Bishops: good, bad and both

Posted on February 12, 1996 by DrDave

good bishops: active bishop used for
attack

Euwe – Thomas, 1934

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

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

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

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

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

16. f5

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

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

20…Bb7 Euwe and Kramer give the alternatives:

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

[20… f5 21. Qh5 with strong attack]

21. Rcxf6 Qe4 22. Qd2 Kh8

[Or 22… Rad8 23. Qg5+ Kh8 24. Rxf7]

23. Bxf7 Rac8

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

24. R6f2 Rcd8 [24… Qg4]

25. Qg5 (NEXT DIAGRAM)

25… Rd6

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

26. Bd5! 1-0

26… Rxf2 27. Qg8#

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

Stahlberg-Trifunovich, 1951

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

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

16. f5 a5 17. a4

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

17… Rb8 18. Qc2 Bd7

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

19. Rd3 Rbd8 20. Qd2 b5

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

21. axb5 Alternatives are no better:

[21. Rd6 Bc8]

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

21… cxb5 22. Bd5 Bc6

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

23. e4

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

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

Bad
bishops

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

[Event “bad
bishops”][Site “-“][Date “1956.??.??”][Round “?”]
[White “barden”][Black
“rossolimo”][Result “1-0”]

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

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

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

(30.Be4 Rc4)>

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

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

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

bad bishop?

Botvinnik-Kann, 1939

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

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

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

The two bishops

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

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

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

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

So in OPEN positions, the two bishops are boss.

In CLOSED positions, the knights may be better.

In SEMI-OPEN positions. well…

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

Let’s have a look at these in turn.

bishops: two
bishops in ending

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

Ditmas,H –
Regis,D (March, 1979)

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

White sensibly takes the two bishops.

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

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

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

1-0

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

bishops: two bishops in open
middlegame

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

Nunn – Tal (Wijk
Ann Zee, 1982)

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

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

25. Nf5!

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

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

It’s all starting to clear up nicely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

27… Rxf1+ 28. Rxf1 Ncb8

this decentralising move doesn’t look right

29. Bc4 Rf8

Black’s position now falls apart

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

[Have the Knights finally secured a
defence?]

33. d7 ! 33… Nc5

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

34. Be5+ Kh7 35. Bd3+

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

Rubinstein –
Nimzovitch (Berlin, 1928)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the two bishops in a semi-open
endgame

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

[Event “Two
Bishops?”][Site “”][Date “1873.??.??”][Round “?”]
[White
“Rosenthal”][Black “Steinitz “][Result “0-1”]

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

The poor knight isn’t really sparkling.

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

Englisch-Steinitz

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

(squashing White’s knight out of the game)

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

The Variations behind the French Defence

Posted on January 20, 1996 by DrDave

French Defence: Key Variations for Young Players

Edition 2.8, January, 96

1. e4 e6, French Defence

Introduction

The French is a solid and safe defence which you will certainly
meet and may like to play yourself as a reply to 1. e4. In these
notes I will give a quick run-down on the main variations of the
French, and give an example line for each variation so you can get
some idea of how to play for each side.

Variations I recommend for White include the
Alekhin-Chatard Attack and the Alekhin Gambit against the
Winawer. Black’s best line is certainly the Winawer, but there are
safer alternatives like the Classical or Burn Variations. The
Tarrasch is a line for later on in your chess life, in my
opinion.

White avoids 2.d4

2. d3 The King’s Indian
Attack

A way of getting into the King’s Indian Reversed (KI Attack).

2… d5

3. Nd2

Prevents the exchange of Queens after 3…dxe4

3… Nf6 4. Ngf3

There are now two alternatives for Black: the old 4…c5 and the
modern 4…b6.

4… c5 (Variation A)

The most common approach. One well-known line goes:

5. g3 Nc6 6. Bg2 Be7 7. O-O O-O 8. Re1 b5 9. e5
Nd7 10. Nf1 a5 11. h4 b4 12. Bf4 a4 13. a3 bxa3 14. bxa3
Nd4

Black’s attack on the Q-side/centre is easier, and at the moment
has got further, but White is aiming at mate.

4… b6 (Variation B)

This is the modern approach.

5. g3 Bb7 6. Bg2 Be7 7. O-O c5 8. Re1
Nc6

…with Black perhaps planning to castle Queen’s side.

Other ways of avoiding 2. d4 include the
Tchigorin variation 2. Qe2, and the Two
Knights’ Variation with 2. Nf3.

2. Qe2, Tchigorin
variation

Against the Tchigorin Black can play 2…c5 or even
2…e5. Play is often like the King’s Indian Attack.

2. Nf3, Two Knights’
Variation

The Two Knights’ often transposes into Advance lines after

2…d5, 3. Nc3 Nf6, 4. e5 Nd7, 5. d4
c5

The main lines of the French start with

2. d4

When Black should reply

2… d5

White avoids 3. Nc3

Now the most common response is 3. Nc3 but White has alternatives:

3. Nd2 (Tarrasch Variation)

3. exd5 (Exchange Variation)

3. e5 (Advance Variation)

3. Nd2 The Tarrasch
Variation

This avoids the pin …Bb4 and keeps c3 open for a pawn. Black has
two approaches – one open (3…c5), one closed (3…Nf6).

3… c5 (Variation A)

This secures free play at cost of an isolated pawn, although an
open game may be more what White wants with 1. e4.

4. exd5 exd5

4… Qxd5 has been tried

And now White has two choices: to continue normal
development, or to aim for immediate exchanges in the hope of a
better endgame.

5.Ngf3 (Variation A1)

The main line, which may then go:

5… Nc6 6. Bb5 Bd6 7. O-O Nge7 8. dxc5 Bxc5 9.
Nb3 Bd6 10. Nbd4 O-O 11. c3 Bg4 12. Qa4 Qd7 13. Be3 a6

White has isolated the d-pawn but the endgame is a long way off

5.Bb5+ Bd7 6. Qe2+ (Variation
A2)

This is a way of trying to exchange off a few pieces , expecting a
better endgame against a weak isolated d-pawn which will appear
after dxc5.

3… Nf6 (Variation
B)

This line gives positions much more typical of the rest of the
French, and so I recommend this for Black.

4. e5 Nfd7

White again faces a basic choice: normal development with Bd3 or
the more aggressive f4.

5.Bd3 (Variation B1)

5… c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ne2 cxd4 8. cxd4 Qb6

8… Nb6 is the Leningrad variation

9. Nf3 f6 10. exf6 Nxf6 11. O-O Bd6 12. Nc3 O-O 13. Re1
Bd7

The pawn structure is advantageous to White but Black’s active
pieces give excellent chances in this complex position.

5. f4 (Variation B2)

This is a much sharper try

5… c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ndf3 Qb6 8. g3 cxd4 9. cxd4
Bb4+ 10. Kf2 f5 11. Kg2

White has gained space at the cost of time.

The Advance Variation 3.
e5

The Advance Variation is a straightforward line aiming at a space
advantage on the K-side. The drawback is the loss of time meaning
White goes on the defensive while Black hits at d4.

3… c5

The key counter-blow in the French

4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3

Now the familiar line is 5…Qb6 but 5…Bd7 is a good way of
avoiding this.

5… Qb6 (Variation
A)

White has a choice in this key position:

Bd3 (risky), Be2 (safe), or a3 (best).

6. Bd3 (A1, The Milner-Barry
Gambit )

Sir Stuart Milner-Barry had an attacking flair, and devised this
risky line.

6… cxd4 7. cxd4 Bd7

An ancient trap is 7…Nxd4 8 Nxd4 Qxd4 9. Bb5+
(DIAGRAM)

Diagram (trap)

winning

8. O-O Nxd4 9. Nxd4 Qxd4 10. Nc3

10… a6

(10… Qxe5 is risky but playable)

Now 11. Qe2 with the idea of following up with Rd1; White
has some pressure but Black has prospects of a win with the extra
pawn

6. Be2 (Variation A2)

6…cxd4 7. cxd4 Nge7

When two moves of the Nb1 are tried:

8. Na3 (Try 1)

this is perhaps the most logical way to

play

8… Nf5 9. Nc2 Bb4+ 10. Kf1

And Black has two equally worthwhile tries:

(i) 10… h5 securing the position of the Nf5

(ii) 10… Be7 so if 11. g4, 11…Nh4 keeps the balance
of attack and defence of d4

8. Nc3 (Try 2 -)

A simple approach.

8… Nf5 9. Na4 Qa5+ 10. Bd2 Bb4 11. Bc3 Bxc3+ 12. Nxc3
Qb6 13. Bb5 Bd7

with equal chances

6. a3 (Variation A3)

The modern approach, and probably best.

6… c4 7. g3

7. Nbd2 Na5 (better 7… f6) 8. b4 cxb3 9. c4 is a
dangerous gambit — Keres.

7… f6

This move, unusually hitting the head (e5) of the chain instead of
the base (b2), gives Black equal chances.

5… Bd7 (Variation
B)

6. Be2 Rc8

This is a way of avoiding the familiar lines with …Qb6 which
seems at least as good. White has tried several approaches (6.
dxc5, 6. a3) but this move is fine.

3. exd5 The Exchange
Variation

3…exd5

4. Bd3 Nc6 5. c3 Bd6 6. Qf3 Be6 7. Ne2 Nge7

is level: the open K-file may become important after exchanges

The main line 3. Nc3

Does Black want to play the Winawer or not?

Section I: Black avoids the
Winawer

These are the older lines with 3…dxe4 and 3…Nf6.

3… dxe4 The Rubinstein
Variation

This is an old-fashioned and rather passive approach — all right
if you like that sort of thing.

4. Nxe4 Nd7

4… Bd7 5. Bd3

5. Nf3 Ngf6 6. Nxf6+ Nxf6 7. Bd3 Be7 8. Qe2 O-O
9. Bg5 c5 10. dxc5 Qa5+

White still has freer play and prospects of attack. In the endgame
the Queen’s side majority may count for something.

The Classical French 3…
Nf6

This safe and solid line has always been a reliable way of holding
White’s initiative, but it is not as easy to play for a win.

4. e5 The Steinitz
Variation

This has recently become more fashionable. An example line goes:

4… Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Be3 Qb6 8. Na4 Qa5+ 9.
c3

9… cxd4 10. b4 Nxb4

This difficult piece sacrifice has become very
topical.

11. cxb4 Bxb4+ 12. Bd2 Bxd2+ 13. Nxd2 b6 14. Rb1
Ba6 15. Qb3

Black probably doesn’t have enough for the piece

4. Bg5 The Classical
Variation

The natural reply here is the balancing …Be7 but Black has two
alternatives: …Bb4 and …dxe4.

4… dxe4, The Burn
Variation

This has obvious links with the Rubinstein line

5. Nxe4 Be7 6. Bxf6

And Black has tried both recaptures:

6…Bxf6 (Variation
1)

7. Nf3 Nd7 8. Qd2 O-O 9.O-O-O b6 10. d5 Ne5 11. Qf4 Ng6 12.
Nxf6+ Qxf6 13. Qxf6 gxf6

…when White hopes that the greater harmony of the pawns will give
the advantage.

6… gxf6 (Variation
2)

A more risky and more dynamic try.

After 7. Nf3 Black hopes the two bishops and

open d- and g-files will give active play.

4… Bb4, The MacCutcheon
Variation

This line still offers Black some prospects of a counterattacking
game, but is not as good as the Winawer.

5. e5 h6 6. Bd2 Bxc3 7. bxc3 Ne4 8. Qg4 g6 9. Bd3
Nxd2 10. Kxd2 c5 11. Qf4 Nc6 12. Nf3

White has the idea of dxc5 and Nd4, with advantage.

4… Be7 The Classical
Variation

5. e5 Nfd7

And there is yet a further choice:

6. Bxe7, the safe Classical line.

6. h4, the aggressive Alekhin-Chatard attack.

6. Bxe7 Main Line Classical
Variation

6…Qxe7

7. f4 O-O 8. Nf3 c5 9. Bd3 f5 10. exf6 Rxf6 11. Qd2 Nc6 12.
dxc5 Nxc5

Again we have a classic French imbalance between White’s better
pawns and Black’s counterplay

6. h4 The Alekhin-Chatard
Attack

White offers a pawn for chances of attack.

6… Bxg5 7. hxg5 Qxg5 8. Nh3 Qe7 9.
Qg4

The N goes to h3 to allow this Q move when White has good prospects
of attack. Black may decline the Gambit with a passive game.

Section II: The Winawer
Variation 3… Bb4

Black takes a risky decision – to attack White’s Knight but with
the important dark-squared bishop. White has the main try 4. e5 but
also some ways of avoiding these critical lines, including the
gambit lines 4. Nge2 and 4. a3, and the Winawer Exchange 4. exd5.

4. Nge2 The Alekhin
Gambit

Black is advised not to hang on to the pawn – concentrate on good
development instead.

4… dxe4 5. a3 Be7 6. Nxe4 Nf6

An open game with about equal chances has resulted.

4. a3 Pawn snatch
variation

4… Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 dxe4 6. Qg4 Nf6 7. Qxg7 Rg8 8. Qh6 Nbd7
9. Ne2 b6 10. Bg5 Qe7

White has a pawn, but Black has active play for it

4. exd5 Winawer
Exchange

4…exd5

The Winawer Exchange Variation is harmless for Black

5. Bd3 Nc6 6. Nge2 Nge7

Equal game.

4. e5, Main line
Winawer

Now Black usually goes 4…c5 but can play more quietly with
4…b6/4…Qd7.

4… c5 (Variation A)

This is the most aggressive line for Black.

5. a3

5… Bxc3+

5… Ba5 has been tried: 6. b4 cxd4 7. Qg4 Ne7 8.
bxa5 dxc3 9. Qxg7 Rg8 10. Qxh7 Nbc6 11. Nf3 Qc7 12. Bf4 Bd7 13.
Bd3

Variation

with complex play

6. bxc3

This is the critical position in the Winawer. Black has given up
the important dark-sqaured bishop to weaken White’s pawns which can
be attacked down the c-file. Black will try to block the centre to
slow up any White attack.

6… Ne7

6… Qc7 is safer, with the idea if 7. Qg4 f5 8. Qg3

7. a4 positional line

White plays slowly, hoping perhaps to get control of the diagonal
a3-f8.

7… Qa5 8. Qd2 Nbc6 9. Nf3 Bd7 10. Be2 Rc8 11.
dxc5 Ng6 12. O-O O-O

…with both sides having chances.

7. Qg4, Winawer ‘Poisoned
Pawn’

White grabs a hot pawn and tries to hang on to his centre.

7… Qc7 8. Qxg7 Rg8 9. Qxh7 cxd4 10. Ne2
Nbc6

This position is the starting point of some very detailed opening
research. Both sides have horrid weaknesses.

4… Qd7 (Variation
B)

5. Bd3 b6

This is a slower way to play but offers fewer chances for
Black to win

Exchanging into a King-and-Pawn endgame

Posted on November 27, 1995 by DrDave

Chris Bellers, c.1995

Jones – Bellers, 1975

  [Event "Diagram 1"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/5p2/R7/3rp3/4k2p/1P5P/P5PK/8 w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

What makes players do the following? White swaps off his active rook, failing to see just 2 or 3 moves ahead.
It is amazing how often this occurs.

1. Ra4+

[1. Rf6 or indeed almost anything else would have been better!]

1… Rd4 2. Rxd4+ exd4 3. Kg1 Kd3 4. Kf2 Kc2 0-1

Theory:Opposition,Triangulation, 1995

  [Event "Diagram 2"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/1p2k2p/8/P4K2/8/7P/8/8 w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

1. Kg5!
[1. Ke5 ? 1… Kd7 2. Kf6

[2. Kd5 h5 the bK is too near the a-pawn for White to win]

2… Kc6 Black can queen the pawn in seven moves]

[1. h4 Kf7 with the opposition 2. h5 h6]

1… Kf7 2. Kh6 Kg8 3. h4 Kh8 4. Kh5

[4. Kg5 Kg7 draws with the opposition]

[4. h5 Kg8 5. Kg5 Kf7

[5… Kg7 even this draws: 6. h6+ Kf7 7. Kf5 Ke7 8. Ke5 Kd7 9. Kf6 Kd6 10. Kg7 Ke7 11. Kxh7 Kf7]

6. Kf5 h6]

4… Kg8 5. Kg4

taking the distant opposition

5… Kf8 6. Kf4 Ke8 7. Kg5 !

[7. Ke4 Kd7 8. Kf5

[8. Kd5 h5]

8… Kc6 9. Kg5 Kb5]

7… Kf7 8. Kf5

again with the opposition but also with the pawn held back on h4

8… Ke7 9. Ke5 Kd7 10. Kf6 Kc6 11. h5 Kb5 12. Kg7 Kxa5 13. h6 b5 14. Kxh7 b4 15. Kg7 ! 15… b3 16. h7 b2 17. h8=Q b1=Q

[17… Kb4 King and Knight or centre pawn loses (Rook or Bishop pawns on the seventh draw) 18. Qb8+ Kc3 19. Kf6 Kc2 20. Qc7+ Kd1 21. Qb6 Kc2 22. Qc5+ Kd3 23. Qb4 Kc2 24. Qc4+ Kd2 25. Qb3 Kc1 26. Qc3+ Kb1 27. Ke5 Ka2 28. Qc2 Ka1 29. Qa4+ Kb1 30. Kd4 Kc1 31. Qc4+ Kb1 32. Kc3 Ka1 33. Qa4+ Kb1 34. Qc2+ Ka2 35. Qxb2#]

18. Qa8+ Kb4 19. Qb7+ Kc3 20. Qxb1 1-0

Hibbitt – Bellers , 1995

  [Event "Diagram 3"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/4k2p/2p1r1p1/1p1p4/5PP1/P5R1/5PKP/8 w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

How do you assess this position? Black has a menacing array of Queen’s-side pawns and threatens simply …Kd6, …c5 etc. White’s only chance is to create diversions on the King’s-side and hope that it compensates.
1. Re3 ? 1… d4 2. Rxe6+ Kxe6 3. Kf3 Kd5 4. Ke2 ?

[4. f5 gxf5 5. g5 Ke5 6. h4 f4 !

[6… c5 7. h5 c4 8. h6 wins for White]

7. Kg4 d3 8. Kf3 Kf5 -+]

4… Ke4

resigns.

Note how potent …f4 can be at the right time. 0-1

Bellers – Pritchard 1995

  [Event "Diagram 4"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/pr1k1p2/1pRpp1p1/1P5p/P3PP1P/1P2KP2/8/8 w - - 0 32"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

White has been pressing throughout, but Black now threatens to equalise with …Rc7.
32. f5 ! (that break again) 32… exf5 33. exf5 Rc7 34. fxg6 fxg6 35. Rxc7+ Kxc7 36. Kd4 Kd8 37. Ke4 Ke7 38. Kd5 Kd7 39. b4 Ke7 40. a5 Kd7 41. a6 Ke7 42. Kc6 d5 and resigns:

43. Kb7 d4 44. Kxa7 d3 45. Kxb6 d2 46. a7 d1=Q 47. a8=Q 1-0

Bellers – Hodgson , 1977

  [Event "Diagram 5"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/pp1k4/5p2/2p5/2P1p1b1/4P3/P2K1P2/6N1 w - - 0 25"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

Against a youthful Julian Hodgson, White is paying the price of playing Grob’s Attack!
25. Ne2 Bxe2 26. Kxe2 Kc6 27. f3 exf3+ 28. Kxf3 b5 29. cxb5+ Kxb5 30. Ke4 Kc4 resigns.

But is the position before 25.Ne2 totally lost? The Knight is tied down, but the Bishop has to stay on g4 to keep it there, and meanwhile the Knight is guarding all the entry squares

Exchanging to won King ending,

Sarahs – Bellers, 1995

  [Event "Diagram 6"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "4r3/pp4k1/2p3p1/8/3p4/5P2/PP2rRR1/3K4 b - - 0 30"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

Black is two pawns up with a passed d-pawn and control of the e-file. What is the best way forward? Double Rook endings can be difficult to win.
30… d3

completing the stranglehold

31. b4 b6 32. a4 Rxf2 33. Rxf2 Re2 34. Rxe2 dxe2+ 35. Kxe2 Kf6 36. Ke3 Ke5 37. a5 bxa5 38. bxa5 c5 0-1

Bellers – Evans, 1977

  [Event "Diagram 7"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/1p2nk2/p6p/2PpR3/P2P2p1/4KpP1/1P3P2/8 w - - 0 47"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

White swaps off into a won K+P ending, but it isn’t as easy as White first thought. Simply 47.b2-b4 would have been stronger.
47. Rxe7+ Kxe7 48. Kf4 h5 49. b4 Kf6 50. b5 axb5 51. axb5 Ke6 52. c6 ?

[52. Kg5 wins easily]

52… bxc6 53. bxc6 Kd6 54. Kg5 Kxc6 55. Kxh5 Kb5 56. Kxg4 Kc4 57. Kxf3 Kxd4 58. Ke2 Kc3 59. Kd1 Kd3 60. g4 Ke4 61. g5 Kf5 62. f4 1-0

Thornley – Bellers, 1995

  [Event "Diagram 8"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/6pk/p6p/P4p2/4p1QP/6P1/5P2/2q3K1 b - - 0 55"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

White is a pawn down but seems to have everything covered. Black must do something active to break through.
55… f4 (that move again) 56. Qxf4 Qxf4 57. gxf4

  [Event "Diagram 9"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/6pk/p6p/P7/4pP1P/8/5P2/6K1 b - - 0 57"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

how do you assess this position?
57… Kg6 58. Kg2 Kf5 59. h5

[59. Kg3 h5]

59… Kxf4 60. Kf1 Kf3 61. Ke1 e3 62. fxe3 Kxe3 63. Kd1 Kf4 64. Kd2 Kg5 65. Kc3 Kxh5 66. Kc4 g5 67. Kc5 g4 68. Kb6 g3 69. Kxa6 g2 70. Kb7 g1=Q 71. a6 Kg5

resigns: advanced Rook pawns do draw against K+Q but not K+Q+P! 1-0

Furnewell – Frost , 1995

  [Event "Diagram 10"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "1r6/2rk2pp/p1p1p3/2RpP3/5P2/8/PPR2KPP/8 b - - 0 26"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

I’m not sure how to categorise this one: Black thought he was transposing into a won K+P ending because of the protected passed d-pawn, White presumably thought it was won. Who was right?
26… Rb5

White has the choice: leaving the rooks on may have been easier

27. Rxb5 cxb5 28. Rxc7+ Kxc7 29. Ke3 Kc6 30. Kd4 a5 31. a3 a4 32. h3 g6 33. g3 h5 34. g4 h4

  [Event "Diagram 11"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/8/2k1p1p1/1p1pP3/p2K1PPp/P6P/1P6/8 w - - 0 35"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

35. f5
But

[35. Ke3 Kc5 36. f5 draws easily! 36… exf5 37. gxf5 gxf5 38. Kf4 d4 39. e6 Kd6 40. Kxf5 d3 41. Kf6 d2 42. e7 Kd7 43. Kf7 d1=Q 44. e8=Q+]

35… exf5 36. gxf5 gxf5 37. Ke3 Kd7 38. Kf3 Ke6 39. Kf4 d4

0-1

Bellers – Saqui, 1983

  [Event "Diagram 12"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/8/2p1pk2/1p1pR2p/1P1P1pb1/2P5/5PK1/8 w - - 0 44"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

Finally, an ending to demonstrate the resources that may exist when all seems lost. The key to this ending is the greater mobility of the rook, and the ability of the wK to gain entry on the White squares.
44. Re1 Ke7 45. Rh1 f3+ 46. Kg3 Kf7 47. Kf4 Kf6 48. Ra1 Ke7 49. Ke5 Kf7 50. Kd6

two pawns now go, but it’s still got to be won

50… Bf5 51. Kxc6 Bd3 52. Kd6 Kf6 53. Rh1 Kg5 54. Kxe6 Bc4 55. Ke5 Kg4 56. Rg1+ Kh3 57. Rg3+ Kh2 58. Rxf3 h4 59. Rf4 h3 60. Rg4 Be2 61. Rg7 Bf3 62. Kd6 Bg2 63. f4 Kg1 64. Rh7 h2 65. f5 Be4 66. Rxh2 Kxh2 67. f6 Bg6 68. Ke6 Kg3 69. f7 Bxf7+ 70. Kxf7 Kf4

  [Event "Diagram 13"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/5K2/8/1p1p4/1P1P1k2/2P5/8/8 w - - 0 71"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

Black has wriggled well but this K+P ending is won for White
71. Ke6 Ke4 72. Kd6 Kd3 73. Kxd5 Kxc3 74. Kc5 Kb3 75. d5 1-0

Exeter Chess Club: Centenary Simul vs IM Gary Lane

Posted on October 21, 1995 by DrDave

Simultaneous Display Post Mortem

Although he obviously knows a lot of theory International Master Gary Lane wasn’t out to play right down the line – he deviated in the sharper bits of theory against Mark and Steve. Rather, he played mostly solidly – certainly in only a few games did he set out for mate straight away. His opening repertoire leaned heavily on his published books (Ruy Lopez, Bishop’s Opening, Closed Sicilian, Alapin Sicilian) and unpublished ones (Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, which I think no-one accepted).

“When I attacked, I won” he said afterwards: this indicates some need for better defensive technique (Bruce, Daniel, Geoff). On several occasions it seemed he just pushed a queen near an Exeter King’s-side, hoping that things would turn up. This ‘fishing’ for opportunities can be seen in the games with Iain, Geoff and Ivor. Also, there were a couple of games where we seemed to be doing well to start with, but the moment we started mixing it, we fell apart (Sean, Iain). There are a couple of games where GL adopted standard attacking formations, and the attack went like clockwork – my guess is our mistake here was allowing such a formation to start with (Bruce, Tom, Keith).
Masterly judgement was apparent in the games – where after a fair opening, our player’s pieces seemed to start going backwards (Geoff) or became decentralised (Iain); when GL was at a clear disadvantage in a game, he cold-bloodedly made the most of his own advantages (Ivor, Steve, Chris).
GL wasn’t out to knock us out in the opening, and in most of the games we seemed to be still in the game at move 15. We did best when we played his strategy back at him – kept solid and played good positional chess (Mark, Steve, Gill), kept centralised (Matthew), didn’t let him settle with a stable centre (Matthew, Steve), insisted on some play of our own (Iain, Ivor, Steve…) didn’t take his word for it (Ivor, Steve, Chris). And I’m sure we were all reassured to watch GL play with a flourish Qe8+ Nxe8 (oops) as he was finishing off little David Butler…
Several folk did well for much of the game, outplaying our esteemed visitor for at least some of the time. This goes some way towards suggesting that masters don’t do anything very different to club players, rather they do it more or faster.

   [Event "Exeter Chess Club Simul"]  [Site "Exeter ENG"]  [Date "1995.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Lane, Gary"]  [Black "Rowston, Bruce"]  [Result "1-0"]  [WhiteTitle "IM"]   1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. c3 c5 6. f4 Nc6 7. Ndf3 Be7 8. h4  O-O 9. h5 h6 10. Bd3 cxd4 11. cxd4 Nb6 12. Bb1 Bd7 13. Ne2 Bb4+ 14. Kf2 Rc8  15. Qd3 Re8 16. a3 {White's standard attack has yielded results; the bishop  cannot retreat to e7 because of the mate. Black should have hit harder at  the centre with ...Qb6 and/or ...f6 - see Matthew Leigh's game, where both  featured.} 16... f5 17. exf6 Qxf6 18. axb4 Nxb4 19. Qh7+ Kf8 20. Bd2 Nc6  21. Ne5 Nxe5 22. dxe5 1-0   [Event "Exeter Chess Club Simul"]  [Site "Exeter ENG"]  [Date "1995.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Lane, Gary"]  [Black "Bellers, Chris"]  [Result "1-0"]  [WhiteTitle "IM"]   1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nf3 c6 4. c3 d5 {I have never believed in playing the  Gurgenidze line against a White move order without Nc3.} 5. Bd3 (5. Nbd2  {But the dismal text leaves the bishop exposed...}) 5... dxe4 6. Bxe4 Nf6  7. Bd3 (7. Bc2 {...and the d-pawn undersupported.}) 7... O-O 8. O-O Bg4  9. h3 Bxf3 10. Qxf3 Nbd7 11. Re1 Re8 12. Bf4 Qb6 13. Re2 Nd5 14. Be5 Nxe5  15. dxe5 Bxe5 {A pungent rejoinder! Showing this to a group, it took a while  for the true position to be seen: first the doubt that the e-pawn can be  taken at all, then the realisation that the b-pawn falls too, then a worry  about losing time and exposing the queen, and finally the point that it is  actually the rook on a1 which is stuck, not the black queen.} 16. Na3  (16. Rxe5 Qxb2) 16... Qc7 17. Rae1 Bg7 18. g3 e5 19. Nc4 b5 20. Nd2 f5  21. Qg2 Rad8 22. Bc2 {Black has consolidated his gains although is a  little loose. White must avoid exchanges and seek to make the most of any  opportunities; Black has no need to provoke a crisis yet and should try  slowly to improve his position.} 22... e4 {Just sets up the f2-f3 break for  White.} 23. Nf1 (23. Nb3) {Watching, I was anxious about that alternative,  but this is my style.} 23... Nf6 24. f3 Qb6+ 25. Kh2 exf3 26. Rxe8+ Nxe8  27. Bb3+ Kh8 28. Qxf3 Nf6 29. Re7 {How quickly the scene changes!}  29... Ne4 30. Qf4 Qc5 31. Re6 g5 (31... Bh6 32. Qxh6 (32. Qe5+ Qxe5  33. Rxe5 Kg7 {and Black stands slightly better}) (32. Qf3 Ng5 {and Black is  winning}) 32... Qf2+ 33. Kh1 Qxf1+ 34. Kh2 Qf2+ 35. Kh1 Nxg3#) 32. Qe3  Qxe3 33. Nxe3 Rd2+ 34. Kg1 {And again: Black is horribly loose.}  34... Bf8 35. Re8 Kg7 36. Nxf5+ Kg6 37. Rxf8 Rxb2 38. g4 Nd2 39. Ne7+ Kh6  40. Rg8 Nf3+ 41. Kf1 Nh2+ 42. Ke1 Nf3+ 43. Kd1 Nh4 44. Nf5+ Nxf5 45. gxf5  Rf2 46. Bc2 Kh5 47. Rc8 Kh4 48. Rxc6 h5 49. Rh6 Kxh3 50. Rxh5+ Kg3  51. Rxg5+ 1-0   [Event "Exeter Chess Club Simul"]  [Site "Exeter ENG"]  [Date "1995.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Lane, Gary"]  [Black "Hill, Daniel"]  [Result "1-0"]  [WhiteTitle "IM"]   1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Be3 c6 5. Qd2 Bg7 6. O-O-O O-O 7. f3 b5  8. Bh6 Bxh6 9. Qxh6 b4 10. Nce2 Qa5 {Definitely the right idea - insisting  on a share of the game.} 11. Kb1 Nbd7 12. h4 Nb6 13. h5 {One of a number of  clockwork attacks... Fischer talks about having the attack on the  fianchettoed king position down to a formula.} 13... Nxh5 14. g4 Be6  15. Nc1 Nf6 16. Nh3 Bxg4 17. fxg4 Nxe4 18. Nb3 Qd5 19. Bg2 1-0   [Event "Exeter Chess Club Simul"]  [Site "Exeter ENG"]  [Date "1995.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Lane, Gary"]  [Black "Jenkins, Geoff"]  [Result "1-0"]  [WhiteTitle "IM"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Bc5 5. O-O Nf6 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O  8. c3 d6 9. d3 Bg4 10. h3 Bh5 11. Nbd2 Ne7 12. Nf1 Qd7 13. Ng3 Ng6  14. Nxh5 Nxh5 {15.Nxe4 here would have been only superficially  attractive for White.} 15. d4 exd4 16. Nxd4 Nhf4 17. Qf3 Ne6 18. Nf5 Ne5  19. Qg3 Kh8 20. Kh1 c6 {Black seems to have fair chances at this point.}  21. Be3 Nd3 22. Red1 Nxb2 23. Bxc5 Nxd1 24. Rxd1 Rfd8 25. Rxd6 Qc7  26. Bxe6 g6 27. Qe5+ 1-0   [Event "Exeter Chess Club Simul"]  [Site "Exeter ENG"]  [Date "1995.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Lane, Gary"]  [Black "Taggart, Iain"]  [Result "1-0"]  [WhiteTitle "IM"]   1. e4 c5 2. c3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. d4 Nc6 5. Nf3 cxd4 6. cxd4 e5 7. Nc3 Bb4  {An unusual line which GL hadn't known about, despite having written a book  on this 2.c3 variation! Black insists on a slice of the centre and free  development. The question is whether all this can be safely attempted at  once.} 8. Qd2 Bxc3 9. bxc3 e4 {With hindsight ...exd4 may have been  better.} 10. Qe3 Nge7 11. Nd2 Bf5 12. Bc4 Qa5 13. Rb1 O-O 14. O-O Nd5  15. Qg5 {Fishing... White has some advantages (pawn centre, better bishop,  good rook on b1, loose black pieces) but Black has definite chances against  the pawns. Perhaps Black should have paused somewhere to stop the  incursion of the rook.} 15... Nxc3 16. Rxb7 Bg6 17. d5 Nd4 18. Nb3 Nde2+  19. Kh1 Qxa2 20. d6 {Black looks a little scattered now. Both sides have  been looking loose, but it is a black piece that falls...} 20... Nxc1  21. Qxc1 Ne2 22. Qe3 Rab8 23. Rxb8 Rxb8 24. d7 Qa4 25. Qxe2 Qxd7  {The published score breaks off here with "...", so the remaining moves to  the 1-0 result were not recorded by the annotator.} 1-0   [Event "Exeter Chess Club Simul"]  [Site "Exeter ENG"]  [Date "1995.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Lane, Gary"]  [Black "Annetts, Ivor"]  [Result "1/2-1/2"]  [WhiteTitle "IM"]   1. d4 d5 2. e4 {GL made several attempts to play the Blackmar-Diemer  Gambit during the simul, but was never allowed it (see also Matthew  Leigh's game).} 2... c6 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nf3 e6 5. Be3 Nd7 6. c4 dxc4 7. Bxc4  Nb6 8. Bb3 Nd5 {Black's knight is a definite asset.} 9. O-O Bb4 10. a3  Ba5 11. Nbd2 Bd3 12. Re1 Nge7 13. Bc2 Bxc2 14. Qxc2 Nf5 15. b4 Bc7 16. Ne4  Nfxe3 17. fxe3 Rb8 18. Qf2 Qe7 19. Qg3 f5 20. Ned2 {Fishing for a  kingside attack... Ivor will have none of it.} 20... Rg8 21. Nc4 Kd7  22. Nd6 g5 23. e4 f4 24. Qf2 Ne3 25. Rxe3 fxe3 26. Qxe3 g4 27. Nd2 {After  the exchange sacrifice, White's central pawn mass looks dangerous. Rather  than seeking exchanges (...Bxd6) or passive defence (...Rg7), Ivor  correctly looks for opportunities for active play.} 27... Qg5 28. Qd3  Bxd6 29. exd6 Qb5 30. Nc4 Rbf8 31. Qc3 g3 32. hxg3 Qg5 33. Ne5+ Kd8 34. b5  Qxg3 35. Qxg3 Rxg3 36. bxc6 bxc6 37. Rb1 Kc8 38. d7+ Kc7 39. Rc1 Rxa3  40. Rxc6+ Kb7 41. Rxe6 Rd8 42. d5 Re3 43. Kh2 Rxe4 44. Nf7 Ra4 {The pawn  cost Black a rook, but the game simplified into a rook-and-pawns ending in  which the master could see no way forward.} 45. Kg4 Ra6 {The published  score again breaks off with "...", so the exact moves to the final draw  were not recorded.} 1/2-1/2   [Event "Exeter Chess Club Simul"]  [Site "Exeter ENG"]  [Date "1995.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Lane, Gary"]  [Black "Atkins, Keith"]  [Result "1-0"]  [WhiteTitle "IM"]   1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. O-O O-O 7. Bb3 Bg4  8. Nbd2 d5 9. h3 Bxf3 10. Qxf3 d4 11. Re1 Qd7 12. Nf1 b5 13. Ng3 Rad8  14. Bc2 dxc3 15. bxc3 b4 16. Nf5 bxc3 {Optimistic - Keith is hitting back  hard (right idea) but is only counter-attacking, not defending. The knight  should have been kept out of f5 by 15...Ne7.} 17. Nxg7 {Played almost  instantly.} 17... Ne8 (17... Kxg7 18. Bh6+ Kxh6 19. Qxf6+ Kh5 20. Bd1+)  18. Nf5 Nd4 19. Nxd4 Qxd4 20. Bh6 Rb8 {(the score has this move as  ...Rg8)} 21. Bb3 Qd7 22. Qg3+ Kh8 23. Qxe5+ f6 24. Qxc5 Ng7 25. Qxc3 1-0   [Event "Exeter Chess Club Simul"]  [Site "Exeter ENG"]  [Date "1995.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Lane, Gary"]  [Black "Blackmore, Mark"]  [Result "1/2-1/2"]  [WhiteTitle "IM"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Qe2 b5 7. Bb3 O-O  8. c3 d5 {Black ensures himself good development.} 9. d3 Be6 10. Re1 Qd7  11. Nbd2 dxe4 12. dxe4 Bxb3 13. Nxb3 Rad8 14. Bg5 Qd3 {Rather than meekly  conceding the d-file after Rad1, Black insists on chopping some wood.}  15. Bh4 Qxe2 16. Rxe2 Nd7 17. Bxe7 Nxe7 18. Na5 f6 19. Nd2 Nc5 20. Ndb3  Nd3 21. Rd2 Nf4 22. Rad1 Rxd2 23. Rxd2 Ne6 24. Nb7 Rc8 {White is a little  better placed, but the black knights cover a lot of key points.} 25. Kf1  Kf8 26. f3 Ke8 27. g3 Rb8 28. N3c5 Nxc5 29. Nxc5 Rb6 30. b4 Rc6 31. Ke2 a5  32. Ke3 axb4 33. cxb4 Rd6 34. Rxd6 cxd6 35. Ne6 Nc6 36. a3 Kf7 37. Nc7 Nd4  {Black's knights have always managed to find the right squares at the  right time.} 38. Kd3 Ke7 39. f4 Kd7 40. Nd5 h6 1/2-1/2   [Event "Exeter Chess Club Simul"]  [Site "Exeter ENG"]  [Date "1995.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Lane, Gary"]  [Black "Leigh, Matthew"]  [Result "1-0"]  [WhiteTitle "IM"]   1. d4 d5 2. e4 e6 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. c3 c5 6. f4 Nc6 7. Ndf3 Qb6  8. h4 {(hacker...)} cxd4 9. cxd4 f6 10. Bd3 Bb4+ 11. Kf1 O-O 12. exf6 Nxf6  13. Ne2 Bd7 14. g3 Rac8 15. Kg2 Bd6 16. a3 Na5 17. b4 Nc4 18. Neg1 {Black  is clearly winning.} 18... Ng4 {Now it's not quite so clear, but Black  should still be all right.} 19. Bxh7+ Kxh7 20. Ng5+ Kg8 21. Qxg4 Qxd4  22. Qh5 {White is fishing hard but Black is so well-placed; better  developed, better control of the centre, with chances against the  scattered white pieces and king. Here 22...Rf6 may have been worth a  look, giving Black one more move in defence.} 22... Qd3 23. N1f3 Qc2+  24. Bd2 Nxd2 25. Ra2 Qf5 26. g4 Qd3 (26... Be8 27. gxf5 Bxh5 28. Rxd2  Bxf4) {Not an easy move to spot in a hurry - this is the secret weapon of  the simul. player, forcing opponents to make a decision.} 27. f5 Qe2+  28. Kh3 Rxf5 29. gxf5 Nxf3 (29... exf5) 30. Qf7+ Kh8 1-0   [Event "Exeter Chess Club Simul"]  [Site "Exeter ENG"]  [Date "1995.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Lane, Gary"]  [Black "Pope, Sean"]  [Result "1-0"]  [WhiteTitle "IM"]   1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. d4 Nxd5 4. Nf3 g6 5. Bc4 Bg7 6. O-O O-O 7. c3 Nc6  8. Re1 Bg4 9. h3 Bxf3 10. Qxf3 Nb6 11. Bb5 Qd5 12. Qxd5 Nxd5 13. Na3 e6  14. Nc2 Nde7 15. Bf4 Rac8 16. a4 a5 17. Ne3 e5 18. dxe5 Bxe5 19. Bg5 Bg7  20. Bxe7 Nxe7 21. Nc4 {White is only slightly better placed; 21...Nd5 and  only then ...c6 may have held.} 21... c6 22. Rxe7 cxb5 23. Nd6 Rb8  24. Nxb5 Rfd8 25. Re2 Rd7 26. Rae1 Bf6 27. Kf1 Kg7 28. Na3 Rd5 29. Re8  Rbd8 30. Rxd8 Bxd8 31. Re8 Kf6 32. Ke2 Be7 33. Nc4 b5 34. axb5 Rc5  35. Nxa5 Rxb5 36. b4 Re5+ 37. Kd3 Rf5 38. f3 Rg5 39. g4 h5 40. Nc6 Bd6  41. c4 hxg4 42. hxg4 1-0   [Event "Exeter Chess Club Simul"]  [Site "Exeter ENG"]  [Date "1995.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Lane, Gary"]  [Black "Homer, Steve"]  [Result "1-0"]  [WhiteTitle "IM"]   1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 e6 3. g3 d5 4. exd5 exd5 5. Bg2 Nf6 6. d3 Be7 7. Nge2 d4  8. Ne4 O-O 9. O-O Nc6 10. Nf4 Bf5 11. Nxf6+ Bxf6 12. Nd5 {White has a good  knight post on d5, but Black has made a firm stand in the centre and  there is nothing for White on the long white diagonal.} 12... Be5 13. Re1  Qd7 14. Bg5 f6 15. Bf4 Rae8 16. Qd2 Re6 17. a3 {Optically Black is  better-placed, and while you need to translate that into a concrete plan,  I think that is the correct assessment of the position, and that Steve  has outplayed his opponent.} 17... Rd6 18. Bxe5 fxe5 19. c4 dxc3  20. Nxc3 Rxd3 {White has been careless; Black is clearly winning.}  21. Qg5 h6 22. Qh4 Qd4 23. Qxd4 cxd4 24. Na4 Rd2 25. b4 Bc2 26. Nc5 Rfxf2  27. Bd5+ Kh7 28. h4 Rfe2 29. Rf1 Ne7 30. Bf3 Re3 31. Ra2 Kg8 (31... b6)  {Eye off the ball, I think; GL was coming around very quickly now.}  32. Rf2 {I think Black is winning, but less clearly: White's pieces now  start coming out because of the loose b7-pawn and second-rank targets.  Perhaps Steve over-reached, but the annotator doesn't know quite where.}  32... Re1+ 33. Kg2 Rxf2+ 34. Kxf2 Rc1 35. Ke2 Bg6 36. h5 Bf7 37. Rb2 Bd5  38. Nd3 Bxf3+ 39. Kxf3 Rc3 {The black pawns, which have for so long been  immobile, are revealed as targets.} 40. Ke4 Rxa3 41. Nxe5 Rxg3 42. Kxd4  Rh3 43. Rc2 Rxh5 44. Rc7 Nf5+ 45. Ke4 {Steve allowed White to capture both  queenside pawns, and to sacrifice the knight to queen the b-pawn; GL then  won a tricky queen-and-pawn versus rook-knight-and-pawns ending. The  source only records illustrative fragments of the remaining play rather  than a complete move list. One such fragment, renumbered from move 1 by  the annotator, runs 1.Rc8+ Kh7 2.Rh8+ Kxh8 3.Ng6+ Kh7 4.Nxh4 Ne4 5.b6,  after which White let Steve waste moves capturing the knight with the  king while the pawn queened. Later, after ...Qg3+ Kd7, White played Qg2+;  the annotator believes Lane mistakenly thought he could not take the  knight there, since a quick engine check shows 1.Qxg4+ Kf2 2.Qh3 Kg1  3.Qg3+ Kh1 4.Qf2 g4 5.Qf1# as a forced mate rather than the usual drawing  resource. In the game White instead approached with the king and mopped  up the kingside.} 1-0   [Event "Exeter Chess Club Simul"]  [Site "Exeter ENG"]  [Date "1995.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Lane, Gary"]  [Black "Forbes, Tom"]  [Result "1-0"]  [Annotator "DrDave"]  [ECO "B06"]  [PlyCount "57"]  [EventDate "1995.??.??"]   1. d4 g6 2. e4 Bg7 3. Nf3 d6 4. Nc3 Bg4 5. Be3 Nf6 6. h3 Bxf3 7. Qxf3 c6 8. a4 Nbd7 9. Bd3 e5 10. O-O O-O 11. Qd1 Re8 12. f4 a5 13. dxe5 dxe5 14. f5 {[#]} Nf8 15. Qf3 Qd6 16. g4 Rac8 17. Bc4 Qb4 18. Bb3 Qe7 19. g5 N8d7 20. gxf6 Nxf6 21. Kh1 Kh8 22. Bg5 Rf8 23. Rad1 h5 24. Qg3 Kh7 25. Qh4 Rh8 26. fxg6+ fxg6 27. Bxf6 Bxf6 28. Qxf6 Qxf6 29. Rxf6 1-0

Lessons from Steinitz

Posted on September 24, 1995 by DrDave

“This little man,” said Adolf Schwarz, “taught us all to play chess”.

Steinitz started as a dashing attacking player, in the style common at the time, and claimed the World Championship after defeating Anderssen in a match (although the official beginning of the lineal championship began with his match with Zukertort many years later). By the time he played Zukertort, he was playing in a completely different style, and in the development of Steinitz’ style we can see the beginnings of modern chess.

How did he teach? Steinitz didn’t write books, but he wrote articles, and edited magazines, and wrestled the chess world into a different appreciation of chess. He had a fluent and pungent pen, and, for all his dogmatism on some subjects, he was right more often than he was wrong.

To search for lessons from Steinitz is not a long job: many of his games pioneered and/or showed in clear form so many of the ideas of positional play — weak pawns, weak squares, the minority attack, and so on. So the examples below could be multiplied many times over.

Opening

Several of the games under Middlegame and Endgame have lessons for the Opening, but let’s focus just on that phase first. As a starter, the dangers of castling into an attack when the centre is closed. I always welcome propaganda against Old Stodge…

  [Event "London"]  [Site "attack: castling into it"]  [Date "1862.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Dubois"]  [Black "Steinitz, Wilhelm"]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "C50"]  [Annotator "attack: castling into it"]  [PlyCount "78"]  [EventDate "1862.??.??"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. O-O {[#]} Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. Bg5 h6 7.  Bh4 g5 8. Bg3 {[#] Black, not having castled, can advance the King's-side Pawns  } h5 9. h4 (9. Nxg5 h4 10. Nxf7 {[#]} hxg3 11. Nxd8 Bg4 12. Qd2 Nd4 13. Nc3  Nf3+ 14. gxf3 Bxf3 {'0-1 (14) Knorre,V-Chigorin,M St Petersburg 1874'} 15. hxg3  Rh1#) 9... Bg4 10. c3 Qd7 11. d4 exd4 12. e5 dxe5 13. Bxe5 Nxe5 14. Nxe5 Qf5  15. Nxg4 hxg4 16. Bd3 Qd5 17. b4 O-O-O 18. c4 Qc6 19. bxc5 Rxh4 20. f3 Rdh8 21.  fxg4 Qe8 22. Qe1 Qe3+ 23. Qxe3 dxe3 24. g3 Rh1+ 25. Kg2 R8h2+ 26. Kf3 Rxf1+ 27.  Bxf1 Rf2+ 28. Kxe3 Rxf1 29. a4 Kd7 30. Kd3 Nxg4 31. Kc3 Ne3 32. Ra2 Rxb1 33.  Rd2+ Kc6 34. Re2 Rc1+ 35. Kd2 Rc2+ 36. Kxe3 Rxe2+ 37. Kxe2 f5 38. Ke3 Kxc5 39.  Kd3 f4 {0-1 (39) Dubois,S-Steinitz,W London 1862} 0-1

And a great example of ‘castle because you will or you must, but never because you can’ (Pillsbury). Delayed castling allows an early Knight journey, a thrust by the h-pawn, and only later, long castling.

  [Event "Wch04-Havana"]  [Site "Wch04-Havana"]  [Date "1892.??.??"]  [Round "4"]  [White "Steinitz, W.."]  [Black "Chigorin, M.."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C65"]  [PlyCount "55"]  [EventDate "1892.??.??"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d3 d6 5. c3 g6 6. Nbd2 Bg7 7. Nf1 O-O 8. Ba4  Nd7 9. Ne3 Nc5 10. Bc2 Ne6 11. h4 Ne7 12. h5 d5 13. hxg6 fxg6 14. exd5 Nxd5 15.  Nxd5 Qxd5 16. Bb3 Qc6 17. Qe2 Bd7 18. Be3 Kh8 19. O-O-O Rae8 20. Qf1 a5 21. d4  exd4 22. Nxd4 Bxd4 23. Rxd4 Nxd4 24. Rxh7+ Kxh7 25. Qh1+ Kg7 26. Bh6+ Kf6 27.  Qh4+ Ke5 28. Qxd4+ 1-0

Middlegame

Here’s Bobby Fischer on Steinitz:

“He is the so-called father of the modern school of chess; before him, the King was considered a weak piece and players set out to attack the King directly. Steinitz claimed that the King was well able to take care of itself, and ought not to be attacked until one had some other positional advantage. He understood more about the use of squares than Morphy and contributed a great deal more to chess theory.”

So, here is Steinitz’ King looking after itself, and Steinitz showing a weak IQP is no basis for an attack on the King, Steinitz defending while being stubborn about concessions, then Steinitz accumulating other positional advantages.

  [Event "Baden-Baden"]  [Site "Baden-Baden"]  [Date "1870.07.30"]  [Round "13"]  [White "Steinitz, William"]  [Black "Paulsen, Louis"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C25"]   1. e4 e5  2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4 exf4 4. d4 Qh4+ 5. Ke2 d6 ({Another line goes} 5... d5 6. exd5  Bg4+ 7. Nf3 O-O-O 8. dxc6 Bc5 9. cxb7+ Kb8 10. Nb5 Nf6 11. c3 Rhe8+ 12. Kd3  Bf5+ 13. Kc4 $1 $18 Be6+ 14. Kxc5 a5 15. Nxc7 Qh5+ 16. Ne5 Nd7+ 17. Kb5 Qxd1  18. Nxd7+ Rxd7 $2 (18... Kxb7 19. Nc5+ Ka7 20. Nxe8 Rxe8 21. Kxa5) 19. Bxf4 $18  ) 6. Nf3 Bg4 7. Bxf4 O-O-O 8. Ke3 Qh5 9. Be2 Qa5 10. a3 Bxf3 11. Kxf3 Qh5+ 12.  Ke3 Qh4 13. b4 g5 14. Bg3 Qh6 15. b5 Nce7 16. Rf1 Nf6 17. Kf2 Ng6 18. Kg1 Qg7  19. Qd2 h6 20. a4 Rg8 21. b6! axb6 22. Rxf6 Qxf6 23. Bg4+ Kb8 24. Nd5 Qg7 25. a5  f5 26. axb6 cxb6 27. Nxb6 Ne7 28. exf5 Qf7 29. f6 Nc6 30. c4 Na7 31. Qa2 Nb5  32. Nd5 Qxd5 33. cxd5 Nxd4 34. Qa7+ Kc7 35. Rc1+ Nc6 36. Rxc6# 1-0

A dramatic finish next, but it was all decided beforehand.

“If Zukertort has a plan in mind, he is a match for Steinitz, possibly even his peer. … Every move of Zukertort’s pointed towards a vigorous cooperation the pieces united to attack the King. This is the old Italian plan; Zukertort found it ready made, and in the tactics of execution he was a great master. Steinitz, however, discovered sound and successful plans over the board.” LASKER

“It will be remembered that the capture of the c-Pawn was formerly held disadvantageous” – STEINITZ

“a system, imperfect though it may be, is preferable to move to move improvisation such as Zukertort resorted to in this game” – KONIG’

  [Event "World-ch01 Steinitz-Zukertort +10-5=5"]  [Site "USA"]  [Date "1886.02.10"]  [Round "9"]  [White "Zukertort, J.."]  [Black "Steinitz, Wilhelm"]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "D26"]  [PlyCount "76"]  [EventDate "1886.01.11"]  [EventRounds "20"]  [EventCountry "USA"]   1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 dxc4 5. e3 c5 6. Bxc4 cxd4 7. exd4 Be7 8.  O-O O-O 9. Qe2 Nbd7 10. Bb3 Nb6 11. Bf4 Nbd5 12. Bg3 Qa5 13. Rac1 Bd7 14. Ne5  Rfd8 15. Qf3 Be8 16. Rfe1 Rac8 17. Bh4 Nxc3 18. bxc3 Qc7 19. Qd3 Nd5 20. Bxe7  Qxe7 21. Bxd5 Rxd5 22. c4 Rdd8 23. Re3 Qd6 24. Rd1 f6 25. Rh3 h6 26. Ng4 Qf4  27. Ne3 Ba4 28. Rf3 Qd6 29. Rd2 Bc6 30. Rg3 f5 31. Rg6 Be4 32. Qb3 Kh7 33. c5  Rxc5 34. Rxe6 Rc1+ 35. Nd1 Qf4 36. Qb2 Rb1 37. Qc3 Rc8 38. Rxe4 Qxe4 0-1

  [Event "Havana"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1888.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Steinitz, Wilhelm"]  [Black "Vasques"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C11"]  [Annotator "Euwe/Kramer"]  [PlyCount "63"]  [EventDate "1888.??.??"]   1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 dxe4 5. Nxe4 Be7 6.  Nxf6+ Bxf6 7. Bxf6 Qxf6 8. Nf3 O-O 9. c3 b6 10. Ne5 Nd7 11. Ng4 Qf4 12. Be2 Bb7  13. O-O f5 14. Ne3 Rf6 {Whether Steinitz overlooked something in the opening  stages, or whether he purposefully invited his opponent to attack, we shall  never know. Black's attack has assumed very dangerous proportions. Against  this must be set that the fact that White has not weakened his position in any  way. White must proceed with care; for instance, the attempt to change the  state of affairs by the seemingly energetic 15. Pd5 would be to his  disadvantage} 15. Re1 $1 {[%csl Re6] In full accord with the Steinitz theory  of defence. It avoids the weakening moves Pg3 or Ph3, and prepares to answer  15. ... Rh6 with Nf1. Meanwhile White begins to focus on the weak pawn on e6} (  15. d5 Rg6 16. dxe6 Qxe3 $3 {[%csl Rg2] Windmill attack} 17. fxe3 Rxg2+ 18. Kh1  Rxe2+ 19. Kg1 Rg2+ 20. Kh1 Rxb2+ 21. Kg1 Rg2+ 22. Kh1 Rxa2+ 23. Kg1 Rg2+ 24.  Kh1 Rg3+ 25. Rf3 Bxf3+ 26. Qxf3 Rxf3 $19) 15... Rh6 {[%csl Rh2]} 16. Nf1 {  [%cal Gf1h2]} Nf6 {[%cal Gf6g4]} 17. Bf3 $1 {An important decision. Steinitz  makes a concession, allowing his opponent to weaken his pawn structure.} Ne4 {  Black chooses to keep more pieces on the board to maintain attacking chances} (  17... Bxf3 18. Qxf3 Qxf3 19. gxf3 {[%csl Ge6,Yf2,Yf3] Black would no longer  havae a Kingside attack, and as compensation for the doubled and isolated  f-pawn - which is not easy to get at anyway - he would be able to operate  against Black's backward e-pawn}) (17... Ng4 18. h3 (18. Bxb7 Qxf2+ 19. Kh1  Nxh2 (19... Rxh2+ 20. Nxh2 Qh4 21. Kg1 (21. Qxg4 fxg4 22. Bxa8 g3 23. Kg1 $18))  20. Nxh2 Qh4 21. Kg1) 18... Bxf3 19. Qxf3 Qxf3 20. gxf3 Nf6 21. Rxe6) 18. Re3  Rf8 19. Qa4 a5 (19... Nd2 20. Bxb7 Nxf1 21. Kxf1 $18) 20. Rae1 {[%csl Re6]  building up latent pressure against the e-pawn} Rd8 {The Black attack has  already passed its peak} (20... Ba6 21. g3 Qg5 22. Bxe4 Bxf1 23. Bf3 $1 {  [%csl Re6] White wins the e-pawn}) 21. Ng3 {Now has come the time for White to  being the counterattack, and the first step is to remove Black's outpost on e4.  This however, means that White will have to weaken his King's position after  all, and this will automatically give Black renewed attacking prospects} Qh4  22. h3 {There defender comes under fire again, but his counterattack saves the  day} Nxf2 {This is the logical continuation of the attack} (22... f4 23. Rxe4  Bxe4 24. Rxe4 {[%cal Ge4h4]}) 23. Bxb7 Nxh3+ 24. gxh3 Rg6 $2 (24... f4 25. Rxe6  Rxe6 26. Rxe6 Qxg3+ 27. Bg2 f3 28. Re8+ Kf7 $1 $19) (24... f4 25. Bg2 {Bachmann  }) 25. Bg2 Rf8 (25... Rxg3 26. Rxg3 Qxg3 27. Rxe6 f4 28. Qc4 Kh8 29. Qe2 Rf8  30. Qf3) 26. Qc4 $1 {[%csl Re6] The tables are turned. Steinitz himself is now  making threats, and the look like they are more powerful than those of his  opponents} Kh8 27. Qxc7 f4 28. Rf1 Rxg3 {The only reasonable move as the f8  Rook is unprotected} 29. Qd6 $1 {[%csl Gf8] Preparing for the execution} Rd8  30. Rxf4 $3 {Black's position burst like a bubble} Rxg2+ 31. Kxg2 Qg5+ 32. Rg3  1-0 {Notes: Euwe/Kramer}

  [Event "London"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1876.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Steinitz, Wilhelm"]  [Black "Blackburne, JH."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C77"]  [Annotator "attack: very slow K-side attac"]  [PlyCount "55"]  [EventDate "1876.??.??"]  [EventType "tourn"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 {Steinitz' first important  Lopez.} a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. c3 Be7 7. h3 O-O 8. Qe2 Ne8 9. g4 b5 10. Bc2  Bb7 11. Nbd2 Qd7 12. Nf1 {[#] The Steinitz trademark.} Nd8 13. Ne3 Ne6 14. Nf5  {[#] in a blocked position, loss of time cannot be taken advantage of so  easily. In this game, both sides re-position the knights.} g6 {[#] The moment  the dark squares are weakened, White snaps off their chief protector. but this  is a permanent weakening of the castled king's position} 15. Nxe7+ {removes  the defender of the dark squares} Qxe7 16. Be3 N8g7 17. O-O-O c5 {[#]White has  completed development and can play for direct attack} 18. d4 exd4 19. cxd4 c4  20. d5 Nc7 21. Qd2 a5 22. Bd4 f6 23. Qh6 b4 24. g5 {[#] [#] pounding at the  dark squares} f5 (24... Nge8 25. h4 Qg7 26. Qxg7+ Nxg7 (26... Kxg7 27. h5) 27.  gxf6 Nh5 28. Ng5 Nxf6 29. h5 Nxh5 (29... Kg7 30. hxg6 hxg6 31. Rh7+) 30. Rxh5  gxh5 31. Rg1 $18) 25. Bf6 Qf7 26. exf5 gxf5 {[#]} 27. g6 Qxg6 (27... Qxf6 28.  Qxh7#) 28. Bxg7 (28. Bxg7 {resigns} Qxh6+ (28... Qxg7 {heroic, but} 29. Rhg1  Rf7 30. Bxf5 $18) 29. Bxh6 Rf6 30. Rhg1+ Rg6 31. Bxf5 Kf7 32. Bxg6+ hxg6 33.  Ng5+ Kg8 34. Rge1 {[#] White's domination of the centre and King's-side, and  Black's failure to achieve counterplay on the Queen's-side (or centre), have  been the hallmarks of this game.}) 1-0

There’s is more on Steinitz’ theories on this website: here and here.

Endgame

Steinitz is not known for his endgame play, but try this one, a positional theme (two Bishops), evolving into an accompanying space advantage, and then a better King in the endgame. Some endgame niftiness: White’s outside passed h-pawn is no help against such an active King.

  [Event "London International Masters"]  [Site "London"]  [Date "1883.06.06"]  [Round "14.3"]  [White "Englisch, Berthold"]  [Black "Steinitz, Wilhelm"]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "C60"]  [Annotator "strategy: two bishops"]  [PlyCount "86"]  [EventDate "1883.04.26"]  [EventRounds "26"]  [EventCountry "ENG"]   1. e4 e5  2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. d4 exd4 5. Nxd4 Bg7 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Nc3 O-O 8. O-O Ne7 9.  Qd2 d5 10. exd5 Nexd5 11. Nxd5 Qxd5 12. Be2 Ng4 13. Bxg4 Bxg4 14. Nb3 Qxd2 15.  Nxd2 Rad8 16. c3 Rfe8 17. Nb3 b6 18. h3 Be6 19. Rfd1 c5 {[#] Already denying  the Knight a central square. This is the recipe: the Knight more than any  other piece needs a secure advanced and/or central post. So Black keeps the  Knight from settling and works his way in using the long-range threats of the  Bishops.} 20. Bg5 f6 21. Bf4 Kf7 22. f3 g5 23. Rxd8 Rxd8 24. Be3 h6 25. Re1 f5  $1 {White doesn't want to allow f5-f4, but doesn't want to play f3-f4 either!}  26. f4 Bf6 27. g3 a5 28. Nc1 a4 29. a3 Bc4 30. Kf2 {[#] Black is now rather  better.} gxf4 31. Bxf4 Bg5 {Black chooses to go into a B vs N endgame. The  side with the two Bishops usually has a choice about how to change the  position, swapping one advantage for another.} 32. Bxg5 hxg5 33. Ke3 Kf6 34. h4  gxh4 35. gxh4 Re8+ 36. Kf2 Rxe1 37. Kxe1 Ke5 {Black's better King wins the  game.} 38. Ne2 Bxe2 39. Kxe2 {Both Bishops have disappeared, but Black is  winning.} Kf4 40. c4 Kg4 41. Ke3 f4+ {!} 42. Ke4 f3 43. Ke3 Kg3 {0-1  englisch-steinitz} 0-1

And an unbalanced endgame, arising from Steinitz’ appetite for sacrificed pawns:

  [Event "Hastings"]  [Site "Hastings, England"]  [Date "1895.08.21"]  [Round "13"]  [White "Mikhail Chigorin"]  [Black "Wilhelm Steinitz"]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "C52"]  [PlyCount "90"]  [EventDate "1895.08.05"]   1. e4 {Notes by Emanuel Lasker} e5 2.  Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. O-O d6 7. d4 exd4 8. cxd4 Nf6 9. e5  dxe5 10. Ba3 Be6 {So far everything is book. It has always been the opinion  that Black, although two Pawns ahead, will not be able to develop his Pieces,  as Castling King's side is prevented, and the King dare not occupy the centre  any length of time. Black seemed to believe that he may get his King safely  Castled to the Queen's side ; but this game does not corroborate such an  opinion, in spite of the success which attended that manoeuvre in this  instance.} 11. Bb5 {Tchigorin's favourite post for the Bishop in the Evans'  Gambit.} Qd5 12. Qa4 O-O-O 13. Bxc6 bxc6 14. Bc5 Bb6 15. Qa6+ {White  ultimately wins the exchange by this manoeuvre, but at an enormous expense. It  would have been better to leave things as they were, and to continue simply  with 15 Nxe5. If then 15...Nd7 16 Nxc6 must win the exchange in favourable  position; and if 15....Ne4 16 Bxb6 cxb6 17 Qxa7 will equalise the material  forces. with the position to White's advantage.} Kb8 16. Nxe5 Nd7 17. Nc3 Nxc5  18. Qe2 Qd6 19. dxc5 Qxc5 20. Na4 Qb5 21. Qxb5 cxb5 22. Nxb6 axb6 23. Nc6+ Kb7  24. Nxd8+ Rxd8 25. a3 c5 26. f3 Kc6 27. Rfd1 Ra8 {A Rook being very well  qualified to support advancing Pawns and to check the approach of the hostile  King, it is judicious play to avoid its exchange for the present.} 28. Kf2 Ra4  29. Ke3 h5 {Advancing these Pawns, which constitute the only weakness in  Black's camp, protects them against any possible attack of the Rooks or King.}  30. Kd2 b4 31. axb4 Rxb4 32. Rdb1 Rxb1 {Now it is just as well to simplify,  two united passed Pawns with the support of the King and Bishop being more  than a match for King and Rook. Black need only take care to leave the passed  Pawns as much as possible on the colour not dominated by the Bishop-i.e. on  black squares.} 33. Rxb1 b5 34. Ra1 b4 35. Kc2 Kd5 36. Rd1+ Kc4 37. Rd8 Bd5 38.  h4 Kd4 39. Rb8 Be6 40. Rb7 g6 41. Rb5 b3+ 42. Kb2 c4 43. Rb4 Kd3 44. Rb6 c3+  45. Kb1 Ke3 {threatening ...Bf5+ 45 g4 would be answered by  Kxf3. White is therefore perfectly helpless.} 0-1

The Closed Sicilian for Black

Posted on May 29, 1995 by DrDave

UPDATE: 28 years later, I have converted this to a more readable format…
UPDATE 2: This is quite the exercise in digital archaeology… so, 31 years later:

CJVB_SICCLOSE.pdf

  [Event "ECC"]  [Site "Chicago, IL USA"]  [Date "1995.07.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Closed Sicilian"]  [Black "Chris Bellers"]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "B25"]  [Annotator "User"]  [PlyCount "60"]  [EventDate "1979.??.??"]   1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. d3 d6 6. f4 e5 7. Nh3 {This is relatively recent and has the advantage of bolstering f4, and leaving the f-file open for the rook(s). It also avoids the pin ...Bg4, and allows a retreat of the Nc3 to e2 if White wants to attack d4 or play c2-c3.} ({So, maybe Nh3 is not so hot after all. It may be better to stick with 7. Nf3 when} 7. Nf3 Nge7 8. O-O O-O 9. Be3 Nd4 10. Qd2 Nec6 {still seems to equalise for Black, e.g.} 11. Nh4 (11. Nd1 Bg4 12. Ne1 exf4 13. Bxf4 Ne2+ 14. Kh1 Nxf4 15. gxf4 f5 16. Ne3 Bh5 17. exf5 gxf5 18. c3 Qd7 19. Nf3 Kh8 20. Rae1 Rae8 21. Nd5 {½-½ (21) Minev,N-Vasiukov,E Berlin East 1962}) 11... exf4 12. Bxf4 Be6 13. Nd5 Bxd5 14. exd5 Ne5 15. c3 Nb5 16. Rae1 Qd7 17. Nf3 Rae8 18. h4 Nc7 19. c4 Nxf3+ 20. Bxf3 Qh3 21. Qh2 Bd4+ 22. Kh1 Qd7 $11 {½-½ (105) Ignatiev,F-Vasiukov,E Moscow 1962}) {Actually, Black can also prevent f5, and apparently equalise immediately, with} 7... exf4 (7... Nge7 8. O-O O-O $6 {A rather drastic example of how White wants to play is as follows:} (8... Nd4 $1 9. f5 gxf5 10. Qh5 h6 (10... Nxc2 $5) 11. Rf2 Be6 12. Be3 Qd7 13. Raf1 O-O-O 14. Nd5 fxe4 15. Nxe7+ Qxe7 16. Bxd4 cxd4 17. Rxf7 Qe8 18. Bxe4 Rf8 19. Bf5 Qxf7 20. Qxf7 Rxf7 21. Bxe6+ Rfd7 22. Rf7 Kc7 23. Bxd7 Rxd7 24. Rxd7+ Kxd7 25. Kg2 Ke6 26. Kf3 d5 27. Kg4 Kf6 28. Kh5 Bf8 29. Ng1 b5 30. Ne2 a5 31. g4 a4 32. h4 b4 33. b3 a3 34. Ng3 e4 35. g5+ hxg5 36. hxg5+ Ke5 37. Kg4 Bg7 38. Nh5 Bf8 39. g6 e3 40. Kf3 Kf5 41. g7 {1-0 (41) Spassky,B (2630)-Hort,V (2620) Bugojno 1978}) 9. f5 gxf5 (9... f6 {Black allows f5 but not Qh5} 10. g4 Nd4 11. Be3 {White's idea - common in the Closed Sicilian - is to follow with Qd2 and doubling rooks on the f-file} Rb8 {the standard counter-attack} 12. Qd2 b5 13. Nd1 {An interesting choice: 13. Ne2 keeps the rooks connected but allows exchanges; the text covers b2 and allows c3 with tempo. Note that a4 or a3 do not stem the tide of Black's counterplay} b4 14. c3 bxc3 15. bxc3 Ndc6 16. Rf2 Qc7 17. Nb2 Nd8 18. Raf1 {Mission accomplished - now Black's position looks critical} Nf7 19. g5 gxf5 20. exf5 d5 {The classic central response to a wing attack - possible because of the position of the Knight on b2 not c3} 21. gxf6 Bxf6 22. Qe2 d4 23. cxd4 cxd4 24. Qg4+ Kh8 25. Bg5 Nxg5 26. Nxg5 Nxf5 27. Rxf5 Bxf5 (27... Rxb2 $1 {[27... Rxb2 appears to win the exchange without allowing a perpetual check 28. Qh5 Bxf5]} 28. Qh5 Bxf5 $19) 28. Qxf5 Bxg5 29. Qxg5 Rxf1+ 30. Kxf1 Rxb2 {1/2-1/2 Crickmore-Bellers 1983}) 10. Qh5 f6 {looks ugly, but it seems to be fairly standard in this line - how else to prevent Ng5?} 11. exf5 Nd4 {Thematic, and seemingly powerful, threatening ...Nxc2 and ...Nxf5} 12. Nd5 Nxc2 13. Ng5 Bxf5 (13... fxg5 14. f6 Nxd5 15. Bxd5+ Kh8 16. fxg7+ Kxg7 17. Rxf8 Qxf8 18. Bxg5 Kh8 19. Rf1) 14. Rxf5 fxg5 15. Rxf8+ Qxf8 16. Bxg5 Ng6 17. Rf1 {somehow the rook, which looked doomed on a1, escapes} Qc8 18. Be4 Qd7 19. Ne7+ {1-0 (19) Holland,C (2260)-Whiteley,A (2335) London 1995 1-0 Holland-Whiteley, 1995 Black never had a chance to take the rook on a1, let alone create Q-side counterplay by advancing the a- and b-pawns. What went wrong? The whole position after f5 and Qh5 looks very good for White, and whether or not it is a forced win, we would all prefer to be White.}) 8. Nxf4 (8. gxf4 $4 Bxh3 9. Bxh3 Qh4+) 8... Nge7 9. O-O O-O 10. Be3 (10. Nfd5 Nxd5 11. Nxd5 b5 12. c3 b4 13. Bf4 bxc3 14. bxc3 Be6 15. Qd2 Bxd5 16. exd5 Ne5 17. Rad1 Qa5 18. c4 Qa3 19. Bxe5 Bxe5 20. Rb1 Rab8 21. Kh1 a5 22. Bh3 f5 23. g4 f4 24. g5 Rb4 25. Be6+ Kg7 26. Rxb4 axb4 27. Rf3 Qc3 28. Qf2 Qa1+ 29. Kg2 Ra8 30. Qh4 Qxa2+ 31. Rf2 b3 {0-1 (31) Alan,J (2061)-Gheorghiu,F (2570) Chicago 1979 0-1 Erlebacher - Gheorghiu 1979}) 10... b5 11. a3 Ne5 12. h3 Rb8 13. Qd2 a5 14. Rf2 b4 15. axb4 axb4 16. Ncd5 Bb7 17. g4 Nxd5 18. Nxd5 Bxd5 19. exd5 c4 20. Ra6 b3 21. d4 Qc8 22. Ra1 c3 23. Qxc3 Qxc3 24. bxc3 b2 25. Rb1 Nc4 26. Bf4 Na3 27. Rff1 Nxb1 28. Rxb1 Rb6 29. Bxd6 Ra8 30. Rxb2 Rxb2 {0-1 Savage-Gheorghiu 1979} 0-1

The Closed Sicilian 
===================
Chris Bellers, 1995
-------------------
An Exeter Chess Club booklet

CONTENTS

Introduction    1
The Closed Sicilian with 6...e5 7. Nh3  2
Holland-Whiteley, 1995  2
Crickmore-Bellers 1983  3
Variation with 6...e5 7. Nh3 exf4       4
Variation with 6...e5 7. Nf3    4
Further examples for study:     5
White cannot castle Queen's-side into Black's counterplay       5
Jackson - Regis, Plymouth-Exeter, 1993  5
White's f4 may block squares for the Knight and dark-squared bishop     5
Smyslov - Botvinnik, Moscow, 1954       5
The Closed Sicilian as a system against the English Opening     6
Psakhis - Kasparov, 1990        6
The Grand Prix attack with Bc4  7
Hodgson - Ady, Streatham Vs Ymca, London, 1981[B23]     7
The Grand Prix attack with Bb5  7
Hebden - Large, British Ch'p, 1982[B21] 7

Introduction
------------
R*BQK*NR
PP*-PPBP
-*NP-*P*
*-P-*-*-
-*-*pp-*
*-np*-p-
ppp*-*bp

(1) as a model of how to approach attacking positions with a closed
centre; compare many lines of the King's Indian Attack and Ruy Lopez;

(2) as a common system (e4 with Bg2) in many openings - for example,
we see the same approach at work in many lines of the English Opening. 

 Basically, White aims to concentrate enough firepower in the K-side
to force a quick checkmate.  In doing so, Black has a natural
counterattack in ...Rb8, ...b7-b5-b4 and possibly also ...c5-c4. 
 There are many ways for White to play the position - for example, the
dark-squared Bc1 could go to g5, e3 or even d2.  The Ng1 could go to
e2, f3 or h3.  It is also possible to put the light-squared bishop
somewhere on the other diagonal - c4 or b5 - as well as on g2.  I will
concentrate on one important line where the central bloackade is most
obvious (Black plays ...e5), but I also include an example of games
with the bishop on each of these two alternative squares c4
(Hodgson-Ady) and b5 (Hebden-Large), in variations of the Grand Prix
Attack. 
 Black also has a wide variety of choices.  Fianchettoing the Bf8 is
not necessarily the best way to play - even if it is played, Black
could play e6 or e5, with the Ng8 going to e7 or f6. 

The Closed Sicilian with 6...e5 7. Nh3
--------------------------------------
1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. d3 d6 6. f4
 
[6. Be3 is the most commonly-seen alternative, although Nge2 has often
been played too]

ì*èñô*äí
PP*-*PBP
-*NP-*P*
*-P-P-*-
-*-*pp-*
*-np*-p-
ppp*-*bp
r-bqk-nr

6... e5

[6... e6 is the main line 7. Nf3 Nge7 8. O-O O-O 9. Be3 Nd4 else d4
may follow; this complex position has been the Grandmasters' starting
point for many years]

Diagram A
R*BQK*NR
PP*-*PBP
-*NP-*P*
*-P-P-*-
-*-*pp-*
*-np*-pn
ppp*-*bp
r-bqk-*r

7. Nh3 (Diagram A)

This is relatively recent and has the advantage of bolstering f4, and
leaving the f-file open for the rook(s).  It also avoids the pin
...Bg4, and allows a retreat of the Nc3 to e2 if White wants to attack
d4 or play c2-c3.  A rather drastic example of how White wants to play
is as follows:

Holland-Whiteley, 1995

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. d3 d6 6. f4 e5 7. Nh3
(diagram A) 7... Nge7 8. O-O O-O (?)

[latest theory suggest that this is premature: 8... Nd4 9. f5!? [9.
Rf2 is safer for both sides!] 9... gxf5 10. Qh5 h6 [10... Nxc2 11. Rb1
with compensation (Lane) NOT (Plaskett)] 11. Rf2 += Spassky-Hort 1978
...1-0 in the ending(!)]

9. f5 gxf5 10. Qh5 f6 

looks ugly, but it seems to be fairly standard in this line - how else
to prevent Ng5? 

11. exf5 Nd4

R*BQ-RK*
PP*-N-BP
-*-P-P-*
*-P-Pp*q
-*-N-*-*
*-np*-pn
ppp*-*bp
r-b-*rk-

Thematic, and seemingly powerful, threatening ...Nxc2 and ...Nxf5 

12. Nd5 Nxc2 13. Ng5 Bxf5 

[13... fxg5 e.g. 14. f6 Nxd5 15. Bxd5+ Kh8 16. fxg7+ Kxg7 17. Rxf8
Qxf8 18. Bxg5 Kh8 19. Rf1]

14. Rxf5 fxg5 15. Rxf8+ Qxf8 16. Bxg5 Ng6 17. Rf1 

somehow the rook, which looked doomed on a1, escapes 

17... Qc8 18. Be4 Qd7 19. Ne7+ 1-0

Black never had a chance to take the rook on a1, let alone create
Q-side counterplay by advancing the a- and b-pawns.  What went wrong?
The whole position after f5 and Qh5 looks very good for White, and
whether or not it is a forced win, we would all prefer to be White. 

Crickmore-Bellers 1983

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. d3 d6 6. f4 e5 7. Nh3
(diagram A) 7... Nge7 8. O-O O-O 9. f5 (all as before) 9... f6

Black allows f5 but not Qh5 

10. g4 Nd4 11. Be3 

White's idea - common in the Closed Sicilian - is to follow with Qd2
and doubling rooks on the f-file

11... Rb8 (the standard counter-attack ) 12. Qd2 b5 13. Nd1

An interesting choice: 13. Ne2 keeps the rooks connected but allows
exchanges; the text covers b2 and allows c3 with tempo. Note that a4
or a3 do not stem the tide of Black's counterplay

13... b4 14. c3 bxc3 15. bxc3 Ndc6 16. Rf2 Qc7 17. Nb2 Nd8 18. Raf1

-RBN-RK*
P-Q-N-BP
-*-P-PP*
*-P-Pp*-
-*-*p*p*
*-ppb-*n
pn-q-rbp
*-*-*rk-

Mission accomplished - now Black's position looks critical 

18... Nf7 19. g5 gxf5 20. exf5 d5 

The classic central response to a wing attack - possible because of
the position of the Knight on b2 not c3

21. gxf6 Bxf6 22. Qe2 d4 23. cxd4 cxd4 24. Qg4+ Kh8 25. Bg5 Nxg5 26.
Nxg5 Nxf5 27. Rxf5 Bxf5

[27... Rxb2 appears to win the exchange without allowing a perpetual
check 28. Qh5 Bxf5]

28. Qxf5 Bxg5 29. Qxg5 Rxf1+ 30. Kxf1 Rxb2 drawn


Variation with 6...e5 7. Nh3 exf4
---------------------------------
Actually, Black can also prevent f5, and apparently equalise
immediately, with

Diagram B
R*BQ-RK*
PP*-NPBP
-*NP-*P*
*-P-*-*-
-*-*pn-*
*-np*-p-
ppp*-*bp
r-bq*rk-

7...exf4!

Now

[8. gxf4 Bxh3 9. Bxh3 Qh4+] 

So 

8. Nxf4 

[8. Bxf4 Nge7 9. Qd2 h6 !? Lane] 

8... Nge7 9. O-O O-O DIAGRAM B

Two examples: 

10. Be3 b5 ! 11. a3 Ne5 ! 12. h3 Rb8 13. Qd2 a5 14. Rf2 b4 15. axb4
axb4 16. Ncd5 Bb7 ! 17. g4 Nxd5 18. Nxd5 Bxd5 19. exd5 c4 ! 20. Ra6 b3
! 21. d4 Qc8 22. Ra1 c3 23. Qxc3 Qxc3 24. bxc3 b2 (an amazing march)
25. Rb1 Nc4 26. Bf4 Na3 27. Rff1 Nxb1 28. Rxb1 Rb6 29. Bxd6 Ra8 30.
Rxb2 Rxb2 Savage-Gheorghiu 1979]

10. Nfd5 Nxd5 11. Nxd5 b5 ! 12. c3 b4 13. Bf4 [13. Be3 bxc3 14. bxc3
Ne5] 13... bxc3 14. bxc3 Be6 15. Qd2 Bxd5 ! 16. exd5 Ne5 17. Rad1 Qa5
18. c4 Qa3 ! 19. Bxe5 Bxe5 20. Rb1 Rab8 21. Kh1 a5 22. Bh3 f5 23. g4
f4 24. g5 Rb4 25. Be6+ Kg7 26. Rxb4 axb4 27. Rf3 Qc3 ! 28. Qf2 Qa1+
29. Kg2 Ra8 30. Qh4 Qxa2+ 31. Rf2 b3 again, the triumph of the b-pawn:
Erlebacher - Gheorghiu 1979]

Note the power of ...Ne5, as opposed to ...Nd4

Variation with 6...e5 7. Nf3
----------------------------
Diagram C
R*BQ-RK*
PP*-*PBP
-*NP-*P*
*-P-P-*-
-*-Npp-*
*-npbnp-
pppq-*bp

7. Nf3 Nge7 8. O-O O-O 9. Be3 Nd4 10. Qd2 Nec6 (DIAGRAM C)
still seems to equalise for Black, e.g.

11. Nh4 exf4 12. Bxf4 Be6 13. Nd5 Bxd5 14. exd5 Ne5 (that move again)
15. c3 Nb5 16. Rae1 Qd7 17. Nf3 Rae8 18. h4 Nc7 = Ignatiev-Vasiukov
1962

or 

11. Nd1 Bg4 12. Ne1 exf4 13. Bxf4 Ne2+ 14. Kh1 Nxf4 15. gxf4 f5 16.
Ne3 Bh5 17. exf5 gxf5 18. c3 Qd7 19. Nf3 Kh8 20. Rae1 Rae8 21. Nd5
draw, Minev-Vasiukov 1962


Further examples for study:
==========================
White cannot castle Queen's-side into Black's counterplay
---------------------------------------------------------
Jackson - Regis, Plymouth-Exeter, 1993

1. e4 g6 ( this was the actual move order) 2. Nc3 Bg7 3. g3 c5 4. Bg2
Nc6 5. d3 d6 6. f4 e5 7. Nf3 Nge7 8. Be3

[8. O-O O-O 9. Rb1 Rb8 10. a3 b5 11. h3 += bco] 

8... exf4 

[8... Nd4 9. Ne2 Bg4 10. Bxd4 cxd4] 

9. gxf4 

[9. Bxf4] 

9... Nd4 10. Qd2 

[10. O-O O-O 11. Qd2 Nec6 12. Rab1 Bg4 13. Nd5 Nxf3+ 14. Bxf3 Bxf3 15.
Rxf3 f5 = Bastian-Ribli 1981]

10... Bg4 11. Rf1? 

[11. O-O] 

11... Rb8 12. O-O-O (?) b5 13. Ne2 Nxe2+ 14. Qxe2 Qa5 15. Kb1 Be6 16.
b3 Rb6

-Ý-ÝôÝ-í
P-*-NPBP
-R-PB*P*
QPP-*-*-
-*-*pp-*
*p*pbn*-
p*p*q*bp
*k*r*r*-

17. Bd2 ?? ( black to play and win ) 

[17. d4 Ra6 18. c4 ( looks better than 18 c3!? Qxc3 19 Qb2 but fails
to ...) 18... bxc4 19. bxc4 Rb6+ 20. Kc1 Qa3+ 21. Kd2 Rb2+ 22. Ke1
Rxe2+ 23. Kxe2 Bxc4+]

17... b4 ?? 

[17... Qxa2+ 18. Kxa2 Ra6+ 19. Ba5 Rxa5+ 20. Kb1 Ra1#] 

18. a4 Bd7 19. e5 Bxa4 20. Bc1 O-O 

[20... Nd5 21. Bb2 Nc3+ 22. Bxc3 bxc3 23. exd6+ Kf8 24. Qe7+ Kg8 25.
Ng5 Bxb3 ( I hadn't noticed that this stopped the mate on f7 when
playing move 20 ) 26. Qe8+ Bf8 27. Qxf8+ Kxf8 28. Nxh7+ Rxh7 29. cxb3
Rxb3+ 30. Kc1 Qa3+ 31. Kc2 Qb2#]

21. Nd2 Bb5 22. Bb2 Nf5 23. Nc4 Bxc4 24. dxc4 Draw agreed

White's f4 may block squares for the Knight and dark-squared bishop
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Smyslov - Botvinnik, Moscow, 1954

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. d3 d6 6. Nge2 e5

R*BQK*NR
PP*-*PBP
-*NP-*P*
*-P-P-*-
-*-*p*-*
*-np*-p-
ppp*npbp
r-bqk-*r

denying squares to the Ne2 

7. Nd5 Nge7 8. c3 Nxd5 9. exd5 Ne7 10. O-O O-O 11. f4 

does nothing for the Bc1 or Ne2 

11... Bd7 12. h3 Qc7 13. Be3 Rae8 14. Qd2 Nf5 15. Bf2 h5 16. Rae1 Qd8
17. Kh2 Bh6 18. h4 Qf6 19. Be4

-*-*RRK*
PP*B*P*-
-*-P-QPB
*-PpPN*P
-*-*bp-p
*-pp*-p-
pp-qnb-k
*-*-rr*-

19... exf4 20. Nxf4 Nxh4 21. Be3 Nf5 22. Bxf5 Qxf5 23. Qg2 Qg4 24. Qe2
Qxe2+ 25. Rxe2 Re5 26. Ree1 Rfe8 27. Bf2 h4 28. Rxe5 Rxe5 29. d4 hxg3+
30. Kxg3 Rg5+ 31. Kh2 Rf5 32. Be3 cxd4 33. cxd4 Kh7 34. Rf2 g5 35. Ne2
Rxf2+ 36. Bxf2 f5 0-1

The Closed Sicilian as a system against the English Opening
-----------------------------------------------------------
Psakhis - Kasparov, 1990 

One of the best example games I have on file for the Closed Sicilian
is this one

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


The Grand Prix attack with Bc4 
------------------------------
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


The Grand Prix attack with Bb5 
------------------------------
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



        - page 8 -

Andrew Pickering at work

Posted on May 5, 1995 by DrDave

Taylor, M (1605) – Pickering, A (2000)
(1503) [A21] Exeter vs. Rainham

1. c4 e5 2. g3

[2. Nc3]

2… f5 3. Bg2 Nf6 4. e3

(This is a good formation, going for a central roller,
but obviously you need to look out for weak squares)

4… Nc6 5. Nc3 g6 6. d4 e4 7. f3

(could have been saved up; Black isn’t playing …d5
yet)

7… exf3 8. Nxf3

(White has a central pawn but must aim at e2-e4)

8… d6 9. O-O Bg7 10. b3 O-O 11. Bb2
Re8

(highlighting the down side of Bb2)

12. Re1 Bh6

(Black now formed the plan of putting a Knight on d3 supported by
the Pawn on e4. What Pawn on e4? Watch!)

13. d5 Ne5 14. Nxe5 dxe5 15. Qd3 e4 16. Qd4 Bg7
17. Ne2 Qe7 18. Qd2 Ng4 19. Bxg7 Qxg7 20. Nd4 Ne5

(getting there)

21. Bf1 c5

(I think this move is a nice example of why Andrew is
better than most of us. Black has a great Knight and no weaknesses,
but has no other assets and no obvious way of making use of the
Knight. This move, seeking open lines, suddenly opens up all sorts
of possibilities for the Rooks and Bishop.)

22. dxc6

[22. Nb5]

22… bxc6 23. Be2 Rd8 24. Qc2 c5 25. Nb5 Nd3 26.
Bxd3 exd3

Black is winning.

27. Qc3 Qe7 28. Qd2 Bb7 29. Nc3 Rd6 30. Kf2 Re8
31. Rad1 Qf6 32. Nb5 Rdd8 33. Qc3

[33. Nxa7 Ra8 34. Nb5 Qc6 35. e4 Rxe4]

33… Qc6 34. e4 fxe4

[34… Rxe4]

35. Re3 Rf8+ 36. Kg1 a6 37. Na3 Qd7 38. Nb1 Qg4
39. Rde1 Rf3 40. Qd2 Rdf8 41. Nc3 Qf5 42. Nd1 Rf1+ 43. Kg2 Bc8 44.
g4 Qxg4+ 45. Rg3 Qf5 46. Qe3 Bb7 47. Rg5 Qf6 48. Rxc5 Rxe1 49. Qxe1
e3+ 50. Rd5 Qf3+ 51. Kg1 Bxd5 52. cxd5 d2 0-1

Pickering, A (2000) – Belt, M (1775) [B03]
Exeter Rooks vs. Exmouth, 1995

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. c4 Nb6 4. d4 d6 5. exd6 exd6 6. Nf3
Be7

[6… g6]

7. h3 Bf5 8. Bd3 Qd7 9. O-O O-O 10. Re1 Bxd3 11.
Qxd3 Bf6 12. Bg5

12… Nc6 13. Bxf6 gxf6 14. Nbd2 d5 15. c5 Nc8 16. Nf1 N8e7
17. Ng3 Rae8 18. Nh5 Qf5 19. Qxf5 Nxf5 20. Nxf6+ 1-0

Keely, L (2000) – Pickering, A (2000) [B93]
Exeter vs. Huddersfield, National Major Plate, 1996

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. f4
e6 7. Bd3 b5 8. O-O Bb7 9. a3

[9. Qe1]

9… Nbd7 10. Kh1 Nc5 11. Qe1

11… h5!? 12. Nf3 h4 13. e5 Nxd3 14. cxd3 Nd5 15. h3 Ne7
16. Be3 Nf5 17. Bf2

17… Rc8

[17… Bxf3!? 18. gxf3]

18. Nd4 Ng3+ 19. Bxg3 hxg3 20. Nf3 dxe5 21. fxe5
Qxd3 22. Qxg3 Rc4 23. Rad1 Qe3 24. Kh2 Rh5 25. Rfe1 Qh6!? 26. Re2
Bxa3 27. Nxb5 axb5 28. bxa3 Rc3 29. Red2 Bd5 30. Qg4 Rc4 31. Rd4
Rxd4 32. Qxd4 Rf5 33. Qb6

33… Rxf3 34. Qxb5+ Ke7 35. Qb4+ Ke8 36. gxf3 Qe3 37. Qb8+
Ke7 38. Qd6+ Ke8 39. Qb8+ Ke7 40. Qb4+ Ke8

(Time control)

41. Qd2 Qxf3 42. Rb1 Qe4 43. Re1 Qf3 44. a4 Qa3
45. a5 Qf3 46. a6 Qa3 47. Qe2 Qa4 48. Rf1 Bc4?? 49. Rf4 Qa2 50.
Qxa2 Bxa2 51. Rd4 1-0

Opochensky Karel – Nimzowitsch Aaron (3)
[A50] It, Marienbad (Czech Republic), 1925

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 b6 5. e4 Bb7 6. Bd3
Nc6 7. Nf3

7… Be7

Hoping to keep the dark-squared Bishop while still
“muzzling” the Pawns. 8. a3 d6 9. O-O e5 10. d5
“The muzzling.” 10… Nb8 11. b4 Nbd7 12. Bb2 O-O 13. Ne2?
Nh5

Nimzo says that White should attack on the Q-side – and this move
loosens the centre, since …c6 is now strong. Nimzo now tempts
White to further excesses on the King’s-side, expecting that
Black’s counterplay must be sufficient.

14. Qd2 g6 15. g4 Ng7 16. Ng3 c6 17. Qh6 Rc8 18.
Rac1 a6

Black wants to play …c6xd5 when it cannot be met by
e4xd5.

[18… cxd5 19. exd5 f5 20. gxf5 gxf5 21.
Kh1]

19. Rfd1 Rc7 20. h4 cxd5 21. cxd5 Rxc1 22. Rxc1
Nf6 23. Nh2 Kh8 24. Qe3 Nd7 25. Nf3 Nf6 26. Nh2 Ng8 27. g5 f6 28.
Nf3 fxg5 29. hxg5 Bc8

White is running short of steam…

30. Rc6!?

…but not ideas!

30… Bd7 31. Bxa6 Bxc6 32. dxc6 Qc7 33. b5
h6!

Black sheds a Pawn to get organised.

34. gxh6 Ne6 35. a4 Bd8 36. Ba3

36… Qf7 37. Nxe5 dxe5 38. Bxf8 Nxf8 39. a5 Nxh6 40. axb6
Ng4 41. c7 Nxe3

42. c8=Q

[42. cxd8=Q]

42… Qf3 43. fxe3 Qxg3+ 0-1

Chunking in patterns of GM thought

Posted on December 12, 1994 by DrDave

This game features two nice examples of the role of experience in
GM thought: one, where he drew on a remembered example (Vukovic),
and another where extraneous information from an analogous type of
position (Winawer) led to mistakes in thinking. Perhaps we only get such clear examples when the top GMs play blindfold, but I’m grateful for both,.

Nunn,J (2605) – Korchnoi (2615) (11)

Amber-blind, 1994

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nf3 e6 5. Be2 c5
6. O-O Nc6 7. c3 Rc8 8. a3 h6 9. b4 c4 10. a4 Nge7 11. Na3 Ng6 12.
Nc2 Nh4 13. Ne3 Nxf3+ 14. Bxf3 Bd3 15. Be2 Bxe2 16. Qxe2 h5 17. f4
g6 18. g3 Ne7 19. Ng2 Nf5 20. Ne1 Kd7 21. Nf3 Be7 22. Ba3 Qf8 23.
Ra2 Kc7 24. Rfa1 Qh6 25. Bc1 Kb8 26. b5 Rce8 27. Ng5 Qg7 28. Ba3
Bd8 29. a5 f6 30. Nf3 Qd7 31. exf6 Bxf6 32. Rb1 Ka8 33. Bc5 Qh7 34.
Rba1 Rhg8

Black has the threat …g5. How can White open a file against the
King?

a5-a6 is met by …b6; b5-b6 by …a6. Nunn, playing
blindfold here, recalled reading Vukovic [see Canon attack: opening lines], and came up
with:

35. Bb6 a6

[35… g5 36. a6 axb6 37. axb7+ Kb8 38. Ra8+ Kc7 39.
Rc8+ Rxc8 40. bxc8=Q+ Kxc8 41. Qxe6+]

[35… Rg7 36. a6 axb6 37. axb7+ Kxb7 38. Ra7+ Kc8
39. Ra8+ Kd7 40. R1a7+ Kd6 41. Qe5+ Bxe5 42. fxe5#]

[35… Nd6 36. a6 axb6 37. axb7+ Kb8 38. Ra8+ Kc7 39.
b8=Q+ Rxb8 40. R8a7+ Rb7 41. Qxe6 Rf8 42. Qxd5 Qd7 43. Ne5 Bxe5 44.
fxe5]

[35… Kb8 36. a6 axb6 37. axb7 Qxb7 38. Ne5 Ne7 39.
Nd7+ Qxd7 40. Ra8+ Kc7 41. R1a7+ Kd6 42. Qe5+ Bxe5 43.
fxe5#]

36. bxa6 bxa6

37. Rb2

[37. Rb1 Nunn says he nearly played this move,
because the position reminded him of a Winawer French when there is
a Pawn on c2. Fortunately he analysed a line with Qe2-b2 when the
pawn on c2 vanished and the danger from h7 re-appeared!]

37… g5 38. fxg5 Bxg5 39. Nxg5

Rxg5 40. Bc5 h4 41. Rb6 1-0

“I had to resign one move before you had to resign!” —
KORCHNOI

[41… Qa7 42. Rxe6 Rxe6 43. Qxe6 Qb7 44. Rf1 hxg3
45. h4 42. Rxa6+ Kb8 43. Qb2+ Kc8 44. Ra8+ Kc7 45. Qb6+ Kd7 46.
Qb7#]

1-0

Book Review: Danger in Chess by Amazia Avni

Posted on September 20, 1994 by DrDave

Amatzia Avni (121pp, Cadogan Chess, 1994) [[sterling]]9.99

ISBN

1-85744-057-9

[This review first appeared in KingPin]

This is a great little book, from an Israeli psychologist and chess-player, on a subject that must be on every chess-player’s list of New Year Resolutions: I will not overlook pieces en prise, I will not miss a mate in two... Avni takes a brisk look around at blunders and other ‘failures in the sensing of danger’, that is, sins of omission as well as commission.

Forgive me if you’ve seen this particular sin of omission before, but it was a perfect recent illustration of Avni’s themes:

   [Event "Linares"] [Site "Linares ESP"] [Date "1994.03.04"] [EventDate "1994.??.??"] [Round "7"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "Garry Kasparov"] [Black "Anatoly Karpov"] [ECO "B17"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "81"] 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 5. Bc4 Ngf6 6. Ng5 e6 7. Qe2 Nb6 8. Bb3 h6 9. N5f3 a5 10. c3 c5 11. a3 Qc7 12. Ne5 cxd4 13. cxd4

Now Black played 13… a4 missing 13… Bxa3 winning a pawn. If 14. bxa3 Black wins the exchange by 14…Qc3+; and if 14. Rxa3 Black recovers the piece by 14…Qxc1+.

These two ideas are very simple, and if we are alerted to the possibility of a tactical blow here, I imagine most of us can look for and find it. But without suspecting danger, the two strongest players in the world missed it!

As well as welcoming its subject matter (not another Solve all your opening problems forever title from Batsogan Digest), I also welcomed its approach, its use of examples and exercises, and his recommendations which attempt to remedy the ills it diagnoses.

Avni has a determinedly common-sense approach to his topic and avoids psychological jargon (for example, Krogius’ book talks about “failures of selective attention“, not a form of words I found easy to get on with). He has collected together dozens of examples of chess blunder and oversights and has assigned them to three main classes according to the suspected cause of error: the opponent (e.g. when the opponent plays incomprehensibly), the position (e.g. when the situation looks familiar) and more general failures of thinking (e.g. neglecting defence while attacking). He also talks interestingly of integrating cues from different sources. This catalogue may sound like Abrahams’ ‘varieties of error’, but Avni is much more clear and robust, less anecdotal, than Abrahams’ tour.

Each category of error, and each point he makes throughout, is illustrated with two or three examples from actual games, each with a diagram. This makes much of the book possible to read without a board. Moreover, Avni does not intend to allow you to read passively, but continually presses you to apply yourself to problems and exercises.

Avni has done his homework very well: he has clearly trawled the chess press for good examples but has also read widely among the various books and papers that have been published on chess psychology. The book is packed with titbits from journals and books, as well as Avni’s own chatty but pointed observations. From his collation I was interested in de Groot’s notion of discrepancy, which was new to me: de Groot wondered ‘when does a chessplayer look for an improvement to his intended move?’ and concluded that it is when the result of analysis is at odds with the player’s expectations – “the discrepancy being a signal that something is probably amiss” [1] (author’s italics).

[I don’t know how far this explains the K-K incident: was there no discrepancy for the players? Or, for a GM Caro-Kann player, was a3 just the sort of move that White shouldn’t be allowed to get away with? Nonetheless, this idea of discrepancy has given me food for thought in looking at my games.]

The book concludes with a series of about a dozen recommendations for players and coaches which I found very helpful. It is so easy to recognise a chess disaster, so hard to prevent the next one. For example, to Avni and his colleagues we owe the discovery that strong, experienced chess players score higher for paranoia on the MMPI[2] than do weaker players and non-players. His recommendation: adopt a paranoid approach (at least at the chessboard). An example of how this might be done: rather than comfort yourself with the thought that you cannot possibly lose, think instead how could I possibly lose this game? Search for a possible catastrophe.

This advice is, as ever, illustrated with examples: the one which made me wince was from Nigel Short, whose paranoia must have been running particularly low against Belyavsky at Linares in 1992:

   [Event "Linares"] [Site "Linares ESP"] [Date "1992.02.24"] [EventDate "1992.02.23"] [Round "2"] [Result "0-1"] [White "Nigel Short"] [Black "Alexander Beliavsky"] [ECO "C48"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "116"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Bb5 Nd4 5.Ba4 Nxf3+ 6.Qxf3 Bc5 7.d3 c6 8.Bb3 d6 9.O-O h6 10.Be3 Bb6 11.h3 O-O 12.Rfd1 Bxe3 13.Qxe3 b5 14.a4 b4 15.Ne2 Qb6 16.d4 a5 17.Ng3 Ra7 18.Rd2 Re7 19.Rad1 d5 20.exd5 cxd5 21.dxe5 Qxe3 22.fxe3 Rxe5 23.Bxd5 Rxe3 24.Bf3 Re5 25.Ne2 Rc5 26.Nd4 Bd7 27.Nb3 Rc7 28.Nxa5 Bxa4 29.b3 Bb5 30.Re1 Rfc8 31.Re5 Bd7 32.Nc4 Be6 33.Ne3 Rb8 34.Ra5 g6 35.Rd4 Rd7 36.Rxd7 Bxd7 37.Kf2 Kg7 38.Ra7 g5 39.Ke2 Bb5+ 40.Kd2 Kg6 41.Rb7 Rxb7 42.Bxb7 h5 43.c4 bxc3+ 44.Kxc3 h4 45.Bf3 Nh5 46.Kd4 Ng7 47.Be4+ Kh5 48.Ke5 Ne8 49.Ng4 Bd7 50.Bf5 Bc6 51.Be4 Bd7 52.Bf5 Bc6 53.Ne3 Kh6 54.b4 Kg7 55.Bd3 Kf8 56.b5 Bb7

57 Nd5 f6+, 58 Ke6?? Bc8 mate…

A couple of stray thoughts:

1. His evidence for his suggestion that (amongst other habits) we should cultivate paranoia this is essentially negative: he gives further examples of failures of suspicion which led to instant losses by strong players. Perhaps, since disease is so often the route by which we can gain insight into normal functioning of the body, this is quite right, but I am dogged by the suspicion that these are actually examples of unusual and unsuccessful chess thinking, and we know little of the usual kind. I know of a few examples of normal or more successful chess thinking: I remember some old articles by Simon Webb in the Chess magazine of the late 1970s under the title ‘How do chessplayers think?‘ which tried to capture (live) some chess thinking, the fascinating (if retrospective) comments that were the appeal of the BBC Master Game series, and a couple of odd comments by annotators (like Fischer’s “…Trifunovich seemed too quiet all of a sudden” [3] ). Perhaps readers know more. But my judgement is that, even in chess, which seems to me an ideal arena for research, we know little about how we go about chess decisions, what makes a difference between weak and strong players, and how to improve. This, really, is what makes a book like Avni’s so interesting.

2. A technique that Avni uses more than once is to give you similar positions and ask you to puzzle out which one has the catch. This is very different to the usual type of calculative exercise that I have seen (as in the Winning Combinative Play or Find the Winning Continuation columns of magazines). Knowing there is a problem which has a solution, I can sit and puzzle out the answers to most of these up to, say, five moves deep[4]. And yet, like many club players, my games are pocked with oversights two moves deep. Even some of the games I survive can be busted in short order by my modest computer. Now, if books on tactics had half their positions with only tempting but bogus tries, or a third of positions which were promising but which had no tactical solution yet available, this would be a much sterner and more realistic test. Does any publisher wish to take this on?

I had only a couple of minor quibbles, but the conscientious reviewer feels obliged to note them:

1. There are of course many different things to consider when choosing a move, and unless you find yourself with time to spare in each game (not true for me, I’m afraid) you may have to do something else less often or more quickly if you are to become more self-critical or more chessically paranoid. At the moment I fear that after reading Avni I will only make judgements more accurately while calculating less deeply, unless I can find a way to analyse faster. Avni does not try to address this issue, but rather treats the topic of developing a sense danger as a separate add-on to whatever you do normally.

2. I did wonder if the number of pages per pound is good value. As chess publishing has become more computerised, with great benefits in speed and accuracy, I had hoped that some savings might trickle down to the purchaser. I think that chess books have been getting worse value rather than better, but perhaps this is merely my chessplayer’s paranoia!

3. There were some recommendations I expected to see and didn’t! They are: write your move down first and check it (which I owe to Simon Webb), and when analysing, always look one move further for at your opponent’s possibilities at the ‘end’ of a combination (Dvoretsky).

[1] Thought and Choice in Chess, 1965.

[2] One jargon term Avni slips in without explanation: the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.

[3] My Sixty Memorable Games. Faber. (p.203).

[4] I can even survive some of the examples from the section on ‘Traps’ in Livshits’ Test your Chess IQ: Grandmaster Challenge (Cadogan, 1993), an otherwise excellent book, because firstly, the fact that they are in a section on “traps” turns the paranoia dial up to 11, and secondly, he offers give-away comments like “White was hoping for 1…Bxf4, on which he had prepared a counter-blow. What was it?“.

Weak squares

Posted on June 5, 1994 by DrDave

Chris Bellers, Exeter Chess Club

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

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

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

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

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

18. Qb2

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

18… a6 ?!

Placing a Pawn on the same colour as his Bishop.

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

On its way to a5.

26… Qc7

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

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

[32. Kc3]

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

[36… d4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

White’s advantages are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

White wins a Pawn and the game.

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

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

In the following position:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22… Nxd4 23. Qxd4 Qxd4 24. Nxd4 e5 25. Nfe6 Bxe6 26. Rxe5
Bd7 27. Rxe8 Rxe8

28. f3! Rc8 29. Rxc8+ Bxc8 30. Kf2 Kf7 31. Ke3 Ke7 32. b4
g6 33. g4 Nd7 34. f4 Nf8 35. g5 Kd6 36. Kf3 Ne6 37. Nxe6 Bxe6 38.
Ke3 Bg4 39. Bd3 Be6 40. Kd4

the rest is straightforward

40…Bg4 41. Bc2 Be6

[41… Be2 42. f5]

42. Bb3 Bf7 43. Bd1 Be6 (else
44.Bg4) 44. Bf3 Bf7 45. Bg4 1-0

Riumin – Ragozin, Leningrad, 1934

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 d5 5. e3 O-O 6. Nf3
Nc6 7. a3 Bxc3+ 8. Qxc3 Bd7 9. b4 a5 10. b5 Na7 11. a4 c6 12. Ba3
Re8 13. Rb1 dxc4 14. b6

[14. Bxc4 cxb5 15. axb5 Rc8 16. Qd3 Nd5]

[14. Qxc4 cxb5 15. axb5 Rc8 16. Qb3 Nd5 with
light-square control for Black in each case]

14… Nb5! 15. axb5 cxb5 16. Ne5

[16. Bb2]

[16. Bc1]

16… b4 17. Qc1 Bb5 18. Be2 Rc8 19. Bxb4 axb4
20. Rxb4 Ba6…

and Black soon won 0-1

Kotov – Gligoric,Zurich [E87] 1953

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

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

11… e4 Startling! 12. fxe4 f4
(the point) 13. Bf2 Nd7 14. Ng1

[14. e5 Nxe5 15. Bxh7+ Kh8 when Black’s pieces are
too strong]

14… Qg5 15. Bf1 Ne5

when Black’s coup has yielded a stranglehold over the dark squares.

16. Nf3 Qe7 17. Nxe5 Qxe5 18. O-O-O Nf6 19. h3
Bd7 20. Bd3 a6 21. Nb1 (hoping to get to f3) 21…
f3! 22. gxf3 Nh5 23. Nd2 Nf4 24. Bf1 b5 25. h4 Kh8 26. Rg1 Bf6 27.
Nb3 Rab8 28. Be1 b4 29. Kb1 Ra8 30. Bg3 Rg8 31. Qh2 Rxg3! 32. Rxg3
Ne2 33. Qxe2 Qxg3 34. Nc1 a5

[34… Rg8]

[34…Qxh4]

35. Nd3 Bd4 36. h5 Qh4 37. Bg2 Rg8 38. Rh1 Qg3
39. Bf1 a4 40. Kc2 a3 41. b3

Bronstein commented that it is a tribute to White’s defensive
resourcefulness that he can hold the game – two Pawns up!

1/2-1/2

You should be aware of another possibility in some King’s
Indians, once the f-Pawn have moved, of playing …Bh6, answering
Bxh6 with …Qh4+ and …Qxh6 easing Black’s game because of the
weakened dark squares in the White position.

Returning to the start of this session, what of
Petrosian’s three games against Mecking? The first game is given in
full, not only because it is a masterpiece, but because I leave it
for you to work out where Mecking went wrong. The second ended as
follows:

Here Mecking played 57…h4, and resigned. His Bishop is buried
and the dark squares surrendered.

The third game went into the following endgame:

Petrosian (Black here) says that Mecking let him have dark square
control. Often, as here, this is not the whole story. After all,
the matter of four Pawn islands to Petrosian’s two is relevant.
However, the critical factor is the inability of White’s Bishop to
protect both Queen’s-side Pawns, even through they are both on
light squares. Black’s King position also helps.

62. Ke2 Kf4 63. h4 g5 64. hxg5 Kxg5 65. Ke3 Ng4+
66. Kf3 h4 67. Bd1 Nf6 68. Bb3 Kf5 69. Kg2 Kg4 70. Bd1+ Kf4 71. Bb3
Ne4 72. Bc2 Nc3 73. Bb3 Ne4 74. Bc2 Nf6 75. Bb3 Kg4 76. Kh2 Ne4 77.
Kg2 h3+ 78. Kg1 Kf3 79. Bd1+ Kf4 80. Bc2 Nf6 81. Bb3 Ng4 82. Ba4
h2+ 83. Kg2 Nxf2 84. Kxh2 Nd3 85. Kg2 Ke3 86. Kg3 Nc1
0-1

Petrosian,Tigran – Mecking,Henrique [B07] Palma
de Mallorca (5 ), 1969

1. d4 g6 2. e4 Bg7 3. Nf3 d6 4. c3 Nf6 5. Nbd2
(Geller’s quiet system, aiming at a small plus) 5…
O-O

6. Be2 c5 [6… Nc6 planning …e5 is given as
best by Nunn] 7. dxc5 dxc5 8. O-O Nc6 [8… b6]
9. Qc2 b6 10. Nc4 Bb7

11. a4 (you can see the outlines of a light-square
strategy for White) 11… Qc7 12. Re1 (typical
Petrosian – getting ready to defend a point not yet attacked)
12… Na5 13. Bf1 [13. Nxa5 Bxe4]
13… Nxc4 14. Bxc4 Ng4 (anxious for active play.
Black can occupy the d-file but there are not yet any entry points)
15. a5

+= Nunn, but Petrosian wins without fuss. Where did Black
go wrong?

15… Bc6

[15… bxa5 does not really win a Pawn, as the Black
Queen’s-side Pawns are weak]

16. Qe2 Ne5 17. Nxe5 Bxe5 18. g3 Bg7 19. Bf4 e5
20. Bc1

(Also typical Petrosian. Having tempted …e5, the Bishop
returns to base.The other effect of this move is that it might make
Black do something hasty later.)

20… Kh8

21. Bd5 (exchanging the defender of the light
squares) 21… Bxd5 22. exd5 f5 23. c4 Rae8 24.
Rd1

(White can draw up a battle plan: (1) fix the Black
Pawns, (2) tie Black’s pieces to their defence, (3) penetrate on
the light squares.)

24… f4 25. axb6 axb6

26. Qe4 Qd7 27. Re1 Qf7 28. Re2 g5 29. g4 Qd7 30. f3
Ra8

Phase (1) complete: the Black Pawns are fixed on dark squares.

31. Rxa8 Rxa8 32. Bd2 Re8 33. Bc3
Qd6

(Phase (2) is complete: the Black pieces are tied to
defence.)

34. Re1 h6 35. Ra1 Rf8

(Now begins the final phase: invasion on the light squares.)
36. Ra7 Re8 37. Qf5 b5 (activity at last?)
38. Rd7 Qf8 39. Qxf8+ Rxf8 40. cxb5 Rb8

41. Rxg7 1-0

Example games about colour complexes

Petrosian,Tigran – Mecking,Henrique [D03],
Wijk aan Zee (6 ), 1971

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. Bg5 c5 4. e3 d5 5. c3 Nc6 6. Nbd2
cxd4 7. exd4 Be7 8. Bd3 h6 9. Bf4 Nh5 10. Be3 Nf6 11. Ne5 Nxe5 12.
dxe5 Nd7 13. Bd4 Nc5 14. Bc2 a5 15. Qg4 g6 16. O-O Bd7 17. Rfe1 Qc7
18. a4 Na6 19. Qe2 Kf8 20. Nf3 Kg7 21. Be3 Nc5 22. Nd4 Ra6 23. Bc1
Raa8 24. g3 b6 25. h4 h5 26. Qf3 Qd8 27. Bd2 Qe8 28. Bg5 Qd8 29.
Qf4 Rc8 30. Re3 Bxg5 31. hxg5

31… Ra8 32. Qf6+ Qxf6 33. exf6+ Kh7 34. Kg2 Rae8 35. f4
Rb8 36. Ree1 Nb7 37. Rh1 Kg8 38. Nf3 Nd6 39. Ne5 Be8 40. Bd3 Rc8
41. Kf3 Bc6 42. Rh2 Be8 43. Ke3 Rc7 44. Kd4 Nb7 45. b4 Nd8 46. Rh4
Nb7 47. Ra2 Nd6 48. Rh1 Nb7 49. b5 Nc5 50. Bc2 Nd7 51. Ra3 Nc5 52.
c4 Nd7 53. Rc3 Nxe5 54. Kxe5 dxc4 55. Be4 Rc8 56. Kd6 Rc5 57. Rhc1
h4 1-0

Mecking,Henrique – Petrosian,Tigran (10)
[C11], San Antonio, 1972

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 dxe4 5. Nxe4 Be7 6.
Nxf6+ Bxf6 7. Bxf6 Qxf6 8. c3 O-O 9. Bd3 Nc6 10. Qh5 g6 11. Qf3 Qg7
12. Ne2 e5 13. d5 Ne7 14. O-O f5 15. Bc4 Kh8 16. Rad1 f4 17. Rfe1
Nf5 18. Nc1 Nd6 19. Bf1 e4 20. Qe2 f3 21. gxf3 Rxf3 22. Nb3 Bg4 23.
Nd4 Raf8 24. Nxf3 Bxf3 25. Qd2 Qd7 26. h3 Kg8 27. Re3 Bxd1 28. Qxd1
Qf5 29. Re2 Qg5+ 30. Bg2 Rf5 31. c4 Nxc4 32. Rxe4 Nd6 33. Re3 Re5
34. Rxe5 Qxe5 35. Qc1 Qe7 36. Qc3 b6 37. b3 a5 38. Kf1 Qg7 39. Qc1
Qe5 40. Bf3 Nf5 41. Qg5 Kg7 42. Kg2 Qf6 43. Qf4 Qd6 44. Qe4 Kf6 45.
Qc4 Qe5

46. b4 axb4 47. Qxb4 h5 48. Be4 Nd6 49. Bf3 Kf7 50. Qb3 Kg7
51. Qd3 Kf6 52. Bd1 Nf5 53. Bc2 Kg5 54. Qd2+ Qf4 55. Qc3 Nh4+ 56.
Kf1 Nf3 57. Qd3 Qc1+ 58. Bd1 Ne5 59. Qd4 Qc4+ 60. Qxc4 Nxc4 61. Bc2
Ne5

62. Ke2 Kf4 63. h4 g5 64. hxg5 Kxg5 65. Ke3 Ng4+ 66. Kf3 h4
67. Bd1 Nf6 68. Bb3 Kf5 69. Kg2 Kg4 70. Bd1+ Kf4 71. Bb3 Ne4 72.
Bc2 Nc3 73. Bb3 Ne4 74. Bc2 Nf6 75. Bb3 Kg4 76. Kh2 Ne4 77. Kg2 h3+
78. Kg1 Kf3 79. Bd1+ Kf4 80. Bc2 Nf6 81. Bb3 Ng4 82. Ba4 h2+ 83.
Kg2 Nxf2 84. Kxh2 Nd3 85. Kg2 Ke3 86. Kg3 Nc1 0-1

Nimzowitsch Aaron – Menchik,V (Karlsbad)
[C02], 1929

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. Qg4 cxd4 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. Bd3
Qa5+ 7. Nbd2 Nge7

[7… Qc7]

8. O-O Ng6 9. Re1 Be7 10. h4 Bf8

An indication of distress in the Black control room.

11. h5 Nge7 12. Nb3 Qc7 13. Nbxd4 Nxd4 14. Nxd4
Bd7 15. Bg5

Tempting a further weakness on the dark squares. 15… g6
16. Rac1 Nf5 17. Bf6 Rg8 18. Bxf5 exf5 19. Qe2 Qb6 20. c3 Bc5 21.
b4

Nudges the dark-squared Bishop into exchange.

21… Bxd4 22. cxd4 Be6 23. Rc5

White’s domination of the dark squares is complete.

23… Kd7 24. Qf3 Qxb4 25. Rxd5+ Ke8 26. Rc1 Bxd5
27. Qxd5 Qb6 28. Qf3 gxh5 29. Qa3 Qe6 30. Rc7 1-0