Weak pawns

Posted on September 28, 1999 by DrDave

“Doubled, isolated and blockaded pawns are weak: avoid
them!”

— Fine, Basic Chess Endings

Introduction

“That’s what this match is all about – Pawns,
isolated or hanging. They might just as well play without
pieces.” — Eddie GUFELD, considering yet another IQP position
in the 1974 Karpov-Korchnoi match (Game 16, position after White’s
24th move)

The English GM David Norwood once said that he made an offer to
analyse and comment on some club players’ games. They expected him
to offer some brilliant analysis, showing them where they had
missed golden opportunities, but his advice was more simple:
“remember Pawns can’t move backwards“. Now, that is one of
the first things any chess player learns, so they were very
disappointed – why was he telling them what they already knew?
Well, they may have known, but they were playing as if they didn’t
know. They were advancing pawns too far, too fast, too often. They
were moving pawns forward which got surrounded and caught, they
moved pawns forward which created holes near their king, they moved
pawns forward which became the focus of a sacrifice. And once they
had moved them forward, they couldn’t move them back. So be careful
with your Pawns!

The two principal problems with poor Pawn formations
are:

(1) opportunities provided to the opponents pieces (e.g.
occupation of ‘holes’)

(2) weaknesses of the Pawns themselves.

Let us start with a notable example:

Weak pawns: the ultimate collection: Deep Blue –
Kasparov, 1996

Just horrible: every one of the six Black Pawns is isolated, or
isolated and doubled! The b-Pawns are also blockaded. Kasparov
staked everything on a King’s-side hack but after 25.
b3! Deep Blue just grabbed the material and steered clear
of the tactics.

There is a lot of meat in this game, which I append if
you want to go over it, but it should tell you one thing if nothing
else: weak Pawns can lose you the game.

Could Kasparov have defended everything instead of trying
to hack? Well, no. It’s a bit like Franklin’s “For the want of
a nail…”: for the want of a friendly neighbour, a d-Pawn is
weak; to look after the d-Pawn, the Knight is assigned guard duty;
for the want of the Knight, the initiative is lost; for the want of
active play, ground is lost on both sides of the board; for the
want of pieces free from defence, more weakness are conceded…
Once you have more than one weakness, the problem snowballs, and
your Pawns fall like ripe fruit into the arms of your opponent.

Playing against Pawn weaknesses needs some persistence
but also some flexibility: this transformation of
advantages is seen in several games below.

Spielmann,R – Nimzowitsch Aaron (San ) (9) [B29]
1911

Black develops pressure against the hanging Pawns.

16… Ba6 17. Rac1 Rac8 18. Qb3 f6

Tension is now high: White initiates a tactical sequence to avoid
losing the c-Pawn, which Black is happy to see to a conclusion.

19. Qa4 fxe5 20. dxe5 Ba3 21. Qxa3 Bxc4 22. Re4
Qd7 23. h3

23… Bd5

The hanging Pawns have vanished. Has White equalised? By
no means. Black has a superior Bishop, a Queen’s-side Pawn
majority, and one of those odd minority Pawn formations on the
King’s-side which make it difficult for White to make use of his
majority. There is still a lot of play in the position, and Black
won.

…0-1 (42)

As well as transformation of positional advantages, you
can see changes in the Pawn structure – which may be sought by both
sides. One well-known sequence may transform an isolated Pawn
structure to one with hanging Pawns:

Rubinstein-Nimzovich

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6
6.Bf4 cxd4 7.Nxd4 Bb4 (isolated pawn)

8.e3 Nf6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 (pawn island)

10.Bd3 O-O 11.O-O Bd6 12.Bg3 Bxg3 13.hxg3
c5 (hanging pawns)

The game continued:

14.Rc1 Be6 15.Qa4 Qb6 16.Qa3 c4 17.Be2 a5 18.Rfd1
Qb4 19.Rd4 Rfd8 20.Rcd1 Rd7 21.Bf3 Rad8 22.Nb1 {?!}
22…Rb8 23.R1d2 Qxa3 24.Nxa3 Kf8 25.e4 dxe4 26.Rxd7 Nxd7
27.Bxe4 Nc5 28.Rd4 Nxe4 29.Rxe4 Rxb2 30.Nxc4 Rb4 31.Nd6 Rxe4
32.Nxe4 Bxa2 {… 0-1}

A bit of theory

There is one general problem with Pawn moves: the
creation of holes, which your opponent’s pieces can occupy.
Tarrasch used to say, “Every Pawn move loosens the
position“. So the first and simplest form of weakness in a
Pawn formation is the hole.

There are four principal varieties of weak Pawn:

backward Pawn

doubled Pawns

isolated Pawn

hanging Pawns

And there is one further idea which you should know
about:

Pawn islands.

Fine’s comment on the title page is in his endgame book,
which may give you a clue that the weakness of weak Pawns is most
important in the endgame: this is true. It may also give you a clue
that in the middlegame there may be some compensations for having
weak Pawns: this is also true, and is the basis for Tarrasch’s
famous dismissal of the supposed weakness of the isolated Queen’s
Pawn:

“Before the endgame, the Gods have placed the
middle-game.“

The most miserable Pawn is the backward Pawn. There are very few
compensations for having a backward Pawn. On the other hand, I have
enjoyed demonstrating the positive side of hanging Pawns more than
once; these are probably the least miserable of the lot. Almost any
variety of weak Pawn is more miserable if it is blockaded or
otherwise cannot move out of the way of an attack: this is the
meaning of Fine’s last warning about blockaded
Pawns. I’ll consider each type of Pawn weakness and
discuss their advantages and if appropriate their compensations.

Backward Pawn.

Black has a backward Pawn at d6.

White has a potentially backward Pawn at c3.

Disadvantages of Backward
Pawns:

The Pawn on d6 is exposed to attack along the d-file but can
neither be supported by a friendly Pawn nor easily be moved out of
the way. The square in front of it (d5) is a potential outpost for
a White Knight.

Possible compensations with
Backward Pawns:

They may support neighbouring Pawns which are strong: above, Black
has a strong central point at e5.

Doubled Pawns

White has doubled Pawns at c3/c4 and g2/g3.

Disadvantages of Doubled
Pawns:

The hindmost Pawn at c3 is effectively backward, but it is the Pawn
on c4 which is most difficult to defend, as no Rook at c1 can
support it.

Possible compensations with
Doubled Pawns:

Doubling of Pawns should yield an open file: here the b-file might
not offer much but the h-file might be worth something. Capturing
towards the centre may give an extra ounce of influence over some
central squares: here the d-Pawn is both supported by a Pawn at c3
while the d5 square is covered by the Pawn at c4.

Isolated Pawn

White has an isolated Pawn at d4.

Black has an isolated Pawn on h7

Disadvantages of Isolated
Pawns:

The isolated Pawn, like a backward Pawn, cannot be defended and
often cannot advance easily. It is therefore weak, and the square
in front of it is a potential outpost for opposing Knights.

Possible compensations with
Isolated Pawns:

The Pawn may support other pieces e.g. Knight on e5, and in the
example the Pawn on d4 gives extra space and mobility to White.
This is not true of Black’s Pawn on h7, which is only weak.

Hanging Pawns

White has hanging Pawns at c4 and d4.

Disadvantages of Hanging
Pawns:

The Pawns are not quite isolated but have the same sorts of
problems, for, if one advances to be supported by the other, the
hindmost

Possible compensations with
Hanging Pawns:

Hanging Pawns on d4 and c4 confer a space advantage, which can be
nurtured for attack. An advance of one or other Pawn may open lines
for the attack, or result in a Passed Pawn.

Pawn islands

White has two Pawn islands to Black’s three.

Disadvantages of extra Pawn
islands:

The Pawns on the edges of Pawn islands are not isolated, but they
are slightly exposed. We might call them “semi-detached”; there is
only one Pawn which can protect them, and only one Pawn which can
protect the square in front of them. This looseness can be
exploited to create more obvious weaknesses.

Possible compensations with
extra Pawn islands:

Gaps between Pawn islands may be useful half-open files. I also
alluded, in the Spielmann-Nimzovitch game above, to a split
minority possibly being better at restraining an opponent’s
majority than an intact majority.

Winning against holes in the
Pawn formation

Steinitz,W – Blackburne,J
London, 1876

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. c3 Be7
7. h3 O-O 8. Qe2 Ne8 9. g4 b5 10. Bc2 Bb7 11. Nbd2 Qd7 12. Nf1 Nd8
13. Ne3 Ne6 14. Nf5 g6 15. Nxe7+ Qxe7

Morphy and his contemporaries would probably have been
very much surprised if anybody had told him that only ten moves
later White pieces would be settled permanently on f6 and h6.

16. Be3 N8g7 17. O-O-O c5 18. d4 exd4 19. cxd4 c4 20. d5
Nc7 21. Qd2 a5 22. Bd4 f6 23. Qh6 b4 24. g5 f5 25. Bf6

Here we are…!

25… Qf7 26. exf5 gxf5 27. g6 Qxg6 28. Bxg7
Qxh6+ 29. Bxh6 Rf6 30. Rhg1+ Rg6 31. Bxf5 Kf7

[31… Rxg1 32. Rxg1+ Kh8 33. Bg7+ Kg8 34. Be5+ Kf7
35. Rg7+ Ke8 36. Rxc7]

32. Bxg6+ hxg6 33. Ng5+ Kg8 34. Rge1
1-0

Winning against a Backward
Pawn

Bogoljubow,Efim –
Capablanca,Jose (New York ) (09) [D05] 1924

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d5 3. e3 e6 4. Bd3 c5 5. b3 Nc6 6. O-O Bd6
7. Bb2 O-O 8. Nbd2 Qe7 9. Ne5 cxd4 10. exd4 Ba3 11. Bxa3 Qxa3 12.
Ndf3 Bd7 13. Nxc6 Bxc6 14. Qd2 Rac8

There is some anxiety developing about White’s c-Pawn. His next
move is probably a mistake.

15. c3 a6 16. Ne5 Bb5 17. f3 Bxd3 18. Nxd3 Rc7
19. Rac1 Rfc8 20. Rc2 Ne8 21. Rfc1 Nd6 22. Ne5 Qa5 23.
a4

With straightforward moves Black has put a lot of pressure on the
c-Pawn. His next is a little tactical finesse, which creates a
double attack on two neighbouring Pawns.

23… Qb6 24. Nd3 Qxb3 25. Nc5 Qb6 26. Rb2 Qa7
27. Qe1 b6 28. Nd3 Rc4 29. a5 bxa5 30. Nc5 Nb5 31. Re2

White has been wobbling dreadfully, and finally topples.

31… Nxd4 32. cxd4 R8xc5 0-1

Winning with a Backward
Pawn

Zinn – Sveshnikov, Decin [B33]
1974

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6.
Ndb5 d6

One of the most puzzling of modern variations: didn’t the games on
Knight outposts suggest that Black is virtually lost? Well, he is
if White proceeds smoothly, exchanges all the right pieces, and
Black has no counterplay.

7. Bg5 a6 8. Na3 b5 9. Bxf6 gxf6 10.
Nd5

All according to plan A, but there are some differences: Black has
an interesting collection of K-side pawns which may allow …f6-f5
and …Rg8, and White’s Knight on a3 is taking no part in the
struggle.

10… f5 11. Bd3 Be6 12. Qh5 Bg7 13. O-O f4 14.
c3 O-O 15. Nc2 f5

Black is making maximum use of the f-pawns and White looks at least
as loose as Black.

16. Ncb4 Nxb4 17. Nxb4 d5 18. exd5 Bd7 19. Bc2
Be8 20. Qe2 Kh8 21. Rad1 Qh4 22. f3 Rf6 23. Qe1 Qg5 24. Qxe5 Bd7
25. Qe7 Rg8

Black follows his pawn sacrifice with a Bishop!

26. Qxd7 Rf7

The f-pawns keep White’s pieces from defending the King, and White
has no answer to the vacating sacrifice …Bd4.

0-1

Winning against Doubled
Pawns

Mattison – Nimzovich
(carlsbad) CHERNEV [E21] 1929

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nf3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 d6 6.
Qc2 Qe7 7. Ba3 c5 8. g3 b6 9. Bg2 Bb7 10. O-O O-O 11. Nh4 Bxg2 12.
Kxg2 Qb7+ 13. Kg1 Qa6 14. Qb3 Nc6 15. Rfd1 Na5

White has a problem with the front c-Pawn, which can be patched up
only at the cost of creating holes. Black’s Knights leap about all
over the White Pawns.

16. Qb5 Qxb5 17. cxb5 Nc4 18. Bc1 a6 19. bxa6
Rxa6 20. dxc5 bxc5 21. Ng2 Nd5 22. Rd3 Rfa8 23. e4 Ne5

“The centre cannot hold…”

0-1

Winning with Doubled
Pawns

Bhend, E – Hort, V (Kecsemet)
[B00] 1964

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nf6 5. Nxf6+
gxf6

All a bit early to call – we observe the Pawn differences, but not
much else. Black has a doubled Pawn, and and extra open file.

6. c3 Bf5 7. Nf3 e6 8. Bf4 Bd6 9. Bg3 Qc7 10. Qb3
Nd7 11. Be2 O-O-O 12. Nd2 Nb6 13. a4 a5 14. O-O Rhg8

Black’s Rooks have done their duty in occupying the files: Black
now executes a simple King’s-side attack.

15. Rfe1 Bxg3 16. hxg3 h5 17. Bf3 Bg4 18. Be2 h4
19. gxh4

Some brisk tactics finish the job.

19… Bh3 20. Bf1 Rxg2+ 21. Bxg2 Rg8 22. Kf1 Rxg2
23. Nf3 Qf4 24. Re3 Nd5 25. c4 Nxe3+ 26. Qxe3 Rg1+ 0-1

Winning against an Isolated
Pawn

Lasker-Reshevsky, Nottingham
1936

Here’s another isolated/hanging pawn game, showing the weakness of
the pawn being turned to attack.

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Bxc4
c5 6. Nc3 a6 7. O-O b5 8. Bd3 cxd4 9. exd4 Bb7 10. Bg5 Be7 11. Qe2
O-O 12. Rad1 Nbd7 13. Ne5 Nd5

Always this blockade: here it also offers desirable exchanges.

14. Bc1 Nxc3 15. bxc3 Nf6 16. a4 Qd5 17. Nf3 Rfc8
18. Bb2 Ne4 19. Rc1 Ng5

Black has developed strong pressure along the long diagonal.

20. axb5 axb5 21. Bxb5 Nxf3+ 22. gxf3 Qg5+
0-1

One might ask:

why does the side attacking the IQP blockade the square
in front of it?

and why should the side with the IQP avoid exchanges?

Simple answers: you blockade the IQP because it may
advance to d5 and blow up your position, and you avoid exchanges if
you have an IQP because the endings are bad for you and you might
make use of the extra space to create an attack.

Winning with an Isolated
Pawn

Stoltz – Thomas, Zaandamk
[D40]1946

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 c5 5. e3 Nc6 6. a3 cxd4
7. exd4 dxc4 8. Bxc4 Be7 9. O-O O-O 10. Re1 a6 11. Ba2 b5

White’s advantage seems trifling – a good Rook on e1, and the move
– but is rapidly converted through the characteristic d4-d5 break.
White can see no tactical opportunity in particular, but a general
optimism based on open lines 12. d5 exd5 13. Nxd5 Nxd5 14.
Qxd5 Qd6

[14… Bb7 15. Bg5 with a strong initiative based on
his more active pieces 15… Bxg5

[or 15… Na5 16. Qf5 Bxg5 17. Nxg5 g6 18.
Nxf7]

16. Nxg5 Qxd5 17. Bxd5 h6 18. Ne4]

15. Rxe7 Qxe7 16. Qxc6 Bg4 17. Be3 Rac8 18. Qd5
Rfd8 19. Qg5 Qxg5 20. Nxg5

White has secured two pieces for a rook, and his initiative
endures.

20… Rd7 21. f3 Bf5 22. g4 Bd3 23. Rd1 Rcd8 24.
Bb6 Bc4 25. Rxd7 Rxd7 26. Bxc4 bxc4 27. Ne4 f5 28. gxf5 Kf7 29. Ba5
Rd5 30. Bc3 h5 31. Kf2 Kg8 32. f6 1-0

Winning against Hanging
Pawns

Fischer – Spassky WCh (6)
[D59] 1972

1. c4 e6 2. Nf3 d5 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Bg5 O-O 6. e3 h6
7. Bh4 b6 8. cxd5 Nxd5 9. Bxe7 Qxe7 10. Nxd5 exd5 11. Rc1 Be6 12.
Qa4 c5 13. Qa3 Rc8 14. Bb5 a6 15. dxc5 bxc5 16. O-O Ra7 17. Be2
Nd7

Black seems to have supported his Pawns nicely, but Fischer’s next
three moves exploit the remaining looseness to create a new
formation in which White has the better minor piece, prospects of
attack, and an enduring initiative.

18. Nd4! Qf8 19. Nxe6 fxe6 20. e4! d4 21. f4 Qe7
22. e5 Rb8 23. Bc4 Kh8 24. Qh3 Nf8 25. b3 a5 26. f5 exf5 27. Rxf5
Nh7 28. Rcf1 Qd8 29. Qg3 Re7 30. h4 Rbb7 31. e6 Rbc7 32. Qe5 Qe8
33. a4 Qd8 34. R1f2 Qe8 35. R2f3 Qd8 36. Bd3 Qe8 37. Qe4 Nf6 38.
Rxf6 gxf6 39. Rxf6 Kg8 40. Bc4 Kh8 41. Qf4 1-0

Winning with Hanging
Pawns

Bertok – Fischer [D59]
1962

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Be7 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bg5 O-O 6. e3 h6
7. Bh4 b6 8. cxd5 Nxd5 9. Bxe7 Qxe7 10. Nxd5 exd5 11. Be2 Be6 12.
O-O c5 13. dxc5?! 13… bxc5 14. Qa4 Qb7!

White is not well-placed to harass the pawns, while Fischer is
making use of his own trumps – like the half-open b-file.

15. Qa3 Nd7 16. Ne1 a5 17. Nd3 c4

This is a very committal move. The b-Pawn is pinned down,
the d-Pawn becomes backward, and the fourth rank becomes
blocked.

18. Nf4 Rfb8 19. Rab1 ? (Nxe6)
19… Bf5 20. Rbd1 Nf6 21. Rd2 g5

White is terribly short of ideas. It’s “make your mind up” time!

22. Nxd5

[22. Nh5 Ne4 23. Rc2 Qb4]

22… Nxd5 23. Bxc4 Be6 24. Rfd1? 24…
Nxe3 (oops) 25. Qxe3 Bxc4 26. h4 Re8 27. Qg3 Qe7
28. b3 Be6 29. f4 g4 30. h5 Qc5+ 31. Rf2 Bf5 0-1

Winning against extra Pawn
islands

Capablanca,Jose –
Kupchik,Abraham (Havana ) (07) [C49] 1913

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Bb4 5. O-O O-O 6.
Bxc6 bxc6 7. Nxe5 Qe8

8. Nd3 Bxc3 9. dxc3 Qxe4

[9… Nxe4 10. Re1]

10. Re1 Qh4 11. Qf3 Ba6 12. Bf4 Rac8 13.
Be5 (idea /\ Nc5)13… Bxd3 14. cxd3 Qg4 15. Bxf6
Qxf3 16. gxf3 gxf6

Assessment, +/-: better Pawns, fewer Pawn islands,
more active pieces. The weakest spot in the Black position is the
isolated a-Pawn, and it is here that an attack should be directed.

17. Re4

First, Capablanca mobilises and centralises his pieces.
There is never any sense of rush when Capa plays an ending. This
ease of mobilisation is a dynamic advantage to add to the static
ones just listed.

17… Rfe8 18. Rae1 Re6 19. R1e3 Rce8 20. Kf1 Kf8
21. Ke2 Ke7

Now, White can attack the a-pawn.

22. Ra4 Ra8 23. Ra5

restrains the Pawns

23… d5!?

I can sympathise with the bid for space but this is not
forced and has the disadvantage of leaving the c-Pawns without
support – backward, although not exposed on a file. White quickly
blockades the Pawns.

24. c4! Kd6

[24… dxc4 leaves all Black’s Pawns isolated and
most of them doubled!]

[24… d4 25. Re4 Kd6 26. b4 Re5 27. Ra6 ‘hopeless’,
said Capa]

25. c5+ Kd7 26. d4

Black’s pawns have become fixed, cutting off the
Queen’s-side.

26… f5

Hoping to nip out to h6 with some play.

27. Rxe6! fxe6 28. f4

Clearing the third rank for a Rook

28… Kc8 29. Kd2 Kb7?!

Black has achieved a solid defence of the a-Pawn and Whiite can
achieve little else there. But White has access to both sides of
the board via the third rank. [29… Rb8!? 30. Kc3

[30. b3 blocks the third rank]

[30. Kc2 Rb4 31. Kc3 Rc4+ 32. Kd3 Rb4]

30… Rb7 may have been better]

30. Ra3 Rg8 31. Rh3 Rg7

This defence from the side keeps the Black Rook more
active than moving it to defend from h8, but I’m sure Black also
considered …Rg1!?, giving up a Pawn to get the Rook active. It
looks a bit speculative here but is the right sort of idea to have
in mind.

32. Ke2 Ka6 33. Rh6 Re7 34. Kd3 Kb7 35. h4 Kc8
36. Rh5 Kd7 37. Rg5 Rf7

Again, Black has achieved a solid, if passive, defence. White now
returns his attention to the Queen’s-side.

38. Kc3 Kc8 39. Kb4 Rf6 40. Ka5 Kb7 41. a4 a6 42.
h5 Rh6

White is poised on both fronts but can improve the position of his
pieces no further. It is time to try and force the issue.

43. b4 Rf6 44. b5!?

[44. Rg7! Rh6 first would have been better, according
to Capa: 45. b5 axb5 46. axb5 cxb5

[46… Rxh5 47. b6]

47. Kxb5 e.g. 47… Rxh5 48. c6+ Kb8 49.
Ka6]

44… axb5 45. axb5 Rf8

Off to sieze the a-file!

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

46. Rg7 Ra8+ 47. Kb4 cxb5 48. Kxb5
Ra2

Black has gained some activity. Of course, White does not retreat
and defend with Rg2.

49. c6+ Kb8 50. Rxh7

White has an h-pawn. Can the lone Black Rook do enough to
compensate?

50… Rb2+ 51. Ka5 Ra2+ 52. Kb4 Rxf2 53. Re7
Rxf4?!

Natural, but not exact.

[53… Rb2+! 54. Kc3 Rh2 55. Rxe6 Ka7 56. h6 Kb6
which isn’t great but Black is also fighting with the King
now]

[53… Rh2? 54. Rxe6 Rxh5 55. Re5 Ka7 56.
Kc5]

54. h6 Rxd4+ 55. Kb5 Rd1 56. h7

A Pawn on the seventh seems worth three in the bush!
Black can only hope to harass the King with checks, but these are
soon exhausted.

56… Rb1+ 57. Kc5 Rc1+ 58. Kd4 Rd1+ 59. Ke5 Re1+
60. Kf6 Rh1 61. Re8+ Ka7 62. h8=Q Rxh8 63. Rxh8 Kb6 64. Kxe6 Kxc6
65. Kxf5 Kc5 66. Ke5 c6 67. Rh6 Kb5 68. Kd4 1-0

Winning with extra Pawn
islands

This ought to work rather like the extra files in doubled Pawn
positions, but damned if I could find any convincing complete
games. I did dig a couple of examples out of my opening files,
though:

Geller’s Quiet System – Bronstein [B06] 1993

1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. c3 d6 4. Nf3
Nf6

5. Nbd2

[5. Bd3 (best)]

5… O-O 6. Be2

[6. h3 b6 7. Bc4 e6 8. O-O Bb7 9. Qe2 c5 10. dxc5
bxc5 11. e5 dxe5 12. Nxe5 Nd5 13. Ndf3 Nd7 14. Bg5 Qc7 15. Nxd7
Qxd7 16. Rad1 Qc7 17. Rfe1 Nb6 18. Bd3 c4 19. Bc2 Nd5

Simagin-Bronstein, Moscow 1967

[0-1,44]]

6… b6 7. O-O e6

(To stop e4-e5-e6 and discourage d5 in reply to the
coming …c5. Benko has in fact played 7…Bb7 without immediate
harm, but this is safer)

8. Re1 Bb7 9. Bd3 c5 10. dxc5 bxc5 11. e5 dxe5
12. Nxe5 Nc6 13. Ndc4 Nxe5 14. Nxe5 Qc7

=+ K/B

(Better bishops, possibilities of play on b-file, and
some central influence from Pe6; moreover, the Queen’s-side
majority cannot really get going, as there is no real ‘candidate’
for promotion)

15. Qe2 Rab8 16. Bd2 Ba8 17. Nc4 Nh5 18. Be4 Bd5
19. b3 Rfd8 20. Rad1 Nf6 21. Bc2 Qb7 22. Na5 Qb6 23. Nc4 Qa6 24.
Ne3 Qxe2 25. Rxe2 Bc6 26. f3 a5

Filip-Bronstein, Moscow 1967

[0-1,85]

=/+

Pawn formations

Posted on September 9, 1999 by DrDave

Based on: The Middle Game I by Euwe and
Kramer.
[Currently out of print; Batsford’s have the publishing rights for this
title
and I am grateful for their permission to use this material]

“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). The primary constraint on a
piece’s activity is the Pawn structure.“

— Michael STEAN, in Simple Chess.

“In general, a Pawn centre is a good thing not in
itself but in its usefulness for concrete ends.“

— Mark Dvoretsky & Artur Yusupov, Opening
Preparation

A. Symmetrical Centre
Formations

A.1. Vanished centre

e.g. Scotch 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 then …d5 and
exd5

The placing of the pieces and/or a development advantage
will decide if the game has any real meat.

A.2. The QP centre

e.g. French 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5

The open e-file and outpost at e5 (e4) may become crucial
if pieces are allowed to settle there. The natural break c2-c4 does
little to add tension, unless castling is performed on opposite
sides; the Q-side is then risky with outpost at c5.

A.3. The KP centre

e.g. Philidor or Closed Lopez 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nd7 4.
dxe5 dxe5

Assuming King’s-side castling, the break f2-f4 is much
sharper

A.4. Symmetrical Four Pawns
Centre: (i) KPs forward

e.g. Closed Giuoco Piano 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d3
d6

White can prepare the advance d2-d4 with c2-c3, or go for
f2-f4. Black may try to prevent this e.g. h7-h6 and g7-g5, or go
for broke on the Queen’s-side.

A.5. Symmetrical Four Pawns
Centre: (ii) QPs forward

e.g. Queen’s Pawn Game 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3

The advance e2-e4 is more difficult to achieve than d4 in
A.4; the more common plan is c2-c4 and a shift of
the struggle to the Queen’s-side. If for some reason c2-c4 is
impossible or undesirable, then e2-e4 must be sought.

B. Positional advantage in the
centre

B.1. Advanced Fixed Single-pawn
(i) KP forward

e.g. Alapin Sicilian 1. e4 c5 2. c3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. d4 d6 5.
Nf3 dxe5 6. dxe5

White’s chances lie in a direct attack on the King, with
a B on d3

B.2. Advanced Fixed Single-pawn
(ii) QP forward

e.g. Benoni/KID lines with late …e6 1. d4 c5 2. d5 d6 or
Franco-Benoni 1.e4 e6 2. d4 c5 3. d5 exd5 4. exd5

White has a space advantage which must be nurtured
carefully.

B.3. Partially Fixed Centre
(i) tension form

e.g. Philidor and Closed Lopez 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.
Nc3 Nd7

White will try to maintain d4 with c2-c3 and use extra
space and mobility, sometimes for K-side attack with outpost on
f5

B.4. Partially Fixed Centre
(ii) Benoni without …e6

e.g. 1. d4 c5 2. d5 d6

White has a large space advantage and can play for direct
attack on the King with f4-f5 or just roll down the middle with
e4-e5

B.5. Partially fixed centre
(iii) French with White d-pawn backward

e.g. Advance French with exchange on d3 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5
b6 4. Bd3 c5 5. f4 Ba6 6. Nf3 cxd4 7. Nxd4 Bxd3 8. cxd3

White has a post on d4 for a Knight. The major pieces may
come off on the c-file, when White has a post on d4 for a King;
without exchanges White can play for attack and break with
f4-f5

B.6. Partially fixed centre
(iv) French with Black d-pawn backward

e.g. Alapin Sicilian 1. e4 c5 2. c3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. d4 cxd4 5.
cxd4 e6 6. Nf3 b6

Black has a post on d5, White can play for attack on the
K with B on d3

B.7. Mobile Centre (i) King
Pawn

e.g. Nimzo after exchanges of the d- and c-pawns, or other slow
opening after d3, e4 and …d5xe4

There will be a struggle for e5 e.g. White will sieze it
with a N and play for attack. This can be resolved by the advance
of either e-pawn, when we have structures considered above.

B.8. Mobile Centre (ii) Queen
Pawn

e.g. Indian Defence with …e5xd4, e3xd4, or Alekhin Exchange
variation 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. c4 Nb6 4. d4 d6 5. exd6 exd6

White has a space advantage and is very likely to play c4
(else …d5 will come quickly), when Black will be short of space.
Black must put pressure on the White centre.

There will be a struggle for d5, which can be resolved by
the advance of either d-pawn, when we have structures similar to
those above, although White can go for a bind with c4-c5.

C. Extra Central Pawns

C.1. Absolute Centre

e.g. King’s Gambit Declined 1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. c3
or Nimzo after cxd5,…exd5 and e4, …dxe4 and fxe4

A substantial asset, but not decisive – the reason being
the pressure that can be put on the pawns by the opponent’s rooks
(they are in fact a type of hanging pawns). If the centre can be
kept intact, and perhaps advance, then the advantage will manifest
itself.

C.2. Hanging Centre

e.g. French 1. e4 e5 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nd7 5. Bd3 c5
and later dxc5, and …f6,exf6, …Nxf6

Another hanging formation, with a key square at e5. If
White can occupy e5 or at least prevent …e6-e5 then Black will be
worse. Usually Black can keep White pestered with enough nuisances
to keep in the fight, but often a single tempo will make the
difference between a successful blockade and a successful
advance.

C.3. Classic Centre

e.g. Giuoco Piano 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5.
d4 exd4 6. cxd4

One of the strongest formations – if White can keep it
intact. In the Giuoco Piano line above Black can disrupt it with
…d5. But if Black retreats with 6…Bb6 the centre will either
form the basis of a crushing attack, or simply roll forward.

C.4. Neo-Classic Centre
*

e.g. Slav, Queen’s Gambit Accepted, Grunfeld Defence, Queen’s
Indian 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc5 5. a4 Na6 6. e4 or
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Qb3 dxc4 6. Qxc4

Again strong: Black’s best hopes are to hit at it with
…e5 (risking d5) or …c5. Sometimes in the Grunfeld …f5 may
play a part.

C.5. Neo-Classic Centre: with
open file

e.g. Grunfeld 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4
Nxc3 6. bxc3 c5 7. Bc4 Bg7 8. Ne2 cxd4 9. cxd4

Tactically this may still be dodgy for Black, but
strategically is prefereable to C4, as the cramp
is less, the opportunities to hit at the centre (and directly at
pieces) are better, and the Queen’s-side majority is an endgame
plus.

C.6. Unbalanced tension
form

e.g. Slav 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6.
Bd3 Bd6 7. O-O O-O 8. e4 dxc4 9. Bxc4 e5

A tense formation: White can exchange on e5 (rival
majorities), Black can exchange on d4 (ditto), or White can push d5
(not strategically worrying for Black, but may be troublesome
tactically).

C.7. Latent Central Majority
(i) QP in reserve

e.g. Delayed Exchange Ruy Lopez 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6
4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Bxc6 dxc6 7. d3

Often in the RL Exchange White plays d4, and after
…exd4 has a free majority on the King’s-side. Here Black would
play …c5 if White hinted at this, so White must either play more
slowly for d4, or try f4, or leave things in the centre as they are
and creep over to the King’s-side for an attack on the Black
King.

C.8. Latent Central Majority
(ii) KP in reserve

e.g. Queen’s Gambit and Caro-Kann Exchange. 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6
3. cxd5 exd5 or 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5.

White has a choice of plans: to prepare the advance e2-e4
(usually by f3), or to play the minority attack.

The e4 advance is favoured by (a) the d4-pawn not being
vulnerable, and (b) two bishops to fight in the resulting open
position. So in the line 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3
5. bxc3 d5 6. cxd5 exd5 all the signals are there for the e4 plan
to be favoured; in the QGD the minority attack is most common.

D. Closed Formations

D.1. Blocked oblique (i) QP
forward *

e.g. King’s Indian 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 O-O 5.
Nf3 d6 6. Be2 e5 7. d5, or from Ruy Lopez with d4-d5 (cf.
B3)

White has only two ways to open a file: the breaks f4 and
c5. The former may leave a weak backward pawn on e4 after …e5xf4
(even if White can reply g3xf4), so the latter is preferred. Black
will naturally counter with …f5. White can also easily achieve
b4, with a strong Queen’s-side initiative, but Black’s attack on
the castled White King is dangerous.

D.2. Blocked oblique (ii) KP
forward *

e.g. French advance 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 (also
Caro-Kann)

In practice …c5 and …cxd4, cxd4 is common,
tranferring the position to F3. Without …c5
Black is crushed by the advance f2-f4-f5. So the only important
position is if Black pushes past with …c5-c4, as in the line 1.
e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. a3 c4. White will
still aim for the attack, but Black can play for infiltration of b3
and to open lines with …b5-b4. Black can castle Queen’s-side, but
this may make …b5 more difficult.

D.3. Stonewall

e.g. most common is the Dutch 1.d4 f5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4.
Nc3 d5, but also Semi- Slav and other QP openings.

Black plays for a King’s-side attack, with an outpost on
e4 and a pawn-break …g5 and …f4; White’s easiest strategical
plan involves assault of c6 with c4-c5 (usually) and b4-b5
(always). White can also try to get at e6 with f3 and e4.

More generally White must aim at restraint of …e5,
exchange of dark-squared bishops, and controlling key squares with
Ns on f3 and d3.
Usually c4xd5 is met by …c6xd5, but if White is organised for b4
then …e6xd5 may wrong-foot White’s pieces.

D.4. Anti-Stonewall

e.g. Semi-Slav 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 e6 4. e3 f5 5. f4!

If White has this option Black is advised to avoid the
Stonewall; the King’s-side attack is unlikely to get far and the
assualt on c6 is just as dangerous.

D.5. Pseudo-Stonewall
(Botvinnik)

e.g. English Opening 1. c4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5.
e4

If Black can organise …d5 White’s formation will
shatter; White must adopt a move-order whereby …d5 is impossible
or undesirable. Then the central bind can enable a King’s-side
initiative with f2-f4 and f4-f5. If both players adopt this
formation, the advantage will go to the player who achieves f4
first.

D.6. Wyvill Formation

e.g. Nimzo-Indian 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 b6 5. a3
Bxc3 6. bxc3 d6 7. e4 Nbd7 8. Bd3 O-O 9. O-O e5 10. d5

Marmaduke Wyvill, the nineteenth century MP, specialised
in this formation; the details are important here.

Ideal for Black is an outpost on c5, and Queen’s-side
castling. Then the assault on the weak c-pawns can be carried out
in safety, and Black can even think about opening a file with
…f5. But White should not volunteer for d4-d5, and usually Black
can only induce this by playing …c5; if in addition Black has
castled King’s-side White has good chances.

Sometimes pressure with …Re8 and …Qe7 threatens a
discovery with …e5xd4, and this may be enough to provoke d4-d5;
Euwe once played …Na5, …Ba6 and …Qe6!

D.8 Winawer Formation

e.g. (and almost exclusively) 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4.
e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3 6. bxc3.

White has prospects of a King’s-side attack with f4-f5,
but Black’s attack on the c-pawns can be certain of opportunities.
The big structural disadvantage for Black is the lack of the Bf8,
creating possibilities of a dark-square campaign. Black should
castle Queen’s-side, if at all.

E. Open Formations

E.1. Ruy Lopez
Formation

e.g. Philidor or Ruy Lopez Steinitz Variation with
…e5xd4.

White’s superior mobility gives a lasting advantage. It
can be milked for a direct attack on the King; White can post the
Bc1 on b2. These days most players don’t fancy this defensive task
as Black and try to maintain the e5 pawn.

E.2. French/Caro formation
*

e.g. 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4, or 1. e4 c6 2. d4
d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4

With the Bc8 stuck behind the Pe6, Black has a lasting
problem. White can post a Knight on e5 and play sharply to restrict
Black’s pieces and attack the Black King.

It is natural to seek …c5, but even after an exhange
White has the Queen’s-side majority. In the Caro version the Bc8
usually escapes, so Black’s chances are better here, even if it
takes two moves to play …c5. Very often Queen’s-side castling is
an option for either side.

E.3. Sicilian Formation
*

e.g. 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3

A very delicate situation strategically; White has a deal
more space, and prospects of a King’s-side attack. But Black has an
extra central pawn, a minority attack and pressure down the c-file,
and myriad tactical opportunities.

The development of the Bf8 is important; after …e6 and
…Be7 Black has good central control but a slightly weak point on
d6; the centrally sounder …g6/…Bg7 adds so much to Black’s
Queen’s- side play that Black would play it all the time, if it
didn’t also create new opportunities for White’s King’s-side attack
after h4-h5.

White can achieve a powerful bind, and stop Black’s
counterplay, by playing c2-c4. Black may be able to equalise by
good defensive play and achieve a freeing break with …b5 or
…d5, but it is essentially a defensive task that misses out on
the counter-attacking possibilities of the Sicilian.

E.4. Rival Majorities (i) with
open file between

e.g. English Opening 1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5
5. Bg2 Nb6 and later d4 and …e5xd4; see also
E3.

Simply, each side must advance their majority.
With Queens on, advancing pawns on the King’s-side cannot be done
casually, but neither can their advance be ignored.

E.5. Rival Majorities (ii)
with no open file between

This formation can be achieved by the centre pawns pushing past
each other once their partners have been exchanged, but more often
it will arise from A2/A3 after an exchange on an
outpost square.

The plans are clear for each side; the bishop’s pawns
must advance, with equal chances.

F. Half-open
formations

F.1. Half-Open with an open
file (i) symmetrical

e.g. Echange Slav 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. cxd5 cxd5

This is plainly similar to other symmetrical formations,
with tactical or dynamic features (lead in development, two
bishops, concentration of force) being more important than the pawn
formation. The structurally important thing here is on which side
the dark-squared bishops are placed.

F.2. Half-Open with an open
file (ii) focus formation

e.g. Ruy Lopez, Tchigorin Defence 1. e4 e5 2. Nf2 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6
4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3 d6 9. h3 Na5 10.
Bc2 c5 11. dxe5 dxe5

This is strategically very much richer. Usually there are
too many pieces around for invasion via the d-file to be possible,
but it should not be overlooked. White has an outpost on d5, and
after an exchange on d5, e4xd5 gives a passed pawn and the Bc2 and
Nd2 can look forward to a bright future. White also has a plan of
Nf5 and a King’s-side attack, and may seek to control c4 after
a2-a4.

Black has counterplay on the Queen’s-side, and if c5-c4
proves possible, Black suddenly has avoided any nasties on c4 and
has a goal on d3. So White’s pursuit of King’s-side goals cannot be
careless.

F.3. Half-Open with an open
file (iii) Blocked Oblique

e.g. King’s Indian, Ruy Lopez or French; cf.
D1/D2

The discussion in D1/D2 was all about how to open a file,
but here such a file already exists. Four possibilities present
themselves, combining each central pawn being forward with either
bishop file being open. Care and exploitation of the open file
affects markedly the plans described above; both players may switch
to the side with the open file in order to keep an eye on it.

Exchanges of rooks down the open file reduce the chances
of a successful mating attack, but do not much reduce the
positional pawn advances.

F.4. Half-open with half-open
files (i) French

e.g. French with dxc5/…c5xd4 e.g. 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3
Nf6 4. e5 Nd7 5. f4 c5 6. Nf3 cxd4 7. Nxd4 Bc5 8. Be3

Black has chances against the Queen’s-side; c4 is an
outpost that cannot easily be disturbed by b2-b3. White’s chances
come on the King’s-side, and the attack must be swift and sure – f5
and h4 may figure in the attack. White should maintain a Knight at
d4, although Black can exchange or otherwise badger it. If Black
can force White to abandon d4, then the advance …d5-d4 may decide
the game in Black’s favour.

F.5. Half-open with half-open
files (ii) Caro-Kann / QGD Exchange

e.g. 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. cxd5 exd5 or 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3.
exd5 cxd5

We see this formation from White’s point of view in the
diagram, where we might expect White to be better developed than
Black. The half-open e-file and outpost on e5 gives prospects of a
King’s-side attack, even if Black had the majority there, as the
advance …e5 will be difficult or impossible. Black must counter
with a minority attack, and can think about spending a moment to
exchange the bad Bc8.

F.6. Passed pawn, protected
but blockaded

e.g. This may arise from D1 after an exchange
on c5.or from C4 after the advance of both the c-
and e-pawns is combined with the advance of the d-pawn

White has a difficult game: no way of opening a file
recommends itself, and Black can roll down the Queen’s-side. With
the e-pawn replaced by a pawn on c4, Black’s chances would
naturally come with …f5. The best blockader is always a Knight,
who loses no squares to the pawns on c5,d5 or e5, and is handily
placed to support pawn advances on either side.

F.7. Isolated Queen’s Pawn
*

e.g. Queen’s Gambit Accepted 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 Nf6
4.e3 c5 5. Bxc4 cxd5 6. exd4 or Caro-Kann Panov Attack, 1. e4 c6 2.
d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4.

Isolated pawns are weak, but central pawns are strong.
The critical and common case is the isolated Queen’s pawn (IQP)
where the strength and space is greatest. White can avoid exchanges
and has hopes of a King’s side attack based on a N on e5 and a B on
the b1-h7 diagonal; Black can consolidate and pile up on the d4
pawn, seeking exchanges and an advatageous endgame.

F.8. Hanging Pawns *

Often derived from IQP after …Nd5xc3 and bxc3, then c3-c4.
Directly from e.g. Semi-Tarrasch 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3
c5 or Queen’s Indian 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. e3

The pawns are strong and can be turned to attack because
they control so many key squares, but if either pawn moves the
weakness of the other will be sharply etched. Again, the defending
side can seek exchanges and the endgame, but this is nothing like
as straightforward a game as the IQP. There is a defensive idea
based on the advance of the isolated a-pawn, hoping to disrupt the
Black Queen’s-side pawns.

Twentieth-century planning

Posted on November 8, 1998 by DrDave

Twentieth-Century
planning

Some time ago, we looked at this one:

[Event “rooks on ranks and files”][Site “-, Leipzig”][Date
“1894.??.??”][Round “?”]

[White “Tarrasch”][Black “von Scheve”][Result “1-0”]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3
Be7 5.Bf4 c6 6.e3 Nbd7
7.h3 Ne4

Tarrasch: “The decisive error. After the exchange of
Knights, Black’s capturing Pawn becomes weak, and needs protection
by …f5. It is then attacked by f3, forcing Black to exchange and
open up the Knight file for White. Thereupon there ensues a
combined attack of White’s Queen, both Rooks and the Queen Bishop
against the Knight Pawn (the keystone of the Castled position) an
attack which is irresistible.”

He adds modestly: “I know of no game in all the chess
literature in which it is possible to conceive of so detailed a
plan, leading almost to mate, and in which the remaining 20 moves
lead up to a catastrophe.”

8.Nxe4 dxe4 9.Nd2 Bb4 10.a3 Bxd2+
11.Qxd2 O-O 12.Qc2 f5 13.Bd6 Re8
14.O-O-O Nf6 15.Be5 Bd7 16.f3 exf3 17.gxf3 b5 18.Rg1 Rf8 19.Rd2 Rf7
20.Rdg2 a5

The prediction fulfilled.

21.Qf2 Ne8 22.Rg5 Qe7 23.Qh4 Nf6
24.Qh6 Ra7 25.Bd6 Qxd6 26.Rxg7+
Kf8 27.Rxh7+ Ke7 28.Rxf7+ Kxf7 29.Rg7+ Kf8 30.Qxf6+ 1-0

This is an unusually clear example. But do you have to go through
all this planning stuff? You do if you want to get better results.
Of course, you have been planning for ages – all that stuff about
K-side pawn storms, Knight outposts and Bad bishops was all basic
planning. But you do need to do it.

Unplanned chess

[Event “?”][Site “Zurich”][Date “1953.??.??”][Round “?”]

[White “Petrosjan”][Black “Euwe”][Result “1-0”]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 d5 3. Bg2
Bf5 4. d3 e6 5. Nbd2 h6 6. O-O
Bc5 7. Qe1 O-O 8. e4 BRONSTEIN comments:

‘Black’s last few moves seem rather inconsequential
to me. By move ten Black should not only have formed a plan, but
should be sticking to it as well.’

KOTOV adds: ‘…the pawn exchange was illogical. He should have
retreated the bishop to h7, maintaining the tension in the centre.
If, however, he had decided to exchange pawns in this way which was
a possible line, he should have followed it up by getting rid of
his bishop by exchanging it for the White N at e4.’

The B got stuck on h7, and the other pieces couldn’t get
going. Eventually White’s better pieces supported a general advance
which won a pawn and the game.

8…dxe4 9. Nxe4 Nxe4 10.
dxe4 Bh7 DIAGRAM

We now have a classic ‘offside piece’ position.

11. b4 Be7 12. Bb2 Na6 13. a3 c6
14. Rd1 Qc8 15. c4 Nc7 16. Qc3 Bf6
17. Ne5 Rd8 18. Bf3 Ne8 19. Rxd8 Qxd8 20. Rd1 Qc7 21. c5 a5 22. Bg2
axb4 23. axb4 Rd8 24. Rxd8 Qxd8 25. Qc2 Nc7 26. Bf1 Nb5 27. f4 Kf8
28. Kf2 Bxe5 29. Bxe5 f6 30. Bb2 Ke7 31. Bc4

31…Bg6 32. Ke3 Bf7
33. g4 Qc7 34. e5 Qd8 35. exf6+ gxf6 36. h4 Nc7 37. Qc3 Nd5+ 38.
Bxd5 Qxd5 39. Qxf6+ Ke8 40. Qh8+ Kd7 41. Qg7 Ke8 42. Bf6 Qb3+ 43.
Bc3 Qd1 44. Qh8+ Kd7 45. Qb8 Qc1+ 46. Bd2 Qg1+ 47. Kd3 Qf1+ 48. Kc2
Qa6 49. h5 Qa2+ 50. Kd3 Qb1+ 51. Ke2 Qe4+ 52. Kf2 Qd4+ 53. Be3 Qxb4
54. Qf8 Qb2+ 55. Kg3 Qf6 56. Qd6+ Kc8 57. Bd4 Qd8 58. Qxd8+ Kxd8
59. Bg7 Kc7 60. Bxh6 b6 61. cxb6+ Kxb6 62. Kh4 1-0
[For this and other games below from the Zurich 1953 tournament,
Kotov and I are relying on Bronstein’s great book.]

Here is another example of a good plan, played against a
player who didn’t have much of a plan:

[Event “?”][Site “ussr ch’p SF”][Date “1939.??.??”][Round “?”]

[White “Sokolsky”][Black “Botvinnik”][Result “0-1”]

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.e3 O-O
6.Be2 e6 7.O-O b6 8.cxd5 exd5 9.b3 Bb7 10.Bb2 Nbd7
11.Qc2

“It gradually becomes clear that White has no plan and merely
concerns himself with developing his pieces. You might hve been
able to play that fifty years ago, but nowadays, when every master
makes a plan after the first six to eight moves of the game, there
is no better way of getting into a cramped and passive position
than thinking of development alone.” – BOTVINNIK

11…a6 12.Rac1 Rc8 13.Rfd1 Qe7 14.Qb1 Rfd8
15.Bf1 c5 16.dxc5

“Yet another positional error. It is not possible to
exploit the hanging pawns at c5 and d5 with a large number of minor
pieces on the board by attacking them from the back line! Meanwhile
White parts with his last strong point in the centre – the strong
point at d4. This brings Black’s Bb7 to life, and the tempo of the
game speeds up” – BOTVINNIK

Black expoits his extra space with a vigorous attack on
the K-side. He cleverly realises he needs the Bg7 to pressurise e3,
so fearlessly gives up the long diagonal a1-h8 to White.

16…bxc5 17.Ne2 Bh6 18.Ba3 Ng4
DIAGRAM

White’s natural moves have let him drift into a passive
position.

19.Qd3 (19.Nc3 Bxe3)
19…Nde5 20.Nxe5 Qxe5 21.Ng3 Qf6 22.Nh1 d4 23.Qe2 Ne5
24.exd4 cxd4 25.Rxc8 Bxc8 26.Re1 d3

White’s position has continued to slide while Black has
been getting more menacing… Time for the final push:

26… d3 27.Qd1 Bg4 28.Qa1 d2 29.Rxe5 d1=Q
30.Re8+ Rxe8 31.Qxf6 Be2 And Black won easily …0-1

One more example – losing a better game by playing without a plan.

[Event “?”][Site “Zurich IZT”][Date “1953.??.??”][Round “?”]

[White “Gligoric, S.”][Black “Kotov, A.”][Result
“0-1”]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4
4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.g3 e5
7.Nde2 Be6 8.Bg2 b5 9.O-O Nbd7 10.a4 b4 11.Nd5 Nxd5 12.exd5 Bg4
13.Bd2 a5 14.c3 bxc3 15.Bxc3 Qb6 16.h3 Bh5 17.Kh2 Be7 18.f4
DIAGRAM

“White has a plus. Sometimes ‘natural’ moves suffice, but
against able and determined defence the attack may need to be
pursued along a tightrope of only moves. 18 g4! first then f4 would
have been more incisive, if more risky.” BRONSTEIN

18…Bxe2 19.Qxe2 Bf6
20.Qc4 O-O 21.Qc6 Rfd8 22.Rae1 Qb8
DIAGRAM

“Backing up for a running jump… the initiative has
passed to Black.” BRONSTEIN

23.Rb1 Ra7 24.Qc4 Rc8 25.Qe4 Qb3
(threats …Rc4 and
…exf4/…Bxc3) 26.fxe5 Bxe5 27.Qf5
Rf8 28.Qf2 DIAGRAM

“It is because of such one-move threats that all of
White’s advantage has evaporated.” BRONSTEIN

28…Raa8 29.Qf5 Qxa4
30.Rf4 Bxf4 31.gxf4 g6 32.Qg5 Rae8
33.Rg1 Re2 34.Kh1 Qc2 35.Qg4 Nc5 36.Qh4 Ne4 37.Bd4 Nf2+ 38.Kh2 Ne4
39.f5 Qd3 40.fxg6 fxg6 41.Bb6 0-1 (41…Nd2)

Kotov has been much exercised by this notion of planning, and in
his books gives lots of examples of planless play being punished.
You can often see glorious examples of well-planned play – like in
the old master games of Tarrasch and Steinitz, where a plan
conceived early in the game was carried out to perfection and
gradually overwhelmed the opponent. Tarrasch and Steinitz also
showed how to form a plan – where to find weak points, and how to
attack at the weakest point. I’ll discuss this in more detail
below, but first another word from Kotov and Bronstein on planning
in general. Kotov describes reading over a game of Romanovsky’s
against Vilner, which made a powerful impression on the young Kotov
– here, a plan, which Romanovsky stuck to over 5 hours, eventually
resulted in victory. ROMANOVSKY commented on his own game:

” ‘The last and main conclusion to be
drawn and the main one is as follows. In every game we ought to
have a single basic plan, and by carrying out this plan we ought to
get a prolonged initiative. The initiative so gained will tend to
increase until it reaches the stage where it is sufficient to force
a win.‘ …

“My own reaction” says KOTOV, “was immense
admiration. Everything foreseen and planned from the first move to
the last… I tried to start playing in a planned fashion… but I
got precisely nowhere! I would envisage a long siege of my
opponent’s pawn at a6 but was distracted by threats on the
f-file… My games still consisted of isolated episodes which I
feverishly tried to knit together into a harmonious
whole…

“It was only much later … that the question of a
single plan became clear to me… In the Vilner game it was a
struggle between unequal sides. When, however, you meet a strong
inventive opponent and he counters every one of your intentions not
only by defensive but also by counter-attacking measures, then it
is far from simple to carry out a single plan…

“… I finally concluded: ‘A single plan is the sum
total of strategic operations which follow each other in turn and
which each carry out an independent idea that arises logically from
the demands of a given position’. …

The definition given above is supported by the
following quotation from Bronstein: ‘Due to
Tarrasch * an idea grew up that is still
prevalent nowadays, the idea that there are the so-called logical
games in which one side carries out a logical plan from beginning
to end rather like a theorem in geometry. I do not think that there
are such games between opponents of the same strength and the
annotator who gives that impressions is often the winner of the
game who makes out that what happened is what he wanted to
happen‘ “

Znosko-Borovsky says much the same thing in his
How Not To Play Chess lecture. So, in the examples
I gave above (and more below), read and believe when I say you need
a plan, but remember that real chess is likely to be more messy and
less smooth. Unless you are playing an opponent who hasn’t got a
clue you will have to keep chopping and changing plans to cope with
the changing situation on the board. That’s life…

Modern chess planning

This century has not produced any great new theorists like Steinitz
or Nimzovitch, rather an approach to chess which takes no theory
for granted. Novel play in the opening has become increasingly
sophisticated, and players will defend the most dreadful-looking
pawn structures if they get some sort of activity for it. Chess has
become more concrete, more dynamic, and more difficult. Let’s have
a look at a couple of examples:

This position, arising after 1 e4, c6; 2 d4, d5; 3 Nc3,
dxe4; 4 Nxe4, Nf6; 5 Nxf6, exf6 (now we more often play
5…gxf6); 6 Bc4, Bd6; 7 Qe2, Be7; 8 Nf3, O-O; 9
O-O, was well-known to players and theorists of the 19th
century. Lasker, for example, comments:

“White’s plan consists in realising his pawn
superiority on the Queen’s side while remaining passive on the
King’s side. Black, on the other had will attampt to force his
opponent to advance one of his pawns on the King’s wing, in order
to start play against White’s King’s side with his pawns.”

Lasker has in mind moves for White such as c4 and d5 to
create a passed pawn, and for Black …Bg4, …Bd6, …f5 and
…Qh5. In fact play went 9 …Bd6; 10 Re1, Bg4; 11 Qe4!
Bh5; 12 Nh4, Nd7; 13 Qf5. Steinitz and Lasker would
undoubtedly have criticised White’s crude and ‘unjustified’ attack.
What’s going on? Ragozin, a strong and experienced Soviet master,
must have been aware of Lasker’s views, and of the theories of
Steiniz, so why is he playing on the ‘wrong’ side? He has made in
fact a much more dynamic and concrete assessment of the position
which notes, not just the Q-side majority, but also: the awkwardly
placed bishops, missing Nf6, the compromised f-pawns and White’s
development and control of space. Given time, Black could no doubt
disentangle his pieces. Ragozin gives him no time at all.

13…Nb6; 14 Qxh5, Nxc4; 15 Bh6!! Qd7
(can you find the win after 15…gxh6?); 16 b3, Nb6; 17
Nf5, Kh8; 18 Re4, Bxh2+ 19 Kh1 and Black resigned.

This is the real contribution of the 20th century to
chess theory, in which SOVIET players have been dominant. Players
look beyond the geometry of pawn formations and have moved to a
more flexible and more dynamic style of play. There are no new
general principles, because modern players do not believe in
general principles. Players like BRONSTEIN and BOLESLAVSKY turned
established ideas on their heads in the 1950s, championing Black’s
dynamic chances in the King’s Indian and Sicilian.

There is another good example of modern planning from
Bronstein’s superb book on the 1953 Candidates tournament
The Chess Struggle in Practice.

In this line of the King’s Indian, an opening he and Boleslavsky
more or less re-invented, White has a significant space advantage,
and Black has a ‘backward’ d-pawn on an open file, although he has
covered the outpost on d5. Black has some good pieces: the Bg7 and
Nc5 are well-placed, and the Bc8 and Re8 also have some
potential.
Bronstein comments:

“I think now is the time to acquaint the reader with
the mysteries of the Black d-pawn in the King’s Indian. Even though
it is situated on an open file and therefore always exposed to
attack, it is not a very easy nut to crack. The simplest method for
White is apparently to retreat the Knight from d4, but d4 is
precisely where the Knight needs to be: its jobs are to supervise
b5, c6, e6, and f5 and to buffer the influence of the Bg7. Only
after White has taken steps against possible Black attacks (…a3,
…Be6, …f5) can his Knight leave the centre, but during that
time Black can regroup to cause worries elsewhere.

“So the weakness of the d-pawn proves to be
imaginary. Contemporary methods of play in the opening recognise
the illusory weakness of such pawns. But it was exactly this
‘eternal’ weakness of the Pd6 that led to the King’s Inidan being
regarded as dubious.

The most dramatic recent example of this is Evgeny
Sveshnikov’s cherished variation of the Sicilian, sometimes known
as the Pelikan: 1 e4, c5; 2 Nf3, Nc6; 3 d4, cxd4; 4 Nxe4,
Nf6; 5 Nc3, e5; 6 Nb5, d6; 7 Bg5, a6; 8 Bxf6, gxf6; 9 Na3,
f5!? Black will use the extra central pawns and piece
activity to stop White getting a proper hold on the weaknesses on
…d6 and …f6/…h6.

Zinn-Sveshnikov, Decin 1974: 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4
4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6. Ndb5 d6 DIAGRAM

Black has an obvious hole on d5; White sets out, in textbook
fashion, to occupy it. 7. Bg5 a6 8. Na3 b5 9. Bxf6 gxf6 10.
Nd5 Mission accomplished! DIAGRAM

But at what cost? The outpost stands unsupported by any other White
pieces, and the Na3 is at present a bit lost. Black’s pawns are
very muddled but control a lot of key squares (c4,d4 and f4). The
muddling also gives Black the open g-file.

Let’s see how things unfold

10… f5 11. Bd3 Be6 12. Qh5 Bg7 13. O-O f4 14.
c3 O-O 15. Nc2 f5 DIAGRAM

The muddled pawns dominate the centre and the King’s side, while
White’s pieces are still looking for a decent plan. Black now
attacks down the open g-file. 16. Ncb4 Nxb4 17. Nxb4 d5 18.
exd5 Bd7 19. Bc2 Be8 20. Qe2 Kh8 21. Rad1 Qh4 22. f3 Rf6 23. Qe1
Qg5 24. Qxe5 Bd7 25. Qe7 Rg8 26. Qxd7 Rf7 0-1 DIAGRAM

Games like this may make the classically-trained chessplayer
despair, but they have added a richness and excitement to our
understanding of the game.

” Their point of view can be summarized as follows:
what had for generations been accepted as a weakness, such as a
hole or an isolated pawn, was not weak unless or until the
opponent began to attack it; a much smaller hostile weakness which
could be attacked first was in fact a greater weakness. Thus the
dynamic approach brought about a radical adjustment in the views on
weakness and strenght. It was no longer possible to measure one’s
weakness against those of one’s opponent by the old method, but it
was necessary to assess also the potentialities and speeds of the
relative attacks. This called for a new degree of acute positional
judgement, and in this was the Russian school has specially trained
itself.“

— Dynamic Chess by R.N. Coles; I am grateful to
Ariel Quinatana for supplying this quote.

Bibliography:

Kotov: Think like a Grandmaster &

Plan like a Grandmaster

Bronstein: The Chess Struggle in Practice

Botvinnik: 100 Selected Games

Euwe and Kramer: The Middle Game, Volumes I and
II

Contempt for Pawns

Posted on April 15, 1998 by DrDave

“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?

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

“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

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

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 +/-

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

[14…Bxf6 15.Be3 Qxb2 16.Ne4]

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

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

[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

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

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

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

B2) 4.c3

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

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!

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

20.Rd3! “The distinctive chariot
move…”

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

+-----------------+

“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

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

“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

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

…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

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

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!

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

“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

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

“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!

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

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

Posted on April 1, 1998 by DrDave

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

(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…”

(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

(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

(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

17.Rxf7 Kh8 18.Rxd7 1-0

P – pins

“The
pin is mightier than the sword” – Reinfeld

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

Q –
queening

“Every Pawn is a potential Queen” –
Mason

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

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 0-1The Noah’s Ark trap.

S – sacrifice at castle
gates

“Examine moves that smite!” – Purdy

(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

(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.

(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!”

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…”

(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…”

(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…”

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

(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

(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

(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”

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…”

(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!”

(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”

(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

(Anderssen-Zukertort, Barmen 1869):
the file

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

(Fischer-Anderssen, Siegen 1970): the
diagonal

G – good and bad
pawns

“Pawns are the soul of chess” – Philidor

(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

(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

(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

(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”.

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

Posted on March 6, 1998 by DrDave

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

OCBs in the endgame

(1)

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

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)

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)

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)

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.

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

[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!

[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#

A lovely finish! 1-0

General Middlegame Advice

Posted on September 28, 1997 by DrDave

Playing the Middlegame
Planning
Strategical advice

This compilation has been made by going through all my beginner’s
books and making notes. I was after practical advice on
thinking rather than chess theory this
time; the most useful titles by a mile were Simon Webb’s
Chess for Tigers, Jeremy Silman’s The
Amateur’s Mind. Also running strongly were the old
Keres/Kotov title The Art of the Middle Game,
Kotov’s Think like a Grandmaster, Avni’s
Danger in Chess and Krogius’ Psychology in
Chess. In each of these books, the points they make are
illustrated by actual examples, which helps fix the point in your
mind. I won’t attempt to reproduce examples from these or other
books on this page (as if the lawyers would let me), but the points
below could all do with reference to a practical context – see if
you can identify examples from your own play. I have a stash of
games from our last simul. and some
recent club games which might be
helpful.

Playing the Middlegame

“During a chess competition a chessmaster should be
a combination of a beast of prey and a monk.“

— Alexander Alekhin

Attack and defence

You must think for both sides. I would guess that
the vast majority of decisive mistakes in club play are not
misjudgements (like, “I thought my attack would be faster than
yours“) but oversights (“Oops – missed that one.“).
Purdy says you will never overcome blunders by effort alone (what
you need is a trained eye), which is surely true, but you must
also put in the effort! If you never try to work out what
your opponent might be doing, you will never find out until it is
too late. Let’s clarify this with an example:

Kasparov – Karpov, Linares, 1994

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 5. Bc4 Ngf6 6.
Ng5 e6 7. Qe2 Nb6 8. Bb3 h6 9. N5f3 a5 10. c3 c5 11. a3 Qc7 12. Ne5
cxd4 13. cxd4 DIAGRAM

13… a4

[13… Bxa3]

14. Bc2 Bd7 15. Nxd7 Nbxd7 16. Qd1 Bd6 17. Ne2
Nd5 …drawn

I wouldn’t like to say there’s anything wrong with the
analytical abilities of either player – but neither is it an error
of judgement. My guess is, it’s a quiet position in a solid
opening, and neither player bothered to look hard enough.

Chess is a tense game. This tension may make you want to believe
things that aren’t really true, and comfort yourself with things
that mean you don’t have to think too hard any more. Not a bit of
it….

Petrosian-Korchnoi 1963

Black has a hopeless, passive position, just as he has had for the
last umpteen moves. Petrosian just went

1. Rxh6

which was met by

1…f3!

Hoping for 2. Kxf3 Kg7 discovered
check, winning the rook.

2. Kg5 Ke8 White resigns, unable to
catch the f-pawn.

Afterwards, Petrosian explained that a move like …f3
just didn’t fit with “Black’s hopeless position“. But
where there’s life, there’s hope!

“For a long time I had regarded my position as a
winning one. Thus the whole opening phase of the struggle, when
Korchnoi was unable to get out of trouble, had psychologically
attuned me to the idea that the ending would be favourable to me
… and here comes the oversight 35 Rxh6?? I did
not even see the threat …f4-f3, possibly because it was in
contrast to Black’s hopeless position. Personally, I am of the view
that if a strong master does not see such a threat at once he will
not notice it, even if he analyses the position for twenty or
thirty minutes.” – PETROSIAN.

I have a whole book full of these types of disaster, when one
player just turned the alarm off. You should be on guard all the
time, with the alarm dial turned up to 11!

Please note that Petrosian was also thinking less than
objectively about the game, and thinking only about his plans. Your
opponent also has a right to exist…

Remember:
1. every position is capable of being ruined
2. minor details can affect the outcome
3. if there is only one way you can lose, make sure you secure
  against it
4. if the position changes, re-assess your previous
  conclusions
5. actively search for danger as a routine part of your choice of
  move
Danger signs – General things to watch out
for:
1. leaving the king without sufficient support from other
  pieces
2. weakness of the eighth rank
3. entering a lasting pin
4. poisoned pawns
5. placing pieces without escape routes
— Amazia AVNI
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.
Don’t allow counterplay, e.g. a Pawn race, a
counterattack against the other wing, if you don’t have to.
Defensive play is difficult, and playing the downside of a position
without active chances of your own is doubly so. [Many of the best
players are masters at snuffing out the opponent’s plans.]
[Read more about Rules for
attack, Attacking the King,
Attacking the Queen’s-side or Attacking
techniques]

You and your opponent

How do you react to pressure? Mental toughness and willpower
are important in chess. The top boards often look calmer and more
composed because they are; they are concentrating on the game and
are not distracted by unexpected events on the board. [I have
more than once played strong opponents who said afterwards they
thought I was winning at one point, but I would never have guessed
that from their expression during the game – they looked totally
assured and confident!]
Patience is a virtue. Good nerves are
essential: this doesn’t mean you shouldn’t ever feel
nervous during a game (boy, do I wish I could manage that!) but
that you should not let your nervousness tempt you to poor
decisions: e.g. make back away from a critical line, or make you
try to force the issue too soon.
Don’t ever coast along. Keep coming up with ideas. Put your
opponent under pressure. Force your will on your opponent – get
them to react to you. If you think you see a win, go for it.
If you stand worse:
- Fight, don’t just react to threats. Mednis calls passive play
  “awaiting the undertaker“! It is much harder for the
  attacker to keep their nerve if the defender has active play, and
  without counterplay your opponent will just keep building up their
  position. It used to be said of Alekhin that to beat him you had
  to win three games – once in the opening, once in the middlegame,
  and once in the endgame. Make the same be true for
  you.
- Don’t stop looking for your own opportunities. Many games have
  been lost that could have been drawn or even won (don’t I know
  it!). But also, people resign with a saving move available on the
  board – they were just going through the motions until resigning,
  instead of planning their comeback.
- Never give up. There is always hope if you
  fight. Don’t play for one last cheap trap and then resign.
  Play the move that will make your opponent groan, the move you
  would hate to see if you had the advantage. Defend with endless
  determination.
- If your best hope is for your opponent to fall into a trap,
  then you can play for a swindle, but only when you know you are
  losing. Otherwise, play good moves, not trappy ones.
Take your opponent seriously if they are lower-rated, but don’t
be overawed if they outgrade you. [Don’t look at your opponent’s
rating if it takes the edge off your attitude.]
Everyone is vulnerable. Play without fear. Play to win
from the first move against every opponent. That doesn’t
mean, attack like a mad thing from move 1, but each move should be
played accurately and seriously.

When playing stronger players, don’t stick to the script!
Make a nuisance of yourself. Don’t make concessions. Good players
drop games to lesser lights every year – make sure it’s you that
they drop them to. Many players when pitted against a stronger
opponent try and swap everything off and get a draw in the endgame.
They then get a worse game, and are ground steadily down by their
opponent’s superior technique who is pleased to get a win without
danger of losing. Every exchange made is going to be better for one
side or the other, and every passive move makes your position less
promising. The best way to get a draw is to play as well
and actively as possible, just the same as if you were
trying to win!
If your opponent is trying to win a level position, don’t get
impatient and rush, and don’t get bored and go on the defensive,
don’t be tempted into exchanges that give a little ground. Stay
calm. Give the impression of great patience, that you aren’t going
to blunder no matter how long they spin it out. And keep trying to
play good and active moves, even if you think it’s only a draw.
When playing weaker players, don’t go for the throat, don’t try
to bamboozle your opponent in a complex position (you might get
lost too!); instead, play steadily and wait for a mistake – in
fact, don’t try to jump all over their first mistake, you can wait
for another mistake to turn up. If your opponent is only a bit
weaker than you, you may need to mix things up a bit, but generally
the message is ‘steady does it’.
Ignore your opponent’s time pressure. Take
your own time to find the best moves as you normally would. Don’t
try and rush your opponent – they are probably more used to playing
quickly than you are and may outplay you, or set you a trap!
[Read more about You
and your opponent, Chess
Psychology]

Positional play

If you have a space advantage (or any other long-term
advantage, like the Bishop pair), don’t rush to attack.
Milk your advantages – don’t feel obliged to cash
in immediately. You should not try to force the issue, but rather
maintain or increase your advantage while preventing counterplay.
Don’t lash out justy becaiuse you feel there ought to be a winning
combination by now. Avoid exchanges and build up your position so
that when things do come to a head the situation is at its most
favourable to you.
Preserve your options. Do what is required –
whether a retreat or an attack – but don’t burn your bridges
unnecessarily. Squeeze your opponent’s options – this is hard for
them to sit still for, and they may lash out without heed for the
dangers.
[Read more about Chess
Strategy]

Planning

Good positions don’t win games – good moves
do. Silman says, “Make good things happen“. Play
with a positive plan (although part of your plan might be
prevention). The initiative goes to the side than can devise and
(at least threaten to) put into action a realistic plan.
Create a plan right away or you may drift.
There is always something to do, e.g. improve the position of your
worst piece. Appraise the position honestly. Avoid
vagueness in assessment – don’t say “maybe I’ll get an
attack on the Queen’s-side“, but “in three moves I can get
my Knight to c5 and my rook to b1 to attack b7 – can my opponent
defend in that time, or create a distraction?“
Your plan must be based on the actual features of the
position. Work out what each side should be up to. You can’t
attack the King just because you want to. Play where you
have some advantage. Silman talks about the
‘pawn-pointing‘ rule: you have more space to attack where
the Pawn-chains point. This is also true for blocked positions,
like the French where opening a file with …c7-c5 will not leave
you with a backward Pawn as does …f7-f6.
Don’t play a good-looking move in vague hopefulness: consider
what your opponent’s reply might be. Don’t play a move with a
one-move threat that can be easily stopped. Don’t hope that your
opponent won’t see the threat – expect your opponent to
play the best move, and see if you still like your plan.
[You cannot base your game around one-idea plans like a3 Bc2
Qd3 Qxh7# – this may take four moves to threaten and one move
(…g6) to defend]
“Play a move which improves your position no matter
what.” – SILMAN
Don’t play a quick move because you can’t really decide what is
going on, or because you suddenly see a good-looking idea. Take the
time to find a good move. I think 15-20 minutes to decide if a Pawn
grab is safe is not unreasonable.
But don’t dither – decide what your basic choices are at the
start – narrow it down to the two or three most likely – and
decide. [If you know which plan you are following the moves can
come fairly easily.] If you get it down to two moves which look
equally good, find some other way of deciding between them (most
centralising, least forcing for your opponent…). [You know
the story of Buridan’s ass, which died of starvation between two
equal-sized piles of hay because it never could choose which one to
start on].
To summarise: anxiety, haste, vagueness, confusion and
simple-mindedness are the enemies of good moves.
[Read more about Planning]

Strategical advice

General advice

Rules are meant to be broken (or, at least,
checked to see if they apply in the actual position in front of
you!)
Don’t seek or avoid exchanges without good reason.
Exchanges are just moves, they make changes, and
you must assess these changes. [It seems to me that many
players exchange almost by reflex. I have a theory that when
learning chess we may become anxious about leaving exchanges ‘on’,
in case we leave the piece or pawn undefended later, and do not
like the tension of unresolved exchange possibilities. A mark of
maturity in a player is the capacity to manage tension in the
position.]
Quiet positions demand patience. They are not to be abandoned
as a draw or played carelessly – you must learn to concentrate and
outplay your opponent in these positions as well as when it’s very
tactical.
Accumulation theory: even if you have several
advantages, don’t be too confident to pick up another.
Dynamic positions require energetic play. You must make the
most of your own chances, and not just react to threats or coast
along until you have to do something.
[Read more about Strategy]

Space and the centre

Always look to the centre, even if it is
closed or has been quiet.
Decentralising is always suspicious,
particularly for knights, but also for long-range pieces like
Queens. This is a corollary of Stean’s assertion that the most
important feature of any position is the activity of the
pieces, since pieces are most active in the centre.
A space advantage is meaningless without a potential
breakthrough, or some other way to get behind enemy lines.
An attack on the wing is best met by play in the centre.
[Read more about Space and the
centre]

Advice about Kings and Queens

KING: tuck it away during the opening, by castling as a rule to
get the rook out as well. But in the endgame, the King becomes a
strong attacking piece, and can make raids on the opponent’s Pawns,
and guide your own Pawns through to be Queens. Because of course,
with only a few pieces on the board, there is less danger of a
middle-game attack, and then the King needn’t hide. Then the King
becomes like any other piece, and should be moved into the centre
of the board to attack or defend as necessary.
QUEEN: Not very useful right at the start, because it may be
harassed, but always powerful. Place it near the centre in the
opening, behind the minor pieces – e2,d2 or f2/c2 are good squares
– ready to jump out to make a raid in combination with other
pieces. After some pieces have been exchanged, or you have a clear
advantage, you can move the Queen further towards the little centre
(e4,d4,e5,d5).

Advice about Rooks

Rooks need open files.
ROOK: Rooks must have open lines. This may take some time to
arrange, and because they can be chased by minor pieces they are
best place in waiting (like the Queen) on the central e- and
d-files. Later, they can move strongly up the board using these
central files – for example, in the middle game, to e3 and then
move over to g3 to help attack the Black King, or right up to the
seventh rank on e7 or d7, where it can attack pawns right along the
opponent’s second rank. This control of the seventh rank is very
powerful, particularly in the endame if your opponent’s King is
stuck on the last rank (a8-h8). Rooks work even better in pairs –
for example, by putting them on e1 and e2 they can control the
e-file and then often Black cannot swap off by playing their own
Rook to e8. Even stronger is to control the seventh rank absolutely
with eg. Rook on d7 and e7, where they can gobble up pawns and
often Ks.
The furthest available square on an open or half-open file is a
potential outpost or entry point.
Open files are precious. If there is one around, with Rooks on
the board, you must seek to control or challenge it. Particularly
in open positions, control of files is paramount.
Open files are useful only if there is an entry point, and in
semi-open positions with many minor pieces an entry for a Rook may
be lacking. In these cases you may be able to use a minor piece to
make the first invasion, but sometimes the open file is not very
useful.
Very often the first priority in the early middle game in
closed positions is to see where you can open a file. (Like in
the French defence: after 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5
Black should immediately see about opening up space on the
Queen’s-side with 3…c5.)
Half-open files (in positions without an open file) can be used
to create pressure against the exposed Pawn.
[Read more about Rooks]

Advice about minor pieces

BISHOP: like the Rook, also needs open lines. The long
diagonals a1-h8 and h1-a8 are useful, but often it is more
important to point them at your opponent’s King’s-side , for
example, by putting them on c4 and e3. Two bishops side by side can
be very powerful in attacking from a distance, for example on b2
and c2.
Fianchettoed Bishops, at b2 or g2, need open diagonals.
Knights need to be near the centre and
forward; they thrive on outposts (whether
absolute = can’t be dislodged by a Pawn, or
relative, like on f5, when a pawn move (…g6) would
weaken the opponent’s position).
KNIGHT: The short-stepping Knight can get left behind if the
battle moves away, so the best bet is to keep them in the centre.
They are often best placed on c3 and f3 in the opening, although a
Pawn on c3 may be needed to support d2-d4. Later, e5 and d5 are
useful squares to occupy when they can threaten Pawns on c7/f7 and
pinned Knights on c6/f6. They may be driven away from e5/d5 by
pawns; best are squares where the opponent cannot – or dare not –
chase them with pawns. If Black has moved his Pawns from c7 to c5
and from e7 to e5 then a Knight on d5 can never be driven away,
only exchanged for another piece. When this happens, you can try to
recapture with another piece which also cannot be driven off. But
another good square for a Knight, when pawns are on e4 and e5, is
f5: here it threatens the pawn on g7, and if ever Black pushes it
away with g6 then a hole appears on h6 for the Knight to hop into,
perhaps giving check.
The struggle of Bishop(s) against Knight(s) is
crucial: the Bishops are not always better but in all
positions you must strive to make your minor piece(s) better, or
make the position suit them more.
Bishops are better than Knights in Pawn races, because they can
influence each side of the board at once.
If you have the Bishop pair you must try to open up lines for
them, and deny the opposing Knights any central posts.
[Read more about Bishops and
Knights]

Advice about Pawns

PAWNS: You will have to move some to get your pieces out, and
you can try to dominate the centre with pawns on e4 and d4 (
perhaps with c4 and/or f4). But the pawns in front of your castled
King form a solid wall on f2/g2/h2, and those on a2/b2/c2 are
probably OK where they are too. So, oddly, pawns are often
well-placed where they are at the start of the game. “Every
pawn move loosens the position“, says Tarrasch: if you move
the pawn on g2 to g3, you immediately get holes at f3 and h3.
Moving a pawn from f2 to f3 not only takes away the best square for
your Knight, which is a good defender of the pawn on h2, but also
opens up a check to your King from c5. When the endgame appears,
one side or the other will have to win material to win – by
queening a Pawn, or at least threatening to. Then Pawns can be
moved more freely, to block opposing Pawns, to create and support
extra or passed Pawns of their own side, and to keep out the
opponent’s pieces – including their King.
If the pieces don’t suggest what plan you must adopt, the Pawns
will.
Weak Pawns are only weak if they (or the squares near them) can
be attacked.
Pawn structures usually have positive and negative
features, e.g. every doubled Pawn yields a (half)-open
file.
Hanging Pawns are a typical example of an unbalanced dynamic
situation, requiring vigorous action from both players.
[Read more about Pawns]

Advice on tactics

Combinations do not usually come out of nowhere – they are
based on a superiority in position, and you can
tell when a combination is likely to be around:
1. Exposed or “stalemated” Kings are always
  vulnerable
2. Undefended or ‘hanging’ pieces aften lead to
  trouble.
3. Pieces which are defended only as often as they are
  attacked can also lead to trouble, because their defenders are at
  least partly immobilised..
[Read more about Tactics]

Kings and Queens

Posted on September 26, 1997 by DrDave

Now, each of the pieces we have considered so far – pawns, knights, bishops and rooks – have peculiarities which make certain positions more or less suitable for them to operate. Kings and Queens move in each direction with equal ease, and so have no such rules – although Queens do like a bit of space to get into their stride.

Their flexibility gives them value, and because they are so valuable they are often the subject of tricks and traps in the opening. Here’s some illustrations: forgive me using my own but they don’t put many cheapos in master game collections.

   [Event "Cambridge Open"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1980.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Regis, D."]  [Black "Langosz, G."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "A37"]  [WhiteElo "1800"]  [BlackElo "1700"]  [Annotator "king: wandering in the middlegame"]  [PlyCount "49"]  [EventDate "1980.??.??"]  [EventType "game"]   {[%mdl 2048]} 1. c4 g6 2. g3 Bg7 3. Bg2 d6 4. Nc3 c5 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. O-O Nf6 7.  d4 cxd4 8. Nxd4 Bd7 9. Bg5 O-O 10. Rc1 a6 11. b3 Qc7 12. Nxc6 (12. Nd5 Nxd5 13.  cxd5 Bxd4 14. dxc6 Bxf2+ 15. Rxf2 Bxc6 16. Bh6 Rfc8 17. Bd5) 12... bxc6 13. Qd2  Rfc8 14. Na4 Rab8 15. Rfd1 c5 16. Nc3 Qa7 {[#] White can now force a weakening  of the Pawns. Black thinks he can avoid it...} 17. Bxf6 Bxf6 18. Nd5 Kg7 19.  Nxf6 Kxf6 $2 20. Qc3+ {[#] oops} Kg5 21. Qg7 {I pinched this idea from  Petrosian!} (21. Rd5+ Bf5 22. e4 e6 23. Rxd6 {is also winning}) 21... Be6 (  21... Bc6 22. f4+ Kg4 23. h3+ Kxg3 24. Qh6 Bxg2 25. Rd3+ Bf3 26. Rxf3#) 22. h4+  Kg4 23. Kh2 Rh8 24. Bf3+ Kf5 25. e4# 1-0   [Event "County match"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1993.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Regis, D."]  [Black "Smith, A."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "B02"]  [WhiteElo "1935"]  [BlackElo "1820"]  [Annotator "strategy: queen"]  [PlyCount "93"]  [EventDate "1993.??.??"]  [EventType "tourn"]   1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. c4 Nb6 4. d4 d6 5. exd6 cxd6 6. Nc3 (6. Be3 g6 7. h4 h5)  6... g6 7. Be3 Bg7 8. Bd3 Nc6 9. Nge2 O-O 10. O-O f5 (10... Bg4) 11. c5 (11. a3  {or Qd2}) 11... dxc5 12. dxc5 Nd7 13. Bc4+ Kh8 14. Nf4 Nf6 15. Ne6 Bxe6 16.  Bxe6 Ng4 17. Nd5 Qa5 18. Qc2 (18. Qc1 Nxe3 19. fxe3) 18... Nxe3 19. fxe3 Nd8  20. Bd7 e5 (20... e6 21. Nf4 e5 {( I analysed 21...Rf6; 22 Qc4 idea b4 )} 22.  Nd5 Nc6 23. a3 e4 24. Bxc6 bxc6 25. Nf4 Rfe8 {(fritz fancied ...Rad8 when b4  to stop ...Rd7 allows ...Bxa1 )} 26. b4 Qa6 27. Ra2 Rad8 28. Rd1 Rxd1+ 29. Qxd1  Qc4) 21. b4 {[#] You can tell Black is going to suffer. There are hundreds of  trapped queen miniatures (see Tactics examples)} Qa3 22. Rab1 Rb8 23. Ba4 (23.  Bb5 a6 24. Rb3 Qxb3 25. Qxb3 axb5 26. Nb6 Rf7 27. Rd1 Rc7 28. Rd6) 23... e4 (  23... Rc8 24. Nc3) 24. Bb5 Nc6 25. Rb3 Nxb4 26. Rxb4 Rfd8 27. Ra4 Qb2 28. Qxb2  Bxb2 29. Bc4 Rdc8 30. Rb1 Bg7 31. Rxa7 Rxc5 32. Raxb7 Rxb7 33. Rxb7 Rxc4 34.  Rb8+ Bf8 35. Rxf8+ Kg7 36. Ra8 Rc1+ 37. Kf2 Rc2+ 38. Kg3 g5 39. Ra7+ Kg6 40.  Ra6+ Kg7 41. a4 Rc5 42. Rd6 Ra5 43. Nb6 Ra6 44. h4 h6 45. h5 Ra5 (45... Kh7 46.  Kf2 Kg7 47. g3 Kh7 48. Ke2 Kg7 49. Kd2 Kh7 50. Kc3 Kg7 51. Kb4) 46. Rd5 Ra6 47.  Rb5 1-0   [Event "Olympiad"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1962.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Duckstein, A."]  [Black "Petrosian, Tigran Vartanovich"]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "B30"]  [Annotator "king: active even with Qs on"]  [PlyCount "80"]  [EventDate "1962.??.??"]  [EventType "swiss"]   1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. Nf3 Nd7 7. Bd3 e6 8.  O-O Qc7 9. c4 O-O-O 10. Bxg6 hxg6 11. Qa4 Kb8 12. b4 Nh6 13. Qb3 Nf5 14. a4 e5  15. dxe5 Nxe5 16. Nxe5 Qxe5 17. Bb2 Qc7 18. c5 a5 19. Rad1 Rxd1 20. Rxd1 Rh4  21. bxa5 Bxc5 22. a6 b6 23. Re1 Ka7 24. Be5 Qd7 25. Ne4 Bd4 26. g3 Bxe5 27.  gxh4 Nd4 28. Qd1 Qd5 29. Re3 Nf5 30. Re1 Nd4 31. Qd3 f5 32. Ng5 c5 33. Re3 c4  34. Qd1 {[#]} Kxa6 35. Ra3 Bf6 36. h3 f4 37. Qg4 Ka5 38. Nf3 Kb4 39. Nxd4 Kxa3  40. Nc2+ Kxa4 {0-1} 0-1   [Event "URS-ch23 Final"]  [Site "Leningrad"]  [Date "1956.01.28"]  [Round "11"]  [White "Tal, M."]  [Black "Lisitsin, GM."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "B71"]  [Annotator "endgame: KUFTE"]  [PlyCount "121"]  [EventDate "1956.01.10"]  [EventType "tourn"]  [EventRounds "17"]  [EventCountry "URS"]  [SourceTitle "URS-ch"]  [Source "ChessBase"]  [SourceDate "1999.07.01"]  [SourceVersion "1"]  [SourceVersionDate "1999.07.01"]  [SourceQuality "1"]   1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. f4 Nc6 7. Nxc6 bxc6 8.  e5 Nd7 9. exd6 exd6 10. Be3 Be7 11. Qf3 d5 12. O-O-O Bf6 13. Bd4 O-O 14. h4 Rb8  15. Qf2 Rb4 16. Bxf6 Nxf6 17. a3 Qb6 18. Qxb6 Rxb6 19. Na4 Rb7 20. Bd3 Nh5 21.  Rhf1 Re7 {[#] How to save the f-pawn?} 22. f5 {! Can't be done, but Tal gives  it up for a high price - scrambled pawns.} gxf5 (22... Bxf5 23. Bxf5 gxf5 24.  Rxf5) 23. Rfe1 (23. Bxf5 Ng3) 23... Rfe8 24. Rxe7 Rxe7 25. Kd2 {[#] In Exeter  we say "KUFTE!" (King Up For The Endgame!)} Ng3 26. Kc3 f4 27. Kd4 Bf5 {  [#] And there it is, nicely posted in the middle of a lot of weak Black pawns.}  28. Rd2 Re6 29. Nc5 Rh6 30. Ke5 {!} Bxd3 31. cxd3 Rxh4 32. Kd6 Rh6+ 33. Kc7 Nf5  34. Kb7 Nd4 35. Rf2 a5 36. Rxf4 Ne6 37. Rg4+ Kf8 {[#]} 38. Kxc6 {!} Nxc5+ 39.  Kxc5 Re6 40. Kxd5 Rb6 41. b4 axb4 42. axb4 Ke7 {Too late} 43. Kc5 Rf6 44. Rd4  Rf5+ 45. Kb6 Rf6+ 46. Kc7 Rf5 47. Re4+ Kf6 48. Kc6 Rf2 49. g4 h5 50. gxh5 Kg5  51. b5 f5 52. Rb4 f4 53. b6 f3 54. b7 {1-0} Rc2+ 55. Kd5 f2 56. b8=Q f1=Q 57.  Qg3+ Kf6 (57... Kxh5 58. Rh4#) (57... Kh6 58. Qg6#) 58. Qe5+ Kf7 59. Rb7+ Rc7 (  59... Kg8 60. Qg7#) (59... Kf8 60. Qh8#) 60. Rxc7+ Kf8 61. Qh8# 1-0   [Event "Goteborg SSK 40th Anniversary Group A"]  [Site "Gothenburg"]  [Date "1920.08.18"]  [Round "12"]  [White "Rubinstein, A."]  [Black "Maroczy, G."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "D63"]  [Annotator "strategy: queen"]  [PlyCount "75"]  [EventDate "1920.08.02"]  [EventType "tourn"]  [EventRounds "13"]  [EventCountry "SWE"]  [SourceTitle "HCL"]  [Source "ChessBase"]  [SourceDate "1999.07.01"]  [SourceVersion "2"]  [SourceVersionDate "1999.07.01"]  [SourceQuality "1"]   1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d5 3. c4 e6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Nc3 O-O 7. Rc1 Re8 8. Qc2  {The Queen makes a modest first move.} dxc4 9. Bxc4 c5 10. O-O cxd4 11. Nxd4 a6  12. Rfd1 Qa5 13. Bh4 Ne5 14. Be2 Ng6 15. Bg3 e5 16. Nb3 Qc7 17. Qb1 {A retreat  to threaten the Black Queen, which retreats. !} Qb8 18. Bf3 Qa7 19. Na5 {!} Bb4  20. Nc4 Bd7 21. Nd5 Nxd5 22. Bxd5 Be6 23. Qe4 {[#] ! The Queen enters the fray,  reinforcing several points of attack at once. The Black pieces are not easily  able to harass her.} Bxd5 24. Rxd5 Rac8 25. Rcd1 Bf8 26. b3 b5 27. Nd6 Bxd6 28.  Rxd6 Rc7 29. h4 {!} f6 30. Qd5+ Kh8 31. h5 Nf8 32. h6 Ng6 {[#] The Queen now  makes the decisive invasion.} (32... gxh6 33. Rxf6) 33. Qe6 Rf8 34. Rd7 gxh6  35. Bh4 Nxh4 36. Qe7 Rxd7 37. Rxd7 Qxd7 38. Qxf8# 1-0   [Event "Manhattan CC v Marshall CC"]  [Site "New York, NY USA"]  [Date "1932.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Marshall, Frank James"]  [Black "Gladstone, David"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "D64"]  [Annotator "strategy: queen activity"]  [PlyCount "57"]  [EventDate "1932.??.??"]  [EventType "tourn"]   1. d4 {Notes by Frank Marshall. Facing up to a tricky and puzzling attack  still remains a man-sized job over the board, even though the subsequent  annotations may demonstrate the task an easy one.} d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4.  Bg5 Be7 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Rc1 c6 7. Nf3 O-O 8. Qc2 h6 9. Bh4 a6 10. a3 dxc4 {  Giving up the fight for the tempo. 10...b5 leads to a totally different type  of game.} 11. Bxc4 b5 12. Ba2 c5 13. Ne4 {The book line is 13 dxc5 Nxc5 14 Bb1  Re8. The text is no better in an objective sense, but being a novelty, it  gives my opponent more to think about.} Qa5+ 14. Nfd2 cxd4 15. O-O {!? As will  be seen, the acceptance of the speculative pawn sacrifice is playable; but the  return of the pawn with 15...d3 is simpler.} dxe3 16. fxe3 Qb6 17. Nxf6+ Bxf6 {  ? This plausible move loses, whereas 17...Nxf6! would have left him with a  satisfactory defence. After the text, White's attack crashes through to  victory.} 18. Bb1 Rd8 19. Qh7+ Kf8 20. Qh8+ {!} Ke7 21. Qxg7 {! The move that  Black overlooked. With Black's king wandering in the middle of the board, and  with most of his pieces not functioning, the result is a foregone conclusion.}  Qxe3+ 22. Kh1 Bxh4 {He has to take the bishop for better or worse, for if 22...  Qd4 (or ...Qe5) 23 Ne4 wins rapidly.} 23. Qxf7+ Kd6 24. Ne4+ Kd5 {Or 24...Ke5  25 Qg7+ winning.} 25. Qh5+ Bg5 {Amusing would be 25...e5 26 Qf7+ and wins or  25...Ne5 26 Rfd1+ etc.} 26. Qd1+ {!} Qd4 27. Qb3+ Ke5 28. Qg3+ Kd5 29. Qd6# {  The last five moves give a good idea of the queen's power.} 1-0   [Event "Leningrad-Moscow"]  [Site "Leningrad URS"]  [Date "1962.11.05"]  [Round "2"]  [White "Bronstein, DI."]  [Black "Korchnoi, Viktor"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C83"]  [Annotator "strategy: queen activity"]  [PlyCount "77"]  [EventDate "1962.??.??"]  [EventType "tourn"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5  Be6 9. c3 Be7 10. Bc2 O-O 11. Qe2 f5 12. exf6 Bxf6 13. Nbd2 Bf5 14. Nxe4 Bxe4  15. Bxe4 dxe4 16. Qxe4 Qd7 17. Bf4 Rae8 18. Qc2 Bh4 19. Bg3 Bxg3 20. hxg3 Ne5  21. Nxe5 Rxe5 22. Rfe1 Rd5 23. Rad1 c5 24. a4 Rd8 25. Rxd5 Qxd5 26. axb5 axb5  27. Qe2 b4 28. cxb4 cxb4 29. Qg4 b3 30. Kh2 Qf7 31. Qg5 Rd7 32. f3 h6 33. Qe3  Rd8 34. g4 Kh8 35. Qb6 Rd2 36. Qb8+ Kh7 {[#]} 37. Re8 Qxf3 38. Rh8+ Kg6 {[#]}  39. Rxh6+ (39. Rxh6+ Kf7 (39... Kxh6 40. Qh8+ Kg5 (40... Kg6 41. Qh5+ Kf6 42.  g5+) 41. Qh5+ Kf6 42. g5+) (39... gxh6 40. Qg8+ Kf6 41. Qf8+)) 1-0   [Event "AlphaZero - Stockfish"]  [Site "London ENG"]  [Date "2017.12.04"]  [Round "?"]  [White "AlphaZero"]  [Black "Stockfish (Computer)"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "E17"]  [Annotator "queen: mobility"]  [PlyCount "111"]  [EventDate "2017.??.??"]   1. Nf3 Nf6 2. d4 e6 3. c4 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 Be7 6. O-O O-O 7. d5 exd5 8. Nh4  c6 9. cxd5 Nxd5 10. Nf5 {Regis,Dave: 'A well-known gambit line of the Queen's  Indian Defence'} Nc7 11. e4 d5 12. exd5 Nxd5 13. Nc3 Nxc3 14. Qg4 {[%cal Gd1g4]  Regis,Dave: 'White plays an in-between move threatening mate: The Queen enters  the fight!'} g6 15. Nh6+ Kg7 16. bxc3 Bc8 17. Qf4 {[%cal Gg4f4] Regis,Dave:  'The Queen dodges the Bishop's attack'} Qd6 18. Qa4 {[%cal Gf4a4] Regis,Dave:  'A remarkable move: the Queen attacks what looks like an unimportant pawn on  c6. Black chooses to keep the pawn by not developing the Knight.'} g5 {Regis,  Dave: 'White's next move is really striking: allowing the King to take the  Knight when White has only one (undeveloped) piece aiming at the King's-side!'}  19. Re1 Kxh6 20. h4 f6 21. Be3 Bf5 22. Rad1 Qa3 23. Qc4 {[%cal Ga4c4] Regis,  Dave: 'White avoids the exchange of Queens, of course.'} b5 24. hxg5+ fxg5 {  [%cal Gc4h4]} 25. Qh4+ {Regis,Dave: 'The Queen takes advantage of a pin to  re-enter the King's-side.'} Kg6 26. Qh1 {[%cal Gh4h1] Regis,Dave: 'Another  counter-intuitive move, back on the c6 pawn.'} Kg7 27. Be4 Bg6 28. Bxg6 hxg6  29. Qh3 {[%cal Gh1h3] Regis,Dave: 'Eyeing the weak light squares.'} Bf6 30. Kg2  Qxa2 31. Rh1 Qg8 32. c4 Re8 33. Bd4 Bxd4 34. Rxd4 Rd8 35. Rxd8 Qxd8 {[%cal  Gh3e6]} 36. Qe6 {[%cal Gd1g4,Gg4f4,Gf4a4,Ya4c4,Yc4h4,Yh4h1,Rh1h3,Rh3e6] Regis,  Dave: 'With only two pieces left, White invades, but of course Black is  defending with only one! So Black finally develops the Queen's Knight.'} Nd7  37. Rd1 Nc5 38. Rxd8 Nxe6 39. Rxa8 {Regis,Dave: 'The result of the attack is  an ending with an exchange for pawns.'} Kf6 40. cxb5 cxb5 41. Kf3 Nd4+ 42. Ke4  Nc6 43. Rc8 Ne7 44. Rb8 Nf5 45. g4 Nh6 46. f3 Nf7 47. Ra8 Nd6+ 48. Kd5 Nc4 49.  Rxa7 Ne3+ 50. Ke4 Nc4 51. Ra6+ Kg7 52. Rc6 Kf7 53. Rc5 Ke6 54. Rxg5 Kf6 55. Rc5  g5 56. Kd4 1-0

Knight outposts

Posted on April 26, 1997 by DrDave

When looking at openings I often ask players to perform the following exercise:

[EXERCISE:]

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

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

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

   [Event "Sandbox: Chapter 52"]  [Date "2026.09.26"]  [Result "*"]  [Variant "Standard"]  [ECO "?"]  [Opening "?"]  [StudyName "Sandbox"]  [ChapterName "Chapter 52"]  [ChapterURL "https://lichess.org/study/7gaGOfWj/znYDXT7a"]  [Annotator "https://lichess.org/@/DrDaveExeter"]  [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pp3ppp/3p4/4p3/4P3/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]  [UTCDate "2026.09.26"]  [UTCTime "16:44:56"]   *

and asked:

[EXERCISE:]

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

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

   [Event "Moscow"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1945.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Smyslov, V.."]  [Black "Rudakovsky, Iosif"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "B83"]  [Annotator "strategy: knight outpost"]  [PlyCount "55"]  [EventDate "1945.??.??"]  [EventType "swiss"]   1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Be2 Be7 7. O-O O-O 8. Be3 Nc6 9. f4 Qc7 10. Qe1 (10. Ndb5 Qb8 11. Qd2 a6 12. Nd4) 10... Nxd4 11. Bxd4 e5 12. Be3 Be6 13. f5 {[#]} Bc4 $2 {? Black needs that Bishop. White now has a simple plan: exchange off the other defender of the d5 square, improve the position of his pieces, and look for the win!} (13... Bd7 14. Rd1 Bc6) 14. Bxc4 Qxc4 15. Bg5 {!} Rfe8 16. Bxf6 Bxf6 {[#]} 17. Nd5 {!} Bd8 (17... Qxc2 18. Rf2 Qc6 (18... Qa4 19. b3) 19. Rc1 Qd7 20. Nc7) 18. c3 b5 19. b3 Qc5+ 20. Kh1 Rc8 {[#] White now transfers his attention to the King} 21. Rf3 Kh8 22. f6 gxf6 23. Qh4 Rg8 24. Nxf6 Rg7 (24... Bxf6 25. Qxf6+ Rg7 26. Rg3 Rcg8) 25. Rg3 Bxf6 26. Qxf6 Rcg8 27. Rd1 {Black's position cracks.} d5 28. Rxg7 {! 1-0 (28) Smyslov,V-Rudakovsky,I Moscow 1945} (28. Rxg7 Rxg7 29. Rxd5 Qf8 30. Rd8) 1-0

More games:

   [Event "Amsterdam GAK"]  [Site "Amsterdam"]  [Date "1963.12.15"]  [Round "4"]  [White "Botvinnik, M."]  [Black "Donner, Jan Hein"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "A14"]  [Annotator "strategy: knight outpost"]  [PlyCount "61"]  [EventDate "1963.12.11"]  [EventType "tourn"]  [EventRounds "5"]  [EventCountry "NED"]  [SourceTitle "EXT 2002"]  [Source "ChessBase"]  [SourceDate "2001.11.25"]  [SourceVersion "1"]  [SourceVersionDate "2001.11.25"]  [SourceQuality "1"]   1. c4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. b3 b6 7. Bb2 Bb7 8. cxd5  Nxd5 9. d4 c5 10. dxc5 Bxc5 11. Nbd2 Nd7 {[#] Many club players would dismiss  this as drawish} 12. a3 N5f6 13. b4 Be7 14. Nd4 Bxg2 15. Kxg2 {[#] You may be  able to see the outlines of what Botvinnik has in mind now. There is an open  c-file, and White seeks an entry point along it.} Qc7 16. Qb3 Rfc8 17. Rfc1  Qb7+ 18. Qf3 Nd5 19. e4 N5f6 20. b5 a6 21. Nc6 Bf8 {[#] White's advantage is  clear.} 22. a4 axb5 23. axb5 Rxa1 24. Rxa1 Ra8 25. Rd1 Ne8 26. Nc4 Nc5 27. e5  Rc8 28. Ra1 Rc7 29. Ra7 Qxa7 30. Nxa7 Rxa7 31. Nxb6 1-0   [Event "Mar del Plata"]  [Site "Mar del Plata"]  [Date "1960.03.31"]  [Round "3"]  [White "Fischer, RJ."]  [Black "Gadia, Olicio"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "B87"]  [Annotator "strategy: knight outpost"]  [PlyCount "45"]  [EventDate "1960.03.29"]  [EventType "tourn"]  [EventRounds "15"]  [EventCountry "ARG"]  [SourceTitle "MCL"]  [Source "ChessBase"]  [SourceDate "1999.07.01"]  [SourceVersion "1"]  [SourceVersionDate "1999.07.01"]  [SourceQuality "1"]   1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bc4 e6 7. Bb3 b5 8. O-O  Bb7 9. f4 Nc6 10. Nxc6 Bxc6 11. f5 e5 12. Qd3 Be7 13. Bg5 Qb6+ 14. Kh1 O-O {[#]  } 15. Bxf6 Bxf6 16. Bd5 Rac8 17. Bxc6 Rxc6 18. Rad1 Rfc8 19. Nd5 Qd8 (19... Qa5  {had to be worth a try} 20. c3 (20. a3 Rxc2 21. Nxf6+ gxf6 22. Qxd6 Kg7 $11)  20... Qxa2 21. Qd2 Qb3 $14 22. Ra1) 20. c3 Be7 {[#]} 21. Ra1 $1 {Hard to  anticipate, at least for me} f6 22. a4 Rb8 23. Nxe7+ 1-0   [Event "Moscow"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1953.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Boleslavsky, Isaak"]  [Black "Lisitsin, GM."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "B76"]  [Annotator "knight outposts"]  [PlyCount "65"]  [EventDate "1953.??.??"]  [EventType "game"]   1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2  Nc6 9. O-O-O Nxd4 10. Bxd4 Qa5 11. Kb1 e5 12. Be3 Be6 13. a3 Rfd8 14. Nb5 Qa4 {  [#] taking the d6 pawn loses a piece, but White has a great pawn sacrifice of  his own} 15. c4 Bxc4 16. Nc3 Qb3 17. Bxc4 Qxc4 18. Bg5 {[#] The same theme as  the main Smyslov game, but a more close-run thing.} Qe6 19. Bxf6 Qxf6 20. Nd5  Qh4 21. Qe2 Bf8 22. Qf1 Rac8 23. g3 Qg5 24. h4 Qh6 {not ...Qxg3, Rd2!} 25. g4  g5 26. hxg5 Qxg5 27. Rh5 Qg6 28. g5 h6 29. Rxh6 Qxg5 30. Rh5 {black resigns:}  Qg6 31. Qh1 Qe6 32. Rh8+ Kg7 33. Qh7# {boleslavsky-lisitsyn, moscow 1953} 1-0   [Event "Heraklion Gazi op"]  [Site "Heraklion"]  [Date "2005.10.01"]  [Round "5"]  [White "Kallergi, Irini"]  [Black "Kiosterakis, Charidimos"]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C50"]  [WhiteElo "1000"]  [BlackElo "1005"]  [Annotator "knight outpost"]  [PlyCount "75"]  [EventDate "2005.09.27"]  [EventType "swiss"]  [EventRounds "7"]  [EventCountry "GRE"]  [SourceTitle "EXT 2007"]  [Source "ChessBase"]  [SourceDate "2006.11.23"]  [SourceVersion "1"]  [SourceVersionDate "2006.11.23"]  [SourceQuality "1"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. d3 O-O 6. O-O d6 7. Bg5 Qe7 8. Nd5  Qd8 9. Nxf6+ gxf6 10. Bh6 Re8 11. Nh4 Ne7 12. Qh5 Ng6 13. Nf5 {[#]} Be6 14. Ng7  Re7 15. Nf5 Re8 16. Bxe6 fxe6 17. Nh4 Kf7 18. Nf5 exf5 19. exf5 Rh8 20. Be3  Bxe3 21. fxe3 Kg7 22. Rf3 Ne7 23. Rg3+ Kf8 24. Qh6+ Ke8 25. Qxf6 Rf8 26. Qe6  Qd7 27. e4 Qxe6 28. fxe6 Ng6 29. Rh3 Rf7 30. exf7+ Kxf7 31. Rxh7+ Ke6 32. Rxc7  Rb8 33. Rf1 Nf4 34. g3 Ne2+ 35. Kg2 Nd4 36. c3 Nb5 37. Rcf7 b6 38. R7f6+ 1-0   [Event "Simul"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1914.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Coria"]  [Black "Capablanca, JR."]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "C49"]  [Annotator "knight outposts"]  [PlyCount "38"]  [EventDate "1914.??.??"]  [EventType "tourn"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Bb4 5. O-O O-O 6. d3 d6 7. Bg5 Bxc3 (7...  Bg4 8. Nd5 {with winning attack} Nd4 9. c3 c6 10. Qd2 Qd7 11. Bxf6 Bxf3 12. Qg5  Qg4 13. Ne7+ Kh8 14. Bxg7#) 8. bxc3 Qe7 9. Nd2 h6 10. Bh4 Nd8 11. d4 Ne6 12.  dxe5 dxe5 13. Bd3 Nf4 14. Nc4 Rd8 15. Bxf6 Qxf6 16. Qd2 {[#] There doesn't  look to be much in it at the moment, but...} Bh3 17. Ne3 Bxg2 18. Nf5 (18. Nxg2  Qg5 19. f3 Nh3+ 20. Kh1 Qxd2) 18... Bxe4 19. Ng3 Nh3# 0-1   [Event "XX"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1995.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Pegoraro"]  [Black "Scheipel"]  [Result "0-1"]  [ECO "C86"]  [Annotator "attack: knights"]  [PlyCount "60"]  [EventDate "1995.??.??"]  [EventType "game"]   {[%mdl 4] Strasbourg. 1971} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7  6. Qe2 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3 d6 9. a4 b4 10. cxb4 {[#] for the pawn Black has  some initiative. In particular the d4 square is a potential launching-pad} Bg4  {(threat ...Nd4)} 11. Qc4 (11. h3 Nd4 12. Qd3 Nxf3+ 13. gxf3 Bxh3 {is even  worse}) 11... Bxf3 12. gxf3 Nd4 13. Bd1 {[#]} Nh5 14. d3 Bg5 {the master touch:  the defender of the f4 square is exchanged} 15. Kh1 Bf4 16. Bxf4 Nxf4 {[#]  most players dream of one such Knight outpost, but two is just greedy...} 17.  Rg1 Nh3 18. Rg2 Qh4 19. Nd2 Nxf2+ 20. Kg1 Nh3+ 21. Kf1 Nf4 22. Rf2 Qh3+ {  [#] White is helpless} 23. Kg1 (23. Ke1 Ng2+ 24. Rxg2 Qxg2) 23... Rae8 24. Nf1  Re6 25. Ne3 Rg6+ 26. Kh1 Rg3 27. Rc1 Nxf3 28. Bb3 {[#] White's position is  desparate} (28. Bxf3 Rxf3 29. Rxf3 Qxf3+ 30. Kg1 Ne2#) 28... Rg2 29. Rxg2 Nxg2  {(threatening mate on h2)} 30. Nf1 Ne3 {[#] the Knights dominate the board,  and White cannot stop the mate without huge losses} 0-1   [Event "Tbilisi"]  [Site "overprotection"]  [Date "1956.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Tal, M."]  [Black "Bronstein, DI."]  [Result "1-0"]  [ECO "C96"]  [Annotator "overprotection"]  [PlyCount "85"]  [EventDate "1956.??.??"]  [EventType "game"]  [SourceTitle "Stean"]   {[%mdl 16]} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7.  Bb3 d6 8. c3 O-O 9. h3 Na5 10. Bc2 c5 11. d4 Nc6 12. Nbd2 Qb6 13. dxc5 dxc5 14.  Nf1 Be6 15. Ne3 Rad8 16. Qe2 g6 17. Ng5 c4 {!} 18. a4 Kg7 19. axb5 axb5 20. Rb1  Na5 21. Nf3 Qc7 {[#] Every White piece is queuing up behind the e-pawn,  waiting for...} 22. Nd5 {!} Bxd5 23. exd5 {[#] White's pieces control many  central squares, and the Bishops have new avenues of attack.} Rfe8 24. Qxe5  Qxe5 25. Nxe5 Nxd5 26. Ra1 Nb3 27. Bxb3 cxb3 28. Bh6+ {!} Kg8 {?!} (28... Kxh6  29. Nxf7+ Kg7 30. Nxd8 Rxd8 31. Ra7 Kf6) 29. Nc6 Rc8 30. Rad1 Rxc6 31. Rxd5 f6  32. Rxb5 g5 33. Rxb3 Kf7 34. Rb7 Re6 35. Rxe6 Kxe6 36. h4 Rg8 37. f4 Bc5+ 38.  Kf1 gxh4 39. Rb5 Rc8 40. f5+ Kd6 41. b4 h3 42. Rxc5 h2 43. Bf4+ {1-0  tal-bronstein (STEAN) 1-0 (43) Tal,M-Bronstein,D Tbilisi 1959 EXT 2018 [Tal,M]}  1-0

Who’s afraid of the Big Bad Minority attack?

Posted on November 21, 1996 by DrDave

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

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

+-----------------+

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

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

The advantages of a minority attack are several:

It emerges directly from the Pawn structure
It does not depend on the presence of Queens, and the attack can be
pursued right into the endgame.

It can work like clockwork, yielding points ‘just’ on technique.

+-----------------+

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

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

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

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

(817) Evans – Opsahl (CHERNEV)

[D36]

, 1950

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

+-----------------+

The classic setting for the minority attack.

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

+-----------------+

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

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

+-----------------+

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

24…Ne7

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

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

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

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

+-----------------+

46…f6

[46…f5]

47.Nh7 Ke6 48.Nf8+ Very neat 48…Kf7

[48…Kd6 49.Rd7#]

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

+-----------------+

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

Now White has a passed pawn.

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

Offering to trade the pawn for a winning King raid.

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

+-----------------+

69.Rg4+

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

69…Kf5

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

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

The winning clearance

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

Here is Benko in the Sicilian version of the attack:

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

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

+-----------------+

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

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

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

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

+-----------------+

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

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

Defending against a minority attack.

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

+-----------------+

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

The Third-rank defence

Counter-attacking on the Queen’s-side:

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

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

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

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

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

11.Rab1 a5 12.a3

+-----------------+

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

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

+-----------------+

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

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

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

+-----------------+

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

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

+-----------------+

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

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

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

+-----------------+

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

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

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

+-----------------+

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

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

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

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

+-----------------+

6…Na6

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

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

+-----------------+

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

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

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

32…Qxc2 33.Rxc2 g3

+-----------------+

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

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

+-----------------+

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

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

+-----------------+

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

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

And one last recent romp:

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

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

+-----------------+

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

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

+-----------------+

A classic minority attack position from a hypermodern opening.

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

+-----------------+

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

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

+-----------------+

20…Nxe3 21.fxe3 Rxe3

Black gets two Pawns and a raging attack.

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

+-----------------+

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

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

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

The Third-rank defence

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

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

+-----------------+

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

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

+-----------------+

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

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

+-----------------+

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

37.Re1

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

37…Rb8 38.Kh2

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

38…Kh7 39.Nxc6

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

39…Qg6 40.Rg1

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

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

Counter-attacking on the Queen’s-side:

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

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

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

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

+-----------------+

Playing a5 to get an open a-file.

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

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

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

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

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

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

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

+-----------------+

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

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

+-----------------+

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

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

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

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

+-----------------+

Playing …a5 to open the a-file.

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

+-----------------+

Meeting b5 with …c5

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

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

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

+-----------------+

Play …a5 to get an open a-file.

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

+-----------------+

Meeting b5 with …c5

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

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

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

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

+-----------------+

Meeting b4 with …b5 to use c4 square.

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

+-----------------+

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

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

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

+-----------------+

Meeting b4 with …b5 to use c4 square.

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

+-----------------+

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

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

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

+-----------------+

Meeting b4 with …b5 has a downside…

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

+-----------------+

…namely, the dirty great hole on c5.

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

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

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

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

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

10…a6

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

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

[15…Qxe7!?]

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

+-----------------+

19…Rc8 20.Ba2 Rd7 21.Nf4 Nxf4

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

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

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

29.fxe4 Qe8?

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

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

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

(55) Timman,J – Yusupov,A

[D36]

Tal Memorial Tournament, Riga LAT (6), 1995

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

+-----------------+

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

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

+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+

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

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