Dvoretsky I Yusupov · Secrets of Chess Training

PrOgress iifCHess

Volume 22 of the ongoing series

Editorial board
GM Victor Korchnoi
GM Helmut Pfleger
GM Nigel Short
GM Rudolf Teschner

2006
EDITION OLMS

m
Mark Dvoretsky and Artur Yusupov

Secrets of Chess Training

School of Future Champions l

Edited and translated

by Ken Neat

2006
EDITION OLMS

m
4

Available by Mark Dvoretsky:

School of Chess Excellence 1 Endgame Analysis 3-283-00416-1
(German Edition: Geheimnisse gezielten Schachtrainings 3-283-00254-1)

School of Chess Excellence 2 Tactical Play 3-283-00417-X

(German Edition: Moderne Schachtaktik 3-283-00278-9)

School of Chess Excellence 3 Strategic Play 3-283-00418-8

(German Edition: Geheimnisse der Schachstrategie 3-283-00362-9)

School of Chess Excellence 4 Opening Developments 3-283-00419-6

(German Edition: Theorie und Praxis der Schachpartie 3-283-00379-3)

Bibliographic information published by

Die Deutsche Bibliothek

Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the

Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic
data is available in the internet at http·Udnb ddb de.

Copyright © 2006 Edition Olms AG

Breitlenstr. 11 · CH-8634 Hombrechtikon/ZUrich. Switzerland

All rights reserved. This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not. by way
of trade or otherwise, be lent. re-sold, hired out or otherwise circulated in any form of
binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition
including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.

Printed in Germany

Editor and translator: Ken Neat

Typeset: Arno Nickel · Edition Marco. D-1 0551 Berlin

Printed by: Druckerei Friedr. Schmucker GmbH, D-49624 Lbningen

Cover: Eva Konig, D-22769 Hamburg

ISBN-10: 3-283-00515-X
ISBN-13: 978-3-283-00515-3
 5

Contents
From the Autho rs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 6

P reface (Artur Yusupov) ........................... . .................................................... ....................... 7

PART 1 . . ............ .. . ................................................................................................................. 9

A Chess Player's Virtues and Deficiencies, and their I nfluence on the

Course of a Game (Mark Dvoretsky) .................................................................................... 9

The Way to the Top (Mark Dvoretsky) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .............. 31

American Observations (Mark Dvoretsky) .......................................................................... 34

PART 11 . • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 38

The Analysis of one's own Games (Artur Yusupov) .... . ............. . . . . . . . . . . ................ . . . . ........... 38

A Commentator's Dou bts ( Mark Dvoretsky) .... . . . . . . ........................................... . . . . .............. 56

How to play with Black (Artur Yusupov) ............ . . . .............. . . . .. . . . . ............... . . . . . . . ................. 62

PART 111 . . • . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . • . . . . . • • . . . • . • . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . • • . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . 65

The Technique of worki ng on you r own and other Players' Games

(Artur Yusupov, Mark Dvoretsky) ...................................... . . . ........ ....................................... 65

Admit your Mistakes! (Mark Dvoretsky) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ........................................... 85

The 'superfluous' Piece (Mark Dvoretsky) .................................................... . ..................... 87

PART IV . ......... . . . . . ......... ...... . ............ . . ...... . . . ............................. . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Studyi ng the Chess Classics (Mikhail Shereshevsky) ........................................................ 92

Finding new Ideas (Mark Dvoretsky) ................................................................................ 1 00

PART V ......... . . . ......................... .... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ................ . . . ....... 110

Positional Evaluation and the Choice of Plan i n the M iddlegame

(Aiexey Kosikov) .... . ..... . . . . . ....................................... . . . . . . .... . . . . .................. . . . . . ................... 110

Regarding a certain Article ( Mark Dvoretsky) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 32

PART Vl . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 39

A Feeling for the King ( Grigory Kaidanov) ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .................................... 1 39

Supplement to G rigory Kaidanov's Lecture (Artur Yusupov, Mark Dvoretsky) .................. 1 43

6

PART VII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 49
. . . . . . . . .

Ideas and Advice of g reat Players . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 49

PART VIII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 53
.

Tests 1 2x8 (Mark Dvoretsky) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 53

.

Solutions to Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 70

Thematic I ndex of Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

PART IX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
. . .

Games by Pupils of the School (Artur Yusupov) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 . . .

Postscript - School of Futu re Champions ( Viktor Glatman) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 4 .

I ndex of Players . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 6

From the Authors

T
his book, like o u r w h ole s e ries of books, is add ressed to those w h o do n ot reg a rd
chess simply as an a m u s e m e nt , but want to u n d e rsta n d its secrets m o re d e e ply a n d
substantially raise their standard o f play. How can this be achieved? W h at a re the ways
and m ethods of worki n g i n d e p e n d e ntly on c h e ss? T h at is w h at w e teach in o u r school ,
and that is what is described in this book. We hope that you wil l d e rive b e nefit from it .

Mark Dvoretsky
Artur Yusupov

Artur Yusupov
Preface
B
y what is success in chess determined?
Usually, i n answer to this q uestion , two
necessary factors are singled out: talent and
work. However, abil ity and a desire to work ,
o n their own , are insufficient. O f g reat
sign ificance are physical condition, com­
petitive characte r and the abil ity to concen­
trate during a game. It is no less i mportant to
choose correctly the d i rection of the work
and to be able to carry it out qual itatively.
Of course, this is by no means a simple
p roblem . At the first session of our school
we try to help our pupils to maste r the skills
of working independently on chess.
It stands to reason that, i n order to choose
the req u i red d i rection for self-improvement,
a critical app reciation of you r play is needed.
It is the authors' deep conviction that a
necessary condition for the development of
a player is a serious study of his own games.
Therefore a central place i n the book is
occupied by the topic 'The analysis of you r
own games' . T h e reader w i l l find n u m e rous
specific methodolog ical recommendations
on how to carry out this work.
Without a broad chess cu ltu re , a knowledge
of the creative he ritage of the g reat masters
from the past , it is hard to expect to achieve
good resu lts. This is why we try to show the
reader various ways of using the rich
heritage of chess.
Natural ly, topics such as 'The analysis of
your own games' and 'Studying the clas­
sics' are practically i nexhausti ble. The fi rst
topic is examined from various poi nts of
view in the 1 st, 2nd, 3rd , 5th and 9th parts
of the book, and the second topic is covered
in the 3rd and 4th parts . Part 6 is devoted to
7
original king manoeuvres , but the more
general topic 'Non-standard manoeuvres'
is studied in the 5th part, as well as the 9th
and certain othe r parts of the book. Part 7 is
a compilation of advice by outstanding
g randmasters about how to improve at
chess. Final ly, specially for this second
edition, the large 8th part has been w ritte n ,
i nviti ng the reade r t o test his strength b y
i ndependently solvi ng exercises on a variety
of themes.
A few words about the structure of the book.
Each of the fi rst six parts opens with a
lecture , read at a session of the school .
Then fol low exercises (for this new edition
many new exercises have been added,
and some old ones replaced) and add i­
tional mate rial . These su pplements , l i nked
thematically with the lectu res , have been
taken from publ ications by the authors i n the
magazines Shakhmaty v SSSR and 64 -
often they have been augmented and
revised specially for this book. In this
second edition two new articles have been
included.
Of cou rse , the work i n our school is not re­
stricted merely to the read ing of lectu res .
G reat attention is g iven to a joint analysis of
games, i ndividual consultations, the devel­
opment of specific homework and its check­
i n g . From part 9 the reade r can gain some
i m p ression of the form that these lessons
take.
It has been the aim of the authors that eve ry
reader should be able to find someth ing
i nteresting and usefu l i n this book. The sug­
gested proced u res and methods w i l l , I hope,
become the key to you r chess improvement.
8 Preface
Of cou rse , even a very good methodology
will not be effective , if it is applied mechani­
cal ly, without independent i nterpretation .
But for the serious, thoughtful player this
book can become a good sti m u l u s to
creative and competitive development.
Our work has conti nued . A second session
of the school was held, where the main topic
was the opening - the general principles of
playi ng it, the methods of studyi ng opening
theory, the approach to the formation of you r
own ope n in g repertoire, the l i n k between the
opening and m iddlegame, and so on (cf.
Secrets of Opening Preparation). Plans for
subsequent sessions i nclude endgame tech­
n i q u e , middlegame strategy, and p ractical
playi ng procedu res. The reade rs can be­
come acq uai nted w ith this work from the
later books i n the series School of Future
Champions.

PA RT I
Mark Dvoretsky
A Chess Player 's Virtues and Deficiencies,
and their Infl uence on the Cou rse of a Game
I ong, long ago, before the time of
l...st e initz, it was thought that whether a
chess player won or lost depended only on
his degree of gen ius. Morphy was a gen i u s ,
and s o h e defeated eve ryone; his opponents
were less talented , and so they lost to h i m .
Stein itz real ised a n d demonstrated that
chess has an objective basis. Events occu r­
ri ng on the board are subject to defin ite ru les
and positional principles. If a player is
guided by the m , he is successfu l .
I t has now become evident that the truth l ies
not even i n the middle, as is customari ly
thought, but i n a combi nation of both these
factors, subjective and objective . (Those of
you with a serious i nte rest i n phi losophy w i l l
possibly remember t h e 'synthesis' o f Hegel's
famous triad . ) Yes , of cou rse, the struggle is
based on objective positional rules. But its
result is decisively i nfluenced by the per­
sonal q ual ities of a player - his talent,
characte r and state of health , and his
prepared ness , abil ity to use his knowledge,
to act competently and professionally at the
board , and to take the optimal decisions i n a
variety of situations.
Mastery is made u p of a n u mber of very
different components , in some of which a
player may be very strong, but in othe rs
fran kly weak. Behind the moves that he
makes stand his virtues and deficiencies,
his strong and weak poi nts . It is they that
9
decisively i nfluence the outcome of a game,
an entire event and often even his chess
fate . Many players have been u nable to
reveal their talent fully on accou nt of obvious
gaps i n certai n fields.
Take , for examp l e , g randmaste r Vi kto r
Kupreich ik. He is exceptionally dangerous
i n attack, when he acts boldly and resou rce­
ful l y, but in tec h n i q u e and in the endgame he
is frankly weak. As a result, he has not
managed to rise to a level corresponding to
his talent. On one occasion , when playing
Kupreichik in the U S S R Championship First
Leagu e , I went i nto an endgame a pawn
dow n , but with i n some ten moves it was
al ready I who was a pawn u p . In a World
Cup q ual ifyi ng tournament in 1 989 against
the young Gata Kamsky he was two pawns
u p with a completely won position , but
g radually - not on accou nt of any blunder ­
he lost that game .
Many players are 'geared' towards the study
of openings, engag i ng only in the process­
i ng of i nformation and the acq u isition of new
opening knowledge. I am convinced that this
is not the way for any player, certainly not a
young player, to develop. Training work on
self-improvement is far more i m portant .
The main objective of the trainers of our
school is to give a 'diagnosis' to each of the
pupils, help them to i nvestigate their own
sty l e , determ i n e their virtues and deficien-
10 � PART I
cies, and suggest how to elimi nate their
deficiencies and to develop their strong
points. I n order to try and convince you of
the correctness of the d i rection in which our
school will be worki n g , of the importance of
what we will be doi n g , I am going to devote
my enti re lectu re to examples of the decisive
influence and the results of deficiencies,
which players did not want to elimi nate or
were unable to do so at the proper time.
Some players , who spend all their time
studyi ng the open i n g , believe that their
games will not reach an endgame , and if
they do, then they will somehow cope at the
board with the resulting problems . The
example with Ku preich i k demonstrates the
naivety of such hopes . Of cou rse , the
open ing is a very important stage of the
game, but the endgame is no less important
and it too must be seriously studied .
Weakness in the endgame may show itself
in two main forms: i n ignorance of endgame
theory and i n weakness of endgame tech­
nique. We will i n itially consider the first of
these.
A glaring example of ignorance of theory
once struck me, when I was listing through
the Dutch magazine New in Chess.
Cou l l - Stanciu
Women's Olympiad , Thessaloniki 1 988
The player from Scotland, who had Wh ite on
board one, found the only way (not cou nti n g
ove rstepping t h e time l i m it) o f losing t h e
game immediately - she simply resigned ! !
I ncred ible i gnorance ! Such endings are
p robably taught in the fi rst class of any
chess school . But, as you can see, the
education of the leader of the Scottish team
was at the kindergarten l evel .
Alas , similar mistakes in endgames (includ­
ing pawn endgames, thoug h , of cou rse, not
so elementary) are made even by g rand­
masters .
Lj u boj evic - B rowne
Amste rdam 1 972
1 . . . f5? ? 2 'itt b4 d raw.
Reposition the black king at d6, and you
obtain (with reve rsed colou rs) a wel l-known
study by N i kolai G rigoriev, composed back
i n 1 928. Its solution is as fol l ows :
1 . . . lt>d5!
2 b4
The wh ite king is u nable to prevent the
enemy pawn from queen i n g : 2 'itt b 4 'itt d 4!
3 'itt a 3 f5 4 'itt b 2 f4 5 c;.t;>c2 �e3 6 'itt d 1 'ittf2 !
7 b4 f3 8 b5 'itt g 2 and wins.
2 . . . f5
3 b5 f4
4 b6 �c6 !
5 �a6 f3
 A Chess Player's Virtues and Deficiencies
6 b7 f2
7 bS'if f1 'if+
Wh ite loses his queen or is mated.
I can remember n umerous similar examples
of endgame 'creativity' . A blunder i n a well­
known and theoretically drawn ending led to
Alexander Kochiev losing to Vasily Smyslov
in thei r game from the 1 978 Zonal Tou rna­
ment, dashing his hopes of qualifying for the
Interzonal Tou rnament. The comedy of
errors in an elementary rook ending, which
occurred i n a game Capablanca-Menchik,
became famous. And 45 years later exactly
the same endgame arose is a game that
decided the fate of the U S S R J u nior Team
Championsh i p .
Pekker - Ermol i nsky
Alma Ata 1 974
The Moscow player with Wh ite needed to
draw for his team to become the champions.
The position is absolutely drawn . The
simplest is to wait: 1 .ti.b1 or 1 Wh3. But 1
l'ta8 is qu ite possible, as, however, is any
move by the rook along the a-fi le . . . apart
from one, which was i n fact chosen by
Seryozha Pekker.
1 �a3? ? �f1 +
2 �g3 f2
After 3 '.t>f3 '.t>g 1 ! there is no saving check
from the rear.
11
Wh ite lost and the M oscow team fin ished
only second. The reason for what happened
was a defect i n Pekker's chess education.
H i s trainer, a well-known theoretician , de­
voted all his l essons to studying only
openi ng theory. I n the endgame his pupils
would lose their way.
N ow let us turn to endgame technique. You
need not only to remember theory, but also
to have a maste ry of typical endgame
techniques, to learn to attune you rself
appropriately for playi ng endings, and to
have a fee lin g for their specific featu res . I
recommend that you should study M i khail
Shereshevsky's excel lent book Endgame
Strategy, which is devoted to this topic.
I will now show you what happens when a
playe r does not understand the spi rit of the
endgame and is u nable to th i n k i n endgame
terms.
Dvoretsky - Su khanov
M oscow 1 968
Ruy Lopez
1 e4 e5
2 lLlf3 l2Jc6
3 j,b5 �c5
4 0-0 l2Jd4
Here there is the i nteresting gambit possibil­
ity 5 b4! ? , but at the time of the present
game it was not yet known .
5 l2Jxd4 j,xd4
6 c3 j,b6
7 d4 c6
8 j,c4 d6
The tou rnament situation obliged me to play
for a wi n . I didn't know the theory of the
variation , and I was pondering ove r the plan
of further action , when I suddenly remem­
bered who I was playi n g . Vladim i r Su khanov
was a talented master, a brill iant tactician
who l i ked to attack, but he could not bear
ted ious positions and he had no concept of
the endgame . (Th is was not surprising - he
studied chess with the same trai ner as
Pekker. )
12 � PART I

The decision that I took can hardly be
approved from the purely chess viewpoint,
but it was j ustified psychological ly, as the
further cou rse of the game confi rmed .
9 dxe5 dxe5
1 0 "Yixd8+ .txd8
11 .te3
The endgame is equal , of cou rse , but see
how Su khanov plays it.
What do you think is the most accu rate reply
tor Black?
The bishop at e3 is more active than the one
at dB, and therefore Black should have
offered an exchange: 1 1 . . . i.b6 ! . But in what
way is the developing move 1 1 . . . tt::Jf 6 , made
should have thought about the most accu­
rate way of doing this.
H oweve r, it transpi red that my opponent had
q u ite different i ntentions.
12 . . . h5?!
Black has decided to launch an attack! What
is his idea? P robably . . . h5-h4, . . . lt:Jh5 and
lt:Jt4 . In the middlegame such plans may be
alright, but tor the endgame this is very
strange strategy. Ve ry wel l , tor the moment I
will complete my developme nt.
1 3 l:Id1 h4
1 4tt::ld 2 h3?
But what next? After all, i n the future the h3-
pawn will almost certainly tu rn out to be
weak.
1 5 g3 b5?
My opponent appears to have forgotten that
pawns do not move backwards. Now I also
acq u i re a target on the q ueenside - the b5-
paw n , which I will immediately attack by a2-
a4.
1 6 .tf1
From here the bishop keeps both of the
vulnerable black pawns under t i re .
16 . . . .tb6
1 7 �f2 g5
I finally understood the idea (albeit crazy) of
my opponent's p reced ing actions. H e wants
after 1 8 . . g4 either to weaken the e4-paw n ,
.

in the game , i nterior? or, afte r playi ng his k n i g h t t o g4, t o attack the
11 . . . tt::lf6 h2-paw n , which h e has 'fixed' by the
1 2 f3 advance . . . h5-h4-h3 . And if 1 8 g4, he was
Now it 1 2 . . . i.b6 there follows 1 3 'it>t2 and probably i ntend ing the bishop sacrifice on
the exchange takes place i n a version that it g4.
slightly more favourable tor White. Fi rst, he Resourceful and clever, but completely
does not have to take on b6, opening the a­ u n realisable. This is no way to play the
tile tor the black rook, and second, the wh ite endgame!
king approaches closer to the centre . These 1 8 a4! g4
trifles may not influence the ove rall evalua­ 1 9 .txb6 axb6
tion of the position , but nevertheless in the 20 axb5 J:ixa1
endgame every such trifle should be taken 2 1 !txa 1 gxf3
care of, and you should seek the most 22tt::lxf3 ! tt:Jxe4+
accu rate way of carrying out you r plans. It 23 �e3 tt::ld 6
Black had decided to exchange bishops , he 24 bxc6
 A Chess Player's Virtues and Deficiencies
I calculated this e nti re variation when I
played 1 9 il.xb6 . It is clear that Wh ite's
position is won , and subsequently he easily
converted his advantage .
What can b e said here - everything is clear.
The outcome of the game was predete r­
m i ned , and the play was all in one d i rectio n .
Y o u probably gained t h e impression that the
player with Black was very weak, not even of
club standard - club players wou l d be
offended and would say that we don't play
the endgame l i ke that. No, I repeat, this was
a talented master, who in othe r stages of the
game acted q u ite d iffe rently. I happened to
catch him right on his weak point. Now think:
is it conceivable to become a strong player,
wh ile giving you r opponents such g reat
odds in some aspect of the game?
It is very important to get rid not only of you r
purely chess weaknesses, b u t also of
psychological and personal ity deficiencies.
A person who is u ncertain i n h imself often
loses on account of his own i ndecisiveness ,
whereas with a self-confident person it may
be because of underestimating the oppo­
nent's possibilities. A slow-witted player with
poorly developed i ntuition will constantly
suffe r from time-trouble. The l ist can be
extended to i nclude the most diverse h uman
and i ndividual deficiencies, and they all
influence the resu lts no less than p u rely
chess weaknesses.
Let us consider an example of the man ifes­
tation and diagnosis of one such deficiency.
(see diagram)
It is Wh ite to move . How do you evaluate the
position, and what move would you sug­
gest?
On a static eval uatio n , you may be satisfied
with White's position. But let's try looking at
it dynamically, taki ng account of futu re
prospects . I would prefe r Black's positio n .
Why? He has a clear plan : t o play . . . d5-d 4 ,
13
Fedorov - Shamrai
M oscow 1 973
place his king at d5 and then advance . . . c5-
c4 . Wh ite appears to stand wel l , he is
pressing on g7, but what he should do next
is not clear.
S i nce this is so, while it is not yet too late he
should play 1 l:!e3, agreeing to an equal
pawn endgame .
Candidate maste r Vladislav Fedorov, play­
ing Wh ite , thought that he stood better and
he made an amazingly poi ntless move .
1 .l:!.g6?
Sometimes i n such cases they use the
banal p h rase : 'Wh ite i ntensifies the pres­
s u re' . H oweve r, it is not clear what pressure
and why it is i ntensified. Perhaps Fedorov
had in mind g2-g4-g5.
1 . . . 'ii<e6
Th reaten in g 2 . . . 'it>f5 , w i n n i n g the f4-paw n . I n
t h e event o f 2 g 4 'it>f7 3 f 5 d 4 t h e wh ite rook
is trapped . We see that Black's reply
emphasised the absu rd ity of the move 1
�g6? - 1 . . . d4 was less accu rate in view of 2
g4 'it>e6 3 g5.
2llg3 d4
3'ii<e2 ! ?
A thematic move . Wh ite takes his king to
where the battle is developing - the
queenside. The d rawback of 3 'it>e2 is the
14 � PART I
loss of the f4-pawn after 3 . . . c;t>f5+ . But from
the positional poi nt of view the sacrifice is
j ustified - in return the wh ite king is
activated: it penetrates to c4, attacking the
c5-pawn.
I could have rightly compl imented the player
with White, had it not transpired after the
game that he had not sacrificed the paw n ,
but simply blundered i t . Here , y o u w i l l
understand , a quite different pictu re emerges.
I ncidental ly, this episode shows why we ask
for thoroughly analysed games to be sent.
Sometimes a good move can be made with
a completely i ncorrect idea. It is important
for us not only to see the moves that you
have made, but also to know the ideas
beh ind them, what you were thinking about,
how you evaluated the positio n . Only then
can a trai ner make an objective assessment
of a pupil's play.
So, Wh ite blundered a pawn, but he blun­
dered it successfully.
3 . . . 'it>f5+
4'it>d3 'it>xf4
5'it>c4 'it>e5
Can the c5-pawn be taken? Black replies
6 . . . .l:!.c7+ . Should Wh ite go in for such sharp
play, or is it dangerous? There is no need to
calculate the variations to the end; you can
simply limit yourself to a general impression.
Of cou rse, without any calcu lation it is
obvious: taki ng on c5, giving the opponent a
passed d4-paw n , is terribly dangerous, and
most probably simply impossible. But what
should be played? 6 .l::i. d 3, I think. The
i ntention is 7 .l::t d 2 with the th reat of 8 c;t>xc5 .
It is useful to d rive the black rook to c7. Then
it makes sense to exchange the most active
black pawn on d4 by c2-c3. In some cases
b3-b4 may also be possible. If 6 . . .<it'e4, then
7 .l::t d 2 c;t>e3 8 .l::i. d 3+ and 8 .. .<.t>e2? is not
possible on account of 9 'it>xc5 .
Black p robably does best to reply 6 . . . f5 7
.l:!.d2 .l:!.c7 , i ntending 8 . . g5, activating h i s
.
game on t h e kingside, where he h a s an
extra paw n . But Wh ite's pieces are active ,
and his chances of a d raw remain q u ite
good .
6'it>xc5? ? .l:!.c7+
7'it>b5
7 c;t>b4 is more cautious, keeping the king
closer to the d-paw n . If Black had played as
i n the game, this could have helped White.
But all the same his decision to take on c5
was fundamentally i ncorrect. This would be
best demonstrated by a move that neither
player noticed . Which move? That's right,
7 . . . g5! Now that the g-pawn is no longer
under attack, Black can calmly take on c2 . Of
cou rse , with the king on b4 it would not help
to play 8 c3 on account of 8 . . . dxc3 9 .l:!.xc3
a5+ .
7 . . . �xc2
8 .l:!.xg7 d3
9 l:!.xa7?
9 .l:!.d7 was more tenacious, trying even for a
short time to halt the passed paw n . But
Fedorov is confident that 'all is q u iet on the
Weste rn front' , that he will have time to stop
the paw n , and while Black is winning the
rook for it he will advance his queenside
pawns.
9 . . . 'it>e6 !
Now the rook will not get onto the d-fi l e .
1 0 l:ta6+ 'it>d7
 A Chess Player's Virtues and Deficiencies
Wh ite resigned in view of 1 1 l::t a 7+ '/J.c7 . With
the king at b4 Black would not have had this
variation - after the exchange of rooks the
king would have been able to stop the paw n .
What would you say about t h e player with
White? Are you sti l l unsure ? Then I will show
you another example of his play.
Fedorov - Dvoretsky
Moscow 1 972
What do you think White should do?
Black's plans a re clear. If he should succeed
in playing . . . <;i>h8, . . . '/J.g8 and then doubling
(or even tri p l ing) heavy pieces on the g-fi l e ,
h e w i l l develop a powe rful attack on the
kingside. Wh ite is obliged to divert h i s
opponent, t o start his o w n play a s soon as
possible. He must play c4-c5. Immediately,
or after p reparation? Of cou rse , immediately
- why postpone it? If Black replies . . . dxc5 ,
then after i.xc5 his rook has nowhere to go
(if . . . .l:!.f7 there is the fork tt'ld6 ) . If Black has
time to p lay . . . <;i>h8, his rook will gain the
excellent square g8.
But Fedorov was not at all afraid of the
attack on the kingside, and the refore he
decided that he had no need to h u rry.
29 b4?
Wh ite most probably wants to recaptu re on
c5 with his paw n , obtaining fine pawns i n the
15
centre . But first he will have to defend his
d5-paw n . Such a plan would be good i n a
q u i et situation , but with White th reatened by
an attack it is too slow.
29 . . . 'lt>h8
30'lt>h 1 .l:!.g8
31 �d2?
Consistent: by defending his d5-pawn , Wh ite
prepares c4-c5. But he is paying not the
slig htest attention to his opponent's possi­
bilities; he is simply not thinking about them.
The p u n i shment fol lows immediately.
31 . . . gxf3
32 gxf3 �xe4
33 fxe4 �h3
Mate is i n evitable - Wh ite resigned .
Ridiculous, wou ldn't you agree? With i n the
space of th ree moves an excel lent position
collapsed . I s it still u nclear what to say about
the player with Wh ite? I s he simply a weak
player? I can show you how he defeated
Alexander Belyavsky in excel lent positional
style, and he has also played some other
good games . N o , I am not showing you the
games of a weak player, but simply demon­
strating h i s most vulnerable point. What is
it?
Fedorov played badly in the ending against
Shamra i , but the point is not that he is weak
in the endgame - th i s is not so. Remember:
with 1 l:tg6 he tried to play for a w i n , not
realisi n g that at the least he did not stand
bette r, not notici n g the opponent's plan for
strengthen i n g his position. Then he blun­
dered the f4-paw n . Then he fearlessly and
recklessly g rabbed the c5-pawn and , final ly,
he al lowed the opponent's passed pawn to
queen . All these mistakes , as well as those
that he made in the game with me, have the
same root cause .
It is q u ite obvious that Fedorov has absol ute
confidence in h imself, and in h i s own ideas .
He doesn't give a damn about h i s opponent
- for Fedorov he simply does not exist. Thus
the diagnosis i s over-confidence , an overes-
16 � PART I
timation of h imself and his resou rces , and
an underestimation of the opponent's possi­
bilities .
I n those years Fedorov was studying in the
chess department of the Institute of Physical
Cu lture, and I was a teacher there. He was
i ndeed a stu rdy, ath letic lad , ve ry dete r­
mi ned , with a pose at the board l i ke that of a
world champion . With such youngste rs , self­
confidence (an excel lent quality ! ) often
grows into over-confidence . He was qu ite a
strong candidate master, but he was simply
unable to achieve the maste r norm . His
main deficiency constantly hindered him.
I explai ned to Fedorov the mai n cause of his
fai l u res. I recommended that he should work
in this direction : study the games of players
who always forestall in advance their oppo­
nent's counterplay, i n particular Tig ran
Petrosian and Anatoly Karpov. I selected a
series of exercises on this topic. The work
done by Fedorov soon helped h im to
become a maste r.
In the first half of the lectu re we looked at
examples of the destructive effect on vari­
ous players of some very promi nent defi­
ciencies. Now let us see how all the
deficiencies of a player, together with the i r
virtues, ope rate i n combi nation a n d deter­
mine thei r i ndividual chess style.
I n 1 980 I hel ped Nana Alexandria i n her
quarter-final women's candidates match
against Lena Akhmylovskaya. As usual , I
prepared a creative portrait of her opponent,
with information about her strong and weak
sides. Natu rally, I also saw Alexandria's
virtues and deficiencies, and at the time we
worked actively on elimi nati ng her deficien­
cies .
After an exceptionally difficult and tough
struggle, Nana won . On the concl usion of
the match the thought occurred to me to
show Nana (and also myself) to what extent
her virtues and deficiencies, as well as the
virtues and deficiencies of her opponent,
determined the entire cou rse of the play and
the result. I wrote down the main chess
q ual ities of both players and gave them
arbitrary codes.
The symbol 'L 1' sign ifies Akhmylovskaya's
main virtue - good positional understan d i n g .
L e n a h a s a subtle fee lin g f o r t h e coord i na­
tion of the pieces , she is able to find good
posts for them, to manoeuvre and to
strengthen her position .
'L 2' is Akhmylovskaya's main deficiency.
She is weak in tactics and is afraid of them ,
s h e avoids a n y sharpe n in g o f t h e play, and
she feels unsure i n obscure , complicated
positions.
'L 3' is Akhmylovskaya's uncertai nty i n con­
verting an advantage. For you it will prob­
ably not be so obvious that this deficiency is
closely l i n ked with the previous one, and to
some extent stems from it. D u ring the
conversion of an advantage there i nvariably
comes a moment when you have to switch
from the g radual strengthening of the posi­
tion to concrete actio n . You must not miss
such a moment, but should strain yourself,
\
accu rately calculate variations and find the
strongest, and sometimes the only correct
conti nuatio n . For players who prefer to act
on general g rounds, who do not l i ke calcu­
lating variations, this moment often proves
to be a stumbli ng-block. They conti nue
playing 'at sight' when concrete problems
need to be solved ; as a result their advan­
tage diminishes. Of cou rse, such a defi­
cie ncy is typical not only of Akhmylovskaya .
Later I noticed it in Andrey Sokolov. At some
point d u ring the cou rse of the final Candi­
dates match of 1 986, Artur Yusupov, seeing
that the diagnosis of his opponent was fully
confi rmed , gestu red i n surprise : 'How is he
i ntend ing to win even one game, if I don't
leave something en prise? After all, he's
u nable to solve any problem that is i n the
least bit compl icated . ' U nfortunately, to-
 A Chess Player's Virtues and Deficiencies
wards the end of the match Yusupov began
leavi ng pieces en prise . . .
Nana Alexandria's mai n virtue, which I have
sign ified 'N1 ', is her vivid imag i nation and
creative resou rcefulness.
'N2'- inadeq uate positional understand i n g ,
as a conseq uence o f l o w level o f chess
cultu re at that time . We did much work on
this problem and by the time of her match for
the world championship against M aya
Chiburdanidze Nana had succeeded i n
raising h e r standard o f positional play. B u t at
that time this deficiency was sti l l felt. H ence
- freq uent mistakes in the evaluation of a
position, and bad positional errors .
'N3' - irrational expenditure of time, and
time-trouble. Earlier Alexandria had been an
inveterate time-trouble suffere r. After spe­
cial training , her time-troubles became less
severe , but they h ad not been completely
cured .
'N4'- excessive emotional ity at the board .
Alexandria is a person of moods, and d u ring
a game she copes badly with her emotions.
It is hard for her to change things when they
are going bad ly. M i stakes often fol low one
after another, and as a res u lt an excellent
position may qu ickly be transformed i nto a
hopeless one.
'N5'- lack of sense of danger.
As you see , Alexandria's l ist of deficiencies
tu rned out to be longer than that of h e r
opponent. This is not s u rprising - I wanted
to clearly demonstrate to Nana all her weak
points, and to ind uce her to work seriously
on elimi nating them.
I annotated all the games of the matc h , i n
the process recording h o w t h e traits o f both
players sing led out by me showed u p in the
play. Where I saw the manifestation of some
trait, I placed the appropriate code. The
pictu re proved rather i nteresti n g , and on
Nana at least it made a g reat impression.
Now, from this point of view, we will analyse
two of the games, chosen almost at random .
17
Akh mylovskaya - Alexandria
6th match game , Kislovodsk 1 980
Slav Defence
1 d4 dS
2 c4 c6
3tt::lf3 tt::lf6
4tt::lc 3 e6
5 'i!Vb3
At this point the match score was leve l : 2Y2-
2Y2. We managed to g u ess that Akhmy­
lovskaya would choose precisely 5 'ilib3 .
She is a positional player, critical ope n i ngs,
i n which a s harp battle develops (the Meran
Variation or the Botvi n n i k Variation ) , are not
to her taste (L2), and this meant it was
probable that s h e would choose a q u iet plan
of development.
In reply Black has quite a good plan i n the
spi rit of the M e ran Variatio n : 5 . . . dxc4 6 i*'xc4
b5, then . . . tt::l d 7, . . . 3l.b7 and at some point
. . . c�5. perhaps afte r the completion of
development - . . . .il.e7 and . . . 0-0. But during
our preparations I found i n lnformator Vol­
ume 27 the recent game F.Portisch-Noguei­
ras ( Kecskemet 1 979) . It went 5 . . . dxc4 6
�xc4 b6. Black wants to answer 7 e4 with
7 . . . .il.a6 and, by exchanging on f 1 , to prevent
the opponent from castling kingside.
There followed 7 g3 3l.e7 8 .il.g2 0-0 9 0-0
b5! 1 0 �b3 (1 0 �d3 is better) 1 O . . . b4 . After
the retreat of the knight Black plays 11 . . . .il.a6,
18 � PART I

attacking e2, then . . . ..tb5 and, perhaps ,
. . . a7-a5-a4 with a very active positio n .
T h e plan o f Jesus Nogueiras appealed to
me. But the idea occu rred to me that it could
be carried out more accu rately, by playi ng
. . . b7-b5 in one move . Let us play 5 . . . ..te7
(generally speaki ng, this is the main theoreti­
cal move). If 6 g3, then 6 . . . dxc4 7 'ir'xc4 0-0
8 ..tg2 b5 and Black has saved a whole
tempo. 6 ..tgs is probably stronger. We didn't
want to conti nue fol lowi ng the book with
6 . . . 0-0 7 e3 - it leads to a rather passive
position that is not i n Alexand ria's style. But
one can play like Nogueiras.
5. . . .lte7
6 .ltg5 dxc4
7 'ii'xc4 b6
In the event of 8 g3 it transpi res that,
compared with the F. Portisch-Nogueiras
game , Black has played . . . ..te7, a far more
useful move than Wh ite's ..tgs. Generally
speaki ng, the fianchetto i n conj u nction with
the bishop at g5 looks somehow rid iculous.
And si nce this is so, Wh ite is practically
forced to play 8 e4, when Black carries out
the idea of exchanging on f1 .
It is another q uestion just how good it is.
Later Yusupov and I analysed this variation
and came to the conclusion that Wh ite
nevertheless gains the better chances.
8 e4 .lta6
9 'i!Vb3 .ltxf1
1 0 �xf1
1 0 'it>xf 1 followed by g2--g3 and 'it'g2 was a
good alternative.
10 . . . 0-0
1 1 0-0-0 tt:Jbd7
Wh ite has harmoniously developed her
pieces and she controls more space . Her
position is probably preferable. But, i n view
of the castling on opposite sides, a sharpen­
ing of the play can be expected . It was for
just such a tu rn of events - favourable for
herself and uncomfortable for the opponent
- that Alexandria had aimed. Therefore we
were q u ite satisfied with the result of the
open i n g . Here , if you l i ke , is a typical
example of taking i nto account the virtues
and deficiencies of an opponent when
choosing an ope n i n g variation . In the end
our reckoning was j u stified, although we had
to experience many anxious moments .
Despite the fact that the resulting position
had been reached i n our home preparations,
Alexandria spent 35 min utes on the preced­
ing moves that had been planned in ad­
vance. Not such a small amou nt - this time
could have been missed late r. As you see,
from the very start of the game deficiency
N3 displayed itself - i rrational expenditure
of time.
12 tt:Je5
The prophylactic 1 2 'it'b1 was preferabl e .
12 . . . tt:Jxe5
1 3 .ltxf6 !
At home, superficially checki ng the varia­
tions, we had satisfied ourselves that after 1 3
dxe5 tbd7 Black is excel lently placed .
Akhmylovskaya evaluated the position cor­
rectly (L 1) and played more strong ly.
13 . . . tt:Jd7
A natu ral reply, after which Wh ite retains
somewhat the better chances thanks to her
spatial advantage . Let's think what else
Black could have done .
 A Chess Player's Virtues and Deficiencies
Of cou rse , 1 3 . . . .i.xf6? 1 4 dxe5 .i.g5+ 1 5 f4 is
bad . If 13 .. .<�)d3+ 14 l1xd3 .i.xf6 , then
roughly the same position is reached as in
the game, expect that instead of a knight
Black is left with a bishop. It is doubtful
whether this facto r is to her advantage. After
defending the d4-paw n , Wh ite will then
conti nue f2-f4, e4-e5 and lt:'Je4 with the
better chances .
Without extreme necessity, we are not
accustomed to sharply changi ng the pattern
of play, and therefore certain moves some­
ti mes simply fal l out of our field of view. The
idea 1 3 . . . gxf6 ! ? did not occ u r to anyone. It
looks strange, but let's nevertheless check
what happens after 1 4 dxe5 �c7.
1 5 exf6 .i.xf6 16 f4 suggests itself, intending
e4-e5 and lt:'Je4. It is not clear what Black
has ach ieved , and why the kingside has
been weakened . Yes , this is so, but we have
not taken i nto consideration an i ntermediate
check, which changes the evaluation of the
positio n : 1 5 . . . �f4+ ! 1 6 '>t>b 1 .i.xf6 . Look -
Black has a strong bishop at f6 , and the
queen at f4 is also playing on Wh ite's
nerves : either it wants to take on h2, or on e4
(after the exchange on c3) . But most
probably Black will simply play in the centre
with . . . l:rad8. I would prefer her position.
Wh ite in turn can try to improve on the
variation with 1 6 l::t d 2 (instead of 1 6 '>t>b1 )
1 6 . . . j_xf6 1 7 g3 'iff3 (otherwise 1 8 f4) 1 8
tt:'!d5 (after 1 6 '>t>b1 this move would not have
been possible) 1 8 .. .'ii' x b3 1 9 lt:'Jxf6+ '>t>g7 20
tt:'!h5+ Wh6 21 axb3 with the better end­
game . But in this case Black has another
intermediate move i n reserve : 1 6 . . . l:Ifd8! 1 7
l:Ifd 1 ( 1 7 lt:'Jd5 .llx d5 ! ? 1 8 exd5 .i.b4)
17 .. ."i¥xf6 (f2-f4 is no longer possible) or
even 17 . . . l::t x d2 ! ? 1 8 l::tx d2 l::t d 8.
In playing 1 3 ... gxf6 , Black must also reckon
(after 1 4 dxe5 �c7) with the positional pawn
sacrifice 1 5 f4 fxe5 1 6 f5 ! . But here too she
has sufficient cou nter-chances. For exam­
ple, she can play 1 6 . . . exf5 . If 1 7 .U.xf5 , then
19
1 7 . . . '>t>h8 or 1 7 . . . '>t>g7 followed by 1 8 . . .f6.
White's knight and queen are too distant
from the kingside, to that she is unable to
q u ickly create an attack there , and Black will
immediately begi n play i n the centre : . . . .Uad8.
She is, after all, a pawn u p .
If instead 1 7 exf5 , t h e n 1 7 . . . .l'::tf d8 1 8 lt:'Je4
l::td 5 ! . Again Wh ite does not obtain a
positional bind - in retu rn for the fine knight
at e4 Black has not only an extra paw n , but
also strong poi nts i n the centre .
The conclusion : 1 3 . . . gxf6 ! was an excellent
move , which wou l d have ensured good
cou nte rplay. (Th is was why Wh ite should
have p referred 1 2 '>t>b1 , retaining lt:'Je5 as a
th reat) . But should Nana be reproached? I
am sure that such a decision would have
been beyond the powers of many male
grandmaste rs .
1 4 i..xe7 'i!fxe7
1 5 f4
Let's think about what Black should do.
It seems to me that there are two possible
plans. The fi rst is the attempt to gain some
squares in the centre for her pieces , by
playi ng . . . f7-f5 . This move is probably best
p repared, by fi rst moving the king off the a2-
g8 diagonal : 1 5 . . . '>t>h8.
The other cou rse is play on the queenside:
. . . b6-b5 and . . . lt:'Jb6, fol lowed by . . . lt:'Jc4 or
20 � PART I
. . . a7-a5-a4. I n the event of e4-e5 the black
knight will be able to occupy the d5-square.
I don't know which of these plans is
stronger, but one of them should have been
chose n . Alas , Nana played routi nely and not
very successfu lly (N2).
15 . . . �adS?!
What for? If Black wants to attack on the
queenside, the rook will be needed there .
And i f she wants t o play . . . f7-f5 , i t may b e
necessary t o defend the e6-pawn with a
rook.
16 e5
Akhmylovskaya acts logically and consist­
ently. She wants to play lt:Je4 and occupy the
strong d6-sq uare with her knight. In addi­
tion , Black has to reckon with the th reat of
an attack on the kingside by f4-f5 . Therefore
her reply is practical ly forced .
16 . . . f5
What should Wh ite play? You have not
forgotten that the players have castled on
opposite sides? Then 1 7 g4! should be the
fi rst move that comes i nto you r head . If
1 7 . . . fxg4 1 8 f5 - the e6-pawn is attacked
and the knight gains the e4-sq uare . The
reply 1 7 . . . g6 may not even be considered ­
it is clear that the i nclusion of the moves 1 7
g4 g6 is advantageous to White.
Both players overlooked 1 7 g4! . Alexandria
- because of her lack of sense of danger
(N5). Akhmylovskaya - si nce she is a p u rely
positional player, and sharp attacking moves
are not her style (L2).
1 7 a4
This looks rather risky, si nce it weakens the
flank where the white king is placed .
Nevertheless, if one forgets about the
possibil ity 1 7 g4! , Akhmylovskaya's deci­
sion is positional j ustified . She i n h i bits the
development of Black's i n itiative on the
queenside by . . . b6-b5 and . . . lt:Jb6 .
17 . . . 'it>h8
1 8'it>b1
What would you now play as Black?
One of the sensible plans is 1 8 . . . a6 ,
prepari ng 1 9 . . . b5.
Another possible line of play is 1 8 . . . lt:Jb8 ,
i ntendi n g to take the knight via a6 to the
weakened b4-sq uare . If the knight is pre­
vented from going to b4, it will head via c7 to
d5. After 1 8 . . . lt:Jb8 1 9 'ii'c 4 it is possible, by
defending the e6-pawn, to prepare . . . 'ii'b 7,
but Black can also remember her fi rst plan
and play 1 9 . . . a6 followed by 20 . . . b5 with gain
of tempo.
18 . . . l:tb8?
But this move is bad . The knight is stuck on
the poor square d7. Agai n , strategically
Alexandria is not u p to the mark (N2).
1 9 .l::!.c 1 as
After the immediate 1 9 . . . b5 Black obviously
did not l i ke the reply 20 a5.
Akhmylovskaya has outplayed her oppo­
nent, which is not s u rprising - we have
al ready mentioned her superiority ove r
Alexandria in positional play. But now
Akhmylovskaya begins to have d ifficu lties.
Her advantage needs to be exploited i n the
most accu rate way, and usually she does
not manage this (L 3). Now Wh ite should
have played 20 lt:Jd 1 ! . The knight heads via
c4 to the d6-sq uare . I n pass i n g , and this is
very important, Wh ite attacks the c6-paw n ,
diverting t h e opponent from playi n g . . . b6-
 A Chess Player's Virtues and Deficiencies ltJ 21

b5. After 2 0 . . . .U.fc8 2 1 tt:::le 3 s h e is th reatening 25 . . J:td8 ! 26 tt:::l c 4 l:tdd5 suggests itself. Now
22 lbc4, and 2 1 . . . b5 is hardly possible in 27 tt:::l d 6 is no longer so dangerous - the
view of 22 axb5 , when the rook at c8 is king's rook has forced its way i nto the
hanging. 20 . . . c5 is also bad on account of 21 centre , where it attacks the d4-pawn and
d5. supports the underm i n i n g move . . . c6-c5.
20 l:ic2? .l:!.b7 U nfortunately, Alexand ria m issed this op­
21 tt:Jd 1 portun ity (N2).

Now this is no longer so strong - Black has a 25 . . . a4? !

conven ient way of defending her c6-paw n . 26 tt:Jc4 tt:Ja6
27 tt:Jd6
21 . . . tt:Jb8
b5 If 27 tt:::la5? ! there follows 27 . . . c5. Akhmy­
22 tt:Je3
lovskaya is usually not attracted by flank
23 axb5
diversions, but plays towards the centre .
There was the i nteresting move 23 .l::t c 5! ? .
Exploiting the fact that i t i s hard for the knight 27 . . . l:!.b6
to tear itself away from the defence of the c6- This is p robably correct. In the event of the
pawn, White attacks b5 and cuts off the black sharper 27 . . . .t\.b3 the followi ng variation was
queen's path to b4. possible: 28 'ti'xc6 tt:::l b 4? (28 . . . a3 29 it'a4)
29 'iVc8 'iWb8 30 tt:::lf7+ ! 'it>g8 31 "it'xe6 ,
23 . . . l:!.xb5
th reaten i n g the famous smothered mate
Although Black has acq u i red some weak
(31 . . . tt:Jxc2 32 tt:::l h 6+ 'it>h8 33 'ifg8+! l:txg8
pawns on the q ueenside, her pieces are
34 tt:::lf 7 mate ) .
gradually coming i nto play and the position
28 'i!Va5 h6
is becoming sharper.
Black cou l d have taken her last piece across
24 fic3 fia7
to the q ueenside: 28 . . . l:ta8, but she prefers
25 �d1
to play more cunningly. As we have just
25 tt:Jc4 was stronger. see n , Black needs an escape square for her
king, and at the same time she invites her
opponent to take the a4-pawn, after which
l i nes are opened on the q ueenside for an
attack.
29 �xa4 ? !
Akhmylovskaya is g reedy. 29 .U.d3 fol lowed
by .l::!. a 3 was preferable.
29 . . . .l:f.a8
How sharply the situation has changed ! For
the pawn Black has a dangerous attack
along the opened a- and b-fi les ( i magine to
you rself a Benko Gambit with the wh ite king
on the q ueenside) . 30 . . . it'b8 is th reatened,
and then the black knight will go to b4 . . .
W hat does Wh ite want? Probably, to play We see that, as soon as tense calculati ng
her knight to d6. The rook at b5 w i l l have to play has beg u n instead of quiet manoeu­
retreat somewhere , but all the same it w i l l vri n g , Alexandria has outplayed Akhmylovs­
remain on an o p e n fi l e , whereas t h e second kaya . There is noth ing s u rprising in this, i n
black rook will be passive. The refore view o f N1 a n d L 2.
22 � PART I
30 .:tc3 'ifb8
31 lbc4 l:.b5
31 . . . .l:.b4 also came i nto consideratio n .
3 2l:.a3 tlJc7
33 'ifc2 tiJdS
White has successfu l ly i ncl uded her rook i n
the defence , and t h e position is now rather
unclear. She should have simply defended
her pawn by 34 g3. The preparatory ex­
change of rooks , carried out by Akhmylovs­
kaya, is incorrect.
34l:.xa8? 'ifxa8
35 g3
What told here was the 35 m i n utes spent to
no pu rpose i n the opening by Nana. In time­
trouble (N3) she missed a comparatively
simple way to win. Can you see what she
should have played?
Black would have won by 35 . . . c5! 36 dxc5
tlJb4 37 'ii'b 3? ! (37 'ii'c 3 is more tenacious)
37 .. .'ii' e4+ . The geometry is attractive : the
attack along the file is strengthened by the
inclusion of the queen along the seemingly
firmly blocked h 1 -a8 diagonal .
35 . . . 'ifa6?
36l:.d3
Now 36 . . . tiJb4 37 l:ta3 tlJxc2 38 .lba6 tL!xd4
would have led to a roughly equal endgame.
But i n a severe time scramble Alexand ria
plays for a w i n .
36 . . . .l:tb4 !
37 tiJa3 'ii'b 6
38 tlJc4 'ii'b S
39 tlJa3??
A serious ove rsight. After 39 b3 the position
would have remained u nclear.
39 . . . l:xb2+!
40 'ifxb2 'ifxd3+
Black has regained the pawn and now has a
big positional advantage . Alexand ria's supe­
riority i n sharp play told i n the e n d .
Here Akhmylovskaya sealed her move. On
the resu m ption Nana converted her advan­
tage i n highly instructive fashion . The end­
ing of the game is q u ite a good i l l u stration of
an idea exam i ned in the 6th part of the book
i n a lectu re by g randmaster G rigory Kaidanov.
41 �a1
Now the obvious 4 1 . . .tLlc3 would have led to
the win of the d4-paw n . The best defensive
possibil ity for Wh ite was 42 "ii'b 3! 'ii'x d4 43
tL!c2 . Strangely enough , here even a detailed
analysis did not enable a convi ncing winning
path to be found (cf. the chapte r 'How hard it
is to win a won position ! ' from the fi rst book
of my series School of Chess Excellence).
Teari ng myself away at some point from the
tiring analysis of variations, I suddenly rea­
lised that all Black's d ifficu lties with the
conversion of her obvious advantage stem-
 A Chess Player's Virtues and Deficiencies ttJ 23

med from the non-participation of her king. 52 'it>xe6 h4

Was it worth spend ing tempi on the w i n n i n g 53 lLlxc6 lLlxf4+
of the not t o o important d4-paw n , allowing 54 'it>x15 h3
White during this time to consol idate? Wh ite resigned .
41 . . . 'it>h7! !
Now let us analyse the n i nth game, which
42 tt:'lb1 'it>g6!
proved to be the last i n the matc h . Alexan­
Th reatening . . . 'it>g6-h5-g4-h3. If 43 'it'b8
d ria was lead i n g her opponent by two poi nts
there follows 43 .. .'i!i'xd4+ 44 'it>a2 li:Jb4+!
and had the wh ite pieces. Akhmylovskaya
with a decisive attack.
needed to win two games in a row.
43 'i'd2 'i!i'xd2
44 tt:Jxd2 'it>h5 Alexandria - Akhmylovskaya
45 lLlc4 9th match game, Kislovodsk 1 980
Everything else is equally hopeless. The Trompowsky Opening
main variation of the analysis looked l i ke 1 d4 lLlf6
this: 45 h3 g5 46 fxg5 hxg5 47 'it>b2 g4 (47 . . . 2 .ltg5 d5
f4? 48 gxf4 gxf4 49li:Jf3) 48 hxg4+ (48 h 4 f4) Even i n a situation when a d raw is equ iva­
48 . . . 'it>xg4 49 'it>c2 ! ? (bad is 49lL'lf 1 'it>f3 with lent to defeat, Akhmylovskaya chooses the
the threat of 50 .. .'it>f2 or 50 . . . 'it>e2 5 1 li:Jh2 quietest system of development. On the one
'it>t2 , while 49 'it>b3 leads to the main hand, this is correct - you should play 'your'
variation) 49 . . .'it>xg3 50 'it>d3 'it>g2! (but not positions, and employ variations that corre­
50 . . .f4? 51 'it>e4; 50 . . . 'it>f2 5 1 li:Jb3 f4 52 'it>e4 spond to your own chess tastes and style of
is also inaccu rate) 5 1 'it>c4 (if 5 1 li:Jb3 or 51 play. On the other hand, one can only reg ret
We2 , then 51 . . . f4 is decisive) 5 1 . . . 'it>f2 ! (51 . . . that her style is insufficiently u n iversal and
f4 i s less method ica l : 52 'it>c5 f3 5 3 'it>xc6 f2 even at such an i mportant moment it does
54 'lt>d6 and 54 . . . lt:Jf4? 55 d5! is bad for not allow (on accou nt of L2) the employment
Black) 52 'it>c5 (52 'it>d3 li:Jf4+ 53 'it>c4 'it>e2) of sharper development plans .
52 . . . c.t>e2 with an easy w i n , si nce White is not 3 .ltxf6 exf6
able even to sacrifice the knight for the f­ 4 e3 .lte6
pawn. 5 lL'ld2 c6
45 . . . 'it>g4 6 .ltd3 f5
46 lLla5 lbe7 7 'ili'f3
47 'it>b2 This move is usually useful in such posi­
If 47 lL'lb7 both 47 . . . g5 and 47 . . . 'it>h3 48li:Jd8 tions, but here, I think, Wh ite should not
W:h2 49 lt:Jxe6 'it>xg3 50 lt:Jxg7 'it>g4 are have been i n a h u rry to play it. 7 lt:Je2 was
possible. sounder, followed by c2--c4 and lt:Jc3 (or
47 . . . 'it>h3 li:Jf4 ) . And only the n , if it was req u i red , 'ii'f3
48 'it>c3 'it>xh2 could be played .
49 'it>c4 'it>xg3 7 . . . g6
50 'it>c5 h5 8 lL'le2 lt:Jd7
51 'it>d6 Now if 9 c4 there is the unpleasant reply
If 51 lt:Jxc6 the simplest is 51 . . . lt:Jxc6 52 9 . . . .ltb4 , and so fi rst Alexandria castles .
'it>xc6 h4 53 d5 h3, and the black pawn 9 0-0 .ltd6
queens with check. 9 . . li:Jf6
. and 1 O . . . lt:Je4 was stronger. It was
51 . . . lL'ld5 here that the d rawbacks to the q ueen's early
5 1 . . . h4 would also have won easily. development would have told.
24 � PART I

1 0 c4 tt:lf6
1 1 tt:lf4 0-0
1 2 cxd5 cxd5? !
I would have preferred t o recaptu re on d5
with a piece , probably the bishop. Akhmylovs­
kaya wants to invade with her knight at e4,
but in itself this square is not so i mportant.
Far more sign ificant is the fact that the l i g ht­
square bishop remains shut in by its own
pawns.
Now let us remember White's last five
moves : tt:le2 , 0-0, c4 , lt:Jf4 and cxd5. All of
them, with the exception of the last one, are
obvious, al most self-evident, and they could
have been made even i n a bl itz game. How bad ly, but don't forget that she needs to win
much time should be spent on them? without fai l . Akhmylovskaya begins playi ng
Probably about ten m i n utes, slightly less, actively. But sharp play is not her natu ral
slightly more . But how much time had element and therefore each of her next few
Alexandria spent, do you think? 30 m i n utes? moves p roves not very successfu l .
No, go higher - more than an hour! This is, 13 . . . g5?!
of cou rse , completely impractical , and it 14 tt:lh5 tt:le4 ? !
seriously red uces the chances of success i n 1 4 . . . g4 1 5 lt:Jxf6+ 'ir'xf6 a n d t h e n . . . f5-f4
the game. Ahead lie problems that are was better.
rather more difficult than those that have 1 5 �e2 g4? !
been solved over the past five moves, and
Why concede the f4-sq uare?
there will al most certainly be insufficient
16 tt:lf4 �g5
time for them. What told here was not only
Nana's 'time-trouble sickness' (N3), but also
her excessive emotional ity (N4). The atmos­
phere of the decisive game affects her,
forces her to become nervous and to re­
check her decisions, as a resu lt of which the
qual ity of her play suffers.
1 3 tt:lb3 ? !

(see diagram)

There is noth ing for the knight to do at b3.

Unfortunately, Alexandria sometimes places
her pieces bad ly (N2). 1 3 'ife2 was better,
vacating the f3-square for the knight or the
pawn, and if necessary the black knight Let's now consider how Wh ite should
could have been d riven away from e4. proceed further.
However, all the same Wh ite's position I have an u nexpected suggestion : let's
remains very sol i d . Black does not stand check 1 7 �xe4 and, say, 1 7 .. .fxe4 1 8 g3.
 A Chess Player's Virtues and Deficiencies
White has an excel lent knight at f4 ; the
exchange on f4 will leave Black with a
hopelessly bad bishop. (You will real ise that,
if the black pawn had sti l l been at g7, I would
not have suggested this.)
Wh ite has some useful moves , for example
ltlc5, .l:tc 1 and 'ii'b 5. But what play does
Black have? Perhaps only . . . h7-h5-h4 ,
preparing a n attack along t h e h-fi l e . But
fi rstly, this is not too dangerous, si nce
. . . hxg3 can always be answered by fxg3 ,
maintai ning a defence along t h e 2 n d ran k . I n
addition , i t is clear that Wh ite's activity w i l l
develop m u c h more q u ickly.
I th ink that afte r the exchange on e4 any
play for a win by Black would have ended ,
without seriously beg i n n i n g , and h e r posi­
tion would h ave become completely u n ­
promising. Moreove r, it is n o t essential to
hu rry with the exchange - the p reparatory
1 7 g3 is in no way i nferior.
1 7 f3? !
This i s also possible, although i t is b y n o
means the safest plan . I n p rinciple, when
the opponent has two bishops it is more
correct not to open the positio n , but, on the
contrary, to block it.
17 . . . gxf3
1 8 .l::!. xf3 �h8
1 9 �af1 �g8
Black has developed some pressu re on the
kingside. If you r opponent is prepari ng an
attack, you should seek a way of chang i n g
the cou rse o f t h e play, a n d transpose i nto
some static situation that is advantageous to
you . Let's also check 20 jLxe4 here . I realise
that it is a pity to undouble the black pawns,
but on the other hand it is advantageous for
W h ite to simplify the positio n . Let's say,
20 . . .fxe4 (20 . . . dxe4 is no better) 21 Itg3 'iWe7
(or 21 . . . �h4) 22 J::t x g8+ J::tx g8 23 '.t> h 1 .
Although things aren't so q u iet as afte r 1 7
.ixe4 , here too Black's attack has l ittle
chance of success . Wh ite has a wonderful
knight at f4 , which holds her enti re position
25
together. It only remains for her to manoeu­
vre her knight from b3 to some decent
square, c3 for example (say, after lt:Jc5 and
then lt:Ja4-c3) .
Alas, as it transpi red after the game, the
exchange on e4 did not even occur to
Alexandria. Routi ne thinking i nterfered : Black
has doubled pawns, so why undouble them?
In general , i n this phase of the game Nana's
i nadeq uate positional arsenal clearly tells
(N2).
20 �h1 ? 'ii'e7!
An excellent prophylactic move . Now in the
event of jLxe4 White will be unable to also
exchange rooks by .l:!.g3 . But all the same
Wh ite's position remains sol id; noth ing
terrible has yet occu rred . Obviously it is time
that h e r bad ly placed knight at b3 was
moved somewhere.
2 1 lt:Jc1 �g4
22 �c2?
It is te mpti n g to place the knight at d3, but
Black has a strong reply which was u nder­
esti mated by Alexandria. What told was her
poor sense of danger (NS). 22 'ifd 1 and 23
lt:Jce2 was sounder. From e2 the knight
would have su pported its colleague at f4 and
controlled the g3-square , and i n some cases
it could have gone to c3.
22 . . . �ag8
26 � PART I
23 lbd3 ..td7!
An excel lent move - the bishop u nexpect­
edly th reatens to come i nto play via b5. If 24
a4, then 24 . . . b5 ! .
Alexandria decided against taking o n d5
on account of a wild variation which does
credit to her imagi nation (N1) . (I suspect,
howeve r, that it did not even occ u r to
Akhmylovskaya . ) 24 lbxd5 'ir'h4 (th reaten­
ing . . . lbg3+) 25 .l:!h3 .i.c6 ! ! 26 .l:txh4 .l::tx h4.
For the queen Black has only a rook, but all
her pieces are participating i n the attack,
and it is difficult for Wh ite to parry the
nu merous th reats .
After finding such a spectacular idea for her
opponent, with the move made Nana over­
looked another, simpler one. However, the
position has become much sharper and it is
not easy to g ive Wh ite good advice.
24 ttJt2 l:!.xf4 !
25 l:!.xf4 ..txf4
Question : with what should Wh ite take on
e4?
During the last few moves the situation has
changed abruptly, and has become un­
pleasant for White , although as yet by no
means hopeless. Here it is very i mportant to
mai ntain you r composu re , and cal m ly tackle
the resulting problems. But, as I have
al ready mentioned , Alexandria is exces-
sively emotional , and a change in the
character of the play strongly i nfluences her
mood . She is not able to stop, take herself i n
hand a n d cal mly calculate variations, a n d so
she usually commits one m i stake after
anothe r (N4) .
We are faced with a problem , the solvi ng of
which demands a combination of accu rate
calculation and correct positional evalua­
tio n . I think that lbxe4 is correct. After
26 . . . .i.xe3 there is 27 lbc5 or 27 lbf6 , if there
is noth ing better, so that only the reply
26 . . . .i.xh2 needs to be feared. But then 27
'it>xh2 fxe4 28 'ii' h 5 , attacking the f7- and d5-
pawns, or 27 . . . 'ii' h 4+ 28 'it>g 1 fxe4 29 1:1xf7 .
I n both cases Wh ite retains counterplay.
The captu re on e4 with the bishop is much
weaker.
26 ..txe4? ..tbB?
As soon as things come to specific calcula­
tion , Akhmylovskaya makes a m i stake (L2,
L3). I n reply to 26 lbxe4 she had probably
planned to retreat her bishop, trying to
exploit the 'advantage of the two bishops' ,
and now she does not want to deviate from
her plan . Howeve r, the capture on e4 with
either pawn would have secu red her a big
advantage :
a) 26 . . .fxe4 2 7 exf4 e3! (a blockade o f the
pawns on the dark squares must not be
allowed ) . The bishop i m mediately acq u i res
excel lent prospects , for example, . . . .i.g4,
. . . .i.f5-e4 or . . . a7-a6 and . . . .i.bS. The
passed pawn is also ve ry dangerous.
b) 26 . . . dxe4 27 exf4 'ii'b 4 ! . Now . . . .i.b5 is
th reatened , the d4-pawn is attacked , de­
fe nding it is rather i nconvenient, and the
wh ite knight is badly placed .
I don't know which of these captu res is the
stronger, but i n any event both are bette r
than the move made by Akhmylovskaya.
27 ..tf3 'ifh4?
Another m istake - Lena simply overlooks
her opponent's only reply. 27 .. J::t e 8 should
 A Chess Player's Virtues and Deficiencies
have been played, setti ng White the problem
of defending the e3-pawn .
28 ttlh3 l:le8
29 'i'd2 "ile7
30 .txd5?
Now the white knight is stuck for some time
at h3. Of cou rse, 30 tt'lf4 'ii'x e3 3 1 'ii'x e3
Ii.xe3 32 lLlxd5 was stronger, with somewhat
the better endgame for White . Again Alexan­
dria displays her i n adeq uate positional
understanding (N2) together with her ten ­
dency to make several m istakes i n a row
( N4) .
Nana rejected 30 tt'lf4 because of the reply
30 . . . i.c6, after which it is not possible to
capture on d5. A trivial reason ! The simplest
was to play as solidly as possible: 31 g3!
'i'xe3 32 'it'xe3 llxe3 and now either 33
.txd5 , or the cool-headed 33 'lt.>g2 . There is
no need to hu rry with the regai n i n g of the
pawn - everything is safely blockaded, the
mobil ity of the bishops is restricted and
W h ite is at any rate n o worse.
30 . . . "ilxe3
31 "ilxe3 l:lxe3
Th reatening 32 . . J:te2 .
32 .tf3
Black's position is preferable - she has the
two bishops and for the moment the wh ite
knight is out of play. If only the kingside
l2J 27
pawns weren't broken . . .
Wh ite will obviously want to bri n g her king to
the centre . Before this happen s , some kind
of activity m ust be undertake n . I suggest
32 . . . a5 ! ? with the idea of . . . JLa7. It is
advantageous for Black to l u re the pawn to
d5 and to post her bishop i n the centre at d4.
32 . . . b6? !
What for? Afte r a l l , Wh ite w i l l not want to
take on b7, si nce she has only j ust played
iLf3 . Now it will not be easy to attack the d4-
pawn . Again the habit of making moves 'on
general g rou nds' prevented Lena from ex­
ploiti n g the advantages of her position (L3).
33'it>g1 'it>g7
Had Alexandria now played 34 'it.>f2 , she
would have obtai ned an excellent position . It
would only remain for her to play g2-g3 and
place her knight o n f4 . Howeve r, Nana was
al ready in time-trouble (N3) and in such
cases logic and calcu lation tend to be
replaced by emotions and feel i ngs - which
are freq u e ntly erroneous. Alexandria saw
that in the event of 34 'lt.>f2 .i:i.d3 she would
s i m u ltaneously have two pawn s en prise ,
but the fact that afte r 35 .l:!.d 1 .l:.xd 1 36 Ji.xd 1
it is n ot possible to captu re on h2 was
someth i n g she did n ot have time to real ise.
34 l:ld 1 ?! l:le8
35 g3?
Why is this move plan ned by Wh ite incor­
rect? She should have asked herself what
Black wanted, why she retreated her rook.
Only to avoid the tempo-gai n i n g 'lt.>f2 , or with
some other idea? Of cou rse , it is heading for
c8. It should not have been allowed onto the
open c-fi le, and so 35 l:tc 1 should have been
played .
35 . . . l:lc8
36 l:ld2 .td6
37 a3 .te7
38 tt:Jt4 .tg5
I have to admit that I don't u nderstand the
point of the bishop manoeuvre to g5.
39'it>f2 'it>f8
28 � PART I

40 h4 � h6 .i.c4) 46 ..ic4 .l:!.h3 47 d5 .t!.xh4 48 'it>e3 i.d7!

49 ..ie2 ! , but not 49 d6? .i:th6! and not 49
'iii>d 4? 'it>e 7! .
43 a4 �g7
44 lbe2 J:tc7!
An excellent prophylactic move . Akhmylovs­
kaya takes away the important c4-sq uare
from the enemy bishop. Now 45 ..ic4 is bad
in view of 45 . . . Sl.xa4 (with the rook at c8 the
capture on a4 wou l d not have been possible
on accou nt of the i ntermed iate move .i.a6) .
Black wants , afte r placi n g her king on d6, to
d rive the wh ite bishop from the centre and
then play her own bishop to e6.
45 �d3 �c2?
Akhmylovskaya wrongly deviates from her
Here the game was adjourned . Wh ite has a
plan. 45 . . . 'i!te7! would have retained an
solid but neve rtheless rather passive posi­
advantage for Black, whe reas the invasion of
tion. Despite her broken pawns on the
the rook is easily parried.
kingside, Black retains the i n itiative thanks
to her two bishops and control of the open c­ 46 �e3
file. Havi ng defended the d4-paw n , Wh ite wants
to offer the exchange of rooks by 47 .t!.c3 .
What is Wh ite's best play? Her bishop is
The minor piece endgame is d rawn , and if
now firing i nto space , and it would be not a
Black avoids the exchange the i nvasion of
bad thing to switch it to b3, covering the l i g ht
the wh ite rook at c8 or c7 is unpleasant.
squares on the queenside and prepari ng the
exchange of rooks on c2 . After il.d 1 ! the 46 . . . �h6+
game would have soon ended i n a d raw. 47 �f3
Unfortunately, Alexandria sealed a less Again th reatening .t!.c3 .
accu rate move (N2, NS). 47 . . . ..tg7
Now Wh ite could have retu rned with her
41 i.d5? �a4!
king to e3, but the exchange of rooks also
The bishop can no longer go to b3, and
wo rks i mmed iately.
Black wants to activate her pieces by . . . l::!. c 1
48 .l:tc3 �xc3
and . . . .i.c2-e4.
49 lL'lxc3
42 b3
If 49 . . . ..ixd4 there follows 50 lbb5 with a
In analysis we decided that this move was d raw. The position has become completely
necessary. But now Black acq u i res the equal , and Black no longer has any win­
excellent square c3 for the i nvasion of her n i n g chances .
rook. 49 . . . �d7
42 . . . �e8 50 lbe2 �e6
We mainly reckoned on 42 . . . i.d7 43 a4 51 �c4 �e7
.i.xf4 44 gxf4 .t!.c3 . Here Wh ite's defence is 52 �e3 �d6
not so easy as it may appear at fi rst sight. 53 lL'lf4 �h6
The best is probably 45 'i!te2 ! .i.c8 ! ? 54 �f3 �g7
(45 . . . .t!.h3 4 6 .t!.c2 ; 4 5 . . . b 5 4 6 axb5 i.xb5+ 47 55 �e3 �h6
 A Chess Player's Virtues and Deficiencies 29

56 Wf3 you will agree that the m istakes made by

Draw agreed .
As you see, the game tu rned out to be rather
difficult and dreary, with n u m e rous mis­
takes. What can be done - such far from
exemplary games occur with each one of u s ,
and far more often t h a n we wou l d l i ke . I think
both contestants were not accidental , but
were the conseq uence of their inherent
chess and psychological deficiencies. I
hope that this discussion will induce you to
look at you rself and you r play, think about
what is h i ndering you , and about what
deficiencies you u rgently need to eradicate .

Exercises

As a piece of homework I am offeri ng you

three exercises . They are taken from the
games of one and the same famous
grandmaster. After you have fou n d the
solutions , think about what may be the
vulnerable point of this g randmaster, if i n all
three he cases he did not choose the
strongest conti nuation.

2. White to move

1. Black to move

3. Wh ite to move
30 � PART I

Sol utions

1 . Smyslov-Botvinnik (world champion­ work by students at the Dvoretsky-Yusu pov

ship match, Moscow 1 958, 7th game) . school) .
At this point M i khail Botvi n n i k accepted his 24 . . . l:tf7
opponent's offe r of a d raw. However, he 25 i.d5!
could have gained an advantage by sacrific­ 25 .l:!.xf7 lbe2+ 26 .:.xe2 .l:.d 1 + 27 i.f 1 .l:!.xf 1 +
ing the exchange. 28 'it>xf1 "ilr'd 1 + 29 .l:!.e1 i.b5+ 30 'lt>g2 'if'd5+
16 . . . .:txf3 ! 31 'it> g 1 "ilr':f7 32 'il'f4 also win s , but 25 i.d5!
17 gxf3 'ii'c 6 is simpler and more convi ncing.
18 'ii'd 1 ..td5 25 . . . tt::Jf 3+
19 .:!.h3 26 'lt>h 1 'ii'xf2
1 9 .l:!.c1 'il'e6 20 b3 J:Ua. 27 ..txf7 + 'lt>h8
19 . . . "ife6 28 �e8+!
With a double attack on h3 and a2 .
3. Botv i n n i k-Suttles (Belgrade 1 969) .
Why didn't Botvi n n i k play this? H e re is his
The tempti ng 25 f5? is i ncorrect in view of
own explanation: 'During the game I consid­
25 . . . .l:!.xe4 ! . The game went 25 !U3? ! l:Ic4 26
ered the exchange sacrifice only after the
.l:!.d3, and now instead of 26 . . . 'if'b4 ? ! 27 b3
preparatory exchange of queens on b3,
'if'xd2 28 .l:!.xd2 .l:!.c7 29 .l:.de2 Black could
overlooking after 1 6. .nxf3 1 7 'iixc4 the
have equal ised by 26 . . . .Jif5 ! 27 lDxf5+ gxf5
.

intermediate move 1 7 . . '!J.xe3+ '.

28 J;Ib3 it'c7.
.

An u nexpected combination was found by

2. Botvinnik-Smyslov (world champion­
ship match , Moscow 1 958, 1 8th game)
The game went 23 i.h3? lbe5 24 lbxe5
fxe5 25 f4? (25 i.e6+ 'it>h8 26 f3! is equal)
25 ...i.c6 26 'if'g5? ! , and here Vasily Smyslov
played 26 . . . .l:!.de8?, missing a forced win by
26 . . J:!d2 ! 27 i.e6+ l:tf7! 28 i.xf7+ 'it>xf7 .
But earlier a win was missed by W h ite.
23 tt::Jd 4! ! tt::J x d4
23 . . . cxd4 24 i.d5+ ! Jlxd5 25 �e8!
24 . . . 'it>h8 25 !'!.e7.
24 .l:te7!
Botvinnik made a mistake not only in the
game, but also i n his analysis. He gave 24
i.d5+ ! (Botvinnik's exclamation mark) 24 . . .
:xd5 25 .l:te7 , but i n this case Black saves
himself by 25 . . . lbe2+! 26 �f 1 (not 26
.l:!.7xe2? l:td 1 ! or 26 l:t 1 xe2? l:td 1 + 27 �g2
i.c6+ 28 f3 i.xf3+) 26 . . . .l:!.f7 27 .l:txf7 'it>xf7
28 'i!Vxh7+ 'lt>fa (found when solvi ng home-
g randmaste r G eorgy Tri ngov.
25 b3 ! ! ..txf1
26 'ti'b2 'lt>f8
27 lt:Je6+ l:txe6
28 dxe6
(As was poi nted out many years later by
X. Fernandes , Wh ite's combination was nev­
ertheless insufficient for a w i n . In the
variation suggested by Botv i n n i k 25 . . . l:txe4 !
or 26 .l:!.xe4 i.xf 1 27 lbe6+ 'it>g8 28 "ilr'b2 l:te5
29 .l:!.xe5 dxe5 30 'it'xe5 l:tc7? 31 'ili'xc7 it is
not essential to g ive up the rook - after
30 . . . '1t>f7 ! Wh ite has only a perpetual check.)
I n his comments on these th ree examples,
Botvi n n i k h i mself gave the d iagnosis: 'what
told was my old "illness" - weakness of
combinative vision. ' It is best treated by
doing exercises on the solvi n g of studies
and practical positions with an u n usual and
pretty content.
 31

Mark Dvoretsky

The Way to the Top

(from an i nterview after Sergey Dolmatov's victory

in the 1 978 World J u n ior Championship)

I
n chess , as i n any type of sport, the his nervous system . Now he has enough
guarantee of a competitor's futu re suc­ strength both for five hours' play, and for the
cesses is a clearly organised trai n i n g proc­ entire length of a tournament.
ess. There are many playing ski l l s , such as There are always many problems, and when
the abil ity to calculate variations deeply, to you solve one, others arise. For example,
evaluate a position correctly, to convert an the improvement i n Dolmatov's technique
advantage accu rately, and to find the psy­ led to h i m starting to avoid positions
chologically correct solutio n . These skills i nvolvi ng calculatio n , and aiming to decide
can and should be developed by special the outcome of a game by purely techn ical
training. The constant focusing of a player's means.
attention on any 'retarded' components of
his play and the repeating of special
exercises helps a particular deficiency to be
elimi nated or reduced to the m i n i m u m .
O f cou rse, skills can also b e developed
without systematic study, as a result of
tournament p ractice alone. Howeve r, this
process is uncontrolled and haphazard . As a
result, many strong players have deficien­
cies that are amazing for their class . But we
have been able to achieve success i n
developing reliabil ity a n d stabil ity i n play,
precisely by the systematic e l i m i nation of
deficiencies.
Valery Chekhov, for example, had a poor
mastery of endgame tech nique, and in This position was reached i n one of
worki ng with him the main focus had to be Dolmatov's games (he had Black) after the
on a study of typical methods of conducti ng fol lowing opening moves: 1 e4 c5 2 tt::lf3
endings. As a result the standard of his play tt::l c 6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:Jxd4 tt::lf6 5 tt:Jc3 e5 6
improved literally before our eyes. lt:Jxc6 bxc6 7 i.g5 .l:Ib8 8 i.c4.
For a long time Sergey Dolmatov lacked Here, faithful to his 'techn ical' credo, he
physical stamina, but constant participation chose 8 ... h6? ! , and although he subse­
in sports (ru n n i n g , footbal l , swi m m i n g etc . ) quently won , i n a post-mortem he was
combi ned with hydrothe rapy, strengthened criticised for havi ng rejected 8 . . l:i.xb2 ! .
.
32 � PART I

I ndeed , it is not hard to demonstrate that radical ly p reventi n g the underm i n i n g move
after 9 �b3 �b4 1 0 �d2 'ifa5 1 1 tt:Ja4 ( 1 1 f2-f4 . Black achieves a more than comfort­
'ii'f3 �a6!?) 1 1 . . .tt:Jxe4 in retu rn for the able game.
exchange Black has a very strong attack. Whi l e analysing this positio n , at the same
Having observed this tendency i n good time, time we studied the plans for the two sides
we took appropriate measures. Our efforts when there is such a pawn struct u re in the
were aimed at developing in Dolmatov a middlegame. The typical advance f2-f4
taste for sharp , calculati n g , dynamic play, proves h i g h ly effective , for example, in the
which in general is typical of his natu ral variation 1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
talent. This work soon told and helped tt:Jxd4 lDf6 5 tt:Jc3 a6 6 �e3 e5 7 lDf3 h6 8
Sergey to victory i n the world championship. �c4 �e6 9 �xe6 fxe6 1 0 lbh4.
I n the cou rse of thei r work my pupils make
active use of thei r own games and analyses.
Here is an example. Once, when studying
the position that arises from the Chelyabinsk
Variation after 1 e4 c5 2 tt:Jf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4
4 tt:Jxd4 lbf6 5 tt:Jc3 e5 6 lDdb5 d6 7 a4 h6 8
�c4 a6 9 tt:Ja3 il.e6 1 0 0-0 .l:i.c8, Yusu pov
discovered a reply that at fi rst sight seemed
unpleasant - 1 1 il.xe6 fxe6 1 2 'ii'd 3 .

After 1 0 ... \t>f7 Wh ite replies 1 1 f4! , and if

1 1 . . . exf4 , then 1 2 e5! with a strong attack,
and otherwise 1 2 f5 is unpleasant.
The plan with . . . g7-g5 i n similar positions
also occu rred earl ier, for example i n the
game Dri mer-Bronstei n (Budapest 1 96 1 ) .

Now if 1 2 . . . �e7 , then 1 3 'ifg3 is strong, and

Black cannot castle on account of 1 4 �xh6,
while if 1 3 . . . Wf7 , then the reply 1 4 f4! is
unpleasant. After some searching Yusu pov
suggested 1 2 . . . 'ii'd 7 fol lowed by . . .'tif7 ,
. . . ii.e7 and . . 0-0. However, such a slow
.

plan allows Wh ite quite good chances of

developing an initiative by f2-f4.
A joint analysis enabled us after 1 2 . . �e7 1 3
.

�g3 to find the strong move 1 3 . . . g5! ,

 The Way to the Top
With 1 6 tt:lh4 Wh ite i n itiated action on the
ki ngside, but after 1 6 'it>f7 1 7 .l:Ig3 lt:Jd4 1 8
...
'id1 g5! he was obliged to retu rn with his
knight: 1 9 l2lf3 l2lxf3+ 20 'ii'xf3 b5 2 1 a3
'ic6 etc.
Thus open ing analyses are closely i nterwo­
ven with the study of typical positions,
sometimes not di rectly l i n ked with the
variation in question . I n othe r cases too ,
when in any details we discove r someth ing
general, we try to focus attention on this
general aspect.
A trai ner is, of cou rse , also obliged to think
about how to reveal the strongest aspects of
his pupils' chess talent. The qual ity of his
work is characte rised , i n particular, by the
diversity of his pupils' styles of play. A
convincing example is provided by Viktor
Kart, who has prod uced such dive rse
playe rs as Alexander Belyavs ky, Oleg
Romanishin, Adrian M i khalchishin and Marta
Liti nskaya. Each of my pupils also has their
own disti nctive style, which does not depend
on my tastes. Thus Yusu pov is especially
strong in a complicated strategic struggle,
which for m e was always a stu mbli ng-block.
33
Generally speaki n g , the role of the trai ner i n
modern big-ti me s p o rt h a s increased g reatly.
This also applies to chess. A top-class
player has to be exce llently prepared psy­
chological ly, physical ly and in the purely
chess sense , and achievi ng this without the
help of an experienced me ntor is far from
easy.
Correct psychological orientation is i m por­
tant. Anton Makarenko (a prominent Soviet
pedagogue and writer in the 1 920s and
1 930s - translator') advised teachers to help
their pupils arrange for themselves a defi­
n ite system of goals: i m mediate, distant
(major) and middle (i nte rmediate ) .
I n our work t h e m a i n aim was t o become a
g e n u i n e , top-class chess player. The i m me­
diate aims were the solvi ng of cu rrent
improvement obj ectives and successful play
i n regular events . And the implementation of
a preparation program for the junior champi­
onships of the world and of E u rope, aimed at
1 %-2 years from the start of our joint work,
was that i ntermediate goal , successfully
l i nking the cu rrent and futu re objectives i nto
a u n ited whole . . .
34 � PART I

Mark Dvoretsky

American Observations

A
n analysi s of playi ng style, virtues and M ichael G ranne-Dvoretsky
deficiencies i s usually applied to a Bl itz Game 1 99 1
specific player. One has to be very cautious
1 e4 g 6 2 d 4 �g7 3 tt:Jc3 c 6 4 f4 d 6 5 tt:Jf3
about tal king s i m u ltaneously i n this way
�g4 6 �e3 "it'b6 7 "ifd2 tt:Jd7?
about many people: after a l l , we are all
I forgot to exchange fi rst on f3 and Black's
different, and each has h i s attachments, his
enti re set-up i s i m mediately made sense­
princi ples , h i s desti ny. This i s why I always
less.
related with s u spicion to d i scussions about
the Soviet Chess School - too much i n such 8 �e2 'ii'a 5 9 0-0 b5
discussions was ideology that was advanta­
geous to the authorities , and there was too
l ittle real , chess content. Of cou rs e , if you
desire you can declare Tig ran Petrosian and
Mikhail Tal as being followers of the same
chess schoo l , but i s there any point i n this
and by whom i s it needed?
Even so, it can happen that i n the play of a
whole g roup of playe rs , to a g reater or lesser
extent, one can observe some general
features . This sometimes happens with the
pupils of one and the same trainer - when
the mentor's personal ity has too strong an
influence on his pupi l s . There can also be
other causes. Black does not develop h i s knight at f6,
I n the summer of 1 99 1 I gave lessons to fearing e4-e5. But with the wh ite king
some you ng American players . To my having castled short, the pawn attack on the
s u rprise I obse rved that many of them, when queenside i s also u n p rom i s i n g . 1 0 h3 would
playing i mportant games or meeting more have been the s i mplest way for my oppo­
emi nent opponents , did not want to play nent to emphasise his enormous lead in
actively and thought only about a d raw. development. I n stead of this M ichael carried
Clearly, the res u lt would often turn out out a completely abs u rd exchanging opera­
di rectly the opposite - ultra-cautious, pas­ tio n .
sive play usually leads to a worsening of the 1 0 tt:Jg5? ! �xe2 1 1 tt:Jxe2? 'ii'x d2 (thank
position . you ! ) 12 �xd2 h6 13 tt:Jf3 tt:Jgf6 (now the
Here are a few examples that stuck in my knight can be developed) 14 e5 tt:Jd5
memory. Black has an acceptable positi o n , and
s u bsequently he won the ending.
'Why did you exchange the queens?' I
asked my opponent.
 American Observations
'I didn't know what to play. '
'Anything you l i ke , only with the queens o n !
After all, Wh ite h a s excel lent attacking
chances . '
Generally speaking , M ichael is a player with
a fighti ng, active style, but what probably
operated here was a very common (and
fundamentally i ncorrect) reflex - the aim to
play qu ietly and as 'safely' as possible
agai nst a strong opponent. In fact, such an
approach merely plays i nto the opponent's
hands and usually makes things easier for
him.
Dvoretsky - Chris Tal bert
Simu ltaneous Display 1 99 1
1 e 4 ct:Jf6 2 tt:Jc3 d 5 3 e 5 d 4 4 exf6 dxc3 5
fxg7 cxd2+ 6 lixd2 'tixd2+ 7 ..txd2 ..txg7 8
0-0-0 �f5 (8 . . . tt:Jc6) 9 tt:Je2
The only sensible plan for Wh ite is the
exchange of the strong bishop at g7 (which
is why he deve lops his knight at e2) ,
followed by an attempt to exploit the
opponent's rather loose pawn structure . A
little earlier I gave a few lessons to Josh
Waitzki n , then one of the lead i n g Ame rican
juniors. He showed me a game of his in
which h e had played this variation with
White , but developed his knight at f3 and
soon e nded up i n an i nferior positio n . I
explained the above strategic idea to h i m
a n d soon he successfully employed it i n a
strong 'World Open' tou rnament. Typical
plans, ideas and proced u res are often far
more important than specific open ing varia­
tions, and i n addition they do not ove rload
the memory.
9 . . . ct:Jc6 1 0 i.. c 3 i.. h 6+ ! ?
I n the game Shaw-Lj u bojevic (Buenos A i res
Olympiad 1 978) Black mai ntained the bal­
ance after 1 0 .. J:tg8 1 1 ..txg7 l:!.xg7 1 2 tt:Jg3
.id7, but the bishop check also looks
sensi ble.
1 1 'it>b1 l:!.g8
35
Here, to my s u rprise , my opponent offered a
d raw! What for? Was it really in order to then
boast to his friends that he had not lost to an
i nternational master? I s there any g reat
merit in such a d raw in 1 1 moves, and for the
sake of this is it worth sitti ng down to play?
And yet peace offe rs in u n resolved positions
were also made by other participants i n this
d isplay.
1 2 tt:Jg3 .Jtg6 1 3 .Jtb5 a6? ! 1 4 i.. x c6+ bxc6
1 5 l:!.he1 l:!.d8 1 6 .Jte5 l:!.d7 1 7 b3
Black's two bishops compensate to some
extent for his pawn weaknesses. After
1 7 . . . f6 ! fol lowed by . . . e7-e5 there would
have been a com plicated struggle i n pros­
pect. But C h ris was let down by his
excessive cautio n , stemming from his de­
s i re to make a d raw.
1 7 . . . i.. g 7?? (a serious positional mistake)
1 8 .Jtxg7 l:!.xg7 1 9 l:!.xd7 'it'xd7 20 l:!.e5 !
Now Black no longer has the bishop pai r, the
wh ite rook has taken control of the entire
fifth ran k, and it is i ntending to attack the
weak a6-paw n . Black subseq uently de­
fended ve ry passively and I converted my
positional advantage without difficu lty.
Caution at the board is often the conse­
q u ence of character traits such as timid ity
and lack of confidence in one's own powe rs .
But it was evident to me that such an
36 � PART I
explanation did not fit either M ichael or C h ris
- both were stu rdy, energetic, outgoing lads .
So what was the reason?
I was i nvited to the closing ceremony of the
American under-1 6 championship and shown
several games that had been put forward for
the best game prize . Alas , there too I saw
the same pictu re .
Mark Berman - Sta n islav Garber
1 99 1
1 d 4 lt::lf6 2 c 4 g 6 3 lt::l c 3 �g7 4 e 4 d6 5 f3
0-0 6 �e3 lt::lc6 7 lt::l g e2 a6 8 l::t b 1 ! ?
A rare , but perfectly possible move . I f
8 . . . .l:tb8 there follows 9 b 4 b 5 1 0 cxb5 axb5
1 1 d5 lt::l e5 1 2 lt::ld 4 with advantage to Wh ite .
But the plan chosen in the game would
appear to be only a l ittle bette r. Evidently
here more subtle methods of play for Black
must be sought.
8 ... e5 9 d5 lt::le7 (here the knight is badly
placed , but what can be done if it cannot go
to the usual d4-sq uare?) 1 0 b4
1 0 'ii'd 2 is more accu rate , not allowing
10 . . . lt::l h 5? 1 1 g4 with advantage to White :
Damjanovic-Bobotsov (Zagreb 1 964) .
1 o lt::l h 5 1 1 g4
. . .
1 1 . . . lt::lf6??
I ncredible! How could Black not play his
knight to f4? Often i n such cases he is even
prepared to sacrifice a pawn , whereas here
he retains mate rial equal ity. Berma n , play­
ing White , judged the position afte r 1 1 . . . lt::lf4
1 2 lLlxf4 exf4 1 3 i.. d 4 i.. x d4 1 4 "ir'xd4 to be in
his favou r. In fact Black ach i eves a good
game with 1 4 . . . g5! followed by . . . lt::l e7--g6-
e5 ( 1 5 h4? gxh4 1 6 .l:txh4 lt::lf 5 ! ) .
After the passive knight retreat Garber's
position is altogether hopeless - he stands
worse on both flanks.
1 2 lt::l c 1 ( 1 2 lt::l g 3 ! ) 1 2 ... lt::l d 7 1 3 g5!? f5 14
'it>d2 ? !
Wh ite had several useful moves available:
lt::l b 3, 'ii'd 2 and h4, which he should have
made i n one order or another. I n stead ,
without having completed his development,
he determines the position of his king , which
al lows the opponent to create counterplay.
Now the open ing of the centre by 1 4 . . . c6
suggests itself. Probably even stronger is
1 4 . . . a5! ? 1 5 a3 (after 1 5 b5 White's q ueens ide
pawns are i m mobil ised) 1 5 . . . axb4 1 6 axb4
c6 - the a-file may prove useful to Black.
1 4 ... 'it>h8? 1 5 h4 l!f7? 1 6 .il..e 2 .il.. f8?
Garber failed to exploit his chance opportu­
nity. The series of passive moves has
al lowed his opponent to completely seize
the i n itiative and subsequently he success­
fully broke through on the q ueenside.
Alex Sidel n i kov - Josh Waitzkin
1 99 1
(The player with Black was the futu re winner
of the champions h i p , and the player with
Wh ite fin ished second) .
1 lt::lf3 lt::lf6 2 g 3 g 6 3 .il.. g 2 .i.g7 4 0-0 0-0
5 c3 d6 6 d4 lt::l b d7 7 .l:te1 e5 8 e4 tt::l e8? !
9 lt::l b d2 �h6
An i nte resting idea, based on what is i n
principle a s o u n d positional i d e a . Black
hopes , afte r exchanging bishops, to leave
his opponent with a passive lig ht-square
bishop. Wh ite should probably have avoided
 American Observations
the exchange with 1 0 b3 ! ? followed by .ib2
or .ia3 .
1 0 dxe5 dxe5 1 1 ttJc4 .ixc1 1 2 'ii'x c1 'ii'e7
1 3 'i'd2 c6 1 4 l:.ad 1 f6
White's position is preferable, although it is
probable that he has nothing real - he has
played too timidly. N atu ral moves are 1 5 h4,
1 5 .i h 3 or 1 5 ife3 .
1 5 tt:ld6?
The knight at c4 is clearly stronger than the
one at e8 - so why does Wh ite h i mself offer
such an exchange? Besides, the disappear­
ance of the queens is to B l ack's advantage ­
his king gains the opportun ity to move i nto
the centre .
1 5 . . . l2Jxd6 1 6 'ilr'xd6 'ii'x d6 1 7 .l:txd6 ttJb6
1 8 l2Jd2 cJilf7 1 9 b3?
Black has a clear prog ram of action : . . . cJite7,
. . . .ie6 and . . . a7-a5 , seizing the i n itiative on
the queenside. Wh ite should have created
his own play by 1 9 f4 ! cJite7 20 �d3 (or 20
fxe5 fxe5 21 1:td3) , p reparing to attack the
e5-pawn by ttJf3 . But for some reason he
submissively goes totally onto the defen­
sive.
ttJ 37
1 9 ... cJile7 20 ltd3 .ie6 2 1 ttJb1 ? as 22 c4 a4
23 lled 1 ttJd7 24 l:tc3 ? ! axb3 25 axb3 l:.a1
26 l:tdc1 !tfa8 27 b4 .l:t8a2 28 .l:tb3? b5 29
.if1 ttJb6 30 cJilg2 bxc4 31 lte3 ltb2 32
.l:lee1 l:txb4 33 lDd2 .l:ta2 34 ttJb1 !ta1 35
ttJd2 .l:txc1 36 llxc1 cJild6 37 cJitf3 cJitc5 and
Wh ite soon resigned.
Waitzkin showed good tech nique i n the
ending - it was even deemed to be the best
game of the tou rnament. (The lessons
which I gave Josh before the championsh ip
were i n fact largely devoted to the technique
of converting an advantage . ) But, of course,
Black's success became possible only as a
consequence of his opponent's extremely
passive p lay.
Now I will express my ve rsion of events . I n
America parents begi n closely following the
competitive ach ievements of their children
from their very fi rst steps i n chess . Too m uch
emphasis, even i n j u n i o r competitions, is
given to rati ngs, prizes , i solated successes
in games with strong opponents , and so on.
S uch an approach i s of cou rse passed on to
the c h i ld re n , and they try to g ive thei r
parents joy and boast to the contemporaries
about any cu rrent success. For the sake of
momentary successes they became cau­
tious. Alas, the result someti mes turns out
just the opposite and, more i m portant, it
sharply slows the creative g rowth of the
childre n .
An i m p rovement process is o n l y effective
when the work is done with a futu re a i m .
T h i s means that trainers should teach young
p laye rs to sensibly combine fighting for
successes in competitions and expe riment­
ing and taking creative risks . The fostering
of a depressing prag m atism from early
childhood can not be good .
38 <t>
PA RT I I
Artur Yusupov
The Analysis of one's own Games
W
hy have I chosen this particular topic?
Possibly I developed q u ite success­
fully as a chess player for the reason that I
devoted much time to the analysis of my
games . I th i n k that the analysis of one 's
own games is the main means of self­
improvement. I am convinced that, without
a critical understanding of his own play, it is
impossi ble for a player to develop. Of
cou rse, this does not mean that other forms
of chess work should not be carried out. You
must study the open i n g , the endgame and
the middlegame, and it is exceptionally
useful to study the games of strong playe rs .
But in general we learn best from our own
examples.
Our own games are closer to us than any
others. We have played them and have tried
to solve the problems that were facing us. I n
analysis i t i s possible to check and clarify
the eval uations by which we were gu ided
during the play, and determine where they
were incorrect, where we played i naccu ­
rately. Sometimes t h e opponent pun ishes
us for our mistakes, but often they re main
un noticed and can be revealed only i n
analysis.
What do I think it is i m portant to focus on
when you are analysing your own games?
Fi rst of all you should find the turni ng­
poi nts - decide where mistakes were
made, where the eval uation of the position
changed or an opportun ity fo r sharply
chang ing the situation on the board was not
exploited . The abil ity itself to find i n analysis
the critical mome nts of a game is exception­
ally important, since it will help you also to
guess such moments d u ring an actual
game. This is pe rhaps the most d iffic u lt thing
in chess - to sense the c ritica l , turning-point
in a game, when you m ust seriously con­
sider the position and solve a p roblem,
when the outcome of the entire struggle may
depend on one move .
I have to say that even among top-class
players there are few who possess this
qual ity i n fu l l . I once had a d iscussion with
Boris Spassky about the play of Robert
Fischer, whom all of us, without exception,
rate very h i g h ly. Spassky said that he saw
only one slight weakness in Fischer - he did
not always sense the c ritical , turni ng-point in
a game. Of cou rse, this was a relative weak­
ness, only as applied to his general very
high standard of play, but even so, in the
opinion of Spassky, it sometimes hindered
Fischer. One can get rid of such a deficiency
only by a critical study of one's play.
The second factor, to which you should pay
attention in the analysis of you r games, is to
seek the reasons for your own mistakes.
By disclosing the m istakes , you g radually
beg i n to understand with what they could be
associated , and you see the deficiencies i n
you r play. O f cou rse, it is simpler w h e n you
are helped by a trai ner, when eve rything is
explained i n deta i l . But there will be an
i m petus only if you you rself sense the
causes of the mistakes and do not want to
put up with them any more . An objective
 The Analysis of one's own Games ttJ 39

realisation of you r own weaknesses is a
necessary fi rst step in the serious work of
correcting them.
The thi rd factor. It is ve ry i mportant to seek
new possibilities, which you did not notice
during the game due to being carried away
by othe r ideas of you r own . After analysis
you beg in to have a better feel i n g for the
type of position i n question , and you have a
deeper fam i l iarity with its typical strategic
and tactical ideas. Moreover, the concl u ­
sions that you you rself have d rawn will b e
more firmly engraved i n y o u r memory than
those obtained from other sources.
And one last th i n g . When analysing a game
you have played , you should ponder over
the opening stage. Try to i m p rove you r
play, especially i f you were not altogether
satisfied with the outcome of the ope n i n g .
B y critically approach i n g t h e problems that
you faced i n the ope n i n g , you can e n rich
your knowledge, outl ine new plans, and
devise important novelties.
I shou ld l i ke to i l l u strate what has been said
with a game that I played as Black against
Anatoly Karpov in M oscow in the 1 983
USSR C hampionsh i p . Why have I c hosen
it? My opponent's play made a strong
impression on me. It is not so often that I feel
that I have been outplayed , but i n the given
instance I felt this, and the most an noyi ng
thing was that I did not altogether under­
stand how this happened and why. I had to
do a lot of work on this game.
I n this championship I played badly and late r
in my spare time I decided to analyse the
reasons for my fai l u re . The work I did was
not in vai n , and I am s u re that it assisted my
future victories i n the I nte rzonal Tou rnament
and the Candidates matches. G e nerally
speaki ng, I have noticed that, if after a
failure I have managed to g e n u i nely work on
my games, this has i nvariably proved hi ghly
beneficial , and later I have experienced a
creative g rowth. This happened , for exam-
pie, i n 1 979, when after a fai l u re i n the
J u n ior World Championship I spent roughly
a month analysing my games, and even
fil led a special notebook. And in my very
next tou rnament - the U S S R C hampionship
Fi rst Leag ue - I played respectably, and a
way out of the crisis began to emerge. And
late r i n the same year I ach ieved my best
result in U S S R Championships - a share of
2nd place in the Premier Leag ue.
Karpov - Yusu pov
50th U S S R Championship, Moscow 1 983
Ruy Lopez
1 e4 e5
2 lbf3 lbc6
3 i. b5 a6
4 .i.a4 lDf6
5 0-0 lbxe4
The Open Variation of the Ruy Lopez is one
of the mainstays of my repertoi re .
6 d4 b5
7 .i.b3 d5
8 dxe5 .i.e6
Every player chooses a repe rtoi re that su its
h i m . I l i ke positions with an element of
blockade. I am happy to fight against the
strong e5-pawn ; I blockade it and try
somehow to 'by-pass' it. Someti mes it is
possible to rad ically solve the problem of the
centre , by playing . . . f7-f6 .
9 c3 i.c5
Here 9 . . . .Yi.e7 is also often played .
1 0 lbbd2
White, natu ral ly, harasses the knight at e4 ,
which occupies a strong central position .
10 . . . 0-0
As long as the exchange on e4 is not
dangerous for Black, he ignores the threat.
1 1 i.c2 i.f5
I n this game I decided to defend my knight
on e4. But there is another i nte resti ng
conti n uation - 1 1 . . . lbxf2 , which I play qu ite
regularly.
40 � PART I I

1 2 lZ'lb3 on the q ueenside with . . . c7--c5 is the most

Wh ite completes his development and clears natu ral . Of course, events may also tu rn out
the way for his dark-sq uare bishop. q u ite d ifferently. For White, for example, it is
tempting to create pressu re on the half-open
12 . . . i.. g 6
c-fi le, while Black has the undermining
The bishop has to stand on a protected
move . . . f7-f6 , enabl ing h i m to hope for
square , si nce 1 3 lZ'lxc5 was th reatened . If 1 3
cou nterplay on the kingside.
�xe4, then Black takes with his paw n ,
15 i..e3 a4
attacking t h e knight a t f3 - here he is alright.
Savon chose 1 5 . . . ttJb4 1 6 i. b 1 a4 1 7 tiJd2
13 lZ'lfd4 �xd4
a3, but after 1 8 'ii'c 1 ! ! his opening strategy
1 4 cxd4
was refuted . Of cou rse , in his comments
It so happened that I began playing the Karpov also considers 1 5 . . . a4, which , i n my
Open Variation as Black precisely on ac­ view, is more natural .
count of one of Karpov's games. Studying 1 6 lZ'ld2
his col lection of selected games, I hit upon
In modern practice 1 6 ttJc 1 also occ u rs,
the game Karpov-Savon (Moscow 1 97 1 ) ,
lead i n g to very complicated , i nte resti ng
which was splendidly won b y White , and
play.
found an improvement for Black. When you
16 . . . a3
find an idea of you r own i n some variation, it
can be tempti ng to work seriously on this Black consistently works for his knight at e4,
trying to secure a post for it at c3. As 1 7 bxa3
variation and study it i n depth , which is what
is not possible on account of 1 7 . . . tbc3, Wh ite
I did. Having prepared the Open Variation of
is practically forced to exchange knig hts .
the 'Span ish ' , I began successfully employ­
ing it. A similar pattern of mastering a new 1 7 l2Jxe4 axb2
open ing system has occu rred several times An i mportant i ntermed iate move .
with me: you study a game between two 1 8 .l:i.b1
strong players , you find an improvement for
one of the sides, after which you begi n
analysing seriously a n d become acq uai nted
with other games on the same topic . . . I
never played open ing variations without
some idea of my own . Using only other
players' ideas is not someth ing that I find
i nte resti ng .
14 . . . aS
This was how Vlad i m i r Savon played in the
afore-mentioned game. The knight at e4 is
insecurely placed , and Wh ite can d rive it
away by f2-f3. The move 1 4 . . . a5 temporar­
ily solves this problem: in reply to 1 5 f3 there
follows 1 5 . . . a4, forcing the exchange of 18 . . . i..xe4 !
knights . I n his commentary Karpov considered only
Generally speaki n g , the present pawn struc­ 1 8 . . . dxe4 1 9 l:txb2 ttJe7, which after 20 Ihb5
ture i nfe rs an offensive by Wh ite's pawn 1Ixa2 21 'ii'b 1 'ii'a8 22 l::t c 1 leads to a d ifficult
majority on the kingside, while for Black play position for Black.
 The Analysis of one's own Games
When I analysed that game, to me it seemed
illogical to take on e4 with the paw n , leavi ng
myself with a passive bishop at g6. I began
studyi ng the capture on e4 with the bishop,
which subseq uently became the main line of
the given opening variation .
Now White has l ittle choice. After 1 9 i.. x e4 I
considered an interesting, although hardly
forced variation with a sacrifice of the
exchange: 19 . . . dxe4 20 'it"g4 tt:Jxd4 21 ktfd 1
c5 22 ii.h6 g6 23 i.. xf8 Wxf8 . For the
exchange Black has a strong position and
many pawns. It is not good to take on b2 in
view of 24 . . . tt:Jf3+, while if 24 'it"xe4 , then
24 . . . .l::!.xa2 , and the b2-pawn is very unpleas­
ant for White. Apparently, all that remains for
him is to try to play for perpetual check: 25 e6
fxe6 26 'i'e5 .
1 9 .l:!.xb2 'i!t'd7
Black indirectly defends the b5-pawn (20
l:txb5 tt:Jxe5) .
20 ..td3
This move is an i nvention of Robert H u bner.
Noth ing is given by 20 i.. x e4 dxe4 21 .l:!.xb5
tt:lxd4 22 llc5 Z'tfd8 23 i.. x d4 'it'xd4 24 'it"xd4
.l::!.x d4 25 .l:txc7 h5 with equality, as in
A . lvanov-Yusupov ( U S S R Championship
Fi rst League, 1 979) . It was i n this game that
I tested in practice my analyses in the Open
Variation .
20 . . . ..txd3
20 . . . b4 is a mistake on account of 21 i.. b 5,
when if 21 . . . .l::!.f b8 Wh ite has 22 l:txb4 .
21 'i!t'xd3 l:!.fb8
In the event of 21 . . . b4 22 .l:!.c1 White would
have won a tempo compared with that which
happened i n the game. 2 1 . . . tt:Ja5 22 'it"xb5 c6
23 'i'e2 tt:Jc4 is worth studyi n g . Black
sacrifices a pawn, but transfers his knight to
c4 and gains defi nite cou nterplay, for exam­
ple 24 .l::!.b 3 h6 25 �fb 1 'it"f5 .
Now I suggest that you have a think about
the position that was reached i n the game,
about the ideas that can be carried out here
by Wh ite and Black.
� 41
The most natu ral plan for Wh ite is the
agg ressive 22 f4 ! followed by f4-f5-f6 . Let
us see how the play might develop then .
Black can transfe r his knight to c4 -
22 . . . tt:Ja5 . But White has a very i nteresti ng
reg rouping of his forces ; it beg ins with the
prophylactic move 23 i.. c 1 !, moving the
bishop away from a possible attack and,
what is also i m portant, taking control of the
a3-sq uare. If 23 . . . tt:Jc4 there follows 24 J:.e2 ,
i ntensifying the th reat of a breakth rough by
f4-f5 and e�6. Wh ite has excel lent attack­
ing prospects .
Let us go back slig htly. It is not possible to
halt the wh ite pawns by 22 . . . f5 in view of 23
exf6 gxf6 24 f5 . The position of the black king
is weakened , and Wh ite wants to play i.. h 6
with an attack. For example, 24 . . . b4 25 i.. h 6
l:ta3 26 �d 1 . This position seems very
dangerous for Black.
Black should probably seek cou nterplay by
22 . . . b4, with the idea of gai n i n g the a3-
square for his rook . Let's suppose 23 f5 l:ta3
24 ii'e2 . Wh ite's position is sti l l th reatening,
but perhaps it is worth Black trying by
24 . . . b3 to activate his pieces along the 3rd
ran k . The main thing here, I think, is that
Black does not restrict h i mself to passive
defence, but harasses his opponent and
tries to counterattack. After, say, 25 axb3
l:taxb3 26 .U.xb3 .U.xb3 27 f6 he gains the
opportun ity to play his knight via dB to e6.
42 � PART I I
Let u s return to the game. It is i nteresting
that Karpov approaches the problem i n a
completely different way. He is primarily a
prophylactic player. It is probable that he
immediately asked h i mself: what does the
opponent want, what is Black's plan? And
what do you think Black wou l d l i ke to play
now? Of cou rse , . . . tt:Ja5--c4 ! . Now watch
how with every move of his Karpov tries to
prevent this knight manoeuvre .
22 l:.fb1 b4
22 . . . l2Ja5 is not possible because of 23
J;ixb5.
23 h3
This is also a prophylactic move . The game
HObner-Korchnoi ( Luzern 1 982) went 23
..id2 , after which there fol lowed the active
reply 23 . . . 'it'g4 . Karpov not only makes his
king an escape square - an exceptionally
useful measu re - but also takes control of
the g4-sq uare.
Instead of 23 h3 l ittle is promised by 23 a3,
hoping for the incorrect 23 . . .�xa3? 24 'iixa3
bxa3 25 J;ixb8+ l2Jd8 26 .l:ta8 and White wins.
After 23 . . . bxa3 24 l::tx b8+ l:!.xb8 25 J;ixb8+
l2Jxb8 26 'ii'xa3 'ii'c 6 (but not 26 . . . l2Jc6 27
'iia8+ l2Jd8 28 i.g5) 27 'it'e7 it'd? Black has
an acceptable position. However, the i m me­
diate 23 .l:!.c 1 was quite possible.
I will show the following section of the game
roughly how I saw it at the board , deliber­
ately om itting one or two poi nts which were
found late r, in analysis. Afterwards we will
then retu rn to these .
23 . . . h6
Black decided that for him too an escape
square would come i n usefu l . I had some
dou bts about this, of cou rse , but they we re
not so strong .
24 �c1
(see diagram)
What happens after 24 . . . l2Ja5, do you see?
25 ..id2 l2Jc4 su its Black, but there is the
move 25 'it'b 1 ! . Now if 25 . . . l2Jc4 there follows
26 l::tx b4 l::tx b4 27 'iix b4, and 27 . . . .lixa2 is
not possible in view of 28 'iVb8+ Wh7 29
'ii'b 1 + winning the rook . To be honest, I did
not i m mediately notice this variatio n . See
how Karpov acts : he has activated his rook
and at the same time not allowed . . . ltJa5 to
be played .
24 . . . �b6
I have moved the rook to a protected
square , defended the knight at c6, and am
once more plan n i n g . . . l2Ja5 . Karpov again
prevents the knight manoeuvre, by attacking
the b4-paw n .
25 'ii' b 1
It is amazing that the enti re strategic battle
revolves around this one idea. If Black
should succeed in playing his knight to c4,
he will gain an excel lent position. I in
principle realised this, but, evidently, insuffi­
ciently deeply.
25 . . . �ab8
Again p u rsuing the same aim - the transfer
of the knight to c4, and again Karpov finds a
way of preventing this.
26 �c5 l2Jd8
I did not l i ke the rook at c5 and I decided to
evict it. Karpov makes yet another prophy­
lactic move .
 The Analysis of one's own Games
27 l:i.c2
Black was hoping to play . . .lt:Jb7 and then
.. .<�:Ja5 , penetrating to c4 . But my opponent
removes in advance his rook from a square
where it could have come under attack.
27 . . . tt'ic6
There is nothing for the knight to do at d 8 ,
and s o I brought it back. I again w a n t t o play
. . . tt'la5 , and again Karpov prevents me.
28 �c1
The imperceptible transfe rence of the rook
from c 1 to c2 enables Wh ite to set up a
battery in the opti mal way: with the rook i n
front o f the queen .
28 . . . �8b7
29 .l:!.c5
Again there is no possibil ity of playi ng
. . . tt'la5 . By now I was completely rattled .
When you are not al lowed to carry out you r
main idea, i t is very hard t o fight.
29 . . . tt'ie7
And here Karpov played c u n n i ngly. I was
expecti ng activity, I was afraid of g2-g 4 , and
the position did not appeal to m e . But there
fol lowed a modest waiting move , which is
useful for the su bseq uent pawn offensive.
30 'it>h2
It is clear that sooner or late r White will
begin a pawn storm on the kingside. This
th reat was psychologically hanging ove r me,
and I wanted to gain cou nterplay as soon as
possible . And I made a mistake , which is
also explai ned by the fact that, u nfortu­
nately, it is someti mes typical of me not to
notice my opponent's possibilities.
30 . . . tt'ifS?
S i m ply a blunder. I should h ave stuck to
defensive tactics , by playing 30 . . . c6, retain­
ing a sl ightly i nferior but solid position. While
waiti ng for some active move on the part of
White, let's say g2-g4, I could have tried to
create some cou nterplay by . . . b4-b3.
31 �bc2
ttJ 43
I am losing a pawn and I real ise that after
this, against the then world champion , there
a re no longer any real chances of savi ng the
game . N evertheless I decided to go down
fig hti n g .
31 . . . .!::!. g 6
You know how it often happens: you lose
material , but i n retu rn you suddenly gain
cou nterplay which was not there before .
Pieces, which were p reviously tied to the
defence of weaknesses, become active.
U nfortu n ately, i n the g iven instance it does
not compensate for the lost pawn. 31 . . . b3 32
axb3 .l::tx b3 33 �xc7 �xc7 34 �xc7 'it'b5 was
no better - Wh ite is the fi rst to create
th reats : 35 .l:!.c8+ 'it>h7 36 'it'c7.
32 .l:!.xc7 .!::!. x c7
33 1:txc7 'ifbS
Black does his utmost to make things
d ifficult fo r the opponent. Of course, having
the advantage , Karpov does not want to
h ave to calcu l ate variations after 34 'it'c5
(i ncidentally, here Black can force a d raw by
a rook sacrifice: 34 . . . �xg2+ ! 35 'l¥txg2
tt:'lxe3+ 36 'it>f3 ir'd3) .
34 g4!
A good move . It is bad to exchange on e3 -
Wh ite is a healthy pawn to the good .
34 . . . tt'ih4
Now 35 'it'c5 would have given Wh ite a
forced win: if 35 . . . 'iVf 1 there is the simple 36
'it'xd5 . Here Karpov made what was per­
haps his only i n accu racy in the game.
Although, he played safely enoug h .
3 5 �C8+ 'it>h7
36 �d1
For the moment Karpov simply tries to keep
his extra paw n . He hopes that i n the futu re
the advance of his kingside pawns will lead
to a w i n .
36 . . . �a6
37 .l:tc2 fS
H e re Black could sti l l h ave put up a
44 � PART I I
tenacious resistance by, say, 3 7 . . . 'iia 3, but
his position would have remai ned unpromis­
ing. I real ised that after 37 . . . f5 I was losing,
but seeing as the opponent had little time
left, I decided to take a risk, t ry a p ractical
chance, and set him some tactical prob­
lems. You will know that someti mes such a
method proves successfu l . I did not criticise
myself for this decision, although objectively
it is not the strongest and it merely hastens
my defeat.
Alas, here too Karpov was accu rate. Try
putting you rself in his place . What would you
have played? I think that it would be easier
for you to find the correct solution if you had
read the sixth chapter of the book.
38 'it>g3!
There are not so many pieces on the board .
Karpov logically decides that his king should
take part i n the fight and it attacks the knight
at h4. This is the only winning conti nuation . I
saw it, but I took a risk, assu m i n g that only i n
compl ications could I g a i n a n y practical
chances .
38 . . . fxg4
39 'it>xh4
Now it is necessary to think up at least some
idea for Black.
39 . . . gxh3
I was sti l l pinning some hopes on 39 . . . g3.
The idea is afte r 40 fxg3 to play 40 .. ."ii' a3,
with the latent geometrical th reat of 41 . . . b3
and 42 . . . 'it'e7+ . Alas, 41 'iic 1 refutes this
idea. Deciding that the refutation was too
simple, I rejected 39 . . . g3. But in principle it
is ve ry i m portant to find similar resou rces -
someti mes such an accidental chance may
change the cou rse of the play.
The idea of 39 . . . gxh3 is seen in the variation
40 'it>xh3 'it'e6+ 4 1 'it>h2 'iif 5 , and q u ite
u nexpected ly Black's small army creates
dangerous th reats . Karpov plays more
strongly.
40 f4 'ir'e6
41 'ii h 5
Agai n a good move . Wh ite prevents the
activation of the enemy pieces .
41 . . . 'it'e7+
42 'it>xh3 'iff7
I try my last chance. One last l i ttle p roblem:
what should Wh ite play?
43 �h2!
The th reat of 43 . . . .l::t g 3+ 44 'it>h4 .l:th3+ is
parried . There is noth i n g more to hope for.
43 . . . 'ilfd7+
44 f5
Black resigns. An excellent positional per­
formance by Wh ite . The spi rit of p rophy­
laxis, permeati n g the enti re game, is very
typical of Karpov's play.
 The Analysis of one's own Games
It is clear that I lost the game with 30 . . . tt:'lf5? .
But the strategic battle was apparently lost
somewhere earlier, when Karpov frustrated
the manoeuvre of my knight to c4. In order to
understand what happened, a serious analy­
sis is req uired .
Initially Black played logical ly, and all his
actions were dictated by specific conside ra­
tions. But after 23 h3 my reply 23 . . . h6 was
clearly not essentia l .
I looked more carefu lly at t h i s position and
discovered that, fi rstly, 23 . . . l:.b6 ! comes i nto
consideration . It is not clear whether . . . h7-
h6 will be needed , whereas . . . l:Ib6 will
certai nly be usefu l , neutralising Wh ite's
active reply 24 .l::t c 1 . I should rem i nd you : the
game went 23 . . . h6 24 l::t c 1 !, and it transpi red
that if 24 . . . tt:'la5 there is the tactical idea 25
l'b1 . But after 23 .. J::t b 6 ! 24 Itc1 it is
possible to play 24 . . tt:'la5 , and 25 'ir'b 1 is
.
now not dangerous. Black has as though
carried out prophylaxis agai nst the oppo­
nent's prophylaxis.
In addition , I found another i nteresting
possibi l ity: 23 .. J::ta 4 ! ? . Of cou rse , Black has
to reckon with 24 a3. There is the idea of
sacrificing a pawn: 24 . . . tt:'la5 25 l':txb4 l::t b xb4
26 .l:!.xb4 .l:!.xb4 27 axb4 tt:'lc4 . The knight is
stronger than the passive bishop, which m ay
give some compensation, although it seems
to me that Wh ite nevertheless retains the
ctJ 45
advantage. For example, 28 Wh2 'ii'a4 29
�f5 . I don't l i ke this.
H oweve r, B l ack does not h ave to sacrifice a
paw n . He can reta i n the balance, simply by
opening an escape square for his king -
24 . . . h6! .
But what if Wh ite plays 24 'ii'c2 ! ? (instead of
24 a3)? Then there is 24 . . J::t a 6. How to reply
to 25 .l:!.c1 , do you see? That's right,
25 . . J::t x a2 ! . After 26 .l:!.xa2 b3 27 'ii'b 2 bxa2
28 'ir'xa2 Wh ite sti l l retains p ressu re on the c­
file, so that for the moment Black sti l l has
some p roblems. I thought of this plan :
28 . . . tt:'ld8 29 'ii'a 7 .l::tc 8, then . . . tt:'le6 and
even . . . g7-g6. The resulting position is
acceptable for Black.
But that is not a l l . I sti l l had doubts : after a l l ,
23 . . . h6 does not look a bad move , a n d I did
not believe that because of it my position
should have become difficult. So let's look
more closely at what happened afte r this.
After 23 . . . h6 24 l::tc 1 ! l::t b 6 25 'ii'b 1 I played
25 . . . Itab8 . In general this is a thematic
move , p reparing . . . tt:'la5 , but even so it is a
pity to move the rook off the open file. What
oth e r possi b i l ities does B l ack have?
The b4-pawn could also h ave been de­
fended from the othe r side - 25 ... Ita4 ! . If
now 26 J::t c 5 (as i n the game) , then 26 . . . tt:'la5
is now possible, and this is a colossal
46 � PART I I
achievement for Black, which solves a l l his
problems. If i nstead 26 .l:lbc2 , agai n prevent-
ing . . . tt:'la5 , then Black renews the th reat by
26 . . . .l:la7 . This means that the move .l:lbc2
also does not g ive anyth ing.
It remains to check 26 'i!Vc2, but then too
there is 26 . . . .l:la7 27 �c5 .l:la5 28 �c2 l::!. a 7.
White must either reconcile h i mself to a
draw, or al low the knight to go to c4 .
When I discovered this, somehow I i m medi­
ately felt easier. My eval uation d u ring the
game had after all been more or less correct
(I thought that the position was roughly
equal ) . But my perception of the position
had been insufficiently accu rate . Although I
had the desire to place my knight on c4 , it
was not strong enough to force me simply to
burn with this idea, and try to carry it out at
any cost. After understanding the essence
of a position , g rasping the th read of the play,
you can u n ravel any situation - such an
understanding g reatly helps a player to find
the only correct solutions at the board .
Let us sum up. What of use can be gained
from the game we have j ust exam i ned?
Wel l , of cou rse , val uable opening i nforma­
tion . Subsequently, using my analysis, I
made a draw in this variation with Black,
wheneve r it su ited me - so to speak, I
defended my variation .
It is very useful also to think about Karpov's
actions. His play creates a strong impres­
sion . Fi rst of a l l , his approach to the taking of
decisions, his prophylactic frame of m i n d .
With every move , with eve ry action he takes
account of his opponent's ideas and fig hts
agai nst them .
The qu ite accu rate conversion of the advan­
tage was also instructive . Perhaps at some
point Karpov could have played somewhat
more concretely. But when the need arose,
he was not afraid to play 38 '.tg3! and 39
'.txh4, he did not avoid the calculation of
concrete variations, because this was dic­
tated by the demands of the position.
Situations occur when you have to calcu late
variations, when you have to go in for a
sharpen i n g of the play - this is the only way
to the goa l .
Let us once again retu rn t o t h e g u iding
th read . The entire game was essentially a
game of one idea, the struggle revolved
around one manoeuvre . This someti mes
happens. For example, you realise that the
main objective is to exchange the light­
square bishops, and you endeavour to carry
out this exchange, while the opponent tries
to prevent it. Annotati n g the 9th match of the
match for the world championsh ip ( 1 960) ,
M i khail Tal remembers his conversation with
M i khail Botvi n n i k regard i n g the complicated
midd legame position that arose in it.
Botvi n n i k said that fo r a long time he had
dou bts about the eval uation , but then he
u nde rstood the essence of the position: the
rooks had to be exchanged , but the q ueens
retained. To Tal such an eval uation seemed
too abstract, but later, sifti ng through the
complicated variations that he had had to
calculate d u ring the game, he real ised that
Botvi n n i k was absolutely right and that the
idea he had expressed was correct in many
variations.
I should l i ke to look at another game - from
my Candidates match with Jan Ti mman. It
was played with the score standing at 2%-
2% and , generally speaki n g , it decided the
fate of the matc h . We will focus on those
factors about which I spoke before the
analysis of the game with Karpov.
Ti mman Yusu pov -
Candidates Matc h , Ti l b u rg 1 986, 6th Game
Queen 's Gambit
1 d4 d5
2 c4 e6
3 tt'lc3 tt'lf6
4 tt'lf3 j_e7
5 j_g5 h6
 The Analysis of one's own Games
6 i.xf6 i.xf6
7 'ii' b 3
I hadn't expected this move , which occu rred
earlier i n Kasparov's match with Karpov,
and I chose the same reply as Karpov.
7 . . . c6
8 0-0-0
Kasparov acted more quietly - 8 e3. Ti m man's
choice is an indication of his fighting mood .
Here I considered various conti n u ations,
even the most risky. For example, 8 . . . b5,
and also 8 . . . 'i!Vb6 9 �c2 dxc4 1 0 tt:Je4 - none
of this appealed to me. So I played q u ite
logically and in accordance with my tastes.
8 . . .
dxc4
9 'ifxc4
b5
Wh ite has a choice of where to retreat his
queen : to b3 o r d 3 . Each move has its
drawbacks . After 1 0 'ir'd3 Black can reply,
say, 1 O . . . lt:Jd7 1 1 e4 'ir'a5 with the th reat of
1 2 b4 (the a2-pawn is hanging somewhat) .
. . .
1 0 'ifb3
The resulting structu re is typical of many
variations of the Queen's Gambit or the Slav
Defence . Black's standard plan is to p repare
. . . c6-c5 by . . . lt:Jd7, . . . i.. b 7 and . . . a7-a6.
There is also a more risky plan, which I i n fact
chose.
There is one thing which, I think, I sensed
correctly d u ring the game. B lack should not
47
be i n a h u r ry to castle , si nce after the move
. . . h7-h6 the position of his king is vulner­
able. Wh ite begins a pawn sto rm with h2-h4
and g2-g4-g 5 , and in the given situation his
attack may get there first.
10 . . . a5
Of course, this is an i m p u dent plan , but I did
not choose it accidentally. A match has its
specific natu re - there is a struggle for the
i n itiative , for a psychological advantage.
Often the winner is not the stronger player,
but the one who is more in a mood for a fight,
who displays the g reate r will to win. Psycho­
logically 1 0 . . . a5 is a ve ry good move - Black
demonst rates that he is not afraid of his
opponent and that he is aiming for as
complicated a game as possible. I think that
objectively too it is not bad .
1 1 e4
A l l in acco rdance with science : in reply to a
flank operation , Wh ite plays in the centre.
11 . . . a4
1 2 'it'c2 tt:Jd7
I also considered 1 2 . . . tt:Ja6 ! ? . If 1 3 e5 ii.e7
1 4 ife4 , attacking the c6- and b5-pawns,
B l ack has the defence 1 4 .. . '�c7 ! . But never­
theless I decided to develop my knight
towards the centre .
H e re Ti mman had a choice . To me 1 3 e5
ii.e7 1 4 tt:Je4 ii.b7 1 5 '>t>b1 seems a logical
48 � PART I I
conti nuation. Such play is positionally the
most justified . Of cou rse , i n this case too
Black would have retained cou nte r-chances
after 1 5 . . . b4. He has the prospect, say, of a
pawn sacrifice on b3 to open l i nes.
Ti mman played more sharply. He apparently
thought that Black's flank development
should be refuted by an i m med iate break­
through in the centre .
13 d5
T h e d rawback t o t h i s move is that it opens
the diagonal tor the bishop at t6 , which now
begins operati ng at fu l l power.
13 . . . cxd5
1 4 exd5 a3
Black's idea looks logical - to open u p the
queenside, where the enemy king is situ­
ated . But i n such a sharp situation you
can not trust you r i n itial fee l i n g , but m ust
support it by calculation . The correct move
was 1 4 . . . 0-0! (th is is important tor the theory
of the given variation ) . After the position has
opened up on the queenside and in the
centre, Black m ust neve rtheless concern
hi mself about the safety of his king and only
then conti nue his offensive .
It, say, 1 5 dxe6 txe6 1 6 tt:Jxb5 (this is what
concerned me d u ring the game) , there is the
promising reply 1 6 . . . a3. After 1 7 tt:Jxa3 it is
possible to sacrifice the exchange: 1 7 . . . l:txa3
1 8 bxa3 'ifaS. By then playi ng . . . tt:Jcs and
. . . i.. b 7, Black will develop a terri bly strong
attack. It would appear that such a turn of
events is advantageous to Black.
I n the event of 1 6 'ilt'e4 there is a choice
between 1 6 . . .'�a5 and 1 6 . . . i.. x c3 .
1 6 .ixb5 is probably stronger. Then there
can follow 1 6 . . . a3 1 7 i.. c4 (a seemingly
logical move) 17 . . . axb2+ 1 8 'it>b1 (a typical
defensive idea - hiding the king beh i n d an
enemy pawn; of cou rse it is dangerous to
take on b2) . The position is very com pli­
cated , and it is practical ly i m possible to
analyse it exhaustively. I will show you a
sample variation from my analysis, which is
largely i l l u strative i n character: 1 8 .. .'ii' b 6
( 1 8 . . .'ii' a 5! ? ) 1 9 tt:Je4 .ie7 20 tt:Jd4 tt:Jcs 2 1
tt:Jxc5 ( 2 1 .l:!. h e 1 is more accu rate) 2 1 . . . i.. xc5
22 ife4 i.. x d4 23 'iVxa8 i.. b 7 24 'ii'a 3 i.. e 4+
25 i.. d 3 .l:i.a8 26 'iVe7 ifa6 and Black wins.
On the analysis of this position (however,
also those that occ u r late r in the game) one
cou l d probably spend the entire lesson , and
not just one. But the conclusion is clear:
1 4 . . . 0-0! wou l d have led to ve ry complicated
play with chances tor both sides. Whereas
after the move in the game Wh ite could have
gained an advantage .
1 5 dxe6 axb2+
1 6 �b1 fxe6
I considered the piece sacrifice 1 6 . . . 0-0 1 7
exd7 �as i n the hope of 1 8 dxc8'ir'? l:ttxc8 ,
but, u nfortu nately, it is refuted by 1 8 �b3 ! ,
tor example: 1 8 . . . .ixc3 1 9 dxc8'iV or 1 8 . . . i.. b7
1 9 tt:Jd4 b4 20 tt:Jcb5; it is also not possible to
trust the enticing 1 8 . . . i.. x d7 1 9 .l:!.xd7 .l:!.tc8
(or 1 9 . . J:�ac8 ) .
1 7 �e4!
Of the many tempti ng conti nuations, Tim man
managed to chose the strongest. 1 7 .ixb5
would have led to an al ready fam i l iar
position, reached afte r 1 4 . . . 0-0. In the event
of 1 7 tt:Jxb5 0-0 1 8 tt:Jc7 the move 1 8 . . . .ib7?
does not work on account of 1 9 tt:Jxa8 'ifxa8
 The Analysis of one's own Games
20 l:Ixd7 ..tc6 (20 .. J:tc8 21 ..tc4 ..te4 22
Md3) 2 1 l::ta 7! (not 21 l::td 6? 'ii'x a2+ ! ) . But I
saw a worthy reply - 1 8 . . . �a7! 1 9 t"Llxe6?
l:i.xa2 ! .
1 7 'i'g6+ looks attractive , w h e n 1 7 . . .<\t>e??
1 8 t"Lld4 'ii'b 6 1 9 t"Llf5+! is bad for Black.
17 . . <.t.>f8 i s essentia l , no longer fearing 1 8
.
t2ld4 'fib6 1 9 it'e4 �b7. Compared with the
game, 1 8 'ii'e 4 is less strong i n view of
1 8 . . . ifa5 , when it is no longer possible to
take the e6-pawn with check. G randmaster
Adrian Mikhalchishin recommended 1 8 t"Llxb5,
when 1 8 . . . 'it'as 1 9 �c4 t"Llb6 20 t"Lld6 is bad
for Black. Howeve r, here too he finds
defensive resou rces: 1 8 . . . �b7 1 9 t"Lld6 ( 1 9
.ic4!?) 1 9 . . . it'e7! 20 t"Llxb7 t"Llb6 with very
unclear conseq uences (2 1 t"Lld6 'iVa? ; 2 1
t2ld4 'i'a3 ; 2 1 �a6 ! ? t"Lla4) .
17 . . . ..txc3 !
I have al ready mentioned the psychological
mood of the two players i n this game, which
is what provoked this exchange sacrifice. I
realised that it was risky, and perhaps even
incorrect. But the prospect of a depressi n g
defence i n an endgame a pawn down after
1 7 . . . .l:.b8 1 8 'fWxe6+ 'ii'e 7 1 9 'i!fxe7+ <.t.>xe7 20
t2ld5+ did not appeal to me at a l l .
A s a result o f t h e sacrifice, an exceptionally
sharp and complicated situation arises. In
principle, Black's problems are associated
not with a deficit of material , but with the fact
that he is somewhat beh i n d in development.
If he can succeed i n ' u n rave l l i n g ' , the b2-
pawn, supported by the dark-sq uare bishop,
will secure him very dangerous counterplay.
Which way the scales will tip depends on the
resou rceful ness of the two players ove r the
next few moves. Objectively Wh ite's p ros­
pects are bette r. But a p ractical game is not
home analysis, and with restricted time for
thought it is practical ly i m possible to find
one's way faultlessly through the resulting
wild complications.
18 �xaB 0-0
In the match press centre this natu ral move
49
was j udged to be a m i stake on account of
Ti mman's reply, and 1 8 . . . it'c7 was recom­
mended . I think that the two continuations
are roughly equ ivalent.
Now 1 9 �xb5 suggests itself. After 1 9 . . . 'ir'f6?
20 ii'c6 Black's pieces are completely tied
u p - there is no sensible move that be can
make . But the defensive resou rces are not
exhausted .
U lf Andersson suggested 1 9 . . .'ii' c7 20 'fWc6
'ir'xc6 21 �xc6 t"Llc5 . The two dangerous
bishops and the powerful b2-pawn give
Black some compensation for the sacrificed
exchange. Even so, according to analysis by
Timman, Wh ite retains the better chances in
the endgame. And it is not essential for Wh ite
to go i nto an ending - he has 20 'it'e4 ! ? .
Perhaps t h e modest move 1 9 . . . 'i!Ve7! ? should
be preferred .
1 9 'ii'c 6
This seems very stro n g . By s i m u ltaneously
attacking the bishop and the e6-paw n , Wh ite
denies his opponent the poss i b i l ities 1 9 . . .
'ike? and 1 9 . . .'it'c7 and apparently forces the
reply 1 9 .. .'iff6 , which after 20 ..txb5 , as we
al ready know, leads to extremely d ifficult
conseq uences for Black. But here too there
is a defence.
Generally speaki n g , the defensive resou rces
in chess are ve ry g reat. It can happen that a
50 � PART I I
game i s going not altogether well for you .
But i f you d o not lose heart, conti nue
resisti ng with all you r might, stubbornly seek
practical chances and conti n ually set you r
opponent new problems, i n t h e e n d he may
not withstand the tension of the struggle and
begin to make mistakes . That is what
happened in this game.
Thus the main thi ngs i n defence are
composure , presence of m i n d , and tenacity.
These qualities were possessed in full by
players who were famed for their ski l l i n
defence - for example, Emanuel Lasker and
Anatoly Karpov. If you make a study of their
games, you will sense this, and at the same
time you will assimilate the specific methods
of defending difficult positions - both p u rely
chess methods, and psychological .
19 . . . b4 !
Think about how to reply to 20 i.. b S. B l ack
has 20 . . . 1i'f6 ! , and if 2 1 l:.xd7 i.. x d7 22
'ii'x d7 , then 22 . . . .l:.d8 .
Now let us consider 20 'iix e6+ 'it>h8 2 1 i.. b S.
Here Black has to find someth i n g , as
otherwise he will simply have to resign the
game.
Let us check 21 . . . 1i'f6 . Clearly, 22 i.. x d7
'iix e6 23 i.. x e6 i.. x e6 will not do for White .
This means 22 'iixf6 lt:lxf6 23 lt:lh4 'it>h7, and
24 i.. d 3+ 'it>g8 is not too dangerous for
B l ack; he is th reatening both . . . g7-g 5 , and
. . . lt:lg4. It makes sense for Wh ite to give up
part of his extra material , and play for a
positional advantage : 24 .l':the1 ! .
This idea can also b e considered i n its m i rror
reflection - 21 . . . 'ii'b 6. Afte r the exchange of
queens, the knight ends up at b6 i n stead of
f6 . This has its pluses (the f-fi le is open) , but
also its m i n uses.
It is clear that the appearance of the black
bishop or queen on the b 1 -h7 diagonal may
i mmediately decide the game , lead i n g to
fearful loss of material . B l ack's enti re
counterplay is based on this. He also has a
q u ite fantastic idea, and I w i l l not be
su rprised if it proves correct. I saw it d u ring
the game, and my trainer Mark Dvoretsky
found it in the press centre .
Let us try sacrificing the q ueen : 2 1 . . . lt:lc5 ! !
2 2 .:.Xd8 l::t xd8 . Wh ite m u st guard the critical
d iagona l , and therefore the only move is 23
'ii'g 6. In reply B l ack coolly completes his
development: 23 . . . i.. e 6 ! .
For the sacrificed q ueen B l ack has only a
bishop. But it is not so easy for Wh ite to
parry the th reats of 24 . . . :as and 24 . . . i.. g 8
followed by . . . i.. h 7; he also has to reckon
with 24 . . . i.. x a2+ 25 'it>xa2 .l':ta8+.
I ncidentally, a game on this theme was later
played i n I ndia - you can find it i n the 42nd
 The Analysis of one's own Games
vol ume of lnformator, game N o . 566. ( H ow­
ever, I am not s u re whether it was actually
played , or made u p , since we have seen that
the preced ing moves are not at all obligatory
for both sides . )
If you want t o a m u se yo u rself, analyse the
position after the queen sacrifice. In the
comments on the ' I ndian' game it is shown
that Wh ite retains the advantage, but 1 found
a way of i m p rovi ng Black's play and I think
that the objective outcome is a d raw.
The q ueen sacrifice is merely a smal l ,
although very i nteresti ng l ittle island i n the
boundless sea of variations, contained i n my
game with Ti m man. Analysing such confl icts
is difficu lt, but very usef u l and i nte resti n g .
Let us retu rn t o t h e game. Ti mman decided
not to take the e6-paw n .
2 0 i.c4 'it>h8
A normal prophylactic move i n such situa­
tions (here it is practical ly forced ) . If you l ook
at Kasparov's games, you w i l l notice that
before a decisive assau lt he often prophy­
lactically improves the position of his king.
Remember the 1 6th game of his ret u rn
match with Karpov ( London/Leningrad 1 986) ,
which he won with a bri l l iant attack in the
Ruy Lopez . It was a very complicated
positio n , he had sacrificed someth i n g , but at
some point he made a prophylactic move ,
safeg uarding his ki n g , and later this proved
to be simply a winning conti n u ation .
21 'it'e4?
Here Timman deviated from the correct
path . What wou ld have happened afte r 2 1
.be6 ? During the game I saw the variation
2 1 . . .'ilff6 ! 22 i.xd7 'ii'f 5+ and did not look
any further, si nce for the time being this
satisfied me. Especially since all the same
there was no choice. I don't know how
dangerous 22 i.d5 is, but I think that h e re
Black has many tempti ng possi b i l ities.
Timman and I later came to the conc l u sion
that he should have chosen 21 .Ud6. I wou l d
lLJ 51
have replied 2 1 . . . 'ft'f6 . N o w 22 :xd7? is bad
on accou nt of 22 . . . i.xd7 23 'ifxd7 'ifg6+ and
. . . 'ii'x g2 . Afte r 22 .l:.hd 1 there wou l d have
fol l owed 22 . . . lt::le 5 23 lt::lx e5 i.xe5! 24 .l:t6d3
'i!fe7! and then . . . i.b7. The best is 22 i.d3,
cove ring the most vulnerable diagona l .
Black may be forced t o play 22 . . . lt::le 5 2 3
lt::lx e5 i.xe5 24 'it'e4 'if'f5 . Here there is
some compensation (a pawn for the ex­
change) .
The path that Ti m man cou l d have chose n ,
although logical , is n o t very obvious: before
taki ng control of the b 1 -h7 diagona l , he
should activate his rook by letting it go
forward , i . e . aim to play with all his pieces.
With 21 1We4 Ti m man probably wanted to
seize the diagonal immediately and exploit
the position of the king at h8. But this is a
mistake .
21 . . . 'it'c7
The correct reply, which s i m u ltaneously
p u rsues several aims. Black prepares . . . lt::lf6
and creates the th reat of . . . l::tf4 . Here I
sensed that the i n itiative was t u rning my
way.
Have a look at another fantastic q u een
sacrifice for j ust a minor piece: 21 . . . lt::l c 5 ! ?
2 2 .l:txd8 .l:txd8. After 23 1We3 there fol lows
23 . . . i.b7, while if 23 'ii'c2 - again 23 . . . i.b7
24 l:te1 i.xf3 . Wh ite has to choose between
23 'ft'g6 i.b7 24 lt::l g 5 ! ? hxg5 25 f3 and 23
'ii' h 4 i.f6 24 'ii'h 5 i.b7 25 lt::le 5. I think that
the modest move made in the game is
objectively stronger.
22 lt::l h 4 lt::leS
Black has to defend agai nst the th reat of 23
lt::lg 6+.
23 i.d3
(see diagram)
52 � PART I I
How wou ld you have played now, what
candidate moves do you see? 23 . . . g5 is one
way of defending agai nst mate , 23 .. J:tf5 is a
second , and 23 . . . �xd3 a third .
I didn't want t o play 2 3 . . . g 5 , exposi n g my
ki ng. 23 . . . �xd3, the move I l i ked best,
involved a straig htforward variation - I
calculated it accu rate ly.
23 . . . �xd3!
24 �g6+
It would have been better not to h u rry with
this check.
24 . . . 'it>g8
25 l:txd3
In the event of 25 �xf8 it is not possi ble, of
cou rse , to take on f2 because of 26 'ii'h 7+
and 27 l:thf1 - the pin on the f-file is decisive .
But I had seen the reply 25 . . . �c5 ! . Now the
f-file is not ope n , and so 26 'it'h7+ does not
give anyth i n g , while if 26 'iff3 there follows
26 . . . ..ib7, winning.
If 25 'it'xd3 , then 25 ... :tea followed by
26 . . . ..ib7 and then . . . .idS or possibly . . . e6-
e5. I j udged this position to be in my favou r.
An approxi mate variation goes 26 'ii'b S 'iff?
27 �e5 'iff5+ 28 .nd3 , and here , perhaps ,
simply 2 8 . . . l:tf8 - the wh ite pieces are
completely tied up.
25 . . . l:txf2
26 l:f3
White exchanges the active rook. If 26
l::t h d 1 , then the simple 26 . . . ..if6 is possible,
but there are also tricks such as 26 . . . ..id2 .
How many possibil ities are concealed i n this
position !
26 . . . l:r.xf3
27 gxf3
This material balance - two bishops and a
pawn agai nst rook and knight - occasionally
occu rs i n practice, and very often the two
bishops prove stronger. And in the given
instance, with the terrible pawn at b2, it
ensures a decisive advantage . Thus if 27
'ii'xf3 the simplest is 27 . . . 'it'f7 , and the
exchange of queens leads to a won ending.
What would you have played as Black i n this
position?
My reasoning was simple: the situation is
exceptionally favourable for me, only I m ust
not al low Ti m man to become active. One
must realise what the opponent i s i ntending
to do on his next move . Obviously he wants
to develop his rook on an open file - 28 .l:.d 1 .
Then it is also easy to find my reply.
27 . . . 'ifd6
I forestall my opponent, and at the same time
I create the th reats of 28 . . . ..ia6 and 28 . . . ..ib7.
If 28 �c2 , then 28 . . . ..id7, th reatening a
check at a4. The best defence was 28 �f4 ,
but all the same after 28 . . . ..id7 and a pos­
sible . . . ..ic6 Black has a splendid positio n .
 The Analysis of one's own Games ttJ 53

28 'ii'c 2 The knight is guarding the f5-sq uare , and I

Again Wh ite plans .ll d 1 . Being a player of
very high class , Ti mman aims to play with all
his pieces .
28 . . . e5 !
And again Black forestalls his opponent's
plans . What follows afte r 29 .l:Id 1 , is it clear?
Black transposes i nto a won e n d i n g :
2 9 . . . 'i'xd 1 + 3 0 'tii'x d 1 .tf5+ .
29 lt:ih4
attack it. Wh ite's position is difficult, and i n
add ition he makes a poor move.
32 'i'c6 i.d5
Now things are totally bad for White: his
knight is han g i n g , and afte r any move such
as 33 �b5 there is the extremely unpleasant
reply 33 . . . 'tii'a 8 . Black's pieces are wel l
coordinated , a n d he h a s a decisive advan­
tage .

By now I was in ti me-trouble (5 m i n utes for 33 .l:!.xd4 exd4

1 2 moves) , but I managed to take the game 34 ir'b5 'ifaS
to its logical end. 35 >.t>xb2 'ifxa2+
36 >.t>c1 'ii'a 1 +
29 . . . i.e6
37 >.t>d2 "ii'c 3+
Possibly there were also other ways to the
38 >.t>d1 i.b3+
goal , for example, 29 . . . "ii'f 6 . But I thought
that 29 . . . .te6 was simpler. Here Ti mman resigned.

30 �d 1 i.d4
Here I made a s l ight ove rsight. But, si nce
my position was very powerfu l , it tu rned out
that everything was alright. Wh ite could
have played 31 'i!Vxb2 , but this would have
run into the refutation 31 . . . 'ii'd 8! 32 ii'f2 ii'f6
33 'i'g3 .txa2+ ! . If instead 31 lLlfs , then
3 1 . . .'i'a6 32 a4 b3.
31 'ii'a 4
A last attempt to become active . The th reat
is clear - 32 �e8+. If, with the same ai m , 3 1
"i'g6 , then t h e sim plest is 3 1 . . . 'tii'd 7 with the
tactical th reat of 32 . . . .txa2+ and 33 . . . 'tii'a 4+ .
31 . . . 'i'd8
So, a m i nd-bogg l i n g game. This is what I
should l i ke to d raw you r attention to (th is
thought is also i nteresting to me myself) : this
game, l i ke the previous one, is i n some
sense a game of one idea. Black was seized
by one, perhaps even abstract positional
thought, or, more precisely, one construc­
tion: bishop at c3, pawns at b2 and b4. I
real ised that it was my only hope, and that I
had to exploit it: aim somewhere to bring my
bishop to f5 or sacrifice someth ing on a2 .
Thanks to this frame of m i n d it was easier for
me to play, easier to seek a solution to the
problems facing Black.
54 � PART I I
Exercises
In conclusion I i nvite you to try and solve
th ree examples from modern practice. S i nce
these are not studies, there may not be
strictly only one solution, and it is possible
that you wi l l also find other good conti n ua­
tions. I should l i ke to you to regard these
tests as a kind of challenge to yourself. The
point is that the positions are rich in content,
and will demand of you i magi nati o n , re-
1. White to move
2. White to move
sourceful ness and accu rate calcu l ati o n . I n
two o f these positions, very strong g rand­
masters made m i stakes. Therefore you
have the chance to show that you can cope
bette r with the problems posed . I hope that
in the analysis of you r own games you w i l l
a l s o constantly s e e k ( a n d sometimes find)
s i m i lar omissions.
3. Wh ite to move
 The Analysis of one's own Games lZJ 55

Sol utions

1 . Yusupov - Timman ( Reykjavi k 1 988) . 32 'it'c6 �a6

White has a forced way to w i n . 33 .lt b6 tt'le8
38 e6! .l:i.xd6 The game conti n ued 34 'iVcB? 'ii'x d6 35
39 e7 .ltc6 'ii'x a6 'iVc6 36 'iVxa5 �xc4! 37 'ii'xe5 'ii'c 1 +
40 l:tf8+ �h7 38 '>t>h2 'iVc6 . It is extremely difficult to
41 .ltf5+! g6 convert such an extra paw n , and Black
42 z::!.d 8 .l:i.f6 subseq uently gained a d raw.
43 .ltd7 .ltxd7 Wh ite missed a forced w i n :
44 .l:i.xd7 3 4 c5!
I did not notice the i ntermed iate check 4 1 Th reaten in g 35 .l::!. d 7 and 35 'ii'c 8 .
.if5+ ! and s o I chose 3 8 g 3 ? 'it>h7 39 i.g2 34 . . . lL:Jxd6
.ixg2 40 'it>xg2 'it>g6 41 l:!.f8 . But Ti mman 35 cxd6 'ii'd B
found the defence 41 . . . tt'lb2 ! , after which it 36 'ti'c7 ! !
p roved impossible to convert the extra
It was this elegant move that Dolmatov
pawn.
ove rlooked .
2 . M.Gurevich - Razuvaev ( Moscow 1 987) . 36 . . . 'ti'xc7
Wh ite has a clear positional advantage , and 37 .ltxc7 a4
the question is how best to exploit it. 38 d7 .l:i.a8
Gurevich found a brill iant solution , concl ud­ 39 dB�+ l::tx d8
ing the struggle i n j u st two moves. 40 .ltxd8 a3
41 .lta5 a2
30 h5! g5
31 lL:Jd5 ! ! 42 .ltc3

Black resigned i n view of 3 1 . . . exd5 3 2 l:txe7

'fxe7 33 'iVxf5+ and 34 'iVxc8. Paradoxical ly,
in the twi nkling of an eye Black's most
fortified point at f5 became his main weak­
ness .
3. Dolmatov - N i kolic (Hastings 1 989/90) .
3 1 'ti'd5! lL:Jc7
Otherwise Black loses a pawn without any
compensation .
All th ree exam ples show that the conversion
of an advantage is not just a matte r of
technique alone. Nearly always there comes
a moment when you have to exert you rself,
calculate variations accu rately and find the
shortest way to the goa l . Otherwise the
ach i evement of the win may prove difficult,
or altogether i m possi ble.
56 � PART I I

Mark Dvoretsky

A Com mentator 's Dou bts

T
he comments on the followi ng game 6 . . . 'ii'xf6
were written i mmediately after it was 7 d4 c5
played . At that time the opening variation 8 tt'lf3 h6
chosen by Wh ite had not yet become After 8 . . . cxd4 9 �g5! 'it'f5 1 0 cxd4 i.. b 4+ 1 1
fashionable - its i nterpretation corresponds �d2 Black can apparently equalise, but he
to my perception of the opening problems at has to defend accu rately, and, above a l l ,
that time. there is no chance a t all o f anyth in g more . I t
is n o t s u rprising that Georgy Agzamov
Dvoretsky - Agzamov chooses a more com plicated conti n u atio n .
Alma Ata 1 976
9 ..td3!
English Opening
1 c4 tt'Jf6
2 tt'lc3 e6
3 e4 d5
4 e5
As is wel l known, in the event of 4 cxd5 exd5
5 e5 Black sacrifices a pawn by 5 . . . tt'le4 ! and
gains excel lent counterplay. For example, 6
tt'Jxe4 dxe4 7 'ii'a4+ tt'lc6 8 'ii'xe4 'it'd4 ! 9
"i&'xd4 tt'Jxd4 1 0 'it>d 1 �f5 1 1 d3 0-0-0 .
But here the similar sacrifice is less effec­
tive : 4 . . .'�:Je4 5 lbxe4 dxe4 6 �g4 lbc6 7
"i&'xe4 'it'd4 8 'it'xd4 tt'lxd4 9 Wd 1 , and
compared with the previous variation it is
harder to Black to activate his lig ht-sq uare
bishop. The game Dvoretsky-Petrosian (43rd This i nvolves a pawn sacrifice . The q u iet 9
USSR Championship, Yerevan 1 975) con- �e2 does not create any problems for Black,
tin ued as fol lows : 9 . . . �c5 (or 9 . . . �d7 1 0 d3 for example: 9 . . . cxd4 1 0 cxd4 �b4+ 1 1 �d2
0-0-0 1 1 �e3) 1 0 d3 lbc6 (if 1 o . . lbf5 , then
.
�xd2+ 1 2 �xd2 lbc6 1 3 0-0 0-0, or 9 . . . �d6
1 1 g4 lLlh6 1 2 h3 �xf2 1 3 �g2 fol lowed by 1 0 0-0 0-0 1 1 �e3 lbc6 1 2 �b3 e5 with
lLlf3 , We2 and d3-d4 with advantage) 1 1 f4 equal chances ( M i kenas-Cherepkov, Lenin­
f6 1 2 lLlf3 fxe5 1 3 fxe5 0-0 1 4 �e2 �d7 1 5 g rad 1 954) .
�d2 �e8 1 6 lbg5 �d7 1 7 �g4 .l:r.ae8 1 8 9 . . . tt'lc6
�c3 with advantage to White . Now 9 . . . cxd4 1 0 cxd4 ..ltb4+ 1 1 �d2 �xd2+
4 . . . d4 1 2 'ii"x d2 lbc6 1 3 'it'e3 0-0 1 4 0-0 no longer
5 exf6 dxc3 equalises i n view of the possibilities of �e4
6 bxc3 and .l:!.ab 1 ( 1 4 . . . b6?? is totally bad on
6 fxg7 cxd2+ 7 �xd2 or 7 'it'xd2 is also accou nt of 1 5 'it'e4) .
possi ble. The game Dvoretsky-Langeweg (Wij k aan
 A Commentator's Doubts
Zee 1 976) went 9 . . . .td6 1 0 0-0 0-0 1 1 'ii'e 2
l:!.d8? ( 1 1 . . . tt:Jc6 is better) 1 2 'ife4 'ii'f 5 1 3
l'h4! and Wh ite won .
1 0 0-0 cxd4
Black decides to accept the pawn sacrifice,
although , from the speed with which I made
the open i n g moves, my opponent could
have guessed that the sacrifice had been
prepared befo rehand.
Black's decision is dubious: for the pawn
White has too g reat a lead in development.
Of course, it was safe r to play 1 O . . . .td6 1 1
l'e2 0-0 ( 1 1 . . . cxd4 1 2 cxd4 tt:Jxd4 1 3 tt:Jxd4
l'xd4 1 4 .tb2 'iVf4 1 5 g3) , but here too
White's chances are p referable : for exam­
ple, he can obtain the better endgame by 1 2
'le4 'iVf5 1 3 'ifxf5 or 1 3 'ii'x c6.
1 1 cxd4 tt:Jxd4
12 tt:Jxd4 'iVxd4
1 3 .l:tb1 1i'd8
If 13 . . . .te7 there would have followed 1 4
i.b2.
14 'iff3
1 4 i.b2 would remove the attack on the b7-
pawn, allowi n g Black to develop his bishop
on c8. Wh ite chooses a d iffe rent plan .
14 . . . .te7
If 1 4 . . . .tc5 , then 1 5 l:tb5 ! is ve ry stro n g , for
example, 1 5 . . . 'ii'e 7 1 6 'iVg3 .td4 1 7 .te4
with the th reat of 1 8 .ta3. And after 1 4 . . . .td6
I was seriously th i n ki n g of carrying out the
same idea at the cost of another pawn - 1 5
c5! ? i.xc5 1 6 .l:.b5.
15 l:r.d 1
Of cou rse, it was n ot my i ntention to exploit
such a tempti ng attacki ng positio n , merely i n
order to regain the pawn b y 1 5 .te4 0-0 1 6
i.xb7.
15 . . . "fkc7
1 6 l:r.b5
In this way White does not allow his
opponent to castle ( 1 6 . . . 0-0 1 7 .txh6! gxh6
1 8 'ii'g 4+ .tg5 1 9 l:.xg5+ or 1 8 . . . 'iti>h8 1 9 .l:th5
and wins). But Black forces the rook to go to
ltJ 57
h 5 , where it is not altogether well placed.
16 . . . a6!
1 7 l:th5
There is no point i n Wh ite simplifying by 1 7
.tf4 .td6 ! .
17 . . . i.d7
1 8 i.f4 'i'c8
A cool-headed and correct move . I n the
event of 1 8 . . . .td6 1 9 .txd6 1i'xd6 Wh ite
wou l d have gained a g reat advantage, by
playing simply 20 'ii'x b7 .tc6 21 'ifb6 . The
tem pti ng 20 .tg6? is much weake r. After
20 . . .'ii' e 7 2 1 .txf7+ 1i'xf7 22 'ifxf7+ 'iti>xf7 23
.l:txd7+ 'iti>g6 24 I:th3 .l:thd8 25 I:tg3+ 'iti>f6 26
I:tgxg7 l:txd7 27 l':txd7 .:tea 28 l:txb7 l:.xc4 29
.l:tb 1 l:lc2 30 I:ta 1 the win i n the rook
endgame stil l has to be demonstrated , while
the variation 20 . . . 'ii'x d 1 + 21 1i'xd 1 fxg6 22
l:tc5 .tc6! is even less clear.
1 9 i.e5
1 9 'iVg3 dese rved serious consideratio n .
T h e n 1 9 . . . g5 20 .t e 5 f 6 leads t o a position
from the game, advantageous to Wh ite . If
1 9 . . . .tf6 , then 20 .td6 is strong , while if
1 9 . . . 'iti>f8 , then, if there is noth ing better, 20
.td6 .txd6 (20 . . . 1\i'ea 21 .te4 .tc6 22 .txc6
bxc6 23 c5 with advantage to White) 2 1
'iVxd6+ 'it> g 8 22 .l:tc5 .tc6 2 3 .te4. However,
after 23 . . . .txe4 24 l':txc8+ llxc8 it would be
not at a l l simple for Wh ite to convert his
58 � PART I I
material advantage .
19 . . . f6
20 'ii'g 3
After 20 ..ltg6+ 'it>f8 Black would have been
th reatening to simpl ify the position by
21 . . . ..1te8. In this case it is not apparent how
White can strengthen his attack, and so he
decided to sacrifice a piece .
20 . . . g5?
I n the event of 20 . . . fxe5 2 1 'ir'xg7 .l:tf8 the
black king is i n danger, but there is no clear
win. If 22 .U.xh6?, then 22 .. .'it'c5 ! is possible.
Wh ite would probably have played the
simple 22 !Ixe5, retai ning dangerous th reats .
For example, if 22 . . . itc7 23 ..ltg6+ 'it>d8
there fol lows not 24 .l:txe6 itc5 ! with cou nte r­
chances , but 24 ..ltf5 ! . Then 24 . . . .Uxf5 25
l:txf5 exf5 26 itg8+ is not possible, while if
24 . . . 'it>c8 White has the decisive 25 .l:txd7
'lt>xd7 26 ..ltxe6+ 'lt>c6 (26 . . . '1t>d8 27 .l:td5+;
26 . . .'1t>e8 27 'ir'g6+ '1t>d8 28 .U.d5+ ..ltd6 29 c5 ;
26 . . . '1t>d6 27 ..ltg4 ! ) 27 ..ltd5+ '1t>b6 28 .l::!.x e7
with i rresistible th reats . However, after
22 . . . 'lt>d8! (instead of 22 . . . 'ir'c7) Wh ite has a
d raw: 23 ..ltf5 ! ? .U.xf5 24 l:txf5 exf5 25 'fih8+
'lt>c7 26 'fie5+ , but it is u nclear whether he
can hope for more after, say, 23 ..lte2 ! ? .
I think that the best possibil ity of a defence
was offered by the cool-headed 20 . . . '1t>f8 ! .
After the move i n the game Wh ite had
prepared a decisive combi nation.
2 1 �g6+ Wf8
If 21 . . . 'lt>d8 the most energetic is 22 .l:th3 ! ,
prepari ng to switch the rook to the d-fi le.
(see diagram)
22 h4! �ea
Of cou rse , not 22 . . .fxe5 23 ii'f3+ .
2 3 hxg5! fxe5
Or 23 . . . ..1txg6 24 gxf6 ! , and Black has no
defence.
24 .l:.xh6!
Natural ly, not 24 itxe5? ..ltxg6! 25 itxh8+
'it>f7. Also weake r is 24 gxh6 ..ltxg6 25 itxg6
.l:tg8 , and after the queen moves - 26 . . . 'fic6
or 26 . . . ..1tf6 .
24 . . . �g8
If 24 . . . l:!.xh6 25 gxh6 ..ltf6 there fol l ows 26
'ii'f 3 cJ;; e7 27 'ir'a3+! with mate .
25 'ii'f3+ Wg7
26 �e4
The simplest, althoug h , of cou rse , 26 .l:Ih7+
'lt>xg6 27 ite4+ 'lt>xg5 28 l:td3 would also
have led to mate .
26 . . . �fa
Or 26 . . . .l:th8 27 .l:.xh8 'it>xh8 28 ith3+ with
mate i n 4 moves.
27 .l:!.h7+ wga
28 ith3
Black resigns.
The analysis of the game would appear to
be complete , but now I should l i ke to g ive
some thought to the question of game
annotations i n general . After a l l , thousands,
tens of thousands of games are annotated
on the pages of chess publ ications, and they
are all annotated in d ifferent ways .
I have always thought that the annotations
to a player's own games are the most
i nte resting. As a ru le, they contain fewer
analytical mistakes (after a l l , the author of
the notes solves the same problems fi rst at
the board , then i n a joint analysis with his
opponent, and final ly, when preparing the
game for publ ication) . Also i m portant is the
 A Commentator's Doubts
fact that such notes are rarely restricted to a
simple statement of events - the annotator
talks about his thoug hts d u ring the game,
the reasons for the m i stakes comm itted , and
so on . . .
But apart from the obvious virtues, normally
such notes are also typified by certain
fundamental deficiencies. These deficien­
cies are not at all obvious, but they
freq uently prevent a full and accu rate
picture of the play from being obtai ned . So
as not to have to go looki ng for examples , let
us return to the game we have just
examined .
Let us begin with the open i n g . It appears to
have been covered in sufficient deta i l . But
take a closer look. A comparatively rare
variation was played . But why does it hardly
ever occur i n practice? Perhaps because
reliable ways for Black to equal ise have
been found? But where are they, these
ways? - the author of the notes does not say
anything about the m . And here it is not j ust a
lack of recommendations. For example, the
evaluation of the position arising after Black's
8th move could also have been expressed
differently by me, for example: 'After 8 . . . cxd4
9 i.g5 'i'f5 1 0 cxd4 i.. b 4+ Black would have
gai ned good chances of equalisi n g . '
Perhaps the author o f t h e notes does not
know what to recommend for Black? Of
course he knows! There are conti n uations
wh ich to h i m personally seem unpleasant,
but consciously or su b-consciously he pre­
fers not to share the m ; he also does not
want to tal k about the methods he has
developed agai nst various plans for Black.
And this is natura l : afte r all, i n tou rnament
play he hi mself may need these ope n i n g
preparations. (Al ready t h e n I had found the
pawn sacrifice 7 . . . e5 ! ? 8 'ir'e2 i.e? ! , and I
had decided that Wh ite does best not to
accept it, but to play 8 tt'lf3 . S u bseq uently
this became the main conti nuation i n the
given opening variation . )
59
It is clear that an 'evasive' coverage o f the
open ing is a characte ristic featu re of the
an notating of one's own games.
There is also another feature. We are all
incli ned to consider our defeats to be
accidenta l , whereas we prefer to see our
wins as being genuine examples of chess
a rt . And, succu mbing (as a rule - sub­
consciously!) to this des i re , we begi n paying
exaggerated atte ntion to o u r own decisions,
and of the opponent's actions we pick out
only those agai nst which we had prepared a
pretty rejoinder.
Every1hing that does not fit i nto this pattern ,
is not even d iscarded - conscientiousness
does not allow this (here we are talking
about conscientious annotators) , but is
simply mentioned afte r some featureless
i ntrod uction such as 'consideration should
also be given to . . . ' or 'possibly X should
h ave thought about. . . ' . And as a result it
often happens that the reader often rushes
past the most i m portant, turning-poi nts of
the play, al most without stoppi n g .
What, f o r example, c a n be s a i d for the
moment about the game i n question?
Already i n the opening Wh ite made a
positional pawn sacrifice, and the n , exploit­
ing tactical factors , he confidently devel­
oped his i n itiative and concluded the b attle
with a pretty com b i n ation .
A complete game, wouldn't you agree?
But let us take a closer look. In the notes to
Black's 20th move it is the conseq uences of
h i m accepting the piece sacrifice that are
m a i n ly analysed , and the best defence is
mentioned only i n pass i n g : 20 'iitf 8 ! . What
. . .
would happen in this case?
(see diagram)
60 � PART I I
2 1 i.g6 will not d o i n view of 2 1 . . . fxe5!
(there is also the more cautious 2 1 . . . i.e8 ) . If
21 i.d6 , then 2 1 . . i.xd6 22 'ii'x d6+ Wf7 ,
.
a n d it is not apparent h o w Wh ite can
strengthen his attack (after 23 l:tc5 i.c6
there is no time for 24 i.e4 on account of
24 . . . .l:td8 ) .
If t h i s variation is compared with t h e note to
Wh ite's 1 9th move , which shows that after
1 9 'fi'g3 White would have retained the
better chances, it can be concluded that 1 9
i.e5 is a mistake , afte r which , at the least,
Wh ite no longer has any advantage.
Yet even after 1 9 'i!ig3 Wh ite does not
achieve a g reat deal , whereas the position
promised more. Were not some mistakes
made earl ier?
Here Wh ite played 1 6 .l:tb5 and after 1 6 . . . a6
he switched his rook to h5. Perhaps this
manoeuvre i s not the best?
Analysis shows that it was stronger to play
1 6 i.f4 e5 ( 1 6 . . . 'ii'c 6 1 7 iVxc6+ bxc6 1 8 i.e4
i.d7 1 9 .Ub7 is completely bad for Black) 1 7
i.g3 , a n d after 1 3 . . 0-0 1 8 'ii'e4 f5 1 9 'ii'd5+
.
Wh ite regains the paw n , mai ntai n i n g pres­
s u re .
I n t h e note t o Black's 1 3th move I mentioned
the move 1 4 i.b2 and explained why I did
not play this. But what if the position is
studied more concretely?
And so, 1 4 i.b2 i.d7 1 5 i.e4 . Now 1 5 . . .
i.c6 leads after 1 6 i.xc6+ bxc6 1 7 'iVf3 o r 1 7
"ii'g 4 to an ove rwhel m i n g advantage for
White. 1 5 . . . 'ii'c 8 1 6 i.xg7! i.xg7 1 7 i.xb7
'ifd8 1 8 i.xa8 'ii'xa8 1 9 ifd6 ii'd8 20 .l:tb8
i.c8 21 'it'cs is also hopeless for Black.
And if 1 5 .. .'ii' c 7, then 1 6 l::t e 1 ! is very strong,
for example: 1 6 . . . i.c6 1 7 i.eS! 'ili'c8 1 8 'ili'f3
with the th reat of 1 9 l:!.xb7 ! .
It is now possible t o evaluate more objec­
tively the play of the two contestants. After
successfully sacrificing a pawn in the open­
i n g , Wh ite pursued the wrong attacking
strategy, and several times did not choose
the best way of developing h i s i n itiative ,
risking losing all his advantage . But at ti mes
Black played too boldly. As a result he fi rst
 A Commentator's Doubts
put hi mself i n a dangerous positio n , b y
accepting t h e pawn sacrifice, a n d then , after
almost parrying the attack, he neve rtheless
suffered a defeat after i ncautiously weaken ­
ing h i s position with 20 . g5.
. .
Why then did the game i n itially receive a
different evaluation? M i stakes i n the notes?
No, after al l , we have not refuted a single
variation. It was all a q uestion of i ncorrect
accentuations. They are wonderfu l things,
these accentuations! With their help, without
changing anything i n variations, one can
61
demonstrate that a game was i nte resting,
that a game was u n i nte resting, that there
were many m i stakes, that there we re hardly
any mistakes . . .
Therefore , if you want to gain a complete
i m p ression of a game being studied , check
and re-check the arg u m ents of the commen­
tators . Be especially attentive to i m percepti­
ble recommendations, made 'in passing' ,
such as those that we were able to decipher
i n the given i nstance.
62 � PART I I

Artur Yusupov

How to play with B lack

A player's success i n a competition often l n kiov - Yusu pov

depends on his tournament strategy ( i n the Olympiad , Dubai 1 986
choice of which account should defin itely be Queen 's Gambit
taken of his own condition, state of prepar­ 1 d4 dS
edness and competitive form) and the The situation of our team obliged me to play
tactics chosen i n each specific game, which for a win in every game, i rrespective of the
may change depend ing on the strength and strength of my opponent and the colour of
style of his opponent. the pieces. But how to achieve success,
To my su rprise , the result I ach ieved i n the playing Black against an experienced oppo­
World Chess Olympiad ( Dubai 1 986) was nent? It looks natural to try and i n itiate as
much better than I expected . I think that my complicated a struggle as possible. In this
successful performance was assisted by connection my choice of open ing may seem
two facto rs . open to criticism: in the Queen's G ambit it is
The first: I soberly assessed my own easy for Wh ite to simpl ify the positio n . But
condition , which was not idea l , and chose after weighing up everything 'for' and 'agai nst'
the optimal tou rnament strategy. Real ising with team captain Yefim Geller, we came to
that to engage i n a complicated struggle the concl usion that in a simple situation I
would not be easy and that the probabil ity of wou ld be more l i kely to exploit my strong
fai l u re wou ld be g reat, I endeavoured to play poi nts and force the opponent to go wrong. It
as simply as possible, exploiti ng my superi­ was i mportant to play calmly, not agree to a
ority i n class - i n the team I was playing on d raw, and seek winning chances in any
boards three and fou r. Several ti mes I was position .
able to win simple positions - while main­ 2 c4 e6
taining a mini mal tension , I tried to force my 3 tt'lf3 c6
opponent into making mistakes . 4 tt'lc3 tt'lf6
And the second : it was easier for me playing 5 cxdS exd5
Black, since here I h ave a better developed This ve rsion of the Carlsbad Variation is
open ing repertoire, and the lack of exces­ harmless for Black, si nce he has the
sive open ing ambitions corresponded with possibil ity of developing his bishop at f5 .
the strategy that I had planned . 6 'i!Vc2 i.. e7
Of course, luck also played its part. Other­ 7 i.. g S g6
wise it is hard to explain my resu lt - 1 0 out of 8 i.. xf6 i.. xf6
1 2 , with nine of my games being played with 9 e3 i..fS
Black and agai nst qu ite strong opponents . 1 0 i.. d 3 i.. x d3
The followi ng game was played i n the 1 1 'i!V xd3 tt'ld7
USSR-Bulgaria match . Serious consideration should be given to the
plan that G arry Kasparov l i kes to carry out in
similar positions: . . . 0-0, . . . 'it'd6 , . . . ltJd7 and
. . . .l::t ad8 , i n order to counter the standard
 How to play with Black lZJ 63

b2-b4-b5 with . . . c6-c5 . Now the advance o f the b-pawn is th reat­

1 2 0-0 ened.
The immediate 1 2 b4 was possibly more
accu rate.
12 . . . i.. e 7! ?
1 3 l:tab1 a5
14 a3 0-0
15 'it'c2
White tries to play as safely as possible. After
1 5 b4 he was concerned about 1 5 . . . axb4 1 6
axb4 .U.a3.
15 . . . i.. d 6
One of the possible reactions to the m i n o rity
pawn attack is the cou nte r-advance . . . b7-
b5. But after both 1 5 . . . �e8 1 6 b4 axb4 1 7
axb4 b5, and the game continuation ( i n the
event of 1 7 . . . b5) , 1 8 e4 promises Wh ite the 2 1 e4?
better game. 1 5 .. .f5 was possible, but I didn't 21 'iWb3 l:tfc8 22 I;:txa8 (defending agai nst
want to weaken my castled position. 22 . . . l:.xa1 23 .Uxa 1 tt:Jxe3) 22 . . . !lxa8 23
16 b4 axb4 tt:'lb5 ! was correct, when it is ve ry hard for
Black to develop his i n itiative . For the
After 1 6 . . .<�Jb6 I would have had to reckon
Bu lgarian player the move 2 0 . . .'ir'xc6 came
with 1 7 bxa5 .
as a s u rprise, and he was unable to react
1 7 axb4 lLlb6
cal m ly to the changed situation .
1 8 b5? !
21 . . . l:txa1
White should have exercised more caution 22 Itxa1 tt:Jb6 !
and played 1 8 tt:Jd2. After 1 8 . . .'ir'c7 1 9 g3
23 �b3 .l:!.c8
�a3 20 .l:!.b3 a roughly equal position wou l d
24 tt:Je2 ! ?
have arise n . How, howeve r, Black obtains
If 2 4 tt:'lxd5 tt:'lxd5 2 5 exd5, then 2 5 . . . 'ir'c 1 + !
the more pleasant game.
26 ii'd 1 'ir'c4 27 .l:!. b 1 'it'xd5 28 'ir'd3 b5! , and
18 . . . tt:Jc4
Black ach ieves a disti nct advantage . With
19 J::t a 1
an i nte resting pawn sacrifice l n kiov tries to
1 9 bxc6 tt:Ja3 20 'ir'd3 tt:Jxb 1 2 1 cxb7 is compl icate the play.
dangerous for Wh ite on account of 2 1 . . . .l:l:a3
24 . . . dxe4
22 l:!.xb 1 it'a5 23 .l:l:c 1 .l:!.b8 . 25 tt:Jg5 �c7
19 . . . "flic7
25 . . . tt:'lc4? was weaker in view of 26 'ir'h3! h5
The aim of this move is to prevent tt:Jd2 and 27 d5! and 28 tt:'le4.
to prepare the recaptu re with the queen on
26 h4?
c6.
Better chances of a successful defence
20 bxc6 were offered by 26 tt:Jxf7! l::txf7 27 .l:tc 1 ,
Ventzislav l n kiov falls in with his opponent's although in this case too after 27 . . . 1Lxh2+ 28
wishes . The othe r possibilities here are 20 'it>xh2 'ir'd6+ Black has an obvious advan­
g3 and 20 'iid 3. tage.
20 . . . �xc6 ! ? 26 . . . tt:Jc4
64 <t> PART I I

Having parried t h e th reat o f 2 7 tt:'lxf7 , Black 29 . . . 'it>g7

has fully coordinated his forces . l n kiov's 30 hxg6 'ifxg5
desperate attempt to confuse matte rs is 31 gxf7 'it>xf7!
easily refuted. If 3 1 . . . .Uxf7 Wh ite had the reply 32 "ii'c 8.
27 'ifh3 h6 32 d5 'ifxd5
28 h5 'ifd5 33 lL'ld4 lL'lb6
The safest conti nuation . If 28 . . . hxg5 29
The simplest. Further loss of m ate rial is
:taB+ ..if8 30 h6 f5 3 1 h7+ .l:!.xh7 32 I!xf8+
unavoidable.
'it>xf8 33 "ii'x h7, with possible counter­
34 'ifxh6 lLlxaB
chances for White.
35 'ifh7+ 'it>eB
29 :taB+
29 f4 was more tenaciou s . Wh ite resigned.

PA RT I l l
Artur Yusupov and Mark Dvoretsky
The Tec h n i q ue of Worki ng on you r own and
other Players' Games
Artur Yusupov
W
e will be tal king about how to study
games - classic games or you r own ,
and about certain proced u res, enabling the
maximum benefit to b e gained fro m such
work.
You cannot become a real chess player
without a serious study of the chess
classics, j ust as it is i m possible to i mag i n e ,
say, a write r or a poet w h o has not read
Shakespeare , or an artist who has not seen
the pictu res of R e m b randt.
Even a cu rsory examination of classic
games can contribute much to the i m p rove­
ment of positional understand i n g . After all,
the great playe rs had a complete m aste ry of
the gene ral principles of strategy, and skil­
fully arranged the i r pieces. From the i r games
one can study typical chess positions,
standard plans , and model proced u re s . That
is, the classics are a serious aid in mastering
the skill of playi ng the m iddlegame.
You will re m e m b e r that we analysed my
game with Anatoly Karpov, and I d rew you r
attention t o his approach t o t h e taking of
decisions, to his prophylactic p e rception of a
positio n . By studying the games of outstand­
ing players, you will see how they think, how
they solve compl icated probl em s, and what
psychological m ethods they u s e . This i nfor­
mation is also very i mportant fo r you r s elf­
improve m e nt.
65
Try to focus your attention on the
strongest aspects of the play of that
outstanding player, whose games you
have chosen to study. For exampl e , when
beco m i n g acq uai nted with the games of
Tigran Petrosian, you r main attention should
be on how Petrosian prophylactically per­
ceived a position , and how h e combated his
opponent's ideas. Such work is especially
useful to players for whom this aspect of
play is thei r most vu l n e rable point. When
studyi ng the games and com m e ntaries of
Alexande r Alekh i n e , a q u ite d ifferent ap­
proach is need e d . It is very intere sti ng to
follow how logically and concretely Alekhine
evaluates a position and chooses a plan ,
and with what i n e xorable consiste ncy and
colossal energy he carries out his plans.
A few words about the m ethods that it is
useful to use when studying games. You can
play at 'guess i n g ' . After playing through t h e
open i n g , cove r t h e subsequent text i n t h e
book with a s h e et o f pap e r a n d try t o guess
the moves made by the g randmaste r. By
compari ng your i ntu itive perception of the
position with the decisions of the g reat
player, you w i l l develop you r i ntuition , you r
fee l i n g for position . T h i s m ethod was used,
for example, by Aaron N i m zowitsc h .
Anothe r m ethod . Y o u see a diagra m or a
lengthy com ment. It is clear that here is
66 � PART I l l

concealed a serious, i nteresting probl e m , o r 5 . . . d5

that a n unexpected and difficult move was
made (or missed ) . You can , by delving i nto
the position , try to solve this problem
independently, and then check you r conclu­
sions with the game commentary.
There is a third method of worki n g , which I
think is very usefu l . You have looked
through a game and some feature made an
impression on you , it seemed i nte resti ng
and instructive . Make a 'positional sketch'
on this topic. On a separate sheet of paper
draw a diagram and describe briefly why the
position seemed i nteresting to you , what
was curious about it. Leave space for
possible futu re add itions or refi nements .
Add new examples to this sheet only when
they closely resemble those al ready there.
The game which we will now exam ine was
played quite recently - just over a hundred
years ago. Why have I chosen this encoun­
ter between Zukertort and Blackburne? This
is one of the most bri l l i ant games i n the
history of chess , and i n it a wonde rful
com bination was carried out. Johann Zuker­
tort - the opponent of Wilhelm Stei n itz in the
fi rst match for the world championsh ip - was
a versatile playe r. He attacked especially
inventively, but he was also able to act
positionally.
6 d4 �d6
The placing of the pieces is, of course, a
matter of taste . It is also possible to play
differently, for example, 6 . . . dxc4 , 6 . . . i.e7,
6 . . . 4'lbd7, or 6 . . . c5 . But I personally prefer
the plan chosen by Blackburne . Later, in
similar situations, both Alexande r Alekhine
and Akiba Rubi nstei n acted in the same way.
7 4'lc3 0-0
8 b3
Zuke rtort completes his development by
playing his bishop to b2.
8 . . . 4'lbd7
This is the arrangement about which I was
speaki n g . The active bishops at b7 and d6
are trained on the kingside. They used to be
cal led 'Horwitz bishops' (the 1 9th century
German maste r Bernhard Horwitz l i ked to
deploy his bishops i n this way) . Black
subsequently d reams of playing . . . lt:Je4,
. . . f7-f5, and then switching his queen or
rook via f6 for an attack on the king.
9 � b2

Zukertort - Blackbu rne

London 1 883
Queen 's Pawn Opening
1 c4 e6
2 e3 4'lf6
3 4'lf3 b6
4 �e2 �b7
5 0-0
In 1 883 they played the opening without any Now Black can choose 9 . . . c5 or 9 . . . lt:Je4 , but
great pretensions - they simply developed I would have preferred 9 . . . a6 , to prevent
their pieces sensibly. But I would l i ke to d raw lt:lb5 . The bishop at d6 is a very strong piece
your attention to the next few moves of and Wh ite would very much l i ke to ex­
Joseph Blackburne. He found a good ar­ change his knight at c3 for it. Of cou rse,
rangement of his pieces. lt:lb5 is not always an effective move. The
 Working on your own and other Players' Games
bishop may retreat to e7, then there fol lows
. . . a7-a6, and the result is the sam e . But if
White's rook or queen has al ready occu pied
the c-fi le, the bishop can no longer retreat in
view of the weakness of the c7-paw n .
Therefore i n t h i s type o f position t h e move
. . . a7-a6 is a good prophylactic proced ure.
However, Blackb u rne underestimated the
threat of tt:Jb5 .
9. . . �e7 ? !
1 0 tt'lbS tt'le4
11 tt'lxd6 cxd6
Do you see how the position has changed?
Black's pawn structu re has been slightly
spoiled and Wh ite has gained the advan­
tage of the two bishops. He will exchange
the kn ight at e4 or d rive it away by f2-f3 .
White's position is preferabl e .
Let u s go back slightly. It seems t o me that
the situation before Black's 9th move is
rather interesting. Here one could d raw a
positional sketch on the theme of prophylac­
tic moves, of atte ntion to the opponent's
threats. Take a sheet of pape r, entitle it, say,
'Attentio n to the opponent's poss i b i l ities' .
Draw a diagra m . Above it write 'Zukertort­
Biackburne ( London 1 883)' and under it -
'Black to move' (or 'after 9 �b2' ) . On the
right side of the page leave space for
possible future comments . Then it can be
remarked that i n the game Black i naccu­
rately played 9 . . . fie7 , allowing the ex­
change of his d6 bishop for the knight at c3.
He should fi rst have defended the b5-square
by 9 . . . a6, a typical move in such positions.
In princi p l e , you can write any comments of
your own , any discussions on the given
topic. If late r you come across a new and
similar example, add it to the same l ist. As a
result you will compile a col lection of
instructive positions on the most varied
topics. I n the process they w i l l be fi rmly
engraved i n you r memory, expanding and
reinforcing you r positional arse nal .
Let us now retu rn to the game . So, as a
67
resu lt of B lackb u rne's i naccu racy, Wh ite has
gained a slight advantage.
1 2 tt'ld2 tt'ldf6
If 1 2 . . . f5 , then after 1 3 cxd5 .i.xd5 1 4 f3
Wh ite would have g radually prepared e3-e4.
But I th ink that the exchange 1 2 . . .lt:Jxd2 was
better than the move in the game.
Now I suggest that you spend some time
consideri n g the positio n .
Recently I was discussing t h i s g a m e with
Dvo retsky and he drew attention to the
move 1 3 tt:Jb1 ! . A h u n d red years ago, of
cou rse , they didn't play that sort of chess.
This positional procedure - non-standard
avoidance of an exchange - appeared much
late r. Mark l s railevich easily fou n d the
strongest move , because he had al ready
studied such situations and eve n written an
article on this topic 'The "superfluous"
piece ' .
Here too I wou l d make a positional sketch.
And comment on the given situation roughly
as fol lows :
'The u nexpected 1 3 tt:Jb1 comes i nto consid­
eration. In avoiding the exchange, Wh ite
i ntends by 1 4 f3 to d rive the knight away
from e4, and then play tt:Jc3 , preparing e3-
e4. In this case he retains more pieces on the
board , which is advantageous to the side
with a s patial advantage . '
68 � PART I l l
A s i m i lar situation someti mes occu rs i n the
Engl ish Open ing or i n the Stonewall Varia­
tion of the Dutch Defence.
There is an additional n uance - i n some
cases �a3 becomes possible, which is
important, say, in the variation 1 3 tt:Jb 1 e5 1 4
f3 tt:Jg5 1 5 dxe5 dxe5 1 6 �a3, winning the
exchange.
I n the game Wh ite played more simply,
allowing the exchange of knig hts and thereby
lessen i ng his positional advantage .
1 3 f3 tt:Jxd2
14 'i'xd2 dxc4
A possible decision , although some criti­
cised Blackburne for this move . But with
what would you recapture on c4?
The pawn at c4 would be rather weak, and
therefore the capture with the bishop looks
more natu ral . We thereby asce rtai n that,
instead of 1 4 . . . dxc4 , serious attention should
have been given to 1 4 . . . �a6.
15 ..txc4 d5
1 6 ..td3
Now the open file m ust be occupied by a
rook. The question is, which rook?
If Black plays 1 6 . . . .l:l.ac8 , he has to reckon
with the reply a2-a4 ! . The th reat of i.. a 3
appears , as well as the serious plan of an
offensive on the queenside with a4-a5.
16 . . . .l:tfc8
1 7 l::!. a e1
White had a choice. He cou ld also have
considered the plan of playi ng on the
queenside, with 1 7 a4. But 1 7 l:!.ae 1 looks
more natu ral , and in the positional sense
Zukertort was a natu ral player who made
sou nd moves of this sort.
Now I i nvite you to reflect a l ittle on the
position and take a decision for Black.
(see diagram)
Yes , you hit the mark if you suggested 1 7 . . .
a5 ! . The situation i s not without its dangers
for Black. H i s bishop at b7 is passive , while
White has the advantage of the two bishops
and the real prospect of an offensive i n the
centre with e3-e4. If Black plays thought­
lessly and without a plan , he may be left
without counterplay and end u p i n a difficult
position .
With the move . . . a7-a5 (which was not in
fact made in the game) Black simu ltaneously
pursues several aims. He acq u i res three
prom ising possibilities: cou nterplay on the
queenside with . . . a5-a4 , the exchange of
the lig ht-sq uare bishops by . . . �a6, and in
some cases . . . 'ir'b4 .
Wh ite would probably have combated the
th reat of . . . a5-a4 by 1 8 a4. Then Black
would have exchanged the l i g ht-sq uare
bishops, gained q u ite adeq uate cou nterplay,
and would have been u n l i kely to lose the
game. A very active wh ite piece would have
disappeared from the board and also the c2·
square would have been weakened, i ntensi­
fyi n g the th reat of Black doubling rooks on
the c-fi l e .
Afte r w e have found t h e move 1 7 . . . a5 ! , it
becomes clear that, once Wh ite had chosen
the plan of play in the centre , he should have
i m plemented it by 1 7 1Ve2 ! (instead of 1 7
.l:!.ae 1 ) . From e2 the queen not only assists
 Working on your own and other Players' Games 69

e3-e4, but also prevents Black from ex­ without gaining anything in return, it would
changing the light-sq uare bishops . probably have been better to play . . . f7-f5
O n this topic too you c a n prepare a directly. '
positional sketch (you al ready know how Yes , one should be very cautious about
this is done) . The heading - 'exchange of movi ng pawns away from the k in g .
pieces' . It is often very important to After 20 . . . f5 ! 2 1 exf6 tbxf6 Black cou ld have
realise which pieces should be ex­ acq u i red cou nterplay with . . . tbe4 .
changed, or, on the contrary, which 21 �e3
should not be exchanged. Such a conclu­
sion may prove to be the key to a positio n ,
and help t h e correct p l a n t o be determ ined.
Blackburne played routinely. He saw that
there was an open file and he began
doubl ing rooks on it.
17 . . . l:.c7
1 8 e4 J::.a c8
Many playe rs would probably also have
acted in this way - doubled rooks , and only
then begun thinking what to do next. But in
general there is noth ing that Black can do -
the i n vasion squares on the c-file are
secu rel y controlled by the wh ite bishops.
Nevertheless , Black does sti l l have some If now 2 1 . . . tbg7, then Wh ite would have
tactical possibil ities, associated with the conti n u ed the offensive with 22 g4.
invasion o n c2 . Thus there is the possible
21 . . . f5
idea of . . . .i.a6 , although it is not apparent
Somewhat i nconsistent, but this often hap­
how it can be prepared .
pens: fi rst you make one move , and then
1 9 eS lbe8
you real ise that you should have played
20 f4
d ifferently. Now try thinking for some time,
The logical development of Wh ite's plan. He delving i nto the positio n , and g u essing the
increases his spatial advantage , prepari n g further course of the play.
a n attack on t h e ki n g. What would you
On what g rounds did you choose 22 exf6 ?
suggest here for Black?
Yes , of cou rse, this is the most obvious
It is extremely dangerous to al low f4-f5 . move . With the two bishops it is natu ral to
This means that he has to choose between open the position, and the hope appears
20 . . . g6 and 20 . . . f5 . The latte r conti n uation that the bishop at b2 may somehow also be
looks sounder. i ncl uded i n the attack. However, acco u nt
20 . . . g6 must be taken of the cou nterplay that may
In the tournament book Zukertort attached a flare up afte r . . . tbf6-e4 , so that 22 exf6 must
question mark to this move and gave a be accu rately calcu lated .
completely j ustified comment: 'Of course, It was also possible to play more q u i etly:
Black must stop the advance of the white f­ h2-h3 and g2-g4. But then it is very difficult,
pawn, but, considering that with the move in if at all possible, to breach Black's positio n .
the game he weakens his king's position, 22 exf6 !
70 � PART I l l
The start o f a very fine combi nation .
22 . . . tL'lxf6
If Black had foreseen Zukertort's idea, he
wou ld have prefe rred 22 . . . 'ii'xf6 i n the hope
of somehow digging in, say, after 23 'i!Ve 1
lt:Jg7. Wh ite would have developed his
in itiative with g2-g4 and conti nued his
attack, but Black's position wou l d have
remai ned fai rly sol id. But Blackburne wanted
to play more actively, especially si nce he
was obviously al ready planning the cou n­
terplay with 25 . . . .l:tc2 .
What should Wh ite do now? Here you can't
get away with general reaso n i n g . You m u st
calculate variations, and find the idea that
Zukertort carried out.
23 f5
This move made a strong i m p ression on one
of the annotators of this game, the fi rst world
champion Steinitz, who called it 'the start of
a remarkable conception on a grand scale. '
23 . . . tL'le4
What else?
24 .txe4 dxe4
The thematic move 25 d5 strongly suggests
itself. In positions with opposite-colour
bishops a material advantage is not of
great importance; what is important is
the activity of the bishop. With d4-d5
White opens the long diagonal fo r his
bishop, he th reatens 'i!Vd4 , and i n general
this is a very i nteresting contin uation . But let
us check it concretely: 25 d5 l:!.c2 26 'i!Vd4
e5, and after the exchange on e5 - . . . i.xd5,
when Black has every chance of a draw.
This means that othe r poss i b i l ities i n the
position m ust be sought.
It is very probable that Zukertort had al ready
foreseen them when he played 22 exf6 . He
was an unco m monly i nventive player and
had almost certainly found the idea of the
combi nation beforehand .
25 fxg6!
C l early, 25 f6 is weaker, because it allows
Black a respite : he plays 25 . . .'�'f7 26 l:!.c3
i.d5, gai n i n g real chances of a d raw. The
m ove in the game , ope n i n g the position, is
the most energetic . Now 25 . . . hxg6 i s bad,
because Wh ite has the very u n p leasant 26
l:!.g3 (26 . . . �g7 27 d5, and if 27 . . . .l:tc2 , then
28 'ii'x c2 ) .
25 . . . �c2
26 gxh7+ �h8
A typical defensive procedure - the king
hides behind the pawn . 26 . . . 'it>xh7 27 l:i.h3+
and 28 'ii'h 6 was clearly bad .
27 d5+ e5
28 'ii" b 4 ! !
Here the calculation can probably b e cut
short - one senses that Wh ite has a very
 Working on your own and other Players' Games
dangerous attack, sufficient at least for a
draw. But even so, let's try and calculate the
variation 28 .. .'�xb4 29 .txe5+ �xh7 to the
end. Wh ite plays 30 .l:th3+ �g6 3 1 .l:f.g3+
Wh6 32 l:tf6+, then .l:f.f5(f7)+ and .tf4+ . Do
you see the mati ng construction? This is the
idea of the combi nati o n . The three wh ite
pieces give mate with conti nuous checks .
If 28 . . . �g7 or 28 . . .'�g5, then 29 .l:f.g3 is
decisive .
28 . . . z:l.8c5
It is now evident that Wh ite's position is won ,
and probably not just i n one way. Apart from
the spectacular manner chosen by Zu kertort,
I also see anothe r wi n .
2 9 �f8+!
A very pretty diversion . If 29 .. .'�'xf8 there
follows 30 .txe5+ �xh7 3 1 ir'xe4+ �h6 32
l:!.h3+ and mate in a few moves. H e re
Stein itz gives the fol lowi ng comment: 'In
conjunction with White 's previous play, this
forms one of the most notable combinations
conceived over the chessboard. Words
cannot suffice to express our admiration of
the great skill with which Zukertort played
this game. ' Stei n itz was constantly in riva l ry
Mark Dvoretsky
Y
o u have j ust looked at a wonderful
classic game and picked out from it
several strategically i nte resting situations.
The positional sketches which you may
have made are , so to speak, of a p u rely
chess characte r (they are all associated with
the problem of exchanging pieces) . It is very
important to maste r the typical methods of
positional play. The arsenal of any strong
play contains an enormous store of such
methods, both widely-known , and subtle
ones which rarely occu r.
But positional sketches can be made not
only on purely chess topics. Chess is played
71
with Zukertort , but he genui nely loved
chess, ad m i red pretty ideas , and gave his
opponent his d u e . An example worthy of
i m itation !
However, the less aesthetic 29 �xe4 is also
decisive , although the variations are slightly
more complicated. If 29 . . . .l:txb2 , then 30
.l:f.f8+ ! �xf8 31 �xe5+ �xh7 (31 . . .'�g7 32
�e8+ 'it>xh7 33 .l:th3+ �h6 34 �f7+) , and
here the q u ickest way to mate is 32 '1i'h5+
�g7 33 'tlt'g5+ �f7 34 �f5+ �g8 35 �g6+.
In such instances you should choose the
one move which most appeals to you and
calculate it to the end.
29 . . . 'it>xh7
30 't!Vxe4+ <;t> g7
31 .ltxe5+
Wh ite is now finishing off, but in style.
Zukertort's aesthetic fee l i n g m ust be given
its d u e .
31 . . . 'iii xf8
32 .ltg7+!
An attractive blow.
32 . . . 'l.t g8
33 't!Vxe7
Black resigned.
by a perso n , who thinks, seeks and fights . At
times he is successfu l , at times he finds
someth ing i nteresti n g , but someti mes he
makes mistakes and does not succeed .
Moreover, he does not succeed not only
because of a lack of p u rely chess knowl­
edge, but freq uently on accou nt of deficien­
cies of character, on accou nt of mistakes i n
considering moves, i n t h e approach t o a
positio n , or in the taking of decisions. The
ability to analyse your thinking, develop
rational methods of planning, determine
what lies behind mistakes committed
and, by contrast, identify your creative
72 � PART I l l
successes - it is clear that all this is no
less important than the mastery of purely
chess subtleties.
The examples that I wish to show you are
linked with the analysis of a player's own
actions, an analysis that is not purely chess,
but, so to speak, chess psychology. They
are all taken from the games of Sergey
Dolmatov, who carried out this work i n the
pe riod 1 977-1 980. At that time he needed to
become stronger i n positional play, and he
used to draw positional sketches, i n which
he would comment not only on p u rely chess
factors , but also the psychological aspect of
decision taki ng and methods of considering
moves .
Recently I looked anew at Sergey Dolmatov's
notebook (generally speaki ng, it would have
been better to use not a notebook, but
separate sheets - a 'card i ndex'). It was very
interesting for me to remember how he then
worked on his chess. It should be said that
Se rgey was al ready quite a strong player. I n
1 978 h e became world j u n ior champion , and
a year later he won the USSR Champion­
ship Fi rst Leag ue. But even for a player of
the standard reached by Dolmatov, work
with positional sketches proved prod uctive ,
and assisted his development. There were
things to comment on, si nce he found
defects i n his play, which he wanted to
eradicate . I will now show you examples of
the analysis of his own games.
At the end of 1 977 Dolmatov did not manage
to win the European J u n ior Championship.
He shared 1 st-3rd places, but was placed
second on the tie-break. This tournament
revealed certain deficiencies, i n particular a
lack of self-confidence and a certain passiv­
ity in his play. Earl ier we had worked a lot on
strategy and tech nique. Sergey was fasci­
nated by positional play and he began
avoiding risks , giving prefe rence to purely
tech nical methods of play. After the E u ro­
pean Championship he and I set about
activating his play and strengthening his
fighting qual ities. As a result, Sergey began
playi ng much more aggressively and i nven­
tively, which helped him to a confident
victory i n the World J u n i o r Championship.
But, when analysing h i s play even i n this
successful tou rnament, he fou n d traces of
his old i l l ness.
The game with which we will begin was
played at the start of the world champion­
ship. The fi rst sketch that Sergey d rew
i nvolved a position that was reached i m me­
diately after the open i n g .
Khakpur - Dolmatov
G raz 1 978
Sicilian Defence
1 e4 c5 2 tt::l f3 e6 3 c3 d5 4 exd5 'iWxd5 5 d4
tt::lf6 6 .i.d3 .i.e7 7 0-0 0-0 8 'iWe2 cxd4
9 cxd4 tt::l c 6 1 0 .l::!.d 1 tt::l b 4 1 1 tt::l c 3 'iWd6 1 2
.i.b1
1 2 ... .i.d7
A normal developing move . But would n't
1 2 . b6 have been stronger, trying to deploy
. .
the bishop more actively by occupying the
long diagonal? What might Black be both­
e red about here? Of cou rse , 1 3 tt::l e4 - when
he might accidentally end up losing a rook.
Should we be afraid of this move or not? We
find the counter 1 3 . . . .i.a6 ! . Any exchanges
 Working on your own and other Players' Games 73

are to Black's advantage , so there is no
reason to be afraid .
Dolmatov d rew a diag ram a n d wrote that
instead of 1 2 . . ..td7 it would have been
.
better to develop the bishop on the long
diagonal (for the moment this is a p u rely
chess evaluation ) . H e made the fol lowing
com ment on what had happened :
'I knew that 12 . . . b6 was stronger, but during
the game I suddenly became afraid of 1 3
lbe4, although I also found the reply
1 3 . ii.a6!; i. e. I was afraid of a ghost. '
. .
player nearly always loses , if, of cou rse , he
has a clever and experienced opponent.
There is noth ing worse than aiming for a
d raw from the very fi rst moves. If it is
important for you not lose, don 't think at
all about a dra w, but play normally and
actively. You ha ve the right to remember
about the required outcome only at
certain rare moments - for example, if
the opponent himself offers a draw, or if
the possibility appears of forcing a dead­
drawn position - in other words, only

once or twice during the course of the

It is curious: if Sergey had not fou n d the
game.
intermed iate move . . . ..ta6 and had decided
Of cou rse , a cautious frame of mind does
that 12 . . . b6 was refuted , this episode could
not necessari ly lower the standard of you r
have been regarded as a tactical e rror. Yet
play. Thanks t o i t you can sometimes
he saw everything and nevertheless he was
afraid - this resu lts in a q u ite different neutral ise the opponent's latent ideas , which
picture. You should be afraid of things that in other circumstances you could have
ove rlooked. That is, a cautious mood may
are more real . If you see a good idea and it
help and may also let you down , with both
works - why then be afraid!
one and the othe r someti mes occu rri ng
Mistakes in the consideration of moves are
d u ring the course of the same game. We will
rarely accidental ; they give g rounds for
now see such an instance.
reflection , as usually someth i n g stands
At the start of the world championsh ip, when
beh ind the m . For example, lack of confi­
his game with the I ranian player Khakpur
dence in one's powe rs - where you are
occu rred, Sergey was not yet warmed u p ,
afraid not of concrete th reats , but are simply
was n o t f u l l y confident i n hi mself, a n d was
excessively cautious j ust i n case . This is a
serious defect, and in chess it is a terrible excessively constrained and cautious. Let
hindrance . Successes come more often to us examine a position that arose in the
aggressive , self-confident players. middlegame of the same game .

Cautious play is someti mes the conse­

quence of a corresponding approach to a
game. For example, it is important for you
not to lose, from you r tournament position a
draw su its you pe rfectly we l l , and you
decide to act as safely as possible. Such a
frame of mind infl uences you r behaviou r
throughout t h e g a m e . A t some point you
need to play actively, but because of you r
striving fo r solid ity and safety, you restrict
yourself.
If from your tou rnament position you need a
draw without fai l , then playi ng di rectly for a
draw is a serious mistake. I n such cases a
74 � PART I l l
It is Black t o move . How does he stand?
Wel l , of cou rse . I n our country we do after all
play chess bette r than in I ran, so it is not
surprising that Dolmatov had outplayed his
opponent. Here he again drew a diagram ,
attached an exclamation mark to his move
22 !ld7! and gave the fol lowing commen­
. . .
tary:
'Here I guessed my opponent's idea and
made the strongest move. 22.. ."i!ib6 sug­
gests itself, but it is weaker on account of 23
'ille5! '¥1xb2? 24 g4! and White wins. Earlier
I would have overlooked a move like 24 g4,
since I was a/ways afraid of sharply advanc­
ing the pawns in front of the king. '
We see that in the given instance Sergey's
cautious frame of mind forced him to look
carefu l ly at his opponent's possibilities , and
helped him to discove r a vei led trap.
Note the last ph rase i n Dolmatov's com ment
- it reflects the satisfaction of seeing the
results of trai ning work he had carried out.
Previously moves such as 24 g4 were not
part of his chess repertoi re , and did not
come easily to h i m . After trai ning i n active
play, dynamics and the search fo r u n usual
solutions , Sergey sensed that he was now
capable of finding such ideas without diffi­
culty.
Let us examine a third episode from the
same game.
Dolmatov's comment on the move he made,
25 1\VbS ? :
. . .
'Again I sa w the strongest continuation:
25. . . ti:J e4 26 i*'e3 'Wixb2 27 il.. xe6 fixf2+ 28
"illxf2 ti:Jxf2, but I did not notice that at the
end of the variation I would be a pa wn up -
for some reason I felt that the pawns would
be equal. '
At fi rst sight this is a p u rely concrete
mistake , but I th in k that it was not acciden­
tal . When a player is i n a cautious mood , he
does not want to take sudden decisions,
sharpen the situatio n , or play combi nations.
When an idea occurs to h i m , su bcon­
sciously he seeks not a confi rmation of it,
but a refutation , in order to maintain the
desi red cou rse of q u iet manoeuvri n g . And
the refore it is easy to persuade you rself with
real , but someti mes, as in the given in­
stance, i l l usory arg u ments. The i l l u s ions
normally occur only in one d i rectio n .
B y contrast, a player w i t h an u ltra-agg res­
sive mood usually has i l l u sions of the
d i rectly opposite nature.
I think that the positional sketches ( i n the
given instance it would be more co rrect to
say - psychological sketches) , associated
with these th ree episodes from one game,
should be placed on one sheet, s i nce they
have someth ing in common with one an­
other, and show us the diffe rent conse­
quences of one and the same psychological
condition of a player. On the same list I
would add a description of another instance
that occu rred with Sergey i n the same j u n ior
world championship.
(see diagram)
 Working on your own and other Players' Games
Yusu pov - Dolmatov
G raz 1 978
It is White to move . The game was played in
the middle of the tou rnament, at a moment
when Yusu pov was half a point behind
Sergey. I n the fi rst half of the game Wh ite
had a big advantage . Dolmatov defended
tenaciously and managed to beat off the
attack. Again I g ive his com mentary.
'In this position I took my most unfortunate
decision of the tournament: I offered a dra w,
although Black has good winning chances.
In view of my opponent's shortage of time,
these chances could well have been trans­
formed into a point. After conducting a
gruelling defence in the first half of the
game, I was unable to retune and begin
playing for a win. I realised that my position
was not worse, but it somehow did not occur
to me that it was better. '
Fi rst about the p u rely chess eval uation of
the situatio n . Dolmatov is q u ite right. When
there are opposite-colour bishops in the
middlegame it is very important who has
the initiative, who is attacking. It is clear
that Black is more actively placed . H i s
bishop is pressing on t h e f2-point, whereas
the wh ite bishop is ru n n i ng u p against its
own d5-pawn. A blockaded pawn on the
colour of its own bishop sharply restricts
the bishop's activity - this is a very
75
serious positional deficiency in a middle­
game with opposite-colour bishops.
Now about the psycholog ical aspect. The
transition from an i nferior position to a
su perior one freq uently proves difficult for
both players . The one who held an advan­
tage someti mes does not fully real ise that
the situation has changed , and he does not
sense the danger. I n stead , wh ile it is not too
late , of being satisfied with equal ity and
somewhere agreeing a d raw, through inertia
he conti nues playi ng for a win and worsens
his position . By contrast, a player who for a
long time has been conducting a difficult
defence often conti nues defending, even
when he acq u i res real chances of a w i n .
This is a typical psychological mistake , and
it is very good if you can learn to obse rve
s i m i lar mistakes in you r own games. If you
will analyse you r play as honestly and
si ncerely as Dolmatov did, i n all probability
you will avoid repeating the same m istakes
i n the future.
On the whole Dolmatov played splendidly in
the 1 978 world champions h ip , he won with
the very high score of 1 0% poi nts out of 1 3 ,
and he gained several fine wins. But, as you
can see, even in his best tournaments a
player is bound to have difficult moments ,
attacks of uncertai nty and oversig hts ; it is
very i m po rtant to get through them with
m i n i mal losses .
Chess is played by completely different
people, with d iffe rent ways of thinking, and
different characters and temperame nts .
Dolmatov is h i g h ly e motional , and an ex­
cess of emotions freq uently overwhelms
h i m and prevents an objective evaluation of
the situation . He experiences sign ificant
mood swi ngs. I have s hown you exam ples
when he lacked confidence i n h i mself, when
he needlessly dou bted something , was
afraid of someth i n g . But now I will s how you
some di rectly opposite instances .
I m mediately afte r the 1 978 world champion-
76 � PART I l l
ship, Sergey and I took part i n a tou rnament
dedicated to the memory of the splendid
trai ner Vakhtang l lyich Karseladze , i n which
we shared fi rst place .
Estrin - Dolmatov
Kutaisi 1 978
Wh ite has just captu red a black bishop: 1 7
i.xg6 . With what would you recaptu re on
g6? Dolmatov chose 17 fxg6 ? ! .
...
'The natural 1 7. . . hxg6 was stronger, for
example, 18 0-0-0 lD fS 1 9 'ikxdB '!J.fxdB with
advantage to Black in the endgame. ' ( I n ­
deed , the position favou rs Black thanks to
the bad knight at a3; if the knight were
normally placed , this evaluation would hardly
be valid - Dvoretsky. ) ' But I wanted to play a
more complicated game and so I persuaded
myself that in the middlegame my advan­
tage would be no less. In fact in the
middlegame Black has nothing. Moreover,
he has to play accurately not to end up
worse. Earlier, practically without thinking, I
would have played 1 7. . . hxg6, since I would
have gained a better endgame, and this
always used to suit me. But now I was trying
to play for the maximum. In principle this is
the correct approach, but in the given
specific instance I incorrectly decided where
the maximum was. '
I n my op1mon , a good and i nteresting
j udgement. Sergey reflects on how to
approach the p rocess of the struggle, how to
play for a w i n , what risk you can allow
you rself, and what not. By analysing his own
play from this point of view, a player
improves his chances of avoiding sim ilar
mistakes in the futu re . Althou g h , of course,
there can be no complete guarantee . For
example, soon i n the E u ropean J u nior
Championship Sergey agai n made a sim ilar
mistake. Tru e , in this case there was a
special situatio n , in that he felt se rious
anxiety about the outcome of the tou rna­
ment. I n itially Dolmatov had been confi·
dently lead i n g , but then the D utch player
John Van der Wiel began winning game
after game and by the 1 Oth round he had
caught Sergey. It was felt that the D utch man
was q u ite capable of extending his se ries of
wins.
Dolmatov - Petursson
G roningen 1 978/79
The two sides' chances are rou g h ly equal .
Wh ite's tru mp is the broken enemy pawns
on the queenside. In retu rn Black has active
pieces and the open d-file, and in addition
he can latch on to the e5-paw n .
I n principle, t h i s is Dolmatov's s o rt of
position: a strategic battle, with chances of
 Working on your own and other Players' Games
developing p ress u re on the weak black
pawns. H e wanted to w i n , but he did not see
how.
Probably he should have accu rately played
25 .l:te4, aiming for a roughly equal end­
game , but here there were no real chances
of success .
25 <M1 ?
This is how Sergey com m ented on his
actions :
'A completely senseless move. I wanted to
win without fail, but in this way it is only
possible to lose the game. You can 't force
the position! I once again realised this. '
The underlying motive of the king move is
purely e motional. Si nce all the same White
has to move his rook and go i nto an ending,
the king should be brought closer to the
centre - with his king at e2 i n the endgame
he will be able to play for a win. But this is
only a fee l i n g , and if Wh ite had only given it
some thought, it would have d isappeared .
Try movi ng the rook - there i m mediately
follows . . J ld 1 + or . . . l:td2 . The idea of going
into an endgame with the king on f 1 is
unrealisable. And otherwise Wh ite's move ·
cannot be j ustified .
Margei r Petu rsson is a good positional
playe r, but he defends better than he
attacks. H ad his offensive standard been
slightly higher, he would surely have found
25 . . . a4! . Then 26 lk1 .:td2 leads to a difficult
endgame fo r White. The relatively best way
out of the situation would be the ad mission
of his mistake : 26 'it>g 1 ! ? . But, fi rstly, it is not
easy to decide on this, and secondly, then
too after 26 . . . a3 the wh ite a2-pawn becomes
vulnerable, and could g ive Black something
to latch on to .
25 . . . ..tfB
A less energetic move, afte r which Wh ite
gains a respite .
26 f4
Dolmatov defends the e5-pawn and wants
ctJ 77
to include his bishop in the play. Now in the
event of 26 . . . a4 he can calmly take the pawn,
and if 27 . . . .l:td 1 + there is 28 .te1 .
26 . . . ..tb4
27 ..te1 ?
The simple move 27 'iff3 ! would have led to
equal ity. But Wh ite makes another serious
positional mistake , again along the same
l i nes: he wants to simplify the position and
then begin worki ng on the weak pawns. I n
s o doi n g , Sergey agai n underestimates the
dangers th reate n in g his king.
27 . . . ..txe1
28 �xe1 a4!
What to do now? The b3-pawn is attacked ,
and it is not possible to take on a4 with the
rook i n view of 29 . . . 'ifc5 ! with the deadly
th reats of 30 . . . 'ii'c 1 + and 30 . . . 'ifg 1 + . The
position would have been q u ite normal, if
the king had been somewhere l i ke h2, but it
is stuck i n the centre .
29 b4 a3? !
Again Petu rsson comm its an inaccu racy i n
attack. I n t h e positional sense t h e move
made is q u ite competent - it is usefu l to
obtain a dangerous pawn at a3, separate the
opponent's pawns and fix the weakness at
a2 . But at the same time Wh ite gains an
opportun ity to escape with his king from the
danger zone.
H ad Black played a l ittle more concretely:
29 . . . 1fb6 ! , and only if 30 'it>f1 - 30 . . . a3, the
wh ite king would have remained in the
centre , and things would have been far more
difficult for Dolmatov than i n the game.
30 ..t>f2
The i n itiative is sti l l with Black. Howeve r,
afte r tenacious defence and an agonising
analysis of the adjou rned position (de­
scribed i n School of Chess Excellence 1 :
Endgame Analysis p . 1 4) Dolmatov man­
aged to save the game.
We have tal ked about lack of confidence in
78 � PART I l l
one's own powers and , b y contrast, over­
eval uation of one's own possibilities and
underestimation of the opponent's resou rces .
But, of cou rse , a player can be h i ndered by
deficiencies of a qu ite different sort.
I n those years Dol matov was not satisfied
with his abil ity to calculate variations. Afte r
the Premier Leag ue of the 1 979 U S S R
Championship he made 'sketches' on this
topic from five games that he played. I will
now show you one of them .
Belyavsky - Dolmatov
Minsk 1 979
It is Black to move . It stands to reason that
the position is in his favou r. He is excellently
placed i n the centre and he controls the dark
squares . Which move looks the most natu­
ral?
Advance the pawn to h3? A possible
conti nuation , and the one i n fact chosen by
Dolmatov. But in the positional sense it is
questionable , si nce it weakens Black's
control of the dark squares .
Play . . . t2'lh5 and then . . . tbf4 ? Not bad - f4 is
a quite appropriate square for the knight.
Howeve r, the most attractive move is
22 . . . t2'ld5 ! . The knight heads for f4 , but at the
same time it also eyes other squares, and
who knows which one it will i n fact occupy.
Perhaps, c3. And if Wh ite replies 23 'jVf3 , the
knight will go to b4. What can Wh ite then do
with his bishop at c2? H e would probably
have had to play 23 'jVd2 , but the position
after 23 . . . t2'lc3 24 �xd8 �xd8 25 l::tx d8+
'i.t>h7 is advantageous to Black. It is clear
that the m u lti-purpose move 22 . . . t2'ld5! would
have best emphasised his advantage.
Dolmatov writes: 'Black became carried
a way by the calculation of a complicated
combination, beginning with 22. . . h3?! 23 g3
ii.. g4, and did not notice the simple move
22. . . tbd5, giving him an obvious advantage.
I was again let down by undisciplined
calculation. '
What did Sergey have in mind by ' u ndisci­
pli ned calcu lation'? What principle of calcu­
lati ng variations was violated? Of cou rse ,
the principle of 'candidate moves ', which
demands that first you should determine
all the promising possibilities, and only
then delve into a calculation of any one
of them. By following this princi ple, Dolmatov
would s u rely have found the move . . . t2'ld5 ! .
Then he would possibly have rejected the
combi nation, especially si nce its conse­
quences were u nclear, and prefe rred a
simple and sou nd way of retai ning his
advantage .
22 . . . h3?!
23 g3 ii.. g 4
24 f3
Try now to find the idea of Black's combi na­
tion . It is not at all obvious.
24 . . . �C5+
25 't!Vf2
In the event of 25 tbe3 Black has the strong
reply 25 . . . t2'ld5 ! .
25 . . . 'i!Vc3
(see next diagram)
N ow let's calculate variations, try to under­
stand what Dolmatov had in m i n d , and
guess what he might have ove rlooked here .
This is a rather difficult problem.
 Working on your own and other Players' Games
It is obvious that the captu re of the bishop
loses immediately to 26 . . . lt:Jxg4 27 'i*'e2
t'c5+. What other candidate moves for
White do you see?
Sergey worked out the fol lowi ng main
variation : 26 lt:Je3 ..ixf3 27 �xf3 lt:Jd5 28
exd5 l:txe3 29 'i!Vf2 .l:tf3 30 �e2 �c5+ and
3 1 l:tf2 , wi n n i n g . A pretty idea!
. . .
When Dol matov showed me the game, I
immediately asked h i m : but what if Wh ite
plays 29 dxc6 (i nstead of 29 'iff2 ) , or, even
better, captu res on c6 a move earl ier? There
was no reply - Sergey had simply ove r­
looked the opponent's cou nter-blow. I don't
know what should happen here - you can
check the variations yourself. But late r a far
more convi ncing refutation of Black's combi­
nation was fou n d : 28 ..id3! (instead of 28
exd5).
Alas, this is not all. Dolmatov writes: 'Black
overlooked 26 eS, which, fortunately, never­
theless does not lead to a loss for him. In
sharp positions of this sort an oversight can
cost the game. '
Belyavsky made his move afte r a long think.
26 e5 i.. xf3
If now 27 exf6 , then simply 27 . . . ..ixd 1 .
H oweve r, serious consideration should also
have been given to 26 . . . .l:txd 1 27 .J:txd 1 'iVxf3
28 'i'xf3 (bad is 28 exf6? �xf2+ 29 'it'xf2
Me2+! 30 'it' g 1 l:tg2+) 28 . . . ..ixf3 29 exf6
79
..ixd 1 30 i.. x d 1 .l:te 1 .
27 �xd8 �xdB
28 exf6 'i\Vxa1
29 �xf3
Let's now stop fo r some five m i n utes and
think what possi bil ities Black has, which of
them are better, and which are worse.
Wel l , let's assume 29 .. .'ii' xf6 . How should
the endgame afte r the exchange on f6 be
evaluated? Black is worse, agreed? If the
rook were active , it could prove stronger
than the two minor pieces , but here the rook
has no i nvasion squares . The wh ite king
q u ickly comes to the centre , after which the
rook defin itely has nowhere to break in. And
White, of cou rse , will soon su rround and win
the h3-paw n .
There is 29 . . . .l:td2 . What does it lead to? Do
you see the counter 30 ..ih7+! ? It leads to
perpetual check. But this is bette r than the
unpleasant ending afte r 29 .. . '�xf6 ? .
Are there no other conti n uations? I will again
hand ove r to Dolmatov:
'What simultaneously told here were poor
calculation and weak evaluation of the
position. Black has three possibilities:
a) 29. . . �xf6?. The most unfortunate move ­
and the one made in the game. The
endgame is in favour of White.
b) 29. . . .l:td2?!. I simply did not see this move.
80 � PART I l l
It leads to a dra w after 3 0 il.. h 7+ �xh 7 3 1
'ilif5+ - perpetual check.
c) 29. . . gxf6!. In the middlegame Black has
the advantage, since his king can safely
hide at fB and e7, whereas the white king is
less well placed. In the event of the
exchange of the a2-pawn for the h3-pawn
{for example, after 30 'ilig4+ � fB 3 1 'ilixh3
'ilixa2) Black soon exchanges queens and
obtains a won endgame. It is interesting that
29. . . gxf6! did not even occur to either me or
my opponent. '
Dolmatov and I discovered the possibil ity of
29 . . . gxf6 when we analysed the game. I am
afraid that Sergey exaggerates its strength:
after 30 'ifg4+ �f8 White has the unpleas­
ant check 3 1 'ilib4+, and also 3 1 'ilixh3
"iVxa2 leads only to a draw afte r 32 "iVh6+ !
�e7 33 "iVe3+ . But in principle eve rything he
says is correct. It is unseemly to ove rlook
resou rces such as 29 .. J:td2 and 29 . . . gxf6 .
Eve ry cloud has a si lve r l i n i n g . Afte r reach­
ing a difficult endgame , Sergey began
defending stubbornly and , when at one point
his opponent blu ndered , he carried out a
fantastic combi nation and created a genuine
maste rpiece . The ending of the game is
analysed i n School of Chess Excellence 1 -
Endgame Analysis.
We have seen that in those years Dolmatov
felt uncomfo rtable in a sharp struggle, and
he calculated variations i naccurately, mak­
ing ove rsig hts both for h i mself, and for his
opponent. But those of you who are fam iliar
with the afore-mentioned book will have
seen in it numerous examples that are
di rectly opposite in character, in which
Sergey demonstrated g reat mastery i n the
calculation of complicated variations .
The explanation is simple: Dolmatov real­
ised that with poor calcu lati ng tech nique he
would not ach ieve any g reat successes. H e
began serious trai n i n g, a n d solved n u mer­
ous studies and practical positions from my
card i ndex of exercises. We also used other
trai n i n g methods , such as the playi ng of
specially selected positions. Now I th in k that
in certain situations he is capable of out­
calculati ng Kasparov h i mself.
Don't think that at that time Sergey was
simply a pupi l , and that he was sti l l merely
assimilating chess knowledge. N o , he was
al ready a strong player, who carried out
i nteresti n g , deep ideas and won some
wonderful games. Howeve r well a player
performs, he always has deficiencies on
which he has to work. And, as you see, the
starting point of Dolmatov's work on self­
i m p rovement was an analysis of m istakes
he had made, carried out with the help of a
method which we arbitrari ly called 'positional
sketches' .
U p till now I have mainly showed you
negative examples, Sergey's fai l u res. Now I
wish to demonstrate one of his best games
of that time, which any top player would be
pleased to have to his credit. I t was played in
the 1 978/79 E u ropean J u nior Champion­
ship, an event i n which Dolmatov played
many good games. I annotated some of
them for the tournament bul leti n , but not the
encounter with the E n g l ishman J i m Plaskett.
I remembered that at one moment Dolmatov
made a ve ry deep, very subtle positional
move , which dete rm ined his advantage. But
the game was given in the tou rnament
bul letin without any notes and to fig u re out
what this idea was , why it was precisely this
move and not another, was not so easy. Of
cou rse, Sergey no longer remembers what
he calculated at the time. But recently I
opened Dolmatov's notebook with his
positional sketches and I found there a
description of this episod e . Thanks to the
notebook a wonderful example was pre­
se rved and I can now show it to you .
 Working on your own and other Players' Games ctJ 81

Dolmatov - Plaskett 1 5 i..f2 !

G roningen 1 978/79 1 5 lLle4 suggested itself, but Black wou ld
Sicilian Defence have replied 1 5 . . ..l:!.d8 ! , and if 1 6 'i!Vc3 -
1 e4 c5 1 6 . . Jlc8 ! . The opposition of Wh ite's queen
2 lLlf3 d6 and the enemy rook causes h i m serious
3 d4 cxd4 discomfort. I once analysed this position with
4 t:Llxd4 lLlf6 Nana Alexandria and Igor Platonov, the
5 lLlc3 a6 g randmaster from Kiev, and we established
6 f4 e6 that Wh ite has noth i n g .
7 i..e2 i.. e7 Dolmatov plays more strongly - he vacates
8 0-0 0-0 in advance a convenient retreat square for
9 a4 t:Llc6 his queen .
1 0 i.. e3 'ilic7
15 . . . J::i.d 8
1 1 �h1
1 6 'i!t'e3
One of the 'tabiyas' of the Scheve n i ngen
Wh ite has s lig htly more space, and there­
Variation has been reached . H e re 1 1 . . . .l:!.e8
fore his position is prefe rable. In the subse­
is usually played . The contin uation chosen
quent play he strives to mai ntain and further
by Plaskett is less good .
increase his spatial advantage.
11 . . . t:Llxd4
16 . . . g6
1 2 �xd4 i.. d 7
1 7 aS
The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings
A standard bind on the q ueenside.
mainly considers 1 2 . . . e5. I n stead of this
Black allows a cramping of h i s positio n , 17 . . . t:Llg7
hoping later t o launch a cou nte rattack 1 8 'ife2
against White's centre . A good reg rouping : the bishop m ust ope rate
1 3 e5 t:Lle8 on the g 1 -a7 diagonal , and the queen
supports it from beh i n d .
It was not so easy to make a choice between
the two natural moves 1 4 i.d3 and 1 4 i.f3 . 18 . . . .l:td7
They are both q u ite possible, but the latte r 19 i.. b6 'i!t'b8
would appear t o be slightly stronger. 20 �e3 i.. d 8
21 i.. a 7 'ii'a 8
1 4 i.. d 3 i.. c 6
22 i. b6
To avoid tactical tricks such as 22 . . . i.xg2+
23 �xg2 b6+, or the i m mediate 22 . . . b6
(22 . . . b5) , Dolmatov decides to bring his
bishop back.
22 . . . i.xb6
23 'it'xb6 'i¥b8
24 i.. e4
Black has a strong bishop at c6, cementing
togethe r h i s q ueenside and pressing on g2;
Wh ite prepares to exchange it.
24 . . . I!.c8
25 ltad 1 t:Lle8
82 � PART I l l

to reckon seriously with it.

What else? Let us check 26 . . . i.xe4 27 lt'ixe4
d5 (but not 27 . . . .l:txc2? 28 lt'ic3 ! with the
i rresistible th reat of 29 l'ib3) . Where should
the knight move? At c3 it stands badly, and
Black successfully disentangles h i mself,
obtai ning play on the c-fi l e ; . . . .l:ldc7 , . . J:tc6
or .l:!.c4 is possible. 28 lt'ic5 is also not without
its dangers . There is the restrained reply
28 . . . .l:te7 followed by . . . .t!.c6 , but 28 . . . .l:tdc7
29 b4 l:tc6 30 'tl¥xb7 'iVxb7 31 lt'ixb7 .l:tb8 is
also not bad .
U sefu l i nformation has been obtained: we
now know what to expect from Black. Most
Here is the position , for t h e sake o f which I
probably 26 . . . i.xe4 and 27 . . . d5, but pe rhaps
am showing you this game. White appears
also 26 . . . 1r'c7. Now we have to find a way of
to stand wel l , but how is he to mai ntain his
combati ng these plans. What can be de­
in itiative? Although Sergey was not then a
vised , so as not to al low the opponent to
grandmaster, he made a genuine g rand­
escape from the bind? Dolmatov found a
masterly move . I will now attempt to repro­
bri l l iant solution .
duce the logic of his reasoning.
26 'it'b4 ! !
Fi rst let us check whether it isn't possible to
A myste rious queen retreat, t h e point of
break through i m mediately, for example,
which is not i m mediately apparent. I very
with 26 f5. Alas, we have noth ing concrete ,
much l i ke such moves. Let's i nvestigate .
the opponent stands al right, and his position
What was Wh ite i ntend ing in reply to the
cannot be taken by storm .
oppone nt's main idea? It transpi res that
What question is it useful to ask ou rselves i n
after 26 . . . i.xe4 27 lt'ixe4 d5 Dolmatov had
s u c h a situation , do y o u know? ' What does
prepared the terri bly strong 28 c4 ! ! . By then
the opponent want?' This is a key
captu ring on d5, Wh ite gains an obvious
question, which always helps a position
advantage , while if 28 . . . .l:txc4 , then 29 1r'xc4
to be approached correctly. We must
dxc4 30 .l:txd7 with a completely won
mentally give the opponent the turn to
position - the black pieces have no useful
move and ascertain how he would use it.
moves.
Does Black want to capture on e5? Let us Thus, the point of Dolmatov's discovery is
check: 26 . . . dxe5 27 I;lxd7 i.xd7 27 i.xb7 , now clear - he has succeeded in forestalling
attacking the rook and the a6-pawn . This is the opponent's plan i nvolvi ng the exchange
probably advantageous to White, which on e4. As often happens with deep moves,
means that we do not have to fear the 26 1i'b4 proves m u lti-purpose , new vi rtues
captu re on e5. are d iscovered in it, and it proves appropri­
But what about 26 . . . d5 ? It too does not ate not only i n those variations, for the sake
frighten us. The bishop retreats to d3. If of which it was made. To convince ou rselves
27 . . . d4, then 28 lt'ie4, if there is noth ing else. of this, let us examine the situation on the
But otherwise Wh ite transfers his knight to board .
d4 and retains a marked advantage. N ow 26 . . . ii'c7 does not create the positional
26 . . . 1i'c7 ! ? is not a bad move , and we have th reat of exchanging queens, and therefore
 Working on your own and other Players' Games
White has time to do someth i n g . And he
makes splendid use of this opportun ity, as
you can see by analysing the further course
of the game.
If 26 . . d5, then 27 �d3 ( i ntend ing ttJc�2-
. of the exchange on e4, but he overlooked
d4) - here the situation has not changed i n
comparison with our prelimi nary esti mations.
After 26 . . . dxe5 27 .l:txd7 �xd7, however, the
situation has changed . We were i ntend ing to
captu re on b7 with the bishop, but here this
is not possible because of the pin. And the
captu re with the queen is not so clear. But
this is no problem - for the moment we can
sim ply play 28 fxe5 , si nce if 28 . . . 'it'xe5 there
is the decisive stroke 29 'it'e7 ! .
I s it possible that 26 'it'b4 wins t h e game?
Hardly, si nce it is not even easy to suggest
what Black is th reatened with . He s u rely
should be able to find a defence.
Let's try 26 . . . l:!.cd8, th reatening to captu re on
e5. Dol matov considered this move , and he
wrote that he was intending to reply 27 �xc6
bxc6 28 'it'b6 ! . A good idea. In the event of
the exchange on b6, the passed pawn will
be supported by the knight from a4. The
black pawn cannot remain for eve r at d6: it
will either go to d5, or will be exchanged on
e5 - in both cases the wh ite knight will
obtain the excel lent c5-point.
But I am not s u re about the eval uation of the
position afte r 28 . . . l:r.b7 29 'it'xa6 (or 29
l'xc6) 29 . . . l:!.xb2 . It seems to me that Black
can hope to equalise .
It can not be ruled out that othe r acceptable
possibilities for Black may also be fou n d .
But this does not change the essence o f t h e
matter. I n practice, moves s u c h as 26 'ii'b 4! !
often turn the cou rse of the play, and
sometimes also decide its outcome. If you
are able to penetrate deeply i nto the
essence of the positio n , disru pt the oppo­
nent's plans and set him serious problems, it
is q u ite probable that he will be u nable to
figure out you r idea i n time, retune , find new
ttJ 83
ideas and make new plans. Psychologically
this is a very difficult task .
Plaskett t o o failed t o cope w i t h it. H e must
have real ised what awaited h i m in the event
another powe rful idea associated with 26
'iVb4 .
26 . . . �c7 ? !
T h i s looks very natu ral - Black activates his
queen and defends his rook at d7. But here
too Dolmatov had prepared an excel lent
positional rejoinder.
27 i.. x c6 'ti'xc6
After 27 . . . bxc6 the same reply wou ld have
followed .
28 lba4!
This, it turns out, is the point: by retreating
his queen , Wh ite vacated the b6-sq uare for
his knight.
It is time, final ly, to say someth ing about the
piece whose fate is the leitmotif of Wh ite's
enti re strategy - this is the black knight,
which is now restricted by the wh ite e5-
paw n . What prospects does it have? To
come out via g7 to f5? But if the queens are
not on the board , Wh ite will m eet it with g2-
g4. The othe r route for the knight is via c7 to
d5. If Wh ite succeeds in placing his pawn on
c4, this route will also be ruled out, and the
knight at e8 will be shut out of the game. And
then it is the right time to remember
Tarrasch's aphori s m : 'One piece stands
badly - the entire game stands badly'.
N ow it is clear what Dolmatov was aiming
for. I t is not a question of th reatening Black
with a fork, nor of playi ng the knight to b6
(th is is not the best square on the board ) .
T h e m a i n t h i n g is that Wh ite secures h i mself
with c2-c4 ! , restricting the mobil ity of the
enemy knight, and at the same time of the
heavy pieces on the c-file.
The conclusion of the game demonstrates
the complete tri u m p h of Wh ite's plan .
84 � PART I l l

28 . . . l?Jc7
A primitive trap: 29 l?Jb6? l?Jd5 , and the
exchange of knights i mmediately eases
Black's positio n . Of cou rse , Dol matov is not
going to make a mistake here - he knows
very well that his main aim is the restriction
of the enemy knight.
29 c4 dxe5
30 l?Jb6 l:txd 1
31 l:txd 1 :le8
32 fxe5
The opponent's pieces have noth ing to
breath . At the same time White seizes
control of the open d-fi l e . H e re we see that Of cou rse , it is possible to bring the king to
domination, so l i ked by Petrosian and the centre or attack the enemy pawns on the
Karpov. The rest is no longer a fight, but q ueenside. But Dolmatov agai n asked him·
finishing off. self: what is Black i ntending to do? What do
32 . . . 'it>g7 you think he wants? P robably to try and free
33 1!i'd6! his knight, by playi ng . . . <t>g6 and . . . f7-f6. It
The simplest, clearest solution. The black would be not a bad thing to prevent this.
queen is defending the queenside , and after 37 b4! <t>g6
its exchange the wh ite rook i nvades the 7th 38 l:.e7
ran k. The f-pawn can no longer advance , and
33 . . . .l:!.b8 Wh ite wants to bring his king to the centre.
34 'i!t'xc6 bxc6 But should he have conceded the d-fi le to
35 l:td7 l?Je8 the black rook?
If 35 . . . l?Ja8, the n , of cou rse , 36 c5, and the 38 . . . .:td8
rook endgame is completely hopeless for 39 b5!
Black. N ow the point of 37 b4 ! becomes clear.
36 g4! 39 . . . cxb5
A precise positional solutio n . Wh ite creates 40 cxb5 axb5
an escape square for his king and a di rect 41 a6 b4
route for it to the centre , and also seizes 42 a7
space on the kingside. Black resigns. An excel lent strategic win!
36 . . . g5
Now the final subtlety. Wh ite's position can I hope you w i l l have realised how useful it is
probably be won 'as he pleases' , but this is to d raw positional sketches, both purely
not the way to think when conve rti ng an chess, and psycholog ical , when analysing
advantage. You should find the most accu­ you r own games or studying those of other
rate , the 'cleanest' way to win. players .

Mark Dvoretsky
Ad m it you r M istakes !
W
hen studying games you have playe d ,
it is n o t e n o u g h t o restrict yourself t o a
purely chess analysis. It is important to
understand the causes of the mistakes
comm itted, and to seek ways of e radicating
them i n the futu re . Acting i n this way, a
player will subsequently be able to follow the
great Alexander Alekh ine i n sayi ng: 'By
means of chess I trained my character'.
Kotov - Dolmatov
Moscow 1 977
Black has an acceptable positio n . For
example, 1 . . . a5 is possi ble. Dolmatov picked
up his rook , i ntend i n g to play 1 . . . �d8 , and
promptly noticed 2 �xa6 ! .
The best way out of the position was the
cool-headed 1 .. J:ta7 ( ! ) followed by 2 . . . �a8 ,
but Sergey simply could not bring h i mself to
make such a move . Not wishing to admit his
m istake so open ly, he chose 1 . . . �b8?,
although he saw that after 2 j_xa6 bxa6
3 'i'xc6 �xb2 4 �d7 it was not possible to
play 4 . . .'i!Vxa3 on accou nt of 5 'i+'a8+! 'it>h7
6 'i'e4+. H e had to choose 4 . . :�t8 5 .l:!.xc7
85
l:!.b8, and subsequently Wh ite converted his
advantage.
The reasons for rej ecti ng the sensible move
1 . . . l:!.a7 in favo u r of 1 . . . �b8? were not to do
with chess, but were p u rely emotional .
Sergey and I carefully discussed this i nci­
dent. We remembered Tarrasch's famous
aphorism : 'Mistakes never happen singly'.
We ponde red ove r why this happens. After
making an error, a player often conti nues
fol lowing his i ntended i ncorrect plan , even if
there is sti l l time to change his m i n d . Or, on
the othe r hand , after recog nising his error he
loses his compos u re and proves i ncapable
of finding his way co rrectly i n the new
situatio n .
This means that i t is very i m portant, on the
one hand , to learn to acknowledge a
mistake in good time, and on the other hand
- to develop compos u re and self-contro l , an
abil ity not to weaken afte r making an e rror,
but to conti nue playing as though noth ing
has happened.
Focusing attention on some proble m , a
thorough analysis of it, the search fo r new
aspects , the constant retu rning to it - all this
is a rel iable p rescription for the successful
resolving of the given problem i n the futu re .
(see next diagram)
Black is excellently placed and he cou l d , for
example, play 1 6 . . . �ae8 ! . I nstead of this
Dolmatov chose 16 ... 4Jg4?, i ntending the
exchange of knights at e5 or h2. While the
opponent was considering his reply, Sergey
obse rved that afte r 1 7 h3 tt:Jge5 1 8 lLld4 !
there is no satisfacto ry defence agai nst two
th reats : 1 9 tt:Jxe6 and 1 9 4Jdxb5 ! . After
1 7 . . . 4Jh2 the reply 1 8 4Jd4! is again strong.
86 � PART I l l
Agzamov - Dol matov
USSR Young Masters Championship,
Vilnius 1 978
It was here , as he late r adm itted , that
Sergey remembered our conversations. H e
d i d not torment h i mself with doubts , and
when the opponent played 1 7 h3, without
hesitation he brought his knight back:
17 ... tt'lgf6 ! . Now 1 8 tt'ld4 .l:.ae8 1 9 tt'ldxb5
axb5 20 tt'lxb5 is no longer dangerous on
account of 20 . . . i.h2+.
The game conti nued 1 8 .l:.fe1 i.c5 1 9 a3 (if
1 9 e5, then 1 9 . . . i.xf3 20 'ifxt3 tt'lxe5 21
1i'g3 tt'lfg4! 22 tt'le4 tt'lf3+ ! ) 19 ... J:tae8 20
i.e3 i.xe3 2 1 1i'xe3 tt'lh5
Despite the loss of two tempi, Dolmatov
retained a good position and, above a l l , did
not lose his presence of mind. Subsequently
he outplayed his opponent and won the game.
(see next diagram)
Wh ite thought he would transfe r his bishop
to c3 and then play 'ifb2 , developing
pressu re on the e5-paw n . But with which
move should he beg i n , 1 6 i.d2 or 1 6 i.b2 ?
Dolmatov decided that 1 6 i.d2 was more
accu rate , preventi ng 1 6 . . . a5 1 7 bxa5 l:txa5.
But when Black nevertheless replied 16 ... a5! ,
he realised that after 1 7 bxa5 bxa5 Black
controls the c5-sq uare and achieves an
Dolmatov - A. lvanov
U S S R You n g Masters Championsh i p ,
Vilnius 1 978
excel lent gam e .
Dolmatov promptly readj usted , avoided the
exchange on a5 , and neve rtheless began -
albeit with a loss of time - the transfer of his
bishop to b2 , to neutral ise Black's pressure
on the a-fi l e .
1 7 a3! axb4 1 8 axb4 :a2 1 9 'ifd3 tt'lbd7 20
i.c3 h5 21 i.b2! tt'lf6 22 "ii'c 2! (th reatening
23 i.xe5 ! ) 22 . . . l:taa8 (22 . . . tt'lg4 ! ? ) 23 c5.
Wh ite's position is bette r, and he won the
game.
This was how one of the n u me rous playing
ski lls n eeded by a player was developed. I
make no secret of the fact that such resu lts
afford a trainer enormous creative satisfac­
tion . Far more than eve n , say, the success­
ful e mployment of an ope n in g novelty
worked out at home, or the difficult and
accu rate analysis of an adjou rned position.
After a l l , the main aim in the instruction of a
player (at least, of a you ng one) should be
not so much the processing and assimilation
of specific i nformatio n , but rather the devel­
opment and mastering of necessary ski lls,
and the harden i n g of character. This is far
more d ifficult than the simple acq u isition of
knowledge, but it is also far more i m portant,
and therefore any success in the given field
is especially pleasi n g .
 ctJ 87

Mark Dvoretsky

The ' s u perfl uous' Piece

F
rom the books of Aaron N i mzowitsch it is Black wants to weaken the pressu re on his
wel l known that pieces that are in con­ q ueenside by exchang ing the light-sq uare
tact with a strategically i m portant point and bishops : 1 0 . . . i.h3. H e re account must be
assist its occu pation are usually well placed . taken of the fact that 1 1 i.xh3 'i!Vxh3 1 2
To dispute possession of the given square , tt'Jxc7? is not possible because of 1 2 . . . lt:Jg4 .
w e usual ly a i m for the exchange o f these The game U b i lava-Dvoretsky ( Batu m i
pieces. But sometimes it makes sense to 1 969) went 1 0 .l:t b 1 i.h3 1 1 tt'Jec3 i.xg2 1 2
choose the d i rectly opposite strategy: if by 'it>xg2 ( 1 2 tt'Jxf6+ i s better) 1 2 . . . tt'Jh5 , and it
exchanges it is not possible to gain control transp i red that the two wh ite knights , both
of the square , one can altogether g ive up the competi ng for the one square d 5 , were too
fight for it, and avoid exchanges. After a l l , many. After 1 3 b4 f5 1 4 b5 tt'Jd8 my
the 'important height' c a n o n l y be occupied opponent had to reckon with both 1 5 . . . c6 ,
by one of the opponent's pieces, and the and 1 5 . . . f4 . Ubilava decided to retreat: 1 5
rest wi l l as though prove superfluous. H e re tt'Je2 c6 1 6 bxc6 bxc6 1 7 'ti'a4 'it>h8 1 8 f3
are a few examples on this topic. tt'Je6 1 9 tt'Jdc3 .l::!.f7 , but as a res u lt Black
The fol lowi ng variation of the English Open­ gained a marked advantage .
ing has occu rred several times i n my games: 1 0 lt:Jec3
1 c4 e5 This was played five years later against the
2 lt:Jc3 lt:Jc6 author of these l i nes in the Fi rst Leag ue of
3 g3 g6 the U S S R Championship (Odessa) by g rand­
4 i.g2 i.g7 maste r Vlad i m i r Savo n . Black faces a
5 e3 lt:Jf6 probl e m : which of two sensible positional
6 lt:Jge2 0-0 ideas (al ready known to us from the previous
7 0-0 d6 game) to carry out first: the exchange of
8 d3 i.e6 light-sq uare bishops or the retreat of the
9 lt:Jd5 'it'd7 knights fol lowed by . . . c7-c6 . I made the
i ncorrect choice : 1 0 ... i.h3?! 1 1 tt'Jxf6+!
.i.xf6 1 2 tt'Jd5 i.d8. Wh ite has exchanged
his 'superfluous' knight, at the same time
d riving the black bishop to a poor position .
There followed 1 3 .i.d2 .i.xg2 1 4 'it>xg2 f5
1 5 'i!Vb3 , and Black encou ntered serious
difficulties.
Analysis showed that Black should have
avoided the exchange of knights .
10 . . . lt:Je8!
Black plans . . . .i.e6-h3 or . . . lt:Jc6-d8 fol­
lowed by . . . c7-c6, after which he has no
problems. This evaluation was confirmed in
88 \t> PART I l l

the game Gufeld-Dvoretsky ( Borzhomi advantage gained .

1 975) .
1 1 f4 .ih3 1 2 .ixh3 'ili'xh3 1 3 f5 (a harmless
ventu re) 13 ... gxf5 14 b4 f4 (the simple
14 . . . 'ifilh8 was probably even stronger) 1 5
gxf4 f5 1 6 b5 'ith8! 1 7 'ifilh1 lbd8 with
excellent prospects for Black.
Later I played the same position as Wh ite
and I once more real ised that he can hardly
hope for an advantage .
On the basis of the examples considered it
can be concluded that i n the given variation
the knight at c3 (when the second knight is
at d5) is badly placed. By avoiding the
exchange of knights, Black ach ieves an
excellent game.
Dol matov - Romanish i n
47th U S S R Championsh i p , M i n s k 1 979

Dvoretsky - Vadasz
Wij k aan Zee 1 975
1 1 'ii'a4 i.h3
1 1 . . . lbd8 ! ? .
1 2 i.d2 i.xg2
1 3 �xg2 f5
1 4 l:tae1
1 4 b4? is incorrect in view of 1 4 . . .f4 ! , when
the unfortunate position of the wh ite knight
at c3 is felt. Even so, 14 f4 was more
accu rate , since after the move in the game
Black could have replied 1 4 . . . g5.
14 . . . l:tf7
1 5 f4 exf4?
White has a spatial advantage , but Black
A careless move , which costs Black dearly.
has at his disposal the strong point e5, for
He should have exchanged queens i m medi­
which both his knights and the dark-sq uare
ately by 1 5 . . . lbd8 ! . For exam ple, 1 6 ii'xd7
bishop are contending. Wh ite can not and
.l::!xd7 1 7 e4 c6 1 8 lbe3 exf4 1 9 gxf4 fxe4 20
should not fight for the e5-sq uare - one of
dxe4 lbe6 21 f5 lbc5 , or 1 6 'ili'a3 lbe6 1 7 b4
the opponent's pieces will occupy it, but the
g5.
othe r two will prove 'su perfluous' .
16 gxf4 4Jd8
He should beg i n his own play, for example ,
1 7 'iix d7 .::r.x d7
27 .ia5! (provoking a weakening of the c6-
1 8 e4 c6
square) 27 . . . b6 28 .ic3 lb4e5 29 lbd4! ,
Or 1 8 . . .fxe4 1 9 l:.xe4 ! .
intending a2-a4-a5 with the bette r chances
1 9 exf5! for White. As was shown by lossif Dorfman ,
Now it is clear why the exchange of pawns Black can avoid the weakening of his
on f4 was i ncorrect - Wh ite now has the queenside by choosing 27 . . . .l::!. d e8 ! ? , si nce if
opportun ity to open the e-file with gain of 28 .ia4 he has the reply 28 . . . .id8 ! . But I
tempo. think that even in this case Wh ite's position
19 . . . cxd5 is prefe rable: 29 .ic3 .ib6+ 30 lbd4 l:.e7 31
20 l:txe8+ �f7 h3 lbge5 32 'ith2 .
21 .l:.fe1 Alas, in the game Sergey Dolmatov acted
Subsequently I was able to convert the far less logical ly.
 The 'superfluous' Piece ltJ 89

27 i.c3 ltJ4eS ( 41 'i.:Vf8+ '>t>h 7) 41 . . . .l:ta5 .

28 i.d4 b6 Many years later Yu ri Yakovich poi nted out
29 a4? afte r 34 . . . e4 a very strong reply: 35 l:!.a3!
29 i.c3 it.f6 30 ltJd4 was better. (th reaten i n g 36 �e3) , and if 35 . . . i.g5, then
29 . . . i.f6 36 f4! ( not 36 f3 'it'e5) 36 . . . it.f6 37 g4 'ii'e 6
38 '>t> h 1 followed by 39 l:!.e3. Therefore
Threatening 30 . . . ltJxf3+ .
B lack does bette r to restrict h i mself to the
30 ttJxeS .txeS
waiting move 34 . . . i.g5 ! , and if 35 l:tfa1 ,
31 i.. xeS ttJxeS
then either conti n u e waiti ng tactics (35 . . . h5;
32 aS g6
35 . . . it.h4) , or nevertheless play 35 . . . e4! ? ,
As a result Black has exchanged his not feari ng 3 6 l:!.e1 i.h4 3 7 'ifb2+ 'it'e5 38
'superfluous' pieces for the opponent's ii'xe5+ dxe5 39 g3 i.f6 40 lbxt6 .U.xf6 41
active pieces . The remai n i n g white bishop .l::!.x e4 lLld6 with a probable d raw.
and kn ight are passive , and the i n itiative is
3S �a6 'it'd7
now with Black.
36 �e4 ttJxdS
A similar positional mistake was made i n the 37 ttJxd5 i.e7
following game. 38 l:tfa1 i.f8
39 'ilie2 �c6
Karpov - Dolmatov 40 li6a3! lieS
Amsterdam 1 980 41 l:if3 ! �xf3
42 "ifxf3
The remai n i n g black pieces are passive and
scatte red . Anatoly Karpov soon developed a
decisive attack on the king .
U p till now we have been exam in in g cases
where two knights were contending for one
square. But othe r pieces can also prove
'superfl uous' .

Nei - Dvoretsky
Kharkov 1 967

34 . . . ttJe7 ? !
An unfortunate idea: w h y exchange the
'superfluous' wh ite knight at b4? After
34 e4!? the opponent would have had to
. . .

reckon with the manoeuvre . . . �f5-e5-d4 ,

creating a th reat t o his o n l y real weakness ­
the c4-pawn . There could have followed 35
lLle3 'YWe5 36 lbbd5 ( i ntending 37 ltJg4 and
38 'i'b2+) 36 . . . h5! with a defensible position
for Black. For example: 37 f4 exf3 38 .l:!.xf3
l:lxf3 39 'i'xf3 it.g5 40 .l:!.b8 ltJe7 ! ? 41 .l:!.b7
90 � PART I l l

Wh ite is a healthy pawn t o t h e good . Black only one rook is needed . The second black
has some hopes associated with the fact rook would remain passive . And White , after
that the enemy d-pawn is on a square of the doubling on the e-fi l e , would be able to
colour of its bishop. This means that i nvade the 7th ran k . This means that one
counterplay on the dark sq uares is possible. pai r of rooks m ust defi n itely be exchanged.
And i n the event of all the heavy pieces 20 . . . l:i.ae8 !
being exchanged , the bishop endgame may 21 �c6 l:i.xe1 +
be drawn . 22 l:i.xe1 l:i.b8
Now a choice has to be made between 23 1i'c3+ 'iff6
20 . .l:Iab8 and 20 . . .U.ae8. With all fou r rooks
. . . 24 1i'xf6+ 'it>xf6
on the board , the bishop , by standing at c6, 25 b3 .l:tb4
wou ld restrict the mobil ity of the black rooks . I have retained defi n ite counterchances and
They would have only the b-fi l e , on which subseq uently I achieved a d raw.

Exercises

1. Wh ite to move

2. Wh ite to move 3. Black to move

 The 'superfluous' Piece
Sol utions
1 . Geller - Ciocaltea (Olympiad , Malta 1 980) .
1 3 tLld3 !
'In this way White not only a voids ex­
changes, but also keeps the knight at c7. '
(Ye.Geller) . There followed 1 3 . . . f5 1 4 exf6
exf6 1 5 a4 a5 1 6 b3 .l:!e8 1 7 �a3 with
advantage to White .
2. Dorfman - Trois (Zamard i 1 980) .
1 3 tLlb3 !
Here the knight is excel lently placed . I n
addition, Black has two pieces contending
for the e4-sq uare and the knight at f6 simply
proves to be 'superfl uous' . Wh ite i ntends 1 4
'ld4 . After 1 3 . . . .l:i.c8 1 4 'it'd4 'it'b6 1 5 .l:!.fc1
ctJ 91
0-0 1 6 tLle5 Dorfman gained a marked ad­
vantage .
3. Beg u n - Dvoretsky ( M i nsk 1 972) .
Black m ust not allow the enemy knight to go
to c4 (afte r the exchange of the lig ht-sq uare
bishops) . The move in the game parries this
positional th reat.
19 . . . �b5 !
Now the knight at d2 has no good prospects ,
whereas the black knight is ready to go via
a6 to c5. If 20 l:i.hf1 (with the idea of 21 f4) ,
then 20 . . . 'ir'f4 ! . The game went 20 h4 h5 21
'ir'g5? ! (2 1 .l:thf1 ! ) 2 1 . . .'ir'xg5 22 hxg5 tLla6
with an excellent endgame for Black.
92 �
PA RT IV
Mikhail Shereshevsky
Studyi ng the Chess Classics
N
ot long ago I asked a gifted player for
her opinion about Alekhi ne's games.
She replied: 'Why should I study Alekhine's
games, when I ' m never going to have to play
him?' It follows that she only studies the
games of her opponents . I am convinced
that, with such an approac h , the prospects
of this playe r are very l i m ited .
Why do we need the classics? Today I will
try to explain this to you .
Modern chess beg ins with the theory of
Steinitz. Before him there were also some
very strong playe rs - such as Philidor, La
Bou rdonnais and Morphy, but it was Stei n itz
who laid the basis of modern positional play.
As a trainer I am concerned primarily with
the practical results of my pupils. Therefore
a study of the classics is of i nterest primarily
from the standpoint of the practical player. I
have a definite, possibly subjective prog ram
of work on the classics , which is what I
suggest to my pupils.
I am not too inte rested i n chess before
Steinitz . And although , of cou rse , Morphy
was a wonderful player, a study of his
games does not come i nto my prog ra m . It
beg ins with the theory of Stei n itz. I think that
it is best described in two books : Emanuel
Lasker's Chess Manual (the chapte r ' Posi­
tion Play') and Max Euwe's Kurs shakh­
matnykh lektsii (Course of chess lectures).
I n add ition, there is a very i nteresting
booklet by Eugene Znosko- Borovsky The
Middle Game in Chess, which analyses the
methods of evaluating a position that were
typical at that time. Nowadays they have
been largely forgotten.
Before Stei n itz, players thought that the
cou rse of events on the board depended
only on themselves. It was sufficient to feel
well and to be in a creative mood , and en­
l i g htenment would come without fai l , a
b ri l l i ant combi nation would be fou n d . At that
time the ' i m mortal ' game Anderssen-Kie­
se ritzky was played (alas , it was far from
fau ltless, and from the present-day view­
point it does not stand up to criticism).
Ste i n itz was the fi rst to wonder whether this
really was the state of affairs, and he
became i nte rested i n this probl e m .
H e came t o t h e concl usion that combina­
tions are possible i n far from every position,
and that their implementation depends not
only on the talent of the player, but also on
the prope rties of the position itself. There
are situations in which the most brill iant
player is u nable to carry out any combina­
tio n . This ind uced Stei n itz to begin analys­
ing the most varied positions, and he began
seeking the general laws of positional play.
Howeve r, his main achievement - I must
emphasise this! - was the conclusion that a
game of chess should be played in accord­
ance with a plan , and that one can plan
one's actions. The plan , in turn, depends on
the evaluation of the positio n . Steinitz
developed many i nteresting principles of
positional play; the majo rity of these have
 Studying the Chess Classics 4:J 93

withstood the test of time, although a few N i mzowitsch - Capablanca

have not proved j ustified . But h i s main idea, St Petersburg 1 9 1 4
that one should play i n accordance with a
plan , and the plan stems from the evaluation
of the position - this idea is certainly correct
and it proved very i m portant for the develop­
ment of chess theory.
The approach to the evaluation of a positio n ,
which was typical a t that t i m e , is very clearly
descri bed i n the afore-mentioned booklet by
Znosko-Borovsky. There are three main
factors which i nfluence this evaluation:
advantage i n force (that is, material superi­
ority) , advantage i n time (we wou l d say - i n
development) and advantage i n space . I n
those days , when tal king about a n advan­
tage i n time, players would begi n counting Wh ite is a pawn u p , but Black has a lead i n
tempi , starting from the i n itial positio n . It development. Let us count tem p i : Wh ite has
could happen that one side had made , let us played e4 - one move , lbc3 - a second,
say, six moves, whereas the other had made castl i n g - a third , and the queen has gone to
ten (th is happens not only due to the di rect a6 in two moves, making a total of five .
loss of tempi , but in view of the exchange of Black has several tempi more: the pawn
a piece that has made several moves for a moves g6, d6 and bxc6 - three temp i ; .U.c8 ,
piece that has hardly moved at a l l } . Now, of .U.e8 , �d7 , .ig7, lbf6 and castl i n g - a f u rther
cou rse , no one cou nts tempi - a player six (of cou rse, not all of them are of equal
simply looks at the position and determi nes val ue; fo r example, .U.c8 is of l ittle use) .
by eye that one side has an advantage in
1 repeat - it is not essential for you to make
development.
such calculations. You can also determ i n e
It is these th ree factors that were mainly a t s i g h t that Black h a s a lead i n develop­
used i n eval uating a position and deciding ment, but Wh ite is a pawn u p .
on a plan . Today too such an approach may
T h e e4-pawn is attacked , and Wh ite faces
be appropriate . Let us consider some
the q u estion of how to defend it. He can do
examples .
this by 't!i'd3 , at the same time removi ng the
queen from its rather dangerous position , or
he can play .U.e1 or f2-f3.
N i mzowitsch chose 1 5 'i!Vd3 and late r lost
the game in h ig h ly i n structive fashion .
Capablanca replied 1 5 .'iVe6 , again attack­
..

i n g the e4-pawn and forcing Wh ite to make

another defensive move . The play devel­
oped i n accordance with the motifs of the
modern Benko Gambit: the knight went from
d7 to c4 , and the rooks occupied the open a­
and b-fi les. Wh ite was unable to neutralise
this pressu re .
94 � PART IV

This is how the game conti nued: 1 6 f3 tt:'ld7 6 . . . c6

17 ..id2 tt:'le5 1 8 'fi'e2 tt:'lc4 1 9 .l:.i.ab1 l:!.a8 20 7 e3
a4 tt:'lxd2 2 1 'iVxd2 'fi'c4 22 l:rfd 1 .l:!.eb8 23 Now there is 7 . . . 'fi'a5 , but it is useful to
'fi'e3 l:tb4 24 'fi'g5 ..id4+ 25 �h1 .l:!.ab8 26 include . . . h7-h6 .
.l:txd4 'iVxd4, and Black easily converted his
7 . . . h6
exchange advantage .
8 ..i h4 'fi'a5
Only from Znosko- Borovsky did I find the
Now Wh ite has a choice: he m ust either
correct explanation of what happened . He
sacrifice a pawn by 9 i.xf6 , or turn to
writes that if the opponent has an advantage
passive defence after, for example, 9 'fi'b3
in time (in development) and you have extra
tt:'le4 . It is clear that in the latte r case Black
material , on no account should you remove
will have no p roblems at a l l .
to the defence those pieces which are
9 ..ixf6 ..ixc3+
putting pressu re on the opponent's positio n .
1 0 bxc3 'fi'xc3+
They may stand dangerously, they may be
1 1 lt:id2 gxf6
subject to risk, but they prevent the oppo­
nent from freely manoeuvri n g . Black has a positional th reat: . . . i.f5 and
then . . . 'fi'c2 . If he should succeed in ex­
From a 6 t h e q u e e n is attacking t h e c6-pawn
changing the queens, say, after 1 2 i.e2 ..if5
and preventi ng the reg rouping . . . "iVe6 ,
1 3 0-0 'ii'c2 , Wh ite's i n itiative will peter out.
. . . tt:'ld7, . . . tt:'lb6(e5) and . . . tt:'lc4. Therefore
the correct move was 1 5 f3 ! . Of cou rse , 1 2 .l:.b1
Wh ite has to reckon with the reply . . . .l:ta8, U ndoubtedly the correct move . Wh ite does
but then he can play 'ilic4 . The point is not to not allow the enemy bishop to come out and
remove the queen's attack on the c6-paw n . at the same time he removes the rook from
the attack by the queen , placing it i n an
Here o n e can not help remembering the
active positio n .
Najdorf Variation i n the Sicilian Defence,
where Black captu res the b2-pawn with his
queen and then withdraws it to a3 . This
queen diverts the opponent's attentio n . It is
in a dangerous situation, but it prevents the
opponent from manoeuvri ng freely.
Now I will show you a position that arises i n
one of t h e variations o f t h e Ragozin De­
fence .
1 d4 lt:if6
2 c4 e6
3 lt:if3 d5
4 lt:ic3 ..ib4
5 cxd5 exd5
6 ..ig5
The exchange of pawns followed by the pin N o w i n t h e event o f t h e q ueen retreati ng (for
on the knight is one of the most unpleasant example, via a3 to e7) Black will almost
plans for Black. He normally replies by certainly come under an unpleasant attack.
cou nterattacking with . . . c7-c5 , after fi rst He needs to try and restrain the opponent
playing 6 . . . h6. But he can also play diffe r­ with those forces that are al ready in play.
ently. After studying the position, we arrive at the
 Studying the Chess Classics LtJ 95

followi ng rook move . under a crushing attack. On the other hand,

12 . . . J:tg8 Black wants to develop his i nitiative by
The queen must remain on c3. It may be in a . . . tba6 and . . . 4Jxc5 .
rather advanced , eccentric positi o n , but 8 �e5
from here it h i nders the opponent. For It is hard to suggest anyth ing bette r. With
example, i n the event of 1 3 'ii' h 5 Black this move Wh ite gains control of the a 1 -h8
acquires good chances of a cou nterattack: diagonal and creates the th reat of capturing
1 3 . . . �g4 1 4 'iVxh6 �f5 , and if 1 5 l:i.xb7 - the d5-paw n .
1 5 . . .'i'c 1 + 1 6 'it>e2 �g4+ (or 1 6 . . . �c2 ! ? ) . All 8 . . . tt:'la6
this is ve ry dangerous for White. 9 cxd5 tt:'lxc5
Unfortunately, Wh ite has a way of setting 1 0 'ilr'c4 tt:'la6
the opponent difficult problems. Only in this way is it possible to parry the
13 g3! �g4 terrible th reat of 1 1 b4.
1 4 �e2
Black's position is worse . H i s c h ronic weak­
nesses are bound to tel l . But this is the way
he should fight: not retreat, but try with the
forces available to offer resistance to the
opponent. Keep i n mind that it is not so easy
for White to decide on g2-g 3 : afte r the
exchange of bishops , forced by . . . �g4, the
light squares are weakened and the n u m ber
of pieces on the board is red uced , which is
unpleasant when you are a pawn down .

Now let us analyse one of the variations of

the G rOnfeld Defence.
1 d4 lL'lf6 We i n itially thought that Wh ite's position was
2 c4 g6 unsatisfactory. If he now develops a piece -
3 tt:'lc3 d5 1 1 ..'bf3 or 1 1 �e2 , Black replies 1 1 . . . .l:!.c8 and
4 �f4 �g7 gains strong cou nte rplay.
5 e3 c5 But let's remember the idea expressed by
6 dxc5 'ilr'a5 Znosko-Borovsky. White is a pawn u p , but
7 'ilr'b3 behind in development. One more devel­
The last move is l ittle-explored (apparently, oped piece will not save him. Let's try
it is not good enough to obtain an advan­ playing actively, using those forces which
tage). Wh ite's idea is a possible exchange of are al ready i n play.
queens by 'it'b5 . 1 1 a3 .!:!.cB
7 . . . �d7 1 2 b4
This interesting reply was discovered when I If Wh ite succeeds in d rivi ng back the enemy
was studying the position with some of my queen , after 1 3 'i.Vd4 he will have every
pupils. Black rad ically forestalls his oppo­ chance of completi ng his development while
nent's idea. Wh ite can not take on b7, as retai n i n g a material advantage . And i n the
after 8 'ikxb7 tt:'le4 9 'iVxa8 0-0 he comes event of 1 2 .. Jlxc4 1 3 bxa5 he gains the
96 � PART IV
better endgame. For the moment he is a
pawn up, and even if should lose the a5-
pawn , his advantage i n the centre will allow
him qu ickly to complete his development.
Thus very long ago an idea origi nated that is
also usefu l for present-day play: 'when you
have a material advantage and are behind in
development, don't withdraw you r advanced
pieces which are creating some difficu lties
for the opponent. ' In othe r words, don't go
total ly onto the defensive . Nowadays this
conception has been forgotten .
Znosko-Borovsky also has some i nte resting
ideas about positions with a spatial advan­
tage. He expresses the general thought that
it is not at all essential to increase a spatial
advantage ; the main thing is to mai ntain it.
Sooner or late r a critical moment will arise :
the opponent will try to free hi mself. It is for
this critical moment that you should be
prepared as well as possible.
He also has recommendations about what
to do when you are short of space . Znosko­
Borovsky suggests deciding which of you r
pieces stands worst, and also tryi ng to
understand the plan that the opponent is
intend ing to carry out. After which you
should improve the position of this piece ,
while simu ltaneously h i ndering the oppo­
nent's plan . All this is demonstrated in
specific examples.
The theory of Stei n itz contains many differ­
ent postulates - some that are undisputabl e ,
others that are very disputable. He writes
about the advantage of the two bishops , and
about the queenside pawn majority (al­
though practice has shown that a pawn
majority on a flank does not in itself give any
advantage - it must be specifical ly l i n ked
with other elements of the position ) . Some
of his principles are, so to speak, of a
philosoph ical nature . If you have the advan­
tage, you are bound to attack, to play
actively, as otherwise this advantage will
inevitably evaporate - this is no longer a
p u rely chess principle, but a philosoph ical
one. On the whole, the approach to the
evaluation of a position , suggested by
Ste i n itz, dese rves serious study. This is a
very i nteresting chapter in chess h istory. It
should desirably be studied from old books,
to make a d i rect acq uai ntance with the
thoug hts of those people who discove red all
this.
The d rawback to Stei n itz's theory is that it is
static. Theoretical mechanics, as taught in
techn ical i nstitutes, consists of three main
sections: statics , kinematics and dynam ics.
Roughly speaki n g , statics is when every­
thing is at rest, kinematics is if there is some
form of motion , and dynamics is when
everyth ing is i n motion. Thus the theory of
Stei n itz is merely one of the sections in the
'theoretical mechanics' of chess. Steinitz,
u nfortu nately, did not take accou nt of the
dynam ics of the struggle, but took every­
thing in its static state . H i s evaluations are
su itable for many positions, but by no
means for al l . But how much can be
expected from one person? As it was, he
made an enormous contri bution to the
development of chess.
It is very i nteresting to play through Stein itz's
games, but it has to be acknowledged that
the Stei n itz theory is better i l l u strated by the
games of his followers, than by his own . At
times he adhered too strictly to his theory,
fai l i n g to take account of the dynamics of the
struggle. And this someti mes led to dismal
resu lts .
The teachings of Stei n itz were splendidly
employed i n practice by Akiba Rubi nstein. I n
his Chess Manual Lasker expressed the
opinion that Rubi nstei n's games are model
examples from the viewpoi nt of Stei n itz's
theory. In additio n , Rubi nste i n possessed a
wonderful endgame technique. An excel lent
book Akiba Rubinstein was written by
Razuvaev and M u rakhve ri , and all the
 Studying the Chess Classics
players who learn with me are recom­
mended to study it.
I would suggest that you study Rubi nstein's
games i n the fol lowing way. After playi n g
th rough t h e ope n i n g , cover u p his moves
and try to g uess them . That is, try to play l i ke
Rubi nste i n . Spend at least 45 m i n utes on
such an analysis of one game, and you r
mind will retain much more that if you s i m ply
play it through .
An excellent book Die Moderne Schachpartie
was written by Ziegbert Tarrasch . Garry
Kasparov has spoken very h i g h ly about it.
When Tarrasch is called dog matic , this is, of
cou rse , incorrect . It is simply that i n his time
he had a dispute with Chigori n , who is
regarded as the founder of the R ussian
chess schoo l . And i n our country such
people are not l i ked from then on, and they
have all kinds of labels p i n ned on the m .
We will now examine an example demon­
strating the advantages of a dynam ic,
concrete approach to a position ove r a static
one . You h ave here an example taken from
lsak Lipn itsky's excel lent book Voprosy
sovremennoy shakhmatnoy theorii (Ques­
tions of modern chess theory) .
It is Wh ite's tu rn to move . He has the
advantage of the two bishops, but his pawn
lb 97
structu re on the queenside has been spoi led.
If Black should succeed i n carrying out the
standard plan i n such positions - . . . .ta6 ,
. . . tt::lc 6, . . . �a4 and . . . tt::l a 5, he will win the c4-
pawn and most p robably also the game.
If you follow the general principles of play i n
t h e open i n g - develop t h e pieces and
castle, then 11 e3 should be played . I am
afraid, howeve r, that i n this case the specific
plan w i l l prevail ove r abstract principles and
Wh ite will g radually lose .
But there are also other, less obvious
p ri nciples operating i n the positio n . It is not
always easy to exp ress them in words; often
a player senses them i ntu itively.
On a careful study of the position it may be
noticed that Black h as not a single p iece on
the kingside . I n this way one may arrive at
the move 1 1 g4 ! ! , which radically changes
the evaluation of the position . This move is
i n accordance with the princi p l e : 'attack the
opponent where h e is most vulnerable' .
Wh ite creates the very unpleasant th reat of
1 2 ii.g2. For exam ple, if 1 1 . . . fxg4 there
fol lows 1 2 ii.g2 tt::l c 6 1 3 d5, and Black's
position crumbles. If he plays 1 1 . . . �b7, then
afte r 1 2 .l::tg 1 W h ite has a powerful attack on
the kingside. Perhaps the best solution is
1 1 . . . cxd4, taking play i nto an ending that is
difficult for Black.
If the pawn were at f7, and not at f5 - such a
trifle! - and this entire play, beg i n n i n g with
g2-g4, was s i m p l y not there , the advantage
would be with Black. Although there is sti l l
no black piece defending t h e kingside, there
is noth i n g for Wh ite to g rasp, there is no f5-
pawn - that ' hook' which he can latch on to.
It is very i mportant to take such specific
details i nto accou nt when eval uati ng a
positio n .
Next after Stei n itz came t h e hypermodernists
(an amusing word ! ) . Stei n itz thought that it
was good to have a strong pawn centre and
that a player who has an advantage i n the
98 � PART IV
centre has an advantage i n general . But
players such as Reti , N i mzowitsch and
Breyer - the main represe ntatives of
hypermodernism - asserted that it is by no
means obligatory to have a strong pawn
centre , but that you can concede the centre
to you r opponent and then attack it with
pieces. New openings appeared , for exam­
ple, the Reti Open i n g , the N i mzo- l ndian
Defence and the Alekhine Defe nce; the
understanding of old open ings, for example,
the English Ope n i n g , was broadened .
Nimzowitsch discove red principles such as
prophylaxis and ove r-protection . That is, as
a result of the dispute between the hyper­
modernists and the 'classics' , chess moved
forward .
Nimzowitsch was an implacable opponent
of Tarrasch and his views. U nfortunately,
they are players of diffe rent generations. For
Nimzowitsch and Tarrasch the peaks of their
practical strength came at different times. In
games between them N i m zowitsch was
more often successfu l , but this does not
indicate the superiority of hype rmode rnism
- it was simply that Tarrasch was much
older, and played more weakly than i n his
youth .
From N i mzowitsch's books My System and
Chess Praxis one can certainly de rive a
g reat dea l . But you should not u ncondition­
ally bel ieve eve rything that is written there .
Nimzowitsch was often dealing with oppo­
nents who were sign ificantly i nferior to h i m
in playing strength , a n d i n such cases i t i s
not hard t o prove a n y theory.
In an issue of the magazi ne Shakhmaty v
SSSR a very i nteresting article by the
Moldavian master V. Chebanenko was pub­
l ished . I n it the author cast dou bts on
N i mzowitsch's principle, which states that a
pawn chain should be attacked at its base .
I mag ine a wh ite pawn wedge in the King's
I ndian Defence: d5, e4, f3, g2 (black pawns
at c7, d6, e5) . N i mzowitsch writes that Black
should play . . . f7-f5 and then, perhaps , push
his pawn to f4 and advance his g-paw n . The
base of Wh ite's pawn chain is the f3-pawn ,
or even the g2-paw n . But time and again we
see examples where B lack begins not with
. . . f7-f5, but with . . . c7-c6. That is, he
undermi nes the centre not at the base of the
pawn chai n , but at its head, and this
someti mes tu rns out q u ite we l l . N i mzowitsch
largely based his concl usions on the French
Defence , but there too Black someti mes has
to attack not the base, but the head of the
pawn chai n , i . e . play . . . f7-f6 .
There are some other classic books wh ich
deserve attention . I recommend that you
read Masters of the Chess Board by R ichard
Reti . I also l i ke very much his small book
New Ideas in Chess, demonstrating the
approach to chess in the pe riod of hyper­
mode rnis m.
I n some aspects th e approach of the
hypermodern ists was also dogmatic. An no­
tating his game against te Koiste ( Baden­
Baden 1 925) , Reti j udged the position
arising after 1 e4 ctJf6 2 e5 ctJd5 3 tt'lc3 tt'lxc3
4 dxc3 to be in favour of Black, thanks to the
prospect of obtai n i n g a pawn majority on the
kingside. He writes that 'by modern tech­
nique a m i n ute but clear positional advan­
tage incu rred in the opening can be easily
conve rted i nto a w i n . ' Lasker severely
criticised this approach i n his Chess Manual.
He showed specifically where White could
have defended better and com mented : 'On
a motif such as was indicated by Reti, one
cannot build the plan of a whole well­
contested game; it is too meagre, too thin,
too puny for such an end. Reti's explana­
tions, wherever they are concerned with an
analysis which covers a few moves are
correct and praiseworthy. As yet nobody has
been able to do much more than that except
to conceive plans as the game proceeded.
The reader of Reti's remarks is led to think
than an altogether new and profound strat-
 Studying the Chess Classics
egy has recently arisen and is probably
tempted to cast vel}' deep strategical plans
of the same order. He is in danger of losing
his sound judgement, and neither he nor
chess is well served thereby. '
Final ly, two players stand apart. They are
Capablanca and Alekh i n e . They were not
subject to any i nfluences, and they played
completely differe ntly, but their games serve
as model examples even to this day.
Think about how modern chess looks . Let us
suppose that there are two oppone nts of
equal strength - for exam ple, Andersson
and Hubner. One of them d raws u p a plan ,
but the other sees this plan and tries to
preve nt it. As a resu lt of the clash of plans,
White gains a small advantage . H e makes a
new plan, and i n reply there follows a new
counter-plan . Fi nal ly, both players end u p i n
time-trouble, i n which the logical cou rse of
the struggle is disru pted . For an inexperi­
enced player it is not easy to understand
such a game, and even for a maste r it can
be difficult. But if, say, Alekhine is playing
99
Tartakowe r, here the d iffe rence i n class is
felt. Alekh i n e makes a plan which proceeds
smooth ly. Ta rtakower does not u nderstand
it, and does not prevent it from being carried
out. In this way the enti re plan is presented
to us i n p u re form . Agai nst modern players ­
such as Salov, H u b n e r, Andersso n , such a
clear picture would not have resu lted , si nce
their opposing strength is much higher. So
that the fi rst lessons of strategy, lessons of
making plans, should be taken from the
classics.
Let us su ppose that you have become
acq uai nted with the g reat players from
Stei n itz to Alekh i n e , that you have looked at
their games and studied the books that I
have mentioned. Then it can be said that
you have basical ly assimilated the chess
classics. Of cou rse , there are also Botvi n n i k ,
Smyslov, a n d other t o p players o f our time.
But for a deep understand i n g of modern
chess, it is important to have a good chess
cu ltu re , and to i n itially go through a cou rse
on the classics .
1 00 � PART IV

Mark Dvoretsky

Finding New Ideas

The modern attitude to the classics
I (including the chess classics) is mainly
creative , and someti mes even critical . And
at the same time careful and thoughtful.
Every player at certain stages of his devel­
opment turns (it would be more accu rate to
say, should turn) to a study of our val uable
heritage . And , of cou rse, a close fami l iarity
with the classics is essential for trainers
worki ng with youngsters.
When preparing games by the leading
grandmasters of the past for use i n lessons,
you constantly have to ask you rself: what
provoked particular decisions by the two
players, and was it not possible to play more
strongly? After al l , you may certainly be
asked this by you r pupils. Commentaries i n
was largely determined by the 9th round
encounter between the two leaders - Lasker
and the Czech grandmaster Richard Reti,
which ended i n a win for the ex-world
champion .
Commentaries on this game (in particu lar, in
B.Vainstein's i nteresti ng and vivid book
Myslitel (The Thinker) , devoted to Lasker's
career) are , in my view, inadequate, and in
places they i ncorrectly reflect its content.
Meanwhi l e , the game is i nteresting from not
only the historic, but also the p u rely chess
point of view, and for this reason I wish once
agai n to d raw it to the attention of the
readers .
Reti Lasker
-

books answer b y no means all s u c h ques­ Moravska Ostrava 1 923

tions, and sometimes the answe rs seem not Sla v Defence
altogether satisfactory. You m ust get down 1 l"Llf3 d5
to checking variations yourself. Often an 2 d4 l"Llf6
analysis, confi rming the correctness of the 3 c4 c6
contestants, enables thei r decisions to be 4 l"Llc3 dxc4
understood and sensed more deeply, but 5 e3
sometimes roughly equivalent alternatives Nowadays this is rarely played : current
are discovered. It can also happen that i n opening fashion is more for 5 a4.
the moves or notes you encounter d i rect 5 . . . b5
mistakes. But however carefu lly and seri­ 6 a4 b4
ously a trainer prepares , all the same i n 7 l"Lla2 e6
lessons he w i l l have new a n d i nteresting 8 �xc4 �e7
ideas proposed to him, and many variations 9 0-0 0-0
wi ll be improved. As a result, the pictu re of 1 0 "ife2 l"Llbd7
the struggle i n the game i n question will Perhaps the most typical and i nstructive
often begin to look completely different from game for the given variation is deemed to be
how it appeared before the work. Reshevsky-Smyslov (USS R-USA Radio
Emanuel Lasker's fi rst appearance after Match 1 945) , which went 1 0 . . . i.. b 7 1 1 .i:!.d1
losing the title of world champion was the a5 1 2 i..d 2lbbd7 1 3lL'lc 1 �b6 1 4lL'lb3 c5 1 5
strong international tou rnament i n Moravska i..e 1 �fd8 with complicated and roughly
Ostrava in 1 923. The outcome of the event equal play. It is i nteresti ng to try and
 Finding new Ideas
evaluate those deviations from the classical
example (created 22 years later) , which
Lasker and Reti permitted themselves. The
drawback to 1 0 ...tt::lb d7, compared with
10 ...�b7, is that now White could have tried
11 e4. However, it is u nclear how advanta­
geous it would be to h i m.
1 1 b3! ?
Reti develops h i s bishop at b 2 , where i t i s
more actively placed than d 2 - a s with
Reshevsky. But at the same time the c3-
square is weakened, which may p rove (and
indeed proved in the present game) highly
significant.
11 . . . as
1 2 j_b2 cs
1 3 1Ud1 �b6
1 4 tt:Jc1 j_a6? !
I t was quite possible t o follow t h e futu re
classical example: 1 4. . . �b7. By exchanging
the light-square bishops, Lasker hopes to
exploit the weakening of the b3-pawn.
However, i n the process the enemy knight
gains the excellent square c4. In the futu re a
favourable situation for White may arise,
with a strong knight at c4 against a passive
dark-square bishop.
We see , fi rstly, that even such seemi ngly
modest moves as 1 1 b3 or 1 4...�a6 may be
double-edged and risky i n the strategic
sense, and secondly, that both players are
inclined to take a principled stance, being
prepared to make weaknesses i n their own
position in the fight for the i nitiative.
1 5 dxc5 ? !
I n the event o f 1 5 1i.xa6! ? 'ii'x a6! 1 6 'iVxa6
.!::ixa6 1 7 tt::ld 3 White has slightly the better
endgame. 1 5 tt::ld 2 also came i nto consid­
eration.
15 . . . tt:Jxcs
1 6 tt:Jes j_xc4
It was also worth thinking about 1 6 . ..tt::l d 5! ? ,
intending 1 7... �f6.
1 7 tt:Jxc4 �a6
CtJ 1 01
Now White n eeds to take measu res against
the th reat of 1 8 ....t'Uc8 followed by 1 9 ...tt::lx b3,
and also to think about the development of
his knight at c 1 .
1 8 j_d4 l::i.f c8?
In my view, a significant inaccu racy. White
wants to solve his p roblems by exchanging
on c5. Black could have retained a knight
there by playing 1 8 ...tt::lf e4! (there is also
1 8 ...tt::lfd7) , after which 1 9 f3 tt::lc 3 20 �xc3
bxc3 followed by 2 1 ...:fc8 is u nfavou rable
for White. Reti would probably have replied
1 9 .l:!.a2 ! , but after 1 9...tt::lc 3 20 1i.xc3 bxc3 2 1
.U.c2 .l:tab8 ( 2 1 . . .�f6! ? 2 2 e 4 llfd8, and 23
nxd8 .l:lxd8 24 e5? fai ls to 24...�xe5!) 22
.U.xc3 �f6 the game is completely equal.
1 9 j_xc5! j_xcS
I n the event of 1 9 .. Jlxc5 White can deprive
the enemy pieces of the d5-square by 20 e4!.
Weaker is 20 tt::ld 3? ! l:td5 21 e4 .l:td4 with an
u nclear game. But if now 20 e4, then
20...'iVb7 is unpleasant; 20 tt::l d 3 is also bad
in view of 20... tt::l e 4(d5) followed by 21 ...tt:Jc3.
20 'iVf3 !
20 j_e7!
By playing 20 ... tt::ld 5, Lasker could have
forced the reply 21 tt::l e 2. The position would
have remained quiet and the d rawbacks to
his exchange of the light-square bishops
would have gradually begu n to tell. However,
1 02 � PART IV
roughly the same situation would have
arisen in the game, had Reti chosen the
modest 2 1 lt.Je2 . In this case he would have
retained the better chances, which, however,
does not signify that Black's plan, beginning
with his 1 4th move, was wrong, but is merely
a consequence of his i naccu racy on the 1 8th
move .
Lasker provokes his opponent i nto the more
active manoeuvre lt.Jc 1 -d3-e5, as a result of
which White seizes control of all the central
squares. But in return the black knight gains
the opportunity to go to c3. It is probable that
Lasker's enormous experience of defence
in strategically difficult situations suggested
to him that the good placing of just one piece
might prove to be that sheet anchor, with the
help of which White's seemi ngly powerfu l
offensive could b e neutralised .
21 ltJd3?!
We have al ready mentioned the strivi ng of
both players to act critically, but in the given
instance White would have done better to
play more cautiously, especially with serious
time-trouble approaching.
21 . . . l2'ld5 !
22 tt:Jde5 ..tf6!
Of cou rse, not 22 . . . f6? 23 .l::!. x d5 !, while if
22 . . . l:!.f8 the followi ng variation was possible:
23 e4 tbc3 24 .l::!.d 7 .l::!. a7 (24 . . . ii.f6 25 .l::!.e 1 ) 25
.l::!.xa7 'ikxa7 26 lt.Jc6 "Wic7 27 tbxe7+ 'tWxe7 28
lt.Jxa5 "Wic5 29 lt.Jc4 'it'd4 30 .l::!. c 1 ! (but not 30
.l::!.e 1 lt.Jxa4) 30 . . . 'ikxe4 (not 30 . . . tt.Jxe4? in
view of 31 .l::!.d 1 ) 31 "Wixe4 with advantage to
Wh ite in the endgame.
23 e4
Subsequently an escape square for the king
would have come i n very useful, and so 23
g4 may seem tempti ng. But then there
would have followed 23 . . . l:!.xc4! 24 lt.Jxc4
ii.xa 1 25 .l::!.xa 1 lt.Jc3, and for the moment the
white rook is shut out of the game. After the
move in the game 23 .. . .l::!.xc4? 24 lt.Jxc4
i..x a1 is now unfavourable on account of 25
exd5! .
23 . . . ltJc3
24 .l:i.d6?!
A natural and logical move, but, as was
shown by the young candidate master
Maxi m Boguslavsky, it was stronger to play
24 .l::!.d 7! .l::!. a7 and only now 25 .l::!.d 6 'iVb7 26
.l::!.e 1 . The rook is less well placed at a7 than
at a8 . However, here too after 26 . . . i..xe5
(26 . . . .l::!. a 6? ! 27 'ii'd 3!) 27 tt.Jxe5 'iiie 7 the
outcome would have remained completely
u nclear.
24 . . . �b7
25 �e1
Now Black has to reckon with 26 .l::!.d 7. If
25 . . . .l::!.d 8, then 26 .l::!.x d8+ .l::!. x d8 27 lt.Jxa5
'ii'c7 28 tt.Jec6, and thanks to the th reat of
e4-e5 White has time to consolidate. Lasker
finds a stronger alternative .
25 . . . ..txe5!
26 ltJxe5 11fc7!
26 . . . tt.Jxe4? did not work, of cou rse, because
of 27 .l::!. d 7! . I n the event of 26 . . . .l::!. d 8 27 tt:Jc4
.l::!.x d6 28 lt.Jxd6 'tWc7 29 e5 the advantage is
with White: after making an escape square
for his king, he then plays his rook via e3-
d3-d4-c4. In this case the knight at c3 is no
longer dangerous: it does not create any
th reats and it is very far from those sq uares
from which it could attack the b3-pawn - the
only weakness i n the opponent's position.
Lasker forces the wh ite knight to retu rn to
c4, where it proves vulnerable .
27 l2'lc4
There is nothing else. After 27 .l::!.d 7 'ii'xe5 28
"Wixf7+ 'it>h8 the g7-point is defended, while if
27 "Wid3 there would have followed 27 . . . tt.Jxe4!
(weaker is 27 . . . ltJd5? 28 lt.Jc4) 28 .l::!.xe4
"Wixd6 ! .
(see next diagram)
Now White wants to strengthen his position
by 28 e5 with the th reat of 29 ltJb6 . The
logical conti nuation of Black's strategy was
the obvious 27 . . . tt.Jxa4! . For example, if 28
 Finding new Ideas
J:!.ed1 there is a simple defence: 28 . . . l:tf8! 29
l:td7 Wic5 .
In all the commentaries on the game it is
stated that i n this case White would have
won by 28 e5 lt:Jc3(c5) 29 lt:Jb6. Saviely
Tartakower gave a strange variation: 28 e5
l:td8 29 .l:ted1 (why not simply 29 .i:tc6 ! ,
winning a piece?) 2 9 . . . tt:Jc3 (29 . . . tt:Jc5! ) 30
J:!.d7! f5 31 exf6 ! .
For sixty years ( ! ) this conclusio n , sign ifi­
cantly i nfluencing the evaluation of both
sides' strategy, remained u nshake n , until
Artur Yusupov pointed out the possibil ity of a
simple defence: 28 . . . .l:tab8 ! , and if 29 l:ted1,
then 29 . . . tt:Jc5 . The th reats are parried , and
Black's extra pawn remains. It is now White
who wou ld have had to fight for a d raw, and
this could have p roved no easy matter,
especially in severe ti me-trouble.
Why didn't the ex-world champion take the
pawn? It is possible that Lasker - an
excellent tactician - instantly saw another,
completely u nexpected and very pretty
defensive possibil ity and, u nable to refrain
from it, did not bother to check the variations
carefu lly. Or perhaps both sides were in
time-trouble? It is a pity that i nformation on
the times is not available (with the exception
of White's severe time trouble, mentioned in
Vainstei n's book) - it could have given much
additional i nformation, i m portant for a better
understanding of the events on the board .
ttJ 1 03
27 e5?
28 'fi'fS
The move in the game, creating the th reats
of 29 .l:.d7 and 29 'ifxe5, is very strong. Its
only d rawback is that it was here that Lasker
had prepared a very clever counterblow.
28 tt:Je2+ ! !
2 9 �f1 ?
The knight cou ld have been taken , but after
29 .l:txe2? ! 'ii'x d6! 30 'ilfxf7+! �h8 (30 . . . c.t>xf7
31 lt:Jxd6+ �e6 32 tt:Jxc8 l:txc8 33 �1 l:tc3
34 lte3 .l:xe3 leads to an immediate d raw)
31 "ii'd 5 Black's chances are somewhat
better, although a d raw is highly probable.
I n time-trouble it is al most impossible to
prefer the move of the king i nto the corner,
but 29 c.t> h 1 ! would have retained a signifi­
cant advantage for White . Siegbert Tarrasch
gave this variatio n : 29 . . . lt:Jd4 30 "ii'x e5 tt:Jxb3
31 lt:Jb6 'ifc3 (31 . . .'ifc1 32 lled1) 32 'ifxc3
bxc3 33 tt:Jxa8 (33 tt:Jxc8 .l:xc8 34 l:ted1! is
also strong - this was found by l lya Makariev
who, like his friend Maxim Boguslavsky,
studied in our school) 33 . . . c2 34 h3 (34 h4 or
34 g3 is more logical) 34 . . . c1'if (the rook
endgame after 34 . . . .l:txa8 35 l:Ic6 c 1 'ii' is
hopeless) 35 :!xc1 tt:Jxc 1 36 lt:Jb6 l:te8 - it is
clear that the extra pawn ensures White
excellent winning chances (the improve­
ments in brackets are mine - Dvoretsky) .
1 04 � PART IV

It is possible to defend more tenaciously: 34 'i!Vf5?

29 ....l:td8 (instead of 29 ...lf'ld4) 30 'ii'x e5 (30 After such a sharp change of scene, and in
.l::!.x d8 .l::tx d8 followed by ... lf'ld4) 30....l:txd6 severe time-trouble, it is not easy to switch
3 1 'ii'x d6 'it'xd6 32 lf'lxd6 lf'ld4. If now 33 to defence and find the best moves. Mean­
.l::!.e 3, then 33....l::td 8 (33....:a6 34 lf'lc4 .l::tc6 is while, I think that as yet things were by no
weaker on account of 35 .l:!.d3) 34 e5 f6 35 f4 means hopeless for White. He should have
fxe5 36 fxe5 lf'lc6 with equality, or 34 lf'lb7 chosen between 34 .l:tb6, placing the rook
.:d7 35 .l::!.d 3 (35 lf'lxa5? lf'lxb3; 35 lf'lc5? behind the dangerous passed paw n , and 34
l::tc7) 35.. J:Ixb7 36 .U.xd4 'iii>f8 37 g3 .U.c7 38 h4, i ntending 35l:!.b6 or 35 h5 h6 36 .l::!.e3 and
.l:!.d5 .l:!.c3 39 .l::!. xa5 .U.xb3, and soon a d rawn 37 .Ug3.
ending is reached with fou r pawns against 34 . . . l:!.ab8!
three on one wing. 35 e5 b3
However, instead of 33 .l::!. e 3? , 33 .l:tb1 is 36 e6 fxe6
stronger. The rook maintains control of the 37 �dxe6 l::tf8
1 st rank, and if 33....l::!.d 8, then 34 lf'lb7 is There was a q u icker win by 37 ... b2 38 .l:!.e7
now very strong. With carefu l play White can b 1 li!! 39 Zlxb 1 g6! , when the queen has
hope to g radually convert his extra pawn. nowhere to go.
29 . . . lf'ld4 38 'ii'e 5 "it'c2
30 'i!Vxe5 lf'lxb3 39 f4
31 tLlb6 tLld2+!
39 lig3 b2 40 l::t e 7 'ifg6 41 'ifxg6 hxg6 42
This check is the whole point! .l::!. b 1 I!f4! followed by 43 ... l:.Xa4 would not
32 �g1 lf'lc4 have helped.
33 tbxc4 39 .
- . b2
If 33 lf'lxa8 there follows 33...'ii'x d6 34 lixd6 40 l:!.e7 'i!Vg6
lf'lxd6 35 lf'lb6 (35 e5 lf'lc4) 35....l:tc2 (of 41 f5 'it'f6
cou rse, not Vainstein's 35....l:.c6?! 36 lf'ld5 42 'ili'd5+ �h8
lf'lxe4?? on account of 37 lf'le7+) , and in view 43 l::t b7 'it'c3
of the threats of 36 ... b3 and 36...tt:Jxe4 Black White resigned. If 44 llf1 the most accu rate
must win. is 44 .. .'it'e3+ 45 �h 1 'ii'f4 ! 46 l::td 1 (46 'lt>g1
33 "it'xc4 .Uxb7 47'tixb7 l:tb8) 46...'ifc 1 !.
Analysis has shown that, alas, the game
was far from faultless. But i n it one is
attracted by the active and at times risky
struggle by both players for a w i n , and by the
principled way i n which they carried out their
plans. Here strategy and tactics were very
closely i nterwoven. The value of each move
was extremely h i g h , and the slightest error
(such as 27... e5? or 29 Wf1 ?) radically
changed the evaluation of the position . A
thorough study of similar i nteresting games
is not only useful , but also fascinating,
helping one to gain a better feeling for the
depth and beauty of chess.
 Finding new Ideas ttJ 1 05

Exercises

You have here th ree impressive episodes

from the play of R udolf Spielmann, analysed
by him i n his famous book The Art of
Sacrifice in Chess. You have to refi ne or
even refute certain conclusions drawn by
the grandmaster. The p roblems are very
difficult, and are i ntended not so m uch for
solving, as for i ndependent analysis (mov­
ing the pieces on the board ) .

2. It is Black to move. Assess the conse­

quences of the spectacular breakthrough i n
t h e centre 1 7 . . . d 5 .

1 . Black is actively placed, b u t he h a s to

reckon with l:txd6. If 23 . . . 'iic 2 there is the
good reply 24 :d2, and so Spielmann
played 23 .. a5 ! ? , diverti ng the queen from
.

the b4-square . If 24 'ii'd 2, then 24 . . . 'ii'c 5,

intending the i nvasion of the rook at f2 .
White has to choose between 24 'iix a5 and
24 'ifc3 'ii'c 5 (after defending the d6-pawn,
Black wants to block the queenside by
25 . a4) 25 b4. Which would you prefer?
. . 3. B lack t o move. A s i n t h e previous game,
Spielmann decided on a breakthrough in the
centre: 1 2 . . . e5. What do you think about
this?
1 06 � PART IV
Solutions
1 . Rubinstein - Spielmann (San Sebastian
1 9 1 2) .
The correct solution i s the cool-headed
capture of the pawn.
24 'i'xa5! 'i'c2
It was this move that Spielmann had in m i n d ,
since 2 4 . . .'�xb2 would have allowed Wh ite
to exchange queens in a convenient way: 25
l:!.d2 't!Vb3 (25 ...'�'e5! ? 26 �xe5 dxe5 with
approximate equality) 26 'ikb4.
25l:r.d2!
Not 25 'iVc3? (or 25 l:!.xd6?) on account of
25 . . . �xe4! . After 25 'iVd2 'it'xc4 the th reat of
26 . . . l:!.f2 is unpleasant.
25 . . . fixc4
26 �xd6!
The only way! White would have lost after 26
't\Vc3? l:!.f1 +! 27 i..xf1 :!:'txf1 + 28 'it>g2 't\Vxc3
29 bxc3 l:!.xe 1 . But now 26 . . . l:!.f1 +? 27 �xf1
l:!.xf1 + 28 'it>g2 does not work, and nor does
26 . . . �xe4? 27 �xe4 �f1 + 28 �g2 . White is
a pawn up and he is ready to simpl ify the
position by 27 :!:'td8 . After 28 .. J:tf2 29 l:!.d8
'it'c2 30 l:!.xf8+ 'it>xf8 the result is a d raw.
In the game Akiba Rubi nstein made an
unfortunate choice , allowing his opponent to
carry out a brilliant combination .
2 4 'YWc3?! l!Vc5 2 5 b 4 �xe4! !
The queen is, of cou rse, i m m u n e i n view of
26 . . . .l::tf 1 + with mate . After 26 �xe4!?
Spielmann was i ntending 26 . . . l:!.f1 + 27 l:!.xf1
l:!.xf1 + 28 �g2 l:!.g 1 + 29 'it>f3 't\Vh5+ 30 'it>e3
'ifxh 2 . 'It would be a problem in itself to
examine the position more closely. But from
the practical standpoint, which, in our sense,
should alone hold the scales in judging real
sacrifices, only an estimate is possible,
which, in my opinion, should prove fa vour­
able to the second player. He who would not
boldly undertake to win such a position with
Black will never go far in the domain of the
sacrifice. ' (Spielmann)
The young player Sasha Ryazantsev showed
that by playing 30 'it>f4! (instead of 30 �e3),
White could have saved h imself. I n reply
30 . . . 't\Vh6+ 31 �g4 is pointless, while in the
variations 30 . . . g5+ 3 1 We3 'iVxh2 32 'iVf6!
l:!.e 1 + 33 Wd4 'YWb2+ 34 l:!.c3 l!t'd2+ 35 l:!.d3
30 . . . e5+ 31 �e3 'iVh6+ 32 'it>f3 'iVxh2 3 3
�d5+ �f8 34 'it>e4 �e2+ 35 l:!.e3 (35 'it>f5?
'ii'h 5+) 35 . . . 'ii'g 4+ 36 �d3 'ii'd 1 + 37 �e4!, or
30 .. . l:!.c 1 31 'it'd2 ! (31 l!Vxc 1 't\Vh6+; 31 'iVb3
l:!.e 1 ) 31 . . . l:!.xc4 32 'it>e3! 't\Ve5 33 l:!.d4 't\Vg5+
34 'it>f3 't\Vf6+ 35 We3 Black has to be
satisfied with perpetual check.
White also had available the clever defence
26 l:!.f3 ! ? (with the idea of answering
26 . . . l:!.xf3 with 27 'iVxf3 ! ) . The n , according to
Spielmann's analysis, the play would have
developed as follows : 26 . . . axb4 27 axb4
�c6 28 b5 (28 l:!.xe4? it'xe4 29 l:!.xf7 'ii'b 1 +)
28 . . . l:!.xf3 29 fixf3! �xf3 30 bxc6 �xg2+ 31
'it>xg2 bxc6 32 l:!.xe6 l:!.f6 33 l:!.e7. Black is a
pawn u p in a rook endgame but the
opponent retains saving chances . I should
mention that Black is not obliged to ex­
change queens - he also retains an extra
pawn after 27 . . .'�h5 ! ? 28 l:!.xe4 l:!.xf3 29
�xf3 l:!.xf3 30 'i¥e 1 'i¥f5 , or 28 l:!.xf7 �xg2+
29 'it>xg2 'i¥xf7.
 Finding new Ideas
We have seen that, although objectively
Black's combination did not lead to a w i n , it
set the opponent very difficult problems.
26 llxe4? l:tf1 + 27 i.xf1 l:txf1 + 28 cJi>g2
"i'f2+ 29 'it>h3 l:.h1 !
29 'i'f5+ 30 'it>g2 was pointless , but now
. . .
this check is th reatened, si nce the king
cannot retreat to g2 on account of mate by
the queen on f 1 . Wh ite's position is lost,
despite his extra rook.
30 l:tf3 'ii'x h2+ 31 'i.ti>g4 'ii' h 5+ 32 �4 'ii' h 6+
33 'iti>g4 g5! 34 .l::!. xe6 (otherwise there is no
defence agai nst 34 . . . 'iWh5 mate) 34 . . .'ii'xe6+
35llf5 (35 'it>xg5 h6+ 36 'i.ti>f4 .l:te 1 ! also does
not help) 35 ... h6 ( i ntending . . . 'it>h7-g6;
35 .'ii' e4+ 36 'it>xg5 h6+ 37 'it>t6 .l:te 1 ! would
..
also have won) 36 'ii' d 3 'it>g7 37 'it>f3 (37
"i'd5 h5+ 38 'it>f3 l:lf1 +) 37 ... l:.f1 + 38 'iWxf1
l'xf5+ 39 'it>g2 'ii'x f1 + 40 'it>xf1 axb4 41
axb4 'it>f6 42 'it>f2 h5 White resigns.
2. Mieses - Spielmann (3rd match game,
Regensburg 1 9 1 0) .
In the game after 1 7 . . .d 5 White decided to
grab all the material sacrificed by his
opponent: 18 exd5 .i.xd5! ! 19 cxd5 �xd5.
Commenting on the resulting situatio n ,
Rudolf Spielmann writes :
'The sacrifice is now clear; Black has a
piece less (the doubled pawn hardly counts
as a compensation), but his advantage in
development has increased enormously
through the opening up of the two centre
files; as both the bishop and the g2-pawn
are attacked, White cannot castle and must
waste another tempo - unless he plays for
equalisation, with 20 i.xh7+ and castles. It
is, however, hardly to be expected that
White should make no a ttempt at refutation,
and so Black can count on the chances of a
violent central a ttack on the hostile king.
'These were the considerations which led to
the sacrifice. Only unbounded faith in the
position and in the undeviating principles of
development gave birth to the idea, for a
ctJ 1 07
previous instance of such a break-through is
unknown to me even today.
'I told myself that White, in spite of his extra
piece, would be compelled to defend himself
for a long time against a local supremacy
and that, in these circumstances, the gain of
at least some pa wns could be counted on.
The course of the game speaks for the
correctness - certainly from a practical
standpoint - of this assumption. '
20 �g3 l:tfe8+ 21 .i.e2 l:tbd8
21 ... !Dh5 22 'i!i'g4 !Dxf4! 23 'ii'xf4 'ii'x g2 was
tempti n g . However, after 24 'ii'f 1 !:i.xe2+ 25
'i\Yxe2 'i!Yxh 1 + 26 c;t>c2 a roughly equal
position would have arise n .
22 lDc3
If 22 cJi>f1 Spielmann gives 22 ... .l:txe2 23
'i.ti>xe2 'ilfc4+! 24 'i.ti>e 1 l:te8+, overlooking the
i ntermediate move 23 !Dc3 ! . Therefore the
attack should be conti nued with 22 . . . !De4! .
22 .. . 'iWd2+ 23 'i.ti>f1 !DdS
'Far more powerful than 23...�xb2; in such
positions pawns should not be captured until
they fall in your lap, so to speak. Nothing
counts but the a ttack. ' (Spielmann)
24 l:.e1 !Dxf4 25 �f2 l:td4 26 g3 lDh3 27
..WfS it'xb2 28 'iix h3?
The main variatio n , according to Spielman n ,
was 2 8 lDd 1 ! 'i!Vd2 ! 2 9 "iVxh3 .l:!.de4 3 0 lDf2 !
l:txe2 31 l:.xe2 'i!r'xe2+ 32 'i.ti>g2 h5! with
chances for both sides.
28 . . . 1!Vxc3 29 '*'f5 .l::!.d e4! 30 'iWf2 'ili'd2 31
l::tg 1 l::t4e6 32 l:tg2 l:tf6 33 .i.f3 l:txe1 + White
resigns.
We have seen that, objectively, the queen
sacrifice did not promise Black any advan­
tage . Moreover, it is not hard to demonstrate
that it should have led to an i nferior position.
17 . . . d5?!
1 8 e5! tt:\e4
1 8 . . . dxc4 1 9 i.c2 l:.e8 20 0-0 is bad for
Black.
1 9 'it'xd8 .l:!.fxd8
1 08 � PART IV

soon as possible, to mount an attack on the

enemy king stuck i n the centre , is strategi·
cally fully justified. But it should have been
put i nto effect i n a slightly d ifferent way. The
underm i n i n g move 1 2 . . . g5! , which is not
mentioned i n any of the commentaries, was
very strong . What can White do now? After
1 3 g3 gxf4 1 4 gxf4 compared with the game
the sacrifice 1 4 . . . e5! gains greatly in strength.
If 1 3 fxg5 there again follows 1 3 . . .e5!.
Finally, in the event of 1 3 i.d3 gxf4 1 4 0·0
Black does best not to accept the pawn
sacrifice, but to answer with the same
u n iversal move 1 4 . . . e5! . I n all these fairly
Spielmann thinks that this position is in his simple variations the destruction of the
favou r because of the opponent's inferior enemy pawn centre , i n contrast to the game,
development. This is not so - the evaluation is achieved for free , without a piece sacri·
is determi ned mainly by the defects in fice .
Black's pawn structure.
Now let us see what the i m mediate central
20 b3 f5 breakthrough leads to.
Otherwise 21 i.xe4 dxe4 22 lbc3 fol lowed 12 . . . e5 ! ?
by 0-0 orlba4 is unpleasant. 1 3 fxe5 tt:Jxe5!
21 cxd5 ..ltxd5 1 4 dxe5
22lbe3 ..lte6 The piece has to be take n , since after 14
23 ..ltxe4 fxe4 �e2 lbc4 Black has an obvious advantage.
24 l:i.c1 14 d4!
It is clear that Black faces a difficult struggle
for a d raw.
Instead of the spectacular, but objectively
not altogether correct breakth roug h , Spiel­
mann could have begu n systematic pres­
sure on the enemy centre by 1 7 . . -l:teS! .

1 8 0-0 �d7, for example: 1 9 lbc3 ( 1 9 e5

dxe5 20 fxe5 .:xe5 21 .l:txf6 �xf6 22 'ii'x h7+
'it>fB does not work) 1 9 .. Jbb2 20 e5 �c6!
21 lbd5 i.xd5 22 cxd5 dxe5 23 fxe5 "ilt'xd5,
and Black wins.
White defends by 19 l:!.e1 �c6 20 lbt2
(when 20 . . . l:!.xb2? fails to 2 1 e5) , but in this
case too it is evident that Black retains an
excellent position . 'The opening-up of lines must be carried
out ruthlessly. In working out this game for a
3. Erno Grunfeld Spielmann (Sopron 1 934) .
-
chess periodical/ wrote the following note at
Black has a lead in development, and there­ this stage: ''The sacrifice of the knight
fore his desi re to open u p the position as cannot be vindicated by analysis, and it
 Finding new Ideas
would possibly ha ve been refuted in a game
by correspondence. But in a contest over
the board and with a time limit of eighteen
moves an hour, it would nearly always win
through."
'That is the practical standpoint frequently
upheld in this book.
'If each and evel}' sacrifice had to be of that
cast-iron soundness which can be verified
by analysis, it would be necessal}' to banish
from the game of chess enterprise, that
proud and indispensable prerogative of the
fighter. All real sacrifices would ha ve to
disappear; only those of the temporal}' type,
which are in effect not sacrifices at all, would
be allowed to remain. ' (Spielmann)
The grandmaster's thoughts on the theme of
acceptable risk in a practical game are
instructive and i nteresti n g . However, we
should not u nconditionally accept them as
the truth . Fi rstly, times have changed, and
defensive technique has improved g reatly.
Many decisions, which a few decades ago
could be considered correct from the practi­
cal standpoi nt, would be cal led i nto q uestion
by present-day g randmasters . Secondly,
sometimes it does i ndeed make sense to go
in for i rrational compl ications, when there is
no good and sound alternative, but i n the
given instance, as we have seen, there was
such an alternative .
1 5 exd4!
It is strange that this natu ral move was not
made in the game. Erno Grunfeld was afraid
of the i ntermediate check 1 5 . . . 'ii'h 4+ . 'As
matters stand this check would not be the
best continuation, because White would
play �d1-c2, and the king would escape. '
(Spielmann)
15 . . . 'it'xd4
1 6 tt:\e2 !
If 16 .. . 'ii'x e5 there follows 17 ii.c3. 1 6 . . ."ifh4+
17 �g3 is also useless. In my view, Black
has insufficient compensation for the sacri-
(tJ 1 09
ficed piece and his attack is bound to be
parried.
Now let us see how events developed i n the
game.
16 liJd 1 ? .Jtxe5 16 e4 .ixe4
White has avoided the opening of the d-file,
but at a high price. All the same the attack
conti nues, with the opponent now havi ng
two pawns for the piece, and therefore the
risk that he undertook has been significantly
reduced.
17 liJf2 .Jtd5 18 �h3 �e7 (for the moment
there is no point i n wasting time on the
captu re of the a2-pawn) 1 9 ii.e2?
Apparently, the decisive error. Wh ite is
hoping to castle, but things do not come to
that. 1 9 'ilo>d 1 was better, and if 1 9 . . .ii.xa2 20
.Jtc4.
1 9 . . . d3! ! 20 ltJxd3 1::tfe8 21 'itf1 (2 1 0-0
ii.d4+) 21 . . ii.xb2 !
.
Spielmann th i n ks that he could have re­
gained the piece by 2 1 . . . i.c3 22 �xc3
'iVxe2+ 23 �g 1 .l::i.e 3 (he did not want to go i n
f o r t h e position arising after 24 .l:te 1 .l::i.x h3 2 5
.l:i.xe2 .l:i.xd3 26 a3), b u t t h i s is a mistake i n
view o f 24 liJf4 ! .
2 2 .l:te1 'iVf6+ 2 3 liJf2 (not 2 3 .if3 ii.c4!)
23 . . .�d4 24 'iVg3 .l::i.e 4!
More accu rate than 24 . . . .l:te5 25 �d3 (or 25
il..f4! ? ) . Now if 25 i.. d 3 Black wins by
25 . . . !Ig4 ! . After 25 'ii'f3 there is the ad­
equate reply 25 . .. .l::i.x e2 !, and if 26 'YWxe2,
then 26 . . . .ltc4 ! . Finally, after 25 i.f3 ii.c4+
26 'itg 1 .l::i.x e 1 + 27 ii.xe 1 Il.e8 any move of
the bishop from e1 is answered by 28 . . .
i.xf2+ .
25 h4 .l::i. a e8 (th reatening 26 . . . .l::i.x e2) 2 6 i.. b5
.l:txe1 + 27 i.. x e1 �e3! (27 . . . .l::i.x e1 + 28 'itxe 1
i..xf2+ 29 lixf2 'ifa1 + also wins) 28 'it'g5 (28
'i!Vb8+ 'itg7 29 i.. b 4 ii.c5 ! 30 ii.xc5 ifa1 +)
28 . . . .l::i. x e1 + 29 'itxe1 �xf2+ 30 'i¥td1 i.. x g2
31 .l:i.e1 ii.f3+ 32 i.. e2 ii.c3! 33 .ixf3 'tWxf3+
34 'i¥tc2 i.. x e1 White resigns.
110 <;t>
PARTV
Alexey Kosikov
Positional Evaluation and the Choice of Plan
in the Middlegame
Fmiddlegame. I n my view, and not only
i rst of al l , a few words about the
mine, this is the most complicated part of the
game . If a chess game is taken as a u n it,
then the endgame is somewhere around
thirty per cent, the opening is twenty per
cent, and one half of all the events develop
in the middle of the game. The complexity of
the middlegame is not only that there are
many pieces operati ng - its study is also a
complex matter. It is to this that I should like
to draw you r attentio n .
You probably have a pictu re o f how t o study
an opening. You open an appropriate manual ,
compile a card index, study the games,
prepare 'mi nes' in a number of variations,
and everything is alright - the opening can
be employed. Of course, this demands a lot
of time, but if you spend this time, you can
consider that everything is alright.
It is also comparatively easy to study the
endgame, on the theory of which many
books have been written . Comprehensive
Chess Endings by Yuri Averbakh, the Yugo­
slav Encyclopaedia of Chess Endings, and
other books - I will not list them all. Suppose
that you are deficient in rook endings. This is
nothing terrible : pick up Averbakh, pick u p
t h e Encyclopaedia - a n d study t h e thousand
or two thousand positions that are collected
there, and master the tactical and strategic
methods.
But studying the middlegame is sign ificantly
more difficult. Why? Because there is no
clear, accu rate method , there is no book that
you could take and read , and thereby raise
you r standard , say, from strong club player
to master. If you could learn how to play in
the middlegame, everything wou ld become
easy and simple. But there is no such book
and , I don't think there will be one in the near
futu re . Fortunately or u nfortunately, but
more probably the former, because a chess
player is primarily a creator, and chess is
creativity. Each must make his own way, and
it would be uni nteresting if everyone fol­
lowed a well-trodden path. But creativity
always involves difficulties, so that it is
better, of cou rse , to know somethi n g .
I can not say that nothing is known about
worki ng on the middlegame. Certain ways of
studying it can be described in general
terms.
What are these ways? In particular - a study
of the classics , the games of the great
masters. Of cou rse , on average , players in
the past were weaker than today's. But
nevertheless, one can not get by without
becoming fam iliar with their games. After all,
the difference in class between the leading
masters and other players was then very
g reat. And perhaps the most i nstructive
games were created by top players against
weaker opponents. Against them it was
easier to carry out clear, precise plans, from
the study of which you and I can learn a
 Position Evaluation and the Choice of Plan in the Middlegame
great deal. Thus the first way is a study of
classic games.
The second way is a study of tactical and
strategic methods . We assimilate them by
analysing games or game fragments , or by
solving combi nations and studies.
A third way of working is the study of typical
positions. What is meant by a typical
position is someth ing you can probably
imagine. For example, a position with an
isolated pawn, the Carlsbad structure, posi­
tions with a pawn majority on the flank or in
the centre . . . If you know the typical plans i n
them, it is easier t o take a decision a t the
board in similar situations.
And, finally, a fou rth way, which I want to
recommend to you - this is the study of
positions with a defi n ite balance of material.
Positions occur i n which a bishop is stronger
than a knight, or, for example, where one
side has a good bishop and the other has a
bad one. You should know the evaluations
of various combi nations of pieces. For
example, in the majority of cases a rook and
bishop are a little stronger than a rook and
knight. Whereas a queen , by contrast,
coordinates better with a knight than with a
bishop .
A player should be u niversal , able to play
the most varied positions, and this means
with various arrangements of pieces. At the
same time it is hard to name a player who
did not have his favou rite piece. Morphy,
Fischer and probably most of us prefer a
bishop to a knight, but Ch igorin or Petrosian
very much liked playi ng with the cunning,
crafty piece - the knight.
Let us analyse a few games which are
united by th ree components .
Firstly, in all o f t h e m t h e French Defence
was played .
Secondly, in each of them I was one of the
players. I am showing you my own games
not in order to boast - after all, they weren't
all won by me. It is simply that by playi n g ,
4:J 111
and t he n analysing these games, I gained a
deeper feeling for them and I can better
explain to you what happened in them.
And thirdly, t he main role i n all t he games
was played by a bishop.
The game with which I begin was played in
the U krainian Championshi p, and my oppo­
nent was the Lvov (at that time) master Boris
Kogan.
Kosi kov - Kogan
Lvov 1 974
French Defence
1 e4 e6
2 d4 d5
3 l2Jd2 c5
4 l2Jgf3 l2Jf6
5 exd5 l2Jxd5
Nowadays Black usually recaptu res on d5
with his pawn or queen.
6 l2Jb3 cxd4
7 l2Jbxd4 ii.e7
It is impossible to imagine play in the
middlegame, where individual moves are
accidental, not connected with one another,
not bound by the cement that in chess is
provided by a strategic plan . By acting
planlessly, a player does not create an
integral impression , and he also fails to
ach ieve the desired competitive results .
From what moment does the drawi ng up of a
plan beg in? That's correct, in the opening; of
course , not from the first move , but also not
when the opening has al ready ended .
The plan in the middlegame depends on the
situation on the board , on how the pieces
are arranged . But where should the pieces
be developed? In accordance with the plan
that you have chose n . In chess, as in l ife ,
everything is intercon nected: the arrange­
ment of the pieces should be i n accordance
with the intended plan, and vice versa.
Let us try deciding on the arrangement of
the pieces and the plan of subsequent
1 12 � PART V
actions for White and for Black in the
resulting position (the fact that the oppo­
nent's actions have to be taken into account
is, I think, understandable) .
Thus the fu rther development of the wh ite
pieces depends on where you are intending
to play. You can try to exploit you r pawn
majority on the queenside . Then the ar­
rangement of the pieces should aid the
advance of the queenside pawns: bishops at
e3 and f3(g2), rooks at d1 and c 1 , and
queen at e2 .
But in chess there is always a choice . It is
also possible to imagine a qu ite different
plan - an attack on the kingside (it is qu ite
obvious that Black will castle short) . Then
one bishop should stand at d3 and the other
on the a1 -h8 diagonal . Of course , we will
not tolerate the knight at d5 - we will ask it to
move by c2-c4. It is clear that, if we are
preparing an attack on the kingside, it is
desirable to keep the rooks on d1 and e 1 ,
and the queen on e2, intending a possible
fke4.
This was the piece set-up that I intended . It
is more interesting to attack that to engage
in some kind of abstract play.
When choosing a plan , it is necessary to
reckon with the opponent's actions. Where
will Black play? He has, of cou rse , a plan
involvi ng the advance of his e- and f-pawns.
But it is not at all easy to carry out, bearing in
mind that White will put pressu re on e6 and
control the e5-square.
Another possible line of play for Black is the
preparation of the undermining move . . b7- .
b5 (seeing as White will play c2-c4). In this
case Black's queen will go to c7. So that it
should not be harassed, the move . . . a7-a6
must be included. The king's rook will
obviously to go d8, and it makes sense to
develop the light-square bishop at b7, the
knight at d7 and the queen's rook at c8. This
leads to an arrangement of the pieces that is
q uite natu ral for such positions.
After we have determi ned the plans of the
two sides, the next few moves become
understandable and hardly requ i re any
commentary.
8 �d3 0-0
9 0-0 a6
Of cou rse , 9 . . lt:J b4 did not concern me: the
.
bishop withd raws to e2 , and the knight at b4
is badly placed . The Encyclopaedia of
Chess Openings recom mends 9 . . . �f6, va­
cating the e7-square for queen or knight.
1 0 c4 lt:Jf6
The knight is detailed to the defence of the
king.
11 b3 'W/c7
12 �e1
Both Wh ite and Black are engaged in their
own affairs , but the opponent's actions must
also be followed . Now the 'normal' develop­
ing move 1 2 ..lt b2 would simply be a blunder
i n view of 1 2 . . . e5 and 1 3 . . . e4. [This is not so:
12 ..itb2 e5 ?! 13lLif5 e4 ? 14 lt:Jxel+ 'fixe715
l:!.e1 with advantage to White - Dvoretsky.]
However, 1 2 'i:Ve2 was not a bad alternative.
12 . . . b6
1 3 �b2 �b7
1 4 'i!t'e2
Both sides carry out the i ntended strategic
arrangement of their pieces. But, of course,
 Position Evaluation and the Choice of Plan in the Middlegame
one cannot mechanically make the planned
moves. Here 1 4 .. .<�'J d7 would appear to lose
after 1 5 tt::l x e6 fxe6 1 6 �xe6+ .l::[f 7 1 7 tt::lg 5.
What then should Black do? 1 4 . . . tt::l c6 is not
in accordance with his plan - the knight at c6
blocks the bishop's diagonal . In order to play
. . .<�'J d7, he m ust forestall the sacrifice tt::lx e6.
14 . . . il.b4
Perhaps here Black had no particular choice ,
but in principle such moves should be made
with great caution. Fi rstly, it is desi rable to
keep the bishop close to the king, and
secondly, at b4 the bishop is awkwardly
placed : it is out of play, and it does not fit in
with the piece arrangement planned by
Black. Of cou rse , he hopes that the bishop
has gone there only for a time, but it must be
remembered that the bishop stands badly.
1 5 .l:!.ed 1 lt:ibd7
We wil l conti nue in the form of questions and
answers. H e re is the fi rst task. The move
1 5 . tt::l b d7 , as you can see, contains the
. .
threat of . . . e6-e5-e4. If the quean's rook
were already at c 1 , the simplest way to parry
this th reat would be 1 6 i. b 1 (followed by
l'c2 or "i!Vd3) . But what about now?
Retreat the knight to c2? I ag ree , there is
such a move . Black replies 1 6 . . . i. d 6 . The
knight at c2 does not stand too well , i n view
of the th reat of . . . e6-e5-e4.
lZJ 1 13
Play 1 6 a3 ? The bishop will evidently retreat
to d 6 .
You suggest a piece sacrifice? 1 6 tt::l x e6
fxe6 1 7 'i!Vxe6+ W h8, and what next?
1 8 . . . i. xf3 is th reatened. I simply don't l i ke
this position .
1 6 tt::l g 5 does not look dangerous. What is
the th reat? Black can reply 1 6 . . . i. d6 or
1 6 . . . .l::[f e8.
Play 1 6 i. b 1 ? There is such a move , but
what will you say about it to the rook at a1 ?
Have patience? But it isn't necessary for the
pieces to be patient.
Retreat the bishop to c2? Yes, this is the
si mplest solution to the proble m : � c2, .i::[ a c1
and � b 1 . But it is a pity to waste a tempo.
Black prepares for defence: 1 6 . . . .l::[f e8 1 7
.i::[a c1 .i::[a d8 1 8 i. b 1 il.f8 1 9 'ik c2 g6.
16 .l:!.ac1 !
Seemi ngly a very simple move , which
comes i nto White's plan. I didn't think over it
for long - some seven m i nutes. But my
opponent thought for about twenty mi nutes
over his reply. He was trying to decide
whether this was a blunder or a sacrifice .
After checking some variations I saw that if
the opponent were to accept the piece
sacrifice, I had a guaranteed d raw. I ntuition
suggested to me that I could and should be
able to find something else. So that the
lottery - the move .l:!. ac1 - was one that I
couldn't lose.
16 . . . e5
Black, as they say, picks up the gau ntlet. But
it would have been better to refrain from this
move , which proved to be the decisive
mistake. H e should defi nitely have played
1 6 . . . .l::tf e8 and brought his bishop to the
defence of his king . In the subsequent
events Black will very much feel the lack of
the b4 bishop.
1 7 lt:if5 e4
Havi ng started , there is no turning back.
1 8 �e3
1 14 � PART V
White's strongest piece joins the attack.
Here there is not even any particular need to
delve into the variations, to realise how
dangerous it is to take on f3 or d3. Let's, for
example, follow the variation 1 8 . . . exd3 1 9
'ifg5. The reply 1 9 . . . g6 is forced . Now the
outcome is most simply decided by the cal m
move 20 .l:lxd3. Black's downfall is caused
by the weakness of the a 1 -h8 diagonal .
�xd7 and ti:J h6+ is threatened . No better is
18 . . . exf3 1 9 lig5 g6, and here it only
remains to clear the d-fi le by playi ng, for
example, 20 SL b 1 with the th reat of .l::tx d7.
18 . . . l:Ue8
Evidently the only move . Now the next task
is: continue White's attack.
Yes, 1 9 'ii g5 .1l.f8 20 ti:J h6+ 'it> h8 21 tt::Jxf7 +
'lt>g8 suggests itself. Although Wh ite is a
pawn up, he probably h as no more than
draw, because he simultaneously has th ree
pieces en prise . But a d raw is guaranteed:
that draw which I had foreseen .
You suggest 1 9 i. b 1 ? I reply 1 9 . . . exf3 20
'it'g5 i.f8 . Now 21 .U xd7 is not at all
dangerous.
19 c5! !
I t i s very good , i f you found this solution. I t is
not easy to see - after al l , the attack is taking
place on the kingside, to where all White's
aspi rations, all his thoughts are d i rected.
But as soon as you discover this possibility,
it becomes clear that all other moves are
pushed into the background. It is quite
understandable that Black can hold the
position only if his g7 will be defended by his
bishop. By cutting off the bishop from the
defence of the king, you sharply strengthen
the attack.
Black faces a very difficult, I would frankly
say, insoluble problem. 20 lig5 is th reat·
ened. Do you sense how Black lacks his
bishop for the defence , how it is needed on
f8? Here, I think, Black al ready realised
everything and reg retted that he had made
the over-active move 1 6 . . . e5.
You suggest playi ng 1 9 . . . h6 ? This is hardly
l i kely to save the position. In some cases
even c5-c6 is possible. I will always regain
the piece in some favou rable version . We
won't l i nger here - I will simply show you
how events developed further. Only, remem·
ber once more: Black loses because of the
bad position of j ust one piece - his bishop at
b4. Place it on f8 and the evaluation of the
position changes sharply.
19 . . . exf3
If I am going to be subjected to an attack, let
it at least be for a piece - the typical
reasoning of a practical player.
20 'ifg5 g6
In such positions the main difficu lty is the
mass of tempting conti nuations. It is very
important not to become entangled in them,
not to follow a false trai l .
Play 2 1 c6 ? Thi s is possible, but i n t hi s way
you vacate the a3-f8 diagonal , whereas
you r plan is an attack on g7. I n the futu re this
resou rce may come in useful , but for the
moment it is too early.
21 'ifh6
This sacrifice of a second piece conclusively
destroys the opponent's position . If he
decl ines it, by playing 21 . . . tt::J h 5, then after
22 g4 'iff4 23 gxh5 'it'xh6 24 tt::Jx h6+ Wf8 25
 Position Evaluation and the Choice of Plan in the Middlegame
c6 it is now White who will be a piece up.
21 . . . gxf5
22 .ltxf5
There are very many th reats : .i xh7+, .i xd7,
l::!.xd7 . . . They are all based on the terrible
power of the bishop at b2 - Wh ite's main
attacking piece. Why is this the main piece?
Because it has no opponent. Black's bishop
should be at g7, but it is stuck on b4.
22 . . . lt:ie5
23 'ilt'xf6
The gathering of the harvest begins.
A question : if 23 . . . fxg2, what should White
do?
24 f4 ? No, this move is very bad on account
of 24 . . . .i xc5+. You suggest 24 l::t d 7 ? The
reply 24 . . . tt::if3+ is unpleasant.
Remember about the bishop at b2 , and then
you wil l easily find the solution . Of course ,
24 .U. d3! . The th reat of 24 . . . tt::i f 3+ is repulsed ,
and Black is no longer able to parry the
deadly 25 l:t g3+.
23 . . . .ltxc5
If 23 . . 'it'e7 the simplest is 24 ii' h6 f6 25
. .i e2, but this move is also possible.
ixe5 fxe5 26 l::t d 7.
24 l:td7 "it'xd7
My opponent, who was in time-trouble, was
about to play 24 . . .'ii' c 6, but at the last
moment he removed his hand . A pity! I had
prepared 25 .i. xh7+! W xh7 26 � xf7+ . Again
the variations are based on the strength of
the bishop. I very much wanted the game to
end in this way, but alas, i n l ife not
everything tu rns out as we would like. The
opponent also has a head on his shoulders
and he endeavou rs to thwart our plans.
25 .ltxd7
It is not possible to recaptu re on d7, the
material advantage is now with White, and
within a few moves he won without difficulty.
The game is a good illustration of Tarrasch's
famous aphorism: 'One piece stands badly
-the entire game stands badly. ' The bishop
LtJ 1 15
is a long-range piece, and it would not seem
difficult to deploy it successfully. But, as you
see, it is not always possible to do this.
The following game was played in 1 972 in
the semi-final of the USSR Trades U n ion
Championship. This time I had Black.
Agzamov - Kosi kov
Orenburg 1 972
French Defence
1 e4 e6
2 d4 d5
3lt:id2 lt:ic6
Usually 3 . . . tt::if6 or 3 . . . c5 occurs, but I also
consider 3 . . . tt::ic6 to be a perfectly accept-
able move . I th i n k that the time will come
when it is played increasingly ofte n , be­
cause the variations with 3 . . . tt::if 6 have been
very deeply studied , and here it is becoming
hard to find new opening ideas .
4lt:igf3 lt:if6
5 e5 lt:id7
6 .lt b5
The main continuations are 6 tt::i b 3 and 6
6 . . . a6
.i
A questionable decision . 6 . . . e7 or 6 . . . a5
comes into consideration.
7 .ltxc6 bxc6
8 c4
This move is one that I cannot recommend.
8 tt::i b 3 is stronger, with the idea of tt::ia5, and
if Black replies 8 . . . c5 , then 9 .i. g5 .i. e? 1 0
tt::ia5 is possible, forcing 1 O . . .tt::i b8. White's
position is preferable. Two years later
Konstantin Lerner played this against me.
Although the game ended i n a d raw, Black
experienced defi nite difficulties.
[Opening information: in the event of 10
tt::ia s White also has to reckon with 10. Ji'Jxes.
Therefore 10 .ixe 7 'itxe 7 11 0-0 aS 12 'it d2
a4 13 ttJxcS ltJxcS 14 dxcS 'fixeS 1S b4! is
simpler, with advantage to White (Popovic­
Kovacevic, Novi Sad 1984). Black in turn
1 16 � PART V
can improve his defence with 9. . f6 (instead
. What is the distinguishing featu re of the
of 9. . .il.. e7) 10 il.f4 a5, although after 11 c3
. position? White has g iven up a bishop and
a4 12 t"iJc1 he still stands slightly worse -
Dvoretsky.]
The fi rst question: how should Black re­
spond to 8 c4 ?
You suggest 8 . . . f6 , beginning active play i n
t h e centre? B u t such activity is usually
advantageous to the side who is better
developed . In the given instance this can
hardly be said to be Black.
8 . . . c5 can be evaluated i n the same way.
Moves such as . . . f7-f6 or . . . c6-c5 should
be made with great caution. Look more
closely at the position and you will see that
Wh ite is ahead in development and is ready
to castle. Therefore a sharpening of the
position in the centre is very dangerous for
Black.
What can be said about 8 . . . as with the idea
of . . . i. a6 ? I will share with you an
observation which holds true in such posi­
tions. The bishop stands well at a6 only as
long as White has not castled . If castling has
been carried out and the rook stands at e 1 ,
the bishop at a6 proves to be out of play.
You should not try and solve the position by
a mechan ical analysis of variations. Let's try
to understand its essence - this will help the
correct strategic cou rse to be determined.
now Black has two bishops agai nst a bishop
and knight. What do you know about the
strategy of playing with two bishops? You
m ust open diagonals for them - this is clear,
this is elementary. But there is also another
very i mportant consideration i n such posi­
tions. When playi ng with two bishops against
bishop and knight, you should strive to
demonstrate the strength of the bishop that
does not have an opponent. If you are able
to demonstrate that the light-sq uare bishop
is a piece and not just an observer, then you
will exploit the strength of the two bishops.
8 . . . dxc4
This move had al ready been suggested , but
with the aim of then playi ng . . . a6-a5 . But
Black is planning to develop his bishop at b7
and if possible play . . . c6-c5, seizing control
of the long diagonal .
White should probably have simply played 9
t"iJxc4. I don't know how I should have
replied. Most probably 9 . . t"iJ b6, but perhaps
.
nevertheless 9 . . . aS, so as not to al low the
knight to go to a5 .
My opponent chose a less successfu l move,
underesti mating my strong reply.
9 'i!t'a4?! t"iJb6 !
By giving up his c6-pawn , Black opens the
diagonal for his light-square bishop, while
the c4-pawn may still come i n usefu l .
1 0 'ii' x c6+ i.d7
1 1 �e4 i.bS
The bishop already becomes active. 1 2 0-0
is not possible on account of 1 2 . . . c3. But
White needs to castle , and therefore his next
move is forced .
1 2 tLlb1 �dS
Now the exchange of queens - 1 3 'ii'x d5
t"iJxdS 1 4 t"iJ c3 - gives Black an excellent
position after both 1 4 . . . t"iJ xc3 1 5 bxc3, and
1 4 . . . t"iJ b4.
13 'i!t'e3
 Position Evaluation and the Choice of Plan in the Middlegame
The queen at d5 is very strongly placed .
Imagine what a powerfu l battery will be set
up when the bishop also appears on c6 . Of
course, it is desi rable to mai ntain the queen
on its central square, which means that
measu res have to be taken agai nst tt:Jc3.
Do you suggest exchanging the dark-square
bishop for the knight at c3? You know, this
idea is not so good , because the white
bishop will come out at a3. Of course , I will
be strong on the light squares, but my
opponent will gain cou nterplay on the dark
squares.
13 . . . tt:Ja4
Moves to the edge of the board can be good ,
if they involve some sensible idea: in this
case to exchange this knight for the one at
c3. 14 0-0 sti ll does not work in view of
14 . c3.
. .
14 tt:Jc3 tt:Jxc3
1 5 bxc3
In chess, as in life , there are things which
must be done first, and those which can be
deferred. Let us try and decide with what
move now Black does best to beg i n .
T h e eval uation o f t h e position is clear: Black
has the advantage. When his light-square
bishop moves to c6, the opponent will have
nothing with which to oppose it. The bishop
is very strong, it is much stronger than the
LLJ 117
knight. What other typical featu res of the
position can be mentioned?
Two bishops? I don't real ly understand what
is the advantage of the two bishops, if there
is not domination by the bishop that has no
opponent. If i n this position the light-sq uare
bishop is strong, then yes - I see the
advantage of the two bishops. If the bishop
is passive, then there is no advantage.
Let us remove the dark-sq uare bishops from
the board . Of cou rse, this is to the advan­
tage of Wh ite , si nce his c 1 bishop is bad . But
nevertheless Black's position remains supe­
rior, because his bishop is very dangerous.
Therefore I would assert that here we have
not the advantage of two bishops, but the
supe riority of one - the light-square bishop ­
over the knight. Although of course, the
existence of Black's second bishop empha­
sises the strength of his positio n.
I sh o ul d mention another important feature
of the position: the open b-fi le. The question
of who is able to control it will certainly be of
significance .
When taking a decision , it is usefu l fi rst to
select the candidate moves. You suggest
1 5 . . . c5 ? But what is the point of it? You
want to get rid of you r doubled pawn. But in
what way is my c7-pawn worse than the
pawn at c3? It is not clear. Whereas White
will gain a chance to occupy the d4-sq uare
with his knight or even his bishop.
I seriously considered three candidate
moves: developing - 1 5 . . . � e7, seizing the
diagonal - 1 5 . . . Ji. c6 and finally, 1 5 . . . � b8 -
placi ng the rook on the open file. Which of
these is the most accu rate?
If 1 5 . . . ..t e7 Wh ite can reply 1 6 � b 1 . It does
not look bad to play 1 5 . . . � b8 1 6 � b 1 � b6 ,
and when the bishop moves, the exchange
on b6 will improve Black's pawn structure.
But the third possibility is even better.
15 . . . Jtc6!
� 'i¥
If now 16 b1, then 16 . . . e4 is extremely
118 � PART V

unpleasant, as the rook has no satisfactory

move along the b-file (if 1 7 l:!.b2 , then
1 7 . . . � a3) .
1 6 0-0 �b8
� .l:t "i1i
But not 1 6 . . . e7 1 7 b 1 e4 1 8 i. d2.
In passing, Black has gained control of the
open file. You may say that this is a trivial
matter, a trifle . But such 'trifles' influence the
evaluation of a position , ease you r fu rther
play, hinder the opponent's actions and in
the end often tell on the outcome of the
game .
1 7 .l:te1
Does 1 8 . . . 'it> d7 appeal to you? But what to
Just in case , White defends against . . . "i1ie4.
do next - double rooks and altogether
You know, the difficulty of his position is that
abandon the kingside to its fate? This
it is hard to suggest anything for h i m , since
somehow doesn't look right, wouldn't you
no active plan is apparent. If 1 7 a4 (intending
i.a3) , then 1 7 . . . .l:t b3 (an illustration of how agree? The move . . . 'it> d7 is a very commit­
ting one. You acknowledge that you are
timely Black's last two moves were). How­
unlikely ever to open up the position. With
ever, even after the exchange of the dark­
the king on d7 you will not especially be able
square bishops Black's control of the b-file
to be agg ressive .
together with the weakness of the b2- and
b3-squares would have become a decisive You can , of cou rse , simply castle, and then
factor. try to i nvade on the b-file. Although, for the
moment it is not clear in what way. And what
[Apparently, here White missed his last
do you do after 1 9 h5: allow the pawn to go
chance of putting up a tough defence. He
to h6 or meet it with 1 9 . . . h6 ? I n the latter
should have played 1 7"i1ig5!, to create some
case you have reckon with the switching of
pressure on the opponent's kingside and, by
White's pieces to the kingside : "i1if4 , 'i!fg4,
defending the g2-pa wn, unpin the knight at
.l:te3, lD e 1 and .l:!.g3. You don't want to allow
f3 - Dolmatov.]
the opponent cou nterplay.
17 . . . �e7
1 8 . . . g5 is a very interesti ng idea, one which
A useful developing move . Such play is very shouldn't i mmediately be given a hostile
unpleasant for the opponent - after all, it is reception. But, of cou rse , it is a very
not clear what specifically is threatened and committing move. After 1 9 hxg5 you want by
what to do in reply. 1 9 . . . � g8 to create the th reat of captu ring on
1 8 h4 g5? Wh ite replies 20 'it' f1 , in order in the
I n the event of Black castli n g , this pawn is event of the piece sacrifice to escape with
ready to advance further, in the illusory hope his king via e2 . [Black can nevertheless play
of creating some kind of attack. Now answer 20. . . ii.xg5! 21 lbxg5 'illxg2+ 22 <j;e2 klxg5!,
the next question : how would you have since 23 'fixg5 ?"i1if3+ 24 �f1 'ilih3+ leads to
continued to build up Black's initiative? mate. White would ha ve had either to
defend the unpleasant position arising after
23 �a3, or choose 20 'fie2 i..xg5 21 i..xg5
�xg5 22 <it>f1 Dvoretsky.]
-
 Position Evaluation and the Choice of Plan in the Middlegame
Prepare . . . g7-g5 by 1 8 . . . .U. g8 ? But if I again
reply 1 9 Wf 1 , what then?
After the other preparatory move - 1 8 . . . h6,
White will p robably try to block the kingside
with 1 9 h5.
You suggest 1 8 . . . ..i a8 ? What for? Again to
play . . . c7-c5 ? Let's suppose 1 9 �e2 c5 20
.t e3, then l:teb1 and tt'J e 1 - White somehow
disentangles himself. I don't understand the
point of such play for Black.
You want to play 1 8 . . . �a5 with the idea of
. . . .t a3 ? I l logical. You liked the advantage of
the two bishops and we decided that White's
bishop is bad , so why exchange it? And also,
it is a g reat pity to break up the powerful
'i'd5-..i c6 battery. I think that Black's strat­
egy should involve exploiti ng the power of
this battery.
18 . . . h5!
This is the correct solution . Although it is
also very committing - it weakens the g5-
square . It is important that White has not
managed to play �f4, �g3 and ..i g5. But we
want to intensify the pressu re on the g2-
point. If it were our move we would decide
the fate of the game by including the rook in
the attack: . . . .U. h6! , then . . . .l::tg 6 and at some
point . . J:tg4.
19 'i'ie2
The only defence. What to do next? Let us
continue our strategy - try to clear the long
diagonal , even if it means sacrificing a
pawn.
19 . . . g5!
20 i.. x g5 i.. x g5
21 hxg5 h4
If now Black manages to play . . . h4-h3 , the
game will be decided. But White sti l l has a
defensive resou rce .
22 .:eb1 �b6
It is a pity to concede the open file by 22 . . .
l:!.d8. But i f Black does allow the exchange,
the most advantageous square for this is b6
(incidentally, if we had al ready played . . . c7-
ttJ 119
c5 , the move . . . .l::!. b 6 wouldn't have been
possible; this means that the pawn at c7 has
its advantages) . Any exchange i n a game of
chess is l i ke a trading transactio n. You offer
you r goods , you are offered something
d ifferent, and i n the process each side tries
to gain some benefit. Here , for example: you
want to exchange rooks? - then take on b6,
at the same time undoubling our pawns. But
what else can Wh ite do? - he is forced to
take, since his q uean's rook can't stay for
ever i n the corner.
23 .l:txb6 cxb6
24 lbe1 h3
25 'iff3
Black is attacking, but this does not mean
that he should automatically avoid the
exchange of queens. Now moving the
queen to d7 or b5 would be a blunder. White
would reply 26 'ii'f 6 and then 27 g6, after
which it is not clear who is attacking whom.
25 . . . hxg2
26 'i!t'xd5 i.. x d5
27 lbxg2
It all seems to have gone well , we have done
everything correctly, and yet here we are in
an endgame a pawn down . Was something
wrong? No, we weren't mistaken i n our
eval uation, and the next move convi ncingly
demonstrates this.
120 � PART V

27 . . . �h3 ! game . I will mention only that Black's last

Everything is alright! Wh ite's position is bad , move is usually made when the bishop is at
in fact it is completely hopeless . c 1 . But here it is hardly good , si nce the
28 �c1 b5 bishop has al ready come out to f4 and White
does not shut it in by developing his knight at
White resigned . Why? The knight can't
d2. 7 . . :ilc7 is preferable.
move , the king can't move , and if 29 f4 Black
wins by 29 . . . � g3 30 � c2 b4 followed by a 8 'ifc2 ii.d7
general exchange on g2. There only re­ 9 lLlbd2
mains � c2-c1 -c2 , but then comes . . .<it> e8- The sacrifice 1 0 ..i xc4 is not yet th reatened,
d7-c6, . . . a6-a5, . . . b5-b4 and so on. since Black interposes 1 0 . . . tLlg6, but in
Why did Black win? Who was the main hero principle he has to reckon with this idea.
of the battle? Clearly, the light-square 9 . . . lba5
bishop, which did not have an opponent. 1 0 ii.e2 f5?
I played this game when I was stil l a
candidate master, but even so I am proud of
it to this day. After all , in the French Defence
the c8 bishop is usually bad , and causes
Black nothing but torment. But here it played
the leading role. Such instances are remem­
bered for a long time.

The followi ng game took place at an

international chess festival in Kiev. Looking
ahead , I should say that althoug h , unfortu­
nately, I did not manage to win, in the
creative sense I was happy with my play.

Kosi kov - Khoperia

In my view this last move is a positional
Kiev 1 989
blunder. The e5-pawn is cramping Black,
French Defence
and he should have retained the possibility
1 e4 c5 of undermining the opponent's centre by
A Sicilian Defence sometimes transposes . . . f7-f6. In the French Defence there are
into a French . variations in which Black plays . . . f7-f5 and
2 lLlf3 e6 then puts pressu re on the d4-pawn. But
3 c3 d5 here, after he has deprived hi mself of
4 e5 lbc6 cou nterplay i n the centre by playing . . . c5-c4
If Black wants to avoid the French Defence, and . . . f7-f5 , his position becomes strategi­
he can play 4 . . . d4 here, which leads to very cally difficult.
complicated play. And so , a typical 'French' position has
5 d4 lbge7 arisen , i n which White is clearly stronger on
6 a3 c4 the kingside, while Black tries to develop an
7 ii.f4 ir'b6 in itiative on the queenside .
I will not discuss the opening, si nce here we 1 1 h4
are interested in the subsequent part of the A natu ral move in such positions, and much
 Position Evaluation and the Choice of Plan in the Middlegame
stronger than 1 1 0-0 . In any case the h-pawn
will have to advance , to ram the opponent's
fortifications on the kingside. But whether
castling will be needed is sti l l an open
question. The fol lowing plan is q u ite possi ­
b le: th e rook comes into play v i a h3, and the
king is evacuated from the centre by � e 1 -
f1 -g 1 .
11 . . . .l:!.cB
1 2 h5 h6
I don't like this move , but Black feared , and
not without reason , 1 3 h6 g6 1 4 � g5, then
i.f6 and tt:l g5.
1 3 tt:lh4
For the time being Wh ite's actions are very
natural , and do not demand any effort. Apart
from the fact that control is taken of the g6-
square , the main idea of this last move is to
play g2-g4. Black h u rries to divert the
opponent from his attack, by i n itiati ng
activity on the other side of the board .
13 . . . tt:lb3
1 4 tt:Jxb3 'ifxb3
Question : should White exchange queens
or not? Are there any wishing to play 1 5
'i'xb3 or 1 5 � d 1 ? You all want to move the
queen away? You are right. Why exchange ,
when White has excellent prospects of an
attack on the kingside ! Althoug h , it should
be mentioned , even after the exchange on
b 3 White would have stood slightly better.
1 5 �d2 i..a 4
Pointless now is 1 6 � d 1 'iV b5, when the
exchange of bishops is clearly to Black's
advantage. 1 6 l:t c1 also should not be
played . What sort of work is that for a rook ­
to guard the empty square c2? I n reply Black
immediately attacks the b2-pawn : 1 6 . . . l:t c6
and . . . l:t b6.
1 6 g4!
Now the exchange of queens by 1 6 .. . '�c2 is
possible, but it leads to an extremely d ifficult
endgame: 1 7 'iWxc2 � xc2 1 8 'lt> d2 ..li a4 1 9
gxf5. White acq u i res too many positional
CtJ 121
pluses: protected passed paw n, weak g6-
square i n the opponent's positio n , and open
g-file.
16 . . . l:tc6!
A good reply. The rook goes to b6, while
after the exchange on f5 it will restrain the
advance of the e-pawn and, very i mportant,
defend the g6-square .
1 7 gxf5 exf5
Here I spent qu ite a long time in thought -
some 25 m i n utes. But the position deserved
this - it is a very difficult one. White has to
reckon seriously with . . . l::t b 6, as well as
. . . '�c2. How would you have played in his
place?
The evaluation of the bishop exchange after
1 8 ..li d 1 'iWb5 has not changed - it is more
l i kely to favo ur Black.
If 1 8 �f3, then 1 8 . . . � b6 1 9 tt:l g6 tt:l xg6 20
hxg6, and now 20 . . . � c6, if there is nothing
better. White doesn't want to block the g6-
square and the g-file with his pawn. The
immediate 1 8 tt:l g6 has the same drawback.
You suggest 1 8 � d 1 'ii'b 5 1 9 ..lif3 l:t b6 20
l:t b 1 ? Let's suppose that the queen retu rns
to b3. What can Wh ite do next?
Let's approach the position philosophical ly,
and decide what we can do, what we want,
and what we don't want. We would l i ke to
attack - for this the queens must be
1 22 <;t> PART V

retained . I n addition, we m ust hold the b2- Black doesn't want to lose without any
point. If it were to fall , the opponent would counterplay. He is i ntending . . . g7-g5.
develop a serious i nitiative on the queenside 2 1 lld2 g5
and our attack on the kingside might be too 22 hxg6 lDxg6
late . But we don't want to allow the 23 tt:lxg6 l:txg6+
exchange of the light-square bishops . There­ 24 �h1
fore we are not satisfied with defending the Black has occupied the g-fil e, but he is
b2-point by ..t d 1 , ..t xa4, .l:.c 1 and l::.c2 . No, u nable to create any real th reats along it,
the bishop at a4 must remain alive . Its fate since White has far more pieces on the
will influence the outcome of the game: this kingside. White's g reat positional advantage
bishop may be powerfu l , but it may also be is obvious.
very bad .
24 . . . "ilb6
Thus, we see that Black's pieces - queen, 25 ..ih5 :gs
rook and bishop at a4 - are pressing on our 26 i.. f7
position . But they are stuck on the queenside, It is not worth paying any attention to the
and if a battle should flare up on other parts rook. 26 'ike2 was also possible, but the
of the board , they may be out of play and move in the game is stronger. The d5-pawn
unable to reach the centre of the confl ict in is attacked , and 27 e6 is th reatened .
time.
26 . . . l:tg4
18 0-0!
Black goes in for a forcing variatio n, which I
An at fi rst sight inconspicuous, but in fact had foreseen and evaluated in my favour.
very effective move . Now after 1 8 . . J:t b6 1 9
27 f3 �xf4
l:tab1 it is no longer possible to play 1 9 . . . 'if c2
28 'ifg3 i..e7
in view of 20 ..t d 1 ! .
29 'ifxf4 i.. g 5
18 . . . "ilc2 30 'ifh2 ..ixd2
1 9 "ile1 ! 31 "ilxd2 <t/e7
Th reatening 20 ..t d 1 . 1 9 . . . 'ii'xb2 is bad
because of 20 l:t b 1 and 21 llxb7. After
1 9 .. .'ii' e4 20 lD g2 the queen finds itself
trapped (21 l:t c1 and 22 f3) . Here my
opponent rather su rprised me, by offering a
draw. I asked him to make a move, and he
couldn't find anything better than to move his
queen back.
19 . . . 'i!i'b3
20 l:!.d1
By playing his rook to d2, White securely
defends his b2-point and frees his hands for
an attack, in which , i ncidentally, the rook
may take an active part. It becomes abso­
lutely clear that on the queenside Black has Let us take stock: material is eq ual , but
not ach ieved anything and has merely got Black's pieces are scattered , his d5- , f5- and
his pieces stuck there. h6-pawns are weak, and the bishop at a4
20 . . . �dB has been transformed i nto the usual bad
 Position Evaluation and the Choice of Plan in the Middlegame ltJ 1 23

'French' bishop. White is bound to win. sharply i n strength - the opponent has
Sometimes the most difficult thing i n a game already spent a tempo on an unnecessary
is to win a won position. You see various move with his light-square bishop.
promising possibilities, but by no means 8 a4
always do all of them lead to the goal . Now 8 . . . b6 is not so good (although it is
Iconsidered two tempting conti nuations: 32 q uite possible) in view of 9 .i b5+ .
� xd5 'it' b5 33 'ii'g 2 and 32 'ii'g 2 '>t> xf7 33 At one time, when I was pondering over this
�g 1 (32 .l:. g 1 merely transposes) . Which of position , I wanted to find some d rawback to
these should be preferred? 8 a4, a move which is useful in all respects .
I see that opinions are divided . The correct And I began analysing 8 . . . tt:'l bc6.
reply was 32 'ii'g 2 ! . The main variation is not
hard to calcu late : 32 . . . '>t>xf7 33 .lig 1 '>t> e8 34
'i'g7 .l:!.f8 35 .l:!. g6 .l:tf7 (if the queen moves,
36 .l:te6+ is decisive) 36 'it' h8+ l:U8 37 'it' xh6
and 38 .l:!. e6+.
But, unfortunately, I spoiled things: I was
tempted by another idea and overlooked the
refutation.
32 �xd5? �b5 !
33 'it'g2 'i!fxd5
34 'it'g7+ 'i!ff7
35 'ii' x h8 'i!t'h5+
36 �g1 'i!t'g5+
I was obliged to ag ree a d raw.

Let us again set up the i n itial position. The Wh ite has several possible conti nuations.
French Defence is a very interesting open­ 9 ..t a3 is possible, but it does not present any
ing ; I have been playing it for a long time and serious danger. Black replies 9 . . . cxd4 1 0
I do not reg ret this. I have had my joys and cxd4 'it' a5+ 1 1 'ii'd 2 'ii'x d2+ 1 2 '>t> xd2 , which,
disappointments , and there have been theo­ in my view, leads to a roughly equal
retical duels which did not always end as I endgame.
would have l i ked. I will now describe the 9 .i. d3 encounters a combinative refutation.
history of one such duel. Perhaps I am missing something, but it
1 e4 e6 would appear that this move loses by force .
2 d4 d5 Let us check this: 9 . . . cxd4 1 0 cxd4 tt:'lxd4! 1 1
3 lL'lc3 i.b4 tt:'lxd4 'it' c3+. Now White can try to trap the
4 e5 tt:'le7 queen. I wi l l show you the variations which I
5 a3 i.xc3+ consider the most important.
6 bxc3 c5 1 2 'it' d2 'ii'xa 1 1 3 .i. b5+ .i d7 1 4 .i. xd7 +
7 lL'lf3 'i!fc7 '>t> xd7 1 5 'it' b4! ? . A very cunning move .
Black's last move seems to me to be the Castling is th reatened (after the immediate
most pro m ising (although 7 . . . 'it' a5 is more 1 5 0-0 there would have followed 1 5 . . .'ir'xa4).
often played) . I n reply to 8 .i. e2 or 8 .i. d3 1 5 . . . 'it' xc 1 + 1 6 � e2 fif4! . The only move !
Black exploits the delay i n developing his b8 Excessive g reed is punished: 1 6 . . . 't!Vx h 1 ?
knight by 8 . . . b6, after which 9 . . . .i. a6 gains loses to 1 7 'ifxb 7 + � d8 1 8 'it' xa8+ tt:'lc8 1 9
1 24 � PART V
'ii'b7 with the terrible threat of 20 tt:'! c6+ .
[Instead of 18 . . . 4Jc8 ? necessary is 18 . . st; d7
19 'fiixa7+ 'i;dB 20 'ikdB+ �d7 21 'ikxhB
'ikxg2 with a roughly equal game - Dvo­
retsky.]
1 7 "ifxb7+ 'it>d8 1 8 'iVxa8+ (Black also has an
obvious advantage after 1 8 lt:Jc6+ lt:Jxc6 1 9
'iixa8+ 'it>c7 20 'if xh8) 1 8 . . .lt:Jc8. Although
material is equal , White's position is simply
bad . His knight is hanging and his e5-pawn is
attacked . After 1 9 lt:Jc6+ 'it> c7 he also has
problems with his queen.
We have analysed 9 � a3 and 9 � d3, and
now we will turn to the most natural (since 9
�d3 is not possible) move 9 � e2 . For a long
time I did not know what to play here as
Black. And then one day the thought oc­
cu rred to me: the position is closed , the time
factor is not of decisive importance, so isn't
it possible for Black to be a bit 'naughty' and
play not according to the rules?
8... tt::l b c6
9 .te2 cxd4
1 0 cxd4 tt::l b4
White has to sacrifice a pawn ( 1 1 � d3?
'ikc3+ 1 2 �d2 lt:Jxd3+ is clearly bad for h i m ) .
The next few moves are automatic.
11 0-0 �xc2
1 2 �e1
A pawn is a pawn - Black should not reject
such possibilities outright, although, of
cou rse , his position looks dangerous.
This idea occu rred to me a long time ago, for
roughly a year I n u rtu red it, and fi nally I
decided to employ it. I n 1 974 the USSR
Team Championship took place i n Moscow.
I was playi ng for the Avangard tea m , and we
faced an i mportant match against the Army
team .
I was d u e t o play Yanis Klovans. D u ring my
preparations for the game I i nvited the
trainer of o ur team , summoned o ur captain,
and showed them the entire variation,
including the planned move 1 2 . . . lt:J d3. I said
that I would have on my side the effect of
su rprise - no one before had had the
impertinence to play this with Black. I
realised that it was dangerous, very danger­
ous, but I wanted to try it. Would they allow
me?
For some 5-7 mi nutes the trainer and
captain studied the position and then said:
alright, it's dangerous, but you do have a
pawn - try it!
Klovans - Kosi kov
Moscow 1 974
12 . . . tt::l d 3
1 3 .txd3 'i!i'xd3
14 .ta3
Here I had a long think. And the more I
looked at the positio n, the less it appealed to
me. I have a pawn - that's good . But the fact
that there are opposite-colour bishops - that
is bad . If I su rvive to the endgame, this factor
may make it hard for me to convert my extra
paw n . In the m iddlegame, on the other
hand, with opposite-colour bishops the
attack is g reatly strengthened , and it is very
difficult to defend . I simply have nothing with
which to oppose White's dark-square bishop.
14 . . . tt::l c 6
1 5 �c1 !
It is terribly dangerous to play 1 5 . . . � d7 and
castle queenside: all the wh ite pieces
 Position Evaluation and the Choice of Plan in the Middlegame
quickly join the attack on the king . Kingside
castling is im possible. Only one thing
remains - to try and hide the king at f7.
15 . . . f6
1 6 exf6 gxf6
1 7 .l::!. e 1
If now 1 7 . . . lt:J xd4 , then 1 8 lt:J xd4 'ii'xd4 1 9
'ike?.
The remai ning moves are even unpleasant
to demonstrate - White's pieces simply tore
my position apart.
17 . . . �f7
1 8 't!ff4 h6
Black had to reckon with 1 9 lt:J gS+.
19 �e3 't!Vh7
An awkward move , but I do not see anyth ing
better.
20 l005 + ttJxe5
21 dxe5 f5
22 �h4 �ea
23 'iff6 .l:!.g8
24 l::!. g 3
Black resigned.
You will have noticed that in his attack Wh ite
effectively had an extra piece - his terrible
dark-square bishop, which did not have (and
with opposite-colour bishops, could not
have) an opponent.
Of cou rse , when the game ended I had
reproaches h u rled at me: you good-for­
nothing, they sai d , why did you lose without
a fight in such an important match? The
team's trainer and captain did not remem­
ber, of cou rse , that they had given me the ok
to e mploy this dangerous opening variatio n .
B u t what could be d on e - I myself was
largely to blame.
When the bitterness of defeat had passed
slightly, I was faced with the q uestion : did
the variation really have to be shelved , was
it really not possible to captu re the c2-
pawn? If an opponent has refuted you r
opening idea, don't be i n a h u rry t o give i t up ,
but try fi rst to fin d an improvement. Here you
ltJ 1 25
should not act by making an exhaustive
search; you need , as we have al ready said,
to approach the position philosoph ical ly.
Why did Black lose the game? Because he
had no way of opposing the bishop at a3.
The bishop began to domi nate the a3-f8
diagonal after the exchange of minor pieces
on d3. Apparently 1 2 . . . lt:Jd3 was the decisive
mistake.
How to fight agai nst the formidable dark­
square bishop? Let us consider 1 2 . . . lt:J ec6 .
But then 1 3 aS! is strong, and if 1 3 . . . 0-0, then
1 4 Jl. a3 winning the exchange.
The retreat 1 2 . . . lt:J bc6 is possible. White
replies 1 3 Jl. a3 0-0 1 4 .Ji bS. Now 1 S .l:tc 1 is
th reatened , and 1 4 . . . i.. d 7 is not possible on
accou nt of 1 S j)_ xe 7.
There only remains 1 2 . . . aS! . But what to do
after 1 3 � bS+ ? If 1 3 . . . lt:J ec6, then 1 4 i.. a3 0-
0 1 S j£, xc6 bxc6 1 6 j£, xb4 axb4 1 7 �xb4.
Material is equal , but Black has a bad light­
square bishop and a weak pawn at c6. A
difficult position.
But perhaps we don't have to fear the loss of
castl i n g, and can play 1 3 . . . j£, d7 ? After 1 4
j£, xd7 + 'it> xd7 1 S j£, a3 lt:J ec6 Black is alright:
the light-square bishops have been ex­
changed , and the opponent's dark-square
bishop has been neutralised . Later Black
can , for example, aim for artificial castl ing:
126 � PART V
. . . l:t hc8, . . . 'it> e8, . . . 'it>f8 and so o n .
True, I had some doubts about 1 4 � a3
(instead of 1 4 � xd7+) . Let's see what
happens after 1 4 . . . � xb5 1 5 axb5 tt:Jd3.
If White does not want to exchange his
queen , he has to allow an attack on it with
gain of tempo: 1 6 'i!ie3. After 1 6 . . . tt:Jf5 1 7
'it'g5 h6 1 8 'ii'g 4 'i!ie2 White's pieces are
completely paralysed , and his position would
be bad even if Black did not have an extra
pawn .
1 6 'it'd 1 is better, but then 1 6 . . . '�xd 1 1 7
l:tfxd 1 lLlf4, and 1 8 .l:t ac 1 is not possible
because of the fork 1 8 . . . tt:J e2+. Black has
time to consolidate and join in the battle for
the c-file.
After studying these and certain other
variations, I decided that 1 O . . . tt:J b4 neverthe­
less has the right to exist.
Two years later in Beltsy the all-union
qualifying tou rnament for the USSR Cham­
pionship took place . When the pai rings were
annou nced , I was very happy to learn that in
the very fi rst round I would have Black
against Klovans. Of course , there was no
guarantee of success, since it cannot be
asserted that in this variation Black wins. I
cou ld again have missed someth ing. But in
chess, apart from the result, there is also the
creative aspect. I n this game the fate of the
plan developed by me would be decided .
Can Black play this or not? No analysis can
replace a practical verification .
Knowing Klovans to be a player who sticks
to his principles, I was sure that he would not
avoid a theoretical duel . I once again
checked the prepared variations, and made
some slight refinements . . .
Klovans - Kosikov
Beltsy 1 976
12 . . . aS!
1 3 ..ta3
Of course , I had also examined this move ,
and so I repl ied quickly.
13 . . . ..td7
N ow it is not possible to take twice on c4 -
the bishop at c2 is hanging. And the
consequences of 1 4 � b5 � xb5 1 5 axb5
lLld3 are al ready known to us.
14 ..td1 'it'c7
1 5 ..txb4 axb4
1 6 'i!Vxb4
I reached this position at home and I saw for
Black a clear way to equalise: 1 6 . . . b5 1 7
� b3 bxa4 1 8 � xa4 � xa4 1 9 l:t xa4 0-0. For
the rehabilitation of the variation this would
have been quite sufficient. But after such a
terrible rout had been i nflicted on me in the
previous game, a d raw no longer satisfied
me; I very much wanted to gain revenge.
Besides, on the preceding moves I had
spent only 5 m i n utes, whereas Klovans had
used nearly two hours , and he had only 45
m i n utes left for 24 moves!
It was a pity not to try and use such a big
time advantage , and besides, the position
seemed interesti ng . So I chose a different,
somewhat risky line.
16 . . . tt:Jc6
1 7 'ii'a 3 bS
If Black should succeed in playi ng . . . b5-b4
and then castli n g , his position will be
excel lent. Wh ite tries to prevent castl ing.
18 ..tc2 b4
 Position Evaluation and the Choice of Plan in the Middlegame 127

1 9 �d3 23 .ii. x c4 dxc4

What would you suggest now for Black? 24 "it'xb4 .l::. b 8
25 "ii'c s "it'xeS
26 dxcS 'it>e7!
Out of his remai ning seven mi nutes, here
my opponent spent roughly five . It was
obvious that he very much disliked his
positio n , despite the extra pawn. The white
c5-pawn is bound to fal l , whereas the black
c4-pawn is a powerful force. The black
pieces are more active, and even the knight
at a5 is better than the 'centralised' knight at
f3 . It is simultaneously blocking the passed
a-paw n , defending the c4-pawn and th reat­
ening a fork at b3.
27 tt'ld2 .l::. b4
19 . . . �c8! White should have tried 28 ttJe4, although
then 28 . . . : hb8 with the th reat of . . . tLl b3 is
It is very important to be able to q uickly find
unpleasant. I think that i n this case too Black
such outwardly u npretentious moves. We
would have retained excellent winning
are retu rn ing to our main theme - the fate of
chances.
bishops . This manoeuvre of the light-square
bishop changes the cou rse of the game, and 28 J:tcb1 .l::.x b1
decisively i nfluences its outcome. 29 l:rxb1 c3
30 tt'le4
20 l:.fc1 �a6
21 'ifd2 �c4 30 tLlf 1 was perhaps more tenacious.
Forced : 21 . . . 0-0? 22 .ii. x h7+. 30 . . . c2
31 .l:!.c1 .l::. b8
22 �d3
32 tt'ld2
Black is all the time req u i red to find accu rate
If 32 tLl c3, then 32 . . . .:. b2 and 33 . . . tLl b3.
moves. What should he do now? The
capture on c4 is th reatened, and the knight 32 . . . tt'lb3
would appear to be tied to the b4-pawn . In the event of the exchange on b3 there is
22 . .ii.x d3 23 "ii'xd3 "ii'b6 24 "ii'b 5 clearly
. . no defence agai nst . . . .l::t b 1 .
favours White. 33 .l::. x c2 tt'lxd2
22 . . . tt'la5! 34 f3 tt'lb3
If now 23 "ifxb4, then 23 . . J::t b 8 and 24 . ..l2l b3, Through inertia White made a further 5-6
winning the exchange. moves and then resigned.
1 28 � PART V

Exercises

You are to test you r powers by trying to solve some positional problems, selected by Mark
Dvoretsky. After you r acquaintance with the lecture you should certainly find it m uch easier to
cope with them .

1 . White to move 3. White to move

2. White to move 4. White to move

 Position Evaluation and the Choice of Plan in the Middlegame 4:J 1 29

5. White to move 6. White to move

130 � PART V
Solutions
1 . Korchnoi - Penrose ( Palma de M a l l o rca
1 969) .
23 h4! �f8
24 �h3
By bringing his light-sq uare bishop i nto play,
Wh ite has significantly i ntensified the pres­
sure on the opponent's position and gained
a great advantage .
2 4.. ."iWb8 2 5 'it>h2 iLea 2 6 iLd2 iLb7 2 7 i.. e3
"Wic7 28 'iNc3 l:.ad8 29 f3 l:.a8 30 l:.d2 l:.ad8
31 'it>g2 .:.as 32 l:.dd1 .:.as 33 'ii'a 5! (the
most accu rate way for White to convert his
advantage) 33 .. ."�xa5? !
The exchange of queens leads to the
destruction of Black's queenside , but i n any
case things were bad for h i m . After 33 . . . '1W b8
the simplest is 34 i.. x e6 and 35 lt:J b4, while if
33 . . . ifc8, then 34 lt:J b4, after which Wh ite
can double rooks on the d-fi le or play 35
axb5 axb5 36 'ifa7.
34 lt:Jxa5 i.. a8 35 i.. xe6! l:.xe6 36 lt:Jb4 �g7
37 lt:Jxa6 Black resigns.
2. Simagin - Bondarevsky (Szczawno
Zdroj 1 950) .
But here the place for the light-square
bishop is c4, from where it will create
dangerous th reats to the enemy king .
29 �f1 !
The game continued 29 . . . "fi/a7 30 i.. c 4 l:.xc4
31 bxc4 'it'c5 32 lLlf6 ! i.. c 8 33 lt:Jxh7+ �e7
34 e5 ! , and Wh ite soon won .
3 . Gl igoric - Speelman (Olympiad , Luzern
1 982) .
1 5 0-0?! is inaccu rate in view of 1 5 . . . g5! 1 6
hxg5 h4 with counterplay.
1 5 �c1 !
At a3 the bishop was firing into empty space ;
the place for it is g5. Then the h5-pawn will
become vulnerable.
There followed : 1 5 ... lt:Jg4 1 6 f3 ! ( 1 6 � b1
f5 ! ? ) 1 6 . . . lt:Jxd4 17 cxd4 'ii'x d4 1 8 .:.b1 ( 1 8
i.. b 2? 'iVb4+) 1 8 . . . lt:Je5 1 9 .lte3 lt:Jd3+ 20
'i.t>t1 'ir'e5 21 l:.h3 l:td7 (21 . . .f5 22 �g5
i ntending 23 exf5) 22 �g1 .i:thd8 23 lt:Jt1 ,
and Black had insufficient compensation for
the sacrificed piece.
4. M . Dvoretsky ( 1 98 1 ) .
The win i s elementary, i f you find the
fol lowing bishop manoeuvre .
1 �g2! b3
2 �d5!
The black pawns are halted . ( Equally good
is i.. f 1 -h3-e6) .
The only difficu lty of the problem is not to be
tempted into playi ng for mate , beginning
with 1 �c6? ! . I ndeed , if 1 . . . b3? White wins
by 2 �c5 a3 3 lt:J e5(b4) a2 4 ..lt b5 or 2 . . . b2 3
lt:J b4 (3 lt:J xb2 a3 4 lt:Jc4+ 'it> a4 5 ..lt e2! is also
good) 3 . . . b 1 ii' (3 . . . a3 4 ..lt b5) 4 lt:J c6 mate.
But Black has a stronger defence: 1 ... a3! .
a ) 2 lt:J c 1 (or 2 lt:J c5) 2 . . . b 3 ! 3 lt:J xb3+ ( 3 �c5
b2) 3 . . . � b4 4 lt:J c 1 'it> c3 5 W b5 (5 lt:Ja2+
� b3!) 5 . . . � b2 6 lt:J d3+ � b 1 ! 7 lt:J b4 a2 8
i.. d 3+ 'l.t> b2 with a draw.
b) 2 Wc5 a2! 3 lt:Jc 1 a1 lt:J! (3 . . . b3? 4 lt:Jxb3+
W a4 5 Wc4 W a3 6 �c3; 3 . . . a1 "WI? 4 lt:Jb3+
W a4 5 lt:Jxa1 b3 6 iL b5+! � a3 7 i.. c4 b2 8
lt:Jc2+ W a4 9 ..lt a2) 4 i.. b5 b3 5 lt:Je2
(th reatening 6 lt:J d4) 5 . . . lt:Jc2 ! , and Black
saves h imself.
5. Geller - Larsen (Copenhagen 1 966) .
22 if h5+ ? ! �d8 is unjustified , si nce playing
his king to the q ueenside comes into Black's
plans.
If 22 lt:J h5? ! there also follows 22 . . . W d8 (less
good is 22 . . . iLf6 23 'ifg6+ � e7 24 lt:Jxf6
l:.xf6 25 "fi/g7+) , for example, 23 b3 Wc8 24
 Position Evaluation and the Choice of Plan in the Middlegame
.ic4 e4 25 lt:Jf4 .if6 with an unclear game
(White has to reckon with 26 . . . 'ii'e 5) .
For the development of Wh ite's initiative it is
important to attack the e6-pawn i m mediately
with his bishop.
22 b3 ! !
White prepares 2 3 .i c4 and 2 4 'ti'g6+ . I t is
now too late for 22 . . . 'it> d8 23 .i c4 'it> c8 24
lhe5!? (24 l::t x d7 'it> xd7 25 l:t d 1 + 'it> c6 26
. be6 is weaker in view of 26 . . . : da 27 l:t xd8
'lg 1 + 28 'it> b2 .i xd8 29 'ii'xf5 'ii'd 4+ with
perpetual check) 24 .. ."if xe5 25 'ifxe7 .l:'t h8
26 'i!fxb4 with an obvious advantage .
22 . . . e4
After 22 . . . 'ifc3 Yefi m Geller gives the varia­
tion 23 lt:J h5 e4 24 .i xe4 (weaker is 24
.i c4? ! .if6 25 lt:Jxf6+ 'ii'x f6) 24 . . .fxe4 25
tt::lg7+ 'it> d8 26 lt:J xe6+ 'oit> e8 27 'ti'g6+ .:tf7 28
'i'g8+ and wins.
23 .ic4 'it'e5
24 'ifg6+ was th reatened. If 23 . . . .if6 , then
not 24 lt:J h5? 'iVe5, but 24 'if h5+! followed by
25 lt:J xe4.
24 'ifh5+ 'it>d8
25 !{xe4
White has won an important pawn, while
retaining a strong attack. Subsequently he
confidently converted his advantage .
2 5 . .'ifc3 2 6 lt:Je2! (26 l::t d 3 fxe4) 2 6 . . . 'ii' h 8
.
27 'ifxh8 .U.xh8 28 l:!.xe6 Itxh2 29 .l:tg6! llh4
30 lt:Jd4 'it>c7 31 Itg7 .if6 32 lt:Je6+ (32
�xd7+! 'it> xd7 33 lt:l b5+) 32 ... 'it>b6 33 .l:tg6
.ic3 (33 . . . .i h 8! ? 34 g3 l:!. h2 35 lt:Jc5+ i.. c 6
36 lt:J xa6) 34 lt:Jc5+ .ic6 35 lt:Ja4+ 'oit>c7 36
tt::lxc3 bxc3 37 l:.g3 'it>b6 38 l:txc3 .ixg2 39
�d6+ �c5 40 l:td2 'it>b4 41 'oit>b2 .ie4 42
4:J 1 31
a3+ 'it>a5 43 l:td6 Black resigns .
6. Kamsky - Kra m n i k (Candidates Match,
New York 1 994, 1 st game) .
I n the event of the primitive 28 l:t c6+? 'ii'xc6
29 .i xc6 'it> xc6 the chances are equal.
It is more difficult to refute 28 .i xd4 exd4 29
l:t e 1 . Black replies 29 . . . .l:'td8! , for example:
30 b8'if+ .l:t xb8 (not 30 . . . 'oit> xb8 3 1 l:. b 1 +) 31
l:t e7+ � dB 32 .l:t axa7 l:t b 1 + ! 33 .if1 'ti'd5! 34
l:t xf7 .l:txf1 + 35 'oit> xf1 'ilf h 1 + 36 'oit> e2 'ti'e4+
with perpetual check. White can play more
strongly: 30 l:t e7+! 'it> b8 3 1 ll c6 'ii'x c6! 32
i.. x c6 d3 33 .if3! c3 34 .l:t e4 c2 (34 . . . d2 35
i.. d 1 'oit> xb7 36 :l e7+ and 37 l:. xf7) 35 .l:'tc4 d2
(35 . . . a5 36 'it> g2 a4 37 :Xa4) 36 l:t xc2 d 1 'ii'+
37 i.. x d 1 l:t xd 1 + 38 'it> g2. However, after
38 . . . .l:'td6! (intending 39 . . . .l:txf6 or 39 . . . a5)
Black retains saving chances.
White achieves his goal with a spectacular
bishop manoeuvre .
2 8 ..ic1 ! !
After the appearance of the bishop at a3, all
the wh ite pieces assail the defenceless
black king.
28 . . . c3 29 i.. a 3 'ili'c4
In the 6 1 st vol ume of lnformator, Vladimir
Kramn i k gives a detailed analysis of 29 . . .
i.. x f2+ and 2 9 . . . c2 , demonstrating that no­
where did Black have a draw.
30 .id6+ �d7 31 .ic6+! 'it>e6 (31 . . . 'it> xd6 32
.i b5+ � d5 33 .i xc4+ � xc4 34 .l:t c6+ 'it> d3
35 : ca c2 36 l:t c 1 ) 32 i.. b5 i.. x f2+ 33 'it>xf2
'ii'd 4+ 34 'it>f1 'i!fe4 35 l:te1 'ii' h 1 + 36 'it>f2
"ii'x h2+ 37 'it>f3 :xb7 (37 . . . 1i' h5+ 38 'oit> g2)
38 i.. x e5+ l:tb6 39 i.. c 4+ 'it>d7 40 :xa7+
�c8 41 :c7+ Black resigns.
1 32 � PART V

Mark Dvoretsky

Regarding a certain Article

Chave the right, when playi ng through

hess is by natu re democractic. We all Our opinion about the extent of a player's
advantage is most often expressed in
games by the stars of the past and the words. These words are sometimes not
present, to doubt their moves or comments altogether clear, but are vague, and can be
and to seek our own sol utions. Such understood in different ways . I n order to
searchings are useful for improvement; achieve definiteness and accu racy in opin­
sometimes they lead to a refinement, deep­ ions, g randmaster Igor Bondarevsky pro­
ening, or even radical revision of existing posed a ten-point scale of eval uations,
opinions and evaluations. There have been which I will use. On Bondarevsky's system a
many examples when excellent analytical 5 : 5 rating signifies that the position is equal.
finds by ordinary enthusiasts have become Better chances for White receives a 6:4
an integ ral part of our perception of games evaluation (which is equ ivalent to ± in the
by famous grandmasters . lnformator system ) , while if Black is better,
However, it should be remembered that the then it is 4:6 (+) . A sign ificant advantage for
classical heritage demands a careful and White is 7 : 3 (±) . If we evaluate a position as
solicitous attitude. In you r searchings it is 8 :2 , we are stating that Wh ite should win
dangerous to proceed from the desi re alone (+-) , and 9: 1 means that this win is a matter
to 'refute' , which usually leads to a loss of of simple technique. Finally, 1 0 :0 simply
objectivity - you must aim to establish the signifies a point i n the tou rnament table.
truth . I n order to discard a generally ac­ More subtl e, intermediate evaluations are
cepted opinion, it is not enough simply to also possible. For example, 2Y2:7Y2 implies
have doubts about it - it must be thoroughly that Wh ite is on the verge of defeat.
analysed , and the refutation m ust be conclu­ After this protracted i ntroduction it is finally
sive and convi ncing. time to tu rn to the game.
One should be especially cautious as
regards positional eval uations, where there Capablanca - Alekh ine
is no reliable support of concrete and Buenos Ai res 1 927
precise variations. The reason for my talking French Defence
about this is that in the magazine Shakhmaty 1 e4 e6
v SSSR ( 1 984 , No. 1 2) an article was 2 d4 d5
published by the master Vlad i m i r Goldin 3 lt:Jc3 i.b4
entitled 'Overture to an historic encounter' , 4 exd5 exd5
devoted to the fi rst game of the world 5 i.d3 lt:Jc6
championship match between Capablanca 6 lt:Jge2 lt:Jge7
and Alekhine. The author of the article casts 7 0-0 i.f5
doubts on many decisions by both players 8 i.xf5 lt:Jxf5
and tries to paint his own picture of the 9 �d3 �d7
game. Unfortunately, in my view, most of his 1 0 lt:Jd1 0-0
evaluations are unjustified and incorrect. 1 1 lt:Je3 lt:Jxe3
 Regarding a Certain Article
12 i.. xe3 life8
1 3 tt:Jf4 i.. d 6!
Now, in the opinion of Goldi n , White should
have captured on d5. He writes : 'The
question arises , if after 1 4 ttJxd5 White was
equal, then what happened to Black's
advantage which he had fou r moves ago
after the indifferent move 1 0 tD d 1 ? Arguing
logically, we m ust criticise Alekhine's play i n
the interval between the 1 Oth a n d 1 3th
moves. ' And this is what the master does,
condemning the 1 Oth , 1 1 th and 1 2th moves
of the challenger for the title of world
champion .
This logic would b e i rreproachable, i f the
given eval uations were confirmed at both
ends of the section of play in question. But it
is hard to ag ree with these evaluations. It is
clear that from the opening Black gained an
excellent position , and his chances were
even slightly preferable . But not more. For
the moment there can be no q uestion of an
advantage. A fai r evaluation would be
4.5:5.5, at the maxi m u m 4 :6 .
On th e other hand , after 1 4 ttJ xd5 ..t xh2+ 1 5
Wxh2 "ikxd5 both Capablanca (who did not
go in for this variation) and Alekhine evalu­
ated the position in favour of Black. To
explain this Alekhine added a further two
moves: 1 6 c4 lW h5+ 1 7 'lt> g 1 .U ad8 .
Goldin thinks that t h e p l a n o f defence found
l2J 133
by h i m - 1 6 .l:!. h 1 l:i. ad8 1 7 'lt> g 1 h6 1 8 l:!. h4! ­
g ives equal chances. This is not so. White's
rooks are disconnected and Black's pieces
are more active than those of the opponent.
Let us play 1 8 . . . b5 and look at the position
with an unprejudiced view - surely we must
prefer Black here? And what about 1 6 . . J:te4
(instead of 1 6 . . . J:!.ad8), pursuing the aim of
not allowing the white rook to go to h4? After
1 7 c4 White has to reckon with 1 7 . . . . ttJe5 1 8
cxd5 ttJ xd3.
No, the conclusion that 1 4 ttJxd5 would have
equalised is insufficiently well proven. At the
least Black has lost nothing here compared
with what he had fou r moves earlier, and the
evaluation is no less than 4:6 .
And since t hi s is so, the entire criticism of
Black's play in the given period of the game
is unsubstantiated.
Let us now examine Goldi n's specific recom­
mendations. He thinks that Black should
have castled not on the kingside, but on the
queenside. He explains his opinion with the
variation 1 0 . . . 0-0-0 1 1 c3 ..tf8! 1 2 b4 f6 1 3 a4
g5 1 4 a5 ttJ ce 7 1 5 b5 h5 and with the
evaluation : 'White's th reats are not worth
anythi n g , whereas Black's pressu re in­
creases. '
I thi n k that i n t h i s last ph rase t h e words
'Wh ite' and 'Black' could calmly change
places - the new assertion would be . . .
equally as u njustified as the the previous
one. In fact a compl icated position arises
here , with chances for both sides. There is,
for example, 1 6 ttJ e3, when the exchange on
e3 is u nfavourable for Black ( 1 6 . . . ttJ xe3 1 7
fxe3 ! ) . After 1 6 . . . h4 1 7 ..t a3 White can think
about ttJ e2-c 1 -b3 , and there are also other
possibilities. Instead of 1 4 a5 it is probably
more accu rate to play the immediate 1 4 ttJe3
ttJce7 1 5 b5 h5 1 6 ..t a3 (now Black has to
reckon with 1 7 ..t xe 7 ttJxe 7 1 8 ttJ g3 and 1 9
ttJ gf5) 1 6 . . . h4 1 7 ttJ c 1 or 1 7 l:!. ae 1 , i ntending
a possible f2-f4 (perhaps after the prepara­
tory h2-h3 and ttJ g4) .
1 34 � PART V
Castling on the queenside is much sharper
than on the kingside, but on the basis of a
short and provisional variation it is impossi­
ble to claim that it is stronger. I personally
think that Alekhine played not only more
safely, but also better; however I would not
ventu re to insist on this assertion - to
demonstrate it a very serious analysis would
have to be carried out. After all, a position
can often be treated in several roughly
equ ivalent ways, the choice depending on
the style and tastes of the player. We do not
even know with which move it is best to
begin a game: 1 d4 or 1 e4, or perhaps
altogether something d ifferent! It is clear
that problems of similar complexity con­
stantly confront us during a game.
Goldin's next recommendation - 1 1 . . . tt'lfe7
can be deemed worthy of consideratio n , but
there is no justification for asserting that this
move is stronger than 1 1 . . . tt'lxe3 as chosen
by Alekhine - we again have a case of
roughly equivalent possibilities. And the
doubts about the advisability of 1 2 . . . .l:Ife8!
are altogether groundless. I nstead 1 2 . . . tt'l e7
is suggested , but after 1 3 �f4 or 1 3 c3 � d6
1 4 �f4 the position becomes equal . By
contrast, in the game the development of the
bishop at f4 proved rather more difficult: 1 3
c3 � d6 1 4 �f4 was not possible on account
of 1 4 . . . �xe2 , while after 1 3 �f4 White would
have to reckon, say, with 1 3 . . . 'i!fg4 1 4 f3
'ii'g 6 1 5 'ii'x g6 hxg6 . If now 1 6 � f2 , then
1 6 . . . �xe2! 1 7 .l:txe2 tt'lxd4 1 8 �f2 � c5 1 9
�e3 .I:i.e8 or 1 9 �f1 tt'l e6.
Equal ity would have been maintai ned by 1 6
�f2 ! , but, understandably, to Capablanca
the placi ng of the wh ite pieces in the
variation could have seemed shaky.
In the opening game of the match it was
unpleasant for the world champion to have
to play accu rately for equal ity. It is psycho­
logically easily understandable that he de­
cided to make use of the very fi rst opportu­
nity to play actively and chose 1 3 tt'lf4 ?!
(with the th reats of 1 4 � b5 and 1 4 'i!Vb3,
against which it is seemingly not very
comfortable to defend) , underestimating the
excellent reply 1 3 . . . � d6! .
'Mistakes never occur singly' - within a few
moves Black was al ready a healthy pawn to
the good .
1 4 �fe1 tt'lb4
1 5 "ii' b 3 'ii'f5
1 6 �ac1 ? tt'lxc2 !
1 7 �xc2 "ifxf4!
1 8 g3 1iff5
1 9 �ce2 b6
20 'ifb5 h5
21 h4
S urely Black's play i n this part of the game
was strong? No, the author of the article
thinks differently. He criticises 1 4 . . . tt'l b4 and
instead of 1 6 � ac1 ? recommends 1 6 tt'ld3.
His reasoning is worth giving in ful l , merely
add i n g , for the sake of clarification, the
numerical eval uations which obviously fol­
low from the verbal formu lations:
'After 16. . tt'lxd3 17 'Wixd3 "ilixd3 18 cxd3
.
Black's advantage would have been purely
academic (4. 5 : 5 . 5 or 4:6 - Dvoretsky) . In
reply to 18 . . �b4, as given by Alekhine, with
.
19 �e2 White could ha ve constructed a
fortress, and the possibility of taking it, in my
view, is impossible to demonstrate analyti­
cally (but can the possibil ity of holding this
'fortress' be demonstrated analytically? -
Dvoretsky) .
'It is noteworthy that Alekhine himself, after
initially evaluating this endgame as lost for
White (2:8 - Dvoretsky), several years later
was inclined to the opinion that it was only
significantly worse (3:7 - Dvoretsky) . Was it
worth then making the outwardly energetic
moves with knight and queen, when the
correct reply by White would ha ve led to a
position that was unhopeful as regards
playing for a win ? Didn 't Alekhine have a
more promising continuation ?
 Regarding a Certain Article LtJ 1 35

'I think that he did. After 14 . . .'1J.e4! the white Black's advantage is significant and, above
knight would be forced to retreat, since in a l l , enduri n g ; White is condemned to a
this version the capture on d5 is no longer difficult defence . From the citation given
acceptable: 15 CiJxd5 Ji.. xh2+ 16 c;i; xh2 'fixd5 above it follows that the evaluation of
1 7 c3 'fih5+ 1 8 Wg1 'fJ.h4 19 f3 CiJel with a Wh ite's position, g iven by Alekh ine, varied
strong attack. And after 15 CiJe2 CiJ e7 Black's from 'sign ificantly worse' to 'lost' . How,
position looks at any rate more promising without even trying to support you r argu­
than after the exchange of queens. Carried ments analytical ly, can you call the position
a way by his idea, Alekhine apparently did 'a dead draw' and Black's advantage 'purely
not consider 14 . . . 'IJ. e4 at all. ' academic'?
Here , in my view, everything is i ncorrect. It is hard to say with any certai nty whether
What, for example, is the basis of the White is bound to lose this endgame or with
supposition that the challenger for the world correct play he can hold the d raw. From the
championship 'did not consider 1 4 . . . .l:!. e4 at standpoint of the practical chess player this
all'? After al l , in the event of 1 4 c3! ? (instead is probably not so i mportant - between
of 1 4 'fJ.fe 1 ? ! ) he was almost certainly 'draw' and 'win' there are also a nu mber of
intending to play this. Levenfish and Roma­ i ntermediate states .
novsky give the following approximate varia­ I n t h e given instance t h e problem is not
tion: 1 4 c3 .l:!. e4 1 5 CiJ e2 .l:!.ae8 1 6 CiJ g3 i.. x g3 whether Black has a win in the endgame; it
17 hxg3 CiJ e 7 1 8 'fJ.fe 1 CiJf5 1 9 i.. d 2 CiJ d6 - is more i mportant to decide where the
'Black has enduring pressu re , but not yet p ractical winning chances are g reater - in
anything perceptible'. An accu rate evalua­ this ending or in the 1 4 . . . 'IJ.e4 variation, and
tion! ( N u merically it would probably be in which branch White faces the more
expressed as 3 . 5 : 6 . 5 . ) But after 1 4 l::t f e 1 difficult problems. I think that Alekhine made
�e4 1 5 CiJ e2 CiJe7 1 6 CiJ g3 or 1 6 Ji.. d 2 roughly the correct choice. In disagreeing with
the same position is reached with roughly Alekhine's opinion, Goldin was obliged to
the same evaluation . justify his doubts analytically. U nfortunately,
Can it be asserted that here Black c a n hope he did not even attempt to do this.
for more than i n the variation 1 4 . . . CiJ b4 1 5 Now let us examine the further course of the
'i"b3 �f5 1 6 CiJd3 CiJxd3 1 7 'iVxd3 'Yi!Vxd3 1 8 game.
cxd3 .i b4 ? 21 . . . l:te4
22 i.d2! �xd4
23 .tc3 .l:!.d3
24 i.e5 nda
25 i.d6 .l::!. x d6
26 �e5 'iff3
27 �xh5 �xh5
28 I;te8+ c.t>h7
29 'fixd3+ "ii'g 6
30 'ifd1 �e6
31 .l:!.a8 .l:!.e5
32 .l:!.xa7 c5

(see diagram)
1 36 � PART V

file. He thinks that i n this case 'White's

chances would ha ve been by no means
worse '.
True , Black can continue 33 . . . 'ii'b 1 + 34 'it>g2
.l:tf5 35 'it'e2 d4, and White stil l has to defend
accu rately (for example, i ncorrect is 36 .l:td7
'it'xa2 followed by 37 . . . 'it'e6) . However, after
36 b3! White parries the i m mediate th reats.
Essentially the master is correct here. Black
was a healthy pawn to the good , and his
position was, apparently, won (2:8) . Whereas
now material is equal , and Black's attack is
highly problematic. It can be concluded that
Alekhine did not choose the best plan for
33 .::.d 7 'iie6
converting his advantage .
34 1i'd3+ g6
Let us now go back, t o discover where, in
35 l::!.d 8 d4
the opinion of the commentator, Alekhine
36 a4 .l:i.e1 +
went wrong.
37 <;¥tg2 'ii'c 6+
38 f3 .::.e3
39 'ifd1 'iie6
40 g4 l:Ie2+
41 <;¥th3 'ii'e3
42 'iih 1 'iif4
43 hS .::.f2
White resigns.
Capablanca defended with uncommon in­
ventiveness. To exchange the bishops and
activate his rooks, he sacrificed a second
pawn. Soon one of the pawns was regained ,
and at the same time the black king was
slightly exposed . But Alekhine, after giving
back his extra pawn, h imself assailed the
white king. Was the success of Black's Black chose 2 1 . . . .l:1. e4. Goldin writes: 'Can
strategy logical? such a move be a mistake? Ask any master.
33 .l::I d 7 was a mistake, allowing Alekhine to The reply will almost certainly be unanimous:
set up with gain of tempo a battery of heavy no, it cannot. And yet, strangely enough , it
pieces on the e-fi le: queen behind the rook. apparently loses Black nearly all his advan­
I nstead of this move Capablanca suggested tag e. '
33 'it> g2, but, in Alekhi ne's opinion, here too I ndeed, any experienced player would hardly
after 33 . . . d4 Black has a decisive advan­ consider 21 . . . .l:t e4 to be a mistake, and
tage, for example: 34 .l::!. a3 'ii'e6! 35 'it'f3 c4. would certainly doubt that it 'loses Black
Goldin points out a better defence - 33 'it'f3! . nearly all his advantage'. In such positions
By attacking the f7-pawn, White does not the advantage can be lost either by a
allow the build up of heavy pieces on the e- positional or tactical blunder, or by a series
 Regarding a Certain Article
of errors such as 2 1 . . . l:t e4 (if it is in fact not
the strongest move) . Usually one i naccu racy
is insufficient - it may only complicate
(sometimes significantly) the conversion of
the advantage.
But how strong is the move 21 .. .'i!V f3,
suggested instead? Goldin considers only
2 2 i. f4 �xe2 23 'i!Vxe2 'i!Vxe2 24 Ilxe2 i. xf4
with a won rook endgame, and 22 i. d2
�xe2 23 .l:!.xe2 a6! (when if 24 'i!Vc6 there
evidently follows 24 . . . 'i!V xe2 25 'i!Vxa8+ 'it> h7
26 i. c3 'it'c4) . However, White can choose
22 i. g5! .l:!. xe2 23 .l:!.xe2 a6 24 'i!Vc6. Now
after 24 .. .'ii' xe2 25 'it' xa8+ 'lit h? White's
bishop is not hanging and he has the simple
26 'i!Vxd5 . Also 25 . . . i. f8 26 'i!Vxd5 'i!Vxb2 is
not altogether convi ncing: Wh ite can choose
between 27 'it> g2, 27 i. f4 and 27 'i!Vd8,
retaining defin ite counter-chances. Final ly,
in the event of 24 . . J lf8 25 .l:. e 1 Black has to
reckon with the positional threat of 26 i. e?.
I n principle, it is useful to mention and check
alternative possibilities, such as 21 . . . 'i!Vf3.
But you should not attach more importance
to them than they deserve and i m mediately
draw far-reaching conclusions.
After 2 1 . . . .l:l. e4 22 i. d2 Black could also
have avoided taking the second paw n .
Regarding th e exchange o f rooks - 2 2 . . . .l:!.xe2
- Goldin says that 'it would probably ha ve
retained some winning chances'. Why so
modestly - 'some winning chances?' Of
cou rse, it is a pity that the e-fi le is now i n
White's possession , b u t Black's extra pawn
and other positional pl uses sti ll remai n . I
think that Black retains excel lent winning
chances (2.5 : 7.5).
Let us now examine the position arising
after Capablanca's recommendation 22 . . .
J:tae8 2 3 'iix e8+ l:t xe8 24 .l:!.xe8+ 'lit h?.
(see diagram)
1 37
Alekhine thought that 'after the exchange of
the wh ite queen for two rooks, Black,
because of his considerable positional ad­
vantage, would have but little difficulty in
forcing the w i n . '
Levenfish a n d Romanovsky did not agree
with the opinion of both world champions,
writi ng i n their commentary: 'Of cou rse , not
22 . . J :tae8 on account of the simple 23
'i!Vxe8+, and White gains a draw. ' Goldin
agrees with this evaluation: 'Levenfish and
Romanovsky were evidently right, in evalu­
a ting the position after 22 . . :r!.. a eB as dra wn. '
.
N o , they weren't right. To evaluate such a
position as d rawn is fundamentally i ncor­
rect. The position is a practical one with a
significant advantage for Black. Even if,
contrary to Alekh ine's evaluation , one were
to conclude that with accu rate defence
White can hope to save the game, all the
same the word 'drawn' would be i nappropri­
ate here - a term that more accu rately
reflects the situation has to be found.
I ncidental ly, the numerical system signifi­
cantly simplifies our proble m : Alekhine's
opinion corresponds to an eval uation of 2 : 8 ,
w h i l e t h e alternative judgement may be
expressed as 3:7 (but certainly not less) .
On this occasion Goldin tries to support his
viewpoint with a short analysis, but he
hi mself evidently senses that it is uncon-
1 38 � PART V
vincing, as he qu ite reasonably comments :
'It is hardly possible to exhaust this position
with variations, but does one need to ?'
After 2S 'iii>g 2 he examines only 2S . . . cs and
2S . . . 'iVd3 26 j. c3 cS . But . . . c7-cS is a
questionable move - it relieves the oppo­
nent of his bad d4-pawn and, above all,
removes the support of the excel lently
placed bishop at d6, which is neutralising
both wh ite rooks . I nstead of this the plan of
advancing the queenside pawns comes into
consideration, for example, 2S . . ."ii' d 3 26
�c3 �c4! (26 . . . bS 27 a3 aS also looks good ,
as well as 26 . . . aS followed by . . . 'iVa6, . . . b6-
bS and . . . 'ii'b 6) 27 a3 as. Another promising
idea is 2S . . . 'iVg4 26 j. c3 fS and 27 .. .f4.
Perhaps, then , the captu re of the d4-pawn
should be deemed incorrect? I don't thi n k so
- also after 22 . . . .l:i.xd4 Black undoubtedly
retained the advantage. I will merely point
out a few instances where Alekh ine could
have played differently (without a thorough
analysis I would not risk sayi ng 'more
strongly') than in the game.
Alekhine avoided 23 . . . .l:!. c4 ( i nstead of
23 . . . .l:i.d3) because of the counterblow 24
.l:i.eS! . However, after 24 .. _ j. xeS! 2S 'ii'xdS
i..xc3! 26 �xfS (26 'iVxa8+ '>t> h7 27 bxc3
.l:!.xc3) 26 . . . .t xe 1 27 'ii'dS i.. xf2+ 28 'it> g2 (28
'it>xf2 .l:i.c2+ and 29 . . . .l:i.e8, winning) 28 . . . .l:i. e8
29 �xc4 .t cs (intending . . . i.. d 6 and . . . .l:!. e3
or . . . .l:!. e6--g6) Black has the advantage.
I ncidentally, as Yu . N i konov (Shakhmaty v
SSSR 1 986 No.6) discovered, 23 . . . .l:!.g4! 24
�es i.. b 4! was very strong, when 2S 'i!VxdS
c6! 26 'ifxc6 .l:!.c8 is bad for White, as is 2S
l:td 1 i..c S! 26 "it'c6 (26 .l:i. xdS .l:!. xg3+ ; 26
�xc7 .l:!.c8 27 .t es i.. xf2+) 26 . . . .l:i.d8! 27
'ii'xc7 (27 i.. xc7 'iWf3! 28 .l:i. de1 .l:!. xg3 !+)
27 . . . .l:!.e8! 28 .l:i. xdS .l:i. e4! . N i konov also
showed that after 23 . . . .l:i. d3 24 .t es Black
had the very strong reply 24 . . . i.. c S ! .
White would also have been a long way from
equalising after 2S . . . cxd6 (instead of 25 . . .
Iixd6) , a n d two moves later i t was possible
not to take the rook on hS, but play
27 . . . l:I h6! ? . bpk
Final ly, a s N . Volgin poi nted out in the same
issue of the magazi ne, instead of 31 . . . l:. e5
Black could have i m mediately advanced his
passed pawn: 31 . . . d4! 32 .U xa7 (32 "it' xd4?
.l:i.e 1 + 33 W h2 �c6) 32 . . . d3 33 .l:!. xc7 l:I e2.
P reviously there was no need to check all
these possibilities, since the plan chosen by
Alekhine in the game also seemed good
enough for a win. But now they have to be
regarded much more seriously, si nce the
defensive resou rce 33 'iff3 ! , poi nted out by
Gold i n , casts doubts on the correctness of
Black's attack (th is is the only rational point
of his publ ication) .
At the conclusion of his article Goldin writes:
'. . . Despite the corrections made to the
evaluation of events by the present analysis,
made nearly 60 years later, this was a
gripping struggle, in the course of which
impressively deep and brilliant decisions
were taken by both players. ' I am afraid that,
if one agrees with the 'corrections made',
this little eulogy will look more like a
mockery. After a l l , between the 1 Oth and
1 4th moves alone, Goldin suggests that
there were two m istakes by White and fou r
b y Black! Fortunately, t h e g reat players from
the past did not play so badly - in the
majority of cases it was not they, but their
critics, who were wrong. Althou g h , in gen­
eral, of course , the game in question cannot
be called a masterpiece .
 ctJ 139

PARTVI

Grigory Kaidanov

A Feeling for the King

Th e arsenal of a strong player contains White is a pawn up, but its conversion does
I many very diverse methods and evalua­ not look easy.
tions - from generally accepted to non­ 35 l:!.d1
standard . I n the m aterial you are studying it
With the idea of .tl. d3-f3.
is very important to be able to find that which
35 . . . !ii.. a 7
can en rich you r play. Even g randmasters
36 b4 "f/Jc7
and m asters som etimes encounter ideas
37 .l::t d 3 g6
that are new to them .
!ii. .
If 37 . . . b 6, then 38 'it' h5 .l:!.f 8 39 .l:!.f3,
I rem e m ber how i n 1 98 1 g randmaster
i ntending "iW g6! and g3-g4-g5 with a win­
Razuvaev and I were chatting about the new
wave of Soviet players - i n the USSR ning attack.
Championship that had j ust ended , Psakhis, 38 'it'g4 'lt>g7
Yusupov and Dolmatov had played bril­ 39 .Uf3 l:!.f8
liantly. Talking about Psakh is, Yuri Sergee­ 40 h5 g5
vich remarked that 'he has a subtle feeling 41 'iff5 'fie7
for the king ' . To be honest, at the time this Now Black is com pletely tied up. He cannot
remark seemed to me to be too abstract, but move either his queen , or his rook, or his
soon I saw the following game: kin g , because of the weakness of his f7 and
f6 squares. All that remain are m oves with
Psakh is - Hebden his bishop. It appears that for Wh ite too it is
Chicago 1 983 hard to strengthen his position , however . . .
42 'lt>g2 !ii.. b6
43 Wf1 !ii.. a 7
44 'lt>e2 !ii.. b 6
45 'lt>d3 !ii..a 7
46 'lt>c4 "flic7+
47 'lt>b3 "flia7
48 g4! i.b6
49 'lt>c4 !ii..a 7

(see diagram)
1 40 � PART VI

68 ..lta6+ 'it> b8
69 �d7
Black resigns.

Perhaps it was the study of this example that

helped me to find my way in the following
game.

Kishnev - Kaidanov
Odessa 1 987

50 'it>b5 ! !
The white king moves d i rectly i nto t h e fire of
the opponent's heavy pieces. But what does
it want?
50 . . . 'ii'e 8+
l:t 'it> .l::t 'it>
50 . . . b8+ 51 a6! ! b 6+ 52 a5 and wins.
51 ..ltc6 'fi'd8
52 'it>c4! "ike7
53 'ft'd7
Only now does White's idea become clear.
His king advanced so far, not merely in order
to simply frighten the opponent, but with the
aim, after the exchange of q ueens, of White launched a 'combi nation'.
ensuring the advance of his pawns. 1 4 lbxf7? 'it>xf7
53 . . . 'ii'e 6+ 1 5 ..ltxf6 'it>xf6!
54 fixeS fxe6 The refutation ! After 1 6 'fi'xd7 l;t d8 the white
55 .l:!.xf8 'it>xf8 queen is trapped .
56 'it>b5 'it>e7 1 6 'ii'f 3+ 'it>e7
57 'it>a6 ..ltxf2 1 7 l::tfd1 ..ltxb5
58 c4 'it>d8 1 8 ..ltxe6 �xe6 !
59 'it>b7 ..lte1 1 9 "ikd5+ 'it>f6
60 b5 ..ltf2 20 'fi'f3+ 'it>e7
61 b6 ..ltd4 21 J::!.d 5 ..ltd7
62 ..lta4 d5 22 'fi'e4+ ..lte6
62 . . . i. e3 63 'it>c6 i.c5 64 b7. 23 .l:!.cd1 'it>f7
63 cxd5 exd5 24 .l:!.d7+ ..lte7
64 exd5 e4 25 'ikf3+ 'it>e8
65 'it>c6! 'it>c8 26 .l:!.xb7 'fi'c5
66 d6 e3 27 fke4 �dB
67 ..ltb5 ..ltf6 White resigns.
 A Feeling for the King ltJ 1 41

'Why was the move 1 5 . . :it> xf6 overlooked by 1 2 �hd1 a6? !

my opponent?' , I began thinking, and I came 1 3 �c4 �g4
to a simple conclusion: while acknowledging 1 4 h3 �xf3
the role of the king i n the endgame, we often 1 5 gxf3 0-0
do not even consider active moves by the 1 6 f4 l::!.a 7
king in the middle of the game. Remember 1 7 e5 a5
chess history: long ago Stein itz tried to
1 8 �d2 e6
demonstrate that even in the middlegame
1 9 .l:tad1 .l::i.c 8
the king is a strong piece . But in the gambit
he devised ( 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 tt:J c3 'tih4+ 4
� e2) the 'activity' of the king is hardly
justified - often Black simply mates it.
An understanding of when the king should
be activated , and when this is inopportun e,
is most probably that 'feeling f o r the king'
that Razuvaev mentioned . Althoug h , this
concept can also be interpreted more
widely: it can include an abil ity to sense an
appropriate moment for an attack on the
enemy king or, having guessed the oppo­
nent's intentions, to safeguard your own
king in good time, and so o n .
Now let us exam ine t h e fol lowing game.
20 �b3! �f8
Andersson - Tempone 21 � b5! l:tcc7
Buenos Ai res 1 979 22 �xc6 .l:txc6
English Opening 23 �c4 �e7
1 c4 tt::lf6 24 .l:td7 .!:!.cc7
2 tt::lf3 g6 25 �xc7 l:txc7
3 tt:Jc3 d5 26 �b5 l:1c8
4 cxd5 tt:Jxd5 27 l:!.d7 �f8
5 e4 tt:Jxc3 28 �xb6 �e8
6 dxc3 29 l:!.b7 �d8+
30 �b5 c4
After the exchange of queens, White no
longer has to fear the loss of castl i n g . 31 �c5

6 . . . 'tixd 1 + Black resigns.

7 �xd1 c5?
This game, in which the wh ite king, as
A poor move , leading to an i nferior position though 'swaying from the h i ps' , proceeded
for Black. via b3-c4-b5 into the opponent's position, is
8 �e3 b6 one that I very much l i ke . For myself I called
9 a4 tt:Jc6 this techn ical procedu re 'the king march'
1 0 �b5 �d7 and I collected several more examples on
1 1 �c2 �g7 the same theme. Here is one of the m .
1 42 � PART V I

Geller - Hort After our acquaintance with the previous

Skopje 1 968 example it is not hard to find the following
manoeuvre .
3 7 '>t>d3! �g3
38 '>t>e4 �h2
39 '>t>f5 �g3
40 �d2 �h2
41 �c3 'ii'f 7+
And Black resigned: after 42 'i!t'xf7+ 'it> xf7 43
'it> e4 and 44 W d5 White wins the bishop
endgame .
Remember the Psaskhis-Hebden game.
Here you have the same scenario: a king
march with heavy pieces on the board, then
the exchange of queens, and the resulting
endgame proves won thanks to the superior
The position on the board is a typical Caro­
position of the king.
Kann endgame.
27 �f4! �d7 After the study of all these examples if was
28 b3! pleasant for me to play the following game.
With the idea of 'it> c2 .
28 . . . 'it>dB Kij k - Kaidanov
29 'it>c2 WeB
Norilsk 1 987
30 'ii'e4 'fic7
Black is seriously cramped , and Wh ite
begins a pawn offensive on the kingside .
31 f4 �e7
32 g4 �h4
33 fS �g3
34 fxe6 fxe6
35 'i!fg6+ 'it>fB
36 'ifxe6 �xeS

21 . . . '>t>e7
22 �a4 l:!.hbB
23 �c4 '>t>f6 !
24 '>t>f1 l:ta7
25 l:!.e1 �h6
26 '>t>e2 ..t>es
27 '>t>f1 'it>f4
 A Feeling for the King 1 43

28 �e2 .l::!.e7! 32 �xe1 J::i.e8+

White's next move loses q uickly, but his 33 �f1 J;!.e2
position is al ready difficult: 29 � xa6 is not 34 �a1 l::t x f2+
possible on accou nt of 29 . . . d5 followed by 35 �g1 l::t g 2+
30 . . .Ua7, and meanwh ile 29 . . . d5 and 30 . . .f5
. 36 �h1 .lte3
is threatened . White resigned: there is no defence agai nst
29 <M1 ? 'it>xf3 37 . . :it> g3 and 38 . . . .U h2 mate.
30 .ltxa6 d5 This episode demonstates once again that
31 exd5 .l:!.xe1 + consciencious work is never in vai n !

Supplement to Grigory Kaidanov's Lecture

Artur Yusupov
Korchnoi - Yusupov safe. White wants to activate all his forces
Lone Pine 1 98 1 after Ji.. b 4. The hasty 34 'i!Ve8+ W g7 35 .Ud7
wou ld have allowed me to save the game by
34 . . . tt'lxe3+ ! 35 fxe3 .Uxe 1 + 36 Wxe 1 l!Vc3+
and 37 . . . 'i!Vxb3.
34 . . . 'it>g7
If 34 . . .<�"l b6, then simply 35 .l:t xb5 'iNc 1 36
lieS+ W g7 37 li'xf7 + � h6 38 li'f8+ Ji.. g 7 39
'iNf4+ , while after 34 . . . tt'le5! ? there is the
satisfactory reply 35 � d2.
35 � b4
Of course , not 35 .U xb5? because of
35 . . . tt'ld6. But now both 36 "iVe8 and 36
.U xb5 are th reatened. I was unable to find a
defence agai nst these th reats.
35 . . . 4Jb6
36 l:td6
With m y last move 3 2 . . . .U c8-a8? ! I wanted to 36 .U xb5 was also good .
force White to remove the unpleasant pres­ 36 . . . l::!. c 1
sure on the b5-pawn and by the th reat of 37 l:txf6!
33 . . . .Ua1 compel h im to play 33 .Ud 1 . But This exchange sacrifice wins by force .
Korchnoi's brill iant reply dispelled my illu­ 37 . . . �xf6
sions. 38 1!i' d4+ �g5
33 �f1 ! ! l::!.a 1 ? 39 i.e7+ ! 'i!i'xe7
It would have been better to admit my Or 39 . . . W h6 40 'iN h4+ 'lt> g7 4 1 li'f6+ W h6 42
mistake by playi ng 33 . . . .U c8, but in this case Ji..f 8+ W h5 43 g4 mate .
too White would have had a g reat advan­ 40 'it'f4+
tage. Black resigned in view of mate in two
34 'it>e2 ! ! moves. The game was effectively decided
It transpi res that at e 2 the king is perfectly by the u nexpected king manoeuvre.
1 44 � PART V I

Mark Dvoretsky

Teichmann - All ies This game was played at the start of the last
Glasgow 1 902 centu ry. But not long before the end of it a
similar plan was successfu lly employed in
two games by the leading English grand­
master.

Kasparov - Short
London 1 987 (rapid)

The white rook is tied to the g2-point. R udolf

Teichmann finds an unusual solution : he
brings his king out to h4 i n order, after
freeing the rook, to then switch it to the g­
file. And in some cases the king can break
through to g6.
28 �h2 b5
29 �g3! a5 44 . . . l:te7!
The advice of a very old R ussian manual It is important to ensure the safety of the e6-
comes to mind: 'If you don't know what to pawn.
do, advance one of you r men ! ' 45 l':.1 b2 �g6!
30 �h4 46 i.c1 ?
Th reatening both 31 'it> h5, and 31 J:. e3. 46 J:. e8! was essential.
30 . . . g6 46 . . . 'it>h5!
31 l':.e3! 'it'xg2?! The king heads for g3, and White has no
32 l:g3 'it'f2 way of opposing this th reat. 47 l:. e8 is now
The variation 32 . . . g5+ 33 'it> h5! 'ili'xg3 34 poi ntless in view of 47 . . . l:tf7.
'it>g6 is instructive . 47 l:ta8 "ifc5
33 fxg6 'ii'f 4+ 48 l:tc8 "ifxa3
34 .l:!.g4 "iff2+ 49 g4+ i.xg4
35 �h5 50 l:txc4 "ifa1
Black resigns. White resigns.
 A Feeling for the King ltJ 1 45

Short Timman
- Black is tied dow n, but at fi rst sight it is
Tilburg 1 99 1 u nclear how to i ntensify the pressure.
However, for us this is no longer a problem.
A familiar device - the inclusion of the king
i n the attack - leads i m mediately to the goal.
32 'it>g3 ! ! �ce8
33 '>t>t4 �ca
34 '>t>g5!
Black resigns, since he is u nable to parry the
deadly threat of 35 W h6.

Exercises

1 . White to move 2. Black to move

1 46 � PART V I

3. White to move 5. White to move

How should the game conclude?

4. Black to move 6. Black to move

 A Feeling for the King
Solutions
1. Mortensen - Tisdall (Gausdal 1 982) .
43 'iii g 3!
The king goes to h4 in order, fi rstly, to shelter
from the enemy attack, and secondly, to
help its own pieces create a decisive attack
against the opponent's ki n g .
4 3....l:!. h 1 4 4 �e4! (not immediately 4 4 'i¥t h4?
in view of 44 . . . 'ilfe 1 + 45 g3 .l:!.xh3+ ! ) 44 ... '1¥tg6
(44 . . .l:!. e 1 45 .l:!. h4+! W g6 46 ..t d3 .l:!. e3+ 47
.
.M.f3+ .l:!. xd3 48 .l:!. g4+! and 49 .l:!. xd3+-) 45
.M.fe5 'ifc3+ 46 'it>h4 llg1 47 J:1e6+ �h7 48
g4 (48 .l:!. e7+ W g6 49 .l:!. 4e6+ �f5 50 .l:!. f7+ or
48 . 'i.t h8 49 'i¥t h5! would have won slightly
. .
more qu ickly) 48 ... l1h1 49 I1e7+ 'i¥th8 50
.M.e8+ �h7 51 .l:!.4e7+ �g6 52 .l:!.g8+ �f6 53
.M.e6+ 'i;t7 54 .l:tee8+ Black resigns.
2. Plaskett - Hebden ( E ngland 1 982) .
29 . . . g4!
After this accu rate move the position is
drawn , despite Wh ite's extra piece - his king
is unable to hide from perpetual check.
In the game Black played 29 . . l:1 b8? , which
.
allowed the king to escape from the danger
zone by 30 �f3! .l:!.b2 (30 . . . 'i*'d 1 + 3 1 ..ll. e 2)
31 �g4! . If now 3 L J:txf2 , then 32 .l:t xh6
"i'd 1 + 33 ..ll. e 2! 'i*'xe2+ 34 � h3+-. There
followed : 31 ... 'i*'g6 32 ..td3! ifg7 (32 . . . 'ikxd3
33 .l:!.xh6; 32 . . . f5+ 33 ..t xf5) 33 �xg7+ 'i¥txg7
34 'i¥tf3 Black resigns.
3. Korzubov - Malanyu k (USSR Champi­
onsh ip, First League 1 983) .
The game qu ickly ended peacefully: 38
�c3? ! ..ll. xf3 39 'Y!Wxf3+ �b8 40 'Y!Wc3 (40
<Lle3 lt:Jd4 41 'i*'d5 .l:!.xe3 with equal ity)
40 . . . l1e6 . D raw. But White could have won ,
by attacking the enemy rook with his ki n g .
3 8 'iiif 1 ! !
It i s true that 3 9 W xe2 i s not yet a th reat i n
.QJ 1 47
view of 3 9 . . . ..il. d5(c2)+, but after White's
i ntended 39 lt:Jge5 the rook really will be
'hang i n g ' , with nowhere to go. If 38 . . . lt:Jd6
( i ntending 39 lt:Jge5 ..t xf3 40 'ifxf3+ l:. e4) ,
then 39 � xe2! becomes possible: 39 . . . ..ll. xf3+
(39 . . . ..il. d5+ 40 'i*'e3) 40 W f1 ! and wins (but
not 40 'it> xf3? �e4+ 41 � g3 lt:Jf5+ 42 'i; h2
�f4+ 43 g3 'ifxc 1 ) .
38 . . . 'iii b 8
By movi ng his king off the h 1 -a8 diagonal ,
Black has prepared 39 . . . ..ll. xf3. But now
misfortu n e strikes from another side - Wh ite
has gained an i mportant tempo for the
creation of decisive th reats agai nst the
opponent's king .
39 figS+! 'iii b7
40 .l::!.a 1
4. H ubner - Belyavsky ( M u n ich 1 990) .
23 . . . 'iii g 6! !
Here one can not help but recall the words of
the fi rst world champion Wilhelm Stei n itz: 'If
necessary precautionary measures are
taken, the king can defend itself. ' The pin on
the h4-d8 diagonal is an noying to Black,
and his king personally takes measu res to
eliminate it. The natu ral 24 h4 loses i m medi­
ately to 24 . . . ..t g4! 25 ..t xf6 'it'd?! , trapping
the quee n . White is a piece down and
therefore the exchange on f6 is equ ivalent to
capitu latio n . He has to leave his bishop en
prise , but the king boldly captu res i t , after
which White's attacking resou rces prove
insufficient.
24 tt:Jt5 � xg5 25 'iVg3+ (25 h4+ .l:!. xh4 26
lt:Jxh4 W xh4! 27 �g3+ � h5 28 ..t d 1 + ..t g4
29 'ik h3+ � g5 is no better) 25 . . . lt:Jg4 26 h4+
�f6! . With the king in the front l i n e , extreme
care has to be take n . The i ncautious
26 .. .<it' h5? would have led to mate : 27
'ikxg4+ ! � xg4 28 ..il. d 1 + � f4 29 g3#.
1 48 � PART VI

27 'fkxg4 �g8 28 '1Wt3 .txt5 29 'ilt'xf5+ <J;; e7 d i rection . But where is the final goal of its
30 'fkh3 'ii'g 6 31 g3 tt:Jc5 32 �1 �f6 White wanderings around the board?
resigns. 10 . . . �d5+
1 1 'lt>e4 .l:!.e5+
1 2 'lt>f4 l::!.f 5+
5. E.Dobrescu ( 1 979) . 1 3 'lt>g4 .l:!.g5+
White has a great material advantage , but 1 4 'lt>h4
his king is in danger. The king has finally acq u i red a safe shelter
1 e3! (the h5-square is controlled by the white
The only defence against the threat of mate . queen) and the outcome has become
It is clear that in the event of 1 . . . exd3 2 'ii'x h5 obvious.
.l::!.x h5 3 cxd3 White wins easily. But where
can his king hide from the checks along the 6. Psakhis - Vitolins (USSR C hampion·
5th rank? ship, Fi rst League, Frunze 1 979) .
1 . . . �f5+ Who is attacking whom? I n the event of
2 'lt>xe4 .l:!.e5+ 32 . . .'iV h3?? Black is the fi rst to get mated:
3 'lt>d4 .l:!.d5+ 33 tt:'l e8+ 'lt> h6 34 tt:'l g8+ '>i> h5 35 lt:Jef6+
4 'lt>c4 .!:!.c5+ i. xf6 36 lt:J xf6+ '.t> h6 37 'ii'f 8 mate . And after
4 . . . 'iNxd 1 5 .l::i. xd 1 .l::i. x d 1 is completely hope­ 32 . . . �f1 + 33 <t> g2 .l:t xf4 34 gf 'iNg4+ 35 � f1 it
less. is not apparent how B lack can achieve more
5 'lt>b3! than perpetual check.
After 5 . . . .l::i. b 5+? 6 <t> a2 the king would have 32 . . . 'it>h6! !
hidden from the checks at b 1 . But now it has 33 tt:Jg8+
to remain in front of its troops . After 33 �f8+ <t> h5 34 �xf7 <t> g4! Wh ite has
6 �a3! 'i!Va7+ no defence agai nst 35 . . .l'I f1 + 36 <t> g2 l:!.g 1
mate . And after 33 �c8 �xc8 34 lb xc8 l:!.d2
6 . . J:Ia5+? 7 W b4, and Black has no conven­
the endgame is won for Black.
ient check.
33 . . . 'lt>h5
7 'lt>b4! 'ifa5+
34 'i!Vd5+ 'lt>g4!
8 'lt>b3 .l:!.b5+
I n the game Alvis Vitolins went wrong and
8 . . . 'iNb5+ 9 '.t>a2 .
missed a wi n : 34 ... 'iNf5? 35 h3! (but not 35
9 Wc4 .l:!.c5+ 'it'xf5+? gxf5 36 d7 '.t> g4 37 d8'ir' .l::i. f 1 + 38
9 . . . 'iNa4+ 1 0 b4. '.t> g2 .l::i. g 1 mate , or 36 h3 � d2) 35 . . J:tf1 + 36
10 'lt>d4 <t>g2 llf2+ (to avoid the worst, Black has to
An amusing pictu re: earl ier the rook d rove be satisfied with perpetual check) 37 � h1
the king from the kingside to the queenside, .l::i.t 1 + 38 Wg2 .l::i.f 2+ D raw.
but now, after the black pieces have shifted 35 'ifxd4 cxd4
to the queenside, it moves in the opposite 36 tt:'lf6+ 'lt>h3

PARTVI I
Ideas and Advice of great Players
(about working on chess, studying your own and other players' games,
and overcoming deficiencies i n you r play)
Wilhelm Stei n itz
Th e advice which we offer on the subject
I is, in the fi rst place, that a learner should
seek as much as possible to play on even
terms with superior players . One thing that
we would especially u rge u pon the chess
student is that regularity of study and
practice very much faci litates making rapid
prog ress. The player by fits and starts will
scarcely ever improve , and it is much bette r
to devote to chess one hour per day for six
consecutive 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
recollection one's own games, or more
especially selected and well-annotated pub­
lished games played by masters .
The Modern Chess Instructor
Siegbert Tarrasch
Only I know that my defeats were explained
not by a lack of playing strength , but by a
lack of abil ity to use it. The reason for my
fai l u re was an underesti mation of my oppo­
nents and an overesti mation of my own
possibilities. I assu med that to win it was
sufficient to sit down at the board and move
the pieces; my opponents would lose merely
as a conseq uence of the i rresistible feeling
that they were opposed by none other than
Dr Tarrasch. Movi ng the pieces carelessly,
without delving deeply i nto the play, I fi rmly
l2J 149
believed that the just cause (namely - mi ne)
wou ld i n the end prevail . . . I suffered a
deserved p u n i s h ment, which , however,
proved very useful to me. I finally realised
that it is not enough to be a good player; one
also has to play wel l .
. . . I cannot help emphasising partic u larly
that I have never played , as they say, 'for a
draw' , except, of cou rse, i n positions which
were u nfavourable for me and in which best
play on my part could lead at most to a draw.
I consider the expressions 'playing for a win'
or 'playi ng for a draw' to be complete
misnomers . I regard every position as a
proble m , i n which the best move has to be
fou nd, and I endeavour to solve it. If I see
the strongest move , giving winning chances ,
then I would be simply betraying myself if I
were to choose another move , leading only
to a draw. The depressing chopping of
chess wood , leading to a quick draw, is
something I find repulsive and absurd .
Three Hundred Chess Games
Emanuel Lasker
One may err, but one must not deceive
oneself. He who bravely follows his judge­
ment may lose but even his loss profits h i m ,
provided he seeks t o discover t h e reasons
for it; and he grows to be a master, an artist.
But he who no longer ventu res to back his
opinion loses the qual ity of a fighter and
approaches his fal l .
150 � PART V I I
. . . Education in chess has to be an educa­
tion in independent thinking and judging.
Chess must not be memorised , simply
because it is not important enough . . . Memory
is too val uable to be stocked with trifles. Of
my fifty-seven years I have applied at least
th i rty to forgetting most of what I had learned
or read , and since I succeeded i n this I have
acqu i red a certain ease and cheer. . .
You should keep i n mind no names, nor
numbers, not isolated incidents, not even
results , but only methods. The method is
plastic. It is applicable to every situation . . .
He who wants to educate hi mself i n chess
must evade what is dead i n 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 weak­
ness of uncritically taking over variations or
rules discovered by others; the vanity which
is self-sufficient; the incapacity for adm itting
mistakes; i n brief, everything that leads to a
standstill or to anarchy. '
Lasker's Manual of Chess
Jose Raul Capablanca
It wou ld be a grave mistake to study the
opening without keeping i n mind the subse­
quent middlegame and ending. In the same
way it would be wrong to study the
middlegame without consideri ng the end­
game . This reasoning clearly proves that i n
order to improve you r g a m e y o u m ust study
the endgame before anything else; for,
whereas the endings can be studied and
mastered by themselves, the middlegame
and the opening m ust be studied i n relation
to the endgame.
Capablanca 's Last Chess Lectures
Alexander Alekh ine
There were two things that made me a
master: a search for the truth and a striving
for a struggle. When I was sti l l a little boy I
sensed that I had a talent for chess. And
already then I sensed an inner strivi ng, an
overwhelmi ng attraction to chess. By means
of chess I trained my character. Chess
primarily teaches you to be objective . I n
chess y o u c a n become a g reat master, only
by recognising you r mistakes and deficien­
cies. Exactly as i n life .
. . . There is one trait, along with others,
which determines chess strength : u nshak­
able concentratio n , which should isolate the
player absolutely from the outside world.
from an article
Aaron N i mzowitsch
The simultaneous analysis of different types
of positions merely generates confusion in
you r thoughts , whereas a thorough study of
one type cannot fai l to raise the level of your
positional understanding.
If you , dear reader, with maxi m u m avai lable
intensity sit down to study positions, say,
with a central file agai nst a flank storm, it
would not surprise me at all if as a result you
observe a clearer j udgement in the field of
the endgame. The process of studying one
typical position has the aim not only of
analysing this typical position , but also of
improving you r positional feeling as a whole.
I believe i n the rad ioactive strength of this
method : the entire chess organism is as
though awakened and, joyfu l , awaits re­
newa l . It is not only positional feeling that is
strengthened - perhaps the most typical
improvement is that the player, who previ­
ously pursued spectres (for example, eter­
nally d reaming of mati ng attacks) suddenly
begins very seriously to reckon with chess
real ity.
. . . Combinative talent plus thorough work
can make the impossible possible, and
therefore we once more advise: 'Combi na­
tive players , endeavour step by step to
 Ideas and Advice of G reat Players
improve you r understanding of the most
important positional motifs and strategies!
And you , players who do not l i ke combina­
tions, endeavour to l i ke them , learn them,
since only a li nking of combinative play with
positional can provide those successes ,
joys and thrills, of which chess has such a
wealth ! '
How I became a grandmaster
M i khail Botvinnik
I long ago suggested to o ur masters, who
systematically end up i n ti me-trouble, a way
of tackling this deficiency. U nfortunately, it
would appear that they have not made use
of my advice , and meanwhi l e it is very
simple. You should play trai ning games i n
which you pay t h e m a i n attention t o the
clock, not the qual ity of play or the result,
and continue these exercises until you
develop the skill of using you r time sensibly,
while succeeding in calculati ng all the
necessary variations. I think that i n this way
90% of those suffering from the 'time-trouble
disease' would be completely cured, with
the exception , of course , of the 'hopelessly
i ll'.
Other deficiencies s h ou l d be cured b y the
same method . During special training games
you should focus you r main attention on a
particu lar deficiency - u ntil it disappears . . .
If a master is weak i n the endgame, he only
has to follow the example of Chekhover,
who in recent times has worked much in the
field of the endgame and especially studies,
and has achieved considerable success. In
this case i n trai ning games you should aim
for the endgame, which will also help you to
acquire the appropriate experience. By the
same method gaps in the m iddlegame can
be filled , although here things are more
complicated.
. . . Analysis at home has its own specific
featu res: the player is not restricted by time
ctJ 1 51
and he can move the pieces. Despite these
d ifferences , there is also much i n common
between analysis and over-the-board play. It
is well known that nearly all the outstanding
players have also been excellent analysts .
From this the conclusion suggests itself:
anyone who wants to become an outstand­
ing player m ust also improve i n the field of
chess analysis . . .
Of cou rse, notes to games written ' i n a rush',
i n 1 -2 hours , cannot be called analysis.
Such 'analysis' plays only a negative role,
since it may be transformed into a bad habit.
On my methods of preparing for
competitions
Garry Kasparov
I am an adherent of the i nvestigative
tendency, to which Botvi n n i k belongs. It was
from h i m that I learned to study chess
properly, find new ideas, and constantly
work on i mprovi ng. This is a scientific
approach, based on a deep analysis of the
heritage of the past, on the search for new
opening variations and methods of play in
t he middlegame, and on t he development of
fundamentally new strategic plans. All chess
players study old games - rather as they
learn the words of a foreign language. But
after acq u i ring some vocabulary, you have
to learn to use it, in order to rea lise you r
creative potential. Especially if you a re
d ream ing of becoming world champion .
. . . For me, brought up on the scientific
methods of Botvi nnik , the most i mportant
thing is the abil ity to concentrate. Seemingly
a simple matter. But in a n extreme, crisis
situation? Few recognise that the ability to
compose h i mself at the decisive moments of
play is virtually the most important qual ity for
a chess player.
. . . To play creatively, not fear risky adven­
tures, possess a keen chess taste - all this
does not free you of the need to work hard .
1 52 � PART V I I
On the contrary, you must constantly im­
prove you r play, deepen and expand you r
opening repertoire , sharpen you r tech­
niques and analyse complicated endgames.
After al l , chess it not the once and for all
mastery of a sum of knowledge. Chess is
dynamic, and any conclusive result may
prove on verification to be only i ntermediate.
Each time the truth must be demonstrated.
Even my own game commentaries are not
unshakable for me. I like to refine the m : in
the cou rse of time many ideas are subject to
re-evaluation , includ i n g , of course , my own
ideas. I happily retu rn to my mistakes and
analyse them. 'When a player annotates a
game, he often endeavou rs to discover his
inaccuracies and omissions, ' wrote Botvinnik
i n 1 980. 'This is the way Kasparov acts . He
aims for the truth , and endeavou rs to be
objective . '
Bezlimitny poedinok
 CtJ 1 53

PARTV I I I

Mark Dvoretsky

Tests 1 2 x 8

Aa player i nvolves (or more accu rately ­

significant place i n the improvement of proved i nsufficient. But the thematic i ndex
indicates the numbers of exercises from
should i nvolve) trai ning - the i ndependent other sections, which are also su itable for
solvi ng of exercises. With their help it is trai ning on the given theme.
possible to repeat and consolidate material Another approac h : you can begi n with the
that has j ust been studied, p ractise before simplest exercises on the various themes,
important events , develop various skills and and then g radually increase their difficu lty.
abilities, and make an objective diagnosis of That is, fi rst try to solve the first exercises
your playi ng virtues and deficiencies. from each theme, then the second, the third ,
You have al ready had an opportun ity to test a n d s o o n . If you operate i n this way, you do
you r strength on the simple and rather not receive any prompts, and you do not
difficult exercises at the end of certain even know whether the exercise i n front of
sections of the book. The present chapter is you is a positional or a tactical one. After
wholly devoted to practical tests . solvi ng many exercises, it is usefu l to note
All the exercises are divided i nto 1 2 themes, which themes caused you difficu lty, and that
such as attack, defence , conversion of an means on which aspects of your chess
advantage , traps , play with pawns, counter­ maste ry you have to tighten up.
chances for the opponent, manoeuvres and
so on. The nu mber of the theme is sign ified Exerc i ses
by a Roman n u meral.
Each theme is represented by eight exer­
cises, their numbers being signified by
Arabic n umerals. The fi rst two exercises of
each theme are elementary, the next two are
rather more difficult, the th i rd pai r of exer­
cises is not at all easy, and finally the fou rth
pai r is very d ifficult.
It is not at all necessary to move consistently
from one theme to the next. If the reader
knows his weak poi nts , he can choose the
appropriate themes (from the l ist given at
the end of the chapter) and try to solve the
exercises relating to them, operati ng on the
pri nciple 'from the simple to the difficult' . Of
cou rse, eight exercises on one theme may 1/1 Wh ite to move
1 54 � PART V I I I

1/2 Black to move 1/5 Wh ite to move

1/3 Black to move 1/6 White to move

1/4 White to move 1/7 White to move

 Tests 1 2 x 8 1 55

1/8 Black to move 1 1/3 Wh ite to move

II

1 1/1 Black to move 1 1/4 White to move

1 1/2 White to move 1 1/5 White to move

1 56 � PART V I I I

Ill

1 1/6 Black t o move 1 1 1/1 White to move

1 1/7 Wh ite to move 1 1 1/2 White to move

1 1/8 Black to move 1 1 1/3 White to move

 Tests 1 2 x 8 ttJ 1 57

1 1 1/4 White to move 1 1 1/7 White to move

1 1 1/5 Black to move 1 1 1/8 Wh ite to move

IV

1 1 1/6 White to move I V/1 Black to move

1 58 � PART V I I I

IV/2 Black to move I V/5 White to move

I V/3 White to move I V/6 White to move

IV

IV/4 White to move I V17 Black to move

 Tests 1 2 x 8 CLJ 1 59

IV /8 Black to move V/3 Black to move

V/1 Black to move V/4 White to move

IV

V/2 White to move V/5 Wh ite to move

1 60 PART V I I I

VI

V/6 Black to move Vl/1 White to move

vn White to move V l/2 Black to move

V/8 Black to move V l/3 White to move

 Tests 1 2 x 8 1 61

V l/4 White to move V l/7 Wh ite to move

Vl/5 Black to move V l/8 White to move

VII

V l/6 Black to move V l l/1 White to move

1 62 � PART V I I I

Vl l/2 White to move V l l/5 White to move

V l l/3 Black to move V l l/6 White to move

Vl l/4 Wh ite to move V l l/7 White to move

 Tests 1 2 x 8 1 63

V l l/8 White to move V l l l/3 Black to move

VIII

V l l l/1 Wh ite to move V l l l/4 White to move

V l l l/2 White to move V l l l/5 Black to move

1 64 � PART V I I I

IX

V l l l/6 Black to move IX/1 Black to move

V l l l/7 Black to move I X/2 White to move

V l l l/8 White to move IX/3 Black to move

 Tests 1 2 x 8 ttJ 1 65

I X/4 White to move IX/7 White to move

I X/5 Black to move I X/8 Black to move

IX/6 White to move X/1 Black to move

1 66 � PART V I I I

X/2 White to move X/5 White to move

X/3 White to move X/6 White to move

X/4 White to move X/7 White to move

 Tests 1 2 x 8 ttJ 1 67

X/8 Black to move X l/3 White to move

XI

X l/1 Black to move X l/4 Black to move

X l/2 White to move X l/5 White to move

1 68 w PART V I I I

XII

Xl/6 Black to move X l l/1 Black to move

Xl/7 White to move X l l/2 Black to move

X l/8 White to move X l l/3 White to move

 Tests 1 2 x 8 ctJ 1 69

X l l/4 Black to move X l l/7 Black to move

X l l/5 Black to move X l l/8 Black to move

X l l/6 Black to move

1 70 � PART V I I I

Solutions to Exercises

1/1 . Karpov - Rashkovsky (41 st USSR

Championship, Moscow 1 973) .
23 �xf5 ! ! �xf5
23 . . . gxf5 24 .U.g3+.
24 1:ixb7+-
l n the game Anatoly Karpov did not notice
the winning sacrifice; he played 23 ttJf3?
ttJd7 24 4J g5 ttJf8 , and the game d ragged
out for a further 30 moves .

1/2. Bonner - Medina (Olympiad , Haifa

1 976) . 4 .l::!.f6! ! gxf6
1 . . . l2Jc3! Stalemate! Or if 4 . . . .U. a5 , then 5 .U.g6 with a
2 bxc3 a4 d raw.
3 cxd4 cxd4
After 4 c3 a3 White resigned . 1/5. Lucarel l i - Carra ( Bologna 1 932) .
Wh ite is a rook u p , but the th reats along the
1/3. Schiffers - Chigorin ( 1 3th match 2nd ran k are extremely dangerous. He loses
game , St Petersburg 1 897) . immediately after 1 d4? ife2, and 1 'i!Vxc7+?
Mikhail lvanovich Chigorin chose 22 . . . b6? , ii. xc7 2 h7 ii. e5 does not help.
overlooking a spectacular mating combina­ 1 l:!.d2 ! ! l:!.xd2
tion : 2 d4 'ife2
22 . . . .l::!. h 1 + ! After 2 . . . i. d6 there follows 3 'i1Vf5, while if
23 l2Jxh1 �h2+! 2 . . . .l:t g2 ! ? , then 3 '>t> a 1 'i!¥e2 4 .U. b 1 � d6 5
24 �xh2 �h8+ 'i1Vf5.
25 �g3
3 �c1
25 'it> g 1 I;l xh 1 mate .
Black resigns. By sacrificing the rook, White
25 . . . lL'lf5+ has changed the places of the opponent's
26 �4(g4) l:th4 mate heavy pieces on the 2nd rank - i n the new
order they are no longer dangerous.
1/4. A .Wotawa ( 1 952 ).
1 l2Je5 .!:!.d2+ 1/6. R.Li berzon - Belov (Moscow 1 957)* .
2 �e3 .l::!.e 2+ Both kings are in terrible danger. White gets
3 �d4! there fi rst, thanks to a diverting queen
3 'it>f4? .l:txe5-+ . sacrifice .
3 . . . .l::!.xe5 1 'i!fe1 ! ! �xe1
 Tests 1 2 x 8 ltJ 1 71

If 1 . . . � xa2 , then 2 � xh7+! is decisive . Alexey D reev did not notice the combina­
2 tt:Jxf6 gxf6 tion , o r else he was u nable to calculate it,
and he parted with his f7-paw n. White
2 . . . h6 3 .l:t xh6+.
retai ned the advantage , but he was unable
3 .l:!.gh 1 to convert it - his opponent defended
Th reatening 4 .l:txh7+ 'lt> g8 5 .l:t h8+ 'lt> g7 6 tenaciously and resou rcefully.
.l:t 1 h7 mate . 37 f4? ! .l:txf7 38 .U.d8+ 'it>h7 39 f5! g6! 40
3 . . . 'it'g8 .l:td6 gxf5 41 .ih5 .t!.d7! (41 . . . .l:t c7 42 .i g6+
4 .l:!.xh7 �f8 and 43 .i xf5) 42 .l:txh6+ Wg8 43 exf5 c3 44
ii. f6 .ic4! 45 .l:tg6+ 'lii h 8 46 lih6+ 'it>g8 47
Nothing is changed by 4 . . . h4 5 .l:t 7xh4 ! .
.l:tg6+ WhB 48 .l:tg4! .ie6! 49 .l:tb4 Wh7 50
5 l:h8+ We7 .tea .l:tc7 51 .U.h4+ Wg8 52 .l:te4 ! . We have
6 l:txe1 + Wd7 reached the position of exercise 1/8 .
7 l:the8
Mate by � 1 e7 is u navoidable. 1/8. Dreev - Yudasi n ( I nterzonal Tou rna­
ment, Manila 1 990) .
lf7. Dreev - Yudasi n ( I nterzonal Tou rna­ Black's position is anxious. His bishop is
ment, Manila 1 990) . attacked , but it is extremely undesirable for
him to move it - from e6 it prevents the f6-
It may seem that the f7-pawn is doomed . I n
pawn from advancing and simultaneously
fact Wh ite has at h i s disposal a spectacular
deprives the rook of the important g4-square.
combination , exploiting the strength of this
For example, after the plausible 52 . . . i.f7?
pawn.
Wh ite wins by 53 .l:t g4+ W h8 (53 . . . W f8 54
37 .l:!.d5! a6 i. a4 i. e6 55 i. h6+ 'it> f7 56 .l:t g7 + Wxf6 57
38 .l:!.f5 ..t>h7 .l:txc7) 54 .l:t g7 c2 55 .U. xf7 .U. xf7 56 .i xf7 c1 'it'
38 . . . g6? 39 .i xh6 loses i mmediately, while if 57 .t xc1 tt:Jxc1 58 .i c4 a5 59 h4 a4 60 h5
38 . . . i. d7? White wins by 39 .l:t e5! i. b5 followed by 6 1 h6 or 6 1 f7 'it> g7 62 h6+ .
(39 . . . .l:t xf7 40 .t xc4) 40 .t xc4! .t xc4 4 1 Leonid Yudasin found a pretty savi ng combi­
.l:te8. B y playi ng h i s king t o h 7 , Black
natio n .
prepares 39 . . . '1ii g 6 or 39 . . . g6 40 .l:tf6 'lii g 7.
52 . . . tt:Jc5 ! !
39 e5! 5 3 ..txc5
For the sake of connecti ng his f- and e­ 53 .l:t d4? c2 54 .l:t d8 does not work on
pawns, White is prepared to sacrifice his accou nt of 54 . . . tt:'l e4+ and 55 . . . tt:'l xf6+.
rook, for example: 39 . . . g6 40 e6! gxf5 4 1
53 . . . .l:!.xc5
.i xc4! f4! ? 4 2 .i b6! +-. 3 9 . . . .i d7 4 0 .i xc4!
54 J:lxe6 c2
.i xf5 41 .i xb3 is also bad for Black.
55 ..tg6!
39 . . . 'lt>g6
Of course , Black is not afraid of 55 f7+? 'lt>f8
40 e6 ! ! 'lt>xf5
56 .U.g6 .U.f5+ or 55 .U. e 1 ? c1 'it'+ , but what
4 1 ..txc4 ! ! ..txc4
can he do now?
4 2 e7 .U.xf7
43 eB'if+- (see diagram)

• ( p . 1 70 , N o . 1/6) This i n d i cates that the position d i d not in fact occ u r in the game , but could have been
reached i n a possible variatio n .
1 72 � PART V I I I

11/2. Tal - Pol ugayevsky (45th USSR

Championsh ip, Leningrad 1 977) .
I ncautiously playi ng 30 l:td6?, M i khail Tal
overlooked the very strong reply 30 . b5!. . .

There followed 31 aS (31 axb5 l'l c5; 31 �d4

bxa4 or 31 . . . l:t c4! ) 31 . . . b3 32 !1d2 'it>es 33
'it>e2 :c4 34 'it>d1 l:ta4, and Black won.
White should have first attacked the b4·
pawn.
30 ltd4! Il:b3
30 . . . b3 31 l:t b4= .
31 Itd6 Ita3
32 .t!.xb6 Itxa4
Mate is th reatened , and the obvious 55 . . . 33 ltb7+
.l:.c8? loses after 56 l:t e8+ l:txe8 5 7 f7+ 'it> g7
58 fxe8'ili' c1 'ili' 59 'ir'f7+ 'it> h6 60 'ir'h7+ 'it> g5 I V3. Smyslov - Szabo (Hasti ngs 1 954/55) .
61 h4+ 'iii>f6 62 'ili'f7+ 'it> e5 63 'ir'e7+ W d5 64
Wh ite stands better. He has several tempt·
'ili'g5+.
ing conti nuations, and the only question is
55 . . . .!:tf5+ ! ! which of these is the most accu rate .
56 'it>e2
25 f4? .i g4! .
56 .i xf5? c1 'ili'-+; 56 'it> g3 .l:!.g5+.
2 5 CiJ c7? .i b3! 2 6 CiJxa8 .i xd 1 =.
56 .. . Itxf6 !
25 'iii>f 2? ! a5 ! ? .
57 IreS+ Itf8
Vasily Smyslov chose the optimal way.
58 Itxf8+ 'it>xf8
59 ..txc2 25 b4! ±
White has remained a bishop up, but this is T h e continuation was 25 . . . h6 ( 2 5 . . . .l:!.d7 26
of l ittle use - it is of the 'wrong' colou r. Draw. CiJf4! l:txd2 27 CiJ xe6+ fxe6 28 l:!.xd2) 26 'it>f2
.Ud7 27 CiJc3 .U.xd2+ 28 l'lxd2 .U.d8 (28 . . . a5
29 b5 CiJe5 30 f4 CiJ c4 3 1 l'ld4) 29 klxd8
II CiJxd8 30 f4± and Wh ite won .

IV1 . Tukmakov - Koch iev (USSR Champi­ 11/4. Semenova - Levitina (Women's Final
onship Fi rst League, Ash khabad 1 978) . Candidates Matc h , 5th game, Sochi 1 984) .
The game lasted j ust one more move: There followed 22 lixc8? .l:!.xc8 23 .U.e1 <;i.>fs
24 .. J:txa2? 25 .idS! , and Black resigned . 24 .l:te3 l:tc7 25 .U.a3 b6= with a rapid draw.
Playing on a pawn down is completely Was it possible to take on b7? It tu rns out
hopeless, and since it is not possible to take that it was!
immediately on a2 , the solution becomes 22 ..txb7! .l:!.b8
obvious. 23 l:tc7 l:txb7
24 . . . "it"xc4! 24 ltxb7 ..tc6
25 .t!.xc4 Itxa2::t/±
(see diagram)
After 26 !1 b 1 .l:ta5! Black has an inferior, but
defensible position.
 Solutions: Tests 1 2 x 8 1 73

Not finding any way to g ive mate , the

g randmaster correctly decided to restrict
hi mself to winning the a3-pawn with gain of
tempo.
48 . . . tt:Jf2+!
49 'it>f5 'ii"d 3+!
49 . . . lt:Jd 1 + ?! 50 'ii'f 3! was pointless . Also
u nconvi ncing was 49 . . . 'it'a6? ! 50 tt:J c6! , or
49 . . . 'ii'b 1 + ? ! 50 'lt> e5 lt:Jd3+ (50 . . . lt:Jg4+ 51
'lt> d6 "it' b8+ 52 'lt> c5) 5 1 'lt>d6 "ir"b8+ 52 'lt> e7! .
50 'it>e5 tt:lg4+
51 'it>d6 "it'xa3+
Black has a decisive advantage, which
It was apparently because of this double subsequently he methodically converted .
attack that Lidia Semenova avoided taking
the pawn. And wrongly so! l in. Polugayevsky - Pfleger (Olympiad ,
25 .l:!.e1 ! .l:!.xe1 Buenos Ai res 1 978) .
26 .l:!.c7 ! +- White could have gained an advantage i n
t h e fol lowing way:
11/5. R. Reti ( 1 922). 20 tt:Jc3! cxb3
A t fi rst sight it is all very si m p l e: 1 'lt> c4 b 3 21 tt:Jxd5 .l::l.x d5!
2 lt:Jd5 b 2 3 tt:Jc3. B u t here there is an 22 ..ltxd5 l:txc1
extremely unpleasant su rprise lyi ng i n wait 23 .l:!.xc1 b2 ! ?
for White: 3 . . . b 1 "ir" ! ! 4 tt:Jxb1 + 'lt> a4, and i. 'lt>
2 3 . . . bxa2 2 4 xe6 fxe6 25 g2 (th reaten­
moving the bishop leads to stalemate . ing 26 �c7) 25 .. ."it' b7+ 26 � h3 i. a3 27 .l:!.d 1
If he plays 1 tt:Je4 b3 2 tt:Jc3, hoping for with a dangerous attack;
2 . . . b2? 3 'it> e4! +-, Black has 2 . . . 'lt> b2! 23 . . . "ir"b5 24 e4 bxa2 25 'lt> g2! (weaker is 25
followed by 3 . . . 'lt>c2=. l:t a 1 ? .i. xd5 26 �xd5 'ii'b 1 + 27 'it'd 1 �b2 28
1 'it>e4 ! ! b3 "ir"c 1 "ir" b3 29 'lt> g2 i. a3=) 25 .. ."ii' d 1
2 tt:Jd5 b2 (25 . . . 'it' b2 2 6 i. xe6 ; 25 . . . .i. xd5 2 6 'it'xd5
3 tt:Jc3 'it>b3 "ir"b2 27 .l:. c7) 26 "ir"d 1 , and Black's position
4 'it>d3+- is difficult.
24 .:b1 'ii"c 5!
25 e4 �C1 +
11/6. Tal - Keres (Candidates Tou rnament,
26 'li'd1 ..lta3
Yugoslavia 1 959) .
Serious consideration should be given to
Nothing concrete is apparent for Black after
26 . . . "ir"xd 1 + 27 .l:!. xd 1 i. g4 28 l:t b 1 i. a3, and
48 . . . "ir"d 1 + ? ! 49 'lt>f5! . He has the tempti ng
if 29 'lt>f 1 , then 29 . . . i. f3 followed by 30 . . . f5.
48 . . . h5+? 49 'lt>xg5 (49 'lt>xh5? "ir"h3+ 50
'it>xg5 f6 mate) 49 . . . "ir"f6+ (49 .. .f6+ 50 'lt> h4!) Even so, White can play for a win by 29 f3!
.i. xf3 30 'lt>f2 .i. g4 3 1 'lt> e3.
50 'lt> xh5 tt:J e5 with the terrible th reat of
51 . . . "ir" h6 mate . But Paul Keres did not play
27 ..ltxe6 fxe6
this, si nce he noticed a spectacular defence 28 'it>g2;l;f±
for his opponent: 51 'it'd6! ! "ir"xd6 52 lt:Jf5+ . White plans to strengthen his position with
1 74 � PART V I I I
moves such as �d3, f2-f4 and W h3. But
whether he can achieve anything real
nevertheless remains unclear. In addition he
has to reckon with 28 . . .'ii'c4 ! ? .
Lev Polugayevsky decided t o eliminate the
d5-pawn immediately, but he underesti­
mated the counterattack that his opponent
launched in reply.
20 .txd5? .l:!.xd5!
20 . . . i..x d5? was much weaker in view of 2 1
.l:!.xd5 cxb3 2 2 .l:!. xc8 bxa2 (22 . . . .l:!. xc8 23
axb3 �xb3? 24 �g4+) 23 .l:!. c 1 ! (but not 23
.l:!.dxd8? a1 �+ 24 W g2 �axa4!;!;) 23 .. .'if b 1
2 4 .l:i. dd 1 +-. Also possible is 2 1 �g4+ W h8
22 � xd5 cxb3, and now either 23 'iVxb4
.l:!.xc1 + 24 Wg2 i.. x b4 25 .l:!.xd8+ W g7 26
axb3, or 23 .l:!. xc8 'i!Yxg4 24 .l:i.dxd8 'i!Yxa4 25
l:!xf8+ '.t g7 26 axb3 - in both cases Wh ite
can hope for a win.
21 .l:!.xd5 cxb3 22 .l:!.xc8 i.. x c8 (22 . . . bxa2?
23 .l:!. c1 ) 23 axb3?
23 �d 1 'i*'xa4 24 axb3 really was better,
although after 24 . . ."it' c6 the advantage re­
mains with Black.
23 ... i..g 4!
This is the whole point! With a small army
Helmut Pfleger creates a decisive attack
against the enemy king.
24 �h4 (24 .l:!.g5+ fxg5 25 �xg5+ i.. g 7 26
'i*'d8+ 'ii'f 8) 24 ... 'ite1 + 25 'lt>g2 i.. e 2 26 g4
"f1Yf1 + 27 'litg3 'i¥g1 + 28 Wf4 �g2 29 'ifxf6
�xf2+ 30 '.te5 �xe3+ 31 'lt>t5 'iff3+ 32 �e5
'ii'e 3+ 33 Wf5 i.. d 3+ 34 .l:!.xd3 'iVxd3+ 35
Wg5 'ife3+ 36 Wh5 i.. e7 White resigns.
1 1/8. G u l ko - Petkevich (USSR Team
Championship, Tbi lisi 1 976) .
Black's position is not easy. But if he can
manage to block the g-pawn and defend his
d5-paw n, the opponent will have to over­
come g reat technical difficulties.
The bishop cannot be al lowed to go to g8:
66 .. .tt:l g5? 67 .t g8, or 66 . . . 'lt> g5? 67 il.. g 8
lbf4 68 Wf3+-.
The natu ral move 66 . . . '.tg7? made in the
game also loses quickly, on account of a
pretty bishop manoeuvre: 67 i.. d 3! �
(67 . . . lb g5 68 i.. f 1 ! ) 68 i..f 1 ! lbg5 69 .ig2
'itte6 70 �f4 and the blockade is broken .
There followed 7 0 . . . tbt7 71 g5 lLld6 72
i.. h 3+ �e7 73 i.. g 4 lbc4 74 i..f3 'it>e6 75 g6
Black resigns.
There remains only one defence.
66 . . . 'it>f7 ! !
6 7 .id3 lbg5
68 �f1 'it>e6!
69 'it>f4
If 69 i.. g 2, then 69 . . . � d6 70 'it>f4 lbe6+.
69 . . . 'it>f6
70 �g2 lbe6+
71 �e3 lbc7
Black has parried the i m mediate th reats and
the win for Wh ite sti ll remains in question.
Ill
111/1 . Smyslov - Benko (Monte Carlo 1 969) .
29 'it>f1 ! +-
Noth ing would be achieved by 29 h4? ! .l:!.b2.
By interposing this king move , Wh ite pre­
pares f2-f4! . For example: 29 . . . .l:!. b2 30 f4
'ittf 5 3 1 h3 with unavoidable mate by the
rook on f7.
 Solutions: Tests 1 2 x 8 ctJ 1 75

29 . . . .l:txf2+ 30 'lt>xf2 'it>xg5 31 'lt>e3 'lt>g4 32 bad for Black, but 1 6 . . . i. f8 was more
b5 'it>h3 33 .l:!.c4 liJb2 (33 . . . lt:\ c5 34 .l::t x c5) 34 tenacious) 1 7 �f4 'ii'e 7 1 8 .Ue4 'ir'f8 1 9 �h4!
.l:tc2 Black resigns. f6 20 i.g6 .l:.e7 2 1 .Uh5! i.d6 22 .Ud 1 i.e5
23 i.a3 c5 24 lt:\ h4 Black resigns.
111/2. Keres - Botv i n n i k (22nd USSR
Championship, Moscow 1 955) . 111/4. Borkowski - Dieks ( E u ropean J unior
7 .ltc4! .ltxf3 Championshi p , G roningen 1 974/75) .
Now 8 'i!Vxf3 "i!Vxf3 9 lt:\ xf3 exd4 or 8 � xd5 Of cou rse, 1 c8'iV ?? .U xc8+ 2 'it> xc8 a2-+ is
i. xd 1 9 'it> xd 1 exd4 leads only to equal ity. i ncorrect, and therefore 1 .U. a5 suggests
But, of cou rse , when he made his develop­ itself. I n the variation 1 . . . b3? 2 .U. xa3 .U d3+ 3
ing move Paul Keres had reckoned with the � e7 b2 4 .U.xd3 b 1 'ili' 5 .U. h3+ W g6 6 .U g3+
capture on f3 (for the sake of which Black � h7 7 c8'ili' White wins, but the defence can
had j ust developed his bishop at g4) and be improved: 1 . . . .U. d3+ ! 2 'it> e7 l:!.c3 3 'it'd?
had prepared an excel lent rejoinder. .l::td 3+ 4 'it> c6 .l::t c 3+ 5 .U c5 (5 '>t> b7 b3) 5 . . . a2 6
8 'i!Vb3! lt:\a5?
c8'ii' a 1 'it' with a d raw.
It was better to play 8 .. .'it' d7 9 lt:\ xf3 exd4 1 .l:th5+ ! !
(9 . . . lt:\a5 1 0 � xf7+! 'it'xf7 1 1 'i!V b5+) , al­ This i ntermediate check is decisive . Wher­
though after 1 0 0-0! fol lowed by 1 1 .U.e 1 + ever the king moves , it will stand worse than
Black's position would have remained diffi­ at h7.
cult. 1 . . . ..t>g6
9 �a4+ �d7 'lt>
In the event of 1 . . . g8 2 a 5 .U.d3+ 3 'lt> e7
.l::t
1 0 .Jtxf7+! 'iii d 8 .Uc3 4 � d7 .U d3+ 5 W c6 .Uc3+ Wh ite plays 6
1 1 ii'xd7+ ..t>xd7 .U c5 , since his pawn queens with check.
1 2 lt:\xf3+- 2 l:ta5 .i:td3+
And Wh ite won . 3 ..t>e7 Ilc3
4 ..t>d7 l:Id3+
111/3. Petrosian - Taimanov (22nd USSR 5 ..t>c6 �c3+
Championship, Moscow 1 955) . 6 ..t>b7! b3
It would be a mistake to play 1 5 lt:\ xd4? 7 .l:i.xa3 b2
i.xh2+, while in the event of 1 5 exd4 ?! liJf6
the position is roughly eq ual . 1 5 .U. xd4 liJf6!
1 6 c5! lt:\ xe4 1 7 cxd6 is more i nterestin g , but
after 1 7 . . . �f5 1 8 d7 .l::t e 7 1 9 .U.fd 1 lt:\g3 20
'i'd2 lt:\ e4 it would appear that White has to
agree to a repetition of moves: 21 'ii'c 2(d3)
lt:\g3 22 'ii'd 2.
The problem is solved by the unexpected
interposition of a check, which removes the
bishop from the vulnerable e4-sq uare and
vacates the 4th ran k for the rook.
1 5 i.. h 7+! 'it>h8
1 6 .Mxd4±
The game conti n ued 1 6 . . . �c5? ( 1 6 . . . lt:\f6?
1 7 .U fd 1 lt:\ xh? 1 8 .U. xd6 and 1 9 .U. xh6 was 8 �a6+!
1 76 � PART V I I I

Now it is clear why the enemy king had to be
lured to g6.
8 ... 'iitf7 9 l:tb6 .l::tc 2 10 c8'ii Black resigns.
111/5. Bologan - Nunn (Germany 1 993) .
If the knight moves from g4, the c2-pawn is
lost. The tempting 30 . . . .U.f1 + 3 1 l:txf1 e 1 'iV is
unfavourable in view of 32 l:t xd7 (with the
th reats of 33 l:txe 1 and 33 l:txe7+ fixe? 34
hxg4) 32 . . . 'iixf1 + 33 � xf1 lt:J h2+ 34 'it> g 1
!Ixd7 3 5 �xh2± .
30 . . . lt:Jb6 ! !
3 1 �dxe2
After 31 lt:Jxb6 the idea 3 1 . . . .U.f1 +! 32 � xf1
e1 'ik gains significantly in strength , thanks
to the diverti ng of the knight from c4.
33 . . . 'iixd2 and 33 . . .'i!V e3+ are th reatened ,
and after 33 lt:Jc4 'ike6 or 33 l:td3 'ii'a 5 34
lt:Jd5 �e 1 ! Black has excellent winning
chances .
31 . . . l:!.xe2
32 !:txe2 tt:Jxc4
33 hxg4 tt:Jxb2+
34 lt:Jd6 (34 e7+ f7 35 xf7+ �xf? 36
.l:t .l::t l:!.
lt:Jd6+ � e6 37 lt:Jxb7 'it> d5 38 � f2 lt:Jc4 =t /
-+) 34 ... b6
35 l:!.e7+?
The decisive mistake ! The white pieces are
well placed and for the moment they should
not have been moved . As was shown by
Robert H u bner, 35 g3!+ was correct, depriv­
ing the black rook of the f4-square.
35 ... �f6 36 .Ub7 lt:Ja4 37 lt:Jc4 �g5! 38
lt:Jxb6 lt:Jxb6 39 l:txb6 lif4!-+ 40 .:td6 !Ic4
41 .l:!d2 �xg4 42 �2 .l:!.c3 43 �g1 h5 44
�h2 g5 45 l:te2 �h4 46 .l:!e4+ g4 47 l:te2
g3+ 48 �g1 �g4 49 �f1 .Uc4 White
resigns.
111/6. Ti mman - Ftacn i k ( P rague 1 990) .
Fi rst of all White must get rid of the pin on
the c-file (24 .l:txe5? b6 is bad for h i m ) . 24
.Uce2? does not work on account of 24 . . . a5!
25 'iib 6 (25 'i!Va3 lt:J c4-+) 25 . . .'i!V xb6 26
Ji. xb6 lt:Jc4.
If 24 ll ee2? ! , then 24 . . . b6 25 Ji. xd6 .l:!xc2 26
.l::!.x c2 l:t xd6 27 lic6 Ji.f8= . Also noth ing is
p romised by 24 Ji. d 1 ?! b6 25 Ji. xd6 .l:t xc2 26
Ji. xc2 .U xd6 27 Ji. b3 Ji. g? or 27 . . . 'iif6 with
equal ity.
24 ..tg4!
Before defending the rook, it is i mportant to
force . . . f7-f5, weakening the a2-g8 diago­
nal .
24 . . . f5
25 ..td 1 ±
Now if 25 . . . b6 there follows 26 Ji. xd6 l:!.xc2
27 Ji. xc2 .l::!. x d6 28 .l:txe5 , and the d5-pawn is
invulnerable . Black also loses a pawn after
25 . . . a5 26 'iYb3 e4 27 Ji. b6 iff6 28 l:t xc8+
lt:Jxc8 29 Ji. xa5±.
After 25 . . . lt:J e4 White has two strong replies:
26 Ji. e?!? and 26 !I xe4! fxe4 (26 . . . .U.xd5 27
'it' b3! � h8 28 Ji. e?! .U xd 1 + 29 � g2 .U.g 1 + 30
� h3! 'iYd7 31 .i. f6+ .i. g7 32 .U xc8+ 'iYxc8 32
!Ic4 'iYd7 33 'iib5 ! 'iYe6 34 ..t xg7+ 'it> xg7 35
'iYxb7+) 27 .i. g4 .U xd5 28 .i. e? .l::!.xc2 29
Ji. xd8 l::t c 1 + 30 � g2 !I xd8 31 'iie 7 .l::!.f8 32
'it'xe5 Ji. g7 33 'it'xe4±.
The game continued 25 . . . Ji.f8 26 Ji.xa7 (26
.U.xe5? .l:txc5 ! 27 J::tx c5 lt:Jf7) 26 . . . lt:Jc4
(26 . . . .U xc2 27 .i. xc2 lt:Jc8 28 Ji. c5 Ji. xc5 29
'iYxc5 .l:!. c7 30 �a5 b6 3 1 �d2) 27 d6! (27
 Solutions: Tests 1 2 x 8 ltJ 1 77

'ii'b 3 b5 or 27 . . . 'ii'a 5 28 .l:.ee2 b5) 27 ttJxd6. . •

(27 . . . l:.xd6 28 ....xc4 .l:txd 1 29 l!xc8 .l:txe 1 +

30 'ii'x e 1 'ii'x c8 3 1 'ii'x e5+-; 2 7 . . . .txd6 28
'ii'b 5±) 28 l:txc8 ttJxc8 29 .tb3+ (29 .tc5 ! ? )
2 9. . .<it h 8 ( 2 9 . . . <it g 7 3 0 .tc5 .txc5 3 1 'ii'x c5
e4 was better) 30 .tc5 .tg7 (30 . . . .txc5 3 1
'ii'x c5 e 4 3 2 'ife5+ l:tg7 3 3 .l::td 1 +-) 31 .ta4
.l::td 5 32 .i.b3 l:td7 33 .ta4 .l:ld5 34 .te3±.

111/7. A.Kuryatnikov ( 1 98 1 ) .
1 l:te7! !
A deep i ntermediate move . 1 iDb6+? is
incorrect: 1 . . . <itb7 2 .l::t x e2 (2 <itg3 <itc6 3 1 1 1n - Position afte r 6 'it>g4!+-
ttJa4 <itb5 followed by 4 . . . e 1 'ii') 2 . . . .l:tf5 3
itJd7 <ti>c6=. 1 l:txe2? <itb7 is p remature -
this position m ust be reached , but with the 111/8. Tal - Averbakh ( Riga 1 96 1 ).
rook on e 1 . The i mmediate 21 .txc5? Wxc5 22 ttJxf6+
1 . . . eH!k+ .txf6 23 'ii'xf6 hxg5 24 .i.b3 does not work i n
Forced , in view of the th reat of 2 itJb6+ . It is view o f 24 . . . <it h 7 ! 25 .i.xf7+ ( 2 5 'ifxf7+ 'ito>h6)
altogether hopeless to play 1 . . ..l:tf4+ 2 <itg3 25 . . . 'ii'd 6.
.l:tc4 3 itJb6+ <itd8 4 ttJxc4 or 1 . . . <itd8 2 M ikhail Tal finds a way of decisively strength­
.l::tx e2 . ening this idea. H e wins a very i mportant
tempo, thanks to which his rook occupies
2 .l:.xe1 'iii> b7
the d-file.
3 li::lb 6!
2 1 lt::l xf6+! ..txf6
But not 3 l:.a1 ? <li>c6 4 l:ta5 l:tf5=.
If 2 1 . . .'ii'xf6 22 'ii'xf6 .txf6 23 ttJt3 , and there
3 . . . .l:.f5 are two black pawns en prise: at c5 and h6.
3 . . . 'iit c6 4 :e5+-. 22 �ad1 'i!Ve7
4 lt::ld 7 'iii> c 6 22 . . . ltJd4 23 cxd4 cxd4 24 .txd4! hxg5 25
4 . . . Ild5 5 .l:.e6! <itc7 6 c6 .l:.d6 7 .:xd6 <itxd6 .ta7+-.
B li::l e 5+-. 23 ..txc5! .l:txd 1
5 lt::le5 +! 24 .l:txd 1
Of cou rse , not 24 .txe7? .l:txe 1 + 25 <ith2
5 l::t d 1 ? .l::td 5! 6 :Xd5 <itxd5 7 <itg5 <itc6=.
.txg5.
5 . . . 'it>xc5 24 . . . 'ifxc5
6 'it>g4! +- 25 'ifxf6 hxg5
26 ..tb3 ! +-
White's attack is i rresistible. Here 26 . . . 'ito>h7
(see diagram) no longer helps i n view of 27 .txt? tDe7 28
.l::td 8.
26 . . ..l:tb7 27 'ii'x g6+ <itf8 28 'ii' h 6+ <ite8
Black loses his rook. After 1 l:ixe2? the f 1 - (28 . . . <itg8 29 Wxg5+ or 29 .l:td6; 28 . . . <ite7 29
square would have been available to the 'ii'x g5+ <itt8 30 'ii' h 6+ <ite7 3 1 l:td5) 29 .:d5
rook. 'ii' b 6 30 'ii' h 8+ <ite7 31 'ifxc8 Black resigns.
1 78 � PART V I I I

IV IV/4. Savon - Bylino ( Kiev 1 979) .

White stands better. He cou l d , say, have
IV/1 . Simagi n - Kholmov ( Uzhgorod 1 966) . played 1 5 lD b5! ? , for example; 1 5 . . . 1i. xb5 1 6
'ikxb4± o r 1 5 . . . lDxd3 1 6 'i!t'xd3± . The best
43 . . . tt::if6 !
defence is 1 5 . . . 'ifa5t.
Black improves the position of his knight and
Vlad i m i r Savon chose a more cunning
at the same time sets a trap, into which his
alternative . He offered the advantageous
opponent falls.
exchange of light-square bishops and at the
44 11.. xc7?
same time set his opponent a trap.
44 e 3 lZ:ie4 45 g4= .
11..
15 11.. b5! tt::i x a2?
44 . . . tt::i g 4+!
1 5 . . . 1i. xb5 1 6 lD xb5 'ika5t.
White resigns. �aS+
1 6 'it>xa2
1 7 'iit b 3! 11.. x b5
IV/2. Lasker - Janowski (World Champion­ 1 8 l:ta1
ship Match, 7th game, Paris 1 909) . Black resigns.
David Janowski resigned the game . His
position is lost, of cou rse, but before
IV/5. G. Kuzmi n - Koch iev (U S S R Champi­
capitulating it made sense to try a last trap. onship Fi rst League, M insk 1 976) .
63 . . . cS! ?
32 dS!
64 tt::id 5?
An excellent trap!
This desire to give mate as soon as possible
32 . . . l:tc3?
(65 It e7) could have cost White dearly.
The advantage also remains with White
64 . . . !ixf3+!
after 32 . . . exd5 33 'ifxd5, for example:
65 'it>xf3 11.. x e4+!
33 . . . 'ikxa3 34 'ikd8+ Ji.f8 35 'i!t'xc7, or
66 'it>xe4
33 . . . ltJc6 34 Ji. d6 .l::td 7 35 Ji. b5, or 33 . . . 'i"e8
Stalemate!
34 ii. b5 'ikca 35 Ji. d6.
33 dxe6 ! ! l:txd3
IV/3. Nezhmetdinov - Konstantinov ( Ros­
3 3 . . . 'ikxa3 3 4 'i!t'd7! .
tov-on-Don 1 936) .
34 exf7+ 'it>h8
1 1 c3!
35 11.. b 2!
A positionally necessary move for Wh ite (he
Black resigns.
is planning tt::ic2 and Ji. e3) and at the same
time a trap.
IV/6. Bronstein - Korchnoi (Moscow­
11 . . . 11.. x c3+?
Leningrad match 1 962) .
12 bxc3 'i!t'xc3+
13 �d2! �xa1 3 6 'ikb8+ 'it>h7
14 1l.. b 1 ! 37 l:te8! 'i!t'xf3?
Black resigned in view of the inevitable 1 5 This is what White was hoping for, but all the
Ji. b2 . same Black's position is difficult. If 37 . . .
!:!.xb2? ! , then 3 8 .l::t h 8+ 'iit g 6 3 9 'ike5 .U c2 40
'ik h5+ 'iit f6 41 "iif 5+ 'iit e 7 42 'ike5+ with a
decisive attack .
3 8 l:th8+ 'iit g 6
 Solutions: Tests 1 2 x 8
Now noth ing is given by 39 'ii'e8+? 'ii'f 7! 40
'ii'e 4+ � g5 4 1 'ii'e 5+ �xg4oo. David Bronstein
decides matters with a spectacular tactical
blow, envisaged beforehand.
39 l:.xh6+ ! !
Black resigned i n view o f 3 9 . . . gxh6 4 0 'ii'g 8+
�f6 41 'ii'f 8+ or 39 . . . �xh6 40 'ii'h 8+ � g6 4 1
'ii' h 5+ �f6 4 2 g5+.
1vn. Portisch - Saidy (San Antonio 1 972) .
White has a significant positional advan­
tage . He plans to play lLle5 and l:td6, and
then to advance his kingside pawns. I n the
game h e was able to increase his advantage
u nh indered .
25 . . . l::.d 8?! 26 ttJes l:.xd2 27 l:.xd2 c5 28
g4! g5 (otherwise h2-h4 and g4-g5) 29 f5
c4 30 �d4 .l:tc8 31 l:te2 ltJd7 32 ltJxd7 l:.d8
33 !Id2 l:txd7+ 34 �c3 .l:tc7 35 l:td4 l:.c5 36
a4! bxa4 37 .l:.xc4 l:.a5 38 l:tc6 exf5 39 gxf5
a3 40 .l:te6+ � 41 bxa3 .l:txa3+ 42 �d4
.l:th3 43 l:txb6 Black resigns.
The attempt by 25 . . . ltJ d7?! to prevent the
invasion of the knight at e5 does not bring
any relief - Wh ite replies 26 lLl b4 with the
th reat of 27 ltJ xc6+ or 27 l:! xd7+ . If 26 . . . lLlc5
there follows 27 l:.d6 l:l ec8 28 e5! (preparing
g2-g4 or lLlc2-d4) , and 28 . . . lLl b7? is not
possible on account of 29 lLla6! . And in the
ltJ 1 79
event of the more tenacious 26 . . . ltJf6 the
play, according to Lajos Portisc h , can
develop as follows : 27 l:td6 ltJ d5+ (27 . . . l:.ec8
28 e5 lLld5+ 29 ltJ xd5+ exd5 30 l:. c 1 ! and 3 1
f5+-) 28 lLlxd5+ exd5 ( 2 8 . . . �xd6 29 e5+!
� d7 30 lLlf6+ � e 7 3 1 ttJ xe8 �xeS 32 l:.d6
� e7 33 g4+-) 29 e5 l::. d 8 30 ! bd8 �xd8 3 1
f 5 � e7 (31 . . . l:. d7 3 2 e 6 .l::td 6 33 � d4! a n d 34
� e5+-) 32 �4 l:. c8 33 h4! (but not 33 g4? !
g5+ ! ) 33 . . . l:.d8 34 g4 d4 35 � e4 c5 36 g5 h5
37 lt d 2 ! ? (zugzwang ! ) 37 . . . l:t d7 38 e6 and
39 � e5, win n i n g .
T h e best chance o f a successful defence i s
a trap!
25 . . . tbg4+ ! !
26 'it'f3?
This natu ral move th rows away the win. 26
�e2 ! is correct. The h2-pawn is invulner-
able: 26 . . . lLlxh2? 27 lLle5 (threatening 28
l1 h 1 ) 27 . . . h5 28 l:. d7+. If 26 . . . c5 there
follows 27 h3 lLlf6 28 lLle 5 ! ? (28 � e3 lLl d7)
28 . . . ttJxe4 29 l:.d7+. Black is forced to play
26 . . . l:td8 28 h3 lLlf6 28 �e3± , leading to
roughly the same difficult position as in the
game (but at any event - not worse! ) .
U nfortunately, i n t h e knight endgame arising
after 28 .. .l::tc d 7!? 29 ltJe5 l:. xd2 30 lLlxc6+
� e8 31 l:txd2 :Xd2 32 � xd2 lLlxe4+ 33 �d3
lLld6 (33 . . . lLlc5+ 34 � d4 lLl d7 35 lLla7) 34
�c3 � d7 35 lLle5+ White retains a signifi­
cant advantage .
26 . . . tbxh2+!
27 �g3 .:r.d8
28 'it'xh2
Of course , not 28 lLle5?? l:t xd2 29 !:txd2
lLlf 1 + .
28 . . . .:r.cd7
29 'it'g3 c5
30 �f3 c4
31 'it'e3 l:.xd3+
32 l:.xd3 cxd3
33 l:.xd3 l:.c8 ! ?=
33 . . . .:txd3+ ! ? also does not lose .
1 80 � PART V I I I
IV/8. Morozov - Arkhangelsky (corre­
spondence 1 985/87) .
After 36 . . . bxc2?! 3 7 .i xc2 Black's position is
difficult. For example: 37 .. .<iii' h7 (37 . . . tt:l d7
38 .ixg6; 37 . . . a4 38 'it> b4 tt:ld7 38 .i xg6) 38
.l::te 5 tt:ld7 39 .l::tx h5+ Wg8 40 .l::t x a5, and
White should gradually win.
The best practical chance is to play for a
trap.
36 . . . a4!
tt:l
Th reatening 37 . . . xd3 38 cxd3 a3.
37 'it>b4?!
White fails to see through his opponent's
idea. After the restrained 37 'it>b2 ! bxc2
(37 . . . tt:lxd3+ 38 cxd3 g5 39 .l::te 5) 38 i.xc2
he wou ld have retained a great, and
probably decisive advantage.
37 . . . tt:lxd3+
37 . . . b2? 38 Wa3 or 38 .l::t b 1 .
38 cxd3
38 gS! !
Wh ite wou ld win easily if he had time to play
f3-f4. But after the move in the game Black
releases his king from imprisonment and, by
threatening to create a passed pawn on the
kingside, gains counterplay sufficient to
save the draw.
39 �a3! (39 .l::tg 1 g4 or 39 . . . W h7; 39 hxg5
'it> h 7 ! 40 'it> xa4 h4 41 .l:!. h 1 h3 42 � b4 '>t> g6
43 f4? ! .i d5! ) 39 . . . gxh4 40 .l:!.eS 'it>h7 41
.l:!.xh5+ 'it>g6 42 .l:!.xh4 .itS! 43 d4 'it>xt6 44
dS i.d7 45 .l::te 4 i.bS 46 �b2 i.d7 47 '>t>c3
.ibS 48 l:tb4 .id7 49 Wd4 .itS! 50 t4 (50
.l::tb 6+ W g7 5 1 '>t> e5 .i c2 52 d6 a3 53 d7 a2
54 .l:!. a6 b2 55 d8 'if a 1 'if=) 50 . . . i.c2 51 'it>c3
a3 52 .l::t a 4 D raw.
v
V/1 . Pein - Plaskett (British Championship,
Swansea 1 987) .
18 . . . 'ifxe3!
1 9 txe3
1 9 i. xf5 'ir'b6 20 .i h3 'ir'c7+.
19 . . . .l:txt3+
White has a difficult positio n , si nce his
pawns are weak and his pieces are passive.
The game conti nued 20 i.g2 ll3f7 (20 . . .
.l:!.xe3! 2 1 i.f2 .l:!. xe5 2 2 g 4 tt:l g6-+) 2 1 'ir'h5
.l::ttS 22 'ife2 tt:lxeS 23 g4 tt:lt3+ 24 'it> h 1 .l::f. St6
25 .ig3 eS 26 e4 i.c6 27 ..txe5 ? ! l:!.e6! 28
.ixt3 l:txeS 29 .ig2 tt:lg6 30 .l:!.t1 .l:!.xt1 + 31
'ifxt1 dxe4 32 "ii'x c4+ 'it>h8 33 'it>g1 e3 34
.it1 .U.e4 White resigns.
V/2. Stei n - Petrosian (Moscow 1 96 1 ) .
1 9 a4!
This pawn sacrifice enables the bishop to
occupy the i mpo rtant a3-f8 diagonal . Had it
been Black to move , he would have pre­
vented this by 1 9 . . . .i a4! .
19 . . . ..ltxa4
20 l:ia1 bS
21 ..lta3+-
White has a decisive attack.
20 ... b5 21 .tal 'ii'd 7 22 .l::tt2 .i:!.b7 23 .U.at1
�d8
 Solutions: Tests 1 2 x 8
24 'ii'd 1 (th reatening 25 i.. h 5 or 25 i.. x e6
fxe6 26 'i!Vg4, but 24 'iie2! was more
accu rate) 24 . . . .l::t h 6?
Black would have lost after 24 . . . a5? 25
i..x e6! fxe6 26 'ii'g 4. As Valery Beim pointed
out, he should have sacrificed a pawn , to
divert the bishop away from the c 1 -square :
2 4 . . . b4! ! 25 i.. x b4 (24 cxb4 ii. b5) 25 . . . �g5
26 ii. a3 (26 'ife2 "if h6 27 i.. h 3 tt:J f8! with the
idea of . . . tt:J h7-g5) 26 . . . � h6 27 ii. h3 'ir'e3.
After 24 �e2 ! the e3-square would have
been covered and Black would not have
managed to gain counter-chances.
2S ii.c1 .l::t h 7 26 .i.xe6! Black resigns.
V/3. Byvshev - Tolush (Leningrad 1 954) .
1S . . . i.h8!
After the exchange of the dark-square
bishops White's attack would have become
irresistible. In such situations the g7 bishop
is more valuable than a rook. After the
acceptance of the exchange sacrifice the
position remains unclear.
1 6 gS lt:Jd7 1 7 ii.xf8 �xf8 1 8 f4 tt:Jcs 1 9 .l::t h 4
( 1 9 .l::t h 6 Ji. g4) 1 9 . . . hS! 20 gxh6 Wh7oo 2 1
.l:'!.g 1 ii.f6 22 .l::t h 2 a S 23 'ir'e3 a 4 24 ii. c 4 .l::t b 8
2S eS ii.h8 26 ii.d3 (26 a3! ) 26 .. .'ifd8 27
'ifg3 tt:Jxd3+ 28 cxd3 dxeS 29 fxeS a3! 30
'iVe3? (30 .l::te 1 ) 30 . . . .i.fS! 31 d4 cS 32 dS? !
(32 dxc5) 32 . . . axb2+ 33 .l::tx b2 .l::t x b2 34
�xb2 'it'b8+ 3S �a1 .i.xeS 36 'ifxcS?
ltJ 1 81
36 .. .'ii'a 7! ! Wh ite resigns.
V/4. Geller - G l igoric (USSR v. Rest of the
World , Belgrade 1 970) .
If Black had time to play 23 . . . tt:Jc6 , he would
equalise. This can be only be prevented by
the sacrifice of two pieces for a rook and
paw n , after which Wh ite's central pawns
begi n advanci ng .
23 tt:JxeS! .!:!.xes
24 i.xes �xes
2S f4 �e6
After 25 . . .'iV c3 26 'iff2 the black queen
would have been trapped . For example:
26 . . . tt:Jc6 27 e5 tt:J e8 28 .l::t e 3 'i!Vb2 29 tt:Jxh6+
gxh6 30 .i. h7+ and 31 'ifxb2+-.
26 eS±
There fol lowed : 26 . . . tt:Je8 (26 . . . lt:Je4 27
.U.xe4! 'tli'xf5 28 .l::te e1 1We6 29 f5 or 28 . . . lW h5
29 'it'd3) 27 lt:Jh4! (weaker is 27 lt:Jd6 lt:Jxd6
28 exd6 lWf6 29 d7 tt:Jc6 30 .l::t e 8 lt:J d4! )
2 7. . . tt:Jc6 2 8 'it'd3 g 6 29 f S gxfS 3 0 tt:JxfS
(th reatening 31 tt:J e7+) 30 .. .'ii' g 6 (30 . . . ii. g7
31 tt:Jxg7 � xg7 32 'if h7+ �f8 33 ii.f5+-) 31
'ife2 ! (31 'ifd7!?) 31 . . .'�i"gS?! (31 .. .'i!V e6 32
'ife4 'ikg6 33 .l::t e 3 or 33 .l::td 7 with a winning
position for White) 32 h4 'iVf4 33 g3 �xeS
34 'it'g4+ l!Vg7 3S tt:Jxg7 lt:Jf6 36 'iff4 ii.xg7
37 'ifc7 .l::t b 8 38 .l:'!.d6 lt:Jg4 39 .U.xc6 ii.d4+ 40
�f1 Black resigns.
1 82 � PART V I I I

V/5. Diez del Corral - Ciocaltea (Malaga Black (subsequently the weakness of the
1 981 ) . white pawns will tel l ) . Boris Spassky found
2 2 ..ltxh5! gxh5 the only way, and a far from routine one, of
23 l:txg8+ 'it>xg8 fighting for the i nitiative : he sacrificed a rook
24 'ifxh5 for fou r pawns.
White intends to include his rook i n the 20 l:th5 ! ! tt:Jxh5
attack and then advance his h-pawn. It is 2 1 gxh5 tt:Jf8
hard for Black to counter this plan, since his Weaker is 21 . . . ltJ e5 22 ltJ xe4.
pieces are badly placed. 22 ttJxe4!
24 .. J:ta7 25 lDf5! J.xf5 26 l!g3+ Wf8 27 The logical continuation of White's planned
'ifxf5 ltJd7 28 h5+- 'i;e7 29 l:Ig7 ltJf8 30 h6 operation .
.l:tb7 31 h7 ltJxh7 32 .U.xf7+! Black resigns. 22 . . . 'i!t'xe4
23 'ifxe4 l:txe4
V/6. Stahlberg - Stei n (Yerevan 1 965) . 24 ..ltxd6 l:tbe8
1 4 . . .'ii' xd 1 + 1 5 l:txd 1 l:. e8 leads to equality, J:t ll 'i; J.
24 .. c8 25 xg5+ h8 26 e5+ .
but Black is rightly hoping for more. 25 l:txg5+ 'it>h8
14 . . . tt:Jd7 ! ! 26 ..txc5 f6
1 5 ..ltxf8 26 . . . b6? 27 J. d4+ 'i; h7 28 !'t g7+ 'i; h6 29
White's position is also not eased by 1 5 J.f2 .U.xf7 .
'ir'g5 1 6 0-0 lbe5 with an attack. 27 .l:tg3
15 . . . 'ifh4+! .lt
27 d4? .U. xd4.
16 'it>d2 27 . . . b6
If 1 6 g3, then 1 6 .. .fxg3 with the th reat of 28 ..ltd4
1 7 . . . g2+. After 1 6 'i;f 1 J. xf8 White's rooks
are separated . Therefore he removes his
king to the queenside, but there too it does
not find peace .
16 . . . ..ltxf8
After sacrificing the exchange, Leonid Stein
has gained complete control of the dark
squares. The i nitiative is now completely on
his side.
17 'ii'e 1 'ii'e7 1 8 'i;c2 ltJe5 1 9 !'tc1 J.g7 20
ltJd5 'ii'c5 21 'ii'g 1 'ir'xc4+ 22 'i;b1 'ii'd 3+ 23
l:tc2 (23 'i;a1 lDc4) 23 . . .J.e6 24 j_e2? (24
'ii'd 1 'ii'a 6�) 24 . . .'ir'xe4 25 lbc3 'ir'f5 26 'ir'c1
lbc6-+ , and Black won .
An unusual position has arise n , hard to
vn. Spassky - Kholmov (24th USSR evaluate .
Championship, Moscow 1 957) . 28 . . . lbh7 29 'i;d2 .:.g8 30 .l:tg6 .lte8 31
White appears to have no clear plan , J.d3! J.xg6 32 hxg6 .l::t x d4! 33 cxd4 lDf8 34
whereas the opponent is i ntending . . . b7-b5 c5 bxc5 35 dxc5 ltJd7! (35 . . . ltJxg6? 36
or . . . 'i; g7 and . . . l:t h8 with advantage to .lt xg6 l:txg6 37 c6+-) 36 c6 lbb6 37 e4 Wg7
 Solutions: Tests 1 2 x 8 lb 1 83

38 .ta6 ! ? 'iit x g6 39 a4! 'iitf7 40 a5 ltJa8 41 bishop i n the play places Black i n a difficult
.tc4 .l:!.d8 D raw. There could have followed positi o n .
42 f4! 'iit e 7 43 e5 fxe5 44 fxe5 ltJ c7 45 d6+ 51 . . . 'ii' b 1 52 .t a 3 'ii' b 7? (essential was
I:!.xd6+ 46 exd6+ 'iit x d6=. 52 . . . 'ir'g 1 + 53 lt:Jg2 f4+ 54 'iit xf4 ir'h2+ 55
'iit e 3 lLlf5+ 56 'iit d3 ltJd7 57 'ir'c 1 ±) 53
V/8. Korchnoi - Geller (USSR Team tt:Jxd5! , and Wh ite won easi ly.
Championship, Moscow 1 963)
19 . . . 'ifc4! Vl/2. G roszpeter - Kupreich i k (Mi nsk
When Black made this energetic move , it 1 982) .
was essential to prepare a convincing Little is promised by 2 1 . . . f4 22 exf4 .l:txf4 23
rejoinder to the opponent's reply. g3 .Uf6 (23 . . . .l:tf3 24 ir'g4) 24 'ir'e2 .l:t e8 25
20 g4 lt:Jxg4! 'iit g 2 followed by .l:!. ad 1 .
20 . . . d7? 21 g5 followed by 22 ltJe4, and
.t 21 . . . .l:!.a6!
the queen sortie ends i n fail u re . Black concentrates all his forces for an
21 lt:Je4 attack on the king . He i ntends . . . .l:r. g6,
21 fxg4 ir'xg4+ 22 ir'g2 (22 'iit h 1 .l:!. xc3 and . . . .t d6 and . . . 'ir'e5. As usually happens in
23 . . . .t e4+) 22 . . . ir'xg2+ 23 'iit x g2 .t h3+! 24 the m iddlegame , the presence of opposite­
Wxh3 .l:t xf1 25 ltJe4 (25 .i:!. xf1 l:i.xc3 26 .lif3 colour bishops strengthens the attack.
.t h6) 25 . . . .lifxc 1 ! 26 .t xc1 .t f8, and White 22 !:tfd1 ltg6 23 ir'e2 .td6 24 .tc4 ir'e5
loses another paw n . 25 g3
21 . . . lt:Jxe3
22 �xc4 lt:Jxc4+
Black's pieces control the whole board . His
subsequent plan is to attack the f3-point.
23 ir'c1 b5 24 l:tf2 .l:!.f7 25 ir'g5 .l:!.cf8 26
lLlbd2 .tf6 27 'ii'g 3 .te7 28 .l:!.e2 lLlb6 29
tt:Jc3 .tea 30 .l:!.e3 .l:!.f5 31 ltJde4 tt:Jc4 32 .l:!.d3
.td8 33 ltJd 1 llf4 34 a4 .1b6+ 35 'iit g 2 .tf5
36 ir'e1 g5 37 tt:Jdc3 g4 38 fxg4 .txg4 39
axb5 axb5 40 'iitg 3 .tf5 (40 . . . tt:J b2 ! ) 41 'iit g 2
Wh8 42 l:tg3 .td4 43 h3 .tg6 44 ir'e2 .U8f7
45 ir'e1 I:!.7f5 46 'ir'c1 .txc3 47 tt:Jxc3 .l::!.f2+
48 'iit g 1 ltJd2 49 'ir'a3 Itf1 + 50 'Ot>h2 ltJf3+ 51
1ixf3 .l::!. 5xf3 52 ir'a8+ 'iit g 7 53 ir'c6 .l:!.1 f2+
54 'iit g 1 l:tc2 55 ir'd7+ 'iit h 6 56 lLld1 .Ug3+ 25 ... f4 (now is the time!) 26 exf4 'ii'xf4
White resigns. (th reatening . . . ii. c5 and . . . e4-e3) 27 l:txd6
ir'xd6 28 'it'xe4 ir'c5 29 ir'g2 .l:!.gf6 30 .l:la2
VI l:tf3 31 .l:!.e2 h6 and Black won .

VV1 . lnkiov - Ambroz (Zonal Tou rnament, Vl/3. Saverym uttu - Van der Berg (Arosa
Baile Herculane 1 982) . 1 972) .
5 1 i.. c 1 ! 1 2 �a4 ! !
Th reatening .t a3. The i nclusion of the White finds t h e most energetic way of
1 84 � PART V I I I

exploiting his lead in development - he 29 'it>g2

includes his queen's rook i n the play along 29 � e 1 ?? lt:if3+ ; 29 .i. e3?? .l::!. x e3 30 .l::!. xe3
the 4th rank. There is the terrible th reat of 1 3 lt:ig4+.
b5 axb5 1 4 � h4. 29 . . . ltJg4
12 ... lt:ice7 13 b5 lt:ig6 14 g4 'it'h3 15 l:!.e1 After 30 c7 'ii'b 7+ 31 W h3 h5 the position is
(th reatening 1 6 .i.f1 ) 1 5 ... lt:ih4 1 6 lt:ixh4 unclear.
'ifxh4 1 7 b6 cxb6 1 8 g5 'iVh3 1 9 e6 dxe6 20 In the game Black played much more
.l::!.e3 Black resigns. weakly.
28 . . . l:txe2+? (28 . . . lt:i g4+? 29 'it>f3 was com·
Vl/4. P. Heuacker ( 1 929) pletely bad) 29 'it>xe2 l:te8+ ( Black could
The obvious 1 lt:if5? '>t> b2 is incorrect, si nce have considered 29 . . . 'iV e7+ 30 'it> d2, and
2 'ii'b7+ '>t> a2 3 lt:id4 leads to stalemate after now not 30 . . . .l::i. d 8+? 3 1 'it> c 1 l:t xd 1 + 32 'i!Vxd 1
3 . . . c1 "ii' 4 "ii'b 3+ '.t a1 5 lt:i c2+ �xc2 6 "it'xc2 . 'iifc5+ 33 'it> b 1 +-, but 30 . . . .l::tc 8 3 1 c7 lt:if3+
The knight has to head for d3! 32 '>t> c 1 lt:i g5) 30 'it>d2 'iVc8 31 'it>c1 lt:ig4 32
c7 h6 33 'it'c6 'it>h7 (33 . . . lt:if6 34 �xe8+!) 34
1 ltJh5 ! ! 'it>b1
"ir'd7 Black resigns.
2 "ifb7+ '>t>a2
3 'ii' h 1 'it>b2
4 ltJf4 c1 "if Vln. Pchiolkin - Pokrovsky ( Russian
5 tt:ld3+ Federation Correspondence Championship
1 980/83) .
VV5. Keene - Stein (Hastings 1 967/68) . 30 .te3 ! !
Black must include his queen i n the attack. This u nexpected bishop manoeuvre t o h 6
With this aim 30 . . . c6? ! is unconvi ncing: 3 1 places the opponent i n a difficult position.
bxc6 'i!Vb6+ 3 2 d4 exd4 3 3 �b5! . 30 . . . �c4
30 . . . a6! !-+ 30 . . . .l::!. x e3 3 1 .l::i.f 8+ ! .l::i. xf8 32 gxf8 "ir'+ .i.xf8 33
'i!Vg4+ .i. g7 34 'iVc8+ with mate ; 30 . . . 'iVb2 31
Th reatening . . . 'i!Vb8-a7+ . If 3 1 bxa6, then
l:t 7f2+-.
31 . . . 'ifb8 32 axb7 'it'xb7 and 33 . . . 'i!Va7+ .
31 lt:ih2 lt:ixh2 32 'it>xh2 'iVg5! 33 'it>xh3 31 .th6! �e4+
.l:i.h7+ 34 'it>g2 it'h6 and White resigned in 32 .l::. 1 f3 !
view of 35 'it> g2 'iVh6. 3 2 .l::!. 7 f3? � cc2 .
32 . . . .l:!.e1 +
32 . . J::tf2 33 'it> g 1 ; 32 . . . l:t b2 33 'it'd3! .
Vl/6. Belyavsky - Short (Candidates Tou r­
nament, Montpellier 1 985) . 33 "ifxe1 "ifxe1 +
34 'it>g2 'ii'e4
White has a strong passed c-pawn, which to
35 Wh3+-
some extent compensates for the i nsecure
position of his kin g . If he should manage to
transfer his king to the queenside, away
from the black knight, it will be safe there,
and the c-pawn will ensure Wh ite the (see diagram)
advantage .
However, Black is able t o detain t h e king o n
the kingside.
28 . . . �b6+ !
 Solutions: Tests 1 2 x 8
By exchanging all the pieces on f8, White
obtains a won pawn ending .
35 .. Ji'b4 36 l:tf2 i.. e7 37 l:lf8+ i.. xf8 38
l:xf8+ .l:txf8 39 gxf8'iV+ �xf8 40 i.. xf8 'it>xf8
41 'it>g4 'it>e7 42 'iottfs 'it>d6 43 'it>e4 b5 44
axb6 as 45 b7 'it>c7 46 'it>xes a4 47 'it>e6 a3
48 d6+ 'it>xb7 49 d7 and Wh ite won .
Vl/8. Bronstein - Boleslavsky (Candi­
dates Play-off Match , 1 st game , Moscow
1 950) .
1 9 .id2 ! !
A subtle manoeuvre , creating the th reats of
20 l:. b5 and 20 i.. b 4 "i/c7 2 1 l:lc 1 .
The obvious 1 9 .l:t b5?! is weaker: 1 9 . . . �a3
20 'ii'b 1 i.. d 7 21 l:.b4 .l:. ac8 22 i.. c 1 l:t xc 1 +
23 tt:J xc1 ao. And 20 i.. c 2? (instead of 20
'ii'b 1 ) 20 . . . :ac8 (20 . . . ktdc8 ! ? ) 21 i.. c 1 'ii'd6
22 'ikb 1 does not work in view of 22 . . . i.. d 7!
23 l:t xa5 'ii'c7-+ .
19 . . . b6
1 9 . . . i.. d 7 20 i.. b 4 'ii'e3 21 I!d 1 i.. a 4 22
i.. xa5 i.. x d 1 23 'ii'xd 1 ±.
20 i.. b4 "ikc7
20 . . .'ir' e3 21 'ii'd 4! 'ii'x d4 22 tt:J xd4 i.. x d5 23
exd5 I!xd5 24 i.. e 4+-.
21 .l:.c1 "ir'b7
21 . . .'it' d7 22 lt:Jd4 i..f7 23 i.. b 5 'ii'b7 24 i.. x a5
(24 tt:Jc6) 24 . . . bxa5 25 i.. c 6±.
22 'ii' b 1 !
l2J 1 85
A decisive double attack: both 23 dxe6 and
23 i.. x a5 are th reatened . If 22 . . . i.. c 8, then
23 lt:J f4, preparing to destroy the black king's
defences by 24 e5 (23 .. .'ir' b8 24 i.. x e7 is
bad for Black) .
22 .. J!ab8 23 dxe6 tt:Jc6 24 i.. c 3 tt:Jes 25
i.. b S l::t b c8 26 i.. x es .l:txc1 + 27 'ii'x c1 fxe5
28 i.. d 7 "ii'a 6 29 lt:Jg3 'ii'x a2 30 h4 .litf8 31
'ii'g 5 .l:tf6 32 'ii'xf6! Black resigns.
VII
Vll/1 . Simagin - Kotov (Moscow 1 944) .
36 h5!±
Before going i nto the endgame it is usefu l to
cramp the opponent's kingside as much as
possible. Otherwise Black h imself would
have played . . . h6-h5 and . . . g7-g6.
36 .. .'ii'e 6 37 'ii'd 7 l:te7 38 "i/xe6 fxe6 39 'it>f3
.l:lc7 40 'it>e4 'it>f7 41 .l:.d6 'it>e7 42 f5 exf5+
43 'it>xf5±, and Wh ite won .
Vll/2. Botv i n n i k - Van Scheltinga (Wij k
aan Zee 1 969) .
1 3 g4!±
This energetic move emphasises the weak­
ness of the e4-paw n. Black's position is
difficult: 1 4 g5 is th reatened, and if 1 3 . . . h6? !
there fol lows 1 4 h4. The best chances of
creating cou nterplay were promised by
1 3 . . . a5! 1 4 b5 .l::t e 8 1 5 g5 tt:Jfd5 1 6 tt:Jcxe4
i..f 5 .
1 3 . . . tt:Jbd5? 1 4 g5 tt:Jxe3 ( 1 4 . . . tt:Jxc3 1 5 gxf6
tt:Jxd 1 1 6 fxe7+-) 1 5 fxe3 ( 1 5 gxf6 'ii'xf6ao)
1 5 . . . tt:Jd5 ( 1 5 . . . tt:Je8 1 6 tt:J dxe4) 1 6 tt:Jxd5
'ii'x g5 1 7 tt:Jxe4 'ii'x d5 1 8 i..f 3, and White
won .
Vll/3. Fischer - Uhlmann ( Buenos Aires
1 960) .
21 . . . g4! !
The opening of the h2-b8 diagonal would
1 86 � PART V I I I
have given White a very dangerous attack.
By sacrificing a pawn , Wolfgang U hlmann
shuts the opponent's powerful dark-square
bishop out of the game.
22 hxg4
If 26 .ixg4, then 26 . . . lDe4 followed by
27 . . .f5. 26 f5 gxf3 27 .i xd6 fxg2 is no good
for White.
22 . , . f5! ao
2 3 g 5 .l:te7 2 4 .ig3 .tea 25 'ii'e 3 lDe4! 26
.ixe4 dxe4 27 'itf2 (27 d5!?) 27 . . . l:!eh7
(27 . . . 'ii'd5) 28 I:tfb1 (28 d5!?) 28 . . . 'ii'd 5
Black has sufficient positional compensa­
tion for the sacrificed pawn. Subsequently
he outplayed his opponent and won .
Vll/4. Smyslov - Gurgenidze (34th USSR
Championship, Tbilisi 1 966/67) .
45 h4!+-
The enemy pawn must be fixed on the
vulnerable h5-square , in order to tie one of
the black pieces to its defence or to have the
possibility of creating a dangerous passed
h-pawn .
I n the game White went wrong by playing 45
'it>d5? , and after 45 . . . h4! the position be­
came drawn. If Wh ite takes his king to the
a7-pawn, Black will shut it in the corner by
. . . 'it> c7, while in the event of g2-g3 Black,
after exchanging pawns , can easily block
the passed g-pawn . I n addition , for a d raw it
is sufficient for him to give up his knight for it,
and then return with his king to b8 (with
pawns at a6 and a7, the extra bishop does
not give a win) . The continuation was 46
.ie2 lDfB 47 'it>e4 'it>g5 48 'it>d5 Wf6 49 .ig4
lDg6, and the game ended in a d raw.
Vll/5. Portisch - Smyslov (3rd match
game, Portoroz 1 97 1 ) .
White has prepared e2-e4. The question is
whether to play this immediately, or after the
preparatory exchange of pawns on d5. Only
the second way is correct.
1 4 cxd5!
If now 1 4 . . . cxd5? ! , then 1 5 e4 e6 1 6 e5 lDh7
( 1 6 . . . lD e8 1 7 .i a3) 1 7 lD b5±. 1 4 . . . lDxd5 is
better, but even then after 1 5 e4 White's
position is preferable: 1 5 . . . tD xc3 1 6 .txc3
.l:tad8 1 7 .l:t ad 1 ! or 1 5 . . . lD b4 1 6 'ii'd 2 llad8
1 7 lD a4! ! .
1 4 e4? (hoping for 1 4 . . . e 6 ? 1 5 e5 lD h5 1 6
f4±) was significantly weaker because of
1 4 . . . dxc4! 1 5 bxc4 lDb6+.
White's centre has become vulnerable. For
example, 1 6 exf5? "ii'xc4 or 1 6 c5? ! lDc4.
The best defence was 1 6 d5 lDfd7 1 7 lDd1 !?
( 1 7 f4 fxe4 1 8 .i xe4 lD c5; 1 7 'ii'e2 .i d4+ 1 8
'it> h 1 lDe5 1 9 .l:ad 1 c5) 1 7 . . . lD a4! 1 8 .ixg7
'ii'x g7 1 9 lDe3 tD ac5 20 'ii'd 2 fxe4 21 fxe4
.:txf1 + 22 : xf1 IUS+.
The game conti nued: 1 6 c5? lDc4 1 7 .ic1
( 1 7 .l:tab1 !?) 1 7 ... .l:tad8 1 8 .l:tb1 ( 1 8 exf5 gxf5
1 9 'it'xf5 l:1xd4+) 1 8 . . . lDd7 1 9 d5 ( 1 9 l:txb7
tDxc5 ; 1 9 lD e2 tD xc5 20 'ii'c2 .l:txd4 21 lDxd4
.i xd4+ 22 � h 1 'it> h7iii ) 1 9 . . . b5! 20 dxc6 (20
cxb6 lDdxb6 2 1 f4 fxe4 22 .i xe4 .i xc3 23
'ii'x c3 cxd5) 20 . . . lDxc5 21 'ii'c 2 a6+, and
Black won .
Vll/6. Azmaiparashvi l i - Lputian (Riga
1 980) .
27 g4! 'it>g8
'ii'
Black loses after 27 . . . xf4? 28 g5 'ii'xe5 29
 Solutions: Tests 1 2 x 8 ttJ 1 87

'ii'x h6+ � gB 30 ..t h7+. The best defence is

offered by 27 . . . I:!. d8! 28 g5 'ii'g7.
28 g5 hxg5
29 ..th7+ 'iii>f8
30 fxg5 �g7
31 g6±
Black's position is difficult. For example,
3 1 . . . ..t d7? is bad i n view of 32 .l::t e 8+! and 33
'ii'c 5+.
I n the game Zurab Azmaiparashvil i did not
find the correct plan and he conceded the
initiative to the opponent: 27 f5? ..td7!
(27 . . . 'ii'x e5? 28 'ii'x h6+ � gB 29 f6+-) 28
.l:te7 ..te8 ! + 29 ..txb7 ..tc6+ 30 ..txc6 Despite Black's apparent activity, his posi­
ifxc6+ 31 .l:t7e4 l:i.b8 32 'ii'xf7?? (32 'ii'f 3; tion is d ifficult. His d4-pawn is vulnerable,
32 � g 1 ) 32 ... ifxe4+! White resigns. while White has two strong bishops, control
of the c-file and the prospect of creating a
Vll/7. G ligoric - Lj u bojevic ( 1 0th match dangerous passed pawn on the q ueenside.
game, Belgrade 1 979) . 20 ... .l:tad8 2 1 .l:!.c5 'it'd6 (2 1 . . . ife6) 22 .l:!.ac1
White has to reckon with 1 5 . . . d4 ( 1 6 exd4 ..tb7 23 .l:!.c7 (23 ..t b5! � e5?! 24 ifxd4! +-)
cxd4 1 7 ..t xd4? 'ii'd5-+) and with 1 5 . . . tt:l e4. 23 . . .I!.e7 24 l:txe7 'ii'xe7 25 l:te1 'it'd? 26
For example, 1 5 l:tc 1 ? ! tt:l e4 1 6 'ii' g 4 tt:i xc3 ..tb1 ? (26 b5! and 27 a4± ; 26 'ii'f 2 ! and 27
1 7 ll xc3 c4= . 'ii' h 4±) 26 ... ..tc6! 27 .l:lc1 g6 28 ifxd4 ifxd4
Nothing is g iven by the tempti ng 1 5 ..t xf6 ? ! 29 ..txd4 llxd4 30 .l:txc6 .l:!.d2 ! , and the
ifxf6 1 6 ifc2 on account o f 1 6 ... c4! 1 7 game ended i n a d raw.
..t xh7+ � hB 1 8 ..tf5 .l::ta bB ! = .
1 5 b4! d4! Vll/8. Borisenko - Tal (USSR Champion­
ship Semi-Final , Riga 1 955) .
1 5 . . . c4 1 6 ..t c2± .
If Black manages to play 27 . . . tt:i b5, White
1 6 exd4 cxd4
will have to exchange on b5 , which is
1 7 .ltb2!
undesirable. If 27 a4? ! there follows 27 . . . bxc3
1 7 xd4? 'ii'd5-+ .
..t
28 'ir'xc3 l:t b4 29 ..t c4 'it' h6 30 ..t g3 g5 with
17 . . . 'iid 5 cou nterplay. In the event of 27 c4 a4! ?;!: it is
1 8 f3 tt::l g 4 not easy for Wh ite to breach the opponent's
1 8 . . . a5 1 9 l:t c 1 axb4 20 axb4 ::t abS 21 Ik4 defences.
"ife6 22 :txd4 'ii'e 3+ 23 � h 1 .i. b5 24 ..t c3!±,
27 a3! !±
and White converted his extra pawn (Giigo­
Th reatening 28 axb4 axb4 29 .l::t a 7. If
ric-Bukic, Doni M ilanovac 1 979) .
27 . . . bxc3 28 'ifxc3 the black rook (in
1 9 ifd2 contrast to the 27 a4? ! variation) does not
1 9 ..t e4? 'ii'e 5. have the important b4-square . After 27 . . . b3
19 . . . tt::le3 28 a4 fol lowed by 29 I!. ab1 the b3-pawn is
20 .ilfc1 ± most probably doomed .
27 . . . f5 (this attempt to sharpen the play
(see diagram) does not bring Black any relief) 28 axb4
1 88 � PART V I I I

axb4 29 cxb4 .l:::!. x b4 30 e5! .l:::!. b 7 31 e6+­
li:Jh6 32 .l:tab1 .l:::!. e b8 33 �xb7 1lxb7 34 j,c4
.l:!.b2 35 �e3 .l:tc2 , and now the most rel iable
way to win was 36 .l::I b 1 ! .l:::!. b 2 37 'it'c 1 .l:. xb1
38 �xb1 +-.
White has arranged his pieces in the best
way possible. Everything is ready for the
decisive breakthroug h .
35 c5! 'i¥xc5 (35 . . . .l:t xd5 36 .l:t xb6; 35 . . . bxc5
36 i¥c6 ! ) 36 Ji.b7! .l:txb7 37 .l:txd8 j,f6 38
l:!.h8 Black resigns.

VIII Vlll/2. Timman - Diez del Corral (Olym­

piad , Luzern 1 982) .
Vlll/1 . Estrin - Kletsel (World Correspond­ 1 9 'i.fg4!
ence Championship 1 975/78) . Weaker was 1 9 g4?! .l:t ae8.
Black intends to take o n f4 and then play 19 . . . 'ifxg4
. . . d6-d5 with a good game. Yakov Estri n
20 hxg4±
frustrates this plan by a timely exchange on
b6, thanks to which he seizes control of the By exchanging queens White has attacked
l ight squares and gains the advantage. the e4-pawn, deprived the knight of the f5-
square, and opened the h-fi le.
16 i..x b6! �xb6
1 7 i..c4± 20 . . . i.f4 2 1 Wd2 ! �f6 ? ! (2 1 . . . � ae8) 22
Ji.xe4 h6 23 .l:tdf1 .l:taf8 24 �f3 i.xe3+ 25
The d5 and f7 poi nts are weak. It is
'ltxe3 �8f7 26 .l:'tfh3 h5 and Black resigned.
interesting to follow how subseq uently White
exploited the benefits of his position.
17 . . . exf4 18 i.xf7 �f8 19 i.e6+ �b8 20 Vlll/3. Petursson - Helmers (Reykjavik
�d3 'ir'a5 21 �hd1 'i¥e5 22 a3 d5 (otherwise 1 981 ) .
� b1 and then li:J d5) 23 lt:Jxd5 lt:Jxd5 24 42 . . . l:ta1 !
i.xd5! (Wh ite is playi ng for an attack and 43 1:!.xa1 i.. x aH
therefore he avoids the exchange of rooks) After the exchange of rooks the d6-pawn
24 . . .i.f6 (24 . . . �xf5 25 'ir'f3 � d7 26 i. e4 has become far less dangerous, si nce the
�xd3 27 .l:::!.x d3 ifc8 28 � xb7!+-) 25 c3 �d6
black king gains the opportunity to attack it,
26 'Yl*'f3 �fd8 27 g4 fxg3 28 hxg3 ife7 29 without fearing the enemy rook.
�b1 .U.e8 30 �a2 �d7 31 iff4+ .51.e5 32
44 We2 We8 45 i.f4 li:Jf6 , and the game
ifa4 �ed8 33 c4 �a7 34 .l:::!. b3 b6
ended in a draw.

Vlll/4. Alekhine - Euwe (Amsterdam 1 936) .

White could have saved the game, by
exchanging all the pieces.
42 tt:Jxe4! �xe4
42 . . . dxe4 43 � g4 and 44 �f4=.
43 l:txe4! dxe4
44 �g4 �h7
45 �f4 �g6
46 'it>xe4 �h5
47 'it>f5 ! c5
48 b3 a6
 Solutions: Tests 1 2 x 8
49 a3!
Black is the fi rst to run out of reserve pawn
moves and he is obliged to agree to the
exchange of the kingside pawns, leading to
a d raw.
Alexander Alekhine avoided going i nto the
pawn ending, but the rook endgame proved
difficult.
42 .l:tc1 ? lLlxg5+ 43 hxg5 .l:te6+ 44 'it>g4 'it>f7
45 .l:tc3 a5 46 �3 'lt>g6 47 .l:ta3 <;t>xg5 48
.l:txa5 Wf5 49 a4 g5 50 l:taB l:te4 51 .l:!.fB+
'it>e5 52 .l:teB+ Wd4 53 .l:tbB! c5 54 b4? (54
a5 ! ? ) 54 ... c4 55 a5 :e3+ 56 Wf2 .l:ta3 57
.!:!.gB c3 58 :xg5 .l:ta2+ 59 Wf3 c2 60 .l:tg1 ,
and White resigned .
Vlll/5. 011 - Ubi lava (Moscow 1 983) .
Black's objective is to consolidate and
coordinate his forces. To resolve this suc­
cessfully it is important to retain the rook that
is defending his rear.
21 . . . .l:teB!
I ntending 22 . . . i.f6 followed by . . . e6-e5 .
22 .l:rbB .l:iddB!
But not 22 . . . i.f6? 23 .l:t xc8 ! .
2 3 'i!/c7 ..tf6+
For the moment the c6-pawn is invulner­
able: 24 'ii'x c6? i. d7-+ .
I n the game Black exchanged rooks, which
led to great difficulties. White broke through
with his queen into the opponent's rear and
won the a6-pawn, obtaining a dangerous
passed a-pawn. It should be mentioned that,
when there is an u nusual material balance
like this, exchanges are normally advanta­
geous to the side with the queen - which
finds it easier to d isplay its power on a more
empty board .
21 ... .l:txf1 +? 22 .l:txf1 .l:tdB (22 . . . .l:t e7 23 'it'd6
i. d7 24 g3 and 25 h4+-) 23 'it'c7 i.d7 24
..!:!.d 1 lLlfB 25 'it'a5 i.f6 26 'it'xa6± e5 27 'ilia7
(27 a4! ? e4 28 'it'c4+ i. e6 29 'ife2) 27 . . . e4
28 <;t>g 1 i.g5 29 'ifc5 i.h6 (29 . . . lLle6 30
ttJ 1 89
'ilt'c4) 30 g4 (30 �e7 came i nto considera­
tio n : 30 . . . .l:t e8 31 l:txd7 .l:t xe7 32 .l:t xe7 or
30 . . . i. e3+ 31 W h 1 iL b6 32 'iWxe4) 30 ... if4
(30 . . . e3! 3 1 g5 e2 32 .ll e 1 lLl e6) 31 .U.f1 g5
(31 . . . lLl e6! ? 32 �c4 i. e3+ 33 W h 1 i. b6 34
'it'xe4) 32 l:txf4! lLle6 33 'tWe7! gxf4 34 g5
i.cB 35 g6 ..!:!.d1 + 36 <;t>f2 (36 '>t> g2? f3+ 37
'it>f2 .!:!.d2+ 38 � e 1 f2+) 36 . . . e3+ 37 'it>f3?!
(after 37 '>t> e2 l::t d 2+ 38 <;t>f3 .!:!.f2+ 39 'it> e4
lLlg5+ 40 'it> e5 e2 41 Wf6 White wins; it
appears that Black can nevertheless save
h imself with 38 . . . l:t xh2 ! ) 37 . . . lLld4+? (37 . . .
..l:tf1 + ! 3 8 � g2 .l:t f2+ 39 W g 1 lLl g5! 4 0 'it'xg5
iL h3=, or 38 <;t> e4 lLlg5+ 39 'it> e5 e2 40 <;t>f6
lLl e4+ 41 W e5 lLl g5=) 38 Wxf4 .l:tf1 + 39 We4
lLle6 40 �xe3 c5 41 'ilt'h7+ WfB 42 'i!VhB+
Black resigns.
Vlll/6. Korchnoi - Ti mman (5th match
game, Hi lversum 1 982) .
White wants to simplify the position by 37
'i*'e2 and 38 ..l:td3. The attempt to prevent
this plan by 36 ... 'i!t'd4? (with the idea of 37
'it'e2? 'iWa1 ) , made by Jan li m man in the
game, did not succeed . Wh ite replied 37
.l:tc3! (renewing the positional th reat of 38
'iWe2 and 39 .l:t d3=) . There followed : 37 . . . a5
38 'ii'e 2 a4 39 bxa4 .l:taB 40 .l:ta3 .l:tbB 41
..l:tb3 ( 41 ..l:t a2? ..l:t b4-+) 41 . . . ..l:ta8 42 ..l:ta3
D raw.
Black cou ld have won by the i mmediate
advance of his a-paw n, with the idea of
prepari ng the transition into a pawn ending.
36 . . . a5!
37 'iWe2 a4
38 l:ld3
Otherwise the wh ite king comes under a
mati ng attack.
38 . . . axb3+
39 'itc3
39 .l:txb3 �a4 (or 39 . . . .l:t a8) is hopeless for
White.
39 . . . 'i!/xd3+!
40 'i!/xd3 J::tx d3+
1 90 � PART V I I I

41 lt>xd3 �h7
42 1t>c3
It is not possible to prevent the i nvasion of
the black king: after 42 f4 lii> g 6 43 g4 either
43 .. .f6 or fi rst 43 . . . h5 is decisive .
42 . . . ..ti>g 6
43 lt>xb3 'it>f5
44 f4 f6!
The most accu rate , although 44 . . . g5 45 ..ti> a4
gxf4 46 gxf4 'it>xf4 4 7 'it> b5 'it> xe5 48 'it> xc5 f5
is also possible.
45 exf6 gxf6
46 'it>a4
46 'it> c3 'it> e4-+. 1 9 lt:ld6!
46 . . . e5-+ But not 1 9 l:t xb7? axb5 20 'iixb2 'ifc6 2 1
.l:. e7 l:tfc8! ( Black is no longer satisfied with
Vlll/7. Marshall - Schlechter (Ostende the repetition of moves 21 . . . 'iid 6 22 l:t b7
'ili'c6 - he creates the i rresistible th reat of
1 907) .
22 . . . 'it>t8) 22 'ifd4 'it>t8 23 : a? e5 !-+.
I n such positions it is very important to be
the fi rst to offer the exchange of knights : 19 . . . 'i'd8
White - b y playing lt:J e4! , a n d Black - 20 .:xb7 'i'xd6
. . . lt:Je5 ! . This clears the diagonals for the 21 'ii'x b2 'i'c6
bishops and weakens the opponent's king­ I nterposing 21 . . . lt:Jg4? is unsuccessful -
side. after 22 g3 'iic 6 White has the strong reply
15 . . . lt:le5! 23 'ii'c 2 ! .
1 6 lt:Jxe5 ii.xe5= 2 2 .:e7 'ii'd 6
Carl Schlechter probably avoided the knight 22 . . . d5? 23 e4 or 22 . . . fd8? ! 23 'it'c1 ! is
lt:J � lir.
exchange because of the tactical stroke 1 7 i ncorrect, but 22 . . . l:tfc8 ! ? is q u ite possible.
lt:Jxb5, but he had to reason to fear it. However, White saves his rook by 23 'ii'd4
'it>ta 24 b5!=.
1 7 lt:lxb5 ! ? .ixb2
23 J:lb7
The tempting 1 7 . . . � xg2?! is worse i n view
of 1 8 � xe5! (but not 1 8 ..ti>xg2 � xb2) In the game Black allowed his opponent to
1 8 . . . �xf1 1 9 'iic2 !±. be the fi rst to exchange knights.
18 .:c7 'i'e8! 15 l:tac8? ! 1 6 lt:Je4! lt:Jxe4 17 �xe4 f5?!
• ..

Weaker is 1 8 . . . 'i'd8? 1 9 .l::t x b7±. As was pointed out by g randmaster Viorel

Bologan , good chances of a successful
defence were given by 1 7 . . . lt:Ja5 ! 1 8 �xb7
(after 1 8 � xh7+ ..ti> xh7 1 9 bxa5 'it> g8 Black
(see diagram) has excellent compensation for the sacri­
ficed pawn) 1 8 . . . lt:J xbn.
1 8 �b1 e5 1 9 l:.fd 1 e4? ! ( 1 9 . . . � b8 20 e4 ! )
20 �a2+?!
The d ifference between this move and the
 Solutions: Tests 1 2 x 8
immediate 20 4Jg5! is not at all obvious. But
from the logical point of view, since the
possibility of the check will not ru n away, it
should have been preserved , which subse­
quently would have expanded White's re­
sou rces.
20 'it>h8 21 ltJgS! (th reatening 22 'i' h5 or
. . .
22 4Jf7+) 2 1 . . . "it'xg5?
Now Black's position is strategically hope­
less. It is probable that Schlechter rejected
21 . . . i. xh2+! 22 'it> xh2 'i'xg5 because of 23
.l:td7, but here he could have initiated g reat
complications by playing 23 . . . 4J e5 ! . Let us
analyse Black's resou rces after 24 .l:t xb7
l:i.xc1 25 i. xc 1 .
White gains the advantage after 25 . . . 'i'h6+
26 'it>g 1 'i'c6? ! (as we will see later,
26 . . . 4Jg4! is correct) 27 i. b2 'i'xb7 (27 . . .
4Jf3+ 2 8 'i'xf3! ) 2 8 i. xe5 . Therefore let us
check 25 . . . 4J g4+ 26 'it> g 1 .
A) 26 . . . 'i'h6!? 27 'i' b2 (if 27 'i'e 1 there is
both 27 . . . 'i'h2+ 28 �f 1 4Je5! - ct. the
26 . . . 'iih4 variation, and 27 . . . f4! 28 i. b2 fxe3
29 i.xg7+ 'i'xg7 30 .l::tx g7 exf2+ 31 'ii'xf2
4Jxf2 or 28 exf4 'ii'h 2+ 29 'it> f1 'i'h 1 + 30 'it> e2
'i'xg2=) 27 . . . 'ii'h 2+ 28 'it>f 1 4Jf6 (or 28 . . . 4Je5)
followed by 29 . . . 'i'h 1 + 30 'it> e2 'i'xg2 . The
position is unclear - the poor placing of the
white pieces prevents them from being used
for a counter-attack against the black king.
l2J 1 91
B) 26 . . .'ii' h4 27 'i'e 1 (27 'i'b2 'i' h2+ trans­
poses i nto the previous variation) 27 . . . 'i'h2+
(with the queen on h4 it is no longer possible
to play 27 .. .f4? 28 .i. b2 - i n view of the
th reat of mate) 28 'it> f1 4Je5! 29 i. b2 ! ? (29
1i'c3 .U.d8! 30 i. d5 'i'h 1 + 3 1 'it> e2 'i'h5+ with
a d raw) 29 . . . 'i'h 1 + 30 'it> e2 1i'xe 1 + 31 'it> xe1
4Jd3+ 32 'it> e2 4Jxb2 . Despite being a pawn
dow n , White has a good endgame, but he
has to reckon with 33 . . . .U.c8. The outcome
remains u nclear.
Now let us see what would have happened if
White had refrained from the bishop check
(20 4J g5! i. xh2+ ! ? 21 'it> xh2 'i'xg5 22 .U.d7
4J e5! 23 .U. xb7 .l::t xc 1 24 i. xc 1 ltJg4+ 25
'it> g 1 ) .
I n the 2 6 . . . 'i'h6 variation there i s a new
resource: 27 'i'a2+ ! 'it> h8 28 .i. b2 'i'h2+
(28 . . . .l:I. d8 29 i. d4) 29 'it>f 1 , and after
29 . . . 4Jf6 , if there is nothing better, 30 i. xf6
gxf6 31 i. c2 'i'h 1 + 32 'it> e2 'i'xg2 33 'i'e6±.
In reply to 26 . . . 'ii'h 4 the same arrangement
of the forces is no longer possible (the
queen has to defend the f2-square), but
after 27 'i'e 1 ! 'ii'h 2+ 28 'it>f 1 Black cannot
choose 28 . . . 4Je5 29 .i. b2 , and in the event
of the exchange of queens the d3-square is
under contro l . Things are also bad for hi m
after 28 . . . 'i' h 1 + 29 'it> e2 'i'xg2 30 i. b2.
22 .l:.xd6+- l::tf d8 23 h4! 'i'g4 (23 . . . 'i'xh4 24
i. xg7+ ! ; 23 . . . 'i'e7 24 l:. e6!) 24 'i'd2 l:!.xd6
(25 .l:!.cxc6 was th reatened) 25 'ir'xd6 l:td8
(25 . . . f4 26 .i. e6 'i'g6 27 "it'd?+-) 26 'i/c7
i.a8 27 i.b3 f4 28 l:!.xc6 l:!.f8 29 'i'e7 Black
resigns.
VIIVB. Tu kmakov - Vei ngold (USSR 1 979) .
White's rook cannot break into the oppo­
nent's position , and his king is cut off from
the queenside. Therefore 23 .l:t e 1 suggests
itself. H owever, after 23 . . . .l:. xe 1 + 24 'it>xe 1
'it> c5 25 'it> d2 'it> d4 (25 . . . 'it> b4 26 'it> c2 a5 also
has to be reckoned with) Black, havi ng
placed his king i n the centre , then plays
1 92 � PART V I I I

. . . a7-a5, . . . c6-c5 and at the appropriate 22 tt'l d2 i. xd2!+. White should have chosen
moment . . . c5-c4. With the opponent's king 20 tt'l d2! (preparing tt'lf 1 -e3) , for example:
being so active , it is doubtful whether White 20 . . . i. xd2 (20 .. .f5 21 exf5) 21 'it'xd2 f5 22
could win, and at any event this is a rather f4! ? with equal ity. Lev Aronin did not play
difficult task. this, evidently not wishing to allow the
Vladimir Tukmakov found a strong i nterme­ exchange of the 'bad' bishop. But in the
diate move , enabling him subsequently to given instance this consideration is far less
prevent the activation of the black king. significant that the fact that now Black has
23 ..th3! the clear plan of an offensive on the
kingside, whereas there is practically noth­
The plan suggested by Sofia Polgar also
ing that White can do.
deserved consideration: 23 b4! ? with the
idea of l:t a1 , Sii.f3-e2 , :ta6+ and b4-b5. If 20 �b3? f5 21 �b5 tt'lc6 22 tt'ld5 ii'g7 23
23 . . . .l:te6 (intending 24 . . . '1t> b5) , then 24 1ic5. '1i'b6 l::tf7 24 Ita1 Itaf8 25 l:ta3 g5 26 tt'le3
g4 27 lbh4 Sii. x e3 ! 28 fxe3 f4 29 tt'lf5 ii'g5
23 . . . l:ie7
i.
23 . . . c5 24 g2 d4 (24 . . . e5 25 f4; 24 . . . l:!. d8
l:t
25 'it> e2) 25 i. d5, and the advance of the
pawns has merely weakened Black's posi­
tion .
24 �e1 ! .!:i:.xe1 +
l::t
24 . . . b7 is more tenacious, but even then
after 25 � e2 'it'c5(c7) 26 'it> d2 (26 l:ta 1 )
26 . . . Itxb3 27 It e7 White should win.
25 'it>xe1 'it>c5
26 i£.d7!+-
This is the whole point! By not allowing the
king forward , White wins easi ly.
26 ... a5 27 'it>d2 'it'd6 28 Sii. e8 f6 29 h4 c5 30
i.t7 �es 31 'lt>e3 h6 32 f4+ 'it>d6 33 h5 c4
If now 30 tt'l xd6, then 30 . . . fxe3! 31 tt'lxf7
(otherwise the white king heads for the a­ l:t xf7 32 :taa1 tt'l d4 33 I:t f 1 tt'lf3+ 34 W h 1
pawn) 34 bxc4 a4 35 'it>d4 dxc4 36 'lt>xc4
e2-+ (34 . . . if h4-+ ) , or 3 1 tt'lf5 tt'l d4 3 2 ifxc5
Black resigns.
(32 tt'l xe3 ifxe3+ ! ) 32 . . . e2 (32 . . . tt'l xf5) 33
�xe5 'i!Ve3+! 34 tt'lxe3 .l:tf 1 + ! .
IX 3 0 exf4 exf4 (th reatening 3 1 . . . f3) 31 l:tf1 f3
32 g3 l:txf5 ! (32 . . . �d2 33 tt'l h4 tt'l d4? 34
IX/1 . Aron in - Kholmov (30th USSR 'ti'xd6 was weaker, but 32 . . . tt'ld4 33 tt'lxd4
Championship, Yerevan 1 962) . 'ti'e3+ 34 W h 1 �d2! 35 l:t g 1 'iVg2+! would
Black i s intending t o begin a n attack by also have won) 33 exf5 'i!i'd2
. . . f7-f5, but fi rst he must deny the opponent White resigned in view of 34 l:t f2 'iVd 1 + 35
counterplay (b2-b4) on the opposite side of lif 1 f2+ 36 'it> xf2 l:t xf5+ .
the board . I ncorrect is 1 9 .. .f5? 20 b4± or
1 9 . . . tt'lc6? 20 tt'ld5 'it'd8 2 1 b4±. IX/2. Liu Wenzhe - Donner (Olympiad,
19 . .. aS! Buenos Ai res 1 978) .
If 20 tt'ld5 there follows 20 . . . tt'l xd5 21 cxd5 f5 Black wants to i nitiate play in the centre:
 Solutions: Tests 1 2 x 8
8 . . . e6 followed by . . . exd5, . . . .l:t e8 and
. . . t"Ll e4. White also has to reckon with . . . b7-
b5. To reduce the strength of either of these
plans, it is important to i mmediately d rive the
knight back from f6.
8 h4!±
8 ... e6 (8 . . . b5 9 g 5 ! ) 9 g5 hxg5 1 0 hxg5
t"Lle8? ( 1 0 . . . t"Ll h7) 1 1 "ii'd 3 exd5 1 2 t"Llxd5
t"Llc6 1 3 "ii'g 3 i.e6 1 4 "ii' h 4 f5 1 5 "ii' h 7+ �f7
1 6 'ir'xg6+ ! ! ( 1 6 .U h6!) 1 6 . . . �xg6 1 7 �h5+
�h7 1 8 i.f7+ i.h6 1 9 g6+ �g7 20 i.xh6+
Black resigns.
IX/3. Timoshchen ko - Klovans (USSR
1 979) .
White intends � b 1 followed by i. xc5 . If
Black is forced to take back on c5 with his
pawn, he will stand worse.
27 . . . i. h6? 28 i. b 1 'ii'b6 29 i. xc5 dxc5 30
.i d3± .
27 . . . 'i!V b6? 28 l:I b 1 "ikc7 29 J:. xb8 "ii'xb8 30
.i xc5 dxc5 3 1 "ii'x a5± (31 � d3±).
Jan Klovans found an accu rate solution to
the problem facing h i m .
27 . . . .l::!. c 8!
28 .ib1 'i!Vb6! =
29 "ii'd 1 �h6 30 l!Ve1 D raw.
IX/4. Karpov - Andersson (Mad rid 1 973) .
If Black were to manage to play 1 9 . . . d6 and
20 . . . .l::!. e c7, he wou ld stand well .
1 9 c5? ! is temptin g , but then the opponent i s
able t o simpl ify the position, after which i t i s
hard for Wh ite t o achieve anything real.
Here is a possible variation: 1 9 ... bxc5 20
bxc5 d5 21 cxd6 .l::tx c1 22 l:Ixc1 't!Vxd6 23
'i'xd6 t"Ll xd6 24 .l:!. c6 .l:t d7 25 .l:ta6 'itf8:!;.
Anatoly Karpov found an excel lent bishop
manoeuvre , enabling him to restrict the
opponent's forces and to retain an appreci­
able advantage in the m iddlegame.
19 .ib7! �c7
1 9 . . . J:. b8 20 Si. c6.
CZJ 1 93
20 .ia6 ! ±
N o w 20 . .. d6 is unfavou rable on account of
2 1 i. b5. Black constantly has to reckon with
the move i. b5. But White's basic plan is to
play his queen to a4 , followed by the
doubling of rooks on the d-file or 'ii'b 5 and
a3-a4-a5.
20 . . J:tc6 2 1 l!Vb3 (2 1 i. b5 l'l d6) 2 1 .. Ji'b8 22
"ii'a 4 (th reatening 23 .l:!. xd7) 22 ... .l:!c7 23
ii'b5 t"Llf6 (23 . . . d5 24 cxd5 .l:t xc 1 25 .l:I xc 1
t"Llc7 26 d6!) 24 f3 d5 (24 . . . 'ii'e8 25 J:.d6) 25
c5 h5 26 a4 lieS 27 cxb6 axb6 28 aS .l:txc1
29 .U.xc1 "ii'es (29 . . . bxa5 30 'ifxb8 .l:t xb8 3 1
bxa5+-) 3 0 "ii'x b6 d 4 31 � h 1 "ii'e 3 3 2 .l:tf1
e5 33 Si.d3 h4 34 gxh4 'ii'f4 35 .U.g1 'i!Vxh4
36 a6 g6 37 a7 �g7 38 �xg6 ! Black
resigns.
IX/5. Larsen - Spassky ( I nterzonal Tourna­
ment, Amsterdam 1 964) .
Wh ite's main th reat is 56 t"Ll d5. Bad is
55 . . . .l:!. b8? 56 t"Lld5 .l:!. b3 57 � xh4 .U. d3 58
ttJxe7 .l:! xe3 59 t"Ll g8+ (or 59 .l:!. d 1 l:I xe6 60
ti.xd6+-) 59 . . . � h7 60 t"Llf6+ � h6 61 e7! .l:te6
62 l:.d 1 (A.O' Kel ly) .
That which happened in the game was no
better: 55 . . .t"Lle4? 56 ttJxe4 fxe4 57 'it>xh4
.l:ta8 (57 . . . l: f8 58 l:tg5 .l:t f6 59 f5 and 60
'it g4+-) 58 f5 .l:ta2 59 l:tg8 l:.f2 60 l:.f8 Black
resigns.
It is harder to refute 55 ... t"Ll c4 ? ! 56 t"Lld5
t"Lld2! (Bent Larsen considered only 56 . . . .l:!.d8?
57 ttJxe7 ttJxe3 58 t"Llg8+ ). In the variation 57
.l:t g2 t"Ll e4 58 � xh4 t"Llf6 ! , by evicting the
enemy knight from d5, Black frees his rook
and gains a d raw, for example: 59 t"Ll b4 .l:tc8
60 J:. g5 .l:tc3 61 J:. xf5 .l:!. xe3= . Even so, Wh ite
has a subtle way to win, poi nted out by
Garry Kasparov: 57 .l:t g5! t"Llf3 58 .l:t g2! (of
course , not 58 l::!. xf5? ? ti. g8, and it is Black
who wins) 58 . . . 'it h5 (58 . . . t"Lle 1 59 l:t e2 ! ) 59
.l:!.f2 ! t"Ll e 1 60 l:t e2 t"Llf3 (60 . . . t"Lld3 is met by
the same reply) 61 .l:!g2! (unexpectedly
Black finds h imself in zugzwang) 61 . . . � h6
62 .l:!.f2 ! t"Lle 1 63 .l:t e2 (63 'itxh4) 63 . . . t"Lld3
1 94 � PART V I I I
(63 ... 4Jf3 64 '>t> g2) 64 l:tc2 ! '>t> h5 65 l:t g2 and
66 .l:tg5+.
55 . . . .l:i.d8 ! !
In this way Black parries the dangerous
attack by the white kn ight (56 4Jd5 4Jc8! 57
e4 fxe4 58 .Ug5 e3! 59 4J xe3 .U d3 60 .l:t e5
4:'ld6) and at the same time prepares
counterplay with 56 . . . 4:'lc4, which follows,
for example, in reply to 56 '.t.> xh4.
56 .i:.d1 �g7
By going to f6, the king wants to attack the
e6-pawn .
5 7 �d5
Or 57 4Jd5 4Jc8 58 l:t d4 l:t h8 59 l:t c4 l:t d8 60
l:tc5 4:'l d6 61 4Jxe7 .Ue8 62 .U c6 .Uxe7 63
l:txd6 '>t>f6 64 'it'xh4 l:t g7! with a d raw
( Kasparov) .
57 . . . .l::!.c 8=
57 . . .<1ii>f6 58 .U e5 .Ue8! followed by . . . 4J c4 is
also possible.
IX/6. Petrosian - Spassky (World Champi­
onship Match, 1 2th game, Moscow 1 969) .
Black's position is more promising; he is
th reatening to play his king to d6 followed by
. . . c6-c5. For example: 48 h3?! Wf6 49 g4
h4! 50 l:tf2+ '.t.>e7 51 l:tc2 (5 1 g5 .U a8+; 5 1
4:'lf5+ ..t xf5 5 2 l:t xf5 l:t b6+) 5 1 . . . .U b6!
(51 . . . 'it>d6 52 .Uf2) 52 .U c5 (52 .U c 1 '.t.> d6 53
l:tf1 c5 54 l:tf6+ '.t.>c7) 52 . . . '.t.>d6 53 l:txa5 c5
54 4:'l b5+ '.t.> e5.
Tigran Petrosian forestalls Black's plan with
a clever pawn sacrifice.
48 g4! ! hxg4
48 . . . ..txg4? 49 l:t xc6; 48 . . . h4? ! 49 '.t.> h3.
49 'itg3
The players agreed a d raw, in view of
49 . . . '.t.>f6 50 '.t.>f4 l:t b6 (50 . . . 'it> e7? 51 'it> e5 is
dangerous) 5 1 l:tc5 .Ua6= .
IX/7. Langeweg - Petrosian (Amsterdam
1 973) .
If White waits, Black will place his pawns on
g5 and f4, and play his king to h4 and his
knight to f5, after which White will end up in
zugzwang. That is i n fact how the game
concluded .
41 ..tb2? '.t.>g5 42 '.t.>g3 f4+ 43 '.t.>g2 '.t.>h4 44
'.t.>h2 (44 4:'l d3 4Jxb3-+) 44 g5 45 'it>g2
••.
'.t.>h5 46 '.t.>h2 4Jc6 47 4Je2 4Je7 48 'it>g2 tt'lts
49 '.t.>h2 '.t.>h4 50 Wg2 4Je3+ 51 'it'h2 lZ'lc2
Zugzwang (if 52 W g2, then 52 . . . 4:'l e 1 + wins) .
White resigns.
White also loses after 4 1 W g3? W h5! 42 h4
(otherwise 42 . . . g5 and 43 . . . f4+) 42 . . . i..d 8 43
4:'l d3 .i. xh4+ 44 W h3 4:'lxb3 (not 44 . . . g 5 45
4Jc5) 45 4:'l f4+ (45 .i. b2 g5-+) 45 . . . 'it> h6 46
..t b2 .i. e 1 ! 47 4J xe6 ..t c3 48 4Jc7! tt::lx d4!
(48 . . . .i. xb2? 49 e6) 49 e6 4Jxe6 50 i..c 1 +
(50 4Jxe6 � xb2-+) 50 . . . 4J g5+ 5 1 'it>h4?!
.i. e 1 mate .
Black's plan m ust be prevented.
41 h4! ! =
' I was u nable t o f i nd a real istic pl an for
strengthening my position after 41 h4.'
( Petrosian)
4 1 . . . 'it> h5 42 W h3! (42 'it> g3? ..t d8) 42 . . i.. d 8
.
43 4:'l d3! 4:'l xb3 44 4:'lf4+ '.t.> h6 45 .i. b2 i.. x h4
46 4J xe6 i. e 1 ? 47 4Jc7 Ji. c3 48 e6+-.
IX/8. Smyslov - Ribli (Candidates Semi­
Final Match, 1 st game, London 1 983)
White is th reatening to win a pawn by 42
.U g7+ '.t.> h8 43 l:t xh7+ W xh7 44 4J g5+ and 45
l:txc6 . But the th reat of developing an attack
on the kingside by 42 h5! is even more
dangerous - and it was agai nst this th reat
that Black should have defended in the first
i nstance . The correct defensive plan in­
volves a pawn sacrifice, with the aim of
simplifying the position and safeguarding
the king agai nst attack.
41 . . • .1i.b3!
42 .l:i.g7+ 'it>h8
43 �xh7+ 'itxh7
44 tt:Jg5+ 'ith6
45 .i;;i. x c6 .i;;i. a4!
 Solutions: Tests 1 2 x 8
46 g3 l:ta2 !
I n view of the m i n i mal amount of material
remai ning on the board and the fact that the
opponent's king is cut off on the back rank ,
Black h as excellent d rawing chances.
In the game Zoltan Ribli chose 41 ... .l:tac8? ! ,
retaining material equal ity, but subjecting
hi mself after 42 h5± to a very dangerous
attack. There is a di rect mati ng th reat: 43
.l:tg7+ � h8 44 .l:tff7 l:txe6 45 .l:t xh7+ 'li.? g8 46
.l:tfg7+ 'ii.? f 8 47 h6. If 42 . . . gxh5, then 43 f4! ,
intending 44 ltg7+ 'it> h8 45 I;i. h6.
42 . . .f4 43 h6 .i.f5 44 ltg7+ 'it>h8 45 .tt ff7 g5
I ncorrect now are both 46 tLl xg5? l::!. x h6 ! ,
and 4 6 l';txf5? .l:!.xe6 4 7 .l:t gxg5 lt c 1 + 4 8 'it> h2
lth 1 + ! ? (48 . . . .l:!. xh6+ 49 l:t h5:t) 49 'it> x h 1
.l:te 1 + 5 0 'it> h2 l::!. h 1 + ! with stalemate . How­
ever, Vasily Smyslov does not aim for
immediate material gai n , preferring to main­
tain prolonged pressure on the opponent's
positio n .
4 6 tLld4! .l:t c 1 + 4 7 � h 2 .i. g 6 4 8 .l:!.f6 .tt 1 c5
49 .i:td7 l:f.g8 50 II.e7 II.a5 51 lUes :as 52
II.ee6 .i.h5 53 tLle5 lta7 (53 . . . II. xe6 54 .i:t xe6
.l:!.e8 55 .l:tf6± , intending 56 II. f5 or 56 � h3)
54 .l:tf5 .i:tb7 55 .l:td6 .l:ta7 56 .l:tb6 !;te7 57
.i:tbf6 !;teeS 58 tLlc4! (now Black has to
reckon with tLld6-e4) 58 ... g4 59 tLle5! (59
.i:txh5?? g3+! 60 'it> h3 .l:t e 1 ) 59 ... gxf3 60
.i:txh5 .i:txg2+ 61 'it>h3 .l:tg3+ 62 'it>h4 f2 63
CtJ 1 95
.i:txf4 llg1 64 .l:thf5 I;i.h1 + 65 'it>g3 Black
resigns.
X
X/1 . Shmirin - Novi kov (U S S R 1 982) .
1 02 . . . f5!-+
The most clear-cut way to w i n . The th reat is
1 03 .. .'iV g7+ ! . White has no usefu l moves .
1 03 a5 'i!t'g7+! White resigns.
X/2. Yap - Pi nter (Szirak 1 985).
5 1 .l:t f2? tLlf6 is a mistake ; also, nothing is
given by 51 tLlf4+ ? ! W f7 52 l:!.f2? tLlf6.
51 lid2!
C reati ng the th reat of 52 tLlf4+ followed by
53 .l:!.xd4. If 51 . . . W e7, then 52 tUxeS is
decisive.
51 �f6
52 l:.f2+! <;i;>e6
53 lZ'lf4+!
Now, after the rook has been switched to f2
with gain of tempo, this check is decisive .
53 . . . � 54 tLle2+ Black resigns.
X/3. Taimanov - Ree (Wij k aan Zee 1 98 1 ).
After 47 .l:t e4? ! Wf6 ! it is not good to play 48
.l:!. e5? a4! 49 '>t> d3 axb3 50 axb3 .l:t b8
(50 . . . .l:t d8+) 51 'it> c3 lt b4=.
The strongest plan is to play the king to g3
followed by I;i.c3-e3-e5+.
47 <;i;>e2 ! +-
47 . . . .l:tc7 48 'it>f1 l:i.d7 49 .l:txc5+ Wxf4 50
Wg2 .l:td2 51 .l:txa5 l:i.c2 52 .:a4+ Wg5 53
l:tc4 .:xa2 54 'it>g3 Black resigns.
X/4. Chiburdanidze - M u resan (Olympiad ,
Luzern 1 982) .
45 h4!
It is essential to tie the black king to the
kingside, by fixing one of the pawns there on
1 96 w PART V I I I
a dark square , where it can be attacked by
the bishop . The i ncorrect 45 'it>f2? th rows
away the win: 45 . . . g6! 46 b6 (46 'it> e2 'lt> e6
47 'it> d3 'it> d5=) 46 . . . '1t> e6 47 �f8 h5 48 gxh5
gxh5 49 'it> g2 <;t>d7! 50 'lt> h3 tt:Jc4=.
45 . . • g6
46 h5! gxh5
47 gxh5+-
The march of the king to the queenside is
threatened. The black king cannot head
there because of the weakness of the h6-
pawn, and the attempt to win the h5-pawn
leads to the loss of the e5-paw n .
4 7...'1t>f s 4 8 b 6 tt:Jb7 4 9 �fs 'lt>g5 s o .l1.. g 7
'lt>xh5 51 �xeS (now the f4-pawn is vulner­
able) 51 ... 'lt>g5 52 'it>f2 (52 <;t> h3 tt:J a5 53
.l1.. d 6 lt:Jb7 54 � e7+ 'lt> h5) 52 . . . 'lt>f5 53 �g7
h5 (53 . . . 'lt>g5 54 'lt>e2) 54 'lt>g2! (after
advancing to h5, the pawn has become
weaker, and it will soon be lost) 54 ... tt:Jc5 55
�f8 lt:Jb7 56 'lt>h3 'lt>g5 57 i.e7+ 'lt>f5 58
<;t>h4 Black resigns.
X/5. Botvinnik - Levenfish (8th match
game, Moscow 1 937) .
It is important for White to do something
before the enemy king goes to e7.
41 �d7! '§.c7
Black loses after 41 . . .f6? 42 l:txh7 or
41 . . . 4:Jc7? 42 l:t d8+ 'it> g7 (42 . . . 4:J e8 43 4:J d6;
42 .. . '� e7 43 :d6!) 43 :cs. Perhaps the
most tenacious move was 4 1 . . . h 5 ! ? , but
after 42 <;t>f2 f6 43 'it>f3! all the same the
advantage wou ld have remained with White,
for example: 43 . . . .l::t c 7 44 .l::!. d 8 fxe5 45 .U. a8 .
We7
42 �dB
43 .l:!.d6!±
(see diagram)
This is the point of White's idea. The enemy
rook is forced to take u p a passive position
at a7, si nce it is bad to play 43 . . . .l::!.d 7 44
.l::!.x a6 .l::!.d 4 45 lt:J b6 tt:J c7 (45 . . . c4 46 l:I a8 ttJc7
47 � c8 tt:J a6 48 tt:Jxc4+-) 46 I::f. a 7 '1t> d8 47 a6
c4 48 llxc7 'lt>xc7 49 a7 .l:t d8 50 a81V :xa8
5 1 tt:J xa8+ 'lt> b7 52 'it>f2+-.
43 . . . .l:ta7 44 .l::!.c 6 <;t>d7 45 .l::!. b6! (45 .l::!. x c5?
:c7) 45 . . . '1t>e7 46 'lt>f2 f6 47 'it>e2 l:ta8 48
.l::!.c 6 fxe5 49 .l:txc5 4:Jd6 50 .l:!c7+ <;t>es 51
tt:Jxd6 <;t>xd6 52 .l:txh7 .l:!. b8 (52 . . . <;t> e6 53 g4)
53 .l::t g 7 .l::!. b 2+ 54 <;t>f1 e4 55 l:txg6+ <;t>e5 56
.l::!.x a6 .l::!. a 2 57 .l::!. a 8 'lt>f4 58 a6 .l::!.a 1 + 59 'it>e2
.l:!.a2+ 60 'it>d1 .l:!.xa3 61 a7 'lt>e3 62 h4 .l:!.d3+
63 <;t>c2 l:i.d7 64 g4 .l:tc7+ 65 'it>b3 .l:td7 66
'lt>c3 l!c7+ 67 'lt>b4 I::f. d 7 68 'lt>cs Black
resigns.
X/6. N i mzowitsch - Sta h l berg (4th match
game, Gothenburg 1 934) .
What position should White aim for?
25 a3? � xb2 26 .l:!. xb5 � xa3 27 l:t xb7 .l::!. d 8;!;,
and the endgame is drawn .
25 .l:!. xb5?! .l:t xa2 26 b3 (26 .l:t xb7 .l:t xb2;!;)
26 . . . � h4! , and Black gains counterplay.
25 .l:!. d7? ! .l:!. xa2 26 .l:t xb7 (26 i.. d 5 .l:!. xb2ro)
26 . . . '1t>f8 27 � d5 l!xb2 28 .l:!. xf7+ <;t> eS;!;, and
the outcome remains unclear.
Aaron N imzowitsch found the strongest
conti n uation .
25 I:!.c5 ! !
 Solutions: Tests 1 2 x 8
Th reatening 26 .i. d5 fol lowed by 27 l::tx b5 or
27 :lc7. The a2-pawn is invulnerable on
account of mate .
25 . . . b4!
The best defence. Black loses after 25 . . .
.i. xb2? 2 6 l::t x b5 ! .l::t x a2 2 7 .i. b 1 (or 2 7 SL d5
.U.a 1 + 28 'it> g2 and 29 l'!.xb 7). The game
conti n uation was also unsuccessfu l : 25 ...
�f8? 26 SLd5 b4 27 l::tc 7 .i.xb2 28 lbf7+
'it>e8 29 .l::tx b7 .i.c3 30 .l:!.xg7 .txg7 31 Sl.xa8
Black resigns.
25 . . . b6!? comes i nto consideration , but after
26 l:t c6! (more accu rate than 26 l:t c7 .l:t d8)
26 . . . l:t b8 27 b4 Black's position is difficult.
26 .i.d5 .i.xb2
27 .l:!.c7 .l:!.f8
28 .l::. x b7 .i.c3±
Wh ite has extracted the maxi m u m possible
from the position and gained a big advan­
tage. However, he is not yet guaranteed a
win. If 29 f4 Black should reply 29 . . . g 5 ! ,
retaining hopes o f saving t h e game.
xn. Faibisovich - Frolov ( Leningrad 1 986) .
1 �c2? 'iii> d 5! 2 'it> xb2 'it> d4 leads to an
i mmediate d raw.
1 lt:Jc4+ ?! is also u nconvi ncing: 1 . . . 'it> e7! 2
lt::lxb2 'iii> f7 3 'it> e4 lt:J e 7! (bad is 3 . . . 'it> xg7? 4
'it> e5 �f7 5 lt:Jc4+-) 4 lt::ld 3 (4 'it> e5 lt:J g6+)
4 . . . �xg7 5 'it> e5 �f7.
ttJ 1 97
In this position White apparently does not
have a win, for example: 6 'it> d6 lt::lf5+ 7 'iii> d7
lt:Jd4! (but not 7 . . . lt:J g7? 8 lt:Je5+ 'iii>f 8 9 'iii> d 6
lt::l h 5 1 o lt::ld 3 'iii>f7 1 1 'it> e5 lt:Jg7 1 2 lt:Jc5 'it> e 7
1 3 g6, and Black is in zugzwang) 8 lt:J e5+ (8
lt:Jc5? lt:J e2! 9 lt:Jxe6 'it> g6 and 1 O . . . lt:J xf4=)
8 . . . 'it> g7 9 'it> d6 lt:J e2 1 0 lt::l d 3 �f7 1 1 'it> e5
lt:Jg 1 ! = .
1 tt:\e4+! 'iii d 5
'it> 'it> 'iii> lt::l
1 . . . e7 2 c2 f 7 3 f6 ! +-.
2 tt:lc3+ 'iii d 6
lt:J lt::l
2 . . . c5 3 a4+ d6 4 xb2 e7 5 lt:Jc4! ?
'it> 'it> 'it>
(5 'it> e4! ? 'iii>f 7 6 'it> e5 lt:Je7 7 lt:J d3+-) 5 . . . �7
6 lt:J e5+ 'it> xg7 7 lt:J c6 ! +-.
3 'itc2 'ite7
3 . . . e5 4 f5+-.
4 tt:\e4! 'itt7
5 tt:lf6+-
The game concl uded : 5 . . . 'it>xg7 (5 . . . lt:Je7 6
g8'ii'+ ) 6 lt:Jxg8 'it>xg8 7 'it>xb2 'it>t7 8 'it>c3
'it>g6 9 �c4 (9 'it> d4 'iii> f5 1 o 'it> c5 e5 1 1 g6!+­
is also good) 9 . . . 'it>t5 1 0 'it>d4 (zugzwang)
1 0 ... 'it>xt4 1 1 g6 Black resigns.
X/8. Uhlmann - Adorjan (Sarajevo 1 982) .
It is not easy for Black to convert his piece
advantage .
38 . . .'Yi' h5?? 39 'ifg7+! lt:Jxg7 40 l:Ixf8 mate .
38 . . . lt:Jxh6?! 39 .U. xg3+.
38 . . . 'ii'b 5+ ?! 39 'it> g 1 'ii'b4 (39 . . . gxf2+ 40
J:!xf2 with the th reats of 41 'ii'g7 +! and 4 1
.U.xf5! ) 4 0 l:.xg3 ( 4 0 fxg3 lt:J xh6) 4 0 . . . 'ii'x b2
41 .l:!. g5! (but not 41 .l:t f3 .l:t g8 42 'ir'c6 'ii'a 1 +
43 'iii> h 2 'ii'xe5+) 4 1 . . . lt:Je7 (42 .l:txf5 was
th reatened) 42 'ilt'xe7 'ii'x f2+ 43 'iii> h 2 'ii'h 4+
44 'it> g 1 = . Or 40 .. .'Yli'e 1 + 41 'iii> h 2 'ii'd2
( 4 1 .. .'i!V xf2? 42 'ii'g7 + ! tt:Jxg7 43 hxg7 + 'it> g8
44 gxf8'iV+ 'it> xf8 45 l:.f3+ 'ii'xf3 46 gxf3+-;
41 . . . 'ii'e 4 42 'it> g 1 ! ? ) 42 e6! ? 'ii'xh6+ 43 .l:t h3
'ii'g7 44 'ii'x g7+ lt:J xg7 (44 . . . 'it> xg7 45 l'!. a3)
45 e7 .l:!. xf2 46 l:t d3 h6 47 l:t d8+ 'it> h7 48 e8'ii'
lt:Jxe8 49 .l:!. xe8 .l:!. xb2 50 .l::t a 8 l:I b4 5 1 .l::t a 6=.
38 . . . l'!.f7! ? 39 'ii'b 6!? (49 'i!Vc4 is weaker in
1 98 'ii? PART V I I I

view of 49 ... 'ii'd 8! 50 'iit'd 3 l:t d7-+, or 50 l:it d3
ltJe3+! 5 1 'if;l e2 .l:. xf2+ 52 'if;l xe3 'ii'g5+)
39 . . . 'ii'f8 !? (39 . . . gxf2? 40 e6 ltJxh6 41 l:t xf7
ltJxt7 42 'ii'd4+) 40 e6 .l:lf6 41 'ike? 'ii'x h6 42
fxg3+1+ .
I n the game there followed 38 .. .'it'g6? 39
.l:txf5! .l:txfS 40 'ii'c8+ 'ii'g 8 41 'ii'xf5 'ifc4+
42 'if;le1 'ii'c 1 + 43 'if;le2 �xb2+ 44 <;t>d 1 ! ( 44
<;t>e3? �xf2+) 44 . . . 'ifd4+ 45 <;t>c1 ! D raw.
Only one continuation leads to a convincing
win.
38 . . . gxf2 ! !
Now Black wants to take the h6-pawn with
his knight. 39 l:t xf5 is not possible i n view of
39 . . . 'ii'b 5+ 40 <;t> xf2 J:it xf5+. 39 'ii'c5 'ii'd8 is
also hopeless .
39 e6! ? 'itb5+!
But, of cou rse , not 39 . . . ltJxh6?? 40 'ii'e 5+ (or
40 .l:t xf8+ 'ii'xf8 41 e7) , and not 39 . . . 'ii'xe6?
40 'i¥g7+! ltJ xg7 41 .l:txf8+ 'i¥g8 42 hxg7+
'if;lxg7 43 .l:!. xg8+ 'if;l xg8 44 'it xf2=.
40 �xf2 'i!i'xb2+
41 �g1
41 <;t>e 1 'i!fa1 + 42 'if;lf2 'ii'd4+ (not 42 . . . 'ii'a 2+
43 'if;l g 1 'i!fxe6 44 'ii'c 3+ ) .
41 . . . 'ii'd 4+
42 �h2
42 'lfi>f1 'ii'd 1 + 43 'iti> f2 'i!fd2+ 44 'iti> g 1 'ii'e 1 +.
42 . . . 1i'h4+
43 �g1 1i'e1 +
44 �h2 'ikxe6-+
XI
Xl/1 . Grunfeld - Pinter ( I nterzonal Tourna­
ment, Zagreb 1 987) .
25 . . . b4!-+
The inclusion of the black bishop via b5
decisively strengthens the attack. For exam­
ple, 26 'ii'e 3 .i. b5-+ or 26 .i. xd6 'ifg2+ 27
'iti>e3 (27 <;t>e 1 .i. b5) 27 . . . .:t xd6-+.
26 a4 bxa3 27 b3! .i.e7 28 c4 dxc4 29 bxc4
.l:tb6! 30 l:.a2 'ii'f S! 31 'ii'xf5 .i.xf5 32 c5
.l:tb2+ 33 l::tx b2 axb2 34 ltJd2 aS 35 c6 i.. b4
White resigns.
Xl/2. Romanish i n - Savon (Yerevan 1 976) .
1 3 i.. g S! h6
14 .i.h4!
Th reatening 1 5 e5. Black loses after 14 . . . g5
1 5 ltJ xg5 hxg5 1 6 .i. xg5 .
14 . . . 1i'e8
1 5 i.. xf6±
1 4 . . . gxf6 1 6 ltJd2 'lt>h7 1 7 .i.f1 b5 ( 1 7 . . . i.. a6
was better) 1 8 'ii'f 3! f5 1 9 'ii'f4 ltJb3 20
ltJxb3 cxb3 2 1 .i.d3 fxe4 22 .i.xe4+ i.. xe4
23 .:txe4 'ii'e7 24 .:tes l:tg8 25 l:IcS c6 26
.lir.xb3 .l:.ac8 27 'ii'e 4+ l:tg6 28 J:txc6 .Uxc6,
and Black resigned.
Xl/3. Ragozi n - Noskov (Moscow 1 930) .
1 2 e5!
Sacrificing a pawn, White opens diagonals
for his bishops and gains a very strong
attack.
12 . . . dxe5
1 3 l"Lle4!
1 3 fxe5? .i. xe5 1 4 .i. xe5 ltJ xe5 1 5 .i. xh 7+?
'ioti>xh7 1 6 'ii'h 5+ 'iti> g8 1 7 'ii'x e5 'ii'xd2-+.
13 . . . exf4
1 4 l"Llxf6+ l"Llxf6
1 5 J:txf4+-
Biack has no satisfactory defence, for
example:
1 5 . . . 'ii'b 6+ 1 6 .i. d4 c5 1 7 .i. xf6 gxf6 1 8
.i.xh7+ .
1 5 . . . ltJd5 1 6 .i. xh7 +! <;t> xh7 1 7 'ti' h5+ 'if;l g8 1 8
i.. x g7! f5 ( 1 8 . . . <;t> xg7 1 9 l:t g4+) 1 9 .l:t g4! .
1 5 . . . 'i¥d5 1 6 l:t xf6! gxf6 1 7 .i. xf6 e5 1 8
.i. xh7+ ! .
1 5 . . . e5!? 1 6 .i.xe5 ltJd5 1 7 'ifh5 h 6 1 8 .l:tf3+-.
1 5 . . . .l:te8 1 6 ltxf6! gxf6 1 7 'i!Vg4+ 'iti18
( 1 7 . . . 'lfi> h8 1 8 'i!f h4) 1 8 .i.a3+ l:.e7 1 9 .i.xh7
'ii'b 6+ 20 <;t>h1 <;t>e8 21 .l:.d1 Black resigns.
 Solutions: Tests 1 2 x 8 1 99

Xl/4. Vaganian - Stein (38th USSR Cham­

pionship, Riga 1 970) .
27 . . . tt:Jxg3!
28 tt:Jxg3 tt:Jf4
29 �d2 .l:!.g7
30 'it>f2
If 30 �f2 , then 30 . . .'iVf6? ! is u nconvi ncing i n
view o f 3 1 .U. a4! followed b y 3 2 .l::txf4.
30 . . . � h8! is stronger, and Black has too
many threats (31 . . . .U.xg3; 31 .. .'it' g8; 31 .. .'iV f6) .
30 .. . �f6
The queen goes to g5 or h4. There was also
another u n expected way to the goal :
30 . . . .U.gc7! with the i rresistible threat of 2 3 .l::tf5! ! �g4 ( 2 3 . . . � b8 2 4 ..lt e5+ �as 25
31 . . . .U.c2 (the exchange of rooks on c1 does .Uxf6) 24 .Jte5+ <;t>d7 25 'i!t'f1 �e4? (25 . . . c4!±)
not work on account of the knight fork at d3) . 26 .U.c4 'it'c6 27 'it'h3 (27 ..lt xf6 gxf6 28 .llxf6
31 .l;i.g1 'ii h 4 �d5 29 'iih3+ is less convincing on accou nt
By sacrificing the knight, Black has devel­ of 29 . . . � d8! , but not 29 . . . Wc7? 30 .U. xf8)
oped a decisive attack. If 32 � h 1 , then 27 .. .'ii'e6 (27 . . .<it' d8 28 bxc5) 28 �xf6 gxf6
32 . . . lLi h3+ wins, while if 32 �f 1 - 32 . . .'iV h2+. (28 . . . �xc4 29 .Jt xg7! ) 29 .U.e4! 'iix a2 30
.U.xc5+ Black resigns.
32 <;t>e3 .U.xg3 33 ..lt h 1 .U.xg1 34 .U.xg1 + <;t>f8
35 .Uc1 tt:Jxd5+ 36 �xd5 �h6+ 37 <;t>e2
.U.xc1 38 �a8+ <;t>g7 39 �b7+ <;t>t6 40 �d5 Xl/6. Rizzitano - M i les ( U SA 1 980) .
.U.c2+ White resigns. Black's exchange advantage does not play
any role. The most important thing is to be
ahead of the opponent, and be the fi rst to
Xl/5. Tal - Vel i m i rovic (USS R-Yugoslavia
beg i n an attack on the king.
match 1 979) .
Wh ite is i ntending 26 g3 or 26 .Jt xa6. If
The obvious 2 1 .Jt xf6? gxf6 22 .U.xf6+ al lows
25 . . . h5? ! there follows 26 .Jt xa6 .
the black king to escape from the pursuit:
22 . . . <;t>c7 23 .U. e6 (23 .U.f7+ � e7) 23 . . . 'iid5 25 . . . lldg8 ! !
24 .U f 1 .U.d8! 25 .U.f7 + .U.d7+. 2 6 g3
Wh ite must open up the play on the What else could Wh ite have done? It is
queenside, where the king is i ntending to useless to play 26 a5 b5, or 26 �xe6 .l:!. g6
hide. followed by . . . .U. h6. If 26 .Jt xa6 Black wins by
26 . . . .U.xg2 ! ! 27 �xe2 � g8+ 28 <;t> h3 �f4 (or
21 b4! !
28 . . . �g7) 29 � h5 ..lt g 1 .
Now Black could have tried 2 1 . . . tLid5 ! ? , on
26 . . . h5
which there follows either 22 bxc5+ W c6 23
i..d 4, and his position remains dangerous, 27 '>t>xh2 h4
28 'it>g1
or 22 .U.f7! ? tt:Jxc3? (22 . . . .U.d8 is better) 23
'iVd7+ <;t> e5 24 dxc3! +-. 28 <;t> g2 hxg3 29 fxg3 'iic6+ 30 �f3 .U. h2+.
I n the game there followed : 2 1 . . .�c7 22 28 . . . hxg3
.Uac1 .U.c8 (22 . . . .U. e8 ! ? ) . 29 fxg3 l:txg3+ !
30 i.. x g3 �xg3+
31 'ili'g2 �e3+
200 � PART V I I I
Black wins back the sacrificed material ,
retaining a decisive attack.
32 '>t>t1 "ir'xd3+ 33 '>t>t2 "ir'd2+ 34 '>t>t1 "ir'f4+
35 '>t>e1 "ir'c7 36 .l:!.c1 .l:!.h2 White resigns.
Xl/7. Norwood - Mestel (British Champion­
ship, Blackpool 1 988) .
The most energetic way of conducting the
attack is a bold piece sacrifice .
9 h5! g5
10 i.xg5! hxg5
11 h6 i.h8
Black would perhaps have done better to
return the piece immediately, by playing
11 . . . i.xh6!? 12 .l:!.xh6 'it> g7. But after 1 3 .l:!. h3!
( 1 3 J:;t h 1 .l:!.h8 1 4 '>t> d2!±) 1 3 .. J:t h8 1 4 .l:!.g3!?
or 14 '>t> d2!? his position sti l l remains
unpleasant in view of the weakness of the
g5-pawn.
12 h7+ 'it>g7
tt'l
After 1 2 . . . xh7 the simplest way to win is 1 3
i.a6! (preparing 1 4 "ir' h5) . Also possible is
1 3 .l:!.xh7! 'it> xh7 ( 1 3 . . . i. xe5 1 4 i. d3! i. g7 1 5
"ir'h5 f5 1 6 "ir'g6 .l:!.f7 1 7 i. xf5 with the
decisive th reats of 1 8 l:t h8+! and 1 8 i. e6) 1 4
i.d3+ f5 ( 1 4. . . � h6 1 5 '>t> d2 i. xe5 1 6 'ii'h 1 +)
1 5 'ifh5+ �g8 1 6 'iV g6+ i. g7 1 7 'i!We6+ .
Now the simple 1 3 i. d3!? fol lowed by 1 4
"ir'f3 comes into consideration , and White's
attack would appear to be i rresistible. There
is also another, less obvious way of continu­
ing the offensive:
1 3 f4! ?
Here are some possible variations:
1 3 . . . tt'le4 1 4 tt'l xe4 dxe4 1 5 i. a6! +- (or 1 5
i. c4! and 1 6 'ili' h5+-) ;
1 3 . . . gxf4 1 4 exf4 i. c8 1 5 ii'd3 l::t e 8 1 6 'ikg3+
'it>f8 1 7 l:!. h6+- ( 1 7 i. h5+-) ;
1 3 . . . tt'l bd7 1 4 fxg5 ( 1 4 i. d3!?) 1 4 . . . tt'l xe5
( 1 4 . . . tt'l e4 1 5 i. a6! ) 1 5 gxf6+ exf6 16
i. a6! +-.
Apart from the piece sacrifice , a qu ieter way
of handling the i n itial position was also not
bad : 9 i. d3! ? tt'le4 (after 9 . . . tt'lfd7, both 1 0
"ir'g4 and 1 0 tt'l g4 are strong, while if
9 . . . tt'l bd7, then 1 0 "ir'f3) 1 0 'ili'f3 tt'lxc3 1 1
bxc3 tt'ld7 1 2 tt'l g4 with advantage to White.
In the game David Norwood chose a faulty
plan , allowing his opponent to seize the
i nitiative .
9 g4? tt'ltd7! (by retreating his knight, Black
prevents the opening of lines on the kingside)
1 0 g5 h5 (weaker is 1 O . . . tt'lxe5 1 1 gxh6 i.h8
1 2 h7+) 1 1 i.xh5? ( 1 1 tt'lf3 , 1 1 i.f3 or 1 1
J::tg 1 with a n u nclear game) 1 1 . . . tt'lxe5 1 2
i.xe5 i.xe5 1 3 dxe5 d4! 1 4 i.t3 i.xt3 1 5
iYxf3 dxc3!+ 1 6 'it'xa8 ( 1 6 bxc3 tt'l d7 1 7 h5
tt'lxe5 1 8 "ir'e4 'ifd6 or 1 8 'iV h3 'it> g7 also
does not help) 1 6 ... 'iVd2+ 17 '>t>t1 cxb2 1 8
l:!.b1 'iVxc2 1 9 '>t>g2 tt'lc6 20 !'txb2 'it'c4! 21
'i!Wb7 'iVg4+ 22 �f1 l:td8 23 !'te2 'ii'c4 24
'>t>g2 'iVxe2 25 'ifxc6 'iVg4+ 26 'it>h2 'ii'xh4+
27 '>t>g2 'ii'g 4+ White resigns.
Xl/8. Polyak - Botvi n n i k (Moscow 1 929) .
The position is exceptionally tense, and it is
not easy for White to mai ntain his attack .
2 1 tt'l xf7? 'ii'd 5-+ .
2 1 dxc5? 'iix c5+ 22 'it> h 1 l:txe 1 23 .l::!. xe 1 'i'f2
24 l:t g 1 .l:!.e8-+ .
2 1 i. a2? ! i. d5 22 tt'l xf7? i. xf7 23 i.xf7+
'it> xf7 24 'ifc4+ '>t>t6!-+.
 Solutions: Tests 1 2 x 8
21 tt:Jxh7? 'ii'd 5! 22 'ii' h 3 'ii'x d4+ 23 �h1
'iif2 ! ?
It wou ld seem that 2 3 . . . l:!. xe 1 2 4 .l:t xe 1 'it'f2
25 .U. g 1 l:!.e8-+ was stronger. Now White
should have tried 24 l:t d 1 ! ? , hoping for
24 . . . l:!.ad8? 25 tt:Jf6+ ! gxf6 26 'it'g4+ and 27
.l:txf2 . Black, as i n the game, would have
gone into an ending with an extra pawn:
24 . . . .i. xg2+! 25 it'xg2 'it'xg2+ 26 � xg2
tt:Jxh7 27 .i. xh7+ �xh7 28 .l:t d7 � g6+.
24 .l:tc1 .i.xg2+ 25 'it'xg2 'ii'x g2+ 26 �xg2
tt:Jxh7 27 .i.xh7+ �xh7 28 �f3 llad8 29
.l:tcd1 �g6 30 l:fe1 �6, and Black won .
Even so, Wh ite could have gained an
advantage , if he had found the fol lowing
move .
21 .l:le5 ! !
Th reatening 2 2 .i. a2 , for example: 2 1 . . .
'it'xd4+ 2 2 'it'xd4 cxd4 2 3 .i. a2± . Bad is
2 1 . . . I:txe5 22 fxe5±, while if 21 . . . .i. d5 there
follows 22 tt:Jxh7 (22 .l:tfe 1 .l:!. ed8) 22 . . . tt:Jg6
23 tt:J g5±.
21 . . . tt:Jg6
This defence was recom mended by M i khail
Botvinnik, with the variation 22 tt:Jxf7 ii'xd4+
23 "ifxd4 cxd4 24 .i. a2 ! tb xe5 25 fxe5 .i. a6!
26 l:!.f2 h6! 27 tt:Jd6+ 'it> h7 28 tbxe8 .l:t xe8 29
e6 d3=. In fact, 24 .i. a2 deserves not an
exclamation mark, but a q uestion mark:
White can gain a decisive advantage by 24
.i.xg6! (24 l:t xe8! ? .l:!.xe8 25 tt:J d6 l:t e7 26 f5
tt:Jes 27 .U.d 1 is also good) 24 . . . hxg6 25 tt:Jd6
.l:!.xe5 26 fxe5 .i. a6 27 .l:t d 1 d3 28 b4.
Wh ite can play even more energetically.
tt:Jxe5
22 ..lta2!
Black loses immediately after 22 . . .'ir'xd4+
23 'it'xd4 cxd4 24 l!!. x e8+ l:t xe8 25 .i. xf7+ . If
22 . . . .l:!.f8, then 23 IUs is strong, while if
22 . . . .l:!.xe5, then 23 .i. xf7+ (or 23 fxe5 'it'xd4+
24 'iVxd4 cxd4 25 .l:t xf7+-) 23 . . . � h8 24 fxe5
�xd4+ 25 iVxd4 cxd4 26 .i. xg6 hxg6 27
.l:!.d 1 +-. .
23 fxe5
23 'it'xh7+ ! ? �f8 24 fxe5 'it'xd4+ 25 � h 1 +-.
ctJ 201
23 'i!i'xd4+
24 'it'xd4 cxd4
25 .i:.xf7
Black's position is completely hopeless. For
example, 25 . . . .i. a6 26 llxa7+ 'it> h8 27 tt:Jf7+
� g8 28 tt:J d8+ � 8 29 .l:txa8.
XII
Xll/1 . Kudrin - Byrne ( U SA Championship,
Berkley 1 984) .
The th reats of .l:!. f5 and .i. e4 have to be
parried. 23 . . . I!. xc2? 24 .l:!.f5 is bad for Black.
If 23 . . . 'it'e7? ! there follows 24 .i. e4! (24 l:t f5?
f6) . However, Black has a savi ng combi na­
tion : 24 . . . f5! (24 .. .f6? 25 gxh5+-) 25 .l:!.xf5
.l:!.xf5 26 gxf5 (weaker is 26 .i. xf5 .i. xd5 27
gxh5 'ii'f 6 28 I!. g 1 + �f7 29 'ii'h7+ '>t.>f8)
26 . . . tt:Jf6! 27 .l::!. g 1 + tt:J g4+ ! 28 hxg4 � h4+ 29
'lt> g2 .l:txc2+! 30 .i. xc2 .i. xd5+ 31 � 1 .i. c4+
32 'it> g2 .i. d5+.
But Black can achieve more - he can parry
the enemy attack, while retaining his extra
piece .
23 . . . �c4!-+
Now 24 : fs ll xg4 is pointless. There
followed 24 '>t.>g1 I!.f4! (24 . . . 'it'e7 ! ) 25 'ii'x d6
.JiLeS (25 . . . hxg4! is more energetic, and if
26 iVxd7, then 26 . . . .i. c8 and 27 . . . gxh3-+)
26 .l:txf4 (26 'ii'h 6 ! ?) 26 . . . exf4 27 .l:!.f1 hxg4
28 'it'xf4 f5 29 'it'xb4 tt:Jf6 30 d6 'it'g3 31
hxg4 'it'e3+ 32 'lt>h1 �g7! 33 .i.f3 fxg4 34
.i.xg4 .i.xg4 Wh ite resigns.
Xll/2. Short - Bagirov ( Baku 1 983) .
48 . . . 'ii'a 7! !
The only way of parrying the th reat of 49
'it'g7+.
49 'it'g7+ (49 �d6 tt:J b4) 49 . . . �e6 50 'it'g8+
(50 .i. h4 'ii'f 7 or 50 . . . 'it'xd4 ! ? ) 50 . . .iif7 51
'ii'c 8+ 'it'd7 52 'it'g8+ �f7 53 'ii'a 8 'ii'c 7, and
the game ended i n a draw.
202 w PART V I I I

Xll/3. Jansa - Li Zunian ( I nterzonal Tou rna­
ment, Biel 1 985) .
Black intends 36 . . . i.. e 6 followed by 37 . . . 'i'Ng7
or 37 . . . � h3. I n the game there followed 36
i*'d3? �e6 37 �fS iVg7! 38 �g4 i.. x g4 39
fxg4 �xg4 40 �e4 �f2-+.
36 �xbS! �e8
� 'ii'
If 36 . . . e6 there is 37 b6 ! ? i.. h 3 38 � g 1 ,
but 37 lt'l xf4! is even stronger.
( 1 9 . . . i. b7? 20 i. xb7 .l:!. xb7 2 1 l:!. d3) 20 .lieS
i. b7 21 .l:td4?
The attack also gets bogged down in the
variation 21 � xb7 'ii'xb7 (th reatening 22 . . .
'ii'x g2+! ) 2 2 f 3 'ii'c 8 23 .l:t d4 'it h7 2 4 'iVxf7+
� g7. White should have tried 2 1 f3!?,
considering that 2 1 . . . i. xe4 22 fxe4 �xc2
enables h i m to regain the sacrificed material
after 23 'i¥f3! .

37 'it'b6 'it'g7 21 . . . �xe4 22 ktxe4 1Vxc2! 23 �g4+ (23 �f4

iVg6 24 � g4 'it> h7) 23 . . . 'it>f8 24 "ifxh6+ WeB
38 .l:tg1 ±
2S .l:txg8+ lt'lxg8 26 'ifh8 'ii'g 6 27 �c1 (27
i.. g 7 i..f 8! ) 27 .. .f6, and Black won .
Xll/4. Gorelov - Mayorov (Saratov 1 98 1 ) .
White i s th reatening to play 2 0 .l:!. h3 h 6 2 1
i..x h6. I t was along these li nes that events i n Xll/6. lvkov - Karpov (Caracas 1 970) .
the game developed : 1 9 . . . �fc8? 2 0 l:!.h3 h 6 Wh ite is th reatening not only the capture of
2 1 i.. x h6 'ifxeS (2 1 . . . gxh6 2 2 i.. x g6+- 22 the knight, but also 24 lt'lf5 ! . In the game
.JigS! (but not 22 i.. x g6? iVxh5 23 i.. x h5 Black underesti mated the latter th reat and
gxh5) . Black resigns, since he is unable to he q u ickly lost: 23 . . . i.xeS? 24 lt'lfS ! exfS 25
defend against 23 iVh7+ 'it> f8 24 1V h8+! . 'it'xg8+ <j;e7 26 �xeS+ �6 27 �xfS+ 'it>e6
28 �e1 + 'itd7 29 .Uxe8 Black resigns.
The best defence involves a counter-sacri­
fice of the queen . The correct plan of defence involves the
i mmediate flight of the king away from the
19 . . . 'it'c6 !
danger zone.
20 �e4 'it'xe4!
21 l::!.xe4 �xe4 23 . . . �e7 ! !
24 tt:lfS+ exfS
Black retains a defensible position .
2S tt:Jc6+ '.td7
26 tt:Jxd8
XII/S. Kaiszauri - Ornstei n (Eksjo 1 98 1 ) .
Black's king i s in terrible danger. He loses
after 1 6 . . . i.. e 7? 1 7 iVg4+ 'it> h8 1 8 i.. xf6+
i..xf6 1 9 iVe4, or 1 6 . . . 'iVf4? 1 7 g3 'i'N h6 1 8
1Vg4+ 'it> h8 1 9 1Ve4 with the th reats of 20
i..xf6+ and 20 'i¥xa8 .
16 . . . .l;l.gB ! !
Now after 1 7 1V g4+ 'it>f8 White's queen i s e n
prise. He also achieves nothing with 1 7 'i!Yf3
i.e? 1 8 'ili'g3+ 'i¥xg3 1 9 fxg3 h5! 20 �f4 � h8
21 � af1 � h6, while 1 8 1Vxa8 loses by force:
18 . . . ..li b7 1 9 i.. xf6+ i.. xf6 20 'tWa? 'it> h8! 21
i..e4 (21 g3 'iVc6 22 f3 'iVd7-+) 2 1 . . . i.. x e4!
22 'iVxc7 .l:t xg2+ 23 'it> h 1 �xf2+ 24 'lt> g 1
l:!.g2+ 2 5 'it h 1 .l:t g3+ with mate . 26 g6 ! !
1 7 i.e4 l:!.a7 1 8 'iVhS h6 1 9 �ad 1 i.. e7 This i s the whole point - the white q ueen is
 Solutions: Tests 1 2 x 8 ctJ 203

unexpectedly trapped .
27 'ii' x g8
White loses after 27 ll xe8? ..i xh8 28 .l:t xg8
cxb2 ! .
27 . . . l:.xg8
28 ..ixg8 c2 ! ?
2 8 . . . '1ii> x d8 2 9 bxc3 .i dS! also comes i nto
consideration , with an u nusual position that
is hard to evaluate .
29 tt:lxb7 cxd1 'it'
30 .l:txd1 �c6 ! ? =
3 0 . . . .l:. xb7 3 1 ..i xf7± is u nfavou rable for
Black, but 30 . . . 'i?i>e7 is also possible: 3 1
lite 1 + ( 3 1 ..i xf7 '1ii>xf7 3 2 tt:l d6+ '1ii> e 7 33 lLl bS 22 ii.g7!
l:lc2) 31 . . . '1ii>f8 32 lt::l d 6 l:t c6! ! . The soundest contin uation. After 22 . . . '1ii> g 7?
M ikhail Tal had foreseen the spectacular
Xll/7. Tal - Olafsson (Bled 1 96 1 ) . stroke 23 ..i d7! ! , enabling him to create
decisive th reats to the opponent's king:
Black's position looks dangerous, b u t with
23 . . . i. xd7 24 lt::l d S ..i xd4+ 25 'iWxd4+ '1ii> h6
accu rate play he can parry the opponent's
(25 .. .f6 26 .l:t e7+ '1it g8 27 'ii'h4+-) 26 l:l e4
attack.
g5 ! ? (26 . . .f6 27 l:. e7+-) 27 h4! (but not 27
20 . . . 'i!Vd8 ! ! l:.e7 .l:t g8 28 'ii'f 6+? l:tg6 29 'ii'xf7 'if h8-+)
21 exd6+
27 . . . .l:t g8 (27 . . .f6 28 .U. e7+- followed by 29
21 'if h6? dxes 22 ..i xeS+ ..i f6 23 l:t e3 does hxgS+) 28 hxgS+ l:. xgS 29 l:t h4+ l:t hS 30
not work - Black does not reply 23 . . . ..i xeS? .l:txhS+ '1ii> x h5 31 'ii'g 7!+-.
24 .l:t h3+-, but 23 . . . l:. g8! or 23 . . . ..i xg2 ! .
After 22 . . . ..t xd4+ ? ! 23 'ii'xd4+ '1ii> g 8 24 ..i e4
It looks tempting t o play 2 1 e6+ ..if6 22 l:t e8 2S l:td 1 Wh ite has more than sufficient
'ii'h4!? (22 e7? ..i xd4+ 23 '1ii> h 1 "ii'c 7 or
compensation for the exchange . However,
23 . . . 'ii'b 6) 22 .. .fxe6 (23 e7 was th reatened) instead of 23 . . . '1ii> g 8 Black can try 23 . . .f6 ! . I n
23 J:txe6. It appears that the variations are in the fasci nati ng compl ications that follow it
favour of Wh ite : 23 . . . ..i g7? 24 ..i xg7+ '1ii> xg7 would appear that White does not have
2S .l:t e7+, 23 .. 5 � g7? 24 .l:t xf6 l:t xf6 2S more than a draw:
..i e4! +-, or 23 . . . ..i xd4+ ?! 24 'ifxd4+ '1it g8 2S
24 i. e4 .l:. c8 25 ..i xc6 .l:t xc6 26 l:t e6 'ifb6 27
llxd6 gxfS! 26 .l:t xd8± . However, there is the
'ifxb6 .l1 xb6 28 lt::l d 5 ll c6 29 lt::l b 4 .l:t b6= ;
brilliant reply 23 . . . ..i eS! ! , elimi nating the
24 .l:t e7 gxfS 2S "ii'h 4 'ii'h 6 + 26 'i?i>t 1 ..i xg2+!
danger (for example, 24 : xeS? ! "ii'x h4 25
.l:te4+ 'iWf6) . 27 '1ii> e 2 ! l:.f7! ! 28 .l:t xf7 .l:t e8+ 29 .l:t e7 l:.xe7+
30 dxe7 "ii'e 6+ 31 �f2 ..i c6+ ;
21 . . .
24 ..i xg6! ? hxg6 (24 . . . .l:t g8 25 ..i e4±) 2S l1e7
22 'ifh4
'1ii> g 8 26 lt::l e 4! nf7! 27 lt::lxf6+ '1ii>f8 28 .l:t e6! ?
( 2 8 lt::ld7 + '1ii> g8 29 .l::txf7 '1ii>xf7 3 0 lt::le 5+ '1ii> e 6
(see diagram) 31 lt::l xc6 'ii' xd6co) 28 . . . l:. b7! (i ntending
29 . . . "ii'b6; bad is 28 . . . l1g7? 29 d7!+-) 29
lt::ld 7+! ..i xd7! (29 . . . .l:t xd7? 30 l:. xg6+-) 30
:f6+ (30 'ii'h8+ '1ii>t7 31 l:t e7+ 'ii'x e7 32
204 � PART V I I I
'it'h7+ 'lt>e6 33 'it'xe7+ '>t>d5+) 30 . . . '1t> g7 3 1
.l:!.f4+ 'it;gS (or 3 1 . . . 'it> h6 3 2 .l:t h4+ 'ii'x h4 3 3
'ifxh4+ � g7=) 32 'ti'd5+ ..i e6! ?= .
2 3 .txg7+
23 'ti'f4 gxf5-+ (23 . . . l:. eS+) .
23 . . . �xg7
24 'i!Vd4+ f6
The position after 24 . . . 'it> gS 25 ..i e4 .l:t eS 26
.l::td 1 has al ready been mentioned in the
notes to Black's 22nd move - we evaluated
it in favour of White.
25 �e7+ �f7
26 l:txf7+ �xf7
27 .te4 .txe4
28 tt:'lxe4 :tc8ao
All the remaining ways of defending (apart
from 20 . . . 'i*'dS! ! ) lead to difficu lties for Black.
20 . . . f6? 2 1 ..ixg6 .i dS 22 exd6+- is com­
pletely bad .
The game went 20 . . . 'it;g8? 21 e6 (th reaten-
ing 22 'iV h6) 21 ... ..ig5 (21 . . . f6 22 ..i xg6!
hxg6 23 'ii'h6 ..i eS 24 .l:te3 'ti'c4 25 .l::t h 3
'ti'xd4+ 26 '>t> h 1 ) 22 exf7+! (stronger than 23
e7? ! .t xe7 24 'iVh6 f6 25 ..i xg6 .i dS, or 25
..ie6+ 'iit hS 26 .ids ..i b7! ) 22 ... lbf7 23
..ixg6! .l::t g7 (23 . . . l:!. e7 24 �f1 or 24 � e6 with
the th reat of 25 ..i xh7+) 24 'ii'e6+ '>t>h8 25
.tea! h6 26 ..ixc6 'it'xc6 27 tt:'le4
White has an undisputed advantage (27
'it'g6! was probably even more energetic) .
There fol lowed 27 ... .l:te8 28 'i!Vg6 (2S 'ii'f7! ?
l:te5 2 9 'ii'fS+) 2 8 .. J:te7 2 9 h 4 (29 tt:'l xg5?
l:!.xe 1 + 30 '>t>f2 is refuted in two ways:
30 . . . �e2 ! ? 31 'lt>xe2 li'g2+ with a d raw, or
30 . . . .l:.e5!? 3 1 .t xe5 'it'c5+) 29 . . . 'ii'd 5 (29 . . .
..if4! ? 30 'it'f6! 'ti'xc2 3 1 'i*'fS+ 'lt> h7 32
..ixg7+-) 30 .txg7+ �xg7 31 'ii'x d6 'ii'x d6
32 tt:'lxd6 ..ixh4 33 l:te8+ .l:!.g8 34 tt:'lf7+ '>t>g7
35 .l::tx g8+ 'it;xg8 36 tt:'lxh6+ '>t>h7 37 tt:'lf5
.tg5 38 b3 Black resigns.
Xll/8. Smirnov - Makarychev (Tbilisi 1 979) .
White's attack is rather dangerous. He is
th reatening g4-g5, opening li nes on the
kingside . 1 S . . . h5? 1 9 gxh5 is bad for Black.
As usual , the correct reaction to a flank
attack is a counterblow in the centre.
18 . . . b4!
1 S . . . bxc4! ? was probably also not bad.
Black was afraid of the reply 1 9 .t b1 ! ,
renewi ng the th reat o f g4-g5. But after
1 9 . . . g6! (with the idea after 20 g5 of replying
20 . . . tt::l h 5) the position is unclear.
1 9 tt:'lb1 d5! !
'ii'
1 9 . . . b7? ! suggests itself, intending 20
tt::ld 2? d5! 2 1 cxd5 exd5 22 e5 tt::l e4 23 g5 h5!
followed by 24 . . . ..i b5. But White acts more
sharply: 20 g5! tt::l x e4 2 1 gxh6 g6 22 � hg 1 ,
and the position of the black king gives
cause for alarm . Therefore Sergey Maka­
rychev i mmediately breaks through in the
centre , even at the cost of a piece sacrifice.
20 exd5
20 g5?! tt:J xe4.
20 . . . tt:'lxd5!
21 cxd5
21 ii'e4 f5 22 gxf5 exf5 23 'ii'f3? .l::tac8
(23 . . . b3! ? ) .
21 .txd5
Makarychev had aimed for this position.
 Solutions: Tests 1 2
Wh ite now has no time to continue his pawn
storm . He cannot play 22 i. h7+? 'it> xh7 23
�xd5 because of 23 . . .'it' c7+ . In the event of
22 l:t hf1 ..i xa2 Black has two pawns for the
piece , and the white king feels u ncomfort­
able.
22 tL'ld2 i.xh1 23 .l:.xh 1
Material is roughly equal a n d Black's chances
in the forthcoming struggle are not worse.
He only needs to avoid the temptation to win
Thematic Index of Tests
I Combi native vision, imagination
1/1 - 1/8 , 1 1/5 , I V/1 , I V/2 , I V/5 , I V/6 , V/7
II Counter-chances for the opponent
1 1/1 - 1 1/8 , IV/4, V l l/5 , V l l/7
Ill I ntermediate moves
1 1 1/1 - 1 1 1/8 , 1 1/4 , X/6
IV Traps
IV/1 - IV/8
V Positional sacrifice
V/1 - V/8 , 1 1/7, V l l l/7, I X/8 , X l/4, X l/7, X l l/4 ,
X l l/8
VI Manoeuvres
Vl/1 - V l/8 , 1 1 1/7 , I X/4 , I X/6 , X/2 , X/3, X/7 , X I I/
2, X l l/6
x 8 l2J 205
a pawn: 23 .. . '�c7+ ?! 24 <;t> b 1 'i¥xf4 - after 25
.:f 1 'it'd4 26 tL'l b3 (intending g4-g5 and
ife4) Wh ite agai n goes onto the attack.
23 ... .l:tfd8 24 tL'lc4 (24 'it'e4 ? ! 'i¥d6 ! ; 24
tt:Je4!?) 24 .. J!d4 25 f5 .l:lad8 26 ..ic2 'ii'c7
27 tt:Je3 (27 b3 �f4+) 27 . . . �e5 28 fxe6
�xe6 29 Wb1 .:ea (an i mmediate draw
would have been achieved by 29 . . . I! e4! ? 30
.:!.e 1 I!e5 3 1 ..i b3 'Yi'g6+ 32 .i. c2 'it'e6) 30
.l:te1 with chances for both sides.
VII Play with pawns, pawn structure
V l l/1 - V l l/8 , 1/7, 1 1 1/6, I X/ 1 , I X/2 , X/4 , Xl/5
VIII Exchanges
V l l l/1 - V l l l/8 , V/3 , I X/3, X l/3
IX Prophylaxis
I X/ 1 - I X/8 , V l l/1 , X/5 , X l l/1 , X l l/2
X Conversion of an advantage
X/1 - X/8, 1 1/3 , V l l/4, V l l l/6 , V l l l/8
XI Attac k on the king
X l/1 - X l/8, 1 1 1/3 , 1 1 1/8 , V/2 , V/5 , V/6, V l/5 , VI/
7 , V l l/6
XII Defence
X l l/1 - X l l/8 , 1/8 , 1 1/1 , 1 1/2 , 1 1/8 , I V/7, IV/8, V I I/
3, V l l l/3, V l l l/4 , I X/5 , I X/7
206 cJf

PART IX

Artur Yusupov

Games by Pupils of the School

I Dvoretsky
n the fi rst chapter of this book Mark dent i n their powers, and l i ked to play
has already shown how the sharply and to attack; playi ng for the
strong and weak sides of a contestant's play pessi mists were those who were more
influence the result of a game. For success­ incli ned towards positional methods of play.
ful improvement it is important to determine The followi ng game is taken from this
these qualities correctly - that is, to supply a matc h, and I thi n k it will be easy to guess in
'diagnosis' . I n our school prime importance which of the teams these lads were playing
is attached to this aspect of the work. (here and subsequently the ages of our
Fi rst the pupils comment on their own pupils are given i n brackets).
games. Then a joint analysis with the
teachers of the most i nteresti ng games
Zviagi ntsev (1 3) - Alexand rov (1 6)
enables their evaluations to be checked and
Daugavpils 1 990
often corrected, and the virtues and defi­
Nimzo-lndian Defence
ciencies of the youngsters to be more
accu rately disclosed . I n combination with 1 d4 lLlf6
the solvi ng of a variety of tests , thematic 2 c4 e6
trai ning games and the observance of our 3 lLlc3 �b4
pupils' work during studies and lectu res , this 4 f3 d5
enables a fairly complete creative portrait of 5 a3 .1i..e7
the young players to be compiled. 6 cxd5? !
I n this chapter we would l i ke to give some 6 e 4 i s more critical.
impression of how such work is conducted , 6. . . exd5!
and to show several examples both of 4J
6 . . . xd5?! is weaker on account of 7 e4
stri king creative discoveries, and of instruc­ 4Jxc3 8 bxc3 with a strong centre for White .
tive mistakes , taken from the you ngsters' 7 e4 dxe4 ! ?
games .
I n t h e g a m e Gelfand-Spassky (Linares
1 990) Black sacrificed a pawn - 7 . . . c5 8
Pessimists and opti m i sts dxc5 ..t xc5 9 e5, but he was u nable to
In order to become more closely acquainted demonstrate the correctness of his idea.
with the play of our pupils, we organised a 8 fxe4 tt:Jc6 ? !
thematic match between two teams: 'opti­ I n his commentary Vadi m Zviagi ntsev exam­
mists' and 'pessimists' . In the opti mists we ines some more promising possibilities:
incl uded those youngsters who were confi- 8 . . c5 9 d5 (after 9 ..t b5+ ii. d7 1 0 e5 tLld5
.
 Games by Pupils of the School
Black's position is more pleasant) 9 . . . iL d6
1 0 lt:Jf3 lt:J g4 ( I think that 1 0 . . . tt:J bd7 is also
good - Yusupov) , and 8 . . . 0-0 9 lt:Jf3 c5 1 0 d5
lt:Jg4 1 1 e5!? tt:J xe5 ! ? 1 2 tt:J xe5 .i. h4+ 1 3 g3
.U e8 with complications not unfavourable for
Black.
9 tt:Jf3 .i.g4
1 0 .i.e3 .i.h5?!
Black lau nches an attack, without havi ng
completed his development. 1 0 . . . 0-0 is
stronger and more solid. After the reckless
1 0 . . . iL xf3? 1 1 gxf3 lt:J h5 Zviagi ntsev had
foreseen 1 2 f4! ( 1 2 'ifd2 tt:Ja5 ! ) 1 2 . . . ii. h4+ 1 3
�d2! ! , and if 1 3 . . . tt:J xd4?, then 1 4 'it> c 1 and
wins.
11 .i.c4 tt:Jg4?!
I n the same risky manner; 11 . . . 0-0 is better.
1 2 i.f4 .i.h4+
1 3 tt:Jxh4 'i!t'xh4+
1 4 i.g3?
A serious mistake . White wants to play as
safely as possible, but as a result he hands
the i nitiative to his opponent. Correct was 1 4
g3! 'iVd8 ( 1 4. . . 'iV h3?? 1 5 iLf1 ) 1 5 d5! with a
great advantage to White.
14 . . . "iNg5
1 5 tt:Jd5 0-0-0
After the game it transpi red that Alexand rov
had not considered the obvious 1 5 . . . lt:Jf2 .
True , 1 6 "it'd2 'YWxd2+ 1 7 W xd2 lt:Jxh1 1 8
CZJ 207
tt:Jxc7+ � d7 1 9 .U. x h 1 .l:!. ac8 20 d5 would
have led to an i ntricate position. The move
made by h i m is not bad , but, unfortunately,
the opponent's reply came as a complete
su rprise to Black. It is clear that the finding
of 'candidate moves', the noticing of differ­
ent possibilities (especially for the oppo­
nent) is a weak point with this young player,
and, incidentally, the main cause of his
fai l u re i n the present game. He faces some
serious work in this di rectio n.
1 6 it'c1 ! 'i!t'g6?
A poor move , allowing White to complete his
development. Black should have exchanged
queens.
17 "ii'f4 1:!.d7
1 8 0-0 ! ? tL:lxd4
1 9 .l;tac1
After sacrificing a paw n , White has concen­
trated all his forces for an attack. But Black's
defensive resou rces are not yet exhausted .
He should have brought his rook into play -
1 9 . . . .l:t e8! . There could follow 20 ii. b5! lt:Jxb5
21 tt:J xc7 ! 'iV b6+ 22 .i.f2 'iVxc7 23 .U. xc7+
tt:Jxc7 24 .i. xa7 with double-edged play.
19 . . . tL:le6??
I n such positions every mistake may prove
to be the last. Wh ite confidently concl udes
the game.
20 tL:le7+! .Sxe7
208 c;i? PART I X

21 �xe6+ 'it>b8 on the opposite flank White disrupts the

Black is also not saved by 2 1 . . . ifxe6 22 coord i nation of the opponent's pieces.
.l:!.xc7+ 'it>d8 23 lld 1 + 'it> e8 24 llxe7+ (24 .l:!. c6 20 "ii' g 5! tt:Jg6
is also possible) 24 . . . 'it>xe7 25 'ii'c 7+ 'it>f6 26 21 h4 �hg8
.l:!.d6. 22 h5 h6
22 l:txc7 l:!.xc7 23 �g3 tt:Jf8
23 �XC7+ \t>a8 If 23 . . . tt:Je7, then 24 � h7 l:t h8 25 ifxg7.
24 1::!.d 1 �g5 24 b3! �c6
25 l:td7 25 bxc4 dxc4?
25 �c8 was simpler. 25 . . . ifxc4 was better, but even then after 26
25 . . . �e3+ l:t b4 ire? 27 l:Ifb 1 the advantage is with
26 'it>h1 ! White.
It was not yet too late to lose the game by 26 26 'ife3 .l:.d7
'it>f1 ?? lt:Jxh2+ ! . 27 �b4 .l:.c7
28 �fb1 'ifa6
26 . . . 'iVb6
29 �a4
27 �d5 �xc7
28 l:txc7 l:!.b8 29 � e4 b6 30 d5 was also good .
29 �xb7+ ! 29 . . . �c6
Black resigns. 30 .l:.a5
Prepari ng d4-d5. But it was also possible to
play this i mmediately: 30 d 5 ! ? "i!Vc5 31 d6
P lay on d ifferent flan ks .l:tc6 32 'i!Vxc5 .Uxc5 33 � e4 b5 34 .l:!. a5.
This element of chess strategy is one of the 30 . . . �d7
most difficult. But see how skilfully it is used 31 d5 b6
by a young player. 32 d6 l:.c6
Baklan (1 1 ) - Zil berstei n 33 �e4 'ifc8
Kiev 1 989 Now comes a pretty finish .
34 .l:.xb6+! axb6
35 'it'xb6+ �b7
36 l::t a 8+
36 ifxc6 was simpler.
36 . . . 'it>xa8
37 �xc6 'ifxc6
38 �XC6+ 'it>b8
39 d7
Black resigns.

The Ste i n itz Princi ple

The correct plan in this position is the
advance b2-b3 and play on the queenside.
But before carrying it out, with an operation
The development of the i nitiative is a topic
that is very difficult not only for young
players. At i ndividual lessons in our school
we try to focus the pupils' attention on
missed possibilities, and i nvestigate the
reasons for the mistakes made.
 Games by Pupils of the School 209

Ki ryakov (1 5) - Sakaev 1 1 h3? tt.Ja6!

Simferopol 1 990 1 2 ll'lb5 �b6
1 d4 ll'lf6 1 3 g4 ll'lc5
2 c4 e6 1 4 g5 ll'lxd3+
3 ll'lc3 �b4 1 5 1i'xd3 ltJeB
4 'i!fc2 c5 1 6 e4
5 dxc5 �xc5 1 6 � c3! ? a6 1 7 t2J bd4 with the idea of h3-
6 ll'lf3 'iib 6 h4-h5 and g5-g6 is better. The position
7 e3 'fic7 obliges White to play for an attack.
8 �d2 ! ? 0-0 16 . . . a6!
9 �d3 �hB?! 'iia 5
1 7 �e3
1 0 0-0-0 �e7 1 8 ll'lc3 b5!
Exploiting his opponent's i ndecisiveness,
Black, as predicted by Stei nitz, has seized
the i nitiative (although the game ended in a
d raw) .
We advised the young player to pay atten­
tion to the slight passivity of his style, and
recommended that he should study the
games of Jan Tim man and other dynamic
players .

A spectacu l a r attack
Maxim Boguslavsky loves to attack. I n the
following example with accurate and inventive
play he mated the enemy king, after the
White has an obvious lead in development, opponent fai led to exploit all his defensive
but here he played sluggishly, allowi ng his resou rces.
opponent to i nitiate counterplay.
I n his comments on the game, Petya Boguslavsky (1 4) - Matsionis
Ki ryakov indicated the fol lowing possibili­ Tal l i n n 1 990
ties: 11 e4, 1 1 ll'le4!? and 1 1 g4! ? . However,
after 1 1 g4 ll'l xg4 he considered only 1 2
.l:!.dg1 ll'lxf2 1 3 ii. xh7. 'Th is attack is prob­
ably i ncorrect, and I am not a fan of such
attacks , ' wrote Petya i n his notes.
I n fact White has some tempti ng ways of
developing his in itiative . Thus after 1 1 g4
ll'lxg4 he has the strong 1 2 ll'l b5! and 1 3
ii. c3 with dangerous th reats. 1 1 lLl b5 ii'd8
1 2 j_ c3 a6 1 3 � xf6 j_ xf6 1 4 lLl d6 is also
i nteresting. Remember Stei nitz's famous
principle: 'The player with an advantage
must attack, as otherwise he risks losing
this advantage. '
210 � PART IX

24 �f1 ! Boguslavsky (1 4) - Shakhbaz

Little is promised by 24 'it'xb7+ 'i:Vxb7 25 Moscow 1 989
.l:!.xb7 .l:!. h 1 + with an unclear endgame. With
the subtle move in the game the young
Muscovite parries the th reatened rook ex­
change and mai ntains all his own possibili­
ties .
24 . . . "ifxa5?
Black cracks under the tensio n . He should
have answered in the same manner:
24 . . . 'it>d8! 25 �xb7 it'xa5 ! (25 . . . � c8! ? also
comes into consideration) 26 .l:!. b5! ? .l:!. h 1 +!
(but not 26 .. .'i¥ xc3? 27 'i!i'xd7 + ! ! ) 27 Wf2
'ii'a2+ 28 1:!.5b2 .l:!. xf1 +! 29 .l:!. xf1 'it'xc4 with
chances for both sides.
25 J:!.a2!
Black was probably expecting only 25 22 �e1 ? !
�xb7+ , which wou ld have transposed i nto After achieving t h e better position , White
the variation just examined. loses the th read of the game. He could have
25 . . . 'i!i'b6 strengthened his position by 22 i..f 7+ ! 'it> h7
26 �d1 ! 23 �g3, obtai ning excellent attacking pros­
Boguslavsky conducts the attack i n excel­ pects .
lent style. 26 'ifc2? ! was weaker on account 22 . . . .l:!.f8!
of 26 . . . .l:!. h 1 + 27 'it>f2 .l:!. xf1 + ! 28 .l:!. xf1 W b8. Black defends the vulnerable f8-square and
26 . . . "i!ic7 prepares to occupy the important f4-point
27 J:!.xa7 l:th1 + with his knight.
28 'iitf2 �h3?! 23 J:!.ad 1 tt:ld5
28 . . . 'it> b8 was better, when White would 24 "i!Vd3?
probably have replied 29 .l:!. a6! followed by A bad move , leading to the loss of the
30 'i¥b3. i n itiative . 24 'it'g3 l:.ad8 25 l:.d4! ir'f6 26 h4
29 "i!ia4 �xg2 was correct, when 26 .. .t"Li f4? is not good in
30 J:!a8+ "ifib8 view of 27 i.. f7+ ! .
31 "fic6+! ! bxc6 24 . . . tt:lf4
32 .l:!.axb8+ 25 �h7+
And mate next move . 25 �d7 was stronger.
25 . . . �h8
26 "ifg3 �xh7
27 J:!.d7 'i:Vxd7!?
Play without a plan 28 tt:lxd7 J:!.f5
Unfortunately, Boguslavsky does not solve And it was now Black, after sacrificing his
positional problems so confidently. I n the queen , who began an attack.
followi ng example he was u nable to find
good squares for his pieces.
 Games by Pupils of the School l2J 21 1

Compariso n : which move several conti nuations:

is more accu rate 1 ) 22 . . . dxe4 23 �xd8+ 'ir'xd8 24 �xes with
advantage to White;
Ovseevich (1 2) - Emel i n (1 3) 2) 22 . . . tt:Jg6 23 �f7+ W h7 24 ctJ f6+ i.. xf6 2S
'i!Vxa7 winning the exchange;
Beltsy 1 989
3) 22 . . . tt:Jc6 23 cxdS exdS 24 l:t xdS! .l:t xdS 2S
�f7 + W h8 26 'tWxdS , and Black has a
difficult positio n ;
4) 22 . . . tt:J xc4 ! ? 23 bxc4 dxe4. T h i s position
must be evaluated i n favou r of White. He
has real chances of an attack, and the
presence of opposite-colour bishops merely
strengthens the attacking possibilities. The
simplest is 24 'i:Vxe4 followed by 2S 'ii'g 6 and
26 � e4, but 24 l:txd8+ 'i!Vxd8 2S 'i!Vf7 +!? 'it> h8
26 �g6 with the th reat of 27 ..lt xe4 can also
be checked .
I n the game White played less subtly and
allowed his opponent to organise a defence.
21 �d4 lib7
White has a pronounced positional advan­
22 'it>h1 b5
tage. It is determined mainly by his supe rior
23 cxb5 .l:txb5
pawn structu re and more active pieces. The
24 l:tc1 �b8 ! ?
different prospects of the bishops should be
especially mentioned : in contrast to its T h e start o f active counterplay. 2 4 . . . 'it'd? 2S
cramped opposite n u m ber, White's bishop � h3 W h8 was also possible.
can come out to h3 and i ntensify the 25 .lth3 d5
pressu re on the opponent's position . 26 .ltxe6+ 'it>h8
Now an attack on the b6-pawn suggests 27 tt:Jc3 .!::i. b4
itself. It can be carried out in two ways: 2 1 28 �f2
�d4 and 2 1 �e3. I n such situations the
procedu re of comparison comes to a play­
er's aid . In both cases it is bad to defend the
pawn with the queen on account of 22 i.. h 3.
The virtue of 2 1 'ike3! is that after the
straightforward defence 2 1 . . . l:t b7 there is a
tactical rejoinder: 22 tt:J xd6! i.. x d6 23 l:t xd6
(but not 23 i.. x b7? in view of 23 . . . � cS! )
2 3 . . . l:txd6 2 4 i.. x b7 'i!V xb7 2S �xeS with a n
extra pawn for Wh ite , or 2 4 . . . tt:Jxc4 2S itf3
with the advantage . But the obvious d raw­
back to this move is that it al lows . . . d6-d S .
O f course , a t s u c h moments a player should
delve into a position and calculate varia-
tions. After 2 1 'iVe3! dS 22 'iVf4 Black has As often happens, i n return for the lost
212 � PART IX

material Black's initiative has flared up. Now I n t he g ame he played d ifferently.
it was important for him not to allow the 29 . . . li:Jf7?
enemy knight to go to d5. This problem 30 l:tg3! l::te 7!
would have been solved by 28 .. J !b6! ! , when Bad is 30 . . . 'ili' h6+? 31 'ir'xh6 tt::lx h6 32 f4
29 i.xd5 is dangerous on account of tt::la4 33 fxe5 tt::l x b2 34 l! xb2 fxe5 35 .l:t xb7
29 . . . i. g5 followed by . . . tt::l g4. with a decisive advantage for White.
28 . . . d4? 31 f4 l:tae8
A natu ral but poor continuation. 32 l:teg2 .l:i.xe6
29 tt::ld5 l:tf8 33 dxe6 l:txe6
30 'i'g2 l:tb7 34 fxe5 lt'Jxe5! ?
31 ti.Jxe7 l:txe7 35 1i'f4 tt::l b d7
32 l:txf8+ 'ifxf8 Here White was tempted by the 'wi n' of the
33 l:tc8 queen - 36 �g8+??, leading to a difficult
The resulting endgame is lost for Black. ending, which i n the end he lost. Meanwhile,
after 36 'ir' h4! ? , with the veiled idea of i. c1 -
h6, he would have retained a powerful
A q ueen sacrifice in defence attack. Even stronger was the di rect 36 'ii'f5!
Gasymov - Kiryakov (1 5) l:.d6 (36 . . . I:te8 is met by the same reply) 37
Simferopol 1 990 i. xe5 ! tt::lx e5 38 .l:!. g7 and wins.

Foresta l l i ng the opponent's

possi b i l ities

Paying attention to the opponent's th reats is

a necessary quality for a chess player. It
helps in many situations, and in particular
when defending.

Makariev (1 4) - Khristov
Kishinyov 1 990

White has conducted the game inventively

and built up a dangerous attack. However,
he has al ready sacrificed two pawns. I n
such cases i t i s often possible t o return the
extra material for the sake of achieving
some positional gains.
White is intending, by playi ng f2-f4, to
include his dark-square bishop in the attack.
This could have been forestalled by 29 . . .
tt::la4! . After 30 .Ug8+ 'ifxg8 3 1 i. xg8 l:! xg8
Black has the advantage.
 Games by Pupils of the School ttJ 213

White i s th reatening 4 4 Sl.. c4+ , after which A passed pawn in the endgame
the black king will feel extremely u ncomfort­
able. This threat should have been parried Khoroshavina - Gaponenko {1 3)
by 43 . . . k!. c5! with good d rawing chances Kherson 1 989
(pointed out by l lya Makariev) .
43 . . . fxe5?
44 .ltc4+ 'it>f6
45 J:i.b6+ 'it>g7
46 J:i.g6+ '>t>h8
47 f5
And Black encountered insuperable d ifficul­
ties.

Pashanov - Sitn i k {8)

Sochi 1 989

31 tt:lxb7?!
White incorrectly h u rries to change the
structu re of the position. She could have
retai ned a serious advantage with the
simple move 31 tt:l ab3.
31 . . . .ltxb7
32 c6 tt:lc5?
An instructive mistake. The c-pawn is closer
to the king and to Black's main forces, and
therefore it is far easier to combat than a
passed pawn on the b-file. Whereas in the
This example shows how important it is to opening and the middlegame central
remain vigilant. Black has a great advan­ pawns are stronger than flank pawns, in
tage , but after just one incautious move the the endgame it is normally the other way
game concluded not in his favou r. round. After 32 . . . � xc6! 33 bxc6 lL'l b6 Black
22 . . . tt:lf8?? would have gained a d raw without difficu lty.
23 J:i.xf8+! 33 cxb7 tt:lxb7
Mate in i nevitable . 34 b6 tt:lc5
I n analysis after the game Maxim Sitn i k 35 .ltb5 tt:lc8
fou nd th e correct solution. Black should 36 tt:lb3! tt:lb7
divert the opponent's pieces from the attack 37 .ltc6 tt:lcd6
and then complete his development: there­ 38 .ltxd5
fore 22 . . . c2! , and only after 23 "ir'xc2 - And White converted her pawn advantage.
23 . . .'�J f8.
214 � PART IX
Viktor Glatman
Postscript - School of Future Champions
I benefit may be gained by a young player
t hardly needs to be explained how much
havi ng a creative contact with leading
g randmasters and trainers, and how neces­
sary it is for the young to have help and
advice . Many years ago ex-world champion
Mikhail Botvi nnik headed the fi rst all-union
junior school . Many pupils of that school
subsequently become outstanding players.
Later other similar schools also appeared,
although not all of them operated success­
fully.
In his time Artu r Yusupov studied in the
Botvi nnik school , while Mark Dvoretsky
worked in it, helping Botvi nni k and simulta­
neously training Artu r. Years passed. Yusu­
pov became one of the strongest grandmas­
ters in the world, and he several times
participated in the Candidates events for the
world crown . Dvoretsky is now a famous
trai ner, who has taught many world j u n ior
champions, and prepared several Candi­
dates for the world championsh ip: Artur
Yusupov, Sergey Dolmatov, Nana Alexan­
dria and Alexey Dreev.
At the end of 1 989 the Dvoretsky-Yusupov
school was set up. The combination of a top­
class grandmaster and a trainer of enor­
mous experience immediately raised the
lessons to a new, qual itatively higher level
than previously. This immediately began
telling on the youngsters' results.
Th ree pupils from our school earned the
right to participate in the world girls and boys
under- 1 4 championships, which took place
in 1 990 in the USA. Twelve-year-old Diana
Darchia from Batu mi won the top title, while
l nna Gaponenko from Kherson and Vasya
Emelin from Leningrad became silver medal
winners .
Alexey Alexandrov (from Bobruysk) , twice
the adu lt champion of Belarus, won the
USSR J u n ior Championship in 1 99 1 . Elakha
Kadymova from Gyandzhi won the all-union
g i rls championship, and then also became
champion of E u rope.
At the age of 1 4 the Muscovite Vadim
Zviagintsev ach ieved the master norm -
previously only Alexey D reev had done this
at an earlier age , and he, i ncidental ly, also
studied under the direction of Mark Dvoretsky.
I will briefly describe who taught in the
schoo l , and how our work was arranged .
The sessions were held twice a year, each
for a period of 1 0 days . We worked with
rated young players ( not lower than candi­
date master) . 1 0-1 5 pupils were i nvited to
each session , and Yusupov and Dvoretsky
consulted not only with the youngsters, but
also their trainers. And the most highly­
qual ified experts gave lessons together with
the m . The masters M i khail Shereshevsky,
Alexey Kosi kov and Vladi mi r Vu lfson were
effectively ful ly-fledged teachers at our
schoo l .
Dvoretsky and Yusupov i nvited t he author of
these lines, a chess master, to become the
di rector of the schoo l , and to take on all the
associated organisational problems.
Each day began with physical exercises, in
which not only the you ngsters, but also the
teachers participated. An excellent example
for the pupils, and far more effective than
any tal ks about the benefits of physical
preparatio n . I ncidentally, we also played
sports d u ring the day.
 Postscript - School of Future Champions
After breakfast the pupils wou ld gather for a
general lectu re . The lectu res were recorded
on tape, and then transcribed onto a
computer. I n the second half of the day the
lessons were more individual i n character.
Usually the youngsters were divided i nto
small groups, taking accou nt of age and
practical strength , or sometimes similarity of
opening repertoire or inherent deficiencies
(for example, for improvement i n endgame
tech nique or the development of combi na­
tive vision ) .
We attached g reat i mportance t o t h e analy­
sis of the pupils' own games. The you ng­
sters would annotate them carefully, and
then the notes would be checked by the
teachers. These games, along with the
results of competitions held at the sessions
for the solvi ng of specially selected exer­
cises and individual observations by the
teachers, allowed the pupils to be given a
'diagnosis' - revealing the virtues and
deficiencies of their play. On the basis of the
l2J 215
'diagnosis' , homework was suggested - a
p rogram of further work on chess.
Apart from that which was assi milated at the
lectu res and seminars , for i ndividual study
each pupil was also given a given a
substantial 'pack' of additional material -
previously publ ished articles, linked with the
content of the session.
Of cou rse, when worki ng so i ntensively you
need to be able to relax well . We provided
the teachers and pupils with comfortable
rooms in a hote l , and with tasty and varied
meals. Time was also found for relaxation,
watching videos etc.
Collected i n this book are the lectu res and
the most i nteresting additional materials
from the fi rst session , at which the most
general problems of i ndependent work on
chess were discussed . After studying the
book, you will gain an impression of how we
worked and, I hope, you will find much that is
i nteresti ng and usefu l for you rself.
216 �

I n dex of P layers

Adorjan 1 97 Capablanca 93, 1 32 , 1 50

Agzamov 56, 86, 1 1 5 Carra 1 70
Akhmylovskaya 1 7, 23 Chiburdanidze 1 95
Alekhine 1 32 , 1 50 , 1 88 Chigorin 1 70
Alexandria 1 7, 23 Ciocaltea 9 1 , 1 82
Alexandrov 206 Coull 1 0
Allies 1 44
Ambroz 1 83 Dieks 1 75
Diez del Corral 1 82 , 1 88
Andersson 1 4 1 , 1 93
Dobrescu 1 48
Arkhangelsky 1 80
Dolmatov 3 1 , 55, 72 , 76, 78, 8 1 , 85, 86, 88,
Aronin 1 92
89
Averbakh 1 77
Donner 1 92
Azmaiparashvi li 1 86
Dorfman 9 1
Dreev 1 7 1
Bagi rov 201
Drimer 32
Baklan 208
Dvoretsky 1 1 , 1 5 , 34 , 35, 56, 87, 88, 89, 91 ,
Begun 9 1 1 30
Belov 1 70
Belyavsky 78, 1 47, 1 84 Emelin 2 1 1
Benko 1 74 Ermoli nsky 1 1
Berman 36 Estrin 76, 1 88
Blackburne 66 E uwe 1 88
Boguslavsky 209, 2 1 0
Boleslavsky 1 85 Faibisovich 1 97
Bologan 1 76 Fedorov 1 3, 1 5
Bondarevsky 1 30 Fischer 1 85
Bonner 1 70 Frolov 1 97
Borisenko 1 87 Ftacnik 1 76
Borkowski 1 75
Botvi nnik 30, 1 5 1 , 1 75, 1 85, 1 96, 200 Gaponenko 2 1 3
Bronstein 32 , 1 78, 1 85 Garber 36
Browne 1 0 Gasymov 2 1 2
Bylina 1 78 Geller 9 1 , 1 30 , 1 42 , 1 8 1 , 1 83
Byrne 201 G ligoric 1 30 , 1 8 1 , 1 87
Byvshev 1 8 1 Gorelov 202
 I ndex of Players ltJ 217

G ranne 34 Klovans 1 24, 1 26 , 1 93

G rigoriev 1 0 Kochiev 1 72 , 1 78
G roszpeter 1 83 Kogan 1 1 1
G rOnfeld, Erno 1 08 Konstanti nov 1 78
G rO nfeld , Yehuda 1 98 Korchnoi 1 30 , 1 43 , 1 78 , 1 83 , 1 89
G ufeld 88 Korzubov 1 4 7
G u l ko 1 74 Kosikov 1 1 1 , 1 1 5 , 1 20 , 1 24 , 1 26
G u revich, M . 55 Kotov 85, 1 85
Gu rgen idze 1 86 Kramnik 1 3 1
Kudrin 201
Hebden 1 39, 1 47 Kupreichik 1 83
Helmers 1 88 Kuryatni kov 1 77
Heuacker 1 84 Kuzm i n , G. 1 78
Hort 1 42
Hubner 1 47 Langeweg 1 94
Larsen 1 30 , 1 93
l n kiov 62 , 1 83 Lasker 1 00 , 1 49 , 1 78
Ivanov, A. 86 Levenfish 1 96
lvkov 202 Levitina 1 72
Liberzo n, R . 1 70
Jansa 202 Liu Wenzhe 1 92
Janowski 1 78 Li Zunian 202
Lj ubojevic 1 0 , 1 87
Kaidanov 1 40 , 1 42
Lputian 1 86
Kaiszau ri 202
Lucarelli 1 70
Kamsky 1 3 1
Karpov 39, 89, 1 70 , 1 93 , 202
Makariev 2 1 2
Kasparov 1 44 , 1 5 1
Makarychev 204
Keene 1 84
Malanyuk 1 47
Keres 1 73, 1 75
Marshall 1 90
Khakpur 72
Matsionis 209
Khol mov 1 78, 1 82 , 1 92 Mayorov 202
Khoperia 1 20 Medina 1 70
Khoroshavi na 2 1 3 Mestel 200
Kh ristov 2 1 2 Mieses 1 07
Kij k 1 42 Mi les 1 99
Ki ryakov 208 , 2 1 2 Morozov 1 80
Kishnev 1 40 Mortensen 1 47
Kletsel 1 88 M u resan 1 95
218 <;!? I ndex of Players

Nei 89 Saidy 1 79
Nezhmetdinov 1 78 Sakaev 209
Nikolic 55 Saverymuttu 1 83
Nimzowitsch 93, 1 50, 1 96 Savon 87, 1 78 , 1 98
Norwood 200 Schiffers 1 70
Noskov 1 98 Schlechter 1 90
Novikov 1 95 Semenova 1 72
Nunn 1 76 Shakhbaz 2 1 0
Shamrai 1 3
Olafsson 203
Shmirin 1 95
011 1 89
Ornstein 202 Short 1 44 , 1 45 , 1 84 , 201
Ovseevich 2 1 1 Sidelnikov 36
Simagin 1 30 , 1 78 , 1 85
Pashanov 2 1 3 Sitnik 2 1 3
Pchiolkin 1 84 Smi rnov 204
Pein 1 80 Smyslov 30, 1 72 , 1 74, 1 86, 1 94
Pekker 1 1 Spassky 1 82 , 1 93 , 1 94
Penrose 1 30 Speel man 1 30
Petkevich 1 74 Spielmann 1 06, 1 07 , 1 08
Petrosian 1 75, 1 80, 1 94 Stahlberg 1 82 , 1 96
Petu rsson 76, 1 88 Stanciu 1 0
Pfleger 1 73 Stei n 1 80 , 1 82 , 1 84 , 1 99
Pinter 1 95, 1 98 Stei n itz 1 49
Plaskett 81 , 1 47, 1 80 Sukhanov 1 1
Pokrovsky 1 84 Suttles 30
Polugayevsky 1 72 , 1 73 Szabo 1 72
Polyak 200
Portisch 1 79 , 1 86 Tai manov 1 75 , 1 95
Psakhis 1 39, 1 48 Tal 1 72 , 1 73, 1 77, 1 87, 1 99 , 203
Talbert 35
Ragozin 1 98 Tarrasch 1 49
Rashkovsky 1 70 Teichmann 1 44
Razuvaev 55 Tempone 1 4 1
Ree 1 95 Timman 46, 55, 1 45, 1 76, 1 88 , 1 89
Reti 1 oo, 1 73 Ti moshchenko 1 93
Ribli 1 94 Tisdall 1 47
Rizzitano 1 99 Tolush 1 8 1
Romanishin 88, 1 98 Trois 9 1
Rubinstein 1 06 Tu kmakov 1 72 , 1 9 1
 I ndex of Players ltJ 219

Ubilava 87, 1 89 Waitzkin 36

U h l mann 1 85 , 1 97 Wotawa 1 70

Vadasz 88 Yap 1 95
Vaganian 1 99 Yudasin 1 71
Van der Berg 1 83 Yusupov 39, 46, 55, 62, 1 43
Van Scheltinga 1 85
Veingold 1 9 1 Zilberstein 208
Velimi rovic 1 99 Zukertort 66
Vitolins 1 48 Zviagintsev 206