Dadian Chess

Two bishop moves

2010-12-28T10:11:00.000-08:00

Here is a nice game won by the future grandmaster Peter Leko when he was only 12 years old. Keep an eye on White's light-squared bishop!

Leko,P (2460) - Ruzele,D (2340)
Debrecen 1992
French Defence C11

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Be3 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bc5 9.Qd2 Bxd4 10.Bxd4 Nxd4 11.Qxd4 Qb6

This plan involving massive exchanges on d4 was introduced by Gideon Stahlberg in 1960. Over the years it has attracted sporadic attention, notably from Mikhail Gurevich and Viktor Korchnoi. At the grandmaster level it is a fairly safe way to play for a draw with the Black pieces, but anyone at a lower level is not going to have an enjoyable time. By the way, Stahlberg lost that first game -- to Mikhail Tal.

12.0–0–0 Qxd4 13.Rxd4 Ke7 14.h4!

A nice, thematic move. If unopposed, White will set up his pawns on e5, f4 g4, and h5, and threaten a breakthrough at an appropriate moment. Black's next move opposes this plan but it has the disadvantage of fixing his kingside pawns on light squares.

14...h5

Leko mentioned 14...f6 in Informant 56, but this lets White get a clear advantage after 15.exf6+ gxf6 16.f5! Nb6 17.fxe6 Bxe6 18.Bd3.

15.Be2 Nb8 16.Rd2 Bd7 17.Rhd1 g6

This must be played sooner or later; otherwise Black will be unable to move his rook from h8.

18.b3! Bc6!?

And not 18...Nc6 on account of 19.Ne4! with advantage to White, for example, 19...Rhd8 20.Nd6 b6 21.c4! and Black is in difficulties.

19.Bf3 Nd7 20.Ne2 Rhc8

Pressure along the c-file is Black's only active plan. Almost everything else will create weaknesses. But with White's king on hand to defend the queenside it is unlikely that Black will achieve anything concrete.

21.Nd4 Rc7 22.Kb2 Nb6 23.Rd3!

Not 23.a4? Bxa4! 24.bxa4 Nc4+ followed by 24...Nxd2 with decent play for Black.

23...Bd7 24.a4! a5 25.Be2

White has taken control of the key square b5 and now has possibilities on both wings.

25...Rac8 26.Rh3 Bc6 27.Rg1 Rh8

It was probably better to recycle the knight with 27...Nd7.

28.Rc3!

Threatening to attack the pawn on a5.

28...Nd7 29.Rh1 Rcc8 30.Rhh3 Rhg8

By alternating play on both wings, White has brought all his pieces to active positions while Black has been forced into passivity. It is now time to strike.

31.Ba6!

A nice combination of tactics and strategy, opening up the position and exposing Black to further attack. "A weakness of the dark squares is also a weakness of the light squares," wrote David Bronstein.

31...f6

Black is losing a pawn, so he tries to gain some activity. If 31...Nb8 then 32.Nxc6+ Rxc6 33.Bxb7 Rxc3 34.Rxc3 Kd7 35.Ka3 with the idea of 36.b4 with a winning position for White.

32.exf6+ Nxf6 33.Nxc6+

Now that e6 has been weakened, it was also possible to play 33.Rce3 Ne4 34.Bd3 Nc5 35.Rhg3 with continuing pressure for White.

33...Rxc6 34.Bxb7 Rb6 35.Rc7+ Kd6 36.Rhc3 Ne4

In Informant Leko gave the line 36...Rb8 37.Rf7 Ne4 38.Rcc7 as winning for White, but there is a huge flaw in this: 38...Nc5! 39.Bc8 Nxa4+ 40.Kc1 Nc5 and Black is suddenly much better.

After 36...Rb8 the right idea is 37.Bc8! d4 38.R3c4 Kd5 39.Re7, when Black is more or less in zugzwang; for example, 39...Ke4 (or 39...Ne4 40.Kc1 Nc5 41.Rc7 Ne4 42.Bd7) 40.Rxe6+ Rxe6 41.Bxe6 Kxf4 42.Bf7 Rd8 43.Bxg6 Kg3 44.Rc5 Kxh4 45.Rf5 Nd5 46.Bxh5 Ne3 47.Rxa5 Nxg2 48.Be2 and White must be winning.

37.R3c6+ Rxc6 38.Rxc6+ Kd7 39.Ra6! Kc7

Leko gave 39...Nc5 40.Rb6! and wins. One should also mention 39...Rf8, on which there could follow 40.Bc6+ Kc7 41.Bb5 Rxf4 42.Rxe6 Rg4 43.Be8 Rxg2 44.Rc6+ Kb8 45.Rxg6 Rh2 46.Ra6 Rxh4 47.Rxa5 Nf6 48.Bf7 d4 49.b4 Rh3 50.Rf5 and wins.

40.Ba8! Rf8 41.c4! Rxf4 42.cxd5 e5 43.Rxa5

Another way forward was 43.Rxg6 Rxh4 44.Re6 Nf2 45.Kc2, etc.

43...Rxh4

If 43...Rf2+ 44.Ka3 Rxg2 then 45.d6+.

44.d6+! Nxd6

Or 44...Kxd6 45.Ra6+ Kc7 46.Rxg6 Nd6 47.Rg5.

45.Rxe5 Kb8

If 45...Rxa4 then 46.Rc5+, etc.

46.Bd5 Rg4 47.a5 Rd4 48.Bf3 Nf5 49.Kc3 Rf4 50.Re4 Rh4 51.Rxh4 Nxh4 52.Be4 1–0

In many ways a typical game from the modern era. Strategically, White's play was not too complicated, but the key to success was the exploitation of Black's weaknesses with exactly calculated tactical play. White got his attack in first and Black's counterplay was just too slow. Bobby Fischer won a lot of games this way!

Geller vs Suetin, Moscow Team Ch. 1981

2010-12-03T22:31:00.000-08:00

Today we present a little-known but pleasing attacking game by the Ukrainian grandmaster Efim Geller, a perennial world championship candidate but arguably never a serious contender for the title. His opponent, the second-tier Russian grandmaster Alexei Suetin, famously had his face slapped by Mrs Rona Petrosian after failing to match the depth and accuracy of Bobby Fischer's adjournament analysis during the 1971 Candidates Final in Buenos Aires. However, Suetin's book A Contemporary Approach to the Middlegame is an acknowledged classic, so we'll cut him some slack and thank him for his unintended role in Fischer's ascent to the throne in 1972.

A personal view: when forced to defend against 1.e4, the Sicilian Defence is best deployed against the relatively weak or the very strong. Anyone possessing a modicum of chessic common sense knows that playing 1...c5 demands a good theoretical knowledge base, a storehouse of experience, and a willingness to take calculated risks. All fine if you have those things, but otherwise you're just asking for trouble. If proper preparation prevents poor performance, then mutatis mutandis insufficient investigation involves inevitable inadequacy.

Despite his reputation as something of an also-ran, Efim Geller made a number of contributions to opening theory, one of which is seen in our game today. Most Black warriors are pleasantly surprised by the appearance of the move c2-c3 in the Sicilian Defence because it takes away the natural square from White's queen knight, thereby diminishing the first player's control over the squares e4 and d5. It also signals that White is perhaps a denizen of the lower chess classes. Of course Black will usually try to punish this lacklustre approach with a well-timed d7-d5, but in today's game there is something about his previous moves ...a6 and ...Bc5 that doesn't quite square with this simplistic program. Geller had already taken note of this back in 1969 when he successfully introduced 6.c3 against Mark Taimanov in that year's Soviet Championship. So... 12 years on and time for another outing...

Geller – Suetin
Moscow Team Championship 1981
Sicilian Defence B42

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Bd3 Bc5 6.c3

White can play for an edge with 6.Nb3 Be7 7.Qg4!? g6 8.Qe2 d6 9.0-0 Nd7 and now 10.Na3!? is interesting.

6...Ne7 7.0-0 Nbc6 8.Be3 Qb6?

When Black wants to punish or at least annoy White in the opening, he often forgets about castling and reaches for his queen. This particular expedition cannot end happily. Normal would be 8...d6 9.Nd2 0-0 and Black seems to be OK.

9.Nd2!

I like a game with interesting moments. One guy makes a threat, the other guy makes a move that allows the threat, and then the first guy realises that the threat doesn't work. Have a look:
A. 9...Qxb2? 10.Nc4! Qxc3 11.Rc1 Qb4 12.a3 and wins;
B. 9...Nxd4? 10.cxd4 Bxd4 11.Nc4 Qa7 12.Nd6+ Kf8 13.Qh5 and wins.

9...d5

A freeing move? Not really – Black's king is still in the centre.

10.N2b3! Bxd4 11.cxd4 dxe4

Black should castle and hope for the best.

12.Bxe4 Qd8?!

If 12...Nd5 then 13.Qg4! Kf8 (13...0-0? 14.Bh6 winning the exchange) 14.Qf3 and Black will find it very difficult to untangle himself.

13.Qh5! Nd5 14.Bg5 Nce7 15.Rfe1 h6 16.Rad1 Qd6

In Informant 32 Minic and Sindik gave the cryptic 16...0-0 17.Bxh6! without further comment. White has very good compensation for the piece after 17...gxh6 18.Qxh6 f5 19.Bxd5 Nxd5 20.Rd3 Qf6 21.Rg3+ Kf7 22.Qh7+ Ke8 23.Nc5, but it's not clear that he's actually winning.

After 16...0-0, Black is not in fact threatening to capture the bishop, so White should take the opportunity to bring another piece into action. After 17.Rd3! there are two main variations:
A. 17...f5 18.Bxd5 hxg5 19.Rxe6 Qxd5 20.Rxe7 f4 21.Qg6 Rf7 22.Re5 Qd8 23.Rxg5 and White is winning;
B. 17...Qe8 18.Bxh6 f5 19.Qg5 Rf7 20.Bxd5 Nxd5 21.Rg3 Qe7 22.Qg6 f4 23.Rg4 Qf6 24.Qh5 f3 25.Re5 fxg2 26.f4! and the assault on g7 spells doom for Black.

After the text move 16...Qd6 we are at another interesting moment. Geller knows what to do.

17.Bxe7! Nxe7 18.d5! exd5

Or 18...e5 19.Bb1, etc.

19.Bxd5 Qf6

The alternative 19...Qg6 does not help in view of 20.Bxf7+! Kxf7 21.Rxe7+ and wins.

20.Bxf7+!

Seeing that 20...Qxf7 loses immediately to 21.Rd8+, Black threw in the towel here.

Wonderful play from Geller to down a lower-ranked colleague. Unfortunately for him, his higher-ranked colleagues Korchnoi, Spassky, and Tal did not allow such things to happen.

Capablanca vs Vidmar, New York 1927

2010-11-29T21:16:00.000-08:00

We return again to Alexander Alekhine's book of the New York 1927 international tournament. The fourth-round game between J.R. Capablanca and Milan Vidmar quickly reached a "hedghog" type position that would become familiar territory in the later stages of the 20th century. Alekhine's notes are interesting as always, but there is an improvement, of which more later.

Capablanca – Vidmar, New York 1927
Queen's Indian Defence
Commentary by Alexander Alekhine

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 c5

I have always considered this move to be unfavourable in this position because of the possible reply 6.d5. I prefer both 5...Bb4+ and 5...Be7.

6.O-O

Though quite playable, this reply is rather inoffensive in nature and allows Black to equalize the game in a number of ways.

6...cxd4 7.Nxd4 Bxg2 8.Kxg2 Be7

But this is inconsistent, because Black should be striving to rid himself of the weakness along the d-file as soon as possible. Although this aim would not be served by the immediate 8...d5 in view of 9.Qa4+ (as in the third match game Capablanca-Alekhine, Buenos Aires 1927), Black could make an effective preparatory move here: 8...Qc8!, for example: 9.b3 (9.Qd3 Nc6!) 9...Be7 10.Bb2 Qb7+ 11.f3 d5 12.cxd5 Nxd5 13.Qd2 0-0 14.e4 Nf6, etc.

9.Nc3 O-O(?)

Here too 9...Qc8 very much deserved attention, and if 10.b3 then 10...d5!

10.e4! Qc8

One move too late!

11.b3 Qb7 12.f3 Nc6 13.Bb2 Rfd8 14.Re1 Nxd4

Vidmar is playing the entire first part of the game inaccurately. Why, for example, does he develop the White queen in this position? Simpler was the immediate 14...d6.

15.Qxd4 Bc5(?)

Another obvious tempo loss!

16.Qd3 Be7 17.Rad1 d6

In spite of the multitude of inaccuracies committed by Black, his position is quite sturdy since in this varation the point d6 can, as is well-known, be defended without difficulty in the middlegame.

In the sequel Capablanca tries to make use of his last serious chance -- a flank attack. And indeed, this will demand exceptional accuracy from his opponent, who is very restricted in his freedom of action.

18.Re2 Rd7 19.Red2 Rad8 20.Ne2

Conclusively preventing – in the simplest way – the move ...d6-d5 (because of Bb2xf6 etc.)

20...Qa8

In order to retreat the knight to e8, which at the moment would be met by 21.e5!

21.Qe3 h6 22.h4 Qb7 23.a4

In order to prevent the freeing move b6-b5 once and for all.

23...Ne8 24.Nf4 Bf6 25.Bxf6 Nxf6 26.g4 Nh7

After this White's attack has very little chance of success because the knight on f4 is restricted by the necessity of keeping the square d5 under observation. As soon as the White knight gives up control over this square (for example, after Nf4-h5) then the move e6-e5 would immediately follow, creating interesting attacking possibilities for Black's knight.

27.Qc3 Nf8 28.g5 hxg5 29.hxg5 Ng6!

Completely correct. If now 30.Nh5, then 30...e5 31.Kg3 Qc7 followed by Rd8-f8, Qc7-d8, etc. Thus White has nothing better than to exchange.

30.Nxg6 fxg6 31.Qd4 Qc6

The square c5 is now a sufficient counterargument for Black.

32.Kg3 Qc5 33.f4 Kf7 34.Kg4 a5 35.Rh2 Qxd4?

Because it not to White's advantage to exchange queens (over the last few moves because of ...b6xc5 with pressure on the b-pawn, and at this moment because of ...d6xc5 followed by an invasion along the d-file), and retreating the queen (to c3 or b2) is also not good for him on account of ...d6-d5!, etc, then the simplest way for Black to draw here was to adhere to waiting tactics. Correct therefore was ...Kf7-g8-f7-g8, etc., leaving it to White to make a decision about transforming the position. That Vidmar willingly goes into an endgame that is very dubious (to say the least) can only be explained by time pressure.

36.Rxd4 Re7 37.Rhd2 Red7 38.f5

In my opinion this tempting advance should have been delayed for one move: 38.R4d3! Ke7 (or Ke8) 39.f5 gxf5+ (if 39...Kf7 then 40.fxe6+ followed by 41.Rd5 and then Rd5-b5, or e4-e5 when convenient, with advantage to White) 40.exf5 exf5+ [stronger is 40...e5!?, when Black should hold – tr.] 41.Kxf5 Kf7 42.g6+ with a winning position. And in other variations too it would be easier than after the move in the game to transform White's positional advantage into material gain.

38...gxf5+ 39.exf5 exf5+ 40.Kxf5 g6+ 41.Kg4 Kf8

The only defence – and a temporary one at that – against the threat of Rd2-f2-f6 with a winning position. If 41...Ke8 then 42.Rh2!, etc. (see below).

42.Rf2+?

This leads only to a draw. The proper way to realize the advantage that has cost White so much effort was – again – the win of a tempo: 42.R4d3!; then 42...Ke8 is met by 43.Rh2!, and after the exchange of a pair of rooks the remaining White rook penetrates to f6 or b8: 43...Kf8 (or 44...Rf7 44.Rh6, etc.) 44.Rf3+ Kg7 45.Rf6 (threatening 46.Rh6) 45...Rf8 46.Rxf8 Kxf8 47.Rh8+ followed by Rb8, etc. However, Capablanca forces the exchange of rooks under a different – and less advantageous – pawn configuration, after which Vidmar is able to save the game without difficulty.

42...Rf7 43.Rf6

If 43.Rfd2, then 43...Ke7 with a draw.

43...Rxf6 44.gxf6 Kf7 45.Kg5 Re8 46.Rxd6 Re5+ 47.Kf4 Re6

Much simpler than 47...Rf5+ and 48...Rxf6.

48.Rd5 Kxf6

Here it was possible to quietly draw the curtain.

49.Rb5 Ke7 50.Kg5 Rc6 51.Kh6 Kf8 52.Rg5 Kf7 53.Rg3 Re6 54.Rd3 Re5 55.Rd7+ Kf6 56.Rd6+ Kf7 1/2-1/2

With this we conclude our extract from Alexander Alekhine's book of the New York 1927 international tournament. But wait - there's an improvement!

Peelback

After Black's move 29...Ng6, Russian GM Sergei Shipov demonstrated the following imaginative continuation for White:

30.Nh5! e5 31.Rh1 a6 32.Rd5!! Rc8

If 32...b5 33.axb5 Ne7 34.f4 Nxd5 35.exd5 f6 36.g6 Kf8 37.Qh3, etc.

33.f4 b5 34.axb5 axb5 35.f5 bxc4 36.b4!

Thus far Shipov's analysis in his book The Complete Hedgehog, Volume 1. Here is a likely conclusion:

36...Ne7 37.Nf6+ gxf6 38.Qh3 Kf8 39.Qh6+ Ke8 40.Qh8+ Ng8 41.Qxg8+ Ke7 42.gxf6+ Kxf6 43.Rh6+ Ke7 44.f6+ Ke6 45.Qg4#!

Posting a rook on d5 in order to stabilize White's central position was unusual but very strong in this particular case.

The wandering king 2

2010-11-16T23:22:00.000-08:00

In an earlier article we looked at a madcap king rush through the centre by Boris Shashin from a 1973 game against Viktor Korchnoi. Today we present another, even crazier example played in a Dutch open tournament a few years ago.

T.Burg (2268) – W.Spoelman (2461)
Scotch Game C45
Amsterdam (ACT) 2006

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nxc6 bxc6 6.e5 Qe7 7.Qe2 Nd5 8.c4 Ba6

Also possible is 8...Nb6, which I believe is the best move here. The problem with 8...Ba6 is that Black must play very accurately if the bishop is going to stay in play and not get stranded, so to speak.

9.Qe4 Nf6 10.Qe2 Nd5 11.Qe4 Nb6

As the higher-rated player, Spoelman has no interest in making a quick draw by repetition.

12.Nc3 Qe6 13.b3 Bb4 14.Bd2 Bxc3 15.Bxc3 d5 16.Qh4 dxc4 17.Rc1

Simpler is 17.Be2; for example, 17...0–0 18.0–0 Qf5 19.Rfe1 Rfe8 20.bxc4 Na4 21.Bd2 Rxe5 22.Bf3 with a slight edge to White. With the text move Burg is playing for complications – often a good policy if one is trying to win against a stronger opponent, but of course the opposite result is equally possible.

17...Qg6 18.bxc4

It is tempting to try to nail down the opposing king with 18.Bb4!?, but Black is doing fine after 18...Nd5 19.Ba3 Rb8 20.bxc4 Nb4 21.Bxb4 Rxb4 22.Rd1 Rb8; for example, 23.Bd3!? Qxg2 24.Be4 g5! 25.Bxg2 gxh4 26.Bxc6+ Ke7 27.Rd4!? Rb2! and Black is better.

18...0–0 19.Be2 Qxg2

20.Kd2?!?!

Objectively speaking this is leading with the chin, as they say in boxing. But psychologically – well, it's something else entirely. It's a bold attempt to freak out the opponent... and it works!

White could maintain equality with 20.Bd3 h5 21.Be4 Qg4 22.Qxg4 hxg4 23.Rg1 Bc8 24.Bxc6 Rb8 25.c5 Nd7 26.Rxg4 Nxc5 27.Rd4.

20...Rad8+ 21.Ke3 Qg6 22.Rcd1 Rxd1?!

Here is where Black starts to go wrong. He should not exchange rooks but instead he should open more lines with 22...f6! It is hard to see how White could survive after that.

23.Rxd1 Qc2?

Here too 23...f6 was stronger. The text is a bad mistake which is clearly based on a miscalculation – almost a hallucination in fact.

24.Bd3 Nxc4+

Black has seen this far, but unfortunately White doesn't have to take the knight.

25.Kf4!?

Even stronger is 25.Kd4! when Black is pretty well forced to resign immediately.

25...h6 26.Bxc2 g5+ 27.Kf5 Bc8+

27...gxh4 28.Rg1+ Kh8 29.e6+ f6 30.e7 Nd6+ 31.Kf4 Rf7 32.Bb3 and White wins.

28.Kf6 gxh4 29.Rg1+ Kh8 30.Ke7!

Completing the king's epic journey in triumphant fashion. Black has no defence and was forced to resign here. 1-0

Alekhine vs Levenfish, Moscow 1920

2010-11-11T15:45:00.000-08:00

It is a little-known fact that the winner of the first Soviet Championship in 1920 was none other than Alexander Alekhine. The contemporary title of the event was the First All-Russian Chess Olympiad, and it was only after 1922 – when the Soviet Union was formally established – that it was subsumed as part of the continuing series. Alekhine, of course, left his homeland in 1921, never to return. After his match victory over Capablanca in 1927, he reportedly made some anti-Soviet statements to a gathering of emigre Russians in Paris. His former compatriots immediately declared him persona non grata, and he was not rehabilitated until after the death of Stalin.

Along the way to winning the title in 1920, Alekhine had to survive a very difficult encounter with Grigory Levenfish (who won the title himself in 1937). Today we present an extract from Sergei Voronkov's 2007 book Masterpieces and Dramas from the Soviet Championships, 1920-1937. We pick up the action after Levenfish's 31^st move ...Kg8-h7. From now on the commentary is by Voronkov.

32.Kg4!!

“The only way to draw,” exclaims Alekhine [in his 1921 book Schachleben in Sowjet-Russland - tr]. “If first 32.Qd3+ g6 and now 33.Kg4, then 33...f5+ 34.exf6 h5+ and wins.”

Alexander Kotov in his book Alekhine's Chess Heritage (1982) shows exactly how: “After the only move 35.Kh4! (35.Kg5 Rc5+) the win is achieved as follows: 35...Qxf6+ 36.Kh3 Qb2! 37.Kh4! Kh6! 38.Rh8+! Kg7!”

Go ahead and laugh, but this is just not true! You don't believe me?

If we extend the variation with the five exclamation marks for one more move – 39.Qd8! – the draw becomes obvious: 39...Rc8 40.Rg8+ Kh7 41.Qxc8 Qxh2+ 42.Kg5 Qxg3+ 43.Kf6 Qxf4+ 44.Ke7 Qe4+. Or 39..Qf6+ 40.Qxf6+ Kxf6 41.Rf8+ Ke7 42.Ra8 Rxh2+ 43.Kg5 Rg2 44.Rxa7, etc.

What's more, the alternative move 35.Kg5, which must seemingly be rejected in horror due to the “fatal” check 35...Rc5+, is in fact winning for White:

36.f5 Rxf5+ 37.Qxf5!! (and not 37.Kh4 Qxh2 mate) 37...gxf5 38.Rd7+ Kg8 39.Kg6! and it suddenly becomes clear that Black can avoid immediate mate only by giving up his queen! (By the way, I was very proud of my discoveries until I found out they had already been made in 2002 by the trainer L. Veretnovy from Krasnoyarsk.)

The most striking thing of all is that Alekhine's variation is doubly wrong. In the first place, as we have seen, it leads not to a win, but to a loss! In the second place, after 32.Qd3+ g6 33.Kg4 f5+, Levenfish in annotating the game in the Newsletter of the Petrograd Commune had already indicated a simple drawing line: 34.Kf3! Rc3 35.Rd7+ Kh8 36.Rd8+ with perpetual check. However, he too thought that 34.exf6 would lose on account of 34...h5+.

32...Rxh2

“Such a pity!” is Levenfish's lament in his book Selected Games and Reminiscences. “By continuing 32...h5+ 33.Kxh5 (33.Kxg5 f6+) 33...Rxh2+ 34.Kg4 Qg2 35.Qd3+ (if 35.Rd7 then 35...Rh6!) 35...g6 36.Rd7 (or 36.Kg5 Kg7 37.Rd7 Rh5+ 38.Kg4 Rh4+! and mates) 36...Kh6! 37.Rxf7 Rh4+! 38.Kxh4 Qh2+ 39.Kg4 Qh5#, Black would have brought this combative game to a beautiful conclusion.”

Indeed, it's a beautiful conclusion. Why then did Alekhine, in citing the alternative variation 32...g6 33.Rh8+! Kxh8 34.Qd8+ Kh7 35.Qe7! with a draw, restrict himself to the laconic comment, “If 32...h5+ then simply 33.Kxh5!” Was he mistaken yet again?

No, this time his analysis was accurate. It turns out that White is not obliged to play 36.Rd7? (also bad is 36.Rf8? Qh3+ 37.Kf3 Rg2 38.Rxf7+ Kh6 39.Ke4 Rxg3). One of Levenfish's parenthetical variations in fact leads to a draw: 36.Kg5! Kg7, and as before not 37.Rd7? but 37.Qa3! Rh5+ 38.Kg4 Qd2+ (or 38...Kh7 39.Rh8+ Kxh8 40.Qf8+ Kh7 41.Qxf7+ Kh6 42.Qf8+) 39.Qf3 Qh2 40.Qa3 with a repetition of moves.

33.Qd3+ g6 34.Rd7! Kg7

If 34...Rh4+? then 35.Kf3!

35.Rxf7+

Draw.

With this we conclude our extract from Voronkov's book.

Euwe vs Geller, Zurich 1953

2010-10-21T16:14:00.000-07:00

Here is a position from the game Euwe – Geller, Zurich (ct) 1953. It is on the menu today because it shows that the late middlegame is often characterised by inaccurate play, especially when the time control is approaching.

Black has the initiative and is trying to turn it into a decisive attack on White's king, which is the more exposed of the two. First, let's see how the game went:

55...Be3 56.Rf1 Qd2 57.Rf7 Qxe2+ 58.Kg3 Qe1+ 59.Kf3 Qh1+ 60.Kg3 Qg1+ 61.Kf3 Qf2+ 62.Ke4 Re8+ 63.Re7 Qh4+ White resigned (0-1).

The first impression is that the game took a normal course and ended in victory for Black. David Bronstein, for example, writing in his book Mezhdunarodny Turnir Grossmeisterov, does not query any of the last eight or nine moves. However, a closer examination reveals a dramatic exchange of blunders.

Peelback No. 1

Instead of 56.Rf1?, White should play 56.Rf7!, setting up the threat of 57.Rxb7 mate. Now Black is forced to work with checks; there is no time for a quiet move. Thus: 56...Qg1+ 57.Kf3 Qf1+ 58.Kg3 Bf4+ 59.Kg4. Bronstein reaches this position in his analysis and gives 59...h5+! “et cetera,” with the clear implication that Black is winning.

I always get suspicious when I see a note ending in “et cetera.” I like to carry on the analysis until the win is obvious. In this case there is a problem. After 59...h5+ 60.Kh4 Qf2+ 61.Kxh5 Qxe2+ 62.Kh4 Qe1+ 63.Kh5! there is no forced mate, no forced win of material, and no time for a quiet move. Black can even go wrong: 63...Qe5+?? 64.Qxe5 Bxe5 65.Nd7+ and wins. The first conclusion: 56.Rf7 draws. The second conclusion: 56.Rf1? is a weak move. The third conclusion: 55...Be3 is probably a weak move too.

Peelback No. 2

There is no good reason for Black to allow the move Rf3-f7 until he is ready with a winning continuation. Black can play a move that takes the square g4 away from the White king, so that if White does nothing significant, the attack beginning with Bf4-e3 will be far more dangerous. The move is:

55...h5!

Now White has:

A. 56.Qf7 Bc7! (changing direction in order to give Black's queen access to g5 in some lines) 57.Nd7+ Ka7 58.Nf8 Qg5+ 59.Kf2 Bh2 (also possible is 59...d3 60.Qxc7 Qh4+ 61.Qg3 Qd4+ 62.Kg2 d2 63.Rf1 d1Q 64.Rxd1 Qxd1 and Black is winning) 60.Qg6 Bg1+ 61.Kf1 Qc1+ 62.Kg2 Rd5 63.Ne6 Re5 64.Nf4 Be3 65.Rf1 Qd2 66.Qf7 Bxf4 67.Qxf4 Rxe2+ 68.Kg1 Qxb4 with a winning ending for Black;

B. 56.Qg6 Qd2 57.Rf2 Bc7 58.Qg7 Qe3 59.Qg6 Ka7 60.h4 Qe7 61.Nc4 (unavailing is 61.Qxh5 Rg8+ 62.Kf1 Qe4 and wins) 61...Qxh4 62.Nd6 Qe7 63.Qf6 Bxd6 64.cxd6 Qxd6 65.Qxd6 Rxd6 66.Rf5 Rd5 67.Rf4 d3 68.exd3 Rxd3 69.Rc4 Rd5 70.Kh3 b6 71.Rxc6 bxa5 72.bxa5 Rxa5 and White will have to give up his rook for Black's a-pawn.

I believe the moves 55...Qd2 and 55...Re8 also lead to a win for Black, but the pawn move is less complicated. The conclusion is that Black's move 55...Be3? threw away the win, but White's move 56.Rf1? gave it back.

When preparing his book The Application of Chess Theory for publication, Efim Geller found Bronstein's error, but did not notice his own error.

Bird vs Chigorin, Vienna 1882, Part Two

2010-10-17T13:34:00.000-07:00

Last time we presented the game Bird – Chigorin, Vienna 1882, with analysis by Solomon Lipschutz and supplemental comments by Mikhail Chigorin. Today we present the same game with annotations from the modern era by the Soviet grandmaster Evgeny Vasyukov, extracted from his 1973 book Mikhail Chigorin, co-authored with Alexander Narkevich and Alexander Nikitin.

Bird – Chigorin, Vienna 1882 Two Knights Defence C59

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Be2 h6 9.Nf3 e4 10.Ne5 Qc7 11.Ng4

This retreat is not considered the strongest. Instead of making the useful developing move 11.d4 or reinforcing his central position with 11.f4, White trades off his only active piece.

11...Bxg4 12.Bxg4 Bd6

A standard move in this system, and strong enough here because it stops White from castling. But 70 years after this game was played, one of our best masters of attack Rashid Nezhmetdinov suggested an even stronger plan in which both h2 and f2 are subjected to attack: 12...Bc5! 13.Be2 Rd8 14.c3 Nb7 15.0-0 h5! 16.d4 exd3 17.Bxd3 Ng4! The game Ciocaltea – Nezhmetdinov, Bucharest 1954, continued 18.Qe2+ Kf8 19.g3 Qd7 20.Be4 h4 21.Bf4 Nxh2! and Black won shortly.

13.h3

In a 1953 training game against Smyslov, Bronstein retreated his bishop to h3 with the idea of relocating it to g2. However this manoeuvre requires a lot of time and allows Black to increase the pressure: 13.Bh3 0-0 14.g3 Nd5 15.0-0 Rae8 16.d3 e3.

13...O-O 14.Nc3

Steinitz considered that 14.b3 was necessary here, hindering the transfer of Black's knight to the centre. But this move, which does nothing to aid White's development, can hardly change the nature of the struggle. Black would develop strong pressure on the central files, for example: 14...Be5 15.Nc3 Rad8 16.Bb2 e3! 17.fxe3 Bxc3 18.Bxc3 Ne4!

14...Nc4 15.b3?

White is playing the opening rather carelessly. Developing the bishop on b2 is a mistaken idea. The main events are bound to take place over on the kingside, where Black has directed all of his pieces. Therefore the following plan of development deserved attention: 15.Be2 Ne5 16.d3! (16.d4 Ng6 17.0-0 Nh4) 16...exd3 17.cxd3 Rad8 18.0-0. Of course, even here Black's edge in development would guarantee him the initiative, but it would be far easier for White to defend than in the game.

15...Ne5 16.Bb2 Rfe8 17.O-O

It is too late for White to retreat his bishop (17.Be2 Nf3+! 18.Kf1 Nh4) so he hurries to get his king out of the centre. However, this loses a pawn.

17...Nexg4 18.hxg4 Qd7 19.Qe2

Defending the pawn on g4 would lead to the creation of other weaknesses: 19.f3 Bc5+ 20.Kh1 Rad8 21.Na4 Bd4!

19...Nxg4

Diagram

A critical moment. With material being equal White can hardly count upon a successful defence. But can he capture the pawn on e4? This makes use of the fact that after 20.Nxe4 Black cannot play 20...f5 because of 21.Qc4+. The risk appears to be substantial. The pin on the knight is very unpleasant and enables Black to obtain the advantage in two ways: 20.Nxe4 Bh2+ 21.Kh1 Bc7 22.f3 f5 23.Qc4+ Kh8 24.Nf2! Qd6 (for example, 25.Nxg4 fxg4 26.f4 Qg6) or 20...Qf5 21.f3 (sacrificing the queen does not work: 21.Nxd6 Qh5 22.Qxg4 Qxg4 23.Nxe8 Rxe8 24.Rfe1 Rxe1+ 25.Rxe1 Qf5 26.d3 Qa5!) 21...Qh5! 22.fxg4 Qh2+ 23.Kf2 Qf4+ 24.Kg1 Rxe4 25.Rxf4 Rxe2 26.Rf2 Re4 (Chigorin). Nevertheless, if White wants to choose the least of evils, he should try to find salvation in this endgame. In declining to take the pawn he dooms himself to a prospectless defence.

20.g3 Qf5 21.Kg2 Re6 22.Rae1

Exchanging the e-pawn with 22.f3 exf3+ (22...Qe5 23.f4!) 23.Qxf3 does not save White from the attack after 23...Qg6!

22...Rae8 23.Rh1 h5!

Winning the exchange with 23...Qxf3+ 24.Qxf3 exf3+ 25.Kxf3 Rxe1 26.Rxe1 Rxe1 27.Kxg4 Be5 would also guarantee Black victory, but it would take much longer. He still has ways of strengthening the attack, and Chigorin decides to press on with them. The threat now is 24...Qf3+, winning a rook since the knight on g4 is defended.

24.Ref1 Qg6! 25.Nd1

Diagram

Black has apparently retreated his queen in order to make way for his f-pawn, and here in fact 25...f5 26.Ne3 f4 would also give him an irresistible attack. But Chigorin demonstrates an unexpected combinative possibility.

25...e3!

Now it becomes clear that the square g3 cannot be defended against intrusion by the Black queen, since after 26.Nxe3 Nxe3+ 27.dxe3 there follows 27...Rxe3 28.Qxh5 Rxg3+ and mate on the following move.

26.Bd4 Nxf2 27.Rxf2 Qxg3+ 28.Kf1 exf2 29.Ne3 c5 30.Bc3 Rxe3! 31.dxe3 Rxe3 32.Qd1 h4 33.Bd2 h3!

White resigned (0-1).

Here we conclude our extract from Vasyukov's 1973 analysis as well as our two-part excursion into master chess of the late 19th century.

Bird vs Chigorin, Vienna 1882, Part One

2010-10-15T23:02:00.000-07:00

The Russian master Mikhail Chigorin compiled an amazing record on the Black side of the Two Knights Defence. Over the course of his career he employed this counterattacking system in a total of 17 games, mostly against the world's elite. He scored 13 wins, 1 draw, and only 3 losses for a winning percentage of 79%, far in excess of the standard 45% that Black can expect from the starting position. In particular his great rival Wilhelm Steinitz was bested by a score of four games to one.

Why was Chigorin so successful with the Two Knights Defence? In the first place, he was a fine attacking player with a strikingly modern feel for the initiative and the importance of piece activity. He was also aided by the generally low reputation enjoyed by the Two Knights Defence in those days. This reputation was based in large part on the writings of his rival Steinitz, who famously believed that “a pawn is worth a little trouble.” In particular, Steinitz believed that Black did not have the right to sacrifice a pawn in the opening. For his part, Chigorin didn't care what Steinitz (or anyone else) thought was right or wrong. He saw the assets in Black's position and worked hard to make them count.

Today we present a lesser-known but particularly fine example of Chigorin's play in the Two Knights Defence – his game with the English master Henry Bird from the great Vienna tournament of 1882. This event, by the way, was won by Steinitz after a playoff match with Simon Winawer. Chigorin finished 12th and Bird 15th out of 18 participants.

The Bird-Chigorin encounter did not go unnoticed by the contemporary chess press. It appeared in the Russian magazine Shakhmatny Vestnik in 1885, and later in The Chess-Player's Manual by Gossip and Lipschutz (1888). It also came to the attention of Wilhelm Steinitz, who included it in Part 1 of his two-volume opus The Modern Chess Instructor (1889).

While preparing his 1950 commemorative book on Chigorin, Nikolai Grekov gained access to the Russian master's archives, including a copy of The Modern Chess Instructor. There he found some pencilled comments to the Bird-Chigorin game in which Chigorin expressed disdain for aspects of Steinitz's analysis. Needless to say, these comments were included in Grekov's book in order to demonstrate that, even in analysis, Chigorin could hold his own against his rival.

In preparing this article I had occasion to refer directly to The Modern Chess Instructor, where I found the following caveat by Steinitz, which had been conveniently omitted from Grekov's book: “Our notes to this game are chiefly quoted from the Appendix to Gossip's Manual by S. Lipschutz.” Chigorin would have known this, so his disdain would have been largely directed at Lipschutz instead of Steinitz. However, Steinitz was ultimately responsible for the content of his book. In our article today, the comments by Steinitz/Lipschutz have been slightly edited for clarity. Chigorin's pencilled comments appear in italics, and there are two further comments of his from Shakhmatny Vestnik.

Bird-Chigorin, Vienna 1882 Two Knights Defence C59

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Be2 h6 9.Nf3 e4 10.Ne5 Qc7 11.Ng4

11.d4 exd3 (and if one does not capture en passant?) 12.Nxd3 Bd6 13.Nd2 followed by Nf3 would give White an excellent game with a pawn ahead. For should Black then attempt 13...Bxh2, then would follow 14.g3 Bxg3 15.fxg3 Qxg3+ 16.Nf2 and should win.

11...Bxg4 12.Bxg4 Bd6 13.h3 O-O 14.Nc3

White would have done better first to prevent the entrance of the hostile knight by 14.b3. Rubbish; then comes 14...Be5 15.Nc3 e3 16.fxe3 Bxc3, etc.

14...Nc4 15.b3 Ne5 16.Bb2 Rfe8 17.O-O

17.Be2 Nd3+ (or 17...Nf3+ 18.Kf1, etc.) (Just so: “et cetera.” And how will things turn out for White after 18...Nh4?) 18.cxd3 exd3 19.0-0 was far more favourable for White.

17...Nexg4 18.hxg4 Qd7 19.Qe2

If 19.f3 Bc5+ 20.Kh1 Qe7 with a winning attack.

19...Nxg4 20.g3

20.Nxe4 Qf5 21.f3 Qh5 22.fxg4 Qh2+ 23.Kf2 Qf4+ (or 23...Qh4+ 24.g3 Bxg3+ 25.Kg2 and should win; if here 24...Qh2+ 25.Kf3 Qxe2+ 26.Kxe2 Rxe4+ 27.Kf3 with a pawn ahead) 24.Kg1 was by far better play, for Black's best plan would be now to draw by perpetual check. What on earth for? After 24...Rxe4 25.Rxf4 Rxe2 26.Rf2 Re4! Black's position is better – perhaps significantly so.

20...Qf5 21.Kg2 Re6 22.Rae1

Ill-judged. 22.Rh1 followed by 23.Raf1 was much better.

22...Rae8 23.Rh1 h5!

Black could win the exchange by playing 23...Qf3+ but after 24.Qxf3 (24.Kg1 Bxg3!) exf3+ 25.Kxf3 Rxe1 26.Rxe1 Rxe1 27.Kxg4 play would continue for quite some time. Now, having defended his knight, Black threatens 24...Qf3+ (Chigorin, Shakhmatny Vestnik, 1885).

24.Ref1 Qg6 25.Nd1

Premature. 25.Rh3 was necessary for the defence. Black was threatening 25...e3 26.dxe3 Nxe3 (Chigorin, Shakhmatny Vestnik, 1885).

(diagram)

25...e3!

A real master coup which forces the victory in elegant style.

26.Bd4

If 26.dxe3 Nxe3+ 27.Nxe3 Rxe3 threatening 28...Rxg3+ and wins.

26...Nxf2 27.Rxf2 Qxg3+ 28.Kf1 exf2 29.Ne3 c5 30.Bc3 Rxe3

Beautiful play, which finishes off the quickest way.

31.dxe3 Rxe3 32.Qd1 h4

32...Rxc3 followed by 33...Kf8 (if White reply 33.Qxh5) was also good enough.

33.Bd2 h3

White resigned (0-1)

Next time we will present this game with more modern annotations. Stay tuned!

Marshall vs Alekhine, Bradley Beach 1929

2010-09-19T10:21:00.000-07:00

A couple of weeks ago, Eduardo Moura and I were analysing some tournament games played by Alexander Alekhine. One in particular – a queen ending – caught our eye because of the way Alekhine managed to fashion a win out of very thin material. The opponent was Frank Marshall, and the venue was the Bradley Beach tournament of 1929. (This, by the way, was Alekhine's first official event following his defeat of Capablanca in 1927.) Here is the game with annotations by Soviet GM Alexander Kotov, taken from Volume 2 of his book Shakhmatnoe Nasledie A.A. Alekhina:

In queen endings, as in other types of endings, an outside passed pawn sometimes plays an important role. Thus in the following game of Alekhine's, White's queen was deflected by a strong Black passed pawn on the a-file while White's own passed pawn on the d-file was easily held in check by the centralised Black king.

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 c5 4.Bd3 d5 5.c3 Bd6 6.O-O Nbd7 7.Nbd2 O-O

A well-known variation of the Colle System. This opening was once considered rather threatening, but after several equalising methods were found for Black it was eventually reassessed as insufficient for advantage.

8.e4

White has to acquiesce to an isolated pawn on d4 because the preliminary exchange on c5 does not work. It was precisely for this reason that Black developed his knight on d7.

8...cxd4 9.cxd4 dxe4 10.Nxe4 Nxe4 11.Bxe4 Qb6!

This move is considered strongest. Black attacks the b-pawn and prevents the development of White's bishop on c1.

12.Ne5

This advance is tactically justified by a double attack: 12...Bxe5 13.dxe5 Nxe5 14.Bxh7+ followed by 15.Qh5+. However, stronger was the natural 12.Qe2 followed by 13.Be3 or 13.Bg5.

12...f5

Decisively preventing any White attempt to attack on the kingside. In the sequel Alekhine skilfully defends the resulting weakness on e6.

13.Nxd7 Bxd7 14.Bf3 Bc6 15.Re1 Kh8! 16.Bg5

Not falling for the trap 16.Rxe6? Bxf3 17.Qxf3 Bxh2+.

16...Rae8 17.Rc1

This enables Alekhine to seize the initiative and obtain the better position. More promising was 17.Bxc6.

17...Bxf3 18.Qxf3 Qxb2 19.Rb1 Qxa2 20.Rxb7 Rb8 21.g3

Marshall makes an escape square for his king so that he can follow up with 22.Reb1, which at the moment is not possible because of 22...Qxb1+! However, this pawn move gives Alekhine the opportunity to exchange bishops and at the same time inflict serious damage on the pawn cover in front of Marshall's king.

21...f4! 22.Bxf4

Capturing on f4 with the pawn is worse because of 22...h6.

22...Bxf4 23.gxf4 Rxb7 24.Qxb7 Qd2

The heavy piece ending is favourable for Black. All four of White's pawns are isolated and weak, and his king is exposed. However, the reduced material does not allow Alekhine to decide matters in the so-called “fourth stage” of the game [i.e., a mating attack in the endgame – tr.]. Eventually he has to agree to an exchange of rooks.

25.Qe4 h6 26.Qe3 Qb2 27.Qe5 Rf6 28.Re3 Qb1+ 29.Kg2 Qb7+ 30.Kg1 Qf7 31.Qb8+ Kh7 32.Qb1+ Rf5 33.Qe4 Qf8 34.Re2 a5

After some extensive probing manoeuvres, Alekhine finally sets his passed pawn in motion. This forces Marshall to start thinking about creating his own passed pawn.

35.Qxe6 Rxf4 36.d5 Rd4 37.Re4 Rd2 38.Re2 Rxe2 39.Qxe2 Qf5

On the surface the queen ending appears to be absolutely equal, but this is not the case at all. There is no doubt that Black stands better. In the first place, his king is much more secure than White's, although this is not the decisive factor. The main thing is that Black's passed pawn is the cause of many worries for White's queen, distracting her from any sort of attack on Black's kingside. Meanwhile, White's pawn on d5 will be held in check by Black's soon-to-be centralised king. It is interesting to follow how the World Champion is able to realise an apparently insignificant advantage against such a strong player as the American grandmaster.

40.Qd1 Qg6+ 41.Kf1 Qa6+ 42.Kg2 Qd6 43.Qd4 Kg8

The king sets off toward the pawn on d5 in order to assist the queen in either holding up this dangerous pawn or even capturing it.

44.Qc4 Kf7 45.Qb5 Qd8 46.f4

In order to deprive the Black king of the square e5 in case he decides to settle on d6.

46...Qc7 47.Kf3 Qc3+ 48.Kg4

Here is the first indicator of the power of the outside passed pawn. The White king cannot go to e4 because then 48...Qb4+ would lead to an easily-won pawn ending.

48...Ke7 49.Qb6

Marshall does not notice the World Champion's clever tactical trick. He had to play 49.h4, preventing the following “hammer blow” by the Black pawn. But even then 49...Kd6 would leave Black with reasonable winning chances.

49...h5+!

This forces White's destruction within a few moves.

50.Kxh5

White has to take; otherwise Black forces the exchange of queens with a check on f6.

50...Qh3+ 51.Kg5 Qg2+ 52.Kf5

Or 52.Kh4 Qxh2+ 53.Kg4 Qg2+ 54.Kh4 Qxd5 and with his extra pawn Black must win.

52...Qxd5+ 53.Kg6

White cannot avoid the pawn ending in any case.

53...Qd6+ 54.Qxd6+ Kxd6 55.f5 a4 56.Kxg7 a3 57.f6 a2 58.f7 a1=Q+ 59.Kg8 Qg1+

White resigned.

With this we conclude our extract from GM Kotov's book.

I will only add the observation that Alekhine was particularly skilled in his conduct of queen and pawn endings. Anyone who looks up his games will find many similar examples.

Beating the Petroff

2010-08-19T23:03:00.000-07:00

At the highest level of play the Petroff (or Russian) Defence is generally regarded as a problem for White. Quite often a symmetrical pawn position is obtained, and White struggles to convert his extra tempo into something more concrete. In some quarters the notion of banning the Petroff Defence from tournament play has been suggested. But what do the Petroff experts say?

“A more skilful strategic player triumphs in the Petroff Defence regardless of the colour of his pieces and the position's symmetry.” -- Alexander Raetsky and Maxim Chetverik

That is certainly encouraging. And how about this quote from the noted author of Think Like a Grandmaster:

“When I stayed behind at school with my school friends after lessons, and managed to play up to a hundred games in a single afternoon, the strategy was simple enough: I castled on the opposite side in the middle of violent (and mutual) King attacks. Whoever got his attack in first, won. [When] the Kings find themselves at opposite corners of the board... the attacker not only can but must carry out the attack with pawns...” -- Alexander Kotov

The message is clear: let's castle queenside against the Petroff!

dadian - lox1900, G/5 Chess Assistant Club 2010, Petroff Defence C42

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Nc3 Nxc3 6.dxc3 Be7 7.Be3 d5 [7...Nc6 8.Qd2 Be6 9.0–0–0 Qd7 10.Kb1 a6 11.h4] 8.Qd2 c6 9.0–0–0 [9.c4!?] 9...Bg4 10.Be2 0–0 11.h3 Bxf3 12.gxf3 (first diagram) 12...b5 13.Rhg1 Bf6 14.Rg4 [14.Bd4 Nd7 15.Qh6 g6 16.h4 Re8 17.Bd3 Ne5 unclear] 14...Nd7 15.Rdg1 [15.f4!?] 15...g6 [15...Ne5 16.R4g3 Re8 17.f4 Ng6 18.f5 Nh4 19.Bd4±] 16.f4 Bg7 17.f5 Ne5 [17...Nf6 18.Bg5 (18.R4g2 Qa5 19.Kb1 Ne4 20.Qd3 b4) 18...Qa5 19.Bxf6 Bxf6 20.Kb1 d4 21.Qd3 dxc3 22.fxg6 and White wins] 18.R4g3± Nc4 19.Bxc4 bxc4 20.Bd4 Qd6?! [20...Rb8! with counterplay] 21.h4 c5 22.Bxg7 Kxg7 (second diagram) 23.h5 f6 24.hxg6 h6 25.Rh3 Rh8 26.Rgh1 Qe5 27.Rxh6 Qxf5 28.Rxh8 Rxh8 29.Rxh8 1–0

Find the continuation 3

2010-06-22T22:06:00.000-07:00

A couple of weeks ago I was spectating at an active tournament at the Milwaukee Market Creamery on Hornby Street in Vancouver. One of the games attracted particular attention when it arrived at the position shown in the diagram.

White, an A-class player, had uncorked the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit against his Expert-class opponent, and had sacrificed the exchange to speed up his attack. His last move was Ne2-g3, bringing his knight into action. His opponent had replied with ...Rd8-d5, trying to deal with White's massed pieces.

It was now White to play, and White was thinking.

Here I recalled something that Emanuel Lasker once wrote: there are certain moves you either see right away, or you do not see at all.

I remembered this because I could see a forced win for White, but White was still thinking.

After what seemed like forever he picked up his c-pawn and played 1.c4? Black immediately replied 1...Rf5!, returning the exchange and effectively killing off White's attack. White made a few more attacking gestures but was eventually was forced to capitulate.

In the diagram position White has a very powerful follow-up to his previous move:

1.Nh5!

Black is forced to take this knight because he is threatened with mate on g7 and 1...Qf8 doesn't help.

1...gxh5

This has the drawback of opening the b1-h7 diagonal for White's bishop, but taking with the knight is even worse: 1...Nxh5 2.Qxh7+ Kf8 3.Qh8 mate.

2.Bxh7+ Kh8 3.Rxf6

Black is now completely helpless. His next move is as good or bad as any other.

3...Rxg5 4.Bg6+ Kg8 5.Qh7+ Kf8 6.Qh8 mate.

We've already quoted the World Champion Lasker, so let's finish off with a quotation from his successor Jose Raul Capablanca:

“...the games of the great masters are not played by single moves, but must be played by concerted plans of attack and defence...”

The right execution

2010-06-20T12:45:00.000-07:00

Here is a tense position from the game Fine-Reshevsky, A.V.R.O. 1938 (first diagram). White – to play – is a pawn down, and he obviously wants to win it back before Black can consolidate. The pawn on a6 is the natural target.

16.Qe2!?

Theatening 17.Bxa6, which is not easy to meet directly because of the pressure against Black's e-pawn.

16...Nh5!

A counterattack against the central light squares, and against White's queen in particular.

17.Bxa6

In the actual game, Fine prevented the threat of ...Nf4 by playing 17.g3. The matter of interest today is Reshevsky's analysis of 17.Bxa6. In his book Reshevsky on Chess (1948) he gave the following line:

17...Nf4 18.Qf1 Rxa6 19.Qxa6 Rb8 (second diagram)

and wrote that “White is helpless against the threat of ...Bb5.”

It is obvious that White cannot prevent ...Bb5, so things are certainly looking grim. What is not obvious is that White has a defence – more precisely, a counterattack. How about this:

20.b4!

Making a square for the queen on a5, and also attacking the knight.

20...Bb5!?

Pushing ahead with the plan of trapping White's queen. The alternatives are less promising:

A. 20...Nb3? 21.Nxb3 axb3 22.Bxf4 exf4 23.Qa3 and White is simply the exchange up with a clear advantage;

B. 20...Rxb4 21.Ba3 (or the more complex 21.dxe5 Bc8 22.exd6 Bxd6 23.Qf1 Rb6 24.e5 Bc5 25.Re4, etc.) 21...Bc8 22.Qf1 Rb6 23.Rec1! (winning time to make space for the queen) 23...Qd7 24.Nc4 Nxc4 25.Qxc4 Ba6 26.Qc7 Ne2+ 27.Kh2 and White is again up the exchange, although Black's bishop pair is also a factor;

C. 20...Nc6 21.Qxa4 Nxd4 21.Qa5 with equality.

21.Qxa5 Qd7

Now Black is threatening 22...Bd8, so White needs to find another resource.

22.Rxa4!

White does have an extra rook, so that gives him the option of returning it in order to extricate his queen.

22...Bxa4

White's queen escapes after 22...Bd8 23.Qa7 (also interesting is 23.Qa8!?, aiming to get two rooks for the queen) 23...Rb7 24.Qa8 (here too 24.Qxb7!? is possible) 24...Bxa4 25.dxe5. Here White must still tread carefully but having all the pawns on one side of the board is the key leveling factor.

23.dxe5! Nd3 24.Rf1

White has survived the complications and reached an equal position.

Does this mean that White can recover the pawn with 17.Bxa6? Of course not. After 17...Nf4 18.Qf1 Black has a much stronger way to exploit the light squares:

18...Qb6!

Now if 19.Bxc8? then 19...Bb5 wins easily for Black. White must retreat his bishop:

19.Bd3 exd4

White is again a pawn down but can play to win it back by gaining a tempo on Black's knight.

20.Nc4 Nxc4 21.Bxc4 Be6!

The most accurate way to preserve the advantage. Now if 22.Bxe6 then 22...Nxe6 and Black keeps the extra pawn. Of course White cannot contemplate 22.Bxf4? Bxc4 and wins.

22.Bb5 Ng6 23.Rd1

With this move White clears a square for his queen and renews the threat to recover the pawn.

23...Bf6!

Consolidating the more important pawn.

24.Rxa4 Rxa4 25.Bxa4 Bc4 26.Qe1 Qa6!

Taking control of the key diagonal without loss of time.

27.b3 Be2! 28.Rd2 Bxf3 29.gxf3 Nh4! (third diagram)

The culmination of Black's strategy commencing with 18...Qb6! The strategic advantage of controlling the a6-f1 diagonal has been transformed into a decisive advantage in pawn structure.

One might say that Reshevsky had the right idea, but did not show the right way to execute it.

Mystery annotations

2010-05-24T00:23:00.000-07:00

Every so often you come across an annotation that you just can't believe. Today's example is taken from Larry Christiansen's excellent book Storming the Barricades, published by Gambit in 2000.

The position in the first diagram arose in the game V. Ciocaltea – L. Christiansen, Torremolinos 1976 after Black's 15^th move. White decided it was time for an unwarranted attack, and came up with the aggressive-looking:

16.g4?!

Black can safely ignore this pawn advance with 16...Bb7 17.g5 hxg5 18.Bxg5 Rfd8, when it looks like all White has done is weaken his position. But Christiansen has a somewhat different idea.

16...Nd7!?

At first this too looks fishy. Why not 17.Qe4 threatening mate and the rook? Of course Christiansen had seen all this, and he wrote that 17...f5 18.Qxa8 Nxe5 would give Black a “crushing counterattack.” That is certainly true, but White can do better with 18.gxf5 exf5 19.Qd5+ Kh7 20.Nc4 Qh4 21.Be3, which could be just equal.

More critical for Black's idea is 17.Be4 Nxe5 18.Bxa8. Christiansen gave 18...Qh4 19.Bf4 Ba6 20.Qxe5 Qxf2+ 21.Kh1 Rxa8 22.Qe4 (second diagram) and now “22...Be2! 23.Qxa8+ Kh7 24.Rd3 Qxf4, when Black's raging bishops rule the board.”

Here is the real mystery. Well, two mysteries actually. Black's bishops can do all the ruling they want, but if all they can do is win back the double exchange, then it doesn't add up to much. Try to find a win for Black after 24...Qxf4 25.Qg2! I don't think it's there.

The second mystery – and the true subject of today's article – is why on earth Black should give up his rook with check. After 22.Qe4 he should forget about abstract ideas of ruling the board and instead play the simple 22...Rc8! The threat is Bb5-c6 with disaster on the long diagonal. White can grovel, but in the long run Black must prevail.

For the record, the game continuation was:

17.g5 Nxe5 18.Qxe5 f6 19.Qe4 f5 20.Qh4 Bb7 21.Qh5 Qc7 22.Bb5 Rad8 23.Rxd8 Rxd8 24.gxh6 Qe5 25.Qg5 Qe1+ 0–1

The sacrifice

2010-05-17T19:26:00.000-07:00

I'm not talking about giving up material for the initiative or an attack. I'm talking about accepting the inability to think too deeply that goes along with entering an “active” (30-minute) chess tournament. With life's many demands, it is often more convenient to play a tournament that lasts one day instead of two or three. But there is a price. If you treat active chess like classical chess and try to find the best moves as much as possible, you will inevitably fall behind on the clock. We all know what can happen then.

Here is an illustration of this theme from a recent active game of mine. The result was favourable for me, but later analysis showed the creative aspect to be anything but satisfying.

The diagrammed position arose in the game Scoones-Milicevic, Vancouver Express Open 2010, a 16-player Swiss System event hosted by Metro Vancouver's official Russian-language newspaper. This encounter was played in the last round and was crucial for deciding who would finish in second place behind the winner of the event, IM Stanislav Kriventsov.

White has two bishops against a rook and pawn, but more important than that, he has the ability to start a dangerous attack against Black's king. The downside is that White has only 90 seconds left on his clock.

37.Bc4+! Kg7 38.Ne6+ Kh6?!

With 2 minutes on his own clock, Black goes wrong – by the standards of active chess. He had to try 38...Kg8!? 39.Nd8+ Kg7 40.Nxb7 Ra8 and hope that White ran out of time while trying to promote his queenside pawns. The text leads instead to a mating attack.

39.Bf8+ Kh5?!

Here too Black should give up further material with 39...Rxf8 and hope that White cannot convert within the time limit.

40.Be2+ Kh4 41.Bg7?!

When I played this move I believed it was quite brilliant. White threatens both 42.Bxf6+ followed by mate, and 42.Bxh8 winning a rook. However, much stronger was 41.Bc5!, when Black can stave off mate for only a couple of moves.

41...g5?!

Here 41...Rf8 was slightly stronger but by now it would not change things much.

42.Bxh8?

It isn't too often that capturing a free rook merits a question mark. But it does happen, and this is one of those times. Much, much stronger was 42.Nf4! threatening 43.g3 mate. The only defence is taking the knight with 42...gxf4, but then White mates with 43.Bxf6.

After taking the rook I was down to 60 seconds on the clock. Fortunately (for me) I managed to exchange off my opponent's remaining knight and then queen my b-pawn, ending the game quickly.

There is only one way to improve at active chess: practise, practise, practise!

Alonso vs Suttles, Gijon 1965

2010-05-05T20:54:00.000-07:00

Here is an early tournament game by GM Duncan Suttles, which remained undiscovered at the time of publication of Chess on the Edge, the monumental three-volume work by FM Bruce Harper and GM Yasser Seirawan.

Jose Ramon Alonso - Duncan Suttles, Gijon 1965 Modern Defence [A42]

1.d4 g6 2.c4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.e4 Nc6 5.Be3 e5 6.Nge2 Nh6 7.d5 Ne7 8.f3 f5 9.Qd2 Nf7 10.h4

White has no real attacking prospects on the kingside, so perhaps he is merely looking for complications. If so, he has met a worthy associate in Mr Suttles!

10...c5

Radically forestalling a possible c4-c5 pawn break by White.

11.Ng1 h5 12.Nh3 f4 13.Bf2 Bh6 14.Bd3 a6 15.Ke2

Black is not well-placed for a queenside attack, so White should consider castling long, perhaps following up with Rdg1 and g2-g3!?

15...Bd7 16.a4 Qa5 17.b4 cxb4 18.Na2 Rc8 19.Rhb1 Bxh3 20.gxh3 Qxa4

With White's king still in the centre, Black should not be thinking about exchanging queens.

21.Rxb4?!

Stronger was 21.Qxb4! with queenside pressure for White.

21...Qd7 22.Rab1 Nd8

Here Black could make White's life difficult with 22...Qxh3! and if 23.Rxb7 then 23...g5!

23.Rb6 Rc7 24.c5 Nc8 25.cxd6 Nxd6 26.Qb2 N8f7 27.Rg1 Rg8 28.Nc3 Bf8 29.Qb3 Be7

Here too 29...Qxh3 would have posed problems for White.

30.Na4 (diagram) 30...Qxh3!?

But now it seems better to play 30...Qc8 and if 31.Qb1 then simply 31...Kf8 with advantage to Black.

31.Nc5 Rxc5?

This looks like a time trouble error. 31...Bxh4! was still good for Black. Now things turn around dramatically.

32.Bxc5 Bxh4 33.Rxb7 Nxb7 34.Qxb7 Nd8 35.Qh7! Rf8 36.Qxg6+ Rf7 37.Bxa6 Qh2+ 38.Rg2 1-0

In many ways a typical Suttles game: strategically deep, but tactically... not so deep!

The Forklift

2010-04-16T20:56:00.000-07:00

From humble beginnings in the early 1950s, chess-playing computers have now surpassed the strongest human players. Less than $100 is needed to buy one of the electronic warriors that gave so much trouble to GMs Garry Kasparov, Vladimir Kramnik, and Michael Adams in specially-arranged test matches.

Twenty years ago, when chess computers were first approaching master strength, an initiative was started to prohibit them from entering human tournaments. It was argued that trying to defeat a machine at chess would eventually be as futile as trying to win a powerlifting contest against a forklift.

In 2009, a FIDE Category 6 tournament with a mostly human entry was won by a mobile phone.

These days many authorities proclaim the futility of trying to defeat a top chess-playing program. Instead it is recommended that players use such programs to analyse their own games and identify and perhaps correct their mistakes.

I recently acquired a copy of Fritz 12, the newest version of one of the best-selling chess programs of all time. Never mind the advice from the experts. When the DVD arrived at my study, I installed the program, set the time control for 5 minutes each, and banged out my first move 1.e4. Here is the resulting game:

Dadian-Fritz 12, G/5, Port Coquitlam 2010

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.Bd3 Nc6 5.c3 Nf6 6.Bf4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.0-0 0-0 9.h3 a6 10.a4 Nh5 11.Bh2 Bh6 12.Re1 Bf4 13.Bxf4 Nxf4 14.Bc2 f6 15.Qd2 (diagram) 15...e5 16.dxe5 fxe5 17.Nxe5 Qg5 18.Ng4 h5 19.Ne3 Ne5 20.Kf1 Bxh3 21.gxh3 Nf3 0-1

Well, that was a sobering experience. I thought the exchange variation of the Caro-Kann was supposed to be a safe way for White to play, but I guess not.

Of course my first big mistake was 16.dxe5, which opened the f-file and also allowed Black's queen to get to g5. Replace 16.dxe5 with 16.Qe3 and White should be fine.

On the very next move I made my second big mistake 17.Nxe5, which allowed Black to set up a winning attack with 17...Qg5. Instead of taking the e-pawn there was the interesting option of counterplay with 17.Bb3.

After 17...Qg5 I managed to grovel for a few moves but the issue was settled after 20...Bxh3!

I suppose there is some risk of embarrassment in publishing this game, but here I will appeal to the reader's conscience.

Find the best continuation

2010-03-19T18:45:00.000-07:00

This position came up in a recent blitz game at Delaney's Coffee Bar, a popular meeting place for chessplayers in West Vancouver, B.C. It is White (Dadian) to play. It was obvious to me that Black's situation is critical and in fact I was looking for the best way to finish things off.

All of White's previous play has been aimed at conquering h7. It may appear that success is at hand, but there is a problem. When the knight on h5 moves away, Black will capture on f6 and defend the mate. And if White sacrifices a piece somewhere, Black will have the defensive resource Bc5-f2+, returning the piece and exchanging queens. On top of that Black is threatening a5-a4.

After a few seconds' reflection (this is a blitz game, remember) I noticed my hand reaching out to defend the f-pawn with 1.Rf1?! My opponent immediately went wrong with 1...Rad8? and after 2.Rxd8 he was soon forced to resign because of a general collapse on f7.

The next day I reconstructed the position and started looking for the best line for White. It turns out that mate on h7 is a chimera of sorts. In the diagram position White should abandon the original focal point and shift his attention to g7.

1.Qg3!

The threat is obvious: 2.Nxf7+ Rxf7 3.Bxf7 Qxf7 and now 4.Qg7+ followed by 5.fxg7 mate. This is how things would go after, say, 1...a4? Instead, Black must get off the mate by clearing g8 for his king:

1...Nh6

Now White can win the exchange with 2.Ne6!? fxe6 3.Qg7+ Qxg7 4.fxg7+ Kg8 5.gxf8+ Rxf8 6.Bxe6+ Kh8 but then Black's bishop pair would give him quite a bit of compensation. Happily for White there is something stronger:

2.Nxf7+!

Black's reply is forced because of the continuing threat of Qg7 mate.

2...Rxf7 3.Bxf7 Qxf7

The first wave of the assault appears to be over, and White has given up a rook for two bishops. He must press his attack before Black can consolidate.

4.Qg7+! Qxg7 5.fxg7+ Kg8 6.Rd7!

The point of White's combination. Black's king is short of squares and is facing a deadly check on f6. Playing the rook to f8 doesn't help so there is only one defensive try left:

6...Nf7

With Black's knight cutting off the defence of White's g-pawn, it is starting to look like White's attack has run out of steam. To renew the threat of Nf6+ White must protect the g-pawn with his other rook. The square g1 is covered, so there is only one way forward:

7.Rh2!!

The beauty of this move is that White can calmly leave his important-looking d7 rook to be taken after, say, 7...Bc8. With Black's king completely entombed, 8. Rg2 will renew the threat of mate with Nf6. Black must rush over a piece to defend f6 against the deadly check, and his rook on a8 is the only viable candidate.

7...Re8 8.Rg2 Re6

Black's defensive exertions have prevented an immediate mate, but they have also weakened his back rank. This adds a final resource to White's arsenal:

9.Rxf7!

The rook cannot be captured because of 9...Kxf7 10.g8Q+, so White recovers a piece. He is now up the exchange and is threatening 10.Rd7 with further destruction. There are no realistic defensive chances left and Black can safely resign.

I hope the reader has enjoyed these variations as much as I did while working them out.

Temporary initiative

2010-02-21T21:06:00.000-08:00

Whenever you can make a series of attacking moves and force your opponent to retreat or play defensively, it's tempting to think that you must have some advantage. But that isn't always true. It's important to pay close attention to the “shape” that remains when the forcing sequence is over. If you haven't landed a real blow, you might find yourself suddenly on the defensive.

This is what happened to Gyula Sax of Hungary in his game with Dragoljub Velimirovic of Yugoslavia in the Tungsram international tournament held at Budapest in 1973. In the early middlegame Sax went in for a forcing sequence, failed to achieve anything significant, and then could only sit and watch as Velimirovic's forces came to life. Sax was forced into a pawn-down endgame and he eventually succumbed to Velimirovic's technique.

G.Sax – D.Velimirovic, Budapest 1973 Sicilian Dragon B76

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bc4 Bd7 7.Bb3 g6 8.Be3 Bg7 9.f3 0-0 10.Qe2 Na5 11.0-0-0 a6 12.Qd3 b5 13.Bg5 Nxb3+ 14.Nxb3 b4 15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.Nd5 Bg7 17.Qe3 Rb8 18.e5 Be6 19.f4 Rb5 (diagram) 20.Qf3 Bxd5 21.Rxd5 Rxd5 22.Qxd5 dxe5 23.Qxd8 Rxd8 24.fxe5 Bxe5 25.g3 Rd5 26.Re1 a5 27.Nd2 Bxb2+ 28.Kxb2 Rxd2 29.h4 Rg2 30.Re3 f5 31.Rxe7 Rxg3 32.h5 gxh5 33.Re5 Rg5 34.Rxa5 h4 35.Rd5 h3 36.Rd1 Rg3 0-1

The position after 9...0-0 is well known to theory but in place of the standard 10.Qd2, Sax tried the unusual 10.Qe2!? It's hard to know what to make of this move but in any case Velimirovic didn't hesitate to force off his opponent's dangerous bishop with 10...Na5!

Instead of castling queenside, Sax should have recognized that his attacking chances were already behind schedule on account of the slow move 10.Qe2. It was probably better to castle kingside, centralize his pieces, and maintain a solid position.

After 12...b5 Sax did not realize how quickly the tide was turning against him; otherwise he might have tried the centralizing 13.Nd5!?, aiming to neutralize Black's queenside initiative. With the aggressive 13.Bg5?!, Sax started on an adventure that was bound to end badly for him. The idea was to capture on f6, then attack Black's bishop with Nd5, and then play e4-e5. But if Sax had looked closely he would have seen that although this manoeuvre pushes Black around, it doesn't break his position in any way.

If Sax had captured Black's b-pawn with 17.Nxb4, then after 17...a5 he would have been exposed to strong counterplay. But after 17.Qe3 Rb8! Velimirovic was starting to take over, and after 19...Rb5! things became critical for Sax. He could not bail out with 20.exd6 (intending the forking move 21.dxe7 if Black captured on d5) 20...exd6 21.Qf3 because Velimirovic would have the powerful manoeuvre 21...Bxd5 22.Rxd5 Rxd5 23.Qxd5 Qf6! and White cannot defend the square b2.

Sax was now seriously lamenting the exchange of his dark-squared bishop. He tried 20.Qf3 but after the multiple exchanges on d5 Velimirovic played his trump move 22...dxe5. Because his queen was unprotected, Sax was forced to acquiesce to a pawn-down endgame. With the extra advantage of bishop versus knight Velimirovic had no difficulty scoring the full point.

Lalic vs Spraggett, Sevilla 2010

2010-02-08T18:15:00.000-08:00

Four players tied for first in the recent Sevilla Open, each scoring 7 points from 9 games. Three of them were on 6.5 points and achieved the leading score by making a draw in the last round. But one of them – Kevin Spraggett of Canada – started the last round on 6 points and had to win his final game against Bogdan Lalic in order to join the leaders. This was a particularly impressive result for Spraggett because he had the Black pieces.

How does one win to order against a strong grandmaster? It helps if he or she also needs to win, and that was the case here. Bogdan Lalic also started the last round with 6 points and was clearly determined to join the leaders. The first result was the appearance of a very sharp opening system – the Modern Benoni.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nc3 g6 7.h3 Bg7 8.e4 0-0 9.Bd3 a6 10.a4 Nh5!?

"Knight to the rim” can be dodgy but Black must prevent 11.Bf4, which would give White a very unpleasant bind. In fact White can force it through but that comes at a price as we shall see.

11.0-0 Nd7 12.Re1 Re8 (diagram)

13.g4!?

White rises to the challenge, but the weakening of his kingside will soon have negative consequences. Stronger was 13.Bg5 and if 13...Bf6 then 14.Be3.

13...Nhf6 14.Bf4 h5 15.g5

If 15.gxh5 Nxh5 16.Bxd6 Ne5 17.Bxe5 Bxe5 with a kingside initiative for Black.

15...Nh7 16.h4 Ne5

Black could also consider 16...Qe7!?

17.Nxe5 dxe5 18.Be3 f6 19.Qf3

Stronger was 19.Qd2!? After the move in the game White starts on a negative trend from which he does not recover.

19...fxg5 20.hxg5 Nxg5 21.Qg3 Nh3+ 22.Kh1 Qf6 23.Bf1 Nf4 24.Bxc5 Bd7 25.a5 Rac8 26.Ba3 Bh6

This turns out well, but 26...g5 27.f3 Bf8 was perhaps even better.

27.Rac1 h4 28.Qh2?

It was better to sacrifice a pawn with 28.Qe3 Bg5 29.Qf3 Nxd5 30.Qxf6 Nxf6 31.Rcd1, trading off the queens and getting some free play for White's pieces.

28...Bg4! 29.Re3 Nh5

With this "echo" move Black wins the exchange in simple fashion and it is now rather difficult to suggest any improvements for White.

30.Rce1 Bxe3 31.Rxe3 Ng3+ 32.Kg1 Nxf1 33.Kxf1 Rc4 34.f3 Rec8 35.Ke1 Bd7 36.d6 Kg7 37.Rd3 h3 38.Rd5 Re8 39.Qg3 Rh8 40.Rd2 Rh5! 41.Rf2 Qd8 42.f4 Qh4 0-1

A powerful display by the Canadian grandmaster!

Ljubojevic vs Beliavsky, Tilburg 1981

2010-01-29T21:31:00.000-08:00

The former Soviet champion Alexander Beliavsky scored a memorable victory in the Tilburg 1981 international tournament. The field comprised most of the world's elite, including future world champion Garry Kasparov as well as the former champions Boris Spassky and Tigran Petrosian. In fact, the only leading players who were not present at Tilburg were Anatoly Karpov and Viktor Korchnoi. They were otherwise occupied in a world title match in Italy.

No one wins a tournament of this calibre without some luck. In particular Beliavsky had to survive a mutual time scramble in his game with Ljubomir Ljubojevic before finally achieving a draw. Curiously, Beliavsky's annotations to this game in Informant 32 leave a few unanswered questions. Today we will look at the exciting conclusion of this game, supplementing Beliavsky's annotations with a few extracts from my notebook.

In the first diagrammed position, the time control at move 40 is looming, and things are complicated. Beliavsky as Black has just played 35...Rf6, threatening 36...Bf2. Ljubojevic correctly decides to bail out by offering the exchange of queens.

36.Qg3 Qxg3 37.Nxg3 Nxh3!?

A clever psychological blow. Whenever the opponent puts a piece en prise, it is natural to believe that taking it must be wrong...

38.Rf1?

White is defending comfortably after 38.gxh3 Rxg3 39.Bg4! Rf2 40.Rxb7 Bc5 41.b4! and now Black has nothing better than 41...Rgg2 and a draw by repetition (Beliavsky).

38...Nf2+ 39.Kh2 (second diagram) 39...d5?

Beliavsky gave 39...Rf4! (threatening 40.Rxb7 Rh4+ 41.Kg1 Nh3+and wins) 40.Nf5 Rg5 41.Bxf7(?) and now 41...Rgxf5 wins immediately since the bishop is also attacked. However, White can defend more stubbornly with 41.Be2! Rgxf5 42.g3! Rg4!? 43.Kg2 Rxa5 44.Rxf2! Rgg5 45.Rxf7 although Black still has the advantage after 45...b5.

More convincing is 39...Rg5! If 40.Rxb7 then 40...Bd4 intending 41...Be5, while if 40.Be2 then 40...Rfg6, with a decisive attack on White's knight in both cases.

Beliavsky gave 39...d5 the question mark. But it might deserve two because it does more than throw away the win.

40.Rxb7?

Fate has given Ljubojevic a chance of his own. He can win the exchange with 40.e5! since the attacked rook is short of squares. Black can recover the material with a counterattack: 40...Bb8! 41.exf6 Ne4 42.Bxf7 Rg4 but after 43.Rxb7 Rh4+ 44.Kg1 Bxg3 45.Rf3 Bh2+ 46.Kf1 Nd2+ 47.Ke2 Nxf3 48.gxf3 White's a-pawn is extremely dangerous and should cost Black the game.

40...Bd4?

The final mistake, after which the game peters out to a draw. Beliavsky gave 40...Bc5 41.Rxf7 Rxf7 42.Bxf7 Rg7 43.exd5 Bd6 44.Be6 Bxg3+ 45.Kg1 cxd5 46.Rxf2 Bxf2+ 47.Kxf2 Rb7 with a slight edge to Black, but for some he reason he failed to notice the defensive shot 40...Bb8!, winning material. White is practically forced to play 41.Rxb8 Rxb8 42.exd5 cxd5 43.a6 Rxb2 and can make things difficult with the further 44.Ra1 Rb8 45.a7 but it is hard to believe that Black is not winning after 45...Ra8.

After the text move 40...Bd4, Ljubojevic played the simple

41.Rxf7

forcing off a pair of rooks. The game ended in a draw a few moves later.

Do you know how to analyse?

2010-01-20T22:19:00.000-08:00

This complicated position was cited by Alexander Kotov in his well-known book Think Like a Grandmaster. He wrote:

I once analysed in detail the apparently simple, but in fact very tricky position of the diagram. Then I asked the people in the group to study it and in the course of half an hour write down all the variations which they thought should be examined. They were not allowed to move the pieces. Then we examined the position together and so exhausted all the possibilities it contained. It turned out that it was far from simple to discover all the special features of the position. This can be shown by the fact that one strong master in his notes wrote that White would win by 1.e8Q and gave the beautiful variation 1...Rxe8 2.Qxg7+ Bxg7 3.Rxe8+ Qf8 4.Rxf8#. He also took account of the cunning reply 1...Rg1+ which fails to 2.Kh3 Qf5+ 3.Kh4. However, he failed to find the excellent rejoinder 1...Rd2+! and Black draws. Taking the rook is bad – 2.Qxd2 Rxe8 3.Rxe8 Qc6+ and 4...Qxe8. 2.Kf3 (or f1) loses to the reply 2...Qf5+, while after 2.Kh1 there comes 2...Rd1+ with perpetual. Black has a very fine win after 2.Kh3 viz. 2...Qf5+ 3.g4 Qf1+ 4.Kh4 Rxh2+ 5.Kg5 Rc5+ 6.Q(either!)e5 Qf6#.

That is the way to work on the second important factor in developing analytical ability – the ability to find the really important lines.

Good advice, but today we are going to turn the sword on Kotov and demolish his assessment of the test position.

After the initial moves

1.e8Q Rd2+ 2.Kh1

Black is not obliged to settle for perpetual check. He has another, much stronger idea:

2...Rxb2!!

For a small price Black destroys a key player in White's attack and transforms his pawn majority into a powerful force. This idea is somewhat counter-intuitive because it allows White to keep two queens on the board. However, it turns out that the “queen pair” is not very effective!

3.Qe6

There were many other choices:

a) 3.Qxc8? Qd5+ and mates;

b) 3.Qce5 Rxe8 4.Qxc5 Rd8 5.Qh5 Rdd2 6.Re1 Rxh2+ (6...c3 7.Rc1 Kg8 8.Qh3 Re2 9.Qh5 Rbd2 and White is helpless) 7.Qxh2 Rxh2+ 8.Kxh2 b4 and Black is winning;

c) 3.Qxb2 Rxe8 4.Rxe8 Qc6+ and wins;

d) 3.Qe4 Ra2 4.Qce5 Qxe5 5.Qxe5 b4 and wins;

e) 3.Qee5 Rb3 4.Qe1 Qxa3 and Black is winning.

3...Rf2 4.Qe1

If 4.Qee5 Qb6 5.Qe6 Rc6 6.Qe4 Rcf6 7.Qcd4 Bc5 8.Qa8+ Rf8 9.Re8 Qg6 10.Qxf2 Rxe8 11.Qxe8+ Qxe8 12.Qxc5 Qb8 and White can safely resign.

4...Rf6 5.Qe4 c3

and Black's pawns decide the issue; for example: 6.Kg2 c2 7.Qc1 Rd6 8.Re1 Rcd8 9.Qexc2 Qxc2+ 10.Qxc2 Rd2+ 11.Qxd2 Rxd2+ etc.

The search for important candidate moves has to be relentless!

Capablanca on Moscow 1925

2009-12-26T18:16:00.000-08:00

The following interview with J.R. Capablanca was conducted by a Berlin newspaper in 1925. The World Champion had stopped while en route from the recently-concluded Moscow tournament.

...We were received in the capital of the Soviet Union with genuine Russian hospitality, straight from the heart, and the Soviet Government did everything to make the participants' visit to their country as pleasant as possible. During our entire stay in Moscow we were the guests of the government, and were at all times treated with great courtesy. For example, we were freed from all hotel expenses, even the most trifling ones, and accommodation in Moscow as well as the train trip to Russia and back was paid for by the Soviet Government on behalf of all the players.

All of the tournament participants were pleasantly surprised by the extraordinary enthusiasm for chess displayed by all levels of the Russian population. As is well-known, the competition was held in the magnificent Hotel Меtropol, and with such a weight of spectators that the enormous tournament hall appeared to be too small. It was constantly overflowing, and was made to contain three and even four times its capacity, while the tickets for each round were were sold out days in advance. For me this is an indicator of the Russians' genuine enthusiasm for chess, which one could even describe as a passion.

The Soviet Government gives chess a important place in its system. By way of illustration, a formal reception for the players was arranged by Mr Krylenko, the general public prosecutor of the USSR. Mr Krylenko, along with fulfilling his important duties in the field of justice, is also the head of the Chess Section for the entire Soviet Union.

Bogoljubow's victory was met with the greatest enthusiasm by his fellow countrymen. A crowd followed him through the streets, and everywhere he went he was met with deafening applause.

As to the techniques and methods of the Moscow tournament, I will refrain for the time being from making any judgements in this respect. I can only express the view that this tournament has confirmed once again the old assertion that in an international competition there can be no absolute, mathematical certainty as to its outcome. Even where the greatest players are taking part, there is still the possibility that a third party will overtake them. This is what happened in Moscow. In general, the strength of all the participants was well-known to everyone, and everyone had a full opportunity to display their abilities. In my case, I had already had the chance to cross swords with Bogoljubow, in London [1922] and New York [1924].

In any case, the young chessplayers of the USSR survived their baptism of fire in Moscow in excellent fashion, and showed that they are worthy of the hopes placed upon them for the future.

Torre, the youngest participant in Moscow, is improving from tournament to tournament right before one's eyes.

It is still not clear whether I will be able to play in the Semmering International Tournament, which is set to take place in March, 1926. But this tournament also promises to be very interesting, with such players as Alekhine and Tartakover in the lists...

Levenfish on Moscow 1925

2009-12-25T22:24:00.000-08:00

Today we offer another extract from Grigory Levenfish's 1967 book Selected Games and Reminiscences.

...The Moscow International Tournament was set to begin on November 9^th. The organizing committee did not repeat the mistakes made in connection with the St Petersburg tournament of 1914. The preparatory work had already begun in April, and the entry consisted of 10 Soviet and 11 foreign masters. The committee managed to secure the participation of the world champion Capablanca, the ex-champion Lasker, as well as Rubinstein, Reti, Marshall, Tartakower, and Spielmann, so the entry was truly a strong one.

The Fountain Hall of the Hotel Metropol was chosen as the playing site. This hall is not directly connected to the outside atmosphere. The ventilation system had been designed for approximately 200 restaurant patrons, but during the tournament the number of spectators approached 1,000. The fountain only made the situation worse, and the “climate” can only be described as damp and tropical. Capablanca, who was used to the heat of Havana, told me he would not object if the participants were allowed to wear bathing costumes during play. The order was given to make the ventilation system more powerful, but that was going to take more than a week, and meanwhile the players had to tolerate the heat and the noise. Rubinstein and Spielmann in particular had trouble adapting to the conditions. On the other hand Bogoljubow felt fine, being the picture of health to start with. In the second half of the tournament I managed to acclimatise myself to some extent, but it was already too late. I finished the tournament in 15^th place, winning two prizes: one for the best result over the last five rounds, and the other for the best score against the foreign players.

I was amazed by Lasker's adaptability. At the age of 57 he played the whole tournament with great energy and ended up in second place.

All in all the tournament went extremely well. Every day a huge crowd of people would surround the booking office in search of tickets, and the mounted police had to be called in to maintain order.

In the end Bogoljubow achieved the very best result of his chess career. For some time he considered it necessary to go along with Soviet chess organisers, even though he had been living in Triberg continuously since 1914. But when the All-Union Chess Section suggested that Bogoljubow refrain from competing in certain events abroad, he refused to comply and was excluded from the ranks of Soviet chessplayers.

Earlier I referred to the extraordinary interest in the tournament shown by the public. In spite of the high admission price it was not easy to find tickets. However, among the spectators one could spot a number of flashily-dressed women – apparently the wives of new capitalists – who did not understand anything about chess, but who thought it important to make an appearance at such a popular and well-attended gathering. The hot-blooded Capablanca was especially popular with these women, and after the tournament he was able to relate more than one adventure reminiscent of The Decameron...

Levenfish on St Petersburg 1914

2009-12-20T16:54:00.000-08:00

We offer without commentary an extract from Grigory Levenfish's 1967 book Selected Games and Reminiscences. Grandmaster Levenfish died in 1961 and his memoirs were published posthumously.

...The organizing committee managed to attract a very strong complement of grandmasters. The first to accept his invitation was Lasker, the World Champion, mainly because he was offered a special appearance fee. Next were the two challengers for the chess crown: Capablanca and Rubinstein. Then Tarrasch, Marshall, Janowski, Bernstein, the two winners of the preliminary masters tournament Alekhine and Nimzowitsch, and finally the veterans Blackburne and Gunsberg. Unfortunately, Duras, Maroczy and Schlechter declined their invitations. There were to be five prizes awarded.

Would the 45-year-old Lasker be able to compete with the young Capablanca, who had astonished all of Europe with his successes, and with Rubinstein, the winner of a series of strong international tournaments? These were the main questions stirring the interest of chessplayers throughout the world.

I assisted the organizing committee in finding accommodation for the players. Rubinstein arrived a week before the tournament and was given quarters in the European Hotel. After just two days he expressed dissatisfaction with his room, saying he was disturbed by the noise of the elevator. One of the Committee members then offered Rubinstein the choice of any room in his apartment. There were six rooms in all, and the host was a bachelor who lived alone. Rubinstein duly moved there, but again he was unsatisfied. He found the apartment so quiet as to be oppressive, and he had to be transferred back to the hotel. It was clear to me that Akiba's nervous system had become weakened, and this did not bode well for the future.

The Moscow lawyer O.S. Bernstein had been Rubinstein's main competitor in the Vilna tournament [1912] and in his playing strength he did not give anything away to his rivals. But Bernstein had not spent much time on chess and his theoretical preparation was manifestly inadequate. He lost the decisive game with Tarrasch right in the opening, and with White at that.

The Riga player Nimzowitsch had achieved a major success in the San Sebastian tournament of 1912, where he was in the running for first prize right up to the last round.

No one was placing any special hopes on Alekhine, as this was his first opportunity to cross swords with world-class grandmasters. In fact he achieved only a modest result against Lasker and Capablanca, but he played with great success against the other grandmasters. As it turned out, Alekhine was the only player from Russia in the group of finalists.

The play of Capablanca made an unforgettable impression on me. He too was making his first appearance in such a strong tournament, but even so he appeared to be playing quite effortlessly. In the preliminary rounds he won game after game. He played exceptionally well in his first encounter with Lasker. An amazing pawn sacrifice led to the win of material, and it was only a very deep defence that saved Lasker from defeat.

At this tournament I saw Tarrasch for the first time. After he lost his match to Lasker, his native arrogance had been knocked down somewhat; nevertheless his impertinent and self-assured manner made an unpleasant impression. His service to the cause of popularising chess is indisputable. Two whole generations have studied his books, and it is no coincidence that he was given the title Praeceptor Germaniae. His strategy was dogmatic, but his tactics were excellent. His game against Nimzowitsch took the first prize for brilliancy.

The Russian emigre Janowski had moved to France and was living in Paris. He was certainly the most elegant of the participants, both in appearance and in his manner of play. During the period from 1900 to 1907 he achieved his greatest successes; but his matches with Lasker and Marshall showed conclusively that his talent had declined. Janowski had become too enamoured with games of chance, and did not have the time or patience for chess.

Marshall's appearance did not correspond with one's image of the typical Yankee. It is possible that a dash of Indian blood was showing its traces. His credo was the attack, which he conducted with great energy and patience, often overpowering weaker opponents. In tournaments of mixed strength Marshall won a number of high prizes, but in grandmaster tournaments and especially in matches against the strongest players, where his ingenious combinations were seen off by sturdy defence, he was not able to achieve much success.

Blackburne, the “patriarch” of the tournament, possessed a similar style. It was no accident that in his heyday his comrades-in-arms had nicknamed him “the Black Death.” Blackburne won a number of prizes in tournaments, but was defeated by lopsided scores in matches against Lasker, Steinitz, and Zukertort. Despite his age, Blackburne fought hard for every point. He defeated Nimzowitsch brilliantly, and in an inferior endgame he outwitted Rubinstein himself and achieved a draw.

In the 1890s Gunsberg had a reputation as one of the strongest chessplayers in the world. He drew a match with Chigorin and lost narrowly to Steinitz after a dour struggle. But an extended break from practical play had had a sharply telling effect on his mastery, and he lost games without a struggle. One must remark upon Gunsberg's patience. It is not easy to endure a series of losses, but Gunsberg remained unruffled and politely congratulated each one who defeated him.

The sensation of the tournament was the complete failure of Rubinstein. In terms of quality, his play was quite unrecognisable. Against all expectations, Rubinstein did not qualify for the final group of five players. Capablanca took the lead easily and finished the first stage with 8 points out of 10 games. There was a bitter struggle for the remaining places. In the eighth round Lasker lost somewhat fortuitously to Bernstein, and in the ninth round he was on the edge of defeat against Tarrasch. The fate of Rubinstein could easily have overtaken Lasker as well. Tarrasch started a joke: while the five qualifiers were playing the final, Rubinstein and Lasker were going to play a match for the World Championship. But in the final rounds Lasker improved his standing, and together with Tarrasch, he finished in second place with 6½ points. The fourth and fifth places were shared by Alekhine and Marshall with 6 points.

In the final stage of the tournament Lasker demonstrated exceptional mastery. It is enough to recall that in 8 games against Capablanca, Alekhine, Tarrasch, and Marshall, he scored 7 (!) points and captured first prize. Capablanca was half a point back. The big surprise was Alekhine's third-place finish. It had become obvious that Alekhine was moving confidently into the first rank of grandmasters.

The tournament produced many fine specimens of chess artistry, and one can only regret that so far no collection of games from this first-class event has been published in Russian...

Seven Brutalities 7

2009-11-19T22:51:00.000-08:00

My opponent in this game is a rated expert with an aggressive style of play who has victimised a number of masters, myself included. I decided to play the Scandinavian Defence because unless White knows some exact theory he can easily overreach himself. However it soon becomes evident that White is playing for a draw.

P.Burke - D. Scoones
Labour Day Open, Langley 2007
Scandinavian Defence B01

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nxd5 4.Nxd5?!

This ill-considered exchange gives Black's queen a central position from which she cannot be easily dislodged. More common is 4.Bc4 Nb6 5.Bb3 when Black must tread very carefully.

4...Qxd5 5.Nf3

If 5.Qf3 the best remedy is 5...Qe6+ 6.Qe2 Nc6 7.Qxe6 Bxe6 8.Bb5 Bd5! 9.Nf3 0–0–0 which favours Black after 10.Bxc6 Bxc6 11.d3 e5 12.Be3 Bd6.

5...Nc6 6.d4 Bg4 7.Be2 0–0–0 8.Be3

White's best try is 8.0–0 Nxd4 9.Nxd4 Bxe2 10.Qxe2 Qxd4 11.Rb1!? with some compensation for the pawn.

8...e5 9.0–0 exd4 10.Nxd4 Bxe2 11.Nxe2 (diagram)

Time for an assessment. Black has an edge in development and before it fades away he must try to turn it into something more concrete.

11...Qc4!?

The alternative 11...Qb5 12.Nc3 Qxb2 13.Nd5 Qe5 wins a pawn but this would give my opponent an open file against my king and some cheapo potential.

12.Bd2

If 12.b3 Rxd1 ( 12...Qh4!?) 13.bxc4 Rxa1 14.Rxa1 Ne5 with continuing problems for White.

12...Bd6 13.b3 Qh4 14.g3 Qh3 15.Kh1 Qf5

Also possible was 15...h5 16.Ng1 Qf5.

16.f3 Rhe8 17.a3 Bc5

Here Black can play 17...Bxa3!? with the idea of 18.Rxa3 Qd5 but as before I did not want to give my opponent any open lines against my king unless his queen is exchanged or at least driven to a passive position.

18.Nf4 Ne5

A preventive move directed against 19.Nd3, blocking the d-file.

19.Qc1 g5 20.Ng2 f6

Also possible was 20...Nxf3 21.Bxg5 Re2 22.Qf4 Qxg5 23.Rxf3 Qxf4 24.Nxf4 Rxc2.

21.Be3 Bxe3 22.Qxe3 Nc6 23.Qf2 Nd4 24.Ne3 Qc5

Time for another assessment. In order to meet Black's concrete threats White has had to make a number of pawn moves but that has not relieved the pressure. Black has a definite advantage but notching the full point will not be simple... unless White makes further mistakes...

25.b4?

Stronger was 25.Rad1 Qxa3 26.Rd3 Qc5 27.c4 with some counterplay for White. The text also gives up a pawn but has the added drawback of allowing an effective simplifying combination.

25...Qc3 26.Rfe1 Rxe3!

Black has a winning rook ending after 27.Qxe3 Qxe3 28.Rxe3 Nxc2 29.Rae1 h5 30.R1e2 Nxe3 31.Rxe3 Rd1+ 32.Kg2 Rd2+ 33.Kg1 Kd7. My opponent decided he had seen enough and stopped the clocks.

0–1

A late tactic

2009-11-15T21:57:00.000-08:00

Here is rook and pawn ending of a type that occurs frequently in blitz chess. With both sides about to promote a pawn, the general result is a draw. One side will give up his rook for the opponent's pawn, and will then force his opponent to do the same.

I am White in the diagram position and my last move was 57.g7. Black has several ways to force a draw, the simplest of which is 57...Rh4+ 58. Kg8 b2 59.Rb8 Rb4 60.Rxb4 Kxb4 61.Kf8 b1Q g8Q and there is no play left for either side.

However, my opponent apparently believed there was absolutely no danger and that he could play anything he liked. That's how he came up with:

1...Kc4?

A golden opportunity for White!

2.Rf4+! Rxf4

Unfortunately forced.

3.g8Q+

Black is now on the horns of a dilemma. If 3...Kb4 then 4.Qb8+ picks up the rook with an easy win. The same goes for 3...Kc3 4.Qg3+. All other moves (except 3...Rf7) allow 4.Qxb3, and White reaches the winning ending of queen vs rook. There was nothing left for Black but resignation.

The lesson here is that no matter how harmless a position may appear, it is still possible to fall into a trap!

Petrosian vs Spassky, Leningrad 1960

2009-11-03T21:14:00.000-08:00

The tenth world champion Boris Spassky has written very little about chess. No game collection -- just some contributions to the Santa Monica 1966 tournament book, a contribution to a book on the Sicilian Najdorf, a few articles in obscure Soviet magazines, and that's about it. In this context he once described himself as a “lazy Russian bear.”

While browsing through the 1960 Soviet Yearbook the other day, I came across a rare set of annotations by Spassky, these to his game with Tigran Petrosian from the 27th USSR Championship in Leningrad. The lazy Russian bear had come out of hibernation!

Curiously, this is one of only three decisive games between Spassky and Petrosian from tournament play. Petrosian won again at the 1971 Alekhine Memorial in Moscow, and Spassky took a measure of revenge at the 1975 USSR Team Championship in Riga.

From now on the comments are by Boris Spassky.

Petrosian,T - Spassky,B
27th USSR Championship
Leningrad 1960

Before this game the two opponents had met eight times and even though most of the games had featured a sharp struggle, each one had ended in a draw. This time both players again went for a win and finally managed to break out of the “vicious circle” of draws.

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3 0–0 5.e4 d6 6.Be2 e5 7.0–0

This was a bit of a surprise for me. In this position Petrosian usually plays 7.d5.

7...Nbd7 8.Re1 c6 9.d5

With this move White closes the centre and also significantly reduces the activity of his opponent's dark-squared bishop. This advance is usually connected with a pawn storm on the queenside. At the same time one should also note the negative aspects of the move. Because Black now obtains a comfortable post for his knight – the square c5 – and because the pawn tension around the square e5 has been released, Black can now advantageously prepare the advance f7-f5.

9...Nc5 10.Bf1 a5 11.Bg5

The beginning of a definite plan. By pinning the Black knight, White prevents his opponent from preparing the advance f7-f5. At the same time he intends to transfer his own knight from f3 to d2 and later to b3. And if Black drives the enemy bishop to g3 by playing h7-h6 and g6-g5, then White will be able to bring it back into play after f2-f3. However, in the present situation this plan does not turn out successfully because of Black's 13th move.

11...h6 12.Bh4 g5 13.Bg3 Bg4! 14.Re3

White prepares to move his queen out of the pin. If he does this immediately by playing, say, 14.Qc2, then 14...Bxf3 15.gxf3 is very unpleasant for White because the bishop on g3 is left out of play. However, the move in the game involves a loss of time and with his 14th move Black begins an active plan of attack against e4, the stronghold of White's position.

14...b5! 15.dxc6

The strongest continuation. After 15.cxb5 cxd5 16.Nxd5 (if 16.exd5 then 16...e4, etc.) 16...Nfxe4 Black obtains good play.

15...b4 16.Nb5

16.Nd5 is also not dangerous for Black because of 16...Nfxe4 17.c7 Qe8 with good play.

16...Nfxe4 (diagram)

A very complicated position has arisen, one that is not easy to assess. White has a passed c-pawn and a strong knight on b5 threatening the backward pawn on d6. Black for his part has compensation in the form of a pawn majority in the centre and the strong position of his minor pieces. In addition White has to reckon with the advance of the enemy f-pawn.

17.c7

It was better to play 17.Bd3 immediately, and if 17...f5 then to sacrifice the exchange with 18.Bxe4 fxe4 19.Rxe4 Nxe4 20.Qd5 followed by 21.Qxe4 with approximately equal chances due the strong position of the knight on b5 and the dangerous passed c-pawn.

17...Qe7?

A mistake, relinquishing Black's advantage. Correct was 17...Qd7! If White replies 18.Bd3 then there follows 18...f5. In this situation the exchange sacrifice is not good for White; for example 19.Bxe4 19...fxe4 20.Rxe4 Nxe4 21.Qd5+ Be6 22.Qxe4 d5! with advantage. Instead of 20.Rxe4 White can play 20.h3 but even then 20...Be6 (20...Bh5 21.Nxe5!) 21.Nd2 d5 would give Black the better game.

If White does not take on e4 but plays 19.Bc2, then 19...Nf6 is possible. In view of the threat of f5-f4 White would have to sacrifice a piece with 20.Qxd6 Qxd6 21.Nxd6. However, after 21...e4 and 22…f4 Black would get the advantage.

18.Bd3 Nxg3

The exchange of an active knight for a bishop that has no prospects appears to be illogical. On the other hand it is not clear how Black can fight for an advantage. For example, if 18...f5 then 19.Bxe4 fxe4 20.Rxe4 Nxe4 21.Qd5+ gives White satisfactory play. Or 18...Nf6 19.Nxd6! and the queen cannot take the knight because of 20.Bh7+.

With the move in the game I marked out a plan that was based on an incorrect assessment of the position.

19.hxg3 f5

Black overestimates the strength of his centre pawns. After the game Petrosian suggested 19...Rac8 followed by 20...Rxc7. In that case Black would have a pawn and two active bishops for the exchange.

20.Bc2!

Consolidating White's advantage. The attack on the d6-pawn is very unpleasant. What should Black do now? If 20...e4 then 21.Qd5+ Kh8 22.Nfd4 with the threat of 23.f3 and White stands better. Or 20...Ra6 21.Qd5+ Kh8 22.Nh2 f4 (22...Bh5 23.Bxf5!) 23.Nxg4 fxe3 24.Nxe3 with an excellent position for the sacrificed exchange.

20...f4 21.gxf4 gxf4 22.Re1 Ra6 23.Be4 h5?

This “active” move only worsens Black's position. It was time to think about how to get rid of the enemy pawn on c7. Deserving attention was 23...Bd7 with the threat of Bxb5 25.cxb5 Rb6. In that case Black could successfully carry on the struggle.

24.Qc2 Qf6 25.Nd2 h4

The advance of this pawn holds absolutely no danger for White.

26.f3 Bc8 27.Bd5+ Kh8 28.Ne4

White has established a blockade on the central squares, and as a result Black's forces are completely paralysed.

28...Qh6

Still laying some hopes on the h-pawn.

29.Re2 h3 30.gxh3 Rf5 31.Rh2 a4 32.h4 b3 33.axb3 axb3 34.Qd1 Rxa1 35.Qxa1 Black resigns (1-0)

White threatens 36.Nexd6. Black can only parry this threat with 35...Nxe4. Then 36.Bxe4 Rf8 37.Qd1 puts him in a completely helpless position.

J.Yoos vs L.Davies, Vancouver 2009

2009-10-26T22:15:00.000-07:00

Today we will analyse an interesting ending from the game J.Yoos-L.Davies, played in the sixth round of this year's B.C. Championship tournament in Vancouver.

In the first diagram White is about to make his 39th move. Although White has the nominal advantage of bishop vs knight, Black's position does not present any cause for alarm. He is well-centralized and has the entry points under control. Indeed, White's bishop is somewhat short of targets, and will have to content itself with restricting Black's movements in the hope that his colleague the king can make something happen. But at the moment that does not look too likely.

39.Bf5 Ne8 40.Be4+ Kd6 41.Bg2 Nc7 42.Bb7 Ne8 43.Be4 Nf6 44.Bg6 Kc6

After some minor sparring we are back where we started. White tries a different tack.

45.Bf7 Kd6!?

After 45...a6 46.b5+ axb5+ 47.axb5+ Kd6 the draw could be agreed fairly soon.

46.Kb5 Ne4!?

This aggressive move suggests that Black is playing for a win, or at least keeping that possibility open. Otherwise he might have dug in with 46...Kc7 and if 47.Ka6 then 47...Kb8 48.Bg6 Nd5 49.Kb5 Kc7 50.Kc4 Kd6 51.Bf7 Nf6, when things are looking familiar.

It should be noted that at this point both players were running short of time. This largely accounts for the reversals of fortune that occur over the next few moves.

47.Ka6

White's only chance for active play is an attack on his opponent's queenside pawns. He could have prefaced this move with the interesting 47.g3!?, trying to prevent Black from creating a passed pawn, but then 47...Nc3+! 48.Ka6 Nxa4 49.Kxa7 Kc7 leads to yet another drawish position.

47...Nxf2 48.Kxa7 Kc7?

A serious error that should have cost Black the game. Correct was 48...Nd3! when there are two main variations:

A) 49.Kxb6 Nxb4 50.a5 e4 51.Bc4! (not 51.a6? Nxa6 52.Kxa6 e3 53.Bc4 Kc5 and Black wins) 51...e3 52.a6 Nxa6 53.Bxa6 Kd5 54.Ka5 h5 55.Kb4 Ke4 56.Be2 h4 57.g4 (or 57.gxh4 gxh4 58.Kc3 Kf4 59.Kd3 Kg3 60.Bg4 Kf2 and draws) 57...Kf4 58.Kc3 Kg3 59.Kd3 Kxh3 60.Kxe3 Kg3 61.Bf3 h3 62.Ke4 h2 63.Ke3 h1Q 64.Bxh1 Kxg4 with an immediate draw;

B) 49.b5 e4 50.Bg6! (other moves lose) 50...Nc5 51.Bxe4 Nxe4 52.Kxb6 Kd5 (not 52...Nxg3 53.a5 and White wins) 53.a5 Nd6 54.a6 Nc4+ 55.Kb7 Kc5 56.a7 Nb6 57.Ka6 Na8 and the draw is obvious.

(second diagram)

49.a5?

A serious error in return. White is perfectly placed to queen his b-pawn, needing only to lever Black's b-pawn out of the way. But he has to do it accurately. He should prevent Black's next move with 49.b5! when the likely continuation is 49...Nd3 50.a5 (only now!) 50...Nc5 (or 50...bxa5 51.b6+ etc.) 51.axb6+ Kd6 52.b7 Nxb7 53.Kxb7 and wins.

49...b5!

Correctly blockading the dangerous White b-pawn. Completely wrong would be 49...bxa5? 50.b5! as in the previous note.

50.Ka6 e4 51.Kxb5 e3 52.Bc4 Ne4 53.Bd3?

This is no time for waiting moves. White can still save the game with 53.Ka6! Kb8 (if 53...Nxg3 54.b5 e2 55.Bxe2 Nxe2 56.Ka7 Nd4 57.b6+ Kc6 58.b7 Nb5+ 59.Ka8 and Black must give perpetual with 59...Nc7+, etc.) 54.Kb6 Nc3 55.a6 e2 56.Bxe2 Nxe2 57.a7+ Ka8 58.g4 Nc3 59.b5 Na4+ 60.Ka6 Nc5+ 61.Kb6 Na4+ and again Black has nothing better than a draw.

53...Nxg3 54.Kc5 e2 55.Bxe2 Nxe2 56.b5 Nf4 57.b6+ Kb7 58.Kb5 (third diagram)

White's connected passed pawns give him a semblance of counterplay, but that's about it.

58...h5!?

Black wins cleanly after 58...Nxh3! 59.a6+ Kb8 60.Kc6 Nf4 61.a7+ Ka8 62.b7+ Kxa7 63.Kc7 Nd5+ 64.Kc8 Nb6+ 65.Kc7 Nd7! But the text move does not spoil anything.

59.a6+ Kb8 60.Kc6 Ne6?!

Black is afraid of the advancing White pawns and does not notice the winning knight manoeuvre. After 60...g4 61.hxg4 hxg4 62.a7+ Ka8 63.b7+ (if 63.Kc7 then 63...Nd5+ 64.Kc6 Nxb6, etc.) 63...Kxa7 64.Kc7 Nd5+ 65.Kc8 Nb6+ 66.Kc7 Nd7 Black wins easily.

61.Kd5 g4?

The final error, after which Black can no longer win. He can still transpose to the previous note with 61...Nf4+ 62.Kc6 Nxh3.

62.hxg4 hxg4 63.Ke4!

White's king correctly heads east in order to deal with Black's pawn.

63...Nc5+

Neither side can make progress and the draw was agreed here.

½–½

Relative values

2009-10-15T23:22:00.000-07:00

Anyone who studies a beginner's book on chess quickly learns that not all pieces have the same value. In my day the most common table of values went as follows: Pawn = 1 point; Knight = 3 points; Bishop = 3 points; Rook = 5 points; Queen = 9 points. Other tables have slightly different values for the bishop and the queen, but the overall ratios are very similar.

Based on this table, exchanging a rook for two minor pieces is considered advantageous because 6 points is more than 5 points. When such an opportunity arises it is a good idea to take a hard look at the resulting position and see if it is actually favourable. In chess it is not just the presence of pieces on the board that counts. Their location and relevant capabilities can be far more important.

I am playing Black in the diagram position and my opponent's last move was the weakening 20.g3-g4. I saw an opportunity to exploit this move by bringing one of my knights into an attacking position. There was an apparent drawback in that my opponent could give up one of his rooks for both of my knights, which according to the table would mean a net loss of 1 point. However in the resulting position there would be a strong manoeuvre available, one that my opponent had not foreseen.

20...Nge5! 21.Rxe5 Nxe5 22.Qxe5

So far, so good, thinks White; he has won two pieces for a rook.

22...a6!

This forces the White knight on b5 to an offside position and prepares to exchange off his colleague on d4. The preliminary pawn move is important because otherwise my opponent would maintain a knight on d4, giving him much better defensive chances.

23.Na3 Bxd4! 24.Qxd4

White could also play 24.cxd4 but then Black carries on with 24...Qxg4+ 25.Kf1 Qh3+ 26.Ke2 Re6, winning White's queen.

24...Qxg4+ 25.Kf1 Re8!

Also possible was 25...Qh3+ 26.Ke2 Re8+ 27.Kd1 Qf1+ 28.Kc2 Qxa1, but I preferred the text move, slamming the door on the opposing king. White has nothing better than 26.Qxd5+ Kh7 27.Qg3, but then follows 27...Qe2+ 28.Kg1 Rg6, a pleasing echo of the line in the previous note.

After a few minutes my opponent agreed he had no defence and resigned the game (0-1).

Defensive tactics

2009-10-11T09:34:00.000-07:00

Here is a late middlegame position of a type that arises so often in mixed tournaments. One side clearly has the initiative because of greater piece activity, but a decisive tactic has not quite materialised. In this particular case both players have pawn weaknesses but Black is on move and should be thinking about putting White to the test. But what's the best way forward?

This was the challenge facing Efim Geller (Black) in his game with Yuri Balashov from the 1969 Soviet Championship in Moscow. If it were White's turn to play, he would oppose rooks with 1.Re1 and take a large step towards neutralising Black's initiative. Geller understood this very well and was ready with an active idea:

1...Re2

The attack on the g-pawn makes things difficult for White, as the following variations show:

a) 2.Be1 Rxc2+ 3.Kxc2 Rxa2+ followed by 4...Rxg2 and Black wins easily;

b) 2.Rg1 Bd4 3.Re1 Rxg2, etc.;

c) 2.g3 Rf2 3.f4 (3.Re1 Rxf3) 3...b5 4.Re1 h5! 5.Re7 Rf1+! 6.Re1 Rxe1+ 7.Bxe1 h4 8.Kb1 ( 8.Rc5 Rxa2 9.Rxf5 Ra1+ 10.Kd2 b4–+) 8...Re4 9.Bd2 h3 and White is in continuing difficulties.

But there is a hidden resource that saves the game for White, and Balashov finds it:

2.Re1!! Rxg2 3.Rc8+ Kf7 4.Rc7+ Kf8

Unfortunately for Geller, Black can no longer play for a win. If 4...Kg6 5.Re6+ Kh5 and now White has the surprise shot 6.Rxg7!, which wins immediately because 6...Rxg7 runs into 7.Rh6#.

After the further moves

5.Rc8+ Kf7 6.Rc7+

the players agreed to a draw.

In the starting position Black has two other tries:

a) 1....Kf7 2.Re1 Rxe1+ 3.Bxe1 Be5 4.g3 f4, but White can defend with 5.gxf4 Bxf4+ 6.Kb2 Be5+ 7.Bc3 Rb4+ 8.Kc1 Bf4+ 9.Bd2 Ke6 10.Bxf4 Rxf4 11.Rc3;

b) 1...b5 2.Re1 Rxe1+ 3.Bxe1 Rc4 4.Rxc4 bxc4 5.Kc2 Kf7 6.g3 and a draw is the correct outcome.

The conclusion is that Black has a temporary initiative but no real advantage.

Despite his reputation as the scourge of world champions, Efim Geller had his hands full with Yuri Balashov, losing four games, drawing ten, and scoring just a single win against the Moscow grandmaster.

Magnus goes astray

2009-10-08T18:42:00.000-07:00

Judging from his current position near the top of the chess world, the Norwegian GM Magnus Carlsen doesn't make too many unforced errors. But an instructive counterexample occurred in his game with the Russian GM Peter Svidler from an international tournament in the Athens suburb of Kallithea in 2008.

In the first diagram, Magnus is playing White and is on move. Objectively, the most reasonable plan is to attack Black's g-pawn with 19.dxe6 fxe6 20.h4, bringing White's kingside pieces into action with the minimum of delay. But Magnus tries a different idea.

19.g3?

The idea behind this move is clear enough. White intends to mobilize his pawn majority with gain of time by attacking Black's bishop with f3-f4. But there is a flaw – a forcing variation that interrupts the smooth flow of White's game:

19...exd5 20.exd5 Bc2! 21.Rc1 Bg6

Things have obvously gone wrong for White, and no easy remedy is available. There are only two moves to keep White in the game. One is 22.g4, which is met simply by 22...Bxh5, and the other is the text move:

22.f4

Now if Black's bishop retreats from e5, White can protect his knight with 23.Be2.

22...Bxh5! 23.fxe5 Nd7! (second diagram)

As a result of the adventure inaugurated by 19.g3, White's pawn centre is now lifeless and exposed. At the grandmaster level one could regard Black's remaining task as a matter of technique.

The conclusion is that Magnus did not seek out Black's strongest reply when he decided on the move 19.g3? This represents a psychological failing that is far more common below the master level.

Fritz vs Fred

2009-10-02T23:26:00.000-07:00

Fred, of course, is Fred Reinfeld. Fritz is our well-known German friend. Fred Reinfeld died in 1964, while Fritz wasn't “born” until 1992.

There is something of Fred in all human players. We don't see everything there is to see on the chessboard. Fritz doesn't either, but he's a machine – a machine that is tactically perfect within a certain range. Today we're going to turn him loose on one of Fred's annotations.

The diagram position comes from the game Tarrasch-Blackburne, Hastings 1895, and was annotated by Fred in his book Tarrasch's Best Games of Chess, published by Chatto & Windus in 1947. Blackburne is being attacked, and his last move was the reckless 26...g5. Tarrasch was ready:

27.Rxh6!

“A really elegant solution,” writes Fred. Fritz agrees, although he also points out that White can win with the prosaic 27.Bxg5 hxg5 28.Qxg5+ Kf8 29.b4! Na6 30.Bg6 Rd7 31.a3 Nc7 32.h4!, when Black is in a huge bind and cannot stop the march of White's h-pawn. A personal view perhaps, but I suspect that Siegbert Tarrasch's arch-rival Aron Nimzowitsch would have played the position this way.

27...gxh4?!

This loses in simple fashion, but what else can Black do? Fred points out that that White is mating by force after 27...Rxh6 28.Bxg5 Qc7 29.Bf6+! Very nice.

More stubborn was 27...Kxh6, and here is where things get interesting. Fred attaches one of his many exclamation marks to the move 28.Bxg5+, says that White wins, and begins to ramble on about Blackburne's poor handling of the French Defence. Fritz agrees that White can win after 28.Bxg5+, but shows that he must play accurately after 28...Qxg5!. Here is how the win is achieved: 29.Rf6+ Kh5 30.Qh3+ Qh4 31.g4+ Kg5 32.Qe3+ Kxg4 33.Rf4+ Kh5 34.Rxh4+ Kxh4 35.Qg3+ Kh5 36.Qf3+! Kh4 37.Qf6+ Kg4 38.Qg7+ Kf3 39.Kg1! (the star move, helping to close the net around Black's king) 39...Rxh2 (no better is 39...Bc6 40.Qg3+ Ke2 41.Qf2#) 40.Qf6+ Kg4 41.Qxd8 Rxc2 42.Qd1+ Kf5 43.Qxc2+ Kxe5 44.Qh2+ Ke4 45.Qe2+ Kd4 46.Qf2+ Kc3 47.Qxc5 and Black must resign. I don't think Fred saw any of this.

Instead of 28.Bxg5+, White has the more practical 28.Rf6+!? Kg7 29.Qxg5+ Kf8 30.Rh6!, leaving him with two extra pawns and an easy win after 30...Qxg5 31.Rxh8+ Qg8 32.Rxg8+ Kxg8 33.Bxd8. I found this myself, long before I met Fritz.

28.Rxh8

Now Black is getting mated no matter what he does, and therefore Blackburne resigned (1-0)

Barcza vs Haag, Tallinn 1969

2009-09-27T21:54:00.000-07:00

Last time we looked at one of Grandmaster Barcza's rook endings. Here is another less-complicated one (see the first diagram).

Most endings of rook and pawn vs rook and pawn are drawn with best play from both sides. The exceptions occur when one of the pawns is much closer to its queening square. If the inferior side cannot set up a blockade, the correct defensive strategy is to give up the rook for the pawn (or new queen) and then try to promote one's own pawn. The superior side will of course try to prevent this, and the game becomes a race in which the outcome can depend on a single tempo.

In the starting position White has the advantage but with correct play it will not be enough to force a win.

51.g6 Rh3+ 52.Kg4 Rh1 53.Rf7+ Kd6 54.g7 Rg1+ 55.Kh5

(second diagram)

55...Ke5?

It isn't necessary to calculate variations to see that this move must be wrong. White is queening by force, so Black has to be ready to advance his own pawn as quickly as possible. After the self-blockade, Black will have to spend another move getting his king out of the way, which in this case is enough to turn a draw into a loss.

Correct was 55...Kd5! 56.Kh6 (after 56.Rd7+ Black can safely change plans with 56... Ke5 because his king gets to f6, where it interferes with White's king: 57.Kh6 Kf6 58.Kh7 e5 59.Kh8 (definitely not 59.g8Q? Rh1#) 59...e4 60.g8Q Rxg8+ 61.Kxg8 Ke5 and Black draws easily) 56...Rh1+ 57.Kg6 Rg1+ 58.Kh7 e5 59.g8Q (or 59.Rf6 e4 60.Rg6 Rh1+ 61.Kg8 Rf1 and White cannot make progress) 59...Rxg8 60.Kxg8 e4 61.Re7 Kd4 and White will have to give up his own rook in order to stop Black's pawn.

56.Kh6 Rh1+ 57.Kg6 Rg1+ 58.Kh7 Rh1+ 59.Kg8 Rg1

(third diagram)

60.Rf8?

This is a rather serious error at the grandmaster level. Instead of taking two moves to win Black's rook, White takes three moves to do the same thing. In this way he returns the tempo that Black wasted earlier, which is enough turn the game back into a draw.

The winning line is 60.Kf8! Kd4 61.Rd7+! (an important technical device that gains a tempo for White) 61...Kc4 (Black also concedes a tempo if the king moves in front of the pawn) 62.g8Q Rxg8+ 63.Kxg8 e5 64.Re7! Kd4 65.Kf7 e4 66.Kf6 Kd3 67.Kf5 e3 68.Kf4 e2 69.Kf3 and White successfully captures the pawn.

60...Kd4 61.Rd8+

Or 61.Kf7 e5 62.g8Q Rxg8 63.Rxg8 e4 and the e-pawn will cost White his rook.

61...Ke4 62.Kf7 e5 63.g8Q Rxg8 64.Rxg8 Kf3 65.Ke6 e4 66.Rf8+ Kg2 67.Kd5 e3 68.Re8 Kf2 ½–½

Barcza vs Rossolimo, Vrsac 1969

2009-09-24T21:35:00.000-07:00

This ending appeared in Informant 8 with analysis by the winner, GM Gedeon Barcza of Hungary. White has just exchanged minor pieces on c6 and is ready to take over the b-file. Having the move is usually a valuable asset when both sides have pawn weaknesses, and that is certainly the case here.

36.Rb3 Ke7 37.Rb5 e4

Black could play 37...Ra6 with the idea that a passed c-pawn is less dangerous than a passed a-pawn, but that would give his rook less mobility than in the game. With the text move he is trying to prevent White's king from joining the action.

38.Rxa5 Ke6 39.e3 h5

If 39...f5 40.Ra7 Kf6 41.a5 (Barcza) and White is threatening Ra7-b7-b6.

40.Ra8 Rb6 41.Re8+

Worth consideration was 41.a5!?, for example: 41...Rb4 42.Re8+ Kf5 43.Re7 Kf6 44.Rxe4 Ra4 45.f4 Rxa5 46.Re5 g6 47.Kf3 and the simple plan of attacking the c-pawn will put Black in serious trouble.

41...Kd6 42.Rxe4 Ra6 43.Kh3 g5 44.f4 f6

(second diagram)

45.fxg5?

Rossolimo must have breathed a big sigh of relief after this move, a serious error giving away most if not all of White's advantage. The game is going to turn into a pawn race, and in these situations the race is usually to the swift. Much stronger was the immediate 45.g4! If Black continues 45...h4 as in the game, then White plays 46.f5!, fixing a weak pawn on f6. A likely continuation then is 46...Rxa4 47.Re6+ Kd7 48.Rxf6 Rxc4 49.Rg6 Re4 50.Rxg5 Rxe3+ 51.Kxh4 c4 52.f6!, when it is clear that White is winning easily. Black fares no better after 45...hxg4+ 46.Kxg4 gxf4 47.Rxf4 Ke5 48.Rf5+ Ke4 (or 48...Ke6 49.Rxc5 Rxa4 50.h4 Kd6 51.Rd5+ Ke6 52.Rd4) 49.Rxc5 Rxa4 50.Rf5 Kxe3 51.Rf3+! Kd2 (51...Ke4 52.Rxf6 and Black cannot capture the c-pawn) 52.Rf4 and White's h-pawn is the decisive factor. It is strange that a player of Barcza's calibre did not see these ideas when analysing the game.

45...fxg5 46.g4 h4 47.Re8 Rxa4 48.Rg8 Rxc4 49.Rxg5 Re4 50.Rf5 c4 51.Rf1 c3 52.g5

Barcza gave the line 52.Kxh4 Rxe3 53.g5 Kg5 c2 54.h4 Re2 55.h5 Rd2 56.Rc1 Ke7 57.Kh6 Kf8 58.g5 Kg8! and Black draws. If 59.g6 Kh8 60.Ra1 then 60...Rd8! and White cannot make progress.

52...c2 53.g6 Rxe3+ 54.Kxh4 Re2 55.h3 Ke6?

Black can draw easily with 55...Rd2 56.Rc1 Ke7 57.Kg5 Kf8 as given by Barcza, or in much trickier fashion with the immediate 55...Ke7!?, for example, 56.Kh5 Rd2 57.g7!? Rd5+!! (the point of this check is to drive White's king to one of a number of awkward squares) 58.Kg6 (other moves are no better, as the reader can verify) 58...Rd1! 59.g8Q Rxf1! 60.Qg7+ Ke6! and White must repeat moves after 61.Qg8+ Ke7! since 62.Qh7+? loses after 62...Kd6!

56.Kh5 Rd2

Black could try 56...Rf2!? but after 57.g7 Rxf1 58.g8Q+, he will inevitably lose either his rook or his pawn.

57.g7 Rg2

There is no time left for 57...Rd1 because White will simply queen with check.

58.Kh6 Ke5 59.h4 Kd4 60.h5 1–0

An endgame concealing some interesting subtleties.

Seven Brutalities 6

2009-09-17T19:56:00.000-07:00

I was looking for some revenge here because my opponent had won our only previous encounter. When an opportunity arose for an interesting knight sacrifice, it didn't take me long to make the big decision. Because Black could have resigned on move 25 I have decided to call this game a miniature, even though it went slightly over the limit!

Scoones,D - Neufahrt,G

Labour Day Open, Victoria 1989

English Opening A10

1.c4 g6 2.Nc3 Bg7 3.g3 c6 4.Bg2 d6 5.d4 Nd7 6.e3 f5?!

This is not the best reaction to White's restrained system of development. It is unlikely that Black will successfully challenge White on the central light squares and there are even fewer prospects of getting in an effective break with ...f5-f4. Preferable was 6...Ngf6.

7.Nge2 e5 8.b3 Ne7 9.a4?!

An unnecessary precaution. Today I would play an immediate 9.Ba3 and now: a) 9...exd4 10.exd4 Nf6 11.0-0 0-0 12.Re1; or b) 9...Nf6 10.dxe5 dxe5 11.Qxd8+ Kxd8 12.Rd1+ Ke8 13.Bd6; with advantage to White in both cases.

9...e4

Rather ambitious since White is well-placed to attack Black's pawn centre. It was better to castle first and decide on a plan later.

10.f3 d5

Black meets the attack on his advanced e-pawn by building up his pawn centre. There were two other approaches: a) ignoring the attack and seeking active play with 10...0–0 11.fxe4 fxe4 12.Nxe4 d5, but after 13.Nf2 there might not be enough compensation for the pawn; b) exchanging on f3 and giving White a backward e-pawn with 10...exf3 11.Bxf3 Nf6, but this allows White to retain an edge after 12.0–0 0–0 13.Qd3 Qc7 14.Ba3 Bd7 15.b4. The move in the game is best, if only because it is the most consistent.

11.cxd5 cxd5 12.Ba3 Nf6 13.Nf4!?

With this move White threatens to win the d-pawn with 14.Bxe7 – unless Black is willing to displace his king. Neufahrt decides to call White's bluff. But who is bluffing whom?

13...g5!? (diagram)

14.fxe4!

After 14.Bxe7 Kxe7! 15.Nfe2 Kf7 Black's king position is a minor inconvenience that is more than compensated by his strong pawn centre. But White's true intention was the move in the game, offering the sacrifice of a piece for interesting play.

14...gxf4

Black is not forced to accept the offer. Playable is 14...fxe4 15.Nh5 0-0 16.0-0 Be6, although White can perhaps maintain some initiative with 17.Nb5. In view of what happens in the game, this was what Black should have played. But Neufahrt is never one to back down from a challenge!

In making this sacrifice I did not calculate all of the variations to the end. It was enough to see that in the major lines White must have sufficient compensation for the piece. Add to this the multitude of threats and the practical difficulties imposed by the clock and it was clear that Black's defensive task would be a difficult one.

15.e5 Ne4?!

This would be the best move if Black had already castled. In that case the exchange on e4 would not be a good idea for White because of the weakened light squares around his king. It was better to play 15...Ng4, when there are two main variations: a) 16.exf4 Ne3 (stronger than 16...Be6 17.Qd3 0–0 18.h3 Nh6 19.Bxe7 Qxe7 20.Bxd5 etc.) 17.Qh5+ Ng6 18.Kf2 Nxg2 19.Kxg2 a6 20.Rac1; b) 16.Bxe7 Qxe7 17.Nxd5 Qf7 18.exf4 Be6 19.Qd3 0–0 20.Nc3 Bxb3 21.h3 Nh6 22.Rb1 Bc4 23.Qe3 Rab8 24.Kf2. In both cases White has good compensation for the sacrificed piece.

16.Bxe4 fxe4 17.Qh5+ Ng6

Exchanging queens with 17...Kf8 18.gxf4 Qe8 19.Qxe8+ Kxe8 does not bring Black any happiness after 20.Bxe7 Kxe7 21.Nxd5+ Kd8 22.Rc1 Bf5 23.Rg1 Bf8 24.Rg5.

18.exf4 Qd7

If 18...Qa5 19.Rc1 Bd7 20.0–0 Bc6 then 21.Bc5 Bf8 22.b4 Qd8 23.Bxf8 Rxf8 24.f5 with a winning position for White.

19.Nb5 Bf8?!

Black is ahead in material and under some pressure so it's very natural to want to exchange pieces. But a defender's tactical operations must be accurate and this one is nothing of the kind. A better try was 19...Qg4 20.Nd6+ Kd8 21.Qxg4 Bxg4 and now White can keep the advantage with 22.h3! (stronger than 22.Nxb7+) 22...Bf3 23.Rh2!

20.e6!

Black must have overlooked this retort. The pawn cannot be captured because of Nb5-c7+, winning the queen.

20...Qd8 21.Bxf8 Kxf8

No better was 21...Rxf8 22.f5 and along with his other advantages White recovers the sacrificed piece.

22.f5 a6 23.fxg6 axb5 24.0–0+ Kg8

Or 24...Ke7 25.Rf7+ Kd6 26.Rc1, slamming all the doors on the Black king.

25.g7! Kxg7 26.Rf7+ 1–0

This loss must have dented my opponent's morale because I won all the rest of our encounters. As Larsen once wrote, some games bring more than one point!

Alekhine on New York 1927

2009-09-07T22:19:00.000-07:00

Alexander Alekhine's book of the New York 1927 international tournament is an acknowledged classic in European countries but is almost unknown in North America. The reason is simple: the book was published in German, and a proper translation has never been made available in English. Today we are going to remedy that situation to a small degree by presenting Alekhine's annotations to one of the more interesting games of the tournament: the first-round encounter between Frank Marshall and Aron Nimzowitsch.

Before this game, Marshall's lifetime score against Nimzowitsch stood at 2 wins, 3 losses, and 4 draws. He had won their last encounter (at Marienbad 1925) and was probably eager to level the scores, especially since he had the White pieces here. His choice of the Exchange Variation of the French Defence was a strange one for this purpose, although he gave it a typically aggressive interpretation. Nimzowitsch handled Marshall's attacking ideas in his own deeply positional style, and the result was an impressive victory, at least on the surface...

The commentary in standard font is by Alekhine from his book Das New Yorker Schachturnier 1927, while the commentary in italics is by Nimzowitsch from his book Chess Praxis. There are some interesting points of disagreement!

Marshall -- Nimzowitsch
New York 1927 (1)
French Defence C01

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.exd5 exd5 5.Nf3

With this move White voluntarily gives up any pretensions to an opening advantage; moreover, by exchanging on c3 at a convenient moment, Black obtains chances of creating an enduring weakness in White's position in the form of doubled pawns. The immediate 5.Bd3 is therefore played more often.

5...Ne7 6.Bd3 Nbc6 7.h3

If 7.0-0 immediately, then 7...Bg4 would not be very pleasant for White. The asymmetrical development of the king's knights has not turned out in White's favour.

7...Be6

Nimzowitsch is emboldened by his opponent's unsuccessful handling of the opening and he therefore avoids the natural exchanging manoeuvre 7...Bf5 in favour of a plan that is complicated and interesting, but also not completely correct.

8.O-O Qd7 9.Bf4

Simpler was 9.Ne2 with approximately equal play. However, the move in the game is also not to be criticised – it actually gives good practical results because it provokes the opponent into some risky experimentation.

9...Bxc3

Over the past few years, play against weak doubled pawns has become one of Nimzowitsch's favourite strategic motifs; and he plays such positions, which he knows how to obtain in the most varied openings, with particular virtuosity. However, in the present case he is not on the right track because the insecure position of his own king is bound to interfere with the exploitation of his opponent's weak points. Of course, with the move 9...Bd6 he could have easily equalised the game.

10.bxc3 f6

In order to safeguard the bishop against a possible Nf3-g5 – the prophylactic meaning of 7...Be6 is thus clear. White now tried an attack on the open b-file, but it is not surprising that it failed, on account of the dynamic weakness of the double complex.

A necessary consequence of his previous move. Because the king bishop has disappeared from the board, the dark squares must be defended as far as possible by pawns – but now the square e6 has been weakened.

11.Rb1 g5 12.Bg3 O-O-O (first diagram)

Looks risky, but is part of the plan initiated on the 9th move.

The king takes on the defence of the pawns on b7 and c7.

Generally speaking, the role of the king in defence has been seriously underestimated for a long time, particularly after the sad fiasco suffered by the efforts of the older Steinitz to use the king – with many other pieces still on the board – as an inducement for his opponents to attack. It is only the period since the Great War that has brought changes in this regard; see, for example, the games of the match in Buenos Aires, where even in the middlegame the kings often served to protect certain squares where a breakthrough was threatened; in other words, they played an active role well before the endgame.

Of course, Black's last few moves – by their directness and, in a certain sense, their strategic novelty – make a very favourable impression on anyone who believes in the evolution of chess strategy and its extension to new depths. Therefore it is almost vexatious to discover – after a very close examination of the position – that this plan is not only not the best, but that the correct response by the opponent – and not a difficult one to find at that – would actually put Black in a highly unenviable situation.

In view of all this it was better to forgo 11...g5 and play instead the more modest 11...Nd8 followed by 0-0, etc.

13.Qe2?

Marshall's equilibrium has been disturbed by his opponent's boldness, and he commits – both here, and later on – a series of inaccuracies that are difficult to remedy. For example, instead of the queen move – which carries only the crude and easily-parried threat of 14.Ba6 – a less-stereotyped plan of attack was appropriate: 13.Nd2! If, say, 13...Nb8; then 14.Nb3 b6 15.Qe2 – this time with really unpleasant threats. It would therefore be better for Black to reply to 13.Nd2 with 13...Na5 with the aim of exchanging off the enemy knight on its way to c5. However, notwithstanding that this exchange would restore White's pawn position on the queenside and would therefore demonstrate the insufficiency of the plan begun by the move 9...Bxc3, White would in any case be under no obligation to play the immediate 14.Nb3; very strong instead would be Qd1-c1 (followed by Qc1-a3 when appropriate) and only then the move of the knight. It is not difficult to convince oneself that by adopting such a plan of play White would obtain an enduring initiative. Now, on the other hand, he gradually runs into difficulties.

13...Rde8!

Not 13...Rdg8 because a flank attack is best undermined by a concentration in the centre and not by a counter-attack on a wing.

Defence (by clearing the square d8 for the king) and counterattack at the same time.

14.Rfe1

If 14.Ba6 then 14...bxa6 15.Qxa6+ Kd8 16.Rb7 Nf5! 17.Rxc7 Qxc7 18.Bxc7+ Kxc7 with an easy win.

14...Nf5 15.Bxf5(?)

The move 15.Ba6 proves insufficient after 15...bxa6.

It is only through the absence of this bishop that White's queenside pawns become really weak – and this promises White a difficult endgame. In spite of the obvious danger, more chances were offered by 15.Bh2.

15...Bxf5 16.Qb5 Nd8 17.Qc5?

The decisive mistake, giving Black an opportunity to set up – with tempo – a solid defensive position on the queenside. By playing 17.Qa5! Marshall could have prevented this, since if 17...Kb8 then 18.c4! and the resulting complications are not unfavourable for White.

17...b6 18.Qa3 Kb7 19.Qb3

The beginning of a tragedy: the square c2 can hardly be defended otherwise.

19...Nc6

Already a blockader makes for c4 where it will demonstrate the weakness of the doubled pawn.

20.Nd2

On the 13th move this would have been the start of a very promising attack, but now it is just a modest defence against the threat of a knight invasion on c4. The storm clouds are gathering.

20...Na5 21.Qb2 Rxe1+ 22.Rxe1 Re8

The double exchange of rooks is connected with a purely tactical idea (to say nothing of the fact that Black does not need these pieces in order to realise his advantage): Black eliminates the threat of Nb3-c5+ (after Nd2-b3) and at the same time he avoids the exchange of knights, which would otherwise be forced.

23.Rxe8 Qxe8 24.Qb1

What else could White do? If 24.Kf1, for example, then 24...Qa4 would be very strong.

24...Kc8(?)

Here 24...Qe2 was also good.

Time pressure, obviously; otherwise one cannot understand why Black did not play 24...Qe2! Then after 25.Qc1 White would be practically stalemated, while in case of 25.Nb3 Nc4 26.Nc5+ Kc8 27.Nd3 Nd2! Black would win material and also retain the attack.

25.Qd1 Qe6

Also strong was 25...Qc6.

26.Nb3 Nc4 27.Nd2 Na3 28.Nf1 Nxc2

Now Black has an ending with a pawn plus but bishops of opposite colours, and many of the onlookers prognosticated a draw.

Because of the presence of opposite-coloured bishops, White could perhaps reconcile himself to the loss of this pawn, if not for the structural weaknesses on his queenside. But now he can only wait while his opponent prepares the fatal blow.

29.Qh5 Bd3 30.Qd1 Qe4

Not 30...Qe2 at once because of 31.Qxe2 and 32.Ne3.

31.Nd2

If 31.f3 then 31...Qe2 is sound.

31...Qe2 32.Qxe2

After 32.Qc1 Ne1! White would gradually perish from suffocation.

32...Bxe2 33.f4 Na3 34.fxg5 fxg5 35.Kf2

Otherwise Black plays 35...Nb5 followed by Be2-d3, etc.

35...Bh5 36.Be5 g4 37.hxg4

Black can only welcome pawn exchanges because on the other wing he has enough material for a win. Therefore from the practical point of view it was better to play 37.h4.

37...Bxg4 38.Ke3 Bf5 39.Bg7 (second diagram) 39...Be6!

Threatening to win a pawn with 40...Nb5, which if played immediately would be premature on account of the possible reply c3-c4. White, being obviously in time pressure (the 40th move!) does not notice the threats, and after this the endgame does not present his opponent any difficulties whatsoever. However, Black would also win after 40.Kd3!, for example: 40...Kd7 41.Bf8 Bf5+ 42.Ke3 Nc2+ 43.Kf4 Bg6 44.Ke5 Ne3, etc.

40.Bf8? Nb5 41.Nb1 a5

Here 41...Bf5 was also playable: 42.a4 Bxb1 43.axb5 Ba2 44.Kf4 Bc4 45.Ke5 Kd7 46.Bb4 c6 47.bxc6+ Kxc6 and the king migrates to b3.

Also possible was 41...Bf5, since if 42.a4 Bxb1 43.axb5, after which the simplest way for Black is Kc8-d7 followed by c7-c6 (in case of Ke3-f4-e5). After the exchange of pawns his king gets to c4.

42.Kd2

A winning line, not unlike that shown in the preceding note would be: 42.Kf4 Bf7 43.a4 Bg6 44.axb5 Bxb1 45.Ke5 Ba7 46.Ke6 Bc4 with 47...Kb7 and 48...c6, etc.

42...Bf5 43.Na3 Nxa3 44.Bxa3 Bb1 45.Bf8 Bxa2

Marshall could have quietly spared himself the following 15 moves.

46.Bg7 Bc4 47.Ke3 Kb7 48.Bf6 Ka6 49.Kd2

If 49.Bd8, Black has a win, the king penetrating to b3, e.g., 49.Bd8 Kb5 50.Bxc7 Kc4 51.Bxb6 a4, with 52...Kb3, and wins as the a-pawn cannot be stopped. This variation shows the enduring weakness of the dead and gone double complex. For in the passed a-pawn is mirrored the weakness of the defunct White a-pawn, and in the blocked long diagonal f6-a1 is manifested, in memoriam, the obstructive effect of the pawn formation c3 and d4. White might have resigned here.

49...Bf1 50.g3 Kb5 51.Kc1 Kc4 52.Kb2 c5 53.Be5 cxd4 54.Bxd4 b5 55.Bb6 a4 56.Ba5 d4 57.cxd4 b4 58.Bb6 a3+ 59.Ka2 Kb5 60.Bc5 Ka4 White resigned. 0-1

Culture shock

2009-09-05T09:41:00.000-07:00

I was impressed by Black's play in this game. He unleashed a new move in the opening, seizing the initiative and making White the one to look for equality. A few moves later he offered a sharp exchange sacrifice. White unwisely accepted the offer, and his king was soon stranded in the middle of the board, perilously short of safe squares. The battle was decided long before White could get his extra material into action.

Khouseinov,R (2330) - Magomedov,M (2600) Dushanbe, 1999 [D36]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.cxd5

The Exchange Variation is recommended by many authors as a simple and safe way for White to handle the Queen's Gambit Declined. The reality is that it does not promise White a simple and safe advantage -- IF Black knows what he is doing. Many years of practice have shown that the lines with an early Nf3 are not the most incisive. To achieve an edge, White's priority moves are Bg5, Qc2, e3, and Bd3, taking control of an important diagonal and denying Black a safe equalising manoeuvre with ...Bf5 (sometimes assisted by ...g6). Depending on Black's specific reaction White can then try a setup with Nge2, or revert to lines with Nf3. But in this game White has already committed himself to the move Nf3.

5...exd5 6.Bg5 c6 7.Qc2 Na6!?

Interfering with White's intended setup in the most direct way. If White had played e3 instead of Nf3 he could simply capture this knight, at the same time spoiling Black's queenside pawn structure.

8.a3

Some players have tried 8.e3 Nb4 9.Qd1 Bf5 10.Rc1 intending 11.a3, but Black can keep his queenside demonstration going with 10...Qa5!?

8...g6 9.e4?!

There are many positions in the Exchange Variation where this central break gives White a space advantage and pressure on Black's weak points. This is not one of those positions. White's play has been slower than usual, so the advance has fewer chances of success.

The game Portisch-Jussupow, Rotterdam 1989 saw the more restrained 9.e3 Bf5 10.Bd3 Bxd3 11.Qxd3 Nc7 and Black had few problems, the game eventually ending in a draw.

9...Nxe4! 10.Nxe4 (first diagram) 10...Nc7!!

A new move which had been suggested by Lubomir Ftacnik but not actually played until this game. Because of a later inaccuracy by Magomedov I suspect that he was not following home analysis and may even have been unaware of Ftacnik's suggestion.

11.Qc5!

The best reply. Black cannot play 11...Bxc5 because 12.Bxd8 wins a piece, so White manages to get his queen to an active position. Ftacnik's analysis ended after 11.h4 dxe4 12.Qxe4 Bf5, but after the further moves 13.Qe5 Kd7!, it is clear that the upcoming exchanges will be favourable for Black.

11...dxe4 12.Qe5 Rf8 13.Qxe4 Bf5 14.Qe3

White avoids 14.Qxe7+ Qxe7+ 15.Bxe7 Kxe7, when his isolated d-pawn is the central feature of a much-simplified position.

14...Nd5 15.Qd2 Be4!

White is being driven back on all fronts and this move adds to his difficulties. The upcoming exchange on f3 will seriously compromise White's defences, and for specific tactical reasons it cannot be easily prevented. For example, 16.Be2 Bxf3 17.Bxe7 Qxe7 18.gxf3 and Black has the advantage after 18...Qf6. White finds the only sensible reply to 15...Bd4 – a counterattack on Black's rook – but there is another surprise waiting for him.

16.Bh6 (second diagram) 16...Bxf3!

Far more energetic than 16...Rg8. Recapturing on f8 will clear the e-file for Black's remaining rook, adding to the pressure on White's king. It might be said that the exchange sacrifice is based less on exact calculation and more on what Kasparov famously described as “chess culture.”

17.Bxf8?

White should not accept the offer, although he is still in difficulties after 17.gxf3 Rg8 18.Bd3 Qd6! 19.h4 Bf8 20.Be3 f5 (Magomedov).

17...Bg5?!

A strange decision because the simple 17...Kxf8 18.gxf3 Bg5 19.Qc2 would transpose to the game. This might be described as Magomedov's only slip in an otherwise-impressive attacking display.

18.Qc2?!

Much stronger was 18.Qd3. In his analysis Magomedov gave 18... Kxf8! 19.gxf3 Qa5+ 20.Kd1 Re8! 21.Kc2 without further comment, but there are some blank spots here. To start with, in the position after 21.Kc2 Black wins easily with 21...Nb4+ 22.axb4 Qxa1. More critically, what happens if White preserves his pawn structure with 19.Qxf3? The best line for both sides seems to be 19...Qb6 20.Bc4 Bd2+! 21.Kf1! Qxb2 22.Rd1 Qxd4 23.Qd3 Qxd3 24.Bxd3 Bc3 25.g3 when Black has two pawns for the exchange but one can hardly speak of an advantage for him.

Instead of 21.Kc2 White can try 21.Rb1 but after 21...Re1+ 22.Kc2 Qa4+! 23.b3 Qxa3 24.Rxe1 Black has a mating attack: 24...Qa2+ 25.Kd1 Qa1+! 26.Ke2 ( 26.Kc2 Nb4#) 26...Qb2+ 27.Kd1 Qc1+ 28.Ke2 Nf4#) These lines were given by Magomedov.

18...Kxf8! 19.gxf3 Qa5+ 20.Kd1 Rd8!

In Magomedov's line given above, this rook went to e8 in order to get at White's king. The switch to d8 is a pleasing variant on this idea. White's king is just as vulnerable on the d-file, the isolated pawn being a minor obstruction that will soon be swept away.

21.Be2

Black mates after 21.Qc5+ Qxc5 22.dxc5 Nb4+! 23.Ke2 Rd2+ 24.Ke1 Nc2#.

21...Nf4

The editors of Informant 76 pointed out that 21...Nb4 wins more quickly, but the text does not spoil anything.

22.Qc3 Qe5! 23.Qe3

Or 23.Re1 Rxd4+ 24.Kc2 Nxe2, etc.

23...Rxd4+ 24.Kc2 Qf5+ 25.Kb3 Qd5+ 26.Kc3 Nxe2+ 27.Qxe2 Rd2 28.Qe4 Bf6+ 0–1

Powerful stuff!

The wandering king 1

2007-12-09T17:13:00.000-08:00

Games where one side's king makes a successful mid-game journey into enemy territory are rare but always fascinating. Perhaps the most well-known example is the offhand encounter between Carl Hamppe and Philipp Meitner at Vienna in 1872, which featured a cascade of sacrifices ending in perpetual check. In more recent times Nigel Short (as White against Jan Timman at Tilburg 1991) marched his king to g5 with a board full of pieces and set up an unstoppable threat of Kh6 followed by mate to the Black monarch.

The following game is remarkable not only because of the White king's incursion into no-man's land through the crossfire of enemy pieces, but also because of the identities of the combatants. Viktor Korchnoi had defeated Boris Shashin in their only previous encounter but on this occasion it was the little-known master who triumphed over his more famous opponent.

Shashin B – Korchnoi V
Leningrad (ch) 1973
Nimzo-Indian Defence E57

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 0–0 5.Bd3 c5 6.Nf3 d5 7.0–0 Nc6 8.a3 cxd4 9.exd4 Bxc3 10.bxc3 dxc4 11.Bxc4 Qa5 12.Bb2 e5 13.Re1 Bg4!?
Korchnoi has already given up one minor exchange and now decides to give up the other one. This leaves him with two knights against two bishops and some defensive obligations. Another way of handling the position was 13...e4 14.Nd2 Bf5.
14.h3 Bxf3 15.Qxf3 Rad8 16.Ba2
In Informant 15 Korchnoi gave the variation 16.Rad1 Rd6 17.d5 e4 18.Qg3 Rfd8 19.Ba2 Nxd5 20.Bxd5 Rxd5 21.c4 Rg5 as better for Black, but here 22.Qf4! Rg6 23.Rxd8+ Qxd8 24.Rxe4 looks quite equal.
16...Rd7
Black could avoid complications with 16...exd4 17.cxd4 Nxd4 18.Bxd4 Rxd4 19.Re7 Rd2! 20.Bb3 (otherwise 20...Qc3 follows) 20...Rd7 21.Rxd7 Nxd7 22.Qxb7 Nc5 23.Qf3 Nxb3 24.Qxb3 and the draw is just around the corner.
17.Re2 Rfd8
Now 17...exd4 18.cxd4 Nxd4 19.Bxd4 Rxd4 20.Qxb7 Rd7 leaves White with a slight edge after 21.Qb3.
18.Rae1 exd4 19.cxd4 Qb6 20.Qc3 Nxd4 21.Re7 Rxe7?!
In playing this move Korchnoi appears to have seen much of the play that follows. He has either decided that it is not dangerous for him, or that he will likely outclass his somewhat weaker opponent. The alternative defence 21...Kf8 22.Rxd7 Rxd7 23.Qc8+ Rd8 24.Qc4 Ne6 25.Bxf6 gxf6 26.Rb1 Qc6 27.Qb4+ Kg7 28.Bxe6 Qxe6 29.Qxb7 does not leave either side much to play for.
22.Rxe7 Nf5!
There is no turning back. Both 22...Ne6 23.Qb3! and 22...Qd6 23.Qe1! are better for White.
23.Rxf7 Rd1+ 24.Kh2 (first diagram) 24...Qd6+?
Analysis shows this to be a mistake, but it was very difficult to see this in advance. Instead Black can practically force a draw by repetition with 24...Ng4+! 25.hxg4 Qd6+ 26.Qg3! (certainly not 26.g3? Qh6+ and mates) 26...Nxg3 27.Rd7+ Kf8 28.Bxg7+ Ke8 29.Rxd6 Nf1+ 30.Kg1 (simpler than the overly ambitious 30.Kh3 Rxd6 31.g5 Rd2 32.Bg8 Rxf2 33.Bxh7 Ra2 34.g6 Rxa3+ 35.Kh4 Ra4+ 36.Kg5 Ne3 37.Be5 Rg4+ 38.Kh5 Rxg2 39.g7 Kf7 40.g8Q+ Rxg8 41.Bxg8+ Kxg8 42.Bd4 Nc4 43.Bxa7 and White must still show that he knows how to draw) 30...Nd2+ 31.Kh2 Nf1+, etc.
25.g3 Ng4+ 26.Kg2 Nh4+!
Not 26...Nge3+? 27.Kf3! Nd4+ 28.Ke4! (stronger than 28.Qxd4 Rxd4 29.Rd7+ Kf8 30.Rxd6 Rxd6 31.Kxe3 but White is clearly better here) 28...Nd5 29.Bxd5 Qxd5+ 30.Kxd5 Nb5+ 31.Ke6 Nxc3 32.Bxc3 with a winning position for White.
27.gxh4 Qh2+ 28.Kf3 Qxf2+ 29.Ke4! (second diagram)
Quite wrong, or course, is 29.Kxg4?? Rg1+ 30.Kh5 g6+ 31.Kh6 Qxh4 mate.
29...Qe2+?
The only try was 29...Re1+ 30.Kd5 and now:
a) 30...Qxf7+ 31.Kd6 Rd1+ 32.Kc5 b6+ 33.Kb4 a5+ 34.Ka4 b5+ 35.Kxa5 and White wins (analysis by Korchnoi);
b) 30...Ne3+ 31.Kd6 Nc4+ 32.Qxc4 Qb6+ (32...Rd1+ 33.Kc7 [or 33.Ke7 Qe2+ 34.Qe6] 33...Qb6+ 34.Kb8 Rd8+ 35.Qc8 Qd6+ [or 35...Rxc8+ 36.Kxc8 Qxb2 37.Rf2+ Qxa2 38.Rxa2 and wins] 36.Rc7+ Kf8 37.Bxg7+ Ke8 38.Bf7 mate) 33.Kd7 Rd1+ 34.Bd4 Rxd4+ 35.Qxd4 Qxd4+ 36.Kc8! (third diagram) and Black cannot prevent mate without giving up his queen (analysis by Korchnoi).
c) 30...Rd1+! 31.Kc4 Kxf7 32.hxg4 Ke8 33.Qe5+ Kd8 and Black has avoided immediate disaster although his long-term outlook is still bleak.
30.Kf4 Rf1+ 31.Kg5 h6+ 32.Kg6 Ne5+ 33.Qxe5 Rg1+ 34.Qg5 Qxb2
If Black plays differently he loses differently, as follows: 34...Rxg5+ 35.hxg5 Qe8 36.gxh6 gxh6 37.Kxh6 Qf8+ 38.Rg7+ Kh8 39.Be5 b5 40.Bf7 a5 41.Kg6 and White wins.
35.Rxg7+ 1–0

This victory must have been a high point in Boris Shashin's relatively modest chess career.

Seven Brutalities 5

2007-11-25T10:04:00.000-08:00

The safety of one's king is an important factor in chess, but when assessing a position one must take a concrete approach and consider other factors as well. Sometimes there is an opportunity to win material or gain another advantage at the cost of some inconvenience to one's king. If this inconvenience amounts to only a few checks then the king was obviously not unsafe at all. Here is a game illustrating this concept.

Scoones D – Zimmer E

Victoria Winter Open 1983
Queen's Gambit Accepted D24

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 dxc4 4.Nc3 a6 5.e4 e6 6.Bxc4 b5 7.Bd3 c5 8.e5 Nd5 9.Ne4 c4 10.Bb1 Nd7 11.Nfg5 Bb4+ 12.Bd2 Bxd2+ (diagram) 13.Kxd2 Qa5+ 14.Kc1 c3 15.bxc3 Nxc3 16.Qf3 Qa3+ 17.Kc2 Qa4+ 18.Kxc3 Qc4+ 19.Kb2 Qxd4+ 20.Qc3 Qd5 21.Nd6+ Ke7 22.Be4 1-0

The sharp variation beginning with 4.Nc3 was analysed by IM John Watson in a long article in the early 1980s, the main line going 4...a6 5.e4 b5 6.e5 Nd5 7.a4 c6 8.axb5 Nxc3 9.bxc3 cxb5 10.Ng5. At this point another 1983 game Scoones-Hunt saw Black go wrong with 10...e6? The idea was a good one: to meet 11.Qf3 with 11...Ra7, saving the rook and simultaneously defending f7. The problem was the shot 11.Nxf7! when Black was already busted. Instead of Hunt's 10...e6? Black must play 10...f6!? 11.Qf3 Ra7 with an extra pawn in exchange for White's lead in development.

In the main game, Black avoided complications with 5...e6, which allowed White to regain his pawn immediately.

White should meet 8...Nd5 with 9.Bg5! aiming for a favourable exchange of dark-squared bishops since after 9.Ne4?! Black could have tried 9...cxd4 10.a4 Nb4 with complications. Instead, 9...c4 took all of the pressure off White's centre.

After 11...Bb4+ 12.Bd2 Bxd2+ White could not resist the cheeky 13.Kxd2!? even though retaking with the queen was objectively stronger. The point was the obvious continuation 13...Qa5+ 14.Kc1 when the complications appear to favour White. Instead of 13...Qa5+?! Black could have played 13...Kf8!, defusing the knight check on d6.

Black went seriously wrong with 14...Nxc3?, allowing White to gain a decisive advantage with the double attack 15.Qf3. He could have stayed in the game with 14...Qa3+ 15.Kd2 b4.

After 20.Qc3 Black's checks quickly ran out and when 22.Be4 was played he decided he had seen enough.

Seven Brutalities 4

2007-11-15T14:49:00.000-08:00

Sitting down to the board to begin play, you never know when you are going to be involved in a so-called miniature game (of 25 moves or less). If your opponent is relatively weak there could be some advance clue, but when you're up against a strong player there's no way of foreseeing the result, much less the number of moves you will play. It's just a roll of the dice.

Reeve J - Scoones D

Labour Day Open 1975

Spanish Game C68

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.0-0 Bd6 6.d4 exd4 7.Qxd4 f6 8.Nbd2 Be6 9.Nb3 b6 10.Be3 Ne7 11.Qd2 c5 12.Rad1 Ng6 13.Qe2 Qe7 14.c4 0-0 15.Nfd2 (diagram) 15...f5 16.exf5 Bxf5 17.Rfe1 Rae8 18.Nb1 Qh4 19.g3 Qh3 20.Qf1 Qh5 21.Nc3 Ne5 0-1

Jeff Reeve is a strong master who has won many impressive games on the White side of the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation. Before our last-round matchup in the 1975 Labour Day Open in Vancouver I was fiddling with a pocket set, trying to find something that would keep me in the game for awhile. Of course it was always going to be a sideline, and on this occasion my eye fell on the rare move 5...Bd6. I was sure my opponent would continue with 6.d4, which I intended to meet with 6...exd4 (7...f6 returns to one of the main lines) 7.Qxd4 f6.

On d6 the bishop is often vulnerable to exchange with Nd2-c4. But in looking at the position after 8.Nbd2 it occurred to me that Black could play the useful developing move 8...Be6. If White carries on with 9.Nc4 then Black wins a pawn with a minor tactic: 9...Bxh2+! followed by 10...Qxd4 and 11...Bxc4.

White sidestepped this variation with 8.Nb3 but his knight was left in an offside position. After 13...0-0 Black had completed his development and was very comfortable.

After this White began to drift, which can be seen from the sequence 14.c4?! 0-0 15.Nfd2?!, which merely decentralises a key defender. Black struck immediately with 15...f5!, guaranteeing himself a clear advantage after 16.exf5 Bxf5.

In the sequel the key strategic factor is Black's unopposed light-squared bishop. After 18.Nb1? Qh4 19.g3, fatal weaknesses had appeared in White's kingside. The centralising move 21...Ne5 leads forcefully to the win of at least the exchange. White decided he had seen enough and called it a day.

A touch of irony

2007-11-12T20:50:00.000-08:00

I had an interesting online blitz game against a Russian chap today. As Black he tried to play me into a well-known book trap, but of course I avoided it. Later I set an oddly similar trap for him, and this time... but see for yourself.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4?!
A dubious but tricky move that everyone should try once or twice, if only in speed chess. The idea – the only idea -- is the following very plausible trap: 4.Nxe5? Qg5! 5.Nxf7 Qxg2 6.Rf1 Qxe4+ 7.Be2 (or else the queen is lost) 7...Nf3 mate!
4.0–0
Also possible is 4.Nxd4 exd4 5.0-0 as in Bird's Defence to the Ruy Lopez.
4...Nxf3+ 5.Qxf3 Nf6
More consistent is 5...Qf6; for example, 6.Qg3 d6 7.d3 Qg6 8.Nc3 Qxg3 9.fxg3 f6 10.Be3 c6 and Black does not stand too badly despite playing many pawn moves.
6.d4 d6 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.Rd1 Bd6 9.Nc3! (diagram)
It is very important for White's strategy that this developing move holds up tactically. Less direct but also strong was the prophylactic move 9.h3.
9...Bg4 10.Qg3! Bxd1? 11.Qxg7
Here is the touch of irony. Instead of punishing White with a timely ...Qxg2, Black is being punished by a timely Qxg7!
11...Rf8 12.Bg5 Be7
If 12...Bxc2 13.Bxf6 Qd7 14.Be2 and White has more than enough for the exchange since Black's king is stranded in the centre and his pieces are disconnected.
13.Rxd1 Nd7 14.Bh6!
Correctly avoiding exchanges and simply intending to recover the sacrificed material.
14...Bf6 15.Qxh7 Qe7 16.Bxf8 Qxf8 17.Qf5
More incisive was 17.Bxf7+ Qxf7 18.Qxf7+ Kxf7 19.Rxd7+ Ke6 20.Rxc7 and wins. But over the years I have learned that in a blitz game a bishop is handier than a knight when ahead in the pawn department.
17...0–0–0 18.Nd5 Bg7 19.Rd3 Kb8 20.Nc3 Nb6 21.Qxf7!
It is better to simplify by exchanging queens than to take another pawn with 21.Bxf7.
21...Rxd3
If 21...Nxc4 22.Qxg7! Rc8 23.Qxf8 Rxf8 24.b3 Nd6 25.Rd5 and Black will not last long.
22.Qxf8+ Bxf8 23.Bxd3 Bb4 24.Ne2 Bc5 25.Kf1 a5 26.f4 Bd6 27.f5
From here on White's play is not always the strongest but he's so far ahead that it makes no difference.
27...Nd7 28.Kf2 Kc8 29.g4 Kd8 30.g5 Ke7 31.h4 Kf7 32.Bc4+ Kg7 33.Ng3 c6 34.Nh5+ Kh7 35.Be6 Nf8 36.Bc8 b5 37.Nf6+ Kh8 38.Ne8 Be7 39.Kg3 1–0

Chess Informant: a negative trend

2007-11-05T22:26:00.000-08:00

It goes without saying that most serious chess players are regular readers of Chess Informant. The long-running Yugoslav publication founded by GM Aleksandr Matanovic (and known in Serbo-Croat as Sahovski Informator) will soon celebrate its 100th issue.

Chess Informant has been around for so long and has become so pervasive that it is now rather difficult to gauge its true impact on the chess world. Perhaps Garry Kasparov was closest to the mark when he characterised the players of his generation as “the Children of Informator.”

Against this backdrop it is not surprising that whenever Chess Informant is mentioned by chess book reviewers, it is uniformly praised. Here are some examples:

Chess Informant has a tremendous amount of interesting material to offer, whether for opening studies, or for general training purposes. I for one would not want to be without it. -- Carsten Hansen

The main games are still the heart of Informants; they are brilliant and/or essential to following the latest developments in hundreds of openings. It is indicative of their quality that Chess Informants are used by every titled player that I’ve met over the years, and by most other serious players. -- John Watson

I have to agree that Chess Informant is a great publication and, when used properly, has a positive influence on one's playing strength. But in this article I want to draw attention to a surprising negative trend that until recently has only nagged at the periphery of my awareness. When I sat down and did some serious background work, it practically jumped out at me.

Chess Informant is shrinking. Getting smaller. Publishing fewer games. And charging the same price for it all. Meanwhile, chess activity around the world is increasing, year by year.

What exactly is happening? The numbers tell the story. Here are the total number of pages and games for each year between 2001 and 2006. For comparison I have included the total number of games for each year published by The Week in Chess.

Year: 2001. Total pages: 1144. Total games: 1599. TWIC games: 63,296
Year: 2002. Total pages: 1088. Total games: 1516. TWIC games: 63,227
Year: 2003. Total pages: 1128. Total games: 1474. TWIC games: 74,649
Year: 2004. Total pages: 1176. Total games: 1518. TWIC games: 75,255
Year: 2005. Total pages: 1094. Total games: 1334. TWIC games: 80,827
Year: 2006. Total pages: 1022. Total games: 1287. TWIC games: 91,044

In other words, between 2001 and 2006 there was a 44% increase in the number of games reported in The Week in Chess. In the same period there was a 20% decrease in the number of games published in Chess Informant. If that isn't a negative trend, I don't know what is.

Back in the 1980s Chess Informant used to publish around 1400 games per year in two volumes. Starting in 1991, Informant began to publish three volumes per year. Here we are in the 21st century and Informant is now publishing fewer games in three volumes than it used to publish in two volumes!

I don't accept the argument that there has been an offsetting increase in the number of game fragments cited within the main games. These fragments are no more than a species of annotation. They don't alter the fact that Chess Informant is getting smaller.

It is up to Chess Informant's customers to decide how important this trend is to them. I have a complete set of Informants and do not intend to stop buying them. But I do wish the publishers would take note and respond to this trend in a positive way.

Seven Brutalities 3

2007-11-02T19:12:00.000-07:00

At the time of this encounter, my opponent was a young B-class player. Today he is a rated master.

Scoones D - Vitko G
Portland 1976
Sicilian Defence B22
1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.Qxd4 e6 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Qe4 d6 8.Nbd2 Qc7 9.Nc4 dxe5 10.Ncxe5 Nxe5 11.Nxe5 (first diagram) 11...Nxc3 12.bxc3 Qxc3+ 13.Kd1 Qxa1 14.Bb5+ Ke7 15.Qb4+ Kf6 16.Ng4+ Kg6 17.Qe4+ Kh5 (second diagram) 18.Nf6+ Qxf6 19.Be2+ 1-0

Theory and practice have established that 7...f5!? is the strongest reply to White's move 7.Qe4. I think anyone coming upon this position for the first time would have a hard time agreeing to take on a backward d-pawn. It looks far more natural to exchange White's advanced e-pawn than to set it up as a future target.

In the position of the first diagram Black should play the defensive move 11...a6, preventing a bishop check on b5. Instead he is drawn into a tactical operation that wins the exchange. Unfortunately, it also leaves Black dangerously behind in development. After 13...Qxa1 White is able to strike immediately.

Instead of 15...Kf6 Black can play 15...Kd8 but this does not get him out of trouble. White follows up with 16.Nxf7+ Kc7 17.Qc4+ Kb8 18.Kc2! intending a decisive bishop check on f4. Black can then resign with a clear conscience.

After 17.Qe4+ Black may have been planning to put up a defence with 17...f5. Unfortunately for him this fails to the non-standard mating move 18.Be8.

White's final task is to jettison his knight in order to clear the way for his bishop. That is accomplished with the desperado move 18.Nf6+. After 18...Qxf6 the attractive switchback 19.Be2+ ends the game immediately.

Seven Brutalities 2

2007-10-28T19:19:00.000-07:00

No one can win a game of chess unless the opponent goes wrong, so it might be said that inducing error is one of the primary tasks facing the tournament player. This assumes of course that one's technique is up to exploiting the error. There are many ways to send the opponent down the path to danger, and a popular one is playing an unexpected opening variation.

A few months before this game I had spent some time looking through a monograph on the Schliemann Defence by the Hungarian master Tibor Florian. I was reasonably prepared for the main lines, but got a pleasant surprise when my opponent wandered into a sideline that had first been seen in the nineteenth century.

Forbes G - Scoones D

B.C. Championship (1) 1977

Spanish Game C63

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 4.d4?!

The correct move here is 4.Nc3.

4...fxe4 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.dxe5 c6 (diagram) 7.Bc4?!

White has already gone wrong but this accelerates the negative trend. For better or worse the piece sacrifice 7.Nc3!? must be tried. I remember having an improvement on Florian's analysis but I can't remember what it was.

7...Qa5+ 8.Nc3 Qxe5 9.Bxg8 Rxg8 10.Qe2 d5 11.f4 Qf6 12.Bd2 Qh4+ 13.g3 Qh3

White is a pawn down and is being overrun on the light squares. No further commentary is required.

14.Nd1 Bg4 15.Nf2?! Bxe2 16.Nxh3 Bf3 17.Rg1 Bc5 0-1

It is always great to start a tournament with a quick win, especially as Black!

Hammer and anvil

2007-10-26T20:38:00.000-07:00

Grandmaster Mikhail Gurevich has had a long chess career and many of his impressive wins have found their way into Chess Informant and other publications. Today I would like to show an encounter that did not go so well for him thanks to some imaginative play from his opponent, the Azerbaijani WGM Firuza Velikhanli. It is probably worth remembering that one of her more illustrious countrymen is none other than Garry Kasparov.

Velikhanli F - Gurevich M

Izmir Open 2006

Pirc Defence B09

1.e4 d6 2.d4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.f4 Nf6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Bd3 Na6 7.0-0 c5 8.d5 Nc7 9.a4 Bg4?!

The alternative 9...Rb8 10.Kh1 Bg4 is considered more accurate than the text because the tempo spent on 10.Kh1 slows down White's kingside initiative.
10.h3 Bxf3 11.Qxf3 e6 12.Bd2 exd5 13.exd5 a6 14.a5 Rb8 15.f5!?
A novelty. The game J.Polgar-Todorcevic, Pamplona 1990 went 15.Bc4 Nd7 16.Na4 and White won after a long struggle.
15...Nh5 16.Qg4 Bd4+ 17.Kh1 Be5 18.Rf3!?
Also interesting was 18.Ne4, for example, 18...Bxb2 19.fxg6 hxg6 20.Rab1 Bg7 21.Bg5! and Black is forced to make concessions. The text move 18.Rf3 is the prelude to a very fine positional pawn sacrifice.
18...Nf6 19.Qh4!
Quite inconsistent would be 19.Qc4 b5 20.axb6 Rxb6 with counterplay for Black.
19...Nfxd5
Because of the disappearance of Black's light-squared bishop, capturing White's d-pawn is somewhat risky, to say the least. But it is difficult to suggest a better plan for Black.
20.Bg5! Qd7 21.Nxd5 Nxd5 22.Bc4! Nc7?
Black had to try 22...Nb4 in order to keep White's bishop from returning to d3. But even here White is doing extremely well after 23.fxg6 hxg6 24.Re1 Rbe8 25.Bh6 Qd8 (or 25...Bg7 26.Rxe8 Qxe8 27.Bxg7 Kxg7 28.Qf6+ Kh7 29.Rf4 and wins) 26.Qg4 d5 27.Bxf8 Qc7!? 28.Bh6 dxc4 29.Qxc4.
23.Re1!
Yes, another exclamation mark. This is not latter-day Reinfeldism, but a simple reflection of the quality of White's play.
23...Rbe8?! (diagram)
After 23...Ne8 the simplest way is 24.fxg6 hxg6 25.Bd5 with a dominating position for White. The text gives Velikhanli the opportunity to finish the game with a “Baku de grace.”
24.fxg6 hxg6 25.Rxe5! Rxe5 26.Bf6 Rh5 27.Qxh5!
Black ends up a piece down after the forced 27...gxh5 28.Rg3+ Qg4 (since 28...Kh7 29.Bd3+ Kh6 30.Bg7 is a very pretty mate) 29.hxg4, etc., and therefore he resigned.
1-0

Seven Brutalities 1

2007-10-24T20:08:00.000-07:00

Here is the first of seven miniature games taken from various stages of my so-called career. Each game features some hard-hitting tactical play... hence the title, borrowed from an old article in Joel Benjamin's magazine Chess Chow. (My favourite chess magazine of all time, by the way. After it folded unexpectedly I was depressed for months.)

Scoones D - Holzknecht A

Victoria 2005

Pirc Defence B08

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d6 3.Nc3 g6 4.e4 Bg7 5.Be2 0-0 6.0-0 Nc6 7.d5 Ne5 8.Nxe5 dxe5 9.Be3 Bd7 10.f3 Nh5 11.Qd2 e6 12.Bc4 exd5 13.Nxd5 c6 (diagram) 14.Bg5! 1-0

Al Holzknecht is a local expert who plays resolutely for a draw whenever he is up against higher-rated players. Needless to say, this approach does not always produce the desired result. This game is no exception.

7...Ne5 is hardly the best way for Black. Such theory as exists on this position says Black should retract his last move with 8...Nb8, as in the old game Leonhardt-Chigorin, Carlsbad 1907(!) In fact I have played 8...Nb8 myself with success.

The decentralising 10...Nh5 might have worked out if Black had continued with 12...Nf4!? If White accepts the pawn sacrifice Black gets excellent compensation through dominating the central dark squares.

Instead, Black exchanges pawns with the aim of clearing up the situation in the centre. Unfortunately, 13...c6? is not the correct follow-up, as White demonstrates. But even after the stronger 13...Be6 14.Rfd1 the position is better for White.

After 14.Bg5! Black is losing at least a pawn on account of his awkwardly placed queen and the unavailability of the defensive move 14...f6. Still, resignation was a pleasant surprise!

Interference

2007-10-14T16:24:00.000-07:00

The first diagram shows a position from the game Janowski-Schallop, Nuremburg 1896. White has active pieces but seems to be losing the initiative because of the counterattack on his rook. He solves that problem with a surprise move:

1.Bd5!
An interference sacrifice, closing off the defence of c6 by the Black queen. If Black plays 1...Qh3 then White can simply win a rook with 2.Bxc6+.
1...exd5 2.Qxc6+ Kd8 3.Qxa8+ Kd7 4.Qb7+ Ke6
Other moves are obviously no better. Black is continuing out of pure inertia.
5.Qc6+ Bd6 6.Bf4!
Black resigned. He is mated after 6...Qxh1+ 7.Kd2 Qxa1 8.Qxd6+ Kf5 9.Qe5+ Kg6 10.Qg5.

The second diagram shows a position from the game Scoones-Gregg, Portland 1976. My opponent has sacrificed a piece for some counterplay against my king, which is more annoying than it looks because of my passive bishop on g3. After studying the position for a short time I saw an opportunity to break Black's resistance by sacrificing the bishop in unusual fashion:

1.Be5! dxe5
If 1...Bxe5 then 2.Qf8+ Kd7 3.Bf5 mate. The strongest line of resistance is 1...Qa3+ 2.Kd1 dxe5 3.Qxg7 (not 3.Qg8+? Qf8) 3...Bxf3 4.gxf3 Qd6 but after 5.Ke2 the win is not in any doubt.
2.Qg8+ Kd7 3.Qxg7+ Kd6 4.Qxh6+ Kc5 5.Qxg5
Black's position is hopeless and he resigned after a few more moves.

Janowski's combination must be valued more highly than my mundane effort, for two main reasons:

1. In Janowski's game, the sacrifice is the only way to win or even avoid serious disadvantage;
2. In my game, the sacrifice is effective but not strictly necessary. White is already a piece ahead and has an alternative winning line that starts with 1.Qg8+ Kd7 2.Bf5+.

I do not believe I had seen the Janowski combination when my game was played. But I know I had seen something like it. One must study the classics!

Ljubo's missing games

2007-10-08T22:55:00.000-07:00

In 1978 the Yugoslav GM Ljubomir Ljubojevic was the convincing winner of a medium-strength international tournament held in the Serbian town of Titovo Uzice. The tournament crosstable and a few games were published in Chess Informant 26, but for some reason most of Ljubojevic's wins were left on the cutting room floor.

No matter – we're now solidly in the era of chess megabases, so it should be a simple matter to whistle up Ljubo's games from this event for a closer look at his uncompromising playing style. It should be simple, but it isn't. The ChessBase Big Database contains just 29 games from Titovo Uzice 1978. Only five of those were played by Ljubojevic. This is more than the three that published were in Informant 26, but it's still not good enough.

We're also solidly in the era of the internet, so after this minor setback the search was on for Ljubo's missing games. I'm happy to report that after much digging I have recovered all 13 of his efforts from Titovo Uzice.

Matulovic-Ljubojevic, Titovo Uzice (1) 1978
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. exd5 exd5 5. Ngf3 Nc6 6. Bb5 Bd6 7. O-O Nge7 8.dxc5 Bxc5 9. Nb3 Bd6 10. Nbd4 O-O 11. Be3 a6 12. Bd3 Ng6 13. Qd2 Be7 14. Rfe1 Bg4 15. Bf5 1/2-1/2

Ljubojevic-Jovcic, Titovo Uzice (2) 1978
1.b3 d5 2.e3 e5 3.Bb2 Bd6 4.c4 c6 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 Qf6 8.cxd5 Qxf3 9.gxf3 cxd5 10.Nc3 Nf6 11.Rg1 g6 12.Nb5 Ke7 13.f4 Nc6 14.Nxd6 Kxd6 15.Be2 Rhe8 16.fxe5+ Nxe5 17.f4 Ned7 18.Rc1 Rac8 19.Rxc8 Rxc8 20.Kd1 Ne4 21.Rg2 a6 22.h4 Ke6 23.Bf3 f5 24.Bd4 Nef6 25.d3 Kf7 26.b4 b6 27.a4 Ke6 28.Rb2 Kf7 29.a5 b5 30.Rg2 Ke6 31.Kd2 Kf7 32.Rg1 h5 33.Rg2 Rc6 34.Bd1 Rc8 35.Bb3 Rg8 36.Rg1 Ke7 37.Rc1 Kd6 38.Be5+ Nxe5 39.fxe5+ Kxe5 40.Rc6 Rf8 41.d4+ Ke4 42.Ke2 1-0

Andersson-Ljubojevic, Titovo Uzice (3) 1978
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nc3 e6 4. e3 d5 5. d4 Nc6 6. Be2 dxc4 7. Bxc4 a6 8. a4 cxd4 9. exd4 b6 10. d5 exd5 11. Nxd5 Nxd5 12. Qxd5 Bb4+ 13. Bd2 Bxd2+ 14. Nxd2
1/2-1/2

Ljubojevic-Ermenkov, Titovo Uzice (4) 1978
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 Nbd7 4.e4 e5 5.d5 Nc5 6.f3 a5 7.Be3 Be7 8.Nge2 c6 9.dxc6 bxc6 10.Bxc5 dxc5 11.Qxd8+ Kxd8 12.Na4 Kc7 13.Nc1 Be6 14.Nd3 Nd7 15.b3 Rhd8 16.h4 f6 17.0-0-0 Bf7 18.g3 Nb6 19.Ndxc5 Rxd1+ 20.Kxd1 Nxa4 21.Nxa4 Bb4 22.Bd3 c5 23.Kc2 Be8 24.Nc3 a4 25.Nd5+ Kd6 26.Kb2 axb3 27.axb3 Bf7 28.Nc3 Be8 29.Rd1 Bc6 30.Bc2+ Kc7 31.Bd3 Ba3+ 32.Kc2 Bb4 33.h5 h6 34.Rh1 Kd6 35.Be2 Bxc3 36.Kxc3 Ra2 37.Re1 Be8 38.g4 Bc6 39.Bd1 Kc7 40.Bc2 Kb6 41.Rd1 Kc7 42.Rf1 Kd6 43.Rf2 Ra3 44.Bd1 Bb7 45.Kb2 Ra8 46.Rd2+ Kc7 47.Be2 Bc6 48.Kc3 Rd8 49.Rb2 Rb8 50.Bd1 Rd8 51.Bc2 Rb8 52.Rb1 Kc8 53.Ra1 Ra8 54.Rf1 Rb8 55.f4 exf4 56.Rxf4 Bd7 57.e5 fxe5 58.Rf8+ Kc7 59.Rf7 Kd6 60.Rxg7 Rf8 61.Be4 Rf4 62.Kd3 Bxg4 63.Rg6+ Ke7 64.Rxh6 Bd1 65.Bd5 Rh4 66.Re6+ Kd8 67.h6 Bxb3 68.Ra6 Ke7 69.h7 Kf8 70.Ra7 e4+ 71.Kc3 Rh3+ 72.Kb2 e3 73.h8=Q+ Rxh8 74.Kxb3 e2 75.Ra1 Kg7 76.Re1 Rh2 77.Kc3 1-0

Tringov-Ljubojevic, Titovo Uzice (5) 1978
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 Nb6 5.a4 a5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.Be2 Bg4 8.exd6 exd6 9.0-0 Be7 10.Re1 0-0 11.Nbd2 Na6 12.Nf1 Bh5 13.c3 Nc7 14.Ng3 Bg6 15.Bd3 Nbd5 16.Bf5 Re8 17.Bd2 b5 18.Qb3 Nb6 19.Qc2 Ncd5 20.axb5 cxb5 21.b3 Qc7 22.Qd3 Qc6 23.Rec1 Rec8 24.h4 a4 25.bxa4 bxa4 26.h5 Bxf5 27.Nxf5 Qc4 28.Qe4 Bf8 29.Ne3 Nxe3 30.Ng5 f5 31.Qxe3 Qd5 32.Qg3 Nc4 33.Bf4 Re8 34.Rcb1 a3 35.Qd3 h6 36.Nf3 Nb2 37.Qc2 Re4 38.Bc1 Rg4 39.Kf1 Qc4+ 40.Kg1 Qd5 41.Kf1 Nc4 42.Qa2 Qf7 43.Rb5 Rc8 44.g3 Qxh5 45.Kg2 Qf7 46.Nd2 d5 47.Nxc4 Rxc4 48.Bxa3 Bxa3 49.Qxa3 f4 50.Qa8+ Kh7 51.Rb8 fxg3 52.Rh8+ Kg6 53.Ra6+ Kh5 54.f3 Rxc3 55.Raxh6+ gxh6 56.fxg4+ Kxg4 57.Rg8+ 0-1

Ljubojevic-Rajkovic, Titovo Uzice (6) 1978
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Bc4 Bg7 7.h3 0-0 8.Bb3 Nc6 9.Be3 Nxd4 10.Bxd4 Be6 11.0-0 Bxb3 12.axb3 a6 13.Qe2 Rc8 14.Rfd1 Nd7 15.Bxg7 Kxg7 16.Nd5 Re8 17.Ne3 Qb6 18.Ra4 Rc5 19.Qd2 Nf6 20.Rd4 Qc6 21.b4 Re5 22.f3 Ra8 23.g4 h5 24.Kg2 hxg4 25.hxg4 Rh8 26.Rc4 Qe8 27.f4 Rxe4 28.Rxe4 Qc6 29.Nd5 Nxe4 30.Nxe7 Nxd2+ 31.Nxc6 Nc4 32.Rd4 Ne3+ 33.Kg3 bxc6 34.Rxd6 Nxc2 35.Rxc6 Nxb4 36.Rb6 a5 37.Rb5 Ra8 38.g5 Nc6 39.Rc5 Nd4 40.Rd5 Nf5+ 41.Kf3 a4 42.Rc5 Rb8 43.Ra5 Rb3+ 44.Ke4 Rb4+ 45.Kf3 Nd4+ 46.Ke3 Ne6 0-1

Kovacevic-Ljubojevic, Titovo Uzice (7) 1978
1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.g3 b6 5.Bg2 Bb7 6.0-0 a6 7.d4 cxd4 8.Qxd4 d6 9.b3 Nbd7 10.Bb2 Be7 11.Rfd1 0-0 12.Ng5 Bxg2 13.Kxg2 Qb8 14.Nge4 Rd8 15.Nxf6+ Bxf6 16.Qxd6 Qb7+ 17.Kg1 Ne5 18.Qa3 Nc6 19.Ne4 Be7 20.Nd6 Qc7 21.c5 bxc5 22.Nc4 Nd4 23.Rd2 Bg5 24.f4 Bf6 25.Kf2 Qc6 26.Qa5 Rd5 27.Rad1 Rh5 28.h4 g6 29.Qb6 Qd5 30.Qc7 Rxh4 31.Rg1 Rh2+ 32.Kf1 Qf5 33.Rg2 Qb1+ 34.Kf2 Rh1 35.Nd6 Rf8 36.Ke3 Nb5 37.Nxb5 Bxb2 38.Nd6 Bc1 39.Qa5 Bxd2+ 40.Qxd2 Rd1 0-1

Ljubojevic-Kurajica, Titovo Uzice (8) 1978
1.e4 c6 2.d3 d5 3.Nd2 Qc7 4.Ngf3 Bg4 5.Be2 e6 6.0-0 Nd7 7.b3 Ngf6 8.Bb2 Bd6 9.h3 Bxf3 10.Bxf3 Ne5 11.Re1 0-0-0 12.a3 h5 13.Qe2 Rde8 14.c4 dxc4 15.d4 Nd3 16.e5 Nxb2 17.bxc4 Bxe5 18.dxe5 Nd7 19.Ne4 Qxe5 20.c5 Kc7 21.Rab1 f5 22.Nd6 Qxe2 23.Rxe2 Rb8 24.Rexb2 Nxc5 25.Rc2 Kxd6 26.Rd1+ Ke7 27.Rxc5 g6 28.a4 Rbd8 29.Rb1 Rd7 30.a5 a6 31.Be2 Kf6 32.f4 h4 33.Re5 Re8 34.Re3 Ree7 35.Reb3 e5 36.fxe5+ Rxe5 37.Bf1 Ree7 38.Kf2 Kg5 39.R1b2 Kf6 40.Be2 Kg5 41.Rb4 Rh7 42.Bf3 Kf6 43.Rc4 Rd3 44.Ke2 Rdd7 45.Rb3 Rhe7+ 46.Re3 g5 47.Rb4 Rxe3+ 48.Kxe3 Re7+ 49.Kd4 Re5 50.Rxb7 Rxa5 51.Bxc6 Ra3 52.Rh7 a5 53.Bd5 Rg3 54.Rf7+ Kg6 55.Rf8 g4 56.hxg4 fxg4 57.Ke5 h3 58.Rg8+ Kh7 59.gxh3 Rxh3 60.Rg5 Rh2 61.Be6 a4 62.Bf5+ Kh6 63.Kf6 Rb2 64.Rg8 Rb6+ 65.Be6 Rb7 66.Rxg4 Rb5 67.Rxa4 Rg5 68.Rh4+ Rh5 69.Rg4 Ra5 70.Bc4 Rc5 71.Bf7 Rc6+ 72.Be6 Rc5 73.Rg8 Rc7 74.Rg6+ Kh7 75.Rg1 Kh8 76.Rd1 1-0

Smejkal-Ljubojevic, Titovo Uzice (9) 1978
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 b6 4. Bg2 Bb7 5. d4 Bb4+ 6. Bd2 a5 7. O-O O-O 8. Bf4 Be7 9. Nc3 d5 10. cxd5 exd5 11. Qc2 Na6 12. a3 Qd7 13. Rfd1 Rfd8 14. Rac1 h6 15. Ne5 Qe6 16. Qb3 Bf8 17. Nb5 c5 1/2-1/2

Ljubojevic-Jansa, Titovo Uzice (10) 1978
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Qb3 dxc4 6.Qxc4 0-0 7.e4 Bg4 8.Be3 Nfd7 9.Qb3 Nb6 10.Rd1 Nc6 11.d5 Ne5 12.Be2 Nxf3+ 13.gxf3 Bh5 14.Rg1 Qc8 15.Nb5 c6 16.Nxa7 Rxa7 17.Bxb6 Ra8 18.a4 Qh3 19.Rg3 Qxh2 20.Bf1 Be5 21.Rh3 Qf4 22.dxc6 bxc6 23.a5 Bc7 24.Bxc7 Qxc7 25.a6 Rfd8 26.Bc4 Rxd1+ 27.Qxd1 Rd8 28.Qc1 Rd4 29.Kf1 Qd7 30.Kg2 Bxf3+ 31.Rxf3 Qg4+ 32.Rg3 Qxe4+ 33.f3 Qe5 34.Qc3 Qd6 35.a7 Rd2+ 36.Kh3 Qd7+ 37.Rg4 1-0

Todorcevic-Ljubojevic, Titovo Uzice (11) 1978
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 Rb8 6.f4 d6 7.Nf3 e6 8.0-0 Nge7 9.Be3 Nd4 10.Bf2 Nec6 11.Nxd4 Nxd4 12.Rb1 b5 13.Ne2 b4 14.Nxd4 cxd4 15.Qe2 0-0 16.h4 Rb5 17.a3 a5 18.axb4 axb4 19.b3 Bd7 20.Ra1 Ra5 21.Qd2 Qb6 22.Rxa5 Qxa5 23.Be1 Rb8 24.Bf3 e5 25.fxe5 dxe5 26.Kg2 h5 27.Kh2 Qc5 28.Bd1 Qe7 29.Bf3 Kh7 30.Qe2 Rc8 31.Qd1 Be6 32.Rf2 Ra8 33.Bd2 Qc5 34.Bg5 f6 35.Bd2 Ra2 36.Be1 Bh6 37.Qe2 Bxb3 0-1

Ljubojevic-Radojcic, Titovo Uzize (12) 1978
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.f4 Nc6 7.Nf3 Be7 8.Bd3 d5 9.e5 Nd7 10.Be3 a6 11.Ne2 Nc5 12.Nfd4 Nxd3+ 13.Qxd3 Nxd4 14.Nxd4 Bd7 15.0-0 Bc5 16.Rf3 Bxd4 17.Bxd4 g6 18.Bc5 Rc8 19.Qd4 Qa5 20.Rc3 Qa4 21.Bb4 Rxc3 22.Qxc3 Qc6 23.Qd2 b5 24.b3 f5 25.exf6 Kf7 26.Rc1 Rc8 27.Qd4 a5 28.Bxa5 Qc5 29.Qxc5 Rxc5 30.Bb6 Rc6 31.Bd4 Ra6 32.Ra1 h6 33.Kf2 Ke8 34.Ke3 Kd8 35.Bc5 Be8 36.Kd4 Kc7 37.Kc3 g5 38.g3 Ra8 39.Kb4 Rb8 40.Re1 Bf7 41.f5 1-0

Bagirov-Ljubojevic, Titovo Uzice (13) 1978
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 Be7 6. O-O O-O 7. Nc3 Ne4 8. Qc2 Nxc3 9. Qxc3 c5 10. Rd1 Bf6 11. Qd3 d5 12. cxd5 exd5 1/2-1/2

USCF Senior Master and Chess Digest publisher Ken Smith used to recommend studying the games played by a tournament winner. I hope you find this set by Ljubomir Ljubojevic enjoyable and instructive!

Quiet please

2007-09-30T10:50:00.000-07:00

Playing White in a recent blitz game I reached the position shown in the first diagram. This is a Classical French with the extra moves h4 and ...h6 thrown in, a small detail that will improve White's attacking chances should Black decide to castle kingside. On the reasonable assumption that his king would soon go the other way, I repositioned my queen in order to create some attacking chances.

13.Qe3!? 0-0-0 14.f5!?
It was objectively stronger to maintain positional pressure with 14.Kb1 Kb8 15.a3 Bc8 16.h5, but one cannot apply tournament standards to a blitz game.
14...d4 15.Nxd4 Nxd4?
The correct defence was 15...exf5 16.Nd5 Qxe5 17.Nb6+ Kc7 18.Nd5+ Kc8 and neither side can advantageously avoid the draw by repetition; for example, the cheeky 18...Kd6!? is met by 19.Qc3.
16.Rxd4 Bc6 (second diagram)

I suspect Black was quite satisfied here since it looks like he is exchanging my active rook and taking over the d-file. But the unfortunate grouping of pieces on the c-file means that it's suddenly White to play and win!
17.Rc4! Nd7
No better is 17...b6 18.b4 Bd5 19.Rd4 Nd7 20.Nxd5 exd5 21.Bxa6+ Kb8 22.Rxd5.
18.Rxc6+ bxc6
The exchange sacrifice was obvious enough, but now White should not rush to take the a-pawn with check. Instead there is a quiet move available that transforms the capture into a deadly threat:
19.Qa7!
Black's next move is the only defensive try but it is not enough to save the game.
19...Rde8 20.Bxa6+ Kd8 21.Qa8+ 1-0
Black resigned here since he is mated after 21...Nb8 22.Qxb8+ Kd7 23.Rd1+.

Anthology piece

2007-09-25T21:00:00.000-07:00

In the game Tukmakov-Panno, Buenos Aires 1970, the Ukrainian GM executed an impressive final combination that has deservedly found its way into the anthology books. But equally impressive was the play leading up to the combination.

In the first diagram Black has just played 11...Na5 with the obvious intention of disturbing White's pieces with 12...Nc4. Tukmakov takes immediate action to prevent Black's plan, simultaneously aiming his queen at Black's kingside:
12.Qd3! Bd7 13.g4 Kh8?!
A passive defensive regrouping that does not properly address the vulnerability of the square h7. Both 13...Rac8 and 13...d5 were more in the spirit of things.
14.g5 Ng8 15.Rf3 Nc6 16.Rg1!
I like the way Tukmakov is bringing all of his pieces into play before going over to direct attack.
16...Nxd4 17.Bxd4 f5?!
In Informant 10 GM Aleksandr Matanovic suggests 17...Bc6!? without further analysis. But as in the game White carries on with 18.Rh3! and it is difficult to see a good defence for Black.
18.Rh3 e5 19.Nd5 Qd8 20.fxe5!
White had to foresee that Black's next move would not get him out of trouble.
20...fxe4
This brings us to the second diagram, the one that is in the puzzle books. It's White to play and win!
21.e6!!
According to the game score as published in Informant 10, Panno saw what was coming and resigned here. It wouldn't surprise me if this were the case, but according to the tournament bulletin some further moves were played:
21...exd3 22.Bxd3 h6
In Informant 10 Matanovic gives 22...Nf6 23.gxf6 Bxf6 24.Rxh7+ Kg8 25.Nxf6 and wins; or 21...Be6 22.Rxh7+ Kxh7 23.Qxe4+ Bf5 24.Qh4+ Nh6 25.Nxe7 and wins. In the Encyclopaedia of Chess Middlegames, 21...Be6 is refuted more simply by 22.Bxg7+ Kxg7 23.Qd4+, when Black must interpose his rook to avoid mate. That costs him his queen after 23...Rf6 24.gxf6+.
23.gxh6 Nxh6
Or 23...Nf6 24.hxg7+ Kg8 25.Rh8 mate.
24.Rxh6+ Kg8 25.Rxg7 mate 1-0

Deflection

2007-09-24T23:56:00.001-07:00

Many years ago I reached this position as Black against a young expert. I had just managed to trade off two of my opponent's active pieces, which was helpful because sometime earlier I had played the mysterious weakening move ...g7-g6, leaving my king in a very draughty position. But now I was the one with the active pieces.

Naturally enough I was starting to think about how to get something going against his king. Queen to the long diagonal looks crunchy, but there is the small problem of his queen and knight controlling key squares. Deflect his queen perhaps? How about taking the rook pawn with my rook? Queen takes rook is met by queen to c6 check – a killer. But he can take with his rook. I get a couple of checks with my queen and knight, but what then? Suddenly it all became clear:

1...Rxa3!!

My opponent gave a small gasp of surprise, then put his head in his hands and began to stare intently at the position. I didn't feel like staying at the board, so I got up and wandered around the tournament hall, leaving him to think it over. Five minutes went by, then ten, then fifteen. Finally after twenty minutes my opponent turned and looked at me across the hall and smiled. Then he reached over and stopped the clocks.

Because 2.Qxa3 Qc6+ loses immediately, White must play 2.Rxa3. But then comes 2...Qc1+ 3.Kg2 Qg1+ 4.Kf3 Nd4+ and if 5.Kf4 then 5...g5 is mate. Instead of 5.Kf4 White must play 5.Qxd4, but after 5...Qxd4 Black faces only a technical task in order to notch the point.

In our next encounter my young opponent won a pawn with forceful play and then ground me down in a long bishop ending.

Black to play and... lose

2007-09-21T19:55:00.001-07:00

This rook ending arose in the game Wolff – Fishbein, USA Jr. Ch. 1988 and was analysed by Fishbein in Informant 47. Black will soon have to surrender his rook for White's advanced pawn, and his drawing chances will turn on whether he can promote his own pawn safely. Because it is still on its home square and White's pieces are not too far away, indications are that the race will be a close one. In the game Fishbein managed to achieve the draw as follows:

1...Kg5
Unavailing is 1...Rc1+ 2.Kd8 Kg5 3.Ra5+ Kg4 4.Rd5! (making it more difficult for Black to control the queening square) 4...Ra1 5.Ke7 Ra8 6.d8Q+ Rxd8 7.Rxd8 h5 8.Kf6 h4 9.Rd4+ Kg3 10.Kg5 h3 11.Rd3+ Kg2 12.Kg4 h2 13.Rd2+ Kg1 14.Kg3 h1N+ (or 14...h1Q 15.Rd1 mate) 15.Kf3 and wins.
2.d8Q+ Rxd8 3.Kxd8 h5 4.Ke7 h4!
Of course not 4...Kg4? 5.Kf6! h4 6.Ra4+ and White wins as in the previous note. In these positions the technique of “shouldering off” the opposing king always plays an important role.
5.Ke6 h3 6.Ke5 Kg4 7.Ke4 h2 8.Rh7 Kg3 9.Ke3 Kg2 10.Rxh2+ 1/2-1/2

Based on this rather straightforward result, the diagrammed position is labeled by Informant 47 as “Black to play and draw.” But it turns out there is a large and surprising improvement for White:

1...Kg5 2.Ra1!!
Black must of course avoid the capture, but the result is that White's rook gains crucial checking distance against Black's king.
2...Rd2 3.Rg1+! Kf5 4.Rh1! Kg6 5.d8Q
After some accurate play to restrain Black's king, White now cashes in his pawn for Black's rook. Meanwhile Black's pawn has still not moved.
5...Rxd8 6.Kxd8 h5 7.Ke7 Kg5 8.Ke6
White is obviously somewhat ahead of the game Wolff-Fishbein, and the difference is enough for a decisive result. Here is one possible conclusion:
8...h4 9.Ke5 Kg4 10.Ke4 Kg3 11.Ke3 h3 12.Rg1+ Kh2 13.Rg8! Kh1 14.Kf3 h2 15.Rb8 Kg1 16.Rb1 mate.

As they say, it just ain't over till it's over!

Queen sacrifice

2007-09-15T22:38:00.000-07:00

In his heyday Mikhail Tal used to watch the televised chess lessons that were aimed at beginning players. The World Champion declared in an interview that it can never do any harm to review the fundamentals of chess strategy and tactics, no matter what a player's ranking may be. Given his outstanding accomplishments it is hard to argue with this claim.

A couple of weeks ago I went back and started working through Fred Reinfeld's two-volume set of combinations and mating attacks. I honestly can't remember looking at these books anytime since my days as an A-class player. But I well remember the important role they played in helping me break the 2000 barrier.

The first chapter of 1001 Brilliant Ways to Checkmate is completely given over to queen sacrifices. Having solved perhaps 200 of these mating combinations over a period of several days, I decided to take a break and play a few games of online blitz. In one of those games... you guessed it: I managed to force mate by sacrificing my queen.

I am playing White in the first diagrammed position. My kingside pressure has already induced my opponent to sacrifice a piece. However, his remaining forces are quite active and on top of that my king is rather exposed. I have to play aggressively without being too reckless.

1.Bf4! Qa5+
White was threatening to increase the pressure with 2.Qh2! since whenever Black takes on f4 the immediate result is mate on h8. The queen check is designed to break the pin and here the most accurate reply is undoubtedly 2.Ke2! intending 3.Rag1. But I saw an opportunity to set up a mating combination and couldn't resist it...
2.Bd2 Qb6 3.Bc3!? Qe3+
The best defence is the prosaic 3...Bxc3 4.Nxc3 Qd4 but since Black has only one pawn for the knight this cannot promise any happiness.
4.Kf1 Qf3+ 5.Kg1 Qe3+ 6.Kg2
Here too Black can exchange bishops and then queens but as before the endgame is hopeless. Whether by design or oversight Black decides to continue his “attack” with:
6...Rxd3? (second diagram)

Now it's White to play and win!
7.Qh8+! Bxh8 8.Rxh8 mate!

A satisfying combination but one likely to be realised only in a blitz game.

Jekyll and Hyde 2

2007-09-14T21:48:00.000-07:00

Here we go again with a pair books by the same author -- Ukrainian GM Valeri Beim -- with cover art of two quite contrasting standards.

The cover of the first book reminds me of a few experiences from my teenage years. It seems my mother did not share my passion for chess because she wasn't always diligent about putting my board and pieces away before using the kitchen table for other purposes. Needless to say, I soon learned to take better care of my things!

By contrast the cover of the second book is a model of effective design. Paul Morphy's pieces are of a modern Staunton pattern, while those of his opponent Louis Paulsen are of a nineteenth-century pre-Staunton pattern. What better way to graphically depict the "modern perspective" on Morphy?

Recommended reading: Ogilvy on Advertising, by David Ogilvy (Random House 1985).

Endgame study

2007-09-13T22:55:00.000-07:00

The importance of studying the endgame was underlined once again by the outcome of a recent blitz game of mine.

I am White in the diagrammed position and it is Black to play. My opponent saw that he could not go forward without moving his knight and surrendering his last pawn in the process. So he offered me a draw, and of course I accepted it immediately.

This outcome seems reasonable because in the overwhelming majority of cases the ending of knight vs pawn is a trivial draw. But a little analysis shows this particular case to be an exception. Let's have a look:

1...Kd7! 2.Ka8 Nd6!
The idea Black had missed. He can sacrifice his last pawn because despite the greatly reduced material White's king is caught in a mating attack.
3.Kxa7 Kc7 4.Ka8 Nc8!
Forcing White's reply.
5.a7 Nb6 mate!

On his third move White can avoid capturing the pawn but it makes no difference:
3.Kb8 Kd8 4.Ka8 Kc7 5.Kxa7
Now this is forced.
5...Nb5+ 6.Ka8 Kc8 7.a7
Unfortunately this too is forced.
7...Nc7 mate!

You all know the moral of the story so I won't bother repeating it.

Jekyll and Hyde

2007-08-30T21:57:00.000-07:00

When it comes to chess book sales, cover art probably has little or no influence on the buying decisions of serious players.

Otherwise, how can the same talented writer -- IM Jeremy Silman -- be associated with two books whose design standards are so far apart?

According to Amazon.com, the cluttered and confusing How to Reassess Your Chess has a sales ranking of #81, 403; while the sleek and stylish The Amateur's Mind is far behind at #162, 111.

But then, successful chess players know that to understand the game properly one must look below the surface.

Attention please

2007-08-11T21:27:00.000-07:00

I was up early this morning for some online blitz chess and one of my games arrived at the position in the first diagram with my Black opponent to play his 14th move. As you might guess this is a ...Nf6 Caro-Kann that has gone somewhat badly for White. I had been expecting to get mated in short order but when my opponent did not find a way forward I was suddenly able to turn things around:

14...exd4 15.Nxd4 Bxe2 16.Rxe2!
At first glance 16.Nxe2 looks safer but Black has 16...Nc5 after which White is struggling to stay afloat; for example, 17.Qc2 Qf3+ 18.Kg1 Nd3 and now 19.Rf1 loses to 19...Nb4.
16...Bc5 17.Qf3!
The defender's tactical operations must always be accurate. Here White is able to protect his rook and simultaneously attack Black's queen. This allows him to meet 17...Qxf3 with 18.Nxf3, getting his knight off prise. But Black can make a counter-threat of his own.
17...Qh3
Threatening mate in one and renewing the attack on the knight.
18.Be3!
White has survived the first wave of the assault but he must stay alert because h2 is a natural target for a mating attack.
18...Rg6?

Due to inertia Black continues to make attacking moves but it was already time to think about consolidation with 18...Kb8. After 18...Rg6 we have arrived at the second diagram, a position where White's pieces have stumbled onto good squares...
19.Nxc6!
A somewhat fortuitous tactical resource but perhaps a thematic one after all. Black's king is also vulnerable!
19...Bxe3
If 19...bxc6 20.Qxc6+ Kb8 21.Bf4+ Ne5 22.Bxe5+ fxe5 23.Qxc5 Rh6 24.f3 and White must be winning easily.
20.Ne7+
Also possible was 20.Nxd8.
20...Kb8 21.Nxg6 hxg6 22.Qxe3 Rh8 23.f4
White has now consolidated his advantage. Black's position is pretty well hopeless and he was forced to resign a few moves later.

Frank Marshall once wrote that attention is more important than concentration in chess. The course of this game helped me understand what he meant.

Imagination

2007-08-07T08:44:00.000-07:00

I don't usually pay any attention to chess problems – those fantastic positions that could never occur in a real game where White's key move leads to a forced mate in all variations. But when this one was set up last week at the local chess cafe, a number of strong players (2200+) tackled it for an hour or so and finally gave up.

Have a go yourself – it's White to play and mate in four moves. And don't expect any help from Rybka or Fritz. They cheerily announce mate in five but that's not the same thing, is it?

Solution in a few days.

UPDATE: 1.Ba6! e4 2.Bc8 e5 3.Qxd7 Kxg2 4.Qxh3 mate!

Pressure play

2007-07-25T22:50:00.000-07:00

There are certain players who seem to possess an innate ability to spot the key vulnerabilities in the opponent's position and then find the precise moves to apply pressure. This is a valuable ability to have and a difficult one to oppose in practice. If I had to name the single greatest talent in this regard it would be Bobby Fischer.

The other day I was studying a game played at age 15 by the Ukrainian GM Sergey Karjakin. In a position that was hardly out of the opening Karjakin found a very simple and powerful strategic idea.

The diagrammed position arose in the game Karjakin – Bricard, France 2005, after Black's 11th move. The experienced player will recognise this as a line of the Modern Defence featuring the exchanging manoeuvre ...Bg4xf3. White has more space and better development but it is not clear what plan he should adopt. The advance 12.e5 is met by 12...dxe5 13.fxe5 Nxe5, 12.d5 compels White to reckon with 12...Bxc3, and the alternative 12.f5 appears unpromising because a later fxg6 can be met by ...hxg6 and pressure down the h-file. Nevertheless there is a way forward and Karjakin finds it.
12.f5!
White's pawn goes to f5 for two reasons: to prevent Black from starting a blockade with ...f5 and to add pressure to the central light squares that will be augmented by White's unopposed bishop on f1.
12...c5?
According to Karjakin, Black should have continued to develop with 12...Ngf6. Opening the position is not a good idea but Black was no doubt intent on extending the range of his fianchettoed bishop.
13.dxc5 Nxc5 14.Bd4!
Neutralising Black's most dangerous piece whether it is exchanged or not.
14...Nf6
Black loses at least a pawn after 14...Bxd4 15.Qxd4 Nf6 16.b4 Qb6 17.e5!
15.a3!
This forces Black to reckon with the double attack b2-b4 at almost every move.
15...a6 16.Bc4!
The traditional weakness of f7 is exacerbated by the departure of Black's king and the disappearance of his light-squared bishop, and by White's strategic advance 12.f5!
16...e6 17.Qg5!
A fourth successive hammer move against the weaknesses in Black's position.
17...Ncd7
No better is 17...h6 18.Qe3 e5 19.Bxc5 Qxc5 20.Qxc5 dxc5 21.Rxd8+ Rxd8 22.Bxf7 g5 23.h4 Nh7 24.Bg6 and White wins.
18.fxe6 Qxg5 19.Rxg5 fxe6 20.Bxe6
As Roman Dzindzichashvili likes to say, White now has the pawn and the compensation. Black resigned on move 37.

Critical moment

2007-07-21T10:15:00.000-07:00

There was a sharp finish to the game Rublevsky-Bologan from the 2005 Russian Team Championship. In the diagrammed position it is White to play his 30th move. He is on the verge of recovering an earlier pawn sacrifice and his pieces seem to be more active. As always I recommend that you take a few minutes to study the position and try to work out how the game should continue. There are two initial candidate moves:

A. 30.Nxe4? This loses quickly after 30...Bxe4 31.fxe4 Qc5+! (driving the king to the corner) 32.Kh1 Qxd6! and White cannot recapture because of the mating move ...Rf1.

B. 30.fxe4 As played by Rublevsky. Bologan had a strong reply ready in 30...Qc5+ 31.Kh1 Bg4! Now 32.Nf3 is forced because the attacked rook is chained to its post by the threats against d6 and f1. Black continued the attack with 32...Qf2 33.R6d2 (better was 33.R6d3 but Black is in command after 33...Rc2 34.Rg1 h6) and now there is a forced win: 33...Rxf3! 34.Qxf3 (if 34.Rxf2 Rxb3 35.Rc2 Rf8 and Black is a piece up) 34...Qxd2! 35.Qxg4 (or 35.Rxd2 Rc1+ 36.Rd1 Rxd1+ 37.Qxd1 Bxd1 and wins easily) 35...Rc1! Black's rook attacks and defends at the same time. Rublevsky could not prevent mate or loss of material and he therefore resigned.

Thus in the diagrammed position White cannot immediately recapture on e4. Because of the latent mate threats he must provide a flight square for his king. This can be accomplished with a scrappy move that is our third candidate:

C. 30.g4!? Now there are two variations:

a) 30...Qc5+ 31.Kh1! Black's position suddenly looks critical because White threatens both 32.gxf5 and 32.Nf7+, and 31...Bg6 fails to 32.Rxg6! hxg6 33.fxe4 followed by 34.Qh3. But Black's advanced pawn comes into play with 31...e3! 32.Nf7+ Rxf7 33.Qxf7 Qxd6! 34.Rxd6 e2! Now White has nothing better than 35.Qxf5, when 35...e1Q+ 36.Kg2 Qe2+ followed by ...Rg8 defends successfully for Black.

b) 30...Qe7 31.Qe3 Bg6 and now 32.Rd7 (instead of 32.fxe4 Rcd8 as given by Bologan) 32...Qe8 33.Nxe4 with a position that can only be assessed as equal.

In my opinion Rublevsky's loss can be explained by psychological factors. He had enjoyed some initiative in the play leading up to the diagrammed position but then failed to notice a critical moment when it was time to think about defence for a move or two.

Return of the king

2007-07-04T21:00:00.000-07:00

Anatoly Karpov's recent appearance in the Valjevo grandmaster tournament was a welcome event for those who remember the crystal-clear playing style that characterised his world championship years. He has not competed in many events lately but if there is anyone entitled to rest on his laurels it is surely Karpov.

As it turned out he came close – very close – to winning the Valjevo tournament. A late defeat by the Israeli grandmaster Michael Roiz dropped him out of the running but he regrouped and managed to take third prize.

Karpov's win over the Serbian grandmaster Mihajlo Stojanovic was especially powerful and will no doubt receive wide coverage in the chess media. Today I will offer my impressions of this game.

A.Karpov – M.Stojanovic
Valjevo 2007

1.e4!
This was always Karpov's first move but in the early 1980s he made the big switch to 1.d4 in anticipation of his lengthy rivalry with Garry Kasparov.
1...e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3
Of course in the 1970s Karpov made his living with 3.Nd2.
3...dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bd7
A popular but rather simplistic attempt to equalise the chances through exchanging Black's problem bishop. According to my database this system (if one may call it that) scores an unspectactular 38% above the master level. On the other hand I can imagine some grandmasters dedicating time to Black's cause and finding ways to keep White's initial advantage within manageable limits.
5.Nf3 Bc6 6.Bd3 Nd7 7.0–0 Ngf6 8.Ng3!
I like this move, which avoids exchanges for the time being. Black could have played 7...Bxe4 8.Bxe4 c6 but after 9.c4!? Ngf6 10.Bc2 White has taken control of key central squares and retained the bishop pair.
8...Be7 9.Re1 0–0 10.Qe2 b6!? (first diagram)
Preparing to drop the bishop back to b7 and follow up with the space-gaining move ...c7-c5.
11.Ba6!?
A remarkable concept, playing to exchange light-squared bishops. This idea surprised me at first since the bishop on d3 seems to be gazing expectantly toward Black's kingside. But as soon as Black plays ...g7-g6 the bishop's range will be blunted and therefore White should keep an open mind.
11...Rb8 12.c4 Bb7
The game continuation suggests that 12...Ba8 was more circumspect. After the exchange of bishops two defects appear in Black's position: the hole on c6 and the awkward position of his rook.
13.Bxb7 Rxb7 14.Ne5 Qc8
If 14...Nxe5 15.dxe5 Nd7 16.Rd1 and Black has a very passive position with few opportunities for counterplay.
15.Nc6! Re8 16.Bg5 Bf8
Black seems to have avoided further concessions but Karpov is ready with another surprising idea.
17.Bxf6! Nxf6 18.Nh5!
Black's queenside pieces are awkwardly placed for defensive purposes so it makes sense to exchange the kingside defenders.
18...Nd7?
18...Nxh5 19.Qxh5 certainly looked dangerous but Karpov soon demonstrates that Black's move is worse... much worse...
19.Qg4 Kh8 20.Re3 Nb8 (second diagram)
In offering the exchange of knights Black was no doubt expecting the variation 21.Ne5 c5! when he is clearly back in the game.
21.Rg3!!
It is said that in his heyday Karpov used to solve ten combination puzzles every morning before breakfast. If that is true the regime has certainly done him no harm!
21...f5
There were three other defensive tries:
A. 21...e5 22.Qxc8 Rxc8 23.Nxe5 and White is simply a pawn up;
B. 21...g6 22.Nf6 Nxc6 23.Rh3 h6 24.Qg5! and White wins;
C. 21...Nxc6 22.Nxg7 Ne7 23.Nxe8 Qxe8 24.Qf3! and Black has nothing better than 24...Nf5 leaving White the exchange ahead with an easy win.
22.Qh4 Nxc6
Capitulation, but if 22...Qd7 23.Ne5 Qe7 then 24.Ng6+! hxg6 25.Nf6 mate.
23.Nf6! h6 24.Qxh6+! gxh6 25.Rg8 mate 1–0

The final combination is of course nice and thematic but far more impressive was the play leading up to it.

I sincerely hope that Karpov's participation in the Valjevo tournament signals his return to active play because I suspect he has many more beautiful games to give to the chess world!

Find the continuation 2

2007-06-17T13:20:00.000-07:00

This position from the match game Chistiakov-Goldin, Moscow 1967 appeared in the Encyclopaedia of Chess Middlegames: Combinations (1980) under the section Annihilation of Defence. The stipulation is White to play and win.

Because the lone defender of f7 is under attack, the most natural try is 1.Rxd5. This is in fact what Chistiakov played and after 1...cxd5 2.Qxf7+ Kh8 3.Qxd5 Black defended against the threatened attack 4.Nf7+ Kg8 5.Nh6+ Kh8 6.Qg8+! Rxg8 7.Nf7# with 3...Re7. The continuation was 4.Be3 Bxe3 5.Rxe3 and after 5...Rd8 White concluded matters with 6.Ng6+! 1-0 Black had to resign because 6...Qxg6 7.Qxd8+ mates quickly while 6...hxg6 7.Rh4# mates immediately.

Could Black have defended himself more accurately? Yes, and there were three separate opportunities to do so:

A. Instead of 5...Rd8?, Black had to try 5...Qf6. After this White has two pawns and a strongly-placed knight against Black's rook but there is still a lot of play left and anything could happen.

B. Instead of 3...Re7?, Black could have turned the tables completely with 3...Bxf2+! White's moves are practically forced: 4.Kf1 Rf8 5.Re2 Rad8 6.Nd7 Qa6! 7.Qd6 Bb6! After this clever manoeuvre White is completely tied up and has nothing better than giving up his queen for two rooks with 8.Qxf8+ Rxf8 9.Nxf8. Then comes 9...Qxa2 and Black is winning without too much difficulty.

C. Instead of 1...cxd5?! Black could have played the immediate 1...Bxf2+, for example: 2.Kf1 cxd5 3.Qxf7+ Kh8 4.Bh6 (practically forced) 4...gxh6 5.Qxf2 Rf8 6.Nf3 Qxf2+ 7.Kxf2. White is down the exchange and faces a difficult defensive task.

A database search reveals that the diagram position did occur in the actual game. Instead of 1.Rxd5? White's strongest move is 1.Qc2, after which the chances or more or less even.

Blitz analysis

2007-06-11T22:15:00.000-07:00

The Soviet IM Rashid Nezhmetdinov once wrote that analysing blitz games is "stupid." Assuming, of course, that one can even remember them accurately.

The charge of stupidity may have been true back in Super Nezh's day but the internet has changed everything. Today's avid player can retrieve a complete score of every game he has played online, whether at slow, blitz, or bullet time controls. And many a nagging question can be answered by plugging the moves into Fritz or one of its cousins and pushing a button.

I have to confess that today I gave the top-rated engine Rybka a position from one of my internet blitz games and asked it to show me the mate that I knew must be there but could not find in the 36 seconds I had left on my clock.

I have White in the first diagram and it is my move. Many players will recognise this as a position from the Sicilian Dragon and the more experienced will see that White has good attacking chances. In the game I started off well enough but ran short of time and had to take a draw...

1.Rg5 Qb4 2.Rxh5! Rxc3 3.Qh6+ Kf6 (second diagram)

4.e5+!

With time running down I decided to repeat moves with 4.Qg5+ and 5.Qh6+. Believe it or not, the far-sighted point behind Rybka's move is the opening of the d-file for White's rook.

4...dxe5 5.Rf5+! Bxf5 6.Qg5+ Kg7

Black's last few moves have all been forced.

7.Nxf5+ Kg8

Other moves are no better: 7...Kh7 or 7...Kh8 allow 8.Qh6+ and mates, while 7...Kf8 runs into 8.Qh6+ Ke8 9.Qh8# -- thanks to the rook on d1!

8.Qh6! gxf5 9.Rg1+ Qg4 10.fxg4

and White wins easily.

Did I learn something from this analysis? It feels like I did, if only because playing the Sicilian Dragon demands a good sense of White's attacking resources. On the other hand I'm quite certain that I would have found the winning line in a tournament game, so from that perspective the instructive value is rather diminished.

I have to conclude that the only way to find out if analysing blitz games is instructive is to try it and see what happens.

Prolixity

2007-06-09T21:51:00.000-07:00

In his book of the London 1851 International Tournament, which of course was a knockout event, Howard Staunton had this to say about the second-round combatants Elijah Williams and James Mucklow:

"In some respects these players were well paired, not for equality of force, indeed, Mr Williams being by far the stronger, but because each, in his degree, exhibits the same want of depth and inventive power in his combinations, and the same tiresome prolixity in manoeuvring his men. It need hardly be said that the games, from first to last, are remarkable only for their unvarying and unexampled dullness."

A typically biting assessment from the self-styled leader of English chess, but is it an accurate one? I think not. Have a look at the fourth match game:

Mucklow,J - Williams,E [C02]

London knockout London (2.4), 1851

1.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Bb5 Qb6 6.Bxc6+ bxc6 7.0-0 cxd4 8.Nxd4 c5 9.Nb3 f6 10.Re1 f5 11.a4 a5 12.c3 Rb8 13.N3d2 Nh6 14.h3 Nf7 15.Nf3 Be7 16.Na3 Bd7 17.Nc2
(diagram)
17...g5 18.Ne3 h5 19.Kf1 g4 20.hxg4 hxg4 21.Ng1 Bc8 22.g3 Ba6+ 23.Kg2 d4 24.cxd4 cxd4 25.Nc2 d3 26.Ne3 Qc6+ 27.f3 Nxe5 28.Nxf5 Nxf3 29.Nxf3 gxf3+ 0-1

I think any modern master would have been quite satisfied with Black's play in this game.

Staunton's disdain toward Williams is perhaps best explained by the final tournament standings: 1. Adolf Anderssen 2. Marmaduke Wyvill 3. Elijah Williams 4. Howard Staunton.

A Janowski trap

2007-05-27T14:15:00.000-07:00

The diagrammed position may look fairly modern but is taken from an old game between David Janowski and Ignatz Von Popiel, played in the last round of the Deutsche Schachbund congress at Hannover in 1902. It is White to play.

There are many situations in chess where the player on move has a positional advantage as well as an opportunity to start a tactical sequence. There is a temptation to think that such tactical sequences must end favourably for the player who starts with the advantage. This is not always true, the Janowski-Von Popiel game being a case in point.

As a confirmed representative of the combinative school, David Janowski decides it is time for White's centralised army to exploit Black's inferior development. His chosen method contains a very deep tactical point, but some analysis reveals that Black could have defended himself.

1.e5!? dxe5 2.Bxe5 Qb7 3.Bxf6!?
Janowski was fond of the two bishops, but also knew when to give one of them up.
3...Bxf3?
Von Popiel falls into Janowski's far-sighted combinative trap. Correct was 3...Bxf6! 4.Nd5 Kg7! White gains little from exchanging on f6, so the conclusion is that Black has managed to equalise.
6.Bxg7! Bxd1
There is no turning back. If 6...Kxg7 7.gxf3 and White is a piece up.
7.Bh6 Bxc2?!
Black had to acquiesce to the loss of material. After 7...e5 8.Rxd1 he will continue to suffer, but after his bishop move things end very quickly.
8.Qe5!
A very nice concluding blow, which threatens mate on the move. The only defence is 8...f6 but it costs Black his queen after 9.Qe6+ Kh8 10.Qf7 Rg8 11.Rxe7 Qxe7 12.Qxe7. Von Popiel resigned after 8.Qe5 and thus Janowski won the tournament.

Find the continuation 1

2007-05-25T17:35:00.000-07:00

I recently took some good advice that I believe originated with the well-known trainer Dan Heisman and started a database of interesting positions from my own games. Normally these would stay private but in the wonderful 21st century world of blogging it has become acceptable to make private things public!

The diagram position arose in an online blitz game. It is Black to play and win. As always I would encourage you spend a few minutes deciding what you would do before looking at the solution.

Black has a multi-stage combination that wins a piece:
1...Na5 2.Na4 Qd6! 3.Qc2 Nxc4 4.Qxc4 b5! 5.Qxb5 Bd7!
White's queen must now abandon the knight on a4. He can try a desperate attack..
6.Qh5 Bxa4 7.Ng5 Bxd1
White has a few checks but nothing to compensate for the missing rook.

I was Black in this game. Unfortunately I missed the combination and went on to lose through hanging my queen.

Golubev corrected

2007-05-23T21:53:00.000-07:00

The extremely sharp Dragon Sicilian position shown in the first diagram arose in the game Palac-Lalic, Pula (Croatian Team Ch.) 2000. It is White to move. Both sides appear to be attacking, and it is not easy to say whose chances are better. The immediate question is whether the knight on c3 must be defended. More precisely, can White ignore it and play 1.Bxh6 right away?

In the game, Palac went for safety with 1.Rd3?! This could and should have allowed Black to barnacle with 1...g5!, but Lalic instead played the mistaken 1...h5? After 2.gxh5 Nxh5 3.Qg2! Black's draughty king position gave White a strong initiative and his attack eventually prevailed.

Some time later this game came under the scrutiny of the noted Dragon theorist Mikhail Golubev, a grandmaster from the Ukraine. He recommended the following continuation of White's attack: 1.Bxh6! Rxc3 2.Bxg7 Kxg7 3.Qh6+ Kf7 4.g5 Ne8 5.Rh4! e5 6.Qh7+ Kf8 7.Rdh1! Here Golubev writes that Black is helpless against the threatened 8.Qxg6 exd4 9.Rh8+ Ke7 10.Rxe8+ and his analysis ends here.

After 7.Rdh1 Black cannot play 7...exd4 because of 8.Rf4+ and wins, so he must find a different move. If we give him the superfluous 7...a5, Golubev's line can be continued as follows: 10...Bxe8 11.Rh7+ Kd8 12.Qxd6+ Kc8 13.Qe6+ Kd8 14.Rxb7 Rxb7 15.Qf6+ Kc8 16.g6! Here the legendary Mikhail Tal would certainly adjudge this as winning for White, and very few would disagree with him.

In passing let us observe that instead of 6...Kf8 Black cannot block the queen check with 6...Ng7 on account of 7.Rh6! Rg8 8.Qxg6+ Ke7 9.Qxd6+ Kd8 10.Qxe5 and with four pawns and a raging attack for the piece White must be easily winning. This idea will resurface in a later note.

Of course there must be something stronger for Black than the superfluous 7...a5. At the very least one could look at 7...Qc7, which gives White almost the same variation with the key difference that the pawn on d6 is now defended. Now After 8.Qxg6 exd4 9.Rh8+ Ke7 10.Rxe8+ Bxe8 11.Rh7+ Kd8 12.Rxb7 Kxb7 13.g6 Black can give back a piece with 13...Bxg6 and fight on with two rooks against White's queen. Whether he would be successful is another matter, but the point is that this is not clearly a forced win for White.

Let us peel back to the position after 4...Ne8 (second diagram) and make White play 5.Qh7+! instead of 5.Rh4. With the square e7 still blocked by his pawn, Black cannot play 5...Kf8 since 6.Qh8+ followed by 7.Rg7+ delivers a quick mate, so Black must reply to 5.Qh7+ with 5...Ng7. Unfortunately this allows White to switch back to the variation analysed above with 6.Rh4! e5 7.Rh6! As before Black has nothing better than 7...Rg8 8.Qxg6+ Ke7 9.Qxd6+ Kd8 10.Qxe5 and a win for White is just a matter of time.

Varying the order of one's moves and gauging the effect is an important part of attacking technique. I wish I could learn to do this properly during actual play!

Power play

2007-05-13T22:36:00.000-07:00

I was very impressed by the energetic play of GM Alexander Moiseenko in his game with GM Adam Horvath from the 2005 Saint-Vincent Open. Moiseenko got things going with a strong opening novelty, moved into gambit mode by sacrificing material for a lasting initiative, and then finished off his opponent with some nice tactical play.

1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nc3 dxc4 4.d5 Ne5 5.f4 Ng4
This is a very sharp line of Chigorin's Defence. Black must be well-prepared in order to survive.
6.e4 e5 7.Nf3 Bc5 (first diagram)

8.Bxc4!
Here is Moiseenko's novelty, in place of the more usual 8.Qa4+. It looks like a mistake at first glance but things turn out otherwise.
8...Qe7
If 8...Nf2 9.Qb3 Nf6 10.Rf1 N6xe4 11.Ng5! and now 11...Nxc3 12.bxc3 0-0 13.Rxf2 h6 14.Nf3 Bxf2+ 15.Kxf2 e4 16.Ne5 Qh4+ 17.Kg1 Qe1+ 18.Bf1 leaves White on top.
9.Nxe5 Nxe5
After 9...N8f6 10.Bb5+ Kf8 11.Qf3 Nxe5 12.fxe5 Qxe5 would transpose to the game but instead of 11...Nxe5 Black might consider 11...Bd4!? with interesting play.
10.fxe5 Qxe5 11.Bb5+ Kf8 12.Qf3 Nf6 13.Bf4 Qd4 14.h3 Bd7
If 14...Bb4 15.Bd3 Bxc3+ 16.bxc3 Qxc3+ 17.Kf2 and White has excellent compensation for the sacrificed material.
15.Bd3 Bb4 16.a3
Perhaps 16.Be3 Qe5 17.0-0 Bd6 18.Ne2 was stronger.
16...Bxc3+ 17.bxc3 Qxc3+ 18.Kf2 (second diagram)

18...Re8
I like 18...Qd4+ 19.Qe3 (if 19.Kg3 Nh5+ 20.Qxh5 Qxd3+ 21.Kh2 Qxe4 22.Bxc7 Qf5! and it is hard to imagine White eking out any winning chances) 19...Qxe3+ 20.Kxe3 Re8 21.Kf3 c6 22.d6 c5 23.Rac1 b6 24.Rhe1 h5! when it is still anyone's game.
19.Rhe1 c6 20.Kf1 h6 21.Bd6+ Kg8 22.Rab1 Bc8 23.Rbc1 Qd4 24.Bc5 Qe5 25.Bxa7 Bd7 26.Bf2 cxd5 27.exd5 Qxd5 (third diagram)
Over the preceding moves Black has not managed to neutralise White's pressure and the awkward position of his king is now a decisive factor. It's White to play and win by force!
28.Rxe8+ Bxe8 29.Qxd5 Nxd5 30.Rc8 Nf6 31.Bd4 Kf8 32.Bc5+ Kg8 33.Be7
The culmination of White's forced manoeuvre. Black must lose a piece and so he resigned here.
1-0

Exploiting advantages

2007-05-12T22:42:00.000-07:00

Here is a position from a recent game of mine. A comparison of space, king safety and mobility suggests that Black is on the defensive, but White must still find a way forward. In this context the bishops of opposite colour are a feature of interest. White's bishop is temporarily restricting Black's knight, while White's knight stands ready to block the long diagonal in anticipation of the manoeuvre ...b6-b5-b4 with an attack against c3. Tripling the heavy artillery on the h-file with the idea of Rh8+ followed by Qxh8# is perhaps White's most obvious plan. If Black does nothing significant over the next few moves his position will become critical.

23.Ne5 Nd7
Black's knight is not doing much so exchanging it for White's more active knight is a natural idea.
24.Ng4!
White gets nowhere after 25.Ba4 Nxe5! 26.fxe5 (if 26.Bxe8 Nc4! 27.Bxf7+ Kxf7 and Black is better) 26...Rb8 with adequate counterplay for Black. With the text move White avoids the exchange and creates an opportunity to play either Nh6+ or Nf6+ as convenient.
24...e5?!
When a wing attack threatens it is often effective to strike a counterblow in the centre. The problem with this pawn lever is that White's is able to keep the centre files closed by simply bypassing the pawn. Much stronger was 24...Qc5 25.Qh3 Kf8 26.Qh7 Qc4, but after 27.Kb1! Qxf4 28.Nh6 Bxh6 29.gxh6 Ke7 30.Bxg6! Nf8 31.Qg7 Nxg6 32.Rhf1! Black must surrender his queen for two pieces in order to stop White's attack.
25.f5! gxf5 26.Bxf5 e4
Also unavailing is 26...Nf8 27.Rdg1 Ng6 28.Qh3! Qxg5+ 29.Ne3! Qf4 30.Bxg6 fxg6 31.Rxg6 with irresistible threats. The text move allows White to win immediately.
27.Rxd7! Rxd7 28.Bxd7 Qxd7 29.Nf6+ Bxf6 30.gxf6
After the exchange of his key defenders Black has no adequate defence against the mating attack with Qe3-h6, and therefore he resigned.

1-0