Is a doubled c-pawn worth a Bishop?

Peter Lane

This is one of the great themes of the Nimzo-Indian and French
Winawer. We will look at it in both contexts: First, the
Nimzo-Indian.

 

Doubled c-pawns and the Bishop pair in the
Nimzo-Indian

---

Spassky,B (2660) – Fischer,R (2785) (05)
[E41] Wch28-Reykjavik, 1972

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nf3 c5 5. e3 Nc6 6. Bd3
Bxc3+

  This method, developed by Huebner, forces the exchange
before White can escape by castling. Black then creates a blockade
on the dark squares.

7. bxc3 d6 8. e4 e5

 

Black tempts d4-d5.

9. d5 Ne7 10. Nh4 h6 11. f4

 

White tries to open up the King’s-side for attack, hoping to use
the Bishops.

11… Ng6!

  Black exchanges White’s remaining Knight, leaving White
with two Bishops but in a closed position where Bishops lack
scope.

Black is not tempted by [11…exf4 12. Bxf4 g5 13. e5
Ng4 14. e6! Nf6 15. Bg3 => with a strong attack]

12. Nxg6 fxg6 13. fxe5 dxe5 14. Be3 b6 15. O-O
O-O 16. a4

 

Still trying to get some play.

16… a5

  Another Black weakness but the last opportunity for White
to develop any activity. And if White cannot or does not attack b6,
it is not really weak!

17. Rb1 Bd7 18. Rb2 Rb8 19. Rbf2

  Perhaps White would have been better sticking to pressure
on the b-file.

19…Qe7 20. Bc2 g5 21. Bd2 Qe8 22. Be1
Qg6

 

Only Black can undertake anything in this position.

Impertinent note from typist: when I first came
across this game as an example of weak pawns I was confused – whose
pawns are supposed to be weak? The answer really is White’s,
because his Bishops are hemmed in, and can neither easily defend
the White weaknesses nor attack the Black ones – hence the Black
weakness are more apparent than real.

23. Qd3 Nh5 24. Rxf8+ Rxf8 25. Rxf8+
Kxf8

  With the Rooks off White can only wait and defend.

26. Bd1 Nf4 27. Qc2??

 

Under pressure, White blunders.

27… Bxa4 0-1

 

  What does our noted theoretician, Nimzovitch himself,
have to say about this?

 

With this pawn formation White might plan c2-c3, d3-d4-d5, c3-c4,
b2-b4 and c4-c5.

 

But here d4-d5 and c3-c4 can be met with …b7-b6. So this
formation lacks dynamism. But this dynamic weakness is
conter-balanced by a static strength, as a Pawn on d4 cannot be
forced to advance, being propped up by the c-Pawn. (However, adding
to this we see c4 is weak and hard to defend, and the a-pawn is
isolated. These factors lend Black an endgame advantage.

  We can now make a few comments about Spassky’s play:

  Firstly, White obligingly pushed d4-d5 blocking the game,
whereas any attempt by Black to exchange on d4 would open the
position for the Bishop pair.

  Secondly, the Knight’s development on f3 impedes the push
of the f-Pawn

  Thirdly, the rapid blocking tof the position by fxe5 and
a2-a4 worked against the Bishops.

  Lastly, a continued assault on b6 was needed to constrain
Black’s deployment in some way.

  Let us consider an alternative system of development
based upon the Deferred (Closed) Saemisch Variation, a sometime
recommendation of Keene, and a game with an interesting strategic
point.

---

Peter Lane – RJJ Gibbons, Exeter Vs.
Kingston, 1995

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 c5

  White loses a move playing a3 to force the chosen
formation.

5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 O-O

(too early? – DR’s notes from the Express and
Echo)

7. Bd3 d6 8. Ne2 e5 9. e4 Qc7

  White leaves the f-pawn free to advance; Black’s reply
avoids the pin on g5.

10. O-O Nc6

(Black is playing normal Nimzo-Indian moves, but
White’s opening (with Ne2 rather than Nf3) is too dangerous for
normal methods. …Ne8 and f5 was called for – DR)

11. f4 Bg4?

[11… cxd4 12. cxd4 Nxd4 13. Nxd4 exd4 14. Bb2 Qb6
15. Qc2 and e5]

  Anyone else want to call this a losing move? Note that
Black threatens to exchange on e2, and take at d4. If White takes
dxc5 and fxe5, c4 and e4 become vulnerable to the Knights.
Otherwise White must play d5 – but doesn’t this lead to a blocked
position with White’s Bishop ineffectual as we saw before?

12. d5! Ne7 13. f5!

  Isn’t the first commandment, “Bishop like open
spaces, Knights like closed positions“? – But White controls
so much of the board, can you find a good square for a Knight? Note
that fxe5, “opening the position”, woud have been a serious error,
allowing …Nd6 and …Ba6.

13…Nd7 (else Bg5) 14. Qe1 Bxe2
15. Bxe2 f6 16. Qh4!

  Now Black sees the idea!

16…Rfd8 17. Rf3 Nf8 18. Rg3 Nc8?

  Dropping a vital Pawn, but:

[18…Nd7 19.Qh6 g6 20.fxg6 hxg6 21.Rh3;

18…Kh8 19.Bh6

A) 19…g5 20.Bxg5 fxg5 21.Qxg5 Neg6 22.fxg6 Nxg6
(22…hxg6 23.Rh3+ Kg8 24.Bg4) 23.h4;

B) 19…Ng8 20.Bxg7+;

18…Kf7 19.Bh5+ g6 20.fxg6+ hxg6 (20…Nexg6 21.Rf3
Qe7 22.Bg5 Nd7 23.Raf1 anyone fancy Black?) 21.Rf3 Ng8 22.Bxg6+
Kxg6 23.Rg3+ Kf7 24.Qh5+ Ke7 25.Rg7#]

19. Qxf6 Rd7 20. Qg5 Qd8

 

21. Qxd8 Rxd8 22. Bg5 Rd7 23. f6 Ng6 24. Bg4 Rc7 25. Be6+
Kh8 26. Rf1 gxf6 27. Bxf6+ Rg7 28. Bxg7+ Kxg7 29. Rf7+ 1-0

  The ‘interesting strategic point’ is that while the
Knights still always require outpost squares in blocked positions,
the Bishops can work around all but the tightest blockade to find a
diagonal (unless they are required for defence of pawns
attacked by active enemy Knights – DR).

 

---

Lane, PC – Bartlett,J

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3
O-O 7. Bd3 d6 8. Ne2 e5 9. e4

 

9… Re8 10. Ng3 Nc6 11. d5 Ne7

[11… Na5 12. Bg5 h6 13. Bxf6 Qxf6 14. Qa4]

12. Bg5 Ng6 13. Nh5 Bg4 14. Nxf6+ gxf6 15. Bxf6
Bxd1 16. Bxd8 Rexd8 17. Rxd1 Nf4 18. Bf1!

  Hanging on to the Bishop! 18… Kf8 19. g3 Nh5
20. Bh3

 

White went on to win: the ‘bad’ Bishop has a fine diagonal and the
Knight has no good squares.

…1-0

  The ideal structure for Black actually looks quite
different to the Huebner, with f7-f5 in place of d6/e5, and an
assault on e4, i.e. forget about blocking the Bishops, and instead
fight for chances in a more dynamic set-up.

 

Doubled c-pawns and the Bishop pair in the
French Winawer

---

Debbage, I – Lane, PC (Thamesdown vs.
Exeter)

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 Qd7 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3
b6 7. Qg4 f5 8. Qg3 Ba6 9. Bxa6 Nxa6 10. Qd3?!

[10. Ne2! Nb8!? 11. Nf4 Nc6! 12. Nxe6!?
“Discuss…”]

10… Nb8

[10… Qa4 prevents c4 11. Nf3 Ne7 12. Ng5 Kd7 13. h4
Nb8 14. Rg1 Nbc6 15. g4 Na5 16. Rb1 Nc4 White’s King’s-side
counterplay is not enough: -+ Atkinson-Cooke 1965]

11. Ne2 Nc6 12. O-O Na5 13. Nf4 Nc4 14. Qe2 O-O-O
15. Nd3 h6 16. a4 a5 17. Nb2 Qc6 18. Nxc4 Qxc4 19. Qxc4 dxc4 20.
f4?? Ne7 21. Rf3 Nd5

 

Black wins with a Queen’s-side advance: the Bishop is very bad and
the Knight holds sway on both sides of the board. As in the
Spassky-Fischer game, the White Pawns have become blocked and an
obstruction to his own pieces.

…0-1

 

---

Thomas, N – Lane, PC

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 Qd7 5. Qg4 f5 6. Qh5+
Qf7 7. Qf3 b6 8. h4 Ba6 9. Bxa6 Nxa6 10. Qd3 Bxc3+ 11.
bxc3

[11. Qxc3]

11… Nb8 12. Nh3 Nc6

 

13. c4!

  makes good use of the Queen on d3

[13. Nf4 Na5 and Black has achieved a favourable
blockade]

13… dxc4 14. Qxc4 Qd7

 

White’s Bishop still has some problems, and the struggle for
dominance by the minor pieces is still determined by the pawn
structure, the legacy of the exchange on c3.

15. Be3 Na5 16. Qb4 Qc6 17. Nf4 Ne7 18. c4 Nxc4
19. Rc1 b5 20. Nxe6 Nd5 21. Qc5 Qxc5 22. Nxc5 Kf7

 

Dynamic equality: Black’s knights have achieved favourable outposts
but Black has not enough play on the Queen’s-side for a win, given
the backward c-pawn and strong White Knight. (The weak c-Pawn
prevents a5-b4-a4-b3 and White managed to create play on the
King’s-side.)

1/2-1/2

Summary

I find that in the Winawer, White’s small spatial advantage
allows Black’s Knights room to manoeuvre and blockade the doubled
Pawns. In the Nimzo-Indian it is harder for the Knights to get to
work.

  The Pawns are not good or bad in themselves, only
in how they determine the relative strengths of the opposing
pieces.

  Silman’s ‘Re-assess your chess’
advises:

  When considering an exchange of Bishop for Knight,
ask yourself:

1. is the position open or closed?
2. Will there be support points for the Knight(s)? and if
   so:
   1. can the Knight(s) get there?
   2. does it matter if they do? [i.e. are they away from the
      main arena of play?]
   3. what can you do in the meantime with the
      Bishop(s)?

good bishops: active bishop used for
attack

Euwe – Thomas, 1934

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

16. f5

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

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

 

20…Bb7 Euwe and Kramer give the alternatives:

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

[20… f5 21. Qh5 with strong attack]

21. Rcxf6 Qe4 22. Qd2 Kh8

[Or 22… Rad8 23. Qg5+ Kh8 24. Rxf7]

23. Bxf7 Rac8

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

24. R6f2 Rcd8 [24… Qg4]

25. Qg5 (NEXT DIAGRAM)

 

25… Rd6

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

26. Bd5! 1-0

26… Rxf2 27. Qg8#

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

Stahlberg-Trifunovich, 1951

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

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

 

16. f5 a5 17. a4

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

17… Rb8 18. Qc2 Bd7

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

19. Rd3 Rbd8 20. Qd2 b5

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

21. axb5 Alternatives are no better:

[21. Rd6 Bc8]

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

21… cxb5 22. Bd5 Bc6

 

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

23. e4

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

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

 

---

Bad
bishops

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

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

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

 

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

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

(30.Be4 Rc4)>

 

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

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

 

---

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

bad bishop?

Botvinnik-Kann, 1939

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

 

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

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

 

---

The two bishops

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

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

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

---

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

---

  So in OPEN positions, the two bishops are boss.

  In CLOSED positions, the knights may be better.

  In SEMI-OPEN positions. well…

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

  Let’s have a look at these in turn.

---

bishops: two
bishops in ending

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

Ditmas,H –
Regis,D (March, 1979)

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

  White sensibly takes the two bishops.

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

 

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

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

 

 

1-0

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

 

---

bishops: two bishops in open
middlegame

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

Nunn – Tal (Wijk
Ann Zee, 1982)

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

 

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

25. Nf5!

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

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

  It’s all starting to clear up nicely.

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

 

---

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

27… Rxf1+ 28. Rxf1 Ncb8

  this decentralising move doesn’t look right

29. Bc4 Rf8

 

Black’s position now falls apart

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

[Have the Knights finally secured a
defence?]

33. d7 ! 33… Nc5

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

34. Be5+ Kh7 35. Bd3+

 

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

 

Rubinstein –
Nimzovitch (Berlin, 1928)

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

 

 

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

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

 

---

the two bishops in a semi-open
endgame

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

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

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

  The poor knight isn’t really sparkling.

 

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

 

Englisch-Steinitz

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

  (squashing White’s knight out of the game)

 

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

Chris Bellers, Exeter Chess Club

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

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

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

 

---

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

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

 

18. Qb2

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

18… a6 ?!

  Placing a Pawn on the same colour as his Bishop.

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

  On its way to a5.

26… Qc7

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

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

[32. Kc3]

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

[36… d4]

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

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

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

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

 

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

---

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

  White’s advantages are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

White wins a Pawn and the game.

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

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

  In the following position:

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

 

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

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

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

---

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

the rest is straightforward

40…Bg4 41. Bc2 Be6

[41… Be2 42. f5]

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

 

---

Riumin – Ragozin, Leningrad, 1934

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

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

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

14… Nb5! 15. axb5 cxb5 16. Ne5

[16. Bb2]

[16. Bc1]

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

  and Black soon won 0-1

 

---

Kotov – Gligoric,Zurich [E87] 1953

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

 

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

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

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

14… Qg5 15. Bf1 Ne5

 

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

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

[34… Rg8]

[34…Qxh4]

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

 

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

1/2-1/2

 

 

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

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

 

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

  The third game went into the following endgame:

 

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

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

---

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

15… Bc6

 

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

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

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

20… Kh8

 

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

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

24… f4 25. axb6 axb6

 

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

 

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

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

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

34. Re1 h6 35. Ra1 Rf8

 

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

 

41. Rxg7 1-0

---

Example games about colour complexes

---

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

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

 

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

 

---

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

---

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

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

[7… Qc7]

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

 

An indication of distress in the Black control room.

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

 

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

  Nudges the dark-squared Bishop into exchange.

21… Bxd4 22. cxd4 Be6 23. Rc5

 

White’s domination of the dark squares is complete.

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