Positional Decision Making in Chess - Boris Gelfand - Quality Chess - 2015

Positional Decision Making in Chess by

Boris Gelfand with invaluable help from Jacob Aagaard

Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co. uk

First edition 20 1 5 by Quality Chess UK Ltd Copyright © 20 1 5 Boris Gelfand

POSITIONAL DECISION MAKING IN CHESS All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. Paperback ISBN 978- 1 -78483-005-2 Hardcover ISBN 978- 1 -78483-006-9 All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess UK Ltd, Suite 247, Central Chambers, 1 1 Bothwell Street, Glasgow G2 6LY, United Kingdom Phone +44 1 4 1 204 2073 e-mail: [email protected]. uk website: www. qualitychess.co.uk Distributed in North America by National Book Network Distributed in Rest of the World by Quality Chess UK Ltd through Sunrise Handicrafts, ul. Poligonowa 35A, 20-8 1 7 Lublin, Poland Typeset by Jacob Aagaard Proofreading by John Shaw & Andrew Greet Edited by Colin McNab Official FIDE photos by Anastasia Karlovich pages 58, 59, 90, 1 98, 265, 269 Photo page 9 by Nikolaos N tirlis Photos pages 1 1 and 1 1 2 by Valery Levitin Photo page 93 from the Gelfand family album Photo page 9 5 by Shulamit Bushinsky Photo pages 1 35 and 209 by Ariel Van Straten Drawing page 1 34 by Avital Gelfand Cover design by adamsondesign.com Printed in Estonia by Tallinna Raamatutriikikoja LLC

Contents Key to Symbols used Preface Foreword by Jacob Aagaard

1

2

3 4

5

Playing in the Style of Akiba Rubinstein The Squeeze Space Advantage Transformation of Pawn Structures Transformation of Advantages I Cannot Leave My House! Interview with Jacob Aagaard-2012

Name Index Game Index Opening Index

4

5

9 11

59

95 135

209 265

278 282

285

Key to symbols used �

White is slightly better

;

Black is slightly better

± +

White is better

+-+

Black is better White has a decisive advantage Black has a decisive advantage equality

iii

with compensation

�

with counterplay

m

unclear

? ??

a weak move a blunder a good move

!! !? ?!

an excellent move

#

mate

a move worth considering a move of doubtful value

Preface My father was not a chess player himself, but he was sure it was a good idea to teach me chess. Not only because the game was held in high regard in the Soviet Union, but also because he was sure that it develops various skills that could be very useful. Today we have a lot of research that shows that this is indeed the case. He bought Averbakh and Beilin's journey to the Chess Kingdom, which we went through together; a chapter a day. A lot of the other players from my generation, Khalifman, Grischuk, lvanchuk and so on, also read this book early on in their careers. l\scp6ax

UiCR.�Hrr

nyrem CTBHe B max taTHOC KOpon BC fBO

One day when he came home from work, I showed no interest. He was quite puzzled and disappointed by my behaviour. He simply could not understand this shift. Eventually he found out that while he had been at work I had read the book all the way to the end. When I turned six we went on vacation to Crimea, at a lovely seaside resort. At the beach a lot of people used to play chess. I joined in and played a lot of blitz throughout the vacation. Although they were quite experienced players, I still managed to win a few games. One of the players was a friend of my father. He strongly recommended that I should be sent to work with an experienced trainer. This is how my chess career began. My father continued to follow my results and root for me until the end of his life. He kept scrapbooks and built up an extensive library throughout my career.

Position al Decision Making in Chess

6

My father also bought chess books for me. Back then, chess books in the Soviet Union were printed in 50- 1 00,000 copies. Even so, it was not enough to meet the demand. For example, Chess Informant was then printed in 30,000 copies. My father was surprised it was printed in such small numbers. To get my hands on the newest issues I would go to a bookshop that was located just around the corner from where we lived. There I could at times get my hands on books from Eastern Europe, East Germany, Hungary and Yugoslavia. I would work out more of less when the newest issue of Chess Informant would arrive and I knew at what time of the day new books were delivered to the shops. I would then hang around for hours, hoping that this would be the day the new issue would arrive. At that time they had an agreement with a few local chess clubs that they would get a copy for the half a dozen National Masters we had at that time. Otherwise there were only about five copies left for the rest of Minsk! After some years they knew me in the shop and would set aside the latest issue of Chess Informant for me, but only after I had shown my dedication! When I was nine I began a long match with my father, planned to be 30 games. At times he would blunder and I would tell him "Daddy, you are blundering" and would suggest another move he could make. Eventually the match was abandoned after 1 4 games. The following game is of course not a masterpiece seen through the eyes of a grandmaster, but it is still interesting to what extent you can see the style of the grandmaster in the choices of the nine-year-old boy. The two moments I would like you to pay special attention to are moves 1 7 and 24. On move 17 very strong is 1 7.g4!?, preparing 1 8.ll'lfS with a strong attack. But my approach was already then to squeeze my opponent. Probably I would play the same today, only now I would feel less proud about it! On move 24 I exchange the knight on e5 in order to put pressure on the weak d6-pawn. Shortly after this, my father found it hard to withstand the pressure and offered further concessions.

Boris Gelfand -Abram Gelfand Minsk (I O) 1975

l .e4 e5 2.ll'lf3 d6 3.d4 exd4 4.ll'lxd4 �f6 5.tLJc3 !i.e7 6./ic4 0-0 7.0-0 �c6 8 ..ie3 � e5 9 .ib3 h6 10.£4 tLJg6 1 1 .h3 i.d7 1 2.a4 a6 13.�6 c6 14.�g3 i>h7 15.a5 �c7 16.�fl �fab8 •

8

7

6 5

4 3

2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Preface

7

17.� de2 ©g8 18.J.b6 �c8 1 9.�g3 ©h7 20.� d4 �e8 2 1 .©hl J.ds 22.f'5 � e5 23.hds �xd8 8

� ;

7

6 5

4 3

2

1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

24.�f3 �xf3 25J;xf3 �c7 26.gd3 �e8 27.�h4 c5 28.�d5 �d8 29.�g3 gcs 30.� b6 gc6 3I ..id5 gc7 32.gel i.b5 33.c4 i.c6 34 ..ixc6 bxc6 35.e5 �g5 36.�xg5 hxg5 37.exd6 gb7 38.d7 �f6 39.d8=� gxd8 40.gxdS 1-0 Although I was only a small child, the style of play is not so different from today. I showed the game to Vladimir Kramnik and he felt the same way. And when he showed me a game of his from his early childhood, I could also recognize his trademark style in that game.

Hard-to-get books The two most difficult books to get your hands on at that time were My Sixty Memorable Games by Bobby Fischer and 50 Selected Games by Bent Larsen. My father did incredible things in order to acquire these books. First he identified people who had these books. Then he harassed them endlessly to find out what they wanted for them. He managed to exchange his way to 50 Selected Games by providing the owner with a detective story he really wanted. And for My Sixty Memorable Games he paid his way - 25 Roubles. This may not sound of a lot today, but at the time his meagre salary was something like 1 20 Roubles a month. 20% of his monthly income for a chess book!

Rubinstein - by Razuvaev and Murakhveri This book could not have been written without the work of one of the best chess writers, Yuri Razuvaev, and his book on Rubinstein's games, co-authored with Murakhveri. I will write more about this in the next chapter. Jacob and I had a number of conversations about what we wanted to get from our collaboration on this project. I would think like a chess player, eager to show my best games. Jacob would think

8

Positional Decision Making in Chess

like a writer, eager to teach and entertain the reader. As he is leading the pen, his vision will no doubt be the stronger, which is not necessarily a bad thing. There was one thing chat we agreed would make this book more interesting - to reflect on the influence Rubinstein's games have had on my own games. I am not sure the connection will always be as obvious co the reader as it is to me, but I have cried to explain it in the best way possible.

Rubinstein everywhere I am not one of those people who feel a need to pretend chat I am a genius or chat I invented everything on my own. I am proud of my accomplishments and I am proud of my games. The fact chat I had great help and support from a lot of people, such as my father, my trainers Albert Kapengut and Aleksandr Huzman, and most of all from my beautiful wife Maya, is not something I think diminishes my accomplishments; rather I hope chat the fact that these people dear to me have supported me for decades cells something positive about my value as a human being. It is from this viewpoint I write this book. I am past the youthful need to prove co others chat I understand chess, and ready to explain how chess is understood instead. So we have focused on how I chink about chess, in the hope chat it will help aspiring young players to improve, as well as bring joy to chess fans who simply want to enjoy the game more. And the cornerstone of my thought process was laid down by my role model, Akiba Rubinstein. Obviously I always tried to learn from all the great masters, but it was Rubinstein who made the biggest impact on me, closely followed by the games and writing of Efim Geller and Lev Polugaevsky. For this reason we will return to Rubinstein's games - as well as other games that inspired me throughout this book to explain what the reasoning was for my choices when taking the critical decisions. And from there comes the title - Decision Making in Chess.

Judge us on this! Unlike my first book, My Most Memorable Games (Olms 2005) , the intention of this book is not to focus on the accuracy of the moves I made at the board, as shown by subsequent analysis, but on the thought process chat led to me finding chem in the first place. Obviously we have analysed the games and in the process discovered things that made me re-evaluate some games entirely; bur throughout we have focused on the reasons for the decisions and plans I made, and also the limitations of my chinking during the game. I hope the reader will find this approach interesting and that it will help you with your own game. Boris Gelfand Rishon Le Zion, April 20 1 5

Foreword by Jacob Aagaard I am the ghost writer for this book, though the word writer does not fully explain what I have been doing. I have analysed positions, asked questions, recorded che answers, typed in everything and applied my moderate experience with chess writing to improve the structure and order of what had been said. Although this is all work that a writer does, the most important element is missing. The ideas in this book and che reasoning behind them comes from Boris and not me. If you want to know what I think, please buy my books (and I mean that, please buy my books!). I have dreamed about being involved in a project like this for a very long time. As a grandmaster I understand quite a bit of what is happening in top-level games, but obviously my understanding of the game is not at the same level as a World Championship challenger. I have wanted to be able to use my skills as an experienced writer and trainer to ask the right questions and obtain insights from him that you would not get if he was writing the book himself. Actually, it was especially the "obvious" things chat fascinated me about this process. Whenever something was obvious to Boris, I knew that it might not be obvious co many others; and that his explanation would be very instructive.

7he authors in conversation at the Tromso Olympiad in 2014

10

Positional Decision Making i n Chess

This position is the cleanest example.

Boris Gelfand - Daniel Campora Cesme 2004

Boris quickly and confidently made his next few moves, and would not have spent any time explaining chem had I not asked him why he played as he played. The explanation was short, clean and crisp. It was also incredibly illuminating. See more on page 1 1 6. This has been one of the most interesting projects in my career and I want to thank Boris from the bottom of my heart for agreeing to work with me on it. Jacob Aagaard Glasgow, April 20 1 5

Chapter 1 Playing in the Style of Al
1988

12

Position al Decisio n Making in Chess

In the Soviet Union there was a series of books called the "Black Series" with the games of the best players, eventually spanning 32 volumes. When I was nine my father bought the volume on Rubinstein by Razuvaev and Murakhveri (probably Razuvaev did the chess and Murakhveri wrote the biographical parts) . When I came home from school I got so excited by this new book chat I went through it all the way wichour a board. And when I came co the end, I started reading it from the beginning again! I also did this with other books of this series, such as the books about Geller, Fischer and Larsen. Bue the book on Rubinstein made a profound impression on me. As you can see from the game in the Introduction, I was already playing in the style of Akiba without knowing it! Later on I forged a special connection with Yury Razuvaev based on the common love for Rubinstein. We had a lot of conversations about the way Akiba influenced modern chess thinking and opening theory. Whenever I won a game in Rubinstein's style he would call me up and congratulate me! He would call me the "Akiba of our time", which was a most pleasant compliment. Even Game Six against Grischuk in Kazan 20 1 1 (which can be found in a later volume of this series) , he claimed belonged to Rubinstein. Razuvaev said chat I had a gift for spotting thematic ideas and using chem to my advantage. Sadly Razuvaev was already terminally ill at that time. Nevertheless he was able to give me a lot of moral support. I would call him up co see how he was doing and he would refuse co talk about his health, instead focusing on the Candidates, emphasizing chat I had a good chance to win and so on. Razuvaev had a gift of explaining things deeply and at the same time using simple words. He was truly one of the greatest chess writers and thinkers we have ever been blessed with. As a trainer he worked with

many of today's top players, such as Topalov, Tomashevsky, Laucier and former Women's World Champion Alexandra Kosteniuk. Of course we should not forget co mention Razuvaev's main achievement as a coach. I n the 1 970s h e was o n e o f a small group chat helped the young rising star Anatoly Karpov to become World Champion. He was also captain of the gold-medal-winning Russian team in Manila 1 992.

Rubinstein's Great Help Coincidentally I have played some of the best chess in my life in the Rubinstein Memorial. I missed a few opportunities in 1 997 and was second, but won the tournament in 1 998 and 2000. In 1 998 I scored one of my most memorable wins, with the Gelfand-Khalifman Variation against the Griinfeld. The game can be found in my first book My Most Memorable Games, but I do not chink it will scare away potential readers of chat book to give the highlight of the combination; a move I was very proud of finding.

Boris Gelfand -Alexei Shirov Polanica Zdroj 1998

Chapter 1

-

Playing in the Style of Akiba Rubinstein

29.YlYg6 .id7 30 ..ixg7 gxg7 3 1 .YlYd6 ©h7 32.YlYxa3 �c7 33.YlYe3 t!e6 34.d5 �g5 35.f4 �h3t 36.©hl ga2 37.£5 t!g5 38.£6 gg6 39.f7 1-0 Noe only did I play well in these tournaments; more importantly, this invitation came at a time in my career where I had received no invitations for six months and I believed my career to be in ruins. Bue I won this game and another great game, and suddenly I was back. My connection with Akiba is stronger than just this (as if this was not enough) . I played in the Spanish League for four years, and I find it pleasing that the team chat invited me to play in Spain comes from the town where Rubinstein played one of his greatest tournaments in 1 9 1 2, the year in which he won five top tournaments. Moreover, he played one of his greatest games there.

Akiba Rubinstein Carl Schlechter

13

Schlechter was a very strong player, only a draw away from claiming the crown from Lasker in a World Championship match in 1 9 1 0. {It is disputed if he needed to win by two points. My advice is not to trust Wikipedia on this; no one really knows.) It is quite likely chat he was looking to draw this game, as being Black against Rubinstein was quite an uncomfortable task. Little did Schlechter know that this endgame is already quite poor for him. With his next few moves Rubinstein provokes weaknesses in the black position and penetrates it with his rooks. Black never manages to get active and White can steadily exploit his space advantage by squeezing Black on the kingside. The conversion of the advantage is performed with incredible accuracy. We can applaud the programmers who have created our time's strongest engines, chat they are able co find all of Rubinstein's moves and assess chem correctly as being the strongest.

-

San Sebastian 1 912

1.d4 d5 2.�a �f6 3.c4 e6 4.t!c3 c5 5.cx:d5 �xd5 6.e4 t!xc3 7.bxc3 cx:d4 8.cx:d4 .ib4t 9.i.d2 YlYa5 1 0.gbl J.xd2t 1 1 .YlYxd2 YlYxd2t 12.©xd2 0-0

13 ..ib5!! a6 14.J.d3 gd8 1 5.ghcl b5 16J�c7 t!d7 17.©e3 t!f6 IS.ties .id7 8

7

6 5

4 3

2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

19.g4 h6 20.£4 .ie8 2 1 .g5 hxg5 22.fxgS �h7 23.h4 gdc8 24Jlbcl gxc7 25J:!! xc7 gds 26.ga7 f6 27.gxf6 gxf6 28.�g4 i.h5 29.t!h6t ©hs 30 ..ie2 .ie8 3 1 .gxa6 ©g7


14

32.�g4 f5 33Jfa7t @hs 34.� e5 fxe4 8

7

Winning in Rubinstein's Style

6 5

4 3

2 1

. . . a6 move for free or not. There are lots of recent games in my database.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

35.Lb5 �f6 36.Les gxe8 37.@f4 @gs 3s.@gs grs 39.@g6 1-0 1 3 .i.b5!! is one of the greatest moves in chess history. It still has great influence on the way chess is played in the 2 l st century. Take this popular variation of the Griinfeld Defence.

I .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.� c3 d5 4.cxd5 �xd5 5.e4 �xc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7 ..ie3 c5 8.'11N d2 '11N a5 9.�f:3�c6 8

7

6

It is easy to misunderstand this great game by Rubinstein; to write it off as being played against a weaker player, played more than a hundred years ago. But that would also be completely wrong. Schlechter had great defensive abilities and was probably under the impression that he was doing everything j ust fine. Sure, he had a little less space, but he had also managed to exchange the queens and two pairs of minor pieces. All he had to do was to play . . . b6, put the bishop on b7 and the knight on c6; then a bomb exploded on b5 and he never had a chance. When selecting the material for this book we initially did not rate the following game highly. My opponent, Vassily lvanchuk is one of the greatest players of our time, but this was maybe not his best effort. But after looking at the Schlechter game again, I could see a number of similarities. Black emerges a bit slowly out of the opening and after a few impressive moves he is struggling against White's space advantage, with weaknesses and a lack of development as additional problems. lvanchuk makes a few natural moves, does not pay attention to one or two details, and suddenly he cannot save the game.

5

4 3

Boris Gelfand - Vassily lvanchuk

2

Russian Team Championship, Dagomys 2009

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

IOJ%I!? a6 IUkl It is still an active debate to this day whether it is an advantage for White to give Black this

Vassily lvanchuk is an amazing player who can play excellently in all types of positions. He has won so many tournaments and impressive games, but he has the weakness that he plays worse under pressure, which prevented him making the last few steps towards the World

15

Chapter 1 - Playing in the Style of Akiba Rubinstein Championship title. His main successes are in "daily life". I first talked to lvanchuk in 1 983 and we played for the first time in 1 985 in the Soviet under- 1 8 championship. I won the game, somewhere in the middle of the tournament, and managed to keep this advantage to the end. I have over a hundred games against lvanchuk in my database, but I have certainly not entered every game we have played. So including rapid, blindfold and all that stuff, we have played more than that altogether; each of them a world in its own right; always interesting and instructive. lvanchuk has so broad an opening repertoire; he can simply play everything. In the 20 1 3 Candidates tournament he surprised me with the Chigorin Defence, which is not often played in top tournaments. He got a good position, but later got into time trouble and lost. Against me he has played the Dutch, Benko Gambit, Queen's Indian, Slav, Semi-Slav, King's Indian and so on. We have probably played a game in every opening after 1 .d4.

1.�f'3 c5 2.c4 I have played a lot of games with these starting moves against lvanchuk. At times the move order varied a bit, but I think we have had seven games with 1 .ltif3 and 2.c4, with more than half of them around this time. I am not sure if he was using consistency as a surprise weapon against me or if he wanted to prove something. These positions have a lot of finesses and I think our games deepened the theory and the understanding of the move orders quite a bit.

6.� c2 Another game went: 6.ltib3 e6 7 . .ig2 ltie5 8.'Wc2 'Wa6 9.c5 d5 1 0.cxd6 .ixd6 1 1 .0-0 .id7 1 2.ltic3 �k8 1 3.gd l ie7 1 4 .if4i I was a bit better, even though I later lost a long game, Gelfand - lvanchuk, Lvov 2000. 6 ... e6 7 ..ig2 d5 8.cxd5 In another game I tried 8.0-0 ie7 9.cxd5 and here lvanchuk took with the pawn. 9 . . . exd5 1 0.ltic3 0-0! At this point I should probably try 1 1 ..ig5 or 1 1 .ltie3!?, though I doubt whether it is enough for a significant advantage. 11.ltixd5 ltixd5 1 2.'Wxd5 .ie6 1 3.'We4 .if6 Black has great compensation and is nowhere near being worse. Eventually the game was drawn, Gelfand - lvanchuk, Polanica Zdroj 2000. 8 ... �xd5 9.0-0

2... �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.g3 �b6 Here I have gone everywhere with the knight. This time I went to c2 without any great reason. a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

16


9 ....ic5!? This was sort of a novelty. It had been played in a few games between strong amateurs, but I cannot say that I had considered it at all. A bit earlier the same year 9 . . . .ie7 was played (by transposition) in Ivanchuk - Dominguez Perez, Linares 2009. The game developed well for White, although it was eventually drawn. le is not unusual for Ivanchuk to play the same positions from both sides, so it was not a great surprise.

I think Black has a good version of the Tarrasch. The light squares around the white king are undefended and further weaknesses will not be difficult for Black to provoke. White has to seek equality quickly, if it is there at all! 1 O.e4 is of course one of the main challenges to Black's set-up. After I O . . . tll db4 1 1 .tll x b4 .ixb4 1 2.a3 it looks as if White is winning a tempo. Bue Black plays 1 2 . . . .ic5 1 3 .tll c3 .id4. 8

7

Ac this point I spent 24 minutes deciding how I wanted to develop my pieces. I think I found a good idea chat managed to put my opponent under pressure.

6 5

4 3

10.a3! This is quite a subtle move with a number of points to it. IfWhite plays 1 0.tll c3, as Ivanchuk did against Dominguez, Black's bishop is ideally placed on c5 . After 1 0 . . . tll xc3 1 l .bxc3 0-0 White is not able co put early pressure on che black queenside with tll c2-d4. White still has some play to compensate for the weak pawn, but he has no chance of an advantage. Another idea I considered was to play 1 0 . .ixd5 exd5 l 1 .tll c3, but after 1 l . . .d4 1 2.tll a4 Wfb5 1 3.tll x c5 Wfxc5:

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

c

d

e

f

g

h

I could not see how co exploit this tempo gain at all. In this position e2-e4 looks like it has only succeeded in weakening the d4-square. This is the reason I went for 1 0.a3. This time around White has a real threat. He wants to go b2-b4 and e2-e4, pushing back the black pieces. This provoked quite a natural reaction from my opponent.

10 a5 Looking back at this move with not only the hindsight of knowing the course of the game, but also with the knowledge gained by challenging the assumptions we had during the game, this move looks less natural than it did at the time. Rather than looking like an obvious move, fighting for the control of the b4-square, it looks like a move we would make in a blitz game. •••

a

b

Chapter 1

-

If we compare the time spent o n a2-a3 and . . . a7-a5, we can see that White's move has deprived Black of the b4-square, while Black has defended against a threat that did not exist a move ago. In this way we can safely say that the inclusion of these two moves favoured White. Furthermore, as we shall see later on, moving the a-pawn has left the black b-pawn exposed. It is quite likely that it will have to go to b6 in order to let the c8-bishop join the game and here it will be much more exposed than the a7-pawn would have been, had it been the base of the queenside structure. But what about White's threat of gaining space in the centre. Surely this should be respected? During the game I was absolutely certain about this, but a lifetime of analysing my own games has taught me that we should always investigate our assumptions; go deeper and get closer to the truth of the position, which might at times turn out different than we expect it to. As you have probably guessed by now, analysis

shows that Black should seriously consider playing: 1 0 . . . 0-0!?

not so simple. Please forgive me for going into a bit of detail. 1 2.e4! 1 2.i.xd5 l:!d8! ( 1 2 ... exd5?! 1 3.tlJc3 is promising, although Black has some resources there as well) 1 3.tlJc3 i.f6 gives Black reasonable counterplay. 1 2 . . . tlJ f6 1 2 . . . tlJc?!? This move looks a bit strange, but it is more ambitious than retreating to f6. White has to react with great urgency to create problems for his opponent. 1 3 . .le3 ( 1 3.tlJc3 tlJb5 indicates that advancing the pawns on the queenside may have its drawbacks as well. Black is fighting for the d3- and c4-squares indirectly and the d4-square rather directly. To use a common cop-out: more analysis is needed.) 1 3 . . . Wfa6 8

7

6 5

4 3

2

a

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

17


h

This of course allows White to push forward with: 1 1 .b4 ie7 But with the bishop aiming to go to f6 and with . . . a7-a5 hanging in the air, things are

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 4.a4! tlJxb4 1 5 .tlJxb4 i.xb4 1 6.Wfb3 Black will struggle to develop his pieces and the knight is suddenly poorly placed on c7. Maybe he can equalize, but it is not as easy as one might think at first. 1 3.tlJc3 This was what I was looking for. White is pushing his opponent backwards and has more space, but if we look carefully, we can see that Black has a slight lead in development and can use it to throw a knight in the direction of d3 or c4; squares weakened by the combination of fianchettoing the bishop and advancing the b- and e-pawns.

18


Still, analysis suggests chat White can fight for an advantage. 1 3 . . . �d8 1 4.�e2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

1 8.�acl 1 8.exf6 ixf6 1 9.lll e4 ixa l 20.�xa l aS does not look chat dangerous for Black. 1 8 . . . �ac8 l 9.lll e3 lll e8

h

1 4 . . . lll e S!?N 14 . . . lll d4? 1 5 .lll xd4 �xd4 1 6.ib2 gave White a pleasant edge due to his space advantage in Sokolowski - Prokopchuk, corr. 1 980. Black held the game, but I cannot imagine chat he enjoyed the process. l 5 ..if4 lll d3 1 6.eS! Without this Black is not put under pressure. 1 6 . . . lll x f4 1 7.gxf4

b

a

c

d

e

f

h

g

White has accepted some damage to his pawn structure in return for having more space. It could be that White is better, but he would still have to prove it.

1 1 .e4 8

�, �1 ��Ji : �,��-� %��-r-�� r� %�%W(:�� ltJ�lW�

li J --�:t �£ �� . 5 . .� ��-. 4 -� �� 3� --ff� 2 7-; %�.� . . ....t··. � �OtwtJ 1 � .:� ..

.

.

....

.

....

.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 7 . . . .td7! A great tactical attempt to solve Black's p"iclo\
a

b

c

d

e

f

g

!<

. .

h

After this natural move, which took only seconds to play, Black is faced with a different choice: should the knight return to e7 or f6? During a game the grandmaster will spend some trying to figure out the differences between the two, but he should also not spend too much time as he will need it later, when the problems can often be more concrete and have

Chapter 1

-


to be solved accurately i n order not to cause great damage to his position. So, he will make what we can with fairness call an informed guess. Most often he will feel his way, based on his great experience. What chance did lvanchuk have of predicting that it was necessary to cover the h5-square in order to fight for equality? Basically none.

1 1 . .. �de??! Subsequent analysis suggests that the right way to play was: 1 1 . ..tt'if6! 1 2.tt'ic3 0-0 The reason the knight had to go to f6 can be seen after: 1 3.tt'ia4 \Wb5 1 4.tt'ixc5

�

6 5

4 3

2

��TI, �:i!i .1.rs·J� ', ;�� Im� ..- • • •�,. �'%m-�%��mJ�m-� ��J;Jl!J .J� � � � � �v�� .

.

a

The weakness of the dark squares ( . . . a5) is a problem that cannot easily be solved. However, Black also has positive things going on for him. I think White is slightly better. All this is of course something we were able to find after the game through deep analysis.

12.�c3 8

7

6 5

4 3

2

...

%

��)'%

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Here Black can throw in an intermediate move, winning an important tempo. 14 ... �d8! Analysis suggests that White can still challenge his opponent. 1 5 .a4! \Wxc5 1 6.i.e3 \Wc4 1 7.tt'ia3 \Wb4 1 8 .\Wc l 8

7

6 5

4 3

2

a

19

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White is threatening to play tt'ia4 and take the bishop, which gives Black a hard choice.

1 2 ...�b3 It is harder to play positions where you are a bit worse than those where you are a bit better. Every move has drawbacks and it is hard to determine which are the most serious ones. lvanchuk decided to solve his problems with the exposed queen, but White has quite a lead in development and the queen did to some extent contribute to the defence of the weakened squares on the queenside. 1 2 . . . 0-0 This works less well now. 1 3.tt'ia4 \Wb5 1 4.tt'ixc5 Black now has to recapture on c5 immediately rather than first attacking the queen, as White could put his queen on h5, defending the c5-knight. Thanks to this difference, White can cause serious problems.


20

8

I4 . . .%Vxc5 I5 .ie3 Wb5 I6.tll d4!

7

6 5

8 Uw� .�� . ./.B�� . . .Y,B� 3 . • . ...ef'/.�/,� �5 U ��H�� -�ii/(M""

4

2 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White not only has the two bishops, but also a lead in development. Black can exchange on d4, but this leads to a stable advantage for White. So only one move is critical. I6 . . . Wxb2 I 7.l:!e l ! Bringing more pieces into the game. The immediate threat is l:!e2. I7 . . . tt:lxd4 I 7 . . . l:!d8 ? is a blunder. White wins after I 8.l:!e2 on account of I 8 . . . Wb6 I 9.tll xc6! and White wins a piece. I8.ixd4 Wb5 I9.l:!b I White's initiative is obvious. How he will continue is open; he has lots of options, all leading to an advantage. I2 . . . a4 was another move I considered during the game. It is quite natural. White has a number of tempting replies. I considered playing I 3 .tll e I Wa5 I 4.tll d3 with some pressure, but I am by no means sure this is the strongest. White seems better almost no matter what, which is why I only spent a limited amount of time on this variation. We return to I2 ... %Vb3, the move chosen by Ivanchuk.

�� .i.�* -JI · f�i · .·�� =�, � •. :� , , ,/,� � � � � u�� -

1

d,g:� .J "

�

"

a

""

b

�-

c

�d

//,gJ� M� d

e

f

g

h

This is quite ambitious. Black wants to play . . . b6, . . . ia6 and . . . l:!d8, with active counterplay. Also possible is . . . ia7 followed by . . . e5, again with a decent position for Black. So at this moment I thought for I I minutes and I believe I found a good idea, which in retrospect seems logical: if Black is playing with only a few pieces, it makes sense to exchange them so he is left only with undeveloped pieces. This is how I can explain it now. But during a game I j ust look for the best solution. It is a far more concrete process. This does not mean that the understanding is not important; only that it is more subconscious.

13.i.e3! b6 Ivanchuk tries to continue his plan. The endgame after I 3 . . .ixe3 I 4.tt:lxe3 WxdI I 5 .l:!fxd I ± is quite depressing for Black. We can now see that . . . a5 has weakened the position and that Black is in grave danger from manoeuvres such as tt:l c4-b6/d6 and e4-e5 followed by tt:l e4-d6/c5 . Note that Black cannot take on b2. After I4 . . . Wxb2 I 5 .l:!c l , White will win the game with I6.tt:lc4. To be honest, I was not fully aware that my advantage was as big as I now see it is. During a game this is often an irrelevant

Chapter 1

-

21

Playin g in the Style of Akiba Rubinstein

consideration. You see that you have a nice position, that you can improve your pieces, so you go for it. What more do you need?

14.tll d4!

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

I like this move very much, because the idea is really clear and strong. White exchan ges all his opponent's developed pieces and leaves him with plenty of problems. Having said that, it was probably also strong to take on c5 and manoeuvre the knight from c2 to c4 via e3. But if you compare these plans, I think it makes most sense to play the more direct move, which feels more natural to me. Also, I do not think I should give him the d4-square.

b

a

c

d

e

f

g

h

I cannot see that it would have changed a single move I made in the game (actually, I am not sure I want to change any of the moves I made at all) . So, the benefit of seeing it would have been limited. If he had played it, then it would have been time to think deeply about how to proceed. After something like 1 6.E:ac 1 �d7 Black is clearly worse, but White does not have a direct way to exploit his advantage. I am not sure what he should play here. Maybe something as simple as 1 7.f4 and 1 8.'kt>f2 with an obvious advantage, but no knockout blow will appear in the near future. Putting the rook on b8 keeps the tension, which is in Black's interests. In the game he fell in with my plan.

16 ..ixd4 �xd4 17J�xd4 14 ... YlYxdl 1 5J:Uxdl hd4? During the game I did not think that he had any alternatives to this move. The direct threat is lll xc6, followed by �xc5 and lll a4, winning a pawn. But afterwards we should question the assumptions we make during a game. If! had infinite time to think about this during the game, I would probably have realized that Black could play prophylactically with l 5 ... E:b8!, which has the double function of defending the b6-pawn and providing counterplay against b2, in the event of an exchange on c5.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

22

Positional Decision Makin g in Chess

White already has a clear advantage for simple reasons. He is way ahead in development and the b6-pawn is very weak. It is by no means easy for Black to defend it. It is chat simple. If Black castles, it is possible for White to play E:d6 and lll a4, when after . . . b6-b5 the kni ght comes to c5. After this the black bishop and kni ght cannot easily come into the game. If Black cries to push his b-pawn to b4, White will play a3-a4 and have ideas of .ifl -b5 and lll c5-b3. And any pawn push in the centre by Black fails to create counterplay and only leads to additional weaknesses.

17 ...i.d7 Black is trying to change the course of the game. If I play 1 8 .E:ad l I am sure he intended to castle queenside. Maybe this is not that great, but I decided to avoid it all the same.

We have reached maybe the last critical moment in the game. At this point I had to calculate accurately to ensure that the kni ght endgame was winning. As this was the case, I more or less forced him to enter it. You cannot do such things on feeling. On the contrary it is important to be very careful in this kind of situation. You can easily end up in a position where you have simplified so much that your advantage is no lon ger sufficient to win the game. This would be the worst scenario.

2 1 Jladl 0-0 Black could also have tried 2 l . . . h5 with the intention of . . . h4 and getting the rook into the game in this way. Bue if this had been played in the game, maybe we would now be debating if Black should not have castled instead. Black's position is poor no matter what. 22.gd7 � c6 23.f4

18.e5 .ic6 1 8 . . . 0-0-0 is not possible now: 1 9.E:d6 and White wins. 1 8 . . . E:c8 1 9.E:ad l .ic6 20.E:d6 is quite similar to the game.

I9JM6 hg2 20.©xg2 gbs

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

23 ... gfdS I will be in full control of the knight ending, but I am not at all sure what else Black could have cried. For example, 23 . . . b5 24.lll e4 and White is about to invade. One possible line would be: 24 . . . b4 25 .a4 b3 26.E:c l E:b4 27.lll d6 lll b8 28.E:a? E:xa4 29.E:cc?

Chapter 1

-

23


8

pop up. In the end he was probably adjusting more to losing the game than playing chess, blundering the knight instead of resigning. This type of inertia has happened to all serious chess players at some point; the moves are made with the hand, not with the heart.

6 3

2

27 ... bS 28.�c3 b4 29.axb4 axb4 30.tlia2 � c6 3 1 .@e4 d

e

f

h

g

Black faces disaster along the 7th rank.

a

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

26.@f3! This was the key move I had decided on in advance. 26.tll a4? would allow unnecessary counter chances. After 26 . . . b5 27.tll c3 b4 28.axb4 axb4 29.tll a2 tll c6 30.iif3 b3! 3 1 .lll c l tll a5 the knight lands on c4. If the king rushes over to win the b-pawn, Black will have . . . tll d2-fl and win a pawn on the kingside. This is the kind of counterplay you want to avoid in a winning position. 26 ... @fS 27.tlia4 Now this move wins a pawn. The rest of the moves are not really important. lvanchuk was obviously playing on in case something should

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

3 1 . ..£6 The difference is clear after 3 l . . .b3 32.tll c l tll a5 33.iid4 and Black does not make i t to c4 with the knight. 32.exf6 gxf6 33. @d3 @e7 34. @c4 @d6 35.tlixb4 tlie7 36.�c2 � d5 37.@d4 e5t 38.fxeSt fxe5t 39.@e4 c.t>e6 40.tlie3 tlib4

8 7 6 5 3 2 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

24


41.�c4 �c6 42.g4 ©f6 43.h4 h6 44.ttle3 ©g6 45.©d5 e4 46.©xc6 1-0 It is of course surprising to win such an easy game against one of the strongest players in the world. But on the other hand, when you look through the game, it is not that easy to spot the mistakes. This is the second time I have annotated this game; the first time was just after the game, when I had my impressions and the quick suggestions of the engines to go by. These were wildly different from the annotations in this book. While we were working on them, we found quite a lot of resources for Black that neither I nor my opponent was anywhere close to seeing during the game. And this is exactly the point of the next topic.

The Squeeze Rubinstein was not only good at winning better positions. He was also good at putting long lasting pressure on his opponent, exploiting a slight space advantage for example, and then just squeeze, squeeze and squeeze, until the opponent would break under the pressure. Because chess is after all a game that has to be played; and giving the opponent problems is what it is all about. The following game is an excellent demonstration of this.

Esteban Canal - Akiba Rubinstein Karlsbad 1929

1.�f3 �f6 2.b3 g6 3.g3 b6 4 ..ib2 i.g7 5.Ag2 i.b7 6.0-0 0-0 7.c4 c5 8.d3 d5 9.cxd5 �xd5 l0 ..ixg7 ©xg7 l I .%Yd2 tilc6 12.�c3 �xc3 13.%Yxc3t ©g8 14.%Yb2 %Yd6 15J�fdl �fads 16JM2 �M7 17Jfadl �Ud8 1 8.h4 e5 19.e3 h6 20 ..lh3 ge7 2 1 ..lg2 %Yf6 22.tilh2 h5 23.�6 tilb4 24.tilel hg2 25.©xg2 a5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Canal has played the opening somewhat passively, but has managed to get through it without significant scars. We should remember that this game was played 40-50 years before it was discovered how Black should play Hedgehog positions. Today we have great empirical material showing us how to play these positions with both colours; how many pieces to exchange, what to keep and so on. But in 1 929 the players were flying blind, trying to come up with their own ideas. It is my feeling that White would be better off keeping the knights on the board. It is not clear what good Black can do with his knight after something like 26.a3, which most grandmasters would probably play these days. In the game Canal goes out of his way to exchange knights, fixing his own a2-pawn as a weakness. The thinking is probably that without the knights there would be fewer tricks and manoeuvres to keep under control. Although this is questionable objectively, Canal shows excellent defensive skills in what Romanovsky referred to as the fourth phase; endings with queens and rooks, where the play is directed both towards queening pawns and attacking the king. Alekhine made a great contribution to this type of ending, greater than Rubinstein, but I still find Akiba's handling of the position

Chapter 1

-


deeply impressive. Especially later on, when the king comes to the centre to free up the queen and join in the attack. But as said, this comes later.

26.�c2?! ged7 27.�xb4 axb4 28.Yf c2 Yfc6t 29.f3 gd5 30.i>fl Yfd7 3 1 .i>g2 f5 32.Yfc4 i>g7 33. i>fl fH'8

sufficiently. Although not a household name today, Canal was considered one of the strongest players from South America between the two wars. He won a number of tournaments in the 1 920s and had a lifetime plus score against World Champion Max Euwe. He won a nice game against him as late as 1 948.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Black has definitely made some progress. White's pawn structure is flexible, but full of weaknesses. Rubinstein plays slowly, squeezing his opponent. At this moment he is aiming to play .. .f4, creating weaknesses and most importantly fighting for the d4-square. Canal thus plays the only move he has at his disposal; not only preventing Black's idea, but also preparing to advance the d-pawn, creating a bit of counterplay.

34.£4 gds 35.fxe5 gxe5 36.Yff4 gd5 37.Yfc4 \Wc6 38.Vfc2 Yff6 39.Yfc4 Yfc6 40.Yfc2 b5 41.gcl gsd6 42.d4 Yfd7 43.gcdl @f7 44.Vfb2 Yfds 45.i>g2 gd7 46.i>h2 i>gs 47.i>g2 i>h7 48.i>h2 White has defended really well and his position looks possible to hold at this point. This does not mean that he is not still under pressure; only that he is withstanding it

25

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

So things look okay for White, but once again Rubinstein proves his class by changing the nature of the position and posing his opponent new problems. The feeling of pressure that never ends must have been uncomfortable for Canal and undoubtedly he was also starting to get tired at this point.

48 ... £4!? 49.exf4 gxd4 50.gxd4 cxd4


26

5 1 Jld3?! The first of only two mistakes that lead to White's demise. At this point it was necessary to chan ge the approach to the position and go from passive defence to active counterplay. White can fully equalize with the strike 5 l .f5!. If Black takes the pawn, White has ideas with Wi'e2!, attacking both the h5-pawn and threatening penetration on e6. I cannot see any reason Black would be better in this scenario. But also after 5 1 . . .d3 52.Wi'e5 d2 it is limited what Black can actually do with his position. After something like 53.Wi'xb5 Wl'e7 54.fxg6t Wxg6 5 5 . W g2 White is not in any dan ger. His king will come to assist with dealing with the d-pawn, while Black will find it really difficult to defend against all the checks. Today we know that we should fight for counterplay like this; that we need to change the character of the game when we have the chance. But as we will see again and again in this book, it is not by any means easy to find the right moment for today's grandmasters either.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

58.fl ©e6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

The pressure has intensified. Once the king makes it to d5, the rook is free to come to the c-file with decisive effect. White has to act with great urgency.

59J�f3? Again the best move was 59.f5t!, when after 59 . . . gxf5 60.Ei:f3 White achieves immediate counterplay. Black can still create plenty of difficulties for White, but with the play he has displayed up to this point, there is no doubt in my mind that Canal would have been able to hold. 59 Jk7 60.5t d5! You can always ponder what it is a player overlooks. Usually it is something "obvious" . He could have missed the concept of 59 . . . Ei:c7 altogether, or maybe he believed that Black would have to take on f5 here or at least move his queen on the next move. There is really no way to guess what actually happened in Canal's head. What we can see is that Rubinstein took the chance he had been looking for ••

5 I . %Yf6 52.%Yd2 %Yd6 53.gl ©g7 54.h2 %Yc5 55.g2 %Yd5t 56.h2 %Ye4 57.gl ci>f6! ••

After stabilizing the position in the centre, Rubinstein brings in the kin g. We can see how White is being squeezed in his insufficient space.

Chapter 1

-


over the last 40 moves. And after this he was relentless.

6UU4gc2!

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Black forces a rransmon into a rook endgame. As we know from Mihail Marin's Learn from the Legends and Mark Dvorecsky's Endgame Manual, this is the phase where Rubinstein truly excelled. Even though Canal plays a lot of good moves, the position is lost and Rubinstein offers him no chances.

62.gxe4 gxd.2t 63. ©6 gxf5 64,ges gxa2 65.mS gbz 66.gx5t ©c6 67.gxh5 gxb3t 68.©e4 gxg3 69.©xd4 ©b6 70.ggS gh3 7Uigl gxh4t 72.©d3 gc4 73,gb1 White is completely lost. For example: 73.'ktid2 b3 74.l:!g3 ©a5 75 .l:!xb3 ©a4 and Black wins without difficulties. 73 .. Jk3t 74.©d4 ©a5 75.gal t ga3 76J�hl ©a4 77.ghs gg3 78.©c5 �k3t 79.d4 gc4t 80.©d3 b3 0-1 It is well known chat Botvinnik studied Rubinstein's games and learned a lot from chem. He won many games by squeezing his opponent, j ust like Rubinstein did in this game and many others.

27

The Long Plan Nimzowitsch wrote about Rubinstein that what amazed him most about his games was the incredible length of the plans. When you look at games like these against Schlechter and Canal, you see chat Rubinstein's play in the openin g , middlegame and endgame is connected. Everythin g is tied to gether in what looks like one long plan. You find a path in the beginning of the game and you follow it right the way to the end. Now I do not believe that it is possible to predict the way the game is going to go. Bue what made Rubinstein the master is that he developed his pieces, defined a goal and used all the possibilities on the way to achieving it, be they tactics or improving the position of his pieces. This is how I see it. And it is how I try to do it.

Team Chess I do not play for a lot of teams, but I was involved with building up a team to compete in the Russian Team Championship together with I gor Burshtein, who is a big fan of chess and also the owner of probably the best chess magazine in the world, the famous Russian magazine 64. Our idea was to invite young talents to the team, such as Giri, Caruana, Wang Hao, Karjakin, Nepomniachtchi and many others. We did not have a bi g budget, but with this approach we managed to build a strong team. Another idea of the team was to only use players who like chess more than poker. This might sound silly, but in a lot of the other teams the preference between the two was probably a bit more balanced. I prefer to play in a team where the topic of conversation is the games we j ust played . . .

28


Later on the team merged with another for financial reasons. We won the Russian League twice and bronze in the European Club Cup once. Throughout most of its existence, the team was called '64', but after it merged it was called 'Moscow 64'. Burshtein eventually became too busy to be involved in the team, but it still continues. In 20 1 4 I could not play, but the team still took second place. A game in a team event is not too different from an individual game. But it is always nicer to play in a team where there is a good camaraderie rather than the strongest possible team. If you do not talk to each other after the game, what is the point of being in the same team?

Fighting for the c-file White against Vladimir Malakhov I have only played one game against Malakhov with a classical time control. We have also played a rapid game once, which is not in the databases. I have to admit that I do not know that much about him, but I can give my impressions all the same. If they are right, they might help people who will face him in the future. If they are wrong, they will perhaps benefit Malakhov! Either way, it will probably help the reader a bit in appreciating this game. Malakhov is to some extent the inventor of the style we now associate with Magnus Carlsen. He plays very strong technical chess and is able to outplay his opponents in flat positions. There are many players who are able to play well in positions where they have a slight advantage; but to be able to create something out of nothing is really a supernatural skill. Malakhov is also an accomplished nuclear physicist with connections to the physics

department in Dubna, where his mother lectures. His father is also a physicist, as well as a keen chess player. I remember that I was especially impressed with the way he beat Evgeny Bareev in a game in the Queen's Gambit Accepted, also in the Russian Team Championship, this time in 2008. Bareev and I played for the same team and at some point I was sure that the game would end in a draw. But Malakhov played on and eventually won. Although he is no longer that young, we should not forget that Bareev was once third in the world and in 2007 participated in the Candidates Matches, where he won in the first round against Judit Polgar. To outplay such a strong player from nothing is no small achievement.

Vladimir Malakhov - Evgeny Bareev Russian Team Championship, Dagomys 2008

I .d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.�f3 �£6 4.e3 e6 5.J.d3 dxc4 6 ..ixc4 c5 7.0-0 a6 8.dxc5 .ixc5 9.�xd8t @xd8 IO.i.e2 @e7 1 1 .�bd2 � c6 1 2.b3 J.d7 13.J.b2 b5 14.J.d3 gac8 1 5.�e4 �xe4 16 ..ixe4 f6 17JUd l h6 18.gacl J.b4 19.� el J.d6 20.�d3 � b4 2 1 .�xb4 hb4 22.a3 J.d6 23.b4 gxcl 24J�xcl gc8 25.gxc8 hc8

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Chapter 1

-

29


This ending is not only completely equal, but it is close to what we would call dead drawn. However, Malakhov is able to cook soup on a stone, and exploit the miniscule advantages that can be spotted only with a microscope. First of all White has the potential to create a little pressure because of a tiny space advantage. Secondly the a6-pawn has the potential to be slightly weaker than the pawn on a3, because of the placement of the bishops. Finally, and this will probably come as the biggest surprise to the uninitiated: the pawn on h6 can become weak. In the game Black should probably have defended slightly more aggressively on the kingside. In particular he should have looked for a possibility to put the pawn on h5 in order to exchange it. But it is also quite natural for Black to wait and see, before doin g anything active. After all, he does not have to prove anything if he wants a draw: the status quo is quite satisfactory. Bareev decided to take the king to c7 in order to free his bishop. This is slightly in contradiction with the basic principles of the endgame, where you should focus on making the most out of your best pieces. And in almost all positions, the king is more effective than the minor pieces, as long as its safety can be guaranteed.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

c

d

e

f

g

h

35 ...he5t There is nothing wrong with this decision, but as the a6-pawn in principle makes the remaining white bishop better than its counterpart, it should be discussed. The problem is that the pawns on the kingside make the black dark-squared bishop bad too! It is rare that you see two good bishops against two bad bishops, but that seems to be the case here.

26.f4 ©d7 27.h4! ©c7 2s.©n i.d7 29.h5! We can see how Malakhov has fixed the h6-pawn. This is of course not a great achievement, but it is one tiny step towards creating problems for Black.

35 . . . fxe5 36.e4 ic4 37.g5 might also seem harmless, but it is a slight improvement for White as well. The game should not be too difficult for Black to hold, but even here White is able to create problems for Black to solve. Yes, they are not that difficult to solve if you look at the moves, but when problems start accumulating and the clock is ticking away, you do not have the same confidence in your moves as you have when you look at the game with the support of en gine.

29 ... e5 30.©f3 i.e6 3 1 .g3 A typical move for a technical player. There is no rush to make big decisions. Instead the position is improved at such a slow pace that the opponent is at times oblivious to it.

36.he5t fxe5 37.g5! Fixing a weakness on h6. If the white king was further away from the kingside, the h5pawn could be the weak pawn, but this is not the case.

31 ...ih3 32.g4 i.dl t 33.©g3 i.e2 34.i.f3 id3 35.fxe5

37 ... i.5 38.ig4 ie4 39.ie6


30

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

39 ...i.c6?! le is an uncomfortable moment, at move 39, for Black to find an accurate defence. Here the simplest was 39 . . . @d6! 40 . .ic8 @c7!, when White has very little to play for. For example, 41 . .txa6?! .ic6! followed by . . . .id? and the bishop on a6 is lost. Only Black can hope to create winning chances at this point. But ifWhite does not take on a6, I think there are no winning chances.

40.cbg4 cbd6 41 .gxh6 gxh6 42.@5 White has made some progress. The following exchange of pawns gives Black three pawn islands against two, and White can create threats against the b5-pawn. 42 ....tes 43.J.cs J.xh5 44..ba6 .tes 45 ..th7 .tf7? This loses a pawn, but not yet the game. 45 . . . .ih5! would have been a more accurate defence. The idea is 46.@f6 .ie2 47.ie4 h5 48.@g5 @e6 49.ig6 @d5! and it is White who needs to be careful.

46.!6 J.d5 47.idl J.a2 48.J.6 J.d5 49.!h5 Ac4 50.cbf6 J.d3 5 1 .J.6 J.c4 52.cbg6 i.d5 53.ih5 !e6 54. cbxb6

1

a

b

c

d

f

e

g

h

White has won a pawn, but the position is still not winning. Black is able to defend by setting up a fortress. All he has to do is to be able to meet .ie2/fl with . . . !c4. If not, White will be able to put him in zugzwang and penetrate his defences with the king along the 8th rank.

54...J.d7? This loses because the bishop can be forced to defend the b-pawn from the passive diagonal. 54 . . . @e? was one of several moves to save the game. For example: 5 5.@g? id5 56 . .ig4 !c4 57.@g6 id5 As mentioned, ie2 is always met with . . . .ic4, avoiding passivity. 58.@f5 ie6t 59.@g5 .td5 8

7

6 5

4 3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

White is making no progress.

55.i.6?

g

h

Chapter 1

-

31


Over the next few moves White has chances to win the game, just as Black has chances to set up a fortress. I will not go too deeply into the details, but j ust give the winning variation, based on the ideas mentioned above.

73.i>d6! 73. 'tt> b6?? would lead to a drawn queen ending. 73 . . .ifl 74.ic6t i>xe3 7 5 .'tt> x e5 ic4 76.ie8 'tt> d 3 77.'tt> d 6 i>d4 78.'tt> c6 White wins the b5-pawn and the game.

55.ie2! ©d5 56.id3 ©e6 57.©g7 ©e7 58.©g6

55 ....ieS? 5 5 . . . i>e?! would hold the draw. 56.©g5? 56.'tt> g 7! 'tt> e7 57.ie2! and White would be winning. 56 ... ©e6? 56 . . . if7! would have held the draw once again. The first zugzwang. It does not seem that important, but White is slowly getting closer. 58 ... ic6 59.i>f5 'tt> d 6 60.i>f6 ie8 6 1 .ig6 ic6 62.i>f7 i>d7 63.if5t i>d6 64.i>fB The second zugzwang. 64 ... if3 64 . . . 'tt> d 5 65.'tt> e7 and White will come to d6, winning. 65.©e8 White is invading along the 8th rank. 65 . . . ie2 66.ie4 ifl 67.'tt> d 8 ic4 68.'tt> c 8 id5 69.if5 ib3 70.'tt> b 7 i>d5 7 1 .'tt> c 7! Attacking the e-pawn, in order to avoid counterplay. 7 1 ...ic4 72.id? 'tt> e4

57.J.g2 ©d6 58.©f6 J.h5 59.J.fl! 8

7 6 5

4 3

2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White is on the winning track and finished the game with excellent technique.

59 ...J.es 60.ie2 J.c6 61 .©f7 ©d7 62.Ag4t ©d6 63.J.5! J.a 63 . . . i>d5 64.'tt> e 7 and the king attacks the pawns from behind. White wins. 64.©e8 .ie2 65 ..ie4 J.c4 66.©ds J.d5 67..tf5 .ic4 68.Ag4 .le6 69 ..if3 .id5 70..th5 Ae6 7 1 .Ae8 J.c4 72.©c8 ©d5 73.©c7 .ld3


32

74 .ic6t ©c4 75.©b6 e4 76.hb5t ©c3 77.a4 ©xb4 78 ..ic6 .ifl 79.a5 .id.3 80 ..id5 ©c3 8 1 .©c5 1-0 •

It is of course possible to discover after the game how White won the game and in which ways he managed to set the opponent problems. But when you are deciding how much risk you should take in your own game, you look over at the board next to you and feel assured that at least Evgeny is making a draw! Psychologically, there is a significant difference between playing a comfortably equal position with chances to press, and playing a slightly worse position. In the latter case, you may have to choose the right moment to change the course of the game in order to avoid falling under more substantial positional pressure.

Boris Gelfand Vladimir Malakhov

or less what they can expect. Black should be slightly worse, but on the upside his position is very solid. As such it fits very well to Malakhov's style and it is no surprise that he has played it consistently for the last decade. White has a great choice against this opening. I have personally switched a lot between 5 .a4, 5 .e3 and 5.c5. I used the last of these in two great games, against Movsesian and Kiril Georgiev. These games can be found in the book of my best games, published by Olms. While 5 .e3 is a natural developing move, both 5 .c5 and 5.a4 are aimed against Black's main plan: to play . . . b5. 5.c5 is the most ambitious, but it is always good to be able to play more than one position.

Intermezzo - Viacheslav Chebanenko

-

Russian Team Championship, Sochi 2005

1 .d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.�c3 �f6 4.tll f3 a6

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

4 . . . a6 signifies the Chebanenko Variation. This opening is popular among players who like a simple repertoire where the number of concrete lines is limited, so they know more

would like to say a few words about Viacheslav Andreevich Chebanenko, who was a person who thought a lot about chess and made many contributions to the game. In particular he made an immense contribution to chess in his native Moldova, where he had a number of pupils, most famously Bologan and Gavrikov, though I think it is fair to say that every strong player coming out of Moldova was influenced by Chebanenko, either directly or indirectly. Chebanenko had a great influence on opening theory. From the white side he popularized 3 . .ib5 against the Sicilian. His idea was in the Rossolimo, after 1 .e4 c5 2.tLlf3 tLl c6 3 . .ib5 , to take o n c 6 o n the next move. These days it is the most common and most challenging continuation, which is played without giving it much thought. However, when Chebanenko taught this system to his pupils, everyone was criticizing him, calling it anti-positional to give

Chapter I - Playin g in the Style of Akiba Rubinstein up the bishop for the knight. But Chebanenko was ahead of the trend. In the 1 9 80s Michael Oratovsky from Moldova participated in Kasparov's chess school and showed one of his games with this variation. Kasparov was instantly critical of playing like this, telling the student firmly that the bishop is better than the knight, but of course even he played it later on, like everyone else. It was also played against me at a critical moment in my career, when Viswanathan Anand used it successfully against me in our World Championship match in 20 1 2. Chebanenko also lent a hand to Petrosian ahead of his famous 1 97 1 Candidates Final match against Fischer, where Petrosian managed to catch the American out and gain a big advantage from the opening. To do this at the highest level is very rare indeed.

Robert James Fischer - Tigran Petrosian Buenos Aires (1) I 971

I.e4 c5 2.�f3 e6 3.d4 cx:d4 4.�xd4 � c6 5.�b5 d6 6 ..lf4 e5 7 ..le3 �f6 8..lg5 .ie6 9.� lc3 a6 IO.Lf6 gxf6 1 1 .� a3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 I

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 1 d5!! The big novelty. Chebanenko had sent it in •••

an envelope to the Candidates semi-final, with the instruction for it to be handed over to the winner.

1 2.exd5 J.xa3 1 3.bxa3 �a5 14.�d2 0-0-0 t5.Ac4 Up to this point, the black moves have been fairly forced, but it was Chebanenko who convinced Petrosian to play this variation because of his discovery on the next move, according to Korchnoi & Furman's annotations, published in the recently released book Python Strategy. Personally I find it hard to believe that you would be in doubt as to whether to play this position, when you have such an earth-shattering novelty on move 1 1 . 1 5 .. J�hg8! 1 6.gdl 1 6. 0-0 i.h3 and Black wins material.

-�� · .! � ... - ---- - Y-- � -· � r-� r r� �� tt�� • 8 w� • �� - - - -�� 4 � � 3 � � �� 8 .... , :,� '""' ; �1��r�-- �8 �1�-� 2 ----8%�-!= -- %•:

8 7 6

�

s

,,, , ,

1

a

33

�

''l

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

16 ....lf5� 1 6 . . . E:xg2! has been analysed deeply in various places. It would have secured Black a clear advantage; White has no way to punish Black for being so cheeky as to take this vital pawn. Asked about it, Petrosian had no answer to why he did not play this move. 17 ..ld3! White manages to escape the opening with full equality.

34


17 ... hd.3 1 8.fixd.3 � d4 1 9.0-0 @bs 20.@h l fixa3 2 l .f4 gcs 22.�e4 fixd.3 23.cxd.3 gc2 24.gd2 B!xd2 25.�xd2 f5 26.fxe5 ges 27J�el �c2 28.B!e2 � d4 29.B!e3 �c2 30J�h3 gxe5 3 l .�f'3 B!xd5 32.B!xh7 gxd.3 33.h4 � e3 33 . . . llid4!? would also have held the draw. 34.gxf7 B!dl t? Black needed to improve his posmon slowly. For example, 34 . . . a5!? has the idea of 35 .h5 E!:d6, and the endgame seems perfectly holdable. 35.@h2 B!al 36.h5

His greatest invention is of course that of the Chebanenko Slav: l .d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.�f'3 �f6 4.�c3 a6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

We will see this opening a number of times in this book, as apparently it is quite attractive to play this against me?! Most significantly, Anand used a version of this idea as his main weapon in our 20 1 2 match. You can find our games with this line from page 1 92. A lovely memorial

Chebanenko died quite young. I met him a few times at junior competitions where he was helping his students. He was a very pleasant man and he truly loved chess.

The best defence was discovered by Kasparov. After 36 . . . E!:xa2 37.E!:g?, he found 37 . . . E!:a5! with the idea 38.®g3 f4t 39.®xf4 llixg2t 40.E!:xg2 E!:xh5 and a draw has been achieved. 38 .E!:g5! would still give Black questions to answer.

37J:lxf4 B!xa2 38.B!e4 �xg2 39.@g3 B!a5 40.�e5 1-0

These days a rapid tournament is organized in his honour. In 20 1 4 the fifth edition of the Chebanenko Memorial saw Viktor Bologan win in front of such strong grandmasters as Malakhov, Shirov, Kuzubov, Lysyj and Svetushkin. The tournament is organized by Bologan and is sponsored by the president of the Moldovan Federation, Igor Dodoo. It is a wonderful way to remember Chebanenko. Back to the Malakhov game! 5.a4

Chapter 1 - Playing in the Style of Akiba Rubinstein Another benefit of this move is that White can play a4-a5 or c4-c5 in some positions, getting a better structure on the queenside. We shall look more at this in the next game.

5... e6 6..ig5 6.a5 looks wrong after 6 . . . c5 and the a5pawn is more a liability than a strength, as the black knight comes to c6. But another serious move here is 6.g3 , when the critical line is: 6 . . . dxc4 (though Black has also tried 6 . . . a5 and 6 . . . i.e7) 7.i.g2 7

, . ;.,, . �

s x •.t� , . .�•� % • •�

-�-. 6 �� . ... . %� .. 5 � . .� 4 !.��. %� . � ��:�r%�..... :� �m·�i� ···�m·!j" � �/}JJ!l�f. . . ./flW{;�-= �: 3

T� T� T•:� T

2

Y,

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

7 ... c5 The position resembles something from the Catalan. White has won a tempo, but he has used it to play a2-a4. In recent games it has looked as if the weakness of the b4-square is the defining feature of this position and that Black should be able to get enough counterplay. A lot of games have been played from this position and it is not yet clear if White is able to put pressure on Black. Incidentally Karjakin played differently against me in the Tai Memorial in 20 1 3: 7 . . . lli bd7 8.a5 i.e7 9.0-0 0-0 1 0.llid2 b5 1 1 .axb6 tll xb6 1 2.i.xc6 ( 1 2.llia4!? '1Wxd4 1 3 .llixb6 Wfxb6 1 4.llixc4 was probably more dangerous for Black. Despite being a pawn up, he still has problems to solve.) l 2 . . . l:!b8 1 3.llide4 tll fd5 Black is probably absolutely fine here, but in the game Sergey sacrificed a pawn and later found it difficult to play actively enough

35

to prove compensation; but then it was only a blitz game to decide the starting number... Gelfand - Karjakin, Moscow (blitz) 20 1 3 .

6... a5 6 . . . lli bd7 7.e3 Wa5 is a modern version of the classical Cambridge Springs variation. The inclusion of . . . a6 and a4 might not seem like a big difference, but in reality the position is simply different and should be approached on its own terms. However, I should say that even in the classical Cambridge Springs, an advantage does not necessarily lead to a win. I lost to Magnus Carlsen in the 20 1 3 London Candidates after getting a slight edge in the opening, without either of the a-pawns having been moved. I have had this position (with the subtle pawn pushes included) against both Aronian and Kamsky. The latter game was played in our 2007 Candidates match in Elista, and was drawn after a big fight. 7.e3 .ie7 s.gcl This might look a little bit odd. The c-file is not about to be opened. But I already had decided to transfer my bishop to b 1 , as happened in the game. From b l the bishop is safe from the knight on b4 and at the same time it controls the e4-square. There is little doubt that Black is going to use the weakness of the b4-square by putting a knight there. Having said that, maybe 8.i.d3 is more natural. It should be said that theory has moved on a bit and that these days it is more typical to put the bishop on e2, the queen on b3, and quickly exchange the knight when it comes to b4. My occasional second and close friend Pavel Eljanov from Ukraine recently won a good game in this line, against guess who: 8.i.e2 lli a6 9.0-0 0-0 1 0.'1Wb3 lli b4 l 1 .llia2 llixa2 1 2.'1Wxa2

36


8

c4-pawn. It was of course possible to play 1 2.b3, but in that case I was anticipating that Black would put his bishop on b7, with the intention of playing . . . c5. I only wanted to play b2-b3 if Black put his bishop on a6 and forced me to do it.

7

6 5

4 3 2

1 2 Aa6 It turns out that here Black had a chance to solve his opening problems with concrete play: 1 2 . . . dxc4!N 1 3.lLie5 i.a6 1 4.lLixc4 lLi fd5 1 5 .ixe? W/xe7 ••.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 2 . . . lLih5 1 3.i.xe? W/xe7 1 4.W/b3 lLi f6 l 5.lLie5 lLid7 1 6.f4 f6 l 7.lLif3 Black is a long way from equalizing and lost on move 43 in Eljanov Malakhov, Eilat 20 1 2.

8 ...0-0 9 ..id3 � a6 1 0.0-0 � b4 1 1 ..lb l

s .I. �

�

• �� --•- - ��r� : f.T��,%�1. ·�� . % . �1� �� -�� %� -� ." � �� . ��-� . r.� �1r.��J!1 5

4 3

'· · · · · ·

�-

2

a

·· ···

z·····

·· % ·

�§ b

c

� J�r�

=

d

� 11 = e

f

g

h

Black will be able to play . . . c5 and equalize the game completely. The bishop on b I is out of the action in this position and the e4-square has become irrelevant. Bur this is not a very natural way for Black to play and neither Malakhov nor the other players who have had this position have played anything other than 1 2 ... ia6. One of the main reasons why taking on c4 makes more sense here is because some pieces are exchanged and White's space advantage for that reason matters less.

l l ... b6 I should probably mention that White's space advantage grows after l l . . .dxc4 1 2.lLie5. The c4-pawn is regained and White has a pleasant position. 12.'VNe2 The main function of this move is to make space for the rook on d l , not to defend the

This is the way the opening goes; with good play Black should always equalize. When I was preparing for this game I had to choose between the various ideas I have against this opening. I remember that the computer said that this is a very innocent-looking system, but my feeling was that the position was much easier to play for White. It takes a special type of psychology to defend the black position.

Chapter 1

-


But if you have this system in your repertoire, you should be ready co play such positions: passive, but solid. But another question is if you like the white position; and I do.

13.b3 lLJd7?! This is quite passive. The knight is heading nowhere from d7. 13 . . . c5 1 4.lLib5! shuts out the a6-bishop. White has won two tempos in this symmetric position, as che black a- and c-pawns have gone to the 4th rank in two steps. White is simply more active. The strongest move was 1 3 . . . lLi e4!, as it exchanges the knight, which otherwise has no function. White should not exchange the bishops: 14 . .if4! lLi xc3 1 5 .E!:xc3 c5 1 6.lLie5 f5 1 7.E!:d l You cannot prove it to the computer, but I still chink White is a little better. He still enjoys the same space advantage and a lead in development. Objectively it is not much, but it does matter which side of the board you would prefer to sit on. White won in David Dunis, Porz Barcares 200 5 .

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

i. - � � •• �� ·-··v,- · !tl."•!�'•."� ,� � '8�-��. �--;., �� , 8, :� . . %�� , � w--£�.. .. %�·�"" 8� �%""' a

.,t�� b

c

d

�:� e

f

g

�

h

14..if4! This is an important moment. It does not make sense to exchange the bishops, and since Black has no weaknesses, White should not

37

rush into things with 1 4 . .ixe7 Wfxe7 1 5 .e4, when Black can enjoy the benefits of his flexible structure. A serious option is I 5 . . . dxc4 1 6.bxc4 e5 and White will soon find himself with a few weak pawns. Another way to make this decision is co understand that when you have a space advantage, you need to keep it. Exchanging pieces does not support this goal. Now White is threatening e3-e4, so Black's next move seems to be forced, after which Black loses a lot of his flexibility. For example, if he ever goes . . . c6-c5 , White can play lLib5 and the pawn on e6 stares to be a bit weak.

14 ... fS The position has transposed into a Stonewall structure, where the formation of the black pawns usually means chat the bishop on g2 is worse than the "bad bishop" on a6, b7 or h5. I am not sure chat the white bishop is much better on b l , but as in the traditional Stonewall structure, we can exchange it. And here this is maybe a bit easier. 1 5J:Udl Of course it is not very likely chat the cl-file will open, but as Black does not have a lot of active moves, I do not believe that White loses anything by putting the rook on d I before executing his main plan. 1 5 ....if6? The bishop has more or less no function here. Maybe it was played to cake control of the e5-square or to give the black queen space, but in reality White is threatening to execute a long plan and Black is doing nothing to counter it. Hard as it might be to imagine now, in the end this bishop becomes Black's worst piece and White wins the game by playing against it. Black should play I 5 . . . E!:c8 and cake it easy.

38


One of the engines suggests that Black should play for an active blockade with 1 5 . . . g5 1 6.ig3 g4 and then it wants White to put the knight on d2, which seems odd. Where it is going from there is not clear at all. This reminds me of a friend from my chess club in Minsk, National Master Sergey Begun, who had gone through all of Fischer's games and said that he never went backwards. If his pieces were attacked, he would look for a counterattack, rather than retreating. I was deeply impressed by this observation and since then I have always been on the lookout for counterattacks, whenever my pieces are attacked. 1 7.tt:le5 tt:lxe5 1 8 .ixe5 if6 1 9 .if4 The white bishop might look like a bad bishop on paper, but it is still better than its counterpart. I do not know if White is objectively better here, but with more active possibilities and a safer king, I prefer his position.

was on b7, Black's position would not be so bad. 1 8 . . . !!c8 1 9.cxd5 ixd3 20.°1Wxd3 exd5 2 1 .l'!c2

� � � ti��--. -r� �� }� 5 1 � ·�· � 8 � t� � iS�ii�� " ;,::'3)'% �::'3)00. � 2 �1 1�1�1� 6

4 3

m 00

� �::'31-"'

b

a

c

d

e

f

� �

h

g

White has a number of possibilities here. White is threatening \Wa6-b7 to put pressure on the black weaknesses. He also has slower plans, such as h3 and g4, or h4, g3, 'tt> g2 and h5, or even 'tt> h 1, !!g 1 and g4. But the preference would be to invade the black position without weakening the kingside. When you have such a good position, you should be reluctant to give any counter-chances without a good reason. Another point I want to make is that I see nothing positive in the black position.

17.c!lixb4 Y*fxb4 IS.i.d3

16.c!lia2! \We7 It is possible to play 1 6 . . . ie7, to improve the bishop and admit the mistake, but in reality no human would do so. After 1 7.tt:lxb4 ixb4 1 8 .id3 White is still ready to fight for the c-file and the c6-square. If the black pawn

a

1 8 ... i:!fcS?!

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Chapter 1

-


It is not without dangers to take on b3, but probably he had to enter these perilous complications in order to change the course of the game. Of course if he had done so and lost, we could have said that he should have defended passively and not done anything desperate. I see this as an important feature of the great players: to be able to accurately judge when to wait and when to change the course of the game. It was one of Anand's great strengths when he was at his peak a decade ago. He was good at waiting and then spicing things up when necessary. It was my feeling that no one else had as good a sense for this as Anand did back then. After 1 8 . . .'%Vxb3 I intended to play 1 9 . .id6 threatening to trap the queen. Forced is: 19 ... dxc4 20.i.c2 '%Vb2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

After 2 1 ..ixf8 followed by e3-e4, White's position is much better. White's idea is to open the game with the black queen out of play on b2. Malakhov's decision can be explained by the fact that the he often plays the Chebanenko, an opening where you get accustomed to being a little passive and having slightly less space. A danger with playing such systems can be that you become immune to the danger signals - a bit like the metaphor of the boiling frog.

39

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

19.cx:d5 This was the move I spent most time on before move 40. Before you play such a committal move you need to seriously consider the implications. Obviously I did not think too far ahead, but I assessed the battle on the c-file carefully. It does not make sense to try to calculate too far in such a position. I saw that Black could put the queen on a3, without seeing a clear way to continue for myself. But all the features in the position are in my favour and Black has no active counterplay. This is all I need to make such a decision. As long as I see that I can improve my position, I go for it. 19 ... .ixd3 20.�xd3 cx:d5 2 l .gc2 White has completed the plan started with 1 6.tt:la2. 2 l . ..�a3 Black does not want to concede the c-file without a fight. I should mention that I had not worked out how I would take control of the c-file. But with the many weaknesses in the black position and my better-placed pieces, I felt certain I would win this battle. What I had made sure of was that Black was unable to take control of the c-file.

40


8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

22.h3!? Not being able to see what Black should do, I decided to improve my position on the kingside, with the aim of creating more weaknesses down the line. I do not remember with certainty, but I do not think I considered paying homage to Karpov - Unzicker, Nice (ol) 1 974: 8

7 6 5 4 3 2

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White is considering taking control of the c-file with Ei:dc l , but more importantly, he can improve his position greatly with Wb5!. Black is in great trouble here, as none of the tricks work. 22 . . . tt'lc5 23.dxc5 :B:xc7 24.cxb6 gives White a decisive advantage. For example 24 . . . :B:xc2 2 5 .Wxc2 Wd6 26.b7! :B:b8 27.Wc8t and it is already time to resign. 22 ... :B:a7 also does not work, on account of 23.i.d6!, winning the exchange. The i.c7! idea is also possible later on, but this is the optimal moment to play it. My understanding of this position is that if White wins the battle for the c-file, the game is over. Of course I probably missed this option altogether, but I had a plan and was happy to carry it out without resistance.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

24.ia7!! tt'le8 2 5 .ic2 tt'l c7 26.Ei:ea l Wff e 7 27.ib l ie8 2 8 . tt'l e2 tt'l d8 2 9 . tt'l h2 ig7 30.f4 f6 3 l .f5 g5 32 .ic2 if7 3 3 . tt'l g3 tt'l b 7 34 .id l h6 3 5 .ih5 Wff e 8 36.Wid l tt'ld8 37.Ei:a3 ii>f8 3 8 . Ei: I a2 ii>g8 39 .ixf7t tt'l xf7 40.Wih5 tt'ld8 4 I .Wffg6 ii>f8 42.tt'lh5 1 -0

Here I had the option to do exactly the same with 22.i.c7!.

Another interesting observation is that Black has lost all of the flexibility the opening was supposed to give him.

22 ... @f7 23.g4 g6 24.
Chapter I

-

But we should also b e careful when we play like this. White has several good plans at his disposal and though it might be good to spook Black a little, we should make a clear decision for ourselves and then follow it through.

24... i>e8

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

41


g

h

White has improved his position to the maximum and it is time to come up with a concrete plan. So this is the moment where I found a way to put extra pressure on the c-file. Again, this is all I need to make such a decision. Once the position is improved, it will be time to make another decision.

25.gdd.2! fie7 26,gxc8t gxc8 27.gc2 V!id8 28.fid.2 The queen is headed for c l , increasing the pressure on the c-file. In order not to lose control of the file, Black puts his knight on b8. 28... tlib8 29.fic1 i>d7 29 . . . Ei:xc2 30.Wxc2
a

b

d

c

e

f

g

h

30.gS! When playing this I calculated a good way into the endgame, to around move 38, which I thought was a winning position. There are too many weaknesses and too great a space advantage. It is quite natural in such a position, after carrying out his strategic intentions, chat White looks seriously at the forcing options; here this means the transition into a minor piece ending. I should add that the g4-g5 push comes at just the right moment, when the bishop cannot go to e7, as it could if White exchanged the major pieces first. 30....ih8 Black should have played the uncomfortable 30 . . . .ig7, when White has 3 l ..ie5! Ei:xc2 32.Wxc2 .ixe5 33.llixe5t.

8 7 6 5 3 2 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

42


Black is under pressure. One tactical point is that 33 . . . cii e 7? is met with 34.Wc6! and White wins directly, as the pawn ending cannot be held. And after 33 . . . cii e 8 34.f4 White dominates the board and will slowly invade the black position. In a sense, the above tactic is irrelevant because White can slowly invade whether the king is on e7 or e8 . The only thing to look out for is if Black is able to create counterplay and maybe give perpetual check. If White plays well, this will not happen, but the presence of the queens does carry a slight risk that White needs to pay attention to.

31 .�xcS 3 l .i.e5 ? would be a mistake now. After 3 l . . . l"i:xc2 32.Wxc2 ltJ c6 Black manages to close off the c-file and neutralize most of White's advantage. 3 1 . .. WxcS

�if"� �

8

�

� "'"

: ��_.,,_,, " U lU • ' 4 , , , �� -� ��:J· , ,?,� 3 i!rl3jdr 8 2 �@ � //, , , , , ;

s

1

a

R� R� � .,, , ,%� b

c

d

e

f

g

h

32.WxcSt I was so focused on carrying out the clear-cut plan seen in the game that I completely failed to consider the alternative path to victory with 32.Wa3!?, when after 32 . . . cii e 8 33.Wd6 ltJ c6 White can transpose into a won queen ending with: 34.ie5! ixe5 3 5 . ltJ xe5 ltJ xe5 36.dxe5 cii f7 37.�xb6.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Queen endings are of course a bit riskier than other endings, in that the defensive side can often make a draw by perpetual check, which is not a frequent occurrence in other endings. For example, in my Candidates match against Michael Adams in 1 994, I failed to win a queen ending, which temporarily caused a unbalanced view of queen endings in my subconscious. In the subsequent match against Kramnik in Sanghi Nagar 1 994, I could have transposed into a winning queen ending, but was reluctant, keeping on the rooks. Vladimir managed to find a great stalemate trap in his analysis and held the game. That ending is on page 246 in My Most Memorable Games.

32 ... 'itixc8 33.i.xbS 'itixb8 White is still in the process of carrying out his strategic operation. Notice that the black bishop is utterly useless on h8, despite being a so-called good bishop. The space advantage is considerable and the black king is very far away. Had the king been on e7, Black would be quite close to a draw, but e7 is quite a long journey at the moment! 34.h4 'itic7 35.h5 With the threat of hxg6 and ltJ h4, Black has no choice but to take the pawn. 35 ... gxh5 3S.'itixh5

36.'itig3 i.g7 37.'itih4

'itid6

Chapter I

-

This is as far as I had planned ahead. I did not have a clear plan of how to break through, but from experience I know that with so many weaknesses, a fortress is unrealizable. The next two moves were made simply to make it to move 40. I was not really in time trouble, but it is good to do things the right way, even when you are not in desperate need to do so, j ust to create a habit of following best practice. 38 ....tm 39.tll e 5 .ig7 40.�d3 rll e7

a

b

c

d

e

f

43


g

the king to g6 and squeeze. I also wanted to make sure that the bishop was unable to break free and attack the e3-pawn. White would probably still be more comfortable, but if it can be prevented, it should be. You also have to realize that you will have to make a decision, find a way to advance. What I was looking for here was total domination. Black is never in time to create any kind of counterplay.

41.tll e5 rll d6 42.£4 rll e7

h

Here I spent quite a bit of time. First of all, even if you have enough time approaching the time control, you will inevitably get some heightened emotions approaching move 40. It is almost always very useful to calm down before making more decisions. Chess history is full of big mistakes made on move 4 1 or 42, probably because of adrenaline and other hormones impacting the brain in a way that does not work well together with making long-sighted rational decisions. Secondly, there is no reason not to invest the time in understanding the position at a deeper level, which here means working out a clear win. This is what I did here. I played rather quickly later on. White has to make a decision about how he wants to break the black defence. And I think I managed to find the most natural and convincing way. Basically I j ust want to get

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

f

e

g

h

43.g6 hxg6t A sad concession. 43 . . . h6 44.llif7 wins for White. It is nowhere near a fortress.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

The knight takes on h6 and then goes all the way back to g 1 , in order to come to e2-g3 and later h5, when the black defence collapses.

44


This is one of the things I worked out on move 4 1 . At this stage of the game it is not enough to have a feeling that the game is won; you will actually have to win it.

it can no longer defend the e6-pawn. The line goes like this: 50 . . . ©f7 5 1 .©h7 .if6 52.lll xf6 ©xf6 53.©g8 <:J;; e? 54.©g7 and so on.

Classical Plans 44.@xg6 i.h8 45.�fl i.f6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

46.�g5 Again preventing the bishop from breaking free. 46 ... i.hs 47.�h7 @es 49.�hs @gs so.@h6

48.�f6t

@f'8

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Black resigned. He is in zugzwang and cannot prevent the exchange of minor pieces. Thereafter White wins with a simple zugzwang, pushing the black king further and further away until

Up to this point the influence I have felt from Akiba has been rather abstract. And it will continue to be so throughout the book. Unlike other sports, chess involves a good deal of repetition in general ideas and in how we structure our thoughts. But we also have patterns that happen on the board. Unlike tennis, which I enjoyed playing before my knees asked me to stop, we do not try to repeat the same movements again and again in chess. In order for us to hone our skills, we need to train them in unknown positions. Still it is very useful to know a lot of classical games and classical plans. You never know when some patterns will become useful in your own game. Take the following interesting Rubinstein game, which is instructive for two reasons. In abstract form there is the principle of two weaknesses: how Akiba improves his position on the queenside and then switches his play to the kingside. He did this kind of thing continually in his games and it obviously made a great impression on me. The visual pattern also stayed with me. A knight on a5 attacking pawns on b7 and c6 is a powerful image.

8 � 7 � 6 5 �' %� � �· 4 '- - ·- - ·� ··· · ·"�

'''• a

b

c

d

As long as Black cannot free himself, it does not really matter where the rest of the pawns are placed.

Chapter I

-

Playing in the Style

45

of Akiba Rubinstein

First we shall see how it occurred in Rubinstein's game, then we shall see how it helped me evaluate the outcome of the opening in my own game.

Akiba Rubinstein Sandor Takacs -

Budapest 1926

l.c4 llif6 2.d4 e6 3.llic3 d5 4.!g5 lli bd7 5.e3 !e7 6.llif3 0-0 7.l:kl c6 8.�c2 a6 9.cx:d5 exd5 10.!d3 ges 1 1 .0-0 llit'S 1 2.gfel !g4 13.llid2 lli6d7 14.!f4 !g5

a

b

c

d

f

e

g

h

2 1 ... ga7?! The rook looks quite clumsy here. We will return to a general discussion of this abnormality in the Morozevich game. 2 1 . . .b5 22.lll c3 c5! would have given Black counterplay. Having missed this chance, he drifts into a poor position and never truly resurfaces. It is possible that the players missed that after 22.lll c5 Black can play 22 . . . lll dxc5 23.dxc5 d4! with serious counterplay. a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

15.h3!? Rubinstein decides to keep his bishop on for the moment. 15 ...ih5 I 5 . . . �xf4? 1 6.exf4! and the bishop would be trapped. a

16.!h2 ig6 17.LgG hxg6 1 8.�b3 �b6 19.llia4 �xb3 20.llixb3 lli e6 2 1 .lli a5 Not much has happened so far in the game. White has not played overly ambitiously, but he has managed to pose Black a question. How should he deal with the threat to the b7-pawn?

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

He is able to answer lll xc6 with . . . Ei:ac8 and if White plays 24.b4! he can calmly play 24 . . . dxe3 25.fxe3 Ei:ac8 intending . . . �f6 with counterplay. Is White better? Obviously he is happy with the knight on a5, but on the other hand the e3-pawn is a bit soft and Black is quite decently placed. It would have been interesting to see how Rubinstein would have handled the white pieces.

46


There are many games like this from that period, where one player under pressure had to look for dynamic counterplay. Today we understand this in a way that no one did in the 1 920s.

22.@fl I prefer 22.b4!, with the idea 22 . . . i.e7 23.lt:lc5, but White is better all the same.

30.:9:c l , but after 30 . . . tlJ f5 3 1 .:9:e i t @f7 32.ltle5t tlJ xe5 33.i.xe5 gxf4 34.i.xf4 c5 Black is in time. White can also try 28.tlJc5, when play may continue: 28 . . . tlJ exc5 29.dxc5 i.xa5 30.bxa5 fxe3 3 I .:9:ce2!?

22 ...ids Also after 22 . . . i.e7 23.a3 lt:l f6 24.b4 lt:l e4 25 .2"1:c2 I would prefer White, but it is true that his advantage is not great. Black will put the knight on d6 and have good defensive chances. 23.b4 f5 24.tlib2 @f7 25.�d3 g5 26.E:c2 ib6 27 ..id6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

b

c

d

e

d

e

f

g

f

g

h

White appears to succeed in creating more problems for Black. Looking a bit further it is possible that Black can solve them, though it looks a bit scary on the way. 3 I . . . lt:l f6 32.2"1:xe3 lt:l e4 33.f3 tlJxd6 34.cxd6 :9:xe3 35.:9:xe3 :9:a8 36.:9:e7t 'it>f6 37.:9:xb7 :9:d8 38 .:9:b6 :9:xd6 39.:9:xa6 @e5 40.:9:b6 c5! Black is ready to regroup his rook to c7, when I think he should hold. 4 I .:9:xd6 @xd6 42.g3 'it>c6 43 .f4 gxf4 44.gxf4 g6 45.h4 c4 46.a4 d4 47.@e2 d3t 48.@d2 @c7 a

b

c

d

e

g

h

White has made obvious advances, but so has Black. But once again Takacs fails to see the necessiry of changing the course of the game and plays an ugly, passive move. After this his position never truly recovers.

27 ... �dS? Having prepared it, it was necessary to play 27 .. .f4!, when I am unsure about how White should play. One option is 28.exf4 tlJ xd4 29.:9:xe8 @xe8

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 a

h

Despite being a pawn down, Black holds this pawn ending.

Chapter 1

-

This all looks quite hairy for Black and we should not forget Larsen's mantra, Long variation - Wrong variation. It is quite certain that there are improvements for both sides along the way. But what I wanted to illustrate with this long variation was the path the game could have taken, had Black attempted to defend actively. Compare this with how the game developed and you will see that although it looks scary, it was the only sensible way to play the position.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

28.�cS �xc5 29 ..ixcS hc5 30.bxcS

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White has achieved all he can on the queenside. Standard theory on endgame technique tells us that you need to provoke a second weakness. In this case it is logical to do so on the kingside. And this is indeed where Rubinstein turned his attention.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

34. ©a ile4 3S.g4 g6 36.ilgI � f7

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Rubinstein has achieved what he was looking for all along. White has permanent pressure against b7 and if Black ever manages to play ... b7-b6, the c6-pawn will be weak and there will be an excellent square on c5 available for the white knight. It is possible that Takacs went into this position thinking that he could hold it, as b7 is not that difficult to defend. But then he did not have the advantage of studying Rubinstein's collected games! It was only years later that they were available in book form. 30 ... ©e7 3 1 .:Sb2 ©d7 32.ileb l ©c8 33.©e2

i:!e7

47


8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

37.h4!? A very concrete move that Rubinstein no doubt calculated deeply. Still, I am not entirely convinced it fits in with "best practice". There was no urgency in the white position, so I think he could have manoeuvred his pieces into better positions before turning to concrete measures. It is possible that Rubinstein was concerned about the consequences of . . . l:%e4-e8-h8, when


48

Black has in turn improved his defence a little, and chat this is why he hurried here.

37 ... gxh4 37 .. .f4 was possible, but White has a big advantage after 38 .E:h l ! and the breakthrough cannot be stopped. 38.gx5 gx5 39J�g7 � d8 40J:�g8 f4? White was much better in any case, but this allows him co win the game in one move.

47.�b3! a5 48.�cl ga8 49.� d3 b5 50.cxb6t ©xb6 5 l .�c5 E!d6 52.a4 gc8

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

53.©g4 ga8 54.©5 ©c7 55J�h7t 1-0

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

41 J�h8 4 l . llJ c4! would have won inscancly. 4l. .. fxe3 42.fxe3 ©d7 Ironically 42 . . . E:e7 does not work on account of 43.e4!! with the idea 43 . . .E:xe4 44. llJ c4 and White wins. 43.Etg2 43.lDc4! and again Black can resign. Bue there is nothing objectively wrong with winning slowly, as White did in the game. Black has no councerplay and his pieces are entirely dominated. 43.. J�e8 44.Etxh4 Ete7 45.Eth8 ©c7 46.l:�gg8 gd7 46 . . tll f7 47J'k8t ©d7 48.E:hg8 and White keeps control. .

I see myself as a well-educated player and am always happy when I am able co play games chat show this. The following game is quite interesting from this perspective. In it I managed co play the entire game based not only on one idea, but on the same idea as the above game. The b7/c6-pawns are fixed and vulnerable and I managed co gee a knight co a5.

Boris Gelfand - Alexander Morozevich Astana 2001

Alexander Morozevich is a highly creative grandmaster from Moscow. He has always gone his own way and cried co reinvent the game of chess, which at times is very impressive, but at other times has been a liability for him. He played in the World Championship tournaments in 2005 and 2007 and peaked in the world rankings in 2008 where he was placed 2nd. He has not done as well in recent years, but is still often found either j ust inside or just outside the cop ten. le is well known chat Morozevich played a lot of training games with

Chapter 1

-


friends and trainers, in person or online. In 200 1 when this game was played, Morozevich had just emerged in the World elite and this was how he did it. He played rare openings, often provocative and dubious-looking. But he had analysed them deeply and as said, gathered a lot of practical experience in training games. Probably people remember his 1 1 . . .g5 in the Slav, which is now the main line. He played the Chigorin and in the French he popularized some sharp variations with . . . gxf6 in the Burn Variation. His contribution to opening theory in that period was huge and is still felt today, especially through the style of preparation, involving very risky and concrete play, but also creating big problems for the opponent to solve, if he wants to try to refute it. The opponent is forced to think independently and play very energetically from the beginning, as in this game.

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.tlic3 tlif6 4.tli f3 a6 Again the Chebanenko Variation. At the time this game was played, this variation was quite novel and the ideas of it not yet fully mapped out. At first it was developed by especially Bologan, but later on both Kasparov and Topalov played it for a while, adding a lot of new ideas to the theory. Comparing with this game it makes sense to illustrate Black's idea based on 4 . . . .if5, which is met by: 5.cxd5 ! (5 .Wfb3 Wfb6 is known to cause Black fewer problems; but in the game the a-pawn has moved and the queen would no longer be defended.) 5 . . . cxd5 6.Wfb3

49

Black cannot defend both the b-pawn and cl-pawn with any of the moves that he wants to make. Retreating the bishop is unpleasant, but probably still best. A young Egyptian GM avoided this retreat when playing against me. After 6 . . . Wfb6 7.lll xd5 lll xd5 8.Wfxd5 e6 9.Wfb3 i.b4t 1 0.i.d2 lll c6 1 1 .e3 E:c8 1 2.a3 .ixd2t 1 3 .lll x d2 Black had hardly any compensation for the pawn in Gelfand - Adly, Dresden (ol) 2008 .

5.a4 .if5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

In the Malakhov game we saw 5 . . . e6. Compared to this, 5 . . . i.f5 is the natural move. In the Slav Defence it is always nice if you can develop the bishop and play . . . e6. The drawback is that it weakens the b7-pawn, which obliges White to play Wfb3 immediately. If Black has time to play . . . e6, he would be able to defend the pawn with . . . Wfc7.

6.�b3 !la7 This might seem incredibly odd, but actually it is quite a common idea in the Chebanenko and one of Morozevich's ideas at the time. He won a good game against Anand in the Dortmund tournament where Anand collapsed, losing four games and winning none.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

50


Anand - Morozevich, Dortmund 200 1 l .d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3 .tll 8 tt:l f6 4.e3 a6 5 .id3 !g4 6.�b3 !x8 7 .gxf3 E:a7

a a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

8.tt:lc3 e6 9 .Wfc2 !e7 1 0.!d2 0-0 1 1 .0-0-0 tt:l bd7 1 2.cxd5 cxd5 1 3 .e4 'itih8 1 4.e5 tll h5 1 5 .!xh7 b 5 1 6.'itib l E:c7 1 7.Wfd3 !g5

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

The rook is of course badly placed on a7, but Black is banking on this being a temporary inconvenience. If he gets time to play . . . e6 and . . . tt:l bd7, he would be able to develop in a carefree way. Later on White would not be able to prevent the rook from coming back into the game, as we can see from the Anand game. Clearly it is a provocation and it forces White to play very energetically, to go forward and do something. If Black were given time to finish setting up his structure, there would be nothing wrong with his position. He would have no weaknesses and be able to play . . . tt:l e4 or . . . tll h5 with good play. It would be hard to suggest anything sensible for White to do to put pressure on Black.

7.a5 This has a simple point. I want to play Wfb6, which can only be prevented with the concession 7 . . . dxc4. My evaluation of this move was that it would give me an advantage in the long term and even though I knew he had prepared something, I was very optimistic about my chances.

7 ... e6 s.Y;Yb6 Y;Yxb6 9.axb6 gas 1 0.c5 � bd7

Chapter 1

-

Playing in the Style

51

of Akiba Rubinstein

anything wrong with 1 Lif4 either. Maybe it is also a good move. But I wanted to keep things under control, as whenever it gets out of control, Black will have achieved the game he wanted.

1 1 ...J.e7 White also does not need to be afraid of: 1 1 . . .eS 1 2.b4 exd4 1 3 .tll xd4 ig6 1 4.ib2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This was clearly still part of my opponent's preparation. I was out of book after five moves, while my opponent was still playing really fast.

1 1 .e3 This is the pawn structure I was aiming for. l

1 .if4 is also possible and it is tempting to put the bishop on the other side of the pawn chain, but if I get a knight on a5 and develop the kingside I will have a serious advantage. Therefore it is not so important if my bishop is developed or not; so I quickly get my other pieces out and castle to safety. Getting the knight to a5 is so important that everything else dims in comparison. Another point is of course that Black is not intending to allow me to get everything as I want it, without offering some resistance. We should consider seriously how he intends to deal with this simple plan. Once we do so, it becomes apparent that he is planning on sacrificing a piece at some point for 2-3 pawns and activity. If you know your opponent is planning to sacrifice a piece against you, it makes sense to get your pieces into the game and keep your position compact. These were my reasons and they are all reasonable. But I have to say that I cannot see

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

White enjoys a nice advantage.

h

1 2.J.e2 I could also play 1 2.tll d2, but the idea was to develop before heading for a5 and this is what I did. 1 2 . . . 0-0 I assume that one of his ideas was to exchange the bishop for a knight to prevent it from coming to a5. But it was never really possible. 1 2 . . .ig4 does not work at this point: 1 3.tll d2 ixe2 1 4 .'itixe2 lll xc5 1 5 .dxcS ixc5

52


White has 1 6.lll a4!, when Black does not have a good way to win the third pawn.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

13.�d2! The knight is headed for a5, as planned. White's play in this game is all about timing. If he castled at this point, 1 3.0-0, Black would have enough time to play 1 3 . . . ig4, when after 1 4 .lll d2 ixe2 1 5 .lll xe2 the knight is poorly placed on e2. Black plays 1 5 . . . lll x c5 1 6.dxc5 ixc5. White is potentially still better here, but Black has managed to get three pawns for his piece and has good practical chances. If White wastes time and does nothing, Black will still be able to improve his position.

1 4.lll b3 This looks like it wins a pawn, but Black has an avalanche of tricks. 1 4 . . . ic2 1 5 .lll xa5

a

b

c

b

c

d

e

d

e

f

g

f

g

h

1 5 . . . lll xb6! If White takes the knight, Black gets . . . ib4 in with an advantage. l 6.id2 lll c4! 1 7 .ixc4 dxc4 1 8.0-0 id3 1 9.�fc l The position still looks difficult for Black, but if we dig deeper, we can see that it is actually complicated. White should be careful not to fall for some crafty tricks like: 1 9 . . . �fb8! 20.lll a4?! lll d5 2 1 .lll xc4? ixc4 22.�xc4

Another point concerning this variation is that Black has managed to change the course of the game. I was very happy to have the b7-pawn as a target, so why should I allow my opponent to escape this path so easily? This is one of the main things I learned from Rubinstein.

13 . e5 This is how he planned to play, but in my analysis for this book, I found it not that easy to prove an advantage against: 1 3 . . . aS The first moves I checked turned out to be very tricky. .

.

a

h

22 . . . bS! 23.cxb6 lll xb6 White loses a decisive amount of material. So the best way for White would be to prepare lll b3 by castling short. 1 4.0-0! ic2

Chapter 1

-

Black has to prevent the knight from coming to b3, as Black will no longer have the . . . lll xb6 and . . . ib4 trick, because the rook on a 1 is no longer hanging. Imagine that the first moves were 1 4 . . . e5, then 1 5 .lDb3 .ic2 to provoke this situation, White has 1 6.lll x a5 lll xb6 1 7.cxb6 i.b4 1 8 .lll xc6 and White keeps his advantage.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

b

c

d

e

f

g

Black is suffering. In the long run he cannot defend the a-pawn. At this point we are of course speculating about what would happen in a game, but we can add a few moves to show a possible course it could take: 1 9 . . . lll f8 20.id2 lll e6 2 1 .1'%da l lll e4 22.lll xe4 dxe4 23 .1'%xa5 1'%xa5 24.1'%xa5 1'%d8 25 .1'%a7

h

1 5 .1'%e l ! I am not sure i f this is too subtle, as this move does lose a tempo when Black takes the bishop on d 1 on the next move. The key idea is that after 1 5 .id 1 id3 1 6.1'%e l lll e4! Black is managing to make things a little murky. White is probably still better, but as said, I want to keep things under control. 15 ... e5 1 6.i.d l i.xd l 1 6 . . . .id3 1 7.lll b3 is entirely in White's favour. 17.1'%xd l 1'%a6 1 8 .lll b3 1'%fa8 1 9.1'%a4

a

53


h

So the final conclusion is that after 13 . . . a5 Black will not be able to hold the pawn.

14.0-0

gfes

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 a

1 5.�b3

b

c

d

e

f

g

h


54

One of Black's tricks is that 1 5.b4? loses to 1 5 . . . exd4 1 6.exd4 tll x b6! and Black wins a pawn. 1 5 .b4 would of course be the dream way for White to play, bur the tactics do not work.

1 5 ...iJ8 16.i.d2? It was only when I had the time to go really deep chat I realized that this natural-looking move might be superfluous. I do not think chat it entirely spoils the advantage, bur as can be seen in the notes to the next move, the bishop is actually better placed on c l if Black defends optimally. 1 6.tll a5! This is therefore best. 1 6 . . . gab8 1 7.b4 ge6 17 . . . ti:Jxb6 does not fully work here. White should reply 1 8.dxe5! gxe5 1 9.cxb6 ixb4 20.id2, when Black does not have sufficient compensation. An important point is that after 20 . . . d4? White wins with 2 1 .ti:Je4! or 2 1 .ti:J b l !.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 8 .f3! This is the key move. Rather than crying to prove the advantage immediately, White should improve his position as much as possible. At the same time the rook will be passive on b8 and Black will struggle to find squares for all his pieces (the concept of Space Advantage is crucial to understanding Rubinstein's games and we shall have a look at this concept in Chapter 3).

1 8.ti:Jxb7 gxb7 1 9.ixa6 gb8 20.ti:Je2 might look attractive at first, but it is important for White to keep control.

8 �� · '.. , 7 � • , , , � ., . �>?.''�"' • �� .1. ,,/J,, J� 6 �r � • �,,• 5 - -%� rw61 � �� ,,%� 4 �if�r� if�� • ",,�% %w� ,% 3 � � , ,.%w-�� ": �w-'0 � �7�� r,��J 2 -�� -

%_

,

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Here Black can change the course of the game with: 20 . . . ti:J xb6! 2 1 .cxb6 gxb6 22.ic8 id3 23.ixe6 fxe6 24.dxe5 ixe2 2 5 .gel ia6 26.exf6 ixb4 Black has decent compensation. 1 8 . . . h5 1 8 . . . ti:Jxb6 is even worse at this point. Black has to respect White's main threat of l 9.g4! when White wins after both l 9 . . . i.g6 20.dxe5 gxe5 2 1 .f4 and 1 9 . . . i.c2 20.dxe5 gxe5 2 l .ga2! and White wins a piece without any real compensation. 1 9.gd l White is preparing his position slowly. At some point he will strike on b7, a6 or c6, giving Black big problems. Although nothing immediate exists here, it is hard for me to believe chat Black would hold this position in a practical game; which is what counts in the end. Again, it is not easy for Black to change the course of the game.

16 ...i.c2? Morozevich becomes impatient, but the tactics do not work out well for him. The attempt to create counterplay down the e-file does not work. After 1 6 . . . ge? 1 7.ti:Ja5 exd4 1 8.exd4 gae8 White could j ust play 1 9 .i.f3, but more importantly he can

Chapter 1

-

change the nature of his advantage with the tactical strike 1 9.lll x b?! �xe2 20.lll xe2 �xe2 2 l .ic3 . Black has two minor pieces for a rook, but they have no mobility. White will exchange the black rook and win quickly - or slowly. It does not matter; the result is still 1-0. It was only while preparing the material for this book that I realized that the best defensive try for Black is connected with anticipating lll b3-a5 with: 1 6 . . . �ab8! The idea is to play ... h5, ... g6 and ... ih6 to activate the passive f8-bishop. White must still be careful that Black does not manage to sacrifice a piece under good circumstances. l 7.f3!? I believe that this is the most attractive idea. l 7.lll a5 exd4 l 8.exd4 lll x c5 l 9.dxc5 d4 would lead to deep complications. Maybe White is a bit better somewhere, but I do not think this is a sensible way for White to play.

� K �*

•

s

7 � i �'i)� -� i �W" �� %i"';,?·----% 6 ·� . , % · - •� � 5 :•1; . , .,,%� ?.... . %� �� ,. � � �% ,,,_}'. . . \,,,,,., �� 4

ttJID � � 3 � ��:r�� - - -· 'w.�� r=----f--- -�

2

a

b

%

c

d

e

f

g

55


h

17 . . . ic2!? Black probably has to provoke this concrete action. This is his one chance to give up a piece for three pawns. He should not have been given the chance, but sometimes we make mistakes. We can only reduce the amount of mistakes we make, not eradicate them entirely.

I like White's position after 1 7 . . . g6 1 8 .lll a5 h5 1 9.b4 ih6 20.i.c l ! and I fail to see how Black is going to be able to improve his position. It is likely that White will gradually improve his position on the kingside, while all the time considering sacrifices on a6, b7 or c6. l 8.lll a5 exd4 l 9.exd4 lll xc5 ! This has to be played before White plays b2-b4 and locks down the queenside in a favourable structure forever. 20.dxc5 i.xc5t 20 . . . d4 does not work out well. For example: 2 l .lll e4 lll xe4 22.fxe4 d3 23.if3 ixc5t 24.'kt>h l ixb6 25 .i.f4 and Black is facing unpleasant questions. 2 1 .'kt> h l ixb6 22.�fc l ig6 23 .ifl

s

7

6 5

4

•� � K � •{1, �--J �� f% �� %lJ�£ �! ·� ·. . .. :.•-*-� �, . -�. d . , . . �. �. �� :

,

,

;

�m �m �m 3 � �m�m-�" !'% �� -----'��z�

2

� - - %�� r�� a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Black has three pawns for the piece, but White has a nice structure. He will play b2-b4 at some point and clamp down the black queenside. Still, winning this endgame would take a long time. White would have to eliminate all the black pawns on the queenside and then break through slowly on the kingside. Even so, I like White's position. It might not be easy to win, but it is favourable and he can play on forever. Black's task seems pretty depressing to me.

17.lliaS exd4 It is too late for Black to play passively. After 1 7 . . . �ab8 maybe the simplest is 1 8.�fc l if5

56


l 9.�xa6!? bxa6 20.lll xc6 Ei:bc8 2 1 .lll a5 and the two passed pawns are clearly better than Black's extra piece.

1 8.exd4 tlJxc5 1 9.dxc5 d4

s ,i �

: �L,?. r��,--� � . , ?.� )'0

2 1 . .. tlJe4 White wins in all lines: 2 l . . .Ei:ab8 22.�xf6 gxf6 23. lll x b7! and Black's position collapses. Against 2 l . . . �xc5 White has several options, bur I saw the simple 22.�xf6 gxf6 23.Ei:fc l �xb6 24.lll c4 and White wins a piece. I find the following line quite instructive. Against 2 l . . . �e4 I would play: 22.�xf6 gxf6 23.b4!

�

,%�%.,��f.�� - �� ,� �� · - ?.�ij r,{ � � 5

4

/

,

a

20 ... dxc3 2 1 .i.xc3 It is not clear if Morozevich overlooked something or if he j ust lost patience. Black has not managed to solve the problems with the b7-pawn with his tactical operation. Actually they look more urgent than ever.

� .i �ti

,

� b

c

d

� .l:J� e

f

g

h

White retains the favourable structure. White has no reason to be concerned about doubled pawns in front of the king. We should only care about the things that are truly important. Black's bishop on f8 provides him with no counterplay. White's strategic operations have been entirely successful. We now see that the dark-squared bishop has been bad all of the game and that this has been a big part of Black's problems. In this line White has of course been entirely successful in keeping his best piece, while leaving his opponent with his most impotent piece. Petrosian was known for being great at exchanging the right pieces, bur Rubinstein was not bad at this either.

Chapter 1

-

57


is always the chance that something strange could happen. But in this game it did not.

points out a nice trick: 3 1 J'fa5! l::1 b 6 32.l::1 g 5! and everything must go.

23... gabS 24.J.xe4 gxe4

29.ga7 .ie6 30.'Bxc6 i.dS 3 1 .'Bc7 'Bes 32.h3 gf4 33.�d6 ge2 34.6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

25.f:ldl 25.tll d6 is also good, but the active idea in the game looks nice. 25 ...i.e2 26.gd7 .ig4 After 26 . . . l::1 e7 I had planned 27.l::1 xe7 ixe7 28.l::1 e l ! with the point 28 . . . l::1 x b7 29.l::1 xe2 ixc5 30.l::1 e 8t if8 3 I .ib4 and White wins. .

27.'Bc7 'Bc4 28.'Bxa6 hS 28 . . .ixc5 29.tll xc5 l'hc5 30.b? l::1 b 5 is of course a completely winning position for White.

A human would find some slow plan to convert the advantage, but the computer

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

34 .. J�xg2t 35. ©xg2 'Bx6 36. ©gl 1-0 It is hard to guess what went wrong with Morozevich's home preparation for this game; obviously only he can tell. I certainly did not have the feeling of playing a surprising or genius move at any time, though I do think I handled the challenges of preventing his counterplay quite well. Morozevich was one of the first to work deeply with computer programs, so maybe at some point he simply believed the evaluation of the computer, which evaluates the position as acceptable for Black even to this day. Probably his training games also went well and he felt confident enough to try it in a big tournament game. One of the myths of Morozevich has always been that he is very creative and plays with a lot of improvisation. Obviously he is very creative at the board, but we should not forget that this creativity in the opening is based on a lot of home analysis. The public have a tendency to not understand that about the conception of

58


the most innovative ideas; they do not see how much preparation it requires between tournaments to be creative. Luckily this does not in any way diminish his achievements in this area; being creative at home is very difficult as well, as anyone who has ever cried can testify. My own playing style does not usually bring as much enthusiasm from the chess fans as chat of Morozevich, but in the struggle between dynamics and statics, sometimes someone has to cake the more conservative side. I do not personally chink this makes the games dull, though I am aware chat at times the real battle is going on under the surface, making it harder for some people to comprehend. Hopefully the more verbal explanations in this book will help unlock the thought process behind this kind of strategic game for a lot of people. In general I would like to add chat I am a strong believer in the value of a chess education built on thorough knowledge of the classics. Any attempt co emulate the engines and their 2,000,000 moves a second is doomed co fail. We need to supplement calculation with all other weapons available. And one of these is intuition, which is strongly rooted in pattern recognition. When you have "uploaded" a lot of chess patterns to your brain in your childhood, you will often have a very strong suspicion regarding what the right move is in a position, even though you have no idea why. . .

Moscow 2012

Chapter 2 The Squeeze

Moscow 2012

60


A classically trained player will approach each position based on his understanding of its needs. If he has a lead in development, he will most likely try to attack the opponent's king, for example. If he has a material advantage, he will try to prevent all counterplay and perhaps steer the game towards a winning endgame. The possibilities are many. This is hopefully obvious to everyone, though not everyone thinks this way! The reason why so many trainers recommend that we study the best games of such diverse players as Capablanca, Alekhine, Tai, Petrosian and so on, is that they all excelled in playing different types of positions and it should be our goal to learn to play them all as well as possible. Rather more complex is how we approach having an advantage. Many players try to force their will on a position if they determine that they are better. At times such a concrete way of exploiting the initiative is the right strategy and at other times it is not. Chess is a game with a sizable drawing margin and we need our opponents to make mistakes if we are to win. At times this is achieved by putting concrete problems to them, at other times by asking them to find a way to navigate their way out of the situation they are in. It may not be necessary to harass them too much, and we can just focus on improving our own position slowly. Capablanca talked about the death of chess because of excessive openin g theory, which was already quite a dubious statement a hundred years ago. If only I was able to get the positions he got after the opening with White back then! These days you rarely get an advantage out of the opening with White, let alone a significant one. Top professionals bring deep ideas and analysis to the game as Black and in every

top event some games will end in a draw without the black player having made a single independent move in the game. Grischuk said in an interview that after the Candidates matches in Kazan 20 1 1 , most players changed their approach to the opening. After a number of numbing draws in the Queen's Gambit Declined, some matches were decided in blitz. Since then, most players just want to get a game. It seems a bit of an over interpretation, but the trend is definitely going in this direction, though I would hasten to say that things were quite different in my matches in that tournament. At times we are able to get a little something out of the opening. Often the positions are quite complicated and it is hard to determine who is better, but there are also times when our position is simply pleasant. Maybe the opponent has accepted doubled pawns, maybe an isolated pawn. It might not be significant enough for us to call it an advantage, but as long as he has to make a few good moves to prove equality, there is a chance we can set him some practical problems. We apply a little pressure, j ust enough to make his life a bit uncomfortable. In time this might lead to a small inaccuracy - and a few more problems to solve. More problems means more chances to make mistakes. All we have to do is to keep the pressure up - to keep squeezing.

Rubinstein squeezing... Akiba had the most wonderful technique. It is quite natural that he enjoyed slowly improving his position and squeezing the life out of his opponents. The following game made a great impression on me when I was a young boy. To this day I cannot help being impressed by the way Black managed to outplay his opponent

Chapter 2

-

slowly and accurately. I think this game was what Nimzowitsch was thinking about when he said that Rubinstein's trademark was the long plan. In the game he gets a good pawn structure, which makes it easy to improve his position.

David Janowski - Akiba Rubinstein Karlsbad 1907

l.e4 e5 2.�f3 c!LJc6 3.�c3 �f6 4 ..ib5 .ib4

5.0-0 0-0 6.d.3 J.xc3 7.bxc3 d6 8.J.g5 V!!e7

61

The Squeeze 9 ... c!LJ d8

1 0�c4 .ie6! White is not allowed to keep the bishop pair. Rubinstein is indeed slowly neutralizing White's advantages. I I ..ib3 Axb3 1 2.axb3 c!LJe6 13 ..ih4 h6 14J�fe l a6 1 5 ..ig3 Played to put e5 under pressure, but it is a bit slow, giving Black a free hand to transfer a knight to f4. l 5 .d4 made more sense, though Black is fine nonetheless.

15 ... �h5 16.d4 c!LJ ef4

-�-�'-,,.,)m1!� �·� ·��

8� 7 .... � 6 i - _, �� 5 � � 4 - n'lr• 3 -tl)� �o- - ---��r� � £� % 2 � . . , ,%

� :I � �8 0 � - 'a' 'Jif ,

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This game was played at a time when opening theory looked nothing like it does today. Most of the games opened l .e4 e5 or l .d4 d5. These days it is quite common for Black players to use dynamics as a way to counter the slight pressure White gets from the start. A hundred years ago people tried to equalize by solving their problems early, which is what Rubinstein manages to do in this game.

9.V!!d2 This is a rather harmless move, but you can understand why White played it. The queen goes to a slightly better square and not much is really happening here anyway. 9.�e l is the main move, with a lot of theory.

a

b

-..,

..,,%

%

'

I

.%

c

d

e

f

g

h

17..txf4?! This is quite a serious mistake that soon leads to a slightly worse pawn structure, creating long-term problems for White. The knight on h5 was not dangerous and the bishop on g3 was defending the king. With the bishop gone, White has to weaken his structure in order to kick the knight away from f4. At this point I prefer l 7.°1We3!? with the idea of �ad l , �d2 and �ed 1 .

17 ... c!LJxf4 1 8.g3 Unhappy with the knight on f4, White commits an ever-so-slight concession.

62


Rubinstein understood that such changes would matter in the long run and knew how to exploit them.

at that time. It is quite possible that this was the original inspiration for the manoeuvre that Kasparov later popularized in the King's Indian with . . . @h8, . . . lll e7-g8-f6-h5.

18 ... lll g6 19.Yfd3 Yfe6 Preparing to open the f-file. 20.lll d2 f5

a

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

21 .d5 This decision looks quite reasonable. After the exchange on f5 White gets a great square on e4 for his knight. On the surface it seems that White has a preferable structure. But if we look deeper, as Rubinstein liked to do, we will see that the knight on e4 is pretty, but ineffective. It will eventually be exchanged and White will be left with an inferior structure, where Black is able to apply some pressure down the f-file, which of course has been weakened with 1 8 .g3 . . . 2 1 . ..Yfd7 22.exf5 gxf5 23.lll e4 gaf8 24.ge3 lll e7! Black starts a regrouping of his knight in order to eliminate the knight on e4, as previously indicated. It takes a few moves, but there is little White can do in the meantime. Remember that we are talking 1 907 here, more than a hundred years ago. Such long manoeuvres were probably entirely unknown

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

25.gdl @hs 26.c4 lll g8 27.f'3 lilf6 28J:Ul. White can play 28.lll c3, but the knight would lose all of its effectiveness. 28 ... lll xe4 29.Yfxe4?! This is quite a normal-looking move, but as we shall see, it fails to anticipate the problems that are approaching. And this is exactly the point. Predicting the coming moves was very difficult; I would even go as far as to say that without the knowledge of chess history that we have today (which among other things is based on knowing this game!), it is not possible to understand the problems White is starting to face. 29.E:xe4 with the idea of We3 seems better. The position is essentially equal. Black has to pay attention to f3-f4 all the time.

29 ... YfdS!! This does not look like anything special. All that happens is that White will have to be a little careful in order to stay out of trouble. But when you know what is coming, you cannot help being mesmerized by Rubinstein's

Chapter 2

-

clarity of thought. The path the queen takes here still feels revolutionary a century on.

63

The Squeeze

I would personally have considered 35 . . . a5!? 36.Wfc3 Wfc5 to keep the control of the b4square, when I prefer Black's position.

36.Yfc3 aS Black cannot afford to lose the fight for the b4-square. 37.Yfxb4 37.c5!? 37... axb4 38.c3 bxc3 39.gxc3 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

30.Yfg4 Played against a perceived threat of . . . Wfg5 . 30.�ee l ! Wfb8 3 1 .Wfe3 was best, and the position is still about equal. But who would play something this artificial?

30 ...YfbS! The queen enters the white position from a surprising angle.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White has managed to get rid of his doubled pawns and eliminate the intruding black queen. But he is still a tempo away from full equality. It is quite possible that Janowski believed that he was making a draw here, but things are far from that simple.

31.©g2 Yfa7

39 !iaS! Taking control of the a-file means that White still has problems to solve. With his next move White makes a serious mistake that for the first time takes his problems from being j ust optical to being real. ..•

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

32J!Uel YfcS 33.Yfe4 Yfb4 34.g l e2 g5f6 35.Yfd3 ©g8

40.©h3? Activating the king, though it should be said that the king is by no means better placed on


64

g4 than it was on g2. Meanwhile Black has time to make improvements to his structure. 40.c5! was essential. White would be able to use the open c-file to create counterplay against the b7- and d6-pawns and thus keep the game in balance.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

After the move played in the game White will not be able to rid himself of his weaknesses. A temporary inconvenience has shifted and become a permanent problem. The position should still be held with immaculate play, but this is the point of the squeeze: immaculate play is for computers, and chess players are human beings.

40 b6! Preventing c4-c5 . .••

41 .©g4 4 I .b4!? E:a4 42.E:b2 was possibly better, but what is clear is that White is on the defensive and his pieces are being forced into passivity. White will have to avoid making mistakes for a very long time, and some of the problems he will face can be quite considerable.

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

42Jlb2? White decides that his position is safe and that all he needs to do is to wait. Even if a draw was found through deep analysis at some point over the next few moves, it would not change my view that this is the moment where White lost the game. Over the next few moves Black improves his position and his advantage grows and grows. 42.f4! could be considered. After 42 . . . exf4 43.gxf4 White is probably close to being okay, but it is quite understandable that Janowski hesitated about splitting his pawns in this way. Once again this illustrates the challenges White is facing. There are no truly easy decisions.

42 ©h7 43.b4 ©g6 In a few moves the white king will be in trouble on g4. .•.

44Jlbb3 44.©h3 could be tried, but after 44 . . . E:g l ! the king will not manage to get to safety. Again, it is possible that White can hold the draw, but it would be with the edge of his nails. 44 JH"S 45.gc2 ghl ! Rubinstein i s famous fo r his handling of rook endings and this is no exception. ..

41 .. ,gal

a

Chapter

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

2

-

65

The Squeeze

53. @d3 gat 54. @d4 gb3! Blocking the white pawns. 55.gf2t @g6 56.gg2t @h6 57.b5 An unpleasant move to make, but also a forced one. 57.:Sa2 b5! and Black wins.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

46.£4 This brilliantly illustrates how things have gone wrong for White. Only five moves ago he rejected making this committal decision, when he was reasonably active. But now he feels compelled to play it, when he is passive and it loses a pawn by force. This is the nature of the squeeze. When you are under pressure you will usually have to make a concession or an unpleasant decision a number of times, and it is so easy to miss the moment when you have to accept that things are going wrong. You then find yourself in a situation where everything has gone entirely wrong. . . Looking a t his options must have made Janowski desperate. After both 46.�h3 :Sh5t and 46.c5 :Sg5t! followed by 47 ... :Sh5t, Black wins a pawn. However, the enigmatic 46.:Sbb2!? is the suggestion from the engines. Black wins the f3-pawn, but White gets to play c4-c5 and can at least fight a little bit. Black should win, but some difficult decisions await.

46... exf4 47.gxf4 h5t 48.�g3 ggl t 49.�fl gg4 Black wins a pawn.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

57 ... ga Played to keep everything under control. This is something I learned from Rubinstein as well. The important thing is not that you win quickly, but that you win safely. This can mean that you spend many more moves winning a position than the computer or even someone else might, but as long as you win, this does not matter. And the way to ensure that you win is to minimize the number of difficult decisions you will have to make in the conversion. And this is exactly what Rubinstein achieves with this move. 57 . . . g5! is the computer's recommendation. White cannot create real counterplay against c7, as h2 would fall and the pawns promote. But to work this out with certainty would require calculation - and calculation always contains a risk of miscalculation. On the other hand, we should also be careful not to play too artificially in order to avoid calculation. Sometimes it only postpones the

66


moment when a decision has to be made, but does not guarantee that it will not be more difficult.

58.©e4 �ff6 59.ga2 g5 60.ga7 gf4t 60 . . . �f7 was also possible, with the idea of 6 1 .c5 bxc5 62.b6? �f4t and Black wins. 61.©d3 gf7 62.cS!? Seeking counterplay.

Black has to retreat with 66 . . . �g7 to avoid losing to �c7-c6. But after 67.�c6t
66. ©£5 h4 67 J:ks Black also wins after 67.�c6t
62 ... dxcS 63.d6

A better pawn structure

a

b

c

d

f

e

g

h

The critical moment. Not surprisingly Rubinstein is up to the task and concludes the game with accuracy.

63 ... gd7! 64.gxc7 gxd6t 65.©e4 gd4t! The big trap is that 65 . . . �g6? runs into trouble after 66.
a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

A scenario I quite enjoy is the one where I have a slightly better pawn structure and for this reason can manoeuvre around, putting pressure on my opponent all over the board, threatening to carry out a strong break here or there. Obviously I prefer my structure to be strong, flexible and vibrant, and for my opponent's structure to be riddled with weaknesses, for example isolated tripled pawns. But in the real world you have to play resourceful opponents; if you achieve anything it is already time to celebrate. In the 20 1 3 World Cup in Tromso I had a game where I got in my preparation in one game and obtained a nice advantage with a better pawn structure. Alex Huzman was walking around smiling and fell into conversation with one of the arbiters, who asked him, "Why all the happiness?" Alex explained, but found no understanding. ''A better pawn structure? If he was a rook or a queen up I could understand it, but this is surely nothing!" As the playing strength of the players increases, the advantage needed to win a game also diminishes. But I am sure that having a better pawn structure is an advantage

Chapter 2

-

at all levels! So even if you do not know exactly what to use it for, get it. In the long run it will pay off. In the following game I managed to get a pawn structure where I could apply a bit of pressure down the b-file, and where it was easier for me to organize a pawn break on the kingside than it was for my opponent. In principle this could not be called an advantage, as analysis constantly proves that Black has more than sufficient counterplay. In the end, chess is a game played with ideas and moves. Each player has his own vision and understanding of chess, and will try to impose it on his opponent. In this game it was simply easier to connect White's ideas to good moves than it was to come up with ideas for Black.

Boris Gelfand - Loek van Wely Plovdiv 2003

Van Wely has been one of the strongest Dutch players for two decades. He has an active positional style and is very strong willed. He was part of the European Team Championship winning teams for the Netherlands in 200 1 and 2005, both times on Board 1 . This game was played on Board 1 in Round 3 of the 2003 edition of this tournament. There is a great story involving Van Wely from 1 992, when I played in Wijk aan Zee for the first time. With one round to go I was trailing Salov by half a point, and he was Black against Van Wely (I was Black against Sax) . During the game Van Wely came up to me and told me that he had been offered a draw, but wanted to help me win the tournament and had thus declined. This made me a little nervous! A short time later he was dead lost. In the end I managed to win against Sax and Loek saved the dead lost position, securing me shared first place.

The Squeeze

67

It is quite typical of Loek to want to help by fighting! It is in his nature.

l .e4 Around that time, 2002-2003, I played 1 .e4 quite frequently, maybe in a third of my games. It can be a good idea to play both l .d4 and l .e4 for a number of reasons. 1) It gives you the chance to play different types of positions. 2) It makes it more difficult for your opponent to prepare. 3) It makes it easier to go for weak spots in your opponent's preparation. For these reasons I gave 1 .e4 a serious shot, but somehow it did not really work out, so after some time I stopped playing it. Around the same time Kramnik was playing l .e4 as well, but it did not work out for him either. We even worked a little together on a few openings. Also around this time Grischuk asked me a few questions: why do you play 1 .d4 when l .e4 is obviously stronger? And why do you play the Najdorfwhen it is obvious that Black's position should be lost? At the time he was very serious about this, especially that a refutation of the Najdorf would be found imminently. But a few years later he started playing both 1 .d4 and the Najdorf. . . I should say that I do not believe that you can refute openings, especially not those with a solid positional foundation and a long history, such as the Najdorf. These days, people are getting ever more inventive in the opening. Some openings that were considered just bad are now mainstream, like the Berlin for example. Other openings might be harder to play, like the Chigorin, the Tarrasch Defence or the Modern Benoni, but they cannot be refuted.

68


8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

l. .. c5 2.�f3 �c6 3..ih5

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

The Rossolimo, which became a headache for me some years later.

3 ... g6 I played 3 . . . e6 against Anand in the 20 1 2 match. I did not fully manage to solve all the problems presented to me during the match, b � t subsequently I had a lot of good games with Black in this line. 4.0-0 Nowadays almost everyone takes on c6 immediately, but at the time I did not see the purpose of this and chose another sensible line.

a

c

g

e

At this point the positional game starts. The structure has been somewhat solidified and some of the dynamic possibilities have been removed from the game.

7.d3 Y!!e7 Black's typical idea in this position is to play . . . tll f6-d7-f8-e6-d4, meaning that he has to defend the e5-pawn before developing the knight. One could imagine that after: 7 . . . lll e7?! 8 . .ie3 b6 9.a3 a5 1 0.tll bd2 0-0 l 1 .lll c4 f6 1 2.b4

4...i.g7 5.gel e5 A solid choice, following in the footsteps of Radjabov, as we shall see below. 5 . . . lll f6 is simply another line.

6..ixc6 Blade's idea is to play . . . lll ge7, so it is time to take on c6. 6 ... dxc6 6 . . . bxc6 was played in Fischer - Spassky in the 1 992 match. Fischer played 7.b4!? here, but I was planning to play 7.c3 followed by d2-d4.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White would have excellent play on the queenside, breaking up the black structure. This is j ust an illustrative line I have made up off the cuff, but looking in the database :Ve �n see that one game actually developed m this way and that White won in smooth

69

Chapter 2 - The Squeeze style, keeping a slight edge all the way, until Black broke and lost first a pawn, then a piece. 12 ... axb4 l 3.axb4 E!:xa l 1 4.Wxa l b5 l 5 .tll a5 cxb4 1 6.i.c5 i.e6 1 7.i.xb4 We? 1 8.Wd E!:c8 1 9.d4 exd4 20.tlixd4 if7 2 1 .i.xe? Wxe7 22.tli axc6 We? 23.tlie?t �f8 24.Wxc? E!:xc7 25.tliec6 'it>e8 26.E!:a l �d7 27.Ei:a8 E!:b7 28.tll d 8 1 -0 Ambroz - Muehlebach, Bad Ragaz 1 99 1 .

8.tll bd2 tll f6 9.tll c4 lli d7 10.i.d.2 0-0 All very natural development. By his accurate move order, White has prevented 10 . . . tli f8?, when a simple tactic would win a pawn: l 1 .tll cxe5!

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

All in all this approach is also playable, but I liked what I did in the game better. It is more flexible.

1 2 ... aS This stops b2-b4 permanently and maybe even threatens . . . a5-a4. On 1 2 . . . i.a6 I was going to play 1 3.tll fd2 with the idea of b2-b4. There is no sensible way for Black to prevent this. He cannot play 1 3 . . . b5 1 4.tll e3 b4, because after 1 5 .axb4 cxb4 the bishop on a6 is hanging to l 6.E!:xa6.

1 3.a4 This was White's idea. The queenside is blocked and Black cannot play . . . b5 or any other active options, and White is able to play a bit like in the King's Indian with a kingside expansion. In short, White secures a small structural advantage and prepares himself for a long game, trying to squeeze his opponent. Still, in an earlier game I managed to play pretty feebly against Radjabov and lose quickly. 13 ...i.a6 14.b3

a

b

c

l l .a3 The typical plan.

d

e

f

g

h

l l. .. b6 12.i.c3 A small touch of prophylaxis. 1 2.b4 immediately was also possible, but I was not sure about 1 2 . . . i.a6 as played in Torre Timman, Moscow 1 98 1 , when White has to seriously consider if he wants to allow an exchange on c4. In the game Torre got a good position, but I do not think Timman played the best moves.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

14.. J::Ub s This looks a bit artificial, but the reasoning is rather simple. Black wants to play . . . tli f8e6-d4 finally.

70


Radjabov took on c4: 1 4 . . . ixc4 1 5 .bxc4 'Wd6 1 6.!!b l !!ae8 I think White is simply slightly better. l 7.g3 'We6 1 8.iig2 l:!e7

8

7

6 5

4 3

2

a

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

At this point I neglected to look at his counterplay and made a bad plan. 1 9.h4 Underestimating the strength of . . . f5 . I think i t was better t o play 1 9.llig5 'Wd6 and now for example 20.llih3, with the idea f2-f4, which reminds us a bit of the current game. There are lot of possible variations I could give here, but it makes more sense to say that White is just better. l 9 . . . f5 20.'We2 Again I think it would be better to play 20.llig5, when after 20 . . . 'Wd6 2 1 .exf5 gxf5 22.'We2 Black still cannot move forward without seriously weakening his structure. 20 . . .f4 Black has taken over the initiative, although he does not have an advantage yet. This simply means that White's position is a little harder to play. 2 1 .llig5 'Wd6 22.!!h l ?! 22.g4!? was worth considering, though the position could become rather drawish. 22 ... h6 23.llif3 'We6 24.!!h3?! 24.h5 g5 25.llih2 was another option. 24 . . . !!ef7 25.!!e l ?!

b

c

b

c

h

After quite a number of below-par moves from his opponent, Black is finally able to create real threats! Where White made the final mistake is less interesting than to say that he drifted into this position in an oblivious frame of mind. 25 . . . .!lif6!! 26.gxf4 A fascinating variation goes like this: 26 . .!lixe5 llih5! (Radjabov gave 26 . . . lli d7 in his analysis, but twelve years later the computer shows a nice way out for White: 27.llixf7 ixc3 28.llixh6t iih7 29.gxf4!! Axe l 30.h5 g5 3 1 .f5 'Wxh6 32.'Wxe l and things are not clear at all.) 27.llixf7 'Wxf7 8

7

6 5

4 3

2

a

d

e

f

g

h

Threatening . . . f3t. 28 .g4 i.xc3 29.gxh5 f3t! 30.!!xf3 'Wxf3t 3 l .'Wxf3 !!xf3 and White can choose between two very bad endings. Perhaps the true illustration of how poor White's position has become is that the computer suggests 26.g4 as a

Chapter 2

-

serious move. Something has gone wrong then . . . 26 . . . lll h5 27 . .id2 E:xf4

71

The Squeeze

Played with the idea of regrouping the knight. A part of the story is that after l 5 . . .f6 1 6.lll h4 lll f8 l 7.f4 Black has a number of unpleasant decisions to make. White does not have an obvious advantage, but Black still needs to find a way to solve his problems; and this is not trivial.

1 6.bxc4 Obviously opening the b-file with the idea of putting pressure on b6. b

a

c

d

e

f

g

16 ... t!Jf'S 17.Vff c l Yffc7 1 8.Yffb2 f6 19.ga3 t!J e6 20.gb3

h

Black has an amazing attack. White simply fell apart now. 28 .ll:lgl .if6 29.@h l .ixh4 30 . .ixf4 lll xf4 3 1 .E:xh4 ll:lxe2 32.E:xe2 <±>g7 33 .E:h2 Wd7 34.E:e3 b5 3 5 . cxb5 cxb5 36.axb5 Wxb5 37.c4 �b l 0- 1 Gelfand - Radjabov, Enghien-les-Bains 2003.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

20 ..ifS Accompanied with a draw offer. I imagine that Van Wely believed he had a fortress or something like that. He probably underestimated the challenges Black faces here to prove equality. I know him well and he would not offer a draw unless he thought I would be likely to accept it. ..

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

15.g3! I really like this simple move. I do not want to move the knight from f3 too soon, but I also wanted to start my expansion on the kingside. This is the natural way to do so. 15 ... Lc4

Black should be careful not to drop a pawn with 20 . . . E:b7 2 1 .E:b l E:ab8? 22 . .ixa5 . An interesting try for Black could be: 20 . . . lll d4!? Played with an interesting pawn sacrifice in mind:


72

2 1 .ixd4 2 1 .t2Jxd4 cxd4 22.id2 does not cause Black much trouble if he continues with 22 . . . if8 23.:B:b I ic5 defending b6. 2 l . .. cxd4 22.:B:b I 8

7

6 5

4

a

3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

22 . . . if8! 22 . . . :B:a6? 23.c5 would be a disaster. 23.:B:xb6 ib4 24.:B:xb8t :B:xb8 Black is planning . . . c5, . . . :B:f8 and . . . '1Wd7 in order to create counterplay on both flanks. White should probably respond actively with: 25.h4!? Trying to create some play of his own. The position is very complex and it is likely that Black has full compensation for the pawn, but given a choice, I would prefer to have an extra pawn under these circumstances than to have to justify the compensation for it. I have to admit to a bias towards positional pawn sacrifices. I like this way of bringing the position out of balance and sharpening the fight. We will see more of this in the next volume.

21 .gb l The first tripling in the game. Later on the same pieces will triple on the g-file, making the game distinctive. It is not an everyday occurrence. 21...ga6 22.'?;Vcl

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

22 ....id6 Van Wely decides to bring the bishop to c7, which makes a lot of sense. It is not really an effective piece, but from c7 it will both defend the b6-pawn and work against White's f2-f4 push. I suspect he was thinking that I would not be able to do much if he j ust waited. With so many pieces and so many possible things to do, this is a rather dangerous strategy, and in practice it proved difficult. Another interesting and logical option was to play: 22 . . . tt:J d4 23.tt:Jxd4 cxd4 24.id2 ic5 Black has successfully defended the b6-pawn and can start to move his more effective pieces to the kingside. A possible variation that we looked at goes like this: 25.f4 :B:e8 26.'\Wfl '1Wd7! Preventing '1Wh3. 27.'1Wf3 :B:a7 28.:B:fl '1Wh3

Chapter 2

-

le seems chat Black has sufficient counterplay here, although I am still hopeful chat White would be able co sec him a few more challenges. One thing we looked at was: 29.g4 Wfxf3 30.:gxf3 f5 ! Black i s perfectly fine. When White cakes o n f5 with the e-pawn {before or after a n exchange of the g-pawns) , Black will play . . . e4 with great counterplay. Essentially I chink this is the way Black should have played.

73

The Squeeze

a player does not do something in good circumstances, it is highly unlikely he will do it in a less favourable situation, even if it is required. Also, White has been able to improve his position a little since move 22, so he would be able co create more difficulties for his opponent. Ac this point this includes a rather savvy tactical idea: 2 5 . .ixd4 cxd4

23.Vfl Vd7 23 . . . lll d4 makes less sense than on the previous move, although it is playable. 24.h4

a

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

If I were allowed, I would love to play h4-h5 in order to create more weaknesses.

24... h5 Quite a natural decision, but this does limit Black's active possibilities on the kingside as well. If White managed to play h4-h5 and lll h4, Black's position could become unpleasant rather quickly. 24 . . . lll d4 This is still playable, though as mentioned Black had decided not to play it on previous moves. This is a common thing we see: if

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

26.c3! .ic5 26 . . . dxc3 27.c5! looks dangerous for Black. le is by no means obvious chat Black will find his way through the labyrinth of variations here, or chat safe passage actually exists. 27.cxd4 exd4 The position has changed and it seems chat once again, the main active options belong to White, though Black is rather solid as well.

25.Vh3 i.c7 He follows his idea and I follow mine. 26.i.d2 A useful move. Black is not seriously planning . . . f5, so there is no pressure needed on e5 anymore. Another point is chat White is starting to think about the g3-g4 break, so he needs control over the f4-square. 26 .. J�ds 21.@h 1


74

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

that White is better somehow. If I manage to get the king out of the way, it should be possible to do something. Black had many chances to do somethin g , but rejected them all for the strategy of waiting. From this point on the options start to be less and less attractive, making the defensive task much harder. a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

27 ... @h?? I really did not understand this move. There is no reason to put the king on this square. 27 . . . E!:aa8 This makes more sense, improving the worst-placed piece. 28 .E!:g l 'itif7 This is a more sensible square for the king. Black needs the rooks on g8 and h8. 29.g4 hxg4 29 . . . E!:h8 30.g5 would create serious weaknesses in the black position. 30.E!:xg4 E!:h8 3 1 .E!:b l E!:ag8 32.E!:g3 Wc8

�1�.=1� 1 . � 6 �.-,i, :�r %� ��-%" %� : ��rf�rf �ltJ �� 3 � -� t!:i 2 � t!:i� d • �

28 ... l!aa8 29.g4 tl:\g7 Black is under a lot of pressure here. 29 . . . hxg4 30.Wxg4 Wf7?! Black may well have considered this idea durin g the game, but there is quite a nice refutation.

%

·ef

a

28.l!gl The game has of course developed rather slowly up to this point. It has been the sort of manoeuvring game that I was looking for from the beginning. And finally at this point I think we can say without a doubt that White has managed to create real chances.

nm b

c

d

• e

f

•@ g

h

Black is ready for . . . lli d4 and his position seems fine. White would therefore have to find a way forward other than a quick g3-g4, which might not be so easy. Still, I cannot shake the feeling

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

3 l .h5! g5 32.Wf5t \t>g7 33.ixg5!! fxg5 34.llixg5 llixg5 3 5 .E!:xg5t 'itif8 36.Wg4 Threatening E!:f5 . 3 6 . . . E!:d6

Chapter 2

-

75

The Squeeze

8

7

6

5 4

3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

37.d4! Threatening Ei:f3 . 37 . . . Ei:f6 38.Ei'.g3! White's next check is going to hurt - big time. For this reason 30 . . . tl:\ f4 seems to be the only move, but after: 3 l .ixf4 '1Wxg4 32.Ei'.xg4 exf4

� �� . � .i �.� �

�.,� �L..,% _,Y, ��r, %� . . �1 �J T � � lS R t�JIU� - : � � �1!1•r �� " %� � @

6

5 4

..

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

33.e5! Black will end up with an inferior structure and a bad bishop on c7. White has excellent chances.

30.tll h2!! with the idea of '1We3 would lead to a quick collapse of the black position on the kingside. He can probably give up a pawn and fight on, but it is clear that this was a big opportunity. But sometimes in chess these things are very surprising and all of the best players can show moments where they overlook stuff like this. Ifyou do not suspect there is a tactic, sometimes you just don't look. A recent moment that showed this was: Magnus Carlsen - Viswanathan Anand, Sochi (6) 20 1 4

At this point I missed a rather random chance to win the game quickly. It contains a nice geometric idea that I simply did not suspect was there. In fact, I was unaware that I had this chance before we started working on this book.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

76


26.@d2?? a4?? Both players realized what they had done shortly after making their moves {missing that 26 . . . tll xeS ! wins the game} , but then it was already too late . . .

30 . . hxg4 Sooner or later he will have to take, so Van Wely decides that now is as good a moment as any. .

3 1 .:axg4 �h5 32.:ab1 This keeps the position flexible. The rook will be available on both the b-file and the g-file. 32 .. J�gS

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

33.:abgl ?! Getting ready for the promised tripling on the g-file. But actually this is an inaccuracy, allowing Black to get back in the game with an active possibility. At this point I believe 33.tll g l ! is best. White has some pressure and will play Wi'g2 and tll h3 {or tll e2) . We have analysed this a bit and Black constantly had to solve problems, which is what White's strategy is all about.

33 ....td6?!

With the pressure being released on the queenside, it is quite natural for Black to add some flexibility to the bishop, at least superficially. At this stage in the game, there is a chance that a few decisions are made too quickly, due to the limitations of the clock, though I have to say that neither player was in serious time trouble at this point. During the game I was also considering 33 . . . :ag? and after the game I analysed it a little. Essentially White can continue to put Black under pressure for quite a while. But this is irrelevant when you discover Black's active possibility. With the rook having abandoned the queenside, Black could have played 33 . . . bS! in order to create a passed pawn and with it some active play.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

A likely short variation is 34.Wi' g2 Wff7 35 .cxb5 cxb5 36.axb5 a4 and Black has good counterplay. (Note that an additional idea beyond creating a passed pawn is . . . i.a5 in order to fight for the f4-square for the knight.) It might even be White who has to be careful at this point! For this reason it is possible that White should not take on b5 at all, making it immediately obvious that Black should have played this. However, neither I, nor my opponent (to the best of my knowledge} , considered this option durin g the game. I only found it while working on this book.

Chapter 2

-

It is very hard, when you have a passive position, to time the right moment to create active counterplay. This . . . b5 idea reminds me of the final game in the most recent World Championship match, where Anand managed to put his opponent under some pressure before recklessly sacrificing the exchange and losing the game. Magnus Carlsen - Viswanathan Anand, Sochi ( 1 1 ) 20 1 4

The Squeeze

77

35J�g5? I am not entirely sure why this move attracted me. Obviously the rook cannot be taken, but otherwise it has little function here. It is unlikely that White will actually be able to deliver some strong combination on h5 or e5. 35 .El.b l This would have been the right move. It is quite likely that Van Wely would have played 35 . . . ic7 and the game would have gone back on track. But we also analysed a more active option, j ust to be thorough. 35 . . . E!.ab8 36.lll g l ! Going to h3 or e2. 36 . . . b5!? This is the critical test, but here it does not look as convincing as previously. 37.cxb5 cxb5 38.axb5 8

��

7

' y,

6 5

From move 3 3 to 3 7 I wasted five moves, moving aimlessly around. It took some time for me to understand what I should be doing in the position: open lines on the kingside with f2-f4. So I should manoeuvre the knight to support this push and keep the rook on b I to prevent . . . b6-b5 . All of this is easy to see in hindsight. It took time to work it out at the board. Luckily, like Polugaevsky (see page 229) I was not afraid to admit my mistakes, except I did not know they were mistakes at the time! I believed I was just keeping things fluid before the time control!

34.Wg2 Wf7 We are back in the squeeze. Black has slightly more weaknesses and White can continue to put pressure on him.

4 3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

38 . . . a4 38 . . . Wa2 39.El.c l ! El.xb5 40.lll e2 and White is well coordinated and ready to reroute the knight to either c3 or g3, as well as to play El.gl with strong pressure on the kingside. 39.c4 a3 40.El.a l El.a8 4 1 .Wf3 Obviously Black is not as well placed to prove compensation here as he has been at other times, and for that reason it is fair to say that he does not have any. . .

35 ....ie??


78

Quite an understandable move. White is forced to retreat and Black has a (half) -free move to do something with. By now it is not hard to guess that Black had the chance to play 35 . . . b5! with active counterplay. White might take the pawn and gee a rook squeezed on a l or retreat the rook from g5 and accept chat Black has seriously improved his position. In either case the game has been blown wide open and a dirty mud-wrestling match is likely to cake place over the next 1 0- 1 5 moves, with an unclear outcome.

36J�g4 .ifll Van Wely is using his free move co fight for the f4-square. 36 . . . id6 would repeat the position, but Van Wely (quite understandably) wanted to make something more out of my strange 35ch move.

37J�bl Quite a typical move for my way of approaching this type of position. Why not ask Black how he wants to defend the b6pawn, as it does not appear entirely obvious what the answer is.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

This was a poor decision. Not only does the rook look entirely stupid on a6, it is also completely out of the game. Although I still believe in White's position, there were better ways to defend the pawn. 37 . . . :gbs This comes across as the most natural move, but was probably rejected by Van Wely because of a simple tactic. Bue if we look a bit deeper, we can see that instead White should carry on with his strategy and play: 38.lll gl ! le would be a bad idea co play 38 . .ixaS ?! :gas 39.ixb6? :gxa4, when Black becomes active on the a-file and the white bishop is entirely sidelined and vulnerable. 38 . . . .id6 le is coo late for 38 . . . bS. 8

7

6 5

4 3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

39.lll h3 .ic7 40.@h l :gg7 4 1 .f4 White has managed co open up files on the kingside, making it possible to put extra pressure on the black position; most noticeably here, the f6-pawn. 37 . . . Vfff c? would sideline the queen and White would continue with exactly the same moves and have some advantage. a

37 .. J:�a6?

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Finally, Black could consider not defending the pawn at all! If White takes it, the main effect might simply be a black invasion along the b-file.

79

Chapter 2 - The Squeeze 37 . . .ih6! For the reasons mentioned, it makes more sense to answer this with: 38.ixh6 �xh6

�i ��-�1;��x�y c:·� w� • • w� • • %---% 'i ,%� : -�%-� �%�,�{�%·��'� %'''' � � � � � .�!a�B1� 1 �- -- %� - -8

? 6

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

39.tli g l ! ? Aimed a t continuing with tli h3, <;f;>h l and f2-f4 as in the other lines. At some point the b6-pawn will actually need defending. But here the bogeyman j umps out of the swamp and unleashes: 39 . . . b5! Yet again. 40.cxb5 Wa2 I think this gives Black decent counterplay and makes the game rather unclear and complicated. So White would have to accept the pawn on b6 after all, giving Black a lot of active play. It is possible that White is still better somehow, but from a practical perspective, this would be a fantastic development for Black and something he should have gone for - and would have gone for - had he realized it was a real possibility. Instead, with his misplaced rook on a6, Black is unable to do anything active while White regroups on the kingside, preparing to play f2-f4 with all of those threats we have talked about previously.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

38.tLJgl! White continues with his plan, getting ever nearer to the deadly f2-f4 break. Black can see it coming, but nonetheless it is not so easy to defend against it. 38 ...i.h6 This exchange does little for Black's position. I am not sure the bishop on d2 is a great attacking piece, but Black will certainly miss his bishop in the defence. It seems that Black should have kept the bishop on c7 and that without this, he is lost. But at this point he is no longer in time. 38 . . . id6 39.tlih3 ic7 40.�gl �aa8

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Black is ready to defend against f2-f4, but White has another trick up his sleeve: 4 1 .Wf3!


80

Black has to play: 4 1 ...lll f4 Giving up a pawn for nothing in order co avoid 42.1'%xg6 1'%xg6 43.Wfxh5t @g7 44.Wfh6t winning the rook, and the simpler 42.lll g5t winning the queen. 38 ... 1'%a7!? would have been a sneaky try. White can seriously consider taking on b6 and I might have wanted to do so, but objectively the strongest seems to be: 39.lll e2! 1'%b7 The pawn will have co be defended soon anyway. 40.1'%g l White continues his pressure. He can prepare f2-f4 or play Wff3 and lll g3. Black is not collapsing yet, but he is under a lot of pressure.

39 ..ixh6 ©xh6 40.lZlh3 ©h7

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

45.Wff.2 45.1'%xb6?? would fall into a horrible trap: 45 . . . Wfc7 and Black wins one of the rooks. 45 J�f'B 46.gxb6 But this time it makes sense to collect the pawn. Black's position is rapidly deteriorating. ••

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

46 Wfc7 47J�bl Wfe5 •••

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

41.©hl! It was already possible to play f2-f4, but rushing serves no purpose. Black does not have a convincing way of improving his position. So why should White not improve his? 41. .. gg7 42.f4 Finally the break comes; and it is everything that Black feared. 42 exf4 43.lZlxf4 �xf4 44.gxf4 gas •••

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

C

d

e

f

g

h

48.h5?! This is good enough to win, but there was a stronger and far more aesthetic way of concluding the game: 48.1'%fl ! This would not only improve White's position, it would also add the f-file to the lines where White has tripled his forces!

81

Chapter 2 - The Squeeze Sadly I missed this idea during the game. 48 . . . :Sgf7 49.h5!

�� • .,• •

0,. �� :� �-:� ''0 �%1''0 �itir/ "'%%.%. -� � r� /S'� �-�"� ,�,,�� %.%.� 3 � � � !� � - - -Y-� � � � �mJt � -�%.%.� %.%.� �� @

8

7

6

�

�

�

0

s 4

��

�§11

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

�

g

h

This is a better version than the game, now that the g6-pawn is undefended. 49 . . . :Shs Everything else loses quickly. 50.hxg6t
48 gxh5?! This loses without resistance. Black would have been able to keep the game going, hoping for a miracle, with 48 . . . 'iit gS 49.hxg6 :Sxg6 50.:Sf5 :Sh6t •.•

n � �� •

%.� %.� , Y,� : , .,� - % 7: % ). � · �� -0,�� -0,�� 0,� � � 1 � � r1 ��LJ� @ 8

7

� � � � � %!'" ;�I � � �� '

4

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

'/,

h

5 1 .'iit g l �c3 and a direct win is not yet available to White; though his position is technically winning of course.

49.:Sf5 �e8

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

50.�xc5 @h6 5 1 .:Sbfl �g6 52.�e3t
82


It works against the best There have been a few grandmasters who have been accused of only playing on their technique. Drawing lots and lots of games and only winning if they get an advantage in the opening or if the opponent plays poorly in a technical position. I want to stress that this is not an approach I am advocating - and I seriously doubt that these descriptions are truly representative of what these guys are trying to do. But if you manage to get a nice position, the squeeze strategy can be unusually effective. It is simply easier to play positions where you are applying pressure than to play positions where everything you do will lead to an inferior position. In such situations it is quite possible to make a mistake, even if you are the greatest chess player there ever was . . .

Boris Gelfand - Garry Kasparov Linares 1994

Garry Kasparov is probably the greatest chess player ever, especially through his impact on the game itself. His deep opening preparation expanded our general understanding of the game, as well as moving theory forward with concrete ideas. When I was growing up, I learned a lot from him. I shared his attitude to chess when I was younger; I played aggressively in the opening and tried to find new ideas all the time. So I believe that his attitude greatly impacted on me. I still play in this ambitious style, although Magnus Carlsen has proven that there will be plenty of chances to outplay the opponent later on, even if you have no ambitions in the opening. The Karpov - Kasparov matches probably made a greater impact on my chess understanding than anything else. I was following the games live, analysing them deeply.

When I came to play in top tournaments, the first one being in Linares 1 990, Kasparov was my first round opponent. It was a great game, maybe the best we ever played (to be found on page 73 of My Most Memorable Games), and ended in a draw. It was reassuring to know that I could play on equal terms with anyone in the world, and it gave me confidence to play well for the rest of the tournament.

1 .d4 d5

8 7 6 5

� ..-.i · rs �-= i. ?� �; • w w. w .�--%� . lfi"-'""%-, %� � � .Ai. ;� �•i: .JL

�� r� �� - �� 3 �� -----%� �� " �� ¥1" �"' 2 �!W �j_[j� ��J[j%�J tJ 1 , Lt� :t ,,,,,

,,,,,

%

,,,,,

%

, , , , ,

4

"

�tiJ�lW� a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Kasparov usually played the Kin g's Indian against me. We had a lot of great games that enhanced the theory of the King's Indian and also introduced new strategic concepts, which are still popular to this day. This was his main opening at the time and he played it fantastically. I played the King's Indian myself until around this point, but I stopped liking it and felt it was time to do something else. In the mid-90s I started to play it less frequently and eventually ditched it completely for the Nimzo-lndian and Semi-Slav. Then suddenly Kasparov played the Queen's Gambit Declined against me, which he played very rarely at this time.

Chapter

2

-

2.c4 e6 3.� c3 J.e7 Although this was not at the core of his repertoire at this point, Kasparov had great experience in these positions from his matches against Karpov, where it was one of his main weapons - with both colours! 4.cxd5 exd5 5.J.f4 �f6 6.e3 .tf5

83

The Squeeze

I had not specifically prepared this opening, but I had noticed that Kasparov had had the same position with White the year before. In that game he failed to win a theoretically won (but by no means easy) ending. But I still felt that it was more natural to place the knight on e2 than on h5. I 3 . llJ h5 .ie7 I 4. llJ b5 llJ xh5 I 5 .Wxh5 g6 1 6.W(3 �c8 and Black was probably fine at this point in Kasparov - Yusupov, Linares 1 993. Actually, we need to go back a move to see the main problem with this line is: l 2 . . . d4 8

7

6 5

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

7.�ge2 A bit sharper is 7.Wb3 llJ c6, but I played a more natural developing move. 7.. 0-0 8.�g3 .te6 9.J.d3 c5 1 0.dxc5 .ixc5 1 1 .0-0 �c6 1 2 Jk l .id6 .

a

13.�ge2!?

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

4 3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Theory has developed quite a lot in this direction. We analysed it in the post mortem after the game in the old-fashioned way: we sat at the board analysing the game with lots of people watching and strong players offering suggestions. These days some players tend to rush to their hotel room to get the computer's opinion rather than develop one of their own. I still analyse my games afterwards with people such as Kramnik, Aronian, Topalov, lvanchuk - the guys who grew up learning chess in this way! Of course I analyse with younger players after the game as well, but less frequently. But not because I am not willing! White's strategic idea here is to exchange the dark-squared bishop and then consolidate his marginal strategic advantage. It is a type of


84

position that can occur from a multitude of openings and which can be very hard to assess. We have seen these types of positions for a hundred years, with Flohr - Capablanca being a famous early game.

I had not played more ambitiously! I simply had no words. But I understood that he had analysed the position we got in that game in depth and genuinely considered it harmless. Or maybe he j ust wanted to pull my leg . . .

Salo Flohr - Jose Raul Capablanca, Moscow 1 93 5

1 3. . J'ks 1 3 . . . d4? does not work here. White wins a pawn with 1 4.i.xd6 Wfxd6 1 5 .llib5.

r� �.r• • fa �a'iB� - -%� � �� -�� ''· · ·�� -" w,,I 3�·" ��-tJ" � ��r�% �� r�% � r..... /,. ,/, � � �

�

6

3

2

•

a

•

b

•

c

d

e

•

f

g

h

24.Wd2 lt>d6 25.�c3 b6 26.f4 i.d7 27.lli f3 f6 28.Wd4 a5 29.llid2 i.c8 30. lli b l i.e6 3 1 .llic3 Wc6 32.a3 h6 33.g3 h5 34.b4 axb4 35.axb4 Wd6 36.b5 g6 37.llia4 �c7 38.llic3 Wd6 39.f5 gxf5 40.lli e2 id? 4 1 .llif4 i.e8 42.llixd5 i.xb5 43.llixb6 i.c6 44.llic4t �e6 45.llib2 i.b5 46.llidl i.e2 47.lli f2 i.fl 48.llid3 i.xd3 49. lt>xd3 lt>e5 50. lt>e2 lt>e4 5 1 .h3 lt>d5 52.Wf3 We5 Y2-Y2 In principle Black should be able to hold, as indeed Capablanca did, even though he had what appeared to be the worst of all worlds - a minor piece ending with a bad bishop against a powerful knight. (Later on players tried to keep a set of rooks on if this endgame was appearing in the horizon.) But defending such a passive position is not to everyone's taste. From another point of view, White's advantage is not big. It is not easy to improve his position. I remember that I once got a similar position against Morozevich. I tried for some 50 moves to make progress, but found nothing. After we had made a draw he told me that I clearly had wanted to make a draw and that this is why

14.i.bl hf4 1 4 . . . a6 could also be considered. White can play in different ways, for example l 5 .Wf d2 and 1 6.l"i:fd l , or 1 5 .lli a4, in both cases with a minimal advantage. 1 5.lDxf4

� i.S �� ·� , , . ,/,� ,Y,� i 6 'n ln!• '� �� //, . , , ;� �� : ·--� . ��:. ,/� ��ref . . 32 ��-�:�-----:� �� .. .. . /,�-%� �W� 8 �flr ..��Jll�Jl3 s

1

.

. .

1

a

: �

.i.��v • .: � b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 5 ...i.g4? Not a great moment for Kasparov and his fans. I had wanted to play f2-f3 anyway to control the e4-square and here he forces me to do it, as well as providing me with two extra tempos. Simply stunning. When Kasparov played his first match against Karpov, he struggled to solve his problems gradually, and famously went down 5-0 along the way. But he learned how to deal with these problems during the matches and at some point he was able to hold such positions to perfection.

Chapter 2

-

But after 1 987 he seemed to lose patience. And also, his opening preparation was so good that he rarely faced such positions. So he became out of practice with defending such positions and had a shift in mentality, where he truly believed that he could get great positions in every game and would not have to defend. But at times he did have to defend and he was not prepared for it. Famously he lost a drawn rook ending against Piket. I think there is no chance that he would have done so during his matches with Karpov. It was of course a rapid game, but j ust as important is that he was not mentally prepared to play such a position. Back to our position. I think Kasparov mainly looked at 1 6.'1Wd3 and some very concrete lines, which he calculated well and where he is okay. But this is not a position where the correct moves can be decided by calculation. The effects of the moves are long term rather than short term. This is something we often see in such positions where one side is squeezing. The opponent is looking for active counterplay, but it is really hard to find, as the pieces are permanently inferior in one way or another. Of course we always need some calculation, but here it is mainly just checking that we are not missing something, while making long term strategic decisions. 1 5 . . . d4 is always possible. After 1 6.lll xe6 fxe6 1 7 .exd4 lll xd4 the question is what we make of this position. White is slightly better, his bishop is good, but Black is also very solid, and it will be hard to remove the knight from d4. However, it is still quite early in the game and it is a good question whether Black would be happy to defend such a passive position for the rest of the game. We should also consider what choices the opponent has to make! 1 5 . . . Wd6 would be more natural, with the idea of putting the queen on e5. Black would still

The Squeeze

85

be looking to play . . . d5-d4 at some point. A natural reply is simply 1 6.Wd2 to improve the position, but it is hard to claim that White has a sizeable advantage. And after 1 6.lll b5 Wb4 ( 1 6 . . . We5 1 7.lll d3 Wb8 1 8.lll c5 is also not much, but maybe something) 1 7.lll d4 lll xd4 1 8.Wxd4 Wxd4 1 9.exd4 E:c4 20.lll e2 we get a technical position where White has the better bishop. It is really not a lot, but still it is a game and Black would find it more challenging to come up with good moves than White, as the advantage has a lasting character. Botvinnik won some nice endings in this structure, among them one against Petrosian. Against the best defence this would not happen, but it can happen, even against a World Championship Challenger about to dethrone the Champion!

16.f3 i.e6 17.�d2 �e7 1 7 . . . d4 was of course still possible. Black's situation is worse than a few moves ago, but you have to play the position you have got. After 1 8 .lll xe6 fxe6 l 9.lll e4 I like White, not surprisingly. I 7 . . . a6 was also possible. Again I like White after 1 8.lll ce2 or 1 8.lll a4. The endgames are starting to become unpleasant for Black.

1 8.tlibS a6 19.tlid4 tlie5 20.b3 i.d7

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

86


This is a good moment to take stock. White's plan was to exchange his opponent's good bishop and consolidate. He has entirely succeeded in this, as well as managing to put his pieces in dream positions. The question is what to do next. An important consideration here is to think of what Black wants to do. Basically, he would like to exchange all the rooks. At least, if I was Black here, this is what I would try to do: make sure I had only one weakness and then try to hold. I would probably start with . . . g6, but it is also interesting to do it directly: 2 1 . . .:gxc l 22.:gxc l :gcs 23.:gxcSt �xc8 24.'1Mf c2 'Wd8 25.lll h5 lll ed7 and Black holds. So I wanted to do something concrete to improve on this line and prevent . . . g6.

21 .g4!? A concrete idea based on sound positional foundations. First of all, White can allow himself to play in this way because his opponent is not very active and because the situation in the centre is entirely stable. There are of course long-term issues with the king's safety, which we will see later in the game. But at this point in the game it is clear that the positives outweigh the negatives. The main idea behind pushing the g-pawn is to attack the d5-pawn. Nimrowitsch said that isolated d-pawns should be blockaded; Bent Larsen said they should be taken! Having satisfied Nimzowitsch, I am now aspiring to please Larsen as well. . . An interesting question is whether White's advantage would be enough to win the game without playing g2-g4. It is really hard to say. It is far easier to answer the question by saying that his advantage is bigger with the push. 21...lll g6 ?! It appears that a sensible way for Black to

play here was 2 l . . .h6 22.h4 :gxc l 23.:gxc l lll c6! when it is not so easy for White to prove a serious advantage. 8

7

6 5

4 3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

The tactical point is that after 24.g5 ? comes 24 . . . hxg5 25.hxg5 lll h5!! and the tables are turned. So White would have to improve his position slowly; maybe with 24.:gc3, when after 24 . . . :ge8 the game would continue. Maybe White should play 25.h5!? to fix the g7-pawn for later, although it is by no means obvious that this will prove relevant. One line we looked at in our analysis that shows the possible drawbacks of advancing the pawns goes like this: 2 5 .lii g2 g6 26.lll xc6 bxc6 27.'Wd4 lll xg4! 28.fxg4 'Wxh4 and Black has taken over the initiative, although White supposedly holds the balance with accurate play. This leads me to the suspicion that 22.h4 might be too early and that White should try to improve the position in a different way before making such a committal advance. Maybe 22.:gxc8 and 23.�f5 to fight for the f5square. Overall we can say that Black wasted time and allowed White to consolidate his position, but that structurally Black's position might still be holdable. But the main point, which I will make in this book again and again, is

Chapter 2

-

that chess is a game and what really matters is that Black will have to come up with deeper ideas and find tougher resources in order to keep his position together. With the pressure increasing, so does the chance that he will err, which is indeed what happened to Kasparov in this game. Even the greatest-ever struggles when he is squeezed!

22.�g2 I am not at all sure that this is such a natural move. If Black were to take on f4, White would still keep some advantage.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

The Squeeze

87

23J�xc8 This is quite natural. White will be the only player with an active rook. 23 .bcs 24Jkl � d6 Kasparov continues his plan. It was probably already difficult to find a good move. •..

White also has a big advantage after 24 . . . lll c7 25 .h4! ?. After 24 ... i.d7 2 5 .%Va5 the black position is uncoordinated and difficult to defend. For example 25 . . . %Ve5 26.%Vb4 b5 and Black has been forced to accept more weaknesses. White will continue to keep the pressure on, allowing Black to make more mistakes in the process. 27.We l and 27.Wc5 are possible moves. I should add that the endings are starting to look quite favourable for White.

h

22 ... � eS? As is often the case when one player is squeezing the other, the advantage is nothing dramatic. Bur in practice it can be hard to deal with it. You have to come up with ways to improve your position, while anticipating all of your opponent's ideas. It is quite likely that you will miss one. Kasparov decides on transferring his knight to d6, probably in order to lessen the impact of g4-g5, and to prevent any h2-h4 ideas. However, this transfer has a significant flaw. Instead Black should have played something like 22 . . . E!:fd8 or 22 . . . lll e5, when White continues to be a little better.

25 ... hxg6 26.�f4 This is what frequently happens to you when you are squeezed. Black cannot defend the d5pawn sensibly. 26 .. J�eS!?

88


Having seen his position gradually becoming more and more unpleasant, Kasparov chooses to give up the d5-pawn and at least get some activity for his pieces. Defending the pawn with 26 . . . i.e6? loses to 27.tll dxe6 fxe6 28.tll xg6.

another pawn. I believed it was stronger and I always play what I believe to be strongest.

29 g5 30.'!Wb4!? tll b5 3 1 .tll xb5 axb5 32.'!Wd4 '!We7 •••

We should not write off 26 . . . '!Wg5 entirely.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

It contains a nice little trap. Apparently White wins the d5-pawn with 27.l'!c5? but after 27 . . . i.xg4! Black is fully back in the game. Instead I was planning to play 27.l'!c7, increasing the positional pressure, though not winning a pawn immediately.

33.'!Wc5 '!Wf6 34.'!Wxb5 gds Up to this point the game has been a complete success. White is two pawns up and Black's counterplay is limited. But there are still some technical problems and I was running out of time. 35.'!We2 .le6

27.tll xd5 '!Wg5 28.tll f4 28.tll e2!? was another way to regroup the pieces, but I was quite focused on fianchettoing my knight for some reason. 28 '!We5 28 . . . tll f5 29.l'!c3 does not improve Black's situation. .••

29.l£ig2 I believe that 29.e4 was very strong as well, here or on the next move. Perhaps it was more practical, as one pawn is often enough to win the game. In the game I played more ambitiously and used the threat of exchanging queens to win

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

36.'!Wfl?! Aimlessly moving in the wrong direction. Maybe my problem was that I did not want

Chapter 2

-

89

The Squeeze

to make a decision. Without a lot of time at this point, all White wants to do is to prevent counterplay.

Kasparov would find defensive resources, but this would not change the objective fact of the position: Black is dead lost.

I wanted to contest the d-line with 36.E:d 1 , but I was not sure about 36. . .E:xd l t 37.Wxd l Wi'b2! when Black has counterplay.

36 .. J::! d3 36 . . . WeS ! ? with the idea of . . . Wa5 was a strong resource. White would have to find 37.We2! to keep control of the d2-square. But it is not easy ro make such a move, especially when short of time. See also the Polugaevsky game on page 229.

�

6 5

4 3

2

�� rc � r �. �. ,.� .}�

�, �-��-��-��% � l• �r!! l• �:�� ;�� LJ� 1� �m a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

I calculated 38.Wd8t 'tt> h 7 39.Wxg5 Wa l t 40.'tt> f2 Wxa2t 4 1 .'tt> g3 Wxb3, where White's advantage is nothing special.

I like 36.e4! with the idea of improving the position of the knight and king: 36 . . . g6 37.lll e3

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

37.h4? Entirely the wrong path. I wanted to free my position, but instead I am weakening it. 37.lll e l was necessary. Black would have to retreat the rook and White keeps most of his advantage. The idea should still be to put the pawn on e4 and improve the position later on, even though the circumstances are a bit poorer now.

37 ... gxh4 38.lll xh4 The computer mentions 38.lll f4, but of course you don't play h2-h4 with the idea of losing a pawn!

h

White will play 38.'tt> g2 and then be ready for E:dl and general consolidation. The conversion of the advantage will probably take a long time, but this has never bothered me. The difficulty of the task is rarely measured in time. I am sure that such a great player as

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

38 ... gS? At this point Kasparov misses a very strong move. 38 . . . Wd8! with the idea of . . . E:d2 was


90

correct. I do not believe I would have allowed such an intrusion, but rather I would have played 39.:gc2. Here Black can take on e3 followed by . . . Wd l t with an inferior, but holdable ending. But strongest is: 39 . . . :gd I t 40.\t>g2 Wg5!

!��!I .,.�-- �� .� � � �� : �. . . �� :� �� :�� >,. . !-.la-- - �!� ��r� - - %� �

6 3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White is two pawns up, but cannot easily free himself. Black is of course contemplating sacrificing the bishop on g4 at the right moment, but there are also ideas such as . . . g6 followed by . . . Wh6, when . . . g5 is suddenly threatened. In typical style, the engine thinks the position is "just a draw" - 0.00. The human experience is of course entirely different! If this had happened during the game, I would have thought that all three results were possible. This reminds me of a game I was following live from last year's Candidates tournament. Peter Svidler - Vladimir Kramnik, Khanty-Mansiysk 20 1 4

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

4 I .Wc6 Several commentators indicated that this was a mistake, something no one would have been able to work out on their own. Svidler's idea behind this move is nothing short of amazing, only Black has an even more amazing resource to counter it. The engine says that White has a serious advantage if he takes on b4. Obviously Peter understood this, but cried for more. 4 1 . ..e4 Black is playing only moves all the way, which is probably part of the reason why Kramnik did not fully understand his opponent's ideas in advance. He knew he would have to face them soon enough; there was no reason to waste time wondering about which one he would choose in advance. 42.fXe4 8 6 5

4 3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

The live commentary was stating that the game would now "just be drawn". Apparently no one had told the players who both looked fully engaged with the game and full of nervous energy! 42 . . . We2 43.m3 :gxd6 44.We8 f6 45 .e5!

Chapter 2

-

91

The Squeeze

Those who followed this game with the computer running not only seemed to fail to understand that this was anything but obvious to the players during the game, they also did not understand how amazingly both players performed in this game!

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This is what Peter had planned. If Black takes on e5 with the queen, White will force a pawn ending by exchanging queens, taking on f8 and winning back the pawn with ic5xb4. Kramnik had not anticipated the defence available to him at this point, but found it after a long think. He did not believe in it, but could not see any refutation, so he played it, hoping for the best. There is a big difference between looking at a position with an engine and having to find your own confidence. 45 . . . f5 46.gxf5 E1f6!! 8

7

6

5 4 3

2

-� ·

� �� "'""� �� %'"" ��.l"' · · �· -JM � �.... % 8 � • � �...r. .�% 8 � �.� �

�

� . . ·lr� @� : � �� 1-=� �� -;,.,�� a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This looks entirely random, but surprisingly there is no way for White to make progress. 47.©g3 '.We4 48 . .ic5 '.We i t 49.if2 1Mfe4 50.ic5 1Mi'e l t 5 I .if2 lh-Y2

If you want to truly enjoy and appreciate chess, I would recommend that you follow live games without the engine on, as I do.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

39.�g2 Yfe5 39 . . . 1Mfd8 is not as strong now, as White can play 40.E1e l , the main point being that after 40 . . . l:!d2 4 I .l:!e2 White does not have a knight hanging on h4.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h


92

40.�c2? As happened to me in another game against Kasparov, I blunder on move 40, throwing away the advantage. I was a little nervous at this point; not because I was playing a strong player or because I had a good position, but because I was short of time (seconds!) . It always affects you a bit. Even Grischuk's heart rate goes up! As Alekhine said, "There are no heroes in time trouble." 40.e4 was correct and after: 40 . . . Wi'd6 4 1 .E:e l E:d2 42.E:e2 E:d l t 43.lD e l

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

41. .. gxe3 4 1 . . .E:d2? 42.Wi'c? would give White an advantage, but Kasparov steers the game safely to a draw. 42.�fl �e5 43.�g2 ge2 44.gel gxf2 45.gxe5 gxa 46.� e3 i.d7 47.gxg5t ©f'8 48.ti:)f5 Lf5 49.gxf5 l!z-1/2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

I would have a considerable advantage. The game goes on and White is not well enough placed for us to call it a winning position. A lot of accurate moves would be needed for White to convert his material advantage. An important difference between this position and the position after 36.e4, is that it will not be difficult for Black to find active ideas here, whereas in the earlier position it was very difficult.

40 ...�d6! Finally Black penetrates to the second rank. 41.�el The only way to prevent the intrusion, but it loses a pawn and all of the advantage.

Although he managed to save the game, Kasparov did not come out of it looking great. And this leads us to an important point, because there is no questioning Kasparov's greatness. It was the position which was very difficult to play. In short, it was more difficult for Black to find sufficient counterplay than it was for White to maintain the pressure. One of the reasons why it is so difficult to play a position where you are squeezed is that there will come a time when you need to switch from passive to active defence. If you do it too early, you can find, like Kasparov, that there are no targets for your active counterplay and that you are j ust wasting your time. Or like Janowski, you can miss the moment when you need to do something in order to not be squeezed entirely.

It is also very difficult to cell the difference between positions chat are only slightly worse and chose chat are much worse - both feel uncomfortable. This is why blunders happen so frequently in worse positions. This is not the only time I failed co win a winning position against Kasparov. His resourcefulness in even hopeless-looking positions was quite amazing. (In a totally crazy game - Dos Hermanas 1 996 - I won a piece and was completely winning, but fell for the last trap on move 40.) It does not mean chat the strategy was not successful - only chat chess is really difficult.

A final note The squeeze is the correct strategy in some positions and in others it is not. A classically trained player like myself will be happy co go for this strategy when the position allows it and it gives the best chance of success. The same goes for a player like Topalov, who is not commonly associated with this type of position, but is no less of a classically trained player than myself The difference is chat there are borderline situations where he and I might choose co go in different directions, because of our different interpretation of chess. Bue we are both going in the direction which we feel will give us the greatest chance for success. And at times this is implementing the squeeze. The goal of this chapter has therefore been to present this strategy as one possible way to play, and something we should be happy to do when the position requires it.

Chapter 3 Space Advantage

Te/Aviv 2012- Returning.from the match

96

Positional Decisio n Makin g in Chess

I definitely learned about space advantages from studying Rubinstein's games, as well as other classical games. le is one of my favourite weapons and we shall meet it often in these books, in one form or another. I am not sure if I can add anything new co the concept of space advantage, but I hope I can give the reader a higher level of understanding of the strategy of playing for and with additional space, looking at it from a practical angle.

What is a space advantage? Having more space optically is not the same as having a space advantage. I chink this is one of che things chat tends co confuse some people. fu; I have always understood it, a space advantage occurs when pawns are taking important squares from the opponent's pieces. I chink the easiest way co illustrate this is by showing an absurd example: No space advantage

If we were co add seven pieces co this position, Black would no longer have a fortress - at lease not if White is co move.

White has a space advantage

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 .lDxg6! fxg6 2 . .ixg6! hxg6 3.h7 and White wins. The inability of Black co defend the weakness on h7 illustrates co a great extent what space advantage is all about. (Obviously this is an absurd example and if Black were co move, he would save the game with 1 . . lDxh6.) .

Most chess games are a baccle of two able minds of similar ability with exaccly the same resources at hand, so it is of course impossible for us co find such an absurd example in grandmaster practice. But this is only because the advantage has been extended g rossly. Lacer in this chapter, we will see how a top grandmaster who has played Board One for a gold-medal-winning team at the Olympiad managed co end up with Black in this position :

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Chapter 3

-

Space Advantage

97

A theoretical explanation My own understanding of space advantage is to a great extent intuitive. I can recognize it when it is there and I know from the example of Rubinstein and others how to handle it. This is quite a natural state for a practical player, who only has to make good decisions, not explain to others how to replicate such decisions. For this reason we looked at chess literature for good descriptions of the concept of space advantage. I am not surprised that we did not find many excellent descriptions of it, but we did find a few, of which the champion by far was Michael Stean's classic Simple Chess, ori ginally published in 1 978, now available in an algebraic edition. His final chapter is on space and starts with this brilliantly clear explanation: "Unlike the ideas expressed so far in this book, space is not an easily definable or recognizable concept. The visual impression you obtain by glancing at a position and estimating who seems to have the lion's share can be misleading. The following is nearer the truth. Any given Pawn structure has a certain capacity for accommodating pieces efficiently. Exceed this capacity and the pieces get in each other's way, and so reduce their mutual activity. This problem of overpopulation is easy to sense when playing a position - it 'feels' cramped. "To take an example, compare Diagrams A and B . A: White h as a space advantage

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

B: No space advantage

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

"They do, of course, represent the same position, but with two pairs of minor pieces less in the second case. "In Diagram A Black is terribly congested. There is no way he is ever going to be allowed to play . . . b5, while alternative methods of seeking some breathing space by (after due preparation) . . . e6 or . . . f5 would compromise his pawn structure considerably. White on the other hand can build up at leisure for an eventual e5, safe in the knowledge that so long as he avoids any piece exchange, his adversary will never be able to free his game. "Diagram B is quite a contrast. The size of Black's forces is here well within his position's


98

'capacity' . As a result there are no spatial problems at all and Black can very quickly seize the initiative by . . . a6 and . . . b5, or even by . . . b5 as a Pawn sacrifice, e.g. l . ..b5 2.cxb5 a6 3.bxa6 :gxa6 with tremendous pressure. "We see from this pair of positions that Black's structure is very good, but his capacity is small. Visually White has a spatial advantage in both cases, but in the second the eye flatters to deceive. In fact, he is grossly overextended. A vast empire requires an army of equal proportions to defend it." (Pages 1 33- 1 34)

Space advantage and counterplay The difference between Stean's two positions is stunning, though we should not be blind to the fact that he removes White's best knight on c3, instead of the less well placed knight on f3, in order to make his point. Still the main difference is quite clear. With fewer pieces on the board, Black is able to prepare a pawn break and open up the position, thus making his artillery valuable. If Black is struggling with limited space, he will often have to make a sad choice between suffering passively or accepting compromises to his pawn structure in order to free himself.

An extreme - and realistic - example

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

In my database there are 739 games where this position occurred. I managed to win a game against lvanchuk with the white pieces in this variation, but it is really too early to say anything definite about the position. Both sides have things to be happy about. Maybe after another 800 games we will know more . . . There i s a n argument fo r White having a space advantage, but if we forget about our knowledge of opening theory, we will probably find it more surprising that there is an argument against this as well. With rooks on e8 and c8, a retreat of the queen to b8/a8 and the bishop to ffi, Black will have found good squares for all of his pieces. White will have to run the risk of overextending himself in the pursuit of an advantage. Black's strategy will be to wait and at the right moment blow the position open with . . . b5 or . . . d5 and in some cases . . . e5. I am by no means dogmatic when it comes to space; it does not always come in the shape of an advantage, but it is one of the important strategic concepts in chess we have to take into account. In order to integrate space into our strategic thinking, we need to understand how a space advantage is exploited, so we can see when it is applicable.

Mobility We have seen that when you have more space, it gives you more possibilities to manoeuvre your forces around. For example: you are able to switch your pieces between the two sides of the board faster than your opponent. This can lead to a situation where you enjoy better lines of communication and have better positions for your pieces. You might be able to attack a weakness more times than it can be defended, simply because you have more space

Chapter 3

-

Space Advantage

to line up your pieces, or because the lack of freedom in your opponent's position makes it hard for him to come to the defence of his weaknesses.

Yusupov on how to use a space advantage In Chess Evolution 2 on page 234, Artur starts Chapter 2 1 with the following words: "The side whose pawns are further advanced than those of his opponent often has an advantage in space. This side then has much better lines of communication, which is an effective advantage in positions in which play can be carried out on both flanks. Space is only one element in the position, and it is often less important than, for example, an open file or pawn weaknesses. Nevertheless there are plenty of positions in which the possession of more space is an advantage. The side which has an advantage in space can position its pieces better and regroup them more easily. The side which has less space often has a problem doing that: it has too few good squares available for too many pieces. "Some guidelines for the side which has the advantage in space: 1) Avoid any unnecessary exchanges of pieces, because such exchanges provide more space for the opposing side's remaining pieces. 2) Carefully prepare to open a file, so as to penetrate with your major pieces. 3) Try to prepare a pawn advance, in order to drive the opposing pieces even further back. 4) If the situation permits, you may try to manoeuvre against two weaknesses. Better lines of communication play an important part in this.

99

5) It is important to think prophylactically and to prevent any attempts by your opponent to free himself." I absolutely agree with these five points, but would like to add a sixth point: 6) A space advantage can be increased by a transition into the endgame. If you have a space advantage and have taken control of the position, you could find that exchanging rooks, and especially the queens, will eliminate the opponent's remammg counterplay. A good illustration of this is Gelfand - Campora, found on page 109. hope you have found this theoretical foundation interesting. I would like to close it with the point with which I started it - to me space advantage is first and foremost something I approach intuitively. This does not mean that it does not exist, or that there is not a theoretical understanding of it. It means that for a practical player, a list of rules and well-defined concepts is not as useful as a good feeling for how to handle such positions, through experience, gathered both from using it and from seeing how other players have used it.

Rubinstein and space advantage If you did not notice it at the time, you can go back and look at some of the Rubinstein games we discussed earlier in this book and see his masterly handling of space advantages. But it would be a crime to write about Rubinstein and not examine at least one of his games through the prism of space. I like the next game for many reasons. I like how Rubinstein plays the opening, especially moves 7 and 9. He then plays for a space advantage in the centre with the pawn trans formations from moves 11-15, and thereafter masterly uses it to outplay his opponent.


100

Akiba Rubinstein Oldrich Duras -

Karlsbad 19 1 1

l.c4 e5 2.�c3 �f6 3.g3 .ib4 4 .ig2 0--0 5.�a ges 6.0-0 � c6 •

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

A clever move with a modern scent. It is quite natural to play a3 and b2-b4, but with b2-b3 the bishop comes into the game faster to quickly apply pressure on the centre. At the same time Black is not offered any targets, such as a pawn on b4, for example.

9 d6 I O.i.b2 �xd5 It is hard to see how Black would possibly be able to allow White to keep a strong knight stationed on d5 in perpetuity. Though this does not mean that the exchange on d5 is perfectly timed. Rubinstein now sets out to create a favourable pawn structure. •.•

l l .cxd5 � e7 1 2.e4 c5 1 2 . . . c6 was slightly more accurate, limiting White's options - not that it has any great influence on this game.

7.�d5 I think Rubinstein was first with this idea. He wants to avoid the exchange on c3 under unfavourable circumstances. Obviously Black could have exchanged earlier, but Rubinstein judged, correctly I think, that it matters more here. These days the tlJd5-jump is played in roughly half of the games. 7...JJ8 8.d3 h6 9.b3!?

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 3.dxc6 This operation is typical of Rubinstein. After the transformation of the pawn structure, we can see that White has a space advantage, not unlike a lot of positions we see in the King's Indian today (though with the bishop on g7, which gives more chances to create counterplay} . a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Once again we see that whenever Rubinstein had a fixed plan, he was not very flexible and

Chapter 3

-

Space Advantage

would continue his plan n o matter what. At this point I would consider whether 1 3.a4!, with the idea liJ d2-c4, might offer White a bigger advantage than the game. But then I would also take into account 1 5 . . . ltJ d4, a move I am sure Rubinstein and Duras rejected as losing a pawn without thinking any further.

13 ... �xc6 14.d4 i.g4 1 5.d5

b

a

d

c

f

e

g

h

At this point I think the black position is starting to get rather sad.

15 ... c!ll e7? I put the question mark here from the perspective of the 2 1 st century. If we imagined that some young player had played this today, we would question his chess education. A modern player would seriously consider giving up a pawn with: 1 5 . . . ltJ d4! 1 6 . .ixd4 exd4 1 7.'?;Vxd4 g6

101

Black has given up a pawn in return for dark-squared counterplay (potentially with opposite-coloured bishops) and will follow up with moves such as . . . .ig7, . . . l:'!c8 and . . . '?;Va5. I am sure that it is enough. To me it looks pretty playable for Black. I have played similar positions in the Sveshnikov many times over the last few years, for example in the World Championship match with Anand. The exchange of both sets of rooks should lead to a draw. Maybe the best thing White can hope for is an ending with rook and bishop versus rook and bishop, though I cannot see a way for White to exchange the queens. But even in this case, all Black needs to do is to keep control of the c-file and he will be OK, though he would still suffer a bit. This is often the case when we play slightly inferior positions: the wrong exchanges will make life difficult for us. There is nothing special in that direction about this position. Of course we cannot criticize Duras for not making this decision. The problem is that the dangers of allowing the opponent to have a space advantage were not fully understood at the time of this game; after all, we are to some extent talking about the pre-Rubinstein era . . . Even 1 5 . . . lD b8!? appears more natural. The knight certainly has lost time returning to its starting position, but at least it has a future on a6 or d7.

1 6.Yfd3 Out of the pin. I find the way Rubinstein played from this point on very instructive. First he improves all his pieces. To start with, both players have a number of pieces in poor positions. Both sides have stupid bishops, the knight on f3 has no function and it is hard to work out where the knight on e7 is headed. But White has a space advantage,

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h


102

allowing him to regroup his pieces in a smoother way.

16 ...Vfd??! I don't like this move much. The main idea behind this move seems to be to exchange the light-squared bishop. These days our experience in the King's Indian is extensive and we know that we need this bishop to hold the queenside together. But again, we cannot judge Duras on modern terms. At this point we can start to see a consequence of White's space advantage: Black's position is getting rather cramped. Maybe Black should play something like: 1 6 . . . i.d7 l 7.lll d2 b5 This is hardly an ultimate solution, but it seems necessary. 1 8.a4 a6 The computer suggests that Black should take on a4, but this only helps White. Actually, we should forget about computers when we are looking at such closed positions. Here it seems that c4 is a key square. Now imagine that the game continues with: 19 .Ei:fc l Yfb6

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

20.a5!? I am not sure I would hurry to play this, but it is quite relevant for our theme to discuss what would happen if we did. 20 . . . Yfb7 2 1 .b4

White is of course better, but compared to my game with Campora later in the chapter, we can see that Black has managed to keep his good pieces. At the moment of writing, June 20 1 4, I am following the Russian Higher League live on the Internet, where something similar happened:

Evgeny Najer - Evgeny Tomashevsky Vladivostok 20 1 4

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

After 40 moves m a Closed Ruy Lopez White has the advantage through extra space. But in this case it is not apparent that he can do anything with this extra space. There are no entry-points and no weaknesses within reach. Furthermore White's bishop is tied to the defence of the a5-pawn. All in all, the game should soon end in a draw (as indeed it did) . In our example Rubinstein has freer hands and can start using his extra space to organize an assault on the kingside, presumably connected with f2-f4. And although it is not going to be easy to break Black's defences, it might be possible, due to the smoother manoeuvring White's space advantage gives him.

17.c!lid2 .th3 Black is continuing his plan. There is not really any reason to suggest alternatives.

Chapter 3

-

1 03

Space Advantage

gloss over) , but had tried to slowly improve his position, say with 20 . . . lt:ig6, Rubinstein would presumably have played in much the same way with 2 1 .i.c l i.e7, though here there is a trick.

7 . . 3�·�if��.ef� �� 6 � � 4)%�. � - �%�8

�� ·rx�-

�� ti � 8" � 'ti"• �� '-�� 3 � '·�� r%'" .. ·"�r" 2 �� J�;j1.� .. ..� �-�% �:� 5

4 18.a4! Played to secure the c4-square. It is also possible to play 1 8.lt:ic4 with the idea 1 8 . . . b5?! l 9.lt:ia5, which does not improve things for Black. Bue it is quite typical of Rubinstein to spend as much time as possible improving his position. This is a clear sign of his style. 1 8 .lt:ic4 is neither better nor worse than the move Rubinstein chose in the game. It is a bit more energetic, but Rubinstein did not value dynamics that highly. Realistically Black would not change his play. But we should remember Bocvinnik's idea, which is that when you have to play several moves to follow your plan, it is best to start with the moves chat keep your ideas hidden and options open, if only to confuse the opponent. 18 ...J.xg2 19.©xg2 geb8 20.tll c4 b5 I do not like this much. It seems to create extra weaknesses. Black was of course hoping chat b3 would become a target too, but due to the space advantage, it is easy enough for White to organize his forces for the defence of this pawn. At the same time Black's weaknesses on a7 and d6 are more exposed. If Black had not done anything on the queenside (you can argue he already decided to do so on his last move - a point we will quickly

1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

If White plays 22 . .ie3?, Black gets instant counterplay with 22 . . . lt:ih4t! 23.�h l �h3 24.!!g l lt:if3 25.!!g2 �g4 and things are far less clear than they ought to be. Bue we should not be concerned; Rubinstein would never allow any tactics. White can play either 22.h4!? or something like 22.f3 i.g5 23.i.a3. Forcing Black to go back. 23 . . . i.e7

7 Ei�if�ii� 6 .. .. %�� % �.'i. � ...... � L. 8

�� -"�-

� '--ti �---ti%·�3 7!§8•V•8� �� 2 ,;,J. . .� �� '� "··· 5

4

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Probably now I would play 24.:1'!fc l with the idea of doubling on the c-file, playing slowly and improving the position. You can imagine chat in a position with the rook on c3 we then play lt:ie3 (of course not allowing . . . i.g5 with exchanges) with ideas such as lt:if5 , �b5, i.b4 and other moves chat slowly improve the position. For Black the best strategy is probably to

1 04


simply wait, trying to make sure that he would have some counter-attackin g ideas for when the game finally opens.

21 .axb5 YNxb5 22Jia3!

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

23J:Ua l a6 24.�cl The bishop is rerouted to a better square. The action is on the queenside and the bishop has nothing to do on b2 anymore; it definitely belongs on e3.

h

22 ... �g6 Probably it was already time to put the knight on a passive place like c8. Sure it is not much fun to do so, but it is hard to see what the knight is doing on g6. White's advantage is extensive no matter what; probably the position is already lost for Black, somewhere between ± and +-. When I grew up our evaluation was formed by the system used in Chess Informant, where a slight advantage (t) meant that one side was pushing, and a large advantage (±) meant that nothing conclusive could be seen, but the opponent is in a dire situation. The players from my generation still think like this, while the younger players operate with a different system, which they learned from the computer (+0.20 for example) , which is not very informative in my opinion. Or maybe I am j ust suffering from the afflictions of middle age. (I should probably say that the use of + 1 or +2 as descriptions is now used almost universally among grandmasters. But more or less only when they want to explain how winning the position was that they misplayed!)

26... �e7 We have arrived at the final impressive move. White is obviously doin g well, but the question is how to improve the position further. The knight belongs on d2, where it can defend the b3-pawn. Rubinstein's move keeps an eye on a6 while preparin g to retreat the kni ght.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Chapter 3

-

Space Advantage

27.1Yfl ! Played with the idea of exchanging the queen on b5, which is holding the black position together. This is not the only way for White to improve his position, but it is a rather elegant way to do so. White now wins the a-pawn.

105

Black has no counterplay. The white kin g will come to the queenside and White will win.

32.gxa6 gc2 33.g6a2 gxa2 34.gxa2 fi.e7 35.©fl ©f7 36.©e2 ©es 37.©d3 ©d7 3S.©c3 .ids 39.tnc4 !i.c7

Something like 27.lll b2 would be imprecise. Black plays 27 . . . !!ab8 and gains a bit of time to create counterplay.

27 ... tncs 2S.�d2 1Yb4 28 . . . a5 loses a pawn to 29.Wxb5 l:!xb5 30.lll c4. Black has no defensive resources left. 29.1Yc4 1Yxc4

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

30.�xc4! The natural move. Rubinstein knows that he will win the a-pawn and ensures that he will keep a passed pawn, which is much more important than unifying the pawns into one super structure. 30.. J:!:abS 3 I .tnd2 �k7 White wins no matter what, of course. The attempt to bring the knight into the game with 3 1 . .. lll a7 is most simply eliminated with 32.ixa7! !!xa7 33.l:!xa6 !!ab7 34.l:!a8 when

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This is the final instructive moment of the game. White is completely winnin g . He has more space, better pieces and not least, an extra pawn. Still Rubinstein shows his excellent technical feelin g by first improvin g the position on the kingside, even though it was probably already winnin g to simply push the b-pawn. As said before, Rubinstein never rushed unnecessarily; so much so that the mantra promoted by modern books on endgame technique (Shereshevsky, Dvoretsky, Yusupov, Aagaard and Muller} , " Do not hurry" is attributed to Rubinstein.

40.g4 .ids 4IJ'fa6 J.c7 42.h4 /i.ds 43.h5 Fixing the g7-pawn. White is now (over) prepared and ready to move the b-pawn up the board. The quality of the preparation is underlined by the fact that nothing really happened towards the end of the game. 43 .. .J.c7 44.b4 gb7 45.gas ©ds 46.©b3 gbs 47.gxbS Lbs


106

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Boris Gelfand - Magnus Carlsen Moscow 20 1 3

l .d4 � f6 2.c4 e6 3.�f3 d5 4.�c3 � bd7 5 ..if4 dxc4 6.e3 a6 7.a4 .id6 8.hd6 Later I played 8 .Ag5! ? against Dominguez, which we will look at in a lacer volume. .

8 ... cxd6 9.hc4 0-0 10.0-0 d5 1 1 ..id3 b6

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

h

48.b5 � e7 49.b6 6 50. gx5 �g8 5 1 ..ifl @cs 52 . .ih4 1-0

No matter who you are, there are only 64 squares on the chessboard And ifl control 40, there will only be 24 left for you - no matter how strong a player you are. Playing for a space advantage is one of my favourite strategies and it is a highly efficient one. Even our newly crowned World Champion had problems dealing with it. Setting the scene before the game: I had won two games in the previous five rounds, against Caruana and Morozevich and was leading the event. In the end I managed to win an additional game (Black against Nakamura) and win the tournament with 6/9, half a point ahead of Magnus, even after missing my chances in this game. The day before the game I saw my old friend Mikhail Shereshevsky, author of the brilliant book Endgame Strategy, whom I had not seen for almost a decade. He suggested chat after my great scare, I should make a draw, as Carlsen is "so strong" . I just laughed. The day you give up the hope of beating young opponents with White, you have truly grown old!

1

a

c

d

e

f

g

h

White has forced one concession on Black: the exchange of his good bishop for White's bad bishop (although it can be debated how poor the bishop really is when it is outside t e pawn chain) . The outcome is a position wnh a very small but also enduring plus for White. The bishop will be passive on b7, while White's bishop on d3 is rather well placed. White plays on without risk. A point is chat defence is harder to play as it includes a fair bit of mind-reading. As we shall see, this is even a difficult task for the highest-rated player of all time.

�

12.�b3 �e7 1 3.l:Ucl .ib7 14.�k2 gfc8 15.gacl �d6 As White's plan will be to advance pawns on both flanks, it makes sense to exchange the rooks. However, at the 20 1 4 Olympiad former World Champion Rustam Kasimdzhanov won

Chapter 3

-

Space Advantage

a great game against Vladimir Kramnik with 1 6.lll e 5!.

16.�a2 gxc2 17,gxc2 :!:k8 1 8,gxcSt i.xc8 19.ti'c3 i.b7

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

107

3 1 .�fl There is no great incentive for White to exchange knights at this point. He needs to have something to squeeze. 3 1 . .. �d6 32.6 � d7 33.g4 f6 34.�fg3 �f'8 35.©fl .icS

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

20.b4! White is grabbing space and squeezing Black's minor pieces. 20 ... � e4 2 1 .ti'cl h6 22.h3 ©f'8 23.b5 a5 24.�c3 ti'c7 25.ti'a3t ti'd6 26.ti'cl ti'c7 27.ti'a3t ©e8 28.� e2 g5 29.ti'b2 ©e7 30.�d2 � df6

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Here and previously it made sense for Black to exchange a set of knights, as his position does not have sufficient space for two knights.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White has maintained his slight edge. He has extra space and a better bishop still. At some point soon it will be time to open the position on the kingside in order to create weaknesses in the black position. I decided that this made it a good time to exchange queens, though it is by no means obvious that White does not also have winning chances by keeping the queens on the board. It is obvious that the c-file is the best place for the queens. At the moment Black has been allowed to control it, but I do not think he should be allowed to do so uncontested for any longer. By placing my queen on the c-file, I give my opponent a choice of whether to exchange queens or give up the c-file. I play what I consider to be the best move, but at times it is not obvious which path is the right one and in such cases I do the same as everyone else: I play the move that feels right to me on the day. Give me this position on another day (with the same opponent) and I might have waited before making a decision regarding the exchange of queens.

Position al Decision Maki ng in Chess

108

36.�c2 �xc2 I am unsure about this decision. Keeping the queens on would give potential counterplay when the game opens up later on.

.ic2-b3! would force Black to do something immediately.

37.hc2 .td7 38.�c3 .te8 39.f4

a

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Black has by no means been outplayed here, but he is under slight persistent pressure with no clear active options. It is difficult to defend this type of position accurately, especially for humans, and it is therefore less of a surprise that Carlsen errs. The real conundrum is that it is very hard to anticipate when Black should change the pawn structure, or when such a change would be for the worse; when he should be patient and passive, and when he should be active and/ or desperate.

39 ....tf/? This fairly innocuous-looking move is actually a decisive mistake. 39 . . . gxf4 40.exf4 J.f7;t; was required, though White has some pressure still. Here I missed my chance.

40 ..ib3? After the game I found out that I could have won the game with 40.f5!. The threat of

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

After something like 40 . . . e5 4 l ..ib3 lli c4 42.ixc4 dxc4 43.iie l White wins easily. The king goes to c3 and a knight to d2. White wins a pawn and soon after the game. The black knight can only go to h7, f8, d7 and b8. There are no routes to anywhere else. Quite a good illustration of the power of the space advantage. And after 40 . . . exf5 White should not take with the pawn, as I had considered during the game, but instead exchange Black's only good piece with 4 1 .llixf5t! llixf5 42.gxf5 .

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White wins immediately with .ic2-b3 and if . . . iid6 then e3-e4 comes and the d5-pawn falls. It is of course a surprise that after not wantin g to exchan ge kni ghts for a while, this is suddenly the way to win the game. But no one ever claimed that chess was a simple game.

Chapter 3

-

Space Advantage

40 ... gxf4 41 .exf4 c!Lig6 42.£5 I had believed that 42.®e3 would give me a winning position, but now realized that Black has 42 . . . lD h4! generating lots of counterplay. White has no advantage at all.

109

especially queens, will be able to do a lot of damage if they manage to sneak behind a far advanced pawn chain, while minor pieces do not gain extra potential from a big void in the same way. Also, they are far less likely to escape from their prison. This of course only matters in positions where there is at least one open file; how are the rooks otherwise going to be able to escape? Bue in most games there is an open file, as for example in this one.

Boris Gelfand - Daniel Hugo Campora Cesme 2004

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

42... lDf4 Black has managed to create counterplay and gee his pieces into play. I cried to create some problems for my opponent, but not surprisingly he was able to solve chem rather easily. 43.fxe6 lDxh3t 44.@e3 he6 45.lDxd5t @ds 46.c!Lih5 f5 47.gxf5 c!Lixf5t 4S.@e4 lDg5t 49.@e5 c!Li e7 50.lDhf4 i.gS 5 1 .i.dl hd5 52.c!Lixd5 c!Lif7t 53.@e6 c!Lig5t 54.@e5 lDf7t 55.@e6 c!Lig5t 11z_11z

A clean example In the following game we shall see one of the things chat often comes into question when we are dealing with the concept of space advantage (the guideline I added to Yusupov's five at the beginnin g of the chapter) . When you have managed to squeeze your opponent into only two or three ranks, it is often the case that you want to exchange the rooks and queens, but not minor pieces. Rooks, and

1 .d4 lDf6 2.c4 d6 I have some experience with the . . . ig4 idea chat Campora played in this game. Back in 1 987 I won a nice game with Black against Loginov. This can be found on page 47 in My Most Memorable Games. I also won a game against Aleksandr Huzman two days before, but there I played it with the 1 . . . d6 2. tll f3 ig4 move order. 3.c!Lif3 J.g4 4.lDc3 c6

8 .1.• � �-- � 7 ..lfi"�"...% : "%-.... . • ----% .�•. 6 � N��,,.!Ii � � 5 � � �r!l �� 4 � �.t� • 8 ®'� -- % �� 3 �m -- �� Jii %�W"' �· %' ······ � 2 �tJJ[j�!j �j__{jrfP 1 � �V�.i,-.: a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Campora has played this a few times. I think this system is coo passive and chat White gains a definite edge out of the openin g . Exchan gin g

1 10


the good bishop does little to ease the pressure, as we shall see in the game. Such observations might sound very basic, but we should not discard old knowledge j ust because of its age or how easy it is to understand. We should j udge it on whether or not it is useful for us today. In this case it is. If Black plays 4 . . .J.xf3 White can take either way. Against lvanchuk (without . . . tlJ f6) I took with the e-pawn. There is no big reason for this; on a different day, when I had been in a different mood, I might have taken with the g-pawn. White is fighting for an advantage there as well, but at least he has doubled pawns.

5.e4 � bd7 6 ..ie2 e5 7 .0-0 fi.e7 8 ..ie3 0-0

s K- � .J. �-� 7 �� ····· ·Y.-/,�i ·-----· .

6

..... %

.

this is of course a bit dogmatic, it should not be believed religiously. But at least Black should have a serious reason for this exchange, which I do not see here.

9 ... cxd5 Black is making this decision before he is forced to do so. It would be better to keep the flexibility. If Black played something like 9 . . . a6 I would probably play 1 0. tlJ e l ( I O.a4 is anti-positional because of 1 0 . . . a5 and Black has secured a permanent outpost on c5. And after I O.tiJd2 J.xe2 l l .Wfxe2 White does not have the c4-square at his disposal. But it could still make sense, with ideas such as b2-b4 and tlJ d2-b3-a5 .) 1 0 . . .J.xe2 l I .Wfxe2

....

5 llll "JI( • 4 .,,,;z-: .... 3 � �,,m � �ltJ� 2 . .. �. . /,�·0("" ef � 1 � °ii nli�

�.!8'8'• .r� ��

8� ""

'"'

a

�

b

%w.·0

lt� r�

..

. ..

"

c

d

e

f

g

h

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Up to this point I had not spent any time to speak of. There were no difficult decisions to take; it was simply choices between equal options.

With the idea tlJ d3 and potentially even f2-f4. I have put the knight on e l /d3 against the KID many times. If the c4-square is blocked, then d3 is usually the best choice. I simply find the knight better placed on d3 than on d2 in these positions.

9.d5! I cannot say that this was a very difficult decision either. With this move White secures a good pawn structure. The bishop on g4 will sooner or later be exchanged and we are in a King's Indian structure, where Black in principle should do whatever he can to avoid exchanging the light-squared bishop. Okay,

10.cxd5ha We can see one of the problems with exchanging the light-squared bishop in this line: 1 0 . . . a6 l I .tiJd2 1 1 .tlJ e l transposes to the previous note. 1 1 . . . J.xe2 1 2.Wfxe2 b5

Chapter 3 - Space Advantage

Black would also not manage co exchange bishops with l 1 . . .lDe8, when White can cry something like 1 2.i.g4!? and Black is still somewhat uncoordinated.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

8

7 b

a

c

d

6 e

1 3.E:fc l 1 3.b4 with the idea lD b3-a5 also exposes the c6-square, but Black gets . . . lD b6-c4. 1 3 . . . lD b6 1 4.a4 b4 1 5 . lD d l Threatenin g a4-a5. 1 5 ... a5 1 6.E:c6 Normally Black is already threatening mate when White gets this far; or at least this move is played as an exchange sacrifice. Here Black's position is simply horrible.

s

7

6

5

4

3

2 I

� ��LJ�-J-� � · -'i)�it�i ,,,,,% � �-,,,,,Y,.,,,,%� �� ir• � � �� "8'� � � %' " / /, �-0 .i. � � m � D

8w/"'"; • tWj�¥ff �

d · ' l.,tir"�f a

111

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 1 .J.xa YlYbS Black is trying to exchange his bishop with the . . . i.d8-b6 manoeuvre. If he was successful in doing so, he would probably be more or less okay (as can be seen in the game Johansen Torre, Kuala Lumpur 1 990; though White won there too) . The problem is that White will not allow it.

5

4

3

2

1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 2.a4! I am sure chat there is more than one interpretation of this position, but the way I play chess, this is quite simple. I do not wane to allow the exchange of the bishop (at least not this easily) . 1 2 Jks 1 3.aS I spent 1 6 minutes on this move. I needed co calculate, to decide how to rearrange the pieces, and to correctly evaluate the consequences of what will ensue. As we shall see, my long-term considerations were accurate, but I did not gee there in the best possible way. .•

If my arm was twisted and I was forced co give an evaluation of this position with Chess Informant symbols, I believe I would say that White has a clear advantage already. I value the extra space highly and I see no compensation for White's extra space, nor for the absence of the li ght-squared bishop. An important point is that these are long-term features chat basically cannot be changed.

1 3 .tds •••


1 12

I 3 . . . b5?! by the way does not create activity for concrete reasons, which is one of the things I had co check. White plays I 4.lLia2! and the knight arrives on b4 and most likely c6 with decisive effect.

8�� · 7 ·�' - ---%� �w��----%�

�,·%� i)� : �· -r..7/41 '•8•" !··· 8 �%'"//, ��-'l: �� 3 �wtlfil ..t' " ";-{{j�,,JW{j �� , , %� 1•i= "" 4

2

�

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

14.ie2 We shall see the drawbacks of this move soon enough, but let us first look at the alternatives. A shortcoming of the long plan is that at times you miss alternative ideas.

For example, a very concrete idea was suggested by Lukacs: 1 4.g4!? I would have been happy to find this move, but unfortunately I was nowhere near seeing it. However, this does not mean that it is best. It is based on this tactical variation: 14 . . . h6 1 5 .h4 lLi h7 1 6.g5 ! hxg5 1 7.�g4

8 .1� �.I� �· 7 - - �� .%.'II -j�

"''"•'i• '"" �� " , %�p ��p r!§ ��t· t• ,%.��%%·��%•�---"�� o - _:� �---�� 2 {' ' %� 1� �, = 6 5

4

--

"

3

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Black is caught in a nasty pin. But rather than playing l 7 .. Jic7? when White has 1 8.lLib5!, Black can sacrifice the exchange with: 1 7 . . . :B:xc3! 1 8.bxc3 Vff c7 With decent compensation.

Chapter 3

-

1 13

Space Advantage

Looking at all the sources, it turns out that White has a stronger way to play. 1 4.�e2! Indicated by Khalifman in his book Open in g far White according to Kramn ik. I am not sure if it is fair to say that his recommendation is influenced by my game, but I will allow myself to be a bit presumptuous, as the strategy seems to be the same. 14 . . . a6 14 . . . tlJc5 l 5.l:%a3 does not improve things for Black. 1 5 .l:%fc l

19 ..ie l! Black will have to retreat with the queen, leaving White with a convincing advantage, as after something like 1 9 . . . tDcd7 20.l:%cb l �c4 2 1 .�xc4 l:%xc4 22 . .ie2 l:%cc8 23.f3 followed by tD c3-a2-b4 Black is going to suffer badly. 1 6.b4 �b7 1 7.�e l tlJ f8 White i s also clearly better after l 7 . . . .ic7 1 8 . tlJ b l .ib8 1 9.l:%xc8t �xc8 20.tlJd2 .ia7 2 1 .l:%c l �d8 22.tlJ fl . The rook is about to arrive on c6. 1 8 . .ie2 l:%c7 1 9. f3 tlJ g6 20.g3 tlJ d7 2 1 .l:%a2 l:%ac8 22.l:%ac2 h6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 5 . . . b5 This is the main move given by Khalifman, after which White is simply more comfortable. The only chance to gain counterplay seems to be 1 5 . . . b6, but after 1 6.b4 it appears that White is maintaining the pressure: 1 6 . . . bxa5 1 7.bxa5 �b3 ( 1 7 . . . �b4 1 8 ..id2 lDc5 1 9.tlJa4 with a clear advantage for White) 1 8 . .id2 lDc5

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

23.�d2 tlJ gf8 24 . .ifl tlJ h7 25.h4 tlJhf6 26 . .ih3 l:%c4 27.tD b l White has a big advantage according to Khalif. The similarities with our main game are quite compelling.

14 b5?! This looks like quite an achievement for Black, but I believed that it was okay to allow this move. As we shall see, it was probably already a serious mistake. ...

Black's best idea was 1 4 . . . a6! to prepare . . . b6. I looked at 1 5 .�b3, but it is not convincing. Black can try a pawn sacrifice with 1 5 . . . b6!? or defend with: 1 5 . . . tlJc5 1 6.�b4 b6! 1 7.axb6 ixb6 1 8.ixa6 l:%xa6 1 9.l:%xa6 tlJxa6 20.Wfxb6 �xb6 2 1 ..ixb6 l:%b8 22.ie3 l:%xb2 23.l:%al llib8 24.f3


1 14

�

. . . � �� -.--j�r�· · · '� � : �� ,,,,�v� �� m �·�8-. � ��t' ; , � 2 �.. . . :.� ... r . v.� � ��-�. . ',

6

3

.

.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White is slightly better with the bishop being better than the knights and the d6-pawn being weak. The white knight will go to d 1 and e3, from where it can go to c4 or f5, putting further pressure on Black. For this reason I looked at the prophylactic waiting move 1 5 .@h l !?, which includes the idea of playing f2-f3 without suffering from any counterplay on the a7-gl diagonal .

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 5 . . . b6 This should be the most challenging. 1 5 . . . tlic5 1 6.f3 b6 1 7.b4 is not in Black's favour. Nor does it look like there are any other real ways to improve the black position. 1 6.axb6 Here Black has two real options. 1 6 . . .'Wb7 16 . . . a5 ?! 1 7 .f3 .ixb6 l 8 .i.d2 gives White a clear edge.

But also quite decent is 1 6 . . . Lb6 l 7.i.xa6 �e8 1 8 ..ixb6 'Wxb6 1 9.'We2 �eb8 20.ib5 �xa l 2 1 .�xa l tlic5 22.f3 tli b3 with the idea of . . . lli d4. 1 7 .'Wa4 tli c5 18 . .ixc5 �xc5 19 . .ib5 'Wxb6 20 . .ic6 �b8 2 1 .'Wxa6

�� · .. . v.� � ��-0 �1.,. �M. �� . .3� . ��. �� ...."?lft�)r�, �m ��-� �?3)��?3)�.0 2 ��M �:f�8� " ""�. • ""(H ��

8

s

,

4

.

.

3

... .

a

b

c

. ..

. .

:� d

e

f

g

h

Black has a fair amount of compensation. In both cases ( 1 6 ... 'Wb7 and 16 ... .ixb6) White is to be preferred, but at the same time Black has reasonable chances. I cannot be certain which of the two options I would have chosen (or if I would even have thought of 1 5 .@h I !?); being a pawn up with opposite-coloured bishops where Black might be able to block with a rook on b4 and a bishop on b6, or the ending with level pawns, where White will be able to squeeze for a long time. An argument one way would be that the position where Black gives up a pawn would give him more activity and thus be easier to play. But on the other hand it is also tempting to be a pawn up!

1 5.f'3 Simply defending the e4-pawn. Basically it is the same story as before. Black is planning to exchange his dark-squared bishop and White has a space advantage. 1 5 . .ixb5? �xc3 would be entirely wrong.

Chapter 3

-

Space Advantage

1 5 ... a6 With the e-pawn defended, the b5-pawn in turn has to be defended. Note that 1 5 . . . b4 1 6.tLlb l does not improve things for Black, but only creates more weaknesses in his position.

If Black plays 1 8 . . . tLlh7 with the idea of . . . .ig5, the simplest is probably to play 1 9.h4, which does not harm White's position in any way. 8

7

6

8

5

7

4

6

3 2

5

4

3 2 1

115

1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

16J:Ul Of course I would like to transfer the knight to b4, but at the moment it is not so easy as the a5-pawn is hanging. Of course I could try something with Wfe l and some elaborate manoeuvre, but there are also other problems to solve and it makes sense to solve the easiest one first. Therefore this preparation for doubling rooks on the c-file, as well as the transfer of the bishop to h3, where it will put pressure on Black's position. 16 ...�b7 One of the problems with having limited space is that Black finds it difficult to reorganize his pieces in a meaningful way. Campora chooses to force the exchange of the dark squared bishops, but it is time-consuming and White can make significant progress in the meantime. 17.i.fl h6 1 8.g3 i.c7

19.@g2 So, I decided not to put the bishop on h3 after all. This move does not make too much sense. I cannot remember what my intention was, to be honest. White is essentially doing nothing, waiting for Black to play . . . J.b8 so he can reroute his knight. It is worth mentioning that I consider Black's position too difficult to hold already. The best defenders are excellent at posing problems for their opponents, but here it j ust seems too easy for White to continuously improve his position until Black breaks under the pressure. Basically, Black played a passive opening and violated some of the basic ideas of chess: he gave up the fight for space in the centre, he gave up his bishop for the knight. It you repeatedly give the opponent permanent advantages in this way without getting anything in return, you end up in a bad place. The next few moves are automatic.

19 ... .ibs 20.�a2 .ia7 2 1 .ha7 �ha7 22.�b4 � b8


1 16

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

8 111 1.� • ,,%_ 7 6 -� � % ·•· � 5 � 4 '� ��(8'� �� 3 �lZJ� 8 tl] 2 �W,$ 1 DV��

�- - - ��'� '�m-- -·Y.�1-� ��-- --%�1-� r� ·zr-·- - ;� ""' �� -0 �� :- �/,/,� �� - , ,, , ,

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White's advantage is not up for debate, but he still needs to find a way to break through; especially as the position is rather closed at the moment. Obviously we want to squeeze Black on both flanks, but we should not do this without having a clear plan about how we can improve our position. The next stage in this game is to exchange the rooks and queens. Having done this, Black will have no counterplay whatsoever, allowing me to play on both flanks, which is necessary to exploit the advantage. Going through Rubinstein's games you will find this theme countless times. Someone else told me that the same principle exists in military strategy. It is quite logical; if you are weaker, you want to narrow the battlefield as much as possible and have as few contact points as possible. Both in war and chess, we see this concept played out in the fortress strategy. In this position Black might be able to defend his position on one flank, but as soon as the front becomes wide, he collapses. After the exchanges White will be able to open the game without fearing that something dangerous will slip through the cracks. Also, as White cannot gain control of the c-file, it makes sense to prevent Black from getting it.

a

b

%% ' " "

c

d

e

f

g

h

26.:Sxc7 Apparently it is anything but obvious to some other grandmasters that White should exchange all the heavy artillery in this position, but I did not spend a lot of time on this decision at all. The danger of doing this is of course that Black could be able to set up a fortress and the heavy pieces would be needed to break it. Making such a decision at the board depends a lot on what you believe about the position. I was sure that I could break any attempt and therefore went for it without much hesitation. I should add that it is of course too far into the future to consider which type of fortress Black will try to set up. This is a moment to go with your feeling. I believed that White would win this ending and there were a lot of upsides to it. And I always play according to my beliefs. At the end of the day it is not a matter of life and death; nor is it the right moment to try to find ultimate solutions. 26 ... :Sxc7 27.:Sxc7 �xc7 28.�cl �xcl Black has an unpleasant choice between exchanging queens (ending most realistic hopes of activity) and giving up the c-file. Although I was happy to exchange queens, I would also not have minded keep them on the board if mine was to be the more effective queen!

23.gcl �d7 24J�fc2 gac7 25.�d3 @m 29.c!lixcl c!lifd7 30.
Chapter 3

-

Space Advantag e

Here it was better to play 30 . . . f5 ! . Compare with the note to move 33.

31 .©e3 ©e7

1 17

The following long variation is just a possible example and should not be considered as a final proof of anything. But it gives a good illustration of how White could try to make the best out of his advantage on both wings: 32 ... lll a4 33.'tt> d 2 'tt> d 8 34.'tt> c2 lll d7 3 5 .ih3 'tt> c7 36.lll b3 lll f6 37.lll d2 lll g8 38.lll b l lll e7 39.lll a3 lll c8 40.ifl lll a7 4 1 .f4±

��-•..0,z�� -...1iz�,j"'0. 7 ., z� ,..,,,,� .... ;� ,j"'' �iii% 6 40• f��-'0· r.• 8

,

�

�

,

.

.

� . % W .... % � :��--�� wr

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

32.b4! There is a trade-off with this move. On one hand it is no longer possible to put the knight on b4, but on the other hand Black is denied his only good square for the knight and he will feel the squeeze of limited space all the more after the loss of it. Finally, the b5-pawn is fixed. In many positions White could consider sacrificing a piece on b5 followed by queening the a-pawn. I am not sayin g that I would take on b5 (unless it was very clear) , but that it is an additional thing for Black to worry about. 32 ... lC!cd7 After the game I wondered if it was maybe better for Black to put the knight on a4, to avoid getting too cramped. Of course White would keep the advantage, putting the king on c2 to paralyse the knight, and then regrouping the knight to a3. The threats of a sacrifice on b5 would force the black king to the queenside and/or the knight to a7. After this White can start improving his position on the kingside and hopefully win the battle there. Working on this book I looked at how this would actually play out in practice.

.

3 .. ;� �� ....% �1 �� .. ,� � .

2

/

...

b

a

c

d

e

f

g

h

White finally changes the pawn structure. Here Black should probably wait patiently, as a further weakening of the light squares would prove devastating: 4 l . . . f6?! 42.ih3 lll c8 43.ie6 lll e7 44.f5 White's space advantage only grows. Both the black knights have been shut out of play. 44 . . . 'tt> d 8 45.lll b l 'tt> c7 46.lll d2 'tt> d 8 47.lll f3 'tt> c7 48.g4 'tt> d 8

� ��--�.

.. z

� '- �-lJ_., % % � ,� r� Z8 s8 . % -�...% �� 8 � �� 3 2 ��z� . .. �1 ��

6

�

5

4

�

a

--··

.

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

49.h4 'tt> c7 50.g5 hxg5 5 1 .hxg5 Black is in an awkward situation. If he takes on g5, the knight will quickly show up on e6. If not, the f-pawn will be impossible to defend after: 5 1 . . .'tt> d 8 52.gxf6 gxf6 53.lll h2!


1 18

can consider putting a rook on c4 or giving a check on a7. Still, I cannot shake the idea that if Black had played . . . f5, I am not absolutely sure I could win the game. I would have to show great technique, put the bishop on c8, manoeuvre the knight around and see what happened. Probably it is winning, but I do not feel the same degree of certainty.

33 ... �£6 34.�d3 � e8 35.f4 After placing all the pieces in their optimal position, White starts to squeeze. 33.i.h3! Another small finesse. After 33.llid3?! f5 ! Black gets the chance to exchange a pawn and create a bit of breathing space. His troubles are by no means behind him, but life is a bit easier for him. It does not make sense to allow it. Black could of course have done this on move 30, as already mentioned.

35 ... £6 Black has to do this, as after 3 5 . . . 'kt>f6 36 . .ic8 he would have to cake on f4 to avoid losing immediately. 36 ..icS �c7 37.@f3 @ds 37 . . . lli d? does not change anything. White plays 38.h4 lli f8 39.h5 and the game will develop much like it did. 38 ..if'5 � d7

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This is the kind of thing chat makes me wonder if I should have played 26.'kt>f2!? before exchanging the heavy artillery, with the intention of playing i.h3 quickly thereafter. This is probably chinking a bit too deeply for a human, but to ponder about such matters retrospectively makes sense, as it helps us to improve our understanding of the game and sharpen our intuition. But after 26.'kt>f2 Black

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

A lot of people would be anxious chat they might struggle to break through in such a position, but I was very confident during the game. There are simply too many weaknesses. Also, I chink I managed to find a really strong plan at this point, involving the penetration of the king and manoeuvring the knight to f5 .

Chapter 3

-

Space Advantage

39.h4 �m 40.h5 � e8 4 1 .�fl � c7 42.�dl

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

1 19

46 ..ig6! Finally we have arrived at the decisive moment. Black can do nothing about the coming sacrifice on g7. 46... �xg6 47.hxg6 � e8 48.�f5 ©d7 49.©g4 ©d8 50.©h5 ©d7

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

�en your opponent does not have any counterplay it makes sense to j ust improve and improve until it is possible to do something active. Of course you always have to be on the lookout for the possibility of fortresses, but in general this is the way I try to do it. Here there is no real chance of a fortress. As I said, there are too many weaknesses.

42 ... � e8 43.�e3 �c7 44 ..ih3 An old habit. Repeating j ust for the sake of repeating. You never know when you will need the extra time and also there is some theory about it being a useful demonstration of power; though I do not think Black's feeling of powerlessness can be any greater than it is here.

8 7 6 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

5 1 .�xg7 The computer says that taking on e5 first is more accurate, but you only need one way to win. 5 1 ...�xg?t 52.©xh6 f5 53.©xg7 fxe4 54.©fl e3 55.g7 e2 56.g8=°1W el =°IW 57.°1We8f

44... �e8 45 ..if5 �c7

1-0

1 20


White is obviously winning, taking all the vital black pawns. That it is mate in eight is a bit more surprising, but luckily this is irrelevant for us when we are making decisions.

drawing nine games and losing against Leko. But on Board One sometimes all you have to do is survive, in order that the sharks floating around on the lower boards can do the job.

I think this game is a good illustration of how to win against someone who defends passively from the beginning. The main thing to think about is the possibilities of fortresses and of course counterplay.

Wang Yue plays the Slav/Semi-Slav in what we can safely call a pretty defensive manner. The Slav is of course the team openin g for the Chinese, though they do not always seem to check up on the material available to us in the West. To be honest, they do not really work with foreigners, which means that we know very little about how they work. They have some training camps, but no one really knows what goes on in them. But in general they all have excellent technique and play the Slav, which could be a clue. Wang Yue has a lot of patience and plays defensive positions really well, which is maybe why he has good results in the Chebanenko and Schlechter systems.

The masterpiece The following game would definitely be in a Best Games collection, if that is what I had wanted to write. I have played Wang Yue six times; the first time in the Grand Prix tournament in Sochi 2008. He played great in that Grand Prix cycle and was very close to qualifying for the Candidates Tournament. If he had won from a better position in the last round, he would have. He really impressed me in our first game. I was not in good shape and played the opening poorly, but then I got into a bishop ending and thought I was going to hold the game. But he found an incredible plan, putting the pawns on the same colour as the bishop, winning the game. I saw that a few years later he did the same against Khairullin in the Russian League. Probably he made a real contribution to endgame theory with this game. They will have to be analysed deeply for us to see if this is the case - which is outside the scope of this project. Wang Yue is certainly a high-level player and he has really impressed me on several occasions. Sometimes he plays brilliantly, while in other games he is happy with a draw and plays without any ambition. I don't know what this is about. But his technique is excellent. He is the first Chinese player to get to the top and into the elite tournaments. In 20 1 4 he led the Chinese team to Gold medals in the Tromso Olympiad. He did so by

Boris Gelfand Wang Yue -

Medias 20 1 0

I .d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.�c3 �f6 4.e3 a6 5.�f3 b5 6.c5 g6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

7.�e5 6.c5 is very committal. With this move I grab space, but also fix the structure. Therefore I need the knight j ump to prevent Black from

Chapter 3

-

playing . . . .ig4 i n order to exchange the bishop for knight. If he could do this and follow up with . . . e5, he would be on top. So, at this stage White has a space advantage. It could backfire as White has wasted some time in the opening, but it looks as if it works.

7 Ag7 8.f4 a5 9 .ie2 flc7 This is no longer the way people play. We will look at this after the game. .•.

121

Space Advantage

.

with it first, but it happened in a conversation while we moved the pieces around (on the board, not the screen!), both hands on both sets of pieces. It was truly a collaboration. In a very similar position I played l l .g4?! against Bareev, leading to an early confrontation on the kingside. I got a worse position and lost the game. After this we tried to understand how to play the position, which helped me for this game.

10.0-0 0-0 1 1 .a3! 1 1 J.e6 12 .ia lll bd7 13.lll d3! ...

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This was our idea. Short term, the move simply prevents . . . b4, which could be relevant in some lines. Longer term, it is a slight improvement in the pawn structure, preparing to support the long pawn chain. I could have played this earlier, of course, bur there were other moves that were more pressing; for example castling. Obviously ... b4 is not really a threat at the moment. White replies llia4 and a2-a3, using the b-pawn as a target for the creation of weaknesses. Bue it might be down the line and White is now better prepared for this. The best way to describe my idea is probably that I wanted to play .if3, lli d3 and a3, keeping a space advantage. I had looked at this variation together with Alex Huzman and somehow we came up with this set-up. I say "we" on purpose. Certainly one of us came up

•

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This is the key move. I knew my opponent would place his pieces as he did in the game. So we decided to play for a space advantage. And in doing so I followed the typical plan of not allowing the exchange of pieces unnecessarily. The general idea is to keep the space advantage and then see what happens.

1 3 ...h6? I am not sure about this move. I think his idea was to play . . . .if5 and . . . g5 to find a space for the bishop (h7) . Then he might get good counterplay as . . . b4 could come together with . . . lli e4 or . . . llig4 etc. We will look at the main alternative 1 3 . . . �b?!? after the game.


122

If Black plays 1 3 . . . if5 White avoids the exchange with 1 4.llif2, leading to something like: 14 . . . h5 1 5 .id2 l:!ae8

14.g4! As explained above, White's concept would be ruined if Black were allowed to play . . . if5 and . . . g5, so this move is pretty much forced. 14 ... llih7 I do not think Black has much choice here but to block the kingside. If he played 1 4 . . . h5 1 5 .h3 hxg4 1 6.hxg4 g5 1 7.'it>g2 I would build up on the kingside and Black would be in serious trouble.

b

a

c

d

e

f

g

h

White can play either 1 6.g3;!; or 1 6.h3!?, with the point that after 16 ... h4 1 7.ie 1 the h4pawn is exposed. I am not sure which I would play; it depends on concrete stuff that I have not considered. Either way, White is better. In general I do not like Black's position here. If he was able to play . . . if5xd3 he would get some relief. Then .. .f5 would follow and he would be able to block the position. But this is not going to happen. This is the spirit of this opening: it is really passive - Black gives White a space advantage in return for solidity. But okay, I do not want to make this book a "Beat the Chebanenko" manual, so let's leave it at that. I hope I will not scare people away from playing this against me!

White has won the opening battle. Black did not manage to solve the problem of his light squared bishop and is slowly getting squeezed. My next two moves follow from what came before, as A is followed by B .

15.h4 f5 16.g5

8

.:1 m:,,,.,,•� ,�i

�'i'lw� �'i'l � 6 �m'i%mrm'iy,Wf 5 �� rtJ-m\ � j,Jlr» � 4 1

'%

�m ,% �� m,�,,,,

�%'"/Jtlw.,JtlWJjfj ��lZJif .�� 1 %"";f" " �w�!n•� ��

3

2

'%

, , , ,J

a

�

.,,,,:

b

c

,,.J

d

e

f

g

h

16 ... hxg5 This might be a mistake, though I was entirely convinced he was going to play it during the game (as sometimes happens) . It was only when I started to analyse the game that I realized that the alternative was playable.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

The big question is what White should do after: 1 6 . . . h5

Chapter 3

-

During the game I thought that it would give me an extra target, by way of a piece sacrifice (though this is by no means the only idea) . But from another point of view, maybe things are not that simple. Black can put his pieces on the queenside and be ready to meet the sacrifice on h5 with a counter-sacrifice: l 7.llie2 if7 l 8.llig3 e6 I 9.id2 E!fb8

� � s i. R ..... .� �WJ.,iii "· · ·

�

� •.�.� 1.�� 5 �� tw;·� r� r� "·· � ��-� : ·····��-�rfl.f!j 2 .. . . � �•. . . ;<. �. ... '£ � � '0t"'·�

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

�

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

20.llixh5!? This seems to be the critical approach. If White instead plays slowly with 20.@f2 Black will try to close the board: 20 . . . Wfd8 2 1 .E!g l Wf e8, when White is of course to be preferred after 22.llie5 llixe5 23.fxe5 lli f8 24.llie2, but it is not apparent how he should break through. It is possible that White could achieve something by shuffling the pieces around, but still, it is not so easy to find a plan for White to advance. At the same time I do not see any point of playing like this with Black. You are simply waiting to see what White will come up with, hoping that he will not be able to create serious threats. 20 . . . gxh5 2 I .ixh5 ixh5 22.Wfxh5 lli hf6!? I did not consider this idea during the game. The following variations are not meant to be conclusive, but suggest that White also has good winning chances here. 23.gxf6 lli xf6 24.Wf g6 lli e4! 25 .Wfxe6t @h8

Y.

- ��r�

.

a

1 23

Space Advantage

b

� c

d

�r�

� .: m e

f

g

h

26.Wfxf5! ? 26.ie l E! f8 would give Black brilliant counterplay. 26 . . . lli xd2 27.E!fL. lli c4 28.@h2 E!e8 White is also better after 28 . . . E!f8 29.Wfh5t @g8 30.E!g2 lli xe3 3 l .E!xg7t Wfxg7 32.E!gl E!a7 33 .E!gM. Maybe this is actually a better defence. 29.E!g2 E!xe3 30.Wfh5t @g8 3 1 .E!ag l E!a7 32.llie5 llixe5 33.dxe5 Wf d7 34.E!xg7t Wfxg7 3 5 .E!g5

White has good chances to win the game. The passed pawns are very powerful. Whether Black should take on g 5 or play . . . h5 might be difficult to decide. But it is quite easy to explain that the fact that Black has ended up with such a choice means that something has gone gravely wrong earlier in the game. In both cases White will find chances and the question of where these would be greater is impossible to solve at the board.


1 24

Black is hoping for a fortress, to hold the position and nothing more. By exchanging the pawns he has given White the open h-file, but on the other hand, he has rid himself of a potential weakness on h 5 .

17.hxgS 8

7

6

and the knight want to use the e6-square as a transit square and now they cannot.

17... @f7 1 8.@g2 �Hb8 19.i.d2 tLlhf8 20 ..te2 @es 2 1 .lLiel i.g8 22.tLlO l3b7 23.i.d3 tLl b8 24.tLle2 Y*fd8 25.lLig3 e6 White has improved the structure and it is finally time to put the rooks on the h-file, simply to continue the improvement of White's position. 26.l3hl

s !. �

5 4 3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

At this point we can say that the opening stage is over. The pawns on c5 and g5 work together in tandem, limiting all of Black's minor pieces. Black has no active ideas and White can slowly manoeuvre his pieces around before he does something active. The first thing to do, I decided, is to attack the f5-pawn. This is done over the next eight moves, putting the bishop on d3 and knight on g3 , so that a sacrifice can be considered. In the meantime Black runs with his king to the centre, which seems like a good idea, as he would otherwise risk getting mated down the h-file. Once White has managed to threaten a sacrifice on f5 , Black is forced to play . . . e6, limiting his light-squared bishop even further. He played it a bit quickly in the game, but with moves such as Vii c2 and tli h4, I would have been able to force him to do it anyway. For Black to play . . . e6 is a big improvement to White's position. We simply take one more square away from Black. Both the bishop

S•�.i.. �

/ , , , ; � i f� ., , , ; , , , % � � : ��'' '·'· %i · • r� • md • %i'� r�� .

�,� s %,,, % , 4

%i'�

� ,,,,%

� �

,,,,%

D ��% , , %%i,�";, , , %C//� '

� �1 ,�.-r� � � '•'f� � .l:l: a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

26 ....th7?! I believe this is a faulty defensive idea. His idea is to use the bishop as a plug, but in the game we shall see that this idea is very risky and probably not holdable. I am not sure if Black can hold with best play, but this sort of absolutism is also not so interesting for me. It is much more important to focus on playing good moves. The right idea here is to play 26 . . . E!:e7! and wait. White will continue to look for ways to improve his position. As we will see in the game, there is almost always a way to do so. Will it be enough for a win? Again, this sort of speculation is of course interesting for people watching the games with a beer in their hand, but for the competitive player, it has

Chapter 3

-

Space Advantage

no relevance during the game. Play your best moves and see where it leads. One of the ideas behind putting the rook on e7 is that if White puts pressure on the a5pawn, he can play . . . 1"1ea7 defending it without giving White control over the b4-square. White will probably have to consider ideas with e3-e4, sacrificing a piece in order to open up the position. One knight would come to d6 and the other knight to e5 . It is quite possible that White wins all the same, but this was Black's best defensive idea. (Again we see the advantage of having forced Black to play . . . e6.) White has a few plans and Black will have to anticipate them and try to defend against them all. And even then, he might not be able to hold. From White's perspective, you keep on improving your position until you get to a moment where you have to calculate which plan to go for.

1 25

29.gah l Black can only wait. Th e bishop o n h 7 can never come back. 29 ... gaa7 30.©fl The first part of my plan is to triple on the h-file. 30 '!WeS 3 1 .�el �h8 32.gh6 �g7 33.1"16h4 •..

27.°1Wc2 @f7 2s.gh3

8

7

6 5

4 3

2

I

*• -m·

� �m�

� *• .ea -m ,

;:/,

·-;.,, , ,,/,··- .i.

m • m • m • � -·� · �D · �

"• "D �Sf "D �'mi.�ttJ�i ;- ,,%��·� � · i:t "• "•DD ,,,,,

a

/,

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

28 ... ©gS? Only this is the actual mistake. After 28 . . . i.gS 29.!'i:ah 1 c;t>es Black can still put the rook on e7 and go for that defensive idea. Bur it is very rare that people do this in real life. They decide how to defend and then they stick with it. And so they should, unless they find our that they have missed something entirely.

33 �hS 34.1"1 1h3 This is the typical idea we know from Alekhine. The queen will be placed at the back where it is safest yet still effective. .•.

34 1"1e7 35.°1Wh2 1"1eb7 36.1"1h6 1"1e7 .•.

8

7

6 5

4 3

2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h


1 26

It may seem that White has improved his position as much as he can, but this perception is wrong! At this point White has the chance to create a weakness on the other flank. Black cannot hold the a5-pawn and will have to move it.

37 .!LJe2! Efob7 38.tlicl ge7 39.tlib3 a4 After 39 . . . '!Wd8 40.'!Wd2 Black would have to play 40 . . . a4 anyway. Maybe it would make sense to lure the white queen away from the kingside, but it can always return to h2, so Wang Yue probably did not want to wait longer than necessary. •

40 . .!LJcl geb7 4 l ..ie2 ge7 42.tlid3

8

7

6 5

4

I ·

if··� � � � ��--·--'· j_ � - -��m�a��'�m�;=.� �£ �� jJllrffA �� · -�llA t" " '

3 � . . . . J�/�

2

1

a

�-��-� �� ---;�m �K\lffi )� ��W/A� ��Wf �@� b

c

d

e

f

g

h

From here the knight can go to both b4 and e5. My thinking is that it makes no sense to go to e5 at the moment, as the bishop on h8 can go nowhere. To allow Black to exchange it would be the equivalent of giving up a piece.

42 geb7 White has improved his position a lot and no further improvements seem possible. Perhaps the king would be safer on c l , but it seems pretty safe on fI as well. For this reason it is time to switch from move-by-move improvement of the position and calculate the consequences of various lines of action. •.•

I decided to break through on the kingside with an exchange sacrifice.

43.tlih4 This comes with the threat of lll xg6 followed by ih5 . And after 43 . . . l:!g7 44.lll e5 White is not only threatening lll hxg6, which seems to be j ust game over, there is also a sort of zugzwang that makes it impossible for Black to prevent ia5 , when White manages to improve his position once again. 43 ....ig?

8

7

6 5

4

3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This is entirely forced. It also forces White to do something. The waiting is finally over.

44J::lxh7! Both the bishops are bad, so it can be a little surprising to learn that the bishop on h7 is the better of the two. The reason is very simple: it has a function! It defends g6. By eliminating it, White can remove the g6-pawn and start to find a way in for the pieces. 44 tlixh7 45 .!LJxg6 Here Wang Yue came up with a strong defensive try that I had missed. I actually believed I was just winning. •.•

45 tlid7! •••

•

Chapter 3

-

Space Advantage

45 . . . 'Wxg6? 46.i.h5 wins for White of course. I believed he would have to retreat, after which I was going to play .ih5 and be doing very well.

46.J.h5 Black's idea is of course that after 46.!!xh7? 'Wxg6 White's advantage is not entirely conclusive. It still makes no sense for me to exchange any black pieces. 46 YHd8 The funny thing is that if Black plays 46 . . . lll df8 the knight on h7 is lost. Compared with the position after 45 . . . lll d7!, this time around there will be nothing hanging on g6, so White just wins the knight. 47.lll xIB 'WxIB 48 . .if3 and after 48 . . . ih8 then 49.g6 is the human move. •••

47.�b4 I think this is an instructive moment. We can now see the advantage of having spent 6-7 moves going to and fro, forcing Black to play . . . a4. At the time we might think that there is no need; we are going to decide the game on the kingside. But when you can improve your position, you should do so! It is rather simplistic to say so, but it is not about saying these easy things, it is about doing them.

1 27

This is the next critical moment. An amusing thing is that at move 40 my computer (at the time the game was played) gave me + 5 .00 (now it is "only" +3. 50) , but at the same time it could easily have been a fortress, making 0.00 the human evaluation (though I had no fear that this actually was a fortress) . It is therefore not relevant to consider this position from the aspect of computer evaluations. White is better, but he will have to do something to break through. This might reduce the computer's appreciation of the position, but winning the game is about delivering the deadly blow, not about mathematics. Again, this might be a simplistic thing to say, but I think that part of whatever success I have had in chess is because I have a decent feeling for when this sort of advice is useful and I follow it when it makes sense.

48.�h8!! This is probably the hi ghli ght of the game. Still, at depth 26 the computer does not understand this move. Partly I like this move for aesthetic reasons, but of course computers have no understanding of such things! 48 � dfS On 48 . . . @xh8 I had planned 49.if7! lll dIB 50.!!xh7t lll x h7 5 1 .g6. •••

8

47 J:k7 .•

7 6 5 4 3 2 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Here Black has to play 5 1 . . . ih6 j ust to stay in the game. After 52.°Wxh6 !!xf7 53.gxf7 !!xf7 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 28

Positional Decision Malcing in Chess

54.lll xc6 'W'f6 5 5 .lll e5 our computer evaluation is down to +2. 1 1 , but it is enough! White will play 'W'h5 and .ih4 followed by 'W'e8t, c6 and so on.

49.tll f7! 49 . .if7t gives Black the choice of playing the same line as the previous note. Given the choice I would rather win the exchange back. 49 .. J�xf7 50 ..ixf7t gxf7 5 U:h:h7 \Wes 52.gh3

White is a pawn up, so It is time to exchange queens and broaden the fight on the queenside. The pawn on g5 will stay where it is forever, dominating the black pieces. This is winning slowly, which is a good thing! In such a position there is no reason to hurry. Actually, never hurry! It makes no sense to hurry, as it does not matter if you win in 10 moves or 30 moves. To win without counter-chances is far more important.

52 ... tll g6 53.'!We2 gc7 54.'!Wh5 ©f7 55.'!Wh7 '!Wg8 If Black tries to avoid exchanging queens, White wins by force: 55 . . . We7 56.lll d3 Threatening .ia5 . 56 . . . �a7 57.�h6 lll f8 58.lll e5t 'iii e 8

b

a

c

d

e

f

g

h

59.Wg8 .ixh6 60.gxh6 Wh7 6 1 .Wg5 followed by .ih4. The computer supports this variation, but it is quite human as I worked it out before I got approval!

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

��___;��=-.<��_J a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

56.Vxgst ©xgs We have reached the final stage of the game. White has an undisputed advantage (material) without counterplay. What he needs is to make space for the king. Again, it is amusing that the computer thinks that I have lost some advantage over the last 1 5 moves, while I see it entirely the opposite way: every defence has been broken down and the advantage can be converted without difficulties. 57.lll d3 ga7 58.©e2 The king comes to the queenside to force open two files (broadening) .

Chapter 3

-

Space Advantag e

58 ©fl 59.�b4 � e7 60.©dl gas 61 .©c2 ggs 62.� d3 gaS 63.gh7 .•.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

A little extra time on the clock never hurt

anybody. The rook is needed on the second rank, so first it teases the black defences a bit.

63 ... �g6 64.b3 �f'8 65.gh2 axb3t 66. ©xb3 ©e8 67Jfa2 ©d7 68.a4 bxa4t 69.gxa4

1 29

71 .J.a5 �g6 72.�b4 ©d7 73.�a6 ©cs 74.J.c7 J.f'B 75.©a5 ©b7

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

76.J.d6 li..e7 77.he7 �xe7 78.�b4 �g8 79.� d3 � e7 80.� e5 �g8 8 1 .g6 �f6 82.g7 1-0

Patterns recognized After the game I realized that this game is a sort of modern version of old Capablanca and Alekhine games. Knowledge of games by the old masters is always useful and even when you are not aware of it, you are likely to repeat ideas you have seen before. You can find these games annotated in many famous books, but I find it useful to j ust present them to you briefly in a visual way. Jose Raul Capablanca - Karel Treybal, Karlsbad 1 929

69 ... gxa4 70. ©xa4 ©c8 It is finally time to make something out of the "bad" bishop. In classic style I chose to exchange it for Black's "good" bishop!

1 30


36.b5 axb5 37.h6t Wf8 38.axb5 rJ:.ie7 39.b6 '1Wb8 40.�a l �c8 4 I .'\Wb4 �hd8 42.�a7 rJ:.if8 43.�h l .ie8 44.�ha l Wg8 4 5 .� l a4 Wf8 46.'1Wa3 rJ:.igB 47.Wg3 .id7 48.Wh4 Wh8 49.'IWa l Wg8 50.Wg3 Wf8 5 I .Wg2 .ie8 52.llid2 .id? 53.llib3 �e8 54.llia5 lli d8

Despite just having one file available, the extra space made it impossible for Black to defend his three weak spots, a8, b7 and c6. In the Alekhine game the position was a bit more open, but still closed enough for White to keep full control. Alexander Alekhine - Oscar Chajes, Karlsbad 1 923

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

6 I .llif7 �ec8 62.llid6 �d8 63.�h 1 �d7 64.�al 1 -0 Space is here to stay!

Postscript - Brief remarks about the opening It is not my intention to go deeply into opening theory in these books, but once in a while it can be interesting to focus on further developments. In this case because they involve my opponent, myself and one of my seconds.

Pavel Eljanov - Sergei Volkov Yerevan 2014

1 .d4 dS 2.c4 c6 3.lL!c3 tl:if6 4.e3 a6 S.tl:JO bS 6.cS g6 7.tl:i eS .ig7 8.f4 a5 9.J.e2 '11Nc7 I O.O-O o-o 1 1 .a3! .ie6 1 2.i.a tl::i bd7 13.tl:id3!

Chapter 3

-

Space Advantage

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

13 ...�b7!? 14.i.d2 i.f5 15.tlif2 b4!? 16.axb4 axb4 17.tlia2 b3!? l 7 . . . ll:le4!? l 8 .lll xe4 dxe4 l 9.ie2 b3 20.lll c3 ll:l f6 2 1 .ic4 also leaves Black with some problems to solve. The bishop on g7 is not obviously a good bishop.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

18.tlib4 I like White's long-term prospect here. Black is lacking active options. 18 .. J�xal 19.�xal �a8 2 1 .tlixe4 dxe4 22.i.dl

20.�cl

tlie4

c

d

e

f

g

h

White has been quite successful and is about to win a pawn. If Black now played 22 . . . lll f6 followed by . . . e6, he would have reasonable drawing chances; he has a lot of squares in return for the pawn. Instead Volkov fell for a nasty tactic.

22 ... J.e6? 23.d5! hd5 24.tlixd5 cxd5 25.c6

a a

b

131

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White is winning at this point. As Volkov is a strong player, he managed to make things very difficult for Pavel. At some point he even managed to make his position entirely defensible. But a few mistakes (maybe from being tired after being under pressure for hours on end) then led to his downfall. White won on move 5 5 .

1 32


Wang Yue also came up with his own improvement, achieving one of the finest victories of the 20 1 2 Olympiad.

1 6 . . . llig4 1 7.ixg4 ixd3 1 8.ie2 ixe2 l 9.llixe2 Wf8 20.ih4 if6 2 l .ixf6 llixf6 22.llic l Wg7 23.llid3 lli e4

Sergei Movsesian - Wang Yue

.i �B �� )I

Istanbul 20 1 2

I .d4 dS 2.c4 c6 3.� c3 lll f6 4.e3 a6 5.lll f3 bS 6.cS g6 7.lll eS .ig7 8.£4 aS 9 ..ie2

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

s

: �.�,�. TAT� 5 �·�·- ., , .� �I.I)�� 3 ltj� 4

2

,� �-�- ;,· '� � a

b

�if :� c

d

e

f

g

h

24.llif2 llixf2 2 5 .Ei:xf2 f5 26.h4 We7 27.g3 Ei:a6 28.We l Ei:ha8 29.Ei:c l Wd8 30.Wg2 Wa5 The position is entirely blocked. A draw was agreed in Gelfand - lvanchuk, Elancourt 20 1 3 .

a

b

c

d

e

f

9 ... hS 10.0-0 .ifS 1 I ..if3 lll e4

g

h

1 2.a4 b4 13.lll xe4 dxe4 14 ..ie2 .ie6 15.Wfc2 .ids

In another game Black was successful with an entirely defensive strategy. I do not think the game requires a lot of comments, but it is still interesting for us to look at the other side of the coin. l 1 . . .Wc7 1 2.llid3 lli bd7 1 3 . lli f2 e6 1 4.id2 We7 1 5 .ie l a4 1 6.llid3

16.fS? Too ambitious. 16 ... .ixeS 17.dxeS gxf5 1 8Jhf5 � d7!? Based on a really beautiful idea. Black sacrifices two pawns for an attack.

Chapter 3

-

Space Advantage

l 8 . . e6! was possibly even stronger; let's call it a marginally better move order. The key idea is chat 1 9.l:!xh 5 ? l:!xh5 20 . .ixh5 Y!fg5 2 1 ..ie2 tll d 7 gives Black an overwhelming attack. .

1 33

22 ..ig6 �xe5 23 .ixe4 •

19 ..ixh5? Movsesian decides to test his opponent. Or maybe he was surprised by his opponent's ingenious next move! 1 9.b3 was necessary. Black is doing well, but the fight is not yet over.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

23 ... � d3!! Not the only win, but quite a spectacular move.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

19 ... e6!! 20 ..ixf7t ©e7 2 1 .:i::m. Y!fc7 All Black's pieces are joining the attack. White has not so much won two pawns as opened two files for the Black's heavy artillery.

24.Y!fxd3 Y!fxh2t 25.©tl ga.fBt 26.©e2 gxfl 27.©xfl Y!fg3 28.©e2 ghl 29.Ad2 gxal 30 ..lxd5 cxd5 3 1 .Y!fh7t ©d8 32.©d3 Y!lg4 33.Y!fhst ©d7 34.b3 Y!if5t 35.©d4 0-1

7he author, as drawn by his daughter

Chapter 4 Transformation of Pawn Structures

At home in 2012 Shortly after the match -


1 36

''Mon but principal est de me rendre recommandable par une nouveaute dont personne ne s'est avise, OU peut-etre n'a ete capable; c'est celle de bien jouer les pions; ils sont lame des Echecs: ce sont eux-memes qui ferment uniquement l'attaque et la difense et de leur bon ou mauvais a"an gement depend entierement le gain ou la perte de la partie. - Franc,:ois-Andre Danican Philidor "

If you do not read French, do not despair! The above is merely the original quotation behind what has been reduced to the pawns are the soul of chess, the catchphrase for which Philidor is most famous these days. His claim was that their placement decides who is attacking and who is defending, and can decide the entire game. This is of course true.

understanding Philidor's statement, though we should not forget that the beauty of a metaphor is that you can understand it in many ways and still be right. Although this imaginary posmon is clearly exaggerated (not to speak of illegal because of the lack of kings!) it is still closer to real life than most people would intuitively sense. Take for example this position, from Gelfand Movsesian, Polanica Zdroj 2000.

8 �..i.� � 7 6 � 5 � n- 4 �JI! ·� 3 � � � 2 8 fw0 {j •

.i • • � ·-·-, , , Y,_,, ·-·��--.�� ·JI!lr�Jl!JI! fJI!: "•� �"fj ��-0 JI! f� 8 ' " 'ef """� �� ·: ·' ..

.

.

.....

But it makes sense to dig a bit deeper. If we chink of the soul as being a metaphor for the life force itself, the difference between chemistry and biology, we are certainly on the right track. In a scenario like the following:

•

· � � �� . . . ��.r� � w 5 � •� �� -jw� ·0��8 · 8� � � ""'-��""� ��""'��8 �� 8

1

6

��- �� I' a "� •" �-""'��

4

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Black's minor pieces are clearly limited by the pawn structure, with no way of entering the game without losing material. We would usually talk about such pieces as being buried alive or lifeless. And if any of the pieces were able to break out of their jail, we would say chat they have come alive. I believe this is a meaningful way of

1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White has sacrificed a piece and is already winning. I annotated the game for My Most Memorable Games, but I am sure Quality Chess can afford the ink needed to show the remaining moves here . . . 1 6 . . . i.h6 1 7.�fe l 'kti g7 1 8.�e4 ltJ xc5 1 9.dxc5 gxf5 20.�e8 %Vxe8 2 1 .ltJxe8t �xe8 22.g3 a5 23.�e l �xe l t 24.ltJxe l a4 2 5 .Wb6 i.d2 26.%Vc7t 'kti g6 27. ltJ f3 i.c I 28.ltJh4t 'kti h6 29.%Vf7 1 -0 The second half of thinking about pawn structures is to aim for a structure that is beneficial to the activity of your pieces and detrimental to the movement of the opponent's pieces. This is important, but still the first thing to chink about must be the value of the pawns themselves! Weak pawns have a tendency to be lost! And extra pawns have a

Chapter 4

-

Transformation of Pawn Structures

tendency to become queens and from there follows checkmate and champagne!

A subtle weakness in the pawn structure One of the areas where Rubinstein added a lot to our understanding of the game is that concerned with weaknesses. The following game is really easy to understand for a modern player, but the impact of the simplicity with which Rubinstein won it on the pre-World War chess world should not be underestimated. I don't believe that Rubinstein and Capablanca learned much from each other, but looking at Rubinstein's virtuosity in the endgame, it is at least possible to see that they were thinking in the same way at times.

Erich Cohn - Akiba Rubinstein

1 37

The position looks pretty innocent. White continues to make normal-looking moves, but soon finds himself in trouble.

12.©e2 .ie5! A good move, exchanging White's "bad" bishop, which here is not bad at all. Later on we will see that the c3-square is weakened, but of course it is nothing dramatic at this point. 1 3 ..L.:eS tll xe5 Black has initiated a bit of pressure. 14J�hcl gac8 15.J.h3 ghd8 16.tll c4 White would also fail to solve all of his problems after 1 6.h3 .ixf3t l 7.tll xf3 tll xf3 1 8.s!fxf3 E'.xc l 1 9.E'.xc l E'.d3 20.E'.b l E'.c3, when we have something akin to a Catalan with reversed colours.

St Petersburg 1 909

I like this game a lot for its simplicity. In a more or less symmetrical position with open c- and d-files, Rubinstein wins almost without any effo r t. It is the same structure as in his famous tactical game against Rotlewi, but victory is achieved in an entirely different way.

1 .d4 d5 2.c!ll f3 c5 3.c4 dxc4 4.dxc5 YNxdl t s.©xdl tll c6 6.e3 J.g4 7 ..ixc4 e6 8.a3 .L.:c5 9.b4 J.d6 10.J.b2 tll f6 l 1 .tll bd2 ©e7

1 6 . . . tll xf3!? 1 7.gxf3 .ih5 is a little unpleasant for White; the same goes for something like 1 6 . . . tll d 3!? 1 7.E'.d l .if5 , when it is not that easy for White to free himself. For example, 1 8.tll e 1 tll xe l 1 9.E'.xd8 E'.xd8 20.s!fxe l E'.d3 2 I .tll d2 E'.c3, when no clear path to equality exists.

17.gxc4 gxc4 1 8.hc4 tll e4 19.©el


1 38

l 9.i.d3!? seems to be a better try. One of the main points is that after 1 9 . . . i.xf3t 20.gxf3 lt:lxf2 2 1 .i.xh7! White is doing okay.

8

7

6

happened. Of course White has wasted time, but it is hard to see what options he has squandered in the process. In principle he is just waiting to see what Black is up to. I would probably not have given up the bishop unless it was forced.

23 .. J:�xc4

5

4 3

2

1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

We have reached an important moment in the game, and one where we can see Rubinstein's style come out in full. His position is clearly pleasant, but nothing more. There are a number of good moves he could play, none of them giving White excessive problems. Naturally he chooses the move that inflicts slight damage to the white pawn structure. Again his games are best understood backwards. At the end we can see that this decision is decisive and a part of a long plan, which this time is to win in the simplest way possible. Also, we notice that Rubinstein chooses to rely on static rather than dynamic features. His play is slow, but the effects are permanent.

19 ...La 20.gxf.3 � d6 2 I ..te2 There is no great reason not to put the bishop on d3, but probably Cohn was heading for the pawn ending, thinking it would offer him a draw. Obviously Rubinstein was going for it as well, but for entirely different reasons . . . 21 ..Jks 22.@d2 �c4t 2 3..hc4 Cohn could have returned with the king to e 1 , when really nothing dramatic has

24Jkl ? This loses by force, which we can b e certain Rubinstein had worked out long ago. 24.f4 was the correct move, to prevent the rook from going to h4. There is no real reason why White should lose this rook ending, though he might end up doing exactly that. At least we can be sure that his defensive skills would be tested. After all, Rubinstein is famous for his fabulous skills in rook endings. We analysed it a bit and did not find it so easy for White to defend if Black plays well.

24... gxcl 25.@xcI @f6! The start of a famous manoeuvre. The pawn ending wins without great difficulties, as we know now, partly because of this game. 26.@d2 @g5 27.@e2 @h4 28.@fl @h3 29.@gl e5 30.@hl b5 3 1 .@gl f5 32.@hl g5 33.@gl h5 34.@hl g4

Chapter 4

-


8

tll d7 1 3J�fdl V!lc8 14.�e4 c5 1 5.dxc5 �xc5 16.tll xc5 V!lxc5 17.V!lxc5 .ixc5 I SJ�acl �Uc8 19.tll e5 hg2 20.@xg2 f6 2 1 .�f3 i.fB

7

6

8

5

7

4

6

3

5

2

1

1 39

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

35.e4 fxe4 36.fxe4 h4 37.@gl g3 38.hxg3 hxg3 0-1 The impressive thing about this pawn ending is chat every well-educated chess player today understands automatically chat Black is winning and would find 25 . . . �f6! in a heartbeat. And we do this because of the way it was revealed by Rubinstein in this game. le is because of things like this chat I appreciate Rubinstein and his games as much as I do. With so many things, Rubinstein was first and showed the way.

4 3

2

1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Once again we have an almost symmetrical structure with open c- and d-files. This time White has a slight initiative despite the doubled f-pawns. What made this game memorable co me was the way White manages to increase the pressure without having serious targets and/or mistakes from his opponent. He does this by creating chem, one by one, cooking soup on che slight frailty of the e6-pawn.

22.e3 g6 23.b3 i.b4 24.h3 @m 25.tll d4 @f7

Direct comparisons And just co avoid you disregarding this game due to Cohn's mistakes, I would like co quickly show a game with a similar structure, where the defensive task was too great for a player sometimes called the greatest defender ever known in chess.

Zoltan Ribli - Anatoly Karpov Amsterdam 1 980

l.d4 �f6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4 ..ig2 .ie7 5.�f3 0-0 6.0-0 dxc4 7.V!lc2 a6 s.V!lxc4 b5 9.V!lc2 ib7 10 ..if4 � d5 1 1 .�c3 �xf4 1 2.gxf4

8

7

6 5

4 3

2

1

26.a4!

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h


1 40

Keeping in line with our theme of changing the pawn structure, Ribli is putting pressure on the b5-pawn, creating a small weakness there. But the real point is not revealed until move 30, when the white rook penetrates via the b-file, something this move made possible.

26 ... bxa4 27.bxa4 .ic5 28.�k4! .ia3 Also after something like 28 . . . .ixd4 29.:B:cxd4 :B:e8 30.a5± Black would not have solved his problems fully. 29.E:xcS E:xc8 30.E:bl E:c4 3 1 .E:b7t .ie7 32.E:a7 White is better. Black now seeks activity at the cost of a pawn. His position is still defensible, but all the responsibility is on his shoulders.

40.@e4! .if8? Ribli's idea was of course that 40 . . . :B:xf2?? loses immediately to the pretty 4 1 .tt'ld8!. But Karpov could have sought activity for his king with 40 . . . 'kt>e6!, when after 4 1 . f4 @d6 42.tt'le5 :B:e2 43.tt'lc4t i>c6 8

7

6 5

4 3

2

a

32 ... e5! 33.fxe5 fxe5 34.�8 E:xa4 35.�xe5t @f6 36.�c6 .ic5 37.E:xh7 E:a2 38.@8 a5 39.h4 a4 8

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

I see no reason why he should be any worse at all. White's play is not forced, but no really eye-catching option exists.

41 .E:a7 Maybe it was stronger to play 4 1 .tt'le5!? .ig7 42.tt'lg4t 'kt>f7 43.h5 gxh5 44.:B:xh5 a3 45 .:B:a5 .if8 46.f4±, but Black also has problems to solve in the game.

7

6 5

4

4I.. ..id6?! Here 4 1 . ..:B:xf2 42.tt'le5 :B:b2! was an interesting defensive try.

3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

We are entering the more interesting phase of this game (stating this happily ignores the debate on how to get such a position against Anatoly Karpov) where the pawn structures have disintegrated entirely and the theme has dissipated. Bur chess has a tendency to always be instructive, so I feel it would be sad to ignore the nice little points we find in this endgame.

Chap ter

4

-

� �� -� �

Either Black's passed pawn becomes strong or he gets the chance to exchange the rooks on b4, escaping into a drawn minor-piece ending.

6

�� m-- - ��r� . .� �- �-��rii �� s

42.f4 f;ih2 43.ga6! ©f7 44.� e5t .lxe5 45.©xe5

4

8

7

6

..

b

a

5

c

d

e

. ..

f

g

h

If White plays f4-f5, Black can take on e4. And if White takes on g5 , Black will cake with check and quickly make it to the a-file and secure a draw from there.

4 3

2 1

141


b

a

c

d

f

e

g

h

It turns out that this was the critical moment of the game, though neither of the players would have known this with any certainty while it was being played.

45 ... ©g7? Karpov could have held the game with 45 . . . gh3!! 46.ga?t @g8.

And after 47.@f6 13xe3 48.@xg6 13g3t 49.@f5 Black would even draw without the a-pawn, but 49 . . . a3 does not ruin his chances.

46J�a7t ©h6 47J�xa4 8

7

6 5

4 3

2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

After 47.e4 13xh4 48.13xa4 Black draws easily. White has no way to make progress. If White manages to get his rook co f6, Black j ust has to keep the rook on g4 and be ready with . . . g5! .

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

47.. J�xh4 47 . . . 13h3!? is no longer sufficient to hold. White wins after: 48.13a3 @g? 49.13a7t @h6 50.e4 13xh4 5 I .gf7! Defending the pawn and preparing to advance the e-pawn. 5 1 . . .gh I 52.@f6 and White wins. 48. ©f6! gh5 49.e4 gh4 50.e5 gh5

1 42


King walk to h3 (or a3)

8

7

As this is a chapter on pawn structures, that is of course our main focus, but it would be nonsensical not to draw specific attention to Rubinstein's king march - probably the most famous in chess history before Short Timman, Tilburg 1 992. It is something all the following champions knew well, as can be seen from their games, such as these two examples by the World Champions from 1 985 to 2006.

6 5

4 3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

S l .e6 gst 52.©e7 ©g7 53.i>d6 gf'8 S4.ga7t ©f6 55,gd7 1-0 It may very well be that I am the only person outside Hungary who finds this game memorable (and now hopefully a handful of readers!) . I fear that to many it might come across as a bit dry. After all, White got a slight edge from the opening, put Black under some pressure and forced him to solve some problems. Having missed the "easier" ways to solve his problems, eventually Black had to find a study-like move in the rook ending (45 . . . 1':i:h3!!) in order to save the game. Presumably exhausted from four hours of intensive defence and with no one hinting that this was the moment when all energy had to be consumed on saving the game, the World Champion failed the task. I agree that this does not look as exhilarating as Kasparov's unruly demolitions of Karpov in the second half of the 1 980s; but it is also a valid way of playing and on this occasion it was enough to beat the strongest player in the world at the time.

Evgeny Sveshnikov - Garry Kasparov Minsk 1 979

I was following this tournament live in the playing hall. Every day I would go to watch the games and think along with the great players, at times exchanging variations with other spectators. As a student of Rubinstein I was not surprised by Kasparov's play in this game.

34 ...i.cS 35.i.xcS ©xcS 36.©d3 ©b4 37.©c2 ©a3 38.©b l aS 39.©al a4 40.bxa4 ©xa4 4 1 .©bl ©a3 42.©al b4 43.©bl b3 0-1 The second example comes from Kasparov's great rival, who had clearly studied his games, as well as Rubinstein's, of course.

Chapter 4

-


Saleh Salem Vladimir Kramnik -

Doha 20 1 4

8

7

�xa 43.gxb5 g4 44J�d5 h5 45.�g3 h4 46.� e2 g3 47.fxg3 fxg3 48.b5 gf6 49.g5 gx5 50.ex5 g2t 5 1 [email protected] � d4 52.�gl �xb5 53.a4 �c3 54.�6t ©hi 55.a5 h3 0-1 I could give many more examples of this king march of course, but let us return to pawn structures before this diversion leaves us lost in the woods. Come on, off to Grandma's!

6 5

4 3

The pawn structure relating to the pieces

2

1

1 43

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

In a roughly equal position Kramnik activates his king and attacks the weak pawn on h2. White was not able to find a way to meet this in the game, showing the practical value of following in Rubinstein's footsteps.

30 ... @f6 3 U�a7 ©g6 32.� a2 � d8 33.©el ©h5 34.�cl ©h4 35.�b3 ©h3

36.� d4 f4 37J:ta8 ©xh2 38.�5 gf6 39.e4 �c6 40.gxa6 gg6 41 .©fl � e5 42.ga5

These days an average club player will talk with confidence about bad bishops, outposts for knights and so on, in the same way as a layman would talk about evolution or the expansion of the universe. But it was only in the last 1 50 years that these ideas were discovered and explained in an accessible way. A hundred years ago people would commit horrible crimes against their pieces, especially in closed positions. The following game is rather interesting in that respect. White might feel that he succeeded in giving Black doubled pawns, but all he really managed to do was to give Black control of the half-open f-line. Later on, realizing this, he exchanges his good bishop, sitting back with a rather impotent light-squared bishop. But this is not the end. Rubinstein then inexplicably allows the bishop to come back to life (maybe because of time trouble?) , something White does not manage to exploit fully. The game is quite a complicated one, despite the strategic aspects of it and the closed position. Analysing it was great fun and also quite thought-provoking. In the end we have a game that works on many levels: as an exploration of pawn structures and pieces, as an analysis of defensive resources, and finally as a captivating fight!


1 44

Heinrich Wolf- Akiba Rubinstein Te p litz-Schoenau 1 922

l .e4 e5 2.ltla l!lc6 3.lilc3 lll f6 4 ..ib5 .ib4 5.0-0 0-0 6.d3 d6 7.J.g5 .ixc3 This manoeuvre was often played in the past. These days people are more likely to play 7 . . . lLie7!?, not fearing the doubling of the pawns in front of the king.

8.bxc3 Wfe7 9J�el lil d8 10.d4 i.g4 The more modern main line goes 1 0 . . . lLi e6 1 1 ..ic l c5 1 2 . .ifl , when White simply plays a long game with the two bishops. This was revived by Short in the 1 990s and he won some nice games with it.

improvement to the pawn structure seen from Black's point of view. In more games Black has played 1 3 . . . lLi e6, but after 1 4 . .ic l it is not dear that Black has improved his position.

14.l!lxg6 I feel that this is playing into Black's hands somewhat. A modern player would not rush to play this move, as the control over the f4-square should benefit Black. But as so often we find that things are not so simple. White had another option: 1 4.lLif5!? .ixf5 1 5 . .ixf6 'Wxf6 1 6.exf5

1 l .h3 J.h5 1 2.g4 .ig6

b

a

c

d

e

f

g

h

Both sides have their chances.

14... fxg6 1 5 . .ic4t ©h7 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

13.lilh4 1 3.d5! is the main line these days. White scores well, though there is no reason to consider Black's position that bad. 13 ... h6! A very interesting decision from Rubinstein, tempting his opponent to take on g6, giving him doubled pawns. But as we shall see, it quickly becomes apparent this is an

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Chapter 4 - Transformation of Pawn Structures White is already facing his first difficult decision. Black's play is easier, but to speak about a real advantage would probably be misleading.

16 ..ih4! 1 6 . .ic l ? would be a bad mistake. If you try to move the pieces around a bit, you will notice that there are dark squares to defend on the kingside and that the bishop has no purpose on c l . I like Black's position; it is not so difficult to work out what he needs to do, while White has a big defensive task ahead of him. 16 ... g5 17 ..a.g3 The bishop is not great, but it is not as bad as some other historical examples. Three immediately come to mind: Winter - Capablanca, Hastings 1 9 1 9

1 45

Sasikiran - Anand, Hyderabad 2002

In all three positions the bad bishop was the decisive factor. Capablanca, Krarnnik and Sasikiran all won, though it could be pointed out that Kasparov found a superhuman way to build a fortress in Winter's position, as described in his My Great Predecessors Volume 1 . This is no criticism of Winter, but merely shows the unlimited possibilities in chess and how we often can find additional resources if we analyse a game deeply.

17 .. �f'l .

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Short - Kramnik, London 20 1 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 8.°fff3 One commentator has quite understandably mentioned 1 8 . .ixf7!? as a serious option. The knights are truly scary the way they jump around on the kingside. But it is not clear that

1 46


it is yet necessary to give up the dream of using the two bishops later on.

18 .. J:laeS 19.'1Ye3 b6 20.J.b5 gds 2 1 .a4 8

7

6 5

4 2

1

b

a

3

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White does not have any clear targets, but with the advance of the a-pawn he aims to double rooks on the a-file and take on b6 to create counterplay. It is not much, but he needs to do something. It is also not as easy as it seems at first for Black to improve his position. Sure, he can bring a knight to f4, but it is not such a great achievement. Everything is protected.

2 1 . .. �hS I am not sure if Rubinstein considered 2 1 . . .a5!?. It is a move with both positives and negatives. It does halt the white advance on the queenside, but it also fixes Black's pawn structure permanently. As we shall see in the game, a lot of changes to the pawn structure can and will happen on both sides of the board. Most importantly, the b6-pawn would become weakened and Black would not be able to play . . . c6, which can be a serious option for him in the game. 22.a5 �g6 23.f3 � f4 24.i.fl @hs

c

d

f

e

g

h

Both players have to some degree executed their main plans for the early middlegame. Black has transferred a knight to f4 and will now have to find a plan for the next ten moves or so. White has a harder choice. He does not have any active plans of his own, so even though his position is objectively fine, it is a bit unpleasant. For example, if he plays 2 5 . h4 Black will reply 25 . . . gxh4 26.J.xh4 g5 27.ig3 h5, and White can start to regret his choice already. And if he prepares an invasion on the a-file, he will be hit hard in the centre: 2 5 .�a4? d5!+

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Black takes over the initiative. The true dangers lie in variations such as 26.exd5 � 6xd5 27.Wxe5 Wd7! 28.�aa l �xh3t 29.J.xh3 �de8 and the queen is trapped.

Chapter

4 - Transformation of Pawn

For this reason the best move is probably the prophylactic 2 5 .Wf f2, trying to keep everything under control. But moves like these are not that easy to find, especially when you have a lot of options. Obviously Black still has a lot of possibilities and the game would continue. It is likely that Rubinstein would have enjoyed such a turn of events as well. We could imagine that Black would transfer the knight from f6 to g6 and maybe later to h4. But this would take time and White would be able to break through on the a-file. Probably this would give him enough counterplay. In the game White went for a more direct approach, which looks poor on the surface, though it actually has some merit to it.

25 ..ixf4?! If you were writing a manual for beginners in the 1 980s you would undoubtedly have criticized this move severely. White is giving up his good bishop, leaving him in a closed position with a bad bishop on fl against a powerful knight. Indeed it is a big concession to give up the dark squares. But luckily chess is more complicated than following basic rules. Yes, they do apply, but they are not the whole story, like gravity fails to explain all of physics. On the plus side for White, we have the closure of the kingside, where Black had serious ambitions, as well as the elimination of Black's best piece and his stronghold of the f4-square. All in all, not an equation which is easy to work out without a few variations. My first impression was that this is a terrible mistake; but now I don't think so. Chess is indeed a difficult game.

25 gxf4 26.Wffl g5 This is a natural continuation. It does not make sense to question it, although other options exist. •••

Str u c tu res

1 47

26 . . . h 5 ? 27.g5 lll d7 28.h4 would be a clear improvement for White. The bishop will be useful on h3.

8 � __ _ __ __ _ _ V, , ,,, ,, � , 7 - --�� 6 t--- - - �!?.'w�A !?.'A%.,'-31):.!?.'A '"'%% - --�w�-

� �� w� ,v.

5

4

3

2

1

d � · . 'a � �ti'•ti'• ----% ' % � � [� � ·-� � � , ·� ""' �� %_ , ,,j,,37'6' '�� ,,.,,

�

a

b

� c

d

%

L,,,

, ,,,

�� = f

e

g

h

27.d5?? But this is a horrible mistake. White should have played 27.h4 with the idea 27 . . .
a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

29 . .id3 or 29.exd5 e4 30.c4! with deep complications. It seems that the chances are pretty even, though calling this position equal would be somewhat misleading.

27... h5


1 48

is not a religious question and in practice it was not possible for me to break the defence as easily as I had expected. I spent half an hour on it and I did not make serious headway. I shall leave it to analytical experts such as Karsten Muller or Mark Dvoretsky to work out a way for Black to break through. But for a practical player like me, the main point is that it is hard to Black to find a way through, making this the best defensive idea for White. a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

28 ... g7 29.%Ye2 ghs 30.fl gas

28 ..ig2? A logical-looking move. The bishop is defending the kingside and especially the king. Bue the bishop is woeful on g2 and only a miracle can bring it back to life. I was unable to find a clear way for Black to break through if White attempted to set up a fortress. A possible variation goes like this: 28 . .ib5 Wg7 29.Wfl E:hs 30.We2 E:h6 3 1 .E:gl E:dh8 32.c;tid2 hxg4 33.hxg4 tll d7 34.a6 tlic5 3 5 .E:afl Wf6 36.Wc l E:h3 37.Wb2 !!8h6 38 .E:g2 Wfh7 39.E:fgl

3 1 . .. �d7 32.%Yb5 hxg4 33.hxg4 �c5 34.ghl 8

7

6

White's idea is simple: he wants to exchange two major pieces and defend f3 with whatever is left. Black is seriously lacking in entry squares for the knight and king. My feeling was one of almost complete certainty that Black should win; there are simply too many pieces. But this

5

4 3

2

1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Chapter 4

-


Black has played well. His next step should be to create a further weakness on the queenside, giving White the horrible task of having to defend on two flanks. At this point Black could play 34 . . . a6 3 5 .'Wb4 bxa5 36.'Wxa5 l:!ab8, when White would have a lot of problems to deal with: the open b- and h-files, the knight's superiority over the bishop, and the passed a-pawn. It seems likely that Black would win in the long run. Instead Rubinstein played a shocker of a move.

34 .. J.!�h4?? It is not so hard to imagine what Rubinstein was thinking when he played this move. His intention seems to be to double on the h-file or to get a passed pawn.

1 49

36.axb6 cxb6 Inserting these moves makes more sense before playing: 37.ih3 Sure, it opens the c-file, but with the bishop on h3, the value of it to Black has decreased. The following two lines are very impressive, but quite possible to find, although I would not guarantee at all that these variations are necessarily correct. This is what we came up with and we present it with some trepidation. 37 . . . a5!? This is ambitious, but White holds. 38.'Wxb6 a4

35Jhh4 gxh4 8

7

6 5

4 3

2

1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Unfortunately the passed pawn is not really dangerous and White has now experienced the miracle he was hoping for. The bishop has an avenue to rejoin the game.

36 ..ih3?! The ideas below can be understood by human logic, while the ensuing complications had to be worked out by two grandmasters with computer assistance.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This is where our analysis led us (though the variation cannot be described as forced) . Here White draws with the exceptional:


1 50

48.id?!! llixd7 48 . . . �xf3 49.ixa4 is fine. 49.�xa4 lli f8 50.�a?t @g8 5 1 .�a3!

� •• 8 • �� '"""� : �� -�� - % 5 � -8 • �- �� . % � . . .. %� . 4 8 . . � �� . � ·8"� 3 . . � �� 2 . . v. � .... . v.� ��

=

.

.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Amusingly we have another fortress. It is hard for Black to improve his position. 5 1 . . .�h3 52.@f6 White has more than enough counterplay to make a draw, both against the black king and against the d6-pawn.

8 Z ��L-�� rn� : �.�- �� -� .. . .. %,,, .,,,-0 . .. %�.1"' �� -� . ·.i.� 5 �� -. . ."8 .. ZWI . 4 l , .. . 8 % ... � w .. %. . � �� . . .�. . . . 80� 3 � � �%'· - �. �B �� 2 � 8" � � � � � b

c

d

e

f

8 z �� %''0� : ��-�--� . . ".8"•r� s . . � . .. � 4 ., . a ·' · 8 ". WI % . . '" �efW'�" �� 7: . x1:ir/. . .. � 8. %,�m� 3 . . . % 7: % .... %� 2 . 8 ·�� a1 .

.

.

a

37 . . . '1Wd8 38.g5 a5 39.i.f5 a4

a

Here White escapes with: 40.�h l !! 40.'!Wfl ? '1Wxg5 (Here 40 . . . b5!? also looks appealing, but as Black's queen move is quite forcing and works, there is no reason not to stick with it.) 4 1 .'!Wh l '1Wg3t 42.@e2 a3 43.�gl Black is close to queening his pawn, though White has managed to create real counterplay on the kingside. Black has to come up with all the best moves in order to retain the advantage.

g

h

Black has a large structural advantage, but it seems that White can create enough counterplay to make a draw. This is quite a common picture in chess. If one side has a long-term advantage, it is necessary for the opponent to create active counterplay in order to change the course of the game. If not, the player with the better structure tends to cruise to victory.

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

43 . . . �h8!! A cool move. The queen is not as exposed on g3 as it looked. White can offer some resistance with 44.c4 a2 4 5 .@d2, when it is hard for Black to continue to improve his position.

s �� ro·J. . . 7 ��f%��-% ��·� 6 � � ef�% • � �. . % � .� 5 ��. . � · ; � 4 '8·' �� '8"• ....% . �� . ... . 3 �� -0� ��%,,,, �� . 2 · - 8 � � � •" � Dv " .... % .

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

It probably takes a computer to find 45 . . . lli b?! 46.ih3 (46.id? lli d8 47.@c3 h3! and Black wins) 46 . . . @f6 47.�xg3 hxg3 48.'!Wa l �xh3 49.'1Wxa2 �h2t 50.@c3 lli d8 and Black wins slowly.

Chap ter

4

-

151


40 . . . a3 The critical test. 40 . . . We7 4 1 .l'!xh4 l'!h8 is possible, but White has enough counterplay. 4 1 .l'!xh4 a2

The critical test. 38 . . . a6 39.if5 improves White's position.

� j ·� � '%�- � ';;�- j. ;0 :� �.¥. � �--. %�.,,,, ��·� � ?�J � � t�% t� ·�·'-- -�� -. , /.� �w � 3 � � ��%�%�� .i - %� = � �� -- -/.� /,�

8

0,,

5 4

7

6

5 4

..

2

a

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

42.Wfl !! Wxg5 42 . . . a l =W 43.l'!h7t! �g8 44.l'!h8t! with perpetual check. 43.l'!h7t �f6 44.Wh l a l =W 45 .l'!h6t With perpetual check.

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

39.Wxa7! l'!b2 40.<;t>e l 40.l'!c l ? ti:J d3t 40 . . . l'!xc2 4 1 .l'!b 1 ! Here comes the counterplay. 4 1 . . . ti:J d3t 4 l . . .l'!xc3 42.l'!b8 l'!e3t 43. <;t>f2 ti:l d3t 44.<;t>gl Wxg5t 45 .ig4 and Black has no way to continue. 42.<;t> d l l'!b2 43.l'!xb2 ti:lxb2t 44.<;t>e2 ti:l c4

36 ... bxaS 37.�xaS �d8

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

45 .Wf2! Wxg5 46.Wa7!! White will have enough counterplay to make a draw with either Wxc7t or Wg l t .

38.. J�bs 39.gb4 a6 Black has everything under control.

38.g5! l'!b8

40.@e2 gb6 4 1 .�al @g6 42.@d2 @gs 43.gbl �b8 44.ghl a5!

1 52


A brilliant game, despite the handful of blemishes.

Changes in pawn structures in my own games

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

45.i.g2 45 .\Wxa5 is refuted by 45 . . . l:%b2 and . . . ll'i b3t, with ... Wb6 to follow. White will be mated. 45 ... a4 46.Yf el Yfh8 47.Yfcl ga6 48 ..ifl Ela8 49 ..ic4 a3 50 ..ia2 Yfh7 5 1 .gh3 � d7 52.Wfl Whs 53.ghl � c5 54.Yf cl 8

7

6 5

4 3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

54... gbs! 55.Yfxa3 E:a8 56.Yfb2 h3 At this point we can see the upside to 34 . . . l:%h4. The h-pawn is a great asset, not only as a passed pawn, but also by shielding the queen, allowing her to penetrate the white position via h4 to f2. 57 ..ic4 Yfh4 58 ..ie2 Yf£Z 59.gxh3 We3t 60.©el c!Lia4 0-1

In both of these games, Rubinstein's play was ahead of its time. This does not change the fact that something was missing. Earlier in this chapter I paralleled advances in chess to those of physics and cosmology, and I would like to do so again. When Einstein developed his theory of relativity, he imagined a static eternal universe. Today we know that the universe has a beginning and that it is wildly dynamic. The same thing has happened in chess. Attempts to outplay the opponents through technique alone, as was the case in some of the games of Capablanca, have been replaced by a far more dynamic approach to the game. The wild tactical counterplay with which Wolf could have saved the game reflects chess thinking in our time rather than the thinking of a hundred years ago. And just as our thinking about physics now involves Quantum Theory, which I do not pretend to know much about, except that it has revealed that our world is far more complicated and dynamic than we believed, our thinking in chess has changed radically as well. Since the time of Rubinstein we have seen a considerable development in the openings, these days including the moves g2-g4 and h2-h4 in all types of positions, as well as an almost relativistic approach to material. This does not mean that the observations of Rubinstein and the style in which he played have become redundant, but only that his style has become less mainstream. Take the example of the next game: I am facing an opponent who aims for a pawn structure that facilitates active play with his pieces, with the ultimate

Chapter 4

-

1 53


goal of creating direct threats to the king. In the process my opponent may allow more of his pawns to become weak and in general take more chances than Rubinstein's opponents would. But on the other hand, I am dealing with a snakelike adversary, ready to lunge at any time with his venomous fangs. At times I envy Rubinstein his opposition, though I have to admit that he probably would have quickly adj usted to the demands of modern chess and dealt with these dynamic relativists at least as well as me. In the following game I managed to mould the pawn structure to a perfect fit for my pieces, even though my opponent was one of the best players in the world, a possible future contender for the World Championship. Of course Grischuk would have been the 20 1 2 Challenger, i f I had not defeated him in the final of the 20 1 1 Candidates match; but more about this in the next volume.

Boris Gelfand - Alexander Grischuk

play each other it would be fair to say that all three results are equally possible. Our games have been quite important in the World Championship cycle. In the 2005 World Cup he knocked me out in the tie breaks. After we had won a classical game each, the match went to the wire and I lost in blitz. In the 2007 World Championship in Mexico his results were important too. He had a close to-winning rook endgame against Anand, but failed to win it, while he managed to win a better ending against me. If it had only been the other way around . . . Th e most important game we played was Game 6 of the Candidates Final in Kazan 20 1 1 . It is one of my best ever games and can be found in the next volume of this series. In the latest two cycles of the Grand Prix we have managed to ruin things for each other repeatedly, and there is still one tournament to go. Hopefully this time he will ruin things for someone else after all the nice things I have said about him!

Beij ing 20 1 3

Alexander Grischuk is i n my opinion one o f the most creative players of our time (perhaps the highest praise I can give) . If I had to determine his style, I would probably compare him to Boris Spassky. He likes to play for the initiative, yet is very objective in his assessment and only goes for it when it is justified. If necessary, he is happy to play long endgames or any other type of position. However, his defining trait, as far as I can determine, is the drive to play creatively. He frequently chooses new directions in the opening j ust to get a fresh position. In my games with Grischuk there have been many decisive battles. We have faced each other over thirty times. I have a modest plus score at the moment, but when we sit down to

I .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.� c3 J.g7 4.e4 d6 5.i.e2 0-0 6.�g5

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

have played this a few times recently. played it a lot when I was younger and I

1 54


decided that, because it is less deeply analysed than the most popular lines, it might lead to interesting games. Of course, Grischuk also does not shy away from complications, so both players were happy to see this position on the board.

Here it is not so easy to find a good move for Black. I am already considering playing d4-d5 , fo r example after . . . c6.

6 c!lia6 As mentioned earlier, the idea of putting the knight on a6 was developed by Glek and is now universally explored in the KID. Here the main moves used to be 7.Wfd2 and 7.f4.

My answer is to say that compared with the line 1 .d4 lll f6 2.c4 g6 3.lll c3 ig7 4.e4 d6 5 .lll f3 0-0 6.ie2 e5 7.0-0 lll a6, the extra move . . . h6 might improve Black's position, but I like White's position anyway. There are good sides and bad sides and it will be up to the players to justify their respective positions.

•••

7.c!lif3 Rather atypical for the Averbakh System, but I wanted to try this idea suggested to me by Michael Roiz. 7 ... h6 7 . . . e5 allows 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.Wfxd8 �xd8 1 0.lll d 5 �d6, which is considered favourable for White.

10 .. �£6 Grischuk asks, "What is your idea?" .

I O • • . exd4

I

1 .lll xd4 Wf f6 was played by Naiditsch against me and he actually managed to equalize: 1 2.lll b3 Wfh4 1 3 .J.f4 J.e5 1 4.J.xe5 dxe5 1 5 .h3 lll f6 1 6.lll d2 �d8 1 7.lll d5 lll x d5 1 8.cxd5 c6 1 9.�e l cxd5 20.J.xa6 bxa6 2 1 .lll f3 Wff6 22.exd5 �b8 23.Wf d2

8.i.e3 e5 9.0-0 My main idea was to keep the centre flexible. The point is that here we have a theoretical position where White seemingly has wasted a tempo, giving Black the extra move . . . h6. 9 c!lig4 The most natural move. •••

10.i.cl

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

23 . . . e4 24.�xe4 Wfxb2 2 5 .�d l Wfxd2 26.�xd2 �b5 27.d6 ib7 28.�ed4 ixf3 29.gxf3 �d7 30.f4 Y2-Y2 Gelfand - Naiditsch, Wijk aan Zee 20 1 4.

I I .gel c6 1 2 ..ifl J.g4 Comparing this to the main theoretical position where the pawn is still on h7, Black's main idea there is 1 2 . . . exd4 1 3.lll xd4 lll g4 1 4.h3 Wfb6, but here this is weaker after 1 5 .hxg4. a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Chapter 4

-

155


in the opening; it does not make sense to cover them all deeply. Grischuk committed his common mistake, using too much time in the opening. This meant that he did not have sufficient time to solve the complex problems I managed to pose him later on in the game.

b

a

c

d

e

h

g

f

Black will either have to allow the exchange of dark-squared bishops after l 5 ... ixd4 1 6.ie3 or lose a pawn after 1 5 . . .\Wxd4 1 6.Wxd4 ixd4 l 7.ixh6, in both cases with an advantage for White.

13.d5 This is of course also a main line of theory (if we place the pawn on h7) . 1 3.ie3 ixf3 1 4.Wxf3 �g4 is, by the way, a common trick in the parallel variation with the pawn on h7. Black looks fine as far as I can see, though the pawn is probably better placed on h7 in this line.

At this point I had a real choice. I was considering playing 1 4.h3 id7 1 5 .ie3 a la Gligoric, which would also lead to a normal game. I think it is a matter of taste and after 1 1 minutes I decided to go for 1 4.ie2 in the same way you would choose fish over steak in a restaurant; I j ust felt my way.

14.i.e2 Once the centre has closed, White is facing different problems in relation to the pin. So, although this looks like a loss of time, there are a number of favourable things that would not have happened had the bishop not retreated to fI earlier. Also, an exchange of Black's "good" bishop on g4 for White's "bad" bishop would be in our favour. This also explains Black's 1 5th move. 14 ... ti)h7 8

7

6 5

4 3

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

13 . . cS This is a normal move. It was also possible to take a different direction with 1 3 . . . � b4 1 4.ie2 a5. As always, there are several options .

2

1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

think this is a good move, benefitting from the . . . h6-difference. White's main

1 56


idea is probably to play as in the game with g2-g3 and lLi h4 to exploit the weakness of the g6-pawn, so Black starts his counterplay quickly, keeping the knight close to the action on the kingside.

15.g3 i.d7 16.i.d2 My first thought during the game was to play 1 6.lLih4, but I was unsure if White is really better after 1 6 . . . lLi gS with ideas such as . . . lll h3-f4 and . . . i.f6. It is possible that deep analysis will show that White indeed has better chances here, but during the game that is of little help. You need to know how you want to play the position. So eventually I settled on 1 6.i.d2 with the idea of�d l -c l , provoking Black to play . . . h5, after which it would be almost impossible to carry out the . . . f5 break. After this White would be able to play a3, E:b 1 and b4, in order to advance on the queenside undisturbed. This is of course a fairytale version of the idea, but usually this is the place we start. The details can be added on subsequently. Another idea is to exchange at least a pair of knights in order to reduce the tactical possibilities. But as we shall see, it becomes clear that I am not in time to achieve my aims. 16 ... �g5

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

17.Yfcl This position held a big choice for me. I did not seriously consider playing 1 7.lll xgS hxg5 1 8 .�c l , as after 1 8 . . . g4 Black will not find it difficult to carry out .. JS . I was seriously tempted to play l 7.h4, but after 1 7 . . . llJ xf3 t 1 8 .i.xf3 f5 Black seems to be in time .

i. �

· . v.� ''• :ra�·� 6 6)- ��-i-· -8 ·� :� ··· �-8�.8�� .... @z �� -�z� 3 >0.Jq)�-� !J!Jw �A if.� �� f'� �� 8

7

�

�

.

5

4

"'/,

2

O r.0%

�

i0%

��

···ef····z•,v&·· · · zm b

a

c

d

e

f

g

h

One idea is 1 9.hS, but Black can reply with either 1 9 . . . �f6!? or 1 9 . . . f4 20.hxg6 �f6 with counterplay down the f-line. Meanwhile White has made no progress on the queenside. Black is probably just fine.

17 ... �xat l s ..ixa ©h7 Of course he does not play . . . h5; instead he prepares to play . . . f5 .

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Chapter

4

-

1 57


t9.i.g2 A very natural move, keeping a lot of flexibility. The big question here is one of move orders. It would be nice if it was possible to do everything at the same time, but sadly it is not. I was slightly afraid of the entering the following variation: 1 9.a3 f5 1 9 . . . lll c? 20.b4 looks good for White. Probably White needs to take on f5 and enter a typical structure. 20.exf5 gxf5 2 l .ig2 Wf f6 2 1 . . . f4? 22.Wlc2t favours White, who will occupy the e4-square. 22.f4 e4! 22 . . . :B:ae8?! 23.fxe5 would be more similar to the game and presumably in White's favour, though we should never take anything for granted in such positions.

he has two standard pawn breaks, the most obvious being . . . f5. But as White has not advanced his forces on the queenside yet, Black should also seriously consider breaking on that side of the board with . . . b5. In retrospect it is possible to make an evaluation of these two options with reasonable certainty, but at the board, things are much harder. It appears that Grischuk, having considered the two options carefully, chose the wrong one.

8

7

6

a

5

4 3

2

a

b

c

I do not believe that White is seriously better in this structure at all. Black is ready to play . . . :B:ae8 or . . . b5, activating the last few pieces. White also has some resources, of course, and a variety of ideas, but Black can always obtain a lot of counterplay. At times we need to generalize like this. This is probably the most important moment for the further course of the game, seen from Black's perspective. In a structure like this,

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Furthermore, about retrospective thinking in chess: it is much easier to solve problems when you know what form they take. In this position I did not seriously consider that Black would break on the queenside and somehow, although he considered it, Grischuk still did not find it compelling enough to seriously investigate it. We are used to Black playing . . . f5 in the King's Indian and this is what he did. Only on this occasion, it was not the most accurate way. On the other hand, if the . . . b5 idea had been played and not worked out, the criticism would have been withering: " Black plays too slowly. He should play natural moves such as . . . f5 , as every schoolboy knows." Criticism of decisions in chess is cheap and does not in itself teach us anything; especially not when formulated like this.

1 58


19 fS?! In the press conference after the game Grischuk mentioned 1 9 . . . llJ c?! as a serious idea; and indeed it is. ...

f

g

h

have set me a real challenge with 1 9 . . . llJ c?!. It is always easy to find an explanation that fits the solution! This could have made me doubt 1 9.ig2 of course, but how the game turned out also matters. The move makes sense in itself. Probably we should look earlier for improvements, for example 1 5 .id2!. Maybe 1 5 .g3 and later ig2 is a true Rubinstein idea - which includes it being a bit slow. . . But really, thematically this manoeuvre should be associated with Petrosian. If I had chosen: 1 5 .id2!

The idea is very concrete, Black j ust wants to play . . . b5. I had thought about playing 20.l:! b l b5 2 1 .b4, but it is not too hard to see that Black can reply 2 1 . . .cxb4 22.llJxb5 ixb5 23.cxb5 llJxb5 24.l:!xb4 llJ d4.

a

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

It seems that the bishop on g7 plays a bigger part in the game than the bishop on g2. Black is more than fine. I am not sure what I would have done if Grischuk had played like this. Would I have taken big risks with 20.f4 or some other aggressive approach, fighting for the initiative? Or would I have gone for the above line and tried to secure a draw? I do not know. All we can say with certainty is that Grischuk could

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Black would have had the option of playing: 1 5 . . . fS 1 6.h3 ih5 With some counterplay. I did not see how I would improve my position, but maybe it actually has some prospects. 1 7.a3 This looks sensible. It is not so easy for Black to continue his counterplay. Here are a few example variations: 1 7 . . . f4 1 7 . . . �d? 1 8 .llJ h4! is nice for White. 1 7 . . . l:!f7?? 1 8 .exfS ! is a disaster for Black, on account of 1 8 . . . gxfS 1 9.llJxe5!, winning. 1 8 .g4 fxg3 1 9.fxg3 I would be quite happy to play White here. So the conclusion is that this is probably the most promising way to play the position.

Chapter 4

-


All in all, this game is a typical King's Indian battle. White has many strategic ideas and Black's structure is a bit problematic, but with very concrete play Black can create enough counterplay.

20.f4! Vff6 During the game I was quite afraid of 20 . . . lD b4, when I am forced to play 2 1 .Wfb 1 . I was thinking that something like 2 1 . . . exf4 22.i.xf4 i.d4t 23.'itih l Wff6 would be unpleasant for me.

1 59

We have arrived at another critical moment for our theme. White has the choice of transforming to a number of different pawn structures. The first observation we should make is that it is usually not a good idea to release the tension when we have four pawns positioned as they are on e4, f4, e5 and f5. It tends to give the opponent extra options. But this is an exception to this observation. The only real options are to take on f5 only, or to take on e5 only. It makes no sense to take on both e5 and f5 , as after I take on e5 in the game, I retain the option of taking on f5 later, as long as I prevent my opponent from playing . . . f4.

2 1 .fxe5! This forces Black into a pawn structure where neither of his bishops can come into the game easily.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

But as Grischuk pointed out, I have 24.a3 lDa6 25.exf5! i.xf5 26.lDe4! and White has a real advantage. This variation looks quite simple once written down, but it is by no means easy to see everything along the way and to realize that the moves given are the best ones. Were things j ust slightly different, they might be poor ones!

2 l .exf5 gxf5 22.a3 e4 transposes to a line we looked at earlier. Black is okay.

2 1 ... dxe5 2 1 . . .Wfxe5 is not a serious move. After 22.exf5 Wfxf5 23.lDe4 Black is in grave trouble. The d6-pawn is weak and White is ready for i.d2-c3. 22.�fl !

1 60


I like this move as it prevents Black from advancing his f-pawn. The computer wants to take on f5 already, but for a human such a committal decision cannot be made on such flaky grounds as those presented by a machine.

25 . . . Wd6 26 . .ih5 :§:e? White should start his actions on the queenside: 27 . .ie3 tli c7 28.b4 b6 29.bxc5 bxc5 30.:§:b l 8

7

22 .. J3f7 The tactical try 22 . . . f4 23.gxf4 tli b4 runs aground after 24.f5!, when White's advantage is obvious.

6 5

4 3

22 . . . tlic?!? with the idea . . . tli e8-d6 was a serious option, though I still prefer White's position.

23.a3 gafS At this point I wanted ro prevent 24 ... f4 25.gxf4 Wi'h4!, when Black has counterplay. 24 ..ih3!? This is a very human way to deal with the problems, but the computer has quite a clever way to put Black under pressure as well: 24.exf5 gxf5 25 . .if3!

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White is doing well, although the game of course continues. Please note that Black still struggles to make any serious pawn advances in the centre. His flexibility only involves the right to play . . . e4, which is very similar to what we got in the game. So the computer's execution of the play is maybe slightly more accurate, but also very hard to find. 8

7

6 5

4 a

b

c

d

e

This is quite a surprising move. The bishop will arrive on h5 and seriously annoy Black. He cannot play 25 . . . e4, as White just takes it with the knight. And after 25 . . . Wi'g6 26.Wi'd l Black has not prevented White from doing anything at all. A more serious test would be something like:

3

2

a

c

e

g

24 ...Wd6?! This turns out only to lose time. In the game Black never got round to regrouping the knight.

Chap ter

4

-

161


24 . . . lll c7 This was a better try, but White can still demonstrate an advantage: 25 .b4! The bishop belongs on d2, so it is preferable to play b2-b4 immediately if it works. 25 .ie3 b6 26.b4 lll a6! is not entirely clear. Black can seek counterplay on the c-line. White can try 25.Wf c2 lll e 8 26.ie3 b6 27.b4, but Black is in time to generate counterplay with 27 . . . lll d6 28.Wfe2 E:c8. I still prefer White after 29.bxc5 bxc5 30.E:ab l , but Black's position is definitely playable. 25 . . . Wfe7 25 . . . b6 loses by force to 26.exfS gxf5 27.bxc5 bxc5 28.lll e4.

30.c5 lll c4 3 l .d6 Wf e6 32.if2 e4 33.lll e2 White is better.

25.exf5 gx5 25 . . . ixfS 26.ig2 would seriously favour White. 26.°ifc2 8

7

6 5

4 3

2 1

26 Yfg6 Black could also try the reasonable 26 . . . lll c7 here. I like 27.E:ab l !? waiting for the knight to move. (27.b4 allows Black to generate counterplay with 27 . . . cxb4 28.axb4 Wfxb4 and now either 29.lll e4 Wfb6t 30.c5 Wf g6 3 1 .lll d6 f4! ? or 29.lll d l Wfb6t 30.'it>h l lll a6 with unclear consequences in both cases.) •••

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

26.exfS gxf5 27.E:b l lll e8 27 . . . b6 28.'it>h l lll e8 (28 . . . f4 29.ixd7 Wfxd7 30.gxf4 cxb4 3 1 .lll e 4! bxa3 32.Wfxa3 and White keeps an initiative) 29.bxc5 bxc5 30.J.e3 and again the knight does not make it to d6. 27 . . . lll a6 28.b5 lll b8 29.Wf c2 also favours White. 28.ie3 White has won the strategic battle for the c5-square. 28 . . . cxb4 29.axb4 lll d6 This anti-positional idea, suggested by the computer, is not what I would expect Grischuk to play. Anyway, after:

8

7

6 5

4 3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

27 . . . b5 (27 . . . lll e8 can now be met by 28.b4 b6 29.J.e3 with some pressure.) 28.b3;t;

27J;ael b6 28.�hl

a

b

c

d

29.b4 tll e8 30.bxc5 bxc5 3 l .�e3 tll d6 32.�xc5 l:%c8 33.J.xd6 ti'xd6

e

f

g

h

It is difficult to find a serious active option for Black here, and Grischuk decided to basically do nothing.

28 ...ti'h5 Another aspect is that both players were already getting low on time. I certainly had more than he did, but what is much more important is that my position is easier to play. Black will have to find a complex plan to create counterplay, while White can improve his position with simple moves. For this reason it also does not make sense to assess the position at this point. White is still improving his position, while Black is not. It makes more sense to decide later on how much better White is.

a

c

d

e

f

g

h

IfWhite takes on f5 (with either piece) , Black has counterplay with . . . ti'g6 and . . . !%xc4. 34.tll b5!? This very concrete line does not end with a clear conclusion. White could also choose to keep things fluid with 34.ti'd3! ?;!;, where one idea is 34 . . . e4?! 3 5 .tll xe4! and Black is under attack. 34 . . . ti'xd5t! 34 . . . ti'g6 3 5 .tll xa7 l:%c7 36.tll c6± is highly unpleasant for Black. 3 5 . cxd5 l:%xc2 36.tll d 6 !%f6 37.�xf5t �xf5 38.tll xf5 !%d2 My general feeling is that Black has good drawing chances, though White can keep putting him under pressure with accurate play.

The following lines show how difficult Black's position is; though it should be said that Grischuk was pretty optimistic, thinking his position was fine. 28 . . . h5 29.tll d l h4 only plays into White's hands after 30.gxh4. 28 . . . tll c7 This could have been tried, involving a pawn sacrifice:

b

39.l:%c l !

Chapter 4

-


The deep point to Black's play is that 39.E:xe5 ? fails to 39 . . . E:b6!! 40.E:e7 E:bb2, and after 4 1 .tll e3 E:xh2t 42.i>g l E:he2 43.d6 E:xe3 44.E:xe3 i.d4 45.E:fe l E:d2 Black is going to make a draw. 39 . . . E:xd5 40.E:c7 i>h8 4 1 .E:xa7 Followed by g3-g4 to support the knight. The game goes on. During the game I expected him to play: 28 . . . i>h8 The main idea is to avoid all the tactics on f5 , though Black will not be completely successful in this aim. 29.tll d l tll c7 30.b4 cxb4 30 . . . tll e 8 does not really work this time around. White is much better after 3 1 .bxc5 bxc5 32.i.e3 tll d 6 (32 . . . Wb6 33.Wf2 does not improve things) 33 .i.xc5 E:c8 34.i.xd6 Wxd6, and either 3 5 .i.xf5 or 3 5 .tll e3! with a close-to-winning position. 3 1 .i.xb4 3 1 .axb4 would allow 3 1 . . . b5. 3 1 . . .E:c8 32.tll e3 e4 The following piece of analysis is quite fascinating, but I want to underline that it is unlikely that we would see such moves played in a game. Maybe the odds are I % that a top player would find all of this! But as these are the best moves, it would be strange not to include them.

33.E:f4!

1 63

White has a definite advantage and will start to pile up on the f5-pawn. However, he has to act with vigilance. If he hesitates his advantage could easily slip. Black can seek counterplay, but this could easily backfire in sharp tactics. My guess is that I would play 33.'Wf f2 if l had this position in a game. But here Black has an amazing way to gain counterplay: 33 . . . a5 34.i.d2 E:cf8 3 5 .tll g2 (35 .Wf4 tll a6 and the knight comes to c5) 35 . . . f4!! 36.tll xf4 E:xf4 37.gxf4 i.xh3 38.E:gl 1Mfh5 Black has good play on the light squares. 33 . . . tll b5?! A natural-looking move, but it allows a beautiful combination. The lesser evil is 33 ... tll a6 34.E:efl tll xb4 35.axb4 E:cf8 36.c5, which gives White a most pleasant position, although Black is still fighting after 36 . . . i.e5 .

34.tll xf5 !! This amazing tactic might have been difficult to find over the board but, with the support of an engine, everything is clear. 34 . . . E:xf5 34 . . . i.xf5 3 5 .i.xf5 E:xf5 36.Wxe4 tll d4 37.i.c3 and Black is pinned to death. 3 5 .Wxe4 tll d4 36.'Wf d3!! This quiet move decides everything. White is threatening E:xd4. 36 . . . Wf6 37.i.xf5 i.xf5 38 .Wfl 'Wfg6 39.i.c3 i.d3 40.Wf2 tll f5 4 I .E:e6 Wg5

1 64


4 1 . . .%lfh7 42 . .Axg7t %lfxg7 43.�xf5 and White wins. 42.%lff3 .Ab l 43 . .Axg7t White wins on account of 43 . . . @xg7 44.�g4. All these variations show how Black is struggling to make his counterplay work.

29 ..ig2 'llYg6 Grischuk's main idea was to relieve the pressure on f5, which he considered the main problem. However, White has other options and continues to improve his position. 30.�dl Of course the knight would like to go to f4, but first we have to force Black to play . . . e4, which cannot be achieved without putting the knight on dl first. 30 ... �c7 3 1 .b4 8

6 1 5

�� •.t.E �e ,

"� �

� '0

�% '"//, ��

-----

�

-

;:,,:

, , ,,,;.:�---.�, ,,,;� ii� �% ,,�� ---- iD %- 8 �---�� wdti%� 11�%� 11� '0

�

: rl'� ·'·'·Ii·�� -�� ,� �

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

3 1 . .. h5? This is a committal decision, though at the same time a very understandable move. Black is looking for counterplay and advancing the h-pawn is a natural way to achieve this. But in reality, there is no counterplay and the h-pawn simply becomes a target. In the game I managed to win it outright. This is not easy to foresee in time trouble. To call it impossible is

maybe too much, but at least it was too difficult for one of the most gifted players of our time! The problem is of course that when you are short of time, you usually calculate concrete variations, but do not pay too much attention to the strategic aspects of the position. And changes in the pawn structure are all about long-term strategic potential. We have already encountered 3 1 . . .lll e8?! 32.bxc5 bxc5 33.ie3 lll d6 34.ixc5 �c8 35 ..Axd6 %lfxd6 36.lll e3 in almost identical circumstances. Black does not get a better version this time around, but loses the f5-pawn as usual; and with it the game. However, Black probably should have tried: 3 1 . . .e4! ? This has the idea o f defending the c5-pawn with . . . .id4. 32.bxc5 The forcing line 32.if4 lll e8 33.lll e3 lll d6 34.bxc5 bxc5 35 . .Axd6 %l/xd6 36.�xf5 ixf5 37.lll xf5 �xf5 38.ixe4 %lfg6 39.g4 %lfxg4 40.�fl @h8 leaves Black with real drawing chances due to the opposite-coloured bishops. 32 . . . bxc5 8

7

6 5

4 3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

33.ie3 A reasonable alternative is 33.lll f2 .id4 34.lll h3!?, whereas 33.ic3 lll e8 34.�f4 lll d6 shows exactly what Black is hoping for. 33 . . . id4

Chapter 4

-

After 33 . . . Wd6? 34.g4, Black's centre collapses. At this point it is not obvious how White should continue. He has a lot of pressure, but no clear-cut way forward. What is important is that the �f4-h4 manoeuvre is less effective, as the pawn has not gone to h5 and become weak. The strongest seems to be: 34.Wd2!? Wg7 3 5 .�f4 llJ e8 36.�h4 i.xe3 37.Wxe3 White maintains some pressure.

32 ..ic3!? I played this practical move without going too deeply into the position. I obtain fine squares on e3 and f4 for my pieces, and improve my position easily thereafter. However, it turns out that 32.llJf2! with the idea of llJ h3 was even stronger. Black will later be forced to play . . . e4 all the same and the knight can emerge on f4 as well as g5.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

1 65


32 . . . Wd6 is not only in violation of the concept of getting the knight to d6; after 33.We2 White is winning a pawn.

33 .ixg7 �xg7 34.bxc5 bxc5 35J�f4! White is reorganizing his pieces in accordance with the new pawn structure. •

35 llJ eS 36."f;Yfl � d6 37 .ifl •••

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

•

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White has won the strategic battle. The pawns on c5, f5 and h5 are all targets, while White's pawns are all safe. At the same time White's piece are gravitating towards active squares, from where they will attack the black pawns, while Black is struggling to find good defensive positions for his pieces. Still, winning the strategic battle only matters if you deliver a good technical performance thereafter.

37 Jks? This move is maybe not objectively bad, but then the game was not played by two computers. After the game, Grischuk suggested 37 . . . Wf6 as an improvement, forcing White to make difficult and committal decisions at a point when I was running out of time. The correct way to play is easy to find after the game: 38.Wxc5 �c8 39.Wb4 a5!? Black definitely has some counterplay here, but it does not fully work. ••

a

b

c

d

e

32 ... e4 Black has no alternatives.

f

g

h

32 . . . h4 33.gxh4 e4 34.�e3 is not an improvement for Black. White would put the rooks on g3 and f4 and the knight on e3, squeezing f5 hard.


1 66

�i �� -0� : �� , ��-� �% - '8. � .,%.. i B. !n f� • �. %�. . %��•��. . •Y.wr � . . �� ,�%� � 8

5

4 3

2

..... .

a

•••••

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Play could continue 40.Wfb3 Wfa l 4 1 .i.e2, when White has a healthy extra pawn. The main line then goes: 4 1 . . .Wfc l 42.Wfe3! Wfxe3 43.tlJxe3 ©f6

� � �i,� r. �� . -�. �� ' 8· '�:.�• • .�. %. !.r� �m. . .v,�-� � . . . %�� %1·. . . ·��· · ·"�. . . � � �

6 5

4 3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

44.l'l:c l ! l'l:c5 45 .l'l:b l i.c8 46.i.xh5 l'l:b7 47.l'l:xb7 i.xb7 48.i.e2 White now has two extra pawns, though the conversion will require some accuracy. And White had to find all the best moves to get here!

38.i.e2 I suspect that in his time trouble Grischuk missed this idea. 38 .. J�f6 38 . . . ©g8 was again suggested by Grischuk at the press conference. I was planning to play 39.l'l:h4 l'l:h7 40.tiJe3 Wf g5 4 1 .tlJg2!, when the knight is coming to f4. I consider Black's position very difficult.

39.gh4 �e8 40.�f4 Simple prophylaxis, although there is no big reason to avoid 40.i.xh5 Wfe5 4 1 .Wfe3! , when White is completely winning anyway. 40 ... gh6 8

7

6 5

4 3

2

1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

We had passed the time control and decided to spend a good deal of time looking for a clear win, which I succeeded in finding.

41 .gxh5! gxh5 42.i.xh5 �e7 43.g4! The key move that I had to find and evaluate accurately. 43 ... gm It is difficult for Black to find a move, as White is threatening to launch a powerful attack. 43 . . . l'l:h8 44.tlJe3! is also excellent for White. And after 43 . . . fxg4 44.i.xg4 l'l:f8 45.Wf g3, Black is just lost.

44. gx5 Lf5 After 44 . . . tlJxf5 45.l'l:gl t 'k!lh8, White has a choice of strong moves. I was contemplating 46.tlJe3 or 46.i.g6. 44 . . . l'l:xf5 looks natural, but White has a forced

Chapter

4

-


win: 45.�g l t lt>h8 46.°Wh6t and White can either take on h7 or d6 on the next move.

1 67

54 ... �f7 55.h4t ©h5 56.�6 �e5 57.d6 ©g6 58.©f4 ©f6 59.h5 ©e6 60.h6 e3 6 1 .�xe3 ©xd6 62.©6

45J�gl t ©hs 46.Vfh6t .ih7 47.�e3 gf6 47 . . 'Wf6 48.�g6! and Black would have had to resign. .

1-0

Keeping the tension

48 ... gxg6 49.i.xg6 Yfg7 50.Yfxg7t ©xg7 5 1 ..ixh7 ©xh7 52.©g2 ©g6 53.©g3 ©g5

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

54.h3! Not the only winning continuation, but the most straightforward. Black has to make a concession.

There are times when it is important to keep the tension. This happens when all the ways you can change the pawn structure are undesirable to you, while the opponent cannot change the pawn structure to his advantage either. This might sound like a rare case, yet in my experience it is anything but. It seems quite common chat both players will try to limit the positive effects of changing the pawn structure available to the opponent. Indeed, outplaying the opponent often means that you combine your ideas in a way that forces him co allow you to change the pawn structure in your favour. It can also mean that you have managed to set the opponent plenty of practical problems and chat he gives into the pressure, only to make a change in the pawn structure that is co your advantage. The latter is what happened in the following complicated game. The possible changes in the pawn structure between moves ten and twenty were numerous, but not many of chem were

1 68


to Black's advantage. In the end he did not manage to find the subtle move that would have kept the tension, which is in some ways quite forgivable, as I did not find it during the game either. But on the other hand, not finding it meant that he lost the game rather quickly thereafter.

Boris Gelfand - Boris Avrukh Ramat Aviv 1 999

My opponent is a well-known author of chess books. His first book, Grandmaster Repertoire 1 J.d4 Volume One became an instant classic upon its publication in 2008 and, I would dare to say, elevated chess books to a formerly unseen level. These days he is more a trainer and writer than a player. He has a very strong classical chess education and strives for dynamic play always, bur based on a solid positional basis. It is an attitude I really like and share, which is one of the reasons I have enjoyed analysing with him on many occasions. Avrukh has beaten many strong players and has been a part of the Israeli national team for many years, being a member of the silver-medal winning team of 2008, as well as the winner of individual gold medals in the 1 998 and 2006 Olympiads. Boris has worked with a lot of the top players: Caruana, Radjabov, Kramnik (before the 2006 match with Topalov) and of course with me on many occasions.

League. But even this does not happen often, and it is rare that the local chess fans have a chance to see me play in Israel. There are some recent signs that things could be improving, but with the past we have had, I am only a reluctant optimist. In my first year in the Israeli League, I won against many strong GMs: Sutovsky, Milov, Avrukh, Har-Zvi, Manor, and drew with Zilberman. It was my best result in the league. I have never played as many as six games again, and never as successfully. Sometimes I made 212, but it is really not the same.

-

This game was played in the Israeli Team Championship, which is more or less the only event in Israel where all the professional players play. Even though there are many grandmasters in Israel, there is not a great chess scene and it is very rare that there are any strong events. When I moved to Israel in 1 998 the only event that made sense to play was a rapid event in Haifa (which ended in 2000) and the Israeli

1 .c4 Avrukh plays the Griinfeld a lot. This was an early morning game, as are the majoriry of games in the Israeli League, so I decided to avoid a theoretical discussion. These days the English Opening is very popular, starting with I .4Jf3 or l .c4. I assume people got fed up with the enormous amounts of theory elsewhere and just wanted to play chess. 1 . tlif6 2.tll c3 dS 3.cxdS tlixdS 4.g3 g6 s.i.g2 tli b6 6.tlio i.g7 7.0-o 0-0 s.d3 tli c6 9.i.e3 eS .•

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This position is similar to a harmless variation of the Sicilian Dragon, where White

Chapter 4 - Transformation of Pawn Structures

1 69

has an extra tempo. Also, in those lines it is standard to put the knight on the preferable square e7, rather than b6.

10.b4 A rare move, but in my opinion the most logical one. When I returned home after the game I was surprised to find only one game in my database with it; but it was a game of the great Leonid Stein, a player I admire a lot. He died in 1 973 at the young age of 38, in tragic circumstances. In his best games we can see how great this loss was. He was truly a fantastic player. When I came to Israel I rented my first apartment from a chess player. After I moved on, it was taken over by a young man who got in trouble with the landlord for playing guitar in all the waking hours of the day. At some point he was called to the landlord's house for a "conversation". When he arrived he saw a chess set and said, "Oh, my uncle was a chess player." "Who is your uncle?" "Leonid Stein." As you can imagine, the attitude of the landlord changed immediately. He stopped throwing epithets at him, although his appreciation for the young man's musical "talent" probably did not increase much.

10 . . . e4? l 1 .lll xe4 .ixa l 1 2 .VNxa l would leave Black desperately weak on the dark squares. He is probably already lost. 1 0 . . . lll xb4? l l ..ic5 does not give Black enough compensation for the exchange, as the semi-open b- and c-files will be useful for the white rooks.

l l .a4 My plan was to advance the pawns, in order to create pressure on the queenside.

Alex Huzman goes to a dentist called Rubinstein. Once I prodded him, asking why he did not go to Tal's son, who is also a dentist and lives in the same town as Alex. "I am a bit afraid of his style. It is better to stay with Rubinstein." There are many famous Jewish chess players; and many of their descendants live in Israel . . .

1 0 ... � d4 1 0 . . . �e8 l l .b5 lll d4 1 2.a4 a6 was played in Stein - Savon, Riga 1 970.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

l l . ...ie6 The most ambitious move, and a good one too. Black had other playable options which

1 70


we analysed, which I j ust want to show quickly for those who might be interested. 1 1 .. .c6 1 2.lll d 2 .ie6 looks fine. l 1 . . . .ig4 1 2.a5 ixf3 1 3.exf3 lll c8 1 4.a6 bxa6! is quite unclear, but maybe White can fight for an advantage. l 1 . . .lll xf3t!? 1 2 . .ixf3 c6 1 3.b5 lll d5 1 4 . .id2 lll xc3 l 5 . .ixc3 c5 looks easier to play for White, but to call it an advantage might be over the top.

12.tll g5 The critical attempt, attacking a pawn and the bishop. Such moves beg to be played.

1 3 ... a5!? As we shall see below, this was not the most precise way to play. Another idea here was 1 3 . . . .id5! , when White has two main options: 8

7

6 5

3

4

2

i. �

12 ....ib3 1 2 . . . .id5 was also possible, but after 1 3.lll xd5 lll xd5 1 4 . .id2 White would claim a slight edge with the two bishops. This was not Black's idea, of course. 13.flYb l 1 3 .'Wd2 .id5 would equalize; White cannot gain the bishop pair as he did in the previous note.

,.,J'

b

6 5

1

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

e

f

g

h

. . . . . .J.�• .,'.�. .� • �. %

%

�ffl, A �;�

�,d'

W � �Ll�

. . �,� �a:tm . . a

3

d

c

it. � f�. . . TI � . . . � . %./. . ; 3 �!�-�.lO� . �.,. . . ;_. 8 � . %�

�

2

4

�

a) 1 4.ixd4 This is a critical move that has co be checked, though it does not really work. 1 4 . . . .ixg2! The big test. 1 4 . . . exd4 1 5 .lll xd5 lll xd5 1 6.lll e4 seems to give White a bit of pressure. 1 5 . .ixb6 1 5 .@xg2 exd4 1 6.lll ce4 lll d5 and Black is at least equal. 1 5 . . . .ixfl 1 6 . .ie3

4

5

�

'z

a

1 2.lll d2 lll d5 would equalize immediately. This is Black's main idea; he saves a tempo compared co the variations where he plays . . . c6 first.

%� �·

i ,... %�. . .,v.. · · "� . . . %.. �� . . . ;�. ,.�� .� . �.i'l�· /�� !�. . . %,, -. . . :. . . . ;-m.·.� . m 8 � � ��.,. . . ;a·8"�� . . �;� •!m . . ·�

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 6 . . . h6! 1 7.lll xf7 !!xf7 1 8 .'Wxfl The point is that Black is in time with: 1 8 . . . e4! If White were able to put the knight on e4, he would have an advantage.

Chapter 4

-

171


1 9.d4 White can of course cry 1 9. tll xe4 ixa 1 20.Wfxa l , but I cannot see this as playing for an advantage. Things are by no means simple, of course, but if squeezed, Black should be able to give up an exchange in order to neutralize the pressure. 1 9 . . . Wfe7! l 9 . . . ixd4? is not viable, as 20.E:d l E:d7 2 l .Wfh3! would be dangerous for Black; the direct threat is tll b5!.

l 7.tll c5 and the threats on e6, b3 and b7 are too much. b2) 1 4 . . . c6 1 5 .a5 ixe4 1 6.ixe4 tll d7 is of course playable, but I like such positions with the lasting impact of the two bishops. b3) 1 4 . . . a5 gives White an extra option compared to the game: 1 5 .bxa5!? E:xa5 1 6.tll x d5 tll xd5 1 7.ixd4 exd4 1 8.Wfxb7 tll c3 l 9.tll xc3 dxc3 20.E:a2t

7

6 4

3

2 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

The position is complex, and Black is at least fine. b) For this reason, I planned to play 1 4.tll ge4.

1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

It would be up to Black to prove that he can hold this position - and it will not be easy to do so!

14.b5!? After this White has a pleasant position, which makes it an easy to move play quite quickly. But when you analyse the game, it makes sense to look at less logical options as well. White had a sharp option in: 1 4.ixb7! E:b8 1 5 .bxa5

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

And now the question is whether Black can find something other than 1 4 . . . a5 offering a transposition to the game. b i ) 1 4 . . . f5?! 1 5 .ixd4 exd4 1 6.tll x d5 tll xd5 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 72


Black can play for compensation with l 5 . . . E:xb7 1 6.axb6 E:xb6 1 7.a5 E:b4!?, or with 1 5 . . . liJd5 1 6 . .ixd5 .ixd5 1 7.°Wd l .ic6. In both cases, Black will have to fight hard in order to make up for the lost pawn. We analysed it for a while and did not find a clear-cut way for Black to play. So, for this reason I think I missed a chance to make Black's life a little more difficulc. le is now sixteen years since this game was played, and I do not remember what I was thinking during it. But it does seem that I was affected by the early hour, and for this reason rejected these complications on principle. I have co say that I do like White's position anyway; I think he has a strategic advantage, and chat for that reason I do not want to press the chaos button. The way the game went proved that I was right from a practical perspective, while the chess could be evaluated differently. But we are back co the main principle of the squeeze: it is much easier co play White's position!

14 ... c6 The natural move, defending b7 and supporting the d5-square. 1 4 . . . liJxa4 is a nice tactic, but the resulcing position after 1 5 .liJxa4 .ixa4 1 6.E:xa4 liJxe2t 1 7.ltih l liJ c3 1 8.°Wc2 liJxa4 1 9.'Wxa4 is horrific for Black.

.i � »,, ,j,% � · � � �� : ,!��l jfj � 5 �8• � r� 4 -lr� �,,, -,,,�---ltS� - - - :w.-0 �?3r0 -� 3 � .i. � 8 � r� � /. , , ; � li -�JZ� �1� �f'=' 8

�

,,,,,

-�-----:�

?3f%

V,� -�

�

2

I

b

a

d

c

f

e

g

h

1 5 ....id5 Again the most logical move. The bishop gees out of harm's way and contests the diagonal. 1 5 . . . cxb5?! This is quite a direct way of playing, but White has great dynamic potential that is revealed in the following lines: 1 6.liJxb5! I 6 . .ixd4 exd4 I 7.'Wxb3 dxc3 1 8 .'Wxb5 liJd5 1 9.E:ac l E:c8 20.liJc5 may look good for White, but Black can equalize with energetic play: 20 . . . 'We7! 2 1 .liJxb7 liJ b4 22.liJxa5 liJ a2 23.E:c2 liJ b4 24.E:cc l E:b8!? 2 5 . liJ c6! liJxc6 26.'Wxc6 'Wxe2 27.a5 'Wxd3 28.a6 With a draw coming. 1 6 . . . liJxe2t 1 7.c;t>h l

1 4 . . . i.d5 1 5 .liJge4 c6 transposes co the game. 14 . . . liJdS?? would unexpectedly strand the bishop in foreign lands after 1 5 ..ixd4 exd6 1 6.liJce4 and White wins.

15.�ge4 le is coo early to change the structure: after 1 5 .bxc6 bxc6 1 6 . .ixd4 exd4 1 7.'Wxb3 dxc3 1 8 .liJe4 liJd5 White has no advantage at all.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 7 . . . i.d5 1 7 . . .i.e6 leads to a spectacular forced variation after 1 8 .E:e l , although this is not

Chapter 4

-


1 73

White's only option. 1 8 . . . lll d4 1 9.lll xd4 exd4 20 . .ig5 f6 2 1 .lll xf6t .ixf6 22.:gxe6 i.xg5 23.:gxb6 :gxf1 24.:gxb7 :gc8 8

:

5

� i ��.1 L-�

�.

� � �r.-.,� -� • �� -��

'8�. �- -� 3 � �-8�- �� 2 �--� - - � � · - - -�� -� ��

4

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

25 .�b5 Black is still a good way off equalizing. The difference in activity with better white pieces and a safer white king is quite significant. 1 8 ..ic5 :gc8!? l 8 . . .:ge8? l 9.lll bd6 is a disaster. 1 9 . .ixf8 .ixf8 20.�b2! lll d4 2 1 .lll xd4 exd4 22.�b5! After 22.:gfb l ?! .ixe4 23 . .ixe4 .ib4! Black has decent compensation.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 6 J!ibS! Intuitively I find this move a bit passive, but all of Black's problems are on the b-file, meaning that this obscure move is probably best. ..

1 6 . . . :gc8 1 7.�b2 with the idea of :gab l would expose the b6-knight somewhat, and mark the last black move as pointless. Actually, my engine has . . . :gbg as a serious candidate in this position, showing that the rook probably belonged there in the first place. 1 6 . . . f5?! This would involve Black taking action before he is ready. l 7.lll g5! The critical move. 1 7 . . . ixg2 1 8.'it>xg2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

The queen is quite active, and Black has to keep his position together while trying to prove compensation for the exchange. In short, I like White.

16Jkl 1 6.�b2!? was also possible, but there is nothing wrong with what I played.

1 74

Positional Decision

This is quite unpleasant for Black. The white queen will come to a2 soon and the following trick does not work: 1 8 . . . We? Instead Black would have to play unnatural moves such as 1 8 . . . tll d 5 1 9.Wa2 ih6, when both 20.h4 and 20.tll f3 look promising for White. It is no big surprise that White is better here, in view of his superior mobilization and the way the black pieces are pinned. 1 9.bxc6 bxc6 20.Wxb6! !%fb8 2 1 .tll d 5! cxd5 22.!%c7 !%xb6 23.!%xe7 Black is struggling in the ending.

Maki n g in Chess Well, to be honest, I am not sure if I made it all the way to the end during the game, or if we made it together in the post-mortem analysis. 1 8 . . . f5 ?! Today we are able to analyse this very accurately with engines. 1 9.bxc6 The critical test. l 9.ixd4? would be a big blunder after l 9 . . . exd4 20.tll x d5 cxd5+, when Black is on the way to c3 via a4. 1 9 . . . bxc6 1 9 . . . ixe4 20.c? Wxc7 2 1 .dxe4 and White has decisive threats. 20.ixd4 exd4

17.�b2 �e7 A prudent move. 1 7 .. .f5?! 1 8.tll x d5 tll xd5 1 9.tll c 5 is pleasant for White, although not a complete disaster for Black.

1 8Jfabl

D

8

. . . . . v.

7

6 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White has achieved the optimal placement of his pieces. Black will have to react to this, which Boris did not do so well.

18 ...J.xe4? During the game I thought that Black was able to solve his problems in a long forced line.

5

4 3

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This arises by force. White now has two serious options that I have analysed deeply.

Chapter 4

-

1 75


a) The logical move to calculate during the game is the forced line starting with: 24.:B:xc6 fxe4 25 .:B:cc8 Here Black saves himself with: 25 . . . lll d! 26 . .ixe4 lll xe2t 27.�g2 lll c3

a

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

I have analysed this and have to accept that White has no advantage here. 28 . .ic6 There are other moves, but I j ust want to give the general idea of why Black draws. 28 . . . 'Wd6! 29.:B:xf8t 'Wxf8 30.:B:xf8t �xf8 3 1 . 'ii f3 'ii e7 32. 'ii f4 'itid6 33 . .ie8 �e7

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White has to repeat the position, as 34 . .ib5?? lll x b5 3 5 .axb5 a4 36.b6 'ii d6 wins for Black. b) 24.lll d2! lll c3 In my notes this was mentioned as giving Black enough counterplay, but for this book I looked deeper, discovering a clear path to a big advantage. 24 . . . 'Wxe2

c

d

e

f

g

h

25 . .ixd5t! cxd5 26.lll fl and White wins a piece. 25.:B:e l Black is struggling. Th e remaining lines are illustrative, rather than forced. 25 . . . 'Wc7 26.:B:a8

a

a

b

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

26 . . . 'Wb7 26 . . . �g7 27.:B:a6 lll d5 (27 . . ..ib4 28.:B:xc6 'We7 29.e4 also gives White a big advantage) 28 . .ixd5 cxd5 29.lll f3 .ib4 30.:B:fl and Black has problems defending his pieces. 27.:B:xa5 'Wb2 2 8 .lll c4 lll xe2t 29.�fl 'Wc2


1 76

30.ixc6! Control over the long diagonal (ending in the vital square a8) is more important than anything else. 30 . . . ib4 3 l .!!xe2 Wd l t 32.@g2 Wxe2 33.!!b5 ie l 34.!!b2 Wxd3 3 5 .id5t 'it>g7 36.a5 Black has to give up a piece in order to defend a very bad endgame, probably without real hope. It was only when looking at the game recently that I realized Black had 1 8 . . . ie6!.

19 ... cS This is a big concession. The bishop on g7 can now safely be called "bad" . White's light squared bishop is very strong, leaving him with a pleasant position to play. 1 9 . . . We6 20.bxc6 bxc6 2 1 .Wd2 is not devastating by any means, but White would be happy to have the two bishops as a starting point. By the way, 2 1 . . . lD b3? does not work on account of 22.!!xb3 Wxb3 23.!!b l , winning a piece.

20.i.<12 Preparing e2-e3 in many lines as well as targeting the pawn on a5. All this shows that Black's current construction is a bit fragile. There were other ways to play, but I cannot see any great fault with what I did. You could say that once Black gives up the light-squared bishop there are no fully satisfying pawn structures left for him. b

a

c

d

e

f

h

g

This avoids White's direct lD xd5 in all lines. Black looks fine, though of course the outcome of the struggle is far from determined. It should of course be mentioned that such a move is by no means easy to see!

20 ... :SfdS 2 I .°i;Ya2

19.he4 8

7

6 5

a

4 3

2 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

The early part of the middlegame has been a success for White. He has the two bishops and a more flexible pawn structure. Boris had drifted into time trouble, which was understandable, although from here he collapsed surprisingly quickly.

2 1 . ..�dni The start of a poor plan. 2 l . . . �d7!? to slighcly improve the posmon seems more sensible, but of course this does not solve all of Black's problems.

22 ..tg2 Ac this point Black should probably have waited to see what White would do. Instead he tried to improve his pawn structure. 22 ... tll cS? Preparing . . . b6, though chat also has some downsides, but there is no reason for White to allow it.

should also note chat there are positions where opposite-coloured bishops favour che attacker, for example when he has a majority on one flank. This is one such case.

24 ... h6 25 ..ixe7 �xe7 26.e3 White is j ust winning. 26 ... tll e6 26 . . . lli c6 27.J.xc6 gives White a superb version of a good knight against a bad bishop. 27.tll ds �d6 2s.gb5 gaS This allows a nice little tactic, but if not this, then something else would have happened.

As we are focusing mainly on pawn structures, I should mention chat 22 . . . c4?! does not work well on account of 23.dxc4 llixe2t 24.llixe2 �xd2 25 .�c2 and 26.c5 with a big advantage. 8

7

6 5

4

a

3

c

d

e

f

g

h

29.tll c7! gabs 29 . . . llixc7 30.bxc7 �xc7 3 1 .�xb7 and White wins, though giving variations seems a bit excessive.

2

1

b

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

23.b6! Black is strategically busted. Technically White gets a slighcly weak pawn on b6, but in return all of Black's pawns are weak at the same time.

30.tll xe6 �xe6 3 1 .�xe6 fxe6 32.J.e4 J.ffi 33.gxa5 gas 34.l!:ixaS gxa8 35.hb7 gxa4 36.J.e4 gb4 37.b7 J.d6 3S.gal @f7 39.ga7 ci>f6 40.gas g5 41 .ghs ©g7 42.gh7t ©gs 43.gd7 1-0

23 ... �e7 24.J.g5! Although positions with opposite-coloured bishops are at times exceptionally drawish, we

What went wrong for Black in this game? Basically he could not find a way to maintain the construction with a pawn on c6 and bishop


1 78

on d5 and eventually gave in, taking on e4 and played . . . c5, after which his problems took a more permanent form. With time trouble on top of this, he simply collapsed.

Fighting for key squares When there is a difference in strength between the contestants, even when it is as small as in this case, it is quite common that one of the players does things he normally would not do unless forced to. To some extent this is what happened to Avrukh in the previous game; the pressure became too much and he decided to make a concession, as he could not find any alternatives. And to be fair to him, there is no guarantee that such an alternative exists when you are sitting at the board. When players of equal strength face one another, it is common that they fight for key squares, preventing each other's plans and ideas while creating ideas of their own. The outcome of the game is to be found in the depths of long complicated lines and the two players' willingness to enter lines where they are unable to determine the final outcome in advance. The following game is one of the biggest victories in my career, against one of the greatest players I have had the pleasure of competing against.

Levon Aronian Boris Gelfand -

Dresden (ol) 2008

This game was played at the 2008 Olympiad in Dresden, where I and the Israeli team had our greatest result in team chess ever, claiming the silver medals. I had a really good score on Board 1 and missed the gold medal by the narrowest of margins. With a rating performance of 2833, I fell short of Peter Leko's 2834 gold-winning performance! Still, it was an unbelievable result. The silver medal

was much more important, and of course much more difficult to get than the gold medal I achieved with the Soviet Union. The greater importance is not because I am now an Israeli, but because the Soviet team in 1 990 was clearly superior to all the other teams in the event. Important results in 2008 included our victories over Armenia and the Netherlands. Unfortunately we lost to Ukraine, missing out on the gold medal. Levon Aronian is of course one of the greatest players of our time. However, in team events he is usually even stronger. Due not least to his spirit and leadership, the Armenian team managed to win the 2006, 2008 and 20 1 2 Olympiads, and the 20 1 1 World Team Championship, as well as achieving bronze in the 2007 European Team Championship and the 2004 Olympiad. Armenia also won bronze at the 1 992 and 2002 Olympiads, though without Aronian on the team. However, it was from 2006 when Aronian entered the elite and took over Board 1 from Akopian that the team became the most successful in the world. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Aronian is the soul of the Armenian team. I consider him to be the most creative player of our time, both over the board and in opening preparation. So far he has failed in the Candidates tournament, but I hope that Anand's and my results in the Candidates in recent years will inspire him to keep on trying. He has so many qualities that I would not be surprised if he manages to become World Champion one day. I really feel that as long as one wants to work on chess and has the will to progress, there is a possibility of doing so. These days when you read older players complain about younger players that they only know how to push the space bar and have no culture, just think of Aronian. He has a great knowledge of music, literature, arts and culture

Chapter 4

-


in general. This is another reason why I would be happy if he kept on improving and reached the highest peak. What a World Champion he would be! In a recent interview in New in Chess he said chat whenever he plays me, he tries to impress me. It is friendly competition. We have warm personal relations and work on chess together occasionally. So in every game we try to bring something new. If one player comes up with a good novelty, it is great! This is one of the reasons why we have so many decisive games with each other. It is always an open game where both players want to win.

1 79

Ac this point I avoided 6 . . . E:e8 7.tll d5, as Rubinstein played (see page 1 00 ) . Of course White could have played the knight advance on the previous move, but then Black would not be forced to put his rook on e8 .

7.bxc3 ges 8.d3 I should say chat these days 8 .tll e l is quite popular. Things change and new ideas emerge. It is a lot about keeping the pawn structure flexible. 8 ... e4 9.lLJd4 exd3 10.exd3 lLJxd4 l l .cxd4 d5

1 .c4 e5 2.c!ll c3 lLJf6 3.lLJf.3 lLJc6 4.g3

s �..tSeB �.I 7 &rtm'•"-''Y.--, 6 50 4 3 � �m ,� B'Llt [@%1'�----�m-� rwm_�,,,,,; 2 OA ifiO>< � iO>< if� O A iO>< iffl� iO if{f< 1 �----"-Vm1£B"�

.i

�- ,� " '��il��-�� ,� , ,�� /,� �/, '"//, �� -� a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

A natural choice for Aronian. With this type of pawn structure it is likely chat we will have a long complicated fight, based on deep strategic play. I also have some experience with this system with White, but nowhere near as much as Levon.

4....ib4 In another game I played 4 . . . tll d4 against him. I have also tried 4 . . . d5, getting a good position against him. 5 ..ig2 0-0 6.0-0 hc3

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

My preparation was not especially deep. Before the tournament my teammace Boris Avrukh had suggested this system as a possible way co play and I looked at it a little bit. My analysis was really not chat deep, but it seemed a viable option and I went for it. Obviously the main point is chat White has doubled pawns and Black is blockading chem.

1 2J�bl It is not obvious chat this inclusion favours White, but it is quite logical all the same. The following game by the extravagant Michael Basman against former World Champion

1 80


Mikhail Botvinnik shows some of the strategic ideas of this system: 1 2.J.e3 J.e6 1 3.!!c l h6 1 4.h3 c6 1 5 .%Vd2 %Vd7 1 6.©h2 ©h7 1 7.l:!fe l tlig8 1 8.g4 tli e7 1 9.J.f4 !!ad8 20.c5 g5 2 1 .J.e5 f5 22.gxf5 J.xf5 23.!!e3 tli g6 24.!!ce l l:!e6 25 .J.g3 !!de8

15.h3 Aronian is not seeking an instant clarification in the centre, hoping instead co gee chances later on in the game. One of the main reasons for this move is co cake away the g4-square from the black knight; another is co improve the position with f2-f4 and g3-g4 in order co put pressure on the pieces defending the centre. 1 5 .%Va4 had been played in Norri - Tella, Finland 1 99 5 , when it is not clear whether the bishop is best placed on e6 or f5 .

12 ...h6 Reducing the bishop's scope. The natural idea is now co bring the bishop co e5 as Levon did in the game.

Aronian was not attracted co winning a pawn as Black obtains good counterplay: 1 5 .J.xf6 %Vxf6 1 6.cxd5 cxd5 1 6 . . . J.b?!? 1 7.J.xd5 !!b8! This patient move is the right way co play. White manages co gee some real pressure after: 1 7 . . . J.h3 1 8 .J.xa8 J.xfl 1 9 .J.e4 J.h3 20.%Vh5 J.d7 (20 . . . J.e6 2 1 .%Ve5! and White is better) 2 l .%Vd5 %Ve7

13.i.f4 b6 14.i.e5 c6 An obvious pawn sacrifice, which we will investigate below. 8

7

6

5 4 3

2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White has a real initiative here. With no moves being forced, it is hard co say what should be played, but a possible line is 22.%Vb7 i.h3 23.%Vxe7 !!xe7 24.!!c l g6 2 5 . f4 l:!d7 26.d5 and White has a big advantage. 1 8.%Va4 Black seems co have enough compensation after:

Chapter 4

-

181


1 8 . . . �h3 1 9.E!:fe l f!:e7

a

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

It is not so clear what these doubled pawns can do. Certainly the game goes on and probably White feels a bit more comfortable. It is not as simple co prove equality as I thought during the game. So, generally speaking Black seems to be fine, but with energetic play White can still cause problems with l 5 .�xf6. You really need to dig deeply in order to find these options for White, and this time Aronian did not manage co do so. The way I see it is that in order to find such resources, you have to believe that they are there. I did not believe they were and we can conclude that Aronian also did not. It is hard co blame someone for not seeing something that you did not even believe could be there yourself! (Though of course this is what many chess fans do when they look at top games with the engine running!)

1 5 ... i.e6 The most natural square for the bishop. 16.:Scl The most natural reply. Of course you have to consider 1 6.f4, but I saw an exchange sacrifice that I really liked: 1 6 . . . dxc4! l 7.�xc6 �xh3 1 8.E!:e l

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Here I had planned to play I 8 . . . E!:xe5 1 9.dxe5 W/d4t 20.mh l l2i g4 2 1 .Wff3 E!:d8 with adequate compensation. After 22.dxc4 l2i f2t 23.mh2 �g4 White has to play 24.Wfg2! to keep the balance, when Black can repeat with 24 . . . �f5 . Instead, after 24.Wfe3 Wfxe3 25.E!:xe3 �f5! Black would win the exchange back with slightly the better chances. Of course it is not likely that you would calculate this far during the game; we are humans after all, but you would go with your feelings, and I instinctively liked this while Aronian clearly disliked it. A closer look with the engines shows that Black has a strong option in l 8 . . . E!:c8!, when after 1 9 .�xe8 l2ixe8 White has to cake back on c4 and after 20.dxc4 f6 the bishop is trapped. The way I play chess I do not have co see everything in advance; I rely a lot on my feeling and on being able to see things in more detail when I am a bit closer. Everyone has their own preference regarding how to balance intuition and calculation and will find the way that suits them best. We all think in both ways, so please remember that we are talking about tendencies and not absolutes when we talk about logical and intuitive players.

16 . Jk8 After I had played this move I was a bit unhappy with it. .


1 82

My alternative was 1 6 . . . '?Md?!?, which also makes sense. I am not afraid of the doubled pawns. Without knights I cannot see how White is going to create any real pressure against chem at all. And after 1 7.g4, I can reply 1 7 . . . lll h? with even chances.

If you discarded dynamics, this would be an easy decision to make. Although Black straightens out White's doubled pawns, in return he gains control of the d5-square. The devil is of course in the detail! White has a number of active options chat have to be calculated, the most challenging of them being the one Levon chose in the game. 17 . . . Wd??! would be wrong. White plays: 1 8.g4! dxc4 1 9 . .ixf6 gxf6 20.dxc4 Wd6

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Now 1 8.f4?! f6 1 9.f5 fxe5 20.fxe6 Wxe6 ought to be considered, though we should remember the words of the Armenian Master Eduard Mnacakanian: Black has an extra pawn, if nothing else (see page 204) . So instead White should probably play 1 8 .©h2 or similar, with even chances. As it turns out, the move I made was not bad,

but I did not like entering forced lines. I did not see a concrete problem in them, but being forced co go in one direction is a bad sign.

b

a

c

d

e

f

h

g

2 1 .f5 .id? 22.c5! Black is clearly under pressure. It is not human to allow such a position.

1 8.dxc4 b5!

17.f4!? A very sharp move, threatening f4-f5 immediately. 1 7.�e l would have resembled the 1 6 . . . Wd? lines mentioned above after 1 7 . . . tll h? l 8.g4 %Vd7 l 9.'it>h2, when we have a manoeuvring game with roughly even chances. This is the first critical moment of the game. Ac this point I had to calculate the lines accurately.

17 dxc4! •.•

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Fighting for the d5-square. Not surprisingly, I was not allowed to occupy it.

Chapter 4

-

1 83


1 9.d5! This is the most concrete option and I would assume that Levon had planned it well in advance. It is also the most principled move, and Aronian has a well-earned reputation for not walking away from a fight. . . 1 9.cxb5 cxb5 seems less challenging. If Black has the time, he will (perhaps after an exchange on c l ) put his bishop on c4. One thing I had planned was to meet 20.'\Wd2 with 20 . . . .ic4! 2 I ..ib7 lll d5!. 8

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

At this point I had to calculate some long variations. What I did in the game looked very scary, but when I discovered my 25th move, I knew that I would be out of trouble.

7

6 5

4 3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Black will have great compensation for the exchange on the light squares. Obviously I did not believe that I would be allowed to play this, but you always have to know what you will do against the most threatening ideas, and this was one of the ones I checked. The computer does not think that Black is better here, but maybe it j ust does not understand what is going on? One thing that plays in Black's favour is that the remaining bishops are opposite-coloured, which makes it hard for White to force exchanges.

19 ... cxd5 20.cxb5 20.c5 looks thematic, but I intended 20 . . . lll e4, when after 2 1 . f5 Black has 2 1 . . . f6! 22.fxe6 fxe5 23 . .ixe4 dxe4 where White is probably objectively okay, but still has to j ustify the pawn sacrifice.

20 .. J�xcl 2 1 .Wxcl Wb6t When I returned to the hotel after the game I saw that 2 1 . . .lll e4 was also possible. Play might continue: 22.@h2 '\Wa5 23.'\Wb2 f6 24 . .id4 E:c8

White has to find 25 .E:f3! to get enough counterplay to keep the balance. The position seems rather drawish to me, though it is obvious that it is Black who is setting problems for White here. I think Aronian would have been disappointed to have to play to equalize, as my impression during the game was that he was trying to get an advantage.

�.t. ; � 11 �� .i.�1 U U 6 - n m1·� �m1·�

22.'it>h2 Yfxb5

. . . . . %.

.

��

� �

�

·� � � �r � , � � -� 8 . u ·u%-�� 32 �U -

�

1

b

a

d

c

f

e

g

h

23.Lf6 Again we can see clearly that Aronian is trying to win the game. If he wanted to draw, he could have forced it with 23.%Va l , when natural play would be 23 . . .if5 24 . .ixf6 gxf6 25. xf6 ie4 26.%Vxh6 ixg2 27.%Vg5t and White can choose who will force a draw.

�

�i �r -� �� .,. . . . . . %z 6 ·� · .• 5 �1j'·• i ·-�. - ...% � 4 % . 3 � •. • �-� 8 2 8 •. • • J. ·� ..... , . � �

�

.

.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

For example: 27 . . . �f8 28.�xg2 E:eit i9.E:f2 E:xf2t 30.�xf2 %Vb2t 3 1 .�f3 %Vxa2 and it is time to take the perpetual. I am pretty sure that Aronian had missed my 25th move at this point, or he might have considered going for the draw.

23 ... gxf6 24.£5 J.d7

8

U E -� fm·- --

. .

b

a

d

c

f

e

g

h

25.Yfxh6?! I expected this during the game. It is the natural continuation, so to call it a mistake feels wrong. One weird intermediate move White could consider is 25 .a4!? with the intention of preventing . . . ib5 in some lines. However there is always a downside. In this case it i � that the a-pawn quickly comes under attack. After the game I analysed 25 . . . We2 26.%Vxh6 %Vb2 27.E:f4 E:e4. 8

7

6

"' �� - � · � A �&� . . . .J �.JL�

�%

•

�

5 �-

4

3

i

":-- · ..

·lifr�

.,.8• . 8 . •.1·� "� �- --· · · ... . . v.� 8 -�

% ..

9,;, ,,j

'

.

B � . J;z� ..... % � � � • .

a

b

� c

d

� e

,

f

g

h

I then had 28.E:g4t?! E:xg4 29.hxg4 as a drawing line, but Black has 29 . . . ic6!, potentially followed by ... %Ve5 and . . . a5, when White will have problems to solve. Instead White needs to play 28.a5, when accurate play will keep the balance. But as

Chapter 4

-


said, this is not what Levon was looking for, and it is only something we have come to understand after analysing the game with computer assistance. I have to be honest and say chat even after analysing the game, the idea seems eerily foreign to me. However, it might have been his last chance to keep the balance.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

28 .i>h2 l:!e4

a

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

25 ...Wb2! Maybe Levon had only anticipated 25 . . . ge2?, when after 26.Wxf6 Wb2 27.Wxb2 gxb2 28.g4! the endgame with three split pawns will hold a lot of challenges for Black. 26.©hl 26.l:!f4 l:!e4 transposes to the next note. 26 .. J::l e2 27..bd5? A blunder, played pretty quickly as far as I remember. I do not know what he missed. After the game he was extremely disappointed and we did not really talk about it. I assume chat he missed something pretty simple, as all players do from time to time, even such champions as Levon. During the game I believed that White could force a draw: 27.l:!f4 l:!e i t 27 . . . ixf5 28.l:!xf5 l:!xg2 29.l:!g5t and White has a perpetual.

1 85

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

I believed chat there were several ways for White to make a draw. This was also my conclusion after checking briefly with the computer in 2008. Bue looking deeper now, it appears that things are not so simple. White has no clear way to keep the balance, even though his position might be holdable in the long term. I hope the reader will forgive me for being a bit technical here and showing our analysis in detail. I think it helps illustrate the way White has taken risks and now will have to play many good moves in order to defend. Not an easy task at all. 29.i>h l ! I assumed chat 29.l:!g4t l:!xg4 30.hxg4 would be okay for White, but Black has a very subtle manoeuvre: 30 . . . ib5 3 l .Wf4


186

for White. Understanding Black's 3 1 st move in this variation is by no means easy. Why would forcing the white king forward be an advantage? Only accurate analysis and comparison will show that after 33.g5 ¥Me5 34.¥Mg4 J.e2 it is a vital point that the f5-pawn hangs with check, as otherwise White would secure sufficient counterplay with 35 .¥Mh4, which now loses a pawn. I am by no means convinced that I would have found this during the game! 29 . . . gc4! I did not consider this move in my earlier analysis, but it appears that it causes White quite some difficulties still. On the other hand, after 29 . . . gxf4 30.¥Mxf4 d4 3 1 .¥Md6 i.xf5 32.Wxf6 i.g6 33 . .id5 , Black should give a perpetual.

7

6

-� �� -0� �� - - - �� ,-,� � �� ,� �8%� : �� -�J� �-� %._j� �� 8 �- - -�i � �� ,� 8

7

6

3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Black has a number of possible continuations here, which can be analysed deeper and deeper. One of them is: 34 . . . .ie6 3 5 .¥Mxa7t md6 36.Wa6t me5 37.YMfl i.xf5 38 .gf4 i.e4 39.gxe4t dxe4 40.Wf4t me6 4 1 .Wxe4t md6

�� ,� �-0i -, , , % �� : �� • : �.-,.1.·� �� "-�-%� W!08 �-� '8 �i �� , ,,, 8

3

5

2

4 2

a

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

have spent some time analysing this position in the work for this book, without coming to any final conclusions. The analysis shows that White is struggling, but that he still has plenty of defensive resources. The two main options to look at are a) 30.¥Mh4 and b) 30.gg4t. a) 30.Wh4 ge l t 3 1 .mh2 gc2 leads to a forced continuation: 32.gg4t mf8 33.Wh6t me? 34.¥Me3t

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

We could continue, but it makes sense to end here with a conclusion. White is fighting desperately for survival. One point that it makes sense to confirm is that Black would win if he achieved the realistic double ambition of winning the a-pawn and exchanging queens:

Chapter 4 - Transformation of Pawn Structures After 1 . . .ElcS 2.ib7 fS 3.\tig2 \tif6 4.ia8 Elc3 S .idS Eld3 6.ic4 Eld4 7.ifl \ties 8.\tif2 Eld2t 9.\tie3 Ela2 1 0.ic4 Ela3t l l .id3 Elb3 White is in zugzwang. 1 2.e2 f4 for example, and Black wins. Summing up, 30.1'9h4 is very dangerous for White, although it may still be a decent practical chance. b) So instead he might want to try something else, though 30.Elg4 t Elxg4 3 l .hxg4 ibS is also unpleasant for White.

� �· � ,�, , %� •%� ••• •� �. �•• • � �, ,."� � � ' ,�, ,/. �-� �.�t�@ � � 8

7

%

6

%

%

%

3

%

2

a

b

c

d

� --

e

f

g

h

The main point about this position is that White cannot force a draw immediately: 32.gS ?! Wc l t 33.\tih2 WxgS 34.WxgSt fxgS 3 S .ixdS \tig7

� �� '· ' .%. �. �.;,_ ,;,� �wr .:.. :•. � �. �-� �.� �, �r. . . ;m �� , , 6 5

4

3

%

%

%

" - -%

1 87

give up the bishop for both of the black pawns on the kingside and make a draw with the king in the queenside corner. But I do not believe that Black need allow this. So instead White should try 32.Wf4 with a worse position in which nothing direct exists. To speak of it in terms of lost or drawn makes no sense to a practical player like me. What matters is that White has a real fighting chance, while what matters from Black's perspective is that he is happy to be able to cause White continuing problems.

27 ...i.xf5 2s.Wf4 i.e6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

b

a

d

c

f

e

g

h

After this I think the position is unholdable, though there is still some play left.

29.i.f3 An interesting line is: 29.ie4 ixh3 30.Wh6 Elxe4 3 1 .1'9xh3 Wxa2 32.Wc8t g7 33.1'9c6

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Here both 36.\tig2 ie2! and 36.g4 \tif6 37.\tig3 ie8! with the idea of . . . \ties and . . . f6, make the bishop ending untenable for White. The only hope I can think of is to somehow a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h


1 88

The first time we looked at this, I said that it would be really shocking if 33 . . . Wf e6? 34.Wfxe6 !!xe6 was not winning. But as it turns out this is indeed the case. After 3 5 .!!al a6 36.g4 . manages to hold by a miracle. White

36.Wg2 Wfe4 and the rook ending features much worse circumstances for White.

29 .. � h2t 30.ci>gl J

�• �.• �%. 7 �la �.1W)·•�- - �� 8

6

��;,�"�

� � ·· • • 3 R � • • -�

z

. . .�. �� -� ��
a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Black does not make any real progress after either 36 . . . Wg6 37.!!a5 or 36 . . . Wffi 37.Wg2 ©e7 38.Wf3 Wd7 39.©f4 ©c7 4o.©f5 ©b6 4 1 .!!b l t Wc5 42.!!a l Wb5 43.!!b l t Wc4 44.!!a l Wb3 45 .!!b l t Wc2 46.!!a l ©b2 47.!!a4!. Chess has many surprises for us. Black has other tries in the rook ending, but White has adequate resources against all of them. 'l"ie6'. So instead Black should play: 33 . . . � 34.Wf3

., �. � � . • • .•. � 7 .1%a.•a . . . %�- . z •� � ��-•�� .. .--� � . • 3 ifB � � -� . . %� �� r� : 8

6 5

4

2 I

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Black now has quite a lot of winning moves. For example: 34 . . . f5 3 5 .!!f2 Wi'b 1 t

b

a

c

d

f

e

g

h

30 .. Jhh3! The accurate move. 30 . . . ixh3?! 3 I .Wfh4! would have made things much more difficult for Black. I would have had to find 3 1 . . .Wd2! with the possible continuation: 32.g4 Wg7 33.!!f2 !!xf2 34.Wxf2 Wc l t 3 5 .Wh2 .ifl Black is better, but the win is still not certain. 3 1 .J.g2 . I felt that it was important to see that 3 I .!!f2 is refuted by: 3 1 ... Wfb 1 t 32.!!fl Wg6 33. Wg2

� -�% �� . . • . ,"�

. • � . . . %� � �� • � � illtJ( · � �B-.-.i. �% %� � 3 �� -- . --��Z � � :�

6 5

4

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

33 . . . Wc2t! 34.!!f2 Wfb l and Black wins the a-pawn as well.

1 89


8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

36. f2 .id?

b

a

d

c

f

e

g

h

3 1 ... gh5!! An important move. The a2-pawn cannot be defended in the long run. Though it may look simple, it was by no means easy to find this move in advance, and the importance of it should not be underestimated. 32.�xf6 While analysing this game I found an incredible trap that Aronian could have tried, had he spotted it. 32.a4!? seems like a normal move. The pawn is no longer hanging on a2, although of course it is by no means out of trouble.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

It is now tempting for Black to play 32 . . .'�b6t, when White has no choice but to accept exchanges. 33.'
c

d

e

f

g

h

37 . .ibS ! .ixb5 38.axbS The pawn ending surprisingly holds. Again, Black can try other ideas, but White has enough resources in this bishop ending. I am not sure if I would have guessed this during the game, but even if I had not, I would probably have improved my position before going into any forced variations. And 32 . . . c;ii g?! is a simple way to do so. Black should win without great efforts. For example: 33.E!f2 '
a a

b

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

36.'f2 .id? Now after 39 . .ibS .ixb5 40.axbS f5 , the extra tempo decides the game in Black's favour.

32 ...�xf6 33.gxf6 gas


1 90

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

38 ... a3 I am happy to obtain another passed pawn. 38 . . . .ixd5? 39.gxd5 a3 40.ga5 would allow White to make a draw.

39.he6 fxe6 40.�e3 �f7 4 1 .g4

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

The key idea - White cannot defend his a-pawn and then will be unable to block his opponent's passed pawn. Despite the limited material, Black is going to win.

34JU4 After 34.gf2 gxa2 3 5 .gxa2 .ixa2, White is defenceless. The bishop goes to b3 and the a-pawn can make it all the way up the board unhindered. 34 .. Jlxa2 35,gd4 a5 36 ..idS 36 . .ic6 .ib3 37.i'fl a4 38 .gb4 i'g7 and the king goes to c5. 36... gal t 37. �f'l a4 38.gd2

8

6 5 4 3 2 1

8 7 6

4

2 1

b

a

c

d

f

e

g

h

41 .. ,gb l Although I am happy with what I did, I think I might have had a simpler way of winning the game with: 4 l . . .a2! 42.ge2 i'g6 43.iie4 i'f6 44.g5t The pawn is lost no matter what. (44.iie3 i'g5 45 .i'e4 i'xg4 is similar.) 44 . . . i'xg5 45 .i'e5 I stopped my calculations around here, missing the following nice triangulation manoeuvre.

� � � � � � � � : .� . ,. �� -�� ·� ·� •· . � . � ,""�• •1 · � � � 8

�

�

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

45 . . . iih4! 46.iie4 i'g4 White is in zugzwang. 47.gg2t iih5 48.ge2 i'g6 Black has won a

Chapter 4

-

second pawn and will win the game without calculating a single variation.

42JU2t @e7 43Jla2 gb3t

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

This victory helped us to overtake the defending champions and take the lead at the Olympiad. Even though we didn't manage to stay there, the silver medals we eventually secured were a big success for the Israeli team. It was the first time our country had won a medal at the Olympiad. I played less well in Khanty-Mansiysk two years later, but still the team produced another great performance and took the bronze medals.

A coincidence

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

44.@£4 Black also wins after 44.®d4 !!b4t 45 .'it>c5 !!a4 46.'it>b5 !!a8 47.®b4 ®f6. 44 gb4t Transferring the rook to the best position, behind the pawn. •.•

45.@g5 ga4 46.@h6 e5 47.g5 @f7

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

191


Incidentally, the exact same ending happened at the same Olympiad nine days earlier. I did not pay great attention to it during the tournament, but noticed it when I went through all the top games of the event once back home again.

Michael Adams Mikhail Gurevich -

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Dresden (ol) 2008

a

b

c

d

b

c

d

4S.g6t @8s 49.@g5 e4 0-1

e

f

g

h

f

g

h

40 .ie3 gb4 41 .@e2 i.d4 42.a4 he3 43.fxe3 g5 44.a5 ga4 45.gas 1-0 •

a

e

A curious coincidence.

1 92


Exploiting a slightly better pawn structure Up to this point we have looked at some examples where the main focus has been on creating a better pawn structure. What I have not talked a lot about is how to make something out of this advantage. Often the advantages are indirect. The play goes on, but the opponent has been burdened with an extra responsibility, like a boxer that has suddenly had his foot chained to one corner of the ring. Obviously the dream is to pin his other foot down with another weakness, making any move he makes critical. The principle of two weaknesses springs from this scenario, and has been one of the basic aspects of converting an advantage that young players have been taught since the days of Nimzowitsch and of course Rubinstein. A top grandmaster, not to mention a World Champion, will fight desperately against being pinned down with two weaknesses in a technical position, which is an important point to remember when you go over the last game of this chapter.

Boris Gelfand - Viswanathan Anand Moscow (7) 20 1 2

This is quite a n important game i n my career. So far it is the only game I have won in a World Championship match and as such it marks probably the biggest highlight of my career so far. It was played j ust after the halfway mark and gave me a temporary lead in the match. Viswanathan Anand is one of the greatest players in chess history. He has won the World Championship in matches and in tournaments, both all-play-all and knockout. It is really not my place to present a description of his career, but I do want to say this: although he has had occasional poor results since turning 40, it is

clear that he has been the victim of a lot of unfair criticism, with journalists and others trying to put words of retirement into his mouth. This is rather pointless, as Vishy still has a lot to offer to the chess world. At some point the story even was that he would not participate in the 20 1 4 Candidates tournament in Khanty-Mansiysk, something I personally never believed. Indeed Vishy did participate and won the event convincingly, giving him a return match against Magnus Carlsen. During this game I did not really notice that the changes in the pawn structure were pervasive all the way through. The pawn structure was fixed early on in the game, and subsequent play was directed at keeping and exploiting the slight advantage my better structure gave me. After the game, however, I can see that there were actually a lot of subtleties relating to possible changes in the pawn structure.

1 .d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.tlc3 �£6 4.e3 e6 s.tif'3 a6

8 i. . ... � �-� � x- · --0,'�··" "

7

6

� ,, h� · · ·h � � � �" " "

,, , , ,

,,,,,

� ,, � � � � : �� ,,�� 3 �� ,� �� r�, , .. .. ,J�-� ��

�� 8 wtyj ,;� wtyj� � 8 w-: 2 �,,,,%�•=£ a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This was Anand's main defence for the match. This trendy variation does not have a name as far as I know - though we can see some resemblance with the Chebanenko Variation, which we have met a few times in this book already.

Chapter 4 - Transformation of Pawn Structures Ac the beginning of the match I must admit chat I struggled to get anything out of the opening, making the games somewhat dull for the spectators. Bue such is the nature of the World Championship. le is not 1 2 individual games, but one game played 1 2 times. In a tournament you need to win several games more than you lose in order to take first place, while in a match chose extra wins give you nothing at all, and therefore taking risks to achieve chem make no sense. I know it is not what the majority of the fans want, but to some extent chess incorporates both low-brow and high-brow elements. Blitz, blindfold and so on have little lasting value, whereas World Championship matches live on far beyond the lives of the players playing them. And history's view changes. For example, I am sure chat few people remember the 2000 match between Kramnik and Kasparov for its lifeless draws? They were there all right, but there were also exciting moments of great artistic value. Just like my match against Vishy. In the first two games I followed the recommended path: 6.b3 .ib4 7.id2 lll bd7 8 .id3 0-0 9.0-0 .id6 s

1

6 5

4

K � .i.� � E* � � . , �-�� A {� � �� % .,, % "'""""" . .. . . . . � � . � � �;. �� :� � � �%'"'""% . .. %)'0'0 ��

!�

>,. .

..

�-' , , . , ;- , , %� �� ... .�WW-·:;-�'[' ...

3 � 8 �..t � �-

2

.

�

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Black wasted a move on forcing the white bishop to the pointless d2-square, resulting in an unusual arrangement of pieces all along the cl-file. Theory suggested chat White might

1 93

have some advantage here, but in practice I did not manage to make the World Champion chink seriously for even one move!

Game 2 continued: 1 0.l:!c l e5! 1 1 .cxd5 cxd5 1 2.e4 dxe4 1 3.lll xe4 lll xe4 1 4.ixe4 lll f6 1 5 .dxe5 lll xe4 1 6.exd6 Wxd6

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Then the queens came off and on move 25 there was nothing left to do but to agree co the inevitable draw. In Game 4 I went with the main move, but again I did not manage to even scratch the surface of Black's nerves. 1 0.Wc2 e5 1 l .cxd5 cxd5 1 2.e4 exd4 1 3.lll xd5 lll x d5 1 4.exd5 lll f6 1 5 .h3 .id7 1 6.l:!ad l l:!e8 1 7.lll xd4 l:!c8 1 8.Wb l h6 1 9.lll f5 .ixf5 20 . .ixf5 l:!c5 8

7

6 5

4

3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Black is clearly okay and the game ended without drama in a draw on move 34.

1 94


So in Game 6 I went for an entirely different direction, only to run into my opponent's preparation. 6.Wfc2 c5 7.cxd5 exd5 8 .i.e2 i.e6 9.0-0 tt:l c6 1 0.E!d l cxd4 l 1 .tt:lxd4 tt:lxd4 1 2.E!xd4 i.c5 1 3 .E!d l Wfe7 1 4.if3

E!xd8 25 .Wfxc6 bxc6 26.E!e l 'kti f7 27.g4 i.d4 28.E!c l i.xc3 29.E!xc3 E!d4 Y2-Y2 Later in 20 1 2, Kramnik won a long game with 6.i.d3 against my second Tomashevsky, igniting new life into that line as well . There are other options, such as 6.a3 and 6.tt:le5, which could be investigated. I am sure we will see more developments in this opening over the next few years. As we have seen with the Berlin Wall, it can be difficult to force Jack back into the box, once he has leapt out.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

It seemed that White would have a chance to create a bit of pressure against the isolated pawn, bur Anand had prepared a simple panacea, leaving White with nothing. 1 4 . . . 0-0!N 1 5 .tt:lxd5 i.xd5 1 6.i.xd5 tt:lxd5 1 7.E!xd5 E!ac8

6.c5 A very principled move. The moment Black plays . . . a6, he has weakened the b6-square, making it reasonable for White to extend his pawn structure on the dark squares. 6 ... lLJbd7 If Black wants to take back with the queen on b6, it is slightly more accurate to play 6 . . . b6 7.cxb6 Wfxb6.

· - �� i.ai.i. � � � �/ �• �.B �� c,�,., J� !� ,·��.?.� �� : �� . %��· '��r rl��!� !o Ay"" · . %� � �ii'�J,, � .:. 8

7

6 5

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

With my opponent still in preparation, I did not find any concrete reasons to try to hang on to the extra pawn and decided to defer the battle with the Chebanenko until after the free day. l 8 .i.d2 i.xe3 l 9.i.c3 i.b6 20.Wff5 Wf e6 2 1 .�f3 f6 22.h4 Wfc6 23.h5 E!fd8 24.E!xd8t

2

J .?.m

..

"· . .

..

..

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Shortly before finishing this book I got a chance to play this position over the board. I really liked my position after: 8.tt:la4 Wf c7 9.i.d2 a5 1 0.E!c l i.d6 l I .i.d3 i.a6 1 2.Wfe2 0-0 1 3.0-0 i.xd3 1 4.Wfxd3 tt:l bd7 1 5 .E!c2 E!fc8 1 6.E!fc l Wfb7 1 7.i.e l tt:l e4 1 8 .tt:ld2 tt:l xd2 l 9.i.xd2 Wf a6 20.Wfxa6 E!xa6

Chapter 4

-

7.b4 b6 had been played before, but it seems that Black can slowly solve his problems and get a decent position, similar to some lines of the Queen's Gambit Declined with 5 .i.f4. It is not obvious to me that the bishop is better placed on c l ; actually, if White was allowed to do so here, probably i.c l -f4 would be a decent move!

8

7

6 5

4 3

2

b

a

c

d

e

f

h

g

But I was not able to cause my opponent, Andreikin, enough problems, although his position is clearly very passive at this point. The game was eventually drawn in Tashkent 20 1 4.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

1 95


7.i.d3 e5!? reminds of some variations of the Chebanenko Variation with 4 . . . a6 5.ltJf3 b5 6.c5 ltJ bd7 7.id3 e5!, where Black has good results. Also here Black should be doing well.

7... b6 This is by no means the only move, but it is quite logical. We had also prepared in depth for a lot of other options. I ask the reader to forgive me for not revealing my intentions against these; the author should be allowed to keep a few secrets . . . 8.cxb6 ltJxb6 AI; said earlier, 8 . . . Wfxb6 does not make a lot of sense here. White gets an advantage with play on the dark squares. 9 .id2 c5

.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

On the free day I had another look at the various options with my seconds and we decided to go deep in our analysis of a specific plan, based on a rapid development of the queenside.

7.Yfc2! Though this was not a novelty, it was its first occurrence at the top level. I took part in the analysis sessions in the afternoon, while my seconds continued through the night, analysing the strategic concept we developed together in depth.

.i. � ..t.. �·��

�� ref·?.I- - -� : ,. ,,,,,, , ,,, ,, % -,�� ' � · � " ---% � � �r--,
5

4 3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Without this, Black will be left with a weak c-pawn, but advancing it does not solve all his problems. After something like 1 0.ltJa4 Wa7 1 Ukl ltJ e4 1 2 . .ia5 Black is struggling with his greatly weakened c-file. White is leading in development on the queenside, and is not

1 96


at all behind in development on the kingside. Black cannot close the c-file with . . . c4 at any point, as b2-b3 will force it open again. The only argument that remains is about the size of White's advantage, a type of argument that does not really interest me at all. 9 ..id2 c5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

�� , ., %� l•'- - - · '• �� :�� 3

8 7

6 5

4

2

.i � J.J �· �� ··"··· �%" "'/, �� %""'ef"""" %� •• ,, ,•• • • � � �f",/�L. %�r� � ��r��-P � �� 8 _____

� �-,l.1 J Y. >'� r 1 �v..[j �.i.� II �

-�

a

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

10.�kl To be honest, I did not take a great part in the analysis starting from this point. I told my seconds that the type of position suited me and left it for them to go further. As the computer has revealed to us that almost all moves are playable, the importance of what suits you and what does not suit you has increased in my opinion. This should be taken as good news, as it makes it possible to play chess in many different ways, keeping our game spiritually alive.

10 ... cxd4 The main alternative we had analysed was: 1 0 . . . c4

b

c

d

�

e

f

g

h

This is not really better or worse than the move played in the game. Our idea was to continue with something like: 1 l .b3 cxb3 1 2.axb3 .ib7 13 . .id3 .id6 1 4.0-0 0-0 1 5 .ll'le5 Vlie7 It seems that White is slightly better after: 1 6.f3!l:%fc8 1 7.Vlib l Black does not have the possibility of playing . . . ll'le4 and has yet to get his pieces into the game in a meaningful way. White's position is easier to play.

l 1 .exd4 .td6 This is probably the best move. White has a pleasant position after l l . . . .ib7 1 2.ll'la4 as well.

Chapter 4 - Transformation of Pawn Structures which is also what my seconds spent time analysing.

1 2 .ig5! I believe that the team was not very happy with my decision here, but by the end of the game they had already forgotten all about it. .

1 2.l0a4!? l0 xa4 1 3.'i.Wc6t .id7 1 4.1.Wxd6 8

7

6 5

4 3

2

1 97

The computer says that White is slightly better, but I am not sure this is really the case. Black will play .. .f6 and get onto the c-line and probably equalize. Of course there is still something to analyse at this point and our analysis was by no means exhaustive. The main point is that it is possible that White is better, but it is very concrete. If Black manages to consolidate, the game would end quickly in a draw. During the game I had a look at the position and I liked it in itself, but I did not see the necessity to force matters. So I chose to play a calm move. After the match Alex Huzman and I analysed this line further and I ended up playing a third move against Aronian the following year: 1 2 . .id3 0-0 1 3.0-0 .ib7 1 4.l0a4 8

Here there are some long lines. We assumed Anand would play: l 4 . . . l0e4 1 4 . . . l0xb2 can be considered, but it seems unlikely chat someone would enter this line in a practical game: 1 5 .'i.Wa3 l0 c4 l 6 . .ixc4 dxc4 1 7 . .ia5 when Black has an uncomfortable choice. Although his options might not all be bad, this is not a line many would choose if they felt they were still in their opponent's preparation. 1 5 .'i.Wa3 l0xd2 1 6.�xd2 'i.We7 1 7.'i.Wxe7t �xe7

7

6 5

4 3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

And it was a game . . . I chink I held some advantage, but fortunes changed and eventually I had to hold on to draw on move 4 1 , Gelfand - Aronian, Paris/St Petersburg 20 1 3. One of the interesting things is that the engines we were using at the times gave almost 0.00 for this structure. Even later on, when it is obvious that White is pressing with a serious advantage, the engines were not convinced. This is why many commentators said that 23 . . . g5 was a blunder and speculated on how it was possible chat the World Champion could make such a mistake. But as we shall see later

1 98


on, chat posmon was already very difficult. Only with a sequence of only moves can Black stay in the game, while the computer is still hovering around the zero-mark. But after that pawn has been advanced, even the engines can see the desperate state of Black's position, thus alerting some lazy journalists to his problems and his "horrible mistake" . We have progressed far into the game, of course, but I wanted to explain my choice and the underlying considerations in detail, as this is one of the biggest decisions you can ever make at the chess board: to go against your seconds' recommendations in a World Championship match. Eventually I chose to go with my instincts and stepped into the unknown. Of course it was a hard choice and you can debate if it is bravery or stupidity to do so. In the real world this is of course decided by the result! I can imagine that my seconds would have been in another mood if I had lost after they had stayed up all night, going to bed only at seven o'clock in the morning (for two weeks in a row) . Obviously it could have been very embarrassing!

It comes down to this - I feel that I have to trust my intuition; it is j ust too difficult to work everything out.

1 2 ... 0-0 13 ..td3 h6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

14..th4 .ib7 In our preparation of this book we also checked I 4 . . . id7 to try to get rid of this problem bishop. A plausible variation could be: I 5 .lll e5 ib5 A natural strategic idea. 1 6.tll xb5 axb5 1 7.ixb5 E!xa2 1 8 .0-0

Chapter 4

-


Ac this point the computer is totally correct in pointing out 1 5 . . . if4! as the best move.

8

7

6

8

5

7

4

6

3

5

2

4 a

b

c

d

e

f

3

h

g

Here White is also better. Again the machine indicates we are close to equality, but the position could be very dangerous for Black. There are not a lot of positions left in chess where we can ignore the computer's opinion, but maybe this is one of chem. Noe that we would be able to beat the computer if we played on of course! Extremely often the computer will suggest moves that no human would consider. And when we do not feel it delivers us a clear understanding of why this move is good, I cannot see that it makes sense co follow its recommendations.

1 5.0-0

a

c

d

e

f

g

h

This is the second big moment of the game.

1 5 . WfbS? .

.

1 99

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

I do not think that this move looks logical, but it wins an important tempo by pushing the rook away from the c-line. Black wants to play . . . lll bd7, . . . a5 and lacer on . . . E:c8 and cake control of the c-line. The following shows how Black can use this extra time to solve his problems. 1 6.E:ce 1 Noe by any means the only square, but this is the nature of illustrative lines: they do not pretend to cover everything. 1 6 . . . lll bd7 Preparing to meet lll e5 and other moves with . . .W!b6 to put pressure on d4. 1 7.ig3 ixg3 1 8 .hxg3 a5

Black is ready for . . . ia6 with a decent game. I do not believe that White can cause Black any damage once the bishops are off the board. Ac least, we did not manage to find anything substantial in our analysis.


200

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

With the idea of transferring the knight to h5, which is also strong. I did not spot this idea during the game, but then I was not really looking for it. It does not look that strange and if I had looked closer in that direction, I am sure I would have found it. But as 1 6.ig3 felt quite promising I did not see a reason to look in a different direction.

b

a

c

d

f

e

h

g

16.i.g3 I had a reasonable think at this point twelve minutes. It is slightly surprising, as at such a moment I would usually think for longer. Maybe I was in good form? When I do not spend too much time on a choice and make a good decision, it is a clear sign of feeling decisive at the important moments. For others it might mean superficiality, but I do not think that is my problem too often. (Admittedly, some players try to even out their time consumption and spend the same amount of time on each move. Different players have different chess philosophies, which is hardly a surprise!) Anyway, it felt like an important moment. I liked my position and there is a real choice here. Either to play as I did or to give Black doubled pawns by taking on f6. After the game the computer indicated: 1 6.ixf6 gxf6 l 7.lt:Je2!

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Again it is impossible not to think of Rubinstein and the idea of a long plan, a red thread going through the game, exploiting a few factors to the maximum. I have a memory of thinking this thought during the game, but I am not entirely sure it was at this point. After my move it is clear that White is better. The bishop on b7 is nowhere.

16 ... �cS 17.�e2 i.xg3

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 8.hxg3 I also considered taking with the f-pawn, although it does not fit with the concept at all. It is a sort of knee-jerk reaction to the move order. Black could have taken on g3 immediately and then played . . . E:c8 . It is a sort of provocation when he chooses to do it the other way around. But at the end of the day, Black's problems are on the c-file, not the f-file.


1 8 �d6?! A natural-looking move and not one I suspected there was anything wrong with during the game. The queen goes to a better square and frees space for the rook. But in our analysis we went backwards again and again when we failed to solve Black's problems, and ended up deciding that he erred seriously on three occasions, on moves 1 5, 1 8 and 20. ...

l 8 . . . :B:c7 l 9 .:B:c2 V!fa7 was another idea that we considered seriously in our analysis and which also seemed to be a serious option during the game.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

20.V!ieS!? with the long-term idea of g4-g5 is interesting, but we found that Black is okay after 20 . . . i.c6! 2 1 .:B:fc l :B:ac8 22.Vfif4 lt'i c4 23.g4 V!ib6 24.lt'i d l i.b5 and all his pieces have made it to meaningful squares. Our conclusion is that White is to be preferred after: 20.:B:fc l :B:ac8 2 1 .Vfie l !

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

20 1

A brilliant move found by Alex in a similar position (see below) . White is using the queen to coordinate on the dark squares, in particular supporting the knight on c3, while the bishop and knight on c3 take care of the light squares. White has a tiny advantage, though if Vishy played his best chess then he would surely manage to neutralize it over time. But then, when Vishy plays his best chess he never loses! The trick is to make him uncomfortable enough to bring him out of his balance. I want to add an important point about . . . :B:c7 and . . . V!fa7. It is a rather deep idea and even though it might seem simple enough, it is not straightforward to guess that the queen is best placed on the obscure a7-square. It is only when we look longer at the position that we might see that it is aiming at the d4-pawn and making . . . i.c6-b5 a future possibility. Way too often people see such moves suggested to them by computers and somehow think that they are easy moves to find. This is far from the case! What often happens is that the explanation comes after being alerted to the computer's suggestion. The difficult thing in chess is to understand the important elements of a position before you know what the computer thinks is best!

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

1 9Jk2

b

c

d

e

f

g

h


202

White plays the most natural moves. Maybe this is a good place to point out that Black is on his way to having two bad pieces, the bishop on b7 and the knight on b6.

20 . . . ges is what I thought Vishy was plannin g . My idea was to play: 2 1 .llJa4 e5 22.dxe5 llJxe5

I briefly considered playing l 9.llJe5, but after 1 9 . . . gc7 20.gc2 llJ fd7! I could not see what I was meant to be doing.

19 �bd? Improving the position of the knight and defending the a6-pawn at the same time. ...

19 . . . a5 looks natural as well, but after 20.gfc l i t i s not s o easy fo r Black to contest the c-file.

20J:Uc1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

20 gabS?! This looks like a simple waste of time; the c-file is much more important. I believe Anand was already intending to take back on c8 with the bishop, and hoped that he would get some counterplay on the b-file - maybe even against the d4-pawn. However, it is not possible to see how this could actually happen in the real world, and we can now describe this as being simply too optimistic. But we should not be too hard on the World Champion. When all the options are unsatisfactory, it can be quite hard to choose between them. ...

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

It is by no means clear that Black has improved his position. The weaknesses on the queenside still exist and the bishop on b7 is still poor. On top of this the d5-pawn is now isolated. At the same time White is getting his knight to c5 and has control over the c-file. During the game I did not worry about this possibility. You can of course always add details, and certainly White will have to make more good moves to prove anything, but his position is nice. However, Black had another idea which was stronger: 20 . . . gc7 with the idea of doubling the rooks. I had not originally considered it much. I am not even sure I had realized that 2 1 .llJb5 does not work (as Black takes on c2 and c l , getting two rooks and the initiative for the queen) . As Anand played his move quickly, I did not have time to realize that it was an option until after the game. 8

7

6 5

4 3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Chapter 4

-

Transformation o f Pawn Structures

2 1 .Wfe l ! is Alex's nice discovery. The main idea is to play llia4 and control the dark squares (b4 and a5) while doing so. I like White's prospects. A possible way the play can continue is: 2 1 . . .�ac8 22.llia4 �xc2 23.i.xc2! 8

7

6 5

4

203

White has achieved a lot. I don't find it relevant to debate the size of the advantage. Rather what we should realize is chat Black's cask has really become difficult. White's play is straightforward and he has simple and easy goals, while Black will absolutely have to find something chat will change the course of the game, otherwise he will eventually face problems he will not be able to solve, as happened in the game.

2 1 tll e4?! Again not the best move, but Anand is following his plan of creating counterplay down the b-file. When you have already decided on a path, it is rare that you will change course. The reason for this is that players who double check their own conclusions have a tendency to do this often, wasting valuable time doing so and making poorer decisions later on in the games. Such a player is unlikely to ever become World Champion. •.•

3

2

b

a

c

d

e

f

h

g

White is ready to play b4 and lli c5 with an advantage. Notice that White should avoid exchanging the second rook, which would allow Black more freedom of movement in the long run. We can see how well placed the queen is on e l , j ust as we can observe chat Black has failed to solve the problem of his bishop.

2 1 .tll a4 I spent 1 6 minutes on this, even though it is the most natural move in the position. I had a full hour and wanted to be sure I was getting the most out of my position. As it turns out, there are a lot of other good moves, which is an indication of how well things have gone for White.

Still, 2 1 . . .lli e4 takes things from bad to worse. 2 1 . . .�xc2 This was a better option.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

22.�xc2! I was anticipating the exchange of rooks and was prepared to recapture with the queen, but 22.Wxc2 is the weaker option. After 22 . . . �c8 23.llic5 a5! Black is closer to equalizing, a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h


204

as shown in quite detailed analysis by Alex Huzman. I probably underestimated the final move, but honestly, I cannot remember exactly what I was thinking at this point. The critical position arises after: 22 . . . i.c6 23.tlJc5 i.b5 8

to get rid of his poor bishop or improve his pawn structure. This case lies between the two. Black has got rid of the bishop, but White's pawn structure has improved! Also, the white knight is a good deal better than its counterpart. A typical illustration of the transformation of advantages.

22.gxcSt hc8 Just when it seemed implausible, Black's bishop got worse.

7

6 5

4

On 22 . . . 13xc8 I was planning on playing: 23.13xc8t hc8 24.i.xe4 dxe4 2 5 .�xe4

3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White has several interesting options: 24.tlJe5 24.i.xb5 13xb5 2 5 . tlJ d3 also looks good for White. 24 . . .i.xd3 2 5 . tlJ cxd3 �b6 26.tlJc5 This is great for White. Probably Black is forced to play: 26 . . . tlJxc5 27.dxc5 �c7

8

7

6 5

4 3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

During the first Petrosian - Spassky match, Armenian radio reported that "in the opinion of International Master Eduard Mnacakanian, White has an extra pawn." Here the same is the case. Black's bishop is poor and the d5-square offers nowhere near sufficient consolation for the material deficit.

8

7

6 5

4 3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White has a significant advantage, which cannot easily be neutralized. An important point is that White had a better pawn structure all along, but in all the lines we have seen where Black equalized, he managed

The engines have a different opinion, stating that this was the lesser evil. Arguing with computers makes no sense, but of course the position is won. Anand's idea might have been to give up a pawn, but I honestly did not consider taking the pawn for even a moment. White is probably better, but it is not a positive transformation at all.


b

a

d

c

f

e

g

h

23.1'c2! There is nothing wrong with this move, but I would like to add that from the live commentary room Leko and Karpov suggested an equally strong move: 23.Wfe l ! with the idea 23 . . . .ib7 24.Wa5! , when White has great control over the dark squares on the queenside. If Black tries to contest the c-file with 24 . . . E:c8 he is faced with: 25 .E:xc8t .ixc8

205

I can see a point to . . . g5, which could be to provoke White to do something crazy, like taking on e4 in better circumstances than on the previous move. It reminds me a bit of a discussion I had with the father of one of the top young players a few years ago. I had a winning ending against someone who laid quite a cunning trap for me. I discovered the trick and found a better way to deal with the issue and quickly won the game. This father told me in an offhand remark that I was lucky that my opponent had made such a poor move, allowing me to win quickly. I tried to explain that I really did not care how long it took for me to win the game, but only about the certainty of a win . And in that respect, a well-laid trap was probably the best chance to alter the course of the game. But the old man would have none of it. You should always play the best move, no matter what, he insisted. Although I do not necessarily disagree with this statement, I think we should not allow the engines to define "the best move" , but be more intelligent about it. If Black plays 23 . . . .ib7, I would play 24.llJc5 and Black's position is simply bad.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

26.Wd8t Wf8 27.Wfc7! Black is completely tied down. Very impressive indeed.

23 g5?! Everyone criticized this move, which is indeed bad, but as we have seen it is by no means solely responsible for Black's problems. I guess the issue is partly that it was around this point that the engines started to understand the serious state of affairs that Black is facing. •••

The best chance for Black is 23 . . . llJdf6, but after 24.llJc5 Black has to take. 24 . . . llJxc5 Here it is possible to take with the queen, but it feels quite natural to play: 2 5 . dxc5 Wfc7 26.Wfc3 8

7

6 5

4 3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h


206

White has a big advantage. He is intending co play c5-c6 and in other ways slowly squeeze Black against the edge of the board until he flattens entirely. Obviously the computer tries to find some resources here, but we should not forget that it is the job of engines to suggest moves, even when no good options exist.

This was the only idea I could find for Black, as returnin g to c8 looks particularly grim. Here White can take on d7, meeting . . ..ic6 by taking on f7, with a great ending, but I was more minded to play simple chess with 28.b4 and 29.llJc5, cementing White's hold on the position.

25J�xc7 We can now say for sure that the bishop on c8 has never got into the game. White is technically winning. 25 £6 As said, I was expecting this. •••

25 . . . llJ df6 allows 26.llJe5, when Black has no good moves.

b

a

c

d

f

e

g

h

24.Y!Yc7 Of course I could also play 24.llJc5 with a big advantage, but I saw 26 . .ixe4 in the game continuation and decided there was no reason not to stick to the plan. 24...Y!Yxc7 I saw the following line during the game: 24 . . . .ib? 25 . .ixe4 Vffxc7 26 . .ih?t! �xh7 27 .�xc7 �g7!?

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

' -� " � �� ,,,,,Y,� :@�.i'% ��-� : ,��.,, ..,, ��l% �� ----�4 �a-!ir� � 3 ��n� £��J� � 2 � 8 r,,,,,Z � �• �••r�z�8 � I

a

b

� � c

, , ,

d

� e

f

� ,

0�

g

h

26.he4! This was my plan and is the first major change to the pawn structure since the early opening. With the bishop stuck on c8 and with no route for the knight on d7 to make it to d5, the change favours only White, who can transfer his ineffective knight on f3 to the weak dark squares in the black camp via the newly available c4-square. 26 ... dxe4 27.�d2 f5 28.filc4 filf6 28 . . . .ib? is pointless due to 29.llJa5!.

Chapter 4

-

32.�c6 gxb2 33Jk7

29.�c5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

b

a

d

c

f

e

g

h

The moment of absolute triumph for White's strategic idea. I have to admit to feeling great pleasure looking at the knight's dominance over the bishop.

29 ... � d5 30.ga7 � b4 3 1 .� e5?! I have to admit to making a mistake here. I should have played: 3 l .llid6! llid5 32.b3 8

1

6 s

4

3

2

207


. ... � � · . r- - �� .,�. � , -· �z-, .,,,,(".· ·····� �w--�'IJ � m•• • r� · �� ',. . . :� r� � · · · "� �� · � , � ,�!� �-�· · �_�� .... . �r: -r ..

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Black is entirely dominated and White wins without effort. In the game Black could have created some practical problems for me.

3 1 . .. �c2!? Typical Anand. The moment a practical opportunity arises, he takes it without hesitation.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

b

a

d

c

f

e

g

h

33 .. J�bl t?! This makes it easy for me, showing that Anand had lost hope. A better chance was: 33 . . . e3! 34.l:!xc8t 'it>h7 3 5 .l:!c?t 'it>h8 The first time I looked through the game I did not manage to find a clear win here, which clearly illustrates what type of challenge we are talking about. 8

7

6 5

4 2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

It turns out that White is winning by force, but he has to find a beautiful tactical idea: 36.llid7!! With the idea of lli f6 and l:!h7#. 36 . . . 'it>g? 37.llide5t 'it>h8 37 . . . 'it>g8


208

35J�xc8t @h7 36Jk7t @hs 37.tl)es 37.lll d7 works as in the previous comment. 37 e2 The last small trap, hoping that I would check on g6 before taking on e6, after which . . . �h l t would win for Black. •••

For a brief moment I became nervous about 37 . . . exf.2 38.llixe6 fl =lll t, before I realized that the king escapes easily with 39.
38.tl)xe6!

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

39.lll g6t
34.
1-0 Anand resigned, giving me my first and so far only win in a World Championship match. I am proud to say that I managed to do this by playing in the style of Akiba Rubinstein from the beginning until the end.

Chapter 5 Transformation of Advantages

Maya, Avner, Avita! and Boris

210


Breaking it down, there are several types of advantages - extra material; having the more active pieces; having a better pawn structure; two bishops against bishop and kni ght - and so on. The way that theoretically inclined people like to divide this up is into two types of advantage:

Static advantage: An advantage that has a lasting quality. It could be a better pawn structure, extra space, extra material, bishops against knights and so on. Things that will be there ten moves later unless something drastic happens. In general, if you have an advantage like this, you are hoping it will help you to win the game - though good moves will always be necessary of course! Dynamic advantage: An advantage dependent on time. The simplest form is a lead in development. We also have an attack on the king and the initiative in general. Dynamic advantages have a tendency to be unstable. The attack may quickly disappear if, for example, the attacker is too deliberate in the execution and so on.

Conversion in theory A game can be won only in a few ways. Besides the opponent overstepping the time limit, they are all versions of eventual checkmate. Whether it is on the next move or in fifty moves does not matter. Resignation comes in the belief that mate cannot be avoided indefinitely. A draw is agreed in the belief that mate cannot be achieved. But then mate can happen in a few different ways. It can happen after a long fight, for example when the last pawn on the board is promoted, after which queen and king gang up on the opponent's king. Or it can happen in the opening or middlegame with a strike on an insufficiently guarded king.

The conversion of an advantage is when we give up one type of advantage in order to gain another type of advantage. When we have a static advantage, it is common to convert it at some point, hoping to increase our advantage or to gain an advantage that can be more easily exploited. For example, we can give up an extra exchange in order to cripple the opponent's pawn structure. Or we can exploit one of the advantages of the bishop pair by choosing a profitable moment to exchange one of the bishops in order to create weaknesses in the opponent's position. Conversion from a static advantage into a dynamic advantage, or vice versa, is quite common. Giving up a pawn for an attack, or giving up the attack in order to secure an extra pawn; these can both be easily imagined. However, we rarely see the exchange of one dynamic advantage for another dynamic advantage. Most players would probably find it difficult to think of one, myself included. An important point about dynamic advantages is that we need to make something of them before they disappear. They are unstable. A lead in development will either grow or decrease; and if we do not manage to convert it into mate or a static advantage, the opponent will get his pieces out and our advantage will be gone.

Conversion in practice The main principle of exploiting an advantage is to remain flexible. It is rare that we are able to win a game based on one strategic idea. It was possible in previous times - you can find beautiful games from Petrosian, Borvinnik and Rubinstein based on one idea. But these days it is nearly impossible; the level of defence has gone up. In short, our opponents have a tendency to resist!

Chapter 5

-

Transformation of Advantages

For this reason, we will at times change the nature of our advantage. An extra pawn might be sacrificed, in order to improve our pieces. Or if we have been able to put our opponent under pressure because of our better pawn structure, we might use that to create attacking opportunities. Conversely, our attack might be going well, but by changing our focus, we can win a pawn and win the game in technical style. The constellations are not infinite; I am sure it would be possible to set up a table with all the possible transitions. But it would be large and not at all useful for the practical player. For us it is essentially important to keep an open mind and look out for the options chat suggest themselves to us during the game. These transitions are very concrete and we have to follow the requirements of the position; try to solve the problems in the way they demand, not the way we would prefer. To summarize, we should not be dogmatic and stick to our plan at all costs, but should instead be ready to exploit all the possibilities we are offered. I know this sounds a bit like we should play good moves, but we will see in the games that there is a bit more meat on the bones than j ust this. Choosing to change the nature of the position is often quite a serious decision and we should not take it lightly. At times it will come as a natural extension of our plan and at times it will come as an option we did not expect, but that we should consider seriously.

The transformations of Rubinstein In this chapter I have included four games by Rubinstein and a few games of my own, illustrating typical scenarios that someone playing in this classical sryle will encounter. As you will see, Rubinstein was really good at some types of transformation, the ones that

21 1

came at the end of a plan, exemplified by moves 1 9 and 28 of the following game against one of the greatest chess thinkers of all time.

Akiba Rubinstein - Aron Nimzowitsch Berlin 1 928

l .d4 ttJf6 2.c4 e6 3.ttJc3 i.b4 4.°1Wc2 d6 5.e3 c5 6.i.d3 lbc6 7.ttJge2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This game sees two big pioneers in this opening in battle against each other. Nimzowitsch obviously invented Black's defence, while 4.e3 is named after Rubinstein. His main idea was to play tlige2 and win the bishop pair without getting doubled pawns.

7 e5 8.d5 i.xc3t We see here that we are in the early years of this system. Nimzowitsch often gave up the bishop on c3 unprovoked, while these days Black will most often look from a concession from White before giving up the bishop: either giving him a doubled pawn, or at least getting him to spend a tempo on playing a2-a3 . •.•

9.°1Wxc3 ttJe7 I 0.°1Wc2 0-0 1 1 .0-0 ttJg6 12.ttJg3 ge8 1 3.8 i.d7 14.i.d2 a6 15.h3 b5 16.b3 °1Wb6 17.@h2 a5 1 8.gabl

Positional Decision Makin g i n Chess

212

8

7

6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White has done well out of the opening. He has the two bishops, which will especially be beneficial on the dark squares where the bishop is stronger than the knight. On top of this he also has a space advantage, which he can use to put pressure on the kingside.

18 ... b4 19.f4! The main purpose of this move is to open the diagonal from b2 to g7.

:i ll11fi � �L/. "/j,,,J� ' '"'<-� '� �%'1ij 6 � �� ·'!I)� -,- , /,-�/,S' " "� 4 'VL\.'11 " '� 1111 3 -�'11 '• '� fj 2 f.fB ".'E W " l•'""�� lB'" " s

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

19 ... exf4 It is an interesting question what Rubinstein would have done if Black had played: 1 9 . . . a4 I suspect that he would have played slowly, closing the position with 20.f5 in order to

use his space advantage on the kingside. It seems likely that this is not enough to win the game against accurate defence, according to my analysis. In the 1 930s and 1 940s it became more and more common for players to sacrifice the exchange and the compensation that could be achieved became better and better understood. A few World Champions added additionally to this knowledge, each in their own way. Petrosian showed how the exchange sacrifice could give a long-term advantage, even in the defence, while Kasparov and later Topalov and Anand showed the dynamic potential. Here it is the dynamic factors that are in play: 20.fxe5 It now seems natural to bring the knight on g6 into the centre, but actually it is well placed where it is, defending the kingside. 20 . . . lll xe5 ? 2 0 . . . l'!xe5 2 l .l'!xf6!? gxf6 22.l'!fl also offers White a good game, though Black is much better placed to offer a serious defence.

�� !i %fl. � :i illl ,,,/ ?,iW .. ��l ��P' r� �a1 � , ,,,•lr• - -�� !•��.. .. � 3

6 5

4

2

-� r;{� � � -�� ..if� • � m '/ , ,

:"./

/,

�-

1� - - -�� 1� '' "

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

2 l .l'!xf6! lll xd3 It is necessary for Black to include this move. 22.�xd3 gxf6 23.lll h5 �d8 24.e4! The upside of Black having taken on d3 is revealed. However, if Black had not exchanged on d3, White would win quickly with l'!fl , but here Black would be able to throw in . . .f5 muddling things up. 24 . . . mhs 2s .�f3 l'!gs 26.�c I !

Chapter 5

-


213

Th e threat of ib2 forces Black to close the queenside. 26 . . . a3 27.l.Wxf6t l.Wxf6 28.tt::l xf6 l"i:gd8 29.ih6

� � �-% � • 1 �� •A•�l�t : � �J�� ,�� 8

4

3

2

-�%·� '-� � � -� � �%•,-�-.�-�m 1� �� , , a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White wins. Black will have to return the exchange as he has no way to prevent Ei:fl -f3-g3 with the idea of ig7#. The opposite-coloured bishop ending offers Black no hope, as the white bishop will eat all four black pawns on the queenside one after the other.

20.exf4 .!tJ fS

Again Rubinstein has improved his position, slowly but surely. There are now many ways for White to further improve his position, but Rubinstein solved the Gordian knot by giving up his best piece in return for getting his knight to a beautiful central square.

2s.i.xf6!! Wxf6 29 . .!lJ e4 Wh6 Not only are the white pieces excellently placed, it is also not easy to imagine worse squares for the black pieces. 30.fS Black's queen is in trouble and he will quickly find it impossible to defend the pawn on d6. 30 ... ga3 3 1 .gbl ga6 The only way to defend against f5-f6. 32.g4! f6 33.@g3

2 1 ...Wds 22.Wfl a4 23.�b2 llig6 24J�bdl axb3 25.axb3 ga7 26.gdel gxel 27.gxel llif8

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

214


The rest is easy. There is a final transformation of the position on move 36 with a nice little combination, but it is not difficult to understand or to calculate, so we need not spend a lot of time on it.

33 i.cS 34J!! e l i.b7 35.'1We2 llid7 36.llixd6! :1:!!xd6 37.'IWeSt llif8 38.:1:!! e7 g6 39.'1Wf7t c.!lhs 40.:1:!! es :1:!! ds 41 .'1Wxf6t c.!lgs 42.'1We6t c.!lg7 43.f6t 1-0 .•.

A

fantastic game; Rubinstein at his best. But it is not always the case that we are able to carry out our plans in this way, to fully mobilize our forces and then choose which way we want to change the position. Our opponents have plans of their own, and will try to impose their will onto us. This can lead to great complications where we need to calculate and evaluate things at a deep level in order to make the best move. I do not want to give the impression that Rubinstein - nor I for that matter - always solved this kind of problem perfectly. He had a tendency to go for the more technical positions which arose from his calculation. In the following game Rubinstein brings in all his pieces before having to make a big decision on move 1 6. As we shall see, his bias towards technical positions proved quite effective, but his decision was not truly accurate.

Akiba Rubinstein - Grigory Levenfish Karlsbad 1 9 1 1

1 .d4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.llic3 llif6 4.i.g5 i.e7 5.e5 llifd7 6.i.xe7 '1Wxe7 7.'1Wd2 0-0 8.f4 c5 9.llif3 f6 10.exf6 '1Wxf6 1 1 .g3 llic6 1 2.0-0-0 a6 This looks too slow. 13.i.g2

Black has made a few too many concessions in the opening and White has an advantage with the weak square on e5 and the weak pawn on e6.

13 lli b6!? Black is looking for activity. Simplification with l 3 . . . cxd4 l 4.llixd4 lli xd4 l 5 .°1Wxd4 '1Wxd4 1 6.:B:xd4 tll c5 1 7.:B:e l gives White a technical advantage, playing right to Rubinstein's preference. Still, this might have been the best way for Black to play. •.•

14.:1:!! h el 1 4.dxc5! was stronger, the engine tells us. 14 llic4 1 5.'!Wfl b5?! l 5 . . . g5!? would have introduced a bit of chaos into the game. Black is still struggling, but this might have been a better practical choice. .•.

This is the first critical moment of the game. Rubinstein decides to play into his opponent's hands, certain that he has seen farther. It is not clear that this is actually the case, as we shall see.

Chapter 5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

-

Transformation of Advan tages

215

more complicated, principled line, because it left the position in chaos, even if Black took on e5 instead of d4.

16 llixb2 17.©xb2 b4 18.�d4 bxc3t 19.©al �xd4 20.°!Wxd4 The second critical moment of the game has arisen. Black has a last chance to find counterplay against White's passed c-pawn. After he fails to do so, there is no way back. •••

a

f

e

c

h

g

16.dxc5!? Rubinstein is following his idea, which was good enough to win the game. With modern eyes, squared from watching the monitor, we can see that White had a more concrete approach in 1 6.llie5!, when Black has to take on e5, leaving him struggling. Probably Rubinstein rejected this natural move on account of I 6 . . . llixd4, failing to see that he can reach a winning position after: I 7.llixc4 bxc4

20 J�b8? With this natural-looking move Black fails to realize that it was the critical moment of the game. By missing it, Black loses his last chance to resist. 20 . . . '!Wxd4 2 1 .�xd4 �a7! was the only chance. ••

8 7

�..t W@ � •• ""� � � ��

.,Y.. �.,.z·�� -�� .- - -� � z� � � � 5 �_�mv.� l�z��z� � �,, ��8�--� --� �.:r � %. �

6

"'"

�. . . .

4

3

.....

"

-

.....

2

a

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

l 8 .llixd5! exd5 l 9.J.xd5t J.e6 20.�xd4! White ends up a pawn ahead. Rubinstein's decision leads by forced play to an endgame where he has the better bishop and everything is under control. It is natural to suspect that Rubinstein either gravitated towards this outcome due to his preference for fixed pawn structures, or just rejected the

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

After 22.�e3 �c7 23.�xc3 J.d7 24.ifl a5;!; Black will win the pawn back, but he still has an inferior structure. Rubinstein would have enjoyed this endgame for sure, but the outcome of it is by no means clear.

2U�e3 g5 22.l::l xc3 gxf4 23.gxf4 i.d7 23 . . . �xf4 loses to 24.�g3t. 24.c6 '!Wxd4 25Jhd4 i.e8 26.i.h3 �!:£6 27.c7 l::l c8 28.gxd5 gxc7 29.he6t 1-0 Quite an interesting game, although Levenfish did not show his best chess.

Position al Decision Making i n Chess

216

In the next game Rubinstein plays rather carelessly after getting a better position from the opening. le is hard to imagine that any player rated over 2200 today would ever make the mistake Rubinstein commits on move 1 7. Actually, you will find only a limited number of games where Rubinstein makes this kind of mistake! Bue we should not forget chat this game was played decades before Boleslavsky, Bronstein and others developed the King's Indian and added a lot of dynamic dimensions to the understanding of chess. Rubinstein's play on this move is certainly sloppy, but maybe also coloured by his love for having a space advantage. However, the most interesting moments occur at moves 25-27, where Rubinstein takes the initiative, not caring for unimportant pawns.

Akiba Rubinstein Carl Schlechter -

Berlin 1 9 1 8

White has a nice advantage from the opening , but at this point Rubinstein's great understanding of chess fails him. Too eager to prevent . . . b5, he ruins his pawn structure on the queenside.

17.a4? I do not truly understand why Rubinstein was afraid of . . . b5. After something like l 7.if3 b5 1 8 .b3 Black has only managed to weaken himself. 17 ... aS! Black is already doing well, but Rubinstein decides to move forward. 1 8.fS c!lic5 19.if4 iffi 20.ia The critical moment of the game. Schlechter no doubt realized this, but his solution did not work. 20 c!Lifd7? A pawn sacrifice, which we will evaluate later on. •..

I .d4 c!Lif6 2.c!Lif3 d6 3.c4 ig4 4.c!lic3 c!li bd7 5.h3 La 6.exf3 As we have already discussed in the Gelfand - Campora game on page 1 09, this system was not really developed at this time. Lacer on ideas with . . . g6 were invented. 6 ... e5 7.ie3 c6 8.ie2 ie7 9.0-0 0-0 10.�c2 �c7 l I .B:adl exd4 1 2.ixd4 B:fe8 13.f4 B:ad8 14.B:d2 a6 15.B:fdl c!Lif8 16.ie3 c!lie6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

20 . . . Wb6! 8

1

6 5 4

3

2

�

�� i. �·

·��-· �. Y.� -,�w�jW'ffii � ; J i Ii� /. � - , /.��l � � l%�:w' l· '�:w � � � t::i m m:r l!�j�ll�!jlj �

:W�n� �er�

� a

b

�

,.

B I! � � c

d

e

f

g

h

This is the move a player from the 2 1 st century would choose. White would have to find the amazing 2 1 .ie3!? as a prophylactic idea against Black's main threat of 2 1 . . .Wb4. White then has 22.lll a2! forcing Black backwards on account of 22 . . . Wxa4 23.Wxa4 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Chapter 5

-

lll xa4 2 4. . b 3 and Black would have to give up an exchange on e3 in order to continue the game. It would be with full compensation, of course . . . Obviously w e should also check the natural idea of winning the d6-pawn. 2 l . .ixd6? .ixd6 22.l:!xd6 l:!xd6 23.l:!xd6 would of course give Black enough compensation after 23 . . . Wb4, but Black has the even stronger: 23 . . . l:!e 1 t 24.iih2 Wc7 25 .Wd2

� � �-". � !. ,,. % , ·%��---

6 5

4

3

2

� " V. ' � � - �8 � ·8"a',8· 'a . � 1� 8 �� - - B. �. !� . . . /..,,. . . /.� - - -� �

/.

b

a

c

d

e

f

g

217


h

is instead left with an 'Irish pawn centre', of little value in a queen endgame. At least this is what Schlechter had imagined. But Rubinstein found a fantastic way of transforming his extra pawn into a dynamic advantage with the sequence over the next three moves.

25.�e4! gxdl t 26.'flYxdl b6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

25 . . . l:!fl !! and the endgame after 26.g3 l:!xf2t 27.Wxf2 Wxd6 is probably just straight out lost for White.

27.'ffd4!! White gives up the a-pawn, but is able to centralize his queen and create real threats against the black kin g .

21 .hd6 i.xd6 22J�xd6 �e5 23J�xd8 �xf3t 24.gxf3 gxd8

27.lll xcS bxc5 would give Black good drawing chances.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

27 ... �xa4? After both 27 . . . We7 28.f6± and 27 . . . lll d7 28.f6± with the idea 28 . . . g6? 29.Wd2! White would have a big advantage. However, Black could have offered more resistance with 27 . . . lll xe4 28.fxe4 f6, though White has good winning chances after 29.cS! .

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White has won Black's weak pawn, but

28.£6 � c5 Black's position is without real hopes of salvation, for example: 28 . . . g6 29.Wd2 Wc8 30.b3! lll c5 3 1 .lll xcS bxc5


218

47 . . . c3 48.a6 c2 49.a7 c l =� 50.a8=� White is winning as shown by the tablebases.

29.�xc5 bxc5

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Here we have an interesting branching point. I am sure that Rubinstein would have chosen the straightforward 32.�xa5 winning the endgame with simple play. But the pawn ending resulting from forced play is fascinating: 32.�h6!? �f8 33 .�xf8t lt>xf8 34.lt>g2 lt>e8 35.lt>g3 lt>d7 36.lt>f4 lt>e6 37.lt>g5 lt>e5 38.lt>h6! White has to act quickly, otherwise Black gets counterplay with . . . lt>d4. 38 . . . lt>xf6

39.f4!! 39. lt>xh7 lt>e5 40. lt>g7 lt>d4 4 1 . lt>xf7 lt>c3 42.lt>xg6 lt>xb3 43.f4 a4 would offer Black enough counterplay to save the game. 39 . . . 'itif5 40. lt>xh7 lt>xf4 4 1 . lt>g7 lt>e4 42. lt>xf7 'itid4 43.'itixg6 a4 43 . . . lt>c3 44.h4 and White wins by a tempo. 44.bxa4 lt>xc4 45.f4 lt>b3 46.f5 c4 47.a5! 47.f6 c3 leads to a draw.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Rubinstein's technique is excellent in what follows, leaving his opponent without any real chances of saving the game.

30.Vfg4 g6 3 1 .Vfg3 Vfd8 32.Yfe5 a4 33.h4 h6 34.©g2 Yfc8 35.©g3 Vfd8 36.©g2 Yfc8 37.Yfxc5 Yfe6 38.Yfe7 Yfc8 39.c5 g5 40.hxg5 hxg5 41 .Vfe3 Vfe6 42.Yfxg5t ©t'8

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

43.Yf g7t ©e8 44.VfgSt ©d7 45.Yfg4! ©e8 46.Vfxe6t fxe6 47.©g3 @f7 48.©f4 ©xf6 49.©e4 1-0

Chapter 5 - Transformation of Advantages In the initial stages of the following game, Rubinstein's play is most impressive, yet it is the rook ending that is surely the most interesting part. In a game filled with strategic, tactical and technical challenges, these two giants of early chess history battle their way to move 76. As you would expect, not all decisions on the way were the best possible, but the high quality of the play is undeniable.

Akiba Rubinstein - Alexander Alekhine Karlsbad I 9 1 I

In this game Rubinstein built up a strong centre and space advantage. On the other hand, Black was very solid, so it was not so easy to make something of this advantage.

1 .d4 d5 2.�f3 �f6 3.c4 c6 4.lLJc3 °1Wb6 5.°1Wc2 i.g4 6.i.g5 �bd7 7.e3 lLJ e4 8 ..if4 e6 9 ..id3 °1Wa5 10.0-0 lLJxc3 1 1 .bxc3 i.xf3 1 2.gxf3 dxc4 13.i.xc4 �b6 14.°1Wb3 gds 15.i.e2 i.d6 16.i.g3 hg3 17.hxg3 0-0 1 8.f4

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This is where the opening ends and the middlegame starts. If we look at this with modern eyes, we would not rate White's chances to be that extraordinary. If Black

219

were to play . . . l'!d7 immediately and simply improve his position slowly, he would have a solid and defendable position. Accurate play would still be needed, as White's small pluses are still valid, of course, but the game goes on.

1 8 ... c5? Alekhine has played a lot of natural moves and at this point it looks natural to advance the c-pawn. However, White's centre is very solid so all this move achieves is to weaken the f3-b7 diagonal and the b5-square. 19 ..if3 gd7 20.a4! We can now see the problems caused by l 8 . . . c5. Black's position is suddenly unpleasant. 20 ... � d5 2 I JUc1 g6 22.°1Wb5! White also had the chance to play 22.f5!?, but this was less in keeping with Rubinstein's style.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

c

d

e

f

g

h

The next key moment. After this move Black is faced with an unpleasant choice - to exchange queens or to allow White to advance the a-pawn further and put the b-pawn under pressure.

22 ...°1Wxb5?


220

For tactical reasons this is the inferior choice. I have the feeling that Alekhine assessed the resulting ending as solid and defendable, but Rubinstein shows that this is not the case. 22 . . .Vfic7 23.�ab l is unpleasant for Black, but it was the lesser evil.

23.axb5 cxd4 24.cxd4? The most obvious positional move, but here Rubinstein missed a chance to improve his position greatly. I have already mentioned this once; Rubinstein was not very flexible and would rarely deviate from his strategic goals. He could have played: 24.c4! lli b6 (24 . . . lli e7 25.�xa7) 25 .c5! lli c8 26.exd4

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

With a technically winning position. I am not sure if it was Nimzowitsch or Lasker who said about Rubinstein that he could at times be too slow, but on the other hand he would never force matters prematurely.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

27.ixd5! It looks odd that White gives his strong bishop away, but as Black has to take with the pawn, his structure is weakened further and fixed in an awkward position. The transformative power of White's advantage is clear. 27... exdS 28.gacl White enjoys a big advantage. Black has weak pawns on a7, d5 and h7 to look after. Rubinstein loved to have this kind of permanent advantage where he could massage his opponent indefinitely. And then he was of course famous for his skills in rook endgames. 28 ... gfdS 29. @fl @e7 30. @e2 gd6 3 l .g6c3 g6d7 32. @d3 gas 33.gc6 gd6

24... b6 I am pretty sure that Alekhine believed that his position was a fortress, with j ust one weakness and a lack of entry points in the position. But Rubinstein manages to outmanoeuvre him.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Chapter 5

-


Up to this point Rubinstein has played a great game, but from here on his play is less impressive. Now, more than a hundred years later, it is of course difficult to guess why. Maybe he had not slept well; maybe it was something he ate. The possibilities are endless when once you get going. But the most accurate statement is simply that he did not handle the endgame well on this occasion. This is not a j udgement on his strength, as top grandmasters today also play badly on occasion, which reminds me of Grischuk saying that he did not fully understand why I am so infatuated with Rubinstein's games. In his kind words, I am apparently a much better player than Rubinstein was. Even if you were thinking this was the case, it certainly was not the case when I bought Razuvaev's book! Or in Jacob Aagaard's words: It was only by climbing on top of Akiba's shoulders that I was able to j ump into the world elite and make my own mark on modern chess history - however faint.

34.@e2? I have no idea why Rubinstein allowed Black to exchange a set of rooks. It made more sense to wait and try to improve the position further.

22 1

36.8 Another careless move? Rubinstein appears not only blind to his opponent's chance to create counterplay with the a-pawn, but he also weakens the e-pawn. However, as we shall see, Rubinstein had a deep prophylactic idea. An important point is that after 36.@d3 Black can force a draw with 36 . . . l3c8!. The pawn ending is surprisingly a draw even after: 37.l3xc8 ©xc8 38.f3 ©b7 39.e4 a5 40.bxa6t ©xa6 4 1 .eS

� �� , =� ,�

. . . ?.� �W% �� jpj� �� 4 - � � � �� -�%%�� . , . , . %� ��-zr� �� 6 5

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Usually we would assume that White would have great winning chances if he was able to exchange his e-pawn for the black b-pawn and get his king to c6.

34.13c7t l3d7 3 5 .l37c2 and White keeps a big advantage. He can always choose to exchange rooks when it best suits him.

34 .. J�xc6 35J�xc6 @d7

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Surely Black would end up in zugzwang? But in this case Black would actually be winning with a series of thematic breaks with . . . h5, ... g5 and . . . f4, allowing the h-pawn to run up the flank to promotion. White can stay back a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h


222

with the king and avoid defeat, but there is no advantage to speak of. Rubinstein realized this and thus prepared to push his e-pawn with 36.f3 . Black would now lose the pawn ending after: 36 . . . :B:c8? 37.:B:xc8 c;t>xc8 38.e4!

b

a

c

d

e

f

g

h

37 . . . lt>c7!! This is the really surprising move. The black king needs to get across to the b-file so it can attack the b-pawn. 38 .:B:c6t lt>b7 39.lt>d3 a4 40.c;t>c2 The white kin g is in time to block the a-pawn, but Black can play either 40 . . . :B:e8 or 40 . . . :B:a5 4 1 .:B:c5 a3 42.lt>b l a2t b

a

c

d

e

f

g

h

Black does not have time to create counterplay on the queenside and White can slowly penetrate on the kingside. However, there is another drawback that the great men apparently did not notice.

7

6 5

4 2

5 4 3 2

b

a

c

d

e

f

g

h

43.lt>al :B:a3 Black gains enough counterplay to equalize.

37.i>d3 ge7 38.g4 ge6?!

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

36 .. JfoS? Alekhine misses his chance to create counterplay. 36 . . . a5! would have led to a draw. This move was originally proposed by Spielmann, but the saving idea was not known until our age: 37.:B:xb6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Chapter 5

-

Alekhine is apparently convinced that White's last move made the pawn endin g tenable for him. And Rubinstein agrees!

39.gcl?! But just because two legends think alike, it does not mean that they are right. White wins after: 39.l:!xe6! @xe6

@d6 45.f5 h4 46.f6 and the pawns no longer need support from the white kin g. 42.e5 t @e6 The protected passed pawn is a decisive asset. White wins in a further 20 moves in a logical and forced sequence. 43.@e3 @f7 44.@f2 @e7 45.cilg3 c;!/f7 46.@h4 @g6

a

40.gxfSt! 40.e4? dxe4t 4 I .fxe4 fxg4! leads to a draw with both kings being pacified by two connected passed pawns. 40 . . . gxf5 40 . . . @xf5 4 I .@e2 and the white king comes to the kingside and wins. 4 1 .e4 @d6 4 1 . . .dxe4t 42.fxe4 fxe4t 43.@xe4 h5 could be what Alekhine was relying on.

�

6 5

4 3

2

-� �� =� �� . . . ?.. . . . . . 7. � �� -% ��)'% �£ � 1��7. � � . 7.� � � �� B � � �� ..

.

.

a

b

c

.....

..

d

e

f

g

h

223


But White can advance his pawns decisively before dealing with the h-pawn: 44.d5t

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

47.e6! @f6 48.@h5 @xe6 49.@g5 ! cile7 50.@xf5 @f7 5 I .@g5 @g7 52.f5 @f7 53.@h6 @f6 54.@xh7 @xf5 5 5 . @g7 @f4 56.@f6 @xf3 57.@e5 @e3 5 8.@xd5 @d3 59.@e5 @c4 60.d5 @xb5 6 1 .d6 @c6 62.@e6 White wins. It is easy to understand why Rubinstein played as he did. In the game he retained the advantage and allowed Black to make mistakes under pressure. Going for the pawn ending without the certainty provided by the en gine is not an easy choice. Calculating these lines would be difficult, even for today's top players .

39 .. J:le7 40J:lhl ci>e6 White retains a serious advantage in the rook ending. It is possible that Black could draw it with accurate play, but in practice the position is hard to defend. 4Ukl ci>d7 42.gel gf7 43.flal ci>d6 44.Ekl ci>d7 45.gc6 gm


224

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

52.ci>h4? 52.gxh5 gxh5 53.\!?h4 was much stronger. Black cannot defend the h-pawn successfully, as after 53 . . .l;h? 54.\!?g5 h4 5 5 .@xf5 h3 56.E:c l the counterplay with the h-pawn is an illusion. White's material advantage decides the game. •••

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Rubinstein has shuffled his rook about a bit and is now ready to go with the king to the kingside to force Black to make concessions. Again we can see that although he has missed some of the subtleties, Rubinstein's vision for the rook ending of a better pawn structure where Black has no counterplay has dominated the game.

46.ci>e2 �U'7 47.ci>fl �us 48.ci>g3 ges 49.gc3 ge7 50.ci>h4 It is not feasible for Black to allow the king to come to g5, but it is not pleasant moving the h-pawn either. 50 h6 5 1 . ci>g3 h5 ..•

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

52 gh7? This often happens in chess and you will also be able to see it in my games in this book. Once a player has decided co go down one path, his opponent does not consider a possible change of path. Here Black should have played 52 . . . hxg4 53.fxg4 E:h7t with a transposition to the game. 53.ci>gS? And White again could have won the game with 53.gxf5 gxf5 54.l!?g5! . But as said, both players were mentally committed in a certain direction and probably made the moves rather quickly. 53 fxg4 54.fxg4 hxg4 55.ci>xg4 ghl •••

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White of course has the advantage in this rook endgame. He is more active and has only two weak pawns, while Black has three. The problem is chat Black's rook is fully in the game, securing him a lot of counterplay. With accurate play, Black can hold.

Chapter 5

-

56.@g5 White also had another try, winning a pawn with 56.l'!c6 l'!gl t 57.Wf3 l'!fl t 5 8.We2 l'!b l 59.l'!xg6 l'!xb5 60.l'!g7t We6 6 1 .l'!xa7. However, Black is ideally placed and White's pawns are not that great. A deeper study shows, not surprisingly, that Black makes a draw with decent play. 56 J�bl

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

•.

b

a

d

c

f

e

g

225


Black is barely hanging on, but hanging on nevertheless. 62.l'!b3 Again White's dream plans do not work: 62.Wg7 l'!g l t 63.Wf8 l'!fl 64.f7?? We6 and Black wins. 62 . . . a4! 63.l'!xb6 l'!xe3 64.l'!a6 a3 Black is active enough to secure a draw. 65 .'it>g6 65 .Wf8 l'!d3 and Black draws. 65 . . . l'!g3t 66.'i!?f5 l'!f3t 67.We5 'i!?c7 68.'i!?e6 Wb7 69.l'!a4 Wc6

h

57.ga3 57.Wxg6 l'!xb5 58.f5 This also looks tempting, but Black is in time. 58 . . . l'!b l 59.'i!?f7 White could easily push it too far: 59.f6 We6 60.l'!c6t Wd7 If White returns with the rook, a draw by repetition seems likely. A catastrophe awaits after 6 l .f7?? l'!gl t 62.Wh5 l'!fl and it is Black who wins. 59 . . . a5 60.l'!a3 l'!fl 6 1 .f6 l'!e l

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

57 J::lxb5?? At the same time an obvious-looking move and a horrendous blunder. After this the rook ••

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

226


is entirely out of play on b5, caking far too long co come back into the game. White wins a pawn and manages to make something great out of his f-pawn. 57 . . . e6! This would have held the game. White has virtually no advantage. For example: 58.�xa7 �g l t 59.h6 59.h4 �h i t 60.g3 �b l wins back the pawn under desirable circumstances. 59 . @ f6 60.h7 g5! .

.

b

a

c

d

e

f

g

h

Black manages to gee rid of one of his weaknesses - and this time without losing it! 6 I .fxg5t �xg5 62.�b7 �h5t 63.gB �h3 Black will manage to liquidate to a theoretically drawn ending.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

b

c

d

e

f

g

60 :axe3 6 1 .f6 gg3t 62.h7 :aa 63.f7 gf4 64.g7 gg4t 65.@f6 gf4t 66.@gS JUI 67.g6 g81 t 6s.f6 got 69.g7 g81t 70.f'8 gdl 71 .es gelt 72.ds go 73.gd?t c6 74.e8 gf4 75.ge7 b5 •••

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

76.gc7 Accurate to the end! If Black scares giving checks again, the white king will go up and pluck off the d5-pawn before finally winning the black rook. 1-0 By no means a flawless game, but you can say the same about a lot of my best games, so please do not lee the precision tools we have at our disposal today diminish your appreciation of the great skills Rubinstein and Alekhine possessed. This reminds me of a recent press conference from Scavanger where Alexander Grischuk once again displayed his entertaining wit. In a more serious moment he made the following comment on the increased use of the word blunder in the language of modern chess.

58Jha7t d6 59.@xg6 gb3 60.f5

a

Rubinstein could not care less about the e-pawn.

h

"Actually, I chink this is why people chink chat players forty years ago played better than nowadays. Now the computer

Chapter 5

-


immediately shows the mistakes, It's red, and they think OK, they are completepatzers. But in fact in many of those situations where the computer immediately shows that it is a blunder, it would have taken a week to debate it in the press; Igor Zaitsev would find some amazing resource and so on. But now the computer just shows it in two seconds."

Transformations in my own games

227

last two rounds instead of drawing them both. In the game against Shirov in the penultimate round, he was completely winning, as is well known. But also in the last round he was winning against Ljubojevic, though we only know this today when the computers point out the amazing winning combination. In the Chess Informant annotations from the time of the game, the move that throws the win away was awarded an exclamation mark. . .

Things are of course never easy in a practical encounter against a resourceful opponent. In the rest of this chapter I will give four examples from my own games. They all show different aspects of transforming the position in an attempt to fight for - or keep - the advantage. Things are rather subtle in places, but I hope that the deeper meaning will still shine through. In the first game we shall see how I managed to transform the advantage of the first move into a slightly preferable structure. My opponent played decently for quite a while, but the pressure of being a little worse, no matter what he did, eventually led him to make a small mistake, making it possible for me to improve the structure a bit more. Then a few things happened in the game, but eventually the better structure was decisive.

Boris Gelfand Branko Damljanovic -

Istanbul (ol) 2000

Branko Damljanovic is one of the strongest Serbian players of the past. I know him quite well, as we played for the same club, Agrouniverzal, once in the Serbian Cup and many times in the European Club Cup. The peak of his career came in 1 990, where he played brilliantly in the lnterzonal and would have been a Candidate had he won one of the

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

The game ended 37.l:'!:e7t?
228


This game was played in the last round of the Olympiad. It was the first time I played for Israel and we had been doing very well. We had already played against all the top teams, so in the last round faced Yugoslavia, who had fewer points than us. If we had managed to win 4-0 we would have taken the bronze medal. But sadly one of our players (not mentioning any names, but his initials are B .A.) went to smoke a cigarette after the time trouble and missed a simple win, essentially because of this. After this he was still winning, but things were complicated and he eventually even lost. It seemed to have a big impact on him and after this he started to smoke much less. The rest of us felt sorry for him; he had played a great game and a great tournament and we all know what it feels like to let the team down at such a crucial moment. We had to wait another eight years before we won an Olympic medal for Israel.

l .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.tll c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5.tll a 0-0 6.i.e2 e5 The King's Indian is perhaps the most popular opening for Black among players from the former Yugoslavia. Damljanovic usually played it with . . . tll a6. 7..ie3 tll a6

8 7

6 5

4 3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

The idea of putting the knight on a6 was invented by Russian grandmaster Igor Glek. He told me that he was recruited to army training and had to sit in a tank for days with nothing to do, so he speculated about chess. At some point he wondered why no one puts the knight on a6 in the King's Indian. At first he considered the Averbakh system (6.i.g5) and then the Classical system. We have seen it in the Averbakh in my game against Grischuk on page 1 53 . As I used to be a King's Indian player, I have of course played it myself quite a number of times.

8.0-0 '\We7!? This is a rare move. The idea is chat if White plays d4-d5, the queen is much better placed on e7 for various reasons. Other popular moves at this point are 8 . . . 'We8, 8 . . . tll g4 and 8 . . . c6. 9 ..ig5 I like this idea, which I found during the game. It brings the ideas of tll d 5 and c4-c5 into play. Shortly after the game Khalifman called me and asked me if I had seen this move in his book, as it was his recommendation. I hadn't, but it was a good push to read his books carefully. Later on I won a great game against Peter Svidler, using one of his recommendations. We will see this game in the second volume of this series.

Chap ter

5

-

Transformation

229

of Advantages

9 exd4 A natural choice, but it allows White to set up a sli ghtly better structure.

Objectively this should not have enough to save the game, but then he was playing against a person, not an object . . .

9 . . . c6 would be dubious because of 1 0.c5! when Black is in trouble.

1 .e4 c 5 2.lll f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lll xd4 a6 5.lll c3 b5 6 . .id3 lll e7 7.0-0 lll bc6 8.lll b3 lll g6 9.i.e3 i.e7 1 0.f4 d6 1 1 .�hS 0-0 1 2.E!:f3! White presents real threats to the black king. 1 2 . . . l"!:eS?? 12 . . . e5! 1 3.f5 lll f4 14.i.xf4 exf4 1 5.l"!:xf4 lll e5 gave Black decent compensation in Leko Carlsen, Nice (rapid) 2008. 1 3.eS!

...

9 . . . �e8 would transpose to a theoretical position after 1 0.l:!e l , which has been played by many strong players and could quickly transpose into even more topical lines. But also possible is 1 0.i.xf6 i.xf6 1 1 .c5!, as played by Movsesian and Milos.

a

There is a psychological point here as well. When you play 8 . . . �e7, it is not particularly natural to play 9 . . . �e8, transposing into the type of lines you rejected just a move ago. This would be more likely to happen in 20 1 5 than in 2000, but still I am not sure there are many players who would do it. A game that made a big impression on me when I was youn ger was the following . Not because of the great quality of the chess, but because of Polugaevsky's willin gness to admit his mistake. He was under attack and decided it was necessary to return the rook to f8, because he would have to play . . . h6 and later . . . �e8.

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Clearly Polugaevsky missed this. White is preparing l"!:h3 with lethal intentions. After what we can only imagine was a serious think, he decided to accept the loss of two tempos. 1 3 . . . l"!:fS!? 1 4.l"!:h3? This wins a pawn, but loses a lot of the advantage. 1 4.l"!:d l !? was interesting and natural, but most logical was 14.lll e4! with a winning attack. For example: 14 . . . dxeS 1 5 .lll g5! i.xg5 1 6.fxgS and the black king cannot be defended. 14 . . . h6 1 5 .i.xg6 fxg6 1 6.\Wxg6 Wfe8 1 7.�xe8 l"!:xe8 1 8.exd6 i.xd6 1 9.lll e4 i.c7 20.l"!:g3 l"!:f8 2 1 .l"!:fl e5 Black has now equalized. His bishop pair is a clear match for the extra pawn. Maybe Polugaevsky should have played on, though it is easy to understand his feeling of elation at getting a draw out of the game! Y2-Y2

Glauser - Polugaevsky, Havana (ol) 1 966.


230

1 5 .c5!? bxc5 1 6.e5 dxe5 1 7.'Wxd8 :B:xd8 1 8.tlJe4 :B:f8

10.�dS �d8 1 1 .�xd4

8

7 6 5

4

b

a

c

d

e

f

g

h

Here White just has to resist the temptation to exchan ge too many pieces. l 9.tlJxc5! White is a pawn down, but is clearly for choice. The quality of the pieces matters a lot! He could get out of the pin by transferring the knight to e6, but I am not sure it is any better: l I . . .tlJc5 1 2.f3 tlJ e6 1 3.tlJxe6 fxe6 If Black takes with the bishop, we are back in the structure we had in the game. I 4.tlJc3 b6 14 . . . 'We8 1 5 .e5! dxe5 1 6.id3 is nice for White. 14 . . . e5?! is probably best met by 1 5 .'Wb3!? Wh8 I 6.c5! with a strong initiative.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This is the most sensible move. However, White can try pushing the c-pawn all the same.

1 2.�xf6t Lf6 1 3.Lf6 �xf6 14.�d2 �c5 1 5.f3�

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

When I played 9.ig5 I was aiming for this position. Obviously it made no sense to think beyond this point. I think White has a fine position. Black has a slight weakness on d6 and White has some space advantage. Added to this, Black does not have the usual active counterplay that makes the King's Indian so playable. The opening was developed by

Chapter 5

-


Boleslavsky and Bronstein and they almost always managed to create some active play. But with the exchange of two minor pieces, it is not apparent where Black's counterplay will come from. This raises the question, what next? At this point my idea was to consolidate. First I want to prevent Black from playing . . . d5 and activating his pieces.

15 ... a5 16Jfadl gds 17JUel i.d7 18 ..ifl Vfie7

23 1

this small decision fifreen years ago. Probably I liked my own ideas and focused on them. There is no way to know for sure.

1 9 ...J.es The bishop was not doing well on d7, so it is transferred to f7, from where it controls d5. 20.t£!c3 f6 Here my plan is to manoeuvre around so the rooks can put pressure on the d6-pawn. As White has a slight space advantage, it is easier for him to regroup, which he should use to his advantage. In short, it is not easy for Black to do anything. There is no easy way to change the course of the game, as neither . . . d5 or .. .f5 is likely to do any good. 2 1 .Vfifl .if7 22JM2 gd7 23.gedl gad8 24.g3 As it could be unpleasant if the white bishop comes to h3, Black's next move is obvious. 24....te6 25.b3

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

The big question here is whether Black should put his pawn on a4 or not. It is really not clear. One the one hand it limits White's option of playing b2-b3 to support the c4pawn; on the other hand it will expose the pawn later on and force the black pieces to defend it. It is indeed a good question as to which is the right choice. Personally I would prefer to play it, but I do not say this with any certainty of it being the right choice.

1 9.tll e2 The knight is going to c3 in order to further restrain . . . d5. White could also consider l 9.b3, but when Black has already shown that he does not want to play . . . a4, there is less motivation to prevent it. Honestly I cannot remember why I made

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

At this point I no longer need the knight on c3, so I want to manoeuvre it to d4 (or f4} , which could work well together with J.h3 . For this reason I need this move of my b-pawn, which by the way I could have played at any moment.

232

Positional Decision Making in

2s .. .'iNflm Preparing a push with . . . f6-f5 , but maybe Black should simply wait? One way would be . . . l:!a8-d8 . Another would be: 25 . . . if7 26.ih3 White makes a small improvement in the position of the bishop. 26.l2Je2 d5! would equalize quickly. 27.ih3 ? dxe4! is an important tactic. And if White takes on d5 first, Black will be able to meet ih3 with . . . f5 . 2 6 . . . ie6 27.ig2 .if7 8

7 6 5

4

3

2

· �.� ... v,. � W$� �� z� •J;-...�� •� • r�. � �� -�• �... � � � ..... ; � � .)�3� �-w. ·%�� 8 m. • 8 ef§ :.>, .. :� WBiW{j . �

..

.

•

•••

%

%

Chess

I should perhaps make a small comment here about evaluating a position. I think it makes a lot of sense to evaluate a position based on whether or not either side is able to improve their position. Humans are prone to make mistakes and more so in some situations than others. Not surprisingly, I try to get my opponents into positions where they are more likely to err, because the hope of winning the game from the beginning without any help from the opponent can most generously be described as unlikely. Still, some people's approach to chess is simply to try and play correctly, and sometimes even I play like this. Why confine yourself to one strategy? We will discuss this further in the next two volumes.

26.l2Je2

·····%

',

�-1-- - · %=· · · ..

.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

I have tried various plans here, including h2-h4-h5 , f3-f4 & e4-e5 , and so on. Black seems to be able to keep things together with reasonable play. I do not want to give long analysis that will not reflect how the game would have progressed if Black had chosen this slightly passive strategy. The conclusion is rather simple: the play is for two results, where it is more enjoyable to be White. However, the challenge will be to come up with new ways to probe for weaknesses. Black should shuffle his pieces around and find the right moment to push with . . . a4 or some other active move. His hope is of course that White loses control of the position, when his dynamic ideas can become very powerful.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

At this point I was thinking that I wanted to harass the pawn on a5 a little bit to see how Black would decide to defend it. I would of course be happy to provoke . . . b6 (weakening the c6-pawn) and if nothing else, the black rook would be passive on a8. Therefore I vacate c3 for the queen to ask Black what he wants to do. I have to say that I still like this idea fifteen years later, though of course it will have to be done with subtlety. The additional idea here is to play l2J d4 with ih3 coming, as mentioned earlier.

Chapter 5

-


A part of the philosophy behind the squeeze is to try various things and see if the opponent defends well.

26 ... £5 It is obvious that Black was planning this with his last move. If he had wanted to wait, it would have been better to do so with the idea described on the 25th move.

233

During the game I felt that Black should activate his rook with: 29 . . . :ge? Here it is not so easy to prove an advantage for White. For example, 30.Wf4 can be met by 30 . . . :ge5 ! . 30.Wc3 :gas Here White has to find a fantastic move to be better.

27 . exf5 .lxf5 The structure has changed, but Black has not been able to free himself of his weakness on d6. White continues to be slightly better. 27 . . . gxf5 ? 28.ltlf4 would give Black an even worse structure.

28.ltl d4 YlYf6 29.YlYe3 With the combined ideas of putting the queen on c3 or on f4, prodding; all the time prodding. 29.ltlxf5 would make less sense here, as Black can play 29 . . . gxf5 and follow up with . . . f5-f4.

3 i .:gf2!! Black has tremendous counterplay after both 3 1 .ltlb5 Wxc3 32.ltlxc3 :ge3 and 3 1 .ig2 :gae8 32.Wa l ltld3!. For this reason, White needs this sensational prophylactic move. 3 1 . . .id? 32.Wd2 White continues to pose Black problems, and he will continue to manoeuvre. Objectively, White's advantage has not increased greatly, but as the game has progressed, it has become increasingly difficult for Black to find the moves needed to hold. I would also like to add that a move like 3 1 .:gf2 is possible to find for a human, though it might take 20 minutes or more!

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

29 ... �fi?! After being under pressure for 1 5 moves, Black makes a small mistake that gives White a chance to make a favourable exchange.

At this moment I grabbed the chance to improve my structure and to add the miniscule advantage of bishop against knight to the overall evaluation.

30.ltlxf5! gxf5


234

30 . . . Wxf5 3 l ..ig2 is good for White too. The black pawns are getting increasingly soft.

36.Ele? Wf6 37.Wxf6t Elxf6 38.Ele8t @ g7 39.Ela8 lll a6 40.�d3

3 1 .gd4 iUd7 It feels as if White has won a tempo.

6 5

Black would love to have 3 l . . . lll e6, but White can play 32.Elxd6.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

�. . . .

3

2

.

.

...

�� "·· · b

a

32.gel

�

..

4

3 1 . . .Elff8!? comes into consideration, trying to activate the rook on the e-file, but after 32.We 1 b6 33.�g2 I like White.

�� ·0� �4 ��.� �% J•4 ·· · if� • ·� %%� %� .,Y.� %. ,.�. �� :.lal.al�· �. �-��r �

8

7

c

d

e

f

h

g

Black is extremely passive, with both pieces stuck to the defence of pawns. Whether this is enough to win for White is hard to say but, as said previously, it is important that he can improve his position, whereas Black cannot.

33.gh4 I continue to prod. 33 ...�g7 33 . . . @ g? could be met by 34 . .ih3! with the idea of Elf4, when Black is uncomfortable. a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White takes over the recently opened file, underlining the way his position has improved.

32 .. J:U7 Black generally has a choice between various passive, uncomfortable positions which will have to be defended. Neither making the choice nor holding the positions is an easy task. 32 . . . Ele?!? This was a serious option, but White seems to get a pleasant technical advantage with: 33.Wxe? Wxd4t 34. @ g2 Elf8 35 .Wg5 t i;tihs 35 ... Wg? 36.Wd2! and Black will feel a bit more strained than before - again.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

34.gdl ? At this point I was already short of time. This move does not have any serious idea behind it and Black gets a free move to get organized.

Chapter 5

-

Furthermore, the rook has no great task to fulfil on the d-line. During the game I was considering 34 . .ih3, which I probably should have played. However, 34.Wf d2! looks even stronger. After 34 . . . b6 White now plays 35 . .ih3! with an even better version. Things are highly uncomfortable for Black, who cannot really defend against .ixf5 , E1h6 and so on. This is quite a typical situation for handling an advantage. There comes a moment when you have to play a few accurate moves to exploit the opponent's poor coordination, in order to make the most of your position. This was the moment for me, but sadly on this day I was not up to it. Luckily my opponent was not able to exploit this chance to get back into the game.

34 JU6 35.ti'd2 b6 There is nothing wrong with this, but maybe Black could even have looked for active play with 35 . . . a4!? 36.b4 lt:l e6 with ideas of . . . d5 and . . .f4. Black has more counterplay than I would like. White is of course better, but he no longer has complete control.

After this White manages to consolidate again, this time not letting his opponent off the hook. Black missed a nice tactical shot: 37 . . . dS!! Creating the active counterplay he has been craving for the whole game. 38.cxdS E1fd6

a

.•

36J;d4 ©h8 37.J.g2

235


b

c

d

e

f

g

h

39.Wfc2! This looks like the best try for an advantage. 39.f4 lt:l e6 is an important point. White has no advantage here. 39 . . . E1xd5 40.E1xd5 E1xd5 4 1 .f4 4 l .E1xd5 cxd5 would give Black a passed pawn and reasonable counterplay. 4 1 . . .E1xd l t 42.ti'xd l Wff6 8

7

6 5

4 3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This endgame is not much for White, but there are still some practical chances. 43.h4!? lt:l e4!


236

White has an unpleasant choice between allowing . . . lll f2-g4 (after @ h2) or exchanging on e4, giving Black a strong passed pawn. In either case White might have a few winning chances still, but Black has really managed to get back into the game in a big way.

pawn, but his coordination is all over the place and the e3-pawn gives Black counterplay. It is clearly not a practical choice to play like this.

38.f4 �e4 This allows White to simplify the position in his favour, but otherwise the bishop remains superior to the knight, so Black's task was already difficult. 38 . . . Wc? was possible, but after something like 39 . .iB White continues to improve his position.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

b

a

c

d

e

f

g

h

Having said that, we should mention the following magical variation found by the computer. 44.f6!! 'Wxd6 4 5 . f7 !!e5 Avoiding mate seems prudent. (45 . . . We5 46.'Wb2! leads to something similar.) 46.'Wg4 'Wb8 47. @ g2! A small finesse. Clearly not a human move at all. 47 . . . e2 48.'Wf4 e l =lll t 49. @ h l @ g7 50.fB='Wt 'Wxf8 5 1 .'Wxe5t Wf6 52.'Wxe l b5 White has an extra pawn, but the win is far from certain, even after all of this trickery!

40 ... Yfe7 4U�4d2 @gs a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Black has made something out of the knight and it is no longer inferior to White's bishop, but this comes at a price. Not only will the black e-pawn be a target, but White also gets a chance to expand on the kingside and push his newly created passed pawn.

39.he4 fxe4 40.Vf e3! This is a standard move in Rubinstein's style. Black should not be allowed any unnecessary counterplay. After something like 40.f5 ?! e3! 4 1 .'We2 !!ee8 42.E:xd6 !!xd6 43.E:xd6 We5 White has won a

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

42.g4! Taking space on the kingside and preparing some nice threats associated with f4-f5.

Chapter 5

-


42.Wxb6 This was technically possible, but again you would have to calculate everything with a degree of accuracy that belongs to computers and not humans. The following line contains a nice trick at the centre of it. 42 . . . e3 43.E:e2 d5 44.cxd5 cxd5 45 .Wb5! d4 45 . . . Wd? 46.Wxd? E:xd7 47.E:d4! and White wins eventually. 46.Wc4 Wf6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

237

e

f

g

h

f

g

h

46 b5 47.cxb5 d5?! Desperation. 47 . . . cxb5 48.E:d5 b4 49.a4 is also seriously unpleasant for Black, but had to be tried. •••

48.bxc6 ged6 49.f5 YlYe5

47.E:xe3!! This moves wins, but to foresee it from afar is by no means easy. Would you really feel confident that you had seen everything? Some people that go for this type of variation excuse their losses as "blunders", but they also choose to get into situations where their ability to see everything is tested to the maximum.

42 YlYh4 Black is not threatening anything and White can begin to consolidate. •••

43.h3 YlYe7 44 .©g2 gd7 45.gd4 �Ms At this point the computer wants to go for direct action with 46.f5 , but as White is still able to improve his position before taking action, this makes little sense. 46.a3! Preparing b4-b5 , undermining the d5square.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

50.c7!? My move forces a winning position, but I have to admit that I missed a lovely move here. 50.b4! with the ideas Wb3 and b4-b5 is most convincing, as the pawn on c6 cannot be taken at this point. I guess I was not looking for anything else after I had worked out that the move in the game was good enough. 50 .. J:ks 5 1 .YlYg3 YlYe7


238

5 1 . . .�xg3t 52.©xg3 �xc7 53.l:!xd5 is hopeless as well.

Boris Gelfand Mark Tseitlin -

Tel Aviv 1 999

Tseitlin is a very aggressive player who constantly seeks his opponent's king. He is originally from St Petersburg, but immigrated to Israel in 1 990, where he had his best chess years, earning the GM title in 1 997 and achieving his highest rating (2545) in 1 99 5 . He has won the European Senior Championship four times and also the team event once.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

54 .. Jk2t 55.®g3 Yfxe5t 56.E1xe5 gc3t 57.®f4 gxb3 58J�xa5 gxh3 59.®xe4 gh4 60.®f4 h5 61 .®g5 gxg4t 62.®xh5 gg7 63.gast ®h7 64.a4 1-0

Transforming dynamic and static advantages The next game shows quite a nice twist. In the opening I sacrificed a pawn in return for a big centre and a lead in development, as I have done many, many times. However, when my opponent weakened his pawn structure, I was quick to upgrade my initiative into a better structure, with the option of having an extra pawn. There was nothing special about this, but what makes this game interesting is that when my opponent (quite rightly) tried to create active counterplay, I found a way to give up the extra pawn and instead recapture the initiative, using it to create a winning attack on the seventh rank.

In the Soviet Union he only made it to the level oflnternational Master, but still managed to beat the legendary Viktor Korchnoi four times. The following game is quite amazing. I do not want to destroy the magic of it with deep annotations, but j ust show what type of player I was facing. Viktor Korchnoi - Mark Tseitlin, Leningrad 1 973 l .c4 e5 2 . lli c3 lli f6 3.g3 i.b4 4.i.g2 0-0 5 .�b3 lli c6 6.llid5 .ic5 7.e3 e4 8 . lli xf6t �xf6 9 . .ixe4 �e8 1 0.d3 d6 l l ..id2 .if5 1 2 . .ic3 �g6 1 3 . .ixfS �xf5 1 4.�d l d5 1 5 .�xb7

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 5 . . . .ixe3 1 6. fxe3 �xe3t 1 7. 'i!l d2 �xd3t 1 8 . 'i!l c l �b8 1 9.�e l

Chapter 5

-


239

though I have to admit that I moved on a while ago.

1 2 ... � d7 1 2 . . . ig4 is the most popular variation.

b

a

c

d

e

f

g

1 3 ..lb4 � b6 Gavrikov's idea. The knight looks a bit odd on b6, but it can come to c4 in some positions and it relieves the pressure against b7.

h

1 9 . . . h6 20.'1Wxb8t lll x b8 2 1 .lll e2 lll d7 22.lll f4 l'l:f3 23.lll xd5 ©h7 24.lll f4 lll c5 2 5 .l'l:hfl l'l:xfl 26.l'l:xfl g5 27.g4 �xg4 28.lll d5 '1Wxc4 29.l'l:xf7t ©g6 30.l'l:f6t ©h5 0 1 -

I .d4 �f6 2.�6 g6 3.c4 J.g7 4.�c3 d5 5.cxd5 �xd5 6.e4 �xc3 7.bxc3 c5 s.gbl 0-0 9.J.e2 cxd4 10.cxd4 YlYa5t 1 1 .J.d2 YlYxa2 1 2.0-0

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

14.h3 This harmless-looking move is actually quite challenging, as we shall see in the game. Earlier I had had a really successful game against Kozul, starting with: 1 4.:B:al We6 1 5 .Wb l id? 1 6.:B:a5 � c8

a

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This gambit used to be my favourite line; I even wrote a chapter on it in My Most Memorable Games. For the pawn White gets space and a lead in development. It used to be great fun to play, but sadly these days it has been analysed too heavily and it becomes a memory test more than a game of chess to play this way. Still, Aronian manages to put pressure on top guys with it,

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Here I went l 7.d5!? and the game was quite complicated. I suspected that Tseidin had analysed it deeply, because he entered this line against Huzman a few rounds before our game. Alex deviated with 1 7.llie5!? ie8 1 8 .:B:d l lll d6 1 9.f4 Wc8, but as White had achieved little in the opening, Alex accepted Tseitlin's early draw offer.

14 ....id7 1 5.gal YlYe6 16.i.d3


240

White needs to build up his initiative slowly here. (It is important to spot that Black is okay after 1 7.d5 Wb6 with the idea of . . . lLi b2! in several lines) So I might have tried either 1 7.lLig5 or 1 7.We2!?, when after 1 7 . . . b5 1 8.d5 Wb6 1 9.e5 White has typical compensation for this variation. I would be quite comfortable here, but will not claim that White has achieved anything special.

b

a

c

d

f

e

g

h

16 f6? This ugly move creates an escape square for the queen, but you cannot play the Griinfeld in such a defensive manner. Black needs to play energetically to counter White's space advantage. ...

An earlier game had gone all wrong for Black. After 1 6 . . . l:!fc8? 1 7 .d5 it is already time for Black to give up a piece. 1 7 . . . tLixd5 ( 1 7 . . . Wf6 l 8.e5 Wf4 1 9.id2 and the queen is trapped.) 1 8.exd5 Wxd5 1 9.l:!a5! We6 20.ib l White has a big advantage and soon won: 20 . . . ie8 2 1 .Wd2 if6 22.lLig5 Wb6 23.lLie4 l:!c4 24.ic5 l:!xc5 25.l:!xc5 ig7 26.ia2 ic6 27.l:!b l ixe4 28.l:!xb6 axb6 29.l:!b5 1 -0 Wells - Beaumont, Edinburgh 1 989. The only feasible way for Black to stay in the game is 1 6 . . . tLi c4!.

Just to make one thing absolutely clear. We were both out of our preparation at this point. While Tseitlin was thinking, I was wondering what I would do against 1 6 . . . tLi c4, becoming a little worried and feeling a gust of relief when he did not find it. Of course he wanted to play something like this; Tseitlin is a dynamic player who understands these things well, but this time he could not make it work and settled for a concession. 8

7 6

5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

17 .ic5! This strong move switches from the theme of the strong centre and harassing the black queen. Instead the idea of taking on b6 and regaining the pawn comes to the foreground. Black will still have weaknesses on b7, e6 and e7 to deal with. I think it is quite a clever idea, leading to a really horrible situation for Black. .

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Chapter 5

-

Black was okay after l 7.We2 E:fc8 1 8.Ei:a5 lll c4 l 9 .Ei:c5 b5 in Meissner - Gaerths, Germany 1 992. White did not play energetically enough. 1 7.Wb 1 was also interesting, with similar ideas to the game.

17 ... Ei:fcS This logical move seems to be best. 1 7 . . . f5 1 8.exf5 gxf5 1 9.Ei:e l is winning for White. The initiative is too strong. l 7 . . . c;t>h8!? is the engine's attempt to defend Black's position. However, White can gain a clear advantage with 1 8.Ei:e 1 ! Ei:fe8 and only now play 1 9.Wb l ! ll:la4 20.d5 Wf7 2 1 .id4 b6 22.ib5 and Black will have to return the pawn without improving his horrible structure. It is important to include 1 8.Ei:e l Ei:fe8 in this variation, as otherwise Black would have . . . We8 to defend the knight on a4. The threat to the knight is so strong that it makes sense to consider the silly-looking 1 7 . . . ll:l c8.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

24 1


and White will at least win back his pawn, on account of 1 9 . . . b6? 20.ic4 Wc6 2 1 .id5 and White wins an exchange.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

b

a

d

c

f

e

g

h

1 8.d5 This is a very natural continuation and I have no regrets about having played this way. However, it is worth mentioning that the computer shows a subtler way to play the position, where taking on b6 later is the key idea. l 8 .Ei:a5! White has a serious advantage in the main line: 1 8 . . . '\Wf7 ( 1 8 . . . ll:l c4 1 9.d5 Wf7 20.ixc4 b6 2 l .ixb6 axb6 22.Ei:xa8 Ei:xa8 23.'1Wb3 is close to catastrophic for Black. Also after 1 8 . . . ih6 1 9.We2 if4 20.Ei:fal Black is in serious trouble.) 1 9.Wb l c;t>h8 20.Wb4 e6

h

At this point I had planned 1 8.Wb l , when there are a lot of complications that are not as clear as I had imagined. This approach is too concrete. Instead a simple route to an advantage is 1 8 .'\We2! 'it>h8 ( 1 8 . . . lll d6 1 9.ixa7 and White j ust has a big structural advantage) 1 9.Ei:fb l

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

2 1 .Ei:fa 1 and everything is going according


242

to plan. For example, 2 1 . . .Wi'e8 22.l:!xa7 ll:i a4 23.l:!xa8 l:!xa8 24.i.e7 and it is hard to come up with any good suggestions for Black.

18 Wf7 19.hb6 axb6 20Jlxa8 gxa8 21 .ft'b3 •.•

22.Wxb6 ffa3 With his back against the wall, Tseitlin decides to go for a counterattack. Things are starting to look bad for Black. Probably his strategy should be to give up the b-pawn and activate the bishop on g7, which is currently doing nothing. But it is not so easy to do this. 22 . . . Wi'c8 23.l:!b l J.h6!? can be tried, but here White has a strong idea: 24.ft'b4!

� �fl!. �a, �.�.- - �.r��- �-- - �-: , : ��- �� -�- -�� £ � 8 • • � r� �� - - l<� -0� 6

...

3

b

a

d

c

f

e

g

2

h

21. ft'e8?! Black's best chance was to activate the boxed-in bishop on g7. As it seems unlikely that Black will be able to play . . . f6-f5 in the near future, it needs to join the game in an unusual way: 2 I . . .i.h6! 22.Wi'xb6 .tf4 ••

s

z �� -0 �: �

a

�

b

c

d

e

f

g

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Followed by e4-e5 with a serious advantage. Whether this was a better chance for Black is hard to say. Everything looks bad. White is better and Black is suffering.

23 .lc4 ga4 Harassing the bishop was Tseitlin's idea. The serious alternative is 23 . . . l:!c3, but the exchanges after 24.Wi'b4 (24 ..lb3 is the wrong direction as after 24 . . . Wi'c8 Black has managed to get coordinated) 24 . . . l:!xc4 25 .Wi'xc4 i.b5 26.Wi'b3 i.xfl 27.@xfl do not favour Black. •

7 ��-11 - •-- �• £�J!·� •8� �- - -�-· � � : �� !-�--:, �,'.�� , ��!-' � �� :;,� 6

a

h

It is obvious that White is better here. He can choose between direct play in the centre and taking the pawn on b7 immediately. However, Black has managed to solve his biggest issue and has begun to fight for a lot of the key squares. a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Chap ter

5

-

White is aiming at the b 7-pawn and preparing .!li d4-e6. We analysed a few variations and found nothing satisfactory for Black.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

243


26.d6t ©h8 27.gxc8 .ixc8 28 . .ia4! and White wins at least a piece on account of: 28 . . . .id? 29 . .ixd? Wfxd7 30.Wf c?!

25.�xb7 Threatening d6t to win the rook. 25 ... ©f'8 26J:&cl ge2 27.'8c7 '8b2

b

a

c

d

f

e

g

h

White was about to go a pawn up, but Black is managing to create some active counter chances, harassing the white bishop. This is a perfect moment to change the nature of the advantage once again.

24 ..ib3! I was happy to get the chance to improve the position of my pieces. Obviously I calculated the variations carefully, which made it appropriate to go for it. 24 .. J:&xe4 This loses by force, but it is the only move that makes sense of Black's play. 24 . . . ga8 2 5 .l:'!:c l is too dangerous for Black. An amusing line is: 25 . . . gc8?

a

b

c

28.d6! Not a difficult nevertheless.

d

e

move,

f

g

but

h

necessary

After 28.E:xd? gxb3 29.Wfc? the most natural is 29 . . . gc3, when Black is more or less okay.

28 ... exd6 29.gxd7 gxb3 30.�c7 gbs After 30 . . . gc3 then 3 1 .Wfxd6t followed by 32.gd8 wins. 3 1 .'8xg7 1-0 Of course Black's 1 6th move was bad, but still I am happy with the way I managed to keep the advantage by transforming its nature several times.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

244

Positional Decision Making in

The two bishops a long-term dynamic advantage Usually we talk about an advantage being short-term or long-term, or dynamic and static, if you like. This is at times a little too simplistic. In the next game we shall see the power of the two bishops dominating two knights which have no good squares available. During the game I had options of using their superiority in both dynamic and static ways, either to support an attack or to squeeze my opponent, making him choose between various bad endings. I chose the latter, mainly because I did not see the attacking possibilities!

Boris Gelfand - Sergey Rublevsky Palma de Mallorca 2008

Sergey Rublevsky is a good friend of mine and has been so for a long time. As a player he has been a part of the elite for many years; he was a regular top 20 player, qualified for the Candidates, beat Kasparov and so on. These days he seems to be focusing more on being a trainer than a player, for Kramnik during his World Championship matches and later for the Russian women's team when they won the Olympiads in 20 1 2 and 20 1 4. He has quite a narrow, but well thought-out opening repertoire. He has played the Queen's Gambit Accepted throughout his entire career. It was only recently that he added some Slav lines to this. He is similarly narrow in his approach to the white pieces. I think he must analyse the opening phase of his own games very deeply in order to come up with something new again and again. In the opinion of Igor Zaitsev (Karpov's second for many years), Rublevsky plays in Bogolj ubow's style. I do not really understand what this means, but at least it is nice to know that I am not the only player whose style matches a great player from the past.

Chess

1 .d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 This is the most ambitious and challenging system. It requires more knowledge than other systems, as Black can play a lot of moves here. 3 ... e5 This is the standard move for Rublevsky. The main alternatives are 3 . . . c5, 3 . . . lll f6 and 3 . . . lll c6, and recently 3 . . . b5 has also become quite popular.

4.�f3 .tb4t However, in this posmon Rublevsky was making a real choice. If you exclude this game from the statistics, he has scored 50% with this move, performing slightly below his expected score. After 4 . . . exd4 5 .ixc4 lll c6 6.0-0 ie6 there are 1 1 games in my database where Rublevsky is Black. He has a + 3 score, exceeding his expected score slightly.

5.�c3 A matter of taste. 5 .lll bd2? does not work on account of 5 . . . c3. But White can try 5 .id2 ixd2t 6.lll bxd2 exd4 7.ixc4 \Wf6, which has happened in a

Chapter 5

-


lot of games, including some with Rublevsky as Black. But it almost feels like an entirely different opening.

s ... exd4 6.tll xd4 This recapture possibilities.

offers

White

more

It is also possible to exchange queens with the more simplistic 6.Wi'xd4, which will suit people who like simple positions and try to win by technique alone. I feel that White's advantage is too small, but that is of course just one opinion. Karpov has played it a few times with success, but as Rublevsky has experience in this line with Black as well, I doubt it would have caused him real problems. This is a problem when you play players that repeat the same lines all the time - you need to bring something real to the table, or they will equalize without difficulties.

245

9.0-0 ltJxd4 I O . .ixd4 ltJ c6 offers an easy route co equality, as can for example be seen in one of the key games for this line, Bologan - Rublevsky, Saint Vincent 200 5 . 9.liJdbS ia5 also offers Black decent chances. Again Rublevsky has been Black in five games from this position. It feels likely chat Rublevsky has analysed these lines deeply and knows how to eliminate the apparent pressure from White.

9 ...hc3t I think this capture is more or less forced. The problem is that if he goes: 9 . . . ia5 1 0.0-0 lDxd4 (If he plays the natural 1 0 . . . .ib6, then I reply 1 1 .lDxc6 lD xc6 1 2 . .ixb6 axb6 and I am in time for 1 3. f4 with a fine position} 1 l ..ixd4 ltJ c6

6 ... � e7 A playable move that does not look wrong at all. However, 6 . . . tll d 7 7 . .ixc4 lDgf6 8.0-0 0-0 is generally preferred nowadays. 7.hc4 �bc6 8.i.e3 0-0

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

I now have l 2 .ic5 with some advantage. .

10.bxc3 � as Taking on d4 makes no sense anymore, as I can cake back with the pawn. 1 1 .Ae2 It is a good question where the bishop belongs. 9.a3 An important move.

Against Hubner I placed the bishop on a2 , which seems to be a bad choice as it will simply

246


be exchanged, as Robert did against me: I l .ia2 b6 1 2 .We2 c5 1 3.lDb5 lD g6 1 4.l:!d l We7 1 5 .0-0 ie6 1 6.ixe6 fXe6 1 7.f4 l:!ad8 1 8 .l:!xd8 l:!xd8 1 9.e5 Wd7 20.lDd6 Y2-Y2 Gelfand - Hubner, Munich 1 994. So I think putting the bishop on e2 is more ambitious. It was not exactly a new move; Kamsky had played it against Shore in their 1 994 Candidates match, though Short played so poorly that it is rather irrelevant for this game. Instead we will follow Bareev lvanchuk, as referred to below.

b

a

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 6.lDxf5 Wxa3 with chances for both sides in Marovic Fernandez - Rublevsky, Khanty Mansiysk ( I . I ) 2009. I don't want to go into greater detail on the opening in this book, but I am certain that this way of playing is better. It might look dangerous for Black and it requires accurate and deep preparation; but I am sure that Rublevsky did his work.

12.0-0 Y!!e7 Although not as strong as I I . . . f5 , we cannot call Black's play unnatural.

a

l l . . �g6

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

.

I

l . . .b6 1 2.0-0 ib7 1 3.Wc2 We8 1 4.l:!ad l l:!d8 I 5 .if4 lDg6 1 6.ixc7 ixe4 I 7.Wb2 l:!xd4 1 8 .cxd4 and White was already winning in Kamsky - Short, Linares ( I ) 1 994. Almost all of Black's moves were unnatural, an uncharacteristically poor performance from Nigel. In a later game, Rublevsky improved his play with: I l . ..f5!? 1 2.Wa4 b6 1 3.l:!d l id7 1 4.ib5 ixb5 I 5 .Wxb5 Wd6

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

13.Y!!a4!? My improvement for this game. Bareev played 1 3.Wc2, which is also natural, and he went on to win in Bareev - lvanchuk, Dortmund 1 992. Still, I find my move more appealing. It forces Black's reply and thus wins a bit of time. White wants to play lD f5 and

Chap ter

5

-

Transformation

247

of Advantages

obtain the advantage of two bishops against two knights, so why delay?

13 ... b6 14.�5 Executing my plan. At this point I was sure he was going to take on f5 and he did so without too much thought.

b

a

c

d

e

f

g

h

This is a better square for the knight than in the game, which is paradoxical. At first glance, e5 looks like a more active and natural square, but as we shall see in the following, the knight is unstable there. Obviously it helps that the knight attacks the f5-pawn from e7. On e5 it looks pretty, but it is not able to do much for Black's position. a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

14 ...J.xf5? This normal-looking move turns out to be highly questionable. 1 4 . . . WfeS! I did not consider this surprising resource at all during the game. It looks too artificial, but this is often the case with subtle moves, so we have to go a bit deeper. I would seriously consider these options for White: 1 5 .Wfc2 l 5 . f4 Wfe8! gives White problems with his centre. The e3-bishop is loose, so White is forced to play l 6.Wfxe8 �xe8 l 7.�g3, when Black has many ideas. For example: l 7 . . . � e7!? with ideas of . . . ie6 or . . . f5. I am sure Black is fine here. A nice trick arises in the following line: 1 5 .id4 Wfxe4 1 6.if3 Wfxf5 1 7.ixa8 where Black will not go for l 7 . . . id7? 1 8 .ie4! with complicated play, but simply l 7 . . . ia6 with a big advantage. 1 5 . . .ixfS 1 6.exfS � e7

1 5.exf5 � e5 1 6.l:fadl gad8

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

The operations of the opening are at an end and it makes sense to take stock of what has happened. Let us start with the conclusion: White has the advantage. First of all, White has two good bishops in a fairly open position. They are well placed and will be useful in the long run. Compare this with the black knights, which are struggling to find stability. Black does have the nicer pawn structure, but

248


White's split pawns are not without potential.

17.h3! A natural improvement of the position, which can be useful in many ways. White might consider g2-g4, but also he just does not want to get back-rank mated or hit by a . . . lll g4 tactic. This might all seem very simple and logical when described, but it took me 25 minutes to decide on this move! In the event of 1 7 .:Sfe l , Black can exchange rooks and White will have gained nothing from his last move. The question is what Black should do in this position besides exchanging on d l . There is no obvious way to fight for equality.

17 .. J�d6 By preparing to bring the other rook to the d-file, Rublevsky provokes me to cake on d6. He intends to recapture with the c-pawn in order to bring the other rook to the c-file, to put pressure on c3 and also occupy the c4-square. During the game I was worried about: 1 7 . . . lll b7! ? This would have been a concrete attempt to solve Black's problems with a pawn sacrifice. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the same often goes for pawn sacrifices; we have to take it . . . 1 8.'1Mfxa7 lll c5

I was not sure about this position at all, but it turns out chat White has plenty of resources. Black is not really threatening . . . lll c6. The main refutation comes from the computer. l 9.:Sxd8! :Sxd8 20.a4! With the idea a4-a5 and also chat the white bishop would be protected on b5. le seems chat White is just a pawn up. 20 . . . lll c6 Black can also try 20 . . . lll e4, but White has no problems after 2 l ..ixb6 lll xc3 22 . .ia6 lll f.3t 23.h l and I cannot see what threats Black is supposed to have. 2 1 ..ixc5 bxc5 22.Wb7 A pawn up, White is close to winning. So my concerns during the game were not j ustified, but it is better to be worried about critical tries from the opponent than to be oblivious of them! Black could of course try other moves, such as regrouping the knight with 1 7 . . . lll d7. Here White can try 1 8 .Wb4!?, when provoking Black to play 1 8 . . . cS would be quite an achievement, and after 1 9.Wf4 White has a fine position with the possibility of expanding on the kingside with if.3 and g2-g4-g5 . 1 7 . . . :Sfe8 1 8.:Sd4 also looks pleasant for White. Again it would be welcome if Black played 1 8 . . . c5, when after 1 9.:Sxd8 :Sxd8 20.:Sd l White is for choice. We see that in general that White would love Black to play . . . c5, taking the square away from the knights. As Mihail Marin likes to say: the knights will find it hard to achieve stability. Ac this point White has a long-term advantage of two bishops against two knights, which brings us to the thematic question of this chapter: what should we do once we have the advantage? Obviously I can only tell you how

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Chapter 5

-

I approach this situation and the reader will then have to work out for himself if he finds this approach useful.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

249


h

My main approach is to think, "What should I do next?" During the game I will seriously consider which transformations would be to my advantage and which would not. But in general I am just looking for a way to improve the position. In this position the main thing for White is to create a function for the rook on fl . As the bishops are solidly placed on the e-file, my next move is not too difficult.

1 8.gd4 �ac6 Forcing White to take on d6. I had of course anticipated this, but felt that the circumstances were different. Black has lost a vital tempo putting the knight on the inferior c6-square. This is an important part of thinking about transformations. Dynamics is a big part of chess and thus dynamic considerations will always be important. 19Jhd6 There are positive reasons to play this for White as well; essentially the d6-pawn is now a target in a way the pawn on c7 never was. After l 9.l:'i:e4 I did not like l 9 . . . Wf6, when I did not feel my pieces would be well coordinated. The rook looks stupid on e4.

19 ... cxd6 l 9 . . . Wxd6 20.We4 is also unpleasant for Black. It is not clear where the knight will go from e5. Again, the knight lacks stability.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

b

a

d

c

f

e

g

h

20J�dl This is a fine move that leaves White much better, though I have to admit that I missed a nice tactical possibility. 20.f6! gxf6 White should be winning after 20 . . . Wxf6 2 1 .f4 lll g6 22.Wxc6 We7 23.l:'i:f3 lll h4 24.if2 lll xf3t 2 5 .ixf3 and the two bishops dominate. 20 . . . We6 2 1 .fXg7 is hopeless. 2 1 .ih6 l:'i:d8 22.ib5 lll a5 23.f4 lll g6 8

7

6 5

4 3

2

a

24.f5

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

250


This direct attack works, though 24.Wd4 is also good enough for White. 24 . . . lll e5 25 .Wh4 cj;>hs Black can defend his weak squares in the short term, but White wins by bringing the rook into the attack. 26.!'le l ! !'lg8 27.!'le3 Wd8 28.ct?h l Black is doing nothing, while White has all the time in the world. Both knights are useless, for example: 28 . . . d5 29.!'lg3 !'lxg3 30.Wxg3 Wg8 3 1 .Wh4 Wd8

32.�e8!! Black has no defence against Wg3 on the next move, winning at least a piece. The above tactical finesse might look like a random chance, but that is not how I see it. Chess is a logical game and the tactical chances we get come from our play earlier in the game. That Black could have been punished for misplacing his pieces is natural. Of course nothing is really spoiled by my missing this move; the problems that allowed it are still there, and Black is teetering on the edge of defeat. It is quite common that we miss a chance or two in an overwhelming position but win anyway, because the plan we choose is also good enough.

20 1"lc8 Black is still dreaming of . . . lt:\ a5-c4. ...

2 1.�e4 Centralizing the queen and preventing Black's idea. 2 1 . .. h6 2 1 . . .ll'ia5 does not work on account of 22.�a6, when the pawn on c3 is not really hanging: 22 . . . !'lxc3?! 23.�d4 !'lc6 24.f4 ll'i g6 25 .Wf3 ll'i f8 26.f6 with a winning attack, on account of 26 . . . gxf6 27.�b5! !'le? 28.Wg3t ct?h8 29.Wg5 and the f6-pawn cannot be defended.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

I spent 1 0 minutes on the next move and think I got it right, although I was unsure about this after the game.

22 .ia6 A deeper look indicates that there is nothing wrong with this move at all. .

22. f4? ll'ic4 would be an unpleasant surprise. Shortly after the game I had the feeling that it might have been better to play the more direct 22.Wd5, but after 22 . . . ll'ia5 the best I have been able to find is to transpose to a line that could have occurred in the game:

Chapter 5

-

25 1


I was quite looking forward to my chances in the endgame after: 23 . . . tll aS 24.Wxd6 Wxd6 2 5 .l::1 xd6 l::1 xc3 26.l::1 d 8t ci>h7 27.a4

� � �� r• • :r� -�., , .%w ..�. ��. l&"" ��

6

%

5

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

23 . .ia6! (23.Wxd6?! Wxd6 24.l::1 xd6 tll ac4 brings Black's pieces to life and thus gives him real drawing chances.) Now Black should play 23 . . . l::1 c 7! transposing to the line given in the note to Black's 23rd move below, as I do not believe Black can hold the endgame after 23 . . . l::1 xc3 ?! 24 . .id2 l::1 c 5 25 .Wa8t Wf8 26.Wxf8t ci>xf8 27 ..ib4 die7 28 . .ixcS bxc5 29 . .ibS!, though nothing is certain, of course.

,8, , ; � �', , , ;� �� 8 �.,�,�, .Y.� �. -�%�!� �� , . . r �

4

3 2

h

% �-

-�

b

a

c

d

e

f

h

g

Black is struggling with his king, his knights and the weakness on a7. But in view of the way things went in the game, Black could perhaps consider this a better chance.

22 . .ibS!? was an interesting move that I did not seriously consider during the game. It also leads to interesting options for White, but is not a clearer path to an advantage than the game continuation. During the game you have to choose between options that attract you, and this was not one of the things I looked at.

22 Jk7 22 . . . l::1 d 8 would be poorer, though it contains a lovely trap: 23.f4? d5! 24.l::1 x d5 tll f3t would allow Black back into the game. But the main problem is that after 23 . .ibS tll a 5 24.a4 Black is almost paralysed. ••

23.�dS Finally attacking the d6-pawn. 23 ... ©h7 Rublevsky is trying to improve his position, but things are already quite unpleasant.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

24.J.f4 Putting more pressure on the weak dark squares. Once the d6-pawn falls, and fall it will, the e5-knight will be under pressure as well. White also avoids the ... tll c6-a5-c4 manoeuvre which we have seen in a lot of lines. 24.Wxd6?? would lose the game after 24 . . . l::1 d 7.

24 �f6 .•.

252


The machine suggests 24 . . . lli b8 25.j,b5 :B:c5 , but after 26.�e4 f6 27.a4 White has every reason to be happy. The c3-pawn is not really hanging, because of j,d2-b4 in reply.

25.i.e2 Defending the rook on d 1 and thus preparing to take the pawn on d6.

25 ... �d7 Black chooses a passive position, desperation does not really work.

as

8

7

6 5

4 3

2

c

d

e

Khusenkhojaev - Smirin, Tromso (ol) 20 1 4

7

The computer wants to give up the d6-pawn with 25 . . . lli e7. I considered this during the game, but had not made up my mind on how to continue after: 26.�xd6 �xd6 27.:B:xd6 llixf5

b

At the latest Olympiad my teammate and friend Ilya Smirin was in a difficult situation in our match against Tajikistan:

8

2 5 .j,b5 ! ? is also possible.

a

after a lot of suffering. I am not saying this would happen, but there is a risk.

f

g

h

White has a pleasant choice. After 28.:B:d5 f6 29.j,xe5 fxe5 30.:B:xe5 , White has an extra pawn and decent control over the position. 28 .j,xe5 llixd6 29.j,xd6 :B:xc3 would give White a little less control over the position; on the other hand he would have two bishops against a rook. This line would open up the possibility that after exchanging pawns on the queenside, Black might be able to draw, albeit

6 5

4 3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

33.g4 hxg4 34.hxg4 :B:a6 3 5 .j,b7 :B:a4 36.g5 'tt> g7 37.'it>e2 f6 38.gxf6t 'tt> xf6 39.'it>f3 'it>g7 40.'it>g3 'tt> f6 4 1 .f3 'tt> g7 42.j,e4 'tt> h 7 43.'it>g4 :B:a5 44.j,d4 'it>h6 45 .j,f6 :B:b5 46.j,e7 'tt> g7 47.j,d6 'tt> h 6 48.f4 'it>h7 49.j,e5 'tt> h 6 50.j,f6 :B:b3 5 I .j,c2 :B:a3 52.j,e7 :B:c3 53.j,a4 'tt> g7 54.j,b5 :B:b3 5 5 .j,a4 :B:c3 56.j,d6 :B:d3 57.j,b4 :B:e3 5 8.j,c6 :B:b3 59.j,c5 'it>h7 60.j,e8 :B:c3 6 1 .j,d6 :B:d3 62.j,e5 'it>h6 63.j,f7 :B:a3 64.j,d6 :B:a5 65 .j,fst 'it>h7 Y2-Y2 After the game we discussed the endgame at the team meeting. Only I believed that White has serious winning chances. Emil Sutovsky subsequently put the position on Facebook and asked whoever he bumped into what they thought. The opinion was almost universally the opposite of mine. I have not done any serious analytical work on this and it remains guesswork. The argument against my view is that White will be unable to attack any weakness twice. On the other hand the bishops are very strong and can potentially dominate everything.

Chapter

5

-

253


certain, it looks likely that White should win.

28.'1Yxd6 Yfxd6 Black could also go into the endgame with doubled f-pawns: 28 . . . �c5 29.a4 lll xf5 (29 . . . 'Wxf5 30.ie3 and Black collapses) 30.'Wxf6 gxf6 3 l .ixe5 �xe5 32.�d7 This gives a winning endgame of account of the recurring trick 32 . . . �e7 33.id3! and White wins a piece! b

a

d

c

f

e

26.J.b5 White has won a tempo.

g

h

29.gxd6 gc5 I also noticed a nice refutation of the tactical try: 29 . . . �xc3 30.ixe5 �c5

26 ... �k7 27.gc12 Black will not be able to defend the pawn for long. 27 ... � e7 Against 27 . . . �c8, I intended to play 28.ig3, when after 28 . . . lll e? 29.'Wxd6 'Wxd6 30.�xd6 lll x f5, we have almost the same position as in the previous line, though here the choice is a bit easier for White.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

3 I .id3! �xe5 32.f6t lll g6 33 .�d7! and Black's position is falling apart.

30.a4 �xf'5 3 1 ..ixe5 gxe5 Another important point is that 3 1 . . .lll xd6 does not work as the white pawn is already on a4. After 32.ixd6 �xc3 33.ibS White uses the tempo to win a pawn, after which the rest is a matter of technique. a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

White could effectively transpose to the previous line by taking on e5, but I prefer 3 l .�d5 f6 32.ixe5 fxe5 , when White has the extra option of 33.id? �f8 34.�xe5, giving a more active version of the endgame discussed above. Though nothing is

32J�d7 Black is in a common scenario. He had the option of going into inferior endings at various points, but after not choosing any of them, he ends up in one that appears even worse than all the alternatives.


254

In the endgame Black probably chooses the wrong strategy of waiting solidly, hoping that White cannot improve his position greatly. This leads to a critical position at move 37, where White forces matters and Black has to come up with a sequence of only moves to avoid losing quickly. As so often happens, this is not as easy as it sounds . . .

Boris Gelfand - Laurent Fressinet a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

32 ... aS He had undoubtedly planned to play 32 . . . Ele7, which is met with 33 . .id3!. I am absolutely sure he missed this. After 33 . . . g6 34.ixf5 Ele i t 3 5 .'it>h2 gxf5 36.Elxf7t 'it>g6 37.Elxa7 the two extra pawns would be enough to win the game. 33.id3 After this the game is over. White wins two pawns and that is that. 33 g6 34.gxf7t 'it>g8 35.gf6 tlie7 36.gxb6 @f7 37.gbS gel t 38.@h2 gel 39.gcS @£6 40.ie4 tlif5 41 .ixfS gxf5 42.g4 1-0 .•.

Conversion from nothing to nothing! There are times when we transform the position simply because we need to do something. In this case we are not looking for a way to preserve an advantage but for a way to preserve equality, or for a way to set different problems for our opponents. In the following game there are a number of interesting possibilities for both players to transform the position. Initially Black has to choose between the . . . c5 and . . . e5 options. Later on White needs to choose between different ways to pose problems for Black.

Canada de Calatrava (ra p id) 2007

This game was played in a strong rapid event in Spain. It was the second edition of the tournament and the only time I took part. I tied for first with Shirov, Fridman and Ivan Sokolov, ahead of other such strong grandmasters as Anand, Mamedyarov, Polgar, Grischuk, Karpov and so on. Fressinet is essentially a classical player with a broad knowledge. He has seconded both Kramnik and Carlsen in World Championship matches. He can play all types of positions well, and does not have an obvious weakness as far as I can see. When he was younger he was quite tactical, but he has clearly matured. I have played quite a number of games against him and, as he pointed out, I tend to have achieved my best results when he was also taking part in the tournament (not necessarily dependent on our individual result) . In 20 1 3 I won both the Paris Grand Prix and the Alekhine Memorial, where he also took part, as well as a few other tournaments over the years. So naturally he suggested that I should press organizers of the big tournaments to invite not only me, but also him.

1 .d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.tlio tlif6 At the time when this game was played, if you opened l .d4 you would reach this position more often than any other.

Chapter

5

-

Transformation

4.Wfb3 This move is becoming more popular these days. The main reason is that it has less theory associated with it than for example 4.lll c3, where Black has a big choice between the Classical Slav, the Semi-Slav and the Chebanenko Slav. White wants to have a long positional game, rather than trying to win from the opening.

of Advantages

25 5

8.gxf3 e5, where hundreds of games has been played. One of the biggest discoveries in opening theory the last few years was that Black is doing fine after: 9.dxe5 lll xe5 1 0.Wi'e2 i.c5 l l .i.d2 lll h5 1 2.f4 Wi'xd2t!!

4 dxc4 s.Wfxc4 .ig4 Fressinet chooses the more dynamic of the two main options here. 5 . . . i.f5 is the other main line. •••

6.tll c3 � bd7 7.e4

I would add that the immediate 7 . . . e5!? is a possible and beautiful move, which Carlsen has played. It was also the recommendation by Boris Avrukh in his recent book Grandmaster Repertoire 1 7 The Classical Slav. -

8 ..ie3 .ie7 9 ..ie2 0-0 10.0-0

7... e6 A reasonable move, signalling that Black also does not wish to debate opening theory, but would rather start slowly and see what opportunities present themselves along the way. It could be argued that this move is a little passive and for this reason is a concession that gives White a minimal advantage. This is the standard price of avoiding main-line theory, although in this case I do not believe it is anything special. Obviously Black could also take on f3 first and then play . . . e6. The main theoretical line here is 7 . . . i.xf3

256


There are some similarities with the standard lines of the Slav, where White has to play a2a4 to get his pawn back, but then manages to build a strong centre. Here White did not weaken his position with a4, but on the other hand he has wasted a few tempos with his queen, which will need to retreat soon. In my opinion, White should aim to consolidate at this point.

comfortable space advantage, whereas after 1 2 . . . lll d5 1 3.lll xd5 cxd5 1 4.�xb5 E:b8 1 5 .Wd3 Black does not have enough compensation for the pawn. 1 1 . . .Wc7 is probably best met with 1 2.E:ac l �h5 1 3. h3 �g6 1 4.lll d2 and White might be slightly better.

1 2.�c2 10 ... :ScS A logical move. Black is considering playing both . . . b5 and . . . c5. 10 . . . b5?! immediately is too much. l 1 .Wxc6 b4 1 2.lll b5 does not offer quite enough compensation for the pawn. This is quite logical, as Black does not look ready for active play. 1 o . . . �h5 has been played by a number of strong guys (in blitz! ) . The bishop is going to g6, which seems quite reasonable as well. White has a slight plus score, but I find such statistics meaningless. There are too few games, and a novelty might even mean that a line is abandoned, though statistically it seems excellent! I would like to add that I would be happy to play this position from either side. In a tournament like this, where you do not know who you will face until three minutes before the game, theoretical discussions rarely occur. The players are usually happy to get out of the opening with a decent position with everything to play for.

l l .�b3 Quite a normal move. 1 1 ...�b6 1 1 . . .b5?! would be imprecise due to 1 2.e5, when Black has an unpleasant choice. If the knight goes backwards, White has a

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 2 ...�c7 This is a little passive, leaving it for White to show his hand. Maybe because it is a rapid game, Fressinet decides not to take action before there is something obvious to do. l 2 . . . c5!? This was an interesting attempt to equalize straight away. The only way for White to cause Black any concern is not entirely straightforward. 1 3.d5 Neither 1 3.E:fd l cxd4 1 4.lll xd4 �c5 , with the plan of . . . e5, nor l 3.e5 lll d5 causes Black any problems. 1 3 . . . exd5

Chap ter

5

-

257


1 5 ....ixa This is a reasonable decision, though it should probably be followed by . . . c5 rather than . . . e5 .

b

a

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 4.e5! 1 4.exd5 is relatively harmless. White will not find it easy to transfer his knights to b5, c4 or f5 . 1 4 . . . J.xf3! 1 5 .exf6 tll x f6 1 6.J.xf3 d 4 1 7.i.f4 dxc3 1 8.bxc3 White has two bishops and the chance to exert pressure along the b-file. It is not much, but Black still has some questions to answer.

1 3J�acl 'ilYb8 14JUdl White has a pleasant position with slightly more space, though there is nothing wrong with Black's position either. Both players can be happy with the outcome of the opening. 14 .. JUdS 1 5.i.g5

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

1 5 . . . c5 This will mainly transpose, but there are a few details that it makes sense to include here. 1 6.d5 If Black is allowed to take on d4, then he equalizes. And after 1 6.e5? i.xf3! 1 7 .exf6 tll xf6 1 8.i.xf3 cxd4+ White will struggle to justify the loss of a pawn.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

1 6 . . . J.xf3! 1 6 . . . exd5?! 1 7.i.xf6! would be a faulty move order. According to how Black recaptures, he faces problems against e4-e5 or tll xd5 . 1 7.i.xf3 1 7.dxe6? looks like an interesting alternative, but Black has a fantastic refutation:

h

I decided to put some extra pressure on my opponent, forcing him to make a decision.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

258


l 7 . . .i.xe2 1 8.exd7 tD g4!! This is of course an attack on h2, but at the same time it has the point that the bishop on g5 will be hanging, which is greatly inconvenient for White. The following line is grim, but it is the best White has. 1 9.tDxe2 '!Wxh2t 20.�fl '!Wh l t 2 1 .lDgl :B:xd7! The complications continue, but after 22.:B:xd7 i.xg5 Black is threatening both . . . tD h2t and . . . i.xc l , leaving White in an uncomfortable situation. l 7 . . . exd5 l 7 . . . c4!? would be an attempt to make the position double-edged, rather than to equalize. Black has not shown this desire so far. 1 8.exd5

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

17.dxe5 A sensible move. It was also possible for White to play l 7.d5 cxd5 1 8 .exd5 or l 7.tDe2!? with slight pressure in both cases. 17 ... �xeS The following manoeuvre is questionable. On the surface 1 7 . . . '!Wxe5 1 8.i.h4 may look unpleasant for Black, but what he did in the game looks less logical. The knight takes two moves to get to a square that is no better than where it came from.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

have analysed this position further and it seems that there is no clear way for White to claim an advantage. He does have the two bishops and a passed pawn, but the pawn is quite safely guarded and there are excellent squares for the black bishop and knights on the dark squares. It would be easy to confuse everything with a lot of variations, but essentially they would only confirm the optical impression, which is that Black should be okay with accurate play.

16.La e5 1 6 . . . c5 would give White nothing better chan transposing to the lines above.

1 8.i.e2 �g6 19.g3 At this point White would be doing really well if he had an additional move to play f2-f4 and i.f3, preparing e4-e5 . It is therefore Black's task to neutralize White's pressure before it becomes too great. 1 9 ...'!Wes Bringing the queen back into the game. I wondered if Black could play l 9 . . . i.c5 ?! but White has a nice tactic: 20.i.xf6 gxf6 2 l .i.g4! This is very uncomfortable for Black, on account of 2 1 . . .:B:xd l t? 22.tDxd l ! and White wins the exchange. Or if 2 l . . .:B:c7, White gets control of the cl-file.

Chap ter

5

-

259


would be hunky-dory, but there is no express route to make it happen. I have analysed this position some more and with a few good moves, Black is okay.

20 ....ic5 This is a must. If White is allowed to play f2-f4 and keep his big centre and the two bishops, his chances will be high.

b

a

d

c

f

e

g

h

20 ..ie3 It is also interesting to try: 20.f4!? West 2 1 .'it>g2 As mentioned above, White would love to have an extra tempo to play if3 and e4-e5 , but things are not that easy. The resulting structure is unpleasant for Black, but tenable none the less. 2 1 . . .h6 Not a pleasant move to make, but sooner or later Black will have to play this move to force White to take on f6, so he might as well make it now. 22.ixf6 gxf6!

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

At this point White can no longer keep the two bishops, but has to accept the exchange of what is probably his best piece. In return I was able to transform the position into an endgame where Black has a small weakness and has knight against bishop. It is certainly not a lot and my feeling during the game was that the position was definitely defendable.

2 1 .hc5 '!Wxc5 22.tll d5 The concrete approach.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

An important move. Black has to choose this structure to prevent e4-e5. It is a sad way to play, but with the manoeuvre . . . tll f8-e6-d4 coming, White will not have a great advantage. If White could get his knight to f5 , things

22.'it>g2 Wg5 !? with ideas of . . . tll f4t and . . . tll h 4t does not look especially worrying for Black. White is probably slightly better, but Black is not in serious danger. A big theme in this phase of the game is whether or not White can get in f2-f4 in good circumstances. Here he would also be failing to do so.

22 ...'!Wxc2


260

22 . . . lt:lxe4 was an option as well. White plays: 23.Wfxc5 lll x c5 24.gxc5 cxd5 2 5 .gdxd5! ©f8 26 . .ig4

'1!11 1>.� Ii" i �,%. �· %��i •��. . .Y..�� a �%· · � · � � A'0 � : ��a1 � �� /! • • � · · "� �n· 8�� · · · · "� � � · · ";·�r. . .& �

8

7

6

.

"

2 5 ... lll e7 26.©fl f5 was also possible, but it is not clear that the exchange of the f6-pawn will improve things for Black. The remaining pawns are still split and we should not forget that the doubled f-pawns are useful defenders in a number of endgames. For example, were we to exchange minor pieces and remove all pawns from the queenside, White would have no winning chances to speak of, despite having an extra pawn.

.....

3 � 2

b

a

c

d

e

f

g

h

Black has to play 26 . . . gbs. White's position is pleasant, though his advantage is modest. I should probably admit that I was planning to reply 23.Wf xe4, which is less dangerous. On the other hand, it is very dangerous for Black to enter these complications. If something were to go wrong, he would find himself simply lost. So it is very natural to go for liquidation as Laurent did. Sure, he has a slightly worse pawn structure, but on the other hand he has control of the d-line. In my opinion, Black's position in the game looks more defendable than the alternatives.

23.l£ixf6t gxf6 24.gxd8t gxd8 25.gxc2

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

25 ... l£if'8 A natural rerouting of the knight, though it does give White time to improve his position.

h

26.f.3 l£ie6 27.@f'l The way I understood this ending - which proved to be correct - is that Black will have to make committal decisions, while White can manoeuvre around, waiting for a chance. 27... @f'S In the game Black decided to do nothing and j ust wait. Although it is probably still sufficient, I do not think it was a very practical choice. It is of course worth checking: 27 . . . lll d4

Chapter 5

-

26 1


28.!!d 2 a5! To rule out b2-b4 ideas. 29.�e3 c5 and Black is solid. The game goes on, but White's chances are limited. 28 . . . b6! White has very little after this. 28 . . . llixe2 29.�xe2 �f8 30.gc5 shows that it is not so easy for Black to get to the four vs. three endgame mentioned above. 29.�e3 c5 If Black is given time to play . . . a5, the draw should be secure. And after: 30.b4 llixe2 3 1 .�xe2 cxb4 32.gxb4

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

30.f4 White is making miniscule progress and actually has a slight advantage here, which only means that Black has to play more accurately than White in order to keep the balance. 30 ... h6 Black continues his waiting strategy. It is too late for 30 . . . c5, as White plays 3 l .f5 , winning a pawn.

28.@e3 @e7 29J�c4 I like this move, taking control of the d4square, though Black can still go back to the idea of putting the knight on d4. 29 .. J:id7 29 . . . c5!? 30.f4 b6 is interesting. White plays 3 1 .b4, when after 3 1 . . .cxb4 32.gxb4 llic5 33.gd4 Black needs to consider if he would feel comfortable in a minor piece ending. It is some achievement for White that his opponent has to speculate about which endings are the least unpleasant. A5 long as this is not obvious, it is quite easy to make the wrong choice and end up in difficulties.

3 1 .b3 a6 If Black j ust waits, it is possible to make progress. For example: 3 l . . . gd8 32.ga4!? a6 33.ga5! �f8 34.i.g4 gd7 3 5 .e5 and although it is not much, White has managed to improve his position slightly. If you want to improve your ability in playing such positions, I can recommend a close study of Karpov's and Carlsen's games. 32 ..ig4 gds 33.b4 Minor improvements have combined to form a clear improvement of the position compared to ten moves ago. Black is waiting and since White is not under the illusion that he will be able to win quickly, he simply improves his position slowly.


262

33 J'fas With the idea of . . . a5.

is the posmon to play in practice? That is what will determine the result, more than any computer evaluation.

••

34J'k3! �g8 35.i.dl �d8 36.i.h3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

37.�d3! This forces matters in a situation where neither player has enough time to determine the consequences of the various pawn endings. This is a sensible practical decision, as all the responsibiliry lies on Black to find the right moves - and this without the knowledge we have in hindsight, chat there actually is a way to hold.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Is the bishop better placed on this diagonal? During the game I thought so, but of course it is hard to say for certain. To some extent I am using a simple technique: move the pieces around, probing for weaknesses. The idea that we can see all the possible plans and cricks from the beginning may be emotionally attractive, but it is not in line with experience. Things will show up that we did not consider.

36 ... llid4 36 . . . llic7 37.Ei:d3 Ei:c8 38.a4 is also a small further improvement for White. Black's position is unpleasant, but should still be defendable. But from where we started out, unpleasant is a big step in the right direction. Who is to say chat this will not be the direction of travel for the rest of the game? I know I have said it elsewhere in this book, but my editor has assured me chat repeating important points will only help the reader to appreciate chem, so here I go again: Chess is a game and the practical dimension should not be underestimated. The evaluation of pleasant/ unpleasant is often more useful than +0.73 or whatever the engine is saying. How difficult

During the game I was thinking that this would lead to a "slighcly better pawn ending". Pawn endings have four possible outcomes: winning, losing, drawn or a transition into a queen ending. But as always, an advantage means chat the position is easier to play as much as anything. With 37.i.a4 White could continue to put slight pressure on Black, but is unlikely to pose as many problems to the opponent as the move played in the game does.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

37 ... lli e6? The pawn ending is rather complicated and the following variations are of course the product of computer analysis and not my own

Chap ter

5

-

263


speculations during the game. For this reason I have chosen to give the moves with few notes. Pawn endings are very concrete and in this case correct play leads to a draw. 37 . . . lll x b3! Though clearly it was possible to choose the wrong pawn ending with little time left on the clock, this is not the most challenging moment. 38.gxd8 38 .gxb3 gd l is fine for Black of course. 38 . . . 'iif xd8 39.axb3

39 . . . h5!! This is the first of a series of stunning moves that Black would have to find in order to save the game. 39 . . . 'iif e ?? 40.g4 wins for White. The idea is to play h4-h5 and keep options open on the far kingside. Later on he can push with e4e5 and break up the centre, before heading for the queenside with the king. 40. @f3 'iii d7 4 l .g4 4 l .h4 looks tempting, but Black has a brilliant pawn sacrifice at his disposal that will block the kingside.

7

6 5

4

3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

4 1 . . .f5!! 42.exf5 'iii e7 43.g4 hxg4t 44.'iii xg4 'iif f6 45.h5 'iii g7 and White will not make any progress.

41 . . . h4!! White cannot be allowed a passed h-pawn. At this point White could do nothing and a draw would result. However, he can also try to win, which would even put him in danger. 42.g5 ! ? 42.'iii g2 b 6 43.'iif h 3? i s a poor winning attempt. Black's king is ideally placed and he wins after 43 . . . c5 44.bxc5 bxc5 4 5 .'iif xh4 c4 46.bxc4 a5 and it is all over. 42 . . . fxg5 43.fxg5 'iii e 6! The accurate move, creating problems for White. 43 . . . b6 44.'iii g4 c5?! 45 .bxc5 bxc5 looks like a sensible strategy, but White can create a few problems for Black: 46.'iii f5 ! a5 47.©f6 (47.'iii e 5 'iii c 6! 48.'iif f6 is also possible, but

264


less dangerous) 47 . . . a4 (47 . . . @e8? 48.We5! and White wins!) 48.bxa4 c4 49.@xf7 c3 50.e5 c2 5 1 .e6t @c7 52.e? c l =W 53.e8=W Wf4t 54.Wg6 Wxh2 The tablebase tells us that Black should hold, but being a pawn down in an ending is never pleasant. 44.Wg4 b6 45.Wxh4 c5 46.Wg4! a5! 46 ... cxb4 47.h4 a5 48.h5 a4 49.h6 axb3 50.h7 b2 5 1 .h8=W b l =W 52.Wf6t with a few winning chances for White.

� � � : ��--��,,-� � � ' � :� �, �p�·�·� �� ,,

It turns out that the doubled pawns were if anything an asset for Black, while they clearly would have been a liability for White.

40... b6 4I .g4 ©d6 42.eSt fxe5t 43.fxeSt ©e7 44.h4 ©d7 45.a4

8

'ef ' %!&ii'%

%�,%

,

b

a

c

d

e

f

g

1-0

h

Suddenly it is White that would have to find the only way to stay in the game! 47.b5!! c4 48.bxc4 a4 49.c5 bxc5 50.b6 @cl? 5 I .e5 a3 52.e6t fxe6 53.b? The queen ending which will soon arise is a draw.

38.he6 �hd3t 39.©xd.3 fxe6 40.©d4

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Conclusion The advantage in chess may take a number of different forms: development, space, material, pawn structure, king safety and so on. To make the most of a favourable position may well require a trade of one type of advantage for another, and the process may have to be repeated several times before victory can be achieved. The overall principle of Transformation of Advantages is easy to understand, but j udging when and how to do so is one of the most difficult aspects of chess. There are numerous possibilities and this chapter has by no means tried to list them all; however, I hope I have gone some way towards illustrating the spirit and the mechanics of transformation in a way that benefits the reader.

Appendix I Cannot Leave My House! Interview with Jacob Aagaard 20 1 2 -

In conversation with Vishy

266


Hi Boris, how are you doing? I am doing okay. I am still very tired, but it should get better.

How has the reaction been in Israel? It is something unbelievable; I cannot leave the house! I go onto the street and people stop me. When you enter my city there is a billboard saying, " For us you are the champion." It is unbelievable; I really cannot understand it. I went out this morning and I could not walk more than a few metres between people stopping to greet me.

Let us start with the obvious question - what is your overall impression ofthe match? It was a great moment for me. I really enjoyed it and I woke up every day thinking, 'What a great day this is - I am going to play another game.' So I am full of very positive emotions. I prepared for months and you saw that I chose some new openings and I changed the attitude in my game. I am happy that I managed to put most of the things I prepared into practice.

It looked to me as ifyou were trying to either take the initiative or at least prevent Anandfrom taking the initiative. Kind 0£ It is very difficult to face Anand when he has the initiative. He is the greatest player of our time. So, yes, it was my strategy not to let him get the initiative.

Let us go through the critical moments in the match. Maybe we can start with you choosing the moments you found critical in the match. You know it is hard for me to decide on this, as I was focusing on each game separately. But the decisive games were of course always critical. And of course Game 3 where I was lucky to escape.

In Game 3 there were some commentators whofelt that Anand did not have the ability to concentrate fully at this critical moment. What is your opinion on this?

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Appendix - I Cannot Leave My House!

267

[Anand played 34J!k7? ges 35.ghl ? and the game was drawn after 35 J�ee2 36.d7 gb2t 37.@cl gxa2.] .•

I do not think you should j udge him based on one mistake. The opinion that Anand is no longer the same player comes from a well-respected great ex-champion and too many people are putting too much weight on this. I find that this opinion is really biased. In the Topalov match Anand made even bigger mistakes than in this match, blundering in a drawn position, but no one said that Anand was in poor form then. But then Anand was of course accepting his assistance in 20 1 0, but no one wanted it in 20 1 2 . . . If Anand had managed to get the initiative h e would have proved that h e was i n good form, but he could not get the initiative. The mistake in Game 3 - well, these things happen. I am not entirely sure what actually went wrong for him. Maybe it was some kind of mental black-out.

Or maybe chess isjust difficult? Well, to play 34.d? is not so difficult, but I am not sure it was fully winning. I am still analysing it. To push the pawn was not difficult, but to find the win was. It would have put me under great pressure, but I am still not sure it is winning. After 34 . . J:k5 it is not so simple. I can give you a line if you are interested? I have not analysed everything to the end yet, so probably my analysis is not so precise.

I am very interested! So: 34 . . . l:!c5 35.l:!exh7 l:!d l t 36.mb2 l:!d2t 37.ma3 b5 8

7

6 5

4 3

2

1 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

And then White has 38.:!:!4h6t. Yes, yes, but this is very difficult to find. 38 . . . mg5 39.d8=�t! l:!xd8 and then back again: 40.l:!h4! And here: 40 . . . mf6 4 1 .f4 me6 42.l:!a? b4t 43.ma4 l:!c2 44.l:!a6t md5 4 5.l:!xa5t me4


268

b

a

c

d

e

f

g

h

White should be winning, but still there are practical chances. Bue co find moves 38-40 is, how can I say it, not so simple. Bue objectively this was the way co win the game.

But what you could argue is that it was simpler to see that it wasjust a draw as it came in the game, at least ifyou have Anand's calibre. Yes, yes, I totally agree. After he played 34.�c? I first thought he wanted co win time by repeating the position with 3 5 .�e?, so I was really shocked when he played 3 5 .�h l . [This would have given Anand time co find 39.d8=�t! from above, as this would have been on move 4 1 - after the time control.] After 3 5 .�e? I can deviate with 3 5 ... �d8, but I doubt whether it is good enough. I clearly misplayed my position. Maybe I should have played 30 . . . 'itif6 and advanced my pieces quietly. I am worse, but . . . The problem was chat I did not find this . . . ttJ b 6 and . . . �d5 i n the opening.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

[Instead of 23 JUc5? Black could equalize with: 23 . . . tlJ b6 24.tlJc3 �d5 !! For example: 2 5 .�d3

if5 26.�xd5 ttJxd5 27.g4 tlJxc3 28.bxc3 id?=] ••


269

This is not easy to see, but at least it should be possible.

Arkadij Naiditsch was commentating on this game on the Internet and said that there was an easy draw here. This is a case where you need to distinguish between what can easily be found by a computer, who shows it in a split second, and what can easily be found by a human brain. This is not the same. This really makes me laugh when I hear such things. Obviously not only Arkadij makes such comments. The surprising thing is that he made it, because he is a great player. Normally it comes from amateurs. Maybe Arkadij was too deep into the game? I don't want to give the wrong impression; only to say that during the game it was not easy at all.

The next obvious moments are Game 7 and Game 8 . [For Game 7 see page 1 92] Of course.

I was personally deeply impressed by the idea of�d2 and E:c l . Who found this idea? 'We' found it. It was a team effort. First I tried the b3-system, then the '\Wc2-system. So I decided that it is time to dig deeply in the c5-system. There are not so many systems against 5 . . . a6, which might explain why Anand chose it. It is pretty easy to prepare against three systems only.

[ l .d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.�8 � f6 4.�c3 e6 5.e3 a6 6.c5 � bd7] Anyway, I tried to dig into the only system I had not tried. After 7.�d3 Black can play 7 . . . e5 as Aronian did against me in Wijk aan Zee 2008. And after 7.b4 Black can play 7 . . . b6 - there were some recent games with this. So I started to think about alternatives. So 7.V!fcl popped up. It is much better suited to meet . . . e5 and against . . . b6 White can take. So we used logic to find it. Then we analysed it and decided that it poses new problems. +. -

+

0


270

Another thing which is interesting about this game is that I managed to play it in the style of my favourite player, Rubinstein, where you have one idea and you play according to it in all of the game.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

This is also why I played 1 6 ..ig3 instead of the objectively stronger I 6.i.xf6. Of course I also underestimated the lli e2-g3-h5 manoeuvre. But I saw that 1 6.i.g3 would keep a nice initiative. If this had not been the case, probably I would have taken on f6. Later on 20 ... gabS is bad. After 20 . . . E:c7 White has to play very precisely in order to get an advantage. Alex Huzman found the only way to play for an advantage, 2 1 .%Ve l ! and only after 2 l . . . E:ac8 White should play 22.lt'ia4 with the idea llic5. Basically it is prophylaxis against . . . %Vb4. 20 . . . E:ab8 is basically wasting of a tempo.

In the Bth game you based your calculations on 1 4 . . . %Vf6, but itjust did not work. Yes, but you know, I think the general approach was correct. When White plays 7.lt'iec3 it is obvious to me that you have to do something on the kingside. I should also say that I played this game without feeling any pressure by the fact that I was leading the match. Unfortunately it backfired. I can tell you what went wrong, after: 9 exf6 10.Vfd2 f'5 1 1 .exf5 .ixf5 •••

App endix

-

I Cannot Leave My House!

27 1

White has so many possibilities, so 1 7.Vff f2 escaped my attention. [ 1 2 g4 :Best 1 3.dl bbl 14.:Sxbl 'ilYf6 I 5.gxh5 YlYxat I 6.c2 'ilYxhI I7.'ilYfl! 1--01 .

Lee me show you a brilliant line: 1 3 . .ie2 Wfh4t 1 4 .'tt> d l .ixb l 1 5 .E:xb l lli f6 1 6.llib5

8

5

4 3

2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

And for quite some time it seemed co me chat White is doing well. Bue then I found 1 9 . . . h5 20.g5 lli e4!! 2 1 . fxe4 Wfxe4 and the queen is forking the white rooks! [Boris laughs infectiously.] Maybe I spent coo much time solving chose positions you sent co me!

7his is a beautiful line. Yes, yes. Then I moved on co other moves. So I calculated all of these lines and in the end I missed l 7.Wff2 and the position is so bad after this that I had co resign. It was j ust a blunder.

How did you react to this blunder emotionally? I was pretty calm. Maybe too calm. I do not know why, but I was pretty calm. OK, it can happen. It is a long match and I decided that it would be better j ust to forget about it and concentrate on the next game; and this is what I cried to do.

Positional Decision Maki ng in Chess

272

To me Game 9 seemed to be the most critical game ofthe match.

I probably agree.

Maybe move 19 [where Boris played 1 9.c5] was the critical moment ofthe game?

Do you think you wanted to be too much in control when you played this move? I shall tell you what happened. First of all it was not possible to calculate everything to the end. Secondly, I was fully aware that fortresses are Vishy's bread and butter. He did it very often, even in our mutual games. I knew there was a serious risk that this would happen. But I also did not see how I should continue if l played 1 9.a3 and he simply waited. So I thought, "No matter what I do, there is risk involved." Maybe I would have to play c4-c5 in worse circumstances. So I invested a lot of time trying to calculate the endgame and I decided that with the damaged pawn structure on the kingside and the pawn on a6, I would create another weakness on the kingside and I would break through. I was totally sure that it was won from an assessment point of view.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Appendix

-

I Cannot Leave My House!

273

And maybe with 33.g4 I would have been able to do it. I am not completely sure. I have not had time to analyse it deeply yet. I believe that if l had been able to put my pawn on f5 I would have won. But I played imprecisely and did not manage to achieve this. I simply missed that he could put his pawn on f5 .

But ofcourse 1 5 . . . ixB was also a very strange mistakefo r Anand to make. Of course. But I think Anand even admitted someplace that he mistook the position for that of an old Karpov game. [Portisch - Karpov, Bugojno 1 978 - actually Black could transpose to this game with 1 5 . . . h6! 1 6 . .id2 l:!fe8 1 7.l:!e l and now 1 7 . . . ixB! 1 8.Wfxf3 e5 with even chances.] He intended to play 16 ... e5, but then realized that l 7 . .if5! wins the exchange. I was completely shocked, not realizing immediately what was going on.

This is also one of the moments that make people say that '�his is not the same Anand as we used to know ': These things happen. We will see what happens in the next few tournaments. Before his match against Kramnik in 2008 he played really badly in Bilbao [two losses and eight draws, ending in last place] , much worse than before this match. But then he won against Kramnik and against Topalov, and did well in so many tournaments. So I don't see a pattern of decline so far.

Do you think that you were a bigger challenge to Anand than Kramnik and Topalov? I think I created more problems for him than they did. I am not sure of the exact reason; maybe I was more successful in my opening preparation. Kramnik got caught in this Meran line twice and the match was simply over. Things were less easy against Topalov of course. I should say that the thing I find really interesting about the match is that you can make a grand strategy for the match in a way you cannot do in a tournament. You can push forward your strategy throughout the match, which makes it more interesting for me than a tournament. In matches the players' style and how they interact with each other is much more important than in tournaments as well. Don't get me wrong, tournaments are also interesting, but matches are played only rarely, which is perhaps why I cherish them so much. For example: before the match I analysed Anand's games deeply and realized that he was fantastic with the initiative and that I simply should not give it to him. And it worked.

Do you think the public like matches less because you needfewer decisive results to win? Too many people follow chess for us to generalize. People like different things. This is not the Eurovision Song Contest. We do not have to follow the majority view. A lot of people like chess. Some prefer tournaments, others matches, some rapid chess and so on. Fortunately we have all kinds of events at the moment so everyone can choose to follow the event that suits them best.

274


Unfortunately the great majority of the public is not interested in chess at all. Let us for example take these complaints about the number of draws. Last year I played in Tai Memorial [Moscow 20 1 1 ] , which was maybe the most interesting tournament in the last few years based on the quality of the games. Then three rounds in a row there were more or less only draws, because everybody defended excellently and big advantages were not converted. People started to complain, but people who watched the games appreciated it. Or let me give you another example, an excellent example. Last year Shirov started with 3 Yz/4 in Lublin. Then he saved an ending two pawns down in almost a hundred moves against Sasikiran and in the final round he sacrificed the queen against Grachev, a game that ended with a perpetual check.

Shirov Grachev -

Lublin 20 1 1

I .d4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.�c3 �f6 4.eS �fd7 5.£4 c5 6.�f'3 �c6 7 ..le3 cxd4 8.�xd4 .icS 9.'ilYd2 10.0-0-0 hd4 1 1 .hd4 'ilYaS 1 2.h4 gbs 1 3J�h3 b5 14.£5 �xd4 1 5.f6 b4 16.'ilYgS �f5 17 ..id3 h6

0-0

18.LfS hxg5 19.hxgS bxc3! The only move that does not lose. 20 ..ih7t 20.E:dh l would have created more problems for Black, but Shirov clearly trusted that his opponent knew what to do and did not want to let him do it over the board! Black draws only with: 20 . . . cxb2t 2 1 .<;!;>b 1


275

Ja -*- � �· , �� ••• � - -··" --- - -"� � io �� '"; f�t� .... . %� ..... %� . %� �� .:t � � �!@ �� 2 8� 8 -� 8� 8 .:t � 8

7

6 5

4

..

..

3

-�

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

2 1 . . .'Wxa2t! 22.'it>xa2 b l ='Wt 23.!!xb l !!xb l and now White has to give a perpetual check now to avoid defeat.

20 ... @hs 2 1 ..ig6t @gs 22.i.h?t @hs 23.i.d3t @gs 24 ..ih?t 1/2-1/2 On a chess site they wrote that "Shirov started with 3 Y2/4 and cruised to victory with three draws." I was really laughing. And the j ournalist; how dare he write this? He said: "Oh, I had not time to check the games, so I decided to j ust write something." Unfortunately the people who watch the games do not have time to comment on them, so we are left with these people making comments that "the games are boring" and things like this. So the people who did not watch the games were unhappy. What can you do? But I can say in this match that we both did everything we could to win the match. But sometimes you cannot get an interesting game. Like Game 5 where I had this novelty in the Sveshnikov and equalized.

My assessment of the match was that when both the players are relying on surprises with Black and have an extra halfyear to prepare it is very difficult for the player with White to get an advantage in the firstfew games. Exactly! Actually this was a sort of revelation to me during the match. Before it I could not imagine that it would be so difficult to get anything in the opening. Even though Anand played a side-line it was very difficult to get an advantage, because he had analysed it deeply with computers. You need to spend a comparable amount of time in a line to be able to create problems.

Let us talk about the tie-breaks. It seems to me that the decisive factor was that Anand changed his openings and you did not? Probably! ? I still have to revisit it to make up my mind. But also, if your opening has served you well? You can play something you have not analysed deeply, but when Anand played l .e4 in the match, he was ready to meet all kinds of openings. So I relied on the openings I knew better. I could have played another opening, for example the Najdorf, and got trapped there. I had to

276


make a choice and all choices had advantages and drawbacks. So I chose as I did. But even the way it came I had my chances. Of course I had to spend too much time in Game 2 finding an antidote to this interesting idea - 1 1 .tll a 5! - which we had not predicted in our preparation. But in Monaco I managed to win far more complicated rook endings and hold far more difficult endgames than Game 2, also playing with increments of 1 0 seconds.

I was surprised in Game 2 that you did not give up your bishop for the pawn in order to defend rook against rook and knight. Somehow I could not see a way to get it. I was also hesitating; should I look for it or should I make a fortress? I really spent too much time hesitating. I should have made up my mind more decisively. Could I really have forced this endgame?

Yes, a Jew times. But a few times I could also have created a fortress.

I would think that a harmless theoretical position would be a better choice than a fortress, which you need to understand But a theoretical position, you just know. Exactly! But you know, I would make a draw eight or nine times out of ten from this position. But this time it did not happen. And Game 3 I would probably win 999 from 1 OOO, but still this did not happen. In Game 4 I also had the advantage, but I should have played more patiently, advancing on both flanks and maybe it would have been enough to win the game.

What were you actually thinking when you played :gh7?

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

[The game went 59.gh7?? i>d6 60.i>g3 i>e6 1h-1/2. 59.�g3 j ust wins.]


277

It is hard to explain. I have studied rook endings all my life. At age nine I knew the theory of the ending with 3 vs. 3 plus a pawn on the queenside. I knew all the ideas. And when I was twelve I studied Levenfish & Smyslov's and Minev's books and others very deeply, so I cannot say that I am not familiar with rook endings. I know a lot about it as well as the Vancura position [black king on b7, rook on c6, checking the white king perpetually] , which he obviously cannot get here. Probably I had some black-out, believing that he would get the Vancura position after 'kt>g3. I don't know. Rook endings give me a lot of pleasure. Recently there was a brilliant article in the Russian magazine 64 by Ilya Odessky with some really deep ideas, which I studied for days. In one of my training sessions before the match I spent a full day j ust trying to understand what was going on to increase my understanding of rook endgames. Even before the match I took care of my rook endgame knowledge, but what happened here has nothing to do with rook endings.

I was thinking it was just nerves. No; you could not imagine how calm I was. And probably this was the problem - I was too calm. I really do not know. For me it is a bit disappointing that the match was lost in a rook ending, which I studied and enjoy so much.

It seemed that after you lost the tie-break you were very emotional and very disappointed? Well, of course I was disappointed. I felt that I had played a great match, so of course it was disappointing to lose it in this way. But I realized that anything could happen. You need to be ready for anything when you play the World Championship.

I have a tricky question: what mattered most to you, to become World Champion or to play the match? This is actually a good question. Probably it interested me more to play the match and this was a problem. When I was ten years old a journalist came to the chess club where I studied. He asked us all what our dreams were. I remember it like it happened j ust now. One guy said he wanted to become a National Master and one guy said he wanted to be a Grandmaster. And they both succeeded. But I answered that I j ust wanted to keep on enjoying playing chess and I still enjoy it. So maybe this is a disadvantage. Some say that to become World Champion you have to have an obsessive desire to become so. But I am not obsessed with titles. The biggest challenge was to try to defeat the World Champion in a match. I really did not care if I would get the title or not. The only issue is that if I got the title there would be another great match two years down the road. I want to say that the last few months have been the most interesting in my life. And now I will have to win London 20 1 3 to get another match.

And you are going to do this? I hope so, I will start preparing pretty soon.

Name Index A

1 , 2, 3, 9, 1 0, 1 05 , 22 1 , 265 42, 1 9 1 49 24, 60, 92, 1 25 , 1 29, 1 30, 2 1 9, 220, 222, 223, 226, 254 Ambroz 69 Anand 33, 34, 39, 49, 50, 68, 75, 77, 1 0 1 , 1 4 5 , 1 53, 1 78, 1 92, 1 94, 1 97, 202, 203, 204, 207, 208 , 2 1 2, 254, 266, 267, 268 , 269, 273, 275, 3 5 , 83, 1 78, 1 79, 1 80, 1 8 1 , Aronian 1 83, 1 84, 1 89, 1 97, 239, 269 Averbakh 5 , 1 54, 228 Avrukh 8 1 , 1 68, 1 78, 1 79, 255 Aagaard Adams Adly Alekhine

B

Bareev Bas man Beaumont Begun Beilin Bo golj ubow Boleslavsky Bolo gan Botvinnik Bronstein Burshtein

28, 29, 1 2 1 , 246 1 79, 1 80 240 38 5 244 2 1 6, 23 1 32, 34, 49, 245 27, 8 5 , 1 03, 1 80, 2 1 0 2 1 6, 23 1 27, 28

c

Campora Canal Capablanca Carlsen Caruana Chajes Chebanenko Cohn

1 0, 99, 1 02, 1 09, 1 1 5, 2 1 6 24, 2 5 , 26, 27 60, 84, 1 29, 1 37, 1 45 , 1 52 28, 3 5 , 77, 82, 1 06, 1 08, 1 92, 229, 254, 2 5 5 , 26 1 27, 1 06, 1 68 1 30 32, 33, 34, 39, 49, 1 20, 1 22, 1 92, 1 94, 1 95 , 2 5 5 1 37, 1 38 , 1 39

D

Damlj anovic D avid Dodon Domin g uez D u n is Duras Dvoretsky

227, 228 37, 6 1 34 1 6, 1 06 37 1 00, 1 0 1 , 1 02 27, 1 05 , 1 48

E

Eljanov Euwe

3 5 , 36, 1 30, 1 3 1 25

F

Fischer Flohr Fressinet Fridman Furman

7, 1 2, 33, 38, 68 84 254, 256 254 33

Name I ndex

279

G

K

24 1 32, 239 Gavrikov 8, 1 2 Geller Georgiev 32 Giri 27 229 Glauser 1 54, 228 Glek Grachev 274 Grischuk 5, 1 2, 60, 67, 92, 1 53, 1 54, 1 5 5 , 1 57, 1 58, 1 59, 1 62, 1 64, 1 65, 1 66, 22 1 , 226, 228, 254 191 Gurevich

3 5 , 246 Kapengut 8 Karj akin 27, 35 Karpov 1 2, 40, 82, 83, 84, 85, 1 39, 1 40, 1 4 1 , 1 42, 205, 244, 245 , 254, 26 1 , 273 Kasparov 33, 34, 49, 62, 82, 83, 84, 8 5 , 87, 88, 89, 92, 94, 1 42, 145, 1 93, 2 1 2, 244 Khairullin 1 20 Khalifman 5, 1 1 2, 1 1 3, 228 Khusenkhojaev 252 Korchnoi 33, 238 Kosteniuk 12 Kozul 239 Kramnik 7, 42, 67, 83, 90, 9 1 , 1 07, 1 1 3, 1 43, 1 45, 1 68, 1 93, 1 94, 244, 254, 273 Kuzubov 34

Gaerths

H

Har-Zvi Hiibner Huzman

I

lvanchuk

1 68 245, 246 8, 66, 1 09, 1 2 1 , 1 69, 1 97, 204, 239, 270 5, 1 4, 1 5, 1 6, 1 9, 20, 23, 83, 1 1 0, 1 32, 246

Johansen

L

Larsen Lasker

J Janowski

Kam sky

Lautier

6 1 , 63, 64, 65 , 92 111

Leko Leven fish Lj uboj evic Loginov Lukacs Lysyj

7, 1 2, 47, 86 1 3, 220 12 1 20, 1 78, 205, 229 2 1 4, 2 1 5 , 277, 282 227 1 09 1 12 34

280


M

R

28, 29, 32, 34, 36, 39, 49 1 68 Manor 2 1 6, 23 1 Marin 24 1 Meissner 229 Milos 1 68 Milov 277 Minev 1 82, 204 Mnacakanian 246 Morovic Fernandez 4 5 , 48, 49, 50, 54, Morozevich 56, 57, 5 8 , 84, 1 06 32, 1 32, 1 33 , 1 36, 229 Movsesian Muehlebach 69 Muller 1 05 , 1 48 Murakhveri 7, 1 2

68, 69, 70, 7 1 , 1 68 Razuvaev 7, 1 2, 22 1 1 39, 1 40 Ribli 8 1 , 1 54 Roiz Rubinstein 3 , 7, 8 , 1 1 , 1 2, 1 3 , 1 4, 24, 25, 26, 27, 44, 4 5 , 47, 52, 54, 56, 60, 6 1 , 62, 64, 65, 66, 96, 97, 99, 1 00, I O I , 1 02, 1 03 , 1 04, 1 05 , 1 1 6, 1 37, 1 38 , 1 39, 1 42, 1 43 , 1 44, 1 46, 1 47, 1 49, 1 52, 1 53 , 1 58, 1 69, 1 79, 1 92, 200, 208, 2 1 0, 2 1 1 , 2 1 2, 2 1 3, 2 1 4, 2 1 5 , 2 1 6, 2 1 7, 2 1 8, 2 1 9, 220, 22 1 , 222, 223, 224, 226, 236, 270 244, 245 , 246, 2 5 1 Rublevsky

Malakhov

N

Naiditsch Naj er Nakamura Nepomniachtchi Nimzowitsch Norri

0

Odessky Orarovsky

p

Petrosian Philidor Piker Polugaevsky Portisch

1 54, 269 1 02 1 06 27 27, 6 1 , 86, 1 92, 2 1 1 , 220 1 80

Radjabov

s

Salem Sasikiran Savon Schlechter Shereshevsky

Shirov Short

1 3, 1 4, 27, 1 20, 1 2, 34, 227, 254, 1 2 1 , 1 42, 1 44,

Smirin

277 33

Smyslov Sokolov Spassky

68,

Stean Stein

33, 56, 60, 8 5 , 1 58, 204, 2 1 0, 2 1 2 1 36 85 8 , 89, 229 273

Sutovsky Sveshnikov Svetushkin Svidler

81, 101,

1 43 1 4 5 , 274 1 69 2 1 6, 2 1 7 1 05 , 1 06 274, 275 1 4 5 , 246 8 1 , 252 277 254 1 53 , 204 97, 98 1 69 1 68, 252 1 42, 275 34 90, 228

Name Index

T

45, 46, 47 35, 60, 1 69, 274 Tal Tella 1 80 69, 1 42 Timm an 1 2, 1 02, 1 94 Tomashevsky Topalov 1 2, 49, 83, 94, 1 68, 2 1 2, 267, 273 69, 1 1 1 Torre 238, 239, 240, 242 Tseitlin Takacs

v

Van Wely

Volkov

67, 7 1 , 72, 76, 77, 78 1 30, 1 3 1

w

Wang Hao Wang Yue Wells

Winter Wolf

y

Yusupov

z

Zaitsev

Zilberman

28 1

27 1 20, 1 26, 1 32 240 145 1 44, 1 52 83, 99, 1 05, 1 09 227, 244 1 68

Game Index Boris Gelfand - Abram Gelfand, Minsk

Gelfand - Campora, Cesme

2004

Gelfand - Shirov, Polanica Zdroj

( 1 O) 1 975

1 998

Akiba Rubinstein - Carl Schlechter, San Sebastian

1912

Boris Gelfand - Vassily Ivanchuk, Russian Team Championship, Dagomys

Gelfand - lvanchuk, Lvov

2000

2000 2009

2009

Gelfand - lvanchuk, Polanica Zdroj lvanchuk - Dominguez, Linares

Esteban Canal - Akiba Rubinstein, Karlsbad

1 929

2008 2005

Vladimir Malakhov - Evgeny Bareev, Russian Team Championship, Dagomys Boris Gelfand - Vladimir Malakhov, Russian Team Championship, Sochi

Robert James Fischer - Tigran Petrosian, Buenos Ai res ( 1 )

Gelfand - Karj akin , Moscow (blitz)

20 1 2 2005 (ol) 1 974

20 1 3

Elj anov - Malakhov, Eilat

David - Dunis, Porz Barcares Karpov - Unzicker, Nice

Akiba Rubinstein - Sandor Takacs, Budapest

1 926 200 1

Boris Gelfand - Alexander Morozevich, Astana

Gelfand - Adly, Dresden (ol)

2008 200 1

Anand - Morozevich, Dortmund

1 907 2003 Am broz - Muehlebach , Bad Ragaz 1 99 1 Gelfand - Radj abov, Enghien-les-Bains 2003 Carlsen - Anand, Sochi (6) 20 1 4 Carlsen - Anand, Sochi ( 1 1 ) 20 1 4 Boris Gelfand - Garry Kasparov, Linares 1 994 Kasparov - Yusupov, Linares 1 993 Flohr - Capablanca, Moscow 1 935 Svidler - Kramnik, Khanty-Mansiysk 20 1 4 Akiba Rubinstein - Oldrich Duras, Karlsbad 1 9 1 1 Evgeny Najer - Evgeny Tomashevsky, Vladivostok 20 1 4 Boris Gelfand - Magnus Carlsen, Moscow 20 1 3 Boris Gelfand - Daniel Hugo Campora, Cesme 2004 Boris Gelfand - Wang Yue, Medias 20 1 0 Capablanca - Treybal , Karlsbad 1 929 Alekhine - Chajes, Karlsbad 1 923 Eljanov - Volkov, Yerevan 20 1 4 David Janowski - Akiba Rubinstein, Karlsbad Boris Gelfand - Loek van Wely, Plovdiv

1 97 1

6 10 12 13 14 15 15 16 24 28 32 33 35 36 37 40 45 48 49 50 61 67 69 71 75 77 82 83 84 90 1 00 1 02 1 06 1 09 1 20 1 29 1 30 1 30

283

Sergei Movsesian - Wang Yue, Istanbul

Gelfand - Ivanchuk, Elancourt

20 1 3

Gelfand - Movsesian , Polanica Zdroj

20 1 2

2000

1 909 1 980

Erich Cohn - Akiba Rubinstein, St Petersburg Zoltan Ribli - Anatoly Karpov, Amsterdam

Sveshnikov - Kasparov, Minsk Salem - Kram nik, Doha

20 1 4

1 979

Heinrich Wolf - Akiba Rubinstein, Teplitz-Schoenau

1919

Winter - Capablanca, Hastings

20 1 1 Hyderabad 2002

1 922

Shore - Kramnik, London Sasikiran - Anand,

Boris Gelfand - Alexander Grischuk, Beij i ng

Gelfand - Naidi tsch , Wij k aan Zee

20 1 4

Boris Gelfand - Boris Avrukh, Ramat Aviv

Stein - Savon, Riga

1 970

1 999

Levon Aronian - Boris Gelfand, Dresden (ol)

Bocvinnik - Basman , Hastings Norri - Tella, Finland

1 995

1 966

Adams - Gurevich, Dresden (ol)

20 1 3

2008

2008

Boris Gelfand - Viswanathan Anand, Moscow

(2) 20 1 2 (4) 20 1 2 Gelfand - Anand, Moscow ( 6) 20 1 2 Gelfand - Aronian, Tashkent 20 1 4

(7) 20 1 2

Gelfand - Anand, Moscow

Gelfand - Anand, Moscow

Gelfand - Aronian, Paris/Sc Petersburg

20 1 3

1 928 191 1 Akiba Rubinstein - Carl Schlechter, Berlin 1 9 1 8 Akiba Rubinstein - Alexander Alekhine, Karlsbad 1 9 1 1 Boris Gelfand - Branko Damljanovic, Istanbul (ol) 2000 Damlj anovic - Lj ubojevic, Manila 1 990 Leko - Carlsen, Nice (rapid) 2008 Glauser - Polugaevsky, Havana (ol) 1 966 Boris Gelfand - Mark Tseitlin, Tel Aviv 1 999 Korchnoi - Tseitlin, Leningrad 1 973 Wells - Beaumont, Edinburgh 1 989 Meissner - Gaerchs, Germany 1 992 Boris Gelfand - Sergey Rublevsky, Palma de Mallorca 2008 Bologan - Rublevsky, Saint Vi ncent 2005 Gelfand - Hilbner, Munich 1 994 Akiba Rubinstein - Aron Nimzowitsch, Berlin

Aki b a Rubinstein - Grigory Levenfi.sh, Karlsbad

1 32 1 32 1 36 1 37 1 39 1 42 1 43 1 44 145 1 45 1 45 1 53 1 54 1 68 1 69 1 78 1 80 1 80 191 1 92 1 93 1 93 1 94 1 95 1 97 21 1 214 216 219 227 227 229 229 238 238 240 24 1 244 245 246

Kamsky - Short, Linares

( 1 ) I 994

Morovic - Rublevsky, Khanty-Mansiysk Bareev - lvanchuk, Dortmund

1 992

Khusenkhoj aev - Smirin, Tromso (ol)

( I . I) 2009

20 I 4

Boris Gelfand - Laurent Fressinet, Canada de Calatrava (rapid)

(3) 20 I 2 Gelfand - Anand, Moscow (7) 2 0 I 2 Gelfand - Anand, Moscow (8) 20 I 2 Gelfand - Anand, Moscow (9) 20 1 2 Portisch - Karpov, B ugoj no 1 978 Shirov - Grachev, Lublin 20 I I Gelfand - Anand, Moscow ( 1 5) 20 1 2 Gelfand - Anand, Moscow

2007

246 246 246 252 254 266 269 270 272 273 274 276

O p ening Index 6

Philidor Defence

6 1 , 1 44

Four Knights Game French Defence

2 1 4, 274

Sicilian Defence

33, 67

Queen's Gambit Accepted

28, 1 37, 244

Queen's Gambit Declined

45, 82, 1 06

Semi-Tarrasch Defence Slav Defence Chebanenko Slav Chebanenko Semi-Slav Catalan System Griinfeld Defence

13 49, 2 1 9 , 254 32, 34, 49, 50, 1 20, 1 30, 1 32 1 92, 269 1 39 1 4 , 239

King's Indian Defence

1 53, 228

Old Indian Defence

1 09, 2 1 6

Nimzo- lndian Defence English Opening Hedgehog System

21 1 1 5 , 1 00, 1 68, 1 79, 238 24

Positional Decision Making in Chess - Boris Gelfand - Quality Chess - 2015

Recommend Documents