The Chess Player's Battle Manual Sr eee ea ea set! bee eeThe Chess Player’s Battle Manual Nigel Davies B. T. Batsford Ltd, LondonFirst published 1998 © Nigel Davies 1998 ISBN 0 7134 7043 7 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, by any means, without prior permission of the publisher. Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton and printed in Great Britain by Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Wilts for the publishers, B. T. Batsford Ltd, 583 Fulham Road, London SW6 SBY ABATSFORD CHESS BOOK General Manager: David Cummings Advisors; Mark Dvoretsky, Raymond Keene OBE, Daniel King, Jon Speelman, Chris WardContents 11 Introduction The Vision Thing A Game Plan Building an Opening Repertoire Defusing the 1 d4 Charge Trouncing the Trompovsky! Beating the Grand Prix Attack Winning in the Endgame Man vs. Machine Practical Play Tactical Training Technical Training 20 53 73 86 94 115 132 143 151 156Introduction Having had extensive experi- ence of coaching players at club level, | have come to believe that much of the existing chess literature does not really ad- dress their needs. Although it may be interesting to read about the training methods used by top professionals, these are hardly relevant to players with other commitments such as jobs and families. The limitations of time faced by amateur players mean that if they want to improve their play, they must efficiently target the areas of their game that are of real importance. My aim in this book is to help with this proc- ess. It is sometimes forgotten that the biggest cause of victory and defeat in chess is that one player will see something that the other has missed at a crucial point in the game. This is never more true than in club chess and for this reason I have devoted the first chapter to this question. Of course simply reading about chess vision is not really going to help, so in Chapter 10 I have included a number of practical exercises. Solving such posi- tions is one of the best ways to improve your tactical aware- ness. The area of greatest concern amongst club players is what to do in the opening. | have found that this aspect of the game is often misunderstood; | many players believe that good open- ing play is an exercise in mem- ory rather than understanding. In Chapter 2 I look at the art of developing good positions and hope to convince you to invest your time in general under- standing rather than in at- tempting to memorise single moves. In Chapter 3 I then offer some guidance as to how to set about building your own reper- toire of openings. In recent years there has been a proliferation of specialist opening literature, including many books which deal with specific sub-variations of the Sicilian or King’s Indian. If someone like Kasparov has6 Introduction been practising such an open- ing, one might be tempted to go out and buy a book on it, in- spired by thoughts like: ‘If the Najdorf’s good enough for Kas- parov, it’s good enough for me!" Yet, as anyone who has bought these books will know, they sometimes end up doing little more than decorating the bookshelf. If you do spend the massive amount of time and effort required to study them (and that will usually be after a hard day’s work and in-between family commitments) you will probably then find that your opponents don’t want to co- operate! After 1 e4 cS you are more likely to get something like 2 £4, 2 Ac3, 2 ¢3 or even 2 d3 than a main line Open Sicil- ian. The fact is that the openings used in club chess are vastly different to the ones seen in Grandmaster games. The ten- dency amongst club players is to get off the beaten track to avoid having to study theory and hope to catch the opponent off guard with a simple (but often very dangerous) attacking plan. In Chapters 4 to 6 I present detailed methods of defusing three of the most popular openings at club level, the ‘1 d4 Charge’, the Trompovsky and the Grand Prix Attack. These lines are not intrinsically par- ticularly good but they can prove devastating at club level if Black doesn’t know what to do about them. I hope to turn the element of surprise right around by providing antidotes to each of these systems. One of the most neglected ar- eas of club chess is undoubtedly the endgame; not many players reach endgames, and when they do they don’t have the foggiest idea how to proceed. This pres- ents the wily club player with a marvellous opportunity; a player who knows even a little about endgames can wreak havoc in the later stages. In Chapter 7 1 will show you some basic endgame ideas which tend to be heavy point-scorers. To supplement this I have provided a series of endgame exercises in Chapter 11. One of the most recent and dramatic developments in chess is the advent of computers, which raises to important ques- tions: How should you set about beating your computer? And can it help you train for your human opponents? I will look at these questions in Chapter 8. Last but not least, I have de- voted Chapter 9 to general practical advice and attempted to address the problems on which I am most frequently consulted. Nigel Davies, Wrexham, January 19981. The Vision Thing ‘Played in the first round, this game showed me that I pos- sessed at Liege the primary condition for success in a tour- nament, which is the power to see clear and deep." Thus wrote Savielly Tartak- ower in the first volume of his collection of best games; a sen- timent with which | wholeheart- edly agree. Most chess games are decided not by theoretical nuances or complex strategy, but rather by one player missing a move or idea that his oppo- nent has seen. This may sound rather basic in this hi-tech era of chess, but games are often decided by the most primitive means even at top level. Just in case you be- lieve that World Champions never miss anything, take a look at the following ‘game’ played by Bobby Fischer’s successor, Anatoly Karpov: Christiansen-Karpov Wijk aan Zee 1993 1 d4 Df6 2 c4 e6 3 Df3 b6 4 a3 Ra6 5 We2 Rb7 6 Ac3 c5 7 e4 exdd 8 Axd4 DAc6 9 Axcé Rxc6 10 RF4 DhS 11 Re The game has opened with a normal enough Queen’s Indian Defence. Now Karpov decided to develop his king's bishop on a square from which it would control the e5- and f4-squares. 11...2.d6?? I don't know if Karpov real- ised what he had done as soon as he let this bishop go; very often we only realise our mis- take when we ‘announce’ our move to the world by actually playing it on the board. 12 Wadi8 The Vision Thing Simply forking Black's bish- op and knight and winning a piece. 1-0 Now take a look at the fol- lowing example from the game between Judit Polgar and Garry Kasparov at Linares 1994: a a a This is the famous ‘hand of God’ position in which Kas- parov played 36...2\c5, report- edly let the piece go, and then played 36...Qf8 instead. The problem is that 36...A\c5. cuts off the rook’s protection of the c6-square and allows 37 &c6. If it can happen to the likes of Karpov and Kasparov then let's not kid ourselves, it can happen to anybody. What is noteworthy about these mistakes is that they were one-move blunders; just are missed a few moves into our calculations. | know how many oversights I make myself during my own games; yet I also know that my ability to see ahead is. what helps me win most of my games, even against fellow Grandmasters. It shows that my opponents must be missing even more than I do, even if they don't admit it. Tartakower was very wise when he stated that the player who wins is the one who makes the second to last mistake. The following game won the best game prize at the 1997 Owens Corning tournament in Wrexham. I have to admit, however, that my ‘brilliant’ concept of allowing the king- side to be broken up with 25...aafc8! was not exactly part of a grand plan; I had to play this way because of an over- sight in my original calcula- tions. Does this diminish the value of the game? I’m quite sure that many people would say that it does, but I would argue that those people do not fully appre- ciate the realities of practical chess; humans make tactical oversights all the time even if they sometimes try and pretend otherwise. If you don’t believe me then ask Kasparov's silicon conqueror ‘Deeper Blue’! Bellin-Davies Wrexham 1997 1e4 c5 2 463 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ®xd4 a6 § 4\c3 d6 6 Re2 DAT 7 £4 b5 This plan of delaying the de-velopment of the king’s knight is very interesting. Black hopes to take the sting out of any early white pawn advances such as e4-e5 or g2-g4-g5. 8 23 2b7 9 0-0 b4 10 Ace2 Dgfo 11 Dg3 hs!? Y ok RAY A very sharp move. Black sets about undermining the po- sition of White's knight on g3, which is consistent with his general policy of attacking the e4-pawn. The downside is that this renders Black's kingside less habitable. 12 Eel 12 eS Rxf3 13 Wxf3 dxeS 14 Ac6 Wh6+ 15 Re3 2c5 clearly favours Black. 12...h4 13 Dhl e5 14 Db3 An oversight by Bellin who doesn’t see that he can leave the knight where it is. 14 @f2 was More accurate, when Black cannot play !4...exd4? because of 15 e5. 1 was preparing to meet 14 “)f2 with 14...We7. 14...2e7 15 Df2 0-0 16 £5 a5 17 2g5 De8 18 Rxe7 Wxe7 19 The Vision Thing 9 a3 a4 20 Ad2 bxa3 21 Bxa3 bb 22 Le2 D6 23 “ed After the game Bellin regret- ted not having played 23 Eh3 at this point, after which 23...d5 leads to great complications. 23...Axe4 24 xed We7! This may well be the best move, which is why it gets the exclamation mark. Unfortu- nately I must rather sheepishly admit that had I not made a mistake in my calculations I might well have played the infe- rior 24...Bfc8. 25 Dea! Whoops! I had seen that this move was possible but had originally thought that it could be met by 25...Axe4? Only now did I realise that this would be disastrous because of 26 Exed! Sixed 27 DF6+! exf6 28 We4+ etc., and 25...axg4 26 Wxg4 Wxc4 is also hopeless after 27 £6. Black seems to be in trouble; does he have to play his queen back to e7? 25...Hfc8!10 The Vision Thing I didn't like what was about to happen to my kingside, but there really isn’t any choice. As the game progressed [ was actu- ally quite surprised at how safe my king tured out to be, whereas the white monarch gets into trouble in several varia- tions. 26 @xf6+ gxf6 27 He3 dS! This time everything was quite intentional. The immedi- ate 27..,Wb6+ 28 @h1 Wxb2 29 Rxf7+ Sxf7 30 WhS+ gives White at least a draw. Before capturing on b2 Black has to neutralise White's bishop. 28 2xd5 28 exdS Wb6+ 29 Sh1 Wxb2 once again gives Black a dan- gerous a-pawn. 28...Wb6+ 29 Kee3 White evidently thought that he could put this rook into a temporary pin, no doubt as- suming that Black's queen would capture the b2-pawn. Unfortunately for him he had missed my 30th move, but Black is better in any case after 29 Gh1 Lxd5 30 WxdS Wxb2. 29...2xd5 30 exdS Hoping to make some trouble with the d-pawn. After 30 Wxd5 a3? 31 bxa3 Axa3 32 Wd2 Ecc3 33 Sf2 is less effective, so Black should play simply 30...21d8 31 Wed Wxb2. 30...a3! Very nasty indeed. After 31 bxa3 &xa3 Black's rooks come in with all kinds of threats, al- though this would have been a better chance than allowing the a-pawn to live. 31 Phi a2 32 Hb3 Wad! The simplest way to con- clude, though 32...Wf2 would also win. 33 Wxd4 33 Wal Bxc2 is also hopeless for White. 33...exd4 34 Hal Hxe2 35 h3 eis! This is decisive. Black's king will easily take care of the d- pawn. 36 @h2 Ye7 37 Kb6 d3 38 d6+ ¥d7 39 Hel He2! 0-1 A lucky win? Only when one starts out from the absurd point of view that Grandmasters are infallible calculating machines, all seeing and all knowing. I'm sure that many other players make moves based on similar miscalculations, which turn out to be the best. But there are very few strong players who will admit it. There were plenty of over- sights and missed opportunities at the Wrexham tournament, with players choosing the wrong move at the critical mo- ment. Yet this is all part of the game; it happens in every tour- nament. The following position is from the game Kinsman- Nielsen at the same tournament with Black to play.With just seconds left on his clock _—_ Nielsen exchanged queens with 40...Wxc4? and lost the ending. In fact he could have played 40...Wf3! 41 2d3 Wa8 42 He7 Sxa5 43 Bxd7 Sal+ with a winning attack. When games are being de- cided in such fashion, it is very difficult to claim that strategy or nuances in the opening have that much relevance. An ability to see more than the opponent by far overrides these factors and this is never more true than at club level. The Vision Thing 11 This position is taken from the game Booth-Jennings, Yorkshire League 1997, in which Black thought he could take the e-pawn. Unfortunately for him he had missed that 23...Dxe4?? 24 Axed Qxed 25 b3! wins a piece, as there is no way to protect his bishop on e4. Are you able to see clearly how the pieces will be placed two or three moves down a variation? Can you see the win- ning combination in the fol- lowing position? Nicol-Morris Aberdeen 1997 Beez at V4, i Yj, Be sl Mark Nicol had correctly visualised that with the black pawn missing from f7 he could play Wg6 mate. Having realised this, the winning combination just pops into your head: 18 Hxe6+! fxe6 19 Wg6 mate 1-0 T don’t think that it is too ex- travagant to claim that playing12 The Vision Thing strength is more or less propor- tional to the amount that some- one sees during a game. Players with powerful visualisation skills are able to see nine or ten moves ahead, sometimes even more. Take a look at the fol- lowing Alekhine combination from his game (as Black) against Bogolyubov from Hastings 1922: Zz Ws ly 28...2Ad3! Already Black is preparing the following magnificent com- bination. 28...bxc4 would not be good because White’s knight would gain access to e5 via c4. 29 ExaS After 29 cxbS &xb5 30 Sxa5 @®dS 31 Wa3 SxaS 32 WxaS Wce6 Black’s pieces would in- filtrate with decisive effect. 29...b4! 30 Exa8 Or 30 Wal &xaS 31 WxaS Wa8! 32 Wxa8 Hxa8 when a black rook invasion will be too strong. 30...bxe3! 31 Exe8 c2!! The brilliant = point of 28...2d3. The pawn cannot be stopped from promoting. 32 Bxf8+ @h7 33 DAr2 clW+ 34 FI Del! Threatening smothered mate with 35...Af3. 35 Bh2 Wxed This time threatening a mat- ing attack with 36...8b5. White is compelled to give up the ex- change just to stay on the board. 36 Eb8 &b5 37 ExbS WxbS 38 94 DP3+! 39 Qxf3 exf3 40 pxf5 After 40 gS Black obtains united passed pawns after 40...2)g4. 40...We2!! Another brilliant move which places White in zugzwang. If 41 Dh3 Ded! or 41 Aga Axed! Black wins because 42 Exe2 dxe2 leaves him with an un- stoppable e-pawn. 41 2h3 or 41 Zhi are similarly met by 41..Dg4 with mate on g2 should White capture. After a couple of useless pawn moves White loses mate- rial,41 d5 &g8! 42 hS Ph7! 43 ed Syxed 44 Axed Wred 45 d6 cxd6 46 £6 exf6 47 Rd2 We2! This third and final queen sacrifice forces a winning end- game. 8 Bixe2 fxe2 49 Yf2 exflW+ 50 &xfl &g7 51 He2 Lf7 52 e3 eb 53 Led d5+ 0-1 A magnificent example of Alekhine’s powers of visualisa- tion. And if anything the fol- lowing game was even more impressive: Alekhine-Schwartz London 1926 345! Initiating a deep combination, the final point of which only becomes clear some nine moves later. 34...bxe5_ 35 b6 He8 36 We3! Xfes Of course 36...Rxc3 37 Exe7+ would be hopeless for Black. 37 Axe5 dxe5 38 Wxe5! The Vision Thing 13 A rook sacrifice without which Alekhine’s 34 cS would have had no point. 38...Wxe5 39 Exe5 Hxe5 40 Exe7+ Exe7 41 bxe7 He8 42 cxb8W Exb8 43 Re6! Only now does everything become clear. It turns out that Black must give up a rook for White's passed c-pawn. a a a mm Py e i, Vay 2, a “iat ae “a met 43...2g7 44 c7 HfS 45 c3W Exc8 46 &xc8 c4 Rather a forlorn attempt. 47 2a6 c3 48 2d3 S66 49 Sf3 eS 50 He3 hS 51 Qc2 Hf6 52 S44 Sg7 53 &xfS Lh6 54 LF4 1-0 Alekhine of course would not allow stalemate with 54 &f6. Perhaps you were more im- pressed by Alekhine’s play in the Bogolyubov game? Well, perhaps not when I tell you know that this second example was from an exhibition game in which Alekhine played blind- fold! Alckhine clearly had rather14 The Vision Thing excellent visualisation — skills, but ordinary mortals usually experience more difficulties in this area. One of the main sources of error in analysis comes from the problem caused by the residual image of pieces in the mind’s eye. The position in your mind becomes jumbled with the one on the board, and only when the variation is actu- ally being played out do you Tealise that the piece you thought was on a certain square has actually already moved. 1 came across a somewhat tragic example of this whilst watching a game between two relatively inexperienced players at a local chess club one even- ing. As far as 1 can remember the position reached was some- thing like this with Black to move, a rook down: Black played 1...2xd2 which can be answered by 2 &xd2, as after 2...Wel+ there is 3 Edi. Yet something was troubling White, who now began shaking his head and murmuring about how this was a damnably clever move. After thinking about it for a while, he decided not to recapture on d2 and instead played 2 Hf12? What was he thinking about? I think that there are two possi- bilities: either he didn’t see that the bishop on a4 covered the dil-square or he still saw a black rook on d2 after he had played 2 ixd2 Wel+ 3 Ed. te maga aw aac In this position (the one in White's mind?) he would be mated by 3..Exdl+ 4 &xdl Wxd1 mate. At higher levels we have more difficult versions of ex- actly the same kind of problem; in the final position in one of your variations a pawn is on the wrong square and that spoils everything. The How, What and When of Calculation During a single game we have to make many difficult calcula-tions, any one of which can spell defeat should we make an oversight. How can one always get it right so that tactical over- sights don’t creep in? There have been many at- tempts to explain how to ana- lyse correctly, though I’m not sure I agree 100% with every- thing that has been written. In his famous book Think Like A Grandmaster Kotov describes how you should decide on your candidate moves based on your assessment of a position and then work through a ‘tree of analysis’. Kotov encourages a methodical and systematic ap- proach in this matter. “You simply must not wander to and fro, here and there through the branches, losing time in checking. The reason for such checks can only be a lack of confidence in oneself. Better to suffer the consequences of an oversight than suffer from foolish and panicky disorder in analysis.’ T agree with Kotov that wan- dering to and fro in the tree to check variations can show a lack of self-confidence. On the other hand I have noticed that most Grandmasters seem to be a long way from Kotov's model, moving from one variation to another whilst gradually con- Verging on their final choice. Rather than conclude that these Grandmasters are sloppy ana- lysts, I would suggest that Ko- The Vision Thing 15 tov’s depiction is rather too simplistic. I believe that rather than be- ing two distinct processes, as many books suggest, positional intuition and calculation are in fact inseparable. At every mo- ment the two work hand in hand, directing you towards the tight moves to analyse, whether a line ‘smells right’ and perhaps most important of all, whether there is something worth cal- culating. There are moments in a game when it seems that you have an inner voice which cries: ‘Seek!’ It is at these moments that a position may contain a combi- nation. In 1985 I participated in a small closed tournament in Lis- bon, along with the famous Russian Grandmaster, Mark Taimanoy. One day I was watching one of his games which went as follows: Guimaraes-Taimanov Lisbon 1985 1e4 c5 2 2f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 Dc6 5 Ac3 a6 6 Le2 Dge7 This is variation. 7 0-0 Dxd4 8 Wxdd Dc6 9 Wa3 Abs (see following diagram) I instinctively didn’t like Taimanov’s 9...Ab4, and it seemed to me that White's natu- Taimanov’s own16 The Vision Thing ral move was 10 Wg3, sacrific- ing the c-pawn. I quickly cal- culated the variation 10...2)xc2 1] Qg5 f6 12 RFA Axal 13 Sh5S+ g6 (and not 13...%e7 14 Ld6 mate) 14 Axg6+ hxg6 15 Wxg6+ e7 16 e5 dS 17 Wxf6+ sed7 18 Wxh8 %\c2 19 Wh7+, when White picks up the knight and emerges two pawns up. ah BD “s Instead of this Guimaraes played the passive 10 Wd2, which I later found out was ac- tually ‘theory’ and had been played by many strong players including Karpov. | was amazed that they could all overlook the powerful 10 Wyg3! Later in the same tournament 1 had White against Taimanov and took what for me was the highly unusual step of playing | e4 in the hope of luring Taima- nov into a repeat of the same variation. Unfortunately the old maestro sidestepped my prepa- ration with 6...Wc7, leaving me intrigued as to whether he knew about 10 Wg3. However, when I asked him about it during the postmortem he was actually stunned by the move and tried for an hour or two to find something playable for Black. He never played 9...b4 again. This episode had in interest- ing sequel in that early the fol- lowing year Jim Plaskett got the very same position as White against Hartston in a weekend tournament. Plaskett found 10 Wzg3! over the board and scored a crushing victory. As far as 1 know that was the last tourna- ment in which Hartston played. Why had nobody found 10 Wy3 before? Well, not every- one’s inner voice works in quite the same way; it depends a lot on the style and temperament of the player concerned. Some- times it can be a big drawback to have a bloodthirsty ‘inner voice’. One of the biggest causes of lost games comes from looking for combinations that don’t ex- ist. There are many players who calculate variations very well but actually see far less of rele- vance than less capable players who take a more economical approach, choosing to look only at a few sensible moves and calculate when they have to. Cudgelling your brain for a non-existent combination can lead to tiredness and time- trouble. And there is an even more serious drawback of fo- cusing too much on_ sharp,forcing lines - the more time you spend on a move the more you want it to work, and even- iually you may want it to work so much that you imagine it really does and play it anyway. I've lost many games like that! It is very important to be able to withdraw yourself from com- binative thinking and realise that it is sometimes better to play a good positional move. This is of course much easier said than done, especially for those amateurs who are natu- rally gifted tacticians. Amongst my students Martin Buckmaster, for example, is a teally excellent tactician who wins many of his games in dev- astating style. Yet precisely be- cause of this strength he shows a tendency to play for forcing moves no matter what the posi- tion requires. In this respect I found the following position, from a game Mantle-Buck- master, very interesting. Black is better in this posi- The Vision Thing 17 tion; his pieces are co-operating together harmoniously and White’s queenside looks weak. Instinctively I would like to play something like 16...@e8 in this position, unveiling the bishop on g7. In fact Martin didn't even consider this move. He was al- ready starting to look for com- binative solutions that might win material, trying to resolve matters by force: 16...bxa4?! 17 Hxad Db6 18 Ha2 De4 19 hi Dd7 20 bxe5S Axe5 Black's pieces are moving forward and look quite threat- ening; yet it is White who is actually starting to get the better of it. The point is that his knights now have access to the strategic point on c6. 21 Ded4! DeS 22 Abd! a5 23 Dbe6 Axc6 24 Axe6 Lxe3 Black has won a pawn but the position is starting to get com- plicated. 25 He2 2f6 26 2a3 Wh6 27 ed! Black had missed _ this crunching move which totally disrupts his position. 27...Hixc6 28 dxc6 xe5 29 Sixc5? A reflex move but not the best. Black is now able to de- fend himself by bringing his bishop back to d6. The immedi- ate 29 Wd5 would have pre- vented this possibility and left Black without a good reply.18 The Vision Thing 29...dxe5 30 Wd5 2d6 31 f4 The plan of opening the f-file seems rather too slow, but in any case it looks as if Black is better. This stage of the game was influenced by time pres- sure. 31...c8 32 £5 Wxc6 33 Wa2 c4 Cutting White’s queen off from the attack on f7. 34 WxaS Wed 35 Wa6 Ec7 36 fxg6 hxg6 37 Wad Hc5 38 Zfcl Eh5 39 Wxed Hxh2+ 0-1 The game was adjourned at this point and White surpris- ingly resigned. Black is cer- tainly better, but there doesn't seem to be anything like an immediate win after 40 gl. It might have been better to play 38...Wh4, Summary and Tips The ability to see ahead and analyse a position well is the most fundamental aspect of chess strength, without which it is quite difficult to discuss finer points of strategy or technique. There is little point in playing the most beautiful positional chess and producing refined plans if everything goes horri- bly wrong the moment that the pieces come into contact. Very few games proceed without any tactical complica- tions at some point, so this really is an inescapable reality of chess. If your combinational vision is poor it will be difficult for you to improve much with- out addressing this problem. How exactly should you go about improving your vision and the relevance and accuracy of your analysis? Unfortunately there is no shortcut, the only answer is practice, practice and more practice, difficult though this may be. If you have little spare time to study chess, a useful tip is to use the time you spend on the train or bus in the morning solving test positions, one after another. Tactical themes tend to recur time and time again in slightly different forms, and when you've seen enough of them you'll be able to spot all kinds of ideas in your own games. To start the ball rolling, turn to the puzzles I have pro- vided in Chapter 10, though you will need some more when those are finished. For those of you with more time to devote to developing your chess vision, I can recom- mend moving things a stage further by taking a complicated position from a book or maga- zine on which a strong player has made extensive notes. Without looking at the notes or moving the pieces on your board, analyse this position against the clock (giving your- self 30 minutes, for example) and write down what you see and think. When the time is up you should compare your analy- sis with the notes: How muchdid you see? Did you agree with everything that was written? It takes a lot of patience and determination to do this seri- ously; most people have great difficulty analysing a position on their own. The second best solution is to analyse with someone else, though in this case you should be quite careful about whom you choose to work with. Ideally it should be a stronger player than yourself (preferably a much stronger but very patient player!) whose thinking habits will tend to rub off on you. During such analysis sessions you will again find it beneficial to move the pieces as little as possible and discuss the varia- tions verbally rather than on the board. This all helps develop your visual imagination, your mind’s eye must have the pawns and pieces on the right Squares when you analyse dur- ing one of your games. 1 recommend that you are very careful about how you analyse with your opponents after your games. I have noticed that postmortems at amateur level tend to be highly political affairs with both players trying to make their opponents feel better (or worse!) or turning it Into a revenge match. Rather than get drawn into this, it is much better to either be objec- tive or just excuse yourself and leave. The habits developed The Vision Thing 19 here will rub off when you ac- tually play. Another good way to develop bad habits is through sessions of five-minute chess in which the most important thing is to play a quick move rather than a good one, in an attempt to make your opponent's flag fall. Instead of five minutes, | would suggest using ten or 15 minutes, while a Fischer-style time limit with seconds added on for each move is even better if you have a digital clock that you can use. The pros and cons of blind- fold chess have been debated for many years with rumours that it killed Pillsbury (though the real cause was probably syphilis) and the Soviets having made claims that it is unhealthy and decadent, I think that these views are just unsubstantiated rumour and from my own expe- rience consider blindfold chess to be highly beneficial. In my view blindfold chess is one of the best ways of devel- oping visual imagination; you have to see where the pieces are in your mind, which is exactly what you do when you calculate variations. I believe blindfold chess to be one of the best ways of preparing for an event and I am in good company. Spassky used it as one of his training methods before his 1965 World Championship Candidates match against Tal, which he won convincingly.2 A Game Plan ‘I can comprehend Alekhine’s combinations well enough, but where he gets his attacking chances from and how he in- fuses life into the very opening — that is beyond me." This is how that great master of the attack, Rudolf Spielmann expressed his admiration for the genius of Alexander Alekhine; how did he obtain the positions from which he launched his fa- mous combinations? The art of building up good positions is a subject of great relevance for club players. I know many strong club players who can conduct an attack quite brilliantly once they get the po- sition, but if they play an Inter- national Master or Grandmaster they will usually be kept at arm's length and get picked off with the jab. But occasionally a position will arise in which a clear attacking plan is available, and then the chances of an upset are quite high. The following game is a su- perb illustration of how a strong club player can, if he gets the opportunity, butcher a Grand- master. Dineley-Arkell Crewe 1995 Led c6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 exd5 4 04 AFG 5 Nc3 e6 6 DL3 Ab4 7 exdS Dxd5 Arkell likes this type of posi- tion with Black, but here it turns out to be a rather poor choice on psychological grounds. 8 Ld2 Ac6 9 2d3 0-0 10 0-0 Axc3 LL bxc3 Re7 12 We2 26? No doubt this variation was part of Arkell's opening prepa- ration, but my own feeling is that it was not a wise choice. The point is that it gives White a rather clear plan of attack, which is very dangerous against a player like Dineley. Moving on to specifics, I don’t like Black's last move because it voluntarily weakens his kingside. At this stage Black probably wanted to fianchetto his light-squared bishop, but the immediate 12...b6 loses to 13Wed. In view of the fact that Black shortly abandons this Jan, however, the immediate 12...247 looks tougher. ww 13 2h6 He8 14 Bfel 2d7 This change of plan is a sure sign that things are going wrong. The bishop is rather pas- sively placed on this square, which gives White a chance to bring the artillery to bear. 15 We3 Hc8 16 DgsS Things are starting to look very dangerous. If Black man- ages to exchange enough pieces he might well stand better in the endgame, due to the slightly weakened state of the ‘hanging pawns’ on c3 and d4. Mean- while, however, White will soon be taking pot shots at Black’s king. 16...2f8 17 Wid We7 18 2xf8 Wxf8 19 Ded With the threat of both 20 ®d6 and 20 Af6+, this already looks winning for White. 19...Bed8 20 Af6+ &g7 21 Ke3 h6 22 \p4 Wh8 23 Bh3 hS A Game Plan 21 24 Lxp6! Given the right kind of posi- tion, Dineley can attack very effectively. This is the start of a very nice combination. 24...fxg6 25 Wf6+ p8 26 Wxg6+ 2f8 27 Bf3+ 27 Dh6 Be8 28 Wxeb also looks good, with 28...&c7 29 Ef3+ wg7 30 Eg3+ @h7 31 Eg8 an amusing possible se- quel. 27...e7 28 Wg5+ d6 29 W£4+ Le7 30 d5! Re8 Rather a forlorn attempt to buy a way out of trouble by re- turning a piece. White's attack continues unabated. 31 dxc6 hxg4 32 Wg5+ &d6 33 Ed3+ Wc7 34 Exd8 White could have forced im- mediate resignation with 34 We7+, but by now it no longer matters too much. 34...Hxd8 35 We7+ 2d7 36 exd7 Wxe3 37 Hdl We6 38 We5 Wb6 39 WeS+ 1-0 The way Dineley won this22 A Game Plan game brought to mind an inter- esting comment of Emanuel Lasker in his brilliant Manual of Chess: ‘If Zukertort has a plan in mind, he is a match for Steinitz, possibly even his peer. Com- pare with the above games the one that follows. Every move of Zukertort’s pointed towards a vigorous co-operation of the pieces united to attack the king — at first against its initial posi- tion, then against the castled king. ‘The forceful concentration of pieces against the king is the old Italian plan; Zukertort found it ready made, and in the tactics of mere execution he was a great master. Steinitz, however, discovered sound and success- ful plans over the board.” Here is the game to which Lasker was referring: Zukertort-Steinitz Match (Game 5) 1896 1d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Ac3 Af 4 3 RES 5 cxd5 cxd5 6 Wb3 2c8 By now this is an unfortunate necessity. It would have been better to play 5...Axd5, while probably 4...2f5 was not the best. 7 D3 Ac6 8 eS e6 9 Lbs We7 10 2d2 2d6 11 £4 0-0 12 Bel 2xe5 Played in order to weaken the pressure on the c-file, but it leads to problems on the other side of the board once the knight is evicted from f6. With a clear plan of attack, Zukertort plays superbly. 13 fxeS Ae8 14 0-0 £6 15 2d3 Ef7 16 We2 Forcing a further weakening of Black's kingside. Since 16...g6 is met by 17 &xg6 and 16...h6 by 17 Xg6, there is little choice. 16...£5 17 De2 2.d7 18 Hf2 Be8 19 Rc3 White has seen that the next stage of his attacking plan is to go for the £5-pawn and open the g-file with g2-g4, Zukertort car- ries out this plan with great logic and energy. 19...Wb6 20 Wd2 Se7 21 Hefl Sb5 22 Rb1 Wa6 23 g4! 96 24 h3 He7 25 Hel Dg7 26 Dts N\c8 27 gxf5 gxf5 After 27...Axf5 there is 28 4 fxe4d 29 Qxe4 followed by 30 d5. Now the knockout blow comes on the g-file. 28 Hg2 Lh8 29 Sh2 Web 30 Begl De7 31 Wi2 We8?A blunder, but Black's posi- tion was untenable in any case. 32 Bxg7 1-0 1 know a number of players who play very well when there js a clear objective and they know which plan they should adopt. However, they experi- ence problems when there is no such clear plan to hand. At such times a plan has to be formu- lated, which requires a special insight into positions, an innate understanding of what is im- portant. I was quite impressed with how Connor Dickinson, who only had the rating of a very average club player at the time, played the following position. In his exploitation of the weak d4-square, he showed excellent planning ability: Hartley-Dickinson Chorley 1996 2L..Rg4! Threatening to win control of A Game Plan 23 the d4-square by exchanging on f3. White responds by trying to move a rook over to the king- side, which in this position is quite the wrong idea. 22 Bc3? Trying to adopt the old Ital- ian plan of a kingside build-up at an inappropriate moment. 22 Bel was better, so as to be able to challenge the knight on d4 with a later c2. 22,..SLxf3 23 Bxf3 Ad4 24 Bg3 h7 The ‘attack’ is quite easily sidestepped. 25 2d3 Deb Only a temporary retreat. The immediate 25...g5 would have been better, but nothing is spoiled by this move. 26 Rc2 g5 Starting a new plan of a king- side pawn storm. With the sup- port of the knight on d4, this proves to be a highly effective plan. 27 Hd3 Ad4 28 2b1 28 Axd4 exd4 29 e5+ Sg7 30 Wd3 Eh8 does not offer suffi- cient compensation for the sac- tificed exchange. 28...g7 29 We3 £6 30 Wh3 W7 31 @h1 hS Continuing the plan com- menced by Black's 26th move. White reacts very badly to this build-up in front of his king. (see following diagram) 32 g3? This merely helps Black to open files on the kingside. I24 A Game Plan think that White should proba- bly have taken this opportunity to sacrifice the exchange on d4. 32...24 33 Wg2 We6 34 Ygl Ehs Clearly announcing his in- tention to lever open the h-file with ...h5-h4, White’s king de- cides to make a rather undigni- fied run for it. 35 &f1 Kh6 36 Yel Hdh8 37 ed2 We8 With the white king heading west, Black’s queen sets out to come in on the dark squares in this sector. 38 Kel We5 39 h4 Putting a stop to Black's idea of ...h5-h4, but now White will be unable to do anything on the kingside himself with a later h2- h3. 39...Wb4+ 40 ddI He8! Bringing his rooks over to the c-file in preparation for a breakthrough there. 41 Wl WeS 42 &d2 Hhh8 43 Wdl Hc7 44 Sel Bhe8 45 Sf bs! Mission accomplished. 46 Edc3 Wb4 47 £d3 Wa3 48 Wd2?? A blunder which allows the rook on c3 to be trapped. 48 S2b1 was necessary. 48...b4 49 H3c2 Axc2 50 Bxe2 Was Once again excellent play by Dickinson ~ before attempting any breakthrough he brings his pieces to better squares, starting with the queen. White acceler- ates matters by lashing out but he would have lost eventually in any case, $1 Qe2 WeS 52 f3 gxf3 53 Rxf3 Hh8 54 Wdl We3! 55 RxhS Wxed 56 23 We3 57 Rd5 Bho! Not only introducing the idea of ...2g6, but also preparing to defend the d6-pawn with a later + f6-f5. 58 He2 Wic3 59 2e6 WF3+ 60 gl Bg6 61 g4 £5 62 WdS Exgd4+ 0-1 Memory or Strategy? Although Spielmann and Zuk- ertort were skilled players, their problem lay in how to obtain the types of position from which they could use their strengths; and this problem is also common for many club players. How does one go about solving this? In recent years a popular ap- proach has been to simply memorise reams of theoretical variations in order to try andmiss out the carly planning stage of a game and go directly jnto a middlegame in which there is a clear and simple idea. Here is how Lasker described how this approach started: ‘To visualise the beginning of this evolution we may surmise that at an ancient date, when players of original talent, whom today we would call ‘natural’ players, pre-dominated over all other, some unknown genius, with a penchant for collecting information, made notes of the beginnings of good games, compiled them, classified them, and exhibited his work to a few friends. As a natural conse- quence, some of the industrious and intelligent learners would, in the first dozen moves, over- come superior players of that day, by employing the tactical manoeuvres gleaned from the manuscript of their compiler- friend. One can imagine the surprise of spectators and the wrath of the defeated masters as they observed — newcomers, without natural talent, waging a strong fight purely with the aid of a book of compiled informa- tion.” With the growth of new tech- nology, the last few years have seen a tremendous increase in Opening theory. Some openings have now been thoroughly analysed for the first 20-30 Moves and there is now a gen- eral obsession with ‘theory’ and A Game Plan 25 variations. Even at junior level [ have been stunned and_ sad- dened to observe coaches and team managers anxiously priming their charges with lines like the Fried Liver Attack (1 e4 e5 2 AP Ac6 3 Ac4 AG 4 gS d5 5 exdS Axd5 6 4)xf7) in a last-minute attempt to reach the regional final of some un- der-12s event. To me this seems like an at- tempt to turn a beautiful and profound piece of art into something akin to painting by numbers. It isn't chess they are learning but variations. For Aron Nimzowitsch too, one of the most profound chess thinkers, the idea of playing chess by repeating memorised opening variations was a com- plete anathema. When a player called Becker came fifth in the great Carlsbad tournament of 1929, Nimzowitsch grudgingly admitted that ‘Becker was quite clever to use a variation that everyone had long since for- gotten’ and that ‘Becker carried out his attack quite well’. But in his description of Becker’s style he gave vent to his true feel- ings: ‘It is difficult to find anything whatever to say about Becker. He has no recognisable chess physiognomy - indeed, God only knows how he gets through his games. With White, he opens | ¢2-c4, employing an old line of the Giuoco that eve-26 A Game Plan ryone else has half-forgotten, while with Black, his defence evinces neither style nor accu- racy. He is hardly likely to achieve such heights a second time.” I think that it fair to say that Tepeating book moves is not teally in the original spirit of chess, a game which is sup- posed to be a battle of intellect, will and judgement. In spite of this a theory-based approach has proven to be very useful for some players. John Nunn, for example, has supplemented his excellent un- derstanding of chess by very thorough preparation and relies heavily on getting an advantage in the opening and then pushing it home with a few crisp shots. 1 should point out, however, that the kinds of advantage that Nunn obtains and drives home will not be significant at lower levels. Furthermore, _ players who adopt this approach may not really know what to do when their variation is over and could become disorientated if their opponent leaves ‘the book’. I have also noticed that players who use a lot of their time trying to commit variations to memory will often scapegoat the opening as being ‘bad’ or ‘not my style’ if they lose and immediately try to memorise another one. Thus they end up flitting from one opening to an- other without ever getting any better. The reality is that, at club level, the opening is rarely the reason why a player loses a game; usually it is a mistake in the latter stages that is the problem. Unless a player has a good understanding of chess, he will not know what to do at the end of a ‘prepared variation’, even if it has brought him an undeserved advantage. Here’s an example of what I mean: Debbage-Hardy Major Open 1996 1 d4 Df6 2 c4 g6 3 Ac3 Rg74 e4 d6 5 Re2 0-0 6 DF e5 70-0 D6 8 d5 De7 9 Del De8 So far both players have pro- ficiently repeated a known theo- retical line. Black understands well enough that his plan is to advance on the kingside with .f7-£5 and his last move fits in well with that idea. Yet if he had also understood that White's plan is to play c4-c5and try to invade Black's posi- tion along the c-file, he would surely have played 10...d7 at this point in order to make it harder to get in c4-c5. Although 10...2d7 is in fact the theoreti- cally approved move, this move can be found using positional understanding just as well as rote memory. 10 Ad3 £5 11 £3 f4 12 2d2 hS 13 b4?! This looks like a move that White had ‘remembered’, but it doesn't make sense in this posi- tion. There is no need to prepare 13 c5 any more and it should be layed immediately. 13...@h8 14 c5 Ag8 15 c6? Closing the queenside like this is a very serious mistake. This demonstrates that although White had memorised the first few moves, he just didn't un- derstand the middlegame strat- egy for this type of position. b6 Let's stop at this point. It is Black who now has all the A Game Plan 27 chances on the kingside and he can now proceed to build up a kingside attack. Black did actu- ally win this game but only af- ter many ups and downs. So if memorisation alone is not enough, why do so many players pursue the wrong path so relentlessly, trying to learn variations parrot fashion? There are several reasons for this. First, opening theory carries the alluring promise of being ‘an easy way to win’, which maintains its glitter despite all the evidence to the contrary. Second, the mistaken belief that opening memorisation is the way forward in chess also offers the in-built excuse that defeats can be blamed on the fact that a player is too busy to study opening theory. The third and possibly most influential reason is that the leading players seem to be for- ever talking about ‘preparation’ and ‘theory’, which can be very misleading to players of club level. Here for example is what Botvinnik wrote in his One Hundred Selected Games: ‘I begin my actual prepara- tions with a review of chess literature, especially in order to acquaint myself with new and interesting games; as I read I make notes on questions which are of particular interest to me. I also study all the games played by my rivals in the forthcoming competition. I study their pecu-28 A Game Plan liarities of play, and their fa- vourite opening variations; this should be especially useful when preparing for each game during the tournament. ‘Then | study all those open- ing lines which | intend to apply during the contest. Here 1 must remark that in my view a player should not, and indeed cannot attempt to play all the openings known to theory. For one com- petition three or four opening systems for White and the same for Black are quite sufficient. But these systems must be pre- pared thoroughly. If you do not have such systems at your command you can hardly count on finishing very high in the table." Incidentally, it is much easier to remember moves when you know the reason for them, which is why strong players seem able to remember so many of their games by heart and ap- pear as if they know every opening under the sun. Unless you hang the raw information on hooks of understanding, the moves themselves will seem like nothing more than a string of vaguely related hieroglyph- ics. To second the Botvinnik ap- proach, this is what Kotov wrote in Think Like A Grand- master: ‘Suppose you have to play in a tournament with 20 competi- tors. You have to prepare sepa- rately for each one. This in- volves looking through at least 30 of his games. That means over 600 games. Even if you spend half an hour on each one you will need 300 hours which at six hours a day works out at 50 days. What about the conclu- sions which you draw from these games and the preparation of openings, especially the par- ticularly hard work of finding new moves which on further examination may well prove unsound. Yes, there is real hard work for you!” At this moment you may be wondering how you'll be able to fit all this study in whilst working for a living and spending quality time with your family. But 1 should point out that the way that these leading Soviet players claimed they had to prepare has no relevance whatsoever for the amateur club player. And having been on friendly terms with a number of ex-Soviet Grandmasters during my years of living in Israel, 1 can also say that the example of Botvinnik and Kotov, if their claims are true, is certainly not typical. Bent Larsen was also highly sceptical of Russian boasts of extensive preparation. In an interview which appeared in Hugh Alexander's work A Book of Chess, he said: ‘I don’t believe all these sto- ties of the Soviet study; they brag about these things. I thinkthis is inner politics in the So- viet Union; you have to make it clear that you are a_hard- working man. Kotov writes about all the many games you must study with at least one hour for each game; you cannot measure chess work in tons — so the best they can do is to ex- plain it as so many working hours.’ Larsen himself has claimed that he does not prepare for spe- cific opponents and Tony Miles once said that he wished he knew more about the theoretical side of chess and described his hobby as ‘sleeping’. In fact nu- merous strong Grandmasters adopt an approach to chess based on general understanding and know very little in the way of sharp variations. When we consider strong Grandmasters such as Jonathan Speelman, Michael Adams and Julio Granda Zuniga it becomes clear that detailed opening Preparation is far from indis- Pensable. Such players rely on their superior understanding to outplay their opponents just as a Strong table-tennis player will be able to win against most People using a frying pan. It follows that one of the Most effective ways to defeat a ‘SS experienced opponent is to deprive him of a clear line of action, to make the planning Part of the game as difficult as Possible. With this in mind I A Game Plan 29 personally have had a long-term preference for flank openings, in which the contact between the opposing armies is delayed. Amongst the leading British players, Jon Speelman and David Norwood have shared my attachment to the Modern De- fence. (1...g6 or 1...d6 followed by 2...g6 against anything). Black risks taking on a cramped position with backward devel- opment in order to test both players’ positional abilities. The flexibility of Black's pawn structure makes it diffi- cult to detect a clear target and thus makes it difficult to pin down clear theoretical lines; to use a cliché, it ‘throws the op- ponent on his own resources’. The theory is that one’s superior understanding of chess will tell in the difficult positions that follow. The following offhand game, played against a good club player in South Wales, is a good example of this theory working well in practice. I outplayed my opponent in the opening be- cause I had a better feeling for how the pieces should be ar- ranged in the subsequent mid- dlegame. NN-Davies Cardiff 1995 1d4d6 After the game my opponent expressed disappointment that I30 A Game Plan had played this way as after either 1..d5 or 1..Af6 he wanted to try the Blackmar- Diemer Gambit (1...Af6 2 Dc3 d5 3 e4 dxe4 4 f3). Despite the fact that I don’t really believe in this gambit, it would have been a reasonable practical try for White because his plan of attack is fairly clear. 2e4 963 £4 27 4 DP c5 5 c3 Was!? I had played this provocative move once before and to my knowledge it is my own idea, at least in this particular setting. The idea is to play 6...cxd4 without allowing the white c- pawn to recapture, and thus cause a general disruption to White's position. This type of game is exactly what I like to get when I want to win with Black against a weaker oppo- nent, though I'm not so sure I would risk it against a player such as Bronstein! It needs a high level of skill for White to orientate himself properly in such a complex and unfamiliar setting. 6 Dbd2 cxd4 7 DAb3 Wh 8 Abxd4 After the disappearance of one of White’s centre pawns, the danger of Black being tubbed out with e4-e5 is re- duced. I think that the recapture with the pawn is more critical. but Black can pressurise the d4- square with moves like ...Ac6, ..Sig4 and even ...a7-a5, in- tending ...a5-a4. 8..De6 9 Lb5 Ate 10 Wd3? After this White's position is very bad because his pieces are so poorly placed for the mid- dlegame. The critical move was 10 e5, and this was in fact the only way to justify the rather odd 9 2bS. 10...0-0 11 e3 We7 12 h3?! 7 13 g4? Not knowing what to do, White lunges at the black king. In fact this is a typical error. seeking a clear plan even when none exists. 13...Dxd4 14 xd4 e5! Winning material because 15 &xd7 loses to 15...exd4, after which any retreat of the knight will drop the e-pawn. In des- peration White sacrifices 4 knight in the hope of opening up my king. 15 fxe5 dxe5 16 DFS pxfS 17 gxfS 2xb5 18 Wxb5 Is there something happening on the g-file? Just in case let's take some precautions.18..8h8 and Black soon won. Understanding a Structure { hope that I can convince you that the best way to learn an opening is to understand the structures to which it leads. Rather than trying to memorise variations, it is better to look at some classic games in which this type of position was played. By supplementing this with practice games (preferably against a human rather than a computer) and examining cer- tain problems for yourself, you can further develop your feel for a position. The learning process continues when you start to play this new type of position competitively. The more we study and play a position the better we under- stand it, which is why the un- fortunate habit of changing openings on the merest whim is So unproductive. I should qual- ify this by commenting that an occasional change in your opening repertoire can be re- freshing and stimulating. But I would suggest that you don't change too much at any one time. T’ve had a long relationship With the King’s Indian Defence, which I have come to under- Stand reasonably well. There is One type of position in particu- Jar which I have found inter- esting since I was a teenager. A Game Plan 31 The following famous game of David Bronstein made a deep impression on me: Zita-Bronstein Prague 1946 1c4.e5 2 Ac3 Af6 3 Df3 d6 According to the wisdom of the day this move was thought to leave Black with a cramped position, but Bronstein had other ideas. He and his friend Isaac Boleslavsky had analysed a new set-up for Black which, according to conventional wis- dom, created weaknesses and let White take the lion’s share of the centre... 4.d4 Dbd7 5 g3 96 6 2g2 2p7 7 0-0 0-0 8 b3 c6 9 2b2?! It was subsequently decided that the bishop is not very ef- fectively placed here. In later games 9 e4 was played in order to develop the bishop on e3. 9...%e8 10 e4 exd4 This move was the real sen- sation, giving up the centre and leaving Black with a weak pawn on d6. According to classical chess theory Black’s game should be very poor. 11 Axd4 Who 12 Wd2?! A normal-looking move, but one which allows Black to seize the initiative. White should have played 12 ®a4 We7 13 We2. 12...Ac5 13 Bfel a5 14 Babli a4 15 Ral?! White seems blissfully un-32 A Game Plan aware of the impending danger. He could have tried to compli- cate matters with Reuben Fine’s suggestion of 15 bxa4!?, after which 15...)\xa4_ allows 16 ®xa4 Kxad 17 Axc6! Wxc6 (or 17...bxc6 18 &xf6 with a dis- covered attack on the black queen) 18 e5. 15...axb3 16 axb3 “gd! 17 h3 Y, tebe 17...Exal!! The first in a series of thun- derbolts which unleash the power of Black's dark-squared King's Indian bishop. White's reply is forced. 18 Hxal xf2!! The knight sacrifice is the point. White's dark squares are collapsing. 19 He3 White trices to hold his posi- tion together by blocking the b6-g1 diagonal, but now Black gains a second pawn for the ex- change with White's position in tatters. If now 19 Wxf2 then 19...Ad3 or if 19 &xf2 then 19...4)xb3 is devastating. 19...Axh3+ 20 Bh2 ZE2 The knight returns to threaten 21... Dga+. 21 Bf3 Acxed 22 Wd Dgd+ 23 Phi £5! Cementing the position of the black pieces in the centre. White's game is hopeless and is resistance was very short. 24 Dxed Hxed 25 Wxd6 Hxdd 26 Wb8 Hd8 27 Ha8 Re5 28 Wa7 Wb4 29 Wel Wf 30 2h3 Wh6 0-1 Although I immediately re- alised that this was a beautiful game, I didn’t really understand it. However, when I started looking for more information | soon came across another game in which Bronstein’s notes ex- plained the mystery of that sup- posedly weak d-pawn: Reshevsky-Bronstein Zurich Candidates 1953 1 d4 f6 2 c4 96 3 g3 2g7 4 Bg2 0-05 \c3 dé 6 AAE3 @\bd770-0 e5 8 e4 He8 9 h3 exdd 10 &xd4 4c5 11 Hel aS 12 We2 6 ‘ Once again creating that weak pawn on d6. This is what Bronstein had to say in his fa- mous book on the Zurich 1953 Candidates tournament: ‘Here it seems high time to reveal to the reader the secret of Black’s d-pawn in the King’s Indian. Although the pawn stands on an open file and is subject to constant pressure it proves to be a tough nut to crack. This is because it is not easy to get at the pawn. It would. appear that there was nothing simpler than to move the knight away from d4 so as to press on the pawn, but the point is that the knight is badly needed at d4 where it has the task of observ- ing the squares b5, c6, e6 and f5, as well as neutralising Black's fianchettoed bishop. The knight can really only Move away when White has safeguarded himself from such attacks as ..a5-ad-a3, ...2c6 and ...f7-f5 by Black. Mean- while, however, Black too has fully organised his position. Hence the weakness of the black d-pawn is illusory.” If Black had tried 12... Afxed?!, White would ob- tain the better game with 13 Dred Bxd4 14 Bes Wd7 15 Di6+ 2x6 16 Sxf6 He 17 3, when Black has serious Weaknesses on the dark squares. A Game Plan 33 13 2e3 It would have been better to play 13 Sf4 @Dfd7 14 b3!, preventing Black from playing 14...e5. Now Black gets his pieces to good squares. 13..fd7 14 Hadl a4 15 &\de2? Reshevsky adopts a very di- rect approach to the problem of attacking the d-pawn but, as Bronstein pointed out, it just isn’t that easy. White's knight is really needed on d4 and he should give preference to 15 £419 15...WaS! 16 2f1 The point of Black's play is that he can meet 16 Axd6 with 16...2e5! 17 b3 axb3 18 axb3 Sxh3! 19 &xh3 DP3+ 20 Sf ®xel 21 &xel Axed! 22 Hd3 Wal+! 23 Dbl! (23 Dd Har 24 Wel @xf2!! wins for Black because 25 Gxf2 is met by 25...8xe2+!) 23..Ha2 with a beautiful position. 16...De5 17 Dd4 Admitting that his 15th move34 A Game Plan was a waste of time. Black's reply cements squares for his knights on c5 and b4. 17...a3! 18 £4 Ded7 19 b3 Aas 20 2f2 Ade5 21 He3 21 @&h2 might have been better, though Black would still regroup with 21...Ab4 22 Wd2 2d7. White's position is very unpleasant because he can’t bring his pieces to good squares. 21...Db4 22 We2 2d7 23 e5 Objectively speaking _ this might have been an error, but from a practical point of view it is probably the best try. Rather than wait for Black to improve his position, Reshevsky makes a bid for counterplay. 23...dxe5 24 fxe5 Had8 25 g4 De6 26 Rha Dxd4 27 Bxd4 WeS! 28 Hde4 The only move. 28 Ed1 is an- swered by 28...dxe5 and 28 &xd8? leaves White helpless after 28...Wxd4. 28... 2h6 29 Shi Leb Wisely refusing White's offer of the exchange, as after 29...2xe3? 30 Hxe3 he threat- ens to bring his knight on c3 to e4 and then f6. 30 g5 This is very undesirable from a strategic point of view as it shuts the bishop on h4 out of play. 30 &f6! has been sug- gested by various commenta- tors, but after 30...2xe3 31 Exe3 Wd4! it doesn't seem adequate either. Note that 30 Rxd8 Exd8 31 Bg3 £2 allows Black to win the crucial a-pawn. 30...S.g7 31 Hfd 25 32 Ded 32...2xe4+ 32...Wxe5?! would be good for Black if White were to ac- cept the offer of the queen with 33 Dfo+ Rxf6 34 Exes Rxe5, but he has a stronger move in 33 &g3! 33 Rfxe4 Daé! Another excellent move. The threat of bringing this knight to 6 via c7 virtually forces White to push his e-pawn. Bronstein has correctly judged that this favours him, whereas passively defending against 33 e6 with 33...e6?! would not be good because of 34 &g3 Da6 35 hd, intending 36 &h3. 34 e6 fxe6 35 Zxe6 Ef8 36 Xe7 dé 37 H3e6 WES! Once again forcing White's hand. Since 38 &g2 is met by 38...AcS, he only has one move. 38 He8! Dc5 39 Bxd8 Axe6 40 Exf8+ SxfB 41 223 Wxg5 42wxe6 Wxg3 43 We8+ we7! Going the right way with the king. 43...@g7? would have been catastrophic for Black af- ter 44 Wd7+, picking up the pishop on d4, but now the checks run out after 44 Wxb7+? $8 45 Wa8+ Sc7 46 WaS+ Rd6 etc. - “Y ae a Vi, wwe 44 Wg4 We3 45 bg2 Wb2+ 46 We2+ bd6 47 £3 If White exchanges queens then, as Max Euwe pointed out, the opposite-coloured bishop endgame is lost. Euwe’s line went 47 Wxb2 axb2 48 £43 eS 49 LF3 Bc5 50 Abi SF6 51 Se4 h5 52 Ac2 g5 53 Rbl Rd6 54 c2 gd 55 hxgd hxgd 56 &b1 g3 57 Sf3 Rf4! fol- lowed by a king march to cl. 47...205 48 Sed Wdd+ 49 Sf3 Wi6+ 50 &g2 &c7 51 WES Wh2+ 52 We2 Wad 53 &f3 h5 $4 Bg2 25 55 dg3 Whd+ 56 22 pdt Black's pawn majority fi finally Yields a passed pawn and, in addition, he simultaneously de- A Game Plan 35 prives White's king of cover. 57 hxgd hxg4 58 hl &b6 59 Sg2 &c7 60 hl 2d6 61 Sg After 61 Wy2? Black wins immediately with 61...Wh6+ 62 gl LcS+ ete. 61..2b6 62 Wg2 RcS+ 63 Gh1 Wh6+ 64 Wh2 We3 65 b4 2d4 0-1 White is in ‘zugzwang’. 66 5+ Sa7 67 Wg2 can be met by 67...23. 1 started to appreciate this King’s Indian position and found myself adopting King's Indian formations with White and Black without worrying about things like weak d-pawns. What interested me was the chance of active counterplay. As my level of opposition improved, however, I found that it wasn't actually that much fun to have this weak d-pawn. The problem was that often White didn’t attack the pawn immedi- ately but instead first set out to eliminate Black's counterplay.36 A Game Plan If this was accomplished, the d- pawn started to become weak almost of its own accord. Once my youthful enthusiasm for this line was on the wane, 1 began to wonder if it might not in fact be better to be White in these positions. My conversion to the White side took place during a tournament in Lyons in 1990 when I watched King’s Indian addict Branko Damljan- ovic playing White in this type of position and looking very pleased with himself. I asked him what he was so happy about and he told me: ‘I used to play Black in this position, now I know better.’ For lessons in how to play White against this line, it is dif- ficult to do better than to ex- amine the following two games of the Hungarian Grandmaster, Lajos Portisch. They are not as spectacular as Bronstein's win over Zita but are nonetheless elegant and deeply impressive. Portisch doesn’t try to do any- thing dramatic in the early Stages; he just sets out to neu- tralise the activity of Black's pieces. Portisch-Szabo Budapest 1961 1 d4 Af6 2 c4 g6 3 g3 S2g7 4 &g2 0-0 5 DF3 d6 6 \c3 Dbd7 70-0 e5 8 e4 c6 9 Hel A slightly unusual move or- der. White normally plays 9 h3, but 9 b3 and 9 bl have also been tried. All these moves tend to lead to the structure under review and I will not dwell on minute move order differences at this point. 9...Re8 10 h3 aS LL &e3 exd4d 12 @xd4 DcS 13 We2 ad 14 Hadl White can also play 14 Zabl, simply strengthening his queen- side. The text is rather more direct. 14...Wa5?! 15 24! A strong move which draws Black's bishop into a retreat to f8. 15 f4 would have been a rather hasty way to proceed. Black had a good game after 15...2d7 16 @f2 He7 17 g4 Eae8 18 £5 gxfS 19 Axf5 Qxf5 20 exf5 Exel+ 21 Rxel a3! 22 g5 axb2! 23 gxf6 Bxel+ 24 SRxel Axf6 in R.Byme-Kotov, New York 1954. 15... 218 15...a3 16 b3 Hd8 17 Ade2 would also have given White a stable position with pressureainst d6. tg BI! A quiet but very instructive move. White moves his rook away from the square on which son Black's d6- weakness in order to advance the queenside pawns. 16...\e6 17 2e3 Rg7?! After this Black's position deteriorates still further. He should have exchanged knights on d4 in order to case his cramped position. Black might have wanted to play 17...Ag5 at this point, but after 18 Rxg5 Wxg5 19 Dxad he would have had inadequate compensation for the pawn. 18 Ade2! Wh4 19 b3 axb3 20 axb3 @d7 21 Bedl Adc5 22 Rd2! The capture of Black’s d- Pawn must wait; 22 EBxd6 would not be good because after 22...Ha3 the b-pawn falls, which leaves White's c-pawn Weak into the bargain. Por- tisch’s move seems very quict A Game Plan 37 and innocuous but it drives back Black's active queen. 22...Wb6 23 b4 Ad7 24 23 Wel White has prepared his queenside pawn advance in such a way that the pawns can’t be attacked. After 24...Wa6 25 bS Wa3 26 Eb3 White would win the pawn on d6. White’s next move starts to turn the attention back to the d6-pawn once again. 25 Hd2! DeS 26 Wh3 £5 This weakens Black's posi- tion, but the alternative was to passively wait for White to come forward. 27 Ebdl 2£8 28 exfS gxf5 29 fa! Forcing yet another piece back. 29...Ag6 30 &£2 WET 31 Dad! The game enters a new phase. Having driven the black pieces into passive positions, White sets about exploiting his ad- vantage in space. 31.27 32 @\b6 &.e6 33 Dd!38 A Game Plan And not 33 @xa8? &xc4, after which Black gets counter- play due to his control of the b5- and dS-squares. 33...Bad8 34 We2 The immediate 34 b5 was an- other excellent way to play, but Portisch is proceeding very methodically. 34...2g7 35 Dxeb Hxe6 This meets with a strong re- ply, but there isn't much that Black can do. Had Black re- captured with the queen, White would have had the same reply. 36 b5! Taking a can-opener to Black's queenside. If Black an- swers with 36...cxbS then 37 Dd5! De8 38 cxb5 wins control of the d5-square. 36..De7 37 Dad! cxb5 38 AcS! bxe4 39 Dxb7! The last in a series of ham- mer-blows which demolishes Black's defence. The immediate capture of the exchange was by no means as convincing as the text. 39..2b8 40 Dxd6 Wi 41 Wxed We3 42 Wxe3 2xc3 43 He2 2a5 After 43...&b3 there is 44 Rfl, intending &c4, and 43...2b4 is met by 44 Axf5 @xf5 45 Bxc7. 44 Db7 1-0 Portisch-Gligoric Budapest 1964 1 DPB Af6 2 c4 g6 3 g3 2g74 Rg2 0-0 5 0-0 d6 6 Ac3 e5 7 d4 Dbd7 8 e4 c6 9 h3 Wh This interesting move has been adopted by the two World Champions who have special- ised in the King’s Indian De- fence, Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov. Black puts pressure on d4 and b2 and hopes to dis- Tupt White's development. 10 Hel exd4 11 Dxd4 Aga The present encounter did much to discredit this move. These days the recommended moves are 11..e8 and 11...e8. 12 Ace2! Ages 13 b3 Ac5 14 Re3 a5 15 Kbit He8 16 Ac3! In an earlier game White had secured his space advantage with the continuation 16 Hf1 We7 17 Wd2 Ded7 18 Dc3 ALB 19 Ebd1 (Botvinnik-Pachman, Oberhausen 1961). Presumably the well-prepared Gligoric had some improvement in mind, but he is denied the chance to reveal it. The point of Portisch's movejs that 16...ed3 can be met by 17 He2 followed by 18 Ed2, ejecting Black's knight whilst puilding pressure against d6. 16.8 17 He2! We7 18 £4! Driving Black’s pieces back, much as in the previous game. At this stage White makes no attempt at a precipitous attack of d6. 18...Ded7 19 212 Dt8 20 Wd2 a7 21 Xbel Zad8 Black should probably have put his queen on c7 in order to watch the aS-pawn. In any case his position would have been difficult. 22 DZ RcB 23 Lh2 Dfd7 24 Add! Another important move. White introduces the idea of exchanging Black's valuable bishop on g7. Without this key piece Black cannot hope for any counterplay on the dark squares and will be condemned to a pas- sive defence of his weak pawn on d6, 4... DE6 25 Wic2 WES A Game Plan 39 26 &xc5! A very strong move which, by giving up the bishop pair, forces through the advance e4- e5 and secures the e4-sqaure for his knight. Before playing this move White had to carefully weigh up the consequences of weakening d4 and presenting Black with counterplay based on ...f7-£6. 26...dxc5 27 e5 2£5 28 Wel! 28 exf6 &xc2 29 fxg7 Wxg7 30 Exc2 would have captured three pieces for the queen, but the text is even stronger. 28...0d7 29 Dhd Leb 30 Det Dbs After 30...f6 White has the strong reply 31 @d6! 31 £5 gxf5 32 DAfo+ Bhs On 32...2xf6 33 exf6 Shs there is 34 Wf4 Hd4 35 Wkxfs! etc, 33 Dxe8 Hxe8 34 We2 f4 35 gxf4 We7 36 DS 2xfS 37 WxfS Dd7 38 e6 1-0 As I developed a taste for such play rather than the spec- tacular beauty of Zita-Bron- stein, I felt myself being trans- formed. The carefree boy who wanted to make long-diagonal combinations was becoming a cynical GM who likes to neu- tralise his opponents’ counter- play and then watch them squirm. These days I prefer to play these positions with White and look forward to playing prom-40 A Game Plan ising young players who adopt this variation. My main idea in the early stages is just to stop Black's counterplay; there will be time enough to inch forward later in the game. The following game was heavily influenced by what I had learned from Portisch- Szabo, especially the break- through on move 27. Davies-Tonning Gausdal 1994 1 d4 D6 2 c4 g6 3 g3 p74 Rg2 d6 5 Af3 0-0 6 0-0 Abd7 7 Bc3 &5 8 e4 c6 9 h3 Be8 10 Bel exd4 11 Axd4 Des The first in a series of dubi- ous moves which, though super- ficially active, do not fit the requirements of the position. After defending the immediate threats White manages to push his opponent back. 12 b3 WaS 13 2d2 We7 14 Sed Ned7 15 We2 Acd 16 Had1 h6 17 f4 During the game I considered 17 @db5(1) exbS 18 AxbS We7 19 @xd6, which would have been very good for White. But the game continuation is also good and later the knights show their appreciation for my deci- sion not to sacrifice them. 17...2fd7 18 b4 Deb 19 Ab3 Preventing the move ...a7-a5, which would create some counterplay on the queenside. Once again Ict me stress that White's number one priority in such positions is the suppres- sion of the opponent's play. After this his extra space and the weakness of d6 should gradually start to make itself felt. 19..Def8 20 whi Bas! A nice way to defend c4; the knight also pressurises Black's queenside from this square. eyeing the c6- and b7-squares. 21...f5 22 2d4 Eliminating Black’s — most valuable piece, his bishop on g7. This one was learned from Portisch-Gligoric. 22.206 23 Rxg7 &xg7 24 W2 @h7 25 c5 dxc5 26 Wxe5 The position has clarified and now White threatens to invade with 27 “b5! and 28 Ad6. Black prevents this by moving his queen, but I am then able to pursue a minority attack with b4-b5. 26...WE7 27 bS! DAc8 28 exfS exfS 29 Wdd Abo 21And not 29 bxc6 because of 29...b6! 29..cxb5 30 @xb7 Hb8 31 Has! A most unusual post but very strong nevertheless. The imper- tinent invader subjects Black's pieces to all sorts of tactical threats — and this from the heart of his own lines. 31...Wg6 32 WeS Bb6 33 We7+ Be7 34 We5 Wxg3 35 Ads! With the second knight join- ing the fray, the game is imme- diately decided. 35...ukg7 A tather desperate move which permits an artistic final position. 35...2xd5 36 Bxe7+ Dxe7 37 Wxel+ 6 38 Exd5 would have cost Black most of his pieces. 36 Df6+ Gh8 37 Wxf8+ 2.28 38 Kgl Wg6 39 “e8! 1-0 Black's position has been hopeless for several moves, but It was considerate of him to re- Sign when he did. The final po- Sition is one of the most unusual A Game Plan 41 that I have ever had. The next game shows great similarities with this last one, though it turns out to be even easier for White. Black once again tries to play actively early on and again his pieces are driven back. I am then able to exchange the dark-squared bishops and finally bring off an attractive combination. Davies-Lyrberg Stockholm 1995 1 c4 D6 2 DEB g6 3 g3 Bg74 Rg2 0-0 5 0-0 d6 6 d4 Abd7 7 Dc3 e5 8 e4 exdd 9 %xd4 6 10 h3 Ac5 11 Bel e6?! £7 Y, Dots ¥e This is not really the recom- mended procedure, as the knight is not particularly well placed here. Since I possess a space advantage, | decide to follow the principle of avoiding exchanges. 12 Dc2 a6 13 Re3 Bb8 After the immediate 13...b542 A Game Plan White has 14 cxbS axb5 15 e5, so Black uses another tempo on preparation. l4a4 1 quite like this move, which prevents Black from gaining space with ...b7-b5. In some positions the weakness of b4 can be quite significant but here it is of little importance. 14...b6 The ‘standard’ reply would have been 14...a5, but then Black has to reckon with 15 Wd2 Ac5 16 dadl. 15 Wd2 “cS 16 “da! The obvious 16 stad1 is an- swered by 16...2e6!, once again showing the dangers of trying to capture d6 too hastily. The text covers the b3-square and attacks the newly created weakness on c6. 16...2b7 17 Badl Acd7 18 RHE Taking the opportunity to ex- change the dark-squared bishop. As usual, this greatly dimin- ishes Black's hopes of counter- play. 18... 2xh6 19 Wxh6 De8? Defending the vulnerable d- pawn and hoping to drive White's queen from h6 with 20...W£6 and 21...Wg7. But un- fortunately for Black there is a deadly combination: at “e AE 20 eS! @xe5S After 20...dxe5? White wins easily with 21 @xc6 &xc6 22 &xc6. Now White has to give up the exchange in order to open the d-file. 21 ExeS! dxe5 22 Axc6 We7 The only reasonable way of safeguarding both the queen and the rook on b8, but now comes the final point. 23 DdS! Wxe6 24 De7+ Lh8 25 Wxf8 mate 1-0 An enjoyable if somewhat lightweight finish. Lyrberg’s ...a7-a6 idea is certainly worth noting. This type of treatment by Black has certainly become very popular of late and has now virtuallysuperseded the traditional maintenance of Black’s knight on cS with ...a7-a5 at some point. My opponent in the next game also plays ...a7-a6 but once again his timing was slightly suspect. Even so it proved to be quite a compli- cated game after my inaccurate 16th move. Davies-Sashikiran Calcutta 1997 1c4 g6 2 d4 Af6 3 Df3 2g7 4 g3 0-0 5 &g2 d6 6 0-0 Abd7 7 4c3 e5 8 e4 c6 9 b3 The text is a lesser-known move designed to throw my opponent onto his own re- sources, I guessed that he might have prepared 9 h3 Wb6!?, which I wasn’t too confident about at the time. 9..exd4 10 Axd4 He8 11 h3 a6 12 Zel Xb8 13 Hb1 cS?! My unusual ninth move seems to be working well, as Black has lost time in playing first ...c7-c6 and then later ...c6- cS. Black should have played Some kind of waiting move here such as 13...We7. 14 Dc2 bS 15 Wxd6 Bb6 16 Warr: It would probably have been better to play 16 Wed2, after which 16...b4 can be met by 17 Ads Axd5 18 exdS and if 18.203 then 19 Sxe8+. I later came to regret the unprotected A Game Plan 43 state of my knight on c3, though White always seemed to be on top. 16...Ebe6 17 exbS axbS 18 b4 exb4 19 Axb4 2b7 20 DbdS Axd5 21 DxdS 2c6 My main problem here was finding a good line against 21...2c5, as 22 We2 is met by 22...@\xe4 and I was horrified to see the line 22 ExbS Wxd5!! 23 Wrxd5 &xd5 24 ExcS Rxa2 with a likely draw. Finally I found 22 4f4!, which should keep White's advantage in all lines. 22 Af4 Exes Another tricky move with some nasty ideas on the hl-a8 diagonal. White has to play ac- curately not to lose the thread of the game. 23 Sxed Rxed 24 Bb3! A very effective move which defends the f3-square. 24 Bb4 c6 25 Exe8+ Wxe8 26 2b2 Sxb2 27 Bxb2 He5 is an ex- ample of the unpleasantness44 A Game Plan that can befall White if he is careless. 24,..206 25 Hxe8+ Wxe8 26 He3 Wa8 27 We2 Df6 28 Lh2! Another very careful move, improving White's king. 28...De4 29 Qb2 218 29...Wxa2 30 &xg7 Wxe2 31 Axe2 Sxy7 32 Add Ka8 33 £3 &d6 34 24 would have been winning for White in the long run, despite the pawns being restricted to one side of the board. I also saw that 29...&xb2 30 Wxb2 AgsS would be an- swered by 31 g4 Df3+ 32 wg3 g5 33 Sxf3! Rxf3 34 DhS ete. 30 Ral Threatening things like Wb2. Black therefore decides to let the bishops come off after all, when it becomes fairly easy. 30.7 31 &xg7 Sxg7 32 Wb2+ sg8 33 h4 Ad6 34 Ed3 De8 35 a3 Wad 36 Wd4 Was 37 Wd8 Wa7 38 He3 &g7 39 We7 Wb6 40 De6+ 1-0 In this last game my oppo- nent very confidently played the modern ...a7-a6 system with the correct order of moves. I sus- pect that his theoretical knowl- edge was superior to mine, but I nevertheless managed to win because I understood the posi- tion rather better than he did. Davies-Kristensen Trondheim 1997 1 DEB D6 2 c4 263 g3 Re74 8.2 0-0 5 0-0 d6 6 d4 Abd7 7 c3 e5 8 e4 exd4 9 Axd4 Beg 10 h3 a6 11 Hel Bb8 12 a4!? My opponent’s confident manner had put me on guard and T was looking for something slightly unusual which would test Black's positional abilities rather than his computer data- base and organic memory. The text move is excellent from this perspective, as it inhibits Black’s projected counterplay based on ...c7-c5 and ...b7-bS. 12...a5? Kristensen automatically plays a standard type of move which gives him an outpost on b4. Unfortunately for him this square turns out to be insignifi- cant; whereas my reply leaves Black with a cramped game. I'm not sure how strong 12 a4 is from an objective point of view should Black play the cunning, semi-waiting 12...c6! 13 DdbS! The knight will be here for @ long time, exerting unpleasantpressure on Black's position. His problems stem from the fact that he cannot play ...c7-c6 be- cause his d-pawn would be ing. wes 14 b3 Dfd7 15 Har Ded This move was accompanied by the surprising offer of a draw, but Black’s position is not good enough to warrant a peace treaty. 16 Bd2 2d7 17 2b2 Rxh3? This was accompanied not by a draw offer but a piercing stare. In fairness to my oppo- nent this sacrifice needs all the help it can get. A M7 Se a7 a 18 &2xh3 Axb3 19 BdS! The refutation. After 19 Wxb3 there is the unpleasant 19... AF3+. 19.06 19...Ac5 20 RF1 c6 21 Bxd6 22 AdS is also rather for- lor for Black. 20 ExeS HxeS 21 Wxb3 exbS 22 exb5 Possibly showing rather too A Game Plan 45 much concern for structure. 22 xb5S_was probably more ef- fective. 22..EhS 23 2g2 Wf6 24 Ebi cS 25 Dds Web 26 2a3! An important move. White takes time to drive Black's rook to a passive square before ex- changing bishops. 26...Ecc8 27 Wd3 Hd8 28 Wd2 hS 29 2b2 Only now does the bishop return to its best diagonal. 29 WxaS hd would have given Black more chances of counter- play. 29...2xb2 30 Wxb2 WeS 31 Wd2 Hdc8 32 f4 We6 33 Hel Ee 34 eS! Sg7 34...dxeS 35 Hxe5S leaves Black without a square for his queen, as 35... Wd6 is met by 36 ‘e7+. 35 £5! 1-0 35...WxfS 36 De3 and 35...gxf5 36 DFE dxeS 37 We5+ f8 38 Dh7+ are both murder. I hope that 1 have demon- strated that players should in- vest their time in the type of structural study shown in the preceding games rather than the banal memorisation of varia- tions. Here are some other typi- cal structures and the openings from which they arise. Hedgehog Formations In a way this structure is a close telative of the backward d-pawn in the King’s Indian. At one46 A Game Plan time this type of position, in- volving a fixed semi-backward pawn on d6, was assumed to be bad for Black. Yet this assess- Ment was brought into question as recently as the late 1970s and early 1980s when players such as Ulf Andersson, Istvan Csom and Ljubomir Ljubojevic started to play these positions success- fully as Black. Nowadays there are many Grandmasters who base their Black opening reper- toire around the Hedgehog for- mation, while Gary Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov have also used Hedgehog formations ex- tensively. The Hedgehog formation ini- tially became popular as a de- fence against the English Opening (1 c4 c5 2 “F3 Zf6 3 Ac3 e6 4 g3 b6 5 Rg? Ab76 0-0 d6 7 d4 cxd4 8 Wxd4 a6 9 e4 S&2e7) and the fashion soon spread to the Sicilian Defence, with Black being far more willing to defend this type of position in lines of the Taima- nov (such as | e4 c5 2 AF3 Acé 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4 e6 5 AbS d6 6 c4) and Paulsen variations (such as 1 e4 c5 2 DF3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4 a6 5 Ad3 D6 6 0-0 d6 7 c4) which were previ- ously considered unpalatable. The realisation that this forma- tion is so eminently viable en- couraged players to look for Hedgehog formations in other openings, and this structure has even been achieved via open- ings such as the 4 We2 Nimzo- Indian (1 d4 @f6 2 c4 e6 3 Dc3 Sib4 4 We2 055 dxcS Rxc5 6 £3 W6 7 3 Wc7 followed by .a7-a6, ...Re7, ...d7-d6 and «-b7-b6 etc.). Such has been the popularity of the Hedgehog that some players have even taken to playing it as White. Istvan Csom, for example, will often open with | @f3 followed by 2 c4 and 3 b3 in order to tempt Black into taking the centre with ...c7-c5, ...d7-d5 and ...e7- eS. In this way he can get his beloved Hedgehog formation with both colours. Isolated d-Pawn Isolated pawn scenarios are very common indeed and can arise from almost every open- ing. Generally speaking, the side with the isolated d-pawn will have active play as com- pensation for this weakness, whereas the side playing against it will probably want to simplifythe position. Amongst the great masters of the isolated pawn I will mention Paul Keres and Boris Spassky, while those who have liked to play against it in- clude Tigran Petrosian and Anatoly Karpov. There is no easy way to know what to do in these positions, they need to be properly under- stood and that will only come through careful study. The most common type is an isolated d- pawn with the opponent having open d- and c-files, as in the following diagram. UY Yi, tte @ ara thy o Bae we w UY, Be YW, # ‘a8 Wy orl ny ine Rh YG, wrk To understand just how im- portant this type of position is, just consider how many open- ings it can arise from. They in- clude the Queen’s Gambit De- clined (1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Ac3 DEG 4 DE3 c5 5 cxdS DxdS 6 e3 Dc6 7 Rd3 cxd4 8 exd4), the Queen's Gambit Accepted (1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 DF3 AK6 4 €3 06 5 &xc4d c5 6 0-0 cxd4 8 exd4), the Nimzo-Indian De- fence (1 d4 Af6 2 c4 e6 3 Ac3 A Game Plan 47 Sib4 4 e3 0-05 &d3 dS 6 AP c5 7 0-0 Dc6 8 a3 cxd4 9 exd4 dxe4 10 &xc4), the Sicilian De- fence, Alapin variation (1 e4 c5 263 d5 3 exdS Wxd5 4 d4 e6 5 D3 4i6 6 &d3 Re7 7 0-0 exd4 8 cxd4), the English Opening (1 c4 c5 2 Af3 Ato 3 43 Dc6 4 3 e6 5 d4 dS 6 exdS AxdS 7 Rd3 cxd4 8 exd4), the Caro-Kann Defence, Panov Attack (1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 cxd5 4 c4 @F6 5 Ac3 e6 6 43 Be7 7 cxdS Dxd5) and even the Alekhine Defence (1 e4 DFE 2 e5 DdS 3 c4 Db6 4 cS Ad5 5 Bc3 e6 6 dd d6 7 cxd6 cxd6 8 AF3 Ac6 9 exd6 &xd6). There are many others too! The isolated d-pawn with open d- and e-files is rather less common, but it can still arise from many different openings. The most common example in today’s tournament practice is the Tarrasch variation of the French Defence (1 e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 Dd2 c5 4 exdS exdd 5 Def3 Dcb 6 LbS 2d6 7 dxc5 &xc5). Another possibility is the Giuoco Piano or Italian Game (1 e4 e5 2 Df3 Ac6 3 Sicd Rc5 43 DFE S dd cxd4 6 exd4 Rb4+ 7 Ld2 Rxd2+ 8 ®bxd2 d5 9 exdS Dxd5). Hanging d- and c-Pawns The hanging pawn structure is also very common and can arise from the whole range of open- ings in which White plays d2- d4 and c2-c4 and Black plays48 A Game Plan ..d7-d5 and ...c7-c5. Most often it arises in the Queen’s Gambit Declined (1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6), the Rubinstein variation of the Nimzo-Indian (1 d4 @t6 2 c4 e6 3 Ac3 Sb4 4 3) and the Queen's Indian Defence (1 d4 46 2 c4 e6 3 Df3 b6). W, hos BO Diy “A Oe fs Y y la on ae In addition to his penchant for isolated pawns, Paul Keres used to like the dynamic ad- vantages of hanging pawns. Against the Queen's Indian De- fence he favoured the move 4 e3, which leads to a typical hanging pawn position after 4...2b7 5 2d3 e7 6 0-0 0-07 b3 d5 8 Rb2 cS 9 43 (or 9 Dbd2) 9...dxc4 10 bxe4 cxd4 11 exd4. Personally I prefer to avoid this with Black by play- ing the 5...d5 6 0-0 2d6 line. A similar system to Keres’s 4 e3 is 1 d4 4)f6 2 D3 6 3 ¢3, when after 3...b6 or 3...d5 White fianchettoes his queen's bishop and may eventually play c2-c4. This used to be a firm favourite of Artur Yusupov who played it with considerable suc- cess. It can of course transpose into the 4 e3 Queen's Indian. During my five years living in Israel I learned a great deal from the former Soviet Cham- pion Lev Psakhis, who influ- enced me in my decision to play hanging pawn positions as Black. If White plays 4 g3 against the Queen’s Indian it was Psakhis's opinion that the only way Black could play for a win was by accepting hanging pawns in the line 4...2a6 5 b3 Rb7 6 Rg2 Rb4+ 7 Ld2 Le7 8 0-0 0-0 9 &c3 Aaé followed by 10...d5 and a later ...c7-c5. Psakhis had learned this system of defence from his former trainer, Anatoly Vaisser. Another strong Israeli player, Leonid Yudasin, also favours this kind of position as Black, which further convinced me of its merits. I have had excellent results with these positions, in- cluding a win over the Peruvian Grandmaster Granda Zuniga. There are many lines in the Queen’s Gambit which give rise to hanging pawns. In particular, 1 should mention the Tartak- ower variation (1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Dc3 Be7 4 D3 DE 5 Kgs h6 6 &h4 0-0 7 €3 b6). The Hanging Centre Strategically similar to hanging d- and c-pawns, hanging centre pawns are most usually ob- tained by Black. The mostcommon way in which they arise is in the French Defence, after Black undermines both of White's centre pawns with ...c7- 5 and ...f7-f6. This can lead to finely balanced struggles in which the battle revolves around White's restraint of the pawns and their ‘lust to ex- pand’. The hanging centre is a typi- cal feature of the old Classical Main Line of the French with 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Dc3 Df6 4 Rys Re7 5 eS Afd7 6 Rxe7 Wxe7. Other French lines in which it is frequently seen are the Steinitz variation (4 eS @fd7 and now 5 DF3 cS 6 dxcS Dcé6 7 Rf4 &xcS 8 Rd3 f6) and the Ad- vance variation (3 e5 c5 4 dxc5 or 4 DF3 Ac6 5 c3 Wb 6 Rd3 472! 7 dxc5). There are also several lines of the Sicilian Defence in which Black acquires hanging centre Pawns. One of these is the Alapin variation (2 3 f6 3 e5 Dds 4 dd cxdd 5 Wxd4 e6 6 A Game Plan 49 Bf3 Dcb 7 Wed f5 8 exf6 xf6); another is the Maroczy Bind (1 e4 c5 2 Df3 Ac6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 g6 5 c4 and now Simagin’s treatment of 5...2g7 6 &e3 d6 7 43 Dh6 followed by 8...f7-f5). White can obtain a similar pawn duo in openings such as the English Opening, Rubin- stein variation (1 c4 cS 2 DF3 c6 3 Dc3 d5 and now 4 cxd5 Axd5 5 g3 DAcb 6 Rg2 Ac7 7 d3 e5 8 Ad? Qd7 9 0-0 Ke7 10 Bc4 followed by a later f2-f4 eSxf4; &xf4). Similar play can arise in the Réti Opening after 1 DF3 d5 2 4 dxc4 3 Da3 Acb 4 @xc4 f6 5 g3 e5, when White can later move his knight from f3 and play f2-f4. Once again an interesting and double-edged struggle is in prospect. Stonewall Formations Stonewall formations are of great significance to opening theory and can be played by both Black and White. The most usual way to arrive at such a structure is with a Stonewall Dutch. At one time this was played with 1 d4 f5 2 c4 e6 3 g3 D6 4 Rg? Re7 5 DF3 0-0 6 0-0 and now 6...d5 or perhaps 6...c6 first and then ...d7-d5. Recently, however, there has been a trend to play 4...d5 and then put the king's bishop on d6 rather than e7, and this has been adopted by the likes of Nigel Short, Artur Yusupov and Ser-50 A Game Plan gei Dolmatov. It is also possible to get a delayed version of the Stone- wall Dutch from a Slav Defence (1 d4 d5 2 c4 06 3 DF3 Af6 4 Whb3!? e6 5 g3 and now S...De4 and ...f7-f5 is fully playable) or Catalan Opening (1 d4 @f6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 dS 4 Zf3 Re7 5 Rg2 0-0 6 0-0 Abd7 7 We2 c6 8 b3 Ded followed by ...f7-f5). ‘YG GY A Many players at club level try to adopt such formations with White by playing 1 d4 dS and now 2 e3, hoping to be able to play 3 &d3 and f2-f4 followed by Sf3-e5, I will examine some antidotes to this plan in Chapter 4. Botvinnik Formations A close relative of the Stone- wall formation is Botvinnik’s set-up, in which pawns are placed on c4, d3 and e4 with White and c5, d6 and e5 with Black. Botvinnik used this set- up to completely defuse Smyslov’s Closed Sicilian (1 e4 c5 2 Ac3 Ac6 3 g3 g6 4 Rg2 Sig7 5 d3 d6 followed by ...e7- e5) in many of their games. He also showed that it was quite difficult for Black to meet this line in similar positions from the English Opening with col- ours reversed (1 c4 e5 2 Ac3 Ac6 3 g3 y6 4 Rg2 Rg7 5 e4!?). The strategy is, as one might expect, rather similar to that of the Stonewall structures. Backward Pawn Sicilians There are several variations of the Sicilian in which Black plays ...e7-e5 and takes on a backward d-pawn. The main battle then revolves very much around the struggle for the d5- square and whether or not White can occupy it with a piece. In the early days of the Sicil- ian, Léwenthal pioneered the line 1 e4 c5 2 DF3 Ac6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 e5 5 DbS a6 6 Dd6+ Rxd6 7 Wxd6 WFC but, in contemporary practice, his fifth move has now been re-placed by 5...d6, the so-called Kalashnikov variation. The Kal- ashnikov has been played by the likes of Nigel Short and Vladi- mir Kramnik so it is certainly no joke. A sister variation to this is the Pelikan variation (1 e4 c5 2 Af3 Bc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4 AE 5 4\c3 eS) which is named after the Argentine master who spe- cialised in it. (This line has also sometimes been called the Lasker variation because it was introduced by that great World Champion in his 1910 match against Karl Schlechter.) More recently the line 6 @db5 d6 7 &g5 a6 8 Dad bS has been pio- neered by two Grandmasters from Cheliabinsk, Timoshenko and more particularly Svesh- nikov. In Russia this tends to be known as the Cheliabinsk varia- tion, whereas the rest of the world has named it after Svesh- nikov. The spiritual father of all these backward d-pawn Sicil- A Game Plan 51 ians was Boleslavsky, for it was he who made this acceptable for Black. Before him the classi- cists would have claimed that Black's position was lost with- out looking for compensating factors. Shortly after World War II Boleslavsky developed the line which came to bear his name, 1 e4 c5 2 Af3 Ac6 3 d4 cxdd 4 @xd4 D6 5 c3 d6 6 Le2 e5!? When Boleslavsky showed that such things were possible, they were tried in the Najdorf variation too. After 1 e4 cS 2 D3 d6 3 d4 cxdd 4 Dxd4 Af6 5 Sc3 a6 Black has played 6...e5 after 6 &e2, 6 Re3, 6 g3, 6 2d3, 6 h3 and 6 a4. Najdorf players tend to be divided into those who revel in these back- ward d-pawn Sicilians and those who prefer to adopt a Schev- eningen type set-up with the move 6...e6. Benoni Formations One of the main differences between the backward pawn that arises in the Sicilian and that which arises in Benoni formations is that the square in front of the pawn is usually oc- cupied by a white pawn in the Benoni. This removes one of the major objections to such structures, as the file in front of the pawn cannot be used by the white pieces to attack it, yet the backward d6-pawn can never- theless become vulnerable.