Jeremy James and Leonard Barden

The Master Game

The Master Game

Jeremy James and Leonard Barden

British Broadcasting Corporation

First published 1979 by the
British Broadcasting Corporation
35 Marylebone High Street
London W1M 4AA

ISBN 0 563 17437 4

© Jeremy James 1979

© Leonard Barden 1979

Printed in England by
Jolly & Barber Ltd,
Rugby, Warwickshire

This book is sold subject to the condition

that it shall not, by way of trade or
otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out or
otherwise circulated without the
publisher's prior consent in any form of
binding or cover other than that in which it
is published and without a similar
condition including this condition being
imposed on the subsequent purchaser
Contents

Foreword page 7

Reading the moves 9

The Master Game 1975: 11

The Players 12
Round 1 24
Semi-Finals 39
Final 47

The Master Game 1976: 51

The Players 52
Round 1 57
Semi-Finals 72
Final 82

The Master Game 1977: 87

The Players 88
Round 1 95
Semi-Finals 113
Final 121

Index of openings 139

Index of players 141

Foreword
The World Champion, Anatoly Karpov,
was standing in front of a magnetic
demonstration board in a television studio
in Hamburg, making his reply to the latest
move in a chess game against the entire
West German Nation. The German
producer of the programme, rightly proud
of his achievement in persuading the
Soviet authorities to allow this match, was
explaining to a senior BBC executive, Mark
Patterson, how it had all come about.
Later, following a playback of the
recording, Mark Patterson quietly brought
out a video recording of the Master Game
(Series II) and placed it in a cassette
machine. The chatter of uninterested
voices continued through the titles,
through the introductions, and right up to
Move One White. A face came up right of
screen, an animated chess board appeared,
lights flashed at the same time as the
players' thoughts could be heard. The
room was hushed, suddenly - 'Gott im
Himmel? - this is the way to do it' . . . And
as a result, the West German TV Company,
NDR, agreed to join the BBC in a
co-production to stage the first
International Knockout Television
Tournament, with the World Champion
Anatoly Karpov taking part.
Chess for many years was considered to
be the most difficult game to present on
television, indeed there have been many
attempts, and the major problem was the
indeterminate time it took to complete a
game - completely unpredictable and
therefore a headache to any television
producer forced to comply with set
transmission times and schedules.
The headache first came my way when
Bobby Fischer challenged Boris Spassky for
the World Championship title in Iceland in
1972. The match caught the imagination of
the world, as did the coverage, but not our
technique - Marsland Gander, then TV
critic of the Daily Telegraph, wrote: 'The
manner in which the games are presented,
with experts standing in front of magnetic
boards, moving pieces by hand, shows that
television had made no technical progress
with chess for the past twenty years.' He
was right - from that time I began to
wrestle with the problem.
I had seen many forms of television
chess coverage, but none of them was
satisfactory. Pieces would disappear from
one square and appear in another, and
only experts seemed to be able to follow a
game. Also, it was all so remote, I felt no
involvement with the game or the players.
What we needed was direct access into
their thoughts, not the high-speed
technical thoughts of a chess-playing mind,
but thoughts put in such a way that anyone
who knew the rules would be able to
follow the most complicated game.
7
 The answer was a long time arriving. The
World Chess Championship is only played
every three years, and what I was looking
for was a method of staging chess games
especially for television - games that had
never been published, indeed an event
which could be repeated each year, and
would take its place in the chess-playing
calendar.
The problem of the disjointed moving
chess pieces was overcome first. A
children's programme on television
provided the answer. Mirrors, black
gloves, mystery! That was it! John Bone, a
designer from the BBC Bristol studios,
came up with a special glass chess table
complete with mirror, and it worked. A
knockout tournament was devised,
together with special time rules to suit the
requirements of television, and so Series I
Master Game was on its way.
It was not an instant success, the
marriage between chess and television was
not fully consummated. The games were
played away from the studio in a hotel
room in Bristol, with the players' thoughts
recorded immediately after the game in a
nearby bedroom. Discriminating viewers
with sharp ears would have heard toilets
flushing, tea being delivered, sandwiches
being munched. Some of the games took
so long, that production staff would arrive
exhausted at the studio for recording at
nine having gone to bed at four that same
morning.
We used a three-camera studio which
was shared with Bristol News department,
so at one p.m. sharp - regardless of the
state of play - we were forced to vacate.
The programmes were recorded in bits and
pieces, and even the most skilful video
tape editor could not quite rid the series of
its look of bewilderment and visual chaos.
8
I knew it had even begun to affect our
normally relaxed presenters, Jeremy James
and Leonard Barden, when they began to
ask what day of the week it was!
As a result of this experience, I decided
that any further tournaments would have
to be played in two stages. For Stage One
the games would be played in London,
with the players 're-thinking' their moves,
which were then recorded in a proper
sound studio after each game. Transcript
copies were made of every move and a few
days later at Stage Two the players would
arrive at the Bristol studios and reconstruct
every move to match their own voices.
A further breakthrough was an electronic
flashing unit designed by the technical staff
at the Bristol studios, which works in
conjunction with the glass-topped chess
table. Every square can be individually
illuminated, and the unit is operated by
another chess player, who illustrates every
threat and possibility with this device.
Technically, the Master Game technique
for presenting chess on television has
proved to be a breakthrough. The method
was used for the BBC coverage of the
World Chess Championships, with
Australia, New Zealand, West Germany and
France taking weekly reports of the
Karpov-Korchnoi match. The series itself
continues, and the World Chess Federation
are now very keen to incorporate this
tournament as a regular fixture in the
chess calendar.
Robert Toner
Producer, The Master Game
Reading the moves

1 P-K4 P-K4 2 N-KB3 N-QB3 3 B-B4 B-B4 the rook a5 is written Raxb5. The symbol
is the descriptive notation familiar to many ch indicates check, and castling is written
players, but the conversion to 1 e4 e5 0-0 (king's rook) or 0-0-0 (queen's rook).
2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 is the algebraic Diagrams in this book all have a notation
notation used in the BBC Master Came key to help you follow the games. If you
series and in this book. have not used algebraic before, or have
Unlike descriptive notation, algebraic seen it only in a Master Game broadcast,
notation sees all squares and moves from then you will find it helpful to go through
White's viewpoint. As shown in the one of the games purely to become
diagram below, the ranks (horizontal rows completely familiar with the notation.
of squares) are numbered 1 to 8, starting
with the rank where White's pieces begin abcdefgh
the game. The files (vertical rows of
squares) are lettered a to h, from left to
right. The pieces are given their normal
letters: K=King, Q=Queen, R=Rook,
B=Bishop, N = Knight. Moves by a pawn
simply show the square to which the pawn
move, thus 'e4' means pawn to e4.
When a capture is made, algebraic
notation shows the square where the
capture takes place, rather than which
piece is taken. Thus Nxe5 = knight
captures on e5. Pawn captures show the
file from which the capturing pawn comes,
thus dxe5 = pawn on d4 captures on e5. If
abcdefgh
either of two rooks, bishops or knights can
legally make a capture, they are
differentiated according to file or rank:
thus if Black has rooks on b2 and b7 which
can capture a white knight on b5, the
capture by the rook b7 is written R7xb5. If
the rooks are on a5 and c5, the capture by

9
The Master Game 1975 - Series One
The Players
Introduction
Knock-out chess is like duelling, as
exciting, devastating and unfashionable. As
in match-play golf or cup-tie football, on a
particular day the mediocre might rise to
brilliance and the more talented, brooding
about tax returns or a suspicion of a sore
throat, might drop to adequacy. It is no
wonder golfers prefer stroke play
tournaments over several rounds and chess
players prefer all-against-all tournaments.
What makes chess different from all
other games, except perhaps draughts, is
that there is no element of chance. Errors
are self-inflicted, the result of oversight,
inadequate analysis or perhaps ignorance,
so a chess player is vulnerable and
exposed as is no other games player. He
cannot blame a blind referee, a prejudiced
umpire or an unlucky bounce; to err may
be human, but it is also to lose and that,
perhaps, is the appeal of knock-out chess
even to the non-chess player. It is a duel
of egos in which someone must win, and
equally surely, someone must lose.
Although chess appears dry and
intellectual it is fraught with emotion if not
quite the physical danger of earlier times.
In Chess Pieces, Norman Knight tells the
story of a game quoted by Caxton in 1489
between Berthelot and Reynawde after the
analysis of which, presumably a somewhat
acrimonious Reynawde 'was right wroth
12
and sore angered and swore that it should
ill betide him; therefore Reynawde took
the chess board and smote Berthelot upon
his head so hard that he cloved him to the
teeth. And thus, Berthelot fell dead to the
ground before him.'
'Right wroth' Tony Miles may have been
when on the brink of becoming Britain's
first ever grandmaster he lost to Jonathan
Speelman in the semi-finals of the first
series and 'right wroth' Julian Hodgson was
entitled to be when he finally lost to
George Botterill in the second series but
each shed a manly tear rather than cleave
his opponent's skull.
The games for the Master Game
Tournament were played in a room in
the BBC Television Centre under strict
tournament rules. The tables were
arranged one behind the other rather than
in a row which instantly removed two
gamesman ploys that have been used in
the past. First, it was impossible to start
accidently the clock of some feared rival
one hoped to see removed sitting next to
the match opponent. Secondly there was
no possibility of the repetition of a
manoeuvre alleged to have happened in
one crowded tournament when the boards
were so close together that one player who
had blundered away his king's rook early
in the game castled with the queen's rook
off the neighbouring board.
 What might have surprised those unused
to chess tournaments was the amount of
time players spent away from the board.
William Hartston in particular, was always
happy to pass the time of day with anyone
who would listen, or study the position in
other games, but nobody went to the
extreme of Spassky in the final of the
candidates tournaments against Victor
Korchnoi in 1977. Spassky reached the
stage where he only appeared at the board
to make his move and otherwise spent all
his time sitting behind a curtain on the
stage analysing the position from the
display board provided for the spectators.
It will be deduced from this that
psychology plays an important part in what
is the most purely intellectual of all games.
Ruy Lopez, the Spanish priest who gave his
name to the opening, always advised that a
player should so arrange the board that the
light shone into his opponent's eyes. It is
obviously a good tactic to smoke a
particularly rank pipe in the presence of a
non-smoker, but often gamesmanship can
be as much in the mind of the suspicious
victim as the potential perpetrator.
In the 1978 World Championship match
at Baguio City, was Victor Korchnoi being
hypnotised by Karpov's team psychologist,
Dr Zhoukar? Was Karpov receiving coded
messages from his seconds by way of the
refreshments he had brought on stage?
Korchnoi certainly believed both - and
lost.
Jonathan Speelman who sported a beard
and shoulder-length hair was asked to
wear a headband like Bjorn Borg because
Miles, no advocate of the crew cut himself,
complained either because he was afraid
he would not be able to see the board
through a cloud of hair or because he was
afraid their locks would tangle.
As is usual in tournaments, players had
to make forty moves in two-and-a-half
hours which meant a session of play was
five hours. There is a view that such a pace
is too slow and that as in five-day Test
cricket the pace of the game has slowed to
fill the time available, so thought over
moves expands to fill the time available.
There are those who believe that many
players spend a fair proportion of their
time brooding, not about their best moves
but about their gardens, the latest film,
solutions to mental simultaneous
equations, how to make their pipes draw
and other such extraneous matters. Yet
even with the amount of time there was,
there were still players like George Botterill
who consistently found themselves with
perhaps as many as a dozen moves to
make in a couple of minutes.
No one in the first three series of Master
Game lost a game on time, though it is
possible to do so. What is called a chess
clock is really two clocks connected
mechanically with a lever, each with a flag
that drops when the time laid down has
expired. The clocks are set two-and-a-half
hours before the flag will drop. At the start
of the game, Black presses a lever on the
top of his clock which starts White's clock.
As soon as White has moved, he presses
the lever on the top of his clock which
stops his clock and starts his opponent's
and so on until the time control is
reached. The custom is the player must
operate the clock with the same hand he
has used to make his move.
Time was a particularly crucial element in
the Master Game. As draws could not
count, drawn games were replayed under
increasingly stringent time rules. The first
replay required forty moves to be made in
the first hour and all subsequent moves in
13
thirty minutes; the second replay required
all moves to be made in thirty minutes
each and the third replay required all
moves to be made in fifteen minutes.
If that sounds an improbable time for a
game of chess, many of the great masters
spend their spare time playing five-minute
games. If there are four or five of you with
a board and a clock I can recommend no
more entertaining and exhausting way to
pass an hour than playing a five-minute
game tournament.
Time pressure causes curious
psychological effects. To an expert with
half-an-hour on his clock, to see an
opponent with only a minute-and-a-half
left in which to play five moves can give
the keenest pleasure. To the less
experienced, the panic of the player under
pressure can be infectious so that he too
tries to play his moves, quite
unnecessarily, as fast or faster than his
opponent. The youthful Julian Hodgson
fell into this trap twice against George
Botterill in the first round of the second
series and twice blundered away won
positions into draws.
One of the great consolations to the
merely adequate chess player is that the
greatest masters do make the most terrible
mistakes. For instance, Korchnoi threw
away his queen in one game of the 1977
Candidates Match against Spassky and
resigned a game he might otherwise have
won. In a slightly less sensational but
equally decisive game, Fischer lost a
bishop in a game against Spassky at
Reykjavik in 1974 and Spassky returned the
compliment with a blunder in a later game
that changed an even game into a disaster.
At the highest level, such mistakes are rare
enough to be memorable. What is
noticeable about modern top-level chess is
14
the way a player will strive for a seemingly
minute advantage and then having inserted
an apparently insignificant wedge will
hammer at it until, like a recalcitrant log
being attacked by a woodman, the
opponent's position splits. In the third
series, for instance, the young Swiss player
Werner Hug made a pawn move at move
two which could have been criticised for
being too passive but in retrospect created
a fatal weakness that Anatoly Karpov
ruthlessly exploited to win the game.
What is also noticeable in the games
described later is the lack of the dashing,
sacrifice-filled games that adorned the
romantic era of chess. There is no game,
for instance, which has the flashing wit of
say Paul Morphy's brilliancy against the
Duke of Brunswick at the Paris Opera
described by Edward Lasker in Chess as
'one of the most sparkling recorded in
chess literature'. The game was played in
the’Duke's box at the Italian Opera in
Paris. The Duke, with his consultant Count
Isouard, himself a chess enthusiast, played
Black and obviously having absorbed
Ruy Lopez' first principle of chess
gamesmanship - make your opponent feel
uncomfortable - sat facing the stage. In
itself this was a sore trial for Paul Morphy,
a passionate music lover, who had never
before seen Vincenzo Bellini's Norma, and
found himself with his back to the stage.
As Lasker says, this naturally annoyed
Morphy very much and may have had
something to do with the way in which he
slaughtered his opponents in this game.
White Black
Paul Morphy The Duke of
Brunswick and
Count Isouard
1. P - K4 P - K4
 2. N - KB3 P - Q3 1975, eight of Britain's leading younger
3. P - Q4 B - N5 players were invited to compete for the
4. Px P B x N BBC Master Game Trophy and a first prize
5. Q x B P x P of £250. The first round games were
6. B - QB4 N - KB3 between Tony Miles and Howard Williams;
7. Q - QN3 Q - K2 Jonathan Speelman and Jonathan Mestel;
8. N - B3 P - B3 John Nunn and George Botterill; and
9. B - KN5 P - QN4 William Hartston and Michael Stean. The
10. N x P Px N winners of the first two games met in one
11. B x NP ch. QN - Q2 semi-final and the winners of the other two
12. 0-0-0 R - Q1 games in the second semi-final.
13. Rx N Rx R Since no less than four of the eight
14. R - Q1 Q - K3 competitors were mathematicians, it is
15. B x R ch. N x B tempting to think that ability in chess and
16. Q - N8 ch. N x Q mathematics are closely linked but in an
17. R - Q8 mate! essay on mathematicians and chess William
Hartston, himself a chess champion and
History does not relate whether the mathematician, says they aren't. A scrutiny
Duke challenged Morphy to a return there of the academic pursuits of chess masters
and then or whether a chastened and wiser showed that of the leading players only
man he sat back with his guest to enjoy Adolf Anderssen, Euwe, Keres, Reti and
the remaining three-quarters or so of the Emmanuel Lasker studied mathematics. In
opera. 1893, Binet showed that most strong chess
There was no game in the Master Game players were good at mental arithmetic,
series in which Black allowed White quite but Hartston argues that although many
such scintillating brilliance, but there is mathematicians may be interested in chess,
much to enjoy and much to learn from few really excel at it.
seeing masters competing under the There is an inherent difference between
pressure of knock-out games. As the idea the element of battle and sport in chess
of total football and total cricket have and the calmer, more detached discipline
arisen wherein the tactical objective is first of academic mathematics. Also, of course,
to obtain a position from which defeat is competition is so fierce nowadays that the
unlikely and victory often only a secondary physical and mental demands made on a
and more remote possibility, so total chess chess player are so great that if he wants to
has developed. It is a game of the greatest reach the top he is going to have neither
fascination where the pleasure lies in the the time nor the energy to do well at
tactical skirmish, the exploitation of the anything else. So, although mathematicians
smallest advantage and only occasionally in may be potentially fine chess players, they
the devastating combination which will not become champions any more than
collapses an apparently impregnable will anyone else unless they devote their
position like a house of cards. entire attention to it.
On paper, the final of Series I should
For the first series of the Master Game in have been between Miles and Stean, two

15
of the most ferocious of the young tigers
of British chess. If Miles had the most solid
reputation and the most glittering
prospects, Stean was not far behind. They,
with Raymond Keene who was not
available, were competing ferociously to
become the first ever British grandmaster,
the peak of international excellence that all
three have now conquered.
Tony Miles
In 1976, the year after the first Master
Game Tournament was televised, at Dubna
in the Soviet Union, Tony Miles scored
nine out of fifteen to gain third place, his
second norm and so become not only the
first ever British grandmaster, but at that
time, the youngest grandmaster in the
world. If any Englishman is ever to battle
his way through the interzonal and
candidates matches qualifying him to
challenge the world champion, it is likely
to be Tony Miles.
He has been described as a prickly
young man who does not suffer kindly
either fools or foolish questions. He is
certainly a formidable player and a tough
and resolute man in spite of his romantic
16
halo of shoulder-length hair. He once said
that a chess match may start as an art or a
science, but in the end it is an athletic
match, and he should know. At King
Edward's School, Birmingham, he played
rugby in the second XV and was in the
swimming team. Today he plays a mean
game of squash, although not very often
because he is, as he freely admits, a lazy
man who sleeps too late too long.
Compared with most grandmasters he
devotes little time to the study of opening
strategy. However, he makes up for this by
his handling of middle game complications
and exceedingly difficult end games. Harry
Golombek, doyen of British chess writers,
confidently forecasts that Miles will be
challenging seriously for the world
championship in 1981.
Tony Miles is an only child and was
taught the moves of chess by his father, an
executive working for GEC, when he was
only five. However he did not really begin
to play chess until he was nine when a boy
took a chess set to primary school; even
then, it was not until he was between
thirteen and fifteen that he realised he was
something special.
He always insisted he was not a chess
freak. As a child, he was at least as happy
kicking a ball round the streets of
Birmingham as he was kicking an
opponent off a chess board, and even
when he was older and beginning to
exhibit a rare talent for the game, said he
would happily give it up if a good job in
industry came his way.
Fortunately for English chess, that good
job has not yet materialised. Miles'
potential first showed in 1968 when
he won the British under-fourteen
championship. In 1971 at Blackpool,
he won the British under-twenty-one
championship which qualified him for the
1972 British championship where he scored
five-and-a-half out of eleven. Later that
year, in the European Junior Championship
he came second to the Russian player,
Romanishin, himself later to become a
grandmaster. It was the beginning of a
winning streak against the Russians; at one
time in his career, he had won five, drawn
seven and lost none against leading
Russian players.
Miles' view of the Russians is
ambivalent; at the same time as he says
Russian players are almost computerised so
that now the Russians have had more
grandmasters than there are cardinals in
the Catholic Church, he seems almost
wistful about the fact that chess is not part
of the school curriculum in Britain as it is
in Russia.
In 1973, Miles established himself not
merely as a brilliant eighteen-year-old but
as one of Britain's leading players. In the
Lone Pine Tournament, he shared fourth
place behind the grandmasters Szabo,
Browne and Bisguier. He was to do even
better at Birmingham where he won, ahead
of the Hungarian Adorjan and the
American Bisguier. Having already done so
well in the European Junior Championship,
he now entered the World Junior
Championship and finished runner-up to
the Russian, Alexander Belyavsky, whom
he beat in the course of the tournament.
At Eastbourne, he was fourth in the British
Championship and later in the year in the
Hastings Premier finished thirteenth out of
sixteen, doing notably well against the first
prize winners. He defeated the Russian
grandmaster Kuzmin and drew with the
former World Champion, Tai.
The following year, 1974, he won the
World Junior Championship at Manila in
style. When he beat the Russian Alexander
Kochiev in the last round but one, he
attained a score that was unbeatable. It
was this championship that gave him his
international master title, and undoubtedly
contributed to Sheffield University, where
he was studying mathematics, awarding
him an honorary MA degree for his
mastery at chess.
Just after the first Master Came
tournament was recorded, Miles won an
international tournament in London ahead
of three grandmasters to obtain his first
grandmaster norm and a few months later
obtained his second norm at Dubna to
become a grandmaster at the age of only
twenty.
Howard Williams
This was the man Howard Williams had
to play, the most exciting young prospect
in British chess, and he must have
wondered if his journey to Television
Centre for the first round match was really
worthwhile. Not that Williams was any
slouch. He had played for England in the
Junior World Championship in 1969, he
had won the Welsh championship on
17
several occasions and had been on top
board and captain of Wales in the 1974
World Team championship. Three years
later in 1977, he was to come third in the
British championship, and that perhaps
precisely illustrated the gulf between
himself and Miles, because by 1977, expert
commentators were beginning to speculate
about the world title for Miles.
As any athlete knows, it is not enough
simply to be able to run a mile in four
minutes or swim a hundred metres in
record time; to achieve, or perhaps even
surpass, his best, what is needed is the
pressure of competition. The Russian
monopoly of the World Championship
since 1927 with the two exceptions of 1935
and 1972 when first Max Euwe and then
Bobby Fischer broke the Soviet
stranglehold, is not surprising when one
considers the sheer depth of Russian talent
and the seriousness with which the game
is taken.
The match between Jonathan Mestel and
Jonathan Speelman showed that there is
beginning to be depth in British chess and
that brilliant though Miles and Stean may
be, there are even younger tigers snapping
at their heels.
In the first Master Game series, Jonathan
Mestel, at the age of only eighteen, was in
the middle of a truly remarkable winning
patch, in the process of compressing more
chess success into the three years between
seventeen and nineteen than most good
players can expect in a lifetime. Mestel is
an imaginative and creative player whose
shortcomings are really no more than the
impetuosity of youth. He sometimes seems
to let his ideas run away with him and is
not perhaps as consistent as he might be.
He was educated at Manchester
18
Jonathan Mestel (left)
Grammar School and then Trinity College,
Cambridge, where he won a first class
honours degree in mathematics.
In 1970, at the age of only thirteen,
he won the British under-sixteen
championship and the following year
became the youngest ever winner of the
British under-eighteen championship. It
was in 1974 when he was only seventeen
that he made his first impact in
international chess when he won the
unofficial under-eighteen world
championship - the cadet championship as
it was known - at Pont Sainte Maxence in
France. Later in the same year, he featured
in a remarkable seven-way tie for first
place in the British championship at
Clacton but then failed in the play-off.
So, to 1975 and the year of the first
Master Game Trophy and for Mestel, the
first norm in his quest to become an
international master. At the Birmingham
international tournament he beat the
eventual winner, Matulovic of Yugoslavia,
and finished second, with Miles and
Matera of the USA just a point behind.
After this splendid result, his performance
 in the World Junior Championship at Bank invitation tournament and played
Tjentiste in Yugoslavia was disappointing. board nine for England in the European
He finished third behind Chekhov from team finals in Moscow. Like Mestel, he is a
Russia and Larry Christiansen from the USA hyper-imaginative tactician with amazingly
and expert commentators such as Harry rapid powers of calculation, but he does
Golombek thought that talented though he sometimes go wrong in his judgement of
was, Mestel perhaps lacked stability and positions.
was too inconsistent in his form, to realise He did, in the 1975 Master Game
his full potential. tournament, also produce a formidable
In 1976, Golombek freely admitted secret weapon; a jungle of hair which,
Mestel's talents and character were not coupled with his tendency to crouch
quite what they had appeared the previous forward over the board while pondering
year. At Birmingham in April, he finished and analysing, must at times have
ahead of Damjanovic, the Yugoslav obscured much of the action from his
grandmaster, to win a tournament which, if opponent.
not quite as strong as the previous one Mestel said nothing and lost; in the
held there, could only be described as second round, Tony Miles objected and
tough. insisted that Speelman wore a headband,
Aged only nineteen, Mestel went to the though since he too has copious locks,
British Championship at Portsmouth with that may have been to prevent a tonsorial
his tail up, and astounded everybody by
winning his first nine games, a remarkable
achievement that put him out of sight of
the rest of the field and laid the foundation
for his score of 91Zz out of 11, thus
equalling the previous record score in the
tournament. He was also the youngest
player ever to win the championship.
All that was in the future when he sat
down to face Jonathan Speelman that first
afternoon of the first Master Game.
Speelman was another mathematician,
obtaining a degree at Worcester College,
Oxford, following his time at St Paul's
School. Like Mestel, he had fought his way
to a whole series of junior titles - the
British under-fourteen in 1969, joint British
under-sixteen in 1970, second in the British
under-twenty-one championship in 1971
and then he disappeared until 1975 when
he was second in the Hastings Challengers
tournament. In 1977, he achieved his first
international master norm at the Lloyds Jonathan Speelman

19
tangle above the positional angle on the
board itself. Bill Hartston listened gravely
and puckishly made notes for the book he
brought out the following year - How to
Cheat at Chess.
Speelman will remember the 1975 Master
Game not only for having beaten Mestel,
but for having beaten Miles and reduced
him to tears to boot, although whether
they were tears of rage, frustration or
disappointment at having lost the
opportunity to win the trophy and £250,
history does not relate.
One of the more interesting theories in
chess is how far it is a mathematical and
logical game and the extent to which
psychology enters into a player's
calculations. Tony Miles, for instance, has
said he plays the position and not the man
and he is not interested in the psychology
of his opponent. Rational and calculated
though the game itself may be, if the
ambience is chaotic and strife-riven, then it
seems reasonable to believe that
uncertainty might creep into a player's
game. Fischer's antics at Reykjavik may
have been partly to gratify his own ego,
but they may also have been cunningly
designed to disconcert Spassky.
At Baguio City in the Philippines,
Korchnoi's complaints about Karpov's
hypnotic eyes, his insistence on
transporting his own chair which the KGB
insisted on X-raying, his complaint that
Karpov might be using refreshments as a
code for passing messages - for instance, a
carton of yoghourt meant play quietly
while quail in aspic meant go for a win,
were designed to disconcert the Russian
camp and thereby upset Karpov. That
certainly was the theory of Bill Hartston
who not only wrote an essay on
psychology and chess, and his book on
20
how to cheat at chess, but is clearly much
amused by the psychological paraphernalia
that seems to have become as much a part
of the game as the pieces since Fischer
first tried psyching Spassky at Reykjavik.
Which is not to cast reflections on
Fischer's integrity because he may not have
realised what he was doing and may
indeed simply have been pursuing his own
comfort.
William Hartston
William Hartston was educated at the
City of London School where, in 1962, he
became the London under-sixteen
champion. At Jesus College, Cambridge,
he took a degree in mathematics and it
soon became clear that he was a quite
outstanding young player. There was fierce
competition between him and Raymond
Keene who was later to become a
grandmaster and to win the signal honour
of being one of Victor Korchnoi's seconds
in his bid for the World Championship in
1978. Hartston became an international
master in 1972 at the age of twenty-five,
was British champion in 1973 and 1975 and
in between drew with Karpov in Nice in
1974. His international record has been
distinguished ever since 1970 when he had
the best score on board three at the
Siegens Chess Olympiad. He finished third
in the 1972/3 Hastings tournament, was
first in major tournaments at Alicante in
1973 and Sarajevo in 1976 and won a
bronze medal with the England team at the
Haifa Olympiad in 1976.
He is a specialist in openings and has
written books on the Benoni and the
Grunfeld defence as well as being games
editor of British Chess Magazine. Although
he has achieved the first part of the
grandmaster norm, he would cheerfully
admit he has been overtaken by Miles,
Stean and Keene. Hartston is particularly
good in clear, open positions as will be
seen from his games, but he also has an
almost Houdini-like ability to escape from
apparently hopeless tangles as he did
against George Botterill in the semi-final of
the first series of the Mastergame. He is far
from being merely an escapologist or
orthodox player as his winning of the
brilliancy prize for his game against
Westereninen at Alicante in 1973 shows.
His opponent in the first round game
was another rising star, Michael Stean,
aged just twenty-two. Like so many great
players, Stean began to play at an age
when most children can hardly count let
alone master a knight's move. He was only
four-anu-a-half when he first learnt the
moves and his rise through the chess
firmament has been as certain as his rise
through Latymer Upper School to Trinity
College, Cambridge, where he was awarded
a degree in mathematics. In 1967 he was
the London under-fourteen champion; two
years later at Rhyl he became the British
under-sixteen champion. Then, in 1971 at
Norwich Junior International tournament
he came third behind Tarjan and Sax,
both of whom went on to become
grandmasters, and in 1973 began to realise
the hopes of those who saw him as
possibly second only to Tony Miles in the
race to become the first British
grandmaster. At Canterbury he came ahead
of the Hungarian grandmaster, Adorjan, to
win the Robert Silk tournament and later
that year at Teesside came third in the
World Junior Championship behind
Belyavsky and Miles.
In 1974 at the Nice Olympiad he really
began to bloom in the most beautiful style.
Playing on board five where he scored
66.7% he obtained his first international
master norm and perhaps even more
Michael Stean
personally satisfying than that, won the
Turover prize for the most brilliant game
in the Olympiad against the USA
grandmaster, Walter Browne. He was also,
largely instrumental in England's best result
in the finals - a two-two draw against
Yugoslavia in which he beat another
grandmaster, Velimirovic.
In 1974 at Clacton he tied for first place
21
in the British championship, but in the highest level both on and off the board he
play-off lost his form temporarily and was again one of Korchnoi's seconds on
finished only an equal fourth. In 1975, he his challenge for the World Championship
continued his smooth and stylish progress against Anatoly Karpov.
into the upper echelon of international
chess by first performing with great credit The other two players in the 1975 Master
in the Alekhine Memorial tournament in Game were George Botterill and John
Moscow and then in the Alexander Nunn. At the age of twenty-six, George
Memorial at Middlesbrough achieving his Botterill was already an expert on openings
second norm and thereby his international and had collaborated with Raymond Keene
master title. in books on two of his favourite lines -
Today, Stean is in the first rank not only The Modern Defence and The Pirc
of British but of world players. He arrived Defence. Botterill learnt to play chess
there by coming second in Montilla in when he was seven, played at Bradford
Spain behind Karpov, with whom he drew, Grammar School and was a member of the
but ahead of four other grandmasters - a Oxford University team in the years 1969 to
result that gave him his first grandmaster 1972. It was clear in 1971 that he was
norm. He obtained his second norm, also becoming one of Britain's leading young
at Montilla, in 1977, and his third and final players when he came first in the Slater
norm immediately afterwards in the Lord Young Masters' Tournament at Hastings
John Cup in London. and then at the end of that year again at
Stean has a reputation for clear strategic
play and for being extremely consistent in
that he rarely loses. At the same time,
there are those who feel he sometimes
settles for a good result rather than
perhaps being more extrovert and trying
for first place, and is guilty of occasional
tactical miscalculations. However, he is an
exceptionally fine opening theorist and has
already written the definitive work on the
Sicilian: Najdorf opening and a book that
embodies his clear, uncluttered style called
Simple Chess.
With his strengths of clarity and analysis,
it was not surprising that he was invited to
be one of Korchnoi's seconds in his world
title eliminators against Polugavsky and
Spassky; an amazing match in Belgrade
which only rivalled the Fischer-Spassky
match in Reykjavik for off-the-board
melodrama and sensation. And then to add
further to his experience of chess at the George Botterill

22
Hastings did best of the British players with
six out of fifteen.
In 1973, he was a member of the British
team that finished fifth equal with West
Germany in the European Team
Championship at Bath and lost a glorious
game against the former World Champion,
Mikhail Tai, for which Tai, who has been
described as the finest attacking player of
modern times, won the brilliancy prize.
A year later at Clacton in 1974 he was
one of the seven who tied for first place
in that most remarkable of British
championships and later in the year at
Llanelli, he won the play-off by half a point
from William Hartston, whom he beat on
the way to victory.
It was in the same year that he was
appointed lecturer in philosophy at the
University of Aberystwyth and since then
he has played top board for Wales in
internationals. In the Preliminary Group of
the European Championship he scored John Nunn
one-and-a-half to a half against the Dutch
grandmaster, Jan Timman, and drew
one-one with William Hartston. prejudiced if he were distracted by a heavy
So, knowing that he was likely to meet smoker, he insisted that his trainer Ragozin
Hartston in the semi-finals, provided he should smoke continuously during practice
could beat Nunn, he must have quietly games.
fancied his chances in the Master Game His first-round opponent, John Nunn,
tournament, but it was not to be. In a was by way of being a prodigy. He learned
game in which he himself said he had so to play chess when he was only four, but
many chances of winning, the only far more remarkable was that in 1970, the
problem was to know which one to year he came sixth in the Norwich junior
choose, he found himself in time trouble, international tournament, he was accepted
through a tactical oversight chose the at Oriel College, Oxford, at the age of just
wrong line and lost. Not even the fumes of fifteen, the youngest undergraduate the
his pipe could blind Hartston; perhaps university had had since Cardinal Wolsey .
Hartston had taken a leaf out of Botvinnik's in 1520. In 1975, at the grand old age of
book. Botvinnik intensely disliked tobacco twenty, he won the European Junior
and because he suspected that the championship at Groningen to become an
immense amount of hard work in the international master and was equal first in
shape of analysis and preparation could be the IBM Masters.
23
Round One
George Botterill 1-0 John Nunn
William Hartston Vit-ViO Michael Stean
Jonathan Speelman 1-0 Jonathan Mestel
Howard Williams 0-1 Tony Miles

Round 1 brought only a single surprise. advances pawn to e5 and then equalises by
Speelman, who qualified for the Master exchanging his e pawn for my d pawn. So I
Game by winning a competition among feel I ought to play pawn to e5 myself,
junior players, defeated Mestel. It was a when he must retreat with his knight to e8.
premonition for the future: in August 1978 Then there are some difficult variations
Speelman won the British men's with bishop to g5, pawn to c5 - but it must
championship, outpacing Mestel by half a be right for White, so I'll play pawn to e5.
point.
7 e5 Ne8 8 Bg5.
NUNN: / don't like the look of this. My
Game 1:
opponent seems to have a considerable
George Botterill - John Nunn advantage in space. I think I'll try to
Modern Defence exchange his spearhead of pawns in the
centre.
1 e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Nc3 d6 4 Nf3 Nf6
8 . . . f6 9 exf6 Ndxf6.
5 Be2.
A practical tip for the ordinary player: it's
Botterill has written two books about
good to create positions where your
Black's opening, which both players
opponent has a variety of moves of about
favour. Challenged to find the best system
equal merit, so that he has a hard job
for White, Botterill chooses a solid
deciding among them; this can pay off
development which many grandmasters
later on if he becomes pressed for time
also like (see Larsen v Donner, game 28).
reaching the clock control.
5 ... 0-0 6 0-0 Nbd7.
10 Qd2 Be6 11 Rfe1 c6 12 a4 (stopping
Donner continued 6 . . . Bg4. Other any space gain by . . . b5) Nc7 13 h3 Qd7
possibilities are Nc6, c6, b6 and Na6. 14 Bh6 Rae8 15 Bxg7 Kxg7 16 Ng5 Bg8
17 Nce4 h6.
BOTTERILL: This is a difficult decision. In
my book the move given for White is the
advance of the pawn. It's quite
complicated and isn't really very clear, but
if I just continue with an ordinary
developing move - say rook to e1 - Black

24
 abcdefgh
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
abcdefgh
White has a small but useful edge here. He
controls more space, with two pawns on
the fourth to Black's none, and the
defences around Black's king are slightly
loosened.
18 Nxf6 exf6 19 Nf3 Re7 20 Bd3 Rfe8
21 Rxe7ch Rxe7 22 Nh4! (forcing Black's
bishop to a passive role) Bh7 23 Ra3!
Grandmaster Larsen once observed that
average players often miss chances to
bring a rook into action behind a rook's
pawn rather than in the orthodox way via
the centre. Here this strong move
threatens 24 Bxg6! Bxg6 25 Rg3.
23 . . . Ne6 24 d5! (a temporary pawn
sacrifice to push Black further into
defence) cxd5 25 f4 Nf8 26 Qf2 Qe8?
(Black should keep his pawn by . . . a6)
27 Qxa7 g5 28 Bxh7 gxh4 29 Bf5.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
A glance at the position after 29 Bf5
highlights what proves to be a fatal
weakness for Black. His h pawns and d
pawns are doubled and his pawns are split
into four isolated groups compared with
White's compact two. In general, the fewer
such 'pawn islands' the better. In addition,
the board has opened up and this favours
White's well-posted bishop against Black's
passive knight. Black's only compensation
is the open e file, which White neutralises
in the next few moves as he shapes to go
into a won ending.
29 . . . Qh5 30 Bg4 Qg6 31 Qf2 Qe4
32 Qxh4 Qd4ch 33 Kh2 Ng6
34 Qg3 Qxf4.
Black has little choice. If 34 . . . Qxb2
35 Bf5, or 34 . . . Nxf4 35 Be6disch Ng6
36 Bf5 both win a piece for White.
35 Rf3 Qxg3ch 36 Rxg3 Re5 37 Rb3 h5 (if
Re7 38 Rb6 when either the d or b pawn
falls) 38 Rxb7ch Kh6 39 Bf3 Nh4
40 Kg3 Nxf3 41 gxf3 d4.
25

abcdefgh
abcdefgh
BOTTERILL: I must be winning this
endgame with my distant connected
passed pawns on the queen's side. The
plan is clear - push them forward together.
42 b4.
NUNN: I shall try and play my rook behind
the dangerous passed pawns.
42 . . . Re1.
BOTTERILL: The strongest position for my
rook would be behind my passed pawns,
not in front obstructing them. So I'll move
it back down the c file.
43 Rc7.
NUNN: It's clear that my rook alone won't
be enough to halt the passed pawns, so I
shall try and bring my king over as well.
43 . . . Kg5.
BOTTERILL: / shall attack his d pawns.
They are very weak.
44 Rc4.
26
NUNN: I'll force his king back, then try
and win his h pawn to give myself a passed
pawn.
44 . . . h4ch 45 Kf2 Rh1.
BOTTERILL: I could defend that with Kg2,
but let's not mess about. I can see a clear
way to win.
46 Rxd4 Rh2ch 47 Ke3 Rxh3 48 b5 Rh2.
BOTTERILL: Well, his h pawn is going to
be further away from queening than my b
pawn. I'll keep pushing.
49 b6 Rxc2.
BOTTERILL: /'// put my rook behind my
pawn to make sure he can't do so with his
rook.
50 Rb4.
NUNN: Well, my last trick has been
stopped. I can only stop his pawn at the
cost of putting my rook in a hopeless
position, so I'll just give a couple of
checks.
50 . . . Rc3ch 51 Kf2 Rc2ch.
BOTTERILL: / don't see any swindles. My
king is just going safely back to stop the h
pawn.
52 Kgl.
NUNN: I think that's enough. I'll resign
here.
52 . . . Resigns.

abcdefgh
abcdefgh
In the final position Black soon runs out of
checks: 52 . . . Rd ch 53 Kg2 Rc2ch
54 Kh3 Rc8 55 b7 Rb8 56 a5 followed by
a6-a7 queens one of the pawns.
This game illustrates why masters prefer
to play the white pieces in tournament
chess. John Nunn made no obvious errors,
George Botterill showed no special
aggression - but right from the start Black
struggled with an inferior game which got
steadily worse.
Game 2:
William Hartston - Michael Stean
Sicilian Defence, Najdorf variation
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6
5 Nc3 a6 6 Be2 Nbd7 7 Be3.
A favourite move of Hartston's, but
unlikely to worry his opponent who at the
time of the game was writing a book called
Sicilian: Najdorf.
7 . . . Nc5 8 f3 e6 9 a4.
White is preparing a queen's side pawn
advance, but it proves ineffective. Simpler
is 9 Qd2.
9 . . . b6 10 0-0 Bb7 11 Qd2 Rc8
12 Rfd1 Be7 13 b4? Ncd7 14 b5.
abcdefgh
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
abcdefgh
14 . . . axb5!
Novelties in master chess come these days
on moves 15-20 rather than early in the
opening. This is especially true of
fashionable systems like the Najdorf. A
game Kavalek-Quinteros, Nice 1974, ended
14 . . . a5? 15 Nc6! Bxc6? 16 bxc6 Rxc6
17 Bb5 Rc8 18e5!dxe5 19 Ne4 Nd5
20 c4 Bb4 and Black resigned because
21 Qd3 wins a piece. Stean's new move
gives Black time to castle. Black
deliberately kept his king in the centre till
now to give extra time for queen's side
play. If here 15 N4xb5 0-0 and White
cannot take on d6 as his other knight
would become unprotected.
15 axb5 0-0 16 Ra7 Rc7 17 Rxb7.
This surprise sacrifice shows that White has
'lost' the opening. If he continues normally
27
by doubling rooks on the open line, then
17 Rfa1 Qb8! followed by Rfc8 and d5
strikes in the centre while the white
queen's side forces look stupid.
17 . . . Rxa7 18 Nc6 Qe8
19 Nxe7ch Qxe7 20 Qxd6 Qxd6
21 Rxd6 Rc8!
In positions with rook against bishop or
knight, it can be worth offering one or two
pawns if the rooks then become active and
can attack the enemy pawns. So this move,
which ensures a seventh row invasion
without loss of material, is powerful.
22 Na4 Rxc2 23 Bd3 Ra2 24 Nxb6 Kf8
25 Bf 1 Nxb6 26 Bxb6 Rd7 27 Rxd7 Nxd7.
abcdefgh
a b c d e f g h
After wholesale exchanges Black's material
advantage is now clear, but to win isn't at
all easy. White's pair of bishops support
his remaining queen's side pawn, and
while Stean decides how to win this pawn
Hartston creates diversions on the other
flank. For the rest of the game White,
under pressure, keeps in mind a golden
rule in such simplified endgames. The
28
player who is material down should try to
exchange pawns, but not pieces. If all the
pawns were off the board Black's extra
material would clearly not be enough to
win.
28 Bd4 e5 29 Be3 Ke7 30 Bc4 Rb2
31 h4 h5?
Probably a mistake, since White can now
start exchanging pawns. Black should play
f6 at once and keep as many pawns as
possible on the board until he has
neutralised the b pawn.
32 Kh2 f6 33 Kh3.
abcdefgh
abcde fgh
STEAN: I feel I must have very good
winning chances in this ending. My rook
can attack his bishops, and they have no
stable squares. Also I can manoeuvre my
knight and attack his pawns.
33 . . . Rb4.
HARTSTON: / wish he'd stop attacking
those bishops. I keep having to decide
where to put them. I might lose one if I'm
not careful. I'll move it back to a safe
square.
34 Be2.
STEAN: His bishop is on a more passive
square, so I can now advance my king.
34 . . . Kd6.
HARTSTON: That's very odd. I liked my
position a few moves ago but now it's
looking very worrying. He's trying to
surround my b pawn, and all his pieces
are getting better placed. I'd better create a
diversion on the king's side.
39 . . . Ne6 40 Bc4 Rb4 41 Bd5 Rxb5.
HARTSTON: He's got that pawn he's been
after for so long but my pieces are
wonderful, I can bring my king in and
attack the knight and pawn. I can't possibly
lose now.
42 Kf5.
STEAN: I have no winning chances despite
the fact that I have a rook and knight
against two bishops. I think I must offer a
draw.
42 . . . Draw agreed.

35 g4!
abcdefgh
STEAN: I didn't expect that. How do I
meet it, it's a difficult decision? Also my
clock is ticking and I only have a few
minutes left. Should I defend the pawn or
should I capture? I think I'll capture.

35 . . . hxg4 ch 36 Kxg4 Nc5.

HARTSTON: This is really worrying me; in a
couple of moves his knight can get to a
good square at d4 and block my bishops
out. I've got to improve the position of
these bishops, so I'll advance my h pawn
to exchange some pawns on the king's
side. abcdefgh
37 h5 Rb3.
White has skilfully achieved his objective.
HARTSTON: Attacking those bishops After 42 . . . Nd4ch 43 Kxf6 Nxf3
again. This time I can ignore it. It's nice - I 44 Bf8ch the weakness of Black's last pawn
can push my h pawn and if he takes the
prevents any progress.
bishop the pawn can queen.
38 h6! gxh6 (Rxe3? 39 h7 wins) 39 Bxh6. Game 3:

HARTSTON: Things seem to have Michael Stean - William Hartston

improved in the last few moves. I've Sicilian Defence, Paulsen variation
exchanged a couple of pawns, my bishops
are better and my king's active. I think I STEAN: / feel I should have won that game,
can draw it comfortably now. but this is no time for self recrimination.

29
I must adjust myself to the new time limit, 6 . . . h6 7 Bg2 (in a later game
very tough, all my moves in one hour and Stean-Spassky, Moscow 1975, Stean
we're both exhausted from playing five preferred 7 g5 here) Nc6 8 h3 Bd7
hours already. I'll play my normal opening. 9 Be3 a6 10 Qe2.

1 e4. Is this best? Bobby Fischer probably

wouldn't think so. Put Black's a pawn back
HARTSTON: Here we go again. It's not
at a7, White's king's bishop back at f1, and
usual playing two games in a day. I guess
a game Fischer and Barden - Penrose and
this is going to be rather a scrappy one -
Clarke, BBC Network Three radio
we haven't got enough time to play the
consultation game 1960, continued
moves anyway. Better play a Sicilian
9 Qd2 Nxd4 (a6 may be better)
Defence, it's the only thing I know.
10 Qxd4 Qa5 11 0-0-0 Bc6 12 Kbl Be7
1 . . . c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 13 Bg2 0-0 14 Qd2 Rfd8? 15 Nd5 with an
5 Nc3 d6. endgame advantage for White, who has
the pair of bishops.
STEAN: Now I must make a decision. I
normally play bishop to e2 in this position, 10 . . . Nxd4 11 Bxd4 e5 12 Be3 Rc8
but I'm so tired I do not feel I could stand 13 f4 Be7.
another long game. I will play an
aggressive move, pawn to g4. abcdefgh
6g4.
HARTSTON: That's unusual for Michael, he
usually plays quieter. This is a sort of Wild
West variation where he's attacking
violently on the king's side. Still, as long as
I play like the cowboys I'll be OK.

abcdefgh
8
7
abcdefgh
6
5 STEAN: Which side should I castle on? I
4 want to attack on the king's side with my
pawns and advance them, so I have a
3
better chance of succeeding if I castle
2 queen's side. But it is dangerous - he can
sacrifice his rook against my knight at c3
1
and break up the pawn formation around
abcdefgh my king. I must calculate the variations

30
very carefully, but I think I'll take the risk. STEAN: Oh God, I've overlooked
something. I was intending to play rook to
14 0-0-0.
a1 and if queen to e6 then pawn to f5
HARTSTON: Now that's a surprise. I when his queen would be trapped, but I've
expected him to put his king on the other just noticed he can play bishop to a4 check
side. He's really out to get me this time. and then my king has no good square. My
Still I've got attacking chances too, I have God, my position is hopeless. I've only
some possibility of breaking up his king's one move.
defences. I'll bring my queen into the
18 Rb1.
attack first.
HARTSTON: He'll have to spend a long
14 . . . Qa5 15 Kb1.
time thinking about that king position. I'll
HARTSTON: Now I can give up my rook just castle.
for that knight. It's very dangerous for him
18 . . . 0-0 19 Bc3 Rc8 20 Ra1 Ba4ch
- I must get at least an extra pawn and his
21 Kd2 Qb3 22 Rfd Bb5 23 Qf3 Bc6
king's very bad. It looks tremendous. I'll
24 Qd3.
take it.
15 . . . Rxc3 16 Bd2 Rxc2. abcdefgh
STEAN: This is a surprise. I didn't think he
8
could go in for this variation. Surely I win
his queen at the end? 7
17 Kxc2. 6
HARTSTON: He's taken the rook as he had 5
to. Now I take another pawn then I get my 4
queen into his guts, it looks rotten for him.
3
17 . . . Qxa2.
abode f g h 2
1
abcdefgh

HARTSTON: I don't know what I've really

been doing for the last half a dozen moves
but it doesn't seem to matter. My
wonderful position has taken care of itself,
so I can pot another white pawn.

24 . . . exf4.
STEAN: There goes another one. My
abcdefgh position is collapsing even faster than the

31
British economy, only I can't print new
pieces.
25 Qd4 Ne8 26 Ra5 Bf6 27 Qf2.
HARTSTON: I can put my white squared
bishop on its best diagonal. It looks very
embarrassing for him. And that rook on a5
really looks stupid.
27 . . . Bb5 28 Ra3 Bxc3ch.
STEAN: It appears another pawn is going.
My position is terrible. Even if I manage
to exchange queens the endgame will
be lost - he has too many pawns. I feel
I must resign.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
29 Resigns.
After 29 Rxc3 Qxb2ch 30 Ke1 Qxf2ch
31 Kxf2 Black has knight and four pawns
for rook. But quite a few strong players
would still continue a while in such a
position.
32
Game 4:
Jonathan Speelman - Jonathan Mestel
King's Indian Defence
1 d4 d6.
SPEELMAN: If I play pawn to e4 then he'll
play a Modern Defence and I'm not very
good against that, so I’ll aim for a King's
Indian type set-up.
2 c4.
MESTEL: I didn't really expect that, still I
don't mind playing a King's Indian so that's
what I'll do.
2 . . . g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4.
MESTEL: That seems pretty consistent. I'll
keep to my normal strategy in this type of
position and try and blockade on the black
squares.
4 . . . e5 5 d5 Nd7 6 Be2.
MESTEL: He's doing something on the
king's side, but I'm not sure what the best
set-up for me is over there. I'll be very
non-committal and play on the queen's
side.
6 . . . a5.
SPEELMAN: I think that's the best move.
Now I think I’ll try a3 followed by a
queen's side advance, which I don't
believe anybody's tried against him before.
7 a3 Ngf6 8 Bg5 0-0 9 Rb1.
 White continues his interesting strategy.
abcdefgh Mestel now thought for a quarter of an
hour over his reply, which helps account
for his time trouble later on. Black has a
difficult choice: to allow White's h5 which
would virtually force Black to answer
. . . g5 with weaknesses on the white
squares, or to prevent the further advance
of the h pawn at the price of allowing
White's pieces a good square at g5.

18 . . . h5 19 Bd1! (anticipating the reply

and preparing to regroup the bishop on an
attacking diagonal) f5 20 exf5 Bxf5
21 Bc2 Nf6 22 Bg5 Qd7 23 0-0! (finally!
abcdefgh Now Black can no longer counter with a
Speelman, an original player, is trying a
general advance of his king's side pawns)
novel plan here. He delays castling, and
c6 24 dxc6 Qxc6 25 Bxf5 gxf5 26 Nd5 (a
uses the extra move to make progress on
pawn sacrifice to keep up the pressure)
both wings. This is perfectly sound strategy
Nxd5 27 cxd5.
when the centre is closed and can
sometimes be used even in more open
abcdefgh
positions - see games 2 and 3.
9 . . . h6 10 Be3 Nc5 11 Bf3! (11
Bxc5 dxc5 followed by Ne8-d6 and
11 f3 Nh5 followed by . . . f5 both give
Black a good game) Bd7 12 b4 axb4
13 axb4 Na4 14 Nge2 Ne8 15 Nxa4 Rxa4
16 Qd Kh7 17 Nlc3 Ra8 18 h4!
abcdefgh

abcdefgh

27 . . . Qxd5? (possibly the losing move.

Post-mortem analysis showed that
27 . . . Qd7! should still enable Black to
defend all his weak points) 28 Rd1 Qe4
(if Qe6 29 Qc7 with strong pressure)
29 Rxd6 f4 30 f3 Qe2 31 Rb2 Qb5
abcdefgh 32 Qblch! (after repulsing Black's
33
counter-attack, White sets up the black MESTEL: Oh, I didn't see that, oh dear.
king for a mating thrust) Kh8.
37 . . . Ra1 ch 38 Kh2 Rf8.
abcdefgh SPEELMAN: Well, it's possible to get rid of
all the pieces now. That makes it easy.
Good.
39 Qxf8ch Qxf8 40 Rd8 Kg7 41 Rxf8 Kxf8.

MESTEL: It's move 41, isn't it?

SPEELMAN: Yes, I think so, this is my 42,
that's right.
42 Rd7.
MESTEL: There doesn't seem much point
playing this on.
42 . . . Resigns.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
SPEELMAN: I'm going to get my rooks into
his position and see if I can finish him off.

33 Rbd2.
MESTEL: Wish I had more time to think
about this. I haven't, so I'll just have to
play by instinct. Advancing the e pawn to
open up the bishop's diagonal looks all
right. I threaten Ra1.

33 . . . e4.
SPEELMAN: I think that bishop looks rather
dangerous, I'd better get rid of it.
abcdefgh
34 Bh6 Qe5 35 Qxe4.
MESTEL: Oh dear, this is so difficult, I wish Game 5:
I had more time.
Howard Williams - Tony Miles
35 . . . Rfe8? English Defence
SPEELMAN: Wait a minute, I think he's
WILLIAMS: / think I'll push my d pawn
blundered, yes he's blundered! Great! Now
today.
I can win another pawn.
1 d4.
36 Bxg7ch Qxg7 (Kxg7 37 Qg6ch)
37 Qxf4. MILES: Not quite sure what I should play

34
against him. I'll try and be original and
make him think a little.
1 . . . e6.
WILLIAMS: That's not usually part of his
repertoire. I wonder what he's got in mind.
He's inviting me to transpose into the
French Defence, but I think I'll decline that
possibility.
2 c4 b6.
WILLIAMS: So that's what he had in mind.
This is a new position as far as I'm
concerned. I'll try to shut his bishop out of
the game by advancing my central pawns.
3 e4 Bb7 4 d5.
Black's defence, which appeared eccentric
in 1975, was later adopted frequently by
Miles and his fellow English grandmaster
Keene on the international circuit. Miles
even played it twice against world
champion Anatoly Karpov.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
MILES: That's interesting. He's trying to
block out my bishop, but he's not
developing any of his pieces yet so I'll try
and develop quickly with a bishop check.
4 . . . Bb4ch 5 Bd2 Qe7.
WILLIAMS: This queen is indirectly
threatening my e pawn. I probably have to
do something drastic about this, so I'll try
to exchange off into an ending where his
bishop is still blocked out.
6 Bxb4 Qxb4ch 7 Qd2 Qxd2ch 8 Kxd2.
MILES: / want to put some pressure on his
pawn wedge so I'll try and open the king's
side a little.
8 . . . f5 9 f3.
MILES: Now I want to get my knights out.
I'm not quite sure where to put the king's
knight yet, so I'd better develop the
queen's knight since it's only got one good
square.
9 . . . Na6 10 Nc3.
MILES: If I put my king's knight on f6 he
might be able to kick it away so I'll put it
on e7 and maintain the tension.
10 . . . Ne7 11 Bd3 0-0.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
WILLIAMS: I've certainly got problems
here. I'd like to just develop my king's
35
knight but the trouble is that he just plays
f5 takes e4 and then comes down the f file
with his rook. Well, I've got to decide on
the lesser evil, I suppose. I don't like pawn
e4 takes pawn f5 much, but it's probably
my best move.
12 exf5.
MILES: That's interesting: all through the
game he's been trying to maintain his
pawn wedge in the centre, now he's given
it up voluntarily. I must have the better
position now. I'll take off his queen's pawn
and my bishop will come to life.
12 . . . exd5 13 Re1 Nxf5 14 cxd5 Nb4
15 Nh3 Nd6 (a fine central blockading
square for the knight) 16 Be4 a5
17 a3 Na6 18 Bc2 b5 19 Ne4 Nc4ch
20 Kc1 Bxd5 21 Rdl Ne3 22 Rd2 Bxe4
23 Bxe4.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
23 . . . Nc5!
The black knights have already destroyed
the white centre and won a pawn, and this
neat tactical move consolidates the
advantage. If 24 Bxa8? Nb3ch wins a piece.
36
However, despite his pawn minus, White
can still put up a good fight if he can
eliminate the minor pieces and reach a
rook ending, and in the next phase of the
game Williams follows this strategy with
some success.
24 Bc2 b4 25 Re1 Nxc2 26 Kxc2 Rfe8
27 Rde2 Rxe2ch 28 Rxe2 Ne6 29 Re4 c5
30 Nf4! Nxf4 31 Rxf4 Re8 32 Kd3 d5
33 axb4 axb4 34 Rf5 Rd8 35 b3 Rd6
36 Re5 Kf7 37 f4 g6 38 g3 h6 39 h4 Kf6
40 g4 Rd8 41 h5 gxh5 42 Rxh5 Kg6
43 Re5 Rd6 44 Rh5 Rf6 45 Ke3 Re6ch
46 Kd3 Re4 47 Rxd5 Rxf4 48 Rxc5 Rxg4
49 Rb5 h5 50 Ke2 h4.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
WILLIAMS: It's difficult to stop that h
pawn, but his king's not got much cover
and I can probably get my rook behind the
pawn in the end if I keep on checking.
51 Rb6ch.
MILES: Now I can move my king to the
queen's side. I could try putting it on h5,
interpose the rook and sacrifice my b
pawn. Probably not good enough to win
but I'll play king to h5 and give him
something to think about as he's getting
short of time.
51 . . . Kh5 52 Rb5ch.
MILES: Oh well, he didn't fall for that one,
I'll have to go the other way.
52 . . . Kg6 53 Rb6ch Kf5 54 Rb5ch Ke6
55 Rh5.
MILES: Now I'll try moving my king to the
queen's side and if he then moves his king
to the king's side I can sacrifice my h pawn
for the b pawn and his king will be cut off
in the endgame.
55 . . . Kd6 56 Kd3.
MILES: That's unlucky, he didn't buy that
one either. Oh well, have to go back and
try the other way.
56 . . . Ke6.
WILLIAMS: What's he up to? I suppose I'd
better follow with my king.
57 Ke2 Kf6 58 Kf2 Kg6.
WILLIAMS: Cot to stay behind that pawn,
probably.
59 Rh8.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
MILES: Right. That's got his rook out of the
way, now I can push my king forward over
to the queen's side.
59 . . . Kf5.
WILLIAMS: Better stop his king coming
forward by attacking his b pawn. I don't
like this at all, though.
60 Rb8.
MILES: Can’t push my king forward any
further. But I can push my h pawn now
that his rook has moved away from behind
it.
60 . . . h3.
WILLIAMS: Better get behind that fast
before it queens.
61 Rh8.
MILES: Now I can't defend my h pawn, but
luckily I do have a little manoeuvre here. I
can give a check and that will force his
king to a bad square.
61 . . . Rg2ch.
WILLIAMS: King forward must be right,
let's play it quickly.
62 Kf3.
MILES: That's OK, now I can go behind his
b pawn. I don't think he can defend it.
62 . . . Rb2.
WILLIAMS: Whoops, that was fairly
disastrous. I'll drive his king back before
doing anything.
63 Rh5ch.
MILES: Let's see, I have to move my king
back. Might as well attack his rook to gain
a bit of time.
63 . . . Kg6.
37
WILLIAMS: What can I do with the rook?
Where can it go? Oh, try taking the pawn,
no, I can't do that . . . Advance it to the
eighth . . . oh well, my flag's gone anyway.
White overstepped the time limit.

abcdefgh

abcdefgh

Since White cannot play 64 Rxh3 Rxb3ch

65 Kg4 Rxh3 66 Kxh3 b3 and the pawn
queens, he has to lose a second pawn
leaving Black an easy win.

38
Semi-finals
Botterill ViViO-ViVi! Hartston
Speelman V2I-V2O Miles

The semi-finals brought some dramatic abcdefgh

play and results. Hartston somehow got
out of a hopeless position against Botterill
8
and won a frantic race to beat the clock by 7
a few seconds; while Speelman, the
outsider, first had the better of a draw with
6
Miles then comprehensively checkmated 5
the Master Game favourite in the return.
4
3
Game 6:
2
George Botterill - William Hartston
Sicilian Defence 1
abcdefgh
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 b3 Nf6 4 e5 Nd5
5 Bb2 Be7 6 c4 Nb4 7 a3 N4c6 8 Nc3 0-0 Botterill's unorthodox opening formation
9 Qc2 d5 10 exd6 e.p. Bxd6 11 0-0-0 e5 led to weaknesses in his pawn formation
12 Nb5 Be7 13 Qe4 a6 14 Nc3 Nd7 and decided him to castle queen's side in
15 Nd5 f5 16 Qe3 e4 17 Ne1 Nf6 search of active play for his pieces.
18 Nc2 Ng4 19 Qe1 Na5 20 b4 cxb4 Hartston opened up the queen's side and
21 axb4 Nb3ch 22 Kb1 a5 23 f3 Nf6 could here increase the pressure by
24 Qe3 Nxd5 25 cxd5 a4 26 Bc4 Bg5 32 . . . Rc8 or Qc8. The move he chooses
27 f4 Bf6 28 Bxb3 axb3 29 Qxb3 Bd7 overlooks a clever pawn sacrifice which
30 d6ch Kh8 31 Be5 Ba4 32 Qb2. enables Botterill to regroup his pieces and
take the initiative.
32 . . . Bb5? 33 d4! exd3 e.p. 34 Na3 Bc6
35 Rd2 Ra4 36 Rd Qb6 37 b5 Be4
38 d7 Raa8 39 Nc4 Qe6 40 Qd4 Bxe5
41 Qxe5 Qxd7 42 Nb6 Qd8 43 Rc7 Rg8
44 Nxa8 Qxa8 45 Qc3 Qe8 46 Rc5 h6
47 Kb2 Qh5 48 g3 Qf3 49 Qd4 Kh7
50 Rc7 Qf1 51 Rd Qf3 52 Rc7 Qf1

39
53 Rd Qf3 54 Rc7 Qf1 Drawn by
repetition of position.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
Botterill's pressure won rook for bishop
and pawn, but Hartston's supported
passed d pawn was good compensation.
When Black also brought his queen into
the attack Botterill decided to repeat
moves and settle for a draw.
Game 7:
William Hartston - George Botterill
King's Indian Reversed
I d3 e5 2 g3 Nf6 3 Bg2 d5 4 Nf3 Bd6
5 0-0 0-0 6 Nc3 c6 7 Re1 Nbd7
8 e4 dxe4 9 Nxe4 Nxe4 10 Rxe4 Nf6
II Re1 Re8 12 Nd2 Bg4 13 Bf3 Bh3
14 Bg2 Bg4 15 Bf3 Bh3 16 Bg2 Qd7
17 Ne4 Nxe4 18 dxe4 Rad8 19 Be3 Bxg2
20 Kxg2 Qe7 21 Qe2 Bc5 22 Radi Draw
agreed.
40
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
Hartston tried an unsuccessful novelty with
6 Nc3 where 6 Nbd2, to prevent too many
exchanges in the centre, is usual. As
played, Botterill had no difficulty in
bringing about an early drawn position,
thus ensuring he would have White in the
next replay.
Game 8:
George Botterill - William Hartston
Irregular Defence
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4.
HARTSTON: I guess it's the time which is
going to be most important in this game.
Any old rubbish will do. Play something he
doesn't know.
2 . . . Nc6.
BOTTERILL: What on earth is this? This is
funny. He must be playing for time. Well,
N to c3 must be good.
3 Nc3 e5 4 d5 Ne7 5 e4 Ng6.
BOTTERILL: / must attack. The h pawn up
looks the best line.
6 h4.
HARTSTON: Yes, he's threatening to push
that knight around again. I can stop it with
h5 but that leaves my own h pawn weak.
Still I'll have to play it, I can't let him chase
the knight away.
6 . . . h5 7 Be2 Be7 8 Bg5 d6
9 Qd2 Nd7 10 g3! (10 Bxe7 Qxe7 would
give Black better chances for utilising his
knights on the dark squares) Bxg5
11 hxg5 h4 12 0-0-0 Ndf8.
abcdefgh
HARTSTON: Ouch, didn't see that.
Expected him to take the e pawn. How do
I get these knights out of that mess? I'm
squashed. This is horrible. My wife will kill
me. What do I do? How can I put up any
fight, these knights are horrible. Well, f6
looks the only move.
15 . . . f6 16 g6.
HARTSTON: I'm going to have to defend
my knight on h8 with a queen sometime,
better move my K forward. This is horrible.
My king's the only piece off the back rank.
16 . . . Ke7 17 c5 Nd7.
BOTTERILL: Now I'll just advance the pawn
to c6. He can never get his white squared
bishop out, and I just bring my rocks and
queen across to the h file. Pawn to c6, a
complete crush. This is going to be easy.

18 c6

abcdefgh

abcdefgh

BOTTERILL: He's cracking up. If I advance

the f pawn I can go all the way to f5 with a
crushing advantage.
13 f4.
HARTSTON: What's that? He wants to take
my e pawn? But I've got lovely play on the
black squares. Yes, I can take his king side
abcdefgh
pawns apart now.
13 . . . hxg3 14 Rxh8 Nxh8. 18 . . . Nc5 19 Nf3 b5 20 b4 Nxe4
(sacrificing a piece is the only chance for
BOTTERILL: His knights will never get out
Black to get any play) 21 Nxe4 Bxf5
of there alive after f5; its overwhelming.
22 Nxg3 Bxg6 23 Bd3 (simpler is 23 Nh4
15 f5. followed by Bg4-e6) Qc8 24 Nh4 (and now

41
24 Rgl cuts out Black's counterplay) Bxd3
25 Qxd3 Qg4 26 Nhf5ch Kf8 27 Rh1 Ng6
28 Qxb5 a5 29 Qb7 Qf4ch.
BOTTERILL: / wish I'd finished him off
earlier. I suppose after he gets queens off
it's still a simple win.
30 Kb1.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
HARTSTON: I'm not going to survive the
middle game, better exchange queens.
30 . . . Qxb4ch 31 Qxb4 axb4 32 Rh7.
HARTSTON: Can't defend that pawn,
better attack a knight.
32 . . . Ra3 33 Nh5 Rf3 34 Nhxg7.
HARTSTON: Try and chase his rook away.
34 . . . Kg8.
BOTTERILL: Now for the f pawn.
35 Rh6.
HARTSTON: Knight to e7, is that possible?
I don't know, but I'll play it.
35 . . . Ne7.
42
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
With both sides now down to around two
minutes for an infinite number of moves,
in a still complex position, the rest of the
game was a 'blitz' battle with moves
coming every few seconds. Botterill was
slightly behind on the clock, and in the
event this factor proved more important
than the position. White still has a material
advantage, though the practical difficulties
of winning are now great.
36 Rxf6 Nxd5 37 Rg6 Kf7 38 Rg2 Ne3
39 Nxd6ch? (a miscalculation . . .) cxd6
40 c7 Rf 1 ch 41 Kb2 Nc4ch 42 Kb3 Nb6
(. . . overlooking this defence)
43 Kxb4 Rd 44 Kb5 Nd5 45 Nf5 Nxc7ch
46 Kb6 Ne8 47 a4 d5 ( now Black's two
pawns are better than White's one, but the
real question is who loses on time)
48 a5 Kf6 49 Ne3 d4 50 Nd5ch Ke6
51 Nb4 Rb1 52 Kc5 Rd ch 53 Kb5 Nd6ch
54 Kb6 Nc4ch 55 Kb5 Nd6ch 56 Kb6 Rb1
57 Kc5 and White overstepped the time
limit.
A tragedy for Botterill, who retains drawing
chances even in the final position.
 10 . . . Nd4! (taking the initiative, and
abcdefgh
more convincing than 10 . . . Rxb5
11 Nf6ch) 11 d3 Nxb5 12 Bb2 Bxe4
13 dxe4 Bc3ch 14 Kf1 Qb6 15 e3 Qa6
16 Qd3 Bxb2 17 Rxb2 Nf6 18 Ne2 0-0.

Another instance of late castling (see also

games 2, 3 and 4). Black has used the extra
time to great effect, for White's king's side
is still undeveloped while the doubled e
pawns are a handicap. Miles now sets to
work to create some counterplay.
19 Bh3 Qb7 20 f3 e6 21 Kf2 Nd7
22 Rd Ne5 23 Qb3 a5! 24 bxa5 Qa7
abcdefgh
25 Rcb1.
Game 9:
Tony Miles - Jonathan Speelman abcdefgh
English Opening

1 c4 g6 2 g3 Bg7 3 Bg2 c5 4 Nc3 Nc6

5 a3 d6 6 Rb1 Rb8 7 b4.
Miles thought over this double-edged
move for twenty-eight minutes. Simpler is
7 d3, aiming to exploit White's extra tempo
in a symmetrical position.
7 . . . Bf5 8 Ne4 cxb4 9 axb4 b5 10 cxb5.

abcdefgh
abcdefgh

25 . . . Rfc8.
This leads to a strange double oversight.
Black's rook is well placed on f8 in case of
a later opening of the f file, so the simple
Qxa5 looks preferable.
26 Bxe6! (White's counter-chance) Nc3
(if fxe6 27 Qxe6ch followed by Rxb5)
27 Qxc3 (27 Qxb8 transposes) Rxc3
28 Rxb8ch Kg7 29 Nxc3 Qc5??
abcdefgh 29 . . . Qxa5 should be played, for after the

43
move in the game 30 Rc8! keeps the extra SPEELMAN: I might as well offer a draw,
piece with an easy win. 30 R8b3? fxe6 there isn't anything better to do. If I take
31 a6 Kh6 32 Ne2 Qa5 33 f4 Ng4ch his e pawn I could even lose.
34 Kf3 Qxa6? (Qh5! gives winning
chances) 35 Kxg4 Qxe2ch 36 Kh3 g5 abcdefgh
37 fxg5ch Kxg5 38 Rb5ch e5 39 R5b4 h5
40 Ra4 Qc2 41 Rab4 Qe2 42 Ra1.

abcdefgh

abcdefgh

Draw agreed.

abcdefgh Game 10:

Jonathan Speelman - Tony Miles
The complications have subsided, but Queen's Pawn, Veresov Attack
White still has to play carefully to ensure a
draw. 1 d4 d5 2 Nc3.
SPEELMAN: /'// just make one last attempt. MILES: Had a feeling he might do that.
Don't know anything about it, but not to
42 . . . Qf3.
worry.
MILES: He seems to be trying to play pawn
2 . . . Nf6 3 Bg5 Nbd7 4 e3 c6.
to h4. Can't stop it, don't think it does
anything anyway. I'll just keep shuffling my A rather passive line. Most experts on this
rook around. opening recommend Black to develop his
bishop at g7 and play c5.
43 Rabi h4 44 Re1 d5.
5 Nf3 h6 6 Bh4 e6 7 Bd3 Be7 8 0-0 0-0
MILES: That's interesting. If I play pawn
9 Ne2.
takes pawn he plays queen to f5 check
followed by pawn to h3 check then queen
to c2 and I get mated. But if I just leave it
there I don't think he can do anything.

45 Ra4 Qf2 46 Raa1 Qf3 47 Ra4.

44
 abcdefgh
abcdefgh
Speelman is playing a formation like a
classical Queen's Gambit Declined with the
difference that by avoiding the normal
advance c4 he has an extra move to bring
his knight to an attacking position on the
king's side. Black should counter this by
playing actively, e.g. 9 . . . Ne4, but in the
next few moves Miles adopts an unusually
passive approach and drifts into
difficulties.
9 . . . c5 10 c3 b6 11 Bxf6 Nxf6 (allowing
White's knight to occupy its ideal outpost
square. Bxf6 is better) 12 Ne5 Bb7
13 Ng3 Bd6 14 f4 Ne4 15 Nh5! (a
promising pawn sacrifice for attack. If
Black tries to keep the game closed by
. . . f5, White will soon open the g file with
the advance g4) Bxe5 16 fxe5 Qg5 (risky,
but otherwise White strengthens his attack
by Rf4) 17 Bxe4! Qxe3ch 18 Kh1 dxe4.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
SPEELMAN: I'll stop his queen going back.
My attack may be unsound, but I doubt if
he'll find a defence at this fast time limit.
19 Rf4.
MILES: Beginning to wish I hadn't gone in
for this line. My queen's rook and bishop
are out of play. He's threatening to smash
up my g pawn. Think I'll have to tuck my
king out of the way.
19 . . . Kh8.
SPEELMAN: I'll throw my queen into the
attack.
20 Qg4.
MILES: I can't defend with the rook
because he takes my f pawn, so it'll have
to be pawn g6.
20... g6.
SPEELMAN: /'// put my knight into the
place he's so kindly vacated.
21 Nf6.
MILES: Oh dear, doesn't look to be much
in the way of defence. He's going to bring
45
his other rook across, then play queen to
h4. He's probably also threatening knight
to d7 and taking my f pawn. I'll just have
to stop the short-term threats.
21 . . . Rad 8 22 Rafi.
MILES: Oh dear, can't think of anything.
He's going to play queen to h4 and when I
play king to g7 then knight to g4. I'd better
move my queen out of the way.
22 . . . Qd2 23 Qh4 Kg7 24 Ng4.
MILES: Ugh, have to play pawn to h5. I'll
give this stupid game up.
24 . . . h5 25 Qf6ch Kh7.
SPEELMAN: Well, it's easy now. I shall win
his queen in a minute.
26 Qg5 hxg4 27 Rxf7ch Rxf7 28 Rxf7ch.

MILES: C'est la vie, as they say.

28 . . . Kh8.
SPEELMAN: / can win his queen - but I
might as well do better.
29 Qxd8 mate.
MILES: That's a pity.

abcdefgh

abcdefgh
46
Master Game 1975 Final
Jonathan Speelman 0-1 William Hartston

The final proved a disappointment Castling looks so natural it can hardly be

compared with some of the earlier play. In bad even if my book says it's awful. I'll
an even position, Speelman declined a castle.
draw and, perhaps feeling obliged to
7 ... 0-0 8 Bf4 Nc7 9 a4.
justify this decision, made what his
opponent soon demonstrated as a quite
unsound pawn sacrifice.

Game 11:
Jonathan Speelman - William Hartston
Benoni Defence

1 d4 Nf6 2 Nc3.
HARTSTON: Oh dear, the same opening as
in the semi-final. I know the best move
here is d5 but I don't really like the
positions. Pawn to c5 is an alternative. I
like the position, but it's not very good.
Still, I'll play it.
2 . . . c5 3 d5 d6 4 e4 g6 5 Nf3 Bg7
9 . . . Bg4.
6 Be2.
A more usual and slightly superior plan
HARTSTON: Have to be very careful today,
(and given in Hartston's book Benoni!) is
my wife told me I can't come home if I
a6 followed by Rb8 and b5.
lose. I remember I wrote something in my
book on the Benoni about it being good 10 Qd2 a6 11 h3 Bxf3 12 Bxf3 Nd7
for Black not to castle too early but I don't 13 Be2 Rb8 14 Bh6 b5 15 axb5 axb5
really understand why. 16 Bxg7 Kxg7.
6 . . . Na6 7 0-0.
HARTSTON: Now I can either castle or
continue with this queen's side play.
47
 HARTSTON: That seems to simplify the
abcdefgh
position. We exchange some pieces now. I
think I've survived my difficulties from the
opening. I'll take the pawn.

21 . . . Nxe4 22 Qxe4 Rxb5 23 Ra7.

abcdefgh
8

6
5
abcdefgh 4
SPEELMAN: I'll attack on the queen's side 3
with pawn to b4. If I don't do that he'll
2
attack me there, and I would much rather
be the aggressor. 1
17 b4. abcdefgh
HARTSTON: Yes, I was very worried about
HARTSTON: / wonder if he's still trying to
that. I wanted to push my b pawn but he's
win this position. I don't think he's got any
prevented me expanding on that side. If I
advantage now. Both sides have queen,
take the pawn he can check and win it
two rooks and five pawns and I can resist
back. Still, I must take. I'm under some
his pressure. Perhaps it's time to offer a
pressure here.
draw. I'll play rook to e8, then see if he's
17 . . . cxb4. playing for a win.

SPEELMAN: I suppose I could play queen 23 . . . Re8 (Black offers draw).

check but I think I'll play knight back and
SPEELMAN: I think I've got a very slightly
then try to retake the pawn with the knight
better position and if I accept his draw I
and get it into the nice square c6.
have to play another one-hour game. I'm
18 Na2. getting a bit tired so I think I'll try and play
this on. The position can't be bad for me,
HARTSTON: Well, that's a pleasant
and I don't think I can lose it.
surprise. I can exchange this horrible
knight on c7 when he takes the pawn 24 Qd4ch (White refuses draw) Kg8
back. Wonder why he didn't give the 25 Re1 Rc5. 26 h4?
queen check.

18 . . . Na6 19 Nxb4 Nxb4 20 Qxb4 Nf6

21 Bxb5.

48
 abcdefgh abcdefgh

abcdefgh abcdefgh

This unsound pawn sacrifice in effect SPEELMAN: What a load of rubbish. I'll try
decides the 1975 Master Game. White and confuse him by moving my king. My
should play 26 c4 when the slightly weak position can't get any worse.
pawns on each side cancel out. As played,
39 Kh3.
White gets only a temporary initiative in
return for his loss of material. HARTSTON: That's an odd move. I can
check and win his pawn. This is beginning
26 . . . Rxc2 27 h5 Rc7 28 h6 f6
to look nice.
29 Kh2 Qd7 30 Rxc7 Qxc7 31 Qg4 Kf8
32 Re3 Qc5 33 Qe4 Qc1 34 f4 Qd1 39 . . . Qh1 ch 40 Kg3 Qxh6 41 Rc3.
35 Qe6 Qd2 36 Qe4 f5 37 Qf3 Rc8
HARTSTON: So, I can exchange rooks and
38 Rd3 Qe1.
I have two extra pawns in a queen ending.
That must be winning. It might take some
time but it looks as though I'm going to
win. Wonder where I'll put the trophy.

41 . . . Rxc3 42 Qxc3.
HARTSTON: Maybe on the right-hand
stereo speaker. Still I'd better get my
queen out of this mess first.
42 . . . Qh5.
SPEELMAN: Patzer sees a check.
43 Qc8ch Kg7 44 Qc3ch Kf7 45 Qe3.

49
HARTSTON: It would be a pity if I mucked
this up now. I'll just have some checks and
bring my queen back to a safe defensive
square.
45 . . . Qg4ch 46 Kf2 Qh4ch 47 Kg1 Qf6
48 Kh2.
HARTSTON: Well, this is just easy
technique now. I'll play it very slowly and
calmly.
48 . . . h6.
SPEELMAN: / shall resign. What a load of
rubbish!
49 Resigns.

abcdefgh

abcdefgh

50
The Master Game 1976 - Series Two

51
The Players

For the second series of the Master Game, Golborne near Warrington and at the age
four fresh players were invited to join the of seven, finished half-way up the local
warriors of the first tournament, Hartston, under-eighteen competition. The following
Miles, Nunn and Botterill. Instead of Stean, year he won it and joined the national
Mestel, Williams and Speelman, two junior training squad. So far, he has
remarkable juniors, Nigel Short and Julian already won more games and trophies than
Hodgson; a leading woman chess player, any other British youngster and in the
Dr Jana Hartston, and the outstanding opinion of experts is better at his age than
chess journalist Peter Clarke were all
invited. In the first round, Short was drawn
against the winner of the first series, Bill
Hartston; Hodgson against George
Botterill; Tony Miles against Peter Clarke
and Jana Hartston against John Nunn.

If Richmal Crompton had ever met Nigel

Short, she would immediately have written
him into William's gang to join Henry,
Douglas and Ginger in their pranks.
Prodigious though his achievements have
already been in the chess world, he looks
as if he would be just as happy kicking a
ball round a park as analysing abstruse
opening theory, as indeed he is.
The touchpaper of his quite remarkable
talent was an attack of chicken-pox when
he was five. His mother brought him chess
books from the junior section of the local
library; by the time he was better, he had
read every book on chess from the senior
section too, and was soon beating his
father. As a special concession he was then
made a member of the chess club at Nigel Short

52
were either Fischer or Spassky.
So far his career has been precisely
parallel to that of the world champion,
Karpov, whom Short has played and lost
to. In fact, by any sensible reckoning,
Nigel Short is the third best player of his
age there has ever been; only Reshevsky
and Capablanca were better. Three of his
more obviously dramatic wins were against
Korchnoi and Petrosian in Slater
Foundation simultaneous matches and
then against Dr Jonathan Penrose who has
been British champion no less than ten
times. There are those who see that win as
more momentous even than Capablanca's
win against Corzo at Havana in 1900 when
he was only twelve and comparable with
Reshevsky's defeat of the veteran
grandmaster Janowsky at New York in
1922.
At the moment he is at Bolton School in
Lancashire which has won the national
schools chess tournament twice in the last
five years. Apart from playing in the school
team, he plays one or two matches a week.
Already Nigel Short is well on the way to
becoming an international master and if he
achieves the two norms required by the
time he is fourteen, he will have
established a new record. Only two
players, Spassky and Fischer, have become
grandmasters by the age of sixteen, and
were he to join them, Short would clearly
have warranted the faith of those who
believe he is going to be one of the really
great chess players of all time.
His game against Hartston in Master
Game was an exuberant affair of flashing
exchanges and although he lost, the very
fact he decided to resign when he did,
apart from being a compliment to
Hartston, shows the depths of his grasp of
the game. Many, if not most, even
reasonably competent club players would
have battled on.
In simultaneous games, he drew against
the grandmaster Portisch when he was
nine, defeated Korchnoi when he was ten.
When he was only eleven he beat his first
200-rated opponent in a tournament, won
the Merseyside under-eighteen
championship and established an all time
world record by qualifying for the British
men's championship. A year later when
still only twelve, he scored five out of
eleven in the British championship, and
established another world record by
qualifying for the world ranking list, and
reached the 200 rating, an achievement
attained only by Reshevsky and Karpov at
an earlier age.
He has played already abroad, in the
Channel Islands, France and Holland, but
declined to go to California because he felt
he was not ready. It costs his parents
about £500 a year in entry fees and
travelling and hotels but if he has his way,
he will have no difficulty in repaying them.
His ambition is clear and simple, and one
which Bobby Fischer would understand;
he plans to become world champion, make
a financial killing and settle in Jersey as a
tax exile.
While Nigel Short gracefully resigned
what he saw as a lost position against
William Hartston, another former British
champion, George Botterill, had a terrible
time against another brilliant young player,
Julian Hodgson, before eventually winning
the second replay. Hodgson twice drove
Botterill into positions where he was not
only short of moves but short of time and
it is fair to say that a more experienced
player would probably have won. As it
was, Hodgson saw Botterill having twice to
play almost lightning chess in the closing
53

Julian Hodgson
phase against the clock and although he
himself had time to spare was infected by
the need for rapidity, played much too fast
quite unnecessarily and saw winning
positions trickle away into draws. Even so,
Hodgson's achievements so far have only
been overshadowed by the exceptional
talent of Nigel Short, and for connoisseurs
of the game, their rivalry should add
considerable piquancy to the British chess
scene for many years to come.
Like Short, at the tender age of fifteen,
Hodgson has a formidable record of
victories behind him. By the time he was
eleven, he was already London Primary
School's champion, London under-twelve
champion, National Prep Schools
champion, South of England
under-fourteen champion, and had beaten
54
an Australian international player. At the
age of twelve, he drew in a simultaneous
against the former world champion
Smyslov, won the London under-eighteen
and London amateur men's championship,
and when he was fourteen, became the
youngest ever British under-twenty-one
champion, achieving that title two years
younger than had Tony Miles.
When he was only thirteen, Hodgson
reached the 200 internationally-accepted
on the ELO scale rating, so becoming the
second youngest player after Nigel Short
to reach that landmark. A year later, he
qualified for the world ranking list.
Although the idea of ratings is obviously
attractive because it makes possible
sensible comparison between people who
may not have played each other, they are
in fact a very modern introduction. The
system currently used was devised by
Professor Arpad E. Elo and introduced in
the USA in 1960. It was adopted by FIDE in
1970 and has been used ever since.
Inevitably any rating system is bound to be
complicated if it is to have any validity and
the Elo system is no exception. It is based
on using the expected percentage score
one player will make against another
according to their respective numbers. The
mean rating of a grandmaster is 2500 and
international master is 2400 and using the
Elo system it is possible to calculate the
relative merits of the various grandmasters
throughout the ages, so it is possible to
compare the stars of yesterday and today.
One of the curious phenomena of chess is
the comparative failure of women at the
game. Dr Jana Hartston, at the moment not
only the leading player in Britain but one
of the strongest women players in the
world, has no doubts as to the reasons.
There are the obvious reasons of their
traditional role in society: women run the
home and bring up the children and have
only quite recently begun to strive actively
for equality. They do not have a great
tradition of games playing in any field, but
there are also, in Dr Hartston's view,
powerful physiological reasons for
women's relative failure at chess. They
lack, she thinks, not only the sheer
physical stamina that men train themselves
to have, but also lack the ability to
concentrate not only for the five hours or
so of a game but for the sequence of
exhausting sessions that make up a
tournament. So, a woman is likely to win
one brilliant game in a tournament and
then do badly against perhaps less strong
Jana Hartston
opposition and will lack the consistency of
a good male player. As she says, women
don't run as fast, jump as far, or throw as
hard as a man, but that is not to say that
within the world of women's chess there
are not outstanding players, of whom Jana
Hartston is indubitably one of the most
prominent.
She was born Jana Malypetrova in Prague
and did not begin to play chess until the
comparatively late age of eleven. She was
invited to join the Czechoslovakian ladies
pool where she was trained by Pithart and
when she was only eighteen, was good
enough to win the Czechoslovakian
Women's Championship, a feat she
repeated two years later.
In 1969 Jana Hartston became an
international woman's master, and then in
1970 won the first of five successive British
Women's championships. In 1973 she and
Bill Hartston won both women's and men's
British championships, the only husband
and wife pair ever to do so. Since then,
she has won the championship twice more
and now is only four titles short of the
record eleven victories gained by Rowena
Bruce.
She has also excelled in international
chess, gaining an international woman's
grandmaster norm at Wijk aan Zee in 1977,
winning a silver medal with the English
women's team at the Haifa Olympiad in
1976 where she had the second best score
on board one, and in 1973 only narrowly
failing to qualify as a woman's world
championship candidate at the Minorca
interzonal where she beat two leading
Russian contenders.
She was married to one of Britain's
leading players, Bill Hartston, and is now
married to another, Tony Miles, both of
whom have helped her and both of whom
55
she has been able to help. Not being able
to sustain the sort of consistent
performance expected of a man at the very
top does not mean she does not have
great clarity of understanding and analysis.
At the moment she works part time as a
doctor because were she working full time
she would not be able to get time off to
play chess, and therein lies one of her
more sorrowful criticisms of the British -
we do not understand or take seriously
enough top-level chess, either for men or
women.
The final player in the second series of the
Master Game was the chess correspondent
of The Sunday Times, Peter Clarke. Jana
Hartston is only one of those who
Peter Clarke
56
maintains that Peter Clarke was unlucky, in
chess terms, to be born when he was in
1933. At the time he came to chess
maturity in the early fifties, the pool of
British players was neither as deep nor as
broad as it is today and it is difficult for
talented players like Clarke to survive
alone. At the time he was one of Britain's
leading young players and his competent
and incisive style led him to be runner-up
no less than five times in the British
Championship without ever quite
managing to win it.
His best results were in team, not
individual events, and he played in the
Olympiads of 1954, 1956, 1958, 1962, 1964,
1966 and 1968, an astonishing achievement
of consistency and perseverance. Without
doubt his best performance was in 1956 at
Moscow where on board five he scored
79.2%, winning seven, drawing five and
losing none of his games. As time passed,
though, many felt Clarke lost the clear-cut
quality of play and became over-objective
so that it was not too surprising when at
the 1968 Olympiad at Lugano he drew
seven and lost one of his eight games.
As he has played less, so he has written
more. He is a Russian scholar, so it is not
surprising that among his books, perhaps
the two best are Mikhail Tai's Best Games
of Chess and Petrosian's Best Games of
Chess.
Round 1
Nigel Short 0-1 William Hartston
John Nunn 1-0 Jana Hartston
George Botterill YiVil-ViViO Julian Hodgson
Tony Miles 1-0 Peter Clarke

Three of the four top seeds came through abcdefgh

their opening matches comfortably. The
exception was Botterill, who had to
struggle for his life against his
thirteen-year-old opponent and should
have lost their second game when a piece
down. Missing his chance then, Julian was
well beaten in the third game.

Game 12:
Nigel Short - William Hartston
English Opening (by transposition of
moves)
a b c d e f g h
1 d4
Eleven-year-old Nigel is usually a 1 e4
SHORT: I'll have to move my knight back,
player, but decided not to take on
he's attacking it. Can't really move it
Hartston's Sicilian Defence. However, it
forward. I can move it to b3 - it doesn't do
usually pays to stick to the openings you
much there - I can move it to f3 but then it
know best against a stronger opponent.
obstructs the bishop, and probably helps
1 . . . Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 Nf3 cxd4 4 Nxd4 e6 him advance his pawns. Yes, c2 seems the
5 g3 d5 6 Bg2 e5. right place.
Contrary to the widespread belief that 7 Nc2.
promising youngsters should use a tactical
chess style and only play positional chess HARTSTON: He's playing this opening well
when they are more experienced, Nigel - put his knight back on the best square.
Short has always liked strategic play and I'm finding it very difficult settling down
endgames. Here he chooses a modern to this game, playing against an
theme - White allows Black to build a eleven-year-old. Players are really maturing
classical pawn centre in the expectation of much earlier these days. I don't know what
undermining it from the flanks. I was doing at eleven - cleaning chimneys

57
probably. I must take him seriously. I'm
sure pawn to d4 is right here. Then he
plays pawn to f4, pressure on the centre -
still I must advance.
7 . . . d4.
SHORT: That cramps me down a bit. I
must get rid of this centre now, pawn to f4
seems logical.
8 f4.
HARTSTON: It's funny - I was sure he
didn't know this opening, but he's playing
the right moves. Now he's undermining
those two advanced centre pawns. I feel I
have to sacrifice a pawn here. His e2 and
c4 pawns are a bit vulnerable. I think I'll
take on f4 and then play knight c6. He can
capture the knight and take the d4 pawn,
but I have two good bishops - I think
Black has enough.
8 . . . exf4 9 Bxf4 Nc6.
SHORT: That's interesting. Well a pawn up
against Hartston isn't bad.
10 Bxc6ch bxc6 11 Qxd4.
HARTSTON: He's taken it quite quickly -
maybe no one's ever told this boy not to
take pawns from strange men. Now I can
exchange queens and go into an ending a
pawn down when I hope my two bishops
are good enough compensation. I don't
see any good way to keep queens on. I
wish I'd played some other opening, it's
not a very complicated position, I'd have
preferred something more difficult.
11 . . . Qxd4 12 Nxd4.
58
abcdefgh
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
abcdefgh
HARTSTON: He’s not really threatening my
c6 pawn because if he takes it I pin his
knight to the rook by bishop to b7. But
what to do meantime? I'm not sure yet
where to develop my black-squared bishop
or which side to castle. I really don't like
this - be very embarrassing if I lost to this
boy - be good television, but I want the
prize money. I think I should put the
white-squared bishop on the long
diagonal, then play c5.
12 . . . Bb7 13 Nd2.
HARTSTON: He's putting his knights on
the right squares. I don't think much of my
last move, this bishop looks rotten on b7.
I don't want to play my pawn to c5 now
because his knight comes back to f3, and
then the pawn blocks the other bishop.
I can castle long; I must get a rook to e8
soon to pressurise his e2 pawn. I'm not
playing this very well. Can't lose to an
eleven-year-old. I must castle long, it looks
the only useful move. See what he does
about the attack on his knight.
13 . . . 0-0-0 14 N(4) f3. better, I have g5. I'm winning a piece. Yes,
this looks right.
HARTSTON: I don't really think I've got
enough for this pawn. Got something - 16 . . . Bxd2ch
two bishops must be effective. Perhaps I
SHORT: Gosh, ! wish I had me peanuts.
should play bishop b4 now, pinning the
I must take with the rook.
knight on d2 and tying the other one to its
defence. This stops him being very active 17 Rxd2 Rxd2 18 Kxd2.
and it lets me develop my other rook. If he
HARTSTON: Now g5, knight takes f7 and if
plays a3, I exchange bishop for knight and
g takes f4, knight d6 check. I can stop that
we're left with opposite coloured bishops,
- I have knight e4 check in the middle,
so I'm probably not losing. I can keep the
protecting the square he's threatening
initiative, he still hasn't found any safe
check from. Yes, this is winning a piece.
place for his king.
18 . . . g5.
14 . . . Bb4 15 0-0-0 Rhe8.
SHORT: Shucks. It's the end now. Well at
SHORT: Now he's threatening my e pawn
least I've had a day off school. Perhaps I
- I could defend it with my rook but that
could try knight takes f7 followed by knight
pins my knight down again. I know, I'll put
d6 check, but he can play knight e4 check.
my knight on e5 attacking the pawn, that
I think I'll do that anyway. Hope he
looks good.
doesn't see it.
16 Ne5.
19 Nxf7 Ne4ch.
abcdefgh SHORT: Well, if I move my king now I'll
just be a piece down, there's no point in
playing on. So I'll resign.
20 Resigns.

abcdefgh

abcdefgh

HARTSTON: Oh, I wasn't worried about

that. He didn't think long about that move,
but it seems a mistake. Let's see, bishop
takes d2, rook takes, rook takes rook, king
takes, then knight to e4 check - no, even abcdefgh
59
Nigel Short might have played on a few
moves, but after 20 Kc1 gxf4 21 gxf4 Rf8!
22 Ng5 Rxf4 he will only have two pawns
for a bishop, since 23 Nxh7? Rf7 traps the
knight.
Game 13:
John Nunn - Jana Hartston
Caro-Kann Defence
1 e4 c6 2 c4 d5 3 exd5 cxd5 4 cxd5 Nf6.
The Caro-Kann 1 ... c6 is a solid defence,
suitable for a no-risk policy with Black.
Here John Nunn varies from the usual 2 d4
to try and unsettle his opponent. Black has
the problem of deciding exactly when to
retake on d5. To do so immediately by
4 . . . Qxd5 would allow 5 Nc3 and White
speeds his development by attacking the
queen.
5 Nc3 g6.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
Now 5 . . . Nxd5 is simpler and probably
better, but Jana feared the forcing line
6 Bc4 Nxc3 7 Qb3.
60
NUNN: I've only played a couple of
women before and I don't want to lose my
hundred per cent record. I expected her to
take that d pawn last move. I wonder if I
can hang on to it now by bishop to c4
followed by pawn to d3. That's an
advantage, because in a similar position
where White has already played pawn to d4
that bishop often gets into trouble, lacking
defence. So bishop to c4.
6 Bc4.
JANA: John Nunn in round one with Black,
that's tough. Not that he's a man, that
doesn't matter so much, but he's a strong
player. I should have taken that pawn last
move, but this opening is quite playable.
He didn't advance pawn to d4 and that
might make a difference, but I can't do
anything else now but develop my bishop
to g7.
6. . . Bg7 7 Nf3.
JANA: Last time I played this my opponent
played knight to e2 and then to f4, and I
got a reasonably good game. I suppose he
thinks this is better. What now, knight to
d7 and then to b6? If I do that he can
develop his queen to b3 and go pawn d6
in some lines. I'd better castle.
7 ... 0-0 8 0-0 Nbd7 9 d3.
JANA: Ah, d3, that's the whole idea. He
defends his bishop at c4 and leaves it
there, defending his d5 pawn, and I can't
get at it. What to do now? I really must put
my knight on b6 then he plays queen to b3
defending his pawn and I'm not getting it.
Pawn down already and it's only nine
moves.
9 . . . Nb6.
NUNN: My extra pawn doesn't look very
good, but that advanced pawn on d5 has a
cramping effect on her position. I'd like to
see how she's going to develop all the rest
of her pieces whilst that remains there, so
queen to b3.
10 Qb3 Bf5.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
NUNN: I've got a difficult decision to
make here - I'd like to develop my king's
rook to el and my queen's bishop to f4,
but which move should I play first? If I play
rook to el she might move her queen to c7
stopping me developing the bishop. But if
I develop my bishop first she can play her
knight at f6 back to d7 then come out to c5
driving my queen from its present excellent
square.
If I played rook to e! first, this knight
manoeuvre wouldn't be dangerous because
I could develop my bishop to e3 instead.
On the whole, though, I'd prefer to
develop my bishop first, despite this knight
manoeuvre. I can always move my queen
to a3 when the knight gets to c5, and that
will force her to take some action about
her knight which will then be attacked. So
I'll settle for bishop to f4.
11 Bf4.
JANA: I thought he might play his rook to
el. This pawn is annoying, but I can't
attack it any more. Well, I suppose there is
one logical move left.
11 . . . Rc8.
NUNN: Phew, I'm relieved to see that
move. Now I can play my rook to e! as I
like.
12 Rfe1 Nfd7.
NUNN: Now I can attack that e7pawn with
my bishop by playing bishop to g5. If she
replies knight to c5 threatening my queen,
I can play queen to a3 attacking not only
the a pawn but potentially that sensitive
spot on e7.
13 Bg5 Bf6 14 Bxf6.
JANA: If I take back with the knight, the e7
pawn is still vulnerable. I could take with
the pawn, that would get rid of the weak
e7 pawn. He would have a passed d pawn
but they are doubled and I could put my
knight on c5. I suppose it might be
playable.
14 . . . exf6.
A curious position where both sides
welcome doubled pawns which are
normally considered weak. The white
doubled pawns cramp Black's game, while
Black's doubled f pawns give her king extra
protection and give better chances of
contesting the e file with a rook.
15 Nd4 Nc5 16 Qd1.
JANA: Now if I retreat my bishop to d7 it's
all cramped. I could take his bishop and
then play knight to d3 attacking his rook.
I'd better do that.
61
16 . . . Nxc4 17 dxc4 Nd3.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
NUNN: Surely this move is a blunder. I can
win two knights for a rook now.
18 Nxf5 Nxe1 19 Ne3.
JANA: Cod, I didn't see that. And it was so
obvious. Now he protects his d5 pawn and
I can't get the one on c4. It's lost. Oh dear,
how many moves is it? Only nineteen.
Should have put up a better fight. Oh, oh.
I feel ashamed of this, I have to play a few
more moves, can't lose before move
twenty. Oh dear, oh it wasn't very good.
1 wish I could calculate better.
JANA: Yes, all his moves are obvious and
pretty good. Now if I check with my queen
he just goes away with his king to hi and
puts a rook on g1 and threatening to take
on f5 even and I'm smashed. Do I resign?
Oh can't resign yet, suppose I should play
some more moves.
21 . . . Re8 22 d6 Re6 23 c5 f4
24 Qxf4 Rxc5.
NUNN: Now I can defend my passed pawn
with rook to d1 and she can't stop it advanc­
ing another square. I haven't seemed to
have much trouble keeping my hundred
per cent record.
25 Rd1 Rc6 26 d7 Rf6.
NUNN: Now I can play queen to h4
pinning the rook and there'll be no way
she can prevent knight to e4 winning more
material.
27 Qh4.
JANA: Yes, that's it. Now I'm pinned all
over. Knight to e4 is coming and I lose
even more material. If I check on f2, he
takes my rook with the queen. Women
really don't play that badly all the time.
Well, I suppose I have to resign now.
27 . . . Resigns.

19 . . . Nxg2 20 Kxg2.
Two knights are usually better than a rook
in a middle game, especially as here when
the board is blocked by a pawn chain and
the rooks have little scope. If Black could
survive to the ending and open up some
lines for her rooks into the white position,
there would be much better fighting
chances.
20 . . . f5 21 Qd4.

62
 abcdefgh abcdefgh
8
7
6

5
4
3
2
1
abcdefgh abcdefgh

Game 14: Botterill gained a space advantage from the

opening and gradually increased the
George Botterill - Julian Hodgson
pressure against Hodgson's queen's side.
Sicilian Defence
However, Black defended coolly and his
well-planned 35 . . . h6 began counterplay
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 Bb5 ch Bd7
down the h file. At adjournment after
4 Bxd7 ch Qxd7 5 c4 Nc6 6 Nc3 g6
41 Ng3 Black's game looked critical but
7 d4 cxd4 8 Nxd4 Bg7 9 Be3 Nf6
Hodgson and Nigel Short did some
10 f3 0-0 11 0-0 Rfc8 12 Nde2 Rab8
imaginative adjournment analysis which
13 Qd2 Qd8 14 b3 a6 15 a4 Nd7
gave Black a saving counter-attack.
16 Rabi a5 17 Nd5 Nc5 18 Bg5 b6
19 Rfd1 Rb7 20 Be3 Ne5 21 Nd4 e6
41 . . . f6 42 a6 Rh2 43 Nh5 ch gxh5
22 Nc3 Ned3 23 Qe2 Nb4 24 Ndb5 Rd7
44 Kxh2 hxg4 ch 45 Kg1 Qh3
25 Qd2 Qe7 26 Bg5 Bf6 27 h4 Rcd8
46 Rb2 gxf3 47 a7 Qg4 ch 48 Kf1 Nxe4
28 Qe3 Bxg5 29 hxg5 e5 30 Nd5 Nxd5
49 a8=Q Qh3 ch 50 Kg1 Qg3 ch 51 Kf1.
31 cxd5 Kg7 32 b4 axb4 33 Rxb4 Rh8
34 Nc3 Rb7 35 Rdb1 h6 36 Rxb6 Rxb6
37 Rxb6 hxg5 38 g4 Qd8 39 a5 Rh4
40 Ne2 Qh8 41 Ng3.

63
 After losing a pawn by inaccurate opening
play, Hodgson gained compensation with
useful white square knight outposts. Under
pressure, Botterill now gives up material
for a freer game, but it was probably better
to try and unravel his pieces by 23 . . . Bf8
followed by Ng7.
23 . . . e4 24 fxe4 Be5 25 Nfe7 Nxe4
26 Nxc8 Rxc8 27 Bxa7 Kg7 28 Bb6 Rc6
29 Be3 Ra6 30 a3 Ng3 31 Rf3 f5
32 Bf2 f4 33 Bxg3 fxg3 34 Ne3? (better to
centralise the king with Kf1-e2 and leave
the knight at its dominating post) Kg6
35 Nf1 Rb6 36 Rd2 Nc5 37 Re2 Na4
abcdefgh 38 b3.
Drawn by perpetual check.
abcdefgh
Game 15:
Julian Hodgson - George Botterill
Pirc Defence

1 e4 d6 2 d4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 Be2 Nf6

5 h3 0-0 6 Nf3 Na6 7 0-0 c5 8 e5 Ne8
9 Bg5 h6 10 Bh4 cxd4 11 Nxd4 g5
12 Bg3 dxe5 13 Nc6 Qd6 14 Qxd6 exd6
15 Ne7 ch Kh8 16 Ncd5 Be6 17 Bg4 Nec7
18 Bxe6 Nxe6 19 Nf5 Rac8 20 c3 Nac5
21 Radi Rfd8 22 f3 Kh7 23 Bf2.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh

38 . . . Nxc3? (falling for a simple trap.

38 . . . Rxb3 gives good chances to hold
the game) 39 Rxe5 dxe5 40 Rxc3 h5
41 Nxg3 h4.
Black is now a knight down with absolutely
no compensation - except that both
players were now down to their last five
minutes or so for an infinite number of
moves, and that thirteen-year-old Hodgson
was starting to tire after nearly seven hours
abcdefgh of play in the two games. White can now

64
win easily, for instance by 42 Ne4-c5, and A remarkable recovery? The worst game of
he lets numerous other chances go the tournament? Both!
begging in the next 40 moves of
increasingly frantic blitz chess. Game 16:
Nevertheless, Botterill deserves credit for George Botterill - Julian Hodgson
keeping his head and making what can be King's Indian Reversed
made of the black position.
1 Nf3 c5 2 g3 d5 3 Bg2 Nc6 4 0-0 Nf6
42 Nf1 Ra6 43 b4 Kf5 44 Ne3 ch Ke4 5 d3 g6 6 Nc3.
45 Kf2 Kd4 46 Rc7 Kd3 47 Rd7 ch Ke4
It is surprising that Botterill should adopt
48 Nc4 b5 49 Nd2 ch Kf5 50 Rf7 ch Ke6
this move in view of its lack of success
51 Rf3 Rc6 52 Ke2 Rc2 53 Kd1 Ra2
when played against him in a similar
54 g3 Kd5 55 Rd3 ch Ke6 56 gxh4 gxh4
opening (game 7).
57 Nb3 Kf5 58 Nd2 e4 59 Re3 Ra1 ch
60 Ke2 Ra2 61 Ke1 Ra1 ch 62 Kf2 Ra2 6 . . . Bg7 7 e4 dxe4 8 dxe4 0-0 9 h3?
63 Re2 Rxa3 64 Nxe4 Rxh3 (now Black takes the initiative) Be6
65 Nd6 ch Kf4 66 Nxb5 Rh2 ch 10 Be3 Qc8 11 Kh2 Rd8.
67 Ke1 Rh1 ch 68 Kd2 Rb1 69 Kc3 h3 abcdefgh
70 Nd4 Kg3 71 Nf5 ch Kf3 72 Nd4 ch Kg3
73 Re3 ch Kg2 74 Re2 ch Kg3
75 Re3 ch Kg2 76 Re2 ch Kg3
77 Nf5 ch Kg4 78 Ne3 ch Kf3
79 Rh2 Kxe3 80 Rxh3 ch Ke4 81 Rh4 ch
(81 Rh5! cutting off the king was the last
winning chance) Kd5 82 Rh5 ch Kc6
83 Rh6 ch Kb7 84 Rh7 ch Draw agreed.

abcdefgh

abcdefgh
BOTTERILL: There's only one sensible
square for the lady.
12 Qd.
HODGSON: I had the better of it in the
first game, was a piece up in the second,
and I think I've got the better of it in the
third now my knight gets in on d4.

abcdefgh 12 . . . Nd4.
BOTTERILL: Oh dear, another rotten

65
position. Seems that the younger you are,
the better you play the opening. He's
threatening that h pawn again, so I must
move my knight round to the queen's side.
13 Nd2 Rb8 14 Bf4 Ra8 15 Nb3 Nh5
16 Be3 Bc4.
BOTTERILL: Where to put the rook? I could
put it on the open file or on e1. Now my
main hope is to get a knight to d5 and
then attack his e pawn which would be
backward. So really the best move ought to
be rook el.
17 Re1 a5 18 Nd2 Be6 19 Nd5.
HODGSON: He threatens knight to b6 and
also knight takes pawn check winning the
queen. I don't want to get rid of my white
squared bishop, but I have to.
19 . . . Bxd5 20 exd5 c4 21 Bg5 Nf6.
BOTTERILL: I could take his e pawn, but
then knight takes the d5 pawn must be
rather strong with those two knights in the
middle of the board. So I think the time
has come to drive back that knight on d4.
22 c3 Nf5 23 g4.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
66
23 . . . Nd6?
BOTTERILL: Surely that's a mistake? I really
was expecting him to check with the
queen on c7, my king's side's a bit loose.
Well, it still is, but I've won a good pawn.
24 Rxe7.
HODGSON: Now I realise what I should
have done. I should have taken a check
and guarded the e pawn which 1
completely forgot about. If I don't do
anything drastic soon he'll completely
overwhelm me, so I’ll try knight takes g4
check to get some chances on the king's
side.
24 . . . Nxg4ch 25 hxg4 Qxg4 26 Nf3 h6
27 Bf4.
HODGSON: / was hoping that he would
take my h pawn and allow a queen check,
but he saw that one. There's not much I
can do, but I can bring my knight in to f5
and attack his rook.
27 . . . Nf5 28 Rxb7 Re8 29 d6 Re2
30 Kg1 g5.
BOTTERILL: That's not very worrying, is it?
In fact, it's quite nice not to have to
defend the bishop any longer after it
retreats. I think Julian's losing the thread of
this game. I must be winning with a piece
ahead.
31 Bh2.
 abcdefgh abcdefgh

abcdefgh abcdefgh

HODGSON: Now for my last chance. HODGSON: I'm finished now, it's mating.
I'll have to resign.
31 . . . Ne3.
49 . . . Resigns.
BOTTERILL: Ouch, threatening mate.
Queen takes bishop mate, if pawn takes
Game 17:
knight, queen takes bishop mate -
monotonous. What do I do about that? Oh Tony Miles - Peter Clarke
yes, I'm rather lucky, I could take that with Queen's Gambit Accepted
my queen. Yes, rook and two pieces
against a queen. In fact, that would be very 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 e3 c5.
nice, because most of his attacking pieces
Beginners in this opening are often
have disappeared from the board. Queen
puzzled why Black cannot keep his pawn
takes knight as quickly as I can.
by 4 . . . b5. But then White continues
32 Qxe3 Rxe3 33 fxe3 Qe4 34 Re7 Qd3. 5 a4 c6 6 b3 cxb3 7 axb5 cxb5
8 Bxb5 ch Bd7 9 Qxb3, regaining the pawn
BOTTERILL: I think I want to open the
with a lead in development, while Black's a
diagonal for that white squared bishop. I
pawn, though passed, is easy to attack.
do seem to be winning here. I've been
very lucky. 5 Bxc4 e6 (an ancient trap which most
players fall for at least once is 5 . . . Bg4?
35 Nd4 (quicker is 35 Ne1) Bxd4
6 Bxf7 ch Kxf7 7 Ne5 ch) 6 Nc3 a6
36 exd4 Rd8 37 d7 Rxd7 38 Rxd7 g4
7 a4 cxd4 8 exd4 Be7 9 0-0 Nc6
39 Be5 Qe3 ch 40 Kh1 Qg5 41 Rf1 g3
10 Re1 Nb4.
42 Bh3 Qh4 43 Kg2 Qe4 ch
44 Rf3 Qe2 ch 45 Kxg3 Qe1 ch
46 Rf2 Qg1 ch 47 Rg2 Qe3 ch
48 Kh2 dis ch Kf8 49 Bd6 ch.
67

abcdefgh
abcdefgh
Black is adopting the standard technique
against an isolated central pawn: he does
not attack it directly but tries to immobilise
it by a blockade. The blockading piece in
turn is well posted for action on either
flank.
MILES: I can centralise my knight on e5,
but maybe I should develop my queen's
bishop first. I could stick it on f4, but when
he plays his knight to d5 it will attack the
bishop, so maybe g5 is the most aggressive
square.
11 Bg5.
CLARKE: I usually feel quite at home in
this type of position manoeuvring against
an isolated queen pawn, but somehow this
one seems a bit more difficult than they
usually are. White has a very aggressive
rook on el. I'd better complete my king's
side development first.
11 . . . 0-0 12 Ne5.
68
CLARKE: I like to play my rook to e8 in this
type of position so that after his d5 break
the rook has an open file.
12 . . . Re8.
MILES: He's still got to develop his
queen's side. If he goes b6 intending
bishop b7, I can play queen f3 gaining
time, and if he plays the bishop to d7 I
think I could play queen b3. This would
pin his knight on b4 against the pawn b7
and also have some threats along the white
diagonal against his f7 and e6. Apart from
that, I might be threatening to play bishop
on g5 takes his knight on f6, when he's
forced to take with the pawn since his
bishop is needed to defend the other
knight. So if only I could find a waiting
move . . . what about rook e3 . . . yes, in
some lines the rook would be very useful
on the third rank for an attack on the
king's side.
13 Re3.
MILES: Oh hell - I allowed knight from f6
to d5 and if bishop takes bishop then
knight takes rook attacking my queen. Oh
dear, hell, maybe I can play knight takes
knight on d5 and he recaptures with his
knight, then I can play my rook to h3 and
if he takes my bishop on g5 with his
bishop I play queen h5 simultaneously
attacking f7 and h7. It might be good
enough - still it's too late now, we'll see.
CLARKE: This seems very aggressive to me
- he's going to play his rook to h3 and try
and deal a knock-out on the king's side.
He's evidently going to show that he's a
grandmaster and knock me out
straightaway. I don't like knight from f6 to
d5 because of the attack rook h3 followed
by queen h5. I think I'd better develop on
the queen's side and try to counterattack
with rook c8, but I'm very unhappy about
this position at the moment.
13 . . . Bd7.
MILES: That's a relief, not completely sure
whether my accidental sacrifice was sound.
14 Qb3.
CLARKE: It looks as though I must protect
the knight with the pawn.
14 . . . a5.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
MILES: I think I can get some advantage
now. I can take on f6 and on d7, then play
my bishop to b5 and break open the centre
with d5. I can almost sacrifice things on f7,
but they don't look too sound. I'll play the
simple line, hack off his bishop and
weaken the queen's side white squares.
15 Bxf6 Bxf6 16 Nxd7 Qxd7 17 Bb5 Nc6.
MILES: Pawn to d5 seems to smash open
the position quite nicely. If he takes it off,
my knight is well placed and threatens to
wreck up his king's side and also to win
the exchange by going to b6. Maybe he
can take on c3 with his bishop first but
then I can take his knight - yes, there are
several things around.
18 d5 exd5 19 Nxd5.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
CLARKE: I'm still under pressure, but I've
got a very good bishop at f6 - if I can get
out of the difficulties on the queen's side.
I may well escape. I must protect the
bishop first.
19 . . . Qd6 20 Rd1 Rxe3 21 Qxe3.
CLARKE: A pity I can't play bishop takes
pawn at b2 - he then has bishop takes
knight c6, followed by knight to e7 check.
I need a strong square for my knight. It's a
pity I can't play it to d4 - he plays rook
takes d4, of course - but 1 still think b4 is a
good square.
21 . . . Nb4.
MILES: Maybe I can take the bishop on f6,
then he must recapture with the queen and
I can play rook d7. Oh yes, if he then plays
rook to d8, trying to exchange rooks, I
69
have a tremendous move - queen to e5
and if he takes my queen I mate him and if
he takes my rook I have queen e8 check.
Queen e8 mate, in fact, even better. And
I'm also threatening queen takes queen
winning a rook. Yes, that's tremendous.
Now what happens if he takes on b2 with
his queen - then I have queen e7
threatening queen takes f7 check and also
rook d8 checkmating. Yes, that must be
good.
22 Nxf6 ch Qxf6 23 Rd7.
CLARKE: This position is looking worse
than I feared. I ought to take the b pawn in
case I don't get another chance.
23 . . . Qxb2 24 Qe7.
CLARKE: This is a killer, I think. If I play
queen check on the back rank, he retreats
the bishop and then I've got nothing else.
The endgame looks very bad for me after
queen f6 - no, that's just hopeless. I'd
better make an escape square for my king.
24 . . . h6 25 Qxf7ch Kh8.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
70
MILES: Now I could take on b7, but then
he might play queen a1 check and activate
his rook - my king's side's a little screwed
up. Maybe I should make an escape square
for my king first. Now if I play pawn to g3,
he plays queen b1 check and after king to
g2 then queen to e4 check and I may have
to interpose my queen, which would
relieve the tension - so probably I should
push my h pawn. I think pawn to h4 looks
all right. Yes, then if he checks on at and
on e5, I can interpose my g pawn - yes,
that's OK.
26 h4 Qa1 ch 27 Kh2.
CLARKE: Still I haven't got a good move.
I'll protect the b pawn by moving it.
27 . . . b6 28 g3 Rc8.
MILES: That rook's not threatening to
move anywhere. If it moves down the c
file, I have rook d8 check followed by
queen g8 check and his king comes out
into the open. He still can't move the
knight or do anything much with the
queen. But I've been on this position for
ages - what can I do? It'd be nice if I could
play bishop d3 and I could start mating him
on the back rank again, but his knight
stops that, so maybe I could bring the
bishop round somewhere else on to that
diagonal. Now if my rook wasn't on d7, I
could play the bishop into d7 and then
back to f5. Maybe I should play my rook to
b7 preparing that and also attacking his b
pawn. That looks pretty strong - even
better if I put it on e7, then I'm threatening
bishop d7 and I can check on the back
rank with my rook. Yes, that's a mating
net, that looks reasonable.
29 Re7 Qd4 30 Bd7.
 abcdefgh

abcdefgh

CLARKE: Well, he threatens a rook and he

threatens rook e8 check to be followed by
bishop f5 with a mate - so the only
question is should I resign before I lose on
time. I think I'll resign.
30 . . . Resigns.

71
 Semi-finals
Hartston 1-0 Botterill
Miles YiViO-ViVil Nunn

Two contrasting results. Hartston won an abcdefgh

uneventful technique game, while the
pairing between Miles and Nunn produced
two games full of exciting and original
tactics.

Game 18:
William Hartston - George Botterill
King's Indian Defence

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 Bg5 d6

5 Nf3 h6 6 Bh4 0-0 7 e3 Na6.
An unusual and rather artificial plan - Black
intends to advance c5 while keeping the
option of regrouping the knight to c7 or to
c6 via b4.
8 Be2 c5 9 0-0 g5 10 Bg3 Nh5.
Now the other knight goes to the edge to
exchange off the bishop.
72
abcdefgh
HARTSTON: I'm quite happy with my
position from the opening. It's a rather
unpretentious system for White, but I've
been getting good results with this
recently. Black's weakened his king's side
by advancing his pawns - he's going to
exchange my bishop on g3, but I don't
think that really matters. Now I want to
play queen c2 to create space for my rooks
and take advantage of the weaknesses
created by his pawn advances. But after
queen c2, he can play g4 attacking my
knight and winning my pawn on d4. Still,
g4 isn't a move he can be happy about - it
leaves his king exposed, and I think I get
enough for the pawn.
11 Qc2.
 BOTTERILL: If I advance the g pawn, my
king side looks full of holes. Is it any
good? I don't know, but I just don't trust
it. What else can I do? My knight isn't very
active on a6, and I can bring it round to c6
with gain of tempo by attacking his queen.
11 . . . Nb4.
HARTSTON: He can't really want to bring
his knight back to c6 else he'd have put it
there in the first place. Still I can now
defend this pawn. It's always good to
defend a pawn your opponent's just failed
to win - makes him think he should have
taken it the move before.
12 Qd2.
BOTTERILL: There doesn't seem anything
dynamic for Black to do, so I'll settle for
bringing out my queen bishop.
12 . . . Bf5.
HARTSTON: Wait a minute, maybe I can
win a pawn here. Knight takes g5, pawn
takes knight, bishop takes h5 - that's OK
so knight takes g5, knight takes g3, f takes
g3, h takes g5, rook takes bishop, but
maybe then he gains something with e6
attacking the rook. Rook goes back, c takes
d4 then queen b6, a little complicated.
Looks better if I chase his knight from b4
first.
13 a3 Na6.
HARTSTON: Surely knight c6 was better.
Now surely I can take on g5. That's a very
good pawn to win. I'm beginning to think
his bishop f5 was a blunder.
14 Nxg5.
BOTTERILL: Oh no, what's this? If I play
knight takes g3, he's taking with the f
pawn, then my bishop on f5 is en prise. I
never imagined him capturing away from
the centre. Oh dear, seems I've blundered.
It's not just a case of losing a pawn, it's a
very unfortunate pawn to lose, because my
king side is shattered. I think I'll interpose
a capture in the centre to try and at least
give him a weakness on d4 to see if I can
get some counterplay there.
14 . . . cxd4 15 exd4 Nxg3 16 fxg3 Bg6
17 Nf3.
abcdefgh
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
abcdefgh
BOTTERILL: I don't seem to have any
active compensation for the pawn. It's not
one of those positions where you can try
and exploit the opened lines. It's rather
one of those positions where you've just
got to keep plodding away - hoping slowly
to make up for the ground already lost.
Dear me, I should have taken that bishop
off at g3 before, when he'd have taken
with the h pawn. Well, the piece that really
isn't working in my position at the moment
is the knight on a6 - I think I'd better
centralise that.
17 . . . Nc7 18 Bd3 Ne6 19 Bxg6 fxg6.
HARTSTON: Now he's got a rotten
position. Knight d5 looks very strong, then
73
I'm threatening to put a rook on the e file.
This is very good even though I'm only half abcdefgh
a pawn up - I seem to have a tremendous
positional advantage too.
20 Nd5.

BOTTERILL: That takes out all my little

traps. I can't play a knight takes d4 sacrifice
and then pin his knight on the diagonal,
because that knight on d5 controls all the
important black squares. Also he's just
threatening to play a rook to the e file
when my position would cave in. I think
the only thing to do here is to give up the
exchange, getting a pawn back. That at
least enables me to fight on for some time.
20 . . . Rxf3 21 gxf3 Nxd4 22 Rael e6
23 Nf4 Qf6 24 Qd3 Rf8 25 Kg2.
BOTTERILL: Yes, that's the safe and simple
move. Now, unfortunately, I have to let off
my bishop to avoid losing a pawn. If I play
king h7, he plays knight h5 anyway. So I
have to play g5 - I can't afford to lose that
pawn on g6.
25... g5.
HARTSTON: That's nice - let's exchange
more pieces - knight h5 and take the
bishop. All exchanges must bring a
winning ending nearer.
26 Nh5 Qf5 27 Qxf5 Rxf5 28 Nxg7 Kxg7
29 Re4 e5 30 b4 Kf6 31 f4 gxf4
32 gxf4 Ke6 33 fxe5 Rg5 ch 34 Kh3 dxe5
35 Rg4 Rh5 ch 36 Kg2 Nf5 37 Kg1 Rh3
38 Rg6 ch Kf7 39 Rd6 Ke7 40 Rd5.
abcdefgh
BOTTERILL: This is rather annoying - I was
intending to play knight e3 here, forking
his rooks, and if rook takes pawn check,
king d6, but of course he doesn't play rook
takes pawn check - he's got a much
stronger move. He plays the rook pin d3,
pinning my knight against that rook on h3.
That would be very embarrassing indeed -
my pieces would be completely tied up.
No, I must play king e6 then.
40 . . . Ke6.
HARTSTON: Now rook el. After knight e3,
rook d3 wins the knight, so he must play
rook e3, then I exchange rooks.
41 Re1 Re3 42 Rxe3 Nxe3 43 Rc5 Kd6
44 Kf2 Ng4 ch 45 Kg3 Ne3 46 Kf3 Nc2
47 Rd5 ch Ke6 48 Ke4 Nxa3
49 Rxe5 ch Kd6 50 Rd5 ch Ke6
51 Rh5 Nxc4 52 Rxh6 ch Kd7
53 Kd5 Ne3 ch 54 Kc5 Nf5 55 Rf6 Ne7.

74
 abcdefgh
abcdefgh
HARTSTON: It's time to start running with
my h pawn. Another couple of squares up
the board and I'll be able to give up the
rook for the knight.
56 h4.
BOTTERILL: My one hope is to try and get
rid of all those pawns on the queen side.
I'll play b6 check, if king b5, then a5.
Perhaps that doesn't draw even but it gives
some chances.
56 . . . b6ch.
HARTSTON: King d4 and I'm threatening
b5, completely killing his queen's side
pawns.
57 Kd4 Nc6ch.
HARTSTON: What's this? I take it. His
king's too far away. Rook takes knight,
king takes, h5, little square and he's
outside it.
58 Rxc6 Kxc6 59 h5.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
BOTTERILL: Yes, that's going to go right
through. My pawn doesn't even get any
further than the sixth, whilst he's got a
whole queen on the board.
59 . . . Resigns.
Game 19:
Tony Miles - John Nunn
English Opening (by transposition)
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 Nf3 cxd4 4 Nxd4 e6
5 Nc3 Nc6 6 g3 Qb6 (6 . . . Bb4 is the
alternative) 7 Nb3 Ne5 8 e4 Bb4
9 Qe2 a5 (Black must keep up his initiative,
else his knights are driven back with loss
of time) 10 Be3 (10 f4 a4! is at least equal
for Black) Qc6 11 f3 0-0 12 Nd4 Qa6
13 N4b5 d5 (Black has to continue his
tactical approach, else White consolidates
with advantage).
75
 piece, but obtains a tremendous attack on
abcdefgh the white king.
16 Bxe5 exf3 17 Qc4 (17 Qxf3 Bg4
and . . . Rae8) f2ch 18 Kd1 (18 Kxf2?
Ng4ch) Rd8ch 19 Kd Be6 20 Qe2 Qc6
21 Bxf6 gxf6 22 Qe4 Bd5 23 Qg4ch.

abcdefgh

abcdefgh

14 cxd5?
In a later game Karpov-Miles, Tilburg 1977,
the world champion demonstrated that
the rook sacrifice is unsound: 14 Nc7 Qd6
(Qc6 15 Nxa8 Nxc4 16 Bd4 e5 17 cxd5 or abcdefgh
here 15 . . . dxc4 16 0-0-0) 15 Nxa8 dxe4
(Nxc4 16 a3!) 16 fxe4 Nxe4 17 Rd1 Qc6 23 . . . Kh8?
18 Bg2 Nxc4 19 Bd4 Bxc3ch 20 bxc3 f5
23 . . . Kf8! should win as White cannot get
21 0-0 Nbd6 22 Nb6 e5 23 Nxc8 Rxc8
counterplay against the black king. If
24 Bxe5 Qc5ch 25 Bd4 Resigns.
24 Nd4 Qc5 25 Nf5 Bxc3 and White soon
It is practically impossible to assess a
runs out of checks.
complex sacrificial line like this over the
board. In general, this kind of 'Wild West' 24 Nd4 Qc5 25 Qh4! (forcing a draw, but
chess is worth adopting against a stronger the game isn't over yet) Bxc3
opponent, who is more likely to overlook 26 Qxf6 ch Kg8 27 Qg5 ch Kf8
some random but important tactical point 28 Qh6 ch Ke7? (risky) 29 Qe3 ch Kf8??
than in a more controlled positional type Black had to play 29 . . . Kd7.
of game.
14 . . . exd5 15 Bd4.
Apparently strong, for if 15 . . . Re8
16 Nc7, or Nc4 16 e5.
15 . . . dxe4!
The 'random but important' tactical point
which Tony Miles missed. Black sacrifices a

76
 abcdefgh abcdefgh

abcdefgh abcdefgh

30 Qh6 ch?? By eliminating one of White's pair of

bishops, Black assures himself an even
Nunn had one minute left to reach the
game from the opening. 12 Bc2 Bxc3
move 40 under time control, Miles fifteen
followed by Nxd5 would now be a dubious
minutes, and Miles here commits the
pawn sacrifice.
common error in such circumstances of
trying to blitz his opponent by moving 12 Bg5 Nxb3 13 axb3 h6 14 Be3 Bg4
instantly. Only this can explain why a 15 h3 Bxf3 16 Qxf3 Bxc3 17 Bxb6 Qxb6
grandmaster should miss 30 Ne6 ch which 18 bxc3 Kg7 19 c4 a5 20 Rfe1 Qf6
forces Black to resign. 21 Qe3 Rfe8 22 c5 Rad8 23 Qd2 b6
24 cxb6 (24 c6? Qxc6!) Qxb6
30 . . . Kg8 31 Qg5 ch Kf8 Drawn by
25 Qc3 ch Kg8 26 Qxa5 Qb7 (not Qxb3?
perpetual check.
27 Rxe7! but now Black attacks two white
pawns and ensures material equality)
Game 20:
27 Re5 f6 28 Re3 Qxd5 29 Qc7 Rd7
John Nunn - Tony Miles 30 Qc2 Kf7 31 b4 Rb8 32 Rb1 Rb5
Caro-Kann Defence 33 Rc3 Rdb7 34 Rc4 Qe6 35 Re4 Qf5
36 Qc4 ch Qd5 37 Qe2 Draw agreed.
1 e4 c6 2 c4 d5 3 cxd5 cxd5 4 exd5 Nf6
5 Nc3 Nxd5! (improving on 5 ... g6 as
played in game 13) 6 Bc4 Nb6! (better
than Nxc3 7 Qb3!) 7 Bb3 g6 8 d4 Bg7
9 Nf3 0-0 10 0-0 Nc6 11 d5 Na5.

77

abcdefgh
abcdefgh
A game where White's slight initiative
never led to anything against a careful
defence.
Game 21:
Tony Miles - John Nunn
King's Indian Defence
1 e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 c4 d6 4 Nc3 Nf6
5 Be2 0-0 6 Nf3 e5 7 Be3 exd4 (this
should be delayed as it gives White too
many options) 8 Nxd4 Re8.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
78
MILES: / could defend my attacked e pawn
with the queen and he might be able to
play knight g4, defend with a bishop would
mean going to d3 or f3, neither any good.
Anyway, I want to play pawn to f3.
9 f3.
NUNN: This is the first time in my life I've
played the King's Indian Defence. I'm not
sure I didn't exchange pawns in the centre
too soon. I'd like to try and play d5 and
I'm helped in this by the fact that his
bishop on e3 is undefended.
9 . . . c6.
MILES: I could defend my unprotected
bishop with the natural 10 Qd2, but I'd still
have both bishops lined up on the e file if
his d5 ever comes. Bishop f2 looks good.
10 Bf2 Nbd7 11 0-0 a5 12 Qd2.
NUNN: /'// have to watch out or else I'm
going to lose my d6 pawn when he
doubles up on the d file. I really need to
counter-attack that slightly weak pawn on
c4.
12 . . . Ne5.
MILES: Not sure which rook on the d file.
Maybe the a rook, then I could continue
pawn to h3 and pawn to f4 driving his
knight away. I'm not sure, maybe I want to
retreat the bishop on e2 to f1 to get it out
of the way of the e file.
13 Rfd1 a4.

abcdefgh
abcdefgh
MILES: I want to get some play on his d
pawn. If I move knight c2 immediately, he
can play bishop e6, counter-attack my c
pawn. Maybe I can play b3, defend the
c pawn and prepare to pile up on his d
pawn.
14 b3 axb3 15 axb3 Rxa1 16 Rxa1.
NUNN: I'm not sure if d5 is very good, but
I must try it else I'll get no play at all and
he'll get in h3 and f4.
16 . . . d5 17 exd5 cxd5 18 c5.
NUNN: That was what most worried me.
He's got a nice majority on the queen side
and he can soon rush forward and create a
dangerous passed pawn. Also there are
possibilities for his knights penetrating to
b5 and d6. My position looks fairly dismal.
I'd better stop him penetrating with his
rook to the eighth.
18 . . . Bd7.
MILES: The first decent position I've had
all day. I wouldn't want to play b4 just yet
because it might give his knight a square
on c4. I can play knight b5, possibly it's a
little early. Maybe I could play knight a4,
then invade on b6 and possibly get my
rook to the seventh or eighth.
19 Na4.
abcdefgh
abcde fgh
NUNN: I hadn't even considered that plan.
He's going to come with the knight to b6.
Perhaps I can get some counterplay on the
king side, it's really my only hope here.
Well - is that a possibility knight e to g4? It
looks ridiculous, but if pawn takes knight I
play knight e4 hitting his queen. His queen
moves - say to f4 - then I play knight takes
bishop. If he retakes with king, I play rook
e4 forking queen and knight. But if he
retakes on f2 with the queen, I've got rook
takes e2 - that's marvellous, if it works. If
he retakes on e2 with the knight, bishop
takes al - that rook was vulnerable after
all. If he retakes on e2 with the queen,
bishop takes knight check and then bishop
takes rook again, and I've won a piece. If
after knight to e4 he moves his queen say
to b2, then knight takes bishop, king takes,
queen to h4 check and then after king gl
I've got rook takes e2 again. Everything
79
seems to work - that was a marvellous
stroke of luck.
19 . . . Neg4!
MILES: Eh, what's this? Take that knight
and he plays knight e4, move my queen,
takes my bishop on f2, recapture with the
queen ... oh dear, he can take on e2 as
well. That's horrible. Where can I put the
bishop then, can't really leave it on f2
because my black squares are much too
weak. Maybe bishop h4, then I'm pinning
his knight on f6 and actually threatening to
take the one on g4.
MILES: If I let him take on e4 with a rook,
the whole position caves in on the black
squares and the e file, so looks like I'll
have to retract the unfortunate knight a4
and put it back where it should have been
all the time.
23 Nc3 dxe4 24 Qe3 Qh5 25 Nde2 Bg4
26 Re1 Qe5 27 b4.
NUNN: I do believe I can win another
pawn after this move. It's nice to have a
technical task suddenly made easy for you.
I just exchange on e2 and then play queen
b2 - then he can't defend that pawn on b4.

20 Bh4. 27 . . . Bxe2 28 Nxe2 Qb2.

NUNN: Now he's really threatening to take MILES: Let's stick my king in the corner, so
that knight on g4. I might consider bishop I don't lose the queen.
h6 here - but wait, I have another move,
29 Kh1 Qxb4 30 Rd.
knight to e4. Forking my own knights!
That’s not something I do very often, and if NUNN: /'// put my rook on that open d
he takes my queen and I take his queen, file. There might be some back rank threats
his bishop on d8 will be undefended and and I have the opportunity to exchange
I'll be threatening bishop takes d4 check queens by queen d2 in some lines.
followed by bishop takes a1 or rook takes
30 . . . Rd 8 31 h3 Be5 32 Qg5 f6
e2 - his entire force would be attacked. If
33 Qe3 Qd2 34 Qb3 ch Kh8 35 Qc4 Rd3.
after knight e4 he retakes either of my
knights I play queen takes bishop and then abcdefgh
his black squares are looking very sickly
indeed. Perhaps knight e4 will give him a
bit of a shock. I'm not sure he's seen that
move.
20 . . . Ne4.
MILES: Oh, what's this? Oh dear, I take his
queen and he takes my queen . . . ugh.
Everything's attacked. Oh, this is dead.
There's nothing at all. Still, find something.
I must take knight on e4, otherwise I just
lose lots of pieces.
21 fxe4 Qxh4 22 Bxg4 Qxg4. abcdefgh

80
MILES: Now if I move my knight to g1 -
ugh, queen f4 and mate. Can't defend it
with anything - queen takes e4 he has
queen takes d check. Can't put the knight
anywhere else. Can't even move the queen
into f7 because of queen takes d check -
oh, this is hopeless . . .
36 Resigns.

81
Master Game 1976 Final
Hartston V2I-V2O Nunn

For the second year, the final was rather a abcdefgh

let-down after the earlier exciting play. In
the first game, Nunn was a pawn down but
drew by careful defence and opposite
coloured bishops. In the second, he made
a grave blunder when hardly out of the
opening.

Game 22:
William Hartston - John Nunn
Modern Benoni

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e6 4 Nc3 exd5

5 cxd5 d6 6 Nf3 g6.
Familiar ground for both players.
Hartston's two Batsford books on the
Benoni are the recognised authority on the
subject, while Nunn has chosen this
defence in many critical games.
7 Bg5 h6 8 Bh4 g5 9 Bg3 Nh5
10 e3 Nxg3 11 hxg3 Bg7 12 Qc2 Nd7
13 Bd3 Qe7.
abcdefgh
Hartston's book calls the chances 'equal'
and gives as the only example of this
position from master play a game where
White continued 14 Kf1. However, the
ensuing moves here are more logical and
suggest White has a slight edge.
14 a4 a6 15 0-0 Rb8 16 Rabi 0-0
17 b4 Ne5 (if cxb4 18 Rxb4 Ne5 19 Nd4)
18 bxc5 dxc5 19 Nxe5 Qxe5 20 Ne4
Qxd5 21 Nxc5 b5 (White threatened
22 Nxa6, while 21 . . . Be6 is met by 22 Be4.
Nunn therefore decides to give up a pawn
at once and aim for the drawing chances of
opposite coloured bishops) 22 axb5 axb5
23 Rxb5 Rxb5 24 Bxb5 Bf5 25 Bd3 Rc8!
26 Bxf5 Rxc5 27 Be4 Rxc2 28 Bxd5.

82
 abcdefgh

a b c d e f g h

An interesting endgame where the bishops Draw agreed. Black can draw by
on opposite colour and the pawns on the 59 . . . Kf6.
same side of the board are strong drawing
factors, but where Black has to play Game 23:
carefully because of the weakness of his f7
John Nunn - William Hartston
pawn.
Sicilian Defence,
28 . . . Rd2 29 Be4 Bb2 30 g4 Kg7 Scheveningen variation
31 g3 Kf6 32 Kg2 Kg7 33 Rh1 Ba3
34 Ra1 Bc5 35 Kf3 Rb2 36 Rd Bb4 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6
37 Rc6 Ba5 38 Bc2 Bb4 39 Ke2 Ba5 5 Nc3 d6 6 Be2.
40 f4 Rb6 41 Rc5 Bb4 42 Rc4 Bd6
43 Kf3 Ra6 44 Rd4 Be7 45 Rd7 Kf8 a b c d e f g h
46 Rb7 Rc6 47 Bb3 Rc3 48 Ke4 Bc5
49 Rxf7ch Ke8 50 Rb7 Rxe3ch
51 Kd5 Ba3 52 f5 Rxg3 53 Ke6 Kd8
54 Bd1 Rd3 55 Rb8ch Kc7 56 Rb1 Rd4
57 Kf7 Kd6 58 Kg6 Ke5 59 Kxh6.

abcdefgh

83
HARTSTON: This is an important game for
theory. John's been drinking coffee during
the interval, and I've been doing Yoga.
Always wanted to know which is better.
I'm not sure whether I'm happy to have an
opening that I've played so often before -
it's difficult to get started. I like to be
thinking about my moves, instead of just
playing ones that I know.
6 . . . Be7.
NUNN: I'm always confused in this
opening about the many move orders
which both sides can adopt. Sometimes
Black plays a6 or queen c7 or knight c6. I
can play castles and f4 and king hi, a4 and
bishop e3, all in different move orders. It's
quite baffling at times.
7 0-0 Nc6 8 Be3 a6.
NUNN: I could just continue on the king
side by playing pawn to f4, but I think
instead I'd prefer to stop his queen side
expansion. He'd like to play pawn to b5 at
some point, and I can stop that right away
by playing pawn to a4 myself.
9 a4 0-0 10 f4 Qc7 11 Khl Nxd4
12 Qxd4 Bd7.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
84
NUNN: He's going to develop some
unpleasant pressure on my centre. He'll
probably force me to advance one of those
pawns at some stage. I don't want to
advance the e pawn; if I play e5 at any
moment he exchanges and I'm left with a
weak pawn: isolated on e5 and exposed to
attack. I'd prefer to play f5 really, but I
think I'll play another move and wait for
him to move his bishop off that diagonal
and then I can play f5 with more security.
So I'll bring a rook to the centre.
13 Radi.
HARTSTON: It's time to start working. I
haven't had this position at all before.
Perhaps I should play e5 to chase his
queen away. I think it's a good move but I
don't like it. I usually like to keep these
pawns on e6 and d6 and wait for the white
ones to advance. Maybe I should develop
one of these rooks, but I don't know
where they go yet. It all depends on what
pawn moves White plays. I'll put the
bishop on the long white diagonal and wait
a little before deciding where to put my
rooks.
13 . . . Bc6 14 f5.
HARTSTON: Oh, he's attacking that e6
pawn which I undefended last move by
moving the bishop away - so bishop c6
wasn't the right move. Now I don't like the
look of it if he takes on e6, because when I
recapture he has bishop c4 or perhaps
bishop g4 attacking the pawn again. If I
play e takes f5, he takes with a rook, and
can develop a dangerous attack, so that
leaves pawn to e5. It gives me a weak
square on d5 though that's fairly well
protected, and I can get pressure on his e4
pawn.
14 . . . e5 15 Qd3.
abcdefgh
HARTSTON: Now I have to do something
very quickly. If I let him play pawn to g4
and g5 chasing my knight away, he'd be
dominating the position. I can play b5
without losing a pawn - if I can, it must be
good.
15 . . . b5 16 axb5 axb5 17 Nxb5.
HARTSTON: I can get the pawn back
immediately with bishop takes knight,
queen takes bishop, queen takes c2, but I
don't like giving up that white-squared
bishop - it's a beautiful piece. I'd like to
abcdefgh
play queen b7, then I'm attacking with
queen and bishop along the long diagonal
NUNN: I'm sure I ought to be able to get
tog2.
some chances of attacking his king in this
17 . . . Qb7. position. But after rook to g3, he can play
knight to e4 forking my queen and rook. I
NUNN: Now I can take another pawn -
might try bishop to h6, but then he's got
what happens then? Knight takes pawn,
lots of possibilities, knight to e8 for
bishop takes knight, queen takes bishop,
example. I'm worried this position could
he'll probably play bishop takes e4 then
turn against me very quickly. Perhaps the
and I'll have three pawns attacked. But
best move is to play something like pawn
then I can play bishop to f3, that swaps off
to h3, then at least I wouldn't have any
his dangerous bishop. He can regain his
worries about my king. But of course he's
other pawn by capturing on b2, but my
threatening that c2 pawn. If he takes that
pieces look rather active and I might have
he would just be a pawn up - I don't want
some chances of attacking his king then.
to defend another ending a pawn down as
18 Nxd6 Bxd6 19 Qxd6 Bxe4 20 Bf3 Bxf3 I did in the last game. Ah, I can play
21 Rxf3 Qxb2. bishop to g5. That looks plausible. My
queen remains guarding the rook on d1,
and I'm threatening bishop takes f6
followed by rook to g3 checkmating him.

22 Bg5??

85
 HARTSTON: Oh, he wants to take my
knight. Still, I can play knight to e4 and
abcdefgh
exchange the knight for the bishop - eh,
it's better than that, where does his queen
go? Knight e4, queen e7 - hey, what's he
doing? Rook e8 and he can't stay
defending this bishop. He's losing a piece.
That's nice. Calm down, check that. Knight
e4, queen e7, rook e8, bishop d, no,
that's nothing. I take on c2 - I win the
exchange at least. Oh, that's good.
22 . . . Ne4.
NUNN: Oh bleat! Oh what a terrible thing
to happen - I completely overlooked that abcdefgh
move! He's forking my queen and bishop.
I can play queen to e7, but then he can NUNN: I really don't know what Bill wants
play his rook to e8 and I'm just going to with two trophies. He seems to be
lose a piece. Tut, tut, what a disaster. I'd exchanging off all my pieces. I think I'll
seen knight to e4 in another variation, then resign now.
I just went and overlooked it.
29 Resigns.
23 Qe7 Rfe8 24 Bc1 Qxc2 25 Qd7 Nf2ch
After 29 Qxd8 Rxd8 30 Rxd8ch Kh7 White
26 Rxf2 Qxf2 27 h3.
loses the f pawn and Black easily wins on
HARTSTON: Now, as long as I don't get material.
mated on the back row, I have one trophy
for each stereo speaker. Pawn to h6 seems
the right idea.
27 . . . h6 28 Kh2 Rad8.

86
The Master Game 1977 - Series Three

87
The Players

For the third series, the Master Game went the world champion by default, a player
international. Six grandmasters and two with an astounding record of success in
international masters competed for the first tournaments since he became champion,
prize of £1250. With Karpov, the world against a young player hardly known
champion; Larsen, perhaps the finest outside his own country, Switzerland.
player never to have become a world Yet, in 1969, when he was just
champion, and Miles, who many tip to seventeen, Werner Hug was within two
become the first ever British world moves of changing the course of chess
champion, there was plenty of scope for history. In the World Junior championship
putting boasts and ambitions to the test in Stockholm playing against Karpov, he
and the promise of some fascinating missed a mate in two moves and only drew
battles. a game he should have won. Had Karpov
Many outstanding players dislike lost, he would not have qualified for the
knock-out chess because some lesser final 'A' section of the tournament, would
players might have an inspired day and not have won the championship, and
dispose of them, but one grandmaster could not have gone on to Caracas a few
taking part in the Master Game positively
embraced the idea of the knock-out.
Helmut Pfleger, the West German
grandmaster, said he thought knock-out
chess was positively better than
tournament chess simply because it was
more exciting and tensions ran higher. In
the first round, Pfleger was drawn against
the holder of the Master Game title Bill
Hartston, Miles against the West German
Grandmaster Lothar Schmid, the two
grandmasters Larsen and Donner against
each other, and the world champion
Karpov against the Swiss player Hug.

At first sight, the game between Karpov

and Werner Hug was a mismatch; Karpov, Werner Hug

88
months later and secure his grandmaster
title.
So Hug certainly had in the back of his
mind the memory of having given Karpov
a bad time in a previous game. Even
though he had won the World Junior
Championship at Athens in 1971 so
becoming an international master and had
played top board for Switzerland and in
the Olympiads of 1972, 1974 and 1976, his
opening with the white pieces suggested
no great confidence against the world
champion. After playing Nf3, he played e3,
a move Karpov instantly appreciated as
being too passive, but perhaps Hug was
remembering Breyer's famous remark:
'After 1. P-K4, White's game is in the last
throes' and was trying to draw Karpov
down labyrinths measureless to analysts.
What was interesting was that at the end
of the game it could clearly be seen that
Hug's second move was not only passive,
but arguably created a weakness that cost
him the game. Not that Hug could have
fancied his chances in any case of joining
that small and exclusive club of players
who have inflicted defeats on Karpov. In
the five years since he entered the world
of senior chess, Karpov has lost only
sixteen games.
In the Soviet Union Anatoly Karpov is
not only a star but a hero with a following
only slightly less rapturous than that
afforded to the current pop figure in this
country. He is slim to the point of
slightness and gives the impression of
being too frail for the physically
debilitating demands of tournaments and
long matches. He is cool, detached and
almost aloof. During an interval of making
the Master Game programmes in Bristol he
was taken to see Brunei's spectacular
masterpiece, the Clifton Suspension
Bridge. To those who had taken him, his
response was disappointing; he said
nothing and expressed nothing, but a
couple of days later, asked to be taken
there again. His response to journalists was
equally discouraging, and even such
undisputed analysts of the chess world as
Harry Golombek find him difficult to
fathom.
In an article on classicism, romanticism
and hyper-modernism in chess, Golombek
wrote that Karpov was something of
everything, played bits of all styles and was
perhaps in the process of forging a new
style — the Karpov school.
Whatever that school may turn out to
be, Karpov's success has been
phenomenal. In the two years after he won
the world championship, albeit by default,
from Fischer, Karpov has won no less than
nine of the eleven tournaments in which
he played. In the European Team Final in
Moscow, he won all five games he played
and at Bad Lauterburg and Las Palmas
against the leading grandmasters in the
world, he not only won but won by record
scores. His results so far suggest that he is
a player of the same stature as the very
Anatoly Karpov
89

Lothar Schmid
best champions - Lasker, Capablanca,
Alekhine, Botvinnik and Fischer, despite
his less than convincing defeat of Korchnoi
in the 1978 World Championship.
Unlike Fischer, who effectively retired
after winning the world title from Spassky
and has not been persuaded to play a
serious game since, Karpov has been most
willing to play in tournaments all over the
world. He is the man everyone wants to
beat and no one has been more forthright
in that ambition than Tony Miles. When he
became a grandmaster in 1976, Miles said:
'The only thing left is to have a go at
Anatoly Karpov.' In 1977, Miles had already
won the IBM tournament in Amsterdam
and the Biel tournament but at Tilburg had
come second - behind Karpov. The Master
Game gave him the opportunity of another
tilt at Karpov, provided he could first beat
Lothar Schmid and Bent Larsen.
If Tony Miles was the youngest player in
the 1977 Master Game series, Lothar
90
Schmid was undoubtedly the most elegant.
He appeared in immaculate lightweight
suits, hair neatly cut, giving the
disconcerting appearance of merely having
dropped in to polish off an opponent
between more important, if indefinable,
diplomatic engagements. Schmid, of
course, is probably best known for his
masterly handling of the Fischer-Spassky
match. They still talk respectfully about the
diplomatic miracle he produced to
persuade not only Fischer but Spassky not
to walk out during the third game at
Reykjavik. He also refereed the
Fischer-Petrosian match, and the world
championship match between Karpov and
Korchnoi, with equal skill and tact.
If the chess world were divided the way
the cricketing world used to be divided
between players and gentlemen, Lothar
Schmid would undoubtedly captain the
gentlemen. Apart from his elegance and
tact, he is also extremely rich. He is a
publisher, not of chess books, but of
westerns. He owns the largest private
library of chess books and one of the
finest collections of other chess material in
the world. Whereas other players huddle
in corners over analysing boards, Lothar
Schmid goes shopping - needless to say,
for first editions in which he takes the
same pleasure as a boy with his first
bicycle.
But no one becomes a grandmaster
merely by being urbane and diplomatic
and there is an element of steel in Lothar
Schmid that is the more telling for being
so gloved in velvet. He is one of the most
widely travelled of the players and has
succeeded in tournaments on all five
continents. Apart from the tournaments he
has won, one of his best results was at
Bamberg in 1968 where he finished joint
second with Tigran Petrosian. Schmid also
excels at correspondence chess - he was
first in the Dyckhoff Memorial in 1954-6
and was joint second in the 1955-8 World
Championship. He also has the remarkable
record of having played for West Germany
in every Olympiad since 1950 apart from
Skopje in 1972.
Tony Miles, playing White, wasted no
time in playing his first move - c4 which
prompted Schmid to muse on his
compatriot Samisch who would have
matched his contribution to theory with
better tournament results had he not so
often found himself in deep time trouble.
He would sometimes muse over his
opening move while the clock
remorselessly ticked away: 'he was
thinking for half-an-hour or longer, but not
necessarily about the opening - about
against whom I'm playing, which
tournaments did he win, to whom is he
married, things like that.'
Even with the terrible warning of
Samisch at the back of his mind, Schmid
found himself in time trouble with ten
moves to make in only five minutes and a
finely balanced end game to solve. And
under that pressure, an inaccurate move
gave Miles the opening he needed for a
brilliant win.
The man who stood between Miles and the
game he really wanted against Karpov was
Bent Larsen who, meanwhile, was fighting
a gruelling draw against the Dutch
grandmaster, Jan Hein Donner. The
play-off, in which they had to play thirty
moves each in an hour, was a game of the
utmost charm, if only because their
comments as the game unfolded revealed
so much of the depth and knowledge of
the game. For instance, on move nine
Jan Hein Donner
Larsen recalled a game he had played
against Ivkov in the Piatisgorsky cup eleven
years previously. Then Larsen had played
pawn takes pawn and since it was Larsen
who had made the move, it became a part
of chess theory. In fact, he had simply
made the move because he was ill and
wanted to simplify the game. Then, a move
later Larsen thought that perhaps Donner
was wanting to follow a game from Las
Palmas in which Adorjan almost got a
winning position with black against Karpov.
Donner remembers the exact day he
learnt the moves of chess: 22 August 1941.
He arrived home from school where a
friend had shown him the moves to find
his mother in tears. His father, a
prominent member of the Dutch judiciary,
had just been taken to Germany as a
hostage.
In 1954 Jan Hein Donner won the Dutch
championship, the first time Dr Max Euwe
had not won it in thirty-three years, and
then in 1956 and 1958 he again finished
ahead of Euwe to win the title.
His first real tussle with Larsen was in
1957 when they shared third place in the
zonal tournament at Wageningen. Larsen
91
won the play-off for the qualifying place in
the interzonal by IVi-V/i. In 1960, he again
narrowly failed to qualify for an Interzonal
when at the Madrid Zonal Tournament he
finished equal fourth with Cligoric, Pomar
and Portisch only to lose the play-off.
Apart from his individual successes - and
his spectacular win over Lajos Portisch in
the first round of the Beverwijk
tournament in 1968 must have given him
the greatest pleasure - he has been a
formidable member of the Dutch team at
no less than ten Olympiads. At Varna in
1962 when Holland finished eleventh,
inevitably behind the USSR, he beat the
rising Bobby Fischer.
His style clearly owes much in its clear
logic to the influence of Dr Euwe, the
last true amateur to win the world
championship when he beat Alekhine in
1935, but also has a streak of bizarre
originality in his game. If he has a
weakness, it is, according to some
commentators, that he is capable of
playing really badly which is some
consolation to the great majority of us who
always play like that!
Bent Larsen
92
Bent Larsen is undoubtedly Western
Europe's leading player and has been for
many years. In any other era the likelihood
must have been that he would have won
the World Championship. As it is, he has
reached the semi-finals of the candidates
stage three times. In 1965 he beat Ivkov
only to lose 2-3 with five draws against
Tai; in 1968 he beat Portisch but lost to
Spassky then in 1971 he beat Uhlmann but
lost heavily to Fischer.
He gives the appearance of being, to use
a favourite word of his own, a peaceful
and rather benign man, but his chess is
anything but peaceful. He has the
reputation of being anti-theory in the
openings. Polugayevsky noted that he was
eager to push his rook pawns while
Cligoric wrote that there were more flank
attacks in Larsen's games than in those of
most grandmasters. Larsen himself thinks
there is some truth in this and that one of
the charms of flank attacks is that only
rarely do they lead to simplification. If one
attack is rebuffed, there is often scope for
manoeuvres somewhere else on the board.
Many people have written and spoken
about Larsen's style, and Larsen himself
admits that not everything that has been
said about him is nonsense. For instance,
he agrees that he is not a combinative
player in the way, for instance, that Tai
was. Unlike Tai, he is unwilling to accept
bad positions simply because there are
tactical opportunities.
Willing though he may be to get off the
high roads of well-analysed opening
theory, he will not play variations he
suspects are bad just for their surprise
value, but he will often embark on
variations that theoreticians have rejected.
Experts can be wrong and to produce an
improved line in a variation that has been
 popularly rejected can have a devastating
effect on an opponent.
Larsen is an aggressive player, opposed
not only to grandmaster draws, but to
playing for draws with the black pieces in
the expectation of being able to win with
the white. Certainly if you trace his record
through tournaments, he has had
considerably fewer draws than most
grandmasters and could be accused
sometimes of taking unnecessary risks to
avoid draws. If asked which has been his
best game or even tournament, Larsen will
smile and simply say it has not been played
yet. If asked which of the fifty games he
annotated in Larsen's Selected Games is
the very best, he will list no less than
fourteen, not out of vanity but because
they are so different.
Like Nigel Short, Bent Larsen was
infected with the chess bug at the same
time as he was going through the trials of
childish illnesses. He recovered from
chicken-pox and mumps without any after
effects, but with chess it was different. He
was only six when he began to play, and
by the time he was twelve and living near
the little town of Thisted in north-west
Jutland, he was regularly beating his father.
He was much influenced by a chess book
some guest had left in his home in which
the author accused modern chess masters
of being cowards for not playing the King's
Gambit, an opening like a storm that no
one can tame. Larsen claims that he was
never a prodigy like Morphy, Capablanca
or Reshevsky; he could clearly play well
and through his formative years simply
accelerated smoothly and efficiently
towards the top. He became Danish
champion when he was nineteen and won
the title every time he entered for it; an
international master at the age of twenty
and a year later, a grandmaster. His
successes were outstanding, but if any one
year particularly lingers in his memory, it
must be 1967 when he won five major
internationals. He has always said he could
beat Karpov, but before Karpov in the 1977
Master Game, there was Miles.
With Larsen playing white, there was
great speculation that he might let slip the
hounds of war with a King's Gambit or
some other piece of controlled aggression,
but Larsen did not open with his King's
pawn at all, opting instead for the quiet g3.
Perhaps he had risen too early that
morning and wanted a peaceful game, or
perhaps he wanted to avoid the Dragon
which might have followed e4. Miles has
lost badly with the Dragon but he knows a
lot of the long theoretical lines, and being
anti-theory, Larsen wanted to get off the
main lines as quickly as possible. But it was
Larsen who lost his way and Miles who
stormed through to the final with a most
convincing win.
While Larsen was playing Miles in one
semi-final, Karpov was playing the winner
of the first round game between the man
Helmut Pfleger
93
who had twice won the Master Game title,
William Hartston, and the German
grandmaster, Helmut Pfleger.
At the age of thirty-four, Pfleger was a
stiff hurdle even though for a grandmaster
he has a curious and serious flaw in his
armoury; by the highest standards, his
knowledge of openings is decidedly poor.
Rather than devoting the hours necessary
to keeping up to date with modern theory,
Pfleger keeps his body fit by playing tennis
and swimming and lets his mind alone. He
became a grandmaster in 1974 at the Nice
Olympiad having won the Olympic medal
for the best score on board four in the Tel
Aviv Olympiad of 1964, won the German
title jointly with Unzicker in 1965 and
having had a series of firsts in international
tournaments subsequently.
Being the perfect guest, he used the
English opening against Hartston, an
opening which Hartston has countered as
black hundreds of times and which he did
not consider would cause him too many
problems, at least early on. Pfleger has a
reputation for not being good at making
things happen in positions but for playing
well when they do start, and certainly the
early moves confirmed that. After nineteen
moves, Hartston had won a pawn and was
confident Pfleger had misplayed the
opening, but then he began to find his
pieces were disjointed and short of
squares. As he said at the time, it is
curious how often when strong players
blunder away a pawn they seem to get
compensation for it.
By move thirty-one, Hartston's extra
pawn was meaningless because he could
not move anything sensibly and from then
on his game gently declined into defeat.
Against Karpov, Pfleger declared he was
going to fight like a tiger and if he was
94
beaten, he was going to be beaten with all
guns firing. He did manage to draw the
first game playing with the white pieces,
but in the second game having to play
thirty moves in an hour, he began to find
himself in time trouble as early as move
nineteen and could see that playing calmly
was simply going to becalm him in
Karpov's technique. So, he attacked,
wrongly. From then on, Karpov simply
played precise, some might say prosaic,
chess to win almost as he would. Rather
ruefully, Pfleger commented that he had
started like a tiger - but ended like a
rabbit.
So to the final, and the opportunity for
Miles to flex his muscles against Karpov.
The first game with Karpov playing white
was drawn. The second had a remarkable
beginning with Miles exactly repeating the
first twenty or so moves of a game he had
played in a tournament the year before, in
only a few moments. In position and time
trouble, Karpov extricated himself
brilliantly and achieved a draw. So, a
second replay with all moves having to be
made by each player in half an hour. It was
an astonishing game, and an astonishing
end to the first three series of the Master
Game.
Round 1
Werner Hug (Switzerland) 0-1 Anatoly Karpov (USSR)
William Hartston (England) ViO-Vil Helmut Pfleger (West Germany)
Jan Hein Donner (Netherlands) ViO-Yil Bent Larsen (Denmark)
Tony Miles (England) 1-0 Lothar Schmid (West Germany)

Round 1 went completely according to the 9 Nbd2 c5 10 Qc2 Re8 11 Rfe1 Rc8
seedings, although Larsen was under 12 a3 e5 13 cxd5 Nxd5 14 Rac1 Bb8.
pressure in his first game with Donner. It
was disappointing for British TV chess fans abcdefgh
that Hartston, winner of the two previous
Master Game series, should be eliminated
in the opening round, but in compensation
Miles won in fine style against Lothar
Schmid. As for world champion Karpov, he
really outclassed his opponent and showed
the difference in calibre between a top
grandmaster and an average international
master.

Game 24:
Werner Hug - Anatoly Karpov
Irregular Opening abcdefgh

HUG: Normally I play e4 but I'm afraid

Karpov knows too much about the
openings, so I want to play something
unusual. So I'll play first move 1 Nf3 and
later a kind of strange wing game.
1 Nf3 Nf6 2 e3.
KARPOV: This is a passive move, e3, he
shut out his bishop on d for the future.
Perhaps I should play g6 and develop my
bishop at g7 now, but usually I prefer
bishop on b7 to bishop on g7, so I play b6.
2 . . . b6 3 Be2 Bb7 4 0-0 e6 5 b3 d5
6 Bb2 Nbd7 7 c4 Bd6 8 d3 0-0
Taking your opponent out of the books,
Hug's policy in this opening, is a
double-edged weapon. Moves are in the
books not by chance but because over a
period of years they have proved reliable
in terms of practical success. Adopting a
nondescript development like White's in
the present game means handing over
White's advantage of starting the game.
Most grandmasters and masters would
prefer a different kind of 'non-bookish'
strategy against Karpov: perhaps some
old-fashioned nineteenth-century variation
of the open game (1 e4 e5) which can

95
bring Black into tactical difficulties if he and before that I have to move away my
does not know it well. Some of the knight to d2. So knight f3 to d2.
opening successes against Karpov have
16 Nfd2 f5 17 Ng3.
been precisely with such gambit-style
attacks. KARPOV: Yes, this is his only move. If he
However, Hug's personal choice is not played knight c3, I could play either knight
entirely without its points. Another to f6 with some advantage. But now he's
technique favoured in professional chess is attacking my f5 pawn, so I should push f4.
playing your opponent's favourite opening
17 . . . f4 18 Nf1 fxe3.
against him, and here White is developing
his queen's bishop on b2 just as Karpov HUG: Now if I take with my knight from
likes to do himself with Black: also the fl, I'm afraid he just exchanges it and I'm
world champion does not care to take the missing an important piece which could
initiative too early in the game, and here defend my king's side. So I'll retake with
he is forced to do so. Unfortunately for the pawn.
Hug, his chosen formation does not limit
19 fxe3.
Black's freedom of action in any way, or
stop Karpov laying out his pieces as he KARPOV: Now he is going to occupy the
likes. So the overall verdict on White's long diagonal h1-a8 with his bishop. I have
choice in this game must be a thumbs to do something to counter this, so I play
down. knight f6.
HUG: My position is a little bit passive, 19 . . . N5f6 20 Bf3.
and he has got two nice bishops on b8 and
KARPOV: And now I have a very strong
b7. I really need one more piece on the
move, e4. That was my real idea in this
king's side for defence, so I think I'll play
position.
knight to e4 so as to go to g3.
20 . . . e4!
15 Ne4.
KARPOV: I have a space advantage, but abcdefgh
what can I do with it? Maybe I can play f5
immediately: then Ng3, f4, Nf1 and maybe
I don't have anything. Okay, I'll wait to see
what he does and play queen to e7.
15 . . . Qe7.
HUG: I think he could have played f5, but
I was quite sure he wouldn't, because
that's not his style. So now I have to make
a plan. I think his bishop on b7 is stronger
than his bishop on b8 which is hemmed in
by its own pawns. So I want to exchange
the b7 bishop, or at least prepare to swap it
off. So I have to put my own bishop on f3, abcdefgh
96
HUG: A very strong move - I was hoping
abcdefgh
for bishop takes bishop when I can retake
with my pawn and get the e4 square - but
now that square will be occupied by a
pawn and he has a good square for his
pieces at e5.
21 Nxe4 Nxe4 22 Bxe4 Bxe4
23 Qc4ch Qe6.
HUG: I was hoping for king h8 when his
back rank is weak. But of course he plays
the best move, queen e6. I have to
exchange queens, and I can’t take on e4
with my queen because he takes on b3
attacking both my bishop on b2 and my abcdefgh
queen on e4. So I must take back on e4.
So far an amateur player would judge
24 dxe4 Qxc4 25 bxc4. Karpov's advantage, if any, to be only
slight - after all, White's rook controls an
KARPOV: He could have taken with his
open file and the black bishop is still
rook, but then I play b5 with a favourable
restricted by pawns while White's has an
queen's side majority. Now he has three
open diagonal. But Karpov has seen deeply
weak pawns, but it's not so easy to
into the position, and in particular he is
organise my pieces against them. I have a
relying on the permanent difference in the
very good positional idea - I'll play bishop
two pawn formations. White's pawns are
to e5, exchange bishops, then attack all his
split into four groups or 'islands', while
pawns. But perhaps it's better to take one
Black's are solidly compact. In addition,
pawn first and then try to swap bishops.
there is a difference between the two
Okay, rook takes pawn e4.
knights - Hug's is restricted to defence of
25 . . . Rxe4 26 Red1 Nf8. the e pawn, while Karpov's can go to f5
and perhaps d6 to attack the weak white
pawns.
Also worth noting is Karpov's whole
approach to the game. He is paired with
the weakest player in the tournament, but
he avoids any attempts at flashy
brilliancies, readily exchanges queens, and
concentrates on making use of his
advantage in the endgame where there is
little risk of surprise tactics.
27 Rd3 Rce8 28 Kf2 Be5 29 Bxe5 R4xe5
30 Nd2 Ng6 31 Nf3 Re4 32 h3 h6
33 R1c3 Ne7 34 Rd7 Nf5.

97
 on d1. His king then has to go to g1, I play
rook to g6, and my rooks are better than
his - okay!

37 . . . Nd1 ch.
HUG: I didn't see this move - that check is
terrible. I can't go to g3 because he checks
me again on g6 and then plays rook e8 to
e2 and I'm finished. I must go to g1 - I
don't like it, but there's no choice.

38 Kg1 Rg6 39 Nf3 Ne3 40 Nh4 Rg5.

HUG: / can't protect my c4 pawn in any

reasonable way, because rook a4 puts my
abcdefgh rook right out of play and looks stupid.
And he also threatens rook e4 attacking
HUG: / can protect my e3 pawn by both the knight on h4 and the pawn on c4.
retreating my rook from d7 to d3, but I The position is hopeless. Well, I think I'll
only just went there to go to the seventh put my other rook to the seventh rank - at
rank. But I believe I have a tactical move. I least it looks nice.
play knight d2 and his rook is attacked. If
41 Rdd7.
he takes on e3, I first exchange rooks, then
I take on a7. Then I don't lose a pawn, and
I'm not worse. abcdefgh
35 Nd2.
KARPOV: I have slightly the better
position, but if I take on e3 it's maybe not
enough. I have to keep all the pieces on,
so I play rook e4 to e6.

35 . . . R4e6.
HUG: This looks very strong, because if I
move my knight back to f1 to protect e3,
he plays Nd6 and comes to e4 - and I can't
allow that. So I'll have to concede my
pawn at e3 in exchange for the one on a7.
abcdefgh
But first I'll bring my second rook to the d
file.
Another interesting point - many strong
36 Rcd3 Nxe3 37 Rxa7.
players foreseeing this position some
KARPOV: Very strange'. The position is moves back would automatically reject it as
simplified but I have a very strong check Black, fearing the power of two rooks on

98
the seventh rank. But a world champion he can play knight e5, rook check, king e4.
knows when to look for exceptions to Ah - more simple! Rook e6 check.
general rules, and this is one. Black's rook
45 . . . Re6 ch.
on g5 protects his weak g7 pawn from the
marauding rook pair, and meanwhile Black HUG: Now I must exchange one rook, and
has time to strike a decisive blow against he's two pawns up with connected passed
the white king's position. pawns. I think I'd better resign.
KARPOV: Yes, he has doubled rooks on 46 Resigns.
the seventh line. It's a little bit dangerous,
I have to do something very active. I can't abcdefgh
take on c4 because he attacks my rook
with knight f3. But I have a very strong
move - knight takes g2. If he captures on
g2, I play rook e2 and win back the knight.
Okay.

41 . . . Nxg2!

HUG: Now it's hopeless. I cannot take

back on g2 - he plays rook e2 and wins
back the knight. He will soon be two
pawns up then, because h3 is very weak.
Well, I don't want to resign just yet, and I
think I can play on a bit. I'll attack his rook abcdefgh
so he cannot give a check.

42 Nf3 Rg6 43 Kf2. A very good example of Karpov's world

KARPOV: His king is unhappy. I'll keep my
rooks on the e and g lines and play knight
f4.
43 . . . Nf4.
champion play - the game has few
spectacular moments, but the impression
is of overall control and readiness to strike
tactically when necessary, as on moves 20
and 41.

HUG: He wants to mate me. He threatens Game 25:

rook e2 check, king f1 and then rook g3
and I'm mated. I have no reasonable move
- I lose another pawn on h3. Anyway, I
must play rook e7 to stop his rook coming
to e2.
44 Re7 Nxh3 ch 45 Ke3.
KARPOV: I can try to attack his knight by
rook f8, but it's a bit complicated because
William Hartston - Helmut Pfleger
Modern Defence
I d4 d6 2 c4 e5 3 Nf3 exd4 4 Nxd4 g6
5 Nc3 Bg7 6 g3 Ne7 7 Bg2 0-0
8 0-0 Nbc6 9 Nxc6 bxc6 10 Bd2 Rb8
II b3 Bd7 12 Rc1 Nf5 13 Ne4 Qe7
14 Bc3 Bxc3 15 Rxc3 f6 16 Rd3 Ng7
17 Qd2 f5 18 Ng5 Rbe8 19 Re1 Qf6

99
20 f4 h6 21 Nh3 Ne6 22 Nf2 c5 23 Nd1
Draw agreed.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
An uneventful game, with Hartston unable
to make anything of the slight weakness in
Pfleger's pawn formation on move 9. Both
sides grouped their pieces in the centre
and a likely continuation would have been
exchanges of pieces along the e file.
Game 26:
Helmut Pfleger - William Hartston
English Opening
1 c4 g6 2 Nc3.
HARTSTON: That move shouldn't be very
dangerous for Black, always more afraid of
the other knight coming out first. Now I
reach a symmetrical sort of position with
c5. I've played these hundreds of times as
Black. They shouldn't lead to much
problem in the opening anyway.
2 . . . c5.
PFLEGER: / can reach a symmetric position
now, with no danger, especially in the
opening. Let's wait for the middle game.
100
3 g3 Bg7 4 Bg2 Nc6 5 e3 e6
6 Nge2 Nge7 7 0-0 0-0 8 Nf4 b6
9 d3 Bb7 10 Bd2 d6 11 a3 Qd7
12 Qe2 Rfe8 13 Rabi d5 14 b4 cxb4
15 axb4 dxc4 16 dxc4.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
HARTSTON: / really think he's played this
opening rather badly. That pawn on c4 is
quite vulnerable. It's defended by the
queen at the moment, but I have
opportunities to attack it with a knight and
maybe a rook and a queen later. This is
quite a good position for me. Knight e5
looks the right move, that opens the
diagonal of my bishop and I'm attacking
the c4 pawn. But I must remember that
someone once told me that Pfleger wasn't
really very good at making things happen
in positions, but once they start happening
he plays very well.
16 . . . Ne5.
PFLEGER: Oh, oh, I think I'm really in
trouble now. He's attacking my c4 pawn. It
doesn't look like I can defend it - sooner
or later I have to give it up. What shall I
do? Just to take the best counter chance.
Let's play my knight to the centre and see
what happens.
17 Ne4 Rac8.
PFLEGER: This is exactly the move I was
afraid of. I can't defend the pawn on c4
because he will take it anyhow and then
my bishop on d2 which is not covered.
So I should look for some other
compensation. Give up the pawn and play
for some counter on his king maybe. So
why not try to change the black bishops?
18 Bc3 Bxe4 19 Bxe4 Nxc4 20 Bxg7 Kxg7
21 Rfd1.
HARTSTON: Now I have to start thinking
again. I've won this pawn, but my pieces
are very disjointed. He's attacking my
queen so I must move that. Maybe to b5 or
a4. No, the queen belongs back home with
the other pieces. I think queen c7 is right.
That's almost the only square. Then with
the knight-defended twice I don't have to
worry about its position on c4.
21 . . . Qc7.
PFLEGER: Oh, I hoped for queen b5 and
with bishop d3 a treble pin would have
been established. Now I can pin the knight
with my rook, but then he will defend it
with b5 and I can't make any headway. So
let's first play b5 myself, blockade his
pawns on the queen's wing and then we
will threaten the knight pin on d.
22 b5.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
HARTSTON: That's a rather unpleasant
move. I wanted my pawn on that square to
support the knight. Now I'd like to put a
knight on c5, but neither of them can get
there for a long time. It's very strange that
when strong players blunder pawns away
they seem to get compensation for them.
Once my knight moves away from e4 he
can check with the queen on b2. / don't
like my position on this long black
diagonal, maybe queen e5 is a good move.
I don't know which way back his bishop
will go.
22 . . . Qe5.
PFLEGER: Exactly the move I hoped for. He
thinks I have to retreat with my bishop, but
I don't. I can play my rook to d4, defend
my bishop on e4 and attack his knight on
c4. I think my position will be rather
comfortable now, with really good
compensation for the lost pawn.
23 Rd4.
HARTSTON: I didn't even consider that
natural move. I must be half asleep. What
to do about this knight? If it goes to d6,
101
then knight to d3 wins a piece. Where to
put it? A3, a5? It's really out on a limb at
a3, I’d never get it back again. At aS, the
knight's secure, but it's not playing much
part in the game. Still, I must play there
and hope for the best - my queen e5 was a
bit stupid.
23 . . . Na5 24 Nd3 Qc7 25 Qb2 Kg8
26 Rc1 Qb8 27 Rd7 Rxd ch
28 Qxd Qc8 29 Qxc8 Nxc8 30 Ne5 Rf8.
abcdefgh
PFLEGER: I'm satisfied with my position
now. I got more compensation than I
hoped for and his knight on a5 is really
misplaced. But he threatens to jump out
through b3 to c5 and establish himself
there. With my superior position 1 should
avoid it, playing my bishop to c2 and let's
see how he escapes from his prison.
31 Bc2.
HARTSTON: That's an unpleasant little
move. I've really made a mess of this
position. I still have my extra pawn, but it's
quite meaningless. Now I can't move
anything. I wonder if I can draw just by
102
sitting here? Doesn't look likely. He just
advances his king side pawns and brings
his king to b4 or somewhere. I really must
try to do something active. Maybe I can
play rook e8, try to play rook or knight to
e7 and give up the f pawn. Pity I didn't
have more time to think last move, the
rook just came from e8.
31 . . . Re8.
PFLEGER: My position is so enjoyable I
shouldn't change it too much, simply play
f4, support my knight on e5 and he's still
in a terrible mess.
32 14 Ne7 33 Rxa7 Nd5.
PFLEGER: Now I can take his pawn on f7.
For the first time in this game I am a pawn
up. I can't refuse this temptation.
34 Nxf7.
HARTSTON: I'd better take the e3 pawn. It
attacks his bishop and I can't be a pawn
down as well as having a bad position.
34 . . . Nxe3 35 Be4 N15 36 Ng5 Ng7
37 Rc7.
HARTSTON: That's a sneaky move. I
wanted to play rook d8. He's just waiting
for that so he can take the knight on g7.
I'd better defend this weak pawn.
37 . . . Rb8.
 chess means. But in the event, Pfleger now
abcdefgh
establishes a winning position on the
8 king's side while Hartston's king is away
neutralising the white b pawn.
7
43 Bg4 Ke7 44 Be2 Nd6 45 Kf2 Ke6
6 46 Ke3 Kd5 47 g4 Kc5 48 Bd3 Nxb5
5 49 Ke4 Nc3ch 50 Ke5 Nd1 51 f5 gxf5
52 gxf5 Ne3 53 h3! Nxf5 (otherwise the
4
f pawn runs through) 54 Bxf5 b5
3 55 Bxh7 Kc6 56 h4 Kd7 57 Kf6! (cutting
off Black's king so that the h pawn
2
queens) Resigns.
1
abcdefgh abcdefgh

PFLEGER: Well, both of us, we got short of

time a little bit. What shall I do? Play for a
positional advantage or look for a decision.
I think I can make it out now.

38 Nxe6.
HARTSTON: Can he really do that? On yes,
that's a crazy little combination. It wins a
pawn, but maybe I should draw the
ending.
38 . . . Nxe6 39 Bd5 Re8 40 Rc8 Rxc8
41 Bxe6ch. abcdefgh
HARTSTON: Now he wins my rook back,
but his bishop's not so good. I don't know Game 27:
how to play this, whether the king should
Jan Hein Donner - Bent Larsen
be on f6 or head for c5. I wish I had more
English Opening (by transposition)
time. I think I'll run at his b pawn with my
king.
1 d4 d6 2 c4 e5 3 Nf3 e4 4 Ng5 f5
41 . . ,Kf8 42 Bxc8 Nc4. 5 Nc3 Be7 6 h4 Nf6 7 e3 c5 8 b3 Na6
9 Bb2 0-0 10 Qd2 Nc7 11 0-0-0 b6
At this stage Pfleger has nine minutes for
12 Be2 Qe8 13 Nh3 Be6 14 Nf4 Bf7
an infinite number of moves, Hartston only
15 h5 h6 16 Rdg1 cxd4 17 Qxd4.
two minutes. Hartston's one hope,
therefore, is to secure a clearly drawn
position so that the arbitration panel would
rule that White could not win by normal

103
 abcdefgh abcdefgh

abcdefgh abcdefgh

White has a promising game: pressure on White still appears to have pressure, but
the long diagonal, chances to increase it by another tactical finesse steers into a
opening up the g file. Fluid piece play is drawish ending.
everything in such a position. Now and at
32 . . . Qd7! 33 Qxd7 Rxd7 34 Bc2
move 24 Larsen opens up the game with
(34 Bxe4? Re7) Re7 35 Re2 e3 36 Bc3 Ne4
pawn sacrifices which divert White's
37 Bxe4 Rxe4 38 Kc2 Rh4 39 Kd3 Kg8
attacking forces.
40 Be1 Rxh5 41 b4 Bd6 42 Rxe3 Kf7
17 . . . d5! 18 Ncxd5 Ncxd5 43 Re4 Rg5 44 g4 h5 45 gxh5 Rxh5
19 Nxd5 Bxd5 20 cxd5 Bc5 21 Qd2 Rd8 46 Bf2 Bc7 47 Rc4 Bd8 48 Draw agreed.
22 a4 f4 23 Kb1 Kh8 24 Bc4 a6!
25 Bxa6 Nxd5 26 Qe2 fxe3 27 fxe3 Qe7 abcdefgh
28 Rd1 Nxe3 29 Rxd8 Rxd8 30 Re1 Nf5
31 Qg4 Nd6 32 Bd3.

abcdefgh

104
Game 28:
abcdefgh
Bent Larsen - Jan Hein Donner
Pirc Defence

LARSEN: I think e4 against Donner will get

me a Caro-Kann or a Pirc Defence. I'll play
e4 today.
1 e4.
DONNER: I don't like e4 and they know it.
There's so much choice after e4. You must
know your theory very well - / don't. Let's
try something I know, at least. The Pirc
Defence.
abcdefgh
1 . . . d6.
LARSEN: This is where I played pawn takes
LARSEN: Just recently in Yugoslavia I learnt
pawn against Ivkov eleven years ago in the
a lot about the Pirc Defence because I
Piatigorsky Cup. That became theory and
played in a tournament where many of the
people didn't realise I only played it
players used it and I even played it with
because I was ill and wanted to simplify.
Black - I don't do that very often. Pirc
Of course d5 is the aggressive move. d5
himself is now seventy - he was the referee
today.
so we didn't call it the Pirc Defence but the
Haupts ch iedsrich ters verteidigung, or 9d5Ne7 10 Radi.
something like that.
DONNER: This is a position I have had
2 d4. several times. There are many moves
possible here. I like the black position, but
DONNER: Well, he's going to do it normal.
it's only this knight at e7 that is so badly
From Larsen you can expect anything.
placed. He played the rook to d1 - they
2 . . . Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Nf3 Bg7 5 Be2 0-0 always do that to prevent c6, of course, but
6 0-0 Bg4 7 Be3 Nc6 8 Qd2 e5. you can play knight c8 to protect the d6
pawn and again threatening c6 . . . but
Timman says you must play bishop d7.
Well, he knows more about these things
than I do.
10 . . . Bd7.
LARSEN: Maybe he wants to follow the
game from Las Palmas. Adorjan got almost
a winning position with Black against
Karpov, but it's difficult to see another
move for White here - I've never played

105
this position before and Donner has
probably had it ten times. He's threatening
knight g4 and h3 is ugly - knight e1, White
also sometimes plays f4.
11 Ne1.
DONNER: I've seen them playing here the
knight to g4, but I want to do that after he
plays f4. This knight at e7 is badly placed.
I'll move it to c8, as I did against Liberzon
with a lot of success.
11 . . . Nc8.
LARSEN: Well, he's probably going to play
c6 or c5 now. If I have to play f3 then he
has knight h5 in many cases. I don't know
what he wants from that knight to c8 -
maybe to get to b6 and later to d7. If he
gets that White cannot play f4 because
Black gets good control of the e5 square.
One move is to play a4, but he plays c6
then and I don't like it much. King hi? I
don't think that has ever been played here,
but in similar positions king hi and rook g1
and g4, so that Black doesn't get f5, and
has no play on the king's side. That's a
funny idea. Yes, let's do something he has
never seen before.
Because after f4, I play h6 and he has to
exchange. Let me change the knights. It
will cost a pawn if after he's changed them
he plays queen to b4 but I know him -
he'll never do that. Just a simple pawn
giving up the two bishops. And I think it's
worth it - the two bishops are enough
compensation. And besides he will never
do it.
13 . . . Na4.
LARSEN: So that's what he wanted to do
with all those knight moves.
14 Nxa4 Bxa4.
LARSEN: What happens if I take the pawn?
There's a queen b4, bishop back probably,
and if I take on b7, rook b8, I take on a7,
he takes on b2. Bishop c4 will be a good
move there. A pawn is a pawn, he gets
some compensation but it will be difficult
for him to play it exactly and I'm not sure
he gets enough.
15 Qb4 Bd7 16 Qxb7 Qb8.
abcdefgh

12 Kh1.

DONNER: That really is an amazing move.

I don't see any point in it, but it's Larsen.
Let me follow the original idea changing
the knights.
12 . . . Nb6.
LARSEN: Well, rook g1 is crazy now
because of knight g4. Bishop g5 or pawn
b3? Well, a pin is always nasty.
abcdefgh
13 Bg5.
DONNER: That's also a move that is a little
amazing, because now f4 is impossible.
106
 LARSEN: Oh! Donner believes very much 21 . . . a5 22 Rfe1 a4.
in the strength of the two bishops - he
LARSEN: I would like to play b4 and c4,
says he can never lose when he's a pawn
but bishop b5 is annoying. I'll make a solid
down with the two bishops, I've heard him
move - king g1 protects f2 in some
saying that several times. But that's sheer
variations.
nonsense. I don't think he has enough
here - my bishop will be very bad for some 23 Kg1 Bg5.
time, but my position is very solid, and his
black square bishop is really not very good. abcdefgh
17 Qxb8.
DONNER: Here we have the old problem,
what rook? I need a queen's rook for
playing a5 and a4, but I need a king's rook
at f8 for playing f5. What rook do I take
with? Most logical looks to take with the
king's rook but I want to play f5. I should
have had three rooks. What rook, what
rook? Let me take it with the queen's rook.
17 . . . Raxb8 18 Bxf6 Bxf6 19 b3 Be7
20 Nd3 f5.
LARSEN: Now f3 is ugly, because he gets abcdefgh
his bishop to e3 a little later. Then it'll be
very strong, then he has compensation. I LARSEN: I wanted to do these things with
can take on f5 - if he takes with the pawn, b4 and c4, but then I need my rooks over
I play f4, but if he takes with bishop - I there. I don't want his bishop to get to d2.
don't know. I think my bad bishop must Let's make it simple, rook e2. Maybe now
be used to hold the centre. if he takes on b3 I recapture with the c
pawn.
21 Bf3.
24 Re2.
DONNER: That is a good move. Now I
have no points to attack him any more. DONNER: Again that is a good move. Now
Perhaps I shouldn't have played f5, that when I change at b3, he can take with the
was a wrong idea to play it so early. You c pawn and all of a sudden he has the c
should keep these things in reserve. I file. It's obvious I should have taken with
should have played h5 and h4 first. And I the other rook.
should have taken with the other rook,
24 . . . Rb6.
then I could have played a5 and a4. H5
now is impossible because he takes it off LARSEN: Maybe he's preparing c6 finally? I
and plays the rook to e1 because I can't can play b4 if I want. The critical answer is
take with the pawn g6. Okay, let's try it the a3 because otherwise I play that. Then
other side, muddling through. comes c4. His threat will always be

107
something with c6, but I don't think he can 38 . . . Re3.
do it.
LARSEN: He probably didn't see my next
25 b4. move. Of course, I can also take on c7, but
that's stupid. No, this is very nice.
DONNER: There is coming an avalanche of
pawns. I must try to disconnect his pawns 39 Ra5!
and push my pawn one more square. If I
DONNER: Aye, aye, aye, aye, that is really
have to lose, I'll do it in an active way.
terrible. Shall I resign now? Well, let me do
25 . . . a3 26 c4 Ra6 27 Rb1 Ra4 one more move.
28 Rb3 Rb8 29 Rc2 h5 30 g3 h4
39 . . . Rxa5 40 bxa5.
31 Bg2 Rf8 32 gxh4 Bxh4 33 Rcc3!
(already preparing to counter Black's rook
invasion on move 36) fxe4 34 Bxe4 Bf5 abcdefgh
35 f3 Bxe4 36 fxe4 Rf3.

abcdefgh

abcdefgh

40 . . . Resigns.
abcdefgh
For if 40 . . . Rxe4 41 a6 Ra4 42 Rb4 Rxb4
LARSEN: Rook takes pawn looks the 43 Nxb4 Be7 44 Nd3! (not 44 a7? Bc5ch)
normal move. I lose the e4 pawn - it's not and the white pawn cannot be stopped.
easy. C5 is a good trick because he doesn't
know on which file I get the passed pawn. Game 29:
It really comes to the same position, but c5
Tony Miles - Lothar Schmid
is psychologically the best move.
Old Indian Defence (by transposition)
37 c5 dxc5 38 Rxc5.
MILES: Since this is the first European
DONNER: Oh, now I see, bishop to f2 is
Master Came tournament, I'll be patriotic
impossible. King to g2 and he wins with his
and play the English Opening.
passed pawn. It's hopeless, but let me
make some moves. 1 c4.
108
SCHMID: There are players who think for
the very first move quite a long time, like
our late grandmaster Saemisch. He was
thinking for half an hour or longer about -
against whom I'm playing, which
tournaments did he win, against whom is
he married, and things like that. And here
I'm playing the former youth champion of
the world, grandmaster now, very strong,
and certainly I have to defend carefully.
1 . . . Nf6 2 Nc3.
SCHMID: Here I return to my old love, the
Old Indian Defence d6.
2 . . . d6 3 Nf3 e5 4 d4 Nbd7 5 e4 Be7
6 Be2 c6 7 0-0 0-0 8 Re1 Re8 9 Bf1 Bf8.
b c d e f g h e4 and threatens to play c takes b7 winning
abcdefgh
Schmid's 'old love' is based on developing
the king bishop at e7 rather than g7, and
putting early pressure on the white e
pawn. Both sides must be careful not to
exchange central pawns prematurely: if
White exchanges pawns too early, the c5
and d4 squares become outposts for the
black pieces; while if Black swaps pawns
before completing development, then the
white pieces have a free game on both
sides of the board.
10 h3 a6 11 d5 a5 (Black intended b5 but
changes plans after White's d5 advance)
12 Be3.
SCHMID: White has developed almost all
his pieces and Black has to do the same:
let's go to c5 with the knight.
12 . . . Nc5.
MILES: I can defend my e pawn by Nd2,
but what about d takes c6? Then he cannot
recapture because I take his knight, swap
queens and win his e pawn. Instead he
takes on e4 with one of his knights, I
exchange knights on e4 then play Qd5.
That's interesting - it attacks his knight on
a piece as well. If he plays knight f6 I have
c takes b7 anyway. He takes my queen,
then I take his rook with a new queen. I
think I win a pawn.
13 dxc6.
SCHMID: He found my weak point. He
will win a pawn, but as far as I see I have
good chances for defending the game.
13 . . . Nfxe4 14 Nxe4 Nxe4 15 Qd5.
SCHMID: / must get back with the knight,
and later I can attack his queen even twice.
Maybe I shall lose a pawn, but all my
pieces will be developed and I have good
chances for a draw.
15 . . . Nc5 16 Bxc5 bxc6 17 Qxc6 Ra6.
109

abcdefgh
abcdefgh
MILES: Now this is important. Queen b5,
he takes the bishop, I develop my queen's
rook on d1. Now his queen is tied to the
defence of his rook on e8. If he plays
bishop d6, then knight takes e5, rook b6,
and maybe I even have knight c6 then.
Threats of back rank mates, that's
interesting.
So maybe after queen b5, d takes c5,
rook d1, he plays rook to d6. But then I
take the rook, he must recapture with
bishop, then rook d1 threatening the
bishop again. I think I win at least a pawn.
18 Qb5 dxc5 19 Radi Rd6 20 Rxd6 Bxd6
21 Rd1.
SCHMID: Not so easy. He threatens to
take this bishop and my rook on e8 is
hanging. There are two possible defences.
King f8 would be natural, but let us try
rook e7. He can take off the pawn c5
because my queen is pinned, but even
then rook to d7 and I have a lot of
counterplay. His bishop on f1 is not the
strongest at the moment and I can count
on the d line and the two bishops. Yes, I
try this line, it looks quite promising.
110
21 . . . Re7 22 Qxc5 Rd7.
MILES: My move is forced. I must be able
to meet e4 with knight e5.
23 Qb5 Qc7.
MILES: Now this position is critical. I have
an extra pawn but my bishop is very bad.
I'm weak on the black squares. If I play
rook c1 to force c5, he just plays bishop c5.
Maybe I can play rook d5. That threatens c5
and attacks his e and a pawns, then it's
tricky. Bishop b7, maybe I can take e5 with
the knight and if rook d8, then I can just
move my rook away and he's pinned down
the d file again. I must play actively, I feel
rook d5 is the only move.
24 Rd5.
SCHMID: He found a genius move indeed.
Probably he will sacrifice the exchange if I
attack the rook, but I have to because all
my pawns are hanging.
24 . . . Bb7.
MILES: Now if I play knight takes e5 he has
rook e7. I must give up an exchange,
sacrifice rook for minor piece, anyway. If I
give it up for the white squared bishop he
still has too much control over the dark
squares, so rook takes d6 and he must take
with queen, then maybe I can play c5 to
activate my bishop. And hopefully I can get
some play with bishop to c4 and maybe
knight takes e5 and pressure against f7.
25 Rxd6 Qxd6 26 c5 Qc7 27 Nxe5 Re7.
 MILES: Now I want to play a4 and b4, but
abcdefgh
if he plays f5 then my bishop does not
guard b1 square when he plays a takes b4.
Can I go to d5? Yes, that's still in time, I
can bring it back to a2.

33 a4.

abcdefgh

abcdefgh

MILES: Another critical position. I'd like to

keep my knight on e5, but f4 weakens the
king's side dangerously and maybe his
queen will come in. I could play c6 and if
he takes on e5 I take on b7. I then have a
strong passed pawn on the seventh. abcdefgh
28 c6.
SCHMID: He threatens b4 and then to
SCHMID: That's another strong move
push the a pawn. Who comes quicker? This
perhaps. Oh, I am short of time. My clock
may be one tempo only. If I play f5 the
runs away. I have to move soon. The
bishop could take the pawn, but then I'm
bishop could move to a8 but is there out
getting b7. This would be at least a draw.
of play. Bishop to c8, then f4 and bishop
And if he goes to d5 then I can attack this
c4, rather strong for White. What can I do?
bishop by king e7 to d6. This should be
Ten moves or even more to make in five
just enough.
minutes. I think this ending should be
tenable. (Later analysis showed that Black should
have played 33 . . . Ke7! 34 b4 Kd6!
28 . . . Rxe5 29 Qxb7 Qxb7 30 cxb7 Re8.
35 bxa5 Kc7 36 a6 Kb6 37 Bd3 Ka7 with
MILES: He's going to come to b8 with his drawing chances)
rook and that would force bishop a6 where
33 . . . f5? 34 Bd5 Ke7.
the bishop would be very bad. So I play
bishop d3, then I threaten bishop to f5 to MILES: / play b4 then if he takes a5, b3, a6,
c8, so he must play rook to b8 and I can b2, bishop a2, that's winning. If king d6, I
put my bishop at e4. take on a5, he takes my bishop, a6.

31 Bd3 Rb8 32 Be4 Kf8. 35 b4.

111
SCHMID: Oh Cod, maybe I was wrong - f5
might not have been the best move. Now
king to d6, he takes the pawn and I cannot
take the bishop because of a6 and the two
passed pawns will kill me. Can I take this
pawn? I have to move, I have to move -
my seconds will go away from the clock.
I've got to take this pawn off.
35 . . . axb4 36 a5 Rxb7 37 Bxb7.
SCHMID: Who's first? Oh, he is, of course.
I saw it, but my time. This is the last move.

37 . . . b3 38 Ba6.
SCHMID: That's it. He will get the square
b1 and I am too late. I cannot even get his
a pawn. The game is lost. Oh, he played
brilliantly. Congratulations.
38 . . . Resigns.

abcdefgh

abcdefgh

112
Semi-finals
Helmut Pfleger (West Germany) ViO-Yil Anatoly Karpov (USSR)
Bent Larsen (Denmark) 0-1 Tony Miles (England)

Karpov again outclassed his opponent. He

drew easily playing the black pieces, then
abcdefgh
in the replay quickly found the holes in
Pfleger's experimental opening. This game
is like a premonition of the celebrated
32nd and final game of the 1978 Karpov v
Korchnoi world title match.
Larsen played sluggishly in the early
stages and an alert Miles took advantage of
the miscalculations to win in fine style and
ensure what was for British viewers the
best possible pairing for the final.

Game 30:
Helmut Pfleger - Anatoly Karpov abcdefgh
Queen's Indian Defence
Draw agreed. A good example of world
champion Karpov's practical style with the
1 c4 Nf6 2 Nf3 b6 3 g3 Bb7 4 Bg2 e6
black pieces. He rarely forces the pace,
5 0-0 Be7 6 b3 0-0 7 Bb2 c5 8 Nc3 d5
and in the circumstances of the Master
9 cxd5 Nxd5 10 d4 Nxc3 11 Bxc3 Na6
Game tournament he was quite content to
12 dxc5 Nxc5 13 Rd Rc8 14 Bb2 Be4
aim for a drawn position and the white
15 Rc4 Qxd1 16 Rxd1 Bd5 17 Rc2 Rfd8
pieces in the replay. Karpov likes Queen's
18 Rdd Be4 19 Rc4 Bd5.
Indian formations where Black develops
his queen bishop at b7, aiming specially at
control at the d5 and e4 squares. Here the
'Karpov squares' do an excellent job as a
bishop oscillation at the end forces Pfleger
to draw by repeating moves.

113
Game 31:
Anatoly Karpov - Helmut Pfleger
Pirc Defence
1 e4.
PFLEGER: I know he normally plays e4 and
I'm a little bit afraid of it. But anyhow in
our first game I could escape with a draw.
And so I am quite hopeful for the second
game but I think I shall have to play it
sharply. I shall play like a tiger now. Why
not d6 - Pirc Defence with attacking
chances?
1 . . . d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Nf3 Bg7
5 Be2 0-0 6 0-0 Nc6 (normal and better is
Bg4 as in game 28, but Pfleger's
experimental approach is designed to
provoke a pawn target for Black's pieces to
attack on the same lines as Alekhine's
Defence 1 e4 Nf6) 7 d5 Nb8 8 Re1 c6
9 Bf1 Nbd7 10 Bg5.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
114
PFLEGER: Well, I intended to fight like a
tiger in this game and I think I should go
on like that. He attacked me with bishop
to g5. I should look for a counter-attack
starting with h6.
10 . . . h6.
KARPOV: This is an interesting idea.
Otherwise I could play queen d2, but now
he attacks my bishop. I should go away
with bishop f4.
11 Bf4.
PFLEGER: Shall I attack the bishop with
knight h5? I don't think so, my knight
would be out of play. It might be rather
dangerous to play g5, weakening my pawn
formation on the king side, but now or
never.
11 . . . g5.
KARPOV: This is the logical continuation.
Now I have two possibilities. If bishop g3
he can play knight h5 and take my bishop
on g3. Then he has a very strong bishop on
g7. Therefore I should play with the bishop
to d.
12 Bd.
PFLEGER: Now I think my queen needs a
little bit of fresh air, so why not make the
excursion to b6 and look into b2 and f2 at
the same time.
12 . . . Qb6.
KARPOV: Yes, he has a very good square
on g4 and also he has threats to my very
weak pawn on f2, and to my king.
13 h3.
PFLEGER: Unfortunately he avoided my
knight jump to g4. But why not jump out
with the other knight to c5, with some
possibilities?
13 . . . Nc5.
KARPOV: I don't see a move. My knight
can't go to d4 because he takes on e4 with
his knights, then he takes on d5. He has
then very good play. But I can shove him
off with knight to d2.
14 Nd2.
PFLEGER: The world champion is quite
careful and tricky at the same time. Now
he threatens knight to c4 attacking my
queen, I'd better go back in time before
it's too late.
14 . . . Qc7.
KARPOV: Now he wants to play perhaps e5
or e6. I have to attack his very strong
knight on c5.
15 Nb3.
PFLEGER: My knight at c5 is asked where to
go. If I take his knight off, I open the a
line - better go back and maybe jump later
to e5.
15 . . . Ncd7.
KARPOV: Now he's preparing to put his
knight on b6, and he has strong black
squares in the centre. But the position of
his king is not very happy. I should open
up to take advantage of the g5 weakness.
16 f4 gxf4 17 Bxf4 Ne5.
KARPOV: In some cases he can check me
by the diagonal g1-a7. I'll play with the
king in the corner.
18 Kh1.
PFLEGER: If I play on calmly, I will lose
sooner or later. I'm running short of time,
but I think I have to take a risk.
18 . . . e6.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
KARPOV: Not a very good move. Now I
can attack his pawn on h6 and then I
double my pieces on d1 and he has a very
weak pawn on d6. Yes, it must work, if I
play queen d2 he has no knight g6 because
I can take on h6. He can take on d5, I
retake with pawn. If he takes then with
pawn, I can take on h6 again. If he takes
with knight, I exchange knights then play
c3 and I still have my threats.
19 Qd2 Kh7 20 Radi exd5 21 exd5 Bf5.
KARPOV: He sacrifices a pawn. Now I can
take on c6 and he can't take with queen
because of knight d4. And he can't take
with knight also because of bishop takes
d6.
22 dxc6 bxc6 23 Qxd6.
PFLEGER: Oh, really, this world champion
he's terrible. He's so prosaic about this
position, just taking off my pawn.
23 . . . Qxd6 24 Rxd6 Ng6.
115
KARPOV: Knight attacks my bishop. If I go
back with bishop to h2, he can play rook a
to e8 and I have a weak first line. If I go to
d2, he can play rook a to d8. Better if I
attack him immediately with knight.
25 Nd4 Bd7.
KARPOV: Now my bishop is still on f4 and
if I retreat he has the same variation. But
his king on h7 and his knight on g6 means
I can play bishop d3 and he can't take my
bishop on f4.
26 Bd3.
PFLEGER: I'm a pawn down. I can save this
game only by starting a terrible mess.
Somehow I have to complicate.
26 . . . c5 27 Nf3 c4.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
KARPOV: Now he attacks both bishops. I
have two possibilities. Bishop e5 - but he
takes on d3, I take on f6, and he simply
retakes on f6. Nothing. So I have only one
possibility.
28 Bxg6 ch fxg6 29 Re7.
116
PFLEGER: Did he think I overlooked this?
The rook looks terrible on the seventh line,
but it won't do me any harm because I
have the possibility rook from a to e8.
29 . . . Rae8 30 Rxe8.
PFLEGER: If I take back with the rook he
will play bishop to e5 and I have to
exchange rooks. I should keep as many
pieces as possible on the board because
he's still a pawn up. It's not very nice but I
retake with the bishop.
30 . . . Bxe8 31 Be5 Rf7.
KARPOV: Perhaps he overlooked my next
move. He defended his a pawn, but I can
also attack the weak c pawn and he has no
defence because my bishop attacks c7 and
his bishop can't go to b5.
32 Rd4.
PFLEGER: Now I think my last move was a
mistake. I planned here to play rook to b7
and to take off his pawn on b2 when he
takes on c4. But then I will give up the
seventh line and he has terrible threats. I
have to change plans now, I'll activate my
bishop on the long diagonal.
32 . . . Bc6 33 Rxc4 Ba8 34 Nb5 Rd7
35 Rc7.
PFLEGER: Oh, he doesn't like my
counterplay, now he exchanges rooks and
is two pawns up. I can't avoid it, if I give
up the seventh line there's a terrible pin.
35 . . . Rxc7 36 Nxc7 Be4 37 c4 g5
38 Ne6.
 a b c d e f g h
abcde fgh
PFLEGER: Well, what shall I do now? I
wanted to go back with my bishop to hB.
But he simply sacrifices his knight at g5,
wins some extra pawns, and wins the piece
back. I think it's a rather hopeless position.
I started like a tiger, and now I end like a
rabbit.
38 . . . Resigns.
Karpov's classically simple refutation of
Black's unsound play in this game has the
stamp of a world champion and is
reminiscent of the great Capablanca.
Game 32:
Bent Larsen - Tony Miles
English Opening (by transposition)
I g3 g6 2 Bg2 Bg7 3 c4 c5 4 Nc3 Nc6
5 d3 Nf6 6 Nf3 d5 7 cxd5 Nxd5
8 Nxd5 Qxd5 9 0-0 0-0 10 Be3 Bd7
II Qd2 Qd6 12 Bh6 Rac8 13 a3 b6.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
LARSEN: / have a choice between two
ideas. Either rook fd to play the rook to
c4, or just the idea b4. If I play b4, I have
to take the bishop first, I think. It's nice
that I have in some variations the queen on
b2 or c3 with check or pin and things. It's
all not very much, but I like to attack the
centre like that.
14 Bxg7 Kxg7.
LARSEN: B4 must come now. If he takes it,
then I have threats on a7 and there's a nice
variation - he comes with the rook on c2
and then I take on d7.
15 b4.
MILES: I intended to meet this with knight
d4 and then in some lines threaten knight
b3, but not yet because of the check. If he
takes my knight, then I can recapture with
a pawn and the c3 square is nice for my
rooks. And if he takes my pawn on c5, I
recapture with a rook and play down the c
file. If he plays rook d, then c4 looks
interesting. Anyway, I can't play anything
else now - taking the pawn is terrible and
he's threatening to take on c5 when I'd
117
have to recapture with the queen - doesn't
look nice.
15 . . . Nd4.
LARSEN: Knight takes knight is rather
drawish, but at least I'm not better - I have
to look out. I must either play rook c! at
once or take on c5. Take on c5, he takes
with a rook, I can pin him, queen b2, then
he plays e5. Yes, that's what I looked at
before but if I exchange on d4, he takes
with a pawn, he has the chance to occupy
c3 - that's nasty. Knight takes knight is
probably the solid move. Too solid, I don't
like that. Rook d, which rook, normally
the f rook, well, it doesn't matter very
much.
16 Rfd.
MILES: That's interesting, I thought c4 was
good. Let's see, c4, possibly I'm
threatening c3 and also knight b3 now
because the knight will be defended. He
plays queen b2, I play c3 and rook takes
c3, knight takes e2 check wins - yes, that's
okay. Naturally he can't take on c4 with
anything because knight f3 check'll win his
queen. He can take on d4, but then I
recapture. He doesn't have e3 because d3
is en prise. If he plays queen c3, I take it
then take on c3 and the ending's a little
better for me because I have squares on
the c file.
16 . . . c4.
LARSEN: I'm very stupid, I went with the
wrong rook. If I had gone with the other
rook, I could just play knight takes knight
and rook c3 - I cannot do that now
because the rook on a) will be hanging.
That was terrible, I went with the wrong
rook, that was very stupid. It's all because
they got me up too early today in the
118
hotel. Now I have to play knight takes
knight.
17 Nxd4 Qxd4 18 Qc3 Qxc3
19 Rxc3 cxd3 20 Rxd3.
MILES: Bishop a4, fixing his a pawn, I
think, then try and play with the rooks.
20 . . . Ba4.
LARSEN: Bishop a4 is very strong. Now I
have to find out how to mobilise my queen
rook because it cannot get to d1. That's
unpleasant. Bishop d5, he plays rook d8,
that's not nice. A move like f4 weakens the
second rank. Bishop e4, maybe the bishop
comes to d3, maybe he plays f5, but that
weakens his position.
21 Be4.
MILES: I thought he'd play rook e3 before
that. I should play f5 to stop the bishop
getting back to d3. Then he moves away to
d5 and I come with king to f6 and can play
e5 soon. Then I have the initiative on the
king side as well as the c file. That looks
nice, f5.
21 ... 15 22 Bb7.
MILES: Strange move. Now he wants to
bring his bishop back to d3 via a6 maybe.
Rook c7 - is he really going to put that
bishop on a6? Let's find out.
22 . . . Rc7 23 Ba6.
MILES: He did, he did. Well b5 doesn't
seem to work, but rook f6 is nice, then I
can mobilise it on the d or c file later.
23 . . . R16.

abcdefgh
abcdefgh
LARSEN: He even played that quickly; he
took a long time the last move. Now what?
Rook d5, rook c6. But I can also prevent
rook c6 with b5. The bishop is very funny,
but I'm threatening rook d4. If he plays
rook d6, he gets an isolated d pawn. I
don't know - it looks funny, but maybe it's
not so bad.
24 b5.
MILES: Well, there's a strange move. His
bishop just looks terrible now, so is his
rook on al. He's only got one active piece
and that's the rook on d3. So, logically, if I
exchange that off, then my position must
be very good. Rook d6, he takes it. I take,
I have a weak d pawn but his bishop's
terrible and his rook has great difficulty in
getting into play. I think that must be
good.
24 . . . Rd6.
LARSEN: Yea, I think I'm stupid. I should
have played rook d5. I don't like this, my
queen rook comes into play too late.
25 Rxd6 exd6 26 Ra2.
MILES: I can play rook c2 and exchange
the rooks, but his rook's surely worse than
mine. It must be better just to activate my
king first.
26 . . . Kf6 27 Rd2 Ke6 28 Rd4 Bb3.
LARSEN: I have to make some chances, the
position is very difficult.
29 g4.
MILES: Another surprise. King e5, then he
must play e3 to defend his rook, otherwise
he'll lose the g pawn. Then bishop to d5,
that threatens mate. If king f1, bishop f3
and he actually gets mated. If f4 check, I
bring the king back and have a lovely
square on e4 for the bishop: that looks
winning.
29 . . . Ke5 30 e3 Bd5.
LARSEN: Well, f4 check, I don't like that. I
can play f4 check and take on f5 with a
check, but where does my rook get into
his position? Afterwards, I'm weak on
the first rank and the second rank and
the third rank. I'll try h3, that's a more
psychological, practical move. I don't think
I get mated.
31 h3 Rd ch 32 Kh2 Be4 33 gxf5 Rh1 ch
34 Kg3 Rg1 ch.
LARSEN: King h4, bishop f3, take, take
with mating threat. Then I have to play
rook g4. Well, that's lost. I have to go back
with king h2.
35 Kh2 Rg2ch 36 Kh1 Rxf2ch
37 Kg1 Rxf5 38 Bc8 Rf3 39 Ra4 Rf7
40 Bg4 Bd3 41 Rb4 h5 42 Bc8 Rf1 ch (even
better is Rc7 forcing the bishop back to a6
again) 43 Kg2 Rb1 44 Ra4 Rb2ch
45 Kg3 Be4 46 h4 Rg2ch 47 Kh3 Rc2
48 Bd7.
119
 abcdefgh abcdefgh
8
7
6

5
4
3
2
1
abcdefgh abcdefgh

MILES: Rook e2, he takes on a7 and I take LARSEN: Bishop d3, there's hardly anything
e3 check, king h2, king f4, that ought to be to do against that. Well, I can either play a4
a mating net. or resign. I think resigning is stronger.
48 . . . Re2 49 Rxa7 Rxe3ch 50 Kh2 Kf4. 54 Resigns.
LARSEN: Yes, he has a fantastic attack
here. Well, there's nothing to do - that
stupid bishop I can play to c6, but he just
plays d5. There's nothing else - well,
bishop c6.
51 Bc6.
MILES: Now, let's drive his king to the
back row.
51 . . . Re2ch 52 Kg1 Kg3 53 Rf7 d5.

120
Master Game 1977 Final
Karpov V2V2I-V2V2O Miles
Third Place Play-Off
Pfleger 0-1 Larsen

Miles drew his first game against the world abcdefgh

champion by resilient defence, while in the
replay Karpov played carefully to neutralise
a dangerous opening novelty. The second
replay was a wonderful climax to the
tournament - rapid blitz chess of the
highest quality which Karpov won narrowly
after Miles fought back from an apparently
hopeless position.
The third place play-off game was a
powerful win by Larsen and a good lesson
in how to use two rooks against a queen in
a heavy piece endgame.

Game 33: abcdefgh

Helmut Pfleger - Bent Larsen
Queen's Indian Defence
1 c4 Nf6 2 Nf3 b6 3 g3 Bb7 4 Bg2 c5
5 0-0 g6 6 b3 Bg7 7 Bb2 0-0 8 Nc3.
LARSEN: This is getting a little too
symmetrical. If I play knight c6, he plays d4
and there are some very well-known
variations with lots of exchanges. It's
playable for Black, but a little difficult. I
can also play d5, but if he takes with the
knight it also leads to lots of exchanges.
Also it's unlikely that Black can take the
initiative in the centre, he's a tempo
behind. I like better what Ljubojevic has
done sometimes. It looks crazy - knight a6
- but it breaks the symmetry. Then if White
plays d4, you take it. If he retakes with the
knight, you exchange bishops and hope to
prove that his king's position is a little
weak. I don't think there's much theory on
it yet. I thought sometimes I would play

121
knight a6 some day, so some day seems to
be now.
8 . . . Na6.
PFLEGER: I like him, Larsen. He always
plays unusual moves and that's my way
of playing too. So I shouldn't feel
uncomfortable here. He played his knight
to the edge of the board, so I should try to
form a strong pawn centre.
9 e3.
LARSEN: That's an interesting move. Now
he probably wants to play d4 and recapture
with the pawn. Then I can give him
hanging pawns, but my knight on a6 is a
little funny. Maybe he wants to play queen
e2 first, pointing in the direction of my
knight, that may be important in some
variations. But really, e3, has that not
weakened his d3 square? D5 is possible, e6
is possible, so is rook e8. Queen b8 is
playable, I like to play that always
protecting the bishop. There are many
moves here, that is the problem. If he
takes it with the knight, d5 is logical
because he has a slight weakness on d3.
9 . . . d5.
PFLEGER: I want to play a sharp game as he
does. I shall play my knight to e5 because
his pawn on d5 is then pinned.
10 Ne5.
LARSEN: Now e6 is not so bad, and there's
queen c7 or queen b8 also possible. Let
me see, queen b8. He'll probably play d4,
maybe f4. A queen base is nice because
then I can exchange on the diagonal at any
moment.
10 . . . Qb8.
122
PFLEGER: I think I should hold the tension
in the centre now, and especially I should
keep my knight at e5. It looks so nice,
doesn't it?
11 f4.
LARSEN: Oh, I like that, I like it. I've had
similar situations with White, but practical
players like Keres and Spassky, they just
took on c4. Chances on the d file and
always his king is open.
11 . . . dxc4 12 bxc4 Bxg2 13 Kxg2.
LARSEN: The natural move is queen b7
check, he plays queen f3, I can take and
he takes with the king. Then I can play
rook d8 and knight b4. It's all right, but
what about knight d7? If he takes it, then I
like it very much. Knight c6, I have queen
d6, then knight d5 is not dangerous. I'm
tempted to play knight d7 to make it more
complicated.
13 . . . Nd7.
PFLEGER: I shouldn't take his unguarded
knight, because he can recapture it with
queen to b7 check. But I have rather a
strong move, threatening to take the e7
pawn with check.
14 Nd5 Qd6.
PFLEGER: Shall I play d4? It gets very
complicated, it's difficult to make it out in
such a short time. If I take on d7, I should
have rather a good game.
15 Nxd7.
LARSEN: That's a pleasant surprise, I
thought he would play queen a4.
15 . . . Qxd7 16 Qc2.
LARSEN: / must exchange the bishop and
abcdefgh
play knight c7. Then there's not much
attack for him, and the d file is very good
with so few pieces.
16 . . . Bxb2 17 Qxb2 Nc7 18 Nxc7 Qxc7.

abcdefgh
8
7
6
5
4 abcdefgh

3 PFLEGER: I'm a pawn down, but his king is

2 rather unsafe. He can't move his rook off
d4 because I mate him on g7. Now I calmly
1 play queen to c3 and maybe he can't avoid
abcdefgh all the mating threats.

PFLEGER: I have slight difficulties on the d
file, because my pawn can be attacked. I
should look for some counterplay on the
king's wing.
19 f5.
LARSEN: Well, what he is doing is logical.
He has a weak pawn structure, but wants
to prove it's good for getting some attack.
Really, the only thing he has is a diagonal
for his queen. Should I take that away from
him with check and queen f6? No, I have
no advantage in that ending. Rook ad8 is
normal, I have a very much better position
with the weak d pawn.
19 . . . Rad8 20 fxg6 hxg6 21 Kg1 Rd3
22 Rf2 Qd6 23 Rafi f6 24 g4 Rd8 25 g5 f5
(Rxd2 simplifies to a rook ending with
good chances, but Larsen wants to win in
the middle game) 26 e4 fxe4 27 Rf7 Rd4.
28 Qc3.
LARSEN: What does he want to do to me?
I don't allow queen h3, of course, and
queen e6 was my plan anyway. I'll drive
back that rook and eat some pawns.
Should be an easy win now.
28 . . . Qe6 29 Qe3.
LARSEN: Oh, he gives me the two rooks.
This should be easy, I'm only nervous
about my clock.
29 . . . Qxf7 30 Rxf7 Kxf7.
PFLEGER: Now my queen will begin to
chase his king all over the board.
31 Qf4ch.
LARSEN: / thought queen h3 was quite a
strong move, but anyway my king is very
safe on e8. I protect g6 with the rook and
the only danger is when he breaks with the

123
h pawn, but I get a mating attack when I
abcdefgh
get my rook to the second.
8
31 . . . Ke8 32 Qe5 R8d6 33 Qh8ch Kd7.
7
PFLEGER: He's short of time, I should do
unexpected moves for him. 6
34 Qa8. 5
LARSEN: That pawn he can have. If I take 4
on d2, that's very good also. If he takes on
3
e4 maybe, no, rook takes d2 is very good
and my problem is whether rook takes c4 is 2
stronger to take with the other rook on d2.
1
Everything ought to win. I have to make a
move. abcdefgh
34 . . . Rxc4 35 Qxa7ch Ke6 36 Qa3 b5
37 Qh3ch. PFLEGER: Oh, what did I do? I completely
overlooked this move? How could I do it?
LARSEN: King f7 is possible, but why not
If I check now, he can easily escape with
king e5? When he checks me I go and take
the king. There is nothing to do and he
the g pawn. King e5 is all right.
threatens mate on the first file. Time has
37 .. . Ke5. come to resign.

PFLEGER: He dares quite a lot, but he runs 41 Resigns.

shorter and shorter of time. I should make
it as complicated as possible for him. Game 34:

38 Qh8ch Kf5 39 Qf8ch Ke6. Anatoly Karpov - Tony Miles

PFLEGER: Maybe he'll lose by time - I
should not check, that makes it easier for
him.
40 h4.
LARSEN: What is this? I can take on d2. He
cannot attack that rook and the other rook
is protected. I have to be quick. It
threatens mate. I must do it.
40 . . . Rxd2.
Catalan Opening
KARPOV: We played twice before. The first
game I played e4, and it was Dragon
Variation. I played c4 the second time in
Las Palmas. I have a good memory of this,
so I like to play it again.
1 c4.
MILES: You've got to stop losing to this
guy. What shall I play? I don't like these
quick play-offs, so I'll have to beat him the
first time. I played b6 last time, that didn't
work too well. I'll try e6, bit more flexible.

1 . . . e6.

124
KARPOV: In Las Palmas he played b6, it
was not so good. E6, more classical. I
should play quiet, knight f3.
2 N(3 Nf6 3 g3 d5 4 Bg2 dxc4
5 Qa4ch Nbd7 6 Qxc4 c5 7 0-0 a6
8 a4 b6 9 Rd1 Bb7 10 Nc3 Be7
11 d4 Rc8 12 Bg5 cxd4 13 Qxd4 h6
14 Be3 Bc5.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
KARPOV: He attacks my queen, now if I
play queen f4 he plays g5 and catches my
queen. Queen d3 I attack his pawn a6 but
maybe better queen d2 because I have in
future f4 square.
15 Qd2.
MILES: I'll leave it for him to exchange
bishops. I want to get out of this pin down
the d file, so queen e7 looks sensible. If he
takes my bishop I take with knight and
threaten knight b3. He has queen d6, that's
nothing special.
15 . . . Qe7 16 Bxc5 Nxc5.
KARPOV: Now he threatens knight b3. If I
play immediately queen d6 he exchanges
queens and his king in the centre has a
very good position. Maybe I shall wait for a
move.
17 Qf4.
MILES: That's clever, now if I castle he
plays queen d6 and my king's not so good.
Still, that shouldn't be too bad. What else
can I play? Knight d5 doesn't look right
somehow. I think I have to castle. Queen
d6 - oh, it's only a small edge, I should be
able to hold that.
17 . . . 0-0 18 Qd6 Qc7.
KARPOV: The best move. Now he wins a
tempo. I have to exchange queens, and his
rook is good on c7.
17 Qxc7 Rxc7.
KARPOV: D6 square is very weak in his
camp.
18 Rd6.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
125
This is an example of a type of endgame MILES: / must move the knight. F6? Then I
which Karpov always handles with great can't play f6 myself. C5 attacks his a pawn,
skill and success. Though material is level he won't be able to play b4.
and the pawn structures are balanced,
25 . . . Nc5.
such positions are difficult to defend
because the open file is a permanent asset KARPOV: Now I can pin his pieces on the
for White and Black can easily get tied to c line. Which rook? Rook c4 is better
protecting the b pawn. It's a tough because my rook defends my pawn on a4
defensive job for Black, which Miles and the other rook is going after d6.
manages remarkably well.
26 Rc4.
MILES: Now rook c6, rook d1 doesn't help
much. I don't want to play a knight to d7, abcdefgh
they get a bit tied down, can't move
anything. I think bishop c6, he plays knight
e5, that's annoying but I can defend the
pawn by rook b8.
20 . . . Bc6 21 Ne5 Bxg2 22 Kxg2 Rb8
23 Radi.
MILES: Now if I play b5 he checks and
then takes the b pawn. I'd like to play king
to f8 and bring my king to the centre but I
can't bring it to e7 because of knight c6
check. I can't even bring it to e8 because
of knight c6. That's awkward, must try and abcdefgh
free my position somehow. How about
exchanging some pieces? The f knight to MILES: Now he threatens b4. I don't want
e4 and then I have the possibility of f6 to to play a5 because that leaves him a nice
kick his knight on e5. square on b5, doesn't look right. Let's get
rid of his knight first, f6 looks sensible,
23 . . . Nfe4 24 Nxe4 Nxe4.
makes a square for my king.
KARPOV: Now I have several possibilities.
26 . . . f6 27 Nf3.
Check on d8, he takes, I take, he plays
king h7 and nothing special. I can also play MILES: Now I must do something about
rook c6, he takes, I take with knight, and the pin. I don't like b5 at all yet. He's
rook b7 might be enough. So I keep my going to put his rook on b4 soon if I do
rooks on d line, rook d4. that. I must play rook from b8 to c8.
25 R6d4. 27 . . . Rbc8.

126
 KARPOV: / thought he should have played
abcdefgh
b5. His rook move might be dangerous
because I take the line again and force him
to move the pawn.
28 Rd6.
MILES: That's unpleasant. I must play b5
now, then he takes it and plays rook b4
and I must defend rook b8 or b7. Then he
has knight d4 attacking my two pawns.
Maybe I play e5 or king f7 and if he takes
the b pawn with a knight, I double rooks
on the b file and win a piece, if he takes
with the rook, I exchange and get his b
pawn. But it gets more and more abcdefgh
unpleasant, maybe quite bad. Anyway, I've
KARPOV: Now, what can I do? He has no
no choice.
activity but my pieces are in the best
28 . . . b5 29 axb5 axb5 30 Rb4 Rb7 positions. Maybe I should push my f pawn.
31 Nd4. If he answers king e7, I play rook b d4 and
I threaten knight c6 check. I don't know
MILES: Now I can play e5 but his knight
what he can do.
gets the f5 square. I think I should bring
my king to the centre, it doesn't matter if 34 f4.
he takes the b pawn.
MILES: That's annoying, now I won't have
31 . . . Kf7. e5 at all. Can't play king e7 ’cause he
doubles rooks. King f7 is not right. I'll try
KARPOV: Now I can take on b5. If I take
and make a square on e4 for my knight c5,
there with knight, he plays rook c to b8
can't really move my pieces anywhere.
and pins my pieces. If I take with rook, he
changes rooks and plays rook b8. Nothing 34 . . . f5.
special, equal. But I have another move. I
KARPOV: Now I've got the e5 square and I
can play knight c6 and he cannot answer
should double rooks again on the d line.
rook b6 because I have a knight check.
35 Rbd4.
32 Nc6.
MILES: / thought I could play rook d8 here,
MILES: / can’t move my rook. It looks like
but he just plays b4 and I lose my e pawn.
king e8, it's very uncomfortable.
He's threatening b4 anyway. I can’t go king
32 . . . Ke8 33 Na5 Rbb8. e7 because of knight c6 check, so it looks
like f7. Then he's got knight c6 to e5, b4,
rook d7, this looks losing. Still there's
nothing else.
35 . . . Kf7 36 Nc6 Ra8 37 b4.
127
MILES: At least I've got one piece on a
abcdefgh
good square.
37 . . . Ne4.
KARPOV: Now I have knight e5 check and
rook d7 check. If I play knight e5 check he
plays king g8, I take on e6, he plays rook
a2, king f3. If he doubles his rooks on the
second line I give him check on d8, king
f7, rook e8 and I have him mated. But
maybe better rook d7 first.

38 Rd7ch Kf8.
KARPOV: That was a very interesting
continuation. If he played king e8, I played
knight e5 and then knight g6 and rook e7
mate - but he saw it. Now knight e5 or
knight d8? If I play knight e5, he plays
knight f6. So knight d8. But certainly last
move I should have checked on e5 first.
39 Nd8.
MILES: That looks slightly artificial. I
wonder if I'm getting any play. Rook to the
seventh, he takes with check. I must guard
my e pawn, so I've only rook a6.
39 . . . Ra6 40 Rf7ch.
MILES: King e8, rook takes g7. But why not
king g8, my king may be able to hide at h7.
If he plays rook d to d7 I can take his
knight.
40 . . . Kg8.
KARPOV: Now I have no advantage. That's
very surprising. I'm very upset. Rook e7 he
plays rook a2. He has threats also, my king
is not so happy. But I have to play rook e7.
41 Re7.
abcdefgh
MILES: Now what's going on? Threatening
my e pawn, I can't defend that any more.
Looks like time to activate. Rook c2, rook
a2? Rook c2, he takes on e6 then he's
threatening rook d8 check and rook g7
mate. So I suppose I need that rook on the
back rank. Looks like rook a2. Maybe he
doubles on the seventh but then I can take
on e2, king h3 then just give up the
exchange on d8. I might even be winning
that, the king comes round to h7 and g6, I
might have a mate. Rook a2 certainly looks
best. Maybe I'm okay now. Knight takes
e6, take e2 check, king h3, oh, and g5
strong.
41 . . . Ra2.
KARPOV: / can't play rook d7 because he
takes on e2 with check, and if I play king
h3, he plays knight f6 and mates me after
knight g4.
42 Nxe6 Rxe2ch.
KARPOV: Now king f3 only move.
43 Kf3.
MILES: If I check on f2, he comes to e3.

128
Why not take on h2, then I threaten rook
c3 mating. That looks better, take some
abcdefgh
pawns.
43 . . . Rxh2.
KARPOV: That's the best move. Now, draw
is forced.
44 Rxg7ch Kh8 45 Rc7 Rg8.

KARPOV: Now he's going to mate me, I

have to pin his rook.
46 Rd8.
MILES: We can draw easily with taking on
d8, and knight d2 check and knight f1 abcdefgh
check and he can't come to the d file
because of rook d2. Can I try to win? Take KARPOV: Draw.
his rook, rook h3, then his king round to
MILES: Ves.
e3, d4, e5. . . . Very active, my king's bad,
it's cut off on the back rank, an extra pawn Draw agreed.
wouldn't mean anything. B2, that's not
The white king cannot go to d3 or d4
much better. No, I think my king's too
because Rd2ch wins the knight. A great
badly placed to try and win, I must take
defensive fight by Miles, though Karpov
the draw.
perhaps let him off on move 38.
46 . . . Rxd8 47 Nxd8 Nd2ch.
KARPOV: He is very careful, and he's right Game 35:
because it was very dangerous for him to
play for win after rook h3 for instance. Now Tony Miles - Anatoly Karpov
it's draw. English Opening

48 Ke3.
1 c4 Nf6 2 Nc3 e6 3 e4 c5.
MILES: Knight f1 check, that's perpetual.
The sharp move 3 e4 has become popular
48 . . . Nflch. in master chess during the past two years.
A major alternative for Black is 3 ... d5
4 e5 d4 5 exf6 dxc3 6 bxc3 Qxf6 7 d4 c5
8 Nf3 cxd4 with complicated play analysed
in detail in the magazine Modern Chess
Theory.
4 e5 Ng8 5 Nf3 (5 d4 is also possible)
Nc6 6 d4 (a pawn sacrifice for fast
development) cxd4 7 Nxd4 Nxe5 8 Ndb5.

129
This has been the most popular move, but
the present game and others suggest that it
gives White no more than a draw.
Accordingly in some 1978 tournaments
there were experiments with 8 Bf4 and
8 Qa4.
8 . . . f6.
8 . . . Ng6? 9 Be3 puts the knight out of
the game, while 8 . . . d6? allows the
strong answer 9 c5!
9 Be3 a6.
Less forcing is 9 ... b6 which gave White
an advantage in Miles-Flesch, Biel 1977:
10 f4 Nc6 11 f5 g6 12 fxe6 dxe6
13 Qxd8ch Kxd8 14 0-0-0ch Ke7 15 g4!
and White soon opened up the game for
his pieces by g5.
10 Nd6ch Bxd6 11 Qxd6 Ne7 (more
precise than Nf7 when White can play
12 Qg3 with advantage) 12 Bb6 Nf5
13 Bxd8 Nxd6 14 Bc7 Ke7 15 c5 Ne8
16 Bb6 d5 17 cxd6ch Nxd6 (Kxd6
18 f4 Nd7 19 Bd8 leaves Black's king too
exposed).
abcdefg h
abcdefgh
130
18 0-0-0.
In an earlier game Miles-L. Bronstein, Sao
Paulo 1977, Miles tried 18 Bc5 when Black
could have returned the pawn with a
sound position by 18 . . . b6! Instead he
played 18 . . . Nd7? 19 Ba3 b6
20 0-0-0 Nc5 21 Na4! Nxa4 22 Rxd6 and
Miles had much the better endgame.
18 . . . Bd7.
'Only move' said Karpov later. Caught in a
prepared variation, he had taken 25
minutes for his moves, Miles only one
minute - and the time limit was 30 moves
per hour. But Bd7 is certainly not the only
move. Two other good choices were
demonstrated in later tournaments by
Miles's grandmaster opponents, neither of
whom knew the variation beforehand.
Huebner played 18 . . . Nec4, Polugaevsky
chose 18 . . . Nef7, and both drew without
difficulty.
19 Bc5 Nef7 20 Ne4 Rac8 21 Kb1 Rc6
22 Be2 e5 23 Ba3 Bf5 24 Bd3 Rd8
25 Nxd6 Bxd3ch 26 Rxd3 Nxd6
27 Rhd1 Ke6 28 f3 g5 29 g4 Rd7
30 Rd5 b6 31 Bb4 a5 32 Ba3 Rd8.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
A curious kind of mutual zugzwang where
neither player can improve his position.
The pin by all White's pieces on the black
knight looks impressive, and Black is still
safely holding on to his extra pawn. But
nothing is really happening, and it
continues like that till the end of the game.
33 R1d3 Rd 7 34 b3 Rd8 35 Ka1 Rd7
36 Rd1 Rd 8 37 R1d3 Rd7 38 Kb1 Rd8
39 b4 axb4 40 Bxb4 Rd7 41 a3 Rd8
42 Ka2 Rd7 43 Kb3 Rd8 44 Rd1 Rd7.
abcdefgh
abcdefgh
Draw agreed. White still can't take
advantage of the pin, while Black can only
shuffle his rook between d7 and d8.
Game 36:
Anatoly Karpov - Tony Miles
Queen's Indian Defence
KARPOV: C4 like in the first game.
1 c4.
MILES: Oh dear, half an hour again, my
fatal speed, that's why I got knocked out
of the last two series. The first game wasn't
bad, I'll play e6 again.
1 . . . e6.
KARPOV: / haven't much time. I should
play quick.
2 Nf3 Nf6.
KARPOV: He likes to repeat our first game.
He got fine position, maybe I should play
another way.
3 Nc3.
MILES: Ah, a change. Normally I play b6
here but if he plays e4 after bishop b7 he's
got the position he had about fifteen times
as Black against Korchnoi. He must know
that backwards. Well, I haven't got time to
think of anything original and I don't want
to defend a Queen's Gambit.
3 . . . b6 4 g3 Bb7 5 Bg2.
MILES: Now, avoid the main lines with d5,
I've played that a few times before.
Anything else he'll know much better than
me.
5 . . . d5.
KARPOV: Something unusual, d5
immediately. Now I should take.
6 cxd5.
MILES: Don't want to take with a pawn
because that blocks my bishop.
6 . . . Nxd5.
KARPOV: Now I have to occupy the
centre, but first castle.
7 0-0.
MILES: Maybe I can play c5, stake a claim
for the centre. But bishop e7 first, I should
prepare to castle.
131
7 . . . Be7.
abcdefgh
KARPOV: Very safe, c5 was dangerous
because I could play knight e5 and occupy
the diagonal a4 to e8. Now, on with d4.

8 d4.
MILES: Now castles or knight d7. I think
knight d7's more accurate, sometimes I
may want to bring it to f6 to control e4.
Also it stops any knight e5's being nasty.

8 . . . Nd7.
KARPOV: Now I can't play e4 because he
takes on c3 and then I lose my e pawn. I
should prepare, my rook will protect this
pawn. If I instead change on d5, he takes
back with bishop and then he plays knight
f6 and equals.
9 Re1.
MILES: Knight d7 to f6, maybe that stops
e4 but then he has knight e5 and queen a4
check, that's not so pleasant. Castles, e4,
I don't like that much. C5, no, need to
castle first. How can I delay e4? Maybe take
the knight and play bishop e4, looks
interesting, certainly holds it up for a
while, if he moves his knight I exchange
bishops, that's okay. Otherwise he has to
play something laborious like bishop f1
and knight d2, that costs him time. Yes I'll
try that, that looks interesting.
9 . . . Nxc3 10 bxc3 Be4.
KARPOV: Now his king is in the centre and
I should use this situation. I can also play
bishop f1 but he can take on f3 also and
play c5. Queen a4 strong.
II Qa4.
abcdefgh
MILES: Tricky. Now if I castle he wants to
play knight e5 then bishop takes g2, knight
takes d7 and he wins the exchange. Do I
get any play on the white squares? Bishop
b7, knight takes f8, queen d5 - not really
'cause he can always play f3 and block
everything. So I don't want to allow that.
Knight e5's a nuisance. What should I play?
Bishop f6 maybe, but then he can play
bishop a3 and annoy me more. So, bishop
d6. Why not? Then knight e5, I take on g2,
take on e5 and I'm fine.
11 . . . Bd6.
KARPOV: Now he is going to develop his
pieces. He wants to play queen e7, I
should play bishop g5.
12 Bg5.
MILES: I don't want to play f6, that
weakens the king side a bit. Maybe move
the queen, c8 or b8. Well, b8 there's
always knight e5 to worry about, so c8.
I can always play the queen to b7 later,
that's a good square for it.

12 . . . Qc8.

132
KARPOV: Now I have to play very active.
abcdefgh
I have not much time, one or two moves
and he is okay.
13 c4.
MILES: Now I want to watch out for c5,
soon. Well, what about castles? Knight e5,
I play bishop takes e5 and if bishop takes
e4, bishop takes d4. I have a nice square
on c5 for my knight. He takes a8, I take on
a1 ... he recaptures and I can't take his
bishop because my knight's loose, but I'd
play knight c5 first. Then he takes a7, I take
a8, he takes c7. I think I have some play
then. His pawns are weak, my knight abcdefgh
maybe a good piece. I'm not sure, what
else is there? H6? That doesn't seem to MILES: / feel this position should be okay
help, bishop e3 and c5's coming even for me. What can I do? I could play knight
more then. C6? Looks a bit messy. No, b3, that sticks the knight too far out of the
I think castles should be best, play it way. Queen a6, he plays rook b1, or even
quickly. d1, and he's on the way to d8. What to do
- rook c8, queen takes b6, no - knight e4,
13 . . . 0-0 14 Ne5 Bxe5 15 Bxe4 Bxd4.
bishop e3, knight c3, I don't know, time's
KARPOV: Now I have another possibility, getting short. I could play queen e4 and if
perhaps I can play rook a1 to d1, in this he takes on b6 I have queen e5, that might
case his only move is knight c5. I can take get him late at night. But then there's
on h7 with check, he takes, I play queen always bishop e7, bishop e3 or almost
c2 check, f5, rook takes d4, knight e4. anything. Let's try and get this knight
Perhaps it's not so much, better win pawn. active, I want to play against e2. If I can get
the rook on an open file then the knight to
16 Bxa8 Bxa1 17 Rxa1 Nc5 18 Qxa7 Qxa8
c3 I get some play. Anything, knight e4,
19 Qxc7.
hurry up.
19 . . . Ne4.
KARPOV: Best move, now he attacks my
bishop on g5 and he is going to play
knight c3 and attack my pawn on e2. I have
two moves, bishop e7 and bishop f4,
maybe bishop f4 better.
20 Bf4.

133
MILES: Yes, that's good unfortunately. 22 . . . Qxc4 23 Rd4.
Now knight c3, oh, he always has queen
MILES: Must take a2, takes knight, take the
e5, that's not helpful. B pawn's attacked,
bishop, don't like it. Keep playing.
what can I do? Oh dear, this is not so
good, maybe I was wrong. G5 - no, that's 23 . . . Qxa2.
too weakening. Well, no time, queen a6
KARPOV: I didn't expect he can play this.
and rook c8, that'll do.
Now I have two possibilities. I can take on
20 . . . Qa6. g5 and also I can take on e4 with rook, and
his king is very unhappy. Yes, I take
KARPOV: Now he attacks my pawn on c4.
knight.
He's going to play with a rook, maybe a
knight. But his king is weak. I should use 24 Rxe4 gxf4.
this position. If I play rook d1, he takes on
a2, I play rook d8 and then I threaten mate,
he has no defence. Rook d1, he should abcdefgh
play first his king's side pawn. I'll try it.

21 Rd1.
MILES: That's nasty, rook d8's very strong
now. What can I do? Time . . . help.
Queen takes a2, rook d8, that's horrible,
getting mated. Move, a move, knight c3,
nothing. Must make room for my king. G5?
That looks much too weakening. What can
I play? No time. G5, see what happens.

21 . . . g5.

KARPOV: As I expected, he plays very risky abcdefgh

now because his position is not so good. I
have different moves here. Maybe the best,
queen e5, I attack his knight, and if he
takes on c4 I have rook d4. And I also
attack his pawn on g5. Yes, must be good.
22 Qe5.
MILES: Yea, that's very strong. What to
play, what to play? Can't move the knight,
take the bishop, looks horrible, takes some
pawns maybe, queen takes c4, rook d4,
queen takes a2, oh, I must be getting
mated there. Oh, nothing else, play
quickly.
Both players had by now almost exhausted
their 30 minutes time available for the
whole game. Karpov was down to about
three minutes, Miles to two minutes, for
ail the remaining moves. The rest of the
game now took place with moves made
almost instantaneously as both sides strove
to beat both the position and the clock.
25 Qg5ch Kh8 26 Qf6ch Kg8 27 Re5.
Threatening Rg5 mate, and stopping the
defence Qblch and Qg6 because Rg5
would then win the queen.

134
27 . . . Ra8. 37 Qc6ch Qd7 38 Qxd7ch Kxd7
39 Rxf7ch Ke6 40 Rf3 Ra2 41 Kf2 b5
The only square, otherwise a check on h8
42 Rb3 Ra5 43 Kf3 Ke5.
will pick up the rook, or the rook will get
in the way of the black king's escape.
abcdefgh
28 Kg2.
If at once 28 Rg5ch Kf8 29 Rg7?? Qalch
wins, another point of Black's 27th.

28 . . . fxg3.
Now if Qa1, simply Qxf4.

29 Rg5ch Kf8 30 Rg7 Qd5ch 31 f3 e5

32 Rxh7 Ke8.
Cool play; despite White's mating threats
the black king can still run.
33 Kxg3 e4 34 fxe4?
abcdefgh
34 Rh8ch followed by exchanging rooks
and Qxf7ch is a simpler win. 44 h4??
34 . . . Ra3ch 35 Kf2 Qc5ch 36 Kg2 Qe7. Karpov blunders - he should play 44 Ke3
first. . . .
abcdefgh
44 . . . Ke6??
. . . but Miles doesn't see it! Instead
44 . . . Kd4! supports the pawn with the
king, frees the rook, and should draw for
Black.
45 Kf4 Ra7 (if the king retreats, White will
play e5 and Kf5) 46 Rxb5 Rf7ch
47 Rf5 Rh7 48 h5 Rb7 49 h6 Rh7
50 Rh5 Kf6 51 Kg4 Kg6 52 e5 Re7
53 h7 Rxh7 54 Rxh7 Kxh7 55 Kf5 Kg7
56 Ke6 Kg6 57 Kd7 Kf5 58 e6 Kf4
59 e7 Kg3 60 e8.
abcdefgh

Black fights on. Now 37 Qxb6?? Qxe4ch

would even lose for White.

135
 diagram would seem rather strange: a
grandmaster game with a pawn on the first
rank! In the TV reconstruction the pawn
appeared as a queen as the players and
spectators understood it to be.

abcdefgh

abcdefgh

Shouldn't the pawn on e8 be a queen?

Well, no. Karpov was now down to less
than a minute on his clock, Miles to only a
few seconds. There was no queen to hand.
So Karpov muttered 'Queen' and
abcdefgh
continued playing with the pawn moving
like a queen. Miles or the tournament
controller could have technically refused to
allow it, but the play was such a rapid-fire
rate that nobody reacted fast enough. The
writer of the moves couldn't keep up with
events. Karpov's king and 'queen' chased
Miles's king down the board. During this
sequence, Karpov, confused by his own
piece, missed a mate in one, but the exact
position of this happening couldn't be
decided for the TV reconstruction so it was
not shown. Miles managed to get his king
behind the white pawn, and Karpov
hesitated fractionally in deciding which was
the pawn and which the 'queen'. With
both flags still aloft, the world champion
reached a mating position, and if you
didn't know what had happened the final

136
Index of openings

Game no
1 e4:
Caro-Kann 1 . . . c6 2 c4 13, 20
Pirc 1 . . . d6 1, 15, 28, 31
Sicilian 1 . . . c5 2, 3, 6, 14, 23

1 d4:
Benoni 1 . . . Nf6 2 Nc3 c5 3 d5 11
English Defence 1 . . . e6 2 c4 b6 5
Irregular Defence 1 . . . Nf6 2 c4 Nc6 8
King's Indian 1 . . . Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 18, 21
1 . . . d6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4
Modern Benoni 1 . . . Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e6 22
Modern Defence 1 . . . d6 2 c4 e5 25
Old Indian 1 . . . Nf6 2 c4 d6 29
Queen's Gambit Accepted 1 . . . d5 2 c4 dxc4 17
Queen's Indian with . . . b6 30, 33, 36
Queen's Pawn, Veresov 1 . . . d5 2 Nc3 10

Others:

Catalan 1 c4 e6 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 g3 d5 34

English 1 c4 g6 2 g3 Bg7 3 Bg2 c5 9, 26, 32
1 c4 Nf6 2 Nc3 e6 3 e4 c5 35
Others 12, 19, 27
Irregular 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 e3 24
King's Indian Reversed with d3 and g3 7, 16

139
Index of players
(numbers refer to the games)

Botterill 1, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 18

Clarke 17
Donner 27, 28
Hartston, Jana 13
Hartston, William 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 18, 22, 23, 25, 26
Hodgson 14,15,16
Hug 24
Karpov 19, 24, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36
Kavalek 2
Larsen 17, 28, 32, 33
Mestel 4
Miles 5, 9, 10, 17, 19, 20, 21, 29, 32, 34, 35, 36
Nunn 1, 13, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
Pfleger 25, 26, 30, 31, 33
Quinteros 2
Schmid 29
Short 12
Speelman 4, 9, 10, 11
Stean 2, 3
Williams 5

141
£2-50

The Master Game

The Master Game, the world's only televised international chess
tournament, has become.addictive viewing, not only for Britain's
half million chess players, but for three times th&t number who tune
in to watch the clashes of character and the contrasts of personality
among the participants. The grandmaster comments run the entire
range between elation and despair as the game progresses.
This collection of the complete games of the first three Master
Game series recaptures, with the aid of the players' running

ime Jeremy James and Leonard B

commentaries, all the moments of instructive mastery and the
occasional blunders of the novice. Jeremy James introduces the
players and Leonard Barden explains the overall strategy and tactics
of each game.
Many viewers of The Master Game say they learn more from the
programme than from any orthodox chess primer. Thus, this
collection is both a handbook of an enjoyable series and a chance
to brush up your own chess play with the aid of chess masters and
experts.

Cover photograph by James Elliott