Dynamic Decision

Making in Chess
by

Boris Gelfand
with invaluable help from Jacob Aagaard

Quality Chess
www.q ualitychess.co. uk
 First edition 20 1 6 by Quality Chess UK Ltd

Copyright © 20 1 6 Boris Gelfand

DYNAMIC 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.

Hardcover ISBN 978- 1 -78483-0 1 3-7

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: info@qualitychess.co. uk
website: www. qualitychess.co.uk

Distributed in North America by National Book Network

Distributed in Rest of the World by Quality Chess U K Ltd through

Sunrise Handicrafts, ul. Poligonowa 3 5A, 20-8 1 7 Lublin, Poland

Typeset by Jacob Aagaard

Proofreading by Colin McNab & Andrew Greet
Edited by John Shaw

Cartoon on page 1 3 by kind permission of Jose Diaz

Photo page 47 courtesy of Biel Chess Festival
Official FIDE photos by Anastasia Karlovich pages 79, 273
Photos pages 1 5 1 and 24 1 by Ilya Odessky
Photo page 1 97 by Maya Gelfand
Photos and illustrations on pages 274-277 by Max Meltser

Cover design by adamsondesign.com

Cover photo by Fred Lucas; effects by Max Meltser
Printed in Estonia by Tallinna Raamatutriikikoja LLC
 Contents
Key to Symbols used 4
Publisher's Foreword 5
Introduction 7

1 Minsk 1979 19
2 Petrosian 33
3 Tactics at the Top Level 47
4 The Nature of Tactical Mistakes at the Top Level 79
5 Compensation 121
6 T ime 151
7 Dynamic Masterpieces 197
8 Dynamic Defence 241

Appendix - Borenka will Remember! 273

Name Index 278
Game Index 281
Opening Index 283
 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
Cii with compensation
� with counterplay
m unclear

a weak move
?? a blunder
a good move
!! an excellent move
!? a move worth considering
?! a move of doubtful value
# mate
Publisher's Foreword
The last few years have been everything I could ever dream of as a chess writer. My books are
selling enough for me to buy new soles for my second-hand shoes, readers from all over the world
are telling me that they enjoyed the books, and strong players are even pretending that they were
useful for them in their tournament preparation.

But the biggest joy has been working with Boris Gelfand on this project. Boris loves chess
immensely and it is impossible not to fall in love with the game all over again when discussing it
with him. Our analysis sessions have been spirited and enjoyable, and I have been able to learn a
lot about the game from them, all of which is hopefully included in this book!

Writing a book is a difficult job, even when it is co-writing. You still have to choose the right
words, structure, restructure and then restructure some more. A point made in August might be
easier to understand if added to a game analysed in February. You get the idea. When the ideas
are not in your head, but in someone else's, this does not become an easier process.

What has made writing these two books amazing is the time spent with Boris. His warmth and
wit dominate our conversations. I laugh more in our sessions than at any other time during a
normal week. I will leave you with one extract from one of our conversations in 20 1 4 :

Boris: Hi Jacob, how are you?

Jacob: Good thank you, and you?
Boris: Is it raining in Scotland?
Jacob: What do you mean ?
Boris: Water falling from the sky.
Jacob: Well, it's Scotland. It is always raining a little bit.
Boris: Here we had no rain for two weeks. How warm is it?
Jacob: Heat wave.
Boris: What does this mean, heat wave?
Jacob: Eighteen degrees.
Boris: Ha! Here it is thirty-five degrees.
Jacob:
Boris: You should come and visit!
Jacob:

Then our conversation was interrupted. A siren rang out weakly somewhere outside Boris's house.
He stood up immediately.
6 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making i n Chess

Boris: Sorry, I will be back in ten minutes.

Boris returned ten minutes later.

Boris: So, Jacob. Is it still raining in Scotland?

Being a part of this project is an ongoing joy. I hope some of this joy has spilled over into the
pag es and makes this not only an instructional book, but also a pleasure to read.

Jacob Aag aard

Glasgow, May 20 1 6
Introduction
At the beginning of this year, I played in a rapid tournament in Estonia. I won one game where
my opponent, an old room-mate from training camps with Petrosian, failed to show up. He came
up to me later and apologized. He had been very excited about playing against me, and got so
caught up in the preparation for the game that he lost all sense of time. When he finally looked
at the clock, the game was already over, and he was still in his room. ..

Chess is all about time. Each player makes a move, choosing to move only one piece, hoping
that all his pieces will be in time to reach the necessary squares. If you are late, the opponent will
checkmate you, queen his pawn , take your knight, skewer your rook or maybe j ust run away with
half the kingdom and all three princesses.
Chess is also about handling the clock. Before each game you are entrusted with a certain
amount of time, and you have to do your best to spend it wisely.

This book is about dynamics. The things that easily fall victim to time, have an unstable
foundation, and erode quickly.

This is not an academic textbook about dynamics; it is a deeply personal book, with dynamics
as the central theme. Other recurring themes I shall discuss include the influence of engines
on modern chess, and the clash between the millennials and my generation, both in chess style
and in the public imagination. But if I think one of my experiences or opinions will interest the
reader, then I shall mention it, even if it is 'off-topic'. If you can survive these digressions, you will
be less shocked later in the book when a recipe for strawberry j am appears...

Early investigations

I worked with Eduard Zelkind until I was 1 1 years old. At this time, he moved to the US and
asked his friend Albert Kapengut to look after his best student. Ilya Smirin arrived later on, when
he moved to Minsk to study at the university in the second part of the 1 980s.

I was maybe six or seven when Zelkind gave me tactical exercises to solve at home, sacrifices on
h7 and other such basic stuff. I had not learned to read and write yet, so my father would write
down the positions and the solutions for me, so I could bring them to the next training session.
This continued until I learned to read and write myself. Zelkind had his own system for writing
down positions in the most effective way, which others might look at as an unbreakable code.

At this time there was no access to such luxuries as a photocopying machine. All exercises would
have to be written down by hand at the end of the lesson.
8 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g i n Chess
Lacer, when I went co Moscow and visited
the Central Chess Club, they did have a
photocopying machine. le required a good deal
of pushing, but Kapenguc always managed co
gee chem co copy the games from the latest
cop tournaments for me. To explain this co
the young er generation: he was downloading
TWIC by hand . . . OK, it required quite a bit
more work than chat, which we will talk more
about in the volume on the opening .
Incidentally, one of the explanations for the
collapse of the Soviet Union is the arrival of
the g enerally available photocopier and other
forms of technical prog ress in the 1980s . . .
I n che first volume we discussed m y favourite
book when I was young, Rubinstein with game
annotations by Razuvaev. From this I learned
about space and other positional factors. The
big hero in my study of dynamics was Efim
Geller. More about him in Chapter 1 on the
Soviet Championship in Minsk 1 979.
However, I should immediately nullify the
dichotomy I have just sec up: obviously I
was learning dynamics from Rubinstein and
Pecrosian as well, and positional thing s from
Geller, Tai and Spassky. Chess is a complex
game and the cop players have always been
able co do a bit of everything. This is natural,
as positional play and tactical opportunities are
so closely interwoven chat it can at times be
hard co see the difference.
Sort of defining dynamics
To me, dynamics is the potential of the pieces.
Many players are good at calculation, but
this does not mean chat they have any feeling
for the potential of the pieces. AI; we are not
computers, calculation is not enough, we need
direction in our calculation and a strong sense
of dynamics, so a feeling for the potential of
the pieces is important. Technically, a lot of
moves are possible and you cannot calculate
everything , so you need a system of some sort
co decide which candidate moves you want co
focus on. There are some strong grandmasters
who attempt co calculate everything, and do
so with moderate success, with the key word
being moderate.
I am chinking of one player in particular.
He certainly has his own philosophy about
chess, which he chinks serves him best, but as
he is not able co defend his point of view here
(should he even wane co!) I do not want to
mention any names. In pose-mortem analysis,
he will sugg est all the moves. Almost like a
computer does.
Bue as I see it, the human brain does not
work like a computer. Our thought processes
are not linear; although we should cry co
structure chem, we cannot be completely
systematic in our chinking. This is why we
use techniques such as candidate moves,
why we recheck variations, why we look for
intermediate moves, why we try to insert some
moves. Calculation has co be done smarcly, or
it will not be effective. le is easy co waste a lot
of energy.
AI; I talked about in Positional Decision
Making in Chess, in some positions there is not
really anything co calculate, and we need to
make a decision based on other criteria. This
book deals with some situations where we have
co make intuitive decisions and some where we
have co calculate. In dynamics, both skills are
essential.
The initiative is a somewhat different topic. You
have better piece development or something
like this. You need co use the momentum
to transform it into something valuable, an
attack, a positional advantage, or whatever,
before it goes away. Essentially it is Steinicz's
idea chat you have co use your advantag e
before it disappears. Obviously, this is all about
dynamic advantag es. With static advantages,
the urg ency is often much less.
 Introduction
Every player tries to find their own balance
between intuition and calculation. The method
that works well for one player might not work
well for another. In a way I am quite intuitive,
but this does not mean that I think this is the
'right' way to be. All I can say is that it works
for me. But ignoring the influence of intuition
in our thought process would be a mistake.
Not exactly calculation and tactics
Dynamics is not exactly the same as calculation
and tactics, just like a chair is not just wood
and bolts. But imagine a chair without the raw
materials and you will most likely imagine an
empty space on your living room floor.
This book is about dynamic thinking, but
will constantly deal indirectly with calculation
and tactics. I hope this distinction will not
confuse anyone.
Although many references are made to
calculation, this book does not deal directly
with the technique of calculation, so I think I
should briefly recommend a few other sources
for this. I like Jacob Aagaard's Grandmaster
Preparation series of books, where the first
volume, Calculation, even has a foreword by a
clever Israeli guy. . . I had to mention this book,
not only because it is very useful, but also since
Jacob is my assistant in writing these books,
and getting him to type this will embarrass
him no end.
I also greatly appreciate Perfect Your Chess,
a book by V ladimir Grabinsky, a highly
successful Ukrainian trainer, written together
with his student, the strong Grandmaster
Andrei Volokitin. Grabinsky is a world-class
trainer who has worked with close to ten
players from their early years until 2650 level.
The exercises in this book are very difficult,
but they will benefit the diligent student
immensely. While writing this book, I am
going through an old book, The Best Move by
9
Hort and Jansa. I worked on it when I was
young, but luckily my memory is not perfect
and the book is still very useful for me now.
For those who know my games, it will be
no surprise that I was heavily influenced
by Polugaevsky's books. Especially the long
analysis of the Najdorf variations and of
various endgames, most memorably against
Geller and Gligoric.
To me, tactics is mainly about patterns and
about calculation. I have dealt to some extent
with tactics and calculation in this book,
but I do not want to offer a big theory of
calculation. You can find this in the writings of
Mark Dvoretsky and Jacob Aagaard. Aagaard
follows Dvoretsky's way of thinki ng, so you
will not find any noticeable difference between
the advice given by them.
I want to re-emphasize that each player has
their own approach. What is good for one
player might not work for another. There
is even an argument to be made for the idea
that some approaches work well against some
players, while they are ineffective against
others. We all have some opponents we score
well against, who again have their favourite
customers, who again are delighted whenever
they have to play us. Alexander Beliavsky told
me that he once witnessed Tal, Korchnoi and
Stein playing 'winner stays on' blitz . Tal would
lose to Korchnoi, who would lose to Stein,
who would lose to Tal. There were almost no
exceptions to this, he said.
Korchnoi had a great score against Tai
in tournament games as well. Tal was
very intuitive and saw long variations as
inspirations more than as knuckle-down-hard
calculation. Korchnoi, on the other hand,
did not have as great intuition as Tal , but he
worked systematically through the variations,
finding flaws that brought down Tal's great
ideas. This approach also worked very well for
10 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g i n Chess
Polug aevsky in his Candidates match against
Tal. As Kapengut was Polugaevsky's second at
that time, I heard a lot of inside stories about
this match as a child.
Calculate without a board
When I was a young player, a lot of people
paid a lot of attention to the fact that I often
do not look at the board while I am playing,
while now they have gotten used to it. From an
early age I was able to keep the board easily in
my head. It is an important quality that should
be developed. When I play in tournaments, I
will discuss the day's games with teammates,
seconds or friends over dinner or while going
for an evening walk. We hardly ever use a
board, but analyse the games blindfold. I will
say more about this in Chapter 2, page 39.
I have noticed that some young players are
not great at this, which I am sure will damage
their results.
What does a Grandmaster
see during the game?
Honestly, I have no idea if amateurs watching
the games live overestimate or underestimate
how much a grandmaster actually sees during
the game. One of the problems is chat most
people watch live games with the engine
running, or on a website that has the engine
turned on by default. I never get tired of
pointing out chat looking at the engine makes
you blind. It is a rare person who sees past the
engine, and can see the board as it is. I cannot
do it well, but in my experience, I do it better
than most.
A big difference between engines and
grandmasters is chat an engine looks at every
move, while a grandmaster can only look at
some of the moves. Obviously he will have
a good intuitive understanding of what is
going on, but he will still be limited, and miss
things from time to time. There was a survey
on ChessBase.com about the top players and
their correlation with the engines . On the low
end, you found Magnus Carlsen and myself,
for different reasons. Clearly this has nothing
to do with the actual strength of the players.
One of the reasons I have only a vague idea
how much my colleagues see during the game
is that few books (if any) are written from the
perspective of decision-making, as the books
in this series are. There are some players who
like to pretend they saw everything when they
annotate the games afterwards, while some of
my more intellig ent and devious colleagues
deliberately cry co obscure what they saw and
did not see, to avoid g iving anything away.
In recent years we have been given a window
into the workings of a grandmaster's mind
with online transmissions and commentary.
We see strong grandmasters commenting on
their colleague's games, and some of them
seem to see a lot, while others seem to see very
little. Certainly this cannot be used as a valid
way co predict anyone's playing strength! We
also have videos of the players' pose-mortems,
or it's done live at press conferences. It is a
different format, but still it gives us an insight
into how difficult chess is, which is one of the
reasons people tend to enjoy watching this
form of commentary more than those who
simply read aloud from the first line of the
computer. I love watching the post-mortems
of big tournaments, although I would still
prefer to play in chem (please send me more
invitations!) .
It is of course worth using computers for
many things, but not during the game.
Chess is a beautiful game where
commentators see one thing, computers
something else, and the players something
different again.
 I ntroductio n
Human versus Computer Matches
I saw a match recently where a computer played
with a material handicap against Nakamura. I
find it rather insulting. Actually, I was once
offered a similar match, but I suggested that
instead I would give the computer pawn odds,
but in return the computer had to play with a
286 processor. For some reason these computer
people disappeared immediately.
My chinking is that of course the programming
has improved, but these engine people are
mainly riding on the hardware achievements
of faster processors. I don't have a problem
with this, but there is no reason to seek to
humiliate some of the best chess players in
the world, and make chess a lesser game in the
process. Of course this is not the intention;
they did not see the problem. I had another
offer at some point, where I also asked a few
questions: " Would you allow the computer
to play without an opening book?" " No."
"Why not?" " Because we want to beat you and
increase our sales. And in the end we will meet
someone who will play on our terms."
Kasparov played a few matches with
computers, which I did not enjoy. They were
briefly damaging for chess. These matches
were interesting for the media and one
player rated over 2800, probably because
of the remuneration. It seemed to me that
people who follow chess did not show great
interest in these matches and would much
rather have seen Kasparov play in a top
event.
A quick detour into ageism
I want to quickly sidestep the question of what
is the best way to learn to play chess, and talk
for a moment about my generation and the
one that comes after me. I once read a short
11
piece of statistical exploitation. It showed that
the average age of the Top 1 0 was around 3 1
years old, the average age of the Top 2 5 was
around 3 1 years old and the average age of the
Top 1 00 was, you guessed it, around 3 1 years
old.
Although this was just one rating list, it was
still a strikingly consistent picture. I would
certainly have expected to find bigger swings
in the average age. But there is this idea at
the moment that "chess is getting younger",
promoted by a number of retired or semi­
retired top players. But I do not see this as being
the case. When I played the match against
Anand, we had the oldest World Champion
since Botvinnik, defending against the oldest
challenger since Korchnoi. Combined, you
would have to go back to pre-war records to
find a higher average age.
The average age of the top players would of
course be much higher if these great players
from the past had not retired or resorted to
globetrotting to holiday destinations, caking
nine-move draws and so on. But after many
years of hard work, I can understand the desire
to relax in the sun.
There are those who would argue that Carlsen
was already stronger than Anand and me in
20 1 2, and we somehow have an extraordinary
case because one player did not play in the
qualification. I share their view. In the same
year, my favourite football club, the brilliant
Barcelona, at the height of their powers, lost
in the semi-final in the Champions League
to Chelsea, a team old players that was off
form in general, finishing only 5 th in the
Premier League. Still, they played best in the
Champions League and deservedly won it.
Also, I do not see the absence of one player
from the cycle as that extraordinary. Petrosian
was not the best player in the world all the time
he was World Champion, and Fischer exited
12 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g i n Chess
the cycle that ended with Spassky's victory
in 1 969. Botvinnik once did not make the
USSR Olympiad team, despite being World
Champion.
And so on. . . But this will of course not
change anybody's mind. In the 2 l st century
the importance of public opinion has increased
tremendously, and nothing seems to be able to
compete with it. It makes a greater impression
to have moral support from the media than to
win qualification events . . . I can understand
the attraction people had from roug hly 20 1 3-
1 4 to a match between Aronian and Carlsen,
who was rated Number 2 in the world pretty
consistently around that time. But chess is a
sport and the rating system reflects current
form and all results evenly; it does not win
championships, and neither does public
opinion. But it does not win championships
and neither does public opinion.
A lot of people who follow both chess and
football, as I do, will care tremendously about
the FIDE rating system, but know nothing
about the current FIFA rankings (or maybe
even that such a list exists) . I gave a friend ten
guesses to come up with the Number 1 on that
FIFA list in January 20 1 6. He tried the usual
suspects, Germany, Argentina (who not long
after were indeed Number 1 ) , Brazil, Spain,
Italy, Netherlands and so on. The correct answer
is Belgium. Based on their average results and
current form, this was the best team in the
world. Belgium has never won any titles, but I
am reluctant to downg rade them too much, as
it is really a strong team and Euro 20 1 6 might
be their moment!
In the same way in chess, the highest-ranked
player can at times win the most important
tournaments and at times not. It is a sport; the
result is decided over the board, not by a public
vote.
At the time of writing , Vladimir Kramnik
is Number 2 in the world rankings. He is a
classically-trained player who aimed to be the
"future of chess" , when he won Gold with
Russia in the 1 992 Manila Olympiad, as well as
Gold on Board 6. Since then he has changed his
style many times and continues to impress. This
demands the highest possible praise. Sadly, he
did not manage to qualify for the Candidates in
20 1 6, but as he is 40, the media has not made
a meal of this . . .
I n 20 1 4 a lot o f chess fans were unhappy
that Nakamura was not in the Candidates in
Khanty-Mansiysk. He had failed to qualify, and
also had not had a great 20 1 3 . I, on the other
hand, had won and tied for first in many big
events in 20 1 3, but only my wife said I should
have gone! All credit to Hikaru: he did not
complain, but went to work, played excellently
in the following Grand Prix and convincing ly
qualified for the 20 1 6 Candidates.
At the end of the day, the question is if chess
is a sport or showbiz. For me it is clearly a sport.
 Introduction
A bit about engines
I suggest chat chose who scare out young should
study chess without computer assistance for
years, in order to understand the game before
you use this powerful cool. As Kasparov said:
the main thing co understand about engines is
when co turn it on and when to turn it off.
A lack of understanding of working with
engines is persistent with some young players
(not all of course!) . There is one example I
saw recently, where a young player was facing
an experienced veteran. The young player had
a promising attack. Ac some point he had two
interesting possibilities. One of them looked
tempting, but did not work, while the other
won in a very nice way. The young player quickly
went the wrong way and lost even quicker.
Not many minutes passed from the end of the
game until the young player was complaining
13
about his lack of fortune on Twitter. He did
not understand how he could lose a position
with +5 and found his opponent co be terribly
lucky. He did not mention the face chat he was
personally unable co accurately calculate a few
moves ahead. Instead of analysing the game
and understanding what he did wrong, he
succumbed co the attraction of being the centre
of public attention. I chink it is fair co say chat
such an approach is unconducive to one's chess
progress. And this is not only about one player,
this is a general trend I see.
I want to emphasize the main point: there is a
big difference between misplaying an absolutely
winning position and missing a brilliant
combination. Boch are +5 on the engine, but
only one is an 'eternal' +5. To describe chem
as interchangeable shows no understanding of
chess {or engines) whatsoever.
14 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decisio n Making i n Chess

Don't forget Rubinstein This looks rather strange. It would be more

normal to play something like 1 O.cxd5 exd5
Positional Decision Making in Chess focused l I ..ie2 or I O .Y;Vc2. Many games have been
heavily on the inspiration I drew from the games played from this position; you can study them
of Akiba. He is the foundation of my positional if you are interested.
understanding of chess, as explained in that
book. Although Rubinstein was not known for 10...�e?!?
possessing great tactical skills (indeed, he did
not) this does not mean that I did not pick up
some hints of dynamics from looking through
his games. The following game was one of the
games that influenced me most when I was a
young boy.

George Rotlewi -Akiba Rubinstein

Lodz 1907

I .d4 d5 2.c!lif3 e6 3.e3 c5 4.c4 c!lic6 5.�c3

�f6

A very interesting pawn sacrifice, which

even with a 2 1 st century sensibility looks
very powerful . When we looked at it, my
first reaction was that it looked absolutely
devastating should White accept it. But
computer analysis shows this is not the case,
and that it was sensible to accept the challenge.

11.J.d3?
This j ust loses a tempo.

a b c d e f g h Critical was: l l .cxd5 exd5 1 2.lDxd5! lDxd5

l 3 .Y;Vxd5
One of the important things we have learned
from this game is that in symmetrical positions,
the value of an extra tempo is increasingly
important. In this g ame Rubinstein plays very
energetically, trying to make useful moves at
every turn, aiming to win half a tempo here
and there.

6.dxc5 .ixc5 7.a3 a6 8.b4 J.d6 9.J.b 2 0-0

10.�d.2
 I ntroduction 15

We looked at a few different options:
1 3 .. . lll xb4? l 4.axb4 ixb4 t l 5 .<j;Je2 could very
well be the critical line; this is perhaps what
Rubinstein had intended. As we shall see later
in the game, he was very aggressively minded
this day. 1 5 . . . id7 1 6.We5 ib5t 1 7.<j;Jd l
1Mi'd7t 1 8 .lll d4 Elfe8 1 9 .Wh5 The position
looks dangerous for White, but once you dig a
bit deeper, you realize that the knight on d4 is
a fantastic shield and that Black does not really
have an attack.
this, but things have changed. If you have a
classical upbringing (which I recommend) ,
you will know the games of the great players
and their annotations. But if you have
learned to play chess by playing online blitz
and tournaments, you will not have learned
to think in this way. Also, when you analyse
with the engines, they will constantly show
you the most amazing defensive resources.
You cannot help but be influenced by this,
no matter what your general approach to the
game is.

We also analysed 1 3 . . . ie6?! 1 4.Wd3 . This does 11 ...dxc4 1 2. hc4 b 5

j; �,...,,.
not provide adequate compensation, as Wc3 is

s
an important tempo-gainer in many lines.

: T.la1'
� ,,,,,�� �
/,,,,,�'�
For Black, it might be worth trying l 3 . . . Eld8! ?
1 4.Wb3 lll e5, although White looks a bit �
��,.�.��
better after l 5 .lll d4. 5

4
This is by no means meant to be exhaustive

3 �Pi£
analysis, but just shows that the onus to prove �� ��fr:'\�
,,,,,,%'."''" / ,,,, � ,0
compensation would be on Black, rather than (3,%-m. ,w��' ;:(3,% "'2.J���,�
2
��.�=�[j[j�fj
-�
,,,,,

1
on White to come up with accurate defensive
""'� , , ,% _ %
moves. If the readers want to investigate the , , , ,,

nature of compensation, they could study

these lines closely with an engine for hours and
learn a lot, I am sure.
Meanwhile, we will continue with the rest of
the game. It can be scary to take such a pawn
in a game, but at the beginning of the 20th
century, people in general were not easily
scared. That came later. Today people have
started accepting these types of sacrifices again.
One of the biggest influences from the rise
of the engines has been a general increase in
defensive abilities.
a b c d e f g h
After all that has happened, the colours have
been reversed. White has lost a tempo and is
in some respect now playing with the black
pieces. To Rotlewi this might not have seemed
very dangerous, but a century of experience
in this position, all of which is inconveniently
placed after the game, tells us that this tempo
matters a lot. Often the player who is able to
swing the knight into the centre first is able
to create an initiative, as happened in this
game.

Many people do not believe in general 1 3.i.d3 gds 14.We2

considerations in the same way anymore, for White has lost every possible tempo.
better and for worse. This does not mean that
there are not great players who still think about I4...i.b7 1 5.0-0 llJ eS!
16 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

8 .I� � �-� 1 9.l:!ad l ib6t 20.'it>h l h5 is also deeply

7
6
�1--
·- - % - - �-
·- lm�•
% - /,
,
,,,%
uncomfortable for White, but he is hang ing on
in a bad position, without losing immediately.

5 �-� ·--- ��-, �.. .... _

,,,,,,,� �� 19...J.b 6t 20.©hl

-,£----�%.,,,/, ��r� ��
;

3 ��� L� j,, f�ltl-

�
2
VD 8�
, , , , , % ,, ;

11---���lim
a b c d e f g h

It is vital to land this move first. We know

this now as a cliche, but at the time of the
game, the impact of this would have been far
from obvious.

16.�xe5 he5 17.f4?!

White is overambitious and overextends his
centre.

1 7.l:!fd l was the right move. Black does not

have anything direct. Obviously he has a
pleasant position, but the game goes on. We
analysed this a little; Black is more comfortable, 21.J.e4
but only j ust. 2 l .�xg4 !!xd3 22.!!ac l !!d2 and Black wins.

17...J.c7 18.e4?! 21 ...�h 4

White marches on towards
destruction with confidence.
18..JiacS 19.e5 ?
White continues forward. But I want to stress
this point again: nowadays we are aware of the
dang ers that lie in such a position, partly from
seeing this game. (Even if we do not remember
all the details, the general impression stays
with us.) This information was not available
to Rotlewi (or the rest of the world) until a bit
later in the game, when Rubinstein showed us
Black's possibilities.
his own This is very nice, but of course 2 1 . . . lll xh2 ! ?
was a simple solution. We know from his
games that Rubinstein was not great in tactics
in general, so he might have missed it, or just
wanted more from the position.
After 20 years with engines, we have all
been schooled to look for possibilities in a way
the masters of the past were not. Very often
the main reason you do not find something is
that you were not looking for it. A point that
cannot be repeated too often!
22.g3
22.h3 is refuted by: 22 . . . l:!xc3! 23 .ixc3 ixe4
 I ntroduction 17

The only move that makes sense.

23 . .ixc3 is mate in a few moves: 23 . .. .ixe4t

24.�xe4 �xh2#

23 . .ixb7 :B:xg3 is less immediate, but you only

need a few moments to realize that . .. lll xh2 or
. . . :B:h3 is coming, with the power to end the
game immediately.

a b c d e f g h

Now 24.�xe4 �g3! is mate immediately,

and 24.�xg4 �xg4 2 5 . hxg4 :B:d3! leads to an
easily winning ending on account of the threat
of mate on h3.

�-''-·'"
6
·- - _-­ &
%% • %%
_ _
,,, %
�
%%
·- -�
,

5 �'?lM
,,,,,Y,

�" ,, � -0
4
11"" - � . � �
��
m.i.t�'i'l�
,,,,,%

�
,,

w�
3
% ,, - '""
,, %

m I�
mifm-- -,,�
J �:
2
_

�
_ _

�,,,,,Y,� %m l•� 24.'!Wxd2

a b c d e f g h White has no choice.
The reason this combination is so evocative
is that Rubinstein manages to get the most 24... he4t 25.°1Wg2 gh 3!!
out of all of his pieces. They all play a great
par� '. n the attack, and arrive with an amazing
dec1s1veness. I was blown away when I saw this
as a small child, at a time when imagination is
still strong, and you say to yourself: "The adults
are wrong; there is magic in the world ... "

22 Jhc3!!
A thunderbolt. Black sacrifices the queen for
••

a tempo, with the intention of undermining

the defence of the e4-bishop.

23. gxh 4
18 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making i n Chess
The final brilliant move. White has no
defence against 26 . . . l:!xh2# and thus resig ned.
0-1
It is important to learn a lesson from every
game you see. Here the lesson is that the
potential of the pieces can be very hig h, and
that we do what we can to g et the utmost
out of them. This g ame is one of the g reat
landmarks of chess history. It continues to
impress young players even to this day, and can
convince a young person that this g ame is so
beautiful that it is worth spending hours and
hours studying it. It also showed some of the
potential of symmetrical positions (which can
arise from many opening s) . They are not dead
draws, as some might have thoug ht, but hold a
lot of potential for fig hting chess. (Obviously,
the 'draw death' is always promoted by people
who see a few boring g ames, and want to make
this conclusion for one reason or another;
probably they lack the patience necessary
to enjoy chess fully. ) Of course, with all the
information available to us today, it is quite
possible for a strong player to force a draw
with White. But usually people are not playing
chess to make draws, but to play chess, so the
problem hardly exists.
It is all about decision-making
Positional Decision Making in Chess covered
some abstract themes, which is not an approach
that would work as well when debating
dynamics. Sure, two chapters in this book are
named rather abstractly, Compensation and
Time, but the rest of the chapters are framed
differently. Positional chess is often played in
the abstract, with long -term plans of 'doing
something at some point' , rather than dealing
with the sort of issues dynamics present us
with: dealing with something concrete, right
now.
As with the first book, my g oal has not been
to give a complete manual on dynamic chess,
but to give an insight into some dynamic
scenarios from my g ames and discuss them in
detail. Playing chess well is about making lots
of g ood decisions, and this is what this series
and this book is about.
Chapter 1
Minsk 1979

Geller - Yusupov
 Diagram Preview
On this page you will find a few
i. �i. �')) �·%§
diagrams with critical moments 8
�iS.i.lfi� i
from the coming chapter. If you
: !�';,lit.!.
want to compare your thinking
with the games, you have the s
43•r.•
� n�
�.r.{'j•
possibility. Take as much time
as you need or want. This is not
�m�"' �
�
� � �m'0
iL �
a test, but a chance to 'think
along' with the grandmasters in
the games. b d f g h
2 rJ,tJ�1� ���:�fj 6
b d f g h
CZJ
a c e a c e

Find the winning move! · the

How would you destroy
(see page 24) black kingside?
(see page 30)

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

Can you find Negi's novelty? How did White start an Do you know this famous
(see page 22) attack? combination?
(see page 27) (see page 30)

8
1 .�" .
�a��- � �;%�
•.i.�l.r�
,;,••"• �·•�a �illto ��-J•
&i§� r�•
T 8
1
i.

5 s �•.. %. �.L
l•i'rli'&"• ,/�
.

6 6
z

5 � • �• r!l
4 •. • � n m 4�• S8a�• �
3� �"·fil
"·�.· •� •�
�w�
·'�·····"�
�
J/o.'0»......
, ,,,/ ···· . . . ..

3��fil •CLi•
2/ /��- �.r:r! 2 ¥8f�• . ff
I� �i� �� ·� •• m@6
···

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

How should the attack be White wins with accurate

continued? play; but how?
(see page 24) (see page 29)
 Chapter 1 - Minsk 1 979 21

I was incredible lucky that I had the chance to Vitaly Tseshkovsky-Viktor Kupreichik
Minsk 1979
be present at the 1979 Soviet Championship,
which was played in Minsk. I would go to the
playing hall and watch the games; every day,
Tseshkovsky is an amazing attacking player,
every minute. Some of the games made a big
but in this game he got totally mated!
impression on me and we shall look at them
briefly in this chapter.
l.e4 c5 2.lll f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6
Alexander Nikitin and Boris Postovsky gave
5.ltlc3 �c6 6.i.g5 e6 7.°fYd2 /J.e7 8.0-0-0
me the tip to write down what I was thinking
0-0 9.f4 h 6 l0.i.h 4 i.d7
during the game, in order to analyse the games
afterwards and of course to compare it with
what the players chose during the game. I did
this and it helped my development immensely.
As with Positional Decision Making in Chess, I
want to show not only what I have been able to
do in the field of dynamics, but also where my
understanding of dynamics comes from.

You can find amazing games everywhere

While working on this book, I showed Jacob

Aagaard some of the games from this Soviet
Championship. Most of them were new to
him. But then he assured me that he would
be able to find amazing games from Danish
tournaments that I do not know. I believe
him. There are many talented chess players
in the world, and although many have failed
to fulfil their ambitions because of various
shortcomings, you will not see this in their
best games. And when you are 11 years old,
as I was then, it can make a big impression on
you to see the winner of the previous year's
championship being blown off the board by
a caveman.
And with full respect for Danish events, I
can say that the Soviet Championship was in a
different league.
This variation was very popular at the time.
My friend Ilya Smirin played it a lot in the
1 980s.
l l.lll f3
Against 11.tll d b5 Kupreichik has played
both l l . . . tll xe4 and l l . . . d 5 .
ll...°fYa5 1 2 ..ic4
This is probably already an inaccuracy.
Tseshkovsky is an expert on playing the
Sicilian with White, and I have no experience
whatsoever, but this is still what I believe.
1 2 .e5 ? ! dxe5 1 3 . .ixf6 .ixf6 1 4.Wxd7 has been
played in a few games.
22 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g i n Chess
a b c d e f g h
So far no one has played 1 4 . . . e4!N 1 5 .lll xe4
ixb2t! 1 6.iixb2 �ad8 when White will be
fighting for equality in the endg ame.
I remember a game from a Soviet j unior
tournament that made a big impression on
me. I think this can be deduced already from
the fact that I remember it 30+ years on . . .
1 2.iib l �fc8
1 2 . . . �fd8 is the main move, when White is
supposed to be doing well.
1 3 .g4 b5
1 4 .id3
There is nothing wrong with this move at all;
it scores very well.
But we should still mention that the Indian
opening specialist Parimarjan Negi in his
book l.e4 vs 1he Sicilian II recommends
1 4.ixf6! ixf6 1 5 .e5 dxe5 1 6.g5! when
White has a very strong attack. Negi's idea
relies on a powerful novelty: 1 6 . . . hxg5
1 7.fxg5 ie7 1 8 .Wi'xd? b4 1 9 .tll d 5!N exd5
20. g 6! with a winning attack.
1 4 . . . b4 1 5 .tll b 5 ! !
b d f g h
a c e
This was young lvanchuk's novelty. Other
players had played 1 5 .tll e 2 against Smirin,
and young Vassily came up with this idea.
1 5 . . . �ab8
Smirin g oes all in, but is soon left without
any clothes on. (If chess ever gets bored with
me, I can always get a job commentating on
poker events on late-night TV with all these
g reat metaphors . . . )
a) The direct break in the centre is dubious:
1 5 . . . d5 1 6.ixf6 ixf6 1 7.g5! hxg5 1 8 .fxg5
ie7 1 9.g6! White's attack arrives early.
b) 1 5 . . . e5 also looks bad. We analysed a bit
and came up with: 1 6.f5!N a6 This is not
forced, but without it, Black would have to
admit his position is bad.
b d f g h
a c e
1 7.lll xd6! ixd6 1 8 .ixf6 gxf6 l 9 .Wi'xh6
 Chapter 1 - Minsk 1979 23

with a strong attack. For example: 19... b3 1 2 ...b 5 1 3bb 5

( 19....iffi 20.�h4 b3 2 1.cxb3 lLib4 22.a3
lLixd3 also does not work. White plays
23.g5! with a winning attack: 23 ...�c5
24.E:xd3 �c2t 25.@a2 �xd3 26.gxf6 and
mate is coming.) 20.cxb3 lLib4 2 1.a3 lLixd3
13.lLixb5 has scored a solid 2-0 for White,
but Black can improve with 13...lLib4!
14.llJxd6 .ixd6 15.�xd6 E:fc8 with enough
compensation for the pawns.

� i: �
if fl �
�� ��-"'� ���r�� �:--·-
6
6 ,- . �� �
5
5 ' -�� ,;,,. : .r� .... �� '>.... 4
4 ,....;,� ��-, �� 3
3 -�!�li�i
....J�f% �� �� ��-0
2
�� ,� �� �
b d f g h
a b c d e f g h
a c e
The engine wants us to play l 6.E:d4 E:c6
22.lLig5! A nice intermediate move. White is 17.� e5 E:c5 18. � d6 E:c6 with a repetition.
planning E:xd3-h3. Black is busted. Solve the draw death: take a sledgehammer to
c) 15 ... a6 is also possible and what the engine your laptop...
suggests. Black is threatening to take on b 5 ,
which would open the a-file, s o White has 1 3.. J:UcS 1 4..ic4?!
to play 16.lLibd4, when after 16...lLixd4 White should probably vary earlier, on move
17.lLixd4 White is still much better. The 12, but if you do reach this position, then a
engine says that Black is more or less OK, move to investigate is 14.e5.
but I have analysed a lot of positions like
this, and believe that it will take between 1 4...�b4 1 5.ti°e2
half an hour and an hour with a computer White might have had better saving chances
to prove that White has a winning attack. in the following line:
16..ixf6 .ixf6 15 ..ib3 E:xc3! 16.�xc3 E:c8
16... gxf6 17.lLibd4 gives White a solid edge.
8
The black knight is exchanged before it gets
7
a chance to get into battle, and Black is left

6
without an attack, but facing one on the
kingside all the same.
5
17.lLixd6 .ic3 18.�e2 b3 19.cxb3 llJb4
20.bxc3 E:xc3 2 1.lLid4 4

Black's attack is not happening. 3

2 1...e5 22.lLic4 E:xc4 23.ixc4 ixg4 24.�g2
ixd l 2 5.E:xd l exd4 26.E:g l g5 27.fxg5 hxg5 2
b d f g h
28.E:fl E:b7 29.E:f5 �b6 30.E:xg5t @IB
a c e
3 1.E:g8t @e7 32.�g5 t @d7 33.�f5t
1-0 lvanchuk - Smirin, Klaipeda 198 5. White is struggling, but not dead yet.
24 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision M aking i n Chess

8
White should avoid 1 7.ixf6 ixf6 1 8.We3
ia4 1 9.l'l:d2 ixb3 20.Wxb3 lll xa2t 2 1 .<;t>dI
ll'lc3t 22.bxc3 Wa l t 23.<;t>e2 Wxh l 24.<;t>f2 7

6
ixc3 when his situation is grim.

Bue 1 7.We l ia4 1 8.a3 ixb3 1 9.Wxb4 Wxb4 5

20.axb4 ixc2 offers at lease some hope. Black is 4
certainly better, with his threatened discovered
checks, and the weakness of e4 and b4, but the 3
game is not over yet. 2

1 5 J�xc4!
•. 1

a b c d e f g h
Black's attack flows; if the bishop had reached
b3, it might have been a useful defender.
A very energetic sacrifice, continuing Black's
16.flYxc4 gc8 17.flYb 3 c-file rampag e.

19.flYxc2
White is running out of options.

1 9.tll xe4 tll d 4t wins the queen, while keeping

a vicious attack.

l 9.l'l:d3 ixh4 20.ll'lxh4 d5 also gives Black a

winning attack.

I 7 tllxe4!!
•••

Black refuses co lee any defender block the

c-file.

18.a3
This does not help, but neither would any
other move.

1 8.ll'lxe4 ia4 is devastating.

And after 1 8.ixe7 ll'lxc3 1 9.bxc3 l'l:xc3

20.ixd6 ll'lxa2t 2 1 .<;t>b2 l'l:xb3t 22.cxb3 ic6
Black wins comfortably. 19 tixc3 20 ..lel .if6 21 .tieS
•.•

There are many wins. Kupreichik finds a

18... lll xc2!! simple one.
 Chapter 1 - Minsk 1979
21...Aa4 22.i.xc3 .ixc2 23.J.xa5 .ixdl t
24.©xdl dxe5 25.fxe5 .ixe5 26.b4 l:k3
27.a4 ga3 28.© c2 Ad4 29.gdl e5
0-1
When you are watching this live in the
tournament hall as a child, you cannot help but
be overwhelmed. This is one of the reasons why
I think young players should be encouraged to
watch top tournament games. If they cannot
make it to the tournament hall, then at least
follow the games online. Be entirely focused
on the games, without online commentary or a
mind-numbing engine, trying to find ideas of
your own, calculating the various possibilities
as the players think about them.
Efim Geller
One player in this tournament fascinated me
more than the others...
Efim Geller's golden years were 1 949 to
1 980. Born in 1 92 5 , he won the USSR
Championship qualifier in Tbilisi in 1 949,
and subsequently took j oint 3-4th place at the
main championship. He became a grandmaster
in 1952 and also played for the first time in the
Soviet team that year. He was a strong force
for these three decades, scoring +6 in almost
200 games against the six World Champions
he faced, suffering a majority of his defeats
against Spassky, but achieving a plus score
against Bocvinnik, Smyslov, Petrosian and
Fischer.
He was one of the most respected players
in the Soviet Union, and acted as second for
Karpov for many years. Before Kasparov's
1 993 match against Nigel Short, he asked
Geller what he should do against the Marshall
Attack, which Short employed at the time.
Geller suggested a system with h3, d3 & llibd2
and slow play, which worked well for Kasparov
and stayed popular for the next 1 5 years.
25
There were some young players in the
tournament. For example, 1 9-year-old Artur
Yusupov took second place in his first-ever
championship. Artur kindly shared his
memories of Geller from this tournament:
When I first arrived at the tournament,
my impression of Geller was that Grandad
had decided to play. I liked that, but at
first his results did not impress. In the first
seven rounds he made all draws, before
winning a fine strategic game against
Romanishin. But it was in Rounds 1 0
and 1 1 that everything changed. First,
Razuvaev made a horrific blunder in the
opening, and lost to Geller in 2 1 moves.
Then the next day, Tseshkovsky, in an
equal position, blundered his queen right
after exiting his adjournment analysis.
Geller was an experienced card player,
so he immediately realized his luck was
in. He transformed completely and played
with such energy - beautiful attacking
chess. It was truly fascinating.
I was able to use this experience much
later in my career, in the German
Championship, when Alexander Graf
blundered his queen against me in an equal
position. I remembered Geller, and knew
I j ust had to show up and play, and luck
would be on my side. In the last round,
the next day, I misplayed my position a
little, and my opponent offered a draw. I
rejected it, because of Geller. I had to play!
And immediately my opponent made
mistakes. You have to use the luck! This
is what I learned from Geller at the 1 979
championship.
Actually, Geller had already made an
impression on me in the first round against
Dolmatov. Sergey had played quickly and
confidently in making a draw with Black,
26 Boris G elfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

which was a decent result. Geller, on the I think he meant that I might have needed a
other hand, had been thinking a lot, and few years to recover, but as no one had told me
was low on time when the game ended, as about this earlier, I simply played well and won
was his habit. the tournament.
When they analysed the game
afterwards, Dolmatov would say: "Here Boris the Attacker - 1979
I can play this, this or this, but I chose
To understand how exciting the following
that." Geller said: " Really, you think
Geller game was to me at the time, it is
you can play this?" and then he showed
necessary first to see a game I played j ust before
the most beautiful refutations of Sergey's
the tournament.
suggestions, one after the other. None of
this happened in the game, which was not
so interesting. But it seemed that Sergey
Boris Gdfand Eduard Raisky
-

had been lucky, and by intuition had Minsk 1979

chosen the only move again and again.
1.e4 c5 2.tlif3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 tli f6
For those not blinded by age, but still interested 5.�c3 e6 6..ie2 .te7 7.0-0 0-0 8.f4 tli c6
in numbers, let me offer you something solid: 9..ie3 a6 10.a4 ffc7 11.ff el �a5 12.ff g3
by 1 979 Geller was 54 years old and had not tlic4 13.i.xc4 ffxc4 14.e5
played in the Olympiad team for a decade. He
was certainly not over the hill though - his
8
7
highest Elo rating was as recent as 1 976, when
2620 made him Number 8 in the world. By
1 979 he was still Number 28 in the world,
6
whereas Yusupov was Number 1 28 in the
world and Dolmatov Number 45. 5
4
This recollection is quite pleasant for me:
3
2
absolutely would like it to be the attitude of
young players that they have to beat me, no

1
matter what. I have been declared 'finished' for
decades. In 1 998 there were a lot of articles
where they announced the end of me. a b c d e f g h
After I lost the candidates match to Short
14...tli eS!?
in 1 99 1 , I defied the expectations of some
1 4... lll d5 is more natural, but the move in
people. I went on to win in Belgrade, tying
the game is not bad if Black plays accurately
for second with Kasparov in Reggio Emilia
afterwards.
1 99 1 /92 and, shortly thereafter, won in Wij k
aan Zee 1 992. After the last of these events,
1 5.�e4 b6?
a journalist confided in me, saying that after
Luckily he does not.
the match with Short, "I thought you were
l 5 ... d5 would allow White to keep a
finished." I was 24 years old...
I want to point out that this was a very
stable advantage with his massive lead in
pleasant person, who spoke from the heart.
development. A quick shift to the queenside
 Chapter 1 - Min sk 1979 27

would be very effective: 1 6.tll d2 Vfic7 1 7.c4!

dxc4 1 8.:gfc l Black is weak on b6, d6 and all
the way down the c-file.

1 5 ... f6! was the best move. After 1 6.b3 Wid5

1 7.exf6 tllx f6 1 8.tll x f6t .ixf6 Black managed
to equalize in Klovans - Polugaevsky, Yerevan
1 975. I chink White could find an advantage
somewhere in this line, but it would not be
overwhelming.
a b c d e f g h

2 1 .Vfie5! with the threat of :gxg6t and Wig?#.

Black can try 2 1 ...:ga7, but after 22.:gafl mate
is close anyway. For example: 22... :ge8 23.:gxf7!

20.�xe5 �c5
The last try.

20... gxf6 2 1 .Vfixf6t c;t>g8 22. .ih6 and wins.

16.£5!
White should not waste any time.

16... dxe5
This is the critical test, but as it does not
work, Black had to accept chat his position is
a disaster.

1 6... exf5 would be poor on account of

I 7.exd6, and White has a big advantage with
this impressive passer.

17.f6! lt:lxf6 18.�xf6t hf6 19J�xf6 ®h8!?

Black realizes chat l 9... exd4 is hopeless.
White not only wins the exchange after 20..ih6,
but can choose co go for mate instead: 20...g6 21 ...gxf6 22.�xaS e5 23.�f3!
1-0

After the first nine moves of Geller's I 4ch

round game, I was understandably excited:
28 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

Efim Geller Yuri Anikaev

- Today the computer tells us that White was

Minsk 1 979
even winning at this point with an amazing
sequence.

1.e4 c5 2.�a e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 tlif6

1 6.fxe6 fxe6 1 7.J.g4! llixe3
5.tli c3 d6 6.J.e2 J.e7 7.0-0 0-0 8.f4 �c6
1 7 ...Wc5 immediately does not improve
9.J.e3 a6
things. White wins with 1 8.llif5! and Black
As we have j ust seen, I won a great game in
is mated or loses the queen.
the Scheveningen j ust before this tournament,
1 8.Wxe3 Wc5
so I was very eager to see what Geller would do
with the white pieces.

10.a4 J.d7
1 0...Wc? is the big main move.

ll ..if'3
1 1 .llib3! is known to give White a good
game.

l 1.
tlia5 1 2.°1We2 '!Wc7 1 3.g4 �Uc8 14.g5
b d f g h
••

�e8 1 5.6 �c4 a c e

8
Black looks OK, but the knight on e8 is so
poorly placed that White can crash through

7 down the f-file.

6
1 9.Wf2! llic7
1 9...Wxg5 20.Wf7t 'it>h8 2 1 .Wfst J.xf8
5 22.E:xf8#

4 20.Wf7t 'it>h8 2 1 .Wxe? %Yxd4t 22.'it>h l J.c6

3
2
1

a b c d e f g h

At this point I felt that Black was at least OK.

Yes, the knight on e8 is awkward, but getting
the knight to c4 looked like a big achievement.
But in reality Black is j ust lost.

1 6.J.h 5!?
An amazing idea from Geller, though not
the only way to continue.
 Chapter 1 - Minsk 1979 29

With the idea of doubling rooks on the f-file. 1 9 . . . c;!.ihs 20 .Wxe? Wd8!
23 . . . lll d 5 ! ? Not an easy move to find in your defensive
Black needs t o try something! calculations, bur it is necessary.
24.Wxd6! l'!d8 20 . . . l'!e8 2 1 .lll xe6! leads to an endgame
where White has an extra pawn.
2 I .l'!f7 Wxe7 22.l'!xe? lll xe3 23.l'!xd? e5
24.lll de2 lll xh 5 2 5 .l'! c l

25.exd5 !
White wins.
a b c d e f g h

It is quite easy to forgive Geller for not seeing
all of this. We have no idea if he saw the first
seven moves of this line, and felt that he would
be able to achieve more with what he did, or
if he was focusing more on going deep in the
direction he went.
One thing we do know is that Geller's idea in
the game was at least as beautiful and instructive
as this variation. The existence of computers
today does not reduce the achievements of the
heroes of the past, in my opinion.
White is about to win a pawn and will have
decent chances in the endgame, although
Black still has some active counterplay.
I am sitting there in the front row, following
the game, thinking the attack is over. The
bishop will retreat, after which Black will play
. . . lll g7 and . . . l=!f8 with a better position. White
simply played too primitively.

16...g6
This is forced. 1 6 . . . lll e5 1 7.ixf7t! is a good
example of the dangers Black is facing.

17.fxg6 fxg6 18.�'fl! ll\ e5?

This natural move i s the decisive mistake.

After the game it is easy to see that Black had

to accept the loss of a pawn and play:
I 8 . . . lll g7 I 9 .Wf7t
a b c d e f g h
1 9 .ixg6!? lll xe3 would lead to the white
bishop being in the way on f7, and is thus Then a new wave of the attack began.
not as attractive.
30 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making i n Chess

19.llJ O! White dominates. It is not a direct knock­

Eliminating the defence of the f7-sq uare. out blow, but enough to win without any
uncertainty.
19... llJg7
1 9 . . . ttJ f7, intending to return to e5 once the
f3-knight moves, is refuted by brute force: 8
7
8
7
i:� �;i·,·- 6
5
la" -'---,�.. •�
i �..t�A)) � i
6

5 � � �r 4
4 !� �!�r- >-�
�- 1 �� �- �
3
3 �
2,,-� ��-� 2
2 ��ri � � �
JtJ�j .�:rJfj a b c d e f g h
a b c d e f g h
Here I thought: the knight is trapped on f7 ,
20.�xg6! hxg6 2 l . tli h4 tli e 5 22.tlixg6! Black's
White i s in danger.
defence of the f7-square did not last. 22 . . . tli xg6
But again Geller played a move I had not
23 .Wf7t �h8 24.Wxg6 White is winning. The
considered at all.
threats are too many to count, but we can
mention �f7 in passing.
22.llJ d5!! exd5 23.llJh 6t © g7
This allows a beautiful finish, but Black
20.llJxe5 gm 21.llJf7! lll xh 5
was not getting out of it anyway: 23 . . . �h8
2 l . . . gxh5 was possible, but it would not save
24.�d4t �f6 2 5 .Wxf6t! Obviously Geller
Black: 22.�b6! Wc6 23 .�d4 Wc8 24.tli h6t
would have taken with the queen. 25 . . . �xf6
<;t>h8 2 5 .Wd2 gives White a winning attack.
26.�xf6 And we have returned to the game.

� i: fe11�.;r 8
6 !��--,��,, � 7
: ���" � �. :.�, �f:;ii''
'- -��� 6
5
3 ' ,, �� �
�f:;l'ef� �f:;/-� 4
- /�� j�
2i � ���,,f!J 3
� :=
2
B
a b c d e f g h

The main ideas are �xf8t followed by �fl

b d f g h
penetrating on the 7th rank, as well as meeting
a c e
25 . . . e5 with 26.tli d 5 ! , leading to further
suffering for Black. For example: 26 . . . exd4 24.'!Wf7t!! l3xf7 2s.l3xf7t ©h s 26 ..id4t .if6
27.tlixe7 We8 28.�xf8t Wxf8 29.tlid5 and 27.l3xf6!
 Chapter 1 - Minsk 1 979
Black resigned. He is getting
27 . . . lll g7 28.Ei:f7 Ei:g8
a b c d e f g h
29.�xg7t Ei:xg7 30.Ei:f8t Ei:g8 3 l .Ei:xg8#
1-0
This game might not seem so complicated to
us now, but imagine being a small boy in the
tournament hall, trying to guess the moves of
the grandmasters.
I know I used a lot of diagrams in this game,
but I am trying to reproduce the experience
I had during the game, which was not
just an emotional one, one of surprise and
turnarounds, but also a visual one. I was
watching the games live, watching the players.
Back in that time, smoking was still allowed in
the tournament hall. Geller was smoking, and
Tai was smoking one cigarette after another.
This helped to form the atmosphere of the
tournament into a 'grown-up area' , where I as
a child had been allowed to visit. And didn't
they play grown-up chess there! (One more
thing about smoking: Back then many sports
stars were smokers, not j ust chess players, also
tennis stars, runners and footballers. Recently
football lost one of its biggest stars, Johan
Cruyff, my biggest sporting hero, who died
aged 66 from a smoking-related illness. I am
glad that smoking is gone from chess, as well as
from other sports. Especially I am glad that my
opponents are not smoking in my face!)
31
mated: When I arrived home that evening, I was in a
state of shock. I had seen something special , a
miracle at the chessboard. It is not impossible
that it determined the course of my life.
It is for this reason that I want to underscore
the importance of following top games live.
Preferably at the tournament hall, if you
have the chance. But if you do not, then use
all this wonderful technology we have, with
transmissions from all of the top events. If you
want to make progress, I think it is important
to focus on no more than three games (or less!)
and forget all about multitasking.
And of course you should watch the games
without the engine on. Anyone who has
read the first volume of this series, Positional
Decision Making in Chess, should be able to say
this in their sleep! It can be difficult to work
out where you switch off the engine on the
website, and it can be tempting to turn it on
when the game becomes complicated. But life
has always been full of shortcuts to nowhere -
and it has always been clear that this is exactly
where they lead.
To me the 1 979 Soviet Championship in
Minsk was a rare chance to see the best players
in the country in action. It was won by Efim
Geller, of course. He won six games and drew
eleven, scoring 1 1 V2 from 1 7. By round 1 4 it
was already clear that things were heading his
way, and his masterpiece against Anikaev only
solidified the deserved nature of his victory.
Yusupov was second with 1 OY2 and Kasparov
shared third with Balashov on 1 0 points.
At the closing banquet of the 1 992 Alekhine
Memorial in Moscow, where I had tied for first
with Anand, I was sitting next to Geller. At
some point he raised a toast for me to become
World Champion.
I remember Efim Geller and the 1 979 Soviet
Championship fondly.
Chapter 2
Petrosian

Photo ofPetrosian from the Soviet Sport article

 Diagram Preview
On this page you will find a few
diagrams with critical moments � 8 z !!��II ��-r0
from the coming chapter. If you
: r.��r•r � �
want to compare your thinking
� · ')) , -j,
with the games, you have the 5
4 ������ %� ---%���
� r � - -
r� �� -- -�� :�
possibility. Take as much time
as you need or want. This is not 3

if� � ;·r
a test, but a chance to 'think 2

along' with the grandmasters in

the games. a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

How can Black start What amazing move did

an attack? Petrosian play?
{see pages 39-40) {see page 44)

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

Do you know this famous What is the most dynamic

combination? way to continue?
(see page 36) (see page 40)
 Chapter 2
The Soviet School of Chess
Many people think there is a Soviet Chess
School, which is not really the case. This
concept originated after the Soviet players
showed great strength in the post-WW2
period, and was supported by a book by Kotov
and Yudovich in the late 1 950s. It is very
hard for people to understand that this was a
metaphor, and not a real thing.
In 1 98 5 a delegation of Indian chess players
visited the Soviet Union. Playing against their
delegation was my first game against a foreign
player, A. Mittei.
At one point on their trip they were in
Moscow, and one Indian guy kept insisting
that they show him the Soviet Chess School.
The guides tried to explain that it was a
metaphor, but the guy was not biting. Anand
told me that eventually they had had it
with this guy, and j ust pointed at a random
building, assuring him that this was indeed the
Soviet Chess School, but sadly it was closed on
that day.
I don't think it makes sense to talk about a
Soviet School of Chess. We can talk about
regional tradition, where many players
developed in a certain direction, influenced
by a star player in their city. A clear case is
Riga, where Tai influenced players such as
Alvis Vitolins, Alexander Shabalov and Alexei
Shirov, who play exactly the same brilliant
attacking style.
I grew up in Minsk, and in my chess you can
clearly see the style of Boleslavsky, with serious
opening preparation, Sicilian and King's
Indian with Black, and main lines in other
openings. I did not work with Boleslavsky, but
he influenced Kapengut, who influenced other
players such as Ilya Smirin, Yuri Shulman and
myself. Razuvaev called me Boleslavsky's chess
grandson.
- Petrosian 35
Players from Lviv were influenced by Stein.
Players from Odessa were influenced by Geller.
In Armenia and Georgia, Petrosian's influence
was strong, with a liking for play with knights
against bishops.
But this was of course not j ust a Soviet
phenomenon. In the US, Fischer had a big
influence, which is still strong to this day. In
Denmark they had Larsen and Nimzowitsch.
The Netherlands had Euwe and later Timman.
England did not have a guru in the same
way, as their players all appeared at the same
time. But still you can see a lot of common
traits in their style, their originality and thirst
for fighting chess. You will find similarities
between the players in many countries. When
you think about it, it is very obvious why. We
learn from each other and try to emulate our
heroes.
Real Soviet chess schools
Botvinnik's school is famous all over the world,
with students such as Kasparov, Kramnik and
so on. Tigran Petrosian also had his own chess
school, but with a more limited range - he could
only select his pupils from the members of the
Spartak club, a sports organization, making the
choice narrower. Still, a number of kids who
later became famous grandmasters took part,
such as Igor Novikov, Yury Dokhoian, Svetlana
Matveeva and Ilya Smirin. I was invited after
I won the U 1 8 Spartak Championship, half
a point ahead of Giorgi Giorgadze, who later
became a strong grandmaster. I had to join
Spartak in order to train with Kapengut, who
worked there.
The Petrosian school was for players under
1 8 , and usually met twice a year for training
sessions. Petrosian was assisted by Alexander
Niki tin, who was the trainer of Garry Kasparov
then and for many years of his career.
36 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

In the morning there was a group session,

8
with a lecture. Maybe an explanation of an
opening, or the analysis of some games of the 7
participants. In the second half of the day, the 6
group was split in two. Petrosian would take
the children he felt had the greatest potential 5
or whom he simply liked. He would show this 4
group some of his own games.
3
In the evening Petrosian would play blitz with 2
us, giving us all sorts of handicaps, such as
choosing the square upon which we would get
mated. We were young and naive, and with a b c d e f g h
Black I said a l , after which he simply took 14.f;Yh6
all my pawns and checkmated me with king The following game in this line is very
and queen. If I had chosen one of the central famous:
squares, it would have been more of a challenge 1 4.g5 ! ?
for him to win the game. This idea worked wonders in this game, but
Petrosian was an incredible blitz player. It it does not stand up to scrutiny.
was quite common for his generation. Fischer, 1 4 . . . b4?
Korchnoi and Tai were also amazing. Actually, 14 . . . fxg5 is necessary, but then Black has an
Tai won the World Championship in blitz in excellent score.
1 988, not long before he died. l 5 .gxf6 i.xf6 1 6.�g l t �h8 l 7.°1Wh6 \We?

This game was played in the tournament where

I qualified to go to Petrosian's school.

M. Magomedov - Boris Gelfand

Kalining rad 1980

1 .e4 c5 2.c!LJf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.c!Lixd4 c!Lif6

5.c!Lic3 a6
Already at that time I had analysed the
Najdorf rather deeply.

6.Ag5 e6 7.£4 j_e7 s.Y;Yf3 Y;Yc7 9.0-0-0 1 8 .tll c6!!

c!Libd7 10.g4 b5 1 1 .Lf6 gxf6
I played this system a lot at the time, inspired
by some games by Fischer.
12.f5 c!ll e 5 13.f;Yh3 0-0
I had some improvement based on a Spassky
game, but it was not really important.
A combination that is almost beyond belief.
1 8 . . . tll xc6 1 9.e5 ig5t
Not the most accurate defence, but Black
was in big trouble anyway: l 9 . . . ixe5 20.f6
ixf6 2 I .id3 ig5 t 22.�xg5 f6 23.�g3 �f7
24.�dg l Wf8 2 5 .�g8t Wxg8 26.�xg8t
�xg8 27.tll e4 and White is going to win all
the same.
 Chapter 2 - Petrosian 37

20.E!:xg5 f6 2 l .exd6 '1Mi'f7 22.E!:g3 bxc3 23.ic4 Three times

cxb2t 24.�b l lll d8 25 .E!:dg l E!:a7 26.d7 E!:xd7
27.fxe6 lll xe6 28 .ixe6 E!:d l t 29.E!:xd l ixe6
30.�xb2 E!:b8t 3 1 .�al ixa2 32.E!:gd3 '1Mi'e7
33.�xa2 We6t 34.E!:b3
1 -0 Kholmov - Bronstein, Kiev 1 964.
14 ... 'itih8 15.g5 :gg8 16.g6 fxg6 17.fxe6 ih7
18.tlJd5 ixd5 19.exd5 f5 20.'itibl Wfc5!
8
I went to Petrosian's school three times; it was
organized as a training camp. The first time
was in 1 980 in Sochi, the second time 1 98 1 in
Moscow, and the third time again in Moscow,
but in 1 983. On the third occasion, I was
only there for a few days, as I had tournament
commitments starting halfway through the
sessions. This was the last time I attended.
Petrosian died in 1 984.

7 The first time I came to Petrosian's school, I

6 was 1 2 years old. I was quite deluded, thinking
that Petrosian was a great manoeuvrer, but
5 that in tactics I was stronger than him. But
4 the moment I saw him play blitz, it was
immediately apparent to me how excellent his
3
tactics were.
2 One day we played a simul against Petrosian,

1 a c e
which was a great honour.

b d f g h Tigran Petrosian - Boris Gelfand

This is the small highlight of the game; the Sochi (simul) 1980
moment I remember fondly. My recollection
was that I wanted to avoid ig2 and lll c6, and 1 .d4 tlJf6 2.c4 g6 3.tlJc3 ig7 4.e4 d6 5.ie2
for this reason I moved my queen out early. e5
Anyway, this is the moment I wanted to show. My idea was to meet 6.d5 with 6 . . . lt:l bd7 to
I shall include the remaining moves without save a move and avoid the Petrosian system.
comment. Not a big idea, but I was j ust a kid. Sadly there
was a downside as well.
21.ig2 :gaf"B 22.Wfd2 tlJc4 23.Wfd3 if6
24.d b4 25.tlJb3 Wfc7 26.ifl tlJe5 27.Wfd4
8
hxc3 28.Wfxd Wig? 29.Wf d2 :gb8 30.ie2
Wfc7 31 .:gcl Wfb6 32.Wfd4 Wfxd4 33.tlJxd4 7
tlJg4 34.gc4 tlJe3 35.ga4 lDxd5 36.tlJb3
6
lllc7 37.gcl tlixe6 38.gxa6 ie5 39.h3 tlJc5
40.ga7 tlJxb3 41 .axh3 gxh3 42.gc2 ggb8 5
43.ga2 gxh3 44.ic4 ghl t 45.gcl gxcl t 4
46.'itixcl gc8 47.b3 d5
0-1 3

a b c d e f g h
38 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

6.dxe5 dxe5 7.�xd8t ©xd8 8.f4 exf4 9.J.xf4
.ie6 IO.O-O-Ot tlibd7 1 1 .tlif3 tll g4 12J:thfl
©c8 13.tlig5 tlige5 14.tll xe6 fxe6 1 5 ..ig3
c5 16.tlib5 ©d8 17 ..ih4t ©c8 18 ..ig3 gg8
19.©bl a6 20.tll d6t ©b8
After this game, I was asked to work on this
type of position before the next session, which
I duly forgot about until the very last minute.
I quickly scribbled down a few notes taken
from a Geller book, all very obvious. Nikitin
suggested that they should send me back, that
there was no purpose in keeping me, when I
was unwilling to do my homework.
But Petrosian said: "The boy has talent, he
enjoys chess, so who cares if he forgot to do
his homework." So Petrosian sort of liked me.
I was really amazed that such a great player
would spend so much time with us.

There are so many great memories from these

training camps. Once Petrosian organized
for a bus to collect us and take us to a top­
level ice hockey game. He followed the sport
a b c d e f g h obsessively, but this was not the point of the
21.tll e 8! trip. He wanted to show us the intensity of
A nice move by Petrosian. Black's position is top-level athletes in battle. The generosity of
falling apart. spirit was incredible.

21 ... ©a7 22.tlic7 gac8 23.tlixe6 .ih8
24.tll g5 h6 25.tlif7 .ig7 26J�d5 �ke8
27.tll xe5 tlixe5 28,gxc5 tlic6 29 ..if3 ggf'8
30.gd5 tll e 5 31 .he5 .ixe5 32.h3 g17
33J�fdl gc7 34.b3 g17 35.a4 .ig3 36.a5
gc7 37.©b2 gce7 38.b4 gc7 39.©b3 gec8
40.c5 ge7 41 .gd7 gc7 42.gds
a b c d e f g h
1-0
In 1 980 the sessions coincided with the
Chigorin Memorial. In the morning we would
have our training sessions with Petrosian and
Nikitin, and in the evening we would go and
watch the games. I have autographs from, for
example, Eugenio Torre and John van der Wiel.
At times, Petrosian would ask me: "Boris,
what do you think of this position?" Very
naively, I said something obvious. He replied:
"Even my wife can count the pieces. But
what do you think, what will the result be?"
I predicted that White was going to win the
game, but the player {let's not name names) let
me down and even lost the game.
I tell this story j ust to illustrate the way
Petrosian engaged with us all, and made us feel
respected and valuable. It was true mentoring.
It was an amazing experience and I am sure it
gave me a big push. This is part of the reason
why I like spending time with young players.
Everyone can analyse a variation deeply and
 Chapter 2 - Petrosian 39

find a new idea, but to meet a great player is Galina Strutinskaia -Alexander Huzman
not always possible, to get a tip or two from
Halkidiki 2016
him. This is something that can make a big
difference.
t.d4 �f6 2.�a g6 3.g3 .tg7 4.Ag2 0-0
I still remember some of Petrosian's tips:
5.0-0 d6 6.c4 tll bd7 7.9c2 e5 s.gdl ges
You should think about each move, even in blitz. 9.b3 e4 10.�gS e3
Do not make senseless moves. This had a big
impact on me, both in a good and a bad way.
It definitely cost time as well. As with most
things, it can be a plus and a minus; it is all
about the application. Maybe it is a plus when
you are in good form, but when you are in bad
form, it can lead to time trouble. This is also
a reason why I believe that the introduction
of the increment, especially in rapid, was very
good for my career.

You should never miss a chan ce to solve an

exercise!
a b c d e f g h
We come across positions all the time.
In magazines, books, on the internet or as 1 1 .�h3
something a friend shows us. There are many Let's look at the game and the lesser
chances to train your thinking. It does not alternatives before we move on to the critical
matter if the position is simple or difficult. moments.
There are a few top players who are so
confident in their calculation that they feel l l ..ixe3? :!'he3! 1 2.fxe3 lt'i g4 and Black is
they do not need to solve exercises. already better.
I do not want to be presumptuous and think
I know best. I simply follow Petrosian's advice. l l .f4?! h6 1 2. ll'i f3 lli g4 1 3 .ll'ic3 llidf6 1 4 . .ib2
He knew a thing or two about chess. Maybe not the best, but the position is already
bad. 1 4 . . . .if5 1 5 .�c l This was played in Sideif
Random solving in action Sade - Mamadshoev, Azov 1 99 1 .

I practise what I preach. Recently I was having

dinner at home with my coach, Alexander
Huzman, and we were discussing recent games
we had seen. Alex had played in the European
Senior Team Championship. Although the
field was weaker than expected (Alex won
three of his games in 20 moves or less) , he still
had some interesting moments and games.
He offered me one of them as a positional
exercise. We were still eating and talking, while
I was chinking about the position. a b c d e f g h
40 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

1 5 . . . tll f2!N 1 6.l:!fl ih3 would have given 1 l . fxe3 tll g4 1 2.e4 c5 1 3.tll f3
Black a crushing attack.

l l. .. �g4 12.f3 �h6 13.�c3?

Blundering away the d4-square.

1 3 .ib2 would give even chances.

a b c d e f g h

This is the position of interest. Alex asked

1 5 ....ixd4 16.l:!bl �c5 17.b4 .if5 18.�e4
�xe4 19.fxe4 .lxh3 20 ..ixh3 c6
me to chink, and I did so while sharing my
considerations out loud, so he could follow
my line of chinking.
Only one game has been played from this
position, and it did not present us with a map
to follow. 1 3 . . . cxd4 1 4.tll xd4 tll c5 1 5 .tll c3
a6 was the choice in Zohar - Parwicz, email
2005. This feels unenergecic and I chink
White could fight for an advantage.
After some time, I found a very dynamic
solution.
1 3 . . . b5!!

8
7
65
4
3
21 a b c d e f g

I suggested this move after some chinking,

h

and Alex said chat it was indeed the best

a b c d e f g h move, and we agreed chat it would be
Alex won the game in another 1 7 moves. interesting to include it in this book.
The upsides co this move are easy co
During the game, Alex was chinking most describe. Lee's cake a look at how play
about: would continue if White is collaborative:
 Chapter 2 - Petrosian 41

1 4.cxb5 ib7 1 5 .tll c3 cxd4 1 6.tll xd4!'k8 with l 5 . . . tll f2!!

a big advantage for Black. Play could continue
with 1 7.Wd2 Wf6 1 8.e3 gxc3! 1 9.gfl gxc l !
and Black has a winning position.
The next morning, I woke up early and
started thinking about the position again. I
realized that White had to continue actively
as well. It was only while having breakfast
This tactical resource is important and could
easily be missed. While if there was a pawn
on f2, everyone would find it!
1 5 . . . tll g e5 1 6.tll x b5 leaves Black without
real compensation for the pawn.
1 6.�xf2 ixd4t 1 7.gxd4 Wf6t 1 8.'it>e3 Wg5t

� � �,lifl,
that I found how White should play.

. �-. �. !�
1 4.h3!
..... �
6
� �� �. . �� �; ,. '
: , ,� � , � �·
;

3
��. �8• . . ·"m � 8
2

1
��-1����1:
. .�tt:J�· :t
� ��� �
a b c d e f g h

At this point White can force a draw, should

he wish to. Or he can choose to play for
three results.
1 4 . . . cxd4 1 9.�d3!?
l 4 . . . tll gf6? l 5 .e5! would be a disaster for White has every right to play for an
Black. advantage. He is a piece up after all.
l 5 .tll xd4 1 9.�f2 Wf6t is an immediate draw.
1 5 .hxg4? d3 1 6.exd3 ixa l 1 7.d4 bxc4 1 9 . . . bxc4t
1 8.bxc4 Wb6 gives Black a serious advantage. This appears to be the most accurate.
White will not be successful in trapping the 20.�c3!
bishop. I think this is best.

8 ,,.\�£��
20.bxc4 tll c5t 2 1 .�c3 Wxg3t 22.if3 f5

· --·� .."• ., �a
'))J! , .- , gives Black the initiative, although White's

�� · �
7

�
position is defensible.
..

: ��f� - -3� ��� �

20 . . . Wxg3t 2 1 .if3 tll c5

fm,f .. � :-
3 �!-'l
�- - �• 1 •
. :. �8
8•t
� � �
..

�t'.{J��� ��-0�
�; � �
2

1 � �
a b c d e f g h

This position is not easy at all. If Black does

not react very actively, he could easily find
himself lost in only a few moves.
42 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess
This looks OK for Black; we are playing
for all three results. White has a piece, but
Black has one pawn (and will most certainly
get another one soon) and the white king will
be in need of perpetual babysitting. I do not
think this is a position where the king will be
able to protect itself (as in the game below) .
White has more pieces, but they also have
more work to do!
Both 1 3 . . . b5! and I 5 . . . lDf2! are difficult moves
to find, making it imperative that we train our
ability to find them.
1981
The 1 98 1 sessions were held not long after the
Tilburg tournament. One day Nikitin said that
he had received a letter from Kasparov with
analysis of the game he had lost to Petrosian
in that tournament. Kasparov claimed that
he had found a way he could have won. We
had all seen the game and were amazed by
Petrosian's defensive skills. When Nikitin said
he had received the letter, Petrosian simply
started laughing.
They agreed that on one of the following
days, instead of the regular lesson, they would
discuss the game in front of everyone, so that
we would be able to see how Petrosian would
refute the analysis.
Sadly, I had to leave the day before this
session, to play a tournament. Since then 3 5
years have passed, and it still hurts when I
think about missing out on this session. The
game is also still fresh in my memory, as can be
seen in my game against Alekseev on page 223.
Garry Kasparov -Tigran Petrosian
Tilburg 1981
This game has been annotated quite a number
of times in various places, most notably in My
Great Predecessors, Part III by Garry Kasparov.
However, the notes in that book felt somewhat
below the great standard of the series (I am
a big fan of Kasparov's books, and have been
for more than 30 years; I cannot recommend
them enough) .
The best annotations of the game, in terms
of accuracy of the analysis, are probably those
by Jacob Aagaard in Python Strategy, a recently
published collection of Petrosian's annotations
and articles. Aagaard was able to combine
Petrosian's and Kasparov's annotations, and
check them carefully with a strong engine,
getting us a bit closer to the truth.
My comments below are not meant to give the
objective truth of the game, but to share my
impressions, then and now.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.4Jf3 t£!f6 4.e3 i.g4
s.J.xc4 e6 6.h3 .ths 7.tll c3 a6 8.g4 i.g6
9.tll e 5 tll bd7 IO.tll xg6 hxg6 1 1 .i.fl c6
12.i.g2 V!!c7 13.0-0 i.e7 14.f4 t£lb6 1 5.gS
tll fd7 16.V!!g4 0-0-0 17J�b1 ©bs 1S.b4
t£ld5 19.t£la4 f5 20.V!!g3 tll xb4 21 ..id2
t£ld5 22JUcl ©a7 23.V!!e l i.a3 24J�c2
V!!d6 25J�b3 V!!e7 26.V!!e2 gbs 27.V!!d3 i.d6
28.t£!b2 ghc8 29.tll c4 i.c7
a c e
b d f g h
We can see that White has sacrificed a pawn
for clear long-term compensation. All his pieces
are active on the open files. So, normally, the
 Chapter 2 - Petrosian 43

general course of events would be that Black 33.J.b4

would defend passively, while White would try The engine points out 33.Wfb 1 ! was very
to find a way to break through. strong here.

30.a4 b5!
An amazing move that sends us back to
Steinitz's maxim, that the king should be able
to protect himself.

More importantly, this move, followed by

move 32, changed the course of the game.
Obviously, the young Garry, already then
incredibly strong and a great master of attack,
was convinced he should checkmate his
opponent in not too many moves. Probably
this feeling made him play the attack without The idea of sacrificing a rook on b5 or a6
the necessary patience. in some lines, combined with the manoeuvre
lll c4-b2-d3, gives White a completely winning
31 .axb5 cxb5 32J�a2 position. Black is in too many pins, and
A natural move. squeezed together in too confined a corner of
the board to be able to regroup quickly enough

wJ-J �itw· ��r

to deal with all the arising threats.
,
,,-�%� �')) �,gJ%� r�
8
1 - - - �� , ,,%�
33 ...�eS
Placing the queen on the light squares,
6
������p which is essential, as the knights and bishop all

4 �-£!!�,,��
t.z.J �C§ �(_§�
5 control dark squares only.

�
3 �: �v;�-- -� �8
� Petrosian was a fantastic defender and must

21 r ���'�'
have felt that White would not be able to break

��-0�
through without sacrifices. And if White did

q � �
,;,,J
� -
take such risks on, Petrosian was confident in
�
his incredible calculating abilities. I think in
a c e
b d f g h
general that Petrosian is underestimated as a
calculator by the general public. As I said, even
32 ... ©b7! I had this impression before I met him. But he
32 . . . id6 may be objectively better but I like really amazed all of us at the training camp.
the game move, as it keeps alive the possibiliry
of Black winning the game. I am sure there was 34.J.d6
a psychological dimension to Petrosian's play. Kasparov plays according to his beliefs;
With such a big attack, it is very easy to believe moving only forwards.
that it is possible to win immediately with
White, and as we have reached move 32, there It is not easy to find a move like 34.lll b2!,
is little doubt that both players were running with the idea of lll d3 later, in the heat of the
low on time. moment. It can easily feel as if White is losing
44 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

momentum. It would cake some time looking 36J�ba3?

at the position to realize chat Black will not be
able to regroup his forces in order to adequately
defend all of his weaknesses.
34 .. J�aS 35.�bl
Quite a natural-looking move, although
White does not have any direct threat.
Kasparov does not react well to the new
challenge, and simply loses a piece.
White should have played 36.J.xc?, when
the game would probably have continued:
36 . . . bxc4 37.E:b7! E:xc7

8 168 ,�� •�:··

c-- �1�
•• � ,.,.
� -0
.
5 ��··ef •••
��-�% ��-ef,�J,- - ��
7

6
4 � �

,.���."--".,.,%� - �� 8
5 3
4 2 �.,.
..

3 i� � '
a b c d e f g h
2
38.E:xa6t! E:xa6 39.�b5t @d6 40.�xa6t @e7
1
4 1 .J.xd5 White wins back his piece, but after
a b c d e f g h 4 1 . . .E:xb? 42.J.xb? �b8 followed by . . . �c7,
35 ... ©c6!! Black has nothing to fear.
This is the move, completely changing
the nature of the game, and again following 36 ...bxc4 37J�xa6t gxa6 38J�xa6t i.b6
Sceinitz's maxim. The main point of the move 39.i.c5 �d8
is a simple double attack on the bishop on
d6 and the knight on c4 {now the b-pawn is
no longer pinned) . The king also defends the
b5-pawn, but the sacrifices were not working
at this moment anyway, so this is not the main
point.

Although objectively the strongest move, and

one chat changes the nature of the position,
it is the psychological dimension chat had the
greatest impact on the course of the game. Noe
only is the evaluation of the position no longer
in White's favour, he has to find the accurate
way co make a draw. But the sheer audacity
of this move, the fearlessness of it, threw the
young lion completely off the trail. The sudden
change was coo much co handle, even for such
a great player as Kasparov.
 Chapter 2
The annotations of this game in Predecessors
and Python Strategy were both computer­
assisted, but I cannot help wondering if
Garry's annotations from 1 98 1 exist in a box
in Nikitin's archive. It would be amazing to
see his original analysis. (I should say that
Kasparov was already known then as a great
analyst, and one of his early books, The Test of
nme, was based partly on notes he published
in chess magazines on the advice of Botvinnik.)
This was the second time in a row where
Kasparov did not manage to bring an
overwhelming attack to its conclusion against
Petrosian (the first being in Moscow 1 98 1 ,
where he also lost) . Kasparov wrote that
Spassky gave him a piece of advice after this
game: against Perrosian you have to play
patiently, you should not try to mate him.
With this advice, Kasparov was able to
beat Petrosian very convincingly twice the
following year.
In this game, the position suggested that White
had a winning attack and computer-assisted
analysis confirmed this. But it also showed that
White had to make more than one accurate
move, including a not at all intuitive knight
manoeuvre. Petrosian showed great defensive
skills, and managed to gain one last victory
against Kasparov - a game that is more famous
than all of Kasparov's subsequent wins against
Petrosian.
1983
In 1 983 the training sessions were very
brief. It was at the same time as the Soviet
Championship, so Petrosian did not have a
lot of time for us, but we were taken each day
to watch the games. I do not know if he was
already ill at this time - it is hard to say, as he
played well in the tournament. For example,
he won a nice game against Polugaevsky,
- Petrosian 45
which will most likely be included in Volume
4 of this series.
This was the last time I saw him.
Influenced
It is difficult to overestimate the value of time
spent with a great player. Even if there are not
so many things you can use immediately, their
approach, attitude and reasoning will influence
you for years to come. It's hard to explain in
words how you benefit, but to me it was really
invaluable.
Petrosian was very kind to us. He was the
first person who showed me a portable tape
recorder. He had bought it on a trip abroad,
and lent it to us with some music tapes. This
was not the first time I saw a tape recorder. At
home we had the old style with big reels . . .
This book i s about dynamics, s o I should admit
that the main things I learned from Petrosian
were probably not dynamics. But some people
say that they can see a lot of his approach
to dynamics in my games. The approach to
counterplay, the way we both sacrifice the
exchange. Unhurried compensation. What
can I say? I was definitely influenced a lot by
Petrosian, but I do not see myself from the
outside, so I cannot say for sure to what extent
this is so. I will allow the reader to decide for
himself.
Postscript
In 2004 I was invited (on the proposal of
Kasparov) to represent Team Petrosian in a
match against "The Rest of the World". Our
team consisted of players with some form of
connection to Petrosian. This was mainly
Armenians, but also included Peter Leko,
who married Petrosian's daughter - although
we should make it clear that this is Arshak
46 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess
Petrosian's daughter we are talking about!
In the first game, against Peter Svidler, I made
an exchange sacrifice on c3 in the Sicilian. Peter
played a beautiful game and totally refuted my
concept. As any serious chess fan will know,
Svidler at his best is a really tough opponent!
The following day this position arose:
Boris Gelfand - Loek van Wely
Moscow 2004
Ltll f3 �f6 2.c4 c5 3.tll c3 d5 4.cxd5 tll xd5
5.e3 �xc3 6.bxc3 g6 7 ..ib5t �d7 8.a4 i.g7
9.a5 0-0 10.0-0 tll f6 1 1 .d4 J.5 12.Wfb3
�k8 13.i.b2 �e4 14 ..ie2 Wfc7 1 5.c4 cxd4
16.exd4 gfd8 17.Wfe3 tll c5 18.i.a3 tll e6
19.gfdl .ig4
a c e
b d f g h
At this point I was tempted to sacrifice
the exchange with 20.d5 ! ? for long-term
compensation. Black would soon have to take
on f3 as well, giving me the bishop pair against
knight and rook, one of the most favourable
types of exchange sacrifices.
Potential variations could be as follows:
20 . . . tll f4 is not likely to be a great inclusion.
After 2 1 .iW i.xa l 22.�xa l i.xf3 23.Wfxf3,
Black is under a bit of pressure. For example,
23 . . . e5 24.Wfe3 b6 2 5 .g3, when the black pieces
are not harmoniously placed. Or 23 . . . Wfe5
24.�b l , when White will take control of the
long diagonal.
More sensible is 20 . . . i.xa l 2 1 .�xa l tLl c5
22.i.b2 f6, but after 23.h3 i.xf3 24.i.xf3 I
think White has good prospects.
But I didn't play it. It was definitely a mistake
not to sacrifice the exchange, as the game
quickly petered out to a draw. I especially
regret chickening out in a tournament played
to honour Petrosian.
20.�g5 .ih6 2 l .�xe6 he3 22.tll xc7 .ixe2
23.�d5 i.g5 24.gel .ixc4 25.�xe7t i.xe7
26.l:�xe7
1/2-1/2
Chapter 3
Tactics at the Top Level

My first game with Magnus Carlsen - Biel 2005

 Diagram Preview
On this page you will find a few
diagrams with critical moments
from the coming chapter. If you
want to compare your thinking
with the games, you have the
possibility. Take as much time
as you need or want. This is not
a test, but a chance to 'think
along' with the grandmasters in
the games. a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

Which winning move did Black has sacrificed two pawns

the World Champion miss?
(see page 52)
in the hope of getting enough
counterplay due to the
opposite-coloured bishops.
With a nice tactical sequence,
I managed to make life very
difficult for my opponent and
subsequently won the game.
Can you find it?
(see page 66)

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

Worse out of the opening, Sometimes it can be difficult

I set a cunning trap. to see even the simplest
Can you find it? things. White wins!
(see page 49) (see page 54)

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

The choice was between Here I found a funny little

27 . . . lll e3 and 27 . . lll f4.
. combination. Can you see it?
Which one would you {see page 5 5)
choose? {see page 50)
 Chapter 3 - Tactics at the Top Level 49

In this chapter I will use a few combinations Boris Gelfand - Michael Adams
(of sorts) from my career to think aloud about
London (rapid) 2013
various aspects of tactics, and the thought
process surrounding them. This is meant to be
inspirational and not prescriptive.

As I say in this chapter (in case you miss

it!), every player will have to find his own
individual balance in the thinking process,
and decide for himself how much attention
he wants to pay to positional and how much
attention he wants to pay to dynamic aspects
of the position. There is no right or wrong
way. Alekhine, Tai, Spassky and Kasparov all
paid more attention to the dynamic aspects
of chess, while Capablanca, Petrosian, Karpov
a b c d e f g h
and Kramnik all favoured the positional side of
things. At the moment, the World Champion This was a rapid game where the opening
pays more attention to the positional/technical did not go well for me. Adams was very well
aspects of chess, while a lot of top-level players prepared and, even with Black, he had the
care more about the dynamic side. Who better game from the opening. I realized this,
would, even for a moment, suggest that any and knew I had to play very carefully in order
of these guys are 'getting it wrong' and do not to equalize. Then at one moment I found a trap!
understand chess? If you play with a standard time control, the
chances that a player of this level would fall for
In order to make the chapter more interactive, it is minimal, but in rapid . . .
I have started by asking you questions relating
to six positions. If you have the chance, please 24.tll e 5!?
rake 5- 1 0 minutes to think about each of After this move, Mickey replied instantly
them before you continue reading. Chess is with:
easy when you agree with the first line of the
engine, but quite a bit harder when you have 24... lll d??
to think for yourself. . .
50 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making i n Chess
25.0-0-0!!
I don't think there is a lot more to say about
this game (I won the endgame after winning
the exchange) , but I would say that it is a
fantastic feeling to be able to play this move,
after seeing so many positions with this theme
since I was a little boy. To some people it might
seem unbelievable that this could happen
to a top grandmaster, but it is important to
understand that the reduced time control
really matters. Of course it is possible to play a
great game in rapid chess, but here we have a
positional game, drifting into an ending. Not
having time to do everything, he forgot that
chess also includes tactics! It might be hard to
believe, but it happened!
25 ... llixe5 26.i>xb2 llixf3 27.exf3 i.xc4
28J�d8t i>h7 29Jkl ±
6
5
a b c d e f g h
I won this game after another 2 5 moves.
Both players made a few inaccuracies later on,
but I do not think this ending is so interesting,
so I will not dwell on it. I promise we will look
at truly interesting endings in the next volume.
29 ....id5 30Jk3 i>g6 31 .h4 i>f6 32.a3
i>e5 33.ghs g6 34.g4 h.xg4 35.fxg4 i>d4
36.ge3 f5 37.gxfS gxf5 38.h5 f4 39.gh3
gb7t 40.i>cl .ie4 41 .gdst i>e5 42.h6 c4
43.i>d2 gb2t 44.i>el gb lt 45.gdl gb7
46J�h5t i>f6 47J:ld4 gbit 48.i>d2 gb2t
49.i>c3 gc2t 50.i>b4 .ih7 5 1 .gxf4t i>g6
52.:ah3 e5 53.gxc4 gxf2 54Jk7
1-0
Choosing between two similar-looking moves
I played in Bermuda for two years in a row.
They were well-organized and strong double
round-robins, and I really enjoyed playing
there. I won two good games against Shabalov
in the first tournament (one of which is on page
1 68) and a very nice game against Harikrishna
the following year. But let's see an interesting
position I had against Madeja.
Bartlomeij Madeja - Boris Gelfand
Berm uda 2004
a b c d e f g h
In this position I have a simple idea:
sacrificing the knight on g2. The real question
for me was which way to get there, via e3 or f4?
27 ... c!lif4!
I decided on this move after careful
calculation, but it is not possible for us to
consider every move, so we cannot rely solely on
brute force. We also have to use our intuition.
And in this position the knight simply feels
better placed on f4. It is better supported and,
compared to the e3-square, it has additional
 Chapter 3 - Tactics at the Top Level 51

possible destinations on e2 and h3. It is thus 28.�g3

logical to check this move carefully first.
And as a matter of fact, it turns out that Black
does not win with 27 . . . lli e3?, as White has a
beautiful defence: 28.cxd4 llixg2 29.%Vd l !!
(it is not hard to predict that 29.'it>xg2? %Vf.3t
leads to a winning attack)
White has no defence, as the computer
confirms. There are many places where we
should argue against the metal box, but not
with these types of tactics.
On 28.llig5 Black has 28 . . . %Vd5 with a winning
attack.

After: 28.cxd4 lli e2t 29.'it>h l

The queen is defending the f3-square. The

position looks like a case of Tai-syndrome:
I had planned to win the ending after
with many hanging pieces, White does not
29 . . . llixc l 30.dxe5 %Vfl t, which would require
have time to take them all. But sadly the
some work.
old master's magic has not rubbed off, and
all Black has is a draw. 29 . . . ixd4t 30.'it>xg2
Instead 29 . . . ib8! shows the power of Black's
id5 3 l .ih6! Another sneaky double attack.
position, leaving White without a move. The
3 1 . . .%Vf2t 32.'it>h l White is planning %Vg4 so
main threat is . . . %Vc7.
Black has to force matters. 32 . . . %Vh4 33.%Vxd4
%Vxh3t 34.'it>gl And after 28.ixf4 the simplest would be to
win the exchange with 28 . . . ixf4 29.i:!d l ie3t
8 30.'it>h l ib3, and Black wins.
7
6

4
3
2
1
a b c d e f g h
Black has nothing more than perpetual
check.

a b c d e f g h
52 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

28 ... �xg2! But the main point remains the same:

The simplest, though Black's position is
simply winning in various ways.
29.'!Wxe5
29.©xg2 '!Wf3t and . . . i.d5 with mate.
29 '!Wflt 30.©hl �h4! 3 1 ..ie4 �6
.••
32 ..id5t .ixd5 33.'!Wxd5t ©hs
different approaches are good in different
situations. Working out when to use a
particular approach is one of the real challenges
of playing chess at the top level.
Those looking for easy uncontradictable
advice will certainly lose their temper when
faced with the classics! Every player has a
slightly different approach, and all the poor
author can do is use the get-out-of-jail card
called 'balance'. We all have to find the way
of playing chess that is most practical for us,
and make our own considerations about how
to balance between the practical and deep
approach to decision-making.
Recently I saw the following game between
Carlsen and Giri, where the World Champion,
the master of creating practical problems for
his opponents, missed a direct win.

Magnus Carlsen -Anish Giri

Stavanger 2015
0-1

Different approaches

I feel that, in general, if we see a highly

promising option and we have checked it and
it works, we should go for it, and not spend a
lot of time checking other options. Mistakes
are born that way! But you could have an
interesting discussion about the topic.
Capablanca said that if you see a move that is
good enough, you should go for it. But this is
certainly not the only method. Lasker and later
Fischer were attributed with the saying: " If you a b c d e f g h
find a good move, look for a better one." A
The winning concept was original and
quick Google search suggests that a gentleman
surprising, but if you get the idea, the rest
called William Wayte said this in the 1 880s.
should fall into place quite easily:
To be honest, it does not sound like something
Lasker would make up to me anyway. 38 ..ifit!!
I am also not sure that Mr Wayte was talking Carlsen had just five minutes on his clock.
about a position where there is a direct win. He played: 38.We4? :B:f8 39.tll xe5 ? (39.tll h4!
 Chapter 3 - Tactics at the Top Level 53

with the idea E:g3 was still very dangerous
for Black) 39 . . . dxe5 40.E:g3 And here Giri
managed to find 40 . . . E:xd5!!, when White's
attack may look dangerous, but in fact there
is no advantage left . . . Carlsen still managed to
create a lot of problems for his opponent, who
(it turned out) was only halfway through a
long defensive task in this game. He eventually
held a draw in an ending with a knight against
three connected passed pawns.
38 ... @xf7
Black would not be better off after declining
to take the bishop. We could give more
variations, but it wouldn't necessarily show
anything other than that we know how to tap
the spacebar while the engine is running.
39.'ilYe4
Black cannot get his pieces back in time for
the defence. White has a number of concepts,
including Wf5t <tie? Wxf4 or lll g5t or Wh?t
or lll xe5 t . It is simply too much.
39 'ilYdS
•••
39 . . . E:g8 40.Wf5t ilg7 4 1 .lll g5 and E:g3 is
on the way as well, if needed.
39 . . . i.xd5 40.°1Wf5t and the rook hangs on c8,
if nothing else.
40.'ilYh7t ©f'8
8
41.�xe5! dxe5 42.'ilYf5t <i>e7 43.E:xe5t ©d6
44.YlYxf4
Black is behind in material, as well as being
mated.
38.if7t!! is one of those moves which you
either see or you don't. If the idea does not
come to you, there is little you can do.
Everyone has to find a way for himself. There
are those who say that because of what we
have learned from computers, there is no
longer such a thing as style. But every player
still has his own attitude to the game, his own
strengths and weaknesses. One player will try
his best to make the best move to maximize
the advantage, while another will make a
practical decision to save time. We all have our
own ambitions. Before each game I fantasize
that the game will be a masterpiece. Other
players only think about the full point on the
scoreboard.
Often I spend a lot of time at the end of the
opening, trying to get a feel for the position
and notice the various plans, patterns and
themes. Obviously seeing these ideas will be
useful later on, when I will hopefully spot
them very quickly.
My thinking is that what happens next will
decide the course of the rest of the game. If
you get it wrong here, there might not be a
"later on", where you can spend all your saved­
up time.

7 Others think entirely differently. There are even

6 players who try to spend the same amount of
time on each move. And they play quite well.
5 Or there is Grischuk, who spends all his time
4 on move l , and plays the rest of his moves as
a blitz game!
3

2 In the Madeja game I felt that 27 . . . lll f4 was

j ust so evidently stronger than 27 . . . lll e3.

a b c d e f g h
54 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess
I use my feelings quite a lot. Other players
are 'move, move, move' - and they would no
doubt calculate both lines accurately.
Discovering a surprising idea
There are many books that include the subject
of how to see far-from-obvious moves. The
joy of finding a tactic "out of the blue" is
considerable, so you can see why this topic
has attracted many writers. I do not want to
recommend any particular book, but I instead
suggest that you study a lot of them, if you are
especially interested in this subject. Invisible
Chess Moves by Afek and Neiman, Imagination
in Chess by Gaprindashvili, Perfect Your Chess
by Volokitin and Grabinsky, Grandmaster
Preparation - Calculation by Jacob Aagaard
and of course, the books by Mark Dvoretsky
could be a place to start. The key point is
that spending a lot of time solving different
positions will develop the 'sensor' you need to
know when to look for something surprising.
Boris Gelfand - Leinier Dominguez Perez
Moscow (2.2) 2001
a b c d e f g h
It took me quite some time to realize that
I had a winning tactic in this position. I had
slowly built up my position throughout the
game, and I quite liked it.
I wanted to play 28.W/c6 but after 28 . . . ixf5
it turned out that he had some real counterplay.
My feeling was that the position should offer
me more than I was able to find.
Then I found a prophylactic combination.
exchanged my fantastic knight for his worst
piece, but after this I would be able to win a
piece.
After I had this idea, everything was easy.
I am certain that the reader will have found
this position quite trivial, but you have the
profound advantage of knowing that a tactic
exists.
28.lll xg7! ©xg7 29.Wlc6
The rook is trapped.
29 ... i.xg4 30.fxg4 l£ih6 3 1 .©d2 �fac8
32.Wld?t ©gs 33J�b7 Wfg6
8
7
6
5
a b c d e f g h
34 ..bf4 gxf4 35.gS lll f7 36.Wle6 ©g7
37.gxflt W/xf7 3S.Wlh6t ©gs 39 . .th3
1-0
Two encounters with Aronian
have played a lot of great games with
Aronian; the following two are not included in
that category, but they do include two small
tactical moments that are of some interest.
 Chapter 3 - Tactics at the Top Level 55

I d o not want to give the misleading
impression that it is all brilliant tactics or
blunders at the top level. There is a middle
ground of minor tactics, as in these games.
Boris Gelfand - Levon Aronian
Monte Carlo (blindfold) 2007
1 .d4 �f6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.i.g2 i.b4t
s.i.d2 !J.e7 6.�a 0-0 7.0-0 c6 8 ..if4 b6
9.�c3 i.b7
position seems somewhat better for White due
to the misplaced knight on h5, but it is not
clear if it is anything special.
Just days before this book was sent to the
printer, I played a blitz game where instead
of l 4 . . . g6, my opponent chose l 4 . . . a6. After
1 5 .tll bd4 '1Wd7 1 6.'1Wd2 g6 I tried 1 7.:gc2 but
1 7 . . . :gfc8 1 8 .:gfc l j ust led to exchanges and
rough equality in Gelfand - Gunina, Almaty
(blitz) 20 1 6. More promising was 1 7.\Wh6!?
:gfc8 1 8 .tll g 5 ixg5 1 9.'1Wxg5;t as in Stefanova
- Chiburdanidze, Istanbul 2009.

8 13.e4 f6?
7 This is, to be blunt, a blunder. But his
position was already unpleasant.
6

5 If he plays 1 3 . . . tll xe5 1 4.tll xe5 tll f6 1 5 .exd5

cxd5 White has an excellent version of the
4
Catalan - extra tempos and a nice set-up.
3

2
1 3 . . . dxe4 1 4.tll xe4 looks even worse.

a b c d e f g h
IOJkl
At the Tai Memorial event, I played 1 0.tll d2
against Lev in a situation where I had to beat
him to overtake him. After a few more moves,
he was already better.
I also wanted to play 1 0.:gc l in that game,
but after 1 O . . . tll bd7 I was not sure what to do.
There are some games where White has tried
l l .cxd5 cxd5 1 2.tll b5 tll e8.
a b c d e f g h
10 ... �hS
I really could not imagine that he would go 14.exdS c:xd5
for this line! 14 . . . fxe5 is also bad. After 1 5 .tll x e5 it is
almost time to resign. The way to play on is
1 1 ..leS �d7 12.c:xdS exd5?! of course l 5 . . . tll x e5 1 6.dxe5 '1We8 l 7.dxc6 .ia6
After this he is already in trouble. 1 8 .:ge 1 , but it is j ust a winning position for
White. For the bishop, White has three pawns,
It was better to play 1 2 . . . cxd5 1 3 .tll b5 tll x e5 two of them well advanced, while Black's
1 4.dxe5. Then after 14 . . . g6 1 5 .\Wd2 the knight is rather flaky.
56 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

15.J.c7! Boris Gelfand - Levon Aronian

� .t. ·
White gives up the bishop to win an
London 2013
important tempo. This is not an original tactic,

:.� �Ta�
.

but the quiet follow-up is not something I

8 :f� .mzi %,��
�§ v,_� �
,
remember seeing elsewhere. �

'
..

7
..
.

1 5.lll g5!? is also strong, but the game is so clear

that it is irrelevant. 6 n%- Tn·�Ta'·�llj_
'

4 ��r� ��rJ···Jf�
f�[}Jf� �r���
5 �

3 ��J ····"- �- ·····"� t3J

15 ...�xc7 16.c!Lih4
All of the black pieces are hanging. �

2 L I!�%�s �ll
} .,�� �� lllli
�
1 6.lll xd5 'Wd8 1 7.lll h4 is similar, but is

�� -.:=
somehow less natural. I want to keep my . ... .
.

options open in a position like this. 1

a b c d e f g h
24.�e3!?
Both players are playing for a win. I always
play for a win with White, and Aronian always
plays for a win with both colours. Especially
against me! Aronian is one of those people
who wants to beat you more, the more he likes
you . . .
Besides, h e had serious chances o f winning
the tournament and qualifying for a World
Championship match.

a b c d e f g h My move can be seen as a trap, but to be

honest, this was not the intention. I was trying
16 ... c!Lif4 17.gxf4 g17 18.c!Lixd5 �b8
to keep the pressure on, and was reluctant to
19.�xe7t gxe7 20.c!Lif5 '3e8 21 .�b3t i>h8
close the position with c4-c5, when my attack
22 ..L:b7 �xb7 23.c!Lid6
on the queenside might be very slow, while
As I have said, in my games with Aronian we
he could start an attack on the kingside with
somehow always manage to create something
. . . g7-g5. It could end up looking like a very
of value. Even in this blindfold rapid game,
bad King's Indian.
there were some funny things.
1-0
Aronian chose the sharpest continuation.
In the following game Aronian made a bad
24 ... dxc4 25 ..L:c4
tactical mistake, and allowed me to win. I do
25.l:!xc4 with even chances was also possible,
not consider it a great win by any means, but
though not my idea.
it is instructive in showing how things work
- and can fail to work - even at the top level.
25 ... gxd4?
 Chapter 3 - Tactics at the Top Level 57

This cannot be called an option; it is simply one point or another, as this is simply a very
a blunder. bad game from his point of view.

I was expecting Lev to play 2 5 . . . �e8, when I 27 .txf5! .tc4 28.e6! Yl?d6 29J:Uel ge8
•

intended to play 26.d5 ! ? exd5 27 . .td3, with 29 . . . �xf5 is met with 30.�xc4! �xc4 3 1 .e?
compensation for the pawn. Although Black �f8 32.WfeS and White wins.
must be OK after 27 . . . d4 28.Wff2 �d5 .
30.e7 .tf7

a b c d e f g h
It would be possible to analyse this quite
deeply, but let's keep it short - White has full
compensation for the pawn, but not more. a b c d e f g h
3 1 .gcs g6 32 ..tg4 hS 33.£5 ©g7 34.fxg6
26 .ixe6�
•
i.xg6 35 ..ixhS gd3

E - ii
At this point I was running low on time,

"
• and I wanted to control the position. For this

:Aft---- -/.-, , ,Y,_,, �

s
reason, I played a less than accurate move:

!
7

6 "�
�� �i• �l'Jil'0 ·� 8

�i0% �% .JlJ�A ���

-��ff� if{{'�� Y, /, ''
�n�
----%� ��.i0%
-*-
5
____ 7
4

� .�� � Ll
�
,,,,, ,_,,
�
6
% '""�
�� �
5

�D ��-
:w.
��
�
4
i
3
a b c d e f g h
2
26 .tf7?!
•.•
1
This was what Aronian had planned, and he
played it immediately. But even if White were a b c d e f g h
to take on f7, Black's plan would be a worse 36.YlfeSt?!
choice than 25 . . . �e8. It makes little sense to 36.Wfg5 �g3 37.Wfh4 is hopeless for Black,
try to work out what Aronian was thinking at but I missed 37.Wfh4.
58 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess
If White wanted to exchange queens, it would
have been more precise to play 36.We2 !!d2
37.We5t, when the game would have been
over quickly. White would have an extra
tempo/pawn compared to the game.
36 ...Wxe5 37Jkx: e5 .hh5 38Jlx: h5 �ha3
39JU5 gd3 40J:!:e4 B:d7
a b c d e f g h
The time trouble has come to an end and we
can see that, although I have not played the
tactical sequence as accurately as a computer,
the ending is still winning after some precise
moves.
4l .gg4t ©h6 42.gf6t ©h7 43.B:f7t ©h6
44J:!:gg7 gdlt 45.©h2 gfl 46.B!h?t ©g6
47.ghg?t ©h6 48.gh?t ©g6 49.gfg?t
©f6 50.h4 ©e6 5 l .B:g4 @f5 52.©g3 B:el
53.B:f4t ©e6 54.h5 gxe7 55.B:xe?t ©xe7
56.©h4 b6 57.h6 ghlt 58.©g5 ©e6
59.©g6 ©e5 60.B:f5t
Perhaps this is a game that changed the
course of chess history. . . Aronian had been
on +3, and after this game he lost an amazing
game to Kramnik, and did not manage to
recover. Still, it is by no means a game I am
proud of.
1-0
Calculating slightly longer lines
The following games show another part of the
reality for a grandmaster. At various critical
moments in the games, we have to calculate
ahead with accuracy. In calculation you have
to be concrete and accurate, while at the same
time using your intuition to evaluate the
resulting positions, as well as deciding when to
stop calculating.
The next game was played in the semi-final
of the 2009 World Cup, a mini-match of
two games. I had won the first game with
Black, as can be seen on page 227, making
it very difficult for Karjakin to come back.
In these circumstances, it also seems to be a
disadvantage for him that he is a classical
player. It can be easier if you are a coffee-house
player, who does not mind playing some dodgy
positions, where you can look for chances to
take revenge. I have seen it work more times
than it should!
Probably the term 'coffee-house' is
inappropriate, but I am sure the reader will
understand what I mean, without taking
offense on behalf of someone who would never
take any offense themselves . . .
A t the time, Karjakin had the Meran as a
main part of his opening repertoire.
Boris Gelfand - Sergey Karjakin
Khanty-Mansiysk (6.2) 2009
Karjakin is one of the young stars; he was a
child prodigy. I played him for the first time in
Pamplona 2004, where he took second place
(after me) and played very simple and strong
chess. Very impressive. A few weeks later he
won the B-tournament in Wijk aan Zee.
Different players have different trajectories in
their careers. Some players are able to get into
the top tournaments at an early age, and gain
experience. It has some obvious advantages,
 Chapter 3 - Tactics at the Top Level
but also some disadvantages. I did not have
this chance in my career, which shaped it in
a different way. In comparison, Karjakin was
only 1 4 when he won gold for Ukraine in the
2004 Olympiad.
I first heard about Karjakin when he seconded
Ponomariov in the World Championship
match in 2002 against lvanchuk. Soon
thereafter he acquired his grandmaster title,
while still only 1 2 years old: a record that
stands to this day.
Karjakin's style is classical; solid play based
on positional chess. He very rarely plays wild
games. He has excellent opening preparation
and does a lot of homework. This has brought
him to a second place in the 20 1 4 Candidates,
winning the 20 1 5 World Cup, and winning
the 20 1 6 Candidates. Not long after this book
is out, he will play a match for the World
Championship against Magnus Carlsen in
New York, a match that was predicted by
many a decade ago, but was forgotten slightly
with the rise of other young stars.
I.d4 �f6 2.c4 e6 3.ll\£3 d5 4.�c3 c6 5.e3
lLlbd7
59
6.Wfc2
I also played this in the first play-off game
in the World Championship match against
Anand.
6 ...i.d6 7.i.d3 0-0 8.0-0 dxc4
This is one of the main systems.
Nowadays 8 . . . e5 is fashionable, as indeed
Anand played against me. Essentially Black is
slightly worse, but with accurate play he can
equalize. But of course Karjakin had to seek
revenge in this game.
9.hc4 b5 10 ..ie2
1 O . .id3 is also possible. There is a lot of
theory everywhere.
10 ... .ib7 1 1 .gdl Wfc7 12.i.d2
A very solid system that I knew quite well.
l 2.e4 is of course the main move.
1 2 . . . a6 1 3.b4 a5 1 4.a3 axb4 1 5 .axb4 lll d 5
1 6.:i:!ac l Wfd8
White has a pleasant position from the
opening, where it is easy to develop an
initiative.
60 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making i n Chess

l 7.tll e4! ? .ixb4 l 8 .tll e g5 g6 32.tll xe6t! fxe6 33.1'%xd7 Wxd7 34.tll f5t tt:lxf5
1 8 . . . tll 7f6!? was probably a bit better. There 3 5 .Wxd?t @h6 36.hxg6 hxg6 37.'11Bxe6 @h7
are a lot of complications we will j ust skip. 38 . .id3
1 9.e4 .ixd2 20.'11Bxd2 'D e? 2 1 .e5 1 -0 Gelfand - Piket, Monte Carlo
(blindfold) 1 999.
s .i � L.� ••
•. .. ru r�
1 � .t.••• 1. • 1.
�.,
12 ... a5 l 3.1'%ac l 1'%ac8

�w;��
6
5 � ... �
;

_j ;y, . . , .�
4 �� % · � �� � ··
� � �
3 �z �- ,. , �!4 �� -�
•� · · --i���P
gg�
2
1 � �
a b c d e f g h
White has been successful in creating
problems for Black. It is not surprising that
a b c d e f g h
my opponent found the position difficult to
play. White has a lot of interesting strategic 1 4.tt:le4 tt:lxe4 1 5 .Wxe4 c5 1 6.Wh4 b4 1 7.e4
options that Black will have to be careful gave White a little pressure in Gelfand -
about. A computer could no doubt defend Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 20 1 2.
better than Piker did, but that is not so
relevant for a blindfold game . . . 13J�acl a6 14.b4
2 1 . . .tll d 5 22.tll e4 1'%a3 23.h4 We? 24.h5 @g7
2 5 .tll d6 .ia8 26.1'%a l b4 27.1'%xa3 bxa3 28.1'%al
White has managed to take over the
initiative.
28 . . . c5 29.1'%xa3 cxd4 30.1'%a7 '11B d 8 3 1 .'Dxd4
'De?

7
6

4
3
2
1
a b d g
c e f h 14 .. JUeS
With this move, Black shows his strategic
White can win in many ways; I found the objective. He wants to play . . . e4 and deprive
most natural combination. the knight on f3 of squares. If the h2-pawn is
 Chapter 3 - Tactics at the Top Level
not hanging, Black will probably prepare this
with . . . h6.
If Black plays 14 . . . i.xb4? White has 1 5.lll xb5
winning back the pawn and gaining everything
strategically.
This is the key moment. I had a tactical idea,
and then had to work out the tactics during
the game, which I managed to do reasonably
well.
15.i.d3
a c e
b d f g h
This is the main idea in this line. I want to
put the knight on e4, when Black will have to
play accurately in order to equalize. It is not so
important if the knight is on c5 or if White has
managed to prevent Black from playing . . . c5.
In both cases, White is better. What he will do
once he has managed to get such a structural
advantage is a matter to be solved during the
course of the game.
At the moment the absolute priority is to
coordinate the pieces, and not allow Black
to get out of the squeeze. Small tactical ideas
support the positional ideas, as they always
do in chess. In my opinion, they are so
closely connected that it can be hard to truly
differentiate between them.
61
With 1 4.b4 White gets a structural advantage,
and now he has to play creatively to keep it.
This is how I see it. Also, the situation is rather
optimal for White here, as the critical path is
going down one narrow line, which works well
with the tournament situation.
1 5 ....ixb4!?
I expected this critical move. Normal play
does not look dangerous for White.
After 15 . . . h6, White should play 1 6.a3 with
a nice position, but it was my intention to
continue with my plan immediately: 1 6.lll e4
lll xe4 1 7.i.xe4 exd4
8 i:�a9i �t
: ,,%@ ,�a�,-� @
� ,,,,,�� � ,,,,,
45 �A•�-
� �� ��i. tL)� �
��
%•�•�
3 ;< , , , , %
2 '•!w�· 3w�'wM
7;, , , , %
o ��M �Ll% 0 �Ll
, . 'BiR . Z= - -
a b d g
c e f h
This could have led to a situation where
my initial thinking was wrong. But I would
no doubt have anticipated this, and instead
played l 8.i.xc6 with a lot of exchanges, which
would be a bad option for Black, taking the
tournament situation into account.
I believed I should play l 8.exd4 lll f6 l 9.i.d3?!.
But looking a bit closer, it is clear that this plays
into Black's hands, as after 1 9 . . . c5! 20.dxc5
i.xf3 the position becomes complicated and
not at all unfavourable for Black.
Instead White needs to find 1 9.ixc6 �ac8
20.d5 lll xd5 2 1 .i.xb? \Wxb7 22.°1Wb3 and
White j ust about holds the balance.
16.lll g5
This was my idea.
62 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

I 6.lll xb5 ? ? axb5 1 7.i.xb4 e4 would drop a

piece, and 1 6 .i.xh7t? lll xh7 l 7.lll d5 would
lead to all sons of trouble. For example:
l 7 .. .'�d8 1 8.lll x b4 c5 l 9.dxc5 i.xf3 20.gxf3
Wi'g5 t and 2 1 . . .Wi'h5 with a strong attack.

16 ... h6?
Again Karjakin plays the critical move. He
probably felt that he had no choice, because of
the tournament standing.

16 . . . lll f8 was safer. It is possible that White is

slightly better after l 7.lll x b5 axb5 1 8 .i.xb4 a b c d e f g h
exd4 l 9.exd4, but it is also possible it is j ust
2I .J.e4!
the path to a lot of exchanges. Either way,
This was as far as I had seen. I believed I was
Black does not want to go there . . .
simply winning. I am sure that Karjakin had
not seen this move, but then it is possible that
8 he simply did not look for it, but arrived at
this position by a warped type of elimination,
7
where every move that offered no hope
6 of winning had been disregarded, and the
5 last option has been played without being
thoroughly calculated. After this, all he could
4 do was play 'only moves' .
3
Up close, I realized that I could also consider a
2
sacrifice on f7, and that something calm such
1 as 2 1 .lll f3 lll xh7 22.Wi'xh7 lll f6 23 .Wi'c2 is also
better for White. It is of course important that
a b c d e f g h
2 l . . .g6 22.i.xg6 is unplayable for Black, but
17.lll xb5 axb5 this is not too hard to see.
Black has to play this. Instead l 7 . . . Wi'a5 is
simply rubbish. There are a lot of options for 2 1 . �bs
.•

White. I saw 1 8 .i.xb4 Wi'xb4 1 9.lll c7 hxg5 I had not seen this move when I calculated
20.lll xe8 1:!xe8 2 l .1:!b 1 and wins. deeply at move 1 5 . Luckily it turns out that I
have a simple solution.
18.J.h7t
This intermediate check is essential. Jacob Aagaard is an experienced chess coach,
who helps me write these books. I asked for his
18 ... ©� view on this and he said:
Evidently forced.
"There are critical points that my students
19.hb4t c5 20.dxc5 J.c6 will have to see in order for me to 'give
them a tick' - moves that they have to
 Chapter 3 - Tactics at the Top Level 63

foresee. And in this position I would

8
consider this to be 2 l .�e4. The fact that 7
the game goes on is not a big surprise.
We do not see everything till the end. We 6
j ust don't. And neither should we try to.
The question here is if there is something 5
wrong with what you have seen, and if 4
you have j ust been lucky. OK, you miss
3
a move where he has to defend against
losing immediately, and you have to play 2
another move. I look for things where it
will influence your performance in serious
games, if you miss it. I am always looking a b c d e f g h
for what gives an edge in practical play and 25.h4
seeing 2 1 . . .lli bS is j ust not it." You j ust cannot get rid of good chess culture
once it has been instilled in you. The inclusion
agree with Jacob, which is not surprising. of h4 and . . . h5 makes it impossible for White
After all, we are talking about the same game. to be 'back-ranked'. True, it is highly unlikely
that this would ever happen. But why would
22.lll h7t lll xh7 23.�xh7 g6 I ever put myself in a situation where I would
have to look out for it, when I can avoid it so
easily in this way?
Romanovsky's idea that you should always
include useful moves, when possible, is
imprinted so deep in my mind that it is
impossible to erase.

Alex Huzman always makes fun of me. I like to

play solitaire on my computer sometimes, but
even there I have the same style. Rather than
finishing the game immediately, I improve my
position to the maximum before doing so . . .
H e accuses m e o f doing it o n purpose i n order
a b c d e f g h
to avoid revising more lines before my next
24.gd6! chess game.
An important little move, but not a very
difficult one. 25 ... hS 26.hg6 fxg6 27.�xg6 gxa2
28.gcdl gf7 29.�h6t gg7 30.�f6t iig8
24.�xg6?? fxg6 2 5 .'\Wxg6 '1Wg7 would change 31 .gdst iih7 32.�fSt gg6 33.�xhSt gh6
the game into a defensive task for White. 34.�fSt
1-0
24 ... ge7
64 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

A quick deviation - Robert Hubner

Robert Hilbner is a somewhat neglected name

in chess history. I doubt many remember that
he almost qualified for a tide match against
Karpov. After beating Adorjan and Portisch,
he faced Viktor Korchnoi in the final of the
Candidates. The match was played in Merano
from December 1 980 to January 1 98 1 , and was
quite even, but Huebner quit the match after a
big blunder in an adjourned position, and lost
the following game as well. The blunder is one
of the big tragedies in chess history: a b c d e f g h
White would be more or less winning here,
Robert Hubner -Viktor Korchnoi
if it were not for a life-altering move.
Merano (7) 1981
63 ... llJe3t
63 . . . llJ f2 ? 64.�e5! would, on the other hand,
8 win for White. The e-pawn is too strong.
7 0-1
6
It is really sad to lose such an important game
5 in this way. He was on + 1 at the time; he was
4
pressing and if he wins, he will be almost
certain to reach a World Championship match.
3

2 I want to point out to the younger readers that

Hilbner was a truly great player. It was very
1 hard to beat him; his defensive abilities were
a b c d e f g h incredible. I only managed to beat him at the
point when he was no longer playing his best
White has managed to put Black under
chess.
pressure, but it seems likely that Black will be
able to escape to an ending with rook against
A sudden chance
rook and bishop. Though objectively drawn,
this is of course not going to be without perils
A big part of success in chess is to understand
for him. Instead Hilbner went all wrong.
when your opponent has done something
that does not look quite right, giving you a
60.@d3?! �xg4 6U�g2 gat 62.@d4 gf4 momentary chance to strike. The following
Black is fine here, but only because of a little
game shows one such moment.
detail.

63.@d5?
 Chapter 3 - Tactics at the Top Level 65

Boris Gelfand - Robert Hubner 16 . .!ll d6

Ohrid 2009
1.d4 .!ll f6 2.c4 e6 3 . .!ll f3 b6 4.g3 i.h7 s.i.g2
ie7 6 . .!ll c3 .!ll e4 7.i.d2 i.f6 8.0-0 0-0 9.l:kl
d5 10.cxdS exd5 1 1 .i.£4 .!ll a6
When I played this, I was not sure at all
that it would lead to the sort of endgame that
occurred in the game; Black also had other
legitimate options. We have to remember that
the certainty a computer displays is not shared
by a human thinking at the board.
What I did feel certain about was that White
had to 'do something' now, as it was quite
possible that Black would be better if I did not
do something quickly.

16 ... .!ll xf4

1 6 . . . ia6!? l 7.ixe4 :8b8 was another idea
for Black. White might be a bit better, but
nothing feels certain.

17.gxf4 Wfe7 18.liJxb7 Wfxh7 19.�k4

During the game this looked tempting to
a b c e g h me.
12 . .!ll xe4!�
19 ... �acS 20.i.xe4
As it turns out, this is not the best
continuation. 1 2.ie5! is giving White a good
score these days.

12 ... dxe4 13 . .!ll eS c5 14.dxcS .!ll xc5 1 5 . .!ll c4

.!ll e6!
Black sacrifices a pawn, but gets a few
tempos. He also manages to simplify the
position into one with opposite-coloured
bishops, and to inflict very minor damage to
White's pawn structure.

But if Black had simply played 20 . . . �b8,

I could not see anything for White.
2 1 .i"lxc8 �xc8 22.e3 ixb2 The forcing
solution (although I should add that I also
see no advantage after 22 . . . g6 23.b3 :8d8

a b c d e f g h
66 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

24.We2 Wc3 2 5 .l'!d l l'!xd l t 26.Wxd l Wa l 23 . .ib l

27.ib l Wb2, when White still has an extra Thinking he would be fine after:
pawn, but the opposite-coloured bishops 23 . . . .ixb2
should ensure a draw) . 23.Wb l Wg4t 24.@h l

� � fJI
We2 2 5 .ixh7t @h8 26.ie4 l'!d8
� �
-�. � �� . �... �� �... J<�
6
....

5
...... � �� ��
4 �� �� - .. ,,��
�
�-. �� � ��
�
3
2 8�
� -,0 �� ��n� ��-�
0. � -�
:r� .. :� i
8 � 1�
· · '"'

a b c d e f g h
But here the computer gives a fine move.
24.Wd2!
A difficult tactic to spot. The black bishop
does not have a good square to go to.
24.Wd3 Wh4 is less critical.
2 1..ixhn1 @hs The position is unpleasant for Black. It is
2 I . . .@xh7 22.Wc2t and White wins. quite possible for Black to make a mistake.
24 . . . Wf6
22.gxcS gxc8 The following moves do not work:
Here I spotted a nice tactical idea. 24 . . .if6? 2 5 .Wd3 and the double threat on
h3 and h7 decides. This is the point of first
putting the queen on d2 - the black queen
can no longer make it to h4.
24 . . . ic3? 25 .Wd3 Wh4 26.E:c l and White
wins.
2 5 .E:d l g6

a b c d e f g h
23."d3!
Even ifl had seen everything, this would still
be my main choice.

I suspect that he was anticipating: 26.Wd7

 Chapter 3 - Tactics at the Top Level
White will play e2-e3 and has managed to get
his pieces out. His prospects are encouraging.
23 ... g6
23 . . . ixb2? 24.°Wh3 and White wins.
23 . . . E:c5 24.ie4 g6 2 5 .b3 is also very
favourable for White.
24.'ffh3
24.ixg6?? E:g8 loses a piece on account of
25 .°Wh3t ih4.
24...Yfe6 25.f5!
The point. Not 2 5 .°Wxe6?? fxe6 26.ixg6
E:g8 and the bishop is lost.
25 ...Yfxf5 26.Vfxf5 gxf5 27.J.xfS �k5
28 ..id3 .ixb2
8
7 @f6
6
a b c d e f g h
The forced sequence has come to an end,
and White has achieved a real advantage. The
exchange of his b- and f-pawns for Black's g­
and h-pawns has given him a passed pawn and
the chance to create another passed pawn in
the centre.
We have analysed the position seriously, but
not come to any definite conclusions. Once
you remove the rooks, you can work out
that some positions are drawn and others are
67
winning. It seems that the main question is
whether Black has managed to get his pawn
to f5 . If he has, he draws; if he has not, he will
lose.
29Jlbl i.c3
Black is faced with a decision: would he be
better off exchanging the rooks? It is a difficult
choice to make in practice.
If Black keeps the rook on, as he did in the
game, it is not too hard to make a general
evaluation. It is a position that needs to be
played, where White has an extra pawn. His
chances are high of course, but nothing is
guaranteed. The chances are probably 50-50,
between winning and drawing.
When we look at the exchange of rooks, it is
possible to go a bit deeper, and say things with
a greater level of authority.
29 . . . E:c l t 30.E:xc l Axe l 3 1 .@g2 @g7 32.@g3
a b d g
c e f h
33.@g4
Taking control of the f5-square.
33.f4! also looks good. It seems the most
practical choice, because it does not allow
the same amount of counterplay.
33 . . . @e5
Black seemingly has to play actively.
Waiting moves would allow White to exploit
his advantage. For example: 33 . . . id2 34.f4
68 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g in Chess

i.e3 3 5 .h4 @g7 36.@f3 .id4 37.e4 f6

38.@g4 J.f2 39.h5 @h6 40.©f5 i.d4
4 1 .J.e2 @g7 42.@e6 and White is on his
way to claiming a full point, once he gets a
passed e-pawn.
34.h4 b5!?

� . -�. �� �� ,�
6 ��� ����-�0������
� a b c d e g h
...

�� -� ��r
f

s: ����,� �-�
White will slowly improve his position. Put
his bishop on b3, play e4-e5 , @f5, h4-h5 and

2 ,� ��� ,�
- . . . % �� beyond. White wins.

� ��� � 8
a b c d e f g h
7
This attempt at active counterplay seems
6
very sensible.
3 5 .e3! 5
White needs to keep things calm.
4
3 5 .ixb 5 ? would allow Black to play the one
pawn move he really desires. 35 . . . f5t 36.@f3 3
If the king goes to h5, he will not be able 2
to move after the black king returns to f6.
36 . . . ih6 1

a b c d e f g h

� -���� �� �� 30.h3
. J �� �0�� ��,;,. ,
� ��- ��
30.!!b5!? deserves attention. Black will have
6
�.. .
to decide if he wants to exchange on b5 or c5,

: �,���.- � �� but for White there is a big plus in making . . . f5

�� �� '" "
more difficult to achieve.

� ,� �� ,, � . % �� 30 ... ©g7 3 1 .©g2 51

�� �� . � This is a very good move, restricting the
white pawns.
a b c d e f g h
There is an overwhelming probability 32.f4?!
that this endgame cannot be won, as the When I was working with the Norwegian
exchan ge of White's e- or f-pawn for Black's national team before the 20 1 5 European Team
f-pawn would definitely lead to a draw. Championship, we looked at this game as a
3 5 . . . b4 36.f4t @f6 37.e4 a5 38 . .ic2 group.
This group included the World Champion,
 Chapter 3 - Tactics at the Top Level 69

and both he and the others came up with some

8
great insights.
7
At this point we found out that White should 6
play 32.@8 with the intention 32 . . . i.f6
33.@f4! and his prospects have been improved 5
greatly thanks to the active king. It is not clear 4
if this is enough to win, but it is quite close.
3

2
8
1
7
a b c d e f g h
6
5
36 .id3!
.

The bishop is perfectly placed, with influence

4 on both flanks.
3
36 ... aS 37.e4 @f6 38 ..lc4
2 38.e5t?? would be a horrible blunder, as
1 after 38 . . . i.xe5 the black king would hide in
the corner.
a b c d e f g h
32 gaS?
•.. 38 ... a4 39.h4 a3 40.@g4
Hubner goes for active counterplay, which
turns out to be the wrong decision.
8

Another option was to simply wait, and 7

play 32 . . . i.f6 33.@8 @f7 and see what 6
White wants to do. One thing we can say
with relative certainty is that 34.!!b 5 ? would 5
allow Black to make a draw. We looked at the 4
position after 32 . . . i.f6 in Norway, and came
3
to the conclusion that Black has good drawing
chances. 2

1
33.@B gxai 34.J.xfs gb2
This allows White to exchange into a a b c d e f g h
winning ending, but it is hard to suggest 40 ... @g6
anything better for Black. Black is preventing White from playing
4 1 .h5 and 42.e5t, when Black could no
34 . . . a5 3 5 .!!xb6 a4 36.h4 a3 37.!!a6 !!a l longer sacrifice the bishop, as White has @g4-
38.h5 and White wins. g5 blocking the black king's route back to h8;
White would queen the h-pawn and win.
35.gxb2 hb2
70 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

41 .e5 when people play blindfold games day after

But now this is possible; White wins.
41. .. b5 42 ..ia2 .ic3 43.fSt ©h6 44.©£4
1-0
The time you get it right
A lot of the discussions in these books are
about moments that would not get a mention
in a "Best Games" collection. I want to explain
how to make decisions in chess, not show off.
But in order to explain how top-level decisions
are achieved, it is necessary to look at the good
games as well.
Magnus Carlsen - Boris Gelfand
day.
All in all, they were excellently organized
tournaments, in either Monaco or Nice, and I
remember them fondly and feel privileged that
I was able to participate more than ten times.
l .d4 tiJf6 2.c4 g6
I felt sure he was going to play as he did in
the game, and transpose into the Symmetrical
English. At that time I had not yet prepared
the Griinfeld, and so I would probably have
played the King's Indian against 3.tlic3 .
3.�a .ig7 4.g3 0-0 5.i.g2 c5 6.tiJc3 cxd4
7.tiJxd4 Y!lc7

Monaco (blindfold) 2011

This game was played in the last round of the

Monaco blindfold/rapid tournament. Carlsen
was one point behind Aronian, while I was
somewhere in the middle, with no chance of
winning the event.
This is the blindfold game, which was
followed by a rapid game. In both, the player
had 25 minutes for the full game, with 1 0
seconds increment for the rapid game and 20
seconds for the blindfold game.

The Melody Amber tournaments were

unique and really something special . They
were organized and sponsored by Joop van
Oosterom, one of the most generous Maecenas
chess has ever had; he also sponsored the
'Women vs. Veterans' and 'Youth against
Experience' matches, and others. The
Melody Amber tournament was played for
20 years.
As I mentioned, each round consisted of
one blindfold game and one rapid game, and
the atmosphere was very relaxed. Many great
games were played in these tournaments, but
there were also a lot of blunders, as is natural
I replied with 9.tlidb5, which is the main
line now. I was outplayed and was lucky that
he blundered a piece in a winning ending,
allowing me to rob him of a full point.
Naturally I took note of the dangers of this
line, and I managed to use it to win a rapid
game against a strong Danish grandmaster
later the same year:
9 . .ixd5?! .ih3!+
 Chapter 3 - Tactics at the Top Level 71

%.{&ll'%��·
including Grischuk and Radjabov, co mention

. . %���. . .%���%.
8 1.
7 l•if•
'& "\ml � '&'y,�� &
-�r�
just cwo.
� - �m� � � - � •
6
• •

5 �%%, �Z!�W/, �%
'' · · � 8.lll cb5

4 �8� u
. %�
A strange move, inviting Black to take the

32 ��m- . - - . �n:r
pawn.

:.». . . :n"-. - �
� . % 8 ...Wfxc4

�I= � :
. .

Obviously this is the idea behind the

. previous move.
a b c d e f g h
White's position is already perilous. His 9.b3!?
king is stuck in the centre, and he will soon He could still play 9.i.d2, when Black has
experience unpleasant pressure down the nothing better than 9 . . . lll c6 1 0.Ei:c l Wxa2,
d-line. which leads to a draw by repetition.

�.i.
% � ��·
1 0.i.b2 EI:ds 1 1 .Wc l e6
8 i.
�
l 1 . . . lll c6!?+
·.,.; ""{&l·ef"",v,ii,i:f"'

:5 �.,.�"�
1 2.i.f3 a6 1 3 .lll c2?!
1 3.We3 was better, although that is very

4 � � - �
hard to understand in a rapid game.
1 3 . . . lt:l c6+ 1 4.Wf4 lll e5 1 5 .Ei:cl h6! 1 6.lt:la4 ��-% "//,·%.%. ·'
32 � u u �
lll fd7

'ii' �% � 8 ��
- - % �·:
� 1. !tsll� !I �1'v� �
6 !•·
� -�.,.�,� �� � L. a b d g

5 �
� ��
c e f h

4 �- '·'; � �
I would love to sacrifice my queen if I was

3 � :u
also able to get the b2-pawn, but sadly after

2 l�
�u�nI
. ... . ���- :�- -- %� 1 1 .Ei:al Wxb2 1 2.ic3 Wxc3t 1 3.lll xc3 lll xd4

�� - % 1 4.Wxd4 lt:l e4 1 5 .Wxg7t �xg7 1 6.i.xe4

� �:
White is close co winning.

a b c d e f g h But Carlsen did not wane a draw.

1 7.lll e3?!
This loses directly, bur White was in big
trouble anyway.
1 7 . . . g5 1 8 .We4 lll xf3t 1 9.exf3 lll c5 20.lll xc5
Wa5 t
0- 1 Cu. Hansen - Gelfand, Cap d'Agde
(rapid) 1 996.
Nowadays this variation is quite popular. Many
players have this variation in their repertoire,
9 ...WfcS!
I am happy with what I did in the game,
especially as after 9 . . . Wb4t 1 0.i.d2 Wc5
1 1 .Ei:cl Wb6 1 2.lt:lc7 Wxd4 1 3.lll xa8 lt:lc6
1 4.i.c3 Wxd l t 1 5 .Ei:xd l it is not clear how
Black would ever be able to catch the knight.
White is j ust better.
10.�a3 Wfb6 1 1 .�xe7
72 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g in Chess
White gets back an important pawn, but
he has still not managed to coordinate his
pieces or finish his development. Note that
White is only one move away from being fully
developed, but it is castling, the most important
move. Meanwhile Black is not suffering, in
the short term, from the undeveloped state
of his queenside. Of course this could be
an issue later - but right now, there is no
downside to it.
1 1 .. J�e8
At this point, Carlsen falls into a trap.
12.c!lJd6?!
There were sensible moves available.
After: 1 2.:B:c l :B'.xe7 1 3.:B'.xc8t :B'.e8 1 4.:B:xe8t
lll xe8 l 5 .e3 lll c6
Black has a pleasant and equal game, but no
more than that. The opposite-coloured bishops
will secure the draw - for both sides.
If White plays: 1 2.i.d6 lt:l c6 1 3 .i.c7
a b d g
c e f h
Black can choose to repeat the position with
1 3 . . . \Wc5 or to play an even position after
1 3 . . . \Wa6!? 1 4.0-0 d5, where I already feel that
Black is a bit more equal.
To conclude: Black gained a very comfortable
position from the opening. I should probably
add that my preparation ended with 7 . . . \Wc7
and the little experience I had with the line
previously. Before the game, I had not analysed
the way Carlsen played.
12 .. Jhe7 13.c!lJxc8 '1Wb4t
8
a b c d e f g h
 Chapter 3 - Tactics at the Top Level 73

14.@fl
Clearly this is what Carlsen was planning.
White would be winning if I did not have my
next move. Some play would remain, but the
result would almost without doubt be a win
for White.
1 7 . . . tll a6
This was my plan, trapping the knight.
l 7 . . . tll c6! ? is more complicated. Black has a
big advantage after 1 8 .ixe4 'll xd4 1 9.ixb?
Ei:b8, but the position is also very confusing.
White is now forced to play:
1 8.ixe4 Ei:xe4 1 9.tll b 5 Ei:xc8 20.tll d6 Ei:ee8

� .i � .i � ·
Obviously Carlsen was committed to his idea
when going down this line, so he did not
8
6 �• m • • �
seriously consider the legal alternative here.
But we should j ust mention it briefly anyway:
1 1••···�·
1 4.Wd2?! Wxd2t 1 5 .'if;>xd2 lll e4t!
�� /, , , � �-
�;·i �Z ' ' �� � , �B�B �B��
8 �� �� ��
: �,%��,%%�Brf�
3
2 ,� �� ,� , , %�
%% �� rm , , %•�
�3 �-� m t n •� a b d g

:� ', , � ��
c e f h

2 '-�=,���
2 1 .tll xe8 Ei:xe8 22.Ei:xd? tll c5 23.Ei:c? if8

� �-, ,/.- , %-�

Black has good winning chances.

a b c d e f g h 8

An important move, making it hard for the 7

knight to escape, as well as blocking the 6
attack from g2 on b7.
1 6. c;t>e 1 5
The only move. 4
l 6.ixe4 Ei:xe4 wins material for Black, and
1 6.c;t>e3 ixd4t 1 7.'if;>xd4 'll c6t picks up the 3
knight on c8 for free. 2
1 6 . . . Ei:e8 1 7.Ei:d 1
1

a b c d e f g h

14... Ei:e4!!
This is what he missed.

Probably he was expecting 1 4 . . . Ei:eS, when

l 5 .a3 followed by ixb7 wins for White.

You might ask: ' How did I see this?' The

simple answer is chat it popped into my head.
I saw it when I played 9 . . . Wc5 . Sadly I do not
74 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g in Chess

remember all the details of my thoughts. For

8
my classical games, I write down how much
time I spent for each move, but not for rapid 7
games. 6

But we should also remember that I felt 5

confident about my position, and was sure that 4
I was doing well, so 14 .. J"�e4! did not come to
3
me as a savin g resource, but as a natural tactical
opportunity in a good position. 2
1
I am sure it will come as a surprise to some
that I saw this opportunity so early on, but a b c d e f g h
choosing between the two queen moves at 1 5 ft°f'S!
••.

move 9 was an important decision, and this This is the first real choice I had since move
was the only line where it felt as if White was 9. I think I made this decision rather quickly,
trying to refute Black's play. Add to this that it without truly calculating the variations. The
was a blindfold game. Keeping the position in main difference if the queen went to c5 seemed
your head does require mental energy, which to be that the knight would take with a gain of
is not available to do other things, such as tempo on b7, which I did not want.
calculate variations. At least, this is how it is On the other hand, the queen is more active
for me. on c5, which could also be an advantage. With
limited time controls, you have to guess some
The time invested in making the ri ght decision of the time, and reserve your time for critical
at move 9 was quickly recuperated, as there was decisions.
little choice for Black on subsequent moves.
On the other hand, I had to see 1 4 . . . i:!e4! on The serious alternative was:
move 9, as the variation otherwise would lead 1 5 . . . Wi'c5 1 6.lll d6 i:!e6 1 7.lll x b7 Wi'b6 1 8 .lll c5
by force to a bi g advantage for White. This also
makes the move easier to find. Especially, as I 8
said, if you believe that the position is fine, and
that there should be something! 7
6
15.tll c2! 5
This is the lesser evil. 4
3
1 5 .e3 lll c6 is simply good for Black.
2
Even worse is 1 5 ..ixe4 lll xe4 1 6.e3 ( 1 6.lll c2
Wi'c5 wins the knight) 1 6 . . . lll c6 1 7.lll xc6 bxc6 a b c d e f g h
1 8 .i:!c l i:!xc8 1 9.Wi'xd7 Wi'b8 when Black is This is the line I considered.
much better. The computer insists that there 1 8 . . . Wfxc5
are ways for White to resist, but then, this Black can keep the game alive with 1 8 . . . i:!d6!?
seems to be its primary function! 1 9.Wf cl lll c600•
 Chapter 3 - Tactics at the Top Level 75

l 9.ixa8
At this point I did not see how I could
continue my attack. It turns out that after:
1 9 . . . llig4 20.e3 ixa l 2 1 .llixal
16.�d6?!
White is under pressure, and needed to
defend well. Here he makes the wrong choice.
I saw that after: 1 6.ixe4 llixe4 l 7.Wd5

7
6

5
4
3
2

a b c d e f g h
could play 1 7 . . . lli c6 1 8.Wxe4 ixa l

·i
1 9.llixa l E:xc8 and I am well coordinated. But
8 �-
7 %'l... : . �. �.
after 20.llic2 it is not clear that White is really
: :
.... . �. �.r.r�
..
worse. The knight is heading for e3.
.

�� ��
: �.���.���.�?*���r��
It turns out that I had a stronger option in
17 ... Wxc8 1 8 .Wxe4 ha l 1 9.llixa l d5!, as
shown by the computer. After 20.Wxd5 Wh3t

� . %.��
3 ��-
2 - � .
8 , . ��g 2 1 .Wg2 Wd7 22.Wf3 lli c6 23.'itig2 Wd2 White

1 � ��1� �� -11
can still find equality with an accurate defence,
but the position is uncomfortable. Black keeps
some pressure.
a b c d e f g h
23 . . . E:d6!! 24.Wxd6 We2t
Black gives perpetual check. I would not
have wanted to go for this anyway, had I seen
it. Starting from a better position, why would I
want to fight for a draw with a long line?

You could say that I used the method of

comparison, deciding that one variation made
more sense than the other. At the end of the
day, the reason for calculating lines is not to see
lots and lots of moves to impress the audience
at the press conference, but to see enough to
make good decisions that win games.
76 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g in Chess

l 7.ttJb5
lli c6 is also better for Black. A small
point is that Black should not fear l 8.ttJc7?! on
account of l 8 . . . l'!d6.

17 ... lll c6

s i, m � �-
•�m lm�£%W§i '
, , J� i�l!l ,.,���
7

l!ll!l l!I !ii

6

: l!l·l!l·l!l·l!I· ,,

3 l��l!l��!!10�,
!!11!1 *'
2 � �� ��1���� '0 ""

� �V-@� n Best was 22.Wd3 l'!f7 23.'tti g2 ttJ d5 24.l'!hfl +

a b c d e f g h
(not 24.f3 ih6!) , when Black is better, but
18.l'!cl the game goes on. He will have to find a way
I did not really consider l 8.b4!? during the to make progress, which is not so simple. At
game. After l 8 . . . lli xb4 l 9.ttJxb4 Wxb4 20.l'!b 1 least, this was what I was thinkin g durin g the
We7 Black has a good game. Still, this is what game.
White should have played.
22 ... l'!f7?
18 ... l'!b8 The computer gives the following variation
Black is winning material, transforming his as stron ger: 22 . . . ttJdS! 23.We4 l'!f7!
better coordination into somethin g of lasting
value. 8
,� �"'� �:<�';, ,��·
��
'

19.lll d4 l'!xb7 20.lll xe6 fxe6 21 .i.xc6

2 1 .Wd2 l'!c7 does not look like an :s ,�_,_,,,,
.. ')) .. R
4
l�� %� .%'
improvement for White. �.. .if �
21 ...dxc6 3
Black is better. IfWhite could manage to take 2 !. � �- ��
� .!n-
on c6 and get his pieces into the game, things
would not be so simple. We know from the
a b
�lj -� :
c d e f g h
games of Tai that very often the rook is quite
effective against two minor pieces in positions 24.Wxe6 White has to indulge. (24.f3 Wd6
where there are not so many pieces left on followed by . . . ih6 and White will not survive)
the board. So for this reason it is important 24 . . . 'tti h 8 25.l'!xc6! Forced. (25 . f3 l'!xf3t!)
for Black to play energetically, not to lose the 2 5 ... l'!xf2t 26.'tt> e l ttJ c3! 27.l'!c8 l'!xe2t
advantage his lead in development gives him. 28.Wxe2 Wxc8 29.Wd3 llixa2 This position
 Chapter 3
is very close to winning, though more moves
would have to be played.
After the game I analysed with Ljubomir
Lj ubojevic, and we found out that White was
forced to play:
23.:i'l:xc6 llid5!
This is the move I planned to play during
the game.
23 . . . Wa8 ?! This looks tempting, but it does
not work. 24.Wd6! (Lj ubojevic pointed out
that 24.Wc4? would lose immediately to
24 . . . E:c7! 25.E:xc7 Wxh 1 #) 24 . . . lt'id5 2 5 .e4!
(White should avoid 25 .Wxe6?? lt'ie7 with a
deadly pin) 2 5 . . . lli b4 26.E:c4 ifs 27.Wd2
With approximately even chances.
24.Wc5 Wxc5 25 .E:xc5 id4 26.:i'l:cSt 'tt> g7
- Tactics at the Top Level 77
27.f3 ib6
Black has a slight advantage because White
cannot easily coordinate his pieces. Although
Black is very active, White has managed to get
the c-pawn, so he can still fight for a draw.
23 ... llidS 24.WfcS Wfxc5 25J'hc5 �d4
a b c d e f g h
Black is technically winning. The rest of the
game was surprisingly easy.
26.:l'l:xc6 gxf2t 27.©h3 gxe2 28.gfl h5
29.gfcl ©g7 30.g lc2 gxc2 3Uhc2 e5
32.gc6 tlib4 33.gc?t ©f6 34.a3 tlid5
35.gc6t ©f5 36.©g2 e4 37.©fl e3 38.©el
©e4 39.gd6 g5 40.b4 tlic3 41 .gg6 g4
42.gh6 ©d3 43.gxhs tli e4 44.gds tlid2
78 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

The general feeling during this game is

that White was suffering from poor piece
coordination throughout, and had to make
some accurate defensive moves in order not to
be worse. Failing to do this, his position got
worse until it could no longer be saved.
0-1

Most of my thinking during such a game is

very concrete, but this does not mean that
there is no influence from what some call
"general concepts" or what I would simply
call strategic thinking. In this game the lack
of coordination between the white pieces was
a big factor, and I sensed this during the game.
Because of this, I presumed that my position
was good, and I played aggressively in order to
make the most of that assumption. Subsequent
analysis supports this conclusion, as it usually
does when you look at your good games . . .
Chapter 4
The Nature of Tactical
Mistakes at the Top Level

You can't win them all - Moscow 2012

 Diagram Preview
On this page you will find a few
diagrams with critical moments
from the coming chapter. If you
want to compare your thinking
with the games, you have the
possibility. Take as much time
as you need or want. This is not
a test, but a chance to 'think
along' with the grandmasters in
the games. a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

Low on time, I missed a White to play!

nice idea. (see page I 02)
(see page 85)

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

A small sideline. White wins. Time for a deep think. What Real-life tactical problems.
(see page 83) should White play? How to take on c3?
(see page 87) (see page I 06)

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

Almost there. How can Which subtle idea had I What a mess! White to play
White win the game? missed in this line? and win.
(see page 84) (see page 9 I ) (see page 1 1 9)
 Chapter 4 - The Nature ofTactical Mistakes at the Top Level 81

In the feedback I received from readers about
Positional Decision Making in Chess, one
repeated comment was an appreciation for
my honesty, especially when it came to the
mistakes I made, and make, in many of my
games. And of course the backbone of the
book was some of my best games!
So for this book I wanted to see if those
readers were content with just a little bit of
honesty, or if they have the stomach for some
of my less impressive and underwhelming
achievements. I have collected a few games
where I made some serious errors. Not in
order to show humility, but to give the reader
an insight into how you can make a mistake in
an otherwise well-played game.
It shows me at my best and at my worst at the
same time. After a good opening, I saw a nice
combination that led to a big advantage. Then
at a certain moment, I blundered . . .
I.lLlf3 �f6 2.c4 c5 3.�c3 e6 4.e4 d6 5.d4
cxd4 6.tLlxd4 J.e7 7.i.e2 0-0 8.0-0 a6 9.i.e3
tLlc6?!
9 . . . b6 was maybe better, leading to a
standard Hedgehog position.
IOJ�cl i.d7 1 1 .tLlb3 b6 12.£4 i.c8N
1 2 . . . °Wb8 1 3 .g4! was dangerous for Black, as
shown in some games.
13.i.f3 J.b7 14.ee2 �d7 1 5J�fdl ebs
1 5 .. �e8 is probably better. The rook almost
.

Let's start by explaining the unexplainable always belongs on e8 in the Hedgehog (and
Scheveningen) , as can be seen from the games
When we are analysing our own games to of Polugaevsky and Kasparov. It is difficult to
work out where we have failed, we have to explain why, but the practice of these great
accept that at times there are decisions that players helps the rest of us to do it too.
are beyond reason. We should of course try to
work out why we make them - and if we have
the opportunity to analyse them with a trainer,
then listen to his opinion. Understanding why
we play inferior moves is an important part of
improvement in chess, and many players have
advanced solely by analysing their own games
and reducing the amount of errors they were
making as a result.
But we should also not get obsessive about it.
At times we make bad moves that are not easily
explained. And at other times we make moves
so bad that all explanations will hurt our ears
and rot our brains. The following game is one
such incident.

Boris Gelfand - loannis Papaioannou

Leon 2001 16.�a4! ec7 17.efl b5

A bit too compliant.
The first game of this chapter shows one of
the most common mistakes of top players: The point of the combination was that
simply failing to realize there is an alternative. 1 7 . . . lLicS!? would have been met with
82 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decisio n Making in Chess

l 8 .lll xb6!! Wxb6 l 9.e5! and Black is example, both I 9.lll d5 and l 9.lll xd7 �xd7
undermined on the dark squares. 20.ib6 °Wc8 2 l .cxb5 axb5 22.ie2 are
overwhelming for White.

� ''-- �-''· .
r•••-, '.-.�. - 3�
. . ... , . %� "•
I 9 ..ixb6 Y;Ybs
6

�� ,,�, ;� �,. ,J� ��

� -- ,%
5
4
� � ��;'eft�
. , . , . % �� �
!�
3

2 -;, .,��-�!�
- -%=. .
a b
�r c d e f g h

l 9 . . . Wb4! is the best try, with the variation

continuing 20.exd6 lll x b3 2 l .dxe7 lll xe7
22.axb3 ixf3 23.°Wxf3 Wxb3 24.ic5! Wxf3
25.gxf3 �fe8 26.�d7 lll f5 (26 . . . lll g6 27.id6
would prepare the advance of the c-pawn)
27.b4 and White has very good winning 20.c5!
chances. Eliminating Black's defence on the dark
squares, creating a square for the knight on c5.
18.tlib6
I also seriously considered 20.e5!? during the
game.

20 ... e5 21 .cxd6 i.xd6 22.tlic5 .ixc5 23.hc5

gds 24.£5
White's advantage is overwhelming.

24 ... £6

8
7

a b c d e f g h 6

18 ... tlixb6 5
Black has to play this. 4

l 8 . . . �ae8 l 9.lll xd7 Wfxd7 20.e5 and White 3

wins. 2
1
l 8 . . . �ad8 gives White many options; for
a b c d e f g h
 Chapter 4 - The Nature of Tactical Mistakes at the Top Level 83

25.gd5?! 8
2 S .i.b6! was stronger, taking full control of
the cl-line. The text move gives Black a chance 7
to free himself slightly. 6
5
Black has to do something, so he gives up a 4
pawn. 3
25 ... �d4! 2
Something like 2S .. J'k8 is hopeless, as
26.!!d? !'!d8 27.id6 would win the queen. a b c d e f g h

3 S .!'!e2 ic6 36.idSt!! and White wins, as

26.gxdst '9xd8 27..bd4 exd4 28J�dl d3 after 36 . . . @hS 37.ixc6 !'!xe2t 38.@xe2 'Wc2t
29.'9e3 '9e7 30.'9xd3 ges 31 .'9d4 39.°Wd2, Black is too weak on his back rank.

8 33 ...'9xd3?!
This should have lost rather quickly.
7

6 I had seen that Black cannot play 33 . . . 'Wxa2,

on account of 34.'Wd? 'Wf7 3 5 .'Wxflt @xf7
5
36.!!d?t !'!e7
4
8
1 �..t-�•··
� � � · � %""' �
.
3

6 r� �� ... . .. . . . %�
'0

� � . . .. �
2
v.

: �"-'�
1

a c e
�
� � i�
b d f g h

� �� �� �m!�
White has won a pawn and cannot be totally

�� �� ��� �. .
unhappy with how things have gone, although
it would have been even cleaner to have kept
things under control. Sometimes it is hard to
a b c d e f g h
evaluate at what point your opponent should
be allowed to give up a pawn, and at what time 37 . .ihSt! g6 3 8 . fxg6t hxg6 39 . .ixg6t and
a pawn sacrifice would increase his chances, White wins the bishop ending. But Black
and so be prevented. could have played 33 . . . 'Wc?, when I would still
have to show some technique in order to win
31. .. '9c7 32.b4 '9c2 33.'9d3 the game.
I am happy with this move, but I j ust want
to show the alternative because of a nice tactic. 34.gxd3 .be4
This ought to lose by force, so I should
33.!'!d2!?± would have forced the queen back quickly mention that Black was not forced to
because 33 . . . °Wb l t?! 34.@f2 ixe4?! is wrong: play like this, but things were looking grim
whatever he played.
84 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g in Chess

35J�e3 i.c6 This is a good moment to remind the reader

that everyone has bad moments, complete
blackouts. Sometimes, when a top player
8
annotates one of his games, he will give the
7 impression that he saw everything, or at least
6 he will ignore the things he did not see. All this
series is about the process of decision-making,
5 it would be improper to ignore the many times
4 when I completely missed something, as this is
the best explanation of why I played as I did.
3

2 If you are wondering "What was he thinking?"

1 the best answer I can give you is "I probably
a b c d e f g h
The big moment has arisen.
36J�xe8t??
This is the sort of mistake that cannot be
explained by logic. We can suggest possible
explanations, but none of them really satisfies.
Not even to me, who sat at the board and
made the move. My only guess is that I did
not look for alternatives, thinking that E:xe8t
was the only move.
wasn't" . The lines are not difficult to calculate
or understand. It is not some 'missed finesse'
at the end of a line. Instead, it is as it often
is - the mere possibility of playing differently
escaped me.
36 ...i.xeS 37..ib7 ©f8 38.i.xa6 i.d7
39.©fl ©e7 40.g4 ©d6 41 .J.b7 g6 42.fxg6
hxg6 43.i.f3 g5 44. ©e3 ©e5

White wins absolutely trivially with 36.'it>f2!

when after: 36 ... E:c8 37.E:c3 i.d7 38.E:xc8t
i.xc8

The position is a complete fortress. There is

not even a try available for White.

45.a3 i.eS 46.i.e2 J.d7 47..id3 i.e8 48.J.5

i.c6 49.©d3 i.eS
112-1/z

The only consolation I can find for this poor

 Chapter 4 - The Nature of Tactical Mistakes at the Top Level
performance i s that it has happened t o every
top player. Only, they do not speak too much
about it! There is another little point to be
made, which is that you cannot think deeply
on every move, or you would be in time
trouble early on in every game you play.
So one skill in chess is working out at which
moments you have to invest the majority of
your time and energy. In this game, I got it
wrong.
Missing the moment
We have already discussed elsewhere {and
probably will again in the future) time
consumption and the potentially resulting
time trouble. But it would be a mistake not to
mention it again in a chapter about mistakes.
One of the things that can happen when you
are short of time is that you miss a chance that
you normally would not miss. This and much
worse has happened to me while approaching
move 40.
Boris Gelfand - Peter Leko
Wijk aan Zee 2008
We will talk about Peter Leko later, when we
go over one of the big games I played with
him. Right here we will just discuss this lost
chance.
85
In this posmon, I have an advantage no
matter what I do. But the point is that it is
easier to spoil the advantage than to exploit it,
as I found out. Especially as I was, as usual,
short of time. Maybe the main lesson from this
game is actually that you should not get into
time trouble.
But everything has a cause (at least in chess)
and in this game I faced a strong novelty that
gave my opponent a comfortable position. I
invested time in finding a way forward, but
was only given an advantage when he played
too passively.
38.�a6?
Paying the price for being impractical
and/or indecisive, and getting into time
trouble. It is tempting to quote Korchnoi:
"There are no heroes in time trouble."
I want to mention something that I guess some
chess fans do not know. In most tournaments,
we play with a different time control from the
previous tournament. FIDE is changing their
format from time to time, and on top of this,
many organizers have their own time control,
as a way to make a mark on the game.
It did not surprise me when recently Magnus
Carlsen forgot which time control he was
playing with. In a position where the World
Champion could deliver mate by force against
Veselin Topalov, he hesitated making his 6 1 st
move, in a situation where he expected to get
more time. He did not, and lost on time.
Some people criticized Carlsen for not
paying attention to the format, but I think
it is quite possible to make such a mistake
when you are focusing on the position, which
is what the World Champion should be
doing.
The tactic I missed was 38.�b8! with the nice
geometry of: 38 . . . .ic5
86 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g in Chess
39.Wf c?! and White wins a pawn.
I should mention that a 'pass' move such as
38.�fl was also possible (or maybe even more
accurate, if you think like a computer) , as
Black cannot avoid the tactic. For example,
38 . . . h6 39.Wi'b8 .ic5 40.Wc?! and White
wins. But if you see a winning combination,
you rarely look for a way to get to play it later,
rather than sooner. . .
38 @f7 39.©fl
•..
After this the game ended in a draw. It
is possible I could have posed him more
problems, but probably not enough to win the
game.
The engine suggests that 39.Wi'b6! ? was
stronger. After something like 39 . . . h6 40.Wi'b8
.if8 4 l .h4 Black can hardly move. But it is also
not easy to see how White is going to break
through. Still, if I had seen this, I would have
played it.
39 ...i.c5 40.c!i)b3 Wi'c7 41 .c!i)xc5 Wxc5
42.Wi'b?t V!!e7 43.V!!b s V!!f"8 44.V!!b6 h6!
45.©e2 V!le7 46.©d3 g5 47.fxg5 hxg5 48.h3
f4 49.V!!d4
1/z-112
The difficulty of going really deep
We have all seen the deep combinations of
Alekhine and Kasparov, two great tacticians,
who managed to calculate 1 0 moves ahead and
see everything beautifully. Or did they? I would
guess the answer is a polite 'yes and no' . There
is no doubt these two geniuses saw an awful
lot, but at some point, they would have to do
what the rest of us do as well: guess. Guess
here is of course a euphemism for evaluation,
meaning deciding based on the impressions
available, your experience and training, also
known as your intuition.
I have had my share of difficult positions to
evaluate at the end of long lines. In most of my
games! Obviously you sometimes get it wrong.
This is one of those moments:
Boris Gelfand -Wang Hao
London 2012
a b c d e f g h
Of the four games I have played with Wang
Hao, three were absolutely crazy; once I
resigned in a drawn endgame, once I offered
a draw in a won endgame, and then there is
this game (let's forget about the normal game} .
Wang Hao has a special style. Honestly, I have
not played enough with the Chinese players to
j udge them. I am sure that this will change, as
there are a lot of them coming, and they are
good.
 Chapter 4 - The Nature of Tactical Mistakes at the Top Level 87

34... g4 I could tell you chat the knight is better

At this point, I still had some reserves of than the bishop in a position with a narrow
time and a fairly simple choice. I spotted field of action, or something else chat might
the 3 5 .lll d2! ? sacrifice and had to decide if I sound insightful, and it would be true, but
wanted to go for it. I believed that if l played as it would be too generic to be meaningful in
I did in the game, my chances would be maybe this specific context. What matters is chat
50-50, for a win or a draw. White is a pawn up and will play e3-e4 and
lll e3, using his active placement to attack
the g4-pawn. While one pawn up might not
8
win automatically, two pawns up certainly
7 will. 37 . . . @eS (37 . . . gd5 loses co 38.lll b6
6 and 39.lll cS) 3S.e4 The following variation
is j ust an illustration. 3S . . . gb5 39.lll e3 gb4
5 40.gc4 gxc4 4 1 .lll xc4 Ads 42.@fl rJle7
4 43 .@e2 f5 44.@d3 @f6 45 .e5t and White
wins.
3
36.Ad6 ge8 37.h6 lll f3 3S.@g3 lll g5 39.@xg4
2 lll h7 40.@h5
1
8
a c e
b d f g h
7
35.�el? 6
I spent 1 1 minutes on this move. What 5
is interesting for our topic is of course the
alternative:
4
3
35.lll d2!! 2
I was very tempted to play this.
35 . . . lll xd2 a b c d e f g h
It was obvious to me that this move would
be forced. I saw all of this, but I was not sure how good
35 . . . lll xg3 36.hxg3 gxh5 37.lll c4 looked my position was, as it is not so easy to make
simply bad for Black. progress. It was only lacer chat I realized it is
even more difficult for Black co do anything.
White wins, as can be seen in this variation:
40 . . . lll fS 4 I .e4 lll g6
4 I . . . f5 42.exf5 exf5 43.d5! wins for White.
Black has a number of ways to delay the loss,
but no way to untangle himself White's
main threat is 44.Ae5 lll g6 45.f4 lll xe5
46.fxe5 @gS 47.d6 Ads 4S.gd7 and Black
is completely paralysed, as 4S . . . Ab6 49.h7t
@hS 50.ge7 is over immediately.
42.h4
a b c d e f g h
88 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

There are other moves; essentially White
improves his position to the maximum.
42 . . .f5
wrong conclusion at the end of the line, which
can happen . . .
3 5 .. J�xh5 36.�d3 gb5 37.h3 gxh3t
38.©xh3 ©es 39J�a7
We were both short of time at this point, so
we missed that Black has a chance to simplify
the position.

39 ... gb3 40.�f4

6
Black cannot wait forever; White's position
is getting stronger and stronger. 5
43.exf5 exf5 44.d5 <it> f6 45 .ig3 f4 46.!!c6t 4
<it> f7 47.!!xg6 fxg3 48.fxg3 ifB 49.g4 !!d8
50.g5 3

7
8
1
a b c d e f g h
6
5 40 ... �xg3
4
This is very natural, as the resulting rook
ending seems defensible.
3
2 40 . . . id6! 4 1 .tDxe6 ixg3 42.fxg3 !!xe3;l; Black
should hold, although I would of course
a b c d e f g h try to create some problems for him before
relinquishing the half point.
White wins.
The end of this variation is a bit random
The old rule of thumb is that in an ending
of course, but the point is to show the way
where one player has more material, the
White improves his position in general. We
'attacker' will want to exchange pieces, in order
can finish the line with:
to simplify the task (the pawn ending being
50 . . . !!xd5 5 l .!!f6t <it> e7 52. <it> g6 !!d4 53.h5
the ideal of course) , while the defender wants
And it is all over.
to exchange pawns, hoping to get to one of
the many drawn endings with few pawns; or
I am happy that I saw this option, and
even give up a piece for the opponent's final
managed to calculate it accurately. But in the
pawn(s) .
end I decided not to go for it, because I did
not believe in the position. I simply made the
41.©xg3 j,d6 42.@a i.xf4 43.©xf4
 Chapter 4 - The Nature of Tactical Mistakes at the Top Level 89

I am not sure what my opponent thought I spent 1 2 minutes on this move. Not so
about this ending, but my thinking is that much because I was considering alternatives,
Black has to be quite accurate in his defence. but more because I had the feeling that I was
I want to put my rook on the 5th rank, play getting real winning chances, and thus wanted
e4 and d5, and make it possible for the king to familiarize myself with the finesses.
to advance.
50 .. J::lxe3t 5 1 . ©f6 ©gs
I analysed this type of endgame years ago,
before tablebases and computers. It did not
seem that simple to me without these tools.
Back in 1 986, Smirin had the same ending,
more or less, against Darius Ruzele in a team
championship in Minsk. I helped analyse the
ending all through the night, but little did it
help. Smirin forgot the most accurate defence
and lost.
As you will know by now, or at least be able
to read between the lines, I might be interested
in the objective evaluation of the position,
but what really interests me are the chances
over the board. Basically, I felt there were still a b c d e f g h
challenges for Black.
At this point I spent a lot of time, trying to
find the win. I saw the idea of checkmating
43.. J�b2 44.6 gh2 45.©e4 gh3 46.gb7
him on the h-file, but I could not find a way
©fB 47J::ld7 ©es 48Jk7 ©fB 49.f4
to make it work. This does not mean that it is
not there . . .
8
7 52.gg7t
The win comes about after 52.1'l:c8t �h7
6
53.�f7! and there is no defence against
5 swinging the rook to the h-file that does not
lose the e-pawn, and with it the game.
4

3 52 ... ©fB 53.gh7?

2 I could still force a repetition of the position
by pulling the rook far away along the 7th rank
1 in the other direction.
a b c d e f g h
49 ... fSt? 53 ... ©gs 54.ghl ge4 55J::ldl ©h7??
I was really shocked when he played this
49 . . . �e8 50.f5 (50.l:'k5 fSt improve Black's
move, allowing instant mate. But blackouts
chances) 50 . . J:l:h4t 5 1 .�f3 exfS 5 2.1'l:c5 �e7
happen. He could have been playing
53.1'l:xf5 ± leads to the Ruzele - Smirin ending.
prophylactically against d4-d5 , forgetting
so.©e5 about the mate.
90 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

55 . . . 'tt> f8 defends easily. For example: 56.d5 I do not really have an advantage here. Black
exd5 57.E:xd5 'tti g8 is a theoretical draw. has active play and I will have to spend some
time to unpin the knight on e3. Meanwhile
8 Black should be able to activate his pieces and
create enough counterplay.
7

6 17J�d2
Beginning the unpinning manoeuvre.
5

4 17 Vfe6??
.••

3
A blunder, leaving the rook and knight in
danger.
2

1 I like 1 7 .. .'�e?, when after 1 8 .E:fd l E:e8 it

is not easy for White to unpin. After some
a b c d e f g h exchanges, I do not think there is a great future
56.©f7 ahead. Black can always play . . . h5-h4 and have
1-0 decent counterplay.
A great opportunity obscured by a good one
18.tll g2!
This type of mistake is one of the most
common. Your position is promising (and
suddenly so, as in this example) and you spot
an appealing line. But you sell yourself short,
get a big advantage rather than a winning one,
and later on make a small mistake that allows
unwanted counterplay and subsequently a
draw. It has happened to everyone. This time it
happened to me:

Boris Gelfand - Etienne Bacrot

Albert (1) 2002

6
18 ... tll f5
5 The first point is that White can answer
4 1 8 . . . lll xe2t 1 9.E:xe2 E:xe2 with 20 . .ixg? with
the idea 20 . . . 'tti xg? 2 1 .lll f4, winning a piece.
3 Black would have to play 20 .. .'�e4, when
2 White will have two minor pieces for the rook,

1 either with an attack or in a favourable ending.

a b c d e f g h
 Chapter 4 - The Nature of Tactical Mistakes at the Top Level 91

1 8 . . . ge8 i s never going t o work, as after 1 9.f3
lll xe2t 20. 'it>h 1 Black loses the exchange.
1 8 . . . c5!? is probably the best try. Yes, it is ugly,
but things have already gone wrong for Black.
The question is exactly how bad it is, and the
nature of the disadvantage. l 9 .tll f4 Wff5
would have seen the combination available to
me here, if I had not had another promising
option.
White was winning after 1 9.ixg? 'it>xg7 20.f3
gd4 (20 . . . ge5 2 1 .e4 and the d6-pawn falls)
2 1 .°Wc3 Wfe5

� .\r � �� rr
6
5
. J.�..�-. . ?.��-f� :�
"- '"//, ��
�� �8. .3,,•, , ,/, �.I. � "��
,

4 •
2 �
3
��- �--�'
0 �� . . . � �,.r, .ef, ;�. .
8 �� �
�� . . .v.�8 �·:mt�. . 7.m·0

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

White has a choice between 20.ixd4 cxd4
2 1 .tll d 5 with a good position, and winning
the exchange with 20.f3 gxf4 2 1 .gxf4 'Wxd3
22.exd3, even though it will not be trivial to
win after 22 . . . ges. This is all rather unpleasant
for Black, but under the circumstances, it was
the best option available for Black.
22.gc2!! An amazing move, trapping the rook
in the centre. 22 . . . ges 23.f4 '!We4 24.e3! lll xe3
2 5 .ge l and White wins a piece. There are a
few other ways to do it at the end, but this is
fairly clear-cut, so let's stick with this.
19 ...i.d4t 20J�fl
Not a greatly surprising move, as 20. 'kt> h l ?
lll xg3t 2 1 .hxg3 '!Wh3# would be unfortunate.

20 ...ixf2t
20 . . . ge3 was also interesting, when I would
have had to think a good deal to find a clear
path to an advantage. After the fact, I have
found that out of the many promising lines,
2 1 .tll xe3 ixe3 22.g4! is the simple one.
After 22 . . .ixd2 23.Wf xd2 tll e3 24.Wfd4 Black
will have to give up a pawn. Some technical
challenges would remain, but that's chess.

a b c d e f g h
2 I .@xf2 ge5
Black plays his only chance, to go into a bad
19.f'3? ending.
The main reason for making this mistake
is probably that it leads to a big advantage. It 22.e4 �g7 23.he5 dxe5 24.YlYd7 YlYxd7
is hard to tell, of course, but it is possible I 24 . . . gbs 2 5 .Wf c? and White wins a pawn.
92 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

25J�xd7 gbs a balanced endgame where White has taken

some risks.

27 ... tl:!e6!

a b c d e f g h
At this point, I made quite a bad mistake. I
a c e
simply missed his 27th move, which gives him b d f g h
a lot of counterplay.
After this, White has nothing. The ending is
26.�e3? maybe another way co illustrate poor play, but
26.tt'l e l ! tt'l e6 27.tt'ld3 f6 28 .E:e? E:d8 we will skip through it this time around, as it
29.\t>e3 tt'ld4 30.tt'lc5 tt'l c2t 3 1 .\t>e2 tt'ld4t feels far from our topic.
32.\t>f2 gives White a winning position, on
account of 32 . . . b6 33.tt'ld? and it is all over. 28.fxe5 tl:!c5 29.gd4 a5 30.g4 hxg4 3 1 .tl:!xg4
@£8 32.�f6?! c.i? e7 33,gd6 gh8 34. c.i? g3
26 ... h5 27.f4 gd8 35.gxd8 c.i?xd8 36.@6 tl:! d3 37.e6
A funny line is 27.g4! ?, when Black has to Accurate, but not difficult.
find the following defence: 27 . . . \t>IB! 28.gxh5
37 ... fxe6 38. c.i? g4 c.i? e7 39. c.i? g5 @f7 40.tl:!d7
©e8 and realize chat White has 29.E:xb7!?.
b5 4I. c.i? h6 bxc4 42.bxc4 c.i? e7 43.�b6 @f6
44.tl:!d7t c.i? e7 45.tl:!b6
1/2-1/2

The above is a good illustration of how a

winning position is often squandered. Ac one
moment, I missed the most accurate way to
win the game, going instead for a superior
technical position. Then I missed a finesse, and
suddenly Black was back in the game, doing
fine. The advantage was lose in two mistakes,
a b c d e f g h not one.
But it doesn't really work. Black is OK after Now let's go a bit deeper with the following
29 . . . E:xb? 30.h6 E:b8! 3 1 .hxg? \tie? 32.tt'lg4 examples. Not that the mistakes will not remain
E:g8 33.tt'lxe5 c5 34.tt'ld3 ©d6 and we have simple, they will . . .
 Chapter 4 - The Nature of Tactical Mistakes at the Top Level
A tactical mistake in three acts
Every player has a different philosophy to
annotating games. Kramnik likes to explain
his decisions carefully, Giri gives his emotional
experience, and Kasparov overwhelms you
with variations. All these styles have something
going for chem. In the analysis of the following
very short game fragment, I will try to draw on
all three approaches.
I played this tournament in Budapest in
2003, organized by the Hungarian Federation
in order to prepare Peter Leko for his World
Championship match with Vladimir Kramnik.
I did not play so well, and finished on fifty
percent. In the last round, I played my old friend
Judie Polgar (more about her on page 1 45).
In the game, I made a simple tactical mistake
and allowed her off the hook. We join the
game where she gives me a chance.
Act 1 - The Game
I have a feeling the simplicity of the oversight I
made in the game might surprise some people.
But it is what it is.
Juclit Polgar - Boris Gelfand
Budapest 2003
93
26 . .!lib4?
Judie is trying to ease the pressure on her
position. Apparencly, it did not appeal to her
to play 26.b4, when the a3-pawn would have
been a continual annoyance. Still this was the
better choice. I prefer Black, but the advantage
is by no means overwhelming.
26 ... axb2
I played this with a reasonable amount of
confidence.
I had also seen the option to play 26 . . . i1tf c5
27.lll d3 i1tfxf2!?, but as I already had a
clear route to an advantage, going for these
complications was not necessary.
27.l3xb2 l3fa8?
I played this more or less immediately. I
could not see a way for White to get out of the
uncomfortable pin down the a-file.
I had seen that 28.l'fo b 1 i1tf a4! is very unpleasant
for White, and was quite looking forward to it.
But alas, it was not to be.
28 ....L:a2 29.lll xa2 �e8
94 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

Black might still be ever so slightly better, 3 1 .'1Wxb2t '1We5 32.'1Wxe5t dxe5

�� �
but I had had enough, and offered a draw,
which was unceremoniously accepted.
8
� �
: �.-.,�.
l/i-1/i

m� m ·�
��m;����r:.�·J�%���
Act 2 Where I thought
-

5
4
I had missed my chance

� ��� ��� ��,rf

,,_ _ • •

When analysing the game in 2003, I believed

� � �� �
that my real mistake was not taking on f4. But
a slightly deeper look reveals that things were
not so simple.
a b c d e f g h

26 axb2 27Jhb2 exf4

..•
This endgame is quite dangerous for White.
My feeling is that it probably cannot be held.
It is easy to imagine that White might play
8
g2-g3, when Black exchanges pawns, and later
7 on his h-pawn for the g3-pawn, giving him two
connected passed pawns. One of the pawns
6
will claim a piece, and so on. It is important to
5 point out that 33.lt:ld3 'tti g7 34.lt:lxe5 does not
4 work on account of 34 . . . E:e8 winning a piece.

3 But looking at this now, I am wondering what

2 the evaluation should be after:

28.gabl!
a b c d e f g h
This is stronger than what I played in the
game, but it is important to remember that
when you are at the board, you do not play
one move at a time, but quite often play in
sequences. When I took on b2, I knew what
my next move would be, as I should.
After the game, it is natural to analyse the
moves as if they were made without any special
connection, and we should certainly do this.
Bur it is important to remember that this is not
how it happened. For this reason, I started this
section by giving the previous move, as this is
where I could have made a different decision.
Yes, this move again.
Analysing this in 2003, my main line went:
28 .i.xe6 E:xa l 29.'!Wxa l i.xc3 30.'!Wc l i.xb2 28 .L.:a2 29.gxa2 gxa2 30.lt:lxa2 'l&c4
•.•
 Chapter 4 - The Nature of Tactical Mistakes at the Top Level 95

3 1 .�b4! �xc3 32.�d.3
White has managed to create a fortress-like
position. In many lines, the f4-pawn is under
attack and in others, Black feels the lack of a
hiding place for his king. We moved the pieces
around a bit to get a feeling for the position; it
did not fill me with great confidence. Black is
obviously much better, but White is certainly
not without defensive resources.
White can cake with the queen on f3, leading
to an ending with decent drawing chances, or
play:
37.gxe4!? gblt 38.gel gxelt 39.�xel f2
40.�e3! fl=�t 41 .�gl
White is probably still within the drawing
margin.
Act 3

8
7 As expected, it is in the third ace that all is
revealed, and a way forward is found. At lease
6
this is our aim. It turns out chat I should have
gone for the most aggressive solution, trying
5 to put my opponent under as much pressure
4 as possible.

3 26 ...�c5!

�� -
2
1 � -�
� ... 3.,,
8
7
��-�
"� - � ·�
a c e

.:
b d f g h

�iur/--- - %�-� ��
· -%�
For example: 6

� �,� � . , , %�f�
- - - %�
.. . ... :� ���----%�
5
32 ... Ae5 33.�f3 �d4 34JUI gbs
White has counterplay with: 4

----·\3rd----%� �c -- · ��r�
�f� - - %� � �� 8 f�
3
35.�h3!
2
1 � -- ,.. . , . . Y,-�
Black's only winning cry is:

35 ... �e4 36.gel f3!

a b c d e f g h
The queen is better placed on c5, defending
the pawn on d6, while attacking c3 and the
rook on f2. There is only one drawback co the
move, which is the only reply I would ever
consider calculating seriously in a game.

27.�d.3
This is the critical move. When you are
calculating during a game, you may notice that
other moves are possible, but their importance
is often very different. With limited time, you
96 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

want to get into the habit of calculating only 28 . . . e4

the important moves. I know this is difficult
to do and I am not trivializing it, I just want
to make the point that a grandmaster's brain
does not work faster than an accountant who
plays chess on club nights. They both do
difficult mental work (and both get corrupted
by computers!) . But the grandmaster will have
a strong instinct when it comes to chess moves
- and hopefully the good sense to hire the
accountant to help out with his taxes.
There are some tactical options such as
28 . . . Wi'xc3! ? as well, but this seems the most
promising to me.
However, on 28 . . . E:fa8? 29.E:ab l ! still works.
This time it is not the queen that is the target
on the b-file, but the 8th rank.
29.E:c l
Also 29.E:ab l d5+ is very pleasant for Black.
The key tactical idea is that 30.i.xd5 E:d7
3 l .E:d2 i.xc3 simply does not work.

Besides 27.lLid3, there is another possible

move, as suggested by the engines:

27.E:d2
It is possible this is the better move, once
you analyse for some hours, as we have done
- though I want to underline that we have
not come to a final conclusion on this. There
is an important point to be made on this
question. First of all, Black has improved his
position, meaning that the inclusion of the
queen step to the side is an improvement. So 29 . . . dS!?
who would actually play 27.E:d2 in a game? I In general, it seems preferable to keep
am pretty sure that Judit would have moved more pieces on the board. Especially as the
the knight rather quickly, as would almost bishop on a2 is a likely target. But this does
any player. White is already under a lot of not mean that Black's position is not very
pressure; I doubt she would have allowed promising after 29 . . . i.xa2 30.lLixa2 d5. It is.
things to get even worse. 30.E:d2 E:d8
27 . . . axb2 28.E:xb2
8 ��-�. - -�� ��%il-J� :�

: ,,]� �� ,�-�
,,. % .

_ �- �� ���
�
: � ;;,,, , . , -����,�
, , , %� �
, �����
�.,3D
..

2 f�� ��,�if ,�
,; .
�@
/" "'Y.� ...

a b c d e f g h

Black has a stable positional advantage. All

I know is that this would have been a very
good shot in the game.
 Chapter 4 - The Nature of Tactical Mistakes at the Top Level 97

This leads us to a highly critical cry for 37.llJh3

White, which however has some downsides. A logical but still unfortunate retreat.
3 1 .ixd5?! gad? 32.llJc6 e3 33,gd3 .ixd5 37.gd4 .ixd4 38.cxd4 e2 39.Wg l hxg5 and
34.llJxdS Wc4! Black wins. The e-pawn is too strong.

',. .. . :� �Wief�
The best chance is 37.We2, although
8
�� � � � :� 37 . . . .ixg2t (not the only try) 38.Wxg2
Wxd3 39.llJf3 �h7 is very close to
� �� �i �.-� winning.

�� ,� r� 37 . . . ixg2t 38.�xg2 gxd3 39.Wf3 e2

4 �� 1� �� ��
5

3 � ��r�
�
. . . z g �-
� -
. . ef.z · · ·.
�
�� � � ��-�

2 ��1� �1�
a b c d e f g h

A strong move chat creates threats against d8

and g2, and at the same time prevents White
from playing c3-c4.
3 5 . llJ f7t
a b c d e f g h
Again the only move worth analysing.
35.gxe3 gxd8 is a slow grind; Black should Slightly unnecessary, but still elegant.
win. In a practical game, this is what White 40.Wxe2 Wc6t
should choose, but as we are analysing Black wins the knight and soon the game.
the viability of Black's ideas, and not just
following an electronic overlord's commands,
it makes more sense for us to look at the
moves chat might cast the final resulc in
doubt when a human is pondering over it.
35 . . . �gS 36.llJg5
Black wins quickly after 36.llJe5 ixe5
37.fxe5 ixg2t 38.�xg2 We4t!, when the
white king will not find safety.
36 . . . h6

28.�xf'l axb2 29J�bl gxa2 30.9d2

I will mention a couple of alternatives; the
98 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

first is easily dismissed, but the second requires to make a decision, not to out-calculate the
greater attention. computer or any other such nonsense.

30.�xd6 !!a l and Black wins.

30.lll d3 E:b8!
In 2003 I had analysed 30 ... e4, which also
leads to a very pleasant position for Black.
But looking at the position now, it seems
more natural to defend the passer.
3 1 .lll b4

Now the bishops are coming to e4 and d4,

threatening just about everything. Black
would win even if his moves were drawn out
of a hat. I like the following illustrative line,
as it relies solely on the strength of the passed
pawn.
3 5 .�d3 .ie4 36.b7 .ixb7 37.�xf5 E:xb l t
37 . . . .id5 ! is the engine's choice, but not
something many GMs would find on move
This is the critical move. I do understand 37 in such a complicated game.
that the engines will not like it, but as we are 38 .�xb l f3 39.gxf3 .ixf3t 40.'it>gl d5
talking about decision-making, it is really Black wins.
the only move worth analysing. If Black is
allowed to win a third piece for the queen,
combining two amazing bishops with a
rook, the game is over. Therefore, this is the
only move that requires accuracy.
3 1 . . .E:xb4
This is of course the idea.
32.cxb4 exf4 33.b5
Again the only move that makes sense. Turn
off the engine and look at the board!
33 . . . E:a l 34.b6 .id5!!
A very nice point, which you would have
to find at move 30 in order to go into this
line. Obviously it is not something I would
have ever considered even a move earlier, if I
had played like this in the game. The point
of calculating variations is after all only to
learn enough about the position to be able
 Chapter 4 - The Nature of Tactical Mistakes at the Top Level 99

3 1 .�dl 32.l!Jd3
From here the knight both defends the first 32.l::1 x b2 l::1 a l t 33.lt>h2 (33 . l!J d l J.e5 and
rank and attacks the b2-pawn, making it a very . . . i.f7-h5 is coming) 33 . . . i.e5 34.l!Jd3
logical move. Alternatives are:

3 1 .l!Jd3 l::1 b 8 is simply a tempo worse than

on the last move. There is no reason to think
deeper about those consequences.

3 1 .h3

�� �� ���4--·
8 � � , ·

� �� ��,--�
.....

�- - - - �.� r.��
5
�
�� ��
4 �� �� - - - "� 8
��-J�- - �ilm
3

2 .1 • ���� f"'
�-�"���8 �
' "----� >,,.,.,; �
<it>
a b c d e f g h

I analysed this natural move in 2003. In

reply, I also suggested a natural way of
consolidating the advantage, 3 1 . . .l::1 c 8,
but today the engine offers a more direct
approach. Its first choice, 3 l . . . J.c4, is highly
artificial, but its second choice is something
you could imagine a human playing in a
game:
3 1 . . .l::1 g 8! 32 . . . f3!!
Again, I want to stress that I am not 32 ... J.d5 is too slow on account of 33.l!J e l +
pretending that a grandmaster would and White can still offer a lot o f resistance.
calculate the following sequence all the way 33.gxf3 J.d5 34.l!J e l l::1 a l ! 3 5 .Wxb2 l::1 a2
until move 39. There is a chance he would 36.Wb6 E1e2!
find it all the way until move 36, although
this too is unlikely. Why? Mainly because
it is difficult to choose between all of the
opponent's defensive resources.
When analysing the game as we are doing it,
with two organic brains and an occasional
look at the engine, you are of course in a
much better position to calculate to the end
than you would be in a game, where you also
have to keep everything in your head.
1 00 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

Simple prophylaxis. White cannot untangle
himself.
36 . . . i.e5 37.E:b2! and White survives. With
the rook on e2, the knight would hang.
37.Wfb5 E:d2
Black is threatening . . . i.e5 , which will win
the game.
38.E:b2 E:d l 39.Wfe2 Axf3t!
Black wins.
32.h4 Af7 33.lll xb2 ie5 34.E:e l f3 3 5 .gxf3
E:b8 and Black wins. It is certainly possible to
explain the moves, if you are a strong player and
used to working with computers. But the moves
are exceptionally artificial and have nothing to
do with decision-making in a game of chess.
32 .. J�al 33. ©gl i.f7!

At this point, Black is winning, but the way

to seal the deal is rather surprising. The key
idea is linked to preparing the manoeuvre
. . . Ae6-f7-h5 .

� � � ��� �.
, �
8 �

7
�� �
� � �-
-
�� ��
'"" - ----

: �� �� �,-% ��
6
� ,
�
�� -� � �--- � � -
- � 34.l:k2

i•"" -� �- rt�
3 �
Again the only move we need to calculate. All
2

� � r,7,� �
others lead to lost endings in uncomplicated
1 -� !E ways.

a b c d e f g h
34 ... i.h5 35.gcl gxcl 36.YlYxcl gel t
31 ... ges!!
We will see below why this move is so
8
fantastic.
After the game, in 2003, I had only analysed 7
3 1 . . .Ae5 32.E:xb2 E:a l , which gives White 6
many problems, but does not offer Black
a forced win. My main mistake was in the 5
following line: 33.©gl f3 34.gxf3 E:g8t, 4
where I correctly predicted that 35.©f2 f4! was
winning for Black, but did not discover that 3
3 5 .©h l !?+ was a better defensive try. 2
1
32.gxb2
This is the main move a human needs to a b c d e
think about. The engine gives the following Black wins a piece and later the game.
line as best play for both players:
 Chapter 4 - The Nature of Tactical Mistakes at the Top Level 101

It is important to underline a few points I Boris Gelfand -Vladimir Kramnik

want you to take away from this game and its
London 2013
analysis:

)- Most of what you have seen above was

I .d4 tlif6 2.c4 e6 3.tlc3 .ib4 4.e3 0-0 5 ..id3
discovered after the game.
d5 6.tlif3 dxc4 7.hc4 c5 8.0-0 cxd4 9.exd4
)- My choice in the game was based on a
b6 10.°i'e2 .ib7 1 1 . .ig5 tlbd7 12.�facl
simple tactical mistake.
)- Don't for a second believe that most
grandmasters would calculate any
significant part of this accurately during
the game.
)- In many places, the engines suggest
moves and lines that are irrelevant to the
understanding of the game from a human
perspective. The main lines above are the
lines that would be important to analyse
in the game, not the first line of the
computer. It is all on a need-to-know basis
- and the main lines are the stuff we need
to know to understand the position well.
)- Calculation is based heavily on intuition.
An engine will calculate several million
moves per second, while a human will take 12 ...°i'b8!?
seconds to calculate only a few moves. So A new idea from Kramnik. This is just one
we need to train ourselves to calculate only of the many novelties Kramnik introduced
the variations that will directly impact on in London. He came to the tournament with
our decision-making. immense determination and showed great
)- There are a number of reasons why I have chess. But up to this point he had not been
analysed the game in such detail. The main able to translate this into any victories. He was
one being the beauty of the lines! But I increasingly taking more risks. The previous
also wanted to give real human-style lines day he had sacrificed a rook against Ivanchuk
to explain what directions the game could for the initiative. It was probably too much,
take and what variations would need to be but still the game ended in a draw.
found.
13JUdl �k8 14 ..id3 .id6 15.g3 a6 16 ..ixf6
tlxf6 17.tlie4 gxcl 18.gxcl
Missing a single move in a combination It is important to look at Kramnik's next
move in the context of the tournament
There is a part of calculation that we can
situation. After six draws, most of them from
improve indefinitely, but never perfect - we
better positions, he was taking more and more
will always miss things. At times, it is not the
risks in the search for much-needed victories.
combination itself we miss, but a small but
One win arrived in the next round, when he
essential part of it. The following example is a
produced an absolute masterpiece against
good illustration of this theme.
Peter Svidler.
1 02 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess
a b c d e f g h
Lacer it was suggested by some, mainly
behind closed doors but also in some cases in
public, chat Kramnik had received a bit too
much help from his compatriots in the second
half of the tournament. Those accusations are
simply ridiculous. For chose wanting the full
inside story, I strongly recommend Carlsen's
Assault on the Throne by Kotronias and
Logothetis. Even for me as a participant, there
are many new insights in chat book.
In the second half of the tournament there
were rumours, while we were still playing,
that I had 'sold' my game to Kramnik. Those
rumours died when I held the game. Please do
not listen to these people.
18 ... tlieS?
6
5
4
3 the light squares, so it is natural to go for a
2
1 No, I do not chink like this during the
a c e
b d f g h a walking dictionary of platitudes. However,
Kramnik is trying to keep some of the dynamics
of his position going, while I am j ust making
moves in accordance with the position, which
I was not happy with at all.
19.�ed2?
After a long think, I found nothing.
During the game I spent quite an amount of
time looking at: 1 9.lDeg5!
With all the black pieces in the other corner,
it is natural to look at an active reaction to
a passive-looking move. But we should be
careful not to extend such comments too
far. After the game, when the engines were
switched on, it was obvious to everyone chat
White was winning here. But during the game,
all that was available to me was the feeling chat
an attack on the kingside might work.
In order to determine if it did work, I started
calculating the most challenging option:
a) 1 9 . . . g6
a b c d e f g h
Black strengthens the defence of the light
squares. But it is only the pawns that defend
direct attack.
game. I am guided by an inner feeling, not
 Chapter 4 - The Nature of Tactical Mistakes at the Top Level 1 03

this is the best way I can explain why I felt b) 1 9 . . . h6

that White might be successful with the
following move:
20.lll x f7! 'it>xf7 2 1 .lll g5t 'it>f6 22.Wxe6t!
The most natural move and the one I looked
at as a try to make the combination work.
Those with an engine can see that White
has other promising continuations here, but
this was not at all apparent to me during the
game.
22 . . . 'it>xg5
a b c d e f g h

Why would I ? It made no sense to

20 ..ih?t
a b c d e f g h
While looking at this position, I did not find
a way to continue the attack. It seemed to
me that Black was just winning. However, it
turned out that I was wrong.
23.Wh3!!
White has this surprising move. The threat
is 24.Wh4 mate. Black can defend either with
23 . . . h5 24.We6, when White wins because
of Black's inability to defend g6. Or with
23 . . . 'it>f6, when 24.Wxh? leads to similar
problems on g6.
It should be mentioned that White has
investigate this, when I was struggling to
find anything convincing against 1 9 . . . g6.
But for completeness, I should point out
that White has two ways to win the game
here, all based on the absence of defence on
the light squares. It is most likely I would
have gone for:
Instead 20 . .ig6!! is a computer move, but
not an uncommon tactical theme. 20 . . . hxg5
(Black can fight the tide, but after 20 . . . ixf3
2 1 .ixf7t 'it>f8 22.Wxf3 hxg5 23.i.xe6t
lll f6 24.l'l:c8t Wxc8 2 5 .ixc8 l'l:xc8 26.Wb?
we have an endgame with great winning
chances for White.) 2 1 .lll x g5
8 .I � � �-
�� �
, ., .,;<� ��f%·
, . . , %� �� ���
: T���TA!
4 ��
5

- � w
� -0 � �
-
',., ., %�
other moves that offer him strong attacking
3
�� - - 3� ��
chances instead of this directly winning move.
But during the game, none of them looked 2 !�z�-
� �'ft""z="'�,
convincing to me, and there is not really a lot
more to say about that.
.,,..

� ,.,.. ...

a b c d e f g h

Having failed to make the first variation work, White crashes through on the light squares.
I did not seriously look at the alternative: For example: 2 1 . . . fxg6 22.Wxe6t 'it>h8
23 .Wh3t 'it>g8 24.Wh?t 'it>f8 2 5 .Whst 'it>e7
1 04 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

26.%Yg8!!

7
6
5
4
3
2
a b c d e f g h

23.J.xf5! exf5
a b c d e f g h
23 . . . J.xg3 is better according co the
Black is lost. 26 . . . %Yc8 ! ? 27.%Yf7t 'it>d8 computer, as it gets a pawn for the bishop.
28.lLie6t And so on .. . White is still winning, but there is another
20 . . . 'it>h8 point as well: who would actually find this
move?
24.%Yxf5 lL! f6 2 5 .%Yh3t 'it>g8 26.%Ye6t 'it>h8
7 27.lLif7t 'it>h7 28.lL!xd6
6
5
4
3
2

a b c d e f g h

2 1 .%Yd3!! hxg5 22.lLixg5

It is quite remarkable chat Black is unable co
defend f7.
22 . . . f5
The only attempt. If f7 cannot be defended,
then at least the defence of the h7-bishop
can be blocked.
22 . . . g6 23.J.xg6! clearly leads co a winning
attack. Variations are unnecessary.
a b c d e f g h
White has a piece less, but is totally winning.
Black does not have a defence against g3-g4
with the ideas g4-g5 and l:!cl -c3-h3 mate.
The main line to include is:
28 . . . id5
Black can give up the bishop with 28 . . . %Yd8,
but even with 23 ... J.xg3 24.hxg3 included,
the position would be lose for Black
(although then White would have co show
some technical skills) .
29.%Yh3t 'it>g8 30.l:!c8t
Winning.
 Chapter 4 - The Nature of Tactical Mistakes at the Top Level 1 05

I will add that l 9.tt:lfg5 h6 20.\Wh5!± also leads always good to go back to Moscow, where I
to an advantage. But as I did not consider it, it have been coming since my teenage years, and
is not so relevant. win this nice event in the final days of the year.

It is possible that I would have failed to find
anything after l 9 . . . h6 as well. I played really
poorly that day.
19 ...\Wds
The rest of the game became rather placid.
20.ie4 gc8 21 .Wffl gxcl 22.'IWxcl Wfc8
23.'1Wc3 c!LJf6 24.hb7 Wfxb7 25.llJe5 tlJd5
26.Wf c6 Wfxc6 27.tlJxc6 'itif8 28.llJc4 ic7
29.c!LJe3 lLixe3 30.fxe3 id6 3 1 .tlJe5 ixe5
32.dxe5 'itie7 33. 'itif2 'itid7 34.e4 'itic6
35. 'itie3 'itic5 36. 'itid3
1/z-1/2
Missing the opponent's defensive resources
Grigoriy Oparin - Boris Gelfand
Moscow (rapid) 2015
l .e4 c5 2.c!LJf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lL!xd4 c!LJf6
5.c!LJc3 a6 6.h3 e5 7.llJde2 h5 8 ..ig5 .ie6
9 ..ixf6 Wfxf6 10.tlJd5 Wfd8 l l .Wfd3 tlJc6
12.0-0-0 g6 13.'itibl ig7 14.h4 gc8 15.g3
b5 16.ih3 0-0 17.c3 tlJa5 18.f4 ixh3
19.gxh3 exf4 20.gxf4 tlJc4
8
7
6
5

4
The next game was played in a very interesting
tournament, which was held during the 3
Western holiday of Christmas. In Russia
2
the seasonal celebrations are at the start of
January, while Middle Eastern countries have 1
a c e
their important celebrations at other times b d f g h
of the year. For example, at the same time as
this tournament was going on, there was an The opening has not gone well for Black.
important open tournament in Qatar, with If White now played 2 I .tt:ld4, then he would
participation from Magnus Carlsen and have a big advantage after something like
Vladimir Kramnik, the two top-rated players 2 1 . . .Ei:eS 22.Ei:g3 with f4-f5 coming. Instead
in the world at that moment in time. Oparin went for a speculative and highly
committal knight sacrifice.
The Nutcracker tournament was a mix of
games with a classical time control and rapid
21 .liJg3?
The downside to this move is not so much
games, played in the Scheveningen format,
that it sacrifices a piece, but more that it costs
where all the players of one team play against
quite some time and that it allows Black to
all the players of another team. As so often is
act freely on the dark squares along the g7-b2
the case with these things, one team consisted
diagonal.
of promising young players and one team
consisted of experienced players. I liked this
21. b4!
•.

format when I played in Amsterdam in 20 I 0,

An easy move to make. There is no time to
so I looked forward to this event. Also, it is
waste.
1 06 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g in Chess

22.�xh5 This is the critical moment of the game, and

The engines suggest that 22.tll e2 is a better
move, but no human would ever make it. He
went to g3 with the idea of taking on h5, and
that is what he did. Chess is not played move
by move, as already discussed.
there are a few things I would like to say about
it.
First of all, we should remember chat this is a
rapid game, so the players had limited time.

Secondly, we should not forget chat while

8
we can say afterwards chat this is the critical
7 moment of the game, this is not so easy to
6 determine during the game. While playing,
you can realize chat you have a choice, but
5 you have no possibility of estimating how
4 important this choice will be for the rest of the
game.
3

2 Thirdly, it is quite easy to come up with an

1 explanation of why taking with one piece
rather than another is the right choice, once
a b c d e f g h you have the support of engine analysis after
22 ... tll xb2! the game. During the game, this information
This move is also quite easy to make. Black is not available, so don't let it fool you into
has obvious compensation, but also, I would chinking it should have been easy to choose
never play something like: the right move.

22 . . . bxc3 23.bxc3 gxh 5 , when after 24.i'!g l
I would have to find 24 . . . f6, which appears to
be necessary, and then hope chat White will
not be able to find more than a perpetual. . .
23.'i!?xb2
In the game, I thought for a few minutes,
maybe five, and made a move I thought was
quite convincing. It worked wonders in the
game, being evidently strong enough to pose
Oparin more problems than he was able to
deal with in the limited time he had left.

But after the game, the computer suggested

some surprising variations and conclusions.

23 ... bxc3t?!
It turns out that the correct continuation
was to upgrade the knight sacrifice to a rook
sacrifice:

23 . . . i'!xc3! 24.tll xc3 bxc3t

The critical line involves White putting his
king in the corner.

a b c d e f g h
 Chapter 4 - The Nature of Tactical Mistakes at the Top Level 1 07

to the game continuation (if White had

responded with 24.<.!.ia l ) , it is clearly an
improvement.
29.tlJh5!
This fantastic defensive resource was found
by the computer, and it is met with the
equally fantastic:

a b c d e f g h

25.<.!.ia l ! ?
2 5 .<.!.ic2 Wfb6 i s winning, as the checks on
both b2 and f2 are too much to handle.
2 5.<.!.ic l gives Black a big advantage after
25 . . . Wf a5 26.Wfxd6 Wfxh 5 , when it is not
apparent to me that the bishop is any
b d g
worse than a rook. It is quite common for a a c e f h
Najdorf player to sacrifice the exchange, so I
am not shy about doing it, but I have to say 29 . . . Wfh8!!
that it rarely happens under such favourable After this, Black will enter a '4th phase'
circumstances as here. ending with a significant advantage. Both
25 . . . c2t 26.tlJxg? cxd l =Wft 27.Wfxd l Wff6t sides will have three pawns, but White's king
is seriously exposed. Is Black winning? It is a

� �� �� �� ,� good chance; who needs to know any more

than that?
�� �mtt- - · '� �
6 ·� • �Er� ·
'0

54 ��•���'9�8- - ��'�M�w-
" - - - ��
�� ��o '°lr£'.3- - �� , , 0,�

�� w0� �� 1� �� 1
� �� �� �
a b c d e f g h

Black's position looks very promising, but

White has a final resource that should not be
underestimated.
28.e5! dxe5
a b c d e f g h
28 . . . Wfxf4!? is also possible and can lead to a
few different quite complex endings. Black 24.©c2?
is better and can play for a win for a long What neither Oparin or I managed to
time, but my feeling is that the position is consider seriously was that 24.'itia l ! was
defensible for White. However, compared playable. This is the essence of the mistakes
1 08 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

earlier on. If either of us had seen that this

move was possible, we would have made
different decisions earlier. After 24 . . . c2t
25.lll xg7 cxd l =Wft 26.Wxd l Wxg7 White
simply has compensation.

a b c d e f g h

The idea is to meet 26 . . . .ixf6?! with 27.Wd l !!

b d g
a c e f h
A move such as 27.h5!? looks quite normal.
But the forcing line I have analysed goes like
this: 27.Wd4t f6 28.h5 with the threat of
29.Wa7t, winning. For this reason Black is
forced to find 28 . . . gc l t 29.Wb2 Wc8, when
after 30.Wa7t gf7 3 1 .h6t Wg8 32.h7t Wh8
33.Wxf7 he has to give perpetual check.
although after 27 . . . Wc5 Black's attack would
still be dangerous, especially in a rapid
game. But the game would go on. It is quite
possible that I would have realized this, and
played:
26 . . . Wa4t!
Forcing the king to stay on the queenside.
27.Wb l
And only now, when the king cannot run
away, I would take the knight.
27 . . . .ixf6
The only critical line goes like this:
28.h5 g5 29.lll x f6 Wb4t 30.Wc2

I want to stress that everything after move 27

is a computer line, and has only one fleeting
connection to the game, in that it arises from
a position two humans could have reached if
they had more time on the clock.

24 YHa5 25.�hf6t
•••

During the game I had enough time to get

concerned about 2 5 .lll df6t Wh8 26.Wd5, but
not enough to see 26 . . . gc5, as my opponent
made his move before I got that far. a b c d e f g h

At this point the human way is to play

25 Whs 26.YHe3
•••
30 . . . Wb2t 3 1 .Wd l c2t 32.gxc2 Wa l t
During the game, I believed that the last 33.We2 Wxf6 with a significant advantage
chance was: because of the difference in king safety.
But turning on the computer, shows that
26.gc l there is an even stronger move.
30 . . . gc4!!
 Chapter 4 - The Nature of Tactical Mistakes at the Top Level 1 09

This move has many facets. The first idea There are many ways to conclude the game,
is to play . . . :!:!d4 °%lfxc3 . . . l:!c4 and win the but this is both the strongest and the most
queen. Another idea comes to light in this appealing.
very entertaining line:
3 1 .e5 '%lfa4t 32.©b l l:!b8t 33.©al 29.©cl c2
0-1

Small oversights make a big difference

Let's finish this topic by having a deeper look at

a very sharp game played in the final stages of
a prestigious tournament. Both players make
serious mistakes, according to the computer,
but if you look deeper, with a human
understanding of chess instead of talking in
maths, you will see that the mistakes are really
minor in nature, but have heavy implications.

Boris Gelfand - Leinier Dominguez Perez

It is time to be objective. Would I have seen
Calvia Ol ympiad 2004
30 . . . :!:!c4! if we had had the position during the
game? I seriously doubt it. The problem is not
The 2004 Olympiad was very good for Israel,
only that it was a rapid game and that the move
and before the last round, we were fighting for
is very surprising - a true computer move. It
medals. We faced the strong Cuban team.
is also that Black has another very promising
option. Choice is definitely a liability in such
The readers will find many games between
a situation.
Dominguez and myself in this series of books.
Leinier is a very strong grandmaster, the
26 '%lfxa2t 27.©d3 '%lfc4t 28.©c2
•••

strongest Cuban player since Capablanca,

and the winner of the Thessaloniki Grand
Prix tournament in 20 1 3 and the World Blitz
Championship in 2008. He has been in or
around the Top 20 for a decade. He plays
in the classical style, with good openings
and consistent results. He is one of the top
players j ust below the "circuit" that leads to
constant invitations to elite tournaments. I
do not believe he is really weaker than some
of the players who do get these invitations
continuously.
This is one of the differences between
a c e
b d f g h
chess and tennis: in chess, you are invited by
organizers in most of the tournaments, while
28 '%lfa4t!
•••
in tennis, you qualify. This is why I mostly play
1 10 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess
in official tournaments, where everything is
decided by qualification, and not the opinions
of organizers.
l .d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.tlic3 tlif6 4.tlif3 e6 5.e3
tlibd7
At the time, Dominguez played almost
exclusively the Semi-Slav.
6.�c2 J.d6 7.g4
a b c d e f g h
And I played this variation, the Shirov­
Shabalov Attack. At the time, it was highly
popular. It is a dangerous line, where it is
possible to reach chaotic positions with
chances for both sides. It has become easier to
face over the last twelve years, as more games
have been played in it, and computer analysis
has improved, so some of the shine has faded.
But at that time I played it a lot, with both
colours.
It was also a logical choice on this occasion, as
a draw could be close to worthless.
7...dxc4 s.hc4 e5
This is but one of many possible systems. I
will not go through them all here, as opening
theory is not my topic in this volume.
9.J.d2
This was not quite a novelty, but it was rare
at the time, even though a few important
games had been played earlier in the same
tournament.
The main line then was 9.g5 tll d5, and it is
still the main line today. Black relies on a
small tactical point: White cannot win a pawn
with 1 0.tll xd5 ? cxd5 1 1 ..ixd 5 ? on account
of 1 1 . . .'\Wa5t, picking up the bishop. After
my move, this resource is gone and White is
threatening g4-g5 .
I had played 9.g5 against Shirov earlier in the
year in a blindfold game in Monaco, where I
blundered a rook in a game that was already
awful.
So it was natural to look in another direction
and 9 . .id2 is a natural-looking move.
9 ... exd4
The most logical move.
10.tlixd4 tlie5
Another natural move, although I should
point out that 1 0 . . . tli b6!? was played in
Harikrishna - Dreev, Calvia (ol) 2004, a few
days earlier. I don't believe either move is better
or worse than the other.
 Chapter 4 - The Nature of Tactical Mistakes at the Top Level 111

l l.�e2 8
This is the moment to stare talking more
7
concretely. White's idea is not obscure. He
wants to castle long, give up the g-pawn, and 6
mate Black along the g-file. But being simple 5
does not mean chat it is easy co stop. 4
3
8 2

7
a b c d e f g h
6
1 6.0-0-0!±
5
A strong move. In principle, White has
4 sacrificed a piece, but Black cannot cake it.
1 6 . . . lll f2
3
Trying co cake an exchange, but all Black
2 gees co see is Shirov in his element.
1 1 6 . . . �xg? 1 7.lll e4 and it's over.
1 7.lll e4 lll xd l 1 8.E:xd l .ie7 1 9.f5 �b6 20.f6
a b c d e f g h .ib4 2 1 ..ixb4t �xb4 22.a3 �a5 23.lll c5 h6
l l ... tll fxg4 24.lll 5 lll g6 2 5 .lll d?t 'it>g8 26.lll e?t �h7
This was a new move at the time. Black 27.lll xg6 fxg6 28.lll e5
could cake with all three minor pieces on g4, 1 -0 Shirov - Fressinec, Calvia (ol} 2004.
though che lease attractive option was probably
co cake with the bishop, as had happened a few 12.tll e4 �e7?!
days earlier. A very natural move, but lacer, when
computers became stronger, it was discovered
l I . . . .ixg4 1 2.f4 lll g6 1 3 . .ixg4 lll xg4 1 4.lll f5 chat Black should not worry coo much about
le is fair co say chat White has achieved his bishop, and instead rush co complete his
everything he wanted at this point. The development:
opening is certainly not a success for Black.
1 4 . . . lll h4? 12 . . . 0-0! 1 3.0-0-0 lll f6
I am not sure what Laurene missed, but this
gives Shirov exactly the kind of position he 8
wanes, as well as an advantage. 7
Necessary was 1 4 . . . 0-0 1 5 .E:g l lll f6, 6
although it is safe co say chat White has
5
enough compensation after 1 6.0-0-0, and
the type of position he excels at. 4
1 5 .lll xg?t 'it>f8 3
2

a b c d e f g h
1 12 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

Ferre Perez - Ramirez Moyano, email 13.0-0-0

2009, ended in a draw, though at this point I like my position.
it is fair to say that we are playing for all three
results. 13 ... 0-0
The most natural move.
One of the most difficult things about
dynamics is evaluating when you can make I considered l 3 .. .f5 during the game.
a 'luxury move' like 1 2 . . . .ie7 and when you
cannot.
I want to add that one of the issues of our
day is how to deal with the wealth of high­
level correspondence games, where the players
have been allowed to use computers in their
analysis. We certainly have to take them
seriously, as they are played to a high standard
by players who have great experience with the
format; and the pieces move in the same way
as they do in our games.
But we should not forget to look at these
games through human eyes. When you look
at them with the computer, you may feel that
everything looks good for Black, but when
you are at the board, you might have to find The computer might claim 1 4.llig3 is even
some difficult moves in order to solve your more promising, but I do not find it so
problems. Yes, the computer might be able relevant. The main point is that I had foreseen
to do it instantly, but for a human at times 1 3 .. .f5 , and I was ready to deal with it.
it is entirely impossible. This is a good thing,
or chess would be killed off. Luckily, it is a Of course, had he played it, I would have
game of moves and not numbers. 0.00 means thought some more, and maybe found
nothing at all during the game . . . l 4.llig3 . But even if I did not, I would still
have a promising position. Who can ask for
more after only 14 moves? In the game, I did
8
not consider going to g3 at any point at all,
7 as far as I can remember. I am not sure why?
Maybe I was remembering the advice I received
6
in my childhood: "Bobby Fischer never goes
5 backwards . . . " (see Positional Decision Making
4 in Chess page 38).

a b c d e f g h
 Chapter 4 - The Nature of Tactical Mistakes at the Top Level 1 13

In several games, White has missed the

8
chance to play:
7 1 5 .f5 !
6 M y good friend and former second Maxim
once played: 1 5 .:!:'!hg l tll f6 l 6.tll g 500
5 Rodshtein - Parligras, San Marino 2006. He
4 was very young then, but he still managed to
win the game. Now he is circling 2700, and
3
is on his way into the world's elite.
2 1 5 . . . tll 6e5 1 6.i.xg4 tll xg4 1 7.:!:'!hg l
1 White has a winning attack. For example:
1 7 . . . c5
a b c d e f g h The key point is l 7 ... tll f6 l 8.tll xc6! bxc6
14.J.c3 1 9 .i.c3 and Black is lost.
A very natural move. The cl-file is opened,
pinching the black queen, forcing her to react. 8
At the same time, the bishop aims at g7, which 7
White is still hoping will become a target in 6
the near future. 5
4
My computer suggests 1 4.h3, which is not a
logical move to me at all. 3
2
The only other move I considered during the
game was: a b c d e f g h
1 4.f4!? tll g6?!
1 8.tll c 6! bxc6 1 9.i.c3 i.xf5 20.:!:'!xd8 :!:'!axd8
As we shall see, che text move is dubious,
2 l .h3 ig5 22.:!:'!xg4
so Black would have co find 14 . . . c5!, which
White is material up.
is already not so easy. After 1 5 .tll b 5 tll g6
1 6.:!:'!hg U or similar, Black's position is very
Actually this type of decision is quite
dangerous, and he would have to find a lot
interesting. You have sacrificed a pawn and you
of 'only moves' to stay in the game. Without
have the initiative, now the question is which
the assistance of an engine, this is tough.
way you will go. It is impossible to calculate
everything till the end, so you have to rely on
your feeling, your experience and your chess
philosophy. There are no easy answers, besides
maybe analysing your own games and as many
games of others as you possibly can, in order to
improve your j udgement.

It is possible to argue that 14.ic3 is slower,

based on a human understanding that says we
should cry to make the moves we want to make
1 14 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess
with gain of tempo, whenever possible. This
sounds rational, but at depth 27 my computer
strongly prefers 1 4.ic3 over 1 4.f4, which
is not proof of anything, but maybe it's a
stronger argument than a philosophical point
that could have been thought up while herding
cattle. In short, chess is very complicated and
interesting, and we continue to understand
it more and more, but never perfectly. All
types of considerations are interesting, but at
the end of the day, you need to analyse the
game in the best possible way to improve
your intuition. (No, I did not check what the
engine says at depth 3 5 . Maybe it reverses
everything!)
14 �c?
...
It is hard to criticize this move; it could be
played by everyone.
I also thought he could play the strange
1 4 . . . Wi'e8, when after 1 5 .�hg l it is clear that
White has compensation.
8
7 15 5
6 It turns out that White has a direct win
5
1
a b c d e f g h
1 5J�dgl !±
I like this aggressive move a lot. The idea
is to meet 1 5 . . . ll'i f6 with 1 6.ll'ig5!? h6 1 7.h4,
when White has a very strong attack. But there
are other lines where having the rook on the
h-file is useful. There are no targets on the
cl-file anymore.
Having said this, I would also be better after
putting the other rook on g l , but maybe not
as much.
Often we will read in textbooks that people
think deeply about where to put the rooks - d 1
and e l , or c l and d l , and so on. Some people will
criticize delving so deeply into such decisions,
requesting a more entertaining approach.
And sometimes it is not humanly possible to
tell which option is best; the variations reveal
beautiful finesses that cannot be found during
a normal game. From a practical point of view,
I agree: it is rarely a good investment of time
to ponder over such details for very long. But
in this case, it is a conceptual question. By
taking the rook from d l , I am focusing all my
physical resources towards the black king. This
was not the only path I considered: I took 1 9
minutes to choose 1 4 .ic3 and 1 6 to choose
1 5 .�dg l . I think what happened here is that
I had a general feeling that this looked right,
and then a random line probably convinced
me to play like this. I would like to say that
everything was very scientific and organized,
but the human brain is not a computer.
...
against 1 5 . . . lli f6?!:
b d g
a c e f h
1 6. ll'i f3!! ll'ixf3 1 7.ll'i xf6t ixf6 1 8.ixf6 ll'i xg l
1 9.�xg l g6 20.ic4! and Black cannot defend
the g6-square. If he puts the bishop on e6, we
 Chapter 4 - The Nature of Tactical Mistakes at the Top Level 1 15

take there, and then on g6. And after 20 . . . :B:d8
White has: 2 l .:B:xg6t! hxg6 22.°Wxg6t iif8
23.'Wg?t iie8 24.'Wg8t iid7 2 5 .°Wxf7t iid6
26.�e5t iixe5 27.Wf4#
1 7.h3 c5
1 6 ... fXe4 is obviously poor. For example
1 7.�xc8 Wxc8 1 8.Wxe4 and a single look
at the position cells you Black will not be
able to withstand the attack. And taking on
e4 might not even be the strongest option!
But during a game, you j ust need to know
if a position is playable or not; and Black's
position here is not playable.
l 7 . . . lll e5 is refuted by a neat combination:
1 8 .°Wb3t iih8

8 � �����
7 ,,,�
, , % · >;�g�% �..� ��
,;, ,,�
-�·· %
6
·��· ��., r� �
,,.,,

4 �� ��� � �
5

a b c d e f g h
3
��-�- - · 'w��-0 �•
if� �8
16.h3? � , %
I spent 1 6 minutes on this move, and I have
to admit that it was my plan all along to play
2 80';
�
����---- ��.,,,%����
, , . .. %w·,,0�'.�
� ��
!Ff

b d g
like this. a c e f h
l 9.:B:xg7!! iixg7 20.lll f3 and Black is
1 6.�xg4! lll xg4
1 6 . . . fXg4 1 7 .h3 gxh3 ( 1 7 . . . g3 is objectively annihilated.
better, but hardly anyone would choose to This was the critical position and I was
take on the position after l 8.f4 lll g6 l 9.h4±) unable to find anything convincing when
l 8 . f4 lll g6 l 9.f5 �xf5 (l 9 . . . lll h4 20.:B:xg7t)
thinking about it on move 1 6 (we should
20.°Wb3t iih8 2 1 .lll xf5 :B:xf5 also not forget that I was spending a lot
of time on what I actually played, so with
the time spent, it does not seem entirely
talentless of me) .

a b c d e f g h
22.°We6! The simplest. White will take on g6
b d g
on the next move, leaving Black defenceless. a c e f h
(22.:B:xg6 also wins in a long variation.)
1 16 B oris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

If I had had the actual position in the game,

I am sure I would have found the following
nice idea:
1 8 .Wb3t!
The computer suggests an alternative that
is also very strong, but all in all not as
convincing (j ust because it is improbable, it
does not mean it is better!) . 1 8.lll e6! ? ixe6
1 9.hxg4 fxe4 20.Wxe4 Wc6 2 1 .Wxh?t @f7
22.ixg7! @e8 23.ixf8 ixf8 24.Wg6t if7
2 5 .Wxc6t bxc6 26.:B:h?± And White is close
to winning in this endgame. But even this is
not entirely clear from a human perspective.
Taming such a pair of bishops is really
difficult.
1 8 . . . c4
1 8 . . . @h8 loses by force to quite a natural
variation: 1 9.lll e6 ixe6 20.Wxe6 fxe4 16 ... tll xe3!
2 l .hxg4 if6 22.g5 ixc3 23.:B:xh?t @xh7 Not a difficult move.
24.:B:h l t
1 9.Wc2! 1 6 . . . fxe4? l 7.hxg4 followed by Wxe4 is entirely
This is the idea. The knight on d4 stays hopeless.
put, and White is ready to open files in the
direction of the black king. 17.fxe3
l 9 . . . fxe4 I also spend 1 1 minutes here, after which I
Against 1 9 . . . lll f6 White again has 20.lll g 3! had not much time left for the rest of the game
after which the attack is decisive. We could (besides the 30 seconds increment added after
add a lot of moves, but as there are many every move) .
possible options, this might confuse more The variation that tempted me was:
than illustrate. I do not want to give the 1 7.Wb3t? lll d5 1 8.lll b5 This was my idea,
impression that I would actually calculate but I found out that it was hopeless: 1 8 . . . Wb8
ahead from a position like this one. After ( 1 8 . . . cxb5 1 9.Wxd5t :B:f7 20.lll g5 ixg5t
White takes back the pawn, he has sacrificed 2 1 .:B:xg500 is not easy to defend for Black)
nothing. 1 9.f4 lll g6 20.:B:xg6 Wxf4t! 2 I ..id2 Wxe4
20.hxg4 22.if3 Wh4 And White's position collapses.
Now we see a point to :B:dg l . This is the downside to playing like this: if
20 . . . if6 something goes wrong, you can easily find that
Black can try something else, but everything your position comes unglued. Sadly, this was
loses. one of the lines I calculated most accurately in
2 1 .Wxe4 g6 the game!
2 1 . . .h6 22.g5! and Black's position collapses.
17 ... fxe4 18 ..ic4t
There are other moves, but I am executing
my main idea.
 Chapter 4 - The Nature of Tactical Mistakes at the Top Level 1 17

1s ... ©hs 22.h4!

1 8 . . . ltJxc4? 1 9.l:'!xg7t! would be a disaster
for Black.

19J�xg7!
At this point it is necessary to sacrifice, as
Black is just about to get his pieces coordinated,
with some sort of advantage to show for it.

19 ... ©xg7 20J�gl t

a b c d e f g h

And I had no idea if it would be enough

a b c d e f g h
The attack is still dangerous, and Leinier has
to face a much more difficult task than the
spectator looking at the computer's evaluation
during a live broadcast: to decide between two
uncomfortable moves, without even knowing
if either of them is good enough.
or not. The following analysis shows that
White can keep the balance if he finds a lot
of good moves.
22 . . . if6!
The most obvious move.
22 . . . °Wh2 23.l:'!xg6t hxg6 24.°Wxe7 was
mentioned as winning in my 2004 notes.
But after 24 . . . Wgl t 2 5 .Wc2 l:'!e8! 26.Wxe8
ig4! things are not so clear. White plays
27.ltJe2! l:'!xe8 28.ltJxg l with some chances
in the endgame, but once the h-pawn goes,
it is not without dangers either.
23.h5
23 .id3 l:'!g8 24.h5 °We5! and White ends up
material down.
23 . . . ltJh4

20 ... ©h8?
I was pleased when he made this move;
maybe too pleased, and thus I relaxed. Basically
I thought that White was totally winning.

I was worried during the game that my

opponent would put his king in front of his
pawn.
20 . . . 'i!ih6!
I had planned the following: a b c d e f g h
2 1 .°Wxe4 ltJg6!
If he had gone to h6 with the king, the odds
2 1 . . .Wd6? 22.ltJe6 and Black is facing too
are that we would have had this position on
many threats.
1 18 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g in Chess

the board. Most of White's tries are refuted The engine suggests a different route to the
by . . . V!Je7, so White has to find: goal, which is as unrealistic as it is beautiful.
24 . .ie6!! .ixe6 Actually it looks photoshopped.
24 . . . V/Jh2!? 2 5 . lLi f3 forces Black to give up the
queen under entirely unclear circumstances. 22.hxg4!? .if6 23.g5 lLi xc4 24.gxf6 l'!g8
25.lLixe6 l'!ae8
25 . . . V/Je7 26.l'!g7! also leads to a draw; queen
versus two rooks.
26 . .ixf6 l'!xf6 27.V/Jg4!

a b c d e f g h

This is the only defence White would worry

about. Now 25 .V/Jfl ! ? or similar is very
strong, but most spectacular is:
a b c d e f g h
25.lLie6!!
27 . . . l'!fl t! 28.l'!xfl V/Je5 29.V/Jxh4 V/Jxe3t 2 5 . f7! could transpose.
30.@c2 l'!xe6 3 1 .l'!f6t l'!xf6 32.V/Jxf6t @xh5 25 . . . l'!xg2 26.f7t lLie5 27.l'!xg2 V!Jd6 28.l'!g5!
33.V!Jf5t V/Jxe6 29.l'!xe5 V/Jxe5
With a draw by perpetual or stealth. 29 . . . V/Jxf7 30.l'!e8#
30 . .ixe5#

�. �, .
-,, �-� �� -k:�·..
21.fig2 .ig4
8
7

... J. :. �. �
.

: �.���.��-,%.����
6
.

3 � �-���· 7,��-�
2 :�7,��·0� ��· ���
....•

a b c d e f g h

Nine pieces have left the board since the

beginning of this line, and White is left with
a b c d e f g h only a minor piece. But it's enough to deliver
22.�e6! checkmate.
The human move; of course we kick him
in the teeth with gain of tempo when we can. 22 ...fid6
 Chapter 4 - The Nature of Tactical Mistakes at the Top Level 1 19

24.g5 llJ d3t

The only variation that feels a bit like
resistance.
24 . . . l:!g8 is best met with 25 .Wxe4 and
26.l:!h l , winning.
25 .ixd3 .ixc3 26.°1Wxe4 °1Wh2 27.l:!g2! °IWh l t
28 .�c2

s z� � � .
�% ·� �� - - - Y-�
7
6
.,.!. ��.�
.

: ������-� ���ll�����-�
. ...

a b c d e f g h

� � � � �
23.�xf'S?
With little time on my clock, I made a rather 3 � � .i. � .
2 ln�. %.1�
.....

' � "� ��li'

basic miscalculation, as we shall see below. It is
a tactical mistake, and I was lucky that I had
a perpetual. a b c d e f g h

White wins. The bishop on c3 has only one

23.°1Wxg4? l:!g8 24.llJd8!? looks artistic, but
place to go.
after 24 . . . l:!xg4 25 .J.xe5t '1Wxe5 26.llJf7t �g7
28 . . . ig7 29.llJxg7 �xg7 30.°1We5t
27.l:!xg4t �f6 28.llJxe5 �xe5 White will be
The next check will really hurt.
the one who has to find a way to make a draw.
23 ....tf6 24.�xh7
It was also very tempting to play:
There are other moves, but this is what I had
23.hxg4!
planned.
But it seemed very complicated, and I am
not sure exactly what I missed. It is clear that
24 ... .if3! 25.ti'g3 <it>xh7 26..lxe5 .ixe5
I would have to make many strong moves
even if I had played this.
The main point is that I went for a line
I thought was mate. Sometimes you
miscalculate, and there is usually nothing
you can do about this. Being aware that this
can happen will not help you find the right
move.
23 . . . .if6
23 . . . �g8 24.ib3 does not improve Black's
position.
23 . . . l:!f3 loses to 24.l:!d l !, when after
24 . . . \Wb8 almost anything wins. In 2004
I gave 2 5 .l:!h 1 ! {with the idea l:!xh7t!)
a b c d e f g h
25 . . . .if6 26.llJg5! J.xg5 27.°1Wh2 as a possible
way to do it. 27 ..tgSt!
1 20 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

Just in time, I realized chat 27.�h4t? �h6 Summing up

28.�e7t would not win the game, but most
likely lose after 28 . . . .ig7. A prime reason it is important co analyse your
own games deeply is chat it will show you what
27 .. Jhg8 28.�xgSt ©h6 29.�g5t ©h7 types of mistakes you are making - the first
1/2-1/2 seep to making fewer and fewer of chem. So
working out what types of mistakes you make
Lee's draw some conclusions from this game: is an important step in your development, and
It definitely seems chat I spent too much time should always be part of your post-tournament
on choosing where to place my rooks. Bue this evaluations.
is a difficult thing to criticize afterwards. Many
times I have spent a lot of time in the early
middlegame and then done well because my
opponent was put under pressure, or because
I managed to solve the problems I was facing.
In the end, the game was decided in a wild
tactical baccle where both players suffered from
time pressure and the difficulc challenges of
the position. There were so many possibilities
chat you cannot say for sure chat the time was
misspent. It is j ust as easy to make a quick
move and regret it for hours.

It is also easy to pretend to be intelligent with

the assistance of computer analysis here in
20 1 6, but even if you compare my notes here
with the analysis I gave in 2004, they are wildly
different. The main reason for this is chat
computers, and especially computer hardware,
have improved immensely. We know there
are games played in the l 9th century chat we
only fully understand now, in the 2 1 st century,
because of the engines. If this game had been
played in a time without engines, I guess chat a
lot of the definite conclusions and (hopefully)
accurate analysis in this book would be
replaced with the word "unclear".

The match was drawn 2-2 and we ended up

in 5 ch place (I should note chat at chat time
the Olympiad was still decided on board
points} . There were some irregularities in the
last round, but this is certainly not the place co
discuss such matters.
Chapter 5
Compensation

With Lev Aronian, Mikhail Pleshkov and Alexander Grischuk,

Petrosian Memorial 201 4
 Diagram Preview
On this page you will find a few
diagrams with critical moments
from the coming chapter. If you
want to compare your thinking
with the games, you have the
possibility. Take as much time
as you need or want. This is not
a test, but a chance to 'think
along' with the grandmasters in
the games. a b c d e f g h

How did Vaisser j ustify his How should White continue?

exchange sacrifice? (see page 1 44)
(see pages 1 3 1 -2)

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

The sequence I found From a sideline I did not see.

decided the game. What is White's strongest move?
Now you find it! (see page 1 47)
(see page 1 39)

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

Cebalo found the strongest What did Shomoev play? A surprising move led to a
move. Can you? (see page 1 43) completely winning position.
(see page 1 30) (see page 1 49)
 Chapter 5 - Compensation 1 23

One of the most fascinating aspects of chess 14.g4 .ie4 1 5.tlig3 hg2 16.@xg2 �am
is when you give up material in order to gain 17.g5 tli6d7 1 8.h4 �e5 19.h5 f6 20.�ce4
something else. It can be an open line, a better fxg5 2 l ..ixg5 Y!Yb6
pawn structure, or a sudden boost to your
initiative. The possibilities are wide and wild.
In this chapter I will scratch the surface ever so
slightly, showing a few scenarios, and relating
to them on their own terms.

Kasparov

Before we dive into the first big game, I think

it is useful to look at how a grandmaster, when
preparing for a game, will refer to his memory
of well-known games in a variation. He might
not actually look at them, bur they are in the
back of his mind, helping him by suggesting a b c d e f g h
various plans. For the following game (starting 22.h6 �f7 23.hxg? �d7 24.�f6t �xf6
on page 1 25), I remembered two games by 25.Lf6 Y!Yb5 26.ghl .ib6 27.Y!Yf3 �e5
Garry Kasparov. The first one was excellently 28.tlif'5 tlif7
analysed in The Test of Time, where I first saw
it, and in Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov, so
I will give it without annotations here.

Garry Kasparov - lstvan Csom

Baku 1980

1 .d4 tlif6 2.c4 e6 3.�c3 .ib4 4.e3 c5 5.tlige2

c:x:d4 6.exd4 0-0 7.a3 .ie7 8.d5 exd5 9.c:x:d5
ges 10.g3 .ic5 l l ..ig2 d6 12.h3 .if'5 13.0-0
�bd7?!

5
Th e following game could b e very interesting to
4 analyse in depth, say over 60 pages. This would
take this book in an entirely different direction,
3
which I guess would be a disappointment for
2 many.
1

a b c d e f g h
1 24 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

Garry Kasparov - Ulf Andersson

Moscow 1981

l.d4 �f6 2.c4 e6 3.c!Dc3 .ib4 4.e3 c5 5.�ge2

cxd4 6.exd4 0-0 7.a3 .ie7 8.d5 exd5 9.cxd5
ges l0 ..ie3 d6 1 1 .h3 �bd7 12.c!Dg3 .if'8
13 ..ie2

s .i � .i.. & .i M • z
,,.,.�% lu'iu-
� � •Y.-
---- % •
7

6 -
� -,, ,, � � a c e
% �
b d f g h
� �
: :-:-:-�
The engine says that White is completely
winning, but in practice it was not possible

.; .... z���L
-
for Kasparov, who was already one of the best
players in the world, to break through the
� Inti ;�
, .

cf "ml� ,,• �
2 blockade.

25.gc2 .ig7 26.Yi'lg3 gbs 27.ge2 c!Df6

a b c d e f g h 28.c!Df3 .ie8 29.e4 c!D6d7 30.gc2 c!De5
13 ... gxe3!? 3 1 .c!Dxe5 he5 32.Y!'lf.2 c!Dd7 33.b4 Yi'ld8
A very defensive decision. Black sacrifices 34 ..ie2 .ig7 35.c!Dd3 c!De5 36.�xeS he5
the exchange, and sets out to hold the game 37.gfcl @g7 38.gc7 Y!'lg5 39.g lc2 h4
with a dark-squared blockade. Kasparov 40 ..ig4 @h6
criticizes it in his notes. But include the
strengths and weaknesses of the two players
in the calculation, and the sacrifice suddenly
makes a lot more sense. Kasparov will have
extra material, but not his usual energetic
active pieces, while Andersson gets to fiddle
with various types of fortress-like possibilities,
something he no doubt enjoyed immensely.

Andersson used a somewhat similar exchange

sacrifice on e3 to beat Karpov in 1 975 in
Milan, and in the following two years after
this game was played, Petrosian used a similar
sacrifice against Polugaevsky.

14.fxe3 g6 1 5.0-0 Y!'le7 16.Y!'ld4 .ig7 17.Yi'lf4

�e8 18.gacl .ie5 19.Y!'lf.2 �df6 20 ..id3
h5 21.�ge2 �h7 22.c!Df4 c!Df'8 23.�b5 a6
24.�d4 .id7
 Chapter 5 - Compensation 1 25

57JU1 b5 58 ..ig4 gds 59.gc7 %Vb2 60.gc2 The Petrosian-like exchange sacrifice was a
%Vd4 hugely successful strategy for Andersson in
this game. Not only did he manage to secure
a draw against a fierce attacker {Kasparov
8
won one of his most famous attacking games
7 against Andersson half a year later) , he did not
6 even have to suffer the inconvenience of being
in check!
5

4 Giving up a pawn for a lead in development

3
2
With the knowledge above in the back of
our minds, we can progress to the next game,
1 where I sacrificed a pawn in the opening.

a b c d e f g h Boris Gelfand - Sergei Tiviakov

Still +2.32 according to the engine, but
again, it was not so easy for Kasparov to make
progress . . .
61 .gd2 %Ve5 62.%Vxe5 he5 63.gc2 .id7
64.i.e2 f5 65Jk7 <.th6 66 ..id3 fxe4 67.he4
<.tg5 68.i.d3 i.d4 69.gb7 .ic3 70 ..ixb5 !£5
71 ..ie2 gas 72.b5 ga2 73.i.O gb2 74.gbs
.id4 75.gdl i.c5
San Sebastian (Spanish League) 2006
Sergei Tiviakov is a strong grandmaster,
originally from Krasnodar in Russia, who
managed to play once for the Russian team,
victoriously in the 1 994 Olympiad. But for the
last 20 years he has lived in and represented the
Netherlands, with whom he won the European
Team Championship in 200 1 and 200 5 .
His peak came quite early in h i s career, when
he qualified for the PCA-Candidates matches
in 1 993. Against Michael Adams he had every
chance to win, but eventually he lost a very
close match.
Tiviakov has very good technique, and is
very strong in both equal and slightly better
positions; he strives to make the most of this
skillset.

Tiviakov's opening repertoire is extraordinarily

rigid. He has played the same openings for
all of his life, which has some rather obvious
a b c d e f g h disadvantages, but is not without pluses: it is
76. <.th2 .ie3 77J�el !fl 78.gfl i.c5 79.ges easier to remember everything, you will never
!d4 80.gdl J.fl 81 ..ie2 .id7 82.ge4 i.£5 waste time considering what to play, and
83J�e8 .id7 revision of variations is less needed. In short,
1/2-1/z you save your energy for the game, and you are
very familiar with the types of positions you get.
1 26 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making i n Chess
He has always played the Queen's Indian/
Nimzo-lndian. This gives you a chance to
pick and choose which position you want in
the game with relative certainty, but you will
need to take into account that he has had the
position five to ten times before.
Tiviakov loves to travel, and he has played in
tournaments in more than 1 00 countries. This
includes a lot of exotic places, for example
Angola and the Kurdish part of Iraq. In 2006
I played against him a few times. Twice I had
White in the Queen's Indian and did not
manage to get anything, but I noticed that he
played this system with 4 . . . c5 in the Nimzo­
lndian, and you could be sure that he would
repeat a variation unless he suffered a few bad
losses.
1 .d4 llJf6 2.c4 e6 3.llic3 i.b4 4.e3 c5
Sergei rarely disappoints.
5.llJge2
a b c d e f g h
The Rubinstein System. As I was playing for
San Sebastian in San Sebastian, it was attractive
to pay tribute to my childhood hero.
s ... cxd4 6.exd4 0-0 7.a3 i.e7
White has a choice.
8.d5
This is the most challenging move, avoiding
a symmetrical structure.
The alternative is to play 8 . lli f4 d5 9.cxd5
llixd5 1 0.llicxd5 exd5 I I .id3 with a type of
position Botvinnik famously played very well.
The theory basically says that White has a small
advantage, but Black's position is very solid. I
would guess both sides can be happy with the
opening. Certainly Tiviakov would not have
been unhappy to play this position.
8 ... exd5 9.cxd5 ge8
The main move. This system was especially
popular in the 1 980s.
9 . . . d6 is of course bad. White has a space
advantage and the bishop on e7 is not very
good.
Bue 9 . . . ic5 is possible; some people like to
play like this.
a b c d e f g h
10.d6!
I feel certain this is the critical move. Black
will certainly win the pawn, but it will take
him a few moves and will be awkward, giving
White time to develop an initiative. Also, my
d-pawn is no longer diminishing my light­
squared bishop's power. Once it arrives on g2,
 Chapter 5 - Compensation 1 27

it will be very strong. Anyway, we shall see all

this in the game.

10 ...i.f'8 1 1.g3

-,�- '
- i i. • •
8 i. -jJ
7 �'�· -���,,%��- '� .
6
�� � - , ,
a b d g
: �� �� ��� �­ c e f h

3 �% "-�
� "'" �-� �r�r�
White can keep his advantage in several ways,

% � �w-ef ----"w-�
'0 and today people would maybe be misguided
by computer evaluations, thinking that
�r
2
, , f���ii
1 -�
-----

-0 ��J�JlJ
� �- �
------

Korchnoi did not play strongly in this game.

But if you look at the moves Miles made,
you will see how easy it is for Black to end up
a b c d e f g h entirely lost. From that perspective {of two
1 1 .. J!e6 people sitting at the board trying to work
This is the main line and what I expected. out what is happening) , Korchnoi's play was
The only alternative was seen in a classic very strong.
game by Korchnoi: 2 1 .b3!! Was
l l . . .Wfb6 1 2.ig2 ixd6 1 3.ie3 Wa6 1 4.0-0 2 1 . . .Wfxb3 22.!!ab l would invite the rook
ie5 l 5 . llJ f4 onto the 7th rank.
2 1 . . .Wfa6 22.!!ad l Wfxa3 23.ie4 was also
very dangerous for Black.
22.b4 Wfa4 23.!!ad l ixf4 24.gxf4! !!ad8
2 5 .!!d3

a b c d e f g h

White has obvious compensation. Miles

tried to free his position quickly, which is
traditionally a bad idea in passive situations,
this one included.
1 5 . . . dS?! 1 6.llJcxdS llJ c6 l 7.llJxf6t ixf6
1 8.llJdS ie5 1 9.WfhS
l 9.f4! id6 20.fS!? was perhaps even stronger.
l 9 . . . Wa4 20.if4 id?
1 28 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making i n Chess
pieces around was quite thrilling: 25 . . . i.c8
26.l':!g3 The most natural move. 26 . . . l':!d6
27.lll c?! l':!f8 28 .i.e4 g6 29.Wfc5 l':!fd8
30.i.c2! b6 3 l .Wf c3 and White wins.
26.lll c? l':!e7 27.Wc5! l':!e2
a b c d e f g h
28.l':!xd?
1-0 Korchnoi - Miles, Wijk aan Zee 1 984.
12 ..if4
It is important to include this move. White
wins a move or two, because Black has to put
the knight on a stupid square in order to win
the d6-pawn.
12 ... �hS 13 . .ie3 gxd6
1 4 .Wfc2 has been played more, but somehow I
feel the queen belongs on b3. Some decisions
are made on feeling only. Tiviakov played, and
won, against this move in an Armageddon game
against Sargissian in the World Championship
in Libya.
14 .. �c6 1 5 ..ig2
.
a b c d e f g h
So we started out in the Nimzo-Indian, but
somehow we managed to end up in a Catalan­
style position after all, where White has his
main advantages because of the strong bishop
on g2, providing pressure on the long diagonal.
To me, the compensation seems overwhelming,
but I am sure that Tiviakov was also happy
with his position. His preference is to accept
rather than to offer pawn sacrifices, so we
have a traditional clash of ideas and styles in
this game, as I believe a game of chess should
be.
Putting my objective hat on for a second,
I believe strongly that White is better. It is
interesting that the newest engines agree with
me. It shows how much the computers have
advanced. Curiously, computer programmers
see it entirely differently. I remember once
when Shay Bushinsky (the co-founder of
Junior) told me that he was amazed that I
 Chapter 5
was able to find moves as good as, or on rare
occasions better than, his computer program.
To me it is amazing they are able to create a
program that can compete with the wealth of
human knowledge and understanding that has
been created over a hundred and fifty years of
chess history.
Another time Shay told me that he had
followed my game, and he said I had managed
to find all the best moves and at one moment
even a better one. Better than the best move?
Talk about a different perspective!
The reason I say this is not only to tease my
friend, but to reach out to the young players
who are growing up with the same perspective.
By default they think that the computer move
is the right one. To them you have to prove
that the suggestion from the engine is not
the strongest, while a player's experience and
intuition is held in much lower regard. But
chess is a big game, and it is possible to be
successful with many different attitudes and
philosophies.
Speaking in general terms, White has all his
pieces in the game. He controls the most
important squares and his pieces are very
naturally placed.
I think it is worth speculating about why
Tiviakov would allow himself to get into such
a position right out of the opening. In general,
I think it appeals to his style, as already stated,
but we should also take into account that he
is a travelling chess professional who plays in
opens all over the world. In maybe 80% of his
games he is facing players who are considerably
lower rated than he is. For a game against a
local player, this variation makes a lot of sense.
Long term, Black has an extra pawn, and
Tiviakov is excellent at converting material
advantages, should his opponent not be able
to keep up the pressure. But the attitude of
always playing the same openings in order to
save energy is difficult to convert into playing
- Compensation 1 29
in top tournaments. The whole attitude to
chess is different in opens compared to top
tournaments (although I should say that
there are a few very strong opens now, in
Gibraltar, Isle of Man, Moscow, Qatar and
the Continental Championships where the
top players play} . In opens you need to win
a lot of games to get a prize, while in a strong
round-robin, +2 is often enough to take first
prize. And in a team event such as this one, it is
customary to look to those playing White for
the wins that will secure the match.
It would be possible for Tiviakov to have
a second repertoire, only geared for top
tournaments, but this would require a lot of
work, and might not pay off that well anyway.
1 5 �£6?!
...
This is a very natural move and not one I
suspected of being dubious during the game.
But looking at how the game progressed, it is
logical to wonder if Black would have been
better off playing 1 5 . b6 to fight for the long
..
diagonal. I still believe in White's chances, but
probably this would have been a better try.
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
a c e g
17 d6?!
...
1 30 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess
This is also a natural move, but it does not
work out well in the game. It is actually quite
hard to come up with a reasonable-looking
move for Black.
l 7 . . . E!:e8 l 8.llid4 is quite unpleasant, for
example. It is hard for Black to get his
queenside into the game.
The best move is not an obvious move at all,
but it does contain a good deal of logic:
1 7 . . . E!:eS! 1 8 .if4
This is the most direct move and it is quite
attractive to cash in in this way, though
something could also be said for giving
Black the chance to show that he is able to
get his pieces into the game by himself.
1 8 .llif4± is also an option.
The first point of Black's play is that l 8.llid4
can be met by 1 8 . . . dS!.
l 8 ... l':!:e8
Black has not lost a tempo, but rather lured
the bishop to a different diagonal. In the
game the bishop is a monster on d4, while
here on f4 it is less strong.
l 9.llid4
The most natural move.
l 9 . . . llixd4 20.l':!:xd4 d6
8
7
6
5
4
3 a
2 Black would have compensation for the
a b c d e f g h
2 1 .ixd6!?
By no means forced, but it is natural to look
seriously at this move.
2 1 . . .ixd6 22.llibS E!:e6 23.l':!:fd l llie8 24.llixd6
llixd6 25 .'\Wb4 l':!:b8 26.E!:xd6 l':!:xd6 27.l':!:xd6
'\We7 28.E!:d4! '\Wxb4 29.axb4 if5 30.ixb7
White has won a pawn. Converting it would
not be easy, but I would have been happy to try.
Of course this 1 7 . . . E!:eS move was suggested
by an engine. The machine has the great
advantage over humans that it does not realize
when the position is ugly. But if we discuss
it from a human perspective, it is clear that
White should not be unhappy after 1 7 . . . E!:eS .
H e has plenty of options and all of them are
unpleasant for Black. White can then choose
how to try to exploit his advantage.
18.llid4 llixd4
Compared to Kasparov - Andersson, the
exchange sacrifice does not work. The main
difference is of course that there is no pawn
on d5. With the queen on b3 and an open
f-line, the pressure on b7 and f7 would be very
unpleasant.
Still, it was tried in one game:
1 8 . . . E!:eS l 9.ixc6! l':!:xe3 20.fxe3 bxc6
b c d e f g h
exchange here, if White did not have an
immediate attack:
2 1 .llie4!±
A common theme in chess: Black is one
tempo short of solving his problems.
21 . . . cS?! 22.E!:xf6! gxf6 23.llic6 '\Wb6 24.llixf6t
'tt> g7 25 .'\Wd5 h6 26.E!:fl
 Chapter 5 - Compensation 131

Lee's have a quick sidestep here. Alex likes

co talk about "Vaisser's bishops", referring co
a game he played three decades ago. le had a
lasting impact on his chess understanding,
and as I have worked with him for twenty-five
years, some of it has rubbed off on me.

Anatoly Vaisser - Alexander Huzman

Sevastopol 1 986
a b c d e f g h
l .d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3 .lll f3 lll f6 4.lll c3 dxc4 5 .a4
With the threat of We4. ig4 6.lll e5 ih5 7.g3 e6 8.ig2 ib4 9.lll xc4
26 . . . ih3 27.lll e8t lll d5 1 0.Wd3 ie7 1 1 .0-0 0-0 1 2.aS lll a6
1 -0 Cebalo - Murshed, Subocica 1 984. 1 3.lll e5 lLi ab4 1 4.Wd2 c5?
14 ... f6 with even chances was more prudent.
I only found out that this game existed lacer 1 5 .lll x dS exd5 1 6.dxcS ixc5
on. I had made several moves on my own ac
this point.
8
.i �.i
�J,
7
8
�· , . ,�%� �-
,,Y,_�
. 6

!I•'• 5
7

6 "!I
!l '!I 4
!I '!I ' !I 3
: !l!I�%'!1,,,,1 !l ��p!l!I
"/�'1:�·0 !I
2
3 . %�, . , , .� ���
�"ilm r��
'0

b d g
. ...

_ ,,,,. Y, a c e f h
2

I �
a b
'!I
c
'!l�f«;L
d e f g h
1 7.lll d3! lll xd3 1 8.Wxd3 We? 1 9.WxdS! ixe2
20.!!e l
20.ig5 ! ? was also very strong, but Vaisser
had been bewitched by a beautiful idea.
19.hd4 20 . . . ic4 2 1 .!!xe? ixd5 22.ixdS! Axe?
During the game I also thought chat
l 9.!!xd4± was interesting, but I was dissuaded 8
by something. I remember noticing chat 7
l 9 . . . !!b8 was possible, as White does not win a
6
pawn with 20.!!a4 a6 2 l .!!xa6? on account of
21 . . . !!xe3! 22.fXe3 ie6 and Black wins a piece. 5
I was not desperate co win back the pawn, but 4
I did not wane co allow Black co play . . . !!b8 3
and untangle his position. 2
In shore, it makes no sense co cake with the
rook when I can cake with the bishop.
a b c d e f g h
1 32 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making i n Chess

23 . .ie3!!
This is the idea.
After the natural 23.ixb?? Black plays
23 . . . �ab8 24.a6 .ic5 and White does
not have sufficient compensation for the
exchange. He needs both bishops to be able
to dominate his opponent.
23 . . . �ab8
23 . . . �fb8 24.a6 bxa6 2 5 .�xa6 also leads to
an endgame where White has an extra pawn.
24.ixa7 �fd8
Vaisser gave the following line back in 1 986: White has a technically winning ending, but
24 . . . �a8 things can still go wrong of course. The rest
of the game is not directly connected to our
8 theme, but it is quite interesting, so I have
7 taken the liberty of including it. This is a
6 chess book after all. . .
5 2 6 . . .g 6 27.�c7 if6 28.�xb7 �xa5 29.b4
�a l t 30.<ii g2 .id4 3 1 .�d7 ic3 32.�d3! if6
4 33.�b3?!
3 33 ..id6! was stronger, as pointed out by
2 Vaisser.
33 . . . �a2?!
33 ... .id4! is the correct move order. The text
a b c d e f g h
move gives White a tactical chance.
2 5 . .ie3! (25 . .ib6 �ab8 is less clear) 2 5 . . . .ib4
(He does not say, but one can presume that
Vaisser was planning to meet 25 . . . �ab8
with 26.if4, when 26 . . . �fd8 27.ixb8
�xb8 does not work - there is no salvation
in the opposite-coloured bishop ending.
White plays 28.�a4! and pushes the pawns
up the board. Black is completely lost.)
26.ib6 The bishop is forced here, but with
the black bishop having moved to a worse
position. 26 . . . �ab8 27.�a4 id6 28 . .ia7
�a8 29.ie3 �ab8 30.b4 �fd8 3 1 ..if3 White
is close to winning. As far as I can see, this 34.g4?!
all holds up to computer scrutiny. It might The engine (not Vaisser, for the only time)
seem hard to believe for the youngsters, points out that White had 34.b5! .id4
but we were able to analyse our games 3 5 . b6! ixf2 36.<ii h 3 when Black will soon
decently even before the invention of the have to give up the bishop. I think White's
engine . . . technical task will not be too difficult.
25 . .ixb8 �xd5 26.�c l ! 34 . . ..id4 35 ..ig3 <ii f8 36.b5 .ib6 37.<ii f3 <ii e7
 Chapter 5 - Compensation 1 33

38.'tt> e4 'tt> e6 39.f3?! 53.b7

White's advantage has slowly disappeared.
39,, ,gd2! 40.f4 f5t 4 1 .gxf5t gxf5 t 42.'tt> f3
©d5 43.gb l h5 44.ge l i.d4 45 .ge2 gd3t
46.'tt> g2 gb3 47.if2
Vaisser gives 5 3.gxf5 gxb6 54.©g3 gb3t
5 5 .'tt> g4 gb2 56.gh5! gxh2 57,gxh3 and
White wins.
But Karsten Muller pointed out chat Black is
within the drawing margin after 53 . . . ©e4!,
although in practical terms, the defence is
by no means easy. 54.gf6 gf3t 5 5 .'tt> e l gb3
56. 'tt> d 2 @f3

8
7
6
5
4
3
47 . . . i.xf2 2
Vaisser gives the following variation:
47 . . . gxb5 48.gd2 gb4 49.'tt> g3 'tt> e4
a b c d e f g h
50.i.xd4! gxd4 5 1 ,ge2t ©d5 52.ge5t 'tt> d6
53.gxf5 'tt> e6 54.gxh5 @f6 where Black This is where Muller stops his line, but I
reaches a drawn rook ending. Of course he found chat this is only the beginning! There
would have to do some defending, but first are two continuations which I really liked:
of all, Alex knows his stuff, and secondly, we a) 57.f5 'tt> f4 5 8 .'tt> c2 gb5 59.'tt> d 3 E!b3t
played with adjournments back in the day, 60.'tt> c4 gb2 6 1 .gh6 'tt> g 5! 62.'tt> c3 gb l
which would have allowed him to refresh his 63.gd6 gb5! (63 . . . 'tt> x f5 64.'tt> c4) 64.f6 'tt> g6
memory about the finesses of this ending. and Black draws.
So Vaisser is right in his analysis again, both b) 57.'tt> c2 gb5 5 8 .'tt> d3 and Black has to
objectively and from a practical point of view. find a very counter-intuitive move.
But Black is doing better in the game than
Vaisser believed.
48.'tt> x f2 'tt> d4 49.ge5 h4 50.'tt> g2 h3t 5 1 .'tt> f2
ga3 52.b6 gb3
1 34 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

65J'hh2 E!:xb6 66.E!:h6! Instead Black has to
find 58 . . . @g4!, which is really surprising.
Whenever you start to analyse chess, you
always end up finding amazing stuff!
53 . . . E!:xb7 54.@g3 E!:g7t 5 5 .@xh3
Anyway, it is easy to explain why I felt
optimistic at this point: I had Vaisser's bishops,
squeezing Black hard down the two diagonals,
but I had not given up the exchange!
19 ... c!bes
I was planning to meet l 9 . . . E!:e8 with 20.E!:c l
lt'i d7 (this is what I expected) 2 1 .E!:fd l (2 l .id5
is premature because of 2 l . . . E!:e7) . And if now
2 1 . . .lt'ie5 White has 22.id5 with excellent
compensation. For example: 22 . . . E!:e7 23.ixe5
E!:xe5 24.ixf7t with an overwhelming
advantage.

But maybe 20.E!:fe 1 is even more precise, as

20 . . . lt'i d7 2 1 .E!:xe8 'Wxe8 22.lt'i b 5 is also very
bad for Black.
5 5 . . . E!:g8 ?
A blunder. Against l 9 . . . 'Wa5 White has many good
Correct was 5 5 . . . E!:gl ! 56.E!:xf5 @e4 57.E!:g5 moves. I was planning 20.ih3, winning the
E!:fl 58.E!:g4 @f5 and Black is ready to cake exchange, as 20 . . . E!:e8 2 l .ixc8 E!:axc8 22.ixf6
on f4 and claim a draw. Again pointed out gxf6 23.lt'id5 is a disaster for Black.
by Vaisser, of course (by the way, 58 . . . E!:xf4??
59.@g3 should be avoided) .
56.E!:xf5 @e4 57.E!:g5
1-0

When I talk about my feeling for a position,

it is important to understand that it is always
based on 40 years of continuous study of chess
games, and the conclusions I drew from these
games. Others will see things differently, but
not necessarily worse or better!

7 a b c d e f g h

6 20.c!bdS!?
I decided that my position was very strong
5 and that it was time to cash in. I do find it
4 very tempting to calculate a long line to a clear
advantage when I have such an overwhelming
3
position as I have here. I guess it is a question
2 of attitude.

a b c d e f g h
 Chapter 5
The other move I seriously considered during
the game was 20.f4, with attacking ideas
involving f4-f5 . This was also strong and
would be the natural first choice of a player
with a different sensibility.
20 ... �c7 21 .:Scl �xd5
2 1 . ..�a6 22.f4! is very strong for White.
This could have arisen by transposition had I
chosen 20.f4, but against that option it is not
necessarily the best line for Black.
22.J.xdS ge7
This is a very instructive position. White
is a pawn down, but has total domination. It
reminds me of some of Rubinstein's games,
which is not so surprising, as I played the
Rubinstein system.
a b c d e f g h
23.:Sfel
I also considered 23.'1Wf3 ih3 24.E:fe l
E:xe l t 25 .E:xe l '1Wd7 26.E:c l , taking o n b 7 on
the next move. Naturally White is better, but I
was looking for more.
23 ... :Sxelt
During the game, I thought 23 . . . g 6 was
the best defensive chance. But analysing the
position now, White looks quite a bit better.
- Compensation 1 35
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
a b c d e f g h
It is natural to ask Black what he is actually
planning to do, by playing 24.<i>g2, taking
away the h3-square from the light-squared
bishop. Black has only one move: 24 . . . ig7
2 5 .ixg7 This is the most promising option.
(White can also play 25 .E:xe7 '1Wxe7 26.ixf7t
'1Wxf7 27.'1Wxf7t <i>xf7 28 .E:c7t <i>e6 29.E:xg7±,
but I am not too fond of this possibility. Black
has more drawing chances than I would like.)
25 . . . <i>xg7 26.'1Wc3t <i>g8 27.'\Wf6 ie6
a b c d e f g h
28 .ixe6 (28 .E:xe6? allows Black to survive
because of 28 . . . E:xe6!, which is easy to miss)
28 . . . fxe6 29.E:xe6 And now both 29 . . . E:f7
30.'1Wd4 and 29 . . . E:xe6 30.'1Wxe6t <i>g7 3 1 .h4
are awfully close to lost for Black, if not just
simply lost.
My plan during the game was to play 24.E:e4,
forcing 24 . . . ifS, as White otherwise brings
the other rook to the e-file. 25.E:xe7 '1Wxe7
26.'1Wxb7 '1Wxb7 27.ixb7 E:e8 28.idS!
1 36 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

23.Ei:fe l . During the game, my opponent

certainly felt the difference, and did not
manage to come up with the best defence.

It is possible that 20.f4 was objective stronger,

but it is a bit hard to criticize a move that was
good enough during the game, j ust because
Black could have offered a bit more resistance
if he had found the most accurate line.

a b c d e
24.Ei:xel Wfc7
Black's position is very unpleasant. We can I think he missed something around here.
add a few moves: 28 . . . a5 (28 . . . Ei:e7 29 ..if6 is
also nasty) 29.Ei:c7 .ie6 30 . .ixe6 fXe6 3 I .Ei:a7 8
White seems to be winning, although there
will be plenty of technical difficulties. So my 7
chances in this line were probably better than 6
I expected.
5
23 . . JWe8 24.Ei:xe7 Wixe7 allows a simple tactic: 4

8 3

7 2
6 1
5
4
25.Ei:e8!
3 The human move, which he clearly hoped
2 was not very strong.

a b c d e f g h I knew during the game that his intention was

to play the line:
25 . .ixa7! After 25 . . . .ie6 26 . .ie3 White has a
25.Wif3 .ie6
clear advantage in the endgame. Black's pieces
are not playing, while White's queenside
majority is likely to come into play soon. 8
7
In the end it turns out that 23 . . . .ih3! was the 6
best chance. After 24.Wif3 Ei:xe l t 25 .Ei:xe l 5
Wid7 we have transposed t o the 23.Wif3 line
mentioned above. White is better, but Black
4
can resist for a long time. 3
2
I should point out that this does not mean that
b d g
23.Wif3 was j ust as good as the game move a c e f h
 Chapter 5 - Compensation 1 37

As the ending after 26 . .ixe6 fxe6 27.!!xe6 38.gxfl

Vff fl is not all bad for Black. But the engine

78
�i �� -�-J-:, ,
comes up with a beautiful and instructive

���
, , -%, %����.I�.\
suggestion:
26.!!xe6!! fxe6 27 . .ixe6t ©h8
6 �� - {@� � �-� ---
White has huge compensation.
5 �� �� �� �� � �
; \ �� �� ��
28.h4!
White is rolling his pawns up the board.

�- �� =�
There is no way for Black to bring his pieces
into the game without losing them, making 2 '"""�
, , ,,Z� �� - - 3�
his position untenable.
An alternative could be: 28.Vf!h5 The direct
a b c d e f g h
threat is .if5 . Black has only one move.
28 . . . Vf!c l t 29.©g2 Vf!c6t Black is in time to Black is paralysed. There is no defence
bring the queen back to e8 without allowing against ic6-e8, or anything else White would
Vff f7 -g8 on the way. 30 . .id5 Vf!e8 3 I .Vff f5 ± want to do. Stalemate is not even a possibility
2 8 . . . !!e8 (should White decide to win slowly) , as Black
This is an illustrative line, showing that always has . . . .ie7.
Black cannot j ust wait.
28 . . . d5 29.Vff h 5! is immediately over. There 25 ....ih3
is no check on c6! I think he was planning 25 . . . Wc l t 26.©g2
29 . .!d5 Vf!d7 30.©g2 a5 3 1 .h5 a4 32.h6 !!d8 .ih3t, but the following line is very concrete:
33.g4! !!b8 34.g5 !!c8 3 5 .Wf4 b5 36.g6 27.©xh3 !!xe8 28 . .!xflt ©h8 29 . .ixe8 Wfl t
(29 . . . Vf!c8t is not a challenge, since after

78
�i �� -�-J•
30.©g2 Wxe8 3 1 .Wxb7 White simply wins)

6 �� �!�� -�
�� -� �j�
54 �4·1.r
,-�."� �
��Uffi,·�
""' "� �
, , , -� ��
2 -----��r% •�-�r%
3

��
%,i8%, ,J<� ��@�
- - %���
a b c d e f g h

36 . . . We7
36 . . . hxg6 37.hxg7t .ixg7 38 .Vf!h6#
37.Wfl!
Everything wins, but I like this.
37 . . . Vffxfl
37 . . . Wg5t 38.©fl !!cl t 39.©e2 !!c2t
40.'itid3 VNd2t 4 I .©e4 We l t 42.©f3 Wh i t
43.©g3 Wg l t 44 . .ig2 and the meaningful
checks have come to an end.
During the game I saw that 30.©h4! was
a clean win. After 30 . . . .ie7t 3 1 .©g4 Vffe 2t
32.f3 Black has nothing.
This is a long variation, and you have to be
sure that it is correct before you allow it, so I
checked it a few times before I played 2 5 .!!e8.
1 38 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making i n Chess

26.Lf'7t 3 1 .E:d l E:d8 32.ib3 E:d3!?

The secret desire of every gambiteer is to win 32 . . . E:xd l t 33.Wxd l Wxa7 34.Wd5! leads to
his pawn back. . . mate.
33.°1Wxh3 E:xb3 34.Wc8 E:xb2 3 5 .ib8 'itig8
26...©h8 27J�el ! b6?!
He had to play: 8
27 . . . E:c8 7
6
5
4
3
2

a b c d e f g h

White has a pawn more, but Black is still

offering resistance. This is what I was
a b c d e f g h
thinking when we analysed this, but after
28.ixa7 leaving the en gine running for a while, it
I did not think this move was sensible on turns out that White wins by force with
account of: direct play.
28 . . . d5!? 36.id6! '\Wf7 37.f4 E:e2 38 .ixf8 E:e8 39.E:d8
28 . . .Wa5 29.°1We3 is a double defence to a The pawn ending is a matter of arithmetic.
double attack.
29.°1Wxd5 Although it is clearly possible to take the
29.ixd5? Wa5 and Black wins a piece. pawn, I would most likely have played 28 .Wf3,
29 . . . b6 30.Wh5 We7!? keeping the pressure and allowing Tiviakov to
find a way to defend on his own. When in a
8 winnin g position, it is often good to avoid
7 complications, as they increase the chances
6 of making mistakes. On the other hand, in
most games there will come a moment when
5 you have to overcome stubborn defence with
4 calculation. Grandmasters do not simply break
3 down when under pressure; they have to be
2 forced into their graves.

a b c d e f g h

It would not feel comfortable to see my

overwhelmin g advantage disappear into this
mess. But White is more or less winning
after:
 Chapter 5 - Compensation 1 39

30 ... �e7 3 1 .Ac3 �h4 32J�e3

1-0

Thematic sacrifices

A big part of tactics is pattern recognition.

28 . . . d5 was necessary to avoid losing a piece,
and to continue the game a little longer.
29.g4
Trapping the bishop.
29 ...�d7!?
The last attempt is this little trap.
Many books have been written about this, and
going through books of puzzles is important
not only to strengthen the accuracy of
calculation, but also to gain a strong sense for
tactical patterns. Chess is a geometric game in
many ways, and getting acquainted with lots
of examples will help you find the connections
between the pieces' possibilities much more
easily.
Themes have developed in this way: some
people introduced them, and they became
simple to follow. Copy and paste.
Take the following famous example, which
made a great impact on me:
Boris Spassky -Tigran Petrosian
Moscow (11) I 969

a b c d e f g h
30.i.hS!
30.�e6?? 'Wxe6! would be a disaster. White
escapes with a draw after 3 l .'Wxf8t, but
certainly this was not the idea. 30 .. Jk4!
1 40 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

The rook dominates the position, and if

captured, the bishop on b7 would come to life.
So for now Spassky decides to live with it.

31 .'!Wd3 ges 32 ..if3 .ib4 33 ..ia3 .ixa3

34Jfxa3 tll d6 35Jfel f5 36Jfaal

41 .d5?!
A tactical mistake in a difficult position.

Spassky was understandably keen to avoid

36 ... tll e4t?!
A slight inaccuracy, maybe due to time
constraints.
Black would be close to winning after
36 . . . E:ec8!, when the invasion is about to begin.
The key point is 37.llixc4?! dxc4 38 .We2 ixf3
39.Wxf3 lli e4t, followed by the advance of the
queenside pawns, and Black wins easily.
4 I .<itig2 id5 with a passive position, where
Black holds all the cards, but still, this is what
he had to do. I am not sure ifBlack is objectively
winning here, but in practice it would be very
hard for White to hold his position together,
while Black can try out various ideas, one by
one.
41. ..hd5 42.gdl c3 43.gc2 '!Wh3!

37 ..ixe4 fxe4 38.'!Wbl '!Wd7 39.ga2 gees

40.tLJxc4
White is forced to take.

After 40.<itig2 E:c3 his position looks grim.

40 ... dxc4
 Chapter 5
44.:B:xdS '1Bh2t 45.'it>fl Wh l t and wins. The
rest is simple.
44 \Wg4! 45.'it>g2 \Wf3t 46.©h2 \Wxe3 47.6
•..
\Wc5 48Jffl b4 49.f6 b3 50Jkfl c2 5 1 .YlYcl
e3 52.f7t ©f'8 53J�f5 b2 54.\Wxb2 cl=YlY
55.\Wxg?t ©xg7 56.gg5t
a b c d e f g h
Spassky resigned, not having the audacity
to believe that Petrosian would play 56 . . . 'it>h6,
although this is the move given in my database.
0-1
As I said, this made a big impression on me,
and we shall see below that I managed to use
this idea with success. But this does not mean
that it was new when Perrosian played it.
Looking in the database, we find Saint-Amant
- Staunton, Paris (2 1 ) 1 843. Not the greatest
game in history, but it is possible that Petrosian
knew this example and was, consciously or
subconsciously, inspired by it.
Let's move on to my example. As we shall see,
simply copying the idea is a simplification
of what is happening. Every position is
different and has its own challenges, despite
the immense help knowing a lot of thematic
options gives us.
- Compensation 141
In this tournament, things were not going
well for me, so I was lacking a little in
confidence with my play. Especially I did not
feel comfortable at the prospect of defending
a technical ending against Vladimir Kramnik,
who is famous for extracting the utmost from
every piece he has in this type of position.
Vladimir Kramnik - Boris Gelfand
Wijk aan Zee 2008
a b c d e f g h
29Jkl
The position might look innocent, but I
knew I had to be careful. If I exchanged on
c l , it should be fine with the knight on e4,
but when you play against a guy who has great
technique, you try not to give him even an
inch.
29 Jk4 30 .ifl
•• •
Of course I could exchange rooks here, but
I did not want to exchange before I knew I
could put the knight on c4. When you analyse
this position, you will find that I did not play
the only move, but as I said, I did not want to
relax prematurely.
30 tld6!?
••.
30 . . . lll gS ?! is a curious idea, but after
3 1 .i.xc4 dxc4 32.Wc2! it is hard to make it
work.
1 42 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

safe. This is chess. There are always details and

the game goes on (except when it doesn't!) .
All we can do is try to make the best possible
decisions in the time we have available.
32.i.f2 Wfc2 33.Wfxc2 l:!xc2 34.Ad3 l:!a2
34 . . . l:!c7 3 5 .Ae l;!; looks a bit unpleasant.
3 5 .l:!cl l:!xa4 36.l:!c7

a b c d e f g h
31 .Wfa3
This is not challenging.

3 U!d l !
This was the only try. One o f the core ideas
is co take on c4 and play d4-d5. This would
have forced me to play accurately.
3 1 . . .Wfe4
3 1 . . .l:!xa4? is inadvisable. White has a very
There is a final dimension to the exchange
strong continuation: 32.°Wb3 l:!c4 33.i.b4!
sacrifice that I will j ust briefly mention: it is
and Black loses material. 33 . . . l:!c8 34.Wfa3
aesthetically pleasing.
l:!d8 3 5 .l:!e l followed by exchanges on d6,
l:!e8t and l:!xa8.
For this reason Black should probably play
3 1 . Wfe4 32 .lfl :Sxcl 33.Wfxcl c!Lic4
•• •

3 1 . . .l:!c8 32.Wfa3 Wfe6 where his position has

improved:

a b c d e f g h

White has abandoned the c-line and Black is

ready co put the knight on c4. But White can
still try a few things, and the draw is not yet
 Chapter 5 - Compensation 1 43

34.Yfdl .ib7 35 ..id3 Yfe6 36.Yfh5 tll d6
37.Yfe2 Yfxe2 38.i.xe2 ©f7 39 ..iel .icS
40.©fl tll c4 4I ..ib4 g6 42.©el a6 43.bxa6
ha6 44..ic3 .ib7 45.©fl .ic6 46 ..idl tll d6
47.©e3 ©e6 48 . .ib3
l/2-1h
This wonderful idea was introduced the
year before by Shomoev, and immediately
made the line untenable for Black. Amonatov
was not very active at the time of this game,
and he might simply have missed this latest
development.

The following game is our last on this theme,
and I would not have included it in this book
if my editor had not stressed the need for it. I
do not consider it much of an achievement, as
all that happened in it was that I :
13 ... gxf5 14.gxf5 d5
The stem game went like this:
14 . . . tll bd7 1 5 .!!g l @h8 1 6.%Ye l tll e5 1 7.%Yh4
tll h 7 1 8 .%Yxh5 Yf e7 l 9.!!g3 tll d 7 20.!!agl
tll d f6 2 1 .Yfh4 tll xe4

a) Used a recent discovery i n the opening by

another player, and 8 � �£. �!�� -,i ·
7 . �.
· -....�El�. ••••
% · � .,�- /.
b) Used a very common exchange sacrifice to
. ... . .

6
eliminate my opponent's defence on the
54 �� �� �� �. � ----7. � �

-/.� -!�� ,, . . ..}. ..

dark squares. � � �

3 ���· · ·:·-:.-8 �· · ·��

2 �
.

But what this game can show is that simply

applying common themes can win easy
victories, even on the top board in the
7. � � •••••

� � -�
Olympiad.
a b c d e f g h

Boris Gelfand - Farrukh Amonatov 22.%Yxh7t! @xh7 23.!!xg7t @h8 24.fxe4 ixf5
2 5 .exf5 !!g8 26.!!7g3 ?!
Tromso Olympiad 20 1 4
26.ig5! %Ye5 27.!!xf7, with if6t coming,
was lethal .
I .d4 tll f6 2.c4 g6 3.tll c3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5.tll a 26 . . . !!xg3 27.!!xg3 !!g8
0-0 6 ..ie2 e5 7.0-0 exd4 8.tll xd4 ge8 9.6 27 . . . !!e8 offered more resistance, but White
c6 10.©hl lll h 5 l l .g4 tll f6 12 ..if4 h5 is close to winning all the same.
13.tll f5 ! 28 .!!h3t @g7 29.ih6t @f6 30.!!e3 Yfc7
1 44 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making i n Chess

3 I .id3? thematic. A quick look in the database shows

A blunder. that there are 5448 games with this typical
3 l .lll e4t @e7 32.if4! was the most sacrifice, where White won. I will have seen
convincing way to clinch the full point. a lot of them in my time. One of them is this
3 1 . . .Wi'b6 32.lll e4t �xf5 ? very early example:
Returning the favour.
After 32 . . . �e7 33.f6t �d8 34.lll xd6 Wi'xb2 Joseph Henry Blackburne - Adolf Anderssen
it would be White who had to hold the
London 1862
balance.
33.lll g3t �g4 34.if5t �h4 3 5 .ge4t
1 -0 Shomoev - Ganguly, Moscow 20 1 3.

15.cxdS cxd5 16.ggl

I vaguely remembered reading somewhere
that 1 6 . . . dxe4 was the main line. I had not
paid attention to the move played in the
game. In the book Best Attacking Games of
2012-2015, Csaba Balogh tells a story about
talking to another top GM, who apparently
had analysed this till move 2 1 , but said that a b c d e f g h
I was fortunate to get there first, referring to 2 1 .gxh7t �g8 22.gxg7t! �xg7 23 .Wi'h6t
computer preparation. I have to admit I got �g8 24.if6 1 -0
there on my own. If this is a good thing or not, Not very sophisticated for the modern
will be up to others to decide. palate, but this is exactly the point. Blackburne
found this idea on his own and we, having seen
16 ... @hs the impact over and over, can copy it with a
high degree of certainty.
8
My novelty is an improvement over 1 7.e5
7
ixf5 ! 1 8.exf6 Wi'xf6 where Black had a decent
6 game and even went on to win in Petrukhina -
5 Chigaev, Tomsk 20 1 3 .

4 17 ... @xg7 18.1;Ygi t @hs

3 1 8 . . . @f8 1 9.ih6t �e7 20.ig5 and Black is
caught in deadly pins.
2
19.i.gS!
Exploiting the weakness of the dark squares
a b c d e f g h
in all directions.
17.gxg7!
Not a very difficult novelty, even without the 19 ...i.x6?
help of the engines. Eliminating the defence The final mistake, but Black's position was
of the dark squares in this way is incredibly horrible anyway.
 Chapter 5 - Compensation 145

For example, 1 9 . . . � bd7 20.�xd5 �g8 2 1 .h4 An obvious exchange sacrifice

does not offer Black an easy way out of the
pins. Boris Gelfand -Judit Polgar

Khancy-Mansiysk (3 .1) 2009

And 1 9 .. .'Wd6 20.Wfd4 � bd7 2 1 .�xd5 �e5
22.�d l also wins material in the long term.
write about the World Cup in Khancy­
For example: 22 . . . �xd5 23.exd5 Wh7 24.Wfh4
Mansiysk lacer in this book {page 227) , but I
b6 25 . .ib5 .ib7 26 ..ixd7 Wfxd7 27.ixf6 Wfxf5
want to talk a little about my opponent in this
28.Wf e4 Wfxe4 29.fxe4 and White has excellent
game.
winning chances. Nonetheless, this was the last
Judit Polgar is a unique personality, who has
chance.
definitely shown chat women can play chess at
the highest level. It was not a fluke either, as
20.tll xd5 l£!bd7 2 U�dl!
she kept her level for decades. She is definitely
a hero for other female chess players, but more
8 importantly, in my opinion, is that she played
7
really attractive chess. Judit managed to hold
the Number 1 spot in the Women's rating list
6 from January l st 1 989 until she retired from
5 professional chess after the 1 Och round in
the 20 1 4 Chess Olympiad in Tromso. As far
4 as I know, no other female athlete has been
3 Number 1 for 25 consecutive years in any
sport. Quite an achievement.
2

I played her for the first time in 1 989, when

she was only 1 3 years old; quite a nice game
a b c d e f g h
by the way, with a lot of instructive moments.
Bringing the last piece into the attack Maybe there will be space for it later in this
ends the fight. White wins back the material series.
investment with dividends. Instead, taking Judit had a bone-crunching style when she
on f5 would allow the white attack to lose its rose to fame as a j unior, but after she worked
momentum. for a few years with Lev Psakhis, she realized
chat the direct approach did not always work,
21..J�gS 22.tll xf6 gxg5 23.'i!¥xg5 Y!rxf6 although she would still strive for an attack
24.Y!rxh5t ©g7 25.exf5 l£!b6 26.Y!rg4t whenever possible.
©£8 27.Y!rb4t 'i!¥e7 28.'i!¥c3 f6 29J�gl gcs
30.Y!rd2 l .d4 tll f6 2.c4 e6 3.tll a b6
1-0 Judit played the Queen's Indian for a very
long time. I believe it was Lev Psakhis who
convinced her to play it first. She also chose
this opening against me in our last game in
20 1 3 .

4.g3 .ia6 5.Y!ra4

1 46 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

general ideas and relied on them, but not well

8
enough to tell them apart.
7
10.gdl �e4?!
6
As mentioned above, 10 . . . lLia6 was the right
5 move. Curiously, Judit had already played
this correct option against Van Wely and later
4
repeated it against Fridman.
3
1 1 .�xe4
2
If I had played I l .Wfc2 lLixc3 1 2.Wfxc3, she
could have played 1 2 . . . lLi a6 and returned to
this plan under good circumstances.
a b c d e f g h
There are many options here and I have 1 1 ...he4 12.J.f4
played them all. The one I chose in this game
is not critical, but it is certainly playable. It
was especially popular in the 1 980s, but with
the development of theory, Black managed to
solve the main problems. Still, there is some
venom in the line, as we shall see in the game.
Many strong players, including Kramnik,
Mamedyarov, Leko, and lvanchuk have also
played like this.

5 ...J.b7
The critical move.

6.i.g2 c5 7.dxc5 .L:c5 a b c d e f g h

7 . . . bxcS is the alternative. Karjakin likes to
play like this. It is neither better nor worse
than Judit's move.
8.0-0 0-0 9.lLlc3 J.e7
There is nothing wrong with this move,
but it seems to me that Judit later mixed up
the two main plans and played an unhea!thy­
looking crossbreed.
One plan is to play 9 . . . lLi e4 1 0.lLixe4 i.xe4,
while the other is to play 9 . . . i.e7 with the idea
. . . lLia6-c5. So when I say that this line is not
entirely harmless, we can already see it here.
Judit seemed unaware of the finesses, or was
maybe seduced by the dangerous substance
called 'limited knowledge', where she knew the
This is the problem with Black's move order.
If the bishop was still on cS, Black could play
. .. Wfe7 or . . . dS with the idea of playing . . . lLi c6
later on, when the bishop definitely belongs
on the active square cS. Instead she has lost a
tempo withdrawing the bishop, as the knight
no longer has a solid route to cS.
12 ...tfcs
This is somewhat awkward. Black is not in
time to develop her pieces .
1 2 . . . .if6
This could lead to a curious tactical sequence,
although I am sure I would have chosen
1 3.Wi'a3 or 1 3.E:d2.
 Chapter 5 - Compensation 1 47

1 3.id6!? 14.id6!;!;
This was suggested by the engine, and looks But she is not in time.
mindboggling at first, but the tactical point
behind it is really nice. 14...i.xd6
1 3 . . . ixb2?! 1 4 . . . if6 1 5 .°Wa3 does not make things easier
1 3 . . . E:e8;!; for Black.

.�
·rP'- - -����.,%���,v,.. . . %�,
8 ta' ;?•'
& � •• 1 5.gxd6 �c5!?

6 ..... i:�•
�
�
�
7
. . , �,;, ,� · -� �
.
I think Black's position is very unpleasant

%� � ��
here, and Judit made a decent decision by
trying to change the nature of the game. It

: 1�� !�� ,��� -r � was one of her strong features: she was very

�� �
inventive, even in inferior positions.

� ,.· .,,��
· ·r· . � :� . . .. %=· · ·
The computer might say that White is only
. slightly better here, but if Black does not
manage to get out of her passive position,
a b c d e f g h
she would definitely lose, so this computer
1 4.E:ab l !! ixb l 1 5 .E:xb l if6 1 6.ixf8 'Wxf8 assessment is extremely misleading.
1 7.tll e5! ixe5 1 8.ixa8±
Black does not have any compensation for Note that Black is not in time for 1 5 . . . tlia6, as
the exchange as the a7-pawn is hanging. after 1 6.b4 White is simply better.

13.gacl
I could also have played 1 3.id6, which was
very strong, but I like to make useful moves
first in order not to take premature action.
13 ... gds
Judit is still trying to reroute the knight.
1 3 . . . tli a6 still does not work on account of
1 4.'Wxd7.
16.�dl
A natural move; the queen has nothing to
do on a4.
The computer points out that 1 6.E:cd l was
also good enough. 1 6 . . . id5 ? does not work
here, as 1 7.cxd5 'Wxd6 1 8 .dxe6 and 1 9.tll d4
wins a piece.

a b c d e f g h
1 48 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making i n Chess

16 ....idS!? 2 l .llJd6t 'it>h8 22.e3± is also pleasant for

Trying to spice things up. White.
2 1 . . .'it>h8 22.llJxd? �ad8
The computer wanes to play 16 . . . llJ c6 to give

� -illl �
l , , , %W �rn�
. -.�
,�%.; �n".,m�, , %� �
up a pawn. Of course it is difficulc to beat
8
•tt:�
�i
the engine, but White has no weaknesses, so
61
� � �
against a human I would be very optimistic
,,

after winning the pawn.

: �.,
�---�m m m

17Jixd5
3 ��r � .·
�
��z..,,z�,?. 'i[ ""
2 !���!�1�
Because Black has changed the course of
the game, White now has co make some good
,,,,. z
decisions in order to exploit the advantage.
Unfortunately for Judie, I was in excellent form
a b c d e f g h
in this tournament. This exchange sacrifice was
however forced upon me. 23.llJxf8! �xd5 24.cxd5 llJ d8
This does not hold. White has:
17 ... exdS 25.llJe6! llJxe6 26.dxe6 Wfxe6 27 . .id5! Wf d7
28.e4
With a technically winning position.

All of this is easy to work out with the assistance

of the engine, but at the board the whole line
did not seem so convincing to me.

18 .. J�fB
I also considered 1 8 . . . llJ c6 1 9.cxd5 Wfe7,
but I realized I could play 20.llJ h3 followed
by d5-d6 and .ixa8, with a huge advantage.
White might not keep the extra pawn, but he
is dominating his opponent.
a b c d e f g h
18.llJgS!?
It turns out I had a choice between two good
moves, although I was not so sure during the
game.

l 8.llJe5! Wf e7 l 9.llJxf7
During the game I could not make this work
on account of:
1 9 . . . �fg
It is only with the help of a computer chat
we can see the following:
20.W/xd5 llJ c6 2 I .llJe5t
a b c d e f g h
 Chapter 5 - Compensation 1 49

19 ..ixd5 22.�xd4 l0xd4

This is the most natural move for a
grandmaster. It is so tempting to try to
8 �� u �-·-
7 -� U i U. i U. i
calculate it till the very end, and it's possible

6 �
too. Also, the bishop attacks the weakness on
f7, as well as pins the knight down the d5-a8
..... % u. -� ·�
diagonal. What's not to like?
� � �� � �-
Still, it was not unreasonable to play l 9.cxd5!?
with obvious compensation. This is all based : .,-�.
3 ��',,,,,,;� ��
on an amazing computer tactic: l 9 . . . Wd6
�m
� ��c- - �
% �m·ef · 'm"-'
� ��wJtJ
1 � �� �� �
2

a b c d e f g h
23J�dl!
I had to see this in advance, as 23 . .ixa8?
would be a blunder due to 23 . . . ll'ixe2t. All
of these tactics came easily to me during the
game. The only time I spent more than 1 0
minutes o n any move was o n move 1 1 .
a b c d e f g h
23 ... l0c6 24.t0f6t rlJg7 25.l0xd7 �Uc8
20.ll'ie6!! fxe6 2 1 .dxe6 Wxd l t 22.E:xd l tl'i a6
I have to admit that I cannot remember if I
23.e? E:fe8 24 . .id5t @h8 25 . .ixa8 E:xa8
had seen the next move at move 1 9, or if l had
26.E:xd? E:e8 27.E:xa? tl'i b4 28.a4 @g8 29.E:b?
just relied on something showing up. Both are
and White has very good winning chances in
entirely possible; we are at the natural end of
the ending, with four pawns for the knight.
standard human calculation.
I never looked seriously at this; I was happy
with having a strong bishop on d5. It felt
right. This is a clear difference between human
intelligence and brute-force chess, which you
have to be an electron to come up with.

19 ... l0c6 20.Wd3

The idea.

20 ... g6 21 .�e4 �d4

This was forced, as far as I could see.

2 1 . . .We? 22.Wc3 is worse, and on 2 1 . . .Wb4

I had planned 22.ll'if6t @g? 23.tl'ixd? E:fc8
24.Wf3 with a triple attack. Black can try a b c d e f g h
24 . . . Wxb2, but White can play whatever he 26J�bl!!
likes. For example 25 .E:c3, as I had planned.
1 50 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g i n Chess

After this move, there is little left to say; it is 38.©f3 �c5 39 ..ic2 gc7 40J�d2 c!ll d7 41 .e4
a matter of time before White wins. �£8 42.e5 �d7 43. ©g4 b5 44.h4 gxf4
45.gxf4 a5 46.©hs a4
The idea of the move is that the b2-pawn
is supported. White then wins back the
exchange, keeps an extra pawn, repels the little
counterplay Black has, and then advances. It is
all fairly simple and there really is nothing left
to analyse after this move.
White is much better without it as well, but
once you understand the strength of placing
the rook on b l , the decision is easy.

26 .. J3c7
Black has to play this, as after 26 . . . f6 27.b4
the game is over immediately.
27.c!ll e5 c!ll xe5 28.ha8 gxc4 29 . .id5
The engine wants to play 29.f4, which is j ust
wrong. The right attitude is to keep everything
under control, remove all counterplay, and
then advance slowly. Which is what I did in
the game.
29 ... gc2 30.©fl g5 3 1 ..ib3 gd2 32.©el
gd7 33.h3 h6 34.£4 �g6 35.e3 c!ll f8 36J3dl
ge7 37.©fl c!ll d7
8 following day Judie beat me to take the match
7
6 Judie, the reason why she decided to write this
5
a b c d e f g h
47.gg2t @£8 48.©xh6 gc4 49.©g5 �c5
50 ..i.5 gel 5 1 .h5 ©e7 52.h6 ghl 53.h7
c!ll e6t 54.©g4 �£8 55.gc2 �xh7 56.gc7t
©e8 57.gb7 c!ll f8 58.gb8t ©e7 59.gb7t
©e8 60.gxb5 ggl t 6 I . ©f3 gfl t 62. ©e3
1-0
One of my best games in this tournament. The
only thing I feel is open to criticism is whether
I should have played l 8.c!ll e 5 instead. But sadly
you cannot win the same game twice. The
into tiebreaks. That game can be found in her
book A Game of Queens and was, according to
wonderful trilogy about her career.

a b c d e f g h
Chapter 6
Time

With Alex Huzman and Maxim Rodshtein

Khanty-Mansiysk 2009
 Diagram Preview
8
On this page you will find a few
diagrams with critical moments
7
from che coming chapter. If you
6
wane co compare your chinking
5
with the games, you have the
4
possibility. Take as much time
as you need or wane. This is not 3

a test, but a chance co 'chink 2

along' with the grandmasters in

the games.
Time co unleash your No time co waste!
tactical brilliance! (see page 1 78)
(see page 1 63)

a b c d e f g h

A small intuitive decision co How would you initiate

scare with. an attack?
(see page 1 54) (see page 1 65)

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

A more difficulc question: Time for a deep chink. I did not see this idea; can
How co deal with the How should White you see the refutation?
threat co f2? build up the attack? (see pages 1 8 1 -2)
(see page 1 60) (see page 1 66)
 Chapter 6 - Time 1 53

It is apparently impossible to win time in a Radjabov decides on an ambitious

game of chess; no matter what you do, your continuation, getting the two-bishop
opponent gets to move as often as you do. But advantage. But on the other hand, White gets
as you get to know chess a bit better, you know a strong centre.
that some moves make no progress, and that if
you can force your opponent to make this sort 7 ..ig3 lll h 5 8.c3 e6
of move, you are indeed winning time. This
is what this chapter is about: making more
useful moves than your opponent in the short
term.

Momentum has been described many times

in chess history, but never as precisely as by
the first World Champion, Wilhelm Steinitz:
If you have an advantage, you need to attack
or you will lose the advantage. He was of
course talking about a dynamic advantage,
like for example a lead in development {static
advantages, like extra material or better
structure, are not connected with the same
type of urgency) . This was a critical moment.

These days it is rare to win a game against a 9.tll g l!?

grandmaster where he takes your pawns while
you attack. The following blindfold game was
an exception to this.
Boris Gelfand -Teimour Radjabov
I played this funny-looking move to make
him show his intentions. I was not sure if he
was considering playing . . . f5 on one of the
next few moves.

Monte Carlo (blindfold) 2007 9 ... tll xg3

Basically, he has to play this.
It was a good year for me in the blindfold part
of the Melody Amber tournament, where I 9 . . . tll f6 would not make much sense of Black's
think I came second. previous moves.

1 .d4 llif6 2.llif.3 g6 3 ..ig5 l0.hxg3

There are not so many theoretical discussions I am planning to play f2-f4 and tll f3, so now
in this tournament, so I decided to just 'play a it is up to Black to decide which type of pawn
game' and get the pieces out in a simple way. structure he wants.

3 ....ig7 4.lli bd2 d6 5.e4 l0 .. e5

.

5 .e3 would be safer, but this was not the Pretty natural.
intention.
He could also have played 1 0 . . . c5, but I would
5 ... h6 6.i.h4 g5 reply l l .dxc5 dxc5 when the g7 -bishop is not
1 54 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

•.
8 .1�.-; 1.t, , , j,·
%� � �
·------
very strong, as it is blocked in a typical way

�� ·�
by the b2- and c3-pawns. It would result in a

,,�
.
complicated game. Maybe I would again play 7
f2-f4 and lll f3.
� � %� ��-d-1- -
5 � .,t- - f�
6
So instead he went for a more standard � ....

4 u �- �------%-
King's Indian approach.

8 3 � �� �- t[Jwr
2 8ri %m�wti8%�
, %·- � - - %� �
....

d
. .

6 1
5 a b c d e f g h
4
3
This intermediate check is really important.
White manages to use his slight lead in

2 development to ask Black some awkward

1 such a check. It is fashionable at the moment
1 1 .dxe5!
This decision was correct, as it turns out.
White gains a few tempos.
I was thinking that 1 1 .d5 was a reasonable
move as well, but I now see that Black has
l 1 . . . g4!, when he is all right. White can try
1 2 .ibSt, but after 1 2 . . . ©f8 1 3 .ie2 h5 the
black king is fine. Black can organize his pieces
in many ways, all of them perfectly okay for
Black. To mention just one, Black can play
. . . tll d 7-f6 and . . . ih6, when he does not look
worse to me.
l l ....ixe5
If he had played 1 1 . ..dxeS , I would change
to a slower game, and play l 2.ie2 with the
intention 1 2 . . . 0-0 1 3 .ig4, when White has
the better structure; the bishop is bad on g7.
12.lll gf3 J.g7 13.J.b5t!
questions. It is frequently unpleasant to face
in some lines of the Queen's Indian and the
Gri.infeld.
13 ... c6
This is an awkward move to make, and
maybe not the best.
13 ... lll d?!? l 4.lll d4 may look a bit unpleasant
for Black, but with a few accurate moves,
Black's position is perfectly playable. 1 4 . . . a6!
is best here, when 1 5 .lll fS axb5 1 6.lll xg?t ©f8
is fine for Black. But personally I would not
gravitate towards this in a blindfold rapid game .
To me the most natural move was 1 3 . . . lll c6.
You could imagine the game continuing
14.lll c4 a6 1 5 .ixc6t bxc6 1 6.Wfd3 and the
game would go on. Black has played rather
slowly and has an unkempt structure. But on
the other hand, he has two bishops.
14.J.e2 0-0 15.�c4
Suddenly White has some mmanve, and
Black has to make a difficult decision.

1 5 �e7?
•.•
 Chapter 6
This leads to serious problems, but Black is
also worse after l 5 . . . d5 1 6.exd5 cxd5 l 7.tt:le3
i.e6 1 8 .tt:ld4, when he has to take on d4 to
stay in the game:
a b c d e f g h
l 8 . . . tt:l c6? l 9.tt:lxe6 fxe6 20.tt:lg4 gives an
unpleasant position for Black. I am familiar
with such bad positions from playing the
Najdorf.
So after l 8 . . . i.xd4 1 9 .cxd4 White is
marginally better. It is plausible that Black can
then equalize by playing many accurate moves,
but it would never become truly pleasant for
him, I think. Still, given the alternative, this
was what he had to do.
16.1Wxd6 1Wxe4 17.tl:ie3 1We6 18.0-0-0
White has a significant time advantage.
It will be a long time before Black is able to
- Time 1 55
develop all of his pieces, and White can create
threats against the weak h6-pawn.
18 ...1Wxa2?!
This is too risky; now Black gets killed.
But it is easy to understand why Radjabov
did not fancy playing 1 8 . . . �xd6 1 9.E!xd6
E!e8, when White has a pleasant choice,
including 20.tt:lh2!?, and also 20.i.c4 with the
point that 20 . . . tt:ld7?! 2 1 .tt:l f5 is a complete
collapse. 2 1 . . . tt:l b6 22. tt:lxh6t! i.xh6 23.E!dxh6
tt:lxc4 24.E!h8t is an important little line to
see.
19.�c4 1Walt 20.@c2 1Wa4t
The sixth queen move in a row, after which
he is totally lost. Obviously this is not meant
as criticism of my opponent. Firstly, it was not
such a serious game, being blindfold. Secondly,
I would hate it if people were to equate my level
of play with my worst performances in rapid,
not to mention blitz games! If you wanted,
you could quickly make the best players in the
world look pretty stupid then.
2 1 .@bl b5
Provocative, but then again, it was a
blindfold game. Black's only chance is that a
big blunder is committed.
1 56 B oris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

We have reached a typical moment in an

8
7
attacking game, where the pieces cannot be

6
improved more, and it is necessary to commit

5
in one way or another. Certainly there is no
point in retreating the bishop.

4
It requires care and attention. We should

3
never forget that it is quite easy to go wrong,
even when the position is as overwhelming as

2
it is here.

22.:Sxh6!
1
Once again, a move in the style of Mikhail
Tai. Black is unable to take all ofWhite's pieces. a b c d e f g h
25.:Sxe6! fxe6 26.�c7
Another solution was 22.tll d4 bxc4 23.tll ef5 , Black resigned. For example: 26 . . . Ei:fS
when there i s n o defence against t"Llxh6t and 27.We7
mate to follow. 1-0
22 ... bxc4 23.:Sdhl :Se8 I think I played this game pretty well, bearing
23 . . . Wa5 would require a small tactic. in mind that it was a blindfold rapid game.

8 The fight for the initiative

7
6 The following game was played at a higher
5 level, mainly because it was played with a full
time control. It illustrates the theme of time
4 really well. I played one of my little pet ideas,
3 bur my opponent reacted with great intensity,
2 ignoring recapturing a pawn, bur instead
pushing forward in the centre.
a b c d e f g h
The moment I was able to take the initiative
24.Ei:hSt! �xh8 2 5 .Ei:xhSt �xh8 26.WxfSt was when he lost the momentum. He did not
�h7 27.Wxf7t �h8 28.WfSt <i>h7 29.Wxc8 make the best use of his time . . .
and White is totally winning.
Boris Gelfand - Dimitry Bocharov
24.t"Llxg5 .ie6
The finish is pleasing. Dagom ys 2007

Bocharov is from Novosibirsk. He is quite a

good player, ambitious and plays very creative
chess. He never plays for a draw, as far as I
can see. He recently did very well at the 20 1 5
World Rapid Championship in Berlin, where
 Chapter 6 - Time
he beat many good players, Svidler, Anand and
yours truly included, and finished 5th. There
are many players who are little known outside
Russia, but who can play really good chess;
Bocharov is one of them.
I .d4 c!£if6 2.c4 e6 3.c!£if3 .ib4t
a b c d e f g h
4.cl£ibd2
4.id2 is more popular, but I have always
blocked with the knight, with the hope of
having a two-bishop advantage. It sometimes
works, as you can see in My Most Memorable
Games, where I have included games with this
variation.
4... 0-0 5.a3 fi.e7
But nowadays it is popular to retreat the
bishop in this fashion. Black loses a tempo, but
on the other hand White has placed his knight
on the less harmonious square of d2, and
you can debate how useful a2-a3 is. If Black
manages to play . . . d7-d5 on the next move, his
position will be good.
6.e4
So for this reason, White probably has
to play this move if he wants to fight for an
advantage.
6... d5
1 57
The main move, but lately 6 . . . d6 has come
into fashion after Radjabov played it against
me in the 20 1 3 Candidates tournament in
London. It is a way to get a complicated game
without having to study a lot of theory. Black
wants to play . . . e5 or . . . c5 at some point. It
seems playable. I won two games against it
recently, against Antipov in Moscow 20 1 5 ,
and Morozevich in Zurich 20 1 6.
7.V!ic2
7.e5 is the main continuation. After 7 . . . lll fd7
there is a lot of theory. For years I have
experimented with different continuations,
mainly 7.id3 and the game move.
I had two interesting games back in 1 988
against two Bulgarian players, which we will
look at below.
But in this game Bocharov reacted correctly,
I think, making it undesirable ever to repeat
this variation with White.
7 c5! 8.dxc5 dxe4 9.c!Lixe4 c!Lixe4 IO.V!ixe4
..•
cl£ic6!
Black fights for the initiative.
After something like 1 0 . . . ixc5 l I .b4 ie7
1 2.ib2 White has a slight advantage. It would
be possible for me to add a long analysis, but
it would be pretty pointless. White has space
1 58 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making i n Chess

and better development, while Black has 1 2.�d l !

no obvious weaknesses. There is no need for An important intermediate move.
variations to determine that White has a slight 1 2 . . . Wa5t 1 3.id2 Wxc5
edge.
8
1 1 .i.f4 7
If I had played 1 l .b4, Black would have
6
replied with 1 l . . . f5 1 2.Wc2 e5 when I think
Black is already better. 5
4
8 3
7 2
6
5
a b c d e f g h

4
l 4.ic3

3
1 4.b4 f5! 1 5 .Wd5 t Wxd5 1 6.cxd5 llJ d4
1 7.llJxd4 exd4 1 8 .ic4 is better for White,

2
but not as convincing.
1 4 . . . ie6!?
The following sequence is not necessarily
1
very strong for Black, but if he has to play
a c e g placidly, White is better. So I checked the
1 1 .. hc5?
.
most active line.
This move looks very natural and innocent, If Black has to play 14 . . . if6, White has an
but it loses the momentum and allows White edge; the black pieces are misplaced.
to fight for the initiative with active play, 1 5 .b4 f5!? 1 6.We2 Wb6 1 7.c5 We? 1 8.ixe5
making Black's task much harder. White snatches the pawn.
1 8 . . . llJxe5 l 9.Wxe5 Wxe5t 20.llJxe5
The strategic view of the position is that White
has the better pawn structure, so Black will
have to fight for activity. Or in other words,
White is playing for long-term advantages
{structure) and Black should play for short­
term advantages (time) . The instructive thing
is that this can change in an instant, as we shall
see later.

There were two alternatives I was considering

during the game.

1 1 . . . e5?!
I did not feel that this was working, but I
knew I had to look at it.
 Chapter 6 - Time 1 59

The right move was 1 1 . . . f5! immediately. 1 3.id2 Wc7 1 4.b4 e5 again looks as if

�/ � �;. J� .J��
White is trying to lose.
8
,
1 3 . . . Wxd2t 1 4.ixd2 e5!

%� %� ·� �
: �,1.,.�
5 �-/,�%·'� ��
3 :/j%�':;��� ���-ltJ':;���-�
4

2 fH:l�� �J�ii
a b c d e f g h

If White plays 1 2.We2, Black has 1 2 . . . if6

with . . . e6-e5 prepared. For example: 1 3.id6
e5! and it is not hard to imagine that a careless
move could cause White to lose a miniature.
The engine claims that the position is roughly
balanced after this exchange sacrifice, but
I seriously doubt that this is a realistic
evaluation. There are positions where people
have conflicting views and both of them are
correct, but in this one, the initiative is very
1 5 .ic3
1 5 .b4? e4 1 6.lligl a5 and White is in a bad
way. The pawn matters little when none of
the pieces are able to get out.
1 5 . . . e4 1 6.llid4 ixc5
Black has no problems whatsoever.
Because of the above, I have abandoned 7.Wc2.

8 � m .i.� �i.%•�
powerful and White's long-term problems
with his king are a great obstacle. Very few

.
,,_, . . ,/,_ .,v,.,
grandmasters would choose to be White
7

. . ?.m:m :m- - ,?,�

here.
But of course there are crazy people in every
6
� m �
profession. I am not talking about anyone

: .11t-.1. ��
�
in particular, and it is certainly not meant
to be derogatory. And knowing a bit about

. . . %�/%�
3 � � ltj�
2 �t!J - �t!J% �
� �- t3J �-
lflj�
psychology, I would guess that a person crazy
enough to choose White here, would only be
flattered to be told he was crazy! Still, 'original'
%
� �
is a better word . . .
1 �- - - %- �mi•�
S o the main line runs: a b c d e f g h
1 2.Wc2 Wa5 t 12.:adl!
This i s simple enough if we are trying to I d o not know if m y opponent somehow
prove that Black is perfectly fine, but I am discounted this move as a blunder. It's possible,
not convinced that my opponent would not but I j ust don't know.
have gone for the more aggressive l 2 . . . if6,
seeking the initiative. I did not seriously consider 1 2.b4, when
1 3.Wd2 Black could fight for the initiative with either
1 60 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g in Chess

12 . . . eS or 1 2 . . . fS 1 3.Wc2 e5. Both moves look

good. You could work out if the inclusion of
... f7-f5 improves Black's position or not, but
from White's perspective, all you have to do is
establish that the game is going in the wrong
direction.

The move I chose in the game required quite a

bit of calculation. Black has missed his chance
to play energetically ( 1 1 . . .ixcS lost a tempo)
so it is White's chance to play energetically
now.
a b c d e f g h
12 ...ft'b6
1 2 . . . ixf2t was of course possible, but after 13.b4!
1 3 .©e2 (but not 1 3.c;!;>xf2? ft'xd l 1 4.id3 f5!) The key move.
13 . . .Wb6 leads to the game.
1 3 .�d2? e5 is obvious wrong.
During the game I also considered 13 . . . fS , but
found that White had the advantage after: During the game, I looked only briefly at
1 3 .id3.

The line I saw was 1 3 . . . ixf2t 1 4.c;!;>fl f5

1 5 .We2 e5! 1 6.ixeS tll x e5 1 7.tll xeS We3 and
Black is not worse.

Also Black can play 1 3 . . . fS 1 4.We2 e5!, when

1 5 .tll xeS tll d4 1 6.Wd2 tll b 3 1 7.We2 tll d4 is a
typical engine draw.

At the board, when I looked at 1 3.id3 and

a b c d e f g h
l 4.�xd8 fxe4 l 5 .�xf8t c;!;>xf8 l 6.id6t The
accurate moment to give the check, which I
did not see during the game. Also, it is not
something I would want to see. All I need to
know to make a decision is to see that White is
the stronger side in a variation. I can work out
the details later, if it actually happens. I need
only enough information to make a decision.
Acquiring more is potentially a waste of time.
Obviously it happens all the time, but the least
we can do is not to celebrate it. 1 6 . . . c;!;>f7 White
has a choice between 1 7.tll g St and 1 7.c;!;>xf2,
both leading to a long-term advantage.
1 3 .b4, I felt strongly that 1 3 .id3 would lose
momentum. Of course I checked a few lines to
see what was happening, but it did not attract
me in the slightest.
13 ...Lflt
Black has to take.
14.c;!;>e2
The white king looks stupid on e2, but
this is a small price to pay for all of Black's
pieces being uncoordinated. For a start,
c4-c5 is a threat. Black is absolutely forced to
do something right away.
 Chapter 6 - Time 161

15.�c2
8

7
8
6
7
5
6
4
5
3
4
2
3
1
2
a b c d e f g h
1
14 . £5
a c e
..

b d f g h
1 4 . . . e5 is met with 1 5 .c5.
1 5 ... e5?!
Black is not putting up the toughest
resistance. When the game is not going your
way, you have to fight hard to change the flow
of the game, or your opponent will face too
easy a task.

1 5 . . . id4 j ust loses a piece to 1 6.b5.

1 5 ... tli d4t!

This was the best chance. Black had to find
the following trick:
1 6.tlixd4 ixd4 1 7.c5 Wfb5t 1 8 .'it>el
White looks to be winning, but Black has:
18 ... Wfe8! 1 9.�xd4 e5
Winning back the piece. A very nice tactic
that allows Black to stay in the game.
So 1 5 ... Wfc? is a must.
The simplest is probably 1 6. �xf2 exf4
1 7.ic4 with �he l , �d6, tlig5 and so on,
coming. White's position has great potential;
it's not too dissimilar from what happened in
the game.
I also saw that I could try 1 6.tlixe5, which
is very complicated, but might also lead to an
excellent position. Again, during the game, I
did not feel the need to work out the details.
It was enough for me to see that the general
a b c d e f g h
trend was in my favour.
1 62 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g in Chess

But although this line was Black's only try, 22.W/d4 ig4t 23.©f2 ixd l 24.ic4!
White is still better here. There are two ways Followed by 2 5 .E:xd l with an overwhelming
for White to prove an advantage, which he can position.
choose from accordin g to his taste:
17.©xfl exf4 18 .lc4t ©hs
•

a) 20.ic4t ©h8 2 1 .E:d6 exf4t 22.W/e2 id?

23.Wfxe8 E:axe8t 24.©f2 ic6 2 5 .E:hd l with a
very pleasant endgame.

b) Or 20.ib5 Wfxb5 2 1 .Wfb3t ©h8 22.i.xe5

id? 23.©f2 E:ae8 24.E:e l with a sharper
position, where White is also better.

I have a feeling that at the time I would have

chosen the ending - it is more stylish and
human, but now I am less sure. Opposite­
coloured bishops favour the stronger player,
something I have only discovered recently. So
a pleasant choice, but not easy.

16.c5 Y!fc7 White is still a pawn down, but I can assure

A really important line to work out is: you that I was happy at this point. But being
16 ... ixc5 1 7.bxc5 W/c7 happy is not enough. In a situation like this,
where the advantage is purely dynamic, it is
8 easy to let it slip with one or two unenergetic
7 moves. So, it is really important to keep focus,
and continue to find good moves. There are
6 many tempting possibilities here, which also
5 makes it easy to go wrong.
4
3 19.Y!fc3!?
Of course I considered 19 .!!he I !, but I felt
2 that after 1 9 . . .id? we would simply transpose
after 20.W/c3. I did not see the following nice
a b c d e f g h combination: 20.llig5 h6
If White were to play something like 1 8.ic l ,
Black would reply 1 8 . . . e4 and 1 9 . . .f4, with
compensation for the piece. But White has a
direct refutation of this sacrifice:
1 8 .W/b3t ©h8 I 9.llixe5! lli xe5 20.W/e3
Based on 20 . . . E:e8 2 l .E:d5! and Black is
caught in a web of pins. He can try active
play with:
20 . . . W/f7 2 1 ..ixe5 f4
But White wins easily:
a b c d e f g h
 Chapter 6 - Time 1 63

2 1 .gd6!! hxg5 (2 1 . . .gf6 22.'Li f7t @h7
23.gxf6 gxf6 24.Wfc3 also wins) 22.Wf c3 White
is winning because of gh6# or Wfh3#. During
the game I looked for such possibilities all the
time, but I could not make it work.
19 ...i.d7
The reason I chose the move order I did
was che following neat trap: 1 9 . . . gds 20.'Lie5!
gxd l
with other tempting options available, I played
something strong and simple. Noe because I
wanted to keep it simple necessarily, but
because I saw that it worked.
In the line above, 22 . . . 'Lie5 is the best defensive
cry, after which I doubt chat White has a bigger
advantage than in the game, so my intuition
did not lee me down, even if my calculation
did.

8 2 1 ...gxel
7 Again, one of the reasons I played as I did,
was chat I saw a crap. After 2 1 . . .i.c8 22.'Lig5
6 gxe l White wins in one move with 23.gh6!.
5 Black is mated.
4
3 22.°!Wxel gf6
Maybe the way co keep the game going
2 was 22 . . . ges 23.Wf d2 i.c8 , but after 24.Wfxf4
White should win. With equal pawns and a
a b c d e f g h much beccer placement of the pieces, White's
2 1 .'Lig6t hxg6 22.Wfh3# Sadly I was not given advantage is overwhelming.
the chance.
23.�g5 h6?!
A final inaccuracy. Black could have resisted
20J�hel gae8 21.gd6
more, but probably not saved the game.
Again I cried to gee 2 1 .'Lig5!? co work.
During the game, I could not find a way
23 . . . gxd6 was the lase cry. I was planning to
against 2 1 . . .gxe l 22.Wfxe l h6, but again:
play 24.'Lif7t @g8 25.'Lixd6t @f8

a b c d e f g h
a b c d e f g h
23.gd6!! hxg5 24.Wf c3 works.
26.Wf d2, when Black's position is simply bad.
If this had been the only way co win the
game, I believe I would have found it. Bue
24.�f7t � h7 25.gxf6 gxf6 26.°!Wdl !
1 64 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g in Chess

To sum up this game: Black lost momentum

8
on move 1 1 and White took the initiative
7 when he had the chance. This made Black's
6
task difficult, and after a few mistakes he got
run over by the unstoppable energy of the
5 white pieces.
4
I promised to look more deeply into the 7.Wi'c2
3
idea and the two games I had with Bulgarians.
2 By what could be pure coincidence, the games
followed the same path till move 1 8 .
1

a b c d e f g h Boris Gelfand -Alexander Delchev

The final touch, not only attacking down the
d-line, but also eyein g the h5-square.
26...�cS
26 . . . i.e8 is eliminated most simply by
27.Wi'h5 i.xf7 28.Wi'xflt Wi'xf7 29.i.xf7 and
White will quickly collect a few pawns and win
the endgame.
Arnhem 1 9 88
I .d4 �f6 2.c4 e6 3.�f3 �b4t 4.�bd2
0-0 5.a3 i.e7 6.e4 d5 7.�c2 dxe4 8.�xe4
�bd7 9.i.d3 �xe4 I O ..ixe4 �f6 l l .�d3 b6
12.i.e3 .lb7 13.0-0-0 �c8
To play for . . . c5 is natural, but not very
energetic.

What I calculated durin g the game was Today, it seems to me chat Black has an
26 . . . llJe5, but after 27.llJxe5 fxe5 28 .Wi'd5 attractive option in 1 3 . . . b5!?.
Black has to play 28 . . . Wi'd8 to avoid mace,
when 29.Wi'xb7 is simply winning.

27.�d6 @g6 28.b5

8
7

5
a b c d e f g h
4
The main idea is chat after l 4.cxb5 c6! Black
3
gets a lot of compensation with the open files.
2

1
Also l 4.c5 i.xf3 l 5 . gxf3 c6 looks reasonable
for Black. It is harder for White to create an
a b c d e g h attack without knights. I think this is the way
1-0 chat Petrosian would play.
 Chapter 6 - Time 1 65

14.l3hel c5
8
Another game saw Black playing even more
passively; and being punished for it. 7
14 ... Ele8 ?! 1 5 .tll e 5 c5 1 6.g4! 6
Taking on c5 first is also strong, but the
general idea is to attack before it is too late. 5
1 6 . . . cxd4 1 7.ixd4 h6 1 8.h4 i':!:d8 4

a b c d e f g h
The task for White now is to properly
organize his pieces, which is a lot harder than
it looks. It is only now, 28 years later, that I
know how to do this.
a b c d e f g h
The first time I had this position was in the
1 9.g5! 1 988 World Junior Championship in Australia.
I 9.ic3!? was less direct, but in some ways
At that point I played a natural-looking move,
simpler; I do not see any black counterplay.
which did not get the most out of the position:
Still, I like Gurevich's energetic play. One
1 8 .i':!:gl 'Wb7 l 9.f3
of the more difficult aspects of handling
Necessary, otherwise Black plays . . . ie4.
the initiative is: when should you play as
l 9 . . . ixf3 20.i':!:dfl
energetically as possible and when would
a simple retreat make all of your threats
stronger? But in this case, both moves win.
19 ... i':!:xd4 20.gxf6 i':!:xd3 2 1 .fxe7 Elxd l t
22.i':!:xd l 'We8 23 .i':!:d7
Gurevich had to see this move on move 1 9,
but he did, so all is OK.
23 . . .ic6 24.i':!:c7 'Wb8 25.i':!:xc6 'Wxe5 26.°Wd3
1 -0 M. Gurevich - J. Horvath, Budapest
1 987.

1 5.�e5 cxd4 16 ..ixd4 gds 17.J.c3 hg2 a b c d e f g h

A very risky decision. It was played not
once but twice against me that year in junior
championships by Bulgarian opponents. The
coincidence seems overwhelming, although
it is not clear from the main game that they
shared information about the opening.
20 . . . i':!:xd3!
This is obviously the right move. Black
removes a key attacker and gains time to
block the open files toward his king.
20 . . . ih5 2 1 .ixh?t! tll xh7 22.tll x f7! would
win for White.
Strictly as an item of curiosity, I want to
1 66 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g i n Chess

mention that 20 . . .ie4 was also possible, When we were analysing the game afterwards,
when 2 l .E:xf6 E:xd3 22.E:xf7 at first looks a trainer from the Qatar delegation suggested a
absolutely decisive: more dynamic regroupin g of the white rooks.

18J�e3!
Instead of being left with a static rook on the
cl-file that was unable to do any good, White is
aiming to double the rooks on a file where real
damage may be caused.

18 Y!fb7
...

a b c d e f g h

But Black has a cool defence: 22 . . . g6

23.E:xe7 Vflxe7 24.tlixd3 E:d8! Edge-of-your­
seat survival tactics. 2 5 .Vfie2 ixd3 26.Vfle5
h6 It seems miraculous that White does not
have a direct win. Still, in practical terms,
Black's king is too unsafe for his position to
be viable, although the engine thinks White
is only marginally better.
a c e
2 l .Vflxd3 ie4 22.Vfih3 b d f g h
22.Vflg3 ig6 and Black is j ust better.
22 . . . if5 23.E:xf5 exf5 24.Vflxf5 g6 25.tlixg6 19J�grn
hxg6 26.ixf6 This was the idea back then, and it looks
perfectly natural. White gets strong pressure
8 down the g-file, and Black will have to reply
accurately in order to resist it. But if we think
7 a bit deeper, prophylactically, we can see what
6 Black is trying to do as well - we need to prevent
5 his best defensive option, which is taking on d3
4 and then rerouting the bishop to g6 via e4.
3 Today, with the help of engines, we can see
2 that White has a subtle idea in 1 9.!!de 1 !! with
the direct threat of llixf7, although f4-f5 also
a b c d e f g h becomes relevant in some lines. White has a
1/2-'h Gelfand - Dimitrov, Adelaide 1 988.
serious attack. The best line for Black might
I was lucky that my opponent accepted the very well be: 1 9 . . . iffi 20 .E: g3 E:xd3 Again this
draw. After 26 . . . ixf6 27.Vflxf6 Vfle4 28.Vfic3 is forced. 2 1 .llixd3 tlih5 22.E: g 5 if3 23.tlie5
E:c8 29.E:d l Vflf4t 30.@b l Vflxh2 Black is ie7 24.E: gg l tli f6 2 5 .llixf3 Vflxf3 Black does
definitely playing for a win. not have quite enough for the exchange,
although the game is far from over.
 .
Chapter 6 - Time 1 67

19 ... �JS? Black would be fine if his knight on f6 was

1 9 . . . g6? would be met by the devastating not overloaded.
20.i.xg6! and 2 1 .lll xg6, when the floodgates
open. 2 1 .lll g4!
White wins a piece.
Black should have replicated Dimitrov's idea
and played 1 9 . . . E:xd3!. 21 ...ig6 22.ixg6 hxg6 23 ..hfU gdc8
Black could not recapture. After 23 . . . gxf6
24.lll x f6t White has a winning attack. For
example with 2 5 .Wc3 and all kinds of threats
are appearing.

24.@bl b5

s � m � � �-�
6
�-Im %m_,�,
" 1a �. r••'�
1
a b c d e f g h

I was intending to play 20.lll xd3 i.e4 2 1 Ylie2

i.f5 22.lll f4!?, which the engine thinks makes
no sense at all. Black's counterplay down the
:�
3 � � � ��
"� ·�!.
c-file is too dangerous. Probably 20.Wxd3
with roughly even chances is more prudent,
but Black appears not to be worse at all. This
2 " ��� ;;-;
��
- - %���-'0�v %
����,,,,%��--
��,;;-;. -�� - - - Y-���-'0,
� '.0 % '.0

can be hard to see at first glance, as Black only

has a pawn for the exchange after all, which a b c d e f g h
is maybe why Delchev tried to get by without 25.lll h 6t!
giving up the exchange. This also worked on the previous move, but
when you are completely winning, the main
20.gg3 ie4 thing is not to throw the point away needlessly,
so I was cautious.

25 ... gxh6 26.gxg6t fxg6 27.�xg6t ig7

28.ixg7 �f7 29.�xh6 �f5t 30.@al @f7
31 .ic3 gra 32.gg5 �e4 33.gg?t @es
34.�h5t @ds 35.ia5t
1-0

One part of fighting for the initiative, trying

to take over the momentum, is gambits. One
player gives up a pawn or more in order to
spend his time developing, while the opponent
is wasting his time cashing in.
a b c d e f g h
1 68 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g i n Chess
The Shabalov-Shirov Gambit
Alexander Shabalov is slightly older than me,
and I have known him since the late 70s. I
have a game in my database that we played in
1 98 1 , but I have a feeling that I am missing an
even earlier game.
We played a lot of interesting games against
each other. Two of them were included in
My Most Memorable Games (from Vilnius 1 988
and the game with Black from Bermuda 2004
- the same tournament as the game below) .
Alex was one of my main rivals in the 1 98 5
Soviet Championship. We played a marathon
game that was adjourned three times, where he
managed to hold this position:
Boris Gelfand - Alexander Shabalov
Yurmala 1 98 5
You can see that Black i s a solid pawn down
at this point. Shabalov, however, then played
better than me. Although he later was three
pawns down, he created enough counterplay
to hold the draw.
45JU3t ©g5 46.©g3 ©h5 47J�d3 ga8
48. ©fl ©g5 49. ©e3 ©f6 50. ©d2 ©e7
51 .h4 h5 52J�g3 ©f6 53.gf3t ©e7 54.gg3
©f6 55J�f3t ©e7 56.tlixe5 tixa3 57JU7t
©d6 58.tlid3 tlic4t 59.©c3 tie3 60.©d4
tlic2t 6l .©c3 tlie3 62.gxg7 ga3t 63.©d2
tlic4t 64.©c2 tlie3t 65.©d2 tlic4t 66.©e2
ga2t 67.©el tie3 68.g3 tic2t 69.©dl
tlid4 70.tlic5 gh2 7l .gd7t ©e5 72.gh7
tlie2 73.gxh5t ©d4 74.tixe6t ©xe4 75.gc5
tlixg3 76.tig5t ©d3
112-112
The game resumed several times, while of
course we were also playing the other rounds.
le cost him a lot of energy and while I kept
on winning, he fared less well and lost some
games, and fell out of contention for the title.
I think he also had university exams at the
same time, which certainly can add some
pressure!
Shabalov is a very creative player, and originally
from Riga. It is not difficult to see the influence
of Mikhail Tal . From quite an early age,
Shabalov and Shirov were fortunate to analyse
with Tai. They worked on the Botvinnik
variation together, for example. Bagirov helped
the young players develop a systematic work
ethic, but the stylistic influence came from Tai.
Boris Gelfand - Alexander Shabalov
Bermuda 2004
l .d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.tic3 tif6 4.tlif3 e6 5.e3
tlibd7 6.Yfc2 i.d6 7.g4!?
This is the Shabalov-Shirov Gambit. le is not
known which of them thought of it first, but
it certainly does not matter who managed to
put it on the board first, as they analysed it
together. The special thing about this game is
of course that I had the rare chance of playing
a variation against its inventor!
This variation was popular in the early 1 990s,
but then for some years it was neglected. It
came back in the early 2000s, when I also
played it against Dominguez (see page 1 09) .
 Chapter 6
These days it is less popular, as it is difficult
to play such a risky variation against computer
preparation. Still, Nakamura won a game
earlier this year in Gibraltar against Mariya
Muzychuk. But it remains risky, although not
refuted. I think it has most value as a surprise
weapon these days.
8 ..ixc4 b6?
This is a very rare move. As we shall see, it
does not really work, but in 2004 this was not
obvious.
9.e4
The most natural move. Black sometimes
plays 8 . . llJd5, so 9.g5 would make little sense,
. everything. And everyone is using the same
forcing Black to play 9 . . . llJd5 under what are
preferable circumstances.
9 ...i.b7
This is the point of 8 . . . b6, and it makes
no sense to consider anything else, as no one
would play it.
9 . . . e5 would be a considerable concession, as
after 1 O.g5 the knight is kicked to a bad square.
It makes no sense to play like this, which is
- Time 1 69
why it was possible for a computer to do it.
1 0 . . . llJh5 l I .i.e3 0-0 1 2.0-0-0 was played in
Kasparov - Deep Junior, New York ( I ) 2003.
The computer has played badly, but the rest of
the game was even worse, so bad that it cannot
be included in a quality book like this. Let's
just say that Garry won very convincingly.
a b c d e f g h
10.e5
I had looked at this idea at home. The
game was played at a point when the level of
preparation was already quite high, although
not as high as today. So I had looked at the
variation till a certain point.
But I think it is important to make a distinction
when we talk about preparation. Top players
do prepare very deeply, but there are so many
possibilities that you just cannot prepare for
computer programs. Everyone knows the
main games and has analysed them already. So
when 1 5 moves land on the board instantly,
the players are following known paths, which
they have both analysed and formed their own
opinions on. The cases where a player manages
to catch another player in preparation to a very
deep point are rare. In most games, something
slightly different than expected happens, and
the players are following basic ideas just as much
as long lines of memorized preparation.
1 70 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g i n Chess

In the present case the line was pretty forcing, 16 ...ixhl 17.ixf4 �xd4 18.�g3
so I knew it a few moves ahead. After this game When I looked at this variation as far as this
some commentators claimed that the game point in my preparation, I felt I had a good
had been analysed by me all the way to the position, so I moved on to other things.
end, because it followed the first line of their
2004 computers all the way to the end. But 18 ... c!lJe4
correlation is not causation. If you look at the A curious line goes 1 8 . . . i'!xg7 1 9.i'!d l i'!xg4
moves after 8 . . . b6, you will not find many and White has to play very accurately to prove
chances to play anything else before move an advantage:
1 8, which is the point I had prepared to, and
probably also the point Shabalov had prepared 8
to. Such exaggerations about my preparation 7
have happened many times. See for example 6
my game with Amonatov on page 1 43. 5
10 ...c5 l 1 .exf6 .ixf3
4
l l . . . Wxf6 does not work on account of 3
l 2.i.e2 i.xf3 l 3.g5 and White wins a piece. 2

b d g
12.fxg7 �g8 13.�xh7 tlif6 14.ib5t ©e7 a c e f h
15.ig5 if4
Without this move Black is lost. After 20.i'!xd4 i'!xg3 2 l .i.d6t c;t>dg 22.i.xcSt i.d5
1 5 . . .cxd4 White wins with either 1 6.lll e4 or 23.i.xb6t axb6 24.hxg3 and White has an
l 6.Wh6! i.e5 l 7.lll e4! i.xe4 l 8.f4 and Black's extra pawn.
position falls apart on the dark squares. 20.i.d6t c;t>dg 2 I .Wh3! ? is also possible.

8 19.�h4t?!
This is pretty decent, even strong, but today
7 we can see that I had a stronger option.
6
l 9.lll xe4 Wxe4t
5

4 8
3 7
2
6
5
4
a b c d e f g h 3
16.�h3! 2
As I said, I am still in preparation.
a b c d e f g h
After 1 6.i.xf6t 'ktixf6 1 7.lll e4t i.xe4 1 8.Wxe4
'<Wxd4 Black has no problems. When I annotated the game in 2004, I only
 Chapter 6 - Time 171

considered 20.�fl . However, after 20.ie2!
Black is essentially lost. White will play f2-f3
and the bishop on h 1 is lost.
19 ...'1Vf6
We should also mention that l 9 . . . lLi f6 loses
to 20.E:d l °Wxf4 2 1 .E:d?t.
20.g5
2 1 . . .E:ad8
logical, you cannot take anything for granted
in tactics.
One line I felt was very tempting started with
2 1 .lLixe4 .ixe4 22.g6t f6 23.id6t ©xd6
24.'Wxe4, but after 24 . . . E:ad8! White has to
play 2 5 .E:d l t with a decent position, as after
2 5 .°Wc6t? ©e5 there is no mate and Black
just wins. This is where I put my main focus,
while thinking on my opponent's time.
This is the only move, which is not at all
obvious when you are at the board.
A line that delighted me when I saw it goes
as follows: 2 l . . . E:h8?

8 \ �� ����.
.
7 E. %.•%.�
.
�
,

· ��

5 ���:r-
6
... ,%. ,..--%�
�. �
... . . ?.� ��;�···.?.; ,.
��� �a��L.
3 ��r�"'.?J
,,

2 8 �!Jg
. . ?.�•
�. .
:�!·�N��
� ···· �� �
" ��
1.
·�

a b c d e f g h
20 ...'1Yf5?
I really do not know why Alexander chose 22.lLixe4! E:xh4 (22 . . . E:ad8 23.E:xd8 E:xh4
this move. It is possible that he got lost in the 24.E:e8#) 23.id6t �d8 24.ie5t ©e7
complications, saw some things he did not like 2 5 .ixg? ixe4 26.E:d7t �e8 27.g6! fxg6
in some lines, and then went for this move that 28.E:xa?t �d8 29.if6t �c8 30.E:xa8t
loses easily in quite a few different ways. ixa8 3 l .ixh4 and White has an extra piece.
I think an important difference between
strong grandmasters and those at the very top At this point White has two serious options:
is that the top players make far fewer of this
type of irrational mistake. In our age, it seems
to me that the quality of defence increases
almost day by day. Actually, strike the word
"almost"!

During the game I was calculating the

following lines deeply:
20 . . .'Wxg? 2 1 .0-0-0
After the game, I worked out that this was
the critical move. But although it looks a b c d e f g h
1 72 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Maki n g i n Chess

a) The main line I was calculating was: this, as I did not really look in this direction
22.g6t f6 23.:B:xh l :B:h8 24.Wg4 llixf2 2 5 .Wi'f3 (22.g6t was my main focus) . 23 . . . Wxe5
lli xh I 26.id6t!? This was my idea, but I 24.Wxe4 Wxg5t 2 5 . f4
worked out that it is only enough for a draw.
�� ��/M� �!
: I;. �.,,���
(Of course it is possible to play 26.Wxh l with �
a complicated position. The engines have a 8 - '

.,f- �. ��
tendency to favour the rooks in such positions,

5 . . . ,,.,�- - "�
but to me it is not so obvious that Black is
�m � • . . %
� � .
better. I think it is more accurate just to call
the position complicated.)
3
4

2 � -- � ��
8 '" �� ��y,;-0,, � \ID'/. rwtt·
"--· %m �� �•:
��
6 .. .,f.Y}-· .... . ��
·'-· ·�"�
7 � � - ��
. . . %� b d g
5 � "- - . . � ��
%
a c e f h

% � �
� �
This is a position where it is a matter of taste.
�
3 ��-- � ��
4

1
Those who like to play with the rooks would

� �- -- � � �m·"
2 �m·
probably be happy to take the black side. The

� ��
rooks are well placed, but both sides have their

��m
a b c d e f g
�
h
chances. The player finding the best moves
would win the game. Having said all of this, I
would take White!
26 . . . Wxd6! (26 . . . :B:xd6? loses, as is easy to see
when you are here, but far in advance, it is 21 .0-0-0 gad8 22.gxd8 @xd8
a good deal harder. 27.Wb?t @ fg 28.Wb8t On 22 . . . :B:xd8 I had planned: 23.llixe4 ixe4
We? 29.Wc?t @fg 30.Wxd6t We? 3 1 .g?t!) 24.g6t f6
27.Wc6t @e5 28.We4t Wd6 with a draw by
perpetual check.

b) 22.:B:xh I This leads to a slight advantage.

22 . . . :B:h8

8 � � . .. . Y.· ·- -
�
� ��
6 . . .. %. mB i"B" ""B
7
- ---·"�.r'0 �� �m-r
: �:... 1J��
3 �� �� -�---�� �- - -
2 �m �· - - ·'� �m..'0�m
. - % •�"�[g % �·00.
�:
�"
� '!�[g
m� 23.i.d3
A direct win. Also 23.g6t f6 24.Wh8 is just
a b c d e f g h
over.
It would be essential to see that White has
23.ie5 !, as otherwise he is lost. I did not see
 Chapter 6
23 .. Jlxg7 24.�xe4
24.1Mfh8t @e7 2 5 . .id6t also worked.
24 .. J�h7 25.i.c7t!
Time in a complicated setting
The next game was played in the last instalment
of the 20 1 2- 1 3 Grand Prix series. Officially
it was played in Paris, but in reality it was
played in a suburb. I am not complaining.
Just opposite the hotel was the famous Palace
of Versailles. It was a great feeling to see this
magnificent chateau whenever you left the
building. Very inspiring. I played well and
managed to win the tournament together with
Fabiano Caruana. But despite tying for first
in two of the four Grand Prix tournaments I
participated in, I only finished fourth overall,
as I played badly in the two others. Topalov
and Mamedyarov qualified for the 20 1 4
Candidates tournament, while Caruana missed
out narrowly in third place. An extra half point
in the last event and he would have qualified.
I played some great games in this tournament,
one of them against Nakamura, which will be
included in the fourth volume of this series.
- Time 1 73
The game against Dominguez was for a long
time looking like another masterpiece in the
making. I had a slight lead in development
after the opening, meaning that my opponent
was always a tempo short of equalizing. When
he tried to solve his problems with active play,
I reacted very aggressively, wasting no time
whatsoever. Except maybe on the clock. . .
Boris Gelfand - Leinier Dominguez Perez
Elancourt 20 1 3
I was surprised to see that I have only played
20 games with Dominguez, counting rapid
and blitz tournaments as well.
1 .d4 �f6 2.c4 e6 3.�6 d5 4.�c3
a b c d e f g h
4 ... �bd7
This has been popular for the last few years.
Since 20 1 3 I have faced it a number of times.
It has several points to it, compared to 4 . . . ie7,
but I will not go too deeply into them here. The
chances are that the theory will have moved on
by the time the majority of the readers read
these words.
5 ..if4
Against Magnus Carlsen, in the 20 1 3
Candidates tournament i n London, I played
1 74 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g in Chess
5.ig5, when after 5 . . . c6 the game transposed
into the Cambridge Springs variation. I lost
the game and afterwards decided to switch to
5.if4.
5 ... dxc4
The most natural move.
6.e3
1
a b c d e f g h
6... a6
A few alternatives exist.
After 6 . . . tt'ld5 7.ixc4 lll xf4 8.exf4 we have a
common structure that I have had a number of
times over the last few years. We will no doubt
revisit this in Volume Four of the series. This
is something Alekhine and Rubinstein often
allowed, and is what Adams played against me.
Grachev played 6 . . . b5 against me, which is the
most fashionable reply at the time of writing.
Mamedyarov, Anand and others have played it.
Against 6 . . . tt'l b6 White plays 7.ixc4 tt'lxc4
8.Wa4t and although Black has two bishops,
White has a significant space advantage. Mihail
Marin plays this a lot with Black. There are
many games. It is a classical trade-off, which
could be debated, but it is outside the topic of
this book.
7.a4
7.ixc4 b5 would give Black decent play.
7....id6
Dominguez follows my game against Carlsen
from a few months earlier, a game which is
included in the first volume.
8 ..ig5
I had this idea when I played against Carlsen,
and decided that this was the time to cry it out.
8.ixd6 cxd6 9.ixc4 was what I played then.
At the same time as Domin guez played 7 . . . id6
against me, it was played by Ponomariov
against Grischuk on another board. Grischuk
(who is not afraid of being in time trouble)
waited to see what I did before he decided to
do something else, which was probably his
main idea behind 8.ig3. He did not get a lot
out of the openin g, but was still pressing for
the most of the game, before it ended in a draw
on move 86.
8 ... h6
A normal useful move.
9 ..ih4 c5N
There have also been some games with 9 . . . b6
1 0.ixc4 ib7 with a normal-looking position.
 Chapter 6
10.hc4 0-0 1 1 .0-0 cxd4
a b c d e f g h
At this point I thought for a while, as it is
also possible to take with a piece. The way I
approached the potential of 1 2.%Vxd4 is that
if Black is in time to play . . . b6 and . . . i.b 7, he
will be fine. I made some brief calculations,
found nothing convincing for White, and took
with the pawn.
Still, as it is my normal approach to really get
into the position, I spent 20 minutes on this
move to work out in which direction I wanted
the game to go.
12.exd4
This position is very interesting. It looks like
a normal Isolated Queen Pawn position, but
the bishop is on d6. In some systems it would
be on e7, while in other lines of the Queen's
Gambit, and in the Nimzo-Indian, it would
be on b4; otherwise exactly the same position.
12 ...Wc7
He played this pretty quickly. I believe he
was still in his opening preparation.
An important point is that 1 2 . . . b6 is not in
time because of 1 3 .d5, for example 1 3 . . . exd5
1 4 .i.xd5 �a7 1 5 .ixf7t and White has won a
pawn.
- Time 1 75
8
a b c d e f g h
13.i.b3?!
I spent 10 minutes on this move, which
should be enough. But as we shall see below,
this was a more difficult choice than I
anticipated.
After this move Dominguez started thinking,
signalling that he was no longer in preparation.
I think his idea was to play 1 3.We2 b6. In this
position 1 4.d5 is no threat, as after 14 . . . exd5
1 5 .tlJxd5 tlJxd5 1 6.i.xd5 i.b7 Black is just in
time, and has achieved complete equality. And
without this push, I doubt White can hope for
much.
But placing the queen on e2 makes little sense.
Black will soon play . . . ib7 and threaten ... ixf3,
when White will have to retreat the bishop
anyway. This is something it is quite possible for
anyone to miss when preparing with an engine.
The real question is where the bishop should
go. It was only after the game that I understood
that in a few variations the bishop is better
placed on a2, as we shall see below.
So 1 3.ia2! was the accurate move.
You cannot decide between such moves on
feeling alone. Usually there is a concrete reason
1 76 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g in Chess

for one move being better than the other (or b) Against 1 6.g3 he has 1 6 . . . 'Wb4, which is the
not, if they are actually both fine!) , which first reason why the bishop would have been
you will have to find. You can always reverse­ better on a2.
engineer reasons, when the computer has told
you what is important, but what interests me c) And finally, against 1 6.d5 Black would
are methods to find the best move, not to have 1 6 . . . lll c5 1 7.ixf6 lll x b3 and be OK. We
understand it when you know it is the right can of course continue to analyse and many
choice. interesting lines would appear, but it has little
At this moment, I did not understand that to do with the game, where neither player
there was a critical difference, and I chose the noticed the importance of the bishop being on
wrong square. b3 instead of a2.
This was probably Black's only chance to get
13 ... b6 a decent game out of the opening. I have to
This is pretty natural. admit that it was hard for me to imagine that
the bishop would be hanging on b3 when I
14Jkl
had to choose where to put it on move 1 3.
And so is this.
It is almost overly instructive that the bishop
is hanging in more than one line!
14 ...�bS?!
Dominguez is trying to get the same set-up
With the bishop on a2, Black would probably
as Kramnik had against me in the London
have had to put the queen on b8, and White
Candidates tournament (see page 1 0 1 ) , with
would have an initiative.
the queen on b8, bishop on b7 and rook on c8 .
If he was in time, his position would certainly
Now it is time for White to do something.
be absolutely fine.
If Black is allowed to play . . . ib7, he will be
However, this is not the case, so Black had to
developed, and I do not see that he has any
do something active:
problems.
14 . . . if4 1 5 .Ei:c2 'Wd6! This would disrupt
15.d5!
White's coordination somewhat. Black turns
At this point Dominguez had an easy choice,
out to be OK in various lines:
using the method of elimination. Even if we
cannot see that one option is better than the
8 other, we may see that one option makes life
7 easier for our opponent than the other; and
6 this is often enough in a practical game.
5
4 1 5 ... eS
3 The other option was:
l 5 . . . exd5
2 But this is easy to reject. The variation is
quite simple and conclusive.
a b c d e f g h 1 6.lll xd5 lll x d5 1 7.ixd5 Ei:a7
a) After 1 6.lll e2 Black would simply play
1 6 . . . ib7.
 Chapter 6 - Time 1 77

8
At this stage it was possible to bring the rook
7 into the game with 1 6.E:e I , before deciding on
what to do next. Bue what would be the point
6 of doing chat? We do not know at this point
5 where the rook will be better placed, and at
4
32
the board it is impossible to guess. Just see how
difficult it was for two grandmasters to work
out the differences between putting the bishop
on b3 and a2.

16.tll d2!

This is the problem. I did not see all the

details here; nor did it make any sense
to look for them. White's advantage is
obvious.
1 8 . . . ib?
Otherwise White wins at least the exchange.
1 9.ixb? E:xb7 20.tlic6 i.xh2t 2 I .Q;ih 1 %Vd6
All only moves. Now 22.g3 is not chat great
on account of 22 . . . %Vxd l 23.E:fxd l g5, but
White can play:
22.ie? %Vxd l

8 d�--��
7 ��-�. - 1� This is the most logical move. It creates a

: ·�i �� �-·
� �
�-% � � ': , , , , %�,,,, small threat of putting a knight on e4. Black

4 !.�.�-��
will have to cake this seriously.

3 �%l'�%� �����n��� �-� I6 . e4

..

�
My opponent thought for a while here, and I

���,� �-=
starred going deep into the position too.
� a b c d e f g h
Please understand chat it did not cake a lot
of time to decide on l 5.d5. What else was I
23.E:cxd l ! supposed to do? If Black is allowed to play
23.E:fxd 1 ? if4 would allow Black to escape . . . ib7 and finish his development, getting a
on account of 24.E:c4 E:c8! and everything firm grip of the central squares, I would not
just works out for him. be fighting for an advantage. I am White and
23 . . . E:c8 24.tlid8! have played only natural moves, so I am not
The last acrobatic move. White wins the ready to give up this ambition yet.
exchange and has excellent chances in the
endgame. For this reason, I had not delved too much
into the deeper aspects of the position yet.
1 78 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making i n Chess

The most logical move was 16 . . . ib?. I spent 20 . . . gxf6 2 1 .'Wg4t White is immediately
all of my time on it. winning.
There were other moves, 1 6 . . . 'kt> h8 and 20 . . . 'kt> h8
1 6 . . . Ela?, which did not necessarily look bad, And after this, White has:
but the move I had to have under control was 2 1 .'Wd3 e4
the most obvious one. 2 1 . . .g6 fails to 22.'We3 'kt> g7 23.tll g4 and
White wins.
Then the most obvious reply to 16 . . . ib? to 22.'Wxe4
consider is: I saw this far, and believed that White's
a) 1 7.tll de4 lll xe4 1 8.tll xe4 attack should be winning. After:
22 . . . g6 23.ig3

a b c d e f g h

a 1 ) I should point out that the immediate a b c d e f g h

1 8 . . . f5? does not work. White plays 1 9.tll xd6
'Wxd6 and either 20.Elc6 or 20.ie?, winning.
a2) A more critical line would be:
l 8 . . . tll c5?!
Against this, it was my intention to sacrifice
the exchange:
l 9.Elxc5! bxc5
This is indeed the case. 23 . . . 'kt> g7 is 'best'
when 24.tll d? leaves Black a pawn down for
no compensation whatsoever.
And after:
23 . . . ixg3 24.fxg3!
The knight is lodged on f6 and Black has no
reasonable defence against 'We3, when . . . 'kt> g7
is met by 'Wc3 with death and destruction.

a3) The move I was afraid of was 1 8 . . . 'kt> h8!

with the idea ... f5.

20.tll f6t!
Black cannot accept the sacrifice. After
a b c d e f g h
 Chapter 6 - Time 1 79

a3 l ) My idea was to play 1 9 .g4, but Black is

in time with 1 9 . . . llJc5!. I was trying to make
20.E:xc5! ? .ixc5 2 1 .g5 work, but I did not trust
it. The computer shows a very nice defence for
Black: 2 1 . . .¥Md8! 22.¥Mh5 ixd5! 23.gxh6?! The
most natural move and it looks winning, but
in fact Black is ready for it. (For this reason it
is better to play 23.llJxc5 bxc5 24.E:d l , when
Black has to give up the queen. 24 . . . .ixb3
25.E:xd8 E:axd8 The position is quite unstable,
but neither side seems to be for choice! 26.gxh6 a b c d e f g h

g5!? 27.ig3 f6 The engine says the position is Black looks well placed. But it turns out that
close to equal, but White's position looks ugly I had a very strong move in this position that
to me.) changes this assessment:
23.f4!
8 I did not consider this move. Analysing with
7 the computer, it is easy to find and easy to
6 understand, but during the game it was not
5 so, I can promise you.
I was worried about this position. If I did
4 not find a move like 23.f4, it would be
3 easy to lose my way, and have no advantage
2 whatsoever.
23 . . . ¥Mc7 24.ixfB E:xf8 2 5 . fxe5 llJ xc6 26.¥Mc2!?
Threatening !!c l .
a b c d e f g h
26 . . . ¥Md7 27.llJxf7t E:xf7 28.E:xf7 ¥Mxf7
23 . . . g5!! A surprising move, even when you 29.¥Mxc6 VMf4 30.e6
are up close. 24 . .ixg5 E:g8 2 5 .E:d l .id4 The
complications continue and do not become
any less confusing. But the feeling, and the
computer evaluation, is that White's attack is
running out of steam and, at best, the attack
will be enough to counter Black's material
advantage.

a32) And after 1 9.a5 f5 Black is in time.

a33) I also considered this tactical solution:

1 9.E:c6!?
Here we get this forcing line:
l 9 . . . .ixc6 20.dxc6 llJc5 2 1 .llJxd6 llJxb3
22 . .ie7
I was suspicious of my position on account of:
b) Instead of 1 7.llJde4, I also considered
22 . . . llJ d4
playing: 1 7 .a5!?
1 80 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess
8 17.ltlcxe4
2 taking with the c3-knight or the d2-knighc.
a b c e f g
b l ) 1 7 . . . b5 would allow White to show his
idea in full after 1 8.ltJde4 ltJxe4 1 9.lDxe4 �h8
20.g4! and che advantage is obvious.
b2) The most natural reply is: l 7 . . . bxa5 After
1 8.lDde4 White has many ideas. We have
seen the g4-idea already, but in this specific
variation, we also gee possibilities with t.a4,
putting Black under serious pressure. The
computer suggests 1 8 . . . t.e? 1 9.�e l t.d8 as
one of the choices, which is an indication chat
White is doing quite well. It is maybe only
'plus over equals', but it is very pleasant co play.
If he had played 1 6 . . . t.b?, I would have
had co make a big choice between l 7.lDde4
and l 7.a5 . It seems likely chat I would have
sacrificed the pawn. What is certain is chat I
would have thought for a long time, before
making chat choice. Even now I am not sure
which move offers White the better chances.
a b c d e f g h
I spent nine minutes on this move. The
thing about 1 6 . . . e4 is chat if it works, Black
is absolutely fine, so I had co make sure chat I
reacted in the most accurate way. I was sure chat
I had co take with a knight on e4, but I wanted
co work out if there was a difference between
I worked out pretty quickly that there was no
h big difference. Black should cake back, and this
was definitely his intention. Bue it was worth
the time co make sure anyway. You never know
where the subclecies are hidden, which is why
we call chem subcleties, and hidden . . .
I d o not wane c o spend much time on
Dominguez's decision co play 16 . . . e4. It is
difficulc enough for me co work out what
happens from my side of che board. I chink
he must have missed something in the long
variations chat follows. Bue this is chess. If we
saw everything, there would be no reason co
play.
By the way, I should say that I never considered
playing 1 7 .h3 or something like chat. I started
considering the critical move and it worked.
Why then would I wane to spend time on a
time-wasting move? If you can take, you should
cake. It also feels very natural chat it works:
White is better developed and the pawn on d5
is limiting my opponent's freedom somewhat.
17 ... �xe4
I had worked out pretty quickly chat
Dominguez planned co play as he did in the
game, with l 9 . . . W'f4. You do not play a move
like 1 6 . . . e4 with the intention of defending a
lousy position. The purpose is co counteratcack.
I did not spend any real time on it, buc lee's have
a look at the only plausible alcernative anyway:
1 7 . . . t.xh2t 1 8 .�h l t.e5 1 9.�e l would give
 Chapter 6 - Time 181

White a strong initiative. Something horrible fine. For a start, he threatens to play . . . 'Wh4t
could happen. For example: l 9 . . . ixb2 20.ig3! followed by . . . lli g4 with mating threats. No
and Black is losing something. thank you!

7
s
. . %;..t
I>".
�, �� �-,Y,-· 20 ti'xe4

�%1"
i f.I' �� • �"•
•••

,,,J . . %�.i"'
He has to take. Nothing else works.
6 fi.

: !.•i!.a'�
a) 20 . . . l:!e8 2 l .d6 is depressing for Black. The
bishop is stuck on h2 and White dominates
the position.
3

2 ��-�j_���if
��;����)"r�[�8'"���
�""" �
"'"� The combination 2 l . . . l:!xe7! ? had co be
��
anticipated, of course. It looks highly
speculative, but this is almost always the case
a b c d e f g h
with fantastic combinations. 22.dxe7 'Wh4
We can look at 20 . . . ie5 , when after
2 1 .llixf6t gxf6 22.'Wg4t @h8 23.'Wh5 @g7
24J'k4! Black is quickly mated. For example:
24 . . . llic5 2 5 .!!xe5!

18.�xe4 .ixh2t 19.<t!.>hl ti°f4

a2) 2 l . . . ib7 22.id5 looks simple; White is all

over his opponent. All you have to do is spot
the following amazing variation: 22 . . . l:!xe7!

20 .le7!
•

I do not know how it came into my head,

but I think this is the accurate way to play.

Maybe it was simply chat I saw chat after

20.ig3 ixg3 2 I .lli xg3 llie5 Black is more than
a b c d e f g h
1 82 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g in Chess
23.g3! Wff5 24.ixb? Wi'h3 2 5 . lLi f6t!! lLi xf6
26.ig2 and the only piece Black is not about
to lose is the knight. I saved a bit of time by not
considering the combination in this version.
b) Another line I saw was 20 . . . lLie5 2 1 .ixffi
(this is not necessarily forced) 2 1 . . .Wi'h4, which
looked dangerous.
b l ) 22 . . . Wi'xe? 23.'it>xh2 Wi'h4t 24.'it>gl lLi g4
25 .l:!e l and White is a rook up for nothing.
Not a very exciting variation, but you need to
be in control of these things; it's the bread and
butter of calculation. As we can see elsewhere
in this book, mistakes in calculation are often
very simple things, not j ust flashy moves.
b2) 22 . . . f6 23.ixf6 gxf6
24.Wi'h5! I like this line. Maybe it is not the
only way to refute the attack, but it is simple
and pleasant to look at.
b3) Finally, the simple version: 22 . . . g5 23.Wi'h5!
2 U�e1
I have to play this move. Athough two of
Black's pieces are hanging, I cannot take either
of them.
At this point 2 1 .ixffi? loses to 2 1 . . .Wi'h4,
when after 22.ie? g5 White is lacking knight
checks.
2 1 . ..�f4
It is possible to take on ffi, but after 22.ixffi
lLixffi things are much less clear. I do not want
to analyse it here, as it has no relevance to the
game.
I took my time earlier and saw that I had
22.l:!c4, which is a clear improvement. This
was easy to determine by comparison, as
winning this tempo had no visible downside.
22 ...�xfl
 Chapter 6
I expected this move as well, as there was no
plausible alternative.
The only other way to play I considered (and
eliminated) was 22 . . . Wfb8, when after 23.d6
White is obviously winning. We can see the
line to the end. 23 . . . ie5 24.ixf8 @xf8 2 5 .l:!c7
I wondered if we let the engine run for a while,
would it tell us how many moves it is till
checkmate? But Black can give up his queen,
and run with the king, hiding from the horizon
of the engine, but not from inevitability.
23.@xh2 .tb7
8
7
6 At first I looked at 24.l:!e2 Wff5 2 5 .ic2 Wxd5
5 all obvious to me. The computer gives: 28.l:!h4
4 tll f.3t 29.gxf3 Wxf3 30.Wd3
2
1
a b c d e g h
I saw this far from move 1 7. The variation
was quite forcing up till this point, where my
conclusion in advance was that White is doing
really well. It is also a good moment to stop
and think. White has a wide range of choices,
one of them being the back-up move 24.ixf8,
winning the exchange. But he is still ahead in
development, and it is possible that more can
be squeezed from the position. After the game
I had an interesting discussion with Alex, and
also Evgeny Tomashevsky, who played in the
tournament and had followed the game out of
the corner of his eye.
So, White already has the advantage, though
after taking on f8 he is only better, with a big
- Time 1 83
technical challenge ahead. But the white pieces
are so good, and the black pieces so bad, that I
thought it was possible to find more.
I kept thinking and thinking. Tomashevsky
told me that he was really surprised, positively
so, that I was not satisfied with having an
advantage, but was ambitiously looking for
the best move. And I found it, but spent too
much time. I had to pay dearly for it later
(incidentally, the game had no increments
before move 6 1 ) .
24 ..ic2!
This is the best move, playing for piece
activity. Among other things, it threatens to
trap the queen.
26.l:!d4 Wh5t 27.@gl tll e5, which was not at
b d g
a c e f h
White has won a piece for three pawns, with
good winning chances. But to go into such
complications, I would have to have a greater
incentive than getting a technical advantage,
which I would be able to get after taking on f8.
It turns out that after 24.l:!e2 Wf5 White
has an "invisible move", as my countryman
Yochanan Afek likes to call them: 25.@g l !
Black i s unable to take o n d5, as there is no
check on h5 anymore.
1 84 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g i n Chess

�6 Z f� ��:Jfl
,� ���� ,�
5 � �,f."''-� �� , , ,
32 '·'-""'
4

� � '•�'�
�� ��• �8 �-�0
��-�'0. ..t•
a b c d e f g h a
' " "�� �� �� �-- -
b c d e f g h

After 25 . . . lll c5 26 . .ic2 Wxd5 27.gd4 Wc6
28.b4 lll e6 29.Wd3 g6 30.gd6 White's attack
crashes through. Honestly, I don't chink there
is any chance I would see a move like this
unless I really needed to.
29.Wg3 lll d3 and it is time to transpose into
an easily winning ending with: 30 . .ixffi gxffi
3 I ..ixd3 There are other lines, but they are not
much different. White has a technical win; too
many potential passed pawns.

Also 24.gg4!? is winning.

24 . . . gae8 25 .ge2 Wf5 26.Wd4 f6 27.ge3
gives a winning attack.
But the following line is not at all obvious:
24 . . . gfe8

26.a5!
I am very proud of this move. White gives
a b c d e f g h up a pawn, but forces the black queen further
25.gfl ! Wxb2 26.gxf7! with a winning attack. away from the battleground.

24... b5 26 ... Wxas 27.Wd3 f'5 2sJlf4 gf7

This is the only move, as 2 5 .ge2 is about to
win the queen.
25Jle2 Wb6
25 . . . Wxe2 is the engine's suggestion, but no
human would take it seriously. White has too
strong an attack: 26.Wxe2 bxc4 27.We4 g6
28.Wg4 lll e 5
It is obvious at this point that White is
winning, but somehow I had spent too much
time earlier, and here I started to play really
inaccurately and allowed my opponent to
come back into the game.
 Chapter 6
With a bit more time to think, I would have
played 29.d6, keeping the queen out of the
game, and threatening ib3. White has total
domination. 29 . . . llic5 loses in many ways, for
example to:
29 Yfc7t
•••
The only move. It is not a defence, but at
least the game goes on, and White gets the
chance to make more mistakes.
30.d6 Yfc4 31 .Vfe3
The technical choice was to play 3 1 JM7
Wxd3 32.E:xg?t @xg7 33.ixd3 and White
- Time 1 85
is winning here too. Probably I was being
overambitious, still thinking dynamically. This
line would have been a simple win.
3 1 . J.d5
••
32.b3
I decided to win the queen, but again I had
a simpler win.
After 32.id3 E:xf5 (32 ... Wc6 33.E:c2 Wb6
34.Wg3 is a disaster as well. Next comes E:c7.)
33 .ixf5! ll'i f8 34.E:c2 Wfl 3 5 .!:!:!1 Wc4 36.E:f4
Wa2 37.ixfB E:xf8 White can win with 38 .d?,
38 .ih?t and almost any other move.
All these finesses could be found with five
minutes on the clock, but with one minute, it
is another story.
32 Yfxc2 33Jtxc2 gxf5
•••
The position is obviously winning; Black's
pieces are very poorly placed. Almost any
move wins.
34.Yfd3 gh5t 35.@gl E:e5 36.E:e2
36.E:c? ie6 37.Wg3 E:f5 38 .Wg6 was a
possible win. It would be time to resign. The
quality of the game is heavily influenced by
the few seconds we both had for the remaining
moves.
1 86 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g in Chess
36 .. Jlh5 37.tfg6 i.fi 38.tfg4 �e5 39.tfe4?
At this point 39.l'!xe5 wins immediately.
I regret more that I did not play 39.VBg3! tll d 7
40.VBg4 tll e 5 repeating the position. With one
hour on the clock, it is easy to see 4 1 .l'!xe5 l'!xe5
42 . .if6, but with ten seconds it is possible to
miss it.
39 .. Jks
a b c d e f g h
40J::l c2?
This is also a bad move, but my flag was
almost falling. The last few moves have been
made truly randomly.
I did see the option of 40.g4, but did not realize
that it won immediately: 40 . . . l'!cl t 4 1 . 'kt> g2
l'!d l 42.gxh5 id5 43.Wxd5t l'!xd5 44.l'!xe5
l'!xe5 45 .d7 and the endgame is simple.
40 .. Jhc2 41 .tt'xc2
We have passed the time control and I was
faced with a big challenge to readjust. I knew I
had played a great game and then spoiled it, so
I needed to win it all over again.
41 ...i.e6
It was time to think deeply again. I had
to come up with a strategy to win the game.
What I came up with was to bring the bishop
back to c3, to attack g7 and thus the king, in
order to combine this with threats of pushing
the pawn. It is the basic principle of two
weaknesses, although I did not consciously
think of it like that at the time.
A good question is if I should have played
b3-b4 somewhere, but I wanted to regroup
my pieces first. The feeling now is that Black
cannot really improve his position much, so I
should have played b3-b4. But these things are
very difficult to say with any certainty.
42.tfe4
This is a natural move, centralizing the
queen.
42 ... ©fi
42 . . .ixb3 loses to 43.g4.
43.i.h4
a b c d e f g h
Continuing to regroup the pieces. I think
there is a style issue here. Some players would
be taking it more calmly, while instead I went
for a quick regrouping. Of course, one of the
questions is if Black's fortress holds. Does
White have all the time in the world or will
Black organize counterplay?
At the board I was not sure at all whether the
position was winning. My feeling was that it
 Chapter 6 - Time 1 87

was 50-50. So I thought I had a good chance @g8 48.°%Ve8t @h7 49.ig3!? is also
of winning, but I was not certain that the interesting) 47 . . . !!e4 (47 . . . if5 48.°%Va8
position was winning against the best defence. ie6 49.b4 !!d5 50.Wxa6 tLl f6 5 I .id4 and
And probably this determined my attitude. White has made progress) 48.°%Ve7t @g6
If you believe that the position is winning (48 . . . @g8? 49.id4) 49.We8t @h7
no matter what, you will probably be calmer.
But I was not that sure, and thought that if he 8
coordinated his pieces better, it would be more 7
difficult to break through. So I thought I had
6
to set some goals and aim for them quickly.
5
43.b4 was worth considering. 4

..
43 �d7 44.Wf3t i>g6?!
I think this is not the best.
2

During the game I was more concerned about:
44 . . . !!f5
I feel I should warn the readers that the
analysis that follows is long and involved; it's
a difficult position, and giving j ust a couple
of moves would not get close to telling the
truth about it.
a b c d e f g h
50.id4! !!xd4 5 1 .°%Vxe6 tLl f6 52.°%Vf5t @g8
53.°%Vc8f @h7 (53 . . . @f7 also allows 54.Wxa6
and after 54 . . . !!d l t 5 5 .@h2 l:!d3 Black's
mating dreams are foiled by 56.g3) 54.'%Vxa6
!!d5 5 5 .Wc6 The b-pawn is dropping.
c) 45 . . . !!c5 46.Wd8! At last separating
Black's king from his other pieces. 46 . . . if5

� �� �n��r�
f �!w. .-� i (46 . . . !!e5 transposes to line b) 47.°%Ve7t @g8
48.°%Ve8t @h7 49.Wf7 l:!e5 50.if2 ie6
5 I .We8 with good winning chances.

�t.�,,. �
3�.r�

: �,.
� �
� ��;'
�� �� �� ,;, ,
3 � � �-
4

2 �� �� �1 !
�� �� �; �;.�
a b c d e f g h

I intended to play:
45 .°%Va8
The idea is to come to e7 via d8.
45 . . . !!e5!
This is the only move. Black has to keep his
eye on the e7-square. The alternatives are not
so good.
a) 45 . . . ixb3?? 46.Wd8 and White wins.
b) 45 . . . !!d5 46.Wd8 !!e5 47.if2 (47.We7t
a b c d e f g h
At this point I looked for a long time, and
had a few friends look at the positions as well,
but no one has been able to come up with
a way to break the fortress. I will give my
variations below and offer it as a challenge to
1 88 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g in Chess

the readers. Please see if you can find a way 47.Wf d8 l:!e5!
for White to overcome the resistance. 47 ... .ifS? fails to a nice little lever: 48.Wfe?t
46.b4 'it>g8
I do not see a way to avoid this move.
Actually, it appears that the other lines are
less challenging.
46.Wfxa6 .ixb3 47 . .ig3 !!f5 48.Wfc8 .ie6
49.Wfd8 lll f8 50 . .ie l 'it>g8 and I think Black
is holding.
46 . .if2 !!d5 47.Wfxa6 lll f6 48 ..id4 id?
49.ixf6 gxf6 50.Wfb6 'it>e6 looks like a dead
draw to me too.
46.Wf d8 if5 47 . .if2 !!d5 48 .Wfe?t 'it>g8
49.Wfe8t �h7

49.g4!! White wins after 49 . . .ixg4 50.Wfe8t

and either 50 . . . lll ffi 5 1 .ie? or 50 . . . 'it>h?
5 1 .Wfe4t.
48 ..if2 !!e4!
The accurate move, with the idea . . . lll f6.
48 . . . lll f6? 49.id4 and White wins after
Wfe?t, ixf6 and d6-d7.

8
a b c d e f g h
7
6
Black is ready for . . . lll f6, when he is very
well coordinated and has counterplay 5
against the white king with . . . lll g4 and 4
. . . !!d l . My idea was to get the bishop to g3,
but it is not happening. If we get to such 2
a position as this, Black might have . . . !!d l t
and . . . lll e4t, winning the bishop. It is not
a b c d e f g h
even about breaking down a fortress; White
has to careful. The following line is rather forcing in nature
46 . . . !!d5 (but not necessarily forced!) . It is an attempt
Accurate again. to push White's advantage to the maximum.
46 . . . 'it>g6 47.Wfxa6 !!d5 48.Wfc6 'it>h7 49.Wfe?t 'it>g6 50.Wfe8t 'it>h7 5 l .id4 !!xd4
49.Wfb? 'it>g6 50 . .ie l and White has made 52.Wfxe6 lll f6 53.Wff5 t 'it>g8 54.Wf c8t @f7
serious progress. 5 5 .Wfxa6 l:!xb4 56.Wfa?t 'it>g6 57.Wfa l !!g4
Or after 46 . . . .ifS 47.if2 'it>g6 48.Wfxa6 !!d5 58.Wfb l t @f7 59.Wfd l !!g5 60.d? lll xd7
49 . .ic5 lll f6 50.Wfxb5 Black's position has 6 1 .Wfxd?t 'it>g8
collapsed.
 Chapter 6 - Time 1 89

8 b) But it seems that I can get an improved

version of the game after:
47.Wfe4t �f7 48.ixg7 tlJ f6
48 . . . l:!xd6 49.Wff4t �e7 50.ixh6 should be
5 a trivial win. The black king is in danger and
4 White has a passed pawn.
3 49.ixf6 � xf6
2 The key difference is of course that the pawn
is on h6 instead of h 5 . This gives White
some possibilities.
a b c d e f g h 50.Wff4t �g6
This position is a fortress with no leaks. The first point is that Black cannot interpose
White cannot successfully put Black in the bishop on account of 5 1 .g4.
zugzwang. 5 1 .Wff3!

45 ..lel !
I was o f course happy that I gained the
necessary time to regroup. White's position has
improved a lot.

45 .. J:�d5 46.Ac3

�� �� �l}j.,.
� �%�,'Al% �%� r�
8

A � r�.i. � •rt
7 ,, . . , 7,�p� a b c d e f g h

� l�� -i�� %-"" ��"

6
With the king banished to the g-file, White
5 can start making direct threats. The first is
4 � � � Wfxd5, winning in one move.

���.'l.
,�� .,. �� IW-
5 1 . . .i:!d4
3 There are no other squares.
2 � � �� 5 2.Wfe3! l:!d l t 53.�h2

1 � �
a b c d e f g h
Black has lost his coordination. The black
king cannot go to the f-file because of the
check on f3. And after 53 . . . ig4 White has
54.Wf e8t �g7 5 5 .Wfxb5, when we can clearly
46 ... h5? see that it was a mistake to move the a-pawn.
We will see below the problems with this
move.
I was expecting 46 . . . i:!g5 , when my intention
was to play 47.Wfa8 �f7 48.Wfd8 and continue
Note that Black is not in time to play: 46 . . . a5?
to attack the king and support the d-pawn.
(48.b4!? on this move or the previous one is
a) I could play 47.Wfg3t l:!g5 48.Wfe3 � f7
a possible improvement. Black could quickly
49 .ixa5.
end up in zugzwang.) 48 . . . tlJ fS 49.ib4 id7
1 90 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g in Chess

White has achieved an improved version of

the game. Black cannot protect everything/
anything.

47... 'i!i>f7 48 ..ixg7

a b c d e f g h
Black has been pushed back a lot. It is not
clear if the fortress holds, but Black had to try
it.

47.Ve4t
Black's previous move is bad not only
because of what happened in the game, but
also because of:
47.b4! 48 ... �f6!
Alex pointed out chat this is a real zugzwang. I had missed this defensive idea. I don't know
if he had anticipated this and I had fallen into

� �� 1� �-
a clever trap.

6 ��
, � ��'·� ·
�
I had only looked at:
5 , �, �� ..�, 48 . . . 'itixg? 49.Wxe6 :!! d i t

4
3
���
� .... 3w.� �---
� 49 . . . tt:\ f6 50.Wxd5 is j ust over.
50. 'itif2! tt:\ f6 5 1 . 'itie2!

���� � � �
� ���-�
The rook is running out of squares on the
2 d-file.

a b c d
;-0;.
e f g h
5 I . . .:!! d4

White wins after:

47 . . . h4
This is forced, which cannot be a good sign.
47 . . . tt:\ f6 48.ixf6 :!! f5 Otherwise White
cakes on d5. 49.Ve4 'itixf6 50.Wd4t White
wins the bishop and, in the long run, the
game.
47 . . . :!'!g5 48.We3 ig4 49.i.xg? also does not
work.
48.We4t @f7 49.i.xg?
 Chapter 6 - Time 191

52.g3! In Grandmaster Preparation - Endgame Play

A nice little improvement of the position,
based on 52.We5?! l:!d5 53.Wxd5? lll xd5
54.d7 lll f4t and Black is in time.
5 2 . . . c;t>g6 53.b4!?
The cleanest.
5 3.We5 wins the game with 53 . . . l:!g4 54.d7
lll xd7 5 5 .We8t, but in the main line, White
wins a rook, not a knight.
53 . . . l:!xb4 54.d7 l:!d4 5 5 .We8t
White wins.
What I was hoping for was something like
48 . . . l:!xd6? 49.Wf4t c;t>e7 50.Wg5t cj;>f7
5 1 . .ic3, when it is clear that the position is
bad for Black.
Jacob Aagaard described fortresses in a slightly
different way from what people had done
before. Instead of talking about something
as a fortress if it holds, he described it as a
technique. Whether it keeps the enemy out or
not, it is still a fortress. His other point was
that the way fortresses most often fall is not
by brute force, but by zugzwang. The fortress
strategy is to hold by doing nothing, but in
chess we always have to do something.
It is an interesting way to look at it.
55 .. J!d7 56.Yfe5t gd6 57.©fl ©c6 58.g4

49.hf6 ©xf6
The idea of the trap is clear: White loses the
d6-pawn.

50.Yff4t J.5
50 . . . c;t>g6 would allow White to keep the
d-pawn.

5 I .Yfh4t ©e5 52.Yfxh5 ©xd6 53.b4 .ie6

54.Yfhs ©c7 55.Yfg7t
The computer suggests the following line: a b c d e f g h
5 5 .Wc3t c;t>b7 56.We3 l:!d6 57.g4 Another time scramble is in full swing, and I
knew I had to push the pawn.
8
7 58 ...J.c4
6 Dominguez anchors the bishop on c4, from
5 where it keeps a watchful eye on the g8-square.
4
I have to admit that during the game I did not
3 pay a lot of attention to Black giving up the
2 bishop here, but it's a serious option:
58 . . . .ixg4 59.We4t c;t>b6 60.Wxg4 l:!c6
b d g
a c e f h
60 . . . a5 does not work on account of 6 1 .Wf4!
and White wins a pawn. (6 1 .bxa5 t c;t>xa5
But after 57 . . . .ixg4 58.We4t l:!c6 59.Wxg4 is very close to holding, but the tablebases
l:!c4 Black has a simple fortress. White cannot show that White wins in the long run. Black
force his queen to a8, so there is no zugzwang. is not able to get the rook to c4 in time to
1 92 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

create a fortress. The white king makes it to
b7 and the b5-pawn eventually falls.)
6 1 .VMd4t @b7 62.YMd5 @b6 63.@e3 �c4
8
�� �� ��
66. VM d2! Black is in zugzwang, with 66 . . . @a4
67.YMa2# a likely possibility.
65.VMd4t @b7 66.YMd5t @b6 67.YMd6t @b7
White now has the chance to cross the 4th
rank with his king. I cannot see how Black

· � � %�� ���
: �-�
can avoid this.

� �
68.@d4 �c4t 69.@d5 @a7 70.@e6 @b7

: ��11 · ·�
7 1 .@d7 @a7

. . . �� �·0��
32 �� -�������� 8
�� =� ��
: -,,�.�
�� �� �� ii ��� ��
5
�� r� �- · 7,��� ���
a b c d e f g h
4 . . . %�r �� ��
My understanding of this position was that
� �-�.�--�
�� �� ��
if Black makes it to a7 with the king, we
have an unbreakable fortress, as described
above. But it is White to move, and Black is
a b c d e f g h
unable to gain the necessary tempo.
64.YMd7 And here it is important to get the black
The engine wants 64.VMa8 �xb4 65 .Wd8t king away from a7.
©c5 66.YMfBt @c4 67.YMc8t @d5 68.YMxa6, 72.We5
but this is not a human solution. At this This is a simple way to do it. White wins
point I would have preferred to avoid a after 72 . . . @b7 73.YMc5! as well as:
queen versus rook and pawn ending. It is a 72 . . . @b6 73.Wb8#!
win, but in a game it is easy to do something
wrong. More about this later. 59.�eSt rtlc7 60.�e7t gd7
64 . . . �c7
There are other moves, but they are not very
8
different.
64 . . .�xb4 is a fun line: 65 .Wd6t @a5 7
6

5
4

2
1

a b c d e f g h
b d g
a c e f h We have passed the second batch of time
trouble, but here I went wrong again.
 Chapter 6 - Time 1 93

61 .YlYeSf?! 70.©f4 was probably the most accurate move,

After the time control, you go to wash your in order to cross the 4th rank immediately.
face and then have 1 0- 1 5 minutes for the rest

��7, �� �lm'%%
of the game, plus half a minute a move.

·
8

�������� ������
6 1 .11Nc5t Wb7 62.g5 was better. We get the 7 - --

�j ��� �� ��
same position as in the game, but he does not 6
have the . . . a5-break.
5
61. .. ©b7 62.gS a5! 4
.! �, �� ��
�s �a ��
����,,�
Of course he grabbed this chance co improve
3

� ��
his king and eliminate one of my pawns.
2
63.bxaS ©a6 1

a b c d e f g h
8
70 ... ©b6
7 The reason for the previous move being
inaccurate is chat Black had 70 . . . i.a2!? here.
6

5 The key point is that 7 1 .1!Nxa2? does not work:

4
7 1 . . .!%xa2 72.g8=11N !%a4 If White was able co
bring the king co b7, he would win. Bue even
3 getting it to d5 (which is unlikely co happen)
2 is not enough.

1 So my intention was not to go for chat ending,

a b c d e f g h but to try to create some mating threats.
7 1 .%Yd6t Wa7 72.11Nc5t Wa6
64.YlYc3
As I mentioned, time was lacking at this
point, and as I had worked out a possible
plan co win the game, I decided co give up the
a-pawn in order co push the g-pawn.

64.YNa l ! ? was a potential improvement, co

hold on to the a-pawn for as long as possible.
But I doubt the ending would be significancly
different. After analysing it, it seems chat I gee
the game, with a few extra tempos. But when
your opponent is relying on a fortress, this
matters litcle. 73.We3!
This is the correct path. The win is not only
64 .. J�d3 65.YlYb4 gb3 66.YlYel ga3 67.g6 entertaining, but also very instructive. White
gxas 68.g7 ga2t 69.©f3 ga4 70.YlYd2 has all the time in the world.
1 94 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

73 . . . .ib3 Black is completely tied down. 76 . . . @b6

73 . . . .ic4 74.@d4 is similar to the game.
74.Wi'c6t @a5 75 .Wi'c3t l:!b4
The pin looks bad, but this is not really the
problem for Black. The problem is that the
white king is coming over to trap the bishop.
76.@d3 .ig8 77.Wi'a3t l:!a4 78.Wi'd6 .ia2
79.@c3 l:!c4t 80.@b2 l:!a4
77.@e5 @b7 78.@f6 @c6 79.@g6 .id5
80.@h7 Black has to give up the b-pawn,
when the win is elementary.
74 . . . l:!b8 leads to the same stuff after 75 .@e5
l:!g8 76.Wd6t @b7 77.Wf8 .
75.lYd6t ©b7 76.©c5 :Sa6 77.lYe7t ©b8
78.lYd7 ©a8 79.lYxb5

8
7
6

5
4
a b c d e f g h 3
The fortress falls due to one little detail: 2
8 1 .Wi'd8t @a6 82.Wi'a8t @b6 83.Wi'xa4!
1

71 .©e4 :Sa8 72.Wd6t ©b7 73.Wd7t ©b6 a b c d e f g h

74.©d4 :Sa4
This probably does not offer the most
resistance.
But White is winning no matter what. Possible
was 74 . . . l:!g8 with the intention of being able
This gives queen against rook, which at this
stage was a pleasant change. I did not play it
very well, but luckily I was not playing against
a computer.
79 .bb5 80.g8=lYt ©b7 8 I .%Yf7t ©c8
..•

to check the white king away if it comes to 82.©xb5 gd6 83.©c5 :Sa6 84.lYe7 ©b8
c5, but White can play for a different plan: 85.©b5 ga7 86.Wf:Bt
75 .Wd6t @b7 76.Wi'fB! The simple win is 86.Wi'd8t @b7 87.Wd4
and we get the game continuation.

7 86 ©c7 87.9f4t @cS 88.©b6 ge7

..•

89.Wf5t ©d8 90.©c5 ©c7 91 .Wd5 :Sd7

5 92.lYe5t ©b7 93.©b5 :Sc7 94.lYd5t ©a7
4
94 . . . @c8 9 5 .@b6 l:!e7 offered tougher
resistance. White is winning, but it is not so
3
simple.
2
95.©a5
a b c d e f g h
 Chapter 6 - Time 1 95

There are many ways to win a game of chess. If

8
you want to be a strong player, you need to be
7 able to handle whatever type of advantage you
6
get at a high level. One of these skills is to sense
when you have to play with great urgency;
5 another is to feel when you have enough time
4 to do everything you want. Studying games
like those in this chapter is a start in the
3 direction of developing this feeling.
2

a b c d e f g h
95 .. J�b7
He should have played 95 . . . l:!h7, which is a
theme we know from the tablebases. The rook
has to go far away from the king on a different­
coloured square.
In the late 1 980s Artur Yusupov showed me
the first ever tablebase, which contained queen
against rook, and he told me to go away and
practise winning this ending. It was not easy
at all. A few years ago Alex failed to win it in
rapid, and I managed to hold with the rook
against Svidler in the knock-out championship
in 200 1 . Morozevich failed to win it against
Jakovenko. It is by no means easy to win. The
fortunate thing is that it is not easy to defend
either.

96.'!Wd4t
But now it is easy.

96 ... @bs 97.@a6

1-0
Chapter ?
Dynamic Masterpieces

More Khanty-Mansiysk 2009 - The Trophy!

 Diagram Preview
On this page you will find a few
diagrams with critical moments
from the coming chapter. If you
want to compare your thinking
with the games, you have the
4
possibility. Take as much time
3
as you need or want. This is not
a test, but a chance to 'think 2

along' with the grandmasters in

the games. a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

What is the direct way to the Calculate accurately what

full point? happens if White takes the
(see page 220) piece. {see page 23 1 -2)

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

Time for a deep think: what Can you find the forced win ? A lovely tactic.
i s White's best move? (see page 22 1 ) (see page 234)
(see page 207-8)

8 8 8
� � �
7 � %,,Ii,;�-�• �i 7 7
� -
6 � �
�• ��� � ,,,,,%�.t. .,,,, 6 6
5 5
� '""� � � ��-0
4 �� ��
�� 8 �-� z� 4

.1 ��� �
,r , ,

3
� • �� --;-�"'-8'"
·
,, , , , ----

2 � � � --
;�� 2

' � � � 6. 1
a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

Has White messed up? This is one of my nicest What is the correct way for
(see page 2 1 5) combinations. Can you see Black to strengthen
all the details? his attack?
(see page 224) {see page 237)
 Chapter 7 - Dynamic Masterpieces 1 99

In this chapter I want to go over three games
I am immensely proud of. Two of chem were
played in games where the stakes could hardly
have been higher. In the first, the prize was a
World Championship match, as it was played
in the lase game with a standard time control
in the Candidates final. I am very proud
chat I was able to show my best chess on this
occasion.
Boris Gelfand -Alexander Grischuk
Kazan (6) 2011
This was the most important game in Kazan,
which is often the case for che lase game of a
World Championship match with Anand only
a year before, but I never miss the chance to
learn from other people's mistakes, and I was
aware chat what I needed co do was play my
own game.
My general attitude co chess is chat it is not
decided by statistics. The player who shows the
best chess on the day will prevail, no matter
what the pundits make of previous resulcs. And
if you have no belief in your abilities, you really
have no place in the Candidates tournament. I
already gave my view of Grischuk in Positional
Decision Making in Chess (page 1 53) .
l .d4 ltlf6 2.c4 g6 3.lll f3 Ag7 4.g3

i. • -*-� i•� �
match or, as in this case, a series of consecutive
matches. This match was very hard on me. 8
The first five games were drawn, but I was
definitely worse in three of them. We will see
7 ,lfi"
, , , %�·
- - - %� ----- %.-,��·
'·%�·--
some of these moments elsewhere in this book. 6
� �� z , , �
If this game had been drawn as well, the
5 �W,ia �% �Y/. �-�
match would have gone co a tiebreak, starting
�8� � -�

�-
W,ia�- - 3���- %
4

��
with rapid games and maybe continuing with
blitz. Public opinion was that I should do

8 - 8�-- �
3
anything to avoid a ciebreak, as Grischuk had

eliminated Aronian and Kramnik in tiebreaks.
Some even believed that he had consciously
aimed for the tiebreaks, though I chink he
j ust struggled in the matches against very
strong opposition. I also think he was overly
intimidated by Kramnik's opening preparation,
thinking he had no chance co get a game with
White against him. I was fully aware that this
was not his usual strategy, and chat against
me he would play very ambitiously, as indeed
happened in our match.
My attitude cowards the ciebreaks was far
from desperate. I was White and I wanted co
play a normal game; to try to see if I could
get an advantage and apply some pressure. So
I was not planning co do anything desperate in
order to avoid a tiebreak.
I am not sure if I was consciously influenced
by the way Topalov had lost Game 1 2 of the
�lE�lm:f•j
2
I
a b c d e f g h
This variation of the Griinfeld was
popularized by my friend Boris Avrukh in
his two volumes on l .d4 in the Grandmaster
Repertoire series, published in 2008 and
20 1 0; it was very trendy at the time. le will be
interesting to see if Boris is bringing it back for
his second trip down 1 .d4, which started in
20 1 5 and will be four volumes this time, if I
understood him correctly.
My reason for choosing this variation in this
game was that I had found a new idea chat I
wanted co cry out.
4 ... d5
200 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g in Chess

This was a popular variation at the time and

it still is, though I also had to be prepared for
4 . . . c6 as well as umpteen versions of the King's
Indian. Recently Grischuk has made 4 . . . c5 his
main move here.

5.cxd5 llixd5 6.i.g2 llib6 7.llic3 llic6 8.e3

0-0 9.0-0

� � .tS �� ·
i:�if, , ,, %��,,
iA% & y,W�
b d
s a c e

(� A Y-A%
· ��
a
A%
%·'i)- %�f
7 A :W: A When we have a lot of theory, bur as I said,
6

•
, ,, ,

%% %%%% %%
�
,,,,, nothing convincing.

5 %%·%%·%%·%%· But there are so many other possibilities here

��� --,, %����Kr

4 chat it would change the nature of this book
� entirely if l were to go into chem all. For now I
� '�J %'l_j% «LJ %'l_j%
��f: �,,,,,;�
mY:, ,,:;��o1
ffef�J::;��0M
3
will just mention char the recent trend is going
2 �0% towards: 1 0. lt:l h4!?
� ,,,, %Di•!�--,,
0

a b c d e f g h
.
9 . . i;es
9 . . . e5 is the most natural move, bur after
1 0.d5, as Boris explains in his book, Black
has some difficulties. I do nor want co go
into detail here; it can all be found in Boris's
book, and not much has changed since it was
published.
a b c d e f g h
Without goin g into excessive derail, 9 . . . E!:e8
is intended to prepare . . . e5 under better This makes it possible to play f2-f4, stopping
circumstances. . . . e5 altogether (as actually happened in our
main game) . Another idea is chat the d5-pawn
10.i;el is protected a bit more than usual, meaning
A simple and useful move, which was very that Black cannot gain tempos by attacking
popular around the time when this game was it. The knight might look stupid on h4, bur it
played. The key problem is chat both sides find cannot be exploited in any way.
it hard to prepare for . . . e5 in a useful way. So This subtle idea was invented by Aronian for
this type of micro-improvement feels natural. his game against Ragger, and was subsequently
copied by just about everyone, basically
1 O.d5 is possible, but not too convincin g. immediately. I mean, Sargissian played it in the
Black plays: 1 O . . . lt:l a5 l 1 .l2l d4 i.d7 same match between Armenia and Austria on
Board 3! Aronian and Sargissian work closely
 Chapter 7 - Dynamic Masterpieces 20 1

together, so it is equally possible the Aronian But the most fashionable at the time of our
was copying Sargissian and not the other way game was:
around. l l . . . ie6
This had received a bright start at the Khancy­
10 ... a5 Mansiysk Olympiad half a year earlier. The
This was also popular at the time. Black is first person to be hit by this brutal idea was
making another useful move, avoiding 1 O e5 . • . Scottish Grandmaster Colin McNab, who
l l .d5, where he is worse. Again, this is covered after proofreading Avrukh's book decided
in Boris's book. Little has changed since it was for once not to play some ancient line of the
published. English . . .
1 2.l:!d l ic4 1 3.Wfc2 lll b4 1 4.Wfb l e5!!
1 1 .Yfe2
Again there are not so many useful moves in 8
this position, though this is not the only one 7
of course. I am still following Avrukh's book,
6
forcing my opponent to fight against this
5
thorough preparation.
4
Incidentally, I chink I blundered a pawn with 3
something like l l .d5 ixc3 1 2.bxc3 Wfxd5 2
against Grischuk in a blitz game at the Tai
Memorial . White has compensation for the
a b c d e f g h
pawn and the game ended in a draw, but it was
certainly not an attempt to rewrite the opening This is the big surprise. (The most obvious
books! tactical point of Black's play is l 5.dxe5 ?
Wfxd l t 1 6.lll xd l id3 and Black wins.) I t is
not often chat it is possible to come up with
8
such brilliant moves in the opening, so lee's
7 have a quick look at how the first two games
6
played in this variation went:

5 a) 1 5 .b3
4 This is not very energetic, but probably quite
sensible nonetheless.
3 1 5 . . . exd4 l 6.exd4?!
2 Probably the way to keep the balance for
White after 14 ... e5 is in this line, when after
1
1 6.bxc4 dxc3 1 7.l:!xd8 l:!axd8 1 8 .Wfb3 c2
a c d e f g 1 9.lll d4 l:!xd4 20.exd4 l:!e l t 2 1 .ifl ixd4
1 1 ...lg4
.
22.a3 .ixa l 23.ih6 ig7 24.axb4 ixh6
Black has a few moves here. 25 .Wfxc2 axb4 26.c5 lll d5 27.c6 active play
keeps White alive.
l l . . .e5 is the most popular, and is still played 1 6 . . . .ie6 1 7.if4 if5 1 8 .Wfb2 lll d3 1 9.Wfd2
a lot. lll xf4 20.Wfxf4 a4
202 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g in Chess

1 8 . . .axb4 1 9.tll d2 cxd2 20.ixd2 l:!a8 2 1 .l:!xa8

.I ��- �. ,. ,
l:!xa8

8 � ;
7 �� · · �� �
6 .. . . . • .,'.
.

?.
,. . . .� �� �� ��
: �- ,� ��
�:. . .. ?.. � �
� �
�m.·.. .ef'. · . . . �w�.i.�
3

2 �w �·� ·0 � . ef;· . .�Jw·0

...
·
.

b d g
a c e f h
Black is simply better. Now White collapsed.
.....z
� . z · ·...

2 l .bxa4?! lll xa4 22.tll b 5 ? c6! 23.lll d6 tll c3 a b c d e f g h

24.@h l tll d 5 2 5 .lll xf7 @xf7 26.tll g 5t @g8
0- 1 McNab - Djukic, Khanty-Mansiysk (ol}
20 1 0.
b) A few days later the young Italian/American
grandmaster had a chance to show that he too
had analysed this variation carefully:
1 5 .a3 exd4 1 6.axb4 dxc3 1 7 .i:!xd8 l:!axd8
Now Leitao cracked under the pressure.
22.ixb7?
22.h4 l:!a2 has been played in a few games.
Black is better.
22 . . . l:!a l t 23.ic l ? b3 24.Wd l ? ixb2
0- 1 Leitao - Caruana, Khanty-Mansiysk (ol}
20 1 0.
But at the end of 20 1 0/start of 20 1 1 , the
computers started to shout that l 1 . . . ig4 was
a more accurate move order. At first I believed
the computer was simply insane, but then
I realized there are lines where Black gets in
. . . tt:l b4 (after lll d2) and . . . Wc8 with tempo,
making it possible to play . . . c5.

12.h3
This is forced in order to prevent . . . e5.

a b c d e f g h 12 ....le6
1 8 .Wc2
1 8 .bxc3 l:!d l t 1 9.ifl l:!xfl t 20.@g2 axb4 8
2 1 .Wxb4 l:!d l 22.tll d 2 id5 t 23.e4 ic6 7
24.f3 tt:la4 25.l:!xa4 l:!xc l 26.l:!a2 l:!xc3 has
been played in a number of correspondence 6
games. Black is better, but not surprisingly 5
White was able to hold most of the time. It
4
is strange there are so many correspondence
games, as you would expect people to 3
be aware of the dangers here by simply
2
consulting their databases during the game.
1

a b c d e f g h
 Chapter 7 - Dynamic Masterpieces
So I started to analyse this variation, thinking
it was illogical, as White will often play h2-h3
unprovoked in this variation. Basically, Black
is giving White a tempo on account of one
tactical idea. I felt that it was too much, but it
was not so easy to prove it.
13.b3
I developed this idea together with Maxim
Rodshtein, with whom I was working closely
at the time. The idea is to dominate the light­
squared bishop in both directions. If you want
to know more about my general approach
to such positions, you could check out two
chapters in Positional Decision Making in Chess,
the Squeeze and Space Advantage. Actually,
this game was for a brief moment to be found
in the file for the latter of these two, but only
long enough for me to come to my senses and
defer it to this volume.
The variation mentioned above is this one:
1 3.lll d2 lll b4 1 4.l:!d l °1Wc8!
a b c d e f g h
Black is fine. White can do nothing against
. . . c5.
My opponent was clearly 'out of book' here.
We cannot analyse everything and when the
computer says that Black is doing well, it can
easily be neglected.
13 ... a4 14.i�bl axb3 1 5.axb3
203
8
7
6
5
3
4
2
a b c d e f g h
It is important to note that I would not have
played in the same way if Black had played
l l . . .ie6 and not given me that extra tempo.
The difference is most apparent here, where
Black could greatly inconvenience White with
. . . if5 ! and after e3-e4?! he would have . . . ig4
with a better game.
So against l l . . .ie6, I would have played. . .
something else!
It would of course be nice to have a unifying
idea; to be able to play in the same way against
all move orders. But fortunately chess is not
such a simple game. There will be a price to
pay for such a blunt approach. I want to point
out that at this point White has succeeded in
his first ambition in the opening: to prevent
Black from playing . . . c5 or . . . e5.
15 ..Wfc8 16.©h2
.
The computer might suggest that there are
other ways to deal with the threat to the h3-
pawn, but for a human, this is the only move
that makes sense.
We looked a bit at this position when we found
this 1 3.b3 idea, simply to check that White's
game is indeed easier. We did not anticipate
Grischuk's next move, so this was the end of
my concrete preparation, and from here on I
had to find all my moves on my own.
204 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess
Grischuk told me the following story at the
closing ceremony: Peter Svidler was Grischuk's
second during the Candidates tournament and
following the game, with the engine running,
while it was played. After the game he told
Alexander that he had had a great position
and it was a pity he had not made more of
it. Grischuk rejected this claim, stating that
I understood the position on a deeper level
and outplayed him. Svidler referred to the
computer assessments, so was forced by
Grischuk to take on the black pieces. Despite
repeated attempts, he did not manage to get a
satisfactory position even once.
I do not want to give the wrong impression. I
am sure that when Peter writes his best games
collection, I will be there as an ignorant lamb
led to the slaughter on at least one occasion!
The fact that he got it wrong shows that even
such a great player can be misled by looking at
the computer assessment.
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
a b c d e f g h
16 J�a5!?
..
Grischuk thought for a long time here. The
previous moves were all natural, but here he
had to decide what to do.
He could have played quieter moves, such
as 1 6 . . . �d8 or 1 6 . . . ltJa5, when l 7.ltJd2 f5!?
would have led to a more positional type of
game, although I am not sure it would solve
all of his problems. I am not claiming it is
anything special , but I like my position.
But instead Grischuk went for the most critical
move. And I have to say that I found 1 6 . . . �a5
posed real challenges for me. He wants to play
. . . �h5, obviously.
This is not a surprising idea at all. We see
it often in the g3-system of the King's Indian
Defence, though there the rook comes via e8.
It was introduced by Yurtaev, a very inventive
player, and I tried it myself a few times in the
late 1 980s.
This is a really interesting posmon. White
has a clear choice. . .. �h5 is sort of a threat.
During the game I was not sure if I had
analysed it previously or not, nor did it affect
my thinking. At the board I always think more
deeply and am more concentrated, so I will
at times change my mind and not play what I
have analysed at home, but instead go with my
feeling on the day. Another example was move
1 2 of Gelfand - Anand, Moscow (7) 20 1 2,
which can be found on page 1 92 of Positional
Decision Making in Chess.
After the game I told Grischuk that I
thought I had the idea as played over the next
few moves in my files, but when I returned
to the hotel and checked, there was nothing
there. Later Rodshtein confirmed that we had
never looked at this idea at all. Maybe this is
something for a psychologist to explain?
l 7.g4 is possible. Even though I did not see
anything wrong with it, I did not seriously
consider it. It is a classical way of chinking,
chat I do not want to weaken my position
unless it is absolutely necessary. Whether there
is a concrete reason is less important; long­
term factors have a tendency to only matter
long term . . . So the choice was either to allow
Black to play . . . �h5, as I did in the game, or to
prevent it with l 7.ltJ b5.
 Chapter 7 - Dynamic Masterpieces
17.gdl
I seriously considered playing 1 7.tll bS.
a b c d e f g h
The first idea is that 1 7 . . . �.fS l 8.�d2! is a
nice counterattack and White keeps a slight
edge.
What I disliked was: l 7 . . . tll b4 1 8 .�d2 c6
a b c d e f g h
looked at 1 9.tll a7 Elxa7 20.�xb4 tll d5
2 l .�d2. It felt like the wrong direction. In this
position White has a slight space advantage -
and when you have a space advantage, if you
can, you should avoid exchanges (moreover,
Black gets the option of . . . tll c7-b5 with a stable
position for the knight) . With fewer pieces on
the board, the defensive task becomes easier.
See Chapter 3 of Positional Decision Making in
Chess for more on this theme.
Later I of course realized that l 9.tll c3 is
possible, but I don't think it is anything special.
205
The move in the game is ambitious and critical,
and I still think I made the right choice.
As I mentioned on the previous page, the
engines of the day did not like White's position
much. A friend of ours called my wife during
the game and told her that I was crazy to allow
Black to go for the attack, and that I was going
to lose.
Live commentator Alexander Khalifman was
also not very optimistic about my chances.
But these days the computer already favours
White's position when we get to move 1 9. My
point is that if Black does not show anything
now, then White gets in e3-e4 and d4-d5 and
his position will be overwhelming.
17 ... ghs
The natural follow-up. It is very hard not to
play this, as it was the intention of the previous
move. It makes it harder to think about
intermediate moves. Most people will continue
in the same gear and the same direction unless
something makes them change it.
During the game I seriously considered:
l 7 . . . Eld8
I still think it makes a lot of sense. Black
improves his worst piece; the rook has no
purpose on e8 anymore, as it is clear that
. . . e5 will not happen. At the same time,
White is prevented from going e3-e4, which
is his main objective. So now White does
not have so many active moves. Black says:
you improve your rook, I improve mine. I
wanted to play:
1 8.b4
But it seemed to me that the inclusion of
the two rook moves is in Black's favour. The
c4-square is still weakened of course, and all
of Black's pieces are playing. But White is
better all the same.
206 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

l 8 . . . l"i:h5 l 9.lll h4 i.f6 2 5 .Wxd8t iig7 26.i.d2 Wxd2 27.Wxd2

i.xd2 28.i.xb?t favours White of course,
and I would seriously consider it.
25 . . . lll e6 26.i.g4
Black is in trouble. One look at the rook
on h6 will make any grandmaster despise his
position. White is considering e3-e4 and Black
will have to take urgent action in order not to
have to give up the exchange.

a b c d e f g h

20.i.f3!
Here this is necessary. 20.f4 does not work
in these lines, as White no longer has d4-d5 .
20 . . . l"i:h6?!
This appears to be the critical line. The game
is very forcing (obviously I had no feeling
for this during the game; we are on the very
outskirts of what I saw then) .
Black's best chance is to give up the exchange
for a pawn and some compensation: a b c d e f g h
20 ... l"i:xh4! 2 l .gxh4 i.xh3t It is a game, but
1 8.lii h4!
White's chances are slightly better.
I spent a lot of time on 1 7.l"i:d l - 47 minutes
2 1 .d5 i.xc3 22.dxe6 Wxe6 23.l"i:xd8t lll xd8
- during which I also decided how to meet
24.Wd3 Wa2
Black's last move. So, when it came up, I
played it quickly.
White does not want to weaken his position
with l 8.h4 of course.

1 8 ...i.f6 19.f4!
This is a rather elaborate positional concept,
but the strategic concept is clear. White keeps
control over the centre and gets control over
the dark squares.

19 .. J!! d S!
What I found most difficult during the game
25.c;t>g2!
was to deal with the concrete aspects of my
This is a very difficult move to find. Even
plan. To be specific, I was spending a lot of
with the assistance of an engine, it took me
time calculating:
some time to realize that this was the best
way forward.
 Chapter 7 - Dynamic Masterpieces 207

l 9 . . . ixh4? ! 20.gxh4 l"!xh4 I believed this would be close to crushing.

20 . . . tll d 5 2 1 .tll x d5 l"!xd5 22.ixd5 ixd5
23.e4 'i!Ne6 24.l"!e l lll xd4 2 5 .'ifNf2 c5 26.f5 !
and White wins the bishop, leaving him a
rook up. There is still a lot of resistance left
in Black's position, but with good technique,
White should be winning.
2 1 .Wg3
I was happy to find this move, and became
optimistic.
21 . . . l"!xh3t!
I considered this to be bad during the game,
but when we were analysing the game for
this book, a big blow hit me right between
the eyes.
The thing I was really happy to find during
the game was 2 1 . . .l"!h5 22.d5 ixh3 23 .if3!
and it appears that White is winning. I now
notice that White is also much better if he
gives up the queen, but if3 is the strongest
and is what I had planned.
22.ixh3 ixh3 23.d5
23 . . . e5!!
This is the big surprise provided by the engine.
When I realized it was possible, I simply went:
"Woooow!" I have to admit that I missed this
completely.
In hindsight it is easy to explain this with
strategic concepts. White has relied on his
space advantage, and Black on dynamic
play. If Black cannot solve his problems with
dynamics, but scans to get pushed around, he
will almost certainly be worse. I like to find
such new options when I analyse my games.
I like the idea that chess still holds a lot of
mystery for me, even after forty years! It is
easy to make superficial assessments. It is one
of the few things in life that can really rub me
the wrong way. I do not know why, but it can
really get to me.
Another aspect of this move that pleases my
aesthetic sensibilities is that White has been
trying to prevent Black from playing ... e5
since move 9. And suddenly, when I was
certain chat my position was finally really
better, Black revives this old forgotten idea
and creates diabolical counterplay, seemingly
out of nowhere.
24.dxc6
24.f5 would avoid exposing the queen, but
the tactics work out well for Black. 24 . . . ixf5
25.dxc6 ixb l 26.cxb7 Wfxb7 27.tll xb l I
think the position is maybe easier to play with
White, but I am not that sure about it either!
24 . . . exf4t

8
7 �,-�i�a
�'1:J�,,�
8
7
6

, ,,� �� �� 6
5

�.=,.:��� 5

� �'�'
4 4
3 I& �.i. 3
2 zg,· · uwu-
� - -Z� 2

l�l� �
a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h
208 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g in Chess

25.'it>xf4
2 5 .@h2 .ig4 26.cxb7 Wf5 and Black is OK.
For example: 27.Wfd3 Wh5t 28.@gl i.8
29.e4 Wfg4t 30.@fl f5! and it is White who
has to play accurately to hold the draw:

8
��-% �i �a
. .. : � �� ,�
7 ��
� �� ��
6 ',

: �� !,,�
�� a b c d e f g h

!�l . . � t� The following line is natural: 23 . . . h5 24.�d2

� �� '/. :� �� ��
i.g4 2 5 .Wf e3 e6 26.i.b2

r�;� r�=�
I guess that White's position is preferable due
to the potentially strong bishop on the long
b d g
a c e f h
diagonal. However White will need to open
up the game with d4-d5. It can be difficult to
3 1 .Wfb5! �b8 32.lll d5 Wfh3t 33.@f2 .ixd l do this under favourable circumstances, as it
34.i.xf4 Black has to give perpetual check would most likely also weaken the safety of his
with 34 . . . WBt 3 5 .@gl Wg4t 36.@f2 WBt own king, and provide Black with plenty of
and so on. chances for active counterplay.
25 . . . Wfe6 26.@g3
26.cxb7 Wi'e5 t is also OK for Black. Chess is an inexhaustible game as far as I am
26 . . .if5 27.cxb7 We5t 28.@f2 Wxc3 29.i.b2 concerned, at least in practical terms. This is
Wfc6 illustrated by a discovery by Jacob Aagaard,
who went back over these lines and came up
8
��-%��i �a with the cool 2 1 .Wffl !!.

. . . :: �� �,�
7 �r i �i �a
� �� � �
6 ',

8
: �� ���W�� % �� . � �� ·�
� , . t� • � ·
67 �-·
�'l . :. -�-
�� �� - 5
�% �z�
� �i �-��. ��
..

·« @w·« �z--- - z
1� 1---. %� : �! J [j,J tj� �"ti
b d g � .� �',. . : . . . z �w�
2 r�;/� r� ,,�
a c e f h

Black has full compensation for the

exchange. The game would be played for three
results.
It was only when I returned to the position
once again that I decided that 23 .e4!? is
probably stronger.
a b c d e f g h
The thinking behind the move is rather
simple: the h3-pawn is defended and compared
to 2 l .Wf f3?! there are no . . . i.g4 shenanigans. At
first it might seem that White has sacrificed a
pawn for not very much, but if you look further
 Chapter 7 - Dynamic Masterpieces 209

ahead, you will see that the centre pawns will 20 . . . .id7 2 1 . b4
start to roll forward, and Black has no good
pieces at all. His counterplay has entirely
dissipated and White has a powerful initiative.
It is always hard to estimate the size of White's
advantage in such a position, but both from a
practical and an objective perspective, it can be
said to be large.

a b c d e f g h

White has a clear initiative. As I do not

believe Black can live without his dark­
squared bishop, I think he should play either
2 1 . . .e6, where White is a bit better, or:
2 l . . . Ei:xh4!? 22.gxh4 .ixf5
White needs to continue with great vigour:
23.b5!

a c e 8 -'i¥��
��
b d f g h ·
0 (,� ;;;

J�iT�
�f!;:.f';{ �

: �f:
20.'?;lff2

5 � � • m.t.. •
The idea of this move is to keep the tension

• �
and to support the d4-pawn. Black has to keep

3 �.,,,m
,;, ,.]� �
pressure on it in order to prevent e3-e4.
4

The computer suggests:

� � �if�..t�
. ;; ;, � �

,�,- �.�- --
20.f5 ! 2
I did n o t consider this a t all during the game,
as it was far from the strategy I was pursuing. a b c d e f g h
Maybe if you play with no memory of what
23 . . . ti:'ixd4! ?
happened on the previous move, you could
This seems the best chance.
consider this, but it did not seem relevant
23 . . . .ixb 1 ?! 24.bxc6 .if5 25.cxb7 'W'b8
to me. The idea is simple. If Black takes
26.<±>h l I don't like Black's position. His
with the bishop on f5 , his counterplay on
pieces have no purpose.
the kingside is immediately in the past, and
23 . . . ti:'ia5 24.e4 also gives White a strong
White can start to put pressure on him in
initiative.
the centre and on the queenside. Besides,
24.exd4 .ixb 1 2 5 .ti:'ixb 1 .ixh4 26.ti:'ic3
the rook on f5 is going to be trapped, and
White has the advantage. I can easily see him
White will have an extra exchange: 20 . . . .ixf5
starting a mating attack in the near future.
2 1 .ti:'ixf5 Ei:xf5 22.b4!
For this reason, Black should retreat the
bishop.
210 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decisio n Making i n Chess

22 . .ia3! is very unpleasant for Black.

I was expecting Grischuk to play:

20 . . . lll d5!? 2 1 .lll xd5 l:!hxd5!
I intuitively rejected 21 . . . l:!dxd5?! as total
nonsense.

8
�·r,!� �� �p �· -- ·
76 ��---1 �. -,� l�
�
s ���•!B�. M... .•��I
4 �• re3 �
...
a b c d e f g h
3
� l ���-- - �ft.. ..""�ft'""
2 -- � z.��
20 .txh4?
A bad decision. Black will not only feel
pressured on the dark squares; he has also �m�·�., lI WYD.)- � w
lI
...
- -�.
reduced his pressure on d4 considerably. White a b c d e f g h
will be able to support the d4-pawn sufficiently
White is indeed much better if he plays
to push e3-e4, leaving Black in serious trouble.
22.J.b2! l:!b5 23.J.f3, which has some
Actually there is not a single variation in this
similarities to the game, though without
game where this capture on h4 works out well
Black having given away his strong bishop.
for Black.
But during the game I had intended to play
22.J.f3?!, when Black holds the balance with
I think Grischuk was under the belief that he
this unimaginable line: 22 . . . .ixh3! 23.e4
would be able to sacrifice the exchange and
ixd4! 24.We2 l:!xh4 25.gxh4 l:!c5 26.b4 l:!c3
create a blockade on the light squares. He
27.b5
completely underestimated the J.b2 idea.

8
�· i � ....
�-
. 0 �
, ·,
.
76 ��.-.. . ,,..,�
I considered two alternatives during the game:

5 .� -�.!,� ��
20 . . . lll b4?! turns out to be weaker than I %

4 � .. . .. �
believed. 2 1 . lll e2! keeps the pressure up, as

. ... . � �� l.
% %
2 1 . . .c5?!
%

2 "a . %� �
� 1 �
3

�lI mB·0 �lI � �-� W7'b''0

�
a b c d e f g h
27 . . . lll e5!! 28.fxe5 .ixe5t 29.c;i?g l l:!xf3!
30.Wxf3 J.g4 3 1 .Wfl J.xd l 32.Wxd l Wh3
And the computer shows that Black has
enough counterplay to hold the game. This
would of course have been hard to find, even
 Chapter 7 - Dynamic Masterpieces 21 1

for a world-class player like Grischuk. And
White runs no risk of losing at all, so the
practical challenges are still overpowering.
At this point I of course did not intend to
win the exchange.
22 . .tb2! gbS 23.�e2 ghS
23 . . . gas 24 . .ic3 ga6 2S.lll f3 gb6 26 . .!ll d 2
also leaves White with better chances. Black
has no pawn breaks and White keeps his
space advantage.
White has a serious initiative. Black will be
fighting for his life.
27 . . . .ixh3 28 . .if3 l:!h6 29.dS .!Li a? 30.l:!a l ±
Black must say goodbye to his knight,
although I do not want to pretend that there is
no resistance left in his position.
The computer suggests 20 . . . gaS!?, but no one
would play it. You j ust moved the rook to hS
and after a few moves, you go back?

8
7 �• x•�-
• � �···
0 �;
6 ���a""'"��,-�
�
""'"�-� ��

54 ��• �w.-ift!i- -0- � ��-�- -0� �"m�-

�- n ��
2
3
�� �---:r�-�
,� ,� ���-- -
a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

24 . .tc3!;!; I did not consider it at all and I doubt

This elegant move underlines that the rook Grischuk did either. 2 1 .lll f3 .!lids 22 . .td2
on hS is not strong but weak, by taking away leaves White with an edge. It is far from
its retreat route. overpowering, but it is an easier ride.
24 . .if3 gas 2S . .ic3 ga6 would leave the
knight stranded on h4. 21 .gxh4 � d5 22 . .!ll xd5
24 . . . Lh4?! 22 . .id2! ? is also strong, but again a slightly
This is still not recommendable, but I j ust different concept.
want to show why not:
2S.gxh4 gxh4 26.'it>g3! 22 .. ghxd5
.

Not the first time we have seen this idea.

26 . . . ghs 27.e4

a b c d e f g h
212 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g i n Chess

23.J.b2! in serious trouble, though I was not totally

I was happy that I found this move. White confident about how bad it was. It is not
manages to push the centre forward and keep inconceivable chat Black would be able to
control at the same time. consolidate and get a defensible position.

I did not consider for even a second to win the

exchange. After 23 . .ixd 5 ? .ixd5, if I was given
a choice, I would choose Black here, though
the position is probably just equal.

The computer also suggests 23.e4?! :Sxd4

24.:Sxd4 :Sxd4 25.f5 .id?

After the game I looked at: 24 . . . @f7 2 5 . .if3

Wf d7 26.Wfh4 :Sg8 27.:Sg l @e8

a b c d e f g h

26.h5 f6 and claims chat White is better. Bue

strategically it is unsound. Things could easily
go wrong in this double-edged position. We
can leave this type of chess to the computer
tournaments and people sitting in front of the
screen following the games. (I wonder how
riveting the post-game interviews chat have
become so popular in tournaments over the
last decade are in chose events?!)
23 .. J�b5?
This move totally surprised me. I was ready
to give up everything in order to play e3-e4, so
I did not chink he would waste time attacking
the insignificant b-pawn.
I was expecting only 23 . . . f5 , when after 24.h5
I was very happy with my position. Black is
a b c d e f g h
And became happy when I saw 28 .:Sa 1 ! with
a deadly attack. In general it seems that Black
is not in time to consolidate.
Obviously there is nothing forced in this
variation, and Black can cry to defend in many
ways.
23 . . . :S5d6?! is a computer move chat makes
little sense to me. 24.h5 .ixb3 25 .:Sg l is very
dangerous for Black. White keeps the stability
in the centre, while rerouting his pieces to the
kingside.
 Chapter 7 - Dynamic Masterpieces 213

This is a good moment to stop for a selfie.

8
White has achieved all of his strategic goals.
7 The black pieces are completely uncoordinated
and White has full control over the centre. The
6
position is simply won, but the stakes on this
5 game were high, and it influenced the players;
4 the rest of the game was not played with peak
accuracy.
3

2 27 ... b6 28 ..ieS cS 29.dxc6

At this point I also considered 29.Vfib5 and
it appears that the position is simple winning.
a b c d e f g h It is always possible to add variations, but this
would give the wrong impression. Black has no
24.�e2!
Grischuk had missed this unpleasant move. tenable moves whatsoever.
But the game continuation is also strong, so
Even after 24.e4 ixb3 25 .l'!dc l his position nothing is spoiled.
would also be desperate. But the inclusion
of Vfie2 and . . . l'!h5 seems like it is in White's
29 ... f6 30 ..ial gcS 3 1 .gxcS bxcS
favour as well.

It seems he was already panicking a little bit,

being very short of time as usual.

24... ghs 25.e4 hb3

25 . . . l'!xh4 26.iii g3! and White wins a piece.
This king move is a recurring theme in this
game, so there is no chance I would ever have
missed it.

32 ...�c7?
Grischuk is collapsing under the combined
pressure of a bad position and no time on the
clock.

During the game I had anticipated:

32 . . . ia2 33.l'!b2 Vfic7 34.e5 ie6 3 5 .Vfib6
a b c d e f g h
214 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making i n Chess

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h
Here I had only considered 3 5 . . . :B:c8 36.Wfxc7 39 . .if3!!
Wfxc7 37.:B:b7! and White wins. But instead This is an amazing resource. I seriously
he can take on b6 and offer more resistance: doubt that I would have found it.
35 . . . Wfxb6 36.:B:xb6 :B:c8 39 . . . tD b3 40.i.h5t ®f8 4 1 .:B:xe6 lD xa l 42.exf6
White still has to work in order to win. :B:xc7 43.f7 tD c2 44.:B:h6 tD d4 45.:B:xh7 tD e6
46.:B:h8t ®g7 47.:B:g8t ®f6 48.ffi=Wft tDxffi
49.:B:xffit ®g7 50.:B:xf5

8
-·· -� •
� � �
76 ��� • -····!< •
%"'" �-0 �-0
�--- �
� ·� � � � �
�-.., � �
5 ��� .-···-� •�� : •� �
4 � � � � �
� � ��· -·
� �� -� �� -�
a b c d e f g h
�� �� �� --· ·
An extremely beautiful idea is:
a b c d e f g h
37.f5 !
Although I would most likely have taken Without rooks this would of course be a
twice on f6, which should also be good draw, but with the rooks on, White still has
enough. serious winning chances.
37 . . . gxf5
37 . . . .ixf5 38 . .ic3 is the point. 33J�xb3 �xc6
38.c7 During the game I hoped that I would be
This leads to a long, relatively forced, allowed to play the following trick: 33 . . . Wfxf4t
variation: 34.:B:g3 lD xc6 3 5 .Wfxc6 :B:d3 I missed that the
38 . . . @f7 check on e6 would allow the queen to go to g4.
But I saw another nice trick instead: 36.Wfe8t
®g7 37.Wfxe7t ®h6
 Chapter 7 - Dynamic Masterpieces 215

� �� �- �� ,
The Imperfect Masterpiece

�� �� �-...��f% �� -0
� �. .
Boris Gelfand Evgeny Alekseev
���� �..
-

:
•�..... !:• 8 �m� �
�� ��-0
Dagomys 2008

4 �� �
illfj
This game was played in the Russian league,
� � �� r ���----��8
3
···; ·Y.� ·0
2 /��
which I wrote about in Positional Decision

�� �� �i w
Making in Chess on page 27.

b d g
a c e f h
My opponent in this game is one of many
strong Russian grandmasters. At the time
38 . .ie5 !! and White wins. Amazingly, this is of this game, he was performing really well,
the only winning move in this position! winning the Russian Championship in 2006,
the Aeroflot Open in 2007 and taking 2nd
34.e5 �d4 place in Dortmund, ahead of Anand and
Leko. He was over 2700 for a few years, but
8 more recently he has mainly been just below
this mark. His best result in recent years was
7
sharing first place in the 20 1 3 European
6 Championship, though he lost out on the tide
on tiebreak.
5
His main strengths seem to be in defensive
4 play, with counterattacking intentions and
3 good technique.

2 l .d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.�f3 �f6 4.�c3 e6

1 Usually Alekseev would choose the Queen's
Indian Defence, but for this game he chose to
a b c d e f g h surprise me with the Semi-Slav, which I have
35.�c4t played with Black for most of my career.
Game, set and match.
1-0 5 ..lg5 h6

The following game is probably more

8
interesting for grandmasters than it is for
amateurs, but I hope that everyone will learn 7
something from it. 6

a b c d e f g h
216 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making i n Chess

6.J.h4 l 8.ll'ixf7! @xf7 l 9.e5 b4 20.exf6 bxc3 2 l .Wh7t

In a game half a year earlier, Alekseev played @xf6 22.d5 ig7 23.id4t e5 24.ixc3
6.ixf6 against me. 1-0 Gelfand - Raisky, Minsk {training)
1 987.
6 ... dxc4 7.e4 g5 8 ..ig3 b5 Improvements exist for both sides, obviously,
This is the big tabiya for the Anti-Moscow but I do not want to spoil anything with
Gambit. It was one of the most important computer analysis.
tabiyas between 2005 and 20 1 0. It occurred
repeatedly in my rapid match with Leko, In 2007, during the World Championship
but after this, for some reason, it went out of tournament in Mexico City, 9.ie2 was still
fashion. the main line, bur cowards the end of the

.i �mi:
tournament I had the idea that 9.ll'ie5 was

. , , , ,, _ ,,,_ .•Y. �a,, ,

?� A itii�tda.W�
, , , � , �
8 �'=i an interesting attempt to save a tempo in
i �m� -=-w

... , ,%� �� ��/,'"

, • an important line {which is relevant for this

�� �� ·� ef�6
7
�%' "//, game) . I asked my seconds at that event, Pavel
6 - · - · ,,, , , , , ; · ""
Eljanov and Alex Huzman, to analyse it and
we continued to do so after the tournament.

:3 ��,!ti!···
This game was one of the first chances I got
��.. , ,% �'
�
co play it. I played two rapid games with it,

/ ; �
one with either colour. But soon the theory

8w, , %�""' . �d�

developed immensely.
2
1
%� ·=�-�
• •
9 ... .ib7 10.h4 g4 1 1 .c!ll xg4
This is what White wanted to achieve
a b c d e f g h without having played ie2. The advantage of
9.tll e 5!? this will be clear on move 1 3.
Looking through my files, I found chat
the first time I played the Anti-Moscow was
in a private training game, presumably a
rapid game, in my house against a friend,
International Master Eduard Raisky.
9.ie2 ib7 1 0.Wc2 ll'i bd7 l I .h4 g4 1 2.ll'ie5
h5 1 3 .f3 Wb6 1 4.0-0-0 ih6t 1 5 .@b l gxf3
1 6.ixf3 E:g8 l 7.if2 Wa5

a b c d e f g h
 Chapter 7 - Dynamic Masterpieces 217

main theory with 1 2.ie2, but this move is not 14 ..ie2?

in the spirit of the position.
The critical line is 1 1 . . .lll xg4 1 2.1Mfxg4 1Mfxd4,
which has been played in hundreds of games.
12.tlixf6t c!lixf6
It was my feeling during the game chat
Alekseev was not so well prepared for this
game.
1 2 . . . 1Mfxf6 is more natural. The knight is
usually very well placed on d7, while not very
effective on f6, where it does not fight for the
vital e5- and c5-squares. I still managed to gee
an advantage in my game against Najer, who
opted for the queen recapture.
13.1Mff3!
I like this move, developing the pieces
naturally.
13 ... ggs
1 3 . . . WI xd4? 1 4.B:d 1 obviously does not work.
Black also cannot cake the pawn after 1 3 . . . b4
1 4 .lll a4 1Mfxd4, as after 1 5 .i.e2± the rook is
coming to d l , creating big problems for Black.
One of the main points is chat 1 5 . . . i.e? does
not work on account of 1 6.e5 lll d7 1 7.B:d l ,
trapping the queen.
8 4
7 3
6 2
This is a mistake. I really did not like how
my opponent had handled the opening, and
somehow I relaxed and was a bit careless.
(Actually, the first pare of this sentence is a lie.
I was very happy with how he played - I have
the advantage!)
1 4.B:d 1 was correct, as prophylaxis against
a rather simple idea. It is natural to put the
bishop on e2, but there is no reason to allow
Black to get counterplay in the centre.
14 ... a6?
This clumsy move is not in the spirit of
the position. Black is dreaming of playing
. .. c6-c5 under luxurious circumstances chat do
not occur in the real world.
Black should have reacted energetically with:
14 . . . b4! 1 5 .lll a4 c5!, when the position is a
mess. For Black, this is a good thing - creating
a mess is one of the main goals of his opening
variation! In practical terms, it is not necessary
to analyse this position deeply; suffice co say
chat Black should play like this, and White
should not have allowed it.
8
7
6
5

5
a b c d e f g h
4
Nevertheless, here are a few variations co
3 demonstrate the above assessment:
2
After 1 6.i.xc4 ixe4 ( 1 6 . . . lll xe4? 1 7.d5!)
1
l 7.i.b5t cJ:;e? Black has a good position.
a b c d e f g h
218 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making i n Chess

The king might look awkwardly placed on
e7 to the uninitiated, but for those with
experience in this opening, it is not a matter
for special concern.
1 6.d5 exd5 1 7.0-0-0 lt:lxe4 1 8 . .ixc4 Wd7 is
unclear but good for Black. White should try
1 9.1'%xd5! .ixd5 20.1'%d l Wg4 2 1 ..ixd5 Wxf3
22 . .ic6t We7 23.gxf3 lt:lxg3 24 . .ixa8, where
he would have to fight for a draw.
Thus best is: 1 6.lt:\xc5 .ixc5 1 7.dxc5 lt:lxe4
1 8.Wf4 Wa5 1 9.0-0 Wxc5 20.wh2
more flexible to play 1 5.0-0. White has to
make both moves on the next two moves, so
in reality there is no big difference. One of the
overriding principles of being practical (and
this book discusses practical decision-making,
not theoretical fantasies) is that during the
game you should not get bogged down in
small finesses, which you can only determine
after hours of analysis. This analysis might
be very useful for understanding chess better
for the future, but not for evaluating how
you should have approached the position at
the board.

8 I played the easy move, and did not think about

7 it again until we started working on this book.
6
It turns out that the two potential problems
are not problems at all. White is much better
5
after both l 5 . . . b4 1 6.e5! bxc3 l 7.exf6 cxb2
4 1 8.1'%ab l and 1 5 . . . lt:\ g4 1 6.e5! (Black's idea
3 was 1 6.!%ad l Wf6±) 1 6 . . . Wxd4 1 7.lt:\e4 with
2 a dangerous initiative. For example: l 7 . . . c5
l 8 . lt:\ f6t lt:lxf6 l 9.Wxb7 Wd5
a b c d e f g h

With chances for both sides.

s i, � �•m .1.
: TiT� T,�.
�� ,, , , /,� ,,,,,��
� � �� ,, � ·····
5 �� �?ii % �� �"'"'
4
�,,lJ�-ii � ��-�J�
�
a b c d e f g h

2 �
8 H% _ _ _ _ _ ;_
3 20.Wc7! 1'%xg3 2 1 .fxg3 Wd7 22.Wb6 lt:\d5

� lDii��
� ,, � m,,,, %� :a:
23.Wa5 and Black does not have enough
compensation. For a start .ih5 is a big threat.
1 , ,

But this is of course a rather long variation to

a b c d e f g h calculate when it is not necessary.
ISJ�dl
After realizing that I should have played this In reality, I j ust felt I should make both moves,
on the previous move, it was hard not to play and chose one without thinking too much
it here. Having said that, it was, in principle, about which was the more accurate.
 Chapter 7 - Dynamic Masterpieces 219

1 5 ... tlid? A major alternative i s 1 8 . . . c5 l 9.d5, when

1 5 . . . tli g4 has the point chat the queen Black must decide between the following two
cannot go to e3 on . . . \Wf6. But after 1 6.e5! the options:
knight is j ust poorly placed on g4.

16.0-0
I also considered the prophylactic move
1 6.\Wf4, with the idea of not allowing the
queen to come out to play, underlining how
bad Black's position is. It is j ust another way
of playing the position. All in all, I was not too
scared of him castling queenside.

16 ... �f6 17.�e3 0-0-0

a b c d e f g h
During the game I also thought chat 1 7 . . . c5
was possible, but after 1 8.d5 Black's position a) 1 9 . . . b4?!
looks horrible. For example, 1 8 . . . e5 1 9.a4 During the game I was sort of expecting him
or 1 8 . . . 0-0-0 1 9.e5 \Wf5 20.i.f3 and Black's to play this. Black is trying to prove chat his
position is simply bad. position is OK, but it is too ambitious.
20.dxe6 fXe6 2 1 .tll a4 c3 22.a3
18.b3
A very natural move. The king is on the
queenside, so we should open lines in that
direction.

8
� -�- � i. �
: f"a!�- �� �� ,,,,,/,� ,, , , ,
: �i&fd
�%- , ,,,0 ,,,,%z, , ���-��t·�, a b c d e f g h

3 8 ID � m
�8%0'" ""0�0'-���
'' ·
I believed I had excellent chances. There is
really no reason to look any further during

� �-��
2 the game. When you have something you
like, and there are no immediate tactics,
1
there is nothing to calculate.
a b c d e f g h Looking further now, it appears that White
is indeed very close to winning. The engine
18 ... cxb3?
considers 22 . . . bxa3 a realistic move, which it
At this point I think he offered me a draw.
certainly is not. And the normal move is met
I did not hear it, but some of my teammates
by a direct attack:
told me so after the game. Maybe I blocked it
22 . . . a5 23.axb4 axb4
out subconsciously. . .
220 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h
24.�xd7!! 27.ia6t! �c6
The engines can be useful at times. This 27 . . . �xa6 28.�a l t leads to mate.
move wins in a pleasing way. 28.We2 �d7 29.Wb5t �e7 30.Wb?t �d7
24 . . . <;f;>xd7
24 . . . �xd7 is of course possible. But after:
25.lll b6t �d8 26.lll xd7 �xd7 27.�d l t
<;f;>c8 28.Wd3 We7 29.ie5

a b c d e f g h
White is completely dominating and has This variation is very forcing and long.
sacrificed nothing. We do not need the Although it might seem a bit impractical,
support of an engine to see that this is I still might have tried to work it out had
winning. the position at move 23 arisen at the board.
25.lll xc5t �c8 White's position is very promising and it is
25 . . . ixc5 26.Wxc5 leaves the black king natural that the attack should win, so why not
totally exposed. The threat of ib5 t as well go for it?
as 26 . . . �e8 27.ih5 t simply wins.
26.lll x b7 b) Instead Black should play: 1 9 . . . cxb3 20.axb3
26.ic4 is also strong. The forcing line is (20.e5 �xg3! gives some counterplay) 20 . . . e5!
nice, but not mandatory.
26 . . . <;f;>xb7
 Chapter 7 - Dynamic Masterpieces 22 1

8 %��· B. . Y.� •.:,. '.�.1 8

7
�· ,�""�· a� �·ef,'" 3���ifi-� 7

5 � �l. -8 0 ��t• •�>!

6 6
� Y,
5
�•�%. ,. ,,3, .8%• �· ·
••.•

�- � �·
� ef
���8�
4 4

,. . . .�� "£W/J' 8 ·�
3 � : �� �, %. � 3
2

� : � :%m >! � .... �

2

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

After which I was planning to either
continue the attack with 2 1 .:B:a 1 or prepare it a
little more with 2 1 .�h2. In either case White
is better, but it is certainly a playable position
for Black. The engine is very much on White's
side, but I think it overestimates the exposure
of the black king.
22.:B:xd7! ixe3 23.:B:c7t �b8 24.:B:xf7t :B:xg3
25 .:B:xf6 ixf2 26.liJd l ! and White wins a piece.
But this is all thinking after the fact. During
the game I did not consider it as a serious
option for Black to open the c-file with . . . cxb3
and then play . . . c5.

19.axb3 fa.e7 20.l:kl

l 9 . . . c5 makes no sense now. This is a natural move.

· · • .1
�• •
8 20 .. �h8
.

15 �' ,�. ., a�A�6�m·

It is hard for Black to come up with anything.
6
. �
���· >!·
., ..,J��r�•
�� •
J� •
� �-0 . .

4
� ,��.J�
.

� �1���iwtJ��
�� r��,,
a b c d e f g h

White has several tempting ways to play. To

be honest, it looks to me as if White should
win in a few moves. We could probably
analyse a more or less forced win with 20.e5 ,
but perhaps the strongest move is the human
20.�h2!, stepping away from the tactics on
the c5-g l diagonal and asking Black what he
wants to do. For example: 20 . . . cxd4 2 1 .:B:xd4
ic5 (2 l . . . e5 22.:B:d5! and Black's position
looks untenable) After the game I was unhappy that I had
not played 2 1 .:B:fd 1 , when Black has no
222 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making i n Chess
counterplay whatsoever. If we have achieved
this, we are already doing well. White should
win if he does not blunder badly.
During the game I also considered 2 1 .ll'lxb5
axb5 22 . .ixb5 , but did not like it after
22 . . . �xg3, when the position has become
unnecessarily messy.
The computer points out that 2 1 .ll'ld5! just
wins. It is a really beautiful move and I do not
want to ruin it by attaching long variations;
it is quite clear that the black king's position
is falling apart. I think I would have found it
if it was the only good move in the position,
but the availability of other attractive options
means that we sometimes look less hard for
particularly attractive moves like this one.
The real disappointment is that I did not
play 2 1 .�fd l , which would be a simple and
sound positional move. We cannot rely on the
inspiration that finds a move such as 2 1 .ll'ld5,
but in order to play good chess, we need to
make sound decisions. And the decision in the
game was not good.
21. ..Vg7 22..ta e5
Black should not have been allowed to do
this.
23.�d5 J.d6
The most realistic move. Taking the pawn on
h4 was not compelling:
23 . . . .txh4
I intended to play 24.dxe5 ll'l xe5 25 . .ixe5
Wfxe5 26.Wf a7, when it is not easy for Black
to make a move. The direct threat is 27.�xc6t
.ixc6 28.ll'lb6 mate. But after 26 . . . �g6
27.�fd l (threatening 28 . .ig4t! with mate} ,
Black plays 27 . . . h5! and although his position
is horrible and no doubt lost, there is still not
a direct punch to end the game. A funny point
is that he would most likely find 27 . . . h5, even
without seeing the threat. There are simply no
other moves.
So for this reason it was actually simpler to play
24.Wf c3 'tti b 8 25.ll'lb4 with a winning attack.
For example: 25 . . . �c8 26.�a l and Black is
facing a catastrophic invasion.
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
a b c d e f g h
24.Vc3!
I was happy when I discovered this move.
It is flexible, preparing both ll'l b4 and ll'l e3-f5.
At the same time the queen is heading for a5,
after which all sorts of combinations become
possible.
A neat little point is that 24 . . . exd4 25 . .ixd6
dxc3 26.ll'le7 is mate.
At the time the game was played, the computer
did not even consider this move, even at a high
search depth. But from a human perspective,
this move is very attractive. It gives a lot of
 Chapter 7 - Dynamic Masterpieces 223

options and, compared to 24.Wd2, it does
not allow 24 . . . Wf8 (with the idea of playing
. . . exd4) because of 2 5 . dxe5 . I also anticipated
the combinations that became relevant in
the game. Not that I saw every detail, but I
discovered that it was very dangerous for
Black and that this theme was decisive in
many lines.
So instead I should play 26.tLl d3 f6, when
White has a big advantage, but the game goes
on. I expected that he would play like this, and
try to hold.
I also wondered if he could defend with:
24 . . . f6 2 5 .Wa5 <;!;1b8
25 ... Wf8 loses to:

24 J�de8
..

The idea of this move is nice, to put the rook

on g6, but it is awfully slow.

I anticipated 24 . . . <;!;1b8, which is also the best

move. I had not made up my mind about
where to put the knight, but I would no doubt
have done so quickly after finding 25.tLle3 Wf6
26. tlJ f) exd4! and Black is back in the game.
So the best move is 2 5 . tLl b4, when I expected
Black to answer with 25 . . . l:!c8. (I should
mention that 25 . . . c5 is no good. After 26.dxc5
ixc5 27.:i:!fd l it looks as if Black has managed
to get rid of his weakness, but at the same time
he has also opened the position in front of his
king, and is completely lost.)
a b c d e f g h
26.!!xc6t!! ixc6 27.Wxa6t ib7 28.Wa?!
and the king is in trouble. For example:
28 . . . ixd5 29.:i:!c l t i.c4 30.bxc4 and White
is winning. The c-file will not stay closed
forever.
But it turns out that our standard
combination works against 2 5 . . . <;!;1b8 as well.

8
7
6
5
4
3
2

a b c d e f g h
a b c d e f g h
Here I had originally planned to play 26.!!a l ,
but during the game I became concerned 26.!!xc6!! ixc6 27.Wxa6 l:!c8 28.:i:!c l !
about 26 . . . <;!;1a7!, thinking for a moment about White wins a piece back with a decisive
Kasparov - Petrosian, the game mentioned on attack. For example:
page 42. I did not want to lose the thread the 28 . . . tlJ b6 29.Wxb6t Wb7
same way as Kasparov did.
224 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

2 5 .Wfxc6t?! ixc6 26.E:xc6t @b7 27.E:xd6, but

after 27 . . . f6 28.E:a l I was not sure if this was
winning or not, although it is close. I would do
it if I was unable to find something better, but
luckily I could.

25 .. J�e6
Black continues his plan.

If Black tries 25 . . . @b8, White wins with

a b c d e f g h 26.E:xc6! i.xc6 27.Wfxa6 E:c8 and the simplest
30.dxeS! fxe5 3 l .Wf e3 is 28.E:c 1 picking up the piece.
White has a winning attack without really
being any material down.
3 1 . ...ixdS 32.E:d l !
Keeping the attack alive.

An important point is that I did not see all of

this during the game. I did realize there were
many such options available, but also that it
was one or two moves too early to calculate
them.

a b c d e f g h
This is the glorious moment of the game,
where I am allowed to play a beautiful
combination - and not only that, but also the
most beautiful version of it!

26.gxc6t!!
Black would be able to show his idea if
White played without energy; for example:
26.llJb4? .ic7! 27.Wf a2 E:g6 and Black is fully
a b c d e f g h in the game.
25.YfaS!
This is of course the strongest move and I 26 ... .ixc6 27J:k1 ttlbs
decided to play it after not too long. Both 27 . . . i.b8 28 .Wfxa6t @d8 29.E:xc6
and 27 . . . @b7 28.E:xc6 @xc6 29.Wfxa6t are
During the game I also spent some rime completely winning.
contemplating a very tempting sacrifice:
 Chapter 7 - Dynamic Masterpieces 225

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h
28.gxc6t 30.fi°b6t!!
It is a pleasure to be able to sacrifice the same This is the great conclusion to the
piece on the same square twice. But it is not combination.
just for show; it is the only way for White to
prove an advantage. After 30.¥Mxc6? f6± the game goes on, but after
the game move Black will not be able to defend
28 ... �xc6 29.fi°xa6t �d8 himself Obviously this is what I intended all
During the game I saw the following line: along.
29 . . . @bB 30.¥Mb6t 'it>a8 3 1 .¥Mxc6t c.tia7
32.¥Mb6t 'it>a8 30 ... �d7

8 · � � �' On 30 . . . 'it>e8 I intended 3 1 .¥Mxc6t 'it>f8

16 ��w,� �.,��� 4 • . ...

.•
.1 • ����r

4
5 �
�.-·z-��t.r• ��
�I§?� 0.
�
:?-:

8 � · · · �.r.· · · ·
3
�� �� �� �n� ��·�-0
� � �;
2

a b c d e f g h

33 .ixe5! ixe5 34.lli c?t ixc7 3 5 .e5t with

mate on the next move. A beautiful line, where
the bishop on f3 finally gets into the game.

3 1 .fi°b7t �d8 32.�b6! f5

There are no other moves. 32 . . . 'it>e8 33.YMcBt
llid8 34.¥Md7t leads to mate, as well as winning
material , satisfying all urges.
226 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

33.Vcst dle7
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

a b c d e f g h
At this point something horrible happened.
I wanted to play 34.tll d 5t 'it>f7 3 5 .i.h5t and
it's over, but somehow I touched the queen.
I have no idea how it happened, but you can
imagine my horror at the thought of ruining
such an amazing game because of touch-move.
Luckily, checking with the queen also wins the
game.
34.'!Wd7t?! @f'8 35.Vxe6
I could not believe my luck. White simply
wins.
35 ...Ve7
After 35 . . . Wfg6 the simplest is 36.lll d?t 'it>g7
37.Wfxg6t @xg6 38 .exf5t, winning a piece.
a b c d e f g h
1-0
The big point I want to make using this game
is that a combination such as 26.:B:xc6t! is
wonderful, but not something you need to
calculate accurately in advance. Black has so
many possible moves that it makes no sense to
be prepared for all of them.
Calculation is about seeing as much as is
needed in order to make a good decision. Not
about seeing everything and having a reply
ready to all of your opponent's moves. Often
it is enough to see the general possibilities and
leave the calculation till the moment when it
will be rewarded.
For example, in the line with 30 . . . 'it>eS
3 I .Wfxc6t I did not look further. There are so
many possibilities . . .

36.Wfxh6t gg7 37.tll cs

 Chapter 7 - Dynamic Masterpieces 227

As good as it gets where I played some very good games.

But because I did not have a rest day, it
Sergey Karjakin - Boris Gelfand was universally decided that Karjakin was
the big favourite. So-called experts called my
World Cup, Khamy-Mansiysk (6.1) 2009
wife to tell her that I would be home in a few
days, and she would not have to miss me for
The World Cup is a very interesting event.
much longer. The media also jumped on the
Originally it was the knock-out World
bandwagon, declaring that I was too old, and
Championship. The way I see it, there
that somehow my brain had stopped working
was a time when we had no reputable
well due to senility or something. . . I have
World Championship, and the World Cup
heard these stories since 1 998 and have grown
substituted for it in that period. Now we are in
entirely numb to them. The only way they will
the same situation as in English football, where
ever manage to hurt me is if I should pull a
we have a main championship that is decided
stomach muscle laughing at them.
over a long period of time, and a cup system
There was one cliche that was in my favour
that is played over a brief intensive period. In
- I was rated 30 points higher than my teenage
my opinion it is great that we now have both.
opponent. I am not one of those who think
The more good chess tournaments the better.
that rating points help us find good moves at
the board, or tell us the absolute truth about
I have played in a lot of these knock-out
a player's strength. But ratings were irrelevant,
tournaments and have not really fared
as the media's thirst for burying old players is
especially well, but Khanty-Mansiysk 2009
absolute.
was an exception - my Glory Days if you like.
This narrative has grown a bit softer in
Some of the days I played excellently, as the
recent years, mainly due to the successes of
reader will have a chance to see in these books,
Anand and myself, but to those who think
while on others I played not so well at all, and
it is gone, I suggest that you go back and
I was rescued by something as simple as dumb
look at the statements made by some chess
luck. All in all, this is the formula for success in
journalists and retired chess players about the
the World Cup: you need to play well overall
20 1 2 match. It was decided in advance that
and be lucky when you play less well. . .
the match for the World Championship was
boring and irrelevant, because of the age of the
Starting from 2005 there were a couple of
players. And as we failed to do the only thing
chess tournaments in Khanty-Mansiysk and
that could have changed this narrative - to get
since then it has become one of the chess
younger during the match - this is still how
capitals of the world. Many people will be
many people described the match afterwards.
surprised to learn that this city, located in the
If you ever get a chance to talk to anyone who
middle of Siberia, far away from everyone and
was there, you will know that they have an
everything, is a modern, prosperous city with
entirely different story to tell. . .
good infrastructure. The tournaments held
there are always organized very well, and I have
A recent example i s the status o f Levon Aronian
been fortunate to play there many times.
before the 20 1 5 Sinquefield Cup. Before the
This game was played in the semi-final after tournament he had 1 8 months of bad results,
a lot of tough matches. For example, I had a sliding from a solid Number 2 spot in the
tiebreak with Jakovenko in the quarter-final, world all the way out of the Top 1 0. According
228 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making i n Chess

to the rating system, he should have been used
for target practice by the other participants.
But in reality he won the tournament very
convincingly.
Anyway, I approached this semi-final like
any other match. If I played well, I knew I
would get my chances.
1 .e4 e5
During the event, and in those years, I
played the Petroff Defence a lot. It served me
well, especially in this event. One of the points
of the opening is that if White does not have
precise knowledge of the opening, and maybe
a new idea, Black gets an even game.
encyclopaedic, so I decided to play something
simple, and j ust have a game.
3 ... �c6
In the previous rounds I had played
3 . . . c6, which also includes my only loss in the
tournament, against Judit Polgar in the third
round. I mentioned this game on page 1 50.
4.�a i.e7
4 . . . ic5 is the more popular move, but would
require more knowledge. So I chose obscurity
on purpose.
5.0-0 0-0

2.i.c4 8
7
So in this tournament, especially in the

6
tiebreaks, people resorted to this non­

5
threatening system against me. It is important
to have confidence in your openings, especially

4
in knock-out events, so I felt I had already won

3
a little moral victory.

2
2 �f6
•••

a b c d e f g h
I had some experience with this system from
the early 1 980s, when it was a part of my white
repertoire. This was obviously before Karjakin
was born. I had also played it a few times with
Black against Morozevich and with White
against Sutovsky. In both those games 6.1'%e I
d6 7.a4 was played, which was fashionable at
that time.

a b c d e f g h
6.i.b3
3.d3 This is also what was popular in the 1 980s.
I realized that when Karjakin played this,
he intended to improve on my games with 6 d5
..•

Polgar or Vachier-Lagrave. But I was sure I decided to open the game, simply because
that his knowledge of these lines was not I wanted a more open game!
 Chapter 7 - Dynamic Masterpieces 229

I had a game in the 1 980s against Viacheslav Another vananon I remember from my
Dydyshko, who managed to become childhood goes like this: 9 . . . i.xf3 1 0.Wxf3
Belorussian Champion many times and played lLi d4 1 1 .Wxd5 If White does not cake here,
in the Olympiad team repeatedly, without Black has equalized. 1 1 . . .Wxd5 1 2.i.xd5
ever being full time in chess. He wrote an lLixc2
interesting book and has trained a number of
promising young players.
He had a very good understanding of chess
and I learned a lot from playing three or four
games with him when I was young. My game
against Dydyshko in this line went 6 . . . d6 7.c3
lLi d7, while a 2006 blitz game against Navara
continued with 7 . . . 'it>h8.

7.exd5 l£ixd5

8
a b c d e f g h

7
This is a very sharp position, leading co an

6
unclear game. Tiviakov played it a few times
with White, but it is not obvious chat White

5
is fighting for an advantage. For example,

4
Tiviakov - Hector, Helsingor 2008,
continued: 1 3.E:xe5 E:ae8 1 4.E:e2 lLixa l
l 5 .i.xb7 and here che game i s still unclear,
3 but essentially Black is fine, I chink.
1 0.g4 i.g6 1 1 .lLixe5 lLi xe5 1 2.E:xe5 c6

8
2

7
1

6
45
played the not-very-dangerous 8.�a4
against Alexander Cherepkov, who was the

23
trainer of Yudasin and many other strong
players. I had cwo amazing endgames against
him that are still vivid in my mind.

8.h3
A non-critical move. a b c d e f g h
As played in Kramnik - Kasparov, Novgorod
The attempt co prove an advantage for White 1 99 5 . I should add chat this is not j ust me
would scare with: looking it up in the database while writing. le
8.E:el was on my mind during the game, although
This can transpose to a kind of Marshall somehow I believed it was a mid- 1 990s rapid
after: game. Spot on, for the year, less so on the game
8 . . .i.g4 9.h3 i.h5 format!
230 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

8 . . a5
. 17 ... !!a6!+ directly was stronger.
I remembered that this move was possible. 1 8.@h l ?
The idea is chat 8 . . . tll d4?! is dubious on 1 8.f4 Wfh5 1 9.id2+ was necessary.
account of 9.tll xe5;!;. 1 8 . . . Wfd5t 1 9.@h2

a b c d e f g h
9.a4
This is of course what Black wanted to
provoke.

I remembered the following game very well:

9.ia4 tll d 4! 1 0.tll xe5 tll b6 1 l .c3
1 l .ib3 if6 gives Black excellent
compensation.
1 1 . . .tll xa4 1 2.Wfxa4 tll e2t 1 3.@h l if6 1 4 .d4?
1 4.Wfe4 tll xc l 1 5 .!!xc l ixe5 1 6.Wfxe5 Wfxd3 a b c d e f g h
and White cannot really be said co be worse,
22 . . . !!d8?
although he needs to be careful.
A tactical oversight.
22 . . . !!h6 23.l:!f3 tll g3!! would have made
this game a perfect masterpiece.
23.l:!f2! !!d3 24.Wffl
Suddenly White has defended everything.
24 . . . !!h6 2 5 .tll f3 g6 26.Wf g2 Wf d5 27.tll g 5
Wfxg2t 28.@xg2 f6 29.l:!xe2 fxg5 30.fxg5
!!hxh3 3 1 .if4 !!h4 32.!!e4
1-0 Shirov - Mozetic, Tilburg 1 993.

9.a3 a4 1 0.ia2 @h8 was played in another

a b c d e f g h Kramnik - Kasparov game, and this time it
1 4 . . . ixh3!! 1 5 .gxh3 Wfd5 t 1 6.@h2 ixe5t really was a rapid game, played in New York
1 7.dxe5 Wfxe5t?! 1 99 5 .
 Chapter 7 - Dynamic Masterpieces 23 1

9 ... �d4 come to g6, so the only thing I needed to

I was already happy. We have a normal game check was if White took the piece.
with no theory, and Black has made it out of
the opening with a decent position. l l . . . .ie6 with even chances was also possible.
9 ... .ie6 is also possible, but less flexible. Still,
Onischuk used it to equalize against Tiviakov
8
without too many problems.
7
10.�xd4 6
1 0.llixe5? llixb3 l l .cxb3 gives Black more
than enough compensation. 5

4
10 ... exd4
3

2
8
1
7

6
White has a tough choice. At move 1 2 in a
5
two-game match, you already have to decide
4 whether to allow a draw, or to take risks.
3 Time and again, I have seen players being
criticized for forcing or agreeing a draw, in a
2 position where they felt that things had already
1 tipped, and they were in danger of being worse
if they decided to avoid the draw. I had the
a b c d e f g h
same situation in my game in Amsterdam 20 1 0
While Karjakin was thinking, I noticed the against Caruana, where he made a mistake in
idea l 1 .lli d2 E:a6! with attacking prospects. the opening and offered a draw after 13 moves.
So when he moved his rook to e 1 instead, I I declined and won a tough game, which we
was initially disappointed, thinking the . . . E:a6 will see in the next volume in this series. After
move was now impossible, as a piece would the game a journalist asked me if Fabiano had
be hanging. Instead I wondered about playing "chickened out" by offering a draw. I tried to
1 1 . . ..ie6 or something. explain that rather it should be seen as showing
a subtle understanding of the position, where
I I J�el there was no realistic way he could fight for
But once I started to look deeper, I realized the initiative. I believe a lot of the chess public
it actually was possible, and I got really excited. think along the lines of: ''Anything can happen,
It is a rare opportunity to play such a move, a bad position can turn around, so you should
and I did not want to let it go to waste. fight to the end." But in some positions this is
not the case. They are played for two results
l 1 ..J�a6!! only. In such a situation, a classical player will
Played after 14 minutes. The point is simple: try to minimize the damage, and try to make a
if White does not take on d5, the rook will draw. To me this is rational.
232 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

I heard the following story, which is probably

true. Bent Larsen was playing in some
tournament against a weaker opponent. The
position is heading towards a draw, when
Bent decides to make a kamikaze sacrifice.
After he wins the game, Petrosian comes up
to him, shaking his head, stating: " Bent, you
are crazy. . . I go here, here and here, and you
are just lost." "Of course," says Bent. " But in
this position I make 2/3, while you make three
draws." a b c d e f g h
As you will know by now, I went to White has only two reasonable ways to avoid
Petrosian's Chess School, and probably share checkmate.
his sensitivities to a large extent. Also, the level
of the "weak" opponents I face today is no The first one I calculated was 1 4.f3 .ixh3
doubt significantly higher than the level of the 1 5 .E!:e2 'Wxf3 1 6.'Wfl , when Black has to play
weakest participants in top tournaments 50 1 6 . . . .ixg2! 1 7.E!:xg2 E!:xg2t 1 8 .°Wxg2 °Wd l t
years ago. and Black gives a perpetual. Karjakin said that
Still, the romanticism of that time lives on he had seen this, but thought it was too early
with the public, and it is easy to understand to agree a draw.
why. But we should not forget that Petrosian
became World Champion, while Larsen was The other question is what happens if White
brutally stopped in his attempt to do the same plays:
by Fischer. 1 4.g4
I had planned 1 4 . . . fS , which is probably not
12.Vhs that clear after 1 5 .c4 °Wd6 1 6.°We2.
I think this moment was one of the most But instead another move exists:
important in Karjakin's career. It helped him 1 4 . . . °Wh5 !
to mature immensely. In the games from the
20 1 5 World Cup we can see that he learned
the lesson and won with a more "realistic"
approach. Then he changed again for the
20 1 6 Candidates and won that too. It will be
interesting to see which evolution of Karjakin
will face Carlsen a few months after this book
has been published.

As said, the critical line was:

1 2.ixd5 'Wxd5 1 3.E!:xe7
As 1 3 . . . i.xh3 does not work on account of a b c d e f g h
1 4.'Wf3, Black needs to swing the rook over: I had not seen this move. When you are
1 3 . . . E!:g6 calculating something like 1 1 . . . E!:a6, you are
checking if it can be refuted. In this case I
already had a decent option and it was clear
 Chapter 7 - Dynamic Masterpieces 233

that with White's position being this open,
I would get my chances. This is all I needed
to know about this variation.
Analysing 14 . . . WhS after the game,
realized that this is directly winning:
1 5 .if4
l 5 .�e4 f5 l 6.�f4 Wxh3 is j ust over.
1 5 . . . ixg4! 1 6.hxg4 �xg4t 1 7.@fl �g l t
Although materially White is not really
behind, his position is devastated.
But strategically my move is also rather
logical. White wants the a l -rook to be on e l ,
while Black wants to put the a6-rook o n g6.
This happens in the game, but in a situation
where White is able to be a bit better organized,
which is the reason I prefer 1 2 . . . ib4 now.
13.tlia3
The most logical alternative is:
1 3.llid2

8
7
The tactics here are not difficult to calculate. It
is all about seeing 1 4 . . . WhS, which I probably
would have done once we had reached that
6
45
position. As my position is clearly promising
no matter what, I do not need to see this move

23
in advance.

a b c d e f g h

I think I had nothing planned, as he made his

decision rather quickly, leaving me no time
to seriously consider my options. A clear
point would be that 1 3 . . . �g6?! is met with
1 4. lli f3, when White is more comfortable.
But it is likely that Karjakin rejected it on
account of:
1 3 . . . �h6!
a b c d e f g h This is rather unpleasant for White.
1 4.WxaS
12 ... tlib4!?
I played this quickly. But I realized after
8
I made my move that l 2 . . . ib4! was even
7
6
stronger. After 1 3.�e2 �e6 1 4 .igS We8

45
l 5 .�xe6 ixe6 Black has comfortably
developed his pieces, while White is struggling
with the task of getting his knight out. We can

23
say that Black is at least comfortably equal.

What I played is by no means weak, but it

would have been nice to continue in the
aggressive style of ignoring the threat to the a b c d e f g h
d5-knight.
234 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

This would be the logical move, as moving

8
to e2 would be a retreat. White's position is
7
still essentially OK, but he would have the
6
45
feeling of being pushed back, without going to
a better square.

At this point we have two options. I had

previously only considered:
32
1 4 . . . b6!?
This forces the queen to go to the corner. a b c d e f g h
1 5 .Wa8
It is possible to analyse this more or less to a
l 5 .We5 ? is punished by a lovely tactic:
draw, but very few would deliberately put their
queen in the corner. A key point is that with
the queen in the corner, White could easily
find himself lost at any moment.

Analysing the game this time around, I became

aware of an enigmatic bishop sacrifice:
1 4 . . . ixh3!

a b c d e f g h

1 5 . . . lll x c2! 1 6.Wxe? Forced. ( 1 6.ixc2? Ei:e6

loses material) 1 6 . . . Wxe? 1 7.Ei:xe? tll xa l
Black has won the exchange and is better.
The knight will not be trapped. White does
have some activity and will not simply fall
over, but Black's chances are preferable.
l 5 . . . tll c6�
Something like 1 5 . . . Ei:g6 1 6.Wf3 ie6
would be out of the question for me. I had
a strong determination to avoid Petrosian­
style sacrifices such as l 7.Ei:xe6!? fxe6
1 8 .We2, where I believe White has quite a
comfortable game.
This is what I considered after the game.
White now has to play something like:
1 6.Ei:e2
The engine will claim that the position is
equal, but with many good options for Black
and not so many for White. This alone makes
it shaky territory to navigate for White.
b d g
a c e f h
This looks incredibly dangerous for
White. If he does not accept the sacrifice,
Black would play . . . Ei:g6, forcing further
concessions around the white king, which is
clearly intolerable. So White has to accept
the sacrifice:
l 5.gxh3!
It is better to feel uncertain about the
evaluation of the position, than it is to
know for certain that you are worse; even
if psychologically it can feel better to know
(people tend to lean towards some sort of
 Chapter 7 - Dynamic Masterpieces 235

certainty, when possible - as well as when it's for the exchange with a serious of good
not possible!) . moves: 2 1 . . .ih4 22.l:%e2 !%f5 23.'fic4 'fid7!
1 5 . . . !%g6t 1 6.@fl !%g5! and Black is OK.

8 l 9.tLlxg5 .ixa7

8
7 7 ''0 ! �• � � ·;:
6 6 .: i w%
...�'.�
�
�� & �% i
..... .....

4
5
�� ��� �% "'� .
3
5
4 �- "'--- --� � '/,,,,,;�
�
�
• • �
>,, , , , , ;�

a b c d e f g h
� �6!1·�1
1
. .. }- - - %�.,� �c-z- - -. . %�
�· § � � �
a b c d e f g h
Forcing the queen to a poor square.
1 7.'fia7 If Black had time to play . . . .ic5 or . . . Wd7,
1 7 .!%e5? b6 would lead co material losses. his position would be under control, and he
1 7 . . . Wc8 would have the advantage. But this is not the
The attack is certainly dangerous for White, way things work in a dynamic setting. White
but objectively his position is tenable. plays:
1 8 . tLl f3! 20.tLlxf7! !%xf7 2 1 .l:%e7
1 8 .'fixd4 'fixh3t 1 9.@e2 Wh5t looks Black has to give a perpetual with:
dangerous. 2 1 . . .Wxh3t 22.@g 1 Wg4t

8 �r.
In order not to lose.
� � �·
7 �� -----%���------,�-�-,��-----%-, Again, to be clear, I saw none of this during
the game.
: � � �
�r,/�� lfi'tti� �� . ,
8 ,B'------t� �m� ----- � �
4
13 . . J:�g6

23
·----"� a rm� � The only move that makes sense in the
�i� � �
'"'(D""% 8 �- �
position.
� ���
�- ----%�
. - .....

8
a b c d e f g h 7
Somehow the engine can make 20.f3! tLl c6 6
2 1 .'fic4 hold together, although it looks
terrifying to me. (The human 20.@fl ? .ic5 5
2 1 .'fic4 leads co disaster after 2 1 . . . .ixf2!+ 4
with what looks like a deadly attack.)
3
1 8 . . . .ic5 !
After l 8 . . . tLi c6 l 9.tLlxg5 .ixg5 20 . .ie6! fxe6 2
2 l .'fic5 Black has co j ustify his compensation
1

a b c d e f g h
236 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

14.Af4?! such as l 5 .tll c4 could easily get into trouble

This is the most obvious move, although it after 1 5 . . . J.b? 1 6.J.g3 J.d5!, with a difficult
was not very successful in the game. White position for White. I should maybe mention
has not made any obvious mistakes, but that I saw this, rather than only pointing out
still it is hard to see exactly how he should what I did not see!
secure equality. We are able to do this after
an hour with the help of an engine, but 8
for a human during the game, this is not 7
relevant.
6

Another thing I considered during the game 5

was 1 4.J.d2 b6 1 5 .ge4 (with the idea 1 5 . . . J.b? 4
1 6. gg4) . 3
2

a b c d e f g h

Black is seriously considering taking on

c4, with the trap that 17 .ge2? loses instantly
to 1 7 . . . gg5! 1 8.�h4 ge5 1 9.�g4 h5, as I
discovered a good while after the game.

1 5 .J.g3 is possibly the best move, but Black

is better.
a b c d e f g h

But Black has 1 5 . . . tll a6! 1 6.gae l J.f6, when

there is no clear path for White to equality.

14... b6i
I spent 1 4 minutes on this decision.

1 4 ... ie6!? was a serious alternative, but I did

not yet have this idea. At this point I was trying
to make . . . J.b7 work in various variations,
which is the most natural thing to do when
you get a rook to g6.

15.Yff3
a b c d e f g h
An easy move to understand. White is
preventing the bishop from going to b7. 1 5 ...J.e6!
During the game there was a moment when This is a nice move to play, but it was really
I believed that I was actually worse here. But not that difficult, and did not take a lot of time
just a moment. to find, as there are not many alternatives.
What I like about this move is that White
White's task is not easy. A natural move has done quite a bit to restrict this bishop. First
 Chapter 7
he played h3, preventing it from pinning the
knight from g4. Then he played 'Wf3 to prevent
it from coming to b7. Finally, it comes to e6
and White's position becomes really difficult.
1 5 . . . .id6 1 6 ..ixd6 l3xd6 1 7.l3e5 feels freeing
for White, who will soon be able to get the
other rook into the game.
16.J.xe6
Not a pleasant move to play, but with the
clock ticking away, sometimes all you can find
is that you have to play a move in order to be
allowed to play another afterwards.
The first thing I looked at was of course the
positional sacrifice with 1 6.i3xe6 fxe6 1 7.'We4.
a b c d e f g h
But then I found 1 7 . . . lll a6!, which gives Black
a decisive advantage. Of course I did not know
at the time that this was winning; all I knew was
that I did not see a decent move for White.
1 6.i3e2 also has a serious drawback. Black has
a big tactic:
8 decisive usually pops up.
7 So 1 7 . . . .id6 tries to exchange White's prime
65
4
32
a b c d e f g h
- Dynamic Masterpieces 237
1 6 . . . lll xc2!!+ wins the exchange after the
forced 1 7 . .ixe6 lll x a l , as 1 7 . .ixc2? .id5 leads
to a winning attack. Again, it can be analysed,
but during the game it is enough to see that
Black has many tempting possibilities.
16 ... fxe6 17.Yfe4
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
a b c d e f g h
17 ....id6!!
I liked this move very much for many reasons.
I looked at 1 7 . . . lll d 5 first, but was not satisfied
with it. Then I got the idea that exchanging the
bishops would give me control of the f4-square,
which is vital for the attack. As Razuvaev taught
me: when all the pieces are attacking and none
has to defend anything, the attack is probably
strong enough to be successful. He called it
"coefficient of attack"; you calculate the strength
of the attack against the strength of the defence.
Here four pieces are attacking and, after the
f4-bishop goes, only the queen helps with the
defence. Under such circumstances, something
defender. The knight on a3 is too far away, and
the rook on al is not going to do much good
either.
18.hd6?
After the game it is easy to see that it is not
possible to hold the position once the knight
238 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making i n Chess

comes to f4, and that for this reason 1 8 . .ig3 Either 2 1 .Wg2:
was the only way to stay in the game. After
1 8 . . . 'iNg5 it is clear that Black has an attack,
but actually White also has some defensive
resources. It would be possible to include a few
pages of computer analysis here, but I hope
the readers will trust our j udgment, based on
having done the analysis, which is that Black's
chances are extraordinarily excellent!
You may ask why I chose to analyse 1 3.tlid2
in as much detail as I did, especially the
variation with 1 4 . . . .ixh3, and now here I just
a b c d e f g h
give a verbal explanation. The reason is simple:
those lines were too beautiful to ignore! 2 1 . . .l:!h4!! and there is no adequate defence
against the knight landing with great power on
18 ... cxd6 f4, causing widespread destruction.

Or 2 1 .Wh l tlie3! 22.l:!fe l , when Black has the

equally beautiful:

a b c d e f g h
19.'l'xd4
22 . . . 'iNh4!! 23.Wh2 l:!f3 with a winning attack.
From a human point of view, Black's position
Again, I did not consider any of this during the
is totally winning, even if it would still be quite
game, but the line is lovely all the same.
a headache to prove the same result against a
computer. Still, let me give you a few extracts
19 ...'l'gS
from the Matrix.
It is always fun to play a mating attack
when you have only invested a pawn. If you
1 9.g3 is met strongly with 1 9 . . . tlid5 20.'iNxd4
have sacrificed two pieces, it is easy to become
tlif4 2 1 .@h2 e5! 22.We3 tli e6 when the knight
nervous, and the pressure is really high. In no
is coming to d4 or g5 .
way did I feel like that during this part of the
game.
1 9 .i"ffl is refuted by a series of brilliant moves:
1 9 . . . tlid5 20.g3 l:!f4! and now:
20.g3 '1'5 2 1.g4
 Chapter 7 - Dynamic Masterpieces
2 1 . <if h2 lt'ixc2! gives Black a technically
winning endgame.
And 2 1 .h4 e5 22.We3 lt'id5 followed by . . . lt'i f4
is immediately decisive. It is logical that White
cannot defend the position with the knight
out of the game on a3 .
a c d e g h
2 1 . .. hS!
2 1 . . .lt'id5!? was also strong - White's life
won't be worth living once the knight comes
to f4. After the game I had an interesting
discussion with an attacking player about my
approach here; the attacking player thinks you
should always look for mate if it is likely to be
there.
I saw that I would be able to grab everything
in the game and win easily. It involves no
decisions. I am sure that there was someone
watching the game online who thought I had
blundered because the engine's evaluation
went from -6 to -2. 5 , but this is a complete
misunderstanding. If the position is winning
and you know how to win, then you are home
and dry.
To win with an attack was equally simple;
Black does not have to find any 'only move'
anywhere.
22.ge4 dS 23.@h2 Wf3 24.geel hxg4
25.¥Ne3 gxh3
239
I was quite comfortable going into a simple
ending with a few extra pawns, but 25 . . . Wf6
also makes sense, where Black keeps the attack
going.
26.¥Nxf3 gxf3 27J�gl gxf'2t 28.@xh3 gxgl
29.gxgl c!Lixc2 30 . .!iJbS
I like this game for a few reasons:
� It was played in a tense situation. It was
the semi-final of the World Cup after all,
and both players were already tired, but
still hoped they could achieve more in the
tournament.
� White ran into trouble very early in
the game without making any obvious
mistakes, and already at move 1 8 his
position is lost. To me this is really
amazing.
� I did not make a move that is open to
serious criticism. It is very rare that you
play a game as flawless as this. I was able
to use my powers in the best way.
� I like Tukmakov's notes on this game in
Risk and Bluffin Chess. I do not agree with
them, but the reader should be allowed to
form his own opinion.
Chapter 8
Dynamic Defence

True success is hardly ever achieved alone - Alex with the

World Cup trophy in Khanty-Mansiysk 2009
 Diagram Preview
On this page you will find a few
diagrams with critical moments
8
7 v.� •z �
�
�� ����1��r�r�
.....
�- 8 z�
� �. ': . . .f. Z
�

: !-.!� ..,�
�d-� ��i ���
from the coming chapter. If you ��P'

: �•!�-�--�- - -��f'-
····-

want to compare your thinking

5 'Ii� �(/�
� 'i3Ji � ��
with the games, you have the
4 4
· - - ��
U '�
U WM
�
·

�"• ... •ii� ···"� �"'m� "m��r::i"'� " '"�

possibility. Take as much time
3
�� -� 3
as you need or want. This is not Cl i�
a test, but a chance to 'think
along' with the grandmasters in
2
�. : · �
�� �- --·":"'1""
•
6.
2

1
� �� lI 6
the games. a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

This requires a deep �

think. A small sideline. White to
Can you find the resource I win. (see page 259)
missed? (see page 248)

3
2

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

An easy start. Black wins, Luck favours the brave. How A deep think is needed.
but how? can White make a draw? Black wins by force with
(see page 245) (see page 2 54) a fantastic sequence.
(see page 266)

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

White is a rook down, but I avoided this one as well.

does he still have resources Black wins with a
left? (see page 259) beautiful line.
(see page 270)
 Chapter 8 - Dynamic Defence
In this final chapter I want to show two games
where I reached bad positions, and then I had
to use the things chat were good about my
position, their dynamic potential, to create
counter-chances. I hope that showing some
ideas about how to approach a worse position
will be useful for the readers.
Perpetual check
The first game is a long way from being one
of my best, but then this book is not about
me, but about describing decision-making at
the top level. In the game I went for an attack
on my opponent's king, not with the hope of
mating him, but of giving perpetual check.
Boris Gelfand - Rosian Ponomariov
Tsaghkadzor 2015
The World Team Championship started in
1 98 5 and used to be every four years, but since
2009 it has been biennial, turning into a very
strong event. The ten qualifiers are the top five
finishers from the Olympiad, the continental
champions, the host country, and a wildcard.
The 20 1 5 event was held in a mountain resort
in Armenia. The hosts were very friendly, as
usual , and the atmosphere was excellent at the
tournament.
There are no longer any really weak teams
participating. The African champions, Egypt,
had several strong grandmasters in their
team, for example. The 20 1 5 tournament
was won very convincingly by the Olympiad
Champions, China. There was an open fight
for the remaining places. We were in the top
3 for a long time, but missed our chances, and
ended 7th. It is the small margins that decide
team matches, where one mistake can make the
difference between two points and zero points.
Ponomariov came to prominence in 200 1 -2002
when he won the FIDE World Championship
243
at the age of 1 8 . Since then he has been a top
player. Twice he has qualified for the final of
the World Cup, losing to Aronian in 2005
and myself in 2009. In 20 1 1 he made it to the
semi-final. This format clearly suits him. Our
match in 2009 was very close. In the classical
games we had four draws. Then I was up 2- 1
in the rapid games with a big advantage in the
final game, but he managed to win, and so
levelled the score. I took the lead twice in blitz,
but he managed to catch up, before I finally
won two blitz games in a row. Winning the
World Cup was of course a very memorable
occasion for me.
Ruslan's style is not easy to describe for me,
but it is clear that he is a very determined
fighter, always giving his best at the board.
I have not played a huge number of games
against Ponomariov, but I did play him a
number of times the year after the World
Cup match, as we were invited to many of
the same tournaments. In general, defence
prevailed over attack in our games, although I
did manage to win one game. In the following
game he came awfully close to equalizing our
overall score.
1 .d4 tii f6 2.c4 e6 3.�f3 d5 4.g3
The Catalan, one of my favourite openings.
4 ... dxc4 5 ..ig2 a6 6.0-0 �c6 7.e3 gbs
This is a pretty modern way to play.
7 . . . id7 is how Black has traditionally played
this position.
8.�e2
This line is usually met with 8.�fd2, when
a common try is 8 . . . e5!? (Mamedyarov tried
8 . . . �d7 9.�xc4 b5 against Pavel Eljanov in
Reykjavik 20 1 5 . Pavel managed to win, but
for a long time Black's position was perfectly
fine.) 9.ixc6t bxc6 1 0.dxe5 � g4, with
complications.
244 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

I was aware of the above variation, but 1 1 ... 0-0 12Jkl .ib7 13.�el �e8 14.�d3
instead I wanted to follow an idea by Sasikiran. e5!

8 ... b5 9.b3 8 � �if� ·

The game I was following went like this: 9 .id2
�r- ��-1v.m 1.
6 T�il•
7

• ,�
ie7 1 0.b3 cxb3 l l .axb3 ib7 1 2Jk l tll d 5

�!· ·'· ��.

1 3.tll c3 tll db4 1 4 .tll e4 0-0 1 5 .tll c 5 White is a

�� �n- "�
good deal better at this stage. 1 5 . . . ic8 1 6. tll e5

4
5

� !•tllo �n=
l::1 b6 1 7.tll xc6 tll xc6 1 8.l::1 a2 id6 1 9.l::1 ac2 '1We8
20.'11:lf d3 a5 2 1 .f4 f6 22.tll e4 ib7 23.tll c 5 ic8

2 �� v.�iin'lZ�
24.tll e4 ib7 25.tll c 5 Y2-Y2 Sasikiran - Topalov, 3

.!� £ �. V.
Khanty-Mansiysk (ol) 20 1 0.
� � ,.,.

-
---- ----- ----

9 ... cxb3 10.axb3 1 � t.z.J � �

a b c d e f g h
This was Ponomariov's preparation. Without
it, I like White's position, but Black has it, and
equalizes. I am unhappy with my preparation
for this game. Such things should be checked
these days, and not arrive as surprises during
the game.

1 5.hc6?!
I spent a lot of time at this point. I misjudged
the position and picked up the challenge. I am
not exactly sure what I missed, but the right
choice would have been to take on e5 and head
for what looks like an early draw after several
exchanges.

1 5 ...hc6 16.gxc6 �xc6 17.dxe5 he5

18.tLlxe5 �d5

8
10 ...i.d6
A small difference compared to the Sasikiran
game, but an important one, as Black can play

6
for . . . e5. 7

5
1 1 .i.d.2

4
I liked this idea, but maybe I was wrong.
Black develops quite fluently and it seems I am
just a move too late.

2
3

1 l .ib2! ? with the idea of tll e5 might be the

future of this variation.
1

a b c d e f g h
 Chapter 8 - Dynamic Defence 245

19.�6!?
I think I might have missed that after
1 9 . .ic3 Black has 1 9 . . . tli e4!, which would be
very uncomfortable. (Black would not play
1 9 . . . '1Wxb3, when I was planning 20.tlic6 l'!b6
2 1 .tlid4 °1Wd5 22 . .ia5 and the white pieces are
coming into the game with gains of tempo,
giving White the initiative.) The engine
recommends: 20.°1Wd3 tlixc3 2 1 .°1Wxc3 l'!fe8
22.tlid3 l'!bd8
b d g

8 ����
- - - - - �-
.i �,.
a c e f h

·' ,
�:.. . . �. �-�-- -��
22 . . . bxc3! 23 .l'!xb2 cxb2 and Black wins.
7
.
20 cS 2 1 .�bd.2 YlYe6 22.e4
5 ���·-·· �� ���.
6 •••

�w�-0 rr§
32 � �8 IDl��lt:Jf
i. .
��
8 , , ,v,� ��� ��·
�� ,_.
.Af%WJ
4 �

,��)J;Z����,
V,
�
.

���� . . ..
7

1-
,, �'11
� if�
----�.
.. . % ....% ..

. %�·x( "" 6
Z
�ltl� � m
��
.

a b c d

23.tlie 1 It is clear that White is not in

e f g h
: :�,-.,.%� %� /iwr
�- - �11 ..
�mlB
3

. . . 0('�
contention for an advantage, but maybe he is

�
also not yet worse, although it feels like an odd

g • • �
way to play.
2
; ..,, % � · " "

1
I wanted to play in a way that accentuated the
positive aspects of my position, which included a b c d e f g h
the strong bishop on the long diagonal; to play
This is a good moment to stop and look
in a principled way, and not let the dynamics
at the position. The opening is over and we
of my position die. Probably everything I was
can establish that it has been a big success for
thinking is wrong; this is, after all, far from
Black. The two pawns and the rook will be
being one of my best games ever.
more valuable than the two minor pieces in the
long run, especially as Black has three passed
19 YlYxb3 20 .&.aS
••• •

pawns, so White will have to create short-term

My plan is clear. I want to play on the
counterplay in order to save the game.
kingside, to go for the king, as I did in the game.
The bishop has to go to a5 for the moment, in
But first off, it is Black's turn.
order to allow the knight to get into the game.
It's not possible to attack without pieces.
22 JUc8!?
••

This is a very ambitious move. In some ways

A small but important line to pay attention to
it did not feel so natural to me, allowing White
is: 20.tlic3? b4 2 1 .tlid4? 'Wb2 22.l'!b l
free hands on the kingside.
The idea is two-fold: to push the c-pawn and
246 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess
to prevent the white bishop from entering the
game via c7.
We analysed 22 . . . l:!fe8, which also seems to
give Black good chances. A line we looked at
went: 23.l:!e l '!Wc6 24.e5 h6!? 25.llih4 '!We6
a b c d e f g h
26.'!Wfl ! llid5 27.f4 and although Black is
better, White has some counterplay; as in the
game.
23.e5 llid7 24J�el
This is a very natural-looking move.
24.l:!d l !? was a possible prophylactic try, based
on meeting 24 . . . '!Wa2?! with:
a b c d e f g h
25 .e6! '!Wxe6 26.'!Wxe6 fxe6 27.llie4, when
White has a good initiative. For example:
27 . . . lli f6 28.llid6 l:!f8 29.llig5 with
counterplay. I did not think about these lines
at all during the game, but instead focused on
attacking the king.
8
7
6
5
a b c d e f g h
This is a good moment to take stock.
Black's long-term prospects are strong, and his
position looks very harmonious. But things
have also begun to look up for White. After
my inaccurate opening play, I have managed
to make something out of what is good about
my position, and create counter-chances on
the kingside, meaning that if Black takes even
a minor misstep, I will get my chances.
24 h6?
...
And here we have the mistake. After the
game, checking with a computer, it is not
difficult to work out how Black should have
played:
24 . . . '!Wa2!
I am not at all sure how easy it is to decide
at the board that this is the best move. The
upsides are obvious: the black pawns move
ahead, pushing the white bishop about. But
there are downsides too: the bishop ends
up on a better square and, with the queen
gone from the kingside, White's attack looks
much more menacing.
2 5 .i.c3 b4
This is the most natural move, but it is
also possible for Black to stay flexible
with 25 . . . llifB!?, which leads to other
complications. The idea of these variations is
not so much to exhaust all possible avenues,
 Chapter 8 - Dynamic Defence 247

but to give a feeling for the complexity of 27.We4?!

the position and to justify the evaluation. In 27.tlJc4 is no good. Black is better in the
other words: we only need one way for Black endgame, and White will have a very
to prove an advantage. unpleasant defence ahead of him. I would
26.i.a l have been very reluctant to play this move,
but deep analysis of the position shows that
this poor move is objectively best. This is
a common problem in worse positions: do
you play for a trap and/or counterplay, even
if you do not believe in it, or do you wait for
your opponent to come for you?
27 . . . c4 28.e6!
White's counterplay is definitely inventive,
and there is no way of knowing how the
game would have developed, had this
position arisen. A possible direction is:
b d g

.. ,
�.,•�.
a c e f h
26 . . . tlJ f8 ! s •z
. . , v,.� � :
This move, aiming t o reduce the power of 7
�·�� �� �� . , %�
e5-e6 and protect the kingside in general,
� ��
,,

�
6

:3 �.r.1.
not only feels right, but also looks better

, .... �� �� ��-%�
once we place the position under scrutiny.

�� .% '"//, ·�J��-r,
White's most obvious continuation is to seek
an attack on the kingside, but with accurate
play, Black can repulse it.
26 . . . tlJ b6?! is too careless: 27.%Ve4 %Vd5
2
i!•�Wh0.� fil. . J��-J�
..�
� � �l9'0
� �
� �
�
28 .%Vf4 c4 29.e6 c3 (29 . . . fxe6 30 . .ixg7!
a b c d e f g h
@xg7 3 1 .�e5 is bad news} 30.%Vxf7t @h8
3 1 .�e5 Wa2 32.�h5 %Vxa l t 33.@g2 cxd2 28 . . . tDxe6?
28 . . . c3! is best, cutting off the bishop on
8 a l . In that case Black is clearly better, but
7 it would not be easy to see all this when
deciding on 24 . . . %Va2!.
6
29 . .ixg7!
5
The bishop is sacrificed before it is blocked

3
4 off by . . . c4-c3 .
29 . . . @xg? 30.We5t @g8 3 1 .tlJe4
2 Suddenly White's threats are very real, and
it is Black who has to defend accurately to
survive.
a b c d e f g h
3 1 . . .�b5 32.tlJf6t @h8!
White has a number of ways to continue, 32 ... @f8? 33.tlJxh?t @g8 34.tlJf6t @f8
the most obvious being: 34.�xh?t @xh7 3 5 .%Vd6t @g7 36.�xe6! and White's attack
3 5 .Wh5t with a perpetual. is more or less decisive.
248 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making i n Chess

33 .°1We4 @g7 34.tll e 5!

Creating yet more threats.
34 . . . l:!f8!
The only move, as 34 . . . @xf6? loses to
3 5 .%Vf3t.
3 5 .tll h5t
There are plenty of other dangerous options.
35 . . . ©h8
At this point White can force a draw with
36.tll f6, but the funniest line by far is:
36.%Vf4!? tll x f4

a b c d e f g h
25 ... �xe5
Black has to take the pawn, otherwise the
knight comes to d6 and White will be fine.

26.�xe5 Yfxe5 27.Ac3

This felt right, so I played it without much
hesitation.

27 ...Yfe6
a b c d e f g h

37.tll x f7t!
White gives perpetual checks on h6 and f7.

As said repeatedly, these lines are very far

from obvious. Sure, you can play 28 . . . c3! by
instinct, but it is very easy to miss 29.i.xg7; the
bishop just went to a l . Also, while thinking at
move 24, it is easy to see something in these
lines that feels less than trustworthy. We have
to remember that the game continuation
also looked promising for Black. You cannot
navigate such positions by intuition or
calculation alone. You need to use both. a b c d e f g h
This was the critical moment. I spent 5 of
25.�e4! my remaining 1 3 minutes. What I eventually
I saw no viable alternative to sacrificing yet
played in the game was the poor man's choice.
another pawn, in search of counter-chances. If
Black gets time to regroup, he will consolidate
28.�f6t?
and have a material advantage.
This move means giving up on the hope that
White is objectively fine, while hoping merrily
to get some practical chances.
 Chapter 8 - Dynamic Defence 249

I spent a long time trying to make another idea 30.ll:)g5 !

work: I missed this idea, which equalizes.
28.°Wf3! 'Wg6 I spent all of my time calculating the
The only move. consequences of 30.ll:)f6t? gxf6 3 1 .1'!e7,
29.h4! when I could not find anything for White
This was my idea, trying to harass the queen. after 3 I . . .1'!d8. A deeper look suggests that
29 . . . f5 ! Black would get a great advantage if he plays
This was the move I could not get past. accurately: 32.°We2 'tti f8 33.We6

��
. . .. �� -
-�
29 . . . h5 did not concern me much. I believed
I would be able to create counterplay after 8
.�Y.� . . .Y.?m. . Y. . . 7.�
� � z �

30 . .ie5 1'!b6 3 I .ll:)g5!. 7

� . �f0. ��.'0.
6 �, ..��f%•••tv�
� � . . 7.� .
5 ��� .. � �
�
w0 a �w�r!1.J,:1
� w·0
32 �����
4

��.:. . '.� ��ft"" . .. ��·0���

�

a b c d e f g h

33 . . . i'!d l t! It is not at all obvious that this

intermediate check is useful, but after the
a b c d e f g h
fact, we can see that Black defends important
Analysing this position with an engine squares on the d-file. (33 . . . 1'!e8 ?! is far less
suggests that this belief was correct. The clear: 34 . .ixf6 c4 3 5 .h5 Wh7! 36.'Wd6 1'!xe7
following computer line shows that both 37.WxbSt 1'!e8 38.Wd6t 'tti g 8 39.ic3 and
players have to make good moves in order winning this position with Black would be
to hold the balance: 3 1 . . .1'!f8 32.i'!d I c4 very difficult.) 34.'tti g2 1'!e8 35 . .ixf6 1'!xe7
33.1'!d7 b4 34.Wd I 1'!b5! 35 . .if4 b3 36.i'!ds 36.Wxe?t 'tti g 8 37.We6t Wf7 38.WcSt 'tti h 7
Wb6! 37.1'!xf8t 'tti xf8 38.Wd7 1'!xg5 39.hxg5 39.Wxf5t Wg6 40.We5 h5! 4 1 .Wc?t ©gs
b2 40 . .id6t 'tti g8 4 I .°Wc8t 'tti h7 42.'Wf5t 42.Wbst @f7 43 .Wb?t iixf6 44.Wf3t 'tti e6
With a perpetual. 45 .Wxd l c4 Black should win this ending.
30 . . . hxg5 3 l .1'!e7
The idea is simple. Check on d5 and 1'!xg7t,
leading to a perpetual. The computer shows
lots of zeros after almost every plausible move.

There are a lot of computer lines here, and

they should be looked at as such. But the core
conclusion is separate from this: on a good day
I would not have missed 30.ll:)g5!, after which
it is elementary to see that there is enough
counterplay for a draw. This line is short and
a b c d e f g h
plausible, as most realistic variations are.
250 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

28 ... gxf6 29.YfB Yfc6 30J�e4 felt it was difficult for him to win with such an
exposed king.
But actually I have a much stronger option
8
in 32.:!'!e7!, when after 32 . . . :!'!f8 33.Wi'h5 White
7 draws.
6
The move I spent most time calculating while
5 he was thinking was:
4 30 . . . @g7

3
8
2

a b c d e f g h
4
Black is faced with a big choice. I did not
really know what to expect; I simply tried
to work out what I wanted to do against the 2
different ideas.
a b c d
30 . . @ffi!
.

This is a strange-looking move in some I decided to go for:

respects, but on the other hand, the king is
trying to run for the hills, which makes some
sense. It is only after deep analysis that we can
establish that this is the best move, and that
Black played very well in this phase of the game.
30 . . . :!'!b6? was one of the moves I considered.
I calculated: 3 1 .Wi'g4t @h8
3 l .Wi'g4t
3 I ..ixf6t does not work. 3 1 . . .Wi'xf6 32.:!'!g4t
Wi'g5 (32 . . . Wi'g6 is also strong) 33 .:!'!xg5t
hxg5 34.Wi'fS And now 34 . . . @f8! is a nice
way for Black to get organized. The idea is
that 3 5 .Wi'xg5 :!'!c6! makes it hard for White
to give a perpetual.
3 1 . . .@f8 32.Wi'h4
32.Wi'f4 transposes to the note to White's
3 1 st move in the game.
Black has to find some good moves to prove
an advantage:

a b c d e f g h
 Chapter 8 - Dynamic Defence
32 . . . h5 33.J.xf6 l:!b6 34.J.e7t @g7 3 5 .ge5
Wff3! 36.gxh5 Wfd l t 37.@g2 Wfd4! 38.Wfg5t
gg6 39.Wff5 l:!h8! 40 . .ixc5 Wfd8 4 1 .l:!xh8 @xh8
a b c d e f g h
And at this point White has to play 42 . .ia3+,
hoping to make his opponent's task difficult,
which it certainly will be.
He cannot play 42.Wfxf7?, as Black has a
surprising move: 42 . . . l:!g5! 43.ib4 Wfd5t The
endgame is hopeless for White. 44.Wf xd5 l:!xd5
45.@f3 l:!d3t 46.@e2 gb3 And so on.
a b c d e f
31..bfG?
Again I had a narrow choice, and I think I
made the wrong one.
I was certain that the following line did not
work for me:
3 1 .Wff4 f5! 32.Wfxf5 ge8 33.l:!f4 l:!b7 34.Wfh7
ge6
25 1
5
4
3
2
a b c d e f g h
White's attack does not seem to work.
The black king will be able to run to the
queenside and hide. Or at least this is what
I thought during the game. I tried to make
it work, but could not. But it turns out that
things are a bit more complicated:
3 5 .Wf g7t @e8 36.WfgBt @d7!
This is a new discovery, which came to light
when working on this book.
Originally I only considered 36 . . . @e7
37.gxf7t @d6 38.WffBt @d5 and believed
Black was getting away. But actually, White
is OK here: 39.l:!xb7 Wfxb7 40.Wff3t l:!e4
4 1 .Wfd3t '>fle6 42.f3! and no matter where
the rook moves to, White secures a perpetual
check.
37.l:!xf7t l:!e7 38 . .ia5 b4! 39.WfdBt @e6
40.l:!f4
g h
40 . . . l:!f7!
40 . . .Wfd7 4 1 .Wf g8t @e5 42.Wfb3 gives White
a lot of counterplay. Not only is it difficult
252 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

in practice for Black to find all the right

moves, but even then, White is sort of OK
after: 42 . . . E:f7! 43.Wfe3t 'itid6 44.Wfd3t 'itie7
45.Wfe3t 'itif8 46.Wfxc5t 'itig8 47.E:xf7 Wfxf7
48.j,xb4 Although Black has some winning
chances, White should hold, as long as the
queens stay on.
4 1 .E:h4 Wfd7 42.E:xh6t 'itid5 43.Wf g5t Wff5
44.Wd2t 'itic4 45 .Wa2t 'itib5 46.We2t c4
47.j,xb4 Wd3!
47 . . .Wxf2t 48.Wxf2 E:xf2 49.'itixf2 'itixb4
50.E:xa6 and White holds.
49.Wfe l E:fd7 50.E:h5t E:d5 5 1 .E:xdSt Wxd5 a b c d e f g h
All of this was forced. Black is winning, but
we still have to make moves. My ambition here
was to try to create as many traps as possible. I
think Ponomariov played pretty decently up to
the time control.

35.h4 ©es 36.'flYxh6 YlYe4t 37.©gl ©d7!

38.YlYd2t ©c6 39.hS YlYd5
This is a natural and perfectly logical move
to make with little time on the clock.
a b c d e f g h
If he had more, he would no doubt have
Black has excellent winning chances, but the
spotted 39 . . . Wb l t! 40.'itig2 Wf5!, which is
task is not at all easy. All in all, this is how I
very uncomfortable for White.
should have played, especially when you take
into account all the chances for Black to make
a misstep along the way.

31 ..J�e8!
3 l . . . E:b6?? would be a big blunder. White
wins after: 32.Wfg4! Wfxf6 33.Wxc8t 'itig7
34.E:g4t

32J�xe8t 'flYxe8 33.'flYf4

The main target is the h6-pawn. White needs
something with which to create counterplay. a b c d e f g h

33.Wg4 does not work because of 33 . . . Wf c8!
34.Wg7t 'itie8 3 5 .Wg8t 'itid7 36.Wfxf7t 'itic6
and Black escapes.
33 ... 'flYei t 34.'itig2 gc8
In order to keep the game going, I would
have to play 4 1 .Wh6, but the position after
something like 4 1 . . .WdSt 42.'itih2 b4 is
virtually hopeless.
 Chapter 8 - Dynamic Defence 253

During the game I expected 39 . . . b4, but it also 42.h6

makes sense to make no big decisions till after
the time control.
8

40.Yfe2 Yff5 41 ..lg7 7

6
8 5
7 4
6 3
5 2
4 1

a c e
3 b d f g h
2 42 ... i>b7?
1 Black continues with his plan, but at this
point there were still ways to win the game.
a b c d e f g h The computer likes 42 . . . Wf d3, but the most
We have passed the time control, which is to human way to play is as follows:
my detriment; my position is still lost.
42 . . . �dS!
41 ... c4? This is what I was worried about. Black is
Ponomariov did not look at the position planning ... �d3 in order to push the c-pawn.
in the same way as I did, and fell for my one The most critical line goes:
remaining trick. And it is easy to see why: if 43 . .ic3 �d3 44.Wf eSt 'it>b7 4 5 .Wf e?t
White does not have the trick, Black simply 45 .h? could be tried, but Black can simply
retreats the king to b 7 and then pushes the take it: 45 . . . Wfxh?! 46.Wfe?t 'it>c6 47.WfeSt
c-pawn all the way to the end. 'it>c7! A bit of triangulation is necessary.
Looking at the position from another angle: 48 . .ia5 t ®b7 49.Wfe?t 'it>c6 50.Wf eSt ®d5
Black should want to win the game from here Black escapes the checks and wins. One
without giving his opponent any counter­ point is that ... �d l t is a threat, so White is
chances. Pushing the c-pawn opens up Black's in a desperate state.
king position horribly, and makes the win rely 45 . . . �d?!
more on accurate calculation than it should.

During the game I thought he should play

4 I . . .a5! 42.h6 a4, when I did not see any way
to create counterplay. There are some ways to
keep the game going for a bit, but it all appears
pretty desperate. I did not have any idea of
what I would do. The black king goes to b6
and is pretty safe, so what can I do?

a b c d e f g h
254 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making i n Chess

46.Wxd7t?!
White can retreat the queen to e3 and play
on, which is what I would have done.
46 . . .Wxd7 47.h7 Wd8 48.h8=W Wxh8
49.�xh8 a5 50.@fl b4 5 1 .@e2 a4 52.©d2
©c6 53.g4 c3t 54.@c2 @d5
43 ...t;Vbl t
43 . . . a5!? 44.h8=W :B:xh8 45 .�xh8 Wd5 was
possible, of course, but with queens on the
board, there is no reason to believe that Black
should be better.
44.©g2 t;Vxh7 45.t;Vf3t l:k6 46.t;Vxf7t gc7
47.t;Vdst ©cs 48.t;Vast ©d7 49.t;Vdst ©cs
so.t;Vast ©d7
1/2-1/z

Counterplay without queens

In the second game of the chapter, which was

Black is in complete control. Either he will
play . . . ©c4 and the pawns will win the game,
or White will take on c3 and have to go all
the way to the a-file to pick up Black's passed
pawn. Meanwhile Black will take all the white
pawns, queen the f-pawn, dig a grave for his
opponent, and run a victory lap around the
cemetery. . .
43.h7!
the Game 2 of the 20 1 1 Candidates final, I
lost my way while exiting the opening phase,
and soon had to look for counterplay in a
difficult endgame. There is a big difference
between this game and the previous one. In
the previous game, I believed that I was worse,
and later on losing, and played accordingly,
while in the next game I was worse, but never
lost hope about my position. As you will see,
this difference in perception is at the centre of
how I approached the position.
Boris Gelfand -Alexander Grischuk
Kazan (2) 201 1

8 While Game 6 of this match (see page 1 99), in

7 all modesty, belongs to chess history, we should
not forget that the match could not have been
6 won without the previous games. In three of
5 them I was in trouble, with this being the most
critical situation. I was also in trouble in Game
4
1 , which we will see in the third volume of this
3 series. Also in Game 5 I played the opening
poorly, but managed to offer enough resistance
2
to save the game.
In a match, every game has equal importance,
a c e
b d f g h
even if the final one, especially if decisive, can
attract a lot of the attention.
White's counterplay finally pays off. The
game will end in a perpetual check. 1 .lll f3 c5
 Chapter 8 - Dynamic Defence 255

through opening books with the intention of

following a repertoire, but it is always useful to
compare with your own knowledge, and see if
you can learn something.
Personally, I go through all serious opening
books in order to see if there are any important
ideas that I can use, or which I should be
prepared to face. I especially like the ones
where the author has done more than just
pressing the spacebar. Often all you get from
a book is a hint of a new direction that might
be interesting to investigate further, but this
a b c d e f g h alone will be worth it. Obviously I am talking
This was fashionable at the time. I played the about top-level preparation here. I understand
English a lot at that time, and Grischuk played that repertoire books such as those by Avrukh,
like this all the way through the Candidates. Marin, Khalifman and Negi will be very useful
even for average grandmasters. But we will talk
2.c4 l£ic6 3.l£ic3 e5 4.g3 g6 s.J.g2 J.g7 6.a3 more about openings in a later volume. For
t£ige7 now, the main thing to say is that 7.b4 was my
This is considered to be more precise than idea for this game, and we had analysed it a
6 . . . a5. bit, but it appears Grischuk was at least as well
prepared. More about this later.

8 7 ... d5!
7 This is the most natural move.
6
8.cxd5 �xd5
5

4 8

3 7

2 6

1 5

7.b4 3
There are a lot of subtle finesses in this
2
system. I think Marin suggested 7.0-0 0-0
8.E:b l , with the idea 8 . . . a5 9.lli e l d6 1 0.llic2 1

a c e
i.e6 I 1 .llie3 in order to prevent . . . d5. It b d f g h
seems that a number of top players looked at
Marin's three-volume series on the English at 9.l£ig5 l£ic7
this point. Obviously top players do not go 9 . . . llixc3 was also possible. 1 0.dxc3 Wxd 1 t
1 1 .'it>xd l
256 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

l 8 . .ixc6! with a big advantage on account of

1 8 . . . bxc6? 1 9.tDe4t.
l 6.�a4 °%Yb2
And at this point White has a nice move:
1 7.lDdS! lDe5 1 8.�b4 °%Ya3 l 9.i.xe5 he5
20.�a4 °%Yb2 2 I .lDc5
White is very comfortable.

14.cbfl Ylrd4

�� �· %· � �* ���- - -
a b c d e f g h

-� ·
8
I thought this would give me a playable
7
•�
..... � ��.: �
Catalan-style position .
� � � l
10.d3 cxb4 ll .axb4 e4!?
54 �� -�� ��tifi,���ir¥1;���
8 -%���
I��-��tt.J �
The most challenging, but we should not 6

�
ignore that Black has a wide choice on this
� -- - - - % ' "'
move as well. 3

1 1 . . .0-0 was playable, for example. The line 2 �-- --, � 8wdi.wtf � �
was unexplored, so no trends had formed yet. 1 ----� �� � � , � �:
12.�gxe4 f5 13.Ag5 hc3t a b c d e f g h
The best move. 1 5.�xc3!?
We felt that this piece sacrifice was a more
1 3 ... '%Yd4?! tempting possibility.
This was also possible, although dubious. We had also spent some time looking at:
Our idea was to play: l 5 .i.f6 .ixal 1 6.i.xd4 .ixd4 l 7.tDd6t 'it>e7
1 4.e3 °%Yxb4 1 8.lDxcSt �hxc8

8 �,�, �� ·0� �� "

ill·� •%� •�
7
..... �%�
- ;�'
· '% • •

6
54 ��-!������-�,���r£����
3 �. . . ��
2 ��
%� � •%
�li · �
�. �

�-ef�· - ��-�
8 ef� j_ef
�
�� ,� �� 7::
a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h
1 5 . .if6! 0-0 But it was hard to come to any solid
Against 1 5 . . . .ixf6 1 6.ttJxf6t 'it>f7 I had conclusions. The feeling is that Black's position
prepared 1 7.°%Yd2!, with the idea 1 7 . . . 'it>xf6 is adequate.
 Chapter 8 - Dynamic Defence 257

1 5 ...tyxc3 but White would be able to pose Black some

White has sacrificed a piece, but Black is a problems.
bit disorganized. If White had castled instead
of playing Wfl , he would have the advantage. 17J:kl tyf6 18J�c5 a6 19.i.xc6t bxc6
20 ..ieS tyf8

8
16.i.f4

7
�6 i!ra �� �
�. 6
"� " � �� � 5
•a�.-��
� �n�.� ,�. 4
3
3 "R %
�R ··n=
2 �--- --- - lwrJJ:f!
2
� �� ·� �•:
1
1
a b c d e f g h
a b c d e f g h This is where my preparation ended, but
16 ... lll b S! to some extent this is also where Grischuk's
The most accurate, giving Black a chance to preparation started. Of course this is an
play for three results. exaggeration, but it felt as if he was more in
control than I. I received the file with this
1 6 . . . ltl e6 gives White a chance to play for variation about an hour before the game, and
an advantage: 1 7.l3c1 'Wxb4 1 8 .l3xc6 bxc6 did not check it especially thoroughly, as I
1 9.i.xc6t Wf7 20.i.xa8 lll xf4 2 1 .gxf4 i.e6 found it very unlikely that it would happen.
(2 1 . . .'Wxf4 22.°Wa l and White is better) Grischuk had not prepared specifically for this
22.i.f3 a5 23 .°Wa l game, but had simply prepared this line for the

8 � � � �-- - tournament, and now he had a chance to use

it in this game.

�..-
:5 � �� ..�,,,�
Basically I thought the position was

� ,�
complicated, but highly unlikely to appear on

4 3B � ��-�� ��
�
the board. One and a half hours later, there it
was.

"�� �� 1. ��
....

�-
3

2 � ����
, �• �-�- �� 7:
� i� i�
There is an important psychological aspect to
point out here: After playing such a long and

�J; strange line, you have to adjust to thinking

• � -�
for yourself This time I did not handle the
a b c d e f g h
adj ustment well, which was an important
It seems that Black has enough compensation lesson for me. It is a common mistake among
for the pawn, because of the passed pawn. young players to learn some long forced line,
Most likely, the game would end in a draw, but then have no idea of what to do once it
258 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

appears on the board. It seems this can happen

8
7
to experienced players as well. . .

21 .YlYcl 6
5
This is a natural move, combining pressure

4
down the c-file with options of going up the

3
long diagonal.

2
2 U�xc6? does not work: 2 1 . . .i.b7 22.%Yb3
W/g8! and Black has the advantage.
1
21. ..i.d7
This is very natural as well. a b c d e f g h
22 ..txhS?
2 l . . .l:'!g8 looks risky. White would play: Played after 1 6 minutes, this was a mistake.
22.l:'!xb5 cxb5 23.W/c6t �f7 I should not have released the tension. Of
course I did not want to take on h8, but I did
.I � ... � � i. .I
�� ��� - - -"�
8
not see anything better, and I also did not fully

: r.1. 1r�
appreciate that I was about to be worse already.

r� ���;� :�
: �� ��"" � ""-�� �
I considered 22.l:'!xc6?! for a while, but after
22 . . . ixc6 23.Wxc6t �e7

3 �.8�-8�·
8• �
�, , , , %

2 � - · "�
1 �� �� �-:
a b c d e f g h
White has at least a perpetual with 24.%Yf6t,
although it is more likely he would continue:
24.W/xa8 W/xb4 2 5 .W/d5 t i.e6 26.%Yb7t We7
27.Wxa6, when White is running no risks and
can play for a win with his extra pawn.

Contrast this with the game, where we were

playing for three results, and Black's position
was arguably easier to play, as he has extra
material and thus less to prove (though
obviously some players would prefer White) .
In my opinion the game continuation offers
Black a very easy game.
24.Wb7t �e6 2 5 .%Yc6t does not give
a perpetual because of 25 . . . tll d 6, while
25 . . . �xe5 ?? 26.f4t �d4 27.�f2! Wxb4
28.l:'!c l leads to checkmate.

The computer suggests:

24.e4
 Chapter 8 - Dynamic Defence 259

The main point of this move is that White is
preparing a perpetual on b7 and d5. But it
is not a move I considered during the game.
OK, if l got to this position during a game, I
would find this move; it is not that difficult.
But to go voluntarily in this direction did
not make much sense to me.
24 . . . l:!d8
A natural move.
24 . . . 'Wc8 ? 2 5 .'Wf6t c.t>d? 26.'Wf7t c.t>c6
27.c.t>g2 and suddenly everything works for
White: 27 . . . c.t>b6
23.c.t>g2 'Wxb4 And claims Black has slightly
better chances.
But the computer also points out a much
stronger move.
22.'Wc4!
There are a few lines that are not at all
obvious, but make sense once you look
at them. The computer suggests a lot of
random-looking moves, and it would be
possible to confuse you endlessly by just
pressing the spacebar repeatedly, and then
printing it. But let's look at one variation

1. �1�� �� �. .
8 that leads to a draw, randomly. . .

:� -0� �� m-��1£��
2 2. . . h 5

· :�·� 22 . . . l:!g8 ? loses to:

5 �·� �W·� � · -�
� �·�, . ,,%� I.
4 ���� li -- � 76 �� �,����. ���
� �
8 I.
. . . , %� !� �� i .A
2 �. �- ��
3
�� � . �m-0 ��
�� � . . . , %� -:
�
: �-��� ��
b d g
. .. . . >. !.. ��
2 �. �.!-� . .. . %�
a c e
3
f h

�� �� �� :
28 . .if4!! A simple move, but not easy to
see. For example: 28 . . . l:!d8 29 . .ie3t tll d4
30 . .ixd4t l:!xd4 3 1 .°Wf6t and White wins.
a b c d e f g h
2 5 .c.t>g2
White is apparently fine. But to play like this 23 . .if6!! with various threats.
is not natural, and I would be reluctant to do 23.l:!xc6 .ixc6 24.'Wxc6t c.t>e? 25.f4! l:!c8
it during a game. 26.'Wb?t c.t>e6 27.'Wxa6t tll d 6 28.'Wa2t c.t>d?
29.'Wa4t l:!c6 30.b5 l:!cl t 3 l .c.t>f2 l:!xh l
However, I should add that the computer
recommends: 22 . . . l:!g8!
260 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess
32.bGt 'it>e6 33.%Va2t
With a draw.
One of the problems with my approach at
this stage of the game was chat I was seeking
an early crisis (preferably immediately) . I was
unhappy with my preparation, chat my bluff
had been called. It would not be unfair to say
chat I had lose my psychological composure,
which can be seen by the poor way I handled
this phase of the game.
What is surprising about all of this is not chat
I played as poorly as I did, but chat White has
so much time to get his pieces into the game.
It feels natural to chink chat Black would then
be able co get organized, but with such a weak
king, this is harder than at first anticipated.
There is an important point I want to make,
which is at the core of what these books are
about: I want to explain the chinking chat has
led to my reasonable success as a chess player,
and not 'cheat' in the process. It is quite easy
co analyse a variation with the engine and then
explain why it works. And this certainly has its
uses, but to me it is more interesting to talk
about how we find the moves in the first place.
This is the key to playing better chess.
22 ...'i'xhs
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
a b c d e f g h
23.'i'e3t
The obvious follow-up. It would have
made no sense to cake the rook if I did not
give the check. Still, it is not obvious chat it
improves White's position, so I analysed a few
alternatives:
23.h4 Wf6 24.Wg5 does not really work. For
example: 24 . . . We7! 2 5 .Wf4 and then a move
it is easy to forget is legal: 25 . . . 0-0-0 with an
advantage for Black.
23.<;t>g2 is also a natural move to consider, but
after 23 . . . %Vf6 Black is well-placed again. One
example is 24.e4 lll d4 2 5 .:!! e l <;t>f7 and Black
is very harmoniously placed.
These examples show chat it is much easier for
Black to improve his pieces, which is why I felt
I was in a rush. This is one of the reasons why
I cook on h8, ensuring chat I would not be
seriously down in material. If Black gets fully
coordinated here, I am worse, but at least I do
not have to resign.
The paradox is chat it was perhaps only after
I took on h8 chat this was really the case!
23 ... @f7 24J�e5
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
a b c d e f g h
24...'i'tlU
This seems rather artificial, but in fact it is an
 Chapter 8 - Dynamic Defence 26 1

indication of how well Grischuk was playing 26 Yfd6!

•••

in this match. This was his idea all along; Black forces the
exchange of queens. After this, his king will be
A natural way to play was 24 . . . '1Wf6!? and follow safe and his advantage beyond doubt.
up with something like 2 5 .h4 &i'J c7 26.f4 &i'Jd5
when Black is doing very well. But as we shall 27.®g2
see, in many lines it is advantageous for Black I had no choice; the rook needs to get into
to be able to take the b4-pawn. This might the game.
sound like a simple difference, but to a strong
player it is quite a compromise to put your 27 ci>f6 28.ge4!
•••

pieces on odd squares. He played this part of
the game very well indeed.
25.h4 h5
The most natural move, preventing White
from creating any counterplay.
2 5 . . . '1Wd6? would allow White to create
counter-chances with 26.hS g5 27.f4! g4
Sometimes the best move is the lesser evil.
A worse version of the queen exchange would
be 28.l:kS '1Wxf4 29.gxf4, when after 29 . . . &i'Jc7
Black is very well placed and White has lost
some elasticity on the kingside, meaning he
has no counterplay whatsoever.
28 '1Wxf4 29J�xf4
•••

28.h6! with the idea l:!h5-g5/-f5 .

26.Yff4
I had to play this, as the b-pawn was
hanging.

After 26.@g2 '1Wxb4 27.'1Wh6 l:!g8 28.'1Wh7t l:'!g7

29.'1Wh8 Black can play 29 . . . 'IWIB immediately,
or j ust ignore White and his lack of real threats
with 29 . . . aS 30.l:'!c l '1Wd6, with full control of
the position.

8
7
a b c d e f g h

6
This is how I saw my defensive task:

5 1 ) First of all, I had to be careful that I did

4
not lose immediately. This sounds incredibly

3
obvious, but it still has to be done.

2
2) I had to create active counterplay, as
otherwise I would lose slowly. I wanted to
1 open the position, play f3 and e4 and g4 to get
the rooks playing, and to create targets. The
a b c d e f g h exchange of pawns would also favour me.
262 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

This is in contrast to the feeling of desperation White has to do this.

it would be easy to feel, which would lead to 33 . . . ixc6t 34.!!xc6 @e7 35.!!xa6
setting traps and other forms of playing the
position as if it is beyond salvation. This is often
connected with nervousness. Some players
find it difficult to withstand the pressure of
being continuously worse, and try to get some
clarification quickly, so they can get out of an
unpleasant situation. My approach was the
opposite. I wanted to stay in the game as long
as possible.
The position is bad, but it is the position I
have, and I wanted to do my utmost to defend
a b c d e f g h
it.
Is this endgame winning or not? It's hard to
I should add that my opponent has played determine without spending many hours on
perfectly up to this point. I do not know for analysis. I believe it offers Black good chances.
sure if this position is a direct win, or if it is He will play 3 5 . . . !!d4, move the king so it
just very close. defends the g6-pawn, and then regroup to a
perfect set-up. But it would take a while to
29 . .i.e6?
.
break through, so it would be a long game.
This was played in order to trap the rook
on f4, preventing me from playing !!c4. The In all of these lines White's position is obviously
downside is that it is slow. We wanted to check bad, but we do not have an answer about
if Black would fare better with more direct whether the position is winning for Black with
play, and therefore we analysed the following best play.
lines:
30Jkl ©e7 3 1 .f3 ©d6
29 . . . !!b8!? After the game Grischuk suggested that it
The aim is to attack the b4-pawn would have been more accurate to play:
immediately. 3 1 . . .@d7
30.!!c l
30.!!a l !!b6 3 1 .!!c4 does not work well, on
account of 3 1 . . .ie6 followed by . . . ltJ d4, and
Black will be threatening a fork on b3 and
the pawn on e2.
Black also looks very well placed after 30.!!c4
ltJd6 3 1 .!!d4 @e7 32.!!c l (32.e4 ie6 and
the rook is trapped) 32 . . . !!b6, when I don't
like White's position at all.
30 . . .!!b6 3 1 .!!fc4 itJ d6 32.!!4c2!?
This leads to an endgame which has to be
considered:
32 . . . !!xb4 33.!!xc6
 Chapter 8 - Dynamic Defence 263

32.g4! Black of course has the advantage here, but

White has no time to waste. If he does not
react immediately, Black will regroup and
his slight material advantage will count. In
short: if White waits, he loses.
32 . . . fxg4 33.fxg4 hxg4 34.E:c5! a5!?
This is what the computer gives, but I
don't think anyone would play it. But I am
analysing it all the same, as White holds in
the following variation: 34 . . . E:h8 3 5 .<Jig3
llJ d6 36.E:f6 llJ f5 t 37.<Jlxg4 E:xh4t 38.<Jig5
E:xb4 39.E:xe6 <Jlxe6 40.E:xc6t <Jle5 4 1 .E:xa6
and there is not enough material to win.
3 5 . bxa5 E:xa5 36.E:g5 E:a2
it would not be easy for him to do anything
with it.
To me, this does not look better or worse than
the game.
32.<Jifl?
I am making the same mistake as my
opponent: spending time improving the
position of my king, at a point when I should
have gone for active counterplay immediately.
32.g4! fxg4
I was slightly worried about 32 . . . <JieS, but
we can see now that after 33.e3 this is simply
senseless.
33.fxg4 hxg4

a b c d e f g h

37.E:f2!
Not a very human move, but it works.
37.<Jifl ? lD c3 38J::� d 4t <Jle7 39.E:xg6 is a
a b c d e f g h
tactical attempt to hold that fails to 39 . . . g3!
40.E:xg3 lDxe2 4 1 .l:l:g?t <JifB 42.E:dg4 llJ d4 34.E:f6!
43.E:g3 llJ f5 . We should also point out the advantage to
37 . . . llJ d4 38 .e3 E:xf2t 39.<Jixf2 llJ f3 40.E:xg6 this line over 3 1 . . .<Jid? above, which is that
llJ xh4 4 1 .l:l:g?t <Jid6 42.E:g5 llJ f3 43.E:h5 34.E:c5? does not work at all after 34 . . . a5
and the a-pawn wins the game.
8 34 . . . llJ d4
7 This seems co be the most dangerous attempt.
6 34 . . . E:g8 3 5 .E:xe6t <Jlxe6 36.E:xc6t and the
elimination of pawns is enough co make a
5 draw.
4 3 5 .E:xg6 a5
Black cannot be happy to exchange pawns,
2 but he has to do something to activate the
rook quickly, so this has co be played.
a b c d e f g h
264 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g in Chess

35 . . . 'ii> e7 36.�fl , with the idea �f4, does 34.e5t! 'ii> xe5 3 5 .�e l t c;f;>d5 36.�xd4t 'ii> xd4
not seem to offer Black real winning chances 37.�xe6
either.
36.bxa5 �xa5 37.�c4 c5 38.'ii> f2 8
38.e3? �a2t is winning for Black.
38 . . . �a2
76
�� �� ��
8
5
7 � �pz�..t-
�� rn� �� �� �� 4
3

5 �-��� ��
6
2

4 �� ,. �� r�
� , , ,., � ,. ,. a b c d e f g h

� r.·i!�� . � With accurate play, White makes a draw in

�� �� ,_, /,� the rook ending:
37 . . . �xb4 38.�d6t c;f;>c5 39.�xg6 a5 40.�f6 a4
a b c d e f g h 4 l .�xf5 t c;f;>d4
Black would be close to winning if White 4 1 . . .c;f;>b6 42.�f8 'it>a7 is no improvement, as
did not have: after 43.�f7t �b7? 44.�f4 it is White who
39.�xe6t! 'ii> xe6 would be playing for a win.
39 . . . tlixe6 40.�xg4 might be more 42.g4
challenging, but White has excellent drawing 42.�a5 also draws, but this is simpler.
chances here too. In fact, a draw is the most 42 . . . c5 43.g5 a3
likely result.
40.�xc5 tlixe2 4 l .�g5
White eliminates the g-pawn in time, and
would probably have to draw a rook and
knight against rook endgame.

32 .. J�bs
A logical move; Black is aiming to win the
b4-pawn.

33.e4
This was my plan.
44.�f8
33.g4 was also possible here. It is a worse
The draw can arrive in many ways, but it
version than on move 32, so if I had wanted to
should be obvious j ust from looking at the
play it without e4, I would have done it then.
position that White has enough counterplay.
33 ... �c7 34.g4
33 . . . tli d4?
I have no choice but to play this move now.
This would be a blunder. White has a nice
But I really should have played it earlier.
tactic:
 Chapter 8 - Dynamic Defence
During the game I was slightly concerned
about 34 . . . �eS? 3 5 .�e3 E:xb4?, but it's all
nonsense. After 36.E:xc6 llidSt it is not even
close to working in any line. 37.exdS E:xf4
38.dxe6 and White wins. A simple line, but
with little time on the clock, we don't get to
cross all the t's and dot all the i's.
35.�ff6 grl3!
Accurate play from Grischuk.
The following line can also be calculated, but it
seems that White is all right: 35 . . . E:g8 36.fxg4
hxg4 37.d4 �e7 38.�f4 .id?
265
39.dS! �h8 40.�g3 lli b S 4 1 .dxc6 llid4
42.cxd?! lli e2t 43.�xg4 lli xc l 44.�gS White
makes a draw here.
As I mentioned on page 88, a key idea in
endgames is that the player trying to win
usually wants to exchange pieces, while the
player trying to draw wants to exchange
pawns. In this line, White is once again
successful, managing to get the less dangerous
ending of rook and knight versus rook, where
decent play secures the draw. If Black had been
able to exchange rooks early on in this line,
the knight would no doubt steal the show. The
white rooks are very good at attacking pawns
all over the board, the king less so.
I mention this mainly to point out that
while there are situations where simple rules
of thumb are not useful, there are also times
when they are useful. Although we should not
be slaves to them, we should not disregard
them entirely.
36J�xg6 gxb4
Black has succeeded in his plan, to take this
pawn and create a passed pawn.
37.gh6
There was not really anything else. Now,
however, Black is faced with an important
choice.
a b c d e f g h
266 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g in Chess

37 a5?
•••

With this move, Grischuk made things much

easier for me than he should have. I think it is
time to have a deep look at the position to see
how much trouble I was really in.

One of the moves I thought he should consider

was: 37 . . . i'!b5 At this point, taking the pawn
makes most sense. 38.@xf3! (During the
game I considered 38.d4, which transposes to
37 . . . i'!b3 below.) 38 . . . a5 39.i'!c4 a b c d e f g h

� �� ��
Black has a big advantage, having been able
�
�� - ', . . ;�·0� �����
to hold on to his pawns.
42.i'!h l

: � r� ' ,
42.h6 i'!d2t 43.@xf3 i'!h2 and Black wins.
� - - - -�
. 42 . . . c5 43.h6 lLi g5 44.i'!a4

4 . . . ?.·
��'-�-� � � :•�· ·
-

White appears to have generated enough

�� �� �� ��
counterplay, but Black wins with a fantastic
3

�� �� ��
combination:
2
8

a b c d e f g h
It is hard for Black to advance here. I analysed
quite a bit further, but it seems that White is in 5
time. The king is close enough.

The move I was most afraid of also seems to

2
be the most challenging upon a closer look.
37 . . . i'!b3!? We analysed in some depth here in
order to understand the position. a b c d e f g h
44 . . . id?!! 45 .i'!xa6t
a) 38.@e3 fails utterly to 3 8 . . . c5 with the 45 .h? looks tempting, but Black wins
threat of . . . c4. after: 45 . . .i.xa4 46.h8=Wf lLi xe4t 47.@g l
i'!d l t 48 .@h2 i'!xh l t 49.@xh l f.2. 50.@h2
b) We analysed the following variation, which ib5 and White's checks will run out soon
is by no means forced and was very far away enough. Black should be careful not to get
from happening in the game, but it still holds a queen though, as after 50 . . . fl =Wf? ? White
a lot of charm: plays 5 1 .Wfe5t with stalemate in sight.
45 . . . @e5
38 .i'!xh5 i'!xd3 39.i'!hc5 id? 40.h5 lLi e6 The game appears to be instantly over, but
4 1 .i'!a5 ic8 there are a few finesses which are worth
including:
46.i'!h5
 Chapter 8 - Dynamic Defence 267

The only move to offer Black a real chance
to go wrong.
46.h7 tlixe4t 47.@el f2t 48.@e2 :!'!d2t
49.@f3 fl =Wt 50.:!'!xfl :!'!d3t 5 1 .@e2 :!'!h3
and Black wins.
46 . . . :!'!d2t 47.©e3 :!'!e2t 48.@d3 .ib5 t 49.@c3
56.:!'!xe4t @xe4 57.@c4 and we once again
have the elimination of all the pawns.
c) 38.@xf3 :!'!xd3t 39.@f4 c5 is dangerous
for White. After 40.:!'!xh5?! Black has a
remarkable tactic:

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

49 . . . @xe4! 50.:!'!f6 i.a4! 40 . . . i.h3! 4 1 .@g5 (White would not achieve

Black has managed to establish another
mating net, with the knight acting as shield
and guardian at the same time.
5 1 .:!'!h4t @e5 52.h7!
5 2.:!'!xf3 tlie4t 53.@c4 :!'!c2t 54.@d3 :!'!c3t
5 5 .@e2 i.b5 t 56.@d l :!'!xf3 57.h7 :!'!f8 and
Black wins.
52 . . . tli xh7 5 3.:!'!xf3 tli g5 54.:!'!ff4
anything by dashing out revenge checks:
4 l .e5t @d5 42.e6t @d4 and Black wins.)
4 1 . ..tlie6t 42.@h6 ig4 The white rook is
trapped; Black wins.
d) 38.d4

: --
� � �

�w���-���?•
� � � � � �

.t
�...... ��--. ....:-�.. .
-�7..�
s
- - �

��-��� . . .�� .... .

4

� 7, . �
.

� ��
� � ��
� �
. .

2 b d g

1
� .. a c e f h
� � This was my intention. We will analyse two
a b c d e f g h replies:
Black has a technically winning ending,
but it will take some time to convert it safely, d l ) 38 . . . :!'!b4 39.:!'!xh 5 !
starting with 54 . . . .ib5 . White can also include 39.@e3 tlib5 before
But other moves should win too, as long as going 40.d5 (The following line is not very
he does not fall for 54 . . . tli e4t? 5 5 .:!'!xe4t :!'!xe4 human, but it is highly convincing: 40.:!'!d I
f2! 4 I .:!'!f6 tli c3 42.:!'!d3 :!'!b3 White has no
268 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g in Chess

moves; Black wins.) 40 . . . �b3t 4 1 .�f2. cxdS 44 . . . .ic4 45 .�e3

42.exdS �xdS 43.�xhSt �d4 44.�d l t
<it> c4 45 .�c l t �b4 Black has a serious
advantage.
39.dS cxdS 40.eSt (White loses without
a fight after 40.exdS tlJ xdS 4 1 .�xhS tlJ f4.
The line could be continued, but we get
the idea.) 40 . . . �xeS 4 1 .�xc7 i.g4 Black
has three pawns for the exchange, and one
of them is very dangerous. It does not seem
that things are going in the right direction
for White here.
a b c d e f g h
39 . . . tlJbS 40.�hcS tlJxd4 4 1 .hS
White has real counterplay here, and should This variation is far removed from the real
be close to holding. world, but my impression is that White
holds. A possible line is:
d2) 38 . . . tlJbS! 45 . . . aS 46.hS �xe3 47.�xe3 a4 48.h6 ig8
I found this to be more dangerous for White. 49.�b l t �aS 50.�xf3
39.dS cxdS 40.exdS �xdS 4 1 .�xhSt �d4 White will make a draw by giving up the
rook for the a-pawn, and winning the bishop
with the h-pawn.

I am reluctant to give a conclusion, but it seems

to me that very accurate play would still make
it possible for White to hold. I hope the above
lines give a good impression of the way White
needs to combine the desire to eliminate as
many pawns as possible with the counterplay
the h-pawn can provide him with.

a b c d e f g h 38J�xh5 a4
This line is clearly good for Black, but we
went a bit deeper, trying to see if we could
come to a final conclusion. What follows
is clearly a computer line, and has little to
do with decision-making, but it does have
something to do with the objective reality of
the position.
42.�d l t �c4 43.�c l t �b4 44.�eS!
44.�h6?! tlJd4 45 .�f6 .ic4 appears to be
winning for Black, although I have not been
able to analyse it all the way to the point
where White resigns. The bishop is well
placed and the f-pawn is dangerous.
a b c d e f g h
 Chapter 8 - Dynamic Defence
39J�hc5
I could also have played 39.l:!a5 , which
appears to offer White a shortcut to the
draw. What I missed, with time running low,
was chat after the forced 39 . . . lll b5 40.ri>xf3
lll d4t White has to find 4 I .ri>e3! (not to the
second rank, when Black gees the rook to b2
with check} 4 1 . . .lll b3 42.l:!b l ! and White
draws.
39 ...�d7 40.<i!.>xf3
le was far from obvious co me what was
going on after 40.h5 lll e6 4 I .l:!5c4 (4 1 .l:!a5 ?
l:!b2t and Black wins, as White cannot cake
the pawn) 4 l . . . c5 42.h6 l:!b8, although it
appears now chat White is fine here too.
40 ... �e6
40 . . . a3 4 1 .l:!a5 lll b5 42.h5 l:!b2 43.l:!h l and
White is in no trouble at all.
a b c d e f g h
4U�5c4?
This was really inaccurate, allowing my
opponent co pose me a few problems. Bue
to be honest, I was not too worried. Given
how poor my position had been earlier in the
game, I was quite happy around here. I have
managed co gee a passed pawn and create a
lot of counterplay, and the black minor pieces
have yet to come alive.
269
Having said all chat, it would still have been
more accurate to play 4 l .l:!a5 c5 42.h5, when
White draws without having to solve any
problems.
41. .. c5 42.h5 gb2 43J�hl �d4t
43 . . . a3 44.ri>g3 a2 is also unpleasant, but it
seems that 45 .l:!a l holds, although there is a
lot of play left.
44.'i!.>e3!
44. ri>f4 .ib5 would give Black an advantage.
This appears to have been another critical
moment, where my opponent let his advantage
slip.
a b c d e f g h
44 .ie6
•••
Missing the last chance to cause trouble.
I was not scared about 44 . . . .ib5 45.gxd4t
cxd4t 46.ri>xd4, when I felt I was fine. I do not
think Black would be able to gee into a rook
and bishop versus rook ending, where he could
torture me for 50 moves. I would still hope
to hold such an endgame, but we saw recently
(in Caruana - Svidler at the 20 1 6 Candidates
tournament) how difficult it is to defend. In
that game both players made mistakes, before
it finally ended as a draw.
270 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g in Chess

During the game I was more concerned about:

44 . . . E:e2t
I had calculated the following long variation:
45.©f4 E:f2t

7 ������,-0��������
8

6 ��rn�-� ��
: T��T•!= �I ,, , , , , , %

� ����
,,,,,

·1��
·.·�
- - Y-� :
a b c d e f g h
46.©e3! E:f3t 47.'itid2 a3 48.h6 a2 49.h7 E:f8
At this point there is a choice. I had not
fully made up my mind, but I of course
made some preliminary calculations. I was
planning to play:
50.E:h6t
It was only j ust before we went to print that
I noticed that Black can win against 50.E:c3?
with the following beautiful variation:

8 �
��- ��� � - - -Y-� a b c d e f g h

: �� ���� �1 62.<ii f3 i.g4#

��-� ��
Returning to 50.E:h6t:
5

4 ���- - - ��!� ��
3 ���-,� ��
2 '-��- - ����-���
:
a b c d e f g h
50 . . . E:f2t 5 I .'itie3 E:f3t 52.©d2 E:h3!! There
are many possible lines here, but none that
allow White to make it a real fight. 5 3.E:xh3
This is certainly the critical line. (53.E:cc l
E:xh7 54.E:xh7 lll b3t 5 5 .©c3 lll xc l 56.'itib2 50 . . . ©e7
i.e6 and Black wins) 53 . . . a l =Wi' 54.h8=Wi' After 50 ... 'itie5 White cannot take on c5
Wi'b2t 5 5 .©e3 immediately, as a knight fork would land
 Chapter 8 - Dynamic Defence 27 1

on b3. But he can take later, and make a 45 @xe5 46.gxc5t .id5 47.gxd5t @xd5
•..

draw: 5 1 .l:!a6 l:!f2t 52.Q;;> e l l:!h2 53.l:!xa2 48.h6 ge2t

l:!xh7 54.l:!xc5t Q;;> f4 5 5 .l:!g2 and White Another line I looked at went: 48 . . . tt:\ f5 t
defends; probably for a while.
5 1 .l:!a6 i.e6

8
� .�
7 �� �� --
�
� � -
� - - ��- - - " ��8
: : �.�, ��
4 �� -:. !� ��
�� � ��
� ,� �'�-'l80�. : �� ��
�� �� �� a b c d e f g h
49.Q;;> f3! (But not 49.Q;;> f4? l:!f2t 50.Q;;> g4
a b c d e f g h tt:\ xh6t 5 l .l:!xh6 Q;;> c 5! when Black wins. For
It seems that Black is close to winning. example: 52.l:!a6 Q;;> b 5 5 3.l:!a8 l:!f6! and White
However, the engine kindly tells me that is poorly placed with his king too far away
White is j ust in time: from the d-pawn.) 49 . . . tt:\ xh6 50.l:!xh6 a3
52.l:!xa2 i.xc4 53.dxc4 Q;;> d 6 5 1 .l:!a6 And we have transposed to the game.
Getting ready to defend the c-pawn.
54.l:!a6t tt:\ c6 5 5 .l:!b6! l:!h8 56.e5t Q;;> c 7 49.@f4 lll e6t 50.@g3 lll fll
57.l:!b5
White draws, eventually.

8
7

4
3

2
a b c d e f g h
1
This is the last major decision of the game.
a b c d e f g h Of course I could go for the a-pawn and make
45.e5t a draw after facing rook and knight against
This draws by force; so why would I care if rook, but I made a last effort, and ensured that
the engine, for some mysterious reason, thinks I could immediately force a draw in the rook
that taking on a4 is more accurate? In other ending. This was important not only because
words: I had it all under control. it made it impossible to make a mistake later,
272 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Makin g in Chess

but also because it helped set the tone for the

next game in the match.

5 1 .h7! �xh7 52J':l:xh7 a3 53.@f3 gel

54J'fa7 gal 55.@e3 a2 56.ga5t @c6
57.@d4 @b6 58.gas @b7
1/i-V2

When you are defending a posmon where

the opponent can try this and that, without
having to worry about it working or not, while
you always have to be careful not to make a
mistake, it can be tiring. In this case, I defended
a very dangerous position for many hours,
which of course is an intense experience. On
the other hand, my opponent tried to win the
position for hours as well, and must have been
disappointed that he did not manage to do so.
So, the positive energy carrying me forward
after this game was certainly more important
than any fatigue from having to defend a
difficult position.
Appendix

Borenka will Remember!

Excerpt from How to Feed a Champion
by Maya Gelfand

With Maya in Moscow 2012

Sofia Lvovna puts on red lipstick, brushes her hair, and picks up a handbag that perfectly suits
the colour of her shoes. Then she meticulously views herself in the mirror. "Oops, I 've forgotten
my beads." She retreats to her bedroom, finds her pearl necklace, and puts it around her neck.
Now everything is above reproach. Grandma Sofia Lvovna is taking her four-year-old grandson
Borenka, Boris's name at home, for a walk.

She was born before the Great Russian Revolution, in a small Jewish village near the ciry of
Vitebsk. When she was 1 6, she moved to Minsk and started working. Sofia Lvovna was born to
be a well-known singer or a popular actress. But the 20th century determined for her a different
kind of future: Sofia Lvovna first worked as a rypist, and later as a bookkeeper.

Borenka is running in the park, playing ball with other kids. Meanwhile Sofia Lvovna is in
conversation with her pensioner neighbours. Sofia Lvovna may be a grandmother, but she is
not an old crone. She is a lady who still has many admirers. For example, Isaak Pinchasovich: a
vigorous old man who wears old-fashioned round glasses which are similar to pince-nez. He is a
widower and is certainly interested in Sofia Lvovna.

"Could you give your telephone number?" Isaak Pinchasovich inquires delicately.
"Oh no. You had better give me yours." She is trying to get rid of her suitor.
"But you don'c have a pen. How will you write ic down?" Isaak Pinchasovich is not going to give
up easily.
"Borenka will remember."
She calls over her grandson, who quietly repeats the number that Isaak Pinchasovich unwillingly
dictates rwice.
Half an hour later, after he has gone home, Borenka picks up the phone and dials the number
with his small fingers.
"Hello!" The creaky voice of Isaak Pinchasovich is heard from che handset.
"You see, I told you! Borenka will remember!" Sofia Lvovna announces proudly, and hangs up.
 Stuffed Fish (Gefilte Fish)
There is no Jewish holiday without Gefilte Fish. And there are no two cooks who cook this meal in an
identical way. Here is my recipe.

For the fish consomme: For the stuffing:

1 onion
1 beetroot
1 carrot
1 fish head (salmon or carp)
4-5 bay leaves
10-12 pepper grains
Salt - according to your taste
Cut the vegetables in the form of rings and
put them, with the cleaned fish head, into
boiling water. Add salt and pepper according
to your taste. Cook for 45-60 minutes, while
removing the scum. Then take out the fish
head and keep boiling the consomme.
Tip!
You may also make a whole stuffed
fish. Peel the fish, pull out the central
bone. Put the mince into the 'empty'
fish and cook it in the fish consomme
for an hour. After that you should
put the fish into a big dish, add
liquid gelatine, and place it in the
refrigerator for at least 3 hours.
The flesh from 1 carp
1/z a fresh chopped onion
112 a fried chopped onion
1 egg
2 tablespoons of flour
1-2 tablespoons of water
Salt, white pepper, ground nutmeg -
according to your taste
Grind the fish with the fresh and fried onions
until you get a homogeneous mass. Add salt,
pepper and ground nutmeg. Add an egg
and stir well. Add flour accurately, continue
stirring the filling. If needed, add a small
amount of water in order to get a soft mince.
Make balls of ping-pong ball size. Puc the balls
into the boiling consomme and cook for
about 30 minutes.
 The Belorussian Village Style Lunch
Beetroot soup
Beetroot soup is an ideal mealfor summer. It is cold and refreshing, with the flavour ofherbs.

2 medium-sized beetroots
3-4 potatoes
2 cucumbers
1 bunch of fresh parsley
1 bunch of fresh leek
2 boiled eggs
1 oz. of sour cream
2 teaspoons of lemon essence
3-4 bay leaves
Salt, sugar and black pepper - according to your taste

Grate the beetroot and put i t i n boiling water. Add lemon essence and cook for approximately 30
minutes till the beetroot becomes soft.
Add salt, sugar, and pepper according to your taste. Add the bay leaves. Stir well .
Leave the soup i n a cold place, meanwhile cooking the potatoes.
When the soup is cold, chop the parsley, leek and the eggs.
Serve the soup cold with hot potatoes, fresh herbs, eggs and sour cream .
 Strawberry Jam
Traditional homemade jam

Ikg/2.2lb of fresh strawberries

750g/I .6lb of sugar Tip!
It is better to choose small
Wash and dry the strawberries.
strawberries. H the strawberries
are too big, you should cut them
Put the strawberries into a big pan and add the
into pieces.
sugar.
Leave them for 3-4 hours until the j uice comes
out. If there is not enough juice, you may
add 2 tablespoons of water.
Put the pan on the cooker and keep it there
for 40-45 minutes till you get a thick syrup.
Cool the jam and pour it into glass jars. Keep
them in a cold place.
 Name Index
A D

Aagaard 6, 9, 2 1 , 42, 54, 62, 1 9 1 , 208 Delchev 1 64, 1 67

Adams 49, 1 2 5 , 1 74 Dimitrov 1 66, 1 67
Adorj an 64 Dj ukic 202
Afek 54, 1 83 Dokhoian 35
Alekhine 49, 86, 1 74 Dolmatov 2 5 , 26
Alekseev 42, 2 1 5 , 2 1 6, 2 1 7 Dominguez 54, 1 09 , 1 1 0 , 1 68 , 1 73 ,
Amonatov 1 43 , 1 70 1 74, 1 7 5 , 1 76, 1 80, 1 9 1
Anand 1 1 , 3 1 , 3 5 , 5 9 , 1 5 7, Dreev 1 10
1 74 , 1 99 , 2 1 5 , 227 Dvoretsky 9 , 54
Anderssen 1 44 Dydyshko 229
Andersson 1 24, 1 2 5 , 1 30
E
An ikaev 28, 3 1
Antipov 1 57 Elj anov 2 1 6, 243
Aronian 1 2 , 54, 5 5 , 5 6 , 5 7 , 5 8 , 70, Euwe 35
1 2 1 , 1 99 , 200, 20 1 , 227, 243
Avrukh 1 99 , 20 1 , 2 5 5
F

B Fischer 1 1 , 2 5 , 3 5 , 36, 5 2 , 1 1 2 , 232

Friedman 1 46
Bacrot 90
Bagirov 1 68 G
Balashov 31 Gelfand , Maya 273
Beliavsky 9 Geller 8 , 9 , 1 9 , 2 5 , 26, 27,
Blackburne 1 44 2 8 , 29, 30, 3 1 , 3 5 , 3 8
Bocharov 1 56, 1 57 Giorgadze 35
Boleslavsky 35 Giri 5 2 , 5 3 , 93
Borvinnik 1 1 , 1 2, 25, 35, 45, 1 26, 1 68 Gligoric 9
Bronstein 37 Grabinsky 9, 54
Bushinsky 1 28 Graf 25
c Grischuk 53, 7 1 , 1 2 1 , 1 74, 1 99, 200,
20 1 , 203, 204, 2 1 0, 2 1 1 , 2 1 3 ,
Capablanca 49, 5 2 , 1 09 254, 2 5 5 , 257, 26 1 , 262, 265, 266
Carlsen 1 0, 1 1 , 1 2, 47, 5 2 , 5 3 , 5 9 , 70, Gurevich 1 65
7 1 , 72, 73 , 8 5 , 1 02 , 1 0 5 , 1 73 , 1 74
Caruana 1 73 , 202, 23 1 , 269 H
Cebalo 1 22 , 1 3 1 Hansen 71
Cherepkov 229 Harikrishna 50, 1 1 0
Chigaev 1 44 Hector 229
Cruyff 31 Hort 9
Csom 1 23
 Name Index 279

Horvath 1 65 M
Hilbner 64, 6 5 , 69
Maciej a 50, 53
Huzman 39, 63, 1 3 1 , 2 1 6
Magomedov 36
I Mamedyarov 1 46, 1 73 , 1 74, 243
Marin 1 74, 2 5 5
lvanchuk 22, 2 3 , 5 9 , 1 0 1 , 1 46
Matveeva 35
J Miles 1 27, 1 28
Mittei 35
Jakovenko 1 9 5 , 227
Morozevich 1 57, 1 9 5 , 228
Jansa 9
Mozetic 230
K Muller 1 33
Murshed 131
Kapengut 7, 8 , 1 0, 3 5 Muzychuk 1 69
Karj akin 5 8 , 59, 62, 1 46, 227,
228, 23 1 , 232, 233 N
Karpov 2 5 , 49, 64, 1 24
Naj er 217
Kasparov 1 1 , 1 3 , 2 5 , 26, 3 1 , 3 5 , 42,
Nakamura 1 1 , 1 2 , 1 69 , 1 73
43, 44, 4 5 , 49, 8 1 , 86, 9 3 , 1 23 ,
Navara 229
1 24, 1 2 5 , 1 30 , 1 69 , 223, 229, 230
Negi 20, 22, 2 5 5
Khalifman 20 5 , 2 5 5
Neimann 54
Kholmov 37
Nikitin 2 1 , 3 5 , 3 8 , 42, 4 5
Klovans 27
Nimzowitsch 35
Korchnoi 9, 1 1 , 36, 64,
Novikov 35
1 22 , 1 27, 1 28
Kotov 35 0
Kotronias 1 02
Oparin 1 0 5 , 1 06, 1 07
Kramnik 1 2 , 3 5 , 49, 5 8 , 93,
1 0 1 , 1 02 , 1 0 5 , 1 4 1 , 1 42 , p
1 46, 1 76, 1 99 , 229, 230
Papaioannou 81
Kupreichik 2 1 , 24
Parligras 1 13
L Parwicz 40
Perez 54, 1 09 , 1 1 2 , 1 73
Larsen 3 5 , 232
Petrosian, A. 4 5 , 46
Lasker 52
Petrosian 7, 8 , 1 1 , 2 5 , 32, 3 3 ,
Leitao 202
34, 3 5 , 36, 37, 3 8 , 39,
Leko 4 5 , 8 5 , 93, 1 46, 2 1 5 , 2 1 6
42, 43, 4 5 , 46, 49, 1 24,
Lj uboj evic 77
1 39 , 1 4 1 , 1 64 , 223, 232
Logothetis 1 02
Petrukhina 1 44
Lvovna 274
Piket 60
Pinchasovich 274
Pleshkov 121
280 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making in Chess

Polgar 93, 1 4 5 , 228 Steinitz 8 , 43, 44, 1 53

Polugaevsky 9 , 1 0, 27, 4 5 , 8 1 , 1 24 Strutinskaia 39
Ponomariov 5 9 , 1 74, 243 , 244, Sutovsky 228
252, 253 Svidler 46, 1 0 1 , 1 57 , 1 9 5 , 204, 269
Portisch 64
T
Postovsky 21
Psakhis 145 Tai 8 , 9 , 1 0, 3 1 , 3 5 , 36,
49, 76, 1 56, 1 68
R
Timman 35
Radjabov 7 1 , 1 53 , 1 5 5 , 1 57 Tiviakov 1 2 5 , 1 26, 1 28 , 1 29 ,
Ragger 200 1 38 , 229, 23 1
Raisky 26, 2 1 6 Tomashevsky 1 83
Ramirez Moyano 1 12 Topalov 60, 8 5 , 1 73 , 1 99 , 244
Razuvaev 8 , 2 5 , 3 5 , 237 Torre 38
Rodshtein 1 1 3 , 203, 204 Tseshkovsky 2 1 , 25
Romanishin 25 Tukmakov 239
Romanovsky 63
v
Rodewi 1 4, 1 5 , 1 6
Rubinstein 8 , 1 4, 1 5 , 1 6, Vachier-Lagrave 228
1 7, 1 3 5 , 1 74 Vaisser 1 22, 1 3 1 , 1 32 , 1 33 , 1 34
Ruzele 89 Van der Wiel 38
Van Wely 1 46
s
Vitolins 35
Saint-Amant 141 Volokitin 9 , 54
Sargissian 1 28 , 200, 20 1
w
Sasikiran 244
Shabalov 3 5 , 5 0 , 1 1 0, Wang Hao 86
1 68 , 1 70 Wayte 52
Shirov 3 5 , 1 1 0 , 1 1 1 , 1 68 , 230
y
Short 2 5 , 26
Shulman 35 Yudasin 229
Sideif Sade 39 Yudovich 35
Smirin 7, 2 1 , 22, 23, 3 5 , 89 Yurtaev 204
Smyslov 25 Yusupov 1 9, 25, 3 1 , 1 95
Sokolov 70
Spassky 8 , 1 2, 2 5 , 3 6 , 4 5 , z
4 9 , 1 39 , 1 40 , 1 4 1 Zelkind 7
Staunton 141 Zohar 40
Stein 9, 35
 Gatne Index
George Rotlewi - Akiba Rubinstein, Lodz 1 907 14
Vitaly Tseshkovsky - Viktor Kupreichik, Minsk 1 979 21
Ivanchuk - Smirin, Klaipeda 1 98 5 22
Boris Gelfand - Eduard Raisky, M i nsk 1 979 26
Klovans - Polugaevsky, Yerevan 1 975 26
Efim Geller - Yuri Anikaev, M i nsk 1 979 27
M. Magomedov - Boris Gelfand, Kali n ingrad 1 980 36
Kholmov - Bronstein , Kiev 1 964 36
Tigran Petrosian - Boris Gelfand, Sochi (simul) 1 980 37
Galina Strutinskaia - Alexander Huzman, H al kidiki 20 1 6 39
Sideif Sade - Mamadshoev, Azov 1 99 1 39
Zohar - Parwicz, email 2005 40
Garry Kasparov - Tigran Petrosian, Tilburg 1 98 1 42
Boris Gelfand - Loek van Wely, Moscow 2004 46
Boris Gelfand - Michael Adams, London {rapid) 20 1 3 49
Bartlomeij Madeja - Boris Gelfand, Bermuda 2004 50
Magnus Carlsen - Anish Giri, Stavanger 20 1 5 52
Boris Gelfand - Leinier Dominguez Perez, Moscow (2.2) 200 1 54
Boris Gelfand - Levon Aronian, Monte Carlo (blindfold) 2007 55
Boris Gelfand - Levon Aronian, London 20 1 3 56
Boris Gelfand - Sergey Karjakin, Khanty-Mansiysk (6.2) 2009 58
Gelfand - Piker, Mon te Carlo (blindfold) 1 999 59
Gelfand - Topalov, Wij k aan Zee 20 1 2 60
Robert Hubner - Viktor Korchnoi, Merano 1 98 1 (7) 64
Boris Gelfand - Robert Hubner, Ohrid 2009 65
Magnus Carlsen - Boris Gelfand, Monaco (blindfold) 20 1 1 70
Cu. Hansen - Gelfand, Cap d'Agde (rapid) 1 996 71
Boris Gelfand - loannis Papaioannou Leon 200 1 81
Boris Gelfand - Peter Leko, Wij k aan Z ee 2008 85
Boris Gelfand - Wang Hao, London 20 1 2 86
Boris Gelfand - Etienne Bacrot, Albert ( 1 ) 2002 90
Judit Polgar - Boris Gelfand, Budapest 2003 93
Boris Gelfand - Vladimir Kramnik, London 20 1 3 101
Grigoriy Oparin - Boris Gelfand, Moscow (rapid) 20 1 5 1 05
Boris Gelfand - Leinier Dominguez Perez, Calvia Olympiad 2004 1 09
Harikrishna - Dreev, Calvia (ol) 2004 1 10
Shirov - Fressinet, Calvia (ol) 2004 11l
Ferre Perez - Ramirez Moyano, email 2009 111
Rodshtein - Parligras, San Marino 2006 113
Garry Kasparov - lstvan Csom, Baku 1 980 1 23
282 Boris Gelfand - Dynamic Decision Making i n Chess

Garry Kasparov - Ulf Andersson, Moscow 1 98 1 1 24

Boris Gelfand - Sergei Tiviakov, San Sebastian (Spanish League) 2006 125
Korchnoi - Miles, Wijk aan Zee 1 984 1 27
Cebalo - Murshed, Subotica 1 984 1 30
Anatoly Vaisser - Alexander Huzman, Sevastopol 1 986 131
Boris Spassky - Tigran Petrosian, Moscow ( 1 1 ) 1 969 1 39
Vladimir Kramnik - Boris Gelfand, Wijk aan Zee 2008 141
Boris Gelfand - Farrukh Amonatov, Tromso Olympiad 20 1 4 1 43
Shomoev - Ganguly, Moscow 20 1 3 1 43
Joseph Henry Blackburne - Adolf Anderssen , London 1 862 1 44
Petrukhina - Chigaev, Tomsk 20 1 3 1 44
Boris Gelfand - Judit Polgar, Khamy-Mansiysk (3. 1 ) 2009 145
Boris Gelfand - Teimour Radjabov, Monte Carlo (blindfold) 2007 1 53
Boris Gelfand - Dimitry Bocharov, Dagomys 2007 1 56
Boris Gelfand - Alexander Dekhev, Arnhem 1 988 1 64
M. Gurevich - J . Horvath, Budapest 1 987 1 65
Gelfand - Dimitrov, Adelaide 1 988 1 65
Boris Gelfand - Alexander Shabalov, Yurmala 1 98 5 1 68
Boris Gelfand - Alexander Shabalov, Bermuda 2004 1 68
Kasparov - Deep Junior, New York ( 1) 2003 1 69
Boris Gelfand - Leinier Dominguez Perez, Elancourt 20 1 3 1 73
Boris Gelfand - Alexander Grischuk, Kazan (6 ) 20 1 1 1 99
McNab - Dj ukic, Khanty-Mansiysk (ol) 20 1 0 20 1
Leitao - Caruana, Khanty-Mansiysk (ol) 20 1 0. 202
Boris Gelfand - Evgeny Alekseev, Dagomys 2008 215
Gelfand - Raisky, Minsk (training) 1 987 216
Sergey Karjakin - Boris Gelfand, World Cup, Khanty-Mansiysk (6. 1 ) 2009 227
Tiviakov - Hector, Helsingor 2008 229
Kramnik - Kasparov, Novgorod 1 995 229
Shirov - Mozetic, Tilburg 1 993 230
Kramnik - Kasparov, New York (rapid) 1 995 230
Boris Gelfand - Ruslan Ponomariov, Tsaghkadzor 20 1 5 243
Eljanov - Mamedyarov, Reykjavik 20 1 5 243
Sasikiran - Topalov, Khanty-Mansiysk (ol) 20 1 0 244
Boris Gelfand - Alexander Grischuk, Kazan (2) 20 1 1 254
 O p ening Index
Two Knights Defence 228

Sicilian Defence 2 1 , 26, 28, 36, 1 0 5

Queen's Gambit Accepted 42

Queen's Gambit Decl ined 1 73

Semi-Tarrasch Defence 1 4

Slav Defence 1 3 1

Semi-Slav Defence 59, 1 1 0, 1 68 , 2 1 5

Catalan System 5 5 , 243

Griinfeld Defence 1 99

King's Indian Defence 37, 39, 1 43

Nimzo-lndian Defence 1 0 1 , 1 23 , 1 24, 1 26

Boga-Indian Defence 1 57, 1 64

Queen's Indian Defence 6 5 , 1 4 5

Torre Attack 1 53

English Open ing 46, 70, 254

Hedgehog System 8 1