

 

t+l+-Tj+
/x-+-+/x+/x
-+r+-/x-+
+-+-+-+-
-/x-+-+-+
+b+-D-+-
pP-+-+pP
+-+q+r+k

20…Bb7 Euwe and Kramer give the alternatives:

[20… Be6 21. Bxe6 fxe6 22. Qg4+ Qg5
[
22… Kh8 23. Rc7] 23. Qxe6+ Kh8 24. Rxf6
Rg8 [
24… Rfe8 25. Qf7] 25. Rf2 winning a
pawn]

[20… f5 21. Qh5 with strong attack]

21. Rcxf6 Qe4 22. Qd2 Kh8

[Or 22… Rad8 23. Qg5+ Kh8 24. Rxf7]

23. Bxf7 Rac8

[Much better was 23… Rad8 with good drawing
chances, despite White’s pressure e.g. 24. Qg5 [Rg8 25. Bxg8 Rxg8
26. Rf8 Qxg2+ =, or 24. Qf2 Qe7 25. Bb3 Rxf6 26. Qxf6+ Qxf6 27.
Rxf6 Bd5 = ]

24. R6f2 Rcd8 [24… Qg4]

25. Qg5 (NEXT DIAGRAM)

 

-+-T-T-J
/xl+-+b+/x
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-Q-
-/x-+d+-+
+-+-+-+-
pP-+-RpP
+-+-+r+k

25… Rd6

[Not 25… Qd4 26. Bd5 Qg7 [or 26… Rxf2
27. Qxd8+ Kg7 28. Qg5+ Kf8 29. Qg8+ Ke7 30. Re1+ Kd6 31.
Bxb7
] 27. Rxf8+ Rxf8 28. Rxf8+ Qxf8 29. Qe5+ Qg7 30.
Qe8+]

26. Bd5! 1-0

26… Rxf2 27. Qg8#

  The QGD is not a win for White; here Black solves the
problem of the Bc8.

Stahlberg-Trifunovich, 1951

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 O-O 6. Nf3
Nbd7 7. Rc1 c6 8. Bd3 dxc4 9. Bxc4 Nd5 10. Bxe7 Qxe7 11. O-O Nxc3
12. Rxc3 e5 13. dxe5 Nxe5 14. Nxe5 Qxe5 15. f4

  Here Black tried an alternative Q move 15… Qf6,
stopping the f5-f6 rush.

 

t+l+-Tj+
/x/x+-+/x/x/x
-+/x+-D-+
+-+-+-+-
-+b+-P-+
+-R-P-+-
pP-+-+pP
+-+q+rK-

16. f5 a5 17. a4

[17. a3 b5 18. Ba2 b4 19. Rc5 Ba6 20. Re1 Bb5, with
the Black bishop having good play]

17… Rb8 18. Qc2 Bd7

[Not 18… b5 19. axb5 cxb5 20. Bxb5 Rxb5 21.
Rxc8]

19. Rd3 Rbd8 20. Qd2 b5

[Not 20… Bc8 21. Qxa5 Rxd3 22. Bxd3 Qxb2 23.
f6]

21. axb5 Alternatives are no better:

[21. Rd6 Bc8]

[21. Bxb5 cxb5 22. Rxd7 Rxd7 23. Qxd7 Qxb2 24. Qxb5
Qxb5 25. axb5 Rb8 “with meagre chances for White” – Euwe]

21… cxb5 22. Bd5 Bc6

 

-+-T-Tj+
+-+-+/x/x/x
-+l+-D-+
/x/x+b+p+-
-+-+-+-+
+-+rP-+-
-P-Q-+pP
+-+-+rK-

With the full entry of this piece into the game, Black has at least
equal chances

23. e4

[23. Bxc6 Rxd3 24. Qxd3 Qxc6 may even be better for
Black, since Black’s Queen-side majority look like the most
important feature of the game]

23… Bxd5 24. exd5 Qb6+ 25. Qf2 Qxf2+ 26. Kxf2
draw agreed

 


Bad
bishops

Bs move on squares of only one colour. A bishop hemmed in by its
own pawns on the same colour squares is called a bad
bishop
. It is sometimes tempting to put pawns on the same
colour squares as the bishop, particularly in the ending, with the
hope that the bishop will defend them. Well, unfortunately, the
bishop will probably be so blocked by the pawns that it can hardly
defend itself. Depending on what other pieces there are on the
board, the opponent’s king will probably be able to slip in between
the pawns, and the bishop won’t be able to stop it. You want your
pawns on one colour square, and the bishop on the other, in the
middle game and in the ending. (And if you’ve got two bishops in
the middle game, you generally want your pawns right out of the
way.) So be careful where you put your pawns, and don’t get your
bishops stuck one side or the other of a chain of pawns.

[Event “bad
bishops”][Site “-“][Date “1956.??.??”][Round “?”]

[White “barden”][Black
“rossolimo”][Result “1-0”]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f4 e6
7.Be2 Qc7 8.O-O Nc6 9.Be3 Bd7 10.g4 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 Bc6 12.Bf3 e5
13.Be3 Be7 14.f5 {?!}

 

t+-+j+-T
+/xD-L/x/x/x
/x+l/x-S-+
+-+-/xp+-
-+-+p+p+
+-N-Bb+-
pPp+-+-P
R-+q+rK-

14…h6 15.Qd2 b5 16.Rad1 Rc8 17.a3 Qb7 18.Qd3 Nd7 {!}
19.b4 Nb6 20.Bc1 Nc4 21.Nd5 Bxd5 22.exd5 Bg5 (exchanging the off
White’s best minor piece)

23.Rfe1 Qe7 24.Be4 Bxc1 25.Rxc1 h5 26.Qg3 hxg4
27.Qxg4 Qf6 28.Bd3 Rh4 29.Qg3 Nb6 30.Re4

(30.Be4 Rc4)>

 

-+t+j+-T
+d+-+/x/x-
/x+-/x-+-/x
+/x+p/xpL-
-Ps+-+p+
P-+q+b+-
-+p+-+-P
+-Br+rK-

30…Rh5 31.Rg4 Nxd5 32.Rxg7 Nf4 33.Rg8+ Kd7 34.Rxc8 Kxc8
35.Qg8+ Kb7 {!} 36.Kh1 Qh6 37.Qg1 Nxd3 38.cxd3 Rxh2+ 1-0

(38…Rxh2+ 39.Qxh2 Qxc1+ 40.Kg2 Qd2+ 41.Kg1 Qxh2+
42.Kxh2 Kc6)

 


Please don’t interpret this too rigidly: a bishop is bad only if it
lacks scope.

bad bishop?

Botvinnik-Kann, 1939

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nf3 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3
Qa5 7. Bd2 Ne4 8. Qc2 Nxd2 9. Nxd2 d6 10. e3 e5 11. dxe5 dxe5 12.
Bd3 h6 13. O-O O-O 14. f4 Nd7 15. f5 Nf6 16. Ne4 Qd8 17. Nxf6+ Qxf6
18. Be4 Rb8 19. Rad1 b6 20. h3 Ba6 21. Bd5 b5 22. cxb5 Rxb5 23. c4
Rb6 24. Rb1 Rd8 25. Rxb6 axb6 26. e4 Bc8

 

-+lT-+j+
+-+-+/x/x-
-/x-+-D-/x
+-/xb/xp+-
-+p+p+-+
P-+-+-+p
-+q+-+p+
+-+-+rK-

White’s theoretically ‘bad’ bishop dominates the board and gives
White a winning game. It is Black’s bishop that is stuck
behind White’s pawns on white squares!

27. Qa4 Bd7 28. Qa7 Be8 29. Rb1 Rd6 30. a4 Kh7
31. a5 bxa5 32. Qxa5 Ra6 33. Qxc5 Ra2 34. Qe3 Qa6 35. Rb8 Qa4 36.
Kh2 Ra3 37. Qc5 Ra2 38. Ra8 Qxa8 39. Bxa8 Rxa8 40. Qxe5 Bc6 41. Qc7
1-0

 


The two bishops

“Deux fous gagnent toujours, mais trois fous,
non!
“

— Alexander Alekhin, on the advantage of the Two Bishops at
amateur level

  The bishop is a longer-range piece than the knight. This
advantage is sometimes called the minor exchange, for, all else
being equal, the bishop will be a better piece than the knight. Two
bishops, provided they can make use of their better range and
aren’t blocked by pawns, are rather better than two knights or a
knight and a bishop, particularly in fully open positions. (Think
how easy it is to mate with the two bishops. Have you ever tried to
mate with two knights?)


Capablanca advised rehearsing the mate with the two
Bishops, not because it was particularly likely to occur in
practice, but to experience directly the power of two Bishops
cooperating in an open position.


  So in OPEN positions, the two bishops are boss.

  In CLOSED positions, the knights may be better.

  In SEMI-OPEN positions. well…

  The side with the two bishops must not let the knight(s)
settle on any outposts, and can create trouble on both sides of the
board at once when the poor knights will be hard-put to keep up.
It’s generally though that the two bishops are good enought to win.
Paulsen made use of this in the middle 1800s, but the technique was
perfected and publicised by Steinitz.

  Let’s have a look at these in turn.


bishops: two
bishops in ending

This was my introduction to the power of the two bishops.

Ditmas,H –
Regis,D (March, 1979)

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. exd5 Qxd5 5. Ngf3 cxd4 6.
Bc4 Qd6 7. O-O Nc6 8. Nb3 Nf6 9. Nbxd4 Nxd4 10. Nxd4 a6 11. b3 Qc7
12. Bb2 Bd6 13. h3 O-O 14. Bd3 e5 15. Nf5 e4 16. Nxd6

  White sensibly takes the two bishops.

16…Qxd6 17. Be2 Qe7 18. c4 Rd8 19. Qc1 Bf5 20.
Qf4

 

t+-T-+j+
+/x+-D/x/x/x
/x+-+-S-+
+-+-+l+-
-+p+/xQ-+
+p+-+-+p
pB-+bPp+
R-+-+rK-

Black must make a concession – in the event, I buried the bishop on
g6. White’s two bishops and queen’s side majority win the game.

20… Bg6 21. Rfd1 Rxd1+ 22. Rxd1 Rd8 23. Qe5 Re8
24. Qxe7 Rxe7 25. b4 Rd7 26. Rxd7 Nxd7 27. c5 Kf8 28. c6 bxc6 29.
Bxa6 f6 30. Bd4 Bf7 31. a4 Bb3 32. a5

 

 

-+-+-J-+
+-+s+-/x/x
b+/x+-/x-+
P-+-+-+-
-P-B/x+-+
+l+-+-+p
-+-+-Pp+
+-+-+-K-

1-0

  It’s worth dwelling on this for a moment. Material is
equal, and Black can think about getting his own majority moving,
but its all too late. The two bishops cover all the key squares,
and Black can hardly stop the advance of the a-pawn.

 


bishops: two bishops in open
middlegame

This is the other easy case: the bishops usually chop up the
opposition.

Nunn – Tal (Wijk
Ann Zee, 1982)

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 a6 6. g3
Qc7 7. Bg2 Nf6 8. O-O h6 9. Nb3 Be7 10. a4 d6 11. f4 O-O 12. g4 Bd7
13. h4 b5 14. g5 Nh7 15. Be3 b4 16. Ne2 d5 17. exd5 exd5 18. Qxd5
Rac8 19. a5 Nb8 20. Ned4 Bg4 21. Rae1 Rfd8 22. Qe4 Re8 23. Bf2 Bd7
24. Qd5 Qd6

 

-St+t+j+
+-+lL/x/xs
/x+-D-+-/x
P-+q+-P-
-/x-N-P-P
+n+-+-+-
-Pp+-Bb+
+-+-RrK-

Here is an instructive moment from the Nunn/Griffiths book. White
has many advantages, including an extra pawn.

25. Nf5!

“White is still in no hurry to exchange queens: he
permits his opponent the option of 25…Bxf5 26 Qxf5 instead of the
game continuation. EITHER WAY HIS BISHOP-PAIR WILL DOMINATE THE
BOARD. But he is also returning the extra pawn: possibly as
instructive a piece of Grandmaster thinking as anything that has
gone previously. The point is not that the variations are difficult
to calculate, but that Nunn is thinking boldly; dynamically. Time
and again we see how his thinking is the reverse of a weaker
player. It is not, ‘If I play Nf5 I shall lose a pawn; I will only
do that as a last resort’; but rather, ‘I can simplify the position
by Nf5 and continue to generate powerful threats; it would be a
miracle if Black could get away with …Rxc2”

25…Qxd5 26. Nxe7+ Rxe7 27. Bxd5 Rxe1 28. Rxe1
Rxc2 29. Re7

  It’s all starting to clear up nicely.

29…Bc6 30. Bxf7+ Kf8 31. Rc7 hxg5 32. Bc5+
1-0

 


bishops: two bishops in a semi-open or
closed middlegame

This is not so easy. The side with the two bishops must open lines,
but if it were easily possible, the Nimzo-Indian would not be a
viable defence..

  Here are two fine examples where the Bishops win, one
more open, one more closed.

Bronstein D –
Golombek H (Moscow) [E43] 1956

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nf3 b6 5. e3 Bb7 6. Bd3
Ne4 7. O-O Bxc3 8. bxc3 O-O 9. Ne1 f5 10. f3 Nf6 11. a4 Nc6 12. e4
fxe4 13. fxe4 e5 14. Bg5 Qe7 15. Nc2 Qd6

 

t+-+-Tj+
/xl/x/x+-/x/x
-/xsD-S-+
+-+-/x-B-
p+pPp+-+
+-Pb+-+-
-+n+-+pP
R-+q+rK-

Black is doing his best to get White to play d4-d5, when as well
gaining the square c5, Black would expect the blocked pawn
formation to favour the Knights. White finds an interesting way of
resisting the encouragement.

16. Bh4 Rae8 17. Bg3 Qe7 18. Ne3 d6
[
18… exd4 19. Nf5] 19. Bh4 Nd8 20.
Nd5

 

-+-StTj+
/xl/x-D-/x/x
-/x-/x-S-+
+-+n/x-+-
p+pPp+-B
+-Pb+-+-
-+-+-+pP
R-+q+rK-

This leap into the (still) empty d5 point provokes Black into
giving up the remaining Bishop. It should not be supposed that
Golombek was unaware of the dangers in this, but considered it
relatively best, given the pressure on f6. 20… Bxd5 21.
cxd5 c6 22. Qb3 Kh8 23. Rae1 h6 24. Qa3 g5 25. Bg3 Nd7 26. dxc6
Nxc6 27. Bb5

 

-+-+tT-J
/x-+sD-+-
-/xs/x-+-/x
+b+-/x-/x-
p+-Pp+-+
Q-P-+-B-
-+-+-+pP
+-+-RrK-

After the pins on the King’s-side have finally been disposed of,
White starts up in the same trade on the Queen’s-side!

27… Rxf1+ 28. Rxf1 Ncb8

  this decentralising move doesn’t look right

29. Bc4 Rf8

 

-S-+-T-J
/x-+sD-+-
-/x-/x-+-/x
+-+-/x-/x-
p+bPp+-+
Q-P-+-B-
-+-+-+pP
+-+-+rK-

Black’s position now falls apart

30. Rxf8+ Qxf8 31. dxe5 Nc5 32. exd6
Nxe4

[Have the Knights finally secured a
defence?]

33. d7 ! 33… Nc5

[33… Qxa3 34. d8=Q+ Kg7 35. Qg8+ Kf6 36.
Qf7#]

34. Be5+ Kh7 35. Bd3+

 

-S-+-D-+
/x-+p+-+j
-/x-+-+-/x
+-S-B-/x-
p+-+-+-+
Q-Pb+-+-
-+-+-+pP
+-+-+-K-

Golombek comments that these weren’t mere Bishops, but Archbishops!
1-0

 

Rubinstein –
Nimzovitch (Berlin, 1928)

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 d6 5. e3 c5 6. Bd3 Nc6
7. Nge2 e5 8. d5 Bxc3+

  Normally in the Nimzo-Indian Defence, Black hopes to
double the c-pawns to give a target for attack in the event that
White disappears off to the King’s side. Not here, so Black can
only hope to gum up the game for his knights.

9. Qxc3 Ne7 10. Qc2 O-O 11. O-O Ng6 12. Ng3 Re8
13. f3 Bd7 14. Bd2 a6 15. h3 b5 16. b3 Qb6 17. Kh2 a5 18. Rab1
b4

 

t+-+t+j+
+-+l+/x/x/x
-D-/x-Ss+
/x-/xp/x-+-
-/xp+-+-+
+p+bPpNp
p+qB-+pK
+r+-+r+-

White’s bishops are well-placed for attack and defence. The knights
don’t seem to know where to go next to be useful.

  White’ s next move forces open line for the bishops.

19. f4 exf4 20. exf4 Nf8 21. Bc1 Qd8 22. Qf2 a4
23. Bb2 Ng6 24. Rbd1 axb3 25. axb3 Ra7 26. Rde1 Rxe1 27. Rxe1
Nf8

 

 

-+-D-Sj+
T-+l+/x/x/x
-+-/x-S-+
+-/xp+-+-
-/xp+-P-+
+p+b+-Np
-B-+-QpK
+-+-R-+-

White’s next move may look odd, but the Nf6 is Black’s best
defensive piece. White can take it off, then bring his knoght into
play on e4. Black will be forced to make entry points for White.

28. Bxf6 Qxf6 29. Ne4 Qh6 30. f5 Ra3 31. Rb1 Ra6
32. g4 f6 33. Kg3 Bc8 34. Re1 Bb7 35. Qe2 Nd7

 

 

-+-+-+j+
+l+s+-/x/x
t+-/x-/x-D
+-/xp+p+-
-/xp+n+p+
+p+b+-Kp
-+-+q+-+
+-+-R-+-

White’s forces are ideally placed, and Black’s are scattered. The
following combinational finish should come as no surprise.

36. Nxd6 Rxd6 37. Qe8+ Nf8 38. Re7 g6 39. Qf7+
Kh8 40. Re8 Rd8 41. Qxf6+ Kg8 42. Qe6+ Kg7 43. f6+ 1-0

 


the two bishops in a semi-open
endgame

And this is the hardest case, which Paulsen and Steinitz perfected.
The side with the two bishops must deny the knights any stable
outposts while advancing on both sides of the board.

[Event “Two
Bishops?”][Site “”][Date “1873.??.??”][Round “?”]

[White
“Rosenthal”][Black “Steinitz “][Result “0-1”]

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 g6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nxd4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nge7
7.Bc4 d6 8.O-O O-O 9.f4 Na5 10.Bd3 d5 11.exd5 Nxd5 12.Nxd5 Qxd5
13.c3 Rd8 14.Qc2 Nc4 15.Bxc4 Qxc4 16.Qf2 c5 17.Nf3 b6 18.Ne5 Qe6
19.Qf3 Ba6 20.Rfe1 f6 21.Ng4 h5 22.Nf2 Qf7

  The poor knight isn’t really sparkling.

 

t+-T-+j+
/x-+-+dL-
l/x-+-/x/x+
+-/x-+-+/x
-+-+-P-+
+-P-Bq+-
pP-+-NpP
R-+-R-K-

23.f5 g5 24.Rad1 Bb7 25.Qg3 Rd5 26.Rxd5 Qxd5 27.Rd1 Qxf5
28.Qc7 Bd5 29.b3 Re8 30.c4 Bf7 31.Bc1 Re2 32.Rf1 Qc2 33.Qg3 Qxa2
0-1

 

Englisch-Steinitz

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nxd4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6
7.Nc3 O-O 8.O-O Ne7 9.Qd2 d5 10.exd5 Nexd5 11.Nxd5 Qxd5 12.Be2 Ng4
13.Bxg4 Bxg4 14.Nb3 Qxd2 15.Nxd2 Rad8 16.c3 Rfe8 17.Nb3 b6 18.h3
Be6 19.Rfd1 c5

  (squashing White’s knight out of the game)

 

-+-Tt+j+
/x-+-+/xL/x
-/x-+l+/x+
+-/x-+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+nP-B-+p
pP-+-Pp+
R-+r+-K-

20.Bg5 f6 21.Bf4 Kf7 22.f3 g5 23.Rxd8 Rxd8 24.Be3 h6 25.Re1
f5 26.f4 Bf6 27.g3 a5 28.Nc1 a4 29.a3 Bc4 30.Kf2 gxf4 31.Bxf4 Bg5
32.Bxg5 hxg5 33.Ke3 Kf6 34.h4 gxh4 35.gxh4 Re8+ 36.Kf2 Rxe1 37.Kxe1
Ke5 38.Ne2 Bxe2 39.Kxe2 Kf4 40.c4 Kg4 41.Ke3 f4+ {!} 42.Ke4 f3
43.Ke3 Kg3 {0-1 }

Weak squares

Chris Bellers, Exeter Chess Club

This session comes out of a remark by ex-World Champion Tigran
Petrosian, to be found in an excellent book, ‘Opening
Preparation’
by Mark Dvoretsky and Artur Yusupov. In the
middle of annotations to a game by Henrique Mecking in 1972 the
authors quote Petrosian:

“Mecking does not understand the significance of
weak and strong squares. I have played him three times. In 1969 he
lost to me owing to the weakness of his light squares. A year later
he presented me with all the dark squares and again suffered
defeat. And in the San Antonio tournament of 1972, Grandmaster
Mecking again let me have dark-square control, and with it –
victory. What distinguishes Mecking is lively piece play, but he
has no genuine grasp of the underlying nature of a position; this
is what makes me have doubts about his future as a
player.”

So what are weak and strong squares? Generally, a weakness on
squares of a particular colour usually results from exchange of a
Bishop, and/or placing Pawns on the same colour squares as the
Bishop. Here’s another lesson Mecking failed to learn about
squares.

 


Polugaevsky Lev – Mecking H [A11], Mar del
Plata, 1971

1. c4 c6 2. Nf3 d5 3. e3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. b3 Nbd7 6. Bb2
Bd6 7. d4 O-O 8. Bd3 Re8 9. Qc2 e5 10. cxd5 cxd5 11. dxe5 Nxe5 12.
Nxe5 Bxe5 13. Ne2 Qd6 14. Bxe5 Qxe5 15. O-O Bd7 16. Nd4 Rac8 17.
Qe2 Qd6

 

-+t+t+j+
Xx+l+xXx
-+-D-S-+
+-+x+-+-
-+-N-+-+
+p+bP-+-
p+-+qPpP
R-+-+rK-

18. Qb2

  The Queen goes on the opposite coloured squares to the
Bishop, covering the Queen’s-side squares, and preparing to advance
the Pawns there if opportunity allows.

18… a6 ?!

  Placing a Pawn on the same colour as his Bishop.

19. Rac1 Ng4 20. Nf3 Qb6 21. Rxc8 Rxc8 22. Rc1
Nf6 23. Rxc8+ Bxc8 24. Qc3 Bd7 25. Nd4 Ne8 26. a4 !

  On its way to a5.

26… Qc7

[26… a5 27. Bb5 Bxb5 28. Nxb5 and things are ready
to drop.]

27. Qxc7 Nxc7 28. a5 Kf8 29. Kf1 Ke7 30. Ke2 g6
(
a further weakness) 31. Kd2 Ne6 32.
Nxe6

[32. Kc3]

32… fxe6 33. f4 e5 34. g3 Kd6 35. Kc3 Be6 36.
Kb4 exf4

[36… d4]

37. gxf4 Bg4 38. Kc3 Bf3 39. Kd4 Bg2 40. h4 Bf3
41. b4

  following the well-known endgame rule, ‘do not
hurry’
.

41… Bh1 42. Be2 Bg2 43. Bg4 Be4 44. Bc8 Kc7 45.
Be6 Kd6 46. Bg8 h6 47. Bf7 h5 48. Be8 Bc2 49. Bf7 Be4 50. f5
!

50… Bxf5 51. Bxd5 Bc8 52. e4 Ke7 53. Ke5 g5 54.
hxg5 h4 55. g6 h3 56. g7 h2 57. g8=Q h1=Q 58. Qf7+ Kd8 59. Qf8+
1-0

 

  Another excellent example is contained in ‘Think
Like a Grandmaster’
by Kotov. The game Kotov-Pilnik,
Stockholm 1952 was adjourned after 41 moves:


Kotov,A – Pilnik,H (Sweden izt ) (09) [D56] ,
1952

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 O-O 6. Nf3 h6
7. Bh4 Ne4 8. Bxe7 Qxe7 9. Qc2 c6 10. Be2 Nd7 11. O-O Nef6 12. Rad1
a6 13. a3 b5 14. cxd5 cxd5 15. a4 b4 16. Na2 Rb8 17. Nc1 b3 18.
Nxb3 Qb4 19. Na1 Qxb2 20. Rb1 Qxc2 21. Nxc2 Ne4

 

-Tl+-Tj+
+-+s+xX-
x+-+x+-X
+-+x+-+-
p+-Ps+-+
+-+-Pn+-
-+n+bPpP
+r+-+rK-

22. Bd3 Nc3 23. Rxb8 Nxb8 24. a5 Bb7 25. Ra1 Rc8 26. Kf1
Kf8 27. Nd2 Ne4 28. Ke2 Nxd2 29. Kxd2 Rc7 30. Nb4 Ke7 31. Be2 Kd8
32. Nd3 Nd7 33. f4 Bc8 34. g4 Nf6 35. Bf3 Rb7 36. Kc3 Rc7+ 37. Kb3
Rb7+ 38. Nb4 Rc7 39. g5 hxg5 40. fxg5 Nd7 41. h4 g6

 

-+lJ-+-+
+-Ts+x+-
x+-+x+x+
P-+x+-P-
-N-P-+-P
+k+-Pb+-
-+-+-+-+
R-+-+-+-

‘I offer a draw,’ said the Argentinian. My reply was,
‘I want to play on a bit yet,’ although I felt in my bones
that I should win from this position. Pilnik then insisted,
‘You have no advantage, except perhaps a bit more space. On the
other hand my Pawns are safely guarded
.’ I could not resist
asking him, ‘Guarded by what?’

‘By my Bishop,’ he replied, and I could not make
my mind up whether he was serious or joking. Just in case I decided
not to spoil his illusions, lest he should suddenly find a way of
rearranging his Pawns.

  White’s advantages are:

  1. All of the Black Pawns are on the colour of his
Bishop, restricting its mobility so much that in effect it can take
no part in the game.

  2. All White’s pieces are mobile, while Black’s are
huddled together in the last two ranks.

  3. Black has two significant weaknesses at a6 and f7, and
by combining attacks on them White should be able to force win of
material.

  The correct plan is clear: after suitable preparation
advance h5 and after gxh5 Bxh5 pile up winning pressure on f7.

42. Be2 Nb8 43. Nd3 Ke7 44. Ne5 Nc6 45.
Kb2

  planning Nxc6 and Ra1-c1, when the Bishop ending will be
lost

45… Rb7+ 46. Kc3 Kd6 47. Nxc6 Rc7 48.
Kd2
[Another source gives 48. Kb3] Rxc6 49. Rf1
Rc7 50. h5 gxh5 51. Bxh5

 

-+l+-+-+
+-T-+x+-
x+-Jx+-+
P-+x+-Pb
-+-P-+-+
+-+-P-+-
-+-K-+-+
+-+-+r+-

Of course, the only square from which the Black Bishop can actually
defend both weak Pawns is d9!

51… Rb7(+) 52. Kc3 Rc7+ [53. Kb3 Rb7+
54. Kc3 Rc7+ this sequence is omitted by one source] 55.
Kd2 Rb7

 

-+l+-+-+
+t+-+x+-
x+-Jx+-+
P-+x+-Pb
-+-P-+-+
+-+-P-+-
-+-K-+-+
+-+-+r+-

White wins a Pawn and the game.

56. Rxf7 Rb2+ 57. Ke1 Rg2 58. Rg7 Bd7 59. Bf3 Rh2
60. Rg8 Ke7 61. Rg7+ Kd6 62. Be2 Rh1+ 63. Kf2 Rh2+ 64. Kf3 Be8 65.
g6 Rh8 66. Bxa6 e5 67. dxe5+ Kxe5 68. Bb7 Rf8+ 69. Kg3 Kf6 70. Rc7
Bxg6 71. a6 d4 72. exd4 Rg8 73. Kf2 1-0

  Weak squares arise where there is as chain of Pawns on
the same coloured squares, as the Pawns deprive themselves of
control over the other coloured squares, and these squares become
accessible to the enemy pieces. These weaknesses can be decisive if
there is no Bishop defending these squares either, and is even
worse if the only Bishop for that side travels on the same colour
squares.

  In the following position:

 
8/3B3P/P2K2P1/1P1P2p1/1p1k1p2/3n4/p5p1/8

 

-+-+-+-+
+-+l+-+x
x+-J-+x+
+x+x+-P-
-P-K-P-+
+-+n+-+-
p+-+-+p+
+-+-+-+-

Black has obvious dark square weaknesses. However, it is worth
bearing in mind that this dark square weakness is a weakness of the
light squares too. An attack along the dark squares involves White
putting pieces on dark squares and attacking the Black pieces,
which are on light squares but have nowhere to go. White wins with
ease:

1. Nc5 Bc8 2. g3 (a tempo move to
Zugzwang Black) 2…Bc5 3. Nxa6 Bc8 4. Nc5 Bf5 5. Nd3 Bc8
(
the K and P endgame is lost) 6. Nf2 Bf5 7. Nd1
Bd7 8. Nc3 Bc6 9. a3
forces the win of a second
Pawn.

  An identical position arose in Karpov-Hort except that
White had a Bishop, rather than a Knight on d3.


Karpov,Anatoly – Hort,Vlastimil (2),
Budapest, 1973

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. c3 c5 6. Bd3 Nc6
7. Ne2 Qb6 8. Nf3 cxd4 9. cxd4 f6 10. exf6 Nxf6

 

t+l+jL-T
Xx+-+-Xx
-Ds+xS-+
+-+x+-+-
-+-P-+-+
+-+b+n+-
pP-+nPpP
R-BqK-+r

11. O-O Bd6 12. Nc3 O-O 13. Be3 Qd8 14. Bg5 Bd7 15. Re1 Qb8
16. Bh4 a6 17. Rc1 b5 18. Bb1 Bf4 19. Bg3 Bxg3 20. hxg3 Qb6 21. Ne2
Rae8 22. Nf4

 

-+-+tTj+
+-+l+-Xx
xDs+xS-+
+x+x+-+-
-+-P-N-+
+-+-+nP-
pP-+-Pp+
+bRqR-K-

22… Nxd4 23. Qxd4 Qxd4 24. Nxd4 e5 25. Nfe6 Bxe6 26. Rxe5
Bd7 27. Rxe8 Rxe8

 

-+-+t+j+
+-+l+-Xx
x+-+-S-+
+x+x+-+-
-+-N-+-+
+-+-+-P-
pP-+-Pp+
+bR-+-K-

28. f3! Rc8 29. Rxc8+ Bxc8 30. Kf2 Kf7 31. Ke3 Ke7 32. b4
g6 33. g4 Nd7 34. f4 Nf8 35. g5 Kd6 36. Kf3 Ne6 37. Nxe6 Bxe6 38.
Ke3 Bg4 39. Bd3 Be6 40. Kd4

 

-+-+-+-+
+-+l+-+x
x+-J-+x+
+x+x+-P-
-P-K-P-+
+-+b+-+-
p+-+-+p+
+-+-+-+-

the rest is straightforward

40…Bg4 41. Bc2 Be6

[41… Be2 42. f5]

42. Bb3 Bf7 43. Bd1 Be6 (else
44.Bg4) 44. Bf3 Bf7 45. Bg4 1-0

 


Riumin – Ragozin, Leningrad, 1934

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 d5 5. e3 O-O 6. Nf3
Nc6 7. a3 Bxc3+ 8. Qxc3 Bd7 9. b4 a5 10. b5 Na7 11. a4 c6 12. Ba3
Re8 13. Rb1 dxc4 14. b6

[14. Bxc4 cxb5 15. axb5 Rc8 16. Qd3 Nd5]

[14. Qxc4 cxb5 15. axb5 Rc8 16. Qb3 Nd5 with
light-square control for Black in each case]

14… Nb5! 15. axb5 cxb5 16. Ne5

[16. Bb2]

[16. Bc1]

16… b4 17. Qc1 Bb5 18. Be2 Rc8 19. Bxb4 axb4
20. Rxb4 Ba6…

  and Black soon won 0-1

 


Kotov – Gligoric,Zurich [E87] 1953

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

 

tSlD-Tj+
Xx+-+-Lx
-+-X-+-+
+-XpXx+s
-+p+-+-+
+-NbBp+-
pPq+n+pP
R-+-K-+r

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

11… e4 Startling! 12. fxe4 f4
(
the point) 13. Bf2 Nd7 14. Ng1

[14. e5 Nxe5 15. Bxh7+ Kh8 when Black’s pieces are
too strong]

14… Qg5 15. Bf1 Ne5

 

t+l+-Tj+
Xx+-+-Lx
-+-X-+-+
+-XpS-Ds
-+p+pX-+
+-N-+-+-
pPq+-BpP
R-+-KbNr

when Black’s coup has yielded a stranglehold over the dark squares.

16. Nf3 Qe7 17. Nxe5 Qxe5 18. O-O-O Nf6 19. h3
Bd7 20. Bd3 a6 21. Nb1 (
hoping to get to f3) 21…
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

[34… Rg8]

[34…Qxh4]

35. Nd3 Bd4 36. h5 Qh4 37. Bg2 Rg8 38. Rh1 Qg3
39. Bf1 a4 40. Kc2 a3 41. b3

 

-+-+-+tJ
+-+l+-+x
-+-X-+-+
+-Xp+-+p
-XpLp+-+
Xp+n+pD-
p+k+q+-+
+-+-+b+r

Bronstein commented that it is a tribute to White’s defensive
resourcefulness that he can hold the game – two Pawns up!

1/2-1/2

 

 

  You should be aware of another possibility in some King’s
Indians, once the f-Pawn have moved, of playing …Bh6, answering
Bxh6 with …Qh4+ and …Qxh6 easing Black’s game because of the
weakened dark squares in the White position.

  Returning to the start of this session, what of
Petrosian’s three games against Mecking? The first game is given in
full, not only because it is a masterpiece, but because I leave it
for you to work out where Mecking went wrong. The second ended as
follows:

 

-+-+l+jT
+-+-+x+-
-X-KxPx+
XpT-+-Px
p+x+bP-+
+-R-+-P-
-+-+-+-+
+-R-+-+-

Here Mecking played 57…h4, and resigned. His Bishop is buried
and the dark squares surrendered.

  The third game went into the following endgame:

 

-+-+-+-+
+-X-+-+-
-X-+-+x+
+-+pS-Jx
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+p
p+b+-P-+
+-+-+k+-

Petrosian (Black here) says that Mecking let him have dark square
control. Often, as here, this is not the whole story. After all,
the matter of four Pawn islands to Petrosian’s two is relevant.
However, the critical factor is the inability of White’s Bishop to
protect both Queen’s-side Pawns, even through they are both on
light squares. Black’s King position also helps.

62. Ke2 Kf4 63. h4 g5 64. hxg5 Kxg5 65. Ke3 Ng4+
66. Kf3 h4 67. Bd1 Nf6 68. Bb3 Kf5 69. Kg2 Kg4 70. Bd1+ Kf4 71. Bb3
Ne4 72. Bc2 Nc3 73. Bb3 Ne4 74. Bc2 Nf6 75. Bb3 Kg4 76. Kh2 Ne4 77.
Kg2 h3+ 78. Kg1 Kf3 79. Bd1+ Kf4 80. Bc2 Nf6 81. Bb3 Ng4 82. Ba4
h2+ 83. Kg2 Nxf2 84. Kxh2 Nd3 85. Kg2 Ke3 86. Kg3 Nc1
0-1


Petrosian,Tigran – Mecking,Henrique [B07] Palma
de Mallorca (5 ), 1969

1. d4 g6 2. e4 Bg7 3. Nf3 d6 4. c3 Nf6 5. Nbd2
(Geller’s quiet system, aiming at a small plus) 5…
O-O

 

tSlD-Tj+
XxX-XxLx
-+-X-Sx+
+-+-+-+-
-+-Pp+-+
+-P-+n+-
pP-N-PpP
R-BqKb+r

6. Be2 c5 [6… Nc6 planning …e5 is given as
best by Nunn] 7. dxc5 dxc5 8. O-O Nc6 [8… b6]
9. Qc2 b6 10. Nc4 Bb7

 

t+-D-Tj+
Xl+-XxLx
-Xs+-Sx+
+-X-+-+-
-+n+p+-+
+-P-+n+-
pPq+bPpP
R-B-+rK-

11. a4 (you can see the outlines of a light-square
strategy for White) 11… Qc7 12. Re1 (typical
Petrosian – getting ready to defend a point not yet attacked)
12… Na5 13. Bf1 [13. Nxa5 Bxe4]
13… Nxc4 14. Bxc4 Ng4 (anxious for active play.
Black can occupy the d-file but there are not yet any entry points)
15. a5

  += Nunn, but Petrosian wins without fuss. Where did Black
go wrong?

15… Bc6

 

t+-+-Tj+
X-D-XxLx
-Xl+-+x+
P-X-+-+-
-+b+p+s+
+-P-+n+-
-Pq+-PpP
R-B-R-K-

[15… bxa5 does not really win a Pawn, as the Black
Queen’s-side Pawns are weak]

16. Qe2 Ne5 17. Nxe5 Bxe5 18. g3 Bg7 19. Bf4 e5
20. Bc1

  (Also typical Petrosian. Having tempted …e5, the Bishop
returns to base.The other effect of this move is that it might make
Black do something hasty later.)

20… Kh8

 

t+-+-T-J
X-D-+xLx
-Xl+-+x+
P-X-X-+-
-+b+p+-+
+-P-+-P-
-P-+qP-P
R-B-R-K-

21. Bd5 (exchanging the defender of the light
squares) 21… Bxd5 22. exd5 f5 23. c4 Rae8 24.
Rd1

  (White can draw up a battle plan: (1) fix the Black
Pawns, (2) tie Black’s pieces to their defence, (3) penetrate on
the light squares.)

24… f4 25. axb6 axb6

 

-+-+tT-J
+-D-+-Lx
-X-+-+x+
+-XpX-+-
-+p+-X-+
+-+-+-P-
-P-+qP-P
R-Br+-K-

26. Qe4 Qd7 27. Re1 Qf7 28. Re2 g5 29. g4 Qd7 30. f3
Ra8

 

t+-+-T-J
+-+d+-Lx
-X-+-+-+
+-XpX-X-
-+p+qXp+
+-+-+p+-
-P-+r+-P
R-B-+-K-

Phase (1) complete: the Black Pawns are fixed on dark squares.

31. Rxa8 Rxa8 32. Bd2 Re8 33. Bc3
Qd6

  (Phase (2) is complete: the Black pieces are tied to
defence.)

34. Re1 h6 35. Ra1 Rf8

 

-+-+-T-J
+-+-+-L-
-X-D-+-X
+-XpX-X-
-+p+qXp+
+-B-+p+-
-P-+-+-P
R-+-+-K-

(Now begins the final phase: invasion on the light squares.)
36. Ra7 Re8 37. Qf5 b5 (activity at last?)
38. Rd7 Qf8 39. Qxf8+ Rxf8 40. cxb5 Rb8

 

-T-+-+-J
+-+r+-L-
-+-+-+-X
+pXpX-X-
-+-+-Xp+
+-B-+p+-
-P-+-+-P
+-+-+-K-

41. Rxg7 1-0


Example games about colour complexes


Petrosian,Tigran – Mecking,Henrique [D03],
Wijk aan Zee (6 ), 1971

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. Bg5 c5 4. e3 d5 5. c3 Nc6 6. Nbd2
cxd4 7. exd4 Be7 8. Bd3 h6 9. Bf4 Nh5 10. Be3 Nf6 11. Ne5 Nxe5 12.
dxe5 Nd7 13. Bd4 Nc5 14. Bc2 a5 15. Qg4 g6 16. O-O Bd7 17. Rfe1 Qc7
18. a4 Na6 19. Qe2 Kf8 20. Nf3 Kg7 21. Be3 Nc5 22. Nd4 Ra6 23. Bc1
Raa8 24. g3 b6 25. h4 h5 26. Qf3 Qd8 27. Bd2 Qe8 28. Bg5 Qd8 29.
Qf4 Rc8 30. Re3 Bxg5 31. hxg5

 

-+tD-+-T
+-+l+xJ-
-X-+x+x+
X-SxP-Px
p+-N-Q-+
+-P-R-P-
-Pb+-P-+
R-+-+-K-

31… Ra8 32. Qf6+ Qxf6 33. exf6+ Kh7 34. Kg2 Rae8 35. f4
Rb8 36. Ree1 Nb7 37. Rh1 Kg8 38. Nf3 Nd6 39. Ne5 Be8 40. Bd3 Rc8
41. Kf3 Bc6 42. Rh2 Be8 43. Ke3 Rc7 44. Kd4 Nb7 45. b4 Nd8 46. Rh4
Nb7 47. Ra2 Nd6 48. Rh1 Nb7 49. b5 Nc5 50. Bc2 Nd7 51. Ra3 Nc5 52.
c4 Nd7 53. Rc3 Nxe5 54. Kxe5 dxc4 55. Be4 Rc8 56. Kd6 Rc5 57. Rhc1
h4 1-0

 


Mecking,Henrique – Petrosian,Tigran (10)
[C11], San Antonio, 1972

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 dxe4 5. Nxe4 Be7 6.
Nxf6+ Bxf6 7. Bxf6 Qxf6 8. c3 O-O 9. Bd3 Nc6 10. Qh5 g6 11. Qf3 Qg7
12. Ne2 e5 13. d5 Ne7 14. O-O f5 15. Bc4 Kh8 16. Rad1 f4 17. Rfe1
Nf5 18. Nc1 Nd6 19. Bf1 e4 20. Qe2 f3 21. gxf3 Rxf3 22. Nb3 Bg4 23.
Nd4 Raf8 24. Nxf3 Bxf3 25. Qd2 Qd7 26. h3 Kg8 27. Re3 Bxd1 28. Qxd1
Qf5 29. Re2 Qg5+ 30. Bg2 Rf5 31. c4 Nxc4 32. Rxe4 Nd6 33. Re3 Re5
34. Rxe5 Qxe5 35. Qc1 Qe7 36. Qc3 b6 37. b3 a5 38. Kf1 Qg7 39. Qc1
Qe5 40. Bf3 Nf5 41. Qg5 Kg7 42. Kg2 Qf6 43. Qf4 Qd6 44. Qe4 Kf6 45.
Qc4 Qe5

 

-+-+-+-+
+-X-+-+x
-X-+-Jx+
X-+pDs+-
-+q+-+-+
+p+-+b+p
p+-+-Pk+
+-+-+-+-

46. b4 axb4 47. Qxb4 h5 48. Be4 Nd6 49. Bf3 Kf7 50. Qb3 Kg7
51. Qd3 Kf6 52. Bd1 Nf5 53. Bc2 Kg5 54. Qd2+ Qf4 55. Qc3 Nh4+ 56.
Kf1 Nf3 57. Qd3 Qc1+ 58. Bd1 Ne5 59. Qd4 Qc4+ 60. Qxc4 Nxc4 61. Bc2
Ne5

 

-+-+-+-+
+-X-+-+-
-X-+-+x+
+-+pS-Jx
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+p
p+b+-P-+
+-+-+k+-

62. Ke2 Kf4 63. h4 g5 64. hxg5 Kxg5 65. Ke3 Ng4+ 66. Kf3 h4
67. Bd1 Nf6 68. Bb3 Kf5 69. Kg2 Kg4 70. Bd1+ Kf4 71. Bb3 Ne4 72.
Bc2 Nc3 73. Bb3 Ne4 74. Bc2 Nf6 75. Bb3 Kg4 76. Kh2 Ne4 77. Kg2 h3+
78. Kg1 Kf3 79. Bd1+ Kf4 80. Bc2 Nf6 81. Bb3 Ng4 82. Ba4 h2+ 83.
Kg2 Nxf2 84. Kxh2 Nd3 85. Kg2 Ke3 86. Kg3 Nc1 0-1

 


Nimzowitsch Aaron – Menchik,V (Karlsbad)
[C02], 1929

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. Qg4 cxd4 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. Bd3
Qa5+ 7. Nbd2 Nge7

[7… Qc7]

8. O-O Ng6 9. Re1 Be7 10. h4 Bf8

 

t+l+jL-T
Xx+-+xXx
-+s+x+s+
D-+xP-+-
-+-X-+qP
+-+b+n+-
pPpN-Pp+
R-B-R-K-

An indication of distress in the Black control room.

11. h5 Nge7 12. Nb3 Qc7 13. Nbxd4 Nxd4 14. Nxd4
Bd7 15. Bg5

 

t+-+jL-T
XxDlSxXx
-+-+x+-+
+-+xP-Bp
-+-N-+q+
+-+b+-+-
pPp+-Pp+
R-+-R-K-

Tempting a further weakness on the dark squares. 15… g6
16. Rac1 Nf5 17. Bf6 Rg8 18. Bxf5 exf5 19. Qe2 Qb6 20. c3 Bc5 21.
b4

  Nudges the dark-squared Bishop into exchange.

21… Bxd4 22. cxd4 Be6 23. Rc5

 

t+-+j+t+
Xx+-+x+x
-D-+lBx+
+-RxPx+p
-P-P-+-+
+-+-+-+-
p+-+qPp+
+-+-R-K-

White’s domination of the dark squares is complete.

23… Kd7 24. Qf3 Qxb4 25. Rxd5+ Ke8 26. Rc1 Bxd5
27. Qxd5 Qb6 28. Qf3 gxh5 29. Qa3 Qe6 30. Rc7 1-0