How to play

The Middle Game in Chess

The 11m .tIio!'1 01 II'.- book was "fricIeIy IIat.d . . one a/
!he moll UMfuI ~ 10 tt. ~ ganw _ wriIIen.
RI, ,lain III iroOOipclilte new mal"""!rom canIemponuy
IOurnamInIl. !Nt $,* worIc now 81~ Into the
2111 C*'IIutY.

Along wiIh oYef 300 ~ and enIerIaring uampift,

U!tIe.. cod orter.. -.IIh 01 gel'" advice n spKIfic
1WItt"!he" 01.." dlilijltef liking afresh and
origWIaI approach. he r.pn. !he ruder - doJ:) and
II:JUrnMWII pIaye!w - 10 i0oi< at d'IMIln l1l'i ~
and CfNIiYe way.

John UtIle. ood WI. one of Brt\U'I" leading pIaye".

during !he 1961» and 701. One oflhe most dangerous
alt8CkinO ptaye,. the country 1\81 _ prod'cad, he
r.nIM:l many IMding Orln'ld",..,*" and teaIp«I mora
1hIIn. few.

B.~'.F' 5

Nidtdl~
o 713( lilii5ii2
~11""'4' ~
""'MO
071:M N205
How 10 ~ .... 0 .... '.1 In C-.
l'1li>11'0.." ~'o...Id \.M'y
0713411158

Forlldllri . . " ...... -.oIP '.>!Ia-boob. 499

---
pIMM ..... lIO:

t Blt.'WIn,Cour1
Bo;.;:, Ao.I

.....
""""' W'"'
_ .t.IfIotd,o;om
How to Play the
Middle Game in Chess

John Littlewood

B.T. Batsford Ltd, London

First published in 2000
© John Littlewood 2000

ISBN 0713486171

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.

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

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be

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

Printed in Great Britain by

Creative Print and Design (Wales), Ebbw Vale
for the publishers,
B.T. Batsford Ltd,
9 Blenheim Court,
Brewery Road,
London N7 9NT

A member of the Ch~lis Group pIc

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK

 Foreword

T he year 2000 brought

with it a welcomed re-
quest for me to update
my book on the middle
game. I was delighted
to do so, mainly be-
to annotate games on databases, we
are in grave danger of neglecting our
hard-won heritage of communicating
by the printed word. It is vital for
chess literature to exist alongside,
and come to terms with, the wealth
cause in our understandable enthusi- of information that software pro-
asm for all chess matters tied in with vides in quantity but not always in
the computer, along with the wide- quality. May this modest volume be
spread use of international symbols of help in the debate!
 Contents
page

Foreword 3
Contents 5
Introduction 7
Strategy and Tactics 9
The Pieces 18
Tactical Ideas 41
The King 57
Problem Themes 68
Combinations 88
The Pawns 101
Elements of Strategy 120
Planning 145
Solutions 165
Index of Players and Composers 173
 Introduction
I na praiseworthy attempt to
please all their readers, writ-
ers on the middle game ei-
ther avoid difficult concepts
altogether or else become
too abstract in dealing with
them. The former ostensibly cater
for beginners but in reality do them
a disservice by preaching half-truths
only, whereas the latter aim so far
above the heads of average players
that there is inevitably a partial fail-
ure in communication.
If we accept that a perceptive
learner seldom wants to buy a book
which he can discard after one read-
ing and which contains no challenge
or further help for him as his play
improves, we must equally ac-.
knowledge that he can hardly be ex-
pected to grasp every idea in full
when it is initially introduced. This
is why I offer a series of chess hints
at the end of each chapter to remind
him of the essential points covered
and why I emphasize the need to ac-
cept certain advice on trust until he
gains more playing experience.
The average-to-good club-player,
on the other hand, can use the book
as a kind of refresher course, taking
from it what he wishes and assimi-
lating material at whatever pace
suits him. It is well known that par-
ticipants in all games eventually
reach a learning plateau from which
it is difficult to move anywhere but
downwards. Resting on his laurels
can prove disastrous for the c1ub-
player, so it occasionally does him a
world of good to reappraise his chess
thinking and rekindle that spark of
imagination or adventure he may
have lost.
For all readers, I have opted for a
concrete approach to abstract ideas
by underlining the vital importance
of tactics within a framework of stra-
tegic planning and by offering scores
of instructive examples to pinpoint
basic elements of both strategy and
tactics. At the same time, just in
case my chess philosophy fails to
emerge from the following pages,
may I stress that I have deliberately
avoided the methodical textbook
approach, apart from the 'hints'
concession to beginners. This is be-
cause, in a relatively small volume
such as this, my primary object is to
stimulate, not indoctrinate, the
reader. He is offered sufficient food
for thought, along with a wealth of
exciting positions from chess praxis.
If in some way this book can enrich
his chess experience and encourage
him to dip further into the world's
great chess literature, it will have
served its purpose.
However, before we launch into
our first chapter, a general warning
will not be amiss: the reader must
not expect too much from a single
volume purporting to deal with such
a vast subject as the middle game.
Like other games, chess demands
time and application from its devo-
tees and there is no easy road to
8 Introduction
mastery nor facile solutions avail-
able which a player can learn off by
heart and thereby dispense with
having to think for himself. The
reader can expect general advice,
specific hints and over 300 instruc-
tive examples, but in the last resort
he will obtain from this book, and
indeed from playing chess, solely
what he is willing to put into it in
terms of thought and effort.
 1 Strategy and Tactics

A s we shall see later, it

is difficult to divorce
the middle game from
other aspects of the
struggle which serve
to define it as 'that
part of the game between th~ open-
ing and the ending'. To aVOId such
philosophical questions a~ where .the
opening ends and the endmg begms,
it seems best for our purposes to
view the middle game as beginning
the moment a player leaves estab-
Fischer v Benko
lished theory and starts to think for
USA Championship 1963
himself whether this be on move 3
or 30, 'and ending where acquired
From a strategic viewpoint, White
endgame technique takes over. A~­ has weakened Black's kings ide and
mittedly, there are standard POSI-
opened up attacking li~es bu~, from a
tions and techniques we need to
more urgent tactical vIewpomt, both
learn in the middle game too, but 1 e5 f5! and 1 ttJe2 ~e5! offer Black
matters are rarely as clear-cut as in
adequate defensive resourc~s. ~o,
the opening or ending. have Fischer's efforts been m vam?
Herein, then, lies our problem. Not at all. Firstly, a good strategic
Since we are no longer dealing with
plan does not necessaril.y guar~ntee a
easily classifiable material, although win and, secondly, White has m fact
brave attempts have been made on calculated a brilliant tactical win-
these lines, we must seriously con-
ning sequence that cuts. out the
sider what we can hope to teach and above defences. Play contmued: 1
how we can cany it out. Broadly l:if6!! Wg8 Or l....txf6 2 e5
speaking, our chapter heading pro-
followed by mate on h7. 2 e5 h6 3
vides us with the background
ttJe2! when Black resigned because
against which we shall be working. White mates on h7 after both
By strategy we mean the general 3 ... ttJb5 4 ~f5 and 3 ... .txf6 4 ~xh6.
principles that guide us in our plan-
ning and by tactics we m.ean the
specific moves and ope~atlOns re- Here is another illustration of the
quired in order to achIev~ th.ese same theme, reached after the moves
aims. Our first example pmpomts 1 e4 g6 2 d4 .tg7 3 ttJc3 d6 4 ttJf3
the dilemma we face: c6 5 .tg5 'iVb6 6 ~d2! ~xb2 7 ~bl
10 Strategy and Tactics
~a3 8 iLc4 ~a5 9 0-0 e6(?) 10
~fel! a6 11 .tf4! e5 12 dxe5 dxe5
Tal v Tringov
Amsterdam Interzonal 1964
White's strategy has been to
develop his forces as rapidly as
possible, even at the cost of a pawn,
and place his pieces effectively. He
is now fully mobilized, in stark
contrast to Black who has only
succeeded in bringing out two
pieces, but must take tactical
advantage of the situation as quickly
as he can before Black castles into
safety. Tal produced a startling
solution in 13 iVd6!! leaving two
pieces 'en prise' but calculating a
splendid finish: 13 .. :~xc3 After
13 ... exf4 comes 14 l'Lld5! winning
upon both 14 ... cxd5 15 exd5+ and
14 ... ctJd7 15 ctJg5 iLe5 12 ctJc7+
Wixc7 13 .txf7+ 'it>d8 14 l'Lle6 mate.
14 ~edl! ctJd7 After 14 .. :tWa5 the
neatest of a number of wins is 15
.td2! 'iVd8 16 'ii'xd8+ 'it>xdS 17
.tg5+ followed by mate with rook
or bishop on dS. 15 .txfi+! Wxfi
16l'Llg5+ We8 17 ~e6+ 1-0. Black
has the unpleasant choice between
17 ... WdS IS ctJf7+ 'it>c7 19 ~d6
mate or 17 ... ctJe7 18 ~f7+ 'it>dS 19
l'Lle6 mate.
Once again, we cannot overstress
the importance of Tal's renowned
tactical skill in exploiting a strategic
advantage that could rapidly prove
ephemeral. Hundreds of similar ex-
amples have convinced the author
that in a subtle way tactical ability is
often underrated in books devoted to
the middle game. Or else there is an
assumption that, having reached an
advantageous position by 'correct'
opening play, a player can be left to
his own devices to furnish the tactics
needed to finish the game off. A
valid comparison would be to try
and teach somebody golf or snooker
without practising his club or cue
action!
Not that there is a dearth of books
dealing with tactics, but the whole
subject tends to be divorced from the
strategic elements of ideas and
plans, as though it were merely the
icing on the cake instead of consti-
tuting a basic ingredient without
which the chess cookie crumbles!
At all events, in this book we at-
tempt to redress the balance substan-
tially by including chapters on
tactics, problem themes and combi-
nations imd by insisting throughout
on the importance of regarding strat-
egy and tactics as complementary
rather than exclusive.
Let me hasten to add that I am
well aware of the folly of going to
the opposite extreme and allowing
the beginner to indulge his habitUal
fondness for tactical skirmishing ir-
relevant to the needs of the position.
That is why the chapters on strategic
ideas and planning place special em-
phasis on the need to integrate
tactics into the theme of the game as
a whole. Tactics must indeed be
kept in their place, but this is no

excuse for marginalizing them. We
must remember that it is very much
through tactics that a beginner
learns to understand and appreciate
the value of strategy. For instance,
he has only to try to use a rook ef-
fectively to realize the need for open
or half-open files, and he would
never grasp the important concepts
of weak and strong squares or col-
our complexes without seeing spe-
cific examples of their exploitation.
Furthermore, although strategy rep-
resents the distillation of decades of
chess experience, there is always a
danger of its guiding 'rules' becom-
ing a substitute for thought and ossi-
fying into dogma. It is at such times
that a concrete tactical approach can
have a salutary counter-balancing
effect.
A good example of this, that
comes to mind in another of Alek-
hine's positions, is reached after the
moves: 1 d4 d5 24:Jf3 c5 3 c4 cxd4
4 cxd5 4:Jf6 5 4:Jxd4 a6 6 e4! 4:Jxe4
7 ~a4+ .ltd7 8 ~b3 4:Jc5 9 'iWe3
g6? 10 4:Jf3! 'WIc7 11 ~c3
Alekhine v Wolf
Pistyan 1922
Out of 11 moves, White has
moved his queen four times and his
Strategy and Tactics 11
knight three times, yet he already
has the better position. Why can he
flout rules of development like this?
Here is what he himself says: "The
possibility of such manoeuvres in
the opening phase is solely attribut-
able to the fact that the opponent has
adopted faulty tactics which must
immediately be refuted by an
energetic demonstration. It is clear,
on the contrary, that against
correctly developed positions similar
anomalous treatment would be disas-
trous." As can be seen in the above
diagram, White is threatening both
'WIxh8 and b4, so Black is compelled
to move his king's rook, thus deny-
ing his king a safe haven. After
11. .. l:i.g8 12 .lte3 b6 13 4:Jbd2 .ltg7
14 .ltd4 .ltxd4 15 ~xd4 White won
comfortably. Thus, the correct
strategy was only found after a
searching examination of the tactical
elements in an unusual situation de-
manding unusual measures.
Here is another case where the
'rules' (= 'guidelines') of positional
play are correctly broken by a player
who thinks for himself, and then
wrongly neglected by a player in
trouble. In the game Nunn v DIugy,
London 1986, after the moves 1 e4
c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 .ltf5 4 tL\c3 h5,
White exchanged Black's 'bad'
bishop by 5 .ltd3 .ltxd3 6 ~xd3 in
the sensible hope of being able to
profit from Black's loss of time and
kings ide weaknesses. After the fur-
ther moves 6 ... e6 7 tL\f3 4:Jh6 8 0-0
4:Jf5 9 tL\e2 tL\d7 10 4:Jg3 4:Jh4 11
tL\xh4 'WIxh4 12 .lte3 ~d8 13 .l:Udl
~c8? 14 b3 c5 Black had wrongly
tried to solve his problems by the
dubious strategy of indulging in
tactical play before completing his
development:
12 Strategy and Tactics
Nunn v Dlugy
London 1986
The punishment was drastic in the
extreme: 15 c4! Logically opening
lines against an enemy king
stranded in the centre. 15 ... cxd4 16
cxd5! liJxe5 Or 16 ... dxe3 17 dxe6
exf2+ 18 ~fl fxe6 19 'iHg6+ rJ;;e7
20 l!d6! winning, as given by Nunn
in the excellent book of his best
games. 17 ~xd4 ~xd5 18 'it'a4+
1-0. White wins at least a piece.
Broadly speaking, strategy is
concerned with plans, and tactics
with details of the execution of
these, so it is clear that only a fusion
of the two will produce a top-class
player. Do not be misled when
people refer to Bronstein, Tal and
Shirov as tacticians and to Capa-
blanca, Botvinnik and Petros ian as
strategists. Their styles are of
course different (even within each
group!) but they reveal all-round
chess ability in which strategy and
tactics blend to a remarkable
degree. Capablanca, for example,
had a wealth of tactical ability
concealed behind that clarity of
style for which he was noted.
Indeed, how else could he have
controlled games in the way he did.
Here is one of many examples of
such skill :
Capablanca v Steiner
Budapest 1928
After 11ha8! liJxe5 21:.xd81:.xd8
3 i.e2! iVd2 4 'iHxd2 .l:1xd2 5 l::tc8+
'ittg7 6 rJ;;f1! Black must allow his
knight to be pinned and is lost after
6...liJd7 7 nd8! 'ittf6 8 i.b5 1:.d5 9
a4! when all the pieces come off,
giving White a won pawn ending.
Tal, on the other hand, has been
branded as a risky tactician, when in
reality this is purely a deliberate
element in his style, disguising at
times his fine conception of strategy.
Take this example from the match
that won him the World Champion-
ship in 1960:
Tal v Botvinnik .
World Championship Match 1960
By 1 i.h3! he plans to answer a
later advance of Black's e-pawn by
exchanging bishops and weakening

the light squares, and, as will be
seen, he is willing to sacrifice a
pawn to maintain the bind on
Black's position. Play continued:
1..:iVf6 2 i.d2 d5 The alternative
2 ... eS 3 i.xc8 l:laxc8 4 .ltc3 exd4 S
i.xd4 ctJeS 6 tiJxeS dxeS 7 .lte3
gives the positional plus Tal initially
had in mind. 3 ~e2 dxc4 4 ~f4
ctJd6 5 ctJg5! ne8 6 .ltg2 na6 7
ctJe4 tiJxe4 8 .ltxe4 b5 9 b3! cxb3
10 ~xb5 l:tf8 11 ~xb3 and White
had a strategically won game.
The above tactics were, then, dic-
tated by the demands of the posi-
tion; in other words, the strategic
ideas guided Tal's play throughout.
This is the correct balance, for we
cannot assert too often that tactics
should spring logically from the
given elements of a position. If this
were not so, a top chess-player
would be the one who could exactly
calculate the longest and most diffi-
cult variations, which is palpably
not the case. Consider, for example,
the 1972 World Champion, Bobby
Fischer, whose style displayed such
a splendid fusion of strategy and
tactics that it is practically impossi-
ble, if indeed it were sensible, to
separate the two. A good illustra-
tion of this is seen in the sixth game
of the Fischer v Spassky match,
Reykjavik 1972.
Strategy and Tactics 13
Although Black's pieces are pas-
sively placed, White must create
points of attack to exploit this fact.
With a few powerful strokes he lays
bare the potential weakness of
Black's central pawns, gains more
space for his pieces, establishes his
bishop as far stronger than the
knight and, finally, opens the 'f-file
as a basis for an attack on the enemy
king. Play continued: 1 e4!! d4 2 f4
'Wie7 3 e5! l:tb8 4 i.c4 'it'h8 5 \\/Vh3!
ctJf8 Even worse is S... :i:hb2 6 i.xe6
ctJf8 7 .ltc4 and White advances his
'f pawn to f6 with devastating ef-
fect. 6 b3 as 7 f5! exf5 8 l:txf5 tiJh7
9 l:lcfl and White had achieved his
aims completely:
Fischer v Spassky (cont.)
The tactical execution of Fischer's
strategic plan was so completely
successful because it was based on a
sound assessment of the demands of
the position. Black's central pawns
are blockaded and the 'e' pawn will
help to tie down his pieces to such
an extent that he can offer no real
defence to the coming attack on his
king. The game went: 9.. :iVd8 10
'iVg3 lle7 11 h4 !:tbb7 12 e6! .l::[bc7
13 'ilVe5 ~e8 14 a4 \\/Vd8 15 l:!1f2
'iWe8 16 l:t2f3 ~d8 17 .ltd3! 'iVe8 18
'iVe4! Threatening 19 ~f8+ mating.
18 ...tiJf6 19 l:txf6! gxf6 20 l:Ixf6
14 Strategy and Tactics
'it>g8 21 .lic4 Threatening 22 l:tf7.
21...~h8 22 ~f4 1-0 If 22 ... ~g8
23 'iVxh6 lig7 24 e7+ followed by
mate next move. Undoubtedly, one
of the finest games of the match and
reminiscent of Capablanca at his
peak.
Our main aim, then, is to develop
the reader's skill in planning (=
strategy) and in carrying out effi-
ciently the plans conceived (=
tactics), both essential requisites of
a sound chess style. However, as
we stated earlier, a beginner cannot
appreciate the niceties of strategy to
the full until he has a fair grasp of
tactics. For this reason, we have left
until later in the book specific con-
sideration of positional ideas and
planning, in the hope that by then he
will be able to see the wood despite
the trees. Nevertheless, by dealing
with each piece separately in the
early chapters, we have tried to pre-
sent the common meeting ground of
strategy and tactics to allow the
reader to acquire a number of basic
concepts before he arrives at the
later chapters.
This preliminary investigation of
the pros and cons of the individual
pieces forms such an important part
of my approach to understanding
the middle game that another com-
parison with snooker may be appro-
priate. Beginners in that game lose
no time in setting up the starting po-
sition to begin play but learn very
little in the process. The late Joe
Davis recommended practising for
hours, just trying to pot the black
whilst controlling the cue ball. Bor-
ing? Perhaps, but essential if one
wishes to become a good player. In
the same way, it is futile for a chess
beginner to grasp what is happening
on a board full of pieces, when he
cannot even manipulate a few effec-
tively. Let him, for example, try to
mate a lone king with bishop and
knight, before we can realistically
discuss such an abstract concept as
the coordination o/pieces!
It is noteworthy that all great play-
ers have been particularly adept at
handling their pieces in the most ef-
fective manner, but for the purposes
of illustration we shall single out Ca-
pablanca, Lasker, Petrosian and Kas-
parov, all World Champions with an
uncanny understanding of piece co-
ordination.
Consider, for example, the follow-
ing position:
Capablanca v Alekhine
World Championship Match 1927
Although a rook is weaker than a
knight plus bishop, it is astonishing
to see how rapidly White takes com-
plete control of the game, with
Black's queenside pawns remaining
mere onlookers. Play proceeded: 1
~c6! .i:tfS 2 liJd4 Centralization.
2.. .'~h8 3 .lieS! Threatening 4
.lixg7+ ~xg7 S liJfS+ 'it>g8 6 ~f6
mating or winning the queen. 3 ... f6 4
liJe6 ~g8 S .lid4! Transferring the
bishop to a dominating central posi-
tion and threatening 6 liJxg7 lixg7 7
'iVxf6 ~g8 8 h4! and the pawn ad-
vances to h6 because 8 ... hS fails to 9

'i'h6+ ~h7 10 ~xg7+ etc. 5... h6 In
order to counter the above threat by
7...'iVd5+ and 8...~g5. 6 h4! ~bl 7
CLlxg7! ~g6 Or 7 .. .'gxg7 8 ~xf6
'i'h7 8 'i'f8+ 'i'g8 9 ~xg7+ or here
8...~e4+ 9 'ii>f1! ~7 10 'i'xh6+
'ii>g8 11 'i'xg7+ exchanging into a
won pawn ending. 8 h5! ~f7 9ctJf5
and Black resigned 8 moves later.
In case the reader does not
appreciate the skill required in such
coordination of pieces, let him
consider the following complicated
example:
Steinitz v Lasker
World Championship Match 1896
At first glance, one might say that
there is little in it. In fact, it is al-
most magical to see the way in
which Lasker exploits the facts that
the kings have castled on opposite
wings and that the bishops are of
opposite colours. Although in the
following play White is not blame-
less, Lasker's use of pawns and
pieces gives this game lasting in-
structional value.
Play continued: 1....l::!:g8!! Avoid-
ing the oversimplifying exchange of
rooks and threatening to advance his
'g' pawn to g4 followed by ... ~d5.
2 :reS b6 3 i.e! g5! By no means a
simple pawn sacrifice, as it involves
a long-range plan full of subtle
Strategy and Tactics 15
points, but White should decline the
offer by 4 f3. 4 :iixg5 ~xg5 5 ~xg5
11g8 Note that Black is now happy to
exchange rooks, as long as he has
another key file to work on. 6 f4
i.d5! 7 g3 'ii>b7 8 h3 ~b5! giving
us our next position:
Steinitz v Lasker (cont.)
Black is now aiming to place his
bishop on c6 and queen on d5 with
tremendous pressure down the long
diagonal. White cannot prevent this
by 9 ~e5 in view of 9 ... f6! 10 ~xf6
'i'b2 winning. The game ended: 9
'it>h2 !!g6 Threatening 1O .. .l:te6 11
~d2 Ihel 12 'iVxel ~2+ mating.
10 ~e2 f6 11 i.h4 ~e6 12 g4 More
weakening, but he is desperate to
prevent the threat of ... ~d5 followed
by ... f5 and ... l:te6. 12 .. :tlVdS 13 'ilff2
h5! 14 gS Or 14 'ii'g3 hxg4 15 hxg4
:h6! 16 .l:!.gl ~e4! tying White up
completely. 14 ... fxg5 15 i.xg5 Or
15 fxg5l::tg7! 16 ~e5 ~h1+ 17 'itig3
~f7! 18 lif5 ~xf5 19 ~xf5 'iVe1+ 20
'iWf2 ~xc3+ 21 'itth2 ~d3 wins.
IS .•. h4! 16 ~f1 :g8 17 ~d2 as! 18
a4 ~e8 19 fS Or 19 i.xh4 Ite3 20
i.g3 J:!.xc3 21 f5 lid3 22 ~e2 c3!
wins. 19 .. J~tg8! 0-1. The final posi-
tion is worth another diagram, as it
represents the culmination of
Lasker's fine strategy and tactics:
16 Strategy and Tactics
Steinitz V Lasker (final position)
White has no good moves at his
disposal. If his queen, bishop, pawn
or king move, material is lost, which
leaves him 20 ZIgl 20 ~el 'ii'f3! 21
~gl Ite8! 22 .l:lg2 'iVxg2+ 23 'i'xg2
i.xg2 24 'it;lxg2 ng8 etc. 20 .. Jhg5!
21 iVxg5 'iVd6+ 22 l:rg3 hxg3+ 23
'ti'xg3 i.e8! 24 h4 'i)'xg3+ 25 'it>xg3
b5 26 axb5 a4 and Black queens
first.
Let us finish this important chap-
ter with positions played by
Petros ian and Kasparov in which all
the vital preliminary work has been
done and it is up to the reader
simply to work out the final
combination!
Petrosian v Spassky
World Championship Match 1966
Black's queen knight is com-
pletely out of play on a5 but it seems
as if White loses after 1 l:t£1 l:txf4! 2
~xf4 ~g5+ etc. However, by splen-
did coordination of his centralized
pieces, Petros ian demonstrates the
weaknesses of Black's position. 1
lbe3! J..xfl If now 1...l:txf4 2 l::txf4
'\!!Vg5+ 3 llg4! J..xg4 4lbxg4lbxg4 5
J..xg4 ~xg4+ 6 'it;lhl and Black's
king is fatally exposed. 2 Ilxfl lbg6
3 J..g4! lbxf4 Or 3 ... iVf6 4 J..e6+
'it>h8 5 ~xf6+ l:txf6 6 f5 lbe5 7 lbe4
winning. 4 l:!xf4! A second sacrifice
of the exchange. 4.. ,lhf4 5 i.e6+
z:If7 Or 5 ... 'i¥tf8 6 ~h8+ We7 7
~xh7+ 'it>e8 8 'iYg6+ We7 9 ~g5+
Itf6 10 lbf5+ We8 11 'i)'h5+ 'i¥tf8 12
'iVh8 mate. 6 lbe4! 'i)'h4 7 lbxd6! So
that if 7 .. .'~el+ 8 'Ot>g2 ~xe3 White
forces the win of the queen by 9
i.xf7+ ~f8 10 iVh8+ 'it>e7 11 lbf5+
~xf7 12 ~xh7+. 7 ...iVg5+ 8 'it>hl
l:la7
TEST 1.1 Petrosian v Spassky
(cont.)
How does White now force a win?
Our final example in this chapter
comes from perhaps the best game in
the 1986 World Championship
Rematch won by Kasparov who
went on to hold the world title into
the new millennium!

Kasparov v Karpov
World Championship Rematch 1986
It seems as if White must protect
his 'd' pawn, after which Black can
drive away the knight by ... f6 with
excellent drawing chances. How-
ever, Kasparov sees a winning line
that illustrates to perfection the con-
cept of piece coordination: 1 4:Jd7!!
l:txd4 2 4:Jf8+ ~h6 Or 2 ... ~g8 3
l:[b8 winning. 3 llb4!! The whole
point of his previous play, since
now 3 ... ~xb4 fails to 4 axb4 d4 5 b5
d3 6 b6 d2 7 b7 dl='iV 8 b8=~ and
even though it is Black to move
with four queens on the board, he
cannot prevent mate e.g. 8... ~d2 9
4:Jxg6 ~xg6 10 ~h8+ ~h7 11
~gxg7 mate! 3 .. J~c4
TEST 1.2 Kasparov v Karpov
(cont.)
Once again, show us how you
would finish the game off.
Strategy and Tactics 17
How to use this book
* It would be wise for any beginner
to read this book at various levels.
He should initially concentrate on
the general hints given in the chapter
summaries, without getting bogged
down in details. By applying this
advice to his own games, he will be
better prepared to deepen his
understanding of the examples later.
* A good method of learning is to
think about the positions before
studying the subsequent play. He is
not expected to understand fully
what is going on, but it will help
develop his chess instinct by guiding
his thoughts away from illusory side
issues and towards the real demands
of the positions.
* He should concentrate at first on
the main play, given in heavy type,
ignoring sub-variations, in order to
grasp the point the author is trying to
make. Notes and variations can be
examined at a later stage, when we
hope they may provide additional
pleasure and instruction.
* Despite all these precautions,
there will obviously be a number of
ideas and tactics that are beyond the
beginner's chess experience. He
should not worry too much about
these, but let them lie fallow for a
while, to be reviewed at a later date.
* For the club player, this book
must be treated as a jumping-off
point for further play and more in-
tensive reading. It will have suc-
ceeded only if its advice and
examples encourage him to learn
more about this wonderful game
from other books and magazines
(not forgetting computers!), and es-
pecially from his own chess thought
and practice.
 2 The Pieces

B efore we can combat

enemy pieces or coor-
dinate our own pieces
effectively, it seems
sensible to learn about
the strengths and weak-
nesses of each piece. By under-
standing their idiosyncrasies, we can
surely hope to manage them wisely
and exploit their potential to the
full. I would go even further and
suggest that our judgement of a po-
sition may depend entirely on the
correct assessment of the value of a
piece, whether we are making a stra-
tegic decision about exchanging ma-
terial or visualizing the result of a
sequence of moves or planning a
transposition to an ending. Hence
the importance of this chapter in
which we examine in tum the major
pieces (queen and rook) and minor
pieces (knight and bishop). How-
ever, let us first consider the relative
values of the pieces.
Relative Values
mmor pIeces (=9) are equal to a
queen.
There is no doubt that, in the early
stages of learning, such a guide is
important in steering the beginner
through the complexities of the
game. It is similar to the point count
used in bridge to assess the value of
a hand, but in both games we must
throwaway this 'crutch' as soon as
experience will allow us. We might
in fact view it as a STATIC evalua-
tion which becomes fairly accurate
when we reach the endgame, rather
than the DYNAMIC evaluation
which is a vital and exciting aspect
of middle game play. Just as in a
battle two similar heavy guns may
be very different in the effectiveness
of their fire-power, depending on
their location, their link with other
weapons and the skill of their opera-
tors, so can chess pieces drastically
change in value as a result of exter-
nal circumstances. Consider the fol-
lowing startling example:

A beginner is helped by having an

initial rough guide to the relative
strength of the pieces. One accepted
evaluation takes the pawn as .the ba-
sic unit, with the queen given as 9
points, the rook 5 points and the
knight and bishop 3 points each.
Using this scale, we can see that two
rooks (=10) are worth slightly more
than a queen (=9), bishop + knight
(=6) worth more than a rook, whilst
rook + bishop + pawn (=9) or three Gusev v Averbach, USSR 1946

Despite being the exchange down,
White has excellent prospects, but
he has planned an amazing finish
which exploits the peculiarities of
the position by using a dynamic 11
point piece-count against a help-
lessly static 19 point count. Indeed,
after 1 'i'xe5!! fxe5 2 lln (threaten-
ing .i.b5) we suddenly realize how
ineffective Black's major pieces are,
with one rook completely out of
play and the other unable to take the
e6 pawn because of 3 .i.c4. Play
continued 2.. J::te8 3 .i.dl! lIe4 Or
3.. .'~We7 4 .i.b3 ~e8 5 l:tf7! and after
Black has run out of pawn moves he
must move his queen, when both
e7! and .l:!.f8+! lead to mate. 4 .i.b3
b5 5 .i.xe4 bxe4 6 b3! a5 7 bxe4
~e7 8 ~g2 'iVa3 9 lIn ~e7 10 lIn
g5 Or 1O ... 'iVa3 11 l:tf7! 't!Yb2+ 12
'it>g3 ~xc3+ l3 'it>g4 'iVa3 14 c5!
winning. 11 1:[f5 g4 12 e5 ~d8 13
e6 'iVe714 e7 1-0.
The reader may rightly argue that
the above position is exceptional, so
let us now take a 'bread and butter'
situation:
Jansa v Sydor
Bucharest 1971
After 1 'bxa4 'it'xa4 2 bxa5 the
game would be even, so Jansa goes
in for a sequence of moves which
ends with Black obtaining bishop
The Pieces 19
and knight for rook. Usually, this is
a profitable transaction but Jansa has
correctly calculated that he can re-
tain a vital pawn and use his power-
ful rooks down the open files as
follows: 1 'bd5! 'be4 2 'bxe7 ~b8
3 'bxa8 iVxa8 4 ~f4! 'bxe3 5 ~xe3
'iVb7 Not of course 5 ... .i.xb4 6 ~3
winning a piece. 6 a3 'bb6 7 ~ac1
h6 8 h3 lIe8 9 f4 .i.d8 10 ~hl 'bd7
11 'tWf3! 1-0. If 11...~xf3 12 gxf3
'bb6 13 l:tc6! wins material. Jansa
had realized that Black's knight and
bishop could not cooperate to with-
stand White's pressure. Easy to see,
afterwards!
I remember the same player, this
time as Black against Adamski, Po-
land 1971, producing another uncon-
ventional idea after the opening
moves 1 d4 'bf6 2 e4 g6 3 'be3 d5 4
'bf3 .i.g7 5 exd5 'bxd5 6 ~b3 'bb6
7 .i.f4 0-0 8 e4 .i.g4 9 'be5 when he
surprisingly exchanged his beautiful
dark-squared bishop for a weak-
looking knight by playing 9 ... .i.xe5!
with the idea 10 dxe5 'be6 11 ~c1
~d4! already giving White prob-
lems and eventually winning nicely.
How many of us would have consid-
ered this exchange?
Jiminez v Larsen
Mallorca 1967
20 The Pieces
Here is Larsen with a similar idea
in a different context:
Once more out of the blue came:
1...i..xeS! 2 dxeS d4! 3 i..h6 ~fd8 4
i..xe6 fxe6 S .l:tfel .i:!.dS 6 i..f4 l;j,fS 7
g3 !IfS 8 ktadl 'iVb3 when he won a
pawn and, later, the game. Seeing
the follow-up was not difficult, but
the ability to overcome the initial
mental block and think dynamic
rather than static is that of a true
chess-player. At times, we all suffer
from mental laziness and find it
much easier to compartmentalize
ideas rather than rethink them. Be-
fore we examine each piece in tum,
here is a final example of excellent
judgement in assessing the relative
strength of pieces:
Toran v Tal
Oberhaus en 1961
Black opts for a position in which
he has only two minor pieces and a
pawn for a queen, but his pieces are
so well coordinated in their attack
on White's king that they seem to be
imbued with magical powers! Such
situations abounded in the games of
Tal who, in his prime, astounded the
chess world with his insight into the
dynamic possibilities of piece play.
The game continued: 1.. Jhe3 !! 2
i..dS+ ~h8 3 etJf7+ 'VJ{jxf7 4 SLxf7
lid3! S 'iVe2 SLxd4+ 6 'i!i>g2 etJeS! In
order to answer 7 SLd5 with 7 ... c6 8
i..e4 l:te3 winning the bishop. 7 ~dl
~e3 8 'iff! i.e4+ 9 'i!i>h3 .l::[f3! This
lateral movement of the rook lends
the combination its charm. 10 ~e2
i..fS+ 0-1.
If 11 'i!i>h4 .l::!.e3! Again! 12 Vi'xe3
etJf3+! 13 'jVxf3 i..f6 mate, a finish
which triumphantly underlines the
theme of quality versus quantity, a
theme that must be borne in mind as
we now look at the individual
pIeces.
The Queen
It must be admitted that, at its best,
the queen is a most powerful piece
which can sweep the board with its
horizontal, vertical and diagonal ac-
tion. It revels in long-range double
attacks and can switch fronts with
alarming rapidity. Composed end-
games, which we term studies, are
excellent at illustrating the pros and
cons of each piece, so we will use
them from time to time in this vol-
ume, beginning with an impressive
creation (1970) by Dobrescu and
Halberstadt:
If White can capture the bishop, he
wins against the rook. Note the awe-
some power of the queen here: 1
'iVf7! Threatening both 2 'VJ{jh5+ and

2 'ti'f8+ J:tgS? 3 iVh6 mate. If now
l..J:4gS then 2'it>f1! puts Black into
zugzwang, a Gennan tenn by which
we mean he cannot move without
weakening his position; the rook
cannot leave the back rank and
moves by the bishop to g5, h4 or a5
are answered by 'iVh5+, whilst mov-
ing to b6 allows ~f6+. 1...~h4+
(TEST 2.1.' the reader can work out
what White does against l..J::!.d4.) 2
'it>e2! J:tg2+ Or 2 .. J:tg7 3 ~eS+ fol-
lowed by 4 'i'h5+. 3 'it>e3 l::tg3+ 4
'ito>e4! l:tg4+ 5 'it>f5 ~g5+ 6 'it>f4 Put-
ting Black into zugzwang, since any
move of the rook along the file loses
material. 6... .i::!.a5 The only move
along the rank which does not lose
immediately. 7 ~f8+ ~h7 8 'it>g4
~a4+ 9 'it>h5 J::td4 10 ~f7+ 'it'h8 11
~c7 Ite4 (TEST 2.2: find out what
happens after 1l...i.f6.) 12 ~b8+
rl;g7 13 'iNb7+ ~e7 14 iVg2+ and
the bishop finally falls.
Here is a game position in which
White uses his queen in exemplary
fashion:
Hecht v Ghitescu
Amsterdam 1971
At first sight White's queen looks
somewhat restricted, but upon closer
examination we can see that Black's
The Pieces 21
pieces are tied down to the task of
preventing it penetrating into the
centre (Black's queen guards the
rook, his king's bishop the e5 pawn,
his queen's bishop the eS square and
his king the f8, gS and hS squares).
In fact, now is the ideal time to start
a second front. It is most instructive
in the following play to contrast the
mobility of each side, noting in par-
ticular the giant strides taken by
White's queen as it attacks various
weaknesses. Play went: 1 g4! fxg3
Or l...~g6 2 g5 i.e7 3 lLlxe5 ItbS 4
l:Ia7 ~xe5 5 .uxe7+ 'VIixe7 6 ~xbS;
or here 2 ... i.d8 3 lLlxe5 lIbS 4
'iNxc6! 'iVxe5 5 lIa7+ i.e7 6 ~f6+!
~xf6 7 gxf6+ 'it>xf6 S i.h4+ win-
ning. This is just the sort of penetra-
tion Black fears. 2 ~gl ~b8 3
~xg3+ rl;f7 4 ~a2! 'ito>e7 5 .i:th3 ~f7
6 'iVaI! ~g8 7 ~g3 'it>e6 Or 7 ... ~d7
S !Ih6! Ihg3 9 l:ixf6! wins. 8 ~f1!
~g6 9 i.h4 ~g7 10 ~g5 l:th8?
Missing the final point, but his posi-
tion was already difficult. 11 ~xf6!
'it'xf6 Or 1l...~xf6 12 lLld4+! etc. 12
lLlxe5+! 1-0. 12 ... ',he5 13 ~al+
wins the queen and anything else
loses at least a piece.
A queen, then, thrives on open
lines and points of attack, especially
welcoming a weakened king's
position where its checking and
mating powers can come into their
own. For these reasons, the plan of
the defending side is clear: the
queen must not be offered
weaknesses to attack and must be
restricted in its movements or, if
possible, tied down itself to defence,
as in the Toran-Tal game already
quoted, a task for which it is
eminently unsuited. Our next
example pinpoints the roles of the
attacker and defender in such cases:
22 The Pieces
Euwe v Griinfeld
Zandvoort 1936
White has won the enemy queen
for rook and bishop but must not
imagine that the game can win it-
self; his own light squares are weak
and the queen desperately needs
points of attack. Euwe's notes to
the following play, given in inverted
commas, reveal how much he ap-
preciates these problems:
1 tZJg5! .txg5! "This is forced, for
as soon as Black weakens his king's
position White's material superior-
ity will prove decisive." Indeed, af-
ter l...g6 2 'iYh3 h5 3 e6! the queen
has a field day e.g. 3... tZJxe6 4 tZJxe6
fxe6 5 ~xe6+ 1;g7 6 ~d7+ ltf7 7
.i.h6+!. Or 3 ... .i.xg5 4 exf7+ .!:[xf7
5 .i.xg5 followed by .i.e3 and ~e6.
Or, finally, 3 ... f5 4 .te3! .txg5 5
.txc5 I:i.fe8 6 ~g3! etc. 2 .txg5
.l:lfe8! Already there are cunning
queen attacks in the air e.g. 2 ... h6? 3
.i.e7 .l:i.fc8 4 .i.xc5 ltxc5 5 ~d7!
when 5 ... .te4 loses to 6 ~d4 and
5 .. ..!::tb8 allows 6 e6!, creating an en-
try on the sixth and seventh ranks
for his rook and queen to operate,
when play might go 6 ... fxe6 7
~xe6+ 'iith7 8 J::td1 with full control.
3 nel :'e6 4 l:te3 l:tae8 "As soon
becomes apparent, this is a decisive
mistake, for Black can no longer
keep his king's side intact." 5 h4!
h6 6 .tf6! "Winning quickly, the
threat being 7 J::tg3 g6 8 !Ixg6+ fol-
lowed by mate in three; or if
6 ... gxf6 7 exf6 threatening both mate
and the knight." 6... g6 7 'iVf4! 'iith7 8
.i.g5! White has achieved his aim of
opening up Black's king's position,
for now 8... hxg5 9 'iWxf7+ 'it>h8 10
hxg5 leads to mate and 8... Wg8 9
.txh6 is hopeless. 8... f5 9 exf6 1-0,
"For it is impossible to guard against
the numerous threats, above all 10
'ilc7+."
However, despite these examples,
we must not have an exaggerated
idea of the queen's strength. The
Gusev-Averbach position showed us
the abject role a queen can play
when tied to defence and serves as a
warning to those who idolize this
piece. There is also the player who
feels that the game loses its interest
once queens are off the board, a silly
attitude to say the least. I cannot
resist quoting a queenless middle
game that has all the excitement any-
one could wish for:
Adorjan v Androvitsky
Hungary 1971
Black has foolishly weakened his
king's side in the mistaken belief
that he has little to fear with the
queens off. His illusions are soon
shattered after 1 h4! tZJd6 2 hxg5

hxg5 Or 2 ... tLlf7 3 tLle7+ iLxe7 4
l:txe7 hxg5 5 iLc3! c6 6 lih8+!
tLlxh8 7 .l::\.g7 mate. 3 iLc3! ~e8 Or
3 ... tLlb5 4 tLle7+ Wg7 5 l:te6+!
tLlxc3 6 l:rg6+ ri;f7 7 :h7+ We8 8
tLlxc3 winning; or here 4 .. .iLxe7 5
~xe7 tLlxc3 6 ~hh7! winning. 4
l:th8+! Wf7 5 I1h7+ ri;g8 6 I:i.g7+!
Wf8 7 tLlxc7 iLxc7 8 ~xc7 tLlb5 9
J:\.h7 I1xe5 10 iLxe5 b6 10 ... a6 11
tLld7+! ~e8 12 tLlf6+ ~d8 13 a4
tLla7 14 JLc7 mate. 11 tLld7+! JLxd7
12 I1h8+ rt;e7 13 1:1xa8 'ite6 14 a4
iLc6 15 l::!.g8 Wxe5 16 axb5 JLxb5
17 .l:l:xb7 JLn 18l:tg7 1-0.
Here is another example of a
middle game without queens,
played when Kasparov won the
World Junior Championship at the
tender age of 17. I quote the whole
game: Danailov v Kasparov: 1 c4
g6 2 tLlf3 iLg7 3 tLlc3 d6 4 d4 tLlf6
5 e4 0-0 6 JLe2 e5 7 dxe5 dxe5 8
'iVxd8 l:txd8 9 iLg5 tLlbd7 10 tLld5
c6 11 tLle7+ Wf8 12 tLlxc8 l:tdxc8
13 0-0-0 tLlc5 14 JLxf6 iLxf6 15
iLd3
Danailov v Kasparov
World Junior Championship 1980
White has exchanged his queen
and two minor pieces, without a
great deal of thought, in the mis-
taken belief that this is the way to
achieve a comfortable draw. In
The Pieces 23
reality, his positIOn contains dark
square weaknesses which Kasparov
exploits in splendid fashion, despite
(or because of?) the reduced mate-
rial. 15 ... a5! 16 ':hel l::!.e8 17 JLn
JLd8! 18 g3 a4! 19 'it>c2 iLa5 20
J:Ie3 l::tad8! In contrast to White's
exchanges, this exchange of one
rook to gain control of the 'd' file is
positionally justified. 21 ~xd8 l:txd8
22 JLh3 22 tLlxe5? loses a pawn after
22 ... ~d2+ 25 ..tel .s:xf2 24 J;tf3
.a:xf3 25 tLlxf3 tLlxe4. 22 ... f6 23 .a:e2
..te7 24 JLg2 tLld3! A cunning move
that forces the weakening 25 a3 in
view of the threatened 25 ... tLlb4+ 26
'it>bl?? .:tdl mate; if now 25 'it'bl
Cbb4 26 l:id2 J:Ixd2 27 tLlxd2 then
27 ... Cbxa2 wins a pawn, whilst in
this line 26 .a:e 1 also loses a pawn to
26 ... :d3! 27 JLg2 tLlxa2 28 Wxa2
l:txf3! 29 !:te2 l:!.d3. 25 a3 tLlc5 26
h4 h5 27 ~e3
Danailov v Kasparov (cont.)
White's position is being held to-
gether by his knight which guards
the important d4 and d2 squares, so
after 27 ... g5! 28 hxg5 fxg5 he dare
not capture the e5 pawn because of
29 ... l:td2+ 30 'it>b 1 l:[xf2 31 JLf3 g4
32 JLe2 JLd2 and 29 tLlxg5 fails to
29 ... ~d2+ 30 'it>b 1 tLld3! 31 Cbh3
JLb6 32 .s:f3 JLd4 mating or winning
material; of course, if 29 tLlxe5
~d2+ 30 Wcl Black has 30 ... Cbb3+
24 The Pieces

31 Wbl l:txf2 32 .to We6 33 4.Jd3 7 .1Lxf7+! 4.Jxf7 8 4.Je6 ~6 Or

J:[xO! 34 ~xO 4.Jd2+ winning a 8 ... 'iVaS+ 9 .1Ld2 ~6 10 as 'ii'xb2
piece. 29 ~e2 4.Jb3! Threatening 11 .1Lc3 ~bS 12 4.Jc7+ winning the
30 ... g4 31 4.Jh4 4.Jd4+. 30 'it>bl Wf6 queen. 9 a5 ~4+ 10 c3 ~c4 11
0-1 A calm move which places 4.Jc7+ 'it>d8 12 b3 and the queen is
White in zugzwang because his lost.
bishop cannot move without being
captured, his knight cannot give up Fischer v Reshevsky, USA Ch.
control of d4, his king will be mated 19S8-9: 1 e4 c5 2 4.Jf3 4.Jc6 3 d4
after 31 Wa2 Itdl and his rook can- cxd4 4 tt'lxd4 g6 5 4.Jc3 .1Lg7 6 .1Le3
not go to d2 in view of mate in 3 or .1Lg7 7 .1Lc4 0-0 8 .1Lb3 tt'la5??
to e3 because of 30 ... g4 31 4.Jh4 Fischer knew the trap but Reshevsky
Itd1+ 32 Wc2 ktd2+ 33 'itbl .tb6 didn't! 9 e5! 4.Je8 Both 9... tt'lhS 10
34 .l:[el J..d4 followed by 3S ... !Ixb2 g4 and 9 ... tt'lxb3 10 exf6 4.Jxal 11
mate. Incredibly, there is another fxg7 lose material.
beautiful finish to be had after
(instead of Kasparov's 30 ... Wf6)
30 ... 11dl + 31 'it>c2 Ital! 32 ne3
(forced, in view of the threat of
... g4) 32 ... g4 33 4.JxeS 4.Jd4+ 34
Wd3 Itdl mate, which only con-
firms Black's total domination of
the game.

It is worth noting that the very

power of the queen makes it vulner-
able to attacks, especially early in
the game when its range is limited.
Indeed, there are a number of open- Trap in Sicilian Defence
ing traps which exploit the queen's
10 J..xf7+! Wxf7 Or 1O .. J~xf7 11
vulnerability. Here are a couple I
4.Je6! winning Black's queen. 11
particularly like:
tt'le6! Wxe6 12 ~d5+ 'it>f5 when I
leave the reader to work out the rest
(TEST 2.3.)

Respect for the power of the queen

has always meant that the queen
sacrifice has something special about
it. Perhaps one of the most dynamic
aspects of the queen is this ability to
choose the time for self-immolation,
an admission that her work is now
done and the rest can be handed over
to her subordinates. Let us conclude
this section with a famous finish in
which a reigning World Champion
was the victim of such a sacrifice:
Trap in Philidor Defence

Larsen v Petrosian
Santa Monica 1966
1 ~xg6! 4Jf4 Or 1... 4Jc7 2
'iVxg7+! followed by mate in 2. 2
~xf4 fxg6 3 .lie6+ IIf7 Or 3 .. .'~t>h7
4 ~h4+ .lih6 5 ~xh6 !If5 6 nxf5
gxf5 7 .lifl! e5 8 ~h3 when there is
no defence against 9 .lif8 mate. 4
.l:!.xt7 'it>h8 5 h1gS! bS 6 J:tg3 1-0
Mate follows quickly.
The Rook
Here is a clear instance of a piece
whose power grows dramatically as
the game progresses, reaching its
maximum in the endgame, when
open lines are usually there to be
exploited. One has only to play a
few endings to realize how much
stronger the rook is than the knight
or the bishop, other things being
equal of course. Let us illustrate
this by means of two 'studies':
The Pieces 25
In the first by Moravec (1913)
White is to play and win.
1 ~h7! Avoiding 'it>xg7 for rea-
sons we shall soon see. 1...h4 2 'it'g6
h3 3 ~gS h2 4 ~g4 hl="iV 5 ~g3!
when Black is mated or loses his
queen, because his own pawn on g7
blocks the ~h8 defence guarding
a1! It is worth a quick look at the
alternative defence of 4 ... h1=4J 5
~f3! g5 when White wins the knight
after 6 ~d2! g4+ 7 'it'xg4 'it>fl (or 7
4Jf2+ 'it>f3 8 4Jh3 ~g3 wins) 8 'it'f3
when both 8... 'it>e1 and 8... ~gl lose
to 9 na2. Note the power of the
rook on the seventh (second) rank
restricting the enemy king. Over
now to two rooks against a rook and
bishop:
Rinck (1912)
White to play and win
1 l:ta7+ ~d6 Other moves imme-
diately lose the bishop or rook. 2
nf6+! ~e6 Or 2 ... IIe6 3 l:tf8! .l:!.g64
nd8+! '>t>e6 5 .l:!.a6+ winning the
bishop. 31Ia6+ ~d7 4 'it>cS! ~g4 Or
4 ... ne8 5 nd6+ winning. 5 na7+
'it>e8 Or 5 ... ~d8 6 .l:!.f8+ .l:i:e8 7 ~a8+
wins. 6 IIa8+ '>t>d7 7 lld6+ 'it>c7 8
.tIa7+ wins the rook. Note the baf-
fling switches in the rooks' direc-
tions; such horizontal and vertical
uses of the rook can be very tricky to
26 The Pieces
visualize when you are attacking or
defending.
However, beginners usually un-
dervalue the rook, mainly because
in the early stages of the game it is
virtually an onlooker, with most ex-
citement being created by the other
pieces or the pawns. In fact, not
only has the rook to wait patiently
in the comer before it can reach the
centre files but it must then often
playa supporting role until lines are
opened for it to exert its full power.
A good example of this is seen in
the Ruy Lopez after the moves 1 e4
e5 2 ctJf3 ctJc6 3 ~b5 a6 4 ~a4
ttJf6 5 0-0 ~e7 6 l:tel b5 7 ~b3 0-0
8 c3 d6 9 h3 ttJa5 10 ~c2 c5 11 d4
'Wic7
Ruy Lopez position
White has moved his king's rook
twice and all it seems to be doing is
guarding the e4 pawn whilst the
other rook seems inactive for some
time to come. Often as many as 10
moves go by without either rook
being moved, while the queen's
knight is moving over to g3 or e3
via d2 and fl and the bishop is
making up its mind where it finally
wants to go! Such positions baffle
the beginner, who is inclined to
doubt the value placed on the rook
by the experts. However, let us look
more closely at the rook on el.
From this seemingly ineffective
square it is in fact doing far more
than guarding the e4 pawn. The
keynote of this opening is restraint,
giving Black an apparently easy
game but in reality attempting to
maintain a vice-like grip on his op-
tions. In this respect, the rook plays
a vital part making it difficult for
Black to free his game by ... d5,
whilst White calmly manoeuvres
behind his pawn front. Eventually,
even the rook on a 1 can come into
play on another file or else remain
where it is in case the 'a' file is
opened up by a4.
However, at some point the rook
needs to take over an open file with
a view to penetrating to the heart of
the enemy position and changing its
vertical pressure into a horizontal
one. When a rook can combine
pressures in this way, it is at its most
powerful, so mere occupation of a
file is rarely enough; a point of en-
try is required. Consider, for exam-
ple, the following opening sequence:
1 d4 ttJf6 2 c4 d6 3 ttJc3 e5 4 dxe5
dxe5 5 ~xd8+ 'it>xd8 6 ~g5 ~e6 7
0-0-0+ 'it>c8 giving us the following
position:
Opening set-up

Although White has rapidly
seized the sole open file, he can do
little with it, as he has no real point
of entry. In practice, even if White
succeeds in doubling his rooks on
the file, Black usually manages to
defend without great difficulty. The
danger of seizing any open file
without considering its usefulness is
that a mindless exchange of major
pieces can easily result in a quick
draw. In contrast, of course, occu-
pation of half-open files allows us
not only to put pressure on our op-
ponent's position but also to use our
rook for horizontal switches along a
rank. Our next position, taken from
a game which won a brilliancy prize
for Bobby Fischer, is an excellent
illustration of how to use rooks in
this way:
Fischer v Bolbochan
Stockholm Interzonal 1962
Look how useful White's rooks
are compared to Black's. The rook
on h3 is ready to invade almost any-
where, whilst his colleague on dl is
applying pressure down the 'd' file,
supporting the powerful knight and
prepared to switch flexibly to an-
other post when required. In stark
contrast, Black's rooks are placed in
purely defensive positions and never
even succeed in occupying the
The Pieces 27
useful 'c' file. Play went: 1 ~a3!
'iHa7 2 1!c3! g6 3 ~g4 ~d7 4 'ii'f3
'iHe6 Black has driven away White's
queen but still cannot challenge the
'c' file because of lDb6. The White
rooks now post themselves on
squares from which they exert maxi-
mum power. S 1:!c7 J:IdeS Not of
course 5.. J:td7?? 6 lDf4 winning. 6
4:Jf4 ~eS 7 !IdS! ~hS
Fischer v Bolbochan (cont.)
S a3! A quiet move, fixing Black's
b5 pawn but, more importantly,
stopping any back rank mate in the
complications about to follow. It is
as if White is telling Black that, if he
does nothing, his queens ide pawns
will be mopped up, whereas any
desperate bid for freedom must
inevitably fail! In fact, the finish
comes as no surprise. S... h6 9 gxh6
~xh6 10 hS i£.gS 11 hxg6! fxg6 Or
1l....txf4 12 gxf7+ ~xf7 13 .l:lxf7
'ittxf7 14 .l:!.h5! winning. Note that,
without White's loophole on a2,
Black could now have played
14 ... ~f6 15 .l:!.f5?? ~xf5! 16 exf5
!Ie 1 mate. 12 ~3! !!xf4 Or
12 ... <;i;>h8 13 4:Jxg6+! ~xg6 14 J:rxg5
'iVxg5 15 'li'h3+ followed by mate.
13 l:teS+ Wf8 14 l:txeS+ 1-0 After
14 ... 'it>xe8 there comes 15 iVe6+ fol-
lowed by 16 ~c8 mate.
28 The Pieces
The seventh rank is a particularly
strong posting for a rook (or, better
still, two rooks!) because its turning
action from vertical to horizontal is
at its most effective here, aiming not
only at enemy pawns but also at the
king. Here is a good example of
how Capablanca was willing to sac-
rifice a pawn to launch such an at-
tack, enhanced by the weakened
light squares:
Nimzovich v Capablanca
New York 1927
1...e5! 2 i.xe5 ~dd2 3 'it'b7 Or 3
l:!.f1 ~xe3! 4 i.f4 l:!.xf2! winning;
the best defence is 3 'it'f1 ~d5 4
i.f4!. 3... ':xf2 4 g4 'it'e6 5 i.g3
~xh2! 6 'tIVf3 Or 6 i.xh2 ~xg4+ 7
'it'h 1 'iVh3 followed by mate.
6.. J:thg2+ 7 'tIVxg2 .l:i.xg2+ 8 'it'xg2
~xg4 and Black won easily.
Here is another example of the
power of doubled rooks, this time
on the enemy's back rank:
Seeing that White is helpless
against the doubled rooks combined
with the king's bishop, Black sacri-
fices his queen for rook and knight
Volinsky v Kalinichenko
USSR 1970
with 1...'iYxa2! 2 l:tal l:txdl 3 !txa2
l:Ixel 4 g3 ~d8! 5 gxf4 ~ddl 6 f5
White tries in vain to prevent the
decisive entry of Black's bishop; if
6 ~c2 exf4 and the bishop comes in
on d4. 6 .. .l:txfl+ 7 'it>g2 i.f6! 8 'tlVa4
~g1+ 9 Wf2 i.h4+ 10 'it'e2 .J:i.gel
mate. TEST 2.4: An interesting ex-
ercise for the reader is to work out
Black's win against 9 'it>h2. It is not
as easy as it looks!
The Knight
This is an intriguingly devious
piece whose value is difficult to as-
sess, particularly when compared to
the straightforward bishop. Given a
fairly empty board, the long-range
bishop shows up better, the knight's
short hop being a disadvantage, not
only because it usually takes 3 or 4
moves to cross from one wing to the
other but also because it can easily
be trapped against the edge of the
board. It is also the only piece to
have any trouble against a passed
rook's pawn and is completely help-
less when attacked by an enemy

pawn on the seventh rank. A fa-
mous Alekhine combination illus-
trates this last point to perfection:
Bogoljubow v Alekhine
Hastings 1922
He achieves his aim after 1...b4!!
2 .l:[xa8 bxe3 3 llxe8 e2! 4 llxf8+
Wh7, when there is no way to stop
Black promoting his pawn. The
game ended: 5 liJf2 el=~+ 6 liJn
QJel! with a winning advantage to
Black.
Having pointed out the knight's
disadvantages, it is only fair to state
that there are times when it is not
only superior to a bishop but even
worth a rook. Tum back, for exam-
ple, to the Fischer-Bolbochan posi-
tion given earlier and consider the
power of the well-posted knight on
d5:
* It is well centralized, which
means that it can rapidly influence
events on both sides of the board,
whether it be penetrating on the
queens ide or attacking on the
kingside.
* Unlike its colleague, the bishop,
it is not limited to squares of one
colour only; at the moment it is
watching eight dark squares but a
single move can immediately bring
eight light squares into its orbit.
The Pieces 29
* Not only is it well supported by
pawn and pieces, but the d5 square is
ideal for it because the Black d6
pawn prevents any frontal attack and
there is no pawn on the 'c' or 'e'
files to drive it away.
* Add to this the fact that the Black
bishop has no scope whatsoever, be-
ing restricted by the pawn on d6 as
well as by White's g5 pawn, and it
can be seen that White's knight is
indeed a most powerful piece.
What a strange piece this is, then,
very much requiring the right setting
to reveal its true worth! The onus is
therefore on us to create this setting,
as does Smyslov, a master of posi-
tional play, in the following position:
Langeweg v Smyslov
Amsterdam 1971
After 1.. ..ixf3! 2 .ixf3 liJd4
White is already in trouble, since he
cannot move his king's bishop back
to g2 without losing a vital pawn.
Play proceeded: 3 'tWe4 e6! 4 .ig5?
A mistake, but if 4 !:tbl '(Wa4! or if 4
lIVb7 llb8 5 ~e4 f5 6 'i'f4 e5 etc., or
finally the knight cannot be driven
away by 4 e3?? in view of 4 ... f5 5
lib7 ktb8 winning the bishop on 0.
4 ... f6! 5 .if4 g5 6 i.el f5 and White
30 The Pieces
had had enough because the e2
pawn falls after 7 ... g4.
I have deliberately chosen this
simple example because it is
White's attitude of mind that is of
interest here. Such is the belief in
the strength of the two bishops that
Black's first move would surprise
many players until it dawned on
them that White is clearly worse
once the knight lands on d4.
Another striking example of this
kind of misjudgement occurred,
strangely enough, in the same tour-
nament, with Smyslov again playing
the Black side:
Gligoric v Smyslov
Amsterdam 1971
The opening stage is hardly over
than Gligoric, no mean positional
player himself, makes a move which
reveals once again an obsession
with the two bishops. Illogically
fearing ... ltJh5, he produces the
weak and time-wasting 1 h3 and af-
ter 1..:~Ve7 2 0-0 iLxc3! 3 bxc3 ltJe4
4 iLh2, he has indeed succeeded in
preserving his bishop only to dis-
cover that nothing is further from
Smyslov's mind that exchanging his
beautifully centralized knight for
White's ineffective queen's bishop!
The game continued: 4... c5 5 ltJo
iLc6 6 iLd3 f5! And eventually
White had to give up his more valu-
able king's bishop for the e4 knight,
allowing the Black's f5 pawn to set-
tle on e4, thus giving him a bind on
the position which proved sufficient
to win the game.
If a grandmaster can be troubled
by such decisions, this should
convince the reader of the
importance of learning more about
the value of pieces in varying
situations. It is always foolhardy to
base our play on preconceived ideas
without a careful examination of the
concrete situation on the board. I
repeat: nowhere does this book
offer magic formulae which will
save the reader from having to think
for himself!
We mentioned earlier the devious-
ness of the knight, due to its sudden
baffling switches from squares of
one colour to squares of the opposite
colour. Once again, two fine
'studies' can be used to illustrate this
feature which distinguishes the
knight so clearly from the bishop.
Let us begin with an extraordinary
display of tactical wizardry:
Pogosyants (1959)
White to play and win

With both kings exposed, it is vi-
tal for White to use his pieces
quickly to maximum effect and this
is the startling result: 1 lbe5+ 'it>a5
Forced because 1...Wa3 allows 2
'iVb3 mate and L.c;t>b5 fails to 2
~3+ followed by mate. 2 ~d8+!
'i!;>b5 Again forced, since the alter-
natives 2 ... ihd8 3 lbxc6+ and
2 .. J~b6 3 lbc4+ lose material imme-
diately; so what is White's plan
now? 3 j.c4+! l:rxc4 If 3 ... 'it>c5 4
'iVa5 mate, or if 3 ... 'it>a4 4 ~xd6
l:rxd6 5 1i.d3+ winning the f5 rook;
however, 4 ~xd6 will now allow
4 .. J:i.xh4+, so how can White finish
the game in brilliant fashion? 4
'i'a5+!! 'i!;>xa5 5 lbxc4+ picking up
the three major pieces in one feU
swoop, as if in a game of draughts ...
Now for a much quieter 'study'
but perhaps all the more instructive
for that:
Grigoriev (1934)
White to play and draw
When I first saw this,. I just did
not believe it possible for White to
save such a position, faced as he is
with two passed pawns and a
stranded knight notoriously bad
against a rook's pawn. Note that a
bishop instead of the knight would
have no problem at alL Clearly,
The Pieces 31
White's king must be used to stop
the 'b' pawn, so it is up to the knight
to deal with the 'h' pawn. But how?
Since it can only operate from one
side of the pawn, it seems to be in
deep trouble after 1 'it>d3 Wfl 2 'iitc4
'it>g6 (if 2 ... 'iitg7 3 'it>xb4 c;t>xh7 4
'it>c4 the pawn can be stopped) be-
cause Black now intends to push the
'h' pawn at once if White captures
on b4. However, it is in this situa-
tion that the knight displays startling
agility beginning with 3 lbf8+ c;t>f5 4
lbd7 h5 5 lbc5! h4 giving us a posi-
tion worth another diagram:
Grigoriev (cont.)
We have now reached the critical
point in this 'study'. White has to
know that the key square for the
knight to deal with the 'h' pawn is f1
and the only way to reach there is by
6 tLlb3!! with the main variation be-
ing 6 ... h3 7 tLld2 h2 8 tLln hI =~ 9
tLlg3+ and the queen is lost. But
what if Black uses his king to shep-
herd his pawn home? It is then that
White displays the 'bread and butter'
essential knowledge of this ending:
from fl the knight can hold up the
pawn without any help from the
king! Play might go: 6 .. .'ti'f4 7 tLld2
h3 8 lbn 'it>f3 9 'it>xb4 Wg2 10
lbe3+ 'it>f2 11 lbg4+ 'it>g3 12 lbe3!
when it is clear that Black can make
32 The Pieces
no progress. A splendid composed
ending!
To complete this section, let us
examine two contrasting situations
where knights are opposing the
famous two bishops. We have seen
that knights need support if they are
to be at their best, so the side with
the bishops should strive to under-
mine this support. Our first exam-
ple is a drastic illustration of this
method:
Capablanca v Milner-Barry
Margate 1936
The bishops here are far stronger
than the knights, as Capablanca con-
vincingly demonstrates by knocking
out the two pawns supporting
Black's cavalry: 1 h5! .l:tbf8 2 c5!
d5 3 i.xd5+! cxd5 4 'iYxd5+ 'it>f6 5
f4 'iYc6 6 i.xe5+ r:l;e7 7 i.d6+ and
Black resigned, because after
7 ... liJxd6 8 cxd6+ 'iVxd6 9 l:te 1+
'it'd7 10 't\Vxb7+ he loses at least his
queen.
However, we must not end on a
pessimistic note about the knight.
Chi gorin had a penchant for this
delightful piece, along with Nimzo-
vich, Petros ian and the unorthodox
Larsen. They could do wonders
with it, partly because they believed
in it but mainly because they were
skilled at bringing about the kind of
positions most suited to the peculi-
arities of this piece. Larsen is at
work in our next example, facing the
redoubtable Bobby Fischer and his
favourite two bishops:
Fischer v Larsen
Santa Monica 1966
Larsen comments: "Black has
quite an active position and I doubt
if White has any advantage", al-
though these brave words were writ-
ten after the game! However, the
differences between this and the pre-
vious example are clear enough. The
position is semi-blocked, with
White's advanced 'e' pawn making
his kings ide pawn majority difficult
to utilize, whereas Black's queenside
pawns are ready to roll forward
when required. The two knights are
well placed and White's bishops will
not find it easy to make their pres-
ence felt. At all events, Larsen half-
proved his statement by winning as
follows: 1... liJc5 2 g3 ~c4 Black is
not afraid of the ending after 3 'i!Vxc4
dxc4 when he can utilize the 'hole'
at d3. 3 ~g2 liJd3! Immediately
eliminating one of the bishops, the
'good' one least hindered by the
White pawns. 4 i.xd3 ~xd3 5 Si.g5
c66 g4 liJg7 7 ~e3 ~d2 8 b3 b4 9

~h3? bxc3 10 ~h6 4Je6 0-1.
Fischer has no time for 11 J.f6 fol-
lowed by g5 and 'iYxh7+ in view of
Il...c2 12 g5 'iYdl+! 13 ~g2 4Jf4+
14 'iitg3 4Jh5+ winning. Perhaps he
should not have lost this game but
the knights did their work most
efficiently.
The Bishop
Although the bishop's forking
power is not in the knight's league,
it can occasionally produce a spec-
tacular double attack, as in the fol-
lowing 'study':
Sobolevsky (1950)
White to play and win
After 1 J.b2+ Black's bishop is
attacked so he must reply 1...J.e5
pinning himself, although there is
no danger in 2 l:th5? lidl +. Instead,
comes 2 l:td6! l:tb5 3 I:td8+ ~g7 4
lIb8! and in neither case can the
rook be captured, because of J.xe5+
winning a piece. However, the final
try 4.. .l:!d5 fails to 5 e4 when White
gains the exchange, with an easy
win.
The bishop's main strength un-
doubtedly resides in its ability to pin
The Pieces 33
and skewer enemy pieces using its
long-range mobility. Here is a de-
lightful example of pins and unpins
in a duel between two bishops:
Kakovin (1960)
White to play and win
White cannot capture Black's rook
without allowing his own rook to fall
to ... J.f2+, so he first plays 1 J.c4+
<tJg7 2 ~e7+ so that, after 2 .. .'itf6
(which blocks a potential bishop
check on d8), he can guard the f2
square by 3 J::te2! and then win the
bishop by 4 l:!.e6+ when Black's at-
tacked rook moves away. For this
reason, Black continues 2... c;t;>f8 3
~f7+ ~e8 4 1;:[f6 J.d8 pinning the
rook, only to find that White can
now interpose 5 J.b5+! forcing
Black to unpin the rook by 5•..c;t;>e7
allowing 6 ~xa6. To 'echo' this
beautiful variation, we have 1... c;t>h7
2 .l:!.e7+ c;t>g6 in order to answer 3
l:te2 with 3 ... J.d8+. 3 .txa6 .td8
Pinning the rook. 4 .td3+! when the
unfortunate Black king must again
unpin the White rook. A composi-
tion full of dramatic moments!
The long-ranging bishop can be
such a powerful piece when control-
ling a major diagonal, that whole
34 The Pieces

opening systems can be constructed Bobby Fischer in his prime was

around white-square or black-square famous for his creative exploitation
strategies which harness this power. of the bishop. Here is the sacrificial
Here is a typical brevity from the culmination of one of his finest
Griinfeld Defence which shows how achievements:
the whole of Black's play is geared
towards maximizing the influence
of his dark-squared bishop (my brief
notes are solely aimed at emphasiz-
ing this theme):

Ubilava v Kengis, USSR 1984: 1

d4 liJf6 2 c4 g6 3 liJc3 dS 4 liJf3
~g7 S 'iVa4+ ~d7 6 'ii'b3 dxc4! 7
Wkxc4 0-0 8 e4 bS!? This wild-
looking move is a prelude to smash-
ing up the centre with ... c5, increas-
ing the scope of the g7 bishop. 9
~3 cS! 10 dxcS liJa6 11 eS liJg4
12 h3liJxeS 13 liJxeS ~xeS 14 ~e3
~c8 IS J:.dl liJxcs 16 ~a3?! liJa4!
Aiming at the vital dark squares b2
and c3. 17 liJxbS liJxb2 18 1:ldS
nc2! Threatening 19 ... ~xb5 20
l:txd8 'uxd8 21 ~xb5 I:td 1 mate. 19
liJd4 ~xd4 20 lhd4 W1c7 21 ~e2?
Hastening the end.
R. Byrne v Fischer
USA Championship 1963-4
Fischer sees a sacrificial sequence
which eliminates White's strong
bishop on g2 and allows his own
bishop on a6 to take over the long
diagonal, highlighting the resulting
weakness of the light squares around
the White. king: 1...liJxf2! 2 'it'xf2
liJg4+ 3 'it'gl etJxe3 4 ~ d2 liJxg2!!
The point. S 'it>xg2 d4! 6 liJxd4
~b7+ 7 <;tn 'iVd7! and White re-
signed in a position well worth an-
other diagram:

Ubilava v Kengis
USSR 1984

21. .. eS! 22 1:!.d6 .uxe2+! 23 <;txe2

~bS+ 24 'it>f3liJc4 2S ~cS e4+ 0-1
Any move loses the rook with a
check. R. Byrne v Fischer (cont.)
 The Pieces 35

The extraordinary transformation

reveals a situation in which the
White king's position is fatally
weakened and Black's bishops reign
supreme. A thematic finish might
have been 8 'iVf2 'tlVh3+ 9 'it>gl
l:Iel+! 10 ~xel .ixd4 11 'flr'xd4
~g2 mate.

The most obvious weakness of the

bishop is that it can only control
squares of one colour, which is why
it is often at its most effective in Euwe v Keres (cont.)
conjunction with other pieces and
pawns. That is why two bishops 11 ... l:l.xf4! Leading to an attractive
working together in an open posi- forced win. 12 gxf4 ~g8+ 13 c;t>f3
tion, and thus compensating for .ig4+ and Euwe resigned in view of
their individual weakness, can even 14 ~e4 l::!.e8+ when after 15 'it>d5
be as strong as a queen. Paul Keres .if3+ 16 'tlVe4 i..xe4 mate or 15 'it>d3
was in no doubt about this when he .if5 mate, the two bishops have the
sacrificed first his queen, then a· last word.
rook, from the following position:
Our final example of two bishops
at work is perhaps the most
instructive because it shows a typical
situation in which Black has to work
hard to create open lines and points
of attack before his pieces can
achieve their full potential. It is in
such positions that the average
player often fails to realise his
advantage:

Euwe v Keres
Match, Holland 1939-40
After 1...d3! 2 l:.xd3 'flr'xd3!! 3
~xd3 i..d4+ the Black bishops ex-
ert tremendous pressure on the king.
Euwe tries to tempt Keres to part
with one of them, but they remain
on the board until White is mated.
Play continued: 4 ~f2 Or 4 'it>hl
ktxe6 followed by ... l:tae8 and
... ~e2. 4... ~xe6 5 'it>f1 !Iae8! 6 f5
lIeS 7 f6 gxf6 8 lId2 .ic8! 9 etJf4 Kirov v Vasyukov
l:!e3 10 'flr'b 1 :tf3+ 11 \t>g2 Varna 1971
36 The Pieces

White's pawns on f3 and c3 pre-

sent a barrier to the Black bishops
but this puts a heavy strain on the
supporting pawns on g2 and b2
which dare not move without creat-
ing serious weaknesses. Let us see
how Vasyukov cleverly exploits this
factor: 1...a5! Threatening to ad-
vance to a3 and practically forcing
White's next move, since 2 a4
would allow 2 ... h4! applying more
pressure on c3. 2 a3 a43 .li.a2 b4! 4
axb4 cxb4 5 d4 Unwillingly having Henneberger v Nirnzovich
to set up another barrier to Black's Winterthur 1931
king's bishop, but this inevitably
weakens other squares and also ac- 1...ctJe4! Black ties the bishop to
cepts that little can be done to both his pawns, forcing 2 We2 Wd5
counter the vertical pressure down 3 'it>e3 when, by the standard 'trian-
the 'c' file. 5 .. .l:tbc8! 6 cxb4 Giving gular' movement of the king
up the struggle to maintain his pawn 3 ...'it>d6! 4 'it>e2 'it>c6 5 'it'e3 Wd5,
chain but 6 .li.c4 a3! or 6 !Ic 1 Black has achieved his aim of forc-
.li.xd4! or 6 .l:Id3 .li.a6 or finally 6 ing White's king back. If White
~d3 a3! are no better. 6.. Jhd4 7 now moves his bishop instead, Black
lhd4 .li.xd4 8 'ilVdl .li.f2! The cul- exchanges knight for bishop, then
mination of Black's strategy, as 9 plays 6 ... We4 7 We2 a3! gaining en-
lie2 allows 9 ... .li.xf31. 9 .li.xe6 fxe6 try via d3 or f3. Play continued: 6
10 l:I.xe6 .li.d5 11 !Id6 .l:!.c1 12 '1IVd3 We2 ctJd6 7 We3 ctJb5 8 .li.d2 ctJa3 9
.li.c4 13 l:I.d8+ Wg7 14 'iVd7+ .li.f7 ~c1 Forced because 9 .li.el ctJc2+
and, in view of the fact that 15 ~d3 10 'it>e2 ctJxe 1 11 'it'xe1 We4 wins,
loses to 15 ...~xd8!, White resigned. as we have seen. 9 ... ctJbl 10 .li.b2
a3! 11 .li.al reaching the following
So far in this section we have position:
talked about the bishop in terms
bordering on adulation, so we must
now in all justice set the record
straight by looking at the so-called
'bad' bishop, by which a bishop re-
stricted by its own pawns. An ex-
ample will make this clear (see
following diagram):
In contrast to the knight, the
bishop is a terrible piece here be-
cause, although it guards its own
pawns, it must rely on the king to
oppose the entry of the enemy king
via the weak light squares. How-
ever, it is still not an easy position to Henneberger v Nirnzovich
win for Black. First of all, with ... 'Bad' bishop ending (cont.)

Nimzovich has deliberately al-
lowed his knight to be captured in
order to promote his g4 pawn, hav-
ing precisely calculated the resulting
play after 11 ... ~d6! 12 ~e2 Wc6 13
'it'dl White would of course like to
play 13 'it>e3 WdS 14 'it>f2 but then
14 ... tLld2 followed by lS ... tLlb3!
wins at once; in case you think this
is a tactical fluke, Black can also
win thematically by 14 .. .'it>e4 IS
~e2 tLld2! 16 'it'xd2 Wf3 winning
more quickly than in the game!
13 ... 'it'd5 14 'it'c2 We4 15 'it'xbl
~f3 16 i.b2! axb2! Not 16 ... <;t>xg3
17 i.xa3 Wf3 18 i.cS! g3 19 a4 g2
20 dS! and it is White who wins. 17
a4 'it>xg3 18 a5 ~h2! 19 a6 g3 20
a7 g2 21 a8=~ gl=~+ 22 Wxb2
ir'g2+! exchanging queens and eas-
ily winning the pawn ending.
Yet another bizarre aspect of
bishops is when opposing bishops
control squares of the opposite col-
our. In fact, endings with bishop
and pawns on each side and no
other pieces on the board are notori-
ously difficult to win, as many play-
ers over the years have found to
their cost. Witness the following
composed example:
White to move. Draw!
White must guard against Black's
threat of l...'it>f3 2 i.a6 e2+! 3
The Pieces 37
i.xe2+ ~e3 when the blockade is
broken, so his first move is 1 'it>e2!
when all winning attempts by Black
fail e.g. 1...'it>e4 2 i.c4 i.g3 3 i.b5
'it'd5 4 ~d3! i.el After 4 ... e2 S
i.c4+! saves the day. 5 i.a6 Wc6 6
'it'c2 ~b6 7 i.c4 'ot>a5 8 'it'b3 and
the pawn chain can never advance,
nor can the Black king penetrate
down the queenside. However,
move the whole position one square
to the right and it is won for Black,
whoever has the move, precisely be-
cause Black's king can then use the
extra file on the queens ide to reach
either c4 or d I! Try it for yourself.
In view of the difficulty in win-
ning such endings, inexperienced
players have somehow acquired the
erroneous belief that middle games
with opposite-coloured bishops are
also drawish. Nothing could be fur-
ther from the truth! In fact, I am
tempted to generalize by stating that,
in middle game situations, opposite-
coloured bishops tend to unbalance
play and tilt it even more in favour
of the player with the initiative. As
an instructive example of this, I
quote a correspondence game played
recently by an old friend of mine,
Donald Andrew:
Andrew v Roach, 1999: 1 e4 e5
2 i.c4 tLlf6 3 d4 exd4 4 tLlf3 tLlc6 5
e5 d5 6 i.b5 ttJe4 7 tLlxd4 i.d7 8
i.xc6 bxc6 9 0-0 i.c5 10 f3 tLlg5 11
f4 tLle4 12 i.e3 'ilie7 13 tLld2 ctJxd2
14 'iVxd2 i.xd4 Black has trans-
posed the game into a typical Two
Knights Defence line, but this delib-
erate concession of dark-square con-
trol seems risky to me. 15 i.xd4! By
taking with the queen he could pre-
vent Black's next move, but sees no
reason to prevent Black's attempt to
set up his pawns on dark squares,
since the resulting position can be
38 The Pieces
smashed open. 15 ... c5 16.Jtf2 d4 17
c3! .Jtb5 18 nfel 18 ~fc1 looks
even stronger. 18... d3 19 c4! .Jtxc4
20 ~acl .Jta6 21 l1xc5! Far better
than the obvious 21 .Jtxc5, as we
shall see. 21...0-0 22 !ia5! ~e6 23
f5! A rapid attack is launched before
Black can set up any defence.
23 .. :~c8 24 f6! h6 Desperately try-
ing to contest the dark squares, be-
cause after 24 ... Wh8 25 fxg7+ Wxg7
26 'iVg5+ 'it>h8 27 ~f6+ Wg8 28 e6!
it is all over.
Andrew v Roach
Correspondence 1999
White has almost complete con-
trol of the dark squares and this,
along with the initiative (despite the
awkward pawn on d3), leads to an
inevitable win. Just compare the in-
fluence of each side's bishop... 25
.J:.e3! nd8 Or 25 ... .Jtb7 261!g3 forc-
ing mate; or 25 ... g5 26 lIg3 Wh7 27
l::txg5! lIg8 28 Ztxg8 'it>xg8 29 lIxa6
'iVxa6 30 ~xh6 mating; or 25 ... lIb8
26 l1g3 g5 27 lIxg5+ Wh8 28 l1g7
mating; or finally 25 ... 'it>h7 26 e6!
fxe6 27 fxg7 ~g8 28 lIh3 .l:Xxg7 29
~xh6+ 'it>g8 30 ~h8+ 'it>f7 31 nf3+
'it>g6 42 l:tg5+ and mate in 2. 26
lIg3 g5 He cannot even escape with
26 ... 'it>f8 in view of 27 'iVb4+! c5 28
~xc5 d2 29 lIxc8+ 'it>g8 30 nxg7+
Wh8 31 'tixd2! mating. 27 l:txg5+
hxg5 28 ~xg5+ and Andrew an-
nounced mate in 6 by 28 ... 'it>f8 29
~g7+ 'it>e8 30 ~g8+ 'it>d7 31 'tixf7+
'it>c6 32 l1c5+ 'it>b7 33 ~3+ fol-
lowed by mate.
In my opinion, one of the greatest
creators of unbalanced positions of
this kind has been Bent Larsen.
Here's just one example of many:
Gligoric v Larsen
Havana 1967
To be fair to Gligoric, he has tried
hard to set up a barrier of pawns on
light squares to combat Black's
bishop, but all in vain, as Larsen
beautifully demonstrates: l...l:hg2!!
2 lIxg2 Or 2 'it>xg2 ~xh3+ followed
by mate. 2.• :iVxh3 3 e4 Or 3 'it>gl
.Jtxf3! winning, now that 'iVxd7+ is
prevented. 3 ...lIg6 0-1 If 4 'i!fe2
~hl + and mate next move. Once
again, the helplessness of the de-
fender is typical of such positions.
I give a final example of this im-
portant positional aspect by quoting
one of my own typically wild games
played over thirty years ago:

Corden v J.Littlewood
Hastings 1969
Having unnecessarily allowed
White excellent counter-chances af-
ter an opening that was better for
me, I was in no mood for a draw, so
could hardly resist the opportunity
to 'do a Larsen' in a situation where
my bishop gave me uncontested
control of the dark squares:
1...:'h3!? 2 a:bel Not of course 2
gxh3 'iYe4+ 3 'it>gl ~d4+ 4 .l:!f2
'ii'xbl+ 5 ~g2 'iWe4+! 6.l:!f3 'iWe2+ 7
'it>g3 i.e5+ 8 'it>g4 ~e4+ followed
by mate in 2; or here 6 ~f1 ~xf2 7
'it>xf2 'iiVxe6 etc. 2... l:f.xh2+! The
whole point of the exercise which I
had calculated as far as my rook
reaching d8, but no further... 3
'it>xh2 i.e5+ 4 'it>gl After the better
try 4 'it>h 1 'iVh5+ 5 cJ;g 1 neither
5... i.d4+? 6 ~f2! nor 5 ... i.g3?? 6
'iVaI +! followed by mate could be
played, but I can reach the game po-
sition by 5 ... '1Wh2+ 6 ~f2 ii'f4+! 7
~e2 ii'e4+ 8 ~f2 ~d4+ 9 'it>g3
'ii'h4+ 10 ~f3 ~f4+ etc., or here 8
~d2 a:d8+! 9 ~d7 ~d4+ 10 'it'e2
laxd7 winning more quickly than in
the game. 4... ~d4+ 5 Wh2 'iWh5+ ,6
'ittg3 'iVh4+ 7 'it>f3 ~f4+ 8 'it'e2
'i'e3+ 9 'it>dl 'iWd3+ 10 Wel 'iWc3+
The Pieces 39
11 'it>dl Not 11 ~bl?? i¥b2 mate.
11 ... .l:!:d8! reaching the position I
thought was winning comfortably,
until I realized that White had vari-
ous defensive possibilities I would
have to circumvent.
Corden v J. Littlewood (cont.)
12 ~d7! ~b3+ 13 'it>e2 'iWe3+ 14
'it'dl 'iWd3+ 15 'it>cl ~e3+! 16 'ittb2
After 16 ~xe3 'iVxe3+ 17 'it>dl
~d4+ 18 ~e2 .!::f.xd7 19 ii'al Black
has 19 ... ~e7+ 20 ~f3 .l:'.e3+ 21 ~f2
.l:tc3+ etc. 16...'iVd4+ The point is
that the immediate 16 .. Jhd7 allows
17 'iWa8+ and 18 ~e5+ so I must ex-
plore further checks. 17 'it>b3 'iWd5+!
An important check giving White
few options, since 18 ~b2 or 18
~a3 block the queen check from al
and 18 'it>b4 allows 18 ... i.d2+, 18
~c2 'iVc4+ 19 Wb2 And now 19
'it>dl and 19 ~bl allow mate in one
and two moves respectively.
19 .. .'YiVd4+ One last try before I go
into the capture of the rook, as given
above, after 20 Wb3 'iVd5+ 21 cJ;c2
~c4+ 22 'it'b2 ~d4+! 23 Wbl 'iVb3+
24 Wcl i.e3+! etc., but Martin
allows a quicker win. 20 'itta3(?)
~c3+ 21 'itta4 21 Wa2 'iWc2+ and
mate next move. 21...b5+ 0-1
40 The Pieces
Hints/or Beginners
* Learn the standard, static, value
of the pieces, using the suggested
point count, but always be prepared
for the exception to the rule in any
given dynamic situation.
* A queen needs open lines and
points of attack to be at its most
effective.
* In the early stages of the game,
be wary of venturing too far with
the queen, which can easily be
trapped.
* Do not overestimate the queen's
strength, as it can be a poor
defender.
* A rook not only needs open files
but requires a 'turning point' on the
file so that it can exert horizontal as
well as vertical pressure.
* Two rooks on the seventh rank
can be very strong indeed.
* A knight needs a central outpost
for maximum power and thrives on
closed positions and tactical
surpnses.
* A bishop needs open diagonals
and is weakest in closed positions,
especially if blocked in by its own
pawns.
* In open positions, two bishops
working together can be very effec-
tive, as this compensates for the fact
that, singly, they can only control
squares of one colour.
* Although opposite-coloured bish-
ops in an ending without other
pieces offer the weaker side good
drawing chances, the contrary is true
in the middle game, when they are
used in conjunction with other
pieces. In such cases, the initiative
is the main factor.
 3 Tactical Ideas

B efore we embark on an
examination of full-
scale combinations, it
will be worth our while
to study various tactical
motifs which provide
must always be considered when un-
guarded pieces are lying around.
Our first 'study' is a brilliant exam-
ple of the knight fork in action:

the basic mechanism of a combina-

tion and often even win the game on
their own.

The Double Attack

We can all recall the joyous expe-

rience of the first time we forked a
king and a queen with a knight!
The possibility of such a double at-
tack occurred in the first game I
ever played for Yorkshire, as a
youngster, and gives it sentimental
value far beyond any intrinsic merit.
After I e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 ttJf3 ttJc6 4
d4 d5 5 exd5 ~xd5 6 ttJc3 'tIYd6? 7
d5! ttJce7 8 ttJb5! we see that
8... ~xd5?? immediately loses to the
9 ttJxc7+ fork, so my opponent
played 8.. :~c5 9 ..Itxf4 'llxd5??
only to find that 10 'iYxd5! again
involves the same idea. Rather than
resign at once to such an upstart, he
continued 10 .. :~b4+ and after 11
~d2 ~xb2 12 ttJxc7+ rt;e7, rather
than take the lovely rook in the cor-
ner, I opted for 13 ~d6 mate.
The fork, threatening two pieces
simultaneously, is the basic form of
the double attack, a stratagem which
Rinck (1935)
White to play and win
After I ttJf7! ..\tal The only safe
square, as we shall see. 2 'it>bl! Two
of the bishop's retreat squares, e5
and h8, are directly controlled by the
knight and the other four are indi-
rectly controlled. If the bishop goes
to f6 or g7 on the one hand or c3 or
d4 on the other, then 3 ttJd6+ rt;xc7
will allow the forks by 4 ttJe8+ or 4
ttJb5+ respectively. In other words,
the clever mechanism gives the
knight control of six squares at the
same time!
Our second 'study' shows a logi-
cal but beautiful use of the rook's
42 Tactical Ideas

horizontal and vertical powers in a

double attack which wins one of
Black's minor pieces and, with it,
the game:

The Marshall trap

10 ... i.xh2+! 11 'it>xh2 ttJxf2 12

'ii'c2 ttJxd3 13 'iVxd3 i.xf3 14 'tWxf3
'ii'h4+ followed by 15 .. :iVxel.

Kubbel (1923) The next example is from a fairly

White to play and win recent game but the tactic is as old as
the hills:
1 lib3! ttJc6 Both 1...ttJa6 2 ~a3
and 1...ttJd7 2 l:ib7 lose a piece at
once, whilst 1... j"c7 2 llb7 ttJa6 al-
lows 3 ~a7, a recurring pattern. 2
.l:tb5 Threatening 3 J::tc5. 2... i.d8
2 ... i.c7 and 2... i.c3 lose to 3 l:tc5. 3
lIdS Again threatening 4 ~d6 which
is also the answer to 3 ... j"b6 and
3 ... i.f6, whilst 3 ... i.h4 fails to 4
llh5+, another double attack!
3 ... i.e7 4 I:td7! The clinching move,
since the bishop, being pinned, can-
not move on this occasion. 4 ... 'it>g6
5 l:tc7 wins. Anand v J. Polgar
Dos Hermanas 1997
Now to some game examples.
The first one occurs in the famous At first sight it seems that Black
and highly plausible Marshall trap can blockade the passed pawn, but
in the Petroff Defence which, to my after 1 ~dl! ttJc5 2 d7! ttJxd7 3
shame, once floored me. After the l1xd7 !:txd7 4 ttJf6+ White has the
moves 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJf6 3 ttJxe5 last laugh.
d6 4 ttJf3 ttJxe4 5 d4 d5 6 i.d3
j"d6 7 0-0 0-0 8 c4 j"g4 9 cxd5 f5 Our final example is only one of
10 ~el? we reach the following many demonstrating that the term
position: 'double attack' can refer to a range

of situations involving more than a
simple fork of two pieces. If a piece
threatens mate in two and the de-
fence can cope with either sepa-
rately but not both together, we
have a double attack in the shape of
a double threat:
Levenfish v Riumin
Moscow 1936
With his knight under attack,
White meekly retreated it, missing
the brilliant win to be had by 1
tiJf6+! gxf6 l...~h8 2 'iiVxfS mate. 2
exf6 and there is no way that Black
can deal with the threats of 3 'iiVg3+
followed by mate on g7 and 3
~xfS+! 'it'xfS 4 lld8 mate.
Here are two test positions for the
reader to solve:
TEST 3.1 Pire v R. Byrne
Helsinki Olympiad 1952
Black to play and win
Tactical Ideas 43
TEST 3.2 Loweki v Tartakower
Jurata 1937
Black to play and win
The Discovered Check
+ Unmasking
We have already seen that a dou-
ble attack is at its most dangerous
when one of the attacked pieces is
the king. It is therefore easy to
imagine the damage that can be
wrought by a piece which moves
away at random, uncovering a check
from another piece! Problemists
term two such pieces a 'battery' and
here is a 'study' composer's startling
exploitation of such a battery:
Hoeh (1973)
White to play and win
It seems that the best White can do
is settle for a draw here, but the
44 Tactical Ideas

magic of the rook + bishop 'battery'

wins the day after the surprisingly
cool move 1 iLd7!! (1 l:td5+ 'it>b4 2
l:i.d4+ Wc5 only draws) after which
the queen' s only move to avoid im-
mediate loss is 1..:~h3. However,
in contrast to the previous note,
White can now play 2 ~f5+! <;?O>b4 3
~f4+ capturing the queen for noth-
mg.

I cannot resist quoting our next

'fun' composition which, though of
course completely impractical and
unreal, nevertheless reveals a
battery set-up hilariously reversing
itself:
Petrushin v Vlasov
USSR 1970
lliJd5! liJxd5 Or l...'it>h8 2l:txg7!
'iii>xg7 3 ~g5+ winning. 2 Z!xg7+
'iii>h8 3 l:txd5! 'iVxd5 4 iLf6!! and
Black is helpless against the threats
of'iVg5 and 'ilVh6. Note how impor-
tant White's fourth move is in this
sequence. If instead he releases the
tension by 4 i:txf7+ Black has
4 ... liJe5 or if 4 !:.g8+ 'iii>xg8 5 'ii'g5+
iLg6 6 'i'xd5 Black has two rooks
and a knight for the queen.

Mees (1973)
White to play and win

I just give the solution without su-

perfluous comment: 1 iLxe2+ 'iii>el
2 1Lb5+ liJe5 3 ktxe5+ i.e2 4
Itxe2+ 'itn 5 l:te4+ liJd3 6 iLxd3+
l:te2 7 i.xe2+ <;?o>el 8 i.g4+ wn 9
'iitd2! Itxg4 10 l:rxg4 hl=~ llli:tc4
forcing mate! Antunac v Hubner
Dresden 1969

Such batteries are, however, a This is a little more unusual but all
common and important feature of the more charming for that. By use
the game. Here are two examples: of the battery, White recaptures his

piece along with a couple of pawns,
but it is enough to give him a won
game after 1 ~c7! 'iYxh5 2 Ite7+
'it>f8 3 .!::txb7+ 'it>eS 4 ~e7+ 'it>f8 5
l::txh7+ Not however 5 l:txa7+ first,
because a later .. .lha3 will ruin the
combination. 5 ... 'it>eS 6 ~xh5
winning.
Of course, a piece can be un-
masked without a check on the king
being involved, as in the following
opening trap: 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3
ct:Jc3 ct:Jf6 4 iJ..g5 ct:Jbd7 5 e3 c6 6
ct:Jf3 'i'a5 7 i.d3 7 ct:Jd2 is probably
best. 7... ct:Je4! S 'i'c2? Completely
missing the fact that the black queen
is pressurising the rank as well as
the diagonal. S... ct:Jxg5 9 ct:Jxg5
dxc4! winning a piece.
In similar fashion, Korchnoi
failed to take into account the poten-
tial horizontal power of his oppo-
nent's queen in the following
position:
Korchnoi v Portisch
Wijk aan Zee 1968
Tactical Ideas 45
After the childishly simple L.g3!
the unmasking is linked to the
double threats of 2 ... 'iYxc4 and
2 ... gxf2+, so Korchnoi resigned.
An equally dramatic unmasking,
this time with check, was beautifully
set up by White in the game
Bronstein v Zaitsev, USSR 1970,
after the moves 1 e4 e5 2 f4 d5 3
exd5 exf4 4 ct:Jf3 ct:Jf6 5 i.c4 ct:Jxd5
60-0 i.e6? 7 iJ..b3! iJ..d6 S c4 ct:Je7 9
d4 ct:Jg6 10 c5! iLe7 11 iLxe6 fxe6
12 ~el 0-0 13 lhe6 iLxc5?
Bronstein v Zaitsev
USSR 1970
Black probably thought that he
could allow White's next move be-
cause the d4 pawn will be captured
with check but, like many others be-
fore him, he failed to see the ingeni-
ous idea behind Bronstein's play: 14
"it'b3! iJ..xd4+ 15 ct:Jxd4 'ifxd4+ 16
iLe3! and Black was helpless against
the coming discovered check.
Here are two test positions for the
reader:
46 Tactical Ideas

Black but further shocks are immi-

nent. 8... lbxe4 Even the wily Tartak-
ower fails to see White's splendid
idea but he was already dangerously
behind in development.

TEST 3.3 Isakov v Nikitin

Correspondence 1947
How did Black to play save himsetp

Reti v Tartakower
Vienna 1910

9 ~d8+!! Wxd8 10 .iLg5+ <l;c7 Or

1O .. .'~e8 11 ~d8 mate. 11 .iLd8
mate.

Such cases are rare but here is an-

TEST 3. 4 Conclusion of study by
Herbstman (1948)
White to play and draw
other example in which the double
check is engineered along a
diagonal:

The Double Check

This is probably the strongest tac-

tical motif at one's disposal, as the
opponent's king has to move or is
mated! There is no better example
of the power of the double check
than the justly famous miniature
Reti v Tartakower, Vienna 1910,
which went as follows: 1 e4 c6 2 d4
d5 3lbc3 dxe4 4 lbxe4 lbf6 5 ~d3 Podzerov v Kuncevic
An unusual move which succeeds Correspondence 1970
only because Black tries to refute it
out of hand. 5... e5? 6 dxe5 ~a5+ 7 1 ~g8+!! 'i!txg8 Or 1...Ihg8 2
.iLd2 ~xe5 8 O-O-O! A surprise for lbfl mate. 2lbe7+ Wf8 Or 2... <;t>h8 3
 Tactical Ideas 47

0,fl mate .. 3 0,7g6+ hxg6 4 0,xg6

mate.

The mate given above in the first

bracket is known as a smothered
mate, with the most typical one be-
ing brought about by the same
mechanism as in the following
position:

A. White (1919)

Despite Black's massive material

advantage, he can do nothing against
White's mate in 12 as the rook trav-
els to a8 via the 'staircase' n, £3, e3,
e4, d4, d5, c5, c6, b6, b7 and a7!!
Here is a real game set-up using the
same mechanism:
Candolin v Ojanen
Helsinki 1963

White's pieces are completely

misplaced for defending the a7-g1
diagonal, so Black, ignoring the re-
capture of the bishop, plays at once
1..:ii'b6!! As the threatened double
check would immediately lead to a
mate on g 1, White hopes to defend
this square by a rook or knight, but
there is no escape after 2 'ithl 0,12+
3 'it>gl 0,e2+! 4 0,xe2 0,h3+ 5 'ithl
'ilVgl +! The point. 6 0,xgl 0,12 Ujtelky v Pachman
mate. Note that White's king is Trencianske Teplice 1953
completely hemmed in by his own
By l..Jhg3!! 2 'iVxb6 Or 2 Wxg3
pieces.
i.f4+ 3 'it>g4 'iVd8! 4 h4 ~d7 mate.
2... i.f4! Black sets up a position in
The 'battery' of rook and bishop which White's major pieces are mere
in conjunction with double check is spectators. Play continued: 3 l:f.f2
particularly effective and nothing Or 3 h4 ~g5+ 4 'it>h3 i.e6 mate.
can stop the incredible power of the 3.. J~g2+ 4 'itthl ::th2+ 5 'ittgl l:thl
double check when two bishops are mate. This might also serve as a
involved, as in this highly amusing tribute to the bishop pair. Now solve
artificial example: a position yourself:
48 Tactical Ideas
TEST 3,5 Barcza v Bronstein
Moscow-Budapest 1949
Black to play and win
The Pin
If the double check can be tenned
the strongest tactical idea, then the
pin must be considered one of the
most useful, since its obvious tacti-
cal deployment is also linked to
strategic concepts which fonn part
of a number of opening systems
such as the Nimzo-Indian Defence,
the Ruy Lopez and the Winawer
variation of the French Defence. In
this section, we examine the pin as a
powerful tactical weapon which, in
its most brutal fonn, immobilizes an
enemy piece with a view to winning
it or else eliminating its
effectiveness.
Let us begin with a short but de-
lightful game played by Bronstein
in a simultaneous exhibition (Mos-
cow 1950) which highlights these
points:
1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 ~xd4 ctJc6 4
'iVa4 ctJf6 5 ctJc3 d5? Black stands
well but is ill-advised to force the
pace at such an early stage before he
has developed his pieces; note that
he has now allowed his queen's
knight to be pinned on his king. 6
.ltgS The second pin, this time on
the queen, thus putting pressure on
Black's centre. 6... dxe4 7 ctJxe4!
Setting a devilish trap into which
Black falls in similar fashion to Tar-
takower against Reti, 7.. :~e7 He is
hoping to exchange queens after 8 f3
~4+ but ... 8 O-O-O! 'iVxe4?
brings about the final disaster.
Exploitation of two pins
Black's queen is guarded by the
knight but what if this knight could
be immobilized by 9 l:td8+!! Wxd8
Forced, since the c6 knight is
pinned., when 10 'ilVxe4 is possible,
because Black's king's knight is
now the one pinned! How did
Bronstein come up with this brilliant
idea and in a simul at that? Perhaps
at the back of his mind there was the
famous Morphy 'Opera' finish
where White mated on d8 and it may
even have occurred to him that, if
the Black queen's knight and c7
pawn could swap places, there was
an alternative win with 9 'it'xe4
ctJxe4 10 :id8 mate, or even 10
.ltxf6! 'ii'xa4 11 I:!.d8 mate... At all
events, d8 is clearly a' key square
which a tactical genius such as
Bronstein would immediately latch
onto.

N ow for a 'study', the final point
of which involves a pin:
Birnov
Shakhmaty v SSSR 1932
White to play and win
After 1 CDd6+ 'itc5 2 .tf8! the
.t+CD battery restricts the escape
squares of Black's knight, giving us
a forced sequence of 2...CDh2
... CDf6? and ... QJf2? lose to discov-
ered checks. 3 'itg3 CDn + 4 'it>n
CDh2 4 ... CDd2? 5 CDe4+. 5 'itg2 CDg4
6 'itg3 CDe5 6 ... CDe3? 7 CDf5+ . .1
CDf7+ 'it>d4 and now finally the pm
by 8 .Jtg7 clinches matters. 'Domi-
nation' is how composers refer to
such a tactical set-up.
Most pins, however, do not lead
to immediate gain of material. Of-
ten their main purpose is to tie up
the' enemy forces whilst a winning
plan is prepared. It is in such situa-
tions that the beginner releases the
pressure too early or fail~ to av?id
exchanges. Here is an mstructJve
example of a World Champion
showin'g us how to maximize the
effects of a pin:
Tactical Ideas 49
Capab1anca v Blanco
Havana 1919
Black's pieces are completely tied
to the defence of his bishop which is
pinned on both his king and the rook
on e8. However, White cannot just
sit back and admire his lovely posi-
tion; he must find a way of exploit-
ing Black's passivity with?ut
relinquishing control. PenetratIOn
down the kings ide seems to be the
answer, so play goes: 1 ~e3! 'f1e7 2
Wih6 'it>g8 Pressure has been taken
from e6 for a moment but the pin
still cannot be shaken off. 3 h4! The
point: Black's 'g' pawn is to be ex-
posed as a weakness and there is no
defence to this plan. 3 ... a6 4 h5 f4 5
hxg6! hxg6 5 ... b!.xg6 allows 6 .!:[xe6!
l:txh6 7 l::i.g6+ followed by l::lg8
mate. 6 :'xe6! 1-0. After 6 ... I!.7xe6
7 ~xe6 Itxe6 8 'tIVxg6+ White wins a
piece because the pinned rook can-
not capture the queen.
Just as I was writing the above, I
came across a test position in the
British Chess Magazine that illus-
trates to perfection the error of
releasing a pin too soon:
50 Tactical Ideas

Ahrend v Dr Dyckhoff Germany

1937: 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 Jt.c4
ttJf6 4 d4 exd4 5 0-0 ttJxe4 6 l:rel
d5 7 ttJc3?! An interesting change
from the normal 7 .JtxdS 'it'xdS 8
ttJc3 when the 'd' pawn is pinned
because the e6 bishop is pinned and
therefore not guarding the queen!
7... dxc3! 8 i.xd5 .Jte6! An excellent
move which also sets a subtle trap;
best for White is now 9 .Jtxe4. 9
~xe4?
Simons v Parkin
Exmouth 2000

Having obtained a beautiful posi-

tion, White momentarily panicked
and allowed Black to escape after 1
.Jtd7? when the dreaded h6 pawn
can be captured. A moment's
thought would have convinced him
that it is absolutely vital to keep
Black's king incarcerated and this
would have almost certainly led him
to the winning plan of 1 c5!! g2 2 c6
gl =~ 3 c7 and after the new queens A pinner pinned!
are exchanged on c8 Black will rap-
idly be in zugzwang, since ...~xh6 White has worked out an excellent
at any point allows mate or loss of answer to 9 ... ttJb4 in 10 .JtgS! ~xdS
the queen. A great pity! 11 ~d4! winning the queen or mat-
ing on d8 (that square again!) but
There is also another danger for forgets that, although Black's
the attacker if he pins automatically queen's bishop is pinned at the mo-
without thinking through the conse- ment, White's own queen is unpro-
quences. For example, he may pin a tected on dl, allowing the following
piece on the king only to find that counter-combination: 9 ... ttJe7! As
the defence can sacrifice to remove can readily be seen, there is no an-
the pinning piece or, much more swer to this move, whereas the alter-
commonly, the pin of a minor piece native 9 ... .Jte7 would allow White to
on a major piece can simply be ig- escape with 10 i.xc6+.
nored or else the tables can be
turned and the pinner becomes a
victim of unmasking! Here is a Or consider this most instructive
short game illustrating this Impor::. example of a pinner cruelly but
tant point: neatly confounded:
 Tactical Ideas 51

Hamann v Brinck-Claussen Coggan v Foster

Hastings 1962-3 Boston 1937

Black's knight is inconveniently In four moves 1 ~xf6 ~xf6 (he

pinned but he cleverly reverses the
process and makes White's queen a
victim of unmasking as follows:
1...~xg2! The guard of White's
bishop is removed and the king·
dragged to a fatal square. 2 ~xg2
.i.xc3! Removing the queen's
protection. 3 bxc3 tDd5! when
White loses a piece after 4 ~xc4
tDxe3+. Easy enough once it is seen
but much easier to miss, especially
by the player at the losing end.
Only by careful vigilance will the
reader avoid (or carry out) such an
idea.
had to play 1...gxf6 when one way to
win is 2 tLJd7! ne8 3 'iYh5 ~xd7 4
'iYxf7+ ~h8 5 nh5) 2 iVxh7+! 'it>xh7
3 nh5+ 'ito>g8 4 tDg6! Black is pre-
sented with an unstoppable mate on
h8!
The cross pin is a delightful aspect
of pinning, relatively rare but all the
more fascinating when it is possible.
There is no better way to explain its
mechanism than by considering the
following 'study':

Another common blind spot is

failing to see that a pawn is pinned
and can therefore no longer guard a
specific square. Let's begin with a
highly amusing game which I guar-
antee the reader will never forget:
Vasyukov v Giterman 23'd USSR
Championship: 1 e4 e5 2 tDf3 tDc6
3 ~b5 ~c5 4 c3 f5 5 d4 fxe4 6
CDg5 ~e7 7 dxe5 CDxe5?? He had to
Bron (1963)
play 7... ~xg5. 8 CDe6! and Black, in
White to play and win
shock and disgust, resigned.
In this Sicilian-gone-wrong posi-
Nor will our next example be tion, White wins as follows: 1 .tc3+
easily forgotten: ~e7 Or l...~e6 2 ~e5 mate. 2
52 Tactical Ideas

~e5+ 'it>dS Or 2 ... 'it>f8 3 .tb4+ fol-

lowed by mate in 4.3 i..a5+ b6 The
only move but White now takes ad-
vantage of the fact that the pawn is
pinned. 4 "iVc5! ~bS Or 4 .. .'iite8 5
~e3+ ~f8 6 i..b4+ 'it>g7 7 ~g5+
and mate in 3. 5 i..xb6+ ~eS 6
~e3+ ~f8 7 i..c5+ d6 S iVe5! ~dS
9 i..xd6+ WgS 10 iVg3+ 'itthS 11
i..e5+ f6 12 '@'g5! and the third
cross pin finally forces the win. Ar-
tificial but instructive.
Maslov v Babahanov
Now for an example from a game: USSR 1970
White's queen's bishop is pinned
by Black's rook on e8, so he blocks
the file by 1 ~xf6! .txf6 2 liJe4! in
order to answer .. Jhe5 or ... .txe5
by a knight check on f6, so Black
replies 2 ...~f8! exploiting the fact
that after 3 liJxf6+ 'iWxf6! the bishop
is pinned on the queen and that, after
3 i..xf6 i..f5!, he can threaten to util-
ize the pin down the 'e' file, along
with the immediate threat of ... i..xe4.
Now White in tum sets up a further
pin by 4 lin! with an X -ray guard of
Gendel v Sushkevitch his queen's bishop, so Black, not to
Moscow 1956 be outdone, gives up the exchange to
bring his queen's rook into play with
As White's f2 pawn is pinned, his a further pin after 4.. .1he4! 5 .txe4
queen's bishop is highly vulnerable, neS The alternative 5 ... ~xf6 allows
so 1...~hgS 2 l:[d3 produces an in- 6 i..xf5 gxf5 7 ~d3 nf8 8 d6! etc.
teresting situation in which Black giving us our second diagram:
would love to playa cross pin with
2 ... J:.xg3+ 3 lhg3 J:.g8 but this fails
to 4 .l:!.xg8 because White's queen is
protected. Therefore, Black first
plays 2 .. J:tabS! 3 ~c3 and only
then the killing 3 .. Jbg3+ 4 l:Ixg3
J:.gS! winning.

Before I set you a few test posi-

tions, let us look at a position with a
bewildering number of pins and un-
pins, just to get your brains into
work mode: Maslov v Babahanov (cont.)
 Tactical Ideas 53

The smoke has cleared, leaving

White in command, with a chance to
produce a sacrificial finish by 6
~xf5! gxf5 7 ~h5! fxe4 8~g5+
'it'f7 9 ~c3!

TEST 3.7 Volchok v Kreslavsky

USSR 1971
How can White save his piece?

Maslov v Babahanov (cont.)

9 .. J~d8 Both ... ~g8 and ... 'Wie7

allow mate in one, whilst ... e3
allows mate in four, so Black
creates a flight square but
relinquishes control of e6. 10 ~h5+
'it'g8 11 ~g4+ 'it'f7 12 ~e6 mate.
A veritable battle ofpins!

Now, here are four test positions TEST 3.8 Bloch v Milbers
for you to solve: Siegen Olympiad 1970
White to play and win

TEST 3.6 Andersson v Browne TEST 3.9 Sapelkin v Afanasiev

Siegen Olympiad 1970 USSR 1971
Black to play and win White to play and win
54 Tactical Ideas
The Skewer
This is a form of double attack
which attacks one piece through an-
other, as can be seen in the follow-
ing composed ending:
Kling
Chess Weekly 1849
White to play and win
1 J:ta4! threatens l:th3 mate and is
attacking the queen. To avoid
1...'ilVxa4 2 llh3+ followed by 3
'uh4+ 'skewering' his queen, Black
plays 1...'Yi'c8 only to find that 2
.:th3+! is still playable, because
2.. :i!ixh3 allows 3 ~a3+ 'skewer-
ing' the queen from the other side!
The skewer forms an important
part in rook and pawn endings, with
the following typical situation need-
ing to be learnt by heart:
Danger, skewer!
Black must be very careful here.
If for example he plays the obvious
l...';i;>e7?, then 2 a7! immediately
brings him into 'no man's land'. He
can neither move away from the sec-
ond rank, because of a rook check
followed by queening the pawn, nor
leave the king where it is or play it
to f7 or d7 because of 3 ~h8! when
3.. .l:ha7 fails to 4 l:!h7+ 'skewering'
the rook. For this reason, he must
play the unnatural-looking 1...Wg7!!
now, or after 2 a7, in order to pre-
vent a possible skewer and thus draw
the ending. You will find the full
details in any book on the endgame
but, basically, if White plays a7 he
can never support the pawn without
being checked away, and if he in-
stead leaves the pawn where it is and
brings up his king via bl, Black can
later sacrifice his rook for the pawn
and use his own pawn to secure the
draw.
We will now examine some game
positions which illustrate the skewer
theme:
Steinitz v Von Bardeleben
Hastings 1985
We have here one of the most fa-
mous combinations in chess history
and it is very much based on the fact
 Tactical Ideas 55

that Black's rook on c8 is vulner- this: a rook is offered to be captured

able to the action of White's queen by check 'skewering' another rook
along the h3 to c8 diagonal. This but the perpetrator then finds himself
means that after 1 lhe7+! Black's with a lost game. Here's an illustra-
queen dare not capture the knight tive position that's not so well
because of .l::l:xc8+, with White known:
emerging a knight to the good. So
Black replies 1...c.t>f8 (to keep open
the possibility of a back rank mate
on c1, since 1...'it'xe7 loses to 2
l!el+ c.t>d6 3 ~4+ Wc7 4 'tJe6+
etc.), only to find the skewer possi-
bility haunting him for five moves
after 2 .uf7+! ~g8 3 J:[g7+ ~h8 Or
3 ... Wf8 4 'tJxh7+. 4 l1xh7+ Wg8 S
.ug7+ Wh8 6 ~h4+ ~xg7 7 ~h7+
Wf8

Pachman v Eckert
Cista 1940

After 1 'tJgS!! ~xh1+ Or 1...~g7

2 'iVxe6!. 2 <;t>f2 ~xal He should
refuse the second rook but is still
lost after 2 ... jVh5 3 ~xh5 gxh5 4
'tJxf7+ and 5 'tJxh8 and the knight is
not trapped because 'tJc7 is threat-
ened. 3 'tJxf7+ <;t>e7 4 'iVgS+! <;t>xf7
S 'tJd6+ Wg7 6 'ilYe7+ Wh6 7 'tJf7+
Steinitz v Von Bardeleben (cont.) Wg7 8 'tJgS+ Wh6 9 'tJxe6 'tJf6 10
'iVg7+ WhS 11 'iVxf6 h6 12 .te2
mate.
8 '1ih8+! White has 'skewered'
Black's queen but dare not take it in
view of the back rank mate! 8.. .'it>e7
9 'it'g7+ 'iite8 10 'iVg8+ ~e7 11
jVf7+ c.t>d8 12 ~f8+ ~e8 13 'tJf7+
~d7 14 ~d6 mate. An unusual but
most effective threat of a skewer.

Of course, as with a pin when the

pinned piece can sometimes move
away with devastating effect, the
possibility of a skewer can be used
to trap the unwary. The double
rook sacrifice used in many famous TEST 3.10 Florian v Pachman
games is an excellent example of Zlin 1945
56 Tactical Ideas
As a position for you to solve,
here's another of Pachman's
combinations.
Pachman has allowed Black the
immediate threat of mate on g7 be-
cause he has calculated a forced win
involving a skewer. Can you find
it?
And finally, here's another
'study' to solve, with tactics involv-
ing skewers and forks:
TEST 3.11 K.Geller (1873)
White to play and win
Hints for Beginners
* Unguarded pieces are often vul-
nerable to a double attack, so beware
of leaving your pieces lying around
unprotected and watch out for op-
portunities of exploiting such enemy
pieces.
* A discovered check, and particu-
larly a double check, can be so
strong that sacrifices may be possi-
ble to set up a 'battery' in a given
situation. The famous 'smothered'
mate, using a queen and knight bat-
tery is just one example of such
power.
* The strength of a pin often resides
in its long term effects as a strategic
as well as a tactical weapon. It is
rarely bad to pin enemy pieces, but
look out for possible 'unmasking'
by such pieces, a blind spot with
many players.
* Tactical skills must be developed
by practice, so use all available
means to stimulate your imagination
and test your powers of calculation,
particularly in analysing your own
games, won or lost.
 4 The King

A lthough it is only a
short-stepping piece,
the king is unique, for
it is the element of
check and mate which
lends the game that
Firstly, material is won, perhaps
only a pawn, and, all things being
equal, this eventually leads to supe-
rior force being used to checkmate
the king! However, many players
fail to understand that in numerous
special mystery and magic that has situations the mating attack is the
encouraged millions to become its only logical way to win a game from
devotees. It is this very uniqueness a particular situation arising out of
that gives the king an unusually an opening. This is often the case
delicate role to play and makes it a when our threats to win material
very difficult piece to handle, pre- have been countered, but this has
cisely because any slight misjudge- diverted some of the enemy force or
ment in this sphere can have given us more space in which to
disastrous consequences. Which operate. The following example
square to choose, whether to castle should make this clear:
and, if so, on which wing, whether
to attack or defend, which pieces to
exchange; these are just a few of
the problems involving the king
which can often decide the fate of
the game. It seems only sensible to
devote a whole chapter to the sub-
ject, but of course, in a wider con-
text, it could be argued that
everything we cover in this book re-
lates in some way to the main object
of the game, which is to mate the
king!
Taimanov v Ignatiev
There are indeed times when USSR 1971
players need to be gently reminded
that mating the enemy monarch is As a result of pressure from a
the prime goal to which every tacti- sound opening system, White has
cal and strategic element is related. achieved definite positional advan-
Of course, beginners are taught that tages, with two powerful bishops,
it is foolhardy to try to mate a well- light-square control and more space.
defended king and that a more However, White cannot just sit back
roundabout approach is required. and admire these factors but must
58 The King
find a way of exploiting them before
Black can simplify through ex-
changes. This is a situation where
even top players go wrong, so it is
most instructive to see how Taima-
nov switches his forces over to a
kingside attack, a logical decision
carried out with consummate skill:
1 l.':ra4! iLd6 2 'iYb3 tbg6 3 .lte3
'iVb8 4 iLe4! tbfS 5 iLbl l:!e5 Black
tries to defend against the coming
attack but lacks space and manoeu-
vrability. 6 'uh4 l1de8 7 i:tdl! Only
now does White occupy the d file,
threatening 8 iLxh7! tbxh7 9 'iVd3.
If now 7... iLc7 White could try 8
lId7! .l:I8e7 9 Itxe7 l:txe7 10 iLc5!
iLd6 11 iLxh7! tbxh7 12 'iVd3 g5 13
iLxd6 winning material, so, in des-
peration, Black lashes out but to no
avail. 7.. .l:he3 8 fxe3 i.c5 9 'itn
~e5 Or 9 ... iLxe3 10 nd7! iLh6 11
.uxh6 gxh6 12 'iYf7 mating.
Taimanov v Ignatiev (cont.)
10 J::td7! f5 11 l:tf7 tbg6 Or
1l...g6 12 l:tfxh7+! tbxh7 13 "WIf7
winning. 12 !!xf5 1-0 After
12 ... 'iYd6 then 13 .lhh7+! 'itxh7 14
'uh5 mate would complete a fine se-
ries of moves. Don't worry about
the tactical detail of all this but
rather admire the positive manner in
which, within the space of seven
moves, Taimanov directs his forces
at the enemy king's position. Here
is another fine example of such
strategy:
Alekhine v Lasker
Zurich 1934
White undoubtedly has the better
of it, with more space and two excel-
lently posted minor pieces, but he
must act quickly before Black takes
over the 'd' file and alleviates the
pressure. I never tire of witnessing
Alekhine's economical and elegant
use of his pieces in the nine moves
that force Black to capitulate: 1
'iVd6! Using the centre as a jumping
off point for directing all his forces
at the enemy king's position, he
compels Black to give up immediate
use of the 'd' file, because 1...tbfd7
2 f4 loses a piece and l...tbg6 2
tbh6+ weakens Black's kings ide
Eawns; best is 1...1:!.ae8 when 2
CiJe7+ 'it>h8 3 ~xe5 can be answered
by 3 ...tbg8!. 1...tbed7 2 l:tfdll:i.ad8
3 'iVg3 Threatening not only mate
but also CiJh6+; if now 3 ... tbh5 then
4 iV g5 g6 5 g4 tbhf6 6 ~d6 tbe4 7
~xg6+! ..t>h8 8 'iVh6 J:!.g8 9 'iVxh7+
'it>xh7 10 l:i.h6 mate gives a foretaste
of the game ending, or if here
6 ...tbe8 7 .l::txg6+ hxg6 8 ~xg6+
'it>h8 9 'iYh6+ 'it>g8 10 tbe7 mate
reveals the power of White's minor
pieces and, in this last line, 7 ... ..t>h8

fails to 8 i.xf7! when both 8.. .lhfl
9 ~g8 and 8 ... hxg6 9 'iYh6 are
checkmate! 3... g6 4 iVg5 'it>h8
4 ... 'tJe4 should be tried. 5 'tJd6!
'it>g7 6 e4! Preparing to transfer a
rook along the third rank whilst re-
taining the option of advancing the
pawn. 6 ... 'tJg8
Alekhine v Lasker (cont.)
7 1:td3! Anticipating the advance
of both the fl and h7 pawns e.g. if
7... h6 8 'tJf5+ 'it'h7 9 'tJxh6 f6 10
'tJf5! fxg5 11 ~h3+ followed by
mate, an 'echo' variation of the ac-
tual finish. 7... f6 8 'tJf5+ c,t>h8 9
iVxg6! 1-0 It is mate in 2 moves.
Note that Black's queen was re-
duced throughout to the role of
spectator.
It is often when a player is in no
immediate danger that he fatally re-
laxes his guard, as in the following
position:
Although Black has control of the
'e' file and well posted queen and
knight, the only danger to White is
relaxing his vigilance, which he
does in the first two moves:
The King 59
Pesitz v Reti
Hungary 1912
1 ~xa7 c5! 2 I:td7?? Suicidal
play; he could still defend after 2
'iYa5! but now succumbs to a stun-
ning but calculable attack. 2.. :~e4!
3 f3 ~ c2!! 0-1 White now sees
what he originally missed: the finish
would be 4lIf2 .l:Ie1+ 5 i.fllhfl+!
mating. Clearly, White had not ac-
quired the instinct of a good master
player who would never have gone
into such a weakening of his first
and second ranks, even without deep
calculation! To prove my point, we
shall assume that the elegant game
finish is not available and have a
look at an alternative variation,
much more obvious and giving
Black at least a draw, based on the
looseness of White's rook on d7:
2.. :iVg5 3 g3 Both 3 i.d5 'iYxd5! and
3 Wib7 ktxd7 lose material. 3 ... 'tJh3+
when White must force the draw
with 4 'it'g2! 'tJf4+ 5 c,t>g I! because 4
c,t>hl? loses to 4.. :~rf5! threatening
both the rook and .. :~Wf3 mate, whilst
4 'ittg2! 'tJf4+ 5 'it>hl? loses to
5 .. :~'g4! with the same threats. In
other words, there was more than
one reason for White to reject his
greedy plan.
60 The King

The reader may well think that
such self-destructive play is hardly
the norm, but he would be wrong! I
have seen similar continuations in
hundreds of club games where play-
ers have not yet developed an in-
built sense of danger concerning
their king. In such cases, it is a
good idea to examine periodically
any factors involving the kings on
both sides. Here is an instructive
example of this from a training
match I played with a promising
youngster, David Howell:
2 ~xfS+ 'it>xfS 3 'iYb4+ ~e7 4 'it'b8+
~e8 S ~d6+ 'it'g8 6 'iYxd2 .txfl
and the finish was 7 'it'gl .tc4 8 f4?
.txa2 9 'it>f2 ~a8 10 r.t>g3 .tdS 11
'itrh3 'iVa2 41 ~xa2 .txa2 0-1
This leads us naturally to the dan-
ger of the back-rank mate, so here
are two test positions to illustrate
this:

TEST 4.1 Unknown players

Yugoslavia 1949

Howell v J. Littlewood White could win easily by ex-

Skelmersdale 2000 changing queens but sees no reason
why he should not play 1 ']lc7??
At the end of a complicated varia- aiming for mate. What did he miss?
tion designed to test David's tactical
skills, he was well aware that 1
l:txd2? 'iWel would lose for him but
had prepared a dangerous-looking
attack on my king by 1 .l:td8, not
only to counter my threatened
1...'tIVel, which would now be an-
swered by mate in two moves, but
also planning to capture the trouble-
some pawn on d2 after, say, 1...g6 2
~xf8+ ~xf8 3 'iVd8+ etc. This
showed a praiseworthy awareness of
my back-rank susceptibility but, at
the same time, revealed an insuffi-
cient appreciation of his own serious TEST 4.2 Sliwa v Stoltz
back-rank weakness, which I now Bucharest 1953
exploited by the startling 1....tc4!! White to play and win

Calculate accurately and don't
forget about White's own
back-rank!
The corollary of this is that, once
a king has been driven away from
the protection of his castled position
and exposed to the fury of the en-
emy pieces, he really is at his most
vulnerable, as can be seen from our
next amusing finish:
Zaitsev v Storosenko
USSR 1970
Black is a piece up but his devel-
opment is terrible and what is his
king doing in front of his pawns?!
Needless to say, White had no trou-
ble finishing him off with 1 iVa4+
ttJa5 2 'iVb5+! ttJxb5 3 ttJb4+ 'it>b6
4 ttJa4 mate.
Imbaud v Strumilo
Correspondence 1922
The King 61
Here is an opening position show-
ing how such situations can arise:
In an Alekhine's Defence, Black
has unwisely pinned White's king's
knight without working out the con-
sequences (as I once saw a British
expert in this defence do over the
board without being punished!). Af-
ter the well-known idea 1 ttJxe5!!
~xdl 2 ~xf7+ 'i;e7 3 .ltg5+ 'i;d6,
White had to play very cleverly to
set up a 'king hunt' without having a
queen to help him. The finish was: 4
CDe4+! ~xe5 5 f4+ 'it>d4 Or 5 ... Wf5
6 g4 mate. 6 llxdl! 'it>e3 7 O-O! ttJd4
8 J::tde1+ ttJe2+ 9 lhe2+ 'it>xe2 10
.lth5+ 'it>e3 11 ~f3+ 'i;d4 12 .ltf7!
1-0. There is no way of stopping 13
c3 mate.
Now, try out a king 'hunt' your-
self, arising from the opening
moves: 1 e4 c5 2 CDf3 b6?! 3 d4
cxd4 4 CDxd4 .ltb7 5 ttJc3 a6 6 .ltc4
b5?! 7 .ltb3 b4? This is rather over-
doing the greed. 8 CDa4 .ltxe4 9 ttJc5
.ltxg2?? 10 l:tgl .ltc6
TEST 4. 3 How a king 'hunt' arises
After 11 .ltxf7+! Wxf7 12
l:Ixg7+!! 'i;xg7! (not 12 ... .ltxg7 13
'iVh5+ 'it>f8 14 ttJde6+ dxe6 15 ttJxe6
mate or here 13 ... 'it>f6 14 'iYf5 mate),
how would you continue for White?
Please look for a king 'hunt' rather
62 The King
than settling for 13 ttJde6+ 'merely'
winning the queen!
Of course, the king is fatally ex-
posed in such situations but the at-
tacker still needs imaginative play to
take advantage of this. Here is an
amusing game in which Black sets
up a 'hunt' which drives his oppo-
nent's king as far as c6 but he can-
not find a way of mating White after
1 e4 e5 2 ttJc3 Si.c5 3 tLla4?!
Si.xf2+!? 4 ~xf2 'tIVh4+ 5 'it>e3 5 g3
seems better. 5...'iVf4+ 6 'it>d3 d5 7
~c3 'tIVxe4 8 <;t>b3 tLla6 9 a3
~xa4+! 10 <;t>xa4 ttJc5+ 11 'It>b4
a5+! 12 ~xc5 ttJe7! The 'quiet'
move. 13 Si.b5+ ~d8 14 Si.c6! He
must prevent ... b6 mate. 14 ... b6+ 15
Wb5 tLlxc6 16 <;t>xc6 Si.b7+! 17
'It>b5! But not 17 'it>xb7? 'it>d7! 18
'iVg4+ ~d6 mating. 17... Si.a6+ 18
'it>c6! And not 18 <;t>a4? Si.c4!.
18... Si.b7+
Hamppe v Meitner
Vienna 1873
... and in this position (with all
White's remaining forces, except
the a3 pawn, on their original
squares!) both sides have to settle
for a remarkable draw.
This example reveals another im-
portant characteristic of the king:
despite its obvious vulnerability, the
king can also be a strong fighting
piece in its own right and not just in
standard end-games. Experienced
players are always conscious of this
aspect, as can be seen from Capa-
blanca's subtle play from the follow-
ing diagram:
Merenyi v Capablanca
Budapest 1928
Queens have just come off, but
Black, realizing that the routine
1...tLla6 2 Si.e3! would give White
excellent play, continues 1...Wd7! 2
<;te2 Wc6! when the king is beauti-
fully posted for the coming fight,
controlling important central squares
and keeping an eye on White's
queenside pawn majority.
To use a king boldly and effec-
tively in a middle game with queens
on the board demands a high degree
of tactical skill along with nerves of
steel.
Here are two examples of play by
the late Tigran Petros ian:

Diickstein v Petrosian
Varna Olympiad 1962
Earlier in the game, Black had de-
liberately opened up his own king's
position and now reaps the reward
as his king begins a profitable
journey: 1...'it>xa6! 2 ~a3 i.f6 3 h3
f4 4 'iVg4 4 ttJf3 ttJxf3+ 5 ~xf3
~xf3 6 l:!.xf3 c3 7 l:.xf4 b5! wins.
4.. .'it'a5! 5 ttJf3 c;t>b4! Who can
doubt that the king is a strong piece
here? 6 ttJxd4 Wxa3 7 ttJc2+ Wxa4
0-1.
Our second example shows
Petrosian's king walking into the
enemy camp as a defensive
measure, and this with four queens
on the board!
Fischer v Petrosian
Candidates Tournament 1959
The King 63
White has very weak dark squares,
which give good protection to Petro-
sian's king, if only he can reach a
'safe' position. The following hair-
raising play shows just how re-
sourceful a king can be: 1...'it>c5! 2
'ii'f8 'iYae7 3 'ii'a8 Wb4! 4 'ii'h2
'it>b3! 5 ~al 'ii'a3 6 'iWxa3+ ~xa3
and Black had got over his main
difficulties. A draw was agreed a
little later, when Fischer stood worse
after pushing too hard.
So, how do we decide when it is
safe to advance our king into the
fray and when it is more prudent to
stay at home? We must in all fair-
ness declare that the above two
examples hardly represent the norm,
because there are clear positional
factors at work here alongside the
overall tactical considerations. The
advance of the king was carefully
planned in both these cases, w~ereas
the situation in most games IS that
the king is dragged out kicking and
screaming into the middle of the
board as a result of a sacrifice by our
opponent, when it must fend for it-
self in a hostile environment. The
most exciting yet amusing example
of this in my chess career was the
following ...
J. Littlewood v Barden
Hastings 1961/62
64 The King
... which arose after an opening in
which I unwittingly repeated a
famous brilliancy Larsen v Panno,
Mar del Plata 1958 and reached a
'losing' position.
As I found out after the game,
Panno's brilliant performance
ended: 1 ~h5+ 'it>d8 2 'iYh4+ 'it>e8 3
~h5+ l:If7 4 ~c5 ~f5 51Wc4 ttJe5 6
ttJxe5 .lth6+ when White resigned,
because 7 'it>e1 'iYxe5+ 8 'iYe2 'iVc3+
9 Itd2 .ltxd2+ 10 "iVxd2 .l:!.e5+ 11
'i!;>dl ~d5 is a complete disaster.
Unaware of any of this but well
alive to the fact that I was in deep
trouble, I offered my opponent
some material by 1 l:thel!? in the
hope of making a virtue out of a
necessity. This change of situation
may have had a psychological effect
on Leonard, because he began to
play less confidently and more
slowly from now on, presumably
missing at least one good chance on
the way: 1.. ..ltc3+ The king 'hunt'
begins. 2 'ittd3!? Other moves are
safer but illogical, since I must pro-
voke my opponent in some way.
2 ... ttJb4+ 3 'i!;>e4 The king 'hunt' is
on the verge of becoming a king
march ... 3 ... .ltg7!?
J. Littlewood v Barden (cont.)
Looks good, because of 4 'itxb4??
'iYc3+ 5 'it>a3 'iVa5 mate, but not
3 ... .ltxel?? 4 'V/Iie7 mate. 4 ttJd4! The
comer stone of the play beginning
!the 1!? and my last chance to con-
fuse the issue. 4 ... ttJd5!? Leonard's
key attacking idea, planning ... ~c3
mate whilst guarding e7 and hoping
for 5 ttJxe6?? ~c3+ 6 'it'xd5 ~c6
mate.
J. Littlewood v Barden (cont.)
5 ~xe6+! In any decent game,
with the e6 pawn pinned I should be
allowed to go 'it'xd5. 5 ... .Jtxe6 6
ttJxe6 ttJe3+ 6 ... .ltf6?? 7 d7 mate. 7
\tileS! ~e3+ 8 Wb6 ttJxdl Perhaps
my opponent had originally intended
8... ~4+ 9 rJi;a7 lif7+ but had
missed 10 d7+ leading to a won
queen ending. 9 ttJxg7+ ~d7
9 ... rJi;f7 leads to the same finish. 10
ttJe8+! We6 11 ~e7+ Wd5 12 ttJe7+
~d4 13 'iYg7+ 'it>e4 14 'i'xf8 ~4+
15 ~a7 ~e5+ 16 ~b8 1-0. It is in-
structive to see how my king gets
progressively stronger as it advances
past the fifth rank. But surely
there's a win for Black somewhere?
One thing is certain: looking for this
win will teach you a great deal both
about pursuing a king in the middle
of the board and also about using
your king as a strong piece! From
the first diagram, the move I was
worried about at the time (after 1
~hel) was l...ttJd4! when 2 'iVg6+
~f7 3 ttJg5 fails to 3 ... ttJxb3+ 4 We3

(or 4 Wd3 'ii'd4+ 5 'it>e2 ~f2+ 6
Wd3 ~b5+ 7 c4 ttJc5 mate)
4 ...'iVe5+ 5 ttJe4 ttJc5 61:lfl ~h6+ 7
'iVxh6 'iVxe4+ 8 'it>d2 ~xg2+ win-
ning. If the reader can find an im-
provement for me in this line, it
would go a long way towards pro-
moting the king march theory!
Of course, your king is reasonably
safe in the endgame but you must
never relax your vigilance, as can be
seen from the following test
position:
TEST 4.4 Olssen v Andersson
Sweden 1970
Black to play and win
With the better ending, White has
become over-confident in advancing
his king without weighing the con-
sequences. What did he miss?
Let us finish this chapter by look-
ing at the problem of which side to
castle. To begin with, although
there are some positions where the
king is best left uncastled because of
a blocked centre, which calls for ac-
tion on the wings, or because of an
approaching endgame where the
king needs to be near the action, in
most openings it is unwise to leave
the king exposed to attacks along
open files or diagonals. There are
The King 65
many beautiful games which serve
as a warning to players who think
they can leave their king in the cen-
tre with impunity. Here is one
which I quote in full because it is
typical of a risky style prevalent in
modem chess:
Pedersen v Gallmeyer Denmark
1971: 1 e4 eS 2 ttJf3 d63 d4 exd4 4
ttJxd4 ttJf6 5 ttJe3 a6 6 ~gS e6 7 f4
bS!? 8 e5 dxeS 9 fxeS "fie7 10 exf6
'C!VeS+ 11 .te2 'iVxgS 12 0-0 'iVeS?
Better 12 .. .l::ta7. 13 .tf3 !:ta7 14
ttJe6! 'iVe5+ 15 'itthl l:td7
Pedersen v Gallmeyer
Denmark 1971
Although Black's king looks ex-
tremely vulnerable in the centre, it is
surprising to see the game over in
nine more moves. The finish was:
16 ttJxb8! ~xdl 17 ~axdl gxf6 18
ttJe4 ~e7 19 ttJxf6+ rtie7 20 .thS!
.tg7 20 ... ~xb8 would lead to the
attractive finish 21 ttJg8+! l:!.xg8 22
l::txf7+ 'it>e8 23 J::tg7 mate. 21 ttJe6+!
~xe6 Or 21...'it;>f8 22 ttJd7+! .i.xd7
23 lIxf7+ Wg8 24 ttJe7 mate; or
here 23 ... 'it>e8 24 l:If6 mate. 22
ttJg8+! rt;e8 23 .i.xf7+ 'ittf8 24 lId8+
1-0.
There are usually two reasons for
castling: to bring the rooks into ac-
tion via the central files and to give
66 The King
the king more security behind a
pawn front. It is therefore important
not to castle mechanically but to
consider whether the above two
aims are immediately desirable. For
example, there may be times when
your rook is needed on the wing,
ready to help in an attack on the en-
emy king, or you may find, espe-
cially when your opponent has not
yet castled himself, that you are
'castling into it'. In other words,
your opponent is waiting to see
which side you select, so that he can
launch an attack on your king with
superior force. Here is an instruc-
tive example of such strategy:
Smyslov v Zagoriansky
Moscow 1944
If White castles either side, then
Black opts for the same side in order
to make his defence easier, so
Smyslov plays the cunning 1 i.e4!
waiting for Black to commit himself
and preventing ... .tc6. He is also
encouraging Black to defend his b7
pawn by castling long, which is well
known to give the defending side a
more difficult task than castling
king. This is because Black has to
waste vital time playing his king to
b8 to defend his broader pawn front.
Black should in fact continue the
waiting policy but instead 'castles
into it' with 1...0-0-0? after which
he is slaughtered with clinical preci-
sion as follows: 2 0-0 ~b8 3 c4 c5
4 dxc5 .txc5 5 b4! i.e7 He dare not
open the 'b' file onto his king. 6 c5
~c8 Note that Black has already lost
two tempi compared with a kings ide
set-up. 7 lIac1 .l:t.hd8 8 c6!! bxc6 Or
8 ... i.xc6 9 i.xc6 Iixc6 10 ':xc6
bxc6 11 tLJeS ~d6 12 !:tel ~b7 13
bS winning. 9 'iVa6 't!Vf4 10 b5! l:[c7
Or 10 .. .'iWxe4 11 b6! axb6 12 't!Vxb6+
followed by 'iVaS+ and ~bl+ win-
ning. 11 l:tbl! 'itta8 12 bxc6! f5 The
bishop still cannot be taken in view
of 13 l:[b7 attacking the rook as well
as threatening mate. 13 g3! 'iVd6 14
l:tb7 1-0. Black can no longer de-
fend by ... .tcS.
The reader may well ask why it
would be safe for White to castle
long in the above position, when it
proved fatal for Black. The answer
is that White, having the initiative,
can afford the luxury of doing so,
because Black has too many defen-
sive problems of his own for him to
be able to organize an effective
counter-attack. In fact, when players
castle on opposite wings, it is usually
the possessor of the initiative who
dictates· events. In many games,
however, the situation is not so
clear-cut and we often witness play-
ers attacking viciously on opposite
wings, with the outcome far from
certain and, in fact, sometimes de-
pending on a tactical error. Once
again, it is the ultra-sharp, uncom-
promising nature of many opening
systems which gives rise to such
situations more frequently than ever
before. If the reader wishes to in-
dulge in such lines (his choice of
opening is crucial here), then tactical
skill is at a premium and there is lit-
tle I can give in the way of advice.
Consider the following complicated
position from a game between two
 The King 67

grandmasters, both no mean Hints for Beginners

tacticians:
* Never forget the king! Always be
alert to possible surprise attacks on
either king, even (or especially!)
when the main action is on another
part of the board.
* Sometimes the only logical way to
exploit a given advantage is to attack
the enemy king.
* The king is extremely vulnerable,
requiring the protection of pawns
and pieces, so heavy sacrifices can
often be made to lure him out into
the open and mate him.
Fischer v Geller
Skopje 1967
* Be wary, however, of exceptions
when the king can be used as a fight-
White has brilliantly sacrificed a ing piece, even in the middle game.
piece to obtain this position, whilst * Do not be over-hasty in opening
Geller, realizing that passive de-. up your own king's position when
fence will get him nowhere, has attacking, since this often invites a
launched a counter-attack in the best successful counter-attack by your
traditions of his favourite Sicilian opponent.
Defence. In such complex attacking * Do not castle automatically.
positions, one tempo can mean the Whilst it is usually dangerous to
difference between victory and de- leave your king too long in the cen-
feat, and so it proved here. White's tre, it can be equally foolhardy to
king's position looks safer than 'castle into it' when your opponent
Black's and, indeed, Fischer has has not yet committed himself to
since shown that there is a win for castling on the same wing.
him with the problem-like 1 ~f4!!, * Think very carefully before cas-
the main line being l...tiJd2+ (l...d4 tling long. Unless you have a good
2 ~e5 tiJf6 3 Ii:xf6! wins; or initiative, your king is more difficult
l...cxb2 2 i!h5! tiJc3+ 3 'it>xb2 to defend behind a broader pawn
tiJxdl+ 4 ..tc1 Ii:xf7 5 i.xf7 wins) 2 front.
l!xd2 cxd2 3 c3! ~xb3 4 i.xg7+! * When players castle on opposite
Wxg7 5 ~g4+ 'it>h8 6 ~d4+ wings, speed and tactical skill are at
followed by mate. In view of this a premium in an attack on the enemy
hair-raising piece of analysis, it is king, and the defence of your own
understandable that Fischer thought king must always be taken into
he could interpose the 'safe' 1 a3? account.
creating a loop-hole for his king. * Beware of the back-rank mate!
Just see what happens: 1. ..~b7 2 At some time in the game, you will
~f4 .ta4!! In order to answer 3 need a loop-hole for your king,
~h6 iH6 4 !!xf6 with 4 ... i.xb3! especially if you wish to advance
winning. 3 ~g4 i.f6! 4 lhf6 your rooks for action along the
.txb3! 0-1. If 5 ~f4 i.a2+ forces ranks.
mate.
 5 Problem Themes

O ver the years, com-

posers of problems
and studies have ex-
plored and exploited
tactical ideas in great
depth, so it will be
Let us begin with a fairly simple
example.

But for Black's knight, White

would have 1 i.e2+ d3 2 i.xd3+
'it>a5 3 :'a7+ .:ta6 4 lha6 mate. So,
worthwhile to examine a few major how about deflecting this knight by
themes and their tenninology before 1 J:.d5+! when the game is over be-
we move on, in a later chapter, to cause 1... ~a6 2 .ic8+ wins easily ...
full combinations. Of course, hav-
ing a name for an idea is principally Deflections are very often linked
a useful means of discussing tactics, with back-rank mates, as in the
but the important thing is for the following dramatic finish of
reader to fully understand the con- Alekhine's:
cepts and apply them to his own
games. Occasionally, I will give a
study to present a theme succinctly
but, for the most part, I will try to
use material from game!! in which
players, under the pressures of posi-
tion and time, have come up with
some superb and often extraordinary
ideas.
Deflection

Alekhine v Nestor
Trinidad 1939

Black had hoped to refutel:'c8!

Bogoljubow v Sultan Khan
Prague Olympiad 1931
by playing 1...:'xc8, only to find that
the deflection by 2 ..we7!! cannot be
countered. White is threatening both
3 'ii'xe6 and 3 d8='ii'+, so Black's
only move is 2...l%g8! when 3 d8='ii'
'ii'xe7 4 'ii'xe7 followed by 'ii'xf7
wins easily.
 Problem Themes 69

Here is a delightful double deflec- With Black's rook on f6 and

tion from a game won by Duras:
bishop on e6 preventing a mate by
'ii'f8 and White's bishop on e8
threatening to be captured, it looks
as if the attack is at an end, but first
the bishop is deflected by 1 l:td7!!
.txd7, then the rook is deflected by
2 .th6!! :txh6 Or 2 ... gxh6 3 'ii'xf6+
mating, allowing the beautifully en-
gineered 3 'ii'fS mate.

Now, over to you:

White to play and mate

After the preliminary moves 1

:tel + ~b8 2 ""4+! <l;>a8, we can
see that the rook on d7 is preventing
""7 mate, the queen on e8 is pre-
venting l:tc8 mate, whilst the rook
on e3 is guarding e4 and f3. First of
all, by 3 .tf3+ l:txf3 the rook is
deflected from e4, then this allows
the further deflection 4 'ii'e4+!
'ii'xe4, when S l:tc8 mate concludes TEST 5.1 Alekhine v Freeman
the fine sequence. New York 1924
White to play and win
Finally, before I give you some
test positions to solve, here is my
favourite illustration of the
deflection theme:

TEST 5.2 Gragger v Dorn

Vienna 1958
Katalimov v Mnatsakanian White to play and win
USSR 1959
70 Problem Themes
TEST 5.3
Vishnyatsky v Perevoznikov
USSR 1950
White to play and win
TEST 5.4 Furman v Batygin
Kalinin 1950
Black to play and win
Overloading
A common factor in most combi-
nations is that we can take advan-
tage of an enemy piece that has
more than one task to cope with, a
piece in fact which is overloaded.
All of the deflection positions we
considered are necessarily depend-
ent on the overloading theme.
Take, for example, Katalimov's
combination: Black's bishop on e6
cannot cope with guarding d7 and at
the same time being ready to inter-
pose on g8, nor can his rook on f6
guard f8 and h6, whilst his g7 pawn
must protect the rook, so cannot cap-
ture on h6. It may be worth your
while to consider each of the
deflection examples from this point
of view, because these two sections
can almost be interchanged, with the
deflection weapon being used in
conjunction with our assessment of
the work-load of each piece. In
other words, we see the weakness
and pounce on it, as in our first
position:
Erbis v Kempf
Germany 1954
Black's bishop is blocking the 'd'
file, thus preventing .i:td8+ followed
by mate, whilst Black's queen is
stopping 'iJie7 mate. Neither can
take on another task, so our 'spanner
in the works' is 1 i..c6! to which
there is no defence. In other words,
the c6 square is in reality completely
undefended! The reader must get
used to thinking about the function
of each piece (including his own!)
until it becomes second nature.
Look at the next example:

Belenki v Pirogov
Moscow 1958
White's queen is preventing
... ~h5 mate and his king's rook is
needed to stop ... 'i:Vg2/ ...'iVhl mate,
so 1.. J:i:e 1! cannot be answered, as
... ~g4 allows both .. Jhgl and
... 'iVhl+ followed by mate (a prob-
lemist would have put a White pawn
on f6 to stop this 'dual'!). This is of
course another deflection but, in hu-
man terms, I like to think of White
smugly assuming he has all points
covered, when out of the blue
comes this uninvited intruder who
ruins everything! Believe me, it has
happened to us all ...
Before I set you some test posi-
tions, I cannot resist showing you
this incredible piece of composed
magic that illustrates to perfection
the concept of overloading:
Sackman (1910), Cheron (1965)
White to play and draw
Problem Themes 71
After 1 c7 ~bc6 2 e7 ~he6 the
pawns cannot queen and are about to
be captured until the amazing 3
ctJd6!! is played, allowing the knight
to be captured with check by either
rook, because the capture of any
pawn would allow the other pawn to
queen with check forcing a drawn
knight v rook ending. The point of
all this is seen after 3 ... I:tcxd6+ Or
3 ... .i':texd6+ 4 'it>e4 l:Ie6+ leading to
the same position. 4 'it>c4 l:rc6+ 5
Wd5!! when the second overloading
occurs, with neither rook being able
to stop the promotion whilst
guarding his colleague e.g. 5 ... 'it>xh7
6 e8=~ :rxe8 7 Wxc6 drawing.
Black's most cunning try is to play
3 ... c;t>xh7! at once, refusing the offer
of the knight, when White's king is
too far away for him to promote a
pawn without check, because the
knight can then be captured with
check before the queen is captured.
The final subtle point is then seen
after 4 'it'd4!! l1cxd6+ 5 'it'c5 l:Ic6+
6 'it'd5 'it>g7! 7 e8='iV! .l:i:cxd6+ 8
'it'c5 J:i.xe8 9 'it'xd6 drawing, but not
here 7 c8='ih? nxc8 8 'it>xe6 lte8! 9
'it>d7 Wf7 which is winning for
Black.
TEST 5.5 Smyslov v Euwe
Zurich Candidates 1953
White to play and win
72 Problem Themes

Decoy

Rather than spend too much time

explaining how a decoy differs from
a deflection, I prefer to launch you
into the complications of what I con-
sider to be the finest decoy ever pro-
duced in a game of chess:

TEST 5. 6 Rinck
White to play and win

Euwe v Keres
World Championship, Hague 1948

White's queen is stopping .. .'ihg2

mate and neither 1....l::td1 2 ~e3 'iVe2
3 lIxd1 ~xd1+ 4 Wf2 nor 1...1:H3 2
l:rf2! seems to get anywhere. In fact,
TEST 5. 7 Larsen v Ljubojevic at first sight there appears to be
Milan 1979 nothing further to exploit, except a
Black to play and win
remote possibility of harassing
White's queen by 1...c6! 2 ~xc6
lic3! at least gaining time for
Black's rook to reach c2, but then
surely White can set up a defence
with bishop on d2 and queen on dS,
or can he? Keres demonstrates bril-
liantly that there is a win to be had
by decoying White's queen to a fatal
square after 3 ~d5 .l:tc5! when 4
'ilVd2 is the only way to stop Black's
rook landing on c2, as we see in our
next diagram:

TEST 5.8 Frydman v Vidmar

Budapest 1934
White to play and win

Euwe v Keres (cont.)
By sacrificing a pawn and threat-
ening White's second rank, Black
has 'lured' or decoyed White's
queen to the fatal d2 square, allow-
ing the attractive finish 4 .. Jhc1! 5
l:txc1 lLlf3+ winning the queen. As
it turns out, both the rook and queen
are overloaded in the diagram, but it
took a genius of tactical play to vis-
ualize and then create the situation.
The decoy, then, is when we 'lure'
a piece to an unfavourable square, a
theme that always reminds me of a
puppeteer manipulating strings to
bring about the desired effect.
Euwe's queen surely looks as if it is
being tugged along by an invisible
cord.
Horwitz (1881)
White to play and win
Problem Themes 73
The above 'fun' study by Horwitz
emphasizes this point, but much
more crudely than the Keres
example.
1 axb8='iY+ ~xb8 2 .i.d6+ 'ilNxd6
3 ~xd2+ 'iVxd2 4 lLlxf3+ winning,
provided he can mate with bishop
and knight!
Let's examine the decoy idea in a
much more attractive study:
Salkind (1915)
White to play and win
. Only a minor miracle can produce
a win for White who has two
bishops under attack, one with
check, but by means of two fine
decoy ideas the study composer pro-
duces 1 h7+! With the obvious point
of dragging the king away from the
e7 pawn, but there's a second hidden
point. 1...'it>xh7 2 .i.a4 .l:!:xb2+ 3
.i.c2+!!, a neat 'zwischenzug' (a
term we will deal with later, mean-
ing an intermediary move) to leave
Black's rook stranded behind the c5
pawn after 3 ... l!xc2+ 4 c;t>f3 J:!c3+ 5
c;t>f4 lIc4+ 6 ¢'f5 and Black must
submit to the inevitable.
Overleaf are some test positions
for you to solve.
74 Problem Themes

TEST 5. 9 Ed. Lasker v AHa TEST 5.12 Bellon v Garcia

New York 1947 Cienfuegos 1976
White to play and win Black to play and win

Line clearance/closure

From the very opening moves a

player tries to open files, ranks and
diagonals along which his pieces can
become active, whereas a defender is
constantly trying to block lines to
prevent this. Composers have devel-
oped subtle themes based on line
clearance and line closure, but in
this section we shall deal mainly
with certain practical applications
that may guide a chess-player's
TEST 5.1 0 IIchenko v Sosina
thinking processes towards the best
USSR 1971
move in a given situation. Let us be-
Black to play and win
gin with an example from Alek-
hine's Best Games.

TEST 5.11 Bogda v Ferreira

Paraguay 1976 Alekhine v Borochow
White to play and win Hollywood 1932
 Problem Themes 75

In this game from a blindfold Here is an amusing case of an at-

simultaneous exhibition Alekhine
plays a move which opens an at-
tacking line for himself whilst at the
same time shutting off a defensive
line from his opponent's bishop:
tacker opening a line for his
opponent then immediately closing it
again:

Killing two birds with one stone,

he plays the simple but delightful
clearance move 1 liJe6! that pre-
vents 1.. .iLxg4 and prepares to an-
swer 1... iLxe6 with 2 'tlVxh7+! Wxh7
3 ~h3mate. Note how, as a pre-
liminary to all this, White's rooks
have used files and ranks to estab-
lish themselves on e3 and g4 and
the queen sacrifice breaks down the
last barrier on the 'h' file to allow
the mating finish. Stein had a simi- Rauzer v Rabinovich
lar clearance idea in the following Leningrad 1936
position but this time linking it with
an attack on the queen:
After 1 hxg6! k'txh2 2 liJh7! the
attack on both rooks forces
2 ...1:i.2xh7 3 gxh7 ~xh7 4 iLd3 win-
ning the exchange.

Our next example shows a typical

attack opening up vital lines for the
final mating set-up:

Sigurjonsson v Stein
Reykjavik 1972

After l...ltJxh2! White lost a

pawn and, eventually, the game. If
he had replied 2 ~xh2? (or 2 iLxh2
"iVxd4) then 2 .. Jhc3! 3 ~xc3
iLxb4! would have cleared the
d8-h4 diagonal with gain of time,
winning the queen in view of the Thesing v King
threatened 4 'iVxb4? 'iVh4 mate. Wilhelmsfeld 1985
76 Problem Themes
Despite Black's bishop being
pinned, its influence very much
affects the play that follows.
1...1hc2+! smashes open the 'c'
file, weakens White' second rank,
pins and weakens the rook on d3
and allows Black's other rook to
join in the assault. Not bad for one
move! Play continued: 2 ~xc2
l:.c8+ 3 'itd2 The amusing 3 lLlc3
l:.xc3+ shows two pins working.
3 .. :ihb2+ 4 ~el l:te8+ 0-1. The
finish might have been 5 ~d1
'ii'xbl+ 6 cj;>d2 ~xd3+ 7 ~c1 'Wc2
mate, or 5 'itfl 'Wxb 1+ 6 'ii?g2 'Wxd3
and it is all over.
Now for a less obvious example
of line-opening from a fine player:
Shaposhnikov v Boleslavsky
Sverdlovsk 1951
Black has pressure down the 'r
file and along the second and third
ranks but, with the paradoxical
move 1. •• d4!, he opens up the 'd'
file for his queen's rook but at the
same time allows White to block the
file with 2 i.xd4 (not of course 2
cxd4 when 2 ... i.xc2! 3 'ii?xc2 'Wxe3
smashes the whole position open)
which on the surface appears to hold
up the attack. However, upon con-
crete analysis, it fails to 2...l:.ad8! 3
l:.hfl 3 f4? l:.xd4+ wins, as the rival
queens eye each other along the
third rank. 3 ...'Wb2! 1-0. White sud-
denly realizes that his whole defen-
sive edifice now collapses after 4
':c1 1:txd4+! 5 cxd4 ~xd4+ 6 ~e2
i.xc2! 7 l:.xc2 'Wd3+ 8 ~f2 'Wxc2+
etc.
I also enjoyed the following defeat
of Nimzovich by Mieses who was
not a great strategist but could cer-
tainly produce ferocious attacks:
Nimzovich v Mieses
Goteborg 1920
White has made the mistake of de-
laying castling too long and Mieses
is not going to let him get away with
it! By exploiting the exposed posi-
tions of both the king and queen,
Black succeeds in using his open
lines to maximum effect: 1.•. lLlb4! 2
cxb4 White would like to play 2
~e2 but then 2 ... fxe4! 3 ~xe4 i.c6
4 'Wc4+ i.d5 5 'We2 e4! leaves him
in trouble. 2... i.xb4+ 3 lLld2 i.b5!
Now everything is clear: Black is
gaining time to fix the king in the
centre by attacking the queen which
is having great difficulty even
surviving. Note that Black is now in
command of two excellent diagonals
and has cleared the 'd' file for
action. 4 ~xa7 i.xd2+! 5 ~xd2
~d6+! Mieses does not even allow

White to 'castle into it' because he
has seen some excellent tactics such
as: 6 1tcl l:r.b6! 7 exf5 'iVc5+! 8
'1fi>d2 :td6+ winning the queen, or 6
'1fi>e I Wb4+ 7 ~d I l:r.fd8+ mating. 6
'ittc2 id3+ 7 ~c3 Or 7 ~cl 'iVc6+
mating. 7...l:r.b6! 0-1. The great
man has had enough; if he tries to
save his queen, he must allow
8...1Wd4+ 9 ~d2 'iVxf2+ 10 <iPxd3
:d8+ II id4 lhd4+ 12 'ii>c3 'iVd2
mate.
In these lines, ... l:r.b6 was a cun-
ning move because it set up a
battery of queen and rook in the two
main variations. As we have al-
ready seen in 'Tactical Ideas', when
examining discovered check and un-
masking, the battery is an extremely
powerful device. It is a favourite
with composers, because it provides
them with some excellent scope for
control of a number of squares and
well illustrates the axiom that "the
threat is stronger than the
execution" .
Here is a splendidly economic
working of the domination theme
(controlling the movements of an
enemy piece), where the puppeteer
is at it again, making Black's queen
look singularly helpless:
Rinck (1927)
White to play and win
Problem Themes 77
At first sight, Black's queen ap-
pears to have plenty of scope for ac-
tion but White's 1 ..ig2! reveals that,
if the queen goes to any light square,
a discovered check by the knight
will win it (try this out!) but what
about the dark squares? Both
l...'it'a3 and l.....c3 allow 2 tiJxd4+
~a7 3 tiJb5+ winning the queen,
which leaves 1...'iVe3 as the only
move for the queen to escape cap-
ture. In other words, the threat of
discovered check gives White's
knight control of 10 squares! White
now sets up a second battery by 2
tiJxd4+ ~a7 3 ..igl! when an as-
sessment of queen moves shows that
all the dark squares are inaccessible
because of an immediate discovery,
whilst of the light squares b3, e2 and
e6 are guarded by the knight, and
3 ... 'iI'd3 allows 4 ttJc6+! followed by
5 tiJb4+ picking up the queen. One
square remains, so let's try 3 .....e8
but then comes 4 tiJb5+! ~b8 Or
4 .. .'~a6 5 tiJc7+. 5 ih2+! ~c8 6
tiJd6+ and the minor miracle has
been achieved!
From e3, Black's queen had a pos-
sible 20 squares available but none
was safe from the predatory knight
supported by the two bishops. What
gives me such aesthetic pleasure
here? The setting up of two batteries
with their echo variations; the
switch of the knight back to c6 with
yet a further discovery; and finally
the delight in finding that the one
square seemingly available proves
not to be so after the switch of the
bishop to h2! And all this with only
eight units on the board ...
Of course, for a mere chess-player,
under the pressure of the clock and
burdened down by the fact that he is
supposed to be trying to win the
78 Problem Themes

game, it is impossible to match a

study such as this, but here is
Maroczy having a darned good try
(I'm not vicious enough to set it as a
test but all you masochists out there
are free to have a go, before I reveal
all ... ).

TEST 5.13 Levitina v Sizerman

Moscow 1983
White to play and win

Maroczy v Romi
San Remo 1930

White's advanced pawn on e7 is

immensely strong, but how can
White take advantage of this? Al-
though at the moment his queen is
safe from capture because of J:tg8+ TEST 5.14
followed by e8=='iY+, his opponent is Rufenacht v Neuenschwander
threatening l..J:txg2+ 2 J:txg2 Basle 1974
'iYxg2+ 3 Wxg2 ~xh6 coming out a White to play and win
piece up. Maroczy would like to
play 1 'iVg~ but then l...l::txh3+! 2
'it>g1 ~b6+ wins, whilst the obvious
1 ~g8+ lixg8 2 'if'h5+ Wd7 3
e8==~+ l:txe8 4 'Mt'xe8+ c;t>c7 allows
Black to escape. However, there is
one remarkable move that wins by
setting up a battery: 1 ~h5!! when
the game ended l...lbg2+ 2 l:txg2+
l:lxh5 3 !i.xb2 ~xh3+ 4 Wgl! ];[h7 5
11h2! ~g7+ 6 Wf2 I:!.g8 7 ~h6 Wf7
Desperation, as White was threaten-
ing 8 kid6 i.d7 9 f5! winning. 8
e8=='ii'+ ~xe8 9 ~h7+ 1-0. Well
done, Maroczy! TEST 5.15 Bianchetti (1925)
White to play and win

TEST 5.16
Reefleger v Wirthensohn
Hanover 1976
Black to play and win
Zugzwang
(Get a linguist friend to pro-
nounce this Gennan word for you,
or try 'tsooktsvang'; it means 'com-
pulsion to move' which will be clear
from our examples.)
Most of us are usually so eager to
make a move that it almost comes as
an embarrassment to find that there
are times when anything we do can
only worsen our position! How-
ever, if we were logical, we would
realize that even an ending of king
and rook versus king could not be
won without the use of zugzwang
which forces the enemy king to give
way. In the middle game we soon
become accustomed to anticipating
what our opponent will do next.
However, very few of us have the
grandmaster's skill of using the
zugzwang resource to its full extent,
mainly because it is more natural to
think in tenns of threats and sacri-
fices rather than in tenns of waiting
moves and quiet preparation. The
following position will make this
clear:
Problem Themes 79
Tylor v Em. Lasker
Nottingham 1936
After 1...~e3! White is immedi-
ately in trouble because Black is
threatening to take the knight with
mate, the knight cannot move be-
cause of 2 ... 'Ii'gl mate and, finally, 2
~e4 allows 2 ... WHf1+ followed by
mate. This means that 2 ~dl is
forced, but after 2... aS! we have
reached a position well worth con-
sideration. White has very few op-
tions: his queen cannot move, 3
lbgl would allow either 3 ... ~xd4 or
an immediate exchange of the four
pieces leading to a won pawn ending
(try it!), 3 lbh4 would allow
3 ... Sl.xd4 followed by 4 ... ~xc5, with
4 'iVb 1 f5 changing little for White,
and any pawn moves will lose mate-
rial. In other words, whatever White
does will worsen his position. He is
zugzwanged! It is not even worth
thinking about what Black can do if
White does nothing, because by the
laws of chess White has to move,
whether he likes it or not! In the
game, after 3 b4 axb4 4 b3 'it>h6
Waiting ... White resigned.
Here is another typical zugzwang
situation which occurred in Alek-
hine's notes to one of his interesting
encounters with Rubinstein:
80 Problem Themes
Variation from
Rubinstein v Alekhine
Dresden 1926
Alekhine writes: "The rook on f4
cannot move because of .. :~xe5;
the rook on e2 is tied to the defence
of e3 and g2; the king cannot move
because of ... l;!xh3; the queen can
move neither up the 'd' file because
of .. ..lhh3+, nor along the first rank
because of ... "WIg7 (I would add here
that it is possible to play 1 iVaI ~g7
2 c4, but then Black can continue
2 ... dxc4 3 bxc4 I1c8 4 iVd4 ~c7 5
l:tc2 ~d8 6 ~al ~c5 and it is all
over); and, finally, in the event of 1
c4 Black has 1.. .d4! and in the event
of 1 b4 he has l...~g7 2 iVd4 l:tc8!
followed by 3 .. .l~tc4." A simple
piece of analysis, you might think,
but it reveals a cool appraisal of the
position and shows how a great at-
tacking player can utilize various
threats to induce a state of paralysis
in his opponent's game. The
zugzwang weapon then becomes the
straw that broke the camel's back!
Here is a study composer using
the zugzwang in striking fashion:
Reti (1922)
White to play and win
After 1 tiJd4+! Black must reply
1...<;t>c5 because a retreat would al-
low White to capture the h2 pawn
then advance his king, since the
knight will be secure on b3 protect-
ing the a5 pawn when necessary.
Now, White has no time for 2 r.t>xh2
in view of 2 ... .ltf4+ 3 'it>h3 r.t>xd4 4
a6 .ltb8 5 f4 Wc5 6 f5 'it>b6 7 f6
'it>xa6 8 f7 .ltd6 and the pawn is
held. However, it is at this point
that Reti produces his key move 2
'it>hl!! placing Black in zugzwang!
The bishop cannot go to e3 because
of White's pawn, and all its other six
possible moves are answered by a
knight fork. As for Black's king,
2 ... r.t>d6 allows a knight fork,
2 ... 'it>b4 allows 3 a6 and, finally,
2... 'it>xd43 a6 leaves him stranded.
Can I match this with a game
example? Consider the following
outstanding piece of play:
 Problem Themes 81

Zhilin v Shernov TEST 5.18

USSR 1960 Gligoric v Szabo
Moscow 1963
1 f6! ,ltxh3 2 ~e5! Threatening White to play and win
mate in 4, beginning fxg7+, so
Black is forced to guard e8. 2... ,ltd7
3 'it>h4!! Revealing White's mag-
nificent idea: Black's queen and
bishop are unable to move without
allowing mate, whilst both 3 .. .';f;>g8
4 ~8+ and 3 ... gxf6 4 'iVxf6+ 'it>e8
5 g7 win for White. This leaves us
with the queens ide pawns and after
3 ... b6 4 ~h5! b5 5 c;i;>h4! h5 6
'it>xh5! Black is in zugzwang and
can do nothing but resign, since any
move allows mate.
TEST 5.19
Jung v Szabados Dessau 1952
White to play and win

TEST 5.17 Kubbel (1928)

White to play and win

TEST 5.20 Szily v Balogh

Correspondence 1943
Black to play and win
82 Problem Themes

Zwischenzug

This Gennan word, roughly pro-

nounced 'tsvishentsook', means an
'intennediary move'

When a player does not make an

obvious move, such as a recapture,
but interpolates another move, prob-
lemists refer to a zwischenzug. An
excellent example of this is seen is
the Zhilin position we have just ex-
amined, where White does not make
the routine recapture 2 'it>xh3 but
plays instead 2 'iVe5. Here is an-
other example of this:
Najdorf v Stahlberg
Buenos Aires 1941
Schranz v Honfi
Hungary 1971
Capturing the knight would allow
.. .iLc8, so White has calculated a
deep combination beginning with a
zwischenzug. 1 l:i:h5!! .lic8 If 1...h6
White can either capture the knight
or continue the attack with 2 ~xh6!
gxh6 3 'iVxh6 threatening ... e6 fol-
lowed by .l:i.e3. 2 e6! .lixe6 3 .l:!.xh7!
The point, another zwischenzug,
leading to the well-known rook and
bishop battery. 3 ....txh3 4 .l:!.xg7+
'1t>h8 5 .l:!.xf7+ .tf6 6 .txf6+ 'it>g8 7
.l:!.xc7 .u.xf6 8 gxh3 and White won
the ending. Imaginative play by
Schranz.

Black plays 1...lbxa4 hoping to

save the game after 2 bxa4 f5! etc.,
but Najdorf rejects the immediate
recapture and wins by 2 d7! iLxe7 3
.l:!.c8+ 'i!tg7 4 bxa4 1-0.

This 'looking beyond the obvi-

ous' is an important aspect Qf tac-
tics, as can be seen in the next
example that contains two zwischen-
zugs, for good measure: Dobirtsin v Bonsch
Gennany 1977
 Problem Themes 83

Clearly, White would like to com-
bine threats of promoting the d6
pawn with a mating attack but it is
trickier than it looks. After 1 d7!
.l:!.d8 2 ~f6! Black must capture the
'd' pawn with queen or rook. At
first sight it seems that 2 ... ~xd7 is
correct, in order to answer 3 iLh6
with 3 ...~d4, but White has a neat
zwischenzug here, with 3 iLg5! 1:Ic8
4 iLh6 winning. However, after the
alternative 2...~xd7 3 iLh6! ~d4 he
has prepared another zwischenzug
with 4 lIe 1! iLe4 Or 4 .. .iLe6 5
~xe6! 'iWxf6 6 J:!.e8 mate. 5 ~xe4!
1-0.
1...bxa2 Or 1... fxg6 2 ~xg7+! ~xg7
3 ~e7+ ~g8 4 iLxf6 mating. 2
iLxf6! The far from obvious
zwischenzug, coolly allowing Black
to queen with check! 2... al=1i'+ 3
~h2 'iVaxc3 Or 3 ... iLxf6 4 1i'h6!
iLg7 5 ~h7+ ~f8 6 l:txfl+ ~e8 7
'iVg8+ followed by mate. 4 iLxf7+
'it>h7 Or 4 ... 'it>f8 5 l!e8+! rbxfl 6
'ike7+ followed by mate in 2. 5
iLg6+! 1-0. It is mate in 2.

Finally, here is a typically com-

plex Tal combination, during which
he allows a second Black queen to
appear on the board while he
weaves his magic around the enemy
king:

TEST 5.21 Gil v Dobosz

Correspondence 1973
Black to play and win

Tal v Solmanis
USSR 1970

I advise you to play through this

very carefully, because it contains a
variety of mating patterns. 1 TEST 5.22
..txg6!! Going straight for the com- Miles v Martin
plications, knowing that, once he is Birmingham 1977
committed, there's no turning back. White to play and win
84 Problem Themes
TEST 5.23 Hubner v Timman
Bugojno 1978
Black to play and win
TEST 5.24
J. Littlewood v Dodson
Correspondence 1960
White to play and win (the nearest
I ever got to creating a study in a
game!)
Stalemate
Although this theme is often pre-
sent in the endgame, it can arise in
the late middle game more often
than the average player supposes. It
is not that a player achieves the
forced stalemate he would like, but
rather that players have to avoid fal-
ling into a stalemate trap or simply
fail to take into account the latent
possibility of this means of drawing
a game. Here is an example of two
traps avoided, although admittedly,
after avoiding the first, Anand was
most unlikely to miss the second:
Anand v Rongguang
Manila Interzonal 1990
White would like to play 1 l:tc2+
'ittf3 2 b6?? but suddenly sees that
2 ... ~h3+! 3 <;i;>xh3 results in stale-
mate! The game continues 1 c;t>g2!
~f5 2 l:Lc2+ ~dl! when once again
a trap has been laid for 3 ~d2+ ~e 1
4 b6?? ~f3+ 5 ~gl 'lig2+! 6 c;t>xg2
and a second 'echo' stalemate has
arisen. Anand went on to win after 3
.l:tc1+ ~e2 4 b6 ~b5 5 ~c7 'lie5 6
l:tc2+ c;t>dl 7 l:tc1 + ~e2 8 J::rbll-O.
Composers delight in the
stalemate resource, so I am spoilt for
choice in quoting one, but here is a
study which produces a draw by
repetition of moves resulting from
stalemate avoidance:
 Problem Themes 85

Motor (1972) Zagoriansky v Tolush

White to play and draw Moscow 1945

If White tries to stop the pawn by He was hoping for 2 'iYxf4 g2+ 3
1 J:rgl then 1...f4 wins easily, so he <J:;f2 (or 3 'it;>g 1 .u.e 1+ followed by
has to produce something out of the mate) 3... .a:f6 when 4 ~xf6 ttJe4+
ordinary with the startling move 1 would win the queen and the game.
:tg2!! allowing Black to promote However, White replied instead with
with check! The first point is the 'zwischenzug' 4 'it;>gl!! ttJf3+ 5
revealed after l...el =~+ 2 <J:;f7 ~xf3+ nxf3 stalemate.
when the threat of ng8 mate cannot
be answered by 2 ... h5 in view of 3
.l:i.g8+ 'it>h7 4 11g7+! i..xg7
stalemate, or here 4 ... 'it;>h6 5 l:tg6+
with perpetual check. This means
that Black has to play 2... i..g7
which indeed seems sufficient, until
White produces 3 J:te2!! when the
rook cannot be taken because of the
same stalemate we have just seen.
Nor can Black play the queen away,
allowing J:(e8+ followed by mate, so
his only move is 3... i..c3! when 4
!!g2 gives White a draw by
repetition. Lazdin v Zemitis
Riga 1936
Let us now examine some game
positions, beginning with a most I like this one because White, at
cunning trap that worked ... for the the end of a clearly fluctuating
opponent! game, has to do a great deal to pro-
duce a draw from a position which at
In the next example, instead of some stage he was presumably try-
patiently working out a winning ing to win: 1 ~f8+ 'it>f6 2 'iVh8+
plan, Tolush, by playing 1...'it>h3?, 'it>f53 g4!+ A key move in his plan.
went in for a most plausible trap 3 .•. hxg4 4 ~d5+! exd5 Any other
whose consequences he had not move allows mate in one. 5 ~c8+!!
fully calculated. ~xc8 stalemate.
86 Problem Themes

TEST 5.25 TEST 5.28 Sliwa v Doda

Krahnstover v Seyferth Poland 1967
Bitterfeld 1957 White to play and draw
White to play and draw
Hints for Beginners
* It is worthwhile examining from
time to time the workload of individ-
ual enemy pieces. If they have too
much to do, you may find a way of
exploiting this, with 'deflection'
your mam weapon.
* At the same time, be careful not
to give your own pieces too much to
do, particularly when your back rank
is under threat or your king is being
attacked.
* Combinations seldom fall out of
TEST 5.26 Kestler v Pesch the blue; they often have to be
Gennany 1956 brought about by 'decoying' enemy
White to play and draw pieces to vulnerable squares where
they are open to exploitation.
* Threats and forcing moves are ex-
cellent when available but you must
also be ready to consider quiet, wait-
ing moves which plan for what your
opponent can do and anticipate
events.
* Do not recapture pieces automati-
cally, as there may be a useful inter-
mediary move at your disposal,
especially in a forcing situation. The
obvious is sometimes our enemy.
* Whilst composed positions are
TEST 5.27 Pietzsch v Fuchs usually far removed from practical
Gennany 1963 play, their basic themes fonn a vital
Black to play and draw part of a player's tactical awareness.
 Problem Themes 87

* Tactical skills need to be devel- * The 'stalemate' must always be

oped by constant practice, so use all borne in mind, both in attack and de-
available means to stimulate your fence, as pieces are exchanged in the
imagination and test your powers of late middle game and the pawn
calculation. structure becomes more rigid.
 6 Combinations
W e had a thorough
look at tactics in
Chapters 3 and
5. A game of
chess, however,
is seldom de-
cided by a single tactical stroke.
Usually, we see various tactical mo-
tifs at work, occasionally even in
conflict with one another, and a
player's skill lies in controlling
these elements and fusing them into
a unified whole which we term a
combination. Seeing a tactical idea
is one thing; blending it into a win-
ning combination quite another.
Consider our first position:
Penrose v Barden
Hastings 1957-58
White, who has sacrificed a pawn
to reach this position, is well aware
that he is ahead in development,
with a strong pin on the 'e' file and
the enemy king still in the centre.
However, a tactical idea is working
against him, as 1 'iWa4+ can be an-
swered by 1...SLc6! utilising the fact
that White's king's rook is un-
guarded. White desperately needs to
develop his bishop but time is of the
essence. This probably gave him the
idea of playing the sharp 1 SLf4!!, a
move which at first sight seems
strange because after 1..:~Wxf4 2
~a4+ Black has 2...SLc6 (not
2 ... 'it'f8 3 tLJe6+! fxe6 4 ~f1 pinning
the queen, or 2 ... 'it>d8 3 tLJb3 f5 4
ctJc5! 'it'c8 5 'iWd7+ 'it'b8 6 lIxe4!
winning) and it is he now who is
pinning the knight along the rank!
Many players would now have given
up the idea, but an experienced tacti-
cian such as Penrose, knowing that a
pinned piece can sometimes tum the
tables on the pinner, would look a
little further and find the brilliant 3
lIxe7+! ~f8 Or 3 ... 'it'xe7 4 tLJxc6+
winning the queen. 4 tLJe6+ fxe6 5
~xf4+ r3;xe7 6 ..wc7+ and White
soon won. Note how various pins
and unpins are linked up here with
the opening of files, ranks and di-
agonals to produce an attractive
finish.
Let us now take a more complex
situation conjured up by a World
Champion:

Alekhine v Podgorny
Prague 1942
Top players instinctively sense
that a combination is in the air here,
but we lesser mortals will try to
relive in slow motion some of the
ideas flashing through Alekhine's
brain. Although Black is assuming
that his bishop cannot be captured in
view of ... ~xal, his queen will un-
doubtedly be out of play for some
time and in grave danger of being
trapped. Can this factor be ex-
ploited in some way? Once again,
we have a Black king in the centre,
so it is tempting to try to open the
'e' file and attack down it. Is there
a way of combining these two
ideas? Suddenly, Alekhine must
have seen yet another point: his
king's knight can reach b3 with gain
of time! The pieces of the jigsaw
are rapidly slotting into place and
the final picture is beginning to
emerge: 1 dS!! exdS We will exam-
ine ... ttJxd5 later. 2 axb4! 'iVxal 3
ttJd2! A retreating move that many
players would not have visualized.
By attacking the bishop, Alekhine
not only gains time by occupying
the 'e' file with check but also pre-
pares to trap Black's queen by ttJb3
if the Black bishop retreats.
3... i.xe2 4 ~xe2+ tlJe7 Again
forced, since 4 .. .'it'f8 5 b5! ttJd4 6
Combinations 89
~d3 ttJe6 7 ttJb3 WillS the queen,
because ...~a6 is no longer
available. 5 ~el 0-0 6 ttJb3 ~a6 7
'iWxa6 bxa6 8 lhe7 and Alekhine
won the ending.
Now, go back to the diagram and
try to find what White had in mind
against l ... ttJxdS. It is clear that the
same combination no longer applies,
because White's queen's knight dis-
appears. However, other factors are
at work: the Black bishop on g4 is
unguarded and Black's king has no
king's knight to help protect his po-
sition. By combining these elements
with the danger to Black's queen
that will eventually arise from an un-
masking of White's rook along the
first rank, we arrive at 2 ttJxdS exdS
3 ttJd4! ttJxd4 Or 3 ... .i.xe2 4 'iYxe2+
ttJe7 5 axb4! 'ii'xa 1 6 .i.g5! with a
double attack on the queen and
knight, a recurring theme, as we
shall see, whereas if 3 ... .i.d7 4 ttJb3
guards the rook and wins Black's
king's bishop! 4 .i.xg4 calling for
another diagram:
Alekhine v Podgorny
A possible variation
Notice how all this has been done
with gain of time and Black still
hasn't succeeded in castling!
Almost certainly, Alekhine's
90 Combinations
calculations would not have gone
much further, a fact that always sur-
prises lesser players. It must be re-
membered that there were many
other lines to work out, in a limited
time, so Alekhine would now trust
his positional judgement, closely
linked to intuition, to assess the po-
sition as won for him, relying on his
tactical ability to work out details
later, if the variation should arise.
For a possible finish, I am using a
fine piece of analysis by the late
C.H.O'D. Alexander which under-
lines the beauty of Alekhine's
conception:
4 ... lLlc6 Or 4 ... lLle6 5 ~xe6 fxe6 6
~h5+ g6 7 'iVe5 0-0 8 axb4 'iVxal 9
~h6 winning. 5 axb4! 'iVxal 6
'iVe2+ 'ittf8 Or 6 ... lLle7 7 ~g5. 7 b5
lLla5 If 7 ... lIe8 8 ~e3! and 7 ... lLld4
8 'ilfe5 lLlxb5 9 ~h6!' 8 ~el! h5 9
~f5 f6 10 ~g6 when mate in 2 is
forced.
A word of solace to the depressed
reader who feels that he will never
learn to play combinations like this.
What seems at first sight like magic
is in reality a mixture of logic,
imagination, calculation and experi-
ence. The first and last of these
come in time but the other two can
be stimulated and developed by
playing through master games and
testing your ability on combina-
tional positions. The most impor-
tant fact to learn, and indeed have
faith in, is that combinations do not
just spring out of thin air, despite
appearances to the contrary. If it
were so, chess would be a mere
game of chance and would have lost
my services years ago. Of course,
there are curious chance factors
(fortunately!) which differentiate
similar combinations, but there
remains an inner logic to chess tac-
tics, which is why all great players in
their best efforts have blended strat-
egy and tactics so well that it is diffi-
cult to tell where one ends and the
other begins. Let us examine this
'inner logic' at work in our next
position:
Soker v Volk
Leningrad 1937
Weare hardly out of the opening
and Black has given up a pawn to
reach this position. Was he justified
in doing so? White's queen is al-
most trapped and would be won by
... ~b8, were it not for the bishop on
f4 attacking the c7 pawn. Even
more important is the vulnerability
of White's king, but Black must
make use of these factors before
White castles long or plays lIc1 and
e3. It is in such positions that a be-
ginner has self-doubt, loses his sense
of proportion and even panics. A
more experienced player has faith in
his position and views the situation
more dispassionately. He realizes
that, if White's queen's bishop could
be deflected, his queen would be
lost, so L.g5 comes to mind, but
then 2 ~e5 lLlxe5 3 'iVxb4 saves
White; or here 2... lLlc2+ 3 'ittd2
lLlxa 1 4 'iVxc6+ leaves the knight
trapped on a 1. More drastic meas-
ures are called for, such as 1...~h6!!

which usefully develops a piece in
the process. Black may well have
seen this move initially as a deflec-
tion and only recognized its true
strength upon closer examination of
the reply 2 i..xc7 attacking the
queen. Although the obvious
2... 'iVc8 seems fine, even though
White has two pawns for the ex-
change if he can trap the knight on
ai, Black has conjured up a lovely
combination which shows up the
power of Black's king's bishop and
exploits the position of White's
king: 2... ctJxd4! 3 i..xd8 Or 3
ctJxd4 ctJc2+! 4 ctJxc2 'iVd2 mate; or
here 4 Wdl 'iVxd4+ 5 'it'xc2 ~d2+ 6
Wbl 'iVcl mate. 3 ... ctJdc2+ 4 'it'dl
lIxd8+ when White's position is
hopeless. The game ended: 5 ctJd5
i..xd5 6 'iJic7 i..xf3+ 7 'iVxd8+
'it>xd88 exf3 'iitc7! 0-1. White must
lose a rook or accept his fate after
9 .. J:td8+ 10 'it>e2 ~d2 mate.
I repeat, not magic (well, a touch
of...) but logic! The characteristics
of White's set-up are all there, wait-
ing to be unearthed, if only Black
can make the effort to dig a little.
Our next example is an excellent il-
lustration of the same logic at work,
admittedly backed by some precise
calculation:
Gheorghiu v Kinnmark
World Junior Champ, Hague 1961
Combinations 91
There is no doubt that White
stands better, since he is fully devel-
oped, with beautifully placed active
pieces all aimed at the centre and the
king. However, the position is full
of tactical ideas and once again he
must strike while the iron's hot,
before Black can exchange pieces.
How does a player thread his way
through the complexities he faces
here? Let us try to follow the
thought processes of a tactician (the
author!).
* Black's king looks vulnerable vis-
a-vis the bishop on b2; in fact, if
White's queen were on cl, he would
have the immediate 1 'it'xh6+! gxh6
2 ctJxf7+ 'it>g8 3 tiJxh6 mate.
* The weakness of the h6 pawn,
combined with the potential pin of
the g7 pawn, can also be exploited
by 1 Sl.xc8 ':'axc8 2 'it'd2 Sl.xe5? 3
Sl.xe5 followed by 4 'ir'xh6+ and 5
'it'xg7 mate. But can't Black play
instead 2 .. J:tfd8! in this line when
the queen sacrifice is no longer
available because h7 is not pro-
tected, nor does 3 ctJg6+ fxg6 4
'Yi'xh6+ work, because Black's queen
guards g7, and the attractive-looking
3 ctJd7 i.f4? 4 'ir'd4! fails to
3 ... 'it>g8! when the knight cannot
move in view of ... Sl.h2+ winning
the queen.
* Why exchange the bishops in the
first place, especially when this
helps Black prevent a back-rank
mate? Can we instead exchange our
rook for his bishop on d6, when
tiJxf7+ exposes the back rank, allow-
ing us to deflect Black's queen by a
double attack from d2?
The ideas flow on, but we have at
least some concrete variations, the
details of which can now be
checked. Gheorghiu must have
thought along similar lines,
92 Combinations
instinctively applying his knowl-
edge of forks, pins, deflections and
overloading, and this is the result: 1
l::txd6!! 'iVxd6 Or 1...~xf5 2
l:txh6+! gxh6 3 ttJxf7+ 'it>g8 4
ttJxh6+ 'ith7 5 ttJxf5 leaving Black
helpless; or here 2 ... ~g8 3 'iVxf5
gxh6 4 ttJd7! winning. 2 ttJxf7+!
l:txf7 3 I;!e8+ 'iffS We have already
planned the deflection after 3 ... ~f8
4 'ifd2! I:rxe8 5 'iixd6 ~xf5 6
'ii'xh6+ and 7 ~xg7 mate; or here,
after 4 ... ttJd3, a second deflection
by 5 'iixh6+! 'i'xh6 6 .l::txf8 mate. 4
lIxfS+ ~xfS 5 'i'd2! Again the key
move. S... Wg8 6 "+Wd4 1-0.
Once again, the problem lay not
so much in seeing the various possi-
bilities as in coordinating these into
a winning sequence and not being
distracted by spurious side-lines. In
particular, all of us tend to think too
much of our own moves, without
taking into account our opponent's
defensive options, some of which
can completely destroy the intended
combination. Here is an instructive
and striking illustration of how this
can come about:
Shabalov v Stefansson
Reykjavik 1994
Wanting to answer ... We6 with
~f5+,White prepared for this by 1
'it'hl? (instead of attacking at once
with 1 ~fl + We6 2 ~h6+ 'it'd7 3
.:&if?! as given by Larry Christiansen)
only to find that, after 1...~h8!, his
intended combination 2 l:tfl + 'it>e6 3
~f5+ ttJxf5 4 gxf5+ Wd7 5 e6+ Wc6
6 'ifxe7 would be met by
6 ... 'ifxh2+!! followed by mate in
two. To give Shabalov his due, he
saw this, but only when it was too
late! I had a similar heart-stopping
experience when facing Botvinnik,
for the one and only time, in the fol-
lowing position:
J. Littlewood v Botvinnik
Hastings 1961-2
Thinking that I could employ a
fine zwischenzug that would give me
time to drive back Black's knight,
advance my pawn to h5, play hxg6
then answer ... ttJf6 with ttJf5, I plau-
sibly, but wrongly, sacrificed mate-
rial by 1 e5!? ttJd7 If 1...bxc3 2 exf6
exf6 3 bxc3 White stands better. 2
h4? Or 2 exd6 e5!. 2... bxc3!!
Botvinnik must have already
calculated the finish when playing
this move. 3 h5 My bridges are
burnt. 3 ... dxe5! 4 hxg6 The specta-
tors were wondering why I was tak-
ing so long over this move, but by
now I had seen the coming disaster
and could do nothing about it.
4... ttJf6! and all is clear: if now 5

ltJf5?? then 5 ... c2+! 6 Wxc2 ~c8+
and 7 ... ~xf5 ends it all. More out
of shocked defiance than anything
else, I played instead 5 bxc3 and re-
signed eight moves later, instead of
resigning immediately, which Bot-
vinnik's cool defence merited.
We might term the above a 'final
point' combination, for which Alek-
hine was justly famous. He had the
ability and mental tenacity to visual-
ize, at the end of a forcing sequence,
a key move that his opponents had
failed to take into consideration.
Perhaps it was because he used to
analyse his correspondence games
in his head! Here's one of his most
celebrated finishes:
Reti v Alekhine
Baden-Baden 1925
After a most fascinating and com-
plex game, we are still in a bewil-
dering situation that fatigues the
brain. If 1...ltJxc1 2 fxe3 or
l...1i.xD 2 1i.xD or l...x:Ie7 2 ~bl
llb8 3 lId8+, White equalizes, so
Alekhine throws another element
into the fray with 1...ltJe4! in order
Combinations 93
to answer 2 fxe3 with 2 ... ltJxd2 win-
ning the exchange. White replies in
kind by 2 1:tc4! so that both 2 ... 1i.xD
3 1:txe4! and 2 ... ltJxd2 3 ltJxd2!
maintain the balance. Alekhine now
plays the forcing sequence 2... ltJxf2
3 1i.g2 1i.e6! 4 1:tcc2 ltJg4+ S Wh3 5
rbhl?? 1:tal+ wins. S... tt:le5+ 6 Wh2
~xf3! 7 1:txe2 ltJg4+ 8 Wh3 ltJe3+ 9
Wh2 ltJxc2 10 1i.xf3 ltJd4! 0-1. Af-
ter 11 nf2. ltJxf3 12 nxD 1i.d5! we
arrive at the 'final point': White's
knight is lost. Here is another sam-
ple before I set you some test
positions:
Schmidt v Richter
Heidelberg 1946
I myself try to follow Alekhine's
example by solving positions in my
head and I remember finding all this
solution until near the end: 1 ~h6+!
~xh6 2 hxg6+ ~gS 3 l:1hS+! WxhS
4 f4+ ltJxe2 S ltJf6+! <;t>h6 6 l:thl +
<;t>g7 and it was at this point that for
some time I completely missed 7
ltJe8+! ~xe8 8 nxh7+ 'it>f6 (or
... 'it>f8) 9 l:i.xf7 mate. Now, over to
you!
94 Combinations

TEST 6.1 Rossolimo v A N Other TEST 6.4

Paris 1944 J. Littlewood v Tomasevic
White to play and win Correspondence Olympiad 1972
White to play and win

On the one hand, then, we have

seen that, as in Alekhine's game
against Podgomy, there was at least
one situation in which he would not
have calculated beyond a certain
point, whilst on the other hand we
are witnessing combinations that
would fail if it were not for the
advance calculation of a 'final
point'! For the reader, the dilemma
is obvious. Does he need to work
TEST 6.2 Alekhine v Bogoljubow out everything or can he rely on gen-
World Championship Match 1929 eral principles to see him through?
Black to play and win How far does he have to visualize
before embarking on a combination?
As usual in chess, there is no simple
answer to these questions. Much
depends on the strength and style of
a player and on the nature of the
position reached. For example,
players such as Keres, Tal, Kasparov
and Shirov can sense (and often
gamble on!) a position as being won,
without going into the finer detail,
whereas lesser players are compelled
to check out variations more
carefully until they have acquired by
TEST 6.3 Bauer v Golner practical experience a kind of chess
Berlin 1956 'instinct' that can relieve them of
White to play and win some of the burden of calculation.

If all the above appears unhelpful,
the reader would do well to remem-
ber that chess players are not sup-
posed to be computers! Alekhine
himself says in one of his
annotations that in certain unforcing
situations he found it difficult to
analyze more than a few moves
ahead! There is, in fact, not always
time to attempt a full-scale
calculation, even if a player has the
ability to do so, and he must then
either rely on intuition or else fall
back on a general assessment of the
position. There are, however,
certain combinations which even an
expert has to work out in every
detail and where any error in
calculation would lead to a loss.
Unless the reader is willing to take a
leap in the dark (and many of us still
do this, even if we are unwilling to
admit it), he should reject unclear
combinations with which his own
calculating ability cannot cope.
Such combinations invariably in-
volve sacrifice of material, after
which there is no going back once
an error in calculation has been
made. Here are two examples:
Tartakower v Andor
Paris 1952
White has sacrificed a pawn for
excellent compensation and has
various good moves at his disposal,
Combinations 95
such as tiJb5 or nab 1. Instead, how-
ever, he embarks on a sacrificial
combination beginning 1 ~a3!!, of-
fering Black the choice of two varia-
tions which clearly demand precise
calculation. The game continued:
1..:iVxa3 2 'iVb5+ ~e7 3 l:td7+
tiJxd7 4 'iVxd7+ ~f6 5 ~f7+ There
is no time for 5 l:tel ~e7. 5... ~xe5
Or 5... ~g5 6 tiJe4+ and mate in 2. 6
l:tel+ ~d4 7 'iVf3! A quiet but pow-
erful move, forcing mate. 7.. :iVxc3
Or 7 ... c4 8 'iVe3 mate; or 7... 'it>c4 8
l:te4 mate. 8 'iVe4 mate. All rea-
sonably straightforward, you might
say, but the second variation needed
more mental work. After 1...'iVxc3,
which seems a much more plausible
move because of the central control
exerted by White's knight,
Tartakower planned: 2 'iVb5+ ~e7 3
l:Id7+ Not the tempting 3 ~b2 'ifb4!
4 l:Id7+ ~e8!. 3 ...tiJxd7 4 'iVxd7+
~f6 5 tiJg4+ It is just about here that
the brain starts to work overtime ...
5... ..t>g5 Or 5.Ai'g6 6 'Mt'xe6+ c;t>h5 7
'iWf5+ g5 8 'iVf7+ ~h4 9 g3+ 'it>xg4
10 h3+ ~xh3 11 ~h5 mate; or
5 ... <t>f5 6 'iVf7+ 'it>xg4 7 f3+ 'it>h4 8
g3+ 'it>g5 9 i.c 1+ followed by mate.
6 ~cl + 'it>h4 Or 6 ... ~h5 7 'iVf7+ g6
8 'iVf4 ~e7 9 h3! mating. 7 g3+ 'it>h3
8 'ii'xe6 Stopping ...~el mate!
8...'iVc4 9 f3!! The splendid point
which had to be foreseen or
Tartakower would have lost, as we
saw in our example of a king hunt
that went wrong. 9...'iVxe6 10 tiJf2
mate.
The reader may well ask why
players go in for such lines when a
less risky or complicated win is
available. I can only answer for
myself by stating that, although I
like to win as much as anyone else,
the way I achieve this matters to me!
In fact, I gain greater pleasure from
96 Combinations
playing an attractive finish a la An-
derssen than I do from other routine
wins dutifully ground out. This
may well be a flaw in my
temperament that should have been
corrected when I was younger, but
tactical complications were what
initially brought me into the game
and kept me there ... Anyway, as the
French say, "Ce n 'est pas a mon
age que je vais changer" which,
roughly translated means: "Which
idiot thought up this grading lark?".
Here is the kind of winning
combination that I delight in but
which has its hidden dangers:
J. Littlewood v Agnos
4 Nations League, Liverpool 1994
Having sacrificed the exchange to
reach this fascinating position, I
now played my key move 1 ir'a5!!
intending to answer 1.. .Itfl !? with
the forcing, and therefore easily cal-
culable, winning line 2 lhc7+! (not
of course 2 ~xfl?? lbe3+ mating)
2 ... "fixc7 3 "fia8+ iVb8 4 ~c6+ ~c7
5 ~xe6+ 'it;>d8 6 'iVxd5+ 'ite8 (or
6 ... ~e7 7 ~e6+ 'itd8 8 lbb7+ win-
ning the queen) 8 'iVe6+ 'iJle7 36
'ilVc6+ Wfl 37 ~d5+ and mate next
move. Imagine my chagrin, how-
ever, when Agnos replied instead
with l..J::tf3!? blocking the danger-
ous diagonal and giving me a much
more difficult problem to solve.
Fortunately, I had enough time to
find a win which I had not initially
envisaged which ran: 2 'iVa7! WdS 3
lbxe6+! 'i!Vxe6 Or 3 ... lbxe6 4 l:tb8+
winning material. 4 l:tbS+ ~d7 Or
4 ... We7 5 ~c5+ when the bishop
that was pinned in the original com-
bination takes its revenge. 5 'iV a4+!!
The most difficult move to find in
the whole game. 5.. :~Vc6 6 ~h3+
l:tSf5 7 ~xf5+ ~xf5 S kIdS+! WxdS
9 'iVxc6 and I won the ending 20
moves later. To echo the churlish
words of the grandfather in Peter
and the Wolf "But what if Peter
hadn't caught the wolf, what then,
heh?", I could only answer that I did
have excellent compensation for the
exchange in this position. However,
I was most relieved to have suffi-
cient time to do further calculation,
so there's a moral somewhere for the
reader.
Over to you now for some exact
calculation upon which the fate of
the games hinges:
TEST 6.5 Reshevsky v Matsumoto
Siegen Olympiad 1970
In the game, White played 1 lbf6+.
Was his combination correct?

TEST 6.6 Kunnemann v A N Other
Berlin 1934
1 "fiIf6 looks extremely strong. Has
White calculated correctly?
TEST 6.7 I. Sokolov v Ivanchuk
Wijk aan Zee 1996.
White is hoping for perpetual check
after 1 Ir.g7+ '1t>xe6 2 llg6+, since
he assumes that 2 .. .'i;d5 will be too
risky. Is he right?
Combinations 97
TEST 6.8 Zelevinsky v Berezin
Moscow 1957
The sacrifice on h7 looks strong for
White, but does it work?
There are some positions that
scream out for a combination, but
there is no guarantee that it is com-
pletely sound. For a variety of rea-
sons, one can be driven into a
sacrificial line by necessity and it be-
comes an academic point when the
analyst (and/or computer!) discovers
later that the combination is un-
sound. Our next diagram is a good
example of this:
Limbos v Kavalek
Belgium 1970
Black has the better development,
with all his pieces except the queen's
rook in active positions. On the
other hand, he is a pawn down, his
king's rook is under attack and time
is running against him if he plays
passively. For example, 1..J::te7 2
iVg5 or 1...lled8 2 "fiIf4 are adequate
defences for White and it is no good
telling Kavalek now that he should
not have sacrificed a pawn! The po-
sition demands a combination, so he
plunges in 'sans peur ni reproche' as
follows: 1.. ..txd5!? 2 .txe8! Not of
course 2 'iYxd5? ~ed8. 2... lZJg4! 3
i.xf7+! White defends cleverly,
98 Combinations
since the replies 3 ... i.xfl 4 fx.g4 and
3 ... ~xfl 4 iVxd5+ are no good for
Black. 3... 'it>h8 4 fxg4 i.d6! 5 ~h6!
A magnificent defensive move, to
answer 5... gxh6 with i.b2+ and
mate in 2; but Kavalek's combina-
tion is not over yet. 5... i.xg2+! 6
<;t>xg2 ~xg4+ 7 <;t>f2 ~f5+ 8 <;t>g2
'iVg4+ He cannot play 8 ... gxh6 9
l:txd6 when both 9... ~xfl 10 i.b2+
<ot>g8 11 ~gl! and 9...'ii'xc2+ 10
l1d2 ~c6+ 11 i.d5 ~g6+ 12 'it>hl
lose for him. 9 <;t>f2 i.c5+!? And
now 9 ... iVxdl fails to 10 'iVxg7+!
~xg7 11 i.b2+ ~xfl 12 l:txdl win-
ning for White. Objectively, Black
should now settle for the draw by
9 ... ~f5+ but sometimes emotions
are stronger than reason. 10 liJe3!
1:IfS
Limbos v Kavalek (cont.)
11 ~c6? A great pity for White
after his imaginative defence up to
this point. 11 <;t>e I! would have won
after 11...'tWgl+ 12 <;t>e2 but he
could not stand the strain of leaving
his queen en prise one move longer.
11 ... .!:txfi+ 12 ~el ~h4+ 13 'it>e2
l:tf2+ 14 'it>el Or 14 'it>d3 ~d4 mate.
14... l:txh2+ 0-1. It is mate next
move.
Thus, in the final assessment, the
above combination proved only
good enough for a draw, but this is
sufficient reason for playing it.
However, did Black foresee White's
fifth move, was he a little lucky and
should he not have lost at the end?
Some of these are philosophical
questions beyond the province of
this book, but I would like to con-
clude this chapter by attempting an
answer to the last point. A number
of top grandmasters, such as Larsen,
Tal and Shirov, have developed to a
remarkable degree, as part of their
chess armoury,the art of playing
speculative combinations i.e. combi-
nations whose final results can
hardly be assessed over the board
and which may well prove to be 'un-
sound' in the light of subsequent
analysis. Why do they do it?
I offer the following explanations:
* The more unbalanced a position
is, the more chance there is of a
decisive result. To unbalance a
game, however, inevitably involves
an element of risk.
* It is extremely difficult to win a
major tournament nowadays with an
occasional win and a string of draws,
unless we are dealing with an All-
play-all with a limited number of top
players. Many grandmasters are
therefore willing to 'play the odds',
especially against slightly weaker
opponents, hoping to offset a
possible loss against a sequence of
WIllS.
* Creating problems for your oppo-
nent has always been an important
element of chess strategy. Such a
problem can well be a complex tacti-
cal situation in which the defender
has insufficient time, patience or
skill to find the best moves.
* During the last thirty years, deep
opening analysis has helped to

develop (or rehabilitate, if only for a
brief time) certain ultra-sharp
systems, such as the Sicilian
Sveshnikov or the Exchange Griin-
feld, which can only be adopted by
players who are prepared to teeter
on the brink of disaster in the hope
of obtaining a compensatory win.
Even those positional players who
do not welcome such an approach
find it difficult to avoid sharp tacti-
cal confrontations if their opponents
are hell-bent on them.
Please note that I am in no way
advocating this style of play, even
though it can be very exciting for
the spectators, but the above points
may help us understand that there is
often more to chess than soundness,
control and god-like omniscience.
It is after all a game, with all the hu-
man doubts and inconsistencies that
this entails! Here is Shirov at work
(I give you the opening moves to
show how he arrived at the critical
position).
Shirov v Van Wely
Melody Amber Rapidplay 2000
1 e4 c5 2 ltJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
ltJxd4 ltJf6 5 ltJc3 a6 6 Ji.e3 e6 7
g4!? Sacrificing a piece with no
forced win in sight. 7 ... e5 8 ltJf5 g6
9 g5 gxf5 10 exf5 d5 11 gxf6 d4 12
Ji.c4 'WIc7 13 'i'd3 dxe3 14 0-0-0
exf2 15 Ji.xf7+ And now a second
piece is offered. 15 .. .c.ti'xf7 16 'WId5+
~xf6 17 ltJe4+ We7 18 ltJd6 Ji.h6+
19 ~bl <Jtf6
Combinations 99
Shiro v v Van Wely
Melody Amber Rapidplay 2000
Despite being two pieces down,
White has enough for a draw by 20
ltJe4+ <i;e7 21 ltJd6 ~f6 22 ltJe4+
but decides instead on a sharp move
20 ~hf1!? which eventually allows
Black's king to head towards h8. It
is not clear if Shirov had something
in mind which most of us have
missed or was doing a Mr.
Micawber in a rapidplay game
which gave both players chances to
go wrong. Play went: 20 .. J:tf8 21
I1xf2 ltJc6 22 'i'c4! Pinning the
knight whilst maintaining flexibility
for a possible queen transfer to the
kingside; these last two moves must
have been planned but I cannot see a
win ·now if Black plays 22 ... ~g7!?
when both 23 J:l:gl+ and 23 f6+
allow 23 ... 'it>h8 producing a
defensive position which is not easy
to break down. (See, however, the
footnote at the end of this game!)
100 Combinations
Shirov v Van Wely (cont.)
22 ... ~f4? In Rapidplay mode, it
is so easy to make a plausible blun-
der such as this, especially if you
feel that your opponent has a trap
prepared for the king retreat; there
is no doubt that the psychological
pressure induced by such tense
positions is a factor which cannot be
ignored. 23 .a:.xf4! exf4 24 'iVc3+!
'ito>g5 25 ~g1+ 'itth4 26 ~f3 1-0.
Mate is forced.
Footnote: as if to hammer home
the points I have been making, a
game Svidler v Gelfand -Biel 2000,
continued from move 17 above 18
f6+! 'it>e8 19 f7+ 'it>e7 20 ~d2! 'iWc6
21 ~g5+ <;tJxf7 22 l:thfl ~c5 23
CLlxf2 CLld7 24 CLlg4+ <;tJe8 25 CLlxe5
iYe6 26 )lfel CLlf6 27 CLld3 ~e7 28
l:txe6 ~xe6 29 l:tel CLld7 1-0.
Black resigned without waiting for a
reply. "When you sup with the
devil, you need a long spoon"!
Hints for Beginners
* Tactical ideas in isolation can be
unproductive. They must be geared
to the demands of the position and
blended into the unified whole we
call a combination.
* There is an inner logic to a combi-
nation, which means that the strate-
gic elements of a position should
guide us towards our final tactical
solution, however complex the latter
maybe.
* Do not expect too much from your
powers of calculation. Whilst exact
calculation is essential in certain po-
sitions involving sacrifices, in many
others it is more realistic to be able
to make a correct appraisal of vari-
ous situations that may arise. A
chess player is not a computer!
* When calculating a sequence of
forcing moves, be prepared to look
beyond the obvious to a possible 'fi-
nal point' before you abandon the
line.
* Do not go in for dubious combina-
tions when other routes to victory
are to hand. The time for risky com-
binations is either when you are los-
ing or when you have irrevocably
committed yourself to a certain line
of action.
* The 'psychological' sacrifice (just
like 'psychic bids' in bridge) is best
left alone until you have developed
well-above-average tactical skills
which can cope with unexpected
situations.
 7 The Pawns
T he reader may be sur-
prised that I have left
until now this chapter
about the smallest unit
on the board, which is
severely limited in its
movements and therefore extremely
vulnerable to attack by pieces. In-
deed, if it were not for the fact that
the pawn can be promoted to a piece
(usually a queen) when it reaches
the eighth rank, a beginner would
neglect it even more than he does
normally. My justifiable reason for
placing this chapter immediately
before the one dealing with
'strategic elements', is to stress the
vital role that this seemingly
insignificant foot-soldier plays in
strategic decision-making, alongside
its well-understood tactical heroism
in sacrificing itself for the greater
good of clearing attacking lines and
squares for the pieces. By
examining various aspects of the
pawn, including its strengths and
weaknesses, I hope to convince the
reader about the skill required in
handling it and the disastrous
consequences of mindless
'wood-pushing' .
First of all, let us be clear about
our terminology:
In this diagram, the White 'a'
pawns are isolated and doubled, the
c4 and d4 pawns are hanging, and
the g3 pawn is backward, with a
hole in front of it which can never
be guarded by its f4 and h4 col-
leagues. Note that the g3 pawn is
particularly weak because the file is
open onto it. Ifwe removed Black's
a7 or c7, the same would apply to
the doubled and hanging pawns. In
the case of the latter, either can ad-
vance if attacked but this immedi-
ately creates a hole in front of its
colleague which now becomes back-
ward and therefore even more vul-
nerable because it has the additional
task of supporting the pawn next to
it. Remove Black's h5 pawn, and
White's h4 pawn becomes passed
i.e. it has no enemy pawn hindering
its march to promotion; the same
would apply to Black's e7 pawn if
we were to remove White's d4 and
f4 pawns. Because the three groups
of White pawns are not linked to
each other, we refer to them as three
pawn islands and the same applies to
Black's pawns.
It is easy to see why all three con-
figurations are considered weak. If
attacked, they have to be defended
102 The Pawns
by pieces or must advance, in the
case of hanging pawns, thus creat-
ing further weaknesses. Let me has-
ten to add that there are some
compensatory factors in such situa-
tions. White's doubled pawns look
horrible, but the removal of his 'b'
pawn to a3 has at least given him
the open 'b' file to work on and, de-
spite the vulnerability of the hang-
ing pawns, they are at the moment
controlling four central pawns and
possess an important element of
flexibility. If you are desperate to
look on the bright side, we can even
point out that the poverty-stricken
g3 pawn is at least doing a useful
job guarding his colleagues on ei-
ther side and may even be able to
sacrifice himself at some point by
g4 to make the h4 pawn passed. On
the other hand, a pessimist such as
the author will only bemoan the fact
that, if the g3 pawn falls, both his
colleagues have lost his support at
one stroke! The point I am making
is that, when experts refer to pawns
as being weak, they are usually talk-
ing in static terms; as we shall soon
see, the dynamic compensation is
another story. Let us now examine
each configuration from both an-
gles, beginning with the isolated
pawn.
Isolated Pawns
Consider our first example:
Black's isolated d5 pawn is weak,
as it must be defended by pieces.
Although White's d4 pawn prevents
a frontal attack being made, it stops
Black's pawn advancing, thus fixing
it as a permanent weakness, a fact
which Reshevsky cleverly uses to
increase his pressure. After 1 b3!
'WaS If l...cxb3 then 2 'i'xb3 wins
the d5 pawn. 2 b4! 'i'd8 Or
Reshevsky v Capablanca
Margate 1935
2... 'iVxb4 3 l1ab1 'iYd6 4 .lhb7 a6 5
lIfb 1 with an overwhelming posi-
tion. 3 'iYa4! a6 Or 3 .. J:ra8 4 'iVb5
winning a pawn. 4 bS! .l:!.e6 4 ... a5 5
b6! 'iVxb6 6 tiJxd5 wins at least a
pawn; it is instructive to see how the
weakness of the isolated pawn con-
stantly restricts Black's possibilities.
5 .a:abl .a:b8 6 llb2 ~e7 7 bxa6
.a:xa6 8 'i'e2 and White has achieved
his object of creating another vulner-
able isolated pawn on b7 whilst dou-
bling rooks on the 'b' file to increase
the pressure on both of Black's
weaknesses. In the long run, despite
Capablanca's renowned resourceful-
ness in defence, Black's position
proved untenable.
A very common situation arises
from a number of openings in which
one player has an isolated 'd' pawn
and the other player can attack it
down the half-open file. Petros ian
cunningly broke down Botvinnik's
resistance in their World Champion-
ship Match by choosing to defend
against the isolated pawn, even
though he knew of his opponent's
success in playing such positions!
Let us look at a situation arising af-
ter the opening moves: 1 d4 dS 2 e4
dxe4 3 tllf3 tiJf6 4 e3 e6 S ~xc4 cS
6 0-0 a6 7 a4 tiJe6 8 'i'e2 exd4 9

1:tdl i.e7 10 exd4 0-0 giving us a
position which occurred more. than
once in the match.
Botvinnik v Petrosian
World Championship Match 1963
Viewed from a static angle,
White's d4 pawn is weak, as it
needs to be defended by pieces, can
be attacked down the 'd' file and
provides an ideal 'blockading'
square on d5 for Black's pieces.
However, in practice it is Black who
is under pressure from such a pawn
in the middle game, as there are
certain dynamic features in White's
favour: the centrally posted pawn
controls c5 and e5, can support a
knight on e5, has two useful files on
either side and presents a constant
threat of advancing to d5, unleash-
ing the power of the rook on dl.
This balance of pros and cons usu-
ally leads to an interesting struggle
and, although Petros ian managed to
draw from the above position, it was
not without difficulty. One game
continued: 11 tbc3 tbb4 12 i.gS
i.d7 13 dS! Botvinnik sees the
chance to win a pawn but, unluckily
for him, Black has sufficient coun-
terplay. At all events, there appears
to be little choice, since Black is
threatening 13 ... i.c6 with good
The Pawns 103
play. 13 ... exdS 14 tbxdS tbbxdS 15
i.xdS tbxdS 16 l:txdS i.xgS 17
tbxgS h6 The threat was 18 ~d3. 18
~d2 hxgS 19 l:[xd7 'iYf6! 20 Jaxb7
.l:!:ad8 and Black drew despite his
loss of a pawn.
More typical was a later game in
the match, when White used his
knight outpost on e5 as a basis for a
kingside attack. From the same dia-
gram, play went: 11 tbc3 tbdS 12
i.d3 tbcb4 13 i.bl i.d7 14 ~e4 g6
15 tbeS i.f6 16 ~t3 i.g7 17 ~g3
i.e8 18 h4! and White had the better
of it, although his advantage still
proved insufficient to win the game.
What is instructive in both cases is
how each player makes the most of
his possibilities. As for the mere
'foot-soldier' on d4, he must be de-
lighted to see his humble presence
dictating the activities of his 'superi-
ors' ! As we have already stated, the
pawn's influence goes far beyond its
basic unitary value.
Contrast our next position in
which two top grandmasters miss an
important tactical point which has
now become accepted opening
theory:
Smyslov v Karpov
USSR Championship,
Leningrad 1971
104 The Pawns
Black has carelessly neglected to
blockade the d4 pawn, but Smyslov
too fails to recognize the power of 1
d5!! ctJa5 l...exd5 2 iLg5 g6 3
~xe7! is the key idea. 2 iLg5! g6 3
d6! winning a piece. A triumphant
advance of the 'weak' pawn! To be
fair to Smyslov, he later won the
game by marching this pawn to the
eighth rank.
Just in case the reader is thinking
that the isolated pawn is never
really weak, he must first realize
that the nearer to an ending the
game progresses, with an inevitable
reduction in forces, the weaker the
isolated pawn becomes. Secondly,
even in the middle game a player
must be very careful about the way
he posts his pieces in support of the
pawn, as our last example shows:
Reshevsky v A.R.B. Thomas
Hastings 1937-8
Here is a typical set-up showing
what a disadvantage an isolated
pawn can be. Although, or even
because, the pawn is very well
guarded, this in itself immobilizes
his three minor pieces, especially
his 'bad' bishop, and the resulting
weakness of the dark squares means
that Black's d5 pawn is far easier to
blockade and restrain. In such a
situation, Reshevsky was not averse
to heading for the endgame by 1
'ikd4 ctJc4 2 ctJd3! .l:f.ad8 3 b3 ctJa5 4
'ikc5! ctJc6 5 ~xe7 ctJxe7 and after 6
ctJc5 iLc8 7 ctJ3a4 b5 8 ctJb2 l:lfe8 9
l1d2! Black was helpless against the
threat of doubling rooks followed by
e4. In desperation, he played
9 ... ctJe4 10 ctJxe4 dxe4 11 l:lxd8
l1xd8 12 iLxe4 lId2, only to find
that 13 l:i.dl! maintained White's ad-
vantage. Note that, even after alter-
native moves after 9 l:td2!, the d5
pawn remains a permanent thorn in
Black's side.
Hanging Pawns
These are even more difficult to
assess, since their dynamic nature is
much more subtle, offering possibi-
lities such as opening vital lines,
creating a passed pawn or helping to
support an outpost. The wisest
course is for us to discuss various
examples, so that we can appreciate
some of the factors involved:
Botvinnik v Budo
Leningrad 1930
White's hanging pawns give him
more space and central control, so
Black must put pressure on them as
soon as possible to try and limit
White's activities. His first move
1. .. ctJc6! is directed towards this end,
 The Pawns 105

so is much better than the passive

... 4:Jbd7 which blocks the 'd' file
and gives the knight no scope.
However, after 2 lic1 4:Jb4 3 ~3
4:Je4 4 4:Jxe4 ~xe4 5 l:Ifel it is clear
that the knight is misplaced on b4,
although exchanges have helped
Black's cramped position. He could
now set up a defence by 5 ... ~b7 6
c5 (or 6 d5 4:Ja6!) 6 ... bxc5 7 dxc5
4:Jc6! (but not here 7... i.xc5?? 8
~c3 winning a piece) but instead
plays the plausible S.. :iVb7? which Reshevsky v Gauffin
allows Botvinnik to exploit the Stockholm Olympiad 1937
position of the knight by a clever
sequence of moves, as follows: 6 4 d6! ~xd6 5 i.eS i.xf3 6 'it'xf3
~xe4! ~xe4 7 4:Jel "iVe2 8 i.f3 .l:!.xd3 7 ~xc7 l:txf3 8 gxf3 and
'iVd2 9 .l:i:dl 'tIVgS 10 a3! 4:Ja6 11 White won the ending comfortably.
i.xa8 lha8 12 'tIV a4 'iVhS 13 f3 The moral of this storming finish is
'tIVaS Forced, because 13 ... 4:Jc7 loses that the prospect of exerting posi-
to 14 ~c6 i.d8 15 d5 exd5 16 tional pressure on the hanging
.!:!.xd5! 'iVg6 17 'iVxa8! etc. 14 pawns must not induce the defender
~xaS! bxaS and now White's to forget other important considera-
passed 'c' pawn won the game for tions such as his awkwardly placed
him. pieces and his denuded king. Per-
haps it is time we witnessed a suc-
Note the flexibility of White's cessful defence:
hanging pawns during these tactical
skirmishes: firstly, the possibility of
c5, then the breakthrough with d5
and, finally, the creation of a passed
'c' pawn. It is this ability to switch
plans and thus baffle a defender
which is the great advantage of such
pawns, just as in football or rugby
when two coordinated attackers can
create havoc with a defence. Here's
another example:

Black's lack of space has led to

the misplacement of his queen, so
Reshevsky immediately seizes the
chance to open up lines for his
pieces and exploit Black's lack of
~ace by playing: 1 dS! exdS 2
tLixdS 4:JxdS 3 cxdS 4:Je7 Or
3 ... 4:Ja5 4 ~xh7+! c,t>xh7 5 4:Jg5+
Wg6 6 'iVe4+ ~xg5 7l:!.d3! winning.
Botvinnik v Grigorenko
Moscow 1931
Although Black's queen's knight
would be more aggressively posted
on c6, he prepares to place his queen
an a8 to help control the central
squares and use this knight on f8 to
106 The Pawns
defend his kingside. After l..JleS!
2 ~bl Planning 1IVc2 followed by
tLJe5 and d5, but a more natural
posting for the queen is on e2, and
the bishop move takes away a de-
fender of the c4 pawn. 2...lIeS! 3
1IVe2 tLJf8 4 tLJe5 l:te7! 5 tLJdf3 1IV as!
6 'iVe2 ~b4! Black guards against a
possible attack on f7 whilst driving
White's rook away from the control
of the 'e' file and, in particular, the
e4 square. 7 lIedl lIeeS! when our
next diagram reveals the maximum
use that Black has made of his lim-
ited space:
Botvinnik v Grigorenko (cont.)
Black now threatens ... ~e4 elimi-
nating an important attacking piece,
so Botvinnik wisely decides to al-
low exchanges and head for a draw:
S iLd3 ~d6 9. tLJel Threatening f3!.
9... ~e4! 10 tLJg4! tLJSd7 11 d5!
iLxd3 12 tLJxd3 But not 12 tLJxf6+
tLJxf6 13 'it'xd3 e5! 14 iLxe5 tLJxd5!
with good play for Black. 12 •.. exd5
13 tLJxf6+ tLJxf6 14 iLxf6 gxf6 15
1IVg4+ 'it>f8 16 'it'd4 c,t;>g7 17 1IVg4+
'it>f8 and a draw was agreed.
In this excellent effort, Black just
managed to combine attack and de-
fence. If he plays too passively,
White will simply leave his pawns
where they are and use his space ad-
vantage to build' up a powerful at-
tack on the king, as in the following
example:
Reshevsky v Feigin
Kemeri 1937
Play went 1 tLJe5 a6 Already too
passive; he had to try 1...tLJxe5 2
dxe5 tLJd7 3 f4 tLJc5 with some
counterplay. 2 l:tadl 'i'e7 3 f4! l:rfe8
A good restraining move but White
has no intention of advancing his
centre pawns yet. 4 tLJbl g6 5 tLJd2
tLJh5 6 lIdel iLf8 7 g4! White is so
confident that he allows his own
king's position to be weakened,
knowing that Black cannot organise
a successful counter-attack. 7 ...tLJhf6
8 h3 lIedS 9 tLJdf3 SLb4 10 lIdl ];tf8
11 tLJg5 lIdeS 12 h4 ~aS Finally at-
tempting counterplay along the
a8-hl diagonal, but it is too late. 13
h5 ~b7 14 'ith2! iLd6 15 'it>h3! lte7
16 a3 gxh5 Desperation which only
hastens the end. 17 gxh5 h6 IS
tLJgf3 tLJxh5 19 tLJh2 tLJdf6 Or
19 ... tLJhf6 20 l:tg1+ c,t;>h8 21 d5!
exd5 22 tLJxd7! 'ir'xd7+ 23 'ti'g4!
winning.

Reshevsky v Feigin (cont.)
After leaving his centre pawns in-
tact for so long as a means of re-
straining counterplay, White now
opens up lines for his final assault:
20 d5! ttJg7 There is a lovely finish
after 20 ... exd5 21 'iVxh5! liJxh5 22
Itg1+ liJg7 23 ~xg7+! Wxg7 24
J:!gl + 'i!tf6 25 liJd7+ ~e6 26 liJxf8
mate. 21 l!gl liJe8 22 liJc6 and
White won quickly, although even
stronger in sacrificial vein is 22
liJg4! exd5 22 liJxh6+ 'i!th8 23
liJhxf7+ llfxf7 24 'tWh5+! liJxh5 25
liJxf7 mate, revealing in full the
glory of open lines. Such is the
price of passivity in the face of
hanging pawns!
Sokolsky v Botvinnik
Leningrad 1938
Here is another instructive exam-
ple, but this time it is Black who has
The Pawns 107
the pawns and White who ties him-
self up in his attempts to control
their possible advance:
As Black is threatening ... d4 fol-
lowed by ... ~xf3, White could well
try the restraining move lIe 1 and be
happy to exchange two minor pieces
after ... liJe4. He could then use his
queen's knight on a4 and queen on
a 1 to apply pressure along the a I-h8
diagonal, as we saw in Grigorenko's
excellent defensive play earlier.
This would offer better chances than
the passive game continuation: 1
liJe2 ~h6! Not only avoiding ex-
changes but putting pressure down
the h6-Cl diagonal and discouraging
liJf4. 2 ~a3 liJg4! Threatening
3 ... ~xe3 4 fxe3 'ii'xe3+ followed by
the famous smothered mate in 4. 3
~d3 liJde5 4 liJxe5 'ii'xe5 5 liJg3 Or
5 g3 d4 etc. 5...'ikf6! 6 liJhl Forced,
because 6 ~c2 'ifh4 7 h3 liJxe3 loses
at once. 6... d4! 7 'iVe2 liJe5! So that
if 8 l:rxc5 ~xc5 8 ~xc5 liJf3+! 9
gxf3 ~xf3 10 'iVc2 ~xdl 11 'iVxdl
'tWg5+ wins; or 8 ~xc5 ~f3! 9 gxf3
d3! 10 ~xd3 liJxd3 11 ~d4 liJxc 1
wins. 8 exd4 cxd4 9 l!xc8 ~xc8
Sokolsky v Botvinnik (cont.)
The hanging pawns have been
converted into a mighty passed 'd'
108 The Pawns
pawn which White's pieces are in
no position to stop. After 10 l:!el
d3! 11 ~dl Or 11 ~xe5 ~xe5 12
l:txe5 d2 l3 ..lte2 d 1='iW 14 ..ltxd 1
nxdl+ followed by mate. 11 ... .ltg4
12 ~al Or 12 D ttJxD+ 13 gxD
..ltxD 14 ~1 d2 15 ':dl .lte3+ fol-
lowed by mate in 2. 12 ... d2 13 ~xe5
dl=~ 14 ':'e8+ l:txe8 15 'iVxf6 .lte2
with an easy win.
As if there are not enough prob-
lems for the defence, there are some
situations in which the advance of
the 'c' pawn is the correct plan.
Here is a good example of this:
Bertok v Fischer
Stockholm Interzonal 1962
Despite the reduction in material,
Black's initiative guarantees him the
better chances, but he can ill afford
to allow White to build up pressure
against his pawns. Fischer's solu-
tion is simple: by 1...c4! 2 ttJf4
~tb8! he fixes White's b2 pawn as a
weakness, a manoeuvre favoured by
Capablanca. Play continued: 3
!:tabl Or 3 .ltD ttJf6 4l:tfdl 'iVxb2 5
l!Vxb2 .!:!.xb2 6 ttJxd5 ttJxd5 7 .ltxd5
.ltxd5 8 l:txd5 c3! 9 1:tdd 1 c2 10
l:tdc1 llab8 11 c;t>fl J::tb 1 12 c;t>e2
l:f.xa 1 13 !!xa 1 ':b 1 winning, as
given by Fischer. He also suggests
a better defence by 3 ttJxe6 fxe6 4
.ltg4 l:ta6 5 b3, although 5 ... '{Ifb4!
gives Black an excellent game.
3 ....ltf5! 4 J:[bdl ttJf6 5 .!:td2 Once
again, 5 ..ltD ~xb2 6 ~xb2 ~xb2 7
ttJxd5 ttJxd5 8 .ltxd5 l:!.c8 gives
Black a winning position. 5 ... g5 6
ttJxd5 6 ttJh5 ttJe4 7 nc2 ~4! is
equally bad. 6 ... ttJxd5 7 ..ltxc4 ..lte6
and Black won.
Summing up then, we find that in
the middle game the dynamic quali-
ties of hanging pawns more than
outweigh their weakness. My per-
sonal choice, therefore, would be to
avoid giving such pawns to my op-
ponent, unless I could see a positive
plan to exploit them before they
crushed me. It is one thing to talk
about their theoretical weakness, but
quite another to face them in a prac-
tical situation, with limited time at
your disposal. Based on the evi-
dence provided, the reader can now
decide for himself in this matter.
Backward Pawns
A backward pawn is usually a
grave weakness, especially because a
hole is created in front of it, yet even
here there are times when compensa-
tory factors operate. Let us examine
the play surrounding such a pawn:
Rosenthal v Ragosin
USSR 1928

In an innocuous looking position,
White has just played the risky
move f4, voluntarily giving himself
a backward pawn on e3 which it is
difficult to eliminate by e4, in view
of the resulting weakness on d4, or
by liJd2-i3-eS, against which Black
has a potential counter with ... f6
guarding eS. Perhaps, White in-
tends to combine a later liJeS with
advancing a pawn to gS, so as to an-
swer ... f6 with gxf6 opening up the
'g' file, but this will take a great
deal of preparation, whereas the
creation of a weak pawn on e3 and a
hole on e4 brings immediate prob-
lems for him. Black's plan will be
to exert pressure on the pawn down
the 'e' file, not necessarily to win
the pawn but to create other threats
while White's pieces are tied to the
defence of the pawn. Let us see
how play goes: 1.. :iVb6 2 f5 This
seems premature, if not foolhardy,
because at one stroke White cuts out
the option of the plan mentioned
above. 2... liJiS A voiding the obvi-
ous 2... liJgS when Black may be
forced to occupy e4 before he wants
to and thus block the attack on the
pawn. 3 ~e2 lle7 4 'it>h1 .l:tae8 5
lIdl Presumably aiming to play e4,
a dubious plan, as we have pointed
out. 5.. :~a5! 6 a3 6 e4 loses a
pawn. 6... liJd7 7 b4 'ilc7 But not
7 ... 'ilVxa3 8 liJxdS!. 8 ~e1 'it>iS9
ltJd2 Missing his last chance of
playing e4. 9...'ild6! 10 liJb3 i..h4!
11 .l:tn liJf6 12 ~f3 If 12 h3 liJhS
wins, or if 12 g3 then 12 ... .txg3!
would surely lead to a winning at-
tack against the denuded White
king. 12 ... liJg4! 13 g3 .l:txe3! 14
.l:!.exe3 ILxe3 and Black won.
This is typical play against a
backward pawn. Force your oppo-
nent onto the defensive, then hit him
The Pawns 109
in another part of the board. The
weak pawn itself often hinders com-
munication between enemy pieces,
and if the hole in front can be occu-
pied by an attacking piece, this may
well prove an even greater danger:
Ljubojevic v Donner
Mallorca 1971
White's knight dominates the cen-
tre, and Black dare not exchange it
for his king's bishop because of the
resulting weakness of his dark
squares. Nevertheless, it is surpris-
ing to see how quickly White man-
ages to force a decision. Play went:
1 h4! 'it>h8 Or 1... .l:tfS 2 't\Yh3 fol-
lowed by g4. 2 h5 gxh5 3 'ilxh5
'it'g8 4 ~g4! Threatening i..f2.
4... 'it>h8 5 'ilVh3 ~g8 6 i..f2! i..c6 Or
6 .. Jlxf4 7 i..g3 winning at least the
exchange. 7 i..h4 .l:!.ee8 8 i..g5 i..b5
9 ~e3 as 10 ~g3 ~f5 11 ~h4!
Threatening 12 .tf6 against which
Black is curiously helpless, because
12 ... 'it>h8 allows 13 ~h3. 11 ... .l:txg5
12 'ilr'xg5 ];tiS 13 ];tel i..e8 14 liJg4
i..g6 15 .l:txe6 'i'xf4 16 ~xg6 hxg6
17 ~xg6 1-0. The finish might be:
17 .. .'iVc7 18 liJh6+ 'it>h8 19 l::th3
forcing mate.
And yet, despite the obvious
weakness of backward pawns, play-
ers of certain openings, such as the
I I 0 The Pawns
French Defence and the Boleslavsky
and Sveshnikov systems of the Si-
cilian Defence, deliberately accept
this weakness, provided that it is
linked with compensatory open
lines, weak pawns/squares in the en-
emy camp, or mobile pawn masses.
In other words, against a back-
ground of ultra-sharp openings,
where a dynamic initiative is worth
a great deal, almost anything goes,
as ,we can see in this example from
the Sveshnikov Sicilian which went
as follows: Geller v Sveshnikov
USSR 1978: 1 e4 c5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3
d4 cxd4 4 tDxd4 tDf6 5 tDc3 e5!? 6
tDb5 d6 7 .ltg5 a6 8 tDa3 b5 9 tDd5
.lte7 10 .ltxf6 .ltxf6 11 c3 0-0 12
tDc2 .ltg5 13 a4 bxa4 14 lha4 a5
15 .ltc4 l:lb8 16 b3 ~h8 17 0-0 f5
18 exf5 .ltxf5 19 'iiVe2 'iVd7 20
tDce3 .lte6 21 Itdl .ltd8
Geller v Sveshnikov
USSR 1978
White has built up excellent con-
trol of the hole at d5 and has forced
Black onto the defensive. You
could say that White has the perfect
set-up against a backward pawn and
yet, somehow, he manages to lose in
another 13 moves! Despite Black's
obvious weaknesses, he has, of
course, the two bishops, useful pres-
sure down the 'f' file and a potential
kings ide attack, all of which are
linked to his concession of an ex-
tremely weak pawn on d6. Let us
see how the game develops: 22 1:I:a2
'tWf7 23 ~d3! Planning tDfl-g3-e4;
the immediate 23 tDfl is answered
by 23 ... tDe7!. 23 .. :ilVh5 24 tDfl e4!?
Black must act before White's
knight reaches e4. 25 ~c2 .lth4 26
tDg3 .ltxg3 27 hxg3 tDe5! 28 tDf4
Or 28 tDe3? .ltxc4 29 bxc4 tDd3 30
i:!d2 ~c5! threatening 31...tDxf2.
28 ... l::!.xf4 29 gxf4
Geller v Sveshnikov (cont.)
What a dramatic change from 8
moves ago! Black is down on mate-
rial but has a mating attack as com-
pensation. The game finished as
follows: 29 ... tDf3+! 30 gxf3 But not
30 <;!;>fl .ltg4! 31 gxf3 'tihl+ 32 ~e2
'iYxf3+ etc. 30 ... .ltxc4 31 'iVxe4! If
31 bxc4 exf3 32 l:ld5 'iVg4+ 33 ~fl
ne8! 34 ~g5 'tih3+ 35 ~gl l:!.el
mate; or 31 fxe4 'iVg4+ 32 'it>hl
.ltxb3 33 ~bl J1b5 34 f5 .ltxc2 35
~xb5 .ltxe4+ wins. 31.. ..ltxb3 32
l:l.bl If 32 l:tb2? ~e8!. 32 .. J~e8 33
.!:ha5 d5 34 lIel? Time-trouble;
after 34 ~xe8+ 'iVxe8 35 l:txb3
~g6+ 36 ~fl 'ikd3+ 37 <;t;>g2 'iVg6+
and 34 lhb3 ~xe4 35 ~b8+ ~e8 36
llaa8 ~g6+ 37 <;!;>h2 ~h5+ the game
is drawn. 34.. :iVg6+! 0-1. After 35
'it'xg6 ~hel+ 36 ~g2 hxg6 Black
has a loop-hole for his king.
 The Pawns 1 I I

Doubled Pawns

When not part of a compact pawn

mass, doubled pawns tend to make
most masters shudder. At least one
of the pawns is usually vulnerable,
as shown in our first example:

Bisguier v Peretz
Netanya 1971

1 lLla4! 'ifie7 l...c4 2 i.a3 wins the

exchange. 2 e4! Fixing the c5 pawn.
2... lLle7 3 i.e3! d4 Forced, but now
Black's pawns are even weaker. 4
i.e1 i.b7 5 i.a3 lLla6 6 'i;Va5 win-
Uhlmann v Botvinnik ning a pawn and, later, the game.
Munich Olympiad 1958
It is important to realize that the
White has tried to cover up the weak squares and lack of mobility
weakness of his c4 pawn by attack- created by doubled pawns are often
ing on the queens ide, but Botvinnik even more fatal than the weakness of
now seizes the chance to put more the pawns themselves. An example
pressure on the pawn by 1. .. bxa5! 2 will make this clear:
'!:!'a1 lLlb6! 3 ~xa5 ~e4!! But not
3... ttJxc4? 4 i.xc4 'iVxa5 5 ~xe6+
and 6l:txb7. 4 ~xe4 fxe4 5 'iVb3 Or
5 'iVxe4 lLlxc4 6 ~xe6+ 'iVf7 win-
ning. 5... lLlxe4 6 'ifxe4 'ir'xa5 7
~xe6+ 'it>h8 8 Ita2 'iIIe7 9 'i;Vxe4
'Wifi 1-0.
The mechanics of attacking the
weak pawn are shown clearly in our
next position. Firstly, the weak
pawn is fixed so that it cannot es-
cape the attack, then further pres- Larsen v Cafferty
sure is applied: . Teesside 1972
112 The Pawns
To quote Larsen himself: "Black's
doubled and isolated pawns are not
weak in themselves as they restrain
White's centre pawns but it is an
old story their weakness is in the
square in front of them. The knight
on e4 is a tremendous piece." We
can add that the doubled pawns also
hinder Black's mobility, with the e5
pawn blocking his bishop and tying
down a minor piece to a purely de-
fensive role. White's knight is in-
deed worth a rook and, combined
with the action of his bishop on the
long diagonal, won the game for
him as follows: 1 h5 'ilVd7 2 h6 g6
3 d4! Strangely enough, having
used the doubled pawns to acquire
the better position, Larsen now
eliminates them to open up lines
onto the enemy king whose position
he has further weakened by h6.
3 ... exd4 4 .ixd4 e5 5 .ib2 b5 6
'it>al ~b8 7 J:!d5 tDe7 8 l:td3 ~e6 9
~hdl Itb6 10 tDg5 'iVc8 11 f4! tDc6
12 ~g2! tDe7 13 fxe5 .ic5 14 lId7
.ixe3 15 l:i:xe7 .ixg5 16 llg7+ Wh8
17 e6! 1-0.
A beginner can readily see that a
pawn is weak but finds it difficult to
understand the concept of weak
squares. Pawns are inevitably
linked to squares more than pieces
are, because one of their main tasks
is to guard important squares against
occupation by enemy pieces. The
very nature of isolated/doubled
pawns means that the square in front
of them (the 'blockading square') is
an ideal post for enemy pieces
which are thus in some respects
shielded from danger. In fact, it is
often worthwhile to sacrifice a pawn
to bring about doubled pawns with
their attendant weak squares and
self-blocking tendencies, as Capa-
blanca shows us in the next
position:
Ed. Lasker v Capablanca
Lake Hopatcong 1926
By playing 1...e3! Black uses his
own weak pawn as a fighting
weapon to cause disruption in the
enemy ranks. As the subsequent
play shows, Black has no immediate
tactics arising from this move but is
aiming for long-term positional ad-
vantages. His judgement was vindi-
cated after 2 fxe3 The tempting 2
.ixb7 exd2+ 3 tDxd2 fails to
3... .ie6! 4 ~a4+ lZ'lbd7 5 .ixa8
'iYxa8 with two minor pieces for the
rook. 2... .ic6! 3 0-0 .ixg2 4 'it>xg2
.ie7 5 tDc3 0-0 6 tDf3 lZ'lbd7 7 e4
I:tc8 8 ~5 a6! with an excellent po-
sition. If now 9 'il¥xb7 then 9... tDc5
10 ~4 tDcxe4 11 ~3 tDxc3 12
bxc3 tDe4 l3 .ib2 .if6 14 ~ac 1
~a5 is the sort of pressure that
Black can build up. In the game,
Lasker played 9 ~f5 and stood
worse after 9 .. Jlc5 10 'iWf4 ':c4 11
.ie3 .ic5! with Black controlling
the central squares.
It was the memory of this game
that prompted me to try out the same
positional sacrifice after 1 e4 d6 2
d4 tDf6 3 tDc3 g6 4 .ie3 .ig7 5
~d2 c6 6 tDf3 tDbd7 7 e5!? Appar-
ently a new move but it has been
seen in certain similar lines of the
King's Indian Defence. 7... dxe5 8
dxe5 tDg4 9 e6!? fxe6

J. Littlewood v Shabanov
Gladenbach 1999
The positional aspect is even
more in evidence here, because after
10 ttJg5 ttJde5 11 ~xd8+ 'it>xd8 12
.lid4! We8 13 ~dl iLf6 14 h3! ttJh6
15 ttJce4 ttJf5 16 iLc3 ttJg7 17
tbxf6+ exf6 18 ttJe4 ttJd7 19 ttJxf6+
tbxf6 20 iLxf6 <ot>f7 21 iLe5 I:te8 22
g4!, although I had recovered my
pawn, it was the resulting positional
pressure that eventually gained me a
hard-earned point from this
position:
J. Littlewood v Shabanov (cont.)
Clearly, there is no forced win
from here. However, Black's weak
dark squares, awkwardly placed
king and difficulty in developing his
queens ide, in conjunction with my
two bishops and the useful 'd' file
The Pawns 113
guarantee that it is Black who has
the problems, all of which stemmed
from the disruption engendered by 9
e6!?
Yet, despite the gloomy picture we
have painted so far, there are times
when doubled pawns can be strong
or at least have compensatory fac-
tors. For example, it is well known
that in the Giuoco Piano opening,
after the moves 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 tbc6 3
iLc4 iLc5 4 tbc3 tbf6 5 d3 d6 6 iLe3
it.,xe3 (better 6 ... it.,b6 or 6 ... 0-0) 7
fxe3, White's doubled pawns are a
source of strength. There are two
main reasons for this: the 'f file is
extremely useful for attacking pur-
poses and the d4 and f4 squares are
no longer available as posts for en-
emy pieces. However, it is interest-
ing to note that, if ever White wishes
to mobilize his central pawn mass by
playing d4, his pawn set-up immedi-
ately becomes weaker. Consider
also the following position:
Capablanca v Em. Lasker
New York 1924
After 1 it.,xf6 Lasker played
1...gxf6!? producing an interesting
unbalanced game with chances for
both sides. On the one hand, this
pawn controls the vital e5 square and
114 The Pawns
Black has the 'g' file at his disposal
whilst, on the other hand, he can
now hardly consider playing ... e5
without creating serious weaknesses
in the pawn mass. Play continued:
2 ltJh4 <;t>h8! 3 f4! l:[g8 4 1If3 .ltd7
5 l:lh3 .te8! with fighting chances
for both sides. The fact that Lasker
eventually lost the game was not
due to his bold and dynamic deci-
sion to recapture on f6 with the
pawn. The compact central pawn
mass was a strength rather than a
weakness, and White won only
when Lasker allowed these pawns to
be eliminated. . ~b7 11 .tf5! and White's beauti-
Throughout his career, Botvinnik
had a penchant for the doubled
pawn complex, showing uncanny
awareness of the dynamic possibili-
ties that off-set the potential weak-
nesses, yet even he in 1948, at the
peak of his powers, suffered a hu-
miliating loss to Reshevsky, because
he could not escape from the strait-
jacket that doubled pawns had
landed him in. Here, in contrast, is
his characteristic treatment of a po-
sition where he has the d5 square at
his disposal:
Botvinnik v Chekhover
Leningrad 1938
Taking advantage of his slight
lead in development, he brings
about a situation in which the poten-
tial weakness of his pawns becomes
a secondary factor, whereas the
opening of the 'd' file in conjunction
with the occupation of d5 are shown
to be the winning ideas. Play went:
1 .txf6! 'iYxf6 2 'iYe4! .txf3 2 ... .tc8
3 ltJd2 ltJc6 4 f4! is good for White.
3 .txf3 ltJc6 4 dxc5! dxc5 5 ~dl
nad8 6 ~d5! b6 Or 6 ... nxd5 7 cxd5
ltJe7 8 d6! 'iYxd6 9 ~xb7 and White
stays in command. 7 l:tfdl ltJa5 8 h3
lIxd5 9 ~xd5! But not 9 cxd5 ~d6!
blockading the d5 pawn, with a good
game for Black. 9 ..."iVe7 10 .tg4!
fully centralized pieces won the
game for him.
Even more original is Botvinnik's
play in our next position, again using
the idea of occupation of d5:
Botvinnik v Kan
Leningrad 1939
Annotating this game, Botvinnik
comments: "At first glance, White's
pawn structure is bad, so Black has
nothing to fear. This would be true
if all the pieces were removed from
the board, but in the present position
the 'hole' at d5 is more important
because, in order to control d5 fully,
White will have to play e4, when the

pawn on c3 will protect the vital d4
square." Let us see how he justifies
this assertion: 1 dxe5! dxe5 2 .td3
h6 Or 2 ... g6 3 ctJe4. 3 0-0 0-0 4 f4!
Just in time to prevent ... f5 followed
by ... e4. 4... ctJd7 5 f5! Logically
pursuing his plan. 5... ttJf6 6 ttJe4!
~d8 7 ctJxf6+ 'it'xf6 8 .te4 and this
bishop reached d5 where it domi-
nated the position and played a large
part in winning the game for White.
To conclude our discussion of
doubled pawns, we must see what
happens on the rare occasions they
are mobile and used as an attacking
weapon. In the play from our next
position, Black has to prevent White
blockading the pawns, when they
would lose most of their effective-
ness. The apparently simple se-·
quence of moves contains a deal of
art:
Robatsch v Larsen
Halle 1963
1... f5! 2 0-0 .tg7 3 'i'h5 e4! 4
.te2 0-0 5 c3 White has no time for
f4. 5... f4! 6 ~g5 b5 7 ctJd2 f5! In a
few powerful moves, Larsen has
turned a defensive position into an
The Pawns 115
attacking one by taking command of
the centre, opening the long diagonal
for his king's bishop and preparing
to use the open 'g' file. His doubled
pawns guard important squares and
... S is in the offing. A remarkable
transformation! 8 a4 'it>h8! 9 ttJb3
Or 9 S i.f6 10 Vi'xf4ctJxd5 11 't\Vg3
.th4 12 'iVh3ctJf4 and Black's queen
is lost. 9... f3! 10 gxf3 .txc3! and
Black won comfortably, his pieces
having reached maximum
efficiency.
Passed Pawns
So far we have been examining
the pawn principally as an adjunct,
albeit important, to the pieces, but
we must not forget that it can be a
power in its own right when it be-
comes passed and heads for promo-
tion. Of course, pawn promotion is
one of the main themes of end-
games, when there are fewer pieces
on the board and the king can play
its full part in supporting passed
pawns. However, just imagine the
difficulties there are in promoting a
pawn in a middle game situation!
To the author, this is one of the most
fascinating aspects of chess, as it of-
ten reads to that complete reversal of
values we discussed in Chapter 2.
Let us begin with an unforgettable
example which has always been my
favourite, despite the fact that its
provenance may be dubious. It is
the didactic importance I am con-
cerned about here, because even a
study composer would have been
proud to produce such a glorious
'composition' :
116 The Pawns
Ortueta v Sanz
Madrid 1933
At first sight, White seems to have
a safe enough position, despite the
fact that Black can answer lLIxb6
with .. .lhb2. It is Black's move
and most players would perhaps set-
tle for l...c3 2 bxc3 .!:txa2 3 lLIxb6
axb6 (not 3 ... .l:tb2 4 l:txa7 Itxb6 5
1:1:c7 when White stands better) 4
Itxb6 Ii.a3 with a probable draw.
However, the magic of promotion
drastically changes any casual posi-
tional assessment one might make.
The startling 'solution' is as fol-
lows: l..Jhb2!! 2 lLIxb2 c3 3
l:i:xb6! The placing of White's king
means that Black wins after 3 lLId3
c4+ 4 Wf1 cxd3 5 ~e 1 c2 6 'it>d2
~e3+. 3 ... c4!! Threatening 4 ... c2. 4
l:i:b4! as! S a:xc4 cxb2 0-1. White
cannot stop the pawn!
Such situations are not as rare as
the reader may imagine, even
though they are hardly everyday oc-
currences. Whenever a pawn man-
ages to reach the sixth or seventh
rank, the possibility of promotion is
in the air, with sacrifices often re-
quired to achieve this.
Look at our next position: In view
of the White queen's attack on
Black's queen's rook, he can play ...
Csom v Ribli
Hungary 1970
1 ~e7! ~fS Or l...:txe7 2 dxe7!
ir'e8 3 'iVxa8! 'iVxa8 4 I'td8+ win-
ning. 2 d7! 1-0. There is nothing
Black can do, as 2 ... .l::!.ed8 fails to 3
~xa8! :rxa8 4 d8=~+ l:.xd8 5
Itxd8+ ~f8 6 1:tee8 winning easily.
To a master, this is almost standard
procedure which we have already
seen linked with deflection, over-
loading and back-rank mate themes,
although clever play is often needed
to exploit a promotion possibility.
Consider, for example, Spassky's
delightful play in the next position
against a redoubtable defensive
player:
Spassky v Petrosian
World Championship Match 1969
The first move 1 .!:tc8! is obvious
enough (l...~xd4 2 :'xd8 l:txd8 3

~e8+) but the threats it creates are
much more subtle. For instance, if
Black plays l...b4 then 2 l:le8!
'ifxd4 (relying on the back-rank
mate on dl after 3 ~cxd8??) 3
~xf8+ ~xf8 4 .l:ixf8+ 'it>xf8 when
the deflection S 'iVcS+! 'iYxcs 6
d8=iV mate gets there first. Petro-
sian defended with l...lZlb7 giving
his d8 rook three defenders. After 2
ttJc6! ttJd6 he was hoping for 3
lhd8 ~xd8 4 ttJxd8 tDxfS S ~e8+
Wh7 6 ttJxfl ~d4! 7 d8=~ ~al+
mating, a nasty trap which Spassky
avoided by playing 3 ttJxd8! ttJxf5
Or 3 ... lhd8 4 ~e8+ mating. 4 ttJc6!
1-0. There is no defence to the
threats of S lIxf8+ Wxf8 6 Ite8 mate
or the simple win of the queen after
4 ... tDd6 S l:!xf8+ Wxf8 6 d8='fW+.
This is a classic example of what
Nimzovich called the removal of the
'blockader' i.e. in this case, the rook
on d8 which had to capitulate in the
end, despite its three-fold guard. In
fact, Nimzovich constantly referred
(in a quaint English translation!) to
the pawn's 'lust to expand' and the
need for the defence to 'restrain' or
'blockade' it. Here is a final com-
plex illustration of a pawn's irre-
sistible urge to advance against all
odds:
Vasyukov v Uhlmann
Berlin 1962
ThePawns 117
The pOSItion screams out for 1
ttJxd5! exd5 2 e6 releasing the
power of most of White's pieces and
creating a passed pawn on the sev-
enth rank after 2 .. :iVd8 3 exf7+!
Wh8 3 ... Wxfl fails to 4 ~e6+ 'it>f8 S
ttJgS! ~xgS 6 ~d6+ ttJe7 7 ~xdS
followed by mate. 4 ttJe5 ttJcxe5 5
~xe5+! ~f6 Or S... ttJxeS 6 ~xeS+
~f6 7 ~xf6+ 'iVxf6 8 I:te8+ mating.
6 'ife8+ ttJf8
Vasyukov v Uhlmann (cont.)
White's strong pawns on fl and h6
tie down Black's pieces, a fact which
is now exploited by 7 i.e5! ~b6
The threat was 8 'iVxf8+ ~xf8 9
~xf6 mate. 8 ~xd5! ~c8 9 ~e6!
~xe5 10 ~xc8 ~d6 11 ~xa6l:!.xa6
12 bxa4 lIa7 13 ~e6! ~c7 14 ~ael
c4 15 l:txd6! 'iVxd6 16 kre6! 1-0.
After 16 .. .'iVcs 17 d4 the last guard
is removed from Black's knight. Al-
though the pawn never queened
here, it made White's queen invul-
nerable on e8 and played a vital part
in a most unusual mating attack dur-
ing which the Black pieces were cu-
riously helpless. Wonderful play by
a splendid tactician!
Now, over to you:
118 The Pawns

TEST 7.1 Madsen v Napolitano TEST 7.4 Hennings v Barczay

Stockholm 1953 Sarajevo 1969
Black to play and win Black to play and win

TEST 7.2 Dommes v Federov TEST 7.5 Roth v Baumgartner

Moscow 1984 Berne 1959
White to play and win Black to play and win

TEST 7.3 A N Other v Richter TEST 7.6 Tarjan v Ljubojevic

Berlin 1931 Dresden 1969
Black to play and win Black to play and win
 The Pawns 119

Hints for Beginners

* The pawn's importance far out-

weighs its nominal value, as it plays
a vital part in guarding pieces and
squares and in opening up lines.
* Isolated, hanging, backward and
doubled pawns must all be viewed as
static weaknesses but often have
compensatory dynamic features that
cannot be ignored.
TEST 7. 7 Stein v Bilek * Generalisations about such weak-
Moscow 1967 nesses are in fact dangerous. Each
White to play and win individual set-up requires a concrete
assessment which only experience
will bring. Careful study of the ex-
amples in the text will give the
reader some idea of the issues
involved.
* There is a subtle relationship be-
tween pawns and pieces. The pawn
structure strongly influences plans of
action, a point that cannot be
overstressed.
* The possibility of pawn promo-
tion often brings about a drastic re-
versal in values. Sacrifices abound
TEST 7. 8 Hort v Keres in such situations.
Oberhausen 1961
Black to play and win
 8 Elements of Strategy

W e hope that much

of the material of
the preceding
chapters has al-
ready provided
the reader with a
the central files. Ever since the days
of Morphy and Anderssen, the time
factor has been readily understood
by most players, who are presented
with some wonderful examples of
the drastic punishment meted out to
number of useful strategic ideas those players who neglect it. Just for
which he can apply to his own one moment, let us return to the
games. How to exploit a centralized Romantic Era of the 19'h century and
knight, avoid a 'bad' bishop, attack see what happens to a greedy player
pawn weaknesses, choose the wing who neglects his development:
on which to castle, plan his game
around the pawn structure, and so Sch1etser v Chigorin
on. These are all intrinsic aspects of St. Petersburg 1878
the strengths and weaknesses of
pieces and pawns, which form the 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 f5?! The King's
basis of what we can do tactically Gambit Reversed! 3 exf5 Better 3
and strategically. However, so far ttJxe5 'iVf6 4 d4 d6 5 ttJc4 with ex-
we have (deliberately!) stressed the cellent play for White. 3 ... ttJc6 4
tactical elements in positions, rather ~b5 ~c5?! 4 ... e4 is better. 5 ~xc6
than discuss the underlying strategy, dxc6 6 ttJxe5 ~xf5 7 'iWh5+? Here
so it is now time to redress the bal- comes the greed; 7 0-0 is fine for
ance by examining some of the most White. 7... g6 8 ttJxg6 hxg6 9 'ii'xh8
important elements of positional ~e7+
play.
Time
As beginners, we are taught that
recognition of the value of time is
an essential part of successful open-
ing play. Great emphasis is placed
on rapid development of our pieces,
not moving a piece twice, making as
few pawn moves as possible and
castling speedily in order to make
the king safe and bring our rooks to
 Elements of Strategy 121

With the exception of his queen,

all White's pieces are on their
original square, his d2 pawn has not
yet moved and his king 'must move
out of check. What a shocking
position! If now 10 <;t>n iLxc2! 11
~c3 (or 11 ~xg8+ 'it'd7 12 ~c4
Ite8! wins) 1L~e4 12 d4 iLxd4 13
'ti'd2 i.xbl wins, so White opts for
10 <;t>dl (threatening l:tel), only to
find that 10 ... SLxf2! 11 ~xg8+ Or
11 h3 0-0-0 threatening both .. J:te8
and ... i.d4. 11 ... <;t>d7 12 ~c4 ~e8
leaves him with nothing but 13 d4
i.g4+ 14 Wd2 ~e3 mate or 0-1.
Before the readers fling up their
arms in horror at the dreadful way
that White played here, I readily
admit that present-day errors are in
no way as glaring as these.
However, despite all the teachings
of Steinitz and Tarrasch, players
persist in providing us with short
brilliancies resulting from neglect of
the time factor!
Here are some examples:
Boros v Lilienthal Budapest
1933. After the moves 1 e4 e5 2
liJc3 liJf6 3 f4 d5 4 fxe5 liJxe4 5
VWf3 liJc6, White casually played 6
liJxe4 hoping to win a pawn but ig-
noring the time factor. Lilienthal
continued: 6 ... ttJd4! 7 'it'f4 dxe4
Not 7 ... ttJxc2+ 8 Wdl ttJxal, falling
into the same error by losing time
and allowing 9 ttJgS with the better
game. 8 i.c4 .1i.f5! Defending and
attacking at the same time.
Boros v Lilienthal
If now 9 'it>dl, Black could pro-
duce a striking series of threats with
gain of time by 9 ... gS! 10 ~g3 e3!
11 d3 bS 12 i.b3 cS! 13 SLxe3 c4
winning, so White continued: 9 c3,
expecting to gain time himself, but
Black now finished the game with
9... g5! 10 SLxf7+ Or 10 ~n ttJc2+
11 <;t>e2 SLg4+ winning; or 10 ~f2
e3! 11 dxe3 ttJc2+ 12 'it'e2 ~d7 13
l:tbl 0-0-0 winning. lO ... Wxf7 11
'iWf2 e3 12 'iWfl exd2+ 13 'it'dl If 13
SLxd2 liJc2+ 14 'it>dl ttJe3+ winning
the queen. 13 ... dxc1=~+ 14 Wxc1
g4! 0-1. After 14 ~f4 hS the queen
is lost. A speedy refutation of a
seemingly slight error.
The key to such attacks is to con-
tinue to gain time with each threat or
developing move, so that your oppo-
nent has no opportunity to catch up
in development himself. Such play
is by no means as easy as it looks.
Consider, for example, our next
game: Ravinsky v Kotov Moscow
1944, after the moves 1 d4 d5 2 c4
e6 3 g3 dxc4 4 ~a4+ SLd7 5 ~xc4
c5 6 i.g2 i.c6 7 liJf3 ttJd7 8 0-0
ttJgf6 9 ttJc3
122 Elements of Strategy
From a purely quantitive point of
view, White is ahead in develop-
ment, but his queen is awkwardly
placed, a factor which Black clever-
ly exploits in the subsequent play.
Admittedly, White makes an error
in a difficult position, but the finish
is a most instructive example of
how to develop with gain of time:
9... b5! 10 ~d3 He loses a piece
after 10 lLlxb5 lLlb6! 11 'iWb3 c4.
10.. :i'Vb6 11 e4? Best was 11 lLle5.
11 ... cxd4! 12 'iYxd4 If 12 lLlxd4
lLle5 13 'it'd 1 l:td8 14 iLe3 iLc5, all
with gain of time, gives Black a
winning position. 12 ... iLc5 13 'it'd3
b4 14 e5 lLlg4 15 lLla4 iLxf2+ 16
<;1i>hl 'iVb5! 17 'iWd2 iLxf3 and Black
won quickly.
It is rare for a grandmaster to
ignore the time factor, although our
next example shows Geller, no
materialist, suffering because he
thought he had time to capture a
centre pawn. Perhaps one explan-
ation is that because defensive
technique has improved so much,
there is always a player who thinks
he has found an exception to the
rule. "If Korchnoi can do it, so can
I", is facile rationalization that can
prove fatal, as Bronstein now
shows:
Bronstein v Geller Goteborg
1955. 1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3lLlc6 3 iLb5 g6
4 c3 iLg7 5 d4 ~b6 6 a4 cxd4 7
O-O! a6 8 iLxc6 'it'xc6 Black should
have settled for 8... dxc6 9 lLlxd4
lLlf6. 9 cxd4 'it'xe4? Too risky, in
view of White's superior develop-
ment; perhaps Geller did not foresee
the difficulties he would experience
in trying to develop his kingside
pieces in the face of Bronstein's
subtle play. 10 lLlc3 'iVf5 11 ~el d5
Or ll...d6 12 iLg5!. 12 a5! and we
arrive at the critical position:
Bronstein v Geller
Goteborg 1955
The subtle point of White's last
move, which seems to lose time, is
that Black's natural developing
move 12 ... lLlf6 can now be met by
13 lle5! 'Vi'd7 14 lLla4! ~d8 15 lLlb6
~b8 16 i.f4 winning; or here
15 ... ~a7 16 iLf4 0-0 17 ~cl! iLg4
18 h3 iLxf3 19 'iVxf3 e6 20 'iVa3!
and Black is helpless. In view of
this, Geller continued 12...i.d7 13
'it'b3 lLlf6 Hoping for 14 'iYxb7 O-O!.
14 lIe5 ~d3 and now lost his queen
to 15 lixe7+! <;1i>xe7 16 lLlxd5+ fol-
lowed by 17 'iVxd3. It is important
to note how accurately White had to
play to stop Geller escaping. Posi-
tions involving time are often like
this; the advantage can so easily slip

away and one tempo can mean the
difference between a win and a loss.
Unfortunately, there is no rule of
thumb we can offer the beginner in
such situations, as so much depends
on intuition, based on experience,
which helps us sense the fine bal-
ance that exists between time and
material. In other words, if Geller
can take a wrong view, so can we
all.
Some theoreticians have advised
beginners to count tempi for pieces
developed, but I feel that this is
more of a hindrance than a help. As
we saw in the Ravinsky v Kotov po-
sition, it is often the quality of de-
velopment, rather than the quantity,
that matters, and a concrete assess-
ment of specific tactical possibilities·
is more relevant than a formalistic
count of tempi. For instance, I have
seen many positions where a
queen's rook, queen's bishop or
queen, still on their original squares,
are ready for action and can even
win the game by the very first move
they make! What is the relevance of
tempi and development in such
contexts?
Matters are complicated by the
fact that a time advantage can easily
be overrated, especially by players
who are accustomed to open games.
The latter often result from gambit
openings, where piece play is exclu-
sively the order of the day, with
files ready to be occupied by rooks,
and an exposed king open to an im-
mediate frontal attack. I myself re-
member being completely baffled,
as a youngster, by closed or semi-
closed positions where the time fac-
tor looms less large, because there
are fewer points of attack or open
lines for our developed pieces to
Elements of Strategy 123
exert their full power. In fact, re-
cently I came across a most bizarre
Basman game which almost appears
to confound the whole concept of
time in chess, although in this in-
stance the psychological aspect
seems paramount! Look at this posi-
tion, arising after the moves 1 ttJf3
b6 2 g3 .lib7 3 .lig2 e6 4 0-0 d5 5
c4 ttJf6 6 d4 .lie7 7 ttJc3 0-0 8 ttJe5
h6 9 .lif4 a6 10 l:i.c1 ~a7 11 cxd5
exd512~3:
Andersson v Basman
Hastings 1973/1974
After 12 moves, Basman has a dif-
ficult position, whereas White's pur-
poseful development, posting a
knight on e5, attacking the d5 pawn
and creating an open file allowing
him to exert pressure on the c7
pawn, seems to be leading towards a
typical positional win a la An-
dersson. Annotating this game,
Nigel Short wrote in the Sunday
Telegraph: "Realizing something is
amiss, Mike resorts to unusual psy-
chological provocation." In fact,
Basman now plays the next 12
moves as follows: ... .lia8 ...<;t>h7 2
c;t>g8 ... c;t>h7 ... 'it>g8 ... .lib7 ... .lia8
... .lib7 ... .lia8 ...'iVd6 (hurrah!)
...iVd8 (boo!) ... .lib7 bringing about
the same Black position as 12 moves
124 Elements of Strategy

before! As for Andersson, he has piece sacrifice, which may give the
meanwhile brought his king's rook reader some idea of this delicate bal-
to d2, his pawns to a3, e3, f5, g4 ance. White's time advantage per-
and h3, his king to h2 and his sists until the very last move, but my
queen's bishop back to f4 after re- intuition tells me that Black could
treating to g3. White now plays 24 have improved somewhere along the
~gl allowing the brilliant resource line:
(all right, I'm being sarcastic ... )
Karlsson v Jansson Sweden
24 ... c6!!? and Basman managed to
1971: 1 e4 e5 2 ctJf3 ctJc6 3 i.b5 f5
win 30 moves later. As Short
4 d4!? fxe4 5 ctJxe5 ctJxe5 6 dxe5 c6
stated: "It becomes an embarrass-
A trap into which I once fell, meekly
ment to make a draw against some-
losing an important pawn after 7
one who has deliberately played in
i.a4? ~a5+ and 8 .. :~xe5, whereas
so ridiculous a fashion."
Karlsson has deliberately opted for
this line and a sacrifice of his own. 7
Has this extraordinary game any
tDc3! cxb5 8 tDxe4 d5 9 exd6 tDf6
relevance to our discussion of the
10 O-O! The logic of the position de-
time factor? Yes indeed. Setting
mands further sacrifice. 10 ... tDxe4
aside the psychological aspects, on
11 'iVh5+ g6 12 ~e5+ ~f7 13 ~xh8
move 12 Basman suddenly decided
'iVxd6 Compare this position with
that time (i.e. speed of development)
the earlier Chi gorin massacre!. 14
was no longer the important issue.
'iVxh7+ i.g7 15 i.h6 ~f8! The al-
What he now wanted to know was ternative 15 ... ~f6 16 .a:fel tDg5 17
White's intended plan. Was An-
IIe7+! Wxe7 18 i.xg5 'i¥xg5 19
dersson going to double rooks on
'iYxg7+ should win for White. 16
the 'c' file and aim for an attack on
l:tadl giving us our next diagram:
the queenside? Was he going to
play for a prophylactic game by
l:[fdl, with the intention of stifling
any Black counter-play? Or was he
going to launch an attack on the
kings ide, which would inevitably
entail moving his major pieces away
from the queenside? One thing is
certain: it is extremely difficult for
him to combine all of these plans,
and yet he must surely do some-
thing, as long as Basman sits there
doing nothing! He could of course
offer a draw (which Mike might Karlsson v Jansson
refuse!) or play for a humiliating Sweden 1971
draw by repetition ...
In recapturing material, White has
Even when the position calls for lost some of his time advantage, and
piece play and rapid development, it at this stage in a game a reaction of-
can be very difficult to balance time ten takes place, as the defence
against material. Here is an interest- catches up in development. White
ing and unusual game, involving a has rook and two pawns for bishop

and knight, but 16 ... Ae6 would set
more problems than the game con-
tinuation, although White has good
chances and may even decide to
keep queens on the board. 16 ... ttJf6
17 ~xg7+ ~xg7 18 i.xg7 'it'xg7 19
l:td8! b6 20 .i::tfdl! The point.
20 ... 'it'f7 If 20 ... Ab7 then 21 ~8d7+
wins both pieces back, with a win-
ning endgame. 21 f3! rj;;e7 22 g4 g5
23 h4! gxh4 24 g5 Just in time to
prevent ... i.b7. 24 ... ttJe8 25 f4 ttJc7
26 g6 Ae6 At last, but too late. 27
~xa8 ttJxa8 28 !Iel! 'it>d7 Or
28 ... 'it>f6 29 g7 Afl 30 ne8! win-
ning. 29 f5 Axf5 30 g7 Ah7 31 .l:i.n
ttJc7 32l:i:f8 1-0.
Let us finish this section with two
test positions:
TEST 8.1 Smyslov v Kottnauer
Groningen 1946
If White were to play routine de-
veloping moves such as Ag5, fol-
lowed by doubling rooks on the 'd'
file, his time advantage would soon
disappear, as Black's central squares
are well guarded. Instead, Smyslov
plans to exploit the weakness of
Black's queenside by means of di-
rect threats, thus giving Black no
time to consolidate by ... Ae7 and
... 0-0. Only after tying Black down
to defence does he complete the
Elements of Strategy 125
development of his pieces, when
everything works to perfection. Play
proceeded: 1 a4! bxa4 1... b4 only
apparently gains time, as 2 ttJa2 a5 3
ttJb5 wins easily. 2 ttJxa4 i.b7 After
2 ... i.e7 3 i.d2! gives White a win-
ning queens ide attack. and now over
to you to work out the finish.
Our final position comes from a
game Shirov v J. Polgar Tilburg
1996, which went: 1 e4 c5 2 ttJf3 d6
3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4 ttJf6 5 ttJc3 a6 6
Ae2 e6 7 0-0 Ae7 8 f4 0-0 9 Ae3
~c7 10 g4! lie8 11 f5!? Af8?
l1...h6!. 12 g5 ttJfd7 13 ttJxe6! fxe6
14 Ah5! g6 15 fxg6 !:te7 16 ttJd5!
exd5 17 'iVxd5+ 'it>h8 18 gxh7 llxh7
19 Ag6!? 19 g6! is even better.
19 ... Ag7 20 Axh7 ~d8
TEST 8.2 Shirov v J. Polgar
Tilburg 1996
White to play and win
Alexei Shirov, surely the greatest
attacking player since Mikhail Tal,
has launched an aggressive attack on
Black's king, based on the rapid ad-
vance of his kings ide pawns and re-
lying on the fact that time is on his
side. He now played 21 Af5 and
won an attractive game, but in his
annotations he points out an alterna-
tive move which leads to a forced
win. Find this win!
126 Elements of Strategy
Space
One of the main advantages of
our next major element, space, is
that, the more you have, the less
there is available to your opponent!
His position becomes cramped, the
mobility of his pieces is restricted
and they begin to interfere with each
other's action. The psychological
effect can be akin to claustrophobia,
as he feels the need to break out of
this situation, with weak moves if
need be. Your pieces, on the other
hand, rejoice in open lines and flexi-
bility, being able to switch wings
effortlessly and to cooperate more
successfully. Your only real prob-
lem is that of an army which ad-
vances too quickly with insufficient
support from the rear, leaving vul-
nerable gaps in its wake or else be-
ing smashed where it stands, an
important issue we shall deal with
shortly, in our discussion of the
centre.
Let us examine some games
which illustrate the ways a space
advantage can be exploited, begin-
ning with a position from one of
Lilienthal's best games in which he
outplayed an opponent who was to
become World Champion eight
years later:
Lilienthal v Botvinnik
Moscow 1940
It only takes a glance to realize
that Black is completely tied up. His
knight has been driven to the edge of
the board where it is pinned down to
the defence of his c7 pawn. In stark
contrast, White's knight reigns su-
preme on f4, a post made secure by
the restraining advance of his pawn
to h5 and by the fact that it block-
ades the f5 pawn which shields it
from a frontal attack. The pawn on
d5 is the basis of White's space ad-
vantage, cramping the whole of
Black's game and eyeing the 'holes'
on c6 and e6, whilst the useful b4
pawn supports the pressure of his
doubled rooks down the 'c' file.
All this is very fine, but how does
White utilize this undoubted advan-
tage? 1 e4 is by no means a bad
move, but would give Black's pieces
more air, and 1 e3 followed by 2
sHI could be answered by ... b5.
Lilienthal's solution is to use his
greater mobility to produce more
threats which cannot be countered
by Black's cramped pieces. Play
continued: 1 .a:e3! <>t>h7 Black dare
not play I...~e8 2 ~xe8+ 'iVxe8 3
'tWd3 b5 4 "iVd4 'iYb8 5 .lth3! .ltc8 6
e4 fxe4 7 .ltxc8 "iVxc8 8 Wkxe4,
threatening 9 tbg6 'iVa8 10 ~c6!
winning. Note how White can take
his time when he has so strong a
positional bind. 2 lIec3 ~b8 3 ~d3
!:ta8 4 tbg6! !txg6 Black has no
choice, because 4 ... .ltc8 5 l:te7 'iVg8
6 'ifb5 .ltb7 7 l:tce3! would trium-
phantly conclude White's plan. S
hxg6+ Wxg6 6 lIe6+! c;t>h7 7 g4 eS 8
bS tbe7 9 gxfS tbxbS 10 f6+ 'it'g8
11 ne4! l:te8 12 l1g4 gS 13 !:txe8+
i.xe8 14 .a:e4 <>t>f8 IS l:te7 iVg6 16
i.e4 ~hS Or 16 ... ~xf6 17 Itxe8+
Wxe8 18 iVxb5+. 17 .ltf3 "iVg6 18
l:txe8+! 1-0. After 18 ... iVxe8 19
'tWh7 'it'D 20 'iVxh6+ <>t>g8 21 .lth5,
Black loses at least his queen.

It is of course unusual for a player
to have so many positional advan-
tages that he can dominate the board
in this way without fearing counter-
play, but it is the classic method of
establishing a 'zugzwang' position.
The opponent's pieces are tied
down by threats, then space is grad-
ually taken from them until there is
no decent move left. So-called
'positional' games are characterized
by this emphasis on 'restriction and
control of enemy pieces, although it
forms a part of most games.
Space advantage does not come of
its own accord. It has to be worked
at from the opening stages, as in the
following game in which both sides
gain space on opposite wings,
whilst trying to neutralize the oppo-
nent's pressure. The result is a fas-
cinating, fluctuating struggle which
is eventually lost by the player
whose king becomes fatally
exposed:
Miles v P. Littlewood England
1984: 1 c4 e5 2 CDc3 CDf6 3 CDf3
CDc6 4 d3 d6 5 g3 g6 6 i.g2 i.g7 7
0-0 0-0 8 ~bl as 9 a3 l:le8 10 i.g5
h6 11 i.xf6 ~xf6 12 b4 axb4 13
axb4 ~d8 14 b5 CDe7 15 'ifb3 i.e6
16 ttJd2 ~b8 17 l:tal c6 18l::ta7
Over the years, results from this
type of position have strongly fa-
voured White, because he has
Elements of Strategy 127
already gained space on the queen-
side, thus enhancing the power of his
bishop on g2. He is prepared to de-
fend against a rash advance of
Black's 'f and 'g' pawns, whilst
prosecuting his own 'positional' at-
tack. The exchange of his dark-
squared bishop for Black's king's
knight formed part of this light-
square strategy, but it has also meant
that, if ever Black develops a king-
side attack, the dark squares around
White's king will be vulnerable. In
addition, because Black has main-
tained a flexibility of action on the
kings ide, he can utilize his bishop on
g7 to support a central advance
which is more akin to White's play
in the Closed Sicilian a la Smyslov
or Spassky. We are in for an excit-
ing space conflict! Play continued:
18 ... d5! 19 lic1 h5! The correct way
to attack whilst retaining the options
for piece play on f5, f6, g4 and h6.
20 't\Va2 Guarding his knight on d2
and removing his queen from the in-
fluence of Black's queen's rook, so
that bxc6 can be played. 20 ... h4 21
bxc6 bxc6 22 CDf3 h3! A bold deci-
sion that many players would shy
away from, because Black immedi-
ately loses the option of weakening
White's kings ide pawns and is
clearly banking on a sacrificial at-
tack by pieces. 23 i.hl CDf5 24 ttJd2
i.h6 25 .l:1dl
128 Elements of Strategy

The contrast with the previous
diagram is significant: by seizing
the centre, advancing his pawn to h3
and posting his knight on f5 and
king's bishop on h6, Black has not
only nullified White's space advan-
tage but has taken over control of
key points in the enemy camp. The
awaited sacrifice 25 ... liJe3!! now
completes the plan begun 7 moves
ago, and the game finished: 26 fxe3
i.xe3+ 27 'it>n 'iVf6+ 28 i.f3 Plan-
ning to give back his piece on e4 af-
ter 28 ... e4, but Paul has catered for
this possibility. 28 ... i.d4! 29 1:[a3
i.xc3 30 l:txc3 e4 31 'iVc2 exf3 32
liJxf3 d4! 33 l:!.a3 i.g4 34 ~a2 ~e3
35 'it>gl .l::i.be8 36 Itn i.xf3 37 exf3
Itxf3 38 'iVdl ktee3! 39 IIaf2 Itxf2
40 lhf2 'iike6 41 'it>n c5 42 'iVd2
~b6 43 'ilVdl ~b4! 44 :td2 iVb7!
45 ~gl ~xd3! 0-1. A game-plan
well worth careful study and exe-
cuted beautifully.
As we have seen, space is usually
gained by a pawn advance of some
sort, because pawns are best suited
for tying down enemy pawns and
pieces and controlling vital squares.
Take the following unpretentious
looking position that is rapidly
transformed into an excellent illus-
tration of how pawns can be used in
this way: .
Within ten moves, White takes
command of the whole board, while
Black looks on helplessly, seemingly
unaware of what is happening to him
and why. White's two bishops play
no small part in allowing his pawns
to advance so dramatically, as fol-
lows: 1 c4 c6 2 c5 i.c7 3 i.g2 liJg4
4 liJc3! As the intention is to cramp
Black's pieces, it is sound strategy
not to exchange any. 4... liJg6 5 .l::i.ael
liJf6 6 lle2 'it>h8 7 f3! h5? It is un-
wise to help your opponent to open
lines which will be more useful to
him than you. 811ef2! h4 9 f4! hxg3
10 hxg3 exf4 11 gxf4 ~d7 12 f5!
liJh4 13 e5 liJh7 14 i.e4! ~g8 15
IIh2 1-0. Black's game is hopeless,
and after 15 ... g5 White can choose
his winning method at leisure.
When the defence plays correctly
by refusing to open lines for our at-
tack, we can still use our space ad-
vantage in an instructive way.
Because it is then easier to build up
superior force in a given sector, sac-
rifices are normally possible, fol-
lowed up by the infiltration of our
remaining pieces. The defence, on
the contrary, being necessarily
cramped, cannot bring up sufficient
reserves. Here is a typical example:

~ ~~ fse~
~1~~
~ ~~ ~~1~~1
~~r ~~
1%~·~r.iCiJf;~···~.
~% ~~j'~'% ~
~~~Jr~~
0$, .... ·'~~~~M~~~~
~ ~~ ~:c:W:J~~
'. . ·'~¥Iff.ltr· . 'f.~
~ ~ ~§W
Planinc v Mestrovic Lorenz v Espig
Cacak 1970 East Germany 1970
 Elements of Strategy 129

Having committed the bulk of his

forces to the queens ide, Black is
simply in no position to resist the
sacrificial attack which White now
launches: 1 .ktxh6! gxh6 2 'iWd2
'1J.c7 3 1\Vxh6 J:tg7 The threat was 4
liJh5 followed by 5 g7.4liJh5! 'Wie7
5 liJg5! The point; now 6 liJf7 is
threatened, so the knight must be
captured, releasing the power of the
advanced pawns. 5 ... fxg5 6 hxg5
Jlh7 Despair, but White was threat-
ening, among other things, 7 ~h2 Meloch v Olszewski
followed by 8 liJf6+ and 9 1\Vh8 Correspondence 1970
mate. 7 gxh7+ 1-0. After 7 .. .'~xh7
8 liJf6+ I!xf6 9 gxf6+ 'it>h8 10 11 hle3! But not 11 f4 ~6+ 12
1\Vg7+ iVxg7 11 fxg7+ 'it>g8 12 f6! ~hl h5! 13 fxe5 i.g4! 14 iVb3 iVf2
Black's pieces cannot prevent the with advantage to Black. 11 ... g5! 12
fatal 13 f7+. ~h5 g4! 13 .ktxd3 ~g8 14 .kte2
I:tg6! 15 h4 'iVa5! Threatening
It is of course rare to obtain an ad- ... liJf3+. 16 'it>n l:th6 17 iVg5 f6 and
vanced pawn wedge in the centre, Black has justified his opening
unless our opponent has played very decision:
badly, but there are occasions when
a player can bring about what can
be called a temporary wedge. This
sometimes occurs in certain open-
ings when, for example, a pawn is
advanced into the heart of enemy
territory, temporarily gaining space
and dislocating communications.
We have here an unusual combina-
tion of the time and space elements
that must be exploited before our
wedge is removed. Consider the
position arising from the opening Meloch v Olszewski (cont.)
sequence 1 e4 e5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 .ktb5
liJd4 4 liJxd4 exd4 5 0-0 c6 6 .ktc4 If you are interested, here is how
liJf6 7 1::i.el d6 8 c3 8 d3 is safer. the game ended: 18 b4 ~d8 19
8... liJg49 h3liJe5 10 .ktn d3!? 'iVg8 ~xh4 20 'litgl 'i'e7! 21 .ktc4
Black's last move is clearly risky, liJxc4 22 'Wixc4 .kte6 23 iVfl iVf7 24
as the advanced pawn is too weak to g3 lth3 25 liJa3 0-0-0 26 liJc2 ~h5
resist capture for long. However, if 27 'iVg2 d5 28 liJd4 .ktf7 29 d3 dxe4
Black puts every effort into exploit- 30 dxe4 f5! 31 i.b2 fxe4 32 a4 :td6
ing his sudden gain in both time and 33 'litfl i.d5 34 kXxe4 :f6 35 c4
space, a fascinating and unusual .ktxc4+ 36 'litel ~h2 37 iVxh2 'it'xh2
struggle ensues: 0-1.
130 Elements of Strategy
Our next example is similar, but
this time it is a Black bishop on d3:
after the moves 1 e4 e5 2 ttJt3 ttJc6
3 .ltb5 a6 4 .lta4 d6 5 c3 f5 6 exf5
.ltxf5 7 0-0 .ltd3!? 8 .!:i.e1 .lte7 9
.!:!e3 e4 10 tiJe1 .ltg5 11 J:!.h3 ttJf6
we have the following position:
Krustkaln v Krumins
Correspondence 1970
Black gives up a pawn but again
has compensation in time and space
which proved sufficient after 12
tiJxd3 exd3 13 l:txd3 0-0 14 ~h3
tiJe4! 15 t3 ~f6! 16 .ltb3+ 'it>h8 17
d3.ltxc1 18 ~xc1 ttJd4! 19 ~e3 19
cxd4 loses both the rook and the
queen after 19 .. :ihd4+. 19 ... tiJf5 20
iVxe4 Or 20 'iVel ttJgS. 20 ...11ae8
21 tiJd2 lIxe4 22 tiJxe4 ~g6 23
'it>f2 d5 24 .ltxd5 'iVb6+ 0-1.
These are, of course, risky open-
ings that demand a high level of tac-
tical skill and may not suit
everyone's style of play. However,
examination of these and similar
sharp openings will increase the
reader's awareness of the fine bal-
ance that exists between space and
time on the one hand and material
on the other.
The Centre
In my opinion, this is perhaps the
most important element in strategy .
Theoreticians have argued long and
hard about various aspects of the
centre, mainly with regard to open-
ing systems, but they all agree that a
proper understanding of the centre is
essential at every stage of the game.
However, rather than enter into an
abstract discussion of their ideas, I
prefer to offer concrete examples
which illustrate concepts that can be
applied to the reader's own games
and, hopefully, remembered when
trying to understand other people's
games. Let us begin with an exam-
ple from Botvinnik:
Neikirch v Botvinnik
Leipzig Olympiad 1960
Black could play an immediate
... .ltb7 gaining time and controlling
the light squares in the centre, but he
realizes that this alone will not solve
his problems, because the eS pawn
exerts definite pressure on his posi-
tion. Nor does he wish to exchange
pawns, as this would give White's
bishop more scope, and 'chickening
out' with ... dS would block in his
own bishop and allow .lte3-d4

followed by a ready-made kings ide
attack. His solution is to attack the
centre at once with 1...f6! 2 exd6
etJxd6 3 .l:f.d3! etJf5! giving the
knight an excellent post from which
it can eye the centre and the king-
side. Seeing his central control slip-
ping away, White replies with the
powerful looking 4 l:ra4!? when
Black produces the cunning
4.. :~e8! (not 4 ... .Jtb7 S J::td7 l:tfd8?
6 ~ad4!! etJxd4 7 !Ixe7 which
White had planned for) tempting his
opponent to play 5 etJe4? S l:te4!
.Jtb7 6 JIel gives him chances of
holding the game.
Neikirch v Botvinnik (cont.)
Botvinnik now shows his class by
decentralizing White's queen's rook
and pursuing the theme of control-
ling the centre by a series of mag-
nificent moves, as follows: 5 ... b5! 6
l::ta5 6 .!:tal was essential. 6... .Jtb7 7
etJd6 7 etJcS? .Jtxg2+! 8 'it>xg2 'iVc6+
and 9 ... 'iVxcS. 7... etJxd6 8 ~xd6
lld8! Threatening 9 .. .'~c6! winning
immediately, or if now 9 l:txd8
.....xd8 10 ~el 'iVdS 11 ~e2 kId8 12
.Jte3 ~d1+ 13 ~xdl kIxd1+ 14
.Jtgl lId2 when White's rook looks
very foolish on as. 9 'iVd2 ktxd6 10
'iVxd6 'iVd8! 11 ~xe6+ kIf7 12 'iVel
Forced. 12 ... ~e7! 0-1. After 13
~d2 ~d7 it is all over.
Elements of Strategy 131
A moment's reflection should con-
vince the reader that the whole strat-
egy of the above play revolved
around the squares and files in the
centre. Any play on the wings by
either side was relevant solely in the
effect it had on the centre. Decen-
tralized pieces have a habit of being
excluded from the main theatre of
war, as we saw with White's rook on
as and now see again in our next ex-
ample, where a pllwn-hunting Alek-
hine succumbs in a surprisingly
short time:
Alekhine v Capablanca
St. Petersburg 1914
1...~e6! Not l...etJdS 2 ~c6
etJxe3+? 3 .llxe3 1::txe3?? 4 'iVxe8+
followed by mate. 2 'ii'xa7 etJd5 3
'it>f1 etJf4! 4 kId2 etJxg2! 5 'it>xg2
'iVg4+ 6 c;t>f1 6 'itthl ~gS! wins at
once. 6 .. :ifh3+ 7 'it>e2 lhe3+! 8
fxe3 'ii'xe3+ 9 'it>dl 'iVxel + with the
better ending for Black. Note how
the kingside attack flowed so easily
from Black's centrally posted pieces.
As a general rule, a strong centre
is a prerequisite for an attack on the
king, not only because one's pieces
can be transferred from or via the
centre, but also to prevent enemy
pieces using the centre for defence
or counter-attack. Consider the
132 Elements of Strategy
splendid attack sprung from our
next position:
Tartakower v Broadbent
London 1946
White's fianchettoed bishops,
along with his centralized queen and
knights, ensure him good central
control, since his 'd' and 'e' pawns
are well supported. Black, having
posted his pieces to prevent a cen-
tral advance, is somewhat cramped,
because space and strong centre
usually go hand in hand. However,
given time, he will apply more pres-
sure on d4 and c3 with ... b4 and
... ttJb5, or even the bold ... e5!?, so
Tartakower chooses this moment to
launch a remarkably fierce attack,
transferring his pieces speedily from
the centre to the kingside, while
Black desperately tries to manoeu-
vre in the limited room available
(see our earlier discussion on
space). After 1 f6! .ltxf6 2 l:[xf6!
exf6 3 ttJg4 dS! He must block the
a 1-h8 diagonal and defend along the
third rank. 4 ~h6 ttJe7 S kl:f1 ~d6,
Black has just managed to set up a
defence, but White has planned a
long combination which ends in
mate:
6 eS! ttJfS Or 6 ... fxe5 7 dxe5 Ite6
8 ttJf6+ lIxf6 9 exf6 ttJe6 10 ttJd4!
winning. 7 ~xfS! gxfS 8 ttJxf6+
~xf6 9 exf6 ttJe6 10 ttJf4 ~b7 11
.lta3! .ltb6 Or 11 ... b4 12 .ltxb4
~xb4 13 ttJxe6 winning. 12 .lte7!
1-0. Black is mated after 12 ... 'it>h8
13 ttJxe6 l::tg8 14 ttJf8! etc.
As mentioned above, the corollary
to this is that a strong centre for our
opponent can often provide the basis
of a successful defence against a
wing attack, as in this famous
example:
Keres v Smyslov
Zurich Candidates 1953
Desperately wanting to win this
game to have a chance of first place,
Keres has thrown everything into an
attack on the king. Given time, this
fine tactician might well have suc-
ceeded against a lesser player, but
Smyslov coolly defends by a
counter-attack in the centre, begin-
ning: 1. .. dxc4! Not the obvious
1...gxh5 2 ~xh5 kl:e8 3 a4!! which
Bronstein analyses as good for
White, the main variation being
3 ... ~d6 4 c5! ~d8 5 c6 .l:txc6 6 i.a3
~d6 7 ~h6! .ltxd4 8 .ltd3 winning.
2 ~xh7 If instead 2 bxc4 gxh5 3
~xh5 .lte4! wins; or here 3 .ltd3
kl.c5!! 4 dxc5 .ltxb2 5 i.xh7+ 'i;g7 6
'iWxh5 .ltc I!· 7 ng3+ Wf6 8 ~h4+
We5 and Black escapes. 2... c3! 3

~c1 3 i.xc3? ~xc3! 4 ~xc3 'it>xh7;
Keres now hopes for 3 ... cxb2 4 'if'h6
'ilVxd4 5' ~h8+ ~xh8 6 'iVh7 mate.
3.. :tlVxd4! 4 ~h6 lifd8! and Black
won six moves later. A triumph of
centralization!
Strangely enough, six years later,
Smyslov was to suffer the same fate
as Keres in the following position:
Smyslov v Fischer
Candidates Tournament 1959
Outplayed in the centre, Smyslov
sacrifices a pawn and attempts a
wing attack which fails against
Fischer's resourceful defence: 1 fS
dxe4! 2 'ilVg4 exfS 3 lbdxfS g6! But
not 3 ... 0-0 4 lbh5! g6 5 ~g3! i.d8 6
.uxd8 'IlWxd8 7 lbf6+ winning. 4
lbxe7 ~xe7 S ~f4 0-0 6 r.td6
l:!ad8! 7 l::tf6 JldS 8 Sl.g4 lbd7 9
~f1 e3! 10 b3 l:td2! An excellent
defence, threatening 11...lbxf6 12
gxf6 'ilVc5! 13 l:tcl 'ilVd4! defending
via the centre. 11 ~xd7 ~xd7 12
J:tel .a:e8 13 h4 ~cS! and, to meet
the threat of .. :~c3, White had to
exchange queens by 14 ~c4 when
Black easily won the ending.
As an attack on the wing invaria-
bly entails some decentralization,
Elements of Strategy 133
this is the time that a player must be
on his guard against a break in the
centre by his opponent. This princi-
ple is so important that we must
quote a further example of it, arising
straight out of the opening:
Bhend v Petrosian
Zurich 1961
Black's quiet-looking set-up has
led White to imagine that his own
position is better than it is, and this
has prompted him to begin a prema-
ture attack by advancing his pawn to
g4. Of course, if he were given time
to drive Black's king's knight away
by g5 and then play 'iWg2, his attack
could prove dangerous. However, it
is Petrosian's move and he provides
us with a model example of how to
conduct a central counter-attack:
1...dS!! 2 exdS The natural reply 2
e5 allows 2 ... lbe4! 3 lbxe4 dxe4 4
Sl.xe4 lbxe5! when 5 Sl.xb7 'IlWxb7 is
check, an important point. 2... lbb4!
3 dxe6 Sl.xf3+ 4 lIxf3 'iWb7! Exploit-
ing the Black king's vulnerable plac-
ing on hi. S 'it>g2 If 5 'iIVg2 then
5... lbxc2 wins. S... lbxg4 6 'ilVe2 The
threat is ... lbxh2!' 6 ... fS! 7 lbdl ~f6
8 c3 giving us a test position which
reveals a complete change from our
original position:
134 Elements of Strategy
TEST 8.3 BheDd v PetrosiaD
(cont.)
Black to play and win
A defender should therefore be
wary of blocking the centre when a
wing attack against him is possible,
as this inevitably reduces the attack-
er's problems. An attacker, on the
other hand, should strive to block
the centre in such situations. It is
then even possible to leave his king
in the centre where it is often safer
than on the wing. Here is a good
example:
ADtoshin v Kostro
Luhacovice 1971
Leaving his king in the centre,
White proceeds to open the 'g' file
and brings his queen's rook over to
g2 via d2. It all seems so simple,
precisely because Black finds it dif-
ficult to counter-attack against such
a solid central position: 1 J;:i.gl! 'it>h8
2 g4 g6 3 ~g2 l:!.f7 4 lidl i.d7 5
~h3 ~f8 6 gxf5! gxf5 7 ~d2 J::tg7 8
~xg7 'iYxg7 9 J:.g2 'i'f7 10 ttJb5!
l:tg8 11 ttJg5! .ll.xg5 12 ttJd6! "fiIe7
13 fxg5 i.e8 14 ~f3 ttJa7 15 h4 h5
16 ttJxe8 'ii'xe8 17 g6! lIxg6 18
'i'xh5+ Wg7 19 'iVh6+ 1-0.
A strong centrally posted piece
can often have the same effect of
blocking out counter-play, as Geller
found out in the following position:
Ragosin v Geller
Kiev 1950
Despite being at the time one of
the strongest attacking players in the
world, Geller could not produce an
effective counter-attack on the
queens ide, mainly because of
White's beautifully centralized
knight on d4. The main feature of
the subsequent play is the casual
way in which the c3 knight can stroll
over to the opposite wing via e2, c 1,
d3 and f2, whilst Black can do little
or nothing to prevent the final attack.
After 1 ttJce2! 'iVc7 2 ttJc1 as 3 ttJd3
i.a6 4 g5 .ih8 5 ttJf2 h5, Black had
managed to stop the immediate win
by ttJg4-h6+, but Ragosin still won
easily enough with 6 gxh6 ttJh7 7

!tg3 b4 8 axb4 axb4 9 ~g4 ctJf8 10
h4 ~eb8 11 hS .ltc8 12 ctJh3 l:i:a6
13 ctJgS! Threatening 14 h7+ ctJxh7
15 ctJxh7 'It>xh7 16 hxg6+. 13 ... gxhS
14 h7+ 1-0. If 14 ... ctJxh7 15 ~xh5,
or 14 ... ~g7 15 ctJxe6+ 'it>xh7 16
~xh5 mate. Obviously, the kind of
position to remember when attack-
ing and to avoid at all costs when
defending!
By now the reader should have
been nudged into accepting that the
centre is extremely important and
that little happens on the board
which is not directly or indirectly
affected by the central situation.
We can now tum to the famous
Nimzovich v Tarrasch controversy
over central control and perhaps
view it with the calm detachment of
hindsight. Broadly speaking, it was
whether the centre should be con-
trolled by pawns or by pieces, and
whether 'giving away the centre'
was an expression of any signifi-
cance. Nowadays, it seems incredi-
ble that the 'truth' was ever in
dispute, and I remain convinced that
players such as Steinitz, Lasker, Ca-
pablanca and Alekhine knew in-
stinctively all about control of the
centre long before the hypermod-
ems started preaching about it. This
is not to deny in any way the emich-
ment of opening theory brought
about by the latter, but merely to
question the originality of their con-
cept of the centre.
In our chapters on pieces and
pawns, we clearly saw how depend-
ent they all were on each other,
helping and complementing each
other's powers. Quite simply, this
is also the way they control the cen-
tre. To my mind, the confusion
arises when we take 'occupation' to
mean 'control'. In one of his
Elements afStrategy 135
annotations, Alekhine states: "Al-
though Black has sufficient forces to
control e4, he is not yet developed
enough to occupy it." These words
could well be applied to the centre in
general, for it is clear that the fact
that pawns and pieces occupy the
centre does not necessarily mean
that they control it. In such cases,
they themselves have to be sup-
ported by other pawns or pieces and
it is here that the real control lies. If
you tum back to the Tartakower ex-
ample we gave earlier, you can now
understand why we stated that White
had a strong centre. Not only do his
two central pawns guard key squares
but the pieces in the rear are fully
supporting and maintaining them in
their task. In the examples which
follow, we would like the reader to
bear this in mind, since this is essen-
tially the criterion we apply when
referring to the centre as weak or
strong.
All the varied opening systems are
in fact ultimately concerned with the
struggle for control of the centre,
and subtle positional judgement is
often required in deciding which
side stands better in this respect.
Take, for example, our next interest-
ing position:
Keres v Smyslov
Leningrad 1947
136 Elements a/Strategy
Black's centre looks fairly strong,
if not unshakeable. Although his
light squares could become weak,
he has good control of d4 and is at-
tempting to block White's queen's
bishop out of the game. Given time,
he will consolidate his position in
the centre and build up pressure on
the 'd' file. Time, however, is just
what he lacks, for he has already
wasted a tempo in the opening and
has been rather ambitious in the
number of pawn moves made. By
utilizing White's lead in develop-
ment, Keres reveals in four moves
just how fragile the 'stonewall' edi-
fice really is: 1 ttJa4! b6? Black
cannot afford another pawn move,
especially when it weakens the
hl-a8 diagonal and in particular his
queen's knight. He had to try
... ttJe6, when White would aim to
challenge the centre with f4. 2 ttJh4!
.lid7 3 e3! Threatening 'tWh5+.
3 ... 0-0 4 d4! and what was origi-
nally Black's strongest central point
is the very square on which his
pawn balTier will be destroyed. As
White is threatening to win a piece
by advancing his pawn to d6, Black
is already in trouble, and after
4... exd4 5 exd4 l:tc8 6 dxc5 b5 7
ttJc3 f5 8 l:l:c2! .lixh4 9 l:Id2! Keres
won quickly.
This does not mean that similar
pawn centres are intrinsically un-
sound, despite the potential weak-
ness of the light squares. The fact is
that, in the above position, Black
had over-extended himself in setting
up such a central structure before
developing enough pieces to support
it. For example, let us examine a
similar structure, but this time with
Black fully developed:
Lisitsin v Botvinnik
Leningrad 1932
Black is in full control, and White
is desperate for a suitable plan. Af-
ter 1...ttJd4! 2 'it'dl .lig4! 3 .lixd4
exd4 4 'it'd2 .lif8 5 ~el ~e8,
Black's pressure down the 'e' file
formed the basis for a winning king-
side attack.
Because there is a great danger of
an over-extended pawn centre to be-
come weak, many modem openings,
such as Alekhine's Defence and the
Griinfeld Defence, deliberately en-
tice the enemy pawns to advance too
far, so that they can then be attacked.
The aim is to win them, or gain time
by exchanging them, or finally, and
most thematically, to take over the
weak central squares created by too
rash an advance. Here is a striking
illustration from one of Fischer's
games after the moves 1 d4 ttJf6 2
c4 g6 3 ttJc3 .lig7 4 e4 0-0 5 e5(?)
ttJe8 6 f4 d6 7 .lie3:
In the next diagram, take a good
look at White's 'imposing' pawn
centre because it is not going to last
very long! Fischer now sacrificed a
pawn, knowing that the resulting
weaknesses in White's position
would prove more than enough com-
pensation.

Letelier v Fischer
Leipzig Olympiad 1960
After 7... c5! 8 dxc5 ctJc6! 9 cxd6
exd6 10 ctJe4? Far too slow.
10 ... J.f5! 11 ctJg3 Or. 11 ctJxd6
ctJxd6 12 'iVxd6 'iVxd6 13 exd6
ctJb4! etc .. 1l...J.e6 12 ctJt3 ~c7!
13 1Vbl dxe5 14 f5 e4! 15 fxe6 ext3
16 gxt3 f5! 17 f4 ctJf6! giving us a
position which is in stark contrast to
our first one:
Letelier v Fischer (cont.)
Once Black has picked up the
loose e6 pawn, he will not only have
recovered his material but will be
ahead in development and have
open central files, the beautiful
al-h8 diagonal and White's weak-
ened d4, e4 and g4 squares to work
on. For the sake of completeness, I
give the entertaining finish: 18 J.e2
Elements of Strategy 137
I!fe8 19 Wf2 laxe6 20 ~el ~ae8 21
J.t3 .l:txe3! 22 l:rxe3 l:txe3 23 ~xe3
'ir'xf4+! 0-1. Both 24 'it'xf4 J.h6
mate and 24 ~f2 ctJe5 25 iVdl
ctJfg4+ are sufficient reasons for put-
ting up the shutters.
Similar situations arise in many
provocative opening systems and the
reader will automatically learn
various methods of attacking an
over-extended pawn centre as he
studies opening theory beyond the
scope of this book. However, he
must keep such possibilities in mind
throughout the middle game, when
play against a pawn front can be a
drawing or winning resource. In
such cases, a single pawn can wreak
as much havoc as a piece, as we see
in our next two striking examples:
Kmoch v Rubinstein
Semmering 1926
Black has applied great pressure
on the d4 pawn, but White is threat-
ening to double rooks on the 'd' file
and answer ... c5 or ... e5 with d5, so
Rubinstein settles matters with the
fine positional move l...b5!! that
strikes directly at the centre by
threatening both ... b4 (to capture on
d4) and ... bxc4 (to prevent a possible
d5 after ... c5). There is little White
can do and, after 2 ~d2 Or 2 cxb5
138 Elements of Strategy
cxb5 3 a3 'ifb6! winning the d4
pawn. 2... b4 3 .ltxb4 .ltxd4 4 'ilVf3
cS! S .ltc3 l:Id6! 6 l::tadl eS 7 .ltc2
.ltc6 8 'iYg3 Or 8 .lte4?? .ltxe4 9
'iVxe4 .ltxc3! winning a piece be-
cause of the back-rank mate.
8... ~b7, Black had an overwhelm-
ing position with excellent central
control. Our second example is
equally instructive:
Kevitz v Capablanca
New York 1931
Black has tied White down to de-
fence of his a2 pawn but must now
introduce a new factor into the
situation if he is to win. The answer
lies in the aesthetically delightful
move L.gS!! which combines
threats against White's king with the
attack on the a2 pawn. If now 2 f5
'tIVe5+ 3 'It>h 1 (or 3 It>g 1 ':'c 1+ 4 ~d 1
~d4+! winning) 3 ... l:I.c1+ 4 lId 1
~al! 5 ~xcl ~xc1+ 6 'It>h2 .ltc4! 7
'iVf2 ~f4+! 8 'iVxf4 gxf4 and the a3
pawn will queen. The line played in
the game also resembles a study: 2
'iVf2 Wkxf2! 3 iaxf2 gxf4 4 J:t3 lia8!
S :tf2 f3!! 6 .ltn Or 6 .ltxf3 ~b8
followed by 7 ... !:.b2, because f3 is
now blocked to the rook. 6 .. J:tb8 7
l:1xf3 !1b2+ The first relevant point
is that this is now check! 8 'it>g3
~xa2 9 l::tc3 Ital 0-1. The second
point is that, with White's king on
g3, the line 10 .ltc4 .ltxc4 11 l:txc4
a2 12 Ita4 1:l:g1 + wins. Note that if
White had played 8 'it>gl to avoid
this, then 8 ...1ha2 9 !:tc3 .llal 10
'it>f2 a2 11 I:!.a3 J::tb 1 wins.
[Study enthusiasts may also like to
consider the 'cook' 7 ... .!Ib3! in the
game continuation. After 8 axb3 a2,
White's rook is unable to use fl
(that's the reason why White could
not play the 'cook' on move 4 of the
game, even if he had seen it!), and 8
!Ixb3 .ltxb3 or 8 l:tf2 l:tb2 win the a2
pawn.]
Let us finish this section by exam-
ining a very common type of pawn
centre arising from openings such as
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ttJc3 dxe4 4 ttJxe4
or 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4
ttJxd4 which some writers term the
'little centre'. When Tarrasch re-
ferred to Black's pawn exchange on
move 3 in these openings as 'giving
away the centre', he infuriated
Nimzovich who quite rightly argued
that the struggle for the centre had
only just begun! However, in my
view he was a little harsh in his con-
demnation of the good doctor's
'dogmatism'. Despite his unfortu-
nate choice of words, Tarrasch, in
didactic vein, was surely only at-
tempting to make an important ob-
servation about this type of 'little
centre'. Practice tells us that, other
things being equal, the pawn on
White's fourth rank gives him com-
mand of a little more terrain than
Black whose position can easily be-
come cramped, as Tarrasch himself
demonstrated himself in many of his
games. Here is the opening of a
well-played game against Black-
burne: 1 e4 eS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 .ltbS
d64 d4 exd4 'Giving away the cen-
tre'. S lLlxd4 .ltd7 6 lLlc3 lLlf6 7 0-0
.lte7 8 b3 0-0 9 .ltb2 lLle8 Better

9 .. .l1e8. 10 ctJd5! ctJxd4 11 ~xd7
'iVxd7 12 ~xd4 ~d8 13 ~adl ~e6
14 ~d3 c6 15 ctJe3 f6 16 ctJf5 ~c7
17 ~fel ~ad8 18 c4 ~f7 19 'iYh3!
Tarrasch v Blackburne
Manchester 1890
Black has played unusually pas-
sively and given Tarrasch the kind
of 'little centre' game he loves. Ad-
mittedly, to escape the threat of win-
ning his queen, Blackburne, again
out of character, blundered the ex-
change with 19 ... 'it>h8? 20 ctJh6! but
his game was already very difficult
to defend against White's advantage
in space.
Contrast this with Tarrasch's
grossly careless play from the fol-
lowing position:
Tarrasch v Chigorin
Match 1893
Elements of Strategy 139
Once Black's king's bishop is on
g7 and a rook reaches e8, the pres-
sure on White's centre will be fright-
ening. And yet, before he has
developed and with a poorly posted
knight on g3 which can be attacked
by the advance of Black's 'h' pawn,
thus taking away a vital defender of
the e4 pawn, Tarrasch plays the un-
believably bad move I f4?? which
stops him ever playing f3 and does
nothing to help his crusade for the
'little centre'. Play continued:
1...ctJd7 2 b4 Now planning to de-
centralize his queen's knight by
playing it to a5. 2... i.g7 3 ctJb3 0-0
4 0-0 Not of course 4 ctJa5 i.xe4! 5
ctJxe4 hIe8, illustrating all too clearly
the points we have just made.
4.. Jle8 5 !tel ctJf6 6 ctJd2 A dread-
ful move to have to play, but Tar-
rasch gives the line 6 e5 ctJd5! 7
ltJa5 'iYb8 8 exd6? 'iVa7+ 9 ~hl
~f2! 10 .ti.fl? 'iWxg2+! followed by
mate in two, to show the dangers of
his position. 6 ...'iiVd7 7 h3 kle7 8
lIe2 liae8 9 'iVf1 h5! and Chigorin
had obtained the perfect set-up
against the weakest form of the
'little centre'. Tarrasch could have
almost resigned now, but he played
on until move 42.
However, although opening
knowledge and defensive skills have
greatly improved since the 19'h cen-
tury, the concept of the 'little centre'
still remains valid today, provided
that its possessor nurtures it carefully
and does not expect too much from
it. Here is Kavalek illustrating the
necessary technique in the following
position which arose from the Caro
Kann opening:
Note first of all that White's d4
pawn is well supported by the c3
pawn and the rook on dl, while the
power of all White's other pieces is
directed towards the centre.
140 Elements of Strategy
Kavalek v Bleiman
Netanya 1971
It is in fact only now that White
takes action to prevent ... cS and in-
crease his command of space: 1 c4
i.b7 If 1...cS 2 dS. 2 b4! .l:tfdS And
now 2 ... cS would allow 3 dxc5 bxcS
4 bS!. 3 a3l::[eS 4 ~b2! Maintaining
control of eS whilst removing his
queen from the 'e' file. 4.. .l::tedS 5
~c3 h6 6 tZJf4 tZJf6 7 tZJd3 tZJd7 S
c5! Finally, he makes the crucial de-
cision which eventually ensures him
complete control of the 'd' file.
S... i.a6 9 tZJe5 i.b5 10 i.h5! tZJxe5
11 dxe5 bxc5 12 bxc5 i.a4 13
.l:!d6! l:tbS 14 i.dl! i.xdl 15
l:Iexdl ~xd6 16 cxd6 and White
won comfortably. What impresses
me here is the unhurried nature of
White's approach to the problem of
the 'little centre' .
Nimzovich made the point that
the slight advantage in space af-
forded by the 'little centre' is offset
by the potential weakness of the
pawn that has dared to advance to
the fourth rank and by the possibil-
ity of a counter-attack against it.
Both Capablanca and Lasker were
adept at defending such positions in
which skilful manoeuvring within a
limited space is at a premium, and
their games contain many fine
examples of play against the 'little
centre'. Here is a test position at a
critical point of a game played by
Capablanca when he was 18 years of
age:
TEST 8.4 Fox v Capablanca
New York 1906
How would you proceed as Black?
We thus see that what we said
about pawn centres in general is ap-
plicable to the 'little centre'. If the
pawn front is over-extended, there is
a great danger of certain squares be-
ing weak. If, however, we are mod-
est in our aims, our slight advantage
in space can be used to cramp
Black's pieces and give us a bind on
his position. With this, we regret-
fully have to close our discussion on
the centre, having merely scratched
the surface of a fascinating subject
about which the reader can perhaps
develop hi~ own views based on his
own expenences.
Colour Complex
Throughout this book, the reader
will not only have seen many refer-
ences to 'weak' squares but will
have also met the tenn 'weak
light/dark' squares. Assessing the
strength or weakness of a certain
colour complex can be a useful

exercise, both tactically and strategi-
cally. Simple examples of this are:
* the 'bad' bishop, blocked in by
its own pawns of the same colour
and thus creating weaknesses in
squares of the opposite colour;
* opposite-coloured bishops in the
ending, which lead to so many
draws, precisely because the control
of half the squares in the enemy
camp is not open to them;
* two bishops working together,
thus complementing each other in
their square control;
* the central influence of knights
placed on c3(c6) and £3 (f6) is
greater because they control
different-coloured squares.
To take two examples from posi-
tions we have had earlier: Capablan-
ca's 1...gS!! against Kevitz was
surely prompted by the instinctive
desire to weaken further White's
dark squares, thus simultaneously
restricting his bishop even more,
whilst weakening his king's posi-
tion; or consider the way that Keres
exploited the weakness of the hl-a8
and h5-e8 light-squared diagonals to
gain time for his crucial d4 break in
the centre against Smyslov.
Thinking in such terms can un-
doubtedly help us in our plans and
combinations, so it is time for us to
examine a few positions exclusively
in terms of colour complexes. First
of all, here is a typical attack on a
king's position 'weakened' by ... g6,
a standard defensive move in situa-
tions where the defender does not
want to be forced into playing both
... h6 and ... g6, so relies on his king's
bishop to guard the dark squares.
However, the following instructive
Elements of Strategy 141
position should bring home to the
reader the potential danger of such a
policy:
Ragosin v Stahlberg
Moscow 1935
As Black's queen's bishop and
queen are temporarily away from the
main theatre of action and the d7
square is later available to White's
rook on dl, the weakness of Black's
dark-square colour complex around
his king can in this case be cleverly
exploited by White. In the actual
game, Ragosin won by the less exact
I ~e2, but he gives interesting
analysis to show that 1 'ii'f4! was the
best continuation, with the following
possibilities:
1...ttJd8 2 ttJeS .tc6 3 .txg6! fxg6
4 btxd8! btaxd8 S 'ilkf7+ 'it>h8 6 'tWg7
mate.
1...eS 2 ttJxeS ttJxeS 3 'ii'xeS .tfS
4 l'Vf4 ~xh6 S 'iVxh6 ~xb2 6 ~c4
threatening ~xf7+ or .l:!.d7 or .l:!.d3.
1...f62 h4! c;t>h8 3 hS eS 4 hxg6!
exf4 S g7+ Wg8 6 ~c4 mate.
Kotov must have had this dark-
square colour complex uppermost in
his mind when he produced the fol-
lowing splendid combination that
won a special prize for beauty:
142 Elements of Strategy
Kotov v Barcza
Stockholm Interzonal 1952
Play went: 1 4Jdf5!! gxf5 2 4Jxf5
'ilc7 Or 2 ...'ile6 3 ~xg7 4Jxg7 4
~g5 'iWe5 5 4Jh6+! 'it>h8 6 'iWxe5
dxe5 7 lIxd8 ~xd8 8 4Jxf7+ win-
ning material. 3 4Jxg7 4Jxg7 4
~f6!! The point of White's play: he
cuts off Black's possible defence
along the second rank. If now
4 ... 4Je6 then 5 f4! l:tfe8 6 f5 ':d7 7
.l:tf4! h6 8 ~g4+ 'it>h7 9 ~xh6+!
'it>xh6 10 ~h4 mate. 4... ~h8 5 'iVg5
l1g8 and I leave it to the reader to
finish the game off:
TEST 8.5 Kotov v Barcza
White to play and win
With regard to play against a
weak colour complex, I was intri-
gued when I read Nimzovich's com-
ment, in My System, on Alekhine's
predilection for centralization, along
with "play against enemy squares of
a particular colour", forming the leit-
motiv of all his games. After my ini-
tial astonishment, if not annoyance,
at seeing the style of one of my
chess heroes summed up with such
brevity, I learned to recognize the
validity of the assessment. Here are
two of Alekhine's famous wins that
spring to mind, both launched by the
same first move:
Alekhine v Marshall
Baden-Baden 1925
If White were to castle kings ide
automatically, he would certainly
have to face a typically aggressive
attack by Marshall beginning ... g5!?,
to be followed up by ... ~d7 and
... 0-0-0. Alekhine solves the
problem in two moves by taking
over important dark squares with 1
~d2! ~d7 2 ~e3! which stops
Black castling long and prepares a
powerful advance of his kings ide
pawn majority. The game contin-
ued: 2... ~c6 3 0-0-0 0-0 4 f4! 'iYe6
5 e5 nfe8 6 l:rfe1 %lad8 7 f5 ~e7 8
'ii'g5 4Jd5 9 f6! ~f8 10 ~c4! 4Jxc3
11 l:txd8 J::txd8 12 fxg7! 4Jxa2+ Or
12 .. .'it'e8 13 ~xf7+! rJitxf7 14 I;Ifl +
~e6 15 IIf6+ rJitd5 16 1If8 winning.
13 'it>b1 ~e8 14 e6! and White won
easily. How many players would
 Elements of Strategy 143

have moved the queen twice in the
original position? And yet, the
logic of the manoeuvre is undeni-
able, once we are aware of the need
for dark-square control.
1. .. i.e6 and lost a pawn after 2
i.xe6 ~xe6 3 'iVa5 tOc4 4 ~xa7
tOxb2 5 ~xc8 :i:txc8 6 'iVxb7 tOc4 7
~4 J::ta8 8 ~al 'i!Vc6 9 a4! tOxe4 10
tOxe5! (1-0, after 82 moves!)

Our second colour-oriented move We finish this chapter with four

comes from a key win by Alekhine wins based on colour weaknesses:
in his final World Championship
match game against Capablanca:

TEST 8.6 Mikenas v Polugaevsky

USSR 1966
Alekhine v Capablanca
Black to play and win
World Championship Match,
Buenos Aires 1927
White's dark squares are weak but
how can Black get at them?
In one move 1 ~d2!, Alekhine
potentially brings all Black's weak-
nesses under attack, as seen in the
following variations given by Euwe:

* 1...lhcl 2 :i1xcl ~c8 2 l:hc8

tOxc8 3 'iVc3 and the e5 pawn falls.
* l..Jhcl 2 l:i.xc1 l:tc8 3 l:txc8
i.xc8 4 ~a5 forking a7 and e5.
* 1...i.c6 2 tOh4! i.xe4 3 ~e3
winning a piece, because 3 ... i.c2 4
l1xc2! :'xc2? 5 tOhf5+ wins the
queen.
* 1...i.c6 2 tOh4! tOxe4 3 tOhf5+
gxf5 4 tOxf5+ 'it>g6 5 ~xh6+ 'ifi>xf5 TEST 8.7 Popov v Shmuter
6 g4 mate, a variation typical of USSR 1988
Alekhine's style. White to play and win

Lasker's move 1...tOa4! offers the Black's dark squares are weak but
best defence, but Capablanca played how does White exploit this fact?
144 Elements of Strategy
TEST 8.8 Boudre v Shirov
Moscow 1989
Black to play and win
It looks like Black has blocked his
attack on his opponent's weak dark
squares, but Shirov has it all worked
out. See if you can find the win.
TEST 8.9 Keene v Robatsch
Madrid 1971
White to play and win
A few clues: Black's light squares
are very weak and, to exploit this,
Keene immediately sacrifices a rook
by 1 l:l:xf7!! and begins an exciting
king hunt across the board. Work
out the main lines of his attack.
Hints for Beginners
* Time is an important element, es-
pecially during the opening stage,
but remember that quality of devel-
opment often counts for more than
mere quantity.
* In closed positions, time is not so
essential, as developed pieces have
fewer open lines to penetrate into the
enemy position.
* An advantage in space means bet-
ter mobility for your pieces, there-
fore more flexibility in switching
wings.
* On the other hand, a cramped po-
sition leads to interference between
pieces and a lack of manoeuvrability
which can become fatal where de-
fence of the king is concerned.
* A temporary wedge is an unusual
combination of the space and time
elements, so requires speedy exploi-
tation before the wedge is removed.
* The centre is vitally important, as
its influence spreads over the whole
board. Centralized pieces enjoy
greater flexibility than decentralized
ones, which can often find them-
selves completely excluded from the
main theatre of war.
* It is dangerous to attack on the
wing without either central control
or a blocked centre, because opening
up the centre is one of the best ways
of countering a flank attack.
* Occupation of the centre is not the
same as control, nor is control the
sole prerogative of pawns.
* The struggle for control of the
centre begins in the opening and is
continued throughout the game.
* Do not advance your pawns too
rashly, as they may not only become
weak but may also leave behind
them weak squares which are ripe
for enemy occupation.
* The 'little centre' can lead to a
small but enduring bind, provided
that we proceed slowly and are mod-
est in our aims.
* It is useful to think in terms of
weak or strong colour complexes, as
this can often guide us in our choice
of plan.
 9 Planning
s
o far in this book we
have been dealing
mainly with specific
tactical and strategic
ideas. However, as we
saw in our chapter on
combinations, it is one thing to have
ideas, but quite another to coordi-
nate these and convert them into a
winning plan. It is time for us to
tackle the difficult subject of plan-
ning and attempt to slot into place
the many pieces of the jigsaw al-
ready provided. Someone once said
that a bad plan is better than no
plan at all. In both cases you will
probably lose the game, but only by
making plans can you ever hope to
improve your play, since the learn-
ing process very much depends on
profiting from your mistakes. All
this may seem obvious, and yet it is
one of the major factors differentiat-
ing a good player and a bad one. At
its worst, the latter's game is a string
of unconnected episodes which bear
little relevance to the real demands
of the position and often end fortui-
tously one way or the other. Such
mindless 'wood-pushing' must be
avoided at all costs, however limited
our initial attempts at planning may
be.
Planning can be divided roughly
into three parts: assessment, plan.
execution. We first have to consider
the basic elements of the position,
such as material balance, pawn
structure; posting of pieces, open
lines, central control, king positions
etc. Next, we have to construct a
feasible plan based on the logical ex-
ploitation of these characteristics.
And finally, we have to carry out
this plan as efficiently as possible
with the tactical means at our dis-
posal. A simple example should
make this clear:
Capablanca v Jaffe
New York 1910
and
Capablanca v Scott
Hastings 1919
Assessment: White stands better,
having more space and open lines
for his pieces as well as excellent
control of the central squares.
Plan: Maintain control of Black's
freeing moves in the centre, whilst
preparing an attack on the enemy
king.
Execution: An eventual ~d3 will
force a weakening of Black's
146 Planning
kings ide pawns by ... h6, to prevent
i.gS, or ... g6. If White's bishop
cannot go to gS, it can be developed
at b2, when dS will always be in the
air, opening up the al-h8 diagonal.
If need be, a rook can be brought
into the attack via the 'e' file.
lt is Black to move in this posi-
tion, and we are fortunate enough to
have two games played· by
Capablanca, each with a different
defensive set-up, but both illustrat-
ing the soundness of White's basic
plan. The first game, against Jaffe,
went: 1. .. h6 2 b3 b6 3 i.b2 i.b7 4
'li'd3 Already threatening dS fol-
lowed by i.xf6, but now Black
should avoid another weakening
pawn move and play 4 ... J::f.e8 giving
his king an escape square. 4 ... g6? S
htael ctJhS 6 i.el! Having induced
a weakness, the bishop can now re-
turn, with an immediate threat of
i.xh6. 6.. .'it>g7 7 Ii.xe6! ctJf6 After
7... fxe6 it is mate in two. 8 ctJeS! cS
And now 8... fxe6 fails to 9 i.xh6+!
c;t>h8 10 ctJxg6+ 'ittg8 11 ctJxfS i.xfS
12 'iVg6+ 'itth8 13 i.gS! forcing
mate. 9 i.xh6+! <it>xh6 10 ctJxf7+
1-0. It is mate in two.
The second game, against Scott,
proceeded: 1. .. b6 2 'iVd3 h6 3 b3
Wile7 4 i.b2 l:td8 To free fS for his
king and threaten to break in the
centre, but the unfortunate placing
of his queen allows White to build
up pressure down the central files
with his rooks. S !:tadl i.b7 6 llfel
lIac8 7 ctJh4! Only now does White
decentralize his knight fora mo-
ment, as he introduces the serious
threat of 8 dS! cxdS 9 ctJfS ~e8 10
ctJxg7! 'i;xg7 11 'iVh7+ <it>fS 12
.i.xf6 followed by mate; or here
9 .. :~fS 10 ctJxh6+ gxh6 11 i.xf6
forcing mate or win of the queen.
Black prevents this by introducing a
counter-threat of .. .'VJlic7, but to no
avail. 7... i.b8 8 g3! 'it>f8 9 'iYf3!
'it>g8 10 ctJfS 'Wic7 11 ctJxh6+ c;t>f8 12
dS cxdS 13 i.xf6 and White won
easily. However, this was a better
attempt at defence which compelled
Capablanca to stifle any central
counter-play before proceeding with
his attack.
This example illustrates various
important aspects of planning.
Firstly, we must keep our plan
flexible, in the knowledge that,
however farsighted we may be, we
are facing an opponent who has his
plans too. Stubbornness at chess is
rarely a virtue, so it is unwise to
formulate plans that are too rigid,
because we may well have to change
horses mid-stream. An obvious
example of this is when our
opponent desperately sacrifices
material to stave off a mating attack.
We must immediately readjust our
plan, sometimes drastically, to cope
with the new situation. For instance,
we may well decide to head for the
endgame. Another common
occurrence is when we suddenly
realize that our plan is faulty.
Perhaps we have missed a defensive
idea or ·wrongly assessed the result
of a tactical sequence. At all events,
we must ruthlessly reappraise the
situation and, if need be, reject our
original plan. No matter if our chess
pride is hurt in the process!
Secondly, for the purposes of this
chapter, we are assuming that Capa-
blanca arrives at a certain position
and then begins to plan in some sort
of vacuum. In reality, he has care-
fully managed his opening to bring
about the above advantages which,
in tum, result in the stated plan. In
other words, each part of the game is
so inextricably linked up that it is al-
most impossible to say where a plan
begins and ends. In practice, we

make various plans during a game
and, if these merge harmoniously, a
sense of unity is achieved. That is
why some games flow so themati-
cally from beginning to end, often
giving a spurious impression that
everything was planned from the
very first move! Take the following
short game: Lilienthal v Hamming
Zandvoort 1934: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 e6 3
ctJe3 dxe4 4 e4 e5 5 d5 a6 6 a4 ctJf6
7 SLxe4 e5 8 f4! SLd6 9 ctJf3 ctJbd7
10 0-0 0-0 11 f5! "fIe7 12 SLg5 ctJb6
13 SLxf6 ctJxe4
Lilienthal v Hamming
Zandvoort 1934
14ctJg5! h6 If 14 ... gxf6 15 ctJxh7!
'it>xh7 16 "fIh5+ 'it>g7 17 .uO ~d8 18
~h6 mating; or if 14 ... g6 15 ~d3!
threatening 16 ~h3 h5 17 "fIg3. 15
~h5 .ue8 If 15 ... gxf6 16 ~xh6 fxg5
17 f6 mating; or if 15 ... SLe7 16 d6!
~xd6 17 i.xe7 ~xe7 18 f6 and 19
ctJd5 wins. 16 i.xg7 'iitxg7 17 f6+
1-0.
All so direct and clear-cut, the
reader may say, but appearances can
be deceptive. From a planning
point of view, the game can be di-
vided into three stages, as follows:
* Black gives himself a diffi-
cult opening and White elects to
Planning 147
push in the centre with 5 d5, his first
critical decision, against which
Black should have played 5 ... exd5 6
ctJxd5 ctJf6 7 SLxc4 iLe7 with equal
chances. In the same position
against Bogoljubow, Moscow 1925,
Capablanca chose a completely dif-
ferent plan with 5 ctJO cxd4 6 tLlxd4
ctJf6 7 SLxc4 SLc5 8 i.e3 ctJbd7 9
SLxe6! fxe6 10 ctJxe6 with a winning
attack.
* When Black tried to block the po-
sition with 7 ... e5, White had his next
major decision to make, and a diffi-
cult one at that. His subtle plan of
advancing his pawn to f5, to obtain
space on the kings ide and restrict the
scope of Black's pieces, would have
been fully tested if his opponent had
played the best defence of 12 ... ctJe8
followed by 13 ... f6. Lilienthal had
then intended 'it>hl followed by ~gl,
with the intention of opening the 'g'
file by advancing his pawn to g5. A
totally different game would have
been the result!
* When Black played instead
12 ... ctJb6, Lilienthal saw the possi-
bility of a direct mating attack. Ex-
act calculation was now the order of
the day, because this was an
irrevocable step, involving
sacrifices. For instance, he must
have envisaged the fact that Black
could ignore capturing the knight
after 13 SLxf6ctJxe4 14ctJg5 gxf6 IS
ctJxh7 giving us 15 ... ctJe3 16 ~h5!
'it>g7! 17:0 SLxf5! 18 exf5 e4 19
~h3 SLf4 20 ctJg5! J:Ih8 21 ctJe6+!
forcing mate in four. However, just
suppose that he had missed this
defence and that the excellent
refutation had not been available.
We would then no longer be talking
about a beautifully engineered plan
but weeping crocodile tears over a
typically risky and unsound attack
by your truly!
148 Planning
With these points in mind, let us
devote the rest of this chapter to a
selection of positions illustrating
some of the planning problems that
frequently arise on the chessboard.
We cannot hope to be exhaustive,
nor do we feel that this is essential,
for in the last resort the reader will
have to learn to think for himself
and even opt for openings which
give rise to plans suiting his style.
New situations constantly appear in
a game of chess, which means that
attitude of mind and freshness of
approach count for much more than
reliance on ill-digested spoon-
feeding. For this reason, the reader
would do well to spend a little time
thinking about each of the following
positions before reading further in
the text. He will then gradually
learn to see the wood despite the
trees.
Our first two examples were pri-
marily concerned with attacks on
the king, but as this forms such an
important part of the game we will
examine a few more positions illus-
trating the same theme. . Here is a
typical attack against a Sicilian De-
fence set-up, where time is of the
essence:
Gonsharov v Strasdins
USSR 1969
Assessment: Black's kingside
pawn posItIon is unweakened, yet
White is justified in planning an at-
tack, mainly because he possesses,
or can create, open lines for his
pieces. He can for instance play ei-
ther of his rooks over to h3; or else
post his bishop on d4, when ... e5
will open up a splendid diagonal for
his other bishop; or else try for the
same aim by f4-f5 pressurizing the
e6 pawn. In addition, he can sacri-
fice to open up lines, with moves
such as g6, tDf5 and tDxe6. The
possibilities are numerous, perhaps
too much so, but White must not for-
get that Black also has his plan of
eliminating pieces by ... tDxd4 and
... tDc5 followed by ... tDxb3; or
... tDe5 and ... tDc4; nor can ... b4 be
ignored, with pressure on the e4
pawn.
Plan: We clearly need a plan that
will immediately produce threats and
tie Black down to defence, so a com-
bination of g6 and tDxe6 looks ideal,
whereas advancing the 'f pawn or
transferring a rook to h3 seem too
slow.
Execution: After calculating a few
options, Gonsharov finally settles on
1 g6! hxg6 2 tDxe6! fxe6 3 .Jtxe6+
'it>h8 4 l:rxg6 which has immediately
opened up three lines of attack,
exposing Black's king to the
fire-power of all White's pieces.
After 4.•..l:!.f7 5 'iVh5+ 'ittg8 6 Ihg7+!
1-0. Black is mated in all lines .
Here is a similar smash-up of
Black's kings ide pawns but the tac-
tics are rather more complex:

Vladimirov v Sazontiev
USSR 1970
This time, 1 g6 hxg6 2 h5 g5! is
not so effective, but it· is still impor-
tant to move quickly, since ... b4 fol-
lowed by ... it..xd3 is threatened.
The answer lies in playing 1
it..xh7+! ttJxh7 and only now 2 g6!
ensuring that all lines are open. The
game ended: 2...fxg6 3 ttJe6! 'iVd7
4 ttJxg7! ~f6 4 ... ~xg7 allows mate
in two. 5 ttJxe8l:txe8 6 ~xg6+ ~h8
7 l:.g3! a3 8 l:.hgl axb2+ 9 ~xb2
'ii'e6 10 ttJe2! ttJg5 Desperation. 11
nxg5 ~xg5 12 'ifh5+ ~h6 13 Ilg6
1-0.
As we have seen, open lines are
often the means by which we can
bring extra pieces into the attack. If
we already out-number the enemy's
defensive pieces, there is every
chance of a successful attack, so
long as we remember that we may
well have to sacrifice one or more
of our extra pieces to break down
the barrier of pawns. Here is an in-
structive example of such an attack:
Planning 149
Smejkal v Medina
Amsterdam 1971
White's plan is direct and logical.
At the moment, all four of Black's
queens ide pieces are mere onlook-
ers, so if after 1 e5! he can bring his
king's bishop into the fray and
calmly eliminate Black's best defen-
sive pieces, when simple arithmetic
leaves him with two extra pieces
which must win for him! Play pro-
ceeded: 1...dxeS 2 ttJxhS! gxhS 3
~xh7+ ~xh7 4 i.xg7 'it>xg7 S
~g5+ ~h7 6 'iVxhS+ 'it>g7 7 ttJgS
1-0. If now 7 ... f5 then 8 'ifh7+ ~f6
9 ttJe4 is mate. If only chess were
always this easy!
Although in general the tactical
execution of an attack on the king
can prove difficult, it is often the
much simpler strategic plans that the
beginner finds less comprehensible,
when the aim is less direct or his ad-
vantage is smaller, even though there
are hardly any tactics to speak of.
This is because sound strategic ideas
are even more essential in such posi-
tions, where the conquest of a vital
square or file could be the goal to-
wards which all his energy is di-
rected. Consider the following
'simple' position:
150 Planning
Tarnowski v Botvinnik
Leipzig Olympiad 1960
Assessment: Although at first
sight the position looks fairly even,
in reality Black stands better for two
main reasons. Firstly, he can double
rooks on the important 'c' file by
using the c4 square, whereas the c5
square is not available to White's
rook and 1 l:tc2 would immediately
lose a pawn. Secondly, White's
bishop is not only unable to partici-
pate in the defence but is also a poor
defender of the d4 pawn in view of
a possible ... f6. However, defend-
ing the d4 pawn by the natural e3
would only weaken the light squares
further and reduce the bishop's
scope of action.
Plan: To take control of the 'c'
file and maintain pressure on the d4
pawn, thus tying White down to de-
fence and hoping to exploit any
weakening of the light squares.
Note that of necessity such a plan is
vague because, with no clear win in
view as yet, Black must assume that
the increase in positional pressure
wiII lead to an opportunity to obtain
some material advantage.
Execution: .. J~c4 will be the key
move, threatening both ... f6 and
.. .lUc8. If White exchanges rooks
on c4, then ... dxc4 will win a pawn
or give Black a queenside pawn
majority if White has played a3. As
it is White to move, we must con-
sider the immediate exchange of
rooks, followed by manoeuvring the
other rook to c3 or c2. Against this,
Black can always play ... l::[c4 and
play his queen to c6, with ... b4 and
... a5-a4 in prospect. In fact, the
more we examine the position, the
worse White's situation appears!
The actual game continued: 1
l:!xe8 llxe8 2 a3 Weakening the
light squares even more, but it had to
be played sooner or later. 2... .!::i.e4 3
l:i:dl ~b6 4 Itd2 This can be played
because 4 ... f6 5 Si.g3 lIxd4 6 l1xd4
'iVxd4 aIIows 7 ~xb5; worse for
White is 4 l1d3 WV c6 5 I:tc3 z:txc3! 6
bxc3 ~c4! 7 'iVb2 'ilVa4, an instruc-
tive example of the weakness of the
light squares and the impotence of
White's bishop. 4...'ilVe6 S e3 as 6
Si.g3 lIel 7 f3 f6 8 .in 'ilVe4! 9 'ilVd3
a4! and Black had achieved his aims
of completely dominating the 'c' file
and the light squares, and highlight-
ing the power of his own 'good'
bishop. The game finished: 10 e4
'it'xd3 11 lIxd3 b4! 12 axb4 SLxb4
13 exdS exdS 14 l:Ie3l:!:e2 O-l.
Such play has been termed 'open
file strategy', as there is definite skill
required in exploiting the possession
of an open file. In an endgame a
rook can often penetrate to the sev-
enth rank, winning pawns or tying
down the enemy king, but in the
middle game other factors are usu-
ally required for an open file to be
turned into a win. One of the finest
exponents of open file strategy was
Capablanca, who won scores of
games as White by utilizing the open
'c' file arising from the Queen's
Gambit, but here is a position in
which he was Black taking over the

'd' file in deceptively simple
fashion:
Ribera v Capablanca
Barcelona 1929
White not only has weak squares
on the 'd' file but is plagued by
weak pawns on e5 and c4. This is
enough for Capablanca, whose plan
is to take over the file by using
threats against the weak pawns and
combining these with threats of sim-
plification by exchanging pieces.
Play continued: 1...ttJc5 2 i.c2 Or
2 tradl i.xf3 3 ~xf3 ttJxd3 4 ~xd3
't!.Vb4! when at least a pawn is lost.
2... i.xf3! 3 'ilVxt3 lld2 4 'iYc3 l!fd8
and Black has reached the position
he wanted, with domination of the
'd' file and the seventh rank. The
main tactical point is that White
cannot challenge the open file by
the game continuation 5 :i.adl be-
cause of 5... ct:le4! 6 ~e3 In his at-
tempt to avoid handing over
complete control of the 'd' file after
6 .l:i.xe4 ~xd 1+ 7 i.xd 1 IIxd 1+ 8
nel ~d7, White loses a pawn.
6 .. Jlxc2 7 'iVxe4 l:[xb2 and Black
won easily. However, if White does
not challenge the file, he still has
problems after 5 f4 lIYh4 6 i:!f1
~g4! or 5 b4 ~h4 6 g3 'iVd4! 7
'YiVxd4 .l:i:8xd4 8 l:Iad 1 k!xd 1 9 l:txd 1
Planning 151
~xd1+ 10 i.xdl ttJd3 wmmng a
pawn.
Play down a half-open file must be
a little more subtle, as the pressure is
less direct. Consider our next typi-
cal position:
Petrosian v Rossetto
Portoroz Interzonal 1958
Assessment: In practice, White's
chances of exploiting the half-open
'c' file are far better than Black's at-
tempts down the 'e' file. He has
time on his side, having already ad-
vanced his queens ide pawns.
Plan: This is an example of the
famous 'minority attack'. The idea
is to play b5 to prise open the file or
else fix a weak pawn on c6, which
will rapidly tie Black down to de-
fence. If Black captures the b5
pawn, his d5 and b7 pawns become
exposed.
Execution: White must be careful
not to allow Black tactical counter-
chances. For instance, with Black's
knight on d6, he would be threaten-
ing ... b5 followed by ... lbc4 in order
to block any pressure down the 'c'
file. However, the immediate L.b5
would allow 2 ttJe2! lIVe8 3 .l::i:fcl
~c8 4 axb5 axb5 5 J::i.a6! forcing
5 ... lbe7, when the Black knight can-
not reach c4. This gives White a
152 Planning
tempo to prepare b5, because the
danger of an immediate 1 b5 is that
Black can open lines for his pieces
by 1. .. c5! 2 dxc5 ~cS!. He can then
later exchange his weak d5 pawn,
unless White goes in for the tricky
sacrifice 3 ttJe2!? i..xal 4 IIxal fol-
lowed by 5 ttJed4 with an evenly
balanced position.
In the game, Petrosian decided he
could not wait any longer, so
plunged in with 1 bS axbS Better
l...c5!? 2 axbS 'ifd6 3 bxe6 bxe6
obtaining the pressure he wanted
down the 'c' file. Although Black
can defend his c6 pawn easily
enough, this will restrict his possi-
bilities, thus giving White the op-
portunity to manoeuvre at leisure, a
skill for which Petros ian was re-
nowned. First of all, he plants a
knight on e5 by 4 ttJa4 I:tfb8 S ttJeS
'Wie7 6 ttJd3 ~b7 7 ttJfeS .lixeS 8
ttJxeS and then begins operations on
the kings ide, relying on this strongly
posted knight which can be driven
away only by weakening Black's
pawns further. After 8.. Jbal 9
lhal ttJe7 10 g3 'iVb2 11 ~dl! hS
12 l:tc1 .l:tb6 13 h3! 'itg7 14 '>fi>g2
iVa3 IS 11al 'i'b2 16 g4! hxg4 17
hxg4 lIb7 18 !leI! we arrive at an
ideal set-up for White:
Petrosian v Rossetto (cont.)
He has pressure on both wings and
if IS ... ::'b6 then 19 'YiVf3! f6 20 ttJd7
ttJgS 21 g5!! ~xc 1 22 gxf6+ 'itf7 23
tLJe5+ 'it>f8 24 tLJxg6+ 'itf7 25 ttJe5+
<;i>f8 26 f7 wins convincingly. The
game concluded: 18.. JWbS 19 'iff3
f6 20 gS!! ttJfS Or 20 ... fxe5 21 'YiVf6+
'itgS 22 ~hl mating. 21 gxf6+ '>fi>xf6
22 ::'xe6+ We7 23lWf4 1-0.
This was a splendid example of
the 'minority attack', but what about
the defender's resources? We have
already looked at the possibilities of
planting a knight on c4, backed up
by ... b5 if necessary, and of counter-
ing b5 with ... c5 if feasible. Another
plan is to use the slight advantage on
the kings ide to begin a piece attack
there, a difficult task when White
has no weaknesses to exploit. The
reader may well wonder why the de-
fence cannot begin a 'minority at-
tack' of his own, exerting pressure
down the 'e' file and trying to ex-
pose White's e3 pawn as a weakness
by advancing his kingside pawns. A
logical but rare plan, the problems
being: firstly, there are great risks in
opening up Black's own king's posi-
tion; secondly, White is usually first
with his queenside attack, thus pin-
ning Black's forces down to de-
fence; and thirdly, Black finds it
difficult to maintain sufficient pieces
on the board to support his attack,
whereas White is quite happy to ex-
change one or two minor pieces be-
cause, with Black's king away from
the theatre of action, White's attack
persists into the endgame.
Nevertheless, given the right con-
ditions, such an attack can produce
dramatic results, as shown in the fol-
lowing game which I quote in full to
give the reader an idea of the way in
which both sides pursue their

respective plans: Rosenberg v
Razuvaev Moscow 1972: 1 d4
ctJf6 2 e4 g6 3 ctJe3 d5 4 ctJf3 .tg7 5
.tg5 ctJe4 6 exd5 ctJxg5 7 ctJxg5 e6
8 tlJf3 exd5 9 b4 With the 'minority
attack' already in mind. 9 ... 0-0 10
e3 .te6 11 .te2 ctJd7 12 0-0 and
now Black must formulate a plan to
counter White's obvious intentions.
There is little point in waiting, since
time is a vital factor here. Only one
minor piece has been exchanged,
Black has good control of the cen-
tre, and the two bishops ensure him
adequate protection for his king.
Razuvaev therefore went straight
into action with 12 ... g5! 13 ctJel f5!
14 ctJd3 'ike7 15 llel a6 16 ~b3
'it>h8 17 ctJbl e6 18 ctJd2 f4! 19 exf4
gxf4 20 ctJf3 .tf5! 21 l:tfel .te4! 22
a4 Itg8! 23 b5? axb5 24 axb5 giv-
ing us this position:
Rosenberg v Razuvaev
Moscow 1972
White has brought his own attack
to its logical conclusion, but it is all
too slow, as Black's objective is the
king! The game ended: 24 ....txd4!
25 ctJxf4 .txf3 26 'ikxf3 ctJe5 27
'iWh3 ktafS 28 'iVh6 fNf7 29 ctJh3
.txf2+ and Black won easily. Note
the tremendous pressure exerted
down the resulting open files on the
kingside.
Planning 153
When you possess a pawn major-
ity, it is not so easy to exploit it in
the middle game, because of the
danger of the pawns becoming weak
as a result of pressure on them from
a half-open file, as we have just
seen. If, however, the pawns can ad-
vance without causing weaknesses,
they not only cramp the enemy posi-
tion but can also lead to the creation
of passed pawn. Such a pawn, even
if prevented from promoting, can tie
down enemy pieces that are needed
for other tasks. Here is a typical ex-
ample of this:
Chandler v P. Littlewood
Morecambe 1981
Although Black is a pawn down,
his c4 pawn is a force to be reckoned
with. In fact, White is already in a
difficult situation, because his
bishop is pinned and his knight not
only precariously placed but also
needed for the defence of b3. Un-
derstandably in the circumstances,
he exchanges rooks but, after 1
l:Ixd3 exd3 2 'ika4 Or 2 'ii'xd3 ctJc4
winning. 2...J::i.b8, the 'd' pawn is a
real thorn in his side, preventing 3
llcl in view of 3".d2! 4 .l:!dl ctJc4 5
ctJb3 'ilVd3+ 6 'it>a2 ~c2 mating.
This pawn also plays a key part in
the final combination after 3 'it>al
154 Planning
ClJc74 J:tbl! d2! Threatening to gain
the key b3 square by 5 ... ctJe6!. 5
i.c3 Or 5 'iVc2 ClJe6! 6 ~xd2 ClJxd4
7 i.xd4 lIb3! mating or winning the
queen. 5 .. J::txb1+ 6 'it>xbl ~c4! 7
1W c2 'tWf1 + 0-1. The pawn has the
last word.
The need to restrain (,blockade')
pawn majorities was rightly empha-
sized by Nimzovich in My System,
as we pointed out in our chapter on
pawns, and such 'blockading'
strategies are often incorporated into
whole opening systems. We only
have space for one illustration, but
the following play by a World
Champion in a queenless middle
game is well worth careful study:
Bondarevsky v Smyslov
Moscow 1946
Assessment: Given time, White
will prepare the advance of his king-
side pawn majority. On the princi-
ple that attack is the best form of
defence, Black should try to stifle
this potential expansion at birth.
Plan: By using the knight as a
'blockader' on the e6 square and in-
creasing the scope of his powerful
two bishops, Black can anticipate
White's pawn advance by prophy-
lactic measures, with central con-
trol, as always, being essential.
Execution: Firstly, Black must
force White's e4 pawn to e5 where it
will interfere with its own pieces and
eventually become 'surrounded' as
Black builds up space on the wings
and takes control of key lines and
squares'.
Play went: l...f5! 2 e5 ClJe6!! A
wonderful square for the knight,
relatively safe from attack and con-
trolling four dark squares in the cen-
tre. 3 i.d2 g5! In order to gain space
and prevent· the exchange of the
'blockader' by ClJe2-f4. 4 ClJe2 c5!
Stopping ClJd4. 5 i.c3 b5! Threaten-
ing to win a piece by 6 ... g4 7 ClJd2
b4, whilst giving his queen's bishop
unchallenged control of the splendid
a8-hl diagonal. 6 b3 i.b7 7 ctJg3 g4
8 ClJd2 i.e7 9 ClJh5 giving us our
next position:
Bondarevsky v Smyslov (cont.)
The contrast with our previous
diagram is striking. White's knights
have been driven from pillar to post,
whereas all Black's pieces are ready
for action. All that now remains is
for Smyslov to eliminate all the
rooks and gain more space, until
White's position collapses. After
9... Wf7! 10 ClJf1 ~g6 11 ClJf6 Itad8
12 .l:4adl ':xdl 13 Ibdl :d8 14
~xd8 i.xd8 Threatening 15 ... ClJd4

winning at least a pawn. 15 ttJe3 f4!
16 ttJdl If the attacked knight goes
to d5 or captures on g4, it is lost to
16 ... c6 and 16 ... h5 respectively.
16 ... ~xf6 17 exf6 ~e4 18 SLb2 b4!
Threatening to win the knight by
... ~xc2. 19 f3 SLxc2 20 ttJf2 gxf3
21 gxf3 ~bl and, with two pawns
extra, Black won comfortably.
In most of the positions discussed
so far, the decision naturally came
about in the middle game. How-
ever, a player must be fully aware of
possible transitions by either player
into an endgame. Not only must we
be prepared for such endings but we
must also learn to aim deliberately
for certain types of ending which
are favourable to us and to avoid
those which reduce our advantage
or give the opponent too many
counter-chances. This essential part
of middle game planning demands
of course a good working
knowledge of the endgame.
A common situation, for example,
is when a number of exchanges are
possible, and we have a choice be-
tween a pawn ending or one with
rook and pawns each. Normally, of
course, with a pawn up and other
things being equal, we would un-
hesitatingly plump for the pawn
ending. Or we may have to decide
which minor piece(s) to exchange
and which to keep, or whether or
not to exchange queens. Or, to de-
press the reader even further, we
could be compelled to plan all this
well in advance, with the success of
a long combination depending on
the accuracy of a judgement we
have had to make under
time-pressure!
Planning J55
Once again, we see how all parts
of a game are bound up with each
other and impossible to view in com-
plete isolation. However, as this is
only a relatively small volume de-
voted to middle game issues, we
shall have to assume that the reader
will acquire some knowledge of end-
game technique, so must restrict our-
selves to a few examples of the
transition stage between the middle
game and the endgame. Consider
our first example:
Hoen v Timman
Stockholm 1972
Assessment: White has a 'bad'
bishop, which has inevitably resulted
in serious weaknesses on the dark
squares, thus making Black's
knights clearly superior.
Plan: Timman intends to ex-
change as many major pieces as pos-
sible and head for a minor piece
ending, where his king can use the
dark squares to infiltrate into the en-
emycamp.
Execution: Exchanges can begin
at once and it is not important that
Black loses his 'good' bishop, as
long as it is in exchange for an en-
emy knight.
Play proceeds: l....l::i:xf6 2 lixf6
SLxfl 3 l:!.xfl ~fS! 4 l:txfS+ 'iVxfS 5
ttJe3 ~f4! White should have tried
156 Planning

g5 earlier in order to give his bishop Having correctly judged this end-
more scope, but it is now too late. 6 ing to be in his favour, White now
'ii'f2 Like a lamb going to slaughter, produced the innovation 17 O-O-O!
White seems happy to exchange and after 17 ... b4 18 ttJe4 f5 Winning
queens, thus falling immediately a pawn but ruining his pawn struc-
into a very bad minor piece ending. ture by placing yet another pawn on
6... g5! Even stronger than exchang- the same colour as his bishop. 19
ing queens at once. 7 ttJc4 ttJe5! 8 ttJg5 l:td8 20 d4! ~xd5 21 dxe5
ttJxd6 ~xf2+ 9 'itxf2 ttJxc2 Threat- l:txe5 22 l:thel l:txel 23 l:txel + 'itf8
ening 10 ... c4. 10 .i.f1 'it>g7! 11 ttJb7 24 l:te5 White won because of
c4 12 ttJa5 c3 13 .i.a6 and White Black's pawn weaknesses.
lost on time. The finish might have
been 13 ... ttJd4 14 'it>e3 c2 15 'it>d2 The 1963 World Championship
~f6! 16 'it>c1 ttJef3 17 .i.d3 ttJe 1 18 produced an even more instructive
i.fl 'it>e5 when the dark squares win example of such planning. In
the day. Petrosian v Botvinnik after 1 c4 g6
2 d4 ttJf6 3 ttJc3 d5 4 ttJf3 .i.g7 5 e3
Opening theory has developed to 0-0 6 .i.e2 dxc4 7 i.xc4 c5 8 d5 e6
such an extent in the past fifty years the following position was reached:
that many opening systems have
been analysed as far as the
endgame, practically by-passing the
middle game. In other words,
opening preparation can well consist
in evaluating an ending! Here is
one of many such examples:
Zuckerman v Bleiman Netanya
1971: 1 e4 c5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 d4
cxd4 4 ttJxd4 e5 5 ttJb5 a6 6 ttJd6+
.i.xd6 7 'iVxd6 ~f6 8 fgdl 'iVg6 9
ttJc3 ttJge7 10 h4 h5 11 .i.g5 d5 12
exd5 ttJb4 13 .i.xe7 'it>xe7 14 Sl.d3
ttJxd3+ 15 'ilVxd3 ~xd3 16 cxd3 b5 Petrosian v Botvinnik
World Championship Match 1963

Both players had deliberately pre-

pared for this position, with Botvin-
nik ready to defend it and Petrosian
quoted as saying that, if his oppo-
nent went into this line, he would
lose the ending after 9 dxe6! ~xd1+
10 'it>xdl .i.xe6 11 .i.xe6 fxe6. Pe-
trosian's judgement in this case was
not only positionally but also psy-
chologically correct. The weakness
of the e6 pawn in itself is not so seri-
Zuckerman v Bleiman ous, but Black's second rank now
Netanya 1971 becomes more vulnerable and, even

more importantly, a White knight
can be splendidly posted on e4,
where it is centralized and unassail-
able. From the psychological as-
pect, although in theory Black
should be able to defend such a po-
sition, in practice the task proved
too arduous, even for Botvinnik.
Play continued: 12 'Ot>e2 ttJc6 13
wn
l:f.dl .l:!.ad8 13. .. followed by
14 ... ~e7 seems best. 14 .!:!.xd8 ~xd8
15 ttJg5! ~e8 16 ttJge4 ttJxe4 17
ttJxe4 b6 18 ~bl ttJb4 19 .id2!
ttJd5 The variation 19 ... ttJxa2 20
.l:!.al ttJb4 21 .ixb4 cxb4 22 ~xa7
.ixb2 23 ~b7! pin-points in drastic
fashion the weakness of Black's
second rank. 20 a4 ~c8 21 b3 i.ts
22 ~c1 i.e7 23 b4! c4 24 b5! and,
having now isolated the 'c' pawn,
Petros ian went on to win his best
game of the match after a beauti-
fully played ending.
Such a carefully calculated transi-
tion to a favourable endgame is of-
ten the best or sole plan available in
a middle game situation and should
serve as a warning to those who
imagine they can always find a solu-
tion without recourse to an ending.
A player who is afraid of the end-
game will necessarily find himself
at a disadvantage throughout the
game, since he will find himself
avoiding variations which the logic
of a position demands. Consider the
following position:
White has planned a fine combi-
nation which, with best defence,
leads 'only' to the win of a pawn in
a tricky ending of rook, bishop and
pawns on each side.
Planning 157
Keres v Geller
Budapest 1952
However, after 1 ttJxf7! ~xf7 2
.ib3 ttJc4 3 ttJxc4 bxc4 4 .ixc4
ttJd5 5 i.xe7 Wlxe7 6 exd5 ~xe2 7
~xe2 ~xe2 8 i.xe2 .ixd5, Keres
has correctly judged that he has suf-
ficient advantage to win by 9 a4!
l:i.d6 10 Il.dl! ~n 11 as! fixing the
a6 pawn. He had further important
decisions to make before he finally
won this ending but, if he had been a
less skilful endgame player, the
whole combination would not have
seen the light of day or would have
been spoilt at the finish.
The whole emphasis should be on
intelligent anticipation of a possible
endgame, rather than drifting into
one without a clear idea of the con-
sequences. There is, of course, al-
ways the player who feels that
exchanging as many pieces as possi-
ble is the easiest way to draw a
game! Our final example shows
Alekhine cunningly bringing about
practical winning chances in an end-
game forced upon him in the follow-
ing position:
158 Planning
Znosko-Borovsky v Alekhine
Paris 1933
The game has hardly started when
White, happy to draw against his il-
lustrious opponent, begins a series
of moves leading to the exchange of
a queen and three minor pieces on
both sides. However, after 1 .ixc6
.ixc6 2 dxe5 dxe5 3 ctJxe5 .ixe4 4
ctJxe4 ~xdl Not 4 ... ctJxe4 5 ctJd7!.
5 ctJxf6+, Alekhine refuses to play
the obvious 5 ... .1l.xf6 6 ~xdl i.xe5
7 .1l.e3 with a dead drawn position.
Instead, he chooses to unbalance the
situation slightly by 5 ... gxf6! 6
l::txdl fxe5
Znosko-Borovsky v Alekhine
(cont.)
Of course, this position, too,
should be drawn, but at least it gives
White more chances to go wrong,
particularly if his heart is not in it!
As Alekhine points out, his basic
plan is to bring his king to e6, use
the 'g' file and attack on both wings
after exchanging one rook. White,
on the other hand, pays the penalty
for playing without a plan, as we
shall see: 7 .1l.h6 lifd8 8 'it>n f5 9
.l:[xd8+ l:txd8 10 g3 <j;;f7 11 .Jte3 h5
12 'it>e2 'it>e6 13 I:i.dl ~g8! 14 f3 h4
and Black opened the 'h' file and
later the 'a' file, tying White's rook
down to passivity and eventually
winning a well-played ending. It is
not the result that concerns us here
but rather the contrasting mental atti-
tudes of both players. Black's posi-
tive approach to the endgame
reinforces all we have said about the
need to formulate a plan at all times.
All of this chapter so far has been
devoted to positions in which a
player has been trying to exploit cer-
tain advantages, usually in an attack-
ing situation. However, we must not
forget that defenders, too, have their
planning problems which are some-
times of a different nature. Let us
then close this volume with a few
examples seen from a defender's
viewpoint. We cannot do better than
examine in some detail one of the
finest defensive games I have seen,
in which the attacker was none other
than Tal at the height of his powers:
Tal v Spassky
Candidates Final 1965
 Planning 159

Assessment: White is planning a one attractive win is 4 'iVg4 CLJ7f6 5

fierce kings ide attack, with all his CLJxh6+ 'it>h7 6 iLxf7!! CLJxg4 7
pieces ready to contribute the odd .iLg8+ 'it>h8 8 CLJg6 mate; or here
sacrifice or two. In particular, his 4 ... CLJg5 5 CLJg6! 'it>h7 6 iLxf7! CLJxf7
bishop on b3, knight on f5 and rook 7 ctJxf8+ and 8 'iVxg7 mate. 3 l:te3
on el (ready to head for g3) are key c4 4 .l:Ig3! 'it>h7! Spassky rightly re-
players in the drama. However, the jects 4 ... cxb3 5 ctJxh6+! Wh7 6 ClJxf7
defender must not die of fright "Wie7 7 CLJg5+ 'it>g8 8 ctJf5 with excel-
thinking of all the things Tal might lent play for White. 5 iLc2, and once
do to him! On the positive side, he again Spassky has to make a vital
has a ready-made break in the cen- decision about liquidating the centre:
tre, can utilize his queen's rook de-
fensively on the third rank and
eventually play ... 'it>h7 and ... g6
driving back the knight. In other
words, once he has blocked out
White's light-squared bishop, he
should be able to muster sufficient
pieces to defend his king. Further-
more, there is no reason why his
powerful central counter-attack
should not even win the game for
him!
Plan: The first priority is de-
Tal v Spassky (cont.)
fence. Only later can Black take
over the initiative. THE POSITION He must now have been sorely
MUST NOT BE OPENED UP TOO tempted to play 5 ... cxd3 6 iLxd3
EARLY!! CLJxe4 (not 6 ... dxe4 7 iLxb5!) win-
Execution: Having ascertained ning a pawn and taking over the cen-
that there is no immediate win from tre, but logic wins the day. This
White's attack, Black must of continuation would bring back
course play 1. .. d5! for all the rea- White's king's bishop into play and,
sons given above. Whereas White by removing the knight's control of
will try to maintain the status quo in g4 and h5, only allow Tal tactical
the centre, Black's advance of his chances to which there mayor may
'c' pawn will prove a useful means not be a defence. For example, two
of putting further pressure on the mad lines I looked at were 7 'YWh5!?
centre and completely suffocating CLJxg3 8 CLJxh6+ e4 9 'tWxf7 exd3??
White's king's bishop. 10 ~g8 mate, and 7 iLxe4 dxe4 8
CLJxg7!? iLxg7 9 CLJf5 iLf8 10 iLg5!?
Spassky carries out his plan with 'Wic7 11 'iVh5 winning. Whether or
admirable coolness and precision, not these are sound is irrelevant,
logically exploiting all his re- when Spassky has at his disposal the
sources, despite Tal's justly famed powerful and thematic 5 ... d4!!
skill at conjuring up complications. (which of us would have had the
Play continued: 2 CLJ3h4 c5! Going nerve to play this?), as though say-
for the win of a pawn by 2 ... dxe4 3 ing to his opponent: "I am depriving
dxe4 CLJxe4 is clearly premature; you of your king's bishop. Do what
160 Planning
you like with your other pieces, for I
have sufficient defence, once I bring
my queen's rook to a6. Sooner or
later, my pressure on your e4 pawn
will win the game for me." In des-
peration, Tal now tried a piece sacri-
fice, but Black's defence held after
6 'ii'f3 .l:!:a6! 7 tiJxh6 gxh6 8 tiJf5
'iVa8! 9 tiJxh6 i.xh6 10 'it'f5+ Wh8
11 i.xh6 J:tg8 and, 11 moves later,
Tal resigned the game and the
match.
Good defensive play demands all-
round chess ability, but the player's
attitude of mind and temperament
are equally important. Patience,
imagination, fighting spirit, coolness
and, above all, logic are all useful
qualities in this context. Imagina-
tion, so that we can visualize not
only our opponent's attacking lines
but also our own counter-chances.
Fighting spirit, because despair has
caused the loss of many a drawn
game, whereas determination and
tenacity have often gained a half-
point from a lost position. Coolness
and logic, because in the midst of
complications we have to retain an
element of calm objectivity that
does not neglect first principles.
Here is Keres showing a young
Fischer how it is done:
Keres v Fischer
Curayao Candidates 1962
Black thought he had a win here,
because the expected 1 i.f5+ 'iVxf5
2 ~xg2 fails to 2 ... 'iVf4+ 3 ~g4 (3
Wh3 ~h6+) 3 .. :~xg4+ 4 Wxg4 'it>g6
winning the pawn ending. Instead
Keres produced 1 ~ e5!! when there
is no win for Black. If now 1...'iVf2+
2 'iii>h3 gl='iIV 3 i.f5+ 'iii>h6 4 ~f6+
'iii>h5 5 i.g6+! ~xg6 6 'iVg5+!!
forces stalemate. So Fischer tried
l..:iVh1+ 2 i.h3 'iWxh3+ Or
2 ... g1="iV 3 'iVh5+! 'iii>g7 4 "iVg6+!!
forces stalemate or perpetual check.
3 <;t>xh3 gl ="iV 4 ~e7+ 'it>h8 5 'iVf8+
<;t>h7 6 ~f7+ and a draw was
agreed, for White can even exchange
queens after 6... iJg7 7 ~xg7+ 'it>xg7
8 <;t>g3! holding the distant opposi-
tion and thus drawing the pawn
ending.
As we pointed out in chapter 5, the
stalemate resource is not so rare as
people imagine. However, many
players often derogatively dismiss
such a resource as a 'swindle', par-
ticularly when they are the ones who
have fallen for it! Call it what you
will, it clearly illustrates a defender's
determination not to give in until
every possibility has been exhausted.
As chess is a competitive struggle,
such play is very much part of it.
The late Frank Marshall, and since
then even players like Larsen, Tal
and Korchnoi, have been accused of
'swindling' wins or draws out of lost
positions, whereas all credit must be
accorded to their resourcefulness and
fighting spirit. In fact, from a plan-
ning point of view, such play may
well be the most logical in a given
situation, because a good player is
clearly at his most dangerous in a
lost position and will utilize every
available resource to make life as
difficult as he can for his opponent.
Consider the following example:

Haygarth v N. Littlewood
British Championship, Bath 1963
After a hard-fought game in
which a draw is imminent, Norman
produces the cunning idt<a 1. .. h5! 2
~d6 'iVxf3! 3 J::txf3 l:tee2! when
White is compelled to allow Black
complete control of the seventh rank
by playing 4 ~d5 ~xg2 5 I;!xb5 with
good drawing chances. Instead, he
made the highly plausible blunder 4
I;!g3?? allowing Black a sudden
switch to the back rank by 4... .:!.el +
5 'it>h2 ~cc1 0-1. After 6 J:'!g6 h4!
mate is forced. Into which category
do the readers slot that one?
Or take the following magnificent
example of resourceful play by
Larsen:
Larsen v Van Scheltinga
Beverwijk 1964
Planning 161
Assessment: White is in an ex-
tremely difficult position. At the
moment, his queen's rook, bishop
and knight are completely out of the
game, whilst his king's rook is in a
precarious situation and facing the
threat of l...i.g4 2 'iYh6 'tlVf7 3 e6
i.xh6 with the better ending. How-
ever; for an optimistic player such as
Larsen, his position is not entirely
hopeless. As he himself points out,
he is a pawn up, with a central pawn
majority, and Black's king could be-
come vulnerable.
Plan: Desperate measures are
called for. White must first of all
find a way of neutralizing the above
threat. If he can somehow advance
his centre pawns to give his bishop
scope, he will be happy to sacrifice
his rook for Black's bishop on g7.
There is also another tempting idea
of diverting Black's other bishop
from the kings ide and then sacrific-
ing with tZJf4! which will give him
an open 'g' file. One thing is cer-
tain: he is not going to resign just
yet!?
Execution: There is no time to
lose, so 1 c4!! i.xc4 If l...dxc4 2
i.c3! follows, allowing d5 and
l::txg7+. Best is probably l...l:Ic8 2
cxd5 nc2 3 i.c3 ~xc3! 4 bxc3 i.d3!
but Black has completely missed
Larsen's next move. 2 tZJf4!! gxf4
The threat was 3 tZJh5. 3 Wf2! fxe3+
4 i.xe3 f4 5 i.d2 and there is no de-
fence to J:Igl except giving up the
queen by 5 ... ~g5 which would also
lose. The game ended: 5 ... Wf7 6
'iVh5+ We6 7 'tIVg4+ 1-0. Surely, this
is more than a mere 'swindle' ...
Finally, I must quote one of my
most enjoyable counter-attacking
defences which was more of a
'happening' than a carefully-planned
experience. I give the opening
162 Planning

moves in order to set the scene:
Levy v Littlewood Manchester
1970: After the ultra-sharp opening
moves 1 e4 e5 2 tZJf3 ttJc6 3 d4
exd4 4 c3 dxc3 5 .tc4 cxb2?! 6
.txb2 .tb4+ 7 tZJc3 tZJf6 8 'ilkc2 d6
9 0-0-0 .txc3!? 10 .txc3 0-0 11 e5
tZJg4 12 .td3 tZJgxe5! 13 .txh7+
Wh8 14 h4 ~f6! 15 tZJg5 as! 16 a3,
we arrive at the following position:
mates; and the best move 18..ltb2
bta5! hands me the initiative.
18 ... dxe5 19 ..lte4 ..ltf5! 20 'i'e2 Af-
ter 20 .txf5 e4! 21 ..ltxe4 l:ta 1+ 22
'it>d2l:ta2! or here 21 'tWxe4 'iVc3+ 22
'iVc2 l1a1 mate, I'm laughing, but 20
f3 is more resilient. 20 ... b3! 21 'ittbl
l:ta2 22 'tWh5+ Wg8 23 f3 .l:i.fa8 24
llhel ~xg2 25 lId7

Levy v J. Littlewood (cont.)

Levy v J. Littlewood
Manchester 1970 25 .. J:ta1+! 0-1. It is mate in four
moves.
"What counter-attack?" you may
well ask. Ainong other things,
White is threatening g3 followed by
f4, so of necessity I must divert him
from his attacking preparations.
This is just as much a psychological
as a strategic 'plan', so the tactics
can look after themselves. David
has just prevented my intrusion on
b4, so: 16... tZJb4!! puts the cat
among the pigeons with such pa-
nache that it is almost irrelevant
whether the sacrifice is sound or
not. The rest of the game ran as fol-
lows: 17 axb4 axb4 18 ..ltxe5 A TEST 9.1 Alekhine v Pachman
surprise, but 18 ..ltxb4? ~a 1+ is Prague 1942
clearly too dangerous e.g. 19 Wb2
tZJd3+ 20 'it>b3 ..lte6+ 21 tZJxe6 White to move. Find a plan based
'iYxe6+ 22 'it'c3 tZJxb4 23 'it>xb4 c5+ on the characteristics of this
24 'ittb5 1!a2 wins the queen or position.
 Planning 163

TEST 9.2 Neuman v Kaldor TEST 9.4 Petrosian v Korchnoi

Netanya 1971 Candidates Match 1971

White has just captured a pawn on White to play. Assess the position
e6. No time for strategic planning and work out a rough plan of
here! What does Black play? campaign for him.

TEST 9.3 TEST 9.5

Botvinnik v Diickstein A position stemming from
Munich Olympiad 1958 Konstantinopolsky

Black is about to recover his piece White is threatening mate in 2 and

and White would like to find a way you may well feel like resigning for
to get his central pawns moving. Black. even though it's your move.
How does he proceed? Just have one last. long look in case
you 've missed a mate somewhere!
164 Planning
TEST 9.6
Kotkov v Nezhmetdinov
Kazan 1964
White to move. Black is
threatening a dangerous kingside
attack. Plan a defence for White.
Hints for Beginners
* A bad plan is better than no plan
at all, provided that you learn from
your mistakes.
* A plan should spring logically
from the strategic and/or tactical
elements of the position.
* Try to keep your plan flexible
and be prepared to change it com-
pletely if need be.
* The magic of sacrifice may be
the only way to exploit a given ad-
vantage, and then tactics are the or-
der of the day.
* Possession of an open file may be
enough to win if there are additional
points of attack.
* A half-open file can often be ex-
ploited by means of the 'minority
attack'. The defence must take spe-
cific measures to combat this power-
ful stratagem.
* If a pawn majority can be set into
motion, the aims are to cramp your
opponent's space, create a passed
pawn, tie down the enemy pieces,
then switch fronts.
* Pawns must be restrained and, if
possible, blockaded. A piece, espe-
cially a knight, can often draw
strength and protection from a
blockading position.
* Always be prepared for the tran-
sition to an endgame and try to aim
for the ending most favourable to
you.
* Good defence requires fighting
spirit and determination as well as
all-round chess ability. Avoid
imaginary fears, keep cool and re-
member that nobody ever won a
game by resigning!
* When you have a bad position,
do not meekly accept the situation.
You should then be at your most
dangerous, since you have nothing
to lose and can complicate with
impunity.
 Solutions
1.1 Petrosian won by 9 ~xf7+
l!xf7 10 ~h8+ Wxh8 11 tiJxf7+ and
12 tiJxg5.
1.2 Kasparov won by 4 I:lxc4
dxc4 5 'iVd6! c3 6 ~d4 1-0. After
the forced 6 ... ~h7 White has 7
~xc3 ~g8 (or 7 ... g5 8 'it'e3 f6 9
hxg5+ fxg5 10 tiJxh7 'iVxh7 11
~e6+ exchanging queens and pro-
moting the 'a' pawn) 8 'it'e3+ g5 9
'iWxg5+ ~xg5 10 hxg5 'itxg5 11 a4,
and the ending is hopeless for
Black.
2.1 Against l..Jld4 White has 2
'it>e2! waiting because Black's only
move 2...i.h4 is answered by 3 'it>e3
when the rook is lost if it moves
anywhere but 3 ... ,Ud8 after which 4
'iVh5+ wins the bishop.
2.2 11 ... ~f6 12 Wg6 and mate
and the bishop are threatened.
2.3 The simplest win seems to be
13 g4+ 'it'xg4 14 .a:gl + 'ith4 15
i.g5+ 'ith5 16 'iWd1+ followed by
mate.
2.4 Against 9 'it>h2 the answer is
not so simple as in the game con-
tinuation. There may be more than
one solution, but the main problem
is the entry of White's queen into
the battle. For example, after the
obvious 9 ... ~h4 threatening
1O ... ~g3 mate, White has 10 ~e8+
'it>g7 11 f6+! (better than 11 ~xe5+
~f6 12 'WIc7 ~dg1+ 13 'it>f2 ~d4+
14 We2 ':g2+ 15 'it'd3 I:rdl mate) 14
i.xf6 12 nxa7 forcing Black to take
perpetual check. My solution is:
9... 'it>f8! Threatening ... i.h4. 10 h4
Or 10 b3 i.h4 11 ,Ug2 .!:thl mate; or
10 'WIxa7 i.h4 11 ~8+ Wg7 12
f6+? 'it>h7! etc. 10... ~xh4 11 f4 Or
11 b3 l:th1+ 12 'it'g2 l:tdgl mate.
11 ... ~g3+ 12 'ith3 ~xf4 13 lla3
'ud2 14 'it>h4 Ith2+ 15 l:[h3 ~g5
mate.
3.1 1... tiJf5+ 2 Wd3 ltxc3+ 3
'it>xc3 tiJe3! 4 lIxf2 tiJd1+ and
5 ... tiJxf2.
3.2 1..:iWc4 2 'itgl 'iWd4+ 3 'ithl
iVe4! So that if 4 'it'dl 'ii'f4! wins; or
4 'iWgl ~e2 wins. 4 Wkcl 'ii'd3 Or
4 ... Wkc2! 5 ~el 'it'd2! wins; or here
5 'ii'al Wke2! wins. 5 'itgl 'ii'd4+ 6
'it'hl Wkd2! 0-1
3.3 1. ..'ii'd3+! 2 <;t>xd3 ~xc6+
and 3 ... .Jtxa4.
3.4 1 l:i.f5+ 'it'e6 2 l:te5+ c;!;>d6 3
'ud5+! Wc6 Or 3 ... 'itxd5 4 c4+ and 5
i.xal. 4 l:tc5+! 'it>b6 Or 4 ... <;t>xc5 5
cxb4+. 5 .l:!:b5+! 'it'a6 6 ~a5+! with a
draw by repetition of moves.
3.5 After 1. .. tiJxd3! 2 Wkxf5
tiJxel! Black regains his queen in
view of the threatened 3 ... tiJf3 mate.
3 Wfl tiJc2+! 4 ~c1! ltxc1 + 5 We2
tiJd4+! 6 'it>d2 tiJb3+ 0-1.
166 Solutions
3.6 l.. ..!:ta2! A cross-pin. 2
iVa1+! lhal 3 lIxd6 1:!:bl with a
winning endgame.
3.7 I iVg4+ ~d7? 2 i.e7! wins,
so White can save his piece.
3.S I I;!fdl! 'iVxf4 2 l:IxdS+ ~c7
3 lLle6+! 'it>b6 4 lLlxf4.
3.9 I lLlc5+! ~eS Or l...'i'xc5 2
.i:!.xd5+! ~xd5 3 'i'xe7 mate; or
l...'it>d8 2 i.xc6! ~xc6 3 lLlb7+. 2
ttxd5! i.xb5 3 VWxb5+ ~c6 4 .!:td7!
~xb5 5 l:Iexe7+ 'ittfS 6 ~xf7+ 1-0.
It is mate in three.
3.10 l..J:J:.c3+! 2 'it>f4 2 ... \t>h4 3
l:txh3+. 2... ltfl+ 3 ~g5 ~g3+ 4
'it>h4 llg4+! 5 hxg4 l:lhl + 6 'it>g5
l1xh6 7 'ittxh6 ~hl + S 'it>g5 ~h2
0-1
3.111 lLlg6+! ~e4 Or l...'ittf5 2
lLle7+; or l...We6 2 ~f6+ followed
by a knight fork winning the queen.
2 ~h4+ 'it>e3 Any other move al-
lows a knight fork or a skewer. 3
'i'e1+ Wd4 4 iVg1+ and, once
again, any move loses the king to a
fork or a skewer!
4.1 l...l1c5!! leads to back-rank
mates after 2 .!:txd7 or 2 dxc5, or to
loss of the queen after 2 ~xc5.
4.2 I 'iVxc6! bxc6 2 b7 'i\VdS 3
bS=~ l;Idl + 4 Itxdl 'iYxbS 5 lLlb7!
and Black's queen is lost.
4.3 The thematic finish here
would be a king 'hunt' which might
run as follows: 13 ~g4+ ~f7 Or
13 ... 'it;f6 14 ~f5+ and mate in 2. 14
~h5+ 'it;g7 IS lLlf5+ ~f6 16 i.g5+!
'it>e5 Or 16 ... <;t>xf5 17 i.xe7+ ~f4
18 'i'g5+ Wf3 19 ~g3 mate. 17
lLle3! (threatening 18 i.f4+! fol-
lowed by mate) and now: if 17 ... 'it'd6
18 i.f4+ e5 19 'iYxe5 mate; or if
17 ... d6 18 i.h4+ 'it'd4 (l8 ... 'it;f4 19
'i'g4 mate) 19 0-0-0 mate; or if
17 ... i.h6 18 i.xh6+ Wf6 19 lLlg4
mate; or if 17 ... ~d4 18 i.f6+ lLlxf6
19 0-0-0 mate.
4.4 Too easy, I'm afraid! l...b5
followed by 2...i.b7 mate .
5.1 I ':eS+ lLlfS 2 lLlh6+ 'i'xh6 3
l:txfS+ WxfS 4 ~dS mate.
5.2 I lLle7+! ki:xe7 2 'i'xf6!
~xf6 Or 2... lLlg6 3 ~xe7!. 3 ItdS+
nes 4 l:IxeS mate.
5.3 I .l:!.dS+! lLleS Or l...~xd8 2
'iVxg7+ We8 3 ~f7 mate. 2 f6! 'i!Vxf6
Or 2 ... gxf6 3 'tlVg8+ followed by
mate. 3 ~a3+! "WIe7 4ltfl mate.
5.4 l...i.d3! 2 "WIxd3 ~f2+ 3
'it>hl 'i'xel +! 4 ~xel lLlf2+ 5 'it'gl
lLlxd3.
5.5 I i.xe5! lhe5 2 'iVxe5! ~xe5
3 i.xc6+ 'iitbS 4 lib7+ ~aS 5 ~b6
mate.
5.6 I h7! 1 a7?? 211g8!. l..J:thl
2 a7 ItaI3l:tdl!!
5.7 l..JWh4! 2 ~xe5 Or 2 h3
~xh3+ 3 'it;g 1 i.d4+ 4 ~f2 ~xg2
mate. 2...'i'f2!! 3 Ir.gl "WIxg2+ 4
~xg2IIc1+ 5 'iVel ~xel mate.
5.S I lLlxd5! exd5 2 lLlxd7 'iVxd7
3 i.xh7+ WhS 4 i.f5+.
5.9 I ~a4+ ~c6 Or l...lLlc6 2
~xc6+! 'iYxc6 3 l:i:d8 mate. 2 ~dS+!
'it>xdS 3 'iYxc6 and the knight is
pinned.

5.10 l..:iVg1+!! 2 ~xg1 Or 2
~xgl lLlf2 mate. 2.. J:tbxg2+ 3 ~h1
!i.g1 +! 4 J::txg1 lLlf2 mate, or the
more usual 2 ... I!.gxg2+ and mate in
2.
5.11 1 lLlf6+! gxf6 Or l...lLlxf6 2
~d8 mate. 2 ~xe6+ fxe6 3 .lth5
mate.
5.12 1.. ..!:rg2!! 2 .....xd5 Or 2
'it>xg2 tLle3+. 2.. J:bh2! 3 'it>xh2
exd5.
5.13 1 .ltb7+! ~xb7 2 llab3+
Wa6 Or 2 ... Wa8 3 ~xc8 mate. 3
lIe6 mate.
5.14 1 h6! .lthS 2 lLle6 bxe6 3
.ltb6! and the threat of ~xg5+ fol-
lowed by mate wins the queen.
5.15 1 .ltb2! sets up a bishop and
rook battery. If now 1..J::th6 then 2
l!g3+ Wh7 3 l:1g7+ WhS 4 Wb1! al-
lows only the check that can be an-
swered by a discovered check
winning the rook. The 'echo' varia-
tion of this is l....l:i:f8 2 l!c7+ Wg8 3
~g7+ 'it>h8 4 Wa2! etc. The at-
tempts to save the rook by 1...l:rf7 or
1...lig6 fail to 2 ~h3+ and 2 lIeS+
respectively, followed by 3 ~hS
mate. Any other rook moves lose
the rook. Finally, if 1...Wh7 or
1. ..r.ii'gS, the replies are 2 Ite7+ and
2 lIg3+ respectively, followed by
the exchange of the rook for his
bishop. Delightfully elegant!
5.16 1. .. tLlh4 2 'ilVe2 Or 2 ~e4
'i'dl+! 3 'ilVel 'YWf3+ and 4...'iWg2
mate. 2 ...'ilVb7+ 3 Wg1 l:td2! 4
'i'xd2 tLlf3+ and 5... tLlxd2.
5.17 1 .lta5! forces 1.. ..lth4 be-
cause of discovered attacks if the
king moves and a skewer if the
Solutions 167
bishop moves. Then 2 Wg4 .lte1 Or
2 ... .ltf6 3 i.c3+. 3 Wh3 puts Black
into zugzwang and he loses his
bishop.
5.1S Black's pieces are very re-
stricted but White has no immediate
forced win. However, by anticipat-
ing ... i.h6 with 1 h4!! he places
Black in semi-zugzwang. Checks by
Black's rook only help White, since
the rook has to return to d6 to pre-
vent i.d5! blocking the 'd' file, and
. .. h6 will allow White to advance his
king to h5. This only leaves 1...i.h6
2 ~d5! l:txd5 3 i.xd5 when ... i.g5
is no longer possible.
5.19 1 'iWxh4+! 'it>xh4 2 i.f6+ g5
3 i.e3! and suddenly Black finds
himself in zugzwang! His queen
must keep a guard on e 1 whilst
maintaining the pin of White's g2
pawn, and 3 ... g4 allows 4 i.f6 mate.
After 3 .. :YWf2 4 i.e5! it is all over,
because 4 ... 'i'el allows 5 g3+
'iWxg3+ 6 i.xg3 mate.
5.20 1...'ilVd2! pins the knight and
prepares to answer 2 g4 with
2 ... 'iVh2 mate. White would like to
play 2 'ifb8+ 'it'h7 3 ~6 guarding
the d4 pawn, but then 3 ... g5+ would
win the knight, so he first plays 2 h5
only to be met with 2 ... Wh7!! with a
complete zugzwang! White could
have tried 2 WVb8+ 'it>h7 3 ~e5 but
then 3 ... g6! 4 'iWf6 g5+! would still
win the knight.
5.21 1..:~c6! 2 'iWxe5 i.b7 3 l:te1
'it>hS!! and we again have zugzwang
because the knight cannot move in
view of 4 ...1Ihg2 mate, nor can the
queen guard g2 by 4 'iVg3 neS! 5
llld2 ~xe1 + 6 'iVxe1 'iWxg2 mate or,
if you prefer, 5...'iVxg2+ 6 'ilVxg2
.l::txe 1+ 7 lLlfl l1xfl mate.
168 Solutions
5.22 1 a4!! i.xa4 2 fHa3! i.b5 3
1!xb5! 'iVxa3 4l:tb7+ and 5 bxa3.
5.23 1...i.xg2! 2 tiJxdS Or 2
'it>xg2 ~h3+ 3 'it'hl tiJf3 wins.
2.. :~Ve4! 3 h3 Or 3 'tWxgS i.h3 4 f3
'iVe2! wins. 3 ... tiJf3+! 4 'it>xg2
tiJxd4+ 5 f3 ~xf3+.
5.24 1 SLe7+! ~e6 Not l...~g6 2
.l::tg8+ 'it'xh6 3 SLf8 mate. 2 SLxg5+!
~d7 3 l::!.e7+! 'it'd6 4 ~e2! Itxe2 5
i.xf4+ .l::te5 6 'it'd4 f6 7 g5 1-0.
5.25 1 'iVf6!! and there is no way
that Black can avoid stalemate e.g.
l...'it'h7 2 'iVxg7+ ~xg7 (or ... 'Ottxg7)
Draw.
5.26 1 .l::taS+ ~h7 2 .l:!hS+! 'it>xhS
3 'tWh6+! 'iVxh6 Draw.
5.27 1...'iVc6+! 2 'it>f5 tiJg7+! 3
i.xg7 'iVg6+! 4 'iVxg6 Draw.
5.28 1 'iVe7+ 'it'g6 Or l...~g8 2
'iVe8+! tiJf8 3 i.dS+ 't\VxdS 4
'iYxf8+! 'it>xf8 Draw. 2 i.e4+ 'iVxe4
3 ~g7+ ~xg7 Draw.
6.1 1 .i:txf5! exf5 2 ~xh6+!!
'Ottxh6 Or 2 ... gxh6 3 tiJf6+ 'it>h8 4
J:tg8 mate. 3 !:thl + 'i!/g6 4 ~f4!
Threatening S i.hS+ 'it>h7 6 i..xf7
mate. 4... Ile6 In order to interpose
on h6. 5 llhS!! followed by 6 i.h5
mate.
6.2 1...tiJf6 2 d7 ttJxd5! 3 dS='iV
i:td1+ 4 'it'g2 ttJf4 mate.
6.3 1 Ilxh6+! gxh6 Or l...'it>xh6
2 'iVh4+ ~g6 3 fS mate. 2 'iVgS+!!
tiJxgS 3 i.f5 mate.
6.4 1 i..xg7 'itxg7 2 1i'el! ~d6!
Or 2 ... fxgS 3 'iVe7+ ki.f7 4 l:Lh7+
'it>xh7 S 'ii'xf7+ 'it>h6 6 'ii'f8+ 'it>h7 7
nel; the game finish was 2 .. J:te8? 3
l:th7+ Wg8 4 ~h8+! 1-0. 3 l::th7+
'it>gS 4 ~h4! Now 4 :h8+ 'it>g7!
forces a return to the text with S
~h7+. 4 ... fxg5 5 'iYh6! 'iVf6 6 l:tel!
winning.
6.5 His combination was indeed
correct, but only after some clever
play: 1 tiJf6+! gxf6 Or l...i..xf6 2
exf6 't!Vxf6 3 i.gS winning a piece. 2
exf6 i..xf6 3 i.e4 J::teS 4 ~xh7+ ~f8
and it is at the end of this initial
forced sequence that many players
would not have seen much further.
Play continued: 5 i.g6!! i.g7
S... fxg6 allows mate in 2 and
S... 'it>e7 6 ~xf7+ 'it'd6 7 i.f4 is
mate. 6 i.h6! ~f6 7 lhd7! tiJe7 If
the bishop on g6 is captured by
queen or pawn, then 8 1lVh8 mate fol-
lows. S ~hS+ tiJgS 9 ..wxg7+! 1lVxg7
10 lIxf7 mate. Splendid!
6.6 1 'ilYf6?, threatening ~g7+!
followed by mate in 2, allows the
surprising defence l..:iVc1!! 2 ~xe5
'iVxh6 with a probable draw.
6.7 Once again, the assessment
was a casual one. After 1 .l:tg7+
'it>xe6 2 ~g6+ Ivanchuk boldly re-
plied 2...'it'd5!! He needed a win
which he obtained after 3 'iVd2+ Or
3 lIgS+ ttJeS. 3 .. :ti'd4! 4 SLxc6+
'it'xc6! The point. 5 ~xd4 i.a6+
0-1. After ... gxf2+ the pawn queens.
6.S 1 i.h7+! ttJxh7 2 ~xf7!
~xf7 Or 2 ... ttJf8 3 'ug7+ 'it>h8 4
ltd7+. 3 1lVxh7+ 'it>e6 and now the
'final point' which had to be fore-
seen: 4 i.c7! 'iVd7 Or 4 .. .'ti'e7 S
'ii'fS mate; or 4 ... ttJf6 S ~el+. 5
l::te1+ 1-0. It is mate after S... 'it'f6 6
ttJhS.

7.1 l..J~e1+! 2 l:be1 'ilVd4+! De-
flection. 3 ~xd4 dxel=~ mate.
7.2 1 iLf7+! 'it>g7 2 'ir'xh6+
~xh6 3 iLxe8 ltJxe8 4 d7 1-0.
7.3 1...iLh2+! Deflecting the
king, because now 2 ~fl allows
2 ... ~f6+ 3 cJte2 'iVf2 mate. 2 'itxh2
~xd7 3 ~xd7 e2 0-1.
7.4 The obvious 1...gxf5+ allows
2 ltJxf5+ followed by 3 f8=~, so
Black plays the original and highly
ingenious 1...'i'hS+!! 0-1. After 2
ltJxh5 gxf5+ 3 'it'xf5 (the knight can
no longer capture with check)
3 ... d5! 4 ltJf6! d2 5 ltJg4+ rj;g7 6
ltJf2 dxe4 7 ~xe4 iLc5! 8 ltJd 1
iLd4! 9 'it'd3 ~xf7 10 'it'xd2 ~e6,
Black wins.
7.S l. .. iLfl+ 2 ~n l:i.d1+! 3
rj;e2 Or 3 ItxdI e2+ 4 'it>xf2
exdI=ltJ+! wins. 3 ... ~d2+ 4 ~xd2
Or 4 ~fl e2+ 5 ~xf2 eI='i'+ wins.
4... exd2+ S ~xfl iLf3! 6 ltJd6 Or 6
'it>xf3 !leI wins. 6 .. JifS 0-1.
7.6 1... e2! 2 ltJxe7+ 'ir'xe7! 3
.l:f.xd8+ 'iVxd8 4 e7 Or 4 l:teI .l:f.xg2!
wins. 4 ... iLxg2+ S ~h2 eXf1=ltJ+! 6
'ltgl 'iVd4+ 7 ~fl iLdS+ 8 'it>xn
~d1+ 0-1. Instead of allowing 9
~eI I:.gl+ followed by mate in 2.
7.7 A subtle and difficult win is
achieved by 1 ~d8!! as Or l...1:!:xd8
2 ~xd8 ltJxd8 3 c7 wins; or
l...ltJxd8 2 c7 l:!.eI+ 3 ~h2 wins. 2
kLb8! Not however 2 c7 ltJxc7!.
2... a4 3 c7 1-0. After 3 ... ltJxc7 4
iLxc7 llxb8 5 ~xb8 'lte6! 6 iLa7
'it'd5! 7 iLe3! the pawn can be
stopped.
7.8 l..Jld2! 2 ':xb2 Or 2 '@b5
c2 3 'tWfl l:td5! 4 ~e3 cxbI=~ 5
Solutions 169
~xbIl::ta5 6 'it>f2 'itg8! 7 ~c2 naI 8
'ir'c8+ 'it>f7 winning. 2... cxb2 3 ~b3
.l:f.d8! and there is no way to prevent
the rook reaching a 1.
8.1 3 eS! ltJxeS Or 3... dxe5 4
~xb7 exd4 5 iLxa6 wins. 4 ~xb7
~xb7 S 'i'xa6 ~b8 6 ltJc6 ltJxc6 7
'iYxc6+ ltJd7 8 ltJcS! dxcS Or
8... .l:f.c7 9 ltJxd7 ~xd7 10 :a8 wins.
9 iLf4! iLd6 Or 9 ... ~xf4 10 'i'c8+!
and 11 ~xb7 wins. 10 ~xd6 llb6
11 ~xd7+! 1-0.
8.2 1 ~f7! ~xh7 Or I...ltJe5 2
'i'h5 iLg4 3 ~h4 wins. 2 'i'hS+ cJtg8
3 g6 ltJfS Or 3 ... ltJf6 4 l:txf6 'i'xf6 5
IIfl wins. 4 lixfS+ rj;xfS S ,Un +
'ite8 6 ~dS ~e7 7 ~g8+ rj;d7 8 ~f7
wins.
8.3 8 ...1:tg6! 9 cxb4 ltJeS+ 10
~fl iLh4+ 11 l:Ig3 ltJg4+ 12 'ltgl
iLxg3 13 hxg3 ~dS! 14 lla3 l!h6!
IS lZJfl ltJxfl 0-1.
8.4 1...dS! A typical central
counter-attack, linked here with free-
ing the king's bishop for activity on
the weakened a7-gI diagonal. 2 eS
iLcs+ 3 ~hl ltJg4 4 ltJdl f6! S h3
ltJfl+ 6 ltJxfl iLxfl 7 ~e2 fxeS! 8
Ihfl e4 recovering the piece with
the better game.
8.S 6 h4! .l:i.de8 7 hS l:teS 8
iLxeS dxeS 9 'iVf6! Elegantly replac-
ing the bishop with his queen.
9 ... ltJc8 10 h6 ltJe7 11 Itd2! 1-0.
Black cannot prevent the doubling of
rooks on the 'd' file followed by
.l:f.d8! and mate on g7.
8.6 l..Jhd3! 2 iLxd3 c4! 3
~d6! Or 3 iLxc4 'i'c5+ and
4 .. .'iha3. 3... ltJe8! Not however
3 ... cxd3 4 ~xc6! Ii.xc6 5 l:i.b8+ mat-
ing. 4 ~b4 ~xb4 S cxb4 cxd3 0-1.
170 Solutions
S.7 1 'iWh6+!! Wxh6 Or 1...'ith8
2 tiJxg6+ fxg6 3 .Jtxg6; or 1...Wg8
2 tiJfS gxfS 3 .JtxfS. 2 tiJf5+ <;i;>h5
Or 2 ... <ot>g5 3 h4+ \t>g4 4 £3+ Wf4 S
'it>f2 wins; or here 3 ... 'it>f4 4 g3+
<ot>g4 5 £3+! wins. 3 f4! gxf5 4 i.eH
'it>h4 5 ~h2! 1-0.
S.S 1...tiJxb3!! 2 gxf6 Or 2
axb3 'iVa5 and 3 ... kta8. 2... tiJxCl 3
~ e3 Or 3 c;t>xc1 ~ as and there is no
way of vacating the dl square with-
out loss of material. 3 ...'ii'a5 4 ~xc1
i!aS 0-1. After 5 a3 'iVxa3 6 ~xa3
~xa3 7 l:te3 b4! and 8 .. .1:[fa8, White
is mated. . l:Ihfl + tiJf6 4 i.hS! i.d8 S ~ e8
S.9 After 1 ktxf7!! <;i;>xf7 2 l!f1 +
'it>e7 Or.2 ... <ot>g8 3 tiJf6+! gxf6 4
WUxg6+ \t>h8 S ~xh6+ 'ito>g8 6 l!xf6
wins. 3 d6+! c;t>d7 4 l!f7+ tiJe7 If
4 ... ~c8, then 5 tiJxc5! is one of
many ways to win. 5 ~a4+! 'itcs
Amusing is S... .Jtc6 6 .Jth3 mate,
but trickier would be 5 ... \t>e6 6
~c4+! i.dS 7 ltxe7+ ltxe7 8
tiJgS+! 'it>f6 9 ~f4+ c;t>g6 10 i.xd5!
with a quick mate. 6 d7+! 'i\Vxd7 Or
6 ... <l;c7 7 tiJf6! gxf6 8 ~f4+ 'ito>xd7
9 i.h3+ 'itc6 10 l:txf6+ \t>b5 11
.Jtfl+ WaS 12 'iVc4 and mate in 2.6
i.h3! 1-0. After 6 ... 'iVxh3 7 ~xe8+
it is mate in 3.
9.1 Assessment: This position
reveals basically a struggle between
two bishops and two knights. Once
a knight reaches eS, Black will have
good chances of keeping White's
bishops under control. However, if
White succeeds in activating his
bishops, he can attack Black's ex-
posed kingside.
Plan: Open up the position as
quickly as possible, then begin an
attack on both sides of the boards, if
need be.
Execution: Speed is vital, so we
must not worry about the sacrifice of
a mere pawn. The game finished: 1
f3! exf3 2 .Jtxf3 ttJf6 2 ... ~xe3+ 3
~g2 tiJg7 4 '!:'del ~g5 S b4! ~d8 6
c5! ~d7 7 c6! bxc6 8 dxc6 ~f7 9
~d2! and 10 i.d5 is one possible
continuation. 3 .Jtd4 tiJSd7 4 b4
tiJe4 5 g4! fxg4 6 i.xg4 ~g5 Or
6 ... tiJf8 7 l:txf8+! winning. 7 ~g2
tiJf8 S .l:i.f4 h5 9 h4 ~h6 10 i.h3
1-0.
9.2 Tactics are the order of the
day! Both 1...fxe6 2 ~g6+ 'it>f8 3
mate, and 1...tiJxg3 2 tiJxc7+ 'it>f8 3
hxg3 winning a piece, tell us that
Black's queen is a desperado piece
which must compel Black to begin
with 1...~xc3!! when 2 bxc3 tiJxg3
3 tiJc7+ Wf8 4 hxg3 ~c8 gives him
at least equality. However, 2 ~xg7
needs to be considered, against
which Black has the beautiful line:
2 ... i.a3!! 3 lId8+! c;t>e7! 4 lId7+
'it>xd7 5 ~xf7+ 'it>c8 winning. White
decided to end the game with a per-
petual check after 2 tiJxg7+! c;t>f8 3
ttJe6+! c;t>eS Not 3 ... fxe6 4 ~f4+
saving his queen. 4 tiJg7+ etc .
Should White have played on in-
stead with 4~xc3 tiJxc3 S ttJc7+
'itf8 6 bxc3 l!c8 7 tiJdS? His posi-
tion does not inspire confidence and
perhaps the tension had been too
much!
9.3 Botvinnik had only one
chance to get his pawns moving and
he took it as follows: 1 .!:[e3!! ~xc3
2 d4 ~c4 3 i:!.b4 ~a2 4 J:.e2 ~al 5
d5! when Black cannot capture
twice on dS because of check to his
king. After 5 .. J:tadS 6 ~d2! i.f5 7
i.b2! ~xdl + S ~xdl White had a
winning position. A splendid mix-
ture of strategy and tactics!

9.4 Assessment: At the mo-
ment White is successfully restrain-
ing Black's centre pawns, but these
could rapidly become dangerous af-
ter ...'fiIg7 and ... llde8 threatening
... e4 or ... f4 or a mixture of the two.
However, once White can move his
queen's knight and bring his
queen's rook to e2, linking this with
gaining space by b4, he can apply
strong pressure on Black's position.
Plan: Begin the queens ide
counter-attack immediately!
Execution: It would be wrong to
attack the centre at once without due
preparation with moves such as 1
f4? ~xd2! 2 ~xd2 e4! or by 1 ~xc6
bxc6 2 tZJhf3 e4! with good play for
Black in both cases. Clearly, the
first move must be 1 b4! solving
most of White's problems at one
stroke, because the knight can go to
b3 with gain of time and he does not
even have to give up a pawn in the
process! However, since his plan
will involve giving up his king's
bishop for Black's queen's knight,
he must watch his own weakened
kingside. Once Black's centre
pawns begin to fall, White should be
fine.
The gaIPe continued: 1...exb4 2
tZJb3! ~bu Not of course 2 ... bxa3 3
tZJxa5 tZJxa5 4 ~xa3 winning the
exchange. 3 ~xe6! bxe6 4 axb4 a6
5 liJf3 e4 There is little choice, as
both ... tZJd7 and ... i.c7 lose the d4
pawn anyway. 6 e5 i.e7 7 liJfxd4
'fiIf7 Threatening 8 .. .lhd4!. 8 l1d2!
i.d7 9 i.b2! and Petros ian obtained
just the kind of position he had en-
visaged with b4!! Of course, Black
had some attack but White's central
control and dark square pressure
won the game for him in eleven
more moves.
Solutions 171
9.5 A fine sequence of moves
does indeed mate for Black and his
pinned king's bishop plays an im-
portant part in the combination
which runs: 1.. .I!e1+!! After
l...tZJc3+ White has 2 'it>al. 2 ~xel
'iVxe2+! 3 'it'xe2 liJd4+ 4 'it>bl Or 4
'it'dl tZJxb2 mate. 4... liJe3+! 5 bxe3
Or 5 'it'al liJc2 mate. 5... .:.b8+ 6
'it>al tZJe2 mate. The moral of the
story is never to resign without ex-
ploring all possibilities!
9.6 1...g4 is a real threat against
which specific measures must be
taken. On general principles, 1
i.xg5 opening the 'g' file for Black
seems suicidal but we must give it a
quick glance: after 1.. J:i:g8 2 ~xf6
i.xf6 3 ~xc6! bxc6 4 Wh2 ~g5!
threatening ... We7, followed by
... ~af8 and ... f5, White is in trouble.
We have learnt that a wing attack is
best countered by play in the centre,
so we must next examine 1 d4 when
unfortunately 1.. .g4 seems too
strong, as 2 dxe5 fails to 2 ... gxf3 3
exf6 J:ig8! forcing mate. Or if in this
line 2 hxg4 then 2 ... 'iYxg4 3 d5 ~g8
4 g3 'iYh3! gives Black a powerful
attack. Instead, White finds a third
method, which is to hold the position
on the kingside while building up
counter-pressure on the queenside
and in the centre. It is a method re-
quiring strong nerves and accurate
calculation, but White succeeded as
follows: 1 liJd5!! g4 2 liJh2! JIg8
(the first point is that 2 ... gxh3 would
now lose apiece) 3 l:tc1! llg6 4 b4
'it>f8 5 g3! ~e8 5 ... gxh3 still fails to
6 tZJxf6 i.xdl 7liJxd7+ emphasizing
the amazing influence of White's
centralized queen's knight. 6 liJxf6
~xf6 7 e5! We7 8 exd6+ exd6 9
hxg4 ~xg4 10 liJxg4l:!.xg4 11 ~xe6
172 Solutions

bxc6 12 lhc6! and, because game White was pitted against one
12 .. .1hg3+ 13 fxg3 iVxc6 loses to of the most dangerous attacking
14 iVf3, White won comfortably. players in the world!
You have to remember that in this
 Index of Players and Composers

Adorjan v Androvitsky 22 Botvinnik v Petros ian 103

Alekhine v Bogoljubow 94 Boudre v Shirov 144
Alekhine v Borochow 74 Bron 51
Alekhine v Capablanca 131,143 Bronstein v Geller 122
Alekhine v Freeman 69 Bronstein v A N Other 48
Alekhine v Lasker 58 Bronstein v Zaitzev 45
Alekhine v Marshall 142 R.Byme v Fischer 34
Alekhine v Nestor 68 Candolin v Ojanen 47
Alekhine v Pachman 162 Capablanca v Alekhine 14
Alekhine v Podgomy 89 Capablanca v Blanco 49
Alekhine v Wolf 11 Capablanca v Jaffe 145
Anand v 1. Polgar 42 Capablanca v Em. Lasker 113
Anand v Rongguang 84 Capablanca v Milner Barry 32
Andersson v Basman 123 Capablanca v Scott 145
Andersson v Browne 53 Capablanca v Steiner 12
Andrew v Roach 37 Chandler v P. Littlewood 153
A N Other v Richter 118 Cheron 71
Antoshin v Kostro 134 Coggan v Foster 51
Antunac v Hubner 44 Corden v 1. Littlewood 39
Barcza v Bronstein 48 Csom v Ribli 116
Bauer v Golner 94 Danailov v Kasparov 23
Belenki v Pirogov 71 Dobirtsin v Bonsch 82
Bellon v Gar ~;a 74 Dobrescu and Halberstadt 20
Bertok v Fischer 108 Dommes v Federov 118
Bhend v Petros ian 133 Duras 69
Bianchetti 78 Duckstein v Petros ian 63
Bimov 49 Erbis v Kempf 70
Bisguier v Peretz III Euwe v Griinfeld 22
Bloch v Milbers 53 Euwe v Keres 35, 72
Bogda v Ferreira 74 Fischer v Benko 10
Bogoljubow v Alekhine 29 Fischer v Bolbochan 27
Bogoljubow v Sultan Khan 68 Fischer v Geller 67
Bondarevsky v Smyslov 154 Fischer v Larsen 32
Boros v Lilienthal 121 Fischer v Petrosian 63
Botvinnik v Budo 104 Fischer v Reshevsky 24
Botvinnik v Chekhover 114 Fischer v Spas sky 13
Botvinnik v Duckstein 163 Florian v Pachman 55
Botvinnik v Grigorenko 105 Fox v Capablanca 140
Botvinnik v Kan 114 Frydman v Vidmar 72
174 Index of Players and Composers

Funnan v Batygin 70 Kotkov v Nezhmetdinov 164

Geller v Sveshnikov 110 Kotov v Barcza 142
K. Geller 56 Krahnstover v Seyferth 86
Gendel v Sushkevitch 52 Krustkaln v Krumins 130
Gheorghiu v Kinnmark 91 Kubbel 42,81
Gil v Dobosz 83 Kunnennann v A N Other 97
Gligori6 v Larsen 38 Langeweg v Smyslov 29
Gligori6 v Smyslov 30 Larsen v Cafferty 111
Gligori6 v Szabo 81 Larsen v Ljubojevi6 72
Gonsharov v Strasdins 148 Larsen v Petrosian 25
Gragger v Dom 69 Larsen v Van Scheltinga 161
Grigoriev 31 Ed. Lasker v Aila 74
Gusev v A verbach 18 Ed. Lasker v Capablanca 112
Hamann v Brinck-Claussen 51 Lazdin v Zemitis 85
Hamppe v Meitner 62 Letelier v Fischer 137
Haygarth v N. Littlewood 161 Levenfish v Riumin 43
Hecht v Ghitescu 21 Levitina v Sizennan 78
Henneberger v Nimzovich 36 Levy v 1.Littlewood 162
Hennings v Barczay 118 Lilienthal v Botvinnik 126
Herbstman 46 Lilienthal v Hamming 147
Hoch 43 Limbos v Kavalek 97
Hoen v Timman 155 Lisitsin v Botvinnik 136
Hort v Keres 119 J. Littlewood v Agnos 96
Horwitz 73 J. Littlewood v Barden 63
Howell v J. Littlewood 60 J. Littlewood v Botvinnik 92
Hubner v Timman 84 J. Littlewood v Dodson 84
Ilchenko v Sosina 74 J. Littlewood v Shabanov 113
Imbaud v Strumilo 61 J. Littlewood v Tomasevi6 94
Isakov v Nikitin 46 Ljubojevi6 v Donner 109
Jansa v Sydor 19 Lorenz v Espig 128
Jiminez v Larsen 19 Lowcki v Tartakower 43
Jung v Szabados 81 Madsen v Napolitano 118
Kakovin 33 Mar6czy v Romi 78
Karlsson v Jansson 124 Maslov v Babahanov 52
Kasparov v Karpov 17 Mees 44
Katalimov v Mnatsakanian 69 Meloch v Olszewski 129
Kavalek v Bleiman 140 Merenyi v Capablanca 62
Keene v Robatsch 144 Mikenas v Polugaevsky 143
Keres v Fischer 160 Miles v P. Littlewood 127
Keres v Geller 157 Miles v Martin 83
Keres v Smyslov 132, 135 Moravec 25
Kestler v Pesch 86 Motor 85
Kevitz v Capablanca 138 Najdorfv Stahlberg 82
Kirov v Vasyukov 35 N eikirch v Botvinnik 130
Kling 54 Neumann v Kaldor 163
Kmoch v Rubinstein 137 Nimzovich v Capablanca 28
Konstantinopolsky 163 Nimzovich v Mieses 76
Korchnoi v Portisch 45 Nunn v Dlugy 12
 Index of Players and Composers 175

Olssen v Andersson 65 Shirov v J. Polgar 125

Ortueta v Sanz 116 Shirov v Van Wely 99
Pachman v Eckert 55 Sigurjonsson v Stein 75
Pedersen v Gallmeyer 65 Simons v Parkin 50
Penrose v Barden 88 Sliwa v Doda 86
Pesitz v Reti 59 Sliwa v Stoltz 60
Petros ian v Botvinnik 156 Smejkal v Medina 149
Petrosian v Korchnoi 163 Smyslov v Euwe 71
Petrosian v Rossetto 151 Smyslov v Fischer l33
Petrosian v Spassky 16 Smyslov v Karpov 103
Petrushin v Vlasov 44 Smyslov v Kottnauer 125
Pietzsch v Fuchs 86 Smyslov v Zagoriansky 66
Pirc v R.Byrne 43 Sobolevsky 33
Planinc v Mestrovic 128 Soker v Yolk 90
Podzerov v Kuncevic 46 I. Sokolov v Ivanchuk 97
Pogosyants 30 Sokolsky v Botvinnik 107
Popov v Shmuter 143 Spassky v Petros ian 116
Ragosin v Geller l34 Stein v Bilek 119
Ragosin v Stahlberg 141 Steinitz v Lasker 15
Rauzer v Rabinovich 75 Steinitz v Von Bardeleben 54
Ravinsky v Kotov 121 Svidler v Gelfand 100
Reefleger v Wirthensohn 79 Szily v Balogh 81
Reshevsky v Capablanca 102 Taimanov v Ignatiev 58
Reshevsky v F eigin 106 Tal v Botvinnik 12
Reshevsky v Gauffin 105 Tal v Solmanis 83
Reshevsky v Matsumoto 96 Tal v Spassky 158
Reshevsky v A. Thomas 104 Tal v Tringov 10
Reti 80 Tarjan v Ljubojevic 118
Reti v Alekhine 93 Tarnowski v Botvinnik 150
Reti v Tartakower 46 Tarrasch v Blackburne l39
Ribera v Capablanca 151 Tarrasch v Chigorin l39
Rinck" 25,42,72,77 Tartakower v Andor 95
Robatsch v Larsen 115 Tartakower v Broadbent l32
Rosenthal v Ragozin 108 Thesing v King 75
Rossolimo v A N Other 94 Toran v Tal 20
Roth v Baumgartner 118 Tylor v Em. Lasker 79
Rozenberg v Razuvaev 153 Ubilava v Kengis 34
Rubinstein v Alekhine 80 Uhlmann v Botvinnik 111
Rufenacht v Neuenschwander 78 Ujtelky v Pachman 47
Sackman 71 Unknown Players 60
Salkind 73 Vasyukov v Uhlmann 117
Sapelkin v Afanasiev 53 Vishnyatsky v Perevoznikov 70
Schletser v Chigorin 120 Vladimirov v Sazontiev 149
Schmidt v Richter 93 Volchok v Kreslavsky 53
Schranz v Honfi 82 Volinsky v Kalinichenko 28
Shabalov v Stefansson 92 White 47
Shaposhnikov v Boleslavsky 76 Zagoriansky v Tolush 85
176 Index of Players and Composers

Zaitzev v Storosenko 61 Znosko Borovsky v Alekhine 158

Zelevinsky v Berezin 97 Zuckerman v Bleiman 156
Zhilin v Shemov 81