Minor openings

Summary:

How should we open a game of chess? Here’s an opening repertoire from Chess Openings for Juniors, suitable for juniors and presumably Minor/Intermediate players:

Main opening: Main line Giuoco Piano with 4. c3
Two Knights’ Defence: Max Lange
French Defence: Classical, & Alekhin Gambit against Winawer
Sicilian Defence: Morra Gambit
Caro-Kann Defence: Main lines with 3.Nc3
Pirc Defence: Pseudo-Samisch 4. f3
Black against King’s Gambit: Accepted, Modern defence 3…d5
Black against Ruy Lopez: Open Morphy Defence with 9…Bc5
Black against GP: Main Line Two Knights’ Defence with 6…Na5
Black against 1.d4: Cambridge Springs Defence
Black against hypermodern: London system

I played pretty much strictly from this repertoire for a while and would recommend it to anybody. It aims at open games emphasising piece play, perhaps with a view to tactics and attacking play, but as we all know “tactics flow from a superior position” (Fischer). [If you don’t have this book I have expanded on some similar opening suggestions for White systems and Black Defences, including playing against 1.d4.]

Another opening repertoire aimed at club players is offered by Nigel Davies in his Dirty Tricks video:

Main opening: pick a 19th century gambit like the King’s or Danish
French Defence: Wing Gambit
Sicilian Defence: Deferred Wing Gambit
Caro-Kann Defence: Two Knights’ Variation
Pirc Defence: System with Bc4
Black against Ruy Lopez: Modern Steinitz Variation with …Bg4, Exchange Variation with …Bg4, Bird’s Defence, or maybe even the Nimzovitch Defence with 1…Nc6
Black against 1.d4: Tchigorin Defence
Black against hypermodern: London system

Lastly, there are two editions of ‘An opening repertoire for the attacking club player’ by Keene and Levy, and a book of the same name by Gufeld.

 

Keene/Levy I Keene/Levy II Gufeld
Main opening Scotch Gambit Scotch Game Vienna Game
French Defence Winawer 4. a3
Steinitz 4. e5
Advance, 5. Be3 Advance, 6. Be2
Sicilian Defence Alapin Variation Alapin Variation Grand Prix Attack
Caro-Kann Defence Panov/Gunderam Advance Advance
Pirc Defence Byrne system Byrne system Austrian Attack
Black against 1. e4 Pirc Defence Scandinavian Sicilian Dragon
Black against 1.d4 Benko Gambit Tchigorin Defence Leningrad Dutch
Black against hypermodern Dutch systems English: Dutch; Reti: …d6/…Bg4 Dutch systems

To summarise: all offer a mix of systems with a common theme – open, aggressive play. Why are we recommended to play like this?

“A knowledge of tactics is the foundation of positional play. This is a rule which has stood its test in chess history and one which we cannot impress forcibly enough upon the young chess player. A beginner should avoid Queen’s Gambit and French Defence and play open games instead! While he may not win as many games at first, he will in the long run be amply compensated by acquiring a thorough knowledge of the game.” — RICHARD RETI

– and, I might add, it’s a lot more fun! The trouble with playing stodgy stuff is you can get stuck and bored and lose through losing patience, or perhaps you will never understand why you lose.

Tom: “I always play gambits!”Dave: “Good for you! We might run through a few afterwards. You don’t have to play a gambit to get an open game, and there can be other problems. When we look at the Sicilian later, I’ll say some more about this.”

So much for the books. How do people actually play, and how do they fare? (This survey has two points: firstly to see what’s there, but also to model an approach to looking at your own games.) I looked at 253 games from East Devon 1995 (Minor & Intermediate sections), and found:


The results are weighted in favour of White

                                                        Valid     Cum
 
Value Label                 Value  Frequency  Percent  Percent  Percent
                              .00        87     34.4     34.4     34.4
                              .50        54     21.3     21.3     55.7
                             1.00       112     44.3     44.3    100.0
                                     -------  -------  -------
                            Total       253    100.0    100.0

…but more strongly than GM games in the minor section

Summaries of     RESULT   By levels of     TOURN
Variable      Value  Label                      Mean    Std Dev    Cases
For Entire Population                          .5494      .4416      253
TOURN      i         intermediate {c}          .4874      .4291      119
TOURN      m         minor {d}                 .6061      .4499      132

Hint: get your Black act together in the Minor.


Try and get White in Round 2!

Summaries of RESULT By levels of ROUND Variable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases ROUND 1 .5213 .4539 47

ROUND 2 .6058 .4240 52 ROUND 3 .5288 .4688 52 ROUND 4 .5300 .4450 50 ROUND 5 .5600 .4361 50

…Or Round 5…

Summaries of RESULT By levels of SECTION Variable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases SECTION i1 .4792 .4293 24

SECTION i2 .5217 .4123 23 SECTION i3 .5000 .4564 25 SECTION i4 .4783 .4390 23 SECTION i5 .4583 .4403 24 SECTION m1 .5652 .4839 23 SECTION m2 .6724 .4284 29 SECTION m3 .5556 .4870 27 SECTION m4 .5741 .4537 27 SECTION m5 .6538 .4188 26

The gore in Round two I think is as a result of the Swiss system, and the last round is clearly the crunch one. Still…

…Again, it’s mostly in the Minor section that the advantage of White is seen.


Openings lean on ECO B and D

…rather than C, which is perhaps how we are supposed to play

                                                        Valid     Cum
Value Label                 Value  Frequency  Percent  Percent  Percent
Hypermodern and irregular       a        45     17.8     17.8     18.6
Semi-open games                 b        78     30.8     30.8     49.4
Open games (and French)         c        52     20.6     20.6     70.0
Close games                     d        67     26.5     26.5     96.4
Indian defences                 e         9      3.6      3.6    100.0
                                     -------  -------  -------
                            Total       251    100.0    100.0

I also looked at 400 e-mail correspondence games from the IECG from categories D and E and found the following distribution:

[chart]

  There are obvious peaks and clusters at:

A00-A05 Irregular openings
A45 Unusual replies after 1. d4 Nf6
B00-B30 Semi-open defences (Irregular, Nimzovitch, Caro-Kann)
C00-odd French defence and irregular defences with 1…e6, e.g. Owen’s
C40-C70 Open games
D00-odd Irregular closed games (Stonewall, Colle)
D30 Queen’s Gambit
E90-odd King’s Indian

These e-mail games also feature B and D prominently, although I got more Cs here than in the East Devon sample. So, we have very much the same pattern of openings, which despite the 25% of open games, we are flying pretty much against what Reti recommends for beginners.

So, just when are you good enough to stop playing open games? Minor? Intermediate? I think the answer is, when you are getting bored with them.

Ray:”Too right! I got bored playing the same old positions in the Moller and Max Lange against the same players each season, and so these days I like to play slow systems like Bird’s Opening.”Dave: “Fine! Ray, we know you can attack when you want to or when you need to, as I remember you winning in about 20 moves with a double piece sacrifice in the Jamboree in September. To coin a phrase, you’ve served your apprenticeship in the open games, and can move on. But there is a lot of scope for exploration in the old Italian Game; Evans Gambit is far from played out. There are at least three good systems for Black in reply to 4. Ng5 in the Two Knights (Traxler/Wilkes Barre, Ulvestad/Fritz and the main line gambit), and two good replies in the Max Lange. And if anyone is bored like Ray, remember, you can move on to other open games which means you can hang on to a lot of your repertoire. Play the Scotch, or the Scotch Gambit, or the Ruy Lopez. “

Alan: “I’ve been doing very well with the Goring Gambit this season”

Dave: “I have a problem with the Goring, because I think 4…d5 equalises easily. But until your opponents start playing that, enjoy it! What do they do, decline and push past with 4…d3 I suppose?”

Alan: “No, they do decline, but they let me play 4. cxd4, when I get a pawn roller!”

Dave: “Go for it, then!”

Fred: “Isn’t there an appalling lot to remember in all these openings?”

Dave: “Well, you’ve got to learn how to play open stuff and tactics if you are going to improve. You can play one of the closed ‘System’ openings to keep your book learning down (and maybe study tactics at home), but there’s nothing like getting stuck in to improve. There isn’t really that much to learn, and I don’t think your opponents will know it any better than you – look at how Alan’s opponent’s are reacting, they not only don’t know the Goring Gambit, they don’t seem to be playing according to any sort of logic in the opening at all. I’m not insisting you play open games – if you are happy playing what you do now at the level you do now, you have no problems!”

But I also suspect that the main reasons that players don’t play open games is, not boredom with the same old positions, but fear of losing, or too many painful tactical oversights. Instead of getting good enough at tactics to live and thrive among open games, some players prefer to play closed games without an immediate clash of forces so that fewer Loose Pieces Drop Off. It can happen, even to the best of us…

Karlsson,AS – Gustavsson,C, 1994: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nxe5 dxe4 5.c3?! Nf6 6.d4 exd3 7.Bxd3 0-0 8.Qf3 Re8 9.Be3 Bg4 10.Qg3 Rxe5 11.Bxh7+ Kxh7 0-1

I might be wrong, but I think this is half of what all these A00 and D00 openings are about: playing a stereotyped closed setup so that we get through the first 10 moves (a) without dropping any pieces, and (b) without having to think!

1. d4 2. e3 3. Bd3 4. f4 5. Nf3 6. O-O 7. Ne5 8. Qf3 9. g4… (or 8. Rf3 9. Bxh7+…)

1. g3 2. Bg2 3. d3 4. Nf3 5. O-O 6. Nbd2 7. Qe1 8. c3 9. e4…

I can see the attractions, but one-idea openings like the Stonewall are so easy to see coming and avoid with only a moment or two of preparation.

1. d4 d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. Bd3 Bg4!? 4. f3 Bh4 and …Bg6
1. d4 d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Bf5! or …Bg4!
1. d4 d5 2. e3 Nc6!? 3. Bd3 e5
1. d4 d5 2. e3 Nc6!? 3. Bd3 Nf6 4. f4 Bg4 5. Nf3 e6 6. O-O Bf5!

And, if your ‘system’ opening doesn’t go according to plan, you may be in one of those stodgy positions where the plaintive cry goes up “I don’t know what to do here”.

Alan: “I like the King’s Indian Attack as a system”.Dave: “So do I! The thing is about the KIA is that you can play it with more than one idea in mind, and it’s not easy for Black to cut across your plans because you aren’t committed to one plan. I’ll come back to this later.”


A count of all openings and results:

mean=0.5000 means White scored 50% in that opening

My statistics software clipped the names off most of the openings, but you find the full names elswhere.

Summaries of RESULT By levels of ECO Variable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases For Entire Population .5494 .4416 253 ECO .5000 .0000 2 ECO a00 irregular openings, .8750 .2500 4 ECO a01 nimzo-larsen attack .5000 .0000 1 ECO a02 bird’s opening .5000 .7071 2 ECO a03 bird’s opening 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO a04 reti opening .2500 .3536 2 ECO a05 reti opening with 1. .0000 .0000 1 ECO a07 reti opening, barcza .7857 .3934 7 ECO a09 reti opening 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO a10 english opening .2500 .3536 2 ECO a13 english opening, sys .5000 .0000 1 ECO a16 english opening, sys .7500 .3536 2 ECO a17 english opening, ang .5000 .0000 1 ECO a22 english opening, rev .5000 .0000 2 ECO a25 english opening, rev 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO a40 queen pawn games .5000 .0000 1 ECO a42 modern defence, aver 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO a45 indian systems .7500 .3536 2 ECO a46 indian systems with 1.0000 .0000 2 ECO a48 indian systems with .5000 .3162 6 ECO a52 budapest gambit, mai .0000 .0000 1 ECO a60 modern benoni .0000 .0000 1 ECO a80 dutch defence .5000 .7071 2 ECO a85 dutch defence .5000 .0000 1 ECO b00 king pawn games, inc .5000 .4629 8 ECO b01 centre counter defen .4286 .4499 7 ECO b02 Alekhin’s defence 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO b05 Alekhin’s defence, 1.0000 .0000 2 ECO b06 modern defence .7000 .4472 5 ECO b07 pirc (robatsch) defe .0000 .0000 4 ECO b09 pirc defence, austri 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO b10 caro-kann defence .0000 .0000 2 ECO b12 caro-kann defence .5000 .5000 3 ECO b13 caro-kann defence, e .0000 .0000 2 ECO b18 caro-kann defence, c .3333 .2887 3 ECO b21 sicilian defence, gr .5714 .4746 14

ECO b22 sicilian defence, al .7500 .2887 4 ECO b23 sicilian defence, cl 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO b24 sicilian defence, cl 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO b25 sicilian defence, cl .0000 .0000 1 ECO b26 sicilian defence, cl 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO b29 sicilian defence, ni .0000 .0000 1 ECO b30 sicilian defence wit .6667 .5164 6 ECO b33 sicilian defence .0000 .0000 1 ECO b34 sicilian defence, ac .0000 .0000 1 ECO b40 sicilian defence wit .0000 .0000 1 ECO b50 sicilian defence wit 1.0000 .0000 2 ECO b52 sicilian defence, si 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO b53 sicilian defence, ch 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO b80 sicilian defence, sc 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO b95 sicilian defence, na .3333 .5774 3 ECO c00 french defence .5000 .5000 5 ECO c01 french defence, exch .8333 .2887 3 ECO c02 french defence, adva .7000 .4472 5 ECO c05 french defence, tarr .0000 .0000 1 ECO c10 french defence 1.0000 .0000 2 ECO c13 french defence, clas .0000 .0000 1 ECO c15 french defence, wina 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO c17 french defence, wina .0000 .0000 1 ECO c23 bishop’s opening .5000 .0000 1 ECO c41 philidor defence .2500 .5000 4 ECO c42 petroff defence .0000 .0000 1 ECO c44 double king pawn gam .0000 .0000 1 ECO c45 scotch game .6250 .2500 4 ECO c46 three knights’ game .5000 .5000 3 ECO c50 italian game .0833 .2041 6 ECO c55 two knights’ defence .6000 .4183 5 ECO c60 ruy lopez opening (s .5000 .0000 1 ECO c62 ruy lopez, steinitz 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO c63 ruy lopez, schlieman 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO c65 ruy lopez, berlin de 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO c80 ruy lopez, open morp 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO c89 ruy lopez, marshall .3333 .2887 3 ECO d00 double queen pawn ga .6471 .4598 17 ECO d02 double queen pawn ga 1.0000 .0000 3 ECO d03 double queen pawn ga .2857 .4880 7 ECO d04 colle system .8750 .2500 4 ECO d05 colle system .0000 .0000 1 ECO d06 queen’s gambit .5000 .0000 1 ECO d07 queen’s gambit, tchi 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO d08 queen’s gambit, albi .0000 .0000 1 ECO d11 queen’s gambit decli 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO d20 queen’s gambit accep .7500 .3536 2 ECO d21 queen’s gambit accep 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO d26 queen’s gambit accep .0000 .0000 1 ECO d30 queen’s gambit decli .5000 .5774 4 ECO d31 queen’s gambit decli .0000 .0000 1 ECO d35 queen’s gambit decli .6250 .4787 4 ECO d37 queen’s gambit decli .0000 .0000 1 ECO d41 queen’s gambit decli .5000 .4472 11 ECO d51 queen’s gambit decli .0000 .0000 2 ECO d53 queen’s gambit decli 1.0000 .0000 2 ECO d80 grunfeld defence, ta 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO d92 grunfeld defence, sy 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO e12 queen’s indian defen .0000 .0000 2 ECO e15 queen’s indian defen 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO e20 nimzo-indian defence .0000 .0000 1 ECO e61 king’s indian defenc .5000 .7071 2 ECO e87 king’s indian defenc 1.0000 .0000 1 ECO e90 king’s indian defenc 1.0000 .0000 2


Intermediate and minor players choose different openings:

…Intermediate avoid D and E in favour of more A and B

            Count  |
           Row Pct |intermed    minor
                   +--------+--------+
                a  |    25  |    20  |    45
  hypermodern      |  55.6  |  44.4  |  17.8
                   +--------+--------+
                b  |    49  |    29  |    78
  semi-open        |  62.8  |  37.2  |  30.8
                   +--------+--------+
                c  |    26  |    26  |    52
  open/french      |  50.0  |  50.0  |  20.6
                   +--------+--------+
                d  |    16  |    51  |    67
  closed           |  23.9  |  76.1  |  26.5
                   +--------+--------+
                e  |     3  |     6  |     9
  indian (semi-clo |  33.3  |  66.7  |   3.6
                   +--------+--------+
            Column     119      132      253
             Total    47.0     52.2    100.0

Whatever minor players should be playing, I guess it’s not closed openings.

Also, I’m not right impressed with anyone in the club, let alone players in the intermediate, playing hypermodern systems unless it’s one you can interpret in a fairly direct King’s-side attack sort of way, like the Botvinnik system or King’s Indian Attack.

I can see a role for the semi-open systems at club level, they are unbalanced and often exciting.

Also, intermediate players follow the main lines more

You find them in ECO B90 or B09 rather than ECO B00.


White scores best in ECO A and D openings

Summaries of RESULT By levels of ECO1 Variable Value Label Mean Std Dev Cases For Entire Population .5494 .4416 253 ECO1 a hypermodern .6111 .3827 45 ECO1 b semi-open .5256 .4622 78 ECO1 c open/french .5000 .4316 52 ECO1 d closed .5746 .4626 67

ECO1 e indian (semi-closed) .5556 .5270 9 Total Cases = 253

…which might explain why we play all this funny A00/D00 stuff

There’s no arguing with results… as long as you are happy with your results. There’s clearly a reinforcement here for getting your act together as Black against these unusual openings. We’ll lay on a repeat of “Beating the Anti-Indians” towards this end.

Alan: “Surely it’s better to play something you half-know than something you don’t know at all – particularly if your opponent doesn’t know it!”

Dave: “Yes, indeed – a player with a plan will always beat a player without one, particularly if you know some of the variations. But I fear in D00 openings the plan will go astray because the plan is too simple, and in A00 it will go astray because the positions are too complex.”


The Stonewall & similar systems are played quite often

…but may even perform below average at minor level

Variable        Value  Label                      Mean    Std Dev    Cases

NON-STONEWALL     .00                            .5521      .4392      238
  TOURN      i                                   .4870      .4264      115
  TOURN      m                                   .6138      .4473      123

STONEWALL etc    1.00                            .5000      .5000       13
  TOURN      i                                   .5000      .5774        4
  TOURN      m                                   .5000      .5000        9

I wouldn’t stake much on a sample of 13 games, but it’s clear it’s nothing special.

Ray: “I used to play the Stonewall but used to get a lot of draws.”Dave: “I can well believe that. The Stonewall is a one-idea opening (playing for a clockwork King’s-side attack with pressure on h7 from a Bishop on d3) and if your opponents see it coming they can avoid this by 3…Bf5 or 3…g6.”

Ray: “Yes, that’s what happened. You then get a blocked position which neither side is going to enjoy much, and things often get bogged down and drawish. If you are prepared to think a bit in the opening, I still think the Colle (D04) is playable, because you still get an attack of sorts against 3…g6, and after 3…Bf5 you can switch plans with 4.c4 and 5.Qb3. White has pressure on b7 and can open the c-file.”

  Dave: “That’s the type of flexibility I’d expect to see in the Major; unfortunately in the Minor you are more likely to get a clockwork reaction like 3…Bf5 4. Bd3 Bxd3 5. Qxd3, which is usually a big yawn (because neither player realises they can open a file).”


Whites mostly avoid open Sicilians

Open Sicilians 5

Other Sicilians 22

…Maybe with good reason!

Open Sicilians White scores 40%

Other Sicilians White scores 73%

So in the interests of playing Black we could usefully lay on a session on Beating The Anti-Sicilians. If only there was a suitable book available…


The single most common way of avoiding the Sicilian is the Morra Gambit

6 in Intermediate, 2 in Minor

However, while the accepted form is the more successful, most people decline it

Accepted: 2/2

Declined: 21/2/6

…so I’d say think about another system!

The Open Sicilian is obviously critical and a bit scary, but surely the best way to play for a win as White. Tal used to say that he preferred meeting 1.e4 c5 than 1.e4 e5 because it was easier to get an open game; Karpov has also commented that there is no need to gambit a Pawn against the Sicilian because white gets an attack anyway! So, there’s no need to play a gambit.

Also, the GMs usually reckon the Morra is a nice free Pawn, and the best way to play for a win as Black. So why decline anyway? I guess this has a lot to do with club players:

a. being frightened of their opponent’s book knowledge (justifiably or not), and/or

b. being frightened of being attacked

 

a. being frightened of their opponent’s book knowledge (justifiably or not)

I do see a lot of gambits declined at club level – remember what Alan was saying about the Goring. Sometimes I hear people say they declined “on principle”. There is no principle that says “decline free Pawns”. In fact, there is a principle that says always take a central Pawn if it is offered. The thing is, don’t try and hang on to it, let your opponent waste time trying to get it back – or give it back yourself with an early …d5 to get on with your own development.

Play the strongest moves you can, regardless of what you think your opponent knows. (After all, they might know how to refute your second-rate choice as well…)

Despite all this, Blacks are being rewarded for declining! However, this might have something to do with the small numbers we are looking at here, or maybe which players are doing the declining. It does suggest, however, that you are getting a less open game by playing a gambit instead of the Open Sicilian, because Blacks are being panicked into declining! This may be true for other gambits as well.

 

b. being frightened of being attacked

I think we need to brush up a bit on attack and defence.

You mustn’t ignore genuine threats, but don’t be panicked or distracted by them – especially when faced with a King’s-side attack [when you must pursue your own attack with extra vigour.].

Don’t worry needlessly, resulting in panic and retreat – you need to keep active and keep counterplay.

Take nothing for granted. Don’t fret needlessly – analyse and find out if there is a win for your opponent. I often say, “Oh, Black’s only going to threaten mate”, by which I mean, the best they can achieve is a one move threat that can be easily contained. When they make that threat, you do need to react, but don’t worry needlessly; carry on with your own plans. There are some “clockwork” attacks (like the h-file assault against the fianchettoed King, or the King’s Indian Attack) that will eventually produce checkmate if left alone, but usually the best recipe is to counterattack, even if you do have to stop from time to time to counter a mating threat.

In particular, don’t panic and refuse sacrificed material that you could have for free. Don’t decline “on principle”. This is declining from fear, not knowledge. Play the strongest move, which may well be to take the material and make your opponent prove their judgement was correct.

Neither be over-impressed by your own threats. An attack by one piece on another is meaningless in itself – it may distract an important defender. Equally, don’t assume that a stock combination or sacrifice works for you in the position you have today – small differences can make it fail. Don’t hope vainly – analyse and find out.

 

Alan: “But the other reason people like to play cautiously is if they are playing for a team. If you do lose in 15 moves you feel you’ve let your team down.”.Dave: “You might be right, but remember these statistics are from tournaments where people are playing on their own behalf, not for a team. Maybe there is an argument for trying to hold the margin of the draw when playing for a team – after all, Reti cautions us that we ” may not win as many games at first”. But I think there is also an argument for having fun – and some of the closed ‘system’ openings look awfully stodgy. “Above all, to yourself be true”!”

Note: This piece prompted an immediate response from Eric Petrusic, which was interesting. [See also Strategy and Tactics – DR]

Book review: Timman’s selected games

[This review first appeared in Westward
Ho!
]


Timman’s selected games – chess the
adventurous way

by Jan Timman

248pp.+index Cadogan Press, 1995

“It is not always the games with the best chess that leave
behind the strongest memories (…) This selection of 80 games
gives a picture of the fighting chess I have always
championed.”

  This is simply a collection of annotated games, some of
which are very well-known and many of which have been annotated
elsewhere. If you have not met Timman’s annotations before (as I
hadn’t), you may be tempted to regard this volume as warmed-up
leftovers, but this is to do the author an injustice. The games are
mostly from top tournaments and the World Championship cycle, and
Timman is a top Grandmaster writing for a professional audience.
His annotations are quite modestly put, but are deep and precise.
If you have ever sat through games annotated glibly by GMs[*], you will appreciate Timman as a commentator who
comments only when necessary, and at an appropriate level.

  His play features crisp openings, enterprising middlegame
play and endings rich in detail. The search for the crucial
inaccuracy in a master game is often a challenging piece of
detective work, and while I am in no position to judge how well he
has done this, I enjoyed accompanying Timman on his journeys. I was
particularly struck by a number of critical endgames, in particular
a fascinating KBB vs. KandN ending against Speelman, and a really
thorough study of the fourth game of the 1990 Karpov-Timman
Candidates’ Match. Timman has a point to prove here and takes the
stand with great assurance – it reminded me of Fischer’s tour
de force
of analysis in his annotations of the
Botvinnik-Fischer endgame. The other striking feature for me was
the number of games where there was a difficult material imbalance
that required technical resolution – Queen against Rook and Bishop,
for example.

  But what Timman relishes above all these is the human
struggle: there are great set-pieces, superb escapes, desparate
time scrambles, enterprising pawn sacrifices and some glorious
messes… like the fifth match-game Ivanchuk-Timman, 1990 – which
Timman dryly introduces with “The game annotated below does not
really come within the confines of what is commonly understood to
be top chess
.” As you can tell from this, Timman is also a
fluent and entertaining writer of English: I also enjoyed a remark
from a Candidates’ Match game where after 1. d4 f5
he offers: “A very surprising opening for Speelman, but I must
say I had expected him to do something unexpected
.”

  The range of openings on show is impressive: he opens
with 1. e4, 1. d4 and 1. c4, and plays as Black the French, the
Sicilian, the Pirc/Modern and defends the Ruy Lopez and Petroff,
while against the QP he plays as Black the Modern, King’s Indian,
Grunfeld, Queen’s and Nimzo-Indian. He is a true modern – there is
hardly a classical, merely ‘equalising’ defence in the book – and a
real fighter. For example, the fifth game of his 1989 match against
Portisch he went for victory by playing very riskily as Black – but
won. His play attracted a lot of criticism at the time, and this
itself roused Timman’s fighting spirit – so in his annotations he
takes on a ‘simultaneous display’ against his critics. I was also
struck by the number of games where time trouble played a part. I
wonder if Timman also makes note of clock times against his moves
(a practice which I believe was first recommended by Bronstein), as
even here he is precise, often citing (e.g.) 15 minutes for 17
moves.

  Compared to Nunn’s recent book, it lacks the anecdotes
and personal glimpses – this reflects the origin of the
annotations. He does permit himself the occasional splendid piece
of prejudice or spleen – for example “I still don’t regard [the
King’s Indian] as a fully-fledged opening
“, or “It is hard
to believe what Russian commentators sometimes try to foist on the
public
“. [You will recall from the paragraph above that Timman
plays the King’s Indian as Black!] But, like Nunn, the depth and
quality of the analysis is consistently high. If you are looking
for study material this is a good source.

  I didn’t much welcome the use of the NICbase opening
classification – RL, SI, and
FR for Ruy Lopez, Sicilian and French. This is
very natural for English speakers at first look but soon lapses
into an impenetrable RL 26.2.1 and FR
4.4.4
and lacks the universality of the ECO [A00-E99]
system. It also has some obvious anomalies – for example, the
opening to the game Kasparov-Timman is given as QI
1.6
and confidently labelled Queen’s
Indian
– but it began 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3
Bb4+
(the Bogo-Indian), and as can be seen from the
diagram, on move 16 the Black b-pawn is still at home on b7. By all
means Cadogan should go along with the author’s framework, but
could have supplemented the classification with ECO.

  If I have another reproach, it is that what Timman
regards as an ‘appropriate level’ to comment often left me
struggling to follow him. This is, I suppose, the cream of chess,
and in quantity may be too rich for many club players. In
particular, the whole opening phase of the game is often left up to
the reader as common knowledge. Common knowledge amongst GMs, may
be, but I would have been glad of a few landmarks being pointed out
before we headed off into the middlegame. I still was glad to read
this book – when I travelled with Timman, he showed me many sights
on the journey that I would never have noticed on my own.

 


[*] I will always remember “prevents Nf5”
as the complete annotation to …g6, followed by “prevents
Bg5
” after …h6 – any guesses as to the author?

Dr.Dave’s Early Games

hammond,g – regis,d [C50]

 FIRST: fenland guards jnr chp, 1974

 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. Bb5
Bd7 7. b3 a6 8. Bc4 b5 9. Bd5 Nxd5 10. exd5 Bb4 11. Bd2 Nd4 12. a3
Bxc3 13. Bxc3 c5 14. a4 b4 15. Bd2 Bg4

t+-Dj+-T
+-+-+xXx
x+-X-+-+
+-XpX-+-
pX-S-+l+
+p+p+n+-
-+pB-PpP
R-+qK-+r

 16. h3 Bxf3 17. gxf3 Qf6 18. c3 Nxf3+ 19. Ke2 O-O 20. cxb4
Rae8 21. bxc5 dxc5 22. h4 e4 23. Rc1 exd3+ 24. Kxd3 Qd4+ 25. Kc2
Nxh4 26. Re1 [26. Qh5] 26… Qxf2 27. Qg4 Nf3 28. Rf1
Qxd2+ 29. Kb1 Nh2 30. Qf4 Nxf1 31. Qxf1 Qxd5 32. Qc4 Qxc4 33. bxc4
f5 34. Rd1 Re4 35. Rc1 f4 36. Kb2 f3 37. Kb3 f2 38. Rf1 Re1 39.
Rxe1 fxe1=Q 40. a5 Rf3+ 41. Kc2 Rc3+ 42. Kb2 Qc1+ 43. Ka2 Ra3# Not
much of a game, but the first (and only) title I ever won. 0-1


 FIRST: march v ely,
1975

regis,d – hooper,ht [D30]

 1. d4 My first move for March! 1… d5 2. c4 e6 3. e3 2.
c4 was as much as I knew! 3… Nf6 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Bd3
Nbd7 7. cxd5 exd5 8. O-O c6 9. Re1 Re8 10. Qc2 h6 11. e4 Clearly
still influenced by patterns seen in Chernev’s LOGICAL CHESS …
11… dxe4 12. Nxe4 Nxe4 13. Bxe4 Nf6 14. Bf4 14… Nxe4 15. Rxe4
??

t+lDt+j+
Xx+-LxX-
-+x+-S-X
+-+-+-+-
-+-PbB-+
+-+-+n+-
pPq+-PpP
R-+-R-K-

 15… Bf5 16. Rae1 Bxe4 17. Rxe4 Bf6 18. Be5 Bxe5 19. dxe5
Qc7 20. Qe2 Rad8 21. Qe3 b6 22. g4 Rd5 23. h4 Red8 24. g5 Rd3 25.
Qe2 h5 26. e6 fxe6 27. Rxe6 Kf8 28. Ne5

-+-T-J-+
X-D-+-X-
-Xx+r+-+
+-+-+-Px
-+-+-+-P
+-+t+n+-
pP-+qP-+
+-+-+-K-

 I’m still (1992) taken with the determined attitude of
White here! 28… R3d6 29. Ng6+ Kg8 30. Ne7+ Kf7 [30… Kf8 31.
Qf3+ Ke8 32. Nd5+ Kd7 33. Re7+ still
] 31. g6+ Ke8 32. Nd5+ Kd7
33. Re7+ Kc8 34. Rxc7+ Kb8 35. Qa6 Rxg6+ 36. Kf1

 It is an omen that my first ever competitive game featured
both a cheapo AND a swindle. 1-0


regis,d – richard dixon (CORR_92/93) [B36]

 FIRST: devon vs glos. (ward-higgs I), 1993

 My first and only correspondence game, during
which I made comments to myself throughout. I can only add here
NEVER AGAIN: I found the experience appalling – months of paranoia,
hesitancy and self-recrimination. At least OTB you can let it go at
the end of the day (usually…), although I know there are folk who
feel OTB slow chess is too heavy.

 1. c4 g6 ( I knew a game of Portisch‘s which I had in mind
throughout) 2. g3 Bg7 3. Bg2 Nf6 4. Nc3 O-O 5. e4
( new for me this season: I played the e3/Nge2/d4 plan for years
but recently fancied this, which looked more enterprising )
5… d6 6. Nge2 c5 ( black had a lot of choice at
this point: …e5/…c6/etc. ) 7. O-O Nc6 8. d3 Ne8 9. Be3
Nc7
( ?! in the books ) [9…
Nd4
] 10. d4 ! ( in the books )
10… cxd4 11. Nxd4 Ne6 12. Nde2 Ne5 ! TN – threatens c4
and e3 via g4 [
12… Nc5 13. Rc1 Be6 14. b3
Qa5 15. Qd2 Rac8 16. Nf4 +- and black is in trouble:
barcza-szilagyi 1967
] 13. b3 b6 (
transposing to a hedgehog formation looks better than szilagyi’s
setup ) 14. h3 ( stopping the …Ng4 lines seemed
sensible, especially since last move they were possible. The
knights now need to get out of the way of the pawn roller )
14… Bb7 15. Rc1 ( looks slow and a bit aimless
with hindsight ) 15… Nc5

t+-D-Tj+
Xl+-XxLx
-X-X-+x+
+-S-S-+-
-+p+p+-+
+pN-B-Pp
p+-+nPb+
+-Rq+rK-

 16. f4 ( now I thought I was on the right
lines: turn that space into attack, as in the portisch game )
16… Ned7 17. g4 a5 ( I would have preferred
…a6 ) 18. Ng3 ( I don’t know where this is going
yet, unless black can be obliged or tempted to take on f5
eventually – if not the Ng3 and Bg2 are very passive )
18… Bc6 ( ! I now wanted the wN back on e2 )
19. a4 ( this isn’t really necessary [19…a4;
20 b4 looked good
] but I thought was justified
psychologically – what is black’s plan now ? the real challenge of
course is to find white’s plan! The wQ is badly tied to b3 and d3 )
[19. Bd4 ( this
was better I thought afterwards )
19… e5 20. Be3 exf4
21. Bxf4 Ne5 22. Rc2 Ned3] 19… Rb8 20. Rf2 ( Nicely ambiguous [
ideas of Qd2 or Rd2 ] but d3 is now more tender )
20… Qc8 21. Nd5 ( I’m obviously entertaining
pushing f4-f5-f6 ) 21… Re8 22. g5 ( not f5 yet )
22… Qb7 ( adds to pressure but locks in Bc6 )
23. f5 ( It’s starting to get hard for me to find
a plan which doesn’t involve f5 but Black can play …e6 and build
up nicely now. I had some fun with 23 f5 and 24 Nh5 in analysis
which was all bluff but looked worth starting ) 23…
Bf8
( I looked at …Bxd5 and …Be5 in analysis but this
looked most solid. If …e6 white can afford …exd5 because exd5
wins the Bc6 ) 24. Bd4 ( 24 f6 simply takes a good
square away from the knight. Now I have more realistic-looking
threats but I must say by this stage I thought it was all starting
to slip away ) 24… Ne5 25. Rc3 Bg7 ( I now
entered a short sequence of moves which I thought were most solid
and maintained a space advantage despite exchanges ) 26. f6
Bf8 27. fxe7 Bxe7 28. h4 Bxd5
( the two bishops are no
real advantage here as the Bg2 is inactive ) 29. exd5 Bf8
30. Rf4
( else Qf1,Bg7 will threaten …Nf3+ and …Bxd4 )
30… Bg7 31. Qf1 ( both sides have consolidated
after some white initiative and I thought we’re now in for a phase
of manoeuvring ) 31… Re7 32. Bxc5
[
32. Rf6] 32…
bxc5
( obviously not 32…dxc5; 33 d6 ) 33.
Ne4
( This move cheered me up a little; I felt I had some
chances for the initiative ) 33… Rd8 34. Nf6+
[
34. Nxc5 ( idea d6 again ) 34…
Qb6
] 34… Bxf6 35. gxf6 Ree8 36. Re4
h5
( I admit I analysed this only after sending off my
last move – I concluded I had some chances of a combinative
breakthrough on the K-side but this couldn’t be forced, and I
became slightly less alarmed about possible endgames ) 37.
Rce3 Kh7 38. Qf4
( I couldn’t see a way of winning after
what I thought was the best line, …Qb4, but I didn’t have to lose
either. White can try to contrive a lever with Bh3, Qg5 and now
Bf5, but …Qb4 & …Rg8 (forces Kh1) slows or stops it)
38… Qc8 ( I thought at the time, not as strong
as …Qb4, but realised it’s trickier ) 39. Bh3
Qb8
( if the knight moves don’t work this is probably best
) 40. Kh1 Qc7 41. Bf5

-+-Tt+-+
+-D-+x+j
-+-X-Px+
X-XpSb+x
p+p+rQ-P
+p+-R-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+k

 41…Qb8( I immediately thought this was
too resigned ) 42. Qg5 ( mates in six ) 1-0


Briggs, Tom – regis,d
[C02]

 FIRST: march cc friendly, 1975

 Tom founded March Chess Club and worked hard for the club
until his death. I played many games with Tom as a young player and
was always impressed by his consistent good humour and generosity.
Like Andersson, he met defeat only with laughter and praise for his
opponent. Chess is full of people like Tom, although we tend to
notice only the Kasparovs.

 1. e4 This game is probably fairly
typical for the time, and features my first and long-time favourite
French Defence to 1.e4.

 1… e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Nc6 4. Nf3 f6 5. Bf4 g5 6.
Bg3 fxe5 7. dxe5 Bg7 8. Bb5 Nge7 9. O-O a6 10. Ba4 Bd7 11. c3 Ng6
12. Bxc6 Bxc6 13. Re1 Bb5 14. Nd4 Qd7 15. a4 Bc6 16. b4 b5 17. a5
O-O-O 18. Qg4 h6 19. Qxe6 Qxe6 20. Nxe6 Rd7 21. Nc5 Re7 22. Nd3
Rhe8

-+j+t+-+
+-X-T-L-
x+l+-+sX
Px+xP-X-
-P-+-+-+
+-Pn+-B-
-+-+-PpP
Rn+-R-K-

 23. f4 Nxf4 24. Nxf4 gxf4 25. Bxf4 Bxe5 26. Bxe5
Rxe5 27. Nd2 Re2 ??? 28. Nf3 d4 29. Rxe2 Rxe2 30. Nxd4 Rxg2+ 31.
Kf1 Bb7 32. Re1 Rxh2 33. Re2 Rh3 34. Rc2 Be4 35. Re2 Bd3 36. Kg2
Rh5 37. Re8+ Kb7 38. Re3 Bc4 39. Kg3 Rg5+ 40. Kh4 Rg8 41. Nf5 Rh8
42. Kh5 Bf7+ 43. Kh4 h5 44. Re7 Rf8 45. Nh6 Bg6 46.
Kg5

-+-+-T-+
+jX-R-+-
x+-+-+lN
Px+-+-Kx
-P-+-+-+
+-P-+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-

 46…Be8 47. Re3 Kc8 48. Nf5 Rg8+ 49. Kf6 Rg4 50.
Rxe8+ Kb7 51. Re3 Kc8 52. Rh3 Rc4 53. Kg5 c5 54.
Nd6+
1-0


regis,d – rivett,dv [D16]

 FIRST: lowestoft friendly, 1977

 1. d4 Another ‘dues’ game – my uncle Don
was a very important benchmark for me, and was endlessly patient
with my early efforts. This was a game I remember being proud of at
the time, having finally taken half a point from him. I also
remember not really understanding how, though! 1… d5 2.
Nf3 Nf6 3. c4 c6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 Bd7 6. e4 b5 7. axb5 cxb5 8. Be2
e6 9. O-O Be7 10. d5 a6 11. Ne5 Qc7 12. Nxd7 Qxd7 13.
Bf4

tS-+j+-T
+-+dLxXx
x+-+xS-+
+x+p+-+-
-+x+pB-+
+-N-+-+-
-P-+bPpP
R-+q+rK-

 13… exd5 14. exd5 O-O 15. d6 Bd8 16. Bf3 Nc6 17.
Nxb5 Rb8 18. Nd4 Nb4 19. Rc1 Rc8 20. Bg5 Rc5 21. Nb3 Rc8 22. Bxf6
Bxf6 23. Bg4 Qc6 24. Bxc8 Rxc8 25. Re1 Qd7 26. Qe2 Nd3 27. Rxc4
Nxe1 28. Rxc8+ Qxc8 29. Nc5 Kf8 30. d7 Qd8 31. Qxe1 Be7 32. Qe3 Qa5
33. h3 g6 34. Nb7 Qd5
1/2-1/2

 35. Qc3! should have been promising.

Posted in Ego

Book review: Zurich International Chess Tournament 1953 (Bronstein)

Guest review by Russell Gooding

 David Bronstein. His classic book Zurich
International Chess Tournament 1953
,and the average club
player.

In 1953 David Bronstein was already a proven world class
chess player. Only two years previously – following a candidate’s
playoff against his lifelong friend Isaac Boleslavski – he had
drawn a most dramatic match for the world title.

Bronstein’s result against Mikhail Botvinnik (having been
a point ahead with two games to play) proved beyond doubt that the
new dynamism of the younger generation of Soviet players was at
least the equal of the scientific and precision methods typified by
the play of the then world champion.

Throughout his career Bronstein has graced the game with
many magnificent ideas and innumerable wonderful games. If you have
yet to see the 1955 Gothenburg Interzonal game against the eternal
Candidates runner up (Paul Keres) you have truly missed an
opportunity to expand your chess horizons. That game was played
near to the peak of David’s creative talent. Some 20 years later
aged over 50 he was still capable of producing a beautiful finale
against the then world junior champion Kaplan at Hastings 1975/6
(seek this game out also *).

 

* Incidentally both marvellous games are given in
Bronstein’s hugely entertaining biography ‘The Sorcerer’s
Apprentice’.

 

Notwithstanding the above though. The greatest debt owed
by the chess community to this most remarkable and imaginative of
competitors will probably be reserved for his incredible
annotations following the 1953 double round robin Candidates
tournament. Bronstein himself played and shared second play in the
event tied with Keres and Reshevski behind Vassily Smyslov – who
went on to challenge Botvinnik for the world title.

Though the event produced many brilliant games. It is most
memorable for the revolutionary style Bronstein chose to adopt in
his tournament book of the event.

David made a conscious decision to ‘explain’ chess to the
average player. Certainly his annotations contain variations,
alternatives and even much tactical depth. Most important of all
though it was clear that he set out to ensure that a raft of high
quality Grandmaster games became at least partly comprehensible to
all standards of players. His efforts have been rightly
acknowledged as equally applicable for club players right up to the
GM level. Boris Spassky once commented ‘The author is present in
its pages’. This is clearly apparent in the warmth, generosity and
wonder at the creative achievements of his peers.

This period (1950’s) was a rich one in terms of chess
development. The new wave of players post war had begun a
revolution in the way the game was played. Indeed this style was to
evolve onward and be further refined some years later by messrs M
Tal, R Fischer and G Kasparov. It was however to Bronstein and his
ilk that initial credit must justly be attributed.

 

Bronstein (along with others such as Taimanov, Boleslavski
and Najdorf) was largely responsibly for a re-evaluation of various
set-ups (most notable the Kings Indian, Nimzo-Indian and Sicilian)
during this time. The transformation in these systems from opening
to middle game had previously been underestimated.

It was during and just after this tournament that these
ideas were to be shaped into the formidable systems they have
become. Do not however assume that Bronstein was simply a super
openings analyst. It is for his clarity of thought and creative
handling of the intricacies of the next phase of the game (the
middle game) that this book has become justly famed for.

Favourite Games/Annotations Taimanov-Najdorf,
Keres-Reshevski and Averbakh-Kotov – sensational stand outs amongst
tens of great games.

In conclusion.

The average player who reads and digests the comments in
this book and in doing so learns naught would do well to give up
chess and try another game say Mah Jong – with sincere
apologies to C.S Howell and his comments on the classic game
Reti-Alekhin Baden Baden 1924.

Available in English translation from Dover books at
#10.95.

 Russell Gooding.

Preparation for combinations

Peter Lane, 26th May 1998

“Combinative vision manifests itself at an early age, and
children are quick to notice and execute combinations which chance
to turn up. Preparing combinations, however, is
more difficult for them.” — ZAK,
Improve your chess
results.

About two years ago I decided to become a more “combinational”
player. Specifically, I wanted to understand how to play for a
direct attack, not shy away from complications, and, perhaps, play
the occasional breath-taking sacrificial combination. Since then, I
have studied many games, particularly those of Tal, which offered
attacking motifs; begun to include sharper opening lines in my
repertoire; and took an enormous stride forward by buying (and
reading) V.Vukovic’s The Art of Attack in Chess
(1965). 

  How far I’ve progressed you can judge from the games at
the end of this piece. I do know that I feel a great difference in
my willingness to go in for complications, and greater confidence
in attempting to whip up an attack.

  My aim here is to lay out what I see as the principal
elements of my last two years’ study which have led to these
changes. In short, I offer a pattern (not a complete course!) of
home study which, in my case, has resulted in a significantly
sharper (more interesting? stronger?) style.

  It is not my aim to consider how to calculate variations.
Not that I don’t agree this is an essential ability, but I do
believe it is over-estimated in its own right. Practice is actually
very easy: set up complicated positions, either from
Winning Combinative Play or from games collections
such as those of Tal, and analyse — against the clock! The one
rule you must adhere to is not to waste time. Go over lines 10
times if you want, but only if you are asking new questions at each
repetition. Depth, accuracy and thoroughness will come with
practice, as you compare what you worked out in your head with what
is there on paper.

  The point to understand is that no-one can calculate
perfectly (not even the computers — chess is too big for that) and
so it is irrelevant whether you can calculate 10 moves deep or only
2: at some point you have to stop and make an assessment of the
position.

  Instead of asking: “does that really work? What am I
overlooking?”, you have to develop the intuition that lies behind a
sacrifice.

  So, after this lengthy introduction, I’m concerned with a
related pair of questions:

 

  • How can we raise the courage to play sacrificial moves?
  • And, how can we improve the likelihood of getting the
    chance?

I address the courage aspect by offering the study of simple
positions in an effort to understand piece co-ordination as a key
way to improve our assessment of positions reached in analysis. The
increased opportunity arises when we understand how to steer a
given position into one in which a combination might be lurking.


I: STUDY OF PIECE CO-ORDINATION

There is one piece of advice all the great players give, “study
endgames”. Why? Because only in this manner can you understand how
the pieces CO-OPERATE. Only with piece co-operation is it possible
to force checkmate.

  Botvinnik claimed to have learnt about Queen+Knight
co-operation from Capablanca. To see what he learnt, consider the
following finish of Silwa-Botvinnik, Moscow 1956
(for full analysis see Botvinnik on the Endgame
(1985)):

8/8/8/6pk/3Pq2p/2P1n2P/P1P3PQ/7K

-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-Xj
-+-Pd+-X
+-P-S-+p
p+p+-+pQ
+-+-+-+k

White has more than enough material compensation for the knight,
and the black king is insecure. Therefore, attempts to win the
Q-side pawns, which lift the mate threat, would allow white to
escape with perpetual. The winning plan is extra-ordinary. By
sacrificing his last two pawns, black opens up the white king and
forces ‘mate, due to the co-operation of his queen and knight.

41… Qc6 42.Qg1 Qxc3 43.a4 g4!

(43… Qxd4 44.a5 Nxc2 45.a6 would be
harder.)

44.hxg4+ Kg5! 45.a5 h3!

  There goes the last pawn, opening up the long diagonal.
Because both 46.gxh3 Qc6+ 47.Kh2 Qf3! and 46.g3 Qc6+
47.Kh2 Qxc2+ 48.Kh1 Nxg4
quickly lead to ‘mate —
White resigned.

  And now see the finish of V.Anand-V.Topalov (Wijk
Aan Zee, 1998)
:

2q3kQp1nbpp/1r1pN3/3P4/6P1/7P/5P2/R1BQ2K1

-+d+-+j+
+-X-SlXx
-T-Xn+-+
+-+p+-+-
-+-+-+p+
+-+-+-+p
-+-+-P-+
R-Bq+-K-

- 26.Nxg7!!
Kxg7

  (Acceptance is forced. Although all white’s pieces are on
the back rank, the weak dark-squares are decisive. If 26…Nxd5
27.Nf5 Qf8 28.Nh6+ Kg7 29.Qd4+ Kg6 30.h4
etc.)

27.Qd4+ Kf8 (27…Kg8 28.Bh6 or
27…Kg6 28.h4
) 28.Bh6+ Ke8 29.Re1 1-0

  (For we mortals: 29…Kd7 30.Rxe7+! When it’s
B+Q vs K+others. e.g. 30…Kxe7 31.Qe4+ Be6 32.Qxh7+ Bf7
33.Bg5+ Kf8 34.Qh8+ Bg8 35.Qh6+ Ke8 36.Qg6+ Bf7 37.Qe4+ Kf8 38.Bh6+
Kg8 39.Qd4
forces the win of the queen, with the advance of
the g and h-pawns winning the game.)

  Amazing stuff, but note that after the demolition
sacrifice Anand finished playing Q+B vs K+scattered defence; as the
black K could never escape to d7 (because of Qf5+ and Bg5 forcing
the win of the queen) Anand could judge that a ‘mating position was
forceable (of course, he may have calculated it too!). The
choice is simple. Either you can calculate perfectly (me neither),
or you must understand piece co-operation enough to make an
accurate assessment of such positions.

  Studying simple positions will help us gain the courage
to make the initial sacrifice — trusting our assessment will
remove the worry of “overlooking something”; if your assessment is
right, you can find the good moves when you get there.


II: WEAPONS IN THE ARSENAL

There are a number of basic attacking motifs which must be studied,
with a view to reaching a position in which a combination can be
used. My favourite source for these is The Art of Attack in
Chess
by V.Vukovic (1965). Some of the more helpful
concepts I have found are focal-points and networks of weak
squares. In terms of specific weapons, Vukovic analyses attacking
the fianchettoed bishop and the value of different open files,
amongst others. The Classic Bishop Sacrifice (or Greek Gift) is one
such standard weapon:

r1bq1rk1/pp1n1ppp/2n1p3/3pP3/3P4/P1PB1N2/5PPP/R1BQ1RK10

t+lD-Tj+
Xx+s+xXx
-+s+x+-+
+-+xP-+-
-+-P-+-+
P-Pb+n+-
-+-+-PpP
R-Bq+rK-

The thematic move here is 1.Bxh7+, but before
playing it, there are FOUR variations that need to be considered:

  1) 1… Kh8 Worth remembering that sacrifices do
not have to be accepted. In this position 2.Bd3 is possible,
winning a pawn.

  and after 1… Kxh7 2.Ng5+

  2) 2… Kg8 3.Qh5 Re8 4.Qxf7+ Kh8 5.Qh5+ Kg8 6.Qh7+
Kf8 7.Qh8+ Ke7 8.Qxg7
‘mate. A typical procedure, driving the
king to its fate.

  3) 2… Kh6 3.Nxf7+ xd8 wins the queen.

  4) 2… Kg6 3.h4 (sometimes 3.Qg4 is strongest)
Rh8 4.h5+! Rxh5 5.Qd3+ f5 6.exf6+ Kxf6 7.Qf3+ Ke7 8.Qf7+ Kd6
9.Qxh5
and wins (10.Nf7+ is threatened too).

  [5) 2… Kh8 is never really an option
3.Qh5+ Kg8 4.Qh7 ‘mate.]

  Once mastered, this is a powerful weapon, ready to be
used whenever possible. A light-hearted example:


Gaudersen-Paul (Melbourne, 1928)

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 cxd4 5.cxd4 Bb4+ 6.Nc3 Nc6
7.Nf3 Nge7 8.Bd3 O-O 9.Bxh7+

“Almost any decent player would make this sacrifice
instinctively, without bothering to calculate the consequences.”
CHERNEV

9… Kxh7 10.Ng5+ Kg6 11.h4 Nxd4 12.Qg4 f5 13.h5+
Kh6 14.Nxe6+ g5 15.hxg6 en passant, ‘mate!

  This is, of course, an example of “castling into it”.
What is to be done when your opponent tries his/her level best to
avoid falling for such basic attacking motifs? Just how can we
force an opponent into accepting the pre-conditions for a
combination?

  Consider an example of Capablanca’s, where a combination
is used to set up the pre-conditions for a Classic Bishop
Sacrifice.


J.R.Capablanca vs Angel Ribera (Barcelona,
1935)

1.e4 c6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Nf3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.d4 Ngf6 6.Ng3 e6
7.Bd3 Be7 8.O-O O-O 9.Qe2 c5 10.Rd1 Qc7 11.Bg5 b6?

r1b2rk1/p1qnbppp/1p2pn2/2p3B1/3P4/3B1NN1/PPP1QPPP/R2R2K1

t+l+-Tj+
X-DsLxXx
-X-+xS-+
+-X-+-B-
-+-P-+-+
+-+b+nN-
pPp+qPpP
R-+r+-K-

Black’s last move prepares to develop his last piece, but allows
JRC an attractive combination. 11…h6 would have avoided
immediate danger. Note that white’s pieces are right for the
Classic Bishop Sacrifice, but black’s knights are irritatingly
covering f6. Capablanca uses one decoy sacrifice and one exchange
sacrifice to clear his way.

12.d5! Nxd5 13.Bxe7 Nxe7

  step 1: white moves the N from f6, making the sacrifice
possible:

14.Bxh7+! Kxh7 15.Ng5+ Kg8 16.Rxd7!

  step 2: white removes the other N before it goes to f6,
e.g. 16.Qh5? Nf6 and black defends.

16…Qxd7 17.Qh5 Rd8 18.Qxf7+ Kh8
19.h4

(not 19.Nh5 Qd1+ 20.Rxd1 Rxd1 ‘mate!)

19…Nf5 20.Nh5 Qe8 21.Nf6! 1-0

  (because 21…Nd6 22.Nxe8 Nxf7 23.Nxf7+ Kg8 24.Nxd8
Bd7 25.Nxe6 Rxe8 26.Ng5
leaves white with a won endgame.)

  Studying games such as these (more from Capablanca in a
later piece), and other masters like Tal, helps us understand the
pre- conditions behind a finishing combination, and how to set them
up.


III: PREPARING THE GROUND

Finally, not every position is amenable to a combinative treatment.
If you want to play combinations on a regular basis, you have to
play the right openings — ones where some of the pre-conditions
for combinations are present from the outset. Books have been
written about the sacrifices available in the King’s Indian Defence
or Sicilian. The main strategy is to pick an opening which is
unbalanced, play through some sharp games in it, and keep
playing
the opening. If you want to develop a feel for when a
sacrifice might be correct, you must know a lot about the positions
you reach.

  I want to illustrate all this with some examples of my
own play. One from last year:


D.Hill vs P.C.Lane (Club Championships,
Rd:6, 29/4/97)

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.Ne2
Qb6 8.Nf3 cxd4 9.cxd4 f6 10.exf6 Nxf6 11.O-O Bd6

r1b1k2r/pp4pp/1qnbpn2/3p4/3P4/3B1N2/PP2NPPP/R1BQ1RK1

t+l+j+-T
Xx+-+-Xx
-DsLxS-+
+-+x+-+-
-+-P-+-+
+-+b+n+-
pP-+nPpP
R-Bq+rK-

This is a standard position from the French Defence, Tarrasch
Variation. Some books may tell you that the French stresses the
“defensive” aspect of Defence, whereas I have always thought of the
opening as a counter-attacking one, and particularly attractive to
those aspiring to be “combinative players”.

  In particular, this position is wonderfully unbalanced.
Note Black’s attack on d4, the half-open f-file, and the free piece
play. The battle is usually about control of e5, because if black
manages to play …e5 his game generally becomes very free —
taking over the central squares, freeing his Bc8, and also creating
a passed d-pawn (not always a trivial factor!). The danger for
black is in allowing white to establish a bind on e5 and the
Q-side, which can make white’s wins look effortless.

12.Nc3 O-O 13.a3 Bd7 14.b4 Kh8

  White is making progress towards a Q-side bind, but
leaving the centre undefended — so black strikes there.

15.Na4 Qc7 16.Bb2 e5! 17.dxe5 Nxe5 18.Nxe5 Bxe5
19.Bxe5 Qxe5 20.Nc5

r4r1k/pp1b2pp/5n2/2Npq3/1P6/P2B4/5PPP/R2Q1RK1

t+-+-T-J
Xx+l+-Xx
-+-+-S-+
+-NxD-+-
-P-+-+-+
P-+b+-+-
-+-+-PpP
R-+q+rK-

This is where the fact that I play the French all the time played
its role — I knew that White had handed the advantage
over to Black. In fact, I am convinced that after …e5 Black
manages to take control of these kinds of positions. Therefore, I
spent a long time looking for a decisive continuation. In short, I
wanted a combinative attack.

  45 minutes is a long time to spend on one move,
especially when it’s as obvious as the next:

20…Ng4 21.g3 Nxf2!

  That wasn’t so obvious, but if I hadn’t played it then
20…Ng4 would have been a bit pointless.

22.Rxf2 Rxf2 23.Kxf2 Bh3!!

  I found this quiet move by a combination of remembered
lessons and frustration at not finding anything by direct
calculation. A quiet move like this is hard to find, especially
with …Qd4+ …Qb2+ or …Rf8+ as viable alternatives. However, I
couldn’t find a decent follow-up to any of these moves, and instead
remembered: firstly, “the threat is stronger than the execution”,
and secondly, Vukovic has an extended discussion on weak square
complexes, and using them to force checkmate. White’s king already
looks draughty on the dark squares, but how about the light ones?
Therefore 23…Bh3, and I found this during my long think on move
20!

24.Be2

  Stronger is 24.Ra2, though after 24…Rf8+
25.Kg1 Qe3+ 26.Kh1 b6
Black forces a winning ending after,
e.g., 27.Nb3 Rf2 28.Rxf2 Qxf2 29.Be4! Bg4! 30.Qg1 Bf3+ 31.Bxf3
Qxf3+ 32.Qg2 Qxb3.

24…Rf8+ 25.Kg1 Qe3+ 26.Kh1 Qf2 27.Qxd5 Qxe2
28.Rg1 Bg4 29.0-1

  This kind of combination is standard for the French
player. Another example of the same theme:


J.M.Shepley vs. P.C.Lane (Surrey vs. Devon,
Board 1, 16/5/98)

1.Nc3 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e4 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.d4 c5 6.dxc5 Nc6
7.Bf4 Bxc5 8.Bd3 f6 9.exf6 Nxf6 10.O-O O-O 11.Ne5 Qe8

  By transposition we’ve reached a theoretical position of
the French Two Knights, where white gives up his central pawns for
piece control of e5. In earlier games I struggled for a plan in
these positions, but these days I’m armed with 11…Qe8, Watson’s
recommendation.

12.Qd2? Nxe5?

  Best for white is 12.Nb5 when Qe7 gives
black a decent game. Black’s move is also a mistake: the
theoretical 12…Nh5! forces the win of material, e.g.
13.Nxc6 Nxf4 14.Ne5 Qh5 15.Nf3 Nxg2 16.Kxg2 Qxf3+
etc. Other
choices for white cost even more.

13.Bxe5 Qh5 14.Rae1 Ng4 15.Bg3

r1b2rk1/pp4pp/4p3/2bp3q/6nQNB2B1/PPPQ1PPP/4RRK

t+l+-Tj+
Xx+-+-Xx
-+-+x+-+
+-Lx+-+d
-+-+-+s+
+-Nb+-B-
pPpQ-PpP
+-+-RrK-

15…Rxf2!

  Again, that f2 square — Black has to strike now or h3
follows.

16.Rxf2 Bxf2+ 17.Bxf2 Qxh2+ 18.Kf1 Bd7 19.Qg5
Qh1+ 20.Ke2 Qxg2 21.Qh4

  I had overlooked this move. The threat to h7 allows Rg1,
forcing an endgame with black’s 3Ps vs the N. I had assumed such
positions would offer both sides winning chances when offering the
sacrifice on move 15 — the kind of assessment I would not have
trusted myself to make a couple of years ago — and my opponent
proceeds to misplay the endgame badly.

21…h6 (Playing the pawn to a dark
square — observe the Bd3) 22.Rg1 Qxf2+ 23.Qxf2 Nxf2
24.Kxf2 Rf8+ 25.Ke2? g5 26.Rf1? Rxf1 27.Kxf1 Kg7 28.Kg2 Kf6 29.Kg3
h5
(White’s passive play [25.Ke3-d4!] and exchange of the
rooks, have made the pawns a winning team.) 30.a4 h4+
31.Kf3 Bc6 32.Kf2 g4 33.a5 g3+ 34.Kg2 d4+ 35.Ne4+ Ke5 36.Kf3 g2
37.Kxg2 Bxe4+ 38.Kh3 Bxd3 39.cxd3 Kf4 40.Kxh4 Ke3
41.0-1


P.C.Lane vs M.Brierley (West of England,
Rd:7, 1K/98)

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 O-O 6.Be2 e5
7.dxe5 dxe5 8.Qxd8 Rxd8 9.Bg5

  An interesting system against the King’s Indian: White
simply captures the e5-pawn and sets Black some problems. I had
assumed this was quite rare, but looking down the table I.George
vs. D.Grossett had the same position — 9…Nc6?
10.Nd5!
won the exchange quickly. 9…Nbd7? is no
good, 9…Na6!? is better, and 9…Re8! is
probably best.

9…c6!? 10.Nxe5 Re8 11.O-O-O! Na6

  If 11…Rxe5 12.Rd8+ Re8 13.Bxf6; 12…Ne8
13.Rxc8
etc. The whole point of the system is that White
(almost) gets away with a blatant pawn grab!

12.f4 h6 13.Bh4 g5 14.fxg5 hxg5 15.Bg3
Nc5

r1b1r1k1/pp3pbQp2n2/2n1N1pQP1P3/2N3B1/PP2B1PP/2KR3R

t+l+t+j+
Xx+-+xL-
-+x+-S-+
+-S-N-X-
-+p+p+-+
+-N-+-B-
pP-+b+pP
+-Kr+-+r

Black tries to recover the e4 pawn. Although 15…Be6 doesn’t
regain the material, it would have avoided the following
combination.

16.Nxf7! (the KB2 square bears the brunt
of many sacrifices) Kxf7 17.e5 Ng4 18.Rd4 Nxe5 19.Bh5+
Kg8

  A wise decision — 19…Ng6 20.Rf1+ Bf6 21.Rd6 Re6
22.Rxe6 Bxe6 23.Be5 Nd7 24.Bxf6 Nxf6 25.Ne4
and, 19…Kf8
20.Bxe8 Kxe8 21.Re1 Nd7 22.Rxd7 Bxd7 23.Bxe5
leave White with
his extra material and a simplified ending.

20.Bxe8 Ned3+ 21.Rxd3 Nxd3+ 22.Kd2 Bf5 23.Rf1 Bh7
24.Bf7+ Kh8

r6k/pp3Bbb/2p5/6pQP5/2Nn2B1/PP1K2PP/5R2

t+-+-+-J
Xx+-+bLl
-+x+-+-+
+-+-+-X-
-+p+-+-+
+-Ns+-B-
pP-K-+pP
+-+-+r+-

The net result of the last 9 moves is that White has kept his extra
pawn! At first I was a little worried about black’s two bishops,
and the possibility of Rd8, but I decided my pieces were still
better placed than Black’s, and thought I would just “push them
forward”.

25.Ke3 Nxb2 26.Ne4 Rd8 27.Nd6 Rd7 28.Be6
Bd3

  Or 28…Re7 29.Nf7+ Kg8 30.Nxg5+ Kh8 31.Rf7 Re8
32.Be5 Rg8 33.Bxb2
; or 31…Nxc4+ 32.Ke2 Re8 33.Rxb7
are winning.

29.Nf7+ Kh7 30.Nxg5+ Kg6?

  Not the best, but neither 30…Kh6 31.Rf7 Rxf7
32.Nxf7+
nor 30…Kh8 31.Rf7 give black time to
regain his pawn.

31.Bxd7 Bxf1 32.Ne6! Bxg2?

  Time trouble : but 32…Nxc4+ 33.Kf2 Nb6 (…Bd3
34.Nf4+) 34.Kxf1 Nxd7 35.Nd8 is still winning for
white.

33.Nxg7 Nxc4+ 34.Kd4 Nb6 35.Ne6 Kf6 36.Bh4+ Kf7
37.Nf4 Bf1 38.Be6+ Kg7 39.Bb3 Nd7 40.Ne6+ Kg6
[TIME]
1-0

Contempt for Pawns

“The most important feature of the chess position is the
activity of the pieces. This is absolutely fundamental in all
phases of the game (opening, middlegame and especially
endgame)
.” — Michael STEAN, in Simple Chess.

  “One of the main aims has been to highlight the
differences in approach between a Grandmaster and a weaker player,
and to try and narrow the gap. To some extent this comes down to
technical matters – more accurate analysis, superior opening
knowledge, better endgame technique and so forth; but in other
respects the difference goes deeper and many readers will find that
they need to rethink much of their basic attitude to the game. One
example of this would be the tremendous emphasis which is placed on
the
dynamic use of the pieces, if necessary
at the expense of the pawn structure, or even of material. This is
no mere question of style; it is a characteristic of the games of
all the great players
.” — Peter GRIFFITHS, Introduction to
Secrets of Grandmaster Chess (Nunn/Griffiths).


Introduction

A while ago I bought a collection of the writings of Cecil
Purdy, to whom I was introduced by Irving Chernev. Chernev is
better known, but Purdy was the better player (a world
correspondence champion) and at least as good a writer. I’m always
quoting his “Examine moves that smite!”, and while reading
his book came across another memorable piece of advice:

  “We all play a great deal of rotten chess – some more
than others – and one if the roots of the trouble is the tyranny of
the Pawn.

“There are still many players whose idea of winning a
game consists in grabbing a Pawn and struggling through somehow to
an endgame – where, they fondly believe, a Pawn plus is an
automatic win. Here we see the tyranny of the Pawn in its vilest
and most nauseating form. But there are degrees, and even in master
play we find weak moves being made through an insufficient contempt
for Pawns.
” – CJSP

  What is on Purdy’s mind is the same thought expressed
more temperately by Stean and Griffiths above. Pawns are no use
without active pieces.


Capablanca,J – Lasker,E [C80] St.Petersburg, 1914

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5
7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6 9.Nbd2 Nc5 10.c3 d4 11.cxd4 Nxd4 12.Nxd4 Qxd4
13.Bxe6 Nxe6 14.Qf3 Rd8 15.a4 Qd5 16.Qxd5 Rxd5 17.axb5 axb5 18.Ra8+
Nd8
What would you play here?

+-----------------+
|R+.hkg.4|
|+.0.+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+p+r).+.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.).H.)P)|
|+.G.+RI.|
+-----------------+

19.Ne4!!

  hitting c5, allowing f2-f4, threatening Nc3…

  [19.Nf3 “Tarrasch says that 99 players out of hundred
would have played this
“]

19…Rxe5 Now White’s pieces get into
good positions. 20.Rd1 Be7 21.f3

+-----------------+
|R+.hk+.4|
|+.0.gp0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+p+.4.+.|
|.+.+N+.+|
|+.+.+P+.|
|.).+.+P)|
|+.GR+.I.|
+-----------------+

“This quiet move shows how silly it is to lose your head just
because you have given up a Pawn
.”

21…Rf5

  “(?) Black caves in” – Tydoki & Long.

22.Rc8

  “And Black must give up the c-Pawn“

  It remains to be seen if White’s continuing initiative is
enough to bring more than recovery of the Pawn deficit.

22…0-0 23.Rxc7 Bb4 24.Be3 Ne6 25.Rcd7 Rc8
26.R1d5 Rxd5 27.Rxd5 Rc2 28.b3 Rb2 29.Rxb5 Rxb3 30.Bd2 Bc5+ 31.Rxc5
Nxc5 32.Nxc5 Rb2 33.Be3 Re2 34.Bf2 f6 35.Kf1 Ra2 36.g4 Kf7 37.Ne4
h6 38.Kg2 Ra3 39.f4 Rb3 40.Ng3 Ra3 41.Nf1 Rd3 42.Ne3 Rc3 43.Kf3 Ra3
44.f5 Ra2 45.Nd5 Rb2 46.Nf4 Ra2 47.h4 Ra5 48.Bd4 Ra3+ 49.Be3 Ra5
50.Nh5 Ra4 51.Ng3 Kg8 52.Ne4 Kf7 53.Bd2 Ra1 54.Bc3 Rf1+ 55.Nf2 Rc1
56.Bd4 Re1 57.Ne4 Rf1+ 58.Bf2 Ra1 59.Kf4 Ra4 60.Bc5 Rc4 61.Kf3 Rc1
62.Bf2 Ra1 63.Kf4 Ra4 64.Kf3 Ra3+ 65.Be3 Ra5 66.Nc5 Ra1 67.Ne6 Ra3
68.Ke4 Ra4+ 69.Bd4 Rb4 70.Kd3 Rb3+ 71.Ke4 Rb4 72.Kd5 Rb1 73.g5 hxg5
74.hxg5 fxg5 75.Nxg5+ Kg8 76.Ne6 Rd1 77.Ke4 Kf7 78.Ng5+ Kg8 79.Ke5
Re1+ 80.Kf4 Rf1+ 81.Kg4 Rd1 82.Nf3 Rf1 83.Be5 Kf7 84.Kf4 Kg8 85.Ke4
Rd1 86.Ng5 Re1+ 87.Kd5 Rd1+ 88.Ke6 Re1 89.Nh3 Rb1 90.Nf4 Rb6+
91.Ke7 Rb5 92.Ng6 Rb6 93.Bd6 Ra6 94.Ke6 Rb6 95.Ne7+ Kh7 96.Nc8 Ra6
97.Ne7 Rb6 98.Nd5 Ra6 99.Nc3 Kg8 100.Ne4 Rb6 1/2-1/2

  Actually, no.Another Purdy example to rub the point
in:


Nimzowitsch,A – Capablanca,J [C62] St
Petersburg (1), 1914

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 d6 5.d4 Bd7 6.Bxc6!? Bxc6
7.Qd3 exd4 8.Nxd4 g6!? 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Qa6 Qd7! 11.Qb7 Rc8 12.Qxa7
Bg7

+-----------------+
|.+r+k+.4|
|!.0q+pgp|
|.+p0.hp+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.H.+.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$.G.I.+R|
+-----------------+

Black has two tempi for the a-Pawn, but no real weaknesses to
attack and faces a passed a-Pawn.

  “Any woodshifter would consider himself in clover in
White’s position… Nimzovitch played quite reasonably all the
time, and yet found himself dead lost within a dozen more moves.
(…) It is always very difficult to play correctly when the enemy
has the initiative
.” – CJSP

13.0-0 0-0 14.Qa6 Rfe8 15.Qd3 Qe6 16.f3 Nd7
17.Bd2 Ne5 18.Qe2 Nc4 19.Rab1 Ra8 20.a4 Nxd2 21.Qxd2 Qc4 22.Rfd1
Reb8 23.Qe3 Rb4 24.Qg5 Bd4+ 25.Kh1 Rab8 26.Rxd4 Qxd4 27.Rd1 Qc4
28.h4 Rxb2 29.Qd2 Qc5 30.Re1 Qh5 31.Ra1 Qxh4+ 32.Kg1 Qh5 33.a5 Ra8
34.a6 Qc5+ 35.Kh1 Qc4 36.a7 Qc5 37.e5 Qxe5 38.Ra4 Qh5+ 39.Kg1 Qc5+
40.Kh2 d5 41.Rh4 Rxa7 0-1

  Here is perhaps an example of the dangers of reading… a
game I played shortly after reading this Purdy piece.


Regis,D – Laker,L [D00] Devon vs. Dorset,
1998

1.e4 d5

+-----------------+
|rhb1kgn4|
|0p0.0p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P)P).)P)|
|$NGQIBHR|
+-----------------+

This godforsaken opening ought to be banned.

2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3


A Pawn sacrifice for development and open
lines.

4…exf3 5.Nxf3 Bg4

  [5…Bf5 6.Ne5 e6 7.g4 Bg6 8.Bg2 c6 9.h4]

6.h3 Bh5 7.g4 Bg6 8.Ne5 +/-

+-----------------+
|rh.1kg.4|
|0p0.0p0p|
|.+.+.hb+|
|+.+.H.+.|
|.+.).+P+|
|+.H.+.+P|
|P)P+.+.+|
|$.GQIB+R|
+-----------------+

Euwe 8…e6 9.Bg2 c6

  [9…Nd5 1-0 Schug H-Chmelik/cr eu Mkl 1992 (20); 9…Be4
1-0 Tiemann-Zimmer/BGD -WFT – Gruppe 30 1987 (23)]

10.0-0!?

  [10.h4 transposes to a position from the
Tartakower-Gunderam line. 10…Bb4! 11.0-0 +/- Korchnoi]

10…Nbd7

  [10…Bd6 1-0 Velimirovic D GM-Andrejevic IM/Yugoslavian
CS sf 1984 (41);

  10…Bxc2 11.Qd2 (11.Qxc2 Qxd4+) 11…h6 12.Nxf7
Kxf7 13.Qxc2 Qxd4+ 14.Kh1 Bd6 15.Bd2+/- Holwell]

11.Nxg6 hxg6 12.Qf3 Qb6

  [12…Qe7]

13.g5 Be7

  [13…Nd5 14.Qxf7+ Kd8 15.Nxd5 exd5 16.c3+/-]

14.gxf6 gxf6

+-----------------+
|r+.+k+.4|
|0p+ngp+.|
|.1p+p0p+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.H.+Q+P|
|P)P+.+B+|
|$.G.+RI.|
+-----------------+

[14…Bxf6 15.Be3 Qxb2 16.Ne4]

15.Qd3 0-0-0 16.Be3 Qa5

+-----------------+
|.+k4.+.4|
|0p+ngp+.|
|.+p+p0p+|
|1.+.+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.HQG.+P|
|P)P+.+B+|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+

17.b4!?


A sacrifice for open lines.

17…Bxb4 18.Ne4 Nc5 19.Nxc5 Bxc5 20.Rab1 Qc7 21.Qc4 Bd6
22.Qa4 a6 23.Rxf6 Rh7

+-----------------+
|.+k4.+.+|
|+p1.+p+r|
|p+pgp$p+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|Q+.).+.+|
|+.+.G.+P|
|P+P+.+B+|
|+R+.+.I.|
+-----------------+

[23…Rh4 24.Rbf1]

24.d5!?


Opening the diagonal.

24…Bh2+?

  A reflex check: the rest is easy.

  [24…cxd5! 25.Bb6 Bc5+!;

  24…exd5!? 25.Bb6 Qe7 26.Bxd8 Qe3+! (we both missed this
in analysis) 27.Kf1! Bc5 28.Rxc6+! Kxd8 (28…bxc6 29.Qxc6+
Kxd8 30.Rb8+ Ke7 31.Re8#)
29.Rxc5 Qxc5+-]

25.Kh1

  [25.Kf1? Qe7 26.dxc6 Qxf6+]

25…Rdh8 26.dxc6 Rxh3

  [26…bxc6 27.Qxa6+ Kd8 (27…Kd7 28.Rb7)
28.Bb6]

27.cxb7+ Kb8 28.Bxh3 Rxh3 29.Qe8+
1-0

 

  A deeply imperfect game, of course, but one which I hope
shows the spirit if not the rigour of Purdy’s advice.

We can and should sacrifice Pawns
for:

  • Development
  • Open lines for the attack
  • Initiative
  • Activity
  • Counterplay
  • To make a mess

We can see examples of all of these below.


Pawn sacrifices for development in the
opening

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3

  [3…d3 4.Bxd3 declining a gambit in this way is quite
common, although probably not the best method in this case]

4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2

+-----------------+
|rhb1kgn4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+B+P+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|PG.+.)P)|
|$N+QI.HR|
+-----------------+

White’s pawn sacrifices have yielded a dangerous attacking
position. How should you defend against a gambit like this?

5…d5


(i) do not be afraid to return some or all of
your gains in order to catch up in development

[5…d6 6.Ne2 (6.f4) 6…Nc6 7.0-0 Be6 neutralising the
glare of the Bishop towards f7 and seeking exchanges 8.Bd5 Nf6
9.Qb3 Qc8 10.Nf4 Bxd5 11.exd5 Ne5 12.Re1

+-----------------+
|r+q+kg.4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.0.h.+|
|+.+Ph.+.|
|.+.+.H.+|
|+Q+.+.+.|
|PG.+.)P)|
|$N+.$.I.|
+-----------------+

12…Be7 !

  absolutely the correct and modern idea. Black returns
material to complete development, and will emerge with the upper
hand

  13.Bxe5 dxe5 14.Rxe5 Qd7 ! 15.Qg3 (15.Qxb7 0-0
when White’s position is uncoordinated and
under-developed) 15…0-0-0 16.Qxg7 Qd6 17.Qg5 Rhe8 18.Nd2
Nd7

+-----------------+
|.+k4r+.+|
|0p0ngp+p|
|.+.1.+.+|
|+.+P$.!.|
|.+.+.H.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P+.H.)P)|
|$.+.+.I.|
+-----------------+

Black has exchanged his extra material for a superior position.
White’s strategy has been a shambles, and must concede the
exchange.

  19.Rxe7 Qxe7 20.Qg3 Qb4 21.Nf3 Rg8 22.Qh4 Qc3 23.Rb1 Qxf3
resigns: Mieses-Maroczy, Monte Carlo 1902.

  The exact moves have been improved on since, but this
strategy of Black was the death-knell for the romantic sacrificial
openings.]

6.Bxd5 Bb4+

  [6…Nf6 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qxd8 Bb4+ 9.Qd2 Bxd2+ 10.Nxd2
Re8

+-----------------+
|rhb+r+.+|
|0p0.+k0p|
|.+.+.h.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|PG.H.)P)|
|$.+.I.HR|
+-----------------+

the rival majorities look exciting, but the opposite-coloured
bishops dampen it a little. Chances in any event are even]

7.Nc3 Bxc3+ 8.Bxc3 Nf6


(ii) seek to reduce the attacking potential
of your opponent through exchanges

9.Qf3 Nxd5 10.exd5 0-0

+-----------------+
|rhb1.4k+|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+P+.+.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.G.+Q+.|
|P+.+.)P)|
|$.+.I.HR|
+-----------------+

white still has some attacking chances but Black looks secure (no
weaknesses and has an extra pawn: =+ keres


Related ideas in other gambit
openings:

[2.Nf3 Nc6

A) 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4
Bb4+ 7.Nc3

+-----------------+
|r+b1k+.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+n+.h.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.gB)P+.+|
|+.H.+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$.GQI.+R|
+-----------------+

7…Nxe4


(iv) don’t snatch material in the opening,
but destroying central pawns is allowed

(7…d5


(iii) don’t snatch material in the
opening

8.exd5 Nxd5 9.0-0)

  8.0-0 Nxc3 9.bxc3 Bxc3

+-----------------+
|r+b1k+.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+B).+.+|
|+.g.+N+.|
|P+.+.)P)|
|$.GQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

a famous gambit position (9…d5


(i) don’t be afraid to return material to
complete your development)

10.Qb3 or 10.Ba3 and now Black’s greed for material must be
tempered with caution since 10…Bxa1 yields a fine
attacking position for White (Bernstein);

B) 3.d4 3…exd4

B1) 4.Bc4 Scotch Gambit 4…Bc5 5.0-0 d6
6.c3 dxc3 7.Nxc3 Be6 (7…Nf6 8.Bg5) 8.Bxe6 fxe6 9.Qb3 Qc8
10.Be3 Bxe3 11.fxe3 Nf6 12.Ng5 Nd8 13.Rac1 a6 14.Na4 Qd7 15.e5
h6

(15…dxe5 16.Nc5; 15…b5 16.exf6 bxa4 17.Qc2 gxf6
18.Ne4 0-0 19.Nxf6+ Rxf6 20.Rxf6)

  16.Nf3 b5 (16…Nd5)

  17.exf6 bxa4 18.Qc2 gxf6

+-----------------+
|r+.hk+.4|
|+.0q+.+.|
|p+.0p0.0|
|+.+.+.+.|
|p+.+.+.+|
|+.+.)N+.|
|P)Q+.+P)|
|+.$.+RI.|
+-----------------+

19.Qg6+ Ke7 ? (19…Qf7 20.Qxf7+ Nxf7 21.Rxc7 0-0
+/-)

  20.Ne5 dxe5 21.Qxf6+ Staunton-von Jaenisch, 1853;

B2) 4.c3

+-----------------+
|r+b1kgn4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.0P+.+|
|+.).+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$NGQIB+R|
+-----------------+

the Goering gambit 4…dxc3 (4…d3 not quite satisfactory
according to modern theory) 5.Bc4 Nf6

(5…cxb2 6.Bxb2 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Nf6 8.Qc2 d6 9.0-0-0
yields a vigorous initiative for the pawns)

  6.Nxc3

+-----------------+
|r+b1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+n+.h.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+B+P+.+|
|+.H.+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$.GQI.+R|
+-----------------+

6…Bb4 7.0-0 Bxc3 8.bxc3 d6 9.e5 dxe5 10.Ng5 Be6 11.Bxe6 fxe6
12.Qb3 with some initiative and a promise to regain the pawn;

 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5

(3…Be7 a more modern approach like the
Cunningham Variation is more awkward for White)

  4.Bc4 g4

+-----------------+
|rhb1kgn4|
|0p0p+p+p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+B+P0p+|
|+.+.+N+.|
|P)P).+P)|
|$NGQI.+R|
+-----------------+

the famous Muzio Gambit: White does not shrink from sacrifice of
pieces as well as pawns 5.0-0 gxf3 6.Qxf3 Qf6 7.e5 Qxe5

+-----------------+
|rhb+kgn4|
|0p0p+p+p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.1.+.|
|.+B+.0.+|
|+.+.+Q+.|
|P)P).+P)|
|$NG.+RI.|
+-----------------+

interestingly, the most promising line may be to sacrifice some
more

A) 8.Bxf7+ the double Muzio Gambit –
outrageous! 8…Kxf7 9.d4 Qxd4+

(9…Qf5 10.g4 Qg6 11.Bxf4 Nf6 12.Be5 d6 13.Bxf6 Bxg4
14.Qg2 Rg8 15.Kh1 Bf5 16.Qd5+)

  10.Be3 Qf6 11.Nc3 Ne7 12.Nd5

+-----------------+
|rhb+.g.4|
|0p0phk+p|
|.+.+.1.+|
|+.+N+.+.|
|.+.+.0.+|
|+.+.GQ+.|
|P)P+.+P)|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+

with an attack for the material – is it enough? 12…Nxd5 13.Qxd5+
Qe6 14.Rxf4+ Kg8 15.Qg5+ Qg6 16.Rxf8+ Kxf8 17.Rf1+;

B) 8.d3 8…Bh6 9.Nc3 Ne7 10.Bd2 Nbc6
11.Rae1

+-----------------+
|r+b+k+.4|
|0p0php+p|
|.+n+.+.g|
|+.+.1.+.|
|.+B+.0.+|
|+.HP+Q+.|
|P)PG.+P)|
|+.+.$RI.|
+-----------------+

still with some initiative]

 


Pawn sacrifices for open lines


Gausel,E – Davies,N [B06] *Oslo, 1988,
1988

1.d4 d6 2.e4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.Bc4 Nc6 5.Be3 Nf6 6.h3
e5

[6…Ng4]

7.dxe5 Nxe5 8.Bb3 0-0 9.Qd2

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|0p0.+pgp|
|.+.0.hp+|
|+.+.h.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+BH.G.+P|
|P)P!.)P+|
|$.+.I.HR|
+-----------------+

9…b5! 10.f3 b4 11.Nd5 Nxd5 12.Bxd5 c6 13.Bb3 a5 14.a4 d5
15.exd5 Nc4! 16.Bxc4 Bxb2! 17.Ne2 Qh4+ 18.Bf2 Qxc4 19.Rb1 Bc3
20.Nxc3 bxc3 21.Qd3 Re8+ 22.Kd1 Qa2! 23.Rc1 Ba6 24.Qxc3 Qxd5+
25.Qd2 Rad8!

+-----------------+
|.+.4r+k+|
|+.+.+p+p|
|b+p+.+p+|
|0.+q+.+.|
|P+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+P+P|
|.+P!.GP+|
|+.$K+.+R|
+-----------------+

0-1


Lorinczi P – Browne Walter S [A58] Olympiad,
Siegen (Germany), 1970

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.bxa6 Bxa6

[5…g6 is now thought more accurate in case of
b2-b3]

6.Nc3 d6 7.Nf3 g6 8.g3 Bg7 9.Bg2 0-0 10.0-0 Nbd7
11.Qc2 Qa5 12.Re1 Nb6 13.e4 Nfd7 14.Bg5 Rfe8 15.Nd2
Ne5

+-----------------+
|r+.+r+k+|
|+.+.0pgp|
|bh.0.+p+|
|1.0Ph.G.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.H.+.).|
|P)QH.)B)|
|$.+.$.I.|
+-----------------+

A fairly typical Benko position: here the Rf8 must go to e8 not
b8.

16.Nb3 Bd3 17.Qc1 Qb4 18.Bh6 Bh8 19.Nd2 Nec4
20.Nxc4 Nxc4 21.a4 Qxb2 22.Qxb2 Nxb2 23.Rec1 Reb8 24.a5 Rb3 25.Bd2
Nc4 26.Be1 Na3
(cutting off the a-Pawn) 27.Bf1
Bxf1 28.Kxf1 Rxa5 29.Ra2 Ra7 30.f3 Nb5 31.Rxa7 Nxa7 32.Kg2 f5
0-1


Basman,M – Benjamin,J [B15], 1976
[MJB]

“Greatly under the influence of Chinese Chess, which is like
our chess but with fewer Pawns, I decided to try its methods out in
my own games.”The following encounter can be understood
strategically in this way: White saddles his opponent with as many
Pawns as possible so that they will hamper the action of the Black
pieces; meanwhile the White pieces, particularly the Rooks (alias
chariots), invade the position and deliver a knockout blow
.” –
MJB.

1.e4 g6 2.d4 c6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bg5 h6 5.Bf4 Bg7 6.Qd2
dxe4 7.0-0-0 Nf6 8.f3 exf3 9.Nxf3 g5 10.Be5 Bf5 11.h3 Nbd7 12.Qe1
Nb6 13.g4 Be6 14.Rg1 Qd7 15.d5 Nbxd5

  [15…cxd5 16.Bb5]

16.Nxd5 cxd5

  [16…Bxd5 17.c4]

17.Nd4 a6 18.h4 Bxg4 19.hxg5 hxg5

+-----------------+
|r+.+k+.4|
|+p+q0pg.|
|p+.+.h.+|
|+.+pG.0.|
|.+.H.+b+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P)P+.+.+|
|+.IR!B$.|
+-----------------+

20.Rd3! “The distinctive chariot
move
…”

20…Be6 21.Rb3 g4 22.Rb6 Rg8 23.Qb4 Bh6+
24.Kb1

+-----------------+
|r+.+k+r+|
|+p+q0p+.|
|p$.+bh.g|
|+.+pG.+.|
|.!.H.+p+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P)P+.+.+|
|+K+.+B$.|
+-----------------+

“It’s time to take stock of White’s strategy, which seems on
the brink of success
.” 24…a5??

  [24…Be3! 25.Rg3! (25.Rxb7 Bxg1 26.Rxd7 Bxd7 27.Bxf6
exf6)
25…Bxd4 26.Qxd4 Ne4 27.Rgb3 Ra7 28.Bxa6]

25.Qa3! Qd8 26.Bxf6 Rg6

  “Black has at last discovered how Rooks move, but
it’s too late
.”

  [26…exf6 27.Bb5+ Bd7 28.Re1+]

27.Bb5+ Bd7 28.Re1 Rxf6 29.Rxf6 Bd2
30.Rh1

+-----------------+
|r+.1k+.+|
|+p+b0p+.|
|.+.+.$.+|
|0B+p+.+.|
|.+.H.+p+|
|!.+.+.+.|
|P)Pg.+.+|
|+K+.+.+R|
+-----------------+

1-0


Pawn sacrifices for squares


Kopec – Staub [B30] Ivy league Team NJ
1973

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bd3 Nf6 4.Nc3 d5 5.e5 Nd7

+-----------------+
|r+b1kg.4|
|0p+n0p0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.0p).+.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.HB+N+.|
|P)P).)P)|
|$.GQI.+R|
+-----------------+

6.e6 fxe6 7.Ng5 Nf6 8.Bxh7 Nxh7 9.Qh5+ Kd7 10.Nxh7 Kc7
11.d4!

+-----------------+
|r+b1.g.4|
|0pi.0.0N|
|.+n+p+.+|
|+.0p+.+Q|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.H.+.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$.G.I.+R|
+-----------------+

“Maintaining a grip on e5, if only by tactical means, is
important in demonstrating Black’s problems
.” – DK

11…b6 12.Bf4+ Kb7 13.Qg6

  “and Black was all bound up.”


Kotov – Gligoric,Z [E87], 1953

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 e5 7.d5
c5 8.Bd3 Nh5 9.Nge2 f5 10.exf5 gxf5 11.Qc2

+-----------------+
|rhb1.4k+|
|0p+.+.gp|
|.+.0.+.+|
|+.0P0p+n|
|.+P+.+.+|
|+.HBGP+.|
|P)Q+N+P)|
|$.+.I.+R|
+-----------------+

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

11…e4

  Startling!

12.fxe4 f4 (the point) 13.Bf2
Nd7 14.Ng1 Qg5 15.Bf1 Ne5

+-----------------+
|r+b+.4k+|
|0p+.+.gp|
|.+.0.+.+|
|+.0Ph.1n|
|.+P+P0.+|
|+.H.+.+.|
|P)Q+.GP)|
|$.+.IBHR|
+-----------------+

…when Black’s coup has yielded a stranglehold over the Black
squares. White is struggling to draw… two Pawns up!

  16.Nf3 Qe7 17.Nxe5 Qxe5 18.0-0-0 Nf6 19.h3 Bd7
20.Bd3 a6 21.Nb1 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 35.Nd3 Bd4 36.h5 Qh4 37.Bg2 Rg8
38.Rh1 Qg3 39.Bf1 a4 40.Kc2 a3 41.b3 1/2-1/2


Pawn sacrifices for activity in WC
matches


Karpov,A (2705) – Kasparov,G (2715) [D53]
Wch31-KK1 Moscow (19), 1984

1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bxf6 Bxf6
7.Qd2 Nc6 8.e3 0-0 9.Rc1 a6 10.Be2 dxc4 11.Bxc4 e5 12.d5 Na7
13.Qc2

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|hp0.+p0.|
|p+.+.g.0|
|+.+P0.+.|
|.+B+.+.+|
|+.H.)N+.|
|P)Q+.)P)|
|+.$.I.+R|
+-----------------+

13…Nb5!?

  “A typical Kasparov decision, offering a Pawn to try
and free his position
.” – Speelman/Tisdall.

[13…Bd7; 13…c6? 14.dxc6 Nxc6+/-]

14.Nxb5 axb5 15.Bb3 e4 16.Nd4 Bxd4 17.exd4 c6
18.dxc6 Qxd4 19.0-0 bxc6 20.Qxc6 Bd7 21.Qd5 Qxd5 22.Bxd5 Ra6
23.Rfd1 Be6 24.a3 Bxd5 25.Rxd5 Rb8 26.Rd4 Ra4 27.Rcd1 Rc8 28.Kf1
Rc2 29.R4d2 Rxd2 30.Rxd2 Rc4 31.Ke2 b4 32.Kd1 bxa3 33.bxa3 Ra4
34.Ra2 f5 35.Kc2 f4 36.Kb3 Rd4 37.Ra1 Kf7 38.a4 e3 39.Kc3 Rd8
40.fxe3 fxe3 41.Re1 Ra8 42.Kb3 Rb8+ 43.Kc2 Ra8 44.Rf1+ Ke6
1/2-1/2


Kasparov,G (2715) – Karpov,A (2705) [A33]
Wch31-KK1 Moscow (26), 1984

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 e6 6.g3 Qb6
7.Nb3 d5 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Bg2 Nxc3 10.bxc3 Be7 11.0-0 e5 12.Be3 Qc7
13.Nc5 0-0 14.Qa4 Bxc5 15.Bxc5 Rd8 16.Rfd1 Be6

+-----------------+
|r+.4.+k+|
|0p1.+p0p|
|.+n+b+.+|
|+.G.0.+.|
|Q+.+.+.+|
|+.).+.).|
|P+.+P)B)|
|$.+R+.I.|
+-----------------+

17.h3! Rxd1+!?

  “Karpov surrenders a Pawn but is able to emerge with
excellent compensation
.” – SPEELMAN/TISDALL

18.Rxd1 Rd8 19.Rxd8+ Qxd8 20.Bxa7 Qa8 21.Bxc6
bxc6 22.Kh2 h5 23.Qa5 f6 1/2-1/2


Karpov,A (2720) – Kasparov,G (2700) [B85]
Wch32-KK2 Moscow (10), 1985

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 e6
7.0-0 Be7 8.f4 0-0 9.Kh1 Qc7 10.a4 Nc6 11.Be3 Re8 12.Bg1 Rb8 13.Qd2
e5 14.Nb3 Na5 15.Nxa5 Qxa5 16.Ba7 Ra8 17.Be3 Qb4

+-----------------+
|r+b+r+k+|
|+p+.gp0p|
|p+.0.h.+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|P1.+P).+|
|+.H.G.+.|
|.)P!B+P)|
|$.+.+R+K|
+-----------------+

What’s Black up to here?

[17…Rb8; 17…exf4 18.Rxf4 Be6]

18.Qd3 Be6 19.f5 Bd7 20.Ra3 Qa5 21.Rb3 b5!
22.axb5 axb5 23.Nxb5 Bc6 24.Bf3 Rab8 25.c4 Qa8!

+-----------------+
|q4.+r+k+|
|+.+.gp0p|
|.+b0.h.+|
|+N+.0P+.|
|.+P+P+.+|
|+R+QGB+.|
|.).+.+P)|
|+.+.+R+K|
+-----------------+

One of the points of the whole sequence. Black recovers his Pawn
and some central influence.

26.Bg5 Bxe4 27.Bxe4 Nxe4 28.Bxe7 Rxe7 29.Ra3 Qc6
30.b4 h5

[or 30…h6 when Black may even be better]

31.Na7 Rxa7 32.Rxa7 Rxb4 33.Qf3 Rxc4 34.Qxh5 Nf2+
35.Kg1 Nh3+ 36.Kh1 Nf2+ 37.Kg1 1/2-1/2


Karpov,A (2705) – Kasparov,G (2715) [D58]
Wch31-KK1 Moscow (31), 1984

1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3
b6 8.Rc1 Bb7 9.Be2 Nbd7 10.cxd5 exd5 11.0-0 c5 12.Qa4 a6 13.dxc5
bxc5 14.Rfd1 Qb6 15.Qb3 Qa7 16.Bg3 Rad8 17.Ne1

+-----------------+
|.+.4.4k+|
|1b+ngp0.|
|p+.+.h.0|
|+.0p+.+.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+QH.).G.|
|P).+B)P)|
|+.$RH.I.|
+-----------------+

17…d4

  “Unwilling to await a further intensification of the
pressure by 18. Bf3, Kasparov unleashes a tide of murky
complications
.” – SPEELMAN/TISDALL

18.exd4 cxd4 19.Na4 Rc8 20.Rxc8 Rxc8 21.Bc4 Rf8
22.Qd3! Bc6! 23.Bb3 Ne4! 24.Qxd4 Qb7! 25.Bd5! Ndf6 26.Bxc6
Qxc6

+-----------------+
|.+.+.4k+|
|+.+.gp0.|
|p+q+.h.0|
|+.+.+.+.|
|N+.!n+.+|
|+.+.+.G.|
|P).+.)P)|
|+.+RH.I.|
+-----------------+

“So Karpov has won a Pawn. Black has reasonable if amorphous
compensation in the excellent centralisation of his forces, and
with time trouble approaching this is not to be
underestimated
.” – SPEELMAN/TISDALL

27.b3 Re8 28.Qd3?! h5! 29.Qc4 Qb7 30.Nf3 Rc8
31.Qe2 Ng4 32.Ne5 Nxg3 33.hxg3 Qb5! 34.Nc4 Bf6 35.Nab6
Re8

+-----------------+
|.+.+r+k+|
|+.+.+p0.|
|pH.+.g.+|
|+q+.+.+p|
|.+N+.+n+|
|+P+.+.).|
|P+.+Q)P+|
|+.+R+.I.|
+-----------------+

A time trouble draw. 1/2-1/2


Kasparov,G (2715) – Karpov,A (2705) [C42]
Wch31-KK1 Moscow (28), 1984

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Nc6
7.0-0 Bg4 8.Re1 Be7 9.c4 Nf6 10.cxd5 Bxf3 11.Qxf3 Qxd5 12.Qh3!?
Nxd4! 13.Nc3 Qd7 14.Qxd7+ Kxd7 15.Be3 Ne6

+-----------------+
|r+.+.+.4|
|0p0kgp0p|
|.+.+nh.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.HBG.+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$.+.$.I.|
+-----------------+

“For his Pawn, White has the two Bishops and a significant lead
in development. Chances are even
.” – SPEELMAN/TISDALL

16.Rad1 Bd6 17.Bf5 Ke7 18.Nb5 Rhd8 19.Nxd6 cxd6
20.h3 b6 21.g4 h6 22.Bd4 Rac8 23.Bc3 g6 24.Bc2 h5 25.f3
1/2-1/2


Kasparov,G (2700) – Karpov,A (2720) [E20]
Wch32-KK2 Moscow (13), 1985

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 c5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Ne4
7.Bd2 Bxc3 8.bxc3 0-0 9.0-0 f5!

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|0p+p+.0p|
|.+n+p+.+|
|+.0.+p+.|
|.+P)n+.+|
|+.).+N).|
|P+.GP)B)|
|$.+Q+RI.|
+-----------------+

10.Be3!

  “An excellent move found after [34m] thought. White
must gambit the Pawn to stay active
.” – KEENE

10…Nxc3 11.Qd3 cxd4 12.Nxd4 Ne4 13.c5 Nxd4
14.Bxd4 b6 15.Bxe4 fxe4 16.Qxe4 Ba6 17.cxb6 axb6 18.Qe5 Qf6 19.Qe3
Qh6 20.Qxh6 gxh6 21.Rfe1 Bc4 22.a3 b5 23.Rad1 Rf5 24.Bb2 Rd5
1/2-1/2


Karpov,A (2700) – Kasparov,G (2740) [D88]
Wch34-KK4 Sevilla (9), 1987

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7
7.Bc4 c5 8.Ne2 Nc6 9.Be3 0-0 10.0-0 Bg4 11.f3 Na5 12.Bxf7+ Rxf7
13.fxg4 Rxf1+ 14.Kxf1 cxd4 15.cxd4 Qb6 16.Kg1 Qe6 17.Qd3 Qxg4
18.Rf1 Rc8 19.h3 Qd7 20.d5 Nc4 21.Bd4 e5 22.dxe6 Qxe6 23.Bxg7 Kxg7
24.Nf4 Qd6 25.Qc3+ Kh6 26.Nd5 Qe5 27.Qd3 Kg7 28.Nf6 Qd6 29.Qc3 Qe5
30.Qd3 Qd6 31.Qc3 Qe5 32.Qb3 Rc7 33.Qd3 Rf7 34.Qxc4 Rxf6 35.Rd1 b5
36.Rd7+ Kh6 37.Qe2 Qc5+ 38.Kh2 Qe5+ 39.g3 Qc3 40.Kg2 Qc4 41.Qe3+ g5
42.Rd2 Qf1+ 43.Kh2 Qf3 44.Qd4 Re6 45.e5 Qf5 46.Re2

+-----------------+
|.+.+.+.+|
|0.+.+.+p|
|.+.+r+.i|
|+p+.)q0.|
|.+.!.+.+|
|+.+.+.)P|
|P+.+R+.I|
|+.+.+.+.|
+-----------------+

46…a5!

  “An outstanding method of active defence.” –
KEENE.

47.Qd5 b4 48.Qxa5 Qd3 49.Rg2 Qd4 50.Qa8 Qxe5
51.Qf8+ Kg6 52.Qxb4 h5 53.h4 gxh4 54.Qxh4 Rd6 55.Qc4 Rd4 56.Qc6+
Kg7 57.Qb7+ Kh6 58.Qc6+ Kg7 59.Rc2 Rh4+ 60.Kg2 Qe4+ 61.Qxe4 Rxe4
62.Rc7+ Kg6 63.Ra7 Re3 64.Kh3 Rc3 65.Ra8 Rc4 66.a4 Kg5 67.a5 Ra4
68.a6 Kh6 69.Kg2 Ra3 70.Kf2 Kg7 1/2-1/2

An ABC of chess

Here’s a mental
toolkit for the improving chess player.

I think that for each of these elements there are
different levels of understanding e.g. bad Bishop

1) I’ve heard of it!

2) I know what it is and could explain it to a
junior.

3) I understand enough to make use of the idea
in a game.

4) I never fail to notice the feature in a game, and
rarely (if ever) make a bad choice of plan based on
it.

I suspect we’re all OK at (1) but aren’t all at (4) yet.
(3) is a fair goal.

KLM of chess
tactics

K – knight
forks

“He jumps so terribly” – Dick van Geet’s
tiny son

-------------------
|r+b+k+-r|
|ppp-ppb-|
|-n-+-+pp|
|+-+-P-+n|
|-+-+-P-B|
|+-N-+-+N|
|PPP+-+PP|
|+-KR+B+R|
-------------------

(Fuller – Sakurai,Haifa [B07], 1976) 1.e4 d6
2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.f4 h6 6.Bh4 Bg7 7.e5 Nh5 8.Nh3
dxe5 9.dxe5 Nb6 10.Qxd8+ Kxd8 11.0-0-0+ Ke8
DIAGRAM
12.Nb5 1-0 The last rank is also vulnerable,
making the fork unstoppable.

L – last
rank

“Feet of clay…”

-------------------
|-+r+r+k+|
|+p+q+ppp|
|-+-p-b-+|
|p-+P+-+-|
|-+-Q-+-+|
|+-+-+N+-|
|PP-+RPPP|
|+-+-R-K-|
-------------------

(Adams-Torre): 18.Qg4 Qb5 19.Qc4 Qd7 20.Qc7 Qb5
21.a4 Qxa4 22.Re4 Qb5 23.Qxb7 1-0
A striking display
which has the appearance of a study.

M – mating
pattern

“The game is won by the player who has
checkmated his opponent’s king.
” – FIDE rules

-------------------
|r+b+-rk+|
|p-qn+p+p|
|-+pbp+p+|
|+-ppN-+-|
|-+-+-P-+|
|+P+-P-+R|
|PBPP-+PP|
|RN+Q+-K-|
-------------------

(Plachetka – Zinn, Decin [A04] 1974) 1.Nf3 c5
2.b3 Nf6 3.Bb2 Nc6 4.e3 d5 5.Bb5 e6 6.Ne5 Qc7 7.0-0 Bd6 8.Bxc6+
bxc6 9.f4 0-0 10.Rf3 Nd7 11.Rh3 g6
DIAGRAM
12.Qh5 1-0

N – network nobbled
(Nterference)

“Parting is such sweet sorrow” –
Shakespeare

-------------------
|rnbqk+-r|
|pp+-ppbp|
|-+-+-+p+|
|+-+-P-+-|
|-+-N-+n+|
|+-N-+-+-|
|PPP+-+PP|
|R-BQKB+R|
-------------------

(Crotto – Hindle,Haifa [B71] 1976) 1.e4 c5
2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.f4 Bg7 7.e5 dxe5
8.fxe5 Ng4
DIAGRAM 9.Bb5+ Bd7? 10.Qxg4 …
1-0

O –
overloading

“The straw that broke the camel’s
back
” – Proverbial

-------------------
|r+-+-rk+|
|+-+n+ppp|
|pp-+-+-+|
|+-+-p-q-|
|P+B+Q+-+|
|+-+-+-+-|
|-PP+-+PP|
|R-+-+RK-|
-------------------

17.Rxf7 Kh8 18.Rxd7 1-0

P – pins

“The
pin is mightier than the sword
” – Reinfeld

-------------------
|-+rk-+-+|
|p-rqn-p-|
|P+n+p+-p|
|+-+pPp+-|
|BP-P-P-P|
|+-R-+N+-|
|-+R+-+P+|
|+-Q-+-K-|
-------------------

(Alekhin – Nimzovitch,San Remo [C17] 1930)
30…Qe8 31.b5 1-0

Q –
queening

“Every Pawn is a potential Queen” –
Mason

-------------------
|r+bqkbnr|
|pp+-+ppp|
|-+p+p+n+|
|+B+P+-+-|
|-+-QN+-+|
|+-+-+-+-|
|PPP+-PPP|
|R-B-K-NR|
-------------------

1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.d5 Ne5 5.Qd4 Ng6
6.Nxe4 e6? 7.Bb5+ c6
DIAGRAM 8.dxc6 Qxd4
9.cxb7+ Kd8 10.bxa8Q 1-0

R –
retreat

“What is immobile must suffer
violence
” – Lasker

-------------------
|r+-qkbnr|
|+-+b+ppp|
|p+-p-+-+|
|+p+Q+-+-|
|-+p+P+-+|
|+B+-+-+-|
|PPP+-PPP|
|RNB-K-+R|
-------------------

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 d6 5.d4 b5
6.Bb3 exd4 7.Nxd4 Nxd4 8.Qxd4? c5 9.Qd5 Be6 10.Qc6+ Bd7 11.Qd5
c4 0-1
The Noah’s Ark trap.

S – sacrifice at castle
gates

“Examine moves that smite!” – Purdy

-------------------
|r+-q-rk+|
|p-p-npp-|
|-pn+b+-p|
|+-+pP-+-|
|-+-P-B-+|
|+-PB+N+-|
|P+PQ-+PP|
|+R+-+RK-|
-------------------

(Blackburne – Blanchard (London) [C30],
1891)

1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Nf3 exf4 ? 5.d4 Bb4
6.Bxf4 d5 7.e5 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3

Be6 9.Bd3 h6 10.0-0
Nge7 11.Rb1 b6 12.Qd2 0-0 DIAGRAM13.Bxh6! gxh6 14.Qxh6
Ng6 15.Ng5 Re8 16.Rxf7 Bxf7 17.Qh7+ Kf8 18.Qxf7# 1-0

T – two for the price of
one

“All combinations are based on a double
attack
” – Fine

-------------------
|r+-qk+-r|
|p-+p+ppp|
|-pbbp+-+|
|+-+-+-+n|
|-+P+P+-+|
|P-N-B-+-|
|-PQ+-PPP|
|R-+-KB+R|
-------------------

(Christiansen – Karpov,1993 [E12]) 1.d4 Nf6
2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.a3 Ba6 5.Qc2 Bb7 6.Nc3 c5 7.e4 cxd4 8.Nxd4
Nc6 9.Nxc6 Bxc6 10.Bf4 Nh5 11.Be3 Bd6
DIAGRAM
12.Qd1 1-0

U – undermining (removing
the guard)

“For the want of a horse a rider was
lost…
” – Franklin.

-------------------
|r+bqr+k+|
|pp+-+ppp|
|-+-+-b-+|
|+-+p+-+-|
|-+-+-+-+|
|+-NQPN+-|
|PP-+-PPP|
|R-+-K-+R|
-------------------

(Legueltel – Studev,Kuortane [D60] 1976) 1.d4
d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Nf3 0-0 7.cxd5 exd5
8.Bd3 Re8 9.Qc2 c5 10.dxc5 Nxc5 11.Bxf6 Nxd3+ 12.Qxd3
Bxf6
DIAGRAM 13.Qxd5?? 13…Bxc3+ 0-1

U2 – unmasking
(discovery)

“Behind you!”

-------------------
|rn-q-rk+|
|pbpp+ppp|
|-p-+p+-+|
|+-+-+-+-|
|-+PPn+-+|
|+-N-+NP-|
|PPQ+PPBP|
|R-+-K-+R|
-------------------

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Bb4+
6.Bd2 Bxd2+ 7.Qxd2 0-0 8.Nc3 Ne4 9.Qc2!
DIAGRAM
9…Nxc3 10.Ng5! Ne4 11.Bxe4 Bxe4 12.Qxe4 Qxg5 13.Qxa8
1-0

V – vulnerable
f7

“The Achilles’ Heel of a chess position…”

-------------------
|rnbqk+nr|
|ppppbppp|
|-+-+-+-+|
|+-+-p-+-|
|-+B+P+-+|
|+-+-+-+-|
|PPPP-PPP|
|RNBQK-NR|
-------------------

(Paul Roberts – NN [C23] East Devon, 1996) 1.e4
e5 2.Bc4 Be7 3.Qh5 … 1-0

W – weakening
King’s-side

“Castles built of sand…”

-------------------
|-+r+r+k+|
|p-pbqppp|
|-p-+pn-+|
|+-+-+-B-|
|-+-P-+-+|
|+-+B+Q+-|
|PPP+-PPP|
|R-+-R-K-|
-------------------

(Tarrasch – Mieses (3) [C10] (Berlin m.), 1916)
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Nf3 Ngf6 6.Bd3 Be7
7.0-0 Nxe4 8.Bxe4 Nf6 9.Bd3 b6 10.Ne5 0-0 11.Nc6 Qd6 12.Qf3 Bd7
13.Nxe7+ Qxe7 14.Bg5 Rac8 15.Rfe1 Rfe8
DIAGRAM
16.Qh3 Qd6 17.Bxf6 gxf6 18.Qh6 f5? 19.Re3 Qxd4 20.c3
1-0

X – X-ray
(skewer)

“Stap me vitals…”

-+-+-+d+
+-+-+-X-
-+j+-+-X
R-+-+-+b
x+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+p+-+p+
+-K-+-+-

Skewer frenzy in a Rinck study: 1.Ra8! Qa2! 2.
Rxa4! Qg8! 3. Ra8 Qh7 4. Bg6! 1-0

Y – your move! (defensive
play)

“A man does not die of threats” –
Proverb

-------------------
|rnb+-r-k|
|pp+-p-bp|
|-+pp-np+|
|q-+P+p+-|
|-+P+-+-+|
|+PN-+NP-|
|PB-+PPBP|
|R-+Q+RK-|
-------------------

(Robatsch – Jansa,Sochi [A10] 1974) 1.c4 f5
2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.b3 Bg7 5.Bb2 0-0 6.Bg2 d6 7.d4 c6 8.0-0 Kh8
[8…Qc7] 9.d5 Qa5 10.Nc3
DIAGRAM 10…Nxd5?
11.cxd5 Bxc3 12.Qd2 Qxd5 13.Qxc3+ e5 14.Nxe5 1-0

Z –
Zwischenzug

“When you see a good move, stop – there
may be a better one
” – Lasker

-------------------
|r+bq-rk+|
|pp+-ppbp|
|-+np-np+|
|+-+-+-+-|
|-+PNP+-+|
|+-N-B-+-|
|PP-+BPPP|
|R-+Q+RK-|
-------------------

(Spassov – Kritiansen, Kringsja [E91], 1976)
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.d4 0-0 6.Be2 c5 7.0-0
cxd4 8.Nxd4 Nc6 9.Be3
DIAGRAM9…Ng4 10.Bxg4
Bxg4
(10.Qxg4 Nxd4) 11.Nxc6 Qd7
12.Nxe7+ Kh8 13.f3 1-0


ABC of chess
strategy

A –
activity

“The most important feature of the
position
” – Stean

-------------------
|r+-r-+k+|
|+-Rb+ppp|
|p+-+pn-+|
|+p+-N-+-|
|-+-PP+-+|
|+-+BK-+-|
|P+-+-PPP|
|+R+-+-+-|
-------------------

(Rubinstein-Schlechter, San Sebastian
1912)
: White’s active pieces give him the advantage.

B – better pieces – bad
bishop bishop vs knight, offside piece,
coordination

“Quality, not quantity”

-------------------
|-r-+-k-+|
|+-rb+pp-|
|p+-N-+-p|
|+p+pPP+-|
|-PpP-+PP|
|P-+-K-+-|
|-+-+-R-+|
|+-R-+-+-|
-------------------

Tarrasch – Noa [c11] Hamburg, 1885

White’s great Knight and Black’s dismal Bishop are the key
to this position. 38.g5 h5 39.Rcf1 Kg8 40.g6 f6 41.Re2
Bc6 42.Rfe1 Rd8 43.Kf4 fxe5+ 44.Rxe5 Kf8 45.Nf7 Re8 46.Ng5 Rce7
47.Nh7+ 1-0

C – centre and
space

“I’m the King of the castle…”

-------------------
|r+-q-+k+|
|+p+-+r+n|
|n+-+-+pb|
|+-PNNp+-|
|p+BBP+-p|
|P-+-+-p-|
|-R-+-+-P|
|+-+Q+-K-|
-------------------

(Georgadze-Kupreichik, 1979)An
extraordinary piece of centralisation: despite the exchange
less, and the King’s-side attack, White soon won.

D –
development

“The early bird catches the King!”

-------------------
|rn-+kb-r|
|pp+-+ppp|
|-+p+-+-+|
|+-npq-+-|
|-+-+-+-+|
|+-N-BQP-|
|PPP+-+-P|
|+-KR+B+R|
-------------------

(Spielmann – Flamberg, Mannheim [C29], 1914)
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5 4.fxe5 Nxe4 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.Qe2 6…Nc5
?
[6…Nxc3] 7.d4 Bxf3 8.Qxf3 Qh4+
9.g3 Qxd4 10.Be3 Qxe5 11.0-0-0 c6
DIAGRAM Black is
fighting with only half the army. Sortez les
pieces!
12. Nxd5 cxd5 13.Rxd5 Qe6 14.Bc4 Qe4
15.Bxc5 1-0

E –
exchanges

“Fair exchange is no robbery”

-------------------
|r+-+-rk+|
|+-+-bppp|
|p+-+bn-+|
|+-+p+-+-|
|N+-+-+-+|
|+-+BB-+-|
|PP-+-PPP|
|R-+-R-K-|
-------------------

(Fischer-Petrosian, seventh match game 1971)
16. Bc5!
Not an easy one to spot, but once seen, easy
to appreciate: White removes the defender of the dark squares,
leaving Black with a crummy light-squared Bishop.

F – files, ranks,
diagonals (lines)

“Let a Lord once own the happy
lines, How the wit brightens!
” – Pope

-------------------
|-+-r-+k+|
|p-+-+rpp|
|-b-+-P-+|
|n-pqpP+-|
|-p-+-+-+|
|+-+B+NR-|
|P+-Q-P-P|
|+-+-+-RK|
-------------------

(Anderssen-Zukertort, Barmen 1869):
the file

-------------------
|r+-+k+-+|
|+R+-+R+-|
|p+-r-+p+|
|+-+-+p+-|
|-PBp-n-p|
|+-+-+-+-|
|P+-K-+PP|
|+-+-+-+-|
-------------------

(Fischer-Petrosian, seventh match game,
1971)
: the rank

-------------------
|-+-rrn-+|
|+pp-nqkp|
|-+-+bpp+|
|p-N-p-P-|
|-+-+-+-+|
|PP+PP-R-|
|-BQ+BP-P|
|+-+-+-RK|
-------------------

(Fischer-Anderssen, Siegen 1970): the
diagonal

G – good and bad
pawns

“Pawns are the soul of chess” – Philidor

-------------------
|-+r+-+k+|
|+p+-+p+p|
|-pn+-q-+|
|+N+p+p+-|
|-+-+-+-+|
|P-+-Q-+P|
|-P-+-PP+|
|+-R-+-K-|
-------------------

(Deep Blue-Kasparov, m1 1996): just
hideous: every Black Pawn is isolated and most doubled! Black
tried a King’s-side hack but it was desparation and he knew it.

H – holes and weak
complexes

“Perils of both wind and limb” –
Butler

-------------------
|r+-+b+r+|
|+-k-+-+-|
|-+p+p+p+|
|p-BpK-Rp|
|P+-+-P-+|
|+P+-+-+-|
|-+P+-+PP|
|+-+-R-+-|
-------------------

(Bernstein-Mieses, 1921) – That is, perils of
both the dark-square holes and the backward Pawns on White
squares.

I – initiative,
tempo

“”Thou shalt not shilly-shally!” – Nimzo

-------------------
|r+bqk+-r|
|pppp+ppp|
|-+nb-+-+|
|+-+-+-+-|
|P+-+-+-+|
|+-+-+N+-|
|-PP+-PPP|
|RNBQ+RK-|
-------------------

(Alekhin-Poindle (simul.), 1936)
9.Ng5!
White plays the one move that stops Black
getting on with normal development.

J – jumping-off points
(outposts)

“Give me a place to stand, and I will
move the Earth
” – Archimedes

-------------------
|r+-q-rk+|
|+-p-+ppp|
|p+-p-+-+|
|+-+-p-+-|
|PPQnPn-+|
|+-+P+P+-|
|-P-+-P-P|
|RN+B+R+K|
-------------------

(Pegaroro-Scheipel)The Knights are
worth a Rook each, I reckon!


This is a list long enough to get you started comfortably.
There are a few other ideas, like “coordination”, which you may
come to later, and through Nimzovitch we learn about themes
like “overprotection” and “prophylaxis”.

Passed Pawn pandemonium

Studies:

A familiar breakthrough:

Chess Choice Challenge

{Our analysis ran:}
1. Nxh7 ( 1. h5 Kxf4 ( 1… gxh5 2. Nxh7 Nxh7 ( 2… Ng6 ) 3. g6 ) 2. Nxh7 Nxh7 3. hxg6 ) 1… Nxh7 2. f5 ( 2. h5 Nf8 3. f5 ) 2… Nf8 ( 2… exf5 3. e6 ) ( 2… gxf5 3. g6 ) 3. h5 ( 3. fxg6 Nxg6 4. h5 Ne7 5. g6 ( 5. h6 Ng6 ) 5… Ng8 ) 3… exf5 ( 3… gxf5 4. g6 ) ( 3… gxh5 4. g6 ) 4. h6 ( 4. e6 Nxe6 5. h6 Nf8 ) 4… f4 5. e6 Nxe6 6. h7 f3 7. h8=Q f2 8. Qh3+ ( 8. Qe5+ Kf3 ) 8… Kd2 ( 8… Ke2 9. Qxe6+ ) 9. Qf3 ( 9. Qf1 Ke3 10. Kc2 Nxg5 11. Kd1 ) ( 9. Qg2 Ke1 )
{The book gives h7 first, queening on e8 with check}

Staunton’s exercise:

I had a fairly amusing evening being beaten up by Simon in this position. Try it!

Click […] to see list of games

Capablanca: Master of Attack

Peter Lane, 23 March 1998

“…go back a quarter of a century and look for the
culmination of the art of the attack on the king in the play of
Alekhin and Capablanca”

— Vladimir VUKOVIC, The Art of Attack in
Chess
(1965).

  Alekhin’s attacking prowess is well known, but what
about Capablanca’s? Here, to redress the balance, are some examples
from Capablanca. The first two games show a surprise knock-out from
what may look a fairly balanced position, and a shock sacrifice
leading to an overwhelming positional bind. The last two games show
sustained attacking play, with sacrifices to open up the king,
relying on relative piece mobility to force the checkmate. All the
games are taken from The Unknown Capablanca by
Hooper and Brandreth (H&B) — notes are based on their
comments.

 


84) Capablanca,J – Funaroff,M [C66]

  New York, 17.06.1918

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 d6

  The Scotch opening aims for open play, and black’s
attempt to keep the game closed can only be a temporary
measure.

4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Bb5 Bd7 6.0-0 Be7 7.Re1
exd4

  This move is now forced — after white’s defense of his
e-pawn he is threatening Bxc6 Bxc6: dxe5. The pressure on e5 is a
recurring theme in e-pawn openings.

8.Nxd4 Nxd4

  Trying to simplify, but encouraging white’s better
centralisation. Best is 8… O-O.

9.Qxd4 Bxb5 10.Nxb5 0-0 11.Qc3

  “Instead of applying the old principle of developing
his pieces as quickly as possible
” RETI — Capablanca puts
each piece to optimum effect. Thinking about the position we might
be attracted by a ‘mate on g7: the N is bound for f5, and the Q for
g3. Subtle …

11…c6

  This move weakens d6 and encourages the Nb5 to move as
planned. Maybe …Ne8 with …Bf6, but white maintains a space
advantage.

12.Nd4 Nd7 13.Nf5 Bf6 14.Qg3 Ne5 15.Bf4 Qc7
16.Rad1 Rad8

+-----------------+
|.+.4.4k+|
|0p1.+p0p|
|.+p0.g.+|
|+.+.hN+.|
|.+.+PG.+|
|+.+.+.!.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|+.+R$.I.|
+-----------------+
“Playing on the basis of a spatial advantage is in a sense a
question of blind faith.
” STEAN

  White’s pieces exert maximum impact, but it is hard to
see how this could be increased. Indeed, black’s only weakness is
at d6 — put the c-pawn back to c7 and all is perfect — but who
would dream of a decisive combination in this position? The key is
the inter-relation of g3, f5 and e5 with d6 and g7. Even when you
know, the next move is stunning.

17.Rxd6

  “As usual, tactics flow from a positionally superior
game.
” FISCHER

17…Rxd6 18.Bxe5

  The bishop strikes through to c7 and g7 — note now white
has taken over black’s e5 strong-point.

18…Rd1

  A spirited counterblow. 18…Bxe5 19. Qxe5 with ‘mate on
g7 or an extra piece after Qxd6. 18…Qa5 was best, when 19. f4
Bxe5 20.fxe5 Rg6 21.Ne7+ leaves white an extra pawn, but many
problems in converting it.

19.Rxd1 Bxe5

  And now white moves his queen, and either h2 or b2 falls,
with equality… Not likely!

20.Nh6+ Kh8 21.Qxe5 Qxe5 22.Nxf7+

  A beautifully clear theme: back-rank ‘mate.

1-0

 

 


85) Capablanca,J – Chase,A [C33]

  New York, 23.02.1922

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Qf3

  Surely the queen is in the way here?

3…Nc6 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 d5 6.e5 Ne4 7.Bxf4 g5 8.Be3
h5

+-----------------+
|r+b1kg.4|
|0p0.+p+.|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p).0p|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.).GQ+.|
|P).+.+P)|
|$N+.IBHR|
+-----------------+
“The one inconvenient feature of this position is the awkward
situation of his queen in the centre of the board. This can be
easily removed, if the queen is sacrificed.
” TAL

  I wonder whether Tal would say the same about this
position?

9.Nd2

  “Is that sound?” CHERNEV

  “Wait and see.” JRC

9…Bg4 10.Nxe4 Bxf3 11.Nf6+ Ke7 12.Nxf3 Bh6
13.Nxg5 Bg7 14.Bd3 Bxf6 15.0-0

  White’s position is quite secure, with pressure on the
f-file. If now 15…Bxe5 16.Nxf7 with a winning attack.

15…Qg8 16.Rxf6 Rf8 17.Raf1 Nd8

  Black’s pieces are powerless. White begins a Q-side
break.

18.b4 Qg7 19.h4 Ke8 20.b5 b6 21.Be2 Ne6 22.Bf3
Nxg5 23.Bxg5 Qh7 24.Bxd5 Qd3 25.Bc6+

  If 25…Ke7/d8 26.Rxf7+ Kc8 27.Rxf8+ Rxf8 28.Rxf8
‘mate.

1-0

 

 


83) Capablanca,J – Anon [D37]

  New York, 11.01.1916

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 Bd6

  This bishop is mis-placed, better 4…Be7

5.Bg5 c6 6.e3 0-0 7.Rc1 dxc4 8.Bxc4 Nbd7 9.Bd3
Be7

  If 9…e5 10.Ne4, see move 4!

10.0-0 b6 11.Qc2 Bb7 12.Ne5 g6

  White threatened Nxd7 Qxd7: Bxf6 Bxf6: Bxh7+, but 12…h6
looks less weakening.

13.Bh6 Re8 14.Rfd1

  Capablanca loves piece play: 14.f4-f5 looks strong.

14…Nxe5 15.dxe5 Nd5 16.Nxd5 exd5

+-----------------+
|r+.1r+k+|
|0b+.gp+p|
|.0p+.+pG|
|+.+p).+.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+B).+.|
|P)Q+.)P)|
|+.$R+.I.|
+-----------------+
Not 16…cxd5 17.Bb5 winning the exchange. White is well
centralised, looking at some holes on black’s K- and Q- sides. The
dark squares around the black king look especially tender, but how
to get at them? Here we see the pre-conditions for an attack, and
can now watch Capablanca exploit them.

17.e6 f5

  Avoiding 17…fxe6 18.Bxg6 hxg6 19.Qxg6+ Kh8 20.Qg7
‘mate.

18.Bxf5 gxf5 19.Qxf5 Bf6

  Averting the threat of Qg4/f7+ – g7 ‘mate.

20.e4 Qe7 21.exd5 cxd5

  Perhaps 21…Rac8 is sounder, when white has compensation
for the piece, e.g.22.Rc4 cxd5 23.Rf4 Bxb2 24.Qg4+ Kh8 25.Rf7 Qxe6
26.Rf8+ Rxf8 27. Qxe6. White’s next move is not too obvious —
forcing black to surrender his dark-square control.

22.Rc7 Qxc7 23.Qxf6

+-----------------+
|r+.+r+k+|
|0b1.+.+p|
|.0.+P!.G|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|+.+R+.I.|
+-----------------+
In this game we have a `real’ rook sacrifice, i.e. there is no
forced sequence leading to ‘mate, and so the evaluation depends on
our feel for combinations. They say two connected passed pawns on
the 6th are worth a rook, and I think one on the 6th is worth an
out-of-play piece!

23…Qe7

  Most natural. H&B give 23…Re7 24.Rd3 Rg7 25.Rc3
(25.Bxg7?? Qc1 and ‘mate!) Rxg2+ 26.Kxg2 d4+ 27.f3 dxc3 28.e7 and
wins, e.g. 28…Bxf3+ 29.Kxf3 Qb7+ 30.Kf2 with Qf8+.

  Tarrasch claimed the sacrifices as unsound due to:
23…Rac8 but then 24.Qg5+ Kh8 25.Re1! (Qf6+ draws for the nervous)
when a) 25…Re7 26.Qf6+ Kg8 27.Bf4 and b) 25…Qe7 26.Qe5+ Kg8
27.f4 each give white a strong attack. Worth a rook? Think about
f4-f5-f6.

24.Qe5 Rf8 25.Rd3 Qf6 26.Rg3+ Kh8
27.Bg7+

  Brilliant — and part of a 32-board simultaneous
display!

1-0

 


Capablanca,J – Stahr,J [D05]

  Chicago, 26.03.1915

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3 c5
5.c3

  “For his less serious encounters Capablanca often
played this opening. It was later invented by Colle.
”
B&H

  White plans Nbd2:O-O:Qe2 and e4. The delayed punch in the
centre often causes Black problems.

5…c4

  Black should never release the central tension — it
gives white a free hand to attack. Better are …Nc6 or …Be7

6.Bc2 Bd6 7.Nbd2 Nbd7 8.Qe2 Qc7 9.e4 dxe4 10.Nxe4
Nxe4 11.Qxe4 Nf6 12.Qh4 h6

  If 12…O-O 13.Bg5! Black’s knight exchange on e4 has
brought the white queen out, and castling is impossible. The first
game shows a similar mis-timed exchange, with catastrophic
consequences.

13.0-0 b5 Now if 13…O-O 14.Bxh6!
14.a4 b4 15.cxb4 Bxb4 16.Bf4 Bd6 17.Be5 Bb7

  Black begins a nearly successful counterattack —
“the best policy against a simultaneous player”
B&H.

18.Bxf6 gxf6 19.Qxf6 Rg8 20.a5 Bxh2+ 21.Kh1 Bd6
22.Rfe1 Bxf3

+-----------------+
|r+.+k+r+|
|0.1.+p+.|
|.+.gp!.0|
|).+.+.+.|
|.+p).+.+|
|+.+.+b+.|
|.)B+.)P+|
|$.+.$.+K|
+-----------------+
Not 22…Qd8 23.Rxe6+ fxe6 24.Ba4+ or 22…Rg6 23. Rxe6+ fxe6
24.Ba4+ etc. But 22…Qe7 with an ending was sound. Black’s king is
stuck in the centre, and Capablanca treats us to a long attack
leading to a central breakthrough — always careful, as his own
king is none-too-safe.

23.Qxf3 Qd8 24.Kg1 Rc8 25.Ba4+ Ke7 26.d5 Rg6
27.dxe6 fxe6

  And not 27… Rxe6 28.Rxe6+ fxe6 29.Re1 when black has
lost a defender of e6 and the g-file. e.g. 29…Rc5 30.Qg4 or
29…Qg8 30.Qe3.

28.Rad1 Qxa5 29.Qe4

  Prepares the combination, now that all the pieces are in
play. If immediately 29.Qb7+ Qc7.

29…Rcg8 30.Qb7+ Bc7 31.Rd7+ Kf6 32.Qf3+
Qf5

+-----------------+
|.+.+.+r+|
|0.gR+.+.|
|.+.+pir0|
|+.+.+q+.|
|B+p+.+.+|
|+.+.+Q+.|
|.).+.)P+|
|+.+.$.I.|
+-----------------+
Black has defended well, and the anticipated 33.Qxf5+ exf5 34.Rxc7
Rxg2+ 35. Kh1 Rxf2 or even 33. Qc3+ Be5 34.Rxe5 Rxg2+ (…Qxe5
35.Rf7+ Kxf7 36.Qxe5 wins) lead to draws. But look again for
Capablanca’s heart-stopper.

33.Rxe6+ Kxe6 34.Qc6+ Ke5 35.Rd5+
1-0

  “As 35…Kf4 36.Qxc4+ Qe4 27.Qc1+ Kg4 38.Bd1+ Kh4 39.
Rh5 is ‘mate.
“

  “Yet another rook sacrifice to open up a king, this
time into the centre of the board. The backward moves of the Q and
B should be noted, they are often the ones missed when calculating
a combination. Capablanca’s breakup of the black king’s
pawn-shelter is instructive, especially in the face of threats to
the white king down the g-file.
“

 


Summary

What we have seen is a genius at play — admiration is natural. But
a lot can be learned from such games. Our combinations may not be
as deep or as imaginative, but we can play for sound positional
advantages and keep an eye out for the odd brilliancy. Capablanca’s
sacrifices are unnerving, but if we try to understand the judgement
that stands behind the sacrifice — the trade-off between material
value and activity — we will learn a lot about the dynamics of
chess combat. Above all, Capablanca’s games are about the
initiative — once he has the initiative, he will attack whatever
weakness exists to force a resignation.

Opposite-coloured Bishops in the endgame and the middle-game

by Phil Adams, Three Cs, Oldham (=Children’s Chess Club)


OCBs in the endgame

(1)

 

-------------------
|-+-r-+-k|
|+-+-+pp-|
|p+b+-+-p|
|+-+n+-+-|
|-+-B-+-+|
|+-N-+-+P|
|PP-R-PP+|
|+-+-+-K-|
-------------------

  Black is a pawn down. Should he keep pieces on and try to get counterplay, or bring about exchanges?

1…Nxc3! 2.Bxc3 [2.bxc3 would be better; White has better chances of using his extra pawn if he keeps rooks on.] 2…Rxd2! 3.Bxd2 Kg8

 

-------------------
|-+-+-+k+|
|+-+-+pp-|
|p+b+-+-p|
|+-+-+-+-|
|-+-+-+-+|
|+-+-+-+P|
|PP-B-PP+|
|+-+-+-K-|
-------------------

  In an opposite-coloured bishops ending, one pawn up is normally not enough to win, unless there are other advantages. Here Black can draw easily.

4.Bc3 f6 5.f3 Kf7 6.Kf2 Ke6 7.Ke3 Kd5 8.Bb4 g6 9.Bf8 h5 10.Be7 f5 11.Bd8 Bb5 12.h4 Bf1 13.g3 Bb5 14.b3 Ke5 15.Bc7+ Kd5 16.Kf4 Ke6 17.Kg5 Kf7 18.a4 Bc6 19.Kf4 Ke6 It has become clear that White cannot make progress.

(2)

 

-------------------
|-+-k-+-+|
|+-+-+-+-|
|-+-PP+-+|
|+-+K+-+-|
|-+-+-+-b|
|+-+B+-+-|
|-+-+-+-+|
|+-+-+-+-|
-------------------

  With a two pawn advantage in an opposite bishops ending, the winning chances are much better.

  When the two extra pawns are connected, the main points to remember are:

  a) to have any chance of a draw the weaker side’s king must be in front of the pawns;

  b) the pawns usually win if they can reach the sixth rank; with the pawns further back, the weaker side has good chances of a draw.

1.Bb5 Bf6 2.Ke4 The plan is simple; get the king to f7 and push the e-pawn. 2…Bg5 3.Kf5 Bh4 4.Kg6 Black is in zugzwang; the white king does not even have to get to f7 now. 4…Kc8 5.e7 +-

(3)

 

-------------------
|-+-+-+-+|
|+-+k+-+-|
|-+-+-+-+|
|+-+PP-+b|
|-+-K-+-+|
|+-+-+-+-|
|-+-B-+-+|
|+-+-+-+-|
-------------------

  To draw, Black must prevent the pawns from reaching the 6th. The only way is to prepare to give up his bishop for both pawns by Bg4 or Bf7; does it make any difference which Black chooses? 1…Bf7! is a simple draw. The e-pawn cannot advance to e6 without the support of the white king, but the king cannot leave the defence of the d5 pawn, so White can make no progress. All Black has to do is shuffle his bishop between f7 and g8.

  [Note that 1…Bg4? is weaker, since White can manoeuvre with his king and achieve the advance e6, e.g.. 2.Ke4 and now A) 2…Bh3 3.Kf4 Ke7 (3…Bg2 4.e6+ Kd6 5.Bb4+ Kxd5 6.e7+-) 4.Bb4+ Kd7 5.Kg5 Bg2 6.e6+; B) 2…Ke7 3.Bb4+ Kd7 4.Kf4 Bh3 5.Kg5]

(4)

 

-------------------
|-+-+-+-+|
|+-bB+-+-|
|-+P+-+-+|
|+-+-+-k-|
|-+-+K+-+|
|+-+-+P+-|
|-+-+-+-+|
|+-+-+-+-|
-------------------

  In an opposite coloured bishops ending, two split pawns up, the ideas to remember are:

  a) the further apart the pawns are, the greater the chance of winning;

  b) only one file apart, the pawns cannot win;

  c) to win, the stronger side’s king must be able to break through to support the advance of one of the pawns; the defending side must try to prevent this.

1.Kd5 Kf6! 2.Bg4 Bg3! [2…Ke7? 3.Ke4 Kd6 4.Bd7 Ke7 5.f4 Kf6 6.f5 Ke7 7.Kd5 Kf6 8.Kc5 Ke7 9.Kb5 Kf6 10.Ka6 Ke7 11.Kb7 Kd8 12.f6 Bd6 13.f7] 3.Kc5 Bc7! 4.Kb5 Ke7 5.Ka6 Kd8 6.Kb7 Bf4 White can make no progress. =

  We have now covered the basics of opposite coloured bishops in the endgame, which, as we have seen, can often present drawing chances to the weaker side.

(Main sources: Averbakh/Mednis)


In the middlegame it is a different story altogether. In the middlegame opposite coloured bishops favour the side with the initiative.

(5) King,D – Menzel [C15]

  Junior game, 1979

 

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 Opposite coloured bishop middlegames are quite frequent in the Winawer French. 4.Nge2 An interesting way of avoiding main lines, favoured by Lasker.

 

-------------------
|rnbqk+nr|
|ppp-+ppp|
|-+-+p+-+|
|+-+p+-+-|
|-b-PP+-+|
|+-N-+-+-|
|PPP+NPPP|
|R-BQKB+R|
-------------------

4…dxe4 5.a3 Bxc3+ [5…Be7 6.Nxe4] 6.Nxc3 Nc6 7.Bb5 Nge7 8.Bg5! f6 9.Be3 0-0 10.Qd2 [White is happy to sacrifice the pawn for development and attacking chances. If 10.Nxe4? f5! (threat f5-f4.)] 10…f5 11.0-0-0 a6 12.Bxc6 Nxc6 13.Bf4

 

-------------------
|r+bq-rk+|
|+pp-+-pp|
|p+n+p+-+|
|+-+-+p+-|
|-+-PpB-+|
|P-N-+-+-|
|-PPQ-PPP|
|+-KR+-+R|
-------------------

  [A typical position in this line; Black has decided to hold his extra pawn with f7-f5; the price he pays is a weakness on the dark squares. White must open a file so that his heavy pieces can combine with his powerful unopposed bishop.] 13…Ne7 [13…b5 14.d5! Ne7 15.dxe6 Bxe6 16.Qxd8 Rfxd8 17.Bxc7+/- (King.)] 14.f3! exf3 15.gxf3 Ng6? 16.Bg5 Qd6 17.h4! [In positions with opposite-sides castling, whoever gains the initiative is likely to win; exactly the same is true of middle-games with opposite-coloured bishops. In this position, therefore, attack is more important than material.] 17…Rf7 [Black takes precautions against the coming attack against g7.] 18.h5 Nf8 19.Bf4 Qd8 20.Rdg1 Nd7 21.Rg3 Nf6 22.Be5 [White probes the Black defenses. He knows he wants to attack g7 but he is not yet sure of his best attacking formation.] 22…Nd7 23.Bf4! [White realises that it is important to keep his powerful dark squared bishop] 23…Nf6 [Black is on the defensive and is happy to repeat moves.] 24.Bg5 [White tries another tack.] 24…Bd7 [Notice that this bishop is helpless to defend the dark squares that will soon be threatened.] 25.Rhg1 Kh8 [How can White strengthen his attack?] 26.Ne2! [Since Black is on the defensive, White realises that the knight is not needed on the queenside for defense; instead it can join in the attack on the king-side.] 26…c5 27.Nf4 h6 [27…Rc8 28.Ng6+! hxg6 (28…Kg8 29.Ne5+-) 29.hxg6 Rf8 30.Rh3+ Kg8 31.Rgh1] 28.Ng6+ Kh7 [28…Kg8 29.Bxh6 Nxh5 30.Rh3 Nf6 31.Bg5 Rf8 32.Rh8+ Kf7 33.Rxf8++-] 29.Ne5 Re7 [29…Rf8 30.Bxh6!] 30.Bxf6 gxf6 31.Qg2! [31.Qg2 Qf8 (31…fxe5 32.Rg7+ Kh8 33.Qg6; 31…Qh8 32.Ng6) 32.Ng6 Qf7 33.Nxe7 Qxe7 34.Rg7+] 1-0

 

  A few years later, a remarkably similar game was played by Britain’s first Grandmaster, Tony Miles.

 

(6) Miles,A – Reefschlager,H [C15]

  Porz/Koln, 1981

 

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nge2 dxe4 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.Nxc3 Nc6 7.Bb5 Nge7 8.Bg5! f6 9.Be3 0-0 10.Qd2 [White is happy to sacrifice the pawn for development and attacking chances.] 10…a6 11.Bxc6 Nxc6 12.0-0-0 f5?! [This is probably too greedy. Black weakens his black squares, which is just what White wants, since it makes his bishop a very dangerous piece – it has no opponent!] [12…b6 13.Nxe4 Bb7 14.Qd3] 13.Bg5 Qe8 14.f3! [White opens lines to enable his rooks to fire at the Black king.] 14…exf3 15.gxf3 Nd8 16.Rhg1!

 

-------------------
|r+bnqrk+|
|+pp-+-pp|
|p+-+p+-+|
|+-+-+pB-|
|-+-P-+-+|
|P-N-+P+-|
|-PPQ-+-P|
|+-KR+-R-|
-------------------

  [Simple chess; White intends to double rooks on the g-file and then point his bishop at g7. Notice that the Black bishop is unable to help in the defence.] 16…c6 17.Rg3 Rf7 18.Rdg1 b5 19.Bf6! [Black is already in deep trouble.] 19…Raa7 [19…Rxf6 20.Rxg7+ Kh8 21.Qg5 Rg6 (21…Rf8 22.Rxh7+ Kxh7 23.Qh4+) 22.Rxg6 hxg6 23.Qh6++-] 20.Qh6 Qf8 21.Be5! [Withdrawing the powerful bishop to a safer firing point.] 21…Kh8 22.Rh3! Qg8 23.Ne2! [Bringing up the reserves; the plan is simply Ne2-f4-g6.] 23…f4 24.Rxg7! Rxg7 25.Nxf4 Nf7 26.Ng6#

 

-------------------
|-+b+-+qk|
|r-+-+nrp|
|p+p+p+NQ|
|+p+-B-+-|
|-+-P-+-+|
|P-+-+P+R|
|-PP+-+-P|
|+-K-+-+-|
-------------------

  A lovely finish! 1-0