Category Archives: Level

Openings in Black and White

Posted on by 
References: < 4e0avl$947@newsbf02.news.aol.com >

In article < 4e0avl$947@newsbf02.news.aol.com > mlkienholz@aol.com
 (Mlkienholz) writes:

>
>
>Hi netters,
>
>Does anyone have any advice for selecting an opening system? I have been
>told
>that this is my achilles heel. What I'm looking for is a black and white
>system that has similar objectives, like maybe the Sicilian and the
>English.
>But I'd also like to find something that is flexible, and useful against
>a wide variety of black/white responses. Anyone have some suggestions?


Sounds like you're half-way there:

Hypermodern with g3/g6 and c4/c5
================================
White:              English with g3
Black against 1.e4: Sicilian with ...g6
Black against 1.d4: Benoni

Hypermodern with g3/g6
======================
White:              King's Indian Attack
Black against 1.e4: Pirc/Modern
Black against 1.d4: King's Indian/Modern

Hypermodern with b3/b6
======================
White:              Nimzo-Larsen 1. b3
Black against 1.e4: Owen's Defence 1...b6
Black against 1.d4: English Defence 1...b6

Open game with piece play:
=========================
White:              Lopez with early d4, or Scotch Opening
Black against 1.e4: Two Knights', Open Morphy Lopez
Black against 1.d4: Budapest Gambit, Grunfeld


>I also understand the theory of strongpoint type openings fairly well. Are
>there
>any systems that fit in this framework?

"Flexible" and "strongpoint" seem to me to be a contradiction!

Strongpoint on d4/d5
====================
White:              Colle System or London System
Black against 1.e4: French or Gurgenidze (..g6/...c6)
Black against 1.d4: Slav or Orthodox QGD

Strongpoint on e4/e5
====================
White:              Bishop's Opening
Black against 1.e4: Philidor's Defence
Black against 1.d4: Old Indian, Old Benoni



All this for 2 cents...


D
-- 
May your pieces harmonise with your Pawn structure and
your sacrifices be sound in all variations

D  _       
 / "()/~   Dave Regis  &8^D*         Exeter Chess Coaching Page etc.:
|| \_/|    = DrDave on BICS       http://www.ex.ac.uk/~dregis/DR/chess.html
~\   /                          "...what else exists in the world but chess?"
 _|||__SHEU ~/sheu.html            -- NABOKOV   "Contribute!" -- Doug Attig

Rook and Pawn endings – a spot of theory

Posted on by

Rook and Pawn endings – a spot of theory

All Rook Endings are Drawn… (except for those that aren’t!)

Here’s what got me started on this session. After an entertaining earlier struggle, Black is trying to win a Rook ending in a quickplay finish. I say “trying”: the first move made the spectators wince…

Position 1: Bartlett, S – Regis, D, Devon vs. Cornwall, 08.11.1997

50…Rb2+?
[50…h3+! would have helped! 51.Kf2 Rh1 52.Ra7 Rxh2+ 53.Ke3 g6u 54.Rxf7 Rg2 55.Rg7 Rxg3+ 56.Kf2 Kxf4 57.Rf7+ Kg4]

51.Kg1 g6 52.Rc3 hxg3 53.hxg3 Kh3 54.Kf1 Rg2 55.g4+ Rg3 56.Rc4

[56.Rc7 Rf3+ 57.Ke2 Rxf4; or

56.Rxg3+ Kxg3 57.f5 g5]

56…Kxg4 57.Ke2 f5?

[57…Rf3! 58.f5+ Rf4 PCL] 58.Rb4 Rf3?! [58…Rg2+!?] 59.Rb6 Kxf4 60.Rxg6 Rb3 [60…Rg3 61.Ra6 Kg4 62.Kf2 holds – PCL]

61.Re6 [61.Ra6= PCL] 61…Rb2+ 62.Kf1 Kf3 [DIAGRAM]

63.Re1

“Draw claimed; draw agreed” says my score sheet. Thereby hangs a tale: I was the last board to finish, with two minutes to his one, and White decided I was trying to win a drawn position just on time, and claimed a draw.

I was indeed trying to win, and the clock may have helped, but White has lots of ways to lose: his last move was actually the last chance to draw!

Quite exactly why we’ll see in a bit, but on the day a bit of discussion broke out amongst the audience (yertis notisnt yertis notisnt…) and we decided we’d had enough.

It’s certainly true that some very similar positions are drawn, and are maybe even claimable under the “two minute” rule, but not this one! The interesting thing is, nobody there knew it well enough to carry the day, and I’ve had positions like this lots of times. If my opponent knew how to draw it he would never have played Re1; Capablanca won two positions similar to this where his opponent did not know the drawing technique in one year, 1931 (one against Turover). Moral: know your onions!

Another thing that decided me on having another crack at a session on Rook endings is, well, a bit of a tease:

“…the number of positions that must be known exactly is relatively small. It is only in Rook endgames that it is essential to memorise thirty or forty concrete positions; in other types of endgame there are even fewer.”

Mark Dvoretsky in Dvoretsky & Yusupov, Technique for the Tournament Player

Forty sounds quite a few to me, but, OK Mark, which forty? He doesn’t say! I still don’t know, really, but here is my suggestion for some of them.

One way to work your way into this is to get a chessboard and a few pieces and see if you can work out some of the basic rules for yourself. You should quickly discover that, in common with many other endings, two passed Pawns pretty well always win, and so situations with a single Pawn are most critical. Also, if both Kings are distant, one Rook can’t force through a Pawn against another Rook (not like Queens, for instance).

So, we quickly get to our first two critical positions out of Dvoretsky’s forty, where the Kings are in range: Lucena’s position and Philidor’s position. Oh, and you need to know about Rook’s Pawns, and checking distance.

Position 2: Lucena 1496

White has control of the sixth/seventh with the King and the Black King is cut off: Lucena’s position is won for White is two ways…

First, White can get the Pawn to the seventh:

1…Kc7 2.Rc2+ Kb6 3.e6 Rd1 4.Ke8 Rg1 5.e7 Rf1

Now what?

6.Rc4 the critical manoeuvre: ‘BUILDING A BRIDGE’

[6.Rh2 although the ‘bridge’ manoeuvre is always emphasised in the books, there is also a win by getting the king out on the short side, e.g. 6…Kc7 7.Rh7 Rf2 8.Rf7 Rh2 9.Rf8 Rh7 (9…Re2 10.Kf7) 10.Rf1 Rh8+ 11.Kf7 Rh7+ 12.Kf8 Rh8+ 13.Kg7 Re8 14.Kf7 This is important because the bridge-building manoeuvre may not be available]

6…Rf2 7.Kd7 Rd2+ 8.Ke6 Re2+ 9.Kd6 Re3 10.Rb4+ Ka7 [10…Ka5 11.Rb8] 11.Rb5 Rd3+ 12.Ke6 Re3+ 13.Re5 1-0

Position 3: Philidor’s position

Black’s King holds the Queening square, and the Black Rook holds the sixth rank. This is Philidor’s position, which is drawn without too much trouble by Black.

Once the White Pawn goes to the sixth, Black runs back to the first rank:

1.Kf5 Rb1 2.e6 now there is no shelter on the board from the checks

[2.Ke6 Rb6+ 3.Kd5 Rb1]

2…Rf1+ 3.Ke5 Re1+ 4.Kd6 Rd1+ 5.Kc6 Re1 1/2-1/2

Position 4: Rook’s Pawns

Rook’s Pawns are a strong drawing factor.
So, here, even with the Black King distant, White can force nothing.

Oddly, Black must not try to approach with the King because of Ra8-h8; instead the Black King sticks to g7/h7, and the Rook checks the White King when it approaches.

1.Kf3 Ra4 2.Ke3 Kh7 3.Kd3 Kg7 4.Kc3 Kh7 5.Kb3 Ra1 6.Kb4 Kg7 7.Kc5 Rc1+ 8.Kb6 Rb1+ 9.Kc6 Ra1 10.Kb7 Rb1+ 11.Kc7 Ra1 1/2-1/2

Position 5: Rook’s Pawns 2

With the Pawn further back White can create trouble with the King because it can hide on e.g. a6 from check on the files (Tarrasch), but Black can then check along the ranks. Euwe and Alekhin struggled with one of these in their 1935 match. Although we can’t easily summarise the analysis of this type of position there is a summary of results possible.

If the White King is closer than the marked area, White wins: in the marked area, Black should draw.

Even further back, and we’re into a lot of ifs and buts…

Position 6: checking distance

You can draw without getting Philidor’s position, by checking along the ranks. With a central Pawn this is just possible as long as you take the furthest possible file: here the a-file.

1…Ra8+ 2.Kd7 Ra7+ 3.Kd6 Ra6+ 4.Kd5 Ra5+ 5.Kc6 Ra6+ 6.Kb7 Re6 1/2-1/2

Checking distance is three empty files.

Position 7: checking dist. (2)

The b-file (two empty files) fails by a whisker:

1…Rb8+ 2.Kd7 Rb7+ 3.Kd6 Rb8 4.Kc7 Ra8 5.Ra1! 1-0

It is popularly supposed that Q vs. R is difficult: it surely is difficult against an opponent who plays perfectly, like a computer (as GM Browne once discovered), but in actual play it may be easier. Black can be herded to the edge, when a Rook on the third (sixth) rank must keep out the White King. You can achieve positions like the following:

Position 8: Aside: Queen vs. Rook

1.Kg5
The Black Rook is shut out from the third rank, and is vulnerable to forks:

[1…Rh1 2.Qc8+ Kf7 3.Qb7+;

1…Ra6 2.Qc8+;

1…Rh2 2.Qd6+]

And if 1…Rh8 2.Kg6 Rg8+ 3.Kf6 1-0

Position 9: Study (Lasker)

Here is an instructive study: Black to move.
A tense position: on whose side will it resolve? 5-piece Rook endings (KRP/KR) all hinge around access of the sixth and seventh ranks in front of the P by the attacking King – if it can be kept out, the defence holds, but if not…

1…Re1

[1…Rh6+ 2.e6 +-;

1…Rd1+ 2.Ke6 Kf8 (2…Kd8 3.Ra8+ Kc7 4.Ke7 Rh1 5.e6) 3.Ra8+ Kg7 4.Ke7 Rd2 5.e6 +-;

1…Rh2 2.Ra8+ Kf7 3.e6+ Kf6 4.Rf8+ Kg7 5.e7 +-]

2.Ke6 Kf8

Critical – on the other side the Black King gets in the way of checks from the Black Rook, and the White King can make a little shelter for itself behind the Pawn. When the defending king ‘takes the short side’ there is no refuge for the White King.

3.Ra8+ Kg7 4.Re8 [4.Kd6 Kf7 =] 4…Ra1 5.Rd8

[5.Kd7 Ra7+ 6.Kc6 Ra6+ 7.Kb7 Ra1 =]

5…Re1 6.Re8 Ra1 = the White K is in, but has no escape from the checks! 1/2-1/2 Remember this type of draw, we’ll be meeting it later.

Position 10: Meanwhile…

Now, back in Liskeard, how do we compare? We can see that compared to the last few drawing ideas White is badly placed: the defending Rook is passive (no harassing checks) and the King threatened with mate. White must run for the short side with the King, and send the Rook away to draw:

[63.Kg1! f4 64.Re8 (64.Ra6) 64…Rb1+ 65.Kh2 Kf2 66.Ra8 f3 67.Ra2+ Ke1 68.Kg3;

Instead 63.Re1? f4! wins for Black:

A) 64.Kg1 Kg3 65.Rc1 (65.Kf1 Rh2 66.Re8 Rh1+ 67.Ke2 f3+ 68.Kd3 Rd1+ 69.Kc2 f2) 65…f3 66.Ra1 Rh2 67. Kg1 f2+;

B) 64.Ra1 64…Kg3 B1) 65.Kg1 f3 66.Rc1 (66.Kf1 Rh2) 66…Rg2+ 67.Kf1 Rh2; B2) 65.Ra8 65…Rb1+ 66.Ke2 f3+ 67.Ke3 Re1+ 68.Kd2 f2;

[63.Ke1? on the long side is an obvious no-no: 63…f4 64.Re8 Rb1+ 65.Kd2 Kf2 66.Rf8 f3 67.Kd3 Kf1 68.Ke3 Rb3+ 69.Kd2 f2 70.Rg8 Rb5]

For other positions it really depends who can get their King in first, or at all; if the side with the Pawn can keep out the defending King they can win. John Nunn has written a whole book about positions with just one Pawn on the board, so you will forgive me, I hope, if I say they are sometimes tricky. We have seen a hint of this when we looked at Rook’s Pawns above. There is, however, a guiding principle:

Position 11: The rule of five

If the sum of the number of the rank on which the Pawn stands and the number of files that separate the Black King from the Pawn is five or less, then it’s a draw; greater than five, it’s a win. (Dvoretsky)
Here the Black King is cut off by three files = 3

The Pawn is on the third rank = 3

The sum is = 6

6 > 5, so it should be a win. But how? White keeps out the Black King and advances the Pawn; Black defends with harassing checks, this time from the front. The White Rook would be even better placed on f7, cutting the Black King off from the last rank and ready to intervene on the other side.

OK, how are we doing? Could you bear another Pawn on the board? Positions with a Pawn on each side may readily simplify to some fairly obvious simpler state, but not always…

Position 12: Lasker, 1890

draw?
1… Rb2+ 2.Ka7 Rc2 3.Rh5+ Ka4 4.Kb6 Rb2+ 5.Ka6 Rc2 6.Rh4+ got the idea? we’ve gained another rank 6…Ka3 7.Kb6 Rb2+ 8.Ka5 Rc2 9.Rh3+ Ka2

10.Rxh2 ! 10…Rxh2 11.c8Q 1-0

What about another Pawn on the same side? I claimed above that two passed Pawns on the board pretty well always win, and so they do. The exceptions, as we might expect, involve Rooks Pawns.

Position 13: drawn RP+NP (same side)

This is an important blockade: White, oddly, can do nothing.

Consider the drawn position with just an a-Pawn above, and now add a Pawn:

Position 14: drawn RP+NP

1…Ra5 the a-pawn is nearly there, but with a distant White King everything can (just) be held

[1…Kxg6?? 2.Rg8+]

1/2-1/2

With the Pawns further back we have another realm of headaches: White is generally better placed to manoeuvre and Black less well.

Position 15: won RP+BP

This is quite different – with the other White Pawn further away from the short side there is a skewer opportunity. once you know you can steer for this one you can win from more complex positions 1.f6+ Kf7 2.Rh8 Rxa7 3.Rh7+ 1-0

Position 16: win with a – pawn + 2 f-pawns

1.Kd1 DIAGRAM

(1) break the blockade

(2) win the f-pawn

(3) win as we know how

1…Kh7 2.Kc1 Kg7 3.Kb1 Ra3 4.Kb2 Ra4 5.Kb3 Ra1 6.Kb4 Ra2 7.Kb5 Ra1 8.Kc6 Ra5 9.Kd6 Kh7 10.Ke7 Ra6 11.Kf7 Ra4 12.Ke6

this is the critical bit: zugzwang!

12…Ra5 13.Kf6 Ra1 14.Kxf5

nearly there now

14…Ra5+ 15.Ke4 Ra4+ 16.Kd3 Ra3+ 17.Kc2 Ra2+ 18.Kb3 Ra1 19.f5 1-0

Smyslov, V – Botvinnik, M [C17] 1954

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Ba5 6.b4 cxd4 7.Nb5 Bc7 8.f4 Ne7 9.Nf3 Nbc6 10.Bd3 Bb8 11.Nbxd4 a6 12.Be3 Ba7 13.0-0 Nxd4 14.Bxd4 Bxd4+ 15.Nxd4 Qb6 16.Kh1 Bd7 17.c3 Rc8 18.Qe1 h6 19.a4 a5 20.Nb3 Qc7 21.Nc5 Bc6 22.Qf2 0-0 23.Nb3 Bd7 24.Qc5 Qxc5 25.Nxc5 Rc7 26.Nxd7 Rxd7 27.bxa5 Ra8 28.a6 bxa6 29.c4 dxc4 30.Bxc4 Rd4 31.Be2 Nd5 32.g3 Nc3 33.Bf3 Rb8 34.Ra3 Nb1 35.Ra2 Nd2 36.Rf2 Nc4 37.h4 g5 38.hxg5 hxg5 39.fxg5 Nxe5 40.Be2 Rb1+ 41.Kg2 a5 42.Rc2 Rb3 43.Rf4 Rd5 44.Re4 Kg7 45.Bh5 Ng6 46.Rg4 Re3 47.Bxg6 Kxg6 48.Rf2 Rf5 49.Rxf5 exf5 50.Rc4 Re4 51.Rc7 Rxa4 52.Ra7 Ra3

A relevant position has arisen. In the event Black won quickly:

53.Kh3? f4 54.Kh4 fxg3 55.Ra6+ Kf5 56.Rf6+ Ke4 57.Kh3 Rf3 58.Ra6 Rf5 0-1

But White did not pick the best defence! Let’s try another:

Position 17: analysis of Smyslov-Botvinnik (RP+BPs)
53.Kf2 (Euwe’s suggestion)

53…a4 54.Kg2 Ra1 55.Kf3 a3 56.Kg2

(56.Kf4 a2 57.Kf3 Rf1+)

56…a2 57.Kh2 Kxg5 58.Kg2 Kf6 !

(58…f4? only draws)

59.Ra5 Ke6 60.Kh2 f4 61.gxf4 f5

which we should know how to win.

(58…f4? 59.gxf4+ Kg4 60.f5 f6 61.Ra5

no zugzwang is now possible with the White Pawn on the 5th)

My faithful analyst Fritz successfully embarked on:

62.Kg2 Kd6 63.Kh2 Kc6 64.Kg2 Kb6 65.Ra8 Kc5 66.Ra4 Kb5 67.Ra8 Kc4 68.Kh2 Kd4 69.Ra4+ Kd3 70.Kg2 Ke3 71.Kh2 Kf3 72.Ra8 Kxf4

As you might expect, adding a Rook’s Pawn to a Rook’s Pawn doesn’t make it much more promising.

Karpov An – Yusupov A [A18] Linares 51/18, 1991

1.c4 e6 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.e4 d5 4.e5 d4 5.exf6 dxc3 6.bxc3 Qxf6 7.d4 e5 8.Nf3 exd4 9.Bg5 Qe6+ 10.Be2 Be7 11.cxd4 Bxg5 12.Nxg5 Qe7 13.Qd2 0-0 14.0-0 h6 15.Nf3 Bg4 16.Rfe1 Nc6 17.h3 Bxf3 18.Bxf3 Qf6 19.Re4 Rad8 20.Rd1 b6 21.Qe3 Na5 22.Rc1 Rd7 23.h4 Qd8 24.h5 Nc6 25.d5 Ne7 26.Rg4 f5 27.Rf4 Nc8 28.c5 bxc5 29.Qxc5 Nb6 30.Rd4 Rf6 31.a4 Rfd6 32.Rcd1 Re7 33.a5 Nd7 34.Qxa7 Ne5 35.Qc5 Nxf3+ 36.gxf3 Qe8 37.Rh4 Red7 38.Qc4 Qa8 39.Qc3 Rxd5 40.Rxd5 Qxd5

41.a6 Qa2 42.Qc4+ Qxc4 43.Rxc4 Rd1+ 44.Kg2 Ra1 45.Rc6 Kf8 46.f4 Ra3! 47.Kf1 Ra2 48.Ke1 Ke8 49.Kd1 Kd8! 50.Rg6 c5 51.Kc1

“There comes a point when you have to stop making your moves by common sense, and instead, after analysing a concrete path to a draw, you must force events.” – AY

51…Kc7! 52.Rxg7+ Kb6 53.Rg6+ Ka7 54.Rc6

[54.Rxh6 Rxf2]

54…Rxf2 55.Rxc5 Rxf4

[55…Kxa6 may be better, except that Black would have to keep thinking carefully how to draw with time running out.]

56.Rc6 Rg4 57.Kd2 Rg5 58.Rxh6 f4 59.Ke2

Position 18: Karpov-Yusupov 1991 (RP+RP)

59…f3+
“Black has absolutely no need for this Pawn, then try not to be distracted by non-essential details (like, a ‘non-essential’ Pawn)” – AY

Artur has confidence because he has studied this position. GM Gurevich actually managed to lose one of these in the US Championship in 1989 (and I don’t think he was the first). Miles wrote it up in NIC, commenting: “This ending is of course drawn, but the defence is not easy”. Dvoretsky interjects: “No, it is very easy” – if you know what to do!

60.Kxf3 Rc5 61.Rh8

(adjourned: the game could be given up here but Karpov saw no reason not to test Yusupov’s technique.)

White will attack the side away from the defending King with his own King. Black cannot touch the Pawn with the King here, but will keep the Rook away from the opposing King for checking distance: here the c-file is best so it can check from the seventh rank.

The White Rook is passively placed which is the downfall of his winning hopes. Black draws just as he would without the a-Pawn on the board.

(N.B. With the White Rook active and the Black Rook passive White can and should win by getting the King in.)

61…Rg5 62.Ke4 Rc5 63.Kf4 Rc4+ 64.Ke5 Rc5+ 65.Ke6 Rg5 66.Kf7 Rc5!

[66…Rd5? lacks checking distance and loses 67.h6 Rd6 68.h7 Rd7+ 69.Ke6]

67.Rh7

[67.h6 Rc7+! (67…Rh5? 68.Kg7) 68.Kf6 Rc6+]

67…Kxa6 68.h6 Rc7+ 1/2-1/2

Now, adding a Bishop’s Pawn on the same side as Rook’s Pawn is a real borderline case: theoretically drawn, but quite possible to lose it if you’re muddle-headed.

Marshall, F – Rubinstein, A [D32] San Sebastian (4), 1911

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Bxe7 Ngxe7 8.e3 cxd4 9.Nxd4 Be6 10.Nxe6 fxe6 11.Qg4 Nf5 12.e4 d4 13.0-0-0 Qh4 14.Qxh4 Nxh4 15.Nb5 0-0-0 16.e5 Rhf8 17.Nd6+ Kb8 18.f4 g5 19.Bb5 gxf4 20.g3 Nf3 21.Bxc6 bxc6 22.Rhf1 fxg3 23.hxg3 Kc7 24.Ne4 Kb6 25.b4 Rf5 26.Nd6 Rff8 27.Ne4 Kb5 28.Nc5 Nxe5 29.Rxf8 Rxf8 30.Nxe6 Rf2 31.Rxd4 Rxa2 32.Nc7+ Kb6 33.Ne6 Rg2 34.Ng5 Rxg3 35.Nxh7 Kb5 36.Kc2 Nc4 37.Rd7 Ra3 38.Rb7+ Nb6 39.Nf6 Kxb4 40.Nd7 Kb5 41.Kb2 Ra4 42.Kb3 c5 43.Ne5 Rb4+ 44.Kc3 a5 45.Rb8 Ka4 46.Kc2 Nd5 47.Rc8 Kb5 48.Nd7 Rc4+ 49.Kb2 Nb6 50.Nxb6 Kxb6
Position 19: Marshall-Rubinstein 1911 (RP+BP)

This is the game that made this type of ending notorious; not the first time that it had occurred, but Rubinstein, such a master of endings and particularly Rook endings, may have fancied his chances here…
51.Kb3 Rb4+ 52.Kc3 Kb5 53.Rb8+ Ka4 54.Rc8 Rb3+ 55.Kc2 Rb5 56.Rh8 Kb4 57.Rh1 a4 58.Kb2 a3+ 59.Ka2 Ka4 60.Rc1 Ra5 61.Rb1 c4 62.Rb8 Rc5 63.Ra8+ Kb4 64.Rxa3 c3 65.Rb3+ Kc4 66.Rb8

1/2-1/2

Keres Paul GM (EST) – Sokolsky A [C71/14] Moskva Chigorin-mem (28.11.4, 1947

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 d6 5.c4 Bg4 6.d3 Nge7 7.h3 Bxf3 8.Qxf3 Ng6 9.Nc3 Be7 10.Be3 Bg5 11.0-0 0-0 12.Qg4 h6 13.Ne2 Bxe3 14.fxe3 Qg5 15.Qg3 Qxg3 16.Nxg3 Nge7 17.Kf2 g6 18.Ke2 Kg7 19.Kd2 h5 20.a3 h4 21.Ne2 f5 22.Nc3 fxe4 23.Nxe4 Rf5 24.Rg1 Raf8 25.Bd1 Rf1 26.Bf3 Rxa1 27.Rxa1 Nd8 28.b4 Ne6 29.Rb1 b6 30.a4 Rb8 31.Nc3 Ng5 32.Nd5 Nxf3+ 33.gxf3 Nxd5 34.cxd5 Ra8 35.Rc1 Ra7 36.e4 Kf6 37.Ke3 g5 38.d4 exd4+ 39.Kxd4 Ke7 40.e5 dxe5+ 41.Kxe5 Kd7 42.Rg1 Ra8 43.Rxg5 Re8+ 44.Kd4 Re1 45.Rg7+ Kd6 46.Rg6+ Kd7 47.Rg4 Kd6 48.Rg6+ Kd7 49.a5 Rb1 50.Kc4 Rc1+ 51.Kd3 Rd1+ 52.Ke3 Rxd5 53.axb6 cxb6 54.Rxb6 a5 55.Ke4 Rh5 56.Kf4 axb4 57.Rxb4 Ke6 58.Kg4 Rh8 59.Kg5 Rg8+ 60.Kxh4
Position 20: Keres-Sokolsky 1939 (RP+BP)

You can win these positions, by working your pieces right in and trying to achieve “Lucena” without allowing the “short side draw”. This cannot be forced. Black should resist the advance, get the King to the King’s-side and only once the Pawns are advanced send the Rook away to a1.
60…Kf5 61.Rg4 Rh8+ 62.Kg3 Ra8 63.h4 Ra1

Right square, wrong moment. White gets the Rook active behind the h-Pawn and threatens to run it with the King cut off.

64.h5 Ra6 65.Rh4 Rh6 66.Rf4+ Kg5 67.Rg4+ Kf5 68.Kh4 Rh8 69.Rg5+ Kf6 70.Kg4 Kf7 71.Rf5+ Kg7 72.Kg5 Rg8 73.Rf6 Kh7+

Well, the King has made it to h7 but the Black Rook now need to be on the far rank (a1-h1). White whips the King in to win.

74.Rg6 Ra8 75.f4 Ra1 76.Re6 Rg1+ 77.Kf6 Rf1 78.f5 Rf2 79.Re5 Rh2 80.Re7+ Kh6 81.Re8 Kh7 82.Ke6 Re2+ 83.Kf7 Ra2 84.f6 Ra6 85.Ke7 Ra7+ 86.Kf8 Ra6 87.f7 Ra7 88.Rc8 Ra1 89.Ke7 1-0

Here’s a successful defence.

Bondarevsky I – Keres Paul GM (EST) [D95/04] Leningrad-Moskva (25.01.39), 1939

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.e3 Bg7 5.Qb3 c6 6.Nf3 0-0 7.Bd2 e6 8.Bd3 b6 9.0-0 Bb7 10.e4 c5 11.exd5 cxd4 12.Na4 e5 13.Nxe5 Nxd5 14.Nc5 Ne7 15.Nxb7 Qc7 16.Ng4 h5 17.Nd6 Qxd6 18.c5 bxc5 19.Nh6+ Bxh6 20.Bxh6 Rd8 21.Bc4 Kh7 22.Bd2 Nbc6 23.Bxf7 Rab8 24.Qh3 Ne5 25.Bf4 Rf8 26.Rae1 N7c6 27.Bxg6+ Qxg6 28.Bxe5 Rbe8 29.Bd6 Rxe1 30.Rxe1 Qxd6 31.Re6 Qd5 32.Qd3+ Qf5 33.Qxf5+ Rxf5 34.Rxc6 Re5 35.Kf1 d3 36.Rd6 c4 37.b3 Rb5 38.Ke1 cxb3 39.axb3 Rxb3 40.Kd2 Rb2+ 41.Ke3 Re2+ 42.Kf3 Rd2 43.Ra6 Rd1 44.Kg3 Kg7 45.Rxa7+ Kf6 46.Rd7 Kf5 47.Kf3 h4 48.h3 d2 49.Rd8 Kf6 50.Rd3 Kf5 51.Rd6 Ke5 52.Rd8 Kf6 53.Rd4 Kf5 54.Rd7 Ke6 55.Ke2 Rg1 56.Rxd2 Rxg2 57.Rd4 Kf5 58.Rxh4

58…Rg1 59.Kf3 Ra1 60.Rg4 Ra3+ 61.Kg2 Rb3 62.f3 Rb2+ 63.Kg3 Rb1 64.h4 Rg1+ 65.Kh3 Rb1 66.Kg2 Rb2+ 67.Kg3 Rb1 68.h5 Rb6 69.Rh4 Rh6 70.Ra4 Rb6 71.Ra5+ Kf6 72.Kg4 Rb1 73.Ra6+ Kg7 74.f4 Rg1+ 75.Kf5 Rh1 76.h6+ Kh7 77.Re6 Rb1 78.Ke5 Rb5+ 79.Ke4 Rb1 80.f5 Rb2 81.Kf4 Rg2 82.Ke5 Ra2 83.Rb6 Ra1 84.Kf4 Rg1

Black is in a good defensive position.

85.Ra6 Rg2 86.Rc6 Rg1 87.Rd6 Rg2 88.Ra6 Rg1 89.Re6 Rg2 90.Ke5 Ra2 91.Kd6 Ra5 92.f6 Kg6 93.Re8

And now a cute finish to draw.

93…Ra6+ 94.Ke7 Rxf6 95.Rg8+ Kh7 96.Rg7+ Kh8 97.Kxf6 stalemate

1/2-1/2

Example games: more complex Rook Endings

Alekhin, A – Capablanca, J [D51] Wch13-Buenos Aires (34), 1927: active Rook in attack

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 c6 6.a3 Be7 7.Nf3 0-0 8.Bd3 dxc4 9.Bxc4 Nd5 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.Ne4 N5f6 12.Ng3 c5 13.0-0 Nb6 14.Ba2 cxd4 15.Nxd4 g6 16.Rc1 Bd7 17.Qe2 Rac8 18.e4 e5 19.Nf3 Kg7 20.h3 h6 21.Qd2 Be6 22.Bxe6 Qxe6 23.Qa5 Nc4 24.Qxa7 Nxb2 25.Rxc8 Rxc8 26.Qxb7 Nc4 27.Qb4 Ra8 28.Ra1 Qc6 29.a4 Nxe4 30.Nxe5 Qd6 31.Qxc4 Qxe5 32.Re1 Nd6 33.Qc1 Qf6 34.Ne4 Nxe4 35.Rxe4 Rb8 36.Re2 Ra8 37.Ra2 Ra5 38.Qc7 Qa6 39.Qc3+ Kh7 40.Rd2 Qb6 41.Rd7 Qb1+ 42.Kh2 Qb8+ 43.g3 Rf5 44.Qd4 Qf8 45.Rd5 Rf3 46.h4 Qh8 47.Qb6 Qa1 48.Kg2 Rf6

It’s all in the details. White swaps Queens when he can keep his Rook active. 49.Qd4 Qxd4 50.Rxd4 Kg7 51.a5 Ra6 52.Rd5

52…Rf6 53.Rd4 Ra6 54.Ra4!

That’s the one. Now White wants his King in. 54…Kf6 55.Kf3 Ke5 56.Ke3 h5 57.Kd3 Kd5 58.Kc3 Kc5 59.Ra2! (pass: Black decides to put the King on guard duty) 59…Kb5

[59…Ra7 60.a6 Kb6 61.Kb4]

60.Kb3 Kc5

[60…Rxa5 61.Rxa5+ Kxa5 62.Kc4]

61.Kc3 Kb5 62.Kd4! Rd6+ 63.Ke5 Re6+ 64.Kf4 Ka6 65.Kg5! Re5+ 66.Kh6 Rf5 67.f4

[67.Kg7 Rf3 White triangulates. 68.Kg8 Rf6 69.Kf8 Rf3 70.Kg7 Rf5 71.f4!]

67…Rc5! 68.Ra3 Rc7 69.Kg7 Rd7 70.f5! gxf5 71.Kh6 f4! Black’s doing his considerable best. 72.gxf4 Rd5 73.Kg7 Rf5 74.Ra4 Kb5 75.Re4! Ka6 76.Kh6 Rxa5 77.Re5 Ra1 78.Kxh5 Rg1 79.Rg5 Rh1 80.Rf5 Kb6 81.Rxf7 Kc6 82.Re7! 1-0

Bakulin – Dvoretsky,M, Moscow, 1974 (active Rook in defence)

18…Re6
I tried to think of something after

[18…Nc6 I became suspicioous of the endgame after 19.c4 d4 20.Nc5 b6 21.Nd3 Vaganian, a specialist in the French Defence, assessed this position as highly unfavourable to Black.]

19.Nc5 Rxe1+ 20.Rxe1 Another intriguing idea immediately occurred to me: 20…Rc8!

[20…Ng6 21.Nxb7 Rb8 22.Nc5 Rxb2 23.Re8+ Nf8 looks very dubious 24.g3 f6 25.Nd7 Kf7 26.Rxf8+ Ke7 27.Rb8]

21.Rxe7 Kf8 An eye for combinations is sometime essential even in ‘boring’ endgames! 22.Rxb7

[22.Re2 Rxc5=]

22…Rxc5 23.c3 d4 24.Kf1

[24.Rb3?? d3 25.Kf1 Re5]

24…dxc3 25.bxc3 Rxc3 26.Rxa7 Rc2

I knew for certain that this was a draw, and a fairly simple one at that, and so went for my combination without hesitation. 27.g3 g6 28.Kg2 Kg7 29.Kf3 h5 30.h4 Kf6 31.Ke3 Rc3+ 32.Ke4 Rc2 33.f3 Re2+ 34.Kf4 Rb2 35.Ra6+ Kg7 36.Ra3 Kf6 37.Ra6+ Kg7 38.Ra4 Kf6

[38…Rf2!?]

39.g4 hxg4 40.fxg4 Rf2+ 41.Kg3 Rc2 42.Rf4+

[42.g5+ Ke5]

42…Ke6 43.a4

[43.Rf2 Rc3+ 44.Kf4 f6]

43…f5 44.gxf5+ gxf5 45.Rf2 Rc4 46.Ra2 Rc3+ 47.Kf4 Rc4+ 48.Kg3

[48.Kg5 Rg4+ 49.Kh5 Kf6 50.a5?? Rg8]

48…Rc3+ 49.Kg2 Rc4 50.h5 Rh4 1/2-1/2

Duras, O – Capablanca, J [D37] rook ending: 4P/3P on same side (11), 1913

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e3 a6 6.Bxc4 b5 7.Bd3 Bb7 8.a4 b4 9.Nb1 c5 10.0-0 Nc6 11.dxc5 Bxc5 12.Qe2 Qd5 13.Rd1 Qh5 14.Nbd2 Na5 15.Nf1 0-0 16.Ng3 Qg4 17.e4 Nb3 18.Rb1 Rfd8 19.Be3 Nxe4 20.Bc2 Bxe3 21.Qxe3
[21.Bxb3 Bxf2+ 22.Kh1 Bxg3]

21…Nbc5 22.h3 Qg6 23.Nxe4 Rxd1+ 24.Rxd1 Bxe4 25.Bxe4 Nxe4 26.Qd4 h6 27.Qxb4 Nf6 28.Qb7 Qe4 29.Qxe4 Nxe4 30.b4 Nc3 31.Rd3

[31.Ra1 Rb8 32.Ra3 Nd5]

31…Nxa4 32.Ra3 Nb6 33.Ne5 Kf8 34.Nd3 Nd5 35.Ra4 Rb8 36.Rxa6 Nxb4 37.Nxb4 Rxb4

Capa’s play in this ending was so strong and convincing it took people a while to realise that this type of ending is probably a draw in theory

38.Ra7 h5 39.g3 h4 40.gxh4 ?

[40.g4]

40…Rxh4 41.Kg2 e5 42.Kg3 Rd4 43.Ra5

[43.h4]

43…f6 44.Ra7 Kg8 45.Rb7 Kh7 46.Ra7 Kg6 47.Re7 Rd3+

[47…Rd3+ idea 48.Kh4 Rf3]

48.Kg2

[48.f3 Kf5 49.Rxg7 e4 50.h4 Rxf3+;

48.Kg4 f5+ 49.Kh4 Kf6 50.Ra7 g5+ 51.Kh5 Rxh3#]

48…Rd5 49.Kg3 f5 50.Ra7 Rd3+ 51.Kg2 e4 52.Ra4 Kg5 53.Ra5 g6 54.Rb5 Kf4 55.Ra5 Rd2 56.Ra4 Kg5

[56…g5 the game from Chernev gives this move as the game continuation, and then… 57.Rb4 Ke5 58.Rb5+ Rd5 59.Rb8 f4 60.Rg8]

57.Kg1 Kf4 58.Kg2 g5 59.Rb4 Ke5 60.Rb5+ Rd5 61.Rb8 f4 62.Rg8

this is the same position as in Chernev ‘s book 62…Kd4

[62…Rd2 this also looks good: 63.Rxg5+ Kf6 64.Rg4 Kf5 65.Kf1 f3 66.Ke1 Re2+ 67.Kf1 Ra2 68.Ke1 Ra1+ 69.Kd2 Rf1 70.Ke3 Re1+ 71.Kd4 Re2 72.Rg8 Rd2+ 73.Ke3 Rd3#]

63.Kf1 Kd3 64.Ra8 e3 65.Ra3+ Ke4 66.fxe3 f3

[66…fxe3 this looks good, but fails: 67.Ra8 Rf5+ 68.Ke2 Rf2+ 69.Ke1 Kf3 70.Rf8+ Kg3 71.Re8 Rf3 72.Ke2]

67.Kg1

[67.Kf2 Rd2+ 68.Kg3 Rg2#]

67…Rd3

[67…Rd3 IDEA 68.Rxd3 Kxd3 69.Kf2 Ke4 70.Kf1 Kxe3 71.Kg1 Ke2]

68.Ra8

[68.Ra5 Kxe3 69.Re5+ Kf4 70.Ra5 g4 71.Ra4+ Ke3 72.Ra1 g3]

68…Kxe3 69.Re8+ Kf4 70.Rg8 Rd1+ 71.Kf2 Rd2+ 72.Kf1

[72.Kg1 g4 73.Rxg4+ Ke3 74.Rg8 having been lured to g4 there is no check for the rook on the e-file 74…Rd1+ 75.Kh2 f2 76.Re8+ Kd2 77.Rd8+ Kc2 78.Rxd1 else the Black K will run up the Q-side at the checking White rook 78…Kxd1 79.Kg2 Ke2]

72…Rh2 73.Kg1 Rxh3 74.Rg7 g4 75.Rg8 Kg3 …and White resigned. So impressive was Capa’s play that for years books suggested that this ending R+4P v. R+3P was a win, even with all the pawns on the same side of the board. Now, improvements for Duras are known.

[75…Kg3 76.Rf8 f2+ 77.Rxf2 Rh1+ 78.Kxh1 Kxf2 79.Kh2 g3+]

0-1

Capablanca, J – Kreymbourg, A [D02] 1910: a double Rook ending

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 e6 4.e3 c5 5.c3 Nc6 6.Bd3 Bd6 7.Bxd6 Qxd6 8.Nbd2 e5 9.dxe5 Nxe5 10.Nxe5 Qxe5 11.Bb5+ Bd7 12.Qa4 Qc7 13.0-0-0 0-0 14.Bxd7 Nxd7 15.Nf3 Qc6 16.Qxc6 bxc6 17.Nd2 Ne5 18.Kc2 c4 19.Rhf1 f5 20.Nf3 Nxf3 21.gxf3 Rae8

Black appears to have better Rooks, but the Q-side pawns are advanced and vulnerable. This vulnerability costs Black the a-file, and that costs him the activity of his Rooks. 22.Rd4 Rf6 23.b3 cxb3+ 24.axb3 Kf7 25.Kd3 Re7 26.Ra1 Ke6 27.Ra6 Rc7 28.Rda4 g5 29.h4 g4 30.Ke2 gxf3+ 31.Kxf3 Rff7 32.Ke2 Kd6 33.b4 Rb7 34.h5

White is well placed to attack several Black pawns. 34…h6 35.f4 Rg7 36.Kd3 Rge7 37.Ra1 Rg7 38.Kd4 Rg2 39.R6a2 Rbg7 40.Kd3 Rxa2 41.Rxa2

We are now in a single-Rook ending. Black now gives up the open file. 41…Re7 42.Rg2 Re6 43.Rg7 Re7 44.Rg8 c5 45.Rg6+ Re6 46.bxc5+ Kd7 47.Rg7+ Kc6 48.Rxa7 Kxc5 49.Rf7 1-0

Capablanca, J – Tartakower, S [A80] NY, 1924

1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Nc3 0-0 6.e3 b6 7.Bd3 Bb7 8.0-0 Qe8 9.Qe2 Ne4 10.Bxe7 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Qxe7 12.a4 Bxf3 13.Qxf3 Nc6 14.Rfb1 Rae8 15.Qh3 Rf6 16.f4 Na5 17.Qf3 d6 18.Re1 Qd7 19.e4 fxe4 20.Qxe4 g6 21.g3 Kf8 22.Kg2 Rf7
[22…Qc6 23.Qxc6 Nxc6 24.c5 Re7]

23.h4 d5 24.cxd5 exd5 25.Qxe8+ Qxe8 26.Rxe8+ Kxe8 27.h5 Rf6

[27…gxh5 28.Rh1 Kf8 29.Rxh5 Kg8 30.Rxd5]

28.hxg6 hxg6 29.Rh1 Kf8

[29…Ke7 30.Rh7+ Rf7 else 31.Rg7 31.Bxg6]

30.Rh7

rook on the seventh 30…Rc6 31.g4

[31.Rd7 ? 31…Nc4 32.Rxd5 Ne3+]

31…Nc4 32.g5 Ne3+ 33.Kf3

33…Nf5

[33…Nd1 this counterattack fails, because of White’s strong King and K-side pawns 34.Rh6 Kg7 35.f5 Nxc3 36.Kf4 Ne4 37.Bxe4 dxe4 38.f6+ Rxf6+ 39.gxf6+ Kxh6 40.Kxe4 Kh7 41.Kd5 Kg8 42.Kc6 g5 43.Kxc7 g4 44.d5 g3 45.d6 g2 46.d7 g1Q 47.d8Q+ Kh7 48.Qe7+ Kh6 49.Qg7+ Qxg7+ 50.fxg7 Kxg7 51.Kb7 Kf7 52.Kxa7 Ke7 53.Kxb6 Kd7 54.Kb7]

34.Bxf5 gxf5 35.Kg3 Rxc3+ 36.Kh4 Rf3 37.g6 Rxf4+ 38.Kg5 Re4

39.Kf6 using the f-pawn as cover 39…Kg8 40.Rg7+ Kh8 41.Rxc7 Re8 42.Kxf5 Re4 43.Kf6 Rf4+ 44.Ke5 Rg4 45.g7+

45…Kg8

[45…Rxg7 46.Rxg7 Kxg7 47.Kxd5 Kf7 48.Kd6 ! 48…Ke8 49.Kc7 Ke7 50.d5]

46.Rxa7 Rg1 47.Kxd5 Rc1 48.Kd6 Rc2 49.d5 Rc1 50.Rc7 Ra1 51.Kc6 Rxa4 52.d6

[52.d6 ! by declining the Kxb6 capture White’s K gets shelter 52…Rd4 53.d7 Rc4+ 54.Kb7 Rd4 55.Kc8]

1-0

Capablanca, J – Kupchik, A [C49] rook ending: various themes, 1913

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bb4 5.0-0 0-0 6.Bxc6 bxc6 7.Nxe5 Qe8 8.Nd3 Bxc3 9.dxc3 Qxe4 10.Re1 Qh4 11.Qf3 Ba6 12.Bf4 Rac8 13.Be5 Bxd3 14.cxd3 Qg4 15.Bxf6 Qxf3 16.gxf3 gxf6

An early Rook ending: White is better not just because of the neater pawns but because he can immediately activate the Rook. 17.Re4 Rfe8 18.Rae1 Re6 19.R1e3 Rce8 20.Kf1 Kf8 21.Ke2 Ke7 22.Ra4 Ra8 23.Ra5 d5 24.c4 Kd6 25.c5+ Kd7 26.d4 f5 27.Rxe6 fxe6 28.f4 Clearing the third rank for the Rook. 28…Kc8 29.Kd2 Kb7 30.Ra3 Rg8 31.Rh3 Rg7 32.Ke2 Ka6 33.Rh6 Re7 34.Kd3 Kb7 35.h4 Kc8 36.Rh5 Kd7 37.Rg5 Rf7 38.Kc3 Kc8 39.Kb4 Rf6 40.Ka5 Kb7 41.a4 a6 42.h5 Rh6 43.b4 Rf6

White is poised on both fronts. 44.b5 The only break, which also allows Black to become active. 44…axb5 45.axb5

Defend or counterattack? 45…Rf8

[45…Rf7 46.h6 Re7 47.Rg7 is hopeless: so Black must counterattack.]

46.Rg7 Ra8+ 47.Kb4 cxb5 48.Kxb5 Ra2 49.c6+ Kb8 50.Rxh7 White has an h-pawn. Can the lone Black Rook do enough to compensate? 50…Rb2+ 51.Ka5 Ra2+ 52.Kb4 Rxf2 53.Re7 Rxf4 54.h6 Rxd4+ 55.Kb5 Rd1 56.h7 Rb1+ 57.Kc5 Rc1+ 58.Kd4 Rd1+ 59.Ke5 Re1+ 60.Kf6 Rh1 61.Re8+ Ka7 62.h8Q Rxh8 63.Rxh8 Kb6 64.Kxe6 Kxc6 65.Kxf5 Kc5 66.Ke5 c6 67.Rh6 Kb5 68.Kd4 1-0

Selected games in play-through format

Five Sicilians in Club Play

Posted on by

by Bob Martin

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

(28) Martin,R [B78]

  1997

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

  (1) This initiates a dark-square game.

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

5.Nc3 Bg7

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

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

6.Be3 Nf6 7.f3

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

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

7…Qa5

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

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

 

 

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

11.h4

  (5) Too soon.

  White is not prepared for this early attack.

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

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

  (an x-ray attack).

11…Rac8 12.h5

  (6) Better is Kb1 now.

12…Ne5

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

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

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

13.Bb3 Nc4 14.Bxc4 Rxc4 15.g4

 

 

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

 

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

  My pieces now become too active.

15…Rxc3 16.Nb3

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

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

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

16…Rxc2+ 17.Qxc2 Qxa2 18.Kd2 Rc8

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

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

  (g7), knight, and bishop

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

19.Ra1 Nxe4+

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

  There are too many open lines into the White
position.

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

 

 

(29) Martin,R [B73]

  1997

1.e4 c5

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

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

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

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

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

5.Nc3

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

5…Bg7 6.Be3 d6

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

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

  I don’t like the looks of that.

7.Be2 Nf6 8.0-0 0-0

 

 

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

 

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

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

9.a3

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

  This move is not as good as f4.

9…Bd7 10.Qd2 Rc8

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

  I need to decide how to start my attack.

  I should consider d5.

11.Rad1

  (8) If White had castled queenside

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

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

11…Ne5 12.f4

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

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

12…Nc4

  (10) Forces an exchange of pieces

  (always good for the defender).

  I would now consider Ng4 instead of Nc4.

13.Bxc4 Rxc4

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

14.f5

 

 

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

14…Rxc3

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

  Either way he must be careful.

15.bxc3 Nxe4

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

  White’s pawns are an endgame nightmare.

  He must go for a middlegame win.

16.Qd3 d5

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

17.fxg6 hxg6 18.c4

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

  Certainly nothing to sneeze at.

18…Nc5 19.Qe2 e5 20.Nb3

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

20…Nxb3 21.cxb3 d4

 

 

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

 

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

22.Bc1 Qb6 23.b4

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

23…d3+

 

 

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

24.Qe3

  (19) The only move.

  Be3 doesn’t work.

24…Qxe3+ 25.Bxe3 e4

  (20) The real purpose behind Qb6.

  White thinks the bishop will blockade the pawns.

26.h3

  (21) Wastes time.

  White is worried about Bg4 and a future f5.

26…Ba4

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

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

27.Rd2 Bc3 28.Rdf2

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

28…Bb3 29.c5

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

29…Rd8 30.b5 d2

  (25) White loses material.

0-1

 

 

(30) Martin,R [B20]

  1997

1.e4 c5

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

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

  (knights before bishops).

  If I had played 1.

  e5 it would be okay.

2…e6 3.f4 Nc6 4.Nf3

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

4…d5

 

 

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

 

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

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

  (5) Maybe d4 would be better.

9…0-0 10.Bxc6

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

10…Bxc6 11.Ne5 Rc8 12.b3

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

  The bishop should go to d2 not b2.

  The e3 square will become an outpost

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

  (8) Pretty much forced.

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

14…Rxc6

 

 

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

 

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

  What replaced white’s knight and bishop? Nothing.

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

15.Ne2

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

15…Nd5

  (11) Heading for e3 ever since 13 d4.

16.Bc1

  (12) Somehow White must try to hold e3.

  The early 3.

  f4 looks a bit silly now.

16…Bf6

  (13) To give e3 additional support from the Re8

  (overprotect) and prevent a possible c3 pawn break.

17.g3

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

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

17…Ne3 18.Bxe3 Rxe3

  (15) Black replaces each piece traded with another.

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

19.Rb1

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

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

  Black has been centering his play around the e3
square.

19…Rce6

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

  White’s position is rather sewn shut.

  Black must now focus on the weak kingside.

20.Rf2 Qe8 21.Kf1 Qc6

  (18) The real reason for Qe8.

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

22.Kg1

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

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

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

 

 

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

 

  (20) This pawn will probe the kingside.

23.Qd2 Rf3

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

  If 24.

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

24.f5 Ree3 25.Nf4 h4

  (22) White must prevent hxg.

  If 26.

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

26.g4 Bg5

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

27.Ng2 h3 28.Ne1

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

28…Rxe1+ 29.Qxe1 Be3

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

30.Qxe3 dxe3 31.Re2 Rf2 0-1

 

 

(31) Martin,R [B20]

  1997

1.e4 c5 2.Bc4

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

2…e6 3.Nf3 d5

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

4.exd5

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

4…exd5 5.Bb5+

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

5…Bd7 6.a4

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

 

 

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

8.Bxd7+

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

8…Nbxd7

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

9.h3

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

9…0-0 10.d4

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

10…Re8 11.0-0 Qc7 12.Qd3 Ne4 13.g3

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

13…Ndf6 14.Bf4

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

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

15…Qxd6 16.Ne5 cxd4 17.f4

 

 

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

 

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

17…Nh5

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

18.Nd2 Nexg3

  (14) Black is basically finished.

19.Ndf3 Nxf4

  (15) The winning combinations begin to appear.

20.Nxf7 Re2

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

 

(32) Martin,R [B21]

  1997

1.e4 c5 2.d4

  (1) White gambits a pawn.

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

2…cxd4

  (2) Black accepts the offered pawn.

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

3.c3

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

  By taking the pawn he aids White’s development.

3…dxc3 4.Nxc3 e6

 

 

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

 

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

  Better is d6.

5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bc4

  (5) The most aggressive square for this bishop.

  The gambiteer must be aggressive.

6…a6

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

7.0-0

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

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

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

7…Nge7

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

8.Bg5

  (9) Prevents Ng6 and d5.

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

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

 

 

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

9.Bxb5

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

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

9…f6

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

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

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

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

10.Bxc6 Nxc6

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

  Qe2 fxB, 13.

  Rfd1 Qc7?, 14.

  Nxg5 with a later Qf3, e5 and Nce4.

11.Bh4 Bc5

  (13) The wrong square for the bishop.

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

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

12.e5

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

  White has several options: Ne4 with Rc1.

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

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

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

12…Be7

  (15) Too late for this now.

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

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

13.exf6

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

13…Bxf6 14.Bxf6 Qxf6 15.Ne4

 

 

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

 

  (17) The real point behind e5.

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

15…Qxb2

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

  Every pawn Black removes opens another possible attacking
option.

16.Nd6+ Ke7 17.Rb1

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

17…Qa3 18.Nf5+

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

18…exf5 19.Re1+ Kf6 20.Rb3

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

20…Qxa2 21.Qd6+ Kf7 22.Ng5+ 1-0

Book review: Attack with Mikhail Tal

Posted on by

[This review first appeared in Westward
Ho!]

Book review: Attack with Mikhail Tal (179pp+index)
Cadogan Press: London.

  Mikhail Tal and Iakov Damsky. [[sterling]]11.99.
Mikhail Tal needs no introduction; the wizard who emerged in the
late 1950s as a force to complement the science of Botvinnik. This
is Mikhail Tal’s last word to the chess world, some of which was
transcribed from tapes made within days of his death in 1994, and
which he did not live to complete. Damsky tells us the planned
title was Everything about attack, and rues the omission
of a planned chapter on the Queen’s-side attack. The nine chapters
completed are listed below.

  Each chapter contains a number of examples, for instance,
the chapter on the eighth rank contains 16 examples from games –
some rather familiar (like Levitsky-Marshall) – with four test
positions and an example complete game with the same back rank
theme. I have another book – Test your Chess IQ by
Livshits – which contains 32 such examples. What extra do you get
from the Tal/Damsky book?

  Livshits’ positions all have a concrete short-term
solution (say, White to play and win in 5 moves), whereas the
examples in this book are nearly all of the sort that Spielmann
calls ‘real’ sacrifices – being genuinely unclear or at least
requiring more judgement than calculation. The first example does
resolve inside 7 moves, but the second only clears up only after 17
moves. This sort of thing is real chess drama, and is great fun to
watch in action. Tal and Damsky also give some chatty annotation
which is mostly illuminating and engaging. Lastly, the themes are
strategic more than tactical – the back rank chapter is the only
one with an explicitly tactical theme. But all the common
sacrificial motifs are present:

1.
The Main Indicator – the King in the Centre :
Ng5xf7, Ng5 or Bc4xe6

2.
Breakthrough in the centre:
breaks e5 and d5

3.
The assault ratio (ie. development advantage):
“launching” in e.g. Nf3-g5 Ng3-h5

4.
Invasion trajectories (ie. lines of approach):
diagonals a1-h8 and b1-h7/a2-f7

5.
Lines of communication (ie. interference):
obstructive sacrifice e5-e6

6.
Outposts:
e.g. N on e5

7.
Eliminating defenders:
Rd1xNd7

8.
At the Royal Court (ie. 7th and 8th ranks):

9.
Destroying the Fortress walls:
Be3xh6, Bc3xg7, Bd3xh7+

Let me say immediately: the book is warm and witty, and the
examples are hugely enjoyable. So, if the material and ideas listed
above are unfamiliar to you, then I’d grab it. Criticisms? It’s
churlish to carp about such an enjoyable book, and since Tal’s
death, a moving one, but I’ll mention one or two.

  It was never going to be everything about
attack. It is missing the concrete examples (for which see
Livshits), and also the rather slow attacks with a closed centre
that need not require a sacrificial outburst. It also lacks any
reference to the various ‘natural histories’ of attack that have
gone before (for example, the works of Vukovic), and so the
examples may be hard to integrate in your mind. But alongside these
works, AWMT has a place as a modern handbook of examples.

  These are perhaps things that the authors would freely
concede, because they never claimed more for their book. But they
did say their “aim… of suggesting: where and on which paths
in the dense forest of variations are concealed those …indicators
… that will allow you … to switch … to an attack“. This
is an enticing prospect: to accompany these master physicians in
their diagnoses. How far is this aim realised? My view is that the
book fails here. I got an early impression that these
indicators include, firstly, a lead in development, and
secondly, open lines or the capacity to open them, but after this,
it is all rather post hoc. We meet often comments
like:

  “it turns out that now this is possible”
(p.12)

  “The correct evaluation of the position is only
established by the typical attacking device carried out by the
ex-world champion” (p.19)

  So, although the examples are rich, the explanations are
not very crisp. Tal says at one point (p.8) “we are talking
here rather abstractly, rather in the spirit of Mikhail
Moiseyevich” (Botvinnik), and while this book is full of Tal’s
charm, it lacks Botvinnik’s science.

  Lastly, the test positions I often found at once too hard
and too easy. Let me give you an example:

t+-+jL-T
Xx+s+xX-
-DxXx+-X
+-+-P-N-
-+-P-P-+
+-P-+-+-
p+p+q+pP
R-B-+rK-
This is the first test position from the first chapter. It may take
you half a second to spot the only sacrificial idea, namely Nxf7,
it may take you forever to judge it properly. The game is actually
from Tal-Simagin (given below), and clearly his Grandmaster
opponent misjudged the sacrifice. I don’t know if he missed Tal’s
fifteenth move, but the game was not decided until move 45.

  Almost all the examples are, like this one,
successful examples – a sacrificial opportunity arises
and is discovered to be sound. Only by comparing cases where
sacrifices succeed and where they fail will we start to develop the
judgement, and start to identify the indicators, for
ourselves.

  The whole game shows at once the strength and weaknesses
of the book: a wonderfully dramatic attack, but could the reader
emulate it?

  Tal – Simagin 1956: 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. f4
Qb6 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. Be2 Nbd7 7. e5 Nd5 8. O-O Nxc3 9. bxc3 e6 10. Ng5
Bxe2 11. Qxe2 h6 (DIAGRAM) 12. Nxf7 Kxf7 13. f5 dxe5 14. fxe6+ Kxe6
15. Rb1 (This cheeky move regains some material)15… Qxb1 16. Qc4+
Kd6 17. Ba3+ Kc7 18. Rxb1 Bxa3 19. Qb3 Be7 20. Qxb7+ Kd6 21. dxe5+
Nxe5 22. Rd1+ Ke6 23. Qb3+ Kf5 24. Rf1+ Ke4 25. Re1+ Kf5 26. g4+
Kf6 27. Rf1+ (White’s harrassment picks up a piece. Now Black must
mobilise his rooks before White picks up all the pawns; sadly, he’s
too late.) 27… Kg6 28. Qe6+ Kh7 29. Qxe5 Rhe8 30. Rf7 Bf8 31.
Qf5+ Kg8 32. Kf2 Bc5+ 33. Kg3 Re3+ 34. Kh4 Rae8 35. Rxg7+ Kxg7 36.
Qxc5 R8e6 37. Qxa7+ Kg6 38. Qa8 Kf6 39. a4 Ke5 40. a5 Kd5 41. Qd8+
Ke4 42. a6 Kf3 43. a7 Re2 44. Qd3+ R6e3 45. Qxe3+ 1-0 Superb: Tal
kept the pot boiling throughout.

Lessons from Rubinstein

Posted on by

Game 1 : Rubinstein’s Immortal

Rotlewi vs A.R., Lodz 1907/8, Queen’s Gambit Declined.

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 c5 4.c4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.dxc5 Bxc5 7.a3 a6 8.b4 Bd6 9.Bb2 O-O 10.Qd2?
Only 10.cxd5 exd5 11.Be2/d3 could save the opening.

10. … Qe7! 11.Bd3 dxc4 12.Bxc4 b5 13.Bd3 Rd8 14.Qe2 Bb7 15.O-O Ne5 16.Nxe5 Bxe5 17.f4 Bc7 18.e4 Rac8 19.e5

2rr2k1/1bb1qppp/p3pn2/1p2P3/1P3P2/P1NB4/1B2Q1PP/R4RK1

White is asking for trouble. The open c- and d-files have been left uncontested, and the pawn advances have additionally opened diagonals for the Black bishops. A.R. moves over to a direct attack.
19. … Bb6+ 20.Kh1 Ng4! 21.Be4

Of course 21.Qxg4 Rxd3 is strong. 21.Ne4 Rxd3 22.Qxd3 Bxe4 23.Qxe4 Qh4 24.h3 Qg3 25.hxg4 Qh4 ‘mate begins to reveal the danger White is in.

21. … Qh4 22.g3

2rr2k1/1b3ppp/pb2p3/1p2P3/1P2BPnq/P1N3P1/1B2Q2P/R4R1K

22. … Rxc3! 23.gxh4
if 23.Bxc3 Bxe4+ 24.Qxe4 Qxh2 ‘mate, or 23.Bxb7 Rxg3 24.Rf3 Rxf3 25.Bxf3 Nf7+ 26.Kg1 Ne4+ 27.Kf1 Nd2+ 28.Kg2 Nxf3 29.Qxf3 Rd2+ etc.

23. … Rd2!! 24.Qxd2

if 24.Qxg4 Bxe4+ 25.Rf3 Rxf3 etc, 24.Bxc3 Rxd2 with Rxh2 ‘mate or Bxe4+ ‘mate to follow, or 24.Bxb7 Rxe2 25.Bg2 Rh3! etc.

24. … Bxe4+ 25.Qg2 Rh3! 0-1

‘mate in three follows, 26.Rf3 Bxf3 27.Bd4 Bxd4 and Rxh2 ‘mate.

This game is breathtaking, but Rubinstein also played games in a style which is perhaps more easy to interpret and emulate. The next three I hope come into this category.

Game 2 : Refuting Unsound Opening Play

A.R. vs Dr. Tartakower, Kissingen 1928, Budapest Defense.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Bb4+ 5.Nd2 Nc6 6.Nf3 f6
Black avoids the mainline, 6…Qe7 7.a3 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.e3 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 and White is visibly superior. White’s line is a recommendation of Dr. Bernstein, and designed to retain the two bishops – an important point for A.R., as we will see.

7.exf6 Qxf6 8.g3!

This is the Rubinstein touch – offering back the pawn in exchange for superior development.

8. … Qxb2 9.Bg2 d6 10.O-O O-O

r1b2rk1/ppp3pp/2np4/8/1bP2Bn1/5NP1/Pq1NPPBP/R2Q1RK1

11.Nb3!
This move is quite subtle. Black’s opening is based upon the hope of active piece play, but now his pieces are looking uncoordinated, and White is well developed. In situations of this kind, it is important to gain and keep the initiative, primarily through attacking and removing your opponent’s best pieces. With this in mind, A.R. plans to exchange the Bb4 for a knight, drive back the Ng4, and use his two bishops and central control to break through.

11. … Qf6 12.Ng5 h6 13.Ne4 Qf7

if 13. … Qe7 14.a3 Bc5 (not Ba5 15.Nxa5 and Qd5+) 15.Nexc5 dxc5 16.Qd5+ Be6 17.Qxc5 Qxc5 18.Nxc5 Bxc4 19.Rfc1 Bxe2 20.Nxb7 wins a pawn.

14.a3 Ba5 15.Nxa5 Nxa5 16.h3! Ne5

We begin to see some of Black’s problems: 16…Nf6? 17.Nxf6+ Qxf6 18.Qd5+xa5 or 17…gxf6 18.Bxh6

17.c5!

showing that e5 is not a strong point for the knight, only a cover for the d6 pawn. Notice how Black’s pieces are kept on the run.

17. … g5?

Black should centralise: 17…Nac4 18.cxd6 Rd8 maintains complications.

18.Bd2 d5 19.Nxg5 hxg5 20.Bxa5 Be6 21.Bc3 Nc6

r4rk1/ppp2qpp/2n1b3/2Pp2p1/8/P1B3PP/4PPB1/R2Q1RK1

Now watch A.R. infiltrate with his queen.
22.Qd2 Qf5 23.g4 Qf4 24.Bxd5 Bxd5

of course, 24…Qxd2 25.Bxe6+. Notice the deflection of the overloaded Black queen.

25.Qxd5+ Kh7 26.e3! Qf3 27.Qxg5 Qxh3 28.Qg7 ‘mate

(If 27…Q/Rf7 28.Qh4+ and ‘mate.)

This game demonstrates three very important principles of Rubinstein’s play:

1. Use of the bishops, note the Bf4-d2-c3 manoeuvre, changing the attack point from d6 to g7.

2. Attacking the opponent’s pieces to prevent development and consolidation.

3. By maintaining the initiative in the centre, a weakened king’s side can be punished with a swift kill.

Game 3 : Causing Chaos

A.R. vs Dr. Tarrasch, Hastings 1922, Dutch Defense.

1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 c5
This line looks an active central attack, but creates weaknesses. Nf6 or Bb4+ are superior. Notice how A.R. develops smoothly, not attempting a refutation.

4.Nf3 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Nf6 6.Bg2 Nc6 7.O-O Bc5 8.e3 O-O 9.Nc3 a6

Neither b6 nor d6 are playable due to Nxc6, and Qc7 is met by Nb5, but this passive move gives A.R. the chance to gain some queen side space.

10.a3 Qc7 11.b4 Be7 12.Bb2 Ne5

if 12…d6 13.e4 opens the game to White’s advantage, but this tempting line is flawed. Vukovic gives a useful comment to bear in mind: `the use of force from a weaker position usually prompts a still more forceful reply from one’s opponent’.

13.c5 Nc4

r1b2rk1/1pqpb1pp/p3pn2/2P2p2/1PnN4/P1N1P1P1/1B3PBP/R2Q1RK1

14.Nxf5!
And this is it! Qb3 would follow the capture of the knight, but that is not the full story…

14. … Bxc5 15.bxc5 Qxc5 16.Nh6+

This is the real point. The combination has removed the dark square bishop, wrecked the Black king side, and gained the initiative, at the cost of a pawn. (Note 14…Nxb2 15.Nxe7+ and Qb3 won a pawn, but 15…Nxb2 16.Ne7+ Kf7 17.Qe2 seems no worse than the game, and White has lost a bishop.)

16. … gxh6 17.Bc1 Qe5? 18.Qd3! Qc5

Oh dear, but if 18…Nb6 19.Bb2, or 18…d5 19.e4. Better was 17…d6 or Rb8 to continue developing.

19.a4! d6 20.e4

This is now playable, because his previous move prevented …b5 20. … Kg7 21.Nd1!

Painfully simple chess – the Nc4 must go!

21. … Bd7 22.Ne3 b5 23.Nxc4 bxc4 24.Qd2 Ne8 25.e5!

r3nr2/3b2kp/p2pp2p/2q1P3/P1p5/6P1/3Q1PBP/R1B2RK1

The final disorganisation – a blow in the centre. White’s bishops dominate the board. The Bc1 aims at h6, and threatens to move to a3 at an opportune moment; the Bg2 strikes down to a8, and is anxious to play a bigger role!
25. … Rab8 26.Qxh6+ Kg8 27.Qg5+ Kf7 (if 27…Kh7 28.Qe7!) 28.Bf3! Rg8 29.Qh5+ Kg7 30.Be4! Qxe5

what else? 30…Rh8 31.Bh6+ Kg8 32.Qg5+ Kf7 33.Qf4+ wins.

31.Qxh7+ Kf8

if 31…Kf6 32.Qxg8 Qxe4 33.Bg5+ Kf5 34.Qh7+ etc.

32.Qxd7 Qxe4 33.Bh6+ 1-0

as White wins a rook after 33…Ng7 34.Bxg7+ Rxg7 35.Qxd7+xb8

This game shows the same three characteristics:

1. The bishops reign supreme.

2. Removing the opponent’s better pieces (Be7 and Nc4).

3. Taking the initiative, and not letting it go.

Game 4 : Pawn Storm

A.R. vs Teichmann, Vienna 1908, Queen’s Gambit Declined.

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 Be7 6.Nf3 O-O 7.Qc2 b6
Better is 7…c5. For this line to be playable, Black must keep the queen’s knight at home to cover the White squares, and play …h6 in preference.

8.cxd5 exd5 9.Bd3 Bb7 10.O-O-O c5 11.h4

r2q1rk1/pb1nbppp/1p3n2/2pp2B1/3P3P/2NBPN2/PPQ2PPQKR3R

11. … c4?
This move always seems to be a critical error by Black in Queen’s side openings – it blocks the position, and White’s attack is quicker. The position is one of opposite side castling, and the central formation is, at the moment, fixed. Therefore the plan is one of pushing pawns at the opponent’s king. This is not because the pawns make the best attackers – pieces prefer to deliver ‘mate – but because we need to open lines of attack, especially files for the rooks. Black’s plan is therefore indicated: 11…cxd4 to open the c-file, followed with …Rc8…a6…b5

12.Bf5 Re8 13.Bxf6!

This is most instructive. When playing an attack involving a pawn storm every tempo becomes critical, and it is particularly important to prevent your opponent making good defensive moves. In this position Black wants to cover his h7 pawn with the move …Nf8. White’s plan is to push his g-pawn, and for this purpose the Bg5 is an obstruction. It would also be pleasant if the move g5 were to gain a tempo against a Nf6. Therefore this move, which gets rid of the obstruction, prevents the defensive Nf8, and forces Black to keep a knight on f6 ready to be attacked by the advancing pawn. Finding moves like this is necessary if your attack is to keep on rolling!

Finally we must remember to be flexible in attack, if Black had played 12…g6 13.Bxd7 and Bh6 would have followed.

13. … Nxf6 14.g4 Bd6 15.g5 Ne4 16.h5 Qe7

The pawns just keep moving up the board, and Black has yet to move on the queen-side. Note: 16…Nxg5 17.Nxg5 Qxg5 18.Bxh7+ Kf8 19.h6 gxh6 20.Rdg1 and `etc’ say the commentators. After 20…Qf6 21.Rh5 Qe6 22.Rgh1 does look good.

17.Rdg1 a6

r3r1k1/1b2qppp/pp1b4/3p1BPP/2pPn3/2N1PN2/PPQ2P2/2K3RR

This is the crucial point. White has brought all his pieces into optimal places, and the pawns are only a step from the enemy defenses, but how to break through? 18.g6 fxg6 …h6 or 18.h6 g6 will not do. Of course, if the f-g-h pawns were removed, White would be up by two rooks, because the Black rooks cannot shield their king.
Therefore, White is free to sacrifice a piece to prevent any blockade.

18.Bxh7+! Kxh7 19.g6+ Kg8

if 19…fxg6 20.Nxe4 dxe4 21.Ng5+ Kg8 22.Qxc4+ or 21…Kh6 22.Nf7+ Qxf7 23.hxg6+ etc

20.Nxe4 dxe4 21.h6 f6?

Tougher is 21…fxg6 22.Nh4 g5 23.Ng6 Qf6 24.h7+ Kf7 25.h8(Q) Rxh8 26.Nxh8+ Ke7 leaving White to extricate his knight.

A.R. missed 21.Ng5 Bd5 22.gxf7+ Bxf7 23.f3! Bd5 (else 24.fxe4-e4) 24.h6! coupling a central break through with the king-side attack,

e.g. 24…Rac8 25.fxe4 Bxe4 26.h7+ Kh8 27.Qxe4! Qxg5 28.Qxe8+ wins.

22.hxg7 exf3

if 22…Qe6 23.Rh8+ Kxg7 24.Rh7+ and Rgh1 will force ‘mate.

23.Rh8+ Kxg7 24.Rh7+ Kg8 25.Qf5 c3

if 25…Qe6 26.Qh5

26.Rxe7 1-0

as 26…Rxe7 27.Qxf6 and Rh1 ‘mates.

Game 5 : A Clash of Titans

A.R. vs J.R. Capablanca, San Sebastian 1911, Tarrasch Defense.

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5 3.c4 e6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.g3
Black’s opening was held by Tarrasch: `to be the best, although I must add that I am almost completely alone in holding that opinion. It is based upon the undeniably correct idea that in the Queen’s Gambit …c5 is the freeing move for Black, and must therefore be made as soon as possible. With this defense Black gets a fine free game for his pieces, at the cost of isolating his Queen’s Pawn’.

And for those who worry about that `cost’? `He who fears an isolated Queen’s Pawn should give up chess’. (Tarrasch referred to this debate as Tarrasch contra mundum).

A.R.’s enduring contribution was a plan involving a fianchetto of the king’s bishop, bringing it to bear on the pawn at d5. This simple scheme was used by Karpov to defeat Kasparov twice in 1985.

6. … Be6

Capablanca used this line against Marshall in 1909, winning his `most accurate game’, but 6…Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.O-O O-O is preferable.

7.Bg2 Be7 8.O-O Rc8 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.Ng5!

White can begin an attack while Black still lacks two moves for castling. Notice that the initiative is used to make the most of a development edge.

10. … Nf6 11.Nxe6 fxe6 12.Bh3

Again, the mobile bishop – h3-c8 is now the crucial light diagonal.

12. … Qe7 13.Bg5 O-O

Black has finally caught up in development, but A.R. has been preparing his middle game plans – watch the board explode!

14.Bxf6 Qxf6 15.Nxd5!

2r2rk1/pp4pp/2n1pq2/2bN4/8/6PB/PP2PP1P/R2Q1RK1

15. … Qh6
Of course, 15…exd5 16.Qxd5+ and Bxc8 or 15…Bxf2+ 16.Kg2 Qh6 17.Nf4 and 18.Bxe6+xc8 win quickly for White. Instead Capablanca puts another piece under attack, and prepares to pin the knight: who’s winning?

16.Kg2 Rcd8 17.Qc1!!

A.R. of course! 17…Rxd5 fails to 18.Qxh6 and 19.Bxe6+, so White wins at least a pawn.

17. … exd5 18.Qxc5 Qd2 19.Qb5 Nd4 20.Qd3 Qxd3 21.exd3 Rfe8

3rr1k1/pp4pp/8/3p4/3n4/3P2PB/PP3PKP/R4R2

22.Bg4
Black’s better development make White’s win hard work, at best. 22.Rae1 Nc2 23.Rxe8+ Rxe8 leaves both Nb4 and Ne1+xd3 threatened. White must work up something with his rooks, and try to dislodge that knight on d4. Both players are legends in the endgame, and the following moves unfold an epic battle.

22. … Rd6 23.Rfe1 Rxe1 24.Rxe1 Rb6 25.Re5!

Rooks must be active. 25.b3 Ra6 and 25.Rb1 would be deplorably passive.

25. … Rxb2 26.Rxd5 Nc6

as 26…Nb5 27.Rd8+ Kf7 28.Rd7+xb7 loses and 26..Nc2 leaves the knight out of the game. Now watch the White pieces jockeying for the best places: the rook to attack the pawns on the 7th rank, the bishop to cover the a2 pawn, not forgetting to drive the defending king away!

27.Be6+ Kf8 28.Rf5+ Ke8

if 28…Ke7 29.Bc4 with Rf7 to come.

29.Bf7+ Kd7

The king must come forward now to gain counterplay.

30.Bc4 a6

To prevent Rb5 swapping the rooks, and now White is free to gain some pawns.

31.Rf7+ Kd6 32.Rxg7 b5 33.Bg8 a5 34.Rxh7 a4 35.h4 b4 36.Rh6+

The Black pawns are beginning to look worrying, and White must take counter measures.

36. … Kc5 37.Rh5+ Kb6 38.Bd5? b3?

Missing the chance to play 38…Rxa2! as 39.Bxa2 b3 40.Bxb3 axb3 will queen the pawn, but 39.Bc4 Rc2 40.Rb5+ Kc7 41.Bg8 is still winning.

On White’s side a better line was 38.Bc4 b3 39.Rb5+ Kc7 40.Bxb3 axb3 41.axb3 winning comfortably.

We now get a finely calculated finish.

39.axb3! a3 40.Bxc6! Rxb3

if 40…a2 41.Rb5+ Ka6 42.Rb8

41.Bd5 a2 42.Rh6+ 1-0

because 42…Ka5/a7 43.Rh8-a8, or if 42…Kb5 43.Bc4+ and Ra6.

Play-through games

Winning a drawn endgame

Posted on by

Two observations:

1.

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

Blackmore – Isaac (116) (3), 1995

Black to move
Move chosen: draw agreed

Better move(s): 33…c4

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

2.

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

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

Can we become more like Capablanca?

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

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

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

Simplifying but going on the defensive – a needless concession.

[25… Re7]

[25… Rc7 26. Rf3 Qc6]

26. Rxd4 Re7 27. Ra4 Kf7 28. Ra6

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

28… Rce2 29. Rb4

[29. Rf3 R2e6]

29… Rd7 30. Rba4 Ree7 31. g4! h5?

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

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

32. gxh5 gxh5 33. R4a5 Kg6 34. h4

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

[34… Rf7]

35. Rg5+ Kf7 36. Rxh5 Kg7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[6. Qxa7 Qe4+]

6… Kg6 7. Qd3+ f5 8. Qf3

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

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

 

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

 

White is almost lost.
22. Kh1

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

22… Qd5+ 23. Kg1 Rd2

 

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

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

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

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

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

41. b5

[41. Rf1]

41… Qd3 42. Qa2

 

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

43. Qa8+?

This “hopeful check” actually just exposes the Rook.

43…Kh7 44. Rf1 Re7

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

45. Qf3 Qxb5 46. Qf6=

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

46…Qe2 47. Ra1 Qe6! 48. Qd4

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

48… Qe5!? (bluff)

49. Qa4?

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

49… Qd5 50. Rf1?

Passive. [50. Rd1]

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

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

53… Qf5 54. Qa2 h4

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

[54… Rc3 55. Qe2 Rc2]

55. Qd2?

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

55… Qe4 56. Qf2 Rxh3# 0-1

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

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

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

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

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

14… b4 15. Nc4 a5

 

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

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

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

KUFTE – “King Up For The Ending”!

27… Rxd1 28. Rxd1 Rc8

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

[22… Nf1 23. Be2 Nd2 24. Kxf5]

23. Kxf5]

22. Be2 Kf7 23. Kf4 Kf6

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

24. h4 g6

[24… h6 25. h5]

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

 

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

concedes a passed Pawn

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

30. Kxg4 Nxd4

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

32… a5

[32…b6 33. b4 a6

[33… a5 34. bxa5 bxa5 35. a4]

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

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

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

[34… Nd4 35. Bd7 Nxc2 36. g6 Kg8 37.

Be6+ Kh8 38. g7#]

35. Bc8 b6 36. g6 d4

 

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

 

White begins a long King-march
44. Kg5 Ke7

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

45. Kf5 Ng7+ 46. Ke5 Nh5

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

47. Be2 Ng7 48. Kd5 Ne8

[48… Kd7 49. Bg4+]

49. Kc6 Ng7 50. Kb7 Kd6

 

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

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

55. Bf7 Ng7 56. Kb5

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

 

57. a5 Nd6+
[57… bxa5 58. Kxc5]

58. Ka6 bxa5

[58… Nf5 59. axb6+ Kb8 60. Kb5]

59. g7 1-0

 

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

Marshall-Capablanca, 1909

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

“He should have advanced his K-side pawns at once to counterbalance the advance of Black on the Q-side. White’s inactivity on his stronger wing took away all the chances he had of drawing the game.” CAPABLANCA
16…Rab8 17.Qe4 Qc7 18.Rc3 b5 19.a3 c4 20.Bf3 Rfd8 21.Rd1 Rxd1+ 22.Bxd1 Rd8 23.Bf3 g6 24.Qc6 Qe5 25.Qe4 Qxe4 26.Bxe4 Rd1+ {!} 27.Kg2 a5 28.Rc2 b4 29.axb4 axb4 30.Bf3 Rb1 31.Be2 b3 32.Rd2 Rc1 33.Bd1 c3 34.bxc3 b2 35.Rxb2 Rxd1 36.Rc2 Bf5 37.Rb2 Rc1 38.Rb3 Be4+ 39.Kh3 Rc2 40.f4 h5 41.g4 hxg4+ 42.Kxg4 Rxh2 43.Rb4 f5+ 44.Kg3 Re2 45.Rc4 Rxe3+ 46.Kh4 Kg7 47.Rc7+ Kf6 48.Rd7 Bg2 49.Rd6+ Kg7 0-1

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

 

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

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

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

That Rook was fine where it was.

30…d4 31. cxd4 cxd4 32. f3?

Again, merely solid, not active.

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

Chapter typical sacrifices

[EXERCISE:]

 On a bare chessboard, put a knight on a1. How many squares can it move to? Just two. On b1, three. On c1, four. On c2, six. On c3, eight. From this you can see that moving from b1 to c3 in the opening makes the knight more than twice as powerful.

Now, this is part of the argument about control of the centre, and helps explain why development towards the centre is so important. But it is particularly true of knights, because their step is so small. A bishop developed in fianchetto on b2 or g2 can extend its reach to the other side of the board, but a knight on b2 can hardly make it to the half-way line. Knights become much stronger by being moved into the centre, but as a rule are vulnerable to being swapped off or nudged by pawns. An outpost is a square which a knight can occupy , which is either immune from attack (like d5 in the lower diagram) or the opponent would get into other sorts of trouble by getting rid of it (like in the Tal game overleaf). So, one of the key strategical ideas in chess is the knight outpost.

David Norwood describes an exercise given to players in the old USSR where they were given the position in the diagram

and asked:

[EXERCISE:]

 remove pairs of pieces of equal value to White’s advantage.

The solution they were looking for was to remove all the Qs,Rs, and everything else apart from the Kings, one White knight and the Black B on f8. Then White’s knight could go to d5, dominating the board, while Black’s poor bishop couldn’t ever swap it off. It would be a pretty miserable bishop anyhow, which is our next idea – the bad bishop. But this exercise also starts to show you how to plan a game of chess based on the pawn structure: this ‘remove pairs of pieces’ exercise is what you can try and do by exchanging pieces, and this is pretty well what Smyslov does in the illustrative game.

More games:

Castling

Posted on by 
From info!dregis Wed Jan 29 13:41:21 GMT 1997
Article: 16115 of rec.games.chess.misc
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Path: info!dregis
From: dregis@exeter.ac.uk (D.Regis)
Subject: HELP PLEASE: Unusual castlings
Message-ID: 
Organization: University of Exeter, UK.
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 12:31:18 GMT


I'm compiling a piece about castling and found a couple of nice
examples in a book by Pfleger and Treppner.  They gave only positions
and I wondered if anyone has a genuine whole game scores for a game
where we see an example of the trap e.g. 
  1   ...     Rb8xb2?
  2. Qd1xd8+! Ke8xd8
  3. O-O-O+!  winning the Rook.

 (I've seen it done, but don't have a complete score.)

I would be very grateful if someone could post or forward a score for
this. 


-- 
May your pieces harmonise with your Pawn structure and
your sacrifices be sound in all variations

D  _       
 / "()/~   Dave Regis  &8^D*         Exeter Chess Coaching Page etc.:
|| \_/|    = DrDave on BICS       http://www.ex.ac.uk/~dregis/DR/chess.html
~\   /                          "...what else exists in the world but chess?"
 _|||__SHEU ~/sheu.html            -- NABOKOV   "Contribute!" -- Doug Attig
Article 16494 of rec.games.chess.misc:
From: mattg@indirect.com (Matt Guthrie)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Adams wins a rook by playing 0-0-0+
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 13:36:14 UNDEFINED
Organization: his hobbithole
Lines: 56
Message-ID: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: phx-ts8-28.goodnet.com
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev B final beta #1]

Most Americans are probably unaware that Exeter, the home of frequent r.g.c.m 
contributor Dave Regis, is in Devon, the next county over from Cornwall, 
whence sprang GM Michael Adams.  Clearly a conversation such as the following 
must have taken place at some West Country pub in the last few weeks:

Dave: Mikey, I'm putting together a collection of games where one player 
castles long and attacks a rook on b2.  Do you know of any?

Michael: I can't think of any, but I'm off to Linares next week, so I'll see 
what I can do for you.

Dave: Much obliged, old chap.  I've asked on the internet, but haven't got too 
much response.  Have another pint?

Michael:  Don't mind if I do.

As luck would have it, GM Adams did not have to wait long to fulfill his 
promise.  In the very first round he was paired against GM Alexey Dreev, a man 
with a reputation of never having met a b-pawn he didn't like...

[Event "Linares 1997"]
[Site "Linares, Spain"]
[Date "1997.02.04"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Adams"]
[Black "Dreev"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. g3 g6 7. Bg2
Bg7 8. Nxc6 bxc6 9. e5 dxe5 10. Qxd8+ Kxd8 11. Bxc6 Rb8 12. Be3 Rxb2
13. O-O-O+ Kc7 14. Bb5 Rb4 15. a3 Rxb5 16. Nxb5+ Kb7 17. Nxa7 Bf5 18.
Kb2 Ng4 19. Nb5 Rc8 20. Rd2 Ka6 21. a4 e4+ 22. Bd4 Bh6 23. Re2 e5 24.
Ba7 Rc4 25. h3 Nf6 26. Nd6 Rxa4 27. Be3 Bf8 28. Nxf5 Rb4+ 29. Kc1 gxf5
30. c3 Ra4 31. Kb2 Kb5 32. Rd2 Be7 33. Bg5 e3 34. Bxe3 Kc4 35. Ra1
Rxa1 36. Kxa1 Nd5 37. Kb2 Bd8 38. Kc2 Ba5 39. Rd1 h5 40. Bd2 Bb6 41.
Be1 f4 42. Ra1 f3 43. Ra4+ Kc5 44. c4 Nf6 45. Ba5 Nd7 46. Kd3 f5 47.
Bxb6+ Kxb6 48. Ke3 e4 49. Rb4+ Kc6 50. Rb5 Nc5 51. Rb8 Nd7 52. Rh8 Ne5
53. Kd4 Nd3 54. Rxh5
{Black resigned} 1-0

So: Did Dreev simply overlook White's 13th?  Or did he decide that pitching 
the exchange to shatter Adams' Q-side pawns was his best drawing chance?

Clearly for many months Dave Regis has been hiding from us all his major 
influence on the chess world.  He has but to ask, and world-class GMs leap to 
do his bidding!  Dave, can you please ask Kasparov to take up the King's 
Gambit?  Miles to use the Birmingham again?  Fischer to... nah, never mind, 
not even you have that much influence.


		Matt Guthrie


Hark, now hear the sailors cry
Smell the sea and feel the sky
Let your soul and spirit fly into the mystic.   (Thanks, Van)

Lessons from Capablanca

Posted on by

Peter Lane, 22 January 1997

On Studying Master Games – a short digression

Polugayevsky, in the beginning of his book `Grandmaster Performance’, quotes some advice he was given when a young player:

  “If you want to play well, in the first instance study games. Your own and other peoples’. Examine them from the viewpoint of the middlegame and the endgame, and only then from the viewpoint of the opening. This is more important than studying textbooks.”

This advice can be found in many sources, and, as an aspiring player, I am happy to follow it. But how exactly should we “study games”? How to derive the maximum benefit from watching somebody else, given our own knowledge and preferences? A useful start might be the players’ own analysis. However, I find John Nunn opaque at best, Bobby Fischer more teasing than explanatory, and try Capablanca:

[Capablanca-Alekhin, St.Petersburg 1913]
His explanation of 18. Be4 is that it exchanges:

  “the almost useless B for a most valuable Kt. It would take a good many lines to explain this move properly, and then I might not be clearly understood, so I leave the student to work it out by himself“.

Analysis seems more accessible when by the lesser lights: Irving Chernev springs readily to mind, and also writers more involved with teaching, such as Dvoretsky and co. Why is this?

Obviously, the mental makeup of a great player is different to that of a teacher, and their combination is a great rarity. Capablanca’s comment “where you guess, I know” points very clearly at the existence of a gulf in understanding between the average player and the genius. This is all very well, but I still want some guidance on techniques of self-study, especially as printed analysis cannot be all things to all readers.

What we need (any psychologists listening?) is a method to help the individual identify, not only the crucial points of a game, but more those points from which the individual can learn. And this requires a skill at self-evaluation, which the injunction to study your own games is designed to develop. One method I use, with which I invite argument, is derived from a rule in the computer study of intelligence known as Martin’s Law: “You cannot learn anything unless you almost know it already“. In the games below, I have tried to pick out those where it is possible to almost follow what is happening, and it is these where most can be learnt. At each point we must ask: – how does Capablanca assess the features in a position? – how do these features get drawn into a plan for the game?

Janowski

My introduction made the point that we must begin looking at a master’s game when we almost know what is going on, but perhaps we are missing some key feature of the position, or merely uncertain about whether we would make the moves ourselves. My tactic is to work backwards. Take the game above where I have supplied a number of diagrams. Beginning from the opening, we may wonder which of many plans would be most relevant, and despair of finding the answer. Beginning from the end, we should all see the tactics which lead black to resign … so we have our opening into understanding the game. Go back one stage further, and ask whether we understand how to generate the position in which those tactics are playable. As our understanding improves, we can work back further in the game, and begin to see the various elements of strategy leading to the final assault as potentialities out of the opening.

Ragozin

This position, with a clear pawn extra and no worrying counterattack, looks like a trivial win for white, and indeed it should be. But … how many times have such positions ended in draws? The simplicity leaves each move transparent: we do not have to worry about the `why’ of each move, only the `how do we think of it in the first place’. Have you seen the long detailed plans Alekhin gives of some of his endgames (the one against Znosko-Borovsky, Paris 1933 is a case in point)? Ever wondered what happens to the plan if the opponent deviates slightly? What is actually needed is something simpler, confined to the concerns of the present position, and with sufficient flexibility to allow for change. Capablanca has the following to say about this position:

“White’s plan is to prevent the advance of the c-pawn (after which the b-pawn could become weak) and to control the entire board up to the fifth rank. This is achieved by moving the king to e3, and by placing the rook at c3, the knight at d4, and the pawns at b4 and f4. After he has attained such a position, White will be able to advance his Q- side pawns“.

This is what is known as endgame technique, and involves thinking schematically: a concrete assessment of the position, a desired piece configuration, and no variations. I give the sequel in brief. The point is to watch the improvement in piece position – once the pieces are superior, the pawns can move up.

Villegas

Allies

Zugzwang! vs Marshall

Conclusion

To finish off, a few points on Capablanca’s style. First, rather like Tal, he was no opening theoretician. A number of standard Ruy Lopez or Queen’s Gambit Declined positions, but otherwise he plays out of the book fairly quickly. For this reason, his games make good patterns for club players after sound openings, with a minimum of theory. For example, take his game against Tartakover, New York 1924 (yes, with the famous Rook ending!), for a simple and direct way of playing against the Dutch.

Second, there is a good reason why he is known as an endgame expert: a fine feel for piece coordination and clarity in achieving positional objectives are both brought out most starkly when material is reduced. Finally, thinking in small schemes, and making controlled progress towards a goal, but never afraid of the tactical resolution.

Further reading

Capablanca, R.J. My Chess Career (Try the new algebraic edition, which I believe will expand on the analysis, to make it more informative.)

Chernev, I. Capablanca’s Best Chess Endings

The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played

Cozens, W.H. Lessons in Chess Strategy (An excellent introduction to long-term planning.)

Shereshevsky, M.I. Endgame Strategy (One to read after Capablanca’s Best Chess Endings. The best way to learn how to handle the pieces!)

The Chess Scene

Posted on by

Chess Scene – The Chess E-Zine for the Amateur<br /> Player

[painstakingly recreated by Dave Regis]

News, Views and Gossip

This section of Chess Scene is intended to provide a forum for news
about Chess Clubs around the world, amateur events and the progress
of us merely mortal chess players towards immortal heights!

  […]

Gene Thompson’s Search For Great Chess, Part V

[…]

“In Part V of his series Gene Thompson explores an
interesting hypothesis on why amateurs ‘Force The Issue’. It’s one
of his best articles which certainly rings true with me. Is there a
moral? Well, perhaps it is: play for a positional advantage and the
tactics will look after themselves. “
Alex
Bellinger.

 Hello from sunny Seattle!

 Things are going well here; the Sonics are cleaning up in
the NBA playoffs, the Mariners have slipped a little, but are still
doing great, and my chess is coming along slowly but surely! Yeah,
it’s a little cocky placing my talent along side their’s, but what
the heck, it’s my article! 🙂

 Today’s topic is … “Forcing The Issue.”

 I am involved with an e-mail chess match with a gentleman
who wrote me in response to these articles. Among the many things
we have discussed (long chained monomers, Polymer chemistry, and
chess sets), the most disheartening issue was our failure to play
as well as we feel we should.

 In his case, one of his regular opponents can beat him
despite having not studied chess at all. This opponent is an
intelligent individual, but so is my friend (he’s the Polymer
Chemist, not me!). My friend is studying the correct chess
literature: Nimzovitch, Evan’s and the like. But, he still finds it
difficult to hold his own! What could be his problem?!?

 My case is similar. I’ve been studying good(?) books:
Yasser Seirawan’s series, and Mike Basman’s openings book. But, I
find it difficult, actually impossible, to beat programs I once
did. What is going on here?

 Well, a couple of nights ago, it came to me. I had just
been beaten by CM3000 again, and was I in a nasty mood. My wife
asked if it was doing any good whining about the loss. No, but I
wanted to anyway. When I calmed down, I thought about how I played
the game. I didn’t. Once I got past the opening, I just started
moving pieces more or less randomly! I was looking for a position
that contained a tactical solution, but not really doing anything
to create one. The computer wasn’t forcing the issue, just beating
me with my own moves. Hmmm.

 Here is my hypothesis: My friend and I are both afflicted
with the same problem, FTI – Forcing The Issue. We have spent so
much effort learning tactics from setup positions, that once we are
in a real game, we try to apply our lessons to positions that don’t
warrant it. Subconsciously, we believe that every position has some
stunning combination in it that will allow us to win. When we look
for it, if it’s not there (most often the case), we try to force
one, causing a lost game.

 When I was in college, I loved to rockclimb. The school
was perfect for it. All the buildings were of rough-cut stone, so I
could practice anytime I wanted (well, almost). I got so used to
blowing through a few technical moves and finishing a “route,” that
when I got on real rock I was totally lost. The basics just weren’t
a part of my climbing. I could always (according to MY memory)
cruise through the crux (the hardest, most technical part of the
climb) but would usually blow it navigating the main route. I think
I’m seeing a connection here.

  Studying tactics in setup positions is a VERY necessary
part of learning chess, but, knowing when to apply tactical
knowledge is, at this point in my education, to me even more
important. My friend’s opponent instinctively makes “better” moves
because my friend is making weaker moves, and so am I. Given a
setup position, he would most likely find the solution much faster
than his opponent. In a general position, we would both likely find
a combination that wasn’t there.

 So, after all of this babble, what is the solution? Play
more chess, learn to read a position for tactical possibilities,
and let them happen (hopefully to your opponent). Easier said than
done, n’est-ce pas?

 Have a good one & GO SONICS!!!!

 Gene
gthompson@pin-corp.com