Trainin g for the Tournament Player

Training for the Tournament Player

Mark Dvoretsky and Artur Yusupov

Translated by Malcolm Gesthuysen

B. T.Batsford Ltd, London

First published in Germany by Thomas Bayer Verlags GmbH 1991
© Thomas Bayer Verlags GmbH 1991

First English language edition 1993

© English Translation B. T. Batsford Ltd 1993
Reprinted 1993

ISBN 0 7134 7238 3

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.

A catalogue record for this book is available
from the British Library.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be

reproduced, by any means, without prior permission
of the publisher.

Typeset by John Nunn GM

and printed in Great Britain by Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Wilts
for the publishers, B. T. Batsford Ltd,
4 Fitzhardinge Street, London WlH OAH

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK

Adviser: R.D.Keene GM, aBE
Technical Editor: Graham Burgess
Contents
Preface - A School for Future Champions (Viktor Glaunan) 7
Introduction (Artur Yusupov) 11

1 A Chess player's Strengths and Weaknesses 13

(Mark Dvoretsky)
Exercises 38
The Route to the Top (Mark Dvoretsky) 39
How to Play as Black (Artur Yusupov) 42
2 Analysing Your Own Games (Artur Yusupov) 45
Exercises 65
The Annotator's Doubts (Mark Dvoretsky) 66
3 The Technique of Working on Your Own Games
and Those of Other Players 73
(Artur Yusupov and Mark Dvoretsky)
The ' S uperfluous' Piece (Mark Dvoretsky) 98
Exercises 1 02
4 Studying the Classics (Mikhail Shereshevsky) . 1 03
Finding New Ideas (Mark Dvoretsky) 1 12
Exercises 1 20
5 Assessing a Position and Choosing a Plan
in the Middlegame (Alexei Kosikov) 121
Exercises 1 43
Regarding a Certain Article (Mark Dvoretsky) 1 44
6 A Feel for the King (Grigory Kaidanov) 1 54
Additional Examples 158
(Artur Yusupov and Mark Dvoretsky)
Exercises 159
Assessment and Analysis (Mark Dvoretsky) 1 60
7 The Thoughts and Advice of Great Players 1 67
8 Creative Discoveries And Instructive Errors 1 72
(Artur Yusupov)
Solutions to Analytical Exercsies 1 82
Preface - A School for Future Champions
Viktor Glatman
It is bardly necessary to explain what
tremendous benefit a young chess­
player can derive from creative asso­
ciation witb leading grandmasters
and trainers, or to say just how es­
sential it is for young people to re­
ceive advice and assistance. Many
years ago, World Champion Mikhail
Botvinnik became head of tbe first
All-Union Youtb School, and many
pupils of tbis school have become
outstanding chessplayers. Otber
schools for producing grandmasters
have since appeared, tbough tbey
have not all been successful.
Artur Yusupov was once a pupil at
Botvinnik's school, and Mark Dvor­
etsky worked tbere, helping Botvin­
nik and at tbe same time training
Artur. Several years have passed -
Yusupov has become one of tbe
world's strongest grandmasters and
has competed many times in World
Championship Candidates matches.
Dvoretsky is now a famous trainer
who numbers several World Junior
Champions amongst his pupils and
who has helped Yusupov, Dolmatov,
Alexandria and Dreev to prepare for
Candidates matches.
The Dvoretsky-Yusupov chess
School, which offers botb personal
tuition and correspondence courses,
was founded at tbe end of 1 989. The
combination of a top-class grand­
master and a trainer of enormous ex­
perience at once made it possible to
give chess lessons at a new, much
higher level tban had previously
been attempted.
Dvoretsky and Yusupov offered
me, a chess master, tbe opportunity
to become Director of tbe school, to
concern myself witb tbe organisa­
tional problems associated witb its
activities.
I shall briefly describe tbe stu­
dents and teachers at tbe school, and
also how our work is planned.
There are two sessions every year,
each lasting for 10 to 15 days. We are
involved in teaching young chess­
players who have already achieved a
recognised qualification (no lower
tban Candidate Master). Our pupils
include Diana Darchiya from
Batumi, already a winner of two
World Championships for girls, and
Alyosha Alexandrov, who has twice
won tbe Men's Championship of
Byelorussia. We invite 1 2 to 15 pu­
pils to each session, and as a rule tbey
are accompanied by tbeir trainers.
Yusupov and Dvoretsky (initially
8 Preface
assisted by Grandmaster Kaidanov,
who worked at the school full-time)
take charge not only of the children
but also of their trainers. And highly
qualified specialists give lessons to­
gether with us. Masters Mikhail
Shereshevsky, Alexei Kosikov, Mik­
hail Pukshansky and Vladimir Vulf­
son are essentially fellow members
of our teaching staff.
Each day begins with physical ex­
ercises, in which not only the chil­
dren but also Grandmaster Yusupov
and many masters take part. This is
an excellent example for the pupils,
much more effective than any talk on
the benefits of taking part in sporting
activities. Incidentally, we engage in
various sports throughout the day -
football, basketball, swimming and
table-tennis all enter into our pro­
gramme . To manage our physical
and psychological preparation we
have the services of a professional
sports psychologist.
After breakfast the students
gather for a general lecture. The lec­
tures are recorded on tape and then
printed out using a word-processor.
In the second half of the day, lessons
are given on a more individual basis.
Usually the children are split into
small groups, taking account of their
age, playing-strength and, occasion­
ally, their opening repertoires or
their particular weaknesses (in order,
for example, to improve their end­
game technique or to sharpen their
combinational vision). We also give
individual consultations to strong
masters or even grandmasters who
have expressed a wish to attend our
school.
Considerable importance is at­
tached to the analysis of the games
played by our students. The children
carefully annotate their own games,
and then the teachers examine what
they have written. These games, and
the results of solving competitions
held at the school (consisting of spe­
cially selected exercises), combined
with individual observations made
by the teachers, enable us to give our
pupils a 'diagnosis', to reveal the
strengths and weaknesses of their
play. On the basis of this diagnosis
we determine their homework: - a
programme for working on their
game still further.
Of course, given such intensive
work:, it is essential to offer adequate
opportunities for relaxation. We pro­
vide the teachers and pupils of the
school with comfortable hotel rooms
and we give them food which is both
tasty and varied. We also find time for
entertainment, watching videos, etc.
All the sessions at our school are
thematic. The first session was con­
cerned with general problems of
chess training. The second was de­
voted to matters relating to master­
ing opening theory and forming an
opening repertoire. At the third ses­
sion we shall be studying the
endgame and ways to improve one's
playing technique; plans for future
sessions have already been drawn
up. Apart from what he or she learns

at our lectures and seminars, each of
our students also receives a solid
'package' of additional material for
independent study - previously pub­
lished articles connected with the
theme of the session.
This book has brought together
the lectures and also some additional
material from the fIrst session. By
Preface 9
studying this material you will get an
idea of the way we work and, I hope,
discover a considerable number of
useful and interesting ideas. Perhaps
you would like to attend our school
some day? This is not out of the
question, since we intend to extend
our activities, to make our school in­
ternational.
Introduction
Artur Yusupov
What enables a chessplayer to be
successful? In response to this ques­
tion two essential factors are usually
singled out: talent and hard work.
But it is not sufficient just to be tal­
ented and hard-working. Physical
condition, competitive character and
the ability to concentrate during play
are also very important. No less im­
portant is the ability to choose cor­
rectly the direction that such work
should take and to be able to reach
the required standard. Needless to
say, this task is far from easy. During
the first session of the new Dvoret­
sky-Yusupov chess school we en­
deavoured to help our pupils to
master the art of studying chess on
one's own.
Of course, in order to be able to
choose a direction leading to self­
improvement it is necessary to have
a critical understanding of one's
game. The authors are totally con­
vinced that the serious study of one's
own games is an essential require­
ment for any chessplayer who
Wishes to improve. Therefore the
theme 'analysing one's own games'
oCCupies a central place. This book
contains specific recommendations
on how such analysis should be car­
ried out.
Without a broad knowledge of the
history of chess, without an aware­
ness of the creative legacy be­
queathed by the great players of the
past, one can scarcely hope to
achieve good results. So we have
also attempted to show the reader
various ways of making use of our
rich chess heritage.
Of course, themes such as 'ana­
lysing one's own games' or 'study­
ing the classics' are virtually
inexhaustible. Seen from different
viewpoints, the first theme is consid­
ered in Chapters 1 , 2, 3, 5 and 8; the
second theme is reflected in Chap­
ters 3 and 4. Chapter 6 is devoted to
original manoeuvres with the king,
but the more general concept 'non­
standard manoeuvres' is to be found
in Chapter 5, in some of Chapter 8
and in many other parts of this book.
It is necessary to say a few words
about the way the book is structured.
At the start of each chapter there is a
lecture which was given during the
first session of our school. Each of
these lectures carries the main
weight of argument of the chapter.
Exercises to be solved on one's own
then follow, together with some ad­
ditional material. These supple­
ments, which are connected with the
12 Introduction
lectures by virtue of their subject­
matter, have been taken from articles
which the authors have had publish­
ed in the Soviet chess press (in the
magazines Shakhmaty v SSSR and
64), and in some cases include addi­
tional or revised material prepared
specially for this book.
The quite separate Chapter 7 con­
sists of advice given by leading
grandmasters on how to improve
one's chess.
Of course, work at our school is
not confined merely to the reading of
lectures. A great deal of attention is
given to analysing games together, to
individual consultations, and also to
setting particular tasks to be worked
through at home. The reader can get
some idea of the form such home­
work can take from Chapter 8.
It was the authors' intention to
compile a book containing material
that the reader will find both interest-
ing and useful. The methods pro­
posed in it will, we hope, play a key
role in helping the reader to improve
his or her game. Of course, even the
best methods will not be very effec­
tive if they are adopted mechanically
rather than creatively. But for the se­
rious, thoughtful player this book
may be just the right stimulus for
creative growth.
Our work is continuing. Our
school has already had its second
session, the main theme of which
was the opening: general opening
principles, ways of studying opening
theory, how to form an opening rep­
ertoire, the connection of the open­
ing with the middlegame, and so on.
Plans for forthcoming sessions in­
clude endgame technique, middle­
game strategy, practical playing
methods ... We intend to share the re­
sults of this work with our readers in
due course.
1 A Chessplayer's Strengths and
Weaknesses
Mark Dvoretsky
Long, long ago, before Steinitz, it
was considered that a chessplayer
wins or loses a game solely by virtue
of his ingenuity. Morphy was a gen­
ius, and so he beat everyone; his op­
ponents were less talented, and
therefore they lost to him. Steinitz
recognised and demonstrated that
chess has an objective basis. The
events which occur on the board are
subject to certain basic laws, to posi­
tional principles. If a chessplayer is
guided by them then he will be suc­
cessful.
Today it is quite evident that the
truth is to be found not somewhere in
between, so to speak, but in a combi­
nation of both these aspects, the sub­
jective and the objective. (Those of
you with a serious interest in phi­
losophy will probably recall the con­
cept of 'synthesis' from Hegel's
famous triad.) Yes, of course, a game
is conducted on the basis of objec­
tive positional laws, but a decisive
influence on its result is exerted by a
chessplayer's personal qualities - his
talent, character, state of health, and,
finally, his degree of preparation, his
ability to apply his knowledge, to act
OVer the board in a competent, pro­
fessional manner, to make optimal
decisions accurately in the most di­
verse situations.
Chess mastery comprises an enor­
mous number of the most varied
components; in some of these a
player may be very strong, while in
others - frankly weak. Behind the
moves he makes lie his merits and
deficiencies, his strong and weak
sides. It is these which have a deci­
sive influence on the outcome of a
game or an entire competition, and
frequently on the fate of a player's
chess career. Many players have
been unable to reveal their talent
fully because of obvious problems in
certain areas.
Take, for example, Grandmaster
Kupreichik. He is an exceptionally
dangerous player when attacking, he
plays boldly and with great inven­
tiveness. But in matters of technique,
in the endgame, he is quite frankly
weak. Consequently he has not suc­
ceeded in attaining a general level of
play corresponding to his talent. On
one occasion, when playing Ku­
preichik in the First League of the
USSR Championship, I went into an
endgame a pawn down, but after ten
moves or so it was I who had an extra
pawn. In the qualifying tournament
14 A Chessplayer 's Strengths and Weaknesses
for the 1989 World Cup, Kupreichik
had a completely winning position
against young Gata Kamsky, with
two extra pawns, but gradually - by
no means because of any outright
blunder - he also lost this game.
Many chessplayers have become
totally 'bogged down' in the study of
openings, occupying themselves
only with processing information
and acquiring new opening know­
ledge. I am sure this is not the best
way to develop a chessplayer's po­
tential - at any rate, not where young
players are concerned. It is much
more important to set in motion a
training programme to improve
one's game.
The main task of the trainers at
our school is to give each of their pu­
pils a 'diagnosis', in order to help
them to understand their own style,
to determine their strengths and
weaknesses, and to suggest how they
can eliminate their shortcomings and
develop the strong sides of their
game. In order to convince you of the
correctness of the direction which
our school is going to take, of the im­
portance of what we are going to do,
I am devoting this entire chapter to
examples of the decisive influence
on play (and results) of deficiencies
which certain players either did not
wish to, or could not, rid themselves
of.
By spending all their time on
studying openings, some players be­
lieve that their games will never get
as far as an ending, and that, if an
endgame does arise, they will some­
how manage to cope over the board
with the problems they will have to
face. The outcome of my game with
Kupreichik shows the total naivety
of such hopes. Of course, the open­
ing is a very important phase of the
game, but the endgame is no less im­
portant, and it too should be studied
seriously.
Weakness in the endgame may
show itself in two main forms: igno­
rance of endgame theory and weak­
ness of endgame technique. Let us
begin by examining the first of these.
Euwe-Hromadka
Piestany 1 922
••••
�••••
• •••
· . . .,
• • •••
• • • •
z. • • •
••• =
What plan would you have played
as Black? You will not succeed in
calculating the correct answer - you
either know it or you don't. This is a
fact of endgame theory, which one
simply has to keep in one's head (in
order to prove it I would need about
half an hour).
If the defending king is in a light­
squared corner with a dark-squared
 A Chessplayer 's Strengths and Weaknesses 1 5
bishop ( or in a dark-squared corner
witb a light-squared bishop), it is im­
possible to mate it with king and
rook. Moreover, a rook's pawn is
also sometimes insufficient to win if
it is too far advanced (on h3 or b4).
If White can maintain his bishop
on tbe h2-b8 diagonal Black is un­
able to strengthen his position. The
only winning chance is to place tbe
king on h3 and tben to give check
witb the rook on g2, forcing the reply
� 1. If Black could tben succeed in
getting his king out from h3 while
still cutting tbe white king off from
tbe g-file and therefore from his
pawn, he would win. But it can only
get out (and witb some difficulty) by
making use of the square b4 - that is,
if his pawn has not yet crossed into
tbe opponent's half of the board. (In
order to convince yourself of this, I
recommend that you consult a book
on tbe endgame.)
So, the conclusion: if the pawn
has crossed into tbe opponent's half
of the board, and White's bishop is
able to occupy the h2-b8 diagonal,
the position is drawn; if it has not,
the position is winning. Without
knowledge of this fact you are al­
most sure to miss the win, which is
j ust what happened in this game.
t ... h4? !
2 i.d4 �h3??
2 '" l:le2 ! wins.
3 i.e5 1lg2+
4 �n
Now there is nothing more to be
done, and the players agreed a draw.
If Black had played 1 ... ..t>h3 at once,
he would also have won.
Many players have repeated the
same mistake. For example, in a
master game Novotelnov-Telpugov,
Moscow 1 95 1 , the following posi­
tion arose: White: ..t>g3, �d6, pawn
on b4; Black: ..t>g6, l:le4, pawn on
h5 . Telpugov played just as Hrom­
adka had: 1 ... h4+ n
A remarkable example of igno­
rance of theory struck me not long
ago while I was browsing through
the Dutch magazine New in Chess.
Coull-Stanciu
Thessaloniki Women 's 01. 1 988
•• ••
!••••
• • ••
• ./j. •
•• • ••
· .�. .
•• • •
••••
The Scottish player, playing
White on top board, found the only
way (apart from losing on time) to
lose the game immediately - she
simply resigned ! !
Quite amazing ! Endings of this
type are probably studied in the first
class of any chess school, but the
education of the top player in the
Scottish Women's Olympiad team
was clearly deficient.
1 6 A Chessplayer 's Strengths and Weaknesses
This, of course, is an extreme
case, an anecdote, but I could give
similar examples - although not
quite so glaring - from the games of
many chessplayers. I remember, for
example, how a terrible blunder in a
rook ending which is known to be
theoretically drawn led to Kochiev's
defeat in a game against Smyslov at
a Zonal tournament (Lvov 1978) and
so put an end to his hopes of reach­
ing the Interzonal. I also recall a
famous comedy of errors in an ele­
mentary rook ending from a game
Capablanca-Menchik (Hastings
1 929/30). It is amusing that 45 years
later precisely the same ending arose
in a game which decided the fate of
the USSR Schools Team Champion­
ship.
Pekker-Yermolinsky
Alma-A ta 1974
••••
�••• •
• • ••
••••
•• • •
. . ., .� ,
• .� Z .
,,�. . ".
For his team to become champi­
ons, it was sufficient for the Musco­
vite playing White to get a draw. The
position is totally drawn. The sim­
plest thing was for White to bide his
time: 1 lIbl or 1 <iti>h3. But 1 !laS is
entirely playable, as is any other re­
treat of the rook along the a-file ... ex­
cept one, which is precisely what
Pekker chose.
1 :a3?? W+
2 <ltgJ tl
After 3 <iti>f3 <iti>g l! there is no sav­
ing check from behind with the rook.
Pekker lost, and the Moscow team
finished only second. The prime rea­
son for this unfortunate lapse was a
deficiency in Pekker's chess educa­
tion. His trainer, a well-known theo­
retician, devoted nearly all his
lessons solely to the study of open­
ings. His pupils lacked under­
standing of the endgame.
Let us now turn to endgame tech­
nique. It is essential not only to re­
member theory but also to master
typical endgame methods, to learn to
attune oneself appropriately to play­
ing endings, to get a feeling for their
particular characteristics. I recom­
mend that you study Shereshevsky's
excellent book Endgame Strategy
(Pergamon Press), which is devoted
to this topic.
Exactly what can happen when a
chessplayer does not understand the
spirit of the endgame, when he is un­
able to think along endgame lines, I
shall now show you.
Dvoretsky-Sukhanov
Moscow 1 968
1 e4 e5
2 lbtJ lbc6
 A Chesspiayer 's Strengths and Weaknesses 17
3 .i.bS .i.eS
4 0-0 lZ'ld4
Here there is an interesting gam­
bit possibility: 5 b4!?, but when this
game was played this idea had not
yet been discovered.
S lZ'lxd4 .i.xd4
6 c3 .i.b6
7 d4 e6
S .i.e4 d6
My tournament position de­
manded that I had to win. Since I was
unfamiliar with the theory of this
variation, I thought for a long time
about my plan of action, but then I
suddenly realised who it was I was
playing. My opponent was Suk­
hanov, a gifted master, a brilliant tac­
tician who loves to attack, but a
player who cannot stand boring po­
sitions and who has no under­
standing of the endgame. (This was
hardly surprising, since he had the
same chess trainer as Pekker.)
The decision which I took could,
from a pure chess point of view,
hardly be approved of, but from a
psychological point of view it was
justified, and this was confirmed by
the subsequent course of the game.
9 dxe5 dxe5
10 'i'xdS+ .i.xdS
1 1 .i.e3 (4)
The endgame is, of course, equal,
but just look at the way Sukhanov
handled it.
What do you think is the most ac­
curate reply for Black? The bishop
on e3 is more active than the bishop
on d8, and therefore Black should
have offered an exchange with 11 ...
.i.b6!.
But in what respect is the develop­
ing move 11 ... lZ'lf6 inferior?
11 ... lZ'lffi
12 f3
Now on 12 ... .i.b6 there would
follow 13 'iti>f2, and the exchange
takes place in slightly better circum­
stances for White. First, he doesn't
now have to capture on b6, opening
the a-file for the black rook; and sec­
ond, the white king will move closer
to the centre. These minor points do
not perhaps affect the overall assess­
ment of the position, but neverthe­
less in the endgame every minor
point like this should be evaluated,
one should seek out the most precise
way to accomplish one's plans. If
Black were now to decide to ex­
change bishops, he would need to
think how to do this more accurately.
However, as it turned out, my op­
ponent had quite different plans.
12 ••• h5? !
Black has decided to go onto the
attack! What is his idea? Probably he
18 A Chessplayer 's Srrengths and Weaknesses
intends to play ... b4, ... /l)h5 and ...
/l)f4. In the middlegame such a plan
would be quite good, but for the
endgame this is a very peculiar strat­
egy. All right, for the time being I
shall just complete my development.
13 :dl h4
14 /l)d2 h3?
But why should Black play this?
Indeed, the pawn on h3 will in all
probability tum out to be a weak-
ness.
15 g3 b5?
It appears that Black has forgotten
that pawns are unable to move back­
wards. Now I also have an object of
attack on the queenside - the pawn
on b5, which I shall strike at immedi­
ately by playing a2-a4.
16 i.n
From this square the bishop keeps
both of Black's vulnerable pawns in
its sights.
16 ... i.b6
17 �f2 g5
Finally the idea (albeit a reckless
one) behind my opponent's preced­
ing moves has become comprehensi­
ble. He wishes after 1 8 ... g4 either to
weaken the pawn on e4 or, having
brought his knight to g4, to attack the
pawn on h2, which he has 'fixed'
with the advance ... h5-h4-h3. And if
1 8 g4 then he had probably intended
to sacrifice the bishop on g4.
Inventive, ingenious, but totally
impracticable. It's just not on to play
the endgame like this!
18 a4 g4
19 i.xb6! axb6
20 axb5 :xal
21 %bal gxfJ
22 /l)xf3 ! /l)xe4+
23 �e3 /l)d6
24 bxc6
I had calculated this whole vari­
ation when playing 1 9 i.xb6. It is
clear that White has a winning posi­
tion, and I subsequently converted
my advantage into victory.
What remains to be said? It was
all quite clear. The outcome of the
game was already determined, since
play was far too one-sided. You
probably got the impression that
Black was very weak, not even a
first-category player (first-category
players would be offended - they
would say not even they play end­
ings like that!). No, I repeat, this was
a talented master, who at other
stages of the game would act quite
differently. I just managed to get at
his weak spot. Now, just think to
yourself, is it conceivable that you
could ever become a strong player
by giving your opponents such enor­
mous odds in any aspect of the
game?
It is very important to rid oneself
not only of pure chess weaknesses
but also of deficiencies of a psycho­
logical nature, relating to one's per­
sonality. A person who is unsure of
himself often suffers setbacks be­
cause of his own indecisiveness; the
self-confident player, on the other
hand, may fail as a result of underes­
timating his opponent's possibilities.
The slow-witted player with poorly
 A Chessplayer 's Strengths and Weaknesses 1 9
developed intuition will always suf­
fer from time-trouble. The list could
be extended - one comes across the
most varied human, personal defi­
ciencies, and they all influence our
results to no less an extent than our
pure chess weaknesses.
Let us examine an example where
one such deficiency is displayed and
diagnosed.
Fedorov-Shammrai
Moscow 1 973
5 1 ...
W The threat is 2 ...�f5, winning the
It is White's turn to move. How do
you assess the position? What move
would you suggest?
With a static assessment you may
find White's position quite accept­
able. But let us try to look at it dy­
namically, taking the likely prospects
into account. I should prefer to play
Black. Why? He bas a clear plan: to
play ... dS-d4, put his king on dS and
then push on with ... c5-c4. White
appears to stand very well, with
pressure against g7, but exactly how
he should continue is unclear.
This being the case, he should
play 1 Ite3 before it is too late, con­
senting to an equal pawn ending.
Candidate Master Fedorov, play­
ing White, supposed that he stood
better and played a move which is
amazingly nonsensical.
1 Ilg6?
Sometimes in such cases a stand­
ard phrase is employed by annota­
tors: 'White increases his pressure'.
But here it is not clear what this pres­
sure is, or how it could be increased.
Perhaps Fedorov had g2-g4-g5 in
mind.
pawn on f4. In the event of 2 g4
White's rook would be imprisoned.
As we can see, Black's reply under­
lined the absurdity of the move 1
l:tg6?, but probably it was even bet­
ter not to pay it any attention and to
play 1 ... d4.
2 Ilg3 d4
3 �e2!?
A move based on sound princi­
ples. White transfers his king to the
area of the board where the battle
will take place - the queenside. (In
the event of 1 ... d4! 2 l:tg3 �d6
Black would not have permitted this
transfer.) The drawback of the move
3 'it>e2 is the loss of the pawn on f4
after 3 ... 'it>f5+. But this sacrifice is
entirely justified from a positional
point of view. In return the white
king becomes active - it gets
through to c4 and attacks the pawn
oneS.
20 A Chessplayer 's Strengths and Weaknesses
I would be fully justified in prais­
ing the player of the white pieces ...
if, after the game, it had not turned
out that he had not in fact sacrificed
the pawn, but simply blundered it
away. Here, you will understand,
quite a different picture arises.
This episode shows, incidentally,
why we ask our pupils to send us
only games that have been thor­
oughly annotated. Sometimes one
can make a good move even though
the idea behind it may be totally in­
correct. It is important for trainers
not only to see the actual moves
played but also to know what ideas
lay behind them, what the pupil was
thinking of, and how he or she as­
sessed the position. Only then can a
trainer form an objective opinion of
the way his pupil plays.
So, White blundered the pawn,
but he blundered well.
3 'iti'f5+
4 �d3 �xf4
5 �c4 �e5 (6)
Is it possible to capture the pawn
on c5? (Black will reply 6 . .. l:1c7+).
Should White opt for sharp play, or
would this be dangerous? It isn't
necessary to calculate the variations
right through to a conclusion - con­
fine yourselves merely to a general
impression.
Of course, without any calcula­
tion at all it is clear that capturing on
c5, giving the opponent a passed
pawn on d4, would be terrible - this
is simply not playable. But what
should White play? I think 6 lId3, in­
tending 7 l:td2 with the threat 8
�c5. It would be useful to force the
black rook back to c7. Then it would
make sense to exchange the most ac­
tive black pawn on d4 with the move
c2-c3. In some lines b3-b4 is possi­
ble. If 6 .. . <t>e4 then 7 �d2 �e3 8
l:id3+ and Black cannot play 8 . . .
�e2? because of 9 �xc5.
Probably it is best for Black to re­
ply 6 ... f5 7 lld2l:r.c7, intending 8 ...
g5 and becoming active on the king­
side, where he has an extra pawn.
But White's pieces are active, so he
would still have quite good chances
of a draw.
6 �xc5?? llc7+
7 �b5
More prudent was 7 �b4, keep­
ing the king a little nearer the d­
pawn. If Black had continued as in
the game, this might have helped
White. But, all the same, his decision
to play 6 �c5 was fundamentally
incorrect. This is best proved by a
move which was not noticed by either
player. What move? Well, 7 ... g5!.
Having removed the g-pawn from
 A Chessplayer 's Strengths and Weaknesses 21
attack, Black will now quietly gob­
ble up the pawn on c2. Clearly, with
the king on b4 it would not have
helped to play S c3 because of S ...
dxc3 9 lhc3 8.5+.
7 l:lxc2
8 l:lxg7 d3
9 :xa7?
More stubborn was 9 l1d7, at­
tempting to hold back the passed
pawn at least temporarily. But Fe­
dorov is sure that 'all is quiet on the
Western front', that he will manage
to stop the pawn, and that, while
Black wins a rook for it, he will ad­
vance his queenside pawns.
9 ... 'iPe6!
Now the rook is unable to reach
the d-file.
10 :a6+ 'iPd7
Here White resigned, in view of
lllta7+ l1c7. (With the white king
on b4 Black would not have had this
variation: in the event of an ex­
change of rooks the king would have
managed to restrain the pawn.)
What would you say about the
player who had White? Are we being
too critical of him? Then I shall show
you another of his games.
Fedorov-Dvoretsky
Moscow 1 972
(7): What do you consider White
should do now?
Black's intentions are clear. If he
can succeed in playing ... <it>hS and ...
:'g8, and then doubling (or even
tripling) his major pieces along the
g-file, a menacing attack will develop
on the kingside. White is obliged to
divert his opponent, to get his own
game going rather more quickly. It is
essential to play c4-cS. At once, or
after preparation? At once, of course
- there is no point in postponing it.
If Black replies ... dxc5, then after
.t.xc5 the rook has no move (after ...
1117 White has the fork lLld6). If
Black could manage to play ... <it>hS,
the rook would get the excellent
square gS.
But Fedorov did not fear a king­
side attack at all, and so be decided
that he had no need to hurry.
29 b4?
Probably White wished to take on
c5 with the pawn, to get a lovely
pawn centre. But frrst he will have to
defend the pawn on d5. Such a plan
would be good if the position were
quiet, but here, with White threat­
ened by an attack, it is too slow.
29 'iPh8
30 'iPhl :g8
31 11id2?
Consistent; having defended the
pawn on d5 , White prepares to play
22 A Chessplayer 's Strengths and Weaknesses
c4-c5. But he is not paying the
slightest attention to his opponent's
possibilities - he simply doesn't
even think about them. Retribution is
not long in coming.
31 gxt3
32 gxt3 .i.xe4
33 fxe4 'ib3
Mate is forced, so White resigned.
Ridiculous, wasn't it? Injust three
moves an excellent position col­
lapsed completely. Is it still not clear
what one should say about the player
who had White? Does he simply
play badly? Well, I could show you
how he beat Belyavsky in superb p0-
sitional style, and he has played
other good games. No, I am not
showing you the games of a weak
player, I am simply demonstrating
his most vulnerable side. So what is
this exactly?
Fedorov played the endgame
badly against Shamrai, but it is not
simply that he is weak in the
endgame - this is not really the
point. Remember: with the move I
llg6 he tried to play for a win, not re­
alising that he in any case stood no
better and not noticing his oppo­
nent's plan to strengthen his posi­
tion. Then he blundered away the
pawn on f4. Mter that, fearlessly and
recklessly, he captured the pawn on
c5 and, finally, allowed his oppo­
nent's passed pawn to queen. All his
mistakes, just like those he made in
his game against me, had, as you see,
a common thread running through
them.
It is quite evident that Fedorov is
totally sure of himself and his ideas.
He couldn't care less about his oppo­
nent - for Fedorov the opponent sim­
ply doesn't exist. So the diagnosis
here is over-confidence, overestima­
tion of oneself, of one's resources,
and underestimation of the oppo­
nent's possibilities.
At that time Fedorov was a stu­
dent at the Moscow Institute of
Physical Training, where I was
teaching. He was a really strong
young sportsman, very determined,
with a presence over the board like
that of a World Champion. In such
children self-confidence (an excel­
lent quality!) often becomes exces­
sive. He was quite a strong candidate
master, but he simply could not
achieve the master norm. His main
weakness was a constant hindrance.
I explained to Fedorov the main
reason for his lack of success. I rec­
ommended that he work on this as­
pect of his game, that he study the
games of players who always pre­
vent counterplay from their oppo­
nents in advance - primarily the
games of Petrosian. I selected a se­
ries of exercises on this theme, and
the work Fedorov did soon helped
him to become a master.
In the first half of this chapter we
investigated some examples of the
destructive effect of certain very
marked weaknesses on particular
players. But now let us examine
how all a chess player's weaknesses
work together with his strengths to
 A Chesspiayer 's Srrengths and Weaknesses 23
f()11Jl a complex which completely
determines his characteristic chess
style.
In 1980 I assisted Nana Alexan­
dria in her Candidates quarter-final
O1lltch against Lena Akbmy­
lovskaya. As usual, I put together a
creative profile of her opponent, giv­
ing information about the strong and
weak sides of her game. Of course, I
could also see Alexandria's own
merits and deficiencies, as she and I
were then working actively on elimi­
nating the latter.
After an exceptionally hard and
tenacious struggle, Nana emerged
victorious. When the match was
over, the thought came to me to dem­
onstrate to Nana (and also to myself)
to what extent her weaknesses and
strengths, as well as those of her op­
ponent, had determined her play and
the course and final outcome of the
struggle. I wrote down the main
chess qualities of both players and
gave each of them a code.
The symbol 'Ll' stands for
Akhmylovskaya's main strength -
her good positional understanding.
Lena has a subtle feeling for the in­
terconnection of her pieces, she is
gOOd at finding good squares for
them, as well as manoeuvring and
strengthening her position.
'U' is Akbmylovskaya's main
weakness. She has a poor grasp of
tactics and fears a tactical game; she
aVOids lines which make play
sharper, as she feels unsure of herself
in complicated, muddled positions.
'L3' signifies Akhmylovskaya's
lack of confidence in the technique
of converting an advantage into vic­
tory. It is probably not so obvious to
you that this deficiency is closely
connected with the previous one, be­
ing to a certain extent a consequence
of it. When converting an advantage,
a moment is sure to come when one
has to cease gradually improving
one's position and proceed to take
firm action. It is important not to al­
low such a moment to pass by. One
should make great efforts, calculate
variations accurately and find the
strongest continuation - at times the
only correct continuation. For the
player who prefers to act according
to general considerations, who does
not like to calculate variations, this
moment often proves to be a stum­
bling-block. He or she continues
playing by intuition in situations
where it is necessary to solve spe­
cific problems; as a result, his or her
advantage diminishes.
Of course this deficiency is not
peculiar to Akbmylovskaya alone.
Some time later I noticed that Andrei
Sokolov also suffered from it. At a
particular moment during the 1 986
Candidates Final, Yusupov, realising
that my diagnosis of his opponent
was totally correct, threw up his
arms in bewilderment: 'Just how
does he intend to win even one game
if I don't leave anything exposed?
You know, he is quite unable to solve
a single problem of the slightest
complexity.' Regrettably, at the end
24 A Chesspklyer 's Strengths and Weaknesses
of the match Yusupov began leaving
himself exposed...
Nana Alexandria's main strength,
which I designate as 'Nt ' , is her bril­
liant imagination, her creative inven­
tiveness.
'N2' signifies inadequate posi­
tional understanding, as a result of
her limited experience of chess at
that time. We gave this problem a
great deal of attention, and, by the
time of her World Championship
match against Chiburdanidze, Nana
had managed to raise the level of her
positional play. But even then this
weakness was still noticeable, being
responsible for frequent failures to
assess a position correctly and for
bad positional blunders.
'N3' symbolises irrational use of
time, time-trouble. Alexandria had
formerly been an inveterate sufferer
from time-trouble. After special
training her bouts of time-trouble be­
came less severe, but there was no
complete cure.
'N4' stands for excessive emotion
over the board. Alexandria is a per­
son of moods, her emotions get the
better of her during play. She finds it
hard to change the course of a game
which is turning out badly. She fre­
quently commits a whole series of
errors, and as a result an excellent
position can very quickly turn into a
hopeless one.
'NS' signifies an inadequate sense
of danger.
As you can see, the list of Alexan­
dria's shortcomings turned out to be
longer than her rival's. This is not
surprising - I wished to demonstrate
graphically to Nana all her weak­
nesses, in order to prompt her to de­
vote herself seriously to eliminating
them.
I annotated all the games of this
Candidates match, noting how the
qualities of both players that I have
singled out manifested themselves
during play. Wherever I detected one
or other of the characteristics de­
scribed, I noted down the corre­
sponding code. The resulting picture
turned out to be rather interesting -
in any case it made an impression on
Nana. From this viewpoint we shall
now investigate two games chosen
almost at random.
Akhmylovskaya-A1exandria
6th match game, Kislovodsk 1980
t d4 dS
2 c4 c6
3 tDt3 tDfti
4 tDc3 e6
S 'i'b3 (8)
8
B
 A Chesspiayer 's Strengths and Weaknesses 25
The score at this point was level:
2112-2112. We had managed to guess
that Akhmylovskaya would choose 5
.,, 3 . She is a positional player and
doesn 't like playing main-line open­
ings in which a sharp struggle devel­
ops (e.g. the Meran Variation or the
Botvinnik System) (L2) . This meant
that it was very likely that she would
choose a quiet plan of development.
For Black in reply there is quite a
good plan in the spirit of the Meran
Variation: 5 . . . dxc4 6 li'xc4 b5, and
then ... lLlbd7, ... ..ib7 and, at some
point, ... c6-c5 , perbaps after com­
pleting development with ... ..ie7
and .. , 0-0. But during preparation I
found in the 27th volume of Infor­
mator a game Farago-Nogueiras
which had recently been played
(Kecskemet 1 979). This game had
continued 5 . . . dxc4 6 ii'xc4 b6
(Black wishes to answer 7 e4 with 7
... ..ia6 and, having exchanged on fl ,
to deprive his opponent of the right
to castle kingside). There followed 7
g3 ..ie7 8 ..ig2 0-0 9 0-0 b5 ! 1 0 ilb 3
(better is 1 0 ii'd3) 10 ... b4. After the
knight retreats, Black plays 1 1 ...
-*.a6, attacking e2, then . . . ..ib5 and,
maybe, ... a7-aS-a4 with a very ac­
tive position.
I liked Nogueiras's plan. But the
thought occurred to me tbat it could
be implemented still more accu-
rately, by playing ... b7-b5 in one go.
First we play 5 ... ..ie7 (generally
sJ>eaking, this is the principal theo­
retical move). If 6 g3· then 6 ... dxc4 7
W'xc4 0-0 8 ..ig2 b5 and Black has
saved a whole tempo. Probably 6
..tg5 is stronger. I did not wish to
continue further according to the
book with 6 . 0-0 7 e3, since then a
. .
rather passive position arises which
does not suit Alexandria's style. But
it is possible to play in the same fash­
ion as Nogueiras.
S ..ie7
6 ..igS dxc4
7 ii'xc4 b6
In the event of 8 g3 it turns out
that, in comparison with the game
Farago-Nogueiras, Black has played
the move ... ..te7, which is clearly
more useful than White's move
..tg5 . Generally speaking, a kingside
fianchetto together with a bishop on
g5 looks a bit odd. So White is prac­
tically forced to play 8 e4, when
B lack will implement his idea in­
volving an exchange on f1 .
Just how good this plan is, is an­
other question. Yusupov and I later
analysed this system and came to the
conclusion that White still has the
better chances.
8 e4 i.a6
9 1ib3 i.xfl
10 ,Uxfl
A good alternative was 10 'itxfl ,
followed by g3 and �g2.
10 •.• 0-0
1 1 0-0-0 lLlbd7
White has developed her pieces
harmoniously and has gained more
space. Her position is certainly to be
preferred. But, considering the fact
that the players have castled on
opposite sides, a sharp increase in
26 A Chessplayer 's Strengths and Weaknesses
tension is to be expected. This was
precisely the sort of advantageous
turn of events, uncomfortable for her
opponent, that Alexandria had to aim
for. For this reason the outcome of
the opening suited us perfectly.
This is perhaps a typical example
of taking the strengths and weak­
nesses of the players into account in
one's choice of opening variation. In
the end our calculation paid off, al­
though we had to endure quite a few
unpleasant moments.
Despite the fact that the position
which has now arisen had been on
our board at home when we were
preparing for this game, Alexandria
spent around 35 minutes on her pre­
ceding moves - moves which we had
already planned. This is quite a long
time - and she could well find her­
self short of time later on. As you can
see, from the very start of this game
weakness (N3) showed itself - irra­
tional use of time.
12 lLleS
Apparently the prophylactic 1 2
�b 1 should have been preferred.
12 ••• lLlxe5
13 .txf6! (9)
At home, having given the vari­
ations a cursory examination, we
had satisfied ourselves that after 13
dxe5 lLld7 Black has an excellent po­
sition. Akhmylovskaya assessed the
position correctly (Ll) and played
more forcefully.
13 ••• lLld7
A natural reply, but after this
White retains somewhat better
chances, in connection with her spa­
tial advantage. Let us consider what
else Black could have played.
Of course, it is bad to play 13 . . .
�xf6? 1 4 dxe5 �g5+ 1 5 f4; whilst if
13 . . . lLld3+ 141hd3 �xf6, roughly
the same poSition arises as in the
game, but Black is left with a bishop
instead of a knight, which is hardly
to her advantage. White continues
with f4, e5 and lLle4, with the better
chances.
Chessplayers are not accustomed
to changing the pattern of play
abruptly except in cases of extreme
need, and so certain moves some­
times quite simply fall outside our
field of vision. It dido't occur to any­
one to consider the idea 1 3 ... gxf6 ! ?
This looks very strange, but al l the
same, let us examine what happens
after 14 dxe5 'Wic7.
Tempting is 1 5 exf6 .txf6 1 6 f4,
intending e5 and lLle4. Just what
Black has achieved is not clear - one
cannot see for what reason the king­
side has been weakened. This is
true , but we have not taken an
 A Chessplayer 's Strengths and Weaknesses 27
intennediate check into considera­
tion, and this changes our assess­
ment of the position: 15 ... 'iWf4+! 16
�bl .i.xf6. Look now: Black has a
strong bishop on f6, and the queen
on f4 is rather beguiling for White:
does it intend to capture on h2 or on
e4 (after an exchange on c3)? Most
probably Black will simply play in
the centre with ... l:UidS. I would pre­
fer Black's position.
In turn White can try to improve
on this variation with 16 .:d2 (in­
stead of 16 �bl) 16 ... .i.xf6 17 g3
'iWf3 (otherwise 18 f4) 18l2JdS (after
16 �bl this move would not be pos­
sible) 18 ... 'iWxb3 19l2Jxf6+ �g7 20
ti)bS+ 'it>h6 21 axb3 with the better
ending for White. But in this case
Black has another intennediate
move in reserve: 16 ... :Cd8! 17
lIfdl (17l2Jd5 cxdS 18 fxe7ltdc8+)
17 ... 'iWxf6 (White cannot now play
f2-f4), or even 17 ... I:txd2 18 I:txd2
:d8.
In playing 13 ... gxf6 14 dxeS 'iWc7
it is also essential to reckon with a
positional pawn sacrifice: 15 f4
fxeS 16 fS!. But here too Black has
sufficient counter-chances. She may,
for example, play 16 ... exfS. If 17
l:lxfs then 17 ... 'it>h8 or 17 ... �g7
followed by 18 ... f6. White's knight
and queen are too far away from the
kingside, so it will not be possible
for her to create an attack there rap­
idly, but Black will immediately be­
gin operations in the centre with ...
l:UidS. And she still has an extra
pawn.
If 17 exfS then 17 ... :Cd8 18l2Je4
l:tdS!. Again there is no positional
bind - White has a handsome knight
on e4, but Black has not only an ex­
tra pawn but also strong outposts in
the centre.
The conclusion: 13 ... gxf6! is an
excellent move - it would have guar­
anteed Black entirely adequate
counterplay. (For this reason White
should have preferred 12 �bl, keep­
ing l2JeS as a threat.) But can one re­
proach Nana? I am sure that a
decision such as this would have
overtaxed many male grandmasters.
14 j,xe7 'fIxe7
15 f4 (10)
Let us consider how Black can get
her game going. It seems to me that
two plans are possible.
The first is to try to get control of
certain squares in the centre for her
pieces by playing 17-fS. It is cer­
tainly better to prepare this move, by
first removing the king from the a2-
g8 diagonal with 15 ... 'it>h8.
The other plan is to play on the
queenside: ... bS, ... l2Jb6, and then
28 A Chessplayer 's Strengths and Weaknesses
... ttJc4 or ... as-a4. In the event of e4-
eS the black knight will be able to
occupy the square dS .
I don't know which of these plans
is stronger, but Black should have
chosen one of them. Unfortunately
Nana played rather routinely, and not
too successfully (N2).
15 ... llad8? !
Why this? If Black is going to at­
tack on the queenside, the rook may
be needed there. If, however, Black
plays ... 17-fS, then it is possible that
she will need to defend the pawn on
e6 with this rook.
16 e5
Akhmylovskaya acts logically
and consistently. She wishes to play
ttJe4 and occupy the strong square
d6 with her knight. In addition,
Black has to take into account the
threat of an attack on the kingside
with f4-fS. Therefore her reply is
practically forced.
16 .•. f5
What should White play? You
haven't forgotten that the players
have castled on opposite sides, have
you? Well then, 17 g4! is the first
move that should come into your
head! If 17 . . . fxg4 then 18 fS - the
pawn on e6 is attacked and the
knight gets the square e4. The reply
17 ... g6 can even be ignored - it is
clear that inserting the moves 17 g4
g6 is good for White.
Neither player noticed the thrust
17 g4!. Alexandria - by virtue of the
fact that she has little sense of danger
(N5); and Akhmylovskaya - since
she is a purely positional player and
sharp attacking moves are not her
style (L2).
17 a4
This looks a bit risky, as it weak­
ens the flank where the white king is
situated. Nevertheless, if one forgets
about the possibility of 17 g4!
Akhmylovskaya's decision is well­
founded positionally. She prevents
Black from developing an initiative
on the queenside with ... bS and . ..
ttJb6.
17 �h8
18 �bl (11)
Now what would you play as
Black? One reasonable plan is 18 ...
a6, preparing 19 . . . bS. Another pos-
sible line is 18 . . . ttJb8, intending to
transfer the knight via a6 to the
weakened square b4. If the knight is
not allowed to reach b4 it will head
for dS via c7.
After 18 ... ttJb8 19 1Wc4 it is pos­
sible, after defending the pawn on
e6, to prepare ... 1ifb7, but one may
also recall the first plan: 19 . . . a6 and
then, with gain of tempo, 20 . . bS.
.
 A Chessplayer 's Strengths and Weaknesses 29
18 ... ltb8?
But this move is bad. The knight
gets stuck on the unfortunate square
d7. Again Alexandria is found want­
ing when it comes to strategy (N2) .
19 ltc1 as
On the immediate 19 ... bS Black
evidently did not like the reply 20 as .
Akbmylovskaya has outplayed
ber opponent, which is not surpris­
ing we have already noted her su­
- 25 :dl (12)
periority over Alexandria in a
positional struggle. But now trou­
bles begin for Akbmylovskaya.
She needs to exploit her advan­
tage in the most accurate manner, but
she rarely manages to do this (1..3) .
Now White should have played 20
lM1!. The knight heads for d6 via
c4. By attacking the pawn on c6 at
the same time, White deters her op­
ponent from playing ... b6-bS, which
is very important. After 20 ... ID"c8
21 ltJe3 the threat is 22 lLlc4, and 21
... bS is hardly possible in view of 22
axbS, when the rook on c8 is hang­
ing . Also bad is 20 ... cS, because of
21 dS.
20 ltc2? ltb7
21 lLlcii
Now this i s not s o strong, since
Black can defend the c6 square com­
fortably.
21 lLlb8
22 lLle3 b5
23 axb5
Here White had the interesting
move 23 ncS!? By exploiting the
fact that it is hard for the knight to
move away from the defence of the
pawn on c6, White attacks bS and
cuts the black queen off from the b4
square.
23 ••• ':'xb5
Although Black 's queenside
pawns have been weakened, her
pieces are gradually coming into
play and the position is becoming
much sharper.
24 iVc3 iVa7
Stronger was 2S lLlc4.
What does White intend to do?
Most probably she wishes to transfer
her knight to d6. The rook will have
to retreat somewhere from bS, al­
though it will remain on the open
file, and then the second black rook
will be passive. Therefore a continu­
ation which suggests itself is 2S ...
l:id8! 26 lLlc4 l:tddS. Now 27 lLld6 is
not so dangerous - the king's rook
has broken through into the centre, it
attacks the pawn on d4 and supports
the undermining thrust ... cS. Regret­
tably Alexandria missed this oppor­
tunity (N2).
30 A Chessplayer 's Strengths and Weaknesses
25 a4? !
26 ltJc4 ltJa6
27 ltJd6
It is not easy to assess the conse­
quences of 27 ltJa5 ! ? c5 . Akhmy­
lovskaya is not usually tempted by
flank diversions - she prefers to play
in the centre.
27 ... ':b6
Probably correct. In the event of
the sharper 27 ... llb3 the following
variation could have occurred: 2S
\Wxc6 ltJM 29 \WcS \Wb s 30 ltJf7+!
�gS 31 \Wxe6, threatening the cele­
brated 'smothered' mate (3 1 ... ltJxc2
32 ltJh6+ 'it>hS 33 \WgS+ ! .l:i.xgS 34
ltJf7 mate).
28 'i'a5 h6
Black could have brought her last
piece to the queenside: 2S ... .l:i.aS,
but she preferred to play more cun­
ningly. As we have just seen, Black
needs an escape-hole, but at the same
time she provokes her opponent to
take the pawn on a4, after which
lines are opened up for an attack on
the queenside.
29 'i'xa4?!
Akhmylovskaya has become
greedy. After 29 �d3, followed by
1:la3, Black's position would have re­
mained unpleasant.
29 ••• ':a8
How suddenly the situation has
changed ! For her pawn Black has a
dangerous attack along the open a­
and b-files (imagine a Benko Gambit
with the white king on the queen­
side!). The threat is 30 ... \Wb S, and
then Black's knight will come to M ...
We can see that as soon as a tense
calculating game took the place of
quiet manoeuvring, Alexandria out­
played Akhmylovskaya. This is not
surprising , considering Nl and L2.
30 ltc3 'i'b8
31 ltJc4 ':b5
Worth considering was 3 1 ... llb4.
32 ':a3 ltJc7
33 'i'c2 ltJd5
White has successfully brought
her rook to her defence, and the posi­
tion is now rather unclear. She
should now have simply defended
the pawn with 34 g3. The prelimi­
nary exchange of rooks undertaken
by Akhmylovskaya is a mistake.
34 ':xa8? 'i'xa8
35 g3 (13)
Around this point the 35 minutes
wasted by Nana in the opening be­
gan to tell. In time-trouble (N3) Al­
exandria missed a comparatively
straightforward route to victory. But
can you see what she should have
played?
 A Chessplayer 's Strengths and Weaknesses 31
1be winning continuation was 35
c5 ! 36 dxc5 lbb4 37 'tWb3 'iWe4+.
B eautiful geometry: the attack down
tbe file is reinforced by the unex­
pected appearance of the queen on
tbe apparently overcrowded diago­
nal b I -a8.
35 ... 'iWa6
36 :d3
Now the game could bave ended
in a draw after 36 . . . lbb4 37 l:ta3
lLlxc2 38 lha6 lb xd4, with a
rougbly equal ending. But in a time­
scramble Alexandria plays for a
win .
36 l:lb4
37 lba3 'tib6
38 lbc4 'tWb5
39 lba3??
A terrible oversigbt. After 29 b3
the position would bave remained
unclear.
39 ... ':'xb2+ !
40 'iWxb2 'i'xd3+
Black bas won back the pawn and
now bas a big positional advan­
tage. Alexandria's superiority in a
sbarp game was wbat counted in the
end.
Here Akbmylovskaya sealed ber
move. I sball not sbow you the end of
this game now - you will find it in
the supplement to Cbapter 6 of this
book.
Now let us examine the ninth
game, wbicb proved to be the last
game of the matcb. Alexandria was
two points ahead of ber rival and bad
White. Akhmylovskaya
needed to
win two games in a row.
Alexandria-Akhmylovskaya
9th match game, Kislovodsk 1980
1 d4 lbffi
2 .tg5 d5
Even in a situation wbere a draw
is tantamount to defeat, Akbmy­
lovskaya cbooses the most quiet sys­
tem of development. On the one
band this is correct - you need to
play your 'own ' positions , to adopt
systems corresponding to your own
tastes and style of play. On the other
band, it can only be regretted that ber
style is not sufficiently universal and
does not (by virtue of L2) permit
sbarper plans of development to be
adopted, even at sucb an important
time.
3 .txf6 exf6
4 e3 .te6
5 lbd2 c6
6 .id3 f5
7 _f3
This is often a useful move in
sucb positions , but in this case I
think White sbould not bave burried
to play it. More sound was 7 lbe2,
followed by c4 and lb c3 (or lbf4).
Only then, if need be, sbould White
play 'iWf3 .
7 ... g6
8 lbe2 lbd7
Now on 9 c4 the reply 9 . . . �b4
would be unpleasant, so Alexandria
first castles.
9 0-0 .td6
Stronger was 9 . . . lb f6 and 10 . . .
lbe4. This line would bave sbown up
the negative aspect of the early 'i'f3 .
32 A Chessplayer 's Strengths and Weaknesses
10 c4 ttJft)
11 ttJf4 0-0
12 cxdS cxdS? !
I would have preferred to capture
on dS with a piece, probably with the
bishop. Akbmylovskaya wishes to
invade on e4 with her knight, but in
itself this square is not really so im­
portant. A much more significant
factor is that the light-squared
bishop remains shut in by its own
pawns .
Now let us recall what White's
last five moves were: ttJe2, 0-0, c4,
ttJf4, cxdS . They are all , with the ex­
ception of the last, obvious, almost
indisputable, and could have even
been played in a blitz game. How
much time should have been allotted
to them? Probably about ten min­
utes, more or less . But how long do
you think Alexandria spent over
them? 30 minutes? No, rather more ­
more than an hour! This, of course, is
totally impracticable, and it greatly
reduces her chances of success in
this game. Certainly problems lie
ahead, and rather more complicated
problems than those which were
solved during the last five moves, but
now White will probably not have
enough time for them. Here not only
Nana's 'time-trouble disease' (N3)
showed itself, but also her height­
ened emotional state (N4). The fact
that this is the decisive game influ­
ences her - it makes her agitated,
compels her to re-examine her deci­
sions , and consequently reduces the
quality of her play.
13 ttJb3?! (14)
The knight has nothing to do on
b3. Unfortunately Alexandria some­
times deploys her pieces rather
poorly (N2). Better was 1 3 'iVe2, va­
cating the f3 square for the knight or
a pawn in case it becomes necessary
to chase the black knight away from
the e4 square.
However, White 's position is still
very solid. Black stands quite well,
but, don 't forget, she needs to win.
Akbmylovskaya begins active op­
erations. But sharp play is not one of
her strengths, and for this reason
each of her next few moves turns out
not to be the best.
13 .•• gS? !
14 ttJhS ttJe4?!
Better was 14 . . . g4 15 ttJxf6+
'iVxf6 and then . .. f5-f4.
15 'i'e2 g4? !
Why concede the f4 square?
16 ttJf4 'iVgS (15)
Let us now consider how White
should continue.
I have an unexpected suggestion:
 A Chessplayer 's Strengths and Weaknesses 33
15
W means the most reliable plan. In
let us examine 1 7 �xe4. We shall as­
sume 17 ... fxe4 1 8 g3. White has a
splendid knight on f4; an exchange
on f4 will leave Black with a hope­
lessly bad bishop. (You should un­
derstand that if there were a black
pawn on g7 I would not be suggest­
ing this variation.)
White has some useful moves -
for example: ltJcs , %lcI , 1Wbs . But
what about Black? Perhaps ... h7-hS­
h4, to prepare to attack down the h­
file. But, in the first place, this is not
so dangerous - after ... h4xg3 White
can always reply f2xg3, retaining a
defence along the second rank. Be­
sides, it is clear that White will man­
age to develop active operations far
sooner than Black.
I think that after an exchange on
e4 B lack would have had to give up
any thoughts of playing for a win
even before she had really got
started, and that her position would
have offered no prospects at all. Inci­
dentally, there was no need to hurry
Wi th this exchange - the preliminary
1 7 g 3 is certainly no worse.
17 f3?!
Also playable, though by no
principle, when your opponent has
two bishops it is more sound not to
open up the game but, on the con­
trary, to keep it closed.
17 gxf3
18 lbt3 �h8
19 llaO llg8
Black has some pressure on the
kingside. If your opponent is prepar­
ing an attack, it is necessary to seek a
way to change the pattern of play, to
make the transition to the sort of
static situation which favours you.
Here too let us examine 20 �xe4. I
realise that it is a shame to undouble
the black pawns, but on the other
hand it is good for White to simplify
the position. Let us assume 20 . . .
fxe4 (20 . . . dxe4 is n o better) 2 1 %lg3
fle7 (or 2 1 ... fih4) 22 J:lxg8+ J:lxg8
23 'iiih 1 . Although the position is not
as quiet as that arising after 17 �xe4,
here too Black's attack has few pros­
pects of success. White has a mag­
nificent knight on f4, which is
holding her entire position together.
She only needs to transfer the knight
from b3 to some decent square - to
c3, for example (perhaps t2Jc5-a4-
c3).
Unfortunately, as became clear
after the game, exchanging on e4
didn't even enter Alexandria's head.
Routine thinking prevented it: Black
has doubled pawns, so why undou­
ble them? In general , Nana's in­
adequate positional arsenal (N2)
34 A Chessplayer 's Strengths and Weaknesses
was shown up in this phase of the
game.
20 �hl? 'i'e7!
An excellent prophylactic move.
Now in the event of .i.xe4 White will
not also be able to exchange rooks
with the move l:lg3. But, all the
same, White's position remains
solid, and as yet nothing terrible has
occurred. It is evident that the time
has come for White to move her
poorly-placed knight away from b3.
21 lLlc1 llg4 (1 6)
16
W she played Nana overlooked another
22 .i.c2?
It is tempting to put the knight on
d3, but Black has a strong reply,
which was underestimated by Alex­
andria. Her poor sense of danger
(NS) showed here. More sound was
22 'i'd! and 23 lLlce2. From e2 the
knight would support its colleague
on f4 and take control of the square
g3, and in some lines could go to
c3.
22 ••• llagS
23 lLlcd3 .i.d7!
An excellent move - the bishop
suddenly threatens to come into play
via b5. If 24 a4 then 24 ... b5 ! .
Alexandria decided not to capture
on d5 because of a rather strange
variation, which did credit to her
imagination (Nl) (I suspect, inci.
dentally, that it never even entered
Akhmylovskaya's head): 24 lLlxdS
'ii'h 4 (threatening ... lLlg3+) 25 l:lh3
.i.c6 ! ! 26 l:lxh4 :txh4. Black only
has a rook for her queen, but all her
pieces are participating in the attack
and it is hard for White to parry a
multitude of threats hanging over her,
Whilst finding this spectacular
idea for her opponent, with the move
simpler idea. However, the position
has now become very much sharper
and it is very hard to advise anything
good for White.
24 lLltl llxf4!
25 llxf4 .txf4 (1 7)
Question: How should White cap­
ture on e4?
During the last few moves the
situation has changed dramatically:
 A Chessplayer 's Strengths and Weaknesses 35
it haS become unpleasant for White,
al though still by no means hopeless.
Here it is very important to keep
one's composure, to find one 's way
caImly through the problems which
have arisen. But, as I have already
noted, Alexandria is excessively
emotional - a change in the nature of
the conflict has a powerful effect on
her frame of mind. She is in no con­
dition to stop, to take hold of herself,
to calculate variations calmly, and
for this reason she usually makes one
mistake after another (N4).
The solution to the problem we
now face requires not just accurate
calculation but also a correct assess­
ment of the position. I think the right
move is 26 tDxe4. On 26 ... .ixe3
White has at least 27 tDxc5 or 27
tDf6, so that the only reply to be
feared is 26 . . . .ixh2. But then 27
'itxh2 fxe4 28 'iih5 , attacking the
pawns on f7 and d5, or 27 . . . .h4+
28 'ii;lg 1 fxe4 29 ZUf7. In both cases
White maintains counterplay.
It is much weaker to capture on e4
with the bishop.
26 .txe4? .tb8?
As soon as it is a question of con­
crete calculation, Akbmylovskaya
makes a mistake (L2, L3). Probably
in reply to 26 tDxe4 she had planned
to retreat the bishop, to try to make
Use of ' the advantage of the two
bishops' , and now she does not wish
to deviate from her intended plan.
B ut capturing on e4 with either pawn
WOuld have guaranteed her a big ad­
Vantage.
a) 26 ... fxe4 27 exf4 e3 ! (Black
cannot allow a blockade of pawns on
the dark squares). The bishop sud ·
denly gets excellent prospects; for
example: . . . .ig4, or . . . .if5-e4, or . . .
a6 an d . . . .ib5 . And the passed pawn
is extremely dangerous.
b) 26 '" dxe4 27 exf4 'iib4! . The
threat is ... .ib5 , whilst the pawn on
d4 is attacked, and it is rather awk­
ward for White to defend it, since the
white knight is badly-placed.
I don't really know which of these
two captures is stronger, but at any
rate they are both better than the
move Akhmylovskaya played.
27 .to 'iih4 ?
Yet another mistake Lena sim­
-
ply overlooks her opponent's reply,
which is the only move. It was nec­
essary to play 27 . . . l:!e8, giving
White a problem with the pawn on
e3.
28 tDh3 ':'e8
29 .d2 'ike7
30 ..txd5?
The white knight now gets stuck
on h3 for some time. Of course ,
stronger was 30 tDf4 .xe3 3 1 'ilxe3
lhe3 32 tDxdS with a rather bette r
endgame for White. Again Alexan­
dria revealed inadequate under­
standing of the position (N2) ,
coupled with a tendency to produce a
series of errors (N4).
Nana rejected 30 tDf4 because of
the reply 30 . . . .ic6, after which it is
not possible to capture on dS . Not a
very serious reason ! It was simplest
to play more solidly: 3 1 g 3 ! .xe3 32
36 A Chesspiayer 's Strengths and Weaknesses
'ii'x e3 l:txe3 and now either 33 i.xdS
or the cold-blooded 33 �g2. It is not
necessary to hurry to regain the
pawn - everything is securely block­
aded, the mobility of the bishops is
limited, and so White stands at any
rate no worse.
30 ••• 'ii'xe3
31 'ii'xe3 Doxe3
Threatening 32 ... l:te2.
32 i.o (18)
18
B frequently misguided feelings - take
Black's position is to be preferred
- she has two bishops, and White's
knight is out of play for the time be­
ing . If only Black's kingside pawns
were not so weak. . .
White clearly wishes to bring her
king towards the centre. In the mean­
time Black should develop some sort
of activity. I suggest 32 ... a5 ! ? , with
the idea of playing . . . i.a7 . It is ad­
vantageous for Black to lure the
pawn to dS and then to centralise her
bishop on d4.
32 ... b6? !
Why this? White doesn 't wish to
capture on b7 - indeed, she only j ust
played i. f3. Now it will not be easy
to attack the pawn on d4. Again her
habit of making moves 'on general
grounds prevented Lena from utilis­
•
ing the advantages of her position
(LJ).
33 �gl �g7
If Alexandria had now played 34
� she would have obtained an ex­
cellent position. She would only
have had to play g2-g3 and then put
her knight on f4. But Nana was al­
ready in time-trouble (N3), and in
such cases emotions and feelings -
the place of logic and calculation.
Alexandria saw that in the event of
34 � l:td3 two pawns are attacked
at once, but she failed to realise that
after 3S l:tdl l:txd l 36 i.xd l Black
cannot capture on h2.
34 Dodl ? ! DoeS
35 g3?
Why is this planned move by
White a mistake? It was necessary
for White to ask herself what Black
wishes to do, why the rook had
moved away: simply in order to
avoid the loss of a tempo after �,
or because of some other idea? Of
course, it is heading for c8. It should
not have been allowed to reach the
open c-file, so White should have
played 3S l:tc l .
35 DocS
36 D.d2 i.d6
37 a3 i.e7
38 lDf4 i.g5
I fail to see the point of this move,
39 �tl �t8
 A Chessplayer IS Strengths and Weaknesses 3 7
40 h4 .b6 (1 9)
Here the game was adjourned.
White has a solid position, but all the
same it is rather passive. Despite her
disconnected kingside pawns, Black
retains the initiative, thanks to her
two bishops and control of the open
c-file.
What is the best move for White?
Her bishop is now shooting into thin
air, so it would be quite good to
transfer it to b3, covering the light
squares on the queenside and prepar­
ing to exchange rooks on c2. After
41 .td l ! the game would have soon
ended in a draw. Regrettably Alexan­
dria sealed a less accurate move (N2,
NS).
41 .tdS? i.a4!
The bishop will not now be able to
reach b3, and Black intends to acti­
vate her pieces by playing l:1c l and
J.c2-e4.
42 b3
During analysis we had decided
that this move was essential. But
now Black gets the excellent square
c3 to invade on with her rook.
42 ... i.e8
We were mainly reckoning on 42
... .td7 43 a4 .txf4 44 gxf4 Ilc3 .
White's defence here is not as easy
as it may seem at flfSt sight. Prob­
ably best is 45 'Ote2 ! .tc8 ! ? (45 . . .
1lh 3 46 1lc2; 45 ... b5 4 6 axb5 .txb5+
47 .tc4) 46 .tc4 %lh3 47 dS lhh4 48
'ite3 .td7 ! 49 .te2 ! , but not 49 d6?
1lh6 ! , and not 49 'Otd4? 'Ote7 ! .
43 a4 i.g7
44 �e2 :'c7!
An excellent prophylactic move.
Akhmylovskaya takes away the im­
portant square c4 from the enemy
bishop. It would be bad to play 45
.tc4 now, in view of 45 ... .txa4
(with a rook on c8, capturing on a4
would not be playable because of the
intermediate move .ta6) . Black in­
tends, having put her king on d6, to
drive the white bishop away from the
centre and then to transfer her own
bishop to e6.
4S l:.d3 l:.c2?
Akbmylovskaya wrongly departs
from her plan. The move 45 ... 'ite7 !
would have preserved Black's ad­
vantage, whereas the rook incursion
is easily parried.
46 �e3
Having defended the pawn on d4,
White wishes to offer an exchange of
rooks: 47 1lc3. The minor-piece end­
ing is drawn, and if Black does not
exchange, the incursion of the white
rook on c8 or c7 will be unpleasant.
46 ••• i.h6+
47 <KJ
Again the threat is Ilc3.
38 A Chessplayer 's Strengths and Weaknesses

47 i.g7
•••
Exercises
It was possible to return the king
to e3, but the exchange of rooks now By way of practice I offer three exer­
takes place immediately. cises. They have all been taken from
48 :c3 :xc3 the games of a famous grandmaster.
49 �xc3 After you have found the solutions
On 49 ... i.xd4 White would play (which are given at the end of this
50 iDb5, with a draw. The position is book), think what this grandmaster's
now completely equal, and Black no vulnerability might be described as
longer has any winning chances. if in all three cases he had not chosen
49 i.d7 the strongest continuation.
50 �e2 i.e6
51 i.c4 rJ¥e7 1
52 rJ¥e3 rJ¥d6
53 �f4 ..th6
54 rJ¥f3 ..tg7
55 rJ¥e3 ..th6
56 rJ¥f3
Draw agreed

As you see, this game turned out

to be rather difficult and dreary, with
a lot of errors. But what can we do
about it? We all play games that are
far from exemplary, and rather more Black to move
frequently than we should like. I
think you will have been convinced 2
that the mistakes committed by both
sides did not occur by chance but
were a consequence of the charac- 21
teristic weaknesses of both players, W

some relating to chess itself and

some psychological. I hope that this
section will prompt you to take a
look at yourself, at your own game,
to think about what hinders you and
the weaknesses you urgently need to
get rid of.
White to move
 A Chesspiayer 's Strengths and Weaknesses 39
3 without any systematic study at all,
zz
w sequence, many strong players have
White to move
The Route to the Top
(from an interview Mark Dvoretsky
gave after the World Junior
Championship 1 978)
In chess, as in any other sport, the
key to a competitor's future success
is a carefully regulated training pro­
gramme . There are many practical
playing skills - for example, the
ability to calculate long variations, to
assess a position correctly, to exploit
an advantage accurately, to fmd the
psychologically correct solution.
These skills can and should be devel­
oped by means of special training.
B y fixing a chessplayer's attention
on Particular 'backward' aspects of
bis play and by giving him special
exercises to be repeated time and
again, training can help to eliminate
any deficiency, or at least to reduce it
to a minimum.
Of course, skills may also develop
as a result of tournament practice
alone. But this process is not man­
ageable, it is spontaneous. As a con­
some astonishing weaknesses. In our
training programmes we have suc­
ceeded in developing a very impor­
tant quality - confidence and stability
during play - as a by-product of our
systematic elimination of deficien­
cies.
Chekhov, for example, had prob­
lems with his endgame technique.
During our work together we paid
most attention to the study of typical
methods in endings of various types.
As a result, the standard of his play
shot up before my very eyes.
For a long time Oolmatov lacked
sufficient physical endurance, but
continual sporting activities (run­
ning, football, swimming, etc), com­
bined with hydrotherapy, succeeded
in strengthening his nervous system.
He now has sufficient strength for
five hours' play, and he can go the
full distance in any tournament.
There are always many problems
- as soon as you solve one, others ap­
pear. For example, Oolmatov's im­
proved playing technique led to his
starting to avoid positions requiring
calculation. He began trying to de­
cide the outcome of a game by tech­
nical methods alone. Having detected
this tendency just in time, we took
appropriate measures (23).
This position arose in one of 001-
matov's games after the moves 1 e4
40 A Chessplayer 's Strengths and Weaknesses
c5 2 lL'lf3 lL'lc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lL'lxd4
lL'lf6 5 lLlc3 e5 6 lL'lxc6 bxc6 7 .i.g5
Ilb8 8 .i.c4. Here, true to his 'techni­
cal' credo, he chose 8 ... d61 ! , and al­
though he subsequently managed to
win, during analysis of the game he
came in for criticism for rejecting the
continuation 8 . . . lhb2. Actually it is
not difficult to prove that after 9 .i.b3
.i.b4 1 0 .i.d2 'iWa5 it is bad for White
to play 1 1 'iWf3 because of 1 1 . . . .i.a6,
and after 1 1 lL'la4 lL'lxe4 Black has a
very strong attack in return for the
excbange.
After this, our efforts were di­
rected towards developing Dolma­
tov's taste for sharp, combinational,
dynamic play, which on the whole is
more in keeping with his natural tal­
ents.
During our work together my pu­
pils make great use of their own
games and analyses. Here is an ex­
ample. Once when studying one of
the positions of the Pelikan Vari­
ation, arising after 1 e4 c5 2 lL'lf3
lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lL'lxd4 lL'lf6 5 lL'lc3
e5 6 lLldb5 d6 7 a4 h6 8 .i.c4 a6 9
lL'la3 .i.e6 10 0-0 lk8, Yusupov dis.
covered an - at first sight - unpleas.
ant reply: 1 1 .i.xe6 fxe6 12 'iWdJ
(24) .
Now if 12 . . . .i.e7 then 1 3 'iWg3 is
strong, and Black cannot castle be­
cause of 14 .i.xh6, and if 1 3 ... <3;f7
White plays 14 f4! with great effect.
After some searching Yusupov sug­
gested 12 . . . 'iWd7 followed by ...
'iW17, ... .i.e7 and ... 0-0. But such a
slow plan gives White quite good
chances of developing an initiative
after t2-f4.
By analysing together we were
able to find after 12 ... .i.e7 1 3 1Wg3
the move 13 ... g5 ! , which radically
prevents the undermining thrust f2-
f4. Black even gets the more com­
fortable game.
While we were analysing this po­
sition we also studied plans for both
sides in the middlegame, given such
pawn structures. The typical thruS t
t2-f4 can prove to be highly effective
- for example, in the variation 1 e4
c5 2 lL'lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lL'lxd4 lL'lf6 5
 A Chessplayer 's Strengths and Weaknesses 41
1Dc3 a6 6 �e3 e5 7 ltJf3 h6 8 i.c4
�e6 9 �xe6 fxe6 1 0 liJh4 (25) .
On 10 ... <3;f] White replies 1 1 f4 ! ,
and i f 1 1 . . . exf4 then 12 e5 ! with a
strong attack, and otherwise 1 2 f5 is
unpleasant.
The plan that we found with ... g7-
g5 had been encountered previously
in similar positions - for example, in
the game Drimer-Bronstein, Buda­
pest 1961 (26):
With the move 1 6 liJh4 White be­
gan action on the kings ide, but after
1 6 . . . � 1 7 %lg3 ltJd4 1 8 'iFd l g5 !
he had to go back with the knight: 19
ltJf3 ltJxf3+ 20 'tWxf3 b5 21 a3 'tWc6
etc.
In this way opening analyses are
closely linked with the study of
standard positions, even when these
are not immediately connected with
the variation adopted. And also in
other cases, whenever we detect in
any particular situation something
of more general interest, we try to
fix our attention on this general
point. ..
Of course, a trainer also has to
consider how he can reveal the
strongest features of his pupils'
chess talents. The quality of his work
is characterised, in particular, by the
variety of styles of play his pupils
exhibit. A good example of this is
Viktor Kart, who has trained players
as different as Belyavsky, Roman­
ishin, Mikhalchishin and Litinskaya.
Each of my pupils also has his or her
own distinctive style, quite inde­
pendent of my own tastes. For exam­
ple, Yusupov is particularly strong in
a complex strategic struggle, which
for me has always been a stumbling­
block.
In general, the role of the trainer
in top-class sport nowadays has in­
creased considerably. This is also
true of chess . The top-class chess
competitor must be excellently pre­
pared with regard to the psychologi­
cal, physical and pure chess aspects
of his sport, and achieving this with­
out the aid of an experienced mentor
is far from easy. . .
42 A Chesspiayer 's Strengths and Weaknesses
The right psychological orienta­
tion is important. The Soviet peda­
gogue, Anton Makarenko, has
advised teachers to help their pupils
to establish for themselves a definite
system of aims: immediate, long­
term (the big ones) and middle-term
(intermediate).
The main aim of our training re­
gime is to produce a truly great
player. The immediate aims are the
solution of concrete tasks for im­
proving one's chess, as well as suc­
cessful performances in regular
competition. Carrying out a pro­
gramme of preparation for World
and European Junior Champion­
ships, a programme for which we
reckon to need 1 1/2 to 2 years from
the start of our work together, has
been our intermediate aim, one which
successfully combines and inte­
grates our current and future tasks ...
How to Play as Black
Artur Yusupov
A chess player's success in any com­
petition frequently depends on his
tournament strategy (in the choice of
which it is essential to consider one's
own physical condition, degree of
preparation and current form) and
the tactics he chooses for each par­
ticular game, which may vary, de­
pending on the strength and style of
play of his opponent.
To my surprise, my individual re­
sult for the Soviet team at the Dubai
Chess Olympiad in 1 986 was con.
siderably better than I had expected.
I think there were two reasons for
my success .
I assessed my own physical con­
dition, which was not ideal, soberly,
and I chose an optimal tournament
strategy. Realising that it would not
be easy for me to get involved in a
complicated struggle, and that the
probability of failure would be high
in this case, I attempted to play
rather more simply, making use of
my superiority in class I was play­
-
ing on boards three and four for the
Soviet team. On several occasions I
succeeded in winning a simple posi­
tion - by maintaining minimal ten­
sion I endeavoured to force my
opponent to make a mistake.
Secondly, it was easier for me to
play with Black, since I bad worked
out a better opening repertoire with the
black pieces, and a lack of excessive
opening ambition was in keeping with
the strategy which I have just outlined.
Well, luck also played its part of
course. Otherwise it is difficult to ex­
plain my result - 10 out of 1 2 since
-
I had B lack in nine games, and
against rather strong opponents.
The following game was played
in the Bulgaria-USSR match.
Inkiov-Yusupov
Dubai 01. 1986
1 d4 d5
The position in which our team
found itself obliged me to play for a
 A Chessplayer 's Strengths and Weakne&Ses 43
win in every game, irrespective of
we strength of my opponent or the
colour I had. But how can success be
achieved when playing Black
against an experienced opponent?
The most natural way seems to be to
tty to bring about maximum compli­
cations. In this regard the choice of
opening by Black may be criticised
at first sight, since in the Queen's
Gambit it is easy for White to sim­
plify the position. But, having con­
sidered all points 'for' and 'against'
with the team captain, Efim Geller,
we came to the conclusion that in a
simple situation I would be more
likely to profit from the strong as­
pects of my game and to force my
opponent to make a mistake. It is im­
portant to play calmly, not to agree a
draw, and to look for winning
chances in any position.
2 c4 e6
3 lDtJ c6
4 lDc3 lDf6
5 cxd5 exd5
In this version the Exchange Vari­
ation is harmless for Black, since he
is able to bring his light-squared
bishop out to f5.
6 1i'c2 i.e7
7 i.g5 g6
8 i.xf6 i.xf6
9 e3 i.f5
10 i.d3 i.xd3
11 1i'xd3 lDd7
Worth serious consideration was a
plan which World Champion Gary
kasparov likes to adopt in similar
POsition s: ... 0-0, ... 1i'd6, ... lDd7 and
. . . :adS, in order to prepare to meet
White's standard thrust b2-b4-b5
with the counter ... c6-c5 .
12 0-0
It is possible that the immediate
1 2 b4 is more accurate.
12 i.e7!?
13 Itabl as
14 a3 0-0
15 1i'c2
White is trying to play as safely as
possible. On 15 b4 he was worried
about the reply 15 ... axb4 1 6 axb4 l:la3.
15 ••• i.d6
One of the possible reactions to
the minority attack is the counter­
thrust . . . b7-b5 . But after either 15 . . .
':e8 1 6 b 4 axb4 1 7 axb4 b5 , or the
continuation in the game, White is
promised the better game after 17 . . .
b 5 1 8 e4. Possible was 1 5 ... f5 , but I
did not wish to weaken my castled
position.
16 b4 axb4
Mter 1 6 . . . lDb6 Black would
have had to worry about the reply 1 7
bxaS .
17 axb4 lDb6
18 b5?!
White should have shown more
restraint and played 1 8 lDd2. Mter
1 8 ... 1i'c7 19 g3 :a3 20 ln>3 a roughly
equal position would have arisen.
But now Black gets the better game.
18 ... lDc4
19 Ital
The line 19 bxc6 lDa3 20 1i'd3
lDxb l 2 1 cxb7 was dangerous for
White, because of 2 1 . . . :a3 22
':xb l 1WaS 23 ':c l ':bS.
44 A Chessplayer 's Strengths and Weaknesses

19 ••• 'ii'c 7!? a noticeable advantage. Inkiov at­

The point of this move is to pre­ tempts to complicate the game with
vent the manoeuvre iLld2 and to pre­ an interesting pawn sacrifice.
pare to capture on c6 with the queen. 24 ... dxe4
20 bxc6 25 iLlg5 ':c7
Inkiov falls in with his opponent's Weaker was 25 ... ltJc47 because
plans. The other possibilities here of 26 1i1h3 ! h5 27 dS ! and 28 ltJe4.
were 20 g3 or 20 'ii'd3. 26 h4?
20 ... 'ii'xc6!? (27) More chances of a successful de­
Now the threat is to move the b­ fence would have remained after 26
pawn. iLlxf7 ! ':xf7 27 :C l , although also in
this case after 27 . . . .t.xh2+ 28 �h2
1i'd6+ Black has a clear advantage.
26 ... iLlc4
Having repelled the threat of 27
iLlxf7, Black has now fully coordi­
nated his forces. Inkiov's desperate
attempt to 'muddy the waters ' is eas­
ily refuted.
27 'ii'h3 h6
28 h5 'ii'd5
The most reliable continuation. If
28 . . . hxg5 then 29 lh8+ .t.f8 30 h6
21 e4? f5 3 1 h7+ ':xh7 32 ':xf8+ <ltxfS 33
Correct was 2 1 'ii'b3 1:Uc8 22 1i'xh7, when White could get
l'ba8 (defending against 22 ... ltxal counter-chances.
23 lhal iLlxe3) 22 ... %has 23 iLlb5 ! , 29 ':a8+
when i t is very hard for Black to de­ More stubborn was 29 f4.
velop his initiative. The move 20 . . . 29 rj;g7
1i'xc6 came as a surprise to th e Bul­ 30 hxg6 'ii'xg5
garian player, and he was unable to 31 gxf7 �!
react calmly to the changed situ­ On 31 ... lhf7 White had the reply
ation. 32 1i'c8.
21 ':xal 32 d5 'ii'xd5
22 ':xal iLlb6! 33 ltJd4 iLlb6
23 'ii'b3 ':c8 The simplest. Further loss of
24 iLle2!? material is unavoidable.
If 24 iLlxdS iLlxdS 25 exd5, then 34 'ii'xh6 iLlxa8
25 . . . 1i'c l + ! 26 1i'd l 1i'c4 27 %lb l 35 'ii'h7+ rj;e8
'ii'xdS 28 'ii'd3 b5 ! and Black obtains White resigned
2 Analysi ng Your Own Games
Artur Yusupov
Why do I wish to highlight this topic
in particular? Well, it is quite possi­
ble that my own development as a
chessplayer has been successful pre­
cisely because I have devoted a great
deal of time to the analysis of my
games. I consider that analysis of
one's own games is the main method
by which a chessplayer can improve,
and I am convinced that it is impossi­
ble for a player to improve without
having a critical understanding of his
own games . Of course, this does not
mean that one need not concern one­
self with other aspects of chess train­
ing. It is necessary to study the
opening, the endgame and the mid­
dlegame; it is extremely useful to
study the games of strong players,
etc. But by taking our own games as
examples we can generally learn
rather more.
Our own games are nearer to us
than any others. We played them,
and we solved the problems which
Were put in our way. In analysis it is
possible to examine and to define
more precisely the assessments by
Which we were guided during the
COurse of the game, and we can es­
tablish where we went wrong, where
We played inaccurately. Sometimes
our opponent punishes us for the
mistakes we make, but often they re­
main unnoticed and may only be
brought to light by analysis.
So, what do I consider are the im­
portant points to pay attention to
when you analyse your own games?
Above all, you need to fmd the turn­
ing-points to establish where mis­
-
takes were made, where the
assessment of the position changed,
or where an opportunity to change
the situation on the board abruptly
was not exploited. The ability to find
the critical moments of a game dur­
ing analysis is itself exceptionally
important, since this will also help
you to track down such moments
during actual play. This is perhaps
the most difficult aspect of chess -
recognising the critical turning-point
in a game, the point when it is neces­
sary to think really hard and to solve
a problem; when the outcome of the
whole game depends on a single
move.
I have to say that even many top­
class players have not possessed this
ability in full measure. I once dis­
cussed Fischer's games, which we
all without exception value very
highly, with former World Champion
46 Analysing Your Own Games
Boris Spassky. Spassky said that he
could see in Fischer only one slight
weakness - he did not always sense
the critical turning-point in a game.
Of course, this was only a relative
weakness, judged in comparison
with the extremely high general
standard of his play, but in Spassky's
opinion it did sometimes serve as a
hindrance. One can only get rid of
such a weakness by studying one's
own games critically.
The second point to which you
should pay attention when analysing
your games is the search for the rea­
sons for your mistakes. By revealing
your mistakes you will gradually
come to realise what they might be
associated with, and you will see the
deficiencies in your game. Of
course, it is easier if you have a
trainer who can help you. But you
will feel the benefit only when you
yourself begin to sense the reasons
for your mistakes acutely and no
longer wish to put up with them. An
objective awareness of one 's own
weaknesses is a necessary first step
in the serious business of correcting
them.
The third aspect that I wish to
mention is that it is very important to
look for new possibilities, moves
which in the course of the game you
paid no attention to because you
were fascinated by other ideas. After
analysis you begin to get a better
feeling for the type of position being
studied, you master the strategic and
tactical methods which are typical of
such positions. And the conclusions
that you arrive at independently im­
print themselves on your memory
much more permanently than those
obtained from other sources.
A final point. When analysing a
game you have played, you need to
give considerable thought to the
opening phase, to try to improve on
your play, especially if you were not
entirely satisfied with the outcome
of the opening . By adopting a critical
approach to the problems that you
faced in the opening it is possible to
improve your knowledge, to outline
new plans and to think up important
novelties.
I should like to illustrate these
points with a game which I played as
Black against Karpov in the 1 983
USSR Championship. Why have I
chosen this game in particular? Well,
my opponent's play made a strong
impression on me. I have not often
felt that I have been outplayed, but in
this case that is what I did feel. How­
ever, the most annoying thing was
that I had very little appreciation of
how this happened or why. I had to
do a lot of work on this game.
Having had very little success in
this Championship, I decided to ana­
lyse seriously the reasons for my
failure. The work I did was not in
vain, since it helped me, I am sure,
towards future victories in the Inter­
zonal tournament and in CandidateS
matches for the World Champion­
ship. In general I have noticed that if
after a failure I have managed to

work really hard on my games, this
baS in nearly all cases been of great
benefit, since I have subsequently
sensed an improvement in my crea­
tive powers. One such instance oc­
curred in 1 979, when following my
lack of success in the World Junior
Championship I spent roughly a
month analysing my games; I even
devoted a whole notebook to these
games. And in my very next tourna­
ment - the First League of the USSR
Championship - I played quite well ,
and this marked my emergence from
a crisis. Then in the same year I
achieved my best-ever result in a So­
viet Championship, finishing second
in the Premier League.
Karpov-Yusupov
USSR Ch., Moscow 1 983
1 e4 eS
2 �f3 �e6
3 i.bS a6
4 i.a4 �a;
S 0-0 �xe4
The Open Variation of the Span­
ish Game is one of the main open­
ing s in my repertoire.
6 d4 bS
7 i.b3 dS
8 dxe5 i.e6
Every player forms an opening
fepertoire according to his or her
own taste. I like situations with ele­
ments of a blockade. [ willingly play
against a strong pawn at e5 ; I block­
� it an d try somehow to ' by-pass'
It In s ome lines Black succeeds in
Analysing Your Own Games 47
solving the problem of the centre
radically, by playing . . . t7-f6.
9 e3 i.eS
Black frequently plays 9 . . . i.e7
here.
10 �bd2
White naturally harasses the
knight on e4, which occupies a
strong central position.
10 ... 0-0
For the time being an exchange on
e4 would not be dangerous for
Black, so he ignores the threat.
1 1 i.e2 i.fS
In this game I decided to defend
the knight on e4. But there is also an­
other very interesting continuation:
1 1 . . . �xf2, the Dilworth Variation,
which I play quite regularly.
12 �b3
White completes his development
and frees a path for his dark-squared
bishop.
12 ••• i.g6
The bishop must move to a de­
fended square, because White threat­
ened 1 3 �xc5 . If 1 3 i.xe4 then
Black will take back with the pawn,
attacking the knight on n. Here
Black's game would be quite in or­
der.
13 �fd4 i.xd4
14 exd4
It so happened that I started play­
ing the Open Variation as B lack in
connection with one of Karpov's
games . When studying an anthology
of his games I came across a game
Karpov-Savon, Moscow 1 97 1 ,
which White won superbly, and I
48 Analysing Your Own Games
found an improvement for Black.
Whenever you find an idea of your
own in any variation, it is tempting to
do some serious work on that vari­
ation , to study it in greater depth, and
this is what I did. Having prepared
the Open Variation of the Spanish, I
began adopting it with success. It has
happened quite frequently that I
have mastered a new opening sys­
tem in this way: you study a game
played by strong players; you find an
improvement for one side, after
which you begin to do some serious
analysis ; you familiarise yourself
with other g ames on the same
theme etc. I have never played any
opening variation without having
some idea of my own. Making use
only of other people's ideas doesn ' t
interest me.
14 ••• a5
This is also what Savon played in
the game mentioned above. The
black knight on e4 is insecure, since
White can drive it away with f2-f3.
The move 1 4 . . . as temporarily
solves this problem: in reply to 1 5 f3
Black would play 15 . . . a4, forcing
the exchange of knights .
In general, the pawn structure
which has now arisen presupposes
for White an attack by his kingside
pawn majority, whereas for Black it
is more natural to play on the queen­
side with . . . c7-c5 . Of course , events
may unfold quite differently. For
White it is tempting to exert pressure
along the half-open c-file, while Black
has the undermining move . . . f7 -f6,
which would allow him to reckon on
counterplay on the kingside.
15 .te3 a4
Savon chose 15 . . . lLlb4 1 6 .tb l
a4 1 7 lLld2 a3, but after 1 8 "c l ! ! his
opening strategy was refuted. Of
course, 1 5 . . . a4, which to my mind is
more natural, was also considered in
Karpov 's notes.
16 tDd2
In contemporary practice the
move 1 6 lLlc 1 is also played, leading
to a very complicated game.
16 ... a3
Black works consistently on be­
half of his knight on e4, attempting
to secure a bridgehead for it on the
square c3 . It is not possible to play
1 7 bxa3 because of 1 7 . . . lLlc3.
Therefore White is now practically
forced to exchange knights.
17 lLlxe4 axb2
An important intermediate move.
18 %lb1 (28)
28
B
18 ... .txe4!
In his notes to the game against
Savon, Karpov considered only 1 8 . . .
dxe4 1 9 lhb2 lLle7, which after 20

l:txbS l:lxa2 2 1 'iWb 1 "as 22 lk l
leads to a difficult position for Black.
When I analysed that game, it
seemed to me illogical to capture on
e4 with the pawn, leaving oneself
with a passive bishop on g6. I began
to study capturing on e4 with the
bishop, which has since become the
main line of this opening variation.
White now has little choice. On 19
�xe4 I had examined a curious,
though hardly forced, variation in­
volving sacrificing the exchange:
1 9 ... dxe4 20 'ilg4 lbxd4 21 l:Ud l cS
22 �h6 g6 23 �xf8 � f8. For the
exchange Black has several pawns
and a strong pawn structure. It is not
good to capture on b2 because of 24
. . . lb f3+, and if 24 'ilxe4 then 24 . . .
l:lxa2, when the pawn o n b 2 i s very
annoying for White. Evidently all he
can do is to go for perpetual check:
2S e6 fxe6 26 "eS .
19 llxb2 'i'd7
Black defends the pawn on bS in­
directly (20 ':'xbS lbxeS).
20 �d3
This move is Hubner's invention.
White gets nowhere with 20 �xe4
dxe4 2 1 %hbs lb xd4 22 1IcS 1fi'dS 23
i.. xd4 "xd4 24 "xd4 l:lxd4 2S 11xc7
h5 with equality, as in A.Ivanov­
Yusupov, First League, USSR Ch. ,
Fronze 1 979. I t w as i n this game that
I first tried out in practice my analy­
sis of the Open Variation.
20 ... i..xd3
It is a mistake to play 20 . . . b4,
because of 2 1 �bS , when on 21 . . .
nfbS White has 22 l:Ixb4.
Analysing Your Own Games 49
21 "ii'xd3 lUb8 (29)
In the event of 2 1 . . . b4 22 l:k l
White would have gained a tempo in
comparison with what happened in
the game. A line worth studying is 2 1
. . . lbaS 22 'ii'xbS c 6 2 3 'ii'e2 lbc4.
Having sacrificed a pawn, Black
transfers his knight to c4 and obtains
definite counterplay. For example:
24 l:r.b3 h6 2S l'!fb l " fS .
Now I suggest that you think for a
while about the position which has
arisen in this game, about the ideas
which both sides can implement
here.
The most natural plan for White is
the aggressive 22 f4 ! followed by f4-
fS -f6. Let us see how play could then
develop. B lack can transfer his
knight to c4 with 22 . . . llJas. But
White has a very interesting regroup­
ing manoeuvre, beginning with the
move 23 �c l ! , removing the bishop
from possible attack and taking con­
trol of the square a3, which is also
important. On 23 . . . lb c4 there fol­
lows 24 %:.e 2, reinforcing the threat
50 Analysing Your Own Games
of breaking through with f4-f5 and
e5-e6. White has excellent attacking
prospects .
Let's go back a little. Black can­
not succeed in stopping the white
pawns with the move 22 . . . f5 , in
view of 23 exf6 gxf6 24 f5 . The posi­
tion of the black king would be
weakened, and White could play
�h6 and attack. For example: 24 . . .
b 4 2 5 �h6 l:!a3 26 'ii'd l , or even 26
l:!b3 lha2 27 'ii'b I . This position
seems very dangerous.
Probably Black should seek coun­
terplay with 22 ... b4, with the idea of
getting the a3 square for his rook.
Let us assume 23 f5 l:!a3 24 'ii'e2 .
White's position is still menacing ,
but perhaps B lack should try the
move 24 . . . b3 , to activate his pieces
on the third rank. I think the main
thing here is for Black not to confine
himself to passive defence but to
keep tugging away at his opponent,
trying to counter-attack. As yet,
White has created no fatal threats
and B lack has opportunities for
counterplay. For example, after 25
axb3 ltaxb3 26 l:!xb3 l:lxb3 27 f6 he
has the knight manoeuvre . . . tal8-
e6.
Let us return to the game. It is in­
teresting that Karpov approaches the
solution to this problem quite differ­
ently. He is primarily a prophylactic
chessplayer. Most probably he im­
mediately asked himself: 'What
does my opponent wish to do, what
is his plan?' And indeed, what do
you think Black wishes to play now?
Of course - . . . ttJaS -c4! But now
watch how with each move Karpov
prevents this knight manoeuvre.
22 ':tbl
Not 22 . . . ttJaS, because of 23
l:txb5 .
22 ••• b4
23 h3
This is also a prophylactic move.
In the game Hiibner-Korchnoi, Lu­
cerne 1 982, White played 23 �d2 ,
when Black replied with the active
23 . . . 'ii'g 4. Karpov not only gives his
king an escape-hole - an extremely
useful measure - he also takes con­
trol of the g4 square.
Instead of 23 h3 White is not
promised much by playing 23 a3 ,
counting on 23 ... ':xa3? 24 'ii'xa3
bxa3 25 l:!xb8+ ttJd8 26 l:la8 , when
White wins. After 23 ... bxa3 24
ltxb8+ l:!xb8 25 l1xb8+ ttJ xb8 26
'ii'xa3 'ii'c 6 (but not 26 . . . ttJc6 27
'i'a8+ ttJd8 28 �g5) 27 'ii'e7 'ii'd7
Black has an acceptable position.
However, entirely possible was the
immediate 23 lk 1 .
In presenting the following frag­
ment of the game roughly as I saw it
over the board, I am deliberately go­
ing to omit one or two interesting
moments which I discovered later,
during analysis. We shall be return­
ing to these later.
23 ••• h6
Black has decided that he also
needs an escape-hole. Of course I
had some vague doubts about this
move during the game, but they were
not particularly strong.

24 lld (30)
What happens after 24 . . . tDaS - and then . . . tDaS , in order to reach c4.
can you see? Well, 25 �d2 tD c4 suits
Black entirely. On the other hand,
White has the move 25 ." I ! . On 25
. . . tDc4 there follows 26 11xb4 llxb4
27 'ii'xb4, when Black cannot play
27 . . . ':xa2 in view of 28 "' 8+ <t>h7
29 "' 1 +, winning a rook. To be
honest, I did not notice this variation
immediately. Can you see what Kar­
pov has done? He has activated his
rook, and at the same time he still
does not permit Black to play . . .
tDaS.
24 ... :b6
Removing the rook to a defended
square and defending the knight on
c6, again intending to play . . . tDaS .
And again Karpov prevents the
transfer of the knight, by attacking
the pawn on b4.
25 'i'bl
It is astonishing how the entire
strategic battle revolves around a
single idea! If Black can succeed in
transferring his knight to c4 he will
Analysing Your Own Games 51
get an excellent position. I was gen­
erally aware of this, but evidently not
profoundly enough.
25 ... :ab8
Again I am pursuing the same aim
- the transfer of the knight to c4, and
again Karpov finds a way to prevent
this. With which move?
26 :c5 l2Jd8
I didn 't like that rook on c5 , and
so I decided to drive it away. Karpov
plays yet another prophylactic move.
27 llcc2
Black was hoping to play . . . tD b7
But my opponent removes his rook
in advance from a square where it
could have come under attack.
27 ... tDc6
The knight has nothing to do on
d8 , and so I moved it back. As be­
fore, I wish to play . . . tDaS, but, j ust
as before, Karpov is able to prevent
me from doing so.
lS li'c1
The barely perceptible shift of the
rook from c l to c2 allows White to
set up a 'battery' in optimal fashion:
with the rook in front of the queen.
28 ... :8b7
29 :c5
Again there is no opportunity to
play . . . tDaS. I had already become
totally confused. When you are not
permitted to carry out your main idea
it is very difficult to carry on the
fight.
29 ... tDe7
Here Karpov played very craftily.
I had expected some active operation,
52 Analysing Your Own Games
and I feared the move g4; I didn't
like my position. But White played a
modest waiting-move, useful for a
pawn offensive later on.
30 �h2
It is clear that sooner or later
White will begin a pawn storm on
the kingside. This threat was hang­
ing over me psychologically, and I
wanted to get some sort of counter­
play as quickly as possible. And so I
make a mistake, which can also be
explained by the fact that I some­
times fail to notice my opponent's
possibilities.
30 ••• tbfS?
Simply a blunder. It was neces­
sary to stick to defensive tactics with
30 . . . c6, retaining a slightly inferior
but solid position. By waiting for
some active move from White, say
g2-g4, it would have been possible
to try to create counterplay with .. ,
b4-b3.
31 l:lbc2
Now I lose a pawn and realise
that, against Karpov, who was then
World Champion, I no longer have
any real chance of saving the game.
Nevertheless I decided to go down
fighting.
31 ... l:lg6
You know how often this hap­
pens: you lose material, but in return
you get some measure of counter­
play which previously had not ex­
isted. Your pieces, previously tied
down to defending weaknesses , be­
come active, and you get the initia­
tive. Unfortunately, in this case it
does not compensate for the loss of
the pawn. No better was 3 1 . . . b3 32
axb3 lhb3 33 :Xc7 lhc7 34 :Xc7
'iib5 , as White has managed to cre­
ate threats sooner: 35 ltc8+ 'iti>h7 36
"ilc7 .
32 :Xc7 l:lxc7
33 :Xc7 'i'b5
Black tries to complicate his op­
ponent's task as much as possible.
Of course, having an advantage al­
ready, Karpov does not wish to cal­
culate the variations arising after 34
'ifc5 .
34 g4!
A good move. Exchanging on e3
would be bad for Black, since White
has a healthy extra pawn.
34 ... lbh4
Now 35 'ifc5 would have given
White a forced win. On 35 . . , 'iff!
White can reply simply 36 'ifxd5 .
Here Karpov made perhaps his only
inaccurate move in the whole game,
even though he played quite soundly.
35 l:lc8+ �h7
36 'l'dl
For the time being Karpov is sim­
ply trying to hold onto his extra
pawn. He hopes that the future ad­
vance of his kingside pawns will
bring him victory.
36 ... 'l'a6
37 l:lc2 f5 (31)
Here Black could still have de­
fended obstinately, with 37 .. , 'ifa3
say, but his position would still have
remained hopeless. I realised that I
was losing after 37 . . . f5 but, consid­
ering that my opponent had little

time left, I decided to take the risk, to
take a practical chance by setting
him tactical problems. This method
is sometimes successful. I did not re­
proach myself for this decision, even
though objectively it was not the
strongest, as it hastened my defeat.
Alas, even here Karpov was accu­
rate. Try to put yourself in his place.
What would you have played as
White? I think you would find it eas­
ier to find the correct solution after
reading the sixth chapter of this
book.
31
W 41 ..t>h2 1Wf5 , when quite unexpect­
38 �g3 !
There aren 't many pieces left on
the board. Karpov decides logically
that the king has to take part in offen­
sive operations, and so he uses it to
attack the knight on h4. This is the
only winning continuation , and al­
though I saw it, I decided to take the
risk, recognising that only with com­
plications was I able to obtain any
practical chances.
38 fxg4
39 �xh4
Analysing Your Own Games 53
Now Black has to think of some­
thing.
39 ... gxh3
I had been pinning my hopes on
the move 39 . . . g3. The idea was so
that on 40 fxg3 I could play 40 . . .
'ii'a3 , with the concealed geometric
threat of 41 . . . b3 and 42 . . . 'ii'e7+ .
Alas, 4 1 1Wc l refutes this idea. Hav­
ing decided that the refutation was
too simple, I rejected 39 ... g3. But in
principle it is very important to find
such resources - sometimes a fortui­
tous possibility such as this can
change the course of a game.
The idea behind the move 39 . . .
gxb3 is the variation 40 �h3 1We6+
edly Black creates dangerous threats
with just a few pieces. Karpov plays
more forcefully.
40 f4 1We6
41 'i'h5
Again a good move. White pre­
vents the black pieces from becom­
ing active.
41 ... 1We7+
42 �xh3 1Wn
I try my last chance. The final lit­
tIe problem: what should White play?
43 W !
Th e threat o f 4 3 . . . :g3+ 44 ..t>h4
l:th3+ is repelled. Black no longer
has any hope.
43 ... 1Wd7+
44 f5
Black resigned
An excellent positional game by
White . The prophylactic spirit
54 Analysing Your Own Games
pervading all of Wbite's play is very
characteristic of Karpov's style.
It is clear that I lost this game with
the move 30 . . . tbf5? But the stra­
tegic battle was evidently lost rather
earlier, when Karpov frustrated the
transfer of my knight to c4. In order
to understand the events that oc­
curred in this game we need some
penetrating analysis.
At first Black played logically; all
his actions were dictated by concrete
considerations. But after 23 h3 (32)
my reply 23 ... h6 was clearly not
obligatory.
I looked at this position a little
more closely and discovered that,
firstly, the move 23 ... l:.b6 ! deserves
consideration. It is not clear whether
or not the move . . . h6 is necessary,
but . . . l:.b6 is certainly a useful move,
as it renders harmless White's active
move 24 l:.c 1 . Let me remind you: in
the game there followed 23 ... h6 24
l:.c 1 !, and it turned out that on 24 . . .
tbaS White had the tactical idea 25
1ib 1 . But after 23 ... l:.b6 24 l:.c l it is
in fact possible to play 24 . . . tbaS ,
an d now 25 1ib 1 i s not dangerous.
Black has combated his opponent's
prophylaxis by, as it were, giving
him a taste of his own medicine.
I also found another interesting
possibility: 23 ... l:la4 ! ? Black has to
reckon with 24 a3, of course. He may
sacrifice a pawn: 24 ... tbaS 25 ':xb4
l:.bxb4 26 l:.xb4 l:.xb4 27 axb4 tbc4.
The knight is stronger than the pas­
sive bishop, which could give Black
some compensation, but it seems to
me that White still retains the advan­
tage. For example: 28 �h2 1i'a4 29
1i'f5 . I don 't like this. But it is not
obligatory to sacrifice a pawn. It is
possible to maintain the equilibrium
simply by creating an escape-square
with 24 ... h6! .
But what if White plays 24 1i'c2 !?
(instead of 24 a3)? Then Black has
24 ... l:.a6. How can Black answer 25
l:.c l ? Can you see? That's right 25-
. . . l:.xa2 ! . After 26 l:.xa2 b3 27 1ib2
bxa2 28 1i'xa2 White maintains his
pressure along the c-file, so Black
still has some problems. I thought
about the following plan: 28 ... tbdS
29 1i'a7 lk8, and then ... tbe6 and
even . . . g6. On the whole Black gets
an acceptable position.
But this is not all . I still had
doubts: you see, the move 23 . . . h6
doesn't look so bad. I couldn't be­
lieve that my position had to become
difficult just because of this move.
So let us look a little more closely at
what subsequently occurred.
After 23 ... h6 24 :c 1 ! l:.b6 25

'11> 1 I played 25 ... nab8. This move
is generally in keeping with Black's
plan , since it prepares ... ttJas but,
, sition proved to be insufficiently as­
all the same, it is a shame to move
the rook away from the open file.
What other possibilities does Black
have?
The pawn on b4 could also have
been protected from the other side:
25 ... 1la4! . Now on 26 ltc5 (as in the
game) it is possible to play 26 . . .
�a5, an d this represents an enor­
mous achievement for Black, solv­
ing all his problems. If 26 llbc2,
again preventing the move . . ttJas
. ,
B lack renews the threat by playing
26 ... na7. This means that 26 llbc2
also gives White nothing.
That leaves 26 Wc2 still to be con­
sidered, but here too Black has 26 . . .
l:ta7 2 7 Wc5 :as 2 8 Wc2 na7. White
ei ther has to consent to a draw or al­
low the knight to come to c4.
When I discovered this I immedi­
ately felt better. My assessment
made during the game had after all
been more or less correct (I had con-
Analysing Your Own Games 55
sidered that the position was roughly
equal). But my perception of the po­
tute. Although I had wished to place
my knight on c4, clearly this wish
had simply not been strong enough
to become a burning desire to be ac­
complished at any cost. By under­
standing the essence of a position, by
getting hold of the thread of a game,
it is possible to unravel any situation.
Such an understanding can be very
important in helping a player to find
the only correct solutions over the
board.
Let us sum up. What benefit can
we derive from the game just exam­
ined? Well, for one thing, valuable
opening information. Afterwards,
having made use of my analysis, I
was able to use this variation to draw
with Black whenever this suited me
- in a manner of speaking I defended
this variation.
It is very useful to reflect on Kar­
pov 's actions. His play makes a pow­
erful impression. Above all, his way
of taking decisions, his prophylactic
approach. With every move he
makes, he takes his opponent's plans
into account and combats them.
Also instructive is the very accu­
rate way he set about converting his
advantage into victory. Perhaps at
one point Karpov could have played
with greater precision. But when the
need arose he was not afraid to play
38 �g3 ! and 39 <iii>xh4. Here he did
not avoid the calculation of concrete
variations, because the position de-
56 Analysing Your Own Games

manded it. Situations occur in which spoke about before we analysed the
one needs to calculate variations, to Karpov game.
create complications - when this is
in fact the only way to win. Timman-Yusupov
Once again I shall return to the 6th game, Candidates match,
idea of a central theme. This whole 1ilburg 1986
game essentially contained just one
idea, the battIe revolved around a 1 d4 d5
single manoeuvre. This does some­ 2 c4 e6
times happen. For example, you re­ 3 ltJc3 ltJfti
alise that your main task is to 4 ltJa i.e7
exchange light-squared bishops, and 5 i.g5 h6
you try to accomplish this exchange, 6 .ixfti .ixfti
and your opponent prevents it. In an­ 7 'tib3
notating the ninth game of his World I had not expected this move,
Championship match with Botvin­ which had previously been encoun­
nik in 1 960, Tal recalls a conversa­ tered in a Kasparov-Karpov match,
tion he had with his opponent and I replied with the same move
concerning a complicated position that Karpov had chosen.
which arose in the middlegame. 7 ... c6
Botvinnik said that for a long time he 8 0-0-0
was not sure how it should be as­ Kasparov had continued with the
sessed, but that he had eventually quieter 8 e3 . Timman's choice is evi­
come to understand the essence of dence that he is in the mood for a
the position: it was necessary to ex­ fight. Here I considered various con­
change rooks but to keep the queens tinuations, even the most risky - for
on. This assessment had seemed too example, 8 ... b5 , and also 8 ... 'ifb6 9
abstract to Tal, but later, when exam­ 'ii'c2 dxc4 lO ltJe4 - but I didn't par­
ining complicated variations that he ticularly like any of them. I played
had calculated in the course of the quite logically and in accordance
game, he realised that Botvinnik was with my tastes.
absolutely right, and that the idea he 8 dxc4
had expressed came into effect in 9 'i'xc4 b5
many variations. White has a choice - where
I wish to examine one more game. should he retreat the queen: to b3 or
It was played in a Candidates match d37 Each move has its drawbacks.
when the scores were level at On lO 'i'd3 Black will reply, say, lO
2112-2112, and to some extent it de­ . . ltJd7 1 1 e4 'i'a5 , with the threat of
.

cided the fate of the match. We shall 12 . . . b4 (the pawn on a2 will be

pay most attention to the features I hanging).

10 1t'b3 (34)
A pawn structure has arisen
which is typical of many variations
of the Queen 's Gambit or the Slav
Defence. Black's standard plan is to
prepare ... c6-c5 by playing ... liJd7,
... .ib7 and . . . a6. There is also a
more risky plan, which is the one I
chose.
I think there was one thing that I
sensed correctly during the game:
Black should not rush to castle, since
as a result of the move . . . h7-h6 the
position of the black king would
prove to be vulnerable. White could
begin a pawn storm: b4, g4 and g5 ,
and in this situation he might be first
to break through.
10 ... a5
Of course this is an impudent
plan, but I didn 't choose it casually.
A match has particular features of its
OWn - the fight for the initiative, for
the psychological advantage. Fre­
quently the winner is not the one
Who play s better chess but the one
Who is in fighting mood, the one who
Analysing Your Own Games 57
demonstrates the greater will to win.
The move 10 ... a5 is very good psy­
chologically - Black indicates that
he is not afraid of his opponent and
that he is aiming to complicate the
game as much as possible. I think
that it is also quite good objectively.
1 1 e4
All according to theory: in re­
sponse to a flank operation White
plays in the centre.
1 1 ... a4
12 'i'c2 �7 (35)
I also considered 1 2 . . . �6!7. If
1 3 e5 .te7 14 iFe4, attacking the
pawns on c6 and b5 , Black has the
defence 14 . . . iFc7 ! . But all the same
I decided to bring my knight towards
the centre .
Timman had a choice. The con­
tinuation 1 3 e5 .ie7 1 4 �e4 .tb7 15
�b 1 seemed to me to be logical,
most justified positionally. Of
course, also in this case Black would
retain counter-chances after 15 ... b4.
The plan then would be to sacrifice
the pawn on b3 in order to open lines.
58 Analysing Your Own Games
Timman played a sharper vari­
ation. He apparently considered that
Black's flank development had to be
refuted by an immediate break­
through in the centre.
13 d5
The drawback of this move is that
a diagonal is opened up for the
bishop on f6, which now begins to
play at full strength.
13 ... cxd5
14 exd5 a3
Black's idea is logical - to open
the game up on the queenside, where
the enemy king is situated. But in
such a sharp situation one should not
rely on superficial feelings - it is
necessary to back up such feelings
with calculation. The correct move
was 14 ... O-O ! (significant for the
theory of this variation). Now that
the position on the queens ide and in
the centre has been opened up, Black
should think about the safety of his
king and only then continue his of­
fensive.
If, say, 15 dxe6 fxe6 1 6 ltJxb5 (I
was worried about this during the
game), then Black has the promising
reply 1 6 . . . a3. On 17 ltJxa3 an ex­
change sacrifice is possible: 17 . . .
.l:Ixa3 I S bxa3 WaS. By then playing
. . . ltJc5 and ... .i.b7, Black will de­
velop a terrific attack. It would ap­
pear that such a turn of events would
favour Black.
In the event of 16 We4 B lack can
choose between 1 6 . . . waS , 1 6 . . .
.i.xc3 an d 1 6 ... a3 ! ?
Probably stronger was 1 6 .i.xb5 .
Then there could follow 1 6 ... a3 17
�c4 (this looks logical) 1 7 ... axb2+
I S <t>b l (a typical defensive method
- hiding the king behind one of the
opponent's pawns; it would of
course be dangerous to capture on
b2). This is a very complicated posi.
tion, and it is practically impossible
to analyse it thoroughly. I shall show
you here one possible variation that I
analysed, and really just as an illus ·
tration: I S ... Wb6 ( 1 S ... WaS ! ?) 19
liJe4 .i.e7 20 ltJd4 ltJc5 2 1 ltJxc5
(more accurate is 2 1 !the l ) 2 1 . ..
�xc5 22 We4 .i.xd4 23 WxaS .i.b7
24 1Wa3 .i.e4+ 25 .i.d3 .l:IaS 26 We7
Wa6 and Black wins.
It would probably be possible to
devote an entire chapter - possibly
more than one - to the analysis of
this position (and also, incidentally,
to others which arose later in this
game). But the conclusion is clear:
14 . . . O-O ! would have led to very
complicated play, with chances for
both sides. But after the move in the
game White could have obtained an
advantage.
15 dxe6 axb2+
16 <i>bl fxe6 (36)
I considered sacrificing a piece
with 1 6 ... 0-0 1 7 exd7 waS , hoping
for I S dxcSW? .l:IfxcS, but unfortu­
nately this can be refuted by 1 8
Wb3 ! . For example, I S ... .i.xc3 19
dxcSW, or I S . . . .i.b7 19 liJd4 b4 20
ltJcb5 ; it is also impossible to believe
in the fairy tale I S . . . .i.xd7 19 .l:Ixd7
.l:IfcS (or 19 ... .l:IacS) .
17 We4!

36
W psychological frame of mind of both
White had a wide choice of tempt­
ing continuations, and TImman was
able to find the strongest among
them. 17 �xbS would have led to an
already familiar position, resulting
after 14 ... 0-0. In the event of 17
/t)xbS 0-0 1 8 ttJc7 Black cannot play
18 ... �bn 19 ttJxa8 'tWxa8 20 �xd7
.ic6 (20 ... �c8 2 1 �c4 �e4 22
AdJ) 2 1 lta7 ! (not 21 �6?
'i'xa2+ !). But I had seen a worthy re­
sponse: 1 8 ... l:la7 ! 19 ttJxe6? lha2 ! .
It looks tempting to play 17
'i'g6+. Bad in reply is 1 7 . . . <J;en 1 8
/t)d4 'iWb 6 19 ttJfS+ ! . Essential i s 17
... �, not fearing 1 8 ttJd4 'tWb6 19
'i'e4 �b7. In comparison with the
game, 18 'tWe4 10ses in force, in view
of 18 '" 'tWaS, when White cannot
take the pawn on e6 with check.
Grandmaster Mikhalchishin recom­
mended 18 ttJxbS , when it is bad to
play 18 '" 'tWaS 19 �c4 ttJb6 20
�6. But Black has defensive re­
SOurces here as well: 18 ... �b7 19
�6 (19 �c4 ! ?) 19 ... 'tWe7 ! 20
�b7 ttJb6 with very unclear conse­
qUences (2 1 ttJd6 'tWa7; 2 1 ttJd4
"a3; 21 �a6!? ttJa4).
Analysing Your Own Games 59
17 ••• �xc3!
I have already spoken about the
players for this game. It was this
which prompted my exchange sacri­
fice. I realised that it was risky, per­
haps incorrect. But the prospect of
defending miserably in an endgame
a pawn down after 17 ... l:tb8 18
'tWxe6+ 'tWe7 19 'tWxe7+ �e7 20
00+ did not suit me at all.
As a result of the sacrifice an ex­
tremely confused and sharp situation
has now arisen. Basically, Black's
problems are associated not with his
material deficit but with his some­
what backward development. If he
can succeed in 'unravelling ' his
pieces, then the pawn on b2, sup­
ported by the dark-squared bishop,
will guarantee him very dangerous
counterplay. The degree of inven­
tiveness shown by both players
over the next few moves will tilt
the balance one way or the other.
Objectively, White has better pros­
pects. But practical play is not the
same thing as home analysis -
given the time restriction it is al­
most impossible to fmd one's way in
the wild complications which have
now arisen without making a mis­
take.
18 'it'xa8 0-0 (37)
In the press room this natural
move was regarded as a mistake, in
view of Timman 's reply, and 1 8 . . .
'it'c7 w as recommended. I think that
these two continuations are of
roughly equal merit.
60 Analysing Your Own Games
Now 19 �xbS suggests itself. Af­
ter 19 . . . lWf61 20 lWc6 Black's pieces
are completely tied down - it is not
clear what reasonable move he could
possibly make. But his defensive re­
sources are not exhausted.
Ulf Andersson suggested 19 . . .
lWc7 2 0 lWc6 lWxc6 2 1 �xc6 ttJcS .
Two dangerous bishops and a men­
acing pawn on b2 compensate Black
to a considerable extent for the sacri­
fice of the exchange. Nevertheless,
according to Timman 's analysis,
White maintains better chances in
the endgame. Moreover, the transi­
tion to an ending is not obligatory for
White, since he also has 20 1We4 ! 7 .
Perhaps the modest move 19 . . .
lWe7 ! ? deserved preference.
19 lWc6
This seems very strong. By at­
tacking the bishop and the pawn on
e6 simultaneously, White deprives
his opponent of the possibilities 19
. . . lWe7 and 19 . . . lWc7 and seemingly
forces the reply 19 ... lWf6, which
leads after 20 �xbS , as we already
know, to extremely difficult prob-
lems for Black. But here too there is
a defence.
In general, defensive resources in
chess are very considerable. It may
happen that a game turns out un fa­
vourably. If you do not lose heart but
continue to put up resistance with aU
your might, stubbornly seeking out
practical chances and setting your
opponent ever new problems, even­
tually he may not be able to stand the
tension and he will begin to make
mistakes and lose his advantage.
This is exactly what happened in this
game.
So, the most important qualities
to possess when defending are com­
posure, presence of mind and
dogged persistence. Such qualities
are possessed in full measure by
players who have become famous
for their defensive skills - for exam­
ple, Emanuel Lasker and Anatoly
Karpov. If you study their games you
will sense this, and at the same time
you will master particular methods
for defending difficult positions -
not just pure chess methods but alsO
those relating to the psychology of
chess.
19 ... b4! (38)
Think how we should reply to 20
�bS . There is 20 . . . lWf6 ! and if 21
lhd7 �xd7 22 1Wxd7 then 22 . . . U.
Now let us look at 20 lWxe6+ �b8
2 1 �bS . Here inspiration is called
for, otherwise B lack will simply
have to resign.
Let us examine 2 1 ... lWf6. Clearly
no good is 22 �xd7 1Wxe6 23 �xe6

38
W 23 ... .i.e6 ! (39) .
i.xe6. This leaves 22 'ilixf6 tbxf6 23
ltJh4 �h7, when 24 ild3+ �g8 is
not too terrible - Black threatens . . .
g7 -g5 and ... tbg4. For White there is
some point in giving ruck some of
bis extra material in order to play for
a poSitional advantage: 24 1'ihe I ! .
One may consider the mirror-im­
age of the same idea: 2 1 ... 'ilib6. Af­
ter the exchange of queens the knight
comes to b6 instead of f6. This has
its positive side (the open f-file), but
there are drawbacks as well.
It is clear that the appearance of
Black's bishop or queen on the b I ­
b7 diagonal would decide the game
immediately and therefJre be worth
any loss of material. This is what all
Black's counterplay is based upon.
He also has an idea wtlich is quite
fantastic, and it would not surprise
lIle if it proved to be correct. I saw it
during the game, and my trainer,
Dvoretsky, found it while in the
press room.
Let us try to sacrifice the queen:
2 1 . .. lLlc5 ! ! 22 nxd8 ![xd8 . White
lIlust g uard the diagoml, and so the
Analysing Your Own Games 61
only move is 23 'iWg6. Black now
calmly completes his development:
For the sacrificed queen Black
only has a bishop. But nonetheless it
is not so easy for White to parry the
threats 24 ... &8 and 24 ... .i.g8 fol-
lowed by . . . ..t.h7; he also has to
reckon with 24 ... .i.xa2+ 25 �a2
lla8+.
Incidentally, a game was sub­
sequently played in India along these
lines; it can be found in the 42nd vol­
ume of lnformaror, game 566.
(Though one wonders whether this
game was actually played and not
just composed, since, as we have
seen, the preceding moves by both
sides were by no means obligatory.)
If you want a little amusement,
analyse the position arising after the
queen sacrifice. The notes to the In­
dians ' game prove that White retains
an advantage, but I have found ways
to improve on Black's play and con­
sider that the objective outcome is a
draw.
62 Analysing Your Own Games
The queen sacrifice is just one
line - although an extremely fasci­
nating one - from the enonnous
number of variations to be found in
my encounter with Timman. Analys­
ing such games is difficult, but also
very useful and interesting.
Let us go back. Timman did not
capture the pawn on e6.
20 i.c4 �h8
A nonnal prophylactic move in
such situations (here it is practically
forced). If you look at Kasparov's
games , you will notice that before
the final, conclusive stonn, he often
plays a prophylactic move to im­
prove the position of his king. Recall
for example the 1 6th game of his
match with Karpov (Leningrad
1 986), which he won with a brilliant
attack in the Spanish. It was a very
complicated position, and he had
sacrificed material, but at at a par­
ticular moment he played a prophy­
lactic move, securing his king 's
position, and this subsequently
proved simply to be the winning
continuation.
21 "tie4?
Here Timman went astray. But
what would have followed after 2 1
i.xe6 - what i s the idea? During the
game I saw the variation 21 ... "tif6!
22 i.xd7 'ikfS+ , and did not bother to
look any further, as this variation
suited me at the time, particularly
since I had no choice anyway. I don't
know how dangerous 22 i.d5 is, but
I think Black has a lot of tempting
possibilities here too.
Timman and I later came to the
conclusion that he should have cho­
sen 2 1 l:.d6. I would have replied 2 1
. . . 'ikf6. Now it i s not good to play 22
':'xd7?, because of 22 ... i.xd7 23
'ikxd7 "fig6+ and 24 ... "fixg2. On 22
.l:.hd l there would follow 22 ... lbeS
23 lbxeS i.xeS ! 24 ':'6d3 'ike7 ! , and
then . . . i.b7. Best is 22 i.d3, cover­
ing the most vulnerable diagonal.
Black is possibly forced to play 22 . . .
lbeS 23 lbxeS i.xeS 2 4 'ike4 "fifS
and here there is definite compensa­
tion (a pawn for the exchange).
The path which TImman could
have chosen, although logical, is by
no means obvious: before taking
control of the b l -h7 diagonal, it was
necessary for White to press ahead,
to activate his rook, to get all his
pieces into play. With the move 22
'ike4 TImman probably wished to oc­
cupy the diagonal immediately and
to exploit the position of the king on
h8. But this was a mistake.
21 ... "tic7
The correct response, which pur­
sues several aims at once. Black has
prepared to play . . . lbf6 and created
the threat of . . . llf4. Here I sensed
that the initiative was passing into
my hands.
We can also analyse another fan­
tastic queen sacrifice for just one mi­
nor piece: 21 . . . lbcS ! ? 22 Itxd8
l:!xd8. On 23 "e3 there follows 23 .. .
i.b7, and on 23 'ikc2 - likewise 23 . . .
i.b7 24 � l i.xf3. It is necessary to
choose between 23 "tig6 i.b7 24
lbgS ! ? hxgS 25 f3, and 23 'iih4 i.f6

24 'it'h5 .i.b7 25 lDe5. I think that the
modest move played in the game is
objectively stronger.
22 lDh4 lDeS
It was necessary to defend against
the threat 23 lDg6+.
23 .i.dJ (40)
What would you have played
now? Which candidate moves can
you see? Well, 23 ... g5 is one way to
defend against mate; 23 ... l::tf5 is an­
other; 23 ... lDxd3 is a third.
I did not wish to play 23 ... g5 ,
opening up the pOSition of my king.
The move 23 . . . lDxd3, which I liked
more, is associated with a rather sim­
ple variation, and I calculated it ac­
curately.
23 ••• lDxdJ !
24 lDg6+
It was better not to hurry to play
this check.
24 ••• �g8
25 Ilxd3
In the event of 25 lDxffi Black
cannot of course capture on 12, be­
cause of 26 'ii'h7+ and 27 IDtf1 - the
Analysing Your Own Games 63
pin on the f-file is decisive. But I saw
the reply 25 . . . lDc5 ! . Now the f-file
is not opened up and so 26 'ii'h 7+
achieves nothing, and on 26 'it'f3
there follows 26 . . . .i.b7, winning.
If 25 1i'xd3 then 25 ... l:!e8 fol­
lowed by 26 ... il.b7 and then ... .i.d5 ,
or, in some lines, . . . e5 . I assessed
this position in my favour. One pos­
sible variation: 26 "'5 'it'17 27 lDe5
'it'f5+ 28 :d3 and here perhaps sim­
ply 28 ... !tf8 - the white pieces are
completely tied up.
25 ••• Ilxtl
26 1lt3
White exchanges off the active
rook. If 26 Ithd l then the simple 26
. . . .i.f6 was possible, and Black also
has tricks like 26 . . . il.d2. There are
so many possibilities concealed in
this position !
26 .•. Ilxt3
27 gxf3 (41)
This balance of forces - two bish­
ops and two pawns against rook and
knight - is occasionally encountered
in practice, and very often the two
bishops prove to be stronger. In this
case, with a terrific pawn on b2, the
bishops guarantee a decisive advan­
tage. For example, on 27 'it'xf3 the
simplest is 27 ... 'it'17, and after the
exchange of queens Black has a win­
ning ending.
What would you have played as
Black in this position?
I proceeded from simple consid­
erations: the situation is extremely
favourable for me - I simply must
not allow Timman any chance to
64 Analysing Your Own Games
a ... a a.a
41 a &I • •
B �a �a r.1t5.
a a a a
• a.a a
a • a�a
Fi •
�- . • "�
a�a a a :
. ,,�
become active. One needs to realise
what one 's opponent is intending to
play with his next move. Clearly he
wishes to develop his rook to the
open me: 28 l:ld l . Now it is easy to
find my reply.
27 '" 'i'd6
I interfere with my opponent's
plans and in addition create the
threats 28 ... Ji.a6 and 28 ... Ji.b7. If
28 �c2 then 28 ... Ji.d7, threatening
a check from a4. The best defence is
28 tLlf4, but, all the same, after 28 . . .
Ji.d7 and, at some point, ... Ji.c6,
Black has a splendid position.
28 'i'c2
Again White plans to play l:Mi 1 .
Being a player of very high class,
Timman wishes to play with all his
pieces.
28 .. , eS!
Again Black prevents his oppo­
nent's plans. What follows after 29
Ildl - can you see? The transition to
a winning ending: 29 ... 'ii'xdl + 30
'ii'xd l .i.f5 .
2 9 tLlh4
Here I was already in time-trouble
(five minutes remaining for 12
moves), but I was able to see the
game through to its logical conelu-
sion.
29 ... .ie6
Possibly there were other ways to
win - for example, 29 ... 'ii'f6. But I
considered that 29 . . . .i.e6 was rather
simpler.
30 ltdl .id4
Here I lost concentration slightly.
But, since my position is very
strong, it tumed out that my game
was still quite in order. White could
have played 3 1 'ii'xb2, but this would
have come up against the refutation
3 1 . . . 'ii'd8 ! 32 'iif2 'ii'f6 33 'ii'g3
Ji.xa2+ ! . And if 3 1 tLlf5 then 3 1 ...
'ii'a6 32 a4 b3.
31 1i'a4
A final attempt to activate his
pieces. The threat is clear: 32 'ii'e8+.
If, with the same aim, 3 1 'iig 6, then
the simplest was 3 1 ... 'ii'd7 with the
tactical threat 32 ... .i.xa2+ and 33 ...
'ii'a4+.
31 .. , 'i'd8
I am attacking the knight which
guards the f5 square. White 's posi­
tion is difficult, and moreover be
now plays an unfortunate move.
32 'i'c6 .idS
Now White's position is just
hopeless: the knight is hanging, and
after a move like 33 'ii'b5 Black bas
the extremely unpleasant reply 33 .. .
'ii'a8. Black's pieces are well-coordi­
nated, and be has a decisive advan­
tage.
33 llxd4 exd4
34 .."S 'i'a8
 Analysing Your Own Games 65

35 �xb2 'i'xa2+ three positions very strong grand­

36 <t>cl 'i'al+ masters made mistakes - they were
37 �d2 'i'c3+ unable to solve the problem. So this
38 �dl i.b3+ is YOID" chance to prove that you can
White resigned do better. When you analyse YOID"
own games I hope that you will con­
What a mind-boggling duel ! I stantly search for, and occasionally
should like to draw YOID" attention to find, such oversights.
the fact (which to me is particularly
interesting) that this game, just like
the previous one, was in a certain 4
sense a game with a single idea.
Black fastened onto one positional
idea, and perhaps a rather abstract
one: a set-up involving a bishop on
c3 and pawns on b2 and b4. I realised
that this was my only hope and that I
had to make use of it, to try to get my
bishop to f5 or to sacrifice something
on a2. Thanks to this attitude of mind
I found it easier to play this game, to
find solutions to the problems which
Black had to face. White to move

Exercises
5
In conclusion I offer you three exam­
ples from contemporary practice
which you have to solve (solutions
are to be found at the back of this W
book). In so far as these are not stud-
ies, but practical positions, the solu-
tions may turn out to be not strictly
uniq ue - it is possible that you will
find other good continuations. I
Should like you to regard this task as
a Challenge. The point is that these
POSition s are quite substantial, they White to move
demand imagination, inventiveness
and precise calculation. In two of the
66 Analysing Your Own Games

6 when, in comparison with the pre­

vious variation, it is harder for Black
to activate his light-squared bishop.
The game Dvoretsky-Petrosian,
Premier League, 43rd USSR Ch. ,
Yerevan 1975 , continued: 9 . . . �c5
(or 9 ... �d7 10 d3 0-0-0 1 1 �e3) 10
d3 ltJc6 (if 10 . . . ltJf5 then 1 1 g4 ltJh6
12 h3 �xf2 13 �g2, and then ltJf3,
�e2 and d4 with advantage) 1 1 f4 f6
1 2 ltJf3 fxe5 1 3 fxe5 0-0 14 ..ie2
�d7 15 �d2 �e8 1 6 ltJg5 �d7 17
White to move �g4 ltae8 18 �c3 with advantage to
White.
4 d4
5 exf6 dxc3
The Annotator ' s
6 bxc3
Doubts Also played here is 6 fxg7 cxd2+
Mark Dvoretsky 7 �xd2 or 7 'iixd2.
6 'i'xf6
7 d4 cS
Dvoretsky-Agzamov 8 ltJt3 h6
Semi-Final, A ll-Union Student After 8 ... cxd4 9 �g5 ! 'iWf5 10
Games, Alma-Ata 1976 cxd4 �b4+ 1 1 ..id2 Black can ap­
parently equalise, though he needs to
1 c4 ltJffi defend accurately, but the main point
2 ltJ c3 e6 is that he has no chance at all of any­
3 e4 dS thing more. It is not surprising that
4 eS Agzamov chooses a more compli­
As is well-known, in the event of cated continuation.
4 cxdS exdS 5 e5 , Black gets excel­ 9 �d3 !
lent counterplay by sacrificing a Associated with the sacrifice of a
pawn with 5 ... ltJe4 ! . For example: 6 pawn. The quiet 9 �e2 does not
ltJxe4 dxe4 7 'iWa4+ ltJc6 8 'iixe4 cause Black any difficulties. For ex­
'iWd4 ! 9 'iixd4 ltJxd4 10 �d l �f5 1 1 ample, 9 ... cxd4 10 cxd4 �b4+ 1 1
d3 0-0-0. �d2 �xd2+ 1 2 'iixd2 ltJc6 1 3 0-0
After the move in the game the 0-0, or 9 ... �d6 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 �e3
analogous sacrifice is less effective: ltJc6 12 'iib 3 e5 with equal chances
4 . . . ltJe4 5 ltJxe4 dxe4 6 'iWg4 ltJc6 7 (Mikenas-Cherepkov , Leningrad
'iWxe4 'iWd4 8 'iWxd4 ltJxd4 9 �d l , 1954).

9 �c6
Now 9 . . . cxd4 10 cxd4 �b4+ 1 1
�d2 �xd2+ 1 2 'iWxd2 �c6 1 3 'ike3
0-0 14 0-0 does not lead to equality,
in view of the possibilities �e4 and
ltab l . A blunder is 14 ... b6??, be­
cause of 1 5 'iWe4. The game Dvoret­
sky-Langeweg, Wijk aan Zee 1976,
went 9 ... �d6 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 'iWe2
ltd8? (better is 1 1 . . . �c6) 12 'iWe4
'iWf5 13 'iWh4 ! and White won.
10 0-0 cxd4
Black decides to accept the pawn
sacrifice, although from the speed
with which I played my opening
moves my opponent might have real­
ised that this sacrifice had been pre­
pared in advance.
Black's decision is questionable:
for his pawn White gets too great a
lead in development. Of course,
safer was 10 ... �d6 1 1 'ike2 0-0 ( 1 1
. . . cxd4 12 cxd4 �xd4 13 �xd4
'iWxd4 14 �b2 'iff4 15 g3), but here
too White's chances are to be pre­
ferred: he can, for example, get the
better endgame by playing 1 2 'iWe4
'iWf5 1 3 'iWxf5 or 1 3 'iWxc6.
1 1 cxd4 �xd4
12 �xd4 'i'xd4
13 Ilbl 'i'd8
On 13 ... �e7 White would have
played 14 �b2.
14 'i'D
In the event of 14 �b2 the pawn
on b7 would no longer have been un­
der attack, and this would have al­
lowed Black to develop his bishop
on c8. White chooses a different
plan.
Analysing Your Own Games 67
14 ••• i.e7
On 14 ... �c5 very strong was 15
l:tb5 ! . For example: 1 5 ... 'iWe7 16
'iWg3 �d4 17 i.e4, with the threat 18
�a3. And after 14 . . . �d6 I was seri­
ously considering the same idea at
the cost of another pawn: 15 c5 ! ?
�xc5 1 6 ltb5 .
15 ltdl
Of course, I did not wish to utilise
such a tempting attacking position
merely in order to regain my pawn
by playing 15 �e4 0-0 1 6 .txb7.
15 ••• 'i'c7
16 Ilb5
In this way White does not allow
his opponent to castle ( 1 6 ... 0-0 17
�xh6! gxh6 1 8 'i'g4+ �g5 19
ltxg5+, or 18 ... 'ifi>h8 19 l:.h5 , win­
ning). But Black compels the rook to
move to h5, where it is not placed
particularly well .
16 .•• a6!
17 lIbS
There was no point in going for
simplification with 17 �f4 �d6 ! '
17 ••• i.d7
18 i.f4 'i'c8
A cool-headed and correct move.
In the event of 18 ... �d6 19 �xd6
'iWxd6 White would have obtained a
big advantage by playing simply 20
'iWxb7 �c6 2 1 'iWb6. Much weaker
was the tempting 20 i.g6? After 20
. . . 'iWe7 2 1 �xt7+ 'iWxt7 22 'iWxt7+
'ifi>xn 23 lhd7+ 'ifi>g6 24 l:.h3 l:.hdS
25 l:1g3+ <M6 26 %lgxg7 %lxd7 27
%lxd7 %lc8 28 %lxb7 lhc4 29 %lbl
':'c2 30 :al it is necessary to demon­
strate a win in the rook ending, and
68 Analysing Your Own Games
still less clear is the variation 20 . . .
'tWxd l+ 2 1 'tWxdl fxg6 22 l:lcS .ic6 ! .
1 9 .ieS
The move 19 'iWg3 deserved seri­
ous consideration. Then 19 ... gS 20
.ie5 f6 would have led to the favour­
able position for White which oc­
curred in the game. If 1 9 . . . .if6 then
20 .id6 is strong , and if 1 9 ... �fS
then at least 20 .id6 .ixd6 (20 . . .
'iWe8 2 1 .ie4 .ic6 2 2 .ixc6 bxc6 23
cS with advantage to White) 2 1
'tWxd6+ �g8 2 2 l:tc5 .ic6 2 3 .ie4,
though after 23 ... .ixe4 24 l:txc8+
lIxc8 it would have been very hard
for White to profit from his extra
material.
19 •.. f6
20 'tWg3
After 20 .ig6+ �fS Black would
have threatened to simplify the posi­
tion by playing 2 1 ... .ie8 . In this
case it is not clear how White can
strengthen his attack, and so he de­
cides to sacrifice a piece.
20 ••• gS?
In the event of 20 . . . fxeS 21 'iWxg7
l:tfS the black king would have been
in danger, but White would not have
managed to find a clear win immedi­
ately. On 22 .l:r.xh6? possible is 22 . . .
'iWcS ! . White probably would have
played simply 22 lheS , maintaining
dangerous threats. For example, on
22 ... 'iWc7 23 .ig6+ �d8 there fol­
lows not 24 lhe6 'tWcS ! with
counter-chances, but 24 .if5 ! . Black
cannot continue 24 ... l:txf5 25 l:txf5
exf5 26 'iWg8+, and on 24 ... �c8 de­
cisive is 2S l:[xd7+ �xd7 26 .ixe6+
�c6 (26 ... �d8 27 11d5+; 26 ... �e8
27 'ii'g 6+ �d8 28 l:ld5+ .id6 29 c5 ;
26 ... �d6 27 cS+ �c6 28 .idS+) 27
.idS+ �b6 28 IDe7 with irresistible
threats). In the event of 22 . . . �d8
worth considering was 23 .ic2 (with
the threat of .ia4) 23 . . . bS 24 cS ,
threatening 25 .ie4 l:Ia7 26 c6, or 25
.ib3.
I think the best option was the
calm and composed 20 ... � ! . In
reply to the move in the game White
had prepared a decisive combination.
21 .ig6 �t8 (45)
On 2 1 ... �d8 the most energetic
move is 22 .if7 ! .
22 h4! .ie8
Of course, not 22 ... fxe5 23
'tWf3+.
23 bxgS! fxeS
Or 23 ... .ixg6 24 gxf6 ! and Black
is defenceless .
24 %:.xh6!
Of course, not 24 'tWxeS? .ixg6!
2S 'tWxh8+ �f7. Also weaker is 24
gxh6 .ixg6 25 'iWxg6 1:lg8, and after
the queen retreats then 26 ... .if6.
24 .•• %:.g8

On 24 ... %1xb6 25 gxh6 �f6
White wins after 26 "f3 <l;e7 27
"'a3+ ! , with mate to follow.
25 'ii't3 + <l;f(1
26 �e4
The simplest, although 26 mt7+
<J;;x g6 27 "e4+ or 27 'i'h5+ would
of course also have led to mate. For
example: 27 "e4+ <Jitxg5 28 :td3.
26 ••. itt'S
Or 26 ... l:lh8 27 l:Ixh8 <Jitxh8 28
"'h3+ with mate in four.
27 l:Z.h7+ <l;g8
28 iVh3
Black resigned
The analysis of this game is really
over, but now I should like to give
some thought to how annotations to
games should be formulated. As we
know, tens of thousands of games are
annotated in the pages of chess pub­
lications, and these annotations can
take many forms.
Annotations to one's own games
have always seemed to me to be par­
ticularly interesting. As a rule they
contain fewer analytical errors (in ef­
fect, the author of the annotations
solves the same problems three
times - firstly over the board, then in
analysis done in conjunction with
his opponent and, finally, when pre­
paring the game for publication).
Still more important is the fact that
such annotations rarely confine
themselves to simple statements of
events - the annotator describes his
thoughts during the game and the
reasons for his errors, etc.
Analysing Your Own Games 69
But, unfortunately, besides their
obvious merits, such annotations are
subject as a rule to certain organic
deficiencies. These deficiencies are
by no means obvious, and they pre­
vent the reader from getting an accu­
rate and complete picture of the
game being studied. In order not to
go too far in search of examples , it is
worth returning to the game just ex­
amined, which I analysed again
some time after I had annotated it.
Let us begin with the opening. It
would appear that it has been treated
in some detail. But look a little more
closely. A comparatively rare vari­
ation was played. Perhaps it is hardly
ever encountered in practice because
of the fact that reliable ways have
been found for Black to equalise?
But what are these ways? The author
of the annotations says nothing at all
about them. And it is not just a matter
of the formal absence of recommen­
dations - for instance, the assess­
ment of the position expressed in the
note to B lack's eighth move could
have been formulated differently -
for example, 'After 8 . . . cxd4 9 .*.g5
"f5 10 cxd4 .*.b4+ B lack has good
chances to equalise.'
Perhaps the author of the annota­
tions does not know with complete
certainty what one may recommend
for Black? Of course he knows !
There are continuations which seem
to him to be unfavourable, but con­
sciously or unconsciously he prefers
not to share them, he does not wish
to divulge the methods which he has
 70 Analysing Your Own Games
worked out for coping with various
plans for Black. And this is quite
natural - indeed, he may need the
opening variations he has worked
out for a tournament game.
I think that 'evasive' elucidation of
the opening is a characteristic feature
of annotations to one's own games .
There is a second such feature. As
is well-known, we are all sinful, in­
clined to ascribe our own defeats to
chance, whereas in our victories we
wish to see examples of chess art­
istry. And succumbing (as a rule, un­
consciously !) to this desire, we
begin to give exaggerated attention
to our own decisions and to single
out from our opponent's operations
only those to which we had prepared
beautiful replies.
Everything which doesn 't fit into
this scheme is not actually discarded
(our conscience won 't allow it - re­
member, we are now talking about
entirely conscientious annotations),
but is simply mentioned after a to­
tally insignificant introduction such
as 'also worth considering was .. .', or
'possibly he should have thought
about.. .' . And as a result the reader
frequently hurries past the most im­
portant incidents - sometimes the
turning-points - of the game, almost
without noticing them.
What, for example, can one say
for the time being about the game
just considered? In the opening
White played a positional pawn sac­
rifice and then, taking advantage of
his tactical opportunities, developed
his initiative with confident play and
concluded the game with a beautiful
combination.
A flawless game from start to fin­
ish, don't you think?
But let's look a little more closely.
The note to B lack's 20th move
mainly examines the consequences
of Black's accepting the piece sacri­
fice, and, in passing, the best defence
is pointed out: 20 ... <io>f8 ! . But what
happens in this case? Let us return to
this position (46).
If 21 i.d6 then 2 1 . . . .i.xd6 22
"ikxd6+ <io>f7, and after 23 lIcS .i.c6
White has no time for 24 �e4, be­
cause of 24 . . . l:td8. Here it is not
clear how White can strengthen his
attack.
Also unconvincing is 2 1 .i.g6
�e8 22 .i.d6 �xg6 (22 ... .i.xd6 23
'i'xd6+ <io>g8 24 ltcS) 23 i.xe7+
<io>xe7 24 'i'xg6. For his pawn White
has the initiative, but his chances of
success are highly dubious (mainly
owing to the poor position of the
rook on hS).

Comparing these considerations
with the notes to White's 19th move,
which proves that after 19 'ii'g 3
White would have retained better
chances, one may draw the conclu­
sion that 1 9 .Jte5 was a mistake, after
which White at any rate no longer
had an advantage.
But also after 1 9 'ii'g 3 White
doesn 't achieve all that much, and
his position had promised more.
Were mistakes made earlier on (47)?
47
W quite bad is 1 5 ... 'ii'c 8 1 6 i.xg7!
Here White played 16 Itb5 , and
after 16 . . . a6 he transferred the rook
to h5. Perhaps this manoeuvre was
not the best?
Analysis shows that a stronger
continuation was 16 .Jtf4 e5 (worse
is 1 6 . . . 'ii'c6 17 'ii'xc6+ bxc6 1 8 i.e4
.Jtd7 19 ltb7 with dangerous threats)
1 7 i.g3, when after 17 ... 0-0 1 8 'ii'e4
f5 19 'ii'd5+ White regains the pawn,
maintaining his pressure.
In the note to Black's 13th move I
pointed out the move 14 i.b2 and
explained why I did not play it. But
what if we study this position in a lit­
tle more detail (48) .
Analysing Your Own Games 71
48
W
1 4 i.b2 i.d7 15 i.e4. Now the re­
ply 1 5 . . . i.c6 leads after 1 6 i.xc6+
bxc6 1 7 'ii'O or 17 'ii'g 4 to an over­
whelming advantage for White. Also
i.xg7 1 7 i.xb7 'ii'd 8 18 i.xaS 'ii'xaS
19 'ii'd6 'ii'dS 20 ltb8 i.c8 21 'ii'c 5.
And on 1 5 ... 'ii'c 7 very strong is
16 l'le I ! . For example: 16 ... .Jtc6 17
i.e5 ! 'ii'c8 18 'ii'f3 with the threat 19
ltxb7 ! .
So, it is now possible to give a
more objective assessment of the
play of both sides. Having success­
fully sacrificed a pawn in the open­
ing, White orientated himself rather
poorly in the ' strategy of the attack' .
On several occasions he did not
choose the best plan to develop his
initiative, and as a result he risked
losing everything he had gained.
Black played too fearlessly at times.
Consequently he first placed himself
in a dangerous position by accepting
the pawn sacrifice, and then, having
nearly repelled the attack, suffered
defeat nonetheless, after carelessly
weakening his position with the
move 20 . . . g5?
72 Analysing Your Own Games
So why was this game first as­
sessed differently? Are there errors
in the annotations? No, we haven' t
refuted a single variation. I t was all a
matter of the wrong emphasis. The
angle from which a game is viewed
is terribly important! By stressing
certain points, and without changing
any of the variations, it is possible to
prove that a game was interesting, or
that it was uninteresting, that there
were many errors, or that there were
virtually no errors ...
So, if you wish to get a complete
picture of a game being studied, ex­
amine and re-examine the conclu­
sions of the annotators, and pay
particular attention to the almost im­
perceptible recommendations that
are made 'in passing' , such as those
we have succeeded in deciphering in
this instance.
3 The Techn i que of Worki ng on
Your Own Games and Those of
Other Players
Artur Yusupov and Mark Dvoretsky
Part I
Artur Yusupov
I should like to say something about
how games should be studied,
whether they be classics from the
past or one's own; about certain
methods which enable maximum
benefit to be derived from such
work.
Without serious study of the chess
classics it is not possible to become a
proper chess player, just as it is im­
possible to imagine, say, a writer or
poet who has not read Shakespeare,
or an artist who has never seen Rem­
brandt's paintings.
Even a cursory glance at classical
games can offer a great deal for im­
proving one's positional under­
standing. You see, the great players
of the past had a perfect under­
standing of general strategic princi­
ples, and they deployed their pieces
with great skill. Through their games
it i s possible to study typical chess
POSitions, standard plans and stand­
ard methods. That is to say, the clas­
sics are an important source of help
when it comes to mastering the art of
playing the middlegame.
Remember, when we examined
my game with Karpov (in Chapter
Two) I drew your attention to the
way he approaches the taking of de­
cisions, to his prophylactic percep­
tion of a position. By studying the
games of outstanding players you
will see how they think, how they
solve complex problems, and you
will discover the psychological
methods they make use of. This sort
of information is also very important
if you wish to improve your game.
Try to concentrate your attention
on the strongest aspects of the out­
standing chessplayer whose games
you have chosen to study. For exam­
ple, when familiarising yourself
with the games of Petrosian, it is of
course necessary to pay most atten­
tion to how he perceived a position
prophylactically, to the way he com­
bated his opponent's plans. Such
work is particularly beneficial to
players who are most vulnerable in
this aspect of the game. When study­
ing Alekhine 's games and annota­
tions, a totally different approach is
74 The Technique o/ Working on Your Own Games ...
necessary. It is very interesting to
observe how Alekhine assesses a po­
sition logically and with due regard
to detail and chooses a plan, and then
to watch how he carries out his plans
with such relentless consistency and
tremendous energy.
A few words about some methods
which are useful when studying
games. You may play a little ' guess­
ing game' . Having played through
the opening, cover up the subsequent
text in the book with a piece of paper
and try to guess the moves played by
the grandmaster. By comparing your
own intuitive perception of the posi­
tion with that of a great player, you
will develop your intuition, your
feeling for the position. This method
was adopted by, for example,
Nimwwitsch.
Another method. You see a dia­
gram or a lengthy note. It is clear that
a significant, substantial problem
lies concealed, that an unexpected
and difficult move was played (or
missed). By delving deeper into the
position, you can try to solve this
problem for yourself, and then you
can compare your own conclusions
with the notes to the game.
There is a third method which
seems to me to be very useful. Say
you have been looking at a game and
a particular aspect of it has made a
strong impression on you, shown it­
self to be both interesting and in­
structive. Make a 'positional sketch'
on this theme. On a separate sheet of
paper draw a diagram and briefly de-
scribe why you found this position
so interesting. Leave room for possi­
ble future additions or corrections.
Add new examples to the same sheet
only when they are very closely re­
lated to those already noted.
The game which we are now go­
ing to look at was played well over a
century ago. So why have I chosen
the game Zukertort-Blackburne,
London 1 8831 This is one of the
most beautiful games of chess , and it
contains a quite remarkable combi­
nation. Johannes Zukertort, Ste­
initz 's opponent in the first-ever
World Championship match, was a
versatile chess player. He was par­
ticularly inventive when attacking ,
but h e was also a skilful positional
player.
Zukertort-Blackbume
London 1 883
1 c4 e6
2 e3 ltJ�
3 ltJt3 b6
4 ..te2 ..tb7
5 0-0
In 1 883 they played the opening
without any great pretensions - they
simply developed their pieces sensi­
bly. But here I should like to draw
your attention to Blackburne's next
few moves. He found a very good
fOlmation for his pieces.
5 ••• dS
6 d4 ..td6
The placement of one's pieces is
of course largely a matter of taste.
 The Technique a/ Working on Your Own Games . . . 75
Other moves are possible in this po­
sition - for example: 6 ... dxc4, 6 . . .
JJ..e7, 6 . . . ltJbd7, 6 ... c5 . I personally
prefer the formation chosen by
Blackbume. Later in analogous situ­
ations Alekhine and Rubinstein
adopted similar formations.
7 ltJc3 0-0
8 b3
By developing his bishop to b2,
Zukertort completes his develop-
ment.
8 ltJd7
This is the set-up I was speaking
about. The active bishops on b7 and
d6 are bearing down on the kingside.
They used to be called 'Horwitz
bishops' (after a 1 9th-century Ger­
man master who liked to place his
bishops in this fashion). Black has
thoughts of playing . . . ltJe4 and . . . f5
and then transferring his queen or
rook via the f6 square for an attack
on the king.
9 i.b2 (49)
Of course, Black could now play
9 . . . c5 or 9 .. , ltJe4, but I would pre-
fer 9 ... a6, in order to prevent ltJb5 .
The bishop on d6 is a very strong
piece, and White would like to ex­
change it for his knight on c3. Of
course, the thrust ltJb5 is not always
effective. The bishop may retreat to
e7, after which Black plays . . . a7-a6
and the same position arises. But if
White's rook or queen has already
occupied the c-file, the bishop can­
not retreat, because of the weakness
of the c7 square. Therefore in this
type of position the move . . . a7 -a6 is
a good prophylactic measure.
But Blackbume underestimated
the threat of ltJb5 .
9 'i'e7? !
10 ltJb5 ltJe4
1 1 ltJxd6 cxd6
Can you see how the position has
changed? Black's pawn structure has
been slightly disrupted and White
has obtained the advantage of the
two bishops. He will either exchange
the knight on e4 or drive it away with
the move f2-f3. White's position is to
be preferred.
Let us go back a bit. It seems to
me that the situation prior to Black's
ninth move was rather interesting .
Here i t would be possible t o make a
positional sketch on the theme of
prophylactic moves and the need to
pay attention to the opponent's
threats. Take a sheet of paper, head it,
say, 'Noticing the opponent's possi­
bilities' . Draw a diagram. Above it
write 'Zukertort-Blackbume, Lon­
don 1883 ' ; below it write 'Black to
move' (or 'after 9 JJ..b 2'). Leave
76 The Technique o/ Working on Your Own Games ...
space on the right-hand side of the
page for any future notes. One may
further record that in the game Black
played inaccurately with 9 ... 'ike7,
allowing the exchange of his bishop
on d6 for the knight on c3. He should
have first defended the b5 square by
playing 9 ... a6 - this move is typical
of such positions.
In principle you can write down
any comments of your own, any rea­
soning on this theme. If you sub­
sequently come across a further
interesting example which by virtue
of its basic idea is very similar, add it
to the sheet. As a result you will as­
semble a collection of instructive p0-
sitions on the most varied themes . At
the same time they will imprint
themselves finnly on your memory,
enlarging and strengthening your
positional arsenal.
Now let us return once more to the
game. Here, thanks to Blackburne's
inaccuracy, White has obtained a
small advantage.
12 �d2 �df6
If 1 2 ... f5 then after 1 3 cxdS
�xdS 14 f3 White would gradually
have prepared to play e3-e4. But I
reckon that the exchange 12 ... �xd2
was better than the move played in
the game.
Now I suggest that we think about
this position for a little while (50) .
I recently discussed this game
with Mark Dvoretsky, and he drew
my attention to the move 1 3 �b I ! . A
hundred years ago, of course, they
dido 't play such moves. This sort of
pOSitional manoeuvre - a non-stand­
ard way of avoiding an exchange -
first appeared at a much later date.
Mark Dvoretsky easily found the
strongest move, for the simple rea­
son that he had already studied situ­
ations like this and had even written
an article on this theme, entitled The
'Superfluous' Piece (see later in this
chapter).
Here too I would make a 'posi­
tional sketch ' . The situation could be
commented upon roughly as fol­
lows :
'Worth considering is the unex­
pected 13 �b l . By avoiding an ex­
change, White intends to drive the
knight away from e4 with 14 f3 and
then play �3, preparing e3-e4. In
this case he keeps as many pieces as
possible on the board, which favours
the side with an advantage in space.'
Similar situations sometimes oc­
cur in the English Opening or in the
Dutch Defence, in the Stonewall sys­
tem.
An additional nuance is that in
some lines White has the move �a3,
 The Technique o/ Working on Your Own Games . . . 77
which is important, for example, in
the variation 1 3 lDb 1 e5 1 4 f3 lDg5
15 dxe5 dxe5 1 6 �a3, winning the
exchange.
In the game White played more
simply, he allowed the exchange of
knights and thereby reduced his po­
sitional advantage.
13 f3 lDxd2
14 "fIxd2 dxc4
A playable move, although some
writers have criticised Blackburne
for this decision. But what would
you have recaptured with on c4?
A pawn on c4 could become
rather weak, and so capturing with
the bishop looks more natural. So we
can see that, instead of 14 . . . dxc4, a
move deserving most careful consid­
eration was 14 . . . �a6.
15 i.xc4 dS
16 i.d3
Now it is necessary to occupy the
open file with a rook. But the ques­
tion is - which rook?
If Black plays 1 6 ... lhc8 he will
have to reckon with the reply a2-a4 ! .
The threat of �a3 appears , and also a
serious plan of attacking on the
queenside with a4-aS.
16 .•. llfcS
17 llael
White had a choice. It would also
have been possible to consider a plan
of playing on the queenside with 1 7
a4. But 1 7 :tae l looks very natural,
and Zukertort was a natural chess­
player in a positional sense, he
played sound moves such as this.
Now I suggest that you give this
position some thought and take a de­
cision for Black (51) .
Well, you hit the nail on the head
if you suggested the move 1 7 . . . as ! .
The general situation is not without
some danger for Black. His bishop
on b7 is passive, while White has the
advantage of the two bishops and
real prospects of an offensive in the
centre with e3-e4. If Black plays
without a plan, thoughtlessly, he
may be left with no counterplay and
be left in a difficult position.
With the move . . . a7-aS (which
was not actually played in the game)
Black would pursue several aims at
once. Three promising possibilities
arise: counterplay on the queenside
with ... as-a4, the exchange of light-
squared bishops with ... h6, and, in
some lines, the thrust . . . 'ifb4.
Most probably White would have
met the threat of ... as-a4 by playing
1 8 a4. Then Black would have ex­
changed light-squared bishops and
obtained entirely adequate counter­
play. He would hardly have lost this
78 The Technique of Working on Your Own Games ...
game. A very active white piece has
disappeared from the board, and in
addition the c2 square has been
weakened, which would have made
the threat of doubling rooks on the c­
file stronger.
Having found the move 1 7 . . . as ! ,
i t becomes clear that i f White had in­
deed chosen the plan of playing in
the centre he should really have im­
plemented it by playing 1 7 'ife2 ! (in­
stead of 17 :ae l ) . From the square
e2 the queen not only helps White to
play e3-e4, it also stops Black from
exchanging light-squared bishops.
On this theme too one may make a
positional sketch (you have surely
already understood how this is
done). The heading would be 'Ex­
changing Pieces' . It is frequently
very important to understand which
pieces should be exchanged and,
conversely, which should not be ex­
changed. The conclusion you arrive
at may prove to be the key to the po­
sition, helping to determine the cor­
rect plan.
Blackburne played routinely. He
saw that a file had been opened and he
proceeded to double his rooks on it.
17 •.. ':c7
18 e4 ':ac8
Many players would probably
have played likewise - doubled
rooks, and only then started thinking
about what to do next. But, on the
whole, the rooks can do nothing - all
the squares for possible incursion on
the c-file are securely controlled by
the white bishops. Nevertheless,
Black still has some tactical possi­
bilities involving an invasion on c2.
For instance, there is the idea ... �a6
in some lines, although it is not clear
how Black should prepare it.
What would you have played as
White?
19 e5 1tJe8
20 f4
A logical development of White's
plan. He increases his spatial advan­
tage and prepares to attack the king.
But what would you suggest here for
Black?
Allowing f4-f5 would be ex­
tremely dangerous. That means he
has to choose between 20 ... g6 and
20 . . . f5 . The latter continuation is
more well-founded.
20 . .
. g6
Against this move Zukertort
placed a question mark in the tourna­
ment book and added the totally jus­
tified remark: 'Of course, Black had
to stop the further advance of the f­
pawn. Considering however that the
text move weakens his king 's posi­
tion - especially the h-pawn - with­
out gaining anything, I would
suggest instead of it . . . f5 at once.'
Yes, one should be very cautious
about moving the pawns in front of
one's king.
After 20 ... f5 ! 21 exf6 lDxf6
Black would have had counterplay
involving the move . . . lDe4.
21 ':e3 (52)
If now 2 1 . . . ltJg7 then White
would have continued his offensive
by playing 22 g4.
 The Technique of Working on Your Own Games . .. 79
21 ... f5
A little inconsistent, but this often
happens: you first play one move,
and then you realise that it was nec­
essary to play something else. Try
now to think for a while, to delve
deeper into this position and to fore­
see the subsequent course of the
game.
What considerations led you to
choose 22 exf6? Yes , this is of course
the most obvious move. Having the
two bishops, it is natural to open up
the game, since you can then hope to
include the bishop on b2 in the at­
tack. But it is essential to take into
account the counterplay which may
flare up in some lines after ... lDf6-
e4, and so the move 22 exf6 has to be
calculated accurately.
It would also be possible to play
more quietly: h3 and g4. But then it
would be very difficult, if not impos­
sible, to storm Black's position.
22 exf6!
The start of a very beautiful com­
bination.
22 ... lDxf6
If Black had foreseen what Zuker­
tort was going to play, he would have
preferred 22 ... •xf6 in the hope of
digging his heels in after, say, 23
'ii'e l lDg7. White would have devel­
oped his initiative with the move g4,
and he would have continued his at­
tack, but Black's position would
have remained quite solid. But
Blackburne wanted to play more ac­
tively, particularly since he had ap­
parently already spotted the
counterplay associated with 25 . . .
llc2.
What should White do now? Here
it is not possible to make do with
general arguments. It is necessary to
calculate variations, to find the idea
which Zukertort put into operation.
23 f5
This move made a very strong im­
pression on Steinitz, the frrst World
Champion, who annotated this
game. He called it 'the start of a re­
markable conception on a grand
scale ' .
23 lDe4
What else is there?
24 i.xe4 dxe4 (53)
53
W
80 The Technique of Working on Your Own Games ...
The thematic move 25 d5 un­
doubtedly catches the eye here. In
positions with opposite-coloured
bishops a lead in material is not
nearly as significant as the activity of
one's bishop. With the move d4-d5
White opens up the long diagonal for
his bishop on b2 and he threatens
'iWd4; on the whole this is a very in­
teresting continuation. But let us ex­
amine it in detail: 25 d5 l:tc2 26 'iWd4
e5 ; after an exchange on e5 Black
will play ... �xd5 with every chance
of a draw. This means that it is neces­
sary to check whether there are any
other possibilities in this position.
Zukertort had in all probability al­
ready foreseen them when playing
22 exf6. He was an uncommonly in­
ventive player and had surely dis­
covered the idea behind his
combination in advance.
25 fxg6!
Clearly weaker was 25 f6, be­
cause this gives Black some breath­
ing space: he would play 25 ... 'iWf7
26 1:[c3 �d5 , obtaining real chances
of a draw. The move in the game,
opening up the position, is the most
forceful. Now 25 . . . hxg6 is not
good, as 26 1:[g3 would be very un­
pleasant (26 .... 'iWg7 27 d5 , and if 27
. . . 1:[c2 then 28 'iWxc2).
25 ... :c2
26 gxh7+ �h8
A typical defensive method - the
king hides behind the pawn. Clearly
bad is 26 ... �xh7 27 .IDl3+ and 28
'iWh6.
27 d5+ e5
28 'i'b4! ! (54)
Probably it is possible to break off
one's calculations here - one senses
that White has a very dangerous at­
tack, sufficient at least for a draw.
But, all the same, let us calculate the
variation 28 ... 'iWxb4 29 �xe5+
�h7 through to a conclusion.
White plays 30 IDl3+ �g6 3 1 IIg3+
�h6 32 1:[f6+ , and then l:if5(f7)+
and �f4+. Can you see the mating
construction? This is the idea of the
combination. The three white pieces
give checkmate after a continuous
sequence of checks.
If 28 ... 'iWg7 or 28 ... 'iWg5 then 29
ltg3 is decisive.
28 ... ':8c5
Now it is indeed obvious that
White has a winning position, and
there is probably more than one way
to win it. Besides the beautiful win­
ning line chosen by Zukertort, I can
see another win.
29 ':f8+
A very beautiful deflection. If 29
... 'iWxfS there follows 30 �xe5+
 The Technique of Working on Your Own Games . . . 81
'it>xh7 3 1 'iWxe4+ �h6 32 llh3+,
with mate in a few moves. Steinitz
gives the following note here: ' In
conjunction with White 's previous
play, this forms one of the most no­
ble combinations conceived over the
chessboard. Words cannot suffice to
express our admiration of the great
skill with which Zukertort played
this game.' S teinitz was a constant ri­
val of Zukertort, but he had a genu­
ine love for chess and was delighted
by beautiful ideas, and so he paid
due tribute to his rival. An example
to be followed !
But also decisive is a move which
is less aesthetically pleasing: 29
'i'xe4, though it involves variations
which are rather more complicated.
If 29 ... lhb2 then 30 :fS+ ! 'i'xfS 3 1
'iWxe5+ 'it>xh7 (3 1 . . . 'i'g7 3 2 'i'e8+
'it>xh7 33 IDl3+ 'i'h6 34 'i'17+) and
here the simplest is 32 'i'h5+ �g7
33 :g3+ �6 34 ID"3+ �e7 35
'iWe5+, winning the queen.
In such cases it is necessary to
choose the move you like best and
calculate it through to a conclusion.
29 �xh7
30 1i'xe4+ �g7
31 J.xe5+
This is the [mal blow, and a beau­
tiful one. One has to admire Zuker-
tort's aesthetic sense.
31 ... �xf8
32 J.g7+
A very nice move.
32 ... �g8
33 'ilxe7
Black resigned
Part II
Mark Dvoretsky
You have just seen a remarkable
classical game and singled out sev­
eral situations which were interest­
ing from a strategic point of view.
The positional sketches which one
could make are, so to speak, of a pure
chess nature (they are all associated
with the problem of exchanging
pieces). It is very important to mas­
ter typical methods of positional
play. The arsenal of any strong
player includes an enormous number
of such methods, both the generally
familiar and also the more subtle,
those encountered more rarely.
But positional sketches do not
have to relate only to pure chess
themes. Chess is played by a human
being, a person who thinks, searches
and struggles. Some things may turn
out well for a chess player, he may
discover something interesting, but
sometimes he makes mistakes, he
may fail. And this failure may not be
due just to a lack of basic chess
knowledge - it is frequently the re­
sult of character defects, errors made
in considering moves, in the way a
poSition is approached, or in the tak­
ing of decisions. Being able to ana­
lyse one's thinking, to cultivate
rational thought-processes, to estab­
lish the causes for errors made and,
conversely, to note one 's creative
successes - all these abilities are
clearly no less important than the
82 The Technique of Working on Your Own Games ...

mastering of the finer points of chess his weaknesses - in particular, a lack

itself. of self-confidence and a certain pas­
The examples I wish to show you sivity in his play. We had previously
are associated with the analysis of done a great deal of work on tech­
one's own actions. This is not pure nique and strategy. Sergei became
chess analysis but analysis relating, fascinated by positional play and
as it were, to the psychology of started avoiding risk, preferring to
chess. The examples have all been play by technique alone. After the
taken from games Sergei Dolmatov European Championship we studied
played during the period 1 977-80. At ideas for activating his game and for
that time he needed to improve his consolidating his fighting qualities.
positional play, so he put together The work we did was successful, and
some positional sketches, noting not Sergei started playing with far more
only the pure chess incidents but also aggression and inventiveness. He
psychological aspects of decision­ soon won the World Junior Champi­
making and ways of thinking about onship with assured play. But, when
moves. analysing his games even from this
I recently took another look at successful tournament, he found
Seryosha Dolmatov's notebook, and traces of his old illness.
it was very interesting to recall the The game with which we are go­
work he did to improve his game. I ing to begin was played at the start of
should add that Sergei was already the championship. The first sketch
quite a strong player. In 1 978 he be­ which Sergei drew was associated
came World Junior Champion, and a with a poSition which arose immedi­
year later he won the First League of ately after the opening.
the US SR Championship. But, even
for a player of Dolmatov's standard, Kchakpur-Dolmatov
the use of positional sketches proved World Junior Ch., Graz 1978
to be productive, it helped to im­
prove his skills. Needless to say, 1 e4 c5
there were certain weaknesses in his 2 tLla e6
game which he wanted to rid himself 3 c3 d5
of. I shall now show you some exam­ 4 exd5 'i'xd5
ples of his analysis of his own 5 d4 tLlfti
games. 6 .td3 .te7
At the end of 1 977 Dolmatov 7 0-0 0-0
failed to win the European Junior 8 'i'e2 cxd4
Championship - he shared Ist-3ed 9 cxd4 tLlc6
place, finishing second on tie-break. 10 lldl tLlb4
This toumament showed up some of 11 tLlc3 'i'd6
 The Technique o/ Working on Your Own Games
12 .tbl (55)
12 ... .td7
A nOlmal developing move. But
was 12 ... b6 not stronger, attempting
to place the bishop more actively and
take control of the long diagonal?
What could Black have been worried
about here? Of course, 1 3 �,
when he might inadvertently lose a
rook. Should we fear this move or
not? What about the counter 1 3 . . .
.ta6 1 . Any exchanges favour Black,
so we should not be afraid.
Dolmatov sketched a diagram and
wrote that, instead of 1 2 .. .td7, it
. to a particular game. For example, it
was better to develop the bishop on
the long diagonal (this is for the mo­
ment a pure chess assessment). He
commented on what happened as
follows :
•I knew that the strongest move in
this position was 1 2 ... b6, but during
the game I suddenly became afraid
of 1 3 .tJe4, even though I saw the re­
ply 1 3 . . . .ta6 ! - that is to say, I was
afraid of ghosts.'
Rather interesting. If Sergei had
not found the intermediate move
' " 83
. . . .ta6 and had therefore decided
that 1 2 '" b6 could be refuted, one
could assess this episode as a tactical
blunder. But in fact he saw every­
thing and took fright nonetheless,
and so quite a different picture
arises. One should only be afraid of
things that are more real. If you see a
good idea and it works - why should
you have anything to fear?
Mistakes made in deliberating
over moves rarely occur by chance;
they give cause for reflection, since
there is usually some reason behind
them. For instance, lack of confi­
dence in your own powers - when
you do not actually fear any concrete
threats but are simply excessively
cautious in any circumstances. This
is a serious weakness, as it a terrible
hindrance when playing chess. Suc­
cess comes most often to aggressive
players with confidence in their own
ability.
Sometimes cautious play is a con­
sequence of a corresponding attitude
may be important that you do not
lose; by virtue of your tournament
position a draw may suit you en­
tirely, and you decide to play rather
more safely than usual. Such an atti­
tude of mind has a corrective influ­
ence on your actions throughout the
game. At some point you may need
to play more actively, but as your at­
titude is one of solidity and safety,
you place restrictions on yourself.
If your tournament position de­
mands that you get a draw, then
84 The Technique o/ Working on Your Own Games ...
straightforward playing for a draw is
a serious mistake. You will nearly al­
ways lose in such cases - assuming,
of course, that you have a clever and
experienced opponent. There is
nothing worse than playing for a
draw from the very fIrst move. If it is
important that you avoid defeat, you
should in no circumstances think
about a draw - you should play nor­
mally and actively. You are only enti­
tled to think about the desired
outcome at certain rare moments -
for example, if your opponent offers
a draw or if the opportunity arises to
force a position that is dead-drawn -
in other words, only once or twice in
the course of a game.
Of course, a cautious attitude does
not necessarily reduce the quality of
your play. Thanks to such an attitude
you can sometimes render harmless
your opponent's hidden intentions,
which in other circumstances you
might well have overlooked. That is
to say, a cautious frame of mind may
help you, but it may also let you
down, and sometimes both the one
and the other occur in the course of a
single game. We shall now look at
just such a case.
At the start of the World Champi­
onship, when his game with the Ira­
nian player Kchakpur was played,
Sergei had not yet warmed up. He
was not quite sure of himself, being
excessively diffident and cautious.
Let us examine a position which
arose in the middlegame of that en­
counter (56).
It is Black to move. How does he
stand? Very well, of course. At any
rate, we in Russia play chess better
than they do in Iran, and so it is not
surprising that Dolmatov had out­
played his opponent.
Here he again sketched a diagram,
placed an exclamation mark after his
move 22 . . . l:td7 ! , and provided the
following comment:
'Here I puzzled out my oppo­
nent's plan and played the strongest
move. The tempting 22 . . 'ifb6 was
.
weaker, because of 23 'tieS ! 'tixb2?
24 g4 ! , when White wins. Previously
I would have overlooked a move like
24 g4, since I have always been
afraid of moving the pawns in front
of my king precipitously.'
We see the result: in this instance
a cautious approach to the game
made Sergei pay careful attention to
his opponent's possibilities and
helped him to discover a hidden trap.
Note the last phrase in Dolma­
tov 's commentary - it is connected
with his pleasure at seeing the result
of the work he had done. Previously
 The Technique o/ Working on Your Own Games ... 85
moves such as 24 g4 were not in his
chess repertoire, he would find them
only with some difficulty. We had
devoted a great deal of time to active,
dynamic play, to unusual decisions,
and now Seryosha felt that he was
capable of finding such ideas for
himself.
Look at a third episode from the
same game (57) .
Dolmatov's note t o his move 2 5 ...
'i'b5?:
'Again I saw the strongest con­
tinuation: 25 ... lbe4 26 'ii'e3 'ii'xb2
27 .i.xe6 'ii'xf2+ 28 'ii'x f2 l£lxf2, but
did not notice that at the end of this
variation I would have an extra pawn
- for some reason it had seemed to
me that the pawns on each side
would be equal.'
At first glance a pure error in cal­
culation has been made, but I think
this was no accident. When a player
is in a mood for a cautious game he
does not wish to take sharp deci­
Sions, to make the situation more
complicated, to play combinations.
Subconsciously he looks not for
confmnation of the idea he has
found but for its refutation, in order
that he may continue with his quiet
manoeuvring. And so he easily per­
suades himself, with real or some­
times - as in this case - illusory
arguments. The illusions arise, as a
rule, only on one side of the argu­
ment.
Conversely, a player in highly ag­
gressive mood usually gets illusions
of the precisely opposite nature.
These three positional sketches
(more correctly in this case - psy­
chological sketches) associated with
episodes from a single game were
placed together, since they have
something in common - they show
us various consequences of a chess­
player's particular psychological
state. To the same sheet I added a de­
scription of another episode from
one of Sergei 's games from the same
World Junior Championship.
Yusupov-Dolmatov
World Junior Ch., OraZ 1978
86 The Technique of Working on Your Own Games ...
I don' t remember whose tum it
was to move. This game was played
in the middle of the tournament and
Yusupov was at this stage half a
point behind Dolmatov. In the first
half of the game White had a big ad­
vantage. Dolmatov defended stub­
bornly and was able to repel his
opponent's attack. Again I shall
quote his commentary.
' In this position I took my most
unfortunate decision of the whole
tournament: I offered a draw, even
though Black had good winning
chances. Considering my oppo­
nent's lack of time, these chances
could well have been turned into a
full point. Having conducted an ex­
hausting defence in the fIrst half of
the game, I was unable to adjust my
thoughts and start playing for a win.
I realised that my position was not
worse, but the fact that it was better
somehow never even entered my
head.'
First let us consider the pure chess
assessment of this situation. Dol­
matov is absolutely right. In a mid­
dlegame with opposite-coloured
bishops the player with the advan­
tage is usually the one with the in­
itiative, the one who is attacking. It is
clear that Black's position is the
more active. His bishop exerts pres­
sure against the square 12, while
White's bishop is biting on its own
pawn at d5 . A blockaded pawn on a
square of the same colour as the
bishop restricts its activity consider­
ably and therefore constitutes a very
serious positional defect in a middle­
game with opposite-coloured bish­
ops.
Now the psychological aspect.
The transition from an inferior posi­
tion to a superior one frequently
proves to be difficult for both play­
ers. The player who had the advan­
tage sometimes does not quite grasp
the fact that the situation has
changed, he does not sense the dan­
ger. Instead of contenting himself
with equality before it is too late and
agreeing a draw at some point, he
continues playing for a win through
' inertia' and so makes his position
worse. On the other hand, the player
who for a long time had been con­
ducting a difficult defence quite
often continues defending even
when he has real winning chances.
This is a typical psychological mis­
take, and it is a very good idea to
learn to notice such errors in your
own games. If you can be as honest
as Dolmatov and analyse your play
as frankly as he did, then in all prob­
ability you will avoid repeating the
same errors in future.
On the whole, Dolmatov played
superbly in the 1978 World Junior
Championship, finishing fIrst with a
very high score of 101h points out of
1 3 and winning several beautiful
games. But, as you see, even in his
best tournaments a chessplayer can ­
not avoid some difficult moments,
suffering losses of confidence and
totally overlooking certain moves ;
it is very important to be able to
 The Technique of Working on Your Own Games . . . 87
SUlVive such moments, suffering as
little damage as possible.
Chess is played by all kinds of
people, with different mentalities,
characters and temperaments. Dol­
matov is a highly emotional person;
excessive emotion often over­
whelms him and prevents him from
assessing a situation objectively. He
often suffers from considerable fluc­
tuations of mood. I have demon­
strated examples in which he was
unsure of himself, where he had un­
j ustified doubts about something or
feared something. But now I shall
acquaint you with some examples
where the exact opposite was the
case.
Immediately following the 1 978
World Championship, Sergei and I
took part in a tournament in Kutaisi,
where we shared first place.
Estrin-Dolmatov
Kutaisi 1978
White has just captured Black's
knight: 17 .i.xg6. What would you
recapture with on g6? Dolmatov
chose 17 ... fxg6? ! '
'Stronger was th e natural 1 7 . . .
hxg6; for example: 1 8 0-0-0 liJf5 19
1Wxd8 lifxd8 with advantage to
Black in the endgame.' [In fact, the
position favours Black only because
of the bad knight on a3; with a more
normal white knight such an assess­
ment would hardly be correct.] ' But
I wanted to play a more complicated
game, and so I convinced myself that
in the middlegame too I would at any
rate have no less an advantage. In ac­
tual fact, Black has nothing in the
middlegame. Moreover, he has to
play accurately in order not to get an
inferior position. Earlier I would
have played 1 7 ... hxg6 almost with­
out thinking, since I had the better
endgame, and this has always suited
me. But here I was playing for maxi­
mum gain, which in principle is the
correct approach, but in this particu­
lar case I did not establish correctly
how this maximum could be
achieved.'
To my mind, this is a very good
and interesting piece of reasoning.
Sergei considers how a game should
be contested, how to play for a win,
what risk one may permit oneself,
and what one may not permit. By an­
alysing his play from such a view­
point, a chessplayer increases his
chances of avoiding similar errors in
future - although, of course, there
cannot be any full guarantee. For
example, soon afterwards at the
European Jooior Championship,
88 The Technique o/ Working on Your Own Games ...
Seryosha made a similar mistake.
True, the situation was rather spe­
cial, as he was seriously worried
about the outcome of the tourna­
ment. At first, Dolmatov had led
confidently, but then the Dutch
player, van der Wiel, started winning
game after game, and by the tenth
round he caught Sergei up. The gen­
eral feeling was that the Dutchman
could continue his series of wins still
further.
Dolmatov-Petursson
European Junior Ch.,
Groningen 1 978/79
Chances are roughly equal.
White's trumps are the isolated en­
emy pawns on the queenside. But in
return for this weakness B lack's
pieces are active, he has the open d­
file, and he can attack the pawn at e5 .
In principle, this is just the sort of
position Dolmatov likes: a strategic
struggle, and chances to develop
pressure against the weak black
pawns. He wanted to play for a win,
but he couldn 't see how. It was possi­
ble to play accurately with 25 Z!e4,
with a roughly level ending , but in
this case he would have had no real
winning chances. Here is the note to
the move chosen by White, 25 'iti>n ?
'A totally senseless move. I
wanted to win at all costs, but play­
ing like this could only lead to de­
feat. One should not violate one's
position ! I have convinced myself of
this yet again.'
The motive underlying the move
with the king was purely emotional.
If it is necessary to retreat the rook
anyway and to go into an ending, the
king should be brought closer to the
centre - with the king on e2 in the
endgame it will be possible to play
for a win. But this was just a feeling,
and it would have disappeared after
some thought. Try moving the rook
away - White will get hit immedi­
ately by . . . lIdl + or . . . Z!d2. The idea
of transposing to an endgame with
the king on f1 is just not practicable.
And otherwise there is no justifica­
tion for moving the king.
Petursson is a good positional
player, but he defends better than he
attacks. If he were a better attacking
player he would surely have found
25 . , . a4! . In the event of 26 ':c 1 Z!d2
White would have a difficult ending.
Relatively the best way out of this
position would have been for White
to admit his mistake: 26 �g 1 !? But
first, it is not easy to decide on this,
and second, after 26 ... a3 the white
pawn on a2 would become a weakness
 The Technique of Working on Your Own Games . . . 89
onto which Black would be able to
fasten.
But Black played a less forceful
move, after which White was given a
breathing-space.
25 ... i.f8? !
26 f4
Dolmatov defends the pawn on eS
and wishes to bring his bishop into
play. Now in the event of 26 ... a4
White may calmly take the pawn
with the rook, as after 27 . . . :ct l +
White has 2 8 i.e ! .
26 ... i.b4
27 i.el
The simple move 27 \Wf3 ! would
have led to equality. Instead of this,
White commits another serious posi­
tional error, and again in the same
vein: he wishes to simplify the posi­
tion and then begin to put pressure
on the weak: pawns. But with this
plan Sergei again underestimates the
danger to his king.
27 ... i.xel
28 �xel a4!
What can White do now? The
pawn on b3 is attacked, and he can­
not take on a4 with the rook, in view
of 29 ... \WcS ! with the fatal threats
30 ... \Wc 1 + and 30 ... \Wg l+. The po­
sition would be completely normal if
White's king were on, say, h2, but
here it is stuck in the centre.
29 b4 a3?
Again Petursson plays an inaccu­
rate attacking move. From a posi­
tional point of view the move he
played was entirely sound - it is use­
ful to get a dangerous pawn on a3, to
split the opposing pawns, fixing the
weakness on a2. But at the same time
White, by playing 30 'iii>f2 , gets the
chance to remove his king from the
danger-zone. Black still retained the
initiative, but Dolmatov succeeded
after stubborn defence and agonising
analysis of the adjourned position
(described in my book Iskusstvo
Analiza published by Batsford as
-
Secrets of Chess Training) in saving
this game.
Had Petursson played rather more
precisely with 29 ... \Wb6 ! , and only
after 30 'iPfl then 30 . . . a3, the white
king would have remained in the
centre and Dolmatov would have
had a much tougher time than in the
game.
We have spoken about lack of
confidence in one's own powers and,
conversely, overestimation of one's
own possibilities and underestima­
tion of one's opponent's resources.
But, of course, a chessplayer may
also be hampered by inadequacies of
a totally different nature. For exam­
ple, weak: combinational vision.
(You have already encountered an
instance of this in the first chapter of
this book, when you solved the exer­
cises from Botvinnik's games.
Botvinnik himself stressed that he
always suffered from this weak­
ness .)
Some years ago Dolmatov was
not happy with his ability to calcu­
late variations. After the Premier
League of the 1 979 USSR Cham­
pionship he made ' sketches ' on this
90 The Technique of Working on Your Own Games '"
theme, taken from five of his games.
I shall now show you one of them.
Belyavsky-Dolmatov
USSR Ch., Minsk 1979
This position is of course in
Black's favour. He stands remark­
ably well in the centre and has con­
trol of the dark squares. Which move
looks the most natural?
Advance the pawn to h3? A possi­
ble continuation, and this is what
Dolmatov chose. But poSitionally it
is questionable, as it weakens
Black's control of the dark squares.
Play . . . ttJh5 and then ... ttJf4 ? Not
bad, since f4 is an entirely appropri­
ate square for the knight.
However, the nicest move is 22 . . .
ttJd5 ! . Th e knight i s heading for f4,
but at the same time it also eyes sev­
eral other squares, and no-one knows
which it will actually occupy. Perhaps
c3 . But if White replies 23 'iff3, the
knight will come to b4, and what will
White then do about his bishop on
c2? It is clear that the mUlti-purpose
move 22 ... ttJd5 ! would have most
clearly underlined Black's advan­
tage.
Dolmatov writes: 'Black was di­
verted by the calculation of a com­
plicated combination, beginning
with 22 ... h3? ! 23 g3 �g4, and did
not notice the simple move 22 . . .
tiJd5 , which would have given him a
clear advantage. Again undisci­
plined calculation let me down.'
What did Sergei mean by undisci­
plined calculation? Which principle
of calculating variations was vio­
lated? Of course, the principle of
' candidate moves' , which requires
that one frrst determine all the prom­
ising continuations and only then get
more absorbed in the calculation of
any of them. By following this prin­
ciple Dolmatov would surely have
seen the move 22 ... ttJd5 ! .
Then he would possibly have re­
jected the combination, particularly
since its consequences are totally un­
clear, and would have preferred a
simple and secure way to preserve
his advantage.
22 h3?!
23 g3 .tg4
24 t3
Now try to find the idea behind
Black's combination. It is far from
obvious.
24 ... 'i'c5+
25 'I'll
White could still have played 25
ttJe3. His position would be ex­
tremely perilous, but I cannot see
any refutation. Look for one at your
 The Technique a/ Working on Your Own Games ... 91
leisure, perhaps one can be found. Of
course, the move chosen by Be­
lyavsky was more natural.
25 ••• 'i'c3 (62)
Now let us calculate variations;
try to understand what Dolmatov
had in mind and guess what he was
unable to see. This is a rather diffi­
cult task.
Capturing the bishop clearly loses
at once, because of 26 ... lL'lxg4 27
'iWe2 'ilcS+. Which candidate moves
for White can you see?
Sergei calculated the following
main variation: 26 lL'le3 �xf3 ! 27
'ilxf3 lL'ldS ! 28 exdS lhe3 29 'iVt2
�f3 30 'iVe2 'iVcS+ and 3 1 .. !tt2 ,
.
winning. A very interesting and
beautiful conception !
When Dolmatov showed me this
game I immediately asked him: ' But
what if White plays 29 dxc6 (instead
of 29 'iVt2), or, better still, takes on
c6 a move later? ' He had no answer ­
Sergei had simply overlooked his
opponent's counter-punch. I have
not examined what would happen in
this case, since it is possible that this
would be the start of a whole new
tree of complicated variations.
Alas, this is not yet all. Dolmatov
writes: ' Black overlooked the strong
reply 26 eS , which, fortunately for
him, does not actually lead to his de­
feat. In sharp positions of this type
any oversight can cost the game:
Belyavsky played his move after
considerable thought.
26 e5 i.xf3
The only reply. If 27 exf6 then
simply 27 . . . �xd 1 .
2 7 ':'xd8 ':'xd8
28 exf6 'iVxal
29 'i'xt3 (63)
Let us now pause for a moment,
think what possibilities Black has,
and identify which are better and
which worse.
63
B
Well, let's assume 29 . . . 'i'xf6.
How should we assess the position?
Black stands worse - do you agree?
If the rook were active it could be
stronger than the two minor pieces,
but here the rook has no squares to
92 The Technique of Working on Your Own Games ...
invade on. The white king quickly
comes closer to the centre, after
which the rook will apparently not
break through anywhere. And White,
of course, will soon surround the
pawn on h3 and gobble it up.
There is the thrust 29 ... .:d2. But
where does this lead? To the counter
30 �h7+ ! can you see? Perpetual
- Every cloud has a silver lining .
check is the result. But this is still
better than the unfavourable ending
after 29 ... 1Wxf6?
Are there any other continuations?
Again I quote Dolmatov 's words:
' Here the telling factors were bad
calculation and a poor assessment of
the position. Black has three possi­
bilities:
a) 29 . . . 1Wxf6? The most unsuc­
cessful move, and the one which was
played in the game. The endgame fa­
vours White.
b) 29 ... :d2? ! . I simply did not
see this move. It would have led to a
draw after 30 �h7+ �h7 3 1 'iWfS+,
with perpetual check.
c) 29 . . . gxf6 ! . Black has an ad­
vantage in the middlegame, since his
king can hide safely on the squares
f8 and e7, whereas the white king is
in a worse position. In the event of
the pawn on a2 being exchanged for
the pawn on h3 (for instance, after 30
1Wg4+ <it>f8 3 1 1Wxh3 1Wxa2) , Black
will soon exchange queens and get a
winning endgame. It is interesting
that the move 29 . . . gxf6! didn't even
occur to me or my opponent.'
Dolmatov and I discovered the
possibility 29 ... gxf6 when we ana-
lysed this game. I fear that Sergei
somewhat exaggerates its strength:
after 30 1Wg4+ <it>f8 White has the
unpleasant check 31 'iWb4+. But ba­
sically everything he said was cor­
rect. It is quite shocking to overlook
resources such as 29 . . . l:{d2 and 29
. . . gxf6.
Having reached a difficult ending,
Sergei started to defend stubbornly,
and when at one point his opponent's
concentration faltered he played a
fantastic combination and created a
genuine masterpiece. The ending of
this game can be found in my book
mentioned above.
We have seen that at that time
Dolmatov felt unsure of himself in
sharp struggles, he calculated vari­
ations poorly and overlooked moves
both for himself and his opponent.
But those of you who are already fa­
miliar with Secrets of Chess Train­
ing will have discovered a great
many examples of the complete op­
poSite, games in which Sergei dem­
onstrated supreme skill in
calculating the most complicated
variations.
The matter is quite straightfor­
ward: Dolmatov realised that with
poor calculating technique he could
never hope to achieve great success.
He did some serious training and
solved an enormous number of stud­
ies and practical positions from my
card-index of exercises. We also
made use of other training methods ­
for example, the playing-out of
 The Technique of Working on Your Own Games . . . 93

specially selected positions . I think behind the move was - why he

that in some situations he is now ca­ needed to play precisely this move
pable of out-calculating even Kas­ and no other. Sergei of course no
parov. longer remembers what he calcu­
Don 't get the idea that Sergei was lated at the time. But not long ago I
at that time simply a learner who had came across Dolmatov's notebook
only just begun to play chess. No, he of positional sketches and found in it
was already a strong player - he had a deScription of this episode. Thanks
demonstrated interesting, profound to the notebook, this magnificent ex­
ideas and won some remarkable ample has been preserved, and I can
games. But however soundly a now show it to you.
chessplayer plays he always has
weaknesses which he should work Dolmatov-Plaskett
on. As you see , the starting-point in European Junior Ch.,
Dolmatov's work to improve his Groningen 1978(79
game was the analysis of his errors,
accomplished with the aid of the 1 e4 eS
method which we have convention­ 2 lLlt3 d6
ally called 'positional sketches ' . 3 d4 exd4
Up until now I have mainly been 4 lLlxd4 lLlfli
demonstrating negative examples - 5 lLlc3 a6
Sergei's failures. Now I shall show 6 f4 e6
you one of his best games from that 7 i.e2 i.e7
period, a game which any strong 8 0-0 0-0
player would be pleased to number 9 a4 lLle6
among his achievements. It was 10 i.e3 ike7
played in the European Junior 1 1 �hl
Championship of 1 978/79. In that One of the standard positions of
Championship Dolmatov played the Scheveningen Variation has
many very fine games; I annotated arisen. Here Black most often plays
some of them in the tournament 1 1 . . . lIe8. The continuation chosen
book, but I didn 't annotate his en­ by Plaskett is less successful.
counter with the Englishman, Plas­ 11
••• lLlxd4
kett. I can still recall that at one point 12 'i'xd4 i.d7
in this game Doimatov played a very The Encyclopaedia of Chess
deep, very subtle positional move Openings mainly considers 12 . . . e5 .
which established his advantage. But Instead of this , B lack allows his
the game is quoted in the tournament position to become cramped, hop­
book without any annotations, and it ing subsequently to counter-attack
is not so easy to grasp what the idea White's centre.
94 The Technique of Working on Your Own Games ...

13 eS 16 ••• g6
It is not so easy to choose between 17 as
two natural moves: 1 4 .i.d3 and 14 A standard way to suppress
.i.f3. They are both entirely play­ Black's play on the queens ide.
able, but the latter appears to be 17 ••• 1tJg7
somewhat stronger. IS 'i'e2
14 .i.d3 .tc6 (64) A good regrouping manoeuvre:
the bishop should be placed in front
of the queen on the g l -a7 diagonal.
IS :d7
19 .i.b6 'ti'bs
20 'i'e3 .tdS
21 .ta7 'i'aS
22 .tb6
In order to avoid tactical tricks
like 22 . . . .i.xg2+ 23 'i&>xg2 b6+, or
the immediate 22 ... b6 (22 . . . b5),
Dolmatov retreats his bishop.
22 ••• .txb6
IS .ttl! Perhaps 22 . . . 'Wbs was better.
It was tempting to play 15 ltJe4, 23 'i'xb6 'i'bs
but Black would have replied 1 5 .. . 24 .te4
lidS ! and after 1 6 'iWc3 then 1 6 . . . B lack has a strong bishop on c6,
licS ! . The opposition of the queen cementing his queenside together
and the enemy rook would cause and exerting pressure on g2; White is
White real discomfort. In due course ready to exchange it off.
Nana Alexandria, the Kiev Grand­ 24 :c8
master Platonov and I analysed the 2S :ad l 1tJe8 (65)
position which has arisen and ascer­
tained that White has nothing.
Dolmatov's move is stronger - he 65
vacates a convenient retreat square W

for the queen in advance.

IS ... :dS
16 'i'e3
White has slightly more space,
and so his position is clearly to be
preferred. Subsequently he will
strive to hold on to his spatial advan­
tage and then increase it.
 The Technique of Working on Your Own Games . . . 95
This is the position which has
prompted me to show you this game.
White has a superb position, but
how can he maintain his initiative?
Although Sergei was not then a
grandmaster, he played a truly
grandmasterly move. I shall now at­
tempt to reproduce the logic behind
his reasoning .
First let us examine whether it is
possible to break through immedi­
ately, for example: 26 f5 . Alas, we
have nothing definite, our opponent
has a normal position, and so we
won't be able to take him by storm.
Which question is it useful to ask
oneself in such a situation? 'What
does my opponent wish to do? ' - this
is the key question, which will al­
ways help you to approach a position
correctly. Mentally we should give
our opponent the move and fmd out
how he would make use of it.
Let's think what Black wishes to
do. Does he intend, for instance, to
capture on e5 ? Let's see: 26 . . . dxe5
27 l:ixd7 .i.xd7 28 i.xb7 and the
rook and the pawn on a6 are both at­
tacked. This surely favours White,
and that means that we should not
fear the capture on e5 .
But what about 26 . . dS ? This
. obtain a clear advantage. And if 28 . . .
also does not frighten us: the bishop
retreats to d3. If 27 . . . d4 then White
has at least 28 liJe4. And otherwise
White will transfer his knight to d4
and retain a marked advantage.
Not bad would be 26 . . . 'irc7 !? -
White certainly has to take this move
into account.
What else is there? Let's examine
26 ... .i.xe4 27 liJxe4 dS . Where will
the knight go? It stands poorly on c3,
Black will successfully unravel his
pieces and get play on the c-file. Pos­
sible are . . . l:ide7, ... l:ic6 and ... l:tc4.
The move 28 liJc5 is also not danger-
0us. Black has the restrained reply
28 . . . '!J.e7 followed by . . . :'c6, but
also not bad is 28 ... ]ide7 29 b4 l':tc6
30 'irxb7 'irxb7 3 1 liJxb7 l:lb8.
This gives us some useful infor­
mation: we already know what to ex­
pect from Black. Most probably 26
. . . .i.xe4 and 27 . . . dS , but perhaps 26
. . . 'ilic7. Now we need to see how we
can combat these plans. What can we
think up so as not to allow our oppo­
nent to free himself from the bind?
Dolmatov found a brilliant solution.
26 'ib4! !
A baffling queen retreat - you
won't understand the point of it
straightaway. I really like moves
such as this. Let's try to puzzle it out.
What has White planned in reply
to his opponent's main idea? It turns
out that on 26 . . . i.xe4 27 liJxe4 dS
Dolmatov had prepared a move of
awesome power: 28 c4 ! ! . By sub­
sequently capturing on dS White will
lhc4 then 2 9 'irxc4 dxc4 3 0 :'xd7
with a totally winning position - the
black pieces have no useful moves.
So, the point behind Dolmatov's
discovery is now clear - he has man­
aged to prevent his opponent's idea
involving an exchange on e4. As
often happens with profound moves,
96 The Technique of Working on Your Own Games ...
the move 26 'iWb4 turns out to be
multi-faceted: new merits can be dis­
covered in it; it turns out to be very
opportune not j ust in those variations
for the sake of which it was played.
In order to convince ourselves of
this, let us examine the situation
which has now arisen.
Let us assume that after 26 .. .
�xe4 27 �xe4 Black will play 27 . . .
l:lxc2. We can capture on d6 with ad­
vantage. It is pleasant to note that the
move . . . 1:k6 will now be played
without gain of time - just as Black
will no longer gain a tempo by at­
tacking the queen with 26 ... iic7.
If26 . . . d5 then 27 �d3 (intending
�c3-e2-d4). Here the situation has
not changed in comparison with our
preliminary estimations.
But after 26 . . . dxe5 27 llxd7
�xd7 the situation has changed.
We had intended to take on b7
with the bishop, but now this is not
possible because of the pin. And cap­
turing with the queen is not so clear.
But this is nothing terrible - for now
we shall simply play 28 fxe5 , since
after 28 .. , iixe5 we have the deci­
sive thrust 29 iie7 ! .
C an you believe that the move 26
'iWb4 wins the game? Hardly - in fact
it is not even easy to say what Black
is actually threatened with. He will
surely find a defence.
Let us try 26 . . . llcd8, creating the
threat of capturing on e5 . Dolmatov
considered this move, and he wrote
that he had intended to reply 27
�xc6 bxc6 28 iib6 ! . A good plan.
In the event of an exchange on b6,
the passed pawn will be supported
by the knight on a4. The black pawn
cannot remain on d6 forever - it will
either move to d5 or be exchanged
on e5, and in either case the white
knight will get the excellent square
c5 .
But I am not sure how to assess
the position arising after 28 . . . ltb7
29 'iWxa6 (or 29 'iWxc6) 29 . . . lhb2. It
seems to me that Black has every
right to reckon on eqUality.
It is not impossible that other ac­
ceptable possibilities may be found
for Black. But this does not affect the
essence of the matter. In practice,
moves such as 26 'iWb4 ! ! more often
than not change the course of a game
and sometimes even decide its out­
come. If you can succeed in pene­
trating the mysteries of a position, in
frustrating your opponent's plans, in
setting him serious problems, then it
is entirely probable that he will not
manage to guess your intentions in
time, that he will not readj ust his
thoughts in order to frod new ideas
and lay new plans. Psychologically
this is a very difficult task.
Plaskett was unable to cope with
this task. He probably realised what
awaited him in the event of an ex­
change on e4, but he did not notice
one other powerful idea associated
with the move 26 'iWb4.
26 ... 'iWe7?!
This looks very natural - Black
activates his queen and defends the
rook on d7. B ut also in this case
 The Technique of Working on Your Own Games ... 97

Dolmatov had prepared an excellent 28 ••• ttJc7

positional reply. A primitive trap: 29 ttJb6? ttJdS ,
27 i..xc6 'i'xc6 an d the exchange o f knights immedi­
27 . . . bxc6 would have been met ately alleviates Black's position. Of
by the same reply. course, Dolmatov cannot possibly
28 ttJa4! go wrong here, he knows very well
This is the point: having retreated that his main aim must be to restrict
the queen White has vacated the b6 the black knight.
square for his knight. 29 c4 dxeS
It is finally time to say something 30 ttJb6 Ilxd l
about the piece whose fate has been 31 :'xd l 1le8
the leitmotif of White's entire strat­ 32 fxeS
egy - the black knight, now re­ The black pieces have no space in
stricted by the white pawn on e5 . which to manoeuvre. In passing ,
What future does it have? Can it White has taken control of the open
emerge via g7 on f5 ? But if there are d-file. We now see the sort of domi­
no queens on the board, White will nation so loved by Petrosian and
meet this plan by playing g4. The Karpov. The rest of the game is not
other route for the knight is via c7 to really a fight - it is simply a massa-
d5 . If White can succeed in putting a ere.
pawn on c4 this route will also be 32 •••
q;g7
barred and the knight on e8 will be 33 'i'd6!
shut out of the game forever. And The simplest and most precise so­
then it will be time to recall Tarrasch: lution. The black queen defends the
'If one of your pieces stands badly, queenside, and after it is exchanged
your whole game is bad.' White's rook will invade on the sev­
Now it is clear what Dolmatov enth rank.
was aiming for. It is not merely a 33 Ilb8
question of the fork which Black is 34 'i'xc6 bxc6
now threatened with, nor of the 35 ltd7 ttJe8
knight coming in at b6 (this is not the If 35 . . . ttJa8 then, of course, 36
best square on the board). The main c5 , with a totally hopeless rook end­
point is that White has secured the ing for Black.
move c2-c4! , limiting the mobility of 36 g4!
the enemy knight and, at the same An accurate positional decision.
time, Black's major pieces on the c­ This move provides an 'escape-hole'
file. and a direct path towards the centre
The ending of this game demon­ for the king, and also gains space on
strates the complete triumph of the kingside.
White's plan. 36 ••• g5 (66)
98 The Technique a/ Working on Your Own Games ...
And now the [mal subtlety. This
position can probably be won as
White pleases, but in no circum­
stances should you adopt such an at­
titude when seeking to convert an
advantage. It is necessary to find the
most 'pure ' , the most accurate path
to victory.
White can, of course, bring his
king to the centre or set about attack­
ing the enemy pawns on the queen­
side. But Dolmatov again asked
himself what Black could undertake
in this position. What do you think
B lack wishes to do? Most probably
he will try to free his knight by play­
ing . . . �g6 and ... f6. It would be
quite a good idea to prevent this.
37 b4! �g6
38 l:.e7
The f-pawn cannot now advance,
and White intends to bring his king
to the centre. But should White have
allowed the black rook to have the d­
file?
38 l:.d8
39 b5!
Now the point of the move 37 b4!
can be understood.
39 cxb5
40 cxb5 axb5
41 a6 b4
42 a7
Black resigned
A superb strategic victory !
I hope you are convinced how
useful it can be to make positional
sketches - relating both to pure chess
episodes and to psychological as­
pects of the game - when analysing
your own games or when studying
games of other players.
The ' Superfluous
Piece '
Mark Dvoretsky
From Nimwwitsch's writing we
know that pieces which are able to
cover a strategically important
square, making it possible to oc­
cupy that square, are usually well­
placed.
In the fight for a given square
players most often try to exchange
these pieces off. But sometimes a to­
tally different strategy is adopted: if
the square cannot be won back by
means of exchanges, then one may. . .
forget about exchanges altogether
(after all, only one of the opponent's
pieces will be able to occupy the
' important high ground' , and the
others will turn out to be, so to speak,
 The Technique of Working on Your Own Games ... 99

superfluous). I should like to show After 1 3 b4 f5 14 b5 lDd8 my oppo­

you some examples of this theme. nent had to reckon with both 15 ... c6
In my own games the following and 15 . . . f4. Ubilava decided to re­
opening variation was encountered treat: 1 5 lDe2 c6 16 bxc6 bxc6 1 7
several times: 1Wa4 �h8 1 8 f3 lDe6 1 9 lDdc3 :n ,
1 c4 lDtli but as a result Black gained a marked
2 lDc3 g6 advantage .
3 g3 ..tg7 Five years later, in the game
4 ..tg2 0-0 Dvoretsky-Savon, Odessa 1 974,
5 e3 d6 White played 10 l2Jec3 at once.
6 lDge2 e5 Black is faced with a problem: which
7 0-0 lDc6 of two reasonable positional ideas
8 d3 ..too (familiar to us from the previous
9 lDd5 'i'd7 (67) game) should he carry out fust: the
exchange of light-squared bishops or
the retreat of the knight, followed by
67 ... c7-c6. The choice was unfortu­
W nate: 1 0 ... i..h 3? ! l l lDxf6+ ! i..xf6
1 2 00 ..td8.
White has exchanged off his 'su­
perfluous ' knight, at the same time
driving back Black's bishop to a bad
position. There followed: 1 3 i..d2
..txg2 14 Wxg2 f5 1 5 'i'b3. Black
has come up against serious difficul­
ties. Analysis showed that he should
Black wishes to reduce the pres­ have avoided the exchange of
sure on his queenside by exchanging knights: 10 . . . lDe8 ! , intending sub­
light-squared bishops with 10 . . . sequently to play . . . i..e6-h3 or . . .
..th3. I n s o doing h e takes into ac­ lDc6-d8, followed by . . . c6, after
count that White cannot play 1 1 which he has no worries . This con­
i..x h3 'i'xh3 1 2 lDxc77, because of clusion was confirmed in two
1 2 ... lDg4. games:
In the game Ubilava-Dvoretsky, a) Gufeld-Dvoretsky, Borzhomi
Batumi 1 969, there followed: 10 1 975 : 1 1 f4 i..h 3 1 2 i.. xh3 'i'xh3 1 3
l:tbl i..b 3 1 1 l2Jec3 i.. x g2 12 �g2 f5 (a totally harmless ploy) 1 3 . . .
(better is 1 2 lDxf6+) 12 . . . lDh5 . And gxfS 1 4 b4 f4 (probably stronger still
here it turned out that there are two was the simple 1 4 ... �h8) 1 5 gxf4 f5
white knights competing for just one 1 6 b5 �h8 ! 1 7 �h l lDd8 with an ex­
square (dS), and this is one too many. cellent game for Black.
100 The Technique of Working on Your Own Games . . .
b ) Dvoretsky-Vadasz, Wijk aan
Zee 1 975: 1 1 1ia4 �3 ( 1 1 . . .
ttJdS !?) 1 2 .i.d2 .i.xg2 1 3 �g2 f5
1 4 :ae l (It is a mistake to play 14
b4? , because of 1 4 ... f4! , when the
unfortunate position of the white
knight on c3 is very significant.
More accurate, however, was 14 f4,
since after the move in the game
Black could have replied 14 . . . gS !)
14 . . . !tf7 IS f4. Now Black could
have equalised with IS . . . ttJdS ! . For
example: 1 6 1ixd7 ':xd7 1 7 e4 c6 1S
ttJe3 exf4 1 9 gxf4 fxe4 20 dxe4 ttJe6
2 1 fS ttJcS, or 1 6 1ia3 ttJe6 1 7 b4 gS .
Instead o f this he played I S ... exf4?
1 6 gxf4 ttJd8 , which turned out to be
a mistake: 1 7 1ixd7 .lhd7 1 8 e4 c6
(or 18 . . . fxe4 19 ':xe4 !) 1 9 exfS !
cxdS 20 ':xeS+ <l;fl 2 1 :tfe l , and
White obtained an advantage.
On the basis of these examples
one may draw the conclusion that in
this variation the knight on c3 (with a
second knight on dS) is poorly
placed. By declining to exchange
knights, Black gets an excellent
game.
Dolmatov-Romanishin
Minsk 1 979
(68) : White has an advantage in
space but Black has the strong
square eS , for which both of his
knights and his dark-squared bishop
are competing . This means that
White cannot and should not fight
for the eS square - one black piece
will occupy it, and two pieces may
turn out to be ' superfluous ' . White
should begin his 'own' game, for ex­
ample with 27 .i.aS ! (weakening the
c6 square and Black's queenside
pawns: Black cannot move his rook
away because of 28 .i.a4) 27 ... b6 28
.i.c3 ttJ4eS 29 ttJd4 ! , intending a2-
a4-aS . In this way White would have
got the better game.
Instead of this, White chose 27
.i.c3 ? ! ttJ4e5 28 .i.d4 b6 29 a4 (bet­
ter was 29 .i.c3) 29 ... .i.f6 (threaten­
ing 30 . . . ttJxf3+) 30 ttJxeS .i.xeS 3 1
.i.xeS ttJxeS 3 2 as g6.
Black has exchanged his ' super­
fluous' pieces for his opponent's ac­
tive pieces. The white bishop and
knight remaining on the board are
passive, and Black now has the in­
itiative.
An analogous positional error
was committed by Black in the fol­
lowing game:
Karpov-Do)matov
Amsterdam 1 980
(69) : The exchange of knights 34
. . . ttJe7? is a positional error (the
 The Technique of Working on Your Own Games ... 101
' superfluous' white knight on b4 is
exchanged). After 35 %la6 'it'd7 36
'it'e4 liJxdS 37 liJxdS �e7 38 %Hal
�f8 39 'ife2 ':c6 40 :5a3 ! %lc5 4 1
1If3 ! %bf3 4 2 'ii'x f3 Black 's remain­
ing pieces are passive and discon­
nected. White soon organised a
decisive attack on the king.
However, by continuing 34 . . . e4!
Black would have got a good game.
Indeed, White has to reckon with the
possibility that after ... 'ii'f5-e5-d4
there will be threats to his only real
weakness - the pawn on c4.
Up until now we have been con­
sidering cases where two knights
were 'competing' for a single square.
But sometimes other pieces may turn
out to be ' superfluous ' .
Nei-Dvoretsky
Kharkov 1 967
(70) : White has a sound extra
pawn, but Black has some hopes as­
sociated with the f�t that the white
d-pawn is on a square of the same
colour as the white bishop. This
means that counterplay on the dark
squares will be possible. And in the
event of the exchange of all the m�or
pieces the bishop ending may turn
out to be drawn.
Now it is necessary to make a
choice between 20 . . . lhb8 and 20 . . .
1:tae8 . With four rooks on the board,
White's bishop, once it has reached
c6, will severely restrict the mobility
of the black rooks - they will only
have the b-file, for which only one
rook is needed. The second black
rook will remain passive. But the
white rooks, having doubled up on
the e-file, will be able to penetrate
onto the seventh rank. This means
that Black is obliged to exchange a
pair of rooks .
20 %Z.ae8!
21 �c6 %Z.xel+
22 hel %Z.b8
23 'ifc3+ 'iff6
24 'ifxf6+ �xf6
2S b3 %Z.b4
Now B lack has definite counter-
chances.
1 02 The Technique o/ Working on Your Own Games . . .

Exercises

7 9

71
W

White to move Black to move

White to move
4 Studyi ng the C lass i cs
Mikhail Shereshevsky
I recently asked a certain talented
player her opinion of Alekhine's
games. She replied: 'Why should I
study Alekhine's games when I shall
never need to play him? ' It appears
that she only studies the games of
her opponents. I am sure that this
player's prospects are greatly re­
duced by such an approach.
Why do we need to study classical
games? I shall try to explain.
Modem chess began with Ste­
initz. There were some very strong
players before him, such as Philidor,
La Bourdonnais and Morphy, but it
was Steinitz who laid the founda­
tions of modem positional play.
As a trainer I am primarily inter­
ested in the practical results of my
pupils. Hence it is natural that the
study of the classics should interest
me from the practical chessplayer's
point of view. I give all the children I
train a definite programme - which
may perhaps be subjective - of work
involving the study of classical
games.
I am not particularly interested in
chess before Steinitz. Although
Morphy was of course a remarkable
player, my programme does not in­
clude the study of Morphy 's games.
It begins with Steinitz's theory,
which I consider to be best described
in two books: Lasker 's Chess Man­
ual (in the chapter on positional
play) and Euwe's Course of Chess
Lectures (in Russian: Kurs Shakh­
matnykh Lektsil). Besides these two
works, there is an interesting and
very rare little book by Znosko­
Borovsky entitled The Middle Game
in Chess. In this book, methods of
assessing a position are examined
which were characteristic of the
time. Today they have been in many
respects simply forgotten.
Prior to Steinitz chessplayers sup­
posed that they alone were responsi­
ble for the course of events on the
board; it was sufficient to feel good
on the day, to experience a surge of
creativity, and inspiration would
surely come - a brilliant combina­
tion would be found. Those were the
days of the ' Immortal ' game, An­
derssen-Kieseritzky (alas, by no
means free from errors - a game
which from today's point of view
cannot stand up to critical analysis).
Steinitz was the first to consider
whether this supposition was actu­
ally correct, and he became inter­
ested in this problem.
He came to the conclusion that
brilliant combinations are by no
1 04 Studying the Classics
means possible in every position,
and that achieving them depends not
only on the brilliance of the player
concerned but also on particular fea­
tures of the position itself. Situations
occur in which even the most bril­
liant player is quite unable to play
any sort of combination. This
prompted Steinitz to investigate an
enormous variety of positions, and
he proceeded to formulate laws of
positional play. But his main
achievement, and I stress this, was
his conclusion that a game of chess
needs to be played according to a
plan, that one's actions may be
planned, and that the plan depends
on one's assessment of the position.
Steinitz worked out many interesting
principles of positional play, the ma­
jority of which have stood the test of
time, although some were not justi­
fied. But his main idea: that one
needs to play according to a plan,
and that the plan arises from an
evaluation of the position - a con­
cept which no-one had previously hit
upon - is undoubtedly correct and
very important for the development
of chess theory.
The characteristic approach to as­
sessing a position at that time is very
accurately described in the book by
Znosko-Borovsky mentioned above.
It singles out three main factors
which influence one's assessment: a
superiority in forces (that is, a mater­
ial advantage); an advantage in time
(as we would say, in development);
and an advantage in space. When
chessplayers spoke of an advantage
in time, they would proceed to count
tempi, beginning from the initial po­
sition. It might be that one side had
made, say, six moves, and the other
ten. Such a situation may occur not
only because of the straightforward
loss of tempi, but also as the result of
the exchange of a piece which has
made several moves for a piece
which has hardly moved at all.
Nowadays, of course, no-one con­
siders these tempi, a chessplayer
simply assesses a lead in develop­
ment for one side or the other by
looking at the position.
These three aspects formed the
starting-point for an assessment of
the position and the formulation of a
plan. Such an approach might some­
times come in useful even today. Let
us examine some examples.
Nimzowitsch-Capablanca
Sr. Petersburg 1 91 4
White has an extra pawn, but
Black has a lead in development. Let

us count the tempi: White has played
e4 - one move, lLlc3 - a second, he
has castled - a third, the queen has
come to a6 - two more moves: five
altogether. Black has more tempi.
The pawn moves . . . g6, . . . d6 and . . .
bxc6 - three tempi; . . . 1:tc8 , ... 1:te8 , . . .
'i'd7, . . . Jig7, . . . lLlf6, castling - an­
other six. (Of course, they are not all
of equal merit - for example, there is
not much point in having the rook on
c8).
I repeat that it is not essential to do
such calculations. One may also es­
tablish that Black has a lead in devel­
opment, but that White has an extra
pawn, simply by looking at the posi-
tion.
The pawn on e4 is under attack,
and White has a question to answer ­
how should it be defended? This
may be done with the move 'i'd3, re­
moving the queen from its rather
perilous position, or White could
play %:leI or f3 .
Nimzowitsch chose 1 5 'i'd3 and
subsequently lost this game in in­
structive fashion. Capablanca re­
plied 15 . . . 'i'e6, again attacking the
pawn on e4 and forcing White to
play yet another defensive move.
Play then continued according to the
motifs of the modem Benko Gambit:
the knight was transferred to c4 via
d7 and e5 , and the rooks occupied
the open a- and b-files. White was
unable to succeed in neutralising
such pressure.
This is how the game continued:
1 6 f3 lLld7 17 Jid2 lLle5 1 8 'i'e2 lLlc4
Studying the Classics 1 05
1 9 1:tab l lia8 20 a4 lLlxd2 2 1 it'xd2
'i'c4 22 rudl l1eb8 23 'ile3 l:tb4 24
'i'g5 Jid4+ 25 �h 1 liab8 26 l:txd4
'ilxd4 and, the exchange ahead,
Black won easily.
I found the right explanation for
what happened in Znosko-Borov­
sky 's book. He writes that if your
opponent has a lead in time (in de­
velopment) but you have extra ma­
terial, in no circumstances should
you divert to defensive duties any
pieces which are exerting pressure
on the enemy position. Such pieces
may be placed perilously, involving
some risk, but they prevent the oppo­
nent from manoeuvring freely.
From the a6 square the queen at­
tacks the pawn on c6 and prevents
Black from regrouping with ... 'ile6,
. . . lLld7, . . . lLlb6(e5) and . . . l2Jc4. The
correct move was 15 f3 ! . It is neces­
sary to reckon with the reply . . . .%:la8,
but then White may play 'i'c4. The
essence of the matter consists in not
removing the queen from a position
where it is attacking the c6 square.
Let us call to mind the Najdorf
Variation of the Sicilian Defence,
when Black takes the pawn on b2
with his queen and then retreats to
a3. The queen is quite beguiling for
the opponent. It is in a perilous situ­
ation, but it prevents White from ma­
noeuvring freely.
I shall now show you a position
which arises in one of the variations
of the Ragozin Defence.
1 d4 lLlffi
2 c4 e6
1 06 Studying the Classics
3 �t3 dS
4 �c3 ..tb4
Now one of the most unpleasant
plans for Black is:
S cxdS exdS
6 ..tgS
As a rule, Black replies with the
counter-attack ... c7-c5 , having first
played 6 . . . h6. But it is possible to
play differently:
6 ... c6
After the logical 7 e3 Black has 7
. . . "as , but it is still useful to insert
. . . h7-h6.
7 e3 h6
8 ..th4 'i'aS
Now White has a choice: he either
has to sacrifice a pawn with the
move 9 i.xf6, or opt for passive de­
fence after, say, 9 Wi'b3 �e4. It is
clear that in the latter case Black will
have no problems at all .
9 ..txf6 ..txc3+
10 bxc3 'i'xc3+
1 1 �d2 gxf6
Black has a positional threat: . . .
i.f5 and then . . . 'i'c2. If h e can suc­
ceed in exchanging queens, say after
1 2 i.e2 i.f5 1 3 0-0 "c2, White's in­
itiative will evaporate. Therefore the
move 12 ltb l (75) is undoubtedly
correct. White does not allow the en­
emy bishop to move out, and at the
same time he moves his rook to an
active position, out of the queen's
line of fire.
Now after the queen retreats - say,
1 2 ... "a3 and . . . 'i'e7 - Black will
surely come under a very annoying
attack. He must try to restrain his op-
ponent with those forces which are
already in play.
Having investigated this position ,
we came to the conclusion that the
correct move here is 1 2 ... ltgS. The
queen must remain on c3. Although
it finds itself in a rather exposed, ex­
travagant position, from here it inter­
feres with White 's plans. For
example, in the event of 1 3 'i'h5
Black gets good chances for a
counter-attack. For instance: 1 3 ...
i.g4 14 'i'xh6 i.f5 , and if 15 ltxb7
then 1 5 ... "c l + 1 6 �e2 i.g4+. All
this is very dangerous for White.
Regrettably, White has the move
1 3 g3 ! , which poses Black difficult
problems. On 1 3 . . . i.g4 White plays
14 i.e2, when Black's position is in­
ferior. The chronic weaknesses will
surely tell in the end.
But this is precisely how you
should fight as Black: do not retreat,
try to combat your opponent with
your existing forces. Take into ac­
count that it is not so easy for White
to decide to play g2-g3, since after
the exchange of bishops which is

forced by the move ... i.g4 the light
squares are weakened and the num­
ber of pieces on the board is reduced,
which is not pleasant when you are a
pawn down.
Let us examine one of the vari-
ations of the Griinfeld Defence:
1 d4 ltJffi
2 c4 g6
3 ltJc3 dS
4 i.f4 i.g7
S e3 cS
6 dxc5 'fiaS
Here there is a little-analysed
move (which is evidently insuffi­
cient to obtain an advantage):
7 'i'b3
White's idea is, if possible, to ex­
change queens by playing 'fibS.
When I studied this position with
a group of children we discovered an
interesting reply:
7 ... i.d7
Black radically prevents his oppo­
nent's intention. It is simply not pos­
sible to take the pawn on b7, because
after 8 'ikxb7 ltJe4 9 'ikxa8 0-0 White
comes under a devastating attack.
But, on the other hand, Black intends
to develop his initiative by playing . . .
ltJa6 an d ... ltJxcS .
It is difficult to advise anything
better for White than ...
8 i.eS
With this move he takes control of
the al-h8 diagonal and creates the
threat of capturing the pawn on dS.
Let u s assume that Black re­
sponds immediately in accordance
with his plan.
Studying the Classics 1 07
8 ltJa6
9 cxdS ltJxcs
10 'ii'c4
Black can only repel the terrible
threat of 1 1 b4 with one move.
10 .. . ltJa6 (76)
At first we thought that White's
position was unsatisfactory. If he
now develops a piece with 1 1 ltJf3
(or 1 1 i.e2), Black will reply 1 1 . . .
nc8 an d obtain good counterplay.
But let us again recall the idea ex­
pressed by Znosko-Borovsky. White
has an extra pawn, but he is behind in
development. Developing another
piece will not save him. Let us try to
play actively, to utilise those forces
which have already been brought
into play. Let us examine 1 1 a3 l:k8
12 b4.
If White can succeed in driving
the enemy queen away, then after 1 3
'ikd4 h e will have every chance to
complete his development, retaining
his extra pawn. And in the event of
1 2 ... l:1xc4 13 bxaS White gets the
better endgame. For the time being
1 08 Studying the Classics
he has an extra pawn, and, even if he
loses the pawn on as , his advantage
in the centre will allow him to com­
plete his development rapidly.
We have seen that an idea which
originated a very long time ago can
be useful even today: 'With a lead in
material but a lack of development,
do not withdraw the pieces already
deployed, which are causing the op­
ponent some trouble.' In other
words, do not retreat into defending
a lifeless position. Today this is a
concept which has been forgotten.
Znosko-Borovsky also had inter­
esting ideas concerning positions in
which there is a spatial advantage.
He expressed the philosophical idea
that it is quite unnecessary to in­
crease a spatial advantage - the main
thing is to maintain it. Sooner or later
a critical moment will arrive when
the opponent will try to free himself.
One needs to be as well prepared as
possible for this critical moment.
The same book makes recom­
mendations on what to do when you
have a lack of space. Znosko-Borov­
sky advises you to determine which
of your pieces is placed worst, and
also to become aware of the plan
your opponent is preparing to imple­
ment. Then it is necessary to im­
prove the position of the bad piece,
at the same time preventing your op­
ponent's plan. This is all demon­
strated with the aid of concrete
examples.
Steinitz's theory contains many
different postulates, some indisput-
able, others highly debatable. He
writes about the advantage of the
two bishops and also about the
queenside pawn majority (but, in it­
self, a pawn majority on the flank, as
subsequent practice has shown, of­
fers no advantage - it must be coor­
dinated precisely with other aspects
of the position). Some of his princi­
ples are, one might say, of a philo­
sophical nature. 'If you have an
advantage, you must attack, play an
active game, otherwise your advan­
tage will inevitably evaporate' - this
is not so much a pure chess principle,
more a philosophical one. On the
whole, the approach to assessing a
pOSition suggested by Steinitz merits
careful study. This is a very interest­
ing chapter in chess theory. And it is
advisable to study it by reading old
chess books, in order to familiarise
yourself directly with the thoughts
of the players who discovered it all.
The weakness of Steinitz's theory
is its rigidity. In technical institutes
they study theoretical mechanics,
which consists of three main compo­
nents: statics, kinetics and dynamics.
Put simply, statics is when every­
thing is at rest, kinetics relates to an
aspect of motion, and dynamics re­
lates to a situation where everything
is in motion. So Steinitz's theory
covers only one part of the ' theoreti­
cal mechanics ' of chess. Regrettably,
Steinitz did not consider the dynam­
ics of the game - he took everything
to be in a state of rest. Steinitz's find­
ings are applicable in many positions,

but by no means in all situations. But
how much can one ask of one man?
He made an immense contribution to
the theory of chess.
It is very interesting to familiarise
oneself with Steinitz 's games, but it
has to be admitted that the games of
those players who followed his
teaching illustrate Steinitz's theory
better than his own games do. At
times he adhered too rigidly to his
own theory, failing to take the dy­
namics of the game into account, and
this sometimes had unfortunate re­
sults.
A player who applied the teach­
ings of Steinitz superbly was Akiba
Rubinstein. In his Chess Manual
Lasker expressed the opinion that
Rubinstein 's games were exemplary
from the point of view of Steinitz's
theory. Rubinstein also had a mag­
nificent endgame technique. In the
series 'Outstanding Chessplayers of
the World' (published by Fizkultura i
Sport) there is an excellent little
book by Razuvaev and Murakhveri,
entitled Akiba Rubinstein. I advise
all my students to study this book, in
fact I demand that they do so.
I advise you to familiarise your­
self with Rubinstein's games in the
following way: play through the
opening, and then cover up Rubin­
stein's moves and try to guess them.
That is, try to play like Rubinstein
did. If you spend at least 45 minutes
on studying each game, then im­
measurably more of it will remain in
your head afterwards than if you had
Studying the Classics 1 09
skimmed through it all in j ust five
minutes.
Tarrasch wrote a very good book
entitled Die Moderne Schachparrie.
Having taken a look at this book,
Garry Kasparov expressed a very
high opinion of it. When Tarrasch is
called a dogmatist this is of course
unjust. He quarrelled with Chigorin,
who is considered the founder of the
Russian chess school. Such people
are not popular in Russia, and they
tend to have labels attached to them.
Let us now consider an example
which shows the advantages of the
dynamic, concrete approach over the
static. Here is a position taken from
Lipnitsky 's remarkable book Vo­
prosy Sovremennoi Shakhmarnoi
Teorii (Questions of Modem Chess
Theory). It is White's tum to move.
77
W
White has the advantage of the
two bishops, but his pawn structure
on the queenside has been disrupted.
If Black can succeed in carrying out
the standard plan in such positions -
. . . .i.a6, . . . lbc6, . . . 'ti'a4 and ... lbaS -
1 1 0 Studying the Classics
he will win the pawn on c4 and most
probably the game as well.
If we follow general opening prin­
ciples - develop our pieces and then
castle - then it is necessary to play 1
e3. I fear that in this case Black's
concrete plan will get the upper hand
over White 's abstract principles and
that White will gradually lose.
But in this position other, less ob­
vious, principles come into oper­
ation. It is not always easy to
formulate them in words, but a
chessplayer often senses them intui­
tively.
After careful study of the position
one may observe that Black does
not have a single piece on the king­
side. Hence it is possible to hit upon
the move 1 g4! ! , which radically
changes the assessment of the posi­
tion. This move conforms to the
principle: 'Attack your opponent
where he is most vulnerable.'
White creates the very unpleasant
threat of .i.g2. For example, 1 . . .
fxg4 2 .i.g2 ltJc6 3 dS , an d Black's
position crumbles. If Black plays 1
. . . .i.b7 then after 2 l:1g 1 White will
have a menacing attack on the king­
side. Perhaps the best decision from
B lack's point of view is 1 . . . cxd4,
which leads to a clearly inferior end­
ing.
If the black pawn were on f7 and
not on fS - such a trifling point! - so
that all the play beginning with g2-
g4 simply could not occur, Black
would have the advantage. Although
there would still not be a single black
piece defending the kingside, White
would have nothing to latch onto -
no pawn on fS , which here is a
'hook' for him to take hold of. When
assessing a position it is very impor­
tant to take such details, specific de­
tails, into account.
After Steinitz there came the hy­
permodernists (an amusing little
word!). Their understanding of chess
stemmed mainly from their attitude
to the centre. Steinitz considered that
it was good to have a strong pawn
centre, and that the player with an
advantage in the centre had an ad­
vantage overall. But players such as
Reti, Nimzowitsch and Breyer - the
main representatives of hypermod­
ernism - maintained that it was by
no means essential to have a strong
pawn centre, but that one may con­
cede the centre to one's opponent
and then attack it with pieces. New
openings came into being (for exam­
ple, the Reti Opening), and the un­
derstanding of some older openings
(for example, the English Opening)
was increased. Nimzowitsch discov­
ered principles such as prophylaxis
and over-protection. That is to say, as
a result of the debate between the hy­
permodernists and the 'classicists' ,
chess took a step forward.
Nimzowitsch was an implacable
opponent of Tarrasch and his views.
Regrettably they were players of dif­
ferent generations. As far as practical
play was concerned, they reached
their peaks in different periods. In
games between them Nimzowitseh

was more often successful, but this
says nothing about the advantages of
his approach, hypermodernism; Tar­
rasch was simply much older and
played less well than he did in his
youth.
One may undoubtedly derive a
great deal from Nimzowitsch's books:
My System and Chess Praxis. But
one should not believe unreservedly
everything he wrote. Nimzowitsch
often faced opponents who were
greatly inferior to him, and in games
against such opponents it was not
difficult to prove any theories.
A couple of years ago the maga­
zine Shakhmaty v SSSR published a
very interesting, well-written article
by the Moldavian master, Che­
banenko. Criticism of this article ap­
peared in the magazine 64, and quite
improper criticism at that - it was
simply foul language rather than
criticism. Chebanenko did not
bother to respond, and rightly so.
In his article Chebanenko casts
doubt on Nimzowitsch's principle
which says that a pawn chain should
be attacked at its base. Let us imag­
ine a pawn wedge for White in the
King 's Indian Defence: <IS, e4, f3, g2
(Black has pawns on c7, d6, e5) .
Nimzowitsch writes that Black has
to play . . . f5 , perhaps push the pawn
to f4, and then advance the g-pawn.
The base of the pawn chain is the
pawn on f3, or the pawn on g2. B ut,
more often than not, we see exam­
ples where Black begins not with
.. . f7-fS but with ... c7-c6. That is to
Studying the Classics 1 1 1
say, h e undermines th e centre not at
the base of the pawn chain , but at
its head, and sometimes this also
turns out quite well. Nimzowitsch
conducts his investigations mainly
with reference to the French De­
fence, but there too one sometimes
needs to attack not the base but the
head of the pawn chain - i.e. to play
. . . f7-f6.
I should like to say a little more on
classical books meriting attention.
Some years ago Fizkultura i Sport
published a Russian edition of A
Contemporary Handbook of the
Game of Chess (published by
Batsford as Masters of the Chess­
board), by Richard Reti, which is
undoubtedly worth reading. I am
also very fond of his little book Mod­
ern Ideas in Chess, which shows the
approach to chess during the period
of hypermodernism.
This approach was also dogmatic
in certain respects. In annotating his
game as Black against te KoIste
(Baden-Baden 1925), Reti assesses
the position arising after 1 e4 lLlf6 2
e5 lLl<lS 3 lLlc3 lLlxc3 4 dxc3 in his
favour, in connection with his pros­
pects of getting a pawn majority
( ' four pawns against three') on the
queenside. He writes that 'by mod­
ern chess technique, a minute but
clear positional advantage incurred
in the opening can be easily con­
verted into a win ' . Lasker severely
criticised this approach in his Chess
Manual. He showed specifically
where White could have defended
1 1 2 Studying the Classics
more securely, and noted: 'On a mo­
tif such as was indicated by Reti one
cannot build the plan of a whole
well-contested game; it is too mea­
gre, too thin, too puny for such an
end. Reti 's explanations, wherever
they are concerned with an analysis
which covers a few moves, are cor­
rect and praiseworthy. But when he
abandons the foundations of analysis
in order to draw too bold, too general
a conclusion, his arguments prove to
be mistaken.'
Finally, there were two players
who stood apart from all the rest.
These were Capablanca and Alek­
hine. They were not subject to any
particular influences, they had quite
different styles, but they played
chess magnificently, and their games
are exemplary even today.
Why should we study Alekhine
and Capablanca? Let us think for a
moment about contemporary chess.
Let's assume a game between oppo­
nents of equal strength - for exam­
ple, Andersson and Hubner. One of
them intends to implement a particu­
lar plan, the other sees this plan and
tries to prevent it. As a result of the
implementation of plan and counter­
plan, White gets a small advantage.
He conceives a new plan, and in re­
sponse a new counter-plan is formu­
lated. Eventually both players get
into time-trouble. In time-trouble the
logical course of the game is dis­
rupted and everything becomes very
unclear. It is not easy for an inexperi­
enced player to understand such a
game - even for a master this is
sometimes difficult. But if, say,
Alekhine and Tartakower are play­
ing, then Alekhine's standard of play
is considerably better than that of his
opponent. Alekhine's plan proceeds
unhindered. Tartakower does not un­
derstand it and so does not prevent it.
You see the entire plan in its pure
form. Against contemporary players
like Salov, Hubner or Andersson ,
such a clear picture would not
emerge, since their resistance would
be far greater. So, one's first lessons
in strategy, in formulating battle
plans, should be taken from the clas­
sical masters.
Let us assume that you have fa­
miliarised yourself with the works of
the great players from Steinitz to
Alekhine, that you have looked at
their games and studied the books I
have spoken about. It is then possi­
ble to say that you have acquired a
basic proficiency in the chess clas­
sics. Of course, that still leaves
Botvinnik , Smyslov and the other
great players of our time. But, for a
profound understanding of modem
chess it is important to have a
grounding in the history of the game,
to take a course in the classics first.
Finding New Ideas
Mark Dvoretsky
The modem attitude to the classiCS
(and that includes chess) is primarily
creative, sometimes even critical, but

at the same time both attentive and
thoughtful. At certain stages in his
development, every chessplayer is
sure to tum his attention (more pre­
cisely, should tum his attention) to
the study of our most valuable heri­
tage. And, of course, trainers who
work with young players need to be
very familiar with the chess clas­
sics .
When preparing to make use of
the games of the leading grandmas­
ters of the past for the purposes of in­
struction, one has constantly to ask
oneself: what has given rise to this
particular decision by these players -
was it not possible to play something
better? The fact is, you might well be
asked this by your pupils. In chess
books the annotations to games by
no means answer all such questions,
and sometimes the answers seem to
be not entirely satisfactory. It is nec­
essary to examine the variations one­
self. More often than not, analysis
confirming the correctness of play
enables us to understand the deci­
sions the players made more pro­
foundly and to develop a more acute
sense for the reasons behind them,
but alternative paths of roughly
eq ual merit may also be detected. It
may also happen that you come
across mistakes in moves or in pub­
lished annotations. But, however
carefully and seriously a trainer pre­
pares his material, new and interest­
ing ideas are frequently put forward
in his lessons, and certain variations
are made more precise. As a result,
Studying the Classics 1 1 3
the picture o f th e contest i n th e game
being studied sometimes looks com­
pletely different from the way it did
before work began.
Emanuel Lasker's flfst competi­
tion after losing the title of World
Champion was a strong international
tournament in Ostrava in 1923. The
outcome of this competition was in
many respects decided in the ninth
round by a skirmish which took
place between the leaders - Lasker
and the Czech grandmaster, Richard
Reti - which ended in victory for the
former World Champion.
The annotations to this encounter
(in particular, those given in an inter­
esting and brilliant book by Vain­
stein devoted to Lasker's games,
entitled Myslitel - 'The Thinker')
are in my opinion inadequate, and in
some instances they fail to elucidate
it correctly. Moreover, this game is
of interest not only from a historical
point of view but also from a pure
chess standpoint, and therefore I
should like to bring it to the reader's
attention once again.
Reti-Em.Lasker
Moravska Ostrava 1 923
1 ttJa d5
2 d4 ttJfti
3 c4 c6
4 ttJc3 dxc4
5 e3
Nowadays this move is rarely
played: current opening fashion fa­
vours 5 a4.
114 Studying the Cklssics
5 b5
6 a4 b4
7 lDa2 e6
8 i.xc4 i.e7
9 0-0 0-0
10 'i'e2 lDbd7
The most characteristic and, per­
haps, instructive game with this
opening variation is acknowledged
to be Reshevsky-Smyslov (radio
match, USA-USSR 1 945), which
went: 1 0 ... i.b7 l l l:l dl a5 1 2 .t d2
lDbd7 1 3 lDc l "' 6 14 lDb3 c5 15
.te l l:lfd8 with a complicated and
roughly equal game. It is interesting
to try to evaluate the moves depart­
ing from the classical model (created
22 years later) which Lasker and
Reti permitted themselves. The
drawback of the move 10 . . . lDbd7
(in comparison with 1 0 ... .tb7) is
that White could now have tried 1 1
e4. But it is not clear to what extent
this would have favoured him.
1 1 b3 !?
Reti develops his bishop to b2,
where it is more active than on d2 -
which was Reshevsky's choice. But
in this case White weakens the c3
square, which may turn out to be ex­
tremely significant (and in this
game, it was).
11 a5
1 2 i.b2 c5
13 :rd l 'i'M
14 lDc1 i.a6? !
It was entirely possible to con­
tinue according to the future classi­
cal model: 14 ... .tb7. By exchanging
light-squared bishops, Lasker is
counting on being able to exploit the
weakness of the pawn on b3. But in
the meantime the enemy knight will
get access to the magnificent square
c4. In future a situation may arise
with a strong knight on c4 against a
passive dark-squared bishop, which
would favour White. We can see that ,
firstly, even such apparently modest
moves as 1 1 b3 or 14 . . . .ta6 may be
double-edged, risky in a strategic
sense; and secondly, that both play­
ers are inclined to act according to
fundamental principles, not hesitat­
ing to risk weakening their own posi­
tion in the fight for the initiative.
15 dxc5? !
In the event of 15 .txa6 ! ? 'i'xa6 !
1 6 'i'xa6 ltxa6 17 lDd3 White has
the somewhat better endgame. Also
worth considering was 15 lDrl2.
15 ... lDxcs
16 lDe5 i.xc4
1 6 ... lDd5 ! ? , intending 17 ... .tf6.
was possible.
17 lDxc4 'i'a6
Now it is necessary to take stepS
to combat the threat of 17 .. , l:lfc8
followed by 1 8 ... lDxb3, and to think
about developing the knight on c l .
18 i.d4 :reS?
To my mind this is a significant
inaccuracy. White wishes to solve
his problems by an exchange on 0.
Black could have maintained hiS
knight there by continuing 1 8 . . ,
lDie4 ! (he also has 18 ... lDfd7), after
which it is not good for White to
continue 1 9 f3 1Dc3 20 .txc3 bxc3.
with 21 . . . :rc8 to follow. Reti would

probably have replied 1 9 1Ia2 ! . but
after 19 ... lLJc3 (also possible is 19 . . .
lUc8 2 0 Ik2 lIab8) 2 0 i.xc3 bxc3
21 � 2 lIab8 ! (but not 21 . . . i.f6? 22
e4) 22 lhc3 i.f6 the game is com­
pletely equal.
19 i.xcS! i.xcs
In the event of 19 ... :Xc5 White
can deprive the enemy pieces of the
important square dS by playing 20
e4! . Weaker is 20 1LJd3? ! . in view of
20 . . . nd5 2 1 e4 l:ld4 when play is
unclear. But now after 20 e4 unpleas­
ant for White is 20 . . . 'ifb7; also un­
successful is 20 1LJd3. in view of 20
... lLJe4(dS) followed by 2 1 ... lLJc3.
20 1iO ! (78)
20 ... i.e7!
By playing 20 . . . lLJd5 Lasker
could have forced the reply 2 1 lLJe2.
In this line the position would have
remained quiet and the drawbacks of
the exchange of light-squared bish­
ops undertaken by Black could
gradually have begun to tell. But
roughly the same situation would
have arisen in the game if Reti had
Studying the Classics 1 1 5
chosen th e modest 2 1 lLJe2. I n this
case he would have retained the bet­
ter chances. This. however. does not
imply that Black's plan begun with
his 1 4th move was misguided; it is
merely a consequence of Black's in­
accuracy on move 1 8 .
Lasker provokes his opponent to
play a more active manoeuvre with
the knight. lLJc l -d3-e5 . after which
White seizes all the central squares.
In return. the black knight gets the
chance to come to c3. Lasker's enor­
mous experience of defending strate­
gically difficult situations probably
prompted the idea that the favour­
able placement of j ust one piece
may prove to be his sheet anchor. by
utilising which he will be able to
neutralise the menacing-looking of­
fensive of the large army of white
pieces.
21 ltJd3?!
We have already noted the desire
of both players to act according to
basic principles. but in this instance
it would have been better for Reti to
play more cautiously. particularly
considering the time-trouble he was
now getting into.
21 ••• ltJdS!
22 lLJdeS i.f6!
Of course it would have been a
mistake to continue 22 . . . f6? 23
lhdS ! . After 22 . . . !tf8 ? ! the follow­
ing variation was possible: 23 e4
lLJc3 24 l:ld7 lIa7 25 lIxa7 1ixa7 26
lLJc6 1ic7 27 1LJxe7+ 1ixe7 28 1LJxaS
1ic5 29 lLJc4 'ifd4 30 lIe t ! (but
not 30 %leI because of 30 ... lLJ xa4)
1 1 6 Studying the Classics
30 ... 1iVxe4 (not 30 ... ltJxe4, because
of 3 1 lId 1 ) 3 1 1iVxe4 with advantage
to White in the endgame.
23 e4
Later on it might be very useful to
have an 'escape-hole ' , and so 23 g4
may seem tempting. But after this
there would have followed 23 . . .
1:1xc4! 24 ltJxc4 .i xa l 2 5 .l:hal ltJc3,
when the white rook is shut out of
the game for the time being. After
the move played it is not good for
Black to continue 23 ... IDc4 24
ltJxc4 .i xal , because of 25 exdS ! .
23 ... ltJc3
24 :d6?!
A natural and logical move, but,
as was pointed out by a young Can­
didate master, Maxim Boguslavsky,
stronger was 24 1:!d7 ! 1:1a7, and only
now 25 l:(d6 1iVb7 26 l:te l . The rook
stands worse on a7 than on as. How­
ever, here too after 26 .. , l:!a6 ! the
outcome is still totally unclear.
For example, 27 l:.d7 l:lc7 2S ltJ d6
\!Vb S 29 ltJdxf7. Now 29 ... .i xe5 is
not good, in view of 30 1:!dS+ 'it'xdS
3 1 ltJxdS with the threat of 32 'iWh5 ,
and in the event of 29 ... �aa7 30
ltJh6+ ! <30>f8 (30 ... gxh6 3 1 'it'g4+ !)
3 1 ltJhg4 l:lxd7 32 ltJ xf6 White has a
menacing attack. But after 29 . . .
'it'cS ! i t turns out that th e white
knights have got stuck behind enemy
lines (30 ltJd6 1:1xd6; 30 ltJh6+ gxh6;
30 lhc7 'iWxc7).
Or 27 ltJ xf7 ! ? 1:! xc4 ! (but not 27 . . .
<3o> xf7? 2S l:td7+ !) 2S 1:!xa6 'it' xa6
29 bxc4 �f7 30 e5 'it'xc4 3 1 exf6
gxf6 when B lack has quite good
compensation for the loss of the ex­
change.
24 ... 'ib7
25 ltel
Now Black has to reckon with 26
1:1d7. If 25 ... l:1dS then 26 1:!xdS+
1:! xd8 27 ltJ xaS 'it'c7 28 ltJec6, and in
connection with the threat of e4-eS
White manages to consolidate. Of
course, 25 ... 1:1a6 is possible here as
well, with the variations indicated in
the previous note, but Lasker finds a
stronger line.
25 ... i.xe5!
26 'Dxe5 'it'e7!
Black could not of course play 26
. . . ltJxe4?, because of 27 ltd7 ! .
In the event of 26 . . . l1d8 27 ltJc4
1:1xd6 28 ltJ xd6 'iWc7 29 e5 White has
the advantage; having given himself
an 'escape-hole' , he will move his
rook along the route e3-d3-d4-c4.
The knight on c3 is not dangerous at
all in this line: it creates no threats
and is a long way from squares from
which it could attack the pawn on b3
- the only weakness in the oppo­
nent's position. Lasker compels the
white knight to return to c4, where it
turns out to be vulnerable.
27 ltJc4 (79)
White has nothing else. In the
event of 27 l:td7 'iWxe5 28 'it'xf7+
<3o>h8 the g7 square is defended, and
on 27 'it'd3 there would follow 27 . ..
ltJxe4 ! (worse is 27 . . . ltJdS? 2S ltJc4)
28 IDe4 'iWxd6 ! .
Now White intends to strengthen
his position with 28 e5 , wi th the
threat of 29 ltJ b6. The logical

79
B beautiful defensive possibility and
continuation of Black's strategy was
the obvious 27 ... llJxa4 ! . After 28
:ed l Black has the simple defence
28 ... rust 29 Ad7 'ifc5 .
In all the annotations to this game
it is asserted that in this case White
would have won with 28 e5 llJ c3(c5)
29 llJb6. Tartakower gave a strange
variation: 28 e5 :d8 29 %led l (why
not simply 29 lic6 ! , winning a
piece?) 29 ... llJc3 (what if 29 . . .
�5 ! ) 3 0 l:td7 ! f5 3 1 exf6 ! .
For sixty years (!) this conclusion,
which significantly influences our
assessment of the strategies of both
players, remained unchallenged, un­
til Grandmaster Yusupov pointed out
the possibility of a rather simple de­
fence: 28 . . . l:lab8 ! , and if 29 %ledl
then 29 ... llJc5. The threats are re­
pelled and B lack's extra pawn re­
mains. Here White would have had
to fight for a draw, and this could
have proved to be no easy matter,
Particularly in severe time-trouble.
So why did the former World
Champion not take the pawn? Possi­
bly Lasker - a magnificent tactician
Studying the Classics 1 1 7
- had immediately seen a different,
completely unexpected and very
was simply unable to resist it, and so
he failed to examine the variations
accurately. And perhaps both players
were in time-trouble? It is a pity that
we have no record of the clock times
(with the exception of the fact, noted
in Vainstein 's book, that White was
under considerable time pressure),
since this would have provided quite
a lot of additional information, im­
portant for a better understanding of
the events which took place on the
board.
27 ... eS?
28 firs
It was also possible to create an
'escape-hole' at last, by playing 28
h4!? In the event of 28 . . . llJxa4 an
unpleasant continuation would have
been 29 %led l %lf8 (29 . . . llJc5 30
llJb6) 30 %ld7, when the pawn on e5
is attacked, and on 30 ... 'ifc5 White
has 3 1 %l I dS . But if 28 . . . %ld8 then
29 l:lxd8+ %l xd8 30 h5 h6 3 1 llJe3,
intending llJ f5 and 'ifg4, or 30 . . .
llJxa4 3 1 l:lal llJb6 32 llJe3, having
33 h6, 33 llJf5 or 33 %lxa5 in mind.
White retains good attacking pros­
pects in all variations.
But the natural move in the game,
which creates the threats 29 :d7 and
29 'ifxe5 , is also very strong. Its only
drawback is that this was the mo­
ment when Lasker was ready with an
ingenious counterpunch.
28 llJe2+ ! ! (80)
29 �?
1 1 8 Studying the Classics
It was possible to take the knight,
but after 29 lhe2? ! 'ii'xd6 ! 30
'ii'xt7+ ! 'iii>hS (after 30 . . . cj;y.f7 3 1
lbxd6+ �e6 3 2 lbxcs lixcS 3 3 �f1
lic3 34 .l:k3 l:l.xe3 the position is
drawn) 3 1 'iWdS Black's chances are
somewhat preferable, although a
draw is very probable.
In time-trouble it was virtually
impossible to choose to retreat the
king into the corner of the board,
rather than the move played in the
game, and yet the move 29 'iii>h 1 !
would have preserved a considerable
advantage for White. Tarrasch
pointed out the following variation:
29 . . . lbd4 30 'ii'e5 lbxb3 3 1 lbb6
'ikc3 (3 1 . . . 'iWc l 32 I«id l ) 32 'ii'xc3
bxc3 33 lbxaS (also strong is 33
lbxcs klxcS 34 l:led l ! lbd2 35 l:lc 1 -
found by Ilya Makariev, who, like
his friend Maxim Boguslavsky, is a
student at our school) 33 . . . c2 34 h3
(more logical was 34 h4 or 34 g3) 34
. . . c l 'ik (the rook ending after 34 . . .
l!xaS 35 ':c6 c 1 'ii' is hopeless) 35
l:txc I lbxcl 36 lbb6 nes - it is clear
that the extra pawn gives White
excellent winning chances (the addi­
tional comments in brackets are
mine - Dvoretsky).
It is possible to defend more stub­
bornly: 29 ... ':dS (instead of 29 . . .
lbd4) 30 'iWxe5 (30 llxdS+ lhdS fol­
lowed by . . . lbd4) 30 . . . ll xd6 3 1
'iWxd6 'iWxd6 32 lbxd6 lbd4. If now
33 l:le3 then 33 ... %IdS (33 ... 1:la6 34
lbc4 ':c6 is weaker, because of 3S
l:ld3) 34 e5 f6 35 f4 fxe5 36 fxeS
lbc6 with equality, or 34 lbb7 ':d7
35 lid3 (35 lbxaS lbxb3; 35 lbcs
l:t.c7) 35 ... lixb7 36 1::txd4 � 37 g3
'ac7 3S l:tdS llc3 39 llxaS ':'xb3, and
it is probable that a theoretically
drawn ending will soon arise: ' four
pawns against three, all on one side ' .
But, instead of 33 l:!e3?, stronger
was 33 l:t.b l . The rook maintains
control of the back rank, and if 33 ...
ktdS then 34 lbb7 is now very strong.
With cautious play White can rightly
hope to profit gradually from his ex­
tra pawn.
29 lbd4
30 'ii'xe5 lbxb3
31 lbb6 lbd2+!
This check is the whole point!
32 ' �gl lbc4
33 lbxc4
On 33 lbxaS there follows 3 3 .. .
'iWxd6 34 'iWxd6 lbxd6 35 lbb6 (35
e5 lbc4) 35 .. , ':c2 (of course, not the
line given by Vainstein: 35 ... .ttc6? !
36 lbd5 lbxe4??, because of 37
lbe7+), and in connection with the
threats 36 ... b3 and 36 ... lbxe4 Black
must win.
33 ••• 'iWxc4 (81)
 Studying the Classics 1 1 9

43 Itb7 'i'c3
White resigned

Tartakower gives the variation 44

.l:!n 'lWe3+ 45 'it.i>h l 'lWc l 46 �g l h6!
47 f6 l:txb7 48 'lWxb7 Itxf6, winning.
Analysis has shown that this
game was, unfortunately, by no
means free from errors. But it is cap­
tivating by virtue of the active and
sometimes risky striving by both
players for victory, their adherence
34 'i'fS? to basic principles in carrying out
Mter such a sudden change in the their plans. The price of each move
situation - and, moreover, in the was extremely high, and just one sin­
most awful time-trouble - it is not gle mistake (like 27 . . . e5? or 29
easy to adjust to defending and find­ 'it.i>f 1 ?) was able to change the as­
ing the best moves. Incidentally, I sessment of the position radically.
think White's game was by no means Regrettably, in contemporary tour­
hopeless. He should have chosen be­ naments grandmaster play is fre­
tween 34 l:tb6, putting the rook be­ quently more cautious, and some
hind the dangerous passed pawn, games amount at times to no more
and 34 h4, intending 35 :b6 or 35 h5 than a few opening subtleties. I don't
h6 36 .l:1.e3 and 37 .l:!g3. think the higher general level of
34 ltab8! technique and the considerable in­
3S eS b3 crease in our knowledge of opening
36 e6 fxe6 theory are solely to blame. Even to­
37 Itdxe6 Itrs day I am sure that there is scope for
38 'i'eS 'i'c2 genuine warriors to be creative and
39 f4 bl to gladden our hearts time and again
40 lte7 'i'g6 with remarkable examples of chess
41 fS 'i'f6 artistry.
42 'i'dS+ �h8
1 20 Studying the Classics

Exercises
11

This time you are presented with

some rather difficult exercises, in­
tended not to be solved but to be an­
alysed on your own (by moving the
pieces around on the board).
All the examples have been taken
from classical games.

10

Evaluate the spectacular central

breakthrough which was played in
the game: 1 7 ... dS .

12

Can Black, to move, profit from

his extra bishop?

Find an d calculate th e strongest

continuation for White, and assess
its consequences.
5 Assess i ng a Pos iti on and Choosin g
a Plan in the M i ddlegame
Alexei Kosikov
Firstly I should like to say a few
words about the middlegame. In my
view - and not only mine - this is the
most complicated part of the game of
chess. If you consider a game as a
whole, then the endgame amounts to
around thirty per cent and the open­
ing to about twenty per cent, but
about half of all events occur in the
middlegame. The middlegame is
complicated - not just because a
large number of pieces take part in it,
but also because it is so difficult to
study; it is this that I wish to draw
your attention to.
You most probably know how an
opening should be studied. Of
course, a great deal of time is re­
quired, but if you have the time you
will solve the task. You consult open­
ing manuals, compile a card index,
study games, you 'dig up' a number
of variations, and everything is fine ­
the opening can be adopted.
It is relatively easy to study the
endgame. There are many books on
endgame theory: Comprehensive
Chess Endings by Averbakh; Practi­
cal Chess Endings (Keres); and the
EncyclopaedUl of Chess Endings,
amongst others - I am not going to
list them all. Say you have some
catching-up to do in rook endings. You
take Averbakh, or you take the Ency­
clopaedia, you study a couple of hun­
dred selected positions, you study
tactical and strategic methods etc.
But studying the middlegame is
considerably more complicated.
Why is this? Because there is no
clear, precise methodology, no book
which one could take, read through
and thereby progress from promis­
ing player to master. If it could be ex­
plained how the middlegame should
be played, everything would be easy.
But there is no such book, and, you
know, there won't be one for some
time to come. This is probably a
good thing, because a chessplayer is
a creator, and chess is an art. Each of
us must go his own way, and chess
would perhaps be uninteresting if
everyone trod the same well-beaten
path. But creativity is always associ­
ated with difficulties, and so it is bet­
ter, all the same, to know at least
something.
However, although it is the most
difficult area of study, this is not to
say that we know nothing at all about
working on the middlegame. Some
general ways of studying it can be
described.
1 22 Assessing a Position and Choosing a Plan...
What are these ways? First, study
of the classics - the games of the out­
standing players of the past. Of
course, these players did not, on the
whole, play as well as contemporary
grandmasters. Nevertheless it is pos­
sible to learn a great deal from the
games of the classical masters. In
those days there were some very
strong chessplayers, but other play­
ers were of a much lower standard.
And it was, perhaps, against these
weaker players that the leading
grandmasters played their most in­
structive games. In such games clear,
accurate plans were implemented
more easily, and by studying these
plans we can all learn a lot, as we
saw in the previous chapter. So, the
fIrst way is to study the games of the
classical masters.
The second way is the study of
tactical and strategic methods. By
examining games or fragments of
games, by fmding the solutions to
combinations and studies, we can
master strategic and tactical meth­
ods.
The third form that training can
take is the study of standard posi­
tions. What is a standard position?
Well, you can probably imagine ex­
amples: positions with an isolated
pawn, the Carlsbad structure (QGD,
Exchange Variation), a pawn major­
ity on the queenside or in the centre,
etc. If you already know the typical
plans in such positions it is easier to
make a decision over the board in
analogous situations.
Finally, the fourth method I wish
to recommend is the study of posi­
tions having a certain material im­
balance. Positions are encountered
in which a bishop is stronger than a
knight or, for instance, where there is
a good bishop on one side and a bad
one on the other. It is necessary to
know how to evaluate positions with
various combinations of pieces. For
example, a rook and bishop prove in
most cases to be rather stronger than
a rook and a knight. On the other
hand, a queen more often interacts
better with a knight than with a
bishop.
A chessplayer needs to be an all­
rounder, he has to be able to play
various types of position, in which
the balance of forces may also vary
considerably. But at the same time it
is perhaps difficult to name a chess­
player who did not have a favourite
piece. Paul Morphy and Bobby Fis­
cher (and probably the majority of
us) preferred a bishop to a knight,
but Chigorin and Petrosian loved to
play with a piece as cunning and
dangerous as the knight.
Let us examine several games
which are unifIed by three factors:
First, they all began with the
French Defence;
Second, in each game I was one of
the players. I am going to demon­
strate my own games not just in or­
der to show off - as you will see,
they do not only include my victo­
ries. It is simply that by playing and
then analysing these games I have
 Assessing a Position and Choosing a Plan... 1 23

acquired a more profound feeling for on how the pieces are placed. So,
them, and I shall be able to explain how should the pieces be developed?
better to you what went on; In accordance with the plan that has
Third, the star player in all these been conceived. In chess, as in life,
games was a bishop. everything is interdependent - the
The game with which I shall be­ placement of one's pieces must cor­
gin was played in the 1 974 Ukrain­ respond to the intended plan, and
ian Championship. My opponent vice versa
was the (at that time) Lvov master, Let us now establish piece de­
Boris Kogan. ployments and subsequent plans of
action for both White and Black.
Kosikov-Kogan (The fact that it is necessary to take
Lvov 1974 account of the opponent's actions is,
I think, clear.)
1 e4 e6
2 d4 dS
3 tDd2 cS 85
4 lDgfJ lDtlJ W

5 exdS lDxdS
Nowadays Black usually takes on
d5 with the pawn.
6 lDb3 cxd4
7 lDbxd4 i.e7 (85)
It is impossible to conceive of a
middlegame if individual moves are
made at random and are not con­
nected together with some sort of ce­
ment, which in chess is a strategic So, the placement of White's
plan. By playing without a plan, a pieces depends on where you intend
chessplayer will not create a harmo­ him to play. White could try to make
nious work of art, and he will also use of his pawn majority on the
fail to obtain the desired sporting re­ queenside. In this case, the place­
SUlt. ment of his pieces should facilitate
At what point does the plan be­ the advance of his queenside pawns.
gin? It is worked out right from the We shall place the bishops on e3 and
opening; not from the fust move, but f3(g2), the rooks on d l and c l , and
neither from the point at which the the queen on e2.
opening is completed. But in chess there is nearly always
The plan in the middlegame de­ a choice, an al ternative. One may
pends on the situation on the board, envisage quite a different plan - an
1 24 Assessing a Position and Clwosing a Plan ...
attack on the kingside (it is quite evi­
dent that Black will castle on the
kingside). Then one bishop should
be on the square d3, and the second
bishop should be on the a 1 -h8 diago­
nal. Of course, we shall not put up
with the knight on d5 for long - we
shall force it to leave by playing the
move c4. Clearly, if we are preparing
an attack on the kings ide, it is advis­
able to place the rooks on d1 and e 1 ,
an d the queen on e2, having 'ife4 in
mind if the opportunity arises.
This was the piece configuration I
had planned. It is more interesting to
attack than to play some kind of ab­
stract game.
In choosing my plan it was essen­
tial to take my opponent's actions
into account. Where will Black play?
He has a plan of course, connected
with advancing his e- and f-pawns.
But carrying this out is far from easy,
considering that White will exert
pressure on e6 and control the e5
square.
Another possible line for Black
was to prepare the undermining
move . . . b7-b5 (assuming that White
will play c4). Black's queen will
come to the c7 square, but in order to
prevent it from being molested it is
necessary to insert the move . . . a7-
a6. The king's rook will evidently go
to d8, and there is some point in de­
veloping the light-squared bishop to
b7, the knight to d7, and then the
queen 's rook to c8 . This results in a
quite natural piece formation, typical
of such positions.
Now that the plans of both players
are clear, the next few moves will be
comprehensible and require very lit­
tle further comment.
S i.dJ 0-0
9 0-0 a6
Of course I had no reason to
worry about a raid by the knight: 9 . ..
lDb4 - the bishop would just retreat
to e2 and then the knight will be
poorly-placed on b4. The Encyclo­
paedia of Chess Openings recom­
mends 9 . . . i.f6, vacating the e7
square for the queen or the knight.
10 e4 lDffi
The knight is assigned to the de­
fence of the king.
1 1 b3 fle7
12 .:tel
Both White and Black are busy
with their own plans, but at the same
time it is necessary to pay close at­
tention to one's opponent's actions.
Here the 'normal ' developing move
12 i.b2 would simply have been a
blunder, in view of 12 . . . e5 and 13 . . .
e4. B u t quite a good alternative was
12 'iVe2.
12 b6
13 i.b2 i.b7
14 fle2
Both sides are implementing their
planned strategic piece formations.
But, of course, planned moves
should never be made mechanically.
Now 1 4 ... lDd7 apparently leads to
Black's defeat after 15 lDxe6 fxe6 16
'iVxe6t- ltt7 1 7 lDg5 .
What should Black play? The
move 14 . . . lDc6 does not conform to
 Assessing a Position and Choosing a Plan. .. 1 25
his plan, since a knight on c6 would
block the bishop's diagonal. In order
to play ... iLld7 it is first necessary to
prevent the capture iLl xe6.
14 ... J.b4
Perhaps Black had no real choice
here, but in principle moves like
this should be played with great
cau tion. In the first place, it is advis­
able to keep the bishop near the king,
and second, you will observe, the
bishop is not well-placed on b4. It is
out of play and does not hannonise
with Black's planned piece forma­
tion. Of course, Black reckons that
his bishop has moved here only tem­
porarily, but it is necessary to re­
member that this bishop is
badly-placed.
15 l1edl iLlbd7 (86)
Let us now continue in the form of
questions and answers. Here is the
first task. The move 1 5 ... iLlbd7, as
you will notice, contains the threat of
'" e5 and ... e4. If the queen 's rook
were now on c l , then 1 6 J.bl (fol­
lowed by 'iVc2 or 11M3) would repel
the threat most simply. But what can
White play now?
Retreat the knight to c2? I agree,
this move is playable. Black will re­
ply 1 6 ... �d6, and the knight does
not stand too well on c2, considering
the threat of ... e5-e4.
Play 16 a3 in this position? Black
moves the bishop away, clearly to
d6.
You suggest sacrificing a piece?
1 6 iLl xe6 fxe6 17 1Wxe6+ <lthS, and
what now? The threat is . . . �xt3. I
simply do not like this position.
The knight thrust 1 6 iLlg5 doesn't
look dangerous. What is the threat?
Black can reply 16 ... �d6 or 1 6 . . .
l:lfeS.
Play 1 6 �b l ? This is also possi­
ble, but what will the rook on al have
to say about it? Will he put up with
it? Pieces shouldn 't have to put up
with anything.
Perhaps 16 �c2? Yes, this is the
simplest solution to the problem:
play �c2, :ac 1 and �b l . But it is a
shame to waste a tempo. Black will
organise his defence: 1 6 . . . lUeS 1 7
l:lac l l:ladS I S �b l �f8 1 9 1Wc2 g6.
The move played here was appar­
ently rather simple: 1 6 :ac l ! , a
move which enters into White's
plan. I didn 't think too long over this
move - around seven minutes. But
my opponent pondered over his re­
ply for about twenty minutes. He
was trying to discover whether this
was a blunder or a sacrifice.
Having obtained a rough idea of
the variations, I could see that if my
1 26 Assessing a Position and Choosing a Plan ...
opponent were to accept the piece
sacrifice I would have a certain draw.
My intuition told me that something
else might even turn up. That is to
say, the lottery - the move .:ac l -
was one that I could not lose.
16 ... e5
Black has, as they say, picked up
the gauntlet, accepted the challenge.
But it would have been better to re­
frain from playing this move, since it
turns out to be a decisive mistake. It
was essential to play 16 ... llfe8 and
bring the bishop back to defend the
king. In the subsequent events Black
will sorely miss the bishop which is
on b4.
17 liJrs e4
He who says 'A' must also say
'B'.
18 'i'e3
White's strongest piece links up
with the attack. Here it is not even
particularly necessary to immerse
oneself in variations to become
aware how dangerous it would have
been to capture on f3 or d3. Let us,
for example, follow the variation 18
. . . exd3 1 9 'i'g5 . The reply 19 ... g6 is
forced. Now the simplest way to de­
cide the game is the quiet move 20
l:txd3. The weakness of the a l -h8 di­
agonal is Black's undoing . White
threatens both l:txd7 and ltJh6+. No
better is 1 8 . . . exf3 19 'i'g5 g6, and
here it is necessary to vacate the d­
file - for example, by playing 20
-*.b I , with the threat of l:txd7.
Black played what is evidently the
only move.
18 ••• .:tfeS (87)
Now your next task: continue the
attack as White.
The obvious continuation is 19
1i'g5 -*. f8 20 ltJh6+ <ifi>h8 2 1 liJxt7+
<ifi>g8. Although White has an extra
pawn, he probably has no more than
a draw, since three of his pieces are
under attack at the same time. But
the draw is guaranteed: the draw that
I had seen.
You suggest 19 -*.b l ? I shall reply
19 ... exf3 20 1i'g5 -*.f8. No danger is
presented by 2 1 l:txd7.
You did very well if you found the
solution.
19 c5! !
I t was not easy to see this. After
all, the entire attack is being con­
ducted on the kingside, and this is
where all White's efforts and
thoughts are directed.
As soon as you discover this pos­
sibility, everything becomes clear,
all other moves recede into the back­
ground. It is quite clear that Black
can only hold this position if the g7
 Assessing a Position and Choosing a Plo.n... 127
square can be defended by the
bisbop. By cutting off the bisbop
from its base, from the defence of the
king, you strengthen the attack con­
siderably.
Black now bas a very difficult
problem, actually an insoluble one.
The threat is 20 'illg5 . Can you sense
how Black is missing his bishop for
defensive duties, how much it is
needed on fS? At this point, I think,
Black understood everything and re­
gretted that be had played the rather
too active move 1 6 ... e5 .
You suggest playing 1 9 . . . h6?
This is scarcely a way out of the po­
sition. In some lines c5-c6 is even
possible. I can always regain my
piece in favourable circumstances.
We shall not dwell here any longer ­
I sball simply show you how events
unfolded.
But I shall just draw your atten­
tion once more to the fact that Black
is losing because of the bad position
of just one piece - the bishop on b4.
If you were to put it on fS then the as­
sessment of this position would
change drastically.
19 ... exf3
' If I am going to come under at­
tack, then at least I shall get a piece'
- typical reasoning of a practical
chessplayer.
20 'i'gS g6
In such positions the main diffi­
CUlty is the abundance of tempting
continuations. It is very important
not to lose one's way, not to get onto
the wrong track.
Play 2 1 c6? This is possible, but in
so doing you clear the a3-fS diago­
nal, and your plan is to attack the g7
square. In future, perhaps, this re­
source may come in useful, but it is
still too early.
21 'iib6
The sacrifice of a second piece fi­
nally destroys my opponent's posi­
tion. If he declines the sacrifice by
playing 2 1 . . . liJh5 , then after 22 g4
'iIlf4 23 gxh5 'iIlxh6 24 liJ xh6+ 'iti>fS
25 c6 it will be White who has an ex­
tra piece.
21 ••• gxfS
22 i.xfS
With a great many threats:
i.xh7+; i.xd7; l1xd7 etc, all based
on the terrific power of the bishop on
b2 - White's main attacking piece.
Why has this piece become so im­
portant? Because it has no opponent.
B lack's bishop should have been on
g7, but it has got stuck on b4.
22 ... ttJeS
23 'i'xf6
The harvest begins - Black is
forced to give back what he has
grabbed.
Question: If 23 ... fxg2 then what
should White play?
24 f4 perhaps? No, this move is
very bad, because of 24 . . . i. xc5+.
You suggest 24 l:1d7? The reply
24 ... liJf3+ is unpleasant.
Remember the bishop on b2, and
you will easily frod the solution. Of
course - 24 l:1d3 ! . The threat of 24 . . .
liJf3+ i s repelled, an d B lack i s now
unable to parry the fatal 25 l:1g3+.
128 Assessing a Position and Choosing a Plan . . .
23 ... .txcS
On 23 . . . 'ile7 the simplest was 24
'ilh6 f6 25 i.xe5 fxe5 26 l:Ml7 .
24 :d7 'ilxd7
My opponent was in time-trouble.
He was just about to play 24 ... 'ilc6,
but at the last moment he took his
hand away. What a shame ! I had in­
tended to play 25 i.xh7+ ! �h7 26
':xf7+. Again the variations are
based on the power of the dark­
squared bishop. I very much wanted
the game to end in this way, but, alas,
not everything happens as we should
wish. Our opponent also has a brain,
and he tries to hinder our plans.
25 i.xd7
Black cannot capture on d7,
White already has a lead in material,
and after another five or six moves
he won without difficulty.
This game illustrates very well
Tarrasch's famous aphorism: 'If one
of your pieces stands badly, your
whole game is bad.' The bishop is a
long-range piece, so it would appear
that it is not difficult to deploy it suc­
cessfully. But, as you see, this is not
always possible.
The following game was played
in the Semi-Final of the USSR Trade
Union Championship. This time I
was playing Black.
Agzamov-Kosikov
Orenburg 1972
1 e4 e6
2 d4 d5
3 ltJd2 �c6
More common is 3 . . . �f6 or 3 . ..
c5 . But I consider the move 3 ... �6
to be quite playable. Before long I
think this move will be adopted more
and more often, because the vari­
ations with 3 ... �f6 have been
worked out in great depth, and so in
this line it is becoming difficult to
find new opening ideas.
4 �gf3 �ffi
5 e5 �d7
6 i.b5
The main continuations are 6
�b3 and 6 i.e2. But this move is
also playable.
6 ••• a6
A questionable decision. Worth
considering was 6 . . . Jie7 or 6 . . . as.
7 i.xc6 bxc6
8 c4
I cannot recommend this move.
Stronger is 8 �b3 , in order to play
�aS, and if Black replies 8 . . . c5 then
one possible line is 9 JigS i.e7 10
� , forcing 10 . . . �b8 . White's po­
sition is to be preferred. Two years
later Lerner played this line as White
against me. Although the game
ended in a draw, Black nevertheless
experienced certain difficulties.
[Opening Note: After 8 �b3
Black may reply 8 . . . as 9 i.g5 i.e7
10 i.xe7 'ilxe7. Now after 1 1 'ild2
a4? 1 2 �aS l:a6 13 c4 c5 14 cxdS
exdS 15 0-0 White has the advan­
tage, Timoshchenko-Panchenko,
Kishinev 1975. However, in the
game Khalifman-Monin, Leningrad
1 985 , Black succeeded in equalising
by playing 1 1 . . . Yib4 ! 1 2 0-0 ( 1 2 c3
 Assessing a Position and Choosing a Plan... 1 29
'I1>S) 1 2 ... 'ii'xd2 13 �bxd2 cS 14
c4 c6 IS �b3 cxd4 (Dvoretsky).]
The ftrst question on this game:
How should Black react to the move
8 c4 (88)?
You suggest beginning active op­
erations in the centre with the move
8 ... f6? But such activity usually fa­
vours the side that is better devel­
oped, which can hardly be Black in
this case.
Basically the same applies to 8 . . .
cS . Moves such a s ... f6 or ... cS
should be played very cautiously.
Look at the position a little more
carefully and you will see that White
has outstripped his opponent in de­
velopment and is already ready to
castle. Therefore any increase in the
sharpness of play in the centre would
be very dangerous for Black.
What can we say about 8 . . . as ,
with the idea of ... �a6 ? I shall share
with you an observation which is
tnJe of such positions. The bishop on
a6 is well-placed only if White has
not castled. If White can castle and
bring his rook to e l , the bishop on a6
will prove to be out of play.
This position should not be solved
by ploughing through variations me­
chanically. Let us try to understand
its essence - this will help in plan­
ning a reliable strategic line.
What characterises the position?
White has given up his bishop, and
now Black has two bishops against
bishop and knight. What do you
know about the strategy of playing
with two bishops? It is necessary to
open up the diagonals for the bish­
ops - this is clear, this is the basic
principle. But there is also another
consideration which is very impor­
tant for all such positions. When
playing with two bishops against
bishop and knight, you must demon­
strate the strength of the bishop that
has no counterpart. If you can prove
that the light-squared bishop here is
a real piece, and not j ust an extra,
you will indeed be able to exploit the
power of the two bishops.
In the game Black captured on c4.
8 ... dxc4
This move has already been sug­
gested. But it was not played in order
to follow it up with ... as . Black plans
to bring his bishop out at b7 and then
to play . . . c6-cS at some point, taking
control of the long diagonal.
Probably White should simply
have played 9 �xc4. I do not know
how I would have responded. Most
probably 9 . . . �b6, but maybe 9 ... as
nonetheless, in order not to allow the
knight onto the square as . But White
chose . . .
130 Assessing a Position and C}wosing a Plan ...
9 it'a4
. . .having underestimated Black's
reply.
9 ... ttJb6!
By giving up the pawn on c6,
B lack opens up diagonals for his
light-squared bishop, and the pawn
on c4 may still come in useful.
10 it'xc6+ i.d7
1 1 'i'e4 i.b5
The bishop is already becoming
active. White cannot play 12 0-0 be­
cause of 12 . . . c3. But White needs to
castle, and so his next move is
forced.
12 ttJbl it'd5
The exchange of queens - 13
"iWxdS ttJ xdS 1 4 ttJc3 - gives Black
an excellent position after either 14
. . . ttJxc3 1 5 bxc3, or 14 ... ttJb4.
13 it'e3
The queen on dS is very powerful.
Imagine what a powerful battery will
be set up when the bishop comes to
c6. Of course, it is desirable to main­
tain the queen on a central square,
and this means that it is necessary to
take steps to combat ttJc3 .
You suggest exchanging the dark­
squared bishop for the knight on c3?
You know, this idea isn 't particularly
good, because the white bishop will
come out to a3. I shall be strong on
the light squares of course, but my
opponent will get counterplay on the
dark squares.
13 ••. ttJa4
Moves to the edge of the board
can be quite good if they are associ­
ated with a logical idea - in this case,
exchanging the knight on c3 for my
own knight. As before, 14 0-0 is not
playable, in view of 14 . . . c3.
14 ttJc3 ttJ xc3
15 bxc3 (89)
In chess, as in life, there are some
things which one has to do first, and
some which may be postponed until
later. So let us establish which is the
best move for B lack to start with.
The assessment of this position is
clear: Black has the advantage.
White will have nothing with which
to oppose the light-squared bishop
when it comes to c6. The bishop is
very strong, much stronger than the
knight. What other characteristics of
this position can we note?
Two bishops? I don't really un­
derstand what the advantage of hav­
ing two bishops is if the bishop
which has no counterpart is not
dominant. If in this position B lack'S
light-squared bishop can be shown
to be strong, then yes, I can see the
advantage of the two bishops. If the
bishop is passive, there is no advan­
tage at all.
 Assessing a Position and Choosing a Plan... 131
Let us remove the dark-squared
bishops from the board. Of course
this favours White, since the bishop
on c1 is bad. But nevertheless Black's
position would still be excellent, be­
cause his bishop is very dangerous.
So here, I would assert, there is no
advantage of the two bishops: here
we have the advantage of one bishop
- the light-squared bishop - over a
knight. Although the presence of
Black's second bishop of course un­
derlines the strength of his position.
Let us note one other feature of
this pOSition which is not unimpor­
tant: the open b-file. This will surely
be significant, whichever side con­
trols it.
When taking a decision it is useful
to note the candidate moves ftrst.
You suggest the move 15 . . . c5? But
what is the point? You wish to get rid
of the doubled pawn. But in what re­
spect is my pawn on c7 inferior to
the pawn on c3? I don 't see it. And
here White gets the chance to occupy
the d4 square with his knight, or
even with the bishop.
I seriously considered three can­
didate moves: the developing move
1 5 . . . i.e7, occupying the diagonal
with 1 5 . . . i.c6, and, ftnally, 15 . . .
l1b8 , placing the rook on th e open
file. Which of them is most accurate?
On 1 5 . . . i.e7 White can reply 16
�bl . It doesn' t look bad to play 1 5 . . .
�b8 1 6 JIb l ltb6, an d after the
bishop moves away the exchange on
b6 will improve Black's pawn struc­
ture. But in the game Black played. . .
15 ... i.c6!
Now on 1 6 �b l extremely un­
pleasant is 1 6 ... 'ii'e4, when the rook
has no satisfactory square on the b­
file (if 1 7 'ub2 then 1 7 . . . i.a3). Af-
ter. ..
16 0-0 %lb8
. . . (but not 16 ... i.e7 17 �b l 'ile4
1 8 i.d2) Black has in passing gained
control of the open file.
You might say that all this is just
trivial detail. But such tiny details
can affect the assessment of a posi­
tion, make the subsequent struggle
easier, make the opponent's oper­
ations more difftcult, and quite often
influence the outcome of a game.
17 %leI
At any rate, White defends against
. . . 'ii'e4. You know, the reason for his
position being so difftcult is that it is
very hard to recommend anything;
there is no obvious plan of action. If
17 a4 (intending i.a3) then 1 7 . . .
l:lb3 ( an illustration o f how timely
Black's last two moves were). How­
ever, also after the exchange of dark­
squared bishops, Black's possession
of the b-file, together with the weak­
ness of the squares b2 and b3, would
have become the decisive factor.
[Apparently this is where White
missed his last chance to organise a
stubborn defence. He should have
chosen 17 'iWg5 ! , in order to create
some pressure against his oppo­
nent's kingside and, by defending
the pawn on g2, to allow his knight
on f3 to move (Dolmatov).]
17 ... i.e7
132 Assessing a Position and Choosing a Plan...
A useful developing move. A
move like this is very unpleasant for
one's opponent - indeed, it is not
clear what the threat is or what he
should play in reply.
18 h4 (90)
If Black castles then this pawn is
ready to advance further in the trans­
parent hope of creating some sort of
attack. Now answer the next ques­
tion: How would you continue to
strengthen Black's initiative?
You like the move 1 8 . . . cj;d7? But
what will you do next? Double
rooks, leaving your kiogside to the
mercy of fate? Somehow this doesn't
look too good, does it? The move . . .
cj;d7 i s very committal; you are com­
mitting yourself to hardly ever being
in a position to open up the game. In
particular, with your king on d7 you
will not want to wage war.
Of course it was possible simply
to castle and then attempt to invade
down the b-file, although it is still
unclear precisely how. But after 19
hS should Black allow the pawn to
reach h6, or meet it with 19 . . . h6? In
the latter case it is necessary to
reckon with the transfer of white
pieces to the kingside: .f4, 1Ii'g 4,
l:le3, ttJe l , ltg3. We don't wish to al­
low our opponent any counterplay.
The idea 1 8 ... gS is very interest­
ing - one should not immediately
give it a hostile reception. But this
move of course is again very com­
mittal. After 1 9 hxgS do you wish,
by playing 1 9 ... l:.g8, to create the
threat of recapturing on gS? White
will reply 20 <it>fl , in order in the
event of a piece sacrifice to run away
with the king via the square e2.
What about preparing the move ...
g7-gS with 18 . . . l:t.g8 ? But again, if I
reply 19 cj;f1 , what then?
After another preparatory move,
1 8 ... h6, White will probably try to
blockade the kingside: 19 hS .
You suggest 1 8 . . . i.a8? What
for? Again, are we going to play ...
cS? Let us assume 1 9 1Ii'e2 cS 20
i.e3. Then %!eb l and tiJe l , and
White somehow untangles himself. I
don' t see the point of B lack playing
like this.
Play 1 8 ... 1Ii'aS , with the idea of ...
i.a3? Illogical. You liked the advan­
tage of the two bishops, and we de­
cided that White has a bad bishop , so
why exchange it off! And it is a great
shame to destroy the powerful bat­
tery (1WdS and i.c6). I think that
Black's strategy should be con­
nected with exploiting the power of
this battery.
18 ... h5!
 Assessing a Position and Clwosing a Pkm... 133
This is the correct decision,
though it is also a committal move,
as it weakens the g5 square. It is im­
portant that White should not man­
age to play 'it'f4, 'it'g3 and �g5. But
we wish to increase the pressure on
the g2 square. If it were our move we
would decide the fate of the game by
bringing the rook into the attack with
.. , IDl6 ! , and then ... .l:lg6 and, at
some point, ... .l::tg 4.
19 'ife2
The only defence. What now? Let
us continue our strategy - we shall
attempt to clear the long diagonal,
not baulking at sacrificing a pawn.
19 g5!
20 �xg5 �xg5
21 bxg5 h4
If Black now plays . . . h3 the game
will be over. But White still has a de­
fensive resource.
22 llebl l:.b6
It would be a pity to concede the
open file with the move 22 . . . l:.dS .
But if an exchange has to come then
it is best for it to take place on the b6
square. (Incidentally, if we had ear­
lier played . . . c7-c5, the move . . . .l::tb6
would not have been possible. This
shows that leaving the pawn on c7
has its advantages).
Any exchange in a game of chess
is, as it were, a trade. You offer your
wares and the other player offers his,
and each side seeks to derive some
benefit from the deal. Here it is as if
we are saying to our opponent: 'You
wish to exchange rooks. All right,
you can take on b6, and in so doing
you will undouble our pawns.' But
what else can White do? He has to
take - otherwise his rook on a l will
suffer.
23 :'xb6 cxb6
24 ttJel h3
25 'i'D
Black has launched an attack, but
this certainly does not mean that he
should automatically decline to ex­
change queens. Retreating the queen
to d7 or b5 would now have turned
out to be a blunder. White would
have replied 26 "f6 and then g6,
when it is unclear who is attacking
whom.
25 bxg2
26 'i'xd5 .txd5
27 ttJxg2 (91)
It was all so glorious, we did
everything so correctly - but now we
have reached an endgame in which
we are a pawn down. Was something
not quite right? No, we made no mis­
take in our assessment, and the next
move proves this convincingly.
27 ... :'h3!
134 Assessing a Position and Choosing a Plan...

Everything is quite in order! 2 lDtJ e6

White's position is bad. In fact I shall
say more - it is completely hopeless.
28 l:.c1 b5
White resigned
Why? The knight can't move, the
king can 't move, if 29 f4 then 29 . . .
J:lg3 3 0 Ilc2 b 4 and a mass exchange
on g2 decides the game. That only
leaves nc2-c l -c2, but then Black
plays ... �d7-c6, ... as and . . . b4 etc.
Why did Black win? Which piece
was the real hero? Clearly this was
the light-squared bishop, which had
no opponent.
I played this game when I was still
a Candidate master, but I am still
proud of it even today. Indeed, most
often the bishop on c8 in the French
Defence turns out to be 'bad' and is
only a source of worry for Black. But
here it became the star player. Such
instances stick in one's memory for a
long time.
The following game was played at
3 c3 d5
4 e5
If Black wishes to avoid the
French Defence he can play 4 ... d4,
which leads to a very complicated
game.
4 lDc6
5 d4 lDge7
6 a3 c4
7 i.f4 'W'b6
I am not going to enter into a theo­
retical discussion here, since we are
really interested in the middlegame.
Note only that Black's last move is
usually made when White's bishop
is on cl . But here it can hardly be
considered good, since the bishop
has already come out to f4 and White
will not shut it in by developing his
knight to d2. Preferable was 7 ... ilc7.
8 'i'c2 i.d7
9 lDbd2
Here 10 i.xc4 is not a threat, in
view of the intermediate 1 0 . lDg6,
..

the international chess festival in but in principle such an idea has to be

Kiev in 1 989. I had White, and my taken into consideration.
opponent was a Candidate master 9 lDaS
from Tbilisi. Running ahead for a 10 i.e2 f5? (92)
moment, I shall say that although, re­
grettably, I did not manage to win
this game, from a creative point of
view I was happy with it.

Kosikov-Khoperiya
Kiev 1 989

1 e4 c5
The Sicilian Defence sometimes
turns into a French.
 Assessing a Position and Choosing a Plan... 135
To my mind this is a serious
strategical error. The pawn on eS
cramps Black, and so he should have
retained the possibility of undermin­
ing the centre with . . . t7-f6. In the
french Defence there are variations
in which Black plays ... t7-fS and
then puts pressure on the d4 square.
But here, after Black has deprived
him self of counterplay in the centre
by playing ... cS-c4 and . . . t7-fS , his
position becomes difficult strategi­
cally.
This is a typical French position:
White is clearly stronger on the
kingside, whereas Black is trying to
develop an initiative on the queen­
side.
1 1 h4
A natural move in such positions,
and considerably stronger than 1 1
0-0. The h-pawn will need to be ad­
vanced in any event, to ram the op­
ponent's defence on the kingside.
But is it necessary to castle? That is
another question. The following plan
is entirely playable: the rook comes
into play via h3, and the king is
evacuated from the centre by playing
� 1 and 'it>g 1 .
11 ••• :c8
12 h5 h6
I do not like this move, but Black
feared (and not without reason) 1 3
h6 g 6 1 4 �gS , followed by �f6 and
lLlgs .
1 3 tLJh4
White's moves up to now have
been very natural and have not de­
manded any great effort. Besides
taking control of the g6 square, the
main idea behind his last move is to
play g2-g4. Black hurries to distract
his opponent from his attack by de­
veloping activity on the other side of
the board.
13 ... tLJb3
14 tLJxb3 'ii'xb3
The question here is: will you ex­
change queens or not? Do you wish
to play IS Wxb3 or IS �d l ? Or do
you prefer retreating the queen? You
are right if you preferred the latter.
Why exchange when White has excel­
lent prospects of a kingside attack!
Although, I should note, also after an
exchange on b3 White's position
would have been slightly better.
15 'ii'd2 �a4
Now it is no use playing 1 6 �dl
WbS , as an exchange of bishops is
clearly to Black's advantage. White
should also not play 1 6 llcl . What
sort of job is this for the rook: to
guard the empty square c2? In re­
sponse Black will immediately at­
tack the b2 square: 1 6 . . . llc6 and . . .
llb6.
16 g4!
Now it was possible to exchange
queens with 1 6 ... Wc2, but this leads
to an extremely difficult endgame:
1 7 Wxc2 �xc2 1 8 <la>d2 �a4 19
gxfS . White gets too many positional
advantages: a defended passed
pawn, a weak square on g6, and the
open g-file.
16 ... :c6!
A good reply. The rook is heading
for b6, and after an exchange on fS it
136 Assessing a Position and Choosing a Plan ...
will not only restrain the advance of
the e-pawn but also defend the g6
square, which is very important.
17 gxfS exfS (93)
Here I used up rather a long time -
around 25 minutes. But the position
merited it, as it is far from easy. It is
necessary to take both . . . l:tb6 and . . .
'iWc2 into serious consideration.
What would you have played in
White's place?
The evaluation of the exchange of
bishops after 18 �dl 'iWb5 is the
same - it rather favours Black.
If 1 8 .i.f3 then 1 8 ... ':b6 19 lbg6
lbxg6 20 hxg6, and now Black has at
least 20 .. , �c6. It is not advisable to
block the g6 square and the g-file
with a pawn. The immediate 18 lbg6
has the same drawback.
A variation which suggests itself
is 18 .i.d 1 'iWb5 19 .i.f3 %1b6 20 :'b 1 .
Let u s assume the queen goes back
to b3. What should White do now?
Let us approach this position
philosophically, establish what we
can do, what we wish to do and what
we don't wish to do. We have no ob­
jection to attacking. To do this it is
necessary to keep the queens on the
board. We must keep our hold on the
square b2. If it were to fall, our oppo­
nent would develop a serious initia­
tive on the queenside, and our attack
on the kings ide might come too late.
We do not wish to permit the ex­
change of light-squared bishops.
Therefore it doesn 't suit us to defend
the b2 square by means of .i.d l ,
�xa4, .l:tc 1 an d !k2. The bishop on
a4 must be allowed to live. Its fate
will influence the outcome of the
game. This bishop may be menac­
ing , but it might also turn out to be
very bad.
Black's pieces - the queen, the
rook and the bishop on a4 - are pres­
surising our position. But they are
tied down to the queenside, and if an
attack were to break out in another
area of the board they may prove to
be out of play and not manage to
reach the battlefield in time.
18 O-O!
A move which at first sight
doesn't look particularly significant,
but it is very effective. Now after 18
. . . %1b6 19 %1ab l Black cannot play
19 ... 'iWc2 in view of 20 .i.d l ! .
1 8 ... 'i'c2
19 'l'el !
Th e threat i s 20 .i.d 1 . Bad for
Black would be 1 9 ... 'iWxb2 20 %lbl
and then 2 1 %1xb7. After 1 9 . . . 1We4
20 lbg2 the queen will fall into a trap
(2 1 .:c l and 22 f3). Here my oppo­
nent astonished me by offering a
 Assessing a Position and Choosing a PkJn.. . 137

draw. I asked him to play a move, 28 'i6'g3 .ie7

and he couldn 't find anything better 29 1i'xf4 .ig5
than retreating his queen. 30 'i6'h2 .ixd2
19 ... 'i'b3 31 'i6'xd2 �e7 (94)
20 :dl
By transferring the rook to <12,
White strengthens the square b2 se­
curely and unties his hands for an at­
tack, in which, incidentally, the rook
will be able to play an active role. It
becomes totally clear that Black has
got nowhere on the queenside and
has merely tied his pieces down.
20 ... �d8
Black doesn't wish to go down
without at least some counterplay.
He intends to play ... g7-g5.
21 lld2 g5 Let us sum up: in a poSition of
22 bxg6 �xg6 material equality Black's pieces are
23 �xg6 :xg6+ uncoordinated; the pawns on d5 , f5
24 �hl and h6 are weak; and the bishop on
Black has seized the g-fIle, but he a4 has reverted to being a conven­
is unable to create real threats along tional 'bad' French bishop. White
it, for the reason that White has far must win.
more pieces on the kingside. White's Sometimes the most difficult
big positional advantage is obvious. thing in a game is to win a won posi­
24 'i'b6 tion. You see various promising pos­
25 .ih5 :g5 sibilities, but they don 't all by any
26 .in means achieve one 's aim.
White should not pay the least at­ I examined two tempting continu­
tention to the rook. It was also possi­ ations: 32 .t.xdS and 32 1i'g2 <3;xt7
ble to play 26 1i'e2, but the move in 33 :g l (32 l:.g 1 <3;xt7 33 1i'g2 trans­
the game is stronger. The pawn on d5 poses). Which of them should be
is attacked, and there is also the chosen? The correct reply is 32
threat of 27 e6. 1i'g2 ! . It is not difficult to calculate
26 ••• :g4 the main variation: 32 . . . �xt7 33
Black goes for a forced variation l:.g l �e8 34 1i'g7 l:.f8 35 l:.g6 l:.t7
which I had foreseen and assessed in (if the queen retreats, then :e6+ is
my favour. decisive) 36 1i'h8+ l:.f8 37 1i'xh6 and
27 f3 :xf4 38 :e6+.
138 Assessing a Position and Choosing a Plan ...

But unfortunately I spoilt this . . . b6 is not so good (although en­

game, finding the other idea too tirely possible), in view of 9 .i.b5+ .
tempting . . . One day, while pondering over
32 .ixd5? 'ilb5! this position, I felt a desire to find
33 'ir'g2 some defect in the move 8 a4, which
. . . and not noticing the refutation . . . is useful in all respects. I started ana­
33 'ir'xd5 lysing 8 tDbc6. White has a num­
...

34 'ir'g7+ 'ir'n ber of continuations to choose from.

35 'ir'xh8 'ir'h5+
36 ..t>gl 'ir'g5+
. . . after which I had to agree a
draw.
Let us set up the starting position
again. The French Defence is a very
interesting opening . I have been
playing it for a long time, and I have
no regrets. I have had my joys and
woes, losses and surprising suc­
cesses. Theoretical duels have taken
place which have not always fin­
ished as I should have liked. I shall
now tell you the story of one of these.
1 e4 e6
2 d4 d5
3 tDc3 .ib4
4 e5 tDe7
5 a3 .ixc3+
6 bxc3 c5
7 tDo
Here Black most often plays 7 . . .
1IIaS , but 7 ... 1IIc7 seems to me the
most promising move. In reply to 8
.i.e2 or 8 .i.d3 Black makes use of
his delay in developing the knight on
b8 and plays 8 ... b6, after which 9 . . .
.i.a6 gains i n force considerably
(White has already wasted a tempo
on an unnecessary move with his
light-squared bishop). Therefore
White usually chooses 8 a4. Now 8
The move 9 .i.a3 is possible, but it
does not present any serious danger.
Black will reply 9 . . . cxd4 10 cxd4
'iWaS+ 1 1 li'd2 li'xd2+ 1 2 �xd2,
which in my opinion leads to a
roughly equal endgame.
The move 9 .i.d3 comes up
against a combinational refutation.
Perhaps there is something I cannot
see, but it seems to me that this move
loses by force: 9 '" cxd4 1 0 cxd4
tDxd4 ! 1 1 tDxd4 li'c3+. Now White
can try to trap the queen. I shall show
you the variations I consider to be
the main lines.
So, 1 2 111d2 'iWxal 13 .i.b5+ .i.d7
14 .ixd7+ �d7 15 'ir'b4 ! ? (A very
cunning move. White threatens to
castle - on the immediate 1 5 0-0
there would follow 1 5 . . . 1Ixa4) 1 5 ...
'ir'xc 1 + 1 6 �e2 'ir'f4 ! (The only way
to continue! Excessive greed would
not be good: 1 6 . . . 'ir'xh l ? loses the
game, in view of 1 7 17 'ili'xb7+ �d8
1 8 11xa8+ tDc8 1 9 'ir'b7 with the ter­
rible threat of 20 t2Jc6+) 1 7 1Ixb7+
�d8 1 8 li'xa8+ (Also in the event of
1 8 tDc6+ tDxc6 1 9 1IIxa8+ �c7 20
1Ixh8 Black has a clear advantage)
1 8 ... tDc8 and although material is
equal, White's position is quite sim­
ply bad.
 Assessing a Position and Choosing a Plan... 139
The knight on d4 and the pawn on
e5 are both hanging. After 19 liJc6+
�c7 White also has problems with
h is queen.
We have examined 9 �a3 and 9
i.d3, so now let us tum to the most
natural move (given that 9 �d3 is
not playable): 9 �e2. For a long time
I didn't know what Black should
play here. But then the following
thought came into my head: the posi­
tion is closed, so the time-factor is
not of decisive significance. Is it
possible in this position for Black to
be a bit of a rebel and ignore the
rules?
9 .lte2 cxd4
10 cxd4 liJb4 (95)
White has to sacrifice a pawn (it is
clearly bad to play 1 1 �d3? \Wc3+
12 �d2 liJxd3+). The next moves
can be played automatically. A pawn
is a pawn - B lack should not reject
such possibilities out of hand,
though, of course, his position looks
perilous.
1 1 0-0 \Wxc2
12 "it'el
This idea occurred to me some
time ago. I had been nurturing it for
about a year when I finally decided
to try it out. In 1974 the USSR Team
Championship took place in Mos­
cow. I was playing for 'Avangard' .
We had to play a very important,
very difficult match against the Cen­
tral Army Sports Club.
I was to play against Klovan.
When preparing for this game I in­
vited the trainer of our team and the
captain, Gennady Kuzmin, to look at
the whole variation, including my in­
tended move 1 2 ... liJd3. I told them
that I had the factor of surprise on
my side - no-one had ever played so
impudently with Black. 'I realise
that it is dangerous, very dangerous,
but I want to try it. Do you give your
approval? '
For five to seven minutes the
trainer and the captain studied the
position and then said 'OK, it's dan­
gerous, but it's a pawn - go ahead! '
Klovan-Kosikov
Moscow 1 974
All the moves above were played
in this game. There followed:
12 liJd3
13 .ltxd3 \Wxd3
14 .taJ
I sank into deep thought for a long
time. And the more I looked at this
position the less I liked it. I have an
extra pawn - this is good. But the
fact that opposite-coloured bishops
remain - this is bad. If an endgame is
140 Assessing a Position and Choosing a Plan...
reached, converting my extra pawn
into victory could be difficult. On the
other hand, in a middlegame with
opposite-coloured bishops any at­
tack is considerably sharper and de­
fending is very difficult. I simply
have nothing with which to oppose
the dark-squared bishop.
14 ... tL\c6
15 'i'el !
Now i t would be terrible to play
1 5 . . . �d7 and then castle long. All
the white pieces could link up
quickly in an attack on the king. Cas­
tling short is impossible. That only
leaves one option: hiding the king
away on n .
15 f6
16 exf'6 gxf6
17 %tel
Now 1 7 ... tiJxd4 is met by 1 8
tL\xd4 'i'xd4 1 9 Wc7.
I even find it unpleasant to show
you the next few moves, because
there was no struggle in this game -
White's formidable pieces simply
tore my poSition to shreds. I am re­
minded of a line from a song by
Vysotsky: ' ... How can a schoolboy
fight an elite gang of ruffians? '
17 ... �f7
18 Wf4 h6
Black had to reckon with 19
tL\g5+.
19 :e3 'in7
An ungainly move, but I couldn' t
see anything better.
20 tL\eS+ tL\xeS
21 dxeS fS
22 :c1
And after a couple more moves
Black resigned.
You will have noticed that White
effectively had an extra piece in the
attack - the fearsome dark-squared
bishop, which had no opponent (and
could not have, given opposite-col­
oured bishops).
Naturally, when the game fin­
ished, reproaches rained down upon
me: ' You so-and-so, why did you go
down without a fight in such an im­
portant match?' Needless to say, the
trainer and captain of the team did
not remember that they had given
their approval to my adopting a
dangerous opening variation. But
what could I do? It was mainly my
fault.
When the bitterness of defeat had
subsided a little, the question arose
in my mind whether it was in fact
necessary to consign this variation to
the archives, whether it was really
impossible to take the pawn on c2. If
your opponent has refuted your
opening idea, do not rush to reject it
- try first to find an improvement. In
this case you should not plough
through all the variations - it is nec­
essary, as we have already said, to
approach the position philosophi­
cally.
Why did Black lose this game?
He was unable to oppose the bishop
on a3. This bishop had complete
control of the a3-fS diagonal after
the exchange of minor pieces on d3.
Evidently the move 12 ... tL\d3 was
the decisive mistake (96) .
 Assessing a Position and Choosing a Plan... 141
How can Black oppose the
mighty dark-squared bishop? Let's
examine 12 . . . 4Jec6. But then 13 as !
is strong, and if 1 3 ... 0-0 then 14
.ta3, winning the exchange.
It is possible to retreat with 12 . . .
4Jbc6. White will reply 1 3 .ta3 0-0
14 .tb5 . The threat is 15 �c 1 , and
Black cannot play 14 ... .td7 be­
cause of 15 i.xe7.
That leaves . . .
12 ... as!
But what should B lack play after
1 3 i.b5+? If 1 3 ... 4Jec6 then 14
i.a3 0-0 1 5 i.xc6 bxc6 16 i.xb4
axM 17 'fixb4. Material is equal, but
Black has a bad light-squared bishop
and a weak pawn on c6. His position
is not easy.
Let us not fear the loss of the right
to castle - let's play 1 3 . . . i.d7. After
1 4 i.xd7+ �xd7 1 5 i.a3 4Jec6
Black's position is quite in order: the
light-squared bishops have been ex­
changed, and the opposing dark­
squared bishop has been neutralised.
Subsequently it will be possible, for
example, to aim to castle artificially:
. . . lthc8, ... �e8, ... �f8, etc.
The move 14 i.a3 (instead of 14
i.xd7+) gave me certain doubts. Let
us see what happens after 14 . . .
i.xb5 15 axb5 4Jd3.
If White does not wish to ex­
change queens, he has to move away
with loss of tempo: 16 -'e3 . After 1 6
. . . 4Jf5 1 7 'figS 116 1 8 -'g4 -.e2 the
white pieces are completely para­
lysed - his position would be bad
even if Black did not have an extra
pawn.
Better is 1 6 'fid l , but then 16 . . .
'iVxd l 1 7 ruxd l 4Jf4, and not 18
l:1ac 1 , because of the fork 1 8 . . .
4Je2+. Black manages to consoli­
date and join the fight for the c-file.
Having studied these and a few
other variations, I decided that the
move 10 . . . 4JM had a right to exist.
Two years later, at Beltsy in 1 976,
the All-Union Qualifying Tourna­
ment (Otborochny Turnir) for the
USSR Championship took place.
When I heard the draw I was very
pleased that in the very first round I
would have to play B lack against
Klovan. Of course, there was no
guarantee of success, it was not
possible to assert that B lack wins in
this variation. It was also entirely
possible to lose, just as I had done
the first time. It might well be that,
here too, there was something that I
had not taken into account. But be­
sides the sporting aspect there was
also the creative side. In this game
the fate of the plan I had worked out
would be decided. Can Black play
this way or not? No analysis can ever
142 Assessing a Position and Choosing a Plan ...
take the place of practical examina­
tion.
Knowing Klovan 's principled
creative approach, I was sure he
would not avoid a theoretical duel.
Once more I examined the variations
I had prepared, making my analysis
a little more precise ...
Klovan-Kosikov
Beltsy 1 976
Mter 12 ... a5 ! White did not wish
to exchange light-squared bishops
but immediately played ...
13 .ta3
Of course, I had examined this
move as well and so quickly re­
plied ...
13 ... .td7
We are already familiar with the
consequences of 14 i.b5 .txb5 15
axb5 tbd3, and it is not possible to
capture twice on b4 immediately,
since the bishop on e2 will be hang-
ing.
14 .tdl 'it'e7
15 .txb4 axb4
16 'i'xb4 (97)
I had examined this position at
home and seen a clear-cut route to
equality: 16 ... b5 17 i.b3 bxa4 1 8
La4 La4 19 ltxa4 0-0. This would
have been quite sufficient to rehabili­
tate the variation. But having in OlD"
previous game suffered such a terrible
thrashing, a peaceful outcome did not
suit me - I very much wanted to take
my revenge. Besides, for my moves so
far I had used only five minutes,
whereas Klovan had used an hour and
three-quarters: that is, he had only 45
minutes left for 24 moves.
It would have been a shame not to
make use of such a big time advan­
tage, and the position also appeared
to be interesting. So I set off on a dif­
ferent, rather risky path.
16 ..• lDc6
17 1IIa3 b5
If Black can succeed in playing ...
b4 and then castling , he will get an
excellent position. White tries to pre­
vent Black from castling.
18 .te2 b4
19 'it'dJ (98)
What would you now suggest for
Black?
98
B
 Assessing a Position and Choosing a Plan... 143

It is very important to be able to blockades the passed a-pawn, de­

find quickly such apparently innocu­ fends the pawn on c4, and threatens a
ous moves as 19 . . . i.c8 ! . We return fork on b3.
to our main theme - the fate of the 27 ttJd2 ':b4
bishops. It is precisely this manoeu­ White should now have tried 28
vre with the light-squared bishop ttJe4, though here too 28 . . . l:!hb8 is
which changes the course of the unpleasant, with the threat of . . .
game to Black's advantage and in­ ttJb3. I reckon that B lack would have
fluences its outcome decisively. retained excellent winning chances.
19 ..tc8! Besides, Klovan was terribly short of
20 llfet ..ta6 time.
21 'ii'd2 ..tc4 28 ':cbl ':xbl
Forced, due to 2 1 . . . O-O? 22 29 ':xbl c3
i.xh7+ . 30 ttJe4
22 ..td3 Perhaps 30 ttJn was more stub-
Black constantly has to find accu­ born.
rate moves. What should he do now? 30 c2
White threatens to capture on c4, and 31 .:et ':b8
Black's knight is, as it were, tied 32 ttJd2
down to the defence of the pawn on Not 32 ttJc3 l:1b2 and 33 ... ttJb3.
b4. Clearly in White's favour is 22 . . . 32 ... ttJb3
.txd3 2 3 'ii'xd3 'iWb6 2 4 'iWb5 . Now in the event of an exchange
22 ... ttJa5! on b3 there is no defence against . . .
If now 23 'fixb4 then 23 ... l:1b8 n b 1 . In the game there followed:
and 24 ... ttJb3, winning the ex­ 33 ':xc2 ttJxd2
change. 34 f3 ttJb3
23 ..txc4 dxc4 Through inertia White played an­
24 'ir'xb4 llb8 other half a dozen moves and then
25 'ii'c 5 'ir'xcS resigned.
26 dxcS �e7!
Of the seven minutes remaining
on his clock my opponent used up Exercises
about five here. He clearly did not
like his position at all, despite his ex­
tra pawn. The white pawn on c5 Now test your own strength in solv­
must fall, and the black pawn on c4 ing purely positional problems. Af­
is a menacing force. Black's pieces ter the previous discussion you will
are more active - the knight on as , surely find them much easier to
however strange this may seem, is solve.
even better than the knight on f3. It
144 Assessing a Position and Choosing a Plan ...

13 Regarding a Certain
Article
Mark Dvorersky

Chess is by nature democratic. We

all have the right, when playing
through the games of the great play­
ers of the past and present, to express
doubts about their moves or com­
ments and to seek our own, better so­
White to move lutions. Such searches are always
14 useful for improving one's game,
and they sometimes lead to a greater
degree of precision and a more pro­
found understanding, even a funda­
mental revision, of existing opinions
and assessments. It is not difficult to
recall a great number of examples in
which magnificent analytical dis­
coveries by ordinary chess-lovers
have become an integral part of the
contemporary perception of the
games of famous grandmasters.
White to move But it should be borne in mind
IS that our classical heritage needs to be
treated with due care and attention.
In one's quest it is dangerous to pro­
ceed merely from a desire to find a
'refutation' , as this usually leads
merely to a loss of objectivity. One
should aim to establish the truth. In
order to refute a generally accepted
opinion it is not sufficient simply to
have doubts about it; it must be
painstakingly analysed, and the refu­
tation must be conclusive and con­
White to move vincing.
 Assessing a Position and Clwosing a Plan... 145

One should be particularly cau­ By assessing a position as 8:2, we

tious in one's judgements when it assert that White should win (+-) ,
comes to positional assessments, and by 9: 1 - that the win is quite
where there are no concrete or pre­ straightforward, a matter of tech­
cise variations to provide secure sup­ nique. Finally, 10:0 stands simply
port. I am speaking about all this in for a point in the tournament table
connection with an article by master for White; and 0: 1 0 - for Black.
V.Goldin, entitled Uvertyura k isto­ More subtle, intermediate evalu­
richeskomu poedinku ('The Over­ ations are also possible. For exam­
ture to an Historic Duel '), published ple, the score 2112:7112 implies that
in the magazine Shakhmaty v SSSR White is on the verge of defeat.
(No. 12, 1984), which was devoted After this rather protracted intro­
to the first game of the World Cham­ duction it is fmally time to proceed
pionship match between Capablanca to investigate the game.
and Alekhine (Buenos Aires 1 927).
The author of this article casts doubt Capablanca-Alekhine
on many of the decisions by both World Championship, 1st match
players and attempts to draw his own game, Buenos Aires 1927
picture of this encounter. Unfortu­
nately, most of his assessments are to 1 e4 e6
my mind unfounded and unjust. 2 d4 d5
We most commonly express our 3 lLlc3 ..tb4
opinion of the extent of a player's ad­ 4 exd5 exd5
vantage in words. These words are 5 ..td3 lLlc6
sometimes not entirely clear, they 6 lLle2 lLlge7
may be vague, they may be compre­ 7 0-0 ..tf5
hended in various ways. In order to 8 ..txf5 lLlxf5
achieve a degree of definition and 9 'i'd3 'i'd7
accuracy in one's judgements, Bon­ 10 lLldl 0-0
darevsky suggested a ten-point nu­ 11 lLle3 lLlxe3
merical scale of assessment, which I 12 ..txe3 %lfeS
am going to employ. According to 13 lLlf4 ..td6! (102)
Bondarevsky's system, the score 5 :5 Now, in Goldin 's opinion, White
Signifies that the position is equal. should have captured on dS . He
' Slightly better chances for White' writes: 'A question arises here - if
gets the evaluation 6:4 (equivalent to White had equality after 14 lLlxdS ,
the sign i used by Chess Informa­ then what has happened to the ad­
tor), and if 'Black is slightly better' vantage which Black had four moves
then 4:6 (n A considerable advan­ ago, after the indifferent 1 0 lLld l ?
tage for White is shown as 7:3 (±). Reasoning logically, one should
146 Assessing a Position and Choosing a Plan...
criticise Alekhine 's play i n the in­
terval between his 1 0th and 1 3th
moves.' This is how the master pro­
ceeds - he criticises the 1 0th , 1 1 th
and 1 2th moves of the challenger for
the World Championship.
The logic would be irreproach­
able if the assessments of the posi­
tion at either end of this fragment of
the game could be confmned. But it
is very hard to agree with these as­
sessments. It is clear that Black ob­
tained an excellent position from the
opening - his chances were even to
be preferred, but no more than that.
As yet there can be no talk of any ad­
vantage. Probably a fair assessment
of the chances would be 41f2:S 1h, or
at most 4:6.
On the other hand, after 1 4 ll'lxdS
.i.xh2+ IS <It>xh2 1i'xdS , both Ca­
pablanca (having rejected this vari­
ation) and Alekhine assessed the
poSition as favouring Black. To
make things clear Alekhine added
two more moves: 1 6 c4 'irhS+ 1 7
�g l %lad8.
Goldin considers that the defen­
sive plan found by him - 1 6 .l:lh l
l:lad8 17 �g l h6 1 8 :b4 ! - equal­
ises. This is not so. White's rooks are
disconnected, and Black's pieces are
placed more actively than White' s.
We shall play 1 8 . . . bS and look at the
position without any preconceived
ideas. Do we really not prefer
Black's side here? How should we
assess the move 1 6 ... l:le4 (instead
of 16 .. , %!ad8), which pursues the
aim of not allowing White's rook to
come to h4? After 1 7 c4 White will
have to reckon with 17 ... tt:'!eS 18
cxdS ll'lxd3.
No, the conclusion that 14 ll'lxdS
would have equalised is not suffi­
ciently well argued. At any rate,
Black has lost nothing here in com­
parison with what he had four moves
earlier. The score is no less than 4:6.
If this is so, all criticism of B lack's
play during this sequence of moves
is left hanging in mid-air.
Let us now examine Goldin's spe­
cific recommendations. He reckons
that Black should have castled not on
the kings ide but on the queenside.
He illustrates his opinion with the
variation 10 . . . 0-0-0 1 1 c3 .i.f8 ! 12
b4 f6 13 a4 gS 1 4 as tt:'!ce7 I S bS hS ,
and gives the following assessment:
'White's threats are worthless, and
Black's pressure is mounting.'
I think that in the last phrase one
could interchange the words
'White's' and 'Black's' to produce a
new assertion, which would be . . . j ust
as incorrect as the previous one. In
fact a complicated position arises
here, with chances for both sides.
 Assessing a Posirion and Choosing a Plan... 147
There is, for example, the manoeuvre
1 6 lLle3, when exchanging on e3 is
unfavourable for Black ( 1 6 . . . ll'lxe3
17 fxe3 !). After 1 6 . . . h4 1 7 �a3
White can think about lLle2-c l -b3,
and he also has other possibilities.
Probably more accurate, instead of
14 as, is the immediate 14 lLle3
ll'lce7 15 b5 h5 16 �a3 (now it is
necessary to reckon with 17 �xe7
ll'lxe7 1 8 ll'lg3 and 1 9 l1'lgf5) 1 6 . . . h4
1 7 lLlc l or 1 7 llae l , intending to
play 12-f4 at some point (perhaps af­
ter h3 and ll'lg4).
Castling long is considerably
sharper than castling short, but there
is no way you can declare on the ba­
sis of a short, not very explicit vari­
ation that it is stronger. It seems to
me that Alekhine played not only
more soundly but also better, al­
though I am not for a moment insist­
ing on this assertion - in order to
prove it some very serious analysis
would be necessary. After all, a posi­
tion may frequently be handled in
several different ways, each of
roughly equal merit. The choice de­
pends on the player's style and
tastes. Indeed , even today we don't
know which is the best move to be­
gin a game with: 1 d2-d4 or 1 e2-e4,
or perhaps something else ! It is clear
that we constantly encounter prob­
lems of roughly similar complexity
during the course of a game.
One may accept Goldin 's next
recommendation, 1 1 . . . ll'lfe7, as one
deserving consideration, but there
are no grounds for asserting that this
move is stronger than that chosen by
Alekhine, 1 1 ... ll'lxe3 - again it is a
matter of possibilities of roughly
equal merit. But Goldin 's doubts
about the advisability of the move 1 2
. . . !tfe8 ! are quite groundless. In­
stead, the move 12 . . . ll'le7 is sug­
gested, but in fact after 1 3 �f4 or 1 3
c 3 �d6 I 4 �f4 th e position is equal.
On the other hand, bringing the
bishop out to f4 proved in the game
to be rather difficult: not 1 3 c3 �d6
14 �f4, because of 14 . . . lh e2, and
after 1 3 �f4 it is necessary to reckon
with, for example, 1 3 . . . 'it'g4 1 4 f3
'it'g6 1 5 'it'xg6 hxg6. If now 1 6 !tt2
then 1 6 . . . l1xe2 ! 1 7 lhe2 ll'lxd4 1 8
%1 12 �c5 1 9 �e3 .l:te8 , or 1 9 �h l
ll'le6.
White could have maintained the
equilibrium with 1 6 �! but,
clearly, the position of the white
pieces in this variation could have
appeared precarious to Capablanca.
The World Champion, having the
white pieces in the first game of the
match, did not wish to play accu­
rately for equality. Ps ychologically it
is easy to explain why he decided to
make use of the very fust opportu­
nity to play actively and chose 1 3
ll'lf4? ! (with the threats 1 4 'it'b 5 or 1 4
'it'b 3 , against which i t would appear
that Black cannot really defend com­
fortably) , having underestimated the
excellent reply 1 3 . . . �d6! '
' Mistakes rarely occur i n isola­
tion ' - after a few more moves
B lack already had a healthy extra
pawn.
148 Assessing a Position and Choosing a Plan...
14 %lfel liJb4
15 'i'b3 'i'cs
16 %lad? liJxc2!
17 %lxc2 'i'xf4!
18 g3 'i'fS
19 :ce2 b6
20 'i'bs hS
21 h4
Well, Black surely played this
part of the game impressively? No,
the author of the article thinks other­
wise - he criticises the knight thrust
1 4 . . . liJb4. It is worth quoting his ar­
gument in full, merely making some
of his verbal formulations more pre­
cise by occasionally adding the nu­
merical evaluations which clearly
follow from them. Goldin recom­
mends 1 6 liJd3 (instead of 1 6
ltac l ?).
'After 16 ... liJxd3 1 7 'ii'xd3 'ifxd3
1 8 cxd3 Black's advantage would
have been purely academic (41h:5 1f2
or 4:6 - MD) . In reply to the move
quoted by Alekhine, 1 8 . . . �b4,
White could have built a fortress
with the move 19 �e2, the possibil­
ity of overcoming which cannot in
my opinion be proved analytically
(and can the possibility of holding
this "fortress " be proved analyti­
cally? - MD).
It is worth noting that Alekhine
himself, who had initially assessed
this endgame as lost for White (2 : 8 -
MD), was inclined some years later
to the opinion that it would only have
been considerably inferior (3: 7 -
MD) . So was it worth playing out­
wardly energetic moves with the
knight and the queen merely to ar­
rive, after the correct reply by White,
at a deadlocked position as far as
playing for a win was concerned?
Did Alekhine not have a more prom­
ising continuation?
It seems that he did. After 1 4 ' "
l:le4 ! the white knight would have
been compelled to retreat, since cap­
turing on dS in this line would be un­
acceptable: 15 liJxdS �xh2+ 1 6
<t>xh2 'ifxdS 1 7 c 3 'ii'h5 + 1 8 �g l
:b4 19 f3 liJe7 with a strong attack.
But after 15 lDe2 liJe7 Black's posi­
tion looks at any rate more promis­
ing than after the exchange of
queens. Carried away by his idea,
Alekhine apparently did not con­
sider the move 14 . . . :e4 at all .'
As I see it, everything said here is
wrong . On what, for instance, is the
supposition that the challenger for
the World Championship 'did not
consider the move 14 . . . lle4 at all'
actually based? Indeed, in the event
of 1 4 c3 ! ? (instead of 1 4 rue 1 ? !) he
had surely intended to play precisely
this. Levenfish and Romanovsky
give the following possible vari­
ation: 14 c3 lle4 15 lDe2 b8 16
liJg3 � xg3 1 7 hxg3 liJe7 1 8 :reI
liJf5 1 9 �d2 liJd6 - 'Black has per­
sistent pressure, but as yet there is
nothing tangible.' An accurate as­
sessment! (Expressed in figures it
probably looks something like
3 1f2: 61f2.) But after 14 :re I l:le4 15
lDe2 lDe7 16 liJg3 or 1 6 �d2
roughly the same position arises , and
with roughly the same evaluation.
 Assessing a Position and Choosing a Plan... 149

Is it possible to assert that here whether B lack has a win in the

Black can reckon on achieving more endgame - it is more important to
than in the variation 14 . . . lL'lb4 15 decide whether there are more prac­
""3 .f5 1 6 lL'ld3 lL'lxd3 17 .xd3 tical winning chances in this ending
"iixd3 1 8 cxd3 .ib4 (103) ? or in the variation with 14 ... l:!e4, to
establish which line will give White
more complicated tasks to solve. I
consider that Alekhine made the
right choice. If Goldin did not share
Alekhine's opinion then he should
have substantiated his doubts with
analysis. Regrettably, he did not
even try to do this.
Let us now look at the subsequent
course of the game.
21 ':e4
22 .i.d2! litxd4
23 i.e3 ':d3
Black's advantage is considerable 24 .i.e5 ':d8
and, above all, stable. White is 25 i.xd6 ':xd6
doomed to a long and laborious de­ 26 ':eS it'D
fence. From the quote given above it 27 ':xh5 'i'xh5
is clear that Alekhine 's assessment 28 :e8+ �h7
of White's position varied from 29 .xd3+ 'i'g6
'considerably inferior' to ' lost' . So 30 it'd 1 ':00
how is it possible, without even try­ 31 ':a8 liteS
ing to corroborate one's arguments 32 ':xa7 e5 (1 04)
with analysis, to call this position
' deadlocked' and B lack's advantage
'purely academic ' ?
It i s difficult to say for certain
whether White is doomed to defeat
in the endgame or whether with cor­
rect play he can hold out. From the
point of view of the practical chess­
player this is probably not really so
important. Between a 'draw ' and a
' win ' there are a number of interme­
diate states .
In this instance the problem is not
150 Assessing a Position and Clwosing a Plan ...

33 :d7 'tlVe6 file. He considers that in this case

34 'tlVd3+ g6 'White's chances would not have
35 :d8 d4 been at all inferior.'
36 a4 :el+ Black, it is true, can continue 33'"

37 �g2 'i'c6+ 'il'b l + 3 4 �g2 l!f5 35 ife2 d4, and

38 t3 lle3
39 'tlVdl 'i'e6
40 g4 lle2+
41 �h3 'i'e3
42 'ill l iff4
43 h5 :12
White resigned
Capablanca defended with excep­
tional ingenuity. He sacrificed a sec­
ond pawn in order to exchange
bishops and activate his rooks. One
of the pawns was soon regained, and
at the same time the black king be­
came rather exposed. But Alekhine,
giving back his extra pawn, then
turned on the white king. Was the
success of Black's strategy the right
result?
The move 33 lId7 was a mistake,
allowing Alekhine - with gain of
tempo - to line up his major pieces
on the e-file - the sort of formation
which had already brought him suc­
cess many times: with his queen be­
hind his rook. Instead of this,
Capablanca suggested 33 �g2. B ut,
in Alekhine 's opinion, here too after
33 . . . d4 Black has a decisive advan­
tage. For example: 34 l!a3 'ii'e6 ! 35
'ii'f3 c4.
Goldin points out the best de­
fence: 33 'ii'f3 ! . By attacking the
pawn on f7 White does not allow the
build-up of major pieces on the e-
White still needs to defend accu­
rately (36 a4 c4 ! 37 'ii'xc4 'ii'xb2, or
36 I:td7 'ii'xa2 followed by 37 . . .
'tlVe6). But after 36 b3 ! White has re­
pelled the immediate threats . Essen­
tially the master is right here. Black
previously had a sound extra pawn,
his position was clearly winning
(2:8). But now material is equal and
Black's attack is highly problematic.
One may draw the conclusion that
Alekhine did not choose the best
plan to realise his advantage.
Let us now go back, in order to
find out where, in the commentator's
opinion, Alekhine made a mistake
(1 05) .
B lack chose 2 1 . . . l:le4. Goldin
writes: 'Can such a move be a mis­
take? Ask any master. The reply will
surely be unanimous: no, it cannot.
And yet, however strange it may
 Assessing a Position and Choosing a Plan... 151
seem, it apparently allows nearly all
of Black's advantage to slip away.'
Indeed, any experienced chess­
p layer will hardly agree to acknow­
ledge the move 2 1 . . . l:te4 to be a
mistake. But in any case he will
surely doubt that this move ' allows
nearly all of B lack's advantage to
slip away.' In such positions the ad­
vantage can be forfeited either by a
serious positional or tactical blunder
or as the result of a whole series of
errors such as 2 1 ... l:te4 (if indeed
this really was not the strongest
move). One inaccuracy is not usually
sufficient - it may merely compli­
cate (sometimes substantially) the
process of converting the advantage
into victory.
But is the move suggested in­
stead, 2 1 ... 'if 0, really so strong?
The author of the annotations con­
siders only 22 �f4 ':xe2 23 'ifxe2
'ifxe2 24 lhe2 �xf4, with a winning
rook ending, and 22 �d2 lhe2 23
':xe2 a6 ! (on 24 'ifc6 there follows,
obviously, 24 . . . 'ifxe2 25 'ifxaS+
<it>h7 26 �c3 'ifc4). But White can
choose 22 �g5 ! lhe2 23 lhe2 a6 24
'iWc6. And now, after 24 ... 'ifxe2 25
'ifxa8+ �h7, White 's bishop is not
hanging, and he has the simple 26
'ifxdS. Not entirely convincing
either is 25 ... �f8 26 'ifxdS 'ifxb2,
when White may choose between 27
�g2, 27 �f4 and 27 'ifdS, retaining
definite counter-chances. Finally, in
the event of 24 ... ':f8 25 ':e l Black
has to reckon with the positional
threat of 26 �e7.
When studying a game it is in
principle useful to note and examine
alternative possibilities such as 21 . . .
WO. But one should not ascribe to
them more significance than they de­
serve and immediately draw far­
reaching conclusions.
After 2 1 . . l:le4 22 �d2 Black
.
was not obliged to capture the sec­
ond pawn. Regarding the move 22 . . .
':'xe2 Goldin says that ' i t probably
would have maintained some win­
ning chances.' Why the modest
' some'? Of course, it is a shame that
the e-file is now in White's hands,
but the extra pawn and other posi­
tional advantages have remained. I
think that B lack maintains excellent
winning chances (2 112: 7 112).
Let us now examine the position
which arises after Capablanca's rec­
ommendation: 22 . . . l:!aeS 23 'ifxeS+
l'heS 24 lheS+ �h7 (106) .
Alekhine reckoned that 'after the
exchange of the queen for two rooks,
forcing a win would not cause Black
any great trouble, thanks to his con­
siderable positional advantage.'
152 Assessing a Position and Clwosing a Plan...
Levenflsh and Romanovsky, who
annotated this game, did not agree
with the opinion of the two World
Champions. They wrote: 'Of course,
not 22 ... l:.ae8 because of the simple
23 'iWxe8+, when White obtains a
draw.' Goldin shows solidarity with
this assessment: 'Levenflsh and Ro­
manovsky were evidently right in as­
sessing the poSition after 22 ... l:1ae8
to be drawn.'
No, they were not right. Assessing
such a position to be drawn is funda­
mentally incorrect. We have here a
practical position with a consider­
able advantage for Black. Even if,
contrary to Alekhine's assessment,
you come to the conclusion that
White has a right to reckon on saving
the game with accurate defence, the
word 'drawn' is, all the same, inap­
propriate here - it is necessary to
seek expressions which describe the
sibJation more accurately. It is easier
for us to use a numerical system than
a verbal one: Alekhine' s opinion cor­
responds to a score of 2:8; the alter­
native j udgement can be expressed
as 3:7 (but certainly no less).
This time Goldin attempts to sup­
port his point of view with a little
analysis, but he evidently senses
himself that his analysis is uncon­
vincing, since he remarks quite rea­
sonably that: 'It is scarcely possible
to exhaust all the possibilities in this
position by quoting variations, and is
it really necessary to do so? '
After 25 'il;lg2 he only examines
25 . . . c5 , or 25 . . . 11M3 26 �c3 cs .
But the move ... c7-c5 is highly de­
batable - it enables the opponent to
get rid of his bad pawn on d4 and,
above all, dislodges the support for
the excellently-placed bishop on d6,
which is neutralising both the white
rooks. Instead of this, worth consid­
ering is a plan involving advancing
the queenside pawns. For example:
25 ... 'iWd3 26 �c3 b5 (it also looks
good to play 26 . . . 1i'c4 or 26 . . . as
followed by . . . 'iWa6, . . . b5 and . . .
'iWb6) 2 7 a3 as . Another promising
idea is 25 . . . 'iWg4 26 .ic3 f5 and then
27 ... f4.
So, perhaps taking the pawn on d4
should be considered to be a mis­
take? I don 't think so. You see , also
after 22 . . . lhd4 Black of course re­
tained the advantage. I shall point
out j ust a few instances when Alek­
hine could have played something
else (without thorough analysis I
shall not risk saying 'better').
Alekhine declined to play 23 . . .
l:lc4 (instead o f 2 3 ... :d3) because
of the counter 24 lle5 ! . But after 24
. . . .ixe5 ! 25 'iWxdS �xc3 ! 26 'iWxfS
(26 1Wxa8+ 'ith7 27 bxc3 l:lxc3) 26
. . . �xe 1 27 'iWdS �xt2+ 28 'itg2 (28
'itxt2 l:lc2+ and 29 ... l:le8, winning)
28 ... l:le8 29 'iWxc4 .ic5 (intending
... �d6 and . . . l:le3 or ... l1e6-g6)
Black has the advantage.
[As was later discovered by
Yu.Nikonov (SluJkhmaty v SSSR, No
6, 1986) a very strong continuation
was 23 . . . l:lg4! 24 �e5 �b4 ! , when
25 'iWxdS c6 ! 26 'iWxc6 :e8, and 25
l:ldl �c5 ! 26 1Wc6 (26 l:lxdS l:lxg3+;
 Assessing a Position and Choosing a Plan... 153
26 �xc7 ':c8 27 �e5 �xf2+) 26 . . .
kld8 ! 2 7 iixc7 (27 �xc7 'iWf3 ! 28
l:tde 1 lhg3+) 27 . . . t!.e8 ! 28 l:!xd5
l:le4 ! are hotb bad for White.
Nikonov also proved tbat after 23
., . l:1d3 24 �e5 tbe reply 24 . . . �c5 !
was very strong.]
White is also a long way from
equality after 25 . . . cxd6 (instead of
25 ... lhd6). Two moves later it was
possible not to capture the rook on
h5 but to play 27 . . . Iih6 ! ? Finally,
as N.Volgin has pointed out, instead
of 3 1 . . . l:le5 Black could have imme­
diately advanced his passed pawn:
3 1 ... d4 ! 32 l:1xa7 (32 iixd4? ':el+
33 'it>h2 Wc6) 32 '" d3 33 lhc7 l:Ie2.
Previously there had been no need
to examine all tbese possibilities,
since tbe plan chosen by Alekhine in
tbe game had seemed sufficient to
win. But now we have to take tbem
much more seriously, since tbe de­
fensive resource pointed out by
Goldin - 33 iif3 ! - casts doubt on
tbe correctness of Black's attack
(this is the only rational point in his
whole article).
At the end of his article Goldin
writes: 'Despite the changes made to
our assessment of tbe course of
events by the present analysis, done
almost 60 years later, this was a cap­
tivating struggle, in the course of
which botb players took decisions
which were impressive by virtue of
tbeir depth and beauty.' I fear that if
one agrees with tbe 'changes made' ,
this little panegyric looks rather like
a sneer. You see, in the short interval
between tbe 1 0th and 1 4tb moves
Goldin ostensibly points out two
mistakes by White and four by
Black. Fortunately, tbese great play­
ers of the past did not play quite so
badly - in most cases it was not tbey
but tbeir critic who was at fault.
Overall, though, I think tbe game we
have examined could not be called a
masterpiece.
6 A Feel for the K i ng

Grigory Kaidanov

The arsenal of any strong chess­

player includes an enormous number
of the most varied methods and
evaluations, rangiDg from the gener­
ally familiar to the non-standard. It is
very important to be able to identify
in material being studied something
general, something capable of en­
riching your game. Even grandmas­
ters and masters occasionally come
across ideas with which they were
previously unfamiliar. 36 b4 'ike7
In 1 9 8 1 I had a conversation with 37 Itd3 g6
Grandmaster Yuri Razuvaev about If 37 ... i.b6 then 38 'iih5 l:1fS 39
the new wave in Soviet chess - in the ':13, intending 'ikg6 ! and g4-g5 with
USSR Championship which had j ust a winning attack.
ended, Psakhis, Yusupov and Dol­ 38 'ikg4 rJ;g7
matov had played brilliantly. When 39 1t13 itt'S
speaking about Psakhis, Yuri ob­ 40 h5 g5
served that 'he has a subtle feel for 41 'ikr5 'ike7
the king.' To be honest, this remark Now Black is completely tied
seemed to me rather abstract at the down. He cannot move his queen,
time, but soon afterwards I came his rook or his king, because of the
across the following game: weakness of the squares 17 and f6.
That only leaves moves with the
Psakhis-Hebden bishop. It seems that it is also hard
Chicago 1 983 for White to strengthen his position,
but. . .
(1 07) : White has an extra pawn, 42 rJ;g2 i.b6
but turning it into victory doesn't 43 rJ;fi l..a 7
look easy. 44 rJ;e2 i.b6
35 Itdl 45 rJ;d3 i.a7
With the idea of l:1d 1 -d3-f3. 46 rJ;e4 'ike7+
35 ... l..a7 47 rJ;b3 'ike7
 A Feelfor The King 1 55

48 g4! i.b6 61 b6 i.d4

49 �c4 i.a7 (l08) 62 i.a4 d5
Or 62 . . . i.e3 63 'It>c6 i.c5 64 b7
winning.
63 cxd5 exd5
64 exd5 e4
65 �c6! �c8
66 d6 e3
67 i.b5 i.f6
68 i.a6+ �b8
69 �d7
Black resigned

Perhaps the study of this example

helped me in the following game:
50 �b5!!
The white king heads straight into Kishnev-Kaidanov
oncoming fIre from the enemy's ma­ Odessa 1 987
jor pieces. But what does he hope to
achieve?
50 ... 'i'e8+
Not 50 ... l:r.bS+ 5 1 'It>a6 ! ! �b6+
52 'It>a5 winning.
51 i.c6 'i'd8
52 �c4! 'i'e7
53 'i'd7
Only now does White's plan be­
come clear. The king did not advance
so far j ust to frighten his opponent
but in order after an exchange of
queens to secure the advance of his White went for a combination ' .
•

pawns. 1 4 tiJxf7? �xf7

53 . .
. 'i'e6+ 15 i.xf6 �xf6!
54 'i'xe6 fxe6 The refutation ! After 16 'i'xd7
55 %lxt8 �xt8 .l:t.dS the white queen is trapped.
56 �b5 �e7 16 'i'13+ �e7
57 �a6 i.x12 17 %lfd l i.xb5
58 c4 �d8 18 i.xe6 �xe6!
59 �b7 i.el 19 'i'd5+ �tlj
60 b5 i.12 20 'i'13+ �e7
156 A Feelfor the King

21 ltd5 .td7 Andersson-Tempone

22 'i'e4+ .te6 Buenos Aires 1979
23 ltcdl cj;t7
24 ltd7+ .te7 1 c4 lDm
25 1i't3+ �e8 2 lDt3 g6
26 ltxb7 1i'c5 3 lDc3 d5
27 1i'e4 ltd8 4 cxd5 lDxd5
White resigned 5 e4 lDxc3
6 dxc3 1i'xdl +
' Wh y did m y opponent not notice 7 �xdl c5?
the move 1 5 . . . 'it>xf6? ' , I began to After this move White stands bet-
wonder, and I came to a simple con- ter.
clusion: while acknowledging and 8 .te3 b6
understanding the role of the king in 9 a4 lDc6
the endgame, we frequently do not 10 .tb5 .td7
even consider active moves with the 1 1 �c2 .tg7
king in the middlegame. Let us recall 12 lthdl a6? !
the history of chess: Steinitz tried to 13 .tc4 .tg4
demonstrate that the king is also a 14 h3 .txt3
strong piece in the middlegame. But 15 gxt3 0-0
in the gambit he had thought up ( 1 e4 16 f4 lta7
e5 2 f4 exf4 3 lDc3 1i'h4+ 4 'iti>e2) the 17 e5 as
'active position ' of the white king 18 ltd2 e6
was hardly justified - quite often it 19 :ad 1 ltc8 (1 10)
ended up simply getting mated.
An understanding of when it is
necessary to activate the king - and
also of when this would be untimely
- is surely the 'feel for the king ' ,
which Razuvaev had mentioned. Al-
though one may also interpret this
concept more broadly, by also in-
cluding in it the ability to sense the
right moment for an attack on the en-
emy king, or, by foreseeing one 's op-
ponent's intentions, to secure the
position of one's own king at the
right time, etc. 20 �b3! .trs
Now let us examine the following 21 .tb5! ltcc7
game: 22 .txc6 ltxc6
 A Feelfor rhe King 157

23 �c4 �e7 29 �c2 �e8

24 ltd7 ltcc7 30 'i'e4 'i'c7
25 ':xc7 ltxc7 Black is extremely cramped, and
26 �b5 ':c8 White begins a pawn offensive on
27 ltd7 �f8 the kingside.
28 �b6 �e8 31 f4 �e7
29 ':b7 �d8+ 32 g4 �h4
30 �b5 c4 33 f5 �g3
31 �c5 34 fxe6 fxe6
Black resigned 35 'i'g6+ e
36 'i'xe6 �xe5
This game, in which the white Having studied the previous ex­
king quite disdainfully took the ample, it is not too difficult to find
route b3-c4-b5 into his opponent's the manoeuvre which now followed.
half of the board, gave me a lot of en­ 37 �d3! �g3
joyment. I called this technique ' the 38 �e4 �
king's march ' , and I selected a few 39 �f5 �g3
more examples on the same theme. 40 �d2 i.h2
Here is one of them. 41 i.c3 'i't7+
And Black resigned: after 42
Geller-Hort 'ii'xti+ c:in.f7 43 �e4 and 44 'ittdS
Skopje 1968 White wins the bishop ending.
Remember the game Psakhis­
Hebden; here we have the same sce­
nario: the march of the king with the
major pieces still on the board, then
an exchange of queens, and the re­
sulting endgame turns out to be win­
ning, thanks to the better position of
the king.
After studying all these examples
it was a pleasure to play the follow­
ing game:

Kijk-Kaidanov
A typical Caro-Kann endgame. Norilsk 1 987
27 'i'f4! 'i'd7
28 b3! (1 1 2) :
Intending �c2. 21 �e7
28 ... �d8 22 lta4 lthb8
1 58 A Feel/or the King

tuitive 'feel for the king' and also to

master a particular technique the -

king 's march.

Additional Examp les

Korchnoi-Yusupov
Lone Pine 1 981
(annotated by Artor Yusupov)

23 i.c4 �!
24 em :a7
25 :el .th6
26 �e2 �e5
27 �f1 ct>f4
28 �e2 :e7!
White's next move loses quickly,
but his position was already difficult:
he cannot play 29 .txa6, because of
29 ... d5 followed by 30 . . . l1a7, and
meanwhile Black threatens 29 . . . d5
and 30 ... f5. With my last move, 32 . . . lkS­
29 �f1? �xf3 as? ! , I was hoping to force White to
30 .txa6 d5 reduce the annoying pressure on the
31 exd5 :xel+ pawn at b5 and to defend against the
32 �xel :e8+ threat of 33 . . . !ta l by playing 33
33 �f1 :e2 l:ldl . But Korchnoi's brilliant reply
34 :al :xt2+ shattered my illusions.
35 �gl :g2+ 33 �f1 ! ! :al?
36 �hl .tel It would have been better to ac­
White resigned knowledge my mistake and play 33
. . . IlbS, but also in this case White
There is no defence against 37 . . . would still have had a big advantage.
�g3 an d 3S ... l'nl 2 mate. 34 �e2!!
This episode is yet further evi­ I t turns out that th e white king on
dence that no conscientious work is e2 is completely safe. White intends
ever in vain ! to activate all his forces by playing
The examples we have j ust exam­ .th4.
ined will help you to develop an in- 34 ... �g7
 A Feelfor the King 159

If 34 ... lbb6 then simply 35 :xb5

'i'c 1 36 'i'e8+ <j;g7 37 'i'xt7+ �h6
38 'i'f8+ �g7 39 'i'f4+; on 34 . . .
lbe5 ! ? not b ad was 35 �d2.
35 �b4
Of course, not 35 :Xb5? because
of 35 . . . lbd6. Now White threatens
both 36 'i'e8 and 36 lhb5 . I was un­
able to find a defence against both
threats.
35 ... lbb6
36 ltd6 28 �h2 b5
Also good was 36 :xb5 . 29 �g3 ! a5
36 ... ltd 30 �h4
37 hffi! Threatening both <it>h5 and :e3.
This wins by force. 30 g6
37 ... �xf6 31 lte3 ! 'i'xgl
38 'i'd4+ �g5 32 ltg3 'i'll
If 38 ... 'i'e5 then 39 �e7+ ! . Or 32 . . . g5+ 33 �h5 'i'xg3 34
3 9 �e7+! 'i'xe7 <it>g6 winning.
Or 39 . . . �h6 40 'iWh4+ �g7 4 1 33 fxg6 'i'f4+
'i'f6+ �h6 4 2 �f8+ <j;h5 4 3 g4 34 ltg4 'i'll+
mate. 35 �h5
40 'i'f4+ Black resigned
Black resigned
Exercises
Mate in two is forced. This game
was effectively decided by White's 16
unexpected king manoeuvre.

Teichmann-Consultation
Glasgow 1902
(Analysis by Mark Dvoretsky)

(1 14) : The white rook is tied

down to the g2 square. Teichmann
decided to bring his king out to h4 in
order to free the rook and transfer it
to the g -file. If possible, the king will
invade on g6. B lack to move
1 60 A Feelfor the King

17 Assessment and
Analysis
Mark Dvoretsky

Then I looked at the position without

any preconceived opinions, and - oh
joy ! I understood the secret of this
-

endgame.
Mikhail Botvinnik

When preparing for an adjourn­

White to move ment session we get down to some
18 serious analysis, and then we sud­
denly realise what riches may be
concealed in the simplest and, at first
11
sight, rather uninteresting positions .
B
We discover that it is possible to de­
fend successfully in any situation,
even a very difficult one, and that
there are numerous obstacles to be
overcome on the way to victory ; one
has to find profound moves, some­
times the only moves. Discovering
the truth in analysis after some effort
Black to move usually gives us considerable crea­
19 tive satisfaction.

Akhmylovskaya-Alexandria
6th match game, Kislovodsk 1980

(1 19) : One's first impression is

that Black has a big, probably deci­
sive, positional advantage. Her
pieces are considerably more active,
and the pawns on d4 and h2 are
weak.
Which move did Akbmylovskaya
Black to move seal? Of course, not 4 1 'iWc2? 'iWxaJ ,

and not 41 lLlc2? lLlc3+ 42 �al
'i'd l+. Certainly not 4 1 �a2? either
- in this case the knight comes to c3
with check.
It is also not too difficult to refute
4 1 �c l ? Black can immediately
capture the pawn on h2: 4 1 . . . lLle3
42 'i'b4 'ii'd l + 43 �b2 'ii'e2+ 44
�b3 'i'xh2. It is still more accurate
to play for zugzwang: after 4 1
... �h7 ! an y move b y White makes
her position worse. For example: 42
lLlc2 'iWfl+ 43 �d2 'iWf2+ 44 �d3
(44 �c 1 'i'g l+; 44 �d l lLle3+) 44 ...
'i'xh2. Or 42 lLlb 1 'i'fl + 43 �d2 (43
�c2 lLle3+, winning the queen) 43 . . .
'i'f2+ 4 4 �c l 'ii'g l+.
That only leaves ...
41 �al
. . . but then the obvious 4 1 . . . lLlc3
leads to the capture of the pawn on
d4. What counter-chances could the
opponent get?
First, let us examine 42 lLlb l .
Straightaway there is a slight disap­
pointment - it turns out that after 42
.. . lLlxb l 43 'i'xb l 'iWxd4+ 44 'i'b2!
'ii'xb2+ 45 �b2 a drawn pawn
A Feelfor the King 1 61
endgame arises: 45 ... �g8 46 'li>c3
�f7 47 �b4 �e7 48 �c5 �d7 49
'li>b6 g5 50 h3 (50 h4 gxh4 is just as
good) 50 . . . g4 5 1 h4 h5 52 'li>a5 !
<Jitc7 53 <Jita6.
Let us try to assess the queen end­
ing : 44 . . . 'i'dS 45 'i'f2 (or 45 'i'e2)
45 ... c5 46 �b2 c4 47 'i'e3 (or -
with the queen on e2 - 47 �c3).
Black cannot win without the assis­
tance of her king, but getting it into
play is not so easy, since this in­
creases White's chances of perpetual
check. Conclusion: it is advisable for
Black to avoid the exchange of
knights.
Let us play 42 ... lLlb5 ! (instead of
42 ... lLlxb l ), having 43 . . . lLlxd4 in
mind. Again we should ask our­
selves which side would benefit
from an exchange of queens. It turns
out that after 43 'i'd2 'i'xd2 44 lLlxd2
lLlxd4 45 �b2 White gets counter­
chances as a consequence of the vul­
nerability of the pawns on c6 and e6
and the remoteness of the enemy
king.
On the other hand, when there are
queens and knights on the board, de­
fending is extremely difficult -
Black can combine the advance of
her c-pawn with threats to the king
and the pawn on h2. For example, on
43 'i'd2 we shall reply 43 . . . 'i'c4 and
then play ... lLlxd4, c6-c5 etc. Or 43
'li>a2 lLlxd4 44 'i'c3 'i'a6+ (also pos­
sible is 44 . . . 'i'e2+) 45 �b2 'i'b5+
46 <Jita2 c5.
Perhaps we need not analyse the
move 42 lLlb 1 any further - we have
1 62 A Feelfor the King
found the strongest reply for Black
and outlined a subsequent plan.
There are no apparent difficulties in
carrying out this plan.
We note here, incidentally, that
when analysing adjourned positions,
besides the investigation of concrete
variations it is also very important to
draw some general conclusions
about the position. For example, as
in this case, one should consider
whether it is advisable to exchange
any pieces.
Let us examine 42 'iib4 . In the
event of 42 ... Wd2 43 'iib2 Wxd4 44
ttJb 1 the exchange of queens is un­
avoidable, and we have already es­
tablished that in this case the process
of converting Black's advantage into
victory is more difficult. Also uncon­
vincing is 42 ... ttJe2 43 �b2 ttJxd4
44 Wc4 ! Wd2+ 45 ttJc2, since White
succeeds in coordinating her forces,
creating the threat of exchanges and
then attacking the pawns on c6 and
e6.
Much stronger is 42 ... Wd2 43
'iib2 Wdl + ! 44 ttJb l ttJb5 ! 45 Wd2
Wa4+ 46 �b2 ttJxd4 47 Wc3 'iib 5+
and 48 ... c5 . Roughly the same fa­
vourable situation arises as in the
variation with 42 ttJb l .
But in passing we have, it ap­
pears, already found the best forma­
tion for the white pieces - king on b2
and knight on c2. White can achieve
this by playing 42 'iib 3 ! Wxd4 43
ttJc2 (1 20).
At first sight this defensive plan is
also not to be taken too seriously. It
appears that Black has only to find a
couple of accurate moves and the 0p­
ponent's resistance will be broken.
Let's try !
A move which suggests itself is
43 . . . Wd2, but where can the knight
go after 44 �b27 The 'active' 44 ...
ttJe2 is harmless in view of 45 Wc4,
when it is unclear how the pawn on
c6 can be defended.
The most solid move looks to be
44 . ttJdS , covering the pawn on e6
. .
and threatening 45 . . . Wxh2. If 45 h4
then 45 . . . c5 and White is in trouble.
It is essential to create counter­
threats immediately: 45 'iib 8 +! �h7
46 Wd6 Wc3+ (46 ... Wxh2 47 Wxe6
ttJe3 48 Wxc6) 47 �cl ! (but not 47
�b 1 7 'iib 3+ 48 �c l ttJc3 with a de­
cisive attack). If now 47 . . . ttJe3 then
48 Wd2! Wxd2+ 49 �xd2 ttJn + (we
recall that the pawn ending after 49
. . . ttJxc2 is drawn) 50 �e2 ttJxh2 5 1
ttJd4. It looks tempting to sacrifice a
pawn: 47 . . . c5 48 Wxe6 ttJe3 49 1faZ
ttJc4, but as it turns out, here tOO
there is nothing decisive.
Let us now examine 44 .. lDbS
.

(instead of 44 ... 00). The pawn on
e6 is indirectly defended (45 16'xe6?
16'xc2+ !). On 45 16'c4 there follows
45 ... 16'xh2 46 16'xc6 lD<i4, forcing
the transition to a winning pawn end­
ing (for the first time it has tumed
out that exchanges favour Black !).
Essential is 45 h4, intending 46
16'c4. In reply to 45 . . . 'tWe2 it is possi­
ble to hold out by 'terrorising ' the
black queen by the threat of an ex­
change: 46 'tWe3 (not 46 h5? 'it>h7 ! 47
16'e3 16'xh5 , or 47 <t>b l c5 ! 48 16'e3
'tWc4) 46 . . . 16'g2 (46 . . . 16'c4 47 'tWb3)
47 'tWb3 ! <t>h7 48 16'c4 ! , when 48 . . .
16'xg3 4 9 16'xc6 i s unconvincing, and
White is already thinking about h4-
h5 .
So, 43 ... 16'd2, playing simply to
strengthen the position, came to
nothing. Let's try 43 . . . 'tWg l+ 44
'it>b2. Again we shall work through
all the knight moves.
The move 44 . . . lD<il+ would be
justified in the event of 45 <t>a3? , but
the king can move boldly into dis­
covered check: 45 'it>c l ! .
There i s also an interesting de­
fence after 44 . . . lLle2 45 16'c4 (45
16'xe6? 'tWcl + and 46 . . . 16'xc2+ !) 45
. . . 16'xh2. Here the only saving con­
tinuation is 46 16'xe6 ! lLld4 47
'tWc8+ ! <t>h7 48 <t>c3 ! .
Th e move 4 4 . . . lLl dS sets White
more complicated problems (1 21) .
It turns out that the counter-attack
45 'tWb8+ <t>h7 46 16'd6, which was
playable with the black queen on d2,
is unsuccessful here: 46 . . . 'tWb6+ ! 47
<t>a3 (47 <t>c1 lLlc3 !) 47 ... 16'a5+ 48
A Feelfor the King 163
121
W
<t>b2 'ilb5+ 49 <t>a3 lLlb6 ! 50 1Wb4
16'd3+ 5 1 'tWb3 (5 1 <t>b2 lLlc4+) 5 1 . . .
16'a6+ ! 52 <t>b2 c5 ! . Th e pawn on e6
cannot be taken, and Black has re­
tumed to those happy but, alas, al­
ready half-forgotten times when she
could have strengthened her position
without hindrance ( . . . lLlb6-d5 , ... c5-
c4, etc).
It doesn 't help to play either 45
16'c4? 'it'xh2 46 16'xc6 lLle3, or 45
h4? c5 , with a decisive advantage to
Black.
Quiet moves such as 45 'tWb7 ! !
usually do not strike the eye immedi­
ately. While attacking the pawns on
c6 and e6, White also does not allow
the enemy queen to reach b6, at least
for the time being. If 45 . . . 16'xh2
then an already familiar variation
follows : 46 16'cS+ <t>h7 47 16'xe6
lLle3 48 16'xc6.
It has to be admitted that the ques­
tion of the best plan for realising
Black's advantage remains open for
the present. In all lines White can
avoid a forced loss by finding the
only moves and setting us serious
1 64 A Feelfor the King
problems. This means that it is nec­
essary to delve deeper into the vari­
ations already found, to try to
discover resources that have not
been taken into account. The present
author, together with Nana Alexan­
dria's other assistants, spent rather a
long time doing this, but without
success.
It is also possible to seek a way
out of the sort of blind alley that I
have outlined with a different
method, which is frequently more ef­
fective. It is very useful to try to cast
off the burden of variations, assess­
ments and opinions already found
and to take a fresh look at the posi­
tion, attempting to find a new idea
not previously considered. Such
ideas are frequently discovered dur­
ing the first few moves of the analy­
sis.
When I finally gave up my ex­
hausting task of working through the
variations , I suddenly realised that
all Black's difficulties were the re­
sult of her king not taking part in the
game. It is for this reason that many
endgames with an extra pawn turn
out to be unclear. Is it really worth
wasting tempi on winning the not
particularly important pawn on d4,
permitting White during this time to
consolidate? The queen on d3 and
the knight on d5 are placed superbly;
it is necessary to improve the posi­
tion of the only piece that is not play­
ing - the king !
The most difficult thing was to re­
ject 4 1 . . . ttJc3 and to find the rna-
noeuvre . . . 'it>h7-g6-h5 . The sub­
sequent examination of variations is'
as they say, a matter of technique.
41 ... c;Ph7! !
Besides the objective streng th of
this move it is also good for the rea­
son that it must have come as a sur­
prise to White.
42 ttJbl
After 42 ttJc2 c;Pg6 there do not
appear to be any reasonable continu­
ations (43 ttJb4 'iWd l+ 44 c;Pa2
'iWa4+).
42 ••• �g6!
The threat is ... ct>g6-h5-g4-h3.
On 43 'iWb8 there follows 43 ...
'iWxd4+ 44 'it>a2 ttJb4+ ! with a deci­
sive attack.
43 'i'd2 'i'xd2
Black consents to the exchange of
queens, since her king will infiltrate
the enemy position.
44 ttJxd2 �h5 (1 22)
45 ttJc4
White gets no chances after either
45 ttJb3 ct>g4 46 ttJc5 ttJc7, or 45
c;Pb2 'it>g4 46 'it>b3 <t>h3 47 �
 A Feelfor the King 165

�2 48 �c5 �xg3 49 �xc6 h5 50 ourselves to acquire a skill which is

�d6 lL'lxf4 5 1 dS exdS 52 e6 lL'lxe6. exceptionally important for every
The main variation of the analysis chessplayer - the technique of con­
runs as follows : 45 h3 g5 46 fxg5 verting an advantage into Victory. A
hxg5 47 �b2 g4 (47 ... f4? 48 gxf4 thoughtful attitude to taking deci­
gxf4 49 lL'lf3) 48 hxg4+ (48 h4 f4) 48 sions even in totally winning posi­
.. . �g4 49 �c2 ! ? (also hopeless is tions, seeking to restrict the
49 lL'lfl �f3 with the threats 50 . . . opponent's counterplay as much as
'itf2 an d 50 ... � 2 5 1 lLlh2 �f2, and possible, paying constant attention
49 �b3 leads to the main variation) to ' trivial points' and 'details ' - all
49 ... �g3 50 �d3 �g2 ! (but not 50 these qualities distinguish players
.. .f4? 5 1 �e4; also inaccurate is 50 . . . who are renowned for their supreme
'itf2 5 1 lL'lb3 f4 52 �) 5 1 �c4 (on technique - players such as Fischer,
5 1 lL'lb3 or 5 1 �e2 decisive is 5 1 . . . Karpov, Petrosian and Andersson.
f4) 5 1 ... 'it>f2! (less correct i s 5 1 ... f4 45 �g4
52 �c5 f3 53 �c6 f2 54 �d6 since 46 lL'laS lL'le7
it is not good to play 54 . . . lL'lf4? 55 47 �b2
dS !) 52 �c5 (52 �d3 lL'lf4+ 53 �c4 After 47 lL'lb7 possible are both 47
�e2) 52 . . . �e2 with an easy win, . . . g5 and 47 ... �h3 48 lLld8 �h2
since White is unable even to sacri­ 49 lL'lxe6 �xg3 50 lL'lxg7 �g4.
fice her knight for the f-pawn. 47 �h3
The position in the last diagram 48 �c3 �xh2
looks totally hopeless for White. 49 �c4 �xg3
Was it really necessary to analyse it 50 �c5 h5
in such detail? But, you see, we al­ 51 �d6
ready know how difficult it can On 5 1 lL'lxc6 the simplest is 5 1 . . .
sometimes be to convert even a very lL'lxc6 52 �c6 h 4 53 dS h 3 , an d the
big advantage, we know how much black pawn queens with check.
care and accuracy it requires. In or­ 51 ••• lLld5
der to be sure of your assessment of a 5 1 ... h4 would also win easily.
poSition and to avoid complications 52 �xe6 h4
during the adjournment session, the 53 lL'lxc6 lL'lxf4+
analysis of forced variations should 54 �xf5 h3
be continued as far as possible, until White resigned
they lead to completely clear (or, on
the contrary, to totally unclear) situ­ The positional considerations on
ations. which the move 4 1 . . . �h7 ! is based
By selecting and working through are elementary. The king must take
the most accurate and sound routes an active part in the endgame; if one
to our goal, we are basically training of our pieces is placed badly then it
1 66 A Feelfor the King
is urgently necessary to improve its
position. We know all this very well.
So why was it that a whole group of
experienced chessplayers was un­
able for such a long time to discover
the solution to this position? Clearly
we were all obsessed with 'material'
- the capture of the pawn on d4 after
4 1 . . . lDc3 looked too attractive. Al­
though this plan turned out to be a
mistake in this instance, generally
speaking there is nothing criminal
about winning material, so long as
this does not involve making posi­
tional concessions and only incurs
minimal loss of time - most often
such tactics are entirely reasonable.
And this is also the case here: if in
the initial position the king had stood
on h7, the move 41 . . . lDc3 would
certainly not have merited criticism.
In any position various principles
operate simultaneously, and the rec­
ommendations which follow from
them are sometimes contradictory.
Quite often one succeeds in making
the right choice intuitively, by rely­
ing on a feeling for the position. But
a solution can by no means always
be 'guessed' - sometimes one has to
immerse oneself in calculation and
get involved in the lengthy process
of ploughing through variations.
Different players may arrive at the
same conclusion in various ways,
depending on their characteristic
ways of thinking, their own perSonal
algorithms for searching for the right
move.
We found the solution to this posi­
tion, 41 ... 'it>h7 ! ! (as well as the best
formation for the white pieces in re­
ply to 41 . . . lDc3? - 42 'iWb3 ! and 43
lDc2 !), after lengthy concrete analy­
sis. Possibly a player with a subtle
positional sense could have guessed
the correct line far more quickly and
thereby spared himself a lot of analy­
sis.
One should not (as is sometimes
done) establish any sort of priority of
the concrete over the general, of
analysis over assessment, of logic
over intuition - or, indeed, the con­
verse. A chessplayer must develop in
himself both these contrasting ways
of thinking, he must master different
methods of approaching a position
and learn to combine them correctly,
in accordance with his abilities,
tastes and style of play.
7 The Thoughts and Advi ce of Great
Players
(On working at chess, studying one 's own games and
the games of other players, and overcoming deficiencies
in one 's play)
Wilhelm Steinitz
The advice which we offer on the
subject is, in the first place, that a
learner should seek as much as pos­
sible to play on even terms with su­
perior players.
One thing that we would espe­
cially urge upon the chess student is
that regularity of study and practice
very much facilitates making rapid
progress . The player by fits and
starts will scarcely ever improve,
and it is much better to devote to
chess one hour per day for six con­
secutive days than six hours one day
in the week. In order to strengthen
the powers of chess perception and
memory, a good habit to cultivate is
that of playing over from recollec­
tion one's own games, or more espe­
cially selected and well-annotated
published games played by masters.
The Modern Chess Instructor
Siegbert Tarrasch
I was well aware that my defeat was
due not to a lack of playing-strength
but to the fact that I did not make suf-
ficient use of it. Underestimation of
my opponents and overestimation of
my own prowess were to blame for
my failure. I supposed that in order
to win it was quite enough for me to
sit down at the board and play
moves; my opponents would surely
be completely overcome and lose,
simply because they were playing
against Dr Tarrasch. So I moved my
pieces carelessly, without any pro­
found reflection, quite unshakeable
in my belief that in the end the right
side - namely mine - must come out
on top . . . I was justly punished, but
this was a salutary lesson. I realised
that it is not enough to be a good
chessplayer - one also has to play
well.
. . . I need hardly add that I have
never played, as they say, 'for a
draw ' , except of course in positions
which were unfavourable for me and
in which best play on my part could
at most lead to a draw. I consider the
expressions 'playing for a win' and
'playing for a draw ' to be totally in­
appropriate. I regard every position
as a problem requiring the best move
to be found, and I try to solve this
1 68 The Thoughts and Advice of Great Players
problem. If I find the strongest
move, one which offers winning
chances, then it would go totally
against the grain for me to prefer a
weaker move leading only to a draw.
And as for the routine chopping-off
of pieces followed by a quick draw, I
have always considered this to be de­
testable and absurd.
Three Hundred Chess Games
Emanuel Lasker
One may err, but one must not de­
ceive oneself. He who bravely fol­
lows his judgment may lose, but
even his loss profits him, provided
he seeks to discover the reasons for
it; and he grows to be a master, an
artist. But he who no longer ventures
to back his opinion loses the quality
of a fighter and approaches his fall.
.. .Education in chess has to be an
education in independent thinking
and j udging. Chess must not be
memorised, simply because it is not
important enough ... Memory is too
valuable to be stocked with trifles.
Of my fifty-seven years I have ap­
plied at least thirty to forgetting most
of what I had learned or read, and
since I succeeded in this I have ac­
quired a certain ease and cheer
which I should never again like to be
without.
You should keep in mind no
names, nor numbers, nor isolated in­
cidents, not even results, but only
methods. The method is plastic. It is
applicable in every situation.
He who wants to educate himsel f
in chess must evade what is dead in
chess - artificial theories, Supported
by few instances and unheld by an
excess of human wit; the habit of
playing with inferior opponents; the
custom of avoiding difficult tasks;
the weakness of uncritically taking
over variations or rules discovered
by others; the vanity which is self­
sufficient; the incapacity for admit­
ting mistakes; in brief, everything
that leads to standstill or to anarchy.
Chess Manual
Jose Raul C apablanca
It would be a grave mistake to study
the opening without keeping in mind
the subsequent middlegame and
ending. In the same way it would be
wrong to study the middlegame
without considering the endgame.
This reasoning clearly proves that in
order to improve your game you
must study the endgame before any­
thing else; for, whereas the endings
can be studied and mastered by
themselves, the middlegame and the
opening must be studied in relation
to the endgame.
Capablanca 's Last Chess Lectures
Alexander Alekhine
I was driven to become a chess mas­
ter firstly by a quest for truth and sec­
ondly by a desire to compete. When
still a small boy I sensed that I had
a gift for chess. Even then I felt an
 The Thoughts and Advice of Great Players 1 69
inner aspiration, an irresistible at­
traction to the game. It was through
chess that I fonned my character.
More than anything else, chess
teaches you to be objective. In chess
you can only make yourself a great
master by becoming aware of your
mistakes and deficiencies. And pre­
cisely the same applies in life .
. . .One trait more than any other
determines one's strength at chess :
unshakeable concentration, which
has to cut a player off completely
from the outside world.
Aron Nimzowitsch
The simultaneous investigation of
positions of different types gives rise
only to muddled thoughts, whereas
the thorough study of a single type
cannot fail to raise the level of one's
positional knowledge.
If you, esteemed reader, set about
studying as intensively as possible
positions of a particular type - a cen­
tral me against a stonn on the flank,
say - it would not surprise me in the
least if, as a result, you also come to
display clearer judgement in the
sphere of the endgame. The process
of studying a standard position has
as its aim not only analysis of the
particular standard position but also
an improvement in one's overall po­
sitional flair.
I believe in the radioactive power
of this method: the whole chess or­
ganism is, so to speak, woken up and
waits joyously to be rejuvenated. It
does not merely strengthen one's po­
sitional sense; perhaps the most typi­
cal improvement is that the player
who previously chased after ghosts
(for example, by constantly dream­
ing of mating attacks) suddenly be­
gins to face up seriously to the
reality of chess .
. . . Combinational talent plus hard
work can make the impossible possi­
ble, and therefore we advise yet
again: 'Tacticians, try little by little
to acquire an understanding of the
most important positional motifs, of
strategy ! And those among you who
do not like combinations, try to love
them, study them, since only a mix­
ture of combinational and positional
play will bring you the successes,
joys and thrills in which chess is so
abundant! '
How I Became a Grandmaster
Mikhail Botvinnik
For a long time I have advised our
masters who systematically get into
time-trouble that there is a way of
combating this shortcoming. Unfor­
tunately it seems that they have not
taken advantage of my advice, even
though it is very simple. One should
play training-games and pay atten­
tion primarily to the clock, not to the
quality of play or the result of the
game, and continue these exercises
until the skill of managing one's
time prudently has been cultivated,
so that one has time to calculate all
necessary variations. By adopting
1 70 The Thoughts and Advice o/Great Players
this method I think that ninety per
cent of those who suffer from 'time­
trouble disease' would be com­
pletely cured, with the exception of
course of those who are 'incurably
ill ' .
Other deficiencies should also be
cured in this way. During special
training-games one should pay most
attention to the particular deficiency,
until such time as it disappears . . .
Supposing that a master i s weak
in the endgame, he has only to fol­
low the example of Chekhover, who
not long ago worked very hard on the
endgame, particularly on studies,
and achieved notable success . Dur­
ing training-games he should aim for
the endgame, which will also help
him to acquire suitable experience.
With the same method it is possible
to rectify deficiencies in the middle­
game, although here the matter is
rather more complicated .
.. . Home analysis has its particular
features: the master has no time con­
straint and he can move the pieces
around. Despite these differences,
analysis and practical play also have
a lot in common. It is well-known
that virtually all outstanding chess­
players have also been magnificent
analysts.
The conclusion is obvious: any­
one wishing to become an outstand­
ing chess player must also perfect his
skills in chess analysis ...
Needless to say, the notes to
games which are written 'as one
goes' , during a period of one or two
hours, can in no way be considered
to be analysis . Such 'analysis' has
only a negative effect, since it can
tum into a bad habit.
On my methods/or preparing/or
competitions
Gary Kasparov
I am an adherent of the investigative
school of chess to which Botvinnik
belongs. It was from Botvinnik that I
learnt how to study chess properly,
to find new ideas and to work con­
stantly at perfecting them. It is a sci­
entific approach, based on a
profound analysis of our heritage
from the past, the search for new
opening variations and methods of
play in the middlegame, and the de­
velopment of fundamentally new
strategic plans. All chess players
study old games - rather like they
learn the words of a foreign lan­
guage. But, having acquired some
sort of vocabulary, you need to learn
how to use it, in order to realise your
creative potential. Particularly if you
aim to become World Champion.
. . .For me, brought up on the scien­
tific methods of Botvinnik, the abil­
ity to concentrate is the basis for
everything else. This would appear
to be a simple matter. But what about
when you are in a crisis situation?
Few people realise that the ability to
focus one's thoughts during the deci­
sive moments of a game is just about
the most important qUality a chess­
player can possess.
 The Thoughts and Advice of Great Players 171
. . .To play creatively without being
afraid of taking chances and to pos­
sess a polished chess style in no way
releases you from the need for per­
sistent hard work. On the contrary,
you must constantly perfect your
playing, deepen and widen your
opening repertoire, refine your tech­
niques, and analyse complicated
endgames. Chess, after all, is not just
an accumulation of acquired knowl­
edge; chess is dynamic, and any ap­
parently defmitive conclusion may
in actual fact be just an interim one.
The truth has to be proved every
time. Even my own annotations to
games are not unshakeable as far as I
am concerned. I like to keep updat­
ing them, making them more pre­
cise: many ideas come to be
reassessed, including, of course,
one's own ideas. I willingly go over
my own mistakes again and analyse
them.
Botvinnik wrote in 1 980: 'When a
chessplayer annotates one of his
games, he frequently tries to conceal
his own inaccuracies and omissions.
Kasparov does not do this. He
searches for the truth and tries to be
objective.'
Das endlose Duell
8 Creat ive Discoveri es and
Instruct ive Errors
Artur Yusupov
In Chapter One Mark Dvoretsky
showed how the strong and weak
sides of a chessplayer's game can in­
fluence the result of an encounter. In
order for a player to improve it is im­
portant to determine these qualities
correctly - to make, as it were, a 'di­
agnosis ' . At our school we attach
particular importance to this aspect
of our work.
The students rust annotate their
games themselves. Then analysis of
their most substantial games and ex­
tracts from games, conducted jointly
with the teachers, enables us to re­
veal their merits and deficiencies
more accurately, to examine and, in a
number of cases to review, their as­
sessments of particular situations.
Taken in conjunction with the results
of various solving competitions and
the participation of our pupils in les­
sons and lectures, as well as thematic
training-games, this procedure en­
ables us to put together quite a full
creative profile of our young players.
In this chapter I should like to
give you some idea of how such
work is carried out, to show you
some striking examples - creative
discoveries or instructive errors -
taken from pupil 's games.
Pessimists and
Optimists
In order to acquaint ourselves better
with the play of our pupils we organ­
ised a thematic match between two
teams: the 'optimists' and the 'pessi­
mists ' . We included among the opti­
mists those students who were sure
of their own powers, who love sharp
play, love to attack; the team of pes­
simists consisted of those who, in ac­
cordance with their milder nature,
are more inclined towards a posi­
tional style of play. The following
game is taken from this match; as for
the team which each student was
representing, I think you will be able
to guess this quite easily for your­
self.
Zvyagintsev(13 years old) -
Alexandrov(l6)
Daugavpils 1 990
1 d4 tDf6
2 c4 e6
3 tDc3 ..tb4
4 f3 dS
5 a3 ..te7
6 cxdS? !
 Creative Discoveries and Instructive Errors 1 73
A more testing continuation is 6
e4.
6 ••• exdS!
Weaker is 6 . . . lDxdS ? ! because of
7 e4 lDxc3 S bxc3, when White has a
strong centre.
7 e4 dxe4!?
In the game Gelfand-Spassky, Li­
nares 1990, Black sacrificed a pawn
after 7 ... cS S dxc5 .i.xc5 9 eS , but he
was unable to prove the correctness
of his plan.
S fxe4 lDc6?!
In his notes Vadim Zvyagintsev
examines more promising possibili­
ties: S ... cS 9 dS (9 .i.bS+ .i.d7 10 eS
00 is slightly better for Black) 9 .. .
.i.d6 10 lDf3 lDg4 (I think that 10 . . . handed his opponent the initiative.
lDbd7 is also quite good), and S . . .
0-0 9 lDf3 cS 10 dS lDg4 1 1 eS t?
lDxeS !? 1 2 lDxeS .i.h4+ 1 3 g3 nes
with unclear chances.
9 lDa .ig4
10 i.e3
White now enjoys a slight advan­
tage.
10 ... i.hS?!
Black launches an attack without
having completed his development.
More solid and stronger was 10 . . .
0-0. After th e risky 1 0 . . . .i.xf3? 1 1
gxt3 lDhS Zvyagintsev had foreseen
1 2 f4 ! ( 1 2 1t'd2 lDa5 ! is unclear) 12
. . . .i.h4+ 1 3 �d2 ! ! , with advantage
to White, and if 1 3 . . . lDxd4? then 14
�c l winning.
1 1 .i.c4 lDg4?!
Continuing in the same adventur­
ous manner. Better was 1 1 . . . 0-0,
with only a slight disadvantage.
12 .i.f4 .i.h4+
13 lDxh4 1t'xh4+ (1 23)
14 i.g3?
A serious error. White wanted to
play safe, but as a result he has
Correct was 14 g3 ! 1t'dS ( 14 . . .
1t'h3?? IS .i.f1 wins for White) I S
lDdS with a clearly better position.
14 ... 1t'gS
15 lDdS 0-0-0
After the game it emerged that Al­
exandrov had not examined the obvi­
ous IS . . . lDf2. Admittedly, 16 1t'd2
1t'xd2+ 17 �d2 lDxh l IS lDxc7+
<it>d7 19 l:lxh l l:IacS 20 dS would
have led to a confused position. The
move he played is quite good, but
unfortunately his opponent's (forced)
reply came as a complete surprise to
Black. It is clear that finding 'candi­
date moves ' , the ability to see vari­
ous resources (especially for one's
opponent), is this young player's
weakness (and, incidentally, the
main reason for his failure in this
game). He will need to do some hard
work on this aspect of his play.
1 74 Creative Discoveries and Instructive Errors

16 'i'd ! 1i'g6? 'iii>e 8 24 nxe7+ (also possible i s 24

An unfortunate move, allowing llc6 winning) 24 ... <tfl.e7 25 'iWc7+
White to complete his development. <M6 26 l:td6.
Black should have continued 1 6 . . . 22 :xc7 :Xc7
'iWxc l + ! 1 7 nxcl l:the8 with a slight 23 'i'xc7+ �a8
advantage. 24 :dl 'i'g5
17 'i'f4 :d7 25 :d7
18 O-O!? lbxd4 Simpler was 25 i..c8.
19 Ld (124) 25 ... 'i'e3+
26 �hl !
It was still not too late for White
to lose this game with 26 <Ml 11
lbxh2+ ! .
26 'i'b6
27 i..d 5 'i'xc7
28 :Xc7 :b8
29 .i.xb7+!
Black resigned

Play on Both Flanks

Having sacrificed a pawn, White This element of chess strategy is one

has concentrated his forces for a of the most difficult. But look how
stOllIl. But Black's defensive re­ skilfully a young player was able to
sources are not yet exhausted. It was employ it.
necessary to bring the rook into bat­
tle: 19 ... ne8 ! , with double-edged Baklan(1 1 )-Zilberstein
play. A possible line was 20 .i.b5 ! Kiev 1 989
lbxb5 2 1 lbxc7 ! 'iWb6+ 22 .i.12
'iWxc7 23 lhc7+ lbxc7 24 .i.xa7
with an unclear position.
19 ... lbe6??
In such positions any mistake can
be the last. White now proceeds con­
fidently to win the game.
20 lbe7+! :Xe7
21 .i.xe6+ �b8
Black cannot save himself with 2 1
. . . 'iWxe6 2 2 nxc7+ 'iii>d8 2 3 l:td l +
 Creative Discoveries and Instructive Errors 1 75

The correct plan in this position is 38 1i'xc6+ �b8

to push b2-b3 and then play on the 39 d7
queenside. But before starting to Black resigned
carry out this plan, White first dis­
rupts the coordination of his oppo­
Steinitz ' s Principle
nent's pieces with an operation on
the opposite wing.
20 1i'g5! � g6 The development of an initiative is a
21 h4 Ilhg8 very difficult topic, and not only for
22 h5 h6 young players. During individual
23 1i'g3 �t8 lessons in our school we try to con­
If 23 ... �7 then 24 .i.h7 lTh8 25 centrate our pupils' attention on their
ifxg7. missed opportunities, and we at­
24 b3! 1i'c6 tempt to investigate the reasons for
25 bxc4 dxc4? their mistakes.
Better was 25 . . . 1i'xc4, but then
too after 26 l:lb4 'fIc7 27 ntb 1 White Kiryakov(IS)-Sakaev
has the advantage. Simjeropol l 990
26 1i'e3 1td7
27 Ilb4 Ilc7 1 d4 �f6
28 Iltbl 1i'a6 2 c4 e6
29 1la4 3 �c3 .i.b4
Also good was 29 .i.e4 b6 30 dS . 4 1i'c2 c5
29 •.• 1i'c6 5 dxcS i.xcS
30 lla5 6 �t3 1i'b6
Preparing to play d4-dS . But also 7 e3 1i'c7
possible was the immediate 30 dS ! ? 8 .i.d2!? 0-0
'fIcS 3 1 d6 l:lc6 3 2 1i'xcs l:lxc5 33 9 i.d3 �h8?!
.i.e4 bS 34 :as. 10 0-0-0 .i.e7 (1 26)
30 1i'd7
3 1 d5 b6
32 d6 1lc6
33 .i.e4 1i'c8
And now a beautiful finish.
34 Ilxb6+ axb6
35 1i'xb6+ 1i'b7
36 1la8+
Simpler was 36 1i'xc6.
36 �xa8
37 .i.xc6 1i'xc6
1 76 Creative Discoveries and Instructive Errors

White has a clear lead in develop­ initiative (although the game ended
ment, but here he played the inert . . . in a draw).
1 1 h3 ? We advised this young player to
. . . allowing his opponent to initiate turn his attention to the slight passiv­
counterplay after... ity of his style and recommended
1 1 ... liJa6! that he study the games of Timman
Commenting upon this game, Pe­ and other dynamic players.
tya Kiryakov pointed out the follow­
ing possibilities: 1 1 e4, 1 1 liJe4 ! ? A Spectacular Storm
an d I I g4 ! ? But after 1 1 g4 liJxg4 he
only considered 12 �dg l liJxf2 1 3
i.xh7. Petya wrote i n his notes : Maxim Boguslavsky loves to attack.
'This attack is probably incorrect, In the following example his accu­
and I also do not like such attacks.' rate and inventive operations al­
In fact White has some tempting lowed him to mate the enemy king
possibilities for developing an initia­ after his opponent failed to make use
tive. After 1 1 g4 liJxg4 strong was 12 of all his defensive resources.
liJb5 ! and then 1 3 i.c3 with danger­
ous threats. Also interesting is 1 1 Boguslavsky(14)-Matsionis
liJb5 'iWd8 1 2 i.c3 a6 1 3 i.xf6 i.xf6 Tallinn 1990
14 liJd6. Remember Wilhelm Ste­
initz 's famous principle: 'The side
with the advantage must attack when
threatened with the loss of this ad-
vantage.'
12 liJb5 1i'b6
13 g4 liJc5
14 g5 liJxd3+
15 1i'xd3 liJe8
16 e4
Better was 16 i.c3 ! ? a6 1 7 liJbd4,
with the idea of playing b4-h5 and
g6. The position obliges White to
play for an attack. 24 i.n !
16 a6! White would have had little to
17 i.e3 'i'a5 gain from 24 1i'xb7+ 'iWxb7 25 :txb7
18 liJc3 b5! .l:ih l + , with an unclear ending. With
Having exploited his opponent's his subtle move in the game, the
indecisiveness, Black, as Steinitz young Muscovite repels the threat of
would have predicted, has seized the an exchange of rooks and maintains
 Creative Discoveries and Instructive Errors 1 77

the full force of all his options. Boguslavsky(14)-Shakhbaz

24 ... 'i'xa5? Moscow 1989
Black can no longer stand the ten­
sion. He should have replied in the
same fashion: 24 ... 'i!td8 ! 25 'tWxb7
'tWxaS ! (also worth considering was
25 . . . iLc8 !?) 26 l:.b5 ! ? l:lh l + ! (but
not 26 ... 'tWxc3? 27 'i'xd7+ ! !) 27
<iW2 'tWa2+ 28 ':'5b2 I!xfl+ 29 ':'xfl
'tWxc4 with chances for both sides .
25 lta2!
Probably Black was expecting
only 25 'tWxb7+, which would have
led by transposition to the variation
examined above. 22 %leI?
25 ••• 'ib6 Having obtained a superior posi­
26 'i'dl ! tion, White loses the thread of the
Boguslavsky carries out his attack game. He could have strengthened
superbly. A weaker move was 26 his position by playing 22 iL17+ !
'tWc2? ! because of 26 ... l:[b l + 27 c,t>h7 23 'tWg3, obtaining excellent at­
<t>f2 ':'xfl +! 28 ilxfl <it>b8 . tacking prospects.
26 'i'c7 22 ••• 1lf8!
27 ltxa7 lthl+ Black defends the vulnerable
28 �t2 ii..h3 square 17 and prepares to occupy the
29 'i'a4 JLxg2 important square f4 with his knight.
30 :a8+ "'8 23 :ad l �5
31 'i'c6+ ! ! bxc6 24 'i'd3?
32 ltaxb8+ A bad move, leading to the loss of
. . . and mate next move White's initiative. Correct was 24
'tWg3 :!ad8 25 l:.d4 ! 'tWf6 26 h4, when
26 . . . lLlf4? is bad in view of 27
Playing Without a
iLt7+ ! .
Plan 24 lLlr4
25 .th7+ �h8
Regrettably Boguslavsky does not 26 'i'g3 �xh7
solve positional problems quite so 27 ltd7 'i'xd7!?
confidently. In the next example he 28 lLlxd7 :r5
failed to find the best squares for his And now Black, having sacrificed
pieces. his queen, began an attack.
1 78 Creative Discoveries and Instructive Errors
Which Move is More
Accurate?
Obseevich(12)-Emelin(13)
Beltsy 1 989
White has an appreciable posi­
tional advantage, mainly by virtue of
his better pawn structure and more
active pieces. The different pros­
pects of the bishops should be par­
ticularly noted: the light-squared
bishop can come out to h3 and in­
crease the pressure against Black's
position.
Now an attack against the pawn
on b6 suggests itself. This can be
done in two ways: 2 1 'i'd4 or 2 1
'i'e3. In such situations the method
of comparison comes to one's aid. In
both cases it is bad to defend the
pawn with the queen, because of 22
i.h3. The advantage of 2 1 1We3 ! con­
sists in the fact that after the primi­
tive defence 2 1 ... .l::lb7 White has the
tactical refutation 22 ltJxd6 ! i.xd6
23 i.xb7 1Wxb7 24 .l::lxd6 l:txd6 25
'i'xe5, emerging with an extra pawn.
The obvious disadvantage of the
move is that it allows . . . d6-dS .
Of course, at such moments one
should immerse oneself in the posi­
tion and calculate variations. After
2 1 'i'e3 dS 22 1Wf4 Black has several
possible continuations:
a) 22 ... dxe4 23 .l::lxdS+ 1WxdS 24
'i'xe5 with a clear advantage;
b) 22 . . . ltJg6 23 1Wf7+ �h7 24
ltJf6+ i.xf6 25 'i'xa7 and White
wins the exchange;
c) 22 ... ltJc6 23 cxdS exdS 24
llxd5 ! I1xd5 25 'i'f7+ �h8 26 1WxdS
with a clear advantage;
d) 22 . . . ltJxc4 23 bxc4 dxe4. This
position should be assessed in
White's favour. He has real attacking
chances, and the presence of oppo­
site-coloured bishops merely inten­
sities his attacking possibilities.
Simplest is 24 1Wxe4 followed by
'i'g6 and �e4, but one could also try
24 1hd8+ 1WxdS 25 1Wf7+ ! ? �hS 26
\i'g6, with the threat 27 �xe4.
In the game White played with
less finesse and allowed his oppo­
nent to organise a defence.
21 'i'd4 1:b7
22 'lPhl b5
23 cxb5 %txb5
24 %tel 'i'b8!?
The start of active counterplay.
Also possible was 24 . . . 1Wd7 25 i.h3
�hS with slightly better chances for
White.
25 i.h3 d5
26 i.xe6+ 'lPh8
27 ltJc3 %tb4
 Creative Discoveries and Instructive Errors 1 79

28 'i'tl (130)

returning the extra material for the

sake of some positional advantage.
As so often happens, following White intends, by playing f2-f4,
the loss of material an initiative takes to include his dark-squared bishop in
hold. But the natural continuation 28 the attack. It was possible to prevent
. . . d4 led after 29 tiJdS l:tf8 30 'i'g2 this by playing 29 ... tiJa4 ! . After 30
l:!.b7 3 1 tiJxe7 l:!.xe7 32 l:txfS+ 'iix fS J:!g8+ 'i'xg8 3 1 iLxg8 llxg8 Black
33 l:tc8 to a lost endgame for Black. has the advantage.
He should not have allowed the The game continued somewhat
knight to come to d5 and could have differently:
prevented this with 28 ... !':!b6! ! , 29 ... tiJf7?
when i t i s dangerous to play 29 30 ':g3! ':e7!
iLxdS because of 29 . . . iLg5 fol­ It was bad to play 30 ... 'ikh6+? 3 1
lowed by . . . tiJg4. 'iixh6 tiJxh6 3 2 f4 tiJa4 3 3 fxe5
tiJxb2 34 ltxb2 fxe5 35 !':!xb7, with a
decisive advantage for White.
Sacrificing the Queen
31 f4 ':ae8
in Defence 32 ':eg2 ':xe6
33 dxe6 ':xe6
Gasymov-Kiryakov(l5) 34 fxeS tiJxe5! ?
Simjeropol 1 990 35 'i'f4 tiJbd7
Now White was tempted into
(131) : White had played this 'winning ' the queen with 36
game very inventively and built up a l:tg8+??, which led to a difficult end­
dangerous attack. But he has already ing that he eventually lost. B ut after
sacrificed two pawns. In such cases 36 'ikh4 ! , with the veiled idea iLc 1 -
the opponent can frequently succeed h6, h e would have maintained a
in 'buying his way out of trouble ' by menacing attack.
1 80 Creative Discoveries and Instructive Errors

Forestalling the Pashanov-Sitnik(8)

Sochi 1989
Opponent ' s
Possibilities
Paying attention to the opponent's
threats is an essential quality for any
chessplayer. It can rescue you from
many situations, particularly when
you are defending.

Makariev(14)-Khristov
Kishinev 1 990

This example shows just how im­

White threatens to play 44 .i.c4+ ,
after which the black king will be
made to feel extremely uncomfort­
able. In the game there followed the
error. . .
portant it is to be vigilant. Black has
a big advantage, but after the care­
less ...
22 .•. tLlf8??
. . .the game lasted just one more
move:
23 llxf8+ !
... since mate is unavoidable.
When analysing this game,
Maxim Sitnik found the correct solu­
tion: it was necessary for Black to di­
vert his opponent's pieces from the
attack and to complete his develop­
ment; therefore 22 . . . c2 ! , and only
after 23 "xc2 then 23 . . tLlf8.
.

43 ••• fxeS?
. . . which after...
The Passed Pawn in
44 i.c4+ <;tty;
45 llb6+ rj;g1 the Endgame
46 llg6+
.. .led to insurmountable difficul­ Khoroshavioa-Gaponenko(13)
ties for Black. He should have Kherson 1 989
played 43 . . . l:tc5 ! , with good
chances of a draw (pointed out by (134) : Play continued...
Makariev). 31 tLlxb7? !
 Creative Discoveries and Instructive Errors 1 81

An instructive error. The c-pawn

is nearer to Black's king and pieces,
and so it can be combated far more
easily than a passed pawn on the b­
file could be. Although in the open­
ing and middlegame central pawns
are stronger than flank pawns , in the
endgame, as a rule, the opposite ap­
plies. After 32 ... .ixc6! 33 bxc6
tL'lb6 Black would have obtained a
draw without much trouble.
33 cxb7 tL'lxb7
White has rushed to change the 34 b6 tL'lc5
structure of the position. It would 35 .tb5 tL'lc8
have been better to maintain the ten­ 36 tL'lb3! tL'lb7
sion with 3 1 tL'lab3, which leaves 37 .tc6 tL'lcd6
White clearly better. 38 .ixd5
31 ... .ixb7 And White succeeded in convert­
32 c6 tL'lc5? ing her extra pawn into victory.
 Solut i ons to Analyt ical Exerc i ses
1) Smyslov-Botvinnik
World Ch., 7th match game,
Moscow 1 958
At this point Botvinnik accepted the
draw proposed by his opponent. But
he could have obtained an advantage
by sacrificing the exchange.
16 :xt3 !
17 gxt3 'i'c6
18 'i'dl i.d5
19 :h3
19 l:lc 1 1Ve6 20 b3 ItfS.
19 ... 'i'e6
With a double attack against h3
and a2.
So why did Botvinnik not play
this? ' During the game I had exam­
ined the exchange sacrifice only af­
ter a preliminary exchange of queens
on b3, having overlooked after 16 . . .
l':.xf3 1 7 'ii'xc4 th e intennediate
move 1 7 . . . ltxe3+.' (Botvinnik)
2} Botvinni k-Smyslov
World Ch., 18th match game,
Moscow 1 958
In the game there followed: 23 i.h3?
lLle5 24 lLlxe5 fxe5 25 f4? (25 f3 !
i.d7 ! 26 lt le2 with equal chances)
25 ... i.c6 26 1Vg5 ? ! , and here Smys­
lov, having played 26 . . . ltde8?,
missed the opportunity to win by
force with 26 ... l:td2 ! 27 i.e6+ ltf7!
28 i.x17+ <3;x17.
But earlier on it was White who
missed a win.
23 lLld4!! lLlxd4
23 . . . cxd4 24 i.d5+! llxdS 25
l':.e8 ! , or 24 . . . �h8 25 !te7.
24 :e7!
Botvinnik was mistaken not only
during the game but also in his
analysis. He pointed out 24 i.dS+!
(the exclamation mark is Botvin­
nik 's) 24 ... ltxdS 25 lte7, but in this
case Black could have saved the
game by means of 25 . . . lLle2+! 26
<Ml (not 26 lt7xe2? ltdl ! , or 26
lt lxe2? lId l + 27 �g2 i.c6+ 28 f3
i.xf3+) 26 .. JI17 27 ltx17 �17 28
1Vxh7+ � with equal chances
(found by students of our school
when doing their homework !).
24 ... :f7
25 i.d5!
Another winning line is 25 ltx17
lLle2+ 26 l:1xe2 ltdl + 27 i.f1 ltxfl +
28 �1 1Wdl + 29 !te l i.b5+ 30
�g2 1WdS+ 3 1 f3 (or 3 1 �h3) 3 1 . ..
1Wx17 32 1Wf4, but 25 i.dS ! is sim­
pler and more convincing.
25 ... lLlt3+
26 �hl li'xtl
27 i.xf7+ �h8
28 :e8+!
forcing mate.
 Solutions co Analytical Exercises 1 83

3) Botvinnik-Suttles mediate check 4 �f5+! and chose 1

Belgrade 1 969
The tempting 25 f5? is a mistake, in
view of 25 . . . ltxe4 ! . In the game
there followed: 25 1:.f3? 1:.c4 26 l%d3,
and now instead of 26 ... 'ifb4? ! 27
b3 'i'xd2 28 1:.xd2 ':c7 29 llde2
Black could have equalised com­
pletely with, 26 . . . �f5 ! 27 lLJxf5+
gxf5 28 ':b3 'i'c7. But White missed
a winning line (pointed out by Trin­
gov).
25 b3 ! ! �xn
26 1i'b2 �f8
27 1LJe6+ lbe6
28 dxe6
In his notes to each of these three
examples Botvinnik himself pointed
out the diagnosis: ' . . . my oId "ill­
ness" - weak combinational vision ­
was to blame.' This sort of illness can
best be cured by training one's abil­
ity to find the solutions to studies
and practical positions having par­
ticularly unusual and beautiful vari­
ations.
g3? �h7 2 �g2 �xg2 3 �xg2 �g6
4 :rs, but Timman found a defence:
4 ... lLJb2 ! , after which it turned out
to be impossible to convert my extra
pawn into victory.
5) M.Gurevieh-Razuvaev
Moscow 1 987
There is no doubt about White 's p0-
sitional advantage, but the question
is, how can he best make use of it?
Gurevich found a brilliant solution
and concluded the game in just two
more moves.
1 h5! g5
2 �5! !
Here Black resigned, in view of 2
. . . exdS 3 Itxe7 'i'xe7 4 'i'xf5+ and 5
'i'xc8 . Paradoxically, Black's most
strongly defended square, f5 , be­
came his main weakness in no time
at all.
6) Dolmatov-Nikolie
Hastings 1 989/90

4) Yusupov-Timman 1 'i'd5! tiJe7

Reykjavik 1 988 Otherwise Black loses a pawn
without any compensation.
White could have won by force. 2 'i'e6 L6
1 e6! lbd6 3 i.b6 tiJe8
2 e7 i.e6 There followed: 4 'i'c8? _xd6 5
3 :t'8+ �h7 _xa6 'i'c6 6 'i'xaS 'i'xc4! 7 _xeS
4 i.f5+! g6 _eI + 8 <t>h2 _c6. It is extremely
5 :d8 :r6 difficult to convert an extra pawn
6 i.d7 i.xd7 such as this into victory, and Black
7 lbd7 subsequently obtained a draw.
I (Yusupov) overlooked the inter- White missed a forced win.
1 84 Solutions to Analytical Exercises

4 e5! 8) Dorfman-Trois
With the threats l1d7 and 'iWc8. Zamardi 1 980
4 ltJxd6
5 exd6 'i'd8 White should play. . .

6 'i'e7!! 13 ltJb3!
It was this elegant move that Dol- The knight is placed superbly
matov had not seen. here. Besides, Black has two pieces
6 'i'xe7 competing for the e4 square, and the
7 1.xe7 a4 knight on f6 now turns out to be sim­
8 d7 lta8 ply 'superfluous' . White plans 14
9 d8'i'+ ltxd8 'iWd4. After...
10 1.xd8 a3 13 ltc8
11 1.a5 a2 14 'i'd4 'i'b6
12 .te3 15 ltfc1 0-0
The last three examples show that 16 ltJe5
converting an advantage into a win is . . .White has obtained a noticeable
not a mere matter of technique. advantage.
Nearly always a moment arrives
when it is essential to make great ef­ 9) Begun-Dvoretsky
forts, to calculate variations accu­ Minsk 1972
rately and find the quickest way to
achieve one's aim. Otherwise win­ Black must not allow the enemy
ning may prove to be difficult, if not knight to reach c4 (after the ex­
impossible. change of light-squared bishops).
This positional threat is repelled by...
7) GeUer-Ciocaltea 19 ••• 1.b5!
Malta 01. 1 980 Now the knight on d2 has no pros­
pects. Black intends to play ... ltJb8-
The strongest move is ... a6-cS . If 20 mtfl (with the idea 2 1
13 ltJd3! f4) then 2 0 ... 'iWf4 ! .
' In this way I succeed not only in I n the game there followed:
avoiding exchanges but also in keep­ 20 h4 h5
ing a knight on c7 ' (Geller). There 21 'i'gS 'i'xg5
followed: 22 hxg5 ltJa6
13 fS ... with an excellent endgame for
14 exf6 exf6 Black.
15 a4 as
16 b3 lte8
17 1.a3
. . . with advantage to White.

10) Krejeik-Perlis
1906
The pawn structure gives the black
king no chance to take part in the bat­
tle. Black has to fight with his bishop
alone. First let us see what happened
in the game: 1 . . . g3 2 'iti>b2 i.c6 3
'iti>c2 'iti>f7 4 <it>d2 i.d7 5 <it>e2 i.e6 6
'iti>e l i.c4 7 'iti>d2 <it>e7 8 'iti>e2 i.e6 9
<i1>fl f5 10 <it>e2 fxe4 1 1 fxe4 <it>f6 12
<it>el (of course, not 12 �? i.g4+ 13
'iti>xg3 i.e2). A draw was soon agreed.
It was possible to destroy the for­
tress that White had constructed. The
very frrst move, 1 . . . g3?, was a mis­
take. The plan for storming the for­
tress, as is so often the case in such
situations, is based on zugzwang.
1 gxf3!
2 gxt3 i.e6
3 �b2 i.d7
4 �c2 �f7
5 �d2 i.g4!
6 �e2
Hopeless is 6 fxg4 bxg4 7 'iti>e2 fS
8 exfS 'iti>f6 or 8 . . . e4.
6 fS!
7 �t2 � (135)
Solutions to Analytical Exercises 1 85
This is it - the zugzwang position
which Black needed to find. As be­
fore, 8 fxg4 hxg4 is bad. If 8 'iti>g2
then 8 . . . fxe4 9 fxe4 i.e2. Finally, on
8 <it>e2 decisive is 8 . . . fxe4 9 dxe4
d3+ 10 <it>xd3 i.xf3 followed by 1 1
... i.xe4 (analysis by Dvoretsky).
1 1) Mieses-Spielmann
3rd match game, Regensburg 1910
In the game, after 1 7 . . . d5? ! White
decided to accept all the material
sacrificed by his opponent:
18 exdS i.xdS! !
1 9 exdS 'i'xdS
In commenting upon the situ­
ation which has arisen, Spielmann
wrote:
' Now it is possible to assess the
results of the sacrifice: Black is a
piece down (the doubled pawn can
hardly be considered !), but, thanks
to the two open files in the centre, he
has far overtaken his opponent in de­
velopment; the threats to the bishop
on d3 and the pawn on g2 prevent
White from castling, and in addition
White has to lose another tempo, un­
less by playing 20 i.xh7+ and 2 1 0-0
he contents himself with complete
eqUality. It is most unlikely that
White will not attempt to refute the
sacrifice; consequently Black can
reckon on obtaining a strong attack
against the opposing king stuck in
the centre of the board. These were
roughly the considerations by which
I was guided when I resolved to play
the sacrifice. Only complete faith in
1 86 Solutions to Analytical Exercises

the strength of my position and the 29 'i'rs l:.de4!

indisputable laws of development 30 'iVa 'i'd2
prompted me to make this sacrifice, 31 l:.gl l:.4e6
since even today I am unaware of 32 l:.g2 l:.f6
any similar 'example' of breaking 33 .to l:.xel+
through in this way. I supposed that, White resigned
despite his extra piece, it would be
very difficult for White to defend We see that, objectively, the piece
against my superior forces, albeit in sacrifice did not promise Black any
a very limited area of the board, and advantage. Moreover, it is not hard
that this would at least lead to to prove that it should have led to an
White's losing several pawns. The inferior position. In reply to 1 7 . . . dS
course of the game shows - at least let us examine 1 8 eS ! lDe4 ( 1 8 . . .
from a practical point of view - that dxc4 1 9 .ic2) 1 9 'iVxd8 l:.fxd8.
my assumptions were entirely cor­ Spielmann considered that the posi­
rect.' tion favours Black because of White's
20 'i'g3 l:.fe8+ backward development. This is not
21 .te2 l:.bd8 so - the assessment of this position is
22 lDc3 determined mainly by the defects in
Or 22 <t>fl nxe2 ! 23 �xe2 'iVc4+ ! Black's pawn structure. We shall
24 �el :e8+. continue 20 b3 fS 2 1 cxdS .ixdS 22
22 ... 'i'd2 + lDe3 .ie6 23 .ixe4 fxe4 24 1:lc 1 , and
23 �f1 lDds it becomes clear that Black will have
' Stronger than ... 'iVxb2. In such quite a hard struggle for a draw.
positions pawns should be taken Instead of his spectacular - but
only in passing, so to speak. All objectively not entirely correct -
one's thoughts should be concen­ breakthrough, Spielmann could have
trated on the attack.' (Spielmann). proceeded to put pressure on the en­
24 l:.el lDxf4 emy centre according to plan with 17
2S 'i'a l:.d4 . . . %le8 ! 1 8 0-0 .id7. For example: 19
26 g3 lDh3 lL)c3 (not 1 9 eS dxeS 20 fxeS nxeS
27 'i'fS 'i'xb2 2 1 nxf6 'i'xf6 22 'i'xh7+ <t>fS) 1 9 . . .
28 'i'xh3? nxb2 2 0 e S .ic6 ! 2 1 0 0 .ixdS 22
The main variation according to cxdS dxeS 23 fxeS 'iVxdS and Black
Spielmann was 28 lDd l ! 'iVd2! 29 wins .
'iVxh3 I1de4 30 lDf2 ! nxe2 3 1 nxe2 White can defend by means of 19
'i'xe2+ 32 �g2 hS ! , and an unclear ne l .ic6 20 00 (but not 20 . , .
position arises, with chances for nxb2? in view of 2 1 eS), but also in
both sides. this case Black obviously retains a
28 ... 'i'xc3 satisfactory position.
 Solutions to Analytical Exercises 187

12) Teichmann-Anonymous game, White increases the pressure

Zurich 1921 on his opponent's poSition consider­
ably and obtains a big advantage.
1 lbh6! �xh6
No good is 1 . . . l:lxh6? 2 .*.xf7+, 14) Simagin-Bondarevsky
or 1 ... bxc4? 2 l:1b8+ ! ' SZczawno Zdroj 1 950
2 'i'g5 �rT
3 'i'd8+! ! �xd8 Here the right square for the light­
4 h6 squared bishop is c4, from where it
In colUlection with the threat of 5 will create dangerous threats against
h7+ it looks like Black has to resign the enemy king. 1 .tn ! . In the game
(and according to some sources, this there followed: 1 . . . 'ii'a7 2 .tc4
is just what he did). But in fact it is a .uxc4 3 bxc4 'ii'c5 4 �6 ! .*.c8 5
bit too early to resign. True, 4 . . . 'i'f8 �xh7+ Q;e7 6 e5 ! , and White soon
is unsatisfactory, because of 5 h7+ won.
<M7 (5 ... �h7 6 gt1i') 6 gt1i'+
'it>xf8 7 h8'i'+ <3;e7 8 .*.xe6 �e6 9 15) Gligoric-Speelman
'i'xe5. On the other hand, as Dvoret­ Lucerne 1 982
sky has shown, entirely possible was
4 . . . 'ii'd4 ! ! (vacating the d6 square The bishop on a3 is shooting into
for the king) 5 h7+ � 6 g8'ii'+ We7 thin air and should really be on g5 .
7 h8'i' 'iii>d6 ! . How should this posi­ Then the pawn on h5 will become
tion be assessed? Probably Black has vulnerable.
the advantage after 8 .*.xe6 �xe6, 1 .tel
or 8 'ii'f8+ q;c7 9 'ii'x d8+ <it>b7. But Imprecise would be 1 O-O? ! , in
Candidate Master V.Nikonov estab­ view of I . . . g5 ! 2 hxg5 h4 with coun­
lished that this pOSition is actually terplay. There followed:
drawn after 8 !lg7 ! 'i'xd2 ! (8 . . . 1 ••• �g4
�b7? 9 .*.xe6 �xe6 10 'ii'xe6+ ! ! ; 8 2 f3 !
. . . .*.b7? 9 'ii'xd8 ! l:lxdS 1 0 'ii'xd8; 8 2 l:lb l f5 ! ?
. . . bxc4? 9 'ii'xd8) 9 'ii'f8+ Q;c7 10 2 �xd4
'ii'xd8+ Q;b7 when White cannot 3 cxd4 'i'xd4
avoid perpetual check. 4 lZ.bl
4 .tb2? 'i'b4+.
13) Korchnoi-Penrose 4 �e5
Palma de Mallorca 1 969 5 .te3 �3+
6 � 'i'e5
1 h4! 7 W lZ.d7
And then 2 .*.h3. Having brought 7 . . . f5 8 .tg5, with the idea of 9
his light-squared bishop into the exf5 .
1 88 Solutions to Analytical Exercises

S �gl :bdS 4 �xd5 f5+

9 �t1 5 gxf6+ �xf6
And Black did not have sufficient 6 i..c4 g5
compensation for the sacrificed 7 f5 g4
piece. S i..e6 g3
9 �t3! �b6
1 6) Romanishin-Yusupov 10 ':17+ �g5
Minsk 1979 (variationfrom the game) 11 ':'g7+ �h6
12 ':'g4 �5
Black must play for mate: 13 ':'xgJ �e7
1 ... �e4! 14 �e4 ':'b6
2 a7 15 b3 ':'b8
2 �f7 � 3 lteS .l1a2. 16 d5
2 ... �t3 ! ! Black resigned
But not 2 . . . .:az ? 3 �c6 � 4
':'eS ! . IS) Gorchakov-Dvoretsky
3 ':'bS ':'e2! Moscow 1 974
4 aS1i'+ �xg3
With inevitable mate. White threatens to attack the pawn
It would have been a mistake to on d4 by playing �b3.
play 3 ... l!d2? (instead of 3 . . . l:te2!), 1 ... �b6!
in view of 4 %lb3 ! ltxdS 5 %lbS :d2 6 Now on 2 �b3 Black has 2 . . .
M+ ! �g3 7 lW+ ! �f3 S aS1i'+. �b5 . I f 2 a4 then not 2 ... as? (in
view of 3 �b3 or 3 bxaS+), but 2 . . .
17) Dolmatov-Shamkovich �6 ! 3 lhd4 lhd4 4 �xd4 aS ! ' The
Amsterdam 1979 game continued as follows:
2 g4 �e3
1 ':'b7 3 .:.xd4 ':'xd4
I %lc7? �b6; I %laS? �e7 2 nes 4 �xd4 �xg4+
�f5 or 2 ... %ld7. 5 �gJ h5
1 ... �b6 6 �c4+ �c7
I . . . �6 2 �xd5 �d4+ 3 �4 Having retained three pawns for
�6 4 �e5 . his piece, Black subsequently ob­
2 �xd5! ! �xd5 tained a draw.
2 . . . 1lxdS 3 �xdS �xd5 4 �e4.
3 �e4! 19) Matheu-Dolmatov
Now it is bad to play 3 ... llb6 4 Groningen 1978/79
�xd5, and if 3 . . . �f6+ then 4 �5 !
is decisive. The game went: Having played 1 ... f4?, Black
3 ... �7 missed a win. The game ended as
 Solutions to Analytical Exercises 1 89

follows : 2 'iff8 �d5 3 liJf3 ! with a 2 dxc4 �h3 3 'iti>g l �g2! 4 liJf1
draw, in view of 3 . . . �xf3 4 'ift7+ 'ife2.
'iti>g4 5 'ifd7+. 2 'i'e6
Unconvincing is 1 ... c3? 2 bxc3 Intending 3 ... �h3. There could
dxc3 3 liJb 1 . have followed:
In the event of 1 . . . 'ifd5 it is not 3 'iti>gl el!
good to play 2 dxc4? bxc4 3 liJxc4 Not so convincing is 3 . . . 'iti>h3 4
.i.b5 4 b3 axb3 5 cxb3 d3. But White liJfl b4 5 dxc4 ! b3 6 cxb3 �g2 7
has the simple 2 �e2 'ife6+ 3 �d l , 'ifc5 ! , or 4 . . . �g2 5 'ifg7 b4 6 axb4!
or 2 . . . 'ife5+ 3 'iti>f1 (but not 3 �d l ? c3 7 bxc3 a3 8 cxd4 �xfl 9 'itxfl a2
c3). 10 'ifa7 ! .
However, Black could have won 4 bxel dxc3
the game by bringing his king into 5 tLln f4!
the attack. 6 gxf4 gxf4
1 �g4! 7 'i'g7+ �h5
2 'iff8 With the threat of 8 ... 'i'g6+.