The Mechanics

of the

Mind
 CHESS
The Mechanics of the Mind

HELMUT PFLEGER
Gerd Treppner

The Crowood Press

David & Charles Inc.

First published inGennan in 1987 by Falken-VerlagGmbH.
6272 Niedemhausen/Ts.

© Falken-Verlag 1987

Published in Great Britain in 1988 by

The Crowood Press
Ramsbury. Marlborough
Wiltshire SN8 2HE

Published in the United States of America in 1989

by David & Charles Inc.. North Pomfret. Vt 05053

English translation © The Crowood Press 1988

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be

reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means.
electronic or mechanical. including photocopy. recording or
any information storage and retrieval system without
permission in writing f rom the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Pfleger, Helmut
Chess: the mechanics of the mind.
I. Chess
I. Title II. Treppner, Gerd
794.1
ISBN I 85223 127 0

E nglish translation by John Littlewood

Photoset by Andek, London

Printed in Great Britain by

Billing & Sons Ltd. Worcester
Contents

Preface IV

The Mechanics of Chess Thinking I

2 When the Brain goes on Strike 27
3 The Right Way to Learn an Opening 44
4 Signposts in the Middlegame 69
5 Who's Afraid of Endings? 88
6 The Character and Style of Kasparov and Karpov 117
Preface

Perhaps you too, when playing a promising yet trick y position,

have longed for the skills of a Kasparov! You have probably then
gone on to mess up the game. resigning yourself to the fact that a
chess master's thinking is on a totally different plane from yours.
To a certain extent you are right but, on the other hand, a master is
not from birth an intellectual giant whose thought processes are
beyond the grasp of a lowly amateur. The plain fact is that he has
tuned his thinking to an ultra-fine degree, with daily practil:e and
training doing the rest. The same applies to any other highly
specialised field of human activity.
A great deal has already been written about chess think ing, but
almost invariably with the strong tournament player or budding
master in mind. We have aimed this volume at the average chess
enthusiast who welcomes instruction without undue didacticism.
We would like to pinpoint the reasons for those mistak es which do
not spring from lack of chess understanding but rather from basic
flaws in our thought processes - flaws to which chess masters are
equally prone. In addition, w e intend to pick out from the three
phases of the game those situations where the amateur's chess
thinking is inferior to that of an experienced master, or where he
has to overcome specific mental barriers. All this is based on
research which seems to have been somewhat neglected in most
books on the subject, despite the fact that it clearly reveals the
mechanics of our chess think ing.
Whilst this small volume cannot claim to be a manual of
instruction, we hope that you will take from it anything that
proves useful for your own level of play - just as long as you don't
then go and beat Grandmaster Pfleger in a simultaneous exhibition
and have the nerve to comment: 'It would never have been
possible if you hadn' t written this book . . '
.

IV
1 The Mechanics of Chess
Thinking

Do you believe in magic? You must admit that, even if you are
profoundly sceptical about the so-called magical powers of a stage
magician, you invariably experience some fascination with the
tricks he performs. The same can be said about the wondrous feats
of great chess masters over the centuries. We k now very well that
such players are mere mortals, so we are intensely curious to
discover how they manage to produce their bewildering brilliancies.
The Dutch psychologist, Adrian de Groot, himself a player of
master strength, was the first to conduct an experiment to test the
workings of the chess mind. He recently repeated this experiment,
using grandmasters Adorjan of Hungary, Short of England and
Pfleger of West Germany, along with a numbe r of average club
players. They were allowed to look at given positions for five

�\
seconds only, after which they had to reconstruct the position as
best they co ld
_
()
1- :
.·�'w
-);:.�

0 I
�--�
.....____) � X,._ -..;: ·;

This is clearly a typical game position. Chess journalist and

computer expert Frederic Friedel gives the following predicted
results: 'If you cannot set up more than four or five pieces, you are
probably a be ginner. An experienced chess player should be able
 THE MECHAI"ICS OF CHESS THINKING

to achieve seventy to eighty per cent accuracy, whilst a grandmaster

will certainly not only reproduce the correct position but will also
have time to note the mate in five moves by:
I 1We5+ �8
2 0.e7+ 1;f8
3 ti:Jg6+ <itg8
4 1Wf8+! llxf8
5 0.e7 mate
Nigel Short actually had a bit of fun by placing the white
queen on c5, ready to counter any criticism by pointing out that
he had given the k ey move of the solution!
To remove possible doubts about the reliability of the test, the
candidates were asked to wear special glasses that would record
their eye movements. Again, there was a clear result. The masters
immediately directed their attention to the relevant sectors of the
board where the action was, whereas the amateurs tended to gaze
indiscriminately all over the board.
'And what does all that prove?' many of you will now ask . Be
patient; the experiment did not stop there. They were now given
an idiotic position, with pieces scattered at random, bearing no
relation to any normal game set-up. The performance of the
amateurs was just as bad as before, but they were now joined by
the masters! This is the real point: top players and ordinary
humans are by no means worlds apart. Of course, just as in other
fields, there is the true genius who eclipses his colleagues, but he is
more than balanced by those players of only average intelligence
who happen to excel at chess - those referred to by Korchnoi's
companion Petra de Leeuwerik as 'idiots who can play chess'Jhe
incredible specialisation of chess masters is primarily due!_o d�ly
practice, systematic preparation and regular tournament play. In
'Sit-uations where the amateur cannot see the wood for the trees. the
master finds his way about as easily as a primate of the forest, but
you have only to confront the master with an unfamiliar 'environ­
ment' to realise the shortcomings of his professed superiority!
What is it then that makes the master so strong on his home
ground? The conclusion of the experiment is clear: a given position
must contain reference points and specific clues��dy part of
the chess master's vast store of knowledge,which lead him instantly
to a rapid decision. Such indicators were not to be found in the
-
experimentaC-;-idiotlc' positions, which were created with no logic

2
 THE MECHANICS OF CHESS THINKING

whatsoever--T!J rning back to diagram I. for example. a master would

,cc White's fianchettoed king's position as a whole. as though it
\\ere a giant piece. would immediate ly note the u�us��I-sltWilfi3n
of Black's king and the unconnected black rooks. and automatically
rL·gister any checking possib_i_htit> .. All this would be done instinc­
tively and wiii1-no effort. How�ve-�. the main difference between an
average player and a master resides in the way they view the pieces.
As early as 18 93, Alfred Binet. inventor of various intelligence
'
tests, did research on this aspect. Although the methodology of his
experiments has been criticised. the actual results have been
confirmed . He identified the two groups of players as follows:
_teginners viewed the board and pieces photographically, seeing
all the black and white squares and the shape and colour oLt'ieiY
piece. whereas the experienced eye of the master was free of all
such encumbrance . For instance (as Tarrasch once stated), the
master does hot see-�coloured piece of wood with a horse's head
b�t rather the abstract power of the k night's control over certain
'
squares and its value (usually three pawn units) in a given situation.
Beginners' text books are moving more and more towards the use
of arrows in diagrams to indicate optically the range and power of
the piec�s. Perhaps this is why the master so often discovers
dynamic resources in a position or achieves that 'o..J2�imal co­
ordination of the pieces'. a c�>ncept so difficult to understand,
whilst the beginner is inclined to rely on static features such as
material, pawn structure, and so on. We shall return to this point
later. Of course, these are the opposite extremes of chess thinking
and many chess players fall between these two poles, but
nevertheless the ability to see beyond the static, material aspect of
a piece and appreciate its innate power is an important measure of
a master's potential.
. Returning to the 'reference points' we mentioned earlier, we
must stress that it is not just a vast store of piece configurations
that chess masters can call upon, but also a range of standard
combinational sequences, such as the 'smothered' mate we
witnessed in diagram I. Most stock tactical lines like this are seen
almost instantaneously by the master who then has to spend a
little time check ing the finer details; in other words, the general
ideas are already there and are set against the specific peculiarities
of a given position.
So, as regards thinking power, it is not (as de Groot rightly

3
 THE M E C H A NICS OF CH ESS TH INK ING

points out) that the master calculates more, but that his great
chess understanding directs him speedily to the relevant issues. In
fact, it is rare for a master to examine more variations in a 'normal'
position than the average chess player does, or to go into much
more detailed analysis of these variations. Ji o\\'ever, the moves he
examines are usually good ones, and often immedia!d}:' thejl�st,
whereas the amateur loses a lot of time checking out average or
even weak mov��
De Groot evaluates the number of 'reference points' availaqle
to a master (for the most part, unconsciously, since they have
become an integral part of his thinking processes) at about 50,000.
A highly interesting number, because it is approximately the
vocabulary store possessed by anyone with a good k nowledge of a
language!
An excellent illustration of this was seen when, in 1986, World
Champion Kasparov was presented with the following position to
'solve' in the Akruellen Sport studio.

'-
;;p::
-2;?--w 2

,_�"- �, �\u_
- ' 7../:;t- 'X'
The solution (I ..ixh7+ ..t>xh7 2 'ti'h5+ <;!;>g8 3 lt::lg5 lile8 4 'ti'xf7+
�h8 5 'ti'h5+ �g8 6 \!t'h7+ �f8 7 �h8+ �e7 8 'ti'xg7 mate) was
expected to be produced by Kasparov at lightning speed, thus
proving to the spectators the reflex action of a top player when
confronted by such a position. However, giving Kasparov this
position was like asking a professor of mathematics to recite his
multiplication tables, and it provoked an understandably angry
reaction which did even more to prove our point! It was good live
television too . . .
Further proof of a chess master's thought processes can be
found in Alek hinc's description of his method of playing a
blindfold simul taneous display:

4
 T H E ME C H AN IC S OF CH ESS T H IN K ING

"When each board-number is called out, you only have to re­

member the relevant opening, thus pinpointing the various plans,
thr eats and defences, calling to mind the latest position and the
last move played, before proceeding further. It is the opening
phase which makes the most demands on the memory, because it
is not until each position has acquired an individual character that
the memory can fasten on to specific points of reference. It is the
so-called logical memory which does the major part of the work.
In other words, a player does not try to conjure up the whole
board with its black and white squares and pieces, as most
laymen think , but rather sees the position as an old friend, a
familiar book or a favourite object. This is how I and, to the best
of my knowledge, all other leading blindfold players approach the
game. You only use your visual memory when you need to check a
position at a critical moment or to clear up any misunderstanding,
etc. '
Basically, this fits in exactly with the Binet research mentioned
above. In particular, it is interesting to see that the blindfold
player finds the openings the most difficult to attribute to specific
players. Key distinguishing features will not have come to the fore,
even though the player's theoretical k nowledge of these openings
may make move sequences child' s play to him.
Nevertheless, we must not push too far the idea of thinking
-
solely in acquir�d P.��· In The Psychology of Cheil, Hartston
and Wason refer to an experiment by Holding and Reynolds in
1982. Once again, players of varying strengths were given a few
seconds to examine positions which were random but legal. They
had to reconstruct these positions, then evaluate them and find the
best moves. The first task produced similar results to the initial
findings, but when it came to evaluating the positions and finding
the best moves, a player's performance was directly related to his
strength. It was concluded that, since these positions did not
contain standard chess patterns in the accepted sense, there must
be other ways to measure a master's strength. Holding and
Reynolds maintained that these yardstick s were_�epth of analysis
and the ability to make a correct assessment of positions reached
at the end of a variation (although this latter skill must surely
depend in part on a k nowledge of acquired patterns).
It is hardly surprising that a master calculates varl"ations more
efficiently than a beginner, even in random positions. What does

5
 T H E MEC HA NICS OF CH ESS T H I NK I NG

come as a shock , however, is the realisation that this particular

skill forms only a small element of a master's superiority. Despite
clear statements to the contrary (such as Reti's impish reply when
ask ed how many moves ahead he calculated; 'As a rule, not even
one'), it is difficult to eradicate the common mistake of seeing a
master as a monstrous calculating machine. Even computer
programmers pursued this false trail for a long time, and it is only
recently that they have abandoned their so-called 'brute-force'
machines, which examined all possible variations, even the most
ridiculous ones. Ways were found of eliminating such absurd
variations, but this still left computers far behind the human chess
player. Eventually, computer research (paying tribute to the work
of de Groot and others) produced programs which sought to
emulate human thought processes. It seems that only this method
guarantees real progress, further proof that chess is not primarily
a game of calculation, and that a master does not s_Qend hours·
working out long variations, but is, on the contrar � onomical in
the use of his think lngt1me .
Whilst we accept that chess thinking is not based solely on the
-
k nowledge of acquired patterns, -IF-a:pp�ars that this aspect
constitutes the major part of a--·n-iaster' s superiority over a
-
beginner. Hartston and Wason offer surprising parallelS with
other areas of daily life, referring to a theory which states (among
other things) that our experience of the world is stored in 'organised
structures' of the brain. In other words, it is not only chess thinking
that relies on certain acquired patterns. For example, there are
texts which any reader would consider nonsensical as they stand,
but which become immediately comprehensible once a 'key' (such
as an explanatory heading) is provided- the context within which
they are read suddenly helps to clarify apparently meaningless
phrases. Holding and Reynolds compare this to the way in which
a. beginner, who has no 'k ey' of acquired k nowledge, is completely
baffled by a given position, whereas a master, by recognising (even
subconsciously) a trusty pattern, can rapidly unravel the secret
behind the seemingly disparate elements.
�
Is it talent, training or pra-CticaCe- ience which produces
good chess think ing? The first of these, at least, has had some
research devoted to it. The psychologist Franziska Baumgarten,
for example, carried out some well-known experiments with child
prodigy Samuel Reshevsky, who was already giving simultaneous

6
 T HE MEC HA NI C S OF C HE SS T HI NK ING

chess displays at the age of eight, and even today, at the age of
seventy-six, can still play a good game! Reshevsky was outstanding
in his visualisation of spatial relationships, and possessed a
phenomenal memory for shapes, being able to reproduce forty
different figures in the correct sequence after studying them for
only four minutes. This result fits in closely with the research of
both de Groot and Binet.
Although shapes and spatial visualisation also play an important
part in mathematics (geometry ! ), there does not appear to be an
essential link between chess and this subject, despite the fact that
we often meet with a combination of the two.
. Of course, it is probably impossible for a player to reach the top
without a certain innate talent, and there is no doubt that such
native ability saves the player a great deal of time and effort.
Nevertheless, experts believe tha.t..tr..a.injng and practical experience
count for at least as much as inborn talent, since both of them first
_help a player to acquire the necessary patterns or 'reference
points' , and then provide him with opportunities to exploit this
k nowledge in varying contexts . . To be sure, clear thinking is also
essential to prevent a mechanicalreactlonLo acquired patterns, to
observe, and react to, subtle differences, and to 'put theory into
PEac�jce' ..
Let us now luxuriate for a while in a few reminiscences of youth
. . . (G. Treppner takes over here).

:r\7�Q'\')-i: -

\)
\ �,-�
J
.
. . . .
. h Whne
I h ad th 1s pos1t10n w1t after onI y a tew
' '"-l1( . m
mont hs' practice .•

youth tournaments, and in a very important game too (in other

words, at a time when you are highly reluctant to sacrifice anything
in case you fall flat on your face! ). However, I eventually sacrificed
my queen, Black resigning after:

7
 T HE ME C HA NI C S OF C HE SS T HI NK I NG

I 1!t'xd7 lixd7
2 lieS+ i.f8
3 i.h6
forcing mate. A flash of genius on my part? Unfortunately not!
I had seen the final mating position shortly before in a book . . .
Because such incidents remain fixed in the memory, it has not
tak en me long to find the game in question: Zinn-Briimmer, in
Kurt Richter's Checkmate (third edition).
I also remember that it was a relatively long time before I took
the plunge, a fact that clearly shows the difference between a
young beginner and an experienced master. The latter would have
produced such a simple combination without a moment's thought,
for there is not the slightest suspicion that anything can go wrong
with the set pattern. In the Zinn-Briimmer game the queen sacrifice
took place on e8 rather than d7 ; this was different enough to make
me verify every possible reply three times before finally proceeding!
Once again, practice and experience would have given more
confidence in the application of acquired k nowledge.
However, the main point to note is that good old-fashioned
learning by rote is not to be despised, at least when dealing with
such basic tactical elements. Acquired k nowledge goes even
further in master play, wrth whole plans bemg classified for
-
subsequent use. Of course, her;- �e are now far removed frorr.
mindless ·rote-learning. Such acquired plans are necessarily based
on the study and (even better) play of a number of sample games,
where the major elements of the plan and its ideal application are
established.
An example comes to mind, once more from my own youth - a
drama in two acts. Firstly, with Black, I stumbled unwittingly into
a line which was not so well k nown then as it is now; at all events,
I was still a relative beginner at the time. The game went:
.1-...k --Jo 1 e4 c5
�
k

2 ll:lf3 d6
3 d4 cd
4 ll:lxd4 ll:lf6
5 ll:lc3 a6
6 f3 g6
It is worth noting in passing that a master would doubtless
strongly criticise my last move which falls in with White's standard
plan, when the premature 6 0 could be exploited by other means.

8
 T H E MEC H A NI C S OF CH E SS T H I NK I NG

7 .ie3 .ig7
8 'i*d2 0-0
9 0-0-0

4
8

White's stock plan from this position can be stated fairly simply:
bishop to h6; exchange on g7 ; opening the h-file by h4-h5; queen
entry on h6, followed by a rapid mate! Is chess really that easy?
Of course not, since we have to allow Black to make a few moves
and theory offers him defensive ideas, often involving a counter­
attack. However, White's attacking plan is relatively easy to carry
out and highly dangerous against a defender who is unaware of
the problems, a defender such as I who continued to get my pieces
out with no sense of imminent disaster.
9 lLlbd7
10 g4 lLleS
11 .ie2 bS
12 .ih6 .ib7
13 .ixg7 ot>xg7

5
w

It was gradually dawning on me that something was wrong, since

9
 T HE MEC HA NI C S OF C HE SS T HI NK I NG

my opponent was cheerfully playing his moves as if he knew

precisely what he was doing. His next move, however, was bizarre
- to say the least.
14 l:thgl �
Why take his rook away from a file he intends to open, as part
of an attack on the h6 square? ��c� i_!lggical moves are a sure sign
that a player has 'swatted up' a sequence of movesin.prepara.tion
for a game, without really grasping the underlying ideas: It is
usuai i y in the transition stage between the opening and the
middlegame that such errors are encountered, when a player is
suddenfy on his own, having reached the end of his opening
knowledge. (We shall deal more fully with this 'moment of truth'
in a later chapter. ) The actual game could now have taken a
different path, but since I still had no idea about what was going
on, some wild play ensued, with my opponent eventually opening
up the h-file, placing his rook on h l, and beating me . . .
After this fiasco, I soon realised that I k new far too little about
this opening. As quickly as possible (it was during a youth tourna­
ment), I look ed up the whole variation in a book to see where I had
gone wrong. Then, paradoxically, two days later I found myself
playing the same line, with White this time, against someone else.
In my opinion, I proceeded more logically than my earlier
opponent, although the omething to be desired:
I
2
3 d4 cd
4 lt:lxd4 lt:lc6
5 lLlc3 g6
6 .te3 .tg7
7 1!¥d2 a6
8 0-0-0 ltJf6
9 f3 lt:lxd4
10 .txd4 b5
ll a3 .tb7
12 i.e2 0-0
13 g4
14 i.e3
15 h4
16 h5
17 hg fg

10
 T HE MEC HA NI C S OF C HE SS T HI NK I NG

18 a4

6
B

A moment not without interest. After . .. fg the situation has

changed, because the normal plan of exchanging bishops allows
Black to protect the critical h7 square along his second rank .
Suddenly, a new pattern emerges, involving a check along the
a2-g8 diagonal. As is typical in youth, the way of achieving this
goal is somewhat clumsy, but it works. Black misses the point.
18 ba?
19 i.c4+ �h8
20 lixh7+
and Black resigned, in view of 20 . . . Wxh7 21 it'h2+ i.h6 221Wxh6
mate.

Enough of the sins of youth! From the point of view of chess

think ing, this slight but real story is a vivid example of how
beginners gradually �c:_guire the basic chess patterns and apply
them to their own games, sometimes even speeding up the process
by intensive effort. It also shows how, on the one hand, too little
k nowledge can lead you astray ( 14 lihg I ) and how, on the other
hand, judicious k nowledge can enable you to react to changed
circumstances (18 a4 in the second game). �_e _higher a player
climbs in the hierarchy, the more refined his chess thinking
becomes. A top master, for example, not only k nows the general
elements of J.lOSitional play, such as how to open and occupy vital
lines, and how to play against weak pawns, but also has at his
command a wealth of more specialised information, such as the
subtle treatment of various pawn structures and how to attack
them, the strategic value of certain squares, when to exchange or
retain specific pieces, and so 0�

II
 T HE MEC HA NI C S OF C HE SS T HI NK I NG

It is no wonder that de Groot, in a conversation with another

Dutch master, Cortlever, came to the conclusion that, for a master,
and certainly for a grandmaster, there are essentially no new ideas
to be discovered in the game of chess. For his part, Lasker, after a
quarter of a century as World Champion, referred to chess as
'stereol'yped'. The fear of the so-called 'draw death' appeared,
because people believed that the k nowledge and technique of the
leading players had reached such a peak that it would not be long
before draws were inevitable. As we now k now, this fear proved
groundless, for, at the very time that Capablanca was toying with
the idea of introducing different opening positions for the pieces
to k eep the game alive, new personalities came on the scene to
demonstrate convincingly that chess was far from dead. Today, as
we view the tremendous struggles between Kasparov and Karpov
and, above all, the way in which they both annihilate other top
players, chess appears to be well and truly alive.
Returning to our theme, whilst we may accept de Groot's thesis
that there are basically no new ideas to be found in chess, there is
no doubt that new combinations, along with new presentations of
existing ideas, are continually appearing in a seemingly inexhaus­
tible stream.
-How does a master think when faced with a normal position?
The first reaction is to consider the immediate threats and tactical
points which must be parried or carried out as a matter of urgency
before other factors can be examined. Such tactical elements are
not always easy to unearth, especially if they have no obvious
connection with the positional elements and just happen to be
there. You must sometimes have had a strategically healthy­
looking position which suddenly falls apart because of some
chance factor. How easy is it for players to recognise and exploit
random opportunities such as this? De Groot carried out an
interesting experiment on this very issue.
Diagram 7 , taken from one of de Groot's own games after
sixteen moves, with White to play, was given to leading players
such as Alek hine, Keres, Euwe, Flohr at the 1938 AVRO tourna­
ment, as well as to a number of average players. They were all
asked to find White's best move and to give the time taken. The
result was that all the grandmasters ((!xcept Flohr who made an
interesting oversight which we shall consider in the next chapter)
all correctly gave I .ixd5 as the winning move and found it fairly

12
 T HE MEC HANI C S OF C HE SS T HI NK I NG

rapidly. Let us first see how White quickly won in the game:
I .ixd5! ed
Forced, since both I lt:Jxd5? 2 lt:Jxd5 followed by 3 .ixe7
0 0 0

and I .ixd5? 2 .ixf6 .ixf6 3 lt:Jxd5 ed 4 lt:Jd7 lose material.

0 0 0

2 �f3 1Wd8
2
0 0 0.ie8 would leave the rook on c8 unprotected, allowing
li:lxd5 now or after 3 .ixf6.
3 lifel
Threatening lt:J g4.
3 �g7
4 lt:Jg4
With the double threat of .ih6+ and lixe7, against which there
is no defence.
4 lt:Jxg4
5 .ixe7
winning the exchange and the game.
Apart from the grandmasters, hardly any of the other players
suspected that there was a forcing solution, despite spending an
average fifteen to twenty minutes thinking time, much longer than
their esteemed colleagues. For the most part, they opted for
positional moves such as I life!, I .ib l , I .ih6, and so on, not
even suggesting other tactical possibilities, whereas the grand­
masters also examined the consequences of I lt:Jxc6, another
forcing move which Alekhine considered just as strong and Flohr
actually preferred (for faulty reasons, which we shall discuss later).
We must conclude from all this that it was only the top players
who immediately e;<�_mined concrete forcing continuations,
whereas the lesser players were content with general considerations.
Why does this happen? At first sight, there seems little to worry

13
 T H E ME C H A NIC S OF CH E SS T H I NK I NG

about in Black's position, at least nothing detectable by the average

mental antennae. Black has posted his pieces on reasonable squares,
nothing is threatening his king, he seems to have good central
control, with two pieces and a pawn controlling the positionally
important d5 square, and the only organic weakness seems to be
the fianchetto position of the black king which is hardly exploitable
at the moment.
So what is it that triggers off the master's thin king apparatus?
De Groot affirms that every solver's first reaction was about the
same: White has an isolated d-pawn, which means problems in an
endgame, so he must attack. O nly the grandmasters, however,
immediately exa mi ned the concrete elements: the bishop on e7
guarded only by the knight on d5, which makes the situation of the
knight on f6 somewhat precarious, pinned as it is on the bishop.
If White can exchange pieces on d5 without this k night being able
to recapture, it becomes fixed on f6 and ready for exploitation. It is
easy to see that I ltlxd5 allows the k night to recapture, whereas
I .ixd5 does n ot. In the same way, a master would almost instinc­
tively note the possibility of ltld7 forking queen and rook, should
the bishop on c6 give up the guard of the square. Finally, a player
must examine the possibilities of 2 'it'f3 or 2 l0g4, but he is already
on the correct path .
So, what prevented the lesser masters from choosing this line?
First of all, they found it difficult to visualise a tactic arising from
a chance posting of the pieces, especially when, before Black's last
move ( ... Wb6), there was nothing seriously wrong with his position.
Of course, this is li nked with the poin t we have already made
about the way a grandmaster rapidly sees the relationships
between pieces viewed as dynamic elements rather than mere bits
of wood. Secondly, a move such as l .ixd5 is not obvious on
general principles; exchanging a good bishop for a knight is not
normal, and at all events it is not usually good to exchange pieces
when you have an isola ted pawn. A grandmaster is experienced
enough to know when to break the rules, and concrete tactics
represent such a situation.

[Translator's note. No one seems to have ever mentioned in this

connection the famous piece of analysis by Breyer of a World
Championship game between Lasker and Capablanca, given in
Reti's Modern Ideas in Chess and surely well known by all the

14
 T HE MEC HA NI C S OF C HE SS T HI NK I NG

grandmasters at the AVRO tournament. The position seems highly

a ppropriate in the present context:

Lasker wrongly played 17 .ixd5 here, whereas B reyer pointed

out that in this sit uation the surprising 17 .ixf6! wins as follows:
17 ... .ixf6 ( 1 7 . . . lt:lxf6 1 8 �g6 life8 19 lixe6 fe 20 .ixe6+ c;t;h7
21 lt:lf8+ c;t;h8 22 't!Vh7+! lt:lxh7 23 lt:lg6 mate) 18 .ixd5 ed 19 lt:lg4
.ig5! ( 1 9 . . . .id 8 leaves the rook on c8 un protected after 20 1Wf5)
20 f4 .ixf4 21 1Wf5 .ic7 (in order to guard the queen and thus
prevent 22 1Wxd5 a6 23 a4 inducing weaknesses) 22 lt:lxd5 'i!i>h8 23
lt:lxh6 gh 24 lt:lf6 'i!i>g7 25 lLlh5+ and mate in two moves. A splendid
piece of analysis, clearly illustrating the need to avoid stereotyped
thinking, particularly when calculating combi nations.]

It is by no means easy to detect these chance tactics which are not

based on obvious strategic factors. A player has only to neglect
momentarily the dynamic relationships between pieces and a
master's highly developed thought processes will immediately
give him the advantage, even if we are no! dealing with a combina­
tion which is already stored in his memory banks. This undoubtedly
makes it difficult for us to offer useful advice about such situations,
since the ability to think like a grandmaster cannot be conjured up
to order. Unless you have inborn talent, you must patiently develop
this abil ity by means of training and practice. Besides, as we have
already explained, a great part of this ability resides in the
subconsci ous mind , which is why we refer to it by using vague
terms such as 'chess i ntuition'- Kasparov, for example, says that
he will never be threatened by a computer. since a machine has no

15
 T HE ME C HA NI C S OF C HE SS T HI NK I NG

such intuition. Significantly, highly intuitive players often find it

impossible to explain why they are making a particular move,
although they 'sense' that it is a good one. Capablanca is a case in
point. Unfortunately, we still k now far too little about the
workings of the human brain to be able to track down such pheno­
mena, and, according to Hi.ibner, it is futile trying to build up an
authentic theory without this solid k nowledge.
Returning to our theme, Jet us_assurne that a master has found
no concrete tactical chances in a given iJOSiJi�n. He nqw begins to
evaluate the strategic elements, such- as opef1_ I!n_�.s+��nd
strong squares, comparison of the minor pieces, pawn structures
arisi-ng from different openings, and so on, and then is faced with
the most difficult problem of weighing up the importance of these
varied elements within a specific situation. Here is where
k nowledge of acquired patterns comes into its own. What the
master takes for granted proves to be much more difficult and
!ime-consurning for the amateur over the board, and carries with
it the risk of being side-track ed into faulty variations. It can quite
easily happen that a player is on the wrong tack from the word 'go';
it is equally possible to be forced to use up more thinking time
than your opponent, then finally to make errors as a result of
fatigue, or simply to lose on time in a perfectly defensible position.
Even supposing that a player is spared all this, the master still
has the advantage of delving more deeply into the position than his
opponent can do in the equivalent time, since he is already on a
higher level before he starts. In fact, it's just lik e giving a faster
runner a ten-yard advantage!
Of course, one thing is vital when evaluating a position: you
must learn to recognise t � e exception to the rule, since an acquired
pattern is not just a sequence of moves to be reeled off in a
mindless fashion. The slightest difference in a so-called standard
position can necessitate a completely new approach. [For example,
in the Lasker-Capablanca position that we have just seen, you
only have to place the a7 pawn on a6 for Breyer's combination to
fail! Or consider diagram 2, where a black pawn on h6 instead of
h7 would totally change the situation. TranslaTOr] To continue
our comparison with the runner: the signposts may well tell him in
which direction he has to go, but he still has to do the actual
running himself! And if he trips over his own feet. he only has
himself to blame . . .

16
 T HE MEC HA NI C S OF C HE SS T HI NK ING

Let us look at another example from a World Championship

match, in which a small difference in the placing of a pawn proves
very significant.

9
B

C a pa blanc a-Alekhine
5th g a me , World Ch ampionship 1 927

Alekhine hi mself writes about this position as follows: 'With

inversion of moves, we've reached a position in which White,
instead of the normal continuations, has played the seemingly
harmless a3. However, as we shall see, this move contains much
more poison than one would suppose. In fact, on his very next
move , Black fails to take into account the significa nce of a3 . '
15 .ie6
Alekh ine: 'This plausible offer to exchange bishops is inappro­
priate here . . . ( he then discusses at length the better .if5) . . .
00 •

After the text move, White gradually obtains a strong positional

advantage .' Alekhine m ust have assumed he was w riting for
readers of top master level , since he offered no further explanation !
We lesser mortals will have to look for the reasoning behind his
intriguing comment. Clearly, in this position the d-file control is
the most important strategic factor and White is already ahead in
the race to seize this file, because Black first needs to develop his
bishop in order to play a rook to d8. With White's pawn on a2,
however, exchange of bishops on e6 would suit Black perfectly,
because his queen would then be attacking the pawn. White would
then have to play 16 'it'b 3 and, although the position is still not
fu lly simplified , it seems defensible.
16 .be6 'it'xe6
17 lld3 'it'f6
A further subtle point of a3 appears; after 17 0 0 0 'it'e7 18 lld 7 the

17
 T HE MEC HA NI C S OF C HE SS T HI NK I NG

black queen is denied access to b4!

18 1Wb3 't!t'e7
19 lird 1 liad8
20 h3
Si nce he cannot win the b7 pawn immedia tel y because of the
back-rank mate on d I, he now threatens this, forcing Black to
concede the d-file. If now 20 . . . b6 2 1 't!t'a4, Black still has to give up
control of the im portant file in order to defend his pawns .
20 lixd3
21 lixd3 g6
22 '§'d 1

10
8

White has achieved his positional aim, although Black even­

tually managed to draw the game.
Once ;.unastei has carried out an analysis of a position, he can
prepa r� a plan � h ich l�kes into account all relevant fa �rs.
_
However, making a plan in itself is not the end of his thinking
problems. In Bronstein's tournament book of Zurich 1953, he
states that the art of a master often consists not so much in
conceiving the correct plan but rather in execut ing this plan with
precise and often the only moves. Here is a good example of how a
basically sound plan can be ruined by faulty execution.
Diagram 1 1 : Black's mov e 1 2 ... c5 was pounced upon by
Bronstein as 'a serious strategic error', despite its natural appear­
ance. Why? Even the most hardened sceptic cannot fail to be
convinced by Bronstein's logic. It is clear that Black must increase
his pressure on White's queenside, so the correct plan (envisaged
by Petrosian, as we shall see) is to provoke b3 and then attack the
weakened pawn complex by advancing the a-pawn to a4; at least
one of White's pawns will remain fatally weak, however he may

18
 THE MECHANICS OF CHESS THINKING

lJ
B

N ajdorf- Petrosian
Zurich 1 9 53

react. But to play a4, Black has either to give up his valuable
bishop for the k night on c3, a highly suspect idea, or else play his
knight to b6, thus obstructing his own attack down the b-file. For
t hese reasons, c5 is the ideal square for a black knigh t, not only
putting pressure on b 3 but also controlling other important central
squares such as e4. Seen in this light, Petrosian's move is indeed
open to severe criticism . . . Let us see what happens in the game.
13 e3 lbe6
14 t!lc2 aS
15 i.d2 ltJeS
16 b3
Since a subsequent a4 has now been robbed of its sting, Petrosian,
at a loss for constructive ideas, was finally driven to the wall and
beaten .
There was a partially happy ending to this story for the Soviet
players. In one of the final rounds, from the same position, Geller
( against Najdorf once again) reserved c5 for his k night, almost
certainly as a result of home-cooked analysis with his compatriots,
and eventually carried out the winning plan. There was, in fact, a
great deal more happening in the game, so it was not until move 25
that Wh ite played b3 and move 32 that Black played . . . a4, but it
proved sufficient to win .
Th is difficult example shows u s how much the master depends
on work done away from the board , in research on particular
openings or specific preparation for a particular opponent. Even
such a giant of strategy as Petrosian failed to find the correct plan
over the board , or to appreciate in time the significa nce of a

19
 THE MEC HA N I C S OF C HESS T HIN KI NG

ca reless pawn move. A master needs to work continuously at the

ga me, which is why it is well nigh impossible to become a top
gran dmaster without being a professional . Knowl edge has
become of such a specialised nature that no one can cope with it at
th e board or even by spending a fe w hours' spare time on it.
· So. we first look for direct threats in a position, then we examine
.

me positional elements before we finally conceive and execute a

-
plan. Ho wever, any good text book will tell you that strategy and
"tact c .
i s are so interrelated that it is sometimes almost impossible to
separate the m . At all events, in the midst of strategy we can never
afford to neglect the tactical element. This is particularly true
whenever we have to apply an acquired pattern to a given
situation which inevitably diffe rs somewhat from the original or
whenever we have to execute a plan with the utmost precision , by
finding, as Bronstei n says, the only moves.

Por tisch-Fische r
Santa Monica 1 966

What sh ould Black do here? His rook on a8 is en prise and

White is th reatening �d3, weakening the black king's position
( after . . . g6); Black has only a white-squared bishop and cannot
therefore prot ect any dark-square weaknesses he may create. Any
decent club player would see all this and note j ust as quickly that
the sim ple I I . lLld7 would stop these im mediate threats by
. .

protecting the rook and preparing to answer 12 �d 3 with 12 . . .

ltJf6, covering h7 without creating any fu rther weaknesses.

Be honest wit h yourself: how many of you would stop thinking
at this point, feeling that everything was clear and practically
forced? Wouldn't you qu ickly place the knight on d7 without
wasting any more time? A player like Fischer views such a

20
 T HE MEC HA N I CS OF C HESS T HIN KI NG

situation with ver y diffe ren t eyes. His acquired patterns tell him
that his best chance lies in attacking the weak pawn complex on c3
and c4 and, in order to do this, he needs the knight on a5. To play
his knight defensivel y to f6 would mean giving up any realistic
chance of carrying out such a thematic attack on the doubled
pawns. Moreover, after I I . . . li:Jd7 12 �d3 li:Jf6 13 'it'h4, White
wo uld be able to pursue his own attack at leisure wi thout having
to worry overmuch about possi ble counterplay. Before accepting
such a method of play, a Fischer would do his ut most to find an
alternative solution which corresponds to the demands of the
position. Is there one? As he states in his book My 60 Memorable
Games, his next move was the finest in the game and far superior
to the 'natural' 1 1 . . . li:Jd7.
11 W'd7 ! !
Killing all the birds with one stone ! White can obtain two rooks
fo r the queen after 1 2 W'xa8 li:Jc6 but his weaknesses persist and
the knight will soon land on its strategically ideal square .
Meanwhile, White's rooks are helpless in de fence of the weak
pawns and have no open files to work on, in stark contrast to the
black queen which is highly active. Another line which Fischer
had to assess is 12 �d3 f5 1 3 W'e2 when the weakness of his e6
pawn is offset by the fact that White cannot attack it before his
own c4 pawn comes unde r attack, giving Black at least equal
ch ances.
Of course , no one knows fo r sure all that went on in the head of
th e future World Champion, but in princi ple it is in such a way
that a master tackles a position. De Groot's research points to the
following process:·a,·seon as any i mmediate tactical chances have
been dealt with, the master uses his acquired knowledge to ascertain
the general direction in which the position is taking him . Typicat
situations alert and activate the typical methods of play appro­
priate to them. The player then tests individual moves geared t <?
this general direction, naturally trying to find the main or critical
variation (the most obvious, or the most thematic, or the one
involving the most sacrifices, or any other move that calls for
attention). On the basis of this preliminary in vestigation, he no w
makes a first, provisional choice , after which begins a progressively
dee per analysis, testing sub-variations, alternative moves (should
the initial choice of move prove unsat isfactory ) and possible
refinements (even if the fi rst idea is a good one ).

21
 T HE MEC HA NICS OF C HESS T HI NK I NG

In this present example, the general direction is established,

with moves such as 1 1 . . . ltld 7 h ardly meeting the criterion of
putting pressure on the c4 pawn. Then, hopefully, the player will
come up with I I . . . 'W'd7 (among other moves); a preliminary
i nvestigation indicates that it at least offers more chances than
1 1 . . . ltld7. Now comes the in-depth treatmen t, involving a more
precise analysis of the variations which have so far been glimpsed
only sketchily, not forgetting an assessment of what is adjudged to
be the final position in eac h. It readily becomes apparent that
strategy and tactics are inextricably lin ked in such thinking.
Moreover, in this particular case, Fischer must h ave visualised
his plan well in advance, since he brough t about the position by
means of a central exchange of a pawn and a piece on moves 9 and
10. He deliberately opted for this situation, despite the fact that
other choices were open to him - in an earlier game he had played
differently. This still leaves us undecided as to how much home­
analysis was involved, as opposed to improvisation over the
board. Anyway, the course of the game shows that Fischer's choice
of plan was eminently sound.
12 ..ta3
Fischer gives the above-mentioned 1 2 ..td3 f5 1 3 'i!Ve2 as best,
but even this is slightly be tter for Black.
12 lieS
13 ..td3 rs

13
w

14 'i!Vxa8?
It was the last chance to play 1 4 'W'e2, al though White is then
on the defensive. As Fischer says : 'His doubled c3,c4 complex is
weak but not fatally so. As the game goes, however, it is!'

22
 T HE MEC HA N I CS OF C HESS T HI NKI NG

14 lt:ic6
15 1Wxe8+ 1Wxe8
16 0-0 lt:ia5
17 l:lael .ixc4
According to Fischer, 17 . . . 1Wa4 is even stronger, but the text
move won the vital pawn and eventually the game. To sum up:
Black's positional well-being hung on a silken tactical thread,
depending on the splendid I I . 'it'd7 , without which we might
. .

well have had a diffe rent story .

Although such momentous tactical decisions are by no means
rare, in normal 'bread-and-butter' positions tactical finesses
us ually enhance or speed up the strategic plan. So metimes,
however, tactics prevail over planning, especially in positions
dominated by cut-and-thrust play where no rational, long-term
plan can be envisaged . There are even occasions when the whole
struggle centres around the possibility of a specific combination;
the sole plan then is to throw all you r resources behind the id ea. Of
course, you must be convinced that it is positionally well­
grounded, or else it is merely a way of committing hara-kiri; it
would be as if someone were to decide on the first move: ' I 'm going
to mate my opponent by sacrificing a rook on hT. However, if a
typical acquired pattern can logically fit into the characteristics of
a position and is considered viable, all st rategic planning may be
thrown out of the window, in order to concentrate fully on the
tactical execution of the combination in question.

14
w

S teinitz-C h igorin
4 th ga me, World Cha m p ionsh i p 1892

Writing about this position, Richard Reti, one of the leading

23
 THE MEC HANICS OF C HESS THI N K I NG

thinkers of the 'H ypermodern School' of the 1920s, said: 'It is

clear that Steinitz, when studying the brilliant combinations of the
older masters, was un willing to attribute everything indiscrimi­
nately to the genius of these players, but rather presu med that a
successful combination must be based on some intrinsic weakness
in the enem y position. He thus built up a theory of combinations
by examining the relationship between commonly recurring
positional weak nesses and the tactical possibilities arising from
them . So. in this position, after Chigorin has weakened h is king's
side by recapturing on g6 with his f7 pawn, we see Steinitz imme­
diately abandoning his hitherto positional plan of setting up a
solid position in the centre and choosing instead to open up vital
lines on to the enemy king . '
I f you glance back at the example we gave o f a n attack against
the D ragon Variation of the Sicilian Defence , you will see the
same pattern of an open h-file used in conjunction with the a2-g8
diagonal and once again involving a rook sacrifice on h7, when the
white-squared bishop prevents the black king's escape to g8. In
that case the clumsy a4 advance was used to open up the relevant
diagonal, whereas here Steinitz makes ten well-planned moves to
produce the same effect. There is no need to annotate the rest of
this fa mous game in detail, bu t the relevance to our tactical theme
must be stressed .
14 ed lt:Jxd5
15 lt:Jxd5 �xd5
16 .tb3
Th e critical diagonal is open and occupied . It matters little to
White that his d3 pawn is fo rmally weak; he is after bigger game!
16 �c6
17 �e2 .td7
18 .te3 lt>h8
19 0-0-0
We are dealing with no di rect attacking moves here but rather
with elements of a combination which consists of breaking open
the centre in order to el iminate the blac k knigh t on e6 which forms
the vital barrier on the a2-g8 diagonal. Note that the simple lt:Jg5 is
not so e ffective , because before White can sacrifice on h7 after . . .
lt:Jxg5 he must first recapture the knight, allowing . . . .te6 which
would hold everything.
19 l:lae8

24
 T H E MEC H A N I C S OF C H E SS T H I N K ING

15
w

20 iffl !
Not only with the idea of removing the queen from the
e-fil e in order to prepare d4, beginning an attack on the knight, but
also with the thematic idea of preparing the final rook sacrifice.
The other rook will be required in the centre, as we shall see.
20 a5
Th is must be bad, since Black has no time to drive the white
bishop away from b3 by . . . a4.
21 d4!
Th e fi nal attack begins with the threat of 22 d5.
21 ed
22 li:lxd4 i.xd4
After 22 . . . li:lxd4, White mates at once by 23 llxh7+ etc. Black
would like to move his queen somewhere, but 22 . . . 1!Ve4 allows
23 li:\0 threatening the bishop on d7 as well as 24 i.xe6 followed
by 25 li:lg5 or 25 llxh7+. The a wkward-looking 22 . . . 1!Va6 23 i.c4
Wa8 would probably hav e h eld out the longest.
23 llxd4 lbxd4
An unnecessary short-circuit b ut fitting in perfectly with our
theme!

16
w

25
 T H E M E C H A N I C S OF CH ESS THIN KING

24 lil:xh7+ ! �xh7
25 1!fhl + �7
2 6 .th6+ �f6
27 1!fh4+ �eS
28 't!t'xd4+
and Black resigned in the face of 28 . . . �f5 29 't!t'f4 mate.
We have seen a number of examples of thought in action, illus­
trating in particular the close link between strategy and tactics. The
way in which a player ul timately tackles a position is often a
question of style. Chess psychologists claim that players fall into
two distinct groups: t hose who look first to the larger design and
only then attend to the finer detail , and those who begin with the
particular, then infer from this the general plan to be followed .
Both types can eventually reach the same conclusions about a
position, but at the grandmaster level it is the 'all-rounder' who is
considered the best - in other words a player who has the ability
and knowledge to approach a position from all sides, depending on
it s ch aracteristics. Quiet pos itions will usually require a positional
treatment, whereas sharp positions will need more concrete
tactical calculation. The problem l ies, of course, in our initial
diagnosis, since first appearances can often prove deceptive. A
see mingly quiet position may contain a drop of poison, or a sharp­
looking situation may rapidly be reduced to a simple ending by
means of logical exchanges. Perhaps it is best for the average
player to follow the recommended method of thinking advocated
in t his chapter: firstly, look for any tactical possibilities that may
be lurking in the position; next, assess the positional elements and
form a plan based on these; and, finally, try to carry out this plan
by the use of every tactical means at your disposal. However, we
must bear in mind that such advice can only help up to a point,
because the game of chess appears to be inexhaustible and
the ultimate t ruths about the game will probably never be known.

26
2 When the Brain goes on
Strike

Chess blunders are as old as the game itself. Which chess player
can say that he has never committed a gross blunder at least once
in his chess career? Whole books have been devoted to the subject,
such as Von Bocken und dicken Hunden by Dr Trager which is the
source of some of our examples. We refer to the syndrome as 'chess
blindness' , easy to recognise and even to diagnose but still having
no known cure. Once we fi nd out more about the workings of the
human brain (as we h ave already pointed out, our knowledge so
far is extremely limited ), it will be possible to give practical help to
millions of chess players who are plagued by this blunder disease.
Let us first clarify one point : such chess blindness has very little
to do with ability at the game. 'A' may know far more about chess
than 'B' yet still perpetrate more blunders than the latter. An
experiment by the Soviet physiologist Malkin comes closest to
identifying what happens in the brain when blunders occur. He
used the same basic idea as de Groot, with small , yet important,
variations. He too gave the candidates (grandmasters such as Tal ,
along with lesser m asters) positions which they had to observe for
a short time. However, these were purely tactical examples with a
single, forcing solution which the players were asked to fi nd . Only
then did they have to build up the position from memory.
What happened ? The grandmasters carried out both tasks
quickly and efficiently. The others were almost as quick at finding
the solutions but could only locate the correct position of the
actual pieces used in these solutions, placing the remaining pieces
on plausible but faulty squares. In other words, when the brain is
preoccupied with a specific idea or configuration on the board ,
anything extraneous tends to be blocked ou t. It is interesting to
note that grandmasters appear to be immune to this error. For the
most part, practical play confirms these findings, since, although

27
 W HEN THE B R A I N GOES ON S TR I K E

both amateurs and masters blunder from time to time, with the
latter it occurs much less frequen tly.
We were struck by the perfect way in which our own chess
experiences fitted in with Malkin's experiment . . . (G. Treppner
takes over here).

After I ... lLld2+ White could resign i mmediately, because the

only way to prevent mate is to give up the queen after 2 �c2 lLlc4+
3 �b3 (or else mate in two follows) 3 . . . lLlxa5+. I had already
seen this, as Black, but felt I could produce exactly the same result
with I . . . lbc5+ 2 �b4 lLlb7+ 3 �b3 lLlxa5+ etc, so boldly played
my knight to c5 . Suddenly, I saw in a daze that the knight was
being removed from the board and remember thinking to myself:
'What's he taking it with?' before it dawned on me that the ' thing'
on f2 was in reality a bishop! I t may be possible that, to my inner
eye, only the pieces in the vicinity of the white king actually existed,
or it is equally possible that I mistook the bishop for part of an
f2 , g3, h4 pawn chain ! At all events, my brain had completely
blocked out the kingside pieces.

Iii
B

28
 W HEN T H E B R A I N GOE S ON STR I K E

A few years later I found myself playing Black in the

position in diagram 1 8.
Of course, Black dare not take such a position lightly, despite
his extra pawn. I wanted to play my queen to the d-file, in order to
play a move such as . . . 'ti'd 3 and saw that I had to protect my rook
to prevent 'ti'h8 + and that White did not even have a perpetual
check by 'ti'h8+ followed by 'ti'h 5+, because the black king can
then go to g8, where he is safe. If I wanted my queen to reach d6, it
had to go via c7 or b8, so, without a great deal of thought (I had
plenty of time!), I happil y played the queen to c7 and went for an
unsuspecting stroll round the hall, despite the strange look my
opponent gave me . . . Suddenly, from some distance away , I saw
him banging down a 'long' move and realised that something
dramatic had taken place, even if I still had no idea what it was. It
was only when I returned to the board that I witnessed the disaster;
his rook was grinning at me from f6. I could not recapture without
losing my queen . Until then, there had been no question of the f6
pawn being taken, but now my 'chess-blind' queen move had
allowed it! (End of the personal touch . . . )

It was all as Malkin had shown. When experiment and practice

coincide so perfectly, it is difficult not to believe that we are near
the truth. Let us now see a few more examples of similar blunders.
Firstly, a direct parallel with our last example. Two players from
Pakistan and Sri Lanka produced the following game in the 1986
Dubai Olympiad:
1 ltlf3 lLlf6
2 c4 e6
3 lLlc3 d5
4 d4 c6
5 .tg5 ltlbd7
6 e3 'tWaS
7 lLld2 .tb4
8 'ti'c2 0-0
9 .td3??
White has fallen for a well-known opening trap and just not
seen the relationship between his bishop on g5 and the black
qu een. It's possible that he may have been counting on answering
9 . . . de with 10 .txf6 and missed the zwischenzug 10 cd attacking
. . .

his queen, but this seems doubtful.

29
 W HEN T H E B R A IN GOES ON STRI KE

/9
8

9 de
10 i.xh7+ lt:lxh7
and Black won in a few moves.
A crowning example of this kind of oversight is the game in
which Alekhine left a loose bishop on b5 for Blackburne to collect
with thanks. An oversight b ased on the same root cause of directing
your attention the wrong way is when you see a move to which
there appears to be only one reply. The lazy or fatigued brain
promptly forgets to examine other possible replies and the move is
played without further thought.

20
B

Bogoljubow-Hussong
Kar lsruhe 1 939

Th e most normal-looking situation in chess. 'I capture a piece

and he must recapture it.' So, Black thoughtlessly plays 1 . ..

lt:lxd3??, failing to see White's thre�t of winning queen or king by

the famous trap 2 1!Vg4 threatening both mate on g7 and the win
of the queen by 3 lt:l h6+. Once again, the great Alekhine must be
incl uded in the huge mass of players who have assumed that an
obvious capture must be made, even though there is a much more

30
 W HEN T H E B R A I N GOES ON S TR I KE

effect ive move available. On this occasion, however, it is not the

player faci ng a difficult position in time trouble but the writer
a nnotating for his famous tournament book of New York 1924.

21
8

Ed . Lasker-Bogoljubow
New York 1 924

Black played 1 f6 which Alekhine criticised as follows: ' Black

...

stumbles at the last h urdle and plays a move that even risks losing.
By l . . . lild5 2 1Wb6 cb 3 1Wxc7 1Wd4+ (not at once 3 . . . ll:lxf5 4 lile4)
4 �h2 ll:lxf5! 5 lile4 (5 .ixf5 allows mate in fou r moves) 5 ... 1Wc5 etc,
Black wins easily with his two extra pawns. '
Can the reader, with the clue already supplied, find the flaw in
this analysis? Yes, even Alekhine casually assumed that he had to
capture the rook after 2 . . . cb, whereas, in fact (as Edward Lasker
pointed out later in his own book) in this line he would have mated
Bogoljubow by 3 f6+ followed by mate on the back rank . . .
l n our next example of this theme, involving yet again a World
Champion, we could easil y refer to 'blinkered thinking', as one
particular variation prevents the brain from 'seeing' another.

22
8

Bouwmeester- Botvinni k
Wageningen 1958

31
 W HEN T H E B R A IN GOES ON S TR I K E

Black found the correct idea fairly qui ckly: l ure White's queen
away from the e3 square, then mate by 2 . . . lt:l xe3+ 3 �g I (3 �h3
1ff5+) 3 . . . 1fxf3 etc. Unfortunately, Botvinnik's first idea of I .. .

lla I 2 1fxa I does not lead to the desired mate, since at the end
White captures the rook on b2 with check! According to Dr Troger,
Black saw all this, bu t mental blinkers somehow stopped him
considering the valid alternative sacrifice I . llbl ! 2 1¥xb l lt:lxe3+
. .

3 �g l 1fxf3 when he mates after both the capture of the rook and
the knight. Consequently, Botvinnik finally played I . . . d4 and
agreed to a draw shortly afterwards.
Another important error in thinking stems from what we may
term 'optical illusions', when the mental eye (the visual memory)
is deceived or fails to note a vital point. Typically dangerous situ­
ations are when seemingly paradoxical moves run contrary to
normally accepted practice and are thus subconsciously ignored.
Such moves could be 'long' ones, as when a queen moves from a I
to h8, or knight moves on the edge or in the corner of the board, as
in the case of Keres' move in the following position which he
himself quotes as one of the most original moves in his chess career.

Keres- Flohr
Semmering 1 9 3 7

Flohr had only catered for moves such as I ltJc3 li:ld4 or I de ab

when he stood worse but was far from lost . He hardly expected
White's next stunning move.
1 lt:la7 ! !
A doubly unexpected move, not only playing the knight to the
edge of the board where it exerts little or no control, but also
placing it in an apparently inextricable position. However, it is
Flohr's misfortune that he must now lose a piece, e.g. I . . . ..td7 2 de,

32
 W HEN T H E B R A IN GOES ON STRI KE

or I . lilxa7 2 litxc8+ ll::lf8 3 'irb6 'ird4 4 i.c5 winning a whole

. .

rook, or the game continuation 1 ll::ld4 2 litxc8+, when Black

...

soon resigned the hopeless situation.

Equally typical are situations where castling seems optically
impossible. It is well k nown that some players have blockages
about castling queenside when the b I (b8) squares are controlled
by an enemy piece, although such castling is perfectly legal.

[ Translator's note. There is the incredible episode in the 1 974

Karpov-Korchnoi match when the latter asked the umpire O'Kelly
if he could castle when his rook was attacked! V'hich leads us
nicely to the next diagram . ]. .

H offma nn-Petrov
Warsaw 1 844

Is it really possible that such a powerfully posted knight as the

white one on f7 is unable to prevent castling? ('Rules rule!' as
Hort is wont to say.) Yes, it is possible, because the king is not in
check and the key squares f8 and g8 are not under white control.
The fact that Black's queen is under attack is hardly relevant to
thought processes about castling but , of course, represents one of
the blockages we mentioned earlier when Black is expected to
move his queen . . .
1 0-0 ! !
2 ll::lx d8 i.f2+
3 �h3 d6+
4 e6 ll::l f4+
5 �g4 ll::l x e6
and White was quickly mated. An attractive finish to one of the
most famous games from the good old days.

33
 W HEN T HE B R A IN GOES ON STRI KE

Here is a rare tactical t rick to do with castling which m ust

involve an optical illusion, since Black was by no means forced to
accept the prel iminary sacrifice, and therefore presumably did it
deliberately . . .

��5
,
, w

1 lOxeS
A clear bluff in this case, since · Black could now play l . . . 1Wf6
immediately refuting the non-forcing sacrifice . However, he
incredibly falls into a trap he clearly did not see .
1 de??
2 't!Vxd8+ �xd8
3 0-0-0+ ! !
Howling and gnashing of teeth ! Perhaps the optical illusion
resides in the fact that a king normally moves one square only
('rules rule! ' ) to attack a piece, whereas here, with gain oftime, he
moves two squares in one go. For a king on e l to capture a rook on
b2 is 'unthi nkable ' !
Th e same applies t o those moves which appear t o defy the laws
of nature . For example, who is able to take a detour and reach a
point just as quickly as going straight there? The king in chess, of
course! Splendid studies have been based on this bizarre fact
(notabl y by Re ti). so it is perhaps understandable that the idea,
even in its simplest form, could be 'forgot ten' at the highest level
of play. We apologise for quoting yet again the following famous
example, bu t we have yet to see a more striking one .
White has no problem holding Black 's e3 pawn by I lLle6+
followed by 2 lLld4 when Black can just draw. Instead , Bronstein
casually thi nks he can still do this on the following move , so plays
I �c2?? expecting the continuation I . . . �3 2 lLle6 e2 3 lLld4+
drawing. However, B lack has no need to approach f2 via f3; he can

34
 W HE N T H E B R A IN GOES ON S TR I KE

26
w

Bronste i n - Bo tvinnik
6th ga me , World Cha mpio nsh ip 1 95 1

play I lt>g3 ! forci ng White to resign .

. . .

Unusual king moves can in themselves cause optical ill usions,

since a king is normally expected to seek safety in castling in the
middl ega me rather than move out of check. In our next diagram ,
casual thin king b y B lac k leads to im mediate disaster.

'*. � 2B7

va n Steenis-Wechsler
H as tings 1937

By playing 1 . . �xc3+ fi rst, Black could then guard his h7 pawn

.

by 2 . . 1!t'e4+ and follow up wit h 3 . . . llg8 . Instead, he plays the

.

imm ediate I 1!t'e4+ ?? expecting a white piece to interpose,

...

allowing 2 . llg8 guarding everything. Normally, of course,

..

White would definitely interpose a piece , but 2 'i!?dl brings Black

down to earth with a bump, since the c3 knigh t is now unpinned,
which means the l oss of a whole roo k. Black resigned.

35
 W HEN THE B R A I N GOES ON STRIKE

28
8

Tal-Botvi nnik
17th ga me, World Championship 1 960

Black is under some pressure but, with careful play, his two­
pawn advantage should prevail. What happened now has often
been shown bu t rarely explained . Botvinnik threw away the game
and probably with it the match by I W'd5?? 2 l ha6+! q;,bs
...

(or 2 . . ba 3 W'b6+ q;,as 4 W'xa6+ lla7 5 W'xc8 mate) 3 W'a4 and

.

Black resigned (he cannot escape by 3 . . q;,c7 because of 4 1!t'a5+

.

followed by mate). The correct first move is I ... q;,a8 ! stopping

the sacrifice on a6 and thus taking the wind out of White's sails.
Most commen tators assumed that Botvinnik's time trouble ( . . .
W'dS was played o n move 39) meant that h e had simply missed
Tal 's sacrifice, bu t we have no reason to disbelieve him when he
says that such was not the case. 'I saw that Tal was threatening
llxa6+ bu t felt there was no defence to the threa t. I just did not
think of moving my king! ' In other words, he felt that the king
could not help himself out of trouble. It is clear that unusual
moves can even escape the notice of World Champions. ,
/

.
I -}' .298
.Y. .
.

J ansa -Rodriguez
Biel I n terzonal 1 9 8 5

36
 W HE N T H E B R A IN GOES ON S TR I K E
(

Now for another optical illusion that surprisingly occurs quite

oft en : a player imagines that a pinned piece can still move ! Take
note that the next moves are no printing error . . .
1 d4???
2 't!t'e8+???
The explanation ? Both players, in time trouble, agree on the
fact that 2 't!t'xc4 fails to 2 . . . lUI + followed by mate, not realising
that the rook is still pinned !
We often find time trouble rearing its ugly head in such cases,
although the root cause is much deeper. In our next example,
which presents practically the same situation as the previous one
and which went the rounds of world chess, there was no question
of time trouble with one of the perpetrator�

30
B

Ebralidze-Ragozin
Tbilisi 1 93 7

It wil l no longer surprise you that Black played here 1 ... rl.c7??
This was Black's 40th move and the time control. He obviously
imagined he could answer 2 llxc7 with 2 . . . i.d6+, but the bishop
is of course pinned . . . No such excuses in White's case; he had all
the time in the world to see the flaw in Black's reasoning. The story
goes that eve n the spectators could no longer contain themselves
and were vociferously b egging their local matador Ebralidze to
tak e the rook , only to be met with a reproving glare from the
master, sunk in thought. Mea nwhile, the poker-faced, cigarette­
smoking Ragozin was behaving as if he had everything firmly
under control . . . You can all guess what happened: after mature
refl ection, White moved his rook away! (The fact that he later lost
his rook , placed on the selfsame c7 square, to a bishop check on
c 5 , is not really part of our theme, un less we consider it some form

37
 W H EN T H E B R A I N GOES ON S TR I K E

o f subconscious, self-inflicted punishment!) �

� Let us now turn to the cases where the brain is unduly influenced
by the details of the original position and loses track of what is
happening as it tries to cope with a long variation or several sub­
va riations. The most common case is where a square or l ine is
controlled and thus 'ou t-of-bounds' in the original set-up, but
suddenly, within a few moves, becomes available, only for the
brain to fail to register the fact. The opposite can of course equally
apply.

Darga- Lengyel
A m sterdam I nterzonal 1 964

The conclusion of this game speaks volu mes about the strange
way the brain can function . After 1 ll8xe2+ 2 lhe2 .ixh4+ White
...

resigned ! Clearly, 3 'it>e3 would win comfortably, so there is only

one explanation possible: the e-file and in particular the e3 square
was initially well under the control of the black rook on e8 , a
feel ing intensified by the presence of the other rook on the same
file. This control was so fixed in the minds of both the players that
it was completely out of the question that White's king could
sudd� n ly escape v � a e3!
'J:.
. .
\ It IS JUSt as posstble for a player to calculate part of a vanatwn
.

then forget to 'take back the moves' , so to speak, thus mentally

assu ming that they have already been played . We can thus have a
situation where the brain has al ready removed pieces which are in
reality still on the board . Diagram 32 is an example.
White has just cap tured a bishop on g7 which must of course be
recaptured . Such recaptures must not be made automatically, as
we have seen, but the opposite extreme can be equally unhealthy.
Averbak h, looking ahead at his future plans, must have mentally

38
 W H EN T H E B R A IN GOES ON STR I K E

Stah lberg-A verba kh

Beverwijk 1 963

assumed that the bishop on g7 was already in the box, with the
result that he produced 1 .th 3?? allowing 2 Wxh6+ followed by
...

mate, a traumatic shock if ever there was one . . .

[ Translator's note. Another explanation of this fascinating blunder

is that Black had uppermost in his mind the action of the white
bishop along the a l -h8 diagonal and failed to see its use on the
f8-h6 diagonal in conj unction with a fairly long move of White's
queen.] Jt·
The opposite can apply, where it is difficult to rid the mind of the
piece placings in the original position (as we have already seen in
diagram 3 1 , where both players retained an image of the black
rook on e8, even after the rook had been sacrificed). Here is a good
example from the de Groot position we discussed earlier.

33
w

The unlu ckiest of the grandmasters to 'solve' this position was

39
 W HEN T H E B R A I N GOES ON S TR I K E

Aohr who, looking for something better than 1 i.xd5!, came up

with 1 lt:lxc6 be 2 .txd5 cd 3 .txf6 i.xf6 4 lt:ld7, a beautifully forcing
variation if it were not for the fact that it is only the ghost of the
knight that was originally on e5 that can actually settle on d7 !
Again, a player had failed to obliterate from his mind the image of
the knight on e5.
Do you believe it possible for something similar to happen in an
actual game, with a player producing a combination, only t<Nind
that at the end he is short of a vital piece he wrongly imagined he
still had? Let us hope that the following instructive position is
authentic, since it illustrates the point to perfection (the source is
a work by Assiac).

34
w

At Coburg in 1 904, Post saw what he thought would be the

combination of his life and played 1 lixh7+ 'Ct>xh7 2 1ibl+ i.h6
(if the king goes to g8 or g6, 3 liJe7 is mate) 3 1Wxh6+ �xh6 4 li[hl+
i.h5 5 li[xh5+ 'Ct>xh5.

!5
w

He was now on the point of playing his intended 6 li[h l + �g6

7 lt:le7 mate, when he suddenly realised he had no more rooks

40
 W HE N T H E B R AIN GOES ON S TR I K E

left . . . Gone was his b i d for fame, all because o f the same sort of
mistake that Flohr made, although in this particular case one
sympathises more with Post who must have felt that three major
pieces on the first rank should be enough to break through.
Fortunately for Post, his bid for fame was not yet over, and his
honour was saved , because it was still not the end of the drama.
Instead of resigning, he continued fiercely with 6 �e7, and Black,
who was probably by now a little dazed, immediately managed to
put himself in the mire by replying 6 ... tib7?? allowing 7 .ig7.
He was in fact very lucky to escape by a hair's breadth, giving back
material with 7 ... lL!e5 8 .idl+ �1'3 9 .ix1'3+ t!t'xf3+ 10 �xf3 and
reaching a drawn ending.
As we have already stated, it is much easier to explain how the
above blunders occurr ed than to suggest what can be done to
eradicate the evil . The most that a player can do is to combat
situations in which blunders thrive. Regular training and practice
are essential to develop the i maginative powers but these depend a
great deal also on native talent.
Stress and tension of any kind are anathema to clear, sound
thinking, with ti me trouble being the major culprit . There are
indeed players who thrive on tension and are at their calmest when
their flag is about to fall , but these are exceptions. We believe,
however, that time trouble in itself is not the root cause of
blunders but rather a sort of negative catalyst that exacerbates
an endemic weakness of the brain .
Ano ther factor can b e just a s critical a s time trouble, although
rarely discussed. This is the apparently calm but in reality danger­
ous moment j ust after a crisis or state of high tension is over. There
can be a boomerang effect, as the b rain takes a 'time-out' after the
normal cycle of tension-relaxation and the player finds it difficult
to concentrate, although he knows very well how important it is to
do so. Time and again we meet examples of players who have
succeeded in controlling the most horrendous complications and
then, as soon as the difficulties are over, produce a terrible
blunder. This is what must have happened to Karpov in the
eleventh game of his 1 985 World Championship match with
Kasparov when he made a gross blunder (diagram 36). This position
went the rounds of the world and contained the worst error of
Karpov's chess career. 'Jt.:_ .
Play went: /\

41
 W H E N T H E B R A I N GOES ON S TR I K E

��
K asparov-Karpov
��
l i th game, World Championship 1 985

1 lil:cd8??
2 't!t'xd7! lil:xd7
3 lil:e8+ �h7
4 i.e4+ g6
....._
5 lil:xd7
and Black resigned, since he must lose at least a piece after 5 . . .
i.a6 6 i.xc6 in view of 6 . . . 't!t'xc6?? 7 lil:xf7 mate. What are Karpov's
thoughts on all this? 'At the very moment I made the blunder I was
thinking about winning the game.' In fact, Kasparov had been
attacking strongly until five moves before, when he had begun a
tactical s kirmish in the centre involving several exchanges and
thus greatly releasing the tension. From a thinking point of view,
Karpov had been under continuous pressure and he now believed
that the worst was over. It was then that disaster struck . . .
As we have already stated, there is no direct method of avoiding
such short-circuits of the brain (of course, the best advice we can
give to time-trouble sufferers is to avoid it!), so we can only
recommend certain indirect preventive measures. General mental
fitness is a vital element; a brain which needs to 'warm up' for
every game and is unused to working for hours on end is clearly
going to be more prone to error than a brain in constant training.
It is not only chess practice that the brain requires in order to keep
alert ; many other stimulating mental activities can produce the
same effect. In this context, mens sana in corpore sano is a valid
piece of advice, which is why top players are placing increasing
em phasis on both physical and mental training.
Personal psychic strengths and weakness �an also influence a

42
 W HE N T H E B R A I N GOES ON STR I K E

player's thought processes. If he continually makes the same or

similar mistakes in his games, he should definitely try to find out if
some particular deep-seated weakness lies behind such errors. For
example , an overestimation of his own ability can inevitably lead
to a siutaion where a player sees nothing but his own ideas and
threats and is blind to those of his opponent. He thus sometimes
even falls into simple traps which he would otherwise easily detect.
Coffee-house chess often produces such specimens whose ego far
outstrips their ability !
It is perhaps easier to understand now why a master blunders
far less frequently than an a mateu r player, al though in principle
making the same type of mista ke . In all the points we have
mentioned, without exception he is superior. As a professional
player, he has m uch more practice and training, along with greater
opportunities to recognise and correct his chess faults. Moreover,
if necessary, he can gear his entire chess and social life style
towards an important tou rnament. Of course, all this in no way
renders him immune to blunders, but these occur much more rarely
than in the case of the amateur. In the same way, stress factors
usually affect the latter more frequently. Finally, the way in which
the master views the pieces and their interrelationship (Binet's
research) also helps him to reduce the number of errors.
How can all we know about chess thinking lead to an improve­
ment in the play of the average player? In the next three chapters
we consider certain typical problems he has to face during the
opening, the middlegame and the endgame.
. y
k

43
3 The Right Way
to Learn an Opening

Does the mass of modern opening theory attract or frighten away

the average club player? Today, even amateur players possess
their own repertoire of special opening variations, with lower­
board club players often owning an impressive number of chess
books. Even the top players are capable of falling i nto new
opening theory from beyond the Urals which is well known to
their diligent opponents, and such c ases are on the increase.
Nevertheless, in the long term, even wal king encyclopaedias of
opening knowledge can hardly progress furthe r than is warranted
by their true ability. Pe rhaps they will objectively stand better at
the end of the opening stage, but they then inexplicably begin to
flounder. It is precisely the 'bad' moves of their opponents which
can disconcert them , because from then on it is man against man
and no longer (for example) Euwe versus Boleslavsky (two well­
known opening theorists).
By t_hese comments we wish in no way to denigrate opening
theory in itself but rather those players who imagine that they can
replace thinking by rote-learni�en if they are knowledgeable
enough to be able to vet book variations and thus avoid high-class
blunders (many books are notorious for the countless readers they
have claimed as unsuspecting victims!). Knowledge of ill-digested
opening theory can only postpone for a short time that critical
point in the game when book-learning comes to an end and a
player has to show what he can do with the position he has
reached. Just to have read that, based on the analysis of a famous
game played years ago, a certain variation is judged to be plus­
equal (in other words, you stand slightly better) is a pretty useless
piece of information without further clarification.
Admittedly, opening theory is growing so fast and can contain
such comprehe nsive information that even a weakish player will

44
 T H E R IG H T W A Y TO LEARN AN OPENING

find it difficult to rui n a good position he may obtain. However,

stronger p layers are well aware of all this and will usually find
some way of avoiding these lines, even if it means going back to
old and forgotten systems or else using lines that theory frowns
upon but treats very sketchily. The main purpose is to throw the
weaker player on to his own resources, after which the stronger
player will hopefully prevail .
Nowadays, it is taken fo r granted that a player needs to go
beyond opening theory and discuss the vital transition stage to the
middl egame where you have to stand on your own two feet. In
fact, there are so many exchanging possibilities available in the
opening that it is sometimes even feasible to reach a late
middlegame, or possibly an ending, with theoretical analysis
extending to thirty moves or more. It is vital to be thinking about
the position the whole time and asking yourself relevant questions,
with a view to forming a possible or essential plan. What pawn
structures can arise? What lines and squares are important? What
is the best placing for the pieces of both sides? Which pieces should
be exchanged or retained? This will also serve you in good stead if
your opponent leaves the book lines, since you will then have at
least a basis for finding the correct moves or, at worst, reasonable
ones.
Even at the level of master chess, a player who does not do his
homework in thinking about his openings can easily get into
trouble, as the following game shows. My opponent played rather
mechanically and suffered the consequences.

Dr Pfleger-Handoko
Lucerne Olympiad 1 982
Queen's Gambit Declined
1 c4 lt:\f6
2 lLlf3 e6
3 lLlc3 d5
4 d4 i.e7
5 i.g5 h6
6 i.xf6 i.xf6
7 cd ed
8 e3 0-0
9 i.e2 c6
10 0-0

45
 T H E R I G H T W A Y TO LEA RN AN O PE N I N G

Ten moves of an ordinary Queen's Gambit have been made

and , strategically, White is aiming for the so-called 'minority
attack' on the queen's wing. In other words, he plans to push his
b2 pawn to b5 in order to create a weakness in Black's queenside
pawns, whether he captures the b-pawn or not. There are a few
ways of meeting such an attack, but the defence is not easy and
carefu l planning is required. An important detail is that White has
exchanged his queen's bishop for the knight on f6. What does this
imply? Firstly, it means that he directly threatens b4, since Black's
bishop is no l onger on e7. The bishop pair hardly help Black
much, because White's centre pawns render the bishop i nactive on
f6. Anyone acquainted with the nuances of this opening knows
that Black's king's knight is often more useful than his bishop,
because it can both help in any attack that is planned on the
kings ide and also be used for defence by heading via e8 to d6, for
example, controlling important quares such as c4. However,
Black's king's bishop is not weaker, or else it would always be
good for White to exchange on f6, so it is vital for Black to make
the most of it, especially as the disappearance of his king's knight
has reduced his options.
With such thoughts in mind, grandmaster Hecht proposed in
his book on the Olympiad . . . i.e7 and ... i.d6, when the bishop
controls both c5 and e5 and could in some instances be used for an
attack on the kingside . The bishop would at least be activated,
whereas it plays very little part in the present game.
10 liteS?!
This ca n hardly be called a mistake but it reveals that Black is
groping in the dark as regards constructive ideas. The roo k ,
admittedly, seizes a half-open file, b u t t o what purpose? In
conjunction with his king's knight, he would be controlling the

46
 T H E R I G H T W A Y TO LEA RN AN OPENING

important e4 square and later playing to e6 to protect c6 and be

ready to be used on the kingside , bu t such is not the case here.
11 b4 ..trs
12 b5 'itd6
38
w

Again, a move which does not meet the demands of the position .
Black could have tried to counter White's plan by 1 2 . . . c5, since
the d4 pawn is pinned ; after 1 3 llcl he could possibly try 1 3 . . . c4,
because 1 3 . . . cd 14 ll:lxd4 gives him a weak d-pawn. Of course,
there is still a lot of work to do in defence, as Blac k's knight has
still to be developed and the passed c-pawn is well blockaded by
White, but there is no o rganic weakness to attack after . . . 'tlrd6
followed by . . . ll:ld7. Even if Black did not wish to play this line,
12 ... 'itd6 is bad , since it gets in the way of his king's bishop which
needs to be used in the fight for the c5 square by moving to e7.
13 be be
1 3 . . . ll:l xc6 unfortunately loses a pawn to 1 4 'itb3 , so Black is
forced to accept a permanent weakness on c6, a good example of
the use of tactical means to achieve a positional end. .�
/�(\/ '
.

14 ll:la4 ll:ld7
15 llc 1 llab8

39
w

47
 THE R IG H T WAY TO LEA RN AN OPENING

Black continues to play in the same mechanical style. As a

respectable international master, he makes no obvious errors, but
he fails to grasp the nature of the position. Th e b-file is really no
use to hi m, even if his rook penetrates to b2, since there is nothing
to attack ; the a2 pawn can simply run a way and the f2 , e3, d4 pawn
chain is rock solid.
16 lLlc5 llb2
17 a4 l:i:eb8
The apparently strong doubled rooks are in reality chasing a
phantom.
18 i.d3 i.g4
An alternative is Hecht's suggested 1 8 . . . i.xd3 19 Wxd3 lL!b6
20 lLld2 lL!c8 in order to protect his c6 pawn from e7 with the
knight, but White's c5 knight would remain a tower of strength
and the only way for Black to activate his king's bishop would be
via d8, with a most awkward set-up.
19 h3 ..txf3
20 Wxf3 lL!xc5
21 lhc5

40
B

Nothing dramatic has yet occurred, but only ten moves after the
fu lly equal position in diagram 37, without making a single
obvious mistake, Black is practically lost. The opposite-coloured
bishops only serve to help White, since his bishop can theoretically
attack the c6 pawn, whereas Black's bishop is not only biting on
granite but can hardly be activated.
21 ll2b3
There is no way that c6 can be defended in the long term,
because b6 is no place for a black rook , in view of a5, and even if

48
 THE R IG H T WAY TO LEA RN AN OPE N I N G

Black were to place the rooks on c7 and c8, an eventual i.a6 and,
if need be, i.b5, would do the trick.
22 't!t'd 1 't!t'd 7
Black misses a tactical point but it only accelerates the inevitable
end.
23 i.b5!
Immediately winning the exchange for two pawns.
23 lBxb5
24 ab lhb5
25 '1!t'c2 llxc5
26 1!t'xc5 i.e7
27 1!t'c3 c5
28 de 1!t'c6
29 l:td1 1!t'xc5
30 1!t'xc5 i.xc5
31 llxd5
and Black resigned 14 moves later.
Th is is the typical way that games are decided in this critical
phase after the opening. One player is aware of the ideas and plans
required in the m iddlegame, whilst the other player has to find his
own way over the board, thus inevitably placing himself at a
disadvantage. It is also important to note that in such cases so­
called general principles are of little help, unless they are applied
intelligen tly. In the above game, Black seized two files with his
rooks on moves 10 and 1 5 , only to find later that no one was living
there! As we have already pointed out, playing by means of
acquired patterns demands much more than the application of
rigid formulae, because you have to take into account the specific
details of each individual position. It is here that a master's
personal knowledge and experience of his 'own' openings comes
into play, helping him to decide which files are important and
which ones can be conceded in safety.
You must surely be thinking that if an average player adopts an
opening whose finesses are more familiar to him than they are to
the master, he can beat the latter. You are right! Of course, the
odds are against it, but it can sometimes happen that chance
factors, or specific opening preparation, allow the ostensibly
weak er player to lure the master into a critical post-opening phase
with which the latter is not well acquainted. Surprise victories are
then perfectly possible, as in the following interesting game.

49
 THE R IGHT WAY TO LEARN AN OPENING

Unzicker-Grun
West German League 1982-3
Alekhine's Defence
1 e4 ll:lf6
2 e5 lt:\d5
3 d4 d6
4 ll:lf3 ..tg4
5 ..te2 c6
6 ll:lgs ..trs
7 ..id3 ..txd3
8 1!fxd3 de
9 de e6

41
w

We have reached the end of the opening stage and both players
are now on their own. As is usual in this defence, the bone of
contention is whether White's e5 pawn will become a strength or a
weakness. How can Black utilise his resources to the maximum to
exert pressure on this pawn? Naturally, White has sufficient ways
of protecting it; he can play his queen's bishop to f4 or b2 (after
due preparation), his king's knight to f3 (to where it will soon be
driven), and his quee n's knigh t ideally to c4. He should perhaps
avoid the weakening f4, particularly in his undeveloped state.
Accordingly, Black must find a set-up which will not only put
maximum pressure on e5 but also give him possibilities of
upsetting the coordination of the white pieces geared to the defence
of this square. Who would suspect from the diagram that
eventually t he move . . . g5 will play a vital role in all this? It makes
. . . ..ig7 possible, reserves g6 for the knight on d5 which will
inevitably be driven away by c4, and keeps available the threat

50
 THE RIGHT WAY TO LEA RN AN OPENING

of . . . g4 to chase away the knight on f3. Of course, what follows is not

forced, but it shows that Black was fully at home in this situation,
whereas grandmaster Unzicker, whose markedly classical style is
unsuited to s uch devious manoeuvring, finds no way of crossing
Black's plan in time.
10 0-0 ltJd7
11 'W'e2 h6
12 llJf3 'W'c7
13 c4
White's best plan of playing his queen's knight to c4, thereby
guarding his e5 pawn whilst eyeing d6, seems impossible to
achieve, because 13 lLlbd2 allows 1 3 . . . llJf4 followed by 14 . . . g5
and White's queen can easily become embarrassed for squares.
After the text move, however, Black has already achieved one of
his strategic objectives: on c3 White's queen's knight does not
guard his e5 pawn , nor does it pose such a direct threat to the d6
square until it reaches e4, when it blocks the defence of his e5
pawn. I t is precisely this point which allows Black's strategy to
triumph.
13 llJe7
14 llJc3 0-0-0
15 b3
Subsequently, 15 h4 has been tried here, but what a move to
play over the board , unless you are desperate !
15 g5!
16 .ib2 g4
17 lLle1 .ig7
Not of course 1 7 . . . 'W'xe5? 18 ltJe4 or 17 . . . lLlxe5? 1 8 lLlb5, and
17 . . . h5 would present White with an important tempo to protect
e5.
18 'W'xg4
The g4 pawn is insufficient compensation for the important
e5 pawn but the alternative 18 f4 gf 19 lLl xf3 llJg6 is not to be
recommended.

[ Translator's note. In this last line, even 19 . . . lLlxe5 is possible,

since 20 lLlb5 loses a piece to 20 . . . lLlxf3+ 21 llxf3 'W'b6+ etc . ]

18 llhg8
19 lldl i..xe5

51
 THE RIGHT WAY TO LEARN AN OPENING

42
w

As in the previous game, ten moves after diagram 41 , although

Unzicker is not lost, his position is no w dubious; all Black's pieces
are activated and aiming at White's king, and the open g-file is
also playing its part. In fact, Black won in sixteen more moves
by an attack on the king.
We might also add that, for anyone p laying I e4, Alekhine's
Defence forms only a small part of his repertoire, whereas Griin is
considered to be an expert in this line. At all events, these examples
show us how vital the understanding of this transitional stage is, if
our openings are to succeed. Clearly, at such moments, the
knowledge and practical experience of a master will give him a
head start and he will usually become rapidly aware that his
weak er opponent is floundering in an unknown situation. Should
the reverse happen , however, the hunter can soon become the
hunted, and even a top master can be outplayed without making
any serious error.
We soon fi nd out if a player is really in control of his opening
when the position demands unorthodox treatment, in other
words, moves which apparently go against general principles.
Such moves can only be effectively made by a player who is
confident in the soundness of the plan he has chosen , as in our next
game.

Capablanca-Yates
New York 1 924
King's Indian Defence
1 d4 ll:lf6
2 ll:lf3 g6
3 ll:lc3 dS

52
 THE R IGHT WAY TO LEA RN AN OPENING

4 .tf4 .tg7
5 e3 0-0
6 h3 cS

,/
�43
-:{ '7 w

The whole of White's development is geared towards exploiting

the dark squares (whether 3 . . . d5 was called for in this context is
quite another question}, so it is interesting to see the unusual plan
that the World Champion of the time now chooses.
7 de!?
By general standards, a dreadful-looking move , since for most
players the basic concept in such positions is to reduce the
influence of Black's fianchettoed bishop on g7 by maintaining the
central pawn on d4. After all, it is the only white pawn situated
beyond the third rank , because the e3 pawn is hardly in a position
to advance. However, White visualised quite a different picture at
the e nd of a forced sequence of moves; the g7 bishop is to be
exchanged and White then intends to control the dark squares
with his pieces, thus effectively blockading Black's nu merically
greater central pawns. We thus have a paradoxical result: by means
,
of the very move which appears to give up control of the dark
squares, Capablanca in fact takes over their control! A player who
can orientate his thinking in such a 'lateral' way has probably
achieved everything possible in the way of understanding opening
play. It is l ittle wonder that such subtle ideas about positional play
which emerged from the First World War onwards were seen as
revolutionary.
Of course, such strategy demands precise tactical execution,
since one flaw could ruin the whole concept and in fact make it
backfire in White's face.
7 1fa5

53
 THE R IGH T WAY TO LEA RN AN OPENING

Probably the only rational attempt to regain his pawn. At the

same time, he threatens to exploit the pin on the c3 knight by 8 . . .
lt:le4.
8 lt:ld2
Parrying the above threat (8 . . . lt:le4 9 lt:lcxe4 de 10 c3 winning
material) and forcing Black to capture the c5 pawn immediately in
view of the threatened 9 lt:lb3 etc.
8 1Wxc5
9 lt:lb3 1Wb6
10 ..te5!
Giving Black no time for moves such as IO . . lt:lc6, because of
.

the threat on the d5 pawn after I I ..txf6, and forcing . . . e6, thus
creating a further weakness on the dark squares.
10 e6
1 1 lbb5
As in the case of 7 de, this is a move that would be castigated in
a beginner; it threatens practically nothing, since lt:lc7 is easily
dealt with and the brazen horse is soon driven back to c3. The
whole point, however, is to bring about the essential exchange of
the g7 bishop.
11 lbe8
Forced, in view of the additional danger of I 2 ..td4 winning the
a7 pawn.
12 ..txg7 lt:lxg7

44
w

Everything has been practically forced from 7 de onwards and

White's position is already superior, with Black 's dark-squared
weaknesses aggravated by the absence of his king's bishop. Now
comes an amazing move which co uld drive dogmatists to despair!
13 / h4!?

54
 THE RIGHT WAY TO LEARN AN OPE NING

With only two pieces developed, and on the other side of the
board at that, White comes up with an 'attacking' move which is
either the move of an idiot or a genius. Alekhine's note in the
tournamen t book gives the reasoning behind it: ' With the
unexpected text move , there is no question for one moment of
White trying to launch a mating attack, but the threat of opening
the h-file leads to a further weakening pawn move ( 1 5 . . . f5),
w hereupon White can forcibly brin � about an ending which is
practically won from the start.'�
13 . . . a6
14 ll:lc3 ll:lc6
1s .td3 rs
Black is understandably worried by ideas such as 1 6 h5 ll:lxh5
17 lhh 5 gh 1 8 .txh7+ �xh7 ( 1 8 . . . �g7! ) 1 9 tt'xh5+ �g7 20 \!lg5+
followed by 0-0-0 and llh 1 mate, but this pawn move permanently
weakens the e5 square, since the e6 pawn can hardly advance
without fatally weakening the d5 pawn .
16 \!ld2 ll:leS
17 .te2 lt:lc4
The negative effect of . . . f5 is seen in the plausible 17 . . . i.d7
1 8 \!ld4! \!lc7/d6 ( 1 8 . . . 't!t'xd4 19 ed horribly opens up the e-file
for White) 19 tt'f4! (Aiekhine) and, in addition to the pin of the
knight on e5, White is seriously threatening h5, with obvious
attacking chances.
18 .txc4 de
19 tt'd4! tt'c7

20 \!lcS!
Finally, White's knights are al lowed to jump into the black
position while the 'eunuch' bishop on c8 looks on.

55
 THE RIGHT WAY TO LEARN AN OPENING

20 1!fxc5
21 li:Jxc5 b6
22 liJ5a4 llb8
23 0-0-0 b5
The threat was Ild6.
24 lt:Jc5 llb6
25 a4
and Wh ite won the ending comfortably.
The more one understands the ideas behind an opening, the
more one is prepared to cope with specific variations as theyarise
and the less one is disorientated when an opponent diverges from
the theoretical path. In the latter case, a good knowledge of a
particular set-up can enable you to assess fairly quickly the value
or otherwise of a particular 'new' move.
Moreover, every new move in the opening reveals further i nfor­
mation and produces changes which a player must quickly
recognise, as ideas ebb and flow. Within the brain there is a
constant interaction and fi ne-tuning of these ideas, with certain
variations demanding one idea and excluding another. We have
cases when in a variation one idea is good and another bad, whilst
a small difference can completely reverse this situation. Let us
look at a few examples in a concrete opening system which is now
a standard part of chess knowledge (hardly any master would take
long over playing the main lines), but nevertheless highly instructive.
1 d4 li:Jf6
2 c4 g6
3 li:Jc3 ..ig7
4 e4 d6
5 li:Jf3 0-0
6 ..ie2 e5
7 0-0
Here, for example , 7 ..ie3 would produce a typical case where
you would have to consider the consequences very carefully and
not just assume that White is going to transpose by castling next
move . We shall deal with this point shortly.
7 li:Jc6
8 d5 li:Je7
One of the basic set-ups in the K i ng's Indian Defence and
certainly known to most club players. The plans of both sides are
clear enough : White is going to attack on the queenside by means

56
 THE R IGHT WAY TO LEA RN AN OPENING

46
w

of c5 and Black is seeking salvation by attacking the white king by

a n advance of his kingside pawns, beginning with . . . f5. However,
this is o nly a rough pattern to be followed and it enables us to
smell a rat in the situation we have mentioned, when White plays
7 i..e 3 instead of 7 0-0 (giving us the last diagram with White's
bishop on e3 and his king a nd rook uncastled). What is the
significance of this move order? Surely White is going to castle
next? Not necessarily ! Black's attack lacks sting when it is not
aimed directly at White's king, which means that, with the cen tre
closed, the latter can delay or omit castling without his king
having much to fear on e l . Without being dogmatic, it is safe to
say that games with this variation show a plus for White, which is
why theory recommends defences other than the 7 . . . lbc6 line
against this bishop move.
Turning back to the diagram, by looking at the standard plans
for both sides we are assuming that neither player tries to hinder
his opponent's plan . What happens, for instance, if Black tries to
block the queenside by playing . . . c5? One thing is certain : we have
a totally different situation, requiring new plans, dependent upon
whether White captures en passant or plays to attack the c-pawn
with b4. Equally, White also could attempt to anticipate Black's
kingside play by aiming for f4 himself. It was quickly recognised
that the danger of this continuation is that, after . . . ef, Black gains
the useful e5 square for his pieces. However, as we shall see, there
are cases where this does not apply, which means that this idea too
cannot be rejected out of hand.
Within the context of the above ideas, it is interesting to see how
critical White's next move is. We are referring to 9 lt::l d 2 and 9 lt::l e l ,
for, although there are other moves, these two instructively reveal
the connection between ideas and variations.

57
 THE R IGHT WAY TO LEA RN AN OPENING

A 9 ll:le1

47
B

White's aim is clear: he intends to centralise the knight on d3

where it has ideal control over the thematic squares b4/c5 and
f4/e5 . Let us first try the blockading idea for Black.
9 cS
10 f4
The books also give as playable the queenside action beginning
with b4 (after preparation) but the text move, which Korchnoi
once used successfully, appears thematically more interesting.
10 ef

.
Th e only move if Black wishes to utilise the e5 square; after
10 . . lLl d7 1 1 f5 , White would dictate events on both wings.
11 i.xf4 ll:le8
Now 1 1 . . . ll:ld7 would leave the d6 pawn hanging and Black
must prevent 1 2 e5.
1 2 ll:ld3 f6
Again to prevent e5 which would be strong after, say, 1 2 . . . f5.
13 \i'd2

48
)
B

Although Black is now in possession of the eS square, how can

58
 THE RIGHT WAY TO LEARN AN OPENING

he occupy it with a piece? Both his knights are singularly badly

placed in this respect, as well as the immured bishop on g7. The
only attempt to occupy the square is 1 3 . . . g5 14 .ie3 lt:lg6 but this
fails to 1 5 e5! and, whichever way Black captures, his c5 or g5
pawn falls to his positional disadvantage. However, if he remains
passive, he has nothing on the kingside and White can pursue his
own queenside expansion unhindered by 14 b4.
To sum up: the 9 . . . c5 idea does not work in this position
because of a few tactical points, the main one being the fact that
I I . . . lt:ld7 cannot be played. This means that, since there are also
other ways for White to proceed on his tenth move , 9 . . . c5 has
practically disappeared as a viable continuation. Therefore, from
diagram 47 , Black must aim for . . . f5, which entails moving his
knight a way. Both 9 . . . lt:le8 and 9 . . . lt:ld7 have been played, but
in the former case White can once again play 1 0 lt:ld3 f5 I I f4,
exploiting the temporarily poor position of the knight on e8 which
cannot reach the vital e5 or c5 squares. So we finally arrive at the
main 9 . . . lt:ld7 system with its highly analysed variations which do
not form part of our present discussion.
B 9 lt:ld2
49
B

At first sight it is difficult to see the point of this move which

seems to cont rol no important squares and also cuts out the
possibility of f4 which Black would capture, forcing White to
recapture awkwardly with the rook, thus giving Black control of
e5 plus other tactical chances. Nevertheless, 9 lt:ld2 is motivated by
the powerful positional idea of playing the knight to the ideal c4
square, once c5 has been played, thus putting pressure on the d6
pawn. Of course, after the main line 9 . . . lt:ld7 10 b4 f5 I I f3 lt:lf6
1 2 c5 f4 13 lt:lc4 g5, we have reached a complex position , but the
pract ical chances favour White.

59
 THE R IGHT WAY TO LEARN AN OPENING

I t is worth noting that this plan has proved successful mainly

because Black proceeded against it in the very same way he did
against 9 l!Je l , namely by playing immediately for ... f5. A 1975
openings book states: 'The 9 l!Jd2 variation consequently poses
serious problems to Blac k . ' However, as soon as players began to
think constructively about the knight move to d2, its w c:_a er �
�
aspects soon came to light. At this particular moment, 9 ... c he
move we rej ected in reply to 9 lLle 1 , suddenly comes into its own.
White's knight is denied the c4 square for some time to come, the
f4 plan is cut out and the knight is not as well placed on d2 (and
eventually b3) for the thematic b4 advance. So it seems that White
is practically forced into the radical and unclear 10 de be 1 1 b4,
introducing totally new concepts which are again beyond the
scope of this book.
From the above, you can see how different opening moves force
us to rethink our plans which must necessarily depend on a
number of tactical nuances and cannot j ust be applied mindlessly
without taking into account the specific nature of the position.
You also see the i mportance of viewing individual moves against
the background of a middlegame plan whose success may well
depend on the correct posting of a piece ten moves earlier ! This
'juggling' with strategy and tactics provides the great fascination
and difficulty of the opening stages.
Whilst in earlier times masters had to cope with these problems
over the board, present-day opening knowledge is so vast that
such is not normally the case . For example, anyone for whom
what we have said about th(' King's Indian is new ground would
scarcely have a chance with this opening in a top class tournament.
The critical phases of a game, where there are still unanswered
questions, are occurring later and later, and situations in which
players at one time would be on their own after ten moves now
become ones in which the important question is whether the
endgame that could arise after the 1 8th move of sub-variation 'b'
is equal or favourable to White! Even someone like Bobby Fischer,
after sixteen years' absence from the scene, would have much less
impact if he had to rely on his ability alone. Opening knowledge
would have ' run a way' from him - who really knows if he has kept
up to date with all this?
At grandmaster level, an individual brain can no longer cope
with adequate preparation of all that may be involved in a

60
 THE RIGHT WAY TO LEARN AN OPENING

particular system in the way of ideas and variations. A Kasparov

or a Karpov has a whole team of helpers who not only bring to
their lord and master a summary of all practical games w hich
could be important to him, but who are also expected to make
their own contribution, pinpoint mistakes and suggest improve­
ments, and so on. What happens over the board in a World
Championship match may thus represent only the tip of an
iceberg as regards all work produced in the analytical laboratory.
And, as in any firm , woe betide the team whose preparation
backfires on the boss!
Understandably, the champions reveal little of what goes on in
their stables, but sometimes we can gain some idea from the course
of the game, the expenditure of time, the reaction of the team and
other external factors. A splendid example of this can be seen in
the fifth game of the 1 986 World Championship match between
Karpov and Kasparov in London.

Karpov-Kasparov
j/.•:.t I<y/<..� . Griinfeld Defence
1 d4 lLlf6
2 e4 g6
3 lDe3 d5
4 .tf4 .tg7
5 e3 e5
6 de tt'a5
7 :U.c l lDe4
8 ed lL!xe3
9 'ti'd2 'ti'xa2
10 be 'ti'xd2+
11 'hxd2

50
B

61
 THE RIGHT WAY TO LEARN AN OPENING

So far, all theory, even this suspect exchange. Many commen­

tators promptly criticised Kasparov in the strongest terms and
even saw the e xchange of queens as the decisive error. This may
objectively be correct but completely misses the point, because
Kasparov and his team had often discovered something new in
such discarded lines and brought them back to life. There is no
doubt that this was equally their intention here !
11 lLld7
12 .i.bS 0-0
13 .i.xd7 .i.xd7
14 e4 rs
15 eS e6
16 c4 l:Uc8
17 c6 be
18 d6
Another critical moment. Everyone was unanimous in declaring
18 . . . g5 best now, although White's position is more comfortable,
but again the essential point is missed: according to their clock­
times, neither player so far had been doing anything except play
prepared analysis. Even Kasparov's next vital decision took him
only two minutes ! He was clearly still relying on home analysis,
which leads us to speculate that, if the team had recognised that
there was nothing better for Black than 18 . g5, with a slight
. .

disadvan tage, the whole variation would probably have remained

on the scrap-heap where it justly belongs !
18 cS
19 h4 h6
51
w

Kasparov's team seemed happy so far, according to eyewitnesses

at the match. A book of the match (by Pfleger, Borik and Kipp­
Thomas) quotes one of them as saying: ' For the first 19 moves,

62
 THE R IGHT WAY TO LEA RN AN OPENING

Vladimirov [one of Kasparov's seconds following the game in the

press room ] was in constant conversation with the people around
him and scarcely glanced at the monitor showing the position.
His demeanour clearly indicated that everything up to here had
been prepared.'
The melodramatic sequel to this tale is that, after the match ,
poor Vladimirov was fired, because Kasparov suspected h i m of
being a Karpov spy within his own camp! To return to the game,
Vladimirov's reactions leave us in no doubt about the really
critical point of the home analysis.
Let us try to make an assessment of the above position after
Black's 1 9th move. The plans of both sides revolve around the fate
of White's pawn at e5. If Black cannot remove it, then his g7
bishop is shut in for life, whereas, if he succeeds in opening up
the a l-h8 diagonal for this bishop, his two bishops in conj unction
with the passed pawn will prove a powerful force . Note that, if
Black had earlier played 1 8 . . . g5 19 .ixg5 .ixe5, White could have
supported his d6 pawn wtih 20 c5 and reduced Black's other bishop
to the role of night-watchman. Now, however, . . . g5 is a real
threat, and if White plays t he obvious 20 lt:lf3 then 20 . . . .lc6,
threatening . . . .ixf3 and . . . g5 , allows Black good counterplay.
White's next move puts the whole matter into its true perspective.
20 lt:lh3 ! !

52
B

To quote again the London eyewitness: 'Scarcely had Karpov

produced his 20th move than Vladimirov suddenly stopped
talking and stared spellbound at the monitor. Concern also
appeared on the faces of the other members of Kasparov's camp,
whilst he himself, after rapid play so far, was now in a trance and
spent half an hour on the next three moves. Karpov, on the other

63
 THE RIGHT WAY TO LEARN AN OPENING

hand, for the frrst time in this match, looked relaxed and confident.'
What has happened? This knight move completely destroys
Black's game-plan . It equally prevents . . . g5 whilst preparing to
set up a barrier to Black's bishop when it reaches c6 by the
effective f3. Then, even worse, the selfsame knight shortly threatens
to head for d3 via f2, thus protecting the e5 pawn once and for all,
attacking c5 and , last but not least, preventing a possible entry by
a black rook on b2 or b4. An incredibly powerful centralised
knight, contrasting starkly with the wretched bishop on g7 which
is now permanently out of the game.
We can only assume that Kasparov and his team must have up
to this point considered the analysed variation as playable for
Black, at the very least, and presumably failed to take sufficient
account of Karpov's decisive plan beginning with the knight move
to h3. Only God and Kasparov know whether this move was
simply overlooked or the mistaken concept lay deeper. It is also
intriguing to speculate on Karpov's role in all this; did he find the
plan over the board or did he suspect that Kasparov might choose
this variation?
We must admit that the rest of the game is only easy for
annotators to discuss with hindsight, as it all hangs on a thread.
What is clear, however, is that Kasparov now suffered a traumatic
deterioration of his usual ability to fish in troubled waters and
make the most of the possible chances that came his way . . .
20 aS
21 f3 a4
22 l:lhe l !
It is important t o protect h i s e 5 pawn before proceeding with
lLlf2, since . . . g5 is still available to Black.
22 a3
23 ll:lf2 a2
24 li:ld3 l:la3
25 l:lal gS
Here, or two moves later, ... l:lb 8 was worth a try, whilst Black's
27th move seemed positively lethargic to the London spectators;
instead of a hard fight after the pawn sacrifice, they witnessed a
prosaic defeat.
26 hg hg
27 i.xgS �f7
28 .tf4 l:lb8

64
 THE RIGHT WAY TO LEA RN AN OPENING

29 llecl .tc6
30 llc3 lii a 5
31 liic 2 lii b a8 .�_'�. ;X
32 lt:lc1 Resigns � 7\\- .1":
Why is it that, if masters know so much and are armed to the
teet h with prepared variations when they come to the board, they
often need a relatively great amount of time, after only a few
moves, in positions which even average players know well? What
is going on in their heads at such times? We are h ere basically in
the presence of a poker-like psychological duel, when new cards
are being revealed at each move , with each player wondering what
his opponent has up his sleeve in the shape of an important
theoretical novelty. We are no longer talking about chess, at least
among masters who know each other very well, but rather about
psychology. What does my opponent usually like to play in these
positions? Does either of us need a win or is a draw sufficient? Such
questions have an important influence on the choice of opening.
Occasionally, masters reveal secrets that they would normally
prefer to keep; it may be, for example, during a television tourna­
ment when the personal commentaries of the players are transmitted
t hen encapsulated in book form. Let us listen in to two players
who, on this particular occasion, were quite free with their
comments: grandmaster Browne (USA) and the World Champion
at that time, Karpov, with the former having to win in order to
catch up with the latter.

-� Browne-Karpov
.

TV T ournament, Bath 1 983

Queen's Indian Defence
1 d4
Karpov: 'He has al ways played this against me and sometimes
even allowed me to play the Nimzo-lndian. Fine.'
1 �f6
Browne: 'Of course, as usual . 2 lt:lf3 is now possible but 2 c4 is
sharper and if he then plays the King's Indian I will not have
already committed my king's knight.'
(The lt:lf3 move immediately cuts out the sharpest systems for
White against the King's Indian, namely the Four Pawns Attack
with f4 and the Samisch A ttack with f3. )
2 c4

65
 THE R IGHT WAY TO LEARN AN OPENING

Karpov: 'In order to have a cha nce of reaching the final , he must
win this game, so if I now play . . . e6 he'll probably allow a Nimzo.'
2 e6
Browne: 'If I now play 3 lt:lc3 , he probably intends a Nimzo, but
I think I'll try 3 lt:lf3, when he can go into the Queen's Indian with
. . . b6 and . . . .ib7. In our last game in which I h ad White we had a
Queen's Gambit Declined which I prepared carefully for and in
which I obtained a good position, so I'm sure he'll try something
else. The only other system he sometimes plays is the Bogoljubow­
Indian, but that's a sharp system and he only needs a draw to win
the section. Since he k nows I must go in for complications, he'll
want to come up with something I'm not expecting which s till l ets
him get a solid position .'
3 lt:lf3
Karpov: 'I can choose now between . . . b6 and . . . d5. He �
probably answer the first by a3 or lt:lc3 and will have prepare �
something, but I don't mind seeing what it is.'
(3 . . . d5 would give us the Queen's Gambit and 3 . . . .tb4+, which
Karpov did not even mention, the Bogo-Indian.)
3 b6
Browne: 'H m , just as I thought! The natural move now is 4 llJc3
but then 4 . . . .tb4 is all right for Blac k . He knows that I've often
played 4 a3 here, but I'm very experienced in this line and have
actually prepared something special for him . . . '
4 a3
Karpov: 'Theory now gives 4 . . . .ia6 with equality, so I wonder
what he intends to p lay against it . I'm still more curious to find out
the answer to 4 . . . .tb7.'
4 .ib7
Browne: ' Didn't I say that 4 . . . .ta6 would l ead to sharper play
than he wants today . . ?' .

5 lt:lc3 d5
(According to Karpov, this is the only viable move, because
White's queen's knight can no longer be pinned, which means that
he will not only be threatening e4 before long but can even play d5
directly.)
Browne (thinking about the capture on d5): 'If he recaptures
with the knight , I have a high success rate with the line; perhaps
not so good as Kasparov's, but I'm very pleased with the results.'
6 cd ed

66
 T HE RIGHT WAY TO LEARN AN OPE NING

53
w

Karpov: 'This recapture is not so common, but it's interesting.'

(He also points out that 6 . . . lt:l xd5 was very popular at the time;
in other words, he selects a variation for which it is least likely
that Browne has prepared anything! )
Browne: 'Good, j ust what I hoped for! The usual move now is
7 g3 which he's probably intending to counter with the latest 7 . . .
c 5 move. However, I've something else in mind and i f h e replies
with . . . c6, it will cut out the immediate . . . c5.'
7 't!ra4+
(This is the first deviation from the norm, although home­
cooked, and a good example of an opening finesse used to take the
opponent out of a possibly prepared line.)
Karpov: 'Very strange . What's he up to? He expects . . . it:)d7, so
I'll play . . . c6.'
(At this point, both players appear to have their thinking wires
crossed, although Karpov is clearly the unprepared victim . . . )
7 c6
Browne: 'Just as I'd anticipated! Do I know this guy or don't I ?
I coul d now play 8 .ig5 or 8 .if4 with a new position o r I can go
into the line I 've b een planning. I 've got something in mind and
it's quite possible he'll fall in to it . . . '
8 g3 .ie7
9 .ig2 0-0
10 0-0 it:)bd7
(In this phase of the game, Karpov mainly gives chess analysis . )
Browne: ' He's following the game he played against Timman
last year at the Lucerne Olympiad. There were several games
played with this variation at the time, with everybody choosing
.if4; what about .ig5 . . . ?'

67
 THE RIGHT WAY TO LEARN AN OPENING

(More chess analysis until the 1 6th move, when it is still apparent
that Browne thinks that he has caught his opponent in a prepared
line!)
11 i.f4 lLlh5
12 i.d2 lle8
13 llad1 i.d6
14 e4 de
15 lOgS

15 lLldf6!
This is the move overlooked by Browne. H e only expected, as
would most players, 15 ... lLl hf6 , when 16 lLlgxe4 i.e7 17 i.f4, with
pressure on d6, would have given him a good game. This line is
now impossible, owing to the 'Siberian steed' situated on h5!
Ka rpov soon achieved his aim of a draw (on move 22) and we give
the last word to grandmaster Browne:
' Damn it! Another theoretical novelty squandered! I could
have beaten most players with it, but this guy just fi nds one good
defensive move after another. That means I've already to date
wasted two TN's on this machine . . . '

(It is well known that many masters reserve their secret weapons
fo r important games or particularly strong opponents. You can
thus imagine Browne's disappointment when such a coup comes
to not hing.)
We hope that the above material will help the average player to
cope more successfully with the opening stage of the game. Our
final piece of advice can perhaps be summed up in one sentence:
'As many ideas, plans and standard positions as possible, but only
as many variations as necessary ! '
�
68
4 Signposts in the Middlegame

Whenever the countless possibilities of a chess game seem like a

primeval forest through which a player must hack his way, it is
usually the middle game we are talking about. However great your
knowledge of this phase of the)game may be, however numerous
ct
!he acquired patterns (both ta ical and strategic) you may have at
your comm�_'!_d , a s soon as you are on your own at t h e board a
feeling of uncertainty engulfs you. In the opening, you often meet
variations you know thoroughly, and in _ th! endgame you have a
m_!.l_clt greater chance of reaching positions to-which you can apply
specific endgame technique. However, on a ful l board, your
knowledge is almost always applicable only to a part of the
concrete situation facing you. The more you know, the greater this
part will be, of course, but a one hundred per cent coverage is rare.
It is therefore no surprise that the amateur desperately looks for
something to cling to in this ocean of uncertainty, and herein lies
the greatest danger.
In the first chapter, we gave examples of how to tackle a position
by checking tactical details and applying acquired patterns to it.
We shall now examine a number of cases where the inexperienced
player makes errors of judgement in the middlegame. In our
opini on, first place must be given to the way certain elements in
a position are overvalued, j ust because they are more concrete,
easier to see , count or unders tand. M aterial acquisition is the chief
culprit here. By this we do not only mean falling into a trap as a
result of grabbing a 'poisoned pawn', but rather those cases where
the opponent obtains no immediate tactical compensation for his
pawn sacrifice, but instead receives intangible values such as the
initiative, superior piece coordination, and so on. This touches on
basic problems which even masters find difficult to solve.
From a thinking point of view, we tend to overrate moves which

69
 SIGN POSTS IN THE MIDD LEGAM E

attack or threaten something. The corollary of this is when we

automatically react to such threats without sufficiently examining
the alternatives. In such cases, we are on the verge of that chess
blindness that causes bl unders.
Of course, matters are not always so clear cut. For example,
many players are by no means materialistic when they smell a rat,
and they can usually refrain from nibbling at a tasty morsel
seductively placed in their path. The danger is when they detect
nothing suspicious in the offer, even believing that they stand well
after the capture. For instance, in the opinion of many players, the
surest way of winning from a better position is to gobble up as
much of your opponent's material as possible, whereas the
opposite is often the case. Admittedly, it is psychologically difficult
not to 'bite' in these situations. Perhaps our next example may
serve as a warning. We are sure that Walther will never forget it!

55
w

Walther-Fischer
Ziirich 1 9 59

We must imm ediately point out that the relatively unknown

Swiss had hitherto not only played sparkling chess but had not
displayed a trace of materialism, even offering a pawn earlier on to
open up lines against Fischer's king. It is rare to see Bobby Fischer
in such a hopeless position ! He was in fac t ready to resign, if White
had played the killer move of an experienced master 1 liteS! -

shutting off the black king from the e-file and permanently fixing
Black 's bishop and rook ( 1 . . . .i.g7?? 2 litxh 8 .i.xh8 3 f81W).
White would then not even need his extra pawn, since Black could
only watch helplessly as White's king comes up the board to pick up
the e5 pawn, followed eventually by �6. litxf8 and <l;e7, winning
easily.

70
 SIGN POSTS IN THE MIDDLEGA M E

What does White d o instead? He goes i n search o f material he

does not need, thereby giving Black a few unnecessary swindling
chances. An experienced player would have preferred the dynamic
rather than the m aterial advantage; he would rarely exchange an
active piece or destroy the coordination of his pieces for material
gain, unless he could see a clear win as a result or unless there was
nothing better.
1 l:la8 ? !
This move, a s yet, spoils nothing but gives Black a glimmer of
hope. Of course, I . . 'ittb 7? would now force White to play his
.

winning move.
1 'ittd 6(!)
' Please, help yourself!' Fischer offers the a6 pawn with check, in
the hope that White will not even look at 2 l:le8 . . .
2 l:lxa6+ (?) 'itte 7
3 l:le6+
Fischer gives 3 l:la7+ 'ittf6 4 .id3 as the simplest way to win.
3 'ittx f7
4 l:lxe5 b4
5 cb .ixb4

56
w

There is no doubt that White is still winning and that, from a

material view point , he is better off than before, with two
connected passed pawns instead of a pawn majority. However,
from a dynamic point of view, he has allowed the black pieces to
come to life and given him some chances because of the opposite­
coloured bishops and the fact that White's h-pawn has a queening
square n ot controlled by his bishop! In the event, the unbelievable
happened; after missing a study-like win , Walther allowed Fischer
to escape merely with a black eye - a draw. There is often a vicious

71
 SIGN POSTS IN T H E M I D D L EG A M E

circle within the brain of a would-be winner in such cases; you

realise too late that you have made things difficult for yourself,
become nervous, try too hard to make up for lost ground and
then, before you know it, another mistake appears of its own
accord. It takes an exceptional player to readjust to the new
situation , to begin again and to concentrate objectively on the
position before him, whilst shutting out all thoughts of what
might have been.
No w Jet us examine the opposite case of a grandmaster who
refuses to be diverted from the task in hand.

Bogoljubow-Marshall
New York 1 924

Just before the diagrammed position occurred, the black knight

was on f6 and White was on the point of playing g5 followed by an
overwhelming attack on the h7 and f7 squares. To prevent this,
Black has just pl ayed ... lt::l e 4, which looks like desperation . So,
why not capture at once on c6, then on e4, winning a pawn? Many
players would not hesitate for long, particularly �ince Black is
being, so to speak, forced to give up a pawn. However, a moment's
reflection shows that 1 lt::l x c6 't!Yxc6 2 .ixe4 de 3 't!Yxe4 litd2! (not
3 . . . 't!Yxe4_4 litxe4 litd2 5 litb4! and this rook is both attacking and
defending) gives White problems, because Black is threatening to
double rooks on the d-file and then on the seventh rank. It therefore
seems sound to develop a piece first.
1 litadl litac8
Again ignoring the loss of the pawn! White can now exchange a
pair of rooks but after 2 lt::l x c6 't!rxc6 3 .ixe4 de 4 litxd8+ litxd8
5 't!rxe4 litd2 6 't!rxc6 be the powerful black rook forces White to
defend the b2 pawn by the wretched 7 litb l , with no real winning

72
 SIGN POSTS IN T H E M I D D L E G A M E

chances. Having rej ected the initial offer of a pawn, there is no

difficulty about turning this one down too. In fact, White must
now be asking himself how he is to get rid of the frisky knight on e4
without l iquidating to a drawn ending. Clearly, f3 will have to be
prepared and then the attack continued, but this will take some
ti me. We are co nvinced that, precisely because of the difficult play
involved in such a plan, many players would opt for the easy way
out and take the pawn, despite the draw that will inevitably ensue.
They will persuade themselves that at least there is no risk involved
that way !
The master, on the other hand, patiently goes in for the longer
plan, although nothing concrete happens for the next five moves
or so. He realises that his advantage will be preserved and
increased, once the knight is driven off and his pieces show
themselves to be better posted (the weakness of the b l-h7 diagonal
guarantees this). Black cannot block this plan without creating
more weaknesses. Contrast this positionally sound build-up of
White's advantages with the simplistic and highly dubious win of
a pawn.
2 �g2! .ta4
3 litc l f6
This weakens the b l-h 7 diagonal even more, but the knight on
e5 could otherwise always be sacrificed when an eventual . . . g6 is
played .
4 ll:lf3 .tc6
s ltJd4 'tWd6
6 f3 ll:lcS
7 .tbl !

58
B

Finally, White threatens 8 1!t'c2 and also has the possibility of

73
 SIGNPOSTS IN T H E M I D D LE G A M E

8 b4 winning the e6 pa wn, a quite different pawn win fro m the

earlier one, because White's pieces maintain their influence. Of
course, 7 ...'t!t'xf4? now fails to 8 b4 and 9 ll:lxe6 winning the
exch ange .
7 .td7
8 't!t'c2 rs
Another very interesting moment. Yet another pawn win is
allowed and, at first sight, it does not look so good, in view of the
horrible doubled pawn that White is left with. Nevertheless, he is
quite happy to take it!
9 gf ef
10 li:lxfS 'irg6+
1 1 li:lg3 't!Vxc2
1 2 .txc2

59
8

Black has finally succeeded in eliminating the kingside attack at

the cost of a pawn. The difference now is that White, despite his
doubled pawn, has active pieces, is occupying the e-file, and can
subject Black's isolated d5 pawn to an attack. B lack has little
useful he can do, because White's f4 pawn will be safe, once it
moves to f5 . It is difficult to express White's advantage in
numerical terms, but we could say his extra doubled pawn counts
for half a pawn and his active pieces another half, making a whole
one; in the initial position it was a full pawn to White minus haifa
pawn for Black 's active rook, so the final balance is at least hai f a
pawn plus t o White! You can forget this sort of calculation at
once, j ust so long as you remember to evaluate dynamic alongside
static feat ures of a position . In the actual game, White had little
trouble winning; rather later than expected but without any risks.
12 li:le6

74
 SIGN POSTS IN T H E M I D D L E G A M E

13 ll:le2 11 1'8
14 rs ll:ld8
15 lbd4
Demonstrating that Black has nothing on the f-file.
15 ll:lc6
16 i.b3! i.xf5
1 7 i.xd5+ �8
18 .i.xc6 be
19 liteS i.d7
20 b4
and we will spare you the rest of the game. The extra pawn is now
in full health , supported by superior piece play. Black has no
counterplay and lost i n twenty moves.
Even experienced players can have moments when a mental
blockage occurs. Stress, particularly caused by time trouble, may
well play a part in this, as in the following typical case.

60
B

Spassky-Tal
Le ningrad 1 959
Black to move has to choose between taking a rook or a pawn.
Even the great tactician Tal , a player with an incomparable feeling
for dynamic elements, made the wrong choice here .
1 1!1xb2?
2 ef
Although Black is now the exchange ahead , White's two con­
nected passed pawns in conjunction with Black's weakened pawn
structure and the fact that there is a powerful entry point for the
white queen on h5 put him completely in control of events. It is a
moot point whether Black should now lose, but he is clearly fighting
for his life.
2 llc6

75
 SIGN POSTS IN T H E M I D D LE G A M E

3 i.g3 d3
4 '@hS d2
S 't!t'e8+ �7
6 'ft'e7+ �8
7 f6 de'ft'+
8 i.xel Resigns
However, just consider the picture if it is Black who gives up a
piece by l . . . de ! It is he who no w has two connected passed pawns
on the fifth rank, quickly capable of advancing. White still has a
rook hanging and his queen is quite a different piece without the
support of the passed pawns, since the black queen is both
attacking the knight on e l and preventing i.g3 . A n analysis by
Euwe runs: 2 lil:f2 e3! 3 llxf5 d3 4 �xd3 �xd3 5 'ft'fl 'ft'c5 and
Black wins.
Middlegame judgement is seen at its most subtle when we are
dealing with positional sacrifices like the above, rather than with
the usual sacrifice as part of a combination leading to mate or gain
of material . It is with this true, long-term sacrifice that a master's
thinking ability comes into its own, as he visualises specific
'power-packs' of energy. A bishop on a good diagonal or a knight
on a strong square may prove as good as or even better than a
rook; it is not by chance that the exchange sacrifice is one of the
most common forms of the positional sacrifice. Or it may be a
pawn about to queen which can be just as strong as the piece which
has to keep an eye on it. This ability of a player to view a piece for
its dynamic value rather than its nominal one has its roots in the
early development of the thought processes. Here is a relatively
simple but typical example of such thinking:

61
w

Dr Pfleger-Ribli
M antilla 1 974

76
 S I G N POSTS IN T H E M I DDLEGAME

Black is intending to collect the b5 pawn which he presumes to

have temporarily lent White, and there seems little White can do
about it, because I lla5 fails to I . . . .ib7 ! winning the d5 pawn
because of the secondary threat of 2 . lLlxd5 attacking White's
..

queen's rook with the queen.

1 b6!
There is no doubt that this little pawn has not the slightest
chance, at least in the foreseeable future, of reaching the 8th rank.
Nor does the bishop on fl which White obtains for the exchange
appear much of a giant, remaining as it does on fl for nearly the
whole game . There is no forcing combination in sight, nor any
mating attack , so what is it all in aid of? The simple answer is that
it is enough that the pawn will shortly be on b7 ! Black has then to
mai n tain a constant blockade with his rook which can therefore
not be used for anything else. Nor can Black play his rook to aS or
his knight to c6, among other things . In other words, most of his
pieces are committed to specific tasks or tied down, which means
that he can hardly set up any real counterplay. Although White's
advanced b-pawn is therefore doing nothing in itself, its very
presence radiates a power which has a paralysing effect on Black's
game.
Of course , behind this type of sacrifice there is a part of what we
call intuition, but a master's thinking also quickly adapts itself to
the fact that, in the short term, there is nothing concrete
happening or bei ng threatened as a result of the sacrifice . It takes
experience to be able to work patiently towards the win, trusting
in your own judgement, without worrying about your material
deficit.
1 ..txn
2 .txn lLla8
3 b7 lbc7
4 lla7 lle8
s ltld2 ..trs
Otherwise, lLlc4 was threatened, not only with an attack on d6
but also with a view to lLla5-c6. White cannot now play this
because of the threat to his d5 pawn, so must proceed more
carefully.
6 t!t'c4
Preparing to play the knight to a5 via b3.
6 lLld7

77
 S I G N POSTS IN T H E M I D D L E G A M E

Clearly threatening to answer 7 lt::l b 3 with 7 ... lt::l b 6, but

temporarily taking pressure off the d5 pawn and thus allowing
White's queen more freedom.
7 ti'a4 ! lt:Jf6
8 ti'c6

Se aling the fate of the d6 pawn and with it the game.

8 h6
9 lDc4 lbe4
10 lDxe4 :xe4
1 1 J.xd6 .txd6
12 lDxd6 :b4
13 .tc4
And now ideas such as lDxf7 followed by Wxc7+ and d6+
become possible.
13 11Ve7
14 b3 lDe8
I S lDxe8 1!f'el +
t6 .tn 1!he8
1 7 lla8!
and Black resigned, si nce he loses at least a rook after 1 7 . . . :4xb7
18 Wxe8+ and if the queen moves a way or the king goes to f8, then
White wins by 1 8 ll xb8 ti'xb8 19 Wc8+. So, in the end, the b7
pawn did have the last word , although up till then its mere
presence had tied up Black's pieces and allowed White the freedom
to build up his position.
There are naturally much more complex positional sacrifices
than this, but the basic principle with regard to c hess thinking
remains the same: material is so to speak traded for positional
factors, the very nature of which allow you to work to wards the

78
 S IG N POSTS IN T H E M I DD L EG A M E

win without any grand histrionics. This underlying principle does

not apply solely to material gain or loss, but may involve whole
opening systems in which a real or imaginary pawn weakness is
accepted, provided that there is sufficient compensation in active
pi ece play. Consider the following middlegame example:

63
w

Ogaard-Dr Pfleger
Manila 1 9 7 5
Assessment of this position can be carried out fairly rapidly.
White has the two bishops and tremendous pressure against the d5
pawn which is weak because it is isolated. At best, Black can hope
for a difficult draw; the c-file works in his favour but its value is
debatable. This makes what happens now highly instructive.
Within the space of ten moves, White manages to ruin this position
in which there is not the least danger threatening him, until he is
clearly lost. Why? Because he allows the black pieces to take up
dominating positions. The same thing often happens with lesser
players ; they recognise very well the static nature of their advantage
but fail to handle the dynamic aspects.
1 'ti'd3
I i.xd5 gives Black the better of the endgame after I . . . lt:l xd5
2 't!t'xd5 lld8 3 't!t'b3 (3 't!t'xe6?? lhd l +) 3 . . . llxd l + (3 . . . 't!t'xb3?
4 lhd8+) 4 'ti'xd I 't!t'xa2 etc. However, his plan to post the bishop
on d4 does not seem to be the philosopher's stone either. He would
do best to prepare to exchange rooks on the c-file and aim for a
minor piece ending which would be horrible for Black .
1 b5
2 i.d4 ll:le4
Possi ble, because White has taken the pressure off the d5 pawn.
White's bishop on d4 is now aiming at nothing, so he should
perhaps simply play it back to e3 .

79
 S I G N POSTS IN THE M I D D L EG A M E

3 b3?
A pleasant surprise for Black, weakening the c3 square which
he immediately exploits.
3 b4
4 i.b2?
Another 'dynamic sin', costing a whole tempo , since Black was
planning to play . . . i.f6 anyway.
4 i.f6!
We are already a cquainted with the trap 5 'i!t'xd5?? lld8 which
is now even worse for White, since his queen h as no retreat to b3.
5 i.xf6 lDxf6
6 e3
The line 6 i.xd5 lLlxd5 7 'i!t'xd5 'i!t'xe2 clearly favours Black.
6 Ilc3
7 'i!t'd2 'i!t'fS
8 'i!t'e2 aS
9 h3 hS
64
w

It is scarcely credible that this position could a rise from the

previous diagram. Blac k 's d5 pawn is still isolated but note the
contrast between the white and black pieces. White's are primarily
concerned with preventing an invasion on c2 or c l ; they are
admi ttedly protecting everything but are stuck in their defensive
positions, and even if general exchanges are m ade White must
watch that his queenside pawns do not fall in the ending. As for
Black's d5 pawn, it could truly be termed weak in diagram 63,
where White's pieces were directly aimed at it and as a result were
well placed, leaving Black only with the prospect of a passive
defence and a prayer. From diagram 64, on the other hand , there
is no question of White organising a successful attack on this
pawn, because Black could always let it go and seek more than

80
 SIGNPOSTS IN THE M I D D L EG A M E

adequate compensation elsewhere. It is now White's a2 and f2

which are weak, because they have to be constantly kept under
guard.
Just as in the case of positional sacrifices where dynamic values
can prevail over static ones, the same can apply to other elements,
such as pawn structures. For example, one of your designated weak
squares can suddenly become strong if your pieces can control it
more effectively than your opponent's. Take the typical case of an
isolated or back ward pawn, whos.: weakness lies mainly in the
square in front of it. Given sufficient control of this particular
square, you can simply push the pawn forward. This does not
happen in the present game, of course, as White has always had
the d4 square firmly under his control. Such changing factors and
relative values can prove difficult to assess, even for an experienced
�::.a ster, never mind an amateur.
From the diagrammed position, White sends his rook and
queen out on a desperate mission and even manages to win two
pawns, but his king is made to pay for this adventure. From here
to the end, in fact, Black's pieces appear to increase in strength!
1 0 lld4 g6
11 lU4 't!le5
12 't!la6
Although passive defence could probably not hold out in the
l ong run , this abandonment ofthe kingside is tantamount to offer­
ing Black the game on a silver plate.
12 �g7
13 't!lxa5 g5
14 llxb4 h4
15 g4 llcl +
16 ..ifl lt::l e4 !

65
w

81
 S I G N POSTS IN THE M I D D L EG A M E

Th reatening ... lLld2 or ... lLlg3 or even . . . lLlxf2.

1 7 lhe4 1Vxe4
18 1i'b5
Purely from the material point of view, even now White is not
too badly off, but his king is in trouble and Black's major pieces
dominate the board.
18 1t'f3
19 1i'd3 1Vxh3
20 1i'e2 ct>m
21 b4 f5
22 gf 1t'xr5
Black is not afraid of exposing h is own king, since White's
pieces are hardly in a position to do much abou t it.
23 1i'a6 h3
24 1i'd6+ ct>n
25 1i'g3 g4
26 1i'd6 1i'e4
27 't!ld7+ ct>g6
28 1i'd6+ ct>h5
29 't!lg3 d4
and White resigned, because after 30 ed 1t'e l he loses at least a
piece by 3 1 1i'e5+ 1t'xe5 32 de h2+ or by 3 1 1t'd3 1t'xfl + 32 1t'xfl
h2+. It is ironic that the end should come as soon as Black's isolated
pawn finally moved!
Let us no w turn to another aspect of chess judgement where the
master's acquired knowledge once again stands him in good stead.
Text books have taught us that when we stand badly we should
defend actively, sacrificing material if necessary, rather than
meekly submit to our opponent's intentions. Easier said than
done, because how does the average player know the precise point
at which he stands badly? The usual scenario in amateur chess is
that a player under pressure defends passively until it suddenly
dawns on him that his opponent's threats can hardly be parried; he
then throws everything into a desperate attack which is far too late
and therefore suicidal . This means that the real problem lies in
knowing precisely w hen a position is beginning to go downhill or
even when you suspect it is on the point of doing so. You then
usually have sufficient time and material to change direction or at
least throw a spanner in the opponent's plans.
This is where the master's acquired patterns can be exploited to

82
 SIGN POSTS IN THE M I D D LEG A M E

good effect. As soon as he can picture a dangerous set-up emerging

on the horizon, even twenty moves ahead (it may well be an ending
he senses, even when most of the piecs are on the board), he does
not wait until the threats become a terrible reality; knowing that
'normal' play is unavailing, he takes drastic measures to avoid the
worst. Here is a good example of what we mean:

66
w

Marshall-Capa blanca
New York 1 927

There does not appear to be m uch wrong with White's position,

at first sight. Some players may feel that he even stands better,
with all Black's pieces on the first three ranks and his own pawns
controlling squares in enemy territory. They might then notice
certain details, such as the fact that the attacking move f5 is out of
the question, because of the pressure of Black's bishop on the
b8-h2 diagonal, and decide that the game is equal after all . Even
many masters would hardly suspect that White is in danger, but
just listen to Alekhine's scathing comment: ' Without any prospect
of an attack and with poorly controlled central squares, White is
also facing the nightmare of a catastrophic ending in which his
opponent will be in possession of the only open file and possibly a
strong square for his knight on f5 ! '
What is Alekhine's recommendation, then? H i s reaction i s the
very one we have just mentioned: 'In such circumstances, for
better or for worse, heroic measures are called for in the shape of
action on the queenside, beginning with the ugly-looking 14 b4!
directly preventing ... c5 . White would probably obtain some
chances in the inevitable pawn exch anges and line opening that
would then ensue. The fact that Marshall fails to examine this
possibility and, later, others, only shows that he was unaware of

83
 S I G N PO STS IN THE M I D D LEG A M E

the latent danger of his position .'

Of course, it is easier to pinpoint such critical moments when we
have the benefit of hindsight, but the main thing is to carry out the
exercise, especially when you have played a bad game. The above
position is a model example of a situation where the average
player would quickly get into trouble without ever knowing at
which point he made a mistake. It is in apparently harmless positions
like the above that the true seeds of defeat are sown! Let us see
how the actual game continued:
1 i.d2?!
A routine developing move made by an unsuspecting player.
1 cS
2 lbe4?!
This powerful-looking centralisation of the knight gets White
nowhere, because Black is not worried about giving up his bishop if
it will allow his e7 knight to reach his dream-square at f5. According
to A lekhine, White should exchange immediately on c5, with fair
defensive chances.
2
We see the point of Marshall's first move in the trap 2 . . . cd?
3 lbxd6 'W'xd6 4 i.b4. If now 3 lb xd6 Black has the zwischenzug
3 . . . lbxd4.
3 de lbxc5
4 lbdxc5 i.xc5
5 i.c3
After 5 lbxc5 'W'xc5 6 i.c3 Black could double his rooks, whereas
now 5 . . . lild7? (or 5 . . . lld5?) would have brought about another
of Marshall's notorious traps after 6 lbf6+! gf 7 'W'g4+ lbg7 8 i.xf6
mating.
5 i.d4
6 lilad1 i.xc3
7 lbxc3 litxd1
8 lbxd1
White's f4 pawn prevents him from making the natural recapture
with his rook.
8 lild8
After 8 . . . lbd4 9 1We4 lbxc2 White would have another trap in
10 lbc3 lba3 I I llc l lbc4 1 2 lbb5 winning a piece, according to
Alekhine.
9 lbc3

84
 S I G N POSTS IN THE M I D D L EG A M E

67
B

We can now see the ending that Alekhine dreaded. If W hite

wishes to contest the d-file, he must first weaken his w hite squares
by playing g3. This, in conjunction with possible entries for
Black's knight at e3 and d4 and the likely arrival of his rook at d2
after the exchange of queens, leaves him with a lost game. Alekhine
suggests that 9 h6 would have left White with no defence. In the
...

actual game, Capablanca played the less logical 9 . . 't!fb6?! allowing

.

1 0 l1d l (the back ran k! ), although he still won later. If we now

look back over this game with the eyes of the loser, is it all that
obvious that the initial mistake can be traced right back to
diagram 66?
Here is another example of forward planning, but on this
occasion Kasparov twice makes vital decisions that save him from
troublesome situations that could arise.

68
B

Karpov-K asparov
8th game, World Championship 1 98 5

Black's d5 pawn is hanging and the active I l1b2 fails to

...

2 l hd5 followed by l1a5 or l1d2 keeping the extra pawn (although

85
 SIGNPOSTS IN T H E M I D D LEG A M E

2 ...lt::l e4 is possible here, with similar lines to the game). Why not,
then, simply protect the pawn with I . lld8 at once ? White can
. .

hardly attack it again very quickly. Yet this is almost certainly the
line Karpov was counting on. Let us look at the possible continu­
ation: I . . . lld8 2 lt::l d4 (threatening 3 lLlc6 lld7 4 ll xd5) 2 . 'it>f8
. .

3 llb l . It is now White who occupies the b-file from where the
rook can attac k the d5 and a7 pawns via b5 and a5. Such positions,
with the isolated pawn blockaded and the enemy pieces tied down
to its defence, are invariably won in practice by White, eve n if the
win cannot always be proved analytically.
There is a further point h ere concerning match tactics. It is well
k nown that Karpov loves positions in which he can 'massage' his
opponent without taking any risks, and that Kasparov as a
defensive p layer is like a fish out of water! At all events, few
masters would play such a defensive move as 1 . litd8, since their
. .

experience warns them clearly about the dangers involved. So

Kasparov decides to give up the pawn for counterplay.
I lLle4
2 llxdS litbl +
3 'it>h2 lLlxf2
4 litd8+ 'it.'h7
S litd7 aS
6 litxf7 litb2
7 a4 ltJdl
8 lite7 litb4
9 ltJd4 ltJxe3
10 lbc6 litc4
ll litxe3 litxc6
12 liteS

69
B

86
 S I G N POSTS IN THE M I D D L EG A M E

We are now back to our theme after all the wood-chopping.

Kasparov's active play has regained the pawn for him, but he is
faced with the same dilemma as before: should he guard his pawn
from behind and thereby condemn his rook to a passive role, or
should he give up the pawn and keep his rook active? This is a much
more common situation than the first case and there are whole
chapters of theory devoted to the subject. Although Black has not
the slightest chance of a counter-attack by keeping his rook active,
theory tells us that a passively placed rook will in practice inevitably
lead to defeat. On the other hand, an active rook, even with a
pawn down, can usually draw against a wing pawn, provided it is
placed behind the pawn with the enemy rook in front.
In the present position, therefore , the choice is clear. Playing the
rook to a6 and leaving it there will give White good winning
chances, whereas giving up the pawn and placing the black rook
behind the resulting passed pawn will usually ensure the draw. So
K asparov played:
12 �c3
13 �xa5 lii: a 3
and managed to collect the half point ftfteen moves later.
This example leads us neatly from the bewildering realm of the
m iddlegame into the different world of the endgame where we
shall see true specialists at work, as we venture behind the scenes.

87
5 Who's Afraid of Endings?

'Oh endgame, thou unknown being!' This is how a tormented

chess friend recorded in print the sad account of one of the first
games he lost in h is youth . . . Many amateurs have the selfsame
feeling about this stage of the game and just do not know how to
approach the subject . They swot up the standard positions which
can be found in any decent book on the endings, then find that
they meet them no more than once a year over the board, if that.
The result of all this is that the theory disappears on to the
bookshelf to be completely forgotten until the day that an
adj ourned position looks like something that might be found in
Averbakh or Euwe or Cheron. Practical endings are played 'by
ear' on the basis of a fe w acquired guidelines such as: rooks belong
behind passed pawns; the king is a strong piece in the endgame;
knight endi ngs can be treated in the same way as pawn endings; in
queen endings, passed pawns are more important than extra
pawns; and any other bits of advice the player may have picked
up.
In this respect, a master is no different. Even in top-class tour­
naments, standard theoretical endings are the exception rather
than the rule. So why is it that the master spends at least one part
of his chess life building up this knowledge of basic endings, when
__
he apparently cioe s notneed to use it? The simple answer is that he
does need to use it , but not in the way that most people imagine. I n
fact, the mome nt o f truth appears long before a particular basic
position is reached over the board. I t_often happens that you have
_
to make decisions in the middlegame about whether to exchange
pawns and pieces to reach an ending or whether, in a complex
position, it is better to escape into an ending or take your chances
on a fu ll board . The problem becomes much more concrete when
you are already i n an ending and have to make delicate decisions

88
 W H O'S A FR A I D O F ENDINGS?

about the kind of standard position you should aim for and about
which particular pieces or pawns you should exchange or retain. �f
you have no basic theoretical knowledge to call upon, you will
mestfy be worlcing in the dark at such time'S, unlike the mast er
who constantly uses his theory of standard positions as a signpost
to guide him towards the correct decision.
In time, this simple use of one model moves to a higher plane, as
theoretical positions link up to form what we can term 'practical
theory', such as we saw being applied in the Karpov-Kasparov
position at the end of the last chapter. Kasparov's play was based
on principles which had been formulated from a knowledge of a
n umber of well-researched basic positions. Finally, on the highest
plane of all (from a thinking point of view), we have pure practical
play itself. Let us take an elementary standard position and see
how far its influence reach es into practical chess.
\"i

� - - --- -
/ Any amateur knows that this position is drawn. White's rook
cannot move without losing the pawn and if his king rushes to
s 1pport the pawn and thus free h is rook he is.�_mply checked from
\behind and has nowhere to hide� he situation become;�
if we add asecoiicrpiWn to w Jte's forces. If we place it anywhere
'
on the g-file, the position still remains d ead drawn, providing that
the black king does not capture this pawn when it reaches g6,
allowing Itg8+ winning. The same thing applies to an h-pawn,
with h6+ being answerd by ... �h7 ! . Consider, however, the next
diagram.
White wins easil y by I f6+. Again, Black cannot capture,
because of 2 Itf8+ . Nor can he play I . . . �h7 in view of2 f7 and the
pawn queens. Finally, a well-known but vital trap in rook endings,
I . . . �f7 1oses to 2 Ith8! Itxa7 3 Ith7+ win ning the rook . It is easy

89
 W H O'S A FR A I D O F ENDINGS?

71
w

to see that the same applies with Black's king on h7. All this is
elementary theory, so let us move a stage higher.

Once again, a 'book' example, but also a position that could

well occur in a game. A master would view this as part of his
endgame theory, but an a mateur should be able to work out the
winning plan without much difficulty, once the above trick with
the f-pawn is known. The problem is to win the f5 pawn. This is
easily solved if we provide the key word: zugzwang! Once the
white king has penetrated into Black's position, the latter is clearly
l imited by the fact that his king must keep to the g7/h7 squares
and his rook d are not leave the a-file, unless checking. Have you
worked it out? The first stage is to break through the barrier
imposed by B lack's rook , so l �dl �h7 2 �cl �g7 3 �bl lb6
4 'i!ro2 l:l:a5. The nex t stage is to reach e6 with the king, thus 'fixing'
the black rook on a5, so 5 �b3 (only in this way can he b reak
through the second barrier imposed by the enemy rook) 5 ... lial
6 �b4 l:Ia2 7 �b5 l:l:al 8 �c6 liaS 9 �6 �h7 (9 . . . l:l:a l would
make it easier for White, as we shal l see) 10 �e7! l:l:a6 (or 10 . . .
�g7 1 1 �e6 etc . ) l l �n l:l:a4 l 2 �e6 and w e are finally there.

90
 W H O'S A FR A I D O F E ND I N G S ?

73
B

Note that 1 2 �f6 lita5 would be inexact, since it is White who is

then in zugzwang. Of course, White is not afraid of 12 lit xf4??
. . .

1 3 lith8+ (or even 1 3 litb8) winning at once . The last stage is

zugzwang, followed by the capture of the f5 pawn , after which we
are back to our elementary ending with the extra f-pawn: 1 2 ...
lla5 1 3 �f6! lital (the only piece that Black can move) 1 4 �f5
�7 1 5 'it>e4 (White does not n eed the help of his king in order to
win, so h e heads for the rook a nd thus puts an end to the checks)
1 5 ... lita4+ 16 �3 lita3+ 17 �c2 lita2+ 18 'itm3 lital l9 f5 when
we know that Black can do nothing to prevent f6+ winning. All
the above moves are not forced, but the essential ideas are. This is
why it is important to thi nk �bout endings in logical stages, as we
have just shown, ev �ntho�gh the whole sequence , right through
to the bitter end, t�kesov er twenty moves. -
However, as we pointed out, all the above analysis comes
as second nature to the master, which means that he can go even
further and apply all this acquired knowledge to more complicated
situations. Consider, for example, the following:

74
w

Smyslov-Botvinnik
1 st game, World C ha mpionship 1 95 4

91
 W HO'S A FR A I D O F ENDINGS?

Without knowing the previous relevant positions, your thoughts

about such an ending would be unclear, to say the least. Now,
h owever, you are among the 'initiated' and can form a clear plan:
push the a5 pawn to the seventh rank, thus preventing a possible
capture of the f7 pawn; then exchange the f4 pawn for the g3 pawn,
and Bob's your uncle ! Of course, Smyslov knew all this, so played
in desperation I �h3 allowing l . . . f4 winning for Black. The way
that our plan would have been applied is shown in the following
analysis by Euwe: 1 ltf2 a4 2 �g2 lital 3 �f3 a3 4 �g2 (in such
situations, the king must be careful to reach g2 or h2 by the time
the black pawn advances to a2 - for example, 4 �f4?? a2 and
White can resign immediately) 4 ... a2 5 �2 �xgS 6 �g2
75
8

6 ... 'iti6. B lack must not rush at once into 6 . . . f4 7 gf+ since he
cannot now recapture, because the black rook can take the f7
pawn with check; if he plays 7 . . . �g4, White has 8 f5! f6 9 lita5 !
holding the position, because there is now no zugzwang possible,
in contrast to our earlier position where the pawns were on f4 and
f5 respectively. However, there is a subtle way of reaching the
position required 7 litaS �e6 8 �h2 f4! 9 gf fS and we have finally
-

reached the position we know, with the black king moving over to
b6 to clear the way for breaking through to the kingside where
zugzwang will win h im the pawn.
It is now understandable how a master can plan twenty or thirty
moves ahead in positions about which the amateur does not know
where to begin thinking. The key lies in the gradual breakdown
from more complex positions to the basic standard ones we know
by heart, like peeling away the layers of an onion. Before we leave
this particular item, may we quote an example played by one of the
authors which shows the same ideas being utilised in an 'untypical'
position.

92
 W H O'S A F R A I D O F ENDINGS?

� ·�
76
w

Wallner-Treppner
Linz 1 980

If anyone can win h ere, it must be B lack . He is practically a

pawn up, in view of White's doubled c-pawns, and his pawn on a2
greatly restricts the freedom of the white pieces. Despite these
advantages, what is to be done? Even if Black could exchange his
a2 pawn for both the c-pawns, the three pawns versus two on the
kingside is a well-known book draw. Black's king can stop the c4
pawn but cannot do much more in the way of active play. Finally,
his k ingside pawn maj ority can hardly produce an effective passed
pawn in the normal way, since that side is defended by the white
king.
Th is last point may produce the germ of an idea in those readers
who have fully understood the use of the f-pawn in such positions.
Just suppose we create a passed pawn to be used in the same way
as the previous games, we come up against the fact that White's c2
pawn stops us skewering the rook when the white king goes to f2.
White's kingside pawns also help to protect the king from checks
if he should decide to advance. Having checked all these details
and their significance with regard to our plan, we must plunge in,
since it is the only viable way to try for a win and does not involve
any risk . In the event, everything went as well as possible for Black.
1 g3?!
This makes it easy for Black to create a passed pawn on f4.
Nevertheless, l 'it>g3 g5 was not without problems for White; the
intention is to play . . . h5, . . . f4+ and . . . g4, and White cannot
prevent this by 2 h4 because of 2 . . . gh+ 3 'it>h 2 (or 3 'it>f2 h3) 3 ... f4
followed by . . . h3 producing a passed f-pawn , since the king
cannot capture on h3 ( . . . �h l +) .

93
 W H O'S A FR A I D O F ENDINGS?

1 �e8
Threatening to head for b8 in the usual way and then advance.
2 cS �d8
3 c6
Hemming in B lack's king but also leading to a semi-induced
zugzwang, the key to w hat is to come.
3 �8
4 c7 gS
5 �g2 f4
6 gf gf
7 �f2
As we pointed out, this is possible here, because . . . llh l is not
yet available as a resource to Black.
7 f3!
8 h4 h5
The zugzwang has been reached ! White cannot move his king
without allowing a first-rank check by the rook. Nor can he move
his c2 pawn because of 9 . . . llh l l O llxa2 ll h2+. H e is thus forced
to give up the c7 pawn, but this only delays the inevitable. White
resigned. It is amazing what can happen from an ordinary
position !
There are cases i n the endgame when i t seems that every logical
thought is turned on its head and it comes to either knowing or not
k nowing what is going on in a position. For example, does it not
sound paradoxical to state that a pawn is stronger the further back
it stands? Well, just consider the following:

This book position is a dead draw. White cannot threaten mate,

because his king is excluded from g6 and h6 by the bishop and his
own pawn, respectively. Nor does sacrificing the pawn help, as

94
 W H O'S A F R A I D O F ENDINGS?

I h7 i.xh7 2 'it>h6 i.g8 leads at most to stalemate (after 3 lita8).

Black leaves his king in the corner and keeps his bishop on the
b 1 -h 7 diagonal and there is nothing White can do.
With the white pawn on the fifth rank , winning prospects
increase! However, the win is not always forced, except when
White can force the black king into the corner and can then use h6
for his own king; the proof is not that simple .

[Translator's note. For the sake of completeness, I give the winning

method without explanation :

78
w

White wins by I litb7! i.al 2 litb8+ i.g8 3 'it>g5 'it>g7 4 litb7+

'it>h8 5 ct>g6 i.d5 6 lith7+ 'it>g8 7 l:te7 ! 'it>h8 8 h6 i.al 9 h7 i.bl +
10 'it>h6 etc.]

However, if the black king escapes from the corner, as in the

next diagram, White cannot win.

79

Now the h6 square is no longer of any use to the white king,

since he must get out of the way of his own pawn so that it can
advance. Unfortunately for him, there is no way that he can bring

95
 WH O'S A F R A I D OF ENDINGS?

his king out behind his own rook on the g-file, thus barring this file
to the black king. If he plays litg6, Black does not take at once, but
bides his time. White could try l litg6 .ic2 2 <&>h7 threatening
3 <&>h8 and 4 litg8+, but the simple 2 . . . <&>n nips that idea in the
bud. With the white pawn on h4 in the diagrammed position ,
White c a n always w i n , although the analysis i s complex. The main
point is that, now the h5 square is available to the king, he can
work on the threat of <&>h5-g4 with his rook on g5 .
Perhaps the very fact that the above is so complicated should
help you to see why mastersJleed to work on and aim for standard
' model' position_!!_,_ An 'Achilles h eel' with many players is that
they know t hat a specific position is a book win or draw, but
suddenly forget the analysis involved! It is even stranger when
masters go wrong in the least complicated positions, perhaps
because these are so simple t hat they treat them too casually. Or it
may be a result of stress or even annoyance because the opponent
is playing on in such a position, a self-destructive attitude. Bobby
Fischer is an example of a player who plays on until all the pieces
are off the board and gains many a full point that way.

80
B

Fischer-Taimanov
2nd game, Candidates Quarter-Final 1 97 1

White h as the 'wrong' rook's pawn, which means that Black can
even give up his knight, provided that his king can reach the
drawing square h8. The simplest way of setting about this would
have been l . . . ll:ld3 2 h4 llJf4 so that 3 <&>f5 can be answered by 3 . . .
<&>d6 4 <t>xf4 <&>e7 5 <&>g5 <&> n 6 <&>h6 <&>g8 etc. Also good enough
would h ave been l . . . <&>d6. Instead , the unfortunate Taimanov
headed his king in the completely wrong direction with l 'i!te4?? ...

and after 2 .ic8 ! �4 (the knight is eliminated after both 2 . . . ll:lf3

96
 W H O'S A FR A I D O F ENDINGS?

3 .ib7+ and 2 . . lLld3 3 .if5+) 3 h4 lt:lf3 (or 3 . . . lt:lg4+ 4 �g7

.

followed by 5 h5) 4 h5 lt:lg5 5 ..tf5! (zugzwang! ) 5 lt:lf3 6 h6 lt:lg5

...

7 �g6 lt:lf3 8 h7 lt:lh4+ 9 ct>f6 it was all over.

Here is a phenomenon we have already mentioned: for the
whole game, Tai manov h ad been fighting fo r his life, with a good
forty moves spent defending a rook and knight versus rook and
bishop ending, a pawn down. Gradually, the pawns had been
exchanged and finally the pair of rooks. It must have been at that
moment, with the draw at last in sight, that Taimanov fatally
relaxed and let his concentration slip. One of the authors must
confess to a similar 'brainstorm m the following position:
...

I
/).--'Iit.-->t 8/
B

Dr Hubner-Dr Pfleger
West German League 1 984
Another ending which a master should handle without hesitation.
White's pawn is still on the third rank and the black king is near its
promotion square, ensuring a clear book draw, despite the fact
that llc4 will temporarily block the king's approach . The method
is well known: before White's pawn can advance, the black rook
should check the king from the front and as far away as possible.
Theory gives I . . litf7! 2 llc4 lla7+ 3 �b4 (the point is that after
.

3 �b5 llb7+ the king must retreat) 3 . . . llb7+ 4 �c3 ct>d7 ! (not
however 4 . . . llc7? immediately because of 5 'iW4! ) 5 b4 llc7 and
B lack draws, w hether White exchanges or not, since his king can
reach b8. However, for some reason Black's thinking wires became
crossed and he was momentarily led astray by another basic
position in which the black king is already on b8 and therefore the
rook is required on t he third rank to prevent the advance of White's
king ( White: king on a5, pawn on b5 , rook on h7; Black: king or.
b8, rook on g6. The white king cannot go to a6, and 1 b6 ll g l
enables Black t o check from behind, thus drawing easily). That is

97
 WHO'S A FR A I D O F ENDINGS?

why he now played the dreadful 1 ...:U.f6?? 2 llc4 only to realise

that the rook is too near the king to m ake the intended 2 . . :U.a6+
.

effective; White plays 3 �b5 lla8 4 b4 :U.b8+ 5 �a6 (since the

pawn is protected by the rook) 5 . . . :U.a8+ 6 �b7 lla4 7 :U.c8+ and
8 b5 , winning, as is always the case with a k night's pawn on the
fifth rank and the enemy king cut off. Play continued: 2 �d7
...

3 b4 lla6+ and now, anticipating the same win as given above

after 4 �b5, Black resigned.
Let us now move away from theoretical endings as such and
consider a fe w practical endings in which plans have to be made in
the same way as on a full board. These are the positions which the
average player finds most difficult. Unlike middlegame positions,
they offer little in the way of broad concepts or dynamic values,
such as 'active piece play' or 'initiative', which, when applied to
simple positions, appear even more nebulous than usual .
However, a master is not short of things to do in this type of
ending. In fact, now that nothing concrete is threatened or
demands to be solved i mmediately, he has time to look carefully at
the placing of his pawns and pieces. It is often a question of
thinking about ideal positions you would like and only then
seeking the means of reaching them . An ending also gives you time
to carry out such manoeuvres, often creating the i mpression of
tortuous play in which nothing seems to be h appening for dozens
of moves. What perhaps frightens most players, however, is the
fact that they find iJ.d.ifficult to see the ideas required. In our first
example from practical play, whilst there is no problem about the
ideal posting of the pieces, we have a typical case of subtleties lying
beneath the su rface of an apparently barren position.

82
8

Stoltz-Kashdan
The Hague 1 928

98
 WH O'S A FR A I D O F ENDINGS?

What have we here? A practically symmetrical pawn structure;

both kings equally far away from the centre; and the knight and
bishop apparently balancing each other out in the centre. What
can a player do in such a position apart from offer a draw? Let us
put it another way: which side can form a plan of action?
An idea m ay occur to us if we look ahead a little at the possible
placing of the pieces and pawns on bo th sides. White's pieces will
be aiming to occupy dark squares, particularly the pawns, which
might otherwise be captured by the bishop, although this will
inevitably entail some white-square weaknesses in White's position.
Both kings will rush to the centre to prevent the entry of their
counterpart into their camp; the ideal central square for the black
king will be d5, where the enemy will not find it easy to disturb
him, and the white king will occupy d3, although this means that,
when checked, he will have to concede ground on one wing to the
king on d5. White's ideal set-up would be: pawns on b4 and f4 ,
supported by the knight on c3, thus guarding all fifth rank squares
from a5 to e5 and removing all his material from the sights of the
black bishop.
From a time point of view, it is Black to move, so White has
insufficient time to set up his ideal position before Black's king
arrives on the scene, since his own king must hurry towards the
centre. All in all, it is in Black's interest to play on, but whether he
has enough for a win is another m atter ! It is important in this kind
of ending to visualise such long-term prospects, as we have done
above, rather than try to think about each individual move. An
ending can be easily ruined by playing thoughtless moves without
working out a plan.
1 �
2 �1 �e7
3 �e2 �d6
4 �d3 �d5
5 h4
Otherwise, when Black's bishop reaches f l , he will win a pawn.
5 ..tc8
6 lt:lf3 ..ta6+
Mission accomplished! Black's chances are already distinctly
better than they appeared six moves ago.
7 �c3
Or 7 �e3 �c5 when White is again on the defensive, since

99
 W H O'S A FR A I D O F ENDINGS?

counterplay by 8 lLlg5 would be futile against the powerful passed

rook's pawn that would be created after 8 . . 'it>b4.
.

7 h6
8 lt:ld4 g6
9 lt:lc2

83
B

White had to try 9 f3 follo wed by g3, although this blockade

would still be shaky, since everything would collapse if the f3
pawn had to move . Anything was better, however, than allowing
B lack's king to e4, where it dominates the position.
9 'it>e4
10 lLle3 rs
1 1 'it>d2 f4
12 lt:lg4 hS
13 lLlf6+ 'it>CS
14 li:ld7 .tc8
1 5 lt:lf8 gS
16 g3
After 16 hg 'it>xg5 Black is threatening to trap the knight by
playing his king to g7.
16 gh
17 gh 'it>g4
18 lt:le7 .te6
winning a pawn and the ga me.
That was a reasonably straightforward plan by Black. Our next
example demands far more convoluted thinking.
There is absolutely no question here about who stands better.
You have only to consider the 'eunuch' on d7 , blocked in by his
own pawns, to realise White's superiority. However, such positions
have a nasty habit of being impossible to win by normal means,

1 00
 W H O'S A FR A I D O F ENDINGS?

84
w

Baslavsky-Kondratiev
Tallinn 1 947

because everything is guarded and there are hardly any viable

entry points. If White's king heads for the b6 square, Black 's king
arrives on c7 more quickly to block the entry point. A nother idea
is to sacrifice the f4 pawn to create an entry via g5, but this does
not work with Black 's king where it is. In such cases, where we feel
that there must be something, it is always important to examine
carefully all the options open to us in the position. There is one
idea we have not yet considered: advancing the queens ide pawns and
playing b5 (after a4). Black would be forced to capture with the a6
pawn and what then ? No passed pawn is in sight and we still have
no entry point for the king.
Yet there is in fact a neat tactical point. Once White has played
b6, Black will always have to be prepared to meet the threat of
..ta6 ! . This in fact means that the white bishop alone can tie down
both of Black's pieces to the defence of b7, e6 and g6, thus giving
the white king a free rein. Now, suddenly, the f5 sacrifice becomes
the straw that breaks the camel's back! A bizarre but perfectly
logical plan which works like clockwork: White's king first heads
for aS , not in the hope of playing to b6 but in order to prepare b5 ,
then he hurries back to the kingside to execute the final coup.
1 �e3 <M7
2 �d4 ..te8
3 �c3 �e7
4 'i!;>b3 'it'd8
5 'it'a4 'it'c7
6 'it'a5 ..tf7
7 ..tc4 ..tg8

101
 W H O'S A F R A I D O F ENDINGS?

8 a4 i.f7
9 b5 ab
10 ab

85
B

The first critical point . If Black now plays 1 0 . . . cb, White has a
sharply calculated win as follows: I I i.xb5 i.g8 1 2 i.e8 i.h7
1 3 o;Pb5 ! (this involves a bishop sacrifice but the sorry-looking
bishop on h7 is excellent compensation! ) 1 3 . . . o;Pd8 14 'iPb6 'iPxe8
1 5 'iPxb7 g5 16 fg i.e4+ 17 c6 'iPe7 (or 17 . . . 'iPd8) 1 8 g6 i.xg6 ( 1 8 . . .
'iPffi 1 9 'iPb6) 1 9 c 7 i.e4+ 2 0 'iPb8 winning.
10 i.g8
11 b6+ o;Pd8
12 't>b4 i.f7
13 't>c3 o;Pd7
The black king can never step on to the e-file because of i.a6.
14 'iPd4

14 g5
Played in desperation and forcing White to win by different
means. The 'logical' finish would have been 14 . . . 'iPd8 15 'iPe3

1 02
 W H O'S A FR A I D O F ENDINGS?

�d7 16 f5 ! gf 17 �f4 and the king reaches f6, when . . . ..tg8 would
lose the bishop to �g7 ! .
15 fg ..tg6
16 �e3 ..tc2
17 g6! ..txg6
18 �4 ..tfS
19 ..te2 Resigns
Once the h5 pawn falls, W hite's h-pawn wins easily.
Such manoeuvres as we have seen above are typical of endgame
planning. Often , as in this case, slight progress on one part of t he
board can decisively unblock a situation that looks impossible to
resolve. A germ of an idea can set a whole plan into motion and
the key to strengthening ideas already present in a position is to
post your pawns and pieces on their ideal squares. However,
despite the time taken in executing it, here was a plan that forced
the win in a concrete and demonstrable way, where one step
logically followed another and so on. Players, especially inexperi­
enced ones, have m uch more to wor rfiiho ut when there is no such
clear-cut planning sequence to be followed. You know you have a
good position , but, however long and hard you think, no factor
emerges on which you can base your plan....
,

87
B

Alekhi ne-Capablanca
34th game, World Championship 1 927

This is the kind of position that most players dread. The pawns
are fairly immobile, especially the a4 pawn, and a pawn advance
on the kingside would leave your own king feeling the draught.
Equally, an attack on the k ing, which is often indicated in
positions containing the major pieces, is seemingly out of the
question here. Most beginners would try to exchange queens as

1 03
 WHO'S A F R A I D OF ENDINGS?

rapidly as possible and then find that Black has only to post his
rook behind the a4 pawn for him to achieve the kind of drawn
position we saw earlier in the Karpov-Kasparov game. It is also
difficult to apply the usual remedy of strengthening your position
in this particular situation. The only remaining plan is to
manoeuvre with the queen and rook , but to what purpose and
towards what ideal set-up? Let us read Alekhine's own commen­
tary:

'The winning procedure consists in using the threat of advancing

the passed pawn to tie down the enemy queen and rook, thereby
exposing the black k ing somewhat. This will allow White to
combine direct threats on the king with gaining more space, as the
black queen is forced to concede control of the important a l -h8
diagonal. '

I n other words, the player himself has n o concrete, forcing plan,

but rather a number of ideas he is hoping to link together to bring
about possibilities for further action - ideas such as the use of the
passed pawn, attack on the king, exchange of pieces at a
favourable moment, gain of space. However, he does not
immediately rush into some wild action but instead tries to post his
own pieces on the best squares and cut down the effectiveness of
his opponent's, until a more concrete opportunity presents itself.
A good example of this reasoning can be seen in Alekhine's
avoidance of an exchange of queens on moves 4 and 1 3. In the
second case, he does not want the black rook to sneak behind the
passed pawn but in the first case, as our note will show, the logic is
a little more subtle. The m ain point is that an idea is not exploited
until there is no doubt that it will prove decisive or at least increase
your advantage.
Of course, such manoeuvring is very difficult for the amateur to
understand but it is typical of such simplified positions in the
endgame. The annotator's task is equally difficult, because there
are few concrete, forcing variations, so it is often a player's
intuition, based on great experience, which guides him in his choice
of move. However, we hope that our notes will convey the basic
ideas behind this famous game.
1 litb8
A waiting move with the rook along the a-file would be

104
 W H O'S A F R A I D O F E N D I N G S ?

dubious, since White could penetrate to the back rank at a suitable

moment. Black's queen is well placed on the long black diagonal
and I . . . 'it>h7 would take his king from the centre where it is
needed after a possible exchange of queens.
2 lite2 lita8
3 lita2 lita5
The passed pawn was threatening to advance.

88
w

4 1!rc7!
As we mentioned earlier, it is interesting that White decides not
to exchange queens in a position where his rook is favou rably
placed behind his passed pawn. The respective position of the
king; must have been the main factor influencing Alekhine's
decision; Black to move would rapidly bring his king to e5, whereas
White's king takes far longer to come into play. Therefore, White
waits for a more appropriate time, until he has coordinated his
pieces more fully a nd forced his opponent's pieces to less effective
squares.
4 Wa6
Forced, or else the pawn advances. Already, Alekhine is
making good progress by being able in this way to take over the
vital a i-h8 diagonal. So, why not i nstead 4 . . . 'tWe5 exchanging
queens? Because now the situation is very different. Firstly, after
5 1!r xe5 lit xe5 6 a5 the passed pawn reaches at least a6, and
secondly, it is now White and not Black who has the move. Play
could continue: 6 . . . lite? 7 a6 lita7 8 f4 'it>f6 9 'it>f2 'it>e6 I O 'it>e3 'it>d5
I I lita5+ (using the space created by the advance of the pawn ! ),
and now White's centralised king will eventually ensure the win. It
is such small differences that are often enough to decide such
endings, which is w hy a master, in contrast to the beginner, is

1 05
 W H O'S A F R A I D O F ENDINGS?

willing to wait for the right moment before exchanging key pieces.
5 1rc3+ �h7
6 lild2!
For the first time in this ending, White now is able to use the
latent idea of an attack on the king. Black can of course parry the
threat of 7 lild8 but it is a sure sign that the white pieces are
gradually becoming dominant and restricting the scope of the
black pieces.
6 9b6
7 lild 7 Wbl+
8 �h2 Wb8+
9 g3 lilf5
10 Wd4
89
B

Note the difference between this diagram and the original

position. Although there is little difference in the pawn position,
Black's major pieces have been driven from their best squares and
White's centralised queen and rook on the 7th rank have taken
over the control of the game. Basically, this is due to the influence
of the passed pawn in j ust being there!
10 We8
Th reatening I I . . lilxf2+.
.

1 1 lild5
White now feels strong enough to offer exchanges. The queen
ending is no problem, with a powerfully centralised queen and
dangerous passed pawn, since 1 1 . . . lilxd5 12 Wxd5 Wxa4? fails
to 1 3 Wxf7+ �h8 1 4 Wxg6 and the white king can comfortably
be protected from checks.
11 llf3
12 h4 Wh8
Ch allenging White on the important diagonal and banking on

1 06
 W H O'S A F R A I D O F ENDINGS?

getting his rook behind the passed pawn.

13 't!rb6 !
Supporting the advance of his pawn and soon forcing Black to
exchange q ueens under Jess favourable circumstances.
13 't!fa1
14 ¢>g2
Of course, he m us t not allow 1 4 . . . 't!rfl .
14 :l:lf6
After 1 4 . . . :l:la3 1 5 a5 the pawn is safe and Black's pieces are
needed on the other side of the board. Alekhine even suggests the
immediate attack beginning 1 5 :l:ld7 .
15 't!rd4 !
At last ! In comparison with the queen exchange we analysed on
move four, White's k ing arrives at the centre more quickly than
B lack's and, naturally, his rook can support the pawn from
behind. Fifteen moves of manoeuvring, then, before the rook
ending is finally accepted, but without these moves the game
would not have been won.
15 't!fxd4
The queen ending after 1 5 . . . 't!ra2 1 6 't!rxf6 't!rxd5+ 1 7 't!rf3
would still be hopeless.
16 :l:lxd4 'it>g7
If 1 6 . . . :l:la6 White wins quickly by marching his king over to b5.
17 a5 :l:la6
18 :l:la4 'it>£6
19 'it>f3 'it>e5
20 'it>e3 hS
21 <,t.?d3 'it>dS
22 'it>c3 'it>cS
� 23 :l:la2!
/ I

90
B

1 07
 WH O'S A F R A I D O F E N D I N G S ?

The game has now reached the stage where it is 'just a matter of
technique' . Black will soon be in zugzwang and will have to give
way to White's king, which means that the latter will move over to
the kingside, then eventually give up the a5 pawn to bring his rook
into the attack on the pawns. We give the rest without any
commentary.
23 ... �b5 24 �d4 lid6+ 25 �5 lil:e6+ 26 �4 �a6 27 �5 lil:e5+
28 �h6 lif5 29 �g7 (Alekhine played 29 f4 in the game and won,
but he gives the text line as the simplest) 29 . .. lil:f3 30 �8 lil:f6
31 c;t>f8 lil:f3 32 �g7 li f5 33 f4 when zugzwang forces the win.
So much for apparently barren endings which sound thinking
succeeds in bringing to life. We now move to a completely
different theme which is probably the most common source of
misjudgement during the transition from the middlegame into the
endgame. Nothing is so dangerous, and yet so natural, as to
transfer automatically to the endgame our assessment of the
preceding middlegame position or individual features of it. It is
almost an involuntary reaction when, in the course of a game,
certain elements have been fixed in our brain for hours as 'good' or
' bad', to refuse to make an abrupt 1 80 degrees turn and reverse
our opinions. An instructive example is the case of the king.
Everyone knows, as a matter of routine, that the king must not be
kept locked a way in the corner during the endgame but should be
rapidly brought to the centre, once a sufficient number of pieces
have been exchanged (thus reducing the danger of a mating
attack). However, the situation is m uch more ambiguous when a
player has terrorised the enemy king during the middlegame by
keeping him in the middle of the board and subjecting him to a
vicious onslaught, particularly when the attacker's own king is
looking on smugly from the safety of his castled position. A sudden
exchange of pieces can then bring about a totally different
evaluation of each king's usefu lness in the coming endgame! The
'we ak' king caught in the centre unexpectedly becomes a tower of
strength, whereas the 'strong' monarch in his castle is instan­
taneously demoted to the role of an uninvolved spectator. Even
masters often find it difficult to cope mentally with such an abrupt
reversal in values.
In diagram 91 the scene is set. White's king is safely ensconced
in Abraham's bosom, whereas it is difficult to find a secure home
for the black king. Such a situation is like a red rag to a bull

1 08
 WHO'S A FR A I D O F ENDINGS?

91
w

Sax-Piket
L ugano 1 987

in the case of a feared tactician like Sax who does not need to be
asked twice b efore launching a sacrificial attack on the king in
the c entre. Although all this is not, strictly speaking, part of
our theme, we will give the moves to show how the above-mentioned
transition comes about.
I ltlfS be
2 lhd6 'tlfb4
3 ltlxg7+ <tf8
4 ltlxe6+ �xe6
5 lUdl q;e7
6 f5 .tc8
7 e5

92
B

Sax m ust have thought at this point that the game was
practically over. He is threatening 'tlra7+, the black knight is
hanging and, most important of all, the e5 breakthrough appears
to have blown away the black king's final cover. White could not
have realised that, by returning the sacrificed material, Black

1 09
 W H O'S A F R A I D O F E ND I N G S ?

manages to reach a winning endgame, with the contrasting

positions of the two ki ngs playing the decisive role.
7 fe
8 'ft'a7+
The defensive resources seem adequate, fo r example, 8 l he6+
.ixe6! 9 'ti'g5+ f6 10 'ti'g7+ .if7.
8 .ib7!
9 'ti'xb7+ 'ft'xb7
10 f6+
Forced, since his rook on d6 is hanging.
10 c;!;>xf6
1 1 .ixb7 lhd6
12 l hd6 h4
The irony of fate! The previously secure white king is now a
source of trouble to him, with back-rank mates in the offing,
whilst the black king, having shaken off his attackers, is now
glorying in his strongly centralised position.
13 a4 hg
14 hg e4!
Vacating e5 for the king after, say, 1 5 .ixe4? c;!;>e5 !.
1 5 .ixa6 lithl+
16 c;!;>a2 litc 1
17 b4 c;!;>eS
18 litc6 litxc2+
19 c;!;>b1 ltld4
Going straight for the throat with the threat of 20 . . . litb2+
21 c;!;> c l lLlb3+ 22 c;!;>d 1 litd2+ 23 c;!;>e 1 c2 followed by 24 . . . litd 1 + .
2 0 liteS+ <M6
21 .ic4 litd2
22 .idS litd1 +
23 c;!;>a2 c2
24 .ixe4
and White resigned. The final stages were dictated by time trouble
but it would be difficult to find much better for White after his
1 5th move.
Similar situations occur in simplified middlegames which are
one step away from the endgame, particularly those where queens
have been exchanged in the opening. Typical is the variation of the
Old I ndian Defence beginning 1 d4 llJf6 2 c4 d6 3 ltlc3 e5 4 de de
5 'ft'xd8+ c;!;>xd8

1 10
 W H O'S A F R A I D O F ENDINGS?

93
w

Black usually places his king on the reasonably safe c7 square

(after playing . . . c6) where it remains passive until more pieces are
exchanged. Once White has castled on the k ingside, all the rooks
tend to be eliminated on the open d-file, thus suddenly transforming
Black's king into a dangerous attacking piece which can invade
White's queenside via c5.
The stumbling block in our thinking is that, although we fully
accept the idea that a king must become activated in the endgame
by moving towards the centre, thus increasing its influence, it
comes as a mental shock to realise that a king's role can change
drastically without his moving at all! The same thing can happen
when dealing with the other criteria of a position. For example,
advanced passed pawns can change from strong to weak , and vice
versa, once exchanges occur.

94
w

Spassky-Karpov
6th game , Candidates Semi-Final 1974

It is not easy to evaluate this position, but one thing is certain: the
pride of White's position is his pawn on d6. Black's counterplay is

Ill
 W H O'S A F R A I D O F E N D I N G S ?

based on . . . e4, freeing his bishop and knight, so play might easily
go: I t!t'b5 e4 2 liJh2 't!fe6 3 .txf6 liJxf6 4 't!Vxb7 li[d7 5 't!Vc6 li[ed8
when the passed pawn disappears, with equal play. The problem
lies in Spassky's determination to retain the advanced pawn at all
costs, even if this means exchanging queens. In other words, he
wants more than I t!t'b 5 can offer him, so banks on the restricting
power of the d6 pawn. However, this is a middlegame attitude,
whereas each exchange will lead to an ending in which the black
king can attack the d6 pawn far more readily than the white k ing
can defend it. It is possible that White need not have lost at a later
stage, but the fact that he did lose can clearly be blamed on the
seemingly strong pawn that suddenly became weak . Play went:
1 ltJd2?! 't!fxe2
2 lhe2 :c8
3 ltJe4 .id8
4 g4 f6
5 �2 <M7
6 li[cl
White chooses the moment to exchange a pair of rooks which
ensures occupation of the c-file, but this occupation will be short­
lived because the rook will be needed to defend White's weaknesses.
6 .ib6
7 :ec2 :xc2
8 llxc2 �e6
9 a4 a5
10 .ta3 llb8
11 llc4 .td4
12 f4 g6
13 lt:lg3
Th is permits a further exchange which immediately allows
Black to take over the c-file. Presumably, time was a factor here,
otherwise W hite migh t have found 12 lt:lc3 instead of the drastic
12 f4. Black then eliminates the k night to stop it playing to the
beautiful b5 square, bu t at least White retains the c-file.
13 ef
14 llxd4 fg
1 5 �xg3 llc8
16 lld3 g5
1 7 .ib2 b6
18 .td4

1 12
 W H O'S A F R A I D O F ENDINGS?

White had to swallow the bitter pill and give up his pawn by
18 litc3 litxc3 1 9 .i.xc3 <t>xd6 20 b4 with chances of liquidating the
q ueenside pawns.
18 litc6
19 .i.c3 liteS
It is interesting to note that Karpov will not accept the same
variation as in our last note by playing 19 . . . litxd6 etc.
20 <t>g2 liteS
21 <t>g3 ll::l eS
22 .i.xeS fe
23 b4?
Played at the wrong moment entirely. By general consensus, the
last drawing chance lay in the line 23 <t>f3 litd8 and only now
24 b4 litxd6 25 litb3.

95
B

23 e4!
Spassky probably overlooked this move, but the alternative
23 . . . ab 24 d7 litd8 25 litb3 lit xd7 26 lit xb4 could hardly be winning
for Black.
24 litd4 <t>eS
25 litd 1 ab
26 litb 1 litc3+
2 7 'ittf2 litd3
28 d7 litxd7
29 litxb4 litd6
30 <t>e3 litd3+
31 <t>e2 lita3
and White resigned, since, whether he exchanges the queenside
pawns or not, the black king plays to f4 with decisive effect.
Of course, it is impossible to do j ustice to all the subtle points of

1 13
 WH O'S A F R A I D O F E N D I N G S ?

such a game in the above few comments, but it is obvious that

White's d6 pawn grew progressively weaker as the game went on.
Now for the opposite case:

96
w

M i les-Garcia
TV Tournament, Bath 1983

We will begin fairly early in the game so that you may follow the
psychological build-up. The candidate which will eventually do
the running is not, as you may imagine, the d5 pawn but the one on
e4! In fact, the very pawn which is White's main middlegame
weakness, under attack by the f5 pawn and Black's doubled rooks
and prevented from advancing by no fewer than five black pieces!
However, the important and thematic psychological point is that
Black, as his own comments reveal, had this pawn firmly fixed in
his mind as a weakness and remained until th e bitter end com­
pletely u naware of its changing status as each exchange of pieces
took place.
1 d6 't!t'xd6
2 't!t'xd6 lLlxd6
3 .txc5 lild7
4 lLld5
White's dS pawn has gone and, despite the fact that he has good
play for his pieces, the impression remains that he has not only
given up a valuable protected passed pawn but also saddled
himself with an even greater weakness on e4. Garcia's comment
was: 'I must deal with his direct threats, but if only I can consolidate,
my position will not be so bad, with pressure on e4 [ ! ! ] and my
protected passed pawn on bS . . . '
4 .tb 7
5 lLlb6

1 14
 W H O'S A FR A I D O F E N D I N G S ?

Miles had si milar sceptical thoughts at this moment: 'If I give

him a chance to breathe, my e4 pawn will disappear and my position
will collapse. I hope I've not made a mistake . . . '
5 lildd8
6 ..ixd6 lhd6
7 lilc7 ..ic6
8 lildl lilxdl
9 ..ixdl ..id7?
Even though Black's bishop does not inspire great confidence
on aS, where it would be under attack by the knight on b6, he has
to play it there. The text move would work if it were not for one
thing - the e-pawn! It suddenly dawned on Miles that his weakling
could be used in decisive fashion: 'Wait a minute! What's with this
creature on e4? Surely, he's taking enormous strides.'
10 lbxd7 lile7
11 .i.b3+ �h8

97
w

12 eS!
The 'giant in the seven-league boots' cannot be captured,
because 12 . . . .i.xe5? loses a piece to 1 3 lilc8 . Garcia's view? 'Oh!
I overlooked e5. Since e6 is threatened, I must recapture the piece
at once.' (The idea that the pawn itself m ight be dangerous does
not occur to Garcia until the very last move of the game! The
middlegame concept is entrenched in his thinking . . . )
12 nxd7
13 lilxd7 liJxd7
14 e6
Garcia: 'Ah! that's his idea; he intends to promote the pawn.
But my knight's still there.' (Finally, a glim mer of light appears,
but his brain still refuses to admit that the 'weak' pawn could in

1 15
 W H O'S A F R A I D O F E N D I N G S ?

fact be strong! As he himself pointed out at the end, there was no

question of time pressure here .)
14 llJf6
15 e7 .ih6
16 .if7
Garcia: 'No ! I've just realised I've lost a piece . . . ' So he
resigned. (As can easily be verified, the b-pawn is too slow.)
It is plain to see from the above examples how critical this
reversal of values can be i n the transition from middlegame to
endgame and how difficult it is for the brain to adapt to rapidly
changing circumstances or to free itself from a preconceived idea.
With this, we leave the aspect of chess so feared by beginners.

1 16
6 The Character and Style of
Kasparov and Karpov

A discussion be tween the top m anagement of the firm Audi and

grandmasters Darga, Schmid and Pfleger dealt with the similarities
and differences between chess-orientated thinking and the thinking
processes required in business, and in particular whether one can
benefit from the other. The question arose as to how a chess
master actually discovers his moves. Dr Pfleger was of the opinion
that in the last resort nobody fully knows the reasoning by which
'
he arrives at a certain move. Schmid disagreed emphatically,
stating that he k ne w very well why he played his moves!
The truth probably l ies somewhere in the middle, but it is a fact
that a great many uncontrollable influences of which he is not
even aware operate on the mind of a chess player. It is, therefore,
difficult to guess or pro�e what went on in the mind of a
particular master when he played a particular move. We have
tried to concentrate on e xamples where either a definite verdict
can be reached or at least a point of reference found to establish
the 'logical' thought processes used by a player to decide on his
moves. Hitherto we have paid no attention to the subjective
thinking of a master, so this fi nal chapter represents an attempt to
deal with this controversial topic.
We must first ask o urselves if there is such a thing as an
objectively best move or plan in any given position. Sometimes
there is, but more frequently there is not. From what we
mentioned in our first chapter regarding the mental approach to
assessing a position it can be seen that at times two or three moves
or ideas appear equally sound, so in such cases you will choose the
one which best suits your style or inclination.
What, then, is the style of a chess master? Clearly, a mixture of
conscious and unconscious elements. A player may feel that he is
thoroughly able to recognise the chess criteria and thought

1 17
THE C H A R A CTER A N D STYLE OF KA SPAROV AND K AR PO V

processes he has applied when deciding on one move or rejecting

another. One player may prefer attacking, another exchanging
material ; one may opt for an open game, another a closed game;
one may favour a Sicilian pawn structure, another a Ruy Lopez,
and so on . Yet the player himself will not always know the
fundamental psychological reasons for his choice. Of course, we
must take with a pinch of salt the view that the individual
character of a player is reflected in his playing style. Admittedly,
there are times when an exact correlation is evident between a
player's life-style and chess style, but the reverse may be equally
true. For example, the famous Anderssen had the reputation of
being an extremely amenable, good-natured and well-balanced
personality. Schonberg wrote of hi m that he seemed to have made
no enemies, 'something rare amongst chess masters', yet over the
board he indulged in vicious, uncompromising attacking play!
There are similar instances of other great players, such as
Spielmann, with temperaments contrasting strongly with their
actual chess style. On the other side of the coin , we have characters
such as Staunton or Steinitz, egocentric, arrogant and at times
highly argum entative when their own worth was called into
q uestion, who tended towards quiet, solid chess in which the
accumulation of small advantages was predominant!
Th us, quite frequently, chess playing reveals a different side of a
master's character of which he himself is unaware, or which has
been suppressed i n his everyday life. Psychologists even go so far
as to attach a far-reaching, symbolic significance to certain chess
pieces, s temming from the subconscious mind. In one of his
famous works, which admittedly presents an extreme point of
view and should be viewed with some reservations, grandmaster
and psychiatrist Fine sees the king as a father figure and phallic
symbol, as well as an object of self-adoration and hero-worship.
Similarly, Lasker's predilection for the Exchange Variation of the
Ruy Lopez, involving an early exchange of queens, is supposed to
indicate not only a desire for clarity and order but also a wish to
negate or control his sexual urges. As Fine says, 'In order to clarify
the situation, he eliminates the women.'
Whether you accept such conclusions or not, there is little
doubt that numerous subjective factors, conscious or unconscious,
play an important role in chess thinking. This makes us wonder
about the extent to which a player is motivated by such impulses,

1 18
THE CHA R A CTER A N D STYLE OF KA SPAROV AND K A R POV

even going so far as to incorporate them deliberately into his style

of play. In other words, is it the best move he tries to find or the
move best suited to his style of play? The latter possibility also
logically implies that you play you r moves according to the
opponent, deciding on what may be least to his liking, from the
point of view of style. Lasker was a master of such tactics, some
even saying that he had no specific style of his own bu t simply
played to torpedo his opponent's preferences. Against positional
players he would opt for adventurous play, whereas he would
bl unt a fierce attacking style by the most tedious positional play,
and so on. Ret i , one of his contemporaries, even m aintained that
Lasker would deliberately choose dubious moves in order to steer
the game a way from the beaten track, where he would presumably
be more at home than his opponent.
Are there players who are always lucky and others who are
always unlucky? A nu mber of chess psychologists think so and
link this phenomenon with the marked subjectivity of a player's
thinking. If a player thinks this way, he will often get into
positions which are objectively suspect but offer a good chance of
his opponent either going wrong or simply b eing faced with more
difficult problems. The objective type of player, on the other
hand, will always look for the greatest possible advantage,
without regard to whether the position suits him, a fact tha t will
often m ak e him prone to error. Even if both types score the same
number of points in a tournament, the onlooker usually feels that
the former did not deserve to score these points, whereas the latter
should have scored more. If this trend persists over a period of
time, the former will immediately gain the reputation of being
lucky and the latter of being unlucky. In practical terms, the ideal
seems to be a judicious blend of the two extremes, whilst there is a
danger for the uncompromising player of either category. Anyone
who is too subjective in his choice of moves can easily lose his
feeling for what is justifiable . For example, if a certain move
appeals to him, he may well orientate all his further thinking,
albeit subconsciously, towards justifying this initial and perhaps
faulty idea. On the other hand, those who take objectivity to
excess often turn into hesitant worriers for whom no move is good
enough, simply because there may be a better one, if only they had
time to work it out. Such an attitude can easily lead to fatigue,
blunders or losses on time.

1 19
THE CH A RA CTE R A N D STYLE OF KA SPAROV A N D K A R PO V

The public has always been obsessed with the idea of gaining a
psychological insight into the minds of leading players and of
tracing in their play individual characteristics. This has been
particularly tempting i n the course oft he 96 World Championship
games between Karpov and Kasparov played so far in their
legendary encounters. [ Translator's note. The figure now stands at
1 20, with the possibility of more to come in 1990! ] You can find
everything here: the clash between two opposing personalities,
their attitudes to each other and the struggle directed against the
opponent's w eak nesses. Dr Reinhard Munzert, a professional
psychologist, wrote deep character sketches of both players on
the occasion of the return match in 1 986.
The public at large is of course less interested in the progress of
the actual games than in those factors that allow us to draw
conclusions about what went on in the players' minds. First ofall,
there is evidence of a definite p rejudice by the rank and file which ,
in the extreme and exaggerated form in which it is quoted, cannot
be j ustified. Kasparov is labelled as a combinative player who is
only in his element when dealing with wild tactical complications,
whereas Karpov is portrayed as a positional player, solidly stifling
his opponent's play, thriving on the tiniest advantage and avoiding
the slightest risk. Nowadays, no player of any class can afford
such a one-sided approach, so such verdicts only cover certain
aspects of a player's character and thought processes. Naturally,
Kasparov prefers a tactical and aggressive game, a nd Karpov
solid, positional play. However, this does not imply in any way
that they cannot assume the opposite role, j ust because it happens
to be less suited to their character and temperament, but they will
only do so when necessary. Moreover, at the present time, one
feels that Kasparov is more at home than Karpov when it comes to
adopting his opponent's style of play (in other words, his own less
developed side). Perhaps this accounts for his small but clear
superiority at the moment. We shall have to see what the next
match has in store for us.

[Translator's note. The latest match, which ended in December

1987, only serves to confirm the authors' comments on these two
great players. By winning the last game in dramatic fashion,
Kasparov drew the match, thus retaining his title !]

1 20
THE C H A R A CTER A N D STYLE OF KA SPAROV A N D K ARPOV

Unlike the situation with Anderssen and Spielmann, where the

fantasy of chess was completely unrelated to their life-style, it
seems that the style of chess of the two K's is closely linked with
their individual characters. As is often the case, the psychologist
traces the roots of all this to childhood. Kasparov's father died
when he was seven and his mother is all-important to him still .
Munzert quotes Freud's comment about Goethe: 'If you have
been mother's undisputed darling, then you will retain for life that
feeling for conquest and confidence in success which not infre­
quently begets success. ' If you put this in a cynical way, it could
mean that to gain success it is sometimes enough if you believe in it
yourself. However, Kasparov did not need to convince himself
that he was good, since all sources confirm that he was talented
from the word 'go'. It is said that this talent was in evidence very
early in life when he could calculate numerous variations in depth.
As we have already said, this tends to be a less vital element of a
player's total skill, but Kasparov indubitably had this special
advantage over other young aspirants.
Unfortunately, this need for victory and conviction about
success engendered negative aspects fro m early childhood. H e
acted o n impulse and became impatient and annoyed when things
did not go his way. Botvinnik , whose chess school he attended at
the age of ten, had to warn him repeatedly to think before he
moved. Translated into chess terms, these weakenesses resulted
in an inability to defend stubbornly or patiently, to accu mulate
small advantages, or to cope with anything that did not produce
immediate results.
For better or for worse, Kasparov's rapid rise in the chess world
incorporated all these ch aracteristics, both good and bad . It all
happened exactly in the way that an ambitious conqueror might
i magine. Nobody could cope with his approach to the game. H is
enormous tactical ability helped him to steer his way through the
most hair-raising complications, and his hunger for victory,
boosted by success, gave him the incentive to plunge repeatedly
into such positions. This combination of factors took him higher
with every success, gave him a legendary reputation and produced
a deadly effect on practically every opponent. Even today, his
games and life-style reflect this attitude. Munzert writes: ' He is the
epitome of courage and resolution. Neither in chess nor in life will
he avoid risks, which he accepts as a challenge. H e frequently says

121
TH E C H A R A CTER A N D STYLE OF KA S PAROV A N D K AR PO V

what he thinks a n d he acts upon h i s principles, even i f he k nows

this could land him in trouble. He refuses to be intimidated by
anyone. H is self-confidence is obvious yet never oversteps the
boundary into arrogance . '
As Munzert h as stated elsewhere, this i s a l l t h e more astonishing
in the case of someone who was showered with success and praise
from early childhood. Obviously, Kasparov was not fully satisfied
until he finally achieved his ambition of becoming the best in the
world. Before that, he was neither content nor entirely self-assured.
It is interesting to note that Munzert made these judgements
before the return match of the World Championship. The signs of
an 'I am the greatest' attitude only appeared at a later stage . To
illustrate this point, i n his seventeenth game with K arpov, he
recklessly (some would say, arrogantly) repeated a most u nclear
variation from a previous game, without regard for possible
improvements that Karpov might have found. Other statements
he made earlier in the year in H amburg, to the effect that there was
no real danger for him from either Sokolov or Karpov, seemed
amaringly brash under the circumstances. This was probably the
one single attitude that could have backfired on him at that time.
The fascinating psychological background to his vast number of
games against Karpov reveals how he learned to recognise his
weaknesses a nd come to terms with faults in his chess logic, in an
attempt to bring only his strengths to the board.
Even more captivating to diagnose than the heroic image of
Kasparov is the drama behind his adversary, Anatoly Karpov,
whom posterity has chosen to class in some respects as the villain of
the piece. H is methodical style of play has never been as popular
as Kasparov's flamboyant approach, and he is regarded with even
greater suspicion in view of his personal and political disputes
with various opponents in contention for the World Championship
series. What can you say about the thought processes and
character of an unpopular personality? Once again, we have to go
back to his childhood. As a boy, he was described as not being
very healthy or robust, unable to partake in any of the usual
sporting activities and having little contact with the outside world.
At the same time, he was assessed as highly intelligent and a model
pupil, as was shown in his school reports and marks, an image that
has remained with him to the present day. The fact that he had a
strict, sober and demanding upbringing fits in with the picture

1 22
THE CHA R A CTE R A N D STY L E OF KA SPAROV A N D K AR PO V

painted by Munzert of a man in whom the qualities ofachievement,

conscientiousness and self-control were nurtured.
Certain characteristics of his chess thinking directly follow from
the above-mentioned qualities, especially his striving for maximum
success using the simplest possible means. In fact, Karpov always
looks for the safest way of achieving his aims, avoiding unnecessary
risks. The aesthetic side counts for nothing if it fails to produce
results, since success means everything to him . It is only when he
can see that nothing is to be achieved any other way that his 'logic'
accepts the need for risk-taking.
This entire chess outlook, relying on technique and only allowing
complications as a means to an end when absolutely necessary, fits
in psychologically w ith his fundamental need to have everything
under control. U nlike Kasparov, he will not embark on anything
unclear, hoping that he will come out of it all right because he
knows he is the stronger player. Such an attitude, involving a
surfeit of self-confidence, is alien to him . This is hardly surprising
from someone who, as a child, had to fight against the odds from
the very start. Outwardly not very personable, he was compelled
to struggle for recognition and success as a means of gaining the
respect of others. In addition, as World Champion, a title he had
gained (through no fault of his own) without a contest, he was
constantly under pressure to j ustify his status. At that time, in fact,
nobody believed that he could have beaten Fischer in a match .
Obviously, there was bound to be an early reaction. He was
intent on showing all and sundry what he could do! According to
Munzert, Karpov himself once said: 'I always want to be top. If I
hadn't been a chess player, I would have tried to be outstanding in
some other field.' H e is a type of character who wants to make his
mark in life, because he labours under the impression that the
world does not love him . His intellectual self-confidence, l inked
with emotional i nsecurity, has inevitably kindled a need to be in
complete control. H e only really feels at peace with himself once
he can overcome this impression of insecurity by means of cool,
rational thinking. For him, the most important thing is not only
to cut out the immediate threats of his opponent but also to
forestall anything else the latter might unsettle him with. Nothing
else can explain the deep urge to gain absolute control which is
so typical of Karpov's games.
Munzert quotes Roshal, a long-standing associate of Karpov's,

1 23
THE C H A R A CTE R A N D STYLE OF KA SPAROV A N D K ARPOV

as saying: 'If you follow Karpov's games as a spectator or an

opponent, you can never suppress the feeling that all his pieces are
connected by an invisible thread. These coordinated forces will
gradually engulf the opponent's field of action whilst miraculously
maintaining a hold over their own territory. '

[Translator's note. The authors have already given us a n excellent

example of this particular skill in the Karpov-Kasparov game
towards the end of Chapter 3, where the white knight on g l trans­
forms the whole position when manoeuvred to d3.]

All this talk about control reminds one of the criticism levelled
against Karpov concerning chess politics. He must have ensnared
the Soviet Chess Federation and later FIDE in the same tangled
web. We do not in tend to dwell long on this issue, but the semi­
political struggle of these two giants behind the scenes reveals
their different attitudes just as clearly as the many games they have
played against each other!
One further point: at the start of their first match, Karpov's
thinking proved triumphant in a way that amazed everyone, not
least Kasparov. We m ust realise that, up to that moment, nothing
had stood in the path of the future World Champion's victorious
progress. In a few critical situations, fortune had even smiled on
him, such as when he obtained a match with Korchnoi after the
latter had already been declared the winner. In the sixth match
game, 'Victor the Terrible' went dreadfully astray in the ending,
then immediately lost the next game and with it practically the
whole match . So far, nothing had happened to persuade Kasparov
that his spectacular run of success could ever come to an end. This
matches up with what the experts assumed on the basis of his later
games. Paradoxical though it may sound, Kasparov, the Chal­
lenger, had underestimated Karpov, the World Champion !
Be that as it may, with regard to the underlying psychology
behind these games, at the start of their first encounter only the
strong points of Karpov and the weaknesses of Kasparov became
apparent. A disaster very nearly occurred as early as the second
game:

Kasparov-Karpov
2nd game, World Championship 1 984-5

1 24
THE CHA RACTER A ND STYLE OF KA SPAROV A N D K ARPOV

1 d4 li:lf6
2 c4 e6
3 l!Jf3 b6
4 g3 .tb7
s .tg2 J.e7
6 0-0 0-0
7 dS ed
8 l!Jh4 c6
9 cd l!JxdS
10 li:lfS l!Jc7
1 1 li:lc3 dS
12 e4 .tf6
13 .tf4 .tc8
14 g4
Such variations, with a pawn sacrifice for the attack, form the
life-blood of Kasparov's play. B lack's position, typified by t he
wretched-looking bishop on c8, seems doomed and hardly anyone
doubted that Karpov was about to suffer the fate of all previous
opponents of the young superstar. ' Kasparov will make mincemeat
of him' was apparently the verdict of an enthusiastic fan. Never­
theless, Kar-pov as yet has no real weaknesses and is a pawn up, so
can afford a waiting policy.
14 l!Jba6
15 .td7
i6 li:lcS

98
w

17 eS? !
An impulsive, obvious m ove, but the stranger-looking 17 .txc7
was better, as pointed out by Karpov after the game, although it
probably leads to no more than equality after 1 7 . . . 1J'xc7 18 ed

1 25
THE C H A RA CTER A ND STYLE OF KA SPAROV A N D K A R PO V

.i.xf5 1 9 gf lilad8. Did Kasparov miss this line or did he feel there
had to be m ore in the position? At all events, he plays the next
five moves in a coffee-house style which seems hardly appropriate
against a master of control such as Karpov!
17 i..e7
18 lhxe7+ ? !
Kasparov subsequently suggested a n improvement here too,
with the quiet 1 8 .tg3 . In the heat ofbattle, he presumably did not
wish to lose time, so carried on playing forcing moves, a sure sign
of the faulty logic of an impulsive player.
18 'it'x e7
19 .tgS 'tte6
Not of course 1 9 . . . 'ihe5 20 lilfe l 'lrd6 2 1 .te7.
20 h3 'lrg6
21 f4? !
All i n the same swashbuckling style which is now firmly put in
its place. 2 1 .te7 is probably better.

99
8

21 f6!
22 ef gf
23 .th4 fS!
Black's two moves with the f-pawn have stopped the attack and
broken up the white pawn centre, whilst 24 g5 would simply give
Black ful l central control in addition to his extra pawn. Despite all
this, Kasparov managed to exploit Karpov's time trouble to
'swindle' him into an error on the 40th move ! The adjourned
position was quickly drawn.
From a thinking point of view, Kasparov's basic logic of
presenting Karpov w ith complex situations which he could not
control was a sound one but not when executed in such a risky

1 26
T H E C H A RA CTE R A N D STY L E OF KA SPAROV A N D K A R PO V

fas hion. Later, with mature reflection, Kasparov was to forge a

u s eful weapon from this concept, but at this stage he had not yet
seen the writing on the wal l . In the very next game, his swindling
did not come off!

Karpov-Kasparov
3rd game, World Championship 1 984-5
1 e4 c5
2 ltlf3 e6
3 d4 cd
4 ltlxd4 lilc6
5 lilb5 d6
6 c4 lilf6
7 lil1c3 a6
8 lila3 i.e7
9 i.e2 0-0
10 0-0 b6
11 i.e3 i.b7
12 Wb3

100
B

Th is must be Karpov's ideal kind of position in which all he

needs to do is control the game by keeping Black pinned down to
his first three ranks with a view to fi nal suffocation! The futu re
World Champion , in his game against Small (Lucerne 1982) had
already demonstrated how to proceed against the apparently
fo rced 12 . . . lild7 , so hardly wished to be confronted with his own
plan! He had prepared a move designed to free his game at one
stroke . . .
12 lila5?!

1 27
THE C H A R A CTE R A N D STY L E OF KA SPAROV A N D K ARPOV

13 't!fxb6 ll::l xe4

14 ll::l xe4 .txe4
15 't!fxd8 .txd8
16 llad1 d5?

/OJ
w

As Munzert has pointed out, dour defence is not in Kasparov's

nature, so he rejects the safer 1 6 . . . ll::l b 7 or 16 . llb8 followed by
. .

. . . .tc7 and adopts a speculative pawn sacrifice which, on this

occasion, does not come off.
17 13 .tf5
18 cd ed
19 llxd5 .te6
20 lld6 .txa2
21 llxa6
and the extra pawn eventually triumphed. Admittedly, Karpov
still had to find a few moves which Kasparov's earlier opponents
might have found tricky, but that is after all expected of a world­
class master!
No one knows whether 16 ... d5 was prepared or thought up
over the board, and basically it does not matter a great deal. It
seems illogical for Kasparov to attempt dubious novelties in an
effort to impose his own gam e within Karpov's specialised
domain and shock him into making errors.
In the next games, too , Karpov ungraciously used the psycho­
logical weaknesses of his opponent. In the sixth game, Kasparov
managed to bring about a complex, dynamic game full of tactical
opportunities. He then promptly missed a probable win in an
admittedly complicated position, revealing once again endemic
weaknesses.

1 28
TH E C H A R A CTE R A N D STYLE OF KA SPAROV A N D K A R PO V

102
w

Kasparov-Karpov
6t h game, World Championship 1 984-5

White has good compensation fo r the pawn minus in the shape

of a dangerous passed pawn, b ut his winning chances have now
disappeared and he should settle for the draw to be had by 32 .tg2
lld8 33 .tc6 ! (threateningd7 and lle8+) 33 . . . .tcS 34 lLlxb5 lb xb5
35 .txb5. Instead, Kasparov again plays impulsively for all or
nothing and, typical of someone who is not fully in control of his
emotions, even tries to ' blitz' Karpov during the latter's time
trouble. Here is what happened:
32 lLlc6?! .tb7
33 .t g2 lle8
Perhaps, even now, Kasparov could draw by playing 34 lla l ,
but he was still pursuing his fatal mirage.
34 lbeS?!

103
B

The double threat of 35 lLld7+ and 35 .txb7 looks devastating,

but Kasparov would have surely seen Black's reply if he had
stopped to think for a moment.

1 29
T H E CH A R A CTE R A N D STY LE OF KA SPAROV AND K A R PO V

34 f6 ! !
Bursting White's bubble, since now 35 lt:ld7+ 'iPf7 is no improve-
ment on what happens in the game.
35 d7 lidS
36 i.xb7 fe
37 i.c6 <t>e7? !
In time trouble, Karpov misses a clear win with 37 . . . e4, but the
rook ending should be won.
38 i.xb5 lZ:lxbS
39 lixe5+ <t>xd7
40 lixb5
and Black won on move 70.
The next two points that Karpov acquired would not have been
presented to him so freely in the second or even the third matches,
but they are typical of his thinking and point strongly to Kasparov's
vulnerability at this stage. Let us look at the shorter of the two.

Karpov-Kasparov
7th game, World Championship 1 984-5
1 d4 dS
2 c4 e6
3 lZ:\0 c5
4 cd ed
The Tarrasch Defence , Kasparov's favourite up to this match.
The basic reasoning behind this opening immediately explains
Kasparov's choice . Its creator, Tarrasch, enthusiastically recom­
mended it as the only way to avoid passive defence against the
Queen's Gambit. In principle, the resulting isolated pawn on d5 is
weak , but Black's view is that his active piece play should give
more than adequate compensation. The logic behind such a
choice of opening on Kasparov's part is clear: either his opponent
tries to refute it, which will i nvolve risks in an active, dynamic
situation which suits Kasparov very well, or else White does
n othing, which will lead to rapid equality, an advantage as Black
in match play.
Karpov, ho wever, takes this logic a little further, thus turning
the tables on his opponen t. He has no intention of running on to
Kasparov's sword, so exploits his 'control' technique to prevent
anything that looks in the least suspicious. Even if this may
objectively give him only a small plus (more , of course, would do

1 30
T H E C H A R A CTE R A N D STYLE OF KA SPAROV A N D K A RPOV

him nicely, thank you), he will retain a position that suits his own
style, thus psychologically putting Kasparov's back to the wall.
5 g3 lt::l f6
6 .i.g2 i.e7
7 0-0 0-0
8 lt::l c3 lt::l c6
9 i.gS cd
10 lt::l xd4 h6
1 1 i.e3 lle8
12 irb3 �aS
13 1Wc2 i.g4
14 lt::lfS llc8

104
w

An interesting moment. Karpov is about to pocket the d5 pawn

but then notices that his opponent can obtain active play for his
pieces as a result. Consequently, in the ninth game Karpov chose
1 5 i.d4, kept a tigh t rei n on the game and obtained an academic
advantage only . Nevertheless, he continued to ' massage' Kasparov
beyond the adjournment, when , despite analysis, Black finally lost
patience in the ending and succumbed to a surprising tactical
coup. This is typical of the Karpovian psychological scenario . . .

[Translator's note. I cannot resist this d ramatic piece of tactics

from the 9th game. I n the position in diagram 105 White can make
no progress with the obvious recapture 47 gh so produces the
astounding study-like 47 �g2 ! ! hg+ 48 �g3 in order to obtain
the h4 square for his king, should Black guard his h 5 pawn with
the bishop. After 48 <ii>e6 49 lt::l f4+ <i;>d6 50 �xhS <ii>e6 51 lt::lf4+
...

<i;>d6 52 <i;>g4 White was al ready winning.

131
T H E CHA RA CTER A N D STYLE OF KA SPAROV A N D K AR PO V

105
w

Karpov-K asparov
9th game, World Championship 1 984-5

Now, back to diagram 1 04 and the 7th game.]

15 lt:Jxe7+ llxe7
16 llad1 We8
17 h3 ..th5
1 8 ..txd5 ..tg6
19 Wc1 lt:Jxd5
20 llxd5 lbc4
21 ..td4
There is no question of psychology connected with the capture
on a7. A fter 2 1 ..txa7? b6 22 b3 ltJe3 23 fe l ha7 practically all of
White's pawns are weak.
21 llec7
Black has now a great deal for the pawn: pressure on b2 and c3,
possible use of the light-square weaknesses around White's king,
and (from a drawing point of view) opposite-coloured bishops.
Realising all this, Karpov quickly gives back the pawn, restricts
Black's piece play by exchanging a pair of rooks and driving back
the k night, and takes over control of the centre. Although objec­
tively the game is then even , Karpov has cunningly reorientated
the play in his favour psychologically!
22 b3 ltJb6
23 :S: e5 t!t'd 7
24 t!t'e3 f6
25 lieS :S:xcS
26 ..txcS t!t'xh3
27 lildl

1 32
THE CH A RA CTE R A N D STYLE OF K.A S PAROV A N D K ARPOV

1 06
B

Black can hardly stand badly here, since White's problems with
his own king prevent his being too ambitious. H owever, Kasparov
now needs to play more like his opponent by posting his pieces on
better squares, undertaking nothing dubious and even making a
few waiting moves if necessary. A good concrete move would have
been 27 . . . ll:ld7 with the idea of . . . liteS and . . . ll:le5 . I nstead,
Kasparov's impatience leads him into another blind alley.
27 hS? !
Th is move spoils nothing at the moment but such weakening
moves have a bad habit of rebounding on you unexpectedly.
28 litd4
Of course, he must not allow h4. Black cannot take the
bishop because of litd8+.
28 lLld7
29 .i.d6 .tf7
30 lLldS ..txdS
31 litxdS
White has made some progress because Black's knight is
stranded on d7, with c5 and e5 controlled by the white pieces, and
the bishop is stronger than the knight in an open position when
there are pawns on both sides of the board.
31 a6
32 .tr4 lLlf8
33 1!t'd3 1!t'g4
34 r3 't!t'g6
35 IW2
Black should now exchange queens then play . . . litc2, but White
still has a niggling initiative with which he can plague Kasparov as
he does in the ninth game we mentioned. In fact, the move played

1 33
THE C H A R A CTE R A N D S TY L E OF KASPAROV A N D K AR PO V

107
B

(in time trouble, to be fair) fails to take into account White's next
m ove avoiding the exchange of queens.
35 l:tc2?
36 't!re3!
The a2 pawn is not important, so long as the queens are not
exchanged, because Black must defend his back rank against the
threat of l:l:d8 followed by i.d6.
36 l:l:c8
Such a humiliating retreat is tantamount to an admission of
failure which, combined with time trouble, leads inevitably to
Black's next mistake .
37 't!t'e7 b5?
B lack could still try 37 . . . 't!t'f7 38 't!rxf7+ ¢>xf7 39 l:l:xh5 (the
penalty of advancing this pawn prematurely ! ) 39 . llc2 with ..

some counterplay.
38 l:l:d8 l:l:xd8
39 't!rxd8 't!rfi
40 i.d6 g5
41 'tt'a8 ¢>g7
42 't!rxa6 Resigns
If Black protects the b5 pawn, he loses his f6 pawn with check
after 43 i.xf8+ .
Karpov won simply because he gradually increased his space
advantage by centralising his own pieces and driving those of his
opponent to unfavourable squares. He thus managed to impose
his own style of play on Kasparov. It is instructive to compare the
psychological factors arising from the last position with a similar
situation during a game that Karpov played three years before
against Korchnoi . The latter, like Kasparov, loves a dynamic,

1 34
T H E CHA RA CTE R A N D STYLE OF KA SPAROV A N D K AR PO V

fighting game and was equally two points adrift at the time. We
see here the same rash, impulsive, nervous reactions due in part to
t he polit ical shenanigans surrounding the match.

108
8

A compl etely normal , well-balanced drawing position in which

we could expect a rapid exchange of the maj or pieces on the e-file
followed b y an immediate sharing of the point. Only Korchnoi
knows why he now strayed from the path of virtue, but some inner
compulsion must have driven him to it.
I hS?
The same mistake that Kasparov made, but a much more serious
one here.
2 lhe8 litxe8
3 't!Vf3 lith8
The style and thought processes of Karpov are expressed in this
position even more clearly than in the previous one. Whilst keeping
up the pressure on Black's weak pawns, he gradually improves the
placing of his pieces and drives back his opponent's, using the
'spider's web' technique described by Roshal.
4 lDe3 lDe7
5 liel g6
Covering everything but at the cost of de-activating his rook
and knigh t. White immediately looks for other targets.
6 't!t'f4
Eyeing h6, since the black rook can hardly stay on h8 for ever.
6 �g7
7 g4
Making slow bu t sure progress. After 7 . . hg 8 lDxg4 Black can
.

hardly play 8 . . . f5 9 1!fe 5+, and 8 . . . lDg8 relegates the knight and
rook to the role of spectators.

1 35
THE C H A R A CTE R A N D STYLE OF KA SPAROV A N D K A R PO V

7 gS
Just as impatient a move as 1 . . h5 but at least understandable
.

in the circumstances.
8 Wf3 hg
9 �xg4 Wd6
10 g3 c6
11 c4

109
B

The change from the previous diagram is amazing. White's

pieces, in contrast to Black's, have achieved maximum coordina­
tion whilst gaining more space.
11 fS?
An i ncredibly uncontrolled weakening move. Admittedly, the
reply 12 �e5 would give him some chances after 12 . 'ti'h6, but
. .

Karpov's counter puts an end to this kind of dream.

1 2 't!Ve3! lbg6
Or the equally hopeless 1 2 . fg 13 't!Vxe7+ 't!Vxe7 14 lihe7+ and
. .

1 5 lilc 7.
13 cS 't!Vd8
14 �eS be
IS �xc6 't!Vf6
1 6 'ti'e6 cd
1 7 'ti'xdS d3
1 8 'ti'd7+ 'ti'ti
1 9 �e7 'it>h7
20 'it>g2
White's coordinated forces close in for the kil l . One is reminded
of the finish of the seventh game against Kasparov which we saw
earlier.
20 liteS

1 36
THE C H A R A CTE R A N D STYLE OF K.A SPAROV A N D K ARPOV

21 l:thl+ lLlh4+
22 gh 't!fxe7
23 thfS+ ct>g7
24 hg
and B lack resigned a few despairing moves later.
Let us now return to the match in Moscow. Kasparov knew
that, by any human standards, a m atch in which he was trailing
0-4, with the winner being the first to reach six victories, should be
all over bar the shouting. He later explained his attitude at this
point: 'The World Championship was lost for me anyway, so I
wanted at least to produce some good games.' Whether intentional
or not, this approach enabled him to strike a formidable
psychological blow. It seemed that he was no longer playing for a
win but rather to create a good impression and to hold out for as
many games as possible. He stopped using the Tarrasch Defence
and has not tried it against Karpov since. I nstead, he employed a
much more solid defence to the Queen's Gambit. With the white
pieces, he scored a number of colourless draws. It appeared as if he
was wan t ing to shed all those characteP traits that had been
responsible for the initial disaster - impulsive play, lack of
discipline and, perhaps, even the tendency to underestimate his
opponent. It seems incredible that such a relearning process could
be possible during the course of a match, especially in the case of a
player who was in such a desperate situation . Here we have an
example of the precise point mentioned by Munzert as the most
impressive illustration of Kasparov's enormous will power, psycho­
l ogical stability and sheer determination. After his first assault on
the Karpovian fortress, he had come away badly bruised but,
rather than destroy him , this had brought him back to reality and
convinced him of the need to prepare his second strike with even
greater thoroughness.
His own comments show that he recognised his weaknesses:
'I am very impulsive, hot-blooded and sometimes hot-headed, but
this is irrelevant as regards my chess playing, because I can
normally keep my excitability within certain bounds.' Such was
Kasparov's later comment, and he also referred to the effectiveness
of his training in self-renewal . We m ust therefore assume that,
during the disastrous stage of his match, he had not succeeded in
controlling his excitable temperament and had been consequently
driven to tackle this weakness with all the means at his disposal.

1 37
THE CHA RA CTER A N D STYLE OF KA S PAROV AND K AR PO V

Karpov was thus confronted with entirely new problems, since

his style achieves maximum effectiveness when it is his opponent
who is making the running. As World Champion, he had never
been used to anything e: ;e; by the very nature of things, it is the
challenger's role to wrest the crown from the champion. Now,
however, he was faced with an opponent who seemed to be saying:
'I don't have to win at all costs; a draw is also good enough for me.
I just want to play well. You must decide for yourself how to score
the full points you need.' (The match was not limited to a fixed
number of games ! )
Everybody, including Kasparov himself, i s o f the opinion that
Karpov would have won eventually if he had come out of his shell
and risked losing a few games to reach 6-2 or even 6-4. However,
the World Champion refused to change his style. He did not see
why he should take risks and felt that the match could surely be
won in the same way that any given advantage can be driven home
in a game . It is not clear whether the idea of a 6-0 whitewash had
any influence on such thinking. K nowing the danger that a player
like Kasparov could represent in the long term, he may have wanted
to crush him, if only to establish a permanent psychological hold
over him. However, the idea of winning 6-0 could have equally
been used, even subconsciously, as an excuse to convince himself
not to adopt an attacking style so alien to him. Some would even
say that it was a correct decision, in vie w of the fact that, after
seventeen successive draws, the longest in the history of the World
Championships, he not only scored the next full point but also, in
the 4 1st game, came close to finishing the match off with a 6- 1
result! On the other hand, it is just as true to maintain that the
match between the l Oth and 46th games took an absolutely level
turn, with one victory each, and that, in the process, Kasparov
missed at least as many chances as the World Champion.
The fact that this virtually destroyed opponent could build
himself up psychologically to such an extent must have had an
adverse effect on Karpov. In addition, his physical stamina
seemed to be deteriorating. After leading 5- 1 , his only remaining
chance came in the 4 1st game . In the other games, he exerted less
and less pressure on his opponent. You all k now the sequel: total
collapse in games 47 and 48 , then the disreputable termination of
the match, following Campomanes' intervention. The subsequent
controversy is not our concern here, but we must poin t out that,

1 38
THE C H A RA CTE R A N D STYLE OF KA SPAROV A N D K A R PO V

without the consent of Karpov, such an end to the match would

have been inconceivable . He must have been so exhausted, both
mentally and physically, that he no longer believed he could obtain
this accursed sixth win in the foreseeable future.
Opinion at the start of their second match was 'unclear' (a
verdict often used in chess theory when nobody knows exactly
what is going on! ) . Kasparov had surely learnt a great deal and
would not allow himself to be psychologically cornered as before.
Balanced against this, the fact that the new match was limited to
24 games, with a 1 2- 1 2 result allowing Karpov to retain his title,
meant that Kasparov could no longer try out the successful
drawing tactics of the previous match .
It was a see-saw start and at the half-way stage the strengths and
weaknesses of both players were well balanced. In the very first
game, K asparov struck a blow which revealed an improvement in
his opening psychology. Unlike the first match, when his all-out
attacking variations could easily be predicted, he now introduced
a system against Karpov's Nimzo-Indian Defence which, according
to some sources, he himself regarded as unusual and which was a
complete novelty to K arpov. The World Champion im mediately
consumed an excessive amount of time and the inevitable loss of
confidence produced a more far-reaching effect. In spite of later
inaccu racies by both players, Karpov never recovered properly
from the opening and suffered a demoralising defeat.
He almost lost the second game as well . Kasparov managed to
conjure up some of his favourite unfathomable complications,
only to squander his winning chances on the sealed move and even
later. After this, the pendulum swung in the opposite direction. I n
the fourth game Karpov imposed his own strategy, leaving his
opponent with an isolated d5 pawn and later accumulating other
small advantages, without offering Kasparov the slightest chance
of effective counterplay. In game 5, the challenger reverted to his
old errors. He virtually knocked his head against a brick wall and,
in a fairly level position, played with insufficient control and too
much aggression, after which he was skilfully ground down by
Karpov. With accurate defence he could have just about held the
draw bu t failed to do so.
After a few exciting drawn games with mutual chances, Karpov's
famou s blunder ( which we mentioned in Chapter 2) levelled the
scores. However, psychologically, the title-holder still had the

1 39
THE CH A R A CTE R A N D STY L E OF KA S PAROV A N D KARPOV

edge - Kasparov had to continue to take the game to him, with the
problem becoming more acute each day. The 1 6th game sa w the
vital turning-point of the match and Kasparov's hour of destiny,
when he succeeded in depriving Karpov of the championship. All
this is now chess history, and the game itself must have been
analysed dozens of times. It provides us with a dramatic clash of
two players' chess logic, so it is from this thematic a ngle that we
shall examine a few key points.

Karpov-Kasparov
1 6th game, World Championship 1 985
1 e4 c5
2 lLlf3 e6
3 d4 cd
4 ltl xd4 lLlc6
5 lLlb5 d6
6 c4 ltlf6
7 lLl lc3 a6
8 ltla3 d5

1 10
w

The beginning of the drama, but this move had already been
int roduced for the first time in game 1 2, just after Karpov's
blunder in the l i th game , in other words at a moment when
Kasparov wanted to 'put the boot in' while his opponent was
down. For this reason , the World Champion had been unwilling
to lose control of the game by indulging in anything double-edged
and was content to draw in eighteen moves. The analytical 'kitchen'
was immediately put to work , but Karpov was not ready to try out
any new idea until game 16, so avoided the whole line in game 14.
9 cd ed

1 40
THE CHA RACTER A N D STYLE O F KASPAROV A N D K A R PO V

10 ed li:lb4
11 .te2
A typical Karpov move, harmless-looking on the surface but
containing a drop of poison. In the original game, Karpov had
played I I i.c4 .i.g4 12 .te2 when Kasparov, happy to draw, had
exchanged b ishops, although I 2 . . . i.f5 would probably have
t ransposed into the present game. So where is the poison?
If Black plays 1 1 . . . liJbxd5 , White plays 1 2 li:l xd5 liJxd5 1 3 0-0
i.e7 14 .tf3 with that small niggling i nitiative which he can exploit
so well by wearing down his opponen t. We thus have an
interesting psychological duel even at this early stage. Presumably,
Karpov was banking on Kasparov having mainly analysed the
variations where White clings to the pawn, so the text move is an
attempt to place him in a dilemma: 'Either you win back your
pawn at once and play my game, or else I'll post my bishop on f3
from where it ca n safely guard the pawn and control g4. We'll
soon see then if you've enough for the pawn! ' If, in fact, Kasparov
had been compelled to deal with all this for the first time over the
board, he could well have had problems, but, since it was all
prepared analysis right up to the next diagram, Karpov has
virtually dug his own grave!
11 .tcS
12 0-0
It was only after this game that an almost macabre point
emerged: the move 12 .te3 ! seems to refute Black's concept out of
ha nd, as shown by Karpov in his game with van der Wiel in Brussels
1 986, which wen t 1 2 . . . .t xe3 1 3 'tWa4+ liJd7 1 4 't!fxb4 etc. Never­
theless, despite the most frenzied analysis, neither player had seen
this move! Karpov's destiny was not to be baulked so easily . . .
12 0-0
13 i.f3
Of course, Karpov could still have given back the pawn but with
no hope of an advantage in view of Black's well-developed position.
Moreover, he must have known that something was wrong, because
K asparov h ad made his 1 1th move just as quickly as Karpov.
However, the World Champion m ust have been confident that he
would shortly have matters under control with his extra pawn, no
weaknesses and reasonable development. There were j ust a few of
Black's dynamic resources he had to deal with . . .
Herein lies perhaps the sole weakness of Karpov's thinking in

141
THE CHA RA CTER A N D STY L E OF KASPAROV A N D K A R POV

this game . This disciple of sober logic and technique seems afraid
to trust his instincts and consequently underestimates those factors
in a position which can only be sensed intuitively. Admittedly, he
did not have the benefit of Kasparov's incredibly deep prepared
analysis (by the 19th move, the latter had used only fifteen minutes
of his t ime!) and we will never know if the challenger would have
so readily seen over the board the full extent of his dynamic
compensation for the pawn.
13 i.f5
14 i.gS lle8
15 @d2 bS
16 li[ad1 �d3

111
w

This knight on d3 symbolises the different thought processes of

both players. If White could drive away or exchange the presump­
tuous knight, all would be in order. H owever, by means of a series
of apparen tly chance factors, all prepared up to at least move 19,
Kasparov demonstrates that the keystone of his game-plan can
miraculously be maintained on the vital square.
17 li:Jab1 h6
18 i.h4 b4
19 �a4 i.d6
20 i.g3 li[c8
21 b3 gS !
The beginning of Black's fight against the threat of �b2, which
would now lose to 22 . . . li:Jxb2 23 'ii'x b2 g4 24 i.e2 li[c2 winning a
piece. We cannot give the full details of all the tactics involved in
the next few moves, bu t White fails to deal with the ' monstrous
octopus' (Raymond Keene) on d3.
22 i.xd6 @xd6

1 42
THE C H A R A CTER A N D STYLE OF KASPAROV A N D K A R POV

23 g3 lt::l d 7!
24 i.g2 't!ff6

Black is now clearly in the driving seat and Karpov, with no

reasonable moves left, finds himself in the same plight as countless
of his opponents. Kasparov has him in a complete bind and
Black's pieces now gain in strength whilst White's look on help­
lessly. The game is virtually over, the remaining moves representing
a psychological humiliation for the World Champion. As Fischer
once said, the fact that an opponent can grind you down and you
can do nothing about it, does little for your ego . . .
25 a3 aS
26 ab ab
27 't!fa2 i.g6
28 d6 g4
29 't!fd2 �g7
30 f3 't!fxd6
31 fg 't!fd4+
32 �hl lt::lf6
33 lU4 lt::le4
34 't!fxd3 lt::lf2 +
35 lii xf2 i.xd3
36 lii fd2 't!fe3
37 lii xd3 liic l
3 8 lt::l b2 't!ff2
39 lDd2 lil:xdl+
40 lt::l x dl liie l+
and White resigned.
The effect of all this on Karpov was devastating. He was now
forced into the unwan ted , unaccustomed role of having to attack.
Kasparov, on the other hand, was in his element after a victory in

1 43
THE CHA RA CTE R A N D STY L E OF KA SPAROV A N D K AR PO V

which h e had annihilated his opponent. After two colourless

draws, Karpov again went down in game 19. It is reported that
Kasparov, in a completely won position, made an 'open sealed
move' by capturing a pawn with h is queen in a flourish directed
triumphantly at the spectators. Amidst the flurry of congratula­
tions to the leader, Karpov quietly left the playing hal l .
Looking back, i t seems almost a n accident of fate that, despite
Kasparov's clear psychological plus at this stage, there was stil l
t o be the excitement of another final decider! Game 2 0 brought
Karpov little as White, although he took it to 85 moves. In game
2 1 , he was once again on the edge of the abyss but was reprieved
in Kasparov's time trouble. Nor would game 22 have given him
anything, if K asparov h ad not suffered the twin pressures of the
clock and the tantalising prospect of victory in the match. In
game 23, Kasparov stood better but could not capitalise on his
advantage, thus leaving both p layers with the tremendous tension
of a final game which Karpov had to win in order to retain his title!
We now had another psychological twist. Faced with this
unexpected opportunity to save the match, Karpov fou nd it
impossible to shake off the spectre of his defeats in the 1 6th and
1 9th games. We thus saw a player, who had every incentive to play
for the win and absolutely nothing to lose by doing so, suddenly
filled with doubts and uncertainty, whilst his opponent, who
needed only a draw, chose to play aggressive chess with zest and
self-confidence ! This paradoxical outcome is explicable solely
within the context of the temperaments of both players and the
psychology underlying the previous games.

Karpov-Kasparov
24th game, World Championship 1 985
1 e4 cS
2 lt:\f3 d6
3 d4 cd
4 ll:l xd4 lt:\f6
5 ll:lc3 a6
6 JJ..e 2 e6
7 0-0 JJ..e7
8 f4 0-0
9 <;!1h1 1!t'c7
10 a4 ll:lc6

1 44
THE CHA R A CTE R A N D STYL E OF KASPAROV A N D K A RPOV

11 .i.e3 lle8
12 .i.f3 llb8
13 tfd2 .i.d7
14 lLlb3 b6
15 g4 .i.c8
16 g5 lLld7
17 t�r2 .trs
18 .i.g2 .i.b7
19 lbdl g6
20 .tel llbc8
21 lild3 lLlb4
22 llh3 .i.g7
1 13
w

So far, the moves really belong to two other gentlemen, Sokolov

and Ribli who, only a few days before the present game, had
played these very moves in their game from the Montpellier Can­
didates tournament. At least, White's game set-up was identical;
there were a few differences in Ribli's queenside handling. That
game was won by Whi te by means of a kingside attack beginning
with f5. As Kasparov points out in his own book on the match,
although 23 f5 does not here lead to a demonstrable advantage, it
presents B lack undoubtedly with the hardest nut to crack .
However, it is Karpov conducting the white pieces and for him
a move such as f5, with unclear prospects of success, means an
irreversible step into the unknown! He may well be willing to risk
everything for a win at the appropriate moment, but he is still in
ful l control of events, with fe w chances of black counterplay in the
next few moves. Th is places him in a quandary: should he play the
move that meets the needs of the position but whose consequences
are incalculable, or should he maintain his 'spider's web' controlled
approach and wait for the concrete moment to attack successfully?

145
T H E C HA R A C TE R A N D STY L E OF KASPAROV A N D K A RPOV

As befitting Munzert's character portrait of him, Karpov opts fo r

cool logic rat her than intuition, thus renouncing his only possible
winning chance in the whole game. It must be said, however, that
against any player other than Kasparov in such circumstances his
strategy wou ld have prevailed. After all, who could have expected
the following subtle and remarkably aggressive play from an
opponent who only needed a draw? Nevertheless, Kasparov thus
remains true to his style and to the demands of the situation .
23 i.e3 ll e7
24 � 1 llce8
25 lld1
Reverting to his typical probing tactics by applying pressure to
the d6 pawn to be followed up by 't!Vd2 if Black does nothing.
However, this removal of the rook from fl is a signal for Kasparov
to lau nch an attack on the weakened kingside pawns.
25 f5 !?
26 gf �xf6 ! ?
A pawn sacrifice at such a vital moment!
27 llg3 ll li
2 8 ..txb6 't!lb8
29 ..te3
In practical terms, W hite had to try 29 ..tf3, since he is now
compelled either to accept a draw by repetition or to go in for a
kamikaze operation. A t all events, Karpov in time trouble is no
longer in control.
29 �h5
30 llg4
Or 30 llf3 �f6 when White has nothing better than 3 1 llg3 .
30 �f6
31 li[h4

1 /4
B

1 46
THE CHA R A C TE R A N D STYLE OF KASPAROV A N D KA R PO V

Too late, and only when forced into it, Karpov finally plunges
into the inevitable complications conjured up by his opponent.
31 gS!
The fact that Kasparov now wins this time trouble duel from a
position ideally suited to his style of play should surprise nobody.
We give the conclusion without comment.
32 fg lL\g4
33 t!t'd2 lLlxe3
34 t!t'xe3 lLlxc2
35 't!t'b6 .ta8
36 lhd6 litb7
37 'iha6 litxb3
38 litxe6 litxb2
39 t!t'c4 �h8
40 eS t!t'a7+
41 �h1 i.xg2+
42 �xg2 lLld4+
White resigns
Basically, the third match continued from where the second had
stopped. Karpov attempted little in the first four games against
the new World Champion who had widened and perfected his
psychological arm oury. The opening coup of the second match
had scored a bull's eye, so Kasparov continued in the same vein .
W i t h B lack, he cooked up not only a ne w variation b u t a whole
'ne w' opening system in the shape of the Grti nfeld Defence, which
he himself had never used in important games (although it fits in
wel l with his style) and which Karpov had rarely met. Once again,
the recipe worked wonders, with Karpov playing only for safe
draws in his first two w hites, in order to sound out th� new,
unknown repertoire of his opponent. Nor did he do very well with
Black. Although Kasparov let the win slip from his grasp at the
last minute in the 2nd game, the psychological ploy he used was
particularly impressive. He almost perfectly outplayed Karpov at
his own game! When an opponent adopts a style in which you
hitherto fel t superior to him, and does it well into the bargain,
your morale will naturally suffer a bl ow. You may even begin to
imagine that he has no real weaknesses any more !

K asparov-Ka rpov
2nd game, World Championship 1 986

1 47
THE CHA R A CTE R A N D STYLE OF KASPAROV A N D K A R PO V

1 d4 lDf6
2 c4 e6
3 lLlc3 i.b4
4 lDf3 c5
5 g3 lLlc6
6 i.g2 d5
Surprisingly enough, Black's last two moves, especially . . . d5,
are theoretical novelties, despite their mundane appearance.
Mo reover, this was obvious from the time Kasparov spent over
them. His reaction, however, was startling: he immediately went in
for wholesale exchanges leading to an apparently lifeless endgame!
This was in fact just the way that Karpov might have handled the
situation, obtaining a minimal advantage without losing control.
7 cd lLlxd5
8 i.d2 cd
9 lDxd4 lLlxd4
10 lLlxd5 i.xd2+
11 't!fxd2 lLlc6

1 15
w

12 lDf4
In the context of our theme, this is a bombshell. Although
12 't!fe3 is objectively no better, the old Kasparov would surely
have refused to exchange queens if he was playing for a win! Our
next thought would be that Kasparov was heading for a quick
draw, now that he had taken the sting out of Karpov's new moves,
so that he could do more home analysis of the line. We would be
wrong again! What, then , is the point of adopting your opponent's
method of play? Normally, the latter would be delighted, unless
you can demonstrate your versatility by 'copying' it successfully.
Of course, this entails walking on a psychological tightrope; one

148
THE C H A R A CTER A ND STYLE OF KASPAROV A N D K A R PO V

slip a n d your opponent's self-confidence i s restored, because he

recognises that he is still more at home in his own domain. He
would then come at you with redoubled power. Nevertheless, in
view of the psychic superiority that Kasparov brought with him to
this match , it did not need much to 'persuade' Karpov of his
opponent's adaptability.
12 'if'xd2+
13 'Ct'xd2 i.d7
14 lihc1 'Ct'e7
15 li:ld3 lithc8
16 li:lc5 litab8
It is difficult to decide exactly where Black made the errors that
i mperceptibly transformed his position from an almost equal to a
difficult one. An interesting idea suggested by the experts is to play
here 16 b6 17 li:la6 litd8 ! followed by .. . liac8, since after 1 8
. . .

i.xc6 Black can recapture with check.

1 7 lite 3 lbd8
18 llac1 i.c6
19 li:ld3 i.d 7
20 lbe5 litxc3
21 litxc3 i.e8
22 b4 a6
23 ..te4 h6
24 a3
1 16
8

Although Black is threatened with nothing concrete as yet, he

clearly remains under constant pressure. I n typical Karpovian
fashion, Kasparov is manoeuvring to improve the placing of his
pieces and to obtain space and squares. Observe how, in the next
few moves, the white k night is driven first from e5, then from c5,
but still lands on the key square a5!

1 49
T HE CHA RA CTER A N D STY L E OF KASPAROV A N D K A R PO V

24 f6
25 li:Jd3 .ic6
Since White's bishop is far more effective than Black's, it must
be good strategy to exchange it. However, it could be delayed, for
example (on the previous move) 24 . . . a5 25 ba lla8 26 llc5 �d6 27
li:Jd3 .ic6 and Black recovers his pawn, thus freeing his game.
However, Karpov is gradually getting short of time, a good sign
that he has been finding matters difficult, and is perhaps unwilling
to dabble in such committal ideas as a temporary pawn sacrifice.
26 .ixc6 li:Jxc6
27 lLlcS li:le5
28 f4 li:Jd7
29 li:lb3 �d6
30 e4 g5
31 <t>e3 e5
32 fg fg
33 li:Ja5 g4
34 nc2 h5
35 lil:cl
Quiet moves are particularly nasty against opponents in time
trouble, since it is far easier for them to react to specific threats
rather than make more general decisions. Kasparov has an objec­
tive reason for waiting in this position, however, because Black is
in semi-zugzwang, a common result of less space for his pieces.
Whatever he does, he must allow W hite a point of entry, for
example 35 . . . li:Jf6 36 llc 5 ! li:Jd7 37 li:Jc4+ <&e6 3 8 llc7.
35 b6
36 lil:c6+ <t>e7
37 li:Jc4 nm
+;::* 38 <t>e2 no?

Ill
w

1 50
T HE C H A R A C TE R A N D STY L E OF KASPAROV A N D K A R PO V

A complete blunder i n bad time troubl e. I t was essential to play

3 8 . . . llf6 but White has a clear advantage with 39 llc7 or 39 llc8.
39 lLle3?
A counter-blunder, when there was a simple win to be had by
39 llc7! threatening both 40 llxd7+ �xd7 4 1 lLlxe5+ and the
capture of the e5 or b6 pawn. After the text move, Black 's pieces
suddenly come to life.
39 lLlf6
40 lhb6 lLlxe4
41 llxa6 Ii[f2+
and Karpov escaped.
In the 4th game, however, Karpov handled a strategically
demanding position i n a horribly passive fashion (in the Dubai
Olympiad a few months later, Suba even got Kasparov into
difficulties with a much more aggressive prepared idea against the
same line), soo11 had his back to the wall and this time was not
reprieved. Dr Calvo's diagnosis of Karpov half-way through play
was that his demeanour at the board indicated that he knew he
was lost. Up to this point, everything seemed to be against the
underdog: the irksome compulsion to attack; the initial psycho­
logical plus of Kasparov; the shock of the Grunfeld; and finally,
the fact that Kasparov was playing simple positions well.
Then, suddenly, after the 5t h game (the splendid effort which
we examined in Chapter 3), Karpov seemed a changed player.
He had not only won a fi ne game but also smashed Kasparov's
Griinfeld, thus striking an important psychological blow. Kasparov
himself had expressed differing views about this game . In an
i nterview with his friend a nd second, Adorjan, he maintained that
his loss was in no way due to the opening variation , but just before
the 8th game he said that up till then no player with Black had
ma naged to achieve equality from the opening. We stick by our
view that something was wrong with the line because, although he
continued to play the Grunfeld, this particular variation never
cropped up again . In the 7th game he played the Queen's Gambit,
then brought out the Grii nfeld in games 9 and I I , but deviated
early on.
In any case, we now had an evenly balanced struggle, at least
from a psychol ogical point of view. In the 6th game, Kasparov
produced another surprise by playing I e4 for the first time in the
match and improving on a variation which he had pronounced as

151
THE CHARACTE R AND STYL E OF KASP AROV AND KAR PO V

good for Black i n the second match! However, the c hallenger

sustained the initial shock and skilfully steered his way through
difficult complications into a harmless ending, barely ten moves
later. This is clear proof that Karpov can indeed play complex
chess, provided that he is inwardly convinced that he can keep
events under control!
Th e next games seemed to confirm that this need for control is
the main reason why this sober logician can at times produce
brilliant combinations, whilst at other times he loses his way
completely. In the 7th game, for example, Kasparov was on the
brink of defeat for 25 moves, with little time and the worse
position. Then Karpov not only missed the best plan but
squandered his clock advantage in the process. Now that he had
no time to work everything out to his satisfaction, he started to go
wrong. Kasparov, however, was suddenly in his element, and
shook his opponent with a surprising tactical coup which was not
quite sound but nearly won the game for him . They agreed a draw
at the adjournment.
Ne xt came the al most legendary 8th game:

Kasparov-Karpov
8th game, World Championship 1 986
I d4 dS
2 c4 e6
3 lLlc3 i.e7
4 cd ed
5 i.f4 lLl f6
6 e3 �0
7 i.d3 cS
Karpov usually prefers to play against the isolated pawn but he
ha� presumably prepared all this thoroughly and expects to force
. . . d4 , w hen he hopes to equalise.
8 lLlf3 lLlc6
9 0-0 i.g4
10 de i.xcS
11 h3 i.xf3
12 'f!t'xf3 d4
13 lt:Je4
This seemingly unobtrusive knight is about to wreak havoc.
Apparently, Karpov was now beginning to realise the problems,

1 52
T HE C H A R A C TE R AND STYLE OF KASPAROV A N D K A R PO V

since h e spent o ver twenty minutes o n his next move (which many
commentators criticised).
13 i..e 7?!
The recommended improvement was supposed to be 13 . . .
li:lxe4 1 4 t!Yxe4 g6 1 5 e d liteS, or here 1 4 i..xe4 de. However, it
a ppears just as incalculable in its consequences as the text move
and even more difficult to work out over the board. If Karpov
really went wrong here, it is a question of the difference between
practical play and armchair analysis. It has been by no means
established that Black should lose the game from here!
14 litad1 't!ra5
15 li:lg3 de
16 fe
A proof of radical and determined thinking. Kasparov is quite
willing to accept material loss and a weak pawn on e3 to bring
about the dynamic opening of the f-file .
1 18
8

16 \i'xa2
Th at the solid Karpov should take such a pawn brought the
London spectators to their feet, whilst an uproar broke out among
the masters in the analysis room . ' Karpov is a terrific defender,
but there are limits' was the view of the official commentator,
Ti mman, as White unleashed his attack . Is it such a paradox that a
player who normally takes few risks should provoke the World
Champion in this way? It is not so surprising if we examine the
psychology of Karpov. He must have considered this m ove a
calculated risk, giving him a later chance to concede material, if
need be, to blunt the force of the attack. Even if he could not foresee
all of Kasparov's plan, this extra pawn would represent some form
of control, since otherwise White would have his attack at no
material cost.

1 53
T H E CHA RACTER A N D STYL E OF KASPAROV A N D K A RPOV

[Translator's note. I vie w the matter far more simply. How else can
Black bring his queen into play to help the defence of the kingside?
Should he not take the pawn at once, then 17 a3 leaves the queen
on a limb, or else White can simply proceed with his attack. In my
opinion, the move screams out to be played ! )

17 ll:lf5 'ti'e6
18 i.h6 ll:le8
19 'ti'h5
The attack is looking fearsome (the immediate threat is 20 .ixg7
ll:lxg7 2 1 ll:lxe7+ followed by mate) and Black must be very careful.
It is now that Karpov must play his only trump card, the defensive
exchange sacrifice, when his extra pawn will prove an important
factor.
19 g6
20 'ti'g4 �e5
Kasparov is now in two minds. Does he play 2 1 ll:lxe7+ 'ti'xe7
22 .ixffi ct>xffi 23 'ti'f4 with the advantage but no forced win, or
does he continue the attack which his intuition tells him is promising
but which could in the long run give him nothing?
The analysts are unani mous in their opinion that the 'bird in the
hand' offered a win , at least in the long run, whereas in the actual
game Black was not lost (though, to be honest, nobody was that
sure ! ). However, with each side having about thirty minutes for
twenty moves, it is almost impossible to see through all the com­
plications that now arise. Kasparov realises that, after he takes the
exchange, the direct threats are over and, even if Black stands
worse, he is once again back in control and can comfortably steer
his way through time trouble. On the other hand, if he continues
the attack , a moment will quickly arrive when Karpov will be
unable to calculate everything and will be forced to play by instinct.
This would give Kasparov his chance!
We can hardly compare such a decision to a poker-like bluff,
since Kasparov always had the draw in hand in case of necessity
(for example, with a later chance of perpetual check). It was
intuitively the correct choice to probe Karpov's weaknesses in this
way by putting him in such an uncertain frame of mind that
mistakes were inevitable.
21 'ti'g3 .if6
22 .ib5 ll:lg7

1 54
THE C H A R A CTE R A N D STYLE OF KASPAROV A N D K A R PO V

;'·{ -"t
' ,� '119
w

So long as Karpov has the thinking time, he continues to play

well in the complications. 23 l:ld6 now loses to 23 . . . lt:l xf5, and he
also had to reckon with the venomous idea of 23 lt:ld4 '@b6 24
l:lxf6 1!hf6 25 l:lfl 'Wd6/e7 26 i.xg7 �xg7 27 ltJf5+ which is
countered by the zwischenzug 25 . . . ltJh5 !. Another typical trait of
Karpov's: he spends a few vital minutes checking all his calculations,
leaving himsel f only fourteen minutes for eighteen moves! We
have seen this happen before in these matches. In the second
game, he found the choice between two drawing possibilities so
difficult on move 49 that he left himself only four minutes for
seven moves. Fortunately for him, the simplified position offered
no problems, bu t in the 1 6th game it probably cost him his last
chances. He was practically ahead on time for most of the game
and went into tremendous complications in an effort to force a
win. After Kasparov's 32nd move , the World Champion had nine
minutes, whilst Karpov had 3 1 , but what happened then has rarely
been seen. He squandered his clock advantage over this one
position until he had only three minutes left ! The inevitable
happened: a few moves later, playing at lightning speed, he
thought he saw a win by exchanging queens with a piece up, only
to fall into a fiendish trap.
Kasparov was fully aware of this weakness in Karpov's make-up
and skilfully exploited it in this match, except for the occasion
when , in the 1 8th game, he was winning but had only eigh t minutes
for twelve moves, as compared with the challenger's 28 minutes.
I nstead of taking a possible draw, he chose to lose the game in a
blitz finish! Now, let us witness the thrilling conclusion to the
London drama.
23 i.xg7 i.xg 7

155
THE C H A R A C TE R A ND STYLE OF KASPAROV A N D K A R PO V

24 �d6 \Wb3
25 ll:lxg7 't!rxb5
26 lLlfS

All this was forced and unquestionably calculated by Karpov

when he played 22 . . . lilg7, but he now has to begin thinking again,
with only eight minutes for fifteen moves . . . Nevertheless, he now
spends half of this time on his next move, in a desperate effort to
maintain control of the position.
26 �ad8
The annotators are still arguing over which moves were best
now or later, but it is all academic. With four m inutes for fourteen
moves, it would take god-like omniscience to cope with all the
complexities of this position. From a practical poin t of view,
Kasparov has already won the psychological duel.
27 �f6 �d2
28 't!kg5 'W'xb2
29 'i!i>bl 'i!i>h8
30 lLld4 � xd4
31 'W'xe5
and B lack overstepped the time limit. Ironically enough, although
White should still win, it is by no means easy after 3 1 . . . lld2 32
't!re7 �dd8 3 3 llxf7 n xt7 34 �xt7 'i!;>g8 ! , but just imagine trying to
find this with seconds on your cloc k . . .
Almost everything we have mentioned about the differing
personalities of these two protagonists is highlighted in this game.
There seems no doubt that the later matches between the two
K's will prove equally exciting and fu ll of tension , now that this
evenly-matched pair are fully aware of each other's strengths and
weaknesses. The psychological struggle will continue!

1 56
The average player will often make a fatal mistake
in a game and lose, resigning himself to the fact
that he cannot think like a grandmaster. This book
will assure him that he, too, can tune his tbinking
to an ultra-fine degree - the ability to spot the
right move is not innate, it can be learned.

Chess - The Mechanics of the Mind provides a set

of guidelines for the player of average ability which,
when combined with regular practice, can
dramatically improve basic chess thinking and
performance. Drawing on examples from the three
phases of the game, it pinpoints key situations
where the amateur's thought processes are inferior
to those of the experienced master, and seeks to
help him overcome specific mental barriers. The
style of many of the world's leading players is
analysed, illustrating the significance of a sound
mental strategy, and there is an in-depth discussion
of the on-going Karpov-Kasparov confrontation.

Both original and stimulating, this book will be an

important addition to every chess player's library.

ISBN 1-85223-127-0

9 781852 231279