Compensation for material?

Mostly, situations of material imbalance are fairly clear. Typically extra material wins: even with an otherwise level position, the extra firepower can make an attack pay, or make the opponent’s defences overstretched.

  Occasionally, normal material values are overturned. This is most obvious in situations of sacrifice: the mutual possibilities of exchange sacrifices Rh1xNh5 and …Rc7xNc3 in the Sicilian Dragon are well-known, if not always easy to judge. The sacrifices remove a key defender and open lines against the King.

 

-+t+-+j+
+-TlXxL-
x+-X-+x+
Dx+-S-Ps
-+-Np+-+
+bN-Bp+-
pPpQ-+-+
+k+r+-+r

These attacking possibilities are not all we need to know. A while ago, I showed you one of my classier messes:

A tactic appears for you: you see it and analyse correctly, but wrongly assess the outcome.

-+-+tTj+
+xX-+-+-
x+-X-+-X
+-+pLsXd
p+p+nX-+
+-+-+p+p
-P-+qBp+
+r+-R-+k
Ward,D – Regis,D (1994)

26… Bd4 27. Bxd4 Rxe4 28. Qxe4 Ng3+ 29. Kg1 Nxe4 30. Rxe4 Re8 31. Rbe1 Rxe4 32. Rxe4 Qf7 33. Re6 Kh7 34. Rf6

[34. Kh2! …when it’s all a bit tricky!]

34… Qe8 35. Re6 Qxa4 36. Re7+ Kg6 37. Rxc7 Qd1+ 0-1

  The tactic was obvious enough, what I failed to assess was how good White’s pieces would be in the ending. Best was probably to recapture on d4 with the knight on #27.

  What is at issue here are situations which suit particular pieces. Here are some unusual exploitations of material imbalance. Some are exceptions to the usual material rules, but perhaps we should rather think of these as illustrations of some unbroken positional rules – Rooks always need open files.

  Several of these examples I got from Jan Timman’s recent and hugely enjoyable games collection Selected Games (cadogan), where I was struck by several games with a material imbalance. I don’t know if Jan gets these more often than other GMs or just enjoys them more! Anyhow, I hope you get something out of these examples.


The exchange


Compensation for the exchange: Bronstein,David – Boleslavsky,Isaak (Moskva ch_SU, 1961

t+-+-+j+
+-+-+x+-
-+-X-+x+
Px+p+-Bx
-P-+s+-P
+-+-+-+-
-+-+bLp+
+-+-Rk+-
A simple case: an exchange for extra passed Pawns

35. Bxb5 Bxe1 36. Kxe1 Nxg5 37. hxg5 Kf8 38. Bc6 Ra7 39. Kd2 Ke7 40. Kc3 f6 41. gxf6+ Kxf6 42. Kc4 Ke5 43. Kb5 g5 44. Kb6 Rf7 45. a6 g4 46. a7 Rf8 47. Bd7 Kf4 48. b5 h4 49. Bxg4 Kxg4 50. Kc6 1-0

 


Compensation for the exchange (R v N) Lasker – Janowsky, 1909

-+-+-+j+
+-X-+-+d
x+pX-T-+
+x+pXp+x
-P-S-+-+
+-+r+-Pq
p+-+-+-+
+-+r+-+k
1. Rf1 Qf7

[1… Nxf5 2. Rdf3]

[1… Rxf5 2. Rxf5 Nxf5

[2… Qxf5 3. Qxf5 Nxf5 4. Rf3 Nd4 ? 5. Rf6 Kg7 6. Rxd6 cxd6 7. c7]

3. Rf3]

2. Qg2

  cooperative

[2. Kh2 e.g. 2… Qxd5 3. Qxh5]

2… Rxf5 3. Rxf5 Qxf5 4. Re3

[4. Ra3 e4 5. Rxa6 e3 6. Ra3 e2]

[4. Rd1 Nf3 5. Rf1 e4]

4… Qb1+ 5. Kh2 Qxb4 6. g4 h4

  limiting White’s counterplay

7. Kh3 Qc4 8. Qe4 Kg7 9. Kxh4 Qf1 10. a3

[10. Kg5 Qf6+ 11. Kh5 Qh6#]

10… a5 11. Kg3 Qg1+ 12. Kh3 Qf2 13. g5 b4 14. axb4 axb4 15. Kg4 Qg1+

[15… b3]

16. Kh5 Qh2+ 17. Kg4 b3 18. Re1 Qc2 19. Kh5

[19. Qxc2 bxc2 20. Rc1 Kg6 21. Kh4 e4 22. Kg4 e3 winning]

19… Qxe4 20. Rxe4 Nc2 21. Rxe5 b2

[21… dxe5 22. d6 also wins for Black (Tarrasch), but why bother?]

22. Re7+ Kf8 23. Rxc7 b1=Q 24. Rc8+ Ke7 25. Rc7+ Kd8 26. Rd7+ Ke8 27. Rxd6 Nd4 0-1

 


Compensation for the exchange: Ljublinsky Victor (RUS) – Botvinnik M (Moscow) [C77], 1943

25. Qc2

 

-T-T-+j+
+-L-Dx+x
l+x+-+x+
X-X-X-+-
-+p+p+-+
+pN-Bp+-
p+q+-+pP
R-+r+-K-
25… Rd4 26. Ne2?

[26. Bxd4 cxd4 27. Na4 c5 28. Nb2 and with Nd3 White achieves an ideal blockading position.]

26… Bc8 27. Nxd4 cxd4 28. Bf2 c5 29. Rf1 f5

 

-Tl+-+j+
+-L-D-+x
-+-+-+x+
X-X-Xx+-
-+pXp+-+
+p+-+p+-
p+q+-BpP
R-+-+rK-
The Rooks have no open files, while the Bishops give the King a Hard Stare. The d-Pawn is also a constant danger.

30. Bg3 Bd7 31. Rad1 f4 32. Bf2 g5 33. g4?

  perhaps White intends to seal the King’s-side, but of course Black does not permit this.

[33. a3 and opening a file on the Queen’s-side is essential]

33… fxg3 34. Bxg3 Bh3 35. Rf2 h5 36. Rfd2 h4 37. Bf2 Rf8 38. Rd3 Rf4 39. Kh1 Kh7 40. Rg1 Bd8 41. Qe2 Qf7 42. Qd1 Qh5

 

-+-L-+-+
+-+-+-+j
-+-+-+-+
X-X-X-Xd
-+pXpT-X
+p+r+p+l
p+-+-B-P
+-+q+-Rk
43. Be3 Qxf3+ 44. Qxf3 Rxf3 45. Bxg5 Rxd3 46. Bxd8 Re3 47. Bb6 Rxe4 48. Bxc5 Re2 49. Rd1 Bg4 50. h3 Bxh3 51. b4 Bf5 52. Bd6 d3 53. bxa5 h3 0-1

 


Compensation for the exchange: Selesniev Alexey – Alekhin Alexander (Triberg) [A47], 1921

20. Bd3

 

-T-+-Tj+
+-DsXxL-
l+-X-+xX
X-Xp+-+-
p+p+-+-+
+-+b+nP-
-+qBpP-P
+r+-+rK-
20… Rb4 21. Bxb4 cxb4 22. Nd2 Nc5?!

[22… Rc8]

23. Nb3 Nd7

 

-+-+-Tj+
+-DsXxL-
l+-X-+xX
X-+p+-+-
pXp+-+-+
+n+b+-P-
-+q+pP-P
+r+-+rK-
Black has great play on the dark squares, especially c5, and a protected passed Pawn. Additionally, the White Pawns at a4 and c4 are targets.

24. c5

  A good bid for counterplay: the Rooks need open lines and the Pawn was blocking the Bishop. However, the Black Queen’s-side Pawns now become very dangerous.

24… Bxd3 25. exd3 dxc5 26. Rfe1 Ne5 27. Re3

[27. Qxc5!?]

27… Rc8 28. Rc1 Qd7 29. d4 Ng4 30. Re4 c4 31. Nc5 Qf5 32. Qe2

 

-+t+-+j+
+-+-XxL-
-+-+-+xX
X-Np+d+-
pXxPr+s+
+-+-+-P-
-+-+qP-P
+-R-+-K-
32… b3 33. Rxg4 b2 34. Qxb2 Qxg4 35. Rxc4 h5 36. Qc2

 

-+t+-+j+
+-+-XxL-
-+-+-+x+
X-Np+-+x
p+rP-+d+
+-+-+-P-
-+q+-P-P
+-+-+-K-
The return of the exchange has given White some play…

36… h4

  …but this ushers in a new phase of the game: Alekhin has the initiative, and there is no more dangerous prospect for a player!

[…] 74. Nh3+ Kf1 0-1

 


A complex exchange sacrifice: Portisch L – Timman J (5, Antwerp) [B06], 1992

-T-T-+j+
X-+-+xLx
-+bP-+x+
+pX-P-+-
-+qX-P-+
+-+-+-+-
-Dn+-+pP
+-+-+rK-
An imbalance of the exchange is overlaid with a fascinating battle between passed d-Pawns.

26. Qxc5 d3 27. Nb4!

 

-T-T-+j+
X-+-+xLx
-+bP-+x+
+pQ-P-+-
-N-+-P-+
+-+x+-+-
-D-+-+pP
+-+-+rK-
27… d2 28. Nd3 Qb3 29. Nf2 Qa4 30. g3 a6 31. b6 Rdc8 32. b7! Rxc6 33. Qa7 Rxb7 34. Qxb7 Rc1 35. Qf3 Qd4 36. Kg2 Re1! 37. Nd1 Bf8 38. Qf2 Qd5+ 39. Kg1 Rxf1+ 40. Kxf1 f6 41. exf6 Bxd6 42. Qe3 Kf7 43. Ke2 Bc5! 44. Qc3 Qe4+ 45. Kf1 Qh1+ 46. Ke2 Qxh2+ 47. Kf3 Qh1+ 0-1

 


Queen for Rook and Minor Piece

This is usually a straightforward win. The Queen has problems if it is the only White piece left, and if the defender’s position can hold the Queen off.


The Queen in an open position: Euwe, M – Grunfeld,E (Zandvoort) Q vs. RB, 1936

t+-D-Tj+
+l+-LxXx
x+-+-+-+
+xSnPq+-
-+x+-+-+
+-+-+n+-
pP-+-PpP
R-Br+-K-
18. Nf6+ Bxf6 19. Rxd8 Bxd8

 

t+-L-Tj+
+l+-+xXx
x+-+-+-+
+xS-Pq+-
-+x+-+-+
+-+-+n+-
pP-+-PpP
R-B-+-K-
In this open position the Queen is boss and White wins quickly by direct attack.

20. Ng5 Bxg5 21. Bxg5 Rfe8 22. Re1 Re6 23. Re3 Rae8 24. h4 h6 25. Bf6 g6 26. Qf4

 

-+-+t+j+
+l+-+x+-
x+-+tBxX
+xS-P-+-
-+x+-Q-P
+-+-R-+-
pP-+-Pp+
+-+-+-K-
26… Kh7 27. Bg5 f5 28. exf6 0-1

 


Keres,Paul – Fischer,Robert (Yugoslavia ct Rd: 1 [B99] Q v RN, 1959

t+l+j+-T
+-D-LxXx
x+-XxS-+
+x+-+-+-
-+-NpP-+
+-N-+q+-
pPp+b+pP
+-Kr+-+r
12. e5 Bb7 13. exf6 Bxf3

“so I chopped it off!” – RJF

14. Bxf3 Bxf6 15. Bxa8 d5 16. Bxd5 Bxd4 17. Rxd4 exd5 18. Nxd5 Qc5 19. Re1+ Kf8

 

-+-+-J-T
+-+-+xXx
x+-+-+-+
+xDn+-+-
-+-R-P-+
+-+-+-+-
pPp+-+pP
+-K-R-+-
20. c3 h5 21. f5 Rh6 22. f6

  conceding (“throwing away” – RJF) a pawn in order to try and keep Black tied up

22… gxf6 23. Nf4 h4 24. Rd8+ Kg7 25. Ree8 Qg1+ 26. Kd2 Qf2+ 27. Ne2 Rg6 28. g3 f5

 

-+-Rr+-+
+-+-+xJ-
x+-+-+t+
+x+-+x+-
-+-+-+-X
+-P-+-P-
pP-KnD-P
+-+-+-+-
Keres may have been optimistic about this line but Black is sorted out and can plan the win. The Queen in an open position, with play on both wings, is a monster. Black soon obtains a passed Pawn and play against the exposed King.

29. Rg8+ Kf6 30. Rxg6+ fxg6 31. gxh4 Qxh2 32. Rd4 Qh1 33. Kc2 Ke5 34. a4 Qf1 35. Nc1 Qf2+ 36. Kb3 bxa4+ 37. Ka3 Qc2 38. Nd3+ Kf6 39. Nc5 Qc1 40. Rxa4 Qe3 41. Nxa6

 

-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
n+-+-Jx+
+-+-+x+-
r+-+-+-P
K-P-D-+-
-P-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
41… f4 42. Rd4 Kf5 43. Nb4 Qe7 44. Kb3 Qxh4 45. Nd3 g5 46. c4 Qg3 47. c5 f3 48. Kc4 f2

  “Bzzzt! Game over, thank you for playing…”

49. Nxf2 Qxf2 50. c6 Qxb2 51. Kc5 Qc3+ 52. Kd5 g4 53. Rc4 Qe5# 0-1

 


Timman J – Seirawan Yasser (10, Surakarta) [D29] Q v RB, 1983

19. Rd6

 

-+-T-Tj+
+-+s+x+x
xD-Rx+x+
+xL-Pp+s
-+-+-+-+
+bN-B-+-
pP-+qP-P
R-+-+-K-
19… Bxe3! 20. Rxb6 Bxb6 21. Rd1 Nc5 22. Qf3 Nxb3 23. axb3 Bd4

 

-+-T-Tj+
+-+-+x+x
x+-+x+x+
+x+-Pp+s
-+-L-+-+
+pN-+q+-
-P-+-P-P
+-+r+-K-
24. Rd3 exf5?! 25. Qd1 Bb6 26. Nd5 Rb8

 

-T-+-Tj+
+-+-+x+x
xL-+-+x+
+x+nPx+s
-+-+-+-+
+p+r+-+-
-P-+-P-P
+-+q+-K-
Where can White find a winning plan of campaign?

27. Rh3!

[27. Nxb6 Rxb6 28. Rd6 Rfb8 when neither a mating attack nor a passed Pawn seems likely.]

27… Bd8 28. Rxh5 gxh5 29. Qxh5 Kh8 30. Qxf5 Rg8+ 31. Kf1 Rg7 32. Nf4 Kg8 33. e6 Be7 34. Nh5 Rf8 35. Nxg7 Kxg7

 

-+-+-T-+
+-+-LxJx
x+-+p+-+
+x+-+q+-
-+-+-+-+
+p+-+-+-
-P-+-P-P
+-+-+k+-
White has regained his extra material and should be able to get a win on technique.

36. Qe5+

[36. b4! keeps the Queen’s-side Pawns vulnerable]

36… Kg6 37. Kg2 b4 38. f4 f5 39. Kf3 h5 40. Qe2 h4 41. Qxa6 Rd8 42. Qe2

 

-+-T-+-+
+-+-L-+-
-+-+p+j+
+-+-+x+-
-X-+-P-X
+p+-+k+-
-P-+q+-P
+-+-+-+-
(Adjourned: how can the White King effect an entry?)

42… Rd6 43. Qe3 Rd8 44. Ke2 Kf6 45. Qe5+ Kg6 46. Qe3 Kg7 47. Qg1+ Kf6 48. h3 Rf8 49. Kd3 Kxe6 50. Qe3+ Kd7 51. Kd4 Rf6

 

-+-+-+-+
+-+jL-+-
-+-+-T-+
+-+-+x+-
-X-K-P-X
+p+-Q-+p
-P-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
52. Qg1! Rf8 53. Kd5 Rf6 54. Qg8 Ra6 55. Qb8 Rh6 56. Qb7+ Kd8 57. Ke5 Rf6 58. Qb8+ Kd7 59. Qg8 Rc6 60. Kxf5 Rf6+ 61. Ke5 Rc6 62. Qd5+ Kc7 63. Qa5+ Kb7

 

-+-+-+-+
+j+-L-+-
-+t+-+-+
Q-+-K-+-
-X-+-P-X
+p+-+-+p
-P-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
Nearly zugzwang!

64. Qa4 Bf8 65. Qb5+ Kc7 66. Qa5+ Rb6 67. Qa7+ Rb7 68. Qa6 Bg7+ 69. Kd5 Rb6 70. Qa7+ Rb7 71. Qa5+ Kb8 72. Qd8+ Ka7 73. Qxh4 Ka6 74. Qd8 Bxb2 75. f5 Bc3 76. f6 Rh7 77. Kc6 1-0


Ivanchuk Vasily – Timman J [04, Hilversum] [E99] Q v RN, 1991

-T-D-Lj+
+-+l+-+t
xN-X-S-+
P-+pX-+-
-+-+p+p+
+-+-X-+-
-Pr+b+q+
+-Rn+-K-
“The game annotated below does not really come within the confines of what is commonly understood to be top chess.” — Timman

33… Nh5

[33… Bh6!]

34. gxh5+!

  else the Knight comes to f4, winning

34… Rg7 35. Nxd7 Rxg2+ 36. Kxg2 Qxd7 37. Nxe3

  White is getting sorted

37… Bh6!?

[37… Qa4 38. Bf3 Qxa5 39. Nf5 with a blockade]

38. Ng4 Bg5 39. Rc7 Qa4 40. R1c4 Qxa5 Time-control 41. Nf2?

[41. Rc8+ Rxc8 42. Rxc8+ Kg7 43. Rc2]

41… Qe1! 42. Rc8+ Rxc8 43. Rxc8+ Kg7 44. Rc2

 

-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-J-
x+-X-+-+
+-+pX-Lp
-+-+p+-+
+-+-+-+-
-Pr+bNk+
+-+-D-+-
now the Knight is passive

44… Bh4?

[44… Be3 45. Bf3 Bd4

[45… a5!]

46. Ng4]

45. Bf3 Kh6 46. Re2 Qc1 47. Ng4+ Kg5 48. Ne3 Kf4 49. h6! Qc8 50. Nf5 Qd8 51. Re3

 

-+-D-+-+
+-+-+-+-
x+-X-+-P
+-+pXn+-
-+-+pJ-L
+-+-Rb+-
-P-+-+k+
+-+-+-+-
51… Bg5?!

  “a groundless winning attempt”

52. h7 Bf6

[52… Qh8 was intended, but 53. Be2 Qxh7 54. Rf3+ Kxe4 55. Bd3+ Kxd5 56. Ne3+]

53. Be2 Bh8 54. Bd3 Qc7 55. Rf3+ Kg5 56. Rg3+ Kf6 57. Rh3 Qc1 58. Nxd6 Qxb2+ 59. Kf1 a5 60. Nc4 Qa1+ 61. Ke2 a4 62. d6 Qd4 63. Rh6+ Kg7 64. Re6 Kxh7 65. Re7+ Kg6 66. d7 Bf6 67. Re6 a3 68. Nd6 Qb6 69. Bc4 a2 70. Bxa2 Qb2+ 71. Kf3 Kh5!!

 

-+-+-+-+
+-+p+-+-
-+-NrL-+
+-+-X-+j
-+-+p+-+
+-+-+k+-
bD-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
a miracle has occurred

72. Rxf6 Qc3+ 73. Kg2 Qd2+ 74. Rf2 Qxd6 75. Be6=

  …drawn on move 103!

 


Queen for two Rooks

Where the Rooks are connected and can cooperate in attacking Pawns, they are clearly stronger, and this is usually the case.


Janowski,D – Lasker,Emanuel (Paris) [C48] Q vs. 2 RR (Q with attack), 1909

-+-+tJ-+
+xXs+x+x
x+-X-P-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+-P-+
+p+-+q+-
pBp+-KpP
+-+-T-+-
25. Qxb7

[25. Qh5 R1e2+

[25… R8e6 26. f5 R6e4 27. Bc3 R1e3 28. Qh6+ Ke8 29. Qxe3]

[25… R8e4 26. Bc3 R1e3 27. Qxh7 Ke8 28. h4]

[25… R8e3 26. Bc3]

26. Qxe2]

25… R1e2+ 26. Kf3 Rxc2 27. Bd4 a5 28. Qb5 Nc5 29. Qxa5 Nd3

[/\ …Ne1+ and …Rxg2]

30. Be3 d5

[/\ …Ne1+; Qxe1, d4]

31. Bd2 c5 32. Kg3 Nc1

[32… d4 33. f5 (/\ Bh6+ and Qb5) 33… Nc1

[33… Ne5 34. Bh6+ Kg8 35. Qb5 Rd8 36. Qf1 d3 37. Qe1 d2

[37… Nc6 38. Qe3]

38. Bxd2 Rcxd2 39. Qxe5]

34. Bh6+ Kg8 35. Qb5 Rd8 36. Qf1 Nxa2 37. Qf4]

33. Bxc1 1-0

[33. Bxc1 Rxc1 34. Qd2 when the d-pawn falls]

 


Ivanchuk V – Timman J [13, Tilburg] [A29] Q v RR, 1990

37. R1f7+

 

-+-+tR-+
+-Qs+rJx
-+-+-+-T
+p+-+-+d
-+-+-+-+
P-N-X-Pl
-+-+p+-X
+-B-+-+k
“White has no choice but to allow this liquidation, but the two Rooks are much stronger than the Queen.”

37… Qxf7 38. Rxf7+ Kxf7

 

-+-+t+-+
+-Qs+j+x
-+-+-+-T
+p+-+-+-
-+-+-+-+
P-N-X-Pl
-+-+p+-X
+-B-+-+k
39. Qf4+ Kg6 40. Kxh2 Rh5 41. Qd6+ Nf6 42. Kg1 Rf5 43. Qd3

 

-+-+t+-+
+-+-+-+x
-+-+-Sj+
+p+-+t+-
-+-+-+-+
P-NqX-Pl
-+-+p+-+
+-B-+-K-
43… Kh5?

[43… Ree5!? just fails to mate]

[43… Kg7!]

44. g4+! Kxg4 45. Bxe3 Rg8 46. Kh2 Kh4 47. Bg5+

  (the move Timman had overlooked; the Black King is persistently misplaced)

47… Kxg5 48. Kxh3 Nh5?

“I was getting short of time at this point, and – worse – was still aiming to win.”

[48… Rg6!]

49. Nd5 Rg6 50. Qe3+ Nf4+ 51. Nxf4 Rxf4 52. b6 Kf5 53. Qc5+ Ke4 54. Qe7+ Kf5 55. Qxh7 Re4 56. b7 Re3+ 57. Kh4 1-0

 


A curiosity

Agust always says that you should teach chess backwards, like the Russians: learn how to mate with the King and two Queens against bare King, then King and Queen, then King and Rook…

  Agust also says he is glad he learned to mate with Bishop and Knight, and sorry he neglected the endgame of Bishop and Rook against Rook. Here’s another that many of us may have neglected…

 


Timman J – Speelman J (10, Linares) [D35] KBB v KN, 1992

66. Bxb5

 

-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+-+-B
+b+k+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+jS-
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
66… Nf5 67. Bf8 Ne3+ 68. Kd4 Ng2 69. Kd3 Nf4+ 70. Kd2 Ng2 71. Bc6+ Kf2 72. Bd6 Nh4 73. Bc5+ Kg3 74. Bb6 Ng2 75. Bd5 Nh4 76. Ke2 Kf4 77. Bb3 Nf5 78. Bc7+ Kg5 79. Be5 Kg4 80. Bc2 Ng3+ 81. Kf2 Nf5 82. Bd1+ Kg5 83. Kf3 Nh4+ 84. Ke4 Nf5 85. Ba4 Ne7 86. Bd7 Ng8 87. Bf4+ Kg6 88. Ke5 Nf6 89. Bb5 Kf7 90. Bc4+ Kg6 91. Ke6 1-0

  Timman in his notes regrets that the theory of this endgame indicates a win can be forced only after more than 50 moves, and so there is little incentive, under the restored 50-move rule, to study this type of endgame. He concludes:

“The chess world is becoming dull and superficial” — Timman

Just a half? Slav and Semi-Slav

I’ve been discussing a choice of defence to 1.d4; defending classically with 1…d5 can’t be bad, but what to play after 2.c4?

The Slav (2…c6, ECO D10-D19) and Semi-Slav (…c6 with …e6, D43-D49) have a reputation for being solid, although the main lines of these systems are as sharp and bookish as any defence.  We’ve seen several lines contested in World Championship matches between Alekhin and Bogolyubow and Euwe; other lines have been examined in Kramnik’s matches (against Leko, Topalov and Anand) in recent years and, as you might imagine, the approaches have got quite sharp and sophisticated.

You can avoid all this lofty sophistication and go for solidity, but, as usual in chess, if Black declines to confront White in a theoretical line, Black must accept less than full dynamic equality.  There is no easy route to equality in chess; if there were, no-one would play the game!

This is a sort of bird’s-eye view of the Slav, with some hints for Black about some less common lines.  [See also How do you learn a new opening?, forthcoming]

ALL THE GAMES:

1 The ideas behind the Slav defence

1.1 Winning with the Slav

Both Slav/Semi-Slav: Grab the c-pawn

A rodeo variation… Grab something and try and hold on!

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(1000)” title=”QGD : Slav : Tolush-Geller Gambit”>Reefschlaeger H. – Huebner R. [D15]

Take the c-pawn…

…and, while White is recovering the material, get developed, maybe hit back with either …c5 or …e5.

This is a very important theme.  Black can often park their pieces on natural squares in the Slav and think themselves solid, but White’s centre can roll over the Black position.  So Black has to do something about White’s centre.  If you consider the pawn formation after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6, White can expand in the centre with e4.  Black can deter or defuse this advance by making their own assault on the centre with …e5 or …c5.  However, …e5 played now allows White to isolate the d-Pawn after 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.dxe5; a similar possibility exists after …e6 and …c5.  So, first Black plays ….dxc4 (Czech and Meran Variations), then hits back with …e5.  This is a delicate operation, since it leaves White with a dangerous central majority for a move or ten, so you will need to restrain White’s pawns in the manner of the hypermoderns.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10020)” title=”QGD : Slav : Carlsbad Variation”>Alekhin A – Euwe M [D17]

Here’s the other counterblow in a game where Black was happy, even a move behind:

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(1002)” title=”QGD : Slav : Soultanbeieff Variation”>Leko P. – Kramnik V. [D16]

[Not a bad surprise weapon, although probably a poor first choice for a defensive system.  Svidler, Kramnik’s second, got a couple of black eyes pushing his luck with it.]

Slav: early development of the Bc8

This is the main selling point of the pure Slav; we will solve the problem of where to place this wretched piece by developing it first, and then every other piece will fall into place (Nbd7 and Bd6 or Bb4).  A common post is f5, restraining the e-pawn which is liberated by …dxc4, or g4, pinning the Nf3.

1.2 Losing with the Slav (ideas for White):

[Gambit the c-pawn]

The brighter side of Black being tempted to grab it.  It was quite in Kasparov’s early style to sacrifice a pawn for the initiative:

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10021)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav : Anti-Meran 4…dxc4″>Kasparov G. – Petursson M. [D44]

Current theory suggests this is better for Black, but at club level, the initiative is a more powerful weapon than “=+”.

Take over the centre

If Black is so good as to relinquish their stake in the centre, let White rejoice!

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10022)” title=”QGD : Slav : Soultanbeieff Variation”>Alekhin A – Bogoljubow E [D16]
  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10040)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav : Meran, Reynold’s Variation”>Polugaevsky L. – Navarro [D48]

Harass the Black Queen’s Bishop

Similarly, if Black is so insistent on getting out the Bc8, then White can see it coming and work to take advantage of what may be a premature decision.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10018)” title=”QGD : Slav : 4.e3 Bf5″>Topalov V. – Kramnik V. [D12]

Semi-Slav: Gambit the d-pawn

Black has an option of delaying the development of the Ng8, and setting up a little triangle of pawns after 1…d5 followed by, in one order or another, 2…c6 and 3…e6.  This is a particularly handy move-order for Black if you think White might play an Exchange Variation, and essential if you want to play the Abrahams-Noteboom Variation. However, if White wishes to encourage Black to play …Nf6 (hoping perhaps to avoid the Noteboom) then 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 e6 can be followed with 4.e4!?  Now 4…dxe4 5.Nxe4 will lead to a simple White plus unless Black grasps the nettle with 5…Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Qxd4 7.Bxb4 Qxe4.  Instead Black can dodge with 4…Bb4 5.e5 c5 (an old idea which I think is still holding up well enough, but maybe White will get on Black’s case before long).

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10041)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav : Marshall Gambit”>Wood B. – Alexander C. [D31]

2 The Variations

2.1 The Big Four

The four big sharp main lines, all still in use at the top level, are:

Slav: Czech System (Krause Attack)

White tries to swamp the centre, Black may have to sacrifice to hold the balance.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10042)” title=”QGD : Slav : Wiesbaden Variation”>Kramnik V. – Lautier J. [D17]

Even if White plays less sharply, it’s by no means a calm game: take a look at this one!

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10049)” title=”QGD : Slav : Carlsbad Variation”>Kramnik V. – Morozevich A. [D17]

Someone commented ‘perhaps only Kramnik understands these positions’, but when asked the question about what is best for Black in 2006, he demurred:

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10011)” title=”QGD : Slav : Wiesbaden Variation”>Topalov V. – Kramnik V. [D17]

Semi-Slav: Noteboom Variation

In the Abrahams-Noteboom Variation, Black all but abandons the centre in favour of trying to score a try on the wing.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10027)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav : Abrahams Variation”>Neverov V. – Kramnik V. [D31]

Semi-Slav: Meran Variation

A finely poised battle between central occupation and counterplay.  After the natural 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 b5 8.Bd3 a6 (Black can try instead 8…b4 or the uncommital 8…Bb7; there is also 8…Qc7) 9.e4 c5 White can play Reynold’s 10.d5 or 10.e5 cxd4 11.Nxb5…

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10012)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav : Meran Variation”>Kramnik V. – Topalov V. [D47]

Semi-Slav: Botvinnik’s Anti-Meran Gambit

Even among GM theory, this is regarded as a poisonously complicated line, bewilderingly unbalanced.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10072)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav : Anti-Meran, Denker”>Ponomariov R. – Shirov A. [D44]

All exhilarating stuff, but not for the faint-hearted and not to be undertaken lightly (i.e. only with a big book and a bigger database and preferably a team of seconds and perhaps a computer in the toilet).

 

I have seen top SW County players play all these lines (I’ve played one or two myself), but they can all draw you into a theoretical arms race where only the publishers win…   These variations have been around for a long while, I don’t suppose they’re likely to be refuted, but it seems the exact dance steps you need to stay upright change very often in some of these lines, even monthly.   So, rather than face the Botvinnik line, Black invented the Moscow Variation with 5…h6 (6.Bxf6), but now the Anti-Moscow (6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5 9.Be2 Bb7 9.h4!) is accreting layers of theory faster than a black hole in a galaxy centre…

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(1004)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav : Hastings Variation”>Anand V. – Kramnik V. [D43]

2.2 Quieter play for White

Eschewing the arms race of theory, White has many quieter options, which a club player might prefer:

Slav: Czech system, Dutch Variation

White defers the attempt to take over the centre with e4 until development is complete.  I say ‘quieter’, but White can push the accelerator if they wish…  Nunn’s Chess Openings [NCO] says that after 6.e3 e6 7.Bxc4 Bb4 8.O-O Nbd7 (discouraging Ne5), White can force a draw in some lines after 9.Qb3, so, if that’s an issue, then play 8…O-O to keep the three possible results alive.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(1009)” title=”QGD : Slav : Dutch Variation, Main Line”>Topalov V. – Kramnik V. [D19]

Slav: Slow Variation

I used to think of this as an unconvincing attempt by White to keep some play going in the Colle (1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Bf5! 4.c4 c6); I’m tempted to name it the Colloid, in recognition of its gooey nature….  Now it turns out to be cutting-edge World Championship theory.   The continued interest by GMs in teasing out the subtleties of this line is lost on me, but let us put it down to the inexhaustible richness of the chessboard rather than a collective exercise in stodginess.  I guess while Black is solid, White is very flexible and has the two Bishops; Black must wait for White to reveal their plan.  Topalov stung Kramnik with an innovation in the middle of their 2006 match but neither side chose to repeat the line with either colour later in the match (Kramnik choosing the old 8.g3 and Topalov 8.Rb1: most cagey…).  4…Bf5 is natural but 4…Bg4 is OK and even 4…g6 is playable, although not a formation Slav players will be very familiar with.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10013)” title=”QGD : Slav : 4.e3 Bf5″>Topalov V. – Kramnik V. [D12]

Semi-Slav: Anti-Meran Stodge

White secures the centre but puts less pressure on Black.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10017)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav : Stoltz Variation”>Kramnik V. – Topalov V. [D45]

White can be even more dull with 4.e3 e6 5.Nbd2, after which you can try 5…c5!?, hoping to sharpen the play.  As usual, it’s hard for Black to insist on active play if White wants a quiet game.

Having libelled this variation as ‘stodge’, I must mention that Shabalov came up with 7.g4!?, now known as the Latvian Bayonet after Shirov got hold of it.  Here’s an influential game:

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10054)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav : Stoltz Variation”>Shirov A. – Fressinet L. [D45]

Since then, Shirov has been obliged to defend against his own weapon:

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10055)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav : Stoltz Variation”>Radjabov T. – Shirov A. [D45]

It seems that, as White is likely to castle Queen’s-side, 7…Bb4 8.Bd2 c5! is also an effective antidote.

White has one last ‘slow’ option that is often seen as unspeakably dull:

Slav: Exchange Variation

Well there are still 30 bits on the board, you can still try and make something happen…

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(1005)” title=”QGD : Slav : Exchange, Trifunovic Variation”>Kramnik V. – Anand V. [D14]

These days there are some delicate negotiations about exactly when to exchange and whether Black can tease White by reserving options for the Bc8 with …a6:

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10048)” title=”QGD : Slav Defense : Exchange Variation”>Mozetic D. – Shirov A. [D10]

One example of the move order subtleties being negotiated is that after 3.cxd5 cxd5 4.Nc3, Black can play an improved version of the Winawer Counter-Gambit with 4…e5! [NCO]. So, White might prefer to play 3.Nc3 or 3.Nf3 before exchanging (but 3.Nc3 allows not just 3…e5?! but 3…dxc4!?).  Players of the Semi-Slav at least have the opportunity of recapturing with the e-pawn, which offers more unbalanced play.  Vigus says Black can chase the Bf4 with …Nh5, an idea played by Botvinnik and Basman…

2.3 Unconfrontational play by Black

Black can also avoid the sharpest lines.  For example, rather than face Botvinnik’s Anti-Meran Gambit, Black can dodge with 5…h6 (Moscow Variation) or slide out into the Queen’s Gambit Declined by 5…Nbd7, when, after 6.e3, 6…Qa5 is a Cambridge Springs and 6…Be7 is a true Orthodox.

Slav: Alternatives in the main line

James Vigus has built a repertoire book around the soild Sokolov Variation:  1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 Bf5 6. Ne5 Nbd7 7. Nxc4 Nb6 (rather than 7…Qc7), and that’s got to be worth a look.

There are other alternatives which are surely playable but perhaps not so dynamic.  I used be be a believer in the Bronstein (Steiner) variation with 5…Bg4; 6.e3 looks a bit limp, but after 6.e4 e5!? or 6…e6 and 7…Bb4 Black gets good play, and after 6.Ne5 Bh5 7.e3 or 7.g3 or 7.h3 Black can equalise.  This variation was recommended a long while ago in a repertoire book by Andy Soltis, and I’ve had a sort of avuncular interest in it over the years, but when I caught up with recent developments(*) it started to feel like too much of a struggle: too much theory for too little play.  NCO gives 5 rows for this variation, and lots of notes, the bottom line is +=… But you can always walk into a +=, it depends if you fancy it! Nikolic, Flear, Conquest  and Vigus have all dabbled in it over the years.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10028)” title=”QGD : Slav : Steiner Variation”>Schmidt W. – Stempin P. [D16]
  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10050)” title=”QGD : Slav : Steiner Variation”>Piket J. – Romanishin O. [D16]

(*) The current recommendation for White is to sharpen the game more, with 6.Ne5 Bh5 7.f3, after which there are complications and promising conclusions for White.  7…Nfd7!? has the bright idea of 8.Nxc4 e5! (9.dxe5? Qh4+) but even if, after 9.Ne4 Bb4+ 10.Bd2 Qe7 11.Bxb4 Qxb4+ 12.Qd2 Qxd2+ 13.Kxd2 exd4 14.Ned6+ Ke7 15.Nf5, Black can hold with 15…Kd8, Sadler still reckons White has promising play after 9.g3, 9.Be3 and the bonkers 9.e4.

Cox suggests 9.g3 f6 10.dxe5 Nxe5 11.Qxd8 gives a small advantage, while 9.g3 Bb4 10.dxe5 O-O 11.Nh3 Qe7 12.f4!? (12.Bf4!?) is still up for grabs.

So perhaps Black should play the less common 7…e6 and hope either that White doesn’t have the bottle for 8.g4, or that it’s no worse a position to be in than many in the Slav.  White’s score from games at www.chesslive.de was pretty impressive, but GM Illescas managed to drop a game against it.  Cox reports the critical line is 8.g4 Nd5 9.e4 Qh4+ 10.Ke2 Nxc3+ 11.bxc3 Bxg6 which Burgess gives as unclear but Cox thinks is better for White.  Presumably people have pondered this over the years but the ChessBase site turned up exactly one Black win in that line, a correspondence encounter which continued instead 11…f6!?  Alternatively 8…Nfd7 was the line that Illescas lost to… Over to you!

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10064)” title=”QGD : Slav : Steiner Variation”>Tennant S. – Jacobs R. [D16]
  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10065)” title=”QGD : Slav : Steiner Variation”>Illescas Cordoba M. – Imanaliev T. [D16]

There are other choices here; 5…Na6 is a typically flexible try by Smyslov (with just one row of NCO) which has been played by other independent spirits like Ivanchuk and Nikolic and parochially Conquest, Speelman and Short (who beat Kramnik with it).  One point is 6.Ne5 Ng4! 7.Nxc4 e5!, so White normally submits to the …Bg4 pin with 6.e3 or the more characteristic 6.e4; after 6.e4 Bg4 7.Bxc4 Black can now or later double the f-pawns by 7…Bxf3, another theme typical of the variation.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10070)” title=”QGD : Slav : Smyslov Variation”>Kramnik V. – Ivanchuk V. [D16]
  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10073)” title=”QGD : Slav : Smyslov Variation”>Atalik S. – Nikolic P. [D16]

I’ve been watching local players get away with 5…a5 for years: it’s theoretically += but who knows the theory?  [6.e4 Bg4 7.Bxc4 e6 8.0-0 Bb4 9.Re1 Bxf3 10.gxf3 Nbd7 11.f4 0-0 12.Qf3+= (Sosonko)].  Bogolyubov’s 5…e6 is also probably ‘playable’ but abandons the main advantage of the Slav move order, namely, developing the Bc8.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10071)” title=”QGD : Slav Accepted : Alapin Variation”>Wheeler J. F. – Menadue J. F. S. [D16]

Semi-Slav: Alternatives to the Meran

Against the Tchigorin Variation with 6…Bd6, White often gets a space advantage which Black can patiently wrestle down.  As far as I understand it, White is currently recommended to play 7.e4 immediately, as 7.O-O O-O 8.e4 allows the familar counter-blow …dxc4 and …e5; with the Black King uncastled, this is riskier.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10029)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav (without Nc3)”>Polgar Z. – Donaldson J. [D46]

I wrote about the Tchigorin and Romih (6…Bb4) in a booklet many years ago. In these lines, you can write all the theory you need to know on the back of a postage stamp.  Maybe they’re short of full equality, but you can end up += in the main lines, too!  Perhaps a worse drawback is that you get less dynamic play.  The idea of the Romih is to deter e3-e4 and perhaps later return to the b8-h2 diagonal to support …e5.

Slav: Chebanenko Variation

The latest fashion in the Slav is the Chebanenko (Chamaeleon) variation with an early 4…a6, which is essentially a way of deferring a decision about any of those ideas and tempting White to make some sort of commitment first. I haven’t attempted to tackle any of this theory, but there are some recent books on it.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10034)” title=”QGD : Slav : 4…a6″>Gurevich D. – Hodgson J. [D15]

Early …a6s have been popping up all over the place, in fact. Here’s a line popular in the 1930s which has had renewed interest:

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10033)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav : 6.Bd3″>Krainski A. – Popov V. [D46]

3 Playing Slav-style against hypermodern openings.

The main hypermodern systems are the Catalan, English and Réti openings.

Grabbing the c-pawn

The Closed Catalan with …c6 concedes space and initiative to White, but grabbing the c-pawn can be the usual rodeo ride.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10043)” title=”Catalan : Closed”>Butnorius A. – Pushkov N. [E06]
  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10036)” title=”English : Caro-Kann Defensive System”>Dzindzihashvili R. – Bagirov V. [A11]

Compare also:

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10026)” title=”Catalan : Open : 5.Nf3″>Lengyel – Karpov A. [E04]

…b5 against the Catalan.

Playing Semi-Slav with both …c6 and …e6 looks rather too modest against hypermodern systems; not exactly bad, but White can set up their position just as they wish then work out where to punch you.  There is a line with …c6 and …b5 which is easy enough to understand and might be worth a try:

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10039)” title=”Catalan : Closed (Qc2 & b3)”>Petrosian A. – Bischoff K. [E08]

Slav-style against the Réti with b3

The systems with …c6, …d5, …Nf6 and either …Bf5 or …Bg4 are well-respected tries against the Réti, with a long history:

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10025)” title=”English : Capablanca’s Variation”>Reti R. – Capablanca J. [A12]
  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10024)” title=”English : London Defensive System”>Reti R. – Lasker E. [A12]

Slav-style against the English and Réti without b3

The lines with an early development of the Bishop can run into trouble if White declines to defend the c-pawn and instead harasses the Bishop which has been developed to f5 or g4; the tempi saved by omitting b3 and d4 mean that White’s initiative is more difficult to contain.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10035)” title=”English : Caro-Kann Defensive System”>Romanishin O. – Suba M. [A11]
  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10037)” title=”Reti : King’s Indian Attack (…Bf5)”>Portisch L. – Smyslov V. [A07]

N.B. If White starts with 1.c4, you cannot guarantee to play a Slav system, because if 1…c6, perhaps 2.e4.  If Black goes ahead with  2…d5, the game can transpose into the Panov-Botvinnik Attack in the Caro-Kann 3.exd5 cxd5 4.d4, or into a related variation with 4.cxd5.  Neither are bad for Black, but these are sharp lines which may be outside your repertoire.  If so, you may prefer to slide into a version of the Old Indian with 2…e5.

4 The Slav in club play

Club theory:

Many of us have a repertoire book on which we base our opening choices, so it would be worth checking out these lines too; working from the present to the past:

John Cox (2006) recommends playing proper grown-up chess against everything, so that means meeting the Slav with the Modern Ne5 and finding something against Morozevich’s fabulous 11…g5.  He then goes on to recommend the Botvinnik Anti-Meran Gambit and the Marshall Gambit.  [I honestly don’t know how suitable these lines are for people ‘starting out’; if your opponents allow you to enter such lines they may know enough to duff you up without ever playing a move of their own.]

Richard Palliser (2003) has recommended the Slow Slav with 4.e3 (against which I like to play 4…Bf5 while Vigus suggests 4…Bg4).  Palliser also honestly gives what may be an equalising line against his variation: Palliser,R (2455) – Houska,J (2386) [D12]
4NCL Telford ENG (4), 19.01.2003  1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 Bf5 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3 Qc7 7.Bd2 e6 8.Bb5+ Nbd7 (8…Nfd7!? DR) 9.0-0 a6 10.Bxd7+ Nxd7 11.Ne5 and now 11…Bc2 12.Qc3 Rc8

Angus Dunnington (2001) recommended the QGD Exchange Variation against the Semi-Slav while against the Slav itself chose the anti-theoretical 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 — not critical, but of course very playable.

Ray Keene and Byron Jacobs (1995) also recommended the QGD Exchange but also chose the Exchange against the Slav.

Like Cox, Graham Burgess and Steffen Pedersen,  recommend, in their thorough 1994 repertoire book, rather grown-up main lines across the board: 6.Ne5 against the Slav and the Marshall Gambit against the Semi-Slav, balking at the Botvinnik Anti-Meran but finding a promising early diversion (7.a4).

Glenn Flear suggested 5.Qb3 for White in 1988; I think 5…dxc4 6.Qxc4 b5 7.Qb3 Nbd7! is the recipe for Black.

So, be prepared for any of these… depending on when the most recent date that your opponent’s visit to a chess bookstall coincided with a rush of blood to the head.

Club practice:

I have a database of local games (see www.chessdevon.co.uk) and wondered what ordinary players adopted.  So, of 409 local games (with every standard of player from Minor to GMs), we had 270 Slavs and 112 Semis. White scores an absolutely average 55% against both defences (I believe White does a little better than this at GM level).

In the Slav, the single largest group was D10, a grab-bag of non-standard systems, followed by D13 (standard exchanges) and D15 (non-standard Czechs). In the Semi, the leading system was D45 (non-standard Semis).  I think the only conclusion we can draw is “so much for theory…”: our opponents are so busy fighting shy of whatever theory they think we know, that our inadequacies are unlikely to be exposed.  Just eight brave players negotiated with their opponents to play 4 examples  of the very main line of the Meran.

5 Heroes of the Slav

Capablanca played the Slav throughout his career, I think losing just one game.  [Avoiding loss doesn’t quite have the ‘heroic’ stamp about it, but is something many of us would settle for.] Contemporary supporters include Shirov, Anand and Kramnik of course, but if their stratospheric displays are more daunting than inspiring, it may be that we need to look elsewhere for a model to follow. Glenn Flear has played the Slav all his career, I think, and so his games and comments are always worth looking at.  Gurevich is a hero of the Semi-Slav, happy to play the sharpest lines of the Meran and Botvinnik.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10066)” title=”QGD : Slav : Dutch Variation, Main Line”>Ragozin V. – Capablanca J. [D19]
  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10067)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav : 5…Nd7″>Stapfer J. – Capablanca J. [D45]
  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10068)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav : Botvinnik Variation (…Nbd7)”>Johner P. – Capablanca J. [D46]
  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10069)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav : 6.Bd3″>Saemisch F. – Capablanca J. [D46]

6 Slav variations

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 (or …e6 first, depending on how you feel about various versions of the Exchange)

3 4 5 6 7 8 Name (big four in heavy type)
cxd5 cxd5 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 Nc6 Bf4 a6 Exchange Variation with …a6
… … Nc3 e5! Transposition to next row
Nc3 e5?! Winawer Counter-Gambit
dxc4!? (e4) Argentinian* Defence (Alekhin Variation)
Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Semi-Slav (transposes below)
dxc4 e3 (b5) Alekhin Gambit
e4 (b5) Tolush/Geller Gambit
Ne5 (b5) Bugadifino Gambit
a4 Bf5 e3 Czech System, Dutch Variation
Ne5 Czech System, Krause Attack
Bg4 Bronstein/Steiner Variation
Na6 Smyslov Variation
a5 Murey Variation
e6 Bogolyubov/Soultanbieff Variation
e3 Bf5 Slow Slav
Nc3 e6 e4 dxe4 Nxe4 Bb4+ Bd2 Qxd4 Bxb4 Qxe4 Marshall Gambit
Bb4 e4 c5 Anti-Marshall
Nf3 dxc4 a4 Bb4 Abrahams-Noteboom Variation
e6 e3 Nbd7 Qc2 Anti-Meran Stodge
(Qc2) Bd6 g4 Latvian Bayonet
Bd3 dxc4 Bxb4 b5 Bd3 Meran Variation
Bd6 Tchigorin Variation
Bb4 Romih Variation
a6 Alekhin Variation (yes, I know)
Bg5 dxc4 e4 b5 e5 Botvinnik Anti-Meran Gambit
a4 (Burgess-Pedersen)
h6 Moscow Variation
Nbd7 e3 Qa5 QGD Cambridge Springs Defence

* Vigus gives Argentinean, which is a spelling I’ve never seen before, so although Vigus has a PhD in spelling I will persist with this form. (Experts, what do they know, eh? I could live with Argentine Defence.)

7 So, Slav, or Semi-Slav?

  • If you prefer the main QGD Exchange to the Slav Exchange, or your previous defence was the QGD Orthodox, that’s a clear push for the Semi-Slav.
  • If you can’t bear to have a blocked Bc8, then play the Slav.
  • If you play the Caro-Kann or the Scandinavian with 2…Qxd5, then play the Slav; the French fits with the Semi-Slav.
  • If you play a lot of Colles, then the Semi is a natural partner.
  • If you’re happy attacking a big centre, try the Slav; the Semi-Slav seems to me to concede less ground.

8. Bibliography

As befits a player of my mature standing, all my books on the Slav are ancient and out of date (Harding, Flear, Silman & Donaldson…).  The Slav is pretty popular these days, and so are opening books, so I won’t recommend any of the books I actually own… Our younger readers might even prefer something databasey.  Depending on what depth of coverage you’re after:

CDs/DVDs

  • MARTIN: ABC of The Modern Slav
  • SHIROV: My Best Games in the Slav and Semi-Slav
  • ROGOZENKO: Slav Defence
  • [Chess Assistant]: Modern Chess Openings – Slav Defence
  • PLASKETT: …a6 Slav

Baby bear’s Porridge:

  • FLEAR: Starting out: Slav and Semi-Slav (ChessBase version available)
  • SADLER: The Slav
  • SADLER: The Semi-Slav
  • VIGORITO: Chess explained: Mainline Slav
  • VERA: Chess explained: Meran (Semi-Slav)

Mummy Bear’s Porridge:

  • PEDERSEN: Botvinnik Semi-Slav
  • FLEAR: Slav …a6
  • VIGORITO: Play the Semi-Slav
  • VIGUS: Play the Slav (ChessBase version available)
  • BOLOGAN: Chenanenko Slav

Daddy Bear’s Porridge:

  • BURGESS: The Slav
  • WELLS: The Complete Semi-Slav

9 Chess Book reviews:

After a soggy phase, it feels to me like the general standard of chess books has improved a lot, so I expect none of these books are bad, but in case you want to check the content and level suits you (specific books are listed before more inclusive sites with potentially several reviews):

The ideas behind the English Opening

I don’t like doing so many sessions on Openings, because we all
play different ones, but while Rex was asking me about the English
it occurred to me that I have played more English Opening games
than any other over the last 15-20 years, but I have never tried to
teach anybody about it. So I sat down and tried to put together
this session.

  I immediately realised why it wasn’t such a natural thing
to do, because the damn thing is so diffuse and complex. [I
wouldn’t dream of doing a session which I had narrowed down to
“1.d4”, even less so if there were vast transpositional
possibilities.] Anyhow, here’s tuppence-worth:


A1. Fools rush in…

The fundamental hypermodern insight is that White can afford to
delay occupation of the centre, since if Black tries to take
advantage of the delay by trying to sieze the centre then White’s
counterattack will be swift and effective. This is most
convincingly seen perhaps in the Grunfeld Reversed: not an English
variation I know, but shows what White can allow with confidence.
So, after 1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 c5 3. Bg2 Nc6:

 

t+lDjLsT
Xx+-XxXx
-+s+-+-+
+-Xx+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+nP-
pPpPpPbP
RnBqK-+r


Korchnoi – Mecking, Augusta (Match), 1974: 4.
d4 e6 5. O-O cxd4 6. Nxd4 Bc5 7. Nb3 Bb68. c4 Nf6 9. cxd5 Nxd5
(…) 63. Be5 1-0

Korchnoi – Pomar, Stockholm, 1962: 4. d4 Nf6 5.
O-O Bf5 6. c4 e6 7. Nc3 Be7 8. cxd5 Nxd5(…) 41. Ke3 Ra3+
1-0

The English is a more balanced strategy combining early restraint
(of …d5) with later ambitions for expansion.


A2. An early break in the centre

The hypermodern movement has been most associated with the
fianchetto, but Reti’s interpretation of the English was a little
different. After 1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 he would play
not 3. g3 but 3. Nf3, and after
3…Nc6, 4. d4!


EG: Reti,R – Rabinovich,I
[A28] Moscow-Wch, 1925

This may seem out of keeping with the hypermodern idea, but let’s
listen to Reti’s own account:

“Now I will propose a thesis, the proof of which the
reader and I can seek together. It is known that the significance
of a single tempo, and thus the significance of development, is
greatest in open positions. In closed positions it plays almost no
role. Consequently, it would seem to be in White’s interest to open
the game (without loss of tempo, of course). How can this be
achieved? Most likely by exposing and attacking the opponent’s
strong points. One would expect Black’s strongest point in the
center to be d5 since, unlike e5, it has natural protection by the
queen. Therefore, the ideal initial move is 1. c4, immediately
taking aim at d5. Should Black support d5 by l…Nf6, then White
reinforces the attack by 2. Nc3. Let’s assume that Black answers
2…e5. This weakens d5 and reveals his intention of building his
position around e5 by such moves as …Nc6 and …d6. (Even with
2…e6 he could not control d5 in the long run.) Now White need not
continue attacking d5, which Black abandoned without a fight, by 3.
g3 and 4. Bg2. Rather, following the logic given above, White
should strike the new bastion e5 by 3. Nf3 and (in reply to 3…d6
or …Nc6) 4. d4, and he thereby achieves an advantage.”

[reprinted in Virginia Chess,
Sept/Oct 1993][Jerry Lawson].

  It’s not much played any more (but may be worth a punt
now and then); we are more likely to see the same idea (of playing
for a central break and development advantage) in a different
setting in the English:


EG: Kasparov,Gary –
Beliavsky,A (9) Linares, 1991

EG: Kasparov,Gary – Korchnoi,
Viktor, Skelleftea, 1989

You will remember Chris showing a dozen miniatures from the English
Opening in a coaching session last month, when we saw how racy
attacks can be obtained even with this apparently slow opening.


A3. Delayed occupation of the centre

This is more how we play the English these days.

 

-+p+-+-+
+-N-P-P-
pP-PnPbP
R-Bq+rK-

My first experiments with the English opening had a distinguished
English pedigree: Howard Staunton often practiced the English with
the system 1. c4 2. Nc3 3. g3 4. Bg2 and
5. e3, with a break using d2-d4 in mind. I enjoyed
the following game where Black seems to be playing 100% according
to the guidelines for opening play:


Korchnoi-Szabo, 1963

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 Bc5 4.Bg2 O-O 5.e3 Re8 6.Nge2 Nc6
7.O-O d6

  Black has apparently posted his pieces and Pawns with
classical purity, but gets rapidly squashed.

8.d4 Bb6 9.h3 Bf5 {?} 10.d5 Nb8 11.g4 Bd7 12.Ng3
h6 13.Kh2 a5 14.f4 exf4 15.exf4 Nh7

 

tS-Dt+j+
+xXl+xXs
-L-X-+-X
X-+p+-+-
-+p+-Pp+
+-N-+-Np
pP-+-+bK
R-Bq+r+-

Nothing is left of Black’s early central occupation, and White
seems to have at least nine Pawns harrassing Black’s pieces…

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

  The light squares like d3 in the Staunton system are not
so very weak because Black cannot occupy or fix the Pawns. The most
obvious way to try is to get a Pawn to e4, but this cannot be
sustained:

  Shatskes gives:


Botvinnik M – Simagin Vladimir (RUS) [A25]
Ch URS, Moscow (Russia), 1952

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 f5 4. Bg2 Nf6 5. e3 Be7 6. d4 e4
7. f3 O-O! 8. Nge2

[8. fxe4 fxe4 9. Nxe4 Nxe4 10. Bxe4 Bb4+ 11. Bd2
Qe7]

8… Bb4 9. O-O Bxc3 10. Nxc3 exf3 11. Qxf3 d6
12. Bd2 Bd7 13. Rae1 Qe8

 

t+-+dTj+
XxXl+-Xx
-+sX-S-+
+-+-+x+-
-+pP-+-+
+-N-PqP-
pP-B-+bP
+-+-RrK-

14. Qd1! Qg6 15. Nd5 Nxd5 16. cxd5 Ne7 17. Qb3 b6 18. Rc1
Rac8 19. Rc3!+/- (…) 43. Kd1 1/2-1/2

  I was able to implement these ideas many years ago
against Bob Richmond, when after 1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 d6 3. g3
f5 4. d4 e4 5. Nh3 Nf6 6. Bg2 Be7 7. O-O O-O 8. Bg5 c6 9.
f3
White had good prospects: Black’s centre is under
pressure. See also the Keres system, B5a
below.

  This Staunton approach can lead to some interesting and
finely balanced positions. I once got into a real mess against
Richard Nash of Barnstable playing this approach…

1. c4 e5 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Bg7 4. Nc3 Ne7 5. e3
Nbc6 6. Nge2 d6 7. d4

 

t+lDj+-T
XxX-SxLx
-+sX-+x+
+-+-X-+-
-+pP-+-+
+-N-P-P-
pP-+nPbP
R-BqK-+r

I immediately looked it up to see what I had done wrong. I have an
old book by Shatskes which quotes an analysis from Botvinnik, and a
new book by Ribli and Kallai. Are two heads better than one? They
both identified my mistake but then gave completely opposite
advice!

7… exd4 8. Nxd4?! An error.
8… O-O 9. O-O Re8

[9… Bd7 10. Nde2 Qc8 11.Nf4 Ne5 12. Qe2 Re8 13. Bd2
c6 14. Ne4 Qc7 15. Bc3 Rad8 16. h3 d5 += smyslov-radulovic
1964]

10. b3 ? 10… Nxd4 11. exd4 Nf5 =+ (…) 40.
1/2-1/2

[Better is

8. exd4! O-O 9. O-O

 

t+lD-Tj+
XxX-SxLx
-+sX-+x+
+-+-+-+-
-+pP-+-+
+-N-+-P-
pP-+nPbP
R-Bq+rK-

But what now?

9… Nf5 “?” botvinnik “!” ribli

(9 … Bg4″!” = botvinnik “?” ribli – although there
are probably still finesses to be found:

Now if 10. h3 Bxe2 11. Nxe2 Nf5 12. d5 Ne5 13. Qc2
Re8 ( “!” shatskes ) 14. Bd2 a5 15. Rad1 ( “!” ribli ) 15… Qb8
16. Bc1 Qa7 17. Be4 Ne7 18. Be3 Qa6 19. b3 a4 20. Nc3 axb3 21. axb3
b6 22. Nb5 Qc8 23. Kh2 Nd7 24. Rfe1 Nc5 25. Bf3 Nf5 26. Bg4 ! +=
uhlmann-taimanov 1984]

10. d5 Ne5 11. b3 a5 ?

(11 … a6; 12 Bb2, b5; 13 cxb5, axb5; 14 Qc2, b4; 15
Ne4, Ba6 botvinnik ; 11 …b5!? seirawan)

12. Bb2 Nd7 13. a3 Nc5 14. b4 Nd7 15. Qb3
botvinnik-reshevsky 1938]

  This is why the English is such a fine opening: there is
great flexibility and scope for creativity for each side, which is
why old foxes like Viktor Kortchnoi can win from either side.

  One last example of a delayed occupation proving
effective


EG: Speelman Jonathan – Xu Jun
[A35] Luzern 48/50, 1989


A4. The Queen’s-side attack

-Pp+-+-+
+-Np+nP-
p+-+pPbP
+rBq+rK-

The White set-up with g3 can also be seen in Black’s main system in
the Closed Sicilian, where a Queen’s-side attack can be pursued,
based on the fianchettoed Bishop.


EG: Miles-Belyavsky.


A5. Botvinnik system for White

-+p+p+-+
+-NpB-Pp
pP-+nPb+
R-+q+rK-

This is an interesting system pioneered by Nimzovitch and
Botvinnik, conceding an apparently permanent weak point at d4 but
gaining a firm grip on the centre and hoping to keep Black’s
activity to a minimum while seeking a break with b2-b4 or f2-f4. I
have played this on many occasions and have often won by direct
attack on the King’s-side. Perhaps the best advertisement for this
system at club level is the fact I always find it difficult to play
against, even if I know what’s coming!


EG: Botvinnik,Mikhail –
Scherbakov,Vitaly [A16] , Moscow ch-SU Round: 3 Year: 1955

EG: Benko,Pal – Botvinnik,Mikhail
[A10] , Monte Carlo Year: 1968

EG: Williams,SK (1990) – Regis,D.
(1935) [A36] 1994


A6. The Maroczy bind

One common positional theme against the symmetrical English is the
Maroczy Bind: Black found this difficult to play against for years
because of lack of prospects for active play, although recently the
‘hedgehog’ formation has proved its resilience.


EG: Fischer,R – Spassky,B (8)
[A39] Reykjavik-Wch, 1972

EG: Regis,D. – Richard Dixon
(Corr_92/93) [B36] Devon Vs. Glos.(Ward-Higgs I), 1993

EG: Vukic Milan – Suba Mihai
[A30]Vinkovci, 1977

There is an interesting formation where White immediately threatens
the Maroczy even when Black has not fianchettoed the Bf8:


EG: Korchnoi V – Spassky B
[A33] Beograd m/3, 1977

[…]

B. Playing
against the English opening.

There are three major branches after 1. c4: 1…e5, 1…c5, and
1…Nf6. (There are others, like 1…g6 and 1…e6, or 1…f5 or
1…c6 or 1…g5 …)

  It depends on what style you prefer to play, and how you
like to reply to 1. d4.

  1…e5 would suit a 1.e4 player who likes to attack,
especially if they play (as White) the Closed Sicilian or (as
Black) the Dutch or King’s Indian. I think this is the best
approach for beginners.

  1…c5 would suit a Sicilian player who has the patience
for a longer game but doesn’t mind drawing occasionally.

  1…Nf6 would suit a player who is angling for a version
of their favourite Indian defence.

  Of the others the most important is 1…e6 (or 1…Nf6,
2…e6), an invitation to transpose into the Queen’s Gambit; if
Black also plays the Tarrasch Defence it can be hard for White to
avoid transposing into it, since the main line of the Tarrasch
involves g2-g3!

  After 1. c4 c6 2. Nf3 d5 I don’t often play 3.cd; rather,
after 1. c4 c6 2. Nf3 d5 3. b3, we are in a position that is meat
and drink to the English/Reti player. It’s not easy for Black to
get organised without either taking on a space disadvantage, or
going for more space but exposing their centre to attack. It’s a
solid enough line but a little difficult to handle, and I would
push club players and juniors towards more active and
counter-attacking lines. The choice that each player has over their
set-up reminds me of the old Arabic version of chess, where
pre-determined formations (mansubat) could be chosen
separately by either side.


B1. An early break in the centre for
Black

tSlDjL-T
XxX-XxXx
-+-+-S-+
+-+x+-+-
-+p+-+-+
Black can play …Nf6 and …d5 immediately (Grunfeld reversed) or
try and combine it with an early …e5 or …c5. White cannot stop
…d5 on move 2 or 3 so all of these systems are playable:

 

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. g3

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. cxd5 Nxd5 (now 4.
e4 Nb4 5. Bc4 is a fun line!)

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e5 3. Nf3 (or 3. g3)
3…d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 (the Reversed Open
Sicilian)

  Provided Black is not too ambitious, this can’t be a bad
idea, but if you know how important a tempo can be to Black in the
normal Open Sicilian, it’s a good arena in which White can play for
a win.


EG: Karpov,Anatoly –
Hjartarson,Johann [A22] , Seattle m Round: 2 Year: 1989

EG: Botvinnik,Mikhail –
Portisch,Lajos [A22] , Monte Carlo Round: 7 Year: 1968

EG: Kasparov, Gary – Kortchnoi, V
(1) [A34] Skelleftea, 1989

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 c5 3. Nf3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 c5 3. g3 d5 4. cxd5
Nxd5

  This last line can lead to…


B2. An early occupation of the centre: the
Maroczy Bind for Black(!)

This system is named the Rubinstein system but is also associated
with Botvinnik.

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 c5 3. g3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. Bg2
Nc7

  Black now can hope to arrange …e5 with a Maroczy
Bind.


EG: Goldberg, G – Botvinnik,
Mikhail M [A34] USSR, 1945

EG: Langeweg – Korchnoi,
Amsterdam, 1972


B3. An early occupation of the centre:
solid

tSlDjLsT
Xx+-+xXx
-+x+x+-+
+-+x+-+-
Of course, if Black is hoping to equalise first rather than play
for an ambitious centre, the systems with …d5 supported by the c-
or e-Pawn offer a serious challenge to White: can White do any
better than transpose to a normal Queen’s-Pawn opening? The usual
bids to retain separate lines of play involve

b2-b3, with variations that are usually classified as part of
Reti’s system.


EG: Kasparov,G (2740) –
Karpov,An (2700) (24) [A14] Wch34-KK4 Sevilla, 1987

EG: Fischer,Robert –
Filip,Miroslav [A14] Palma de Mallorca iz Rd: 4, 1970


B4. Symmetrical play by Black

After 1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6 either side can try an
early break with the d-Pawn (e.g. 1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4
cxd4 4. Nxd4 e5!? 5. Nb5!?
). However, the fundamental
position of the symmetrical English occurs after

1. c4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2
Bg7

  This is the Main Line Closed Symmetrical
English
. In this position White has tried many plans:
Queen’s-side attack with 5. a3 or 5. Rb1, Staunton system with 5.
e3, Botvinnik system with 5. e4 are all common approaches, and
Black has tried each in defence (e.g. 5. e3 e5,
Staunton vs. Botvinnik!). Fischer often practiced the Staunton
system as Black:


EG: Smyslov,V – Fischer,R
[A36] Palma de Mallorca izt, 1970

EG: Petrosian,T – Fischer,R (2)
[A37] Belgrade URS-WORLD, 1970

This is undoubtedly a good defense for Black: its biggest defect is
that 5. e3 e6 (Staunton vs. Staunton) is often taken as an implicit
draw offer, since 6. Nge2 Nge7 7. O- O O- O 8. d4 cxd4 9.
Nxd4 Nxd4 10. exd5 d5
is hard to see as anything else. Ulf
Andersson has tried to find a way through here by delaying castling
(7. d4 cxd4 8. Nxd4 d5 9. cxd5 Nxd5 10. Nxd5 Nxd4 11. Nc3 Nc6
12. Qxd8+ Nxd8 13. Bd2 +=
) and beat Tony Miles with it. The
same approach in a different line can be seen in Ulf’s game against
Tempone below.

  One of the most popular modern systems for Black is the
Hedgehog: allowing White the Maroczy bind while retaining a
flexible position and angling for a break with …d5 or …b5.
White’s Pawn formation seems to be well-placed to counter these
plans, and indeed it is – this is what gives the Maroczy Bind its
teeth – but it does not sit totally comfortably with the Bishop on
g3. On d3 it would inhibit …b5 and support f4-f5, while on g3 it
certainly discourages …d5 but White can not as easily find a
positive plan.


B5. Unbalanced play by Black: the King’s
English with …Nf6

1. c4 e5 is the most radical and least
transpositional of Black’s replies. It is of course at least as
rich as the Sicilian, although most players of Black are more
bashful about taking on the White position. This is really worth a
book but I’ll outline a few of the most common ideas for Black. One
way of looking at the systems are whether Black aims to keep things
closed with …Nc6 (and often …Nge7), or instead tries to develop
the King’s-side starting with …Nf6.

 


B5a. Seeking early central control with
…c6 and …d5

This system bears the name of Keres. It is perhaps the most
successful implementation of Black’s plan to occupy the centre.


EG: Hartston W R – Basman M J
[A23] It, Hastings, 1967

There is even an evil gambit for Black in this line…


EG: Baker,C – Birnboim,N
[A20] London, 1987

B5b. Seeking rapid flexible
development

tSlDj+-T
XxXx+xXx
-+-+-S-+
+-+-X-+-
-Lp+-+-+
1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Bb4

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3 Bb4

 

…In each case enabling an early King’s-side castling. This and
related systems have been featured in World Championship matches.

  That subtle player Smyslov developed a system 1.
c4 e5 2. Nc6 d6
which seeks a useful early development of
the other Bishop with …Bg4 or
…Be6.


EG: Olafsson,Fridrik –
Smyslov,Vasily V (2) [A21] Yugoslavia ct, 1959

EG: Petrosian T – Smyslov V (03)
[A21] JUG ct, 1959


B6. Unbalanced play by Black: the King’s
English with …Nc6

t+lDjLsT
XxXx+xXx
-+s+-+-+
+-+-X-+-
The equivalent fundamental positions of the King’s English occur
after:

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7
(The main line Closed King’s English) or

 

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 Nf6 (English Four
Knights’ Game)

 


B6a. The main line Closed King’s
English

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7

  Again White has a choice of systems. The Staunton
approach has a little more sting here than in the Symmetrical. This
is of course similar to the Closed Sicilian…


EG: Psakhis – Kasparov [A10]
La Manga, 1990.

B6b. English Four Knights’ Game

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 Nf6

  This rich position has many possibilities for each side.
We have seen 4. d4 above, which is OK for Black these days…


EG: Knee – Povah N [A28]
Hereford, 1978

After 4. g3 Black has been fairly successful with
another Smyslov system, 4…Bb4, when Black
fancies the Nimzo approach of doubling the c-Pawns and blockading
the position against the Bishops. So successful, in fact, that
White had tried a variety of ways of avoiding it, most notably with
4. e3. Now here 4…Bb4 is of
course still a perfectly reasonable idea, but White can now sidle
the Queen across with 5. Qc2 to avoid the doubled
Pawns.

  This and related systems have been featured in World
Championship matches.


EG: Kasparov,G (2740) –
Karpov,An (2700) (04) [A29 ] Wch34-KK4 Sevilla, 1987

EG: Kasparov,G (2740) – Karpov,An
(2700) (16) [A29] Wch34-KK4 Sevilla, 1987

EG: Kasparov,G (2740) – Karpov,An
(2700) (02) [A29] Wch34-KK4 Sevilla, 1987


B7. Indian-style defences:


B7a. Grunfeld style

See above (early break in the centre for Black): if Black plays
…c5 or …e5 we will transpose; there are ways for White to avoid
the transposition with an early e2-e4.


EG: Andersson Ulf – Tempone
Marcelo [A16] 04, Buenos Aires, 1979

B7b. King’s Indian style

This is a very resilient and flexible system which invites
transposition to the Fianchetto system of the King’s Indian. This
may be the best idea for White; I have found it hard to play
standard English plans against the King’s Indian. The Staunton
approach in particular does not present Black with many problems,
and playing for a Queen’s-side attack always gives White anxious
moments when the counter-attack sets in.


EG: Petrosian,T – Vasiukov,E
Moscow ch, 1956

I have enjoyed the Botvinnik system against the King’s Indian, and
Black Kings, if they cannot see f2-f4-f5 coming, can be equally
brutally dismissed.

 


B7c. Nimzo-Indian style

Given the flexibility and solidity of the Nimzo, it makes a lot of
sense to apply the same strategy against the English. The play is
significantly different in that White can play d2-d3, and if White
avoids the doubled Pawns with a Queen move, there is no Pawn on d4
to counterattack. Korchnoi had this to say:

“Nearly five years ago I started to use the opening
system 1. c4 e5. This is quite a good system with which to reach an
equal position, but when it had been analysed to death by other GMs
I became bored with it and adopted a different system using my own
move order. The play has some delicate features I don’t fully
understand…”


EG: Langeweg-Korchnoi,
1976

B7d. Queen’s Indian style

Karpov refined many of the ideas in this system in early matches
against Korchnoi. It seems Black can achieve equality.


EG: Kortschnoj,V – Karpov,An
(03) [A17] Moscow cf (Wch), 1974

B7e. Dutch style

It is also possible to play the 1…e5 line with an early …f5,
rather like the White system against the Sicilian developed by
Vincken and often known as the Grand Prix Attack.


EG: Saidy,Anthony –
Fischer,Robert [A25] New York, 1969

EG: Kool – Hodgson [A21] London,
1989

EG: Smart – Hodgson [A21]
England, 1984

This presents many of the same challenges as the King’s
Indian-style system: if White will not occupy the centre and
transpose into the main lines of the Dutch, Black may have a freer
hand to play the King’s-side attack. White must pursue the attack
on the Queen’s-side with extra vigour…


EG: Miles,T – Chaves,J [A27]
Sao Paulo, 1977

However, I believe that White’s extra move and Black’s early
commitment will probably allow White to absorb the aggression and
attack the Black Pawns, as I described in the section on the
Staunton System, and it is better to play without such a fixed idea
of a King’s-side attack.

  There are several interesting early deviations by Black
after 1. c4 e5, including the evil Bellon Gambit, as we see in the
example games:


EG: Uhlmann W – Dobosz H
(0.17) [A22] DDR-Polska, 1974

EG: Plaskett J – Hempson P W
[A22] It, ENG, 1988

EG: Reshevsky,S – Bellon Lopez,J
[A22] Palma, 1971

EG: Karpov,Anatoly –
Anand,Viswanathan (2) Linares, 1991

Example Games


An early break in the centre (A2)


Reti,R – Rabinovich,I [A28] Moscow-Wch,
1925

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. d4

 

t+lDjL-T
XxXx+xXx
-+s+-S-+
+-+-X-+-
-+pP-+-+
+-N-+n+-
pP-+pPpP
R-BqKb+r

4… exd4 5. Nxd4 Bb4 6. g3 O-O 7. Bg2 d5 8. Nxc6 bxc6 9.
O-O Bxc3 10. bxc3 Ba6 11. Qa4 Bxc4 12. Qxc6 Qd7 13. Qxd7 Nxd7 14.
Rd1 Nb6 15. Bf4

 

t+-+-Tj+
X-X-+xXx
-S-+-+-+
+-+x+-+-
-+l+-B-+
+-P-+-P-
p+-+pPbP
R-+r+-K-

15… c6 16. Rd2 Rfe8 17. Kf1 Bb5 18. Rb1 Re7 19. Bf3 Rae8
20. Ke1 Re6 21. e3 Ba6 22. Bg4 Re4 23. Rd4 c5 24. Rd2 g5 25. f3 Rc4
26. Bxg5 Rxc3 27. Kf2 f6 28. Bh6 Bd3 29. Rb3 Rxb3 30. axb3 c4 31.
bxc4 dxc4 32. e4 Re7 33. Ra2 Kf7 34. Bf5 Ke8 35. g4 Rb7 36. Be3 c3
37. Ra3 Nc4 38. Rxc3 Rb2+ 39. Kg3 Nxe3 40. Rxd3 Nf1+ 41. Kf4 Rxh2
42. Rd1 Nd2 43. Be6 Re2 44. Rh1 Ke7 45. Bd5 Kd6 46. Rxh7 Rf2 47.
Ke3 Rg2 48. Rxa7 Nf1+ 49. Kf4 Ng3 1-0


Kasparov,Gary – Beliavsky,A (9) Linares,
1991

1. c4 e6 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. e4 c5 4. e5 Ng8 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. d4
cxd4 7. Nxd4 Nxe5 8. Ndb5

 

t+lDjLsT
Xx+x+xXx
-+-+x+-+
+n+-S-+-
-+p+-+-+
+-N-+-+-
pP-+-PpP
R-BqKb+r

This gambit, pioneered by Tony Miles, has also been taken up by
Kasparov.

8… a6 9. Nd6+ Bxd6 10. Qxd6 f6 11. Be3 Ne7 12.
Bb6 Nf5 13. Qc5 d6 14. Qa5 Qd7 15. f4 Nc6 16. Qa3 e5 17. Bd3 O-O
18. O-O exf4 19. Rxf4 Nfe7 20. Rd1

 

t+l+-Tj+
+x+dS-Xx
xBsX-X-+
+-+-+-+-
-+p+-R-+
Q-Nb+-+-
pP-+-+pP
+-+r+-K-

Classic Kasparov: complex, dynamic, penetrating.

20… Ng6 21. Rff1 Nge5 22. Be4 Qf7 23. b3 Be6
24. Qxd6 Kh8 25. Qc7 Qxc7 26. Bxc7 Rf7 27. Bb6 Re8 28. h3 Rd7 29.
Nd5 Rc8 30. g4 Ng6 31. Kh2 Nce5 32. a4 Rd6 33. a5 Nd7 34. Nc7
1-0


Delayed occupation of the centre
(A3)


Speelman Jonathan – Xu Jun [A35] Luzern
48/50, 1989

1. Nf3 c5 2. c4 Nc6 3. Nc3 g6?!

 

t+lDjLsT
Xx+xXx+x
-+s+-+x+
+-X-+-+-
-+p+-+-+
+-N-+n+-
pP-PpPpP
R-BqKb+r

4. e3! d6 5. d4 cxd4 6. exd4 Bg4 7. Be2 Bg7 8. O-O Nh6 9.
d5 Bxf3 10. Bxf3 Ne5 11. Be4 f5 12. Bc2

 

t+-Dj+-T
Xx+-X-Lx
-+-X-+xS
+-+pSx+-
-+p+-+-+
+-N-+-+-
pPb+-PpP
R-Bq+rK-

12… O-O 13. Ne2 Nxc4 14. Nd4 Rf6 15. Bb3 Rc8 16. Re1 Ng4
17. h3 Nge5 18. Re2 Rc5 19. Bg5 Qa5 20. Bxf6 Bxf6 21. Rc1 Kh8 22.
Bxc4 Rxc4 23. Ne6 Kg8 24. Rxe5 1-0


The Queen’s-side attack (A4)


Miles – Beliavsky [A26] Hastings_1974-5,
1974

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. d3 d6 6. Nf3 Nf6
7. O-O O-O 8. Rb1 h6 9. b4 Be6

 

t+-D-Tj+
XxX-+xL-
-+sXlSxX
+-+-X-+-
-Pp+-+-+
+-Np+nP-
p+-+pPbP
+rBq+rK-

10. b5 Ne7 11. a4 Qc8 12. Ba3 Nd7 13. Nd2 Rb8 14. Nd5
Re8

 

-Td+t+j+
XxXsSxL-
-+-Xl+xX
+p+nX-+-
p+p+-+-+
B-+p+-P-
-+-NpPbP
+r+q+rK-

15. Ne4! f5 16. Nec3 Kh7 17. a5 Bf7 18. Nxe7 Rxe7

 

-Td+-+-+
XxXsTlLj
-+-X-+xX
Pp+-Xx+-
-+p+-+-+
B-Np+-P-
-+-+pPbP
+r+q+rK-

19. b6! axb6 20. axb6 Ra8 21. Nb5 Nxb6 22. Nxd6

 

t+d+-+-+
+xX-TlLj
-S-N-+xX
+-+-Xx+-
-+p+-+-+
B-+p+-P-
-+-+pPbP
+r+q+rK-

22… Qe6? 23. Qc1 cxd6 24. Rxb6 e4 25. Rxd6 Qe5 26. Rb6
Qa5 27. Rb3 Qa4 28. Bxe7 Qxb3 29. Qb1

 

t+-+-+-+
+x+-BlLj
-+-+-+xX
+-+-+x+-
-+p+x+-+
+d+p+-P-
-+-+pPbP
+q+-+rK-

29… Qa4? 30. Qxb7 Ra7 31. Qb4 Qd7 32. Bd6 Ra2 33. dxe4
Rb2 34. Qc5 fxe4 35. Bxe4 Rxe2

 

-+-+-+-+
+-+d+lLj
-+-B-+xX
+-Q-+-+-
-+p+b+-+
+-+-+-P-
-+-+tP-P
+-+-+rK-

36. Bd5! Rc2 37. Bf4 Bxd5 38. Qxd5 Qa7 39. Be3 Qa2 40. Rc1
Rxc1+ 41. Bxc1 Qb1 42. Qd2 Bf8 43. Qb2 Qe4 44. Qc3 Bg7 45. Qb4! Bd4
46. Ba3 Qd3 47. Qb7+ Kh8 48. Qc8+ Kh7 49. Qd7+ Kh8 50. Qe8+ Kh7 51.
Qf7+ Kh8 52. Be7 Bg7 53. Qd5 Qb3 54. h4 Kh7 55. Bc5 h5 56. Be3 Qb1+
57. Kg2 Qb3 58. Qc6 1-0


Botvinnik system for White (A5)


Botvinnik,Mikhail – Scherbakov,Vitaly [A16]
EO 14.2, Moscow ch-SU Round: 3 Year: 1955

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. e4 d6 6. Nge2
e5 7. O-O Nbd7 8. d3 Nc5 9. f4 c6 10. h3 Ne6

 

t+lD-Tj+
Xx+-+xLx
-+xXsSx+
+-+-X-+-
-+p+pP-+
+-Np+-Pp
pP-+n+b+
R-Bq+rK-

11. f5 Nd4 12. g4 Ne8 13. Be3 a6 14. Qd2 b5 15. Bg5 Bf6 16.
Bxf6 Nxf6 17. Nxd4 exd4 18. Ne2 Qb6 19. cxb5 axb5 20. Qh6 Bd7 21.
g5

 

t+-+-Tj+
+-+l+x+x
-DxX-SxQ
+x+-+pP-
-+-Xp+-+
+-+p+-+p
pP-+n+b+
R-+-+rK-

21… Nh5 22. Nf4 Ng7 23. f6 1-0


Benko,Pal – Botvinnik,Mikhail [A10] EO 18.4,
Monte Carlo Year: 1968

1. c4 g6 2. g3 Bg7 3. Bg2 e5 4. Nc3 Ne7 5. e4 d6 6. Nge2
Nbc6 7. d3 f5 8. Nd5 O-O 9. Be3 Be6 10. Qd2 Qd7 11. O-O

 

t+-+-Tj+
XxXdS-Lx
-+sXl+x+
+-+nXx+-
-+p+p+-+
+-+pB-P-
pP-QnPbP
R-+-+rK-

11… Rf7 12. Rac1 Raf8 13. f4 fxe4 14. dxe4 Nc8 15. c5 Bh3
16. b4 Bxg2 17. Kxg2 exf4 18. gxf4 Re8 19. Ng3 h5 20. b5 N6e7 21.
f5 h4 22. fxg6 Rxf1 23. Rxf1 hxg3 24. Rf7 Be5 25. Bd4 Qg4 26. Rf4
Qh5 27. Bxe5 Qxh2+ 28. Kf3 Qxd2 29. Nf6+ Kg7 30. Nxe8+ Kxg6 31.
Rf6+ Kh7 32. Bxg3 Qd3+ 33. Kf2 Qxb5 34. cxd6 Qxe8 0-1


Williams,SK (1990) – Regis,D. (1935) [A36]
1994

1. c4 g6 2. Nc3 Bg7 3. g3 c5 4. Bg2 Nc6 5. e4 d6 6. Nge2
Nf6 7. O-O O-O 8. d3 Ne8

[8… Bd7]

9. Be3 Nd4 10. Rb1 a5 11. a3 Nc7 12. b4 axb4 13.
axb4 Nxe2+ 14. Nxe2 Ne6 15. Qd2 Nd4 16. Nxd4 cxd4 17. Bh6 e5 18.
Bxg7 Kxg7 19. f4 f5

 

t+lD-T-+
+x+-+-Jx
-+-X-+x+
+-+-Xx+-
-PpXpP-+
+-+p+-P-
-+-Q-+bP
+r+-+rK-

Black’s textbook occupation of d4 has only led to hobbled Pawns

…1-0 (38)


The Maroczy bind (A6)


Fischer,R – Spassky,B (8) [A39]
Reykjavik-Wch, 1972

1. c4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. g3 g6 5. Bg2 Bg7 6. O-O
O-O 7. d4 cxd4 8. Nxd4 Nxd4 9. Qxd4 d6 10. Bg5 Be6 11. Qf4 Qa5 12.
Rac1 Rab8 13. b3 Rfc8 14. Qd2 a6 15. Be3

 

-Tt+-+j+
+x+-XxLx
x+-XlSx+
D-+-+-+-
-+p+-+-+
+pN-B-P-
p+-QpPbP
+-R-+rK-

15… b5 16. Ba7 bxc4 17. Bxb8 Rxb8 18. bxc4 Bxc4 19. Rfd1
Nd7 20. Nd5 Qxd2 21. Nxe7+ Kf8 22. Rxd2 Kxe7 23. Rxc4 Rb1+ 24. Bf1
Nc5 25. Kg2 a5 26. e4 Ba1 27. f4 f6 28. Re2 Ke6 29. Rec2 Bb2 30.
Be2 h5 31. Rd2 Ba3 32. f5+ gxf5 33. exf5+ Ke5 34. Rcd4 Kxf5 35.
Rd5+ Ke6 36. Rxd6+ Ke7 37. Rc6 1-0


Regis,D. – Richard Dixon (Corr_92/93) [B36]
Devon Vs. Glos. (Ward-Higgs I), 1993

1. c4 g6

  ( I knew a game of Portisch’s which I had in mind
throughout: it went…)

[1… c5 2. Nf3 g6 3. e4 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Nf6
6. Nc3 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+/- Portisch-Reshevsky]

2. g3 Bg7 3. Bg2 Nf6 4. Nc3 O-O 5. e4 d6 6. Nge2
c5

[6… c5 7. a3 a5 8. O-O Nc6 9. d3 Ne8 10. Be3 Nd4
11. Bxd4 cxd4 12. Nb5 Qb6 13. a4 Nc7 14. f4 Na6 15. h3 e5 16. f5
Bh6 ! 17. h4 Bd7 18. Kh2 Nc5 19. Bh3 was Seirawan-Vukic 1979 given
in Povah’s book: best play for both sides?]

7. O-O Nc6 8. d3 Ne8 9. Be3

[9. Be3 Nd4]

9… Nc7 ( ?! in the books )

[9… Nd4 10. Rb1 b6 ?! ( 10…Nc7 is natural;
10…a5 invites 11. Bxd4, cxd4; 12 Nb5 ) 11. e5 Nxe2+ 12. Qxe2 Rb8
13. d4 cxd4 14. Bxd4 dxe5 15. Bxe5 Bg4 16. Qe3 Bxe5 17. Qxe5 Qd6
18. Qe3 Nf6 (Gurevich-Sturua 1981) 19. h3 Be6 20. Rbd1 Qc5 ( or
…Qc7,b3 with Nb5/Nd5 ) 21. Qxc5 bxc5 22. b3 with weak pawns to go
at – Povah]

10. d4 “!” ( in the books )
10… cxd4 11. Nxd4 Ne6 12. Nde2 Ne5

 

t+lD-Tj+
Xx+-XxLx
-+-Xs+x+
+-+-S-+-
-+p+p+-+
+-N-B-P-
pP-+nPbP
R-+q+rK-

! TN – threatens c4 and e3 via g4

  A long manoeuvring game is in prospect… (1-0, 45)


Vukic Milan – Suba Mihai [A30]Vinkovci,
1977

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 b6 3. Bg2 Bb7 4. O-O e6 5. c4 c5 6. d4
cxd4 7. Qxd4 d6 8. Nc3 a6 9. Rd1 Qc7 10. b3 Nbd7 11. Bb2 Be7 12. e4
O-O 13. Qe3 Rfe8 14. Nd4 Bf8 15. Rac1

 

t+-+tLj+
+lDs+xXx
xX-XxS-+
+-+-+-+-
-+pNp+-+
+pN-Q-P-
pB-+-PbP
+-Rr+-K-

“A frequent picture in the Hedgehog. White’s position looks
ideal. That’s the naked truth about it, but the ‘ideal’ has by
definition one drawback – it cannot be improved.” — SUBA

  Suba is quite mysterious about ‘potential’. But as
evidence, his book Dynamic Chess Strategy contains
many practical examples of this Hedgehog Sicilian-style opening
against the English (1. c4), where Black’s flexible position
threatens to erupt on …b5 or …d5. White finds it difficult to
threaten anything on his own part without allowing Black’s game to
unfold suddenly

15… Rad8 16. h3 g6 17. Kh2 Bg7 18. Qe2 Qb8 19.
Qc2 Rc8 20. Qd2 Nc5 21. Re1 Qa8 22. f3 Qb8 23. Rcd1 Ba8 24. Nde2
Red8 25. Nd4 Ncd7 26. Qf2 Ne5 27. Qe2 Nc6 28. Nc2 Nh5 29. f4 b5 30.
cxb5 axb5 31. Bf3 Ne7 32. Nd4 b4 33. Na4 Nf6 34. e5 dxe5 35. fxe5
Bxf3 36. Nxf3 Nfd5 37. Rc1 Bh6 38. Rc4 Ne3 39. Rcc1 N7d5 40. Rxc8
Rxc8 41. Qf2 Nf5 42. Re2 Be3 43. Qe1 Qb5 44. Nd2 Qd3 45. Nf1 Rc2
46. Rg2 Rxg2+ 47. Kxg2 Qe4+ 0-1

 


Korchnoi V – Spassky B [A33] Beograd m/3,
1977

1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4
e6

 

t+lDjL-T
Xx+x+xXx
-+s+xS-+
+-+-+-+-
-+pN-+-+
+-N-+-+-
pP-+pPpP
R-BqKb+r

This is a very rich and deeply studied position. The line seen here
is out of fashion because of 6…Bb4.

6. g3 Qb6!? 7. Nb3 Ne5!? 8. e4 Bb4

 

t+l+j+-T
Xx+x+xXx
-D-+xS-+
+-+-S-+-
-Lp+p+-+
+nN-+-P-
pP-+-P-P
R-BqKb+r

No respite! If White consolidates Black will have a tough time.

9. Qe2 O-O

[9… a5!? was recommended by Nunn a year or two
before… did Spassky know this? 10. f4 a4!?]

10. f4 Nc6 11. Be3 Qc7 12. Bg2 d5 13. e5 Ne4 14.
O-O Bxc3 15. cxd5 exd5 16. bxc3 b6 17. Rac1 f5 18. exf6 Nxf6 19.
Nd4 Re8 20. Qd3 Na5 21. Nb5 Qc6 22. Bd4 Ne4 23. Be5 Ba6 24. a4 Nc4
25. Qd4 Nxe5 26. fxe5 Bxb5 27. axb5 Qxb5 28. c4 Qc5 29. Qxc5 Nxc5
30. Bxd5+ Ne6 31. Ra1 a5 32. Bxa8 Rxa8 33. Rab1 a4 34. Rxb6 Nd4 35.
Rd6 1-0

Playing against
the English opening.


An early break in the centre for Black
(B1)


Karpov,Anatoly – Hjartarson,Johann [A22] EO
3.4, Seattle m Round: 2 Year: 1989

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. Bg2 Nb6 6. Nf3
Nc6 7. O-O Be7 8. a3 Be6 9. b4

 

t+-Dj+-T
XxX-LxXx
-Ss+l+-+
+-+-X-+-
-P-+-+-+
P-N-+nP-
-+-PpPbP
R-Bq+rK-

This is the modern approach with the White pieces; analogous to the
Sicilian, White seeks pressure on the c-file.

9… O-O 10. Rb1 f6 11. d3 Qd7 12. Ne4 Nd5 13.
Qc2 b6 14. Bb2 Rac8 15. Rbc1 Nd4 16. Bxd4 exd4 17. Qc6 Qxc6 18.
Rxc6 Bd7

 

-+t+-Tj+
X-XlL-Xx
-Xr+-X-+
+-+s+-+-
-P-Xn+-+
P-+p+nP-
-+-+pPbP
+-+-+rK-

19. Nxd4 Bxc6 20. Nxc6 Rce8 21. Rc1 f5 22. Nd2 Nf6 23. Nxa7
Bd6 24. e3 c5 25. Nc4 Bb8 26. Nc6 b5 27. N4a5 cxb4 28. axb4 Nd7 29.
d4 g5 30. Nxb8 Rxb8 31. Rc7 Nf6 32. Nc6 Rb6 33. Ne7+ Kh8 34. Nxf5
Ra6 35. Rc1 Ra2 36. h3 Rb2 37. e4 Rxb4 38. g4 h5 39. e5 hxg4 40.
exf6 gxh3 41. Bxh3 Rxf6 42. Rc8+ Kh7 43. Rc7+ Kg6 44. Rg7+ Kh5 45.
f3 1-0


Botvinnik,Mikhail – Portisch,Lajos [A22] EO
3.5, Monte Carlo Round: 7 Year: 1968

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. Bg2 Be6 6. Nf3
Nc6 7. O-O Nb6 8. d3 Be7 9. a3 a5 10. Be3 O-O

 

t+-D-Tj+
+xX-LxXx
-Ss+l+-+
X-+-X-+-
-+-+-+-+
P-NpBnP-
-P-+pPbP
R-+q+rK-

Black’s position is not bad and club players may be attracted to
the easy development, but it is sometimes hard for Black to come up
with a plan.

11. Na4 Nxa4 12. Qxa4 Bd5 13. Rfc1 Re8 14. Rc2
Bf8 15. Rac1 Nb8

 

tS-DtLj+
+xX-+xXx
-+-+-+-+
X-+lX-+-
q+-+-+-+
P-+pBnP-
-Pr+pPbP
+-R-+-K-

Egging White on to take the c7 Pawn. Botvinnik conceives a
brilliant refutation.

16. Rxc7 Bc6 17. R1xc6 bxc6 18. Rxf7 h6 19. Rb7
Qc8 20. Qc4+ Kh8 21. Nh4 Qxb7 22. Ng6+ Kh7 23. Be4 Bd6 24. Nxe5+ g6
25. Bxg6+ Kg7 26. Bxh6+ 1-0


Kasparov, Gary – Kortchnoi, V (1) [A34]
Skelleftea, 1989

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 c5 3. Nf3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4
Nb4

 

tSlDjL-T
Xx+-XxXx
-+-+-+-+
+-X-+-+-
-S-+p+-+
+-N-+n+-
pP-P-PpP
R-BqKb+r

White plays for fast development and open lines.

6. Bb5+ N8c6 7. d4 cxd4 8. a3 dxc3 9. Qxd8+ Kxd8
10. axb4 cxb2 11. Bxb2 f6 12. e5 Bg4 13. Bxc6 bxc6 14. Nd4 fxe5 15.
Nxc6+ Kc7 16. Nxe5 Bh5 17. O-O Be8 18. Rfc1+ Kb7 19. Nc4 e5 20.
Bxe5 h5 21. Na5+ Kb6 22. Bc7+ Ka6 23. Nc6+ 1-0


An early occupation of the centre: the
Maroczy Bind for Black(!) (B2)


Goldberg, G – Botvinnik, Mikhail M [A34]
USSR, 1945

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 c5 3. g3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. Bg2 Nc7 6. Nf3
Nc6 7. O-O e5 8. b3 Be7 9. Bb2 O-O 10. Rc1 f6 11. Ne1 Bf5 12. Na4
Na6

 

t+-D-Tj+
Xx+-L-Xx
s+s+-X-+
+-X-Xl+-
n+-+-+-+
+p+-+-P-
pB-PpPbP
+-RqNrK-

Black has adopted the Maroczy Bind as Black(!).

  In 1945 Botvinnik commented that the exchange Bxc6 was
evidently not good for White in this type of position, but Suetin
suspects later he changed his mind.

13. Nc2 Qd7 14. Ne3 Be6 15. d3 Nd4 16. Qd2 Rad8
17. Nc3 Nb4 18. Ba1 f5

 

-+-T-Tj+
Xx+dL-Xx
-+-+l+-+
+-X-Xx+-
-S-S-+-+
+pNpN-P-
p+-QpPbP
B-R-+rK-

Black moves from his strong base to a more aggressive posture.

19. Nc4 Bf6 20. Rfd1 b5 21. Nb2 e4 22. e3 Nf3+
23. Bxf3 exf3 24. Qe1 Rc8 25. d4 cxd4 26. exd4 Bg5 27. d5 Bf7 28.
a3 Rfe8 29. Qf1 Bxc1 30. Rxc1 Nxd5 31. Nd3 Nxc3 32. Bxc3 Bxb3 33.
Nf4 Bc4 0-1


Langeweg – Korchnoi, Amsterdam,
1972

1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. g3 Nc6 6. Bg2
Nc7 7. a3 g6 8. d3 Bg7

 

t+lDj+-T
XxS-XxLx
-+s+-+x+
+-X-+-+-
-+-+-+-+
P-Np+nP-
-P-+pPbP
R-BqK-+r

Black does not insist on the Bind but develops his King’s-side.

9. O-O O-O 10. Qa4 Nd4 11. Nxd4 cxd4 12. Ne4 Bd7
13. Qb3 b6 14. Ng5 Rc8 15. Bd2 h6 16. Nf3 Ne6 17. a4 Nc5 18. Qd1
Qe8 19. b3 Be6 20. Ra3 Na6 21. b4 Qd7 22. Re1 Nc7 23.
Qa1

 

-+t+-Tj+
X-SdXxL-
-X-+l+xX
+-+-+-+-
pP-X-+-+
R-+p+nP-
-+-BpPbP
Q-+-R-K-

23… Nd5 24. Nxd4 Nxb4 25. Bxb4 Bxd4 26. Bc3 Bxc3 27. Rxc3
Rxc3 28. Qxc3 Qxa4 29. Ra1 Qd7 30. Ra6 Rc8 31. Qa3 Rc2 0-1


An early occupation of the centre: solid
(B3)


Kasparov,G (2740) – Karpov,An (2700) (24)
[A14] Wch34-KK4 Sevilla, 1987

1. c4 e6 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. g3 d5 4. b3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6.
O-O

 

tSlD-Tj+
XxX-LxXx
-+-+xS-+
+-+x+-+-
-+p+-+-+
+p+-+nP-
p+-PpPbP
RnBq+rK-

The English and the Reti share a garden wall here.

6… b6 7. Bb2 Bb7 8. e3 Nbd7 9. Nc3 Ne4 10.
Ne2!? N

10.cd5; 10.Qe2; 10.Qc2

10… a5

[10… Bf6 11. d4!? c5 12. Nf4]

11. d3 Bf6 12. Qc2 Bxb2 13. Qxb2 Nd6 14.
cxd5

 

t+-D-Tj+
+lXs+xXx
-X-Sx+-+
X-+p+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+p+pPnP-
pQ-+nPbP
R-+-+rK-

14… Bxd5

[14… exd5!? 15. d4 c5 16. dxc5 bxc5and ]

15. d4! … 1-0


Fischer,Robert – Filip,Miroslav [A14] Palma
de Mallorca iz Rd: 4, 1970

1. b3 d5 2. Bb2 Nf6 3. Nf3 e6 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O
c5 7. c4 Nc6 8. cxd5 Nxd5 9. Nc3 Bf6 10. Qc1 b6 11. Nxd5 exd5 12.
d4 Ba6 13. Re1 Nxd4 14. Bxd4 cxd4 15. Qa3

 

t+-D-Tj+
X-+-+xXx
lX-+-L-+
+-+x+-+-
-+-X-+-+
Qp+-+nP-
p+-+pPbP
R-+-R-K-

15… Bb7 16. Rad1 Be7 17. Qa4 Qe8 18. Qxd4 Rc8 19. Qf4 Bf6
20. Nd4 Be5 21. Qe3 g6 22. Nb5 Qxb5 23. Qxe5 Rfe8 24. Qb2 Rc5 25.
h4 Rec8 26. Rd2 Rc3 27. Red1 Qc5 28. b4 Qe7 29. e3 h5 30. a3
Kh7

 

-+t+-+-+
Xl+-Dx+j
-X-+-+x+
+-+x+-+x
-P-+-+-P
P-T-P-P-
-Q-R-Pb+
+-+r+-K-

31. Bxd5 Bxd5 32. Rxd5 Qe4 33. Rd8 Qf3 34. Kh2 R8c4 35.
R1d7 g5 36. Rf8 Kg6 37. Rg8+ Kh7 38. Rxg5 Rc8 39. Rdd5 Kh6 40. Rdf5
1-0


Symmetrical play by Black (B4)

The classically-minded Fischer often played the Staunton system as
Black, preferring 1…g6 to reserve the options of the Ng8.


Smyslov,V – Fischer,R [A36] Palma de
Mallorca izt, 1970

1. c4 g6 2. Nc3 Bg7 3. g3 c5 4. Bg2 Nc6 5. b3 e6 6. Bb2
Nge7

 

t+lDj+-T
Xx+xSxLx
-+s+x+x+
+-X-+-+-
-+p+-+-+
+pN-+-P-
pB-PpPbP
R-+qK-Nr

7. Na4 Bxb2 8. Nxb2 O-O 9. e3 d5 10. cxd5 Nxd5 11. Ne2 b6
12. d4

 

t+lD-Tj+
X-+-+x+x
-Xs+x+x+
+-Xs+-+-
-+-P-+-+
+p+-P-P-
pN-+nPbP
R-+qK-+r

12… Ba6!

  “A brilliant Pawn sacrifice in the style of the young …
Smyslov!” — LEVY

13. dxc5 Qf6 14. Nc4 Nc3 15. Nxc3 Qxc3+ 16. Kf1
Rfd8 17. Qc1 Bxc4+ 18. bxc4 Qd3+ 19. Kg1 Rac8 20. cxb6 axb6 21. Qb2
Na5 22. h4 Nxc4 23. Qf6 Qf5 24. Qxf5 gxf5 25. h5 Rd2 26. Rc1 Rc5
27. Rh4 Ne5 28. Rxc5 bxc5 29. Ra4 c4 30. h6 Kf8 31. Ra8+ Ke7 32.
Rc8 Rxa2 33. Bf1 Rc2 34. Kg2 Ng4 35. Kg1 Rxf2 36. Bxc4 Rf3 37. Kg2
Rxe3 38. Rh8 Nxh6 39. Rxh7 Ng4 40. Bb5 Rb3 41. Bc6 Rb2+ 42. Kg1 Ne5
43. Ba8 Rb8 44. Bh1 0-1


Petrosian,T – Fischer,R (2) [A37] Belgrade
URS-WORLD, 1970

1. c4 g6 2. Nc3 c5 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. O-O
Nge7 7. d3 O-O 8. Bd2

 

t+lD-Tj+
Xx+xSxLx
-+s+x+x+
+-X-+-+-
-+p+-+-+
+-Np+nP-
pP-BpPbP
R-+q+rK-

8… d5 9. a3 b6 10. Rb1 Bb7 11. b4 cxb4 12. axb4 dxc4 13.
dxc4 Rc8

 

-+tD-Tj+
Xl+-SxLx
-Xs+x+x+
+-+-+-+-
-Pp+-+-+
+-N-+nP-
-+-BpPbP
+r+q+rK-

Black’s pieces have good scope and the c-Pawn is as much of a
liability as an asset. White lunges forward with it…

14. c5 bxc5 15. bxc5 Na5 16. Na4 Bc6 17. Qc2 Nb7
18. Rfc1 Qd7 19. Ne1 Nd5 20. Nb2 Bb5 21. Ned3 Bd4 22.
Qb3

 

-+t+-Tj+
Xs+d+x+x
-+-+x+x+
+lPs+-+-
-+-L-+-+
+q+n+-P-
-N-BpPbP
+rR-+-K-

22… Nxc5 23. Nxc5 Rxc5 24. Rxc5 Bxc5 25. Nd3 Bxd3 26.
Qxd3

 

-+-+-Tj+
X-+d+x+x
-+-+x+x+
+-Ls+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-+q+-P-
-+-BpPbP
+r+-+-K-

Black is a Pawn up and can hope to convert in the teeth of the two
Bishops.

26… Rd8 27. Bf3 Qc7 28. Bg5 Be7 29. Bxe7
Qxe7

  One Bishop only, now. White is in trouble.

30. Qd4 e5 31. Qc4 Nb6 32. Qc2 Rc8 33. Qd3 Rc4
34. Bg2 Qc7 35. Qa3 Rc3 36. Qa5 Rc5 37. Qa3 a5 38. h4 Nc4 39. Qd3
Nd6 40. Kh2 Kg7 41. Rd1 Ne8 42. Qd7 Qxd7 43. Rxd7 Nf6 44. Ra7 Ng4+
45. Kg1 Rc1+ 46. Bf1 Ra1 47. e4 a4 48. Kg2 Ra2 49. Rxf7+ Kxf7 50.
Bc4+ Ke7 51. Bxa2 a3 52. Kf3 Nf6 53. Ke3 Kd6 54. f4 Nd7 55. Bb1 Nc5
56. f5 Na6 57. g4 Nb4 58. fxg6 hxg6 59. h5 gxh5 60. gxh5 Ke6 61.
Kd2 Kf6 62. Kc3 a2 63. Bxa2 Nxa2+ 64. Kb2 Nb4 65. Kc3 Nc6 66. Kc4
Nd4 0-1


Unbalanced play by Black: the King’s
English with …Nf6 (B5)


Seeking early central control with …c6
and …d5 (B5a)


Hartston W R – Basman M J [A23] It,
Hastings, 1967

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3 c6 4. Nf3 e4 5. Nd4 d5 6.
cxd5

 

tSlDjL-T
Xx+-+xXx
-+x+-S-+
+-+p+-+-
-+-Nx+-+
+-N-+-P-
pP-PpP-P
R-BqKb+r

Black is going for it!

6… Qb6 7. Nb3 Ng4 8. d4 cxd5 9. Bg2 Bb4 10. O-O
Bxc3 11. bxc3 O-O 12. h3 Nf6 13. Rb1 Qc6 14. Qc2 b6 15. Be3 Ba6 16.
Rfc1 Nbd7 17. Bf1 h6

 

t+-+-Tj+
X-+s+xX-
lXd+-S-X
+-+x+-+-
-+-Px+-+
+nP-B-Pp
p+q+pP-+
+rR-+bK-

I prefer White here, but what do I know?

18. Nd2 Rac8 19. Rb4 Bc4 20. Nxc4 dxc4 21. Bg2
Rfe8 22. Rb2 Qe6 23. Bd2 Nd5 24. e3 f5 25. Re1 N7f6 26. a4 a5 27.
Kh2 Rc7 28. Qb1 Kh8 29. Qa2 g5 30. Rb5 h5 31. Qb1 Qd6 32. Kh1 Rg8
33. Rg1 h4 34. gxh4 gxh4 35. f4 Rcg7 36. Qe1 Rg3 37. Qe2 Qc7 38.
Rbb1 Qf7 39. Qf2 Nh5 40. Rb5 Kh7 41. Kh2 Kh6 42. Qe2 Qg6 43.
Rbb1

 

-+-+-+t+
+-+-+-+-
-X-+-+dJ
X-+s+x+s
p+xPxP-X
+-P-P-Tp
-+-Bq+bK
+r+-+-R-

But I prefer Black here!

43… Nhxf4 44. exf4 e3 45. Bxd5 Rxg1 46. Qxe3
Qg2+ 0-1

 


Seeking rapid flexible development
(B5b)


Unbalanced play by Black: the King’s
English with …Nc6 (B6)


The main line Closed King’s English
(B6a)


Psakhis – Kasparov [A10] La Manga,
1990

1. c4 g6 2. Nc3 Bg7 3. g3 Nc6 4. Bg2 d6 5. Nf3 e5 6. d3 f5
7. O-O Nf6

 

t+lDj+-T
XxX-+-Lx
-+sX-Sx+
+-+-Xx+-
-+p+-+-+
+-Np+nP-
pP-+pPbP
R-Bq+rK-

8. Rb1 h6 9. b4 O-O 10. b5 Ne7 11. a4 Be6 12. Ba3
Rc8

 

-+tD-Tj+
XxX-S-L-
-+-XlSxX
+p+-Xx+-
p+p+-+-+
B-Np+nP-
-+-+pPbP
+r+q+rK-

13. Nd2 b6 14. e3 g5 15. d4 exd4 16. exd4 f4

 

-+tD-Tj+
X-X-S-L-
-X-XlS-X
+p+-+-X-
p+pP-X-+
B-N-+-P-
-+-N-PbP
+r+q+rK-

17. Re1 Bg4 18. Nf3 Qd7 19. c5 Rce8 20. Rc1 Nf5 21. Qd3 Kh8
22. cxd6 cxd6 23. Rxe8 Qxe8 24. Rf1 Qh5

 

-+-+-T-J
X-+-+-L-
-X-X-S-X
+p+-+sXd
p+-P-Xl+
B-Nq+nP-
-+-+-PbP
+-+-+rK-

25. Ne4 Nxe4 26. Qxe4 Bh3 27. Ne5 Bxg2 28. Kxg2 g4 29. Bxd6
Rf6 30. Bb8 Qh3+

 

-B-+-+-J
X-+-+-L-
-X-+-T-X
+p+-Ns+-
p+-PqXx+
+-+-+-Pd
-+-+-PkP
+-+-+r+-

0-1 psakhis-kasparov/la manga 1990 0-1


Olafsson,Fridrik – Smyslov,Vasily V (2)
[A21] Yugoslavia ct, 1959

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 d6 3. g3 Be6 4. Bg2 c6

 

tS-DjLsT
Xx+-+xXx
-+xXl+-+
+-+-X-+-
-+p+-+-+
+-N-+-P-
pP-PpPbP
R-BqK-Nr

This system is one of Smyslov’s many contributions to the
development of the theory in the English Opening.

5. d3 Nf6 6. Nf3 h6 7. O-O Be7 8. b3 O-O 9. e4 c5
10. Nh4 Nc6 11. f4 exf4 12. gxf4 Nh7 13. Nf3 f5 14. Nd5 Bf6 15. Rb1
fxe4 16. dxe4 Bg4 17. Qd3 Qd7 18. Bd2 Rae8 19. Rbe1 Bd8 20. Bc3 Rf7
21. Kh1 Nf6 22. a3 Nh5 23. Qd2 Ne7 24. f5 Nxd5 25. Qxd5 Qc6 26. Qd2
Qb6 27. b4 cxb4 28. axb4 Qc7 29. c5 dxc5 30. bxc5 Rd7 31. Qa2+ Kh7
32. Qa4 Rde7 33. e5 Bxf5 34. Ng5+ hxg5 35. Rxf5 Re6 36. Qe4 Kh8 37.
Qxb7 Ng3+ 38. hxg3 Rh6+ 39. Kg1 Qxc5+ 40. Kf1 Qxc3 41. Qf3 Qc4+ 42.
Re2 Be7 43. Qd5 Qc1+ 44. Re1 Qc8 45. Qe4 a5 46. Rf3 Bb4 47. Rd1
Qa6+ 48. Rdd3 Rc8 49. Rfe3 Bc5 50. Rf3 a4 51. Qe2 a3 52. Rd2 Qe6
53. g4 Rb8 54. Qd1 Qa6+ 55. Ke1 Bb4 56. Kf2 Bxd2 57. Qxd2 a2
0-1


Petrosian T – Smyslov V (03) [A21] JUG ct,
1959

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 d6 3. Nf3 Bg4

 

tS-DjLsT
XxX-+xXx
-+-X-+-+
+-+-X-+-
-+p+-+l+
+-N-+n+-
pP-PpPpP
R-BqKb+r

This is the other idea: now g2-g3 is inhibited.

4. e3 Nf6 5. Be2 c6 6. h3 Bh5 7. O-O Be7 8. d3
O-O 9. b3 Nbd7 10. Nh4 Bxe2 11. Qxe2 d5 12. Nf5 Bb4 13. Bb2 Re8 14.
cxd5 cxd5 15. d4 e4 16. Rfc1 Nb6 17. Nb5 Qd7 18. Ng3 Rec8 19. Rxc8+
Nxc8 20. Rc1 a6 21. Ba3 Bxa3 22. Nxa3 Ne7 23. Nb1 Rc8 24. Rxc8+
Qxc8 25. Qd2 g6 26. Qc3 Qxc3 27. Nxc3 Nd7 28. Nge2 b5 29. Nf4 Nb6
30. a4 bxa4 31. bxa4 a5 32. f3 f5 33. Kf2 Kf7 34. h4 h6 35. Nfe2
Nc6 36. Nc1 Nb4 37. Nb3 Nc4 38. f4 Nc2 39. Nd1 Ke7 40. Ke2 Kd6 41.
Kf2 Kc6 42. Ke2 Kd6 43. Kf2 Nb4 44. Ke2 Nc6 45. Nc3 Na7 46. Nc5 Nc8
47. Nb7+ Kc7 48. Nc5 N8b6 49. Kf2 Kd6 50. Ke2 Ke7 51. Kf2 Kf6 52.
Ke2 g5 53. hxg5+ hxg5 54. g3 Kg6 55. Kf2 Kh5 56. Ne6 Nb2 57. fxg5
Kg6 58. Kf1 Kf7 59. Nc5 Kg6 60. Ne6 Kf7 Q

 


English Four Knights’ Game (B6b)


Knee – Povah N [A28] Hereford,
1978

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. d4 e4 5. Nd2 Nxd4 6.
Ndxe4 Nxe4 7. Qxd4 Nxc3 8. Qxc3 d5!

 

t+lDjL-T
XxX-+xXx
-+-+-+-+
+-+x+-+-
-+p+-+-+
+-Q-+-+-
pP-+pPpP
R-B-Kb+r

9. cxd5? Qxd5 10. Bf4 Be6 11. Rd1 Qxa2 12. Bxc7 Rc8 13. e3
a6 14. Qd4 Be7 15. Qxg7

 

-+t+j+-T
+xB-LxQx
x+-+l+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-+-P-+-
dP-+-PpP
+-+rKb+r

In these open positions, activity and development are the most
important features.

15… Bb4+ 16. Ke2 Rf8 17. Be5 Bd5 18. Qxh7
Qb3!

 

-+t+jT-+
+x+-+x+q
x+-+-+-+
+-+lB-+-
-L-+-+-+
+d+-P-+-
-P-+kPpP
+-+r+b+r

19. Bc3 Bxc3 20. bxc3 Rxc3 21. Ke1 Qb4! 22. Be2 Bxg2
0-1


Kasparov,G (2740) – Karpov,An (2700) (04)
[A29 ] Wch34-KK4 Sevilla, 1987

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e5 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. g3 Bb4 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O
e4

 

t+lD-Tj+
XxXx+xXx
-+s+-S-+
+-+-+-+-
-Lp+x+-+
+-N-+nP-
pP-PpPbP
R-Bq+rK-

The aggressive line.

7. Ng5

[7. Ne1 was often played.]

7… Bxc3 8. bxc3 Re8 9. f3 exf3

[9… e3!? 10. d3! d5 11. Qb3!+/= ]

10. Nxf3

 

t+lDt+j+
XxXx+xXx
-+s+-S-+
+-+-+-+-
-+p+-+-+
+-P-+nP-
p+-Pp+bP
R-Bq+rK-

10… Qe7?!

[10… d5 11. cxd5 Qxd5 12. Nd4 Qh5 13. Nxc6 bxc6 14.
e3 unclear ]

11. e3 Ne5 N; 11…d6+/= – 16/47 12.
Nd4!

[12. Nxe5 Qxe5 13. Rb1

…1-0


Kasparov,G (2740) – Karpov,An (2700) (16)
[A29] Wch34-KK4 Sevilla, 1987

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. g3 Bb4 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O
Re8

 

t+lDt+j+
XxXx+xXx
-+s+-S-+
+-+-X-+-
-Lp+-+-+
+-N-+nP-
pP-PpPbP
R-Bq+rK-

The solid move.

7. d3 Bxc3 8. bxc3 e4 9. Nd4 h6 10. dxe4!
N

  10.Qc2 – 36/39

[10. c5]

[10. Nxc6]

10… Nxe4 11. Qc2 d5!

 

t+lDt+j+
XxX-+xX-
-+s+-+-X
+-+x+-+-
-+pNs+-+
+-P-+-P-
p+q+pPbP
R-B-+rK-

Podgaets,M

12. cxd5

[12. Nb5 Bf5 13. cxd5 Nxg3 14. e4 Nxf1 15.
exf5

[15.dxc6 Bxe4 16. Bxe4 Qh4]

15… Re1 16. Bxf1 Qxd5 ^ /\ 17. Nxc7 Qc4-+
]

12… Qxd5 13. e3

[13. Rd1 Bf5 14. Nxf5

[14. f3 Nf2]

14… Qxf5 15. f3 Nxg3 unclear ]

13… Na5!?=

 

t+l+t+j+
XxX-+xX-
-+-+-+-X
S-+d+-+-
-+-Ns+-+
+-P-P-P-
p+q+-PbP
R-B-+rK-

[13… Nxd4!? 14. cxd4 c6 15. Bb2 Bf5 16. f3?! Nxg3 17. e4 Nxe4
18. fxe4 Bxe4]

… 0-1


Kasparov,G (2740) – Karpov,An (2700) (02)
[A29] Wch34-KK4 Sevilla, 1987

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. g3 Bb4 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O
e4 7. Ng5 Bxc3 8. bxc3 Re8 9. f3 e3!?

N; Zaitsev,I; 9…ef3 – 35/44

10. d3!

…0-1

 


Baker,C – Birnboim,N [A20] London,
1987

1. c4 e5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 c6 4. Nc3 d5 5. cxd5 xd5 6. Qb3
Nc6 7. Nxd5 Nd4 8. Nxf6+ Qxf6

  8…gxf6 was a game Regis-Menadue, where I first met this
line (0-1, 20-odd).

9. Qd1

 

t+l+jL-T
Xx+-+xXx
-+-+-D-+
+-+-X-+-
-+-S-+-+
+-+-+-P-
pP-PpPbP
R-BqK-Nr

I believe Tal was behind this evil gambit.

9… Bf5 10. d3 Rc8 11. Kf1 Be7 12. Bxb7 Rc7 13.
Bd5 O-O 14. Kg2 Rd8 15. e4 Rxd5 16. exd5 Qd6 17. f3 Rc2+ 18. Kf1
Qa6 19. Bd2 Qxd3+ 20. Ke1 Bb4 21. Bxb4 Qe3+ 22. Ne2 Nxf3+
0-1

 


Polugaevsky,L – Estevez,G [A22] Sochi,
1976

see other handout


Uhlmann W – Dobosz H (0.17) [A22]
DDR-Polska, 1974

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 e4 4. Ng5 b5

 

tSlDjL-T
X-Xx+xXx
-+-+-S-+
+x+-+-N-
-+p+x+-+
+-N-+-+-
pP-PpPpP
R-BqKb+r

Bellon’s gambit is designed to intimidate the (presumed) dull
player of the English Opening.

5. b3? b4 6. Nb1 h6 7. Nh3 Bc5=/+

  It sometimes works that way!

8. d4 exd3 9. Qxd3 O-O 10. Bb2 Bb7 11. Nd2 d6 12.
e3 Nbd7 13. Nf4 Ne5 14. Qc2 Nfg4 15. Be2 Bxe3 16. fxe3 Nxe3 17. Qc1
Qg5 18. Nf1 Nxg2+ 19. Nxg2 Qxg2 20. Bxe5 Rfe8 21. Ng3 Rxe5 22. Kd2
Qf2 23. Qg1 Qf4+ 24. Kc2 Rae8 25. Re1 Re3 26. Qf1 Qe5 27. Rg1 Qc3+
28. Kb1 Rxg3 0-1


Plaskett J – Hempson P W [A22] It, ENG,
1988

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 e4 4. Ng5 b5 5. d3 exd3 6. cxb5
h6 7. Nf3 dxe2 8. Bxe2 Bb7 9. O-O Bc5 10. Nd4 Bxd4 11. Qxd4 O-O 12.
b4 d6 13. Bb2 Nbd7 14. f4 Re8 15. Bf3 Bxf3 16. Rxf3 Qb8 17. Nd5 Qb7
18. Nxf6+ Nxf6 19. Rg3 Re6 20. f5

 

t+-+-+j+
XdX-+xX-
-+-XtS-X
+p+-+p+-
-P-Q-+-+
+-+-+-R-
pB-+-+pP
R-+-+-K-

Plaskett characteristically goes for the throat…

20… Re5 21. Qh4 Ne4 22. Re3 Qb6

 

t+-+-+j+
X-X-+xX-
-D-X-+-X
+p+-Tp+-
-P-+s+-Q
+-+-R-+-
pB-+-+pP
R-+-+-K-

…but finds he has put his foot in a pin.

23. Rae1 Nc3 24. Qg3 Rxe3 25. Qxe3 Re8
0-1


Reshevsky,S – Bellon Lopez,J [A22] Palma,
1971

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 e4 4. Ng5 b5

 

tSlDjL-T
X-Xx+xXx
-+-+-S-+
+x+-+-N-
-+p+x+-+
+-N-+-+-
pP-PpPpP
R-BqKb+r

The original game in this line, I think.

5. Nxb5 h6 6. Nh3 c6 7. Nc3 d5 8. cxd5 cxd5 9. e3
Bd6 10. Bb5+ Kf8 11. d3 Bg4 12. Qd2 Qa5 13. a3 Na6 14. O-O Rd8 15.
d4 Bb8 16. Be2 Qc7 17. Nf4 g5 18. Bxa6 gxf4 19. exf4 Rg8 20. g3 Qd7
21. Be2 Bf3 22. Bxf3 exf3 23. Qd3 Qg4 24. Re1 Nh5 25. Re5 Bxe5 26.
fxe5 Ng7 27. Nb5 Rh8 28. Nd6 h5 29. h3 Qxh3 30. Qxf3 Rxd6 31. exd6
Nf5 32. d7 Kg7 33. Bg5 f6 34. Re1 Rd8 35. Re5 Kg6 36. Qxd5 Nxd4 37.
Qxd4 fxe5 38. Qd6+ Kxg5 39. Qe7+ Kg4 40. Qxd8 Kf3 41. Qf6+
1-0


Karpov,Anatoly – Anand,Viswanathan (2)
Linares, 1991

1. Nf3 c5 2. c4 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nd4

 

t+lDjLsT
Xx+xXxXx
-+-+-+-+
+-X-+-+-
-+pS-+-+
+-N-+n+-
pP-PpPpP
R-BqKb+r

Outrageous! – but watch…

4. e3 Nxf3+ 5. Qxf3 g6 6. b3 Bg7 7. Bb2 d6 8. g3
Rb8 9. Bg2 Nf6 10. h3 O-O 11. O-O a6 12. Qe2 b5 13. d3 b4 14. Nd1
a5 15. a4 e5 16. e4 h5 17. h4 Ne8 18. Ne3 Nc7 19. Kh2 Ne6 20. Bh3
Bh6 21. Ng2 Bg7 22. Rae1 Rb7 23. Bxe6 Bxe6 24. f4 Bg4 25. Qd2 Re7
26. Ne3 f5 27. exf5 gxf5 28. Nd5 Re6 29. Qf2 Rfe8 30. Bc1 e4 31.
dxe4 Rxe4 32. Rxe4 Rxe4 33. Re1 Rxe1 34. Qxe1 Kf7 35. Qd2 Bf3 36.
Ne3 Be4 37. Bb2 Bxb2 38. Qxb2 Qf6 39. Qxf6+ Kxf6 40. Kg1 Bb1 41.
Nf1 Bc2 42. Nd2 Ke6 43. Kf2 d5 44. cxd5+ Kxd5 45. Ke3 Bd1 46. Kd3
Bxb3 0-1


Indian-style defences (B7):


Grunfeld style (B7a)


Andersson Ulf – Tempone Marcelo [A16] 04,
Buenos Aires, 1979

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 g6 3. Nf3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4 Nxc3 6.
dxc3 Qxd1+ 7. Kxd1

 

tSl+jL-T
XxX-Xx+x
-+-+-+x+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+p+-+
+-P-+n+-
pP-+-PpP
R-Bk+b+r

White has a whisper of a plus: a tempo, a little more space…

7… c5 8. Be3 b6 9. a4 Nc6 10. Bb5 Bd7 11. Kc2
Bg7 12. Rhd1 a6 13. Bc4 Bg4 14. h3 Bxf3 15. gxf3 O-O 16. f4 Ra7 17.
e5 a5 18. Rd2 e6 19. Rad1 Rc8 20. Kb3 Bf8 21. Bb5 Rcc7 22. Bxc6
Rxc6 23. Kc4 Be7 24. Rd7 Rcc7 25. Rxc7 Rxc7 26. Kb5

 

-+-+-+j+
+-T-Lx+x
-X-+x+x+
XkX-P-+-
p+-+-P-+
+-P-B-+p
-P-+-P-+
+-+r+-+-

But now, the contrast in King activity could not be more
pronounced.

26… Rc8 27. Rd7 Kf8 28. Kxb6 Ke8 29. Rb7 Bd8+
30. Kb5 c4 31. Bc5 1-0


King’s Indian style (B7b)


Petrosian,T – Vasiukov,E Moscow ch,
1956

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Bg7 4. O-O O-O 5. c4 d6 6. Nc3
Nc6 7. d3 Nh5 8. Rb1 f5 9. Qc2 a5 10. a3 f4

 

t+lD-Tj+
+xX-X-Lx
-+sX-+x+
X-+-+-+s
-+p+-X-+
P-Np+nP-
-Pq+pPbP
+rB-+rK-

“…I was impressed by this game as Petrosian must have been, as he
got crushed.” — FISCHER.

11. b4 axb4 12. axb4 Bg4 13. e3 e5 14. b5 Ne7 15.
Ne4 Qd7 16. Bd2 h6 17. Bc3 g5 18. exf4 gxf4 19. Qe2 Ng6 20. Ra1
Rxa1 21. Bxa1 b6 22. Bc3 Qf5 23. Bd2 Kh8 24. Bc1 Bf6 25. Kh1 Ng7
26. Bb2 Ne6 27. Qc2 Qh5 28. Ned2 Ng5 29. Nxg5 Bxg5 30. Be4 Be2 31.
Kg1 f3 32. Re1 Bxd2 33. Rxe2 Bg5 34. Re1 Qh3 35. Bxf3 Rxf3 36. d4
Nf4 37. gxf4 Bxf4 0-1

 


Nimzo-Indian style (B7c)


Langeweg – Korchnoi, Amsterdam,
1976

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 0-0 5.a3 Bxc3 6.Qxc3 b6
7.g3 Bb7 8.Bg2 d5 9.d4 dxc4 10.Qxc4 Bd5 11.Qc3 Nbd7

“The game had several critical points.

At move 11 I was threatening to equalise by …c5 so
my opponent played the ambitious b2-b4. It caused White
difficulties because of his under-development and gave the Black
pieces space for active play.”

12.b4 a5 13.b5?! c6 14.bxc6 Rc8 15.0-0 Rxc6
16.Qe3 Qa8 17.Bd2 b5?!

“Imprecise: now the b-Pawn is a weakness.

I had to exchange one of White’s Bishops in order to
obtain chances of advancing the Queen’s-side Pawns and give myself
the better chances in the ending. For the moment the position had
become unclear.”

18.Rfb1 Rb8 19.Ne1?! Bxg2 20.Nxg2
Ne4!

“Siezing the initiative: White is taken
aback.”

21.Qd3 Rd6 22.Be3?! Ne5 23.Qc2? Rc8 24.Qb3 Nc4
25.Rc1 Rdc6 26.Qxb5 Nxa3 27.Qa4 Nc2 28.Rab1 Rc4 0-1

[Notes by Korchnoi.]

 


Queen’s Indian style (B7d)


Kortschnoj,V – Karpov,An (03) [A17] Moscow
cf (Wch), 1974

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e6 3. Nf3 b6

 

tSlDjL-T
X-Xx+xXx
-X-+xS-+
+-+-+-+-
-+p+-+-+
+-N-+n+-
pP-PpPpP
R-BqKb+r

4. e4 Bb7 5. Qe2 Bb4 6. e5 Ng8 7. d4 Ne7 N

 

tS-Dj+-T
XlXxSxXx
-X-+x+-+
+-+-P-+-
-LpP-+-+
+-N-+n+-
pP-+qPpP
R-B-Kb+r

8. Bd2 O-O 9. O-O-O d5 10. h4 Bxc3 11. Bxc3 dxc4 12. Qxc4
Ba6 13. Qa4 Bxf1 14. Rhxf1 Qd5 15. Kb1 a5 16. Qc2 h6 17. Rfe1 Na6
18. Qe4 Rfd8 19. Qxd5 Rxd5 20. Rd2 Rad8

 

-+-T-+j+
+-X-SxX-
sX-+x+-X
X-+tP-+-
-+-P-+-P
+-B-+n+-
pP-R-Pp+
+k+-R-+-

21. Red1 h5 22. Kc2 Nf5 23. g3 f6 24. exf6 gxf6 25. Ng1 Ne7
26. Ne2 Ng6 27. Rd3 Nb4+ 28. Bxb4 axb4 29. a3 bxa3 30. Rxa3 R8d7
31. Re1 Kf7 32. Rd3 Rf5 33. f3 c5 34. f4 Ne7 35. dxc5 Rxc5+ 36. Nc3
Rdc7 37. Kd2 Nf5 38. Ra1 Rc4 39. Ra6 b5 40. b3 Rb4 41. Ne2 Ke7 42.
Ra8 Rd7 43. Rxd7+ Kxd7 44. Rh8 Rxb3 45. Rxh5 Nxg3 46. Nxg3 Rxg3 47.
Rxb5 f5 48. Ke2 Rg4 49. Kf3 Rxh4 50. Rb6 Rh1 51. Ra6 Rc1 52. Kg3
Rc4 53. Kf3 Rc3+ 54. Kf2 Rc6 55. Ra1 Rc4 56. Kf3 Kd6 57. Re1 Rc3+
Q

 


Dutch style (B7e)


Miles,T – Chaves,J [A27] Sao Paulo,
1977

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 f5 4. d4 e4 5. Nd2 Nf6 6. e3 g6
7. Be2 Bg7 8. Rb1 a5 9. a3 O-O 10. b4 axb4 11. axb4 Ne7 12. Qb3 d6
13. b5 Kh8 14. Ba3

 

t+lD-T-J
+xX-S-Lx
-+-X-Sx+
+p+-+x+-
-+pPx+-+
BqN-P-+-
-+-NbPpP
+r+-K-+r

14… f4 15. Ncxe4 fxe3 16. fxe3 Nxe4 17. Nxe4 Bf5 18. Bd3
Nd5 19. O-O Nxe3 20. Rf3 Qh4 21. g3 Qg4 22. Rxe3 Rxa3 23. Qxa3 Bxd4
24. Kg2 Qh3+ 25. Kh1 Bxe4+

 

-+-+-T-J
+xX-+-+x
-+-X-+x+
+p+-+-+-
-+pLl+-+
Q-+bR-Pd
-+-+-+-P
+r+-+-+k

0-1


Saidy,Anthony – Fischer,Robert [A25] New
York, 1969

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 f5 4. Bg2 Nf6 5. d3 Bc5 6. e3
f4

 

t+lDj+-T
XxXx+-Xx
-+s+-S-+
+-L-X-+-
-+p+-X-+
+-NpP-P-
pP-+-PbP
R-BqK-Nr

Audacious, even arrogant. Gik had published some analysis on this
line … for White against the Sicilian, but mostly people weren’t
convinced even in that situation. Nowadays of course the theme has
become well-known.

7. exf4 O-O 8. Nge2 Qe8 9. O-O d6 10. Na4 Bd4 11.
Nxd4 exd4 12. h3 h5 13. a3 a5 14. b3 Qg6 15. Nb2 Bf5 16. Qc2 Nd7
17. Re1 Nc5

 

t+-+-Tj+
+xX-+-X-
-+sX-+d+
X-S-+l+x
-+pX-P-+
Pp+p+-Pp
-Nq+-Pb+
R-B-R-K-

Black has a grip on both sides of the board.

18. Bf1 Ra6 19. Bd2 Rb6 20. Bxa5 Rxb3 21. Bd2 Ra8
22. a4 Ra6 23. a5 Kh7 24. Red1 b6 25. Be1 bxa5 26. Na4 Rxd3 27.
Bxd3 Bxd3 28. Qa2 Nb4 29. Qa3 Nc2 30. Qb2 Nxa1 31. Rxa1 Nxa4 32.
Rxa4 Qe4 33. Bxa5 Rxa5 34. Rxa5 Qe1+ 35. Kh2 Qxa5 0-1


Kool – Hodgson [A21] London, 1989

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Bb4

 

tSlDj+sT
XxXx+xXx
-+-+-+-+
+-+-X-+-
-Lp+-+-+
+-N-+-+-
pP-PpPpP
R-BqKbNr

Hodgson’s fondness for the Grand Prix Attack makes this line an
obvious choice. 3. g3 Bxc3 4. bxc3 Ne7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. d3
Nbc6 7. Nh3 d6 8. O-O f5 9. f4 Qe8 10. Rb1 Rb8 11. d4 e4 12. e3 Na5
13. Qe2 c5 14. Nf2 b6 15. Nd1 Ba6

 

-T-+dTj+
X-+-S-Xx
lX-X-+-+
S-X-+x+-
-+pPxP-+
+-P-P-P-
p+-+q+bP
+rBn+rK-

Of course, Black is not forced to win on the King’s-side; he has a
very good version of the Nimzo-Indian!

16. Nb2 Qf7 17. Rd1 Nxc4 0-1


Smart – Hodgson [A21] England,
1984

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Bb4 3. Nd5

  White need not submit to the doubling of the c-Pawns in
this line.

3… Ba5 4. b4 c6 5. bxa5 cxd5 6. e3 Nf6 7. Qa4
dxc4 8. Bxc4 Nc6 9. Nf3 e4 10. Ng5 d5 11. Bb5 Bd7 12. O-O h6 13.
a6! hxg5 14. axb7 Rb8 15. Bxc6 Qc7 16. Bxd7+ Nxd7 17. f4! exf3 18.
g3 Rxb7 19. Ba3 Qc4? 20. Rac1 1-0

What you see with your mind

“Sight is what you see with your eyes, Vision is what you see with your mind.” http://lessons.chessvision. net/

There is a gap between what is under your nose and what you actually notice. It’s the gap between what is obvious once your opponent lands a punch and what you did failed to see beforehand…

Chess uses a big board and it’s hard to see how things join up sometimes. How can we see things coming before the accident happens?  Can we somehow look ahead better? This is sometimes called sight of the board, or chess visualisation, or chess vision… Shall we call it boardsight, rather than eyesight?

I was putting together a set of mixed exercises (below), and came across several exercises for developing your boardsight… Here’s a selection.

There’s a great free online exercise from the Chess Drum with items like:

  • Without looking at a board: what colour is the square … b3?
  • Complete the sequence… a7-b8-h2, a5-d8-h4, a3-f8-h6, d1-a4-?
  • On which square can you put a knight to attack …. the g7 and e3 squares?
  • Where would you place a Queen so that it attacks h6, e4 and a3?
  • With a knight, you can attack the d2 and a5 squares from both c4 and…which square?
  • After the moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Nbd2 d5 4.g3 c5 5.dxc5 Bxc5 6.Bg2… What should black play here?

Chessboard tasks (Martin Gardner)

  • Place eight queens on a chessboard so no queen attacks or defends another (you can use 8 pawns to stand for Queens).
  • How many Bishops can you place on a chessboard so that no Bishop attacks or defends another?
  • …And how many knights?
  • Arrange five queens on the board so that every single square is attacked.
  • How many Knights does it take to do the same thing?

Knight Dance The famous Czech IQ test:

-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+x+-X-+
+-+-----
-+-+-+-+
+-X-+x+-
-----+-+
N-+-+-+-

Visit in turn the squares a1, b1, c1…h1, then h2-a2, a3-h3, etc. WITHOUT ever moving to a square occupied or attacked by a Black Pawn. Not too difficult, but can you beat 5 minutes against the clock? Blindfold chess Play chess without the pieces, calling moves out to each other.  If you play an illegal move, you lose!  You need a referee for this, who does have the pieces! (There’s software too.)  Or try it when only one player plays blindfold…

Commercial:

Chess Eye A demo offline/online chess visualisation trainer

Chess Vision trainer You play against the computer on the screen, but the board shows the position two ply behind…  If you can manage that, it will hide one quarter of the board!

Professor Chess (Jim Mitch)

Jim offers a sample homework set, with questions like:

In this position:

  • How many possible White captures?
  • How many possible White checks?
  • How many possible Black captures?
  • How many possible Black checks?

Count again, picturing the board two moves hence!

What’s the fastest way for a [Knight] to move from [a7] to [a6]?

Which squares are attacked by both [Qd3] and [Nd2]?

Alex Bartashnikov’s chess software A superb suite that includes some try-before-you-buy visualisation training (including blindfold chess).  Excellent for youngsters!

Detective Chess (Gerry Quinn) There are White pieces KQRBN at b7,c3,d4,g8 and g5. The squares a4 and e1 are attacked once each, the square g1 is attacked twice, and the square g7 three times. Where is each White piece?

I dunno about playing blindfold or with a partly hidden board: I find playing blindfold a zillion times easier if I have an empty board to look at, and you will never be without a board during a game.

Maybe the simplest idea is: load up a complete game from a database, or open a book of chess games, pick a position half-way through, then imagine the position two moves hence, and count all the possible White checks and captures for each side. Then make the two moves, and check to see if you were right.  Slap yourself once for every one you missed.  Then pick more complicated positions.  Then look further ahead.  Then slap harder.

New starting formations (Tabi’at)

Introduction: Tabi’at

The old game of chess

  Modern (Western) chess originated from the Persian game
of shatranj , itself a derivation of the very similar
Hindu game of chaturanga . The rules of shatranj
(no double Pawn moves or castling, weaker Queen ( firzan )
and Bishop ( fil

  made it a slow game with a deferred clash of forces. This
encouraged the development of tabi’a (starting
formations), a recognised arrangement of forces which could be
aimed for almost regardless of the opponent’s play. You will find
written tabi’a tabia and tabiya , the
plural is tabi’at.

  Hooper and Whyld in their excellent Oxford Companion
to Chess
give a selection of tabi’at.


|+.+.+.+.|
|.+p+.).+|
|+php)n).|
|p+.+.+.)|
|+rbqkbr-|
+-----------------+
 

  mujannah (=”flank opening”)

  N.B. the pieces on c1 and f1 are fils , the
piece on d1 a firzan  


|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+.+p+|
|)p)p)p+.|
|.+.+n$.)|
|+nbqkbr-|
+-----------------+

  sayyal (=”torrent”)

  A King’s-side attacking formation.


|+.+.+p+.|
|.+.).+p+|
|pppqpn+-|
|.+.h.+.)|
|+rb+kbr-|
+-----------------+

  Muwashshah (=”richly girdled”)


In practice, say H&W, the opponent would never allow the
completion of this strong attacking formation.

  Some players have tried to interpret old tabi’at
in modern chess, for example the mujannah can arise from
Bird’s opening. This is unnecessary, for modern chess has its own
tabi’at . The Soviet literature is quite rich in uses of
the term in modern chess.

 

Modern
Tabi’at

  Old Stodge

+-----------------+
|r+b1k+.4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+n0.h.+|
|+.g.0.+.|
|.+b+p+.+|
|+.hp+n+.|
|p)p+.)p)|
|$.gqi.+r|
+-----------------+

  I am uncomfortably aware that for some players,
especially juniors, this is a tabi’a . I wouldn’t mind so
much if I though they had the slightest idea what to do when they
got this far.

  King’s Indian

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|0p0.hpgp|
|.+.0.hp+|
|+.+p0.+.|
|.+p+p+.+|
|+.h.+n+.|
|p).+b)p)|
|$.gq+ri.|
+-----------------+

  There are strong arguments for supposing this to be a
modern tabi’a . Both sides set up their formations without
any great account being taken of the moves of their opponent, and
from here a great many alternative plans are available to each
player.

  Sicilian Taimanov

  The veteran Russian GM Mark Taimanov is just one author
who uses the term in his writings.

+-----------------+
|r+b1k+.4|
|+.+pgp0p|
|p+n+p+.+|
|+p+.+.+.|
|.+.+p+.+|
|+.h.g.+.|
|p)p!b)p)|
|$.+.+ri.|
+-----------------+

  “This is one of the typical tabias (
sic ) of the Taimanov system. As in many similar variations,
this position is assessed as favourable for White.

  “White has an advantage in the centre, harmonious
development, pressure along the d-file and a wide choice of plans
to gain the initiative. Black is slightly restricted (at least in
the centre), and he has to spend time (at least three tempi) on
development.

  “Nevertheless, many practical examples show that
Black’s position is quite viable. What is the secret?

  “First of all, Black’s position is invulnerable as
yet, because his pieces control the whole defensive region, so it
is difficult to approach his position (the only worrying aspect is
the weakened d6 square). Besides, Black has good opportunities of
his own in prospect. For instance, if he manages to arrange his
pieces freely according to the scheme …Qc7, …Rfd8, …Bb7,
…Rac8, then he can count on promising counterplay on the
Queen’s-side connected with …Nc6-a5-c4, and, in some cases, on
pressure along the a8-h1 diagonal. That is why the theoretical
debate concerned with this variation has already been going on for
several decades, deepening the understanding of the position for
both sides, but not coming to a final conclusion.

  “Obviously, White’s attempts to gain the initiative
can be linked either to the weak d6 square (12. Bf4), or to active
play in the centre and King’s-side (11.f4 or 11.Rad1,
etc.).”

  The book gives two games:

  11.Rad1 [ or 11.f4 Bb7 12.e5!? Na5!?
13.Bd3 Rc8 14.Ne2 Nc4 15.Bxc4 Rxc4 16.Rad1 Qc8 (Black is better)
17.c3 b4!? 18.Rc1 0-0 19.b3 bxc3 20.Nxc3 Rc6 21.Na4 Ba3 22.Rxc6
Qxc6 23.Nb6 d6!? 24.exd6 Bxd6 25.Rc1 Qe4 26.Rc4 Qb1+ 27.Rc1 Qg6
28.Qc2 Be4 29.Qf2 Rd8!? 30.Rd1 Bc7 31.Rxd8+ Bxd8 32.Nc4 Bd5 33.Nd2
h6 34.h3 a5 35.Nf3 Bc7 36.Nd4 Qb1+ 37.Kh2 g5!? 38.Nb5 Bxf4+ 39.Bxf4
gxf4 40.Nc3 Qf5… Unzicker,W-Taimanov,M/Wijk aan Zee 1981/0-1
(53)]
11…0-0 12.Bf4 Qa5!? 13.a3 Rd8 14.Bd6 Bb7
15.Bxe7 Nxe7 16.Qg5!? f6 17.Qc5 Nc6 18.Rd6 Rac8 19.Rfd1 Nb8 20.Qe3
Rc6 21.R6d4 Qb6 22.Qh3 Qc5 23.Nd5!! exd5 24.exd5 Rd6 25.c4! bxc4
26.Rxc4 Qa5 27.Rh4! h6 28.Rxh6! Rxd5 29.Rh8+ Kf7 30.Bc4 Ke7 31.Bxd5
Bxd5 32.Rxd8 Nc6 33.Re8+! 1-0 Sznapik,A – Donchev,D [ or B46]
Prague (11), 1985

 

French Tarrasch

  There are two parallel but over-lapping variations of the
main line 3…Nf6 French Tarrasch.

  1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3 c5 6.c3
Nc6 7.Ne2 cxd4 8.cxd4 f6 9.exf6 Nxf6 10. Nf3 Bd6

  1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3 c5 6.c3
Nc6 7.Ne2 cxd4 8.cxd4 Qb6 9.Nf3 f6 10.exf6 Nxf6 11.0-0
Bd6

+-----------------+
|r+b+k+.4|
|0p+.+.0p|
|.1ngph.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.+b+n+.|
|p).+n)p)|
|$.gq+ri.|
+-----------------+

  Tony D strongly recommends having this type of position
in your repertoire, and being able to play it for both sides. The
point is, there are some very common Pawn formations to be mastered
here, and you can read a lot of the plans right off the Pawn
structure. However, the Pawn structure is not fixed.

  A French root and some branches

  The classic French structure arises after the Pawn
moves:

  e4 d4 e5

  …e6 …d5

+-----------------+
|rhb1kgn4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.+p+.+|
|+.+p).+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|p)p+.)p)|
|$ngqibhr|
+-----------------+

  As both sides contest the centre, this fundamental
structure is altered.

  The basic French centre

-+p+
+pP-
-P-+
+-+-

  There are some themes here that re-appear in many
variations below.

  Black has a poor light-squared Bishop, at least for the
moment. Black would like to exchange light-squared Bishops, White
would like to exchange dark-squared Bishops.

  White has more space and a potential King’s-side
attacking position.

  Black, who has the move, will attempt to attack the chain
with Pawn moves like:

  …c5 …f6 …cxd4 …fxe5 …f5

  Black will continue to put pressure on d4 and can extend
the scope of the attack to c3 by advancing the b-Pawn. Nimzovitch,
who studied the Advance Variation, always recommended the attack on
the base of the Pawn chain. Since Nimzo, and since the development
of the Tarrasch variation, we see much more virtue in attacking the
head. In fact, we see a lot more …f6s in the Advance these
days.

  White will defend or change the centre with Pawn moves
like:

  c3 f4 dxc4 exf6

  White must try to make the space or the attack tell
without allowing Black to destroy the centre and without getting in
a tangle. Black will use obvious piece moves like …Nc6 and …Qb6
to put pressure on the Pawn centre. The immediate Pawn attack,
around which Black’s development in this line revolves, is:

  …c5

-+p+
ppP-
-P-+
+-+-

  [ or Black can try and do without this move in other
lines of the French (Guimard).]

  c3

  French tension centre

-+p+
ppP-
-P-+
P-+-

  White usually tries to hold the centre initially with
c2-c3.

  After an exchange of Pawns:

  …cxd4, cxd4

  French centre with open c-file

-+p+
+pP-
-P-+
+-+-

  The exchange relieves a certain amount of central
pressure, but brings the base of White’s Pawn chain a little nearer
Black’s pieces.

  The open c-file allows a variety of new possibilities for
Black, most notably use of the b4 square (…Bb4+, …Nb4).

  …f6, exf6 Nxf6

  Two weaknesses

-+p+
+p+-
-P-+
+-+-

  This is the key formation we will discuss in more detail
below. The two Pawn weaknesses alluded to are Pe6 and Pd4; the Pe6
is weaker, being exposed on a half-open file, and White has the
advantage of being able to play on e5 as well as e6. However, Black
can attack d4 just as easily as White can attack e6, and can even
hope to get in the dynamic …e6-e5:

-+-+
+pp-
-P-+
+-+-

  After an exchange of Pawns (White naturally does not want
to allow …e5-e4) we develop the:

  IPQP centre

  Isolated passed Queen Pawn.

-+-+
+p+-
-+-+
+-+-

  White should behave the same as in an IQP centre,
blockading the Pawn and holding Black to its defence, looking for
second weaknesses; Black should look for attacking chances on the
open lines, and chances to advance the passed Pawn.

  dxc5

  French strongpoint centre.

-+p+
+pP-
-+-+
P-+-

  White gives up d4, the better to hang on to the single
point e5. Also, this exchange may wrong-foot Black by requiring a
recapture on c5.

  Black will typically try to destroy this centre with

  …f6

-+pp
+pP-
-+-+
P-+-

  With the head of the White Pawn chain so close to hand
and under such pressure, it is hard for White to defend it and we
normally see an exchange.

  This leads to the next central formation:

  Isolated Pawn couple

-+p+
+p+-
-+-+
P-+-

  This is quite a stable formation which can dominate
planning in the early middle game. Black has a concrete weakness on
e6 and a weak square on e5. This is why White is so happy to
exchange: a lot of the cramp exerted by the previous structure
still persists and White now has open lines against plain
targets.

  Black would ideally like to achieve …e6-e5, dominating
the centre. White, not unnaturally, would prefer to restrain this,
and so moves like Re1, Ne5, Bf4 and so on are all key. White would
perhaps also like to achieve f2-f4, but may need to move the Nf3 to
do so.

  You very often get a similar centre with f4 from the main
line of the Classical Variation:

-+p+
+p+-
-+-P
P-+-

  French very tense centre.

  From the Tarrasc with 5.f4:

-+pp
ppP-
-P-P
P-+-

  This centre could resolve into almost any other
formation! In fact the tension may be enhanced by a Black
…g7-g5.

  Some specifics

  We’ll look in detail at the “Two weaknesses” formation as
seen in the …Nf6 French Tarrasch.

-+p+
+p+-
-P-+
+-+-

 

The ideas and the moves

This French Tarrasch tabi’a is a complex formation with a
nearly full complement of pieces and Pawns and a wide variety of
plans available to each side. We can see in each of the games below
a rich interplay of desirable strategic ideas tempered by tactical
realities. It is even impossible to generalise on which wing each
player will attack: Black has several King’s-side attacking ideas
like …Ng4, …Bxh2 and …Rxf3

  To look at specifics, I’ll choose the less common …Qb6
line.

  This is because:

  1. The more common Qc7 line is a jungle (although we can
    transpose)
  2. The more common line Qc7 can be avoided by the murky 8.Nf4
    variation, winning the exchange.
  3. This less common Qb6 line has a superb how-to-play guide in
    John Watson’s book.

  MacDonald and Harley note that the Qb6 often comes back
to Qc7, helping protect the King. But this is no waste of time
because typically White has had to spend time coping with the
attacks on b2 and d4, and may have settled for the passive Be3.
They also note that Farago always plays …Qb6 and is never in any
trouble!

+-----------------+
|r+b+k+.4|
|0p+.+.0p|
|.1ngph.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.+b+n+.|
|p).+n)p)|
|$.gq+ri.|
+-----------------+

  This is the position after Black’s move 11, with White to
move.

  The Black Queen attacks Pawns on b2 and d4, restricting
White’s development. If the Bc1 moves, the b2 Pawn is hanging. If
either Knight moves, the d4 Pawn isn’t really hanging, because
after …Nxd4; Nxd4 Qxd4, the Bd3 can play away with check, winning
the Qd4. But the Ne2 really will move one day, and the Black King
may not always be on a checkable square. In fact, one common idea
is for Black to play …Kh8, threatening the d-Pawn. After
castling, Black’s Rook has occupied the half-open f-file, with new
ideas like …Rf8xf3 or xf2. Black’s pieces are all quite active
and White has yet to untangle; White is no position yet to exploit
the static weakness of the Pe6 and the temporarily poor Bc8. Black
has some unobvious moves like …Nb4 (hitting d3/c2) and …Ng4
(hitting ../e5), or manoeuvring either Knight to f5
(…Nc6-e7-f5/ …Nf6-g4-h6-f5) to keep White from settling into a
sound attacking position, and some enterprising ideas like
…Bc8-d7-e8-h5 to activate the Bishop.

  What are White’s choices here? Almost every legal move
has been played!

  1. 12.Rb1 – idea: protect the b-Pawn and play Bf4
  2. 12.Ng3 – idea: control ../h5, block …Bd6xh2
  3. 12.Bg5?! – ideas: gambit b-Pawn, play Bg5-h4-g3 to swap
    dark-squared Bishops
  4. 12.a3 – ideas: advance b-Pawn to b4, harass Nc6, occupy c5;
    prevent …Nb4 (maybe organise Bc2/Qd3) (development lagging
    though)
  5. 12.Re1 – idea: pressure on e5/Pe6/Ke8, but weakens f2; often
    transposes below
  6. 12.Qd2 – idea: Qg5
  7. 12.Bf4 – ideas: exchange Bd6, gambit Pb2; there is sometimes
    the trick …Bxf4; Nxf4, Nxd4!; Nxd4, e5!
  8. 12.b3 – ideas: protect b-Pawn, move Bc1 to f4 (or b2)
  9. 12.Nf4 – idea: hit e6. A critical try although Black can gambit
    the Pe6
  10. 12.Bd2 – idea: to c3 securing b2 and d4; slow
  11. 12.Nc3 – the flexible main line, committing White to nothing
    (although giving up Bf4). It adds some new ideas like Nc3-b5, or,
    after …a6, Nc3-a4-b6

  This actually doesn’t exhaust the ideas, just the moves!
One more idea is Ra1-c1xc6, undermining e5.

  How might the game go after 12. Nc3?

+-----------------+
|r+b+k+.4|
|0p+.+.0p|
|.1ngph.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.+b+n+.|
|p).+n)p)|
|$.gq+ri.|
+-----------------+

  Tseitlin,M-Beake,B/Hastings Challengers 1990/EXP
21/1-0 (57)

  This key game was given in John Watson’s book, although
he safeguards the Black pieces to a B Becke. This continues a fine
tradition of mis-attributing key games by Exeter players, after BCO
gave a critical Petroff variation played by HV Mallison (against
Hugh Alexander) as being essayed by Mattison, the Latvian
problemist.

  [We spent some time looking at the variations in Watson’s
book]

  I find all this detail daunting, but Tony D says the
detail is not so important as the ideas – there are a lot of games,
but not so much theory! The idea being that Black can solve
problems over the board. On the other hand, Watson says “Theory has
exploded!”. Perhaps the real answer is, ideas first, theory second.
There are lots of ideas in “non-theoretical” openings which are not
widely known, and players get by in blissful ignorance because
their opponents don’t know the theory either! For examples, look at
the Beating the
Anti-Indians
document.

  Your comments and experiences are welcome!

  P.S. Other French centres

  If White avoids e4-e5 we get other centres; while the
Pawn is on e4 either White or Black can exchange, which lead to
very different types of game.

  Bibliography:

  Hooper, David & Whyld, Ken. Oxford Companion
to Chess
(2nd edition). O.U.P.

  Taimanov, Mark. The Sicilian Taimanov
System
. Batsford

  Watson, John. Play the French (revised
third edition). Cadogan.

  MacDonald, Neil & Harley, Andrew. Mastering
the French
. Batsford.

Attack and defence

4th_Aug_09 Attack and Defence

Items from the initial list of areas for improvement:

  • – Attacking chess where simplification is not the best option
  • – Defending
  • – When you have to defend something and stop your attack

Fischer-Myagmarsuren Sousse 1967

  • Fischer R. – Miagmasuren L. [A08]

1. e4 e6 2. d3 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. g3 c5 5. Bg2 Nc6 6. Ngf3 Be7 7. O-O
O-O 8. e5 Nd7 9. Re1 b5 10. Nf1 b4 11. h4 a5 12. Bf4 a4 13. a3

“Believe it or not, I actually spent more time on this innocuous
push (15 minutes) than on any other move in the game! I didn’t want to
allow Black to get in …a3 thereby creating ‘holes’ on c3 and a3. On
the other hand, by stopping to meet his positional threat I am forced
to postpone my own schemes for at least one move. Chess is a matter of
delicate judgement, knowing when to punch and how to duck.”

13…bxa3 14. bxa3 Na5 15. Ne3 Ba6 16. Bh3 d4 17. Nf1 Nb6 18. Ng5 Nd5
19. Bd2 Bxg5 20. Bxg5 Qd7 21. Qh5 Rfc8 22. Nd2 Nc3 23. Bf6 Qe8 24. Ne4
g6 25. Qg5 Nxe4 26. Rxe4 c4 27. h5 cxd3 28. Rh4 Ra7 29. Bg2 dxc2 30.
Qh6 Qf8 31. Qxh7+ 1-0

Here’s another classic Fischer game, where the cut and thrust is
more to the fore:

  • Fischer-Rossolimo, USA chp 1965

Successful attack

  • Jepps,G – Regis,D [C00] East Devon Exeter (4), 2005

1.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.Be3 dxe4 4.f3 Nf6 5.fxe4 Nxe4 6.Nd2 Nf6 7.Ngf3
Nbd7 8.Bd3 Be7 9.0-0 0-0 10.Qe1 c5 11.Qh4 cxd4 12.Bg5 g6 13.Ne4 Re8
14.Ne5 Nxe4 15.Rxf7 Nxg5 16.Bxg6 Nf3+ 17.gxf3 Bxh4 18.Bxh7+ Kh8 19.Ng6#
1-0

Successful defence

  • Steinitz – Vasques [C11] Havana, 1888
  • [Notes in PGN/Palview]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Be7 6.Nxf6+ Bxf6 7.Bxf6
Qxf6 8.Nf3 0-0 9.c3 b6 10.Ne5 Nd7 11.Ng4 Qf4 12.Be2 Bb7 13.0-0 f5
14.Ne3 Rf6 15.Re1 Rh6 16.Nf1 Nf6 17.Bf3 Ne4 18.Re3 Rf8 19.Qa4 a5
20.Rae1 Rd8 21.Ng3 Qh4 22.h3 Nxf2 23.Bxb7 Nxh3+ 24.gxh3 Rg6 25.Bg2 Rf8
26.Qc4 Kh8 27.Qxc7 f4 28.Rf1 Rxg3 29.Qd6 Rd8 30.Rxf4 1-0

Unsuccessful attack

  • Morgan,J – Southall,C [A40] Club Championship 08/09 (5) 2009
  • [Notes in PGN/Palview]

1.d4 b5 2.Nf3 a6 3.c3 Bb7 4.Bf4 e6 5.e3 Nf6 6.h3 Bd6 7.Ne5 0-0 8.Nd2
Nd5 9.Bd3 Nxf4 10.exf4 f5 11.Rh2 c5 12.Ndf3 Nc6 13.Nxc6 Bxc6 14.Ne5 Bb7
15.g4 cxd4 16.cxd4 Bb4+ 17.Kf1 Bd5 18.a3 Be7 19.g5 d6 20.Nf3 Qb6 21.Be2
Rfc8 22.h4 Ra7 23.h5 Rac7 24.Ne1 a5 25.b4 a4 26.Rb1 Rc3 27.Bf3 Bxf3
28.Nxf3 Rxa3 29.Qe2 d5 30.Ne5 Qxd4 31.Ng6 Kf7 0-1

Lessons from this game:
  • White developed as he intended to, and attacked as he intended
    to, without heed to Black’s actual set-up.
  • Black offers White a target on move 1, which White ignores.
  • gxf5 was a chance to open up lines — perhaps the position is
    still better for Black, but White spends the rest of the game
    unsuccessfully trying to prise open the Black King’s-side.
  • The Move-all-the-pieces-over-and-checkmate plan can work, but it
    works when the centre is either blocked (Fischer’s KIA and Brian’s
    Stonewall) or is owned by the attacking side.
  • White lost some tempi earlier on (c3 and h3) which could have
    been put to better use.
  • The game is an argument for greater flexibility in setting up
    your attacks — if White had spent some time tying Black down to
    defence on the Queen’s-side, a later switch to the King’s-side might
    have been decisive.

Tactical surprises

28th_July_09 Tactical surprises

Tactical surprises: a preliminary sketch

the problem:

Let’s have a look at an example:

+-----------------+
|r+.+r+k+|
|+b1.g.0p|
|p+n+.0.+|
|+p0.H.)n|
|.+.0.).+|
|+.+P+.+P|
|P)PGN!B+|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+
Stretten-Keen 2009 (W)

The crushing continuation was

1. Bd5+ Kf8

and at the time, Fritz confidently announced:

2. g6!+-

Rather later, Stockfish sees:

2.Nf7+ Kg8 3.Ne6+ +-, winning the Exchange.

Showing this to the group, Bd5+ was the first move suggested, but Charlie reports that he didn’t even consider it! Why the disparity?

Let’s see that position in a bit of context: the previous moves were:

+-----------------+
|r+.+r+k+|
|+b1.gp0p|
|p+n+.+.+|
|+p0.+.)n|
|.+.0.).+|
|+.+P+N+P|
|P)PGN!B+|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+
Stretten-Keen 2009 (W)

  • Keen C. – Streeter H. [B23]

1. Ne5 f6

2. Bd5+ Kf8

3. g6!

Now we see that, a couple of moves ago, Bd5 was not a legal move, and would not have been check if it was! So, one tip for not being surprised would be:

  • After each move, try to list any new possibilities for each side, particularly newly legal moves.

To anticipate a little the later discussion, you generally have a little list of ‘Moves I would like to make soon’ and ‘Moves I expect my opponent will make soon’, which we might call candidate moves , and you need to be as sure as you can that you aren’t leaving anything important off these lists.

Also, that move counts as an intermezzo , an in-between move: White ignores the apparently forcing threat on the Knight. In fact, only checks are genuinely forcing. This suggests another tip:

  • Before you decide on your move, ask: can I, or can my opponent, ignore the threat?

work in progress: identifying and working on a problem

I (DR) found myself regularly falling for destructive combinations against my French Defence, sacrifices of a piece against my central pawns. Here are a few:

+-----------------+
|r+.+k+.4|
|0p+b+.0p|
|.+.+p+.+|
|+.gp1.H.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.HQ+.).|
|P).+.)P+|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+
Headlong-Regis 2003 (W)

  • Headlong F. – Regis D. [C02]

+-----------------+
|.+r1.4k+|
|+.+b+.gp|
|p+n+p+p+|
|+p+p)n+.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|).HQ+N+P|
|.).+B)PG|
|+.+R+RI.|
+-----------------+
Benson-Regis 2004 (W)

  • Benson P. – Regis D. [C02]

+-----------------+
|.4r+.+k+|
|0.+.+p+p|
|.+n$p+pg|
|+q+p).+.|
|Q+.).+B+|
|+.+.+.+P|
|.+.+N)P+|
|+.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+
Thompson-Regis 2005 (W)

  • Thompson D. – Regis D. [B27]

Diagnosis may be most of the cure here: I should not assume that my long-standing pawn structure is indestructible.

the variety of tactical motifs

  • Take for nothing
  • Checkmate
  • Knight forks
  • Pins
  • Skewers
  • Other forks
  • Discoveries
  • Nets
  • Sacrifice
  • More attackers than defenders
  • Undermining
  • Overloading
  • Double check
  • Queening
  • Clearance
  • Decoys
  • Stalemate
  • Interference

The technician, whose vocabulary has been doubled by Dr. Euwe, will find that White could have saved his soul by a desperado combination. Had this failure anything to do with the fact that Dr. Euwe’s terminology was not yet existent at that time!?

— Reinfeld, to Thomas-Euwe, Carlsbad 1929.

I suggested that you need to be fluent in these motifs. Charlie remarked that this was a ‘big ask’, but I don’t think it’s hugely different to learning a new language — or a new alphabet — which is definitely a challenge but which loads of people do all t he time.

Fluency comes mostly through practice. A while ago I suggested that fluency comes in stages:

  1. I’ve heard of it!
  2. I know it when I see it
  3. I can spot it in simple examples
  4. I can spot it in complex examples and I can use it in my own games

exercising imagination by solving problems

“Let us repeat once more the methods by which we can increase our combinative skill:

“(1) by careful examination of the different types and by a clear understanding of their motives and their premises

“(2) By memorising a number of outstanding as well as of common examples and solutions

“(3) Frequent repetition (in thought, if possible) of important combinations, so as to develop the imagination.”

— Euwe, Strategy and Tactics in Chess

I was rather provoked by the notion that flights of imagination are best developed by leaden rehearsal, but the more I thought about it, the more I liked it.

motifs in combination

+-----------------+
|.+.+r4k+|
|0p+q+.gn|
|.+.0.+p+|
|+.0P+p+.|
|PhP+.+.G|
|+.HB+Q+P|
|.).+.+P+|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+
(W) I found this one quite surprising.

Some lessons from this example might be:

  • If there is a move you really want to make, try and make it!
  • Look at your intended moves in different orders: one order might unlock the box

other surprising moves

+-----------------+
|.+.+r4k+|
|+b0R+p+.|
|.0q+p!p+|
|0.+.).+p|
|P+P$.+.)|
|+.+.+N+.|
|.+P+.)P+|
|+.+.+.I.|
+-----------------+
Short-Timman 1991 (W)

I enjoyed all your suggestions here, but once you are shown the first move of the continuation, the idea is apparent and amusing.

The surprise lies in breaking a rule: hide your King in the middlegame, use your king actively only in the endgame.

  • All chess rules are really guidelines!

amazing moves

+-----------------+
|.+r+.+.i|
|0b+.1.+P|
|.0.+.+.+|
|+.+P0.+.|
|.+.+p+.+|
|+P+.$.+.|
|PGr!.+P)|
|+.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+
Zukertort-Blackburne 1883 (W)

+-----------------+
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+p|
|.+.+.ip+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|p+.+r)R)|
|+.+K+.).|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
+-----------------+
Flohr-Geller 1949 (B)

+-----------------+
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+k0p+|
|+.+p+b+.|
|p+.+.+.)|
|+.G.+.+.|
|.+.+.+P+|
|+.+.+.I.|
+-----------------+
Topalov-Shirov 1998 (B)

All from Emms’ The Most Amazing Chess Moves Of All Time

A fun way to extend your assumptions about what is possible. It makes Euwe’s advice a pleasure to follow!

candidate moves (KOTOV) and candidate replies

  • “All candidate moves should be identified at once and listed in one’s head.” — Kotov,A Think like a Grandmaster , tr. Cafferty. [1978] (Batsford)
  • Kotov has come in for a lot of stick recently, but I think this is not bad advice. What are you doing that is any better?!

    checks and captures first (PURDY)

    • Examine moves that smite!

    That is, checks and captures.

    every check and every capture? (CHERNEV/REINFELD)

    • Examine every possible check and capture at every move

    Oh, how many games would I have saved by obeying this one!

    I don’t know how many people actually do this either, but again, what do you do that is any better?

    The other side of the coin

    +-----------------+
    |.+.+.+.+|
    |+.+P+.0p|
    |.+.+.+.i|
    |+p+.+.1.|
    |p+.+.+.+|
    |)b)N+.+.|
    |.).H.+.+|
    |+.I.$.+.|
    +-----------------+
    Short-Kasparov 1993 (W)

    I don’t know what made Short miss this line ( 1.Rh1+ Kg6 2.Ne5+ Kf5 3.Nc6)

    You have to notice that the undefended Knight on e5 cannot be taken and then you have to follow two checks with a quiet move… but once you focus on getting a Knight to cover d8, then you didn’t take long to spot it.

    The point of this example is: the other half of the coin of being surprised is missing chances
     

    Work in progress

    Nxe6!, Nxd5! and Qxb5 Qxb5 Rxe6!

    Combination

      …Re3!

    Short surprise

      Kh2!

    Amazing moves

      Qb4, …Kg7, …Nh3

    Exchange sacrifices

    Actively sacrificing a Rook depends on you having an open file and something to aim at. So the best-rehearsed exchange sacrifices are …Rc8xNc3 in the Sicilian, …Rf8xNf3 in the French and to some extent the Dutch, Rf1xf6 against the Sicilian… You need some compensation for your Rook: either a good central pawn, or the weakening of the opposing King’s defences, or all three!

    White sacrifices for attack on f6 in the Sicilian

    Nezhmetdinov R. – Tal M. [B85]

    White sacrifices for attack on h5 in the Sicilian

    Fischer R. – Larsen B. [B77]

    Black sacrifices for attack on c3 in the Sicilian

    Movsesian S. – Kasparov G. [B80]

    Black sacrifices for initiative on c3 in the Sicilian

    Bednarski J. – Lehmann H. [B87]

    Black sacrifices for too little on c3 in the Sicilian

    Devon_Harry – Somerset [B78]

    Black sacrifices for initiative in the King’s Indian

    Pachman L. – Bronstein D. [E67]

    Encore!

    Zita F. – Bronstein D. [E67]

    White sacrifices for all sorts of compensation in the Grunfeld

    Bronstein D. – Boleslavsky I. [D89]

    Another common theme is the ‘passive’ sacrifice of Rook for the opponent’s better Bishop by parking it on the natural outpost on an open file. You get a passed pawn and play against a colour complex.

    Black passively sacrifices for initiative (1)

    Liublinsky V. – Botvinnik M. [C77]

    Black passively sacrifices for initiative (2)

    Selesniev – Alekhin

    Compensation for the exchange

    Lasker – Janowsky

    Rooks don’t like defending against passed pawns

    Pope S. – Regis D. [B22]

    The defensive sacrifice for defensive reasons is particularly associated with Petrosian, and everyone cites this example:

    A defensive sacrifice

    Reshevsky – Petrosian [E58]

    Petrosian is at it again

    Petrosian T – Spassky B [E66]

    The Karpov sacrifice

    Lutz C. – Karpov A. [E12]

    A whole Rook

    Maroczy G. – Tartakower S. [A85]

    Click on […] to see games list.

    From Evolution to Intelligent Design?

    From Evolution to Intelligent Design by Ish Ramdewar

    How can I get better at chess? This is the question that most players
    in any club are asking. One answer is to play games. Playing games
    gives experience, and is an essential element of improvement. But
    simply playing games with no reflection on mistakes made is tantamount
    to evolution: A very effective process that produces amazingly advanced
    and adapted results. If given millions of years!

    So, how then to reflect on your own chess in order to move from trial
    and error to a systematic system where you build the game you want to
    build? Of course, the answer is far from simple and must be adapted for
    the player and stage in his or her development. Essentially, you need
    to know two things: Where am I? And… How can I move on to the next
    stage? Many people attempt to do the second one before the first. If
    you think of your talent as a tube of toothpaste, when you first take
    up chess, it doesn’t matter where you squeeze, you’ll get some
    toothpaste (improvement) out. Later, though, you might find yourself
    making less progress than you might as you’re squeezing areas where
    you’re already relatively strong. This session is dedicated to helping
    you reach your potential through self-reflection. I hope you find some,
    or all of these tips useful, they work for me! I’m not saying that my
    way is right in any way, and if you think it’s a load of rubbish, feel
    free to ignore everything I say.

    So how to find out where you are? One simple, easy way is to get a
    book. There is at least one excellent one about: Chess Exam and
    Training Guide by Igor Khmelnitsky. This book will give you an overview
    of your chess. Be willing to spend around 10-20 hours working through
    the problems and solutions. It will then give you an overall elo
    rating, and break this down into opening, middlegame, endgame, tactics,
    strategy, calculation and more.

    My second recommendation is to play a lot of longplay games. You can
    then analyse them thoroughly (more on this later). After this is done,
    you can affect some change. What works for me is to keep all of my
    games together in one book. A 100-game hardback scorebook will set you
    back about a fiver and should last 2-10 years; depending on how often
    you play. Not bad for a hobby, eh? I still go back to my old one when
    I’m feeling bad about my current chess. It shows me how far I’ve come.

    h3Gathering Information/h3
    pMy next piece of advice is to write down the amount of time left on
    your clock when you write your moves down. You might be surprised at
    how you use your time. The long and short of it is that you should be
    aiming to use almost all your time in a game (leaving, say, 10 mins to
    spare so that you’re not in time-trouble). The reason for this is that
    we all play better moves when we take time to check our decisions and
    our opponent’s possible responses. Playing too fast or too slow is easy
    to see when you spend only 10 mins on a longplay game, or 30 mins on
    one non-critical move. Put a star by the critical moves after your
    game. Did you spend long enough on them? Once you’ve gone through your
    game, you can easily see whether you blundered by rushing. I put a
    dashed line on my annotation after I run out of ‘book’. This provides a
    quick-fire way of telling how deeply you know this particular opening.

    h3
    How to Analyse Your Games
    /h3

    If you can, go over your game with your opponent. They often have
    ideas that you missed or interesting insights, even if they are
    ‘weaker’. Play the moves out on the board with him and analyse
    variations. Pick out where you think you went wrong, both strategically
    and tactically. If you can, write notes. If you can’t get to go over
    the game with your opponent, or even if you can, go over the game in
    your own time, without a computer. What you’re looking for are flaws in
    your own psychology. “I blundered a piece” is not good enough. Why did
    you blunder it? Were you in a tough position because of earlier
    positional mistakes? Did you rely on intuition too much? Did you rush?
    Were you overconfident in your own position? Every game should be
    looked at with this in mind.

    Next, go over the game with computer assistance. There are now some
    very strong programs around. The strongest currently is called Rybka 3,
    with an estimated elo of 3000 on your average PC. Rybka not only plays
    tactical positions well, it can also play positionally. You can pick up
    a copy for around £30-£70 depending if you want the
    multiprocessor version and opening books… OR you can use a free copy of
    Rybka 2 (which still beat Michael Adams 5.5-0.5 in a match). This is
    available here:


    http://www.rybkachess.com/index.php?auswahl=Demo+version

    Dave has also asked me to point out that there are other options:

    Download and install the free version of Fritz 5:

    http://freechess.50webs.com/fritz.html

    And Winboard:
    For doodling, download and install Winboard:

    http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/winboard/winboard-4_2_7b.exe


    I know Simon also likes SCID.

    Fritz or Chessmaster are other good options, but Rybka is the best in
    my opinion.

    How to use Computer Analysis

    After you’ve done the analysis on your own, you’re ready for
    computer assistance. The computer will often see things that you won’t.
    I suggest running automatic analysis for a couple of hours. Computers,
    just as humans, play better when they have more time. Fritz,
    Chessmaster and Aquarium all have their own versions of this.

    When this is done, check your own notes against the ‘answers’. The
    longer you give your computer to ‘think’, and the stronger engine you
    use, the more you can rely on its analysis. Where your analysis agrees,
    you can be happy that you’ve come to the objective truth. Where you
    disagree in your analysis, or you’ve missed something, go over the
    position in infinite analysis mode. Remember that sometimes you might
    be right! The computer is not an all-knowing oracle, it’s just better
    than us on average. Champion your side and play the computer’s ‘best
    response’. Try to come to some objective truth and note this down. Do
    this for both your moves and your opponents. It will help you to
    analyse objectively in your own games.

    Using Statistics to Analyse Your Chess

    By the end of the season, you should have lots of information on
    individual games. It might be worth your time to classify this. Using
    stats, as in the example I’ve done can help you gain insights in where
    you often go wrong, and where to focus your efforts. In my case, it
    appears to be on the early middlegame, and the Sicilian Defence for
    both sides. The first thing to do is to list your openings and opening
    outcomes. This shows you which openings are going well and which
    aren’t. Your self-analysis and computer analysis will make this a
    breeze. It took me about 30 mins to knock up a season’s worth of stats-
    well worth doing!

    Then, I suggest you classify your early and late middlegame outcomes.
    This will show you whether your positions improved, got worse, or
    stayed the same on average. For me, the numbers were telling. You can
    break it down further by keeping it per-opening, but I personally
    lumped the lot together to get an overview.

    You can then do the same with your endgames. You can break them down by
    piece too. (e.g. Queen Endings, Rook and Pawn, etc.) I personally
    scored very well during endgame play this season, and have decided to
    focus my efforts elsewhere.

    These methods were suggested by Simon Webb and adapted by myself. I
    know it all sounds time-consuming, but pick and choose the bits you
    like most. Sometimes you can get a feel for your mistakes just by
    analysis without a computer and with no stats. Personally, I like the
    hard data and find it not too hard to produce.nbsp;

    Lastly, ask other members where they think your weak points are. I’m
    sure they will have some good insights.

    In all your analysis be very hard on yourself. You want to root out the
    problems in your thinking, don’t you? Happy hunting!

    Where Next?

    By using some, or all of these methods, you should have a good idea
    about your own chess. Now you know where to focus, there are some
    excellent options to choose from on where to improve.


    My top books:

    Winning Chess Tactics, Winning Chess Strategies, Winning Chess Endgames
    Chess for Tigers (easy-reads).

    Van Perlo’s Endgame Tactics, Chess Combination as a Fine Art, Reassess
    Your Chess, (medium reads).

    Think Like a GM, Play Like a GM, Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual (Hard Reads)


    Top exercises:

    Chess Tactics Server
    http://chess.emrald.net/

    Memorising positions and playing them blindfolded.

    Playing blindfold games.

    Doing puzzle books (e.g. Chess Exam).

    Doing deep analysis of positions and comparing with commentator and
    computer analysis. Draw a ‘tree of analysis”.
    Analyse GM games using the same methods as described for your own games.


    Good luck!

    p

    Ish also offered a thorough review
    of his games from the last season, which is included


    here

    Are you sitting comfortably? Coaching sessions for 2009

    I’ll soon fix that…

    First, we discussed some statements from Jonathan Rowson (

    Chess for
    Zebras

    ), who very nearly said:

    Chess
    is more a game of skill than
    a game of knowledge.

    He did indeed say:

    Improvement
    begins at the edge of your
    comfort zone” (p.14)

    [

    Vygotsky

    !
    shouted Ish.]

    “If you want to get better at chess you
    need to place much less emphasis on ‘study’ whereby you increase your
    knowledge of positions, and place more emphasis on ‘training,’ whereby
    you try to solve problems, play practice games, or perhaps try to beat
    a strong computer program from an advantageous position.” (p.25).

    “Chess skill emerges from chess playing
    combined with chess training, where ‘training’ means working things out
    by yourself.nbsp; The main skill a chess-player needs is skill in
    making decisions, so that’s what you need to do and do
    repeatedly. 

    If you want to
    become a better player, you need better habits, and you cultivate
    better habits through training.  The best training is the kind
    that pushes you up against the edges of your comfort zone, where you
    force yourself to take responsibility for difficult decisions.
     
    It is so much easier to read books that give strategic guidelines,
    hints and tips, etc., but what you need is ‘know how’ and that means
    learning by doing.” (p.29)

    “…

    The
    main function of chess trainers should be to guide the training of
    their students, rather than to teach them directly.  The best
    thing you can do for a student is to select interesting positions for
    them and analyse them carefully so you can see the kinds of things that
    the student is missing
    .  The trouble with this approach is
    prosaic, but real.  Chess tutors are normally paid by the hour,
    and this tends to make you think that you should be showing the
    students certain things, imparting knowledge, giving hints and tips,
    etc.  This is understandable, but much more useful, I think, is to
    give the student difficult positions to solve, to be there in a
    supportive role as they solve them, and then carefully consider what
    the student missed and why.” (p.66)

    We also did a little exercise, under review (watch this space),
    designed to find your discomfort zone, by giving a grid of
    progressively harder positions to solve.  I soon discovered that
    while there are 4798 puzzle books on Tactics, there are only 3 puzzle
    books I’ve seen on strategy
    and a few more that are mixed in approach, and bugger all on the
    opening.

    But mainly we tried to identify some things to work on.  So,
    name three things you do well, three things you don’t do so well…

    GOOD

    BAD

    PRACTICAL PLAY

     – Keeping up pressure in position

     – Going for simplest winning continuation

     – Limiting enemy counterplay

     – Playing moves that will annoy my opponent

    PRACTICAL PLAY

     – Using all of my time available

     – Keeping mobility

     * Piece chemistry/coordination

     * Making practice (at club and at home) really helpful
    in terms
    of improvement

    OPENINGS

     – Open positions/tactics in the opening

     – When I have the centre

     – Black is OK!

     – Gambit openings (e.g. Danish)

    OPENING

     – Too narrow an opening repertoire

    * Sicilian (one who plays for, one against!)

    ATTACKING

     – Sacrifices to get a position with advantage

     – Spotting possibilities for tactical combinations

     – Attacking positions

    * TACTICS

     – Calculating all the tactics out (relying too much on
    intuition
    i.e. Laziness)

     – I’m not good at spotting opponents’ tactical sequences
    well in
    advance (too many surprises for me OTB)

     * Attacking chess where simplification is not the best
    option

     – Defending

     – Complicated games where no pieces have been taken on
    the board

     – When you have to defend something and stop your attack

    STRATEGY

     – Spotting my opponent’s weaknesses

     – I’m OK with closed positions

    STRATEGY

     – Formulating strong/sophisticated plans in
    closed/tactical

    ositions

     – Strategy: pawn structures and the like
    [

    http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/pawn-formations


    http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/pawn-mobility


    http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/whos-afraid-big-bad-minority-attack
    ]

    – Endgame

    ENDGAME

     – I know very little about principles of endgame play
    [

    http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/general-advice-endgame

    ]

    DR comments:

    As this is the third time I think I’ve tried to kick us off in this
    way, you may well want to:

    a. reflect on people’s responses from 2007 and 2008

    http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/coaching-adults



    http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/summer-coaching-2008

    b. ask yourself: are these the same things I wrote down last year?

    c. ask yourself: have I seen any improvement in the things I wrote down
    last year? and if not, why not?

    Some of these topics I’ve covered before, perhaps a while ago [see
    links].

    If you don’t think the links help, I’ll have another go of course.

    I’ve picked out a mix of themes(*) from your list of improvement
    targets,
    some old and some new, and suggest something along these lines:

    Jun 30: DR away (volunteer?/video?)
    July 07: DR away (volunteer?/video?) 

    July 14: Tactics
    July 21: Attack/Defence
    July 28: Co-ordination
    Aug 04: Sicilian Defence [Complicated positions]
     
    Comments/Suggestions/Volunteers invited!