Category Archives: Level

Practical tactics

Posted on by

Introduction

“It is a mistake to think that combination is solely a matter of talent, and that it cannot be acquired”
— RETI
[Concidentally this document was followed by a useful UseNet post by NM Dan Scoones.]

The way it works is this:
My mum and dad taught me how to play chess, and when I was about 9 I went to the school chess club. I sat down to play a small boy, took the Black pieces and was mated in four moves (Scholar’s Mate). To the best of my recollection I have never fallen for it since, and while I can’t ever remember perpetrating that particular sequence on anyone else, I have delivered mate on f7 a number of times.

Learning and applying tactics is just that: you learn to recognise a pattern, you see it coming if someone tries it on you, and you can apply it in similar positions in your own games. In fact, once you know the patterns, a lot of the calculation comes pretty easily.

“Those chess lovers who ask me how many moves I usually calculate in advance, when making a combination, are always astonished when I reply, quite truthfully, ‘as a rule not a single one’ ”
— Richard RETI.

It used to be thought – perhaps because of statements like this, and a little early psychological research – that there wasn’t much difference in the abilities of strong and weak players at analysis: rather, it was all about judgement and experience. There might not be a lot of difference between GMs and IMs, but there is increasing evidence that among we club players, there are large and important differences [see Simon Webb’s panel tests]. So, the patterns and judgements are important, but you must also train yourself to analyse. Sir Peter Medawar once remarked, rather testily:

 

“the spread of secondary and latterly of tertiary education has created a large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytic thought”.
[A sentiment to be found in his splendid demolition of Teilhard de Chardin’s The Phenomenon of Man, first printed in Mind, then collected in The Art of the Soluble]
No less a tribute may be paid to the editors at Batsford and Cadogan and Chess Digest: there is a population of chessplayers who know about mysterious Rook moves, Super-Quart Grips, the Inverse Phalanx, and the latest wrinkles in the Sicilian, but who cannot reliably spot three-move tactics or win a Rook Ending. This piece is dedicated to the first of these failings.

The elements of combination

A combination is a forcing sequence, often involving a temporary sacrifice, which results in an advantage – checkmate, win of material or a winning positional bind.
Here’s a nice example, which I think is not out of most players’ reach: have a go at solving it (White to move and win) before reading on.

Becker-Jung, Eberstadt-Bensheim, 1948
(wKh1,Qc3,Ne2,e3,Bd3,Ra1,f2,Pa2,b2,c4,e5,f4,g3,h2; bKf7,Qd7,Nc6,g6,Bh3,Ra8,h8,Pa7,b7,c7,d6,f6,g7,h5)

 

The different combinational themes are often called motifs.

The theme or motif of this combination is the fork. There is almost no way you can find the combination in this position if you have not seen this pattern before.

First, we examine the position for pointers. The Black pieces are not very well coordinated, and the Black King and Queen seem almost in reach – for example, if we had protection for e6, we could think about e5-e6+ winning the Queen. In fact, f4-f5 provides that protection, so 1. f5 (Knight moves) 2. e6+ looks excellent, except that Knight moves 1…Ng6xe5, but it starts to look as though we might be on for something here.

More details: we can, by Bxg6+, bring the Black King a little closer, and check it by f4-f5. In fact, we can check it immediately by e5-e6. Maybe some combination of these ideas might allow us to lure Black pieces to e6 and g6, and fork them by f4-f5.

So, this fork becomes the idea of our combination.

Next, the combination must now be calculated and the correct move order sorted out.

We might try 1. Bxg6+ Kxg6 2. e6 when if Black takes it 2…Qxe6, we win with 3. f5+, but Black can safely sidestep with 2…Qe7.

Purdy coined the splendid term smite: you must learn to examine smiting moves, checks and captures. These are the most forcing and the key to starting most combinations. With this in mind we can reconsider our combination:
the starting move 1. e6+ is perhaps surprising, but once we consider the move at all we can see that is it very forcing, and after 1…Kxe6 or 1…Bxe6 we can play 2. f5(+) winning a piece.
So, Black seems obliged to play 1. e6+ Qxe6. Now again, 2. f5 fails to 2…Qxe3. Humph.
The forcing sequence 2. Bxg6+ Kxg6 3. f5+ Bxf5 seems almost to fizzle out, but then (aha!) 4. Nf4+ forks King and Queen. Missed anything? No, all looks OK, so, Black has to lose a piece, probably by 1…Bxe6 when a couple of Pawns will be partial compensation.

So, the elements of a combination are motif, idea, and calculation. You don’t really change gear from one to the other when trying to come up with a combination in practice, but you do need to work on each separately if you are to improve.

How did your attempt match up to my account of the solution? Missed the idea? Missed a defence? Muddled the move order? Hopefully what I describe below can improve your performance in each aspect. Even if that one seemed totally beyond you I’ll at least show you how such a standard can be approached.

“A thorough understanding of the typical mating combinations makes the most complicated sacrificial combinations leading up to them not only not difficult, but almost a matter of course.”
— TARRASCH

You must know all these motifs:

K – knight forks
L – last rank
M – mating pattern
N – network nobbled (Nterference)
O – overloading
P – pins
Q – queening
R – retreat
S – sacrifice at castle gates
T – two for the price of one [double attack]
U – undermining (removing the guard)
U2 – unmasking (discovery)
V – vulnerable f7
W – weakening King’s-side
X – X-ray (skewer)
[And there are others, I’m sure].
Once you are aware of these motifs you can apply them in your own games. See also Combinational vision below.

“The technician, whose vocabulary has been doubled by Dr. Euwe, will find that White could have saved his soul by a desperado combination. Had this failure anything to do with the fact that Dr. Euwe’s terminology was not yet existent at that time!?”
— Reinfeld, to Thomas-Euwe, Carlsbad 1929.

Sight of the board

By which I mean, how deep can you analyse without losing track? The ability to play a game blindfold isn’t that good a guide – I can remember a game where both players couldn’t “see” that they could play Qa5xQh5 (or Qh5xQa5) for free! Playing a game blindfold against a computer is a test, though, and so is solving problems without moving the pieces. On a good day I can do six-move problems. I’m aiming at seven/eight. (But why do I still make one-move blunders? See below!)
You can get this far solving positions one move deep, two moves deep, three moves, four moves, five moves and six moves deep. They are all knight forks, if you want a hint, although other motifs may make an appearance.

knight fork combination (1), one move deep, 1997
(wKe3,Nd5,Rc4,Pf4; bKe8,Nd7,Ra8,Pb6)

1. Nc7+:

if you can’t spot that one, don’t read on!

KFC (2) chernev/reinfeld, 1949
(wKg1,Qa4,Ng3,Pf2; bKg7,Qg4,Nd4)

1. Qxd4+ Qxd4 2. Nf5+ 1-0

This ‘decoy’ of the Queen onto a forking square is very common in combinations with a Knight Fork motif.

KFC (3), c/r, 1949
(wKg1,Qd3,Nf4,Ra1,f1,Pa2,b2,c2,d4,g3,h4; bKg8,Qe7,Nc6,e4,Bd7,Rc8,Pa7,b7,c7,d6,g4,h7)

1. Nd5 is an obvious first move for a tactic, and forcing because the Black Knight is loose; once considered, you should be able to wrap it up:

1. Nd5 Qe6 2. Qxe4 Qxe4 3. Nf6+ 1-0

Black has better moves than 2…Qxe4, but if Black cannot recapture on e4, White wins a piece.

KFC (4) zukertort – englisch, london, 1883
(wKg2,Qb3,Nd5,Pc7,f3,g3,h2; bKe8,Qc6,Ne6,Pa7,f6,g7,h6)

You’ve had your hint! It’s a matter of nudging the Black pieces onto the right squares, which White can do neatly:

1. Qb5 Qxb5 2. c8=Q+ Kf7 3. Qxe6+ Kxe6 4. Nc7+ Kd7 5. Nxb5 1-0

KFC (5) kofman-sakketi, corr., 1948
(wKh1,Nc4,Rd1,e1,Pa2,b2,h3; bKc8,Qg3,Bd4,Pa7,b7,c7,f7,h7)

White actually resigned here, but…

1. Re8+ Kd7 2. Re3 Qg7 3. Rxd4+ Qxd4 4. Rd3 Qxd3 5. Ne5+ 1-0

Remember, this was a correspondence game, so time wasn’t the issue – despair was.

KFC (6) schlechter-mieses, st.petersburg, 1909
(wKg1,Qc4,Nd1,e2,Rc1,f3,Pa3,b2,d4,e5,g2,h2; bKc8,Qg5,Ng4,Bd6,Rd7,h8,Pa7,b7,c7,e6,f7,g7,h7)

Deep breath:

1… Bxe5 2. dxe5 Qh4 3. Rg3 Qxh2+ 4. Kf1 Rxd1+ 5. Rxd1 Qxg3 6. Nxg3 Ne3+

with an easily winning endgame, so 0-1.

Can you see the continuation after, say , 3. g2-g3, or other alternatives?

[3.Nf2 Qxh2+ 4.Kf1 Nxe5 5.Qc5 Nxf3 6.gxf3 -+;
3.h3 Qe1+ 4.Rf1 Qxf1+ 5.Kxf1 Rxd1+ 6.Rxd1 Ne3+ -+]

The other resource, besides these tactical problems, is simple chess studies: at their best they can make you pay close attention to the geometry of the board, like this one:

chekhover, QN v Q, 1996
(wKa1,Qh1,Nf3; bKe4,Qb8)

 

1. Ng5 is a very vigorous double-check, but the key is:

1. Ne5+

In an actual game, you just play this straight away as the best winning attempt because there are so many ways for Black to go wrong. But for practice, can you follow it to the finish? These open-field combinations can be hard to keep track of, because of the apparently great number of choices at each turn.

1… Ke3

[1…. Kf4 2. Qf3+ Kg5 3. Qg4+ Kh6 4. Qg6#]
[1… Kf5 2. Qh3+ Ke4
or [2… Kg5 3. Qg4+]
3. Qf3+ Kd4 4. Nc6+]

2. Qe1+ Kf4 3. Qf2+ Kg5 4. Qg3+ Kf5 5. Qg4+ Kxe5 6. Qg3+ Kf5 7. Qxb8 1-0

Combinational vision

Combinational vision is a product of experience and imagination, both of which broaden the chess mind.

Experience:

Once you have seen something, you might be able to implement an analogous idea in your own games. This is more than knowing the motifs; I mean you should continue to broaden your experience of combinations by examining new examples. An example from my own modest practice: I have known about knight forks for ages (ever since I kept finding them arriving on c7, checking and forking Ke8/Ra1). But once I had seen the famous finish of a Petrosian-Spassky game (see the entry for Petrosian in the Style section of Canon), I could see the same thing going on in my own game.

This rather reminds me of the old psychological tests based on embedded figures; finding combinations seems a bit like that.

Imagination:

I used to think that the creative imagination was something mysterious and intangible, which could neither be described nor trained. While there may always be something elusive about artistic creation, some thinking by people like Liam Hudson and Daniel Dennett gave me some cause to hope. Creativity is not a simple product of unfathomable inspiration, but a result of firstly, generating lots of (mostly junky) ideas, and then weeding them out to discover the ones that work. If this is true of the expressive arts, then it surely also applies to chess, where the ideas have such concrete prompts on the board, and the selection of the ideas that work can be put to the simple test of analysis.

Put simply, this suggests that someone like Tal can come up with great ideas because they come up with loads of ideas, good, bad and indifferent, and then can select the great one. The problem with most of us is not that we are failing to come up with enough good ideas, but we are failing to come up with enough ideas, full stop. Our ability to spot combinations is limited by our tunnel vision, considering only a few moves of a stereotyped nature, and not having the habit of looking at every thing once, no matter how foolish at first sight. Developing imagination, then, is not a matter of learning how to do something terribly magical, but to some extent involves putting aside what you think you know (retreating pieces is bad, putting your Queen en prise is bad) and considering moves that only very good players – or very bad players! – look at.

Varieties of error

The way it is supposed to work is:

A tactic appears for you: you get it right.

But we also see:

A tactic appears for you: you miss it.
A tactic appears for your opponent: you miss it.
A tactic appears for you: you see it but analyse it wrongly.
A tactic appears for you: you see it and analyse it correctly, but wrongly assess the outcome.
A tactic appears for you: you see it and analyse it correctly, but stop analysis too soon.

A tactic appears for you: you get it right.

The idea is easy, but can you analyse it to a finish?

Regis,D – Lane,P (1994)

13. Bxe6 fxe6 14. Qh5+ Kf8 15. Bh6+ Rg7 16. Ng5 Qe8 17. Nh7+ 1-0

Ah, if only it was all like that…

A tactic appears for you: you miss it.

Regis,D. – Aston,P (1994)

21. Qe8+??

[21. Qe6 Qd8 22. c6 or even 21. Rxd7 Kxd7 22.Rd1]

…1-0

Patzer sees a check… It didn’t affect the outcome in the end but White had to start all over again to build up another combination.

A tactic appears for your opponent: you miss it.

Oh, how many times… asleep, overconfident or confused, we ignore our opponent’s best reply.

Regis,D – Stirling,A (1984)

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. c4 Nb6 4. c5 Nd5 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nc3 Nf4

7. Qg4?? Qh4 …0-1

There are lots of opening traps like that: White bites off more than he can chew.

A tactic appears for you: you see it but analyse it wrongly.

Regis,D. -Stooks, Charles (1993)

19. Nef4?

( yes, very good but unfortunately 19…exf4; 20 Rxf4, g5! gets at least a draw! 20 Nxf4 also fails to 20…g5 )

19… Nc6??

[19… Qb7]

20. Nh3 Qg4 21. Ng5 1-0

Simple over-optimism: I didn’t consider 20…g5.

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

Ward,D – Regis,D (1994)

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

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

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

The tactic was obvious enough, what I failed to assess was how good White’s pieces would be in the ending.

A tactic appears for you: you see it and analyse it correctly, but stop analysis too soon.

Wilcox, RJ (1830) – Regis, D (1945) (3) [B06] Paignton Challengers, 1996

I though I could wrap things up here: 28… Nxe4?! was an obvious first choice, trying to win a Pawn. Does it win a Pawn? Oh no, because White swaps on e4 then goes Nxc4. No, I was right, it does win a Pawn, because when the Queen comes to e4 I’ve always got both …Bxh3 and …Bxa4. So…

28… Nxe4?!
[28… Qc7! wins, I think]
29. Bxe4 Qxe4 30. Nxc4

And of course I realised here I’d blown it:30… Bxa4? 31. Nd6!

This is very common: stopping analysis at the end of a sequence favourable to you. But after that, it’s your opponent’s move!

As we start to comment more deeply on these examples, we see two sources of error: mistakes or bad habits in analysis, on the one hand, but also misjudgements on the other – errors in the general assessment of the board or the opponent. It is just the first of these I am concerned with here; else we are raising another big issue about attitude.

Getting your mind right

I don’t know any exercises to improve your mental attitude, but awareness – particularly self-awareness – is important in eliminating all sources of error, not just tactical ones. I have written and collected material elsewhere about getting your mental attitude right: there are examples (good and bad) in the Psychology section of the Canon, there is some good advice on a Poster for Juniors, and in a compilation of Advice for the middlegame. However, in this document on tactics I’ll mention the issue of attitude in this aside, and return to the matter at hand.

Combinations do not usually come out of nowhere – they are based on a superiority in position, and you can tell when a combination is likely to be around:

  • Exposed or “stalemated” Kings are always vulnerable
  • Undefended or ‘hanging’ pieces often lead to trouble.

Pieces which are defended only as often as they are attacked can also lead to trouble, because their defenders are at least partly immobilised..
This last category can be hardest to spot, because it is so common. There is some sense in which, as Lasker described, there should be some justice in chess – have you done enough, to deserve to win? that is, have you a big enough advantage? This is to some extent a matter of judgement, but if you feel you have a good advantage in space or mobility, then you should look:

“No combination without a considerable plus, no considerable plus without a combination […]
In the beginning of the game ignore the search for combinations, abstain from violent moves, aim for small advantages, accumulate them, and only after having attained these ends search for the combination – and then with all the power and will of intellect, because the combination must exist, however deeply hidden.”
— LASKER.

I like this quote, but it has to be said that while there are ‘just’ and logical combinations where you (say) carry out a combination based on a campaign against the long-term weakness of a Pawn, there are also ‘accidental’ combinations which seem to be based on nothing but the chance arrangement of pieces, and there are also traps – so diligence in searching for tactics is required at almost every move.

you must routinely check all positions for tactical opportunities
you must think for your opponent as well as yourself
How can you make sure that you get better at this? Determination alone may not be enough: we need a bit more theory, and practice.

Candidate moves

The first bit of theory is the search for candidate moves; I also owe my appreciation of the idea of candidate moves to Kotov.

“All candidate moves should be identified at once and listed in one’s head. This job cannot be done piecemeal, by first examining one move and then look at another.”
— ALEXANDER KOTOV

The idea is, to make sure you don’t overlook some vital idea at the start of analysis.

Varley – Hewson, WECU Jamboree [B18], 1993

Black has a restricted position and is behind in ‘development’ (=getting his pieces out) but his pawn structure is very solid. Can Black get away with this, or can White show the flaw in Black’s move order by the sacrifice Bxe6? What do you think?

11. Bxe6

An enterprising sacrifice! White hopes to catch Black’s King in the centre.

11… O-O!

Unflappable Exeter player Brian Hewson calmly sidesteps the main line of a sacrifice (11…fxe6) threatening a pin on the e-file.

12. O-O Bxf4 13. Bxf4 fxe6 14. Qxe6+ Kh8 …

and Black consolidated and won. [0-1]

It is often the case that players will analyse one line very deeply but fail to spot an early alternative – as mentioned above, Grandmaster Kotov advised many years ago to identify each candidate move at the outset before analysing any one move deeply. Had White done this he could not fail to notice the possibility of Black castling, and should then spot the classic pattern of Q and K lined up on the e-file which suggests a pin from a Black R on e8, and could not fail to realise that it refuted the sac.

There is another example or two illustrating the ‘candidate move’ idea from Simon Webb’s panel tests, and the commentary on Nunn’s games in the Analysis section of the Canon.

There are certain sorts of moves which are easy to spot (or train yourself to spot: like checks, captures, and so on. There are also certain classes of move which are difficult to make yourself consider – here are a few surprising/paradoxical moves. You should (a) make sure you know these models, (b) collect and review other examples, (c) see if there are either types of moves which you or somebody else found difficult to anticipate.

Retreats

Christiansen – Karpov (1993)

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.a3 Ba6 5.Qc2 Bb7 6.Nc3 c5 7.e4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Nc6 9.Nxc6 Bxc6 10.Bf4 Nh5 11.Be3 Bd6 (wait for it…)

12.Qd1 1-0

The error made by Karpov above is actually a common one – missing an undeveloping retreat.

Other errors of this sort – hard types of move to spot – include long moves, sideways moves by Queens, captures by Pawns away from the centre, and so on. Another example:

Putting pieces en prise

Fischer – Sherwin, USA Ch’p , 1957

30. Rxf7 Rc1+ 31. Qf1!! h5 32. Qxc1 Qh4 33. Rxf8+ Kh7 34. h3 Qg3 35. hxg4 h4 36. Be6 1-0

How about that one: a Queen moving backwards into a position where it can be captured!

‘Silent’ sacrifices

You can get so used to looking for ‘smiting’ moves that apparently non-forcing, ‘quiet’ sacrifices can be surprising:

Fischer,R – Benko,P, ch-USA, 1963

Obviously, there is a mating attempt at h7 but

[19. e5 f5 20. Qxe8 Nxe8 21. Ne2 Bxe5 22. Rxf5 Bf6= ]

19. Rf6!

This is what I mean: a silent sacrifice of the Rook, which actually leaves Black helpless. Chess may not be an art, but moves like this have a strong aesthetic effect, at least for me – I like the apparent subtlety of the sacrifice without a check or capture, and I like the drama of giving Black an apparently free move for the defence – which he cannot make use of.

19… Kg8

[19… h6 20. e5 [20. Rxh6++- ] 20… Kg8+- ]

20. e5 h6 21. Ne2 1-0

‘Creeping moves’

I keep alluding to Purdy’s advice:
“examine moves that smite!”

But have a look at this:

Spassky – Korchnoi, Kiev, 1968

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f3 O-O 6. Be3 Nc6 7. Nge2 a6 8. Nc1 e5 9. d5 Nd4 10. Nb3 Nxb3 11. Qxb3 c5 12. dxc6 bxc6 13. O-O-O Be6 14. Qa3 Ne8 15. h4 f6 16. c5 Rf7 17. Qa4 Qc7 18. Bc4 Bxc4 19. Qxc4 Bf8 20. h5 dxc5 21. hxg6 hxg6 22. Qe6 Rd8 23. Rxd8 Qxd8 24. Rd1 Qe7 25. Qxc6 Nc7 DIAGRAM

The situation in this Candidates’ Match game is tense. Although White undoubtedly holds the advantage, Moscow players analysing while the game was going on could find no clear continuation, e.g. 26. Nd5 Qe6! and Black holds.

26. Qb6!

Surprising and elegant, this ‘creeping move’ impressed many, including Kotov who has cited it more than once. The move prepares to answer …Qe6 with Bxc5 and leads to a swift win. To Kotov, this was a far more brilliant move than the Queen sacrifice that ended the game.

26… Kg7 27. Nd5 Qe6 28. Bxc5 Bxc5 29. Qxc5 Nb5 30. Qe3 Qc6+ 31. Kb1 Nd4 32. Rc1 Qb5 33. Nc7 Qe2 34. Ne6+ Kh7 35. Qh6+ 1-0

It’s hardest of all to spot a ‘creeping’ move in the middle of a combinational exchange. Here is a simple example:

Wahltuch – Palmer, Manchester, 1912

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O Nxe4 5. d4 Nd6 (Berlin Defence, Rio De Janiero Variation) 6. dxe5 [6. Bxc6] 6… Nxb5 7. a4

 

This is a gorgeously messy line

7… Nd6

[better 7… d6]

8. Bg5 f6 9. Re1 fxg5 10. exd6+ Ne7 11. Ne5 cxd6 12. Qh5+ g6 13. Nxg6 Qa5 14. Nxh8+ Kd8

Have a look at the next diagram and see what you think.

15. Nc3

[Obviously not 15. Qf7 Qxe1#]

It is tempting to try a forcing move, but none work.

“A quiet move in the midst of an attack is the sign of the master” – Du Mont

15… Qf5 (else Qf7) 16. Nb5 Ng6 17. Qxg5+ 1-0

The calculation of variations

The starting point for any consideration of analysis must be Kotov, again.

Candidate moves must be established straight away and they must be clearly enumerated.
Once we have established all the candidate moves, we then proceed to work out the variations arising from them one by one.
In analysing complicated variations, one must examine each branch of the tree once and once only.
This task cannot be split into parts, by examining one move fully and then looking for the next one.

Kotov gives some example of positions where the analysis gets progressively more detailed: The ‘tree of analysis’

[Kotov's shrubbery]
[Kotov’s shrubbery]
Through practice, I would have thought anyone could master the art of analysing “bare trunks” and “trunk-with-branch” – what is required here is the ability to visualise the board several moves ahead.
Also, I think also the “coppice” type of position is not out of most players’ reach. What is required here is organisation – to list the moves required at the outset, and to work through them methodically.

What is most challenging is the type of position which is genuinely complex, like the “bush”, when it is difficult for most of us to analyse everything relevant. Are they any hints or tips for making best use of the time we have, while our analytical skills are still developing? Yes indeed: we have advice from de Groot, from Nunn/Griffiths, and from Nimzovitch.

The chess master and psychologist De Groot, in commenting on transcriptions of players’ verbal reflections, used to talk about ‘progressive deepening’. If this strategy is to be adoted in must not resemble the feckless meandering described so amusingly by Kotov in his book Think Like a GM, switching dissatisfied from one move to another until you run out of time. However it has often seemed to me that rather than work six moves deep down line “A”, then six moves each down line “B”, it might be better to look (say) two moves deep in each of lines A-G, then go back to “A” and go four moves deep this time, and so on. It may be that you find the key to the position earlier than you would have done by a strictly sequential approach, and in any event, ideas which may be obvious from one line of analysis may come in handy when analysing other lines, where the same idea is not so obvious. There is an example illustrating the idea of ‘progressive deepening’ from Simon Webb’s panel tests. Given a list of candidate moves, which lines do you start with? Purdy again: start with the most forcing moves. But if none look any better than the others?

Nunn and Griffiths advise: “Just plunge in”; take a look at this one, where “Black has a decisive attack” but there is no forced mate.

Corden – Nunn, Birmingham 1975 [Variation]

The first move to look at must be

15. Ba4 Nd2+ 16. Kc3 Qe3+ 17. Kb4 a5#

…”and straightaway you have learned a lot about the position”.
That is, you can regain at least one piece whenever you wish, still keeping the K exposed. After this you can work your way methodically through the other lines, with the conclusions from your quick first assessment already in mind.

Sometime you can divert the task of analysis: play a good positional move relatively quickly.

nimzovitch – tartakower (karlsbad) [E81], 1929

[15. Bxf6 Bxf6 (Nimzo analysed briefly:) 16. Qh6 Bg7 17. Qxh5 h6 18. g5 f5 “now it is necessary to analyse several variations which are roughly equally good:” e.g. 19. gxf6 [or 19. gxh6] 19… Rxf6 20. Bh3]

“all of this is extremely complicated and therefore I played after no more than five minutes’ thought”…

15. Bxf6!
15… Bxf6 16. Rxh5 Bg7 17. Nh1

There followed:

17… f6 18. Qh2 h6 19. Ng3 Kh7 20. Be2 Rg8 21. Kf2 Rh8 22. Rh4 Qe8 23. Rg1 Bf8 24. Kg2 Nb7 25. Nh5

“with a strong solid game and chances of attack” – NIMZO […1-0]

However, sometimes there is no such resource, and you must simply work your way through the variations as best you can.

Good practice

So much for theory. How do you put this into practice? Well, you practice! We must cultivate good habits in our analysis.

“Let us repeat once more the methods by which we can increase our combinative skill:
“(1) by careful examination of the different types and by a clear understanding of their motives and their premises
“(2) By memorising a number of outstanding as well as of common examples and solutions
“(3) Frequent repetition (in thought, if possible) of important combinations, so as to develop the imagination.”

— Euwe, Strategy and Tactics in Chess.

Since Euwe wrote, some other methods have become more available.

Gaining practice and experience through tests:

You have probably seen either the British Chess Magazine column Find the Winning Continuation, or the same idea in Chess magazine, called there Winning Combinative Play. There are also books of tactical positions for solving, one I quite liked for the basics was Chernev and Reinfeld, Winning Chess.

If you are determined to get better, try the Russian chess training programme contained in three books by Livshits: Test your chess IQ, Vol.1 (for players up to BCF 160/ELO 1850), Test your chess IQ, Vol.2 (for BCF 160-200/ELO 2000) and Test your chess IQ, Vol.3 – Grandmaster Challenge (for BCF grades 200+/ELO 2000).

They all suffer from the drawback, in my view, of containing only combinations that work – there are no false but tempting opportunities offered to you, which is so often the case during a game, except in Livshits’ books in a section called “Traps”(!). In fact, I believe that mass practice of tactical tests like this can lead to a false sense of optimism when presented with a promising tactical opportunity. Unless these tests have many hidden points in the variations you are required to spot, or include ‘false’ opportunities, they must be supplemented by other activities. Some support for this is found in Gene Thompson’s article for Chess Scene.

More testing (literally) is the Chess Monthly magazine feature, How Good is your Chess? which takes you through a real game and gives you points (There is a book of these under the same name by Danny King; BCM have a similar feature called Test Your Chess.) Here’s an easy example of such a test from the B.C.F., with answers.

Other Books for study

Most of the above is ‘practice makes perfect’ style with little explanation. The theory of candidate moves and trees of analysis I found in Kotov, Think like a Grandmaster (a summary is also to be found in Kotov, Plan like a Grandmaster). This book also describes how Kotov used to analyse complicated master games, writing down his conclusions for comparison. Both books give test positions with a full tree of analysis.
Another important book for theory is Nunn and Griffiths, Secrets of Grandmaster Play. It is a deliberately educative book, showing, firstly, what a complete analysis of a game looks like, but also giving lots of practical tips and observations, and trying to show how much players really see at the board.

Gaining practice and experience through exercises:

One of the best exercises is to play tactical games, against a player of about your own strength or better. If the point is to develop tactics, there can be no better way of doing this for most people than practicing against a computer – that will show you how thorough you really are!

Playing-out of positions

There are also some good ideas in Dvoretsky, Secrets of chess tactics. In particular, he describes the technique of “playing-out” of positions for which an analysis has been published. For example, he played on from positions found in the Nunn/Griffiths book with his pupils (Yusupov and Dolmatov) as if the position had arisen in a game against the clock. This is a realistic test and you can check your conclusions against what Nunn has analysed. Of course, you can use a computer to play positions out.

Examining your own games:

Always a good idea – and it is quite possible to do so concentrating mostly on the number and type of tactical errors you make. Mistakes are perhaps inevitable, but to be worked on – for example, try to eliminate one-move mistakes, then two-movers, and so on. Also, make sure you are spotting opportunities for your opponent as well as yourself. I’m sure becoming more efficient or more consistent in this regard would result in a rise in grade for most of us, without any great new insights being gained.

Blumenfeld’s rule for avoiding blunders:

After you have decided but before moving, write the move down, and before playing it, check it again for any tactical features you may have missed. After this fresh look, then you move.

This is called…

Blumenfeld’s rule:

“It often happens that a player carries out a deep and complicated calculation, but fails to spot something elementary right at the first move. In order to avoid such gross blunders, the Soviet master B. Blumenfeld made this recommendation:-
When you have finished your calculations, write down the move you have decided upon on the score sheet. Then examine the position for a short time ‘through the eyes of a patzer’. Ask whether you have left a mate in one on, or left a piece or a pawn to be taken. Only when you have convinced yourself that there is no immediate catastrophe for you should you make the planned move.”
— KOTOV

You’ve all seen people do this. I’ve also seen people do it badly. The idea is to snap youself out of the trance of analysis and take a fresh look.

I have seen players write down a losing move while nodding and smirking, look over the board again still nodding, and then play the move. Useless – just going through the motions. I guess they were just revising their latest thoughts on the position. You must jump! snap! start! your thinking again, to see if you have overlooked anything at the start of your thinking. You are not checking conclusions – you are checking assumptions. [If they had genuinely re-started their thinking there would have been a change in body language – not a smooth progression from choosing to writing to blundering, nodding all the while, but “now then, sit up straight, start worrying, what have I missed?”]

See also An important note about Blumenfeld’s rule.

Net reading:

Online exercises from John Coffey and David Hayes.
Worked example from Gabriel Schwartzmann
Kotov’s classic Think Like a GM, the first chapter of which has been very influential.
A nice piece of self-reflection from an amateur, Gene Thompson, first published in Chess Scene.

Bibliography

“The pleasure of a chess comination lies in the feeling that a human mind is behind the game, dominating the inanimate pieces with which the game is carried on, and giving them the breath of life.”
— RETI

Alexander, The Penguin Book of Chess Positions

Avni, Danger in Chess

British Chess Magazine, Find the Winning Continuation

Chernev and Reinfeld, Winning Chess

Chess magazine, Winning Combinative Play

Chess magazine, How Good is your Chess? (Book of same name by Danny King)

Dvoretsky, Secrets of chess tactics

Kotov, Think like a Grandmaster )_candidate moves, tree of analysis, analysis of master games

Kotov, Plan like a Grandmaster )

Livshits, Test your chess IQ, Vol.1

Livshits, Test your chess IQ, Vol.2

Livshits, Test your chess IQ, Vol.3 – Grandmaster Challenge

Nunn and Griffiths, Secrets of Grandmaster Play

The Moller Attack

Posted on by 
From D.Regis@exeter.ac.uk  Mon Dec  2 13:33:20 1996
Subject: Re: Guioco Piano notes
To: lorda@boat.bt.com (Andrew Lord)
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 13:33:18 +0000 (GMT)


Hi Andrew


> I've just got addicted to chess 

Sympathy: there is no cure...


> I'm stuck on a problem with a Guiuco Piano line. I got as far 
> as:
> 
> 1. e4 e5
> 2. Nf3 Nc6
> 3. Bc4 Bc5
> 4. c3 Nf6
> 5. d4 exd4
> 6. cxd4 Bb4+
> 7. Nc3 Nxe4
> 8. 0-0 BxN
> 9. d5
> 
> Then you say some black options don't work, including 9...Ne5
> You cite a progression:
> 
> 9. ... Ne5
> 10. bxc3 NxB
> 11. Qd4
> 
> You then have black playing 11. ... f5 to protect one of the 
> attacked Knights, allowing the white Queen to take the other 
> one. Instead why can't black simply play 11. ... Ncd6? I can't 
> see a way after this for white to win the piece back. 


Interesting - the verdict on 11...f5 I think has stood for 100 years,
until now! - but the best move probably isn't 11...Ncd6, or 11...f5,
but 11...0-0. 

Let's see: after 

9...Ne5 10.bxc3 Nxc4 11.Qd4

 Black can play instead of 11...f5:

 [A] 11...Ncd6(?) 

  White doesn't get the piece back but seems to get a strong attack through

  12.Qxg7 Qf6 13.Qxf6 Nxf6 14.Re1+ Kf8 15.Bh6+ Kg8 16.Re5 Nfe4
  17.Re7 as in Durao-Ferrera, 1994;

 [B] 11...0-0(!) 

  12.Qxc4

 (12.Qxe4 b5 13.a4 c6 14.axb5 cxb5 15.Qd4 Nb6 16.Be3 d6
  and White has nothing, as in a Dzindzhikashvili-Karpov rapid game)

  12...Nd6 

  And maybe White's best try is now 13.Qd3,
  according to Gufeld and Stesko.

  I'll make a note on the page.

Thanks for your prompt: if nothing else, I've discovered that these
old lines are far from played out! 


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

D  _       
 / "()/~   Dave Regis  &8^D*  WWW: http://www.ex.ac.uk/~dreg../chess.html
|| \_/|    = DrDave on BICS 
~\   /                        "...what else exists in the world but chess?"
 _|||__SHEU: ~/sheu.html                                          -- NABOKOV

Who’s afraid of the Big Bad Minority attack?

Posted on by

Actually, I am. There comes a point (about 150) when the serious threat
represented by a minority attack becomes a realistic game plan. And at master
level, there is a school of thought that suggests the best way to win with
the Queen’s Gambit Declined as White is to play the minority attack in the
Exchange Variation. I can remember several Swiss tournaments where Keith
Arkell ground out a couple of his valuable wins using this line, without
apparent effort. The other classic setting for the minority attack is the
Sicilian Defence, and Pal Benko has been a great exponent of this winning
method in the eyes of John Watson.

This session is an example of the need to study middle-games and not just
openings. First of all, what is a minority attack?

+-----------------+
|.+.+r+.+|
|0p+.+p0p|
|.+p+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|+R+.$.+.|
+-----------------+

This is the classic setting for a minority attack. White has two Pawn
islands, the larger of which is on the King’s-side and you might think that
White’s best plan is to advance it. However, as well as exposing the White
King castled King’s-side, the advance would be in the teeth of Black’s
opposition on the e-file, and an advance of the f-Pawn would leave the e-Pawn
effectively backward.

Instead, White uses a similar logic to argue that it is best to use
White’s own half-open file, the c-file, as the basis for an attack on the
Queen’s-side. White plans to advance the b-Pawn and either play b5xc6
(b7xc6), when we have a Black Pawn on c6 which is backward on an open file,
or …c6xb5, when the d-Pawn will become weak.

The advantages of a minority attack are several:

  • It emerges directly from the Pawn structure
  • It does not depend on the presence of Queens, and the attack can be
    pursued right into the endgame.
  • It can work like clockwork, yielding points ‘just’ on technique.

+-----------------+
|.+r+.+.+|
|0p+.+p0p|
|.+.0ph.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|+.+.+.+.|
+-----------------+

This is the Sicilian setting for a minority attack. White in fact has an
uncompromised Queen’s-side majority, and you might expect then a general
Queen’s-side advance. But typically pressure on the e-Pawn leads White to
play Nb1-c3, in front of the c-Pawn, and Black usually nails it down with
pressure on the half-open c-file.

So, encouraged by Black’s lack of space and lagging development, White can
punt down the King’s-side, while Black can play …b7-b5, engaging in a
minority attack against the White Queen’s-side Pawns.

Of course, the Sicilian is one of the most complex and flexible openings,
and not all games can be interpreted in this way; nonetheless, this reading
of the Pawns explains a lot of what goes on under the bonnet of Sicilian
systems.

Now, I’m just having a look at playing and recommending the Orthodox
Defence to the Queen’s Gambit, so this the minority attack an important thing
to see coming, and know how to defend against it. Let’s look at the positive
side of the Minority Attack first, before trying to work out what to do about
it.

(817) Evans – Opsahl (CHERNEV)

[D36]

, 1950

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 Be7 6.Qc2 0-0 7.cxd5
exd5 8.Nf3 c6 9.Bd3 Re8 10.0-0 Nf8 11.Rab1 Ne4 12.Bxe7 Qxe7

+-----------------+
|.IR+.+R+|
|)P).+Q)P|
|.+N)BH.+|
|+.+n).+.|
|.+.+p+.+|
|+.+.+p+.|
|p0p1.+p0|
|+khr+b+r|
+-----------------+

The classic setting for the minority attack.

13.b4 a6 14.a4 Nxc3 15.Qxc3 Bg4 16.Nd2 Qg5 17.Rfc1 Re6

+-----------------+
|.I.+.$R+|
|)P).H.+.|
|.+.)B!.+|
|+b+.).)P|
|.1.+p+.+|
|+.+r+p+p|
|p0p+.+p+|
|+kh.+.+r|
+-----------------+

Drumming up some King’s-side counterplay. Nigel Davies in a BCM article
strongly recommended this idea.

18.b5 18…axb5 19.axb5 Bh3 20.g3 Rae8 21.bxc6
bxc6 22.Bf1 22…Bxf1 23.Nxf1 Ng6 24.Rb6

+-----------------+
|.IN+.$.+|
|).).+.+.|
|.).).!.+|
|+.+.).+.|
|.1.+p+.+|
|+n+r+p$.|
|p0p+.+.+|
|+k+r+.+.|
+-----------------+

A critical moment – if Black has to go back now he is really up against
the ropes.

24…Ne7

[24…Nh4 25.Rxc6 The Rook on c6 stops the Black Rook on e6 joining the
attack. I think the White King is safe here. 25…Nf3+ 26.Kh1 h5 27.Qb3
(27.Qd3) ]

25.Qb4 h5 26.Rb8 Rxb8 27.Qxb8+ Kh7 28.Qf4
28…Qxf4 29.gxf4

[The h-pawn cannot really be attacked, and with Queens off White can use
the King]

29…g6 30.Nd2 Rd6 31.Kf1 Kg7 32.Ra1 Rd7 33.Nb3 Rb7 34.Nc5 Rb2
35.Ra7 Kf6 36.Ra6 Rb1+ 37.Kg2 Rb2 38.Ra7 Rb1 39.Rc7 Ra1 40.Nd3 Ke6 41.Nc5+
Kf6 42.Nd7+ Ke6 43.Nf8+ Kf6 44.Nh7+ Ke6 45.Ng5+ Kd6 46.Rb7

+-----------------+
|.+.+.+.4|
|)K).+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.).).+.|
|pH.+p+.+|
|+p+.ip+.|
|.+ph.+R+|
|+.+.+.+.|
+-----------------+

46…f6

[46…f5]

47.Nh7 Ke6 48.Nf8+ Very neat 48…Kf7

[48…Kd6 49.Rd7#]

49.Nxg6 Kxg6 50.Rxe7 White has a pawn and hopes of
collecting more. 50…Kf5 51.Rc7

+-----------------+
|.+.+.+.4|
|)K).+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.).).+.|
|p+k+p+.+|
|+.0.+p+.|
|.+.+.$.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
+-----------------+

51…Rc1 52.Rc8 Kg6 53.Kg3 Rc2 54.h4 Kf5 55.Rh8 Kg6 56.f5+ Kxf5
57.Rxh5+

Now White has a passed pawn.

57…Kg6 58.Rh8 Kf5 59.Rg8 Rc1 60.Kg2 Ra1 61.h5 Ra7 62.Rg3 Rh7
63.Rh3 Kg5 64.Kf3

Offering to trade the pawn for a winning King raid.

64…Rh6 65.Rh1 Kf5 66.Kg3 Kg5 67.Rh4 Kf5 68.Rf4+ Kg5

+-----------------+
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.).+.+.|
|.I.).+.+|
|+.$.).+.|
|Pi.+p+.+|
|4.0.+p+.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
+-----------------+

69.Rg4+

Again offering the pawn, but again Black dare not accept.

69…Kf5

[69…Kxh5 is rather like the game continuation: 70.Rh4+ Kg5 71.Rxh6 Kxh6
72.Kf4 Kg6 73.f3 Kg7 74.Kf5 Kf7 75.f4 Ke7 76.Kg6 Ke6 77.f5+ Ke7 78.Kg7]

70.Kh4 Rh8 71.Rg7 Ra8 72.h6 Ra1 73.Rg3 Rh1+ 74.Rh3 Rg1 75.Rf3+ Kg6
76.Rg3+

The winning clearance

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

Here is Benko in the Sicilian version of the attack:

(30) Conrady – Benko,P [B43] minority attack in Sicilian: Dublin
zt (12), 1957

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Be2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7
8.Nb3 b5 9.Bf3 Nc6 10.g3 0-0 11.Bf4 d6 12.Bg2 Bb7 13.g4 b4 14.g5 Ne8 15.Ne2
a5

+-----------------+
|r+.+n4k+|
|+b1.gp0p|
|.+n0p+.+|
|0.+.+.).|
|.0.+PG.+|
|+N+.+.+.|
|P)P+N)B)|
|$.+Q+RI.|
+-----------------+

“Black simply drives the pieces away and then uses the c-file pressure.” –
WATSON

16.Ng3 a4 17.Nd2 Nd4 18.Rc1 a3 19.b3 Rc8 20.Nc4 Nb5 21.Qg4 Nc3
22.Rfe1 Nxa2 23.Ra1 Nc3 24.Re3 e5 25.Nh5 exf4 26.Rh3 Nxe4 0-1

(31) Reyes – Benko,P [B85] minority attack in Sicilian: Lugano,
1968

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Be2 a6 7.a4 Nc6
8.0-0 Be7 9.Kh1 0-0 10.f4 Qc7 11.Bf3 Rd8 12.Nb3 b6 13.Qe1 Rb8 14.Be3 Na5
15.Rd1 Nc4 16.Bc1 b5 17.axb5 axb5 18.Ne2 e5 19.Qg3 Bb7 20.Nc3 b4 21.Nd5 Bxd5
22.exd5 e4

+-----------------+
|.4.4.+k+|
|+.1.gp0p|
|.+.0.h.+|
|+.+P+.+.|
|.0n+p).+|
|+N+.+B!.|
|.)P+.+P)|
|+.GR+R+K|
+-----------------+

“Isolating and winning the d-pawn.” — Watson.

23.Be2 Nb6 24.Nd4 Nfxd5 25.f5 Bf6 26.Bg5 Qc5 27.Bxf6 Nxf6 28.Rf4
Nbd5 29.Rh4 Ne7 30.Qh3 Nc6 31.Nxc6 Qxc6 32.Rc1 Qd5 33.Rd1 Qc5 34.g4 Qxc2
35.Qe3 h6 36.Rg1 Nd5 37.Qf2 Qd2 38.g5 hxg5 39.Rh5 f6 40.Qg2 Ne3 41.Qxe4 Re8
42.Qf3 g4 43.Rxg4 Nxg4 44.Bc4+ d5 0-1

Defending against a minority attack.

Now, what can you do about it? Actually, lots. Temperamentally, we might
find the most appealing response in the middle-game is to deliver a mating
attack on the other side. Realistically, it is helpful to combine this with
other defensive methods, and to be aware of ways of counter-attacking on the
Queen’s-side. We shall review:

+-----------------+
|.+.+.+.+|
|0p+.+p0p|
|.+p+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.).).+.+|
|+.+.).+.|
|P+.+.)P)|
|+.+.+.+.|
+-----------------+

The King’s-side counterattack, using the e-file and the e4
point.

The Third-rank defence

Counter-attacking on the Queen’s-side:

  1. Playing …a5 to get an open a-file after …a5xb4.
  2. Playing …a6 to get a passed a-Pawn after …c6xb5 and
    …a6-a5
  3. Meeting b4-b5 with …c6-c5, with an IQP
  4. Meeting b4-b5 with …b7-b5, with use of the c4 square

The King’s-side counterattack, using the e-file and the e4
point.

(826) Gligoric S – Larsen B [D36] Ch, Moscow, 1966

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.cxd5 exd5 6.e3 c6 7.Bd3 Be7
8.Qc2 0-0 9.Nf3 Re8 10.0-0 Nf8

A move with a number of points, one of which is the exchange of the ‘bad’
light-squared Bishop by …g7-g6, and then …Nd7-d8-e6-g7 followed by
…Bf5!

11.Rab1 a5 12.a3

+-----------------+
|.IR+.+R+|
|)P).+Q).|
|.+N)BH.)|
|+.+.).+.|
|.G.+p+.0|
|+.h.+p+.|
|p0pg.+p+|
|+khr1b+r|
+-----------------+

Meeting minority attack with a King’s-side attack using half-open e-file
and e4 square.

12…Ne4 13.Bxe7 Qxe7 14.b4 Bf5 15.Bxe4 dxe4 16.Ne5 axb4 17.axb4
Qg5 18.Ne2 h5 19.Ng3 Bh7 20.h3 h4 21.Ne2 Ne6 22.Qb3 Bf5 23.Kh2 Qh5 24.Rbe1
Kh7 25.Nc4 Rad8 26.Nd2 Bg6 27.Nc3 f5 28.Qd1 Qg5 29.Nc4 b5 30.Na5 Rd6 31.Ne2

+-----------------+
|.+R$Q+.+|
|IP)N+.+.|
|P+.).+.+|
|0.+p).).|
|.1p+.+pH|
|+b+n4p+.|
|k0.+.+.+|
|+.+r+.+.|
+-----------------+

31…f4 32.exf4 Nxf4 33.Nxf4 Qxf4+ 34.Kg1 Qf6 35.Nb3 Bf7 36.Re3
Re7 37.Rfe1 Bxb3 38.Rxb3 Rxd4 39.Qh5+ Kg8 40.Ra3 Rd8 41.Rd1 Rf8 42.Qe2 Ref7
43.f3 exf3 44.Rxf3 Qe7 45.Qxe7 Rxe7 46.Rxf8+ Kxf8 47.Rd4 g5 48.Rd6 Re1+
49.Kf2 Rc1 50.Rd4 Ke7 51.Ke3 Ke6 52.Rg4 Rc3+ 53.Kf2 Kf5 54.Rd4 Rc4 55.Rd6 g4
56.hxg4+ Kxg4 57.Kg1 Kf5 58.Kh2 Ke5 0-1

(827) Fehmer Dirk – Khalifman Alexander [D36] It (open) (active),
Eupen (Be (1), 1994

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Nc3 c6 7.e3 Be7
8.Qc2 0-0 9.Bd3 Re8 10.0-0 Nf8 11.Rab1

+-----------------+
|.IR+.+R+|
|)P).+Q)P|
|.+N)BH.+|
|+.+.).+.|
|.G.+p+.+|
|+.h.+p+.|
|p0pg.+p0|
|+khr1b+r|
+-----------------+

Meeting minority attack with a King’s-side attack using half-open e-file
and e4 square.

11…Ne4 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.b4 a6 14.a4 Ng6 15.Nd2 Nxd2 16.Qxd2 Nh4
17.Ne2

+-----------------+
|.IR+.+R+|
|)P)N!.+.|
|.+.)B+.+|
|h.+.).)P|
|.+.+p+.+|
|+.+.+p+p|
|p0p1.+p+|
|+k+r+b+r|
+-----------------+

17…Bh3 18.Qc2 Bxg2 19.Rfc1 Be4 20.Ng3 Nf3+ 21.Kf1 Qh4 22.Bxe4
dxe4 23.b5 axb5 24.axb5 Qh3+ 25.Ke2 Qg4 26.Kf1 h5 27.bxc6 bxc6 0-1

(828) Lipnitsky,I – Panov,V [D36] SSSR, 1952

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.cxd5 exd5 6.e3 c6 7.Bd3 Be7
8.Nf3 0-0 9.Qc2 Re8 10.0-0 Nf8 11.Rab1 Be6 12.b4 a6 13.Na4

+-----------------+
|.IR+.+R+|
|)P).+Q+P|
|.+N)B+.+|
|+.+.).)N|
|.G.+p+.+|
|+.hb+p+p|
|p0pg.+p+|
|+khr1.+r|
+-----------------+

Meeting minority attack with a King’s-side attack using half-open e-file
and e4 square.

In this game exchanges on e4 and d5 let the Black c-Pawn escape the
Queen’s-side.

13…Ne4 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Bxe4 dxe4 16.Nd2 Bd5 17.Rfc1 Rad8 18.Nb6
f5 19.a4 Ng6 20.Nxd5 cxd5 21.Qc7 Rd7 22.Qg3 Rf8 23.Rc5 f4 24.Qg4 Qd6 25.a5
Rdf7 26.Rc8 Ne7 27.Rxf8+ Rxf8 28.Nf1 Nf5 29.Qd1 Qh6 30.Qb3 Qe6 31.Rc1

+-----------------+
|.IN+.$.+|
|)P).+.+.|
|.+.).+Q+|
|+.0p).).|
|.+n+p+.)|
|+.+q+.+p|
|p0.+.+p+|
|+k4.+.+.|
+-----------------+

31…f3 32.Rc5 fxg2 33.Nd2 Ne7 34.Qd1 Qh3 35.Rc7 Rf6 0-1

(52) Portisch,L – Kasparov,G [D35] Skelleftea (9), 1989

This top-flight game shows a couple of important ideas.

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nc3 c6 6.Qc2

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p+.+p0p|
|.+p+.h.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.H.+N+.|
|P)Q+P)P)|
|$.G.IB+R|
+-----------------+

6…Na6

The early exchange in the centre gives Black a couple of extra options,
including this one.

7.a3 Nc7 8.Bg5 g6 9.e3 Bf5 10.Bd3 Bxd3 11.Qxd3 Be7 12.0-0 0-0
13.b4 Ne4 14.Bf4 Nxc3 15.Qxc3 Bd6 16.Bxd6 Nb5 17.Qb3 Nxd6

+-----------------+
|r+.1.4k+|
|0p+.+p+p|
|.+ph.+p+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.).).+.+|
|)Q+.)N+.|
|.+.+.)P)|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+

This is a superb square for the Knight. well-placed for defence and
attack.

18.a4 a6 19.Ne5 Re8 20.Rfe1 Qg5 21.h3 Kg7 22.Qc2 Re6 23.Rac1 Rae8
24.Qb1 Qh5 25.Qb3 f6 26.Nd3

+-----------------+
|.+.+r+.+|
|+p+.+.ip|
|p+phr0p+|
|+.+p+.+q|
|P).).+.+|
|+Q+N).+P|
|.+.+.)P+|
|+.$.$.I.|
+-----------------+

26…g5 This is Black’s minority attack: White is in no
position to take advantage of the loose King’s-side. 27.Qd1 Qg6
28.Qc2 R6e7 29.Red1 h5 30.Qb1 h4 31.Qc2 g4 32.Nf4

+-----------------+
|.+.+r+.+|
|+p+.4.i.|
|p+ph.0q+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|P).).Hp0|
|+.+.).+P|
|.+Q+.)P+|
|+.$R+.I.|
+-----------------+

32…Qxc2 33.Rxc2 g3

+-----------------+
|.+.+r+.+|
|+p+.4.i.|
|p+ph.0.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|P).).H.0|
|+.+.).0P|
|.+R+.)P+|
|+.+R+.I.|
+-----------------+

Black’s attack reveals a second side: not just a King’s-side hack but a
Pawn attack that persists into the endgame.

34.Rd3 Kh6 35.Kf1 Kg5 36.Ne2 Nc4

+-----------------+
|.+.+r+.+|
|+p+.4.+.|
|p+p+.0.+|
|+.+p+.i.|
|P)n).+.0|
|+.+R).0P|
|.+R+N)P+|
|+.+.+K+.|
+-----------------+

Black has all the pressure here, and White now sheds a Pawn.

37.Rcc3 Nb2 38.Rd2 Nxa4 39.Rb3 Nb6 40.Ng1 Nc4 41.Nf3+ Kh5 42.Rdd3
a5 43.bxa5 Ra8 44.Rd1 Rxa5 45.Re1 b5 46.Re2 Ra1+ 47.Re1 Rea7 48.fxg3 Rxe1+
49.Kxe1 Ra1+

+-----------------+
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+p+.0.+|
|+p+p+.+k|
|.+n).+.0|
|+R+.)N)P|
|.+.+.+P+|
|4.+.I.+.|
+-----------------+

The final assault, ironically down the Queen’-side.

50.Ke2 hxg3 51.Ne1 Ra2+ 52.Kd1 Rd2+ 53.Kc1 Re2 54.Kd1 Rxe3 55.Rxe3
Nxe3+ 56.Ke2 Nf5 57.Nc2 Nh4 58.Nb4 Nxg2 59.Kf3 Nh4+ 60.Kxg3 Nf5+ 61.Kf4 Nxd4
62.Ke3 Nf5+ 0-1

And one last recent romp:

(53) Ward,C – Sasikiran,K [D91] British (8), 1998

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bg5 Ne4 6.cxd5

+-----------------+
|rhb1k+.4|
|0p0.0pgp|
|.+.+.+p+|
|+.+P+.G.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.H.+N+.|
|P).+P)P)|
|$.+QIB+R|
+-----------------+

What, you might ask, is this opening doing here?

6…Nxg5 7.Nxg5 e6 8.Nf3 exd5 9.e3 0-0 10.b4

+-----------------+
|rhb1.4k+|
|0p0.+pgp|
|.+.+.+p+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.).).+.+|
|+.H.)N+.|
|P+.+.)P)|
|$.+QIB+R|
+-----------------+

A classic minority attack position from a hypermodern opening.

10…c6 11.Be2 Be6 12.0-0 a6 13.Ne1 Nd7 14.Nd3 Qe7 15.Qb3 Nb6
16.a4 Nc4

+-----------------+
|r+.+.4k+|
|+p+.1pgp|
|p+p+b+p+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|P)n).+.+|
|+QHN).+.|
|.+.+B)P)|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+

This helps hold up the Queen’s-side, but Black is not in a defensive frame
of mind – far from it!

17.Ra2 Bf5 18.Kh1 Rfe8 19.a5 Qg5 20.Nc5

+-----------------+
|r+.+r+k+|
|+p+.+pgp|
|p+p+.+p+|
|).Hp+b1.|
|.)n).+.+|
|+QH.).+.|
|R+.+B)P)|
|+.+.+R+K|
+-----------------+

20…Nxe3 21.fxe3 Rxe3

Black gets two Pawns and a raging attack.

22.Rd2 Qh4 23.Rfd1 Bh6 24.Bf1 Bf4 25.g3 Rxg3

+-----------------+
|r+.+.+k+|
|+p+.+p+p|
|p+p+.+p+|
|).Hp+b+.|
|.).).g.1|
|+QH.+.4.|
|.+.$.+.)|
|+.+R+B+K|
+-----------------+

Players of a nervous disposition may wish to look away now.

26.Qb2 Bg4 27.Rd3 Rf3 28.Qg2 Rf2

The 17-year old’s demolition of a former UK champion was most impressive.
0-1

 

The Third-rank defence

(818) Flohr,S (2500) – Apscheneek,F [D36], 1939

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Nf3 c6 7.Qc2 Nbd7
8.cxd5 exd5 9.Bd3 Re8 10.0-0 Nf8 11.Ne5 Ng4 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.Nxg4 Bxg4 14.a3
Rad8 15.Rfe1 Rd6 16.Ne2 Rh6 17.Ng3 Bc8 18.b4 a6

+-----------------+
|.I.$.+.$|
|)P).+Q+.|
|.H.)B+.)|
|+.+.).).|
|.+.+p+.+|
|4.+.+p+p|
|p0p1.+p+|
|+khr+b+.|
+-----------------+

Playing …a6 to avoid a weak a-Pawn is a sort of minimum defence of the
Queen’s-side by Black.

19.Rab1 Qc7 20.a4 Nd7 21.Rec1 Nf6 22.Nf1 Ne4 23.b5 axb5 24.axb5
Bd7 25.Qa2 Qd8 26.bxc6 Bxc6 27.Bb5 Rg6 28.Bxc6 bxc6

+-----------------+
|.IN+.$R+|
|)P).+.+Q|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.+n).+.|
|.+.+p+.+|
|+r+.+p+.|
|p0p+.+.+|
|+k+r1.+.|
+-----------------+

“The minority attack proper has come to an end with White having inflicted
a serious weakness on c6 and in fact controlling the entire left flank. It
looks like a fairly simple matter systematically to attack c6 and, if not win
it, then at least drive Black’s pieces onto horribly passive squares. But the
sequel demonstrates that matters are not to simple: Black’s Rook on the third
rank not only defends c6 but also creates pressure against White’s
King’s-side” – Nigel DAVIES

29.Rb2 h5 30.Rbc2 Qd7 31.Kh1 h4 32.h3 Qf5 33.Nh2 Qg5 34.Ng4 f5
35.f4 Qh5 36.Ne5 Rg3

+-----------------+
|K+.+.$.+|
|+P+.+R+Q|
|P4.).+.+|
|0.)n).+.|
|q+pHp+.+|
|+.+.+p+.|
|.0.+.+.+|
|+k+r+.+.|
+-----------------+

The game approaches its climax, with both themes strongly featured in the
variations – White’s threats to win a Pawn and Black’s threats to win a King!

37.Re1

[37.Rxc6 Rxe3 38.Qxd5+ Kh7 but White faces threats to the King]

37…Rb8 38.Kh2

[38.Rxc6 Rxe3! 39.Rxe3 Qd1+ 40.Kh2 Rb1! 41.Qa8+ Kh7 42.Rh6+! gxh6 43.Qa7+
draws]

38…Kh7 39.Nxc6

[39.Rxc6 was the last chance to play for a win 39…Qe8 but not 40.Qxd5?
Rb2]

39…Qg6 40.Rg1

[40.Nxb8 Rxh3+! gives Black at least a draw 41.gxh3 Qg3+ 42.Kh1 Qxe1+
43.Kg2 Ng3 44.Kf3 Qd1+ 45.Re2 Qh1+ 46.Rg2 Qd1+]

40…Rxe3 41.Nxb8 Qg3+ 42.Kh1 Qxf4 43.Rd1 Ng3+ 44.Kg1 1/2-1/2

Counter-attacking on the Queen’s-side:

Polugaevsky, in his otherwise excellent book on the Queen’s Gambit
Orthodox Defence, says that it does not really matter whether the Black
a-Pawn challenges the White b-Pawn on b4 by …a5 or on b5 by …a6. From the
point of view of the opening variations that Polu was looking at, perhaps it
doesn’t, but from the point of view of a player handling the middle-game, it
can form the basis of totally separate plans.

 

(a) Playing …a5 to get an open a-file after …a5xb4.

Arkell Keith C – Maksimenko Andrei [D35] It (open), Copenhagen
(Denmar (6), 1994

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 c6 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bh4 Bf5
8.e3 Nbd7 9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3 Be7 11.0-0 0-0 12.Rab1 a5

+-----------------+
|.IR+.+R+|
|)P).+.)P|
|.+N)QH.+|
|G.+.).+.|
|.+.+p+.0|
|0.h.+p+.|
|.0pgn+p+|
|+k4.1.+r|
+-----------------+

Playing a5 to get an open a-file.

13.Qc2 Ne8 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Na4 Nd6 16.Nc5 Nxc5 17.Qxc5 Qe6 18.b3
a4 19.Qb4 axb3 20.axb3

+-----------------+
|.IR+.+R+|
|)P).+.+.|
|.+N).+P+|
|+.+.).!.|
|.+.+p+.+|
|0.+qhp+.|
|.0p+.+p+|
|+k4.+.+r|
+-----------------+

20…Ra2 21.Ra1 Rfa8 22.Rxa2 Rxa2 23.Qb6 Qe7 24.Qb4 f6 25.Ne1 Kf7
26.Nd3 Ne4 27.Qxe7+ Kxe7 28.b4 Ra3 29.Nc5 Nd2

+-----------------+
|.IR+.+.+|
|)P).h.+.|
|.+.).+.4|
|+.+.).).|
|.+.+pH.+|
|0.0.+p+.|
|.0.i.+p+|
|+.+.+.+.|
+-----------------+

30.Nxb7 Nxf1 31.Kxf1 Ra4 32.h4 Rxb4 33.Nc5 h5 34.Nd3 Rb1+ 35.Ke2
g5 36.g3 Ke6 37.Kf3 Kf5 38.Nc5 Rc1 39.hxg5 fxg5 40.g4+ hxg4+ 41.Kg3 Rh1
42.Nd3 Rh6 43.Nc5 Rh8 44.Nd3 Ra8 45.Nc5 Ra1 46.Nd3 Rg1+ 47.Kh2 Rd1 48.Nc5 Rd2
49.Kg3 Rc2 50.Nd3 Rc3 51.Nc5 Ra3 52.Nd7 Ra2 53.Nc5 Ra5 54.Nb3 Ra7 55.Nc5 Rc7
56.Nd3 Rb7 57.Nc5 Re7 58.Nd3 Rg7 59.Nc5 Rf7 60.Nd3 Rf6 61.Kg2 Rh6 62.Nc5 Rh3
63.Nd3 Rf3 64.Ne1 Rh3 65.Nd3 Rh7 66.Nc5 Kg6 67.Nd3 Re7 68.Nb4 Re6 69.Kg3 Kh5
70.Nd3 Re4 71.Nb4 Re6 72.Nd3 Re8 73.Nb4 Rc8 74.Nd3 Rc7 75.Nb4 c5 76.dxc5 Rxc5
77.Kg2 Kh4 78.Nd3 Ra5 79.Ne5 Ra6 80.Nd3 Ra2 81.Nb4 Rd2 82.Kf1 g3 83.fxg3+
Kxg3 84.Ke1 Rb2 85.Nxd5 Kf3 0-1

We’ll see this …a5 manoeuvre more than once again below, in combination
with other ideas.

(b) Playing …a6 to get a passed a-Pawn after …c6xb5 and
…a6-a5

(820) Moutousis,K – Ruzhiale,D [D35] Manila ol (9),
1992

1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 d5 4.d4 c6 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 Be7 7.e3 Bf5
8.Bd3 Bxd3 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.Qxd3 Nd7 11.b4 a6

+-----------------+
|R+.I.+.$|
|)P).+.+P|
|.+N)QH.+|
|+.+.).).|
|.+.+p+.+|
|+.g.+p+p|
|p0p+n+p+|
|4.+k1.+r|
+-----------------+

Playing …a6, and on b4-b5 exchange with the c-Pawn and push past to get
a passed a-Pawn.

12.0-0 Be7 13.Rab1 0-0 14.a4 Nb6 15.Rfc1 Qd7 16.b5 cxb5 17.axb5 a5

+-----------------+
|.I.+.$R+|
|)P).+.+.|
|.+N)QH.+|
|+.+.).+.|
|.+.+p+P0|
|+.+.+.h.|
|p0pgq+p+|
|+k4.+.+r|
+-----------------+

18.Ne5 Qe6 19.Qd1 Ba3 20.Rc2 Rfc8 21.Na4 Nxa4 22.Rxc8+ Rxc8
23.Qxa4 Qf5 24.Rf1 Bb4 25.Qb3 Qe6 26.Nd3 Rc4 27.Ra1 g6 28.g3 Qf5 29.Ne5 a4
30.Qd3 Qxd3 31.Nxd3 Bc3 32.Ra3 f6 33.b6 Kf7 34.Nc5 Bb4 35.Rxa4 Bxc5 36.Rxc4
dxc4 37.dxc5 c3 38.c6 c2 0-1

 

(c) Meeting b4-b5 with …c6-c5, with an IQP

(822) Certek Pavel – Nikolov Sasho [D35] It (open), Prague (Czech
Repu (5), 1986

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bf4 c6 7.Qc2 g6
8.e3 Bf5 9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3 0-0 11.h3 Nbd7 12.0-0 Re8

+-----------------+
|.IR+.+.$|
|+P).+.)P|
|P+N)QH.+|
|+.G.).+.|
|.+.+p+.+|
|+ph.+p+.|
|p+pgn+p0|
|+k+r1.+r|
+-----------------+

Playing …a5 to open the a-file.

13.a3 a5 14.Qc2 Nf8 15.Rab1 Ne6 16.Bh2 Bd6 17.Bxd6 Qxd6 18.b4 axb4
19.axb4 Nd7

+-----------------+
|.IR+.+R+|
|+P).+Q+.|
|P+N).H.+|
|+.+.).).|
|.+.+p+.+|
|+p+n1p+.|
|p+p+n+p+|
|+k+r+.+r|
+-----------------+

Meeting b5 with …c5

20.b5 c5 21.dxc5 Qxc5 22.Qd2 Nb6 23.Rfc1 Qd6 24.Rd1 Red8 25.Qb2
Na4 26.Qd2 Nxc3 27.Qxc3 Ra4 28.b6 Rc4 29.Qa5 Nc5 30.Qa3 Na4 31.Rd3 Qf6 32.Rb4
Rc3 33.Rb3 Rxd3 34.Rxd3 Nxb6 35.Qa7 Qc6 36.Nd4 Qc1+ 37.Kh2 Qc7+ 38.f4 Ra8
39.Nb5 Qc6 0-1

(821) Peelen,P – Van der Sterren,P [D36] Amsterdam Euwe-mem,
1989

1.c4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 Be7 6.e3 0-0 7.Qc2
Nbd7 8.Bd3 Re8 9.Nf3 c6 10.0-0 Nf8 11.Rab1 a5

+-----------------+
|.IR+.+R+|
|)P).+Q)P|
|.+N)BH.+|
|+.+.).+.|
|.G.+p+.0|
|+.h.+p+.|
|p0pg.+p+|
|+khr1b+r|
+-----------------+

Play …a5 to get an open a-file.

12.a3 Ng6 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.b4 Bg4 15.Nd2 axb4 16.axb4 Be7

+-----------------+
|.IR+.+R+|
|)P).HQ+.|
|.+.)BH.+|
|+b+.).).|
|.+.+p+.+|
|+n+.+p+.|
|p0pg.+p+|
|+k+r1.+r|
+-----------------+

Meeting b5 with …c5

17.b5 c5 18.Bf5 cxd4 19.Bxg4 dxc3 20.Qxc3 Bf6 21.Qb4 d4 22.exd4
Bxd4 23.Rbd1 Qf6 24.Bf3 Rad8 25.Ne4 Qb6 26.Rd2 Nh4 27.Rfd1 Nxf3+ 28.gxf3 Be5
29.Rxd8 Rxd8 30.Rxd8+ Qxd8 31.Qc5 Bd4 32.Qd6 Qxd6 33.Nxd6 b6 34.f4 Kf8 35.Nf5
Bc5 36.Ng3 Ke7 37.Kg2 Ke6 38.Ne4 Be7 39.Nc3 f5 40.Kf3 Bf6 41.Nd1 Bd4 42.h4 h5
43.Ne3 Bxe3 44.fxe3 Kd5 45.Ke2 Kc4 46.Kf3 Kxb5 47.e4 fxe4+ 48.Kxe4 Kc4 49.Kf5
b5 50.Kg6 b4 51.f5 b3 52.Kxg7 b2 53.f6 b1Q 54.f7 Qg1+ 55.Kh7 Qf2 56.Kg7 Kd5
57.f8Q Qxf8+ 58.Kxf8 Ke6 0-1

 

(d) Meeting b4-b5 with …b7-b5, with use of the c4 square

(823) Tisdall,J – Sveshnikov,E [D35] QGD,EVd: Hastings,
1977

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 c6 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 Bf5 7.e3 Nbd7
8.Bd3 Bxd3 9.Qxd3 Bd6 10.0-0 0-0 11.Rab1 a5 12.Qc2 Qe7 13.a3 Rfe8 14.Bh4 Qe6
15.Bg3 Bf8

+-----------------+
|.IR+.+R+|
|)P).+Q).|
|.GN).H.)|
|+.+.).+.|
|.+.+p+.0|
|+.hq+p+.|
|p0p+n+p+|
|+kgr+.+r|
+-----------------+

Meeting b4 with …b5 to use c4 square.

16.b4 b5 17.Ne2 Nb6 18.Nf4 Qc8 19.Nd3 Nc4

+-----------------+
|.IR+.+R+|
|)P).+Q+.|
|.GN)N+.)|
|+.+.)n).|
|.+.+p+p0|
|+.h.+p+.|
|p0p+.+.+|
|+kgr+q+r|
+-----------------+

20.Ra1 Ne4 21.Rfc1 Re7 22.a4 Rea7 23.axb5 cxb5 24.bxa5 Rxa5
25.Rxa5 Rxa5 26.Nfe5 Qa8 27.Nd7 Ra2 28.Qb3 Ra3 29.Qb1 Nc3 30.Qc2 b4 31.Rf1
Ra2 32.Qb3 Nd2 0-1

(824) Caselas Jacobo – Antunes Antonio [D36] It (open), Mondariz
(Spain), 1994

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Qc2 g6
8.e3 Bf5 9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3 Nbd7 11.0-0 0-0 12.Rab1 a5 13.a3 Re8 14.Qc2 Ne4
15.Bxe7 Qxe7

+-----------------+
|.IR+.+R+|
|)P).+Q).|
|.+N).H.)|
|+.+n).+.|
|.+.+p+.0|
|+p+.+p+.|
|p+p1n+p+|
|+k+r+.+r|
+-----------------+

Meeting b4 with …b5 to use c4 square.

16.b4 Nd6 17.Nd2 axb4 18.axb4 b5 19.Ra1 Nb6 20.Nb3 Nbc4

+-----------------+
|.IR+.+.$|
|)P).+Q+.|
|.+.).HN+|
|+.+.)n).|
|.+.+p+p+|
|+p+.hp+.|
|p+p1.+.+|
|+k+r+.+r|
+-----------------+

21.Qd3 f5 22.Nc5 Ra7 23.Rxa7 Qxa7 24.Rb1 Ra8 25.Qd1 Qb8 26.Ra1 Ra7
27.Nb3 Kf7 28.Rxa7+ Qxa7 29.Qa1 Qxa1+ 30.Nxa1 Ne4 31.Nd1 g5 32.f3 Ned2 33.Kf2
Ke6 34.Nc2 h5 35.Ne1 h4 36.Nd3 Nb3 37.Nc3 Na1 38.Ne1 Na3 39.Nd1 N1c2 40.Nd3
Nc4 41.g4 hxg3+ 42.hxg3 g4 43.f4 Nd2 44.Kg2 Kd6 45.Kf2 Ne4+ 46.Kg2 Kc7 47.Kh2
Kd7 48.Kg2 Kd6 49.Kh2 Na3 50.Kg2 Nc4 51.Ne5 Ncd2 52.Nf7+ Kd7 53.Ne5+ Kc7
54.Nb2 Nc3 55.Kf2 Nc4 56.Nbxc4 bxc4 57.Nf7 Ne4+ 58.Kg2 Kb6 0-1

(825) Donner,J – Hort ,V [D36] Wijk aan Zee (13),
1973

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 Be7 6.e3 c6 7.Qc2 Nbd7
8.Bd3 0-0 9.Nf3 Re8 10.0-0 Nf8 11.Rab1 a5 12.Rfc1 Ne4 13.Bxe7 Qxe7 14.a3 Ng6
15.b4 axb4 16.axb4 b5

+-----------------+
|.I.+.$R+|
|)P).+Q+.|
|.+N)BH.+|
|+.+n).).|
|.+.+p+p+|
|+n+.+p+.|
|p0p1.+.+|
|+k+r+b+r|
+-----------------+

Meeting b4 with …b5 has a downside…

17.Bxe4! dxe4 18.Nd2 Bf5 19.Ne2 Bd7 20.Nb3 h5 21.Nc5

+-----------------+
|.I.+.$R+|
|)P)N+Q+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.+p).).|
|p+.+.Hp+|
|+n+.+p+.|
|.0p1b+.+|
|+k+r+.+r|
+-----------------+

…namely, the dirty great hole on c5.

21…h4 22.Nxd7 Qxd7 23.h3 Re6 24.Ra1 Rxa1 25.Rxa1 Qd5 26.Ra8+ Kh7
27.Qc5 Qxc5 28.bxc5 f5 29.Kf1 Re7 30.Ke1 Rd7 31.Kd2 Kh6 32.Kc2 Kg5 33.Ra6 Rc7
34.Kb3 f4 35.Nc3 Kf5 36.d5 cxd5 37.Nxb5 Rb7 38.Rb6 Rxb6 39.cxb6 Nf8 40.Nd4+
Ke5 41.b7 Nd7 42.Kc3 Nb8 43.exf4+ Kxf4 44.Kb4 e3 45.fxe3+ Kg3 46.Kc5 Nd7+
47.Kxd5 Kxg2 48.Nc6 1-0

The irony is, that with all these nifty defensive ideas being better
understood, the Exchange Variation is now played in a much more flexible and
dynamic way with White very often going for the advance e3-e4!

Kasparov,G (2805) – Short,N (2655) [D35] PCA-Wch01 (London) (15),
1993

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 Be7 6.e3 0-0 7.Bd3
Nbd7 8.Nge2 Re8 9.0-0 Nf8 10.b4!

Not, as you might expect, the start of a minority attack, but a way of
preventing Black Queen’s-side counterplay starting …c7-c5!

10…a6

[10…Bxb4? 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Nxd5! (12.Qb3 Bxc3 13.Nxc3 c6 14.Qd1 f5
15.Qh5 Qf6 Gutman,L-Razuvajev,Y/URS/1976/) 12…Qxd5 13.Qa4 Bh3 14.Nf4 Qa5
15.Qxa5 Bxa5 16.Nxh3 Ne6 17.Rfd1±]

11.a3 c6 12.Qc2 g6 13.f3 Ne6 14.Bh4 Nh5 15.Bxe7 Rxe7

[15…Qxe7!?]

16.Qd2 b6? 17.Rad1 Bb7 18.Bb1 Nhg7 19.e4

+-----------------+
|r+.1.+k+|
|+b+.4php|
|p0p+n+p+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.).)P+.+|
|).H.+P+.|
|.+.!N+P)|
|+B+R+RI.|
+-----------------+

19…Rc8 20.Ba2 Rd7 21.Nf4 Nxf4

[21…dxe4 22.Nxe6 Nxe6 23.fxe4 Nxd4 24.Qf2 c5 (24…Ne6 25.Rxd7 Qxd7
26.Na4±) 25.Bxf7+ Kg7 26.Be6 Nxe6 27.Qf6+ Kh6 (27…Qxf6 28.Rxd7++-)
28.Qxe6±]

22.Qxf4 Ne6 23.Qe5 Re7 24.Qg3 Qc7 25.Qh4 Ng7 26.Rc1 Qd8 27.Rfd1
Rcc7 28.Na4 dxe4?

[28…Rcd7 29.e5 f5 30.exf6 Rf7 31.Bb1 Ne8 32.Re1±]

29.fxe4 Qe8?

[29…Rcd7 30.Kh1! (30.Nc3 Rxd4 31.Bxf7+ Kxf7 32.Qf2+ Nf5 33.exf5
c5„) 30…Ne6 (30…c5!?±) 31.Bxe6 Rxe6 32.Qxd8+ Rxd8
33.e5±]

30.Nc3 Rcd7 31.Qf2 Ne6 32.e5 c5 33.bxc5 bxc5 34.d5 Nd4 35.Ne4 Qd8
36.Nf6+ Kg7 37.Nxd7 Rxd7 38.Rxc5 Ne6 39.Rcc1 1-0

What to do about that approach, I can’t do in much detail here, but the
following game may repay study. Informator has some excellent notes.

(55) Timman,J – Yusupov,A

[D36]

Tal Memorial Tournament, Riga LAT (6), 1995

1.c4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 Be7 6.e3 0-0 7.Bd3
Nbd7 8.Nge2 Re8 9.0-0 c6 10.Qc2 Nf8 11.f3

+-----------------+
|r+b1rhk+|
|0p+.gp0p|
|.+p+.h.+|
|+.+p+.G.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.HB)P+.|
|P)Q+N+P)|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+

Plan B. 11…Be6 12.Rad1 Rc8 13.e4 dxe4 14.fxe4 Ng4
Black relies on piece activity to keep White’s Pawns under control;

the game takes on a hypermodern air. 15.Bf4 Ng6 16.e5 Bg5 17.Bxg6
hxg6 18.Qd2 Bxf4 19.Nxf4 Bc4 20.Rfe1 c5

+-----------------+
|.+r1r+k+|
|0p+.+p0.|
|.+.+.+p+|
|+.0.).+.|
|.+b).Hn+|
|+.H.+.+.|
|P).!.+P)|
|+.+R$.I.|
+-----------------+

A classic flank blow against the centre, but Black has to steer through
some stormy tactics. 21.Ne4 cxd4 22.Nd6 d3 23.Nh3 Rxe5 24.Nxc8 Qxc8
25.Rxe5 Nxe5 26.Qe3 f6

+-----------------+
|.+q+.+k+|
|0p+.+.0.|
|.+.+.0p+|
|+.+.h.+.|
|.+b+.+.+|
|+.+p!.+N|
|P).+.+P)|
|+.+R+.I.|
+-----------------+

Black has much compensation for the exchange in the advanced Pawn and
strong Knight.

27.Nf2 Bd5 28.Rc1 Qf5 29.b3 Ng4 30.Qd4 Nxf2 31.Qxf2 Qg5 32.Re1 f5
33.Qg3 Qxg3 34.hxg3 Kf7 35.Kf2 Kf6 36.Ke3 Be4 37.Rc1 a6 38.Rc7 Bxg2
1.57/1.59 1/2-1/2

Meat and potatoes – three phases of a tough game

Posted on by

Exeter Chess Club: Meat and potatoes – three phases of a tough
game.

Peter Lane and Dave Regis

Introduction:

Dave thought this would be a good idea to do as a coaching
session because:

  • we’re often looking at master games, not club
    games
  • when we do look at a master game, we often play through it
    pretty quickly and often use it to illustrate only one chess
    point
  • when we see master annotations, they tend to give a
    reassuring and definitive judgement about a position, instead of a
    hesitant assessment about which there may be disagreement

A nice book on the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match is Both Sides
of the Chess Board, where Robert Byrne and Ivo Nei both
annotated the games, and you see their notes side by side. It’s
reassuring when they agree, and it’s interesting when they don’t!
So, with this as a model, here is one amateur chess game, annotated
in some depth by one of the players and one of the spectators, with
all the mess apparent. I also showed it to Fritz, and where
interesting I’ve included its annotations.

  [The phrase ‘meat and potatoes’ I borrowed from Bobby
Fischer’s M60MG]

M.Beveridge (BCF174) – P.C.Lane (BCF174)

  National Club Championship, Round 1

  Hereford vs Exeter, 1996

Annotations: (PCL)
[DR/Fritz2&3]

Fritz gives annotations like [RR4…Bb4+ Fritz3 0.16
(8/29): (00:04:51)]

 

TODAY’S LESSON:It was said of Alekhin that to win a
game from him required you to win three games: once in the opening,
again in the middlegame, and another in the endgame. This is a good
goal to set yourself: make it as tough for your opponent as you
can, and seek counterplay at every stage. (DR)

 

1.e4

 

THE OPENING: White chooses an interesting variation, but
underplays his hand. (DR)

1…e6

“I have never played the French Defence, which is the
dullest of all openings” — STEINITZ (DR)

A caricature: White wants an open, attacking game,
and so plays e2-e4; Black prefers to play solidly and
conservatively, and so plays the French, …e7-e6. White groans,
forced to play a closed game… but wait! We find lurking in the
openings manuals a line which guarantees an open game, although
promises no advantage. White, much cheered up, plays: (DR)

2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4

 

-------------------
|RNBKQBNR|
|PPP-+-PP|
|-+-+-+-+|
|+-+-PP+-|
|-+-+p+-+|
|+-+-+-+-|
|ppp+-ppp|
|rnbkqbnr|
-------------------

One of White’s more dynamic tries in the Exchange French, and also
found after 4.Nf3 Bd6 5.c4, with transposition into a QGA (1.d4 d5
2.c4 dc 3.e3 e5 4.Nc3 ed 5.ed Nf6 6.Bxc4 Be7); similar structures
can also be found in the Petroff. Black can play as in the game, or
…Bb4+…Ne7 with …Bg4 as appropriate. (PCL)

What are the characteristics of this position? We
will probably soon see an isolated Queen’s Pawn position (White
having more space, outpost on e5, possible break with d4-d5,
attacking chances if he avoids exchanges, etc.). There are many of
these IQP lines, but this one has some distinctive features. In the
classical Queen’s Gambit, Black often has a Pawn on e6, obliging
the Bc8 to seek a home on the long diagonal.

Here, there is no such barrier, but a White Bishop on
c4 is also unimpeded; it may be the Bc8 is actually best placed on
b7, and Black may prefer not to have to restrain d4-d5 by …c7-c6.
(DR)

[1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 A) 3.e4
c5 (3…e5 4.Nf3 exd4 5.Bxc4) ; B) 3.e3
e5 4.Bxc4 exd4 5.exd4 Nf6 6.Qb3 Qe7+ 7.Be3 PLaskett-Lukin, Plovdiv
1984; C) 3.Nf3 3…Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bxc4 c5
6.0-0 a6 7.a4 cxd4 8.exd4 Nc6] (DR)

4…Nf6 [RR4…Bb4+ Fritz3 0.16
(8/29): (00:04:51)] 5.Nc3 [RR5.cxd5
Fritz3 0.22 (8/30): (00:10:22) 5…Nxd5 6.Be2 Bb4+ 7.Bd2 Bxd2+
8.Nxd2 Nf4 9.g3 Ng2+; 5.Nf3] 5…Be7
[RR5…dxc4 Fritz3 0.13 (8/26): (00:03:04) 6.Bxc4 Be7 7.Nf3
Nbd7 8.0-0; 5…Bb4]

  For educational reasons I like to head for this position
as often as possible – for both sides! (PCL)

This is commendable: taking on both sides of a
position in blitz and against computers is one of Karpov’s training
methods! (DR)

6.Bd3 ? (PCL)

  attracted by the thought of 6:…O-O 7.Nxd5 with Bxh7+,
but this merely loses a tempo. It is normal in the QGD to delay
moving the king’s bishop as long as possible, thus: 6.Nf3 O-O 7.Be3
c6 8.Bd3 dc 9.Bxc4 Nbd7 10.O-O Nb6 11.Bb3 Bg4 or Nbd5 12.Ne5 Be6
with equality.

Because the Bishop must be moved sometime, White may
think to clarify the situation as early as possible & play Re1
(DR).

6…dxc4

Gaining a tempo, although conceding the centre. Both
sides must now develop, placing their pieces very carefully,
although there are probably several sound continuations for each
side. Pete actually puts his pieces on the most solid and least
ambitious squares available, which is not my style, but Black can
look to long-term chances if we can survive the early middlegame.
(DR)

7.Bxc4 Nbd7

 

-------------------
|RN-KQB-R|
|PPP-+-PP|
|-+-+-N-+|
|+-+-PB+-|
|-+-+-+-+|
|+-n-+-+-|
|pppbnppp|
|r-+kqb+r|
-------------------

8.Nge2 ?! (DR)

  Presumably to avoid …Bg4, but the knight is passive on
this square, unable to move to (or defend) e5. A better avoidance
is simply 8.h3. (PCL)

I see no virtues in this move over Nf3. Many of the
themes of the IQP – outpost on e5, attacking the King’s-side – seem
suited to Nf3 much more than Ne2. The e-file is closed and the Bf8
committed to e7 over b4. (DR)

8…Nb6 9.Bb3 0-0 10.0-0 c6

  Perhaps …Nbd5 first is more accurate, to prevent Bf4.
(PCL)

Restraint of the d-Pawn. The classic Steinitz plan
(seen in his Championship match with Zukertort) is to blockade the
d-Pawn by occupying d5, then seeking exhanges to expose the
weakness of the Pawn and defuse any attack. There is a lot of play
left, but broadly that is the Black approach.

 

-------------------
|-KR+QB-R|
|PPPN+-PP|
|-+-+-NB+|
|+-+-P-+-|
|-+-+-+-+|
|+-n-+pn-|
|pppb-+pp|
|+kr-qb+r|
-------------------

11.Bf4

[11.Re1 Fritz3 – a reasonable try, seeing what Black
will do before placing the Bc1.] (DR)

11…Nbd5 12.Be5

Looks a good post for the Bishop, but a Knight would
benefit more from this support. In fact, the Bishop proves to be
exposed to exchange here – not a tragedy, but may lead to other
awkwardness. (DR)

[12.Nxd5 Nxd5 13.Bxd5 cxd5 Fritz3 is a typically
junky computer suggestion, which is all in Black’s favour:
exchanging pieces and giving up the Bishop pair is emphatically not
in White’s interests!] (DR)

12…Be6

 

THE EARLY MIDDLEGAME: White seeks a way to an advantage, but
drops a Pawn. (DR)

  Both sides need to find some ideas. Black’s main concern
is the pair of White bishops, and I expected 13.h3 to prevent
…Ng4, though the game shows White hoped to utilise d6 for a
knight after the Nxe5 dxe5 exchange. Black may try …Qb6…Rad8 to
play …c5. (PCL)

13.Rc1

  Nimzovitch in My System suggests Be3 Qe2
Rd1 Rc1 (and Nf3!) as White’s ideal set-up. (PCL)

[RR13.Re1 Fritz3: Fritz’s seems a more natural
choice. White has three basic alignments for the Rooks: c1/d1,
d1/e1, or c1/e1 (or maybe doubling, but that is unusual). Each is
appropriate in some position or another: what about here? I’d
suggest one on the open e-file, supporting the post on e5, and one
behind the d-Pawn – in fact, not one on c1 at all! ] (DR)

13…Ng4

Black is safely developed and is tempted by the
exposure of the Bishop. (DR)

14.Ne4 !? (DR)

 

-------------------
|-KR+QR-+|
|PPPN+-PP|
|-+-+-+B+|
|+n+NP-+-|
|-+-Bn+-+|
|+-+b+p+-|
|pppb-+pp|
|+kr-q-+r|
-------------------

This sort of move is normally a good idea, typical of IQP
positions, moving a piece nearer the King’s-side. It’s also the
sort of move you need to keep coming up with in tense, complex
positions if you are going to take on players in the 170+ class.
Here it looks particularly good, since after an exchange on e5 the
square d6 beckons, but… (DR)

14…Qb6

Getting the Queen out from under the central
battle-zone, but I might have gone for a Rook move. (DR)

[RR14…Nxe5!? Fritz3 0.72 (8/26): (00:02:57) …is a
typically robust Pawn-grabbing attempt by the computer. Computers
are great for finding (and making) moves like this; humans like
Pete may be more cautious! It’s actually not a move I’d think about
for long even if I spotted the …Qb8 idea, because White’s pieces
looked pretty active at the end of the analysis. 15.dxe5 Qb8 16.Nd4
(16.Qd4 Rd8; 16.f4 Ne3) 16…Qxe5 17.Re1; 14…Re8] (DR)

15.Bd6 ? (PCL) ? (DR)

  White is looking at the dark squares d6 and c5, and
natural would be 15.N2c3-a4-c5, additionally activating that knight
on e2. I planned 15.N2c3 Nxe5 16.dxe5 Rad8 as if 17.Na4 Qc7 and e5
looks weak (the lack of the Nf3 is felt). Instead, White tries,
ambitiously, to win the dark squares by exchanging the relevant
Black bishop… (PCL)

Fails to a two-mover. Why, or how, was it overlooked?
Sometimes these questions cannot be answered, even by the
blunderer, but this one has a familar theme. (DR)

[RR15.Bg3 Fritz3 -0.34 (8/25): (00:03:14)Is certainly
safer, but also an admission that White’s opening play has come to
naught, and is psychologically difficult to play for that reason.]
(DR)

15…Bxd6 16.Nxd6

 

-------------------
|-KR+QR-+|
|PPPN+-PP|
|-+-+-+B+|
|+n+-P-+-|
|-+-+n+-+|
|+-+bNpq-|
|ppp+-+pp|
|+kr-+-+r|
-------------------

16…Qc7 ! (PCL) ! (DR)

A mischievous retreat. I’m going to guess that White
missed this, because it’s a retreat by a piece that is already
developed. (DR)

  Very pleasant to play: pinning the knight to the h2-pawn
… (PCL)

17.h3 Qxd6

  …and winning it. Note 17:…Ne3 18.fxe3 Nxe3 19.Qd3
Nxf1 20.Ne4 Qh2+ 21.Kxf1 Qh1+ 22.Ng1 and 20:…Nh2 21.Qg3 leaves
Black down two knights for a rook. (PCL)

[17…Nge3?! is an obscure punt but you can have at
least one point for noticing it. The main line “works” in that
Black gets a Rook for two Knights but there is an amazing spuddle
by sacrificing the Queen. Fritz3 ignored all this but Fritz2
fancied it! 18.fxe3!? (18.Nb5? Qb6 19.fxe3 Nxe3-+) 18…Nxe3
19.Nxf7!? Nxd1 20.Bxe6 Rae8 (20…Qe7! PCL)
21.Ng5+ Kh8 22.Rcxd1 (22.Rfxd1 h6; 22.Rxf8+ Rxf8 23.Rxd1 Qe7)
22…Rxf1+ 23.Rxf1 (23.Kxf1 Rxe6 24.Nxe6 Qf7+ 25.N2f4 g5 26.Nxg5
Qxf4+ 27.Nf3) 23…h6 24.Nf7+ Kh7 25.Nf4 g5 (25…Qb6) 26.Bf5+ Kg8
27.Nxh6+ Kg7] (DR)

18.hxg4 Bxg4

 

-------------------
|-KR+QR-+|
|+PPN+-PP|
|-+-+-+B+|
|+b+-P-+-|
|-+-+n+-+|
|+-+-qp+-|
|ppp+-+pp|
|+kr-+-+r|
-------------------

19.Qd2

“There exists a wide-spread and therefore dangerous
delusion that with an extra pawn the win is achieved
automatically.” BRONSTEIN (PCL)

  So Black is a pawn up and the win is a matter of
technique? If you insist, but I am not a strong enough player to
lay claim to reliable technique, and it is worth detailing the
thinking processes.

  Firstly, the extra pawn is a bonus, but it only matures
in the(distant) future, and must be disregarded for the present.
White should obviously make every effort to attack.

  Secondly, the exchanges have removed a lot of the
potential in White’s position, and relieved the cramp in Black’s.
The plan must be an active one, and with dark-squared bishops I
would perhaps attack the d-pawn, placing my bishop on f6, and hence
defending g7 and e7. With light -squared bishops, doubling on the
e-file with a view to entry on e2 is more logical. (PCL)

The endgame where such a Pawn may be converted is
still some way off, and an extra h-Pawn is without doubt the most
useless type of extra Pawn you can have. (DR)

 

THE LATE MIDDLEGAME: Black seeks central posts for the major
pieces which prompts exchanges; White should have retained the
Queens. (DR)

19…Rae8

I don’t understand the Rook placements in this game.
I’d have gone for two other moves over this one! (DR)

P.S. Black cannot win a Pawn with 19…Bxe2 20. Qxe2
Nf4 21. Qf3 Qxd4? 22. Rc4, but if he considered the Ne2 to be a
more useful piece than the Bg4 he might have considered the
exchange in any event. I have often heard strong players say ‘this
sort of position is all about what pieces you want to keep on’, and
while I don’t think the Knight looks any better than the Bishop,
Mike van Wissen was convinced that the exchange was good for
Black!

20.Ng3 Re721.Rfe1 Rfe8 22.Rxe7
Rxe7 23.Re1

  Black can go wrong with …Qb4 24.Qxb4 Nxb4 25.Rxe7 and
…Qf4 24.Rxe7 Qxd2 25.Re8 ‘mate (both ideas drifted through my
mind). (PCL)

23…Rxe1+ 24.Qxe1 Qe7

 

-------------------
|-K-Q-+-+|
|+PP-+-PP|
|-N-+-+B+|
|+b+-P-+-|
|-+-+n+-+|
|+-+-+p+-|
|pppq-+pp|
|+k+-+-+-|
-------------------

25.Qxe7 ? (PCL)

  White’s toughest line of resistance is 25.Qa5 b6 26.Qa4
Qd7 with a long struggle in prospect. Although exchanging rooks was
necessary to remove the aggressive potential of the Black position,
exchanging queens was an unnecessary simplification. (PCL)

Here I think White can dodge, because the Black Queen
has no entry point; the complications produced by the presence of
Queens may produce some counterplay. I think this error is crucial,
and is one of the main instructional points of this game. [25.Qd2
idea Bxd5/Qa5; 25.Qa5!?] (DR)

25…Nxe7 26.Ne4

 

-------------------
|-K-+-+-+|
|+PP-+-PP|
|-+-+-+B+|
|+b+NP-+-|
|-+-+-+-+|
|+-+-+p+-|
|pppn-+pp|
|+k+-+-+-|
-------------------

26…Nd5 [26…b6?! 27. Nd6 Bh5 28. f3!]

 

THE ENDGAME: after some difficult manoeuvres in which both
sides make mistakes, Black obtains a winning game.Over the next few
moves Fritz preferred alternatives at each step. We are entering a
phase where the machine is suggesting moves that are good-looking
but often unmotivated. (DR)

  We now have a simplified ending where Black’s win should
be a matter of time. And accuracy I must add, as unfortunately
Black plays some poor moves, and White grabs (nearly) every chance
he is given! (PCL)

27.f3

[RR27.Nd6 Fritz3 -0.91 (9/18): (00:01:38)This is more
active and probably better; 27. Bxd5 is probably also critical,
tying White to the d5 Pawn at least for a while, but requires some
courage!] (DR)

27…Be6 28.Kf2

[28.Nc5 Again, no harm in trying to mess Black up
before either side activates the King. ] (DR)

28…h6 ? (PCL) ?! (DR)

  Error number 1, the king must be brought into play as a
matter of urgency: 28:… Kf8 29.Nd6 b6 30.Nc4 Ke7 31.Ne5 Kd6 with
an ideal setup, and not fearing 29.Ng5 h6 30.Nxe6 fxe6. `Centralise
the king’ is a basic maxim for the endgame, and the present sin
must be justified – …h6 was played with the aim of restricting
the White knight’s options, admirable in itself but misconceived,
as the knight is only interested in the queen side – and another
lesson is learnt. (PCL)

[RR28…Kf8 Fritz3 1.03 (9/18): (00:03:25) 29.Ng5 Bf5
preserves the Bishop without loss of time.] (DR)

29.Nc5

[29.Nd6 b6 and Black will gain a tempo by attacking
the Knight with the King.] (DR)

29…b6 ? (PCL)

  Error number 2, and now White has realistic drawing
chances! …Bc8 allows the king to centralise without any weakening
of the queen side. Note 29.Nd6 b6 (now forced) 30.Nc4 Nc7 (31.Ne5
Bd5) was possible, but in Black’s favour. (PCL)

Stephan Gerzadowicz says that if you have a choice
between a piece move and a Pawn move, and you can’t decide: then
move the piece, because you can’t undo a poor Pawn
move! (DR)

30.Nd3 Nc7

  This is all but forced.30:…Kf8 31.Ne5 c5 32.dc bc
33.Nd3 regains the pawn, or if 31:… Ne7 32.Bxe6 fxe6 and the
knight on e5 is very strong, bearing down on the queen side.
30:…f6 31.Nb4 Nxb4 32.Bxe6+ also is not simple. (PCL)

31.Bxe6 Nxe6

 

-------------------
|-+-+-+-+|
|+PK-+-PP|
|-+P+N+-+|
|+-+-P-+-|
|-+-+-+-+|
|p-+n+pp-|
|-pp+-+-p|
|+k+-+-+-|
-------------------

A Knight ending has arisen, where Black still has his extra
h-Pawn and White’s d-Pawn is still isolated. Guess what type of
Pawn Knights find it most difficult to defend against? Right,
Rook’s Pawns! (DR)

32.Ke3 f6

  stopping Ne5: if Nb4 Nxd4; Kxd4 c5+ (PCL)

33.Ke4 Kf7

 

-------------------
|-+-+-+-+|
|+P+-+-PP|
|-+P+N+-+|
|+-+KP-+-|
|-+-+-+-+|
|p-pn+pp-|
|-pk+-+-p|
|+-+-+-+-|
-------------------

34.d5 ! (PCL) ! (DR)

  White’s king is almost enough for him to consider winning
the game by infiltrating the queen side: this is the punishment for
Black’s 28th and 29th moves – 34:… cxd5+ 35.Kxd5 and the king
walks over to a7. Black must blockade the centre to allow time to
sort his pieces out, even at the cost of a White passed pawn on d5.
(PCL)

34…Ng5+ 35.Kd4 c5+ ! (DR)

A grown-up winning attempt: a lesser player would
have feared giving White the passed d-Pawn. [35…cxd5 36.Kxd5 h5
37.Kc6 with better chances for White] (DR)

36.Kc4 Ke7

 

-------------------
|-+-+-+-+|
|+P+-+-PP|
|-+P+N+-+|
|+-+-+K+-|
|-n-+Pp-+|
|p-p-+-p-|
|-p-k-+-p|
|+-+-+-+-|
-------------------

Along with his passed Pawn White has some goals (exchanging off
Pawns) and some choices (play with K+N on Q-side, or send K to
Q-side and N to K-side, or what?) (DR)

37.b4

  Seeing 37.Kb5 Kd6 38.Nf4 Ke5! and Black takes the
advantage, White tries to lift the queen side blockade, and gain b4
for his knight. (PCL)

37…cxb4 38.Nxb4 Kd6? (PCL)
[38…Kd7]

  Error number 3. A very poor move, and an instructive
error: d6 is a knight’s move from b5 which is a knight’s move from
a7, the destination of the White knight. The aim of the king move
is to take a step over to the queen side and potentially defend the
b6/a7 pawn. This could be accomplished without being a
tempo-gaining target with Kd7!

The game should now be drawn. (PCL)

39.Nc6 h5

 

-------------------
|-+-+-+-+|
|+P+-+-+P|
|-+P+-+-+|
|+-+-+K+-|
|pn-+P+-+|
|+-p-kNp-|
|-p-+-+-p|
|+-+-+-+-|
-------------------

40.Nd4 ? (PCL) ? (DR)

  And White backs out of 40.Nxa7 Nxf3 41.gxf3 h4, though
with 42.Nb5+ he gets back in time. Black would have to play 40:…
Nf7-d6 (41.Kb5 Kc7 etc), when he is probably still better due to
the king-side majority.

  Unfortunately for White, having made the most out of his
chances thus far, he flinches from the final realisation, and the
delay is critical. (PCL)

He who says ‘A’ must say ‘B’, advises Tarrasch.
Although Nxa7 is committal, it does offer counterplay.
(DR)

[RR40.Nxa7! 40…Nxf3!? (40…h4 41.f4; 40…Kd7)
41.gxf3 h4 42.Nb5+ Kd7 43.Nd4 (43.Nc3 h3 44.Ne2) 43…h3 44.Ne2 h2
45.Ng3 f5 46.f4 g5 47.fxg5 f4 48.Nh1 saves it: White had to
anticipate this save at move 40] (DR)

40…g6

against not only Nf5 but also f3-f4-f5, crippling the
majority.(DR)

The game should now be won (PCL)

41.f4 ? (PCL)

  Natural enough, but weakens the pawns. (cf. Black’s error
on move 29). White cannot now take the a7-pawn: 41.Nb5+ Kd7 42.Nxa7
Nxf3 43.Kb5 h4 44.Kxb6 Ne1xg2 queens the h-pawn in time. White has
to defend against …a6…h4…h3:gxh3 Nxh3-f4xd5, which is not
easy, as creating a second chance on the queen side is time
consuming. White obviously wants to regain his pawn, without
allowing the line above. (PCL)

f4-f5 is no longer a threat, but …Nxf3 may be
(DR)

41…Ne4 42.Nb5+ Kd7 43.Nxa7

  At this point White (audibly) asked his match captain
whether a draw would be sufficient, or should he be playing for a
win! Meanwhile Black, contemplating an attack on four weak pawns
with an active knight, can finally claim to be winning. (PCL)

White finally gets the courage to play this, but
Black is better than previously. (DR)

43…Ng3 !(!) (PCL) ?! (DR)

 

This is an interesting moment where our analysis and judgement
differed. After careful consideration of my ?! Pete gave his move
another exclamation mark! (DR)

  The position we both reached is obviously critical. The
details of the analysis actually decide the point, but they
shouldn’t obscure some principles in the position:

 

  • because White has a passed Pawn it must be blockaded,
    preferably by the King because the King also attacks the Pawn
  • the Black Knight goes around hitting White Pawns weakened by
    loosening moves

(PCL)

 

If now 44.Kb5 Ne2 45.Kxb6 Nxf4 46.a4 Nxg2 47.a5 Nf4 48.a6 Nxd5+- c7
or 48.Nb5 Nxd5+ 49.Kc5 Ne7-c8 and the King’s-side pawns win (though
this appears the line with most chances – the winning moves with
the knight, leaving the king alone, would have been hard to find).
Or 44.Nb5 Ne2+ 45.f5 g5 with …Nf4: g3 Ne2 to follow.

  White instead gives up the least disastrous pawn…
(PCL)

[RR43…Nd6+!? Fritz3 0.25 (11/24): Going backwards
is not the idea in endgames usually, but it keeps the King out, and
comes at the King’s-side from what looked like a better angle,
although the two approaches converge. (DR)

  A check is easier to respond to, so 43…Ng3 must be the
better move order! (PCL)

A) 44.Kd4 Nf5+ 45.Ke4 (45.Kc4 Ne3+
46.Kb5 Nxg2 47.f5 g5!) 45…Nh4 46.g3 Nf5 47.Kf3 (*) Kd6 (I
thought this won, but Pete found a draw for White by liquidating
Pawns after 48. Nc8+ Kc5 49. d6 Nxd6 50. Ne7 g5 51. Ng8 Ne8 52. Ke4
e.g. 52…Kb4 53. Kf5 h4 54. gxh4 gxh4 55. Kg4 Ka3 56. Ne7 Kxa2 57.
Nd5=; however Black can still win by 47…Nd4+! 48. Ke4 Ne2 or 48.
Kf2 Nc2 49. Nb5 Nb4 50. Nc3 Kd6-+ e.g. 51. Ne4+ Kxd5 52. Nxf6 Ke6
53. Ne4 Nxa2);

B) 44.Kd3 Nf5 45.Ke2 (45.Ke4 Nh4
46.g3 Nf5 47.Kf3 Kd6 is the same position (*) as in (A); 45. Kc4
Ne3+ 46. Kb5 Nxg2 47. Nxg2 47. f5 g5 -+) 45…Ne7-+(PCL);
43…h4-+] (DR)

44.Kd4 ?! (PCL)

Putting the King where is can be easily checked.
Knight endings are very tiresome, needing exact calculation more
than general plans. [RR44.Kd3! Fritz3 -0.50 (11/22): (00:02:00)
44…Nf5!] (DR)

  45. Ke2 Ne7-+ or 45. Ke4 Nh4 46. g3 Nf5 47. Kf3 returns
us to the position (*) above. I saw 44. Nb5 Ne2 45. f5 g5 when
…Nf5-e2 wins. I also saw 44. Kb5!? Ne2 45. Kxb6 Nxf4 when I hoped
I was better! (outside passed Pawn); afterwards I found 46. a4 Nxg2
47. a5 Nf4 48. Nb5 (48. a6 Nxd5+ and …Nc7) 48…Nxd5+
49. Kc5 Ne7 and …Nc8-+ (PCL)

44…Ne2+! 45.Ke4 [45.Ke3 Nc3]
45…Nc3+ 46.Kd4 Nxa2 47.Nb5 Nc1

  With the removal of the a-pawn, all Black’s problems are
over. The White King and Knight have no effective target, and it
remains for Black to coordinate his pieces, and move on to the king
side in earnest. First step is to return the knight to d6.
(PCL)

48.Nc3

 

-------------------
|-+-+-n-+|
|+P+-+-+-|
|-+-+-N-+|
|+-P-K-+-|
|p+-+P+-+|
|+pp-+-p-|
|-+-+k+-+|
|+-+-+-+-|
-------------------

48…Nb3+ ?! (DR)

Drives the King forward! [48…h4!?; 48…Kd6]
(49. d6+! (PCL)) (DR)

  These alternatives look less constructive! (PCL)

49.Kc4 Nc5 50.Kb5 Kc7 51.Kc4

  Note: 51.d6+ Kxd6 52.Kxb6 h4! 53:…Nd3-e1 wins a pawn.
(PCL)

The King was OK where it was, I thought.
(DR)

51…Nb7 52.Nb5+ Kd7 53.Kd4 Nd6 54.Nc3
Nf5+

  and now back to the king side… (PCL)

55.Ke4 Kd6

 

-------------------
|-+-+-+-+|
|+P+-+-+-|
|-+-+-N-+|
|+-PK+-+-|
|p+n+P+-+|
|+pp-k-p-|
|-+-+-+-+|
|+-+-+-+-|
-------------------

White is running out of moves! (DR)

56.Kd3

loses contact with the d-Pawn, but there wasn’t much
else (DR)

56…Nh4 57.g3 Nf5 58.Ne4+ Kxd5 59.Nxf6+ Ke6
60.Ne4

 

-------------------
|-+-+-+-+|
|+-+-+-+-|
|-P-+K+-+|
|+-PN+-+-|
|p+n+-+-+|
|+p+k+-p-|
|-+-+-+-+|
|+-+-+-+-|
-------------------

White has lost the asset of the d-Pawn, and allowed Black to
exchange an extra near h-Pawn for a distant Passed b-Pawn.
(DR)

60…Nd6 61.Nf2

Of course the exchange must be declined.
(DR)

61…Kf5 62.Kd4 Nb5+ 63.Kd5

  ? (PCL)

  makes it easy, but if 63. Kd3 Black has two winning
plans, …h4 …Kxf4-g3xh4 with two passed pawns, or …Nxf4 : gxf4
Kxf4 with three pawns vs one knight! (PCL)

[63.Kd3 h4 or maybe …Nc7-e6xf4] (DR)

63…Nc3+ 64.Kc6 Ne2

That’s how it works: while your opponent battles with
the Passed Pawn you eat the King’s-side. (DR)

65.Kxb6 Nxg3 66.Kc6 [66.Kc5]
66…Kxf4 [66…h4 67.Kd5 Ne2]
67.Kd5 Nf5 [67…g5 is probably better, but it
doesn’t matter]

0-1

 

A long and hard struggle, typical of some of the complexities
possible in endgame play. In particular note how a strong player
will find resources in any position, and how accuracy must be
maintained throughout.

  The numerous errors are instructive: Black’s delay in
centralising his king, leading to queen side weaknesses. These
weaknesses gave White the initiative, but he backed out of
realising this to its optimum. (PCL).

 

This was a good game in many respects: exciting and
close-fought, with more good ideas found by both sides than errors
(no amateur game is really free of the latter.)

There are lots of instructional points here: the need
for counterplay (25. Qxe7? 40. Nd4?) and the need for the courage
of your convictions (35…c5+! 40. Nxa7! ) being two that we didn’t
spend a lot of time on in the notes.

Perhaps the most instructional point of all is: I
asked Peter if he would annotate this game for us, and discovered
that he had already put a lot of time and effort into it for his
own study.

Original analysis of our own games – not self-serving
but hard work, checked and worried about – is perhaps the most
valuable sort of study we can do. (DR)

A planning test (Botvinnik-Kan)

Posted on by

White to play and win

The French Defence ‘little centre’

Posted on by

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

Peter Lane, 11th October 1996

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

  e.g.: from the diagram

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  suddenly the aggressive f-pawn is looking lonely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

which is supposedly in white’s favour

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

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

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

Ruy Lopez, Exchange Variation: White wins

Posted on by

The Exchange Variation of the Ruy Lopez: examples of White wins

Introduction

You may know that after:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6

…White cannot win a pawn with 5. Nxe5 because of 5….Qd4.

What you may not know is that White can play this line to win, because in some sense, he is already a pawn up!

Let me explain.

If you have an extra pawn, you should:

  1. exchange off pieces, not pawns
  2. create a passed pawn
  3. advance the passed pawn and either:
    1. – force your opponent to give up material to stop it queening, or
    2. – force your way into the opponent’s position to take material yourself (usually pawns)

With this in mind, let’s look at the pawn formation after

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. d4 exd4 6. Qxd4 Qxd4 7. Nxd4

 

-+-+-+-+
XxX-+xXx
-+x+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+p+-+
+-+-+-+-
pPp+-PpP
+-+-+-+-

Now, if there were only Kings on the board, White could easily create a passed pawn with f4, e5 and f5 and e6.

But Black cannot do the same on the other side, unless White allows all the front pawns to come to a4,b4 and c4, when there is a trick with …b3! e.g. axb3, c3! bxc3 and …a3. As long as White avoids that trap, the passed pawn on the King’s side should win.

This is what I mean by already being a pawn up. You have an extra pawn on the King’s-side, and Black’s extra Queen’s-side pawn is useless.

Emanuel Lasker played this several times, and more recently, Bobby Fischer discovered that you could also play 5. O-O! with an awkward moment for Black, because now there really is a threat to the e5 pawn which is not easy to meet e.g. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. O-O f6 6. d4 exd4 7. Nxd4 c5 8. Nb3 Qxd1 9. Rxd1 and compared to Lasker’s line, you are even further ahead in development. You do need to be prepared for other lines e.g. 5…Bg4.

I quote Lasker’s most famous successes with this line below; just in case you think this is all ancient history, here is an example from the German Bundeslige from recent years.

White’s plan, as ever, is to advance on the King’s-side to get a passed pawn or entry for attack.

Deffner,R – Brueggemann,J [C68], NRW

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. d4 exd4 6. Qxd4 Qxd4 7. Nxd4 Bd7 8. O-O O-O-O 9. Nc3 Bd6 10. Re1 f6 11. f4

 

-+jT-+sT
+xXl+-Xx
x+xL-X-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-NpP-+
+-N-+-+-
pPp+-+pP
R-B-R-K-

11… Bg4 12. Nf3 Nh6 13. h3 Bc5+ 14. Be3 Bxe3+ 15. Rxe3 Bxf3 16. Rxf3 Rd2 17. Rf2 Rhd8 18. Re1 b5 19. Rxd2 Rxd2 20. Re2 Rxe2 21. Nxe2

 

-+j+-+-+
+-X-+-Xx
x+x+-X-S
+x+-+-+-
-+-+pP-+
+-+-+-+p
pPp+n+p+
+-+-+-K-

21… c5 22. Kf2 Kd7 23. g4 Kd6 24. Ke3 c4 25. Nd4 c5 26. Nf3 Nf7 27. h4 a5 28. g5

 

-+-+-+-+
+-+-+sXx
-+-J-X-+
XxX-+-P-
-+x+pP-P
+-+-Kn+-
pPp+-+-+
+-+-+-+-

28… a4 29. Nh2 h5 30. gxf6 gxf6 31. Nf1 Nh8 32. f5

 

-+-+-+-S
+-+-+-+-
-+-J-X-+
+xX-+p+x
x+x+p+-P
+-+-K-+-
pPp+-+-+
+-+-+n+-

32… Ke5 33. Ng3 Nf7 34. Nxh5 Nd8 35. Ng3 b4 36. h5 b3

 

-+-S-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+-X-+
+-X-Jp+p
x+x+p+-+
+x+-K-N-
pPp+-+-+
+-+-+-+-

37. cxb3 axb3 38. axb3 cxb3 39. h6 c4 40. Ne2 Nf7 41. h7 Nh8 42. Nf4 Nf7 43. Ng6+ Kd6 44. Kd4 1-0

 

 

Lasker,Emanuel – Steinitz,W, Moscow, 1896

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. Nc3 f6 6. d4 exd4 7. Qxd4 Bd6 8. Be3 Ne7 9. Nd2 c5 10. Qd3 b5 11. Qe2 c4 12. Qh5+ g6 13. Qh6 Kf7 14. f4 Qf8 15. Qh4 Nc6 16. Nd5 f5 17. Qf6+ Kg8

 

t+l+-DjT
+-X-+-+x
x+sL-Qx+
+x+n+x+-
-+x+pP-+
+-+-B-+-
pPpN-+pP
R-+-K-+r

18. Qxf8+ Bxf8 19. Nxc7 Rb8 20. O-O-O Kf7 21. Nf3 h6 22. e5 Be7 23. Nd5 Bd8 24. h4 Rg8 25. Rhe1 Be6 26. Bc5 b4 27. Ne3 Rb5 28. Bd6 c3 29. b3 a5 30. Rd3 a4 31. Nd4 Nxd4 32. Rxd4 Bxh4 33. Re2 axb3 34. cxb3 Be7 35. Nc2

 

-+-+-+t+
+-+-Lj+-
-+-Bl+xX
+t+-Px+-
-X-R-P-+
+pX-+-+-
p+n+r+p+
+-K-+-+-

35… g5 36. Bxe7 Kxe7

 

-+-+-+t+
+-+-J-+-
-+-+l+-X
+t+-PxX-
-X-R-P-+
+pX-+-+-
p+n+r+p+
+-K-+-+-

37. Nxb4 gxf4 38. Nc6+ Kf7 39. Rxf4 Rg4 40. Rd4 h5 41. Nd8+ Ke7 42. Nxe6 Kxe6 43. Rd6+ Ke7 44. Rh6 Re4 45. Rf2 Rbxe5 46. Rxh5 Ke6 47. Rh6+ Kd5 48. Rf6 Kd4 49. Rd6+ Kc5 50. Rd8 Re2 51. Rf3

 

-+-R-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-J-Tx+-
-+-+-+-+
+pX-+r+-
p+-+t+p+
+-K-+-+-

51… Rxa2 52. Rxc3+ Kb4 53. Rc2 Rxc2+ 54. Kxc2 Re2+ 55. Rd2 Re4 56. Rf2 Rg4 57. Kb2 Re4 58. g3 Re5 59. Rf4+ Kb5 60. Ka3 Rd5 61. Rf3 Ka5 62. b4+ Kb5 63. Kb3 Kb6 64. Kc4 Kc6 65. Rb3 Re5 66. b5+ Kb6 67. Kd4 Re4+ 68. Kd5 Re8 69. Kd6 Re1 70. Rf3 Kxb5 71. Rxf5+ Kc4 72. g4 Kd4 73. g5 Rg1 74. Ke6 Ke4 75. Kf6 Ra1 76. g6 Ra7 77. Re5+ Kf4 78. Re7 1-0

 

Lasker,Emanuel – Tarrasch,S, Duesseldorf, 1908

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. d4 exd4 6. Qxd4 Qxd4 7. Nxd4 c5 8. Ne2 Bd7 9. b3 Bc6 10. f3 Be7 11. Bb2 Bf6 12. Bxf6 Nxf6 13. Nd2 O-O-O 14. O-O-O Rd7 15. Nf4 Re8 16. Nc4 b6 17. a4 a5 18. Rxd7 Nxd7 19. Rd1 Ne5 20. Nxe5 Rxe5 21. c4

 

-+j+-+-+
+-X-+xXx
-Xl+-+-+
X-X-T-+-
p+p+pN-+
+p+-+p+-
-+-+-+pP
+-Kr+-+-

21… Re8 22. Nh5 Rg8 23. Rd3 f6 24. Kd2 Be8 25. Ng3 Bd7 26. Ke3 Re8 27. Nh5 Re7 28. g4 c6 29. h4 Kc7 30. g5 f5 31. Ng3 fxe4 32. Nxe4 Bf5 33. h5 Rd7 34. Rc3 Rd1 35. Kf4

 

-+-+-+-+
+-J-+-Xx
-Xx+-+-+
X-X-+lPp
p+p+nK-+
+pR-+p+-
-+-+-+-+
+-+t+-+-

35… Bd7 36. Re3 Rh1 37. Ng3 Rh4+ 38. Ke5 Rh3 39. f4 Kd8 40. f5 Rh4 41. f6

 

-+-J-+-+
+-+l+-Xx
-Xx+-P-+
X-X-K-Pp
p+p+-+-T
+p+-R-N-
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-

41… gxf6+ 42. Kxf6 Be8 43. Nf5 Rf4 44. g6 hxg6 45. hxg6 Rg4 46. Rxe8+ Kxe8 47. g7 Kd7 48. Nh4 Rxg7 49. Kxg7 Ke6 50. Nf3 Kf5 51. Kf7 Ke4 52. Ke6 Kd3 53. Kd6 Kc3 54. Kxc6 Kxb3 55. Kb5 1-0

 

Lasker,Emanuel – Janowski,D, Paris, 1909

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. d4 exd4 6. Qxd4 Bg4 7. Nc3 Qxd4 8. Nxd4 O-O-O 9. Be3 Bb4 10. Nde2 Bxe2 11. Kxe2 Bxc3 12. bxc3

 

-+jT-+sT
+xX-+xXx
x+x+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+p+-+
+-P-B-+-
p+p+kPpP
R-+-+-+r

12… Nf6 13. f3 Nd7 14. Rad1 Ne5 15. Rd4 b6 16. f4 Nd7 17. Rhd1 c5 18. R4d3 Nb8 19. Kf3 Rde8

 

-Sj+t+-T
+-X-+xXx
xX-+-+-+
+-X-+-+-
-+-+pP-+
+-PrBk+-
p+p+-+pP
+-+r+-+-

20. f5 f6 21. g4 Re7 22. Bf4 Rhe8 23. Re3 Nc6 24. g5 Na5 25. h4 Nc4 26. Re2 Rf7 27. Rg1 Kd7 28. h5 Nd6 29. h6 fxg5 30. Rxg5

 

-+-+t+-+
+-Xj+tXx
xX-S-+-P
+-X-+pR-
-+-+pB-+
+-P-+k+-
p+p+r+-+
+-+-+-+-

30… g6 31. fxg6 hxg6 32. Rxg6 Ref8 33. Rg7

 

-+-+-T-+
+-Xj+tR-
xX-S-+-P
+-X-+-+-
-+-+pB-+
+-P-+k+-
p+p+r+-+
+-+-+-+-

33… Rxg7 34. hxg7 Rg8 35. Rg2 Ne8 36. Be5 Ke6 37. Kf4 Kf7 38. Kf5 1-0

 

Lasker – Capablanca, St.Petersburg, 1914

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. d4 exd4 6. Qxd4 Qxd4 7. Nxd4 Bd6 8. Nc3 Ne7 9. O-O O-O 10. f4 Re8 11. Nb3 f6

 

t+l+t+j+
+xX-S-Xx
x+xL-X-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+pP-+
+nN-+-+-
pPp+-+pP
R-B-+rK-

12. f5 b6 13. Bf4 Bb7 14. Bxd6 cxd6 15. Nd4 Rad8 16. Ne6

 

-+-Tt+j+
+l+-S-Xx
xXxXnX-+
+-+-+p+-
-+-+p+-+
+-N-+-+-
pPp+-+pP
R-+-+rK-

16… Rd7 17. Rad1 Nc8 18. Rf2 b5 19. Rfd2 Rde7 20. b4 Kf7 21. a3 Ba8 22. Kf2 Ra7 23. g4 h6 24. Rd3 a5 25. h4

 

l+s+t+-+
T-+-+jX-
-+xXnX-X
Xx+-+p+-
-P-+p+pP
P-Nr+-+-
-+p+-K-+
+-+r+-+-

25… axb4 26. axb4 Rae7 27. Kf3 Rg8 28. Kf4 g6 29. Rg3 g5+ 30. Kf3 Nb6 31. hxg5 hxg5 32. Rh3 Rd7 33. Kg3 Ke8 34. Rdh1

 

l+-+j+t+
+-+t+-+-
-SxXnX-+
+x+-+pX-
-P-+p+p+
+-N-+-Kr
-+p+-+-+
+-+-+-+r

34… Bb7 35. e5 dxe5 36. Ne4 Nd5 37. N6c5 Bc8 38. Nxd7 Bxd7 39. Rh7 Rf8 40. Ra1 Kd8 41. Ra8+ Bc8 42. Nc5

 

r+lJ-T-+
+-+-+-+r
-+x+-X-+
+xNsXpX-
-P-+-+p+
+-+-+-K-
-+p+-+-+
+-+-+-+-

1-0

The secret arts of castling

Posted on by

“Castle because you will or because you must; but not because
you can.” — Pillsbury
 

What can we infer from Pillsbury’s advice? Castling is desirable:
it whips the King out from under the central battle, and it gets a
Rook into play where lines may be opened. But it is also a move
which must be weighed against other moves. Careless, automatic
castling can waste time that could be better spent on other things,
and you can also castle from the frying pan into the fire. Below
I’ll look at the whys and wherefores of castling.
 

Castling not at all
I show this game to all the juniors. Get your King out of the way!
And if your opponent doesn’t castle, open up lines to the uncastled
King for your Rooks.
Wojciechowski – Weiss (Munich)
[C15]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nge2 dxe4 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6.
Nxc3 f5
 

?! The only way to hang on to the pawn, but it would have been
safer to let it go. (Nimzo and Weiss did know this, but must have
thought themselves capable of the defence.)
7. f3 exf3 8. Qxf3 Qh4+
[8…Qxd4 9.Qg3 Nf6 10.Qxg7 Qe5+ 11.Be2 Rg8 12.Qh6
Rg6 13.Qh4 Bd7 14.Bg5 Bc6 15.0-0-0 Bxg2 16.Rhe1 Be4 17.Bh5 Nxh5
18.Rd8+ Kf7 19.Qxh5 Kg7 20.Nxe4 fxe4 21.Bh6+ Kf6 22.Rf8+ 1-0
Alekhin Alexander-Nimzowitsch Aaron/Bled 1931]
9. g3 Qxd4 10. Be3 Qg4 11. Qg2
 

White must preserve the Q having sacrificed two pawns
11… Nf6 12. Be2 Qg6 13. O-O-O Nc6 14. Nb5 Qf7
15. Bc5 a6 16. Bf3 Nd8 17. Qd2 Nd5 18. Bxd5! axb5 19.
Rhe1
 

White’s major pieces are the main artillery in the attack against
the uncastled King
19… Bd7 20. g4 Nc6 21. gxf5 Qxf5 22. Bxe6 Bxe6
23. Qd7+ 1-0
 

Castling into it
This is the opposite fault: castling into an area where lines are
more easily opened up against you.
Blackburne – Blanchard (London)
[C30] , 1891
1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. Nf3 exf4 ? 5. d4 Bb4 6.
Bxf4 d5 7. e5 Bxc3+ 8. bxc3 Be6 9. Bd3 h6 10. O-O Nge7 11.
Rb1
 

a rook’s first duty is to sieze the open files (or half-open ones)
11… b6 12. Qd2 O-O
 

optimistic!
13. Bxh6
  sacrifices like this don’t take much thought…
13… gxh6 14. Qxh6 Ng6 15. Ng5 Re8 16.
Rxf7
[16. Qh7+ or 16.Bxg6 both win]
16… Bxf7 17. Qh7+ Kf8 18. Qxf7#
1-0
 

Dubois – Steinitz Wilhelm
(London (England)) [C55] 1862
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. O-O Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. Bg5
h6
 

Black, not having castled, can advance on the King’s-side with
impunity.
7. Bh4 g5 8. Bg3 h5 9. Nxg5 h4 10. Nxf7 hxg3 11.
Nxd8 Bg4 12. Qd2 Nd4 13. Nc3 Nf3+ 14. gxf3 Bxf3 15. hxg3 Rh1#
0-1
 

Nigel Holloway’s Suicide
Variation.
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5
e6 7. f4 Be7 8. Qf3 Qc7 9. O-O-O O-O?!
  Nigel Holloway’s infamous Suicide Variation of the
Najdorf Sicilian.
 

10. Bd3!? critical
10… Nc6 11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. e5 dxe5 13.
Qh3
[13. Ne4 Nd5 14. Bxe7 Nxe7 15. Ng5 h6 16. Nh7 Rd8-/+
Helman-Holloway, NCC 1973]
13… h6 14. Bxh6 gxh6 15. Qxh6 Rd8and 16.
g4 [16. Rhe1 “or almost anything else” and no-one
could find a decisive line for White]
[10. Qg3 Nbd7 11. Bd3 b5 12. Rhe1 b4 13. Nd5 exd5 14.
Nf5+- Hartston-Holloway, GB chp 1973 – “being Bill Hartston, he
claimed that he thought of this over the board”.]
 

Hoffmann – Petroff (Zt, Warsaw
(Poland)) [C53] castling: into it?, 1844
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. e5
Ne4 7. Bd5 Nxf2 8. Kxf2 dxc3+ 9. Kg3 cxb2 10. Bxb2 Ne7 11. Ng5 Nxd5
12. Nxf7
 

12… O-O! 13. Nxd8 Bf2+ 14. Kh3 d6+ 15. e6 Nf4+ 16. Kg4
Nxe6 17. Nxe6 Bxe6+ 18. Kg5 Rf5+ 19. Kg4 h5+ 20. Kh3 Rf3#
0-1
 

Castling Queen’s-side

nn – nn [B75] castling:
castling Queen’s-side, 1993
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3
Bg7 7. f3 Nc6 8. Qd2 a6 9. O-O-O Bd7 10. g4 Rc8 11. Be2 O-O 12.
h4
 

Opposite-side castling and asymmetric pawns/files usually adds up
to a race to mate the opponent’s King. Both sides will throw pawns
forward to open up lines for the attack.
12… Nxd4 13. Bxd4 Qa5 14. Kb1 e5 ! 15. Be3 Be6
16. a3 Rfd8 17. Bg5 Rd7 18. h5 Rdc7 19. h6 Rxc3 !? 20. hxg7 R8c6
21. Bxf6 Rb6
 

! exciting stuff!
22. Bb5 !! 22… Rxb5 23. Qxd6 Rc8 24. Qf8+ Rxf8
25. gxf8=Q+ Kxf8 26. Rxh7 1-0
 

Castling into it
Queen’s-side

Keres,Paul – Botvinnik,Mikhail
(ch_URS ) (03) [E35] , 1941
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 d5 5. cxd5 exd5 6. Bg5
h6 7. Bh4 c5
 

8. O-O-O Bxc3 9. Qxc3 g5 10. Bg3 cxd4 11. Qxd4 Nc6 12. Qa4
Bf5 13. e3 Rc8 14. Bd3 Qd7 15. Kb1 Bxd3+ 16. Rxd3 Qf5 17. e4 Nxe4
18. Ka1 O-O 19. Rd1 b5 20. Qxb5 Nd4 21. Qd3 Nc2+ 22. Kb1 Nb4
0-1
 

Castling late
Castling late runs the risk of not being able to castle at all,
because your King gets trapped in the middle. However I was very
struck watching Jon Speelman on TV many years ago, refraining from
castling to give an extra tempo for the attack. This is
characteristic of no-one so much as Petrosian.

Speelman – Mestel (BBC TV)
[A42] castling: delayed castling, 1979
1.d4 d6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 e5 5.d5 Nd7 6.Be2 a5 7.a3
Ngf6 8.Bg5 0-0 9.Rb1
 

“Speelman, an original player, is trying a novel plan here. He
delays castling, and uses the extra move to make progress on both
wings.”
9…h6 10.Be3 Nc5 11.Bf3 Bd7 12.b4 axb4 13.axb4
Na4 14.Nge2 Ne8 15.Nxa4 Rxa4 16.Qc1 Kh7 17.Nc3 Ra8
18.h4!
 

18…h5 19.Bd1 f5 20.exf5 Bxf5 21.Bc2 Nf6 22.Bg5
Qd7
 

23.0-0!
“Finally! Now Black can no longer counter with a
general advance of the King’s-side Pawns.” — James/Barden
23…c6 24.dxc6 Qxc6 25.Bxf5 gxf5 26.Nd5
a Pawn sac! 26…Nxd5 27.cxd5 Qxd5
[27…Qd7] 28.Rd1 Qe4 29.Rxd6 f4 30.f3 Qe2 31.Rb2
Qb5 32.Qb1+ Kh8 33.Rbd2 e4 34.Bh6 Qe5 35.Qxe4 Rfe8? 36.Bxg7+
Qxg7 [36…Kxg7 37.Qg6+] 37.Qxf4 Ra1+
38.Kh2 Rf8 39.Qxf8+ Qxf8 40.Rd8 Kg7 41.Rxf8 Kxf8 42.Rd7
1-0
 

Terpugov,E – Petrosian,T
(Moscow Zenit_Spartak m) , 1957
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d6 3. Nc3 Bg4 4. e4 c6 5. h3 Bxf3 6. Qxf3
Nbd7 7. Be3 e6 8. g4 d5 9. e5 Ng8
 

In closed position it is difficult to open lines against the King,
and if there are no other open lines it may not be essential to
connect the Rooks.
10. O-O-O b5 11. Bd3 Nb6 12. Kb1 Nc4 13. Bc1 Qb6
14. g5 Ne7 15. h4 c5 16. dxc5 Qxc5 17. Rhe1 g6 18. b3 Bg7 19. bxc4
bxc4 20. Bf1
 

Only now does Black castle, having spent each of his precious
ration of moves in the most effective way.
20… O-O 21. Ka1 Rfb8 22. Nb1 Nc6 23. Qg3 Rxb1+
24. Kxb1 Rb8+ 25. Ka1 c3 26. Bd2 Nb4 27. Bd3 Qc4 0-1
 

Petrosian,T – Barendregt,J
(Beverwijk), , 1960
1. c4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. e4 c5 5. d5 e5 6. Be2 Nh6
7. h4 f5 8. Bg5 Qb6 9. Rb1 Nf7 10. Bd2 a5 11. Nf3 h6 12. g3 Na6 13.
a3 Qd8 14. Qc2 h5 15. exf5 gxf5 16. Ng5 Qf6 17. Na4 f4
[17… Qd8 18. Ne6 Bxe6 19. dxe6 Nh6 20. Bxh5+ Ke7
21. Bxh6 Bxh6 22. Qxf5+]
18. Nb6 Bf5 19. Bd3 Bxd3 20. Qxd3 Rb8 21. Ne4
Qd8
 

22. Bxa5 O-O 23. Qd1 f3 24. b4 Nh6 25. Rb3 Ng4 26. O-O Bf6
27. Qxf3! Qe7
[27… Bxh4 28. Qh1 Be7 29. Qxh5 Nf6 30. Qg6+ Kh8 31.
Kg2]
[27… Rf7 28. Qf5 Rh7 29. f3]
28. Qf5 Rf7 29. Qxh5 Rg7 30. f3 Bxh4 31. fxg4 Rh7
32. Qf5 1-0
 

Yates Frederick D – Alekhin
Alexander (San Remo) [C71] , 1930
This is the record-holder, I think!
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. Nc3
Bd7 6. d3 g6 7. Nd5 b5 8. Bb3 Na5 9. Bg5 f6 10. Bd2 c6 11. Ne3 Nxb3
12. axb3 Nh6 13. b4 f5 14. Qe2 Nf7 15. Nf1 Qe7 16. Ng3 f4 17. Nf1
g5
 

Neither side seems able to castle with safety on either wing!
18. Bc3 h5 19. N3d2 Bg4 20. f3 Be6 21. d4 Bg7 22.
Qd3 exd4 23. Bxd4 Ne5 24. Qe2
 

Finally, Black commits the King.
24… O-O 25. h3 c5 26. Bc3 cxb4 27. Bxb4 Nc6 28.
Bc3 Bxc3 29. bxc3 Qf6 30. e5 Nxe5 31. Ne4 Qe7 32. Nfd2 Bc4 33. Nxc4
Nxc4 34. Rd1 Qe5 35. Qd3 Rf5
 

And now White:
36. O-O d5 37. Qxd5+ Qxd5 38. Rxd5 Rxd5 39. Nf6+
Kf7 40. Nxd5 Rd8 41. Nb4 Rd2 42. Ra1 a5 43. Nc6 Rxc2 44. Nxa5 Ne3
45. Rb1 Rxg2+ 46. Kh1 Rg3 47. Nc6 Rxh3+ 0-1
 

Castling not at all
(reprise)

Basman – Wall (UK chp
Eastbourne) (2) [A00] , 1990
1. h3 e5 2. a3 d5
  Basman has made a career out of this sort of thing.
3. c4 c6 4. cxd5 cxd5 5. g4 Nc6 6. Bg2 Be6 7. d3
Nge7 8. Nc3 Ng6 9. Nf3 Be7 10. g5 f5 11. gxf6 gxf6 12. Rg1 Qd7 13.
h4 h5 14. Qa4 O-O-O
 

Basman has argued that Kings are safe in the middle as long as you
don’t move the central pawns. It all depends on whether your
opponent can open lines, which depends on pawn mobility.
  So White must restrain the Black central pawns.
15. b4 b6 16. Bd2 Kb8 17. b5 Na5 18. Na2 Nb7 19.
Nb4 Bxb4 20. axb4 Nd6
 

White starts a pincer movement.
21. Bh3 Bxh3 22. Rxg6 Rhg8 23. Rxf6 Rg7 24. Bg5
Qc8 25. Rc1 Rc7 26. Rc6 1-0
 
  And while MJB can get away with this sort of thing, it
still involves definite risks.

Bryson – Basman (Cr) [B00],
1986
1. e4 g5 2. d4 h6 3. Bd3 d6 4. Ne2 c5 5. c3 Nf6 6. O-O Nc6
7. Kh1 Bg4 8. f3 Bh5 9. Be3 e6 10. Nd2 Be7 11. a3 cxd4 12. cxd4 d5
13. e5 Nh7 14. Qc2 Nf8 15. b4 Bg6 16. f4 Rc8 17. Rac1 a6
 

A bit French, which is odd for Basman, whose games usually look
Martian… If you know about the French, you may feel that White’s
position looks better – Black lacks Queen’s-side counterplay
against the attack.
18. f5 exf5 19. Bxf5 Bxf5 20. Qxf5 Rh7 21. Nc3
Rc7 22. Nb3 Rd7 23. Na4 Rc7 24. Nac5 Bxc5 25. Nxc5
 

Black has blockaded the central files, but the Bishop files are
haemorrhaging. 25… Ne7 26. Qf6 Rc6 27. e6 Nxe6 28. Nxb7
Qc7 29. Rxc6 Qxc6 30. Nc5 Nxc5 31. dxc5 Qe6 32. Bd4 Kd7 33. Qf2 f5
34. Re1 Qc6 35. Qe2 f4 36. a4 Qxa4 37. Qe6+ Kd8 38. Qb6+ Kc8 39.
Bf6 Rf7 40. Qe6+
  Fittingly, the decision comes down the King’s e-file.
1-0

Castling tactics
Unusually, castling can be used as a positive element in a tactical
idea. It’s worth knowing about this, because it is easy to
overlook.

Mikhailov,V – Weteschnik,M (FS
IM A, Budapest) (5), 1995
1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 c5 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bf4 Nf6 6. e4 a6
7. a4 Nc6 8. dxc5 Bxc5 9. Qxd8+ Kxd8 10. Bxc4 Bb4
 

11. e5 Ne4 12. O-O-O+ 1-0
 
Thanks to mig for this game, and to others who
contributed games with the same theme, including Joshua Bromberg,
Dan Scoones, and Matt Guthrie. There are many reasons to like the
internet, and chess is one of
them.
  A curiosity:
Wohl,A (2405) – Curtis,J (Doeberl Cup, Canberr )
(2290) (3), 1996
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3
a6 6. f4 e6 7. Qf3 Qc7 8. Be3 b5 9. Bd3 Bb7 10. g4 b4 11. Nce2 d5
12. e5 Ne4 13. f5 Nd7 14. fxe6 Nxe5 15. exf7+ Qxf7 16. Qxf7+ Kxf7
17. Rf1+
[17. O-O+ was possible]
17… Ke8 18. h3 Nc5 19. Nf4 Nc4 20. Bxc4 dxc4
21. Nfe6 Nxe6 22. Nxe6 Kd7 23. Ng5 Re8
 

24. O-O-O+ Kc8 25. Nf7 Rg8 26. Bf4 Bc5 27. Nd6+ Bxd6 28.
Bxd6 Rd8 29. Rf4 Kd7 30. Rxc4 Ke6 31. Rcd4 Rge8 32. Bxb4 Rxd4 33.
Rxd4 h5 34. gxh5 Rh8 35. Rd6+ Kf5 36. Rd7 Bc8 37. Rxg7 Rxh5 38. Rc7
Rh8 39. Bc3 Rg8 40. b3 Kf4 41. h4 Bf5 42. Bd2+ Kg4 43. Rc4+ Kh5 44.
Bg5 Re8 45. Kd2 Re6 46. a4 Bg4 47. Rc7 Re2+ 48. Kd3 Rh2 49. Rh7+
Kg6 50. Rh6+ Kg7 51. Ke4 Bd1 52. Kd3 Bh5 1-0
 

Lasker Ed. – Thomas (London),
1912
1. d4 f5 2. e4 fxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 e6 5. Nxe4 Be7 6.
Bxf6 Bxf6 7. Nf3 O-O 8. Bd3 b6 9. Ne5 Bb7 10. Qh5 Qe7 11. Qxh7+
Kxh7 12. Nxf6+ Kh6 13. Neg4+ Kg5 14. h4+ Kf4 15. g3+ Kf3 16. Be2+
Kg2 17. Rh2+ Kg1
 

18. Kd2#
[18. O-O-O# is given by many sources, which was
possible, but was not Lasker’s choice]
1-0

Playing White against odd Black defences after 1.e4 (2) piece play

Posted on by

A4. Piece attacks vs.
Pirc/Modern 1. e4 …d6/…g6: 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4.
Be3

The trouble with the Pirc is that Black will just lurk behind
his pawns, and your pieces won’t find much to attack. I play the
Pirc/Modern as Black, and am always more impressed by systems which
threaten to open lines with pawn breaks than any of the piece play
lines. But that’s not to say they aren’t all dangerous; the player
with a plan will always beat the player without one.

There are two principal ‘piece play’ lines available:

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nf3 g6 4. Bc4 Bg7 5.
Qe2

rnbqk+-r
ppp-ppbp
-+-p-np+
+-+-+-+-
-+BPP+-+
+-+-+N+-
PPP+QPPP
RNB-K-+R

White concentrates on rapid development and aims at a timely
e5.

 

The other line I have in mind is:

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Be3 Bg7 5.
Qd2

rnbqk+-r
ppp-ppbp
-+-p-np+
+-+-+-+-
-+-PP+-+
+-N-B-+-
PPPQ-PPP
R-+-KBNR

Now the simple idea is to play the standard attack with O-O-O,
f3, g4, h4, Nge2-g3 and h5. Let’s see this in action:

Hort,V – Rota [B07], Aachen/SW,16,18

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Be3 Bg7 5. Qd2 O-O 6.
O-O-O

rnbq-rk+
ppp-ppbp
-+-p-np+
+-+-+-+-
-+-PP+-+
+-N-B-+-
PPPQ-PPP
+-KR+BNR

6… c6 7. Bh6 b5 8. f3 a5 9. h4 b4 10. Na4 Bd7 11.
h5

rn-q-rk+
+-+bppbp
-+pp-npB
p-+-+-+P
Np-PP+-+
+-+-+P+-
PPPQ-+P+
+-KR+BNR

11… Nxh5 12. Rxh5 Bxh6

[12… gxh5 13. Qg5 b3 14. Qxg7#]

13. Rxh6 c5 14. Rh2 1-0

This plan depends a little on Black castling King’s side,
although it will not have guaranteed safety on the other side, nor
in the centre. See the example games.

 

Example Games
A4

Firstly, let’s look at a few games in the Bc4 lines .

A4.1. Examples with Bc4

Christ,R – Kljako,D [B07], it, Biel

1. e4 d6 2. d4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. Qe2 c6 6. e5
dxe5 7. dxe5 Nd5 8. Bd2

rnbqk+-r
pp+-ppbp
-+p+-+p+
+-+nP-+-
-+B+-+-+
+-N-+-+-
PPPBQPPP
R-+-K-NR

Simple development is the trademark of the White system

8… Nxc3 9. Bxc3 O-O 10. f4 a5 11. a4 b6 12. Nf3 Ba6
13. Rd1 Qc7 14. O-O Bxc4 15. Qxc4 Na6

r+-+-rk+
+-q-ppbp
npp+-+p+
p-+-P-+-
P+Q+-P-+
+-B-+N+-
-PP+-+PP
+-+R+RK-

White has a simple advantage in space.

16. Ng5 h6 17. Ne4 Qc8 18. Rd3 Rb8 19. Rh3 b5 20. Qe2 b4
21. Bd2 f5

-rq+-rk+
+-+-p-b-
n+p+-+pp
p-+-Pp+-
Pp-+NP-+
+-+-+-+R
-PPBQ+PP
+-+-+RK-

Black was cramped, but this bid for freedom looks very
loose.

22. exf6 exf6 23. f5 g5 24. Qc4+ Kh7 25. Bxg5 fxg5 26.
f6 Bh8 27. Nxg5+ Kg6

-rq+-r-b
+-+-+-+-
n+p+-Pkp
p-+-+-N-
PpQ+-+-+
+-+-+-+R
-PP+-+PP
+-+-+RK-

Black’s King is being knocked about all over the place, while
the Black pieces watch glumly from the wings.

28. Rxh6+ Kxh6 29. Qh4+ Kg6 30. Qh7+ Kxg5 31. h4+ Kg4
32. Qg6+ 1-0

 

Knippel,M – Stratmann,B [B08], NRW

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nc3 g6 3. e4 d6 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. Nf3 O-O 6.
Qe2 Nc6 7. e5

r+bq-rk+
ppp-ppbp
-+np-np+
+-+-P-+-
-+BP-+-+
+-N-+N+-
PPP+QPPP
R-B-K-+R

This is the key break in the Bc4 systems.

7… Ng4 8. h3 Nh6 9. g4 Na5 10. Bd3 b6 11. Bf4 Kh8 12.
O-O-O

r+bq-r-k
p-p-ppbp
-p-p-+pn
n-+-P-+-
-+-P-BP+
+-NB+N+P
PPP+QP-+
+-KR+-+R

Black’s next move seals the centre, but White’s King’s side
attack can now proceed without worrying about the central
tension.

12… d5 13. Qe3 Ng8 14. Rdg1 h6 15. h4 Nc4 16. Bxc4
dxc4 17. h5 Bb7 18. g5

r+-q-rnk
pbp-ppb-
-p-+-+pp
+-+-P-PP
-+pP-B-+
+-N-QN+-
PPP+-P-+
+-K-+-RR

It looks grim for the Black King.

18… Bxf3 19. Qxf3 Qxd4 20. Rd1 Qc5 21. Rd5 Qc6 22.
gxh6 Nxh6 23. hxg6 Qxg6

r+-+-r-k
p-p-ppb-
-p-+-+qn
+-+RP-+-
-+p+-B-+
+-N-+Q+-
PPP+-P-+
+-K-+-+R

Recapturing with the pawn wasn’t pretty, but this fails to:

24. Rdd1 1-0

25. Rdg1 is killing.

See also the games under the Gurgenidze
System

 

|
A4.2. Examples with Be3

Adams,M – Wolff,P [B07], London

1. e4 d6 2. d4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. Be3 c6 5. Qd2 b5 6. h4
Nf6 7. f3 Qc7 8. Bh6 Bxh6 9. Qxh6 Be6 10. Nh3 Bxh3 11. Rxh3 Nbd7
12. O-O-O

r+-+k+-r
p-qnpp+p
-+pp-npQ
+p+-+-+-
-+-PP+-P
+-N-+P+R
PPP+-+P+
+-KR+B+-

White’s K-side initiative persuades Black to castle Queen’s
side.

12… Nb6 13. Kb1 O-O-O 14. Qe3 e5 15. a3 d5 16. dxe5
Qxe5 17. f4 Qe7 18. e5 Nfd7

-+kr-+-r
p-+nqp+p
-np+-+p+
+p+pP-+-
-+-+-P-P
P-N-Q-+R
-PP+-+P+
+K+R+B+-

White opens up the Q-side; he can skip the Rh3 across
easily.

19. a4 a6

Taking on a4 will allow Ba6+.

20. a5 Na8 21. Nxd5 cxd5

n+kr-+-r
+-+nqp+p
p+-+-+p+
Pp+pP-+-
-+-+-P-P
+-+-Q-+R
-PP+-+P+
+K+R+B+-

The entry of the Queen is decisive.

22. Qa7 Nc7 23. Rc3 Nb8 24. g3 1-0

 

Lane,G – Saucey,M [B07], Royan

1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. Be3 Nf6 5. Qd2 O-O 6. f3
e5 7. Nge2 c6 8. O-O-O Nbd7 9. g4 b5 10. Nb1 Nb6 11. Ng3 Be6 12.
b3

r+-q-rk+
p-+-+pbp
-nppbnp+
+p+-p-+-
-+-PP+P+
+P+-BPN-
P+PQ-+-P
+NKR+B+R

Black now takes on d4, and the game starts to look rather like
the Yugoslav Attack in the Sicilian Dragon.

12… exd4 13. Bxd4 d5 14. g5 Nfd7 15. Bxg7 Kxg7 16. f4
f6 17. h4 Bg4 18. Be2 Bxe2 19. Qxe2 Qe7 20. Rdg1

r+-+-r-+
p-+nq-kp
-np+-pp+
+p+p+-P-
-+-+PP-P
+P+-+-N-
P+P+Q+-+
+NK-+-RR

Again, White’s attack has proceeded faster than Black’s.

20… f5 21. exf5 Qxe2 22. f6+ 1-0

Black will have no prospects in the endgame with White’s secure
pawn on f6.

 

Chacon,E – Blazquez,J. L [B07], Alicante

1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. Be3 Nf6 5. f3 c6 6. Qd2
O-O 7. Bh6 Bxh6 8. Qxh6 Qb6 9. O-O-O Nbd7 10. h4

r+b+-rk+
pp+npp+p
-qpp-npQ
+-+-+-+-
-+-PP+-P
+-N-+P+-
PPP+-+P+
+-KR+BNR

A typical thrust.

10… c5 11. d5

Often, if the situation in the centre is clear, the attack is
easier.

11…Ne5 12. h5 Bd7 13. Be2 c4 14. Nh3

r+-+-rk+
pp+bpp+p
-q-p-npQ
+-+Pn-+P
-+p+P+-+
+-N-+P+N
PPP+B+P+
+-KR+-+R

White threatens Ng5 after which hxg6 and f4 look very
strong.

14… Bxh3 15. Rxh3 g5 16. Qxg5+ Kh8 17. g4 Rg8 18. Qd2
Qa5 19. g5 Ne8 20. f4 Nd7 21. Qd4+ f6 22. Bg4 Nc5 23. Bf5 Qb6 24.
Kb1 h6 25. Bg6 Nd7

r+-+n+rk
pp+np-+-
-q-p-pBp
+-+P+-PP
-+pQPP-+
+-N-+-+R
PPP+-+-+
+K+R+-+-

White’s King’s-side initiative will persist into an endgame.

26. Qxb6 Nxb6 27. gxh6 1-0

After 27… Nc7 28. h7 Rg7

[28… Rgf8 29. Bf5 Na6 30. Rg3 Nc5 31. Rdg1 Rfe8 32. Rg7
Nbd7]

29. Rg3 e5 30. h6

the endgame is hopeless for Black.

 

A5. Piece attacks vs.
Sicilian: lines with piece play

 

A5.1. Ideas with Be2

rnbqkbnr
pp+ppppp
-+-+-+-+
+-p-+-+-
-+-+P+-+
+-+-+N+-
PPPPBPPP
RNBQK-+R

It would be wrong to say there is much theory on these
lines.

The basic idea is to develop the King’s side pieces quickly, and
play c3 and d4 (very much the same plan as the normal 1. e4 e5
openings).

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3

Now Black has a basic choice between 2…d6, 2…Nc6 and 2…e6.
Alternatives are less strong, e.g. 2…a6 3. c4 or 2…Nf6 3. e5.
These should not be scorned – GMs have played each line – but are
less good for Black than normal lines.

2…d6

[after 2… e6 White can play an interesting gambit,
borrowed from a variation of the English Opening: 3. Be2 Nc6 4. b4
Nxb4

[4… cxb4 5. d4]

5. c3 Nc6 6. d4;

(compare the line 1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 e4 4. Ng5
b5)]

3. Be2 Nf6

[3… e6 4. c3 Nc6 5. d4 Nf6 6. Nbd2]

4. c3 Nc6 5. d4 cxd4 6. cxd4 Qa5+ 7. Nc3 Nxe4 8.
d5

r+b+kbnr
pp+ppppp
-+n+-+-+
q-pP+-+-
-+-+n+-+
+-N-+N+-
PP-+BPPP
R-BQK-+R

…with interesting gambit play in each line.

 

A5.2. Ideas with Bb5

Rossolimo Variation with 2… Nc6

3. Bb5

r+bqkbnr
pp+ppppp
-+n+-+-+
+Bp-+-+-
-+-+P+-+
+-+-+N+-
PPPP-PPP
RNBQK-+R

Now the most common line is

3…g6

Alternatives:

[3… Nf6 e.g. 4. e5 Nd5 5. Nc3 Nc7 6. a4 Nxb5 7.
axb5]

[3… e6 e.g. 4. O-O Nge7 5. c3 d5 6. exd5]

4. O-O Bg7 5. c3 Qb6 6. Na3 Nf6 7. Re1

r+b+kb-r
pp+ppppp
-qn+-n-+
+Bp-+-+-
-+-+P+-+
N-P-+N+-
PP-P-PPP
R-BQR-K-

[or 7. e5 Nd5 8. Bc4 Nc7 9. d4]

…when White has good play.

 

Rossolimo Variation with 2…d6

3. Bb5+

rnbqkbnr
pp+-pppp
-+-p-+-+
+Bp-+-+-
-+-+P+-+
+-+-+N+-
PPPP-PPP
RNBQK-+R

This is a complex line. After 3…Bd7 White will often play 4.
Bxd7+ and 5.c4, placing the pawns on light squares to complement
the dark-squared bishop.

One example in another line:

3… Nd7 4. d4 cxd4 5. Qxd4 Ngf6 6. Bg5 e6 7. Nc3 Be7 8.
O-O a6 9. Bxd7+ Bxd7 10. Rad1 Bc6 11. Rfe1 O-O 12. Bxf6
gxf6

r+-q-rk+
+p+-bp+p
p+bppp-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-QP+-+
+-N-+N+-
PPP+-PPP
+-+RR-K-

Again, White has good piece play, although the bishops may be
dangerous

 

 

Example games
A5

A5.1. Examples with Be2

Basman-Stean,Hastings
1974

This is a famous game in this line.

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Be2 Nf6 4. c3 Nc6 5. d4 cxd4 6.
cxd4 Nxe4 7. d5 Qa5+ 8. Nc3 Nxc3 9. bxc3

r+b+kbnr
pp+ppppp
-+-+-+-+
q-pPn-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-P-+N+-
P+-+BPPP
R-BQK-+R

9…Ne5

[9… Nd8 may be better]

10. Nxe5 Qxc3+ 11. Bd2 Qxe5 12. O-O Qxd5

[The main alternative is 12… a6

Nikolenko-Obukhov 1991

13. Rb1 g6 14. Rxb7 Bg7

[14… Bxb7 15. Qa4+ Kd8 16. Ba5+ Kc8 17. Qe8#]

15. Qa4+ Kf8 16. Rc7 Bf5

[16… Qxe2 17.Qc6 Bb7 18. Qxb7 Re8 19. Rc8 Qb5 20. Rxe8+
Qxe8 21. Rc1]

17. Qc6 Rd8 18. Bxa6

-+-r-k-r
+-R-ppbp
B+Qp-+p+
+-+Pqb+-
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
P+-B-PPP
+-+-+RK-

idea Re1 – Gallagher]

The game as it goes is a rout.

13. Rb1 e6 14. Bb5+ Bd7 15. Bxd7+ Kxd7 16. Qa4+ Kd8 17.
Rb5 Qc6 18. Rc1 Qa6 19. Ra5 Qd3 20. Be3 d5 21. Rxa7 Rxa7 22. Qxa7
Ba3 23. Qb8+ Ke7 24. Bg5+ f6 25. Qxb7+ Kd6 26. Qc7#

 

A5.2. Examples with Bb5

|

Georgiev,Kr – Feher,G [B30], Cappelle

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 e6 4. O-O Nge7 5. b3 Qb6 6.
Na3 Ng6 7. Bb2 a6 8. Nc4 Qc7 9. Bxc6 Qxc6

White is miles ahead in development, so breaks with d4.

10. d4 cxd4 11. Nxd4

r+b+kb-r
+p+p+ppp
p+q+p+n+
+-+-+-+-
-+NNP+-+
+P+-+-+-
PBP+-PPP
R-+Q+RK-

Black now grabs a hot pawn while behind in development. (Kids!
Don’t try this at home!)

11… Qxe4 12. Re1 Qf4 13. Nb6 Rb8 14. Nd5

-rb+kb-r
+p+p+ppp
p+-+p+n+
+-+N+-+-
-+-N-q-+
+P+-+-+-
PBP+-PPP
R-+QR-K-

Almost inevitable

14… f6 1-0

 

Smirin,I – Nun,Ji [B30], Polanica

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 e6 4. O-O Nge7 5. b3 Ng6 6.
Bb2 Be7 7. Bxg7 Rg8 8. Bb2 h5 9. Nc3 Qc7 10. Re1

r+b+k+r+
ppqpbp+-
-+n+p+n+
+Bp-+-+p
-+-+P+-+
+PN-+N+-
PBPP-PPP
R-+QR-K-

10… h4 11. Nd5

A very typical Sicilian sacrifice.

11…exd5 12. exd5 Nd4 13. Nxd4 cxd4 14. Ba3 Qa5 15.
Bxe7 Nxe7 16. Qe2 Qa3

r+b+k+r+
pp+pnp+-
-+-+-+-+
+B+P+-+-
-+-p-+-p
qP+-+-+-
P+PPQPPP
R-+-R-K-

White threatens Qe5 and d6, winning the knight. Black keeps the
Knight, but loses the King.

17. Qe5 Kf8 18. d6 Ng6 19. Qf6 Qa5 20. Bc4 Rg7 21. Re7
1-0

 

Bogumil – Sarosi [B30], Budapest

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 e6 4. O-O Nge7 5. c3 d5 6.
exd5 Qxd5 7. d4 cxd4 8. c4 Qd8 9. Nxd4 Bd7 10. Nf3 Nf5 11. Nc3 Be7
12. Ba4 O-O 13. Bc2 Nh4 14. Nxh4 Bxh4 15. b3 Bf6 16.
Ba3

r+-q-rk+
pp+b+ppp
-+n+pb-+
+-+-+-+-
-+P+-+-+
BPN-+-+-
P+B+-PPP
R-+Q+RK-

A neat move making use of the extra space and mobility.

16… Re8

[If 16…Bxc3, 17. Qd3!]

17. Qd3 g6 18. Rad1 Ne5 19. Qg3 Qa5 20. Ne4 Bg7 21. b4
Qc7 22. Nd6 Red8 23. Bb2 Nc6

r+-r-+k+
ppqb+pbp
-+nNp+p+
+-+-+-+-
-PP+-+-+
+-+-+-Q-
PBB+-PPP
+-+R+RK-

White is obviously winning. He finds a neat unmasking (Nf5)

24. Bxg7 1-0

 

 

B. Slow attacks with f4 against
the common half-open defences

 

The move f4 is often a strong idea against the Sicilian and
Pirc, and to some extent the French; less good against other lines.
The ideas are similar:

­ develop rapidly

­ use the extra space given by the extra central
pawn

­ use the f4 pawn to break open lines against the
King

 

B1. Playing f4 vs. Alekhin
1. e4 Nf6: 1. e4 Nf6 2. d3 and 3. f4

Sadly, this line has no real force and is not a good line to
adopt.

If you insist on consistency, you can try it, but otherwise I
would look at a different line.

 

Example games
B1

Lazarevic,M – Maric,D (6) Pula, 1990[B02]

1. e4 Nf6 2. d3 d5 3. e5 Nfd7 4. f4 Nb6

rnbqkb-r
ppp-pppp
-n-+-+-+
+-+pP-+-
-+-+-P-+
+-+P+-+-
PPP+-+PP
RNBQKBNR

With the N on b6 it is harder to organise the obvious ‘French’
break with f6.

5. c3 c5 6. Nf3 Bg4 7. Be2 e6 8. Na3 Be7 9. O-O O-O 10.
Nc2 Nc6 11. Ne3 Bxf3 12. Bxf3

r+-q-rk+
pp+-bppp
-nn+p+-+
+-ppP-+-
-+-+-P-+
+-PPNB+-
PP-+-+PP
R-BQ+RK-

Black has done everything right so far, but gets careless.

12… d4 13. Ng4 dxc3 14. bxc3 c4 15. d4 Nd5 16. Bxd5
Qxd5 17. Ne3 Qb5 18. Qe2 Rac8 19. f5 Bg5 20. f6 gxf6 21. Ng4 Ne7
22. Bxg5 fxg5 23. Nf6+

-+r+-rk+
pp+-np+p
-+-+pN-+
+q+-P-p-
-+pP-+-+
+-P-+-+-
P+-+Q+PP
R-+-+RK-

White should never have been allowed to reach this easy
attacking position.

23… Kg7 24. Qh5 h6 25. Ng4 Ng8 26. Nxh6 Nxh6 27. Qxg5+
Kh7 28. Rf6 Nf5 29. Rf1 Rg8 30. Qh5+ 1-0

 

 

|
B2. Playing f4 vs. Caro-Kann 1. e4 c6: 1. e4 c6 2. Nc3 d5 3. f4 (a
line of the Dunst opening, 1.Nc3)

I couldn’t find a single example of this with f4. This is
probably because it’s not a very good line!

 

Example games
B2

Van der Vaeren – Savva, Haifa, 1989[A00]

1. e4 d5 2. Nc3 dxe4 3. Nxe4 c6 4. Bc4 Nf6

This could have arisen from the Caro-Kann

5. Nxf6+ exf6 6. Ne2 Be6 7. Bxe6 fxe6 8.
Nf4

rn-qkb-r
pp+-+-pp
-+p+pp-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+-N-+
+-+-+-+-
PPPP-PPP
R-BQK-+R

Hitting at the weak White squares. Black now prompts an
elementary combination.

8… e5 9. Qh5+ Ke7 10. Ng6+ hxg6 11. Qxh8 Kf7 12. Qh3
Qd7 13. Qb3+ Ke7 14. O-O b6 15. d3 Qd5

rn-+-b-+
p-+-k-p-
-pp+-pp+
+-+qp-+-
-+-+-+-+
+Q+P+-+-
PPP+-PPP
R-B-+RK-

An interesting moment: I would have swapped off here to try and
win on material.

16. c4 Qd6 17. Be3 c5 18. a4 Nc6 19. a5 Nb4 20. axb6
Qxb6 21. f4 exf4 22. Bxf4 Kf7 23. d4 Nd5 24. Qf3

r+-+-b-+
p-+-+kp-
-q-+-pp+
+-pn+-+-
-+PP-B-+
+-+-+Q+-
-P-+-+PP
R-+-+RK-

Black is very wobbly here.

24… Nxf4 25. Qxa8 Ne2+ 26. Kh1 Nxd4 27. Rxa7+ Kg8 28.
Qd5+ Qe6 29. Qxe6+ Nxe6 30. Re1 1-0

 

 

B3. Playing f4 vs. French 1.
e4 e6: 1. e4 e6 2. Nc3 d5 3. f4 (a line of the Dunst opening,
1.Nc3)

Now, I have found a few of these. With the P on e6, Black is
necessarily a little more passive than the Caro lines above. I
don’t think White can claim much advantage (indeed, John Watson
reckons that the Pf4 may be in the way of the Bc1), but it’s an
easy line to understand.

 

Example games
B3

Hill,S – Wright,A , ch-AUS/SW,5,18, 1989[B21]

1. e4 c5 2. f4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 dxe4 5. Nxe4 Nc6 6.
Bc4

r+bqkbnr
pp+-+ppp
-+n+p+-+
+-p-+-+-
-+B+NP-+
+-+-+N+-
PPPP-+PP
R-BQK-+R

White has nicely centralised pieces.

6… Nf6 7. Nxf6+ Qxf6 8. O-O Bd6 9. d3 Bxf4 10. Ng5
Qxg5 11. Bxf4 Qe7 12. Qg4 O-O 13. Rae1 Kh8 14. Qg3 Rd8 15. c3 b6
16. Re3 Re8

r+b+r+-k
p-+-qppp
-pn+p+-+
+-p-+-+-
-+B+-B-+
+-PPR-Q-
PP-+-+PP
+-+-+RK-

Every White piece is well-placed.

17. Bd5 Bb7 18. Be4 Nd8 19. Bg5 f6

r+-nr+-k
pb+-q-pp
-p-+pp-+
+-p-+-B-
-+-+B+-+
+-PPR-Q-
PP-+-+PP
+-+-+RK-

White now plays a sacrifice which is easy to think of but hard
to analyse!

20. Bxh7 Kxh7 21. Qh4+ Kg8 22. Bxf6 gxf6 23. Rg3+
1-0

 

Campora,D. H – Shirazi,A , Ch New York ( open ),
1989[B21]

1. e4 c5 2. f4 e6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. Bb5 Nge7 5. O-O a6 6.
Be2 g6 7. d3 Bg7 8. c3 d5 9. Nbd2 O-O 10. Qe1 b5 11. Qf2
Qb6

r+b+-rk+
+-+-npbp
pqn+p+p+
+ppp+-+-
-+-+PP-+
+-PP+N+-
PP-NBQPP
R-B-+RK-

A position that could have arisen from either the French or the
Sicilian.

12. e5 f6 13. d4 cxd4 14. cxd4 fxe5 15. fxe5 g5 16. g4
h5 17. gxh5 g4 18. h6 Bxh6 19. Nc4 dxc4 20. Bxh6 Nf5

r+b+-rk+
+-+-+-+-
pqn+p+-B
+p+-Pn+-
-+pP-+p+
+-+-+N+-
PP-+BQ-P
R-+-+RK-

Rather a sign of distress; White is winning.

21. Bxf8 Kxf8 22. Nh4 Ncxd4 23. Bxg4 Bb7 24. h3 Qc5 25.
Rae1 Kg8 26. Kh2 1-0

 

 

B4. Playing f4 vs.
Pirc/Modern 1. e4 …d6/…g6: 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. f4
(Austrian Attack)

 

Against the Pirc, f4 is not a particularly slow line!

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

[5… c5 is probably a better way to equalise, or so the
books say in 1990]

6. Bd3 Nc6 7. O-O

r+bq-rk+
ppp-ppbp
-+np-np+
+-+-+-+-
-+-PPP-+
+-NB+N+-
PPP+-+PP
R-BQ+RK-

The White attack is easy to understand; White will complete
development and then break with e5 or f5 – or both!

 

 

Example games
B4

Ekebjaerg,Ove (2580) – Van Manen,Gerben (2580) cr
Blass-mem, 1990[B07]

1. Nc3 Nf6 2. e4 d6 3. f4 g6 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. d4 O-O 6. Bd3
Nc6 7. O-O Bg4 8. e5 Nd7 9. Be3

r+-q-rk+
pppnppbp
-+np-+p+
+-+-P-+-
-+-P-Pb+
+-NBBN+-
PPP+-+PP
R-+Q+RK-

A set-up for White which is easy to understand. I have watched
relatively weak (170-grade) players carve up 200-strength players
in this line.

9… dxe5 10. dxe5 f6 11. exf6 Bxf6 12. h3 Be6 13. Qe2
Bf7 14. Rad1 Qe8 15. f5

r+-+qrk+
pppnpb+p
-+n+-bp+
+-+-+P+-
-+-+-+-+
+-NBBN+P
PPP+Q+P+
+-+R+RK-

The classic break.

15… Kh8 16. fxg6 Bxg6 17. Bxg6 hxg6 18. Nd5 Rc8 19.
Bh6 Rf7

-+r+q+-k
pppnpr+-
-+n+-bpB
+-+N+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+N+P
PPP+Q+P+
+-+R+RK-

Black is busted.

20. Ng5 Bxg5 21. Bxg5 Nb6 22. Nxb6 cxb6 23. Qe6 Rf5 24.
Rxf5 gxf5 25. Rd7 Rd8 26. Bxe7 1-0

 

Mednis-Vadasz 1978

Another typical White win in this line

1. d4 d6 2. e4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. f4 Bg7 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Bd3
Nc6 7. O-O Bg4 8. e5 dxe5 9. dxe5 Nh5 10. Be3 f6 11. exf6 Bxf6 12.
h3 Bxf3 13. Qxf3

r+-q-rk+
ppp-p-+p
-+n+-bp+
+-+-+-+n
-+-+-P-+
+-NBBQ+P
PPP+-+P+
R-+-+RK-

threat f5

13… Bd4 14. Ne2 e5 15. Nxd4 Nxd4

[15… exd4 16. Bd2 Ne5 17. Qxb7 Rb8 18. Qe4 Nxd3 19. Qxd3
Rxb2]

16. Qe4 Nxf4 17. Bc4+

r+-q-rk+
ppp-+-+p
-+-+-+p+
+-+-p-+-
-+BnQn-+
+-+-B-+P
PPP+-+P+
R-+-+RK-

1-0

[17… Nfe6 18. Qxe5]

 

Bareev – Norwood, Marseilles, 1990[B09]

Norwood, in his book Winning with the
Modern , offers this game as a reason for Black to
avoid the Austrian at all costs.

1. d4 d6 2. e4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. f4 Bg7 5. Nf3 c5 6.
e5

[Book is 6. dxc5 or 6. Bb5+]

6…Ng4

[6… Nfd7! was essential]

7. dxc5 dxc5 8. Qxd8+ Kxd8 9. h3 Nh6 10. Be3 b6 11.
O-O-O+ Bd7 12. g4 Kc8 13. Ng5 f6

Yeuch

14. Rxd7 Kxd7 15. Bb5+ Kc8 16. Ne6 Bf8 17. Nd5 Nf7 18.
Ndc7 Nd8 19. Rd1 Nxe6 20. Nxe6 fxe5 21. Rd8+ Kb7 22.
Bd3

rn-R-b-r
pk+-p-+p
-p-+N+p+
+-p-p-+-
-+-+-PP+
+-+BB-+P
PPP+-+-+
+-K-+-+-

1-0

Black never got going.

 

B5. Playing f4 vs. Sicilian
(a) 1. e4 c5 Grand Prix attack

This is another system where the White side is easy to
understand, and where Black has struggled to find a clear
equaliser. 2. f4 can lead to the slow Sicilian with g3 and Bg2, but
several English players have adopted the more aggressive system
with Bc4. We will look at both systems.

A second idea is to play Bb5xNc6 and then play a slow
Dutch-style attack with Qe1 and Qh4.

1. e4 c5 2. f4 g6

rnbqkbnr
pp+ppp+p
-+-+-+p+
+-p-+-+-
-+-+PP-+
+-+-+-+-
PPPP-+PP
RNBQKBNR

There are alternatives:

[2… d5 can be met by 3. Nc3 (EG)

rnbqkbnr
pp+-pppp
-+-+-+-+
+-pp+-+-
-+-+PP-+
+-N-+-+-
PPPP-+PP
R-BQKBNR

[The point of 2…d5 is the wicked gambit line 3. exd5 Nf6
4. c4 e6 5. dxe6 Bxe6 devised by Mikhail Tal]

]

[2… e6 3. Nc3 d5

rnbqkbnr
pp+-+ppp
-+-+p+-+
+-pp+-+-
-+-+PP-+
+-N-+-+-
PPPP-+PP
R-BQKBNR

[3… Nc6 4. Nf3 Nge7 5. Bb5 d5 6. Qe2 d4 7. Nd1]

4. Nf3]

3. Nf3 Bg7 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. Bc4

[The other idea in this line is 5. Bb5 to exchange off the
Nc6, and then play a standard Dutch-style attack with Qe1 and Qh4
(EG)]

Black can play ….d6 (EG) but more often goes:

5… e6

r+bqk+nr
pp+p+pbp
-+n+p+p+
+-p-+-+-
-+B+PP-+
+-N-+N+-
PPPP-+PP
R-BQK-+R

6. f5

This is the sharpest line, although White does not have to
gambit

[e.g. 6. O-O Nge7]

Now the complications that follow…

6… exf5 7. d3 Nge7 8. O-O O-O? (EG)

or

6… gxf5 7. d3

…must be known in a little detail to be played safely. There
is also plenty of scope for original analysis – for example, what
should happen after

6… d5

The gambit is probably best declined with

6… Nge7 7. fxe6 dxe6

[7… fxe6 may be better

r+bqk+-r
pp+pn-bp
-+n+p+p+
+-p-+-+-
-+B+P+-+
+-N-+N+-
PPPP-+PP
R-BQK-+R

when Black’s King is in danger but the central pawn mass is
dangerous and may trap the White Q-side pieces]

There are also many lines with f4 in the open Sicilian i.e.. 1.
e4 c5 2. Nf3 (…) 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 (…) 6. f4.

 

 

Example games
B5a

First, a straightforward quick attack down the King’s side

|

Hodgson – Ady, Streatham Vs Ymca, London,
1981[B23]

1. e4 c5 2. f4 g6 3. Nf3 Bg7 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. Bc4 e6 6. f5
exf5 7. d3 Nge7 8. O-O O-O?

r+bq-rk+
pp+pnpbp
-+n+-+p+
+-p-+p+-
-+B+P+-+
+-NP+N+-
PPP+-+PP
R-BQ+RK-

This natural-looking move is probably a decisive mistake. Black
has no effective counter to White’s simple mating attack.

9. Qe1 Nd4 10. Qh4 Nxf3+ 11. Rxf3 fxe4 12. Rh3 h6 13.
Bg5 Re8 14. Rf1 d5 15. Nxd5 hxg5 16. Nf6+ Black
resigns

[16. Nf6+ Kf8

[or 16… Bxf6 17. Qh7+ Kf8 18. Qxf7#]

17. Nh7+ Kg8 18. Bxf7+ Kh8 19. Nxg5+ Bh6 20. Qxh6#]

1-0

 

Next, a slower attack with the Bb5 idea

Hebden – Large, British Ch’p, 1982[B21]

1. e4 c5 2. f4 Nc6 3. Nf3 g6 4. Bb5 Bg7 5. Bxc6 dxc6 6.
d3 Nf6 7. Nc3 O-O 8. O-O b6

r+bq-rk+
p-+-ppbp
-pp+-np+
+-p-+-+-
-+-+PP-+
+-NP+N+-
PPP+-+PP
R-BQ+RK-

White has an obvious plan. And the player with a plan will
always beat the player without one.

9. Qe1 Ne8 10. Qh4 Nd6 11. f5 gxf5 12. e5 Ne8 13. Bh6 f6
14. Kh1 Bxh6 15. Qxh6 Ng7 16. Rae1 Be6 17. Ne2 c4 18. Nf4 cxd3 19.
cxd3 Bxa2

r+-q-rk+
p-+-p-np
-pp+-p-Q
+-+-Pp+-
-+-+-N-+
+-+P+N+-
bP-+-+PP
+-+-RR+K

Black might as well snatch a pawn, he has achieved nothing to
counter White’s simple attack.

20. e6 Qc8 21. Re3 Nxe6 22. Nxe6 Bxe6 23. Rxe6
Rf7

[23… Qxe6 24. Ng5 Qf7 25. Nxf7 Rxf7]

24. Rfe1 1-0

 

And what if Black throws a spanner in the works with 2…d5?

Plaskett – Howell, British Ch’p, 1983[B21]

1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 e6 5. Nf3 Be7 6.
Bc4 Nf6 7. Qe2 Nc6 8. c3 O-O 9. O-O b6 10. d3 Bb7 11. Ng3 Bd6 12.
Bd2 Qc7 13. Ng5

r+-+-rk+
pbq-+ppp
-pnbpn-+
+-p-+-N-
-+B+-P-+
+-PP+-N-
PP-BQ+PP
R-+-+RK-

Black’s pieces are nicely placed but going nowhere. White, as
usual, knows where he is going!

13… Ne7 14. N5e4

forcing an exchange he had earlier avoided

14… Nxe4 15. dxe4 Ng6 16. Nh5 Kh8 17. Rae1 Rad8 18.
Bc1 Rd7 19. e5 Be7 20. f5 exf5 21. Rxf5 Bd5 22. Bxd5 Rxd5 23. Qg4
Qd7 24. Ref1 Kg8

-+-+-rk+
p-+qbppp
-p-+-+n+
+-prPR+N
-+-+-+Q+
+-P-+-+-
PP-+-+PP
+-B-+RK-

25. Nxg7 Kxg7 26. Qh5 Kg8 27. Bh6 Qe6 28. Bxf8 Nxf8 29.
c4

[29. Rxf7 Rxe5]

29… Rd4 30. Rxf7 Qg6 31. Qf3 Ne6 32. Rxe7 Rf4 33. Rxe6
1-0

 

Ekebjaerg,Ove – Danner,Georg, cr
Nielsen-mem, 1987

[B23/07]

1. Nc3 c5 2. e4 d6 3. f4 g6 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Bc4 e6 6. f5
Ne7 7. O-O O-O

rnbq-rk+
pp+-npbp
-+-pp+p+
+-p-+P+-
-+B+P+-+
+-N-+N+-
PPPP-+PP
R-BQ+RK-

A typical sort of position in this line, although an odd move
order (no …Nc6)

8. fxe6 fxe6 9. Ng5 d5 10. Rxf8+ Qxf8 11. exd5 b5 12.
Bxb5 exd5 13. Qf3 Qxf3 14. Nxf3

rnb+-+k+
p-+-n-bp
-+-+-+p+
+Bpp+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-N-+N+-
PPPP-+PP
R-B-+-K-

White is simply a pawn up and needs only consolidate to win the
ending.

14… Ba6 15. Ba4 Bb7 16. d3 Nbc6 17. Bg5 h6 18. Bxe7
Nxe7 19. Re1 Nf5 20. Bd7 Nd4 21. Be6+ Nxe6 22. Rxe6

White has given up both bishops, which would make me anxious,
but he seems to know what he is doing.

22… g5 23. Na4 Rc8 24. Ne5 Rc7 25. Re8+ Kh7 26. Nc3 a6
27. Nd1 d4 28. b3 h5 29. Nb2 g4 30. Nbc4 Kh6 31. Nd6 Bd5 32. Nec4
Kg6 33. Nb6 Bf7

-+-+R+-+
+-r-+bb-
pN-N-+k+
+-p-+-+p
-+-p-+p+
+P+P+-+-
P+P+-+PP
+-+-+-K-

34. Nxf7 1-0

Without the light-squared bishop Black is in trouble, but it
might have been worth struggling on over the board (this was
postal).

 

Hodgson – Nunn, Aaronson Open, 1978[B23]

1. e4 c5 2. f4 g6 3. Nf3 Bg7 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. Bc4
d6

r+bqk+nr
pp+-ppbp
-+np-+p+
+-p-+-+-
-+B+PP-+
+-N-+N+-
PPPP-+PP
R-BQK-+R

[5… e6 and now 6. f5, 6.e5, 6.O-O, 6. d3, and 6.a3 have
been tried. Since Grandmaster Nunn lost this dashing game to the
young Hodgson, hardly anyone has tried this line!]

6. O-O Nf6 7. d3 O-O 8. f5 gxf5 9. Qe1 fxe4 10. dxe4 Bg4
11. Qh4 Bxf3

[11… Bh5 idea …Bg6]

12. Rxf3 Ne5 13. Rh3 Ng6

[13… Nxc4 14. Nd5 Re8 15. Nxf6+

[15. Bh6 Bxh6 16. Qxh6 Ne5 17. Rf1]

15… exf6 16. Qxh7+ Kf8 17. Rg3 Bh8]

14. Qg3 Qd7 15. Nd5 Nxd5 16. Bxd5 e6 17. Bb3 d5 18. Qf3
c4 19. Ba4 Qxa4 20. Qh5 Rfd8 21. Qxh7+ Kf8 22. Bh6 Bxh6 23. Rxh6
Rd7

[23… c3 =+ Nunn]

24. Rf1 Ke8 25. Qg8+ Nf8 26. Rxe6+ Kd8 27. Qxf8+ Kc7 28.
Qc5+ Kd8 29. Rh6 1-0

 

 

B5. Playing f4 vs. Sicilian
(b)Traditional Closed Sicilian

This line has been adopted by three World champions at one time
or another: the young Karpov, the mature Spassky, and by Smyslov
throughout his chess career. And as we shall see, Kasparov knows
about the line.

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. d3 d6 6.
f4

r+bqk+nr
pp+-ppbp
-+np-+p+
+-p-+-+-
-+-+PP-+
+-NP+-P-
PPP+-+BP
R-BQK-NR

[6. Be3 e5 7. Qd2 is another popular line; Black gets into
trouble after 6…e6 7. Qd2 Nge7?! 8. Bh6 e.g. 8…O-O? 9. h4! or
8…Bxh6 9. Qxh6 Nd4 10. O-O-O]

6… e6 7. Nf3 Nge7 8. O-O O-O 9. Be3 Nd4

is the main line, although Spassky has tried 9. Bd2. After
6…e5 Spassky has experimented with more active 7. Nh3 Nge7 8. O-O
Nd4 9. f5!?

Theory is not so critical in the Closed Sicilian because of the
non-forcing nature of the line.

 

 

Example games
B5b

Spassky – Geller, Candidates,
1968

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 d6 3. g3 Nc6 4. Bg2 g6 5. d3 Bg7 6. f4
Nf6 7. Nf3 O-O 8. O-O Rb8 9. h3 b5 10. a3 a5 11. Be3 b4 12. axb4
axb4 13. Ne2 Bb7 14. b3

-r-q-rk+
+b+-ppbp
-+np-np+
+-p-+-+-
-p-+PP-+
+P+PBNPP
-+P+N+B+
R-+Q+RK-

Another defensive move! Is White just going to stand and get
punched apart?

14… Ra8 15. Rc1 Ra2 16. g4

-+-q-rk+
+b+-ppbp
-+np-np+
+-p-+-+-
-p-+PPP+
+P+PBN+P

r+P+N+B+
+-RQ+RK-

At last an attacking gesture

16… Qa8 17. Qe1 Qa6 18. Qf2 Na7 19. f5

-+-+-rk+
nb+-ppbp
q+-p-np+
+-p-+P+-
-p-+P+P+
+P+PBN+P

r+P+NQB+
+-R-+RK-

The characteristic break

19… Nb5 20. fxg6

Opening the f-file (so what? see move 23!)

20… hxg6

[20… fxg6 21. Nf4 Bc8 22. Ng5 Nc7]

21. Ng5 Na3 22. Qh4 Rc8

-+r+-+k+
+b+-ppb-
q+-p-np+
+-p-+-N-
-p-+P+PQ
nP+PB-+P

r+P+N+B+
+-R-+RK-

the Q-side is about to give, but…

23. Rxf6 exf6 24. Qh7+ Kf8 25. Nxf7 Rxc2

[25… Kxf7 26. Bh6 Rg8 27. Nf4 Rxc2 28. Rf1 Kf8 29. Nxg6+
Kf7 30. Nf4

or Nh8+

30… Kf8 31. Nh5 Bxh6 32. Qxh6+ Ke7 33. Qh7+ Kd8 34.
Nxf6

-+-k-+r+
+b+-+-+Q
q+-p-N-+
+-p-+-+-
-p-+P+P+
nP+P+-+P
-+r+-+B+
+-+-+RK-

is just terrible]

26. Bh6 Rxc1+ 27. Nxc1 Kxf7 28. Qxg7+ Ke8 29.
g5

[29. e5 Bxg2 30. e6]

29… f5 30. Qxg6+ Kd7 31. Qf7+ Kc6 32.
exf5+

-+r+-+-+
+b+-+Q+-
q+kp-+-B
+-p-+PP-
-p-+-+-+
nP+P+-+P
-+-+-+B+
+-N-+-K-

1-0

32… Kb6 33. Qxb7+ Qxb7 34. Bxb7 Kxb7 35. f6 1-0

 

Psakhis – Kasparov, La Manga, 1990
[compare B23]

Oddly, one of the best example games I have on file for the
Closed Sicilian is this one, from quite a different opening

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

r+bqk+-r
ppp-+-bp
-+np-np+
+-+-pp+-
-+P+-+-+
+-NP+NP-
PP-+PPBP
R-BQ+RK-

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

-+rq-rk+
ppp-n-b-
-+-pbnpp
+P+-pp+-
P+P+-+-+
B-NP+NP-
-+-+PPBP
+R+Q+RK-

Black does not rush but secures the Q-side.

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

-+rq-rk+
p-p-n-b-
-p-pbn-p
+P+-+-p-
P+PP-p-+
B-N-+-P-
-+-N-PBP
+R+Q+RK-

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

-+-+-r-k
p-+-+-b-
-p-p-n-p
+P+-+npq
P+-P-pb+
B-NQ+NP-
-+-+-PBP
+-+-+RK-

The Black pieces hover like vultures

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

-B-+-+-k
p-+-+-b-
-p-+-r-p
+P+-Nn+-
P+-PQpp+
+-+-+-Pq
-+-+-PKP
+-+-+R+-

0-1

 

Smyslov – Romanishin, Moscow, 1976 [B23]

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. d3 d6 6. Nh3
h5

r+bqk+nr
pp+-ppb-
-+np-+p+
+-p-+-+p
-+-+P+-+
+-NP+-PN
PPP+-PBP
R-BQK-+R

The sixth moves on each side are unusual.

7. f4 Bg4 8. Qd2 Nd4 9. Ng1 Qd7 10. h3 Be6 11. Nce2 h4
12. g4 f5 13. exf5 gxf5 14. g5

r+-+k+nr
pp+qp-b-
-+-pb+-+
+-p-+pP-
-+-n-P-p
+-+P+-+P
PPPQN+B+
R-B-K-NR

Black can find no refuge on the King’s-side, it is clear.

14… O-O-O 15. Nxd4 cxd4 16. Ne2 Bf7 17. c3 dxc3 18.
bxc3 Kb8 19. Rb1 d5 20. O-O e5 21. fxe5 Bxe5 22. d4 Bc7 23. c4 Ne7
24. c5 Rdg8 25. Qb4 Bd8 26. Rf3 Nc6 27. Qb5 Bh5 28.
Rfb3

-k-b-+rr
pp+q+-+-
-+n+-+-+
+QPp+pPb
-+-P-+-p
+R+-+-+P
P+-+N+B+
+RB-+-K-

White’s tripling is very threatening.

28… Rg7 29. Nf4 Bxg5 30. Nxh5 Rxh5 31. Qe2
Bxc1

-k-+-+-+
pp+q+-r-
-+n+-+-+
+-Pp+p+r
-+-P-+-p
+R+-+-+P
P+-+Q+B+
+Rb-+-K-

And the coup de grace:

32. Rxb7+ Qxb7 33. Qe8+ Kc7 34. Rxb7+ Kxb7 35. Qxh5 Nxd4
36. Kf1 Be3 37. Qh8 Rd7 38. Qe8 1-0

 

The Colle System (web page version)

Posted on by

Attacking in the Queen-pawn openings:
the Colle system

The Colle opening proper goes 1. d4 d5 and now 2. Nf3 3. e3 4. Bd3
with Nbd2, O-O, Re1 and e4 to follow. If Black hits the d-pawn with
…c5, White should reply c3 to shore up the centre. The formation
c3-d4-e3 is the famous Colle triangle.

Although White takes two moves to achieve e4, it should
lead either to an open game after …dxe4 or, if Black avoids the
exchange, the strong advance e5.

Black should keep up the pressure on d4, holding up
White’s e4 break and threatening to isolate the d-pawn.

 

tSlDjLsT
Xx+-XxXx
-+-+-+-+
+-Xx+-+-
-+-P-+-+
+-PbPn+-
pP-N-PpP
R-BqR-K-

Here’s a game to get us started:

 

Landau – Book, Kemeri, 1937

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 e6 4. Bd3 c5 5. c3 Nbd7 6. Nbd2 Bd6 7.
O-O O-O

 

t+lD-Tj+
Xx+s+xXx
-+-LxS-+
+-Xx+-+-
-+-P-+-+
+-PbPn+-
pP-N-PpP
R-BqR-K-

8. Re1 Diagram

An accurate and important move.

[8. e4 cxd4 9. cxd4 dxe4 10. Nxe4 Nxe4 11. Bxe4 Qb6
and, if anything, Black has better prospects]

8… Qc7 This is probably best:

[8… b6 is too slow]

[8… e5 too early: 9. e4! +=]

[8….c4 is a mistake: 9. Bc2 and 10. e4 will now
come with greater force]

 

[8… Re8 9. e4 dxe4 10. Nxe4 Nxe4 11. Bxe4 cxd4?
Diagram

12. Bxh7+ Kxh7 13. Ng5+ Kg6 14. h4 Rh8 15. Rxe6+ +-
Fine]

Variation

 

t+lDt+j+
Xx+s+xXx
-+-Lx+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-Xb+-+
+-P-+n+-
pP-+-PpP
R-BqR-K-

9. e4 cxd4 10. cxd4 dxe4 11. Nxe4 Nxe4 12. Rxe4 Re8 13. Rh4 Nf8 14.
Ng5 h6 15. Qh5 e5 16. Bd2 exd4 17. Rc1 Qe7 18. Ne4

 

t+l+tSj+
Xx+-DxX-
-+-L-+-X
+-+-+-+q
-+-Xn+-R
+-+b+-+-
pP-B-PpP
+-R-+-K-

18… Ng6 (else Bxh6)

19. Bg5 Qe5

[19… hxg5 20. Qh7+ Kf8 21. Qh8+ Nxh8 22.
Rxh8#]

20. f4 Qd5

[20… Qa5 21. b4]

 

t+l+t+j+
Xx+-+xX-
-+-L-+sX
+-+d+-Bq
-+-XnP-R
+-+b+-+-
pP-+-+pP
+-R-+-K-

White now lands two good punches

21. Nf6+ gxf6 22. Bxg6

Black’s pawn cover has suddenly disappeared.

 

t+l+t+j+
Xx+-+x+-
-+-L-XbX
+-+d+-Bq
-+-X-P-R
+-+-+-+-
pP-+-+pP
+-R-+-K-

22… Bf8

[22… fxg6 23. Qxg6+ Kf8 24. Qxf6+ Qf7 25. Bxh6+ Kg8
26. Qg5+ Kh8 27. Bg7+ Kg8 28. Rh8#]

[22… fxg5 23. Qxh6 gxh4 24. Bh7+ Kh8 25. Be4+ Kg8
26. Bxd5]

23. Rc7 Be6 24. Bxf6 Qxh5

Ordinarily, exchanging queens is an important achievement
for the defence.

25. Bxh5 Rec8

 

t+t+-Lj+
XxR-+x+-
-+-+lB-X
+-+-+-+b
-+-X-P-R
+-+-+-+-
pP-+-+pP
+-+-+-K-

Has Black held on long enough?

26. Bxf7+ and still they come!

26… Kh7

[ 26… Bxf7 27. Rg4+ Kh7 28. Rxf7+ Bg7 29. Rgxg7+
Kh8 30. Rg6#]

27. Rxc8 Bxc8 28. Bxd4

Cashing in

28… Bf5 29. Rh5 1-0

Here’s another Colle game by that demon attacker, Harry
Pillsbury.

 

Pillsbury – Amateur, Toronto, 1899

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 e6 3. e3 Nf6 4. Bd3 Nbd7 5. O-O b6 6. Nbd2 Bd6

 

t+lDj+-T
X-Xs+xXx
-X-LxS-+
+-+x+-+-
-+-P-+-+
+-+bPn+-
pPpN-PpP
R-Bq+rK-

The Classic Colle start.

7. e4 dxe4 8. Nxe4 Bb7 9. Nxd6+ cxd6 10. Bf4 Bxf3 11.
Qxf3 d5 12. Bd6 Rc8 13. Rfe1 Rc6 14. Ba3 a5 15. c4 Ne4

 

-+-Dj+-T
+-+s+xXx
-Xt+x+-+
X-+x+-+-
-+pPs+-+
B-+b+q+-
pP-+-PpP
R-+-R-K-

The game has developed differently to Landau’s, but Pillsbury still
has a fine attack based on his Bishops and the poor Black K
position.

16. cxd5 Ng5 17. Qg3 Rc8 18. dxe6 Nxe6 19. Rxe6+ fxe6 20.
Qg6+ hxg6 21. Bxg6+ 1-0

Here’s the man himself, who perfected the modern approach
to the opening.

This is well worth going through move by move.


Colle – Stoltz, Bled, 1931

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 c5 4. c3 Nbd7 5. Nbd2 Qc7 6. Bd3 e5 7. e4
dxe4 8. Nxe4 Nxe4 9. Bxe4 Nf6 10. Bc2 cxd4

 

t+l+jL-T
XxD-+xXx
-+-+-S-+
+-+-X-+-
-+-X-+-+
+-P-+n+-
pPb+-PpP
R-BqK-+r

11. O-O (a pawn offer, which should not have been accepted) 11…
dxc3 12. Nxe5 Bd6 13. Ba4+ Kf8

[13… Bd7 14. Nxd7 Nxd7 15. Re1+ Kf8 16. Bxd7 Qxd7
17. bxc3]

14. Bf4 Bg4 this attempt to mix it is understandable but
ill-judged 15. Ng6+ Kg8

[15… hxg6 16. Bxd6+ Kg8 17. Bxc7 Bxd1 18.
Raxd1]

16. Bxd6 Bxd1 17. Bxc7 Bxa4 18. Nxh8 Nd5 19. Ba5 c2 20.
Bd2 Kxh8

White has a small advantage, which he exploits
perfectly

21. Rfe1 Kg8 22. Rac1 Rc8 23. Re4 Bd7 24. Rd4 Be6 25. b3
b5 26. Ba5 g5 27. Rd2 Rc6 28. Rcxc2 Ra6 29. b4 Rd6 30. a3 h6 31.
Rc5 a6 32. Bc7 Rd7 33. Be5 Kh7 34. h3 h5 35. Bb2 Kg6 36. Rc6
1-0

And Colle again. Take this one slowly if you play it
through, there’s a lot to enjoy!


Colle – O’Hanlon, Nice Ol, 1930

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 c5 4. c3 e6 5. Bd3 Bd6 6. Nbd2 Nbd7 7.
O-O O-O 8. Re1 Re8 9. e4 dxe4 10. Nxe4 Nxe4 11. Bxe4 cxd4

 

t+lDt+j+
Xx+s+xXx
-+-Lx+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-Xb+-+
+-P-+n+-
pP-+-PpP
R-BqR-K-

12. Bxh7+ Kxh7 13. Ng5+

 

t+lDt+-+
Xx+s+xXj
-+-Lx+-+
+-+-+-N-
-+-X-+-+
+-P-+-+-
pP-+-PpP
R-BqR-K-

13… Kg6

[13… Kg8 This is the only real alternative.
Analysis by Euwe and Kramer suggests that White’s attack is wortha
draw but no more. The variations and ideas are very typical of the
h7 sac in the Colle and are worth playing over.

14. Qh5 DIAGRAM

Variation

 

t+lDt+j+
Xx+s+xX-
-+-Lx+-+
+-+-+-Nq
-+-X-+-+
+-P-+-+-
pP-+-PpP
R-B-R-K-

(A) 14… Ne5 15. Rxe5

[or 15. Qh7+ Kf8 16. Ne4 Ng6 17. Nxd6 Qxd6 18. h4 Ke7
19. h5 Rh8 20. Bg5+ Ke8 [20… Kf8 21. hxg6 Rxh7 22.
gxh7 wins] 21. Qxg7 Rxh5 22. Qf6 Qe7 and Black is
better]

15… Bxe5 16. Qxf7+ Kh8 17. Qh5+ and White has
nothing better than perpetual check]

(B) [14… Qf6 15. Qh7+ Kf8 16. Ne4 Qe5 17. cxd4 Qd5
?

[17… Qxd4 18. Qh8+ Ke7 19. Bg5+ wins]

[17… Qxh2+ 18. Qxh2 Bxh2+ 19. Kxh2 is about
level]

18. Qh8+ Ke7 19. Qxg7 with strong attack]

(C) 14… Nf6 15. Qxf7+ Kh8 16. Re4 Nxe4

[16… Bxh2+ 17. Kxh2 Nxe4 18. Qh5+ Kg8 19. Qh7+ Kf8
20. Qh8+ Ke7 21. Qxg7+ Kd6 22. Nf7+ wins the Q]

17. Qh5+ Kg8 18. Qh7+ Kf8 19. Qh8+ Ke7 20.
Qxg7#]

Back to the game!

14. h4 Rh8

 

t+lD-+-T
Xx+s+xX-
-+-Lx+j+
+-+-+-N-
-+-X-+-P
+-P-+-+-
pP-+-Pp+
R-BqR-K-

[14… f5 15. h5+ Kf6 16. Qxd4+ Be5 17. Qh4 g6 18. f4 +-]

15. Rxe6+ Nf6

[15… fxe6 16. Qd3+ Kf6 17. Qf3+ Kg6 18. Qf7+ Kh6
19. Nxe6+]

 

 

t+lD-+-T
Xx+-+xX-
-+-LrSj+
+-+-+-N-
-+-X-+-P
+-P-+-+-
pP-+-Pp+
R-Bq+-K-

16. h5+ Kh6

[ 16… Rxh5 17. Qd3+ Kh6 18. Qh7#]

17. Rxd6 Qa5 18. Nxf7+ Kh7 19. Ng5+ Kg8 20. Qb3+ 1-0

A superb game — although Black could have held on in
theory, he was blown away.

 

Some
Colle theory

Let’s start again, having got the idea of the opening, and look at
some detail of move order.

Start as we have seen: 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 c5

I will explain some of the ideas behind the moves in the
games above.

 

Black gets into a little trouble with 4…e6.

4. c3

 

tSlDjL-T
Xx+-XxXx
-+-+-S-+
+-Xx+-+-
-+-P-+-+
+-P-Pn+-
pP-+-PpP
RnBqKb+r

Now, we often see

4… e6

What next?


Black’s Queen’s Knight should go to d7, supporting c5,e5
and f6

The most logical development for both sides is probably

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 e6 4. Bd3 c5 5. c3 Nbd7 6. Nbd2
Bd6 7. O-O O-O 8. Re1!

For this position, see Landau-Book (our first game
above). It’s probably about equal, but Black cannot relax for a
moment.

 

t+lD-Tj+
Xx+s+xXx
-+-LxS-+
+-Xx+-+-
-+-P-+-+
+-PbPn+-
pP-N-PpP
R-BqR-K-


Black’s Queen’s Knight should not go to c6 but to
d7

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 c5 4. c3 e6 5. Nbd2 Nc6

natural, but less accurate

6. Bd3 Bd6 7. O-O O-O 8. dxc5 Bxc5 9. e4 e5(!) 10. exd5
Nxd5 11. Qe2 Bg4 12. Ne4+=

 

t+-D-Tj+
Xx+-+xXx
-+s+-+-+
+-LsX-+-
-+-+n+l+
+-Pb+n+-
pP-+qPpP
R-B-+rK-

Black can just about equalise in this line:

[9… Qc7 10. Qe2 Bd6 11. Re1 Ng4 12. h3 Nge5 13.
Nxe5 Nxe5 14. exd5 exd5 15. Nf3 Nxd3 16. Qxd3 Qc4 17. Rd1 Qxd3 18.
Rxd3 Rd8

…and the two bishops compensate for the isolated
pawn in the endgame

 

 

t+lT-+j+
Xx+-+xXx
-+-L-+-+
+-+x+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-Pr+n+p
pP-+-Pp+
R-B-+-K-


Black cannot develop fast enough to get in the …e5
counter in one move

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

4… Nbd7 5. Nbd2 Qc7

aiming at …e5

6. Qa4 g6 7. c4 Bg7 8. cxd5 Nxd5 9. e4 N5b6 10. Qc2
+=]

 

t+l+j+-T
XxDsXxLx
-S-+-+x+
+-X-+-+-
-+-Pp+-+
+-+-+n+-
pPqN-PpP
R-B-Kb+r


Black can equalise by developing the Queen’s
Bishop

If White’s Bd3 is threatening, and Black’s …e6 leads to
difficulty if the Bc8 gets stuck , the natural move is …Bf5.

In fact, this is recommended as leading to an equal
game.

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3

3… Bf5 e.g. 4. Bd3 e6 5. Bxf5 exf5 6. Qd3 Qc8 7. b3 Na6
8. O-O Be7 9. c4 O-O 10. Nc3 c6 11. Bb2 Ne4

Black is comfortable

Also possible is 3…Bg4 and later …e6, also
equalising.

 

t+d+-Tj+
Xx+-LxXx
s+x+-+-+
+-+x+x+-
-+pPs+-+
+pNqPn+-
pB-+-PpP
R-+-+rK-


Black can try to blunt the power of the Bd3 by
…g6

t+lD-Tj+
Xx+sXxLx
-+-+-Sx+
+-Xx+-+-
-+-P-+-+
+-PbPn+-
pP-N-PpP
R-Bq+rK-

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

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

Now Fine says only 8. b4, changing plan, is good enough
for White because the main plan with e4 leads to a slightly worse
game:

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


But even if Black adopts the …g6 idea, the game need
not be easy

Eliskases – Rosetto, Mar del
Plata, 1950

1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 c6 3. e3 g6 4. Bd3 Bg7 5. Nbd2 Nh6 6. c3 O-O 7. O-O
Nd7 8. e4 dxe4 9. Nxe4 Nf5 10. Bf4 Nf6 (?) 11. Nxf6+ Bxf6

 

t+lD-Tj+
Xx+-Xx+x
-+x+-Lx+
+-+-+s+-
-+-P-B-+
+-Pb+n+-
pP-+-PpP
R-+q+rK-

White has the advantage in the centre

12. Qd2 Qb6 13. Rfe1 c5

it would have been better to aim for the …e5 break

14. Bxf5 Bxf5 15. Be5

 

t+-+-Tj+
Xx+-Xx+x
-D-+-Lx+
+-X-Bl+-
-+-P-+-+
+-P-+n+-
pP-Q-PpP
R-+-R-K-

15… Rfd8 naive

[15… Bxe5 16. Rxe5 White’s small force is making
very nasty threats]

[15… Kg7 best]

16. Qh6 Bxe5 17. Rxe5 cxd4 18. Ng5 Qf6

 

t+-T-+j+
Xx+-Xx+x
-+-+-DxQ
+-+-RlN-
-+-X-+-+
+-P-+-+-
pP-+-PpP
R-+-+-K-

19. Rxe7 Qg7

[19… Rd7 20. Rae1]

20. Qh4

[20. Qxg7+ Kxg7 21. Rxf7+ Kg8 22. Rxb7 d3 with
counterplay]

20… dxc3 21. Rxf7 cxb2 22. Rxg7+ Kxg7

 

t+-T-+-+
Xx+-+-Jx
-+-+-+x+
+-+-+lN-
-+-+-+-Q
+-+-+-+-
pX-+-PpP
R-+-+-K-

23. Re1 Rd7

[23… b1=Q 24. Qxh7+ Kf6 25. Qe7#]

[23… h6 24. Re7+ Kg8 25. Qc4+ Kh8 26.
Rh7#]

[23… Re8 24. Qd4+ Kg8 25. Qc4+ ! 25… Kg7 26. Qc3+
Kg8 27. Qb3+ Kh8 28. Qxb2+ winning]

24. Qb4 Re8 25. Qxb2+ Kh6 26. Nf7+ resigns 26… Kh5 27.
g4+ Bxg4 28. Rxe8 1-0

You can actually apply the style of the Colle in many
d-pawn openings.

NN-NN

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 c6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Bd3 Bd6

Here we go again…

7. e4 dxe4 8. Nxe4 Nxe4 9. Bxe4 Nf6 10. Bc2 O-O 11. O-O
c5 12. Bg5 cxd4 13. Qxd4 !

 

t+lD-Tj+
Xx+-+xXx
-+-LxS-+
+-+-+-B-
-+pQ-+-+
+-+-+n+-
pPb+-PpP
R-+-+rK-

13… Be7

[13… Bxh2+ 14. Kxh2 Ng4+]

14. Qh4 ! 14… h6 15. Bxh6 gxh6 16. Qxh6 Qa5 17. Ng5 e5
18. Bh7+ Kh8 19. Be4+ Kg8 20. Rfe1 Bg4 21. Re3 Rad8 22. Rg3 Rd4 23.
Ne6 fxe6 24. Rxg4+ 1-0 [24. Rxg4+ Kf7 25. Qg6#]

 

Here’s Harry Pillsbury again, on the White side of the
Slav.

 

Pillsbury,Harry N – Winawer, S (Budapest, 1896)

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c6 4. e3 Nf6 5. Nf3 Nbd7 6. Bd3 Bd6 7. O-O
O-O

 

t+lD-Tj+
Xx+s+xXx
-+xLxS-+
+-+x+-+-
-+pP-+-+
+-NbPn+-
pP-+-PpP
R-Bq+rK-

Not the Colle opening, but we can see the approach at work:

8. e4 dxe4 9. Nxe4 Nxe4 10. Bxe4 Nf6 11. Bc2 h6 12. Be3
Re8 13. Qd3 Qc7 14. c5 Bf8 15. Ne5

 

t+l+tLj+
XxD-+xX-
-+x+xS-X
+-P-N-+-
-+-P-+-+
+-+qB-+-
pPb+-PpP
R-+-+rK-

Black starts to mix it, but White’s better position suggests that
only White can profit when tactics break out.

15…Bxc5 16. Bxh6 Bxd4 17. Qxd4 gxh6 18. Qf4 Nd5 19.
Qxh6 f6 20. f4 Re7 21. Ng6 1-0