International Trainers’ Course

for FIDE Trainer Titles

Turkey – Antalya 2009

 International Trainers’ Course
for
FIDE Trainer Titles

Turkey – Antalya

13th to 20th November 2009

Lecturers
GM/FST Adrian Mikhalchishin
GM/FST Efstratios Grivas

FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 1

 (Day 1: 16:00-16:45 - Grivas)

Welcome Speech – Analyses of the Course

Dear Participants, Welcome.
We are delighted to have you here to participate and share in the Antalya International Trainers’
Course for FIDE Trainer Titles. Thank you for coming. That many of you travel long distances
serves to remind us all just how important our work is.
Antalya International Trainers’ Course for FIDE Trainer Titles is committed to actively raising
the quality of chess trainers. We want all trainees, regardless of race, creed or circumstance to
achieve their full potential. Our task is to make it possible. Our mission is to provide practical, step
by step assistance. Our aim is not only to teach you what a trainer must know in order to well
perform his profession but also to show you the correct way to teach his/her knowledge.
The chess intellectual trainers’ conversations very often comes to the conclusion that chess has
changed to a clear science and demands from the top chess-player to watch out for every day
attention and information. But, very often you just have to perform the basics and then the rest are
coming. This saying is nowadays has become a motto by the top trainers that have worked or
working on a high level.
So, we have gathered here in Antalya in order to present these ‘basics’ topics. We will work on
various subjects which are described in the prospectus of this seminar/course and we will try to
make the best out of the 34 hours we will spend together. As I did mention beforehand, our aim
will be to ‘dig deeply’ on the general chess basic topics, which are affiliated to general chess
subjects, middlegame and endgame handling and using chess computer programs.
I have to mention that most of the material that it will be presented in this course is based on my
books’ series called Chess College 1,2,3 and Practical Endgame Play - Mastering the Basics.

The Middlegame
Chess is not an absolute game. In several junctures throughout a chess game, there does not exist
a single, concrete, perfect solution to the problems of the position. Many successful decisions
made by the players cannot be justified scientifically. They are instead based on numerous
subjective factors, some are even not directly related to the situation on the board. Yet they do
prove successful in the specific context in which they were applied. A great part of the beauty of
chess lies, in my opinion, in exactly this possibility of one, should the circumstances permit,
seeking the truth (or, more conventionally, victory!) in his own distinctive way.
The middlegame is the part of the game that allows self-expression in its purest form. While
opening paths have been charted and the best set-ups more or less clarified by many decades of
tournament practice, while endgame theory has advanced to great depths (not without the help of
powerful computers), middlegame play remains a mystery to many. It is sufficient to consider how
differently two distinctive players, such as Kramnik and Shirov for example, handle the one and
same opening position, to understand that the middlegame in chess is unfathomable and will take
ages before it is codified and made fully susceptible to computer analysis. The decision-making
process during the middlegame remains the most fertile field for the human brain to display its
power, ingenuity and creativity.
While this is so, one cannot ignore the systematization process carried out by tournament
practice. A set of clear strategic elements and general guidelines has emerged as the product of
hundreds of years of chess research. These elements and guidelines do not aim to force our brains
into pre-determined channels of thought, but rather to serve as tools for the better understanding of
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 2
chess positions and as aids to our creativity. Knowledge and understanding of these products of
experience will greatly assist our thinking process, much as the existence of the wheel was helpful
to the inventor of the car...
Apart from the exposition and discussion of several middlegame themes, one can also become
acquainted with other practical aspects of chess, not necessarily connected to moves but rather to
more abstract concepts, such as emotions. The middlegame is once again that part of the chess
game where these concepts are most applicable, as they are directly relevant to decision-making.
For someone aspiring to improve his play, these concepts should not be ignored.

The Endgame
The third world champion, the Cuban Jose Raul Capablanca, once expressed his opinion that the
study of chess should commence with the third and final phase of a chess game, the endgame. The
Cuban himself was a renowned master of this stage and his advice was undoubtedly provoked by
his personal experience. Many words have been spoken about the significance of endgame
knowledge and experience in practical play - there is no point in repeating them here.
Many people think that the qualities of a grandmaster, compared to an ordinary player, mostly
consist of superior opening preparation, greater calculating abilities and deeper understanding of
typical middlegame positions. If you, however, take a closer look at games from, say, a strong
open tournament, you will notice several cases where the grandmaster outplays a weaker player (or
even a fellow grandmaster) in the endgame, from more or less equal positions. You are often left
wondering how on earth one could lose such a simple position with so few pieces on the board.
And yet, in my personal experience, the last part of the game is where a well educated player can
set the opponent the most problems. The weight of each move increases, each mistake can prove
very costly, great accuracy is required. In our times, with the abolition of adjournments and the
increasingly faster time-controls, endgame knowledge has acquired greater significance than never
before.

Avoiding Trainers with a Flawed Technique (based on GM Nigel Davies)

It’s amazing how often you see players with talent essentially ruined through their assimilation
of their teacher’s flawed tendencies. Only the exceptionally talented manage to overcome this
obstacle, at which point the teacher will usually claim the credit anyway!
The result of flawed technique in teachers is that there are lots of students who acquire really bad
habits. I’ve had quite a few of them come to me, wondering why they seem to have hit a ceiling
with their results, despite only being fifteen or so. Usually, they’ve been pumped full of opening
systems, their untested teacher believing that this is somehow the most important thing.
Sometimes it’s superficial trick lines, sometimes it’s Garry Kasparov’s opening repertoire and
sometimes the lines suggested in some repertoire book that have been honed to the nth degree
(though not in Moscow). Can the students hope to recover?
Well yes, maybe. But for the unfortunate student it’s probably more traumatic than giving up
smoking as without the “systems” they will often have little to fall back on. I believe that the cure
is for people to immerse themselves in reading the autobiographical games collections of great
past players as it is like taking lessons with some of the greatest players in history.
With regard to the opening, the main problem is the belief that the opening is the basis of
victory. When you’ve got round this one then it isn’t hard to find alternatives amongst the zillion
solid openings that reach a playable middlegame. This is what Lajos Portisch wrote on the matter
in How to Open a Chess Game:
It is illogical for one who has not earned his master title to ape the complicated opening
variations played by, say, a world champion. After all, while the opening is indeed important in
chess, it is still only one part of the game; victory can be found as well in the middle game and
endgame. Your only tast in the opening is to reach a playable middle game (taking advantage of a
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 3
good middle game position requires instruction that is beyond the intentions of this book). What is
our task, then? How should we lay the foundations of our opening repertoire? It is hard to come
up with a single answer to satisfy every player. Individuals will have different objectives in the
opening, as well as different playing strengths. Nevertheless, to all players I can recommend the
following: simplicity and economy. These are the characteristics of the opening systems of many
great masters. They do not strain unduly for advantages in the opening; they would just as soon
move on the the next stage of the game, hoping their skill will overcome the opponent in the middle
game or endgame.
I think this is really wonderful advice, but as usual very few people will take it and might even
resent the fact that it has been offered! But one can see from Portisch’s games that he practiced
what he preached. And in his day he was known as one of the most outstanding opening
specialists, often playing quite simple variations.
So, we come to the conclusion that a good chess trainer is the one that trains his students in
every aspect of the game, pays attention to the opening phase but most important for him is to
focus on the middlegame and endgame various techniques and arm his students with the
knowledge of them. But above all he is a trainer without a Flawed Technique.

FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 4

 (Day 1: 17:00-17:45 - Grivas)

Middlegame & Endgame Theory

Every chess-player who wishes to improve his level in the difficult subject of chess is obliged,
first of all, to study methodically and understand the existing principles that govern the theory of
the opening, middlegame and endgame.
Most chess-players focus more on the study of opening theory than other aspects of the game.
The reasons are probably clear: opening theory is easier to learn and can provide immediate
results, although this is based more on the opponent's ignorance than our own abilities. Even for a
chess trainer, it is easier to teach some variations from this or that opening or a set of simple
tactical motifs than to engross himself in the exposition of middlegame and endgame theory.
Yes, middlegame and endgame theory does exist. The great difficulty in approaching it lies in
the fact that it does not follow absolute and clear-cut paths, but rather involves deep research in the
ideas and logic by which specific types of positions are treated. Moreover, unlike opening theory,
the theory of the middlegame and the endgame does not change rapidly based on modern
developments and remains almost intact through the years.
In view of the above, any chess-player who wishes to follow a chess career or simply become a
better player must refrain from the commonplace and assume a different approach. He must
develop a good understanding of middlegame and endgame theory, so as to be able in his games to
proceed in a proper way after his chosen opening has reached its conclusion. The chess-player can
differentiate himself only in the opening; there, each one of us brings forth his own beliefs and
convictions, and in general his own experiences and references. Objectively, no opening loses - but
also no opening wins. The opening is just the beginning of the journey and serves to offer us a
comfortable start. But to reach the end of this journey successfully we have to count on our
knowledge and experience, as regards middlegame and endgame theory.
Endgame theory teaches us two fundamental issues. First, how to extract the maximum from a
basic theoretical position with little material, where the experts (and practice comprising thousands
of games) have reached definite conclusions. Second, the way in which we can handle an
endgame, depending on the material remaining on the board, and the ideas and plans we should
employ. This second issue is significantly more difficult to master because, apart from making full
use of the first one (we must be aware of the possible outcomes of the endgame in question) it is
greatly influenced by our experience and understanding, which are basically derived from the
images and impressions we have from related positions. And, of course, a primary role is played
by the effort we have invested in studying.
In middlegame theory, things are even tougher. We are obliged to study various types of
positions with specific strategic and tactical attributes, so as to understand the underlying ideas and
be able to employ them ourselves in similar situations. Besides, while many chess-players have
studied these topics and acquired knowledge, it is the application of this knowledge in practice that
helps differentiate between them. True, chess is not a simple activity, but it becomes so much more
attractive when we acquire this knowledge...
The purpose of this seminar/course is to introduce the attendee to advanced training concepts,
using the same methods of presentation and instruction that were taught to me personally by
famous trainers that I have worked with. I owe to these people gratitude for their valuable
contribution to my progress as a chess-player. Besides, the fact that I succeeded in attaining the
grandmaster title is owed first and foremost to the education I received and then to my personal
work and effort.
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 5
 Sex Differences

1. The Difference Between Boys and Girls in

Chess (WWCC GM Suzan Polgar)
Can female players be as good in chess as male players? The answer to the above question is,
“yes.” But then how come very few female players can compete on the same level as their male
counterpart? That is the $64,000 question, yet it seems that very few people are concerned about
finding the answer. I will discuss the reasons for this and then I will offer my solutions for change:
Social Acceptance: In general, society does not encourage or really accept the concept of girls
playing chess. That makes it difficult to get girls involved in chess and even more difficult to
maintain their interest.
Family Acceptance: There is also little family acceptance for girls playing chess. Many parents
do not really understand or play chess well themselves. Some do not understand the benefits of
their daughters playing chess. Therefore, if the girls are not encouraged to play chess, it is more
natural for them not to play at all or to abandon it quickly. This is similar to the stereotype of boys
playing with cars and trucks, while girls play with Barbie dolls. Boys don’t play with Barbie dolls
because it is generally considered a girl thing. Many parents consider chess as a boy thing.
Opportunities: This point directly links to the social and family acceptance issues. Because of
the lack of family and social acceptance, fewer parents actually invest the time and money to
encourage their daughters to play chess. And the lack of encouragement or assistance directly
leads to fewer girls taking chess seriously.
Intimidation: Because the ratio between girls and boys at tournaments are so skewed (9 to 1
boys vs. girls), girls often get very intimidated. And because girls have fewer opportunities to learn
and play it leads to poor results, which leads to discouragement and eventually they quit. In
addition, boys are usually much more rough and competitive; many girls are teased and rather than
fighting back, they just don’t come back.
Different approach to the game: Boys and girls approach the game of chess very differently.
Most boys are results-oriented and focus on winning and losing. Girls are very different; they have
a greater appreciation for the artistic and social aspect of chess. The problem we face is that most
people expect girls to learn the game and enjoy it the same way as boys do. They don’t, and we as
educators, parents or coaches need to understand this. If we do not recognize this differences in
how boys and girls approach the game, how can we find a solution to fix it?
Different interest: If we want to keep girls in chess, we must keep the girls interested in the
game. We must find out what makes chess fun for the girls and what motivates them to maintain
their interest.
Physiological and Physical differences: As they get older, girls tend to develop faster in many
ways. They develop different interests and are often treated differently; they also have different
social problems. It is not easy being the “only” female player at a tournament. Many older girls
have to fend off unwanted advances and are often subjected to inappropriate remarks. Being chess
pioneers, my sisters and I faced many of these issues while competing in a male dominated chess
environment. No female player is immune to this. But I was able to focus on my chess because I
was encouraged and supported by my parents, and I was given the opportunities to learn and
compete in chess.
Chess Development and Improvement: We do not have specialized chess development and
improvement courses geared towards girls, something that addresses the differences between boys
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 6
and girls approach to the game. The same goes with chess camps or chess classes. The activities
and methods of teaching chess are more orientated for boys than girls.
Different standard and expectation: A chess rating is just number that measures the
competitive success of a player. Yet, as I mentioned above, girls are much less competitive than
boys. So if everything revolves around ratings, can we expect the same success in girls?
Career Longevity: Female players often must interrupt their careers in order to raise a family.
Solutions: Now I will offer some of my solutions to the above problems. Through my numerous
experiences with thousands of young female players and their parents across the country, I
discovered that girls do need and want a separate chess environment in which they are
comfortable. Only in such an environment can you encourage more girls to stay, play and learn
chess at a much higher ratio and level. This would give them a chance to advance and catch up
with the boys.
According to the statistics from the USCF, our federation is losing girls at an alarming rate after
3rd and 4th grade. For years the USCF has been unable to correct this problem on its own. I was
asked to try and reverse this trend and my solutions have been to:

Create more fun and exciting events for girls to motivate them to stay in chess longer.

Create a better atmosphere so young girls will be less intimidated.

Create activities that girls would enjoy and appreciate more.

Create more college scholarships as an incentive for girls to achieve better results.

Create a free training program to help the more serious and more talented girls excel to be
top-level players.
And much more…
All of the above initiatives have been funded by the Susan Polgar Foundation. My idea has
always been that the more girls who successfully play chess, the more motivated they will be to
remain in chess, which will increase the amount of good players. It’s all about the numbers.
In conclusion, girls can compete equally against boys and they can excel in chess if they are
given the same opportunities. Only then we can expect a growth in both numbers and strength. My
goal is to eventually close the gap between boys and girls in chess.

2. Sex Differences in Intellectual Performance

(Based on a research by
Christopher Chabris and Mark Glickman)
Is the disparity between women and men in the sciences the result of an innate difference in
cognitive ability or the result of some social phenomena such as selective participation or
discrimination? Chess is a good way to objectively study this question, since the rating system
tracks players throughout their careers.
Only 1% of the world's chess grandmasters are women. This underrepresentation is unlikely to
be caused by discrimination, because chess ratings objectively reflect competitive results. Using
data on the ratings of more than 250,000 tournament players over 13 years, we investigated several
potential explanations for the male domination of elite chess. We found that

The ratings of men are higher on average than those of women, but no more variable.

Matched boys and girls improve and drop out at equal rates, but boys begin chess
competition in greater numbers and at higher performance levels than girls.

In locales where at least 50% of the new young players are girls, their initial ratings are
not lower than those of boys. We conclude that the greater number of men at the highest
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 7
 levels in chess can be explained by the greater number of boys who enter chess at the
lowest levels.
There could be some innate difference in ability between men and women overall with respect to
the skill required to play chess well. This difference in average or in variability need not be large;
at the upper tail of the distribution where chess players operate for say spatial ability, a small
difference would result in a large difference in representation. They call this the ability distribution
hypothesis.
Discrimination could result in a difference in participation through different standards. However,
they note that this is not a problem for this particular study because Chess rankings are objective
measures. You can't discriminate against someone when their gender cannot be calculated into
their performance.
There could be a differential drop-out rate between boys and girls. Equal numbers of boys and
girls with equal abilities could begin chess training, but fewer girls could see it through to
becoming chess grandmasters. They call this the differential dropout hypothesis.
Fewer women could self-select to participate in chess. If fewer talented women choose to
participate in chess in the first place, by attrition alone there will be fewer in the resulting
grandmaster pool. They call this participation rate hypothesis.
After examining the data Chabris and Glickman come to the following conclusions:

Men and women differed in chess ability in all age groups even after differences like
frequency of play (read: level of training) or age were taken into account. The disparity
between men and women in ability exists at the beginning and persists across all age
groups.

No greater variance is to be found in men than women – if anything in most age groups
women had a higher variance than men.

Women and men do not drop out more or less frequently when ability and age are
factored out. For example, if you are not very good at chess you are more likely to stop
playing tournaments, but girls and boys that are equally good are equally likely to stop
playing. This strikes a blow at the differential dropout hypothesis.

If you look at the participation rate of women and relate that to performance, you find that
in cases where the participation rate of women and men is equal the disparity in ability
vanishes.
There is a mores extensive description in the Science blog Pure Pedentary, where the subject can
also be discussed.

FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 8

 (Day 1: 18:00-18:45 - Mikhalchishin)

Getting to Know Ourselves

It is essential to become acquainted with ourselves chesswise so as to be able to identify and
codify the assets and weaknesses of our chess personality. But how can this be done? Our basic
source shall be the games we have played so far. We must re-examine this material and produce an
'X-ray' image of our chess self. This examination must include all three parts of the game, opening,
middlegame and endgame, for each of our games.
Starting with the opening, we shall fill up two charts, one for the white and one for the black
pieces. These charts will provide very clear-cut information about ourselves (provided of course
that we do this work with strong self-criticism) and will show how well we understand the
openings we have chosen or, in the bottom line, whether these openings really suit our style
(difference between opening outcome and game result). The bigger the sample, the more accurate
the conclusions.

Opening Examination
Games with White Opening outcome Result of the game
Opponent Rating Opening + = - 1 ½ 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Totals

Here is an example of how to fill up these charts:

Opening Examination
Games with White Opening outcome Result of the game
Opponent Rating Opening + = - 1 ½ 0
1 Shirov,Alexei 2732 Sicilian Defence Χ Χ
2 Gelfand,Boris 2690 King’s Indian Χ Χ

Next, we shall move on to a similar chart in order to examine our performance in the
middlegame. This chart will contain our games with both White and Black, and requires a sample
of at least 40 games to produce reliable results.
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 9
 Middlegame Examination
Handling of the Result of the
Games with White & Black
middlegame game
General Type Middlegame type + = - 1 ½ 0
1 Open position
2 Strategy Semi-Open position
3 Closed position
4 Attack against the king
5 Tactics Defence of the king
6 Combinative play
Totals

An example of how to fill up the middlegame chart:

Middlegame Examination
Handling of the Result of the
Games with White & Black
middlegame game
General Type Middlegame type + = - 1 ½ 0
1 Open position 4 2 0 5 0 1
2 Strategy Semi-Open position 2 3 3 3 2 3
3 Closed position 0 3 3 0 0 6
4 Attack against the king 5 0 0 5 0 0
5 Tactics Defence of the king 1 0 4 1 1 3
6 Combinative play 6 2 2 5 4 1
Totals 18 10 12 19 7 14

We will then work similarly to create our endgame chart:

Endgame Examination
Games with White & Black Handling of the endgame Result of the game
Endgame Type + = - 1 ½ 0
1 Pawn endgame
2 Queen endgame
3 Rook endgame
4 Bishop endgame
5 Knight endgame
6 Combinations of the above
Totals

After completing this work we will have a much clearer picture of both our weaknesses and our
strengths. It is recommended to repeat this process at frequent intervals, provided of course that we
have gathered enough material from recent games. In this way we can evaluate our improvement
or discover other hidden aspects of ourselves.
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 10
 The Trainer
Chess books and databases can be of valuable help to the progress of an ambitious chess-player.
However, besides these indispensable tools, the role of the trainer is both significant and essential.
This consideration immediately spawns questions: who is the indicated trainer?
An answer to this question does not come easily...

Trainers’ Ranking
Every trainer is useful in specific stages in the progress of a chess-player. We could try to
categorize chess trainers as follows:

First-Level Trainer: The trainer who will teach the student the basics and bring him into
contact with the world of chess. One of his main aims is to infuse the student with love and respect
for chess.

Second-Level Trainer: The trainer who will teach the student his first openings, simple tactical
motifs and, generally, will introduce the student to the aspects of working and learning.

Third-Level Trainer: The trainer who will teach the student, first and foremost, the theory of
the middlegame and the endgame. Moreover, he will work closely with the student towards the
creation of the student's personalized openings repertoire, which he will also help enrich with new
ideas.

Fourth-Level Trainer: The trainer who will continue in the footsteps of the previous one, but
will also introduce the student to other important aspects of chess, such as the concept of and
preparation for competitive success. Trainers of such calibre and skill are very scarce, and are only
necessary to those chess-players who wish to reach a high level of play or seek competitive
success in any form.

FIDE Trainers` System

DEVELOPMENTAL INSTRUCTOR – DI
Qualification:
- knows the Rules of Chess
- rating of minimum 1400

Scope:
- simple instructions

DI Title may be awarded by regional Academies.

NATIONAL INSTRUCTOR – NI
Qualification:
- minimum two years experience as Development Instructor
- rating of minimum 1600
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 11
- trainees have minimum top 10 placings in recognized national level competitions

Scope:
- instruct/train players with rating up to 1600

NI Title may be awarded by regional Academies.

FIDE INSTRUCTOR – FI
Qualification:
- proposal/endorsement from National federation
- minimum two years experience as an instructor or National Instructor
- rating of minimum 1800

Scope:
- National examiner and conduct courses for Instructors from levels 1 and 2
- instruct/train players with rating below and up to 1800

FIDE TRAINER – FT
Qualification:
- proposal/endorsement from National federation
- minimum 5 years experience as a trainer
- tertiary education or FIDE Instructor
- rating of minimum 2300 or for a time
- speaks one of the FIDE languages

Scope:
- National examiner and conduct Course for FIDE Instructors from level 1 to 3
- train players with rating 2301 – 2450

FIDE SENIOR TRAINER – FST

Qualification:
- proposal/endorsement from National federation
- minimum 10 years experience as a trainer or FIDE Trainer
- tertiary education
- rating of minimum 2450 or for a time
- speaks English
- have World/International successes

Scope:
- National examiner
- conduct Courses for FIDE Instructors/Trainers from level 3 upwards
- train players with rating above 2450

Title Awarded Title award (one-time fee) License fee (valid for two years)
FIDE Instructor 100 Euro 60 Euro
FIDE Trainer 200 Euro 120 Euro
FIDE Senior Trainer 300 Euro 180 Euro

FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 12

 (Day 1: 19:00-19:45 - Mikhalchishin)
The Golden Rules of the Endgame
The endgame is the moment of truth. It is the phase of the game where we will try to reap the
seeds of our effort, regardless of whether that is the full point of victory or the half point of the
draw. In the endgame the significance of errors increases, as the opportunities for correcting them
are few. The following rules are considered to be the Golden Rules of the Endgame. They were
recorded by GMs Reuben Fine and Pal Benko, two of the world's greatest experts in this field:

1. Start thinking about the endgame in the middlegame.

2. Somebody usually gets the better deal in every exchange.

3. The king is a strong piece: Use it!

4. If you are one or two pawns ahead, exchange pieces but not pawns.

5. If you are one or two pawns behind, exchange pawns but not pieces.

6. If you have an advantage, do not leave all the pawns on one side.

7. A distant passed pawn is half the victory.

8. Passed pawns should be advances as rapidly as possible.

9. Doubled, isolated and blockaded pawns are weak: Avoid them!

10. The easiest endings to win are pure pawn endings.

11. Passed pawns should be blockaded by the king, the only piece that is not harmed by watching a
pawn is the knight.

12. Two bishops vs bishop and knight constitute a tangible advantage.

13. Bishops are better than knights in all except blocked pawn positions.

14. Do not place your pawns on the colour of your bishop.

15. The easiest endings to draw are those with bishops of opposite colours.

16. Rooks belong behind passed pawns.

17. A rook on the seventh rank is sufficient compensation for a pawn.

18. Not all rook endings are drawn!

19. Perpetual check looms in all queen endings.

20. Every move in the endgame is of the utmost importance because you are closer to the moment
of truth.
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 13
 Pawn Endings – Part 1
Pawn endings are fundamental to the education of an aspiring chessplayer. The reason is
obvious: no matter which other type of ending we encounter, there will always be moments when
the possibility of a transition (through exchanges) to a pawn ending will force us to properly
evaluate its positive or negative properties and accordingly make our decision.
Many games never reach the endgame. However, every good chessplayer, even in the heat of the
battle, must consider the endings that can possibly arise in the course of the game. Our opening
moves must take into account the consequences they may impose on a future ending. Doubled,
isolated, immobilized or passed pawns, strong and weak squares - in general, all the positional
elements, positive or negative, must be considered and evaluated. Anticipation of a favourable
ending or fear of an inferior one will often influence our decisions in the middlegame, in the sense
of selecting or rejecting certain continuations. When dissatisfied with a prospective ending we will
often opt for unclear complications or serious material or positional concessions. In the end, our
evaluation of the endings that may arise will affect the entire course of the battle.
In comparison with other types of endings, very few games actually reach a pawn ending. Based
on this fact, many chessplayers tend to underestimate its rich content and significance. It would be
wrong to assume that perfect knowledge of its technical side is easy to master and that,
consequently, its study is ‘unimportant’. The pawn ending lurks behind every position and its
proper knowledge and evaluation can prove very useful to our decision-making process.
Pawn endings have their own specifics, that set them apart from other types of endings. Their
main characteristic is the significant role of the king, which transforms himself from a subject of
protection by the other pieces to the most useful piece in combat. As a rule, the active participation
of the king in the proceedings decides the outcome of a pawn ending. Also, the worth of pawns is
greatly increased, thanks to their unique ability to promote to any other piece. Consequently, the
basic aim in a pawn ending is to create a passed pawn and promote it. The ‘transformation’ of the
pawn can be considered as an original way of gaining material! Such a drastic change in the
material balance between the opponents is usually sufficient to cease further resistance. The threat
of promotion, or even that of creating a passed pawn, is a powerful weapon in itself.
In pawn endings the king is the main motivating power, guiding and coordinating the advance of
the pawns. As a rule, the king heads for the centre, from where, according to needs, he can be
directed to either flank, usually to attack enemy pawns. The king also executes complex
manoeuvres, aiming to occupy or defend critical squares, or to force the opponent to move
himself, i.e. to create a zugzwang position.
Behind the ‘simplicity veil’ that covers pawn endings, quite often one can discover true gems
and fantastic opportunities!
The main elements of pawn ending education can be classified as follows:

A. Opposition B. Rules C. Technique

A1. Close opposition B1. Promotion square C1. Triangulation
A2. Distant opposition B2. Promotion count C2. Breakthrough
A3. Knight opposition B3. Advance of separated passed pawns C3. Passed pawn
B4. Critical squares C3.1.Outside passed pawn
B5. Corresponding squares C3.2.Protected passed pawn

The concept of the opposition is defined as
follows: when the two kings are placed
opposite of each other, separated by an odd
number of squares (one, three or five), then
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
the side not on the move has the opposition.
The significance of the opposition lies in the
obligation of the opponent to move, thus
forcing him to make concessions that will
14
allow us to achieve our goal.
The great chess-player and theoretician P.
++++
A. Romanovsky offered a simpler definition: ++++
‘The opposition is the placement of the
kings opposite each other in such a way, so
++++
that a zugzwang is brought about’. ++++
The definition of the universally accepted
German chess term ‘zugzwang’ itself +
++
implies the obligation (or the right) of the
weaker side to make a move, a fact that
++++
doesn't support its interests.

The opposition has the leading role. With
Close Opposition White to move, the game is drawn after
The close opposition can occur on a rank, 1.Ke3 Ke5 2.d4+ Kd5 3.Kd3 Kd6!. If
file or diagonal. however Black is on the move then he loses:
1...Ke5 2.Kc4 Kd6 3.Kd4! Kc6 4.Ke5 Kd7
Example 1 ○ 5.d3 Ke7 6.Kd5 Kd7 7.d4!

 We can thus formulate the following rule: If
the attacking king has reached the square
++++ right in front of his pawn, then the result of
++++ the game depends entirely on which side is
to move.
+
++ 1-0
Example 3 ○
++++


++++
++++
++++
++++
++++
++++
++++
++
+


The simplest form of close opposition. The
++++
side to move is unable to achieve its goal. If ++++
White is to move, then by
1.d7+ ++++
After 1.Kd5 Kd7 2.Kc5 Kd8! 3.Kc6 Kc8
Black regains the opposition (½-½). If Black
++++
is to move, then he loses after 1...Kd8 2.d7

Kc7 3.Ke7 (1-0). An exception occurs when the pawn has
1...Kd8 2.Kd6 crossed its 4th rank. Then, the attacking side
a stalemate is brought about. wins regardless of who is to move!
½-½ 1.Kf6 Kf8 2.e6 Ke8 3.e7 Kd7 4.Kf7 1-0
Example 2 ●

 Another exception is caused by the rook
pawns (a and h), where: if the defending
++++ king controls the promotion square or can
++++ prevent the escape of the attacking king
from it, then the game is drawn.

FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 15

 (Day 2: 15:00-15:45 - Grivas)
Queen Endings
Queen endings are one of the most
difficult and at the same time interesting
types of endings. The difficulty lies in the
usually immense number of variations and
moves that occur due to the corresponding
mobility of the most powerful chess piece,
the queen.
The rules that govern queen endings are
many and significant. The side with the
advantage, either a material or a positional
one, has several ways in which to seek
victory, such as a direct attack aiming at
checkmate, the exploitation of a passed
pawn, the constant pressure on a weak pawn
structure or, finally, the conversion of a
material plus. The defending side mainly has
one single aim, perpetual check, although it
is not necessarily unique. In this specific
type of ending we encounter certain special
characteristics, brought to the fore by the
great power of the queen. Thus, the problem
of the defending side delivering perpetual
check is not the only one facing the attacker.
In an effort to formulate some rules, we
arrive at the following:
1. In several cases, there exists (usually for
the side with the advantage) the possibility
to attack the enemy king, aiming for
checkmate, by penetrating deep into the
enemy camp with the king, in cooperation
with the queen. This is a special case, which
can prove useful in endings with few pawns
(e.g. Q + 3 pawns vs Q + 2 pawns, with all
pawns on the same side). Winning chances
are clearly superior to those in any kind of
related rook ending.
2. The king is better protected from
perpetual check when he penetrates the
enemy camp or attacks enemy pawns, than
when he passively stays ‘at home’,
inadequately protected by his pawns. In the
first case the king has more squares at his
disposal, while the task of the checking
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
enemy queen is complicated by the necessity
to also protect squares and pawns.
Consequently, an attack on an enemy pawn
is the surest way to evade a series of checks,
as even the queen is unable to
simultaneously deliver constant checks
while also protecting the pawn. On the other
hand, in certain positions it is simpler not to
capture the enemy pawn, intending to use it
as a cover from the checks.
3. A stabilized centre greatly favours the
attacking side, but even in open positions a
centralized queen deprives its counterpart
many checking possibilities.
4. A weak complex of squares around the
enemy king can be occupied by the king-
queen duo, leading to their penetration into
the enemy lines.
5. The queen cannot be prevented from
escorting a passed pawn all the way to the
8th rank. Possession of a passed pawn
usually is the most decisive factor. It can
decide an equal ending or save an inferior
one, often even while being several pawns
down.
6. In most other types of endings, two
connected passed pawns would confer upon
their possessor a huge advantage, but in
queen endings this isn't particularly
significant, as even an isolated passed pawn
can be efficiently supported and advances.
In queen endings, how far is a pawn
advanced is more significant than in any
other ending.
7. If the king of the defending side has
been placed in front of the enemy passed
pawn, then the draw is usually simple.
Moreover, the king of the attacking side
must not be placed in front of its pawn.
8. The attacking side must aim to place its
king on the same or neighbouring rank (or
file) to the opponent's king (this advice also
applies when there is a large number of
1
pawns on the board).
9. The more advanced a passed pawn is,
++++
the less are the opponent's chances to draw ++++
the game.
10. When there exists a passed pawn on a
++++
rook- or knight-file, the king of the ++++
defending side should aim to place itself
near the corner diametrically opposed to that ++
+
of the pawn's queening square. In this way
the attacking side has less opportunities of
++++
avoiding perpetual check, as the possibilities 
of giving a check that would force a queen The procedure is simple: the black king will
exchange are reduced. For a rook pawn, be forced onto the square in front of his
drawing chances are significantly higher pawn. Every time this happens, the white
than for any other, as in a large number of king will be able to approach by one square,
cases the defending side can proceed to a until in the end the pawn is captured.
queen exchange. 1.Qf7+ Kg2 2.Qe6 Kf2 3.Qf5+ Kg2 4.Qe4+
11. The closer the passed pawn is to the Kf2 5.Qf4+ Kg2 6.Qe3 Kf1 7.Qf3+! Ke1
edge of the board, the greater the drawing 8.Kc6 Kd2 9.Qf2 Kd1 10.Qd4+ Kc2
chances. With central pawns, as well as 11.Qe3 Kd1 12.Qd3+! Ke1 13.Kd5 Kf2
those on the c- or f-file, practically all 14.Qd2 Kf1 15.Qf4+ Kg2 16.Qe3 Kf1
positions with a remote defending king are 17.Qf3+! Ke1 18.Ke4 Kd2 19.Qd3+! Ke1
lost. With pawns on the b- or g-file many are 20.Kf3 Kf1 21.Qxe2+ Kg1 22.Qg2#
lost, while with rook pawns, in the majority 1-0
of cases the draw is within reach, although
even here the defence remains difficult. Example 2 ○
12. The queen must be placed on central
squares (this usually also applies to the


queen of the defending side). The closer the ++++
attacking queen is to the edge of the board,
the tougher the win; in addition, the ++++
possibility of the defending side delivering
perpetual check is significantly higher.
++++
++++
Queen vs Pawn
In queen vs pawn endings things are
+
+++
simple. The queen wins against any pawn +++Q+
that has not reached its 7th rank. With a
pawn on the 7th, the queen is unable to win +++
against an a-, c-, f- or h-pawn. In order to
comprehend why, we must be familiar with
+++

the winning process against a-, b-, d-, e- or 
g-pawn that has reached its 7th rank. In accordance with the previous example,
Black succeeds to draw.
Example 1 ○ 1.Qg3+ Kh1!

 This stalemate idea is the solution to Black's
problem. White is unable to gain time for the
++Q++ approach of his king.
+
+++ ½-½

Consequently, the queen can win only in

FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 2
cooperation with the king. An important Example 4 ●
exception occurs in some positions with a
rook pawn.


++++
Example 3 ○
++
+


++Q+
++++
++++
+Q
++
++++
++++
+++
++++
++++
++++
++++
++++

++++ 1...Qc5+ 2.Kf7 Qh5+ 3.Qg6 Qf3+ 4.Ke7
 +++ Qb7
Nothing is changed by 4...Qa3+ 5.Qd6 Qa7
 6.Ke8 Qe3+ 7.Qe7.
White can win this position when his king is 5.Qd3+ Kg2 6.Qc4 Qa7 7.Qe4+ Kh3 8.Ke8
on one of the following squares: a7, a6, a5, 1-0
a4, a3, b6, b5, b4, b3, c7, c6, c5, c4, c3, c2,
c1, d5, d4, d3, d2, d1, e4, e3, e2, e1. □ Botvinnik,Mikhail
1.Kb6! Kb2 2.Kc5+ Kc2 ■ Tal,Mikhail
The best (2...Ka1 3.Kb4!). D40 Moscow Wch m (23) 1960
3.Qe4+ Kb2 4.Qe2+ Kb1
Or 4...Kb3 5.Qe5!.


5.Kc4!! a1Q 6.Kb3! Qd4 7.Qe1+ ++++
1-0
+++ 
Queen vs Pawns ++++
In general, the queen wins more easily
against two and three pawns, while against ++Q++
four or more the placement of the pawns is
of primary importance, with every result
++
+
possible. The queen is a powerful piece, but +++
in exceptional cases can be made to look
very weak...
+++
++++
Queen & Pawn vs Queen
The outlines of this ending are best 
described by rule 11 of the introduction to This typical ending occurred in a game of
this chapter. the 1960 match for the World
In the following example we can see how Championship. Black drew without undue
a central pawn secures victory, with the effort.
placement of the defending king playing no 49...f5+! 50.Kg5
significant role (provided, of course, that he The defence would be even easier after
is not placed in front of the pawn). 50.Qxf5 Qxd4+, as the black king is situated
in front of the enemy pawn. Thus, any queen
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 3
exchange would be convenient for Black.
50...Qxg3+ 51.Kxf5 Qg6+ 52.Kf4 Qf6+
++++
53.Ke3 Kf8 54.Kd3 Qf1+ ++++
Although the result is not affected, 54...Ke7
is more accurate.
++Q

55.Ke4 Qg2+  ++++
55...Ke7 is best again, bringing the king in
the path of the white pawn. ++++
56.Ke5 Qg5+ 57.Ke6 Qe7+ 58.Kf5 (D) ++++

 ++++
++ + 
+++ 74.Qf6?!
++++ Bad is 74.Kh6? Qh4+ 75.Kg7, as the white
king ends up in front of his pawn. The move
++Q+
+ in the game also fails to satisfy, especially
since 74.Kf5! Qc8+ 75.Kf4! Qc1+ 76.Qe3
+++ Qc7+ 77.Kg4 Qd7+ (77...Qg7 78.Kg5!)
++++ 78.Kh4 Qd8+ 79.Kg3 would have won
without problems (79...Qd6+ 80.Qf4+).
++++ 74...Qd5+ 75.Qf5 Qd8+ 76.Kh5
++++ Trying to exploit the placement of the black
king to enforce a queen exchange. It is
 evident that the black king is misplaced and
58...Qc7! should head diametrically opposite the
Clearly inferior would have been pawn, to the corner of the board (a1).
58...Qf7+?! 59.Ke5 Qh5+?! (59...Qe7+!) However, Black was basing his play on a
60.Kd6 and Black can no longer exchange faulty analysis by Paul Keres, which claimed
queens, while the checks are soon bound to that the black king should remain on the a4-
run out. Moreover, the black king will be and a5-squares.
driven away from the white pawn, to the g- 76...Qe8
file. Mikhail Tal's comment at this point No better is 76...Qd1+ 77.Qg4+! or
was: ‘In a strange way, it is evident that only 76...Qh8+ 77.Kg4 Qg7 (77...Qd4+ 78.Qf4)
with this move does Black secure the draw... 78.Qf7! Qc3 79.g7.
White's pieces are now optimally placed. So 77.Qf4+?
optimally, that any move simply worsens his 77.Kg4! Qe2+ 78.Kf4 Qd2+ 79.Ke5 Qb2+
position’. 80.Kd6 Qb8+ 81.Ke7 Qb4+ 82.Kf7 Qb7+
59.Qa8+ Ke7 60.Qe4+ Kd8 61.Qh4+ Kc8 83.Kf6 Qb6+ 84.Qe6 would bring victory.
62.Qh8+ Kb7 63.Qe5 Qf7+ 64.Ke4 Qg6+ 77...Ka5?
65.Qf5 Qd6 66.Qf7+ Kc8 67.Qf5+ Kd8 As explained above, 77...Ka3! would offer
68.Qa5+ Ke8 69.d5 Ke7 70.Qa7+ Kd8 excellent drawing chances.
71.Qa8+ Kd7 72.Kf5 Ke7 78.Qd2+ Ka4 79.Qd4+ Ka5 80.Kg5 (D)
½-½

□ Botvinnik,Mikhail ++++
■ Minev,Nikolay
D47 Amsterdam OL 1954
++++

 ++++
+++  ++

FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 4
 +Q++ honoured his title!
79...Qg7+?
++++ A serious error, helping only White. After
79...Qg3 or 79...Qc4 the game would remain
++++ within the boundaries of the draw.
++++ 80.Qf7! Qg3
Compulsory (80...Qe5+? 81.Qe6+).
 81.Qf6+ Kc7 82.Qg5?
It is now easy to explain why White's 74th The queen must occupy central squares.
move (74.Qf6?!) was less accurate than 82.h5 was natural and would have lead to
74.Kf5!. The queen should not abandon the victory, several moves later.
central squares without a specific reason. 82...Qa3+ 83.Kf7 Qb3+ 84.Kg7 (D)
80...Qe7+ 81.Kf5 Qf8+ 82.Ke4 Qh6
83.Qe5+ Ka4 84.g7


The white pawn has managed to advance ++++
and the result now becomes clear. The
following moves are also instructive. The
+ +

last act consists of a direct ‘attack’ by the ++++
white king on his black counterpart, under
the necessary precautions, in order to +++Q
achieve a queen exchange. This procedure,
‘king against king’, is standard in queen
+++
endings. ++++
84...Qh1+ 85.Kd4 Qd1+ 86.Kc5 Qc1+
87.Kd6 Qd2+ 88.Ke6 Qa2+ 89.Qd5 Qe2+
++++
90.Kd6 Qh2+ 91.Kc5! ++++
As now White is either queening or
exchanging queens, Black had to resign. 
1-0 84...Qc3+?
An equal (but certainly not yet drawn; to
□ Shamkovich,Leonid achieve this result a lot of hard work is
■ Wirthensohn,Heinz necessary) would occur after 84...Qb2+.
B83 Biel 1980 There is no deep philosophical explanation;

 the king now keeps getting in the queen's
way in some lines.
++++ 85.Qf6 Qg3+ 86.Kh7?
A fundamental mistake (the king in front of
++
+ the pawn). Any of 86.Qg5, 86.Kf7 or 86.Kf8
 +++ would have won.
86...Qh3 87.Qg5 Kb6?
++++Q Since the black king has no time to move
+++ towards the appropriate corner, diametrically
opposite the pawn, he should approach it
++++ with 87...Kd7/d6, with a draw.
88.h5 Qd7+ 89.Qg7?
++++ White worsens the placement of his queen.
++++ Any king move would have led to victory.
89...Qh3?
 The black queen ‘forgets’ about control of
A difficult ending that should objectively the central squares. 89...Qd5! would have
end in a draw. In any case, neither opponent drawn.
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 5
90.Qe5! placed defending king is of great help to the
The white queen finally assumes a attacking side.
centralized position and the black king is
misplaced (neither too near nor too far from
the pawn). The position is now won and,
most importantly, White finally stopped
producing mistakes!
90...Qd7+ 91.Kg6 Qd3+ 92.Qf5 Qg3+
93.Kf7 Qc7+ 94.Kg8 Qb8+ 95.Kg7 Qc7+
96.Qf7 Qh2 97.h6 Ka5 98.h7 Qe5+ 99.Qf6
Qg3+ 100.Kh6! (D)


++++
++++
++Q

 +++
++++
+++
++++
++++

Black resigned in view of 100...Qh2+
101.Kg6!, when he runs out of checks
thanks to the correct placement of the white
king (on a neighbouring rank to that of its
counterpart).
1-0

Conclusion
In general, we can say that the queen &
pawn vs queen ending is won when the
pawn is on the c-, d-, e- or f-file and has
reached the 7th rank, while with edge pawns
(a-, b-, g-, h-) there are good drawing
chances. The defending king, when unable
to place himself in front of the pawn, must
move as far away as possible. A badly

FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 6

 (Day 2: 16:00-16:45 - Grivas)

Rooks Endings
Rook endings are, in my personal opinion, the most fascinating element of chess. Rich in both
tactical and strategical possibilities, they offer us the opportunity to marvel at their endless creative
potential and unique ideas.
Of all chess endings (pawn, queen, rook, bishop and knight), rook endings are the ones
encountered most frequently. Like all aspects of chess technique, rook endings encompass a
significant amount of theoretical knowledge, which we have to be aware of - just like our
openings. In this way we will be able to make correct decisions at important junctures of the game,
decisions that will either promise us victory or allow us to secure the draw.
This part of the present book endeavours to cover this theoretical field and help the reader
assimilate this knowledge and understand in depth the proper handling of rook endings. This
certain part itself is too small to cover all aspects of this subject, but is a good start!
There are five basic principles that must be followed faithfully, in order to be sure that we have
obeyed our ‘duty’, so to speak:
1. Rook behind the pawn: The placement of the rooks in relation to the pawns is very significant.
The rook must be placed behind the pawn, whether the pawn is ours or the opponent's. With every
move the pawn makes, the radius of our rook will increase and that of the opponent's will
decrease.
2. Active rook: In all rook endings, the active handling of the rook is almost always the indicated
course of action. The initiative and attacking possibilities must always figure in our plans and
moves.
3. Active king: As in all endings, the active king has the first say, as the endgame is its finest
hour. Particularly when it can cooperate harmoniously with the rook, it can dynamically help us
solve the problems posed by the position.
4. Planning: Our moves must be part of one or more plans. Active plans must be directed
towards the sector of the board where we are superior and, correspondingly, defensive plans must
be directed towards the area where we are inferior.
5. Combination of all the above: When we are able to combine all of the above-mentioned
elements, then we will be able to extract the maximum from our position!

Rook vs Pawn the king from assisting the pawn's advance.

This ending usually arises as a result of a
mutual effort for promotion of a pawn, after
one of the two sides has been forced (or will
soon be forced) to sacrifice its rook for the
enemy pawn. The basic principles that apply
are:
1. For victory, the king and rook must both
succeed in controlling one of the squares
that the enemy pawn must cross.
2. For the side with the pawn, in order to
have drawing chances the king must have
reached at least his fourth rank. Otherwise,
the rook is able to single-handedly prevent
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
3. In general, the pawn must advance
before its king does.
4. The rook must usually be placed on its
7th or 8th rank, acting from behind the pawn
and thus retaining a large radius of action.
5. In order to achieve the draw, the
defending side must support the advance of
its pawn with the king and simultaneously
prevent the enemy king from approaching
the pawn.
By abiding to the above guidelines we will
be, in most cases, able to achieve our goal.
The positions that occur in these endings can
7
hardly be calculated through to the end,
while another negative factor is that these
endings usually arise at a moment when the
thinking time remaining is minimal.
Example 1 ○


++++
++++ remember that there will always be
two kings are facing each other (opposition).
4...Kb2 5.Kd2! Ka2 6.Rb8!
The most reliable method. 6.Kc3 b2 7.Ra8+
Kb1 8.Rb8 Ka1!? 9.Kc2! also wins.
6...b2
Or 6...Kb2 7.Rb7! Ka2 8.Kc3.
7.Kc2
1-0
Before closing this chapter we have to
++
+ exceptions to the rules, and thus we must
always be very attentive. The following
+
++ example stems from a study by J.Barbier &
+++ F.Saavedra (1895).

++++ Example 2 ○
++++

++++ ++++
 ++++
A characteristic position, where the result 
+++
depends on which side is to move. If White
is to move, then he wins. Black to move can ++++
achieve a draw.
1.Ke5!
++++
The only correct move. Since the black king ++++
is already on its 4th rank, the white rook
cannot prevent him from supporting the
++++
pawn's advance. 1.Rg4? b3! and 2...b2 
+++
doesn't help, while 1.Rb8? Kc4! is also
erroneous. In order to win, White must bring 
his king to the b-file as quickly as possible. White to play and win!
But if Black is to move, then he can draw: 1.c7 Rd6+! 2.Kb5
1...b3 (1...Kc4 also achieves a draw) 2.Ke5 2.Kc5 Rd1! leads to a draw.
Kc4 3.Ke4 (or 3.Rc8+ Kd3! and Black saves 2...Rd5+ 3.Kb4 Rd4+ 4.Kb3 Rd3+ 5.Kc2
the game) 3...b2 4.Rb8 Kc3 5.Ke3 Kc2. The Black has run out of checks and there seems
evaluation of the position proves simpler, as to be no salvation for him.
Black, having an important extra tempo, is 5...Rd4!!
not forced to interfere with the pawn's path Intending 6.c8Q? Rc4+ 7.Qxc4 stalemate!
after 6.Rc8+ Kb3! (or 6...Kd1!, but note that However, White has one more hidden ace.
6...Kb1? loses). 6.c8R!
1...Kc4 2.Ke4! Threatening 7.Ra8 mate.
White brings his king as close to the black 6...Ra4 7.Kb3!
pawn as possible, while at the same time
restricting the black king to the maximum.


2...Kc3 3.Ke3! b3 4.Rc8+! ++++
This particular check on the c-file is the
basic method of forcing the black king out of
++++
the white king's way to the pawn, when the
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 8
 ++++ not advanced further than their 4th rank. If
one of the pawns has reached the 6th rank
++++ then it offers good drawing chances, while a
pawn on the 7th actually forces the side with
++++ the rook to fight for the draw.
+
+++ 5. Connected passed pawns are much
stronger than isolated ones.
++++ 6. When facing isolated pawns, the rook

+++ must first act against the pawn that is

And Black either loses his rook or is mated
by 8.Rc1!.
An impressive study, clearly illustrating the
hidden possibilities that can exist in a
seemingly simple ending.
1-0
Rook vs Pawns
Just like the Rook vs Pawn ending, this
one also usually arises from a mutual
promotion effort, where one side has been
forced (or will be forced) to give up its rook
for the opponent's pawn.
When the rook must face two or more
pawns, things become quite complicated.
For the exact evaluation of each position one
must pay great attention to the placement of
the kings, the pawn structure and the
placement of the rook.
The multiple possible cases make
generalizations unlikely, although one
eventually has to resort to them in order to
clarify our subject. Thus, the following
supported by its king.
7. In all cases both kings aim to approach
the pawns. The pawns need the support of
their king in order to advance, while the
enemy king aims to block their advance by
placing himself in front of them.
8. The rook usually stops the pawns more
effectively from its 1st rank.
9. If the side with the rook also has a
pawn, then its chances increase dramatically,
as the pawn can usually become a passed
one.
Example 3 ○


+++
++++
+++
+++
++++
+
++

principles can be of help in evaluating the
relevant positions:
1. In very general terms, if the king of the
superior side (the side with the rook) is close
to the pawns, then the superior side wins
against two pawns and draws against three
or four.
2. Two or more pawns win if they are
sufficiently advanced, provided that their
king can support them and the enemy king is
remote.
3. Two connected passed pawns, in the
absence of kings, win if they have both
reached their 6th rank; otherwise, in most
cases the rook wins.
4. Against three connected pawns, the rook
wins if his king is near and the pawns have
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
++++
++++

Our first example is instructive for the
potential of connected pawns. The white
pawns are sufficiently advanced and can be
supported by their king, while the black king
is far away. It is thus simple to deduce that
White has good winning chances. But how
can he actually win? With principle #3 in
mind, the aim is to achieve the advance of
the g-pawn to the 6th rank.
1.Kh4!
White cannot win with 1.Kf4? Kc4 2.Ke5
(2.Kf5 Rf8+! [2...Kd5? 3.g6! Rxh6 4.g7]
9
3.Ke6 [3.Kg4 Kd5! 4.g6 Ke6] 3...Rh8! and 4.Kxf5? g3 -+.
Black holds the draw) 2...Kd3! (2...Kc5!? 4...Kg6
3.Kf6 Kd6 4.Kg7 Ra8 5.h7 Ke6 6.h8Q [6.g6 Black must avoid squares h5 and h7, and
Kf5!] 6...Rxh8 7.Kxh8 Kf5 is also drawn) prevent the capture of the f-pawn with
3.Kf6 (3.Kf5 Ke3 4.g6 Rxh6 5.g7 Rh5+! check.
6.Kg6 Rh1) 3...Ke4 4.Kg7 Ra8 5.h7 Kf5 5.Re6+
6.g6 Kg5 7.h8Q Rxh8 8.Kxh8 Kxg6. 5.Rxf5? h2 6.Rg5+ Kh6 -+.
1...Kc4 2.Kh5 Kd5 3.g6 Ke6 4.g7 Ra8 5.h7 5...Kg7
The presence of the white king helped 5...Kh7? 6.Kg5 Kg7 7.Rg6+ Kh7 8.Rh6+
release the power of his connected passed Kg7 9.Rh5 +-.
pawns. 6.Rd6 Kf7 7.Rh6 Kg7 8.Rh5
1-0 8.Kg5 f4! =.
8...Kg6 9.Rg5+ Kh6 10.Rg8 Kh7 11.Rd8
Returning to principle #4 (three connected Kg7
pawns), we have to examine some specific ½-½
rules that they might be helpful:
4a. Three pawns on the fifth or beyond win Rook & Pawn vs Rook
against the rook in the absence of the kings.
4b. Three pawns on the fourth, supported Lucena Position
by their king and in the absence of the The most important theoretical position for
opponent king, may also win. the conversion of an extra pawn to a win in a
4c. Three pawns that they are not all on the rook ending is the so called ‘Lucena
fifth, in the absence of their king loses. Position’. The superior side must always
With the enemy king directly in front of seek to bring about this position and,
the pawns, the critical position can be seen accordingly, the defender must always seek
in the next example: to prevent it.

Example 4 ○ Example 5 ●



++++ +++
+
++++ ++

++++ ++++
+++
 ++++
++++ ++++
+++
 ++++
++++ ++++
++++ ++++
 
This is a draw position. Pawns on sixth, fifth The main characteristics of the Lucena
and fourth rank, lose. Pawns on fourth, third position are: The king of the superior side is
and second rank, win. placed on the 8th rank, in front of his pawn,
1.Rf2 Kg6 2.Kf4 Kf6 where he cannot be harassed by some
2...Kh5 3.Rd2 Kh4? 4.Rd6 Kh5 5.Re6 h2 important check. The defending king is cut
6.Re8 +-. off from the pawn by only one rank
3.Re2 Kf7 4.Re5 (otherwise the win is even simpler). The
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 10
Lucena position is won for all pawns except
the rook pawns (a and h), regardless of
which side is to move. From the diagram
position, and giving Black the move, one
possible continuation could be the
following:
1...Rh2
The black rook must stay on the h-file. After
1...Ra1 2.Rh3! and 3.Kh7 White wins.
2.Rf4!
The first step of the basic winning method,
called the ‘bridge’.
2...Rh1 3.Re4+! Kd7
Also hopeless is 3...Kf6 4.Kf8!.
4.Kf7 Rf1+ 5.Kg6 Rg1+ 6.Kf6 Rf1+
There are no defensive resources in waiting
either. After 6...Rg2 7.Re5! and 8.Rg5 White
completes the ‘bridge’. Likewise, after
6...Kd6 7.Rd4+! Kc6 (7...Kc7 8.Rd5! and
9.Rg5) 8.Rd8! White wins.
7.Kg5! Rg1+ 8.Rg4!
The bridge is complete and the white pawn
will promote.
1-0
How the Lucena position can arise will be
examined in the next example. White wins if
he is to move.
Example 6 ○


++++ Its main characteristics are that the
drawn pawn ending. If White retains the
rooks with 2.Ra1 Kf7!, Black would succeed
in bringing about the Philidor position and
draw. Now White is ready to advance his g-
pawn. Since passive defence does not bring
any results, Black has nothing better than to
start checking.
1...Rh8+ 2.Kg6 Rg8+ 3.Kh6 Rh8+ 4.Kg7
Rh2 5.g6 Rg2
Black is trying to avoid the Lucena position
(King on g8, pawn on g7) but all he can
achieve is to slightly delay its appearance.
6.Kh7! Rh2+ 7.Kg8! Rg2 8.g7
White has reached the Lucena position and
wins, as described in the previous example.
1-0
Like in almost all endings, the rook pawns
(a and h) are the least desirable for the
attacker in rook endings as well. Even in the
favourable case that a Lucena position has
been reached, the defending king must be
cut off for at least three files. Thus, if White
has an a-pawn and the black rook controls
the b-file, the black king must be not nearer
than on the f-file in order for White to win.
1-0
Philidor Position
Just as the superior side is always aiming
for the Lucena position, the defending side
has a similar haven in the Philidor position.
defending king is placed in front of the pawn
++
+ and the defending rook controls its 3rd rank,
++++ preventing the attacking king from reaching
his 6th rank. The Philidor position is drawn
+++ for all 8 pawns, regardless of which side is
+++
+ to move.

++++ Example 7 ○
++++

++++ ++
++
 ++++
1.Kh5! ++++
If Black is to move, he would be able to
achieve a draw with 1...Rf8!. White has no ++
+
satisfactory continuation, as both 2.Rxf8
Kxf8 and 2.Rf5 Rxf5! 3.Kxf5 Kf7 lead to a
++++
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 11
 ++++ defending king and rook remain on their 1st
rank, the draw is secured.
++++ 2. Knight Pawns (b and g): For these
pawns the drawing method consists of
++++ passive defence with the rook.

1.Rb7 Example 8 ●
Essentially a waiting move, hoping for a

mistake by Black.
1...Rc6! 2.e6
+++
+
White threatens 3.Kf6, winning. But since ++++
the pawn has advanced, Black must leave his
3rd rank and activate his rook.
2...Rc1! 3.Kf6 Rf1+ 4.Ke5 Re1+ 5.Kd6
Rd1+
The position is drawn, as White practically
has no way of escaping from the checks. The
pawn on the 6th rank denies the white king a
safe shelter.
½-½
The
Conclusion
irreproachable technique for
defending the rook & pawn vs rook endings
is:
1. Aiming for the Philidor position,
placing the rook on its 3rd rank.
2. Maintaining the rook on its 3rd rank
until the enemy pawn advances to its 6th
rank.
3. At this point the rook moves to its 8th
rank and starts checking from behind.
The defending king is in front of the pawn
The Philidor position cannot be reached
In practice it often happens that the
defending side cannot reach the Philidor
position. The superior side will try to extract
as much as possible from the position and
will not allow simplification, until it can
enforce a position with better winning
chances than the Philidor one. It is therefore
very important to know how to defend
against pawns on various files, when our
king is in front of them but our rook cannot
reach its 3rd rank. It is evident that there are
fundamental differences in the defensive
measures against pawns on different files.
1. Rook Pawns (a and h): Rook pawns
offer no winning chances. As long as the
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
+++
+++
++++
++++
++++
++++

1...Rf8!
The only way! It may seem strange, but
active defence (apart, of course, from the
always effective Philidor position) loses!
The active 1...Rg1? 2.Kg6! Kf8 (2...Rf1
3.Rb8+ Rf8 4.Rxf8+ Kxf8 5.Kh7) 3.Rb8+
Ke7 4.Rg8! (by keeping the g-pawn
protected White will be able to advance it
and soon reach the Lucena position) 4...Rg2
5.Kh7! Kf7 6.g6+ Kf6 7.Rf8+ Ke7 8.g7
Rh2+ 9.Kg8 would lose!
2.g6 Ra8 3.Rg7+ Kh8
3...Kf8? 4.Kh7! would have been very bad.
4.Rh7+ Kg8
White can never proceed with the g6-g7
advance (with the rook on h7) in view of
...Ra6+!. Passive defence works in this case
because the superior side cannot efficiently
make use of both sides of the pawn.
½-½
3. Central Pawns (c, d, e, f): Passive
defence with the rook loses against the four
central pawns. This happens because the
attacking side can manoeuvre on both sides
of the pawn. However, active defence can
save the draw. The defensive treatment of all
four central pawns is similar. The rook of
12
the defending side must be used actively. In Ra7+ or 5.Kf7 Ra7+ does not improve the
all kinds of endings with rooks and a central situation.
pawn, the defending rook must be placed 5...Rf2!
behind the enemy pawn, on its 7th or 8th Again preventing the white king (and thus
rank, or in a distant corner, again on its 7th the f-pawn) from advancing.
or 8th rank. 6.Re5
With the f-pawn protected by the rook,
Example 9 ● White is threatening to win with 7.Kf7 and

 8.f6.
6...Kg8! 7.Ke7
++
+ Again threatening 8.f6.
7...Kg7! (D)
++++


+++
+
++++
++++
++


++++
++++
++++
++++

1...Rf2!
The passive 1...Ra8? 2.f6 Kg8 3.Rg7+!
(3.f7+? Kf8 with a draw) 3...Kf8 4.Rh7! Kg8
5.f7+ Kf8 6.Rh8+ would lose simply.
2.Kf6! Kg8!
The correct direction of defence, in the face
of the threatened 3.Rb8+. The rule is simple:
the defending king must always head for the
shorter side of the pawn. For the f- and e-
pawns, the g-h side is clearly shorter than
the e-a one. The opposite is true for the d-
and c-pawns. 2...Ke8? 3.Rb8+ Kd7 4.Rf8
with a won position for White.
3.Rb8+ Kh7 4.Rf8
The immediate 4.Ke6 Kg7! would not help.
White is now ready to start advancing his
pawn with Ke7, f6 and Rd8, aiming - as
usual - for the Lucena position.
4...Ra2!
Activating the rook to check the white king
from the side. It now becomes clear why the
defending king must be on the shorter side.
The rook has a large radius for the required
checks, as his king does not stand in the
way.
5.Re8
Preparing cover from the side checks. 5.Ke7
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
++++
+++
++++
++++
+++
++++

Black has set up a fully defensible position.
After
8.Ke6 Ra2 9.f6+ Kf8
we reach an evolved version of the Philidor
position. Every chess-player should know
this elementary example (and not only this
of course!) by hart.
½-½
The defending king
is cut off from the pawn
Positions where the defending king is cut
off on a file occur often and are of great
importance. Principles similar to those that
will be mentioned also apply when the king
is cut off on a rank. A useful rule for such
cases was expressed by the famous endgame
researcher and World Championship
Candidate GM Reuben Fine:
‘If the pawn is on the 5th rank with its
king near and the enemy king cut off from
the promotion square, then it wins. The only
exception is when the defender can oppose
13
his rook so as to drive the attacking rook
away, and thus enable the defending king to
enter the pawn's path and stop it’.
As we have already analyzed in previous
examples, if the defending side is to move it
can save its skin by a rook exchange, a fact
that fully matches the above-mentioned
exception. For other placements of the
pawns the following rules apply:
1. With a pawn on the 3rd or 4th rank and
the king near it, the superior side wins only
if the defending king is cut off by three files
from a b- or g-pawn, or two files from the
central pawns (c, d, e and f).
2. With a pawn still on the 2nd rank and
the attacking king on the 4th or 5th rank, the
superior side wins only if the enemy king is
cut off from the pawn by five files.
All these endings require precision and
many manoeuvres in accordance with the
rules, in order to achieve the theoretical
result.
Example 10 ○


+++
++++
1...Kf5 2.Kc4 Rc8+
There is nothing better, as White is
threatening to make progress with 3.b5,
4.Kc5 and 5.b6.
3.Kd5 Rb8
More checks would only entice the white
king to the direction he is seeking anyway
(3...Rd8+ 4.Kc6 Rc8+ 5.Kb7).
4.Rb1!
The rook must protect the b-pawn, resigning
its duty of keeping the black king in ‘check’,
thus freeing his king. The black king is still
too far away and the well placed white rook,
in cooperation with his active king (and in
contradistinction with the clumsily placed
black rook) leads to an easy win for White.
4...Kf6 5.b5 Ke7 6.Kc6! Kd8 7.b6 Kc8
After 7...Rc8+ comes 8.Kb7 or 8.Kd6.
8.Rh1
1-0
++
+
++++
+++
+
+++
++++
++++

The white pawn is on the b-file and the 4th
rank. The black king is, for the moment, cut
off from the pawn by two files. By analyzing
the position and in accordance with the
rules, if White is to move then he wins.
1.Re1!
Now the black king is cut off by three files.
With Black to move, the position would be
drawn after 1...Ke6!, because the black king
would be placed on its 3rd rank and only
two files away from the enemy pawn.
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 14
 (Day 2: 17:00-17:45 – Mikhalchishin)
The Role of Classics
Classical games are used to study most
important ideas in each part of the game. In
theses games all ideas are represented in the
clearest way.
1 Planning. Plan is based on spotting
(creation) of weakness. The follows –attack
of the weakness, opponents defence of own
weakness. Next step is creation of the
second weakness; opponent tries to defend it
either. But activity of attacking pieces are
much more visible that of defending. In one
moment opponent will not be able to defend
both weaknesses.
Classical example.
(1) Botvinnik,Mikhail − 23.Rxe8+ Rxe8 24.Bxe4+−] 17.Nxc6
Zagoriansky,Evgeny [A13]
Sverdlovsk Sverdlovsk (6), 1943
1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.b3 Nf6 4.Bb2 Be7
5.e3 0-0 6.Nc3 c5 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Nxd5
exd5 9.d4 cxd4 10.Qxd4 Bf6 11.Qd2
Nc6 12.Be2 Be6 13.0-0 Bxb2 14.Qxb2
Qa5 15.Rfd1 Rad8 16.Rd2 Rd7 17.Rad1
Rfd8 18.h3 h6 19.Ne5 Nxe5 20.Qxe5
Qc5 21.Bf3 b6 22.Qb2 Rc8 23.Qe5
Rcd8 24.Rd4 a5 25.g4 Qc6 26.g5 hxg5
27.Qxg5 f6 28.Qg6 Bf7 29.Qg3 f5
30.Qg5 Qe6 31.Kh1 Qe5 32.Rg1 Rf8
33.Qh6 Rb8 34.Rh4 Kf8 35.Qh8+ Bg8
36.Rf4 Rbb7 37.Rg5 Rf7 38.Qh5 Qa1+
39.Kg2 g6 40.Qxg6 Bh7 41.Qd6+ Rfe7
42.Qd8+ 1-0
Much more complicated modern plan.
(2) Karpov,Anatoly (2705) − Smyslov,Vassily [E86]
Spassky,Boris V (2640) [D37]
Montreal Montreal (4), 14.04.1979
[ChessBase]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7
5.Bf4 0-0 6.e3 c5 7.dxc5 Nc6 8.Qc2
Qa5 9.a3 Bxc5 10.Rd1 Be7 11.Nd2
Bd7 [11...e51 main line] 12.Be2 [12.Nb3
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
Qb6 13.cxd5 Nxd5 14.Nxd5 exd5
15.Rxd5 Be6 (15...Bb4+ 16.Nd2
(16.axb4 Nxb4 17.Qd2 Nxd5 18.Qxd5
Be6-+) 16...Rac81) 16.Rb5] 12...Rfc8
13.0-0 [13.Nb3 Qb6 14.c5?! Bxc5
15.Na4 Nb4! (15...Bb4+ 16.Kf1!
(16.axb4 Nxb4 17.Nxb6 Nxc2+ 18.Kd2
axb6∓) ) 16.axb4 (16.Qxc5 Bxa4;
16.Nxb6 Nxc2+ 17.Kd2 axb6 18.Kxc2
Ba4! 19.Rd3 Ne4∓) 16...Bxa4∓]
13...Qd8 14.cxd5 exd5 [14...Nxd5
15.Nxd5 exd5 16.Qb3 Qb6?! 17.Qxd5
Be6 18.Qb5] 15.Nf3! h6 16.Ne5 Be6
[16...Qe8 17.Nxc6 Bxc6 18.Qb3 Rd8
19.Bf3 Ne4 20.Nxd5 ? Tal 20...Ba4 -+
Tal 21.Nxe7+ Kf8 22.Rxd8 Bxb3
Rxc6 18.Bf3 Qb6 19.Be5! Ne4 20.Qe2
[20.Bd4 Bc5 21.Bxc5 Rxc5 22.Bxe4
dxe4 23.Qxe4 Qxb2 24.Na4 Re5 25.Qf4
Qb5; 20.Bxe4 dxe4 21.Qxe4 Qxb2
22.Nd5 Bxd5] 20...Nxc3 21.Bxc3 Rd8
[21...Bxa3 22.Bxg7!; 21...Rxc3!?
22.bxc3 Qa5] 22.Rd3! Rcd6 23.Rfd1
R6d7 24.R1d2 Qb5 25.Qd1 b6 26.g3
Bf8 27.Bg2 Be7 28.Qh5! a6 29.h3 Qc6
30.Kh2 Qb5 31.f4 f6 [31...f5 32.Qg6 Bf8
33.Be5 ∆g3−g4] 32.Qd1 Qc6 33.g4 g5
34.Kh1 a5 35.f5 Bf7 36.e4 Kg7 37.exd5
Qc7 38.Re2 b5 39.Rxe7 Rxe7 40.d6
Qc4 41.b3 1-0
Development of tactical ideas.
Classical example.
(3) Kotov,Alexander −
URS−ch12 Moscow, 1940
[Ftacnik]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 0-0
5.Nge2 d6 6.f3 e5 7.Be3 [7.d5] 7...exd4
8.Nxd4 c6 ∆d5 9.Qd2 [=9.Nc2] 9...d5!
10.cxd5 cxd5 11.e5 Ne8 12.f4 f6
13.exf6 [13.e6 Nc6 14.Nxc6 bxc6
15
15.Bc5 Nd6 16.Nxd5 cxd5 17.Qxd5 Nb7
18.Qc4 Re8 19.e7+ Kh8∓] 13...Nxf6
14.Be2 Nc6 15.0-0 Re8 16.Kh1 Bg4
17.Bxg4? [17.Bg1 Ne4 18.Nxe4 Bxe2
19.Nxe2 dxe4 20.Rad1 Qxd2 21.Rxd2
Rad8 22.Rfd1 Rd3>] 17...Nxg4 18.Bg1
[18.Nxc6 bxc6 19.Bg1 d4 20.Na4 Qd5
21.Rfe1 Ne3∓] 18...Nxh2! 19.Bxh2
[19.Kxh2 Qh4#; 19.Nxc6 Nxf1 20.Nxd8
Nxd2∓] 19...Nxd4 20.Rae1 Qd7 21.Qd3
Rad8 22.Rxe8+ Rxe8 23.Bg1 Qf5!
24.Qd1 [24.Qxf5 Nxf5 25.Rd1 (25.Nxd5
Ng3+) 25...d4 26.Nb5 a6 27.Na3
(27.Nxd4 Rd8) ] 24...Ne2! 25.Nxe2
Qh5+ 26.Bh2 Rxe2 27.Re1 Re4 28.Qc1
Rxe1+ 29.Qxe1 h6 30.Qd2 Qf5 31.Bg1
Qh5+ 32.Bh2 ∆33.g4 Dg4 34.Dd5
∆35.Db7 32...Kh7 33.b3 d4 34.Qd3 Qf5
35.Qd2 [35.Qxf5 gxf5 36.Kg1 d3 37.Kf2
Bd4+ 38.Kf3 d2 39.Ke2 Be3 ∆Kg4-+]
35...Qe4 36.Bg1 b5 ∆37... d3 38.Le3 b4
37.b4 a6 38.Kh2 g5 39.g3 [39.fxg5
Qh4#] 39...gxf4 40.gxf4 Kg6 41.Bf2 Bf6
42.a4 bxa4 43.Qa2 d3 44.Qxa4
[44.Qg8+ Bg7] 44...Qe2 45.Kg3 h5
∆46... Lh4! 46.Qxa6 h4+ 47.Kg2 Qe4+
48.Kf1 Qh1+ 49.Bg1 Qf3+ 50.Bf2 d2
51.f5+ Kh5! 0-1
Complicated modern game.
(4) Sigurjonsson,Gudmundur − 5.Bd2 Nc6 6.Nf3 Bb7 7.Bd3 Qd7 8.Ne2
Stein,Leonid [B82]
Reykjavik Reykjavik, 1972
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Nc3 a6 4.d4 cxd4
5.Nxd4 Nf6 6.f4 Nbd7 7.Nf3 e6 8.Bd3
Nc5 9.0-0 Be7 10.a4 0-0 11.Kh1 b6
12.b4 Nxd3 13.cxd3 Bb7 14.Qb3 Rc8
15.Be3 d5 16.e5 d4 17.Nxd4 Ng4
18.Bg1 Nxh2 19.Rfc1 Ng4 20.Ne4 Bxb4
21.Ng5 Qd5 22.Ngf3 Qxb3 23.Nxb3 Bd5
24.Nfd2 Bc3 25.Rab1 b5 26.axb5 axb5
27.Ne4 Bxe4 28.dxe4 Rc4 29.g3 h5
30.Kg2 Rd8 31.Rc2 Bxe5 32.Rxc4 bxc4
33.Na5 Rd2+ 34.Kf3 Bd4 35.Bxd4 Rd3+
36.Ke2 Rxd4 37.e5 c3 38.Rc1 Rd2+
39.Kf3 Rd3+ 40.Kg2 Ne3+ 41.Kf2 Nf5 0-
1 8.h5 g5 9.Bd3 Nc6 10.Nge2 Bg7 11.Be3
Opening tactical refutation.
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
(5) Geller,Efim P − Petrosian,Tigran V
[C16]
URS Spartakiad Moscow, 1963
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 b6
5.Nf3 Qd7 6.Bd2 Bf8 7.a4 Nc6 8.Be2
Nge7 9.0-0 f6 ? [9...Bb7 10.Re1] 10.Re1
fxe5 ? 11.Bb5 ! 11...Ng6 [11...e4
12.Ne5 Qd6 13.Bf4D; 11...exd4 12.Nxd4
Qd6 13.Nxc6 Nxc6 14.Bf4 Qd7
15.Qxd5D] 12.Nxe5 Ngxe5 13.Rxe5 a6
[13...Be7 14.Qf3 Bd6 15.Nxd5 Bxe5
16.Nf6+] 14.Bxc6 Qxc6 15.Nxd5 Bd7
16.Bg5 Bd6 17.Qh5+ Kf8 [17...g6
18.Qe2 Bxe5 19.Qxe5+−] 18.Qf3+ Kg8
19.Rxe6 Rf8 20.Ne7+ Bxe7 21.Qxc6
Bxc6 22.Rxe7 Rf7 23.Rae1 Bxa4 24.b3
Bc6 25.R1e6 Bd5 26.Re8+ Rf8
27.R6e7 h6 28.Rxf8+ Kxf8 29.Rxc7
Kg8 30.Bf4 g5 31.Be5 Rh7 32.Rc8+
Kf7 33.c4 Bb7 34.Rd8 Ke6 35.Rd6+
Kf5 36.f3 g4 37.Rf6+ Kg5 38.f4+ Kh5
39.Rxb6 Be4 40.Kf2 Rb7 41.Rxb7
Bxb7 42.d5 1-0
Exploitation of classical knowledge by
the player.
(6) Mikhalchishin,Adrian (2490) −
Bronstein,David I (2535) [C16]
Tbilisi Tbilisi (6), 1980
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 b6
Bf8 9.0-0 f6 10.a3 fxe5 11.Bb5 Bd6
12.dxe5 Be7 13.Nfd4 a6 14.Bxc6 Bxc6
15.Nf4 g6 16.Ndxe6 Bb7 17.Bc3 c6
18.Qd2 h5 19.Ng7+ Kd8 20.e6 Qc7
21.Nxg6 Rh6 22.Nxe7 Qxe7 23.Nf5 1-0
Modern examples of classic from N 13
(7) Mikhalchishin,Adrian (2520) −
Krizsany,Laszlo (2445) [B03]
Kecskemet Szechenyi Kecskemet (8),
1991
[Blatny,P]
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6
5.exd6 cxd6 6.Nc3 g6 7.Bd3 [7.h4 h6
d5! (11...e5 12.d5 Ne7 13.c5H) 12.c5
Nd7 (12...Nc4 13.Bxc4 dxc4 14.Qa4 Be6
15.Rd1 ∆Id5) 13.Rc1 Nxc5 14.dxc5
16
d41 Meier−Bagirov, Berlin 1991] 7...Bg7
8.Nge2 [8.Be3 Nc6 9.Nge2 Bg4 10.f3
Bf5 11.b3 Bxd3 12.Qxd3 d5 13.c5 Nc8
14.h4 e6 15.h5 b61 Palatnik−Kamsky,
Philadelphia 1991] 8...Nc6 9.d5!? Ne5
10.b3 Bg4 11.Bb2 Qc8 12.h3 Nxd3+
13.Qxd3 Bxe2 [13...Bf5?! 14.Qd2 ∆0-
0,Jfe1,Kd4; ∆Kb5,LxL Ig7,h6]
14.Qxe2 0-0 15.0-0 Re8 16.Rad1A Nd7
17.Nb5 a6 18.Nd4 Nc5 19.Rfe1 Qd7
20.Bc3 ∆Mb2 20...e5?! [20...Rac8!?;
20...Rad8!?] 21.dxe6 Nxe6 [21...fxe6
22.Ba1! ∆b4 INe6] 22.Qd2B Id6 O
22...Nc5! [22...Nxd4 23.Bxd4 Rxe1+
24.Rxe1D ∆Jd1,LxL,Md5,c5 +− O]
23.Qc2! Rxe1+ 24.Bxe1 [24.Rxe1? d5=]
24...Qe7 [24...d5 25.cxd5 Qxd5 26.Nf3
Qc6Q 27.Bb4! b6 a) 27...Rc8? 28.Bxc5
b6 (28...Qxc5? 29.Rd8+!+−) 29.Qc4!
bxc5 30.Ng5 ∆Ke4,Jd5 +−O Ic5,a6; b)
27...Ne4 28.Qxc6 bxc6 29.Rc1D O
Ic6,a6; 28.Bxc5D O] 25.Bc3 Qe4
26.Qd2 [26.Qxe4? Nxe4 27.Ba1 Rd8
∆d5=] 26...Re8?! [26...d5 27.f3+−;
=26...Rd8] 27.Nf3! Bxc3C 28.Qxc3
Ne6 [28...Qe2?? 29.Re1+−; 28...Rd8
29.Qf6 Ne6 30.Ng5+−] 29.Rxd6 Qb1+
30.Kh2 Qxa2 31.Rd2! Qb1 [=31...Qa3
32.Ne5 Qf8!? 33.Nd7 (33.Rd7 Re7
(33...Nc5? 34.Rxf7 Qd6 35.f4!Q Ne4
36.Qb2 ∆Jxb7+−) 34.Ng4! Rxd7Q
35.Nf6+ Kh8 36.Nxd7+ Qg7 37.Qf3 R/D
INb7,Th8) 33...Qg7Q 34.Qf3!D
INb7,Tg8(34.Nf6+ Kh8 ∆Jd8R) ]
32.Ne5! Nc5? [32...Qf5? 33.Ng4 Kf8
34.Rd7! Ng7 35.Qb4++−; 32...Rd8
33.Rxd8+ Nxd8 34.Ng4U
Ig7,h6,f6,Kd8; =32...h5!? Ig4 33.Nd7
(33.Rd7 Nd8D) 33...Rd8 (33...Re7?
34.Nf6+ Kf8 35.Nd5+−) 34.Nf6+ Kf8
35.Nd5! Kg8Q 36.Qf6U ∆f4−f5,Ke7xf5
+−; ∆Je2,(Ke7+),Jxe6 +−] 33.Ng4+−
Ne4 [33...Qxb3 34.Nh6+ Kf8 35.Rd7!+−]
34.Nh6+ Kf8 35.Rd7! [35.Rd7 Nxc3
(35...Re7 36.Qh8#) 36.Rxf7#] 1-0
(8) Mikhalchishin,Adrian (2520) −
Polgar,Sofia (2430) [A35]
Brno Morava−B Brno (9), 1991
1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 Nc6 3.e3 g6 4.d4 cxd4
5.exd4 Bg7 6.d5 Ne5 7.Nxe5 Bxe5
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
8.Be2 d6 9.Nc3 Bg7 10.Be3 Nf6 11.0-0
0-0 12.Qd2 Re8 13.Bd4 b6 14.Rfe1 Bb7
15.Bf1 Qd7 16.Rad1 Rad8 17.b3 e5
18.dxe6 Rxe6 19.a4 Rxe1 20.Qxe1 Bc6
21.f3 Qf5 22.Qd2 d5 23.cxd5 Bb7
24.Bc4 Ne8 25.Nb5 a6 26.Nc3 Bxd4+
27.Qxd4 Qf6 28.Qe3 Nd6 29.Qxb6 Re8
30.Qd4 Qe7 31.Ne4 Nxe4 32.fxe4 Qxe4
33.Qxe4 Rxe4 34.d6 Re8 35.Rf1 1-0
Modern way .To N 10
(9) Mikhalchishin − Beliavskij [D34]
Lviv, 1981
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5
5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0
9.Bg5 Be6 10.Rc1 c4 11.b3 Ba3 12.bxc4
Bxc1 13.Qxc1 Rc8 14.Qd2 b5 15.cxb5
Ne7 16.Ne5 Qb6 17.Rb1 Bf5 18.Rb3
Rfd8 19.h3 h6 20.Bxf6 Qxf6 21.Ra3 Qb6
22.Ra6 Qb8 23.g4 Be6 24.f4 Rd6
25.Ra3 f6 26.Nd3 h5 27.f5 Bf7 28.Nc5
hxg4 29.hxg4 Rdd8 30.Qe3 Rxc5
31.dxc5 d4 32.Qxe7 dxc3 33.Rxc3 Rd1+
34.Kf2 Qf4+ 35.Rf3 Qb4 36.Qc7 Qd4+
37.Re3 Rc1 38.Qb8+ Kh7 39.Qh2+ Kg8
40.Qb8+ Kh7 41.Qd6 Qxc5 42.Qxc5
Rxc5 43.a4 1-0
Classical satrategical tactical idea.
(10) Olafsson,Fridrik − Fischer,Robert
James [D38]
Portoroz Interzonal Portoroz (11), 1958
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.d4 Bb4
5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bh4 c5 8.e3
Nc6 9.Rc1 c4 10.Be2 Be6 11.0-0 0-0
12.Nd2 Be7 13.b3 g5 14.Bg3 Ba3
15.Rc2 Nb4 16.bxc4 Nxc2 17.Qxc2 dxc4
18.Nb5 Bb4 19.Nc7 Bxd2 20.Nxe6 fxe6
21.Bxc4 Qe8 22.Qxd2 Ne4 23.Qd3
Nxg3 24.hxg3 Rf6 25.Qe4 Rc8 26.Bb3
Qd7 27.Rd1 Re8 28.f4 Qh7 29.Qe5 Qf5
30.g4 Qxe5 31.dxe5 Rf7 32.f5 Rc7
33.Rd6 Rc5 34.Bxe6+ Kf8 35.Bb3
Rcxe5 36.Rxh6 Rxe3 37.Rg6 R8e4
38.Rxg5 Rg3 39.Rg8+ Ke7 40.g5 Re2
41.Bd5 Kd6 42.Bf3 Rxa2 43.f6 Ke6
44.Re8+ 1-0
Classical example of instructional
17
opposite colour Bishop play.
(11) Von Gottschall,Hermann −
Nimzowitsch,Aaron [C01]
Hannover Hannover (2), 1926
[Huebner,R]
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Bd3 c5 4.c3 dxe4
5.Bxe4 Nf6 6.Bf3 Nbd7 7.Ne2 Be7 8.0-
0 0-0 9.Be3 cxd4 10.cxd4 Nb6 11.Nbc3
Qd7 12.Rc1 Rd8 13.Qb3 Nfd5 14.Nxd5
Nxd5 15.Bxd5 Qxd5 16.Qxd5 Rxd5
17.Nc3 Ra5 18.Rfd1 Bb4 19.a3 Bxc3
20.Rxc3 Bd7 21.Rc5 Rxc5 22.dxc5
Bc6 23.f3 f6 24.Kf2 Kf7 25.Rd4 a5
26.g3 a4 27.f4 h5 28.h3 Rh8 29.Rd1
Kg6 30.Rd4 Kf5 31.Bd2 Rf8 32.Be1 e5
33.fxe5 fxe5 34.Rh4 g5 35.Rb4 Ke6+
36.Ke2 e4 37.Bf2 Rf3 38.Rb6 Ke5
39.Rb4 Kd5 40.h4 gxh4 41.gxh4 Rh3
42.Rd4+ Ke5 43.Rd8 Bd5 44.Re8+ Be6
45.Rd8 'Es drohte 45...Jb3'
(Nimzowitsch) 45...Kf4 [45...Bg4+!
Gewinnt ein Tempo 46.Kd2 Kf4 47.Rf8+
Bf5 48.Ke2 Rh2 a) 48...e3 49.Bg1= Die
Figuren des Schwarzen stehen
unglücklich; er kann den Verlust des
Bauern auf e3 nicht vermeiden.; b)
48...Rb3 49.Bd4 Rd3 50.Bf2 e3 51.Bg3+
Kxg3 (51...Kg4 52.Rg8+ Kh3 53.Be1=
Weiß läuft keinerlei Gefahr; 51...Ke4
52.Re8+ Kd4 53.Rd8+= usw.) 52.Rxf5
Rb3 53.Rxh5 Kf4 Die Fortsetzung
53...Jxb2+ 54.Txe3 Jb3+ 55.Td2 Jxa3
56.c6 ist auch nicht gewinnträchtig
54.Rh7 Rxb2+ 55.Ke1= Weiß hält
remis.; 49.Kf1 Kg4 (49...Rh3= 50.Ke2
Zugwiederholung.; 49...e3 50.Bxe3+
Kxe3 51.Rxf5 Rxh4 52.Kg2 Rc4
53.Rxh5 Rc2+ 54.Kg3 Rxb2 55.Rh4=)
50.Rg8+ Kf3 51.Rg3+ Kf4 52.Rc3 Rh1+
Nach 52...Jh3 53.Jxh3 ist die Stellung
klar remis. 53.Kg2 Rb1 54.Bg3+ Kg4
55.Rc2 Bd7 55...e3 scheitert an 56.Jc4+
56.Rf2 Rg1+ 57.Kxg1 Kxg3 58.Rf7 Es
ist klar, daß Schwarz nur verlieren
kann.] 46.Rf8+ Bf5 47.Rf7 Rh2 'Nicht
47...e3 wegen 48.Lg1!' (Nimzowitsch)
48.Re7? [48.Ke1? e3 49.Bxe3+ Kxe3
50.Rxf5 Rh1+ 51.Rf1 Rxh4-+ Schwarz
gewinnt mühelos.; 48.Kf1 Kg4 (48...Rh3
49.Ke2 Zugwiederholung; 48...e3
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
49.Bxe3+ Kxe3 50.Rxf5 Rxh4 51.Kg2=
Jacoby; vgl. Anm zu 45...Tf4, III B)
49.Rg7+ (49.Bd4? Rd2 49...Jxh4
50.Tg2 Tf4 51.Jxb7 ist unattraktiv für
Schwarz. 50.Bc3 Rc2 51.Rxb7 Kf3
52.Kg1 Kg3 53.Be5+ Auch nach
53.Le1+ Th3 54.Jg7 Lg4 schwebt
Weiß in akuter Lebensgefahr. 53...Kh3
54.Bd4 e3 55.Bxe3 Rg2+ 56.Kf1 Nach
56.Th1 Le4 57.Je7 Jg4+ gewinnt
Schwarz mühelos. 56...Bd3+ 57.Ke1
Re2+ 58.Kd1 Rxe3 59.Kd2 Rg3 60.c6
Nach 60.Jb4 Lf5 61.Jxa4 Jg2+ gewinnt
Schwarz ohne besondere
Schwierigkeiten. 60...Bf5 61.Rb5 Rg2+
62.Ke3 Bg4 63.Rc5 Kxh4 64.c7 Bc8-+
Der technische Gewinnprozeß ist nicht
mehr schwierig für Schwarz.; 49.Ke2=
Jacoby; Weiß nutzt aus, daß Schwarz
die Kontrolle einiger schwarzer Felder
aufgegeben hat; nach 49...Le6 50.Jxb7
Tf4 ist sowohl 51.Jb4 als auch 51.Je7
zur Verteidigung ausreichend.) 49...Kf3
50.Rg3+ Kf4 51.Rc3 Rh1+ 52.Kg2 Rb1
53.Bg3+ Jacoby; 53...Kg4 54.Rc2 mit
der Drohung 55.Jf2, die nicht ohne
Materialverlust zu parieren ist; Weiß
steht nicht schlechter (vgl. die
Anmerkung zu 45...Tf4, III C).]
48...Bg4+ 49.Ke1 '49.Tf1? Jh1 50.Lg1
Tg3 usw.' (Nimzowitsch) 49...Kf3?
[49...Rh1+ 50.Kd2 Rd1+ 51.Kc3 (51.Kc2
Rd3 52.Rf7+ Nach 52.Jxb7 Ld1+
53.Tb1 Lb3 zappelt der weiße König in
einem Mattnetz. 52...Bf5 (52...Ke5?
53.Re7+ Kf5 54.Rf7+ Ke6? 55.Rxb7
Bd1+ 56.Kc1 Bb3 57.Rb6+ nebst
58.Jd6, und Weiß rettet sich.) 53.Bg1
(53.Be1 Rd5 54.Rxb7 e3+ 55.Kc1
55.Tc3 Jd1 -+ 55...e2 56.Bd2+ Kf3
57.Rc7 Kf2 und die Drohung 58...Jxd2
ist nicht befriedigend zu parieren.)
53...Rd5 54.Rxb7 e3+ 55.Kc3 Rxc5+
56.Kb4 (56.Kd4 e2 57.Re7 Rc2-+)
56...Rc1 57.Bh2+ Kf3 58.Rf7 e2
59.Rxf5+ Kg2 60.Re5 e1Q+ 61.Rxe1
Rxe1-+ gefolgt von 62...Je4+) 51...Rd3+
52.Kc4 (52.Kb4 e3 53.Bg1 Nach 53.Le1
Jb3+ 54.Txa4 Jxb2 siegt Schwarz
mühelos, weil der weiße König völlig
vom Geschehen abgeschnitten ist.
18
53...e2 54.Kxa4 Kg3 55.c6 b5+ 56.Kxb5
Rd1-+) 52...Be2 52...Jb3 53.Ld4 ist
weniger klar. 53.Kb4 Die Einschaltung
von 53.Jf7+ Tg4 54.Jg7+ Tf3 55.Jf7+
Tg2 verbessert die Lage des Weißen
nicht. 53...e3 54.Bg1 (54.Be1 Rb3+
55.Kxa4 Rxb2 56.Bb4 Bf3-+ Mit der
Absicht 57...e2 und 58...Jxb4(+).)
54...Bf3 55.Kc4 Nach 55.Txa4 e2
56.Lf2 Le4 gewinnt Schwarz mühelos.
55...Rb3 56.Kd4 e2 57.Bf2 Bg4 58.Rf7+
Bf5-+ Gefolgt von 59...Jxb2.] 50.Rf7+
[50.Bd4 Re2+ 51.Kf1 (51.Kd1 e3-+ Mit
der Drohung 52...Jd2+ 52.Bc3 Rh2
53.Rxb7 Rh1+ 54.Kc2 Bf5#) 51...e3
52.Rf7+ (52.Rxb7 Rf2+ a) 52...Bh3+
53.Kg1 Rg2+ 54.Kh1 Rd2 55.Rf7+ Ke4
56.Bc31; b) 52...Rc2 53.Rf7+ Ke4
54.Bc3 Bf3 55.Re7+ Kf4 56.Rf7+ Kg4
57.Rg7+ Kh3 58.Re7 Rc1+ 59.Be1 e2+
60.Kf2 Bg4 61.Re3+ Kxh4 62.Rc3 Weiß
hat nichts mehr zu befürchten.; c)
52...Rd2 53.Rf7+ Ke4 (53...Kg3 54.Be5+
54.Lc3 scheitert an 54...Jf2+, und
Schwarz gewinnt leicht. 54...Kxh4 Auch
nach 54...Th3 55.Lc3 ist die Lage nicht
klar. 55.Re7=) 54.Bc3 Bf3 55.Re7+
(55.c6? Rh2 56.Re7+ (56.Rg7 e2+
57.Kg1 Rh1+ 58.Kf2 Rf1+ 59.Kg3 e1Q+
60.Bxe1 Rg1+-+) 56...Kd3 57.Rd7+ Kc2
58.Rg7 Bxc6-+) 55...Kd3 56.Rd7+ Kc2
57.Re7 Rd1+ 58.Be1 Rd3 59.Rf7 Bg4
60.c6 Kxb2 61.Rf4 Weiß rettet sich dank
seines c−Bauern. 61...Kxa3? 62.Rxg4
hxg4 63.c7+−; 53.Kg1 (53.Ke1? Rc2-+)
53...Rg2+ 54.Kh1 (54.Kf1 e2+ 55.Ke1
Rh2 56.Rf7+ Ke4 57.Bg1 Rh1 58.Re7+
(58.Kf2 e1Q+-+) 58...Kf3 59.Rf7+ Kg2-+)
54...Rd2 55.Rf7+ (55.Bc3 Kg3-+)
55...Kg3 56.Be5+ (56.Bxe3 Rd1+
57.Bg1 Bf3+ 58.Rxf3+ Kxf3 59.Kh2
Rd2+-+) 56...Kh3 57.Rf1 Rf2 58.Kg1
Rg2+ 59.Kh1 e2 60.Rc1 Bf3-+) 52...Ke4
(52...Kg3 53.Re7 Rf2+ 54.Ke1 Schwarz
kommt nicht weiter.) 53.Bc3 Rh2
(53...Bf3? 54.Re7+ (54.Rxb7? Rf2+
55.Kg1 Rg2+ 56.Kf1 e2+ 57.Ke1 Rg1+
58.Kf2 Rf1+ 59.Kg3 Ke3 60.Re7+ Be4-+
61.Re5 Rg1+ 62.Kh2 e1Q 63.Bxe1
Rxe1 64.Rxh5 Kf4) 54...Kd3 (54...Kf4
55.Be5+ Kg4 56.Bd4=) 55.Rd7+ Kc4
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
56.Rf7 Rf2+ 57.Ke1 Kxc5 58.Rf4
Schwarz kommt nicht mehr los.) 54.Kg1
(54.Rxb7 Bf3 55.Re7+ (55.Rg7? e2+-+
Kostet den Turm, vgl. I Cb11.) 55...Kd3
56.Rg7 Rxh4-+) 54...Rc2 Führt wohl
einfacher zum Gewinn als 54...Jd2. a)
54...Rxh4 55.Be1 Rh3 56.Kg2 Die
schwarzen Figuren sind in häßlichen
Klumpen geronnen; Weiß hat gute
Rettungsaussichten.; b) 54...Rd2
55.Rxb7 Kf3 56.Re7 (56.Rf7+ Kg3-+
57.Be5+ (57.Kf1 e2+; 57.Rf1 Rg2+
58.Kh1 Bf3 59.Be5+ Kg4; 57.c6 Be2
58.Rg7+ Kh3) 57...Kh3 58.Rf1 Rg2+
59.Kh1 e2 60.Rc1 Bf3) 56...Rd1+
57.Kh2 Kf2 58.Be5 Anders kann Weiß
die Drohung 58...Lf3 nicht abwehren.
58...Rd5 59.Bf4 (59.c6 Rxe5 60.Rxe5
e2-+; 59.Bg3+ Kf3 60.Rf7+ Bf5 Schwarz
gewinnt den c−Bauern des Weißen,
denn 61.c6 usw. führt zum Matt; danach
dürfte er eine Gewinnstellung haben.
61.c6 Rd2+ 62.Kg1 Kxg3 63.Rxf5 Rd1+
64.Rf1 e2) 59...e2 60.Bg3+ (60.c6?
Rd3-+) 60...Kf1 61.c6 Rd3-+ Die
Drohung 62...Jxg3 ist nicht auf
befriedigende Weise abzuwehren.;
55.Rxb7 Bf3 56.Rd7 (56.c6 Kd3
57.Rd7+ Ke2 58.c7 Rc1+ 59.Kh2 Kf2-+)
56...Rg2+ 57.Kf1 Rh2 58.Re7+
(58.Rg7? e2+ Weiß verliert auf bewährte
Weise den Turm.) 58...Kd3 Führt zu Ba.]
50...Kg2 51.Kd2? [51.Be3? Rh1+
52.Kd2 Rd1+ 53.Kc2 Rd3 Der weiße
König ist von einem Mattnetz umstrickt.
54.Bd2 (54.Bg5 Bd1+ 55.Kb1 e3-+)
54...Be6 55.Re7 (55.Rxb7 Bb3+ 56.Kc1
e3-+) 55...Bb3+ 56.Kc1 Kf3-+; 51.Bd4
Rh1+ 52.Kd2 Rd1+ 53.Ke3 Bf3 54.Rg7+
Kf1 55.Bc3 (55.c6? Rd3+ 56.Kf4 Rxd4
57.cxb7 Rd8 58.Rc7 (58.Ke3 Rd3+-+
nebst 59...Jb3.) 58...Rb8 59.Ke3 Kg2-+)
55...Rd3+ 56.Kf4 Kf2 57.Re7 (57.Rxb7
e3 58.Re7 e2-+ es gibt keine
befriedigende Verteidigung gegen die
Drohung 59...Lg4 nebst 60...Jxc3.)
57...Rd8 a) 57...e3? 58.Rxe3 Rxe3
59.Bd4; b) 57...Bg2? 58.Re5 Rd8
(58...Rf3+ 59.Kg5 e3 60.Bd4 Ke2
61.Kxh5 Kd3 62.Bc3 Rg3 63.Rg5
Schwarz hat kaum mehr
19
Gewinnchancen.) 59.Rxh5 e3 60.Re5 e2
61.h5 ist ebensowenig verlockend für
Schwarz.; 58.Bg7! Man möge mir
verzeihen, wenn ich auf eine weitere
Analyse verzichte und mit der kühnen
Behauptung schließe, daß Weiß
Rettungsaussichten habe, im Stillen
hoffend, daß fleißige Leser mich
widerlegen werden.
(58.Rxb7? e3 59.Be1+ (59.Ra7 Rd3-+;
59.Re7 e2-+) 59...Kxe1 60.Kxf3 e2-+) ]
51...Kf1 '!' (Nimzowitsch). 52.Ke3 Bf3
'Und gewann' (Nimzowitsch). 53.Bg3
Rxb2 'Jetzt ist die Partie entschieden,
der Einbruch gelungen!' (Sämisch)
54.Bd6 Rb3+ 55.Kd4 Kf2 56.Rg7 e3
57.Bg3+ Kf1 58.Rf7 e2 59.Re7 Bc6
'Diese Partie, die ich zu meinen
bestgespielten zähle, ist auch für den
Isolani als Endspielschwäche
bezeichnend.' (Nimzowitsch) 0-1
How top player studied classics and
exploited it in his game.
(12) Pachman,Ludek − Fischer,Robert
James [A32]
Havana ol (Men) fin−A Havana (11),
1966
[Bulletin]
Inf.2/41 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 c5 3.c4 cxd4
4.Nxd4 e6 5.e3 Nc6 6.Be2 d5 7.Nc3
Bc5! 8.0-0?! Bxd4 9.exd4 dxc4 10.Be3
Na5 11.Bxc4 Nxc4 12.Qa4+ Bd7
UKR−ch Kiev (12), 1959
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4
Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Be2 g6 7.0-0 Bg7 8.Be3
0-0 9.Qd2 Ng4 10.Bxg4 Bxg4 11.Nd5
Be6 12.c4 Bxd5 13.exd5 Nxd4 14.Bxd4
Bxd4 15.Qxd4 Qb6 16.Qxb6 axb6
17.Rfe1 Rfe8 18.a4 Kf8 19.Kf1 Rec8
20.b3 Re8 21.Rad1 Rad8 22.Re3 e6
23.dxe6 fxe6 24.Rd4 Ke7 25.Rh4 Rh8
26.Rhe4 e5 27.f4 Rhf8 28.Ke2 Ke6
29.Rd4 h5 30.h3 Kf5 31.Rd5 Kxf4
32.Rb5 h4 33.Rxb6 e4 34.Rxb7 d5
35.Re7 Rde8 36.Rxe8 Rxe8 37.cxd5
Rd8 38.b4 Rxd5 39.Rb3 Rg5 40.Kf1 Rf5
41.b5 1-0
Classical defencive methods in the
endgame.
(14) Aronian,Levon − Carlsen,Magnus
[E15]
Moscow Tal Memorial Moscow, 2006
Magnus knew and adopted before very
important defensive method, known as
STICKING, so it was necessary to
continue it. Simply keeping Rook on e
file on e2 ore3.But he decided to change
method of defence, going to very precise
position... 69...Ra1 Diagram

 
!+++"
#+++
$
13.Qxc4 Bc6I 14.Bg5 Qa5 15.Qc5?! %++
++&
[15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.Rad1!?] 15...Qxc5
16.dxc5 a5 17.Rfd1 h5 18.h4 Nd7 '+++(
19.Be3 Ne5 20.Bd4 Nd7 21.b3 Rg8
22.Be3 Ne5 23.f3 Ng6 24.Bf2 Nf4
)++++*
25.Be3 Nd5 26.Nxd5 Bxd5 27.Rd4 Kd7 +++++,
28.Rc1 Kc6∓ 29.Rc3 f6 30.f4 Rgd8
31.Kf2 a4 32.Rxa4 Rxa4 33.bxa4 Bxa2
-++++.
34.Rc2 Bd5 35.Rb2 Ra8 36.Rb4 Ra5 /+++0
37.g3 Kc7 38.Bd4 Bc6 39.Be3 Bxa4
40.Rd4 Bd7 41.Rd2 Ra8 42.Rb2 Rb8 12345678
43.Rd2 0-1 [69...Re2!] 70.Ke7 Ra5 71.e6 Ra7+
72.Rd7 Ra8 73.Rd6 Ra7+? Applying
Classical example of central structure. this method it is necessary to keep Rook
on the 8 rank. [Only defence was
(13) Geller,Efim P − 73...Kg6= ] 74.Ke8 1-0
Voltschok,Alexander [B73]
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 20
(15) Sigurjonsson,G − Stein,L [B93]
Reykjavik 13/507 Reykjavik 13/507,
1972
[Stein,L]
Chess Informant 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4
cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f4 Nbd7!?
7.Nf3 [7.Bd3 Qb6!?] 7...e6 8.Bd3 Be7
9.0-0 Nc5 10.Kh1?! 0-0I 11.a4?! b6
12.b4 Nxd3 13.cxd3 Bb7 [13...d5?
14.e5 Bxb4 15.Na2] 14.Be3 Rc8 15.Qb3
d5!∓ 16.e5 d4 17.Nxd4? [17.exf6 Bxf6∓;
17.Bxd4!? Bxf3 18.exf6 Bxf6 19.Bxf6
Qxf6 20.Rxf3 Rxc3∓] 17...Ng4 18.Bg1
Nxh2!-+ 19.Rfc1 [19.Kxh2 Rxc3
20.Qxc3 Bxb4 ∆21.Qxb4 Qh4# #]
19...Ng4 20.Ne4 Bxb4 21.Ng5 Qd5
22.Ne4 Qxb3 23.Nxb3 Bxe4 24.dxe4
b5 25.axb5 axb5 26.g3 h5 27.Kg2 Bc3
28.Rab1 Rfd8 29.Rc2 Rc4 30.Kf3 Bxe5
31.Rxc4 bxc4 32.Na5 Rd3+ 33.Kg2
Rd2+ 34.Kf3 Bd4 35.Bxd4 [35.Nxc4
Nh2+ 36.Bxh2 Rf2# #] 35...Rd3+
36.Kg2 Rxd4 37.e5 Rd2+ 0-1

(Day 2: 18:00-18:45 – Mikhalchishin)

Trainers’ Common Mistakes

The Lessons of Great Trainers: The trainer’s role can be assessed as tremendous without
exaggeration in all kinds of sport—however, in chess the role of trainers for some mysterious
reason is somehow ignored, and they continue to lurk in shadows. An outsider might even venture
to go as far as to suppose that the single good trainer in the history of chess was Mark Dvoretsky.
The development of chess in Europe was so peculiar that the phenomenon of a trainer was
practically absent as such—that is, until relatively recently, when successful grandmasters, such as
Illescas, Dorfman and Boensch started to work as professional trainers. The situation in America
was drastically different, since there was an understanding that systematic training work is
essential for ultimate success—even great Fisher, who pioneered the breakthrough in American
chess history, had Collins as his first trainer, who made a significant impact on Fisher’s
development. The system which evaluates chess trainers in the USA is rather peculiar, since the
professional level of a trainer and, consequently, the level of remuneration for his labours is
defined not by the results of his students, but rather according to the level of publicity he attains
while leading columns in major newspapers and magazines available nationwide. Nowadays
Internet publicity is also a major hallmark. GM Yasser Seirawan, who has first-hand knowledge of
the subject, once told me that the trade of chess trainer is prospering in America, and that he
knows personally a few mediocre trainers who earn more than 50000 USD every year. However,
the main line of production of the chess trainers was born in the USSR, even before the chess
specialization was introduced at the physical culture institutes in 1970—1980’s. In the Soviet
Union the role of the chess trainer in the upbringing of the world-class elite was crucial: for
instance, without the paternal supervision of Alexander Koblenz the brilliant Mikhail Tal would
hardly become the World Champion. The interesting fact is that the founders of two great post-war
Soviet chess schools—in Leningrad (Kortchnoi, Spassky and many other players) and in Lviv
(Stein, Beliavsky, Romanishin, Mikhalchishin), outstanding trainers V.Zak and V.Kart were born
in the same small Ukrainian town of Berdychiv in the same street! The Cheliabinsk chess school
(Sveshnikov, Kharlov, and Dvoiris) would not have appeared without Leonid Gratval, as well as
the great Georgian school among women was created by the trainer Vahtang Karseladze, featuring
such prominent names as Nona Garindashvili and Nana Alexandria. Likewise, the Moldavian
chess school, known for its original opening thinking, was founded by the trainer Viacheslav
Chebanenko. The role of such trainers, as Boleslavsky, Bondarevsky, Furman, Zaitsev and Nikitin
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 21
in the fight for world championship by their pupils. Unfortunately, the role played by the trainer of
USSR junior team Anatoly Byhovsky, who worked with grandmasters ranging from Karpov to
Grishchuk, is, in principle, very little known in the wider circles of chess addicts. Without the
training activity of Naum Rashkovsky in Alma-Ata there would be no group of talented Kazakh
players led by Vlad Tkachiev.
I would also like to say a couple of words about the forgotten yet great Soviet chess trainer, who
worked with the team of Armenia, especially with Vaganian, Petrosian and brought up Vladimir
Akopian. That was Master Oleg Dementiev from Kaliningrad, who has passed away already. He
was a very strong master, participating in the finals of Russian and USSR championships, a
musician by profession, who played the piano wonderfully. Dementiev could work on chess for
days, consuming unbelievable quantity of strong tea and smoking countless cigarettes. He had a
curious nickname among the chess friends—“babushka” (“Grandma”). Dementiev played in
beautiful positional style and played many attacking games, but in training field his main favourite
activity was introducing new ideas. It was Dementiev who caused the renaissance of Fisher
variation against the Najdorf: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 6.Bb3 b5
8.0-0 Bb7 9.Qf3. Here he had several brilliant ideas. In Petrosian system 1.d4 Nf6 2.C4 e6 3.Nf3
b6 4.Nc3 Bb7 5.a3 d5 6.cxd5 Nxd5 he introduced the solid 7.Bd2!, causing significant difficulties
for Black. I would like to tell about another favourite system explored by Dementiev, which was
exploited rather not by his pupils, but by the friends of his pupils—myself and Oleg Romanishin.

Romanishin - Petrosian
Riga, 1979

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Ne2 Ngf6 6.N2g3 g6 7.Bc4.
Also not bad was 7.Bg5 8.Qd2, 9.0-0-0, developing initiative on the kingside.
7. ...Bg7 8.c3 0-0 9.0-0 Nd5?
It is rather strange to see the Tiger declining exchange. Better was 9. ...Nb6.
10.Re1 e5 11.Bg5 f6?
Well, the Tiger merely loathes giving up the pawns, whereas correct move was 11. ...Qb6!
12.dxe5 Nxe5 13.Bxd5 cxd5 14.Qxd5 Be6 with serious compensation.
12.Bd2 exd4 13.cxd4 N7b6 14.Bb3 Kh8 15.Qc1 a5 16.a3 Nc7?!
Here 16. ...f5 was worth considering.
17.Nc5! Nbd5 18.Bh6 b6 19.Bxg7 Kxg7 20.Nd3 Bd7 21.Nf4 Rf7.
Another option was the bishop transfer to f7 via e8.
22.h4! Rc8 23.Qd2 Qf8 24.Rac1 Re7 25.Nxd5 Nxd5 26.Bxd5 cxd5 27.Qf4!
Diagram
Given the symmetrical structure in centre, the White’s advantage is determined by the activity of
the pieces.
27. ...Rxe1 28.Rxe1 Rc6 29.h5 Qd6 30.Qe3 Rc7 31.Qe7!
Leading to unpleasant pin.
31. ...Qxe7 32.Rxe7 Kh6 33.Kh2 a4 34.f4!
White has the winning advantage.
34. ...b5 35.Rf7 f5 36.Re7 Rb7 37.hxg6 Kxg6 38.Ne2 Bc8 39.Re8 Rc7 40.Nc3 Ba6?
Just as hopeless would be 40. ...Kf7 41.Nxb5 Rc6 42.Rxc8!
41.Re6, Black resigned, 1-0.

After five years the idea of “Dema”, as Dementiev was also referred to, could be successfully
employed by the author of the article.

Mikhalchishin - Short
Lviv, 1984
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 22
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Ne2 Ngf6 6.N2g3 Nxe4 7.Nxe4 Nf6!?
8.Nxf6 gxf6.
A very aggressive continuation—more sober was 8. ...exf6.
9.c3 Bf5 10.Bc4 e6 11.Bf4 Bd6 12.Qf3 Bxf4 13.Qxf4 Rg8 14.g3 Qb6 15.0-0-0
0-0-0 16.h3 Qc7 17.Qe3?!
Stronger was 17.Qf3 Qe7 18.g4 with advantage.
17. ...h5 18.b3! Qd6 19.Kb2.
With the idea of Be2, followed by c3-c4,a2-a3, b3-b4 gaining advantage.
19...Rg5!? 20.Be2 Bg6 21.a4 Ra5 22.Bf3 b5 23.Ra1 bxa4 24.b4 Rb5 25.Rxa4 a5 26.Rha1 axb4
27.c4 Rb8?
Clearly better would be 27. ...Rb7.
28.Rd1! e5.
Diagram.
29.Ra6 e4 30.Bxe4 Bxe4 31.Qxe4 Kb7 32.c5! Qe6 33.Rb6 Kc7 34.Qf4 Kd7 35.Rxb8 Qe2 36.Kc1
Rxb8 37.Qxb8 Qc4 38.Kd2 Qc3 39.Ke2 Qc2 40.Ke1! Qe4 41.Kf1 Qh1 42.Ke2 Qe4 43.Kd2 Qf3
44.Qxb4, and the Black resigned, 1-0.

In conclusion I would like to note that every ambitious and hardworking chess-player can
become a trainer for himself, namely, by employing the ideas and thoughts of the great players of
the past, who had endured all vicissitudes of chess fortune. For example, basing on the chess
model he developed, Lasker enquired about the right direction of an attack at the board. His
answer is: the object of the attack should be the weakness in the position of the opponent. The
position could be compared to a chain comprising many links, and someone trying to break the
chain must find the weakest link and direct his forces there. This rule, according to Lasker, applies
to wider fields beyond the chessboard, since it is based on the famous ancient expression about the
“line of the least resistance”, the generality of which cannot be questioned. The lightning, train or
defeated army follow this particular line. But the chess board, being discrete, does not have any
lines of the least resistance—instead, there are specific points corresponding to the squares, and
that is why Steinitz transformed the idea into the principle of mounting pressure at the weak
points. He said that “the logic, which dominates the world, finds expression in chess as well, and
because of that the most decisive and successful combinations, just as deeply calculated and
thoroughly prepared plans, are associated in the most miraculous way with the weak points”. The
pressure at the weak points! How many associations are evoked behind this image…Does it not
resemble the testing of a construction for reliability under overload, which may last until the
ultimate breakdown? But when the construction has the reserve of durability, and is sufficiently
solid, when the reactive forces do not give way to active forces, the construction will endure the
pressure; just as well as attack in chess will fail. One cannot break the wall with one’s
forehead…The struggle at the chessboard is more complex than the static experiments in physics.
In the drive to success there is another option: concentrate all available forces in the decisive point
(even at the price of weakening the other points), and then deliver the blow, acting rapidly and
resolutely, in order to prevent the opponent from exploiting the weakened points. That is why one
should remember that Lasker’s strategy was based on ideas essentially more profound and fruitful
than merely on principles of creating pressure against the weak points—namely, on the idea of
combinational motive, implying the superiority in mobility, space and communication (as
Bonaparte said, “the war is all about communications”), and the idea of superiority in forces,
effectively cooperating on the major direction of the attack (as Suvorov said, “making war with
skills, not with numbers”).

FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 23

 (Day 3: 15:00-15:45 - Grivas)

Bishop Endings
Bishop endings are very rich in
possibilities, similarly to knight endings.
++


Their main characteristic is the possible ++++
sacrifice of the bishop for the opponent's last
pawn, as then the game ends in a draw; this
is in contradistinction to queen or rook
+
endings.
Bishop vs Pawn(s)
A bishop easily achieves a draw when
fighting against a pawn, with few very
specific exceptions.
When pitted against two pawns, provided
these have not crossed their 4th rank, the
bishop can achieve the draw. Otherwise, the
result depends on whether its king can stop
one of the pawns.
With two pawns on their 5th rank, the
placement of the kings is a decisive factor.
When the pawns are separated by at least
two ranks and are advanced at least up to
their 5th rank, the bishop is unable to control
their further march. Two connected pawns
can be immobilized by the bishop, but not
when they have already reached their 6th
rank.
Three pawns against a lone bishop win
when they have all crossed their 4th rank
(there do exist a few exceptions, though).
The defence of the side with the bishop
consists on the immobilization of the pawns,
but this is hard to achieve when the pawns
are far advanced.
Example 1 ●


++++
++++
++++
+++


FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
++++
++

1...Kf5
1...f3+ is an inferior attempt: 2.Kg1!! Kf5
(2...Kf4 3.Bd2+) 3.Ba5 g4 4.Bd8 h3 5.Bc7
Ke4 6.Kf2 and Black can make no progress.
It is worth noting that if White was to move,
then he would be able to draw with 1.Ba5!
Kf5 (1...f3+ 2.Kf2) 2.Bd8!. Yes, the bishop
is a strong piece!
2.Ba5
2.Kh3 Ke4 3.Kg4 Ke3! also loses.
2...g4 3.Bd8 h3+ 4.Kh2 Ke4 5.Bb6 Kf3
6.Bc7 Ke3 7.Bb8 f3 8.Kg1 Ke2 9.Ba7 h2+
10.Kxh2 f2 11.Bxf2 Kxf2 12.Kh1 Kg3!
0-1
The basic idea of the defence is to
immobilize at least two pawns and prevent
them from reaching their 7th rank.
Naturally, against four or more pawns the
bishop is unable to defend.
Bishop & Pawn vs King with/without
Pawn(s)
Bishop and pawn against king wins in
almost all cases. One typical drawing
exception occurs when the pawn is on a rook
file, the promotion square is of a different
colour than that of the bishop and the
defending king controls it.
□ Short,Nigel
■ Kasparov,Garry
B82 Belgrade 1989
++++
1
 ++++ chances increase the closer the pawn is to
the edge of the board, as the bishop of the

++++ defending side does not have the necessary
diagonals at his disposal. With a b-/g-pawn
++++ the attacking side wins, with an a-/h- or c-/f-
 +++ pawn the placement of the kings determines
the result, while with an e-/d- pawn the
++++ position is drawn.
 +++ Naturally, all of the above apply to pawns
that have crossed their 5th rank (with the
++ exception of the a- and h-pawns).
 Example 2 ○
The doubled b-pawns condemn White to
defeat. Black's plan is to bring the white


king in a stalemate position, so as to force ++++
White to push the b4-pawn. The presence of
the b2-pawn is necessary to this plan, so that ++++
after the capture of the front b-pawn a
stalemate doesn't occur. If White had no
++++
pawns, or if these were on a different part of ++++
the board, the position would be drawn.
93...Kg2 94.Kd1 Kf3 95.Kd2 Ke4 96.Kc3
++++
Ke3 97.Kc2 Ke2 98.Kc1 Bd3! 99.b3 Ke1 +

+
100.Kb2 Kd2 101.Ka1 Kc2 102.Ka2 Kc1
103.Ka1 ++++
Or 103.Ka3 Kb1 104.Ka4 Kb2.
103...Bb1!
++++
Forcing resignation in view of the forced 
104.b5 axb5 105.b4 Bd3. A typical win with a rook pawn. The most
0-1 important factor for such positions is
whether the bishop of the attacking side can
Bishop & Pawn vs Bishop be placed on the square in front of the pawn.
A fundamental ending, which was first 1.Bg7 Bd2 2.Bh6 Bb4
researched in depth by L.Centurini who, in Or 2...Bxh6 3.Kxh6 Kf5 4.Kg7.
the 19th century, formulated the following 3.Be3 Bf8
two very important rules: Or 3...Bc3 4.h6 Ba1 5.h7 Bb2 6.Bh6 Bc3
1. The game is drawn when the king (of 7.Bg7.
the defending side) is placed or can be 4.Bd4 Kh4 5.Be5
placed on one of the squares that the pawn Trying to force the black king away from its
must cross on the path to promotion, and the h-pawn.
king cannot be evicted from it. 5...Kg4 6.Bf6!
2. The game is drawn when: Zugzwang!
2a. the king (of the defending side) is 6...Kf4 7.Bg7 Ba3 8.h6
placed behind the pawn (and its counterpart 1-0
near its pawn) and is attacking it, having the
vertical opposition. □ Ghinda,Mihail
2b. the defending bishop can move without ■ Grivas,Efstratios
problems in two diagonals, on each of which C83 Egio Ch-Balkan 1986
has two safe squares at his disposal.
Consequently, we conclude that winning
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 2

 ++

+++ ++++
+++

 ++++

+++
+ ++
+
+++
 
+++  62...Bg3?
Black could have won quickly with 62...a4!
+
+  63.Ke6 (63.Kc4 Kh3) 63...a3 64.Be5
(64.Kxf5 Bc3!) 64...f4! 65.Kf5 Bd2 66.Ke4
++ + Bc1!. Now however, the placement of the
++++ black bishop on a spot from which it cannot
simultaneously protect his a-pawn and
 threaten the white f-pawn is undesirable.
Black has an extra outside passed pawn and 63.Bc1 Bc7 64.Kc6! Bd8 65.Kb5 Kg3 66.f4
his victory should be considered ‘a matter of Kf3 67.Bd2 Ke2 68.Bc3 Kd3 69.Be5 Kc2
technique’. 70.Ka4 Kd2 71.Kb5 Kd3 72.Bd6 Kc3
49.g4 a5 73.Ka4 Kc4 74.Be5 Kc5 75.Bb8 Kc6
Nothing changes with 49...Be1 50.f3 76.Be5 Bc7 77.Bc3 Kc5
(50.Be3?! Ke7) 50...a5. Black has succeeded in switching his bishop
50.Kb5 Be1 51.f3 Ke8 52.h5 gxh5 to the proper spot and will now head for the
Pawn exchanges do not favour the superior f-pawn with his king.
side, but the alternative 52...Kd7?! (52...f6!? 78.Bd2 Kc4 79.Bc1 Kd3 80.Kb3 Ke2
53.h6? gxh6 54.Bxh6 g5! 55.f4 f5! and 81.Ka4 Kf3 82.Bd2 Ke4 83.Kb3 a4+?
wins) 53.hxg6 fxg6 54.Be3 (54.f4 Bd2!) and A bad move, giving away the win. Black
Bd4 is inferior. could have won with 83...Bb6! 84.Ka4 Kd3
53.gxh5 Kd7 54.h6 gxh6 55.Bxh6 Ke6 85.Be1 Ke3.
56.Bg5 Ke5 84.Kxa4 Bxf4 85.Ba5?
Black's position remains won. He will 85.Be1! Be5 86.Kb5 f4 87.Kc6! would have
capture the white f-pawn, transposing to a held the draw.
theoretically won ending. 85...Be5 86.Kb5
57.Be3 f5 58.Ka4 Kf6 59.Bf4 Kg6 60.Kb5 As 86.Bd2 brings no results (see the
Kh5 61.Kc4 comment on White's 61st move), White tries
The white king cannot guard the a5-pawn to reach a theoretical draw with his king
forever, as its counterpart will invade behind the black pawn.
through the queenside, capturing the f-pawn: 86...f4 87.Kc4 Bd4 88.Bc7 f3 89.Bg3 Bg1!
61.Ka4 Kh4 62.Kb5 Kh3 63.Bc7 Kg2 64.f4 90.Bh4
Kf3 65.Bd6 Bd2 66.Bc7 Ke4 67.Ka4 Bxf4 White is reduced to moving his bishop,
68.Bxa5 Be5 69.Bd2 Kd3 70.Bh6 Bd4! waiting for the opportunity to move his king
71.Bf4 Ke4. to d5 when the black king moves away, or,
61...Kh4 62.Kd5 (D) alternatively, reach the promotion square

 with his king. 90.Be1 Ke3 91.Kd5 Bf2
92.Bb4 Bg3 93.Bc5+ Kd3!! 94.Bb6 Be1
++++ 95.Ke5 Bd2 96.Bf2 Ke2! 97.Bh4 Be1 would
also fail to save White.
++++ 90...Bh2? (D)
++++


++
+ ++++
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 3
 ++++ then he will lose after e.g. 97.Be7 Bg1!
98.Bh4 Bh2! 99.Be1 Bg3.
++++ 97.Kf5! Bg1 98.Bh4 Bf2
The difference is clear. 98...Bh2 99.Kg4!
++++ leads nowhere. White has reached the
+++
 theoretical draw.
99.Bd8 Bc5 100.Bh4 Be7 101.Be1 Bd6
+++
+ 102.Kg4 Bb4 103.Bh4
+++
 ½-½

++++ Bishop & Two Pawns vs Bishop

The attacking side wins in all cases, with
 the exception of doubled pawns (which
Incomprehensible. 90...Ke3 91.Kd5 Bf2 practically constitute one pawn). Some care
92.Be7 Be1 93.Bc5+ Kd3! would bring is needed when one of the pawn is on a rook
about the position referred to in the previous file (a or h) and of a wrong promotion
comment. square (colour opposite to the bishop). A
91.Be1? draw may occur also in positions where the
Both sides make consecutive mistakes, defending king has immobilized the pawns.
illustrating the difficulty of conducting this
ending. White could have achieved his aim Bishop & Pawns vs Bishop & Pawns
with 91.Bf2!. Material Advantage
91...Kf4? In order for the material advantage to be
91...Bg1! would have sufficed for victory. exploitable, other requirements must also be
92.Bf2 Bg3 93.Bb6 Be1 94.Kd3! met, such as an active king, a well-placed
Now White can achieve his aim by reaching bishop, a healthy pawn structure. Naturally,
a theoretically drawn position. the defender also has his chances, which
94...Kg3 95.Ke4 Bf2 96.Bd8 Kg2 (D) cannot be considered negligible.


□ Grivas,Efstratios
+
++ ■ Arakhamia,Ketevan
++++

++++ ++++
++++ +++

++++ ++
+
+++
+ ++++

++
+ +
+ 
++++ +++

 ++++
In this ending the diagonal opposition loses.
In order to reach the haven of the draw
++++
White must quickly take the g3-square under 
control, placing his king to g4. This is the Despite his material disadvantage, White's
only correct treatment of the position. If position is defensible, as the remaining
White continues mistakenly (i.e. practically pawns are few and on one flank. If we
offer Black a tempo) by moving his bishop, consider that White has two weaknesses
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 4
(one being less material and the other being
the bad placement of the pawn on h4) we
understand that Black has the advantage, but
he must seek a third weakness in order to
win the game. Thus, it is imperative for
White to determine where to place his
pieces, so as to provide maximum security to
his camp.
53.Bd6?
White fails to comprehend the requirements
of the position and decides to keep his king
on g2. However, the proper square for the
king is e2, as he will have to prevent the
arrival of the black king on this square. If
Black at some point exchanges his g-pawn
with the white h-pawn, then the white king
must return to g2. In view of the above,
53.Be1! Ke5 54.Bg3+ Kd5 55.Kf1! Kc4
56.Ke2 Be5 57.Be1 Bf4 58.Bf2 Kc3
59.Be1+ Kc2 60.Bf2 g5 61.hxg5 Bxg5
(61...fxg5 62.Bh4!!) 62.Kf1! Kd3 63.Kg2
Ke2 64.Bb6 would have led to a draw.
53...Ke6 54.Bf8 f5!
Moving the g-pawn would have been a
serious mistake, as after the black king
moves away Black would lack the option
of...Bf6.
55.Bb4
After 55.Kf1? Bf6 56.Ke2 g6 White loses a
second pawn.
55...Kd5 56.Kg3
56.Kf1 Kc4! 57.Be1 Kd3 does not change
much.
+
56...Be5+ 57.Kg2 Kd4 58.Ba5 Ke3
59.Bb6+ Ke2 (D)



+
++++
+

+++
 ++  

Black has successfully transferred his king
to the excellent e2-square. His next aim is to
wrest control of f1 as well, further restricting
the white king.
60.Bc5
60.Bd8 Bf6 61.Bxf6 gxf6 62.Kg3 Ke3 leads
to a won pawn ending and shows the
significance of keeping the pawn on g7.
60...Bf6 61.Kg3 Bc3!?
Black could go straight with 61...Kf1.
62.Kg2
62.Be7 Be5+! 63.Kg2 Bf6 would not help
either.
62...Bf6 63.Kg3 Kf1!
White is now defenceless, as he is running
out of ‘good’ moves.
64.Bd6 g6 65.f4
White's two other options would also bring
no positive result: 65.Bc5 Be5+ 66.Kh3 Bf4
67.Bb6 Bd2 68.Bc5 Be1 69.Bb6 Bf2 70.Bc7
Be3, when the threat of 71...Kf2/e2 decides
(71.Kg3 Bc5 [71...f4+ 72.Kh3 Kf2
73.Bxf4!!] 72.Be5 Bf2+ 73.Kh3 Ke2) and
65.Bb8 Bc3! 66.Kf4 (66.Bc7 Be1+ 67.Kh3
Ke2) 66...Kg2 67.Kg5 Kxf3 68.Kxg6 Kg4,
when Black would have achieved the
optimal position. Anyway, now White has
taken on a third weakness (f4) and Black
rushes to exploit it.
65...Ke2 66.Bb4 Ke3 67.Bf8 (D)


++
++++
++
+++
+++ ++
++

+
 ++++
+++  ++++
++++ 
67...Bc3!
++++ Black's threatened 68.Bd6 Be1+ 69.Kh3 Kf3
++++ 70.Bc7 Bg3 cannot be countered, and thus
White resigned.
 0-1
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 5
 (44...Bxe3 45.fxe3 Kd6 46.Kf4 with a win)
□ Grivas,Efstratios 45.Kf4 Kd6 46.Kxf5 Kxd5 47.Bg5 Bc5
■ Georgiev,Kiril 48.f4 a3 49.Kg6 Kc4 50.f5 Kc3 51.Bd8 Kb2
D91 Plovdiv Balkaniad 1982 52.f6 Kxa2 53.Be7.

 44.Kf3!
White could of course go again for 44.Be3
++++ Be7 45.Kf4 Kd6 46.Kxf5 Kxd5 47.Bg5 Bc5
48.f4. However, with 43...a5 Black has
++++ weakened the b5-square, which the white

++

 king rushes to exploit.
44...Bd2!? (D)
+
+




++ + ++++
+++ ++++
++ + ++++
++++ 

+
+

 
++++
The ending is favourable for White, as he is
effectively a pawn up, due to the doubled
black a-pawns. When this game took place,
the adjournment system was still employed
 +
and the games were adjourned after the 40th
move; this allowed the possibility of
carefully analyzing the adjourned position at
home. This was the last game of the Junior
section of the 14th Balkaniad. My team
needed a victory in this game in order to win
the gold medals, a fact that made the
adjourned position particularly significant.
41.Bf8
In principle the black pawns must be
weakened, but 41.fxg5! hxg5 (41...Bxg5
42.Be3 Bd8 43.Kf4) 42.f4 Bd8 43.fxg5
Bxg5 44.h4 giving White two passed pawns,
seems stronger.
41...h5 42.fxg5 Bxg5 43.Bc5 a5
Black does not have many alternatives. His
bishop must prevent the advance of the
white king via h4, while the f5- and h5-
pawns will be lost if they advance. King
moves also fail to bring the desired result:
43...Kd8 44.Be3! or 43...Kc7 44.Be3 Be7
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
++++
+
++++

45.a3!
Avoiding yet another trap set by Black. The
careless 45.Ke2? Bb4! would have allowed
Black to draw.
45...Bc1 46.Ke2 Bf4 47.Kd3 Kc7 48.Kc4
Kb7 49.Kb5!
The black pawns now fall. The end was:
49...Bd2!? 50.Bb6! Bc1 51.d6 Bxa3 52.d7
Be7 53.d8Q Bxd8 54.Bxd8 Kc8 55.Bxa5
Kd7 56.Kc5! Ke6 57.f4
And Black resigned, giving the Greek Junior
Team the golden medal of the 14th
Balkaniad (1982). From 1971 until 1994,
when the Balkaniads ceased to be held, this
remained the only one for the Greek Junior
National Squad.
1-0
6
 (Day 3: 16:00-16:45 - Grivas)
Knight Endings
Knight endings are very similar to pawn
endings. This comparison is based on the
fact that the knight, by nature, is unable to
win or lose a tempo; this factor must always
be taken into account. On the other hand, the
knight's supporters are compensated by its
ability to exert influence on every square of
the board, in contrast to the bishop, that can
control only half of them.
Knight vs Pawn(s)
exception of the promotion squares of rook
pawns (a1 and h1).
When the pawn has reached its 7th rank,
then an a-, b-, g- or h-pawn offers good
winning chances, while a c-, d-, e- or f-pawn
minimal ones - or none at all.
Example 2 ●


A lone knight is sometimes able even to +++
win against a pawn, when that is in the way
of its king.
++++
++++
Example 1 ●

 +++
++++ ++++
++++ ++++
+++
+ ++++
++++ +++
++++ 
The black knight cannot stop the pawn, even
++++
 when on the move.
1...Nd7+ 2.Kc8!
++ Certainly not 2.Kc7? Nc5!.
++++ 2...Nb6+ 3.Kd8
1-0

If White is to move, then he wins with 1.Nf6 Moving the entire construction one file to
Kh1 2.Ng4 h2 3.Kf1 g5 4.Nf2#. With Black the right, with the pawn now on the c-file,
to move there is not much difference: the position is drawn.
1...Kh1
1...g5 2.Nf6 g4 3.Nxg4+ Kh1 4.Kf1. Example 3 ●
2.Nf6 Kh2 3.Ng4+ Kh1 4.Kf1 g5 5.Kf2 h2
6.Ne3 g4 7.Nf1 g3+ 8.Nxg3#


1-0 ++++
With a knight against a pawn, the knight
+ ++
can secure the draw when it can control any ++++
of the squares on the pawn's path, with the
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 7
 ++++
++++
++++
++++
++++

1...Ne7+!
Wrong is 1...Nd6+? 2.Kd7 Nc4 3.Kc6 Ne5+
4.Kc5 Nd7+ 5.Kb5.
2.Kd8 Nc6+ 3.Ke8 Na7!
The black knight has an additional file at its
disposal (the a-file), which is not available in
the case of an a-, b-, g- or h-pawn.
½-½
The knight vs two pawns ending is
generally drawn, as the knight can stop two
connected pawns.
When the pawns are separated, the knight
is able to defend only when there are a
maximum of three files between them. In the
case of greater remoteness, all depends on
the placement of the kings.
The case of knight vs three pawns is a very
difficult one. The knight is usually fighting a
lost cause. In general, three connected pawns
win the game if at least two of them have
reached their 5th rank or beyond. If two of
the three are connected and the third
separated from them, the defending idea
consists of the knight immobilizing two of
them and the king capturing the third one.
Example 4 ○


++++
++++
+++
++++

White can win only if he is to move! If
however Black was to move, then he would
save the draw, as he would be able to
prevent at least two pawns reaching their 5th
rank: 1...Nd5! 2.h5+ (or 2.f5+ Kf6 3.Ke4
Nc3+ 4.Kd4 Ne2+! 5.Ke3 Ng3) 2...Kh6!
(2...Kf6? 3.h6! Kg6 4.g5 Ne7 5.Kg4 Nf5
6.h7! would lose) 3.Ke4 Nf6+ 4.Kf5 Nd5
5.Ke5 Ne3 6.g5+ Kxh5 7.Kf6 Nd5+.
1.f5+!
1.g5? Nd5 2.Ke4 Ne7! 3.Ke5 Kh5! 4.f5
Kxh4 5.Kf6 (5.g6 Kg5! 6.g7 Ng8 7.Ke6
Nf6) 5...Nd5+ 6.Ke6 Kxg5 7.Kxd5 Kxf5
leads to a draw.
1...Kg7 2.g5 Nd5 3.h5 Nc3
Black also loses after 3...Kf7 4.h6 Nc3 5.h7
Kg7 6.g6.
4.Kf4 Ne2+ 5.Ke5 Ng3 6.f6+ Kg8 7.h6!
Nh5 8.g6 Ng3 9.h7+ Kh8 10.f7
1-0
Two Knights vs Pawn
It is well known that two knights cannot
force mate on a lone king. However, in
certain positions, two knights against king &
pawn(s) are able to do this! While in the first
case mate could be ‘enforced’ only if the
black king goes through a stalemate (clearly
illegal!), with additional pawns on the
defending side this is not a problem.
The winning idea consists of three parts:
1. Immobilize the pawn.
2. Direct the enemy king to a corner,
restricting him to maximum two available
squares.
3. At the appropriate moment, ‘release’ the
pawn and deliver mate.
Example 5 ●


+++
++++ ++++
++   ++++
++++ ++++
++++ 
++++
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 8
 +++ lasts an amazing number of 115 moves! And
a last remark: in Nalimov’s Databases
++++ (www.k4it.de) it is stated that there is also a
win when the bishop’s pawns (c and f) are
++++ blockaded in c4 and f4 squares.

1...Kh7 2.Kf6 Kg8 3.Ke7! Kh8 4.Kf8 Kh7 Knight & Pawn vs King
5.Kf7 Kh8 Such positions almost always win. There
White has ‘lost’ the necessary tempo to do exist a few exceptions though:
bring about the same position and have the
move. Example 6 ○●
6.Nc4! a3 7.Ne5 a2 8.Ng6+ Kh7 9.Nf8+

Kh8 10.Ne7 a1Q 11.Neg6#
1-0
++++
 +++
The position is won only when the pawn has
not crossed the imaginary line created by the ++++
squares a4-b6-c4-d4-e4-f4-g6-h4. ++++

 ++++
++++ ++++
++++ ++++

++
+ ++++
+
+
+ 

+

+
 White cannot win. The black king does not
++++ leave the b7- and a8-squares, while any
attempt by White to evict it from the corner
++++ leads either to stalemate or to loss of the
pawn.
++++ ½-½

This is also called the ‘Troitsky Line’ Knight & Pawns vs Pawns
(Alexei Alexeievich Troitsky). But there is In general, the knight wins such positions,
one caveat: This rule does not take the 50- as it can immobilize and capture the enemy
move-rule into account. So over the board pawns.
you may even with optimal play not be able

to win some of the won positions, e.g., many
positions with Black's pawn on d4 are not
++++
won with respect to the 50-move rule like 

+++
W: Kh8,Nd3, Nc7; B: Kg6,d4 with Black to
move is won in 82 moves. It would be ++++
interesting to find a ‘second Troitsky line’,
which takes the 50-move-rule into account. I
+ ++
guess that all the pawns should be one ++++
square farther back in order to always be
able to win with respect to the 50-move-rule.
  ++
By the way: the longest win in this ending ++++
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 9
 ++++

The position is more difficult than it seems
at first sight. White has many drawing
chances and, as the knight cannot win a
tempo, Black must be very careful.
64...Nc7+ 65.Kc4 a6!
Forcing White to advance (and consequently
weaken) his a-pawn.
66.a4
The alternative 66.bxa6 bxa6 67.Kb4 Kc6 is
easy.
66...a5! 67.Kd4
After 67.b6 Na6 68.Kb5 Nb8! the
immobilized white pawns will be captured.
67...Ne6+ 68.Kd5 Nd8! 69.c6+ (D)
The alternative 69.c4 Kc7 70.Ke5 (70.Kd4
Nc6+!! 71.Kd5 [71.bxc6 Kxc6 72.Kc3
Kxc5] 71...Nb8 72.Kd4 Nd7 73.Kd5 b6!,
winning the white a4-pawn) 70...b6 71.c6
Nf7+ 72.Kd5 Nd6 73.c5 (73.Kd4 Nf5+
72...Na7! 73.Kd5 Kb6 74.Kd6 Nc6 75.c5+
Kb7 76.Kd7 Na7 77.Kd6 Kc8! 78.c6
And White resigned before Black played the
relatively simple 78...Kd8!.
0-1
Knight & Pawn vs Knight
This ending is usually drawn, as the knight
can be sacrificed for the pawn. In order to
achieve the sacrifice, the cooperation of
knight and king is necessary; otherwise, the
pawn is able to win the game. If the pawn
has reached the 7th rank and is supported by
both king and knight, then the position is
won.
Example 7 ○


++++
+++
74.Kd5 Ne3+ 75.Kd4 Nd1) 73...Nc8! does +++
not save White either.
++++


++++
+++
++++
+
+++
++++
++++
++++

+++

++++ White has a pawn on its 7th rank, supported
+ ++ by both king and knight.
1.Nb4! Ke5
++++ Or 1...Kc7 2.Nd5+ Kc6 3.Nb6.
++++ 2.Nd3+ Kd5
No help is offered by 2...Ke4 3.Nc5+ or
 2...Kf5 3.Nc5 Ne5 4.Kb6.
69...Kc7! 3.Nf4+ Kc6 4.Ng6 Kd5
The careless 69...bxc6+? 70.bxc6+ Kc7 Or 4...Kc5 5.Nf8 Ne5 6.Ka8 Nc6 7.Ne6+
71.Kc5! would lead to a theoretical draw. Kd5 8.Nd8!.
The b5-square is critical and must be 5.Nf8 Ne5 6.Kb6 Nc6! 7.Nd7 Kd6 8.Ne5
controlled by Black in order to achieve Nb8 9.Ka7 Kc7 10.Nc4 Nc6+
victory. Or 10...Nd7 11.Nb6 Nb8 12.Nd5+.
70.c4 11.Ka8 Nb8! 12.Nb6 Na6 13.Nd5+
Or 70.cxb7 Nxb7 71.c4 Kb6!. 1-0
70...bxc6+ 71.bxc6 Nxc6 72.Kc5
If White was to move, he could reach the Material Advantage
theoretical draw with 73.Kb5!. As stated earlier, knight endings resemble
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 10
pawn endings, as the knight cannot win or
lose a tempo. Consequently, a material


advantage is quite significant and, in ++++
conjunction with other strategic elements
(healthy pawn structure, good king
++++
placement), usually brings victory. +++
+
□ Supatashvili,Khvicha ++

■ Grivas,Efstratios
E62 Ankara Zonal 1995
++++

 +++ 
++++ ++++
++++
 ++++
+++
+ 
52.h6?
++
 52.hxg6? Ne5+ 53.Ke3 Nxg6 is just a
+
  transposition in a line mentioned above, but
White could win with 52.a5! Ne5+ 53.Ke3
+++  Kxd5 54.a6.
52...Ne5+ 53.Kc3 Kxd5 54.h7 Nf7 55.Kb4
++++ Kc6 56.a5 Nh8 57.Kc4 Nf7 58.Kb4
++++ Black has created a fortress, denying White
any winning chances. 58.Kd4 Kb5 59.Kd5
 Kxa5 60.Kc6 (60.Ke6 Nxg5+ 61.Kf6 Nxh7+
Black's position seems critical. Apart from 62.Kxg6 f4 63.gxf4 Nf8+) 60...Nh8! 61.Kd6
the material disadvantage, he must always Kb6 62.Ke6 Kc6 63.Kf6 Kd6 64.Kg7 Ke7
keep in mind the Nxg6 ‘sacrifice’, which 65.Kxh8 Kf8 (D)
could, under favourable circumstances, end
the game immediately.


48.Ke2 ++
Of course, the afore-mentioned sacrifice is
not available yet, as the black knight can
++++
quickly return to the kingside via e5. On the +++
+
other hand Black can present centralized
well-placed pieces and a passed d-pawn. +++

48...Na5 49.Nxg6!?
White proves impatient, but 49.Kd2 Nc4+
++++
50.Kc2 Ne3+ 51.Kd3 Nc4 leads nowhere as +++ 
well.
49...d3+?
++++
Wrong move order. Black should play ++++
49...hxg6 50.h5 Nc4 51.hxg6 d3+ 52.Kxd3
Ne5+ 53.Ke3 Nxg6 54.a5 with a draw. 
50.Kxd3! is the main variation of the drawing concept.
A blunder would be 50.Kd1? hxg6 51.h5 58...Nh8 59.Kc4 Nf7 60.Kb4 Nh8
Nc4 52.hxg6 Kd4! 53.g7 Kc3! =, illustrating ½-½
a ‘hidden’ advantage of Black's position: his
superbly placed centralized king.
50...hxg6 51.h5 Nc4 (D)
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 11
 (Day 3: 17:00-17:45 - Mikhalchishin)
Working with Classical Games
EXPLOITATION OF CLASSICAL
GAMES
First step is proper selection of
classical game with the clear subject.
These games have to be properly
annotated, as it is always better to
have original annotations. Our
today(s subject is centralization
against flank play.
(1) Vidmar,Milan Sr −
Nimzowitsch,Aaron [E11]
New York New York (5), 24.02.1927
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 Bb4+ 4.Bd2
[Modern chess generally prefers 4.Nbd2]
4...Qe7 5.Nc3 0-0 6.e3 WE cant study
classics and openings−there are two
different stories. Modern approach
6.Rc1; 6.g3] 6...d6 Here as write
Nimcovich there are different attitudes
1Kings Indian way e6−e5 with
exchanged bad Blacksquared Bishop
2Dutch way−Ne4 and f7−f5...b6 7.Bd3
Bb7
+%&
'
3v.But Modern theory introduced
+++)
Kholmovs plan 6...d5 7.Rc1 Rd8; 6...b6
7.Bd3 Bb7] 7.Be2 b6 8.0-0 Bb7

++
[8...Bxc3 9.Bxc3 Ne4 10.Be1] 9.Qc2
Nbd7 Diagram


!++"!+#
$

%&
' 3++
10.Rad1 [It is the critical position−it
means there are different plans in the
position, and it is possible to say many!
110.Rfd1 Bxc3 11.Bxc3 Ne4 12.Be1; 2
Attacking plan10.Ng5 h6 11.Nh3;
3 Positional exchange of Black squared
Bishops with the idea to control e4
square10.Nb5 Bxd2 11.Nxd2 c6 12.Nc3;
4 A bit shy approach 10.Ne1 and ten f
2−f3;
5 Direct exchange of opponents Bishop
10.a3] 10...Bxc3 11.Bxc3 Ne4 12.Be1
[12.Nd2=] 12...f5 13.Qb3! [Prophylactic−
it is necessary to fight against Knight on
e4.Directly it was impossible13.Nd2
Qg5!] 13...c5 14.Nd2 Nxd2 15.Rxd2!?
[15.Bxd2] 15...e5 16.dxe5 dxe5 17.f3
Diagram


!++"!+#
$
(
*+
,++++-
.+Q+ +/
0 "4+ 2
45

(


+) 6789:;<=
17...g5!? Black believes that central d
*+++++ file is useless and decided to start
flank action
,
 ++- 18.Bf2?? Technically wrong fight for
.+ +/ the file 18 Dd3 Tad819 Dd6 only White
could pretend for advantage. Nf6
0 Q
  2 19.Rfd1? To fight for d file would be
3"4++45 possible differently 19 Qd3!! Which
was correct way.19.. Rae8 20.Qa4 Ba8
6789:;<= 21.Rd6 [Better would be to die like
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 12
man!21.Rd7!? Nxd7 22.Rxd7 Qf6
23.Qxa7 e4] 21...Qg7! 22.Bf1? Mistake
which allows Black to breakthrough
in the center e4! 23.Be1 exf3 24.Bc3
Qe7 25.R6d3 fxg2 26.Bxg2 Bxg2
27.Bxf6 Qe4 28.R1d2 Bh3 29.Bc3
Qg4+ 0-1
CONCLUSIONS
1 Opening was played a bit old−
fashioned way. But really at that time
that did not have enough practice in
(Day 3: 18:00-18:45 - Mikhalchishin)
Basic / Typical Plans
Every plan is based on weakness! So
-spot the weakness−attack it−it will
force opponent to bring his pieces to
defence−then create the second
weakness and attack it−opponent is
generally unable to defend both, as
defending pieces are much less
mobile as attacking.
(1) Botvinnik,Mikhail −
Zagoriansky,Evgeny [A13]
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
such systems.
2 First critical moment was on 1o
move and White have chosen very
central plan, which is not the best.
3 All fight in such typical structures is
around e4 square.
4 Black’s decision to start flank
attack was very risky, but Vidmar
technically wrongly tried to exploit d
file.
Sverdlovsk Sverdlovsk (6), 1943
1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.b3 Nf6 4.Bb2 Be7
5.e3 0-0 6.Nc3 c5 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Nxd5
exd5 9.d4 [9.Be2 Nc6 10.0-0 (10.d4!?
cxd4 11.Nxd4 Bb4+ 12.Kf1 #C5 h4, g3,
#C8g2#D5) 10...d4!= 11.Bb5 dxe3
12.dxe3 Qb6 13.Bd3 Nb4 (13...Bg4!?)
14.Bc4 Be6 15.Qe2 Rad8 16.Ne5 Bf6
17.a3 Nd5 18.f4 Nc7 19.Rad1 Bxe5
20.Bxe5 Bxc4 21.Qxc4 Qc6 22.b4 b6
13
(22...Nd5? 23.b5) 23.h4? (23.h3 Ne6 21.Bf3 b6 22.Qb2 [22.Bg4 Qc6 23.Bxe6
24.f5 Ng5) 23...Nd5 24.Rd3 Nf6 fxe6] 22...Rc8 23.Qe5 Rcd8 24.Rd4 a5
25.Rfd1 Rxd3 26.Rxd3 Ng4∓ 27.Bc3 Diagram
Re8 28.e4 h6 (28...h5) 29.bxc5 bxc5
30.e5 Rb8 31.Be1 Diagram



 +"!++#
"!+++# $++!+

'
$
++

' (
++
)
(+&++
) *
%&
%Q++
*+
 ++ ,+"4++-
,+Q+  - .++ +/
. +4++/ 0++ +2
0++++2 3++4+5
3++
5 6789:;<=
6789:;<=
31...Rb2? (31...Rb1 32.Rd8+ Kh7
33.Qd3+ Qg6 34.Kf1 Qxd3+ 35.Rxd3
Kg6∓) 32.Rd8+ Kh7 33.Qd3+ g6 34.Qf3
Qe6?? (34...Rb1 35.Qxg4 Rxe1+
36.Kh2 Qe4 37.Rd7 Kg8 38.Rxf7=)
35.Qa8+− g5 36.h5 Rxg2+ 37.Kxg2
Ne3+ 38.Kf2 Qa2+ 39.Bd2 1-0
Larsen,B−Mikhalchishin,A/Kobenhavn
28/32 1979/[Mikhalchishin,A]] 9...cxd4
10.Qxd4 Bf6 11.Qd2 Nc6 12.Be2 Be6
13.0-0 Bxb2 14.Qxb2 Qa5 15.Rfd1
Rad8 Diagram


+"!"!+#
$
25.g4! Qc6 26.g5 [26.h4] 26...hxg5?
[26...Bxh3 27.Rxd5 (27.Rh4 Qe6 28.Qh2
Bf5 29.gxh6$) 27...Qe6 28.Rxd7 Qxe5
29.Rxd8+ Kh7E] 27.Qxg5 f6 28.Qg6 Bf7
29.Qg3 f5 30.Qg5 Qe6 31.Kh1 Qe5
32.Rg1 Rf8 33.Qh6 Rb8 34.Rh4 Kf8
35.Qh8+ Bg8 36.Rf4! Rbb7 37.Rg5 Rf7
38.Qh5 Qa1+ 39.Kg2 g6 40.Qxg6 Bh7
41.Qd6+ Rfe7 42.Qd8+ 1-0
(2) Karpov,Anatoly (2705) −
Spassky,Boris V (2640) [D37]
Montreal Montreal (4), 14.04.1979
[ChessBase]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7
5.Bf4 0-0 6.e3 c5 7.dxc5 Nc6 8.Qc2
Qa5 9.a3 Bxc5 10.Rd1 Be7 11.Nd2
Bd7 [11...e5E main line] 12.Be2 [12.Nb3

++

' Qb6 13.cxd5 Nxd5 14.Nxd5 exd5

(++++) 15.Rxd5 Be6 (15...Bb4+ 16.Nd2
(16.axb4 Nxb4 17.Qd2 Nxd5 18.Qxd5
*%&+
+++ Be6-+) 16...Rac8E) 16.Rb5] 12...Rfc8
,++++- 13.0-0 [13.Nb3 Qb6 14.c5?! Bxc5
15.Na4 Nb4! (15...Bb4+ 16.Kf1!
.++ +/ (16.axb4 Nxb4 17.Nxb6 Nxc2+ 18.Kd2
axb6∓) ) 16.axb4 (16.Qxc5 Bxa4;
0%Q+  2 16.Nxb6 Nxc2+ 17.Kd2 axb6 18.Kxc2
3"4+4+5 Ba4! 19.Rd3 Ne4∓) 16...Bxa4∓]
13...Qd8 14.cxd5 exd5 Diagram
6789:;<=

16.Rd2 [16.a3] 16...Rd7 17.Rad1 Rfd8
18.h3 h6 19.Ne5 Nxe5 20.Qxe5 Qc5 !+!%&++#
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 14
 $

+ 

' *+&+
+++
(+++) ,++++-
*++
+++ . 
4 +/
,++
+- 0 "4  2
.  +/ 3++Q+5
0 Q  2 6789:;<=
3++4+45
6789:;<=
[14...Nxd5 15.Nxd5 exd5 16.Qb3 Qb6?!
17.Qxd5 Be6 18.Qb5] 15.Nf3! h6
16.Ne5 Be6 [16...Qe8 17.Nxc6 Bxc6
18.Qb3 Rd8 19.Bf3 Ne4 20.Nxd5 ? Tal
20...Ba4 -+ Tal 21.Nxe7+ Kf8 22.Rxd8
Bxb3 23.Rxe8+ Rxe8 24.Bxe4+−]
17.Nxc6 Rxc6 18.Bf3 Qb6 19.Be5! Ne4
20.Qe2 [20.Bd4 Bc5 21.Bxc5 Rxc5
22.Bxe4 dxe4 23.Qxe4 Qxb2 24.Na4
Re5 25.Qf4 Qb5; 20.Bxe4 dxe4 21.Qxe4
Qxb2 22.Nd5 Bxd5] 20...Nxc3 21.Bxc3
Rd8 Diagram


+"!++#
$
26.g3 Bf8 27.Bg2 Be7 28.Qh5! a6
29.h3 Qc6 30.Kh2 Qb5 31.f4 f6 [31...f5
32.Qg6 Bf8 33.Be5 ∆g3−g4] 32.Qd1
Qc6 33.g4 g5 34.Kh1 a5 35.f5 Bf7
36.e4 Kg7 37.exd5 Qc7 38.Re2 b5
39.Rxe7 Rxe7 40.d6 Qc4 41.b3 1-0
In endgames plans are either typical,
and must be conducted precisely.
(3) Aronian,Levon − Carlsen,Magnus
[E15]
Moscow Tal Memorial Moscow, 2006
Magnus knew and adopted before very
important defensive method, known as
STICKING, so it was necessary to
continue it. Simply keeping Rook on e
file on e2 ore3.But he decided to change
method of defence, going to very precise

+


' position... 69...Ra1 Diagram
(%&!++
)

*++
+++ +"4++#
,++++- $+++'
. 
 +/ (++++)
0 +Q  2 *++ ++
3++4+45 ,++++-
6789:;<= .++++/
[21...Bxa3 22.Bxg7!; 21...Rxc3!?
22.bxc3 Qa5] 22.Rd3! Rcd6 23.Rfd1
0++++2
R6d7 24.R1d2 Qb5 25.Qd1 b6 Diagram 3"!+++5

 6789:;<=
+"!++# [69...Re2!] 70.Ke7 Ra5 71.e6 Ra7+
72.Rd7 Ra8 73.Rd6 Ra7+? Applying
$
+!


' this method it is necessary to keep Rook
(
++
) on the 8 rank. [Only defence was
73...Kg6= ] 74.Ke8 1-0
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 15
 (Day 4: 10:00-10:45 - Grivas)
Doubled-Backward-Hanging Pawns
Doubled Pawns
Doubled pawns are those pawns of the
same army that lie on the same file. These
pawns can be classified in four main
categories:
1) Flank doubled isolated pawns: their
positive aspects are usually short-term and
consist of the strengthening of squares, the
additional semi-open file they create and
active play for the pieces. In the long term
these pawns constitute a serious weakness,
as they display every single aspect of a weak
pawn-structure. Overall, such pawns usually
are a liability and one is advised to avoid
them. Still, there are some exceptions, most
notably in the Sicilian Defence, where the
side taking on such pawns obtains other
concrete counterbalancing advantages.
2) Flank doubled pawns: these are often
beneficial for the owner, as they offer an
additional semi-open file and direct their
power towards the centre. Moreover, taking
into account that they are part of a pawn
complex, they are able to support and be
supported by other pawns harmoniously.
3) Central doubled isolated pawns: the
advantages and disadvantages of flank
doubled isolated pawns apply, with one
significant difference, that these pawns now
control important central squares; this is a
short-term benefit but can often prove of
decisive importance. In the long term these
pawns become weak and are easy targets in
an endgame. Just as with flank pawns, the
square in front of them becomes an outpost
for the opponent, carrying with it all the
normal headaches for the owner of the
doubled pawns.
4) Central doubled pawns: the most
popular form of doubled pawns, as it not
only occurs most often but also has
significant merits (control of central squares,
semi-open file, mutual support between the
pawns) while its negative aspects are
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
minimal and are usually only encountered in
the endgame, where these pawns may
become vulnerable.
Taking the above into consideration we
can reach some conclusions regarding the
doubled pawns. The advantages they offer
are control of important squares and one
additional semi-open file. Their main
disadvantage is their vulnerability when they
are attacked by the opponent; this
vulnerability becomes obvious (as in all
cases regarding pawn-structures) in the
endgame.
The creation of doubled pawns, with all its
advantages and disadvantages, must not be
part of an exchange with other positional
concessions that could possibly harm our
position irreparably. The careful
examination and complete evaluation of our
possibilities and plans must be the governing
factor in making any decisions regarding
pawn-structures.
In general, the strategic element of
doubled pawns is a very sensitive subject
and only experience derived from practice
can enable us to understand when to employ
it and when to avoid it. Our decisions should
be greatly influenced by the examination of
the rest of our pawn-structure, as well as the
harmonious disposition of our army in its
entirety.
□ Topalov,Veselin
■ Grivas,Efstratios
C68 Kavala tt 1990
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6
5.Nc3
Practice has shown that 5.d4 exd4 6.Qxd4
Qxd4 7.Nxd4 Bd7 8.0-0 0-0-0 gives Black a
satisfactory game, and consequently White
has sought new ways of contesting the
initiative.
5...Bg4
5...f6 6.d4 (6.0-0?! c5!) 6...exd4 7.Qxd4
1
Qxd4 8.Nxd4 Bd7 is also reasonable.
6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 (D)
+++

 ++
+

 
Again both sides have doubled pawns
++ controlling crucial central squares. Black's
++++ pawn-structure is again slightly preferable
due to the weakness of the white a-pawn, but
+++ this pawn cannot be attacked in the near
future. The position is balanced, as neither
++++ side has any direct, worthwhile plan of
++Q+ improving their position. Finally, it must be
mentioned that the relatively closed
+ character of the position means that the e3-
+ bishop is not superior to the g6-knight.
12.g3 Qd7 13.Bc5 Rfe8 14.Qg4!?
 White could also continue with 14.Kg2 Nf8!
Both sides have chances in this position. If (intending ...Ne6) 15.Bxf8 Rxf8 =.
White succeeds in playing d4, exchanging 14...Qxg4 15.hxg4 h6!
off the black e5-pawn, then he will enjoy a Otherwise White would play 16.g5!
clear superiority thanks to his better pawn- followed by Kg2 and Rh1, with pressure on
structure (a 4:3 majority on the kingside), as the semi-open h-file.
Black will be unable to counterbalance this 16.f4 Nf8 17.Kg2 b6 18.Be3 c5 19.Kf3 f6
with the standard bishop-pair advantage - he 20.a4 a5 (D)
just surrendered it!

7...Ne7
Georgiev,Kr-Grivas,E Kavala Balkaniad +++
1990, continued 7...Qf6!? 8.Qxf6 Nxf6 9.d3
Bc5 10.Ne2 Rd8 11.f4 exf4 12.Bxf4 Rd7
++
13.Be5 Be7 14.Ng3 Bd6 15.Bxd6 cxd6 16.0- +
0 0-0 17.a4 Re8 18.Rf5 Re5 19.a5 Rxf5
20.Nxf5 g6 21.Nxd6 Rxd6 22.e5 Re6
+
23.exf6 Rxf6 24.Ra4 Rd6 25.Rb4 Rd7 +++
26.Kf2 f5 27.d4 Kf7 28.Ke3 Ke6 29.c4 Kd6
30.Rb6 Kc7 31.Kd3 g5 32.b4 ½-½. +
8.d3 Ng6 9.Be3
I would prefer 9.a3 Bc5! 10.Be3 Qe7 with
++++
equal chances. +++
9...Bb4! 10.0-0 Bxc3 11.bxc3 0-0 (D)


 Black has placed all his pawns on the same
+
+ colour squares as the white bishop, thus
violating an important strategic principle.
++ However, this particular position is an
++++ exception, as the chosen placement of the
black pawns restricts the action of the e3-
+++ bishop, while the white pawns may become
targets for the f8-knight (particularly the a4-
++++ pawn).
+Q+ 21.d4!? cxd4 22.cxd4 exd4 23.Bxd4
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 2
The position has opened up, something that
theoretically favours the side with the
bishop. However, the weak white queenside
pawns counterbalance the advantage of the
better minor piece, and thus the position
remains equal.
23...Rad8 24.Rfd1 Rd7! 25.Rd3 Red8
26.Rad1 Kf7 27.Be3 Ke7 28.Ke2 Ne6 29.c3
Nf8 30.Bc1 Rxd3 31.Rxd3 Rxd3 32.Kxd3
Nd7 33.Kd4
The ending is drawn, as neither side can
make significant progress without offering
the opponent chances. A relatively calm
game where both sides played cautiously.
½-½
Backward Pawn
A pawn is backward when it lies on a semi-
open file and constitutes the last part in a
pawn-chain or group, and thus cannot be
protected by another pawn. In several cases
an isolated pawn can also be a backward
pawn, when it is situated deep in its own
camp.
The backward pawn is the only strategic
element regarding pawn-structures that has
only disadvantages and almost no merits,
and therefore one is advised to avoid such
pawns unless there are considerable
compensating factors.
The backward pawn is the cause of
multiple problems and disharmony, as it
forces one's pieces to occupy passive
succeeds in protecting the pawn.
The third plan consists of exploiting the
outpost that is usually created right in front
of the backward pawn.
Piece exchanges enhance the weakness of
the backward pawn and increase its
vulnerability in the endgame, as also
happens with all pawn weaknesses in
general.
It is also important to understand what
exactly the term 'backward pawn' means and
when such a pawn really constitutes a
weakness for its side in each concrete
position. For example, in many variations of
the Sicilian Defence the backward black
pawn on d6 is not such a serious weakness,
as Black enjoys active counterplay as a
compensating factor while White finds it
very hard to approach the pawn.
□ Grivas,Efstratios
■ Kokkinos,Leonidas
A52 Thessaloniki 1983
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Nc6?!
(D)
This move-order is inaccurate. The correct
sequences to reach standard lines are 4...Bc5
5.e3 Nc6 and 4...Bb4+ 5.Nbd2 Nc6.
However, at the time of this game, the
difference was not widely appreciated.


+


positions in order to ensure its adequate
protection.
+
The dangers facing the possessor of such a ++++
pawn are serious, because its presence
usually leads to passivity and inactivity. The +++
side that is attacking the pawn or is generally
trying to exploit its presence has several
++++
viable plans at its disposal. ++++
The first plan is simple and concerns the
pawn itself. The opponent's pieces focus on
+
it and eventually capture it, securing a Q+
material advantage.
The second plan revolves around the 
passivity of the defending pieces, which 5.Bf4?!
allows the opponent's army to develop a White has at his disposal a strong
dangerous initiative on other parts of the continuation by which he obtains a clear and
board. This is the most common plan in permanent edge: 5.Bg5! Be7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7
practice, as the defending side usually 7.Nc3; e.g., 7...0-0 8.Nd5 Qd8 9.e3 Ngxe5
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 3
10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Be2 d6 12.0-0 c6 13.Nc3 13...c5?!
Be6 14.b3 Qa5 15.Qd2 Rad8 16.f4 Bg4 White would enjoy a slight but permanent
17.Bd1 Bxd1 18.Raxd1 Ng4 19.h3 Nh6 edge (two bishops, space advantage) after
20.e4 f5 21.Rfe1 Rfe8 22.Kh2 fxe4 23.Rxe4 13...Ng6 14.Bg3 Bb7 15.b4, but this was in
Rxe4 24.Nxe4 Qh5 25.Ng5 Nf7 26.Nf3 d5 any case preferable to the text-move, which
27.Qe3 Qf5 28.cxd5 cxd5 29.g4 Qc2+ creates new weaknesses.
30.Rd2 Qc7 31.Rxd5 Rf8 32.Kg3 Nd8 14.Rad1 Bb7 15.Rd2! (D)
33.Qe5 Qc8 34.Qe7 Qc1 35.Rf5 Nf7
36.Qxb7 g6 37.Rf6 Qb2 38.Qe7 Qxa2


39.Qe6 Qa1 40.h4 Kg7 41.g5 a5 42.f5 gxf5 +++
43.h5 Qc3 44.Rxf5 Qc7+ 45.Kh3 Qc3
46.h6+ Kg8 47.g6 hxg6 48.Qxg6+ Kh8

+

49.Rxf7 1-0 Polugaevsky,L-Nunn,J Biel ++
1986.
5...Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 (D) ++

 +++
+
++  Q+

 
++++ +++
+++ 

++ It is very important for White to prevent the
++++

+Q+
 easily be breached. Therefore, White turns
Both sides have committed one inaccuracy
and we have reached by transposition a
theoretical position, which has served as the
starting point for a great number of games.
7.a3
This move is currently considered
premature; instead, 7.e3 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5
Nxe5 9.Be2 0-0 10.0-0 is more accurate.
++
7...Bxd2+ 8.Qxd2 Ngxe5 9.Nxe5 Nxe5
10.e3 0-0

Another possibility, supported in practice by
J.Speelman, is 10...d6 11.Be2 b6 12.e4 Bb7
13.f3 0-0-0 with complex play due to the
opposite-side castling.
11.Be2 d6 12.0-0 b6 13.Qc3!
advance ...d5, after which Black's problems
would mostly disappear.
15...f6 16.Rfd1 Rfd8 17.b4!
White is harmoniously developed and
controls events in the centre. However,
Black's position is compact and cannot
his attention to the queenside, where a future
open file will allow him to enter Black's
ranks. There is plenty of time to employ this
plan, as Black lacks concrete counterplay.
17...Rac8 18.Qb3 Bc6 19.Bg3 Be8 (D)


+
+
+
++
+++
With the idea 13...Bb7?! 14.c5! bxc5 (not Q+
14...Ng6? 15.cxd6! cxd6 16.Bg3 +/-)
15.Bxe5 Qxe5 16.Qxe5 dxe5 17.Rac1 and a
+
slight advantage for White, thanks to his
healthier pawn structure.
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 4
 +++ to secure victory, in practice the opponent
cannot put up stern and accurate defence for
 30-40 consecutive moves.
20.b5! 30...Qe4 31.Qc3 f5?!
White would almost never play bxc5?, nor Creating yet another weakness in Black's
would Black opt for ...cxb4?. Thus, the pawn-structure. The passive 31...Qe7 should
white b-pawn proceeds with its mission, have been preferred.
fixing the black queenside pawns and paving 32.Qd3! Qxd3 33.R1xd3 g6 34.Ra3 Kf7
the way for White's essential plan, i.e. the 35.Ra6 Ke7 36.g4! (D)
advance a4-a5 that will open up the a-file.

20...Bg6 21.a4 Rc7 22.a5 bxa5
A tough decision, as one more backward +++
pawn is created on a7. But Black could
hardly wait passively for a timely opening of
++
the a-file. Black instead hopes to achieve +++
...d5 or otherwise find active play.
23.Qa4 Rcd7 24.Qxa5 Bf7 (D)
+++

 ++++
+++ +++
+

 +++
++ +++
 Q+ 
By exploiting Black's inaccuracy (31...f5?!)
++++ White will either create a weak isolated
++
+
+++
 38.Kg2?!
25.Bxe5!
This is the right moment to exchange Black's
best-placed piece. Black's weaknesses now
become fixed, since he can play neither
25...dxe5?? 26.Qxd8+! nor 25...fxe5 26.e4!.
25...Qxe5 26.Bf3!
By use of tactical means (26...Bxc4? is met
by 27.Bc6) White exchanges off the last
black piece that can control the outpost on
d5, an outpost in fact situated in front of the
backward d6-pawn.
26...Qe7 27.Bc6 Rc7 28.Bd5 Bxd5 29.Rxd5
Rcd7 30.h3
White's superiority is evident as he has clear
targets (backward pawns on a7 and d6) and
all the time in the world, since Black can do
nothing but wait. Even though this
superiority may be theoretically inadequate
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
pawn (f5) or one more backward pawn (h7).
36...fxg4 37.hxg4 Rb8!
Black must not wait passively any longer
and thus, correctly, seeks chances on the
queenside.
White should have continued 38.Rd3! Rb6
39.Rda3 (or 39.Ra4) with a clear advantage.
Now Black rids himself of one of his three
backward pawns and, despite ultimately
being unable to avoid defeat, significantly
improves his position.
38...Rb6 39.Ra1 a6! 40.bxa6 Ra7 41.Rh1
Ke6 42.f4 Rbxa6 43.f5+ Kf6 44.Kf3 Kg5!
(D)


++++
+++
+++
++
5
 ++++
+++
++++
++++
 advance. Then, the other pawn will become
White was threatening 45.Kf4! g5+ 46.Kf3
with an easy win, thanks to his protected
passed pawn on f5 and the threat of Rh6+.
45.fxg6+ Kxg6 46.Rdh5!
White wins the backward h7-pawn, thereby
freeing the path of the g4-pawn; this pawn
will prove lethal.
46...Rf7+ 47.Ke4 Re7+ 48.Kf4 Rf7+
49.Kg3 Ra3 50.Rh6+ Kg7 51.Rxh7+ Kf8
52.Rxf7+ Kxf7 53.Kf4 Rc3 54.e4! Rxc4
55.Kf5 (D)
Despite the fact that material equality
remains, the much better placement of the
white pieces and the ‘fast’ g4-pawn give him
a decisive advantage.
55...Rd4 56.Rh7+ Kg8 57.Rd7 Rd1 58.g5
c4 59.Rc7 d5 60.Kg6! Kf8 61.exd5 Rc1
61...Rxd5 62.Rxc4 was also easy.
62.d6 Ke8 63.Kh7 c3 64.g6 c2 65.g7 Rh1+
66.Kg6 Rg1+ 67.Kf6 Rf1+ 68.Ke6 Re1+
69.Kf5 Rf1+ 70.Ke4 Rg1 71.Rxc2 Kd7
Or 71...Rxg7 72.Rc8+! Kf7 73.Rc7+ Kf6
74.Rxg7 Kxg7 75.d7.
72.Ke5 Kd8 73.Kf6 Rf1+ 74.Kg6 Rg1+
75.Kf7 Rf1+ 76.Kg8 Rh1 77.Rf2 Ke8
78.d7+ Ke7 79.d8Q+ Kxd8 80.Kf8
1-0
Hanging Pawns
When we refer to hanging pawns we mean
a pair of pawns on neighbouring files, cut
off from the rest of that side's pawn-
structure.
Note that I shall use this term a little more
broadly than did the great Aron
Nimzowitsch, who reserved the label
'hanging pawns' for two such pawns abreast
of one another, both on their fourth rank, and
referred to them as an 'isolated pawn-couple'
when one of them lagged behind on its third
rank.
Hanging pawns usually occur on semi-
open (for the opponent) files, thus receiving
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
the enemy fire without the possibility of
being protected by fellow pawns. Thus, they
constitute a kind of static weakness.
If they are situated on the same rank, then
both pawns will receive pressure from the
opponent's pieces, with the ultimate aim of
either winning one of them or forcing its
backward and isolated, while the square
right in front of that pawn will become a
'hole', and consequently an outpost for the
opponent. As a result of the above, the
opponent's targets are clarified and his plans
made easier.
On the other hand, the hanging pawns,
especially when on the same rank, control
the centre and are a permanently threatening
dynamic force, usually through the advance
of one of them - or both.
The exploitation of the advantages and
disadvantages of an isolated pawn is clear-
cut. In the case of hanging pawns, their
dynamic potential lies beneath the surface
and is much more difficult to evaluate. As a
consequence, they lead to dynamic positions
where combinative play is of primary
importance.
As mentioned above, possession of
hanging pawns creates possibilities of
assuming the initiative, usually culminating
in an attack against the opponent's king.
Therefore, piece exchanges do not favour
the side with the hanging pawns, as they
decrease their potential.
As is the case in all cases of pawn
weaknesses, the negative aspects of hanging
pawns become especially evident in the
endgame, where the reduced material makes
them more vulnerable, precisely because of
the lack of defensive pieces, or pieces in
general, that could counterbalance the
pawns' weakness with a strong initiative.
As a result of this examination we can
conclude the following:
1) Hanging pawns 'crave' to be on the
same rank, while at the same time strongly
'dislike' piece exchanges. In cooperation
with the other pieces they contribute in the
fight for the initiative.
2) The hanging pawns may become a
serious weakness when one of them is
6
forced to advance or when they become
vulnerable targets of the opponent's pieces in
general.
□ Grivas,Efstratios
■ Needham,Teresa
D60 Oakham jr 1984
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5
0-0 6.e3 Nbd7 7.cxd5 Nxd5
The natural 7...exd5 was preferable.
8.Bxe7 Qxe7 9.Bd3 b6
White is better after 9...Nxc3 10.bxc3 e5
11.Qc2!.
10.Nxd5 exd5 11.0-0 Nf6 12.Qa4 Bd7
12...Be6 is more natural.
13.Qa6 c5 14.Qa3 Rfe8?!
A more appropriate idea is 14...Rfc8
15.Rac1 Kf8.
15.dxc5 bxc5 16.Rac1 c4 17.Qxe7 Rxe7
18.Bc2 Rb8 19.b3 Rb6 20.Nd4 (D)


++++
+
 +
++
++
++++
+++
+++
++
++
 decisive. Thus Black resorts to an exchange
The outpost on d4 as well as the better
bishop promise White a slight but permanent
advantage and more pleasant prospects in
general, without any danger of defeat. That
is exactly Black's main problem. Of course,
a lot of work is still required in order to
bring the point home.
20...Be6 21.Rfd1 g6 22.f3!
Controlling more squares and opening a path
for the white king, who wishes to join the
proceedings.
22...Ra6 23.Bb1 Nd7 24.Kf2 Kg7 25.Rd2
Rb6 26.Rc3 Ne5 27.h3 cxb3?
Black should have continued with 27...a5!
28.f4 Nc6 29.Nxc6 (29.Nxe6+ fxe6 30.e4
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
a4!) 29...Rxc6 30.bxc4! dxc4 31.e4 +=. With
the text-move Black leaves herself with an
isolated pawn on d5, at the same time also
opening the c-file, which White can
immediately put to good use.
28.axb3 Ra6 29.Bd3!
The exchange of the white bishop for the
black knight will increase White's
superiority, as the remaining pair of minor
pieces is definitely in his favour (good
knight vs bad bishop).
29...Ra1 30.Bb5! Rb7 31.f4 Nd7 32.Bxd7
Bxd7 33.Rc5 Be6 34.Rc6 Bd7 35.Rc5 Be6
36.Rdc2 Ra3 37.Rc7! Rb6
Black's problems increase as the alternative
37...Rxc7 38.Rxc7 Kf6 39.g4! h6 40.Kf3!
Ra1 41.h4! is hardly pleasant.
38.Re7! (D)


++++
+
++++
++
++
+++
++++

The threatened 39.Rcc7 and 40.Nxe6+ is
sacrifice, without however being able to
change the outcome of the game.
38...Raxb3 39.Nxb3 Rxb3 40.Rcc7 Kf6
41.Rxa7 Rb2+ 42.Kf3 h5 43.g4 hxg4+
44.hxg4 Rb6 45.g5+ Kg7 46.Re8 Rd6
47.Raa8 f6 48.Re7+ Bf7 49.Raa7
1-0
7
 (Day 4: 11:00-11:45 - Grivas)
Pawn Majority - Pawn Minority
Pawn Majority
By the term 'pawn-majority' we mean a
numerical superiority in pawns of each side
in one of the three sectors of the chessboard
(kingside, centre, queenside). The value of a
pawn-majority as a strategic element lies in
its potential mobility; by its advance it can
create multiple problems for the opponent.
It must be clarified that this term does not
refer to a material advantage in pawns.
Instead, it refers to the asymmetrical
distribution of the two sides' pawns. It
follows naturally that when one side has a
pawn-majority in one area of the board, the
opponent also has a majority in one of the
others.
There is effectively an exception to the
rule, namely that of a deformed pawn-
structure, the weaknesses of which (usually
doubled pawns) denies it the status of a
usable majority. In this case the advantage of
the other side becomes more pronounced, as
there is no counterpart to its majority.
What is the power of a flexible and mobile
pawn-majority? In which ways can we reap
the benefits of its advance?
An active pawn-majority first of all offers
more space, controls important squares and
guarantees the initiative, as the opponent is
(usually) obliged to confine himself to
defensive duties. Moreover, it also provides
one important prospect, that of creating a
++
passed pawn. In this case the advantage is
transformed from a pawn-majority into a

The first one is passive, though not
necessarily disadvantageous, because the
prevention of the majority's further advance
and its eventual destruction is in itself
enough for success.
The second plan consists of the
mobilization of the opposing pawn-majority,
in order to counterbalance the dangers posed
by its counterpart.
In every type of position with structural
imbalances the chess-player is obliged to
examine the pros and cons of the structure,
determine its requirements and act
accordingly.
□ Grivas,Efstratios
■ Nikolaidis,Konstantinos
D46 Athens 1992
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 c6 3.c4 d5 4.Nc3 e6 5.e3
Nbd7 6.Qc2 Bd6 7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0 dxc4
9.Bxc4 Qe7!? (D)
Black develops, awaiting White's next move
so as then to decide which of the two
available breaks (...e5 or ...c5) to employ.
Another interesting option is 9...a6 10.Rd1
Qe7 11.h3 b5 12.Bd3 c5 13.Ne4 c4!
14.Nxd6 Qxd6 15.Be2 Bb7 with unclear
play, Karpov,A-Anand,V Brussels Ct m (2)
1991.


+
+
passed pawn, a significant strategic element +
+
examined in another chapter of this book.
These elements may assist aggressive ++++
actions on that part of the board where our
majority lies and in general give our plans
+++
the necessary boost. ++
But what happens to the defending side?
What shall its actions be so as to avoid
Q+
defeat? As a rule there are two plans against
a mobile pawn-majority.
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 8
 +
 but in any case 19...Nh7 was necessary.
10.a3
Best from a practical viewpoint at least, as
10.h3 c5! 11.dxc5 Bxc5 12.e4 Bd6 is
satisfactory for Black, Karpov,A-Anand,V
Brussels Ct m (6) 1991.
10...Bc7?!
10...Bb8!? proved more accurate in the game
Grivas,E-Atalik,S Karditsa 1994.
11.Ba2 e5 12.h3 h6 13.Bd2!?
In another Karpov,A-Anand,V game,
Brussels Ct m (8) 1991, White obtained the
advantage following 13.Nh4 Re8 14.Nf5
Qf8 15.Nb5! Bb8 16.Bd2! a5 17.dxe5 Bxe5?
(17...Rxe5!) 18.f4! Bb8 19.Nc3.
13...a5 14.Nh4 Re8 15.Nf5 Qf8 16.dxe5!
Better than 16.Nb5 Bb8 17.dxe5, which
transposes to the aforementioned game
Karpov,A-Anand,V Brussels Ct m (6) 1991.
16...Rxe5
Black also faces serious difficulties after
16...Bxe5 17.f4! (17...Bxc3? 18.Bxc3 with a
winning advantage for White).
17.f4 Re8 18.e4! (D)


+
+
+ flank where this side has fewer pawns than
18...Nb6 19.e5 Nh5?!
Black's position hardly inspires confidence,
20.Nxh6+!
White's great strategic plus creates the
preconditions for successful combinations.
20...gxh6 21.Qg6+ Ng7 22.Ne4! Qe7?
White wins after 22...Nd7 23.Bc3! and
23.Nf6+ as well, but Black had to play
22...Bd8! 23.Nf6+ Bxf6 24.exf6 Be6
25.Bxe6 Rxe6 26.Qxg7+ Qxg7 27.fxg7 with
advantage for White. Black now loses
simply, as his pieces are suffocating.
23.Nf6+ Kf8 24.Nh7+ Kg8 25.Nf6+ Kf8
26.Qxh6 Qc5+ 27.Kh1
Black loses too much material.
1-0
Pawn Minority
As a strategic element, the pawn-minority
can offer an alternative active plan when our
majority on the other wing cannot readily be
exploited. Using our pawn-minority we can
attack an immobile majority, aiming to
create (after exchanges) a weak pawn in the
opponent's camp. This particular action is
called the 'Minority Attack'. With this term
we imply the activity a side can develop on a
the opponent.
+
+ The minority attack is a positional plan
++ aiming to create weaknesses for the
opponent and eventually exploit them.
+++ Naturally, just as with all positional plans we
develop during a game, the minority attack
+++ does not guarantee victory on its own, but
++ creates the conditions to develop an
initiative and provides the side that employs
Q++
++
 The strategic element of the pawn-
White's superiority is indisputable and is
mainly owed to his mobile kingside pawn-
majority. In sharp contrast, Black's
queenside pawn-majority cannot advance
without creating weak squares and cannot
become threatening. The qualitative
difference of the white e4-pawn compared to
Black's c6-pawn is immense and effectively
determines the outcome of the game.
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
it with clear targets. It is a very sensitive
strategic concept that can easily backfire,
leaving the opponent with a passed pawn.
minority and the ways of exploiting it can be
split into two categories:
1) The first category concerns the
asymmetrical but not fixed pawn-skeleton.
In this case a minority attack is more
difficult to employ, as the opponent's
defensive options, active or passive, are
several and cannot be accurately described.
General principles are in effect here as well,
9
but the dynamics that may result due to the
mobility of the respective pawn-structures
cannot be effectively classified.
2) The second category concerns fixed
pawn-structures. Here things are simpler, as
practice has determined the recommended
actions for both sides. To understand the
play of both the side employing the minority
attack and the defending side, we shall use
the following typical and educational
example:


++++
++
++++
++++
+++
+++
+
++++
 5...exd5 6.d4 Be7 7.Bg2 0-0 8.0-0 c6 9.Bf4
The above diagram is essential for our
training in minority attacks:
White will plan the b4-b5 advance, aiming
to leave Black with a weak (backward) pawn
+
on c6. But which details should both sides
take into account? What are the sensitive
...c5, ignoring the resulting isolated pawn on
d5 and creating a powerful initiative in the
centre.
In the application of methods '2b'-'2d' the
defending side must consider whether
possession of an open a-file is beneficial,
and so whether he should play ...a6 (or ...a5)
before b4-b5 comes, thereby forcing White
to play a4 (or a3).
This dissection of our example is valid for
every similar pawn-structure (fixed or not)
and for both sides, on either flank.
□ Giddins,Stephen
■ Grivas,Efstratios
A13 Gausdal 1993
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 a6!?
An interesting line, aiming for the pawn
sacrifice 4.Bg2 b5 5.cxb5 axb5 6.Nd4 d5
7.Nxb5 c5, when Black has a strong centre
and more harmonious development as
compensation.
4.Nc3 d5 5.cxd5
White feared 5.Bg2 dxc4, but now a future
e4 advance is hard to contemplate as it will
leave the d4-pawn isolated.
Nbd7 (D)


+
++

points they must be aware of (and which +++
basically concern the defending side)?
2a) Black can and should seek the ++++
initiative in the other sectors of the board
(centre and kingside). On the other hand, he
++
must also take care over his defensive task. ++
If he can successfully accomplish both these
tasks, then he will be able to assume the
+
initiative, thus rendering White's plan +Q+
unsuccessful.
2b) After White's b4-b5 advance, which 
will weaken the c4-square, Black can 10.Rc1?! Re8
exchange the light-squared bishops and Black has developed comfortably while, on
occupy c4 with a knight (via b6 or d6). the other hand, White has failed to contest
2c) He can physically prevent White's b4- the initiative arising from the benefit of
b5 advance with ...b5. The resulting moving first. Instead of the colourless
weakness on c6 can be covered by ...Nc4. 10.Rc1?! White should have tried 10.Rb1,
2d) He may reply to White's b4-b5 with planning a minority attack by b4-b5. That is,
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 10
after all, White's only suitable plan in such
pawn-structures.
+++

11.Ne5 Bf8 12.Qb3 Nxe5 13.Bxe5 Nd7 +
+
14.Bf4 Nb6!
Preventing 15.Na4 and planning to regroup
++
the knight with ...Nc4-d6. ++
15.Bg5!? Qxg5! 16.Qxb6 Rb8
Black now has the bishop pair and attacking ++
chances on the kingside. By comparison,
White is too late with his plan, the minority

attack. White ‘refused’ to adopt the standard
minority attack plan on the queenside and
17.e3 h5 18.h4?
Although this move seems to halt Black's has therefore failed to react to Black's
attack, in fact it only creates weaknesses kingside initiative. His position is inferior
around the white king. The immediate 18.b4 and under fire from Black's pieces. This is a
is better. good example of punishment for the side
that doesn't achieve any plans, a concept of
18...Qe7 19.Ne2 Bg4 20.Nf4 g5! 21.hxg5
Qxg5 (D) great significance in modern chess.
22.Qb3 Bd6 23.Rfe1 h4

 The negative aspects of 18.h4? are
+
+ constantly highlighted.
24.gxh4 Qxh4 25.Nd3 Qh2+ 26.Kf1 Re6!
++++ Black's attack now crashes through.
27.f3 Rf6 28.f4 Rg6 29.Rc2 Bh3
 Q+++ 0-1

FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 11

 (Day 4: 12:00-12:45 - Mikhalchishin)
Attacking the King
Uncastled King
Despite the significant advances made in
defensive technique over the years, the
phenomenon of the unprotected king is still
quite common. By this we mean a king that
has come under enemy fire and that is not
readily repulsed. There are two basic
motivations behind castling:
1) The king is transferred to a safe place,
away from immediate danger, waiting for an
endgame to arise, in which the king can play
an important role.
2) By its departure from the central files
the king enables all the other pieces -
particularly the rooks - to cooperate.
Around the start of the 20th century,
attacks against an uncastled king were very
common and often crowned with success,
mostly due to complete ignorance of the
defensive potential inherent in a position and
the techniques to make use of it. Today,
every chess-player is aware of and makes
full use of such concepts, thus refuting
aggressive ventures that do not fulfil 'basic
requirements'. But what are these basic
requirements necessary for an attack to
succeed?
1) Superiority, either material or
positional, on the sector of the board where
the attack is to be carried out. By the term
'material superiority' we imply the more
active placement and easy access of
attacking forces to that sector and not
necessarily an overall material advantage
that has come about after capturing enemy
pieces. This principle is of a very dynamic
nature, as the material balance in one part of
the board can easily be disturbed in the
defender's favour by the successful transfer
of defensive forces to that sector.
2) Lack of defensive pieces or pawns
around the king to come under attack.
3) Control of the centre, or at least
increased stability in that area. In most cases
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
where this requirement is not met, the attack
is doomed to fail.
An attack against an uncastled king can be
carried out in several different ways. As a
rule, the main attacking methods are:
1) Attack down the file where the target is
temporarily situated; this is usually the e-
file.
2) Attack via neighbouring squares
protected only by the king; the most
common such square is f7 (f2).
3) Prevention of castling, either permanent
or temporary, so that the attack acquires a
more or less permanent nature.
Naturally, meeting all the basic
requirements is alone not enough to bring
the desired result. The side attacking an
uncastled king also faces some other
obligations:
1) To open lines.
2) To transfer more forces to the relevant
area in order to strengthen the attack.
3) To cause further a weakening of the
opponent's defensive shield.
4) To avoid the exchange of potentially
useful attacking pieces.
5) To exchange the opponent's potentially
useful defensive pieces.
6) To focus on the attack against the
opponent's king and not to be distracted by
some irrelevant material gain.
On the other hand, the defender must also
follow certain guidelines in order to fight
successfully for survival:
1) To strengthen his king's defence.
2) To transfer the king to a safe place.
3) To switch, when appropriate, between
active and passive defence.
4) To counterattack.
5) To evaluate the opponent's threats
calmly and objectively.
Launching an attack involves certain
concessions. These can be material
(sacrifices) or positional (creation of
12
permanent weaknesses, etc.). Thus, the
attacking side must strike a balance between
fuelling the attack and making as few such
concessions as possible, so that a possible
failure of the attack will not leave his
position devastated. Naturally, this applies
only while the final outcome of the attack is
unclear; once it becomes clear that the
opponent cannot defend successfully, further
restraint is unnecessary.
Generally, every attack causes a more or
less serious disturbance of the equilibrium,
which is very rarely restored because the
attacker often chooses to burn his bridges
behind him.
□ Grivas,Efstratios
■ Kjeldsen,Jens
A57 Cannes 1995
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.Bg5 g6 5.d6!?
(D)



7.Qd2! Ne4 8.Nxe4 Bxe4 9.f3 Bb7 10.e4 +/-
) 7.Ne4 Be7 (7...Qa5+? 8.Bd2 Qd8 9.Nxf6+
Qxf6 10.Bc3) 8.Nxd6+ Kf8 (8...Bxd6?
9.Qxd6 Ne4 10.Qe5+) 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.Qd5
Kg7! (10...Qa5+? 11.Kd1 Ke7 12.Qxf7+!
Kxd6 13.Qxf6+) 11.0-0-0! (Black is better
after both 11.Qxa8? Qa5+ 12.Kd1 Qa4 and
11.Qxf7+? Kh6 12.Nf3 Rf8! [12...Bxb2?
13.g4!! Qa5+ 14.Nd2 c3 15.g5+!] 13.0-0-0
Bxb2+ 14.Kc2 Qf6!) 11...Qe7 (11...Nc6?
12.Qxf7+ Kh6 13.Nf3) 12.e3!? (12.Qxa8?
Nc6 13.Nxc8 Qe5! leaves Black better, but
12.Nxc8! Rxc8 13.Qxa8 Bxb2+ 14.Kxb2
Qf6+ 15.Kb1 [not 15.Kc2? Nc6!! 16.Qxc8
Nb4+] 15...Nc6 16.Qxc8 Qf5+ 17.e4 Qxe4+
18.Bd3 cxd3 19.Qb7 also wins) 12...c3!?
(other moves also leave White clearly better:
12...Nc6 13.Bxc4!; 12...Ba6 13.Bxc4 Bxc4
14.Nxc4) 13.Qxa8 (not 13.Nxc8? Rxc8
14.Qxa8 c4!! 15.Qb7 Nc6!) 13...Nc6 14.Nf3
c2 15.Kxc2 Ba6 (15...Qd8? 16.Nf5+!? gxf5
17.Qxc6) 16.Qxc6!! and White's superiority
is significant.

 7.Qd2 (D)
Another interesting continuation is 7.e4!? h6
++ 8.Be3! exd6 9.Bxc4, with a slight advantage
++ for White.
++

++++ +



++++ ++
+ ++
+Q ++
 ++++
5...bxc4! +++
Other moves have fared worse: 5...exd6?
6.Nc3! Be7 7.Nxb5 0-0 8.Nf3 Bb7 9.Nxd6
 Q
Bxf3 10.gxf3 Qb6 11.Qd2! +/- Grivas,E- +
Lputian,S Athens 1983; 5...Bb7 6.Bxf6 exf6
7.Nc3 a6 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.cxb5 axb5 10.Nxb5 
+/- Miles,A-Bellon,J Surakarta/Denpansar 7...Bg7
1983. Not, of course, 7...exd6? 8.Qe3+!.
6.Nc3 8.e4
White ends up in a suspect position after the 8.dxe7?! Qxe7! 9.Nd5?! Qe5! is good for
over-ambitious 6.Bxf6?! exf6 7.Qd5? Qb6!!. Black.
6...Nc6 8...h6!
Black's best option. Again the alternatives If Black attempted to continue with 8...0-0?!
are unsatisfactory: 6...exd6?! (6...Bb7? 9.Nf3 exd6 (9...Nd4 10.e5!) 10.Bxc4 Re8
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 13
11.0-0 White would retain a pleasant 13.Qxd4 0-0 is great for Black) 12...Qb6
initiative. Note that Black cannot relieve the 13.Qxb6 axb6 14.Bxc4 +=.
pressure with 11...h6? due to 12.Bxh6 Nxe4
13.Nxe4 Rxe4 14.Bxf7+!.


9.Bf4!? g5! +

+
Black consistently fights for the advantage.
Another possibility was 9...e5!? 10.Be3 Nd4
++

11.Bxc4 Bb7 12.f3 0-0 (after 12...h5?! + Q+
13.Bg5! White dominates the d5-square)
13.Bxh6! Nc2+ 14.Qxc2 Bxh6 15.Qd3 with ++
an unclear position.
10.Be3 (D)
++++
Once again the capture on e7 is ++
unsatisfactory: 10.dxe7? Qxe7 11.Bd6
Nxe4!.
+

 +
+

+ 
12.Bxc4!
+
 Instead, 12.Bxc5? Qa5 13.Nge2 Bf8 14.Qg3
+ Bxc5 15.Qxg4 Ne5 would be equivalent to
resignation.
++ 12...Nxe3 13.fxe3 Qa5
++++ White retains his superiority after
13...Bxc3+ 14.bxc3 Qe7 15.Qd5 intending
++
 Q
+
 This eases White's task. Black should have
10...exd6?!
Up to this point Black has avoided all
pitfalls but here, driven by the desire to
extinguish White's initiative, he 'forgot'
about the importance of castling - or
assumed that he will be able to accomplish it
soon! It is true that 10...Ng4?! 11.Bxc5 Qa5
12.Ba3 would also not equalize, but Black
should have played 10...Qa5! 11.Bxc4 Ng4
12.dxe7 (12.Nf3? Nxe3 13.fxe3 e6!)
12...Nxe3 13.fxe3 Bxc3! 14.Qxc3 (14.bxc3?
Ne5 15.Bd5 Rb8 16.Nf3?! Rb2!) 14...Qxc3+
15.bxc3 Ne5 16.Bd5 Rb8 17.Nf3 Nd3+
(17...f6? 18.Nxe5 fxe5 19.0-0 is good for
++
White) 18.Kd2 Ba6 19.Rab1 Kxe7 with
balanced chances.
Ne2-g3.
14.Nge2 Ne5
14...Be5 is no improvement: 15.Qd5 0-0
16.0-0 +/-
15.Bd5! Nd3+ 16.Kd2 Nxb2?!
tried 16...Be5!?, when after 17.Bxf7+ Kxf7
18.Qxd3 d6! 19.Qd5+ Be6 20.Rhf1+ Ke7
21.Qb7+ Bd7 White would have to find the
spectacular 22.b4!! (22.Rf7+? is just a draw)
22...cxb4 (or 22...Qxb4 23.Rf7+! Kxf7
24.Qxd7+ Kg6 25.Rb1! with an easy win for
White; 22...Qd8 23.Nd5+ Ke6 24.Nc7+)
23.Nd5+ Ke6 24.Nd4+! (and not 24.Rf7?
b3+! 25.Kd1 Kxf7 =) 24...Bxd4 25.exd4
Raf8 26.Qxb4 +/-.
17.Rhf1 Rf8 18.Rab1! (D)


+
++

11.Qxd6 Ng4? (D) + Q+
The decisive mistake! Black was compelled
to play 11...Nd4! 12.Rc1! (12.Bxd4? cxd4 
+
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 14
 ++++ while all of Black's active pieces have left
the board!
++ 21...f5
Desperation, but other moves also bring no
+ salvation: 21...Rh8 22.Nf5 Bf8 23.Qf6 Rh7
++++ 24.Bxf7+ Rxf7 25.Nd6+ Bxd6 26.Qxf7+
Kd8 27.exd6; 21...Qa3 22.Nf5 c4 23.Nxg7+
 Kd8 24.Qxb6+ Ke7 25.Qf6#.
All of White's pieces occupy very active 22.exf6 Rxf6 23.Rxf6 Qb4 24.Nf5 Qb2+
positions, while their black counterparts are 25.Kd1
unable to create any serious threats. 1-0
18...Na4
White had no reason to worry about 18...Qa3 Naturally, things do not always need to be
19.Kc2 Na4 20.Rb3! or 18...Qb4 19.Kc2 as disastrous as in the previous examples. To
Rb8 20.a3!, with a winning position in both every action there is a reaction, to every
cases. attack there is a defence: sometimes
19.e5! obvious, sometimes hidden deep beneath the
The black a8-rook is of relatively minimal surface. The truth is: he who searches, finds!
value. Indeed, 19.Bxa8? Bxc3+! 20.Nxc3
Qxc3+! would only be unclear at best. □ Wells,Peter
19...Nb6 20.Rxb6! ■ Grivas,Efstratios
Eliminating Black's only active piece. B51 Reykjavik 1994
20...axb6 21.Ng3! (D) 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.0-0 Bd7

 5.Re1 Nf6 6.c3 a6 7.Bxc6
A very sharp line, where White sacrifices
+
++ material in the fight for the initiative. The
alternatives 7.Bf1 (Psakhis,L-Grivas,E Tel-
+++
 Aviv 1991) and 7.Ba4 (Zhang Zhong-
 Q+ Grivas,E Elista OL 1998) lead to quieter
positions.

 7...Bxc6 8.d4 Bxe4 9.Bg5 Bd5!? (D)
++++ Black has other options here, such as
9...Bxb1, 9...d5, and 9...Bxf3.
+

++ +


++++ ++
 ++
The complications have obviously ended in
White's favour. In a quantitative assessment +
+
of the position Black is currently ahead in
material. But in terms of a qualitative
+++
assessment White's pieces are much better +++
placed and directed against a specific target
(the black king on e8). This game is a
+
characteristic case where Black ignored the +Q
necessity of safeguarding his king in favour
of other priorities. As a result, the king has 
ended up surrounded by the white forces, 10.Nbd2

FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 15

10.c4!? is the sharpest move here, but
sacrificing two pawns in just ten moves


constitutes a very heavy commitment. +++
10...e6 11.c4 Bxf3 12.Qxf3 cxd4! 13.Bxf6
White can also try 13.Qxb7 Qc8! 14.Qb6 (or
++

14.Qf3 Be7 15.Nb3 h6! 16.Bh4 0-0 17.Qd3! +++
with equality) 14...Qc5 = Timoshchenko,G-
Kupreichik,V Ashkhabad 1978. ++++
13...gxf6 14.Qxb7 Bg7! 15.Qc6+
15.Rxe6+?! fxe6 16.Qxg7 Rf8 17.Qxh7 Rc8,
+
++
as in Buchal,S-Ribli,Z Hofheim tt 1989, is +++Q+
not good for White.
15...Ke7! 16.Nb3 (D)
+

 ++
+
+ 
Brave, but at the same time also
++
 compulsory! Without this move Black's
+Q+
++++
+++
++++
+
+
 19...Qb4! 20.Rc7+
The black king has been ‘self-imprisoned’ in
the centre, but White's attack has run out of
steam. Thanks to the central pawn mass the
black king is adequately protected, while the
reduced material does not help White.
Moreover, Black's minor piece (bishop vs
knight) will prove superior in any endgame.
White will most likely capture Black's
temporary extra pawn. In view of all this, the
position is unclear and dynamically
balanced, though I tend to prefer Black.
16...f5 17.Rad1 Qc8!
Black always welcomes a transition to an
ending. If now 18.Qxc8?! Rhxc8 19.Nxd4
Kd7! 20.b3 Rc5 Black has a small but
permanent plus.
18.Qf3?!
position would be very unpleasant.
19.Rc1?
An ‘easy’ but ineffective move. I believe
that White should have gone down the
following line: 19.Qxf5 Rac8 20.Qg4 Rhg8
21.Nxd4 Bxd4 22.Qxd4 Qxd4 23.Rxd4 Rc2
24.Rb4 Rg5! =+. Of course, when viewed
from a practical angle, it is hardly easy for
White to admit the error of his ways and
accept transition to an inferior ending!
Equally bad was 20.a3 Qb8, when the b3-
knight has lost its firm support.
20...Kf6! 21.Rf1
A sad square for the rook, but the alternative
21.Rec1 Rac8! (exploiting the weakness of
White's back rank) 22.a3 (22.Rxc8 Rxc8
23.Rxc8 Qe1#; 22.g3 Rxc7 23.Rxc7 Qe1+
24.Kg2 Qe4) 22...Qb8 would not improve
White's critical situation.
21...h5
Defending against White's threat of 22.Qh5.
22.a3 Qa4 (D)


+++
++

Best was 18.Qd5! Be5!? 19.Rxe5 dxe5 ++
20.Qxe5 Qb8! 21.Qxd4 Rd8 22.Qh4+ Ke8,
with White retaining compensation for the ++++
sacrificed material.
18...Qxc4! (D)

+++
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 16
 ++Q+
+
+++
 this particular case are:
Preventing the activation of the white
knight, while at the same time preparing
...Rab8. White's position is desperate
because he has failed to coordinate his
pieces, while Black is utilizing his extra
material to defend his king. The position
does not offer White any hope for survival
any more and all that is required from Black
is some care and accuracy!
23.Nd2 d5! 24.Qf4?
A blunder in a lost position.
24...Bh6! 25.Qd6 Bxd2 26.Qe7+ Ke5!
The black king is perfectly safe in the centre
of the board.
27.Rd7
27.Qxf7 Qe8 28.Qg7+ (or 28.f4+ Ke4!)
28...Kd6 would not change anything.
27...Rh7 28.Qd6+ Kf6
0-1
Castling on the Same Side
In the present chapter, the second
revolving around an attack on the king, we
shall examine cases where both players have
castled on the same side, i.e. they have -
theoretically speaking - safeguarded their
king.
The evaluation of one's potential for an
attack against the king will play a significant
role in this case.
When the opponent's king is stuck in the
centre or when the two players have castled
on opposite sides things are somewhat
easier, at least where evaluation and
calculation are concerned.
In the present case however, things are
hardly clear since, in order to succeed in an
attack, we often have to neglect the safety of
our own king - though this is not always the
case.
First of all we have to mention that the set
of rules, requirements and conditions
mentioned in the previous chapter also
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
applies, almost in its entirety, to this chapter
as well.
However, the relative importance of these
guidelines changes somewhat. More
specifically, the most significant elements in
1) Space advantage, in general, and more
specifically on the flank on which we intend
to attack.
2) Ability to transfer forces to the flank on
which we will attack.
3) Material superiority in that flank.
4) Presence of pawns and/or targets in the
opposing king's defensive cover.
5) Absence (permanent or temporary) of
the opponent's defensive forces.
Naturally, an attack of any kind does not
necessarily aim at checkmating the king; it
can also lead to significant material or
positional gains.
The defending side must organize its
defence always keeping in mind the
possibility of counterattacking. The
weaknesses possibly created by the
opponent during the prosecution of the
attack can serve as targets. Moreover, the
player on the receiving end of the attack
often seeks activity on the other flank or the
centre. This leads to very interesting games,
where the winner is determined by the
correct realization of each side's plans.
To quote one fundamental principle of
chess: ‘a weakness is a liability (positional
or tactical) that can be attacked; otherwise it
is not considered a weakness’.
Consequently, if we are compelled to
move the pawns protecting our king we have
to judge whether this makes our king
accessible to the opponent's forces and to
what extent. This will help us determine
whether by acting so we are really creating a
weakness.
The reader should note that while there are
be rules and generalities, there will always
be exceptions, and in chess the specific
considerations will always trump the general
ones.
□ Grivas,Efstratios
■ Stipic,Arian
A68 Bela Crkva 1987
17
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 c5
6.d5 0-0 7.Nf3 e6 8.Be2 exd5 9.cxd5 Na6
+Q+
10.e5 Ne8 11.0-0 Bg4?! (D) +++
An unsuccessful novelty. The theoretical
continuation is 11...Nac7 with White

enjoying the better chances. 16...Ne6
The alternative was 16...Nxd6 17.Nge4

 Nce8 18.Nb5! Qe7 (18...Nxe4 19.Rxd8
+
+ Rxd8 20.fxe5) 19.Nbxd6 Nxd6 20.Nxd6
exf4 21.Rxf4 Be5 22.Re4 f5 23.Bg5! with a
++
 significant advantage for White.
+++ 17.Nxe6 fxe6 18.fxe5 Bxe5
White's task would have been more
++ complicated after 18...Rxf1+ 19.Rxf1 Bxe5
20.Bh6 Bxd6 (20...Bxh2+ 21.Kxh2 Qh4+
++
+ 22.Kg1 Qxh6 23.Qxe6+ Kh8 24.d7!)
+++ 21.Qxe6+ Kh8 22.Ne4, but with the same
positive result for White.
++ 19.Rxf8+ Kxf8 20.Bh6+ Bg7 21.Rf1+ Kg8
Q+ 21...Nf6 22.Bxg7+ Kxg7 23.Qe5 is also
losing for Black.
 22.Qxe6+ Kh8 (D)
12.Ng5! Bxe2 13.Qxe2 Nac7 14.Be3!

The only move, completing White's
development and supporting his central +
+
initiative. The direct 14.e6? fxe6 15.Nxe6
Nxe6 16.dxe6 Qf6 17.Bd2 Nc7 would leave
++

Black better, while 14.Qf3? h6! is totally Q+
useless.
14...b6 15.Rad1
+++
All white pieces are actively placed and ++++
support White's space advantage and central
control, as well as a dangerous initiative. A +++
combination of these elements will usually
suffice to bring victory.
++
15...dxe5 +++
Black accepts the challenge as 15...Qe7
16.Nf3 dxe5 17.fxe5 Bxe5? 18.Bh6 is

hopeless. White's advantage is crystal clear, but it is of
16.d6! (D) a purely dynamic nature. Consequently, it
needs to be transformed to material gain or

 some other kind of stable advantage. The
+
+ black pieces are totally uncoordinated and
restricted to their back two ranks, while the
+
 unfortunate placement of the e8-knight cuts
++ Black's camp in two. As a result, Black's
defensive capability is greatly hampered. It
+ should come as no surprise that White has a
decisive tactical shot that immediately
+++ converts his great advantage into victory.
++ 23.Qe5!!
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 18
With the threat of 24.Rf8#. Another possibility is 17.Nd4 e5! 18.Nf5
23...Kg8 Bf8! with unclear consequences.
There is no better answer: 23...Nxd6 17...Nxd3 18.cxd3 b4 19.Nd1 a5! (D)
24.Qxg7# or 23...Qxd6 24.Bxg7+.
24.Nd5!


White threatens 25.Ne7+ Kh8 26.Rf8#, and ++++
there is no satisfactory defence: 24...Qxd6
(24...Bxe5 25.Rf8#; 24...Bxh6 25.Ne7+)
+



25.Ne7+ Kh8 26.Rf8#. An unusual position, +++
where Black can choose to capture one of
three white pieces, but none of these moves ++
will ensure his survival!
1-0
++
+++Q
Castling on Opposite Sides
+
□ Minasian,Artashes +++
■ Grivas,Efstratios
B33 Ankara Zonal 1995 
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Qb6 The point behind Black's 16th move. If the
5.Nb3 Nf6 6.Nc3 e6 7.Bd3 d6 8.Be3 Qc7 attack is going to succeed then all black
9.f4 a6 10.Qf3 Be7 11.0-0-0 b5 12.Kb1 pieces must participate. It now becomes
Nb4 13.g4 Bb7 14.g5 Nd7 15.Qh3 0-0 clear why Black chose the f-rook: the a8-
16.Rhg1 Rfc8! (D) rook participates both in attack and in

 defence (it will soon appear on a5), creating
dangerous threats, while the advance of the
++++ a-pawn will weaken White's king.
20.Nf2 a4 21.Nd4 Ra5! 22.Ng4 Rc5
+


 23.Rdg2 Ba6!
+++ All of Black's pieces are active and create
multiple threats, denying White a respite to
+++ further his own aims.
++ 24.Bd2 a3! (D)

++Q


++ ++++
+++ +


 
+++
The only good move in this position, and a ++
novelty at the time. Only this move can
guarantee the viability of Black's position.
+
All other tries in this position have led to +++Q
disaster.
17.Rd2!?
+
White defends against the threat of +++
17...Nxd3 18.cxd3 b4 while at the same time
preparing to double his rooks on the g-file. 
This, along with the idea Nd1-f2-g4-h6+,
will be the main theme of White's attack.
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 19
White's position becomes critical. He now
decides to complicate matters, hoping for
++++
salvation in an attack against the black king. ++
25.Nh6+!?
Naturally, 25.bxa3? bxa3 leaves the king
+++Q
very exposed, while 25.b3 Rc3!! is also very
troublesome.
25...gxh6 26.g6
After 26.gxh6+ Kh8 27.Qg3 Bg5!! (the star
rook again comes in handy!) 28.fxg5 Ne5
White is dead lost.
26...fxg6! 27.Rxg6+
If 27.Nxe6 then 27...Qb7. Also, 27.Qxe6+
Kh8 28.Qxe7 Bxd3+ 29.Ka1 Rc1+! is
decisive as well.
27...Kh8! 28.Nxe6? (D)
28.Qxh6?? Bxd3+ 29.Ka1 Rc1+! leads to
checkmate, but White had to try 28.Rxh6
Nf6! with enormous complications, though
Black's chances ought to be rated higher.
One nice variation goes 29.Nxe6 Rg5!
30.Nxc7 (30.Rc1 Qxc1+! 31.Bxc1 Rg1!)
30...Rxg1+ 31.Kc2 Rxc7+ 32.Kb3 Rb1!.


+++
+
+
+++

28...Rh5!!
A brilliant tactical shot, clearing the way for
the queen to reach c2. White is lost in all
variations.
29.Rg8+
The last - but inadequate - try. Otherwise:
29.Qxh5 Qc2+ 30.Ka1 Qxb2#; or 29.Nxc7
Rxh3 30.Re6 Bxd3+ 31.Ka1 Bf6.
29...Rxg8 30.Rxg8+ Kxg8 31.Qg3+ Rg5!
Another easy but nice tactical shot!
32.fxg5 Qb6 33.g6
White prolongs the game only because of
the mutual time-trouble, but the result never
comes into doubt. 33.gxh6+ Kf7 was also
winning for Black.
33...Bf6! 34.gxh7+ Kxh7 35.Qh3 Kg8
36.Qg4+ Kf7 37.Nf4 Nf8 38.Qh5+ Kg8

+ 39.Qd5+ Kh8 40.Qf7 Bg7 41.Qe8 Qg1+
42.Kc2 axb2 43.Be1 b1Q+

++ 0-1

FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 20

 (Day 4: 13:00-13:45 – Mikhalchishin)
Mixed Endings
Rook vs Bishop
The material advantage of the exchange
(rook vs bishop or knight) is quite
significant and usually decisive. The
outcome of the game (win or draw) is
determined by the presence and placement
of pawns. In most cases, the greater the
number of pawns, the easier the victory.
Rook & Pawn(s) vs Bishop & Pawn(s)
The four basic rules for the utilisation of
the material advantage by the attacking side
a file from which he will be unable to return
to the battlefield in time to secure the draw.
As there are a lot of drawing possibilities,
the theoretical understanding of this
particular ending is needed.
Example 1 ●


++++
++++
are as follows: +++
1. The main winning idea is the invasion of
the attacking side's king into the enemy +++
camp and, in particular, among the
opponent's pawns, so as to capture them.
+++
2. As many opposing pawns as possible ++++
must be forced onto squares of the same
colour as that on which the bishop moves.
++++
3. Some pawns may be exchanged in order ++++
to pave the way for the king's invasion, but
pawns must be retained on both sides of the 
board. 1...Rc2+ 2.Kb1 Kb3 3.Ba7
4. It is favourable to have an asymmetrical The only way not to lose the bishop. Black
pawn structure, as a passed pawn usually proceeds with his plan (3.Bd8? Rd2).
cooperates with the rook very favourably. 3...Rh2! 4.Kc1 Kc3?
Black should not allow the white king to
The sub-categories in this type of ending escape in the opposite flank of his pawn. A
are several, and thus we shall restrict simple win is on the cards with 4...Rh5!
ourselves to the following categorization: 5.Bb6 Rd5!.
5.Kd1!
a) Same number of pawns: An easy win for Or 5.Kb1? Rb2+ 6.Ka1 (6.Kc1 Ra2!)
the side with the rook, particularly when 6...Kb3! 7.Bb6 Rh2!.
there are several pawns on the board. 5...Rd2+ 6.Ke1
However, the more the material decreases, 6.Kc1 Ra2! with a double threat.
the more careful the attacking side must be, 6...Kd3 7.Bb6 Rh2! 8.Bd8 Rh1+ 9.Kf2
avoiding certain exceptional cases that lead Rh8 10.Bb6 Re8 11.Kf1
to a draw. Wrong is 11.Kg1? Ke2! and the white king
Rook pawns (a and h) require the utmost will cut-off in the undesired h-file.
attention. As here the concepts that apply to 11...Kd2 (D)
all other pawns are not in force, the king and
the rook must cooperate in order to force and


cut off the enemy king as far as necessary, to ++++
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 21
 ++++ according to the placement of his fellow
pawn. Naturally, in several cases the win can
+++ be achieved by cutting the king off even in a
file nearer to the pawns.
+++
++++ Edge Pawn Cut-off File
a2 / h2 e/d
++++ a3 / h3 f/c
+++ a4 / h4
a5 / h5
g/b
h/a
++++ a6 / h6 h/a
 In general, we should know that when the
12.Bc5? pawns are placed in a4/h4, a5/h5 and a6/h6,
White could hold the draw with 12.Kf2! (or then the defending side's king cannot be
12.Kg2) 12...Rf8+ 13.Kg2 Ke2 14.Kg3! as force to cut-off in the desirable for the
Black cannot force the white king to move to opponent file. And if he has escaped to the
the h-file. opposite flank of his pawn, then the position
12...Re5! 13.Bb4+ should be characterised as a draw.
The alternative effort 13.Bb6 Rf5+ 14.Kg2 One exception to the rule is the position of
Kc3! 15.Kg3 Kb4 16.Kg4 Rxa5 17.Bxa5+ the following example.
Kxa5 18.Kf3 Kb4 19.Ke2 Kb3 20.Kd2 Kb2
would also be in vain. Example 2 ●
13...Kd3 14.Kf2 Rb5! 15.Be1 Rf5+ 16.Kg3
Ke2! 17.Kg4
Or 17.Bb4 (17.Bc3 Rf3+) 17...Rb5 18.Bc3


Rb3!. ++++
17...Rc5! (D)

 ++++
++++ ++++
++++ ++++
++++ ++++
++ ++
++++ +++
++++ +++
++++ 
White, fully in accordance with the principle
+++
 king away from the pawn. The white king
Winning either the bishop (18.Bb4 Rc4+) or
the pawn (18.Bg3 Rxa5).
0-1
We can create a table showing us the file
on which the defending king must be cut off
in order to employ the winning plan,
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
of economic defence, has maximized the
efficiency of his pieces, keeping the black
controls f1 and f2, the bishop controls f3, g2,
g4, h3 and the pawn covers f4 and h4.
1...g5 2.Bc6 Rf2 3.Bb7 g4 4.Bc6
The careless 4.Bc8? Kf3! 5.Bxg4+ Kxg3
would lose, as the white king is in the wrong
corner.
4...Rf3 5.Kg2!
22
Of course not 5.Bxf3? Kxf3 6.Kh2 Kf2 with 1...Ba1! is the correct square for the bishop.
a won pawn ending. The text move allows Black to win a critical
5...Rf6 6.Bb7 Rb6 7.Ba8 tempo.
½-½ 2.Rb4! Bc3 3.Rc4 Bb2
Or 3...Be1 4.Kf6 Kh7 5.Rc6 Bxg3 6.Kg5 +-.
Example 3 ○ 4.g4! hxg4 5.Rxg4 Kh7 6.Kf7 Kh6

 7.Rxg6+ Kh5 (D)

++++

++++ ++++

+++ ++++
+++ ++++
+++ ++++
++++ +++
+++ ++++
++++ 
+++
 ++++
The principle of economical defence is also 
evident in this example. White cannot win, 8.Rg2!
as Black controls all the vital entry squares And White wins, although it is far from
of the white king (b5, c5, c6, c7, c8). easy:
1.Ke5 Kc7 2.Rh7+ Kb8 3.Kd6 Bf3 4.a4 8...Bc3 9.Rh2 Be1 10.Kf6 Bg3
Be4 5.Rf7 Bg2 6.b4 axb4 7.Rf4 Kb7 10...Bxh4+ 11.Kf5 +-.
8.Rxb4 Ka6 9.Kc7 Ka5 11.Rh1 Bf2 12.Kf5 Be3 13.Rh2 Ba7
½-½ 14.Ra2 Bb6 15.Rb2 Bc5 16.Rc2 Be3
Or 16...Bd6 17.Rd2 Bc5 18.Kf4 Be7 19.Rd7
Example 4 ● Bf8 20.Kg3 Bd6+ 21.Kh3 Bf4 22.Rd5+.

 17.Ke4 Bh6 18.Rh2 Bg7 19.Kf4 Bf8
20.Kf3 Ba3 21.Ra2 Be7 (D)
++++

++++ ++++
++++ ++
+
++++ ++++
+++ ++++
+
+ +++
++++ ++++
++++ ++++
 ++++
As we already know, this is a drawn
position. But still some accuracy is needed. 
1...Bd4? And now White shows his point, which is
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 23
based on a beautiful zugzwang position:
22.Re2 Bf6


22...Bxh4 23.Rh2 Kg5 24.Rh1 Kh5 25.Kf4. ++++
23.Kf4 Bd8 24.Rc2! Be7 25.Rd2 Bb4
26.Rd8 Bc3 27.Kg3 Be5+ 28.Kh3 Bf4
+++
29.Rd5+ Kg6 30.Kg4 ++
1-0
++++
□ Speelman,Jonathan
■ Kasparov,Garry
++
A30 Graz tt 1981 ++

 ++++
+++ +++
++++ 
++++ 67...Rg7! 68.Kg2 g5 69.hxg5 hxg5 70.fxg5
Rxg5!
+++ White resigned in view of 71.Bc6 f5 72.Kh3
+++ Kf2.
0-1
+++
Example 5 ●
+++


++++
++++

Such endings are easily won for the side
++++
with the rook. If the bishop was a dark- ++++
squared one, then the black king would head
for e4 and then, with the help of the ...f5-f4 ++++
advance at the appropriate moment, the
position would win itself. The presence of a
++
light-squared bishop implies a weakening of ++
the f2-square. Therefore, Black must bring
his king to e1, forcing White to push the f-
++++
pawn to f4 in view of the threat of ...Rb2. +++
Then, Black will prepare the ...g5 advance
by placing his rook on g7. 
46...Ke7 47.Ba2 h6 48.Bb3 Rc7 49.Ba2 Had Black placed his h-pawn to h5 at some
Kd6 50.Kh3 Ke5 51.Kg4 Ra7 52.Bb3 Rb7 earlier stage, he would then be compelled to
53.Bd1 employ an alternative winning plan, one
53.Ba2 Ke4! is even simpler. containing numerous tactical nuances and
53...Rb2 54.Kf3 Kd4 55.Be2 Rb3+ 56.Kg2 complicated lines.
Kc3 57.Bf3 Rb5 58.Bc6 Rc5 59.Be8 Rc7 1...g5!!
60.Kf1 Kd2 61.Ba4 Rc1+ 62.Kg2 Ke1 The only way, as the pawn ending resulting
63.Bb3 Rc7 64.f4 Ke2 from 1...Rc7 2.Ba8 Ra7 3.Bc6 Kd4 4.Kf2
Commencing the second stage of the plan. Kc5 5.Bf3 Ra2+ 6.Kf1 Ra3 7.Kf2 Rxf3+
65.Bd5 Ke3 66.Ba8 f6! 67.Kg1 (D) 8.Kxf3 Kd4 9.Kf2! is drawn. If we move the
entire starting position (all pieces and
pawns) one square to the left, then Black
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 24
would have an additional winning plan at his
disposal (transition to a pawn ending), as the
bishop would luck a sufficient number of
squares available on the g1-a7 diagonal and
thus the black king would not have to move
away from the theatre of action.
2.hxg5
No help is offered by 2.fxg5 f4 3.gxf4 (3.g6
f3 4.g7 Rg2+ 5.Kf1 Rxg3) 3...Kxf4, when
the white pawns will be lost.
2...h4 3.gxh4
Not 3.g6? Rc7!.
3...Rc7!
A very accurate move. 3...Rf2? seems to
lead to a draw after 4.Bg2!! (4.Bc8 Rxf4
5.Kg2) 4...Rxf4 5.Bh3! Rxh4 6.Bxf5 Rh5
7.Bd7 Rxg5+, despite the fact that the white
king is near the wrong corner. 3...Kxf4? also
fails to achieve the aim: 4.g6 Rc7 5.h5!
(5.Bd5? Kg3 6.Kf1 f4! ).
4.Bd5 Rh7! 5.Be6 (D)


++++
++++
++++
+++
++
+++
++++
+++
 62...Ra4 63.Nd5 Ra5 64.Ke4 Kf7 65.Ke5
5...Ke4!
5...Kxf4 6.g6 Rxh4 7.Kf2 Rg4 8.Bf7 Ke4
9.Be8 Ke5 10.Kf3 is also fine, but the text-
move is more accurate.
6.g6 Rxh4 7.Bf7 Rxf4 8.Kg2 Ke3 9.Kh3
Rg4 10.Be6 Kf4 11.Bf7 Rg3+ 12.Kh4 Rg1
13.Kh3 Ke3
0-1
Rook vs Knight
For this ending the same applies as for the
rook vs bishop one. The knight is inferior to
the bishop in this case, because it is by
nature unable to gain a tempo and thus the
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
side with the knight can more easily end up
in zugzwang.
Without Pawns
This ending is drawn. It is best for the
defending king to remain in the centre; all
exceptions to the rule occur when the king is
restricted to the edge of the board. In order
to win, the attacking side must either create
mating threats (forcing the capture of the
knight) or force the knight away from its
king and then enforce its capture.
□ Kuczynski,Robert
■ Grivas,Efstratios
C83 Sharjah Wch-jr 1985


++++
++++
++++
+++
++++
+++
++++
++++

Black is unable to win, as White keeps his
king centralized and the knight remains near
its king. Black kept trying, without success
of course.
Ra1 66.Nc3 Rh1 67.Nd5 Re1+ 68.Kf5 Ke8
69.Nf6+ Ke7 70.Ne4 Kd7 71.Ke5 Kc6
72.Kd4 Ra1 73.Nc3 Rh1 74.Ne2 Kd6
75.Nf4 Ra1 76.Ke4 Ra5 77.Ng6 Ke6
78.Nf4+ Kf6 79.Nd5+ Rxd5 80.Kxd5
An important game for my competitive
career, as a victory would win me 2nd place
in the World Junior Championship of 1985,
while the draw left me 4th.
½-½
In the next example the knight again
succeeds to draw.
25
□ Grivas,Efstratios And now White has two options:
■ Stefanopoulos,Orestis a) 3.Kf1 Rc2 4.Ne6+
A72 Athens Ch-GRE rpd 1998 The alternatives are not of any help: 4.Nd3+

 Ke3 5.Ne5 Rc5 6.Nd7 (6.Ng4+ Kf3 7.Nh2+
Kg3) 6...Rg5! 7.Nb6 Kd4 8.Ke2 Rg7!;
++++ 4.Nb3 Ke3 5.Na5 Rc5 6.Nb7 Rd5; 4.Na6
Ke4 5.Nb8 Kd5 6.Nd7 Rc6!.
++++ 4...Ke3! 5.Ng5
+++ Or 5.Kg1 Rc6 6.Nd8 Rg6+ 7.Kf1 Kf3 8.Ke1
Rf6 9.Nb7 Rf5 10.Kd2 Rb5.
+++ 5...Rf2+ 6.Kg1 Rf5 7.Ne6
++++ Also hopeless and relatively quick is 7.Nh3
Kf3 8.Nf2 Rd5 9.Nh3 Rb5! 10.Kh2 Rh5.
+++ 7...Re5 8.Nd8
Alternatively, 8.Nc7 Kf3 9.Na6 Rg5+
++++ 10.Kh2 Rg2+ 11.Kh1 Kg3! or 8.Nf8 Re7
++++ 9.Kh2 Ke4 10.Ng6 Rh7+ do not help either.
8...Ke4 9.Nc6
 Or 9.Nf7 Rd5 10.Kg2 Kf4.
67.Kb4 Kd4 68.Rd6+ Ke3 69.Kc3 Ke4 9...Rc5 10.Nb4 Rc4 11.Na6 Kd5 12.Kf2
70.Rd4+ Kf5 71.Rh4 Ke6 72.Rf4 Kd6 Kd6 13.Ke3 Ra4 0-1
73.Kd4 Nc6+ 74.Ke4 Ne7 75.Rf6+ Kd7 b) 3.Kh3 Kf5!
76.Kd4 Nc6+ 77.Kc5 Ne7 78.Ra6 Ke8 And not 3...Rc2? 4.Ne6+ with a draw.
79.Rh6 Kd7 80.Rf6 Ke8 81.Kd4 Kd7 4.Kg3!
82.Ra6 Nc6+ 83.Rxc6 Kxc6 Black's task is easier after 4.Nb7 Rc2
½-½ 5.Nd6+ Kf4! 6.Nb5 Ke5 7.Kg4 Rb2 8.Nc7
Rb7 or 4.Kh4 Rb2! 5.Nd3 Rc2 6.Ne1 Re2
In the following two examples, the 7.Nf3 Kf4.
attacking side has succeeded in restricting 4...Rc2! 5.Na4 Ke4 6.Kg4 Rc6 7.Nb2 Ke3!
the opponent's king to the edge of the board. 7...Kd4? 8.Nd1 Rc2 9.Kf3 allows White to
escape with a draw.
Example 6 ● 8.Kf5! (D)



++++ ++++
++++ ++++
++++ ++++
++++ ++++
++++ ++++
+++ +++
++++ +++
++++ ++++
 
The white knight has been forced away from 8...Kd4!
its king and will be lost. The last accurate move. 8...Kd2? 9.Ke5 Kc3
1...Kf4 2.Nc5 Re2+! 10.Kd5 Rc8 11.Na4+ Kb4 12.Nb6 would
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 26
lead to a draw.
9.Kf4 Rc1! 10.Na4 Rb1 Rook & Pawn vs Knight
0-1 Apart from very few exceptions, occurring
when the attacking king is too far away from
Example 7 ○ his pawn, this ending is won.

 Example 8 ○
+++

++++ ++++
++++ ++++
++++ ++++
++++ ++++
++++ +++
++++ ++++
++++ ++
 ++++
1.Kc6!
1.Kb6? Nd8! would have been a serious 
mistake, allowing Black to draw! Black now An important theoretical draw, as the white
has two possibilities, none of which is king is unable to help his pawn.
however sufficient for a draw: 1.Kg2 Ke2! 2.Rg3
a) 1...Na5+ 2.Kb6 Nc4+ 3.Kb5 Nd6+ 4.Kc6 Hoping that the king will be able to
Nc4 5.Rb7+ Kc8 6.Rb5 Kd8 7.Rc5 Ne3 approach via h3-g4-f4-e4.
8.Rg5 Nc4 9.Kc5 Na5 10.Kb5 2...Nf5! 3.Rh3 Nd4
1-0 ½-½
b) 1...Nd8+ 2.Kd7 Nb7 3.Rh5 Ka7 4.Kc8
Nd6+ 5.Kc7 Ne8+ 6.Kc6 Nf6 (D) The following example shows another

 theoretical draw, as the attacking king is
again unable to approach his pawn.
++++
Example 9 ●
+++


+++
++++
++++
++++
++++
+++
++++
++++
++++
++++
++++
++++

7.Rh4 Kb8 8.Rf4 Nh5 9.Rf7 Ng3 10.Rb7+
++++
Ka8 11.Kc7
1-0
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 27
 ++++ type of ending, the respective pawn
structures, the initiative and the
 collaboration between the pieces are of
1...Nb7 2.Ke5 Na5 3.Kd5 Nb7 4.Rf6 Na5 primary importance. When the pawns of the
5.Re6 Nb7 6.Ke5 Na5 7.Kf6 Ka6! 8.Ke5 side with the rook are weak or fixed, then
Or 8.Ke7 Kb7 and 9...Nc4. the minor pieces can easily attack them and
8...Kb5 9.Kd5 thus hold the upper hand. Otherwise, the
½-½ rook is able to hold the balance. If the side
with the rook possesses a passed pawn, then
Example 10 ○ the advantage usually passes to this side. A
bare ending without pawns is drawn.


++++ □ Smyslov,Vassily
■ Blackstock,Lesly
+++ A52 London 1988
+++

++++ ++++
++++ +++
++++ ++
++++ ++++
+++ ++++
 ++++
In contrast to other types of endings, here
the presence of a pawn on a rook file is in
+++
the attacker's favour, as additional mating ++++
ideas arise, while also the knight is very
restricted in its movements. This ending is

won for the attacking side. The bishop-pair almost always comprise an
1.Ra4! Nc6 2.Kd5 Na7 3.Kd6 enviable and powerful force. Still, even in
The winning idea is the transfer of the white this case, the position is drawn as the
king to b8. material is greatly reduced. Black must seek
3...Nb5+ 4.Kd7 Ka7 the exchange of the g-pawns, after which he
Or 4...Na7 5.Kd8 Nb5 (5...Nc6+ 6.Kc8 Ka7 will be able to sacrifice his rook for the
7.Kc7 Nb8 8.Ra5 Ka8 9.Rb5) 6.Kc8 Ka7 dark-squared bishop, reaching a theoretical
7.Ra5 Nd6+ 8.Kc7 Nc4 9.Ra4 Nb6 10.Rd4 draw. White's only good idea is to try mating
Na8+ 11.Kc6 Nb6 12.Rb4 Nc8 13.Kc7 Ne7 his opponent!
14.Rb5. 50.Bb7 Rb6 51.Bc8 Kh7 52.Ke7 Rb2 53.g4
5.Kc6 Nc3 6.Rc4 Nb1 7.Rc1 Nd2 Rf2 54.Be6 Rf1 55.Be5 Rf2 56.Bf6 Rf4
Or 7...Na3 8.Kc5!. 57.Kf7 Ra4 58.Be5 Ra7+ 59.Kf6 Ra6
8.Kb5 60.h4 Rb6 61.Kf7 (D)
And Black loses, as 9.Rc7+ is next.

1-0
++++
Rook vs Minor Pieces
According to the material evaluation scale
++++
used in first grade, two minor pieces are ++
equal to a rook and a pawn. However, in this
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 28
 +++ the rook lacks pawn weaknesses, are very
difficult (if not lost) for the side with the
+++ minor pieces.
28...Nb6 29.a5 Na8 30.f3 f5 31.Rc5 e6
++++ 32.Kf2!
++++ The black pieces no longer cooperate
harmoniously. It is time for the white king to
++++ emerge.
 32...Kf6 33.Ke3 g5 34.a6 Nb6 35.a7 h5
36.Rb5 Na8 37.Kd4 g4! 38.f4! Nc7 39.Rb8
61...Rb5? Na8 40.Kc5
Black had defended excellently up to this Black is now lost, as the invasion of the
point and could have secured the draw with white king is decisive. The end was:
61...h5! 62.gxh5 (62.g5 Rb7+ 63.Kf8
40...Ke7 41.Rh8 Kf7 42.Kd6 Kg6 43.Kd7
(63.Kf6 Rb6) 63...Rf7+! 64.Ke8 Re7+!)
Kf6 44.Rxh5 Nb6+ 45.Kc7 Na8+ 46.Kd6
62...Rb7+ 63.Kf6 (63.Kf8 Kh6! 64.hxg6
Nb6 47.Rh8 Na8 48.h4 gxh3 49.Rxh3 Nb6
Kxg6 65.Bg3 Kf6 66.Bc4 Rb4 67.Ba6 Kg6
50.Rh8 Na4 51.Rf8+ Kg7 52.a8Q Bxa8
=) 63...gxh5 64.Kg5 Rg7+ 65.Kxh5 Rg5+!.
53.Rxa8 Nc3 54.Kxe6 Nxe2 55.Ra3 Kg6
62.h5! 56.Ke5 Nxg3
Mate follows, so Black had to resign.
1-0
1-0

□ Grivas,Efstratios
■ Wagner,Claude
A58 Cap d' Agde jr 1983


++++
++
++
++ ++
++++
+++
++
+++

25.Nxd6!
The introduction to a much better ending.
25...Bxg2 26.Nxb7 Bxb7 27.Rc1 Bd5
28.a4!
White has appreciated that his passed pawn
will prove of decisive importance, as it will
tie down the black pieces to defensive
duties. Then, his king and rook will
cooperate in an offensive against the
kingside. Such positions, where the side with

FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 29

 (Day 5: 17:00-17:45 - Grivas)
Outpost - Open File - Semi-Open File
Open File
The creation of an open file and its
occupation by a rook or even the queen is a
strategic element very often encountered.
In the vast majority of games played there
occurs an open file, which in most cases
'goes by unnoticed' or simply cannot be
exploited by either player. There does exist a
third viewpoint of course, which states that
many players are at a loss when coming
across this very common strategic element
and fail to exploit it.
What is the use of an open file anyway? It
is effectively a path via which the side that is
better placed to do so can penetrate the
7) Cooperation of our rook(s) with our
remaining pieces to enforce our aims.
The aforementioned essentially constitute
the alphabet of the open file concept. Their
application in practice is a difficult mission
but can be taught; through time and
experience there are a lot of benefits to be
had.
□ Grivas,Efstratios
■ Hornung,Hans
A56 Munich 1987


++
+
opponent's camp. This invasion will create
threats and interrupt the communication
+ +
+

between the opponent's pieces. +  ++
Thus, the creation and occupation of an
open file greatly increase our chances of +   
achieving our overall aim of winning the
game. But what are the specifics, the hidden
 +++ +
details if you like, that define the thin line  + + 
between success and failure? A possible
description follows:
 + +
1) Selection of the (already or in the near
future) open file and evaluation of its
significance for furthering our plans.
2) Care so that the open file can be
exploited by us and not our opponent.
Otherwise our main priority should be to
keep the file closed.
3) Transfer of our rooks to the file about to
open in advance, so that we are ready to
assume its control.
4) Possibility of instant transfer (or at least
faster than the opponent) of our rooks on the
file already or soon-to-be open.
5) Preservation of our control over the
open file by doubling our rooks or avoiding
their exchange for the enemy ones.
6) Exploitation of the open file by
invading with our rook(s) into the enemy
lines, particularly the 7th and 8th ranks.
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
+Q + 

With the queens off, Black will be unable to
create activity on the kingside to
counterbalance White's b-file play.
16...Qe7! 17.Rb2!
Preparing a possible doubling of the rooks
on the b-file while, as will become clear in
the future, the b2-rook performs some
defensive duties as well.
17...f5 18.exf5
This was compulsory. Black was threatening
...f4 and ...g5, with good attacking chances.
18...Nxf5!
After 18...gxf5 19.f4! e4 20.Nf2, intending
Ncd1-e3 and later g4!, White has the
advantage.
19.Bg4 Nf6!
1
19...Nd4?! 20.Ne4 Nf6 21.Nxf6+ Qxf6
22.Bxc8 Raxc8 leads to an ending
 ++
 +
favourable for White. Black must be very  + ++ 
careful in order to preserve the balance.
20.Bxf5 Bxf5
 + Q +
20...gxf5?! 21.f4 leaves White with some + +
  
advantage.
21.Qd2 (D) 

 White controls the only open file and has
already started pressurizing Black's
+ +
+ weaknesses; thus, he has the initiative and
the advantage. One standard plan here is the
+ +  + advance of the a-pawn to a5, where it will
+  
+ support the white rook and fix the weak
black pawn on a6.
+ +  28.a4! Bf5
 ++ + + Black has no better options. The e4-knight is
excellently placed and must be exchanged
 + +  sooner or later.
29.a5!

 Q  White should not hurry with 29.Rxa6? Bxe4
+ + +  30.Rxe4 Rxe4 31.fxe4 Rb8!, when he has
won a pawn (which was doomed anyway)
 but allowed Black good counterplay.
21...Rf7? 29...Bxe4 30.Rxe4
Black had made full use of White's opening Piece exchanges are in White's favour since
inaccuracy and retained, up to this point, a they reduce Black's possibilities for
dynamic position with chances for both counterplay while the weaknesses in Black's
sides. Now, however, it was time to contest camp become more accessible.
the b-file with 21...Rab8! 22.Rfb1 Qc7, 30...Rxe4 31.fxe4 Ra8 32.Qe3 Rb8 33.Qf2!
maintaining the balance. (D)
22.f3! Raf8 23.Nf2
Black's activity has been extinguished, while


White is planning Re1 and Nfe4, exchanging 
 + +
down to a promising ending (due to
possession of the open b-file).
+ + + +
23...Bc8 24.Nfe4 Nxe4 25.Nxe4 Rf4 26.Rb6 
  ++
White's rook has invaded the b-file. White's
threats force the black pieces to defensive   + 
(and consequently passive) positions.
26...Rd8 27.Re1 Qf8 (D)
 +++ +

 + + + + 
 +
 +  + + Q
+ + + + + + +  

  ++ 
Black cannot exchange his passive rook; this
+  +  allows White to increase his superiority by
tactical means.
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 2
33...Qd8 34.Qb2! Ra8
After 34...Rxb6 35.axb6 White's b-pawn will
 +  ++
promote: 35...a5 36.b7 Qb8 37.Qb6 a4 ++ + 
38.Qc6 a3 39.Qc8+.
35.g3 Qf6 36.Qe2! Qf8 37.Kg2 Qf6 38.Qf3
 + ++ +
Qd8?! + + ++
Black should have tested White's technique
in the rook ending by exchanging the  Q
+
queens, or tried 38...Qg5!?, when White
would have to continue with 39.Qe2! Qf6
40.Qg4!.
39.Rb7! Qe8 40.Qf6 Rd8?
Black resigned before White could play
41.Qg7#. However, 40...Qf8 41.Qe6+ Kh8
42.Rf7 Qd8 43.Re7! Qf8 44.Qxd6 +- is also
easy for White.
1-0
Semi-Open File
A file is semi-open when one of the two
sides does not have a pawn on it. This
element is closely related to that of the open
file, although the differences between them
are anything but negligible.
The aims pursued by the exploitation of a
semi-open file are multiple, the most
important being:
1) Application of pressure on the
opponent's pawn on the semi-open file,
when this pawn is backward.
2) Forcing the opponent's pieces to defend
this pawn, when it is backward.
3) Development of the initiative through
the semi-open file.
4) Transformation of the semi-open file to
an open one, and exploitation of the open
file.
The value of the semi-open file increases
when there is a backward pawn on it, as well
+ + + 

21...Qa5?
Black gets carried away on the queenside,
ignoring the looming dangers on the other
flank. 21...Ra7! followed by 22...Ne5 had to
be played, when Black would have excellent
compensation for the pawn (control over the
dark squares, outpost on e5) in an unclear
position with chances for both sides.
22.Qf4! Ra7?
22...Qxb5? 23.Qh4 Ndf6 24.Ng5 was just as
bad, but Black had to play 22...f6.
23.Ng5! Ndf6
Forced (23...Ne5? 24.Ne6+! Kh8 25.Qh6!
Nd7 26.e5!!).
24.Qh4
White's attack is becoming very dangerous,
as now the combinational continuation
25.Rxf6! Nxf6 26.Rxf6 Kxf6 27.Ne6+ is
threatened.
24...h6 (D)
24...Re5 also offers no salvation: 25.Rxf6!
Nxf6 26.Ne6+ Rxe6 (26...fxe6 27.Qxf6+
Kh6 28.Qf8+ Kg5 [28...Rg7 29.Rf7] 29.h4+
Kxh4 30.Qf4+ Kh5 31.Bd1#) 27.dxe6 Qd8
28.exf7 Rxf7 29.g4!.


 + +
+ +
as outposts.

 +
 
□ Arlandi,Ennio
■ Grivas,Efstratios
 +  

E90 Groningen Ech-jr 1986 +  

  + ++ Q
+ 
+ + + + + +
+ +

  +
+
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 3
 + + +  The strategic element of the forepost is
 the outpost.
25.e5!
White's last piece joins the attack. He could
of course also proceed with 25.Ne6+! fxe6
26.e5!! (but not 26.Rxf6? Nxf6 27.Qxf6+
Kh7 28.e5 Rg7 29.dxe6 Qd2!), but the game
continuation is very strong too.
25...hxg5
Black cannot play any of the following lines:
25...Rxe5 26.Ne6+! fxe6 27.Rxf6; 25...dxe5
26.Ne6+!; 25...Nxd5 26.Nxf7! Rxf7 27.Qe4
Rxf2 28.Qxg6+; 25...Nh7 26.Nxh7 Kxh7
27.Qg4!; 25...Ng8 26.Ne6+! fxe6 (26...Kh8
27.exd6) 27.Qe4.
26.exf6+ Nxf6 27.Qxg5 Ne4?!
The passive 27...Ne8 should have been
played, although White retains a very strong
attack after 28.h4! intending h5.
28.Bxe4 Rxe4 29.Qf6+ Kg8 30.Qxd6 (D)


directly related to those of the open file and
From this one can deduce the actual
definition of the term (which is here being
introduced into English-language chess
literature), i.e. an outpost on an open file, on
which we can place a minor piece.
But what is the use of the forepost? Why is
it so important?
With the use of the forepost we achieve
the blocking of a file that we are not
immediately able to control. Behind the
forepost we can double our rooks or
manoeuvre them with complete freedom. At
an appropriate moment the forepost can be
removed, allowing our rooks to spring into
action. If necessary, the file can be blocked
again in the same way.
The piece occupying the forepost may
simultaneously be able to create threats, so
that the opponent is unable to fulfil all
defensive requirements of his position and
 + + ++ allow the invasion of our rooks.
In general, the combination of an open file,

 + ++  a forepost and an outpost is a significant
 + Q ++ strategic advantage in itself and may easily
suffice for victory.
+ +  In certain rare cases the forepost may be
used on diagonals that need to be blocked,
 + ++ + utilizing the same mechanism.
+ + + +
□ Grivas,Efstratios
  +
+ ■ Genov,Petar
+ + +  E15 Iraklion 1993
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3
 c6?!
30...Qc7 5...Nc6 remains the main line.
No defence was offered by 30...Qxb5 6.Bg5!
31.Rxf7! Rxf7 32.Qxg6+ Rg7 33.Qxe4. The automatic 6.Bg2 d5 would fully justify
31.Qc6 Qxc6 32.dxc6 Rb4 33.Rxf7! Black's last move. Since the h1-a8 diagonal
The last strike, and it comes via the semi- will be blocked after ...d5, the white bishop
open f-file! The white c-pawn reaches the will have no targets on g2.
promotion square. 6...d5 (D)
33...Rxf7 34.Rxf7

1-0



Forepost  + +
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 4
 +
+ black king resides. At the appropriate
moment the forepost will be removed in
+ ++   such a way that Black will be unable to
defend against all of White's threats. Simple
 + + + plan, but the execution is difficult!
+Q+ +  17...Rac8 18.Rac1 Kg7 19.Ne1!
A strong move, aiming at the transfer of the
 +  knight(s) to the f4-square; from there, in

+ + combination with the approach of the white
queen (Qh5) they will be able to create
 direct threats against the black king.
7.cxd5! cxd5 19...f5 20.Nd3 Nc4?! (D)
7...exd5?! 8.Bxf6! Qxf6 9.Nc3 Nd7 10.Bg2

followed by 0-0, Rfe1 and e4 promises a
clear advantage to White.  ++
 +
8.e3! Bxf1 9.Kxf1 Be7 10.Kg2 Nc6!
The only continuation so as not to lose
+ +
control of the c-file. After 10...Nbd7?!   + +
11.Rc1 0-0 12.Nc3 a6 13.Na4 Black's
problems would be insoluble.
+ +++ 
11.Rc1 Na5 12.Qb5+! Qd7 13.Qa6!  +
 + +
Threatening 14.Ne5!.
13...Bd6 14.Bxf6 gxf6 15.Nc3 Qb7 16.Qe2 +   
The exchange of queens would significantly
relieve Black (16.Qxb7? Nxb7 17.Nb5
+Q
Kd7!), who know faces a multitude of +
 + + 
problems: not only must he cater for the c-
file, but also for his kingside weaknesses.

16...0-0 17.Rc2! (D) This appears strong, but in reality only
serves to complicate Black's defensive task,

 as this knight works as a second forepost for
+ +
+ White. Better is 20...Nc6 and ...Ne7,
assigning the knight to the defence of the
+ ++ king.
   + 21.Qh5 h6 22.Ne2! Qa6?
With the false impression of imminent

++ +  material gain, thanks to the double threat
23...Qxa2 and 23...Nxe3+. The defensive
 +  + + 22...Qd7 was essential.
+    23.Nef4! (D)
+Q


 + + +   ++
 +
  + + 
What we practically have here is a case of a  + 
forepost (the c3-knight) very close to the
white camp. White will double rooks on the
+ +++Q
c-file and at the same time develop an  +
  +
initiative on the flank where the exposed
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 5
 + +    + + 
+   
+ 
+
 + +  + +Q
  +   +
23...Be7
23...Qxa2 is no improvement: 24.Qh4! Rc7
++   
25.Nh5+ Kh7 26.Nf6+ Kg7 27.Nf4 Rfc8 ++ 
(27...Bxf4 28.gxf4 intending Rg1 and Kh3+)
28.Kh1! Be7 29.g4!.
+
 + + 
24.b3 Nd6 25.Ne5! Bg5 (D) 
This move loses in spectacular fashion, but 26.Nxe6+!!
anyway there was no salvation. Black could White's great positional superiority creates
not free his position by 25...Rxc2 26.Rxc2 the basic requirements for tactical
Rc8 in view of 27.Nxf7 Nxf7 (27...Rxc2 combinations!
28.Qg6+ Kf8 29.Nxe6+ Ke8 30.Ne5+!) 26...fxe6 27.Rc7+ Kh8 28.Qg6
28.Qg6+ Kf8 (28...Kh8 29.Rxc8+ Qxc8 Black cannot avoid checkmate.
30.Qxf7) 29.Nxe6+ Ke8 30.Rc7, winning 1-0
for White.


 ++
 +

FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 6

 (Day 5: 18:00-18:45 - Grivas)
Bishop vs Knight - Knight vs Bishop
Bishop against Knight
The strategic advantage of a good bishop
against an inferior knight is determined by
the pawn-structure. More specifically, the
bishop is superior to the knight when no
pawns exist in the centre but at the same
time there are pawns on both flanks. It is
also beneficial to the bishop if the
opponent's pawns are placed on squares of
the same colour as that on which it moves,
since it can then attack them. Accordingly, it
is preferable that fellow pawns are placed on
squares of the opposite colour.
In some cases (exceptions) it is possible to
demonstrate the superiority of the bishop
also in positions with central pawns,
provided that these pawns do not obstruct
the bishop; i.e. that the bishop's own pawns
are placed on squares of the opposite colour
and the enemy pawns on squares of the same
colour as the bishop.
The superiority of the bishop over the
knight can be utilized in two main situations:
1) In the middlegame, the bishop can
support an attack against the opponent's king
or on any other part of the board.
2) In the endgame, the bishop - thanks to
its ability to control a lot of squares from a
distance - proves powerful, particularly
when both sides have passed pawns. The
bishop is also able to 'gain' (or 'lose') a
tempo, i.e. to force the enemy knight into
zugzwang; this aspect is decisive in most
Be7 6.c4 0-0 7.Nc3 Ne4 8.Qc2 Nxc3
9.Qxc3 c5?!
Other lines for Black are 9...f5 and 9...d6,
which I prefer to the one played, as in the
game his position will be solid but he will be
unable to develop any kind of initiative so as
to ‘disturb’ White.
10.b3 Bf6 11.Bb2 cxd4
White retains the advantage after 11...Bxf3
12.Qxf3 Nc6 13.e3! due to his bishop-pair
and strong centre.
12.Nxd4 Bxg2 13.Kxg2 Nc6 14.Qd3!
White must be careful; he would forego any
advantage after the automatic 14.Qd2 Bxd4!
15.Bxd4 d5!.
14...Bxd4 15.Bxd4 d5
This is an attempt to improve Black's play.
15...Nxd4 16.Qxd4 Qc7 17.Rfd1, gives
White a slight but enduring edge, and should
be compared with Grivas,E-Ionescu,C,
Elista OL 1998 {@ Α}.
16.Bb2! Rc8
Black's other options, 16...dxc4 17.Qxc4 and
16...d4 17.e3! dxe3 18.Qxe3, also lead to a
pleasant position for White, as his bishop
will eventually prove its superiority over the
black knight due to the fact that there are
pawns on both sides.
17.cxd5! Nb4 18.Qf3! Qxd5 19.Rfd1!
Qxf3+ 20.Kxf3 (D)


 ++
+
endgames.
In most positions that are favourable for
 + +
the bishop, the possession of the prelate does   ++ +
not guarantee victory, but is a useful weapon
in the fight for it. + + + + 
□ Grivas,Efstratios
 
+ + +
■ Khetsuriani,Besarion ++ + 
E19 Athens 2003
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.g3 b6 4.Bg2 Bb7 5.0-0
 + 
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 7
 
 ++ +  + ++ +
 
White has gladly accepted the exchanges
offered by Black, ending up in a pleasant
endgame where he has four basic factors on
which to build:
1) Better minor piece (bishop vs knight),
taking the pawn-structure into account.
2) Better-placed king (centralized), in
contrast to the enemy monarch who will
have difficulties in occupying a satisfactory
position, either active or passive.
3) Possibility of a white rook invading
Black's camp.
4) Good prospects of further improving his
position, while Black can only sit and wait.
20...Nd5!?
An interesting idea. Two other moves were
unsatisfactory: 20...Rc2? 21.Ba3! a5
22.Bxb4 axb4 23.Rd4 with material gain,
and 20...Rfd8 21.Rac1! Nxa2 22.Rxd8+
Rxd8 23.Ra1 Nb4 24.Rxa7 +/-.


The exchange of rooks would now be in
Black's favour, as then White would
surrender one of his aforementioned
advantages, the possibility of invading
Black's lines with his rook.
25...Nc6 26.Ke3 Rc7 27.e5!
An apparently illogical move, placing the
pawn on a square of the same colour as the
bishop. However, this move essentially
prevents the activation of the black king,
who now cannot approach the centre unless
Black decides to accept further pawn
weaknesses. If Black waits passively then
White will continue with f4, g4, Rd6, Ke4
and f5, gaining even more space and
developing substantial pressure on Black's
position.
27...f5 28.exf6 gxf6 29.Rc1 Kf7 (D)


21.e4 Ne7 22.Ba3  + + + +
22.Rd7 Nc6 23.Ke3 (23.Rc1?? Ne5+!)
23...Rfd8 is interesting and similar to the

 ++
game.  
+ +
22...Rfe8 23.Rac1!
The exchange of one pair of rooks will + + + + 
enable the white king to breathe more freely
and will further highlight the weak points of
 + + + +
Black's position, as the remaining black +   
pieces will have to take on greater defensive
duties. Naturally, 23.Rd7?! Nc6! 24.Ke3
+ +  
Ne5! would only help Black. +
 + + 
23...Rxc1 24.Rxc1 Rc8 25.Rd1! (D)

 
30.Rc4!
 ++ ++ Now the white rook can swing to either side
of the board. Working together with the
 + 
 strong bishop, it will create multiple
  ++ + problems for Black. The black king has
improved its placement but Black's pawn-
+ + + +  structure has deteriorated with the
 + ++ + emergence of weak pawns.
30...e5?!
+ +  Black should have stayed passive, without
exposing himself with pointless pawn moves
+ +   that, although seemingly strong, actually
create new targets.
31.f4! (D)
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 8

 objectively have preferred the passive
38...Rf8 39.Rh4 Rf7 40.a3 Ne5+ 41.Ke3
 + + + + with advantage for White. It should be noted
that Black cannot play 38...Ne5+? 39.Bxe5

 ++ Rxe5 (39...fxe5 40.Rc7 e4+ 41.Ke3) 40.Rc7
 
+  + Rh5 41.h4 a5 42.Rb7 Kc6 43.Rf7 Rh6
44.Ke4, when White's superiority is more
+ +  +  than obvious and Black’s chances of
 ++  + survival minimal.
39.Rh4 a5 40.a3! Ne5+ 41.Bxe5 fxe5
+    42.Rxh7 Rf6 43.Ke3 Rc6 44.Rd7+!
The game is practically over as White has
+ + +  won material and is able to protect his
+ + + +  position.
 Ke6 48.Ke4 Rf6 49.Rf3
With the idea to isolate one more black
pawn (apart from h7) on e5 or f6. Black
wisely opts for the latter since if he were left
with a pawn on e5 then all pawn endings
would be lost, due to the possibility of White
creating an outside passed pawn.
31...exf4+ 32.Kxf4 Ke6 33.Bb2 Rc8 34.Ba3
Rc7 35.Ke4 Rc8 36.Ke3
White has played some waiting moves to
gain time and now prepares to increase the
pressure with Rh4-h6 and Bb2. After the
black pieces are tied to the protection of the
kingside pawns, the white king will invade
the queenside. A simple plan, but one that is
very difficult for Black to oppose.
36...Kd5 37.Bb2 Re8+ 38.Kd3 (D)


44...Ke6 45.Rd3 Kf5 46.h3 Rh6 47.g4+
1-0
Knight against Bishop
Just like the previous strategic element
examined (bishop against knight), the
concept of good knight against bad bishop is
based upon the two sides' pawn-structures.
The presence of central pawns (especially
when they are placed on the same colour
squares as the bishop) generally favours the
knight, as it decreases the scope of the
bishop. When, moreover, the pawn-structure
is relatively fixed and strong (weak) squares
exist, the superiority of the knight increases,
since the knight is a more suitable piece for
the occupation of outposts.
The knight is a very flexible piece that can
move to any square of the board, but the
 + ++ + control it exerts is restricted to only a few
squares at a time. Consequently, a closed
 + + + centre or the presence of pawns on only one
 
+  + side of the board significantly favour the
knight and make it preferable to the bishop,
+ ++ +  as the latter does have a greater radius of
 ++ + + action but is confined to only half the
squares of the chessboard. In view of the
+++   above we may define the superiority of the
 + +  knight over the bishop as a consequence of
the pawn-structure and especially when the
+ + + +  centre is closed, when there is a fixed
structure (on squares of the colour of the
 bishop) or when there are pawns only on one
38...Re6? wing.
Black's position was difficult, but with this Although the knight's superiority usually
move he loses material. He should becomes evident in the endgame, there are
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 9
many examples that display this superiority 16.bxc5
in the middlegame as well (always under the Both 16.cxb5 cxb4 17.bxa6 Bxa6 and 16.a3
conditions mentioned above). The secret to cxb4 17.axb4 bxc4 18.dxc4 Rc8 would win
determining which of the minor pieces is a pawn for Black.
superior is the overall examination of the 16...bxc4! 17.dxc4 Nxc5 (D)
pawn-structure.

□ Oney,Feridun + 
+
■ Grivas,Efstratios
A24 Athens 1984
++ ++
1.c4 g6 2.Nc3 Bg7 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 0-0 5.e4 +  
Q
d6 6.Nge2 e5 7.d3 c6 8.0-0 Nbd7
Black has also tried the immediate 8...a6 + 
 + 
9.a4!? a5! 10.h3 Na6 11.f4 Nd7 12.Be3
Ndc5 with unclear play, Turner,M-Grivas,E
 +++ +
Athens Ch-EU rpd 1997. +  + 
9.h3 a6 (D)
+ ++



 + + 
+
+

++
+ Black has a more pleasant position as his
+ 
+ pawn-structure is healthy; moreover, his
pieces are better placed and have targets,
+ +  +  while White's are still searching for
 +++ + prospects.
18.Qe3 Nfd7!
+ +  Threatening 19...Nb6!.
19.Nd5?
 ++ This seems to solve White's defensive

 Q+  problems but in reality only leads him to a
very difficult position, as the situation now
 stabilizes in favour of the black knights. The
10.Be3 only move was 19.Nc1! (to defend with
Another possibility is 10.a4!? Ne8 11.a5 f5 19...Nb6 20.Qe2) intending 20.Nb3,
12.exf5 gxf5 13.d4 Qf6 14.Be3 Qf7 15.d5 c5 exchanging one of the strong black steeds.
16.f4 e4 with a satisfactory position for Black retains a slight advantage but there is
Black, Koliopoulos,K-Grivas,E Athens a long fight ahead.
1992, but White can improve his play. 19...Bxd5! 20.cxd5 Rb8 (D)
10...b5 11.Qd2 Bb7 12.Bg5?!
A pointless move. White should prefer 12.b4


or 12.f4 with an unclear position. 
 
+
12...Nc5! 13.b4 Ne6 14.Bh6
This shows how pointless 12.Bg5 was, as
+ +
++
White has now been compelled to waste a +  ++
tempo.
14...Bxh6! 15.Qxh6 c5! + 
 + 
After Black has rid himself of his ‘bad’
bishop (with some help from White), he
 + ++ +
attacks the centre, where he hopes to assume + + Q 
the initiative by tactical means.
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 10
 + ++ The exchange of queens determines the
outcome in Black's favour. White cannot

 + +  avoid it (27.Qe2 Qb2!).
27.Qxb6 Rxb6 28.Rff1 Rb2
 The superiority of the black knights, in
Black's superiority has increased because his conjunction with possession of the 2nd rank,
knights are stronger than the miserable g2- secures Black the positional advantage
bishop, while he can also develop a strong required to win the game.
initiative on the queenside by transferring 29.Kg1 Rc8 30.Bh1 Rcc2 31.Rfb1 Nf4
his major pieces to that flank. 32.Rxb2 Nxh3+
21.g4?! 0-1
A mistaken treatment of the position.
White's counterplay should focus on two □ Grivas,Efstratios
main ideas: getting rid of the g2-bishop or ■ Vidarsson,Jon
improving it (h4 and Bh3) and the A46 Reykjavik 1994
development of an attack against the black
king, on the opposite flank to which Black's


forces will be deployed. The text-move 
 + ++
weakens all the dark squares on White's
kingside and reduces the effectiveness of the + +
 
g2-bishop.
21...Kg7! 22.Ng3 h6
  ++
Black has taken preventive defensive +  + 
measures and now threatens 23...Qg5!. The
exchange of queens will stop White's
+++ +
offensive, ensuring Black a very favourable + + + + 
endgame. White, realizing his difficult
positional predicament, decides to  + 
complicate even at the cost of further
weakening his position.

 +
  
23.f4 exf4 24.Rxf4 Ne5 25.Rf5!? Ncd3! (D) 

 The white knights dominate the board,
forestalling any active ideas Black may

 
 + have.
+ + +  19...Bf8 20.b3 Nf6?!
It is hard to suggest anything better than this
+  + move, by which Black tries to involve
himself in the game, even at the cost of the
+ +
+  deterioration of his pawn-structure.
 + +++ 21.Ncxd6 Nxd5
Unfortunately for Black, he cannot get rid of
+ +
Q  his bad bishop as he loses a pawn after
+ + ++ 21...Bxd6 22.Nxd6 Nxd5 23.Nc4.
22.Nc4 Re8 23.Rad1 (D)

 + +  

  + ++
The black knights ‘dance’ on the
chessboard, in contrast to the g2-bishop that + + + 
watches events from a distance in dismay.
26.Kh2 Qb6!
 + ++
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 11
 + 
 +  Re6 40.Ne3 Ree8 41.Rdd7 Red8 42.Ng4!
White wins material without surrendering
+++ + any of his advantages.
42...Rxd7
++ + +  42...Re8 43.Nef6+ gxf6 (or 43...Kh8
 ++  44.Nxh6!) 44.Nxf6+ Kh8 45.Rh7#.
43.Rxd7 Kh8 44.Nxe5 Kg8 45.Ng4 Rc6
+ +
   46.Rd8 Ne6 47.Rb8 Ra6 48.Ne5 Ra2
 49.Nd6! (D)
White's superiority is undeniable and is

mainly based on his superior minor piece. A
significant role in White's advantage is

 + +
played by Black's ugly pawn-structure and + + +  
the passivity of his pieces.
23...Nf4 24.g3 b5 25.axb5 axb5 26.Ne3
 + 
+ 
The careless 26.Na3? would lose all of +   +
White's advantage after 26...c4! 27.Nxb5
cxb3 28.cxb3 Rb8.   + + +
26...Ne6 27.Rd7 Nd4 28.Ra1!
White will increase his advantage as his
++ +  
rooks will occupy the 7th rank. ++ +
28...Rb6 29.Raa7 b4 30.h4!
Intending the further advance h5-h6,
destroying Black's defence. The balance is
now decisively tipping in White's favour as
he is constantly improving his position while
the black pieces have fallen into passivity.
30...Nb5 31.Ra5! Reb8 32.h5 h6 33.Nc4
Re6 34.Rd5 Nd4 35.Ne3 Rc8 36.Ra7! (D)


+ + + + 

The start of a nice combination, highlighting
the ineffectiveness of the black pieces that
are unable to react.
49...Rxc2 50.Nf5! Re2 51.Ne7+ Kh7
52.N7g6! Rxe5
Pure desperation, but 52...Kg8 53.Nd7! or
52...Bd6 53.Rh8# is certainly no better!
 ++ + 53.Nxe5 Bd6 54.Rb6 Bxe5 55.Rxe6 Bd4

 + +   56.Rc6 Kg8 57.f4 Kf7 58.Kf3 Ke7 59.Ke4
Kd7 60.Kd5 Ke7 61.Rxc5
 + ++  1-0
+  +
  
+ +
++   
 ++  +
+ + +  

A small material gain with 36.Nxc5 does not
figure in White's plans. His position is so
good, that to give up one of his knights he
must obtain something really big in return!
36...Nb5 37.Rb7 Nd4 38.Kg2 Ree8 39.Ng4

FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 12

 (Day 5: 19:00-19:45 - Mikhalchishin)
Most Important Tactical Elements
Grandmaster Richard Teichman used to
say that in chess we have 95 per cent of
tactics! Maybe it is a bit exaggerated,
but tactics is everywhere -in
openings,endgames,when we conduct
plan ,attack especially and even in
defence. There are many good books on
tactics, many exercises, classification of
motifs and elements exists, but there is
no totally correct system how to study
tactics.
Very practical advice was given by great
Smyslov.
SMYSLOVS CLASSIFICATION OF
TACTICS.
1 Check.Yes, it is the most powerful
accelerator in chess process.
2 Pin. Yes, effective and unpleasant
weapon.
3 Double attack. Great David Bronstein
said−CHESS IS THE GAME OF
DOUBLE ATTACK.
4Unprotected pieces, majority of tactical
operations have idea not mate, but win
of some material.
And adding different tactical elements
and motive in one variation we obtain
chess combination.simple, as that!
DESTROYING THE DEFENSIVE
PIECE, DEFLECTION.
Different kinds of forms and sometimes
badly conducted by the greatest. But
even mistakes are instructive.
(1) Kozul,Zdenko (2612) −
Nisipeanu,Liviu Dieter (2584) [E32]
EU−chT (Men) 12th Batumi (5.1),
03.12.1999
[Golod,V]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 0-0
5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.Qxc3 b6 7.e3 Relatively
rare move. [7.Bg5!? Is the main line,
another possibilities
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
is:7.Af3!?;7.g3;7.b4.] 7...Bb7 8.b3!?
Besides,white has several options:
8.b4!?;8.Nf3!? and 8.f3 8...d6 [Another
alternative is: 8...d5!? 9.Nf3 Nbd7
10.Be2 dxc4 (10...Rc8!? 11.0-0 c5=
Nikitin,A) 11.bxc4 c5 12.0-0 Rc8 13.Bb2
cxd4 14.exd4 b5!?= See comments to
Karpov,A−Kasparov,G/
USSR(ch),1988/Inf 46/752 (½-
½)(Karpov,An) (30)] 9.Bb2 [In my
opinion a little worse is: 9.f3 (∆ Jd3,
Ae2) 9...c5 (9...Nbd7!? 10.Bd3 e5
11.Bf5 Re8 12.Ne2 e4 13.f4 d5=
Arlandi,E−Greenfeld,A/Haifa(EU−
chT),1989 (0-1)(31)) 10.dxc5 (!10.Bb2
Qe7 11.Nh3 cxd4 12.Qxd4 e5 13.Qh4
Nbd7 14.e4 Rfc8 15.Qf2 Nc5 16.Qe3
b5& Akhsharumova,A−
Suba,M/Hastings,1988 (½-½)(74))
10...bxc5 11.Bd3 a5 12.Ne2 Nbd7
('12...Nc6) 13.a4 Ne5 14.Bc2 Nc6
15.Bb2 Nb4 16.Rd1 Re8 17.0-0 d5K
Seirawan,Y−
Ehlvest,J/Rotterdam,1989(½-½)(24)]
9...Nbd7 10.f3N ∆Jd3,Ae2,0-0 and so
on. [10.Rd1 −was checked in the
previous game of the Eu−chT
Batumi,1999 10...Ne4 11.Qc2 f5 12.Nh3
Qh4N Kozul,Z−Kacheishvili,G (½-
½)(71)] 10...c5 Is the best move.
[Dubious: 10...e5 ∆11.d5 e4 12.Ne2
∆13.Ad4 or Ag3 with positional
advantage of white.] 11.Bd3 [Q11.dxc5
bxc5 12.Rd1 Qb6 =/R] 11...cxd4
12.exd4 [Much worse is: 12.Qxd4 d5S]
12...Rc8 [Also good enough: 12...d5
13.Ne2 (Badly: 13.c5? in view of:
13...Rc8 ∆14.b4 e5! 15.dxe5 Nxe5&)
13...Rc8 14.Qd2 −transfer to 12...Tc8]
13.Qd2 [Weakly right away: 13.Ne2
because of: 13...b5S] 13...d5= 14.Ne2
dxc4 15.bxc4 Qc7 [In my opinion
slightly better is: 15...Re8 ∆e5] 16.0-0 e5
17.Bf5 [Worse is: 17.d5 because of:
13
17...Ba6 18.Rac1 Nc5 19.d6 (19.Bc2!?) (28.Kg3 gxf6 29.Rxc4 b5&) 28...gxf6
19...Qc6 (19...Qxd6?? 20.Bxh7+) 29.Rxc4 Re8R] 25...Rc8?? Probably
∆20.Bxe5 Nb3 21.Qg5 Qc5+! 22.Kh1 h6 black blundered(as well as white),
23.Qf5 Nxc1 24.Rxc1 Rce8 25.Bxf6 because he didn't see 26...Td1+ (after
(25.f4?? Bc8-+) 25...Qxf5 26.Bxf5 Rxe2 25...Jxc4 26.[xc4) or because of
27.Be7 Re8 (27...Rb8!?*) 28.d7 R2xe7 zeitnot. [Win right away: 25...Bxc4
29.dxe8Q+ Rxe8 30.Kg1 Re5R W; ∆26.Qxc4 (=26.Bxf6 gxf6 (26...Rxf6??
17.Rfe1!?] 17...Rcd8!? [Loses right 27.Qxc4 Rd1+! 28.Rxd1 Qxc4 29.Rd8+
away: 17...Qxc4? 18.dxe5 Qd5 19.Rad1 Qg8 30.Rxg8+ Kxg8*) 27.Qxc4 Rd1+!)
Rc7 (19...Rfd8 20.Qf4+−) 20.Qf4 Nh5 26...Rd1+! 27.Rxd1 Qxc4-+] 26.Bb3
(20...Qc5+ 21.Bd4+−) 21.Qg4+−; Also Qe3 [Senselessly: 26...Qb5 ∆27.Qd1
can be recommended: 17...exd4!? Rcd8 28.Qc2 Rc8 29.Qd1= (29.Bc3!?) ]
18.Bxd4 Rcd8 19.Rad1K] 18.Qc2 exd4 27.Bc3 [27.Qd1?? is refuted by:
19.Nxd4 [Q19.Bxd4 Rfe8 20.Rfd1 Ne5 27...Rcd8 ∆28.Qc2 Rd2 29.Qc3 Qf2-+]
=/R] 19...Ne5 20.c5! Differently,after: 27...Bc4 [Dubious: 27...Rc5 ∆28...Tfc8
[20.Rac1?! Qc5 21.Qf2 Rfe8 black has a in view of: 28.Qd2 \/=] 28.Bxc4 Rxc4
positional advantage.] 20...Ba6! This 29.Qd2 Qxd2 Black transfers to equal
move better than: [20...Qxc5 21.Qxc5 endgame. 30.Bxd2 Rfc8 31.Kg1
bxc5 22.Nb3X; or 20...bxc5 21.Nb5 Qb8 ∆32.^f2 and merely afterward: Txc4.
(21...Qb6? 22.Bxe5 Qxb5 23.Bxf6 gxf6 31...Kg8 32.Kf2 Kf7 33.Rxc4 Rxc4
24.Rab1.) 22.Rfe1X (22.Nxa7!?; 34.Rc1 [Q34.Ke3 Nd5+ 35.Kd3 b5 =/R]
22.Qxc5?? Rd5 23.Qb4 Nc6-+) ] 34...Rxc1 35.Bxc1 Ke6 [Q35...Nd5
21.Rfc1 Nc4 22.Ne6! Beautiful tactical 36.Ke2 b5 37.Kd3 Ke6 38.Kd4 with
trick! [Q22.Bd3 Nxb2 23.Bxa6 bxc5! slight advantage of white.] 36.Bb2
(23...Rxd4 24.Qxb2 Qe5 (24...bxc5?? Ne8!? 37.Ke3 Kd5 38.g4 White's plan
25.Qxd4+−) 25.Qe2 Qxe2 26.Bxe2=) is:f4−f5,g5,^f4 and f6. 38...b5
24.Nb5 Qb6 25.Qxb2 Nd7!R] 22...fxe64 [Perilously: 38...Kc4 ∆39.f4 Kb3?
23.Bxe6+ Kh8 24.Bxc4 Qxc5+ Diagram 40.Bd4! Kxa3 41.f5 h6 42.h4 Kb4 43.g5

 !"#$% hxg5 44.hxg5 Kc4 45.Bxg7!+− (45.f6?
gxf6 46.gxf6 Nd6∓) ] 39.f4 g6
& +

 ' ∆40...Ad6(_f5) 40.f5 gxf5 41.gxf5 Nd6
42.Kf4 Nc4 43.Bc14 a5 44.Kg5 b4
( + + ) 45.axb4 axb4 46.h4 [Also draw after:
* + 
++ 46.Kh6 Ke5 47.Kxh7 Kxf5 48.Kg7 b3
(48...Ne5 49.h4 Kg4 50.Kf6 Nd3 51.Bd2
,+  + + - b3 52.Bc3 Kxh4 53.Kf5=) 49.h4 Kg4
. ++ + +/ 50.Kf6 Kxh4 51.Ke6 Kg4 52.Kd5 Na5
53.Kc5=] 46...b3 47.h5 Ke5 [=47...b2
0 + ++ 1 48.Bxb2 Nxb2 49.Kh6 Ke5 50.Kxh7 Kxf5
51.h6 Nd3 52.Kg7 Ne5 53.h7 Ng6=]
2 Q+ +3 48.Bf4+ Kd5 49.Bc1 Ke5 50.Bf4+
4

 +  5 [=50.Kh6 Nd6 (50...Kxf5 51.Kxh7 b2
52.Bxb2 Nxb2 53.Kg7 Nd3 54.h6 Ne5
6789:;<= 55.h7 Ng6=) 51.Kxh7 Kf6 52.Kg8 Nxf5
25.Kh1?? Gross tactical blunder. [It is 53.Bb2+ Kg5 54.Kf7 Kxh5 55.Ke6 Ne3
necessary: 25.Qf2 Qxf2+ 26.Kxf2 Bxc4 56.Ke5 Nc4+ 57.Kd4 Nxb2 58.Kc3=]
(26...Rd2+ 27.Kg1Y (27.Kg3? Nh5+ 50...Kd5 Despite the tactical mistakes
28.Kh4 Bxc4 29.Rxc4 Rxb2 30.Kxh5 the game very interesting. ½-½
Rxg2-+) 27...Bxc4 (!27...Rxb2
28.Bxa6=) 28.Bxf6 −transfer to (2) Borisek,Jure (2442) − Rozic,Vesna
26...Jxc4) 27.Bxf6 Rd2+ 28.Kg1 (2158) [C10]
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 14
9.HIT open 2004 A (1)
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 dxe4 4.Nxe4
Bd7 5.Nf3 Bc6 6.Bd3 Nd7 7.0-0 Ngf6
8.Ned2 Bxf3 9.Nxf3 Be7 10.b3 0-0
11.Bb2 Re8 12.c4 c6 13.Qe2 Qc7
14.Ne5 Rad8 15.f4 c5 16.dxc5 Bxc5+
17.Kh1 Nf8 18.Rad1 Ng6 19.Bc3 Qe7
20.Qe1 Qc7 21.b4 Be7 22.Qe2 a6
23.a4 Bd6 24.Rde1 Qe7 25.Qb2 Nh5
26.Bxg6 hxg6 27.c5 Bc7 28.g3 Rd5
29.Nc4 Nf6 30.Be5 Red8 31.Kg1 Ne8
32.Qg2 f6 33.Bb2 Qd7 34.Qe4 Kf7
35.Kh1 a5 36.Ne3 Rd2 37.Nc4 Rd5
38.Bc3 axb4 39.Bxb4 Qc6 40.Kg1
R8d7 41.Nd6+ Nxd6 42.Qxe6+ Kf8
43.cxd6 Bb6+ 44.Rf2 R7xd6 45.Kf1
Bxf2 46.Kxf2 Rd2+ 47.Ke3 R2d3+
48.Kf2 Rd2+ 49.Re2 Rxe2+ 50.Kxe2
Qc2+ 51.Kf3 Diagram

 !"#$%
& + +  +'
(++ +  )

 ++'
* +
Q++
+ )
,+ + + + -
. +  +/
0+ + + 1
2 ++ + 3
4+ + + + 5
6789:;<= 4+
+  5
51...Qc6+?? [51...Qc3+!!] 52.Kg4 1-0
(3) Borisek,Jure (2258) − Rozic,Vesna
(2077) [C02]
SLO−chTB U18 Areh, 2001
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Qb6 5.Nf3
Bd7 6.Be2 cxd4 7.cxd4 Bb5 8.0-0 Bxe2
9.Qxe2 Nc6 10.Nc3 Rc8 11.Be3 Nge7
12.g4 Ng6 13.Rad1 Be7 14.Kg2 h6
15.Rh1 Nh4+ 16.Nxh4 Bxh4 17.f4 Be7
18.Rhf1 Bb4 19.f5 Rf8 20.Nb1 Qd8
21.a3 Be7 22.Qd3 Qd7 23.Nc3 Na5
24.f6 gxf6 25.exf6 Bd6 26.Bxh6 Rh8
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
27.g5 Nc4 28.Rf2 Kd8 29.Kh1 Kc7
30.Bg7 Rhd8 31.g6 Kb8 32.Re1 Re8
33.Rfe2 a6 34.Nd1 Bc7 35.Ne3 Nd6
36.Ng4 Nf5 37.Nh6 Nxh6 38.Bxh6 fxg6
39.Qxg6 Bd6 40.f7 Red8 41.Qxe6 Qc6
42.Rc1 Qb6 43.Rxc8+ Rxc8 44.f8Q 1-0
(4) Euwe,Max − Yates,Frederick [D64]
London BCF Congress London (12),
1922
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7
5.e3 Nbd7 6.Nf3 0-0 7.Rc1 c6 8.Qc2
dxc4 9.Bxc4 Nd5 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.0-0
Rd8 12.Ne4 Nf8 13.a3 Bd7 14.Nc5 Be8
15.e4 Nb6 16.Ba2 Rab8 17.Rfe1 Nbd7
18.Nd3 Rbc8 19.Qa4 a6 20.Qb3 b6
21.h3 c5 22.dxc5 Nxc5 23.Nxc5 bxc5
24.Red1 Rb8 25.Qc2 Bc6 26.Ne5 Ba8
27.f3 Qg5 28.Nd3 Nd7 29.Qf2 h6
Diagram

 !"#$%
&
(+ +
*+ ++ +
,+  +  -
. + ++ +/
0 +++1
2 + Q+3
6789:;<=
30.Nxc5?? In much better position
young Euwe wants to win material
30...Nxc5 31.Rxd8+ Rxd8 32.Qxc5
Rd1+ 0-1
15
 (Day 5: 20:00-20:45 - Mikhalchishin)
Principles of Opening Play
Building a Repertoire
Opening preparation is the most
important part of the preparation of the
top player. But juniors either spent a lot
of time on the opening.
The most important part of trainers
understanding of opening preparation of
juniors is knowledge of historical
development of the opening theory.
1 at the beginning in middle ages
players understood the importance of
first two elements of openings
Development of the pieces and
coordination of them on certain squares,
first of all on f7.For these reason it was
played simple Italian game.
2Then they understood the role of the
centre and started to play in Italian c3
and d4, trying to drive opponents pieces
to passive positions.
3Then players realized that to achieve 3
described goals is possible with the help
of pawn sacrifice and gambits appeared.
4 next periods was the development of
the central strategy and the end of 19
century and Spanish and Queens`s
gambit became the modern openings.
5 Appeared first player, who started
deeply develop opening ideas and
became father of Modern openings−
Akiba Rubinstein.
6 Hyper modernism appeared. Reason
was changing of the middle game
strategy−centre is strong and powerful
,but it is possible not to try to obtain
strong centre, but to attack it! And such
openings as Grunted defence,
Ninzoindian and Alekhin defence
appeared. And two of them are still the
most important openings nowadays.
Every opening has its own tricks and
trainers must warn juniors about them!
Even top players are falling into them!
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
1) Vasiukov,Evgeni (2575) −
Razuvaev,Yuri S (2490) [B06]
Rubinstein Memorial 10th Polanica Zdroj
(4), 1972
1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.c3 d5 4.exd5 Qxd5
5.Nf3 c5 6.Be3 cxd4 7.cxd4 Nh6 8.Qc1
1-0
There are even faster tragedies on GMs
level, like next games. Reason is that
angle check is very easy to overlook.
(2) Farago,Ivan (2515) −
Bliumberg,Vladislav (2360) [D11]
Budapest FS06 GM Budapest (4), 1994
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 c6 4.e3 Be6
5.Ng5 Qa5+ 0-1
4 Wrong tricky attitude by trainer. Some
trainers recommends to their pupils to
play for cheap tricks. It is not
recommended.
17.11.2009
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Nxe5
Qg5 5.Nxf7 Qxg2 6.Rf1 Qxe4+ 7.Be2
Nf3# Line
Answer to question−what to do, when
opponent of our pupil prepares refutation
with the Help of Fritz.
First of all it is possible to find other
ways as opening theory is so rich.
(3) [C56]
16.11.2009
[Mihalcisin,Adrian]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Nf6
5.e5It is more positional move than
that way of the pupil and it is
necessary to find games of top
16
specialists in this line ,as Sveshnikov
here and to follow their games. [5.0-0
Nxe4 6.Re1 d5 7.Bxd5 Qxd5 8.Nc3 Qa5
(8...Qh5 9.Nxe4 Be6 10.Bg5 h6
(10...Bd6 11.Nxd6+ cxd6 12.Bf4 Qc5)
11.Bf6) 9.Nxe4 Be6 10.Neg5 0-0-0
11.Nxe6 fxe6 12.Rxe6 Qd5] 5...d5
[5...Ne4; 5...Ng4] 6.Bb5 Ne4 7.Nxd4 It
is position with Whites exchanging
on c6, then attacking Knight on
e4.Black on the other side have its
own chances with f7−f6 or c6−c5.
In Persia in satrange players started to
play from some certain positions and in
chess we have many important
positions, like in Nimzoindian.
(4) TIBIA [E59]
17.11.2009
[Mihalcisin,Adrian]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 0-0
5.Nf3 d5 6.Bd3 c5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.a3 Bxc3
9.bxc3 dxc4 10.Bxc4 Qc7 Modern
tabiyah.It is the position in which both
sides have plenty of opportunities. But
the evaluation of positions not changed
−unclear. And every player can chose
his own way, according to his knowledge
and preferences. 11.Bb5 [11.Bd3;
11.Ba2; 11.Qc2; 11.Bb2; 11.a4] Line
Kasyanov`s classification of the
openings
1 Solid or sound
openings.Spanish,Nimzoindian.
2 Semi correct openings−Kings Indian or
Sicilian.
3 Dubious openings.Alehin defence or
Dutch defence.
Geller`s classification
1 Openings, which you can play well.
2 Openings which you’ll play badly.
Bronstein on opening repertoire of the
masters. Above 2200
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
1 Forced variations,like Sicilian
2 Tabiyahs, like Nimzoindian main line.
3Systems of common sense like Caro
Cann.
Generally all players have in some way
to repeat historical development of the
openings.
Ere we have two important mistakes
1As GM Averbakh experienced−his first
opening was Caro Cann and he
explained that nothing worse can
happen to young player. They have to
study openings with the centre strategy.
2Trainers give to juniors own repertoire,
even if it doesn`t fill players style. There
are clubs and even countries, where for
example all players adopt French
defence! It is allowed just when trainers
gives to the player two openings and
one of them own.
Two important remarks.
How to teach young players to play
gambits ,as many can be scared to
sacrifice a pawn? It is possible to give
simuls or to play monthly one training
tournament. When all players play
gambit. And for both sides to understand
not just attack, but defence either.
How to avoid that fact that Youngs are
trying to play too complicated long lines,
which they don`t understand? Just to
let them do it ,helping to understand
plans. As juniors firstly have very good
memory and want to use it. Secondly,
they always have some favourite
[players and want to copy their
repertoire.
Every one−two year`s player has to
introduce new opening to his repertoire.
Reason is simple -just in this case player
studies to play new positions. There are
few examples of two extremely talented
players, who had very well prepared
main opening weapon (Sveshnikov with
his Sicilian and Vaganian with French)
and did not like to study some new
ways. They never achieved the level of
17
their talents.
How to check the affectivity of the
repertoire of our player?
Statistical method.
We need minimum 5 games of our pupil
in certain variations.
Second step is to divide them on results.
Hen to make evaluation in each
category of the opening result.
Then we can make analyse. If player
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
has bad result but stays better after
opening−it means that he has to study
plans in the middle game from top
players, playing this line.
If player has bad results and bad
position after opening−it means that he
does not know opening theory here
properly.
18
 (Day 6: 15:00-15:45 - Grivas)

Physical and Psychological Factors

In the summer of 1984 I participated (along with Vasilios Kotronias) in a special chess education
seminar in Moscow. The sessions there were truly exhausting but very significant, laying the
proper foundations for my further progress and my ascent to the grandmaster title.
Among other instructional subjects, my interest was drawn to my meetings with Dr N. Alexeev
(Professor of Psychology) and Dr Y. Zmanovsky (Professor of Medicine). These two scientists
introduced me to another side of chess that until then I ignored or refused to 'accept'.
In particular (among other issues) the following question was posed and discussed: which
physical and psychological assets are necessary for a successful chess career? On the basis of
relevant research conducted since the beginning of the previous century, these assets (according to
the two prominent scientists) are split in two main categories, innate and attainable.

As innate chess assets we can mention the following:

1) Self-control.
2) Ability to think on subjects.
3) Intense mental activity.
4) Obedience of will.
5) Proper distribution of attention.
6) Perception of position dynamics.
7) Combinative creative skill.

The following can be classified under the header 'attainable chess assets':
1) Good health condition.
2) Strong nerves.
3) Perception of data conveyed by our senses.
4) Objective thought-process.
5) Powerful special memory.
6) High mental level.
7) Self-confidence.
8) Control of emotional urges.
9) Feeling for the position (combination of thought and emotions).

The innate assets can be further enhanced and developed, but the attainable ones are purely a
matter of education. Endless work and systematic training in order to improve our personal traits
and the 'required assets' is essential for our overall chess improvement and the climb up to the
highest title, that of grandmaster.
Naturally, without the help of a specialized trainer or advisor, the trainee finds it difficult to
understand or try to improve the above-mentioned assets. After all, these assets are exclusively
related to chess and have no direct bearing on our other interests. For example, 'powerful special
memory' may refer exclusively to chess-related matters (data), as opposed to other matters;
naturally, the opposite is also possible. Each of us is unique.
Chess-players tend to grossly ignore the proper state of their health, consequently being in
serious danger of suffering heart problems due to the combination of lack of physical training and
daily stress stemming from preparation for and participation in competitions. Therefore, workout
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 1
or sport activities in general is essential, not only to protect our precious health but also to ensure
better results over a longer period of time.
Man's first kinetic activity, walking, does not require any specialized equipment, can take place
everywhere and brings several dividends. It is one of the simplest methods of aerobic training,
improving cardiac and respiratory functionality, and our physical condition in general. A routine of
half an hour of walking and two hours at the gym can turn our biological clock 6-8 years back. At
the same time, it contributes to proper maintenance of weight and forestalls obesity. Finally, it
helps reduce the amount of bad cholesterol (LDL) in our body. Research conducted by American
universities has proven that this activity improves memory and mental focus, while the production
of endorphins (substances that reduce physical and emotional pain, as well as creating euphoria)
reaches extremely high levels.
Another topic that was addressed was the 'time-frame' of training in relation to the scale of our
mental activities, and how we are able to attain maximum performance in it.
Science almost unanimously accepts the following categorization of people:
1) Larks: their mental processes are most efficient during the first half of the day, falling off
during the second half. Approximately 25% of the world's population belongs in this category.
2) Owls: their mental processes are most efficient during the second half of the day and
especially during the evening hours. They usually go to sleep late and wake up accordingly late.
Approximately 30% of the world's population belongs in this category.
3) Arrhythmics: for these people mental processes do not display any special ups and downs
during the day or night. Approximately 45% of the world's population, the largest part, belongs to
this category.
In practice, all top chess-players belong to the 'Owls' category! The explanation is simple and is
directly related to the standard time-frame of chess competitions, which mostly take place during
the second half of the day. Therefore, the chess-player 'must' place himself in this category (as far
as possible) and adapt his training schedule accordingly.
Another important topic is the chess-player's nutritional habits. In general he should not deviate
from his customary diet as regards the type and quantity of food he consumes (no exertions!), as
each organism has different needs and habits.
What can chessplayers do in order to improve and/or maintain healthy habits? Some very simple
rules to be followed by young people are: proper lifestyle, proper sleeping patterns, consumption
(in logical portions) of a variety of vegetables, fruits and natural fibres, along with one's favourite
dishes involving fish, beef, chicken, ham and turkey. In other words, a healthy diet based on a
variety of food, based on a weekly schedule. Soy milk, filtered water, tea (especially black or
green), coffee, dairy products (such as butter, milk, eggs and cheese) should be rarely consumed
within each week. In our times, one dish rarely contains sufficient amounts of vitamins and
minerals. Normally, a specialized food shop can provide a nutritional supplement to meet one's
specific needs. Although these supplements are costly, just consider how much harm an illness or
sickness can do to your game.
Special attention must be paid to the fact that many chess-players mistakenly support the concept
of the 'empty stomach' during competitions. Consumption of food should take place 60-90 minutes
before the start of play, as this time ensures the possibility of adequate absorption of the food,
consequently providing the brain with 'fuel'. During the game one may consume small amounts of
caffeine (1-2 cups of coffee or tea) as well as chocolate, which is quickly absorbed by our
metabolism (in 2-3 minutes); this does not mean that any other light food is less useful. It is self-
evident that alcohol is strictly forbidden.
You may be wondering how all this is related to your chess. But think about it. When you feel
healthy, full of life and in spiritual upheaval, the four main emotional attributes of self-confidence,
experience, concentration and adaptability strongly come to the fore. When your body and mind
are in perfect shape, so will your chess.
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 2
 (Day 5: 16:00-16:45 - Grivas)

Literature
The question concerning every young and ambitious chess-player, apart from the selection of the
proper trainer, revolves around the selection of the proper literature, through which he will be
taught the secrets of chess.
The number of books available is truly immense and it is often hard to determine which ones are
most worthy of study. I am convinced that every good chess-player can suggest certain books, but
opinions often differ, thus making the process of selection more difficult. My subjective opinion,
based on those that I personally found most useful, is as follows:
1) Opening Books: The student, after forming his own opening repertoire, would do well to get
hold of the five volumes of the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (Informator). Later on he may
refer to Opening Monographs (Informator) or to specialized books on the openings he is interested
in.
2) Middlegame Books: I can suggest Chess Fundamentals (Jose Raul Capablanca), Modern
Ideas In Chess (Richard Reti), My System (Aron Nimzowitsch), Play like a Grandmaster, Think
like a Grandmaster and Train like a Grandmaster (Alexander Kotov).
3) Endgame Books: A good first choice is Basic Chess Endings (Reuben Fine, revised by Pal
Benko) and, later on, Exploring the Endgame (Peter Griffiths) and The King in the Endgame
(Edmar Mednis).
4) Books on Various Topics: Excellent books in this category are: Zurich International Chess
Tournament 1953 (David Bronstein), The Art of Chess Analysis (Jan Timman), Chess for Tigers
(SimonWebb), Montreal 1979 (Mikhail Tal), Akiba Rubinstein (two volumes; John Donaldson &
Nikolay Minev) and My 60 Memorable Games (Robert Fischer).
5) Magazines: My main suggestion is New in Chess Magazine (8 issues per year), which I regard
as the best in the world. Other good publications are the British Chess Magazine (12 issues per
year) and the electronical ChessBase Magazine (6 issues per year). Finally, valuable information
can be found in the Internet Site ChessCafe.com, in which various articles are presented.
Naturally, all the above are my personal preferences. It is these books that I was taught from and
that I use myself to teach. There are of course other good books out there, some that either evade
my memory or that I simply do not know of.
Just like an athlete collects his gear, a chess-player must collect those books that will help him
train better, more efficiently and productively. In cooperation with his trainer he will be able to
comprehend and absorb the knowledge enclosed in them. And then he is 'doomed' to improve!

FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 3

 Opening Preparation
The theory of the middlegame and the endgame is essential in the struggle for victory. However,
just as important is our theoretical preparation in the opening, so as to lay solid and sound
foundations on which to build with our knowledge of the stages that follow.
In contrast to the middlegame and the endgame, where theory is objective and accepted by
everyone, in the opening each chess player makes his choices in accordance with his emotions and
his personal experience. No opening loses, no opening wins. All other viewpoints on the openings
are pointless and harmless to the progress of a chess player. Opening knowledge is important and
essential, but it cannot constitute the panacea of chess education, nor can we possibly demand to
win solely thanks to this knowledge.
Selection of a chess player’s openings is a purely personal matter. It is his duty to study in depth
and comprehend topics such as the correct move orders, the ideas behind these moves and the
plans to be employed in the middlegame.
One great paradox is common among young chess players (and not only them). This
phenomenon is called ‘fear of the opponent’s preparation’ and is expressed by a disproportionate
appreciation of his own abilities with regard to the openings he has chosen. In simple words, the
concept of ‘falling into the opponent’s preparation’, a concept that is so commonly encountered on
a young chess player’s lips, is nothing other than a deeply hidden insecurity regarding the
mediocre or even weak understanding of the chosen openings.
A chess player that has studied and understood the openings he has chosen cannot possibly be
afraid of his opponents in this particular field. How is it possible, after having gained so much
experience and played a specific opening so many times, to be afraid that his opponent will prove
more ‘informed’ or more competent than him? It would practically amount to ‘suicide’ for our
opponent to enter an opening that we have mastered when he doesn’t possess analogous
experience.
Naturally, there are occasions when the opponent’s preparation can prove deadly. It is possible
even to lose games due to a specific opening discovery by the opponent; this has happened before
and will surely happen again. We can however learn from our defeat and delve even deeper in our
chosen openings.
Choosing which openings ‘suit us’ is a tricky process. Every chess player will, during his
competitive career, change several of his openings or variations within them. Personal experience,
difficult situations, alterations in his personality will to a great extent determine these changes, that
are considered natural and desirable in his quest for his general progress.
The charts that follow offer a general overview of the desirable ‘repertoire tree’ that a chess
player must have:

If the chess player opens the game with Pirc Defence

1.e4, he must prepare (make a selection) in Ruy Lopez
the following openings: Scandinavian Defence
WHITE 1.e4 Scotch Game
Preparation (selection) in: Sicilian Defence
Alekhine Defence Vienna Game
Caro-Kann Defence Various other replies
French Defence
Italian Game If the chess player opens the game with
King’s Gambit 1.d4, 1.c4 or 1.Nf3, then he must prepare in
Modern Defence the following openings:
Petroff Defence
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 4
 WHITE 1.d4/1.c4/1.Nf3 Pirc Defence
Preparation (selection) in: Ruy Lopez
Benoni Defence Scandinavian Defence
Catalan Opening Scotch Game
Dutch Defence Sicilian Defence
English Opening Vienna Game
Grunfeld Defence Various other replies
King’s Indian Defence
Nimzo-Indian Defence Likewise, against 1.d4, 1.c4 or 1.Nf3 he
Old Indian Defence must select his opening(s) among:
Queen’s Gambit Accepted
Queen’s Gambit Declined BLACK 1.d4/1.c4/1.Nf3
Queen’s Indian Defence Preparation (selection) in:
Queen’s Pawn Game Benoni Defence
Slav Defence Catalan Opening
Tarrasch Defence Dutch Defence
Various other replies English Opening
Grunfeld Defence
Naturally, preparation must continue with King’s Indian Defence
the black pieces as well. Against 1 e4 the Nimzo-Indian Defence
chess player must select one or more Old Indian Defence
openings among: Queen’s Gambit Accepted
Queen’s Gambit Declined
BLACK 1.e4 Queen’s Indian Defence
Preparation (selection) in: Queen’s Pawn Game
Alekhine Defence Slav Defence
Caro-Kann Defence Tarrasch Defence
French Defence Various other replies
Italian Game
King’s Gambit Openings, unlike the middlegame and the
Modern Defence endgame, demand perpetual study,
Petroff Defence refreshment and proper information.

FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 5

 Why Do We Lose?
Every chess-player makes mistakes, sometimes small, sometimes very serious. But a good chess-
player rarely repeats the same mistake! Thus, the difference in chess strength is determined by the
frequency of mistakes in one's games.
A chess-player who wishes to improve must, learn from his mistakes. The most important lesson
to be learned is not to repeat them, in the beginning at least, with the same frequency! Even the
mistakes we make can, in some way, be categorized:

● Momentary blindness: Overlooking moves of the opponent that contain simple tactical threats.

● Double attack: Giving the opponent the possibility to attack two of our pieces, without having
the possibility of defending both.

● Overloaded defence: Our pieces do not defend harmoniously, with the result that more
problems are created than are solved.

● Zwischenzugs (in-between moves): Overlooking moves in the midst of a tactical sequence that
abruptly change the evaluation in our opponent's favour.

● Ignorance of the opening: Our knowledge regarding the opening we have chosen is inadequate,
or the opening is simply not suited to our style.

● Theoretical novelty: Our opponent employs a new move in the opening which either is strong
and changes the overall evaluation of the variation, or to which we fail to react properly.

● Ignorance of strategic concepts: Our reaction to the strategic demands of the position is below
par or even bad, mostly due to ignorance.

● Ignorance of tactical concepts: Our reaction to the tactical demands of the position is belowpar
or even bad, mostly due to ignorance.

● Ignorance of basic endgames: Our handling of standard endgames is below par or even bad,
mostly due to ignorance.

● Incorrect handling of the attack: Our handling of the attack is not governed by the relevant
principles.

● Incorrect handling of the defence: Our handling of the defence is not governed by the relevant
principles.

● Incorrect handling of the clock: Common and unjustified time-pressure.

● Psychological reasons: Fear of: losing the game, the opponent, the position, time-pressure, etc.

Consequently, in order to improve we have to learn from our mistakes and increase our
knowledge.

FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 6

 (Day 6: 17:00-17:45 - Mikhalchishin)
Thechnique of Analysis
ANALYSING POWER THE KEY
ABILITY OF THE CHESS PLAYER.
Process of thinking during the game is the
same process of analyzing, just without
moving the pieces. And the essence of chess
training is improvement of analyzing
abilities. Analysing abilities must be
supported by the development of calculation
abilities, knowledge of typical plans and
methods of play plus knowledge of endgame
exact theoretical positions. GARRY
KASPAROV
I believe that analytical method of studying
chess has to give enormous advantage over
chess practice and self-improvement in
chess is impossible without improvement of
analytical abilities.
Analyse of the games (by trainers and by
pupils themselves especially) plus studies of
classics –key stones of Soviet chess school.
By the way it is omitted by the most modern
programmes. Aleksandr Grishchuk, after
instructions of his trainer Anatoly
Bykhovsky started program of analysis of
his own games at 14. At the beginning he
produced cone page of analyses, later it was
more and more. At the age of 18 some oh his
analysed games had 20 pages!
My own experience-after bad tournaments
nothing helps more, as deep analyse of your
own games.
Modern attitude-check and analyse critical
moments of the game plus DVORECKIS
METHOD OF FLASH CARDS ON
WHICH ARE FIXED DIFFERENT
DECISIONS IN THIS MOMENTS. It
means –mistakes are selected and classified.
GENERAL –what are the purposes of
analyse of the game.
Process of thinking during the game is the
same analyse of the position on the time
given (without moving the pieces_
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
We can deepen our understanding of every
position and to transpose this knowledge
into the practical game.
Spot critical moments and typical mistakes
in them
Make selection of mistakes in critical
moments and analyse them technically and
statistically.
Fix them on flash cards. Repetition before
every tournament helps to avoid these
typical weaknesses in the future games. You
need at least 50 examples.
Finding a proper set old exercises or
classical games to eliminate certain type of
mistakes.
Possible problems during the analyse
1 Not enough high quality of the analyse. It
leads to a wrong evaluation of the critical
moments.
2 Not deep enough analyse of very moment
or move. Laziness.
3 Analyse of just own moves, but not the
opponent ones, which are quite important
and instructional. We must analyse the
position, but not just the moves.
4Avsence of conclusions after the analyse.
5absence of selection of typical mistakes.
It is very useful to have special diary of the
young player, where can be stored
information oh his repertoire, technique and
mistakes, discovered during the analyse of
his games.
ANALYSE OF THE CLASSICAL
GAMES.
A1Understanding of typical plans applied by
the great players. Importance of
centralization. Spotting the weaknesses in
every position, as the base of future plans.
3Their reactions in critical moments and
even their instructive mistakes.
4Calculation of variations.
5 Technique in endgame plus very important
realization of the material advantage.
VESELIN TOPALOV
7
Normally, when you lose the game, you
learn much more better lesson, than when
you win. This position reminds me of a
game, I lost 10 years ago.
Against Kasparov in Amsterdam. I had
White and my Knights on b3 and g3 were
placed terribly badly. Since then I have
known that some squares are not very good
for Knights!
Everybody knows about famous Botvinniks
School.
How did this school worked?
20 most talented juniors from all over the
Soviet Union were selected. There were
three generations of BOTVINNIK School
1Karpovs generation of 60 ies.
2Kasparovs generation of 70 ies
3 Kramniks generation of 80 ies.
It looks that it is precisely 12 years average
age difference between players of these
generations!
Botvinnik demanded that every pupil
annotates two of his most complicated
games (instructional, we say, but juniors
don’t feel it on the beginning
). During the session every pupil had to
defend his work in the presence of
PATRIARCH and other young and curious.
Such analysis teaches a lot and at the end
Botvinnik gave his recommendations, what
pupils have to do, where there are
weaknesses. Usually he said, to understand
this kind of position you must analyse game
for example Ragozin-Levenfish from certain
Soviet Championship. Botvinnik
remembered every classical example! It just
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
shows how deeply he studied the games of
his contemporaries.
In sixties GM Leonid Stein stated -we all
studied from Botvinnik. It is true for all
generations of Soviet players (not just for
Botvinniks school-Karpov, Kasparov,
Kramnik.
There are few players and books, about
whom we can say that they are best
annotators in chess.
1 P. Keres Match tournament Hague-
Moscow 1948
2Botvinnik. Tournament for absolute Soviet
Championship 1941
3D. Bronstein Candidates tournament,
Zurich 1953
4R. J. Fischer My 60 memorable games.
5Botvinnik, Analytical works
All others are on lover level, except A.
Nikitin, With Kasparov move after move.
And Kramniks selected games by J. Damski
Plus Tals annotation of his matches and
tournaments. But they are available just in
his old Magazine SAHS>
What is completely different with
Botvinniks annotations (1941 and Analytical
Works) is, that he gives less variations, than
other annotators. He prefers simple and
useful recommendations, like-in this
position it is necessary to avoid exchanges.
They are so clear and instructive, that
nobody in the history of chess was close to
him. Except Lasker, who tried to be
philosophical.
8
 (Day 6: 18:00-18:45 - Mikhalchishin)
The Role of Prophylactic Thinking
Chess is the game of the choices! If we can
make the right choice -we can succeed.
The theory of critical moment in the chess
game was explained once by IGM Iosif
Dorfman, who suggested that every game
has 5 or 6 “forks” at which the important
decisions are made. Accordingly, all major
erroneous decisions are made at these
moments where there are multiple possible
choices. Mihalcisin describes different
critical moments in detail and explains how
to react correctly. Understanding the play in
critical moment is the key to improving
one’s results and general understanding of
chess. Critical moment is characterized by
the presence of 2—4 different possibilities—
exchange of pieces, calculation of the long
variation, positional solution or transposition
into an endgame. Mihalcisin shows how to
perform correctly in the above situations.
STRATEGY OF STOPPING THE
MOVES<WHICH FREE THE POSITION
Opening of the position with c6-c5 is not
only opening the important Bishop, but
obtaining the space advantage on the Queens
flank. We can stop it radically with b2-b4. It
is not always coordinated with the plans in
the center or on the opposite side. But these
prophylactical measures are sometimes
essential.
Vyzmanavin,A - Mikhalchishin,A
Lvov , 1990
13.b4 a5
Maybe attack in the center13…е5 was
preferable..
14.Rb1 axb4 15.axb4 Nd5 16.e4!!
Knight left the flank and White can
concentrate on the attack..
16… Nxb4 17.Qb3 Na6
Against threats е4-е5 and Bc1-a3 no other
defence.
18.Bxb5!
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
With small tactics White returnes the
pawn..
18… Rab8
After 18...cxb5 follows 19.Nxb5 Qb8
20.Nxd6 Qxd6 21.Ba3 and so on.
19.Bc4 Ba8 20.Qa2 Rxb1 21.Qxb1 Rb8
22.Qa2 Nb4 23.Qe2 Nb6 24.Bb3 Bb7
Still it is no time for с6-с5.
25.Ng5!
Another sac for attack.
25…Bxh2+ 26.Kh1 Bf4 27.Qh5 Bxg5
Bad is 27…h6 28.Nxf7! Bxc1 29.Bxe6
28.Qxg5 Nd7 29.Bf4 Qd8 30.Qg3 Ra8
31.Bd6
Stop с6-с5 forever!
31…Na6 32.Rb1 Bc8 33.Ba4 Nf6 34.Bxc6
Ra7 35.d5 exd5 36.exd5 Bf5 37.Re1 Nc7
38.Qe5 Bg6 39.Be7 Qc8 40.Bxf6 gxf6
41.Qxf6
1–0
Szabo,L - Sigurjonsson,G
Reykjavik , 1968
Sometimes it is possible to break with
sacrifices
13...e5 14.Rae1 Rac8 15.Ng5 h6 16.Nge4
Bb8 17.Ng3
Better would be to keep jin in the bottle
17.f4!?
17...Rfe8 18.Nf5 Qe6 19.dxe5 Nxe5 20.Nd4
Qd7 21.Nb3
Knight goes to c5 and Bishop b7 is dead.
21…c5!! 22.Nxc5 Rxc5! 23.bxc5 Nf3+
24.Bxf3 Bxf3 25.Ne2
After 25.gxf3 пfollows 25… Qh3.
25...Ne4! 26.Ng3
or 26.Bc1 Ng5!! 27.Nf4 Qg4–+.
26...Nxd2 27.gxf3 Nxf3+ 28.Kg2 Qc6 29.e4
Nxe1+ 30.Rxe1 Bxg3 31.hxg3 Re5
With material advantage
Polgar,Z - Cramling
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c6 4.Qc2 dxc4 5.Qxc4
b5 6.Qc2 Bb7 7.e4
Interesting would be 7.g3
9
 7...Nd7 8.Nbd2 Ngf6 9.a3 Qb6 10.b4! a5 (3) REPINA − OZTURK [D21]
11.Rb1 axb4 12.axb4 Ra4 13.Qc3 Bd6? ANTALYA
Better 13...Nb8 with the idea 14… Na6 [Mihalcisin,A]
14.Bd3 e5!? 15.dxe5 Ng4 16.0–0 Ngxe5 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 c5 4.d5 e6
17.Bc2 Ra8 5.Nc3 exd5 6.Nxd5 Ne7 7.e4 Nxd5
18.Nd4 Ng6 19.N2f3 Nde5 20.Nf5 Nxf3+ 8.exd5 Bd6 9.Bxc4 0-0 10.0-0 Bg4
21.Qxf3 Be5 22.Be3! Qc7 23.Bc5 Bc8 11.Qd3? [11.h3! pREVENTING
24.Rbd1 Bxf5 25.exf5 Ne7 26.Rfe1 Rd8 ATTACK ON H2] 11...Bxf3 12.gxf3
After 26...0–0 27 follows .Qe3 f6 28.Bxe7 [12.Qxf3 Qh4] 0-1
Qxe7 29.f4.
27.Bxe7 Rxd1 28.Bxd1 Kxe7 29.Qg3 Kf6 (4) Advanced prophylactic
30.Qh4+ g5 31.Qh6+ Kxf5 Moskva (open)
or 31...Ke7 32.Qg7. [Mihalcisin,A]
32.Bc2+ Kf4 33.Re4+ Kf5 34.g4#; 1.Kh3! Line

(1) Sveshnikov,E (2540) − Sokolov,A (5) Zhu Chen (2497) − Khurtsidze,N

(2550) [B22]
Moskva (open), 1991
[Sveshnikov,E]
17.Rad1 Bc6 18.Bxc6 bxc6 19.Rxd8+
Rxd8 20.Rxd8+ Kxd8 21.f3!* 
21...Nd7 [21...c5 22.Nb5 a6 23.Nd6 Ke7
24.Nb7 Nd7 25.Kf2 ∆ a3, b4 ] 22.Kf2 f5
23.Ke3 Ke7 24.b4 e5 25.a4 Kd6 26.Kd3
Nf6 27.c5+ Ke6? [27...Kc7
(2425) [E32]
FIDE−Wch k.o. (Women) Moscow (4.7),
05.12.2001
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 0-0
5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.Qxc3 b6 7.Bg5 c5 8.dxc5
bxc5 9.e3 Nc6 10.Bd3 Qa5 11.Bxf6
gxf6 12.Ne2 Diagram



28.Kc4 (28.b5?! Nd5=) 28...a6] 28.b5!  ++ +

[28.Kc4 Nd5!=] 28...Kd7? [28...Nd5
29.bxc6 Nb4+ 30.Kc4 Nxc6 31.Kb5 Kd7
+++
32.Ka6 ] 29.Kc4 Kc7 30.a5! ∆ a6, bc6, +++
(b5+− 30...a6 31.b6+ [31.bxa6? Kb8]
31...Kb7 32.g3 h5? [32...Nd7 ] ++
33.h4!+− Nd7 34.f4 exf4 [34...e4
35.Kd4] 35.gxf4 Nf8 36.Ne2 Ng6
+ +++!
37.Nd4 Nxh4 [37...Nxf4 38.Nxf5 g6 " Q$ +%
39.Ne7 , 39...g5 40.hxg5 h4 41.Nf5 h3
42.Ng3 h2 43.Nh1 Kc8 44.Kc3 Kd7
& +'  (
45.Kd2 Ne6 46.g6 Nxc5 47.g7 Ne4+ )*++,+*-
48.Ke3 Nf6 49.Kf3 c5 50.Kg2 c4 51.Nf2
c3 52.Nd3] 38.Ne6 Kc8 39.Nxg7 Ng6 ./01234567
40.Nxh5 Kd7 41.Kd3 Kc8 42.Ke3 Ne7 12...Ba6 13.b4 cxb4 14.axb4 Qxb4
43.Ng7 Nd5+ 44.Kf3 Ne7 45.Ne6 Nd5 15.Rxa6 Qxc3+ 16.Nxc3 Nb4 17.Rd6
46.Nd4 [46.Nd4 Ne7 47.Kg3 ∆ Άh4−g5] Rfc8 18.Be2 a5 19.Kd2 Rc7 20.Ra1
1-0 Kf8 21.Rb6 Nc6 22.Nb5 Rcc8 23.Rb7
Ke7 24.Kc3 Ra6 25.Rd1 Rd8 26.Nc7
(2) OZTURK,K − SAVINA Ra7 27.Rxa7 Nxa7 28.Nb5 Nc6 29.Ra1
ANTALYA Rc8 30.f4 d5 31.cxd5 exd5 32.Kd2 Rb8
[Mihalcisin,A] 33.Ra2 Rb6 1-0
1.Rd1? [1.h4 Prevent h5−h4] 1...h4
2.Qc4 h3+ 3.Kxh3 Qf3!∓ [3...Qxf2 (6) Botvinnik,M − Pilnik,H [D54]
4.Rf1] 0-1 Budapest Budapest (17), 1952
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bg5 Be7
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 10
5.e3 0-0 6.Rc1 h6 7.Bh4 b6 8.cxd5
exd5 9.Bd3 Bb7 10.f3 c5 11.Nge2
)*8$9'*+,-
Nbd7 12.0-0 Re8 13.Bf2 Bd6 14.Re1 a6 ./01234567
15.Ng3 Qb8 Diagram 15.a3 Na6 16.b4 Bf6 17.Bb2 Qd7


18.Bxf6 Rxf6 19.Nd3 a4 20.Rac1 Qf7
21.Nf4 Bc8 22.Rc3 Bd7 23.Rfc1 h6

+
++ 24.h4 Ra7 25.h5 Ra8 26.Re3 Kh7
+++
89
+++ 39.Re4 Kf8 40.Re7 Qg6 41.Be4 Qh5
+ ++!
"+9'$ 9'%
&  +8$  (
)+*Q*+,-
./01234567
16.Kh1 cxd4 17.exd4 Rxe1+ 18.Qxe1
Nf8 19.Nce2 Ne6 20.Nf5 Bf8 21.Be3
Ne8 22.Qh4 Qd8 23.Qg4 Kh8 24.Nf4
Qg5 25.Nxe6 Qxg4 26.fxg4 fxe6
27.Nh4 Kg8 28.Ng6 Bd6 29.g5 hxg5
30.Bxg5 Nf6 31.Kg1 Rc8 32.Rf1 Rc7
33.Bxf6 gxf6 34.Rxf6 Rc1+ 35.Rf1 Rc7
36.g3 b5 37.Re1 Bc8 38.Ne5 Kg7
39.Kg2 b4 40.h4 a5 41.g4 1-0
(7) Lilienthal,A − Botvinnik,M [E19]
URS−ch12 Moscow, 1940
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7
5.Bg2 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Nc3 Ne4 8.Qc2
Nxc3 9.Qxc3 d6 10.Qc2 f5 11.Ne1 Nc6
12.d5 exd5 13.cxd5 Nb4 14.Qd2 a5
27.Rcc3 Rb8 28.Qd3 Ra8 29.Ng6 Rxg6
30.hxg6+ Kxg6 31.Re6+ Kh7 32.g4 c5
33.b5 Nc7 34.gxf5 Nxb5 35.f6+ Kg8
36.Rc4 Re8 37.Rg4 g5 38.Rxe8+ Bxe8
42.Bf3 Qg6 43.Rxe8+ 1-0
(8) Beliavsky,A (2630) − Korchnoi,V
(2630) [E20]
Reggio Emilia 45/680 Reggio Emilia
45/680, 1987
[Mikhalchishin,A]
Chess Informant 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3
c5 4.Nf3 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Bb4+ 6.Nc3 0-0
7.Bg2 d5 8.0-0 dxc4 9.Qa4 Na6
10.Ndb5 Nd5 11.Rd1 Nc5 12.Qc2 N
[12.Rxd5 Ue 44/(677)] 12...Qa5
[12...Qb6 13.Nxd5 exd5 14.Nc3 Bxc3
15.bxc3 Ne4!=] 13.Bd2 Bd7 [13...Nxc3
14.bxc3 Qxb5 15.cxb4 Na4 16.Rdc1 c3
17.Bxc3 Nxc3 18.Qxc3 Qxe2 19.a4K]
14.Nxd5 exd5 15.Bxb4 Qxb4 16.Nc7
Ba4 [16...Rad8 17.Nxd5 Qb5 18.Rd4 ]
17.Qd2 Qxd2 18.Rxd2 Rad8 19.Nxd5*
Rfe8?! [19...f6 20.Rd4 ; 19...Ne6!?
20.Rc1 Bb5 21.Ne7+ Kh8 22.Rxd8 Rxd8
23.Bxb7 Rd2K] 20.Rc1 Diagram



Diagram + ++


++

+
+ ++++
+8 +9'++
++ ++++!
+ ++ "+++ %
9+++! &  *  $ (
"+++ % )+*++,-
&  Q  $ ( ./01234567
20...b5? [20...Bb5] 21.b4!!* [21.b3?
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 11
Bxb3 22.axb3 Nxb3∓] 21...Nd7 22.Nc3!
Nb6 23.Rxd8 [23.Rb2 Rd6 24.Kf1 Red8
25.Ke1 f5N] 23...Rxd8 24.Kf1 Rd2
25.Be4! Kf8 26.Ke1 Rd6 [26...Rb2
27.Rb1 Rxb1+ 28.Bxb1 Ke7 29.e4+−]
27.h4 Ke7 28.Rb1! h6 29.Rb2 g5
30.hxg5 hxg5 31.Rd2 Re6 32.Rd4 Re5
33.Kd2 f5 34.Bc6 g4 [34...Re6
35.Bxb5+−] 35.e4 Kf6 36.exf5 Rxf5
37.Ke3 Re5+ 38.Re4 Rg5 [38...a6
39.Bb7+−] 39.Re8 Rg6 40.Be4 [40.Bxb5
Bxb5 41.Nxb5 Nd5+ 42.Kd4 Nxb4
43.Kxc4 ] 40...Rg7 41.Rh8 Kg5 42.Rf8
Rd7 43.Rg8+ Kf6 44.Rxg4+− Re7
45.Rg6+ Kf7 46.Rh6 Kg8 47.Kd2 Rd7+
48.Kc1 Rf7 49.f4 Rd7 50.g4 Rd4 51.g5
Nc8 52.Bd5+ 1-0
(9) Fischer,R − Smyslov,V [C77]
Capablanca Memorial Havana (2), 1965
[ChessBase]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6
5.d3 Steinitz,W 5...d6 [5...b5 6.Bb3 Be7
7.a4; 5...Bc5 6.c3 b5 7.Bc2 0-0 8.0-0 d5
9.exd5 Nxd5 10.h3 h6 11.d4 exd4Q
Anderssen,A−Morphy,P Paris 1858]
6.c3 Be7 [6...g6 7.Nbd2 (7.Bg5
Bronstein,D) 7...Bg7 8.Nf1 0-0 9.h4]
7.Nbd2 0-0 8.Nf1 ∆ (e3; (g3; h2−h3,
g2−g4, (g3 S 8...b5 9.Bb3 d5 [9...Na5 Ά
10.Bc2 c5 11.Ne3 Re8 12.0-0 Bf8=]
10.Qe2 dxe4 [10...d4 11.Ng3 dxc3
12.bxc3 b4 13.Bb2; 10...Be6 Ά 11.Ng3
(11.Ng5 Bg4 12.f3 Bc8! 13.exd5 Na5!)
11...h6] 11.dxe4 Be6! 12.Bxe6 fxe6
13.Ng3 Qd7 [13...Bd6 ∆ (c6−e7−g6
14.0-0 Ne7 15.c4! c6 16.Rd1+− Qc7
17.Ng5] 14.0-0 [14.a4 Ά 14...Rad8
(14...bxa4 15.Qc4 a3 16.b4; 14...b4! Ά)
15.axb5 axb5 16.Ra6 b4 17.0-0T]
14...Rad8 15.a4 Qd3! 16.Qxd3 Rxd3
17.axb5 axb5 18.Ra6! [18.Be3 Ng4]
18...Rd6E Diagram


++ ++!
"+ +'9'%
& +  (
)+8$+*+,-
./01234567
19.Kh1! [19.Be3 Nd4!] 19...Nd7 [19...b4
20.cxb4 Nxb4 21.Ra7 Rc6 22.Nxe5
Rc2K] 20.Be3 Rd8 [20...b4 Ά] 21.h3
[21.b4 Ά] 21...h6 22.Rfa1 Ndb8 23.Ra8
Rd1+ 24.Kh2 [24.Rxd1 Rxd1+ 25.Kh2
Bd6 26.Ba7? Ra1!] 24...Rxa1 25.Rxa1
Nd7? [25...b4 Ά 26.cxb4 Bxb4 27.Nf1]
26.b4! Smyslov,V: / +− 26...Kf7
27.Nf1 Bd6 28.g3 Nf6 29.N1d2 Ke7
30.Ra6! Nb8 [30...Kd7 31.Ne1 Nb8
32.Ra5 Kc6 ] 31.Ra5! c6E 32.Kg2
Nbd7 33.Kf1 ∆ Άe2, (f3−e1-d3
33...Rc8? [33...Ne8! ∆ (c7, Va8; Ά
34.Ra6 a)34.Ne1 Nc7 35.Nd3 Ra8
36.Nb3 Rxa5 37.Nxa5 Nb8 38.Ba7 Nca6
39.c4 Bc7; b)34.Nb3! Nc7 35.Ra7 Ra8
36.Na5 Nb8 37.Rxa8 (b)37.Rb7 Kd7)
37...Nxa8 38.Ba7 Kd7 39.Nb7 ;
34...Rc8 35.Nb3 c5 36.bxc5 Bxc5!]
34.Ne1! Ne8 35.Nd3 Nc7 36.c4! bxc4
[36...Ra8? 37.c5!+−] 37.Nxc4 Nb5
[37...Ra8 38.Rxa8 Nxa8 39.Na5 Nb8
40.Ba7 Kd7 41.Nc4+− Ά e5] 38.Ra6 Kf6
[38...Nb8 39.Ra8 Nc7 40.Nxd6 Kxd6
41.Bc5++−] 39.Bc1! Bb8 40.Bb2 ∆ f2−
f4 40...c5 41.Nb6! [41.Ra5! cxb4
42.Ncxe5!+−] 41...Nxb6 42.Rxb6 c4
[42...Nd4 43.Nxc5 Ba7 44.Nd7+ Kg5
45.h4+ Kh5 46.Rb7 Rc2 47.Rxa7 Rxb2
48.Nxe5 Rxb4 49.Rxg7+−] 43.Nc5 c3
[43...c3 44.Bc1 Nd4 45.Nd7+ Ke7
(45...Kf7 46.Rxb8 Rxb8 47.Nxb8 Nb3
48.Ba3 c2 49.Nc6+−) 46.Nxb8 Nb3
47.Rb7+ Kd8 48.Rd7+ Ke8 49.Rxg7!+−]
1-0

++
+
+8
*+
9+
+++
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 12
 (Day 7: 15:00-15:45 – Grivas)
The Exchange Sacrifice
The positional and tactical element of the
exchange sacrifice (rook for bishop or
knight) is a very important topic whose
exploration requires advanced skills and
competitive experience.
This is a difficult subject to master, as the
chess-player is requested to overcome the
dogmatic rules with which he has been
brought up, in particular the quantitative
evaluation of material. The correct
implementation of the exchange sacrifice
requires an open mind and a proper
qualitative evaluation of the position.
In many cases the idea of sacrificing the
exchange is born out of necessity, prompted
by the opponent's threats (i.e. when there is
no other acceptable way of meeting them).
However, an exchange sacrifice of this kind
(passive) does not guarantee positive results,
while its failure to meet one's aims (which is
quite common in this case) affects the player
psychologically and causes him to refrain
from such actions in the future.
In the opening and middlegame our pieces
should be identified as units that, by
cooperating harmoniously, shape our plans,
that in turn are executed by means of moves.
Each unit is an integral part of our position
and we can determine our advantage or
inferiority only by taking all units into
account.
Naturally, it is not easy to identify which
of our pieces (or even the opponent's pieces)
carries out the most significant function. We
have to take several strategic elements into
consideration, such as the centre, open lines,
initiative, attack, etc. When carrying out
such evaluations the value of our rooks
barely differs from that of our minor pieces,
since an advantage is conferred by their
fruitful cooperation and not their individual,
predetermined, value.
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
If we accept that, as a rule, the superiority
of the rook is realized in the endgame, we
naturally come to the conclusion that an
exchange sacrifice in the opening or
middlegame may be acceptable for many
reasons. Before we expand on these reasons,
however, we must make an essential
differentiation between two types of
exchange sacrifices: the active exchange
sacrifice and the passive exchange sacrifice.
The active exchange sacrifice is a rare
occurrence and the goals pursued by it are:
1) To exploit our better development.
2) To destroy the opponent's pawn-
structure.
3) To open lines in order to attack.
4) To assume the initiative.
5) To control important squares.
As explained above, the passive exchange
sacrifice is much more common and may
serve the following aims:
1) To repulse the opponent's attack.
2) To repulse the opponent's initiative (a
more general interpretation of '1').
3) To destroy the coordination of the
opponent's pieces.
As with all such advanced strategic and
tactical elements, one factor of great
significance is the perception of the right
moment to carry them out. The ambitious
chess-player must train himself to realize
when a situation requires an exchange
sacrifice, after properly evaluating the
course of the game and the peculiarities
specific to the position.
The following examples may offer some
proper tuition for our subject, still though
they represent only a very small portion of
the concept of the exchange sacrifice.
□ Malakhatko,Vadim
■ Grivas,Efstratios
E97 Athens 2003
1
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3
0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.d5 Ne7 9.b4 (D)
++

 ++
+

+ ++
 +++
++ +++
+++ ++
+++ +Q
+++ 
15...Nf6
++ In Gustafsson,J-Larsen,K Amsterdam 2001,
Q+ the inferior 15...Ng8 16.Nd2 Rf7 17.Na4
Ndf6 18.c5 was played.
 16.c5 fxe4 17.cxd6
Probably the most popular system against This was compulsory because if 17.Nxe4,
the King's Indian in recent years. White then 17...Nexd5.
immediately commences play on the 17...cxd6 18.Nxe4 Nxe4
queenside, where he stands better. On the White has a slight but permanent plus after
other hand, Black has plans of his own, 18...Nexd5 19.Bxd6 Nxe4 20.Bxe4
particularly on the kingside. (20.Bxf8? Nec3!) 20...Qxd6 21.Qxd5 Qxd5
9...a5 10.Ba3 22.Bxd5 Rd8 23.Bc4.
Black's results have been excellent after 19.Bxe4 Bf5 (D)
10.bxa5?! c5!. 19...Nf5 20.Rb1! Qf6 21.Bc3 gave White the
10...axb4 11.Bxb4 Nd7 initiative in Zielinska,M-Blinke,D Brezeg
Sharper lines arise after Black plays ...Nh5 Dolnyi 2000.
on move 10 or 11.

12.a4 Bh6
12...f5? 13.Ng5! would be a criminal +


mistake.
13.a5 f5 14.Bd3 Kh8
+++
Another option is the immediate 14...Nf6 ++
15.c5 (15.Bc2!? fxe4 16.Nxe4 Nxe4
17.Bxe4 Bf5 is unclear, Farago,I-
++
Safranska,A Porto San Giorgio 2002) +++
15...fxe4 16.Nxe4 Nxe4 17.Bxe4 Bf5
18.Re1 Bxe4 19.Rxe4 Nf5 20.Qb3 b6?! ++++
(20...Qd7!) 21.cxb6 cxb6 22.a6 b5 23.Qc2!
Qb6 24.Qc6 += Mueller,K-Monaccel,J
++
IECG e-mail 2001. +Q
15.Re1 (D)
White has alternatives in 15.Nd2 (Jelen,I-

Enjuto,V Bled OL 2002) and 15.Qb3 Nf6 20.Qd3
16.c5 (Jelen,I-Gabacz,G Skofia Loka 2000). With threats like 21.Qb5 or 21.Qa3.
20...Qd7! 21.Qa3

 White could try the alternative plan 21.Rab1
+

 and Bc3, pressurizing the b7-pawn.
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 2
21...Bxe4 22.Rxe4 Nf5 23.g4 (D)
White meets the demands of this
 Q+++
complicated position and accepts Black's ++
intended exchange sacrifice. After 23.h3
Rf6!, intending ...Raf8 and ...Nd4, Black's
++
kingside initiative becomes very dangerous. 

 Black now stands better thanks to his
healthier pawn-structure, safer king and
++
 more active pieces. The h6-bishop can in no
++
++ way considered inferior to a white rook, as it
has a greater sphere of action and several
++ targets. Even if things don't work out well
++ for Black and he has to acquiesce to several
exchanges (queens, one pair of rooks and the
+++ queenside pawns) the resulting ending will
be a draw. In view of all this White should
 Q+++ have avoided this position, where there is
++ danger lurking and his winning chances are
almost non-existent, not to mention his
++ severe time-trouble.
 29.Rb1 Rf7!
After 29...Ra8?! 30.Qb3! Qxb3 31.Rxb3
23...Ne3!! 24.Nxe5 Rxa5 32.Rg4! b5 33.Rgb4 White would
White accepts the sacrifice, which is the secure the draw.
correct decision on principle. Instead, White
30.Qb3 Qe4!
could opt for 24.fxe3 Rxf3 25.Bxd6 Bxe3+ A queen exchange at any moment would
26.Rxe3 Rxe3 27.Qxe3 Qxd6 with chances relieve White. Instead, Black improves his
for both sides. Naturally, it was bad to play position by making use of tactics.
24.Rxe3? Bxe3 25.Qxe3 Qxg4+. 31.Rf1 Kg7 32.Qe6! Bd2! 33.Rg4?! (D)
24...dxe5 25.Bxf8 Rxf8 26.Rxe3?! White should have preferred 33.a6! bxa6
After the logical sequence 26.fxe3 Qxd5 34.Qxa6 Bc3 and ...Bd4, with a slight
27.Qb4 (Black is better after 27.Qa4 Qd2! or advantage for Black.
27.Ra4 Qf3!) 27...Qf7! (27...Qd3!? 28.Re1
Qc2 29.Rf1!) 28.Qb2 Qf3 29.Qg2 Bxe3+

30.Kh1 Bd4 the position is approximately
balanced. This would have been White's
++++
objectively best decision. However, White +++

apparently underestimated the power of the
h6-bishop.
++Q++
26...Qxg4+ 27.Rg3 Qd4! 28.Rg2 Qxd5 (D) ++

 ++
++
++
 ++++
++++ +
+++ +++
+
+ 
++++ 33...Qe2 34.Rg3 Bf4 35.Rg2 Bd2?!

FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 3

After the better 35...Qb5!, intending ...Qa4
followed by ...Rd7-d1, White's defences
++++
would be stretched to the limit. +++
36.Qa2! e4 37.Qb2+ Kh6 38.Rg3! (D)
+++


++++
++++
+
++++
Q+
+++


+++ 8.c4?
++++ A bad move but with an effective surprising
value. At those times I was not only got
+++
 Q
 Brazilian opponent in any cost, in order to
+++
 criticised, 8...Bg4! seems much stronger:
Black is now forced to exchange his rook
with the ‘bad’ white rook on g3, and not the
f1-rook which is vital for the defence of the
first rank.
38...Rf3 39.Rxf3 exf3 40.Qxb7 Bxa5
41.Qb8!
The white queen returns to the defence in
time, securing the draw. Black gave it one
more shot due to White's time-pressure, but
the position is very simplified and mistakes
are difficult to come by.
41...Bd2 42.Qg3 Bc3 43.Rb1 Qe4! 44.Rd1
Be5 45.Qh3+ Kg5 46.Kh1 h5 47.Qe6! Kh4
48.Rc1! Qg4 49.Qxg4+ Kxg4
½-½
An interesting, ‘extremely attractive’ and
rare concept is the double exchange
sacrifice:
□ Trindade,Sandro Heleno
■ Grivas,Efstratios
C80 Belfort Wch-jr 1983
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-
0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 (D)


+
confused but I felt ‘obliged’ to beat my
punish him for his ‘ruthless’.
8...dxc4?!
Although the text-move cannot be strongly
9.cxd5 (9.dxe5 dxc4 10.Qe2 Nc5 -/+
[10...Qd3? 11.Qxd3 cxd3 12.Bd5 Nb4
13.Bxa8 Nc5 14.Na3 Be7 15.Bd2 a5
16.Bxb4 axb4 1-0 Caruso,A-
Ruzzier,D/Padova 1998]) 9...Nxd4 10.Re1
f5 (10...Bxf3 11.gxf3 Nxb3 12.axb3 Nd6
13.Rxe5+ Be7 14.Qe2 [14.Nc3?! 0-0 15.Bf4
Bf6 16.Re2 Nf5 =+ Kavalek,L-
Ratolistka,J/Kosice 1961] 14...Kf8 15.Nc3
oo as White finds compensation for his bad
pawn-structure in his piece activity and
better cooperation) 11.Nc3 Qf6! -/+. A
common mistake that Black should avoid is
8...Be6? 9.cxd5 Bxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5
11.dxe5 c6 (11...Bxb3 12.Qxb3 +=
Blazkova,P-Slajs,V/Ceske Budejovice 1999)
12.Bc2 Bc5 13.Qe1 Qh4 14.Be3 =
Vitolinsh,A-Sideif Sade,F/Beltsy 1979.
9.Qe2!
9.Bc2?! is not helping: 9...f5 10.dxe5 Qxd1
11.Bxd1 (11.Rxd1 Bc5 12.Be3 Bxe3 13.fxe3
Nb4 -/+) 11...Bb4 -/+.
9...Nf6!?
Black's main alternative is 9...Nd6 but this
cannot give more than a draw: 10.dxe5 Nf5
11.Qe4 (11.Rd1? Nfd4 12.Nxd4 Nxd4
13.Qe4 Bf5 14.Qxd4 Qxd4 15.Rxd4 cxb3 -
 /+ Kristjansson,B-Amado,C/Vrnjacka Banja
++ 1963) 11...Bd7 12.Bc2 Nb4 13.Rd1 Nxc2
14.Rxd7 Qxd7 15.Qxa8+ Qd8 (15...Ke7?
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 4
16.Nc3 c6 17.Bg5+ +/-) 16.Qc6+ Qd7 16.Ng5 Bb6? (D)
17.Qa8+ =. Black misses his chance. He should have
10.dxe5 Nd5 11.Bc2 (D) played 16...h6 17.Ne4 Bb4 18.Bd2 Bxd2

 19.Qxd2 Bxe4 20.Bxe4 Rb8 21.axb5 axb5
where he would be able to breathe freely.
+

 White still can pose some kind of initiative
thanks to his better placed pieces, which
++ fully compensate for his minus pawn.
++++

+++ +
+
+
++++ +
++++ +++
+Q ++
+ ++++
 ++++
White has sacrificed a pawn but as
compensation he has gained time for easy
+Q
development, space advantage and safer
king. Well, still Black has the pawn!
11...Bc5 12.Rd1 Nce7?
I think that Black should strongly consider
to return the pawn with 12...Ncb4! 13.Be4
(13.Nc3 c6 14.Ne4 Nxc2 15.Bg5 Qc7
16.Qxc2 [16.Nd6+ Kf8 17.Qxc2 Bxd6
18.exd6 Qxd6 -/+] 16...Bf5 -/+) 13...c6 14.a3
Nd3 15.Bxd3 cxd3 16.Qxd3 Qb6 17.Qc2
where he is able to achieve a perfectly
acceptable position.
13.Nc3 Be6 14.a4?
14.Ne4 Bb6 15.Neg5 Qd7 (15...h6? 16.Nxe6
fxe6 17.Nd4 Bxd4 18.Qh5+ Kd7 19.Rxd4
+/- Jakirlic,N-Wilkins,M/Penrith 2003)
16.Nxe6 fxe6 17.Ng5 Rf8 is not very clear
but White could gain a significant advantage
with 14.Ng5! Qd7 15.Nxe6 fxe6 (15...Qxe6
16.Qf3 Rd8 17.Ne4 +/-) 16.Qh5+ g6 17.Qh3
0-0 18.Ne4 Qc6 19.Bg5.
14...Qc8! 15.Nxd5
+

17.Rxd5!
Although 17.Nxh7 is also strong, this
positional sacrifice is an excellent one.
Black's light squares become weak and
White gains some important tempos to
continue his attack on the black king.
17...Nxd5 18.Qf3 Qd7 19.Bf5! Qc6
Judging by the outcome of the game, Black
should have preferred 19...Qe7 20.Qxd5 Rd8
(20...0-0 21.Bxh7+ Kh8 22.Bc2 +-) 21.Qc6+
Kf8 22.Bf4 but this can be considered a slow
but sure death.
20.axb5 Qxb5 (D)
20...axb5 21.Rxa8+ Qxa8 22.Be4 +- is not
an option either.


++
+
After 15.axb5 Nxc3 16.bxc3 axb5 17.Rxa8
Qxa8 18.Ng5 Qc8 19.Be3 Bxe3 20.Qxe3 h6
++
21.Nxe6 Qxe6 22.Qe4 Qc6 23.Qh4 Qe6 +++
Black equalises.
15...Bxd5 +
+
15...Nxd5 16.axb5 axb5 17.Rxa8 Qxa8
18.Ng5 Qc8 19.Qf3 c6 20.Qg3 seems
++++
unpleasant for Black. +++Q+
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 5
 +

+ ++
+
 +++
21.Nxf7!
The f7-pawn is of minor importance as of a
material gain but the further light squares
+
weaknesses that are created around the black
king and it's presence in the centre are
decisive factors.
21...Rf8
Unfortunately the black king cannot find a
safe shelter: 21...0-0 (21...Kxf7 22.Bd7+)
22.Be6 Rae8 23.Bxd5 c6 24.Bxc6 Qb4
25.Qe4! Rxf7 26.Bxe8 Rxf2 27.Be3 Bxe3
28.Qxe3 simply finishes Black's survival
chances.
22.e6 g6
22...h6 23.Ne5 Kd8 24.e7+! Kxe7 25.b3!
(25.Ng6+ Kd6 26.Bf4+ Kc6 27.Be4 is also
fine) is also a lost case for Black.
23.Bc2?!
23.Be4! c6 24.Nd6+ Ke7 25.Nxb5 Rxf3
26.Bxf3 is a most simple win.
23...Qc5
Black had to take account of the 24.Ba4
threat.
24.Bg5 c6 25.Rd1 Ra7 (D)
Or 25...Rb8 26.Ba4 and Black has to resign.
26.Rxd5 Qxf2+ 27.Qxf2 Bxf2+ 28.Kxf2
cxd5 29.Ba4+ Rb5 30.Ke3 Rxf7 31.Bxb5+
axb5 32.exf7+ Kxf7 33.Kd4 Ke6 34.Bd2 +-
is equally good.
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
+++
+
++++
+++Q+
+
+++

26.Rxd5!
A second exchange sacrifice in the same
square! But this time this sacrifice must be
considered the introduction to a winning
combination and not a positional one as it
was the case on the 17th move.
26...Qxf2+
26...Raxf7 27.exf7+ Rxf7 28.Rxc5 Rxf3
29.Re5+; 26...cxd5 27.Ba4+.
27.Qxf2 Bxf2+ 28.Kh1! Bb6 29.Nd6#
I was so dizzy and in a heavy time-trouble,
that I did not felt that this was possible. In
those times when I had a quarrel with my
girlfriend she was simply upset me by just
shouting to me ‘Trindade’!
1-0
6
 (Day 7: 16:00-16:45 – Grivas)

The Positional Sacrifice

With the term 'positional sacrifice' we It is the duty of the chess-player to analyse
imply the surrender of material (usually such examples deeply and invest serious
ranging from a pawn to a minor piece) to the effort in understanding them.
opponent, in exchange for various positional
and tactical advantages. □ Grivas,Efstratios
These advantages are classified below (this ■ Radulov,Ivan
list in no way claims to be conclusive): D94 Athens Acropolis 1991
1) Harmonious cooperation of our pieces. 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 c6 3.e3 Nf6 4.Nc3 g6 5.d4
2) Disorganization of the opponent's Bg7 6.Bd3 0-0 7.0-0 (D)
pieces.
3) Intrusion into the enemy camp.


4) Quick development. 

+
5) Creation of weaknesses around the
opponent's king.
+
6) Possession of the initiative. +++
7) Space advantage.
8) Other important strategic elements. ++++
The positional sacrifice is an exceptionally
deep and complicated element, where
+++
objective evaluation of the position and its ++
characteristics is of primary importance.
Such sacrifices are usually long-term and
+
the resulting positions are often far from Q+
clear. Short-term sacrifices generally have
more specific tactical goals, and are termed 
combinations. 7...Nbd7?!
The side making the sacrifice will usually An inferior continuation. Theory
aim to extract from the position the recommends 7...Bg4 8.h3 Bxf3 9.Qxf3 e6.
maximum possible benefit, in accordance 8.h3
with the list of advantages above. White has interesting alternatives in 8.b3
The side receiving the sacrifice generally and even 8.cxd5!?. On the other hand, the
switches to defence. In practice one often immediate 8.e4?! dxe4 9.Nxe4 Nxe4
sees this side returning the material in order 10.Bxe4 e5 leads to equality.
to regain the initiative or simplify into a 8...e6 9.b3 b6 10.a4!? a5 11.cxd5
favourable endgame (or a more simplified White would also be slightly better after the
position in general). alternative 11.e4 dxe4 12.Nxe4 Nxe4
Naturally, correct judgement and 13.Bxe4 Bb7 14.Bg5.
experience aid our decision-making process, 11...exd5
but the element of greatest significance is 11...cxd5? is a mistake: 12.Ba3 Re8 13.Nb5
the subconscious collection of 'images' from and Black is suffering.
relevant examples. 12.Ba3 Re8 13.Rc1 Bb7 14.Rc2 Ne4
Black is preparing play on the kingside with
...f5 and ...g5.
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 7
15.Qb1 f5 16.Rfc1 Qf6? (D)
A serious mistake. Black should have
+++
continued 16...g5, when after 17.Bf1 +++
intending 18.Nxe4 White has just a slight
advantage.
+++

 ++
+++
+ +++
+++ +Q++
+
+ 
21...Bf8?!
+++ Black's best option was 21...Rd8! 22.Qc1
+++ (22.Qf1!? Rb8 23.Bc6 intending 24.Qb5)
22...Ba6 23.Rxd7! Rxd7 24.Bxa6, when
+ White retains obvious compensation for the
+++ small material deficit (an exchange for a
pawn). Of course, if 24...Rxa6?? loses to
+Q+
 22.Bxf8 Kxf8 23.Qc1! Nd6 24.Bc6?!
17.Nxd5!!
A positional sacrifice, justified by the
following:
1. the harmonious cooperation and
placement of White's pieces on the
queenside and the c-file in particular;
2. the lack of coordination among the black
pieces;
3. the possibility of invading the 7th rank
with the rooks; and
4. the participation of all white pieces (Bb5
and Ne5 are coming up) in the battle.
Naturally, White's initiative will prove
pointless if no material gain can eventually
be effected. Such sacrifices are usually
based on chess intuition, which is developed
slowly but steadily throughout years of study
and competitive effort.
17...cxd5 18.Rc7! Bc8 19.Bb5! Qe6
19...Qf7 20.R1c2!.
20.R1c6 Qf7 21.Rc2! (D)
Black would be left off the hook after
21.Qc2? Ba6!.



+++
+ +++
25.Rc8+. Black's position is critical and it
seems hard to suggest any decent alternative.
24.Ne5! Nxb5 25.Nxf7 Nxc7 26.Nd6! is
much better.
24...Rb8 25.Qa3 Qe7 26.Ne5 Rd8 27.Bxd5
Ne8
Or 27...Bb7 28.Bc6!.
28.Qxe7+ Kxe7 29.Ra7 Kd6 30.Nf7+
Kxd5?!
Both sides were in time-pressure, which
helps to explain the multiple inaccuracies.
Here Black should have opted for 30...Ke7
31.Nxd8 Kxd8, though White is still better.
31.Nxd8 Ndf6 32.Nc6 Rb7 33.Ne7+ Rxe7
34.Rxe7 Bd7 35.f3 Kd6 36.Rf7?!
36.Re5! was easy to find and would have
concluded the game.
36...Ke6 37.Rf8 Ke7 38.Rh8 Kf7 39.Rb2
Kg7 40.Rxe8 Bxe8 41.Rc2 Nd5 42.Kf2
Bd7 43.e4! (D)


++++
+++
+++
++
 +++
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 8
 ++++ 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 a6 5.e4
A very interesting variation, in which White
+++ sacrifices material in the fight for the centre
and the initiative.
++++ 5...b5 6.e5 Nd5 7.a4 (D)


White has finally reached a winning
position.



43...fxe4 44.fxe4 Nf6 45.Re2! +
There was still room for error: 45.Ke3?
Nxe4!. ++++
45...Kf7 46.d5 b5 47.Ke3 bxa4 48.bxa4
Ne8 49.e5 Nc7!?
+++
Black sets another trap. 49...Bxa4 50.Ra2 +++
Bd1 51.Rxa5 is easy for White.
50.e6+ Nxe6 51.dxe6+ Kxe6 52.Kf4+ Kf6
+++
53.Re5 Bxa4 54.Rxa5 Bc2 55.g4 h6 (D) +

 Q+
++++ 
++++ 7...c6?!
Better options for Black are 7...Nxc3 8.bxc3
++
 Qd5 and 7...e6 8.axb5 Nb6, while 7...Nxc3
+++ 8.bxc3 Bb7 and 7...Nb4!? are also possible.
8.axb5 Nxc3 9.bxc3 cxb5 10.Ng5!
+++ Best, despite the fact that it violates a
++++ fundamental opening principle (‘do not
move your pieces more than once in the
++++ opening’). 10.g3 e6 11.Bg2 Bb7 12.0-0 Be7
13.Ne1 Bxg2 14.Nxg2 Nd7 15.f4 Nb6 16.f5
++++ was unclear in Damljanovic,B-Rivas
 Pastor,M Groningen Ech-jr 1979/80; White's
56.h4! idea can be improved upon though.
If Black was given time to play ...g5 he 10...f6
would reach a theoretically drawn ending. The only move. White was threatening
Indeed, the position with white pawns on h3 11.Qf3 and both 10...e6? 11.Nxf7! and
and g4 and black pawns on h6 and g5 is a 10...Bb7 11.e6! would lead Black to a
draw. desperate position.
56...Ke6 57.Ra6+! 11.Qf3!
57.g5 also wins: 57...hxg5+ 58.hxg5 Bf5 The consequences of 11.e6?! Qd5! (White is
59.Re5+ Kf7 60.Ke3 followed by bringing on the top after 11...fxg5?! 12.Qf3 Bxe6
the king round to d6 and taking the g6-pawn. 13.Qxa8 Bd5 14.Qa7 e6 15.Be2) 12.Be2
57...Kf7 58.g5 hxg5+ 59.hxg5 Bd3 60.Rb6 fxg5 13.Bh5+! Kd8! (13...g6? 14.Bf3 Qxe6+
1-0 15.Be3! Ra7 16.d5) 14.0-0 Qxe6 15.Re1 Qf6
16.d5 are unclear, as in PaehtzT-Bernard,R
□ Grivas,Efstratios Rostock 1984.
■ Espinosa Flores,Rafael 11...Ra7 12.e6 Qb6?! (D)
D24 Belfort Wch-jr 1983 Black should instead prefer 12...Bb7 13.d5!
Qxd5 14.Qxd5 Bxd5 15.Be3 fxg5!
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 9
(15...Rb7? 16.0-0-0!!) 16.Bxa7 Nc6 17.Rxa6
Nxa7 18.Rxa7 +=.
++

 
White proceeds with simple developing
+
 moves, despite the fact that he has already
+ sacrificed quite some material. However,
Black is unable to complete his development

++ and restore coordination among his pieces
and, as a result, finds himself in an
+++ unenviable situation.
+++ 15...Ra8?!
Black had to try 15...Nd7!? 16.Qf7+ Kd8
++Q+ 17.exd7 Bxd7 18.Bxa7 (18.0-0!? Ra8 19.Bf3
++ is also good for White) 18...Qxa7 19.0-0 or
15...Rb7 16.g3 Bd7 17.0-0 Kd8 18.exd7 Qd6
+
 16.Bxg5!
White now proceeds with a positional piece
sacrifice, by which he reaps very obvious
benefits:
1. better development;
2. space advantage;
3. attack on the black king;
4. disharmony in Black's camp.
13.d5!! fxg5 14.Be3!
14.Qf7+ Kd8 15.Bxg5 Rd7!! is just unclear,
Sosonko,G-Rivas Pastor,M Amsterdam
1978. 14.Bxg5 Bxe6! 15.Be3 Qb7 16.Bxa7
Bxd5 17.Qe3 is also not clear at all,
according to the late Tony Miles. Both these
lines are good examples of what we
19.Bxg5, with an advantage for White in
both cases.
Threatening 17.Qf7+ Kd8 18.d6!.
16...Qe5 17.h4! h6
Perhaps 17...Nd7 is a better bet, returning
the material with slim chances of survival.
18.Bf4 Qf6 19.Qg3!
Threatening 20.Bh5+ Kd8 21.Bc7#. White is
now clearly winning.
19...Bxe6 20.dxe6 Nc6 21.0-0 g6 22.Bf3!
Qxe6 23.Rfe1 Qf6 24.Bd5! (D)
24.Be5?! Nxe5 25.Bxa8 Bg7 would not have
been enough, but 24.Bd6 is also good.


++

mentioned earlier, about the defender
returning the material or sacrificing even +++
more to take over the initiative.
14...Qc7 15.Be2! (D)
++


 ++++
+
 ++

 ++ Q
++++ +++
+++ +
++++ 
Now the threat of 25.Re6 decides.
+Q+ 1-0
++
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 10
 (Day 7: 17:00-17:45 - Mikhalchishin)
Isolated Pawn
A pawn is considered isolated when there
are no pawns of the same colour on the
neighbouring files. Thus, it has been
detached from the rest of its camp's pawn-
structure and can be supported only by
pieces.
Isolated pawns can be classified in two
categories, the flank and central isolated
pawns.
The first group, flank isolated pawns,
generally constitute weaknesses and as a rule
should be avoided, as their positive merits
are minimal to zero and without theoretical
value. Exceptions occur only in case that
their owner has obtained other strategic or
tactical pluses in exchange for their creation.
The second case is still hotly debated, even
to this day. This category will form the basis
of our considerations below.
In the opening, the isolated pawn is no
cause for concern for his possessor, as it can
offer quick development, spatial superiority,
control of central squares and the initiative.
In the middlegame, the isolated pawn,
along with the advantages stated above,
creates the preconditions for a powerful
initiative, either in the centre or on any
flank. The side with the isolated pawn is
compelled to seek activity, as a passive
treatment of the position leads as a rule to
serious problems and, after appropriate
exchanges, to a difficult ending.
Indeed, the weakness of an isolated pawn
becomes evident in the endgame. The
resulting problems are multiple and revolve
both around strategic issues and the
protection of the pawn itself, as the reduced
material makes this harder.
Thus, an isolated pawn is at the same time
a strength and a weakness. A strength, if the
dynamic and usually short-term advantages
it confers prevail; a weakness, if its static
weaknesses come to the fore.
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
For a better understanding of the concept
of the isolated pawn we have to state its
strengths and weaknesses.
The fundamental weaknesses of the
isolated pawn can be described as follows:
1) The pawn itself can be weak, as it
cannot be protected by other pawns but only
by pieces. Therefore, should it be attacked
by more pieces than it is defended by, its
loss is unavoidable.
2) The square in front of the isolated pawn
constitutes an outpost for the opponent.
3) Passive handling of the position by its
possessor, as it causes disharmony in the
placement of the pieces, can have dire
consequences, and not just for the pawn
itself.
4) In an ending, the pawn's weaknesses
becomes more pronounced, as was already
mentioned above.
5) It can exert a negative psychological
influence on many chess-players who,
affected by the unpleasant prospect of an
endgame, seek unjustifiably violent
solutions in the middlegame.
The positive sides of the isolated pawn can
be determined as follows:
1) It offers greater control of central
squares.
2) It offers the possibility of a central
strike by its advance.
3) It offers a space advantage.
4) It offers better and quicker
development, especially in the opening.
5) It offers opportunities of exploiting the
open and semi-open files it creates with its
presence.
6) It offers the initiative in the opening and
middlegame.
One very sensitive issue that both sides
must attend to with great care is the matter
of piece exchanges. The question to be asked
is: which piece exchange is favourable for
11
each side, and consequently undesirable for
the other? In general, the possessor of the
isolated pawn should avoid unnecessary
piece exchanges without gaining anything
substantial in return. If he must accede to
some exchange and has a choice, then it is
best to avoid exchanges of the minor pieces
(bishops and knights) and prefer those of the
major pieces (queens and rooks). In an
endgame with minor pieces the chances of
survival are especially high, while in a
major-piece ending these chances are
virtually nil.
Finally, the player with the isolated pawn
should avoid the creation of further
weaknesses in his pawn-structure, as then he
will have to face additional problems.
However, as nothing is absolute, the
solutions to these problems depend on each
specific position, as well as the sum of the
+

The consequence of White's inaccurate 7th
move.
12.Qb3 Nbxd5 13.Bg5 h6 14.Bxf6?!
White has been left with an isolated pawn on
d4 and should therefore avoid any exchanges
that would allow Black to head towards an
ending; White's weaknesses would then be
predominant. 14.Bd2 is better.
14...Nxf6
The careless 14...Bxf6?! 15.Ne4! Be7
16.Ne5 would allow White to equalize.
15.Rfd1 Rc8 16.Rd2 Ne4!
Exchanges favour Black!
17.Nxe4 Bxe4 18.Ne5 Bxg2 19.Kxg2 Qc7!
(D)


strategic and tactical elements that govern it. ++
+
Exploitation of Negative Aspects 

□ Makridis,Efstathios
++
■ Grivas,Efstratios +++
A17 Patra tt 1981
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 b6 3.Bg2 Bb7 4.c4 e6 5.Nc3
+++
c5 6.0-0 Be7 7.Qc2?! +Q++
The white queen is unsatisfactorily placed
on c2, as the future opening of the c-file will 
leave it exposed. The theoretical move 7.d4
and even 7.Re1 are considered (and must be)
+++
better. 
7...0-0 8.e3 Nc6 9.d4 Black must prevent White from advancing
Perhaps 9.Rd1 is more accurate. d4-d5 at all costs, as then his advantage
9...cxd4 10.exd4 d5! 11.cxd5 Nb4! (D) would be significantly reduced.

 20.Rad1 Bf6 21.Ng4 Bg5 22.Ne3
After 22.f4 Be7 23.d5 exd5 24.Rxd5 White
+

+ has got rid of his weakness on d4 but is still
+ at a disadvantage due to his exposed king
and worse minor piece (knight vs bishop in
++ an open position with pawns on both flanks).
22...Qc6+?!
++++ A rather mediocre move. 22...Bxe3!
++ 23.Qxe3 Qc4! 24.b3 Qd5+ is much better.
23.Kg1?!
++ White should have taken up the chance for
Q+ 23.d5! exd5 24.Qxd5 (24.Rxd5!?)
24...Qxd5+ 25.Rxd5 leaving Black only
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 12
slightly better thanks to his superior minor
piece.
23...Bxe3! 24.Qxe3
After 24.fxe3 Rfd8 Black would retain his
advantage, in view of the weak hanging
central pawns on d4 and e3.
24...Qd5 25.b3 Rfd8 (D)


rescue of the d4-pawn. Naturally, Black is
still better as his own king can also freely
participate in the battle.
26...Rc6 27.Qxd5 Rxd5 28.Kf1 g5!
Gaining space and preparing the approach of
the black king.
29.h3 Kg7 30.Ke2 Kf6 31.g4?!
White must generally avoid the creation of
new weaknesses. The passive 31.Kd3 was
++
+ necessary.
31...h5! 32.Ke3
++ 32.gxh5? Rc8 and ...Rh8xh5 would have
++ been even worse.
32...h4! (D)
++
++

+++ ++++
++ Q +++
+ +
+
+++ +++
 ++
Black has the upper hand as he has a clear
target (the isolated white pawn on d4). His +++
strategy has so far been crowned with
success, as he has managed to exchange all
the white minor pieces. The next step is to
triple the major pieces on the d-file and then
push ...e5, winning the target pawn. A
characteristic example of this standard
procedure is the game Kortchnoi,V-
Karpov,A Merano Wch m (9) 1981 (D53):
1.c4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4 Be7 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bg5
h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.Rc1 dxc4 8.e3 c5 9.Bxc4
cxd4 10.exd4 Nc6 11.0-0 Nh5 12.Bxe7
Nxe7 13.Bb3 Nf6 14.Ne5 Bd7 15.Qe2 Rc8
16.Ne4 Nxe4 17.Qxe4 Bc6 18.Nxc6 Rxc6
19.Rc3 Qd6 20.g3 Rd8 21.Rd1 Rb6 22.Qe1
Qd7 23.Rcd3 Rd6 24.Qe4 Qc6 25.Qf4 Nd5
26.Qd2 Qb6 27.Bxd5 Rxd5 28.Rb3 Qc6
29.Qc3 Qd7 30.f4 b6 31.Rb4 b5 32.a4 bxa4
33.Qa3 a5 34.Rxa4 Qb5 35.Rd2 e5 36.fxe5
Rxe5 37.Qa1 Qe8 38.dxe5 Rxd2 39.Rxa5
Qc6 40.Ra8+ Kh7 41.Qb1+ g6 42.Qf1 Qc5+
43.Kh1 Qd5+ 0-1.
26.Qe5
A correct reaction, preventing the
+
aforementioned plan, as after the exchange
++
++++

Fixing a second weakness on h3 (the first
one being the d4-pawn).
33.Ke2 b5!
Black endeavours to fix a third weakness on
a2. Black obtains a won position by
following the well-known rule of the three
weaknesses (1 weakness = advantage, 2
weaknesses = significant advantage, 3
weaknesses = winning advantage). White is
unable to react as his pieces are tied to the
defence of his weak pawns.
34.Rd3 b4 35.R1d2 Ra5 36.d5? (D)


++++
+++
++
of queens the white king can come to the ++
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 13
 ++

++++ +

+
++ +
++++ +++
 ++
Accelerating the end. White should have
tried to defend with 36.Rb2 Ke7 37.Rdd2
+++
Kd6 38.Rd3 Kd5 39.Ke3 Rc1! although it ++
seems unlikely that he will manage to save
himself.
+
36...exd5 37.Rxd5 Rxd5 38.Rxd5 Rc2+ +Q+
39.Rd2?!
As the pawn ending is obviously lost for 
White, he should have tested Black in the 9.0-0 Nb6
rook ending after 39.Ke3 Rxa2. 9...a6 would transpose to the game Grivas,E-
39...Rxd2+ 40.Kxd2 Ke5 41.Ke3 f5! Georgiou,An Thessaloniki 1988 {@ Α}.
42.gxf5 10.Bb3 cxd4 11.exd4 Bd7
Or 42.f3 fxg4 43.fxg4 a6!. The weaknesses Black can also play 11...Nfd5!? 12.Bxe7
on a2 and h3 seal White's fate. Qxe7 13.Re1 Rd8 14.Rc1 Nxc3 (14...Nf6
42...Kxf5 43.f3 Ke5 44.Ke2 Kf4 45.Kf2 a6 15.Qe2 Qb4 16.Ne4 Nbd5 Kortchnoi,V-
46.Ke2 Kg3 47.Ke3 Kxh3 48.Kf2 a5 Zaitsev,I Yerevan Ch-URS 1962 [17.Rc4!
49.Kg1 Kg3 50.Kh1 Kxf3 51.Kh2 g4 +=]) 15.Rxc3 Bd7 16.d5 Qd6 17.dxe6 Bxe6
52.Kh1 g3 53.Kg1 g2 18.Qxd6 Rxd6 19.Bxe6 Rxe6 20.Rxe6 fxe6
0-1 21.Rc7 Rd8 22.Kf1 Rd7 23.Rxd7 Nxd7 with
better prospects in the ending for White,
Exploitation of Positive Aspects Timman,J-Ree,H Amsterdam 1984 {@ B}.
12.Ne5
□ Grivas,Efstratios In the famous game Botvinnik,M-Vidmar,M
■ Gekas,Sokratis Nottingham 1936, 12.Qd3 Nbd5?!
D40 Thessaloniki 1988 (12...Nfd5!) 13.Ne5 Bc6 14.Rad1 was
1.c4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 played, with advantage for White.
0-0 6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.Bd3!? 12...Rc8
The Botvinnik Variation of the Orthodox After 12...Bc6 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Rc1 White
Queen's Gambit, also known as the enjoys better endgame prospects.
‘Variation of the Lost Tempo’! By selecting 13.Qd3! Bc6 14.Bc2 g6 15.Bh6 Re8
this particular line, White shows his 16.Rfe1 (D)
preference for more lively positions,
avoiding the stabilization of the centre after


7.cxd5. On the other hand, of course, he +
+
+
loses a tempo!
7...dxc4 8.Bxc4 c5 (D)
++
After the passive 8...c6 9.a4 Nd5 10.Bxe7 +
Qxe7 11.0-0 Rd8 12.a5! White was slightly
better in Grivas,E-Haritakis,T Corfu 1988. +++
8...b6 may be compared with the game
Grivas,E-Gabriel,Ch Budapest 1994 {@ Α}.
+++
+Q++
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 14
 + importance, as it left the aforementioned
squares and the king at White's mercy.
+
 threatened 20.Bxf6 and 20.Bxd5.
White has activated all his pieces, also
succeeding in weakening the black king's
cover in the process. Even more important is
the fact that Black has failed to exchange
any pieces. As a result, his position is
uncomfortable and requires increased
attention.
16...Nbd5 17.Bb3!
The bishop's mission on the b1-h7 diagonal
has been completed, so it switches to the
very promising a2-g8 one. At the same time
White prevents piece exchanges with
17...Nxc3? 18.Nxf7!!.
17...Bf8
Better chances are offered by 17...Qa5,
intending ...Nxc3 and ...Ba4, when White
retains an edge but Black succeeds in
exchanging some pieces, thus relieving his
position.
18.Bg5!
Exchanges favour the defending side!
18...Qa5? (D)


++
+ 10...0-0 11.Nc3 (D)
+++
19.Qf3! Bg7
There is nothing better, in view of the
20.Ne4!
20.Bxd5? is a mistake, as after 20...Bxd5
21.Nxd5 Qxd5 Black can survive. Now there
is no satisfactory defence, as Black loses
quickly after 20...Nxe4 21.Qxf7+ Kh8
22.Rxe4 with an extra pawn and the threat
23.Nxg6+ hxg6 24.Rh4+, as well as
20...Qd8 21.Nxc6 Rxc6 22.Bxd5 exd5
23.Nxf6+ Bxf6 24.Rxe8+ Qxe8 25.Bxf6.
1-0
Defence with an Isolated Pawn
□ Grivas,Efstratios
■ Inkiov,Ventzislav
B22 Kastel Stari Balkaniad 1988
1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 e6 5.Nf3
Nf6 6.Be2 Nc6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Be3 cxd4
9.Nxd4!? Nxd4 10.cxd4
Black is comfortable after 10.Bxd4 0-0
11.Bf3 Qa5 12.Nd2 Qc7 13.Qe2 Bd7 14.Be5
Qc8 15.Rfd1 Rd8 16.Ne4 Nxe4 17.Bxe4
Bc6, as in the game Gergs,W-
Gawlikowski,A Hamburg tt 1988.


+++ ++
+

+ +
+++ +++
+Q++ ++
++
+ +++
+ ++
 +
And here comes a blunder. Black should
have focused on defence with 18...Bg7. In
+Q+
this particular position White has a winning 
line, which stems from the multiple and 11...Qa5!
insufficiently protected weaknesses around Other moves are unsatisfactory:
the black king, on the f6- and f7-squares in a) 11...Qd8 12.Bf3 Bd7 13.d5 exd5 14.Nxd5
particular. Black's last move was of decisive Nxd5 15.Qxd5 Bc6 16.Qxd8 Rfxd8 17.Bxc6
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 15
bxc6 18.Rac1 Bf6 19.b3 Rd6 20.Rc4 is 20...Rfd8 (D)
much better for White, Sydor,A-Drimmer,D
Bath Echt 1973.


b) 11...Qf5 12.Bd3 Qh5 13.Qxh5 Nxh5 ++
+
14.d5 Nf6 15.Bc4 exd5 16.Nxd5 Nxd5
17.Bxd5 Be6 18.Bxe6 fxe6 19.Rac1 with a
++
permanent edge for White, Rause,O- ++++
Agopov,M Jyvaskyla 1994.
12.Bf3 
+++
White failed to achieve any advantage after
12.Qb3 Bd7 13.Bf3 Bc6 14.Bxc6 bxc6
+++
15.Qb7 Bb4 16.Rfc1 Bxc3 17.Rxc3 Rab8 ++
18.Qxc6 Rxb2 in Hegde,R-Roy
Chowdhury,S Calcutta 1996.
+
12...Bd7?!
Better is 12...Rd8 13.Re1 Bd6 14.Qb3 Rb8
15.Rac1 b5 16.Bg5 Be7 17.Bf4 Bd6 18.Be5
Bxe5 19.dxe5 Nd7 20.Rcd1 b4 21.Qa4 ½-½,
Bukacek,E-Peterwagner,H Austria tt 1989.
13.Qd2?
Naturally, 13.Bxb7? Rab8 14.Bf3 (14.Qb3?
Qc7) 14...Rxb2 is pleasant for Black. White
should have executed the advance 13.d5!
which promises at least a slight edge, due to
his more active pieces. The text-move has a
double purpose (14.Bxb7 and 14.Nd5) but
Black easily counters White's intentions.
13...Qa6! 14.a3?!
White erroneously persists in chasing the
advantage. Instead, a repetition by 14.Be2
Qa5! 15.Bf3 Qa6 should have been
preferred.
14...Bc6! 15.Be2 Qa5
Black has every reason to be satisfied with
the outcome of the opening, as White has
ended up in a passive position and without
any prospect of activity.
16.Qd3 Rac8 17.Rac1 a6 18.Rfd1 Nd5
Although Black's plan is clear (piece
exchanges), he could have delayed it for a
while in favour of 18...Rfd8.
19.Nxd5 Bxd5
After 19...Qxd5?! White can equalize:
20.Bf3 Qd7 21.Bxc6 Rxc6 22.Rxc6 Qxc6
23.d5!.
20.Qb1!
White wishes to exchange the major pieces
and defend a slightly inferior position. This
is the correct approach, as the alternatives
would have unpleasant consequences.
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
+Q+

White is now all set and proceeds to
exchange the major pieces. It must be noted
that the absence of knights is in favour of the
side with the isolated pawn (i.e. the
defending side in our case), as the knight is
the indicated piece to be placed on the
outpost in front of the isolated pawn.
21.Rxc8! Rxc8 22.Rc1 Qd8 23.Rxc8 Qxc8
24.Qd3 Qc6 25.f3 Bd6 26.Qd2 Qc7 27.h3
h6 28.Bd3 f5 29.Qc2!
Offering the exchange of the last remaining
major piece, so that the white king can come
to the centre and assume defensive duties.
Perhaps Black should have avoided this
exchange, but White's position would
anyway be passive but satisfactory -
naturally with the draw as its ultimate aim.
29...Qxc2 30.Bxc2 Bg3 31.Bd3! g5 32.Kf1
Kg7 33.Ke2 Kf6 34.Bd2 h5 35.Ba5 h4
36.Bd2 Bf4 37.Bxf4 gxf4 38.Kd2 Ke7
Black no longer has any winning chances as
White has full defensive control of the
position; the absence of major pieces
guarantees White half a point.
½-½
16
 (Day 7: 18:00-18:45 - Mikhalchishin)
The Bishop Pair
The possession of a pair of bishops
(against a bishop and a knight, or a pair of
knights) is an important strategic element
that may guarantee superiority and even
determine the outcome of the game.
The basic requirements for the exploitation
of this element are:
1) Open centre (currently or in the future).
2) Presence of pawns on both flanks.
Consequently, possession of the bishop-pair
does not always guarantee an advantage.
Only after careful examination of the
respective pawn-structures and the situation
in the centre are we able to determine
whether possession of this element is an
advantage.
Most chess-players have a strong liking for
the bishop-pair regardless of the specific
features of the position. This phenomenon
has a simple explanation: a strong positional
+
player can more easily transform the
position so as to suit the bishops than to suit
++
a pair of knights. However, it has to be
reminded that it is the pawns (placement,
pawn-chains), the soul of the game, that
determine whether possession of the bishop-
pair is an advantage.
The strength of the bishop-pair (provided
of course that the above-mentioned
requirements are met) can be exploited
either in the middlegame or the endgame.
In the middlegame, bishops can control
many squares and from a distance; this
implies better control of the position and the
prospect of creating a direct attack, either
against the king or against other weaknesses.
Bishops are also able to restrict the
opponent's pieces and create severe (and
often insoluble) problems to the opponent,
exactly due to their long range of action,
which allows them to switch quickly from
one target to another without even needing
to approach it.
In the endgame the power of the bishop-
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
pair is decisive, since the absence of an
adequate number of defensive pieces allows
the bishops to impose their control on the
position almost entirely. It is then possible,
by skilful manoeuvring, to restrict the
opponent's pieces and highlight weaknesses
and entry squares.
Just like with any other strategic element,
the boundaries between success and failure
are not always clearly visible. The examples
that follow will help to impose on the reader
a deeper understanding of the positive
aspects of the bishop-pair.
□ Schuh,Hubert
■ Grivas,Efstratios
A31 Strasbourg 1984


+++
+
++
+++
++++
++++
++Q+
+++

Black fixed the target pawn on a light
square, where it will always be threatened by
the d5-bishop. Black's bishop-pair,
augmented by the fact that there are no
central pawns and that play develops on both
flanks, prove deadly. White has no
possibility of creating counterplay, and is
thus condemned to a slow but certain death.
44.h3 h4 45.Nd4 Be4 46.Nf3 Bg3 47.Nd2
Bc6 48.Bh2
This speeds up the finish. White should have
17
tried 48.Nc4 Bc7.
48...Qd7! 49.Bxg3 hxg3 50.Nf1 (D)
+
50.Qc4+ Bd5 51.Qc2 Qe8! does not save ++++
White either.
++


+++
+++
+
++
++
+
+Q
+++

+++ 12...Nb6
++++ Again 12...d5?! 13.exd5 Rxe1 14.Qxe1 cxd5
15.c5! would be good for White.
+++ 13.Bf4 Ng4! 14.h3
++Q++ The careless 14.Nc2?! Qf6 15.Qd2 Be6!
(15...Nxf2? 16.c5!) even passes the
++++ advantage to Black.
14...Qf6! 15.Bg3 Ne5 16.Qb3 a5
 White retains the upper hand after both
50...Qxf5 51.Nxg3 Qxh3+ 52.Kg1 Qd7! 16...Nexc4? 17.Bxc4 d5 18.Bxd5! cxd5
Certainly not 52...Qxg3? 53.Qe6+ Kf8 19.e5 and 16...Be6 17.Nxe6 Qxe6 18.a4!
54.Qxc6, when Black has lost the greater followed by 19.a5 (but not 18.f4? Nexc4
part of his advantage. 19.f5 Qf6 20.Bxc4 Qd4+!).
53.Nh5 Qd4+! 54.Kf1 17.a3 axb4 18.axb4 Be6 19.Nxe6 Qxe6
54.Kh1? loses on the spot: 54...Qa1+ 55.Kh2 20.f4! Ned7
Qe5+. The tactical shot 20...Nexc4? would be a
54...Be4! 55.Nf4 Qxa4 56.Qh5 Qa1+ mistake: 21.f5 Qf6 22.Bxc4 Qd4+ 23.Bf2
57.Kf2 Qd4+ 58.Kg3 Qe3+ and White wins.
0-1 21.Bf2 g5?! (D)
This move seems to cause White problems,
□ Grivas,Efstratios but in fact Black should have preferred the
■ Barlov,Dragan quiet 21...g6 +=.
A55 Kastel Stari Balkaniad 1988
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e4 Nbd7 5.Nf3


e5 6.Be2 Be7 7.0-0 0-0 8.Rb1!? ++
+
White's alternatives include 8.Qc2 and 8.d5.
8...Re8 9.Re1 exd4?! ++++
This exchange in the centre is inferior to the
more common 9...a6 and 9...Qc7.

+
10.Nxd4 Bf8 11.Bf1 h6 +++
Preparing...d5, which is not adequate at this
point: 11...d5?! 12.exd5 Rxe1 13.Qxe1 cxd5
++
14.cxd5 Nb6 15.Bg5! +=. +Q++
12.b4 (D)

 +++
+

+ ++
++ 
22.e5!
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 18
The correct reaction. White refuses to
weaken his king (22.g3?) or surrender the
very important e5-square (22.fxg5?).
Instead, he opens up the position, hoping to
benefit from his potentially powerful bishop-
pair and the weaknesses around Black's
king, caused by the ambitious 21...g5?!.
22...dxe5 23.fxe5 Bg7 24.Rbd1 Nc8
25.Ne4?!
White should have proceeded in the same
dynamic spirit with 25.Nd5!! cxd5 26.cxd5
Qe7 (26...Qg6? 27.Bd3 Qh5 28.g4!) 27.d6
Qd8 (27...Qf8 28.Bb5 Ncb6 29.Bxb6 Nxb6
30.Bxe8 Rxe8 31.d7 Rd8 32.e6! +-) 28.e6!
fxe6 29.Rxe6 Kh8 (29...Rxe6 30.Qxe6+ Kh8
(30...Kf8 31.Bc4) 31.Bd4 Bxd4+ 32.Rxd4
Qf6 33.Qxf6+ Nxf6 34.d7 Nxd7 35.Rxd7 +/-
) 30.Bd4! Nf6 31.d7! Qxd7 32.Rxf6 and it
becomes clear that Black will not be able to
survive.
25...Nxe5
Another option was 25...Bxe5!? 26.Qf3!
intending 27.Ng3 and 28.Bd3, with initiative
for White.
26.Nc5 Qe7 27.Nd7! (D)
32.Qc3+.
28.Nxe5!
After the text-move, Black falls victim to a
simple combination that costs him two
minor pieces for a rook. The resulting
position is easily won for White.
28...Bxe5 29.Rxe5! Qxe5 30.Bg3 Qe3+
31.Qxe3 Rxe3 32.Bxd6
White got two powerful bishops for a black
rook and he is on the full control of the
position. The end cannot be far away…
32...Rd8 33.c5 Rb3 34.Rd4 Rb2 35.Re4
Ra8 36.Bc4 Ra1+ 37.Kh2 Rc1 38.Re8+
1-0
□ Kalesis,Nikolaos
■ Grivas,Efstratios
E81 Corfu 1991
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 a6
6.Be3 c6 7.Bd3 b5 8.Nge2 0-0 9.0-0 Nbd7
10.Rc1 e5 11.a3 exd4 12.Nxd4 Ne5 13.cxb5
cxb5 (D)


+

+

 +++
+++
+ ++
++
 +++
+++ +++
++ +
+++ ++
+Q+++ +Q+
+++ 
++
 Saemisch King's Indian, White plays a rather
27...Nd6?
A serious error, induced in time-trouble.
Black's only chance lay in 27...f6! 28.Bd3!!
Qf7 29.Bf5 Nxd7 30.Rxe8+ Qxe8 31.Bxd7
when White has a strong initiative for just
one pawn and his light-squared bishop has
no worthy opponent. On the other hand,
27...Kh8? loses quickly to 28.Nxe5 Bxe5
29.Rxe5 Qxe5 30.Re1 Qxe1 31.Bxe1 Rxe1
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
14.Kh1?!
After several theoretical moves in this
dubious novelty. 14.Rf2 is better, with
chances for both sides.
14...Bb7
The tempting 14...d5?! would stumble upon
15.Bg5! with a strong initiative.
15.Rf2?
But now this natural-looking move is a
serious mistake. 15.Bg5 had to be preferred.
15...d5! 16.exd5
19
White probably overlooked the tactical 23.Bf2 Qg5 24.Ne2?! (D)
variation 16.Bg5? Nxd3 17.Qxd3 dxe4 Black now converts his superiority without
18.fxe4 Ng4!. much effort. 24.Rxe8+ Rxe8 25.Ne2 offers
16...Nxd3 17.Qxd3 Nxd5 18.Nxd5 Qxd5 better defensive prospects.
(D)


 +++
+
++
+ +++
+++ ++++
++++ +++

++
++ ++++
+++ +++
+Q+ 
+ ++Q+
+++
 24...Rcd8!
The dust has settled and Black enjoys an
undisputed superiority, with the bishop-pair
in an open position. Tactics are in the air...
19.Rd2 Rac8 20.Re1 Rfe8 21.Qb1?
Allowing Black to enter a nice combination.
21.Kg1 =+ was a must.
21...Qh5?
Missing that 21...Rxe3! 22.Rxe3 Bxd4
works immediately, due to the loose queen
on b1 and White's weak back rank: 23.Qd1
Bxe3! 24.Rxd5 Bxd5 or 23.Red3 Qf5.
22.Qd1 Qh4!
Threatening to win by 23...Rxe3 24.Rxe3
Bxd4.
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009

By exchanging the White’s defencive d2-
rook, the white weaknesses will be
accessible to Black, as the defencive white
pieces are reducing.
25.Be3 Qh4 26.Rxd8 Rxd8 27.Qc1 Bxb2
Black won material without losing any of his
advantages.
28.Bg5 Qf2! 29.Qb1 Re8 30.Qd1 Bc3
31.Bd2 Bxd2 32.Qxd2 Bd5
White resigned in view of 33.Rg1 Rxe2
34.Qxd5 Re1 35.Qd8+ Kg7. A crystal-clear
game, in which Black made exemplary use
of his bishop-pair.
0-1
20
 (Day 8: 15:00-15:45 - Grivas)
The Passed Pawn
By definition, a pawn is passed when it
can advance to promotion without
encountering any opposing pawns in its
path. Possession of a passed pawn and the
ability to exploit its potential is a strategic
element that can often determine the result
of the game.
The passed pawn may prove significant in
the middlegame, gaining space and tying
down the opponent's pieces, but its true
strength comes to the fore in the endgame.
In practically all types of endgames,
possession of a passed pawn is considered a
decisive advantage, particularly when the
remaining material is scant. Even if it proves
impossible to promote the pawn, its mere
presence is enough to restrict the enemy
pieces, force material gain or simply to
maintain the initiative.
Consequently, this strategic element
greatly influences (and is influenced by) the
matter of piece exchanges. A passed pawn
must be blockaded, so as to have its power
restrained as much as possible. The minor
pieces (knight or bishop) are ideal for this
purpose, as they can rarely be forced to
retreat by enemy forces. On the other hand,
the major pieces (queen and rook) find it
difficult to achieve a stable blockade as they
are easily harassed, while one must also
consider that, for such valuable pieces,
freeing the other pieces of its army for other
duties.
A passed pawn that has been securely
blockaded and efficiently neutralized may
become a weakness and then this very
important element may even lead to the loss
of the game.
In general, the side possessing a passed
pawn has clearer plans and aims. The other
side usually seeks ways to blockade it or, if
this proves impossible, obtain counterplay
on another part of the board. One good
option is 'harassment' of the opponent's king.
In practice this option often proves very
effective, but unfortunately it is not always
employable!
The most fundamental rule of exploiting
this strategic element is: passed pawns must
be pushed!
□ Grivas,Efstratios
■ Colovic,Aleksandar
D91 Budapest 2001
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3 d5 5.Bg5
Ne4 6.Bh4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 dxc4 8.Qa4+ Qd7
9.Qxc4 b6 10.Qb3 Ba6 11.e3 Bxf1 12.Kxf1
c5
Another possibility is 12...0-0 13.Ke2 Nc6.
13.d5! 0-0 14.Rd1! (D)


dealing with a mere pawn cannot be an  + +

efficient form of employment. Taking the
above into account, it becomes clear that the
 +

side with the passed pawn should seek to   + ++

exchange minor pieces and retain the major
ones; the opposite applies to the other side. + + +

A factor of crucial importance is the ability
of the defending king (i.e. the one facing the
 + + + 

passed pawn) to participate in the +Q +

proceedings. After exchanging the major
pieces (and especially the queens), the king
+ + 

can approach the passed pawn and blockade
it (or generally stop its advance), thus
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 1
 + +++


   +++

14...Bf6?
14...e5 is much better, when 15.dxe6 Qxe6
 + ++

16.Qxe6 fxe6 17.c4! Nc6 18.Ke2 gives   + +

White only a slight edge, Grivas,E-
Schmidt,Wl Novi Sad OL 1990. The text-
+  +

move reduces the pressure on the e7-pawn ++ +

but hands White a protected passed pawn, at
the same time exchanging minor pieces. + + 

15.Bxf6 exf6 16.c4!
Now the passed pawn cannot be assaulted.
 +Q+ +

Instead, its advance would have been + ++ +

premature, as White has not completed his
development.

16...Re8 17.h4! h5 (D) Exchanging the last remaining minor piece
cannot possibly be in Black's favour. Lack of

 a good plan often leads to bad moves.
 +++
Obviously 21...Qe4 (to exchange major
pieces instead) was better, so that the black
 +++
king could safely come to the centre and
  + +
contribute to his army's defensive actions.
22.Nxe5 Rxe5
+ + +
After 22...fxe5 23.e4 White totally
dominates the position; for example:
 ++ + 
23...Qd7 24.Rhf1 f5 25.f4!.
+Q+ +
23.Rd2 Rbe8 24.Qd3!
Strengthening the e3-square, on which Black
+ + +
may have entertained the idea of a sacrifice
+ +++
to complicate matters. Indeed, 24.Rb1?
Rxe3! would have disrupted White's plans.
 24...Qd7
White was threatening to start an attack The rook ending arising after 24...Qe4+
against the black king by means of the 25.Qxe4 Rxe4 26.Rc1 does not offer Black
advance h5. Black has prevented this plan, any hope of survival.
but now his kingside pawn-mass cannot 25.a5! Re4?!
easily advance. Black's main problem in this The passive 25...Qd6 offers more chances,
position is the complete lack of any although even then White would eventually
possibility for counterplay. exploit his significant superiority.
18.g3 Qg4 19.Kg2 Nd7 20.a4! 26.axb6 axb6 27.Rb2! f5
The process of advancing a passed pawn is Making an effort for counterplay at any cost,
never a simple matter. White is trying to as the b6-pawn was doomed anyway after
open a second front on the queenside in Black's 25th move (27...Qd6 28.Rhb1).
order to keep Black's pieces occupied in 28.Rxb6 f4 29.exf4 Rd4 30.Qb3! Qf5
defensive (and thus generally passive) 31.Rb8! (D)
positions. The combination of queenside

initiative and passed pawn will increase
White's advantage and lead to victory.   +++

20...Rab8 21.Qc2 Ne5?! (D) + + ++

FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 2
  + + ++
++

+ ++
 +Q

 +  
   +

+Q+ + 

 + + +
Black assumes the initiative on the
queenside, threatening ...a4-a3.
+ + + +
12.a3 Be6 13.Bxe6 fxe6 14.a4?!
A waste of time. White should have
 preferred 14.0-0 a4 with just a slight
White has a material advantage, so he seeks advantage for Black.
piece exchanges. 14...dxc3 15.bxc3
31...Qe4+ 32.Kh2 Rxb8 33.Qxb8+ Kh7 After 15.axb5 Nd4 16.Nxd4 Qxd4 17.0-0
Or 33...Kg7 34.Qe5+! Qxe5 35.fxe5 Rxc4 Rfd8 18.bxc3 Qxd3! 19.Qxd3 Rxd3 20.Bg5
36.Rd1 +-. a4 Black obtains a dangerous passed a-
34.Qc7! Kg8 35.Ra1! Rd2 pawn.
At last the h1-rook joins the battle, since its 15...b4! 16.Bb2 bxc3 17.Bxc3 Bb4!
earlier duties (protecting the king) are no The best way to defend the e5-pawn. After
longer required. 35...Rxc4 also looses the forced exchanges that follow, the
quickly: 36.Ra8+ Kg7 37.Qd8. weaknesses on a4 and d3 are accentuated.
36.Qxc5 Rc2 37.d6 Rxc4 38.Qe5 Qf3 18.Bxb4 axb4 19.0-0 Nd4! 20.Nxd4 Qxd4!
39.d7! Qxf2+ 40.Kh3 Kh7 41.d8Q (D)
The passed pawn has completed its mission
and forces Black's resignation!


1-0 + + +

□ Koustas,Anastasios +  + 

■ Grivas,Efstratios
C77 Athens 1982
 + + +

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.d3 + +  +

d6 6.c3 Be7 7.Nbd2 0-0 8.Nf1 b5 9.Bb3
A better option is 9.Bc2 d5!? 10.Ng3 Be6
 + +

11.0-0 Nd7!? with unclear play, + ++ 

Barbulescu,D-Grivas,E Sofia Balkaniad
1982.  + +Q

9...d5 10.Qe2
White had a couple of interesting
 + +

alternatives: 10.exd5 and 10.Ng3!?. 
10...d4! 11.Ng3 a5! (D) An important move. Black's weak pawns on

 the e-file cannot be attacked, in sharp
contrast to White's weaknesses on a4 and d3.
+ +
This difference promises Black the
+  
advantage.
21.Qa2! Ra6! 22.Rac1
 ++  +
Black would be better after 22.Rfc1 c5!
while 22...Qxd3 23.Rxc7 Nxe4 24.Nxe4
+  +
Qxe4 is also good for him, but perhaps not
 + + +
enough to win the game.
22...Qd7 23.Qc4 Rxa4 24.Qxc7 Qxc7

FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 3

25.Rxc7 (D) Black's favour! One nice line goes 31.Rc2

 Rxd2 32.Rcxb2 Rd1+ 33.Rxd1 Rxd1#.
31...Rxd2 32.Ke1 Rd8
 + + +
0-1
+  + 
Sometimes a passed pawn might worth
 + + +
more than a piece, especially if it is
protected (by another pawn) and ready to be
+ +  +
pushed to its last rank. The game that
 ++ +
follows could easily also belong to the
Positional Sacrifice chapter.
+ ++ 

 + + 
□ Kortchnoi,Viktor
■ Najdorf,Miguel
+ + +
D41 Wijk aan Zee 1971
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.d4 c5 5.cxd5
 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Bb4+
25...Rb8! 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 0-0 11.Bc4 b6 (D)
After more exchanges Black has obtained a
strong passed b-pawn, which the rook rushes


to support. The immediate 25...b3?? would  +

be a gross error in view of 26.Rb7, when
Black would have lost his advantage.
 + +

26.Rb1 b3 27.Rc3?   ++ +

The last mistake. 27.Nf1 should have been
played. + + + +

27...b2 28.Nf1 Ra1 29.Nd2 (D)  ++ +


 + + ++

  + ++
+ Q 

+ + + 
 +  +

 + + +

+ +  +
For 11...Nc6 see game Polugaevsky,L-Tal,M
 + ++ +
Moscow Ch-URS 1969 {@ Α}.
12.0-0 Bb7 13.Rfe1 Nd7 14.Rad1 Rc8
+ + +
15.Bd3
15.Bb3 Nf6 16.d5 exd5 17.exd5 Rc5 18.d6
   
is also good, Olafsson,F-Unzicker,W
+ + 
Lugano 1970.
15...Re8 16.Qe3
 White's other options are:
White was counting on this to hold the a) 16.Bb1 h6 (16...Nf8 17.Re3 Qd6 18.Qb2
position, as now 29...Rxb1+ 30.Nxb1 Ra8 Red8 ½-½ Prusikin,M-Levin,F Germany
31.Rc2 is harmless. However, Black's 2006) 17.h3 Qc7 18.Nh2 Qc3 19.Qf4 Nf8
positional advantage gives rise to a 20.Re3 oo Grooten,H-Horvath,C
spectacular, original and very effective Leeuwarden 1995.
tactical shot. b) 16.h4 h6 17.Bb5 Re7 18.Bxd7 Rxd7
29...Nxe4!! 30.dxe4 Rd8 31.Kf1 19.Ne5 Rdc7 20.Qf4 Qd6 = Mamedyarov,S-
There is no salvation, as everything works in Marcelin,C Istanbul 2003.
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 4
c) 16.Qf4 Qf6 17.Qg3 Qg6 18.Qf4 Qf6
19.Qg3 Qg6 20.Qf4 Qf6 += ½-½
+ + 

Pedersen,S-Gyimesi,Z Germany 2005. 
16...Rc3 17.e5 Qc7 (D) 26.dxe6! axb3

 Black had no choice but to accept the
sacrifice, as 26...fxe6 27.Rxd8 axb3
 + +++
(27...Qxd8 28.Bxe6+) 28.Rxf8+ Kxf8
+
29.Rc1 is out of the question.
27.exf7+ Kh8
  ++ +
Unfortunately for Black, he cannot continue
with 27...Kxf7 28.Rxd8 bxa2 (28...Qxd8
+ +  +
29.e6+ Kg8 [29...Nxe6 30.Qxe6+ Kf8
 +  + +
31.Re5 g6 32.Rd5 Qe7 33.Qc8+ Kf7 34.Rd7
bxa2 35.Rxe7+ Kxe7 36.Qc5+] 30.e7 Qe8
+ Q+
31.Qb4! Ra8 32.exf8Q+ Qxf8 33.Qxb3+
+ + 
Kh8 34.Qxb5+- Rxa2? 35.Re8) 29.Ra8!
Rxa8 30.Qf3+ Kg6 31.Qc6+ Qe6 32.Qxa8
+ + 
Nd7 33.Re2 Nxe5 34.Rxa2 +-.
28.Rxd8 Qxd8 29.axb3 Qe7 30.e6 Ra6 (D)
 30...Rxb3 31.Rc1 h6 32.Rc8 Rb1+ 33.Kh2
18.Ng5! Nf8 19.Ne4 Bxe4 Re1 34.Re8 Qd6+ 35.Qg3 is curtains. Now it
Forced as otherwise the knight will land on seems that Black will get the important e6-
d6-square. pawn and probably the game, but the great
20.Qxe4 Rd8 21.h4! Qe7 22.Qg4 Ra3?! Viktor had a different opinion!
Black overestimates his chances. He should
have played 22...Qa3 keeping White's
advantage to the minimum.


23.Bc4 b5 24.Bb3! a5  + +  

It seems that Black has created sufficient
counterplay in the queenside. But ‘Viktor + + 

the terrible’ now comes out with a great
‘positional’ combination.
+ ++ +

25.d5! a4? (D) ++ + +

In view of what happened, Black should try
25...exd5 26.Bxd5 +/-. But who can blame
 + + +Q

Miguel Najdorf for not seeing the future... ++ + +


  + + +

 +  +
+ +  

+ + 

 + ++ +
31.f4!! h6
After the ‘obvious’ 31...Rxe6 and the forced
++ +
continuation 32.Rxe6 Qxe6 (32...Nxe6
+ + +Q
33.Qxe6) 33.Qxe6 Nxe6 34.f5 Nf8 35.h5! g6
(35...h6 36.g4! g6 37.f6) 36.h6!! gxf5
+ + +
37.Kf2, White wins as he will capture with
+ + +
his king the black b-pawn, allowing his own
b-pawn to queen. In the meantime Black can
only play his knight around the f8-square, as
his king is locked in a golden cage!
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 5
32.f5
Now, White's protected and connected
passed pawns will carry the day.
32...Nh7 33.Rc1 Ra8 34.Qf4 Nf6 35.Qc7!
Breaking down Black's blockade.
35...Qb4 (D)


White falls to Black's clever, last trap.
36.Qc5 was decisive: 36...Qxc5+ (36...Qe4
37.f8Q+ Rxf8 38.Qxf8+ Kh7 39.Qc5)
37.Rxc5 Rf8 38.Rxb5.
36...Kh7!
Not of course 36...Rxc8? 37.Rxc8+ Kh7
38.f8N+!! Kg8 39.Ng6+ Kh7 40.Rh8#.
37.Qxa8?!
+ + + 
37.Qc3 Qxh4 38.Rf1 Ng4 39.Qh3 Qxh3
40.gxh3 Ne5 41.Rc1 g6 42.Rc5 Nxf7
+ Q +
43.exf7 Rf8 44.Rxb5 Rxf7 45.fxg6+ Kxg6
 + + 
was also leading to a draw, but White should
have tried it.
++ ++
37...Qd4+ 38.Kf1 Qf4+?
  + + 
Black blunders on his turn. He could have
achieved an undeserved draw with the
++ + +
simple 38...Qd3+!.
 + + ++
39.Ke2 Qe5+ 40.Kd1
Now White can avoid the perpetual check as
+  + 
his king escapes to the queenside, so Black
resigned.
 1-0
36.Qc8+?

FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 6

 (Day 8: 16:00-16:45 - Grivas)
Won Positions - Lost Positions
Won Positions
The definition of a won position is simple:
the result of the game is under control and
entirely dependent on the player who has the
'won' position.
This means that it is his moves that will
determine whether he will properly exploit it
(victory) or whether he will mishandle it,
partly (draw) or completely (loss). The
opponent has no bearing on the events as
regards his direct participation in the
determination of the final result, but only the
obligation to put up a stiff resistance.
Every chess-player has several games to
show, in which he failed to exploit a
winning position he obtained either after an
excellent combination or simply after the
opponent's mistakes. He may well have
understood then that the conversion of a won
position into victory is not such a simple
matter.
As in all the topics we have discussed,
here as well there are golden rules that we
must take into account and obey:
1) Stabilization of the advantage: The
advantage must be retained or even
increased. When we are winning
positionally, chasing after a slight material
gain at the cost of other advantages is not
obligatory. Increasing control and pressure
must be our primary concern.
2) Restriction of the opponent's
counterplay: We must not give the opponent
possibilities to free his position. If we do not
know how to win directly, we select some
'useful' moves while waiting for the right
moment. We must not forget that it is easier
to play a won position than a lost one!
Patience and persistence are the fundamental
counterplay allowed to our opponent. If we
conclude that some, even slight, counterplay
exists, then we have probably strayed from
the right path. If our opponent sacrifices
material to obtain counterplay, we must
always examine the option of declining the
material and focusing on our pressure or, if
we are forced to accept the sacrifice, we
examine the option of returning it (in part or
in whole) to extinguish this counterplay.
3) Avoidance of pointless complications:
Naturally, this rule does not concern
complications that can forcibly and
positively determine the result. In general, it
is better to avoid complications in a won
position. If, however, we are forced to play
along, then we proceed very carefully. We
must not forget that our opponent has
nothing to lose and naturally desires the
complications, because they will surely give
him more practical saving chances than
those provided by passive defence.
4) Psychological factors: Special
importance must be attached to the
psychological factor. Many chess-players
have the bad habit of, upon arriving at a won
position, relaxing and expecting the position
to win itself. That is a serious mistake, as the
game is not over yet and therefore we must
try with the same (or perhaps even greater!)
ceaseless intensity as before. Our advantage
lies only in the fact that from now on it is we
that determine the result of the game.
□ Grivas,Efstratios
■ Abramovic,Bosko
A46 Athens Acropolis 1989


elements of converting a won position. +   +

Should we wish to proceed to tactical play,
aiming at material or further strategic gain,
+ + +

we must always evaluate the amount of
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 7
    +
24...b5!
+ + + +
White failed to register this change and
 + ++ +
victory.
+ +  +
25.Ra7+ Rd7 26.Ra6 Rc7 27.Kd2 Nd5
 +
28.c4! offered better prospects.
 + + 
28...f5 29.g3 g6 30.Kc2 Nf6 31.h3 Nd7

White has acquired a series of slight
advantages, such as possession of the
(important) a-file, better minor-piece
placement and weak black pawns (b6, c6
and e4). The combination of these three
small plusses entitles White to a crystal-clear
advantage. It is a fact that White has
faultlessly exploited Black's slight
inaccuracies and has reached this pleasant
situation, just as it is also a fact that from
now on he did everything that he shouldn't
do, gradually losing his advantage as a
result.
22.Kf1?
White's superiority could have been retained
with the simple 22.Nc4! Nd5 (22...b5
23.Nb6! Bb7 24.Ra7 Rb8 25.b4!) 23.Ra7.
22...Rxd6!
Naturally! Black exchanges the excellent d6-
knight for the useless a8-bishop and is able
at the same time to protect his pawns.
White's advantages disappear with alarming
speed!
23.Rxa8+ Ke7 24.Ke1 (D)
The position now offers equal chances.
clumsily continued his effort to achieve
28.c3
32.Ra1 Ne5 33.Rd1 Ra7 34.g4??
It was about time for White to acquiesce to a
draw, with 34.h4.
34...Rd7!
Preparing the march of the black king with
...Kf6-g5-h4.
35.Rd4 Kf6 36.gxf5 gxf5 37.c4?
The last mistake, in time-trouble. Some
drawing chances were offered by 37.Rxd7
Nxd7 38.c4!.
37...Rxd4 38.exd4 Nxc4 39.Bxc4 bxc4
40.Kc3 f4 41.Kxc4 f3
White lost the game because he didn't
exploit his superior position, committing
serious errors, while he also failed to
‘compromise’ when he lost his advantage.
He didn't understand or didn't accept the fact
that the game practically started all over
again and kept playing under the illusion of
his initial superiority.
0-1
□ Nenashev,Alexander
■ Grivas,Efstratios
E92 Aegina 1994



 + ++

+ + + +
+ + 

+ + 
+  +

   +
+ + +

+ + + +
++ + 

 + ++ +
+  + +

+ +  +
 

 +
+Q+ ++

+ +  +

 Black has won an exchange and of course,
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 8
material-wise, has a decisive advantage.
White has some positional compensation on
+  + +

the light squares and the outpost on e4, but   +

this can under no circumstances be
considered enough to save the game! From a
+ + +

psychological viewpoint White is now  + +

relieved since he has nothing more to lose,
while Black feels ‘obliged’ to prove the + ++ +

superiority of his extra material.
17...Bf6! 18.Bg3 Bg5 19.Nde4 Bf4!
 Q + 

Exchanges (as long as they don't provide the  + + +

opponent with other compensating factors)
favour the side with the material advantage.

20.b4 axb3 21.axb3 Nf6? White now has full compensation for the
A significant error, because it leaves the a6- exchange and is naturally on top, as his
knight out of play. The correct 21...Nc5! pieces occupy their optimal positions while
22.Nxc5 dxc5 23.Ne4 b6 24.Bg4 Bxg3 the a6-knight stands miserably and is
25.hxg3 Nf6 would allow White only constantly under the threat of c5. Black
minimal chances for survival. should now organize his defence with
22.b4! Nxe4 23.Nxe4 b6? ...Qc8-b7 and ...Rff8, when things are not
The direct 23...Qa4? 24.b5 would justify yet clear.
White's play, but 23...Nb8! (intending 27...Nxb4?
...Nd7-f6) 24.c5 Qe7 was necessary. Also incomprehensible! Black commits
24.Qb2! (D) suicide, perhaps to inflict ‘self-punishment’
for his many mistakes.

 28.Rxa8 Qxa8 29.Qxb4 Qa1+ 30.Qb1 Qd4
+ ++
31.g3
White now has a won position and he
+  + +
exploits it with accuracy. The only
  +
explanation I can offer is that, having
psychologically prepared for a great fight
+ + +
with a strong GM rated 2600+, my
concentration was lost after his blunder and I
 + +
simply felt obliged to win quickly,
+ + + 
considering that the game was over. I forgot
an important detail; that I would also have to
 Q +
prove it! Another paradox is that from the
+ + ++
five games I played against the strong Uzbek
GM this was the only one I lost!
 31...Rf8 32.Qc2 Kg7 33.Kg2 g5 34.Be2
24...Qa4? Kh8 35.Bf3 Rf7 36.Bg4 Rf8 37.Be6 Kg7
Incomprehensible. 24...Bxg3 25.hxg3 Qa4 38.Qe2 Kh8 39.Qg4 Qxc4 40.h4 Rf4
26.Rb1 was essential. 41.gxf4 Qxe4+ 42.Qf3 Qxf4 43.h5 b5
25.Bxf4 Rxf4? 44.Qd3 e4 45.Qc3+
Black should have tried 25...exf4 although 1-0
White seems to have many threats (Nf6+,
Bg4 and Re1). Lost Positions
26.Ra1 Qe8 27.Bd3 (D) It is a natural occurrence for a chess-player
to end up in a lost position now and then. In

 contrast to the previous chapter, in this case
+ +++
control of the position belongs to the
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 9
opponent and the player with the lost
position can only seek to place obstacles in


his opponent's path. +++ 

The lost position is a stage of the game
that most chess-players refuse to accept as a
 +

fact and, as a result, they fail to set up  +  

effective resistance until it is too late.
Consequently, the first step in reacting to a + + +

lost position is its objective acceptance,
based on the positional and tactical elements
 + ++ +

of the position. + +

The correct and most effective
'management' of a lost position is guided by
++ +

the principle of 'resourceful play'. By this  +Q+

concept we imply the widening of the field
of moves taken into account, examining 
moves to which we would hardly pay 13.Qf3
attention during the normal course of a In the game Radulov,I-Vragoteris,A Kavala
game. It contains moves against the 'logic' of 1991, White preferred 13.c4 b6 14.Qf3 Nb8
the position, material sacrifices aiming at the 15.Rfd1 Nbd7 16.a4 a5 17.Nd2 Bb7 18.Nb1
transition to a difficult ending but with Ba6 19.Na3 Nc5 20.Nb5 Bxb5 21.axb5 Ke7
several defensive resources, and other with unclear play.
reactions in positions with a positional or 13...b6 14.Qg3 Kf8 15.Bc1?!
material inferiority. There also exists the suggestion of
Besides, the side 'burdened' with the lost A.Avshalumov, the direct 15.Qf3 Bb7 16.g4
position has practically nothing to lose! The Nb8 17.h4 Nbd7. The plan followed by
'burden' of securing victory has passed to the White, involving the transfer of the dark-
opponent and he will desperately seek a squared bishop to the a3-f8 diagonal, is
conclusion, while avoiding risk. The inferior mistaken.
side is obliged not to surrender but to fight 15...Nb8! 16.Ba3
on, in the context of constantly posing Black won in Rogers,I-Avshalumov,A
problems to the opponent. A loss is of Belgrade 1989, after 16.a4 Nbd7 17.a5 Bb7
course still the most likely result, since the 18.axb6 axb6 19.Rxa8+ Bxa8 20.Ba3 Bxe4.
position is lost, but one is obliged to fight 16...Nbd7 17.Rae1 Nc5 18.Qh4 Bb7 19.c4
and not to surrender - and every so often Qe7! (D)
resourceful play in a lost position will earn a
half-point, or even a full point.


+ +  

□ Cela,Altin
+ 

■ Grivas,Efstratios     

B33 Kalavrita tt 1997
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Qb6 +  +

5.Nb3 Nf6 6.Nc3 e6 7.Be3 Qc7 8.f4 Bb4  +++ Q

9.Bd3 Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 d6 11.0-0 e5 12.f5?!
For the details on the opening the reader is ++ +

referred to the game Vouldis,A-Grivas,E
Rodos Ch-GRE 1993 {@ Α}.
++ +

12...h6! (D) + + 


FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 10
Black has developed harmoniously and is
ready to apply pressure on White's weak
pawn-structure. Of course he still has some
problems with the placement of his king but,
as White cannot approach it, there is no
immediate danger.
20.Nd2 Rc8 21.g4 Nfd7 22.Qg3 Ke8!
The black king finds a safe haven on the
queenside, while White is lacking a
dangerous plan. The balance is clearly
shifting in Black's favour.
23.Nb1 Na4
Black even prevents White's simple plan of
Nc3-d5, although it wouldn't offer anything
special.
24.Bc1 Kd8 25.g5?!
White's only plan was the advance of his
kingside pawns with h4.
25...hxg5 26.Bxg5 f6 27.Bd2 Kc7 28.Rf2
Rcg8!
Black has completed the safeguarding of his
king and now prepares his plan of
counterattack against the white monarch.
the game I was wondering (once again!)
why my opponent was continuing the game.
38.Qe3!? Nf4! 39.Rf2 fxe4?
39...Nxd3! 40.cxd3 fxe4 would end the
game immediately.
40.Bf1 Qg6 41.Be1!
White regroups his remaining pieces, simply
aiming to trouble Black as much as possible,
hoping for mistakes.
41...Rg8 42.Rd2 Rf8 43.Bg3 Nh5 44.Bg2
Nxg3+ 45.hxg3 Rh8+ 46.Kg1 Qh7 47.Rf2
Qg6 48.a4!
While Black is wandering about aimlessly in
his won position, White uses all his forces to
attack the black king, which is anyway his
only approachable target.
48...Rg8 49.a5! Bc6 50.Kh2 Kb7 51.axb6
axb6 52.c3! Kc7 53.Rb2 Rb8 (D)


  + + +
+  + +

White is unable to react as his pieces lack   ++

harmony and no plan is available to him.
29.Kh1 g6! 30.fxg6 Nf8 31.Qf3 Rxg6 + +  +

32.Nc3 Nxc3 33.Bxc3 Ne6 34.Bd2 Qg7
35.Rg2
 +++ +

Forced, as otherwise the threatened 35...Rg8 +  Q 

would be decisive.
35...f5! 36.Reg1 Rxg2 37.Rxg2 Qh7 (D)
  + +


 + + + +

 + + + 

The first good sign for White, having forced
 + +
Black to turn to defensive duties.
  + +
54.Re2 Qe6 55.Qg5 Rg8 56.Qh4 Qxc4
57.Qh7+ Bd7 58.Rxe4 Qa2 59.c4 Rf8
+ + +
60.Rh4!
 +++ +
Suddenly White's threats have grown
(61.Qe4 and 62.Rh7!).
+ ++Q+
60...Qe2 61.c5! Rf2
61...bxc5 62.Ra4 would be extremely risky
+ +
for Black.
+ + + +
62.cxb6+ Kxb6 63.Qb1+ Bb5 64.Qg1 (D)


Black's position is won as, besides his  + + + +

positional plus, his tactical superiority is
crushing. In other words, even if Black fails
+ + + +

to mate then he will win the ending! During
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 11
    + +
and was already facing serious time-trouble.
The next few moves were played in a flash.
++  +
White, having the psychological advantage
since he practically had gone to hell and
 + + + 
back, did not encounter any difficulties in
+ + + 
gaining victory! A triumph of persistent
defence and faith in the position's hidden
 + +
possibilities for White. At the same time, a
+ + + Q
deserved punishment for the arrogance and
‘certainty’ that Black completely
 unjustifiably displayed.
64...Qb2? 65.Kh1 Ka5 66.Qe1+ Qd2 67.Qa1+ Kb6
Black lost his calm and missed the simple 68.Rh7 Kc5?? 69.Qa3+ Kd4 70.Qxd6+
64...Qf1!, after which he would win without Kc3 71.Qxe5+ Kb4 72.Rh4+ Ka5 73.Qc7+
much effort. In any case, White had done his Ka6 74.Bb7+ Ka7 75.Bc6+ Ka6 76.Qb7+
best, constantly creating problems and 1-0
threats. Black had consumed a lot of time

FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 12

 (Day 8: 17:00-17:45 – Mikhalchishin)
Combinations and the Role of Calculation
Calculation is the most valuable tool of the
chess player. Every plan has to be supported
by it.
When player calculates, he goes in the
direction of plan and checks his opponent’s
counterplay. In some sense it is prophylactic
process. After every move and the end of
variation he checks the evaluation of the
position either.
There are such kinds of calculation.
1Killing calculation-when the player decides
to finish the game. It is like Capablanca
small combination. It includes a lot of
tactics.
Generally 3-5 moves.
2 Long lines calculation.
Here there is 5-8 moves calculation. As
jokes Alekhine and Fine claimed, that they
can calculate 25 moves!
3Calculation in the endgames.
It is simple calculation with the use of
endgame methods. Not too many side
variations.
Generaly3-6 moves.
4 Calculation in critical positions.
Here we have different lines with long
variations and transpositions into endgames.
5 positional calculation.
When we conduct positional plan we just
check opponent’s plans development and his
small tactics.
Generally 3-5 moves.
There are many typical mistake of
calculation.
1Overlook of opponents tactical and
intermediately moves.
2Wrong evaluation of the final position
during the calculation.
3Overlook of the first opponent’s move-
problems with new tactical elements after
the move.
4Automatical recapture in the variation-
overlook.
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
(3176) Mikhalchishin,A - Kasparov,G
[A31]
USSR (ch) 32/64 USSR (ch) 32/64, 1981
[Kasparov,G]
Chess Informant 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nf3
cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb5 d5 6.cxd5 Bc5
7.N5c3 0–0 8.e3 e4 9.Be2?! Qe7 [9...Na6!?
Ue 32/(64); 9...Bf5 Ue 32/(64); 9...Re8 Ue
32/(64)] 10.Nd2 Rd8 11.a3 Nxd5
12.Nxd5!? [12.Ncxe4?! Ue 31/77]
12...Rxd5 13.Qc2 Bf5 14.b4 Bb6 15.Bb2
Nc6 16.0–0 Qg5! [16...Rad8?! 17.Nc4 Qg5
18.Rfd1!² Bg4? 19.Rxd5 Rxd5 20.Qxe4!]
17.Kh1! [17.Nc4 Bg4! 18.Bxg4 (18.Rfd1
Bf3!) 18...Qxg4³] 17...Rd6 [17...Rc8!?
18.Rac1 Rdd8!χ] 18.Nxe4! [18.b5 Na5!?
(18...Rh6!? 19.g3!χ) ; 18.Rfd1!? #C5
#CDf1] 18...Bxe4 [18...Qg6 19.f3 Bxe4
(19...Bxe3 20.Qb3! Bxe4 21.Qxe3±)
20.fxe4² #D2] 19.Qxe4 Rd2 20.b5? [20.Bd3
Qg6!–+; 20.Ba6!! bxa6 (20...Qe7? 21.Qxe7
Nxe7 22.Bxb7 Rb8 23.Bc1!+-) 21.Qxc6
Rad8 22.Bd4 (22.Bc3 Rc2 23.Rac1 Qf5!©)
22...Bxd4 23.exd4 Qf6!²] 20...Rxe2!
[20...Na5? 21.Bc3 Rxe2 22.Qa4!χ] 21.bxc6
Rxb2 22.cxb7 Rf8 23.Rac1 [23.Rab1 Rxb1
24.Rxb1 Qc5!–+; 23.Rfc1!? Bc5 (23...Qg6?
24.Qe5! Rxf2 25.Rg1 f6 26.Qd6! Qe8
27.Rac1! Bxe3 28.Rc8 Bf4 29.Qd5+ Qf7
30.Rxf8+ Kxf8 31.Qc5+!+-) 24.Qc6
(24.Rab1 Bxa3! 25.Rxb2 Bxb2 26.Rc8 Qb5!
27.Kg1 Be5–+) 24...Be7!µ] 23...Ba5!
24.Rc8 Qb5! 25.Rfc1 Qxb7 26.Qe8 Qxc8!
27.Qxc8 Bd2! 28.h3™ [28.Kg1 Bxc1
29.Qxc1 Rfb8–+] 28...h6! 29.Qc4 Bxc1
30.Qxc1 Rxf2 31.Qc7 a6! 32.Qa7 Rf6–+
33.a4 Rd8 34.a5 Rd1+ 35.Kh2 Rd2
36.Qb8+ Kh7 37.Qb4 Rff2 38.Qe4+ f5 0–1
(3177) Werle - Van Delft
Tilburg Tilburg, 2000
1.Bxc5 Bxe5 2.Bxf8 Bxa1 3.Bxb4 Be5 4.f4
axb4 5.fxe5 Qxe5 Line
13
(3178) Zheliandinov,V - Bobotsov,M
[B44]
*+ ++
ARMIES-ch 3rd Prague (10), 1966 ,+ +++ -
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6
5.Nb5 d6 6.c4 a6 7.N5c3 Nf6 8.Be2 Be7
. +  + +/
9.0–0 0–0 10.Na3 b6 11.Be3 Bb7 12.Rc1 0+Q  + 1
Nd7 13.Qd2 Nc5 14.Rfd1 Re8 15.f3 Qc7
16.Nc2 Rac8 Diagram 2  3

 !"#$% 4+  +5
& ++++' 6789:;<=
(+ ) 12.Bxa6? Overlook of the resource at the
end 12...Rxa6 13.Nb5 Qb8 14.Nxd6+ Qxd6
*+ ++ 15.Qb7 Bd3! 16.Qc8+ Qd8 17.Rxc6 0–0
18.Qxd8 Rxd8 19.Rxa6 Bxa6 20.f3 Rc8
,+  + + - 21.Bc3 Bc4 22.a3 Nd7 23.Kd2 Bb3 24.Kd3
. +++ +/ Nb6 25.g4 Na4 26.g5 Nxc3 27.bxc3 Bc4+
28.Kc2 Be2 29.Rb1 Bxf3 30.Rb7 Ra8
0+  + 1 31.a4 h6 32.gxh6 gxh6 0–1
2Q+3 (3181) Robatsch,K (2440) - Jansa,V (2535)
4+ +  5 [A87]
Sochi Chigorin Memorial Sochi (1), 1974
6789:;<= 1.c4 f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.b3 Bg7 5.Bb2
17.b4 Nd7 18.c5 bxc5 19.b5 Ncb8 20.bxa6 0–0 6.Bg2 d6 7.d4 c6 8.0–0 Kh8 9.d5 Qa5
Bxa6 21.Bxa6 Nxa6 22.Nb5 Qb7 23.Nxd6 10.Nc3 Diagram
Bxd6 24.Qxd6 Nb6 25.Na3 Rc6 26.Qd3 h6
27.Qb5 Nc7 28.Qb3 Qa6 29.Rxc5 Rxc5

 !"#$%
30.Bxc5 Rb8 31.Bd6 Rc8 32.Qd3 Qa7 &+  '
33.Qd4 Rd8 34.Nc4 Qxa2 35.Nxb6 Nb5
36.Qc4 Qa6 37.Qc5 Nxd6 38.Rxd6 Qa1+ (+  )
39.Kf2 Rb8 40.e5 Qb2+ 41.Kg3 Qe2
42.Kh3 g5 43.Qd4 1–0
* + ++
, +++ -
(3179) Van weersel - Baert
Tilburg Tilburg, 2005
. ++ + +/
[Mihalcisin,A] 0+ + 1
1.Bxh7+ Kxh7 2.Ng5+ Kg6 3.Qxg4 f5!
Line 2 +3
(3180) Malaniuk,V (2540) - Hector,J
4 +Q+ 5
(2535) [D12] 6789:;<=
Espergarde PC Espergarde (1), 1992 10...Nxd5? Overlook of the pin 11.cxd5
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 Bf5 5.cxd5 Bxc3 12.Qd2 Qxd5 13.Qxc3+ e5 14.Nxe5
cxd5 6.Qb3 Qc7 7.Nc3 e6 8.Bd2 Nc6 9.Rc1 1–0
a6 10.Ne5 Bd6 11.Nxc6 bxc6 Diagram

 !"#$% (3182) Naiditsch,A (2585) - Koneru,H
(2496) [C42]
&+ ++ ' GMB Wijk aan Zee NED (8), 20.01.2003
(+  +) 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4
5.Nc3 Nf6 6.d4 Be7 7.Bd3 Bg4 8.h3 Bh5
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 14
9.Be3 d5 10.a3 c6 11.g4 Bg6 12.Ne5 Bxd3
13.Qxd3 Nfd7 14.0–0–0 0–0 15.f4 b5 16.h4
. +  +/
f6 17.Nf3 b4 18.axb4 Bxb4 19.Nb1 Re8 0+ +Q++ 1
20.h5 Qe7 21.Bd2 Bxd2+ 22.Nbxd2
Diagram
2  + +3

 !"#$% 4+ + +5
& +++' 6789:;<=
22...Qe3? Automatically recapture during
( + ) the calculation 23.Rhe1 Qxd3 24.Rxe8+
* ++  ++ Kf7 25.Rde1 Qe4 26.Nxe4 Kxe8 27.Nxf6+
Kf7 28.Ng5+ 1–0
,+ ++ +-

FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009 15

 (Day 8: 18:00-18:45 – Mikhalchishin)
Thinking Process - Elements of Evaluation
EVALUATION OF THE POSITION
This process according to Steinitz, consists
of counting and considering the value of
different elements of the position.
I’M Iossif Dorfman proposed for certain
level to cut the quantity of these elements
and to consider just the most important.
He proposed 4 elements according to their
importance
1Position of the King
2Material
3 Transfer into the endgame
4Weaknesses-pawns and squares.
Of course trainers have to teach pupils to
evaluate position on this simpler base.
Later of course they have to incorporate to
their evaluation such elements as strong and
weak pieces, coordination of the pieces,
open files and diagonals, space (which is
more difficult element).
(137) Zaichik,G (2200) - Mikhalchishin,A
(2425) [D91]
URS-chT Riga, 1975
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bg5
Ne4 6.cxd5 Nxg5 7.Nxg5 e6 8.Qd2 h6
9.Nh3 exd5 10.Nf4 0–0 11.e3 c5 12.dxc5 d4
13.exd4 Qxd4 14.Qxd4 Bxd4 15.0–0–0 Nc6
16.Nfd5 Bxc5 17.Ne4 Bd4 18.Bb5 Bg7
19.Bxc6 bxc6 20.Ne7+ Kh7 21.Nxc8 Raxc8
22.Kc2 Rb8 23.b3 c5 24.Nd6 Bd4 25.f3 Rb6
26.Nc4 Re6 27.Rde1 Rfe8 28.Rxe6 Rxe6
29.Kd3 Bg7 30.Rc1 h5 31.Rc2 Re1 32.Na5
a6 33.Nb7 Re6 34.Kc4 f5 35.Nxc5 Rd6
36.b4 g5 37.a4 g4 38.b5 Rd4+ 39.Kb3 axb5
40.axb5 Rd1 41.Ne6 Bf6 42.f4 Rb1+ 43.Kc4
Be7 44.Nc5 h4 45.Nd3 Bd6 46.Kd5 Bb8
47.Kc6 Rh1 48.Kb7 Bd6 49.Kc6 Bb8
50.Kb7 Bd6 51.b6 Rxh2 52.Rc7+ Kg8
53.Kc6 h3 54.Kxd6 hxg2 55.Rc1 Rh6+
56.Ke5 Rxb6 57.Kxf5 Rb3 58.Ne5 Rg3
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
59.Kg6 Kf8 60.Kf6 Kg8 61.Rc8+ 1–0
(138) Giorgadze,T - Polugaevsky,L [E20]
USSR 36/643 USSR 36/643, 1983
[Giorgadze,T]
Chess Informant 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3
Bb4 4.Nf3 c5 5.g3 cxd4 6.Nxd4 0–0 7.Bg2
d5 8.Qb3 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 e5 10.Nb5 dxc4
11.Qa3 Nc6 [11...Qd7!? Ue 36/(643)]
12.Be3! N [12.0–0 Ue 33/63] 12...Be6
13.Rd1 Qb8™ 14.0–0 [14.Bc5 a6!]
14...Rd8 [#C5 #CDd5] 15.Qc5 Rxd1
16.Rxd1 a6 17.Nd6 [17.Na3 Nd7] 17...Nd7
18.Qa3 Qc7 19.Qa4 Na5 20.Nxb7!² Nxb7
21.Qc6! Qxc6 22.Bxc6 Rb8 23.Bxd7 Rd8
24.Ba4 Rxd1+ 25.Bxd1 Kf8 26.Bc1 Ke7
27.Ba3+ Kd7 28.Bc2 g6 29.f3 Kc6 30.Kf2
[30.Bf8!] 30...Nc5 31.Ke1 f5 [31...Kb5!?]
32.Bc1 Kd5 33.Bg5 e4 34.Kd2 exf3 35.exf3
Bd7 36.Bd1 Ba4 37.Be2 Nd3 38.Bf1 Bc6
39.Ke3 Nc1 40.Be7 Nd3 [40...Nxa2?
41.Kd2+-] 41.Bf8 h5 42.h4 Bd7 43.Bh6
[43.Bg2? f4+! 44.gxf4 Bf5=] 43...Bc6
44.Bf4 Nc5 45.g4!!+- Na4 46.gxh5 gxh5
47.Kd2 Nc5 48.Bg5 Nd3 49.Ke3 Kc5
50.Be2 Be8 51.f4 Bf7 52.Bf3 a5 53.Bb7
Be6 54.Be7+ Kb5 55.Kd4 Nc1 56.Bf3
Nxa2 57.Bxh5 Nc1 58.Be8+ Ka6 59.Ke3 1–
0
(139) Vyzmanavin,A (2550) -
Mikhalchishin,A (2475) [D87]
Moscow 47/566 Moscow 47/566, 1989
[Arkhangelsky,B; Vyzmanavin,A]
Chess Informant 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5
4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4
c5 8.Ne2 0–0 9.0–0 Nc6 10.Be3 Bd7
[10...Qc7 Ue 47/(566)] 11.Rc1 Rc8 12.Qd2
N [12.d5 Ue 44/(565)] 12...Qa5 13.d5 Ne5
14.Bb3 c4 15.Bc2 e6! 16.Rb1! [16.Nf4 Ng4
17.dxe6 Bxe6 18.Nxe6 fxe6³; 16.Rfd1 exd5
17.Qxd5 (17.exd5χ) 17...Qxd5 18.Rxd5
Be6= #C5 #CDd3; 16.h3 exd5 17.exd5
16
Nd3!?χ; 16.f4 Ue 47/(568)] 16...b6 [16...b5
17.dxe6] 17.f4 Ng4 [17...Nd3 18.dxe6 Bxe6
19.Bd4 #C5 f5 #EF] 18.dxe6 fxe6™
[18...Bxe6 19.Bd4±] 19.e5± #82 [19.Qxd7
Nxe3 20.Qxe6+ Kh8 21.Rfc1 Rce8©]
19...Bc6 20.Nd4 Bd5 21.h3 Nxe3 22.Qxe3
Qc5 23.h4 Qe7 24.Qg3 [#C5 h5, f5]
24...Kh8 25.Rbe1 Rfd8 26.Qh3 Qf7“ 27.h5
gxh5 28.f5+- Rg8 29.fxe6 Qe8 30.Rf7 Bh6
31.Rxh7# # 1–0
(140) Gorelov,S - Mikhalchishin,A [D87]
Minsk 41/541, 1985
[Gorelov,S]
Chess Informant 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5
4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4
c5 8.Ne2 0–0 9.0–0 Nc6 10.Be3 Qc7 11.Rc1
Rd8 12.Bf4 Qd7 13.d5 Na5 14.Bb3
[Ή14.Bd3 Ue 40/584] 14...b5!? N 15.Be3
[15.c4] 15...Qd6 [15...Nxb3 16.axb3 c4²;
15...c4 16.Bc2 Bb7 #C5 e6#D5] 16.c4
Nxb3? [16...Nxc4! 17.Bxc4 bxc4 18.Rxc4
Qa6!„] 17.axb3± Rb8 18.Nf4 [#C5 #CDd3
#5Ec5] [18.b4!? …cxb4 19.c5© #EE]
18...Bh6 19.e5! Qxe5 20.Nxg6 hxg6
21.Bxh6 bxc4 22.bxc4 Rb2 23.Re1 Qd6
24.Qa4 Ba6 25.Ra1 Rb6 26.Bg5 Rd7
27.Qc2! [#C5 #CBe6] 27...Qc7 28.Ra3!
Qb8“ 29.Rae3+- Rb4 30.Re6! Qc8
[30...fxe6 31.Qxg6+ Kh8 32.Qh6+ Kg8
33.Qxe6+] 31.Rxg6+! fxg6 32.Qxg6+ Kh8
33.Bf6+! [33.Bf6+ exf6 34.Re8+] 1–0
(141) Geller,E - Mikhalchishin,A [B84]
USSR (ch) 26/476 USSR (ch) 26/476, 1978
[Geller,E]
Chess Informant 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4
4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 e6 7.0–0 Be7
8.f4 0–0 9.Kh1 Qc7 [9...Nc6!?] 10.a4 b6
[10...Nc6!?] 11.Bf3 Bb7 12.e5!± Ne8
[12...dxe5 13.fxe5 Nfd7 14.Bxb7! Qxb7
15.Bf4 Nc6 16.Qf3 Rac8 17.Ne4±] 13.Be3
Nc6 14.Qe2! g6 [14...dxe5 15.fxe5 Nxe5
16.Bf4+-] 15.Rad1 dxe5?! [15...d5±]
16.fxe5 Ng7 [16...Nxe5 17.Bf4+-] 17.Nxc6!
Bxc6 18.Qc4 Rfc8 [18...Bc5 19.Bxc6 Bxe3
20.Rd7 Qc8 21.Ne4+-] 19.Qxc6 Qxc6
20.Bxc6 Rxc6 21.Rd7 Re8 22.g4!+- h5
23.h3 hxg4 24.hxg4 b5 25.axb5 axb5
26.Ne4 Rxc2 27.Nf6+ Bxf6 28.exf6 Rxb2
29.fxg7 f5 30.Rf3 fxg4 31.Rf4 Rc8 32.Bc5
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
1–0
(142) Marshall,F - Capablanca,J [D34]
USA m New York (23), 1909
[ChessBase]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3
Nc6 6.g3 Be6 Mieses [6...Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7]
7.Bg2 Be7 8.0–0 Nf6 9.Bg5? [9.dxc5 Ή
9...Bxc5 10.Na4! (10.Ng5! ²/± Bogoljubov)
10...Be7 11.Be3 0–0 12.Nd4 ²/± Reti]
9...Ne4! 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.Ne5 [11.dxc5
Nxc3µ; 11.Rc1!? Nxc3 12.Rxc3 c4 13.Ne5
0–0 14.f4! … 15.f5, 15.e4 ²/±
Rubinstein(14.b3 Qb4² Rubinstein-Mieses) ]
11...Nxd4 [11...Nxc3? 12.bxc3 Nxe5
13.dxe5 0–0 (13...Qd7 14.f4 g6 15.e4!;
13...Rd8 14.Qa4+ … 15.£a7:; 13...0–0–0?±
b‘, ¥g2) 14.Bxd5 Rad8 15.e4 Bh3 (15...Bxd5
16.exd5 Qxe5 17.c4 b5 18.Re1!) 16.Re1
Qxe5 17.Qb3 b6 18.f4 Qe7 19.a4 … a5 ±
Tarrasch/Golombek] 12.Nxe4 dxe4 13.e3
[13.Bxe4? Bh3–+] 13...Nf3+ [13...Nf5
14.Bxe4 Tarrasch; 13...Nb5 14.Qa4 a6
15.Qxe4 Tarrasch] 14.Nxf3?! [14.Bxf3 exf3
15.Qa4+ Kf8!?χ (15...Kf8± 16.Rfd1 f6
17.Nxf3 Kf7 18.Qf4 Rhd8 19.Ng5+ Kg8
20.Nxe6 Qxe6 21.Qc7± Golombek; 15...Bd7
16.Nxd7 Qxd7 17.Qe4+ Qe7 18.Qxf3=
Golombek) ] 14...exf3 15.Qxf3 0–0!³
16.Rfc1? [16.Qxb7 Qxb7 17.Bxb7 Rab8–+;
16.e4 Ή … £e3,f4-f5, e5 ƒ » Tarrasch]
16...Rab8µ 17.Qe4 … ¥h3 [17.e4 Ή
Tarrasch] 17...Qc7 18.Rc3? [18.f4 Ή Panov]
18...b5 19.a3 c4 20.Bf3 [20.b3?! Qa5!
21.b4™ §c4!; 20.Rd1 Ή 20...Rfd8 21.Rcc1
Lasker] 20...Rfd8 21.Rd1 Rxd1+ 22.Bxd1
Rd8µ Queenside Pawn Majority. 23.Bf3 g6
… 24... ¥d5 25.£g4 h5! –+, … ¥f5, ¦d2
Tarrasch [23...Rd2? 24.Rc2 Bd5?? 25.Qe8#
Tarrasch] 24.Qc6 Qe5! … ¦d2 [24...Qxc6
25.Bxc6 a6] 25.Qe4 Qxe4 26.Bxe4 … ¥c2,
Άf1 26...Rd1+! 27.Kg2 a5 28.Rc2 b4
29.axb4 axb4 30.Bf3 Rb1 31.Be2 b3!
32.Rd2 [32.Rc3 Rxb2 33.Bxc4 Rc2!–+]
32...Rc1 –+ … ¦c2 Tarrasch 33.Bd1 c3
34.bxc3 b2 35.Rxb2 [35.Bc2? Rxc2–+
Golombek] 35...Rxd1–+ 36.Rc2 Bf5
37.Rb2 Rc1 38.Rb3 Be4+ 39.Kh3 Rc2
40.f4 h5 … 41....¥f5+ 42.Άh4 ¦h2+ 43.Άg5
Άg7 and f6# 41.g4 hxg4+ 42.Kxg4 Rxh2
43.Rb4 f5+ 44.Kg3 [44.Kg5 Kg7] 44...Re2
17
45.Rc4 Rxe3+ 46.Kh4 Kg7 47.Rc7+ Kf6
48.Rd7 Bg2 49.Rd6+ Kg7 0–1
(1) Vallejo Pons,Francisco (2415) -
Martinez Lozano,Miguel Angel (2160)
[B91]
ESP-ch U20 Spain (5), 1998
25.Kh1 Qd8 26.Rg1 Re8 27.Bf3 Qb8
28.Qg2 b5 29.axb5 axb5 30.Ne4 Qd8
31.Nxd6 Re7 32.Nf5 1–0
(2) Bacrot,E (2715) - Bologan,V (2683)
[D37]
Poikovsky, 2005
[Bologan,V]
Inf 93/388 24.Bc7!? [24.Nxe6+ fxe6
25.Be5+ Bf6=] 24...Re8 [24...Rd7??
25.Be5+] 25.Rc2 Bf6 [25...Kg6 26.Rdc1
Bf8 27.f3 Nd6 28.Rc3±] 26.Nxe6+ fxe6
27.Rdc1 g4™ [27...Re7 28.f3 Nc3+
29.Rxc3 Bxc3 30.Bg3!+-] 28.f3 gxf3+
29.gxf3 Ng5 30.f4 [30.Bd6²] 30...Nf7
[30...Ne4 31.f5 Kf7 32.fxe6+ Kxe6 33.Rd1
Red8!=] 31.f5 exf5? [31...Nd8! 32.Kf3
(32.fxe6 Nxe6 33.Kd3 Nxc7 34.Rxc7+ Rxc7
35.Rxc7+ Re7=) 32...Nc6 33.Bf4 e5 34.Bg3
Rcd8 35.Rd2 e4+ 36.Kg4 d4„] 32.Bxd5 Bg5
33.Bb6 Rxc2+ 34.Rxc2± Nd6 35.Kf3 Bf6
[35...Kg6 36.Rc7 Re7 37.Rxe7 Bxe7
38.Kf4±] 36.Bc5 Ne4 [36...Be5 37.Bxd6
Bxd6 38.Bxb7 a5±] 37.Bb4 Ng5+ 38.Kf2
b6?!“ [38...Nh3+ 39.Kf1 Rxe3 40.Bxb7 Ng5
41.Rg2 (41.Bxa6 Rb3 42.Rf2 Rxb2 43.Rxf5
Rxh2²) 41...Rh3 42.Bxa6 Be5 43.Bc4±]
39.Rc7+ Kg6 40.h4 Ne6 [40...Ne4+ 41.Kf3
Bd8 42.Rc6+ Nf6 43.Bc3+-] 41.Rc6 a5
42.Bc3 Bxh4+ 43.Kf3 Kf7 44.e4! 1–0
(3) Short,N (2665) - Portisch,L (2630)
[C96]
Tilburg Tilburg, 1988
[Short,N]
46/474 25...g6?! [25...Re6! Portisch,L
26.Bc3 (26.Bf5 Re7 27.Qh4 h6 … ¦ae8χ)
26...Rxe1+ 27.Rxe1 b4 28.Bb2 Qd7 29.Qh5
h6χ] 26.h4 Bg7? [26...h5!² ™] 27.Bxg7
Kxg7 28.h5± Rxe1+ 29.Rxe1 Re8 30.Rxe8
Bxe8 31.Qg5 Qc6 32.Qe5+ f6 33.Qe7+
Kh6 [33...Bf7 34.h6+ Kg8 35.Be4 Qb6
36.Bd5] 34.Be4 Qd7 35.Qxc5+- f5
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
[35...Qd1+ 36.Kh2 Qxh5+ 37.Qxh5+ Kxh5
38.c5] 36.Bf3 bxc4 37.Qe3+ Kg7 [37...g5
38.Qb6+ Kg7 39.h6+ Kf7 40.bxc4] 38.bxc4
Kf6 39.c5 g5 40.c6 Qe6 41.c7 1–0
(4) Gavrikov,Viktor (2600) -
Hracek,Zbynek (2530) [E01]
Bundesliga 9495 Germany, 1994
28.Qb1 h6 29.g4 Bc8 30.b5 cxb5 31.Qxb5
Bc5 32.g5 Bd7 33.Qb2 Nh5 34.gxh6 Bc6
35.hxg7 Qd6 36.Be5 Qd3 37.Bc7 Rc8
38.Ne5 Qg3 39.Nxc6 Qxc7 40.Ne5 Nf4
41.Ng4 1–0
(5) Smyslov,V - Andersson,U [A30]
Biel (izt) 22/82 Biel, 1976
[Andersson,U]
21.Qc3 f6 22.Qe3! Nf8 [22...bxc4
23.Nxd6!+-] 23.Ba3 b4 24.Bb2 Qc7 25.Rd3
Qc6 26.Qf3 Rc7 27.Nd2 Qxf3 28.Nxf3
Kf7? [28...Nd7 29.Rxd6? Bxd6 30.Rxd6 e5!
31.Rxa6? Nc5 #C5 #CBd1–b1–+] 29.a3!²
bxa3 30.Bxa3 Rc6? [30...Rb8 31.Bxd6!?
Bxd6 32.Rxd6 Rxb3 33.Rxa6 Rc3!
(33...Rxc4? 34.Ra7++-) ] 31.Nd4± Rb6
32.Nc2 Rc6 33.c5! e5 [33...d5 34.b4 (#C5
e4) 34...Rb8 35.Ra1+-] 34.cxd6 Bxd6
35.Ne3+- Bxa3 36.Rxd8 Ne6 37.R8d7+
Kg6 38.Nc4 Bb4 39.e3 Nc5 1–0
(17) Uhlmann,Wolfgang - Smyslov,Vassily
[E15]
Alekhine Memorial Moscow, 1956
[Chekhov]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.b3 d5
[5...Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Be7 7.Bg2 c6 8.Bc3 d5
9.Ne5 Nfd7 10.Nxd7 Nxd7 11.Nd2 0–0
12.0–0²] 6.Bg2 Bb4+ 7.Nfd2?! [7.Bd2!?
Be7 8.cxd5 exd5 9.Nc3 0–0 10.0–0 Bb7
11.Rc1 Nbd7²] 7...c5 8.dxc5?! [8.a3!? Ba5
(8...Bxd2+ 9.Qxd2) 9.0–0 …cxd4 10.b4]
8...Bxc5 9.Bb2 0–0 10.0–0 Nc6 11.Nc3 Rc8
12.cxd5 [12.Na4!? Be7 13.cxd5 exd5]
12...exd5 13.Na4?! [13.a3!? Re8 14.Re1 …
b4/] 13...Nd4!µ 14.Nc3 [14.Re1 Nc2
15.Qxc2 Bxf2+–+; 14.Bxd4 Bxd4 15.Rb1
b5 16.Nb2 Qa5µ] 14...Qe7 [14...Bb4
15.Ndb1! Rxc3 16.Qxd4] 15.Re1? [15.e3!?
Bxf1 16.Nxf1 Ne6 17.Nxd5 Nxd5 18.Qxd5
Rfd8µ] 15...Nc2!–+ 16.Rf1 [16.Qxc2 Bxf2+
17.Kxf2 (17.Kh1 Bxe1 18.Rxe1 d4–+)
17...Ng4+ 18.Kf3 Qf6+ 19.Kxg4 Rc4+
18
20.bxc4 Bc8+ 21.Kh5 Qh6#] 16...Nxa1
17.Qxa1 Rfd8 18.Bf3 Ba3 0–1
(18) Uhlmann,Wolfgang (2570) -
Smyslov,Vassily (2620) [E18]
Alekhine Memorial Moscow (13),
12.12.1971
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2
Be7 6.0–0 0–0 7.d4 Ne4 8.Bd2 d5 9.cxd5
exd5 10.Rc1 Nd7 11.Bf4 c5 12.dxc5 Nxc3
13.bxc3 Nxc5 14.Be5 Re8 15.Re1 Ne4
16.Qa4 a6 17.c4 Bc5 18.e3 dxc4 19.Qxc4
Rc8 20.Qe2 Nxf2 21.Qxf2 Bxf3 22.Bh3
Rxe5 23.Bxc8 Bc6 24.Bh3 Qe8 25.Bg2
Rxe3 26.Kh1 Bxg2+ 27.Kxg2 Qe4+ 28.Kh3
Qe6+ 29.Kg2 Qd5+ 30.Kh3 Re6 0–1
(19) Nogueiras Santiago,Jesus (2510) -
Robatsch,Karl (2430) [E01]
Graz+ Graz, 1984
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 c6 5.Qc2 b5
6.c5 e5 7.dxe5 Nfd7 8.Nf3 Nxc5 9.0–0 a5
10.Nc3 Nba6 11.Nd4 Nb4 12.Qd1 Ne6
13.e3 Nxd4 14.exd4 Bf5 15.Be3 Qd7 16.a3
Nc2 17.Rc1 Nxe3 18.fxe3 Be7 19.e4 dxe4
20.Nxe4 Bxe4 21.Bxe4 Ra6 22.d5 cxd5
23.Qxd5 Qa7+ 24.Kg2 0–0 25.Rxf7 1–0
(20) Leko,Peter (2743) -
Khalifman,Alexander (2667) [C18]
Istanbul ol (Men) Istanbul (3.1), 30.10.2000
[Psakhis]
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Ba5
6.Qg4 Ne7 7.dxc5 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 Ng6 9.Nf3
Nd7 10.Bd3 Qc7 11.0–0 Nxc5! Much
stronger than [11...Ndxe5 12.Nxe5 Qxe5
13.Bb5+ Bd7 14.Bxd7+ Kxd7 15.Qa4+ Ke7
16.Qb4 Rab8 17.f4± Leko,P-
Khalifman,A/Linares 2000/CBM 75/ ½–½
(38)] 12.a4N Later on Leko played [12.Be3
but after 12...Bd7! (12...0–0 13.Bxc5 Qxc5
14.Ng5 Qxc3 15.Rae1 f5 16.exf6 Rxf6
17.Qh5 h6 18.Bxg6 Rxg6 19.Qxg6 hxg5
20.Qe8+ 1–0 King,D-Schmidt,B/BL 1988
(20)) 13.Bxc5 Qxc5 14.h4 Qxc3 15.Qg3 0–
0–0 16.Rab1 f6 17.Rfe1 Nxe5 18.Nxe5 fxe5
19.Qxg7 Rdg8 20.Qxe5 Qxe5 21.Rxe5 Kc7=
½–½ Leko,P-Vaganian,R/Istanbul olm 2000/
(22) didn't got opening advantage] 12...0–0
[Too risky for Black 12...Nxd3? 13.cxd3
Qxc3 14.Ba3±] 13.Ba3 b6 14.Rfe1 f5!
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
15.exf6 Nxd3!? [15...Rxf6 16.Bxc5²]
16.cxd3 Rxf6 17.Qg3!? Qxg3 [17...Qxc3!?
18.Bd6 (18.Qd6 Ba6! 19.Rac1 Qxd3
20.Rxe6 (20.Rc7 Nf4!) 20...Rf7 …21.Ng5
Rxf2! 22.Kxf2 Qd4+ 23.Ke1 Qg1+ 24.Kd2
Qxg2+) 18...Qxd3 19.Rac1 Qb3 20.Rc7©]
18.hxg3 Bd7 19.Bd6² Rc8 20.Be5 Nxe5
[20...Rxf3 21.gxf3 Nxe5 22.Rxe5 Rxc3
23.f4 g6 (23...Rxd3 24.Rc1!) 24.Re2!? Rxd3
25.Rc1ƒ; 20...Rff8 21.Bd4!] 21.Nxe5 The
logical follow-up to the exchange of the
black knight : occupation of square e5.White
keeps maybe not so big but stable
advantageand Black must be ready to suffe
for long time! 21...Be8 22.Ra3 Rc5 23.f3
Ra5 24.Rea1 Kf8 25.Kf2 Ke7 26.d4 Bd7
27.Ke3 Rf8 28.Kd2 Rb8 29.R3a2 Be8
30.Nd3 Rc8 31.Ne5 Kd6 32.Kc2 Kc7
33.Kb3 Kb7 34.g4 White will
systematically improve his position, and it is
difficult for black to defend both flanks
34...h6 35.f4 Rc7 36.Kb4 Ka6 37.Ra3?!
Inaccuracy! [37.f5!? kept clear advantage]
37...Rb7! Hinting that white's king also can
be in danger 38.Kb3 [38.c4 Rc7] 38...Rc7
[It was possible to play 38...b5!? but after
39.Nd3 (39.axb5+ Rbxb5+ 40.Kc2 Rxa3
41.Rxa3+ Ra5=) 39...bxa4+ 40.Kc2 Kb6
(40...Bg6 41.f5!) 41.Rb1+ Rb5 42.Re1ƒ
white's chances are better] 39.R3a2 Kb7
40.Kb4 Ka6 41.f5 exf5 42.gxf5 h5 43.Rf1
Rb7!? 44.Nd3! [44.f6? b5!³] 44...Rc7
45.Ne5 Rb7 46.Nd3 Rc7 47.Kb3 Kb7
48.Re1 Bc6 [48...Bd7 49.Re5] 49.Re6 Bd7
50.Re5 Bc6 51.Nf4 h4 52.Ne6 Leko finally
managed to improve position of all his
pieses, but Khalifman continue stubborn
resistance. 52...Rd7 53.Re3 Kc8 54.g4
[54.Rh3 Rf7 55.Rxh4 Rxf5 56.Nxg7 Rf1
57.Rh8+ Kd7 58.Rh7 Rf7 59.Nh5!; 54.g3!?
Rf7 55.gxh4 Rxf5 56.Nxg7 Rf1²] 54...Re7!
[54...hxg3 55.Rxg3] 55.Rh3 Bd7 56.Nf8
[56.Rxh4 Bxe6 57.Re2 Kd7 58.Rxe6 Rxe6
59.fxe6+ Kxe6 60.Kb4 (60.Rh5 b5) 60...g6!]
56...Re4? Obverlooking brilliant chance!
[After 56...Bb5!! Khalifman could level
game , for example 57.axb5 (57.Ra1 Bc4+
58.Ka3 Bb5=) 57...Rxb5+ 58.Ka4 Ra5+
59.Kb3 Rb5+ 60.Ka4=] 57.Nxd7 Kxd7
58.Rxh4 Ke7 [58...Kd6 59.Rh7 Rxg4
60.Rf2!!] 59.Rg2 [59.Kb4 Rc5!²] 59...b5
19
60.Rh7! [60.Kb4 Rxa4+ 61.Kxb5 Rc4±]
60...Kf8 [60...Kf6 61.g5+ Kxf5 62.Rxg7
bxa4+ 63.Kb4 Ra6 64.g6+-] 61.g5 bxa4+
[61...Kg8 62.g6 bxa4+ 63.Ka3! (63.Kb4 Ra6
64.Rgh2 Kf8 65.Rh8+ Ke7 66.Rg8 Kf6
67.Rf8+ Kg5 68.Rg2+! Rg4 69.Rxg4+ Kxg4
70.f6 a3 71.fxg7 a2 72.Rf1 Rxg6 73.Kc5
Rxg7 74.Kxd5+-) 63...Ra6 64.Rgh2 Kf8
65.Rh8+ Ke7 66.Rg8 Kf6 67.Rf8+ Kg5
68.Rg2++-] 62.Kb4 Ra6 63.f6 a3
[63...gxf6? 64.g6!] 64.Rxg7 Ree6! [64...a2
FIDE Trainers’ Course – Antalya 2009
65.Rh2! Ra4+ 66.Kc5 Ra5+ 67.Kd6 Ra6+
68.Kd7+-] 65.Rb7!+- [65.Rh2?? Reb6+
66.Kc5 Ra5#] 65...a2 [65...Re1 66.Kc5
(66.Rh2? Rb1+) 66...Ra5+ 67.Kd6 Ra6+
68.Kxd5 Ra5+ 69.Kd6 Ra6+ 70.Kc5 Ra5+
71.Rb5+-] 66.g6 Ra4+ [66...Reb6+ 67.Rxb6
Rxb6+ 68.Kc5 Rxf6 69.Rxa2+-] 67.Kb3
The technical part of the game was nicely
conducted by Leko[67.Kb3 Ra3+ 68.Kc2!
Rxc3+ 69.Kb2!] 1–0
20