Heroes of Classical Chess Learn from Carlsen, Anand, Fischer, Smyslov and Rubinstein

Craig Pritchett

EVERYMAN CHESS www.everymanchess.com

First published in 2009 by Gloucester Publishers plc (formerly Everyman Publishers plc), Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT

Copyright© 2009 Craig Pritchett

The right of Craig Pritchett to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

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

ISBN: 978 1 85744 619 7

Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480, 246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480.

All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, North burgh House, 10 North burgh Street, London EC1V OAT. tel: 020 7253 7887 fax: 020 7490 3708 email: info@everymanchess.com; website: www.everymanchess.com

Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this work under licence from Random House Inc.

Everyman Chess Series

Chief advisor: Byron Jacobs Commissioning editor: John Emms Assistant editor: Richard Palliser

Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton. Cover design by Horatio Monteverde. Printed and bound in the US by Versa Press.

Contents

Bibliography 4

Acknowledgements 7

Introduction 9

1 Akiba Rubinstein (1882-1961) 12

2 Vassily Smyslov (1921-) 51

3 Robert Fischer (1943-2008) 91

4 Viswanathan Anand (1969-) 138

s Magnus Carlsen (1990-) 182

Index of Openings 222

Index of Players 223

3

Bibliography

Chess is fortunate in having a rich and extraordinarily diverse written record. I would encourage anyone interested in any of the players in this book and the de­velopment of ideas in chess history more generally to read widely. By all means be guided by the sources I cite below, but do not feel that they remotely exhaust the field. They are simply the books, DVDs, periodicals and online resources that I most consulted while writing this book.

I have loosely grouped the titles in the books section according to which chap­ter they most directly contributed, with a final sixth group of books that more generally cut across all chapters.

Books

Chapter 1, Rubinstein

Die Hypermoderne Schachpartie, Savielly Tartakower (Edition Olms 1981} Masters of the Chess Board, Richard Reti (Batsford 1993) Modern Ideas in Chess, Richard Reti (Dover 1971) Rubinstein's Chess Masterpieces, Hans Kmoch (Dover 1960} The Four Knights, Jan Pinski (Everyman Chess 2003) The Life & Games of Akiva Rubinstein, Vo/.1, John Donaldson & Nikolay Minev (Russell Enterprises 2006}

4

Bib liog raphy

Chapter 2, Smyslov

125 Selected Games, Vassily Smyslov (Cadogan Chess 1995) My Best Games of Chess 1935-1957, V.V.Smyslov (Routledge & Keegan Paul 1958) The Battle of Britain, Tony Miles, Craig Pritchett & Nathan Goldberg (Chess Express 1983) The Chess Struggle in Practice, David Bronstein (Batsford 1980) The World Chess Championship 1948, Harry Golombek (BCM Classic Rep rint 1982)

Chapter 3, Fischer:

Bobby Fischer goes to War, David Edmonds & John Edinow ( Faber & Faber 2004) Bobby Fischer Rediscovered, Andrew Soltis (Batsford 2003) Chess Praxis, Aron Nim zovich (Dover 1962) Das New Yorker Schach Turnier 1927, A.Alekhine (Walter de Gruyter 1963) Fischer: His Approach to Chess, Elie Agur (Cadogan Chess 1992) Fischer versus Spassky, Harry Golombek (Barrie & Jenkins 1973) Hypermodern Chess, Fred Reinfeld (Dover 1958) My 60 Memorable Games, Bobby Fischer (Simon & Schuster 1969) My System, Aron Nim zowitsch (Batsford 1994) Nimzo-Larsen Attack, Byron Jacobs & Jonathan Tait (Everyman Chess 2001) Russians versus Fischer, Dmitry Plisetsky & Sergei Voronkov (Everyman Chess 2005)

Chapter 4, Anand:

My Best Games of Chess, Vi shy Anand (Gam bit 1998) Viswanathan Anand: My Career {Vols. 1&2), Viswanathan Anand (ChessBase DVDs 2008) World Chess Championship 1995: Kasparov vs. Anand, Daniel King (Cadogan Chess 1995)

Chapter 5, Carlsen:

Wonder Boy, Simen Agdestein (New in Chess 2004)

General Works

Garry Kasparov on Modern Chess {Parts 1-3}, Garry Kasparov (Everyman 2007-2009) Garry Kasparov on My Great Predecessors {Parts 1 -V}, Garry Kasparov (Everyman 2003-2006) Lasker's Manual of Chess, Emanuel Lasker (Dover 1960) The Best of Chess Life & Review {Vols. 1&2}, ed. Bruce Pandolfini {Simon & Schuster 1988)

5

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Class ica l Chess

The Golden Dozen, Irving Chernev {Oxford University Press 1976) The World's Greatest Chess Games, Graham Burgess, John Nunn and John Emms (Robinson Publishing 2004) The Oxford Companion to Chess, D.Hooper & K.Whyld {Oxford University Press 1984)

Periodicals & Online Resources Chess, Chess Informant, ChessBase Magazine, Europe Echecs, New in Chess Magazine

and Schach Magazin 64, as well as the ChessBase, ChessCafe and The Week in Chess websites.

6

Acknowledgements

Above all, I would like to acknowledge my debt to the creative achievements of all the players and commentators mentioned in this book. In putting my own stamp on the work, I hope that I have both added value and given due credit to others, where appropriate.

I would also like to thank the Everyman editorial team, particularly John Emms, who encouraged me to consider writing this book, and Richard Palliser. Once again, I owe a very special debt to Elaine, Katie and Sally for their unfailing family support and forbearance. I dedicate this book to my mother, I s abel Pritchett.

7

Introduction

This book celebrates the play of five great heroes of classical chess. In doing so it aims both to entertain and instruct the reader in the art of playing "classically di­rect'' chess, as it has developed over the last hundred years or so.

"Style" is an elusive quality in chess. By "classically direct" chess I imply a kind of universality of play that embraces all styles, in a sense, and transcends narrow boundaries - a style that is based on such overarching attributes as clarity, energy, toughness, ambition and a fundamental sense of analytic "correctness".

My heroes are all supreme in the art of divining and following the strategic and tactical threads of a game. They see chess primarily as an organic whole, not as a series of artificial phases. They don't attack or defend for the sake of it, but only when the position demands it, and they are equally at home whether playing the opening, middlegame or endgame.

My heroes have also all made a significant historical impact. Chess hori zons expand and develop through time, and so I have chosen my heroes, not just be­cause I admire their great chess, but also because each was an acknowledged gi­ant in a given time period.

All of my heroes are great symphonists of the chessboard. They have all man­aged to produce many grand, persuasive statements that are both part of their time and look forward.

My Five Heroes My earliest hero is Akiba Rubinstein, who played in the early 1900s during the

9

Ch ess Secrets: Heroes of Class ical Ch ess

immediate post-Steinit z era. Without Steinit z, who contributed so much to our understanding of the game, there could scarcely be any serious discussion of the classically direct playing style in the way I've described it.

Rubinstein built on a discernibly Steinit zian foundation. He rejected all dogma, battled energetically and always sought new paths. He revitalised our understanding of what Emanuel Lasker called Steinit z's "method", turning it into an art-form. In Rubinstein's hands, the ideas of Steinit z were infinitely adaptable, deadly, subtle and sharp - truly aesthetic.

My next hero is Vassily Smyslov, a colossus whose career spans almost a full seven decades from the 1930s. A child of the Soviet chess revolution, Smyslov took the liberated thinking of its spirit to the giddiest heights. There were no rules for Smyslov, only limitless ideas to discover and try out on the chessboard. Truth de­pended ultimately in a game on whether things worked or not.

My third hero is Bobby Fischer, who, in mid-century, radically shook up the chess world. Fischer outdid the Soviets. He had a colossal capacity for work, match­less creative powers and a visceral energy. He took greater risks than his peers and with his genius for calculation, anticipated the computer age and its inexorable drive towards grounding ever-more ideas in ever-more precise variations.

My fourth hero is Vishy Anand, who, as I write, is the current World Champion. Anand's career began in the pre-computer age, in the 1980s. Through the 1990s and into the 21st Century, he and other top players had to adjust to the advent of increasingly powerful chess engines. Anand has thrived on this challenge, tamed the computer and shown how to make its analytical power bow to our own indi­vidualism.

My final hero is Magnus Carlsen, only 19 years -old and yet world number two, as I end this book. He has superb all-round skills, complete mastery of the com ­puter and can play virtually any kind of position with equal virtuosity : Having al­ready produced many fine games that can match any in this book, he fully merits his inclusion in my classic pantheon.

The Style and Format of this Work This book can be enjoyed purely as a great games collection, but I hope that it is more than that. Indeed, I hope this work appeals to a wide audience of readers interested in improving their own chess, while being entertained and introduced to both the development of chess ideas and the classically direct playing style.

I present this work in historical order as the play of each hero can only be fully understood and appreciated by an awareness of the legacy of the great players that preceded them. Each chapter includes brief but I hope sufficient biographical

1 0

In troduction

information to enable the reader to get an idea of what made each player tick as a person. However, my main aim is to focus on each player's greatest achievements and games.

I have resisted trying to be overly reductive in dissecting each player's playing style and drawing precise comparisons between their games or "typical" elements in them. In a game such as chess, I fear that this kind of approach doesn't really chime with the way we ourselves play and reflect on our own styles, so that it can easily become artificial. Thus Mikhail Tal was a great attacker, but at the same time, in very many of his games, he displayed an outstanding universalism. I con­sider style in chess to be a matter of nuance and tendency rather than anything absolute. Indeed, I have concentrated on seeking to draw out nuance and ten­dency, as well as the essential spirit of the classically direct playing style.

In the end, that hoary old conundrum about the "true" nature of chess just won't go away. No matter how maddeningly, chess remains at one and the same time inextricably a science, a sport and an art-form. That's good enough for me and, I hope, my readers. Enjoy it !

Craig Pritchett, Dunbar,

November 2009

1 1

Chapter One

Aki ba Rubinstein (1882-1961}

Rubinstein has created the most perfect games of the epoch since Steinitz ... the most perfect demonstration of Steinitz's teachings.

Richard Reti, Masters of the Chess Board

Without the considerable example of the games and ideas of the first World Champion, Wilhelm Steinit z (1836-1900}, it is probably fair to say that the basis for what I have in mind when I use the term classically direct chess, would not have been developed by Rubinstein's time.

Steinit z is largely credited with laying the ground rules for "correct" positional play, particularly in closed positions. His main insight was to develop an idea of "balance" in chess, and the notion that winning depends critically upon accumu­lating advantages sufficient to upset the natural balance in any game between peers in favour of successful rather than quixotic attack.

Steinit z subjected positional factors, particularly pawn structures, to close scrutiny. He emphasised the value of sound pawn chains, with strong points in the centre (generally based on pawns on e4/e5 or d4/d5}, manoeuvrability and an absence of unprotected weak squares. Steinit z was ahead of his time in under­standing how pieces and pawns might best work together both in the attack and defence of strong and weak points.

On top of this, the tireless Steinit z was also one of the earliest truly profes­sional, openings-investigative chess players. Unusually for his time he created and deeply investigated many whole new game plans. Steinit z worked out much more than how he might simply open a game. His systems were based on ideas de-

1 2

A kiba Rub instein (1 882 - 1 9 6 1)

signed to carry him successfully through typically arising middlegames and into the endgame.

Steinitz built on a chess past that had to a large extent shown how to handle attack and defence in open positions. Where kings were in danger, rapid devel­opment, the creation of open lines and sound combinations were all at a pre­mium. Steinitz didn't overthrow such ideas. He rather incorporated and adapted them into new ways of thinking about planning in all kinds of position.

The second World Champion, Emanuel Lasker (1868-1941), who gained the world title from Steinitz in 1894, greatly admired Steinitz's achievements. In a warm and lengthy eulogy in his Manual of Chess (1923), he argued that Steinitz's ideas point to a flexible and extremely fruitful, new and essentially scientific "method" of play. At its core, Lasker considered that "the teaching of Steinitz demands from us an accu­rate valuation." Steinitz's ideas help us better evaluate positions and therefore gen­erate good plans. They help deepen our understanding of what truly works in a game and our ability to generate guiding principles or rules that can be refined, fol­lowing test against actual outcomes achieved in competitive play.

In Masters of the Chess Board, Richard Reti observed about the post-Steinitz era that "the theory of Steinitz could be further developed in two directions ... phi­losophically, as a general theory of the fight ... or with the idea of finding that form of the theory ... most suitable for the practical execution of a chess game."

Reti considered that Lasker took Steinitz's theory in the first direction, while Lasker's contemporary and rival, Siegbert Tarrasch (1862-1934), took it in the sec­ond. Lasker battled the player and considered that the game was mainly a struggle of wills; Tarrasch battled the board, considering that chess favoured the player who best understood the game.

Here matters stood when Akiba Rubinstein took his first international steps in the game in the early 1900s. Rubinstein was to develop a fresh style that steered a middle course between the out-and-out fighter, Lasker, and the dispassionate, professorial-like Tarrasch, and was even more discernibly mainstream Steinitzian in spirit than either of them.

Rubinstein's game developed the classical legacy in ways that were not just original but also a breath of fresh air in the 1900s. Again, according to Reti, "it took an entire generation of chess masters to derive from (Steinitz's) theories all that they contained ... for practical playing. Rubinstein was the keystone of this genera­tion."

By 1912, Rubinstein's practical successes had established him clearly as the natural world championship challenger to Lasker. Then at the height of his pow­ers, Rubinstein may have won such a match. Like Steinitz at his best, Rubinstein

1 3

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Class ical Chess

was profoundly creative, played many subtle openings and possessed a flair for beautiful combinations as well as technical accuracy. Sadly, while negotiations for a Lasker-Rubinstein match reached an extremely advanced stage by 1914, the Great War intervened, destroying its prospects completely.

Biographical facts about Rubinstein's early life are sketchy. Born into a large family in the small town of Stawiski, near Bialystok, he seems to have learned chess in his mid-teens, eventually settling in Lodz, probably by about 1903, when the very active Lodz Chess Society was formed, of which he became a member.

Rubinstein soon made a mark in the Russian Empire and abroad. In 1907 he shared first place at Ostend and won outright at Carlsbad in the two top events of that year. At the turn of 1907-08, he then won the fifth All-Russian Championship. One of his wins in this event has since become his historical calling-card and popularly known as his "Immortal Game".

Rubinstein's final combination in this game spectacularly demonstrates his considerable tactical skills, but the game as a whole perhaps even more tellingly emphasizes how much Rubinstein had absorbed from Steinitz. Black sets his con­cluding fireworks alight, only after having first accumulated sufficient of those small, Steinitzian advantages to support a strike that derives squarely from the logic of the position.

Game1 Ci.Rotlewi-A.Rubinstein

Fifth AII'-Russian Championship, Lodz 1907

TarraschDejFence

1 d4 ds 2 li:Jf3 e6 3 e3 cs 4 c4 lt:Jc6 s lt:Jc3 ct:Jf6 6 dxcs .i.xcs 7 a3 a6 8 b4 .i.d6 9

.i.b2 0-0 10 'ifd2?! White commits his queen prema­

turely to a square that it may have to vacate in a few moves. More to the point is 10 cxds exds 11 .i.e2, with chances for both sides. White will seek to exploit the weak squares surround­ing Black's isolated queen's pawn (IQP) and eventually to undermine the pawn

1 4

itself; Black has plenty of space and good piece play. 10 ... 'ife7 11 .i.d3?

This, however, is a poor move that simply allows Black to develop his queenside with tempo (and it also has further time-loss consequences on White's 14th move). White should still play 11 cxdS exds 12 .i.e2, but accept­ing the gambit by playing 12 lt:Jxds?! ct:Jxds 13 'ifxds leaves White signifi­cantly behind in development and would instead be risky. Graham Bur­gess thought that White might escape with a draw after 13 ... .i.e6 14 'iid3 �ac8 15 .i.e2 �fd8 16 'iih1 .i.ds 17 o-o .i.€4 18 'ifa2 .i.ds (his main line only), but there can easily be hidden im-

provements in such lines.

11 ... dxc4 12 �xc4 bs 13 �d3 .Md8 14 �e2

White effectively loses another tempo, as his queen could clearly have reached this square in one move. Due to the black rook's latent opposition on the open d-file, however, White scarcely had anything better. 14 ... �b7 15 o-o tt:Jes

This is a common manoeuvre in such positions. Black aims to exchange White's defensive knight on f3 and open his bishops' kingside attacking diagonals. Here the idea has extra force because of the tempi Black has won in

A kiba Rub instein (1 882 - 1 9 6 1)

the opening. 16 tt:Jxes �xes 17 f4

White must break Black's threats along the b8-h2 diagonal and has no safe way to complete his development without playing this rather committal and possibly weakening pawn move. Both 17 .Mfd1 �c7 18 .Mac1 �xh2+ 19 Wh1 �8 and 17 .Mac1 �xh2+ 18 �xh2 �d6+ 19 '>t>g1 �xd3 lose material, while Razuvaev gives 17 h3 .Mac8 18 .Mac1 �b8 19 .Mfd1 �c7, again forcing 20 f4, to Black's clear advantage. 17 ... j,c7 18 e4

White must also play this move now, or he will be vulnerable to an ... es break, opening lines for Black's queen and bishop. Black wins, for example, after 18 .Mfd1 es 19 .Mac1 (or 19 fs e4) 19 ... exf4 20 exf4 �b6+ 21 Wh1 �e3 22 fs �f4, threatening . . . tt::lg4. 18 • • • .Mac8 19 es?

But this is a bad error, which fatally opens the a7-g1 and a8-h1 diagonals for Black's bishops. White should have endured the central tension at least one move longer by bringing his queen's rook into play. Black remains clearly better after, say, 19 .Mac1 es 20 fs �b6+ 21 Wh1 �d4, due to his extra space, better development and chances to undermine White's stretched e4/f5 pawns, but White can still fight. 19 ... �b6+ 20 'lt>h1 tt::lg4!

White must surely have seen this move, but missed something later, pos­sibly either or both of Black's 22nd and 23rd moves.

1 5

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classica l Chess

21 .ie4 Our thanks must go to Rotlewi for

playing this move and allowing Rubin­stein to demonstrate his combination over the board in its fullest glory. The prettiest of several other forlorn tries is 21 ctJe4 'iVh4 22 h3 l:!.xd3 23 �xd3 .ixe4 24 �xe4 �g3 25 hxg4 'iVh4 mate.

After 21 �xg4 White loses more mundanely to 21 ... l:!.xd3 22 CiJe2 l:!.c2 23 .ic1 g6, threatening . . . h5 . Black also wins after 21 .ixh7+ 'itxh7 22 �xg4 l:!.d2 and 21 h3 'iVh4 22 �xg4 �xg4 23 hxg4l:!.xd3. 21 ... �h4 22 g3 l:!.xc3!

23 gxh4 l:!.d2!

1 6

Black offers a second rook, forcing White to abandon his pivotal defensive bishop on e4 and reaching one of the most justly famous positions in chess history. White will be mated. 24 �xd2

Mate also follows after 24 .ixb7 l:!.xe2 25 .ig2 {or 25 .ixc3 l:!.xh2 mate) 25 ... l:!.h3 26 .ixh3 l:!.xh2 mate, or 24 l:!.ae1 .ixe4+ 25 �xe4 l:!.xh2 mate . 24 ... .ixe4+ 25 �g2 l:!.h3! 0-1

Black's final, quiet rook move leads to a mate on h2 that can only be post­poned by fruitless rook and bishop sac­rifices. If 26 l:!.f3 .ixf3 27 �xf3 l:!.xh2 mate.

1908 was a good year for Rubin­stein, during which among other suc­cesses he took on and defeated the American champion, Frank Marshall, 41/2-31/2, in a match in Warsaw. As Mar­shall had just lost a world title chal­lenge match against Emanuel Lasker the previous year, though by a much larger 111/z-31/2 margin, this was par­ticularly encouraging.

Early in 1909 Rubinstein tied with Lasker to win the great St Petersburg tournament of that year. Both finished on 141/z/18, a full 31/2 points ahead of Duras and Spielmann tied in 3rd. Rubinstein deservedly defeated Lasker in their individual game and, given the emphatic nature of his achievement at St Petersburg, he now started to be taken seriously as Lasker's rightful challenger.

It was not just Rubinstein's result that impressed in St Petersburg, but also the magisterial, yet apparently effortless way he played in his best games. At about this time Rubinstein was beginning to get a reputation as a particularly strong endgame player, but in fact his chess always had a much more universal quality. Rubinstein played the opening, middlegame and endgame with equivalent power and a mastery of strategy and tactics that was second to no one.

In his game at St Petersburg against Jacques Mieses (186S-19S4}, a romantic of the old school, Rubinstein nursed a hard-earned opening edge through to

A kiba Rub ins tein (1 882 - 1 9 6 1}

a win in an outstanding endgame. Mi­eses' entry in The Oxford Companion to

Chess attracts the unfair and certainly exaggerated comment that "he never assimilated the positional ideas of Steinitz and Tarrasch." Be that as it may, he certainly got a lesson in the art of playing classically direct chess in this game.

Game2 A.Rubinstein-J..Mieses

St. Petersburg 1909 Queen's Gambit

1 d4 dS 2 lt:Jf3 cS 3 C4 lt:Jf6!? The classical and safer response is

3 . . . e6, transposing to a main l ine Tar­rasch Defence. Mieses, however, gener­ally preferred open positions, even if, as here, he risked losing a half-tempo or so to achieve his desired objective.

Shortly after St Petersburg, the same two players met in a match played in Berlin, Hanover and Frank­furt. Mieses switched to a different but not dissimilar line with Black in that match, 3 ... cxd4!? 4 cxdS �aS+ S �d2 �xds 6 lt:Jc3 �as 7 lt:Jxd4. As in St Pe­tersburg, Black trades time for free piece play and no pawn weaknesses. Rubinstein won the argument in that line too and took the match 6-4. 4 cxdS cxd4 s lt:Jxd4 lt:Jxds 6 e4 lt:Jf6!?

Today Maxim Dlugy's 6 .. . lt:Jb4 re­ceives more attention. White has two good replies in 7 i.bS+ (Garry Kas-

1 7

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

parov's choice) and 7 .ie3 (favoured by Jose Raul Capablanca). Lasker recom­mended 6.Jbe7 in the tournament book, and if 7 .tf4 'Lld7, but 8 �a4 pre­venting ... es, as in Z.Varga-J.Horvath, Budapest 2000, still poses some prob­lems for Black. 7 'Llc3 es!?

Black forces a queen exchange, but weakens ds. Lasker preferred 7 ... e6, but White then kept an edge, almost 90 years later, in O.Cvitan-R.Huch, Passau 1997, after 8 .llbs+ 1ld7 9 es .txbs 10 'Lldxbs 'Llfd7 11 o-o 'Llc6 12 1lf4 a6 13 'Lld6+ .llxd6 14 �xd6 �e7 15 �C7 'Llcs 16 �xe7+ �xe7 17 .tUd1llhd8 181lg5+ f6 19 exf6+ gxf6 20 .ie3. s .llbs+ ltd7 g 'Llfs!

White maintains the better game with this fine gambit idea. Black's king will suffer in the centre if he accepts the pawn, after 9 ... i.xb5 10 �xd8+ li?xd8 11 'Llxbs 'Llxe4?! 12 i.e3 ! 'Llc6 13 f3. 9 ... .:Uc6 10 'Lld6+ i..xd6 11 �xd6 �e7 12 �xe7+ 'Llxe7

Black's weakness on ds tells imme-

1 8

diately after the incautious 12 .. . \i?xe7?! 13 .llgs ! , and if 13 . . . i..e6 14 f4 with a clear advantage. 13 i.e3 a6 14 .txd7+ 'Llxd7 15 'ii?e2 lieS

16 .tlhd1 'Llcs 17 i..xcs!

White has the better development, but Black is well placed to regroup his knights to contest d4. Lasker suggested 17 .tlac1 'Lle6 18 'Llds, retaining White's bishop, but after 18 ... .tlxc1 19 .tlxc1 'Llc6 Black appears to have a very firm grip on d4.

Rubinstein's 17th move seeks to contest Black's control of d4 with a lit­tle more bite. He would have seen that his 19th move was promising and he probably also foresaw the threatening situation arising after his 2 5th move. Rather than directly playing to prevent Black's knight from occupying d4, he plays to undermine Black's es support, while at the same time creating play on the f-file. 17 ... .tlxcs 18 llac1 'Llc6

Lasker preferred 18 ... lle7 (and not 18 ... 0-0? 19 'LldS !) , but after Hans Kmoch's recommendation, 19 'Lla4!

ltJc6 20 '>te3 o-o 21 ltJc5 ltJd4 22 itJd3, Black's e5-point comes under serious threat, and if 22 ... l:i.xc1 23 l:i.xc1 f6 24 l:i.c7 l:i.f7 2 5 l:i.c8+ l:i.f8 26 l:i.xf8+ 'itxf8 27 ltJc5, winning a pawn. 19l:i.ds!

Rubinstein presents Black with a difficult choice between playing down his main line and Lasker's 19 ... l:i.c4. Nei­ther equalizes. After 19 ... l:i.c4 Lasker recommends 20 b3 l:i.d4 21 '>te3 f6 22 ltJa4 '>te7 23 lLlc5 l:i.xd5 24 exd5 ltJb4 25 d6+ as best for White. Although mate­rial remains equal, White has a clear queenside initiative and the better king. Play might continue 25 ... 'itxd6 26 ltJxb7+ '>td7 27 a3 ltJc6 28 b4 l:i.a8 29 'ite4 ltJd4 30 g3, with the idea of f4 and good chances.

19 ... l:i.xds 20 exds ltJd4+ 21 'itd3 '>te7 22 f4!

White isolates and seriously weak­ens Black's e-pawn. White's king will be able to attack it, while at the same time giving extra support to his potentially dangerous passed d-pawn from the excellent blockading square e4.

A kiba Rub ins tein (1 882 - 1 9 6 1 }

2 2 . . .f6 2 3 fxes fxes 24 'ite4 'itd6 2 5 l:i.f1!

White's rook will now penetrate to the seventh rank with threats against virtually all of Black's pawns, including Black's shaky pawn on e5. 2S ... l:i.c8 26 l:!.f7 l:!.c4 27 '>td3 l:!.b4 28 l:i.xg7!

This thematic and aesthetic move is also almost certainly stronger than the alternative winning try, 28 b3 lLlb5 29 ltJxb5+ l:i.xb5 30 l:i.xg7. 28 .•• l:!.xb2 29 l:i.xh7 l:i.xg2 30 l:i.h6+ '>td7

Black keeps his king in front of White's menacing passed d-pawn. He might also try 30 .. . �c5 31 ltJe4+ 'itb5 (but not 31 .. . 'itxd5? 32 l:i.d6 mate), and if 32 d6 'itc6. However, the gambit al­ternative 32 a4+ 'itxa4 33 d6 looks more dangerous. Then if 33 ... 'itb5 34 d7 l:i.g8 3 5 itJd6+ 'itc6 36 ltJe8+ 'itxd7 37 itJf6+ 'ite6 38 ltJxg8+ 'itf7, while White can't save his knight, he still seems to win after 39 l:i.b6 'itxg8 40 l:i.xb7 lLlf3 41 h3 ltJg5 42 h4 itJf3 43 h 5. Here White also achieves an apparently winning bind after 33 ... l:!.g8 34 d7 ltJc6 35 lLlc5+

1 9

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classica l Chess

<;t>bs 36 l2lxb7 '2ld8 37 '2ld6+ <;t>c6 38 '2le8+ <;t>b7 39 '.te4, and if 39 . . . as 40 <;t>xes! a4 41 <;t>d6! a3 42 M.h3 winning. Or if 33 ... '2lc6 34 d7 '2ld8 35 M.h8 '2lc6 36 M.c8 M.g7 37 '2lf6 <;t>bs 38 h4, and White wins by advancing his h-pawn. 31 M.h7+ <;t>d6 32 M.h6+ <;t>d7 33 '2le4 M.xa2 34 M.h7+ <;t>ds 3 S d6!

The downside to Black's king posi­tion is that White can now close in by creating mating threats. White threat­ens an immediate 36 '2lf6 and M.h8 mate, and if 3 S ... M.a3+ 36 <;t>c4 M.a4+ 37 <;t>ds .Mas+ 38 lLlcs, White again threat­ens mate on h8, winning at once. 3s ..• l2lbs 36 <;t>c4 .Mas

This is Black's only way to prevent White's king from decisively joining in the attack via ds. If now 37 <;t>ds '2lc7+ holds. 37 .l:!.xb7'2la3+ 38 <;t>b4 .l:ibS+

This is also forced, but it leads to a lost knight and pawn ending. 39 M.xbs lLlxbs 40 <;t>cs <;t>d7 41 <;t>ds as 42'2lcs+ <;t>es 43 <;t>xes <;t>f7 44'2lb7 1-0

White's d-pawn costs Black his knight, and after 44 ... '2lxd6 45 '2lxd6+

2 0

<;t>g 6 46 <;t>f 4 <;t> h 5 4 7 <;t>g 3 a4 48 '2lc4, White's king and pawn will chase Black's king to h8, followed by l2leS-f7 mate.

1910 was a relatively quiet year both for chess and for Rubinstein. But he did meet and defeat a very young Alexander Alekhine on a visit to Mos­cow. 1911, however, opened with the superbly strong San Sebastian tour­nament. Lasker didn't play, but Capab­lanca took part, determined to defeat the European old guard on his Old World debut.

San Sebastian was a very close-run battle between Rubinstein and the 22 year-old Cuban. Capablanca eventually finished first, on 9V2114, but was only a half-point ahead of Rubinstein and Mi­lan Vidmar, tied on 9 points, with a fairly bunched field close behind these two. Capablanca lost only to Rubin­stein, who was also the only unde­feated player. Indeed, Rubinstein would have tied with the Cuban if he hadn't missed a clear last round win

against Spielmann. Taken together, Rubinstein's results

at San Sebastian and at St Petersburg two years earlier, including his two im­pressive wins against Capablanca and Lasker in these events, essentially es­tablished his effective world number two reputation. But the newcomer Ca­pablanca had clearly set down a marker that he might overhaul him in a few years' time and from now on the Cuban came to be seen as the longer­term man of the future.

Rubinstein's San Sebastian win against Capablanca was every bit as deserved as his win against Lasker at St Petersburg. Rubinstein took advantage of some diffidence in Capablanca's opening play to gain an edge in the early middlegame. Capablanca then went quite seriously wrong, allowing Rubinstein to pull off an ingenious small combination to gain a pawn and eventually win a difficult endgame.

Remarkably, the key winning idea against Capablanca involved exactly the same queen move (�c1) as against Lasker, at St Petersburg in 1909.

Game3 A.Rubinstein-J.Capablanca

San Sebastian 1911

Tarrasch Defence

1 d4 ds 2 lZ:lf3 cs 3 c4 e6 4 cxds exds s lZ:lc3 lZ:lc6 6 g3

First played in C.Schlechter - F.Duz-

A kiba Rub instein {1 882 - 1 9 6 1}

Khotimirsky, Prague 1908, Rubinstein deserves most of the credit for fashion­ing this move into a modern system. Steinitz had earlier investigated posi­tions in which White (or Black) laid siege to an IQP based on the develop­ment e3 and .te2 ( ... e6/ ... jLe7), (usu­ally) reinforced by a queenside bishop fianchetto.

Steinitz laid stress on controlling the blockading square in front of the IQP. Having thereby contained the IQP, Steinitz sought to centralize and ex­change pieces to exacerbate the vul­nerability of the weak squares around the IQP and of the IQP itself, which of­ten proved decisive in the endgame.

Tarrasch (and others), however, in­creasingly found ways to exploit the space, free development and attacking prospects that the IQP afforded, and fashioned the Tarrasch Defence into a particularly successful system. Rubin­stein radically improved the range of possible plans and dynamic opportuni­ties available to White, redressing the balance.

2 1

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Classical Chess

6 ... .ie6!? Capablanca had already success­

fully used this move in his match in 1909 against Frank Marshall. Nowa­days, however, Black usually first com­pletes his kingside development before committing his queen's bishop to this solid but essentially defensive square, as it may sometimes be more actively developed to fs or g4.

Rubinstein also already had a lot of impressive experience in this line with both colours. In A.Rubinstein-G.Salwe, 3rd matchgame, Lodz 1908, for exam­ple, White achieved a model bind on the dark squares after 6 ... tt:if6 7 .ig2 cxd4!? 8 tt:ixd4 iib6! ? 9 tt:ixc6 bxc6 10 o-o .ie7 11 tt:ia4! iihs 12 .ie3 o-o 13 .l:!.c1 .ig4!? 14 f3 ! .ie6 15 .ic5 .l:!.fe8 16 .l:!.f2 ! tt:id7 17 .ixe7 .l:!.xe7 18 'i¥d4 .l:!.ee8 19 .if1! .l:!.ec8 20 e3 iib7 21 tt:ics tt:ixc5 22 .l:!.xcs .l:!.c7 23 .i:!.fc2 iib6 24 b4 a6 25 .i:!.a5 .l:!.b8 26 a3 .l:!.a7 27 .l:!.xc6 'Yi'xc6 28 'i¥xa7, and White won. 1 .ig2 .ie7 8 o-o .l:!.c8?!

But this riskier move probably takes Black's plan of delaying kingside devel-

2 2

opment a bit too far. Capablanca was trying to avoid his opponent's "theory", but now White has chances to develop a serious initiative in the centre while Black's king side development lags.

Better is 8 ... tt:if6, after which A.Rubinstein-G.Salwe, 8th matchgame, Lodz 1908, witnessed another impres­sive demolition of Black's game with 9 .igs o-o 10 .l:!.c1 cxd4 11 tt:ixd4 tt:ixd4 12 'i¥xd4 'Yi'd7? (12 . . . 'i¥as is critical) 13 e4! dxe4 14 'i¥xd7 .ixd7 15 tt:ixe4 .ic6 16 lZJxf6+ gxf6 17 .ih6 .l:!.fc8 18 i..xc6 .l:!.xc6 19 .l:!.xc6 bxc6 20 .l:!.c1 .l:!.c8 21 .l:!.c4, and White converted his clear endgame advantage. 9 dxcs .ixcs 10 CZJgs!?

White plays for the two bishops and a long-term initiative on the light squares. But it may be that the more straightforward 10 tt:ia4 .ie7 11 i..e3, playing for control of the dark squares, was a more straightforward way to assure White a comfortable plus. 10 ... tt:if6 11lbxe6 fxe6 12 .ih3

Rubinstein bases his plan on the black rook's position on c8. This way of playing for White is far less convincing if Black's rook has not yet been moved from a8. Then Black can quickly con­solidate in the centre, by playing ... 'Yi'e7, ... 0-0 and ... .l:!.ad8 or ... .l:!.ae8. Here, how­ever, Black is soon likely to have to move his queen's rook again with an effective time-loss. 12 ... 'iVe7 13 .igs o-o?

White's plan works well after this move. 13 . . . .l:!.d8 was better when White

A kiba Ru b instein (1882-1 961)

no longer has the combinational op- 16 �g2 .l:cd8 17 Ylic1! tion he has in the game. Indeed, chances for both sides may be no more than balanced. 14 �xf6! Ylixf6?

Capablanca's positional instincts and his calculating powers both let him down in this game. Rubinstein now wins a pawn by force and so Black had to play the ugly 14 ... gxf6. Kasparov and others then assess the promising posi­tion arising after 15 lbxd5! exd5 16 �xc8 .l:xc8 17 Ylixd5+ �h8 18 e3 .l:d8 19 Ylif5 as clearly better for White, but Black may still be able to fight. 1slLixds! Ylih6

Capablanca had relied on this, but completely missed White's reply and further intention on his 17th move. He had only reckoned with 16 �g2? allow­ing 16 ... lLie5 ! , followed by ... lbg4, with an obvious advantage to Black.

It was, however, too late to draw back. White wins immediately after either 15 ... exd5? 16 Ylixd5+ �h8 17

Capablanca had, of course, seen this beautiful refutation of his play by now, but that doesn't detract from its subtle impact. The white queen's almost cas­ual, one square shift to the left on the first rank not only allows it to escape the black rook's pin on the d-file, but also to set up winning, double threats against c5 and e6.

The same queen move also dealt the telling blow in A.Rubinstein-E.Lasker, St.Petersburg 1909, in which the fol ­lowing position arose after 15 ... .l:he8.

�xc8 or 15 ... �xf2+? 16 �g2 Ylif7 17 Here Black threatens ... .l:xe3 and lLif4. appears to have considerable compen-

2 3

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Class ical Chess

sation for his sacrificed pawn, but White coolly defended by playing 16 .Mc1 .Mxe3 (or if 16 ... 'it>b8 17 .Mcs �f4 18 dS .Mxe3 19 �c1 .Me4 20 dxc6 bxc6 21 �c3, with a clear advantage) 17 .Mxc6+ bxc6 18 �c1! .

Now while Black can wriggle, White wins material and Lasker failed to de­fend after 18 ... .Mxd4 19 fxe3 .Md7 20 �xc6+ �d8 21 .Mf4! fs (if 21 ... .Md1+ 22 �f2 .Md2+ 23 �e1 �xg2 24 l':.d4+ and wins) 22 �cs �e7 (or 22 ... .Md1+ 23 �f2 .Md2+ 24 �e1 �xg2 2 S �aS+) 23 �xe7+ �xe7 24 .Mxfs .Md1+ 2S �f2 .Md2+ 26 �f3 .Mxb2 27 .Mas .Mb7 28 .Ma6 �f8 29 e4 l':.C7 30 h4 �f7 31 g4 �f8 32 �f4 �e7 33 h s h6 34 �fs �f7 3 S es .Mb7 36 .l:;!.d6 'it>e7 37 .Ma6 cJ?f7 38 .l:;!.d6 cJ?f8 39 .Mc6 �f7 40 a3 ! 1-0.

White's final move in this game prevents .. . .Mb4, after which White can advance his e-pawn and his king to g6, without losing his g-pawn. Both Black's g- and h-pawns then fall, and White wins quickly.

Returning to the 17 �c1 of Rubin­stein-Capablanca:

2 4

11 ... exds Black has no choice. He loses after

either 17 ... �xc1 18 ..txe6+ �h8 19 .Maxc1 or 17 ... .Mxds 18 �xh6 gxh6 19 .i.xe6+. 18 �xes �d2 19 �bs l2'ld4 20 �d3 �xd3 21 exd3 .Mfe8 22 .i.g4!?

White still has some difficult work to do, as Black's pieces are active. Rubin­stein covers e2, but Capablanca proba­bly correctly considered that White's most accurate continuation would have been 22 .Mfe1 l2Jc2 23 .Mxe8+ .Mxe8 24 .Mel (Kasparov's 24 .Md1, and if 24 ... l2'ld4 25 ..tg4 or 24 ... hs 2S d4, also seems good), and if 24 ... .Me2 2S �fl l2'ld4 26 .Mc8+ �f7 27 .Mc7+ .Me7 28 .Mcs, and White should win fairly quickly . 22 •.. .Md6 23 .Mfe1 .Mxe1 24 .Mxe1 .Mb6 25 .Mes!?

And here Razuvaev's 25 b3 .l:;\,a6 26 .Me5 ! .l:;!.xa2 27 .Mxd5 may be better. Black would, of course, then lose a piece after 27 ... l2Jxb3? 28 .i.e6+ �f8 29 .Mfs+. 2s • • • .Mxb2 26 .Mxds l2Jc6 27 .i.e6+ �f8 28 .Mfs+ �e8 29 ..tf7+ �d7 30 .i.c4 a6?!

Now Black goes wrong. Capablanca pointed out that 30 ... c;tod6! gains an important tempo to advance Black's queenside pawns. He thought that Black might then draw. However, in the modern age, aided by powerful com­puters, Kasparov considers that White can still hope to win after 31 l:!.f7! . Nev­ertheless any win is far from straight­forward and Black should have played this way. Kasparov's most complex line continues 31 .. /t:Jes 32 l:!.xg7 bs 33 ii.b3 as 34 d4 lt:Jd3 35 c;tof3 lt:Jc1 36 .ltg8 lt:Jxa2 37 l:!.xh7 lt:Jc3 38 l:!.h6+ c;toe7 39 l:!.a6 a4 40 h4etJd1 41 dS l:!.xf2+ 42 c;toe4, with a probable win for White.

31l:!.f7+ c;tod6 32 l:!.xg7 bs 33 .igs as 34 l:!.xh7 a4 35 h4 b4 36 l:!.h6+ c;tocs 3 7 l:!.hs+ c;tob6 38 ii.ds?!

Having been involved in a tense race on opposite sides of the board, the players now reach one of the most fa­mous positions and talking points in chess history. Did Rubinstein, as many commentators have asserted over the last 100 years, let Capablanca off the hook here?

A kiba R ub instein (1882 - 1 961}

As pointed out at the time, White could have won quite easily by playing 38 .ltc4 b3 (or if 38 ... l:!.xa2? 39 l:!.bs+!) 39 axb3 a3 40 l:!.bS+ c;toc7 41 b4. Now Black has a chance.

38 ... b3? Capablanca misses an historic op­

portunity. Both sides overlooked the resource 38 ... l:!.xa2 !, and if 39 ii.xa2?? b3 40 ii.xb3 axb3, Black wins. How would Rubinstein have reacted? Could he still have won the game?

Kasparov and his computers are among the doubters. Kasparov ana­lysed 38 ... l:!.xa2! 39 l:!.h6 ! ? l:!.c2 40 hs ! ?, but after 40 ... a3 41 l:!.e6 l:!.cs ! , found that only Black has chances. Perhaps 40 l:!.e6 is a better try, but after 40 ... b3 41 h s l:!.cs ! play transposes into one of Kasparov drawing lines, in which after exchanges on c6, both sides' b- and h­pawns queen simultaneously, reaching a drawn queen and pawn endgame.

Kasparov also considered whether White could revert to 39 ii.c4!?, but after 39 ... l:!.c2 40 l:!.bS+ c;toc7 41 ii.g8 a3 42 h S a2 43 .ltxa2 l:!.xa2 44 h6 l:!.a6!, and

2 5

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classica l Chess

if 4S h7 (or 45 g4 Ci'Je7 46 g S .l:tb6!) 45 ... .l:ta8! , followed by . . . .l:th8, this is also unconvincing. But there may neverthe­less still be a vindication of Rubin­stein's 38th move, in a little-known analysis by Vladimir Vukovic, appar­ently unknown to Kasparov and not investigated by him.

Vukovic's deep and beautiful main line, given by Donaldson and Minev, may need more powerful computer checking, but subject to that reserva­tion, it has a convincing feel to it: 39 llh8 !

39 ... b3 (or 39 ... llc2 40 .l:ta8 a3 41 h 5 llc5 4 2 .if7) 40 h 5 .l:tal (after either 40 ... Ci'Jb4 or 40 ... .l:tc2, 41 h6! wins) 41 .ixc6 c!lc7 (or if 41...c!lxc6 42 .l:tb8 c!lc7 43 .l:tb4 followed by h6) 42 .ie4 b2 43 d4 a3 44 llh7+ c!ld6 4S llb7 a2 46 .l:txb2 llgl+ 47 c!lxgl al�+ 48 llbl �xd4 49 .if3, and White wins. 39 axb3 a3 40 .ixc6 .l:txb3

Now, however, White's task is once again easy. White's rook will reach the a-file and stop Black's a-pawn from behind, say, after 40 ... a2 41 llb5+ c!la6

2 6

42 .l:tb8, followed by .l:ta8. 41 .ids a2 42 llh6+ 1-o

Black's king must move to the a-file, after which .l:th8-a8 wins.

Rubinstein's fine form continued throughout 1911. He finished the year in shared 2nd with Schlechter, on 17/25, at Carlsbad, behind Richard Teichmann, who played the event of his life to win on 18 points. However, 1912 was truly stellar. Rubinstein won three events outright, at San Sebastian, Pistyan and at the Russian National Tournament in Vilnius, and shared 1st place with Ossip Duras at Breslau.

Rubinstein's 1912 results confirmed his claim to be Lasker's rightful chal­lenger. A credible argument might also be made for a challenge by Capablanca, but he did not play at all in Europe that year and had recently been somewhat inactive. Rubinstein's recent record and current form put him well ahead of any other possible European or New World contender.

Rubinstein defeated Carl Schlechter, Lasker's most dangerous recent chal­lenger, twice at San Sebastian. In 1910, Schlechter and Lasker had tied an ex­tremely hard-fought world champion­ship match, 5-5, with Lasker only scrambling a win and levelling the score in the final game. In 1912, Schlechter was no match for Rubin­stein, who achieved the following out­standing endgame win against him in their first game at San Sebastian.

Throughout his career, Rubinstein mainly defended against 1 e4 with 1...e5, answering the Spanish Opening with a range of sound closed lines and also the Open Defence. However, as against Schlechter, he also frequently played what later became known as the Rubinstein Variation of the French Defence. Rubinstein worked out many of Black's main counter-attacking ideas in this line, which is based on an early .. . dxe4. Although conceding White a half centre, with an unopposed pawn on d4 and some extra central space, Rubinstein showed that Black could nevertheless hope to complete his de­velopment and strike back hard at d4 with an eventual ... c5.

At San Sebastian, Schlechter prema­turely tried to dominate the queenside light squares in the early opening, al­lowing his opponent to drive White's pieces back and emerge with a very slight middlegame edge. Rubinstein manoeuvred well in the middlegame, achieving a series of small but tangible positional gains. The surprise win came in a cleverly played rook and pawn endgame.

Game4

C.Schlechter-A.Rubinstein San Sebastian 1912

French Defence

1 e4 e6 2 d4 ds 3 'bc3 'bf6 Rubinstein usually preferred the

Akiba Rub instein (1882 - 1 961}

move order 3 ... dxe4 4 'bxe4 'bd7 5 'bf3 'bgf6, but the lines can transpose after 6 .ig5. The game S.Tarrasch­A.Rubinstein, San Sebastian 1911, a good example of how he played this line, continued 6 .id3 .ie7 7 o-o o-o 8 'bxf6+ 'bxf6 9 'be5 c5 10 dxc5 Wio 11 Wie2 .ixc5 12 .ig5 'bd7 13 'bxd7 .ixd7 14 l:i.ad1 .ic6 15 Wih5 g6 16 Wih4 l:i.fe8 17 l:i.fe1 .ie7 18 .ixe? "flxe7 19 "flxe7 l:i.xe7, and was eventually drawn. 4 .igs dxe4 5 'bxe4 'bbd7

Rubinstein invariably played this way, aiming for a careful strategic resolution of Black's opening problems. Black can also invite entry into the sharper Burn Variation after 5 ... .ie7, and if 6 .ixf6 gxf6, with double-edged play. 6 'bf3 .ie7 7 'bxf6+ 'bxf6 8 .id3 b6

If, as here, he felt he could do it safely, Rubinstein always played a queenside fianchetto quickly. Black faces three main opening challenges in this line: to find a good square for his queen's bishop, to connect his major pieces effectively and to hit back in time with ... c5. Here the immediate queenside fianchetto is Black's clearest way to begin such a plan, and Black's 8th move was a recent novelty. 9 'bes!?

Schlechter's attempt to force mat­ters on the light squares may have come as a surprise to Rubinstein, as he had already successfully defended against this line at San Sebastian, a year previously. Nowadays, White

2 7

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

would normally seek to maintain his slight space and time advantage by quieter means, such as 9 �e2 i.b7 10 o-o-o (or possibly 10 0-0 o-o 11 J:Iad1). Note that Black has no problems after either 9 i.bs+ i.d7 or 9 i.xf6 i.xf6 10 i.e4 l:Ib8 11 CZJes i.xes 12 dxes �xd1+.

9 ... i.b7 10 i.bS+ c6 11 i.xc6+?! This doesn't work out well for

White. Black also stands well after 11 CZJxc6 �dS ! and White may have noth­ing better than to play the unambi­tious 11 i.e2, but this is already quite level.

Instead R.Spielmann-A.Rubinstein, San Sebastian 1911, had continued 11 �f3 �ds 12 i.xf6 cxbs 13 ..txg7? ! �xf3 14 gxf3 l:Ig8 15 i.h6 f6 16CLJd3 i.xf3 17 .l:!.f1 .l:!.g4 18 i.f4?! .l:!.d8 19 C3 eS 20 i.e3 e4 21CLJb4 i.d6 22 h3 l:Ih4 23 l:Ig1 Wf7 24 Wd2 .l:!.xh3 25 a4 fs 26 l2lc6 .l:!.d7 27 dS f4 28 i.d4 e3+ 29 fxe3, and now Mi­eses suggests Black could have won by playing 29 ... l:Ih2+! 30 We1 .i.xds 31 axbs f3 32 l:If1..1e4. 11 ... i.xc6 12 l2lxc6 �ds!

This powerful queen move leaves

2 8

White with a difficult choice. H e must either allow the queens to be ex­changed and play into a slightly disad­vantageous endgame, with split f- and h-pawns, as in the game, or offer a speculative gambit, with queens on the board, by playing 13CLJxe7 �xg2 14 l:If1 Wxe7 15 i.xf6+ gxf6 16 �d3 �xh2 17 0-0-0.

13 CZJes �xg2 14 �f3 �xf3 15 l2lxf3 J:Ic8 16 o-o-o

Having entered the endgame, White can do little with his split kingside pawns except continue to defend them. Ideally he would like to make his queen side pawn majority work for him, but after 16 c3 CZJds 17 i.xe7 Wxe7 18 a4 (planning as), Black himself plays 18 ... as, making it hard for White to make any further progress on that flank. 16 ... CLJd5!

Black has a structural advantage, but it certainly isn't easy for him to make anything of it. So he takes things gradually. By exchanging bishops, he brings his king to a good central square

and helps to increase his influence on the central dark squares. 17 i..xe7 c.i;xe7 18 c.i;b1 l:!.hd8 19 l:!.hg1 g6 20 tZJes t2Jb4!

Black takes a second small step. He can only hope to make progress by challenging White's best posted defen­sive piece, his knight on e5. 21 c3 t2Jc6 22 t2Jxc6+

White eventually loses this game because he stays passive too long and some commentators have unfairly criticised this exchange as being part of that slippery decline. The move is fine. White could also hope to hold by play­ing 22 f4, and if 22 .. .f6 23 t2Jg4 l:!.d5 24 t2Je3 l:!.h5 25 l:!.d2, or by the immediate 22 t2Jg4, followed by t2Je3. 22 ... l:!.xc6 23 l:i.d3 l:!.ds 24 l:!.h3

Black's rooks have obtained a de­gree of activity and the game is near­ing a critical juncture. White correctly plays to force Black's reply, after which Black's rooks won't have h 5 as a possi­ble attacking post. 24 ... hs 2s l:!.f3?

But this move is definitely wrong. It

A kiba Ru binstein {1882 - 1 961)

has the virtue of covering f5, but over­looks the force of Black's reply. White must have missed something, or he would surely have played the much better 25 f4!. Then after 25 .. . l:!.f5, White can resolutely play 26 l:!.h4!, followed by centralizing his king on d3. White has plenty of space and should probably draw. Play might, for example, proceed 26 ... l:!.d6 27 c.i;c2 l:!.dd5 28 c.i;d3 b5 (or 28 ... g 5 29 l:!.xg5 l:!.xg5 30 fxg 5 l:!.xg5 31 a4) 29 b3, and White defends.

Note that White can no longer safely defend in any other way. Black's rooks invade on the kingside after 25 l:!.e3 l:!.f5 26 l:!.e2 l:!.d6 27 l:!.d1 l:!.f4 28 l:!.dd2 l:!.d5, threatening . . . l:!.h4, and if White's pawn moves to f3, Black has ... l:!.f5. 2s ... es!

This stunningly simple move opens the game for Black's rooks and king to swarm all over key space in the king­side and centre. White's rooks lack space and White's king is too far from the centre and kingside to do much about it.

29

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Class ical Chess

Could it be that Schlechter had now intended to play 26 l:!.gs, but then saw Igor Zaitsev's (presumably also Rubin­stein's) wonderful refutation? Zaitsev gives 26 ... l:!.f6 ! 27 l:!.xf6 �xf6, and if 28 f4 exf4! 29 .Mxds f3, Black's f-pawn wins. Black also wins the king and pawn endgame, due to his powerful king and 3-2 kingside pawn majority, after 28 l:!.xes l:!.xes 29 dxes+ �xes, and if 30 �c2 �e4 31 c4 gS 32 �c3 fs 33 b4 h4 34 a4 g4 3 S as f4, followed by ... g3 . 26 dxes .Mxes 27 l:!.e3?!

Perhaps White's last practical chance was 27 .Mel, hoping to create a diversionary passed c-pawn, but after 27 ... .Mf6 28 .Mxf6 �xf6 29 c4 .Me2, and if 30 .Mc2 .Mel+ 31 .Mel .Mxcl+ 32 �xcl �es 33 �c2 �d4 34 b3 g s 3 S �d2 fs, Black must again win the king and pawn endgame, due to his powerful king and advanced kingside pawns. 27 ... l:!.xe3 28 fxe3 .Me6 29 .Mel

White fights a losing battle against Black's active king, remaining rook and dangerous kingside pawn majority. White's rook also hits buffers, though, if it tries to stay active on the kingside, after 29l:!.g3 h4 30 l:!.f3 g S 31 �c2 g4 32 .Mf4 .Mxe3 33 .Mxg4 .Me2+, followed by ... .Mxh2. 29 ... l:!.f6!

Black threatens 30... .Mf2, forcing White's reply, after which Black's king heads for e4 with a crushing bind. 30 l:!.e2 �e6 31 �c2 �es 32 c4

With White's rook on e2 completely

3 0

stymied by the need to defend his chronically backward e-pawn, White makes a last attempt to defend by cre­ating a passed queenside pawn, but it is all too slow. Black can easily defend on the queenside, while at the same time forcing a win by combining direct threats against White's e-pawn with the speedy advance of his g- and h­pawns.

32 ... �e4 33 b4 gS 34 �c3 g4 35 cs h4 36 Mg2 Mg6 37 �C4 g3

Black's passed g-pawn will cost White his rook. White's king and c­pawn present no threat at all on the queen side. 38 hxg3 hxg3 39 �bs bxcs 40 bxcs �f3 41 .Mg1 a6+ 0-1

Rubinstein appears to have played little or no chess in 1913. Rubinstein's English language biographers, John Donaldson and Nikolay Minev, could not discover any Rubinstein game from that year or any reasons for this . The historical record does, however, clearly indicate that serious negotiations con-

tinued throughout 1913 and into 1914 on the terms of Rubinstein's proposed match with Lasker.

Plans for the match do not appear to have been derailed by Rubinstein's relative failure at the great St Peters­burg tournament in 1914. Perhaps pay­ing for his long absence from top-class chess, Rubinstein failed, albeit nar­rowly, to qualify for the five-player final of that event. Lasker won at St Peters­burg, on 131/2118, ahead of Capablanca 13, Alekhine 10, Tarrasch 81/2 and Mar­shall S.

Rubinstein's star certainly dimmed at St Petersburg. He languished a point behind the five finalists in the tight, single round, eleven player prelimi­nary. The five finalists played a double­round final (with the results of the games played in the preliminary added to their scores). Lasker only just caught up and overtook Capablanca in the last few rounds. Indeed, the young Cuban now seemed the world champion's true heir apparent, although Rubin­stein's right to a challenge remained strong. But then, in the summer of 1914, far bigger lights went out all over Europe. The Great War broke out in August and all top-class chess ceased abruptly. The Rubinstein-Lasker match, which had been scheduled to start in October 1914, was cancelled.

The years 1914-18 saw no more than sporadic local chess activity in war-torn Europe. Donaldson and Minev could establish very little about Rubin-

A kiba Rub instein (1 8 8 2 - 1 961}

stein's circumstances during the war. Of course, for Rubinstein and others who lived through these difficult years in German-occupied central Europe, particularly towards the end of the war, which saw the Russian Revolution and the collapse of Germany, we can be certain that life couldn't have been easy.

In his late thirties at the end of the war, Rubinstein was certainly no longer quite the same player as he had been before it. Many observers considered that his play lacked its earlier consis­tency and noted that he was beginning to make many more errors. Sadly Rubinstein's mental health also seems to have deteriorated and played its part.

According to Hans Kmoch, in a sym­pathetic obituary in Chess Review (June 1961), Rubinstein had developed a condition known as anthropophobia, an extreme, pathological form of shy­ness or timidity. This problem appears to have grown increasingly in severity in the post-war years, but Kmoch sug­gests that its earliest indications went back at least to 1911.

Kmoch considered that it was "a miracle that a man thus handicapped could still maintain a place among the best for many years." He went on to write that "many an anecdote could be told about Rubinstein; but, reflecting on an afflicted mind, these stories are actually more sad than funny ... he was sick."

3 1

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

Donaldson and Minev speculate that Rubinstein's health may have been adversely affected by some severely traumatic experience during the war years, but we simply do not know enough to be certain. Happily we do know that in 1917 Rubinstein married Eugenie Lev and that with the support of his wife and family, Rubinstein was able to offer the chess world a further 15 years of top-class chess until his ef­fective retirement.

Rubinstein even issued a second world championship challenge after a series of outstanding tournament re­sults in the early 1920s, including 1st place at Vienna in 1922, ahead of Alekhine and Efim Bogoljubow, the two most credible young aspirants for the world title. Having defeated Lasker, in 1921, Capablanca was now World Champion. Nothing came of Rubin­stein's challenge, however, due to a lack of financial backing.

Rubinstein remained one of the game's giants. In his large work on the modern age in chess, Die Hypermod­erne Schachpartie (1925), Dr Savielly Tartakower could still write that "Rubinstein remains more often able than most great players to achieve great works of art, wrought from a sin­gle, deeply unified strategic idea, proof of which is evident in the many brilli­ancy prizes he has won ... in Teplitz­Schonau [1922] alone, four of these."

Inevitably, with increasing age and new ideas in the game, quite apart

3 2

from his mental problems, Rubinstein gradually began to slip down the chess rankings. Tartakower noted this de­cline, but in another nod to Rubin­stein's achievements, he made the fur­ther (and very modern) point that Rubinstein, having jointly with Spiel­mann and Reti edited a new post-war edition of Co1lijn's Uirobok, may have given away too many of his openings secrets cheaply. Rubinstein neverthe­less retained much of the physical strength of his youth in the 1920s. He always enjoyed robust physical health and continued to contend robustly, playing some of his greatest games in these years. At Carlsbad in 1923, he fashioned yet another strategic mas­terpiece in a 6 g3 anti-Tarrasch varia­tion, this time against the inventor of the defence, Dr Tarrasch.

Games A.Rubinstein-5. Tarrasch

Carlsbad 1923 Tarrasch Defence

1 d4 ds 2 c4 e6 3 tt:lc3 cs 4 cxds exds s tt:lf3 tt:lc6 6 g3 tt:lf6 7 i.g2 i.e7

By the 1920s black players were be­ginning to delay the early ... i.e6, typi­cally played in this line in many pre­war games, and feeling their way to­wards the modern main line by first completing Black's kingside develop­ment. Rubinstein's successes against early ... i.e6 lines and other Black diver-

gences contributed hugely towards this trend.

Game 3 already includes a number of Rubinstein's "lessons". Another oc­curred in A.Rubinstein-F.Marshall, Bres­lau 1912, in which Black snatched at the centre over-hastily with 7 .. . cxd4?! 8 lbxd4 .ics 9 lbb3 .ib4 10 o-o .txc3 11 bxc3,

and now found that 11 ... h6 to pre­vent the powerful pin .tgs, would allow 12 i.a3, trapping his king in the centre. Thus Marshall played 11 ... 0-o 12 .tgs .ie6, but was unable to prevent White from destroying Black's centre with four sharp blows on his 13th, 15th, 16th and 18th moves, and after 13 lbcs ! "V/Iie7 14 lbxe6 fxe6 15 c4! dxc4 16 i.xc6! bxc6 17 "V/Iid4 "V/Iid8 18 .txf6! .l::i.xf6 19 "V/Iixc4 "V/Iids 20 .l::i.ac1 .l::i.af8 21 e4 "V/Iihs 22 f4 "V/Iias 23 es .l::i.h6 24 .l::i.c2 "VJiib6+ 25 '>t>g2 .l::i.d8 26 .l::i.ff2 .l::!.c8 27 .l::i.fd2 '>t>h8 28 .l::i.d6 "V/Iib1 29 .l::i.xc6, White was winning. s o-o o-o 9 i.gs

This pin intensifies the battle for cs and ds, and after 9 ... cxd4 10 lbxd4 h6 leads to the main line in this opening

A kiba Rub instein (1882-1 961}

today. The game A.Rubinstein-S.Tarrasch,

Teplitz Schoenau 1922, had previously gone 9 a3 i.e6! ? 10 dxcs .txcs 11 b4 i.e7 12 i.b2 lbe4? ! 13 bs lbas 14 lbxe4! dxe4 15 lbd4 "V/Iids!? 16 "V/Iic2 fs 17 "V/Iic3 ! lbc4 1 8 lbxfs ! i.f6 1 9 "V/Iixf6! ? (19 lbe7+ '>t>h8 20 lbxds i.xc3 21 lbxc3 lbxb2 22 i.xe4 was simpler) 19 ... gxf6 20 lbe7+ '>t>f7 21 lbxds i.xds 22 .l::i.fd1 '>t>e6 23 .ltc3 .l::i.fd8 24 .l::i.d4 fs 2 5 g4! lbd6 26 .l::i.ad1 lbxbs 27 gxfs+ '>t>f7 28 .l::i.xds .l::i.xds 29 .l::i.xds lbxc3 30 .l::i.cs lbxe2+ 31 '>t>f1 lbf4 32 .ltxe4 .l::i.d8 33 .l::i.c7+ '>t>f6 34 '>t>e1 .l::i.e8 3 5 f3 lbds 36 .l::i.xb7, and White won.

Reti popularized the plan 9 dxcs i.xcs 10 lba4 .lte7 11 i.e3, aiming at control of the c-file and the d4- and cs­dark squares, but Black can consider the sharp and not unpromising gambit alternative 9 ... d4. 9 . . . .lte6 10 dxcs .ltxcs 11lbe1

White plans to strengthen his grip on the centre by redirecting this knight to d3, possibly followed by a further jump to f4, attacking ds.

3 3

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Class ical Chess

Black's gth move made a brief comeback in the 1980s, but many black players are no longer happy to enter what Garry Kasparov calls a "cheerless endgame" after 11 �xf6 �xf6 12 tLlxds �xb2 13 tLlc7 .l:.ad8 14 �c1 �xc1 1S .l:.axcl, followed by tL\xe6. Black has good drawing chances, but White's chances of eventually wearing Black down by attacking the pawn on e6 and creating kingside play are much better.

In a Rubinstein-like demonstration of how to press for White, A.Yusupov­K.Spraggett, 3rd matchgame, Quebec 1989, continued 1S ... ..Ite7 (1S ... �b6 16 tLlxe6 fxe6 17 .l:.c4 is similar) 16 tL\xe6 fxe6 17 .l:.c4 �f6 18 e3 .l:.d6 19 h4 h6 20 .l:.e4 .l:.fd8 21 �h3 <Jif7 22 <Jig2 .l:.e8 23 .l:.c1 .l:.e7 24 .l:.c2 b6 2S .l:.f4 <Jig6 26 g4 �a1 27 .l:.c1 itb2 28 .l:.c2 iia1 29 a4 iDes 30 tLlxeS+ �xes 31 .l:.f8 .l:.dd7 32 f4 l:.e7 33 l:.d2 J.c3 34 l:.d6 <Jih7 3S g s hxgs 36 hxgs �b4 37 .l:.dd8?! (better 37 g6+! <Jih6 38 �fS ! and mates, or if 37 ... <Jixg6 38 �fS+) 37 ... <Jig6?! 38 <Jif3 .l:.f7 39 .l:.h8 es 40 iig4! exf4 41 .l:.ds ! fxe3+ 42 cJ;?g3 ! 1-0.

3 4

1 1 ... d4 1 2 itxf6 Rubinstein plays with a grand am­

bition. White might also play for a very slight pull with 12 iLle4 �e7 13 iixf6 �xf6 14 iLld3, and if 14 . . . �e7 1S iDees ..ltxcs 16 tLlxcs, as in P.Varga-L.Espig, Saarlouis 2002. 12 .. .'iixf6 13 iLle4 Wile7 14 tL\xcs WJ/xcs 15 iLld3 �b6 16 iLlf4!

Rubinstein had this position in mind. White offers a gambit. With hindsight, it seems clear that Black should decline the bait and subsequent games showed that 16 ... .l:.fe8 is rock solid. S .Flohr-M.Euwe, Amsterdam 1932, for example, continued 17 �d2 .l:.ad8 18 b3 iLlb4 19 .l:.ac1 itds 20 tLlxds tLlxds 21 itxds .l:.xds 22 .l:.c4 h s 23 h4 .l:.des 24 WJ/xd4 �xd4 2S l:txd4 .l:.xe2, and was dead level. 16 ... WJ/xb2?! 17 tL\xe6 fxe6 18 l:tb1 WJ/xa2 19 .i:txb7

But now, with a powerful rook on the seventh rank, a threatening light­square bishop and several obvious tar­gets in Black's weak a-, d- and e-pawns, White has excellent play for his pawn.

19 .. :�a6 20 'Mkb3 lbd8 Tarrasch may have been counting

on this and his next few moves to get his queen back into play in the centre while retaining the gambit pawn. He has no better alternative and must clearly avoid 20 .. /t'las? 21 'Mihs 'Mkxbs 22 !txbs when White has a winning dou­ble attack. 21 .Sd7 .Sc8 22 'Mkb2 es 23 .Sal 'Mkf6

Black must also avoid 23 ... '¥ib6? 24 .Saxa7! threatening mate and winning. 24 e3!

A k iba Rub inste in (1 882 - 1 9 61)

Tarrasch may well have seen this posi­tion, but it wouldn't have been easy to judge how hard it would be reactivate his knight and generate any real coun­terplay. Black retains his extra pawn but is unlikely to be able to hang on to it. 24 ... dxe3 25 fxe3 lbc6 26 'Mkd2!

White threatens both 27 .Sf1 and 27 '¥ids+, winning Black's knight, so Black's reply is forced. White is still far from having a winning advantage, but Black must now give back the gambit pawn. He is, at least, able to do so without allowing White to double his rooks on the seventh rank, which would have been crushing. 26 ... lbb8 27 .Sdxa7 .Scd8 28 'Mke2 h6 29 .lte4!

White's firm grip on the h1-a8 and b1-h7 diagonals keeps Black under pressure. White's bishop on e4 is a vir­tually unassailable powerhouse, whereas Black's poorly placed knight

White has a clear pull. Black's prob- remains a chronic concern. lems stem mainly from his knight's 29 ... .Sd7 30 .Sa8 .Sdd8 31 .Sf1! difficulties. Calculating at move 16, White can still only take very small

3 5

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

steps to improve his chances. But this excellent move forces Black to choose between exchanging into an inferior rook and knight against rook and bishop endgame, and keeping queens on the board in an inferior middle­game. 31 ... 'ifd6!?

Defending the middlegame is probably the correct practical choice. Despite extremely reduced and level material circumstances, White has good chances in the endgame arising after 31 ... ifxf1+ 32 ifxf1 .:xf1+ 33 �xfl .:f8+ 34 �e2 lL'ld7 3 5 :all , and if 3S .. .<�:Jf6 36 .i.g6! threatening .:e7. De­fence here is not easy. White will con­tinue to make definite progress, for example, after 36 ... lL'lg4 37 h3 CLJf2 38 h4 CLJhl (or 38 ... CLJg4 39 .:e7) 39 g4, or 36 ... .:b8 37 .:e7 .:bs 38 �f3 �f8 39 .:e6, threatening g4, h4 and g 5, and if 39 ... hS 40 h3 :as 41 g4 hxg4+ 42 hxg4, renewing that threat, with a clear ad­vantage. 32 .:xf8+ .:xf8 33 �g2 'ifb4 34 'ifd3 �h8!?

3 6

Black might also try to tie White's queen to defence by playing 34 ... 'ife1, but after 3 5 �h3, threatening '1id6, White's king seems safe in the event of any further attempt to attack it, such as after 3 S .. . 'iff2 36 'ifd6 iVfl+ (or 36 ... '1if6 37 '1ixf6 gxf6 38 �g4 CLJd7 39 .:a7) 37 �h4 g S+ 38 �hs, and if 38 .. . '1if7+ 39 '1ig6+ '1ixg6+ 40 �xg6, with a winning advantage. 35 .:a7 'ifb2+

Now if 3S ... 'ife1, White plays 36 .:f7! and the rook can't be captured because of '1id8+. 36 �h3 '1ib6 37 :as .:ds 38 '1ic3 tt:ld7?

Having defended for so long with this knight on a poor square, Black un­derstandably takes the opportunity to move it. But it may now have been bet­ter to leave it on b8, so that Black's queen and rook might be able to worry White's king if White's queen should stray far from the kingside. However, Black's defensive task is clearly unenvi­able in that case too, and the best Black can probably hope for is to reach a ver­sion of the inferior rook and knight ver-

sus rook and bishop endgame already discussed in the note to Black's 31st move. Black might have tried for some­thing like 38 ... �e6+ 39 �g2 .l:!.c8 40 ·�d3, and if 40 ... .l:i.f8 41 �5 �e8 42 ·�xe8 .l:!.xe8, or 38 ... �f6 39 �c7 �fl+ (or if 39 ... �e6+ 40 g4) 40 .llg2 �fS+ 41 g4 "t!Vc8 42 �xc8 .l:!.xc8 43 �g3, but White retains winning chances in both lines. 39 �c6!

By exchanging the second pair of rooks and incidentally forcing Black's knight to retreat again to b8, this very strong move completely eliminates any possibility of counterplay and wins at least a pawn. 39 ... .l:!.xa8 40 �xa8+ tt:lb8?

Retaining queens on the board loses quickly. Black's distant knight and queen cannot hope to resist against an attack on Black's king by White's pow­erful queen and bishop. Black had to play a pawn down in the difficult end­game arising after 40 ... �8 41 �xb8+ tt:lxb8 42 �g4, followed by �fs, and winning Black's e-pawn. 41 �ds!

A kiba R u b instein (1 8 8 2 - 1 9 6 1}

Black suffers from fatal back-rank and light-square weaknesses. White threatens 42 �f7 with dual threats of mate on e8 or f8 or, via g6 or fs, on h7. 41 .. . �c7 42 ids!

Now White threatens 43 'i¥e6, fol­lowed either by 44 �e8+ or �g6. 42 ... tt:lc6 43 �c4!

This subtle finesse threatens 44 g4, followed by i.e4, winning Black's knight, and wins instantly. After the immediate 43 �e6, Black might still hang on after 43 ... tt:le7 44 �f7 �d8. 43 ... �d6

Black has no good move. All of 43 ... h5 , 43 ... �7 or even 43 ... g5 now clearly fail after 44 �e6. 44 �f7 �d8

Black can no longer defend against both White's mating threats. 45 �g6 1-0

The classical Rubinstein was not just a great interpreter of the Steinitzian positional past, but he was also responsive to new trends. In the early twentieth century, that meant to

3 7

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Class ical Chess

ideas that were subsequently to be rather loosely summed up in the term, "hypermodernism". Many players sim­ply began to realize that they needn't always open games by directly occupy­ing the centre with 1 d4 dS or 1 e4 eS as in so many games played in the nineteenth century.

New hypermodern ideas empha­sized flank developments and asymme­try. New hypermodern methods of play included Reti/English Systems for White, incorporating the idea that the centre needn't be occupied, but could also be controlled from the flank. They also included the full range of Indian defences for Black. Many of these new methods of play worked well, and where they did so, they influenced oth­ers.

While we don't usually consider Rubinstein to be a hypermodernist, it is not difficult to see parallel s, such as between Rubinstein's 6 g3 against the Tarrasch Defence and the newer Reti/English Systems. Rubinstein gen­erally stuck with White to the direct 1 d4 throughout his career, but he also intuitively understood how to play fi­anchetto systems and contributed a great many original ideas to our un­derstanding of them.

Rubinstein was equally innovative with Black. Never a player who simply sought to equalize and draw with Black, he always played with active in­tent. This was never more clear than in Rubinstein's response to the Four

3 8

Knights Opening, where in addition to embracing the main classical defences, he frequently broke the early classical symmetry with his own Rubinstein Variation, based on the bold gambit thrust 4 ... tt::ld4.

According to Jan Pinski, in his 2003 work, The Four Knights, this move "is considered the main move after 4 i.bs and clearly .. . the most dynamic route to equality." Rubinstein was already attracted to this line and played it suc­cessfully in the pre-war years, but he refined and developed many of the line's main ideas in the 1920s. In 192S, he played one of his most famous games in this line, against Rudolf Spielmann.

Game 6 R.Spielmann-A.Rubinstein

Baden-Baden 1925 Four Knights Opening

1 e4 es 2 tt::lf3 tt::lc6 3 tt:Jc3 tt::lf6 4 i.bs Writing about this move in Masters

of The Chessboard, Reti makes the point that while the "Spanish Four Knights" (or Four Knights) is less direct than the Spanish Opening (3 i.bs}, it is not without guile. Its main aim is to de­velop pieces early, prior to taking up the battle for control of Black's central strong point es in the early middle­game (usually by playing for d4 or f4).

Hence, Reti writes, "for this reason, the correct reply by Black ... does not lie

in mere defence. Rather Black will do best to utilise White's slow and not especially logical play to seize the ini­tiative." 4 ... tt:ld4

Reti noted that Black's knight on d4 "takes advantage of the fact that ... White is no longer able to move c3 and [that White's] bishop now stands on bs without any purpose." Black's bold strike in the centre is, however, an ex­tremely demanding as well as a purely logical move. Black must be prepared to continue in tactical style and un­afraid to gam bit. 5 tt:lxes

This capture can lead to quite com­plicated outcomes, but the critical lines are nowadays considered to be 5 i.a4 and 5 i.c4, whereas other moves are less convincing:

a) After 5 i.a4 i.cs 6 tt:lxes o-o 7 tt:ld3 ! i.b6 8 es tt:le8 9 tt:lds d6 10 tt:le3, we reach a position that remains sub­ject to major theoretical debate. White has an extra pawn and a healthy pawn structure but tangled minor pieces.

A kiba Rub instein (1882 - 1 961}

Black has a time advantage and can hope to put pressure on White's game, while he struggles to unravel his tan­gled pieces and complete his queenside development.

Instead after the less energetic 7 d3?! ,

Black developed an early initiative in one of the first games played in this line, S.Tarrasch-A.Rubinstein, San Sebastian 1912, which continued 7 ... ds 8 i.gs c6 9 �d2 l:te8 10 f4 bs 11 i.b3 h6 12 i.h4 tt:lxe4! 13 i.xd8 tt:lxd2 14 �xd2 l:txd8 15 tt:le2 tt:lxe2 16 �xe2 l:te8 17 �f1!? i.b7 18 C3 f6 19 4Jg4 hS 20 tt:lf2 i.e3 21 .id1 h4 22 g3 as 23 .tf3 b4 24 �g2 bxc3 25 bxc3 .ta6 26 C4 l:tad8, and Black went on to win impressively in a famous endgame.

Earlier S ... tt:lxf3+ is also possible, though far less exciting, while s ... c6 6 tt:lxes d6 7 tt:lf3 ..ltg4, and if 8 d3 dS, is a sharper alternative more in the spirit of the opening.

b) Matters are also unclear after 5 .tc4 i.cs 6 tt:lxes �e7 7 tt:ld3 dS 8 tt:lxds (the game A.Nimzowitsch-A.Alekhine,

39

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Class ical Chess

St Petersburg 1914, also went well for Black after 8 i.xd5 tt'lxd5 9 tt'lxd5 Wixe4+ 10 'Lle3 i.d6 11 o-o .lte6 12 'Lle1 0-0-0, and Black went on to win this too) 8 . . . Wixe4+ 9 'Lle3 .ltd6.

The manic attacking game, Z.Bel­sitzman-A.Rubinstein, Warsaw 1917, continued 10 0-0?! (10 f3 'i¥h4+ 11 tt'lf2 improves according to Keitlinghaus) 10 ... b5! 11 i.b3 i.b7 12 tt'le1 'i¥h4 13 g3 Wih3 14 c3 h 5 ! 15 cxd4 h4 16 Wie2 Wixh2+! 0-1.

White didn't get far either in R.Spielmann-A.Rubinstein, San Sebas­tian 1912, after 7 'Llf3!? d5 8 tt'lxd4 dxc4 9 'Llf3 tt'lxe4 10 0-0 o-o 11 d4 cxd3 12 cxd3 tt'lxc3 13 bxc3 i.g4 14 d4 i.d6 15 'i¥d3 .S:ae8, and Black went on to out­play his opponent. Fuzzier perhaps here is 8 i.xd5, after which O.Bernstein-A.Rubinstein, Vilnius 1912, continued 8 ... i.g4 9 d3 c6 10 i.b3 'Lld7 11 .ltg5 Wid6 12 tt'lb1 Wig6 13 .lte3 .ltxf3 14 gxf3 Wig2 15 �d2 tt'lxf3+ 16 �c1 .S:d8 17 h3 .ltxe3+ 18 fxe3 tt'lde5 19 Wifl Wigs 20 WVe2 'Lld4 21 Wid2 tt'ldf3 22 Wie2 'Lld4, with an eventual draw.

4 0

As against 5 i.a4, Black can also meet 5 i.c4 with the sharp 5 ... c6, and if 6 tt'lxe5 d5 7 exd5 .ltd6, or the less am­bitious but solid 5 ... tt'lxf3+ 6 Wixf3 d6, and if 7 d3 i.e? 8 o-o 0-0.

c) Black has nothing to fear after 5 tt'lxd4 exd4 6 e5 dxc3 7 exf6 Wixf6 8 dxc3 .lte7 (or 8 ... .ltc5 9 o-o o-o) 9 o-o o-o 10 i.e3 c6 11 i.d3 d5, A.Brinckmann­A.Rubinstein, Budapest 1929.

d) Likewise, Black is pretty comfort­able after 5 o-o tt'lxb5 6 tt'lxb5 c6 7 'Llc3 d6, and if 8 d4 'i¥C7 9 h3 i.e? 10 i.e3 0-0.

Returning to Spielmann's 5 tt'lxe5: s . . . 'i¥e7

6 f4!? Bogoljubow prepared this sharp

move for his match against Rubinstein, in Stockholm and Gothenburg 1920. Rubinstein won the match 61/2-51/2, but wobbled with his favourite anti-Four Knights variation. One of the dangers for White and Black in this line is the scope for deep and sharp opening preparation. Get caught out and you may easily lose against better home-

work. Five years on, Rubinstein had an improvement in mind on his lOth move.

Modern theory assesses the quieter alternative 6 tiJf3 tt:Jxb5 7 tt:Jxb5 iYxe4+ 8 iYe2 iYxe2+ 9 'it>xe2 tt:Jd5 10 l:!.e1 as roughly equal, after 10 .. .f6 and possibly also 10 .. . a6. 6 ... tt:Jxbs 7 tt:Jxbs d6 8 tiJf3 iYxe4+

9 'it>f2!? This was the point of Bogoljubow's

play in 1920. Retaining queens, White takes his king on a risky journey, aim­ing to get his rook to the e-file quickly. Instead Black's bishop-pair may even give Black an edge after the insipid 9 iVe2 iYxe2+ 10 'it>xe2 'it>d8. 9 ... tt:Jg4+

Black continues down the critical path and White also takes up the chal­lenge with his reply. Black should be fine after 10 'it>g1 'it>d8 (or possibly 10 ... iYc6), as in K.Opocensky­A.Rubinstein, Merano 1924, which con­tinued 11 h3 tt:Jf6 12 d4 h5 13 tt:Jg5 iYe8 14 tt:Jc3 i.f5 15 'it>h2 tt:Jg4+ 16 hxg4 hxg4+ 17 'it>g3 l:i.xh1 18 iYxhl f6, with a

A kiba R u b instein (1882 - 1 961}

double-edged game. 10 'it>g3 iYg6!

This move, generally attributed to analysis by Richard Teichmann, im­proves on 10 ... 'it>d8? ! 11 h3 tiJh6 12 d4 i.e? 13 l:i.el iYg6+ 14 'it>h2 l:i.e8 15 c4, which allowed White to secure his king and achieve a comfortable spatial ad­vantage in E.Bogoljubow-A.Rubinstein, 3rd matchgame 1920. 11 iYe2+!?

White forces Black's king to forego its right to castle, but the move also allows Black to cover his c-pawn and secure his kingside development. Much later analysis by Paul Keres, quoted by Pinski, indicates that Black also sur­vives after the complicated alternative 11 tt:Jh4! ? 'tiih 5.

Keres' beautiful main line then con­tinues 12 tt:Jxc7+?! 'it>d8 13 h3 tt:Jf6 14 tt:Jxa8 iYxh4+ ! ! 15 'it>xh4 tt:Je4! , and Black catches White's king in a remark­able mating net. White must give up his queen to avoid mate, but Black is better after 16 'tiih 5 i.e?+ 17 iYg5 i.xg5+ 18 fxgs h6 19 g6 fxg6 20 l:i.f1

4 1

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Class ical Ch ess

g5+ 21 Wh5 lL'lg3+ 22 Wg6 lLlxfl. If in­stead 13 l2Jxa8?!, Keres gives 13 ... g 5! 14 fxg5 (or 14 lL'lf3 gxf4+ 15 Wxf4 d5) 14 ... iVxg5 15 lL'lf3 'iVg7 with a winning attack.

Here Black also stands well after 12 h3 'iVxb5 13 hxg4 g5, or 12 f5 g 5 13 'iVxg4 gxh4+ 14 Wf3 'iVxg4+ 15 Wxg4 .l:i.g8+ 16 Wf3 Wd8. 11 ... Wd8 12 .l:i.e1

The earlier R.Spielmann-H.Weenink, Scheveningen 1923, had gone 12 h3 (12 lL'lh4? now fails to 12 . . . iVxc2) 12 . . . l2Jf6+ 13 �h2 l2Je4 14 'iVe1 .id7 15 l2Jbd4 f5 16 d3 lL'lf6 17 iVa5, and White was bet­ter, but Black should play 12 ... lL'le3+! 13 Wh2 l2Jxc2 14 .l:i.b1 c6!, and if 15 l2Jc3 .ie7, with advantage to Black - Pinski. 12 ... .id7 13 l2Jbd4

White has to gambit his c-pawn. If 13 c3? lL'le3+ 14 Wf2 l2Jc2, and wins with a trivial knight fork. 13 ... lL'le3+

Black can only use his discovered check to win White's c-pawn and should do this at once. 14 Wf2

42

Not 14 lLlg5?, allowing 14 ... h6!, which is to Black's advantage. 14 •.• l2Jxc2 15 l2Jxc2 iVxc2

Black has an extra pawn and proba­bly stands better. Spielmann, an out­standing attacking player, may have expected to obtain more compensation than actually appears to be present in the position. At any rate, he fails to achieve anything concrete.

With his next move, White aims to play lL'ld4 without allowing Black's queen to pin the knight from c5. In­stead after 16 Wg1 c6 17 b3 d5 18 ctJe5 .ic5+ 19 Wh1 .l:i.e8, Black stands well -Pin ski. 16 b4 as!

Black still has development prob­lems. With this move, he battles to open the a-file to get his rook on a8 into play quickly, and after 17 ctJd4 iVa4 he maintains an active pin against b5. 17 .ia3 axb4

Not now 17 ... iVa4? because of 18 lLlg5! .ie8 19 .l:i.ab1, and the attack has switched clearly to White. 18 .ixb4 iVfs 19 iVe3 h6

Having freed his rook on the queen­side, Rubinstein turns to the kingside. This move is part of a typically far­sighted plan to open a second front on that flank. With his king safe and few weaknesses around it, Rubinstein wastes no time in driving forward on the kingside. Pinski's 19 .. J:i.a4, and if 20 ltJd4 �g4 21 .ic3 cS 22 ltJe2 .ic6, is also good. 20 .l::tac1!?

White might have preferred 20 ltJd4 �dS 21 .ic3, but Black still seems to retain good chances after 21 .. . cs 22 lLlf3 .l::tg8. 2o ... .:tgs 21 'it>g1 gs!

Black has made decided progress on the kingside. His rook and g-pawn bat­tery soon sets up serious threats which present White with difficulties in find­ing a defence. 22 �c3 .l::tc8 23 fxgs hxgs 24 'it>hl g4 25 ltJd4 �ds!

The black queen's powerful cen­tralization on dS secures Black's lines in all parts of the board, both in attack and defence. It was still possible to go

A kiba Rub instein (1 8 8 2 - 1 9 6 1 )

wrong by playing 2S ... �g6?, allowing 26 .tas b6 27 ltJc6+ .ixc6 28 �xc6, fol ­lowed by .ixb6, and White wins. 26 �e3

Not 26 ltJc6+? i.xc6 27 �f6+ 'it>d7, and White loses. 26 ... g3!

Black's g-pawn just keeps thumping down the board. White now decides to allow Black to open the g-file. If he plays 27 h3 , to keep the game closed, Black remains comfortably in control after 27 ... .l::ta8 28 lLlf3 cS 29 .iC3 'l.t>c7, and if 30 d4 c4. 27 .ic3 .l::ta8!

Black had to avoid the trap 27 ... gxh2? 28 ltJc6+ .ixc6 29 .if6+ 'it>d7 30 �e7+ .ixe7 31 .l::txe7+ 'it>d8 32 .l::teS+ 'it>d7 33 .l::te7+, and White has a draw by repetition. Now if White plays 28 h3, Black transposes into the line given in the note to White's 27th move after 28 ... cs 29 ltJf3 'it>c7. 28 lLlf3 gxh2!

With the g-file now open, Black's .. rook greedily eyes White's weak pawn

on g2.

4 3

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

29 ..ltf6+ \t>c8 30 �c3 White might try 30 �e8+ i.xe8 31

�xe8+ \t>d7 32 �xa8, but after 32 ... cs 33 �d8+ \t>c7, and if 34 ..lte7 �xg2 3 5 \t>xg2 i.xe7, Black should win. 30 ... �cs 31 �d3 �hs 32 tt:les!?

White sets a last trap, but it fails to a fine reply. However, he also surely loses after 32 �c3 c6, with two extra black pawns and continuing pressure. 32 ... �xg2!

Crash ! Black destroys White's final kingside pawn cover. Recall that Black's g-file plan began a long way back, with a modest looking step on his 19th move. Black, of course, avoids

44

32 ... dxes?? 33 �xes �g4 34 �e8+! and White mates.

White must accept Black's sacrifice. After 33 tt:lxd7 �gl+ 34 �xg1 hxgl�+ 3 5 Wxgl \t>xd7 36 �c4 c6, Black con­trols all possible entry points into his position and has a winning advantage. 33 \t>xg2 dxes 34 �xes �g4+ 35 �g3

White's game is bust. He loses ma­terial after 3 5 \t>xh2 �f4+ 36 �g3 (or 36 \t>g1 �xf6) 36 ... �xd2+ (but not 36 ... �xf6?? 37 �e8+! and White mates) 37 �g2 �xcl, and is mated after 3 5 \t>hl? i.c6+ 36 �xc6 �gl mate. 3S ... �xg3+ 36 \t>xg3 .ltd6 37 \t>xh2 �xa2

Black wins a third pawn for the ex­change and his powerful bishops seal White's fate. 38 \t>g1 �xd2 39 �hs b6 40 .tes i.cs+ 41 \t>f1 \t>b7 42 i.g3 i.bS+ 43 \t>e1 �e2+ 44 Wd1 �g2 45 �c3

White could have resigned earlier. If 45 �gs �g1+ 46 \t>d2 �xcl 47 \t>xcl ..lte3+ or 45 �h3 i.e2+ 46 \t>e1 (46 \t>d2 .ltg4+) 46 ... i.b4+. 4S ••• i.e2+ 0-1

Richard Reti most eloquently summed up Rubinstein's playing style and legacy in his book Modern Ideas in Chess, when he wrote, "with Rubinstein all is refined tranquillity, for with him in building up his game the position given to every piece is the necessary one. It is not the matter of a fight for him, but the working out of a victory, and so his games create an impression of a great structure from which not one stone dare be shifted."

All the attributes of a classically great artist of the chessboard, as de­scribed by Reti, are on display in the last great game in this chapter. Playing his favourite Queen's Gambit, Rubin­stein displays correctness, energy, economy, harmony and controlled tac­tics, all rooted in an ultra-sound game­plan. Every last piece and pawn con­tributes to White's cause. Watch White's king quietly assist at the end of this powerfully played game - all of it achieved sotto voce.

Towards the very end of his career, Rubinstein, with a magnificent 15/17 score, led Poland to victory at the 1930 Hamburg Olympiad. Within two years he effectively retired from competitive chess, his mental condition now too severe to allow him to continue. With the support of his wife and family, Rubinstein survived a terrible second world war in Europe. After the death of his wife in the 1950s, he moved into a Belgian care home, where he died, to­wards the end of the Botvinnik "era".

A kiba Ru b instein (1 8 8 2 - 1 9 6 1 )

Game l A.Rubinstein•S. Takacs

Budapest 1926 Queen's Gambit Declined

1 C4 ctJf6 2 d4 e6 3 ctJC3 dS 4 .igs lt:Jbd7 5 e3 .ie7 6 'Llf3 o-o 7 �c1

Rubinstein often played this move later in his career, intending to follow it up with 8 'iVc2. He preferred the imme­diate 7 'iVc2 in many of his earlier games.

The most famous of these was A.Rubinstein-R.Teichmann, 4th match­game, Vienna 1908, which continued 7 ... b6?! 8 cxd5! exd5 9 .id3 .ib7 10 o-o-o c5 11 h4 c4!? 12 .if5 �e8 13 .ixf6 'Llxf6 14 g4!

14 .. . .id6 15 g5 'Lle4 16 h5 'i¥'e7 17 �dg1 a6 18 .ixh7+ �xh7 19 g6+ Wg8 20 'Llxe4 dxe4 21 h6 f6? ! (21 .. .fxg6 22 'Llh4 g5 23 'Llg6 'iVf6 24 h7+ <J;;f7 25 h8'i¥' �xh8 26 'Llxh8+ is better but in­sufficient - Kmoch) 22 hxg7 exf3 23 ,�h8+ Wxg7 24 �h7+ �g8 25 'i¥'f5 c3 26 �xe7 1-0.

4 5

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Classical Chess

Earlier A.Rubinstein-R.Teichmann, Carlsbad 1907, had gone 11 ... .l:!.c8 ! ? 12 �b1 .Me8 13 dxcs .Mxcs 14 'bd4 'be4 15 jLxe4 dxe4 16 lbdbS jLa6 17 'ifa4 jLxbs 18 'bxbs jLxgs 19 hxgs .Me7 20 .l:!.d4 'i¥a8 21 b4 .Mc8 22 'bd6 bs 23 'bxc8 1-0. Much later, B.Spassky-M.Bobotsov, Ha­vana Olympiad 1966, confirmed the dangers Black runs in this line, after 11 ... a6 ! ? 12 g4 c4 13 i..fs g6 14 jLxf6 .ltxf6 1S gS jLg7 16 jLxd7 'ifxd7 17 'bes 'ife7 18 f4 bs 19 a3 .Mad8 20 h s i..xes 21 fxes 'ifxgs 22 'iff2 jLc8 23 .Mdg1 'ife7 24 'iff4 �h8 2S e4 dxe4 26 ds .Mde8 27 'i¥h6 gs 28 .Mxgs f6 29 .Mg6 fxes 30 d6 'iff7 31 'bds .Me6 32 .Mhg1 .Mxg6 33 hxg6 'ifg7 34 'ifh2 e3 3 S 'bxe3 .l:!.f4 36 'bds .Mg4 37 .Mxg4 jLxg4 38 'ifxh7+ 'ifxh7 39 gxh7 jLfs 40 'bf6 as 1-0.

Rubinstein's grand attacking plan, echoed by Spassky, has stood the test of time, causing most players to turn to the improvement 7 ... cs, and if 8 cxds 'bxds 9 jLxe7 'ifxe7 10 'bxds exds, with robust chances. This line probably explains why Rubinstein later switched away from his old favourite. 7 ... c6

Black adopts the so-called Orthodox Defence. He plans ... dxc4, followed by ... 'bds seeking relieving exchanges. Be­fore taking on c4, Black usually waits until White's bishop plays to d3, so as to achieve this plan with gain of tempo.

The game A.Rubinstein-G.Mar6czy, Gothenburg 1920, saw the less con­vincing 7 ... .Me8 !? 8 'ifc2 dxc4? ! 9 jLxc4 cs 10 o-o cxd4 11 'bxd4 a6 12 .Mfd1

4 6

'ifas 13 jLh4 'bes 14 jLe2 'bg6 1 S jLg3 es 16 'bb3 'ifc7 17 'ifb1 'ifb8 18 jLf3 'ifa7 19 'bas i..b4 20 'bc4 i..d7 21 'bds 'bxdS 22 i..xds i..e6?! (22 ... i..g4! was better - Razuvaev) 23 'ife4 i..xds 24 .Mxds .Mac8 2S .Mcd1 i..f8 26 b3 bs 27 'bd6 jLxd6 28 .Mxd6 .Mc7? ! (28 ... 'ifa8 ! was necessary) 29 h4 f6 30 'ifdS+ �h8 31 h S 'bf8 32 h6 'bg6 33 'ife6 .Mf8 34 .Md7 gxh6 3S jLh4! 1-0 . 8 'ifc2

The main line of the Orthodox De­fence continues 8 jLd3 dxc4 9 jLxc4 'bds 10 !Jixe7 'ifxe7, but Rubinstein liked to continue the tempo game, leaving his bishop on f1 a move longer, particularly as the reply ... cs now loses a tempo on the 7 'ife2 main lines.

Takacs replies with what is still con­sidered to be Black's best "waiting" move. He can also try 8 ... 'be4 9 i..f4 fs, reaching a playable form of the Stone­wall Dutch Defence. 8 ... a6 9 cxds

Rubinstein ends the tempo game, aiming for transposition into a line of the Exchange Variation of the Queen's

Gambit. Black can avoid the transposi­tion by replying 9 ... 'bxd5 10 i.xe7 ·�xe7, remaining in Orthodox lines, as in A.Alekhine-J .Capablanca, World Championship (Game 2), Buenos Aires 1927, which cagily continued 11 i.e2 �e8 12 0-0 lbxc3 13 11Vxc3 e5 (Black's main freeing idea) 14 .l:!.fd1 exd4 15 -Llxd4 'bf6 16 i.f3 i.g4 17 i.xg4 'bxg4 18 l2lf5 11Vf6 19 11Vxf6 'bxf6 1/2-V2. 9 ... exds 10 i.d3 .l:!.e8 11 o-o 'bf8 12 .:i.fe1 i.g4!?

Both sides can play this type of posi­tion in countless ways. Fundamentally, White has achieved what is sometimes called a "Carlsbad" pawn structure, which is characterised by the typical White/Black 3-4 split of pawns on the a- to d-files. White's queenside pawn minority exerts a certain restraining influence on Black's queenside pawn majority; Black will not find it easy to free his game by playing .. . c5.

White's most common plan in such positions is to race his a- and b-pawns up the board to achieve b5, a classic minority attack. White is then often

A kiba R u b in s tein {1 882 - 1 9 6 1}

able to exchange pawns on c6, leaving Black with a weak backward pawn on that square that may be difficult to defend well into the endgame. Black, however, enjoys plenty of space and free play elsewhere on the board. In­deed, he can resist and exert pressure in the centre.

Here are two good examples of the minority attack in action after 12 ... i.e6, in the first of which White wins, while in the second Black defends much bet­ter:

a) U .Andersson-A.Sokolov, Reykjavik 1988: 13 a3 'bh5 14 i.xe7 11Yxe7 15 'ba4 .l:!.ad8 16 'bc5 i.c8 17 b4 'bf6 18 a4 'be4 19 b5 axb5 20 axb5 'bg5 21 'bd2 .l:!.d6 22 bxc6 bxc6 23 .l:!.a1

23 ... .l:!.h6 24 'bf1 11Vf6 25 'bg3 .l:!.h4 26 f4 'bge6 27 'bxe6 11Vxe6 28 .l:!.ac1 i.d7 29 i.f5 11Vf6 30 i.xd7 'bxd7 31 11Vf5 .l:!.e6 32 11Vxf6 .l:!.xf6 33 .l:!.c3 Wf8 34 .l:!.a1 We7 3 5 .l:!.a7 g6 36 .l:!.c7 .l:!.e6 37 .l:!.7xc6 .l:!.xc6 38 .l:!.xc6 'bf6 39 h3 'bh5 40 'be2 'bg7 1-0.

b) J .Capablanca-A.Alekhine, World Championship (Game 13), Buenos Aires

4 7

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

1927: 13 'Lla4 'Ll6d7 14 i.xe7 'ikxe7 lS 'Llcs 'Llxcs 16 'ikxcs 'ikc7 17 b4 'Lld7 18 'ikc2 h6 19 a4 'ikd6 20 .Mbl .Mec8 2i .Mecl i.g4 22 'Lld2 .Mc7 23 'Llb3 i.hs 24 'Llcs 'Llxcs 2S 'ikxcs 'ikf6 26 bS axbs 27 axbs i.g6 28 i.xg6 'ikxg6 29 .Mal .Mac8 30 b6 l:td7 31 .Ma7 'it>h7 32 .Meal fS 33 'ikc2 .Me7 34 g3 .Mce8 3 S .Ma8 .Me4 36 .Mxe8 .Mxe8 37 .Ma7 .Mb8 38 h4 hs 39 'it>g2 'ike6 40 'ikd3 'it>g6 v2-% 0

13 'Lld2 'Ll6d7?! Black aims to exchange the dark­

square bishops, but this plan fails. The correct way to achieve this objective was by playing the more energetic and much better 13 . . . 'Llhs!. 14 i.f4 i.gs?!

Black continues with his plan, but misses White's clever reply. Better was 14 ... i.hs, with the idea of ... i.g6, and an exchange of light-square bishops. 15 h3!

Now Black finds that he can't, as in­tended, play 1S . . . i.xf4?, as this loses to 16 exf4! i.hs 17 g4 i.g6 18 fs . White therefore retains his bishop on the strong h2-b8 diagonal. Black will also

4 8

have to regroup both of his own bish­ops, losing time. 15 ... .i.h5 16 i.h2 i.g6 17 i.xg6 hxg6 18 'ikb3!

White could also launch a more conventional and not unpromising mi­nority attack after 18 'ba4 'Lle6 19 b4 as 20 a3 axb4 21 axb4. However, Rubinstein spots an even more promis­ing opportunity to induce an exchange of queens and activate his knights, with gain of time on the queenside, reaching an excellent endgame. 18 ... 'ikb6 19 'Lla4 'ikxb3 20 'Llxb3 'Lle6?!

Black allows White to gain control of as and restrict him further. Al­though Black is likely to experience long-term difficulties on the queenside whatever he plays, he might have fought harder to control as, by playing either 20 ... as or 20 ... i.d8. 21 'Llas! .Ma7 22 'it>f1 i.d8 23 b4!

This move ensures that Black's rook remains stuck on the awful square a7, purely to defend his b-pawn. And with no visible prospect of mobilizing either his a- or b-pawn, Black struggles to

breathe on the queenside. He obtains no relief after either 23 ... ilc7? ! 24 ilxC7 lt:,xc7 25 0,c5 0,xc5 26 bxc5 or 23 ... .txa5 24 bxa5, as in both cases, his b-pawn will come under decisive attack by White's rooks on the b-file. 23 ... f5 24 lt:,b2 r:Ji?f7 25 lt:,d3 g5 26 .l:!.c2 ilb6 27 ild6 lt:,d8?

Now, with his next three moves, White can force open the b-file, with enhanced pressure on b7 and a com­plete clamp on the queenside dark squares. Black had to adopt a purely waiting strategy and play either 27 .. .f4 or 27 .. . g6. 28 0,c5 0,xc5 29 ilxc5 ilxc5 30 bxc5 r:Ji?e7

Black's king heads for the queenside to help defend his b-pawn and free the rook from the confines of a7, but it is too late now. 31 .l:!.b2 r:Ji?d7 32 .l:!.eb1 r:Ji?c8 33 r:Ji?e2 .l:!.e7 34 r:Ji?f3!

While Black fiddles on the queen­side, White will win with a kingside breakthrough, based on the moves g4 and h4 to clear lines for his rooks.

A kiba Ru binste in (1 882 - 1 9 6 1)

34 •.. .l:!.e4 35 g4 g6!? Black can't exchange pawns on g4

without allowing White's rook on b1 to make immediate inroads on the h-file. White also breaks through on the h-file after 35 .. .f4 36 .l:!.h1 fxe3 37 fxe3 lt:,e6 38 h4!, after which one plausible end might be 38 ... gxh4 39 .l:!.xh4 0,g5+ 40 r:Ji?e2 r:Ji?c7 41 r:Ji?d3 lie7 42 lih8 lt:,e4 43 .l:!.f8 g 5 44 .lia8!, and if 44 ... 0,f2+ 45 r:Ji?e2 .l:!.xa8 46 .l:!.xb7+ r:Ji?d8 47 0,xc6+ r:Ji?c8 48 .l:!.xe7 0,xg4 49 .l:!.g7, and wins. 36 .l:!.g1 0,f7 37 h4!

37 ... gxh4 Black pays dearly for the complete

incapacity of his rook on a7. White

49

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Class ical Chess

again wins by familiar combinational means after 37 .. .f4 38 �hl fxe3 39 fxe3 gxh4 40 �xh4, and if 40 ... t:bg5+ 41 �e1 �e7 42 �d3 t:be4 43 �h8+ �c7 44 �a8! . 38 gxfs gxfs

White's rooks penetrate in all lines. After 38 ... gs 39 �g4! �e8 40 �e2! White will break through with e4, if necessary after 40 ... �h8 41 �g2 h3+ 42 �h2. 39 �g7 t:bd8 40 �g8 f4 41 �h8!

White rounds up Black's h-pawn from behind and brings his second rook into play on the kingside. Black's rook on a7 can still only despairingly peep over its own pawns at the play in the centre. 41 ... fxe3 42 fxe3 �d7 43 �g2 �e8

Or if 43 ... t:be6 44 �h7+ �c8 45 �g8+ t:bd8 46 �hh8 and wins. 44 �xh4 �e7 45 �h8 �c7 46 �gg8 �d7 47 t:bb3!

White needs his knight and king to assist in the final winning phase. As a first step, he threatens to relocate this knight to es winning at once. 47 ... as 48 t:bc1 �a8 49 t:bd3 bs

Black's rook has finally managed to

5 0

move from a7, but it effectively re­mains out of play because Black's knight is pinned against it on the eighth rank. If Black tries to do "noth­ing", White will eventually use his knight and king (and extra space) to force Black's rook on d7 to move from the defence of his knight on d8 and win material. The game might, for example, conclude 49 ... �c8 so t:bf4 (threatening t:be6) 50 ... �e7 51 �f8 �b8 52 a4 �c8 53 �hg8 �b8 54 t:bg6 �h7 (or 54 ... �d7 55 �g4 �c8 56 �fs �b8 57 t:bf4 �c8 58 t:be6+) 55 �g4 �c8 56 �e8 �b8 57 t:be5 �c8 58 �fs �b8 59 �g6 �hl 60 �g7+ �c8 61 �d7, and wins. so cxb6+ �xb6 51 t:bcs �d6 52 a4! �c8 53 �g4!

And White's king again makes the decisive difference. According to Kmoch, Black resigned here. Indeed, it isn't clear whether the remaining few moves were actually played. 53 ... �a8

White mates after 53 ... �C7 54 �g7+ �b8 (or 54 ... �b6 55 �xd8) 55 �hh7. 54 �fs �c7 ss �h7+ 1-o

Cha pter Two

Vassi ly Smyslov (1921-)

The content of a chess game should be a search for truth, and victory a demon­stration of its rightness.

Vassily Smyslov, 125 Selected Games

Like Rubinstein before him, Smyslov saw himself primarily as an artist of the chessboard. Smyslov didn't just aim for victory in chess, but also for an ideal that he called "truth". He sometimes referred to this truth as "the triumph of logic". However vaguely, he insisted that truth must exist in chess, and must be just as attainable as in all the other arts.

Smyslov always made it clear that to him chess was an art. He also maintained that his chess ideal derived from his wider artistic tastes, particularly in music. A man of broad culture, he was a gifted musician, whose rich baritone voice, often in demand at off-the-board moments in international chess events, once earned him an audition at the Bolshoi Opera.

Smyslov once wrote that he most admired a musical ideal that reflected "strict beauty and harmony, spontaneity and elegance, the faultless intuition of the art­ist, the absolute mastery of technique and therefore complete independence from it." To Smyslov, such notions applied not just to music, but also to chess.

Of all the players in this book, Smyslov is the easiest to attach a "classical" label to. He openly considered himself to be a player in the classical tradition and warmed to that. Just as in music he was "an admirer of the classics", so too in chess he considered himself to be "a staunch supporter of classical clarity of thought."

5 1

Ch ess Secrets : Heroes of Classica l Chess

As a boy, Smyslov obtained a rich chess (as well as musical and general) educa­tion. In this regard, he benefited greatly from the influence of his father, who (among other attributes) was a very strong chess player with an excellent library. Through studying his father's books, the younger Smyslov secured a firm ground­ing in the thinking and play of all the great masters.

Tarrasch's writings helped Smyslov "understand and evaluate at its true worth the importance of the theory of Steinitz." He also absorbed the more radical ideas of the hypermoderns, particularly of his favourite, Aron Nimzowitsch. This rich chess education clearly paid off for Smyslov, who was not just well-read but al­ready a very strong player by his early teens.

Reflecting on this early period in his life, Smyslov concluded that "I as though traced the evolution of chess thought and repeated its basic steps in my own de­velopment [and I became] convinced that any player with high ambitions should follow such a path."

But what sort of chess world was Smyslov entering into in the mid-1930s? Eve­ryone understood Steinitz by then and the challenge was to expand in new direc­tions. Lasker had shown that ideas of what might generally be thought strategi­cally "correct" in chess need not limit creativity. The hypermodernists, the two world champions, Capablanca and Alekhine, and others had all greatly extended ideas of what was "playable".

A new Soviet "school" of chess had also begun to emerge, spearheaded by the young Soviet superstar, Mikhail Botvinnik, who was ten years older than Smyslov. The Soviets were in a sense to crystallize all recent developments in a new focus on analytical rigour, wider and deeper openings research, a highly combative ap­proach to playing both white and black, and an ethic of physical fitness.

According to Botvinnik, looking back in a 1984 interview with Bruce Pandolfini, the essence of the contribution made by the Soviet school was "scientific". The strongest players "studied ... did research ... published their analysis ... used these ideas successfully in their own games .. . attracted a following who also used their ideas with success ... directed the evolution of the game and enriched it."

By 1938 Smyslov had become youth champion of the USSR and was already considered by many to be a rising star in this brave new Soviet chess world. World War I I (1939-45), however, intervened before he could test his skills internation­ally. During the difficult war years, Smyslov's results in strong internal Soviet events enabled him to emerge, when the war ended, as de facto Soviet number two, after Botvinnik.

In the first major post-war international tournament, at Groningen in 1946, Smyslov finished 3rd behind Botvinnik and Max Euwe, the fifth World Champion

5 2

Vassi ly Smys lov (1 9 2 1 -)

(193 5-37). This crucial success secured his invitation to compete in the five-player World Championship tournament in 1948, which was held to decide the vacant world title following the death of the incumbent, Alekhine, two years earlier.

The youngest competitor, Smyslov made a huge breakthrough at The Hague/Moscow, finishing second. Final scores were: Botvinnik 14/20, Smyslov 11, Keres and Reshevsky 10Vz and Euwe 4. Botvinnik amply confirmed his clear favour­ite status, but Smyslov's performance exceeded expectation and was also a crea­tive success. Smyslov impressed by his mastery of a wide range of dynamic mod­ern openings. No one could match Botvinnik in this regard, but Smyslov showed that he too had worked hard on his opening systems and come up with many new ways to play them. Moreover, his best games demonstrated a clear, classical flu­ency. Harmony, beauty, spontaneity, elegance, faultless intuition and effortless technique, his cherished ideals, were all evident.

Smyslov's 24th round win against Max Euwe, at 45, the oldest competitor, is a good example of the young Russian's positionally forward-looking style and grow­ing chess maturity. Smyslov's accomplished modern logic enabled him to demon­strate that in certain types of position a pair of knights can sometimes dominate a bishop-pair. Long-range bishops may tend to be stronger than short-range knights in most open or semi-open positions, but in the concrete, and more closed circum­stances of thi s game, in which all of Black's forces co-ordinate well and make con­tinual threats, the knights triumph. Summing up this new pragmatism, Smyslov observed that "in chess there are no unalterable laws which are suitable for every position."

Game 8 M.Euwe-V.Smyslov The Hague/Moscow

World Championship 1948 Grunfeld Defence

1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 g6 3 lbc3 ds Ernst Grunfeld's bold invention was

a revelation in the 1920s. Black intends to play ... dxc4, conceding White a strong pawn centre. Grunfeld's genius was to realize that Black could then lay siege to White's centre in a variety of

ways. Ultimate control of the centre remains important, but it may only be achieved by one side or the other after highly complex battles involving the flanks. 4 lLlf3 ..ltg7 5 �b3 dxc4 6 �xc4 0-0 7 e4 i.g4

To the young Smyslov, playing this defence was second nature. Here he plays his own invention, based on the flexible manoeuvre ... lbfd7, usually fol­lowed by . . . lbb6. From g4, Black's bishop attacks White's knight on f3, putting indirect pressure on d4. With his knight

53

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Class ical Chess

on d7, Black also clears the way for pos­sible central action by his e-, f- and c­pawns. 8 .te3 tt:lfd7 9 �b3

This prophylactic retreat, followed by Md1, remains standard. In Game 6 of their 19S7 World Championship match, Botvinnik played Smyslov's own weapon against him, but was surprised by the sharp 9 0-0-0!? . Botvinnik re­acted weakly, allowing White to estab­lish an unshakeable grip in the centre: 9 ... tt:lc6! ? 10 h3 .txf3 11 gxf3 tt:lb6 12 �cs fs 13 tt:le2 �d6 14 es �xes+? (both players later recommended 14 ... �ds !, and if 1S tt:lc3 �xes 16 dxcs f4! 17 cxb6 fxe3 18 fxe3 .txes) 1S dxcs tt:lc4 16 f4 Mfd8 17 .tg2 tt:lxe3 ! ? 18 fxe3 tt:lb4 19 .txb7 Mab8 20 c6 'itf7 21 tt:ld4 e6 22 tt:lbs tt:Jds 23 Mxds! exds 24 tt:Jxc7 Mdc8 25 .txc8 Mxc8 26 tt:lxds l:txc6+ 27 'itd2 'ite6 28 tt:lc3 1-0. 9 ... tt:lb6

10 a4?! Euwe used this move to defeat

Smyslov in the 14th round, but Smyslov was now ready to meet it. White

54

threatens as and hopes to destabilize Black's knight on b6 after Black's more or less forced reply.

White's best move is probably 10 l:td1, with very sharp play possible after 10 ... tLlc6 11 dS tt:Jes 12 .te2 tt:lxf3+ 13 gxf3 .ths. R.Buhmann-A.Areshchenko, Plovdiv 2008, continued 14 l:tg1 �c8 15 l:tg3 c6 16 a4 tt:ld7, with a double-edged game. 10 .. . as 11 ds .txf3!

Black correctly plays this move at once. He weakens White's central pawns and loosens White's grip on the central dark squares.

Against Euwe in the 14th round, Smyslov prematurely opened up the centre, allowing White's bishops too much scope after 11 ... tt:la6!? 12 .te2 e6?! 13 h3 .txf3 14 .txf3 exds 15 exds �4?! 16 tt:le4! l:tae8 17 g3 �d8 18 d6!, with an excellent game. 12 gxf3 �d6!

But this is the key move. Rather than open up the game, Black does best to keep the position closed and strengthen his grip on the dark squares.

As Black can easily complete his queenside development against quiet moves, White now decides to force ex­changes on the queenside, hoping that the resulting open play will offer op­portunities for his bishop-pair. 13 tt'lbs �b4+ 14 �xb4 axb4 15 tt'lxc7

This is clearly better than 15 aS?! .ixb2 16 l::ta2 (or 16 l::tb1 tt'la4) 16 . . . .ies 17 f4 .id6 18 es b3 ! - Smyslov. 1S ... l::txa4 16 l::tb1

Black also stands well after 16 l::txa4?! tt'lxa4 17 b3 tt'lc3. 16 . . . tt'l6d7 17 tt'lbs l::tc8 18 .ie2?!

White plans �d2, connecting his rooks, with good prospects. However, Black has the move and can immedi­ately attack White's vulnerable b­pawn.

Smyslov considered that White should have played 18 CDd4, to control b3 and c2, and if then 18 ... b3 19 tt'lxb3 l::tb4 20 tt'ld2 l::txb2, both sides have chances. 18 ... b3!

Black's pawn on b3 is very strong. It fixes White's pawn on b2 and, having

Vass i ly Smys lov (1 92 1 -)

moved from b4, it allows Black to pre­vent White's knight reaching d4. Black threatens ... l::tc2, and White loses mate­rial to an unusual rook fork after 19 o-o? ! l::tc2 20 .id1 l::txb2, and if 21 .ixb3 l::tb4!. Black is also better after the se­quence 19 .id1? ! tt'la6, as 20 J.xb3 fails to a similar double attack. 19 tt'la3 .ixb2!

Black grabs a pawn . White gains two bishops for two knights, and Euwe, who no doubt foresaw this idea, must have hoped that his bishops would provide compensation at least suffi­cient to hold the draw. They certainly look very active. 20 l::txb2 l::txa3 21 �d2?!

White plans l::thb1, followed by l::txb3, which would not just regain the pawn, but give White a clear endgame advantage. This plan is tempting but flawed.

White should have been content with 21 .id1 tt'lcs 22 i.xcs l::txcs 23 l::txb3 l::txb3 24 i.xb3, which unequivo­cally regains his pawn. After 24 ... l::tc1+ 25 .id1 tt'ld7 26 �d2 l::ta1 27 �c3, in-

5 5

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Classical Chess

tending �b2, Black would still have good dark-square control, the better pawns and the more active pieces, but White clearly has excellent drawing chances. 21 ... Ct:Ja6 22 .l::i.hb1 Ct:Jacs 23 i.d4

This move invites an energetic refu­tation, but it is doubtful whether White now has anything better. According to Smyslov:

a) Black has a clear advantage after 23 i.d1 .l::i.a2! , and if 24 .l::i.xa2 (not 24 i.xb3?? Ct:Jxb3+) 24 ... bxa2 25 .l::i.a1 .l::i.a8 26 �c3 e6 27 dxe6 fxe6 28 i.c2 b6 29 �b2 Ct:Je5.

b) Black also has good winning chances after 23 i.b5 Ct:Je5, and if 24 i..xc5 .l::i.xc5 25 .l::i.xb3 Ct:Jxf3+ 26 �e3 .l::i.xb5 27 .l::i.xa3 .l::i.xb1 28 �xf3 f6 29 .l::i.c3 h 5 3 0 .l::i.C7 �f8. 23 ... es!

After this very strong central thrust, White's game becomes critical . White doesn't want to exchange his advanced passed d-pawn, one of the few remain­ing positional trumps in his game, but 24 i.xc5 Ct:Jxc5 25 i.d1 .l::i.a2 also fails to

5 6

stem Black's forces, and if White re­treats his bishop, Black makes progress by continuing his central action with . . .f5.

Smyslov gives 24 i.c3 f5 !, and if 25 exf5 gxf5 26 i.b5 b6 27 i.xd7 Ct:Jxd7 28 .l::i.xb3 .l::i.xb3 29 .l::i.xb3 .l::i.c5, with a win­ning advantage, or 24 i..e3 f5 ! , and now his analysis runs 25 exf5 gxfs 26 f4 (or if 26 d6 f4 27 i..c4+ �g7 28 i.xc5 Ct:Jxc5) 26 ... exf4 27 i.xf4 .l::i.a4 28 i.e3 (or 28 i.h6 �f7} 28 .. .f4. 24 dxe6 Ct:Jxe6 25 i.e3 Ct:Jdcs 26 i..xcs!?

White finally runs out of good moves and admits positional defeat by exchanging one of his bishops.

Keres suggested 26 i.c4!? Ct:Jxe4+! 27 fxe4 .l::i.xc4 28 �d3, but after Smys­lov's 28 ... .l::i.b4 29 f3 f5 (Kasparov's 29 ... b5 30 �c3 .l::i.C4+ 31 �d3 CLJC5+ 32 i.xc5 .l::i.xc5 33 .l::i.xb3 .l::i.xb3+ 34 .l::i.xb3 .l::i.h 5 is also good} 30 Wc3 .l::i.b5 31 exf5 gxf5 32 .l::i.xb3 .l::i.bxb3+ 33 .l::i.xb3 .l::i.xb3+ 34 �xb3 f4 35 i.d2 �f7, Black's king will reach f5 with a winning advan­tage. 26 ... Ct:Jxcs 27 �c3!?

Kasparov's 27 �e3 .l::i.d8 28 i.c4 �g7 29 i..d5 b6 might have offered a little more wriggle potential, but White should still lose. 27 • • • .l::i.a4 28 �d2 �g7!

Black calmly improves his king posi­tion. On g7, Black's king is closer to the central dark squares and no longer susceptible to any bishop check on the a2-g8 diagonal, should his f-pawn move.

29 �e3 .l:i.d8 30 .S.c1 Black's pawn on b3 remains eter­

nally immune. After 30 ..ltd1 .l:i.a3 or 30 .l:i.d1 .l:i.xd1 31 .ltxd1 �f6 32 �d2 .l:i.a2 (Kasparov), White's pain continues. 30 ... b6 31 .ic4 .l:i.da8 32 .ids

Or if 32 .ixb3 .l:i.b4 33 .l:i.c3 .l:i.a3, and Black wins with a rather nice double pin. 32 ... .l:i.a2 33 .l:!.cb1 .l:!.8a4 34 �d2?!

White's sole remaining chance was to play 34 f4. Black's rook on a4 now penetrates decisively on the d-file. 34 ... .l:!.d4+ 35 �e2

White also loses after 3 5 �c3 .l:!.xd5 36 exd5 tt:Ja4+, or if 3 5 �e3 .l:i.d3+ 36

Vass i ly Smys lov (1 9 2 1 -)

�e2 .l:i.xb2+ 37 .S.xb2 g5, with an over­whelming game. 3S . . • l2la4 36 .l:i.xa2 bxa2 37 .l:i.a1

Or 37 .txa2 l2lc3+ 38 �e3 .l:i.a4 39 .ib3 .l:i.a3 40 .l:i.b2 l2ld1+, with a winning knight fork. 37 ... l2lc3+ 38 �e3

Alternatively, 38 �e1 .l:i.b4 39 ..ltxa2 .l:!.a4, with a winning pin . 38 ... .l:i.d1 0-1

By 1948 the chess world had moved a long way from the 1930s. There was now a political iron curtain across Europe. Behind it, the USSR was by far the world's strongest chess-playing superpower. State professionalism, at least among the top players, was tak­ing root throughout the USSR and in many of its East European satellites. In the post-war West, the absence of any remotely comparable state or indeed private sponsorship for professional chess meant that the communist world was to become unchallengeable in chess for a generation.

Many strong Soviet players devel ­oped around this time, and in this competitive hot-house, Smyslov at first took a step backwards. His results in the late 1940s were at least partly eclipsed by those of a new, younger talent, David Bronstein (1924-2006). 5myslov's older rival, the gifted Soviet Estonian, Paul Keres (1916-1975), also experienced a significant revival in form, particularly in the very early 1950s.

5 7

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Class ical Chess

After 1948, F IDE introduced a new three-year World Championship quali­fication cycle. This involved regional zonal events, an interzonal and a final candidates' tournament. In the first of these new post-war cycles, Smyslov was placed third behind the joint win­ners, Bronstein and I saac Boleslavsky, at the Budapest candidates in 1950.

After eliminating Boleslavsky in a tie-break play-off match, Bronstein then faced Botvinnik, in the first post­war match for the World Champion­ship. The match, which took place in Moscow in 1951, ended in a 12-12 tie. In accordance with the then match rules, Botvinnik, as defending cham­pion, retained his title.

Smyslov had no illusion about the difficulty involved in getting through all the new World Championship quali­fication hoops, but despite his Buda­pest setback, he retained the belief that he could win through to a title chal­lenge. He continued to work particu­larly hard on widening and deepening his opening systems, and paid due at­tention to his physical fitness.

His dedication immediately paid off in the next cycle. At the Zurich candi­dates in 1953, Smyslov scored an em­phatic 18/28, to win the event by a clear two-point margin, losing only one game. Bronstein, Keres and Reshevsky, who all pressed hard but failed to keep pace with the winner, shared 2nd place.

In his classic book on the tourna­ment, The Chess Struggle in Practice,

58

David Bronstein gives full credit to Smyslov's outstanding achievement. Among the key elements in Smyslov's armoury, Bronstein singles out his "iron persistence and logic ... extraor­dinary will to win . . . [and ability to combine the] consistent realisation of an idea with precise tactical calcula­tion." Technically, Bronstein likened Smyslov to Capablanca. He stressed, however, that theirs was no dry or purely functional technique, but "a rare, supreme technique ... based on combinational elements and long, ac­curate calculation." Both players, echo­ing Rubinstein before them, raised technique to extraordinary heights.

Smyslov's steely determination, strategic clarity, tactical precision and superb combinational technique all played a part in his important game against Paul Keres, in the 24th round at Zurich . With his own challenge fading, Keres appears to have decided that, with White, he must win this game to retain any chance of winning the tour­nament. Smyslov, though, was deter­mined not to budge.

Setting aside asymmetry, Smyslov aimed to achieve a more traditionally classical equality by directly occupying the centre with his pawns. Keres sought to force the issue on the king­side, but overplayed his hand. Smyslov took his chance to refute White's by now unsound flank attack with a tradi­tionally classical counterattack in the centre of exceptional force.

Game 9 P.Keres-V.Smyslov

Candidates Tournament, Zurich 1953

Queen's Indian Defence

1 c4 lt:Jf6 2 lt:Jc3 e6 3 lt:Jf3 cs 4 e3 i.e7 5 b3 o-o 6 .tb2 b6 7 d4 cxd4 8 exd4 ds 9 .td3 lt:Jc6 10 o-o i.b7

Play has transposed into a main line of the quiet 4 e3 variation against the Queen's Indian Defence. This line can also be played with White's knight on d2 rather than c3, which gives more immediate protection to White's d­pawn. 11 l:Ic1

White takes no risks with his d­pawn. Unclear play results after 11 'iVe2 lt:Jb4 12 .tb1 dxc4 13 bxc4 i..xf3 14 gxf3. An old analysis by Bondarevsky then runs 14 ... 'iVxd4?! 15 lt:Je4 'iVd8 16 l:Id1 'iVc7 17 lt:Jxf6+ .txf6 18 i.xh7+! '>t>h8 19 i.e4 i.xb2 20 'iVxb2 lt:Jc6 21 'iVb5 lt:Je5 22 f4!, with attacking chances. Instead S.Jovanovic-S.Cvetkovic, Belgrade 1980,

Vass ily Smyslov (1 92 1 -)

continued 14 ... l:Ic8 15 lt:Je4 lt:Jh5 16 a3 lt:Jc6 17 l:Id1 f5 18 lt:Jg3 lt:Jf4, with satis­factory chances. This more solid choice can also be considered on Black's 12th and 13th moves. 11 ••. l:Ic8 12 l:Ie1

White can again consider 12 'iVe2? ! , but it is now more speculative, and after 12 ... dxc4 13 bxc4 lt:Jb4 14 i.b1 .txf3 15 gxf3 'iVxd4 16 lt:Je4 'iVd8 (the game M.Matlakov-A.Lanin, St Peters­burg 2007, varied 16 ... 'iVd7 17 l:Icd1 'iVc6 18 a3 lt:Ja6 19 l:Id6 'iVC7, with good play) 17 l:Ifd1 'iVC7 18 lt:Jxf6+ i.xf6, 19 'iVe4 l:Ifd8 20 'iVxh7+ Wf8 (Kasparov), Black stands well . Earlier, 12 ... l:Ie8 13 l:Ifd1 .if8, with ... g6 in prospect, also looks solid for Black. 12 ... lt:Jb4

Smyslov, who was blessed with in­stincts that enabled him to take such important, strategic decisions quickly, explained that this move was "a typical tactical device, which enables Black to 'relieve' the position [as] after the en­forced retreat of White's bishop to f1 (otherwise the c4 pawn is lost), Black

59

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Classical Chess

establishes control over e4." It is certainly Black's most clear-cut

and boldest choice. Subsequent games indicated that Black can also hope to achieve satisfactory chances after 12 ... .Me8 and 12 ... �d6. 13 i.f1 '2ie4!

Once he had decided on a funda­mental course, Smyslov generally re­mained resolute and fought hard to achieve his objectives. Instead Z.Franco Ocampos-A.Goldin, Buenos Aires 2003, continued with the more cautious 13 ... .Me8, Black achieving an acceptable game after 14 ct'ies i.f8 15 a3 ct'ic6. 14 a3

Keres draws back from the murky complications of 14 ct'ixe4!? dxe4 15 ct'id2 fs, and if 16 f3? ! i.f6! with good play for Black. White breaks up Black's centre pawns, but Black's pieces be­come very active in this line. Later J .Bolbochan-H.Bouwmeester, Varna Olympiad 1962, continued 16 a3 ct'ia6 17 b4, with double-edged play. 14 ... '2ixc3 15 .Mxc3 ct'ic6 16 ct'ies

ceives an imaginative plan to double his rooks in a ferocious attack - unusu­ally in front of his pawns - on the h­file. Sadly, for Keres, this seems good enough to draw, but not to win the game.

Keres, probably correctly, again draws back from a speculative alterna­tive, 16 cs ! ?. White would surely have a lot to do to justify this continuation after 16 ... bxcs 17 dxcs i.f6, and if 18 .Mc2 (or 18 b4 i.xc3 19 i.xc3 �e7) 18 ... ..ixb2 19 .Mxb2 �as, and also pos­sibly after 16 ... es 17 ct'ixes ct'ixes 18 .Mxes i.f6.

The continuation 16 cxds �xds 17 ..ltc4 � 5 also seems harmless, as in A.Kveinys-A.Lugovoi, Tallinn 2001, and other games. 16 ... '2ixes 11 l:!.xes i.f6 18 l:!.hs

White's rook may seem rather out on a limb on hS, but Keres threatens to increase the temperature by playing 19 l:!.ch3. 18 ... g6!

This alert move forces White's reply In a must-win situation, Keres con- and gives Black an interesting extra

60

defensive option on his next move. It is more forcing than 18 .. . dxc4, and if 19 .l:txh7?! g6 20 .l:tch3, leading back to the game continuation. However, White can instead play 19 .l:tch3 g6 20 Vi'g4, reaching Bronstein's drawing line given in the note, below, to White's 20th move. 19 .l:tch3 dxc4!

Smyslov was tempted to grab White's rook on h 5, but his intuition correctly stopped him. After long thought, he could see no clear refuta­tion, but saw that White appeared to have a draw in hand after 19 ... gxh 5 20 Vi'xh5 .l:te8 21 'iVh6 dxc4 22 d5 i.xb2 23 .l:tg3+ 'lth8 24 .l:th3, and felt that Black should have more than that. He there­fore fell back on a second option - a classical strike in the centre to meet White's flank attack.

In fact, after 19 .. . gxh5 20 Vi'xh5 :!.e8 21 a4! (Bronstein}, threatening 22 i.a3, Black might have lost this game. After 21 .. . Vi'd6, Black's best reply, White can play the remarkably strong 22 'iVh6! (Kasparov and Deep Junior), threaten-

Vass i ly Smys /ov (1 92 1 -)

ing 23 c5. Denied access to f4, Black's queen can't reach key kingside squares and Black's king suffers because of White's pressure on the a3-f8 diagonal. Kasparov's main line continues 22 ... i.g7 23 'iixh7+ 'it>f8 24 .i::!.g3 i.f6 25 c5 ! , and after either 2 5 . . .'�f4 or 2 5 ... Vi'd8, White plays 26 c6, threaten­ing i.a3+ with a probable win. Black's best chance may be 25 ... 'iixg3 26 hxg3 bxc5, but White still stands well after 27 'iVh6+ i.g7 28 'i�Vd2. Note that if 25 ... bxc5 26 dxc5 Vi'xg3 ? 27 .txf6, threatens 28 'iVh6+ and Black is mated. 20 :!.xh7?

Keres loses his way in the complica­tions. Or perhaps, he simply lost heart. It must by now have been clear to this outstanding player that he could no longer really expect to win this game. As Smyslov points out, Black wins after 20 bxc4? gxh 5 21 i.d3 (or 21 Vixh5 i.e4!} 21 ... l:!.e8 22 Vi'xh5 'ltf8 23 a4 Vi'd6 24 i.f1 Vi'f4! 25 i.a3+ i.e? 26 .l:th4 Vi'f6.

However, Bronstein's suggestion, 20 'i!Vg4! c3 21 i.xc3 .l:txc3 22 .l:txc3 'i!Vxd4 23 'i!Vxd4 i.xd4 24 .l:tc? gxh 5 25 .l:txb7 l:!.c8 26 i.c4, leads to an equal endgame and would still have saved White. Here Kasparov has analysed 20 ... cxb3 21 .l:txh7 .l:tc2 22 i.d3 'i!Vc7 23 .i::!.3h6 .l:tc1+ 24 i.xc1 'i!Vxc1+ 25 .if1 .ig7 26 'iVh4 .ixh6 27 :!.xh6 l:!.c8 28 :!.h8+ 'ltg7 29 l:!.h7+ 'ltg8, and Black gets nowhere. 20 . . . c3!

Black takes advantage of the awk­ward position of White's rook on h7 to close the c-file and win White's d-

6 1

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Classica l Chess

pawn. He plans to defend against breaking the White queen's defence of White's h-file mating threats by clamp- the d4-square. ing down with his queen and bishop On the long dark-square diagonal.

21 �c1 �xd4 Not, of course, 21 ... cxb2?? 22 �6

�d4 23 l:!.h8+ .txh8 24 �7 mate. 22 �h6 l:!.fd8

Now Black's king can escape via f8. White can no longer mate on the h-file or offer any coherent resistance to Black's threats in the centre. 23 .tc1 .tg7 24 �gs �f6 25 �g4 c2!

Black threatens 26 ... l:!.d1. 26 .te2 l:!.d4!

Forcing White's reply and decisively

62

27 f4 l:!.d1+ 28 .txd1 �d4+ 0-1

It was to take Smyslov two exhaust­ing World Championship challenges to topple Botvinnik. In 1954 these two titans fought themselves to a 12-12 draw, with Botvinnik, as in 1951, re­taining his world title, only as a result of the rule that gave this valuable privi­lege to the World Champion in the event of such a 24-game stalemate.

Smyslov, like Bronstein before him, had to bow to an opponent who was not necessarily intrinsically any stronger than his challengers. Indeed, both younger men had shown them­selves to be a considerable threat. If there was any significant difference between them, it may only have been Botvinnik's extraordinary will to win, which at this time was well-nigh matchless. Botvinnik had an enormous hunger to retain his world title in the early 1950s. As hard a fighter as Emanuel Lasker, he had the same

never-say-die attitude and exceptional fighting spirit as the second world champion. The first great Soviet player to emerge in the 1930s, world number one in the post-war years and still in his prime, such great players don't eas­ily buckle.

Although he failed to defeat Botvin­nik in 1954, Smyslov nevertheless so­berly understood that his game was at least technically a match for Botvin­nik's. His match preparation, particu­larly in the openings, had been per­fectly good and he concluded that he need only build on his strengths rather than change any key aspect in his ap­proach to the game.

Around this time, Smyslov observed that Botvinnik tended to prepare "sin­gle-mindedly for a specific opponent". By this he meant that Botvinnik, not unlike Lasker, sought schemes of play that might most unnerve opponents in such contests. If anything, Botvinnik's success in this regard in their 1954 match had proved to be Smyslov's un­doing. Wrong-footed by Botvinnik's early opening choices in that match, Smyslov had reacted weakly, going three points down in the first four games. Given such an awful start, Smyslov's achievement in levelling the scores and going one point ahead by Game 11 was not unpromising.

Unlike Botvinnik, Smyslov tended to place less emphasis on psychology than on investigating what he considered to be the more technical "ramifications of

Vass ily Smys lov (1 92 1 -)

[planned] opening schemes, aiming for a broad and objective evaluation." While Botvinnik battled, Smyslov sought mainly to play to his classical strengths.

Smyslov's win in Game 9 was an important turning point in the 1954 match. He had scored his first win in the 7th match game, but in the 9th game, he was to land a severe blow, beginning a remarkable 3/3 winning streak. In games one and three of the match, Botvinnik's adoption of the strategically obscure 5 ... �a5 variation of the Winawer French appears to have surprised Smyslov. Perhaps wary of what his opponent might have pre­pared for him in the main lines, Smys­lov sought to avoid complications in these games, scoring only a dismal V212. By Game 9, however, Smyslov felt ready to meet Botvinnik head on in his main preparation. This turned out to be suspect, and the defending cham­pion went down to a spectacular series of well-founded positional and tactical finesses and sharp combinations. Ac­cording to Botvinnik, this was Smys­lov's best game in the match.

Game 10 V.Smyslov-M.Botvinnik

World Championship (Game 9), Moscow 1954

French Defence

1 e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 'L:lc3 �b4 4 es

63

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

This opening suited both players. Botvinnik liked the unbalanced, counter-attacking nature of the de­fence; Smyslov enjoyed White's extra space and piece activity.

Smyslov also tried Alekhine's dou­ble-edged 4 a3 ! ? against Botvinnik. Smyslov won Game 7 in their 1954 match, after 4 . . . i.xc3+ 5 bxc3 dxe4 6 '¥fg4 tt::lf6 7 '¥Vxg7 .l::!.g8 8 '¥fh6 c5 9 tt::le2 .l::!.g6 10 '¥fe3 ! ? tt::lc6 11 dxc5 !? tt::lg4!? 12 '¥fxe4 '¥fd1+ 13 Wxd1 tt::lxf2+ 14 We1 tt::lxe4 15 tt::lf4 .l::!.g8 16 i.d3 tt::lxc5 17 i.xh7 .l::!.h8 18 i.d3 tt::lxd3+ 19 cxd3 i.d7 20 i.e3 o-o-o 21 Wf2 e5 22 tt::le2 i.g4 23 h3 i.h5 24 d4 i.xe2 25 Wxe2 exd4 26 cxd4 tt::lxd4+ 27 Wf2, with the slightly better endgame. 4 ... cs s a3 .tas!?

Botvinnik avoids 5 . . . i.xc3+ 6 bxc3 tt::le7, and now either 7 tt::lf3 or 7 a4, which had previously been played be­tween these two players, perhaps fear­ing that Smyslov would switch to the sharper 7 '¥fg4 '¥fc7 8 '¥fxg7 .l::!.g8 9 '¥fxh7. Later Smyslov won Game 20 in their 1957 match after another unsuc-

64

cessful divergence by Botvinnik: 6 ... '¥fc7 7 '¥fg4 f6 ! ? (7 .. .f5 led to a draw in Game 14) 8 tt::lf3 tt::lc6 9 '¥fg3 '¥ff7 !? 10 dxc5 tt::lge7 11 i.d3 fxe5 12 tt::Jxe5 tt::Jxe5 13 '¥fxe5 0-0 14 0-0 tt::lc6 15 '¥fg3 e5 16 i.e3 i.f5 17 .l::!.ab1 i.xd3 ! ? 18 cxd3 .l::!.ae8 19 f4!, with a clear advantage. 6 b4 cxd4

Note that Black avoids 6 ... cxb4? ! be­cause of the dangerous attacking gam­bit 7 tt::lb5 ! bxa3+ 8 c3, with significant queen side dark-square compensation. 7 '¥fg4

This is the critical test. Games 1 and 3 had featured the less ambitious 7 tt::lbs .to 8 f4 tt::le7 9 tt::lf3.

7 ... tt::le7 8 bxas dxc3 9 '¥fxg7 .l::!.g8 10 '¥fxh7 tt::ld7!?

Not one of Botvinnik's happiest creations, this slightly strange-looking move has since almost entirely given way to 10 ... tt::lbc6. Both lines are strate­gically and tactically murky, but Black's knight plays a more active role in the centre, placed on c6, and doesn't re­strict his queen's bishop's develop­ment.

In both lines, Black's kingside is vir­tually in ruins and White has a poten­tially game-winning passed h-pawn and the bishop-pair. Black can, how­ever, hope to besiege es and create immediate tension in the centre by rapidly completing his queenside de­velopment and mobilizing his danger­ous central pawn mass.

After 10 . . .ll:lbc6 11 f4 �xas, a typi­cally modern game, A.Grischuk­R.Vaganian, lzmir 2004, continued 12 CtJf3 .ltd? 13 .l:i.b1 0-0-0 14 �d3 d4 15 g3, with White trying to hold in the centre and eventually push forward on the kingside. Instead after 11 CtJf3, Black should probably play 11 .. . �C7, keeping es under threat. White then usually continues 12 .il.f4 .ltd? 13 a6, and if 13 ... 0-0-0 14 axb7+ or 13 ... b6 14 .i!.g3 0-0-0 15 .td3, seeking to disrupt Black's queenside. Bobby Fischer's sharper 12 .i!.bs ! ?, and if 12 ... .ltd7 13 o-o Ct:Jxes 14 Ct:Jxes �xes 15 .txd7+ �xd7 16 �d3, is al so a critical try.

11 CtJf3 Smyslov preferred not to restrict his

Vassi /y Smys lov (1 9 2 1 -)

queen's bishop's scope on the kingside, but 11 f4 �xas 12 CLlf3 is also critical. The game S.Gligoric-A.Duckstein, Zagreb 1955, then continued 12 ... ctJf8 13 �d3 .td7 14 Ct:Jgs (White was also better in K.Van der Weide-N.Kelecevic, Triesen 2006, after 14 CtJd4 a6 15 .l:i.b1 bs 16 g3 .l:i.c8 17 .i!.e2 Cl:lc6 18 0-0 Ct:Jxd4 19 �xd4 Ct:Jg6 20 .i!.e3 CtJe7 21 .ltd3) 14 ... .l:i.c8 15 .l:i.b1 b6 16 h4 Ct:Jfs 17 g4 Ct:Jh6 18 .l:i.g1, with good chances for White. 11 ... Ct:Jf8?!

With hindsight, we now know that Black should prefer 11 ... �C7. Botvin­nik's choice takes the pressure off es too early and only drives White's queen to where it wants to go (d3). Although getting his knight to g6 is a key aim for Black in this line, it sadly fails to make any further move from f8, remaining a passive spectator in this game.

Botvinnik had, indeed, already tried out 11 ... �c7 in a training game against Ragozin, played before his 1951 world title defence against Bronstein. Black's ·knight on f8 found a happier future in that game after 12 .ltf4 ctJf8 13 .tbS+!?

6 5

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Classica l Chess

(the gambit line 13 'ifd3 lLlfg6 14 j,g3 ltJf5 15 j,e2! might be better) j,d7 14 j,xd7+ 'ifxd7 15 'ifd3 l:!.g4 16 g3 lLlfg6 17 j,e3 lbc6 18 h3 l:!.c4 19 o-o ttJcxe5. Smyslov apparently intended to play 12 j,b5 in this line, but after 12 .. . a6 (not 12 ... l:!.xg2? ! 13 �fl l:!.g8 14 l:!.g1! with dangerous kingside threats) 13 j,xd7+ j,xd7 14 0-0, which he thought better for White, both 14 ... 'ifc4 and 14 ... d4 have since proved resilient. 12 'ifd3 'ifxas 13 h4!

White severely punishes Black for taking the pressure off his pawn on e5. Smyslov not only has ample time to improve his game by advancing his passed h-pawn, but also to clamp down hard on the central dark squares with his next move. 13 . . . j,d7 14 j,gs!

White's bishop is very effectively posted on this square. It prevents Black from castling and is just a short hop from f6, from which it will not just re­inforce White's grip on e5, but also support the further advance of White's passed h-pawn.

6 6

14 ... l:!.c8 Botvinnik's last chance for counter­

play is to get this rook into play via c4 and e4. The quieter 14 ... lbc6 can be well met by either 15 j,e2 or 15 g3 (Kasparov), leaving Black with little or no prospect of any activity. 15 ltJd4!

But this subtle move completely frustrates Black. After 15 ... l:!.c4, Smyslov planned the clever manoeuvre 16 'ife3 l:!.a4 17 l:!.b1 l:!.xa3 18 lLlb5, when White has an attack and a huge advantage. 1s ... ttJts 16 l:!.b1!

Everything runs very smoothly for White. From b1 his rook doesn't just

attack Black's b-pawn, but also controls b5, thereby preventing Black from ex­changing knights on d4, followed by playing his bishop to b5, aiming to re­duce the pressure on his game by judi­cious exchanges. 16 .. J:tc4?!

This move is consistent but tacti­cally flawed. Smyslov called it "a fatal idea" and it certainly meets with "an elegant refutation", but whether Black has any real improvement is now doubtful. Perhaps Black had no better option than to defend his pawn by playing 16 .. . b6. Smyslov, however, then intended to gambit a pawn in return for a complete bind on the board after 17 g4 l2Jxd4 18 i¥xd4 i¥xa3 19 ..ltd3, giving White an "undisputed advan­tage." 17 ltJxfs exfs 18 .l:!.xb7 .l:!.e4+?!

Botvinnik completes his plan, but this move meets a crushing refutation. Botvinnik apparently meant to play 18 ... .l:!.xg s 19 hxg5 .l:!.e4+ 20 ..!te2 l2Jg6 21 ..t>fl! ..ltc6 22 .l:!.b8+ ..t>e7 23 i¥a6, al­though this must surely also be lost

Vassily Smys lov (1 92 1 -)

with best play by White. 19 i¥xe4! dxe4 20 .l:!.b8+

Botvinnik confessed that in playing his 18th move he simply "forgot about" this check.

20 ... ..\tcS 21 ..ltbs+ iVxbs Black's king is caught in a mating

net and can only escape at horrific ma­terial cost. Of course, if 21 .. . ctJd7 22 .l:!.xc8+ and mates. But now White goes an exchange ahead and his h-pawn will storm on to h8 . 22 .l:!.xbs l2Je6 23 .tf6 .l:!.xg2 24 hs ..lta6 25 h6 1-0

Smyslov's excellent form continued after the 1954 World Championship match. In 1955 he shared 1st place with Efim Geller in that year's USSR Cham­pionship, a half-point ahead of Botvin­nik, whom he defeated in their individ­ual game. Then, in 1956, he finished 1st in the Amsterdam Candidates' tour­nament. Smyslov won comfortably at Amsterdam, scoring 11V2118, 1V2 points ahead of second-placed Keres, and with that success, he qualified for

6 7

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Classica l Chess

his second World Championship chal­lenge. Later in 1956, Smyslov shared 1st with Botvinnik in the Alekhine Memo­rial tournament in Moscow.

Such results set the stage for a memorable resumption of hostilities between these two great players in their second World Championship match in 1957. More relaxed, more ex­perienced and more confident than in 1954, Smyslov considered that he was "capable of winning the chess crown." He was certainly as well prepared for the challenge as humanly possible.

Play in the 1957 match was hard fought, with fewer wide swings in for­tune than in 1954, but it gradually went in Smyslov's favour. The younger man took a one-point lead in Game 8, after which he was never again caught in the match. Smyslov eventually over­came his opponent by a decisive three­point margin, 121/2-91/2. As ever, Bot­vinnik battled gamely, and Smyslov only managed to extend his lead to two points after a long, complex endgame win with Black in Game 17. Botvinnik's cause was then by that late stage in the match fairly desperate. Smyslov effec­tively ended his opponent's resistance by going three points ahead with a win in Game 20.

Botvinnik was never able to rattle Smyslov in 1957 as much as he had been able to do in their 1954 encoun­ter. As the match progressed, it became clear even to the defending champion that his opponent was wearing him

68

down. Towards the end of the match, Botvinnik "sensed ... that it was in posi­tional evaluation that Smyslov had achieved superiority." This difference between the two players is certainly evident in Game 17, which may have marked the critical turning point. Smyslov demonstrates some of that "rare, supreme technique" that Bron­stein identified as one of his supreme characteristics. Smyslov's winning process involves many finely-judged combinations and points at which only lengthy calculation, allied with difficult judgements, can help make progress.

Smyslov loved the relative simplicity of endgames and like Capablanca and, indeed, Rubinstein, profoundly under­stood the complexity that was often hidden in them. He considered that "nowhere does logic of thought reveal itself so clearly as in the concluding stage of the game", and maintained that his own road to the world title was based not just on a mastery of opening schemes, but also on a thorough "un­derstanding of the laws of the end­game."

Game 11 M.Botvinnik-V.Smyslov

World Championship (Game 17), Moscow 1957

Grunfeld Defence

1 tLlf3 tLlf6 2 g3 g6 3 c4 c6 4 .ltg2 i.g7 5 d4 o-o 6 tLlc3 ds 7 cxds cxds 8 tLles!

Black's solid, symmetrical defence is thought to be best met by this active rejoinder aimed at dissuading Black from continuing with the natural de­veloping move 8 ... Ct::Jc6. 8 . . . b6

Smyslov plans 9 ... i.b7, followed by ... Ct::Jc6. After the immediate 8 ... Ct::Jc6 9 Ct::Jxc6 bxc6, White weakens Black's queenside pawns, obtaining chances down the c-file and on the queenside dark squares. White's initiative is slight, but it can be nagging. For exam­ple, R.Hubner-W.Uhlmann, German League 1997, continued 10 0-0 i.a6 11 i.f4 "irb6 12 Ct::Ja4 "irhs 13 .l:!.e1 Ct::Jd7 14 e4! e6 1S .i.d6 J:!.fc8 16 .l:!.e3 �as 17 J:!.a3 �d8 18 Ct::Jcs .i.bs 19 es Ct::Jxcs 20 i.xcs as 21 J:!.c1 a4 22 i.f1 i.xf1 23 Wxf1 �as 24 Wg2 "irhs 2s J:!.c2 h s 26 .l:!.ac3 .i.f8 27 i.xf8 Wxf8 28 g4! hxg4 29 �xg4 We8 30 �f4, with a dangerous attack.

Black also failed to equalize in L.Portisch-S.Reshevsky, Palma de Mal­lorca 1970, after 10 ... i.fs 11 .i.f4 CLJe4 12 Ct::Ja4 �as 13 J:!.c1 J:!.ac8 14 J:!.e1 .l:!.fd8 1S f3 CLJd6 16 i.d2 �c7 17 e3 h S 18 b3

Vass i ly Smys lov (1 92 1 -)

es 19 dxes .i.xes 20 .i.c3 1i.xc3 21 Ct::Jxc3 �e7 22 �d4 i.e6 23 �cs .l:!.e8 24 Ct::Je2 Ct::Jfs 2S Ct::Jd4 �xes 26 J:!.xcs Ct::Jxd4 27 exd4 i.d7 28 Wf2 J:!.xe1 29 Wxe1 Wf8 30 Wd2, with the better endgame.

A more modern defensive idea is to challenge White's knight by playing 8 ... e6 9 0-0 Ct::Jfd7, after which 10 f4 Ct::Jc6 11 i.e3 is a critical option. A.Karpov­B.Gelfand, 4th matchgame, Sanghi Na­gar 199S, continued 11 .. .f6 12 CLJf3 Ct::Jb6 13 i.f2 ii.d7 14 e4! dxe4 1S Ct::Jxe4 Ct::Jds 16 J:!.e1 b6 17 CLJC3 CLJce7 18 "irb3 aS 19 a3 a4 20 �d1 Ct::Jc7 21 J:!.c1 Ct::Jeds 22 Ct::Jd2 .l:!.e8 23 Ct::Jc4 i.f8 24 Ct::Je4 i.bs 2 S J:!.e2 ii.e7 2 6 J:!.ec2 J:!.b8 27 �d2 .l:!.f8 2 8 h4! with continuing pressure.

9 i.gs Botvinnik takes the first step in a

rather lacklustre plan to exchange this bishop for Black's knight on f6 and then bolster his knight on es by playing f4. But with three minor pieces on the board rather than four (as in Karpov­Gelfand in the previous note), White doesn't put much pressure on Black, who soon equalizes.

69

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

Simple development gives White better chances of establishing an edge, as in M.Drasko-Z.Jakovljevic, Vrnjacka Banja 1999, which continued 9 i.f4 i.b7 10 0-0 a6 (or if 10 .. .'�:Jc6 11 'ii'a4) 11 .l::!.c1 lZJbd7 12 'iVh3 e6 13 .l::!.c2 lZJxes 14 i.xes lZJd7 15 i.xg7 'itxg7 16 lZJa4 as 17 .l::!.fc1, with the better chances. 9 ••. .ib7 10 i.xf6!? .ixf6 11 0-0 e6 12 f4 .ig7 13 .l::!.c1 f6 14 lLlf3 lZJc6 15 e3 'ii'd7 16 iVe2

In contrast to the Karpov-Gelfand game, above, White has no clear at­tacking plan here. Black's centre and kingside are not under any serious pressure, and Black can look forward to developing his own play on the queen­side. 16 ... tZJas 17 h4 lZJc4 18 i.h3

After 18 g4 White would at least es­tablish the possibility of a kingside di­version based on gS, but Botvinnik doesn't seem to trust his position enough to attempt to develop any cen­tral and kingside play, which he might do by advancing his g- and h-pawns. While he holds back on the kingside,

70

Smyslov makes unchallenged ground on the queenside. 18 ... lZJd6 19 'ith2 as 20 .l::!.fe1

Here too 20 .l::!.g1, to support a later g4, looks a little more resolute. 2o ... bs 21 lLld1 b4 22 iZJf2 i.a6 23 'ii'd1 .l::!.fc8 24 .l::!.xc8+

Perhaps even now White should have preferred 24 g4, but Botvinnik seems to have decided simply to play for a draw by seeking exchanges. With the pawn structure still fairly static and an avenue for exchanges on the c-file, he can certainly hope to draw, but Black already stands well on the queen­side and can now press for a more tangible advantage. 24 ... .l::!.xc8 25 .if1 i.xf1 26 .l::!.xf1 'ii'c6 27 lLld3 'ii'c2+?!

Smyslov plays for a safe endgame edge, but with at least temporary con­trol of the c-file, he might have tried for more by playing 27 ... lZJe4!. White must then take considerable care: for exam­ple, after 28 .l::!.g1 'iVbs 29 .l::!.g2 a4 30 .l::!.c2 .l::!.c4 31 lZJd2? .l::!.xd4! 32 exd4 'ii'xd3, Black has multiple winning threats.

28 'ifxc2 .Uxc2+ 29 .Uf2 .Uxf2+ 30 tt:lxf2 tt:lc4 31 tt:ld1 �f7 32 b3!?

Perhaps White should have delayed this move, as it weakens c3, but both sides were now dashing to reach the time control at move 40. White might still have considered 32 g4 to try to re­strict Black's play on the kingside. 32 ... tt:ld6 33 'it>g2 hs 34 Wh3

Now 34 tt:le1, with the idea of get­ting this knight to d3, might have been simpler. 34 ... tt:le4 35 g4!?

And now Botvinnik decides to play this move under unfavourable circum­stances. After exchanging pawns on g4, Black obtains a potential entry route into White's position via the kingside. 3S ... hxg4+ 36 'it>xg4 fS+ 37 Wh3 il..f6 38 tt:le1 Wg7 39 ctJd3 tt:lc3 40 tt:lxc3 bxc3 41 tt:le1?!

Botvinnik must have been relieved to reach the time control - and in those days that al so meant an overnight ad­journment - with his game still intact. Even though he must now lose his h­pawn, White will establish an appar-

Vass i ly Smys lov (1 92 1 -)

ently impregnable defensive fortress with his knight on c2.

However, White could have sealed 41 b4!, obtaining an even stronger for­tress. That way he frees his a-pawn and ties Black's bishop down to defence with a more straightforward draw. Play might continue 41 ... axb4 42 tt:lxb4 Wh6 43 a4! il..d8 44 tt:lc2 �hs 4S tt:lb4 il..xh4 46 as! i.d8 47 a6 i.b6 48 Wg3 gs 49 fxg s 'it>xgs so Wf3, and Black gets no­where. 41 ... Wh6 42 tt:lc2 il..e7 43 Wg3?

Overnight Botvinnik's team wrongly concluded that White's best chance lay in maintaining the existing fortress. Smyslov and his analytical team saw further, correctly noting that Black might make progress in this difficult endgame by exploiting some deeply hidden zugzwang motifs.

Botvinnik therefore rejected the ac­tive 43 a3 ! 'it>hs 44 b4, when his passed b-pawn in fact probably saves him. Some fine 1994 analysis by Fridstein

·. indicates that White can hold in the critical position after 44 ... axb4 4S axb4

71

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

.ixh4 46 b5 .id8 47 �g3 g5 48 fxg5 �xg5 49 �f3 .ib6. One drawing line continues 50 'Del �f6 51 �e2 f4 52 �d3 fxe3 53 'Dc2 ! e5 54 'bxe3 �e6 55 'bxd5 ! �xd5 56 dxe5 .id4 57 b6! . In­stead Black can even lose after 44 ... a4?! 45 b5 .ixh4? (45 ... .id8 46 'Db4 is equal} 46 b6 .ie7 47 b7 .id6 48 �g2 g 5 49 fxg5 �xg5 50 �f3 �f6 51 'it'e2 �e7 52 'Db4! �d7 53 'ba6 c2 54 �d2 i.xa3 55 �XC2 Ji.d6 56 b8=Q. 43 ... �hs 44 �f3 �xh4 45 'De1 gs 46 fxgs �xgs 47 'bc2 il.d6 48 'bel?!

Botvinnik sticks with his purely blockading strategy. 5myslov, however, suggests that White should still have played 48 a3, although, having now already won White's h -pawn, Black's bishop can now halt White's passed pawn on b5 and Black can play to win after 48 .. . �h4 49 b4 a4! 50 b5 il.c7. 5myslov gives the further line 51 'bel �g5 52 'Dc2 �f6 (52 ... il.a5 53 'De1 i..b6 54 'bc2 �f6 is another try) 53 �e2 il.d6 54 �d3 �e7 55 �xc3 �d7 56 'bel .ixa3 57 'Dd3 �c7 58 'Df4 �b6 59 'bxe6 �xb5 60 CDc?+ �c6 61 'De6 il.d6

72

62 'Dg7 �b5 63 'bxf5 il.b4+ 64 �c2 �c4 65 'Dh6, and "White's tenacious defence should allow him to achieve the draw." 48 ... �h4 49 'Dc2 �h3 so 'Da1!?

Botvinnik still avoids 50 a3, but it may be too late now, and after 50 ... 'it'h2 51 �f2 i..e7! 52 b4 axb4 (52 ... a4 may be even better) 53 axb4 i..h4+ 54 �f3 'it'g1 55 �e2 �g2, White's game "remains critical" (5myslov). Note that 55 �f4 fails to 55 ... �f2 56 �e5 (or 56 b5 i.g3+ 57 �g5 �e2) 56 ... �e2 57 �xe6 �d3, followed by .. . c2 with a winning posi­tion. so ... �h2 s1 �f2 i.g3+ s2 �f3 il.h4!

Black's now reaches the g-file, threatening further penetration along White's first rank. White's king must stay on the defensive, since White is lost after 53 �f4 'it>g2 54 'it>e5 'it>f3 55 'it>xe6 'it>e4!, followed by . . . i..f2. 53 'Dc2 �g1 54 'it>e2

Now 54 �f4 il.f6! keeps White's king at bay and wins, for example, after 55 a3 'it>f2 56 b4 axb4 57 axb4 'it>e2 58 b5 'it>d2 59 'Da3 c2 60 'bxc2 'it>xc2 61 b6

i!.d8 62 �e5 j_xb6 63 �xe6 ..ltxd4 64 exd4 f4. The defence also fails after 54 a3 �fl 5 5 b4 axb4 56 axb4 .td8 57 b5 i!.c7. 54 ... �g2 55 tZ:la1 j_e7 56 tZ:lc2 �g3 57 tt:Je1 Ads 58 tZ:lc2 Af6!

Black creates a first zugzwang. The winning plan requires Black to force White to play a3 and b4 {which Black will pass by playing ... a4!}. White de­cides that he has to allow this. 59 a3

Moving White's knight allows the reply .. .f4, followed by .. .f3, or if White exchanges pawns on f4, Black wins af­ter ... Axd4.

Instead moving White's king allows Black's king to advance to the f-file, with a winning advantage. Smyslov gives 59 �d3 �f2 60 tZ:la1 �e1 61 tZ:lc2+ �d1 62 tZ:la1 (or if 62 �xc3 �e2 63 b4 a4!, and if 64 bs .td8 65 �b4 �d3 66 tZ:la3 �xe3 67 �xa4 �xd4) 62 ... Ae7 63 tZ:lc2 ..ltd6 64 tZ:la1 �c1 65 �xc3 j_b4+ 66 �d3 �b2 67 tZ:lc2 �xa2, and wins. Here White is also lost after 60 a3 Ae7 61 b4 a4! 62 �xc3 �e2 63 bs .td8! 64

Vass ily Smys lov (1 9 2 1 -)

�b2 (or 64 �b4 �d3} 64 ... .i.as 65 �c1 �d3 66 �d1 �c4, followed by .. :;i;>xbs. Finally, Black also wins after 60 �xc3 �e2 61 a3 es! 62 b4 exd4+ 63 exd4 j_d8! and Black's f-pawn queens. 59 ... Ae7 60 b4

White only stymies his own a- and b-pawns by playing 60 a4, against which Smyslov gives 60 ... Ad6 61 tZ:le1 es! 62 dxes .txes 63 �d3 d4! 64 exd4 .ltd6 65 tZ:lc2 (or 65 �xc3 1Lb4+) 6S ... f4 66 �XC3 f3 67 t2Je3 f2 68 �d3 �f3 69 tZ:lfl .ltf4 70 dS �g2 71 �e2 �g1, and wins. 60 ... a4!

It is important to retain this pawn to maximize Black's winning chances. White's b-pawn won't be able to ad­vance beyond bs. 61 tZ:le1 Ag5 62 tZ:lc2 ..ltf6

Black creates his second zugzwang. This time White's king must move, conceding f3 to Black's king, or he must move his b-pawn, allowing Black's bishop to operate decisively on the d8-

, as diagonal. Observe how White's knight can't move without allowing the

73

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Class ical Ch ess

winning breakthrough .. .f4. 63 <t>d3

Black also obtains a winning posi­tion after 63 b5 .id8! 64 tt'le1 .ia5 65 tt'lc2 <t>g4!, and if 66 tt'le1 .to 67 tt'lc2 .ib6! 68 tt'lb4 f4! 69 exf4 .ixd4, demol­ishing White's Achilles' heel in this endgame, his pawn on d4. Here Black also wins after 67 tt'ld3 c2 68 <t>d2 .ia5+ 69 <t>xc2 <t>f3 or 6 7 <t>d3 .ib6 68 <t>e2 f4 69 exf4 .ixd4 {Smyslov). 63 ... <t>f2 64 tt'la1

Or 64 <t>xc3 <t>e2 65 b5 .id8, trans­posing into the notes to White's 59th move. 64 ... .id8 65 tt'lc2 .igs!

And now 66 <t>xc3 <t>e2 67 b5 .id8, leads to the same transposition as in the last note. 66 bs .ids 67 tt'lb4 .ib6 68 tt'lc2 .ias 69 tt'lb4 <t>e1 0-1

Black's king finally reaches the queenside, forcing the win after 70 tt'lc2+ (or 70 <t>xc3 <t>e2) 70 ... <t>d1 71 tt'la1 <t>c1, and if 72 b6 .ixb6 73 <t>xc3 .ia5+ 74 <t>d3 <t>b2 75 tt'lc2 .ib6 76 <t>d2 .ic7 77 <t>d3 .ia5.

74

Gaining the world title in 1957 marked the high point in Smyslov's career. Indeed, in 1958 he lost the title to Botvinnik in a return match, to which the defeated champion had a right under the rules in force from 1951-1963. Smyslov was never again to play in a World Championship match, although he maintained a consistently good record in subsequent qualifying events, even reaching a Candidates' final match, against Garry Kasparov, in 1984 (see below).

While giving due acknowledgement to his opponent's skilful play in the 1958 match, which Botvinnik won com­fortably by a score of 12V2-10V2, Smys­lov ascribed his defeat in part to poor health. But although he apparently "went down with flu and ... finished the event with ... pneumonia," he sport­ing ly stressed that he had "no reason to complain of my fate [having] fulfilled my dream and [become] the seventh world champion."

It is possible that in some deeper, psychological sense, Smyslov simply didn't have Botvinnik's unrelenting ambition to remain world champion. In a remarkable echo of his 1957 and 1958 matches with Smyslov, Botvinnik again lost the title to the young Mikhail Tal in 1960 and then regained it in a 1961 return match. Botvinnik's ex­traordinary desire to win in both "re­venge" matches was patent.

Happily, Smyslov continued to showcase his own exceptional talent

for many more decades. Indeed, he played some of his best chess after los­ing the dedicated focus on winning the world title that had played such a big role in his development in the 1950s. One of the best games he played in the next decade was the following win against Vladimir Liberzon.

Playing White 5myslov always had a love for 1 e4, but his strategic universal­ity, combinational strength and pro­found creativity allowed him to play all openings, and he was, unsurprisingly, also a great master of the flank open­ings. Smyslov's subtle feel for the slight­est initiative in 1 tt:lf3 and 1 C4 openings is certainly evident in this game.

The game's fine conclusion also il­lustrates (yet again) how sound com­binations generally build on the accu­mulation of smaller advantages. Smys­lov gains space here and improves his position there until he has achieved a big plus that seems to demand resolu­tion in some sharp way. He then cuts through the accumulated tension with a brilliant series of sacrifices at just the right moment.

Game 12

V.Smyslov-V.Liberzon USSR Team

Championship 1968 English Opening

1 C4 eS 2 tt:Jc3 tt:Jc6 3 g3 g6 4 .i.g2 .i.g7 5 �b1

Vassi ly Smys lov (1 92 1 -)

Playing a Closed Sicilian "in re­verse", with an effective move in hand, allows White to postpone his eventual choice of central set-up. White can choose systems based on d3 and tt:lf3, e3 and tt:lge2, or e4 and tt:lge2, but first he seeks to shake Black's game up a bit on the queen side. Black could now play 5 . . . a5, to prevent White's intended b4-b5, but this isn't essential. s ... d6 6 b4 a6

Indeed, this move may have much the same effect as 5 ... a5, as White is now unlikely to get in b5 , without first playing a4, so that after b5, Black will open the a-file anyway.

The sharper 6 .. .fs 7 b5 tt:lce7 8 e3 tt:lf6 9 d4 is also possible. V.Smyslov­D.Levy, Hastings 1969/70, then contin­ued 9 ... e4 10 tt:lge2 o-o 11 o-o .te6 12 d5 .i.f7 13 tt:ld4 tt:ld7 14 f3 exf3 15 "iixf3 �b8? ! 16 .i.b2 tt:lc8 17 tt:la4 tt:lcb6 18 tt:lxb6 axb6 19 e4 fxe4 20 "iixe4 tt:lc5 21 "iic2 "iid7 22 tt:lb3 .i.xb2 23 �xb2, with a spatial advantage. However, Black soon

, improved in R.Hartoch-N.Spassky, Am­sterdam 1970: 15 ... tt:lb6! 16 "iie2 c5 17

75

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

bxc6 bxc6 18 i.d2 cxd5 19 t2Jxd5 .l::!.c8 20 i.a5 t2Jexd5 21 cxd5 i.xd4 22 exd4 �f6 23 i.xb6 axb6 24 .l::!.xb6 �xd4+ 25 �f2 �d3 26 .l::!.xd6 .l::!.c2 27 �f3 �d4+ 28 'it>h1 .l::!.e8 29 h3 .l::!.ee2 30 .l::!.d8+ 'it>g7 31 �a3 i.e8 32 .l::!.g1 �xgl+ 0-1. 7 e3 fs 8 t2Jge2 iLlf6 9 d3 o-o 10 o-o i.d7?!

But this and Black's next move are too passive. Black should seek to estab­lish kingside counterplay more quickly, based on plans involving ... 'it>h8 and .. . g5 , usually followed by ... tLle7-g6, and often also ... c6, with possible central play. For example, A.Miles-W.Browne, Las Palmas 1977, continued 10 ... tLle7 11 a4 'it>h8 12 b5 axb5 13 axb5 g5 14 f4 h6 15 �d2 ttJg6 16 �b2 'it>h7 17 .l::!.a1 .l::!.xal 18 .itxa1 gxf4 19 exf4 h5 20 tLld5 t2Jxd5 21 i.xd5 i.h6 22 'it>g2 h4 23 �d1 �e8 24 fxe5 dxe5 25 i2Jg1 c6 26 bxc6 bxc6 27 i.f3 hxg3 28 hxg3 f4, with an attack.

Black also achieved satisfactory chances in M.Sibarevic-W.Browne, Banja Luka 1979, after 10 ... g5 11 b5 axb5 12 cxb5 tLle7 13 f4 h6 14 a4 'it>h8 15 i.d2 c6 16 'it>h1 i.e6 17 e4 gxf4 18 gxf4 fxe4 19 dxe4 i.c4, and here in A.Lagunow-

7 6

C.Pritchett, German League 1992, after 10 ... 'it>h8 11 a4 g 5 12 tLld5 tLle7 13 f4 gxf4 14 exf4 t2Jexd5 15 cxd5 c6 16 dxc6 bxc6 17 h3 i.e6 18 i.e3 �d7 19 �d2 i.d5. 11 a4 .l::!.b8 12 bS axbs 13 axbs tbe7 14 i.a3 i.e6!?

By moving this bishop again, Black admits tacit regret for his 10th move, but he needs d7 for his queen's devel ­opment. White now has a comfortable edge. Black is yet to start any action on the kingside and won't find it easy to get in ... c6. 15 �b3 b6?!

However, this move badly weakens c6 and only makes things worse. Rather than go wholly on to the defensive, Black should have preferred 15 ... 'it>h8, and if 16 d4 e4 17 d5 i.g8 18 tLld4 �d7, making it harder for White to make progress. 16 d4 e4

Black can't allow White to exchange pawns on e5, followed by .l::!.fdl, when he will soon find himself gasping for breath.

11 ds .ii.f7 18 lL'ld4 'i¥d7 This is also best. After 18 ... lL'ld7, aim­

ing to transfer this knight to cs, Smys­lov intended 19 tL'le6 .ii.xe6 20 dxe6 tL'les 21 tL'lds. 19 .ii.b2 gS!?

Black at last gets in this move. But it no longer has any real force and weak­ens Black's f-pawn. 20 tL'lce2 'it>h8 21 .l:ta1 tL'lg6 22 f4!

Black has no good reply to this move. He must open the f-file or allow 22 ... g4 23 .l:ta7, leaving his game a posi­tional wreck and without counterplay. 22 ... exf3

Now Black's knight has to retreat into abject defence on e7 to defend his f-pawn, but 22 ... gxf4 23 tL'lxf4 tL'lxf4 24 .l:txf4 loses Black's f-pawn immediately. 23 .l:txf3 lL'le7 24 tL'lc6 .l:tbe8 25 tL'led4 lL'lfxds!?

With his game devoid of positional prospects and very short of space, this desperate throw is an excellent try in the circumstances. Lesser players may now have buckled, but not Smyslov! 26 cxds i.xds 27 tL'lxfS! !

Vassi ly Smys lov (1 9 2 1 -)

Smyslov spots the deep refutation, avoiding the messy 27 'i¥c2? .ii.xf3 28 i.xf3 tL'lg6. 21 ... .l:txfs

Black must decline White's queen sacrifice. After 27 ... li.xb3 28 i.xg7+ 'it>g8 29 tLlcxe7+ .l:txe7 30 .ii.xf8 'it>xf8 31 .l:ta8+ 'it>f7 (or 31.. . .l:te8 32 tL'lxd6+) 32 lL'ld4+ 'it>g7 33 tL'lxb3, or 27 ... tL'lxfs 28 iVxds i.xb2 29 .l:taf1, Black loses a knight. 28 i.xg7+ 'it>g8

White again wins Black's knight af­ter 28 ... 'it>xg7 29 'i¥c3+ 'it>g8 30 .l:txfs iVxfs 31 e4!, and if 31.. . .ii.xe4 32 i.xe4 i¥xe4 33 .l:te1. 29 .l:txfs! !

7 7

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Class ical Chess

This time Black has to accept White's queen. 29 ... .1txb3

30 .Sxgs! White's first really deep point be­

comes clear. He judges that with rook and minor piece for his queen, he must have a winning attack. Black h as two defensive tries. He can either seek to close the g-file and reduce the attack­ing scope of White's rook on g 5, as he does in the game, or he can play 30 .. . h6, to create a flight square for his king on h7. Against the latter try, Smyslov in­tended 31 'LJxe7+, and if 31....Sxe7 32 .Sa8+ .Se8 33 .ltxh6+ 'lt>h7 34 .Sg7+ �xg7 35 .ltxg7 .Sxa8 36 .ltxa8 'lt>xg7 37 g4, with a winning bishop and pawn endgame. Or if 31 .. . �xe7 32 .ltxh6+ 'lt>h8 33 .Sh5 'lt>g8 34 .Sfl, and White's pieces so dominate the kingside that they are eventually bound to hunt down Black's exposed king. 30 ... 'LJg6 31 .ih6!

What makes White's combination so impressive is the way its success de­pends on a complex mix of accurate

78

tactics and good judgement. He must have foreseen this beautifully precise bishop move, as well as his next two moves, as together they constitute the essential basis for his king side attack.

If now 31 .. . .Sxe3 32 l::txg6+ hxg6 33 .ixe3, White wins too much material for his queen. After 31 ... '1t>h8, to free g8 for Black's rook, Smyslov planned 32 liJd4, and if 32 . . . .ltc4 33 .ic6 �3 34 lDf5!, threatening not just 3 5 .ltxe8, but also 3 5 .ltg2, winning Black's queen. 31 ... �e6 32 h4!

White creates a safe square for his king on h2 and threatens to dislodge Black's important knight, by playing h5 . 32 �xe3+ 33 'lt>h2

White threatens both 34 h5 and 34 .Sxg6+, leaving Black with no choice on his next move. 33 ... �c3 34 .Sf1 .ltc4 35 .Sf2 �e1 36 l::tgts .ltxbs

White is clearly winning. Black can no longer prevent h 5, his knight can't move and his rook can't leave the back rank without allowing mate on f8. Moreover, he can only postpone the

inevitable for a move or two after 36 ... .lte6 37 .llf6. 37 .ltd2 �b1 38 .tds+ �hs

Black is caught in a mating net. If 38 ... �g7 39 .llf7+ �h8 40 .ltc3+ tt:Jes 41 CZJxes dxes 42 .llxc7, threatening 43 �xeS+ and mates. 39 .ltc3+ CZJes 40 tt:Jxes dxes 41 .llxes 1-0

Smyslov's active chess career stretched to the turn of the millen­nium. This remarkable longevity can perhaps best be put down to his excel­lent physical condition and positive outlook. In life, as in chess, Smyslov always valued harmony. Outside inter­ests were particularly important and he wrote that his "love for music and singing has not only brought me much joy, but has also helped me to relate more calmly to all the vicissitudes of fate."

Perhaps the way Smyslov played chess may have played a role, too. Ac­cording to Max Euwe, in his introduc­tion to the 1980 English edition of Bronstein 's The Chess Struggle in Prac­tice, players such as Smyslov and Ti­gran Petrosian possessed an ability to make fine positional judgements that meant that they needn't tire them­selves out by continuous analysis or calculation. Players, on the other hand, such as Bronstein and Tal, calculated ceaselessly and risked burnout. Euwe considered that "Smyslov and Petro­sian, though capable of calculating no less profoundly than the combinational

Vassily Smys/ov (1 9 2 1 -)

players par excellence, begin to calcu­late only if they sense that something worthwhile will come of it." I hesitate to make too much of this, but Smyslov, at any rate, enjoyed a late flowering of his finest form in his early sixties.

Smyslov's late flourish began with his unexpected qualification for yet another Candidates' series in the early 1980s. In 1982, playing wonderful chess, he finished second in the Las Palmas Interzonal. Smyslov may, in­deed, have managed to benefit from his economic playing style around this time. Certainly the fluency of his play in some of his games reached great heights.

Smyslov's win against the six-time US champion, Walter Browne, at Las Palmas is a game in point. It is possible to understand how Black wins, but hard to believe that such a top-class competitive game could be won this way. As if charmed, Black's king and bishop float across an open board, on which rooks are in play, reaching two faraway white squares (a2 and b3), from which they wreak instant, game­winning havoc.

Game 13 W.Browne-V.Smyslov

las Palmas l nterzona l 1982 Bogo-Jndian Defence

·· 1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lLlf3 .ltb4+ 4 .ltd2 White's main alternative is 4 C2Jbd2,

79

Ch ess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

against which Smyslov liked to reply 4 ... cs, happy to trade the bishop-pair for the development tempo and ultra­sound pawn structures resulting after s a3 �xd2+ 6 �xd2 (or 6 'ifxd2 cxd4, followed by ... ds) 6 ... d6, and if 7 dxcs dxcs 8 .i.c3 'ifxd1+ 9 .l::i.xd1 b6 10 g3 �b7 11 �g2 '2Jbd7 12 0-0 ct;e7.

In Y.Seirawan-V.Smyslov, Tilburg 1994, White failed to refute Black's play after 8 'ifc2 '2Jbd7 9 0-0-0 'ifc7 10 g3 '2Jg4! 11 i.f4 es 12 i.h3 hs ! 13 i.xg4 hxg4 14 ttJxes ttJxes 1s .l::i.ds .l::i.h s 16 .l::i.xeS+? (16 .l::i.hd1 �e6 17 .l::i.xes .l::i.xes 18 'ifh7 .l::i.d8 19 .l::i.xd8+ 'ifxd8 20 �xes g6! is roughly level) 16 ... .l::i.xes 17 'ifh7 f6! 18 .l::i.d1 ct;f7 19 'ifh8 'ifc6 20 .l::i.d8 .l::i.e8 21 'ifhs+ ct;e7 22 .l::i.d6 'ife4 23 .l::i.d3 .i.e6 24 �d6+ ct;d8 2S i.eS+ .i.d7 26 'iff7 'iffs 27 iLf4 gS 28 iLe3 'ife6, and Black won.

Smyslov was also happy to play the structures arising after S e3 b6 6 ii.d3 .i.b7 7 a3 ii.xd2+ 8 ii.xd2 d6. He knew how to make bishop and knight work against two bishops in this line, such as in H.Grooten-V.Smyslov, Tilburg 1992, which continued 9 dxcs dxcs 10 'ifc2

80

'2Jbd7 11 iLc3 'ife7 12 0-0-0 0-0-0 13 .l::i.d2 g6 14 ttJes .l::i.he8 1S �a4 ttJxes 16 i..xes a6 17 f3 '2Jd7 18 i..g3 es 19 �e4 �xe4 20 fxe4 '2Jb8 21 .l::i.ds 'fig s 22 ct;d2 h s 23 .l::i.g1 h4, and Black pressed.

4 ... as This highly flexible move was also a

Smyslov favourite. White's reply, which aims to restrict certain ... b6 options for Black, is probably the critical test. 5 g3

Against S e3, S '2Jc3 and S �c2, Smyslov again liked to play systems based on ... d6 and ... '2Jbd7, giving him a range of possible ways to complete his development and hit back in the centre with either or both of ... cs and ... es, with or without .. . b6. Black can also consider lines based on ... ds. White cer­tainly came a cropper in K.Spraggett­V.Smyslov, 6th matchgame, Montpel­lier 198S, after S '2Jc3 0-0 6 e3 d6 7 'ifc2 '2Jbd7 8 .i.d3 es 9 o-o .l::i.e8 10 e4 exd4 11 '2Jxd4 c6 12 .l::i.ae1 ttJes 13 h 3 ! ? �cs 14 �e3? �xh3 ! 0-1.

Two recent examples of defence based on ... ds are A.Moreto Quintana-

M.Suba, Benidorm 2007, which contin­ued s �c2 tt:Jc6 6 4:Jc3 dS 7 cxds exds 8 g3 o-o 9 .tg2 .i.g4 10 �d3 I:i.e8 11 o-o tbe4, and T.Sanikidze-V.Golod, Plovdiv 2008, which ran s o-o ds 6 cxds exds 7 .i.gs c6 8 e3 .tfs 9 .i.d3 .i.xd3 10 �xd3 4:Jbd7 11 0-0 0-0 12 tZ:ld2 I:i.e8, with sat­isfactory play for Black in both cases. s ... ds

Opening experts tend to credit Smyslov and Mark Taimanov for popu­larizing this idea. Smyslov may have become dissatisfied with .. . d6 systems against S g3 around 1980, possibly af­ter losing in L.Polugaevsky-V.Smyslov, USSR Team Championship 1979, after s ... d6 6 .i.g2 4:Jbd7 7 o-o es 8 4:Jc3 exd4 9 tt:Jxd4 o-o 10 �c2 tt:Jes ! ? 11 .i.gs h6 12 .ixf6 �xf6 13 tt:Jds �d8 14 tt:Jxb4 axb4 1S cs, and White pressed.

Smyslov's idea is based on playing ... dxc4, followed, after �c2 and �xc4, by a rapid central strike at White's cen­tral light squares with ... �ds. 6 .i.g2

Vass ily Smys lov (1 9 2 1 -)

Warsaw 2002, for example, then con­tinued 7 .i.xb4 axb4 8 dxcs �as 9 4:Jbd2 �xes 10 �d3? ! 4:Jc6 11 cxds I:i.xa2 !, and Black stood well. Here Black also obtained satisfactory play in D.Bocharov-A.Kosten, lzmir 2004, after 7 dxcs tt:Jc6 8 .tg2 d4 9 .ixb4 axb4 10 4:Jbd2 0-0 11 0-0 �e7 12 4:Jb3 es 13 tt:Jgs h6 14 tt:Je4 .i.fs 1S tt:Jxf6+ �xf6 16 .i.e4 .i.xe4 17 �xe4 �e6 18 �ds �g6 19 f4 exf4 20 I:i.xf4 I:i.fe8. 6 ... dxc4

Smyslov plays in accordance with his original interpretation of the line. Black can also play along more closed lines, for example, as in S.Haslinger­J .Stocek, Port Erin 2006, which contin­ued 6 ... 0-0 7 0-0 tt:Jbd7 8 �c2 c6 9 .i.f4 .te7 10 tt:Jbd2 tt:Jhs, or as in A.Giri­M.Miezis, Bussum 2008, which went 7 ... 4:Jc6 8 �c2 .i.d7 9 a3 .i.e7 10 .i.f4 .i.d6! ?.

The complicated line 6 .. . 0-0 7 0-0 dxc4 8 �c2 bs ! ? is also possible, as in R.Bouhallel-V.Ikonnikov, French League 200S, which continued 9 a4 c6 10 4:Jc3 .i.b7 11 axbs cxbs 12 tt:Jxbs tt:Ja6 13 tt:Jc3 .i.e7 14 I:i.fd1 tZ:lb4 1S �1 I:i.a6 16 e3 �a8 17 tZ:le1 .i.xg2 18 tt:Jxg2 I:i.b8, and Black stood well. 7 �C2 4:Jc6 8 �XC4 �d5

Having vacated ds, Smyslov rushes his queen into the centre to battle for the central light squares and prevent e4. Now White faces a clear choice between exchanging queens on ds and playing

The most common. After 6 �c2, ·· for an edge in a queen less middlegame, 6 ... cs is possible. A.Chernin-V. Ivanchuk, as in the game, or keeping queens on

8 1

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

the board and playing for an edge in with unclear play. Also playable more complex situations. here is 11 ... i.e7, although White ob­

g �xds The main alternative, 9 �d3 0-0 10

tt::Jc3 � 5 (or 10 0-0 .l:!.d8 11 tt::Jc3 � 5}, leads to complex middlegames in which Black's active queen on h5 , cou­pled with potential pressure on the d­file, make it unclear whether White will be able to establish his e-pawn on e4. The game V.Akopian-V.Smyslov, Mos­cow 1992, continued 11 a3 i.xc3 12 i.xc3 .l:!.d8 (the later V.Tukmakov­V.Smyslov, Rostov on Don 1993, saw 12 ... b6 13 0-0 i.a6 14 �c2 tt::Je7 15 .l:!.fe1 cs) 13 �c2 �f5!

82

tained an edge in Z.Ribli-V.Smyslov, 2nd matchgame, London 1983, after 12 o-o .l:!.d8 13 �c4 i.d7 14 .l:!.fe1. g . . . exds 10 tt::Jc3

Black's light-square control isn't easy to shake in this line. Indeed, his game was also satisfactory in G.Tunik­P.Maletin, Moscow 2006, after 10 0-0 i.f5 11 i.f4 o-o-o 12 a3 i.e7 13 tt::Jc3 tt::Je4 14 tLlb5 .l:!.d7 15 .l:!.fc1 g5 16 i.e3 f6 17 tt::Jd2 .l:!.e8 18 tt::Jxe4 dxe4 19 .l:!.d1 .l:!.ed8. 10 . . . i.e6

Smyslov liked this move because it strengthened Black's centre. Subse­quent games indicate that 10 ... i.fs and 10 ... i.g4 are also playable. 11 .l:!.c1 a4!

Black makes his a-pawn work well, raising the possibility of a future ... a3, softening up White's queenside dark squares. If White should seek to pre­vent this by himself playing a3, he weakens his light squares. 12 tt::Jbs?!

White reacts very sharply. Safer was 12 e3 (earlier 11 e3 was also good), se­curing d4 and raising the mini­positional threat to obtain the bishop pair with tt::lgs . 12 . . . .ixd2+ 13 �xd2 �d8 14 tt::les!?

It was still possible to play 14 e3, se­curing his d-pawn, whose acute if fleet­ing vulnerability over the next few moves becomes crucial. 14 ... �aS!

White must, of course, have seen this move, but what did he miss? The black rook's bold entrance into play on the queenside forces White's reply. Or if White's knight on bs retreats, Black's knight simply captures White's d­pawn.

Had White hoped to play 15 �xc6? If so, having reached this position, he correctly rejects the idea. Smyslov would have replied 1S ... �xbs, and if 16 �xe6!? (or 16 �c2 tt::le4+!) 16 . . .fxe6 17 tt::lf7+ �e7 18 tt::lxh8 �xb2+ 19 �d3 �xa2 20 �b1 b6 21 �c1 tt::le8, and with White's knight stranded on h8, Black's two extra passed pawns and active

Vass ily Smys lov (1 9 2 1 -)

rook give Black more than enough play for his lost bishop. 1S tt::lxe6+ bxe6 16 tt::le3 �e7!

Avoiding 16 ... �d7? ! as 17 b3 axb3 18 axb3 �b8 19 tt::la4! �xb3? loses to 20 tt::lcs+, but Black now assumes the ini­tiative and his king rushes to d6 to support a ... cs break 17 tt::ld1!? �d6 18 f3!?

White can't stop Black gaining ground on the queenside with .. . cs and is somewhat worse. However, he may have better defensive chances in the endgame after 18 e3 cs 19 dxcs+ �xes 20 �xes �xes 21 tt::lc3 �b4. 18 ... es 19 dxes+ �xes 20 �xes �xes 21 tt::le3 �b4!

Black's king truly is a fighting piece, and he plans ... cs, with ... d4 an immi­nent threat (revealing a nasty attack on a2). 22 �e1 es 23 e3

At last! But Black's powerful king and active c- and d-pawns present real problems now. However, White dare

·. not play 23 a3+? allowing Black's king to reach b3 with winning threats.

83

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Class ica l Chess

23 ... d4 24 exd4 cxd4

25 a3+? White finally buckles. Once Black's

king reaches b3, White's game is al­most certainly lost. White might still have tried 25 tt'le2 .l:!.d8 26 .l:!.a1 {Smyslov suggested 26 b3), although Black still retains good chances after 26 ... tt'lds 27 f4 {White cannot improve by playing 27 a3+ 'it>b3 28 'Llxd4+ 'it>xb2 or 27 'Llxd4 tt'lb6 28 'it>e3 tt'lc4+ 29 'it>e4 .idS+ 30 'it>f4 tt'lxb2, as in both cases Black stands well) 27 ... 'Lle3 ! (27 ... 'Llb6 ! is also good), and now either 28 ..ie4 tt'lc4+ 29 'it>c2 d3+ 30 .ltxd3 tt'le3+ (or 30 ... tt'lxb2 31 'it>xb2 .l:!.xd3) 31 'it>d2 .ltfs 32 'it>xe3 .l:!.xd3+ 33 'it>f2 .l:!.d2, or 28 a3+ 'it>as {pos­sibly also 28 ... 'it>b3 29 tt'lc1+ 'it>c4!, but not 29 .. . 'it>xb2?? 30 .l:!.a2+ 'it>b1 31 .ie4+) 29 .lte4 tt'lc4+ 30 'it>c2 d3+ 31 ..ixd3 tt'lxb2 32 'it>xb2 .l:!.xd3. 2S •.. 'it>b3 26 ctJd1 .ic4

Now, however, White has run out of space. White's knight on d1 protects b2, but has to rush to e4 to block Black's threat of 27 ... .l:!.e8, followed by ... .l:!.e2+.

84

27 tt'lf2 tt'lds! Black manoeuvres his knight to e3

to protect his bishop, thereby freeing Black's king for the final attack. Not 27 ... .l:!.e8?, though, allowing 28 ..ifl ..ixf1 29 .l:!.xf1 'it>xb2 30 tt'ld3+ 'it>xa3 31 .l:!.a1+ 'it>b3 32 .l:!.b1+ 'it>c4 33 .l:!.b4+ 'it>ds 34 .l:!.xa4, and White escapes, but now after 28 .ifl ..ixf1 29 .l:!.xfl tt'le3 ! , Black wins quickly. 28 'Lle4 'Lle3 29 tt'lcs+ 'it>a2!

Only this beautifully logical move wins! White can defend after 29 ... 'it>xb2? 30 tt'lxa4+ 'it>xa3 31 tt'lb6, but now after 30 tt'Jxa4 .tbs, he loses a piece . 30 ..ih3 .ib3!

And now astonishingly only this move wins. Just look at Black's king and bishop! Black's queenside light-square domination is absolute. His bishop de­fends his a-pawn, which must remain on the board to win the game, and Black's king, knight and rook now com­bine to end a last try for White on the d-file. 31 .id7 tt'lc4+ 32 'it>d3 0-1

White didn't wait to be shown 32 .. .'�Je5+ 33 �xd4 'Llxd7 34 'Llxd7 .Md8 3 5 .Mc7 .ie6, winning a piece. Any other king move would have allowed Black to capture on b2 with his knight.

In 1983 I was fortunate to be able to observe Smyslov in action during his Candidates' semi-final match against Zoltan Ribli in London. Smyslov played some fine chess in this match and was an inspiration. The 62-year-old ex­World Champion won comfortably, 61/2-4%, against a player half his age. He modestly put much of this down to his spiritual harmony.

Belying his years, Smyslov radiated the energy and robust health of a fit 40 year-old. This, along with his vast ex­perience and sheer talent, made him a dangerous opponent for anyone. His apparently inexhaustible reserves of inner contentedness also simply al­lowed him to smile a lot. Viktor Korchnoi lost to Garry Kasparov in the other semi-final, played alongside Ribli­Smyslov. There weren't many smiles at all in that dour match.

Tony Miles and I , along with editor, Nathan Goldberg, published a souvenir edition of these matches, The Battle of Britain. I was supposed to have drawn the short straw, covering the "minor" event, while Tony starred as reporter at large on the "big" match. In fact, both matches were incredibly well played and dramatic.

Try as he might, Ribli simply

Vassi ly Smys lov (1 9 2 1 -)

couldn't upset Smyslov, whose energy, invention and technical wizardry couldn't be matched by his opponent. But the deciding factor in the match was how Smyslov managed to create superb attacks in three of his games with White. Ribli lost all three of these games, each one of which seemed to strike a terrible blow to his psyche. Games 5 and 7 in the match spelled the end for Ribli. Wins such as these often count for more than a single point. Ribli wasn't just simply outplayed in these games, but overwhelmed by his opponent's subtle strategy, brilliant tactics and sheer ability to strike with white against a defence that had to date been one of Ribli's dependable standbys.

Game 14

V .Smyslov-Z.Ribli sth matchgame, london 1983

Semi· Tarrasch Defence

1 d4 'Llf6 2 'Llf3 e6 3 c4 ds 4 'Llc3 cs 5 cxds 'Llxds 6 e3 'Llc6 7 .id3 .ie7 8 o-o 0-0

Smyslov made an excellent choice by taking Ribli on in the Semi-Tarrasch. Over the years, he had achieved some excellent results with White in this opening. To play this line well requires a deep understanding of position and a fine feel for the right moment to switch .to precise tactics. Smyslov often made playing the IQP positions, typical in this

85

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classica l Chess

line, look very easy. Here are two good examples, aris­

ing after 8 . . . cxd4 9 exd4 0-0 10 .l::i.e1 (10 a3 cxd4 11 exd4 transposes back to the game), in which the older man taught lessons to two rising young stars in two different time-frames:

a) V.Smyslov-A.Karpov, USSR Cham­pionship, Leningrad 1971: 10 . . .'�Jf6 11 a3 b6 12 .ic2 .ib7 13 -qjVd3 .l::i.c8? ! (better is 13 ... g6 14 .ih6 .l::i.e8 15 .l::i.ad1 tt:Jds) 14 .igs (14 dS! intending 14 ... exds 15 .igs g6 16 .l::i.xe7! is strong) 1S .. . g6 15 .l::i.ad1 tt:Jds 16 .ih6 .l::i.e8 17 .ia4 a6?! 18 tt:Jxds -qjVxds 19 -qjVe3 .if6 ! ? 20 .ib3 � s 21 ds! 4Jd8 22 d6 .l::i.cs 23 d7 .l::i.e7 24 -qjVf4 .ig7 25 �8 -qjVxh6 26 -qjVxd8+ .if8 27 .l::i.e3 .ic6 28 -qjVxf8+ -qjVxf8 29 d8-qjV 1-0.

b) V.Smyslov-V.Ivanchuk, Moscow 1988: 10 ... .if6 11 .ie4 tt:Jce7 12 tt:Jes ct::\c6 13 -qjVd3 h6 14 .ixds l2Jb4 15 -qjVg3 .ih4 16 -qjVf3 exds? ! 17 .l::i.e2 .ie6 18 a3 tt:Jc6 19 tt:Jxc6 bxc6 20 tt:Ja4 -qjVc8 21 h3 .ie7 22 .if4 'i!Va6 23 tt:Jcs .ixcs 24 dxcs �5 25 .l::i.ae1 �h7 26 'i!Vg3 .ifs 27 .id6 .l::i.g8 28 .l::i.e7 .ig6 29 -qjVe3 'i!Va4 30 .ies .l::i.ae8 31 .id4 .l::i.b8 32 .l::i.1e3 as 33 f4

8 6

'i!Vd1+ 3 4 .l::i.e1 'i!Va4 3 5 'i!Vd2 .l::i.b3 3 6 .ic3 'i!Vc4 37 'i!Vf2 .ie4 38 .l::i.xf7 ! d4 39 -qjVxd4 'i!Vxf7 40 -qjVxe4+ �h8 41 fs 'i!Vds 42 'i!Vxds cxds 43 .l::i.e6, threatening both .l::i.xh6+ and .l::i.d6, and White won. 9 a3 cxd4 10 exd4 .if6

The main choice today tends to be 10 .. . l2Jf6, intending .. . b6, which may indeed be a little better. But other moves have also been tried, including the immediate 10 ... b6 !? and even the ambitious 10 ... a6 ! ?, planning ... bs . 11 -qjVc2

Meeting this position for the first time in the match, Smyslov decided not to play the theoretically critical 11 i.e4. Following some subsequent home­work, with his second Yuri Averbakh, however, Smyslov found an improve­ment and played this in Game 7. An unfortunate Ribli played straight into Smyslov's preparation and was in diffi­culties after 11 .. . 4Jce7 12 tt:Jes g6 13 i.h6 i.g7 14 .ixg7 �xg7 15 .l::i.c1! b6 16 tt:Jxds tt:Jxds 17 i.xds -qjVxds 18 .l::i.c7! i.b7 19 'i!Vg4 .

In this position, White's rook domi-

nates the c-file and exerts severe pres­sure on the seventh rank.

White's IQP is not just secure, but also supports the development of a powerful kingside attack by his re­maining pieces (and h-pawn). White's attack aims to undermine Black's weak f7 and g6 points. Smyslov had dashed out his first 19 moves in only 12 min­utes. He now took more than an hour for his next five moves, but by move 24, his opponent was in deep trouble.

This superb game concluded with a grand kingside explosion of controlled tactics after 19 ... l:!.ad8 20 l:!.d1 as 21 h4! l:!.c8 22 l:!.d7 �e4 23 �gs i.c6 24 f3 ! �fs 25 l:!.a7 i.a4 (note that Black's problems also persist in the endgame after 2S ... �xgs 26 hxgs , and if 26 ... l:!.a8 27 l:!.c7 i.a4 28 l:!.dc1 l:!.ad8 29 l:!.e7 l:!.xd4 30 l:!.cc7 i.e8 31 l:!.xe6; in this line, 30 ... l:!.f4 fails to 31 g3 l:!.fs 32 f4, and earlier 26 ... i.a4 loses after 27 l:!.d2 l:!.c2 28 l:!.xc2 i.xc2 29 l:!.b7} 26 l:!.e1 l:!.c2 27 b4 i.b3 28 bxas bxas 29 l:!.e4 h6 30 �e3 l:!.b2 31 l:!.g4! g s 32 hxgs h s 33 l:!.g3 h4 34 l:!.g4 h3 3 5 g6 h2+ 36 Wxh2 l:!.h8+

Vassi ly Smys lov (1 92 1 -)

37 Wg3 l:!.xg2+ 38 Wxg2 �c2+ 39 �f2 l:!.h2+ 40 Wxh2 �xf2+ 41 Wh3 �f1+ 42 l:!.g2 �1+ 1-0 (for White plays 43 Wg3 �e1+ 44 Wg4 with a winning position). 11 ... h6

Ribli thought for 35 minutes over this move. Both this move and 11...g6 are fine for Black, but not 11...tZ:lxd4!? 12 lZ:Jxd4 i.xd4 13 i.xh7+ Wh8 14 i.e4, when White looks a bit better. 12 l:!.d1 �b6 13 i.c4

13 ... l:!.d8 Ribli plays well around here. He

counterattacks against White's pawn on d4, while his queen's bishop can develop via d7. He should not, of course, play 13 ... tZ:lxd4? 14 lZ:Jxd4 i.xd4 1S tZ:la4 �c7 16 l:!.xd4 bs 17 i.xh6! , and White wins. 14 tZ:le2 i.d7 15 �e4 lZ:Jce7!

Again, admirably unfazed by White's coming queen and bishop re­alignment on the long light-square diagonal, Ribli correctly strengthens his kingside and central defences. At the 'same time, he releases queenside squares for his queen's bishop and

8 7

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

seeks to exchange it. 16 i.d3 i.a4?

But it all begins to go wrong frdm here. Before exchanging bishops, Ribli forces White's rook to what turns out to be a better square for it. Black should have played the immediate 16 ... i.b5 ! 17 �7+ �f8, and if 18 iLlg3 i.xd3 19 �xd3 .l:!.ac8 20 h3, with an equal game in Smyslov's view. More­over, if Black feared having White's queen on h7, he might also have con­sidered 16 .. . 4Jg6.

Ribli's misjudgement costs him dear. Black needn't always necessarily keep White's queen out of h7, as it isn't clear that it can achieve anything much on its own there. As it turns out, how­ever, with the rook on e1, White's extra pressure on the e-file makes a signifi­cant difference.

11 �h7+ �f8 18 .l:!.e1 i.bs 19 i.xbs �xbs 20 iLlg3 tt:Jg6?

Ribli continues to try to defend ac­tively, but this may have been his last chance to stop the worst. Black had to try the more purely defensive move

88

20 .. . tt:Jg8, which adds important extra protection to h6 and f6, as well as to his back rank. 21 tt:Jes tt:Jde7

Black has put all his hope into a counterattack, but his position seems critical now. Indeed, he faces numerous defensive pitfalls. Smyslov gives:

a) 21 .. . i.xe5 22 dxe5 �e7 (or if 22 ... 4Jde7 23 iLlh5 iLlf5 24 tt:Jxg7) 23 �xg7 .l:!.h8 24 iLlf5+ exf5 25 e6 ! , with a winning attack.

b) 21 ... 4Jdf4 22 i.xf4 tt:Jxf4 23 iLlf5 tt:Jg6 (or 23 . . . exf5 24 iLld7+) 24 tt:Jxh6! and wins. 22 i.xh6!

Without a knight on g8, White can sacrifice. White's bishop clearly can't be taken because of mate on f7. Black must also lose after both 22 ... i.xe5 23 .l:!.xe5 ! tt:Jxe5 24 �xg7+ �e8 25 dxe5, and 22 ... .l:!.xd4 23 tt:Jxg6+ tt:Jxg6 (or if 23 . . .fxg6 24 .l:!.xe6!} 24 iLlh5 gxh6 (or 24 ... �xh5? 25 i.xg7+) 25 tt:Jxf6, threat­ening �g8+, winning Black's rook on a8, and if 25 .. . �e7 26 tt:Jg8+ �e8 27 tt:Jxh6.

Vass i ly Smys /ov (1 92 1 -)

White could also play 22 tt:Jh5, which square diagonal. appears to force a transposition back into the game after 22 ... tt:Jxe5 23 .lii.xh6, or into our last variation after 22 ... .:!xd4 23 tt:Jxg6+ tt:Jxg6 24 .i.xh6!. Black also fails to defend in this line after 22 ... i..xe5 23 dxe5 iDf5 (or if 23 .. ."�Vxe5 24 .i.xh6l) 24 tt:Jxg7 tt:Jxg7 25 .i.xh6. 22 ... tt:Jxes 23 tt:Jhs!

It's all horrible for Black now and his next move is more or less forced. If he leaves his knight to be taken on e5, by playing 23 ... tt:Jf5 24 tt:Jxf6 tt:Jxh6 25 dxe5, White wins after 25 . . . tt:Jf5 26 .:!acl!, threatening .:!c7 (Smyslov).

Instead surprise queen and knight mates suddenly appear on the board after 23 ... .:!xd4 24 tt:Jxf6 gxh6 25 1Wxh6 mate, or 23 ... tt:J5g6 24 .lii.xg7+ .i.xg7 25 1Wxg7+ We8 26 tt:Jf6 mate. 23 ... iDf3+ 24 gxf3 tt:Jfs

24 ... 1Wxh5? again allows 25 .i.xg7+. 25 tt:Jxf6 tt:Jxh6 26 ds!

This move also hurts. White threat­ens to break through on e6. The move also serves a much deeper purpose by clearing a key square on the long dark-

26 ... 1Wxb2 Black's queen steps gingerly on to

that diagonal. This doesn't save him, but there was no better alternative. Black also loses after:

a) 26 ... gxf6 27 dxe6 1Wg5+ 28 Whl fxe6 29 .:!g1 1Wf4 30 .:!g7l , threatening 'iWh8+ and escaping all Black's checks after 30 ... 1Wxf3+ 31 Wgl .:!dl+ 32 .:!xdl 1Wxd1+ 33 wg2 1Wd5+ 34 f3 1Wd2+ 3 5 Wh3 - spotted by a spectator, John Nunn, as the game was played.

b) 26 ... tt:Jf5 27 1Wg8+ We7 28 .:!xe6+l, and if 28 .. .fxe6 29 1Wxe6+ Wf8 30 iDh7 mate - Smyslov.

c) 26 ... .:!xd5 27 'iWh8+ We7 28 tt:Jxd5+ 1Wxd5 29 1Wxa8 wins. 27 1Wh8+ We7 28 .:!xe6+!

Having already cleared d4, White now looks to clear the remaining two occupied squares on the long diagonal by a series of further forcing sacrifices and checks. 28 ... fxe6 29 1Wxg7+ tt:Jf7 ' Or 29 .. . Wd6 30 tt:Je4+ and White wins Black's queen straight away.

89

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Class ical Chess

30 d6+! But Black's queen must shortly per­

ish anyway. 30 • • • .l:!.xd6 31 'LldS+!

90

I t seems almost as i f White has achieved the impossible on the dark squares. Ribli is lost. Black doesn't have sufficient material compensation for his queen and his king remains ex­posed to attacking threats. 31 ••• .l:!.xds 32 �xb2 b6 33 �b4+ 'it>f6 34 .l:!.e1 .l:!.h8 35 h4 .l:!.hd8 36 .l:!.e4 'Lld6 37 �c3+ es?!

In time trouble Black drops a pawn, which shortens his misery. 38 .l:!.xes .l:!.xes 39 f4 'Llf7 40 fxeS+ 'it>e6 41 �C4+ 1-0

Cha pter Three

Robert Fischer (1943-2008)

if the Soviets were the antithesis of the 1930s' thesis, Fischer was the new synthe­sis ... a dialectic that would have pleased [Karl} Marx.

Andrew Soltis, Bobby Fischer Rediscovered

If the Soviet school took chess forward into a new, more adventurous, deeply researched and calculated risk-taking age, Bobby Fischer was to take that spirit to its outermost limits. In a sense, Fischer anticipated what Kasparov has described as a shift only fully ushered in with the aid of increasingly powerful computers during the 1990s. As a player, Fischer devoted his life to a passionate search for the most precise truths in chess, based on variations.

According to Kasparov: "In our era, variational evidence is becoming increas­ingly convincing (contrary the old rule, which stated that 'in any long variation there are mistakes') ." Long before there were any computer-aids, which now help us investigate variations much more accurately, there was no greater master of the art of ensnaring opponents in a net of confusing, complex and generally cor­rect variations than Bobby Fischer.

Of course, that doesn't mean that Fischer was either a mere calculating ma­chine, or a "book" player, with a good memory. Creatively head and shoulders above all his peers in his best years, he formulated profound and inherently cor­rect over-the-board plans almost routinely. But there is a very real sense in which Fischer seems to have been driven by an almost fanatical desire to nail down the truth in chess in a series of clear and correct variations.

In this regard, Fischer was ahead of his peers, but, of course, he too built on ex-

9 1

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classica l Chess

isting foundations. The new Soviet school had already greatly widened, deepened and sharpened chess, based on the ultimate test of analytic rigour. Fischer did much of the finishing work, benefiting, in large part, from the wealth of material freely available in post-war books by the Soviets and in their excellent chess magazines.

Fischer drank in all the big Soviet ideas about the initiative, dynamic opening systems, risk-taking and so on, and absorbed their analytical approach to the game. This led him to appreciate the need for grand plans, but also, and perhaps more than any of his peers, to distrust them. Fischer calculated hard in his games with a view to deciding not just how best to promote his own plans, but also when he might best depart from them.

This spirit perhaps manifested itself most in Fischer's approach to material . If at any point in a game, Fischer thought he might safely win material, he would also almost invariably grab it. Indeed, his play was often supremely predatory in this regard. Sometimes he got over-exuberant, but mostly his instincts in regard to material were unerringly deadly. According to Soltis, this emphasis on material in Fischer's chess was characteristic. Soltis suggests that Fischer's play exemplified a new and more modern way of playing chess, based on the achievement of a "perfect harmony [between] position and material." The Soviets expanded the superstructure of ideas; Fischer grounded ideas even more firmly in the material substructure than they did, using his genius for the generation of mostly correct variations to achieve this.

Fischer certainly developed a marked ability to notice, nurture and convert the advantages offered by slight gains in material from an early age. He possessed the artistry, technique and analytical resources to negotiate most obstacles that op­ponents might then put in his way, often ending such passages in his games with a fine combinational flourish. This is exactly how the most charismatic of the young Fischer's early Soviet rivals, Mikhail Tal, crashed to his first loss against the 18 year-old American, at Bled in 1961. Aged only 24, Tal was already an ex-world champion and at that moment he had a score of four wins and three draws against Fischer in head-to-head games. Tal plays relatively weakly, but there is no denying the analytical steel and artistry of the almost frighteningly brusque way he is swept from the board.

With sincerest apologies to Karl Marx and the stirring, opening lines in his and Friedrich Engels's Communist Manifesto, a "spectre" was indeed "haunting" Soviet European chess at the time. That spectre was the teenage American chess player Bobby Fischer.

92

Game 15

R.Fischer-M. Tal Bled 1961

Sicilian Defence

1 e4 cs 2 ctJf3 ttJc6 Fischer's own favourite as Black in

the Sicilian was the Najdorf Variation. It was also his major weapon against 1 e4 and he achieved remarkable success with it by managing to stay one step ahead of "known" theory throughout his career. Against the main line, 2 ... d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4 ltJf6 S ltJc3 a6 6 .ltg5, he consistently championed the com­plex variations arising after 6 ... e6 7 f4 .lte7 8 'il¥f3 'il¥C7 9 0-0-0 ttJbd7, as well as the controversial pawn-grabbing and even more obscure Poisoned Pawn Variation, 7 .. . 'il¥b6.

When Fischer faced the Najdorf, he almost invariably replied with 6 .ltc4. For most of the 1960s, it seemed that only Fischer really knew the secrets of playing the Najdorf, for black and white, and he racked up numerous wins for both sides. 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4 e6 5 CDc3

Fischer also got a lot of mileage in his career out of the sharper line, 5 ltJb5 d6 6 .ltf4 es 7 .i.e3 ltJf6 8 .i.g5, in­cluding important wins in two of his 1971 Candidates' matches.

He played a fine positional gambit, in R.Fischer-M.Taimanov, 2nd match­game, Vancouver 1971, which contin­ued 8 ... 'il¥a5+?! 9 'i!Yd2! ttJxe4 10 'i\Yxa5 'Llxa5 11 .i.e3 <;t>d7 12 CD1c3 ttJxc3 13

Robert Fischer (1 943 -2 008)

ttJxc3 <;t>d8 14 ttJb5 .i.e6 15 o-o-o b6 16 f4, with more than enough compensa­tion for White's pawn. Black improved on this, in R.Fischer-T.Petrosian, 1st matchgame, Buenos Aires 1971, after 8 . . . .i.e6! 9 CD1c3 !? (9 ltJd2 is better) 9 ... a6 10 .ltxf6 gxf6 11 ctJa3 d5! 12 exd5 .i.xa3 13 bxa3 'il¥a5 14 'i!Yd2 o-o-o, and despite eventually losing this game, Black stood better. s •.• 'il¥c7 6 g3 ttJf6?!

This is a serious error, allowing White to develop with tempo. Tal ap­parently meant to play 6 ... a6, reaching a standard main line and long­standing Fischer favourite for White after 7 .i.g2 ttJf6 8 o-o.

Fischer's most famous game in this l ine was R.Fischer-M.Taimanov, 4th matchgame, Vancouver 1971, which continued 8 ... ttJxd4 9 'il¥xd4 .ltc5 10 .ltf4 d6 11 'i!Yd2 h6 12 �ad1 e5 13 .lte3 .i.g4! ? 14 .txc5! dxc5 15 f3 .lte6 16 f4 �d8? ! (better 16 ... 0-0) 17 ltJd5 .txd5 18 exd5 e4 19 �fe1 �xd5 20 �xe4+ <;t>d8 '21 'il¥e2 �xd1+ 22 'i\Yxd1+ 'il¥d7 23 'il¥xd7+ <;t>xd7 24 �e5 b6?! (better is

93

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classica l Chess

24 . . .'i.t>d6) 25 .tfl as 26 i.c4, when White's better minor piece, rook and king provided a solid platform for hitn to exploit Black's lack of space and vul­nerability on the light squares in an outstanding endgame.

Play concluded 26 ... l:i.f8 27 <.t>g2 <.t>d6 28 <.t>f3 l2Jd7 29 l:i.e3 lbb8 30 l:i.d3+ <.t>c7 (White is also better after 30 ... <.t>e7? ! 31 i.bs ! l:i.d8 32 1:i.xd8 <.t>xd8 33 <.t>e4) 31 c3 tbc6 32 l:i.e3 <.t>d6 33 a4 l2Je7 34 h3 l2Jc6 3 5 h4 hs ! ? (Taimanov feared the idea g4 and h S, followed by <.t>h4 and gS) 36 l:i.d3+ <.t>o 37 l:i.ds fs 38 l:i.d2 l:i.f6 39 l:i.e2 <.t>d7 40 l:i.e3 g6 41 i.bs l:i.d6 42 <.t>e2 <.t>d8 43 l:i.d3 <.t>c7 44 l:i.xd6 <.t>xd6 45 <.t>d3 tbe7 46 i.e8 <.t>ds 47 i.f7+ <.t>d6 48 <.t>c4 <.t>c6 49 i.e8+ <.t>b7 so <.t>bs l2Jc8 51 i.c6+ <.t>c7 52 i.ds lbe7 5 3 i.f7 <.t>b7 54 i.b3 <.t>a7 55 i.d1 <.t>b7 56 i.f3+ <.t>c7 57 <.t>a6 l2Jc8 58 .ids tbe7 59 Jl.c4 l2Jc6 60 i.f7 lbe7 61 i.e8! (zugzwang) 61 ... Wd8 62 .txg6 l2Jxg6 63 <.t>xb6 <.t>d7 64 Wxcs tbe7 65 b4 axb4 66 cxb4 l2Jc8 67 as l2Jd6 68 bs l2Je4+ 69 Wb6 Wc8 70 <.t>c6 Wb8 71 b6 1-o.

Nowadays, Black generally prefers

94

13 ... i.e6 in this variation, and if 14 i.xcs dxcs 15 tbds i.xds 16 exds �d6 17 f4 o-o 18 fxes �xes.

From here, G.Guseinov-B.Macieja, Antalya 2004, continued 19 C4 'iUd6 20 l:i.fel l:i.fd8 21 'iUf4 <.t>f8 22 l:i.b1 l2Je8 23 l:i.es 'iUb6 24 b3 l2Jf6 25 l:i.fs 'iUd6 26 'iUf2 bs 27 l:i.fl bxc4 28 bxc4 Wg8, and M.Carlsen-Y.Pelletier, Biel 2006, saw 19 d6 'iUxb2 20 C4 'iUxd2 21 1:!xd2 l:i.ab8 22 a4 l:i.fd8 23 l:i.e1 <.t>f8 24 l:i.es l2Jd7 25 l:i.e4 f6, with Black holding safely in both games. 1 lbdbs 'iUbs s i.f4 tbes?!

Black should really have bailed out into a form of Sveshnikov Sicilian, by

playing 8 .. . es!? 9 .igs a6 10 .ixf6 (or immediately 10 tL:la3) 10 ... gxf6 11 lLla3. While White's extra move g3 looks more useful for White than Black's queen being on b8, rather than d8 as in a standard Sveshnikov, this is still nev­ertheless more active for Black than the game. 9 i.e2!

This alert move puts extreme pres­sure on Black's game. By covering the d1-h5 diagonal, White threatens 10 �d4, followed by 0-0-0, with devasta­tion to follow on the d-file. White also raises the prospect of exchanging bishop for knight on es, followed by the space-gaining f4 and es. 9 ... .ics?!

Tal's typically active defence in­volves a doubtful gambit. Tal later sug­gested the purely defensive 9 ... tt:Jg8 10 �d4 f6, which is far from comfortable, but at least avoids material loss. Fischer then correctly considers that after 11 o-o-o a6 12 tt:Jd6+ .ixd6 13 �xd6 �xd6 14 �xd6, White has "a promising endgame". But Black can at least still fight.

Against all of 9 .. . a6, 9 .. . d6 and 9 . . . .ib4, White replies 10 �d4 with overwhelming pressure in the centre. 10 .ixes �xes 11 f4 �b8 12 es a6

Now it is too late for 12 ... tt:Jg8, as White wins easily after 13 tL:le4 .ie7 14 �d2, followed by tt:Jbd6+ and 0-0-0 -Fischer. 13 exf6 axbs 14 fxg7

" I wanted the pawn" - Fischer.

Robert Fischer (1 9 4 3 - 2 008}

Keres' suggestion, 14 tL:le4 .if8 15 llid4, also looks good, but Fischer's decision may be even stronger. 14 ... �g8 15 tt:Je4 .ie7 16 llid4 �34?!

This move fails, but Black may be lost anyway. Botvinnik suggested 16 ... �c7, but after 17 .id3, White threatens tL:lf6+, and with Black's pawn on h7 loose (and with 0-0-0 available, as in the game), Black is unlikely to be able to defend. 17 tt:Jf6+ .ixf6 18 �xf6 �c7 19 0-0-0!

White can safely give up his a-pawn to connect his rooks and generate criti­cal threats in the centre. His king is per­fectly safe on the queenside, as Black's rook and queen alone can generate no effective threats against it there. 19 ... �xa2 20 �b1 �a6

Tal makes a vain attempt to bolster his defences along the third rank. He also loses after 20 . . . llias 21 b3, threat-ening .ihs, or 20 ... �as 21 .ihs ds (21 ... d6 22 �xd6) 22 �xds exds 23 �e1+. 21 i.xbs

Simpler was 21 i.hs ! d6 (or 22 ... ds

95

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Classical Chess

23 .l:!.xds) 22 .l:!.he1, threatening .l:!.xe6+, �xg7 28 i.xf7+ �d8 29 i.e6 �h6 and if 22 . . ."W/e7 23 �6 �d7 24 �xh7. But Fischer confessed that he "was so intent on snatching material and not botching this" that he only had eyes on grabbing Black's b-pawn. He had also foreseen the pretty queen sacrifice on his 23rd move. 21 ... .l:!.b6 22 i.d3 e5

Or if 22 ... �d8 23 �6 fS 24 �S+ �e7 2S g4, and Black's king will be drawn into the open. 23 fxe5!

This is not hard to see, but ex­tremely effective - White's pawns on f6 and g7 will cost Black a second rook after he takes White's queen, as Black will be unable to hang on to his h­pawn. Tal may have hoped for 23 �xeS+ �xes 24 fxes .l:!.xg7, when he might struggle on, but he wouldn't, of course, have expected Fischer to allow that. 23 . . • .l:!.xf6 24 exf6 �c5

After 24 ... �b6? 2S .l:!.hf1, matters are only much worse. 25 .ixh7 �g5 26 .ixg8 �xf6 27 .l:!.hf1

9 6

White's two extra pawns guarantee an easy win. Black's pieces haven't the slightest activity, and after 29 .. . �C7 30 .ifs, White's g- and h-pawns win quickly. 30 .ixd7 .ixd7 31 .l:!.f7 �xh2 32 .l:!.dxd7+ �e8 33 .l:!.de7+ �d8 34 .l:!.d7+ �c8 35 .l:!.c7+ �d8 36 .l:!.fd7+ �e8 37 .l:!.d1 b5 38 .l:!.b7 �h5

Or if 38 .. . �xg3 39 .l:!.xbs, and White's b- and c-pawns win. 39 g4 �h3

Black also suffers because his king is exposed and he now loses a third pawn. After 39 ... �xg4? 40 .l:!.h1, White threatens .l:!.h8 mate, and if 40 ... �d4 41 .l:!.h8+! �xh8 42 .l:!.b8+. 40 g5 �f3 41 .l:!.e1+ �f8 42 .l:!.xb5 �g7 43 .l:!.b6 �g3 44 .l:!.d1 �c7 45 .l:!.dd6 �c8 46 b3 �h7 47 .l:!.a6 1-0

Like the teenage Vassily Smyslov, the young Bobby Fischer was one of the world's best-read chess players as well as a formidable talent. It was a more hit and miss business for Fischer, who

lacked the influence of a strong chess­playing father and well-stocked library. But when the youngster met books for the first time seriously in the early 1950s, it was a love match. According to his New York chess teacher, Jack Collins, with whom Fischer studied for some two years from June 1956, Fischer "devoured more chess books than anyone who ... lived [and] not only for the chess knowledge; he also loved the lore." Fischer's tastes ranged from the likes of Steinitz's International Chess Magazine through to the latest games and theoretical articles in Shakhmaty v SSSR and Shakhmatny Bul­letin.

Fischer was one of the first modern players to properly investigate, appre­ciate and adapt some of the great weapons of the past for up-to-date contemporary com bat. We no longer blink an eye, when someone like, say, Garry Kasparov, in the post-Fischer age revives the ancient Scotch Game, or even the swashbuckling Evans Gambit. Fischer anticipated that sort of trend two to three decades earlier. Fischer liked to play the occasional Evans Gambit, though he reserved that line mainly for exhibition chess. He had fewer reservations about the King's Bishop's Gambit, Steinitz's shocking 9 l2Jh3 in a long-forgotten byway in the Two Knights Defence, the Exchange Variation of the Spanish Opening, which he fashioned into a truly dan­gerous weapon, and other lines, all of

Robert Fischer (1 9 4 3 - 2 008)

which he played with success in the 1960s.

Interviewing Fischer for Chess Life & Review shortly after he became World Champion in 1972, Svetozar Gligoric expressed admiration for the "new" way Fischer handled the opening in the final, 21st game of the match. Fischer confessed deadpan that he had actu­ally "found the idea ... in Anderssen's book [Gottschall's 1912 collection of Anderssen's games] ... it's the way they used to play in the old days."

Informed and full of surprises, Fischer's chess was also built from blocks of continuous play. Having learned the game at the age of 6, his early passion for chess was nurtured from that point on within the Brooklyn Chess Club and by a series of adult mentors, including the Brooklyn Club's President, Carmine Negro. Fischer played widely in junior and adult events, until in 1956-58 he suddenly jumped dramatically in playing strength. In the summer of 1956, aged 13, Fischer won the US Junior Champi­onship. Invited to play against some of the strongest US players later that year in the Rosenwald Cup in New York, he finished only eighth, but won sensa­tionally against Donald Byrne, in a game that later became known as the "Game of the Century".

By dint of hard work and study, Fischer was by now rapidly becoming a world expert in many complex modern openings, such as his favourite Sicilian

9 7

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Classica l Ch ess

Najdorf, King's Indian Defence and Spanish Opening. Aware of even the most arcane, recent Soviet games, he collected and analysed all the material he could find on his favourite open­ings, in a bid to discover the truth and tease out his own ideas.

In 1957, Fischer won the US Open Championship, shortly followed by the first of his eight wins in all the eight US (closed} championships in which he played. In the 1958 Portoroz Interzonal, he finished 5th equal, to become, at 15, the youngest grandmaster in chess history. Only the very top Soviets held him back at this time, particularly Tal and Tigran Petrosian, who qualified from the two Candidates' tourna­ments, held in 1959 and 1962, and won world titles in 1960 and 1963 respec­tively.

Then came the 1963-64 US Champi­onship. Here Fischer at last showed the world that he was beyond doubt any­one's equal. Still only 20, Fischer took his fifth consecutive national title, with a perfect 11/11 score. Even allowing that the US Championship couldn't compare in strength to an equivalent USSR event, this kind of result was simply awesome.

Kasparov once characterized the mature Fischer as "the most successful pupil of the Soviet school." He was to graduate to head-teacher over the next few years. Fischer's inspirational win, against Robert Byrne, in the 1963-64 US championship - one of the greatest

98

games played in the twentieth century - was a magnificent portent.

1 d4

Game 16

R.Byrne-R.Fischer US Championship,

New York 1963 Griinfeld Defence

The 13 year-old Fischer also used a Grunfeld Defence in his "Game of the Century", against Robert Byrne's brother, Donald. The fine combination that follows White's 11th move blun­der pinpointed earlier promise. D.Byrne-R.Fischer, New York 1956, went 1 CLlf3 ctJf6 2 C4 g6 3 CLlC3 .tg7 4 d4 0-0 5 .tf4 d5 6 "i¥h3 dxc4 7 �xc4 c6 8 e4 'Llbd7! ? 9 �d1 'Llb6 10 �c5 .tg4 11 .tg5? (11 .te2! } 11 ... ct:Ja4! 12 �a3 (12 'Llxa4 'Llxe4 is too strong for Black} 12 ... 'Llxc3 13 bxc3 'Llxe4! 14 .txe7 "i¥b6 15 .tc4 'Llxc3 ! 16 .ic5 �fe8+ 17 �f1 .te6! !

1 8 .txb6 (not 1 8 .txe6 �5+ 19

<t>g1 lt:Je2+ 20 <t>f1 lt:Jg3+ 21 <t>g1 �fl+ 22 l:1xf1 lt:Je2 mate, and if 18 �xc3 �xes! ) 18 ... .ixc4+ 19 <t>g1 lt:Je2+ 20 <t>f1 lt:Jxd4+ 21 <t>g1 lt:Je2+ 22 <t>f1 lt:Jc3+ 23 <t>g1 axb6 24 "iib4 11a4 2S �xb6 lt:Jxd1 26 h3 Z1xa2 27 <t>h2 lt:Jxf2 28 Z1e1 l:1xe1 29 �d8+ .if8 30 lt:Jxe1 .ids 31 lt:Jf3 lt:Je4 32 "iib8 bs 33 h4 h s 34 tt:Jes <t>g7 3S <t>g1 .ics+ 36 <t>f1 lt:Jg3+ 37 <t>e1 .ib4+ 38 <t>d1 .ltb3+ 39 <t>c1 lt:Je2+ 40 �b1 lt:Jc3+ 41 <t>c1 l1c2 mate (0-1). 1 ... lt:Jf6 2 c4 g6 3 g3 c6 4 .ig2 dS 5 cxds cxds 6 lt:Jc3 .ltg7

7 e3!? White dodges the main line 7 lt:Jf3

(see Game 11, Botvinnik-Smyslov), and gives every impression of only playing for a draw. White's opening ambition is confined simply to developing his pieces on modest, if reasonably sound squares. 7 .. . 0-0 8 lt:Jge2 lt:Jc6 9 o-o b6 10 b3

White has no apparent way to sharpen the play. Perhaps he should prefer 10 lt:Jf4 to force Black to defend his d-pawn by playing 10 ... e6, and only then play 11 b3, which Fischer rightly

Rob e rt Fisch er (1 943 -2 008)

assesses as leading to "deadeye equal­ity". At least this would cut out possi­bilities of Black playing ... es, as shortly happens. 10 . . • .ia6 11 .ta3 l1e8

Fischer didn't like quick draws and prepares ... es. Black can easily equalize without risk by playing 11 .. :�d7, and if 12 �d2 11fd8 (or 12 ... 11fc8 13 l:1fc1 Z1C7) 13 l:1fc1 l:1ac8. 12 �d2

Byrne must have been wondering whether Fischer really was going to play ... es and it no doubt crossed his mind which 12th move might best in­hibit or even prevent it.

A later game, S.Balster-A.David, Ger­man League 1998, continued 12 .I1e1 es 13 dxes lt:Jxes 14 lt:Jf4 l:1c8 1S lt:Jcxds lt:Jxds 16 lt:Jxds lt:Jd3 17 l:1e2 l:1es 18 e4 fs 19 f4 l:1xe4 20 l:1xe4 fxe4 21 ..txe4 <t>h8 22 l1b1 �d7 23 i.c1 �e6 24 .if3 ..td4+ 2S <t>g2 lt:Je1+ 26 <t>h1 lt:Jxf3 27 �xf3 ..tb7 0-1. Instead Fischer sug­gested that 12 Z1c1 was "a good alter­hative", but tantalisingly said little more than that. Black might reply

99

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Class ical Chess

12 . . . .l:!.c8, and if 13 .l:!.e1, perhaps again 13 ... es. 12 ... es

! - Fischer. He is probably right, but it's extraordinarily complex now. Fischer confessed that he "was a bit worried about weakening his d-pawn, but felt that the tremendous activity obtained by my minor pieces would permit White no time to exploit it."

"To make such a move, you must have great belief in your powers!" wrote Kasparov. He's certainly right!

Fischer needn't have taken any risk in this position, as a draw with Black against one of his main rivals wouldn't have been a poor result. But when he thought he could play a strong move, he also almost invariably took up the challenge in the game's interest. 13 dxes

Although White is vulnerable on the light squares after this exchange, with d3 an immediate target, he can hope to put sufficient pressure on Black's d­pawn to compensate. Kasparov consid­ers the alternative, 13 .l:!.ac1 exd4 14 exd4 .l:!.c8 1S .l:!.fe1, and if 1S .. . ctJe4 16 ct:lxe4 dxe4 17 ds fS 18 ct:lf4 ct:Jes 19 .l:!.xc8, to be "double-edged". 13 ... ct:Jxes 14 .l:!.fd1?

Many great players, and subse­quently computers, have devoted huge amounts of time to an analysis of this position and it's still not absolutely clear what's happening. But we can at least state that Byrne's choice is cer­tainly bad. It's the "wrong" rook on d1.

1 00

White fatally weakens f2 by moving his f-rook there, although this wasn't yet at all easy to appreciate.

Correct was 14 .l:!.ad1!, after which Fischer's original "refutation" 14 ... ctJe4!? 1S ct:Jxe4 dxe4 16 �xe4 'i¥xd2 17 .l:!.xd2 ct:lc4 18 �xa8 ct:lxd2 19 .l:!.d1 ctJc4? fails to Yuri Averbakh's alert intermezzo 20 �c6! (20 bxc4? .l:!.xa8 is better for Black due to his bishop-pair and White's weak c-pawn), and if 20 ... ct:lxa3 21 �xe8 �xe2 22 .l:!.d7.

After much hard work, Fischer then suggested 14 ... 'i¥c8, and after 1S �b2 'Vi'fs or 1S .l:!.c1 'i¥d7 16 .l:!.cd1 .l:!.ad8, Black is slightly better. White's game is even worse after 1S ct:Jxds? ! ct:Jxds 16 .ixds .l:!.d8 and if 17 f4 .l:!.xds! 18 'Vi'xds �b7 19 'i¥d8+ (or 19 'Vi'd2 'i¥c6 ! 20 'Vi'ds 'Vi'xds 21 .l:!.xds �xds 22 fxes �xes) 19 ... 'i¥xd8 20 .l:!.xd8+ .l:!.xd8 21 fxes .ixes. Here Robert Hubner later sug­gested 1S .id6! ?, and after 1S ... ctJe4 (Kasparov's 1S ... 'i¥g4!? may be better) 16 ct:lxe4 dxe4 17 �xes .l:!.xes 18 .l:!.c1, White appears to be sorting out his development with sufficient control in

the centre to maintain a balance. Fischer also considered 14 l:tad1

�d7, but rejected it because of 15 �c2 l:tac8 16 �1, intending l:td2, followed by l:tfd1. However, after Hubner's 16 ... �g4, and if 17 h3 � 5 18 ctJf4 ctJf3+ 19 Wh1 �6, Black may still be a little better. Hubner carried forward this analysis, suggesting that after the further moves 20 tt:Jcxds i.xf1 21 tt:Jxf6+ i.xf6 22 i.xf1 l:tcd8 23 tt:Jds, White can still certainly fight. 14 ... 4Jd3!

This fine move only really works be­cause f2 has been weakened. Ignoring tactics for the moment, Black threatens to bolster his grip on the central light squares by following up powerfully with 1S ... ctJe4. 15 'iWc2?

This is White's only way to defend against 1S ... ctJe4, but he sadly had to allow it. Black is clearly much better after 15 ctJd4 tt:Je4 16 4Jxe4 dxe4 17 Ji.b2 l:tc8, "with a bind" (Fischer), but this was relatively best for White.

Fischer also gives 15 f3 Ji.h6 16 f4

Robert Fischer ( 1 9 4 3 - 2 008)

.il.g7 ! renewing the threat of ... ctJe4, with continuing pressure, and the tac­tical line 15 ctJf4 ctJe4 16 tt:Jxe4 dxe4 17 l:tab1 l:tc8 18 tt:Jxd3 (or if 18 i.b4 tt:Jxf4 19 gxf4 �xd2 20 l:txd2 i.d3 21 l:tbd1 as 22 i.d6 i.c3 23 l:txd3 exd3 with a tech­nical win - Kasparov) 18 ... i.c3 ! 19 �e2 Ji.xd3 20 �g4 fs 21 �3 i.xb1 22 l:txd8 l:texd8 23 i.f1 l:td1 24 Wg2 i.d3 25 .il.xd3 exd3, and wins. 1S ... tt:Jxf2! !

Byrne must have considered this move, but he may have missed the force of Fischer's explosive, 18th-move follow-up. 16 'it>xf2 ctJg4+ 17 'it>g1 4Jxe3 18 �d2 tt:Jxg2! !

White was hoping for 18 ... 4Jxd1? 19 l:txd1, when in Fischer's words, "White is all right again." Instead, Black gives up his knight, aiming to dominate play on both long diagonals, and on the e­and d-files. 19 Wxg2 d4!

Black clears the long light-square ' diagonal for his bishop on a6 to join the attack.

1 01

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Class ica l Chess

20 tt'lxd4 i.b7+ 21 'it>f1 Black's pressure in the centre and

on the long dark-square diagonal con­trol make themselves clear after 21 'it>g1 i.xd4+ 22 �xd4 �e1+! and wins. Fischer also gives 21 'it>f2 �d7!, and if 22 �ac1 �3 23 tt'lf3 i.h6 24 �d3 i.e3+ 2 5 �xe3 �xe3 26 'it>xe3 �e8+ 27 'it>f2 �f5, winning. 21 ... �d7! 0-1

Fischer had hoped to be able to play out the beautiful winning line 22 �f2 (White is also lost after 22 tt'ldb5 �3+ 23 Wg1 i.h6} 22 . . . �3+ 23 'it>g1 �e1+!! 24 �xe1 i.xd4, but Byrne must have been stunned by the shattering trans-

1 02

formation in his chances in the last six moves or so, and could no longer bear playing on.

Everyone now expected great things from the young American grandmas­ter. But what did he do? He stopped playing! Fischer refused to take up his place in the 1964 Interzonal in Amster­dam, thus denying himself any chance of becoming Petrosian's world title challenger in 1966. Such stop-go poli­tics in his relations with chess were sadly to increase alarmingly from now on and to become increasingly persis­tent.

It is hard to be certain why Fischer either dropped out or dropped back into competitive chess over the next six years or so. A small cottage industry already exists on Fischer's complex psychology and there is no consensus about many of his actions. In 1964 Fischer himself made much of the me­diocre prize-fund at the Amsterdam Interzonal, but if money really was the problem, surely that could have been dealt with through private financial support.

Some 18 months later, a rustier Fischer eventually accepted an invita­tion to play in the 1965 Capablanca Memorial tournament, in Havana. Eve­ryone breathed a sigh of relief. But the playing format was extraordinary. At that time, the US State Department barred US citizens from visiting Cuba and it would make no exception for its

number one chess player. So Fischer had to play his games by cable from the Marshall Chess Club. Fischer shared 2nd place at Havana and then, thank­fully, kept on playing. Quickly picking up the pace again, he won his sixth straight national title in the 1965-66 US championship, and then he finished 2nd to Boris Spassky, but ahead of World Champion, Petrosian, at the sec­ond Piatigorsky Cup, in Santa Monica 1966. He was, at least, tentatively back in business.

Summing up the essence of Fischer's mature playing style, Elie Agur laid stress on its mix of "coherence" and "paradox". He argues that classical players, such as Fischer, will constantly change tack in their games, in acute response to the changing "elements of chess [which] are varied and ... contra­dictory."

Agur considers that it is accordingly hard "to predict when [such players will] turn from one set of considera­tions to another .. . and ... give prefer­ence to, say, dynamic positional con­siderations over material ones". Cer­tainly many of Fischer's greatest games are arrestingly unpredictable in this sense, such as his famous win, with black, against Lajos Portisch at Santa Monica. Fischer's play in this game has an unusually satisfying positional co­herence to it. But it all stems from two surprising and, at first glance, wholly counterintuitive decisions, on his deeply insightful gth and 11th moves.

Robert Fischer (1 9 4 3 - 2 008)

Game 17 L.Portisch-R.Fischer Santa Monica 1966

Nimzo-lndian Defence

1 d4 lt:Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:Jc3 .ib4 4 e3 b6

Fischer's main weapon against 1 d4 in the 1950s and 60s was the King's Indian Defence, but he also enjoyed playing all of the Indian Defences, ex­cept the quiet Queen's Indian. He played many Grunfeld and Modern Benoni Defences, as well as the 4 ... b6 l ine against 4 e3 in the Nimzo-lndian.

All of these lines give Black chances to play for asymmetry and imbalance. All were also inspired by top-class So­viet examples. Thus, Efim Geller played the King's Indian Defence superbly; Smyslov subtly interpreted the Grun­feld; Tal put extraordinary fire into the Modern Benoni; and Bronstein, Keres, Smyslov and Botvinnik pioneered many paths for White and Black in the 4 ... b6

· Nimzo-lndian. Fischer soaked this all up and added

1 03

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

many new, often breathtaking ideas to all of these openings. He gave a typi­cally brash "!" to 4 ... b6 in My 60 Memo­rable Games, adding that all "other moves have been analysed to death." This is really Fischer-speak for '' I 'm mainly interested in new paths." s ltJge2

One of the main ideas behind this move is to meet Black's simplest reply, s .. . i.b7, by playing 6 a3 i.e? 7 ds! , with good prospects on the central light squares. This explains Fischer's more active reply, s ... .ta6, putting pressure on c4, an idea of Bronstein's.

Simpler development, S .td3 i.b7 6 liJf3, is also possible for White, but al­lows Black to fight for greater control of the long light-square diagonal. Black has a solid game after 6 .. . 0-0 7 0-0 and now either 7 ... ds, 7 ... cs or Fischer's fa­vourite, 7 .. . .txc3 8 bxc3 i.e4. Black can also play the more ambitious 6 ... ltJe4 7 o-o fs ! .

An important game in this line, S.Gligoric-B.Larsen, Havana 1967, con­tinued 8 i.xe4?! (8 ds i.xc3 9 bxc3 ltJcs

1 04

10 .ta3 liJba6 may be the stiffest test) 8 .. .fxe4 9 liJd2 .txc3 10 bxc3 0-0 11 �g4 .l:!.fs ! and Black stood well . Instead I .Rabinovich-A.Alekhine, USSR Champi­onship, Moscow 1920, continued harm­lessly here: 7 �c2 fs 8 o-o .txc3 9 bxc3 0-0 10 liJd2 'ti'l14 11 f3 ltJxd2 12 i.xd2 ltJc6 13 e4 fxe4 14 .txe4?! ltJas 1S .l:!.ae1?! i.xe4 16 .l:!.xe4 'tins 17 �a4 ltJxc4l 18 .l:!.e2 bs and Black soon won. Later, I.Aloni-R.Fischer, Netanya 1968, varied 13 .l:!.ae1 ltJas 14 .l:!.b1 d6 1S i.e1 �gs 16 �e2 es 17 e4 fxe4 18 fxe4 .l:!.xf1+ 19 �xfl cs 20 �g1 i.a6, with a structural edge. s . . . i.a6 6 liJg3

This is White's sharpest try, threat­ening to take control of the centre by playing e4. After the quieter 6 a3, Black can be happy with his position by play­ing either:

a) 6 ... .txc3+ 7 ltJxc3 ds 8 b3 ltJc6, and now L.Evans-R.Fischer, US Cham­pionship, New York 196S, continued 9 i.e2 0-0 10 a4 dxc4 (10 ... �d7 11 0-0 .l:!.fd8 is also possible) 11 .ta3 .l:!.e8 12 b4 ltJe7 13 o-o? (13 bS i.b7 14 0-0 is criti­cal) 13 ... ltJeds 14 .l:!.c1 c6 1S i.f3 bs, and Black had a good extra pawn.

b) 6 ... i.e7, and if 7 ltJf4 dS 8 cxds .txf1 9 �xfl ltJxds (9 ... exds 10 g4 o-o! 11 g S ctJe4 is also possible), and if 10 ltJcxds exds 11 'tins c6 12 ltJe6 g6 13 �es i.f6 14 ctJxd8+ i.xes 1S liJxf7 �xf7 16 dxeS ctJd7 17 f4 ltJcs, Black's power­ful knight and light-square blockade compensate fully for the sacrificed pawn.

6 •.. i.xc3+ 7 bxc3 ds

After this move, White has the bishop-pair, but his c-pawns have been doubled and Black's bishop exerts sig­nificant pressure on C4. White can swap pawns on d5 to gain an extra pawn in the centre, but this allows Black to ex­change the light-square bishops, costs some development time and leaves Black with a clear plan of action on both the queenside light squares and the c­file, by playing for ... c5. 8 'iYf3!?

White indirectly defends his pawn on c4 and threatens 9 e4. But Fischer was ready for this and his finely con­ceived 9th and 11th moves have all but consigned Portisch's plan to the history books.

Black achieves dynamic chances af­ter 8 cxd5 i.xfl 9 'it>xfl 'iYxd5 {9 . . . exd5 may also be fine). A critical game, S.Gligoric-L.Portisch, Wijk aan Zee 1975, continued 10 'iYd3 'Llbd7 11 e4 'iYa5 12 e5 CLld5 13 C4 CLlb4 14 'iYh3 CLlc6 15 i.b2 o-o 16 i.c3 'iYa6 17 'iYb5 'iYh7 18 .Se1 .Sfd8 19 h4 'Llf8 20 .Se4 'Lle7 21 h5 'Llf5

Robert Fischer (1 943 -2 008)

22 .Sf4 'Llxg3+ 23 fxg3 c5 24 .Shh4 cxd4 2 5 .Sxd4 h6, with good play for Black.

Nowadays the gam bit idea 8 i.a3 i.xc4 9 i.xc4 dxc4 10 0-0! {10 'iYa4+ 'iYd7 11 'iYxc4 'iYc6 12 'iYxc6+ 'Llxc6 is roughly equal), and if 10 .. . 'iYd7 11 .Sbl!, is considered to be the main line. But not 11 e4?! , which allows the active 11...'iYh5! , as in L.Szabo-V.Hort, Wijk aan Zee 1973, which continued 12 d5 'Llbd7 13 dxe6 fxe6 14 e5 'iYxe5 15 .Sel 'iYd5 16 'iYa4 o-o-o 17 'iYxa7 .She8 18 .Sab1 'Llb8, with good chances. Here Fischer actually intended 8 ... dxc4?!, but was later lucky to draw in L.Portisch­R.Fischer, Siegen Olympiad 1970, after 9 e4 'iYd7 10 i.e2 'Llc6 11 'iYc2 0-0-0 12 o-o h 5 13 .Sfdl h4 14 'Llfl 'Llh5? ! 15 d5! , and White had a clear advantage. 8 . . . 0-0

9 e4?! White should prefer 9 cxd5.

A.Lombard-B.Larsen, Biel Interzonal 1976, continued 9 ... 'iYxd5 {9 ... exd5 is also possible) 10 e4 'iYh7 11 i.e2 i.xe2

' 12 'iYxe2 c5 13 0-0 'iYa6 14 'iYxa6 'Llxa6 15 i.a3 .Sfc8, with activity.

1 05

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Classical Chess

9 ... dxe4! Portisch confessed that this came as

a shock. He expected 9 ... dxc4? ! , as in A.Saidy-R.Fischer, US Championship, New York 1965/66, which had contin­ued 10 i.gs h6 11 i.d2? ! liJbd7 12 es liJds 13 liJfs exfs 14 �xds l:te8 15 i.xc4 ltJxes 16 �xd8 l2Jxc4+ 17 �xe8+ l:txe8+ 18 ..t>d1 l2Jxd2 19 ..t>xd2 l:te2+, and Black won. Of course, both Portisch and Fischer had discovered the clear im­provement 11 h4!, and if 11 ... i.b7 12 i.xf6 (or possibly also 12 liJhS) 12 ... �xf6 13 �xf6 gxf6 14 i.xc4, with an endgame edge. 10 l2Jxe4 l2Jxe4 11 �xe4 �d7!

Surprisingly, Black needn't defend his rook on a8. Black plans ... l2Jc6, fol­lowed by ... ltJas, putting pressure on White's weak pawn on c4. Fischer had discovered that after 11 ... �d7 12 �xa8 l2Jc6 13 �xf8+ ..t>xf8, Black's queen is stronger than White's rooks. Normally the rooks would be better, but here White's weakened queenside pawns are at considerable risk and his rooks are inactive.

1 0 6

White's pawn on C4 i s in immediate danger. His pawns on c3 and a2 are also long-term weaknesses, and he also has development problems. In the event of an exchange of light-square bishops, as seems likely due to Black's pressure on C4, White's remaining bishop will be restricted by its own pawns and much weaker than Black's powerful knight. 12 i.a3?!

Portisch should have centralized this bishop rather than consign it to the flank. After 12 i.d3 fs 13 �e2 (13 �xa8?! liJc6 is still good for Black) 13 ... l2Jc6 (Fischer), Hubner's suggestion 14 i.f4, and if 14 ... l:tfe8 (or 14 ... l2Je7 15 o-o l2Jg6 16 i.es cs 17 a4 l:tfd8 18 as) 15 o-o ttJas 16 .tes �c6 17 cs i.xd3 18 �xd3 bxcs 19 l:tab1, would have of­fered White much better chances than the game. 12 ... l:te8 13 i.d3

After 13 o-o-o l2Jc6 14 i.d3 fs 15 �e2 ttJas, "Black's chances are clearly better" - Kasparov. 13 ... fs 14 �xa8?!

Gaining two rooks for White's queen remains doubtful, but Portisch now had little option. With his bishop on a3, rather than f4, White will now struggle to defend after 14 �e2 liJc6, and if 15 o-o es 16 dS e4 (Soltis). Here Black can also play 14 ... �a4 15 i.c1 l2Jc6. 14 ... l2Jc6 15 �xeS+ �xe8 16 0-0 liJaS 17 l:tae1 i.xc4

Fischer criticised this move as "too

routine". He instead suggested the ·crushing" 17 ... "iYa4! 18 .Yi.b4 .Yi.xc4 19 ...txc4 t2Jxc4 20 .M.xe6 as 21 .Yi.e7 t2'ld2 22 .:tel tbe4, and if 23 f3 iYxa2! . Black must also win easily after 23 il.h4 h6! , and if 24 .M.e7 tbxc3 2 5 .M.xc7 tL'lds, or 23 :.es iYxa2 24 .M.xfs h6 ! .

18 .txc4 t2Jxc4 19 .tel cs! Black, however, still stands well. He

now threatens to exchange pawns on d4, followed by ... bs and eventually ... iYds, reaching positions in which Black's mobile queenside pawn major­ity and continuing pressure against White's isolated d- and a-pawns are likely to win. Black obtains similar ad­vantages after 20 ds es, followed by an eventual ... "iYd6. 20 dxcs bxcs 21 .if4 h6!

Now Black can win by mobilizing his king side pawn majority. After 22 h4 es ! 23 Jl.xes tbxes 24 f4 t2'lf3+ 25 gxf3 iVa4, "White's pawns are too loose" -Fischer. 22 .M.e2 gs 23 il.es?!

White's bishop becomes fatally im­mobile on this square. So perhaps

Robert Fischer (1 943 -2 008)

White's last practical chance was to play 23 il.e3, but even here, after 23 ... iYbs, and if 24 f3, to allow White's bishop an escape to f2, Kasparov's 24 ... t2Jes ! , followed by ... "iYc4, should win quickly. 23 ••. "iYd8 24 .M.fel

Or if 24 f4 t2'ld2 ! 25 .M.fe1 tbe4 (Fischer). 24 ... �f7 25 h3 f4!

Now White's bishop can't escape from es. 26 �h2 a6!

Fischer even has time to safeguard his a-pawn against a possible .Yi.b8 counter-threat before proceeding with his next move. 27 .M.e4 iYds!

And White is completely tied up. Black threatens to win an exchange by playing 28 ... t2'le3 (which also clearly wins after 28 f3). White is also lost after 28 .M.4e2 f3 ! 29 gxf3 (or 29 .M.e4 fxg2) 29 . . . t2'ld2. 28 h4 t2'le3 29 .M.1xe3

Or if 29 f3 iYd2 30 .M.g1 iYf2, and wins.

1 0 7

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Class ical Chess

29 ... fxe3 30 I:!.xe3 iVxa2 With an extra passed a-pawn,

White's rook and bishop are clearly no match at all for Black's queen. 31 I:l.f3+ \t>e8 32 i.g7 iYc4 33 hxgs hxg5 34 I:!.f8+ \t>d7 35 I:!.a8 \t>c6 0-1

Later in 1966 Fischer scored 15/17, on board one, at the Havana Olympiad. He then won his eighth national title at the 1966-67 US Championship, and in early 1967, he took two sparkling 1st places in Monaco and Skopje. As a re­sult, Fischer was the massive favourite to win the 1967 Sousse Interzonal. In top gear, the top seed streaked ahead to lead the 23-player field comfortably on 81/2/10. Then he promptly ... with­drew from the tournament!

No one really understands what went through Fischer's mind in all of this. Ostensibly he objected to having to play a crowded schedule of games (including possible adjournments) in the middle of the event. But this wasn't a wholly impossible schedule and, in any case, it was mainly due to a special religious dispensation not to play on Fridays or until sunset on Saturdays that had been requested by Fischer himself.

Despite goodwill from most of the players and an apparent willingness to be flexible on the part of the organis­ers, although they stuck to the award of two forfeits against the absent American in the 11th and 12th rounds, nothing could persuade Fischer to get

1 08

back to the board for the 13th round -at least on time! After US Embassy in­terventions, ill-fated dithering by Fischer and then a last, mad dash by the American from Tunis to Sousse, Fischer failed to reach the tournament hall before the 13th round started. That was the end. Fischer's 13th-round op­ponent, Bent Larsen, not unreasonably protested at being asked to postpone the game once it had started. A still dithering Fischer apparently hadn't even made it clear whether he would play the game, even if it were post­poned. But the upshot was that in pique, and blaming everyone else for his problems, Fischer walked out, thereby denying himself the possibility of yet another world title challenge, this time in 1969.

Fischer's impulsive and bizarre be­haviour in Tunisia was more akin to the manic antics of a classic Marx Brothers' movie than rational. Perhaps if someone (other than Fischer, of course) had been able to show the Wis­dom of Solomon, things might have turned out better. As it was, Fischer's great friend, Svetozar Gligoric, proba­bly summed things up best in his "Game of the Month" column in Chess Life & Review when he wrote:

"There is no point in discussing whether Fischer was right in his com­plaints because all that is of such ... minor importance in comparison with the necessity of his presence in the fight for the highest honours. There is

no point in blaming Fischer either; for he is the one who suffered most ... He simply ought not have let himself be trapped into an impossible position which forced him to retreat without any really good reason."

Back on the chessboard, Fischer's play at Sousse was, of course, entirely balanced, even serene. He wasn't just the world's best player. His artistry was also peerless. Elie Agur wrote that "every classical player, when his com­mand of the game and his self­confidence have matured, evinces a growing tendency to negotiate lines that are less predictable and calculable yet manifest a grander vision of the game."

Fischer's titanic battle against Leonid Stein, three-time USSR cham­pion, and recent winner, ahead of all the other top Soviet players, in the powerful Alekhine Memorial Tourna­ment at Moscow 1967, testifies to such increasing power and definite gran­deur.

1 e4

Game 18 R.Fischer-L.Stein

Sousse lnterzonal 1967 Ruy Lopez

Fischer annotated this move in My 60 Memorable Games with the com­ment, " I have never opened with the d­pawn - on principle."

Robert Fischer (1 9 4 3 - 2008)

He appears never to have betrayed that principle, at least in all serious one-to-one games at normal time rates. Even when he played a magnifi­cent Queen's Gambit, in the 8th game of his 1972 World Championship match against Boris Spassky, Fischer carefully ensured that he only trans­posed after opening with 1 c4. 1 ... es 2 4Jf3 4Jc6 3 .i.bs a6 4 i.a4

The Spanish was Fischer's main White response against 1 ... es, and he usually played the main lines. But in the mid-1960s, inspired by some new ideas by the Dutch master, Johan Bar­endregt, he fashioned the ancient Ex­change Variation into a surprise and dangerous weapon after 4 i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0.

Fischer also typically studied the most important, older historical influ­ences and the following outstanding demonstration of White's potential in this line, owes more to Emanuel Lasker than the modern Dutch school. White's .pawns on e4 and fs, a Lasker "trade­mark", leave an apparently ugly "hole"

1 09

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Class ica l Chess

on es, but they also constrain Black, particularly the development of Black's light-square bishop.

R.Fischer-W.Unzicker, Siegen Olym­piad 1970, continued s .. .f6 6 d4 exd4 7 lbxd4 lbe7 8 .ie3 lbg6 9 lbd2 .id6 10 lbc4 o-o 11 �d3 lbes 12 lbxes .ixes 13 f4 .id6 14 fS! �e7 1S .if4 .ixf4 16 �xf4 .id7 17 �ell �cs 18 c3 �ae8 19 g4! �d6 20 �g3 �e7 21 lbf3 cs 22 es ! and by a series of well-judged preparatory moves, White had not only eliminated his es "weakness", but also mobilized his kingside pawn majority, with at­tacking chances.

Fischer relentlessly continued to squeeze his opponent and eventually won after 22 .. .fxeS 23 �fe4 .ic6 24 �xes �fe8 2S �xe7 �xe7 26 lbes ! h6 27 h4 .id7 28 �f4 �f6 29 �e2 .ic8 30 �c4+ Wh7 31 lbg6 �xe2 32 �xe2 .ltd7? (Black should play 32 ... �d6!) 33 �e7! �xe7 34 lbxe7 gs 3 S hxgs hxgs 36 lbds .ic6 37 lbxe7 .if3 38 lbe8 Wh6 39 lbf6 Wg7 40 'i£?f2 .id1 41 lbd7 C4 (or if 41 ... .1txg4 42 f6+ 'i£?g8 43 f7+) 42 'i£?g3 1-0.

1 1 0

4 ... lbf6 5 o-o .lte7 6 �e1 b5 7 .ib3 d6 8 C3 0-0 9 h3 .ib7

Of all Black's many possibilities at this stage, this was then one of the rar­est. Stein was probably trying to catch his opponent off guard. Black plans a lengthy manoeuvre with his queen's knight that ends up with it placed on d7. Although these things were less clear in the 1960s, the effect is to lose some time on similar lines that arise in a Breyer Defence that usually begins 9 ... lbb8 10 d4 lbbd7. 10 d4 lbas 11 .ic2 lbc4 12 b3 lbb6 13 lbbd2 lbbd7!?

Black can transpose into a line of Smyslov's Variation (that usually be­gins with 9 ... h6), by playing 13 ... �e8 14 lbf1 h6 1S lbg3 .if8. Stein, however, may have feared that Fischer would be ready for this, as he himself had played White in L.Stein-A.Lutikov, Moscow 1966, which continued 16 a4 bxa4 17 bxa4 as 18 .id3 g6, with an eventual draw. Indeed, Stein was no doubt cor­rect to be cautious. R.Fischer-S.Gligoric, Zagreb 1970, later went 16 ... cs 17 dS c4

18 b4 i..c8 19 i..e3 i..d7 20 as t2Jc8 21 �d2 tLlh7 22 �h2 i..e7 23 tLlfs i..g s 24 tLlxgS hxgs 2S g4, and White eventually won. 14 b4

Fischer hopes to gain space on the queenside as well as to exert pressure in the centre with this move, which improves on less ambitious play in P.Keres-S.Gligoric, Zurich Interzonal 19S9, which continued 14 it.b2!? cs 1S l2Jf1 l:i.e8 16 a4 it.f8 17 tLlg3 �c7 18 �d3?! {18 dS! is better) 18 ... c4 19 bxc4 bxc4 20 �d2, and now Black should have played 20 ... dS!.

Interestingly, though Fischer couldn't have known this at the time, he now reaches a position from the 10th matchgame in his 1972 World Championship against Spassky, with an extra move for White {Spassky's rook was on e8 rather than f8). That game arose from a normal Breyer move order and led to one of Fischer's best wins in the match.

White can also consider making use of his pawn on b3 {which would still be

Robert Fischer (1 943 -2 008)

on b2 in a normal Breyer) to establish a strong pawn centre, such as after the moves 14 t2Jf1 l:i.e8 1S t2Jg3 i..f8 16 ds c6 17 c4. 14 ... exd4

Black concedes an extra pawn in the centre in the interests of establishing counterplay. He plans to follow up with a quick .. . as and .. . cs. Black can't play ... cs immediately, as this would lose his e-pawn, and after the immediate 14 ... as, White can play 1S tLlb3, control­ling and possibly occupying as, with continuing pressure. 15 cxd4 as 16 bxas cs 17 es

Play now becomes very sharp and tactical. Black has obvious queenside potential, but White can activate his extra pawn in the centre, creating at­tacking chances.

White could also consider 17 i..b2, first aiming to undermine Black's hold on c4, by playing a4, before undertaking any sharper action in the centre. Play might then continue 17 ... �xas 18 a4 b4

'19 t2Jc4 �c7 20 es dxes 21 dxes tLlds 22 t2Jfd2, a plan that had been successfully

1 1 1

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Ch ess

played by White in an earlier game, D.Ciric-K.Robatsch, Wijk aan Zee 1967 -but from a Breyer move order, with Black's rook on e8 rather than f8! 11 ... dxes 18 dxes tt:Jds 19 tt::le4 tt::lb4!

This important move drives White's bishop back and exerts critical pressure on d3. Black hasn't time for 19 .. J:txa5? ! 20 tt::leg5 ! , and after 20 . . . h6 21 "i¥d3 g6, White probably wins after Fischer's 22 tt::le6 or Kasparov's 22 tt::lxf7 .l:!.xf7 23 e6 (or 23 "i¥xg6+). 20 .ii.b1 .l:!.xas 21 "i¥e2!

Fischer winds the pressure up an­other notch, and now threatens 22 e6. He rejected two other enticing but ap­parently premature attacking tries. After Keres' 21 tt::leg5 ! ? .ii.xf3 ! 22 tt::lxf3, Kasparov suggests that Black can hold by playing 22 .. . tt::lb6, and if 23 i¥e2 tt::l6d5 24 .ii.d2 C4 25 a3 .l:!.a6. Against 21 e6!? fxe6 22 tt::lfg5, Kasparov gives 22 ... .l:!.a6! 23 tt::lxh7 .l:!.f5 !, and if 24 tt::lc3 .l:!.e5 ! 25 .l:!.xe5 tt::lxe5 26 �5 tt::led3 27 .ii.g5 "i¥d4 28 tt::lf6+, with a draw by per­petual check. 21 ... tt::lb6?

1 1 2

The pressure tells on Stein . Al­though it looks dangerous to allow White to carry out his main threat, Black should nevertheless allow him to do this. Black's best defence lay in re­taining his knight on d7 for defence on the kingside and playing 21 ... .l:!.e8! . Fischer could then see no real advan­tage for White after 22 e6 (or 22 .l:!.d1 "i¥e7) 22 . . .fxe6 23 tt::leg5 .Jtxg5 24 tt::lxg5 (Keres and Euwe both suggested 24 .ii.xh7+?! Wxh7 25 tt::lxg5+ '.tg6 26 tt::lxe6, but this is refuted by 26 ... �4!, and if 27 tt::lf4+ i¥xf4 28 i¥xe8+ "i¥f7) 24 ... tt::lf8 25 � 5 h6. Kasparov also gives 25 tt::le4 c4 26 .ltd2 .l:!.a4 27 tt::lc3 .l:!.a3 28 tt::lxb5 "i¥d5 29 .lte4 i¥xb5 30 .ltxb4 "i¥xb4 31 .l:!.ab1 "i¥a5, and Black holds. 22 tt::lfgs!

Now, however, the white jugger­naut really begins to roll, and Fischer's superior king side forces begin to create potentially exploitable weaknesses in Black's king side pawns . 22 ... .\txe4

After 22 ... h6?, Fischer intended 23 tt::lh7 ! .l:!.e8 (or 23 . . . '>txh7 24 tt::lxc5+) 24 tt::lhf6+, and if 24 . . . .\txf6 25 tt::lxf6+ gxf6 (or 25 . . . i¥xf6 26 exf6) 26 "i¥g4+ Wf8 27 .ltxh6+ We7 28 e6 Wd6 29 "i¥g3+ Wc6 30 .lte4+ tt::l4d5 31 exf7 .l:!.h8 32 .ltxd5+, with a winning attack, or if 24 ... gxf6 25 "i¥g4+ '>th8 26 tt::ld6 .Jtxd6 27 "i¥f5 '>tg7 28 .ii.xh6+ and mates.

And against 22 .. . g6?, Fischer gives 23 e6 f5 24 tt::lf7, threatening both .ii.b2 and "i¥h2 with a winning advantage, and Kasparov considers 24 tt::lxc5, and if

24 .. ti..xc5 25 e7, to be even stronger. 23 �xe4 g6 24 �h4 hs 25 �g3!

This quiet move raises the prospect of three very scary attacking threats: 26 tt:Je6, 26 e6 and 26 tt:Jxf?. Black rapidly hurries his knight on b6 back into the game. 2S ... ctJc4 26 tt:Jf3

Fischer suggested that he should have preferred the "more forcing" 26 e6 f5 27 ctJf3, aiming to transpose back into the game after 27 ... cJ;;g7 28 �f4 1'1h8, without allowing Black the possi­ble defence 28 ... ii.f6 (see the note to Black's 28th move). White can also play the possibly even stronger 27 tt:Jf7 in this line, and after 27 ... 1'1xf7 28 exf7+ cJ;;xf7 29 i.xf5 gxf5 30 �f3 cJi;g6 31 g4 �d5, which Fischer thought a likely draw, Kasparov suggests that 32 �f4! cJ;;f7 33 �6! wins.

Hubner also considered that the immediate 26 tt:Jxf7 1'1xf7 27 i.xg6 1'1g7 28 i.h6 wins. One possible finish, dis­covered by Kasparov's computers, con­tinues 28 ... iff8 29 ii.xg7 ifxg7 30 e6 h4 31 'ifb8+ �f8 32 .if?+ cJi;g? 33 'iff4 �8

Robert Fischer (1 9 4 3 - 2 008}

34 1'1ad1 �6 35 'ifb8 �f6 36 1'1e4! . 26 ... 'it>g7

To add to the drama, as Black was considering this move, there was a power cut in the playing hall, and in the darkness, Fischer became con­cerned that Black might escape by play­ing 26 ... ctJd3, and if 27 1'1d1? tt:Jxc1!.

"Then the lights came on again, and I saw clearly that [after] 27 i..xd3 ! ifxd3 28 .ig5 ! . . . White penetrates de­cisively on the weak dark squares" -Fischer. 27 �f4 1'1h8 28 e6!

Just in time! Black was about to pre­vent this move by playing 28 ... 1'1a6. 2s ... fs

This was exactly the weakening in Black's pawns that Fischer was playing for. Black can't improve with 28 . . .f6?, of course, as after 29 ctJh4 f5 30 tt:Jxg6 he loses immediately. But could 28 . . . .if6 have saved Black?

Fischer's critical and complex main line of analysis then continues 29 exf7

' ii.xa1 30 f8�+ �xf8 31 ifc?+ cJi;g8 32 .ixg6 (threatening both 33 tt:Jg5, such as

1 1 3

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Ch ess

after 32 . . . l::ta8, and 33 l::te8) 32...tLlds 33 �7 tLlf6 34 i.f4, renewing the threat of tLlgs, but allowing the surprise defence 34 ... l::th7 35 i.xh7+ lbxh7 36 WidS+ Wif7 (but not 36 ... Wh8 37 Wixhs, and if 37 ... l::ta8 38 tbgs Wig7 39 lbxh7 Wixh7 40 Wixh7+ Wxh7 41 l::txa1) 37 Wixf7+ Wxf7 38 l::txa1, and Fischer doubted that White could win this endgame. Kas­parov, however, found the remarkable resource 34 l::te6!, which seems to force an amazing win after the complex variation 34 ... l::ta8 35 Wixbs tbd6 36 �1 i.d4 37 tbxd4 cxd4 38 �3 l::tb8 39 Wig3 h4 4o Wigs l::tbs 41 .if7+!. 29 .txfs!

Black can't really accept this sacri­fice. The lines may not be entirely cal­culable, but they do seem to work. Af­ter 29 ... gxf5 Fischer planned 30 Wig3+ and now:

a) 30 ... Wf8 31 'iig6 'iie8 (or 3 1 ... tbd6 32 tbes) 32 .th6+ l::txh6 33 iixh6+ 'l.itg8 34 tLlgs, and Black's game will soon collapse.

b) 30 ... Wh7 31 lbgs+ {Forster's 31 i.gs, and if 31 ... l::tg8 32 l::tad1 'iie8 33

1 1 4

l::td7 l::tg7 34 Wio tba6 3 5 'iia7 lbb4 36 �7. may be even simpler) 31 ... i.xgs 32 i.xg s 'iid3 33 'iic7+ Wg6 34 'iif7+ Wxgs 3 5 'iig7+ and wins.

Hubner later discovered the much better defence 32 ... l::ta3! in variation 'b', only to be trumped by Kasparov, who suggests that White probably still wins after 33 'iif4! Wif8 34 l::tad1, but it isn't remotely easy. Kasparov's most re­markable winning line continues 34 ... l::td3 3 5 a4 lbb2 36 l::tb1 tbxa4 37 Wies Wie8 38 e7 l::tg8 39 h4 tbc3 40 iixfS+ Wig6 41 'iif8 tbc6 (or 41 ... 'iig7 42 e8Wi l::txf8 43 WixhS+ Wg8 44 l::te7 l::tf7 45 l::te8+ l::tf8 46 l::tbe1 l::td1 47 l::txd1 tbxd1 48 i.h6) 42 l::te6 Wixe6 43 e8'ii l::txf8 44 iixe6 lbxb1 45 Wie4+ . .

Of course, analysis like this, which stretches, do not forget, from move 28 and has myriad plausible side­variations, which I have hardly touched on, requires considerable human and indeed computer time. It is most cer­tainly way beyond the ability of any human to foresee from the start with anything close to complete accuracy! 29 ... Wif8 30 .ie4?

And even Bobby Fischer was hu­man ! Here, in the heat of a momentous and truly difficult over-the-board struggle, he misses the correct con­tinuation, pointed out at the time by the English international, John Little­wood.

White should have played 30 lLlh4! i.xh4 31 Wixh4, and if 31 ... Wixfs 32 Wie7+ 'l.itg8 33 Wid8+ Wg7 34 'iie7+ 'l.itg8

35 e7, or 31 .. .'iVf6 32 iVg3 !, to which Kasparov adds 32 .. J:!.e8 33 i.b1 .l:!.a7 34 i.g5 iVxa1 3 5 i.h6+ Wh8 36 iVxg6. 30 . . • iVxf4 31 i.xf4 .l:!.e8?

Stein, who was in severe time­trouble, in turn misses the excellent drawing opportunity 31 ... .l:!.xa2! 32 .l:!.xa2 l!Jxa2, and if 33 l!Je5 g 5 34 i.g3. Kasparov's 34 . . . l!Jb4! then seems best, intending 3 5 l!Jxc4 bxc4 36 i.e5+ i.f6 37 i.d6 .l:!.e8 38 i.xc5 l!Jd3 39 i.xd3 cxd3, and Black should hold. 32 .l:!.adl .l:!.a6

It is now too late for 32 ... .l:!.xa2, which is most simply met by 33 .l:!.d7, and if 33 ... .l:!.a6 34 i.b7! . After the text­move, Fischer suggests that the same idea 33 i.b7! would have been even stronger than his actual reply (though this also wins), and:

a) If 33 ... .l:!.a7 34 .l:!.d7 l!Jb6 35 i.d6 -Soltis.

b) 33 ... .l:!.xa2 34 .l:!.d7 (Fischer), with Kasparov adding 34 ... l!Jb6 3 5 i.c7 l!Jc4 36 i.d8 Wf6 (or 36 ... Wf8 37 i.xe7+ .l:!.xe7 38 l!Jh4) 37 i.xe7+ .l:!.xe7 38 g4 and wins.

Robert Fischer (1 943 -2 008}

33 .l:!.d7 .l:!.xe6 This loses an exchange, but Black

must eliminate White's powerful e­pawn or he has no chance. 34 l!Jgs .l:!.f6 35 i.f3 .l:!.xf4 36 l!Je6+ Wf6 37 l!Jxf4 l!Jes 38 .l:!.b7 i.d6 39 Wfl

This simple move defends White's rook on e1 and effectively ends the struggle. If now 39 ... l!Jxf3 40 .l:!.xe8 l!Jd2+ 41 We2 i.xf4 42 .l:!.f8+ Wg5 43 .l:!.xf4 Wxf4 44 Wxd2, and wins. 39 • • . l!Jc2 40 .l:!.e4 l!Jd4 41 .l:!.b6 .l:!.d8 42 l!Jds+ WfS 43 l!Je3+

This was the sealed move. No mat­ter where Black's king moves to, White will continue 44 i.e2, undermining Black's queenside pawns with an easy win by advancing his pawns on the kingside. 43 ... We6

Or if 43 ... Wf6 44 i.e2 b4 45 f4, fol­lowed by i.c4 and wins. 44 i.e2 Wd7 45 i.xbS+ l!Jxbs 46 .l:!.xbs Wc6 47 a4 i.c7 48 We2 gS 49 g3 .l:!.a8 so .l:!.b2 .l:!.f8 51 f4 gxf4 52 gxf4 l!Jf7 53

, .l:!.e6+ l!Jd6 54 fs .l:!.a8 55 .l:!.d2 .l:!.xa4 56 f6 1-0

1 1 5

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Classical Chess

Fischer's stop-go approach to play­ing chess continued after Sousse. In 1968, after a half-year pause, he fin­ished 1st at Netanya and Vinkovci, and then he stopped playing again. Fischer appears to have spent much of 1969 wrangling on projects that never mate­rialized, including the possibility of a short match against Botvinnik to be held in the Netherlands. Fischer also declined to play in the 1968-69 and 1969-70 US Championships on the grounds that their 11-round schedules were too short to allow top-class play­ers like him to recover in the event of a poor start. Missing the latter event seemed likely to deny him the chance of qualifying from the American zone for a place in the next interzonal - but a miracle happened!

In 1970 Fischer's life and chess somehow came back together again. First, he allowed himself to be lured back to play in the 1970 USSR versus the Rest of the World match in Bel ­grade, where he trounced Petrosian 3-1 on board 2. Fischer then won the unof­ficial blitz world championship, at Her­ceg Novi, followed by two 1st places, at tournaments in Rovinj/Zagreb and Buenos Aires.

later in the year, Fischer played in the Siegen Olympiad, achieving the second-best score on top board. World champion, Boris Spassky, made the best score, but it was clear to all that Fischer might well have the measure of Spassky in a title match . As a result,

1 1 6

and behind the scenes, Pal Benko mag­nanimously relinquished his US quali­fication place in the Palma de Mallorca Interzonal in Fischer's favour. Fischer duly competed in and completed the Interzonal, winning on 18V2123, a full 3V2 points ahead of the rest of the field, and winning his last eight games in the event. Would he now stay the course through the succeeding series of Can­didates' matches?

One of Fischer's most unfortunate "customers" at Palma was the young, 18 year-old Brazilian hope, Henrique Mecking, who froze against Fischer's unexpected adoption of larsen's recent favourite 1 b3. Fischer appears to have discovered a serious hole in the young Brazilian's chess education in varia­tions that had previously been ana­lysed by Alekhine and Nimzowitsch. As ever, Fischer showed that he had deeply researched the historical record. Fischer didn't just understand how to play positions like these. He was also much better booked-up than his oppo­nent on key games and analyses from the late 1920s and 1930s.

Gome 19 R.Fischer-H.Mecking

Palma de Malforca lnterzonal 1970

Nimzawitsch-Lorsen Attack

1 b3 ds Nimzowitsch tended to prefer the

move order 1 tt:lf3 ds 2 b3, which has the advantage of avoiding the more critical 1 b3 es systems. However, Fischer was sufficiently convinced that White could transpose into an active form of reversed Sicil ian with some hope of retaining an opening initiative after 1 ... es 2 i..b2 tt:lc6 3 c4 tt:lf6 4 e3 i.e? S a3 o-o,

and now either 6 d3 or 6 �c2. For example:

a) In R.Fischer-V.Tukmakov, Buenos Aires 1970, White established good queenside play and successfully edged his small centre forward, against inde­cisive opening play, after 6 d3 dS 7 cxds �xds 8 tt:lc3 �d6 9 tt:lf3 i..fs 10 �c2 .l::i.fd8 11 .l::i.d1 h6 12 h3 �e6 13 tt:ld2 tt:ld7 14 i..e2 �h8?! 1S o-o i..g6 16 b4 a6 17 .l::i.c1 .l::i.ac8 18 .l::i.fd1 fS 19 tt:la4 tt:la7? (correct was 19 ... tt:lb6 20 tt:lcs i..xcs 21 bxcs tt:lds) 20 tt:lb3 b6 21 d4 f4 22 e4 tt:lbs? (a blunder in a poor posi­tion; White also wins after 22 ... i..xe4 23 �xe4 �xb3 24 i..d3 tt:lf6 2S �g6!, and if 2S ... �xa4 26 dxes) 23 i..g4 �f6 24 dxes tt:lxes 2S i..xc8 .l::i.xc8 26 .l::i.ds 1-0.

Robert Fischer (1 9 4 3 -2 008)

b) In R.Fischer-U .Andersson, Exhibi­tion game, Siegen 1970, White adopted an original form of g-file attack that has subsequently become "standard" for Black in many Hedgehog positions: 6 �c2 .l::i.e8 7 d3 .if8 8 tt:lf3 as 9 i..e2 ds 10 cxds tt:lxds 11 tt:lbd2 f6!? 12 o-o .ie6 13 �h1! �d7 14 .l::i.g1 .l::i.ad8 1S tt:le4 �f7 16 g4!

16 ... g6?! 17 .l::i.g3! .ig7 18 .l::i.ag1 tt:lb6 19 tt:lcs i..c8 20 tt:lh4 tt:ld7?! 21 tt:le4 tt:lf8 22 tt:lfs! i..e6 23 tt:lcs tt:le7 24 tt:lxg7 �xg7 2S g S! tt:lfs 26 .l::i.f3 b6 27 gxf6+ �h8 28 tt:lxe6 nxe6 29 d4 exd4 30 i..c4 d3 31 i..xd3 .l::i.xd3 32 �xd3 .l::i.d6 33 �c4 tt:le6 34 i..es .l::i.d8 3 S h4 tt:ld6 36 �g4 tt:lf8 37 hs tt:le8 38 e4 .l::i.d2 39 .l::i.h3 �g8 40 hxg6 tt:lxg6 41 f4 'it>f8 42 �gs tt:ld6 43 i..xd6+ 1-0. 2 i..b2 cs 3 tt:lf3 tt:lc6

Fischer himself later threw some doubt on White's opening in dramatic fashion. T.Petrosian-R.Fischer, 6th matchgame, Buenos Aires 1971, con­tinued 3 .. . f6! 4 C4 d4 S d3 eS 6 e3 tZJe7 7 .te2 tt:lec6 8 tt:lbd2 i.e? 9 o-o o-o 10 e4 a6 11 tt:le1 bS 12 i..g4 i..xg4 13 �xg4

1 1 7

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Classical Chess

'Yic8 14 'Yie2 lL'ld7 15 lL'lc2 .l:!.b8 16 .l:!.fc1 'Yie8 17 �a3 �d6 18 lL'le1 g6 19 cxbs axbs 20 �b2 lL'lb6 21 lL'lef3 .l:!.a8 22 a3 lL'las 23 'Yid1 'Yif7 24 a4 bxa4 25 bxa4 c4 26 dxc4 lL'lbxc4 27 lL'lxc4 lL'lxc4 28 'Yie2 lL'lxb2 29 'Yixb2 .l:!.fb8 30 'Yia2 i..b4 31 'Yixf7+ �xf7 32 .l:!.c7+ �e6, and Black went on to eke out a painstaking win.

Fischer's powerful space-gaining play in this game borrows from earlier examples, including a famous prece­dent, G.Lisitsin-M.Botvinnik, USSR Championship, Moscow 1944, which went 4 e3 es 5 �bS+ lL'lc6 6 o-o �d6 7 i..e2 lL'lge7 8 d3 �e6 9 lL'lbd2 b6 10 .l:!.e1 'Yid7 11 �fl o-o 12 c4 d4 13 lL'le4 i.c7 14 'Yid2 �g4 15 �e2 fs 16 lL'lg3 e4

17 dxe4 ..txg3 18 hxg3 fxe4 19 ctJh2 �fs 20 g4 �g6 21 ltJf1 .l:!.f7 22 lL'lg3 .l:!.af8, and Black won. So Petrosian's weak showing against Fischer is puz­zling. Is there any improvement for White?

After 1 CLJf3 dS 2 b3 cs, Nimzowitsch usually played 3 e3, so that if 3 .. .f6 ! ? White can reply with the active 4 d4! . P.Rethy-G.Barcza, Budapest 1936, took

1 1 8

an interesting alternative course, con­tinuing 1 CLJf3 dS 2 b3 cs 3 .ltb2 f6 4 e3 es s lL'lh4!? �e6 6 f4 lL'lc6 7 �bS e4 8 c4 dxc4 9 fs �f7 10 i..xc4 i..xc4 11 bxc4 lL'lh6 12 o-o 'Yid3 13 'Yihs+ lL'lf7 14 ttJc3 lL'lces 15 lL'lds o-o-o 16 �xes lL'lxes 17 .l:!.ac1 'Yixd2 18 .l:!.fd1 'Yias 19 lL'lg6 hxg6 20 'Yixh8, and White won. 4 e3 CLJf6

Another playable idea is 4 ... i.g4, but this went badly wrong in A.Nimzowitsch-S.Rosselli del Turco, Ba­den-Baden 1925, albeit with the help of some rather wild play by Black, after 5 h3 �xf3 6 'Yixf3 es? 7 �bs 'Yid6 8 e4! d4 9 lL'la3 f6 10 lL'lc4 'Yid7 11 'Yihs+ g6 12 'Yif3 'Yic7 13 'Yig4 �f7 14 f4 hs 15 'Yif3 exf4 16 �xc6 bxc6 17 0-0 gS 18 c3 .l:!.d8 19 .l:!.ae1 lL'le7 20 es lL'lfs 21 cxd4 lL'lxd4 22 'Yie4 .lte7 23 h4 'Yid7 24 exf6 .txf6 2 5 hxg s 1-0. s �bs

s ... i.d7 I suspect that Fischer would not

have chosen to play this line against a great classical colleague, such as Vassily Smyslov. Kasparov complains

that Mecking never gets round to play­ing ... g6 at a number of points in this game. Indeed, the course of B.Sliwa­V.Smyslov, Budapest 19S2, demon­strates a good reason for this. Smyslov played robustly s ... iVb6, and after 6 ..\ii.xc6+?! iVxc6 7 cues? ! iVc7 8 d3 g6 ! 9 ti:Jd2 �g7 10 iVc1 o-o 11 o-o bs 12 a4 c4! 13 bxc4 bxc4 14 .l:!.a3 �a6! , Black already h ad excellent play. 6 o-o e6 7 d3 �e7

Alekhine considered that White al­ready had a slight edge here, due to the pressure White exerts on es. It isn't easy for Black to battle for es, at least in the short term. For example, after 7 ... �d6?! , Alekhine notes that White has a dangerous gambit possibility, 8 e4!, and if 8 ... dxe4 9 dxe4 tt:Jxe4 10 J:!.e1. 8 �xc6

This exchange "belongs" to White's plan to control es and is often played without inducement. White sometimes also plays 8 'Llbd2 0-0 9 i..xc6 �xc6 10 tt:Jes, which can transpose after 10 ... .l:!.c8. Instead A.Nimzowitsch-A.Rub­instein, Semmering 1926, continued

Robert Fischer (1 943 -2 008)

10 ... �e8 11 f4 'Lld7 12 'Llxd7 (12 �g4 is also possible) 12 . . . iVxd7 13 e4 f6 14 iVf3 �f7 1S a4 b6 16 .l:!.ae1 a6 17 fs dxe4 18 �xe4 eS 19 J:!.e3 bS 20 .i:!.g3 'it>h8 21 CUf3 bxa4? (21 ... �d6 was correct) 22 'Llxes! , and White won a pawn, as Black had to avoid 22 .. .fxes?? 23 �xes �f6 24 �xf6 gxf6 2 S i..xf6 mate. s ... �xc6 9 cues .l:!.cs 10 lLld2 o-o 11 f4 'Lld7

Possibly a little better is 11 ... bs , and if 12 .l:!.f3 'Lld7 13 .l:!.h3 tUxes 14 iVhs h6, as in A.Kharlov-A.Raetsky, St Petersburg 1999. 12 iVg4

Alekhine preferred the more fluid 12 'Llxc6 .l:!.xc6 13 e4. He considered Nimzowitsch's more direct attacking plan to be "equally solid and sound ... with some winning chances", but noted that it required White to put most of his eggs in a single, kingside basket, at possible risk to White's "other positional trumps, such as the white bishop's excellent control of the iong black diagonal and the elasticity of White's centre pawns."

1 1 9

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Class ical Chess

Of course, not now 12 .. .f5?? 13 'iYxg7+! '.t>xg7 14 tt'lxc6+ .lif6 15 tt'lxd8, and White wins. 12 ... tt'lxes 13 .ixes .if6?!

I fancy (though I don't know!) that Mecking may have had at best a hazy memory of the historical precedents. Had he realized that he was following A.Nimzowitsch-R.Spielmann, New York 1927, he might have played something entirely different, or at least tried to defend at this point with 13 ... g6, fol­lowed either by ... .id7 or ... 'iYd7, ena­bling his f-pawn to advance either to f6 or possibly even to f5.

I fancy (though again I don't know!) that Fischer may already have pon­dered the possibility of 13 ... g6 in home analysis. Moreover, I suspect that Kas­parov, who suggests that this ostensi­bly more flexible idea should have re­ceived "serious consideration", would have wished, like me, to have been able to ask Fischer what he thought about it. Alekhine and Nimzowitsch don't mention it at all. 14 .l:i.f3!

1 20

White plays to maintain a blockade on e5, making it difficult for Black to achieve the natural freeing moves .. .f6/ .. .f5. Without these moves, or some other urgent defensive reinforcement, Black's king risks becoming cut off from his central and queenside forces. Meanwhile White's rooks and knight can all make use of f3 as an effective staging post to attack on the kingside. 14 ... 'iYe7!?

Mecking finally diverges from A.Nimzowitsch-R.Spielmann, New York 1927, which saw 14 ... .ixe5 ! ? 15 fxe5 'iYc7 ! ? 16 'iYh5 h6? (Black should have played 16 ... .ie8! which allows him to defend after 17 .l:i.h3 h6 18 tt'lf3 f5 19 'iYh4 'iYd8, as pointed out by both Nim­zowitsch and Alekhine) 17 .l:i.af1 g6? (Black had to play 17 ... .ie8, although 18 .l:i.g3 f5 19 'iYxh6 'iYxe5 20 'iYf4 followed by tt'lf3 gives White some advantage -Alekhine) 18 'iYxh6 'iYxe5 19 .l:i.f6 'iYh5 20 'iYxh5 gxh5 21 tt'lf3 .l:i.c7 22 .l:i.h6 f6 23 tt'lh4 .lte8 24 .l:i.hxf6, and White won.

Here White al so retains an edge af­ter 15 ... 'iYa5 ! ? (or 15 .. .f5 ! ? 16 exf6 .l:i.xf6 17 .l:i.xf6 'iYxf6 18 .l:i.fl) 16 .l:i.g3 g6 17 tt'lf3 !, and if 17 . . . 'iYc3 18 .l:i.fl f5 (Black must avoid 18 ... 'iYxc2?, which allows 19 tt'lg5 'iYxd3 20 tt'lxh7 .ib5 21 .l:i.gf3, and wins - Tait and Jacobs) 19 exf6 ! .l:i.xf6 20 tt'ld2!, which enables White to play to exchange rooks, leaving him with the better minor piece and more active game, such as after 20 ... .l:i.cf8 21 .l:i.xf6 .l:i.xf6 22 .l:i.f3 ! 'iYa1+ (or 22 ... .l:i.xf3 23 tt'lxf3) 23 .l:i.f1 .l:i.xfl+ 24 tt'lxf1.

15 .U.af1 as?! Kasparov is surely correct in sug­

gesting that Black should prefer 1S .. . g6! , and if 16 .U.h3 ! ? i.g7 17 i.xg7 �xg7 18 ctJf3 f6, followed by ... �g8. 16 .U.g3

16 ... i.xes? Mecking gives up a pawn to reach

what he hopes will be a defensible end­game. But Fischer soon shows that the extra pawn he obtains is sufficient to win for White, even though it is iso­lated, doubled and backward.

Black could still have fought much harder by taking Kasparov's advice (no doubt also Smyslov's), and playing 16 ... g6 ! . 17 fxes fs

Black can no longer play 17 ... g6? as after 18 .U.f6! he faces complete stran­gulation on the kingside. One possible finish might then be 18 ... .U.c7 19 l2'lf3 .U.e8 20 lLlgs 11Vf8 21 .U.h3 h s 22 11Vf4 11Vg7 23 g4, and wins. 18 exf6 .U.xf6 19 11Vxg7+!

This is straightforward and easy to see, but al so charming!

Robert Fischer (1 943-2008}

19 ... 11Vxg7 20 .U.xf6 11Vxg3 21 hxg3 .l:!.e8 22 g4!

Fischer rushes his "weak" extra g­pawn up the board, to gS . This helps secure the position of his rook on f6 and, in the longer-term, offers oppor­tunities to play for the pawn's ex­change on g6. Black might have rea­sonable drawing chances, but for the clear superiority of White's active knight and rook, and the opportunities to exploit Black's continuing malaise on the dark squares. 22 ... a4 23 ctJf3 axb3 24 axb3 �g7

Sadly Black's forces only get in each other's way after 24 ... es ! ? 25 lLlgs ! , and if 2 S ... �g7 26 .U.d6, threatening l2'le6+. 25 gs es 26 l2'lh4!

Black has managed to prevent White's knight from occupying es, only to find that the knight can head for fS, and that White's rook now has access to the powerful d6-square. 26 ... i.d7

Black also suffers if he doesn't con­test fS : for example, after 26 ... e4 27 lLlfS+ �g8 28 l2'ld6 .U.e7 29 dxe4 dxe4 30

1 2 1

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

g6 hxg6 31 .Uxg6+ �h7 32 .Ugs .Ud7 33 lZ'lc4, and White wins. 27 .Ud6 .ite6 28 �f2 �f7 29 .Ub6 .Ue7 '30 e4!

Black's misery on the dark squares haunts him right to the end of this game. White fixes Black's e-pawn on es, and it now becomes an obvious tar­get. 30 ... dxe4 31 dxe4 c4 32 b4!

By conserving this pawn, White doesn't allow Black even the slightest hint of any counterplay on the c- and d­files 32 ... .ltg4 33 �e3 .Ud7 34 g6+

After White exchanges this pawn, he remains with a healthy extra pawn on g2. White's knight also manages to win Black's weak pawn on es via the g6-square. 34 ... �f8 35 gxh7 .Uxh7 36 lZ'lg6+ �e8 37 lZ'lxes .itc8 38 l2Jxc4 �d8 39 lZ'ld6 .Ug7 40 �f2 �c7 41 lZ'lxc8 �xeS 42 .Ud6 1-0

Having won his last eight interzonal games, Fischer astonished everyone by also winning his next six, in his 1971

1 2 2

Candidates' quarterfinal match in Van­couver. His victim, Mark Taimanov, at 45, couldn't apparently stand the psy­chological strain of a battle with the 28 year-old American, who was just too strong for him. The match was more of a struggle than the 6-0 scoreline sug­gests, but Taimanov made too many unforced errors to escape this horrible drubbing. He mournfully reported to the USSR Chess Federation Trainers' Council, after the match, that "if Fischer has even a slight edge and the opponent no counterplay, the result can be considered a foregone conclu­sion."

Then Fischer scored a second 6-o, in the Candidates' semi-final match, against Bent Larsen. Certainly Larsen appeared to suffer more than his op­ponent from the searing summer heat of Denver where the match was played and he also spurned the odd trivial draw, as he fearlessly strove only to win after a bad start in the match. But, as against Taimanov, Fischer won all the key contests at all the critical points in each game. This smacked of black magic. It was scary.

So now only "iron" Tigran Petrosian stood between Fischer and a match with Spassky. Fischer won the first game in their Candidates' final match, which was held in Buenos Aires, but Petrosian finally stopped Fischer's 21-game winning streak, scoring a fine win, with White, in the second game. Indeed, Fischer did well to keep the

score level in the first five games. How­ever, then Petrosian, too, suffered a complete collapse in form and self­belief, just as Taimanov and Larsen had before him. Fischer won the last four games in the match, winning com­fortably, 6V2-2V2. Fischer was now clear number one in the world rankings. Things didn't look too good for Spassky.

In mid-1971, Soviet grandmasters, Isaac Boleslavsky, Lev Polugaevsky, Lev Shamkovich and Evgeny Vasiukov, tried to analyse Fischer's strengths and weak­nesses in a joint report which they pre­sented to Petrosian and Spassky. Among the points they made in this interesting document, were the following:

1. "On the whole, Fischer's play is of a positional-strategic nature (a clear plan permeates his play from the be­ginning of a game to its end), but at the same time it is rich in tactical con­tent."

2. "Fischer's 'classicism' is always present: he never misses an opportu­nity to go in for advantageous simplifi­cation and to take play into a favour­able endgame, if he does not see con­crete solutions in the middlegame."

3 . " In general, proficiency in the endgame is one of his strongest points."

It was, of course, easier to appreci­ate Fischer's strengths than to confront them. All three of the above stylistic traits feature prominently in Fischer's most accomplished win in Game 7 of his match against Petrosian.

Robert Fischer ( 1 9 4 3 -2 008}

Game 20 R.Fisc:her-T .Petrosian

7th. matchgame, Buenos Aires 1971

Sicilian Defence

1 e4 cs 2 tt'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt'lxd4 a6 5 .id3 tt'lc6

Petrosian had played this somewhat colourless move with reasonable suc­cess in his 1969 World Championship match against Boris Spassky, but it must have been risky to repeat it against Fischer, who could with near certainty be relied on to have prepared something new against it. The line's main drawback is its placidity. It doesn't attempt very much other than to maintain a dullish equality. Let a dynamic player like Fischer get an edge in a line like this, and you are likely to be consigned to defence for a very long time and in danger of losing without striking any real blows at your oppo­nent.

It is a mystery, though perhaps an indication of his lack of self-belief at this point in the match, why Petrosian avoided Black's main and more ambi­tious alternatives, s .. ."W/e7, s ... tt'lf6 and s ... J.cs, or why he didn't repeat 4 .. . tt'lc6, with which he had won the opening theoretical battle (but lost the point) in the first matchgame. 6 tt'lxc6 bxc6 7 0-0 dS 8 c4 ' White plays to exchange both pawns on ds, leaving Black with an iso-

1 2 3

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classica l Ch ess

lated d-pawn. This would be fine for Black if he weren't also behind in his piece development. Moreover, Fischer finds a new way to take advantage of this problem on his 12th move.

In their 1969 match, Petrosian man­aged to survive in the opening against Spassky's slower 8 ctJd2, after 8 ... ltJf6 9 �e2 .i.e7 10 b3 0-0 11 .i.b2 as 12 f4 g6 13 l:!.adl lLld7 14 c4 a4 1S fs exfs 16 exfs �f6, in Game 1 , won by Petrosian, and after 9 b3 i.b4 10 �b2 as 11 c3 i.e7 12 c4 0-0 13 �c2 h6 14 a3 �a6 1S l:!.fel �6, in Game 17, which Petrosian lost. 8 . . . ctJf6

Black must get his pieces out. He gets into difficulties after 8 ... d4? ! 9 es ! , when only White is active. M.Adams­Dao Thien Hai, FIDE World Champion­ship, New Delhi 2000, for example, con­tinued 9 ... ctJe7 10 ctJd2 ltJg6 11 ctJf3 cs 12 .i.e4 l:!.a7 13 b4! cxb4 14 ctJxd4 ltJxes 1S �f4 ltJg6 16 �e3 l:!.d7 17 �c6, and White won. 9 cxds cxds

The game A.Beliavsky-B.Kurajica,

1 2 4

Sarajevo 1982, which provides a fur­ther warning sign for Black in this line, continued 9 ... exds 10 exds ltJxds? ! 11 .i.e4! l:!.a7 12 �d4 l:!.d7? ! 13 ltJc3 ! ltJxc3 14 �xc3, and due to his awful devel­opment, Black was already in terrible trouble. 10 exds exds

Instead P.Smirnov-T.Gasparian, Yer­evan 2004, saw lO ... ltJxds 11 i.e4!, which also seems better for White, if rather more complex. This dramatic game continued 11 ... .i.d6 12 ctJc3 ltJxc3 13 bxc3 l:!.b8 14 �a4+ �d7 1S �xa6 �c7 16 l:!.d1 .i.xh2+ 17 �hl �es 18 l:!.xd7 �xd7 19 �a3 �d6 20 l:!.d1 l:!.b6 21 �as fs 22 �f3 l:!.c8 23 �es l:!.g8 24 c4 �e7 2S cs �xes 26 cxb6+ �d6 27 �xd6+ �xd6 28 l:!.c1 .i.f4 29 l:!.c4 gS 30 b7 l:!.d8 31 a4 .i.b8 32 l:!.c8 g4 33 �e2 .i.a7 34 l:!.a8 �b8 3S as �d6 36 l:!.xb8 l:!.xb8 37 a6 g3 38 fxg3 1-0. 11 ctJc3 .i.e7 12 �a4+!

This was a new move and seems to have come as a shock. White can per­haps hope for a slight pull by playing 12 .i.e3 0-0 13 .i.d4, but Black was able to complete his development com­fortably after 13 ... �d6 in B.Parma­A.Suetin, Havana 1969, which was quickly drawn.

Fischer's new move is more ener­getic and disrupts Black's development. It has all but becalmed this variation for Black to the present day. 12 . . . �d7?!

After a long think, Petrosian decides to offer a speculative exchange sacri-

fice. But Fischer declines the bait, pre­ferring instead to force an exchange of queens and enter what turns out to be a promising endgame.

Had he realized just how hard his defensive task might be in this end­game, Petrosian might have persuaded himself to play Black's objectively best move, 12 ... �d7. Unprepared against Fischer's 12th move, however, Petro­sian faced a tough practical choice. Af­ter 12 .. i..d7, Petrosian probably feared that Fischer would reel off a prepared plan of optimum piece placement to take maximum advantage of Black's isolated d-pawn.

After 12 ... i.d7, Kasparov recom­mends 13 �c2! 0-0 14 �e3, followed by �d4 and k!fel, and with Black's d­pawn well-blockaded, White can look forward to a pleasant middlegame. Instead Soltis advocates 13 �d4 �e6 14 �f4 o-o 15 k!fel, and if lS ... �as 16 i.es k!fc8 17 tt:Ja4 �b4 18 k!edl �xa4 19 a3, though there may be some at­tendant risks to having White's queen on d4, where it may be subject to pos-

Robert Fischer (1 9 4 3 - 2 008}

sible attack by Black's pieces. 13 k!e1!

White might be able to grab the material safely, but this move leads to a clear, no-risk endgame advantage. After 13 i..bs axbs 14 �xa8 o-o, and if 15 �as d4 16 tt:Jxbs (or 16 k!d1) 16 ... �b7 17 f3 i..c6 18 ctJa3 d3 (Speel­man), complications arise that are hard to fathom. White might stand better, but he might also go wrong. Petrosian, moreover, had a reputation for sacrific­ing exchanges in such positions and surviving. So why take chances?

As Black can't castle after the text­move, he is more or less forced to ex­change queens, since if he plays 13 ... k!a7, White can now play 14 �d4! under more favourable circumstances, and if 14 .. . 0-0 15 k!es ! (Soltis). 13 ... �xa4 14 tt:Jxa4 �e6 15 �e3 0-0

White has a firm grip in the centre, extra space and a clear lead in devel­opment. Black's a- and d-pawns are potential targets and White has real 'chances of further expansion on the queenside, particularly if he can ex-

1 2 5

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classica l Chess

change the dark-square bishops, thereby eliminating Black's most active minor piece.

White threatens 16 .i.cs, and if Black plays 1S ... lbd7 to prevent this, Kasparov gives 16 .ltd4 0-0 17 f4, or 17 a3 as 18 f4, with a clear advantage 16 .i.cs l:!fe8 17 .i.xe7 l:!xe7

18 b4! This move has two critical purposes.

It supports the transfer of White's knight to the powerful cs-square, and it also effectively fixes Black's a-pawn on the vulnerable a6-square. Black would like to free his pieces from the worry of defending this pawn by play­ing ... as, but now he must always take into account the white reply bs, estab­lishing a strong passed b-pawn.

Black lacks active options. After 18 .. . l:!b8 19 a3 l:!a7 20 lbcs l:!b6, Kas­parov's 21 l:!ac1, and if 21...�f8 22 f4 g6 23 �f2, is strong, with White's king heading for d4. Black also fails to solve his problems after 18 ... l:!c7 19 l:!ac1 l:!xc1 20 l:!xc1 l:!b8 21 a3. Thus Petro­sian decides to move his king closer to

1 2 6

the centre, while planning to defend his a-pawn by playing ... .i.c8. 18 ... �f8 19 lLlcs .i.c8 20 f3

20 ... l:!ea7!? It seems strange to abandon the

open e-file like this, but it prepares a rather clever idea to get Black's bishop into play that might have succeeded against a lesser opponent. The plan is flawed, but Black teeters on the brink in any case.

Perhaps 20 ... lbd7 was a little better, but after 21 l:!ec1!, and if 21 ... lbes 22 .ltf1, keeping a firm hold on c4, and preventing any opportunity for Black to activate his knight on that square, White clearly still makes considerable progress.

Black might try 20 ... l:!xe1+ 21 l:!xe1 lbe8, aiming his knight for bs . How­ever, White then retains good chances after Soltis's 22 lba4 l:!b8 23 a3 lbc7 24 l:!c1, and if 24 ... lbbs 2S .ltxbs axbs 26 lbc3, and Kasparov's 22 �f2 lbc7 23 a3 h6 24 f4 lbbs 2S l:!es is also strong. Here Black's problems also persist after 21...lbd7 22 l:!c1, and if 22 ... �e7 23

ll:lxd7, followed by .ttcs. After the text-move, White's rook

immediately takes up a strong post on es, directly attacking Black's miserable d-pawn. But the real surprise and the best move in the game comes one move later. 21 .ttes .id7 22 ll:lxd7+!

This single move is one of Fischer's most famous ever. Much has been made of its surprising nature. Why should White exchange such a mag­nificent knight for a mediocre bishop? Why shouldn't White have simply played 22 a4, which seems, on the face of it, to be the most natural counter to Black's plan to play .. . .ibs?

Fischer's reasoning was, in fact, en­tirely concrete. After he exchanges his knight, White's rooks will dominate the c-file as well as the e-file, and his long­range bishop will dominate Black's knight. White's more active king can also make directly for d4, and his queenside pawns retain all their men­ace. Black's pieces remain wholly tied down to the defence of his weak a- and

Robert Fischer (1 9 4 3 - 2 008)

c-pawns. Moreover, after 22 a4 j_c6! 23 Itc1 ll:ld7!, and if 24 ll:lxd7+ j_xd7, Black escapes the worst and can hope to de­fend.

After the text-move, Black remains in a bind. He can still wriggle a little, but can't seem to hold against best play. Even today, Fischer's 22nd move is still widely regarded as one of the most striking demonstrations of the univer­sal chess player's art of ensuring the maintenance of pressure by the correct transformation of one set of positional advantages into another. 22 ... Itxd7 23 Itc1

White threatens 23 Itc6, virtually forcing Black's reply to prevent this and conceding access to the equally strong C7-square. 23 ... .l:td6 24 Itc7 ll:ld7 25 .tte2 g6

Black can only cast around for "only" moves, with almost anything "active" tending only to rebound on him. After 2S ... ll:lb6?! 26 Itee7, White dominates the seventh rank, or after 2S ... Ite8?! 26 Itxe8+ 'iS.txe8 27 Ita7 ll:lb8 28 a4, White mobilizes his queenside pawns with advantage. 26 'i2.tf2 hs 27 f4 h4!?

Black is also in trouble after 27 ... ll:lb6 ! ? 28 Itee7 Itf6 29 'iS.tf3, and if 29 . . . d4 30 Ites, or after 27 .. . Itb8 ! ? 28 a3 Itbb6 29 Wf3, and if 29 . . . Itbc6 30 Itc2 Itxc2 31 .ixc2 d4 32 .id3. 2s 'i2.tf3 fs?!

Black further weakens his second rank. But whether Black has any de­fence at all by now is a moot point.

1 2 7

Ch ess Secrets : Heroes of Classical Chess

29 �e3 d4+!? Black can scarcely hope to defend if

he allows White's king to reach d4, af­ter either 29 ... ctJf6 30 �d4 tt:Je4 31 �ec2 (Polugaevsky), or 29 .. . �e7 30 �d4+ �d8 31 �ec2. 30 �d2 tt:Jb6!?

White can now double his rooks on the seventh rank, but what else can Black do? Black's misery continues after 30 ... �f7! ? 31 .ic4+ �f6 32 a3, or 31 �es �f6 32 �as, and 30 .. . as?! meets Kas­parov's spirited refutation 31 bs ctJf6 32 .ic4 ctJe4+ 33 �d3 �b8 34 g4!. 31 �ee7 tt:Jds 32 �f7+ �e8 33 �b7 tZ:lxb4?!

1 2 8

Petrosian effectively resigns. Black also loses after 33 ... �b6 34 �xb6 tt:Jxb6 35 �g7, and after 33 ... �b8 34 �a7 (threatening �h7}, and if 34 ... �a8 35 �xa8+ �xf7 36 .ic4. 34 �C4 1-0

Black can't defend against the threat of 3 5 �h7 �f6 36 �h8+ �f8 37 �f7+ and mates.

At the beginning of 1972, the pre­vailing view in the chess world was that Boris Spassky would almost cer­tainly lose his world title to Fischer. That was, of course, as long as the prickly and unpredictable American could be persuaded both to start the match and complete it. It proved to be a close run thing on both counts.

After complex negotiations, F IDE and the players eventually chose Reyk­javik to host the match. Fischer seemed happy enough to play in Iceland. Un­fortunately he refused to tum up for the scheduled start of the match, early in July, because he didn't like the mea­gre prize-fund. Fortunately, and en­tirely unexpectedly, British financier, Jim Slater, instantly offered to double the money at stake, and Fischer seemed content. F IDE president, Max Euwe, thinking quickly on his feet, im­mediately delayed the scheduled start of the match, trusting in the sports­manship of the Russians to accept this. This they did, but at the same time, Euwe insisted on delivering a Sousse­like ultimatum to Fischer, requiring

O,im to get to Iceland by noon on 4th �uly. Fischer duly turned up, a few hours ahead of schedule.

Almost a week later, after further, 'ess critical negotiations, the first matchgame began. Playing Black, Fischer overpressed from a dead-level position, and eventually lost. This may have upset him. At any rate, citing un­due noise in the playing hall and a breach of television agreements, Fischer flatly refused to return to the hall to play the second matchgame, and was promptly defaulted.

Down 2-0 in the match, and in dis­pute, Fischer's next move was to require the third game to be played, without spectators and cameras, in an ante­room. Fortunately Spassky now almost certainly saved the match by agreeing to this. With White, however, he played badly and lost. Having now drawn blood, an enlivened Fischer seemed pleased and, subject to a raft of further but less outrageous conditions, agreed to return to the playing hall, where he went on to draw Game 4, win Game 5, and the rest was history.

Spassky must have been psycho­logically rattled by all of this. He made almost all of the real, off-board conces­sions, not his opponent. In so doing, he gained a world-wide reputation for his patent sportsmanship, but lost the match. Veteran F IDE diplomat, Harry Golombek, who had been a match refe­ree at a number of previous world championships and was present

Robert Fischer (1 9 4 3 - 2 008}

throughout the match, summed up his view of matters this way:

"Apologists for Fischer pointed out that he was raising the status of the chess-player ... Financially this is true, but one might query this from other aspects. Really, when it comes to the plain unvarnished truth, it is his won­derful chess for which one will have to excuse behaviour that would be inex­cusable coming from an inferior player. Fairness, rules and reason, do not really come into it. If organisers ... want to have Fischer in their events, they will have to reconcile themselves to the presence in their midst of a modern­ised version of one of the more deca­dent imperial Caesars."

Fischer won the match comfortably, 12V2-8V2, with one of his losses being that second game default. Spassky had few complaints about the match out­come. He may not have played at his best, but at this juncture, Fischer was playing at a generally higher level than he was and had clearly outplayed him. Gracious throughout, Spassky extolled only the winner's great virtues. In an immediate post-match interview with Gligoric, Spassky emphasised how Fischer's "tremendous chess energy and ... burning desire to win" had im­pressed him. He was, above all, struck by Fischer's ability to play moves with remarkable ease and fluency, noting that "he was very economical - he ·solved no great problems of the world, he just played. If he saw a good or even

1 29

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Class ical Chess

an average move on the board, he played it right away and - finish."

Prompted to speak about Fischer's weaknesses, Spassky offered, "perhaps ... his main weakness lies in the fact that he is straightforward in chess, like a child. Well it is one of his strengths, but at the same time a weakness, in a way ... he will have to get used to more alternatives, more sensitive alterna­tives, and he will have to know more ... he is still imperfect." Unfortunately, Fischer was never to gain a further op­portunity to work on his weaknesses and perfect his game even more in ex­tended over-the-board chess. Apart from playing in a reprise "revenge" match, a full twenty years later, against a much weaker Spassky, Fischer failed completely to return to chess - one of the saddest departures in chess history.

Fischer's win in the 13th match­game, in Reykjavik, was an epic master­piece. Imperfect in parts, it nevertheless resonates with all the raw, child-like energy, directness, depth and even magic that Spassky so often experi­enced when he sat down to play Fischer in their 1972 "Match of the Century".

Gome 21 B.Spassky-R.Fischer

World Championship (Game 13), Reykjavik 1972

Alekhine's Defence

1 e4 tt:lf6 2 es tt:lds 3 d4 d6 4 tt:lf3 g6

1 3 0

Fischer's adoption of the sharp Alekhine's Defence apparently came as a surprise to the Soviets. While Fischer had occasionally played this line be­fore, he hadn't ever risked playing it against players of Spassky's class. It is a sound-enough opening, but it con­cedes early space to White and perhaps wouldn't have been played by Fischer but for largely psychological and sport­ing reasons.

At this stage in the match, Fischer had a healthy two-point lead over Spassky (three points in actual games, if you discount Fischer's loss by default in the second game), and he must have felt confident that surprise might work. Moreover, he had already won the third and fifth games with surprise choices against 1 d4, both of which Spassky had countered poorly. Spassky had also already played well against Fischer's first-line defence against 1 e4, the Sicil­ian Najdorf, obtaining a draw and a win against Fischer's Poisoned Pawn Variation, in the seventh and eleventh games.

5 .ic4 lt:Jb6 6 i.b3 i.g7 7 ctJbd2 Spassky fails to respond actively in

this game and Fischer equalizes almost at once. This and White's next two moves go nowhere, particularly his misguided 9th move, after which he is already worse. Surprise seems to have paid dividends as Spassky avoids both 7 lt:Jg5 and 7 'ife2, which were already known at the time to be more testing.

Shortly afterwards, A.Karpov-E.Torre, Leningrad Interzonal 1973, continued powerfully 7 lt:Jg5 d5 (or 7 ... e6 ! ? 8 'iff3 'ife7 9 lt:Je4 dxe5 10 i.g5 'ifh4+ 11 c3 'ifa5 12 ..if6 with an edge) 8 f4 lt:Jc6 g c3 f6 10 lt:Jf3 ..if5 11 o-o 'ifd7 12 lt:Jbd2 fxe5 13 fxe5 o-o 14 l:!:f2 lt:Ja5 15 ..ic2 ..ixc2 16 'ifxc2 'iff5 17 'ifd1 e6 18 lt:Jfl c5 19 h3 cxd4 20 cxd4 lt:Jc6 21 b3 lt:Jd7 22 .ia3 l:!:f7 23 g4 'ife4 24 ctJg5 1-0. 1 ... o-o 8 h3 as!

8 o-o would have been more useful for White. Fischer now takes advantage of the two half-tempi White has gifted to him to bid for some useful extra space on the queenside.

Robert Fischer (1 9 4 3 - 2 008)

9 a4?! Spassky makes a third routine

move, but this time it is also careless. Black can now surprisingly round up and win White's a-pawn. Spassky clearly missed Fischer's dynamic counter, based on the distinctly non­routine development ... lt:Ja6-c5. White should have preferred 9 c3. g . . . dxes 10 dxes lt:Ja6 11 o-o lt:Jcs 12 'ife2 'tieS 13 lt:Je4 lt:Jbxa4 14 i.xa4 lt:Jxa4 15 l:!:e1

Spassky at least wakes up now. He is a pawn down, but has some time and spatial compensation that allow him to proceed as if thi s were a speculative gambit. White could have regained his pawn by playing 15 'ifc4, but this would have allowed Black to reach a promising, and easy to play, two­bishop endgame, after 15 ... ..id7 16 'ifxc7 'ifc8 (or 15 ... b5 16 'ifxc7 'ifd8}.

Instead White takes a practical deci­sion to drop the pawn and, as Kasparov puts it, play in the "hope [of creating] pressure and, perhaps, also an attack on the kingside, bearing in mind that the opponent's extra pawn is playing no particular role for the moment." 1s ... lt:Jb6 16 i.d2 a4 17 i.gs h6 18 i.h4 .its

This is a critical and difficult mo­ment in the game for both players. Black tempts White to advance his g­pawn, thereby creating a potential weakening in his kingside pawns. From fs, Black's bishop may also be able to exchange itself for White's knight on

1 3 1

Ch ess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

e4 advantageously in some lines.

Fischer may have refrained from the immediate 18 ... i.e6 because of Kas­parov's suggestion 19 4Jc3, and if 19 ... 4Jd5 20 4Jxd5 i.xd5 21 c4 i.c6 22 lbd4 ii.d7 23 c5. In lines like this, with Black somewhat cramped, having a move such as g4 thrown in is likely to provide Black with greater opportuni­ties of successful counterattack.

After 18 .. . ii.d7, Kasparov's sugges­tion 19 'iWd2, intending to play White's queen to b4, seems fine for White. 19 g4?!

White allows himself to be tempted, but this turns out to be more a weak­ening than a strengthening move. Ac­cording to Smyslov, White would have had better chances of obtaining com­pensating play for his pawn after 19 lbd4, and if 19 ... ii.xe4 (but not 19 ... ii.xe5? ! 20 4Jxf5 gxf5 21 4Jg3) 20 'iWxe4 c6 (or 20 ... c5 21 4Jf3) 21 f4 e6 22 lbe2, followed by 4Jc3. 19 ... .ie6 20 4Jd4

Now if 20 4Jc3, Black can play the active 2o .. Jb5!, and if 21 'iWe4 4Jd5 22

1 32

4Jxa4 'iWa8 23 �a3 b5 24 lbc5 �xa3 25 bxa3 'iWxa3 (Kasparov). Note that this l ine only works for Black because White's g-pawn is on g4, rather than g2. 20 ... i.c4 21 'iWd2 'iWd7 22 �ad1 �fe8?!

Fischer now slips, allowing White a surprise chance to get back into the game. Black's simplest way forward was to play 22 ... .ixe5 23 'iWxh6 i.g7, after which White appears to be strug­gling. Taking White's pawn on e5 on Black's 21st move may have also have been just as effective. 23 f4 i.ds 24 lbcs 'iWc8 25 'iWc3?!

But White flunks his opportunity. Smyslov's sparkling 25 e6! was best, and if 25 ... 4Jc4 26 'iWe2 4Jxb2 27 4Jf5! with dangerous play for White. To be fair to Spassky, however, none of this is remotely easy to evaluate. There are two main analytical branches:

a) Smyslov's main line, which runs 27 ... 4Jxd1 28 4Jxg7 �xg7 29 'iWe5+ f6 (29 . . . �h7 30 'iWxd5, and if 30 .. . �d8 31 'iWf3 a3 32 ii.xe7 a2 33 4Jb3 followed by f5, also seems good for White) 30 'iWxd5

�b2, and now 31 g5 ! (Kasparov's sug­gested strengthening of Smyslov's original 31 �d4!? g5) 31 ... hxg5 32 fxg5 �d8 33 �d7 seems better for White.

b) Timman's 27 ... i..c4 28 exf7+ Wxf7 29 �xe7+ l:txe7 30 l:txe7+ �f8 31 �d7+, and if 31 ... �xd7 32 l:tdxd7 i..c3 33 l:te3 ! gxf5 34 l:txc3 a3 3 5 l:td8+ l:txd8 36 i..xd8 a2 37 l:ta3 �d1 38 i..f6, White emerges an exchange ahead with some winning chances.

Thus according to Kasparov, Lodewijk Prins's 25 ... a3! is Black's best move, leading to completely unclear play after 26 bxa3 l:txa3 27 �2, and if 27 .. .fxe6 (or 27 ... i..xd4+ 28 l:txd4 f6} 28 �cxe6 i..xd4+ 29 �xd4 e6, and now either 30 f5 or 30 �b5. 25 ... e6 26 Wh2

2S ... �d7?! Fischer, also human, makes his own

further mini-slip. Although White still has spatial compensation for his pawn, Black's game has a much more solid look about it than a few moves earlier, and he could have made clear progress here by playing 26 ... i..f8 ! , and if 27 �e4

Robert Fischer (1 9 4 3 - 2 008}

i..xe4 28 l:txe4 c5 29 �f3 �c6 (Kas­parov). 27 �d3?

However, Spassky's irresolution strikes again. Instead of limply allow­ing Black to drive his pieces backwards, without any real fight, as in the game, White should have played 27 �xd7! �xd7 28 �d3, with the clever threat of sacrificing his knight on e6, followed by C4. Again, to be fair to Spassky, this idea apparently went completely unno­ticed by all contemporary analysts (I wonder if Fischer noticed it). But it seems to keep White well in the game: for example, after 28 . . . i..f8 (or if 28 ... b6 29 �xe6 fxe6 30 c4 �f7 31 cxd5 �xf4+ 32 i..g3) 29 �xe6! l:txe6 30 c4 l:tb6 31 l:te2 a3 32 bxa3 l:txa3 33 �xd5 (Kas­parov). 27 ... cs 28 �bs �c6 29 �d6 �xd6 30 exd6 i..xc3 31 bxc3 f6 32 gS hxgs?!

As Smyslov and others pointed out, Black could have won most simply by playing 32 ... c4 33 �b4 hxg5 34 fxg5 f5

' 3 5 �xd5 exd5, and if 36 l:txd5 l:txe1 37 i..xe1 a3.

1 3 3

Ch ess Secrets : Heroes of Classical Chess

33 fxgs fs 34 .ig3

34 ... 'it>f7?! And here, too, Fischer could have

played the simpler 34 ... a3 3 S 'bes tt:Jxes 36 .ixes t!.ed8 37 t!.fl t!.a4 (Smyslov), which completely cuts out White's coming resource, t!.f1-f4-h4. 3S 'bes+ tt:Jxes 36 .ixes bs?!

Of course, all the commentators en­joyed the benefit of hindsight! If Fischer had realized how strong White's t!.f1-f4-h4 manoeuvre might be, he would almost certainly have played the more accurate 36 ... t!.ed8 37 t!.fl 'it>e8 (or 37 . . . a3), which allows his king a flight path, via d7, c6, and even bs, away from the king side to safety on the queenside. 37 t!.f1 t!.h8 38 .if6!

It is possible that Fischer simply missed this diabolical zwischenzug. Black wins easily after the immediate 38 t!.f4, by replying 38 ... t!.h7, as Black's king can then again safely run to the queenside, via e8, d7 and c6. Suddenly, after the text-move, Black can no longer easily run his king away from

1 34

the vulnerable kingside. Black can now rush his a-pawn to­

wards the queening square, but White will be able to cover al adequately with his bishop, by clearing the long dark­square diagonal with the desperado pawn sacrifice C4.

38 ... a3 39 .l::!.f4 a2 40 c4 .ixc4 41 d7 .ids?!

Fischer apparently played this move fairly quickly to force White to make a (difficult) sealed move. However, Kas­parov indicates that he probably let the win slip (in strictly objective terms! ) by not playing the remarkable pawn sacri­fice 41 ... es ! , and if 42 .ixes t!.hd8 43 .if6 .ie2 44 t!.el t!.xd7 45 t!.xe2 al 'iV 46 �xal t!.xal 47 .l::!.h4 'it>g7, Black wins the double-rook endgame. 42 'it>g3 t!.a3+ 43 c3 t!.ha8

Spassky found the correct sealed move, and while it is far from clear yet, White should hold this endgame. After the text-move, the game takes on a quasi-forced nature. Fischer can still press for a win by giving up his bishop for three pawns and extricating his

king from the kingside. Instead Black can only draw after 43 . . . a1'iV 44 l:!.xa1 l:!.xa1 45 l:!.h4!, and if 45 ... l:!.ha8 46 l:!.h7+ with a draw by repetition, but not 45 ... l:!.aa8?? 46 ..ixh8 l:!.xh8 47 l:!.h7+ when White wins.

44 l:!.h4 es 45 l:!.h7+ 'it>e6 46 l:!.e7+ 'it>d6 47 .:!.xes l:!.xc3+ 48 'it>f2 l:!.c2+ 49 'it>e1 'it>xd7 so l:!.exds+ 'it>c6 51 l:!.d6+ 'it>b7 52 l:!.d7+

So far, we must still be in both play­ers' (certainly Fischer's) overnight analysis. Note that White loses after 52 l:!.e6? l:!.a3 5 3 l:!.d 7 + 'it>c8 54 l:!.d8+ 'it>c7! (Kasparov). 52 ... 'it>a6 S3 l:!.7d2 l:!.xd2 54 'it>xd2 b4

Robert Fischer (1 943 -2 008}

55 h4! Black's avalanche of queenside

pawns is distinctly menacing, but White has his own last trump on the kingside. By playing h4-h5, he creates a dangerous passed pawn and obtains good drawing chances. ss • • • 'it>bs 56 hs c4 57 l:!.a1

Not, of course, 57 h6?? C3+ 58 'it>d3 a1 'iV, and Black wins. S7 ... gxhs ss g6 h4 59 g7!

This is again correct. Black's three pawns should eventually triumph over the bishop after 59 .txh4? l:!.g8 60 l:!.xa2 l:!.xg6. 59 ... h3 60 .te1 l:!.g8!

We don't know whether this re­markable, self-stalemating rook move, was also part of Fischer's overnight analysis. No matter its precise prove­nance, however, it remains a brilliant idea. Black's rook will be completely tied down, but it will also, crucially, take White's bishop and pawn out of play, setting up a tense and highly unusual

' battle between White's rook and Black's five, far-advanced passed pawns.

1 3 5

Chess S ecrets: H eroes of Classical Ch ess

According to Botvinnik, Fischer's "paradoxical solution" to his technical problems at this point was his "highest creative achievement ... Nothing simi­lar had previously occurred in chess. Spassky was astounded and soon lost ... Smyslov found a draw for White, but would he have found it at the board, sitting opposite Fischer?"

Gligoric noted that White could immediately go wrong here after the plausible 61 ..ltf6, which allows the ele­gant winning line 62 ... h2 62 �c2 .S:e8! 63 .S:h1 (or 63 �d2 f4} 63 ... .S:e2+ 64 �d1 .S:g2 65 .S:xh2 .S:g1+ 66 �c2 C3. 61 id8

61 ... h2 White can defend after 61 ... C3+ 62

�d3 h2 63 .S:f1 f4 64 .S:d1! f3 (64 ... �a4 65 �c2! } 65 �d4 f2 66 �d3 �c6 67 �c2 !, as his king and rook have been able to position themselves so that Black's king can't cross the d-file, via d5 and e4, or force through his queenside pawns. Here Black can try the sacrificial 67 ... a1'iY' 68 .S:xa1 �d5 69 �d3 c2 70 �xc2 �e4 (so far analysis by endgame

1 3 6

composer Robert Burger), but after the continuation 71 .S:fl! �f3 72 i.c5 .S:xg7 73 .S:xf2+ �g3 74 .S:xh2, White holds (Soltis). 62 �C2 �c6 63 Md1 b3+ 64 �C3

This isn't a good sign. Spassky could have immediately secured the half­point by playing 64 �b2!, and if 64 ... f4 (or 64 ... h1'iY' 65 .S:xh1 �d5 66 .S:d1+ �e4 67 .S:c1 �d3 68 .S:d1+ �e2 69 .S:c1 f4 70 .S:xc4 f3 71 .S:c1 f2 72 �xb3} 65 .S:d6+ �c7 66 .S:d1! f3 67 �c3 f2 68 �b2, reaching a position where Black's king can never reach the d-file or the b4/a3 squares, and White defends, as pointed out by Gligoric.

Although White hasn't yet jeopard­ized the draw, Spassky's move allows Black to activate his king by sacrificing his h-pawn, so that he can still press hard for the full point. 64 ... h1'iY' 65 .S:xh1 �ds 66 �b2 f4 67 .S:d1+!

White still holds, but must avoid 67 .S:h8?? c3+ 68 �a1 f3 69 .S:xg8 f2, and Black mates. 67 ... �e4 68 .S:c1 �d3 69 .S:d1+?

The final mistake - White loses a critical tempo. Kasparov called Spass­ky's move "a tragic oversight." Smys­lov's draw could have been secured with 69 l:tc3+! �d4 (or if 69 ... �e2 70 l:txc4 f3 71 l:tc1) 70 l:tf3 c3+ (or 70 ... �e4 71 l:tc3 f3 72 l:txc4+ �e3 73 l:tc1) 71 Wal c2 72 l:txf4+ �c3 73 .ltb4+ �d3 74 l:tfl l:txg7 75 �b2. White can also draw in this line after the alternative 73 l:tf3+ Wd2 74 .lta3, and if now 74 ... l:txg7 75 l:txb3 l:tc7 76 �b2 (Gligoric and Tim-

Robert Fischer (1 9 4 3 - 2 008}

man). 69 . . . �e2 10 l:tc1 f3 71 �cs

White is now one move too late af­ter 71 l:txc4 f2 72 l:tcl fl'iV 73 l:txfl �xfl, and Black wins. 71 ... l:txg7 72 l:txc4 l:td7 73 l:te4

Or if 73 l:tc1 l:tdl. n ... �f1 74 i..d4 t2 o-1

Black's a- and b-pawns win easily after 75 l:tf4 l:txd4 76 l:txd4 �e2 77 l:tf4 fl'iV 78 l:txf1 �xfl, or if 75 i..e5 l:l.d1 76 �xb3 l:l.e1.

1 3 7

Chapter Four

Viswanathan Anand (1969-)

I would say nowadays it is impossible to work without computers. And you don't have to become mechanical. It allows you to do incredibly creative things .. . there are positions I can work on where it was not [previously] feasible to work on alone.

Vishy Anand, interviewed by Outlook Business

The spirit of all great classical players is perhaps most fundamentally artistic. Rubinstein, Smyslov and Fischer were all supremely creative players. They all wanted to win games, of course, but also to do it in style. They didn't seek unnec­essarily to force matters, but rather to tease out and build on underlying strategic and tactical verities, whatever they might be, in any given position, and wherever that took them. When they succeeded in this, against worthy opponents, they in­variably produced great works of chess art.

So it is no surprise to note Vi shy Anand's emphasis on creativity, rather than on mechanism or rote, in response to a question, put to him by an Indian business magazine shortly after he won the 2008 World Championship, on the impact of computers on chess. Asked in the same interview, whether he thought computers may have so universalised top-class players' approach to chess that, at least at that level, style was now dead, Anand emphatically dismissed the notion.

In the computer age, Anand remains true to the best classically direct chess­playing traditions. At its best, his play is characterised by all the main classical vir­tues: clarity, energy, toughness, ambition and a fundamental sense of analytic correctness. In Anand's hands, the modern computer is a tool that helps him deepen his research and prepare systems and ideas that will allow his classical

1 3 8

Viswanathan A n a n d (1 9 6 9 -)

strengths maximum scope for expression in over-the-board play. But it wasn't always so. Indeed, Anand's career is particularly of interest be­

cause it straddles the period in the late 1980s and particularly through the 1990s, when the computer advanced from being little more than a useful but time­consuming and relatively expensive training accessory to a powerful, relatively inexpensive essential in the serious player's armoury. During this period, Anand made increasingly better use of computers. Today, he is one of the world's fore­most masters in this art.

Anand's earliest successes were, of necessity, achieved entirely without com­puters. Like Smyslov and Fischer, he learned how to play the game at a very early age and rose rapidly through the junior ranks. Aged 6, he joined the excellent local Tal Chess Club in his native Chennai, enjoying puzzles, chess books and blitz chess. Anand eventually became national junior champion in 1983, Indian Champion in 1985 and World Junior Champion in 1987. In 1988 he became a grandmaster, In­dia's first.

During these early years, Anand earned an international reputation as an ex­traordinarily fast player, often playing and winning games at near blitz speed. He had a sharp eye for tactics and enviable positional instincts. Having made grand­master, he decided to opt for the life of a professional chess player. In only a few more years, he had graduated to the top-class international tournament circuit, finished 1st, ahead of Garry Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov, at Reggio Emilia 1991, and qualified for the 1993 Candidates' series, losing narrowly in the quarterfinal to Karpov.

Anand looked to have the game of a world champion, and he eventually won the right to challenge Kasparov, two years later. The match took place in 1995, in New York, under the banner of the so-called Professional Chess Association {PCA), rather than FIDE, as a result of Kasparov's breakaway from F IDE in 1993. There was a parallel F IDE cycle and championship, but as Kasparov was the undisputed world number one at the time, the PCA match was the "big" one.

Anand proved to be a handful, but not quite yet a match for Kasparov. After eight straight draws, Anand won Game 9, to go a point ahead. But Anand's nerve then failed, and Kasparov's match play experience, better preparation and greater fighting spirit began to tell psychologically. At any rate, Kasparov immediately equalized with a win in Game 10, and then gradually drew ahead in the match, against an opponent, whose form began to dip visibly. Kasparov won comfortably 10Vz-7Vz.

From a purely playing point of view, Anand did enough in this match to show that he could beat Kasparov if only he could get some sort of pull against him. But,

1 3 9

Ch ess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Ch ess

at this stage, Kasparov was head and shoulders above everyone else, not least in terms of his preparation. In a 1998 interview, in New in Chess, Viktor Korchnoi ex­pressed the view: "On the board, [Ana�d] is the equal of Kasparov or stronger, but Kasparov is stronger at home." This advantage told heavily in all forms of tourna­ment and match chess.

Game 9 of the 1995 match was, however, indicative of potentially greater things to come for Anand. By repute, Kasparov's continued success with the Sicil­ian Scheveningen against Karpov, in the first two of their five world championship matches, convinced Karpov that he must abandon his lifelong favourite 1 e4, and switch to 1 d4 and flank openings. Anand played 1 e4 better than Karpov, leading Kasparov to switch from the Scheveningen to the Sicilian Dragon for the rest of his 1995 world title defence, after his loss in Game 9.

Game 22 V.Anand-G.Kaspamv WorkJ Cha.mpionship

(Game 9). New Yorkt995 Sicilian Defence

1 e4 cs 2 lLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 ltJf6 5 lLlc3 a6 6 ..ie2

This was Anand's fifth game in the match with this move. His first ever win against Kasparov had, though, seen him play 6 f4. In that game, he fell into some of Kasparov's home analysis, but managed to outplay him in the complications. V.Anand-G.Kasparov, Tilburg 1991, went 6 f4 e6 7 ..id3 ltJbd7 8 0-0!? (8 '1i'f3 is more usual) 8 ... '1i'b6! ? 9 ..ie3 '1i'xb2 10 lLldb5 axb5 11 ltJxb5 l::ta5 12 l::tb1 J::txb5 13 J::txb2 J::txb2 14 '1i'a1 l::tb6 15 ..ixb6 ltJxb6 16 '1i'c3 i.e? 17 l::tb1 lLlfd7 18 '1i'xg7 i..f6 19 '1i'h6 �e7 20 i..b5? ! (better 20 g4! - Anand) 20 ... l::tg8? ! 21 l::td1 e5? ! 22 f5 lLlc5? (Black had to play 22 ... l::td8, while

1 4 0

2 0 .. . e 5 ! and 21 .. . J::tg4! were earlier im­provements) 23 J::txd6!

23 .. . ..ig5 24 '1i'xh7 ltJxe4 2 5 l::txb6 l::td8 26 .i.d3 .i.e3+ 27 �f1 i..xb6 28 .i.xe4 l::td4 29 c3 1-0. 6 ... e6 7 0-0 .i.e7 8 a4 ltJc6 9 ..ie3 0-0 10 f4 '1i'c7 11 �h1 l::te8

Kasparov championed this move throughout his career. It constantly frustrated Anatoly Karpov in their 1984/5 and 1985 World Championship matches. Its main merit is its ultra­flexibility. It prepares the defensive retreat ... ..if8 and raises the prospect of

a spirited ... es break in the centre. It also subtly postpones a decision on the development of Black's queen's bishop, which may either remain solidly on the c8-h3 diagonal or play to the long light­square diagonal on b7.

White has a little more space, but it's not clear how he should best pro­ceed to put more pressure on Black. Most plans, particularly those based on the kingside thrust g4-g5, may menace Black, but they also commit White's forces, allowing Black scope for coun­terattack. Anand certainly didn't get far in Game 1 of the match, after 12 �d2 ..id7 13 .l:!.ad1 .l:!.ad8 14 ti:Jb3 ..ic8 15 .if3 b6 16 �f2 ti:Jd7, and Black had com­fortably equalized. Black also success­fully defended in Games 3, 5 and 7, af­ter 12 ..id3 ti:Jb4 13 as ..id7 14 ti:Jf3, and now 14 ... .l:!.ac8, as played in the last two of these encounters, effectively neutralized White's set-up. 12 ..if3 ..id7

Kasparov dramatically took the world championship title from Anatoly Karpov, by playing 12 ... .l:!.b8 in Game 24

Vis wanathan A n a n d (1 9 6 9 -)

of their 1985 World Championship, in Moscow. This again has the merit of considerable flexibility and remains critical today. Kasparov must, however, have been concerned that his opponent might be well prepared to confront his favourite.

With Karpov needing to win to save his title, that famous 1985 game had gone 12 ... .l:!.b8 13 �d2 .id7 14 ti:Jb3 b6 15 g4 ..ic8 16 gS ti:Jd7 17 �f2 ..if8 18 ..ig2 ..ib7 19 .l:!.ad1 g6 20 ..ic1 .l:!.bc8 21 .l:!.d3 ti:Jb4 22 .l:!.h3 ..ig7 23 .ie3 .l:!.e7 24 'it>g1 .l:!.ce8 25 .l:!.d1 fS 26 gxf6 ti:Jxf6 27 .l:!.g3 .l:!.f7 28 ..ixb6 �8 29 ..ie3 tt::Jh s 30 .l:!.g4 ti:Jf6 31 .l:!.h4 gs 32 fxgs tt::Jg4 33 �d2 tt::Jxe3 34 �xe3 tt::Jxc2 35 �6 ..ia8 36 .l:!.xd6? (White had to play 36 �xb8 .l:!.xb8 37 ..ih3 "with wild complica­tions" - Kasparov) 36 ... .l:!.b7 37 �xa6 .l:!.xb3 38 .l:!.xe6 .l:!.xb2 39 �C4 'it>h8 40 eS �a7+ 41 'it>h1 ..ixg2+ 42 'it>xg2 ti:Jd4+ 0-1.

Much later, V.Anand-V.Ivanchuk, Morelia 2008, varied from this 1985

, game, continuing 17 . . . ..ib7 18 ..ig2 tt::Jas 19 .l:!.ad1 tt::Jxb3 20 cxb3 ..ic6 21 b4

1 4 1

Ch ess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

bs 22 as l:tbc8 23 fs 'Des 24 'i¥g3 �f8 2S �d4 exfs 26 exfs 'i¥b7 27 �xc6 'i¥xc6+ 28 'i¥g2 'i¥xg2+ 29 ct>xg2 lt:ic6 30

lt:ids lt:ie7 31 �c3 1/2-1/2. Instead M.Carlsen-V.Anand, Wijk aan Zee 2008, played just before the lvanchuk game, diverged earlier, 13 .. . �f8 14 'i¥f2 �d7 1S g4 es 16 lt:ifs exf4 17 ..ixf4 .ie6 18 l:tad1 lt:ies 19 .ixes dxes 20 gs lt:id7 21 lt:ids 'i¥c6

22 �g2 'ii'cs 23 'i¥h4 'i¥xc2 24 l:tc1 'i¥xa4 2S b3 'ii'as 26 l:tc3 g6 27 l:th3 h s 28 i.f3 ..ltxds 2 9 exds i.g7 3 0 �xhs gxfs 31 ..ltxf7+ ct>xf7 32 g6+ <t>g8 33 'i¥h7+? ( 33 l:txfs 'ii'xdS+ 34 l:thf3 'i¥d1+ 3 S l:tf1 'ii'dS+ 36 l:t1f3 draws) 33 . . . <t>f8 34 l:txfs+ <t>e7 3 S 'i¥xg7+ <t>d6 36 l:tf7 'ii'xdS+ 37 ct>g1 l:tbd8 38 l:th7 'i¥d4+ 39 <t>g2 'i¥g4+ 40 <t>h1 l:tg8 41 l:tf6+ ct>c? 42 'i¥e7 'i¥e4+ 0-1.

Prior to this experience, back in 199S Anand had intended to meet 12 ... l:tb8 with 13 g4. P.Svidler­G.Kasparov, Linares 1998, later contin­ued 13 ... 'Dd7 14 ..ltg2 b6 1S gS �b7 16 'i¥g4 �f8 17 fs exfs 18 'ii'xfs lt:ides 19 lt:ids 'i¥d8 20 lt:ib3 lt:ie7 21 'i¥f4 l:tc8 22

1 4 2

lt:id4 'Dxds 23 exds 'i¥d7 2 4 b 3 g6 2S c4 l:te7 26 ..ltg1 l:tce8 27 l:tae1 �g7 28 'i¥g3 "Wic?, with an eventual draw.

Instead White found time to de­velop a very strong attack after the de­centralizing 12 .. . lt:ias ! ?, in V.Anand­V.Topalov, Dortmund 1996, which con­tinued 13 g4 'Dd7 14 �g2 .if8 1S 'i¥e1 b6 16 l:td1 �b7 17 'i¥h4 lt:ic6 18 lt:ide2 lt:ib4 19 l:td2 'i¥d8 20 gs f6 21 lt:id4 fxgs 22 fxgs lt:ic6 23 l:tdf2 l:tc8 24 'Dce2 lt:ics 2S lt:ixc6 ..ltxc6 26 'Dd4 �d7 27 es dxes 28 'Df3 ..ltc6 29 lt:ixes �xg2+ 30 l:txg2 l:tc7 31 tDg4 <t>h8 32 'i¥h3 'ii'ds 33 g6 h6 34 �xh6 gxh6 3 S g7+ ..ltxg7 36 lt:ixh6 'i¥xg2+ 37 'i¥xg2 �xh6 38 'i¥g6 1-0.

Returning to the game's 12 ... �d7: 13 'Db3 lt:ias!?

White's last move threatened 14 as, with a grip on the queenside dark squares. Black's reply prevents this, but allows White to gain ground on the queenside, by mobilizing his b-pawn over the next few moves.

Black can, and probably should, at­tempt to stand his ground, without making any spatial concessions on the

queenside, by playing 13 .. . b6, and if 14 g4 ii.c8 1S g s lt'ld7. This line again leads to highly complex play right across the board. Black's prickly, Hedgehog devel­opment promises plenty of opportuni­ties for counterplay as White probes for an all-out assault on Black's king.

A.Grischuk-S.Rublevsky, 3rd match­game, Elista 2007, continued fiercely 16 ii.g2 ii.b7 17 .l:!.f3 lt'lb4 18 .l:!.h3 g6 19 "ilid2 id8 20 'iVf2 i..g7 21 .l:!.fl .l:!.e7 22 ii.d4 es 23 fxes dxes 24 ii.e3 .l:!.d8 2S as bxas 26 lt'lcs lt'lf8 27 lt'lxb7 'iVxb7 28 ii.b6 .l:!.b8 29 ii.xas lt'lc6 30 b4 lt'le6 31 'iVh4 lLJxas 32 bxas lt'lf4 33 'iVxh7+ 'it>f8 34 lt'lds .l:!.e6 3S .l:!.hf3 .l:!.d8 36 .l:!.xf4 exf4 37 lt'lxf4 'iVc6 38 es "ilic4 39 'iVh3 'it>g8 40 lt'Jxe6 fxe6 41 'iVh3 "i/ixb3 42 cxb3 i..xes 43 ii.b7 .l:!.d2 44 ii.xa6 .l:!.xh2+ 4S 'it>g1 .l:!.hs 46 b4 .l:!.xgs+ 47 'it>h1 .l:!.g4 48 bs .l:!.a4 49 ii.c8 v2-v2.

14 lt'lxas "i/ixas 15 'iVd3 .l:!.ad8 16 .l:!.fd1!

The Dutch player, John van der Wiel, suggested this excellent move after fail­ing to break down Black's defences in J.Van der Wiel-L.Polugaevsky, Haninge 1989, after 16 g4!? ii.c6 17 b4 "ilic7 18 g S,

Vis wa n a th an A n and (1 9 69 -)

because of the trenchant reply 18 ... ds 19 gxf6 dxe4 20 "i/ic4 exf3 21 bS ii.xf6 22 bxc6 .l:!.c8 23 .l:!.a3 "i/ixc6 24 'iVxc6 .l:!.xc6, with considerable counterplay.

After the text, White intends to ad­vance his b-pawn to bS, while maintain­ing a firmer grip in the centre, particu­larly over the ds-square. Now it's much more difficult for Black to strike back with ... ds. For example, after 16 ... es 17 fs, White maintains a continuing bind on dS and the d-file in general. 16 ... ii.c6 17 b4 "ilic7 18 bs i..d7

Black must tread carefully. White is clearly better after 18 . . . axbs? ! 19 axbs i..d7 20 lt'la4!. 19 .l:!.ab1 axbs

White's prospects lie on the queen­side and in the centre, not in an attack on Black's king, and it is extremely hard for Black to shake off White's nagging pressure. Black faces an ever-present risk that he might drift into a perilous endgame, such as after 19 ... .l:!.c8? ! 20 es dxes 21 fxes "i/ixes (21 . . . lt'lds? fail s to 22 ii.xds exds 23 lt'Jxds "i/ixes 24 ii.f4) 22 ii.d4 "ilic7 23 i.xf6 ii.xf6 24 "ilixd7, when "White will create dangerous passed pawns as Black hasn't ex­changed the a-pawns" - Anand. 20 lt'lxbs!

Both sides must take care with their tactics. Black would get back into the game after the imprecise 20 axbs? ! .l:!.c8! 21 lt'Ja4 "i/ixc2 22 lt'lb6 "i/ixd3 23 .l:!.xd3 .l:!.c7 24 es dxes 2 S fxes lt'lds 26

'i..xds exds 27 lt'Jxds ids, and Black reaches a remarkable equality.

1 4 3

Ch ess Secrets : Heroes of Classical Ch ess

2o ... Jtxbs?! White now achieves a very domi­

nant position on the b-file and, with his a-, c- and e-pawns all ready to advance, threatens to squeeze Black even fur­ther.

Anand had expected the tougher 20 ... 11Va5. White might still retain a pull after 21 'bxd6 .ixa4 22 ..ib6 l:.xd6 23 .ixa5 (or if 23 l1Vxd6!? ..ixd6 24 ..ixa5 .ixf4 25 J::txb7 .txc2 26 l::td8 l:!.xd8 27 .ixd8 .ix€4 28 l::tb4 ..ixf3 29 l:!.xf4 ..td5 30 ..ixf6 gxf6 31 l:.xf6, with a drawn end­game) 23 ... l:!.xd3 24 cxd3 .ixd1, but Black can put up considerable resistance. 21 lJVxbS l:i.a8 22 C4 eS

1 4 4

Black takes steps to prevent White from playing e5, but now White's bishop reaches b6 with a vengeance. 23 ..ib6 l1Vc8

Black's queen must retreat, for if 23 ... 11Vc6? 24 11Vxc6 bxc6 25 c5 ! and White wins material. 24 fxes dxes 25 as ..if8 26 h3 l1Ve6 27 l:.ds!

This powerful positional exchange sacrifice finally breaks Black's resis­tance. If Black accepts the sacrifice, White retakes with his e-pawn, follow­ing which his c- and d-pawns, backed up by the bishop-pair, combine with his considerable extra queenside space and play against b7 to make Black's defensive task a nightmare.

If Black doesn't take the sacrifice immediately, he may nevertheless soon be forced to, after a move by White putting more pressure on e5, such as Jtc?. Kasparov decides that he must take the exchange straight away but this doesn't save him.

After the game Anand suggested that Black should have tried the wait-

ing move 27 .. . hs , although 28 ii.C7 still looks testing. Jon Speelman and Danny King suggested 27 ... .:ac8 28 .:bd1 h s, but not 28 .. . 'iVc6?! 29 :xes :xes 30 'iVxes 'iVxc4 31 'iVd4, when after playing eS, White's powerful bishops will prove decisive. 27 .. /t:Jxds 28 exds 'iVg6 29 cs e4 30 .i.e2 :es

Kasparov activates his rook, but it fail s to provide him with sufficient counterplay. Black can also try to get his bishop to es, by playing 30 ... .i.e7 31 d6 ii.f6, but this is equally unavailing after 32 d7 :f8 33 ii.C7. 31 'iVd7!

This and White's next move are de­cisive. Black's b-pawn is about to fall and White's rook can easily defend his g-pawn. After 31 .. . 'iVg3 32 'iVxb7 l:!.gs 33 :g1, Black can press no further. 31 ... :gs 32 :g1 e3 33 d6 :g3 34 'iVxb7 'iVe6

Black threatens mate and sets one last clever trap with this move. White must create a flight square for his king on g1, of course, but not by playing 3 S

Viswanathan Anand (1 9 6 9 -)

:fl? .:b8! 36 'iVxb8 .:xh3+ 37 'iiitg1 'iVes ! when Black draws. 35 'iiith2! 1-0

Now there is no draw after 3 S ... 'iVes 36 'iVxa8, and 3 S .. . :e8 36 d7 is also hopeless.

Perhaps the most important thing that computers have brought to chess is a much deeper and far less dogmatic understanding of what "works" in chess. Due to their fantastic capacity to calculate variations accurately, modern analysis engines now frequently sur­prise us, not just by screening out short-range blunders in our own calcu­lations, but even more significantly, by indicating surprising tactical depths in the game.

Anand makes a lot of this point in his interview with Outlook Business and his views underline his strong conten­tion that chess style is far from dead. "When we look back," he suggests, "we tend to think of [past players] as Ro­

·mantics, Neo-Romantics and so on. But they also went with what works. If

1 4 5

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Class ical Chess

something didn't work they stopped doing it." Little or nothing has changed in that regard from the dawn of chess. '

Our next illustrative game is a good example. In a key game for the 2000 F IDE World Championship, Anand chooses an opening whose early theory was first elaborated by Wilhelm Steinitz. After a while, Steinitz, an un­derrated openings-investigative gen­ius, much admired incidentally by Fischer, went off the line. In the mod­ern day, Anand and his computers re­viewed the by then much greater amount of available information on the opening, and discovered new and quite devilish twists that were worth a sharp practical test.

After this game, Anand himself more or less abandoned the line. It had served its purpose and, as the notes suggest, having been played a lot by Anand and others in the year or two before the 2000 F IDE World Champion­ship, it was not just becoming easier to understand how White was reinter­preting the line, but also easier to spot more effective ways for Black to battle against it. This is how chess ideas have always ebbed and flowed throughout all chess time. Perhaps we'll see this l ine frequently in top-class chess once again in the future.

The 2000 F IDE World Championship was one of the h ighest points in An­and's career. Played on a mini-match knock-out basis, and involving just about every top-class player in the

1 4 6

world, it was no easy task to win this event, as one or two small slips at al­most any stage could result in the de­mise of even the highest-rated favour­ite.

Anand had battled his way through to the final of the first of these knock­out world championships, in 1997/98, only to lose against the controversially pre-seeded (and therefore fresher), de­fending F IDE World Champion, Karpov. Given the relatively high element of chance due to the format, to reach the final again (in the third championship) was a remarkable feat. Anand deci­sively defeated Andrei Shirov, 3V2-V2, in the 2000 final, in a match that was scheduled for six games.

In the final game of the match against Shirov, Anand displayed great skill in the art of playing closed games. We more often associate Anand with open or semi-open play, characterized, in particular, by rapid piece develop­ment. In this game, Anand instead gradually gains an advantage by grab­bing early space with his pawns at no little expense to his piece development. All great players can adjust their game almost effortlessly like this, and Anand, a supremely universal talent, took the adjustment for granted. Most of us would consider his early play, particu­larly his far from routine 9th-13th moves, as strikingly original . Anand, whose only interest, of course, was to find the best moves in positions as they arose, simply considered it "normal."

Game 23 · V.Aband·A.Shirev

4th matchgame, FIDE Wortd Championship Final,

Tehran 2:000 French. Defence

1 e4 e6 2 d4 ds 3 tt:Jc3 tt:Jf6 4 es tt:Jfd7 5 tt:Jce2

This is a very old form of the Steinitz Variation (4 e5), which enjoyed a brief revival of interest around the millen­nium. White prepares to play c3 and f4, controlling the centre with pawns, but uses up time that might otherwise be devoted to more direct piece develop­ment. This old idea shouldn't be un­derestimated, but throughout most of his career, Anand has preferred the more fluid play offered by the main line development, 5 f4 c5 6 ctJf3 tt:Jc6 7 .ie3. s ... cs 6 f4

After 6 c3, Black can transpose back into the game, by playing 6 ... tt:Jc6, or seek complications in the sharper posi­tions arising after 6 .. . cxd4 7 cxd4 f6. From this position, V.Anand-E.Bareev, Shenyang 2000, had earlier gone 8 ctJf4 .ib4+ 9 .id2 'ilb6 10 �xb4 'iixb4+ 11 ifd2 iVxd2+ 12 �xd2 �e7 13 exf6+ gxf6 14 �e1 tt:Jb6 15 tt:Jf3 tt:Jc6 16 .ib5 .id7 17 .ixc6 bxc6 18 .i:i.e2 .i:i.ae8 19 .i:i.he1, reaching a complex endgame that White managed to turn eventually in his favour. 6 ... tt:Jc6 7 c3 'Vi'b6

Viswanathan A n a n d (1 9 6 9 -)

Black obtains good play after 7 . . . cxd4 8 cxd4 �b4+ 9 ctJC3 0-0 10 ctJf3 f6 11 .id3 fxes 12 fxe5 .i:i.xf3 13 iVxf3 'ifh4+ 14 iVf2 iVxd4, as in A.Minasian-5.Lputian, Armenian Championship, Yerevan 1996, which reached this posi­tion by a slight transposition. But did the first world champion, Wilhelm 5teinitz, see this exchange sacrifice coming a century ago, when he chose to play 11 a3, in W.Steinitz-B.Vergani, Hastings 1895?

Steinitz went on to win in that game, admittedly against poor play by

, his opponent, after 11 ... .ixc3+!? 12 bxc3 a6?! 13 a4 tt:Ja5? ! 14 .id3 'iic7 15

1 4 7

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

'iVc2 fs 16 g4! g6 17 gxfs exfs 18 h4! tt:lb6? ! 19 h s �g7 20 hxg6 h6 21 'iVh2 ! �h8 2 2 \Wh4 'iVd8 23 i.a3 tt:lc6 2 4 'iVhs tt:lc4 2S tt:lh4 tt:lxa3 26 tt:lxfs+ .i.xfs 27 'iVxfs 'iVf8 28 'iVd7+ 'iVe7 29 'iVxds �ad8 30 'iVb3 �hf8 31 'iVxa3 "i/ixa3 32 .Uxa3 �xf4 33 �e2, and White was winning.

Another unclear line is 7 .. . bs, after which V.Anand-A.Morozevich, Frank­furt (rapid} 2000, had continued 8 a3 c4 9 tt:lf3 tt:lb6 10 g4 fs 11 gxfs exfs 12 i.g2 ! ? (better 12 h4! - Psakhis) 12 ... i.e7 13 o-o h6 14 �f2 i.e6 1S i.f1 gs? ! 16 fxgs hxgs 17 h4! g4!? 18 tt:Jgs .i.c8 19 �h2 as 20 tt:lg3 �a6 21 �e3 tt:la4 22 'iVc2 �f8 23 �f2 "iiid7 24 e6 1-0.

Here V.Anand-A.Shirov, Leon Ad­vanced Chess 2000, had earlier varied with 8 ... cxd4 9 tt:lxd4 tt:lxd4 10 cxd4 b4 11 a4 'iVas 12 i.d2 .i.e7?! (12 ... i.a6} 13 tt:lf3 o-o 14 �bS! tt:lb6 1S b3 i..a6 16 i.xa6 'iVxa6 17 as! tt:ld7 18 'iVe2 tt:lb8 19 'it>f2 'iVxe2+ 20 �xe2 tt:lc6 21 .t:!.hc1 �fc8 22 .:.a2 �C7 23 �ac2 �ac8 24 a6! �f8 2S g4 �e8 26 fs �d7 27 �f4 gs 28 i.e3 h6 29 f6 .i.f8 30 �d3 ti:JaS?! 31 �XC7+ �XC7 32 �xc7+ �xc7 33 tt:lxgs ! hxgs 34 i.xgs

1 4 8

3 4 ... tt:lxb3 3 S h 4 tt:la1 3 6 i.c1! tt:lb3 37 .te3 tt:Jas 38 gS tt:lc4 39 .ltc1 1-0 - a magnificent endgame achievement! 8 tt:lf3 f6

Black generally plays this move early against this system. In an attempt to exploit White's backward piece de­velopment, Black aims to open the c­and f-files, and in some positions may be able to sacrifice a knight on es or d4, destroying White's d4- and eS-pawn centre and obtaining attacking threats. Black may also be able to sacrifice an exchange on f3 to win White's d-pawn.

Both sides must be precise. Black got it all wrong in another old game, A.Anderssen-E.Flechsig, Leipzig 1877, which continued 8 ... i.e7 9 a3 0-0 10 tt:lg3 ! ? f6 11 .i.d3 cxd4 12 cxd4 fxes 13 fxes tt:ldxes (13 ... �xf3 14 gxf3 tt:lxd4 is also good} 14 dxes tt:lxes 1S 'iVe2 tt:lg4? (Black should have played either 1S ... tt:lxf3+ 16 gxf3 .ltd7 or 1S ... tt:lxd3+ 16 "iVxd3 i.d7) 16 h3 .td6!? 17 i.xh7+ �xh7 18 hxg4+ �g8 19 tt:lfl 'iVb3? ! 20 .i:h3 es 21 tt:lxes �a4 22 b3 1-0. 9 a3 i.e7 10 h4 o-o 11 �h3

Writing in New in Chess, Anand noted that "needing only one point from three to become world champion, I decided just to play a normal game ... . " Let's consider the "normality" of White's last three moves more care­fully. These are all certainly good moves, but to play them requires a deep understanding of position.

White's 9th move is probably the easiest to understand. White wishes to play b4 eventually, both to secure a healthy spatial gain on the queenside and to resolve the central tension by encouraging Black to exchange his pawn on cs for White's d-pawn. While it doesn't develop one of White's many undeveloped pieces, the move certainly promotes a sensible game plan.

White's 10th move, another pawn move, also has its points. Firstly, it dis­courages any possible Black counter­play based on ... gs . Note, too, that White's h -pawn may also play a more aggressive role in any future direct at­tack on the kingside, either by itself advancing to h S (particularly if Black has played ... g6) and perhaps also to h6, or by supporting an aggressive ad­vance by a minor piece to gs.

White's 11th move i s (at last) a piece move, but White's king's rook is perhaps not the most obvious piece most players might rush to develop at this point. Nevertheless this move, too, is well-founded, getting White's rook into very useful lateral play on the third rank. The rook might eventually

Viswanathan A n a n d (1 9 6 9 -)

emerge on g3, with a dual attacking role, but it mainly acts, at present, as a useful defensive bulwark, all the way along to White's potentially vulnerable c3-square.

But surely moves like these use up an awful lot of time? What about the rest of White's development? Can't Black exploit what, on the face of it, seems to be an indulgent, even a dan­gerously exotic approach by White to the problem of getting his pieces out? All very good questions - play on ! u ... as!

Black can, indeed, hit back hard, and this move, which prevents b4 by White and threatens to lame him on the queenside light squares, by playing . .. a4, is excellent. To maintain the flexi­bility of his queenside pawns and pre­vent Black gaining even more queen­side space, White must make yet an­other, fairly modest-looking pawn move.

In fact, both sides had reached this .position against each other in an ear­lier rapid game. Shirov got things badly

1 4 9

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

wrong then and this was a definite im­provement. After ll .. . tt:Jas?, White was able to fulfil all his queenside, kingside and central potential in V.Anand­A.Shirov, Frankfurt (rapid) 2000, which continued 12 b4! cxb4 13 axb4 lt:Jc4 14 lt:Jg3 as 15 i.d3 fs 16 tt:Jgs ! l:i.d8 17 'i!Vhs i.xg s 18 fkxgs l:i.f8 19 tt:Jhs l:i.f7 20 l:i.g3 g6 21 i.xc4 dxc4 22 bS ! 1!Vxbs 23 i.a3 b6 24 'i!¥h6 ..ib7 25 l:i.xg6+! hxg6 26 ifxg6+ �h8 27 ifxf7 l:i.g8 28 i.f8 1-0. 12 b3 1!Vc7 13 lt:Jeg1

If White's 9th-11th moves require some explanation, what should we make of this move? This knight, let's be clear, has now travelled from its start­ing square on bl only to move laterally across the board and take up a post on gl, its kingside colleague's starting square. And all of this, in the space of the first 13 moves in the game! But this, too, is a good move. It's essential for White to prevent ... bs, a move that would not just gain useful queenside space, but also bring with it the threat of ... b4, seriously undermining White's central pawn chain. On the other hand, Black really ought to have done enough by now to be sure of establishing at least an equal game. 13 ... a4!?

This isn't a bad move. Indeed, given Shirov's position in the match, it is probably the best way to play to allow Black to complicate and battle for a full rather than a half-point. But the sim­plest path to equality may now have been to play 13 ... b6, and if 14 i.e3 (14

1 5 0

..id3 cxd4 15 cxd4 fxes 16 fxes lt:Jcxes ! looks better for Black - Psakhis) 14 . . . ..ia6, exchanging bishops, with lit­tle to fear in the position.

14 b4 fxes 15 fxes tt:Jdxes! Now that White has got in the de­

sirable b4 on the queenside, Black sim­ply must shake up White's game in the centre. As already discussed, the text is a fully thematic sacrifice, and it is also well-justified in the current position. 16 dxes lt:Jxes 17 tt:lxes ifxes+ 18 ife2 i.xh4+?!

But here, Black goes wrong. It must have been very tempting to grab this pawn, as White cannot capture the

bishop without losing his rook. Black also wins the pawn with tempo, due to the check. Surprisingly, however, the tactics conspire to confound Black, and the best that he can do after this move, which he must almost immediately have regretted playing, is to aim to de­fend an inferior endgame.

Black should have kept the queens on the board. Indeed, after the the­matic and logical retreat 18 .. .'�C7!, Black's two pawns and potential play against White's open king would have given him excellent practical chances -probably no worse than White's - in a highly unclear middlegame. 19 �d1 'ief6?!

This way, Black loses even more ma­terial. Black's best chance now was to struggle to hold the uncomfortable endgame arising after 19 ... 'iexe2+ 20 i.xe2 i.f2 21 i.e3 es 22 Si.xf2 .l::!.xf2 23 .l::i.g3. Lev Psakhis, however, perhaps made the most apt comment on this move. Psakhis was "convinced that Shi­rov perfectly well understood the need to exchange queens .. . but the unfa­vourable state of the match dictated a different course." 20 tt::lf3 'iexc3?!

Black's queen enters dangerous ter­ritory, from which it won't escape. But Black also faces a wholly uphill struggle against White's menacing king and rooks after 20 ... g s 21 tt::lxh4 'iexfl+ 22 'iexfl .l::i.xf1+ 23 �e2 .l::i.xc1 24 .l::i.xcl gxh4 25 .l::i.xh4. He is also lost after 20 .. . es 21 .l::i.xh4 e4 22 l::tf4.

Viswanathan A n a n d (1 9 6 9 -)

21 Si.b2 'ieb3+ 22 �c1 e5 Sadly White was not just threaten­

ing to capture Black's bishop on h4, but also to win Black's queen by playing 23 tt:Jes or tt::ld2. So a second piece goes, and even though Black gets four passed pawns for the transaction, they are not strong enough and he can really only expect to make the finish as entertaining as possible for the specta­tors. 23 I::txh4 i.f5 24 'ied1 e4 25 'iexb3 axb3 26 tt::ld2 e3 27 tt::lf3 .l::i.ae8 28 �d1 c4 29 i.e2 Si.e4 30 �c1

White need only find an effective means of consolidation. Black's four pawns aren't sufficiently well placed to cause White's extra forces more than slight irritation on course to victory. 30 ... l::te6 31 i.c3 J::i.g6 32 .l::i.h2 Si.d3 33 Si.xd3 cxd3 34 �b2 d2 35 �xb3 l::tg3 36 �b2?!

White could have played the more accurate 36 �c2 straight away, but it makes no real difference now and An­'ilnd still has the win well in hand. 36 ... g5 37 �c2 .l::i.c8 38 �d3 g4 39 Si.e5

1 5 1

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Classical Ch ess

.:tel 40 .l:.hl �xg2 41 tt:Jh4! 1-0

To his credit, Shirov did manage to fashion a final trap, which Anand care­fully avoids falling into. After 41 tt:Jd4?, Black could have saved the day by play­ing the surprise 41 ... d1'iV+! 42 �xd1 .l:.d2+! 43 .J:.xd2 exd2, winning White's rook.

After winning the F IDE world title, Anand returned to considerable ac­claim in India. He took part in a colour­ful chariot parade around the streets of Chennai, before being publicly crowned by the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. Anand had been well-backed by his sponsor, the educa­tion and IT conglomerate N I IT, and was a celebrity throughout the country. The Chief Minister of the Tamil Nadu State awarded him a house in Chennai. On top of his $500,000 prize for winning the event, this was handy.

Anand deservedly won the title. Not just top seed and favourite, his form had been remarkably consistent for years and he hadn't been out of the

1 5 2

world top three in the F IDE rankings since July 1996. A top performer in all of the world's elite tournaments, An­and was also a recognised match for Kasparov at rapid and blitz chess, and had earlier won the 2000 blitz world championship. By 2000, Anand had also won a number of prominent In­dian Sportsperson of the Year awards, his earliest in 1985, and (from 1997-2003) six Chess Oscars.

Sadly, Anand was never to get a world championship rematch against Kasparov at normal time limits (or what was now beginning to be called "classical" time rates to distinguish it from rapid and blitz). Despite repeated efforts to reunify the two world cham­pionships created by Kasparov's 1993 PCA breakaway from FIDE, it took the best part of the next six years or so to get anywhere. In the meantime, the PCA folded and Kasparov unexpectedly lost his "classical" world title to Vladi­mir Kramnik, in London 2000. Kasparov sought a rematch only against Kram­nik, who managed to avoid a challenge. Early in 2005, Kasparov then abruptly retired from chess, still world number one, ostensibly to take an increasingly active part in Russian politics, but ap­parently also fed up at getting no­where in his attempt to nail down Kramnik.

During this uneasy period in top­class chess, Anand remained com­mendably aloof from petty politics and declared his wish simply to continue

playing chess. His consistently good form continued during these years, with many more tournament suc­cesses. Anand's rating also stayed firmly in the world top three until April 2007, when he became world number one for the first time.

Anand's trajectory therefore re­mained firmly upward and he contin­ued to pour out many fine games. In Game 24, he squeezes out a virtuosic endgame win against Ruslan Ponom­ariov at the MTEL tournament in 2006. In this game, Anand's technique is of the highest order, recalling Bronstein's characterization: "rare, supreme".

Game 24

V .Anand-R.Ponomariov Sofia 2006

Caro�Kann Defence

1 e4 c6 2 d4 dS 3 ctJc3 dxe4 4 'Llxe4 .ifs 5 'Llg3 .ig6 6 'Llf3 'Lld7 7 h4 h6 8 hS .ih7 9 .id3 .ixd3 10 �xd3

Viswanathan A n a n d (1 9 6 9 -)

of the main lines. This position has been highly popular for well over a half century. In the 1960s, Botvinnik once grumbled that as the line had only seen one true innovation by White in dec­ades - playing 8 h s before exchanging bishops on d3 - it was surprising that it was still played as often.

Boris Spassky and others down the ages, however, have valued White's slightly greater command of space in this line (which tends to be accentu­ated by having White's h-pawn on h s rather than on h4). Anand has played this variation with both colours, though he predominantly tends to champion White's cause. 10 ... e6 11 .if4 'Llgf6

Black opts for lines involving king­side castling, which invites sharper play by both players, given that the kings are placed on opposite sides of the board. In Botvinnik's day, Black tended to prefer queenside castling, usually introduced by the moves 10 ... �c7 11 .id2 e6 12 0-0-0 'Llgf6, but also often reached, from the game position, after 11 ... �a5+ 12 .td2 �c7 13 0-0-0 'Llgf6, with an extra move played by both sides.

The old queenside castling plans remain playable for Black. They gener­ally aim at achieving steady, l ong-term equality, usually based on exchanges along the d-file after ... cs and ... cxd4. However, Black can't underestimate White's potential to press in these old tines, which can persist through many

The players have rushed down one different transformations into many

1 5 3

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Classical Chess

different kinds of endgame. White can hold the centre and often seeks, after an exchange of his poorer placed knight on g3, to commence a lively kingside minority attack, using the central dark squares as outposts for his minor pieces.

Black succumbed to a brilliantly worked plan along these lines in V.Anand-R.Leitao, Sao Paulo (rapid) 2004, after 14 tt:le4 o-o-o 15 g3 i.e7 16 tt:lxf6 tt:lxf6 17 'it'e2 Wb8 18 Wbl Wa8 19 C4 c5 20 i.c3 cxd4 21 tt:lxd4 a6 22 tt:lf3 .l:Ixdl+ 23 .l:Ixdl .l:Id8 24 .l:Ie1 tt:le8 25 tt:le5 i.f6 26 g4 i.xe5 27 i.xe5 'it'c6 28 i.c3 'it'd7 29 b3 'it'c6 30 Wb2 .l:Id7 31 a4 '>t>b8 32 f4 '>t>c8 33 g 5 'it'c5 34 'it'e3 'it'xe3 3 5 .l:.xe3 .l:.dl 36 g6 ! fxg6 37 .l:.xe6 Wd7 38 .l:Ixg6 .l:Ih1 39 i.xg7 .l:Ixh5 40 i.e5, and White won.

An interesting kind of hybrid plan for Black arises after 11 ... 'it'as+ 12 i.d2 i.b4 13 C3 i.e7 14 C4 'it'C7 15 0-0-0 tt:lgf6. V.Anand-B.Macieja, German League 2006, continued 16 .l:.del!? b5 ! ? 17 c5 0-0 18 tt:le2 .l:Ife8 19 g4 e5 20 'it'f5 exd4 21 g5 hxgs 22 i.xgs tt:lh7? (better

1 5 4

the unclear 22 ... d3 ! 23 tt:led4! - Anand) 23 i.f4 'it'c8 24 tt:lexd4 tt:lxc5 2 5 'iVc2 i.f8 26 .l:Ieg1 .l:.e4 27 i.e5 f6 28 h6 fxe5 29 hxg7 i.e7 30 tt:lxe5 i.d6 31 f4 i.xe5 32 fxe5 1-0.

Returning to Ponomariov's 11 ... tt:lgf6:

12 0-0-0 iLe7 13 tt:le4 White generally seeks to exchange

his relatively badly-placed knight on g3 for its more active black counterpart on f6, not least to free White's g-pawn for its role in his forthcoming pawn minor­ity pincer-play action on the kingside. 13 . • • tt:lxe4

With this and his next move, Black begins a plan to exchange queens and enter an endgame. Also possible is the immediate 13 ... 0-0, after which the sharp 14 tt:lxf6+ tt:lxf6 15 g4!? is a highly critical option, although White can also play for a slight edge with quieter 15th moves. 14 'it'xe4 tt:lf6 15 'it'd3 'it'ds

Black can also play 15 ... 'it'a5, after which 16 Wbl o-o 17 tt:le5 transposes into Carlsen-Ernst, Game 29. White maintained the better chances in

D.Svetushkin-T.Gelashvili, Athens 2006, which varied from this sequence after 16 ... CZJg4 17 '1ie2 'iYbs 18 l:i.d3 o-o-o 19 CZJd2 CZJf6 20 .ies .id6 21 c4 'iYas 22 cs .ixes 23 CZJc4 '1ic7 24 dxes .l::!.xd3 2 5 '1ixd3 CZJds 26 .l::!.h4.

Also possible is 15 .. . 0-0, which trans­poses to the variation mentioned in the note to Black's 13th move with both sides having played one move extra.

16 c4 '1ie4 17 '1ixe4 CZJxe4 18 .ie3 o-o

White had no good way to avoid the exchange of queens and Black has achieved a solid game with sufficient room for manoeuvre. Nevertheless,

Vis wan a th a n A n a n d (1 9 69 -)

White still has a slight pull in this posi­tion, as his spatial advantages persist, even with reduced forces. White con­trols more squares in the centre and his kingside pawn minority can still use­fully edge up the board, denying Black space in that sector. Black must still find a plan of correct queenside and central counterplay.

White made impressive headway on the kingside and in the centre in V.Kramnik-E .Bareev, Wijk aan Zee 2003, which continued 18 .. . CLJd6 19 b3 .if6 20 g4 bs ! ? 21 CZJd2 �d7 ! ? 22 �c2 .id8 23 CZJf3 .if6 24 CZJes+ �c7 25 cS ! .ixes 26 dxes CZJc8 27 .l::!.h3 CZJe7 28 .l::!.f3 .l::!.hf8 29 .l::!.d6 as 30 gs ! hxgs 31 .ixgs CZJfs 32 l:i.dl a4 33 b4 �c8 34 .l::!.fd3 .l::!.a7 35 .l::!.d8+ .l::!.xd8 36 .l::!.xd8+ �b7 37 �c3 �a6 38 �d3 .l::!.c7 39 �e4 �b7 40 .l::!.dt �c8 41 .l::!.d8+ �b7 42 �f4 .l::!.c8 43 .l::!.d7+ .l::!.c7 44 l:i.d3 �c8 45 .l::!.d8+ �b7 46 .if6! g6 47 hxg6 fxg6 48 �gs 1-o. 19 CZJes .id6

Black hides his intentions for the moment. White successfully main­tained an edge against a more direct and conventional plan, based on .. . cs and .. . cxd4, in the earlier game, A.Strikovic-V.Korchnoi, Torey 1990: 19 ... .l::!.fd8 20 g4 cs 21 f3 cxd4 22 .l::!.xd4 .l::!.xd4 23 .ixd4 CZJgs 24 .l::!.fl .l::!.e8 25 b3 .l::!.d8 26 .ic3 f6 27 CZJg6 .id6 28 �c2 �f7 29 b4 b6 30 a3 es 31 .id2 .to 32 .ie3, with a menacing, mobile queenside pawn majority. io f3 CZJg3 21 l:i.h3 CZJfs 22 .if2 .l::!.ad8 23 g4 CZJe7

1 5 5

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

White has achieved the same, re­straining f3, g4, h S pawn chain as in the Strikovic-Korchnoi game above. Black may have fewer apparent weak points than in that game, but it is still hard for him to activate his forces on either flank.

Black would not have solved his problems after the plausible alterna­tive 23 ... .i.xes 24 dxes l::txdl+ 25 'it>xdl. His game would then have remained completely passive and, more signifi­cantly, vulnerable to potential disaster on the d-file, after either of two con­tinuations given by Anand: 2S . . ::t:Jd4 26 f4! cS 27 .i.xd4 cxd4 (or 27 ... l::td8 28 l::td3 cxd4 29 'it>e2) 28 l::td3 l::td8 29 'it>e2, and 2S ... l::td8+26 'it>e1 lL'ld4 27 f4 lbc2+ (or 27 ... cs 28 l::td3) 28 'it>e2 lL'ld4+ 29 'it>fl. 24 lL'ld3 bS!?

This break is frequently double­edged and can fail dramatically, as in the Kramnik game above, if White can play cs, target d6 and control the d-file more quickly and effectively than Black can make good use of ds. Here Ponom­ariov combines the break with a subtle

1 5 6

plan to switch his bishop to as, target­ing White's d-pawn. It requires fine play by White to keep his chances alive against this. 25 b3 i.c7 26 l::thh1!

Only this way - Black's clever idea works after 26 <it>c2 .i.b6! 27 'it>c3 .i.as+, and if 28 'it>c2 i.b6. 26 ... .i.b6 27 lL'lcs!

And now only this fine move! White can afford to allow his queenside pawns to be broken (and his c-pawns doubled), as long as his rooks still con­trol the d-file and can penetrate on d6. White's pawn on cs effectively fixes Black's pawn on c6 as a target. More­over, White's pawn on c4, and his pin­cer-like, king side pawns, effectively put a lock on Black's knight, ensuring that White's bishop is the more effective minor piece. 27 ... l::tfe8!?

Nevertheless, it seems that Black might still have been able to put up a feisty struggle after 27 .. . as 28 a4! (or Black will himself play .. . a4) 28 .. . bxc4 29 bxc4 .i.xcs 30 dxcs l::tb8! . At least, this

Viswanathan A n a n d (1 9 6 9 -)

might have provided better practical 34 I:i.8d7!, and if 34 ... I:i.eb8?? 35 I:i.d8+ chances. Anand provides an extraordi- I:i.xd8 36 I:i.xd8 mate. nary analysis in justification, suggest­ing that Black should aim to give up his knight for three pawns. Black might just hold, for example, after 31 I:l.d7 (also obscure is 31 �el I:i.b3 32 I:l.d7) 31...I:l.b4 32 I:i.xe7 I:i.fb8 33 .tel I:i.xa4 34 .ic3 I:i.xc4 35 �d2 I:i.d8+ 36 �c2 I:i.d5 37 I:i.e1 I:i.dxc5 38 I:i.e3 a4, and White may no longer be able to make any pro­gress.

28 �c2 bxc4 29 bxc4 .txcs 30 dxcs es 31 I:i.d6!

Having missed probably his last real chance of putting up a defence, Black struggles now to stem White's forces. White rooks dominate the d-file. Black is seriously devoid of useful squares for his pieces, particularly his knight, and can no longer seriously hope to create any queen side diversion. 31 ... I:i.b8 32 I:i.hdl I:l.b7 33 I:i.d8!

White makes progress by exchang­ing one pair of rooks and penetrating on d7 with the other. Black can't avoid this by playing 33 I:i.d8 �f8, because of

33 ... I:i.xd8 34 I:i.xd8+ \t>h7 35 I:i.f8 f6 36 �el!

White's broken queenside pawns may not look particularly inspiring, but Black's game is in a bind on both flanks. By playing his bishop to c3, White decisively augments this pres­sure. Black's knight can hardly move, his rook has no activity and White's three king side pawns, reinforced by his well-placed pieces, continue to lame Black's kingside.

After his bishop reaches c3, White's winning plan involves the advance of

1 5 7

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

his a-pawn to the sixth rank, after which White's rook and bishop will combine to win the battle for control of a7. In this, a key tactic will be White's ability to manoeuvre his rook to b7.

In the moves that follow, Black manages to wriggle a little on the king­side, but it is all too little, too late and too slow now to make any real impact. 36 ... lld7 3 7 i.c3 lt:Jg8 38 a4 g6 39 as gxh s 40 gxhs �g7 41 llb8 lt:Je7 42 a6 �f7 43 i.as tt:Jfs 44 i.b6!

Black has done his best, but this move kill s him. White's far-advanced passed pawns win quickly after 44 .. . axb6 45 cxb6, followed by a7. Or if Black declines the offer, by playing 44 .. . �e6, White wins after 45 lle8+ �f7 (or 4S .. . lt:Je7) 46 lla8! . 44 . . . lt:Je3+ 45 �c3 �e6 46 llc8!

White's bishop remains immune on b6. So this move, winning Black's c­pawn, is soon decisive. 46 ... �f5 47 llxc6 lt:Jd1+ 48 �b4 lld2

White's a- and c-pawns can't both be prevented from reaching their queening squares after 48 ... lt:Je3 49

1 5 8

lld6 lle7 50 c6 axb6 5 1 lld7 lle8 5 2 c7 llc8 53 a7 (Anand). 49 i.xa7 llb2+ so �a3 llb1 51 llb6!

It's easy now. White's rook clears the c-file for the advance of his front c­pawn. 51 ... lla1+ 52 �b3 e4 53 fxe4+ �xe4 54 c6 �d3 5 5 c7 llb1+ 56 �a3 1-0

At Wijk aan Zee, a few months ear­lier in 2006, Anand had won a fine game against one of the youngest grandmasters in the top-flight, Sergey Karjakin. Then aged only 16, Karjakin had become the youngest player to gain the grandmaster title, a few years earlier, aged just 12. Compared to such players, the now 3 7 year-old Anand, must have seemed like a veteran. Kas­parov had retired, aged a month short of 42. How many years could Anand now expect to hold out at the highest level?

It is nowadays almost commonplace to suggest that another outcome of the computer revolution has been to re­duce the age at which players can pro-

gress at the game. In the past, with in­formation buried in books and maga­zines, it wasn't so easy for the younger player to access the means by which he or she could learn about the game. With the advent of powerful com­puters and often wholly free access to massive games databases and innu­merable chess information and playing internet sites, it is vastly easier.

Anand has a sensible take on this. In his interview with Outlook Business, he simply said, "I'm aware that chess is becoming very young .. . but .. . it seems to me that if you are motivated and you train physically, you are able to cope." Anand has never lacked either dedication to or motivation for the game. He also patently keeps himself physically fit and follows an appropri­ately healthy diet. He'll last a lot longer yet.

Despite computers, Anand's younger colleagues also clearly have a mountain to climb if they want to match his skill levels. Put all of Anand's skills together and you get a formida­ble package that simply isn't readily programmable. Anand has all the usual chess-playing attributes, such as imagination, positional understanding, the ability to calculate well , mental resilience and fighting spirit. He also uses computers superbly. On top of this, Anand has amassed vast experi­ence and, rather like Smyslov, he has an enviably calm and dispassionate ap­proach to chess. He knows himself well

Vis wanathan A n a n d (1 9 6 9 -)

and rarely fall s into the trap of under­estimating any opponent. Referring to his outstanding 1st place at Wijk aan lee in 2004, he confided, in New in

Chess: "I didn't feel like I was some co­lossus walking around here, but I did feel that I seem to be more stable than the other guys."

At Wijk aan Zee in 2006, Anand didn't just defeat the much younger Karjakin, but gave him a master-class. Both players had prepared a long, complicated variation, using com­puters. But while their respective com­puter preparations roughly cancelled out, Anand's superior instincts made the decisive difference, leading him to discover a series of hidden attacking motifs that Karjakin clearly hadn't ap­preciated.

Interestingly Anand had to find his critical 27th move at the board, a salu­tary reminder that computers, even today, are unlikely to be able to do all your work and that your own brain must always direct and assess their analyses intelligently. The game thrill­ingly concludes with a thoroughly old­fashioned king-hunt.

Game 25 S.Karjakin-V.Anand Wijk aan Zee 2006

Sicilian Defence

1 e4 cs 2 tt:lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:lxd4 tt:lf6 5 tt:lc3 a6 6 .lte3

1 5 9

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

gaining control of d5. Play along lines of the Scheveningen

Sicilian, with a small centre after 6 ... e6, is also possible. Anand must have fond memories in the positions arising after 6 . . . e6 7 f3 b5 8 g4 h6 9 'iVd2 tt:lbd7 10 o-o-o Jtb7! ? (Topalov's sharp 10 ... b4 11 lt:Ja4 lt:Je5, and if 12 'iVxb4 .id7, may be better) 11 h4 b4 12 lt:Ja4 iVa5 13 b3 lt:Jc5 14 a3. In part the line has gone some­what out of fashion for Black because

In his book of best games, Anand of Anand's success against it. wrote that the English Attack was "a very difficult and complex variation to analyse ... the positions are so tricky that you can never be sure that your ideas are correct; the advantage is that your opponent has the same problem!"

White plans a combination of the moves f3, 'iVd2, 0-0-0 and g4, followed by g5 , but there are so many permuta­tions of this plan and just as many ways for Black to defend, that matters can soon get enormously complex. To play the 6 .ie3 lines well requires a high degree of strategic, analytical and technical skills, as well as good home preparation. Anand, one of the great connoisseurs for both sides in this variation, excels in this game on all of these counts. 6 ... es

Black often strives to play ... e5 in one move in lines of the Najdorf, rely­ing on Black's good grip in the centre and prospects of queenside play to counterbalance White's potential pres­sure on the d-file and prospects of

1 60

V.Anand-A.Khalifman, Shenyang 2000, continued 14 ... �c8 (14 ... lt:Jxa4 15 axb4 'iVc7 16 bxa4, and if 16 ... d5 17 e5 also seems to be good for White) 15 'iVxb4 'iVC7 16 �b1 lt:Jcd7 (later V.Anand-R.Kasimdzhanov, Leon (rapid) 2005, varied with 16 .. . tt:lfd7 17 tt:lb2 d5 18 'iVd2 dxe4 19 f4 tt:lf6 20 Jte2 lt:Jd5 21 lt:Jc4 tt:ld7 22 g5 lt:Jxe3 23 'iVxe3 Jtds 24 �hf1 Jtc5 25 'iVc3 hxg5 26 lt:Jf5 Jtxc4 27 lt:Jxg7+ �e7 28 .ixc4 �hg8 29 hxgs e3 30 fs tt:le5 31 fxe6 �xg7 32 �d7+ lt:Jxd7 33 iVxg7 1-o) 17 iVd2 d5 18 .th3 dxe4 19 g5 hxgs 20 hxgs lt:Jd5 21 fxe4 lt:Jxe3 22 'iVxe3 lt:Je5 23 �hfl .txa3 24 g6

�xg6 2S .ixe6 fxe6 26 �xe6 'VJile7 27 'VJilb6 �f8 28 .l:!.d8+ .l:!.xd8 29 �c7+ 'VJilxc7 30 'VJilxo .l:!.d7 31 'VJib8+ �e7 32 'VJieS+ �e6 33 .l:!.g1 �f7 34 �b6 .l:!.hd8 3S �a2 ii.f8 36 �xd7 .l:!.xd7 37 'VJifs+ �e7 38 .l:!.f1 .ic8 3 9 'VJilf7+ �d6 40 eS+ 1-0.

White also often plays 8 'VJid2 which can lead to unique possibilities, such as after the very sharp 8 ... b4 9 �a4 �bd7 10 0-0-0 (10 c4 bxc3 11 �xc3 �b7 has also been played), and now either 1o ... ds 11 exds �xds 12 .ic4 �7f6, as in P.Leko-V.Topalov, F IDE World Cham­pionship, San Luis 200S, or 10 ... 'VJias 11 b3 i..b7 12 a3 'VJile7 13 axb4 dS, as in A.Motylev- I .Cheparinov, Wijk aan Zee 2006. 7 �b3 .ie6 8 f3 .ie7

After the alternative 8 ... �bd7, V.Anand-R.Kasimdzhanov, F IDE World Championship, San Luis 200S, contin­ued 9 'VJid2 bS 10 0-0-0 �b6 11 'VJif2 �c4 12 �xc4 bxc4 13 �as .l:!.c8 (Black put up more stubborn resistance in V.Anand­B.Gelfand, Wijk aan Zee 2006, by play­ing 13 ... 'VJid7 14 .l:!.d2 .ie7 1S .l:!.hd1 .l:!.b8 16 i..cs 'VJilc7 17 .l:!.xd6 'VJixas 18 .l:!.xe6

Viswanathan A n a n d (1 9 6 9 -)

fxe6 19 i..xe7 .l:!.b7 20 .id6, but he still came under some pressure and even­tually lost) 14 .i.b6 'VJid7 1S g3 g6 16 .l:!.d2 ii.h6 17 f4 �g4 18 'VJif3 .l:!.b8 19 h3 �f6 20 i..cs exf4 21 gxf4 .l:!.c8 22 .txd6 'VJid8 23 .ib4 'VJib6 24 a3 �hs 2 s \t>b1 .ixf4 26 �ds .ixds 27 .l:!.xds ii.b8 28 .l:!.hd1 c3 29 .l:!.d7 1-0. 9 'VJid2 0-0 10 0-0-0 �bd7

White won a battle on the d-file, in V.Anand-L.Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2001, after 10 .. . 'VJiiC7 11 g4 .l:!.c8 12 Wb1 �bd7 13 'VJif2 bS 14 gS �hS 1S h4 b4 16 �ds .ixds 17 .l:!.xds as 18 .ih3 a4 19 �c1 .l:!.cb8 20 .ig4 �f4 21 .ixf4 exf4 22 .ixd7 'VJixd7 23 'VJid2 .l:!.bs 24 �e2 .l:!.c8 2S �xf4, and White won. 11 g4 bS 12 gS b4 13 �e2 �e8

Both sides sped to this position, which had been played before. Karjakin hopes to prove that Black's knight on e8 is poorly placed; Anand's insight into Black's possibilities, however, proves to be more profound. 14 f4

As a result of this game, Karjakin later changed tack and tried a different

1 6 1

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

pawn move on the kingside, 14 h4, in the rematch, S .Karjakin-V.Anand, Wijk aan Zee 2007. However, Black agai11 turned play in his favour, after 14 ... a5 15 'it>b1 lt:Jb6 16 lt:Jg3 a4 17 lt:Jc1 d5 18 i.xb6 'i¥xb6 19 exd5 lld8 20 il.c4 lt:JC7 21 dxe6 .llxd2 22 exf7+ 'it>h8 23 .llxd2 lt:Jb5 24 i.xb5 'i¥xb5 25 lt:Jf5 .llxf7 26 lt:Jxe7 .llxe7 27 .lld8+ .lle8 28 .llhd1 .llg8, and Black managed to win in the end­game. 14 ... as 15 fs a4 16 lt:Jbd4

Both sides were still in their home preparation. After 16 fxe6 axb3 17 cxb3 fxe6 18 'it>b1 'i¥a5 19 lt:Jc1, Black is fine. 16 ... exd4 17 lt:Jxd4 b3 18 'it>b1

Previously M.Borriss-J.Gallagher, German League 2003, had gone 18 cxb3 axb3 19 a3 .llc8+ 20 'it>b1 il.c4, and Black was better. 18 ... bxc2+ 19 lt:Jxc2 i.b3!

This move was also still in both players' book. Black's bishop is lost, but it can give itself up to create attacking chances down the open a-file. 20 axb3 axb3 21 lt:Ja3 tt:Jes 22 h4 .llas

Even this move was known! Black's

1 62

rook vacates a8 for his queen, allowing a build-up of force along the a-file, while at the same time keeping an eye on White's slightly vulnerable e-pawn. 23 'i¥c3?!

Earlier P.Leko-F.Vallejo Pons, Monaco (rapid) 2005, had continued unconvincingly for White 23 'i¥e2 d5 24 .llxd5 .llxd5 25 exd5 i.xa3 26 bxa3 lt:Jd6 27 i.c5 lle8 V2-V2. The text-move must have been Karjakin's intended im­provement, but later it was found that White should play 23 'i¥b4. 23 ... 'i¥a8 24 i.g2

24 ... lt:Jc7! Karjakin may not have thought that

this move was possible, but this bril­liant sacrifice amounts to a complete refutation. Black threatens ... lt:Jb5, forc­ing a breakthrough on the a-file, so White must accept Black's knight.

Anand apparently found this idea at the board. On the other hand, the sacri­fice itself is more or less an "only" move. If Black doesn't shift this knight, he can't free his remaining kingside pieces and attack anything. But it cer-

tainly wasn't easy to work out all the subsequent tactics, which include a subtle mix of further material sacri­fices and quiet moves. 25 Wixc7

If 2 5 i.d2 't:J.a7 26 't:J.h3 't:J.b8, or 25 ..ltb6 't:J.xa3 ! 26 bxa3 lbbs 27 Wixb3 lbxa3+ and White is hopelessly lost on the queenside. 25 ... 't:J.c8!

Black rushes his major pieces to the queenside. White has to accept a sec­ond minor piece now, for if 26 Wib6? ctJc4 27 Wixb3 lbxa3+ 28 bxa3 't:J.xa3 29 Wib2 't:J.b8 30 ..ltb6 't:J.a6 31 es 't:J.a1+ 32 Wixa1 't:J.xb6+ 33 �c2 Wixg2+ 34 �c3 dxes, and wins - Ftacnik. 26 Wixe7 ctJc4!

The same theme again - this time, Black's other knight joins in the battle to demolish White's grip on a3 . 27 g6?!

This move fails quite quickly. Ac­cording to Ftacnik, White might have tried the surprising 27 ..ltcs ! ?, although Black still retains a plus in Ftacnik's main line of analysis, which runs

Viswanathan A n a n d (1 9 6 9 -)

27 .. . 't:J.xa3 28 bxa3 ctJxa3+ 29 �c1 'fixeS+ 30 �d2 't:J.c2+ 31 �e1 b2 32 g6 f6. In­stead of this, 27 ..ltd4?! Wic6 28 lbxc4 Wixc4 29 ..lte3 't:J.ca8 30 �c1 Wie2 leads to a forced loss. 27 ... hxg6 28 fxg6 lbxa3+ 29 bxa3 't:J.xa3 30 gxf7+

Or if 30 Wixf7+ �h8 31 ..ltd4 't:J.a1+! 32 ..ltxa1 Wia2 mate. 30 ... �h7 31 f8ctJ+

Faced with a range of mating threats based on Black's control of the a- and c-files, White had no alternative. Karjakin now goes a rook and two bish­ops ahead, but his vulnerable king will soon be smoked out into the open and mated. 31 ... 't:J.xf8 32 Wixf8 't:J.a1+ 33 �b2 't:J.a2+ 34 �C3

Or if 34 �xb3 Wia4+ 3 5 �c3 't:J.c2+ 36 �d3 Wic4 mate. 34 ••. Wias+ 35 �d3 Wib5+ 36 �d4

Or 36 �c3 't:J.c2+ 37 �d4 Wic4 mate. 36 ... 't:J.a4+ 37 �c3 Wic4+ 0-1

FIDE's knock-out version of the world championship rather spluttered

1 6 3

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Class ica l Chess

after 2000, with only two further events held, in 2002 (won by Ruslan Ponomariov) and in 2004 (won oy Rustam Kasimdzhanov). In 2005, F IDE switched to an elite double-round tournament to decide the title, the first of which, in San Luis (Mexico) was won by Veselin Topalov, with Anand and Peter Svidler tied for 2nd.

After Kasparov's retirement, his "Classical" world championship series, also went into terminal decline, with the "Classical" world champion, Kram­nik, who had only once defended his title, against Peter Leko in 2004, look­ing increasingly isolated, devoid of credibility and, even more importantly, bereft of any significant sponsors. Ac­cordingly, F IDE organised a reunifica­tion title match between Topalov and Kramnik. Held in Elista, in 2006, this was won by Kramnik. F IDE then staged a second double-round world champi­onship tournament, in 2007. A fired-up Anand won this event, held in Mexico City scoring 9/14, a point ahead of the 2nd-placed Kramnik and Boris Gelfand.

Anand now deservedly held what had come to be known as the "undis­puted" world championship title. There were, however, still two strings at­tached:

1. Kramnik had the right to chal­lenge Anand to a match for his undis­puted title, in 2008.

2. Topalov, who hadn't played at Mexico City, had the option to play a match against the winner of the 2007

1 6 4

F IDE World Cup event (the successor of the old F IDE knock-out world champi­onship), for the further right to chal­lenge the winner of Anand-Kramnik.

Contorted, yes! But, back to Mexico City 2007! If Game 25 was an example where good opening preparation played an important if not the only part in Anand's victory, Game 26, from Mexico City, provides a striking con­trast. The English Attack against the Sicilian Najdorf once again provides the main battleground. This time An­and plays White.

Suspecting an opening surprise in the main lines, Anand sought to get out of both sides' possible home prepa­ration, switching to a relatively less theoretical line on his 9th move. This forced both players to rely mainly on their own resources from a relatively early stage, setting up the potential for a great battle. Play quickly became ob­scure, which suited both players. In such obscure situations, Anand has the good fortune to be able to rely heavily on his well-honed intuitive skills. This, allied to his fighting spirit and tactical genius, gets him through this game. But it was a close run thing. Both sides had to battle without clear guidelines in this game for a great many moves.

In his book of best games, Anand notes that the English Attack fre­quently leads to bamboozling compli­cations, and he writes that, if and when that happens, he finds it "better not to calculate too much - the tree of varia-

tions can get enormously dense - [pre­ferring] to wait to see what my oppo­nent plays, and that immediately re­moves a large percentage of the branches."

The ability to do this well and take good decisions quickly, on intuitive grounds, is certainly reminiscent of Smyslov and Fischer at their best. An­and does a lot of this in this game, and when he is able to make progress by switching to precise calculating mode, he is deadly.

Game 26

V.Anand-A.Morozevich FIDE World Championship,

Mexico City 2007

Sicilian Defence

1 e4 cs 2 i2lf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 i2lxd4 i2lf6 5 i2lc3 a6 6 f3

Some players prefer to enter the English Attack by this move order rather than by first playing 6 ii.e3. The main reason for this is to avoid the un-

Vis wanathan A n a n d (1 9 6 9 -)

clear possibility (after 6 ii.e3) 6 .. . i2lg4, which either forces White to retreat his bishop to c1 or enter the critical varia­tion 7 ii.gs h6 8 ii.h4 g s 9 ..ltg3 ii.g7 10 h3, and now either 10 .. . tLles or 10 .. . i2Jf6. 6 ... es

The main alternative is, of course, 6 . . . e6. Black can also try to take advan­tage of White's move order by playing either 6 ... bs ! ? or 6 .. . �6!?, but Anand has a good record against both moves:

a) V.Anand-V.Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 1999, saw White squeeze his opponent after 6 ... bs ! ? 7 a4 b4 8 tLlds tLlxds 9 exds g6 10 ii.e3 .ltb7 11 ii.c4 'Wio 12 ii.b3 tLld7 13 'W/d2 i2lf6 14 i2le2 as 1S o-o-o l:tc8 16 i2ld4 .ltg7 17 tLlbs 'W/d8 18 g4 tLld7 19 'it>b1 tLlcs 20 h4 hs 21 ii.d4 'it>f8 22 l:thg1 'Wid7 23 ii.xg7+ 'it>xg7 24 i2ld4 i2Jxb3 2S cxb3 'it>f8 26 iLlc2 hxg4 27 fxg4 l:txh4 28 i2le3 es 29 'Wif2 'Wie7 30 l:th1 l:txh1 31 l:txh1 'Wigs 32 l:th7 l:tc7 33 'it>a2 i..a6 34 'Wih2 ii.d3 3 S l:th8+ 'it>e7 36 l:ta8 'Wif6 37 gS 'W/g7 38 'Wid2 e4 39 i2lg4 l:td7 40 i2lf6 l:td8 41 'W/c1 1-0.

b) In V.Anand-R.Ponomariov, Wijk aan Zee 200S, White developed a long­term kingside initiative after 6 .. . �6!? 7 i2lb3 e6 8 ii.f4 i2Jbd7 9 g4 i..e7 10 'W/e2 h6 11 h4 'W/c7 12 o-o-o bs 13 a3 l:tb8 14 'Wig2 tLlcs 1S gs iLlhs 16 .lte3 tLla4 17 l:td3 g6 18 'it>b1 ii.b7 19 .lte2 es 20 'W/f2 i..c6 21 gxh6 i2Jb6 22 f4 i2lf6 23 fxes dxes 24 l:tf1 o-o 2 S tLlcs .ib7 26 i2Je6 fxe6 27 ii.xb6 'W/c6 28 'W/g1 'it>h7 29 l:tdf3 'W/e8 30 ii.cs ii.xcs 31 'W/xcs i2ld7 32

''W/e3 'Wie7 33 'Wigs 'W/xgs 34 l:tf7+ l:txf7 3 S l:txf7+ 'it>h8 36 hxgS ii.c6 37 b4, and

1 65

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Class ica l Ch ess

an eventual win based on the mobiliza­tion of his queenside pawn majority. 7 tt:ib3 .lte6 8 .lte3 tt:ibd7

Black can also play the radical 8 ... hs ! ?, aiming to prevent White from developing his traditional kingside pressure based on g4. However, this idea weakens the kingside, making it problematic whether Black will be able to castle safely on that side. White can switch his attention to dS and the queenside, after 9 tt:ids .txds 10 exds tt:ibd7 11 'iVd2 g6. V.Anand-V.Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 2008, continued 12 0-0-0 tt:ib6 13 'iVas .ith6 14 .itxh6 l:txh6 1S 'it>b1 l:tc8 16 'iVb4 'it>f8 17 c4 'it>g7 18 g3 .l:.h8 19 .l:.c1 'iVc7 20 .lth3 .l:.ce8 21 .l:i.hd1 .l:.e7 22 a3 .l:.d8 23 tt:id2 tt:ibd7 24 'iVc3 as?! (Anand preferred 24 ... tt:ics 2S b4 tt:icd7 26 g4 hxg4 27 fxg4 as 28 gs tt:ihs 29 tt:ie4 "with a slight advantage") 2S .ltxd7 tt:ixd7 26 f4 tt:if6 27 .l:.fl b6 28 h3 'iVd7?! ( 28 .. . bs 29 fS b4 30 axb4 axb4 31 'iVf3 l:tf8 32 g4 was better, but still good for White) 29 fs .l:.f8 30 'iVe3 e4 31 g4 hxg4 32 hxg4 l:tes 33 l:tf4 'iVd8 34 g s tt:ihs 3 S f6+ Wg8 36 .l:.xe4 .l:.fe8 37 Wa2

1 6 6

a4 38 .l:i.c3 'iVc7 39 'iVd4 'iVcs 40 'iVxcs 1-0. 9 g4

According to Anand, 9 'iVd2 leads di­rectly into the main lines, but the text­move is also playable. One possible vir­tue is that, by threatening gS , it forces Black to decide whether to secure his knight on f6, by playing 9 .. . h6. This is a playable option, but isn't essential. 9 . • . tt:ib6 10 gs tt:ihs

On hS , Black's knight, at least for a time, effectively blocks any sudden at­tack by White based on the thrust h4-hs . Although temporarily on the side of the board, it can eventually hope to re­enter play on f4 .

White's game is fairly easy to play after the slightly passive 10 .. . tt:ifd7, as in K.Sakaev-N.De Firmian, Copenhagen 2003, which continued 11 'iVd2 .l:.c8 12 0-0-0 'iVc7 13 'it>b1 .ite7 14 h4 tt:ic4 1S .txc4 .txc4 16 h S tt:ib6 17 'iVf2 tt:id 7 18 'iVg3 bs 19 .l:.h2 tt:ib6 20 f4 tt:'la4 21 tt:ids .txds 22 exds f6 23 h6 g6 24 gxf6 .txf6 2S fxes dxes 26 d6 'iVd7 27 .tgs, and White won.

11 'iVd2 �c8 12 o-o-o iLe1 13 �g1 o-o 14 �b1 'iVc7

The earlier P.Leko-V.Anand, Dort­mund 2003, had seen 14 ... g6 15 'iVf2 CDc4 16 iLxc4 iLxc4 17 'ba4!? iLe6 18 'bb6 �c7 19 'iVd2 ! ? �c6 20 'bd5 !? iLxd5 21 exd5 �c8 22 'iVd3 'iVd7 23 c4 f6 24 gxf6 �xf6 25 'bd2 �f7 26 �c1 'iVf5, and Black had good play against White's broken kingside pawns. 15 'iVf2 CDc4 16 iLxc4 iLxc4

Instead F.Vallejo Pons-G.Kasparov, Linares 2004, continued 16 ... 'iVxc4 17 h4 g6 18 'iVd2 'iVc7 19 'ba4 b5 20 'bb6 �b8 21 'bd5 iLxd5 22 'iVxd5. After Morozevich's bishop capture, Anand follows a similar light-square plan and seems to keep a little something. 17 'bd5 .ixd5 18 �xd5 f5 19 gxf6 �xf6

Black must avoid 19 .. . 'bxf6 20 �d3 'bxe4? 21 'iVg2! and White wins. 20 'iVe2 'bf4?!

It is tempting to re-centralize the black knight as quickly as possible, but it simplifies White's technical task by leaving him with the potentially better minor piece. Anand recommended

Viswanathan A n and (1 9 69 -)

simply waiting, with a move such as 20 .. . �cf8, 20 .. . �f7, 20 ... g6 or 20 ... �h8.

21 iLxf4 �xf4 22 �d3 'iVd7 23 'bel �cf8 24 a3!

White prepares a route for his knight to d5. While this far from guar­antees any significant advantage, it is at least something for White to work with. Black can't contest control of d5, but has prospects of counterplay against White's backward f- and h­pawns, and his bishop also has plenty of dark squares available. 24 ... 'it>h8?!

According to Anand, Black should have played the immediate 24 ... 'iVh3 25 �g3 'iVh6. As played, Anand buys a little time to open up some play on the queen side. 25 'ba2 iVh3 26 �g3 iVh5

If 26 ... 'iVh6 27 CDc3 �h4 28 �g2, and White's knight reaches d5 very quickly. 27 'iVg2 �h4 28 h3 'iVh6 29 �b3

This is a very instructive moment. Controlling squares like d5 absolutely

' won't necessarily lead to a winning advantage without means of utilizing

1 6 7

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Classical Ch ess

that control to deal a death blow to the opponent's position elsewhere. So White first softens Black up on the queen side.

Anand rejected 29 t2Jb4 llhs 30 tZJds .lth4 31 l:tg4 .ltd8 32 f4 exf4 33 t2Jxf4 l:tes, after which all of Black's pieces remain active and he couldn't see how White could make any progress. 29 . .. bs 3o tLlb4 l:ths 31 �f1

White tries to avoid the line 31 t2Jxa6 .lth4 32 llg4 .ltd8 33 llg3 .lth4. 31 ... llh4 32 �g2

But now Anand noticed that if 32 t2Jxa6 Black can play 32 . . . l:txe4!. 32 ... llhs 33 t2Jxa6 .lth4 34 l:tg4 .ltf6?!

Anand expected 34 ... .ild8, which would have created more pressure against f3 and constrained White's op­tions. Anand thought that he might

s\:i)) be ab)e \:o p)ay tor a win at\:er 35

�e2 l:txh3, and now perhaps 36 l:tg1 (White should avoid 36 �xbs?, allow­ing 36 ... l:th1+ 3 7 �a2 i'i"c1 3 8 llc3 i'i"a1+ 39 �b3 llb1, and White's b-pawn falls) 36 ... l:!,h2 37 �xbs, which secures White's first rank. However, then

1 6 8

Black's passed h-pawn becomes an im­portant factor, and in this specific posi­tion, Black also has the tactic 37 ... l:txc2 38 �xc2 �2+ 39 �b1 �xg1+ 40 �a2, with complications. 35 �e2?!

After the game, Anand preferred 3 5 �f1 l:txh3 36 l:tg1!, securing his first rank before taking on bs. 3s ... l:txh3 36 llxbs .ild8

Now Anand thought Black should have invaded on White's back rank, by playing 36 ... llh1+ 37 �a2 �c1. This time White can secure his king on b3 and his pawn on b2, after 38 l:tg2 �a1+ 39 �b3 l:tb1 40 c3, or immediately 38 C3. Black's h-pawn will, however, become a factor, and a pawn race will ensue, with White's queenside pawns probably more dangerous than Black's h-pawn.

37 'llb8 'ilf6 38 C'Llb4 'llxf3 This is better than 38 ... �xf3 39

�xf3 llhxf3 40 a4, and if 40 .. . hs 41 llg2 h4 42 !2:lc6 Ji.c? 43 l:tb7 (Anand), after which White's pieces dominate, with Black's bishop having become a critical weakling.

39 lt.Jd5 Wif7 40 Wia6 h5 41 .l:!.g2 h4?

This seems to be the decisive error. White has plenty of queen side space to work with, but Black can apparently still hang on doggedly to all his mate­rial, by playing 41 ... Wie6!, and if 42 Wia8 Wig8 ! (an "ugly" computer move missed by both players). White still looks bet­ter, but Black may even have a crab-like plan to relieve his game in this posi­tion, by playing ... 'it>h7, ... 'it>h6 and ... i..g s (Anand). 42 Wixd6 i..e7 43 Wixe5 .l:!.xb8

Black is gradually running out of real counterplay, although White must always watch Black's h -pawn. Black is struggling after 43 ... 'it>h7 44 .l:!.xf8 i..xf8 45 .l:!.gs, and if 4S .. . h 3 46 .l:!.hS+ 'it>g8 47 �a2, or if 4S ... 'it>h6 46 .l:!.g4 Wih s 47 Wie6+ 'it>h7 48 lt.Jf4, or 4S ... g6 46 .l:!.g4 h3 47 .l:!.h4+ i..h6 48 Wigs Wig? 49 lt.Jf4 .l:!.f1+ so 'it>a2 Wif7+ 51 b3, with winning posi­tions for White in all three cases. 44 Wixb8+ 'it>h7

Playing to exchange queens is more stubborn than trying to hold the posi­tions with queens on the board after

Viswanathan A n a n d (1 9 69-)

44 ... i..f8 45 .l:!.g4 Wih s 46 Wic8, and if 46 ... h3 47 .l:!.f4, or 4S ... h3 46 .l:!.h4+ �g8 47 Wic8, and wins (Anand). 45 Wic7 i..f8 46 Wixf7 .l:!.xf7 47 .l:.g4 .l:.fl+ 48 �a2 .l:!.hl 49 e5

But now White's e-pawn wins. Black loses his bishop after 49 ... h3 so e6 h2 51 .l:!.h4+ �g6 52 e7 i..xe7 53 tt'lxe7+ 'it>gs (or if 53 ... 'it>f6 54 tt.Jds+ 'it>es s s lt.Je3) 5 4 .l:!.h7 g6 55 c4, or h e loses his h­pawn here after so .. . .l:!.e1 51 .l:!.h4+ 'it>g6 52 e7 i..xe7 53 lt.Jxe7+ .l:!.xe7 54 .l:!.xh3 . 49 ... i..c5 50 e6 'it>h6 51 .l:!.c4 h3

Or if 51 .. . i..f8 52 .l:!.c8 .l:!.fl 53 e7 i..xe7 54 .l:i.h8+ �gs 55 lt.Jxe7, and wins. 52 .l:!.xc5 h2 53 lt.Je3 l:ta1+

Or 53 ... l:tg1 54 e7 h1Wi 5 5 e8=Q and wins. But, of course, after the text­move, Black's queen is no match for White's rook, knight and advanced e­pawn. 54 'it>xal h1Wi+ 55 'it>a2 Wie4

Black permits the prettiest finish. After SS ... 'it>g6 Anand would have played 56 lt.Jds Wie4 57 e7, threatening

' .l:!.c8 (or first c4). 56 l:te5! 1-0

1 69

Ch ess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

Black loses his queen after either 56 .. .'�a8 57 e7 'Vie8 58 lt:Jf5+ 'it>g6 59 lt:Jd6 or 56 ... 'Vixe5 57 lt:Jg4+.

Anand and Kramnik duly clashed for the world title in 2008, in Bonn. In a match scheduled for 12 games, Anand took an early lead and ran out the clear winner, with one round to spare, 6V2-4V2. This was an outstanding result for the defending champion, and fully merited by the course of play.

Writing in New in Chess, an im­pressed Garry Kasparov considered that this was "a great result for Anand [who] deserved the win ... it will not be easy for the younger generation to push him aside ... Anand out-prepared Kramnik completely." This was without doubt a view that was widely-held, both by ordinary chess fans and ex­perts.

With White, at the start of the match, Anand appears to have greatly surprised his opponent by playing 1 d4 (or perhaps more precisely by his spe­cific choice of unexpected 1 d4 varia-

1 70

tions). With Black, Anand struck an even more telling blow, by completely wrong-footing Kramnik in a relatively neglected and ultra-sharp byway of the Meran Variation, which proved to be Kramnik's downfall .

Anand went two points ahead after the first five games, due to two crush­ing wins with the Meran, in Games 3 and 5. Kramnik tried hard to refute Black's play, but hadn't subjected the line to the same degree of team scru­tiny as his opponent. As a result, he eventually tired, lost his way and began quixotically tilting at windmills in both games. Anand and his team, to their great credit, had carried out prodigious work on the sharp, near-impenetrable maze of complications that can arise after Black's 14th move below. They couldn't work everything out, but An­and was forearmed with a better array of possible variations that might tran­spire, and had developed a deeper feel for the dynamics of the positions.

Lest anyone should think that such pre-match preparations win of their own accord, however, follow Anand's own words on the difficult decision he faced about whether to repeat this line in Game 5, after its initial surprise ef­fect had worn off by its use in Game 3. In his interview with Outlook Business, Anand candidly confesses that the line played in Game 3 (with 15 ... ii.d6) "kept breaking down on the rest day [before Game 5 until] at midnight I had some­thing." In the morning, Anand's sec-

onds told him that the line had "col­lapsed [and] it kept going like this [un­til] at 2.30pm Radek [Wojtaszek] said he had checked [19 ... �e7] and it holds." At 2.3 5pm, armed with that relatively sparse information, Anand left for the playing hall for the scheduled start of Game 5, at 3pm. He admits that he "was so tense ... people asked [after­wards whether Kramnik] should have repeated ... but the question is whether I should have repeated as well."

There is no doubt that Kramnik was disadvantaged by his relative lack of familiarity with the lines played in Games 3 and 5, compared to Anand. But it is also clear, that, particularly with White, he could have played bet­ter and needn't necessarily have lost. Anand won both games because he fought a lot harder than his opponent, and both out-judged and out-analysed him at critical moments. He didn't just win because of the help of his seconds and silicon friends, although that cer­tainly helped.

Game 2 7 V.Kramnik-V.Anand

World Championship (Game 5), Bonn 2008

Semi-Slav Defence

1 d4 dS 2 c4 c6 3 liJf3 ltJf6 4 ltJc3 e6 5 e3 Both sides head for the main lines

of the Meran Variation. Kramnik shows no interest in testing his opponent in

Vis wa nathan A n a n d (1 9 6 9 -)

the ultra-sharp, modern anti-Moscow Gambit, 5 .ig5 h6 6 �h4 dxc4 7 e4 g 5 8 .ig3 b5. Anand had shown consider­able flair and good form in this line in the year or so leading up to match and it is likely that Kramnik didn't wish to tempt fate by allowing it.

Anand found a superb 17th-move gambit idea, in L.Aronian-V.Anand, F IDE World Championship, Mexico City 2007, which continued 9 lDe5 h 5 10 h4 (later Black equalized with ease, in M.Carlsen-V.Anand, Morelia 2008, which varied 10 f3 ! ? h4 11 i.f2 i.b7 12 �e2 liJbd7 13 lDxd7 ltJxd7 14 0-0 e5 ! 15 a4 a6 16 d5 l:th6) 10 . . . g4 11 i.e2 i.b7 12 o-o ltJbd7 13 'i¥c2 ltJxe5 14 .ixe5 i.g7 15 l:tad1 o-o 16 i.g3 lDd7 17 f3 c5 ! 18 dxc5 'i¥e7 19 'it'h1?! (or 19 fxg4!? 'i¥xc5+ 20 i.f2 'i¥c6 21 gxh 5 ltJe5) 19 ... a6 20 a4 �c6 21 lDd5? ! exd5 22 exd5 .lte5 ! 23 f4 i.g7 24 dxc6 ltJxc5 2 5 l:td5 ltJe4 2 6 i.e1 �e6 27 l:txh5? ! f5 ! 2 8 'it'h2 l:tac8 29 i.b4 l:tfe8 3 0 axb5 axb5 31 i.e1 'i¥f7, and Black won.

Earlier, V.Kramnik-V.Anand, F IDE World Championship, Mexico City

1 71

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

2007, had continued 9 i.e2 .ib7 10 0-0 (1o es 'bds) 1o ... 'bbd7 11 'bes .ig7 12 'bxd7 'bxd7 13 .td6 a6 14 .th s .if8 15 .txf8 .l:i.xf8 16 es �6 17 b3 0-0-0 18 bxc4 'bxes 19 cs 'iVas 20 'be4 �4 21 'bd6+ .l:i.xd6 22 cxd6 'bd7 23 a4 'iVxd6 24 .if3 'bb6 25 axbs cxbs 26 .ixb7+ �xb7 27 'iVhs 'bds, and Black held a comfortable draw. The sole chink in Anand's armour - undoubtedly since repaired - had been his play in T.Radjabov-V.Anand, Wijk aan Zee 2008, which varied 14 .l:i.e1 .if8 15 .ig3 .ig7 16 .id6 .tf8 17 .ixf8 .l:i.xf8 18 b3 ! ? b4! ? 19 'ba4 c3 20 a3 as 21 ds ! , and White won. s ... 'bbd7 6 .td3 dxc4 7 .txc4 bs 8 i.d3 a6

This may have come as a surprise to Kramnik, as in previous games, Anand had mainly championed the sequence 8 . . . i..b7 9 e4 b4. Instead after 9 o-o a6 10 e4 cs, play transposes into one of the main lines of the Reynolds Varia­tion. A.Morozevich-V.Anand, F IDE World Championship, Mexico City 2007, had continued 11 ds c4 12 i.c2

1 72

'iVc7 13 dxe6 fxe6 14 'bd4 'bcs 15 .ie3 es 16 'bfs g6 17 'bh6 .ig7 18 'iVf3 'be6 19 'iVh3 .tc8 20 'iVh4 'iVe7 21 .l:i.fe1 'bds 22 'iVxe7+ lbxe7 23 'bds .tb7 24 'bg4 'bd4, and Black had the better of an eventually hard-fought draw. 9 e4

White can play quieter lines, but against them all, Black gets in a quick .. . cs. Black's forces are set out to play this classical freeing move and White can't really prevent this plan. But with the text-move, he aims to establish an advanced pawn on es as a basis for long-term middlegame pressure, both in the centre and against Black's king. 9 .. . c5 10 es

10 ds c4 11 dxe6 fxe6 12 .tc2 is the main route into the Reynolds Variation, against which Black has a few more options than in the route taken in Morozevich-Anand, above. 10 ... cxd4

u 'bxbs This is Blumenfeld's Variation,

which dates back to the 1920s. White's desperado knight sacrifice remains the

main theoretical battleground in this system today. 11 ... axbs 12 exf6 gxf6 13 o-o 'iWb6 14 'iWe2 Jtb7!?

Strangely, this natural move had been little investigated before Anand, his seconds and their computer en­gines discovered its largely untapped potential. It seemed to take Kramnik by complete surprise. Black offers his b­pawn for attacking chances, particu­larly on the g-file and along the long light-square diagonal, with a principal focus on g2. Usually Black had, though, preferred to defend his b-pawn, by playing either 14 ... �a6 or 14 ... b4.

15 i..xbs .l:!.g8!?

Viswanathan A n a n d (1 9 6 9 -)

Kramnik got very short of time in Game 3, which continued spectacularly 16 .l:i.dl .l:!.g8 17 g3 .l:!.g4 18 i.f4! .txf4 19 l2Jxd4 hs 20 l2Jxe6 fxe6 21 .l:i.xd7 '>tf8! 22 'iWd3 .l:!.g7 23 .l:!.xg7 �xg7 24 gxf4 .l:!.d8 25 "i'Ve2 '>th6! 26 '>tf1 .l:!.g8 27 a4 .ig2+ 28 '>tel Jth3

29 .l:i.a3? .l:i.gl+ 30 �d2 "i¥d4+ 31 '>tc2 Jtg4?! 32 f3? Jtfs+ 33 Jtd3 �h3 ! ? ( 3 3 .. . �xd3+! 34 .l:!.xd3 "i¥c4+, or if 34 "i'Vxd3 .l:i.g2+ wins at once) 34 as .l:!.g2 3 5 a 6 .l:!.xe2+ 36 Jtxe2 .ifs+ 37 '>tb3 'iVe3+ 38 �a2 'i¥'xe2 39 a7 'i¥'c4+ 40 '>tal 'i¥f1+ 41 '>ta2 �b1+ 0-1.

As an indication of the enormous complications both players faced in Game 3, here are some key notes on its

In Game 3, Anand preferred course. Most of the specific variations 1S .. . .id6 ! ?, which cuts out the possible below stem from Anand's team, includ-resource for White, �f4-g3, blocking ing their computer engines: the g-file. Meeting the entire line for 1. Before the game, Anand's team the first time in that game, Kramnik had discovered that Black can almost found it difficult to find his way certainly (at least) draw after 16 l2Jxd4, through its bamboozling complica- by playing the inspired (main line only) tions. In Game 5, Anand caught his op- 16 ... 'it'xd4 17 .l:i.d1 �xh2+ 18 '>txh2 ponent out with a different 15th move . �4+ 19 '>tg1 Jtxg2 20 �xd7+ '>te7 21 all over again. '>txg2 .l:!.hg8+ 22 '>tf3 �5+ 23 �e3

1 73

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Class ical Chess

'i!HcS+ 24 �d2 .l:!.ad8 2 5 .l:!.fl .l:!.xd7+ 26 �e1 .l:!.c8 27 'i!He3 'i!Has+ 28 i.d2 .l:!.xd2 29 'i!Hxd2 'i!Hes+ 30 'i!He2 'i!Has+, leading to perpetual check.

2. The team had also refuted 18 lZ:Jd2?! , an old Chess Informant recom­mendation, which fails to 18 ... �e7! 19 i.xd7 (19 'i!Hxg4?! 'i!Hxbs is a very strong exchange sacrifice) 19 ... .l:!.ag8! 20 i.bs, and now, in their main line of analysis, another extraordinary draw by perpet­ual check occurs after 20 .. . d3 21 'i!Hxd3 .l:!.xg3+ 22 hxg3 .l:!.xg3+ 23 �f1 .l:!.xd3 24 i.xd3 'i!Hd4 25 lZ:Jc4 i.b4 26 a3 i.g2+ 27

'i!Hd6+ 46 �b2 'i!Hd2+ 47 �a3 'i!Hxas+ 48 �b2 'i!Hc3+ 49 �a3 .l:!.cs - phew!

Returning to Game s's 1S ... .l:!.g8:

�xg2 'i!Hg4+ 28 �h2 'i!Hh4+. 16 i.f4 i.d6 17 i.g3 3. Yet another madcap, computer­

aided piece of analytical virtuosity runs (main line only) 19 .l:!.xd4 �f8 ! 20 i.xd7 .l:!.d8 21 .l:!.ad1 .l:!.xd7 22 .l:!.xd7 i.xg3 23 hxg3 .l:!.xg3+ 24 �h2 i.xf3 25 'i!Hc2 .l:!.g2+ 26 �h3 i.c6 27 .l:!.7d6 .l:!.xf2 28 .l:!.d8+ �e7 29 'i!Hd3 .l:!.h2+ 30 �xh2 'i�Hf2+ 31 �h3 'i!Hg2+ 32 �h4 'i!Hgs+ 33 �h3 'i!Hg2+, again drawing.

4. White could have drawn after 29 .l:!.d1 .l:!.g1+ 30 �d2 .l:!.g2 31 'i!He3 .l:!.xf2+ 32 i.e2 'i!HaS+ 33 'i!Hc3 'i!Hfs 34 'i!Hb4! threatening 'i!Hf8+, as Black's king will be caught in the open.

s. White probably holds after 32 .l:!.d3 ! . Anand's computer engines later "found" that the "correct" way to win (main line only) was the earlier 3 1 ... i.fs+ 32 �b3 .l:!.c1 33 as �dS+ 34 i.c4 'i¥h7+ 3 5 �a4 .l:!.c2 36 i.a6 �d7+ 37 'i!Hbs .l:!.c4+ 38 �b3 'i!Hd3+ 39 �a2 'i�Hh1+ 40 �b3 .l:!.c2 41 .l:!.a2 ..te4 42 i.b7 �d1 43 �a3 i.xb7 44 �xb7 .l:!.c4 45 b3

1 74

White duly blocks the g-file. He ob­tains no advantage after 17 i.xd6 'i!Hxd6 18 .l:!.fd1, when the simplest for Black may be 18 .. . es ! ?, and if 19 .l:!.xd4 'i!Hxd4 20 lZ:Jxd4 i.xg2, White loses if he tries to avoid Black's threatened draw by perpetual check. 11 . . . fs!

Black must act urgently to prise White's bishop from its blocking square and open the g-file for counterplay. As in Game 3, Black's king will not find a

conventionally castled future, but will have to find security elsewhere. 18 l::tfc1!

Taking the c-file and covering cs, which might otherwise provide a use­ful staging post to the kingside for Black's queen, is probably best.

The plausible 18 tt::les? ! fail s to the devilish resource 18 ... d3! , and if 19 �xd7+ We7 20 'iYe1 f4 and wins. White also loses after 19 'iVxd3 �xes 20 1!Vxd7+ Wf8 21 l::tfe1 f4 22 l::txes fxg3 23 hxg3 J::txg3, or 19 tt::lxd7 'iVxbs, and if 20 tt::lf6+ Wd8 21 'iVd2 l::tg6.

Black also seems to be better after 18 l::tfd1? ! f4 19 .ih4 J::tas ! , and if 20 a4 J::txbs ! (20 ... 'iYcs, and if 21 J::txd4 �xf3 22 �xd7+ Wxd7 23 l::txd6+ 1!Vxd6 24 'iVxf3 l::tb8, may also be playable) 21 axbs tt::les, with a strong attack, evi­dent, for example, in the line 22 tt::lxes J::txg2+ 23 Wfl l::txh2 24 tt::lf3 l::th1+ 2S �g2 l::txh4, with continuing pressure for Black. 18 ... f4 19 �h4 �e7!

Vis wa nathan A n a n d (1 9 6 9 -)

defender on the kingside and makes space for his king on e7. 20 a4 .ixh4 21 tt::lxh4 We7 22 l::ta3!?

White is again faced with a difficult choice. In addition, he was once again getting very short of time. Bringing his rook into play like this adds useful de­fensive weight to the third rank. White had other moves, though, including Peter Heine Nielsen's unclear sugges­tion 22 'iVhs.

The computer engines also suggest that a fantastic draw results (main line only) after 22 g3 fxg3 23 hxg3 J::tgs 24 .txd7, so long as Black finds 24 .. . J::tag8 ! 2 S as 'iYd6 26 l::ta3 J::txg3+ 27 fxg3 J::txg3+ 28 l::txg3 'iVxg3+ 29 tt::lg2 .i.xg2 30 'iVf2 'iVgs 31 l::tc7 �e4+ 32 Wh2 'iVhs+.

Black has easier play after 22 b4!? J::txg2+ 23 tt::lxg2 l::tg8 24 f3 d3+ 2S 'iYf2 �xf3 26 'iVxb6 J::txg2+ 27 Wfl tt::lxb6 28 �xd3 tt::lds. Here, the concentration of Black's forces around White's king as­sures him of at least a draw.

Black must play this way. By ex- ·22 ... l::tac8 changing bishops, Black removes a key Anand correctly switches his inter-

1 75

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Classical Ch ess

est to the c-file. He can no longer ap­parently increase the pressure on the g-file. Note that 22 .. . .l:Ixg2+ 23 tt::lxg2 .l:Ig8 fails to the clever interposition 24 .l:If3 ! . 23 .l:Ixc8 .l:Ixc8 24 .l:Ia1 'ifcs 25 'ifg4 'ifes!

White has two potentially danger­ous passed queen side pawns. These are offset by Black's extra pair of pawns in the centre and powerfully centralized pieces. Both sides are probably "all right", but it may be that White now has to play a bit more accurately than Black in this unusual and still highly unbalanced position, due to Black's control of the c-file and his potentially menacing, advanced d-pawn.

Interviewed by Hartmut Metz after the match, Anand interestingly seemed quite upbeat about his chances at this point, though he confessed that he wasn't certain that he really had any­thing much objectively in the position . That said, he had already seen the final combination in the game at this point. Given Kramnik's understandable frus­tration at once again getting nowhere

1 76

against Anand's provocative opening, and of course, White's time shortage, perhaps it's not surprising that Anand out-analyses his opponent in the re­maining moves of the game . 26 tt::lf3 "iVf6 27 .l:Ie1!?

Kramnik was not in good shape in this game. Afterwards, he said that he had considered but rejected 27 tt::lxd4?, because of the reply 27 ... tt::les?, believ­ing that he might win the pawn later under better circumstances. Here Black should, of course, play 27 ... 'ifxd4! 28 .l:Id1 tt::lf6, as we shall later see in the game.

Peter Heine Nielsen gives 27 tt::le1 as a possible improvement, covering g2, d3 and enabling the possible defensive retreats ..ifl and 'ifd1, and digging in. 27 ... .l:Ics 28 b4 .l:Ic3 29 tt::lxd4?

Playing this flawed move, even though the refutation is neat and a little hidden, indicates that near com­plete mental and physical exhaustion must by now have set in. Kramnik, hav­ing lost his sense of danger, took only a minute to make this losing capture,

even though he still had about a quar­ter of an hour remaining to reach the time control.

It was still possible to play 29 �5, after which Black's game might be a little more comfortable, but White can still continue to battle. 29 .. .'�bd4 30 l:!.d1 lt:Jf6 31 l:!.xd4 tt:Jxg4 32 l:!.d7+ Wf6 3 3 l:!.xb7 l:!.c1+ 34 �f1 lt:Je3!

Kramnik may only have noticed 34 ... lt:Jxh2? 35 Wxh2 l:!.xfl 36 f3, and White wins the endgame, when he played his 27th move. But this move wins for Black. 35 fxe3 fxe3 0-1

Black threatens 3 S ... e2, and the power of Black's rook and pawn on e3 are such that White must lose both his rook and bishop after the forced line 36 l:!.c7 l:!.xc7 37 g3 l:!.c1 38 Wg2 l:!.c2+ 39 Wf3 l:!.f2+.

Summing up the mature Anand's strengths after his 2008 match against Kramnik, Evgeny Bareev, in New in

Chess, drew attention to Anand's "te­nacity in defence, excellent calculation

Viswanathan A n a n d (1 9 69 -)

... no time trouble, quite a broad open­ing repertoire, consistent quality of play throughout an entire tournament, the ability to explode, to step up a gear at the necessary moment, irrepressible when everything is unfolding [and] no obvious deficiencies."

This is a pretty good summation of what makes a great classically direct chess-playing grandmaster. Bareev did draw attention to certain deficiencies, mainly of a psychological nature, in Anand's play, particularly when "the opening doesn't turn out and his op­ponent acts energetically and strongly", but nobody's perfect!

One attribute that Bareev doesn't, however, at least directly identify is Anand's complete lack of dogma, or that ability to spot and play moves that work, even when they appear to be completely paradoxical and difficult to justify. Such exceptional flair is to my mind inherently "classical", and it is a defining feature of all five of the great classical players featured in this book. Anand's at first sight somewhat ugly, yet in fact fundamentally justifiable 11th move, in Game 28, is a case in point. Anand sacrifices his pawn struc­ture for just enough dynamic compen­sation to give him a chance to press against his Chinese opponent. If you can shed inhibition and make moves like this, you can be sure that you have a huge natural talent for chess. This is 'outstanding chess decision-making, of the highest order.

1 7 7

Ch ess Secrets : Heroes of Class ical Chess

Anand's deadpan take on this, again expressed in his interview with Outlook Business, is purely matter-of� factly, that "in chess, this feeling has always been there, if you can't refute something, it has a right to exist." I can certainly hear Rubinstein, Smyslov and Fischer echoing that thought to the rafters and raising their eyebrows at the very thought that some might doubt it. They would be wholly with Anand, when he goes on to suggest that good moves tend most often to derive in chess from "imposing your personal views rather than letting the position decide." In this fine game, An­and turns his Cinderella-ashes-like 11th move into an achievement of con­siderable force and great beauty.

Gome 28 V.Anand-Wang Vue

Linares 2009 Slav Defence

1 d4 dS 2 c4 c6 3 l'Df3 l'Df6 4 l'Dc3 a6

1 78

No one has yet managed to refute this slightly odd-looking move, which has become all the rage in the last two decades. Doesn't it simply waste time and weaken the dark squares? Well, no actually.

Having a pawn on a6 is a common feature in many lines of the Queen's Gambit, Slav and Semi-Slav openings. So why not play it early? White can choose from a wide range of ways to fight the line. Anand borrows a quasi­Catalan development that had already been used to effect by Armenia's top player, Levon Aronian. 5 a4 e6 6 g3

In a "normal" Catalan, neither player will yet have moved their a­pawns (and White has more commonly castled, with his queen's knight still on b1} . Whether or not these differences really convey any especial advantage to either player is hard to say. 6 ... dxc4 7 ii.g2 cs

By taking two moves to push his pawn to cs, Black effectively "loses" a further half-tempo. But in doing so, he

hopes for equality by liquidating pawns in the centre, exchanging queens and regaining his "lost" half-tempi, as White plays to recover his c-pawn. 8 dxcs �xd1+ g 'Llxd1 ii.xcs

Previously L.Aronian-E.Bacrot, Khanty Mansiysk 2005, had gone 9 .. . 'Llc6 10 ii.e3 'Lld5 11 o-o 'Llxe3 12 'Llxe3 ii.xc5 {Black also struggled in L.Johannessen-J .Hammer,Tromsoe 2006, which varied 12 ... c3 13 bxc3 ii.xc5 14 'Llc4 .l:!.a7 15 .l:!.ab1 ii.d7 16 'Llg5 'Lld8 17 'Lle4 ii.e7 18 'Lled6+ ii.xd6 19 'Llxd6+ We7 20 .l:!.fd1, and White had a winning advantage) 13 'Llxc4 We7 14 .l:!.ac1 .id7 15 'Llfe5 'Llxe5 16 'Llxe5 i..d6 17 'Llxd7 Wxd7 18 i..xb7 .l:!.a7 19 ii.c6+ We7 20 b3, and White eventually man­aged to win after a lengthy endgame struggle. 10 'Lles 'Llds!?

Black aims to control e3, but in view of Anand's reply, perhaps he should prefer slower play, such as 10 . . . We7 followed by ... 'Llbd7. White maintains an edge, but Black can hope to play for gradual equality.

Vis wan a th a n A n a n d (1 9 69 -)

11 'Lle3!

This came as a shock. White allows Black to weaken his e- and f-pawns, but he banks on his lead in development and opportunities to get his rooks into play quickly in the centre. Black's queen side pawns and some of the dark squares in his position present possible targets.

Instead play fizzled out, in D.Yevseev-S.Atalik, Groningen 1998, after 11 'Llxc4 We7 12 0-0 'Llc6 13 'Llc3 .l:!.d8 14 'Lle4 ii.b4 15 .l:!.d1 .id7 16 b3 ii.e8 17 ii.d2 f6 18 .ixb4+ 'Llcxb4 19 ..if3 b5 20 'Lla5 .l:!.ab8 21 .l:!.dc1 .l:!.dc8 22 axb5 axb5 23 'Llc5 .l:!.c7, and Black drew with ease. 11 ... 'Llxe3 12 ii.xe3 ii.xe3 13 fxe3 c3

Black makes a virtue of the fact that White will in any case win his c-pawn, by giving it up in a bid to split White's a- and c-pawns. White also retains an edge after simple development, such as 13 ... 'Lld7 14 'Llxc4 We7 15 Wf2 .l:!.b8 16 .l:!.hd1. Here White's rooks are extremely

, well placed, with possible infiltration on c7, a particular worry for Black.

1 79

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Classical Chess

White's Catalan bishop is also a pow­erhouse, while his knight can strike at a variety of squares. Even if Black gets iTI . . . bs, c6 may become weak. 14 b4!

Anand, however, is determined to keep the c- and d-files open. White will round up Black's c-pawn in due course. 14 ... 4:ld7 15 4:Jd3!

To keep White's initiative going, it is also imperative to avoid exchanging knights. It still isn't easy for Black to disentangle his queenside pieces and develop them. 1S ... l:tb8!?

Black settles on an ingenious plan to activate his rook and exchange knights, but it still leaves his bishop restricted. Dorian Rogozenko's sugges­tion 15 . . . 4:Jf6, intending to activate Black's knight on g4 or dS, may have been better. Rogozenko's main line runs 16 l:tc1 4:lg4, and if 17 e4 4:le3 18 i.f3 c2 19 �f2 4::\dl+ 20 �e1 4:Je3 21 <;t>d2 4:lc4+ 22 <;t>xc2 (or 22 <;t>c3 bs) 22 .. . es, equalizing. He also gives 16 .if3 4::\ds, and if 17 e4 4:lf6 18 es 4::\ds, fol-

1 80

lowed by .. . .id7. In this second line, perhaps White can try for a little more, by playing 17 �f2, and if 17 . . . .id7 18 l:thc1 l:tc8 19 .ixds exds 20 4::\cs .ic6 21 l:txc3 rtle7 22 l:tac1. 16 o-o bs 17 axbs l:txbs 18 l:tfc1 ttJes 19 4::\xes .l::txes 20 l:txc3!

Black's bishop still chronically lacks squares. White could have played 20 bs, and if 20 ... axbs? 21 l:txc3 o-o 22 l:ta8 .id7 23 l:tc7 l:txa8 24 .ixa8 .ie8 25 l:tc8 rtlf8 26 i.c6, when the bishop is lost. Black, however, would certainly have replied 20 . . . l:txbs 21 .ic6+ i.d7 22 .ixbs i.xbs 23 l:txc3 o-o, and it isn't easy to see how White makes progress.

After the text-move, Black's reply is forced. He loses his bishop again if he tries to keep his king in the centre, af­ter 20 . . . �e7? 21 l:tc7+ .id7 (or 21 . . . �f6 22 1:tac1) 22 l:td1 l:td8 23 .ic6, and wins. 20 ... 0-0 21 i.c6!

White strains to make the most of his chances. This move not only further constrains the potential activity of Black's bishop, by covering the b7- and d7-squares, but it also takes bS away

Viswanathan A n a n d (1 9 69 -)

from Black's rook, which is beginning trate decisively to the seventh rank. to look rather lost on e5. Black's rook now hurries to d8, before White him­self takes the d-file, squeezing Black's game even more. 21 • • • .l:i.d8 22 e4 �f8?!

Black takes a fateful decision to rush his king back to the centre. He per­haps feared that he might suffer in endgames with his king still on the kingside, such as after 22 ... g6 23 �f2 'i.t>g7 24 �e3. But while White looks bet­ter here, it is not clear that he can really achieve much, in spite of the greater activity of his forces and his spatial ad­vantage. Concretely, even though in­teresting possibilities, such as 25 .l:i.c5, 25 .l:i.a5 or 25 .l:i.d3, are in the air, Black may be able to get his king back into central play and defend, by playing 24 . . .f5.

The immediate 22 . . .f5, and if 23 �f2 fxe4 24 �e3, may also be a playable option. 23 �f2 �e7?

But now Black gets the tactics all wrong. He should still have played the more circumspect 23 ... g6, but not, of course, 23 ... �d7?? 24 .l:i.d1 �e7 25 .l:i.cd3, and White again wins that bishop. 24 b5!

Now this breakthrough is crushing. In the main line, White's rooks pene-

24 ... axbs 25 .l:i.a7+ �f6 Black has no alternative. White also

wins after either 25 ... �f8 26 .l:i.c7 b4 27 .l:i.d3 .l:i.xd3 28 .l:i.xc8+ 'i.t>e7 29 exd3 or 25 .. . �d7 26 .l:i.d3. 26 .l:i.f3+ �g6 27 .l:i.fxf7 .l:i.g8 28 .l:i.fc7 .l:i.hs 29 h4 �f6 30 .l:i.a8

And Black's bishop drops. 30 ... .l:i.cs 31 .l:i.cxc8 .l:i.xc8 32 .l:i.xc8 b4 33 i.d7 1-0

1 8 1

Chapter Five

Magnus Ca rlsen (1990-)

One of Magnus's great strengths is his broad opening repertoire ... we live in a time of information overflow and the new champion could be the one that handles this best ... he has to know everything, like a computer. "

Simen Agdestein, New in Chess

The above quote is from an article that takes stock of Magnus Carlsen's career, written in the middle of 2006. Aged 16, Magnus had by then already been a grandmaster for a couple of years, played in his first F IDE World Cup tournament, and achieved 60th place in the world ran kings. Agdestein 's words both point to his young compatriot's attributes and to the challenges facing him. It was by now clear that, in Carlsen, we had a superbly gifted player with a wide range of univer­sal skills. Brought up entirely in the new chess computer age, the question was not whether he could become a great player, but whether he might eventually rise to the world number one spot.

Norwegian grandmaster and former football international, Agdestein, was particularly well qualified to express these words. He had been part of the Magnus Carlsen adventure since it started seriously to gain momentum in organised schools chess, around 2000. Agdestein was acutely aware just how exceptionally talented Carlsen was, as a player, and how he strove "to know everything, like a computer."

Variously family friend, confidant, mentor and coach, Agdestein had collabo­rated with the Carlsen family in producing the book, Wonder Boy - How Magnus

Carlsen became the youngest chess grandmaster in the world. In this intimate,

1 82

M ag n us Carlsen (1 990-)

sympathetic and insightful work, Agdestein chronicles Carl sen's chess story from his earliest steps, to winning the grandmaster title, aged 13 years, three months and 27 days, in 2004.

Wonder Boy should be required reading for the parents of any precocious young talent and all chess coaches. The young Magnus was brought up in a family and coaching environment that acted both as a solid support for the development of his chess skills and as a protection against any undue pressures that might threaten to disturb normal schooling and family life. Above all, Carlsen's routine put the idea of learning through fun at its centre. He grew up in a disciplined but enjoyable chess-playing environment and was far from unhealthily hot-housed. This balance was achieved through a regime of light coaching that aimed primar­ily at facilitating Carlsen's own self-awareness and ability to develop his own skills. It was based on exposure to regular play in many competitive tournaments.

This mix worked well . Interviewed in New in Chess immediately after his son had become the world's youngest grandmaster, Magnus's father, Henrik, said, "Everything has gone quicker than we expected ... so far Magnus has enjoyed eve­rything he has done [and] I 'd hate to see him lose that joy [in the game]." The abil­ity to play with ideas and simply rejoice in discovering what the pieces can do is a great classical virtue and a key motivator for all the great players featured in this book. As Magnus breezily put it, in the same New in Chess interview, " I like open positions with small tactics in them ... threatening and threatening, when I have the initiative ... maybe sacrifice some pawns."

In earning his first grandmaster norm with a joint 1st place in the C Group at Wijk aan Zee, in 2004, Magnus won a fine game in that vein. Notably computer knowledge didn't play a decisive part in the result. Carlsen impressed by his vision and tactics.

Game 29 M.Carlsen-S.Ernst Wijk a a n Zee 2004 Caro-Kann Defence

1 e4 c6 2 d4 ds 3 lt:Jc3 dxe4 4 lt:Jxe4 i.fs 5 lLlg3 i.g6 6 h4 h6 7 lLlf3 lt:Jd7 8 hS .lth7 9 .\td3 Jtxd3 10 Vixd3 e6 11 .ltf4 lt:Jgf6 12 o-o-o il.e7 13 lt:Je4 Vias

1 83

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

The early moves in this variation have already been discussed in the notes to Game 24, Anand-Ponomario\t, which varied here with 13 .. . lLlxe4 14 �xe4 lLlf6 15 1i'd3 1i'ds. 14 'it>b1 0-0

White regains his pawn and may have a very slight edge due to his mar­ginally more active pieces and queen­side pawn majority after 14 ... lbxhs 15 .td2 �fs 16 lbd6+ .i.xd6 17 'iVxfs exfs 18 �xhs, and Black must either lose his f- or h-pawn.

Black can also consider 14 ... lbxe4 15 1i'xe4 lLlf6 16 1i'e2 lbxhs ! ? (16 . . . 1i'hs ! ? has also been tried). This line, however, went well for White, in V.Pelletier­P.H.Nielsen, Internet 2004, after 17 .tel lbf6 18 lLles lbd7 19 g4 �f8 20 lbxd7 c;t>xd7 21 �hs ViVo 22 ds cxds 23 c4 �ad8 24 cxds exdS 2 5 .te3, and White had a dangerous attack.

15 lLlxf6+ lLlxf6 16 lLles �adS 17 1i'e2 White can possibly improve on this

move, by playing 17 1i'g3! . E.Bacrot­K.Asrian, Moscow 2005, continued 17 ... �h8 18 �d3 'iVds 19 a3 lbd7 20

1 84

lbg4 .Jigs 21 .i.c7 �c8 22 .td6 �fd8 23 lbes c;t>g8 24 �b4 1i'e4 25 lbc4 �7 26 lbd6, with a definite pull for White. 17 ... cs!?

This provocative move invites a dan­gerous knight sacrifice. Black should probably prefer the precautionary 17 ... 1i'b6!, so that after 18 lbg6?! , he can play 18 ... .ta3 !, and if 19 .tel fxg6 20 1i'xe6+ c;t>h8 21 hxg6 lbg8 22 c;t>al �d6. Instead V.Anand-E.Bareev, Mos­cow 2002, steered towards an immedi­ately peaceful outcome after 18 c3 cs 19 .i.e3 lbds 20 c;t>al 1i'c7 21 g4 lbxe3 22 fxe3 .tf6 23 lbd3 b6 24 �hfl �fe8 25 1i'f3 es 26 dxes .txes 27 lbxes v2-v2.

18 lLlg6!

White's knight sacrifice is much stronger than in the previous note. And, with hindsight, it is clear that Black should really decline the offer. After 18 ... �fe8 19 lbxe7+ �xe7 20 dxcs, Black might still battle on, by playing 20 ... �ed7 21 .i.e3 lLlds, although after 22 �d3 !, and if 22 .. . lbxe3 23 1i'xe3 or 22 .. . lbb4 23 �a3, White is better. 18 ... fxg6? 19 1i'xe6+ c;t>hs 20 hxg6!

Now, however, Black's king is in se­rious danger. Over the board, Carlsen was convinced that White must be winning. White's immediate threat is 21 .ltxh6 gxh6 22 �xe7. This would leave Black defenceless against either of two follow-up threats, 23 l!xh6+ and 23 g7+.

Logically Black should now defend his bishop with one of his rooks, but both available rook moves contain tac­tical flaws. Black's defences collapse immediately after 20 ... l!fe8?! 21 .ltxh6 gxh6 22 �f7, and if 22 ... 'Llg8 23 �7 mate. Black also loses after 20 . . . l!de8?! 21 l!xh6+! gxh6 22 .ixh6, due to White's twin threats. 23 g7+ and 23 :i.h1. As 20 . . . cxd4?! 21 .ixh6 gxh6 22 ·�xe7 is also clearly hopeless, Black's actual reply is virtually forced. 20 . . . 'Llg8 21 .ltxh6!

But Black's game caves in on h6 anyway. After 21 . . . 'Llxh6 22 l!xh6+ gxh6 23 �xe7, White again mates with his queen on h7. 21 . . . gxh6 22 l!xh6+!

M ag n us Carlsen (1 990-)

has a mating attack. 22 ... 'Llxh6 23 �xe7 'Llf7 24 gxf7!

Apparently unknown to both play­ers, certainly to Carlsen, play to here had been following an earlier game, P.Almagro Llanas-J.Gustafsson, Madrid 2003, in which White now forced a draw by repetition. Black got off the hook after 24 �f6+ Wg8 25 l!h1 'Llh6 26 �e7 'Llf7 27 �f6 'Llh6 28 �e7 'Llf7 Vz-Vz. Carlsen saw more deeply into the position ! 24 . . . Wg7

2S l!d3!? · White could have won immediately,

White goes a rook behind, but he by playing the most accurate finishing

1 85

Chess Secre ts : Heroes of Classical Chess

sequence 2 5 'ii'es+! �xf7 26 I:i.d3, and if 26 ... 'i¥b6 27 l:i.f3+, quickly mating.

Now Black could have played 2S ... 'iYb6 26 l:i.g3+ 'ii'g6 (or if 26 ... �h7 27 'ii'e4+ and mates) 27 l:i.xg6+ �xg6. For­tunately Black prefers to fall on his sword in more honourable fashion, forcing White to find a much more aes­thetic and worthy end to this fine at­tacking game. 2s ... l:i.d6 26 l:i.g3+ I:i.g6 27 'ii'es+ �xf7

Or if 27 .. . �h7 28 'ii'h s+ l:i.h6 29 'ii'fs+ �h8 30 'ii'es+ �h7 31 'ii'g7 mate. 28 'ii'fs+ l:i.f6 29 'ii'd7 mate (1-o)

The finish is now straightforward, perhaps - but still rather pretty and quite arresting !

There was no stopping the 13 year­old boy now, and he rapidly scored his second grandmaster norm, in March 2004, with a solid, 2660 rating per­formance, at the very strong Aeroflot Open, in Moscow. This was soon fol­lowed by his third and final norm, at the Dubai Open.

At the Aeroflot event, Kasparov's

1 86

former coach, Alexander Nikitin, had expressed the view that Carlsen's prom­ise, at 13, could only be compared to that of the young Kasparov. Between Moscow and Dubai, Carlsen then man­aged to scare Kasparov, by scoring %-1% against him in a rapid event in Reyk­javik, a result that made immediate world-wide headlines. Throughout all such excitement, the Carlsen team kept their feet firmly on the ground. While others might enthuse, their typical take at the time was summed up clearly by words used by Agdestein, in his 2006 New in Chess interview, "We calculate our success in terms of what we learn, not in how many points we score."

In Wonder Boy, Agdestein goes on to relate that when asked by Dirk Jan Ten Geuzendam, "What about Karjakin ?" Nikitin replied, "No, he just studies a lot. This is real talent!" Agdestein's book consistently puts such comments in a more restrained light. He writes of the world's then top two 13 year-olds, that they were "both ... huge talents [who] must develop at their own pace [and] will both become stars of world class." Agdestein and others, however, do make an exception for Magnus's excellent memory. "Magnus's memory is incredible," writes Agdestein. After a mutual training session, in 2004, Peter­Heine Nielsen noted that Carlsen didn't take notes, but just remembered things. Carlsen didn't always have total recall, but when his memory kicked in it was formidable.

Magnus Carlsen (1 990-)

A powerful memory can be of con- d6 7 i..gS a6 8 ctJa3 bS siderable help in negotiating the com­plex labyrinths of variations and com­plex strategic ideas that nowadays con­front top-class players in virtually any opening. It certainly helps Carlsen per­form at a very high level with Black in an ultra-sharp line of his favourite Sicilian Sveshnikov.

Game 30 I.Cheparinov-M.Carlsen

Wijk aan Zee 2005 Sicilian Defence

1 e4 cs 2 ctJf3 lt:Jc6 3 d4 Against out and out devotees of the

Sveshnikov, it can occasionally pay to diverge at this point, by playing 3 ii.b5, which is not just a solid move, but a good way to play for a slight pull in the opening in ways that avoid the theo­retical complexities of the Sveshnikov. Black can expect to equalize in this line, but he has to work hard at doing it. Black certainly got too far behind in development, in M.Carlsen-T.Radjabov, Nanjing 2009, a one-sided crush, which continued 3 ... e6 4 0-0 lt:Jge7 5 c3 a6 6 ii.a4 bs 7 i.c2 i.b7 8 "i!Ve2 d5 9 es d4 10 .1i.e4 "i!Vb6 11 d3 �d8 12 a4 lt:Jds 13 axb5 axb5 14 cxd4 cxd4 15 li:Jbd2 li:Jf4 16 "ilfd1 li:Jb4 17 ctJb3 ii.xe4 18 dxe4 li:Jfd3 19 ii.gs �c8 20 li:Jfxd4 li:Jxb2 21 "i!Ve2 Cbc4 22 �fc1 ii.cs 23 lt:Jxb5 o-o 24 lt:Jxc5 Cbxe5 25 i.e? 1-0. 3 ... cxd4 4 lt:Jxd4 li:Jf6 5 ctJc3 es 6 li:Jdbs

Since its introduction in the 1970s, this sharp move has become the start­ing point for one of the most compli­cated counter-attacking systems in the Sicilian Defence. Black's d5-square may be glaringly weak, but Black's d6- and es-pawns give him a good central grip and a basis for play on both flanks. If White's knight on a3 were on e3, White would have much more control over the d5- and fs-squares and a clear ad­vantage, but it's not, and it will clearly take two or three tempi to redeploy- it. 9 ii.xf6

By giving up the bishop-pair, White takes away a defender of d5, further emphasising the weakness of that square. By doing it this way, Black also incurs doubled f-pawns as recapturing with the queen allows White to play ctJd5 with an important extra tempo.

White's main alternative is 9 li:Jds ii.e7 10 ii.xf6 i.xf6, which was played in Game 31, a year later. 9 ... gxf6 10 li:Jds ii.g7 11 ii.d3 lt:Je7 12 lt:Jxe7 "i!Vxe7 13 c4

1 8 7

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Ch ess

With the energetic text move, White hopes for something like 13 ... bxc4?! 14 l2Jxc4, bringing his knight back into central play and closer to the excellent e3-square, from where it would appre­ciably strengthen White's control over d5 and f5, making it difficult for Black to mobilize his potentially dangerous central pawn mass. Black can, and, in­deed, must play more energetically than that.

White can also adopt a quieter plan, based on freeing a route back into the centre for his knight, via c2. With ener­getic play, Black can achieve a rough and highly dynamic equality, as in V.lvanchuk-T.Radjabov, Sofia 2008, which continued 13 o-o o-o 14 c3 f5 ! 15 l2Jc2 .l:tb8 16 exf5 e4 17 .ie2 (or 17 .:tel .ixf5, and if 18 tZ:le3 .ig6 19 l2Jd5 �e5) 17 .. . .ixf5 18 tZ:lb4 �95 19 f4 (or 19 �xd6! ? .l:tbd8, and if 20 �g3 �f6 21 .l:!.adl �e6) 19 . . . exf3 20 .ixf3 .l:tbe8 21 l2Jc6 ii.e5 22 l2Jxe5 dxe5 23 �cl �xc1 24 :!.axel ..lte6 25 .l:!.fel f6 26 .l:!.cdl .l:td8, with an eventual draw. 13 . . . fs!

1 88

Black must mobilize his central pawn mass and it is worth offering a gambit to achieve this. Black's bishop­pair offer considerable support for his central pawns and may become lethal if he can open lines. In addition to op­portunities in other parts of the board, Black can also hope to exert pressure on the open g-file. 14 0-0 0-0

15 cxbs!? Taking the gambit pawn is certainly

critical. Alternatively, 15 � 5 .l:tb8 16 exf5 e4 17 .l:tael .ib7 18 .l:te3 bxc4 19 ..ltxc4 d5 20 ..ltxd5 .ixd5 21 f6 �xf6 22 't!Vxd5 �xb2 has long been considered fine for Black. Thus V.Topalov­M.Carlsen, Nanjing 2009, varied 18 �g4 .l:tfe8 19 cxb5 d5 20 bxa6 .ic6 21 .l:!.cl (21 b3 may be more critical and had earlier been used by Shirov to de­feat Carlsen, but undoubtedly the Norwegian had managed to patch up this highly-unclear line) 21 .. . exd3 22 .l:txc6 �e2 23 h3 .l:txb2 24 f6 �xg4 25 hxg4 .l:txa2 26 tZ:lb1 .if8 27 .l:tc3 .l:txa6 28 .l:txd3 .l:txf6, and Black held.

A sharper line is 15 'iVf3 ! ? d5 ! 16 cxd5 fxe4 17 ..ltxe4 l:tb8!, intending ... l:tb6 and a rapid transfer of the rook to the kingside or centre. Indeed, White mustn't underestimate Black's counter-attacking chances. P.Smirnov­T.Radjabov, Tripoli 2004, strikingly con­cluded 18 l:tad1! ? (18 l:tfd1 may be criti­cal) 18 ... l:tb6 19 'iVd3 'iVd7 20 ..ltxh7+ 'ltoh8 21 'iVe3 l:th6 22 ..ltc2 'iVd6 23 g3 jLh3 24 l:tfe1 f5 25 f4 exf4 26 'iVe7 'iVh6+ 0-1. 1s ... ds!

There is no going back in this posi­tlon. Black simply must win control of e4, to free his e- and f-pawns, even at the cost of second pawn if need be. 16 exds e4 17 'iVe2 l:tb8 18 l:tab1

Nominally two pawns ahead, it is surprisingly difficult for White to co­ordinate his forces and offer a robust defence, far less make positive use of his extra material . White's knight on a3 remains perilously placed on the rim, and plays little or no current part in the game.

With the text-move, White overpro-

M ag n us Carlsen (1 990-)

tects b2 as a preliminary for a possible capture on a6, but Black's plan to transfer his rook to the kingside via b6 rapidly sets up mating threats. This plan also looks critical after 18 ..ltc4 f4 19 nfe1 ..ltf5 20 nadl nb6, and if 21 bxa6 l:th6 (or perhaps 21 .. . l:tg6). 18 ... l:tb6 19 'li'e3!?

White draws back from 19 bxa6? ! l:tg6, which sets up fearsome kingside threats. White's defences collapse completely, for example, after 20 j_b5 f4, and if 21 'ltoh1 'iVh4! 22 �xe4!? l:th6 23 h3 j_xh3 24 g3 'iVg5 25 'ltog1 fxg3 26 f4 'iVh4. 19 ... l:tg6 20 j_C2 �h4 21 b6

Unfortunately for White, the block­ading defence 21 f4? ! fails to 21 ... exf3 22 �xf3 jLe5 23 h3 (or 23 g3 j_xg3) 23 ... l:tg3 24 'iVe2 'iVxh3, threatening ... ..ltd4+ and ... l:tg5, with a winning at­tack. 21 ... 'ltoh8 22 ctJC4

Now 22 f4? ! loses to 22 ... exf3 23 'iVxf3 jLe5 24 h3 l:tg3 25 'lWe2 j_d4+ 26 'it>h1 l:tfg8 27 jLxf5 (or if 27 l:tg1 f4, threatening . . .f3 and ... j_xh3) 27 ... jLxf5

1 89

Ch ess Secrets : Heroes of Class ical Ch ess

28 �xf5 �xh3+ 29 gxh3 ii'xh3+ 30 iVh2 ii'xf5, and White cannot defend against the threat of .. . ii'f3+. 22 ... �g8 23 g3

And this time 23 f4? ! exf3 24 ii'xf3 ii'xc4 simply loses a piece. 23 ... ii'h3 24 �fd1

Here 24 f4? ! is a little more compli­cated, but Black still seems to have a winning game after 24 ... i.f6 2 5 �f2 (or 25 d6 �xg3+ 26 hxg3 �xg3+ 27 ii'xg3 ii'xg3+ 28 �hl i.d4) 25 ... �xg3+ 26 hxg3 �xg3+ 27 ii'xg3 ii'xg3+ 28 �g2 i.d4+ 29 �hl iYh4+ 30 �h2 ii'xf4, threatening both 31 .. . i.b7 and ... e3, and if 31 tba5 e3 32 b7 ii'f3+ 33 �g2 i.xb7 34 tt::Jxb7 e2 35 tbd6 iVh3+ 36 �h2 ii'fl+ and mates. 24 ... �h6 25 ii'f4!?

Black threatens to break through decisively, for example, after 25 d6, by playing 25 .. .f4! 26 ii'xf4 (or if 26 ii'xe4 �xh2+ 27 �f1 fxg3) 26 ... �xh2+ 27 �fl l:If6 28 'i'e3 .ih6 29 'i'd4 iVhl+ 30 �e2 i.g4+ and mates.

White tries to block this idea with his queen. He also envisages bringing

1 9 0

his knight into the thick of things on e5. 2s . . . i.f6 26 tt::Jes i.xes!

Black's queen will eventually crash through on the kingside by capturing White's pawn on h2, but he must time this carefully or White's king may es­cape, via fl. This fine move, however, does the trick, wresting sufficient con­trol of critical dark squares to make decisive inroads into White's position.

Exchanging Black's "strong" bishop at first sight may seem counterintui­tive, as the bishop-pair is ordinarily one of Black's main positional strengths in this line. Here, however, the tactics jus­tify the transaction. In particular, White's queen can no longer control the critical f4-square. 27 ii'xes+ f6 28 ii'f4 �g4?!

Both sides may have been short of time and Black now misses 28 ... a5!, threatening 29 ... i.a6, which by pre­venting White's king escaping to the centre, via fl, except at ruinous mate­rial loss, appears to win at once.

The alternative 28 ... �h4? ! , which is similar to the text-move, allows White's king to escape after 29 ii'd6, and if 29 ... ii'xh2+?! (29 ... �h6! ) 30 �fl iVhl+ 31 �e2 ii'f3+ 32 �d2, with murky complications. 29 ii'c7 �g8!

Black correctly repeats the position, not allowing White's king to escape, by playing 29 ... ii'xh2+?! 30 �fl iVhl+ 31 �e2 ii'f3+ 32 �d2, which is again far from clear. Fortunately for Black, even

though White needn't now retreat his queen to f4, he still seems to have a clearly winning game against other White continuations.

30 .l::i.e1 This move is aimed at preventing

... e3, but by moving his rook from dl to e1, White almost imperceptibly weak­ens his chances of defence and coun­terattack in the lines where Black chases his king into the centre. This is how the game now goes.

After 30 b7 i..xb7 31 'iVxb7 e3 ! , Black threatens mate in two and seems to win, after the essentially forced con­tinuation 32 fxe3 'iVxh2+ 33 Wfl 'iVxc2 34 d6 .l::!.h 2 ! 35 'iVf3 'iVc4+ 36 Wgl (or 36 Wel .l::!.xg3 ! 37 'iVa8+ Wg7 38 'iVh7+ Wg6) 36 ... 'iVh4! 37 Wfl .l::!.xg3 38 'iVa8+ Wg7 39 'iVh7+ Wh6, and White will be mated. 30 ... 'iVxh2+ 31 Wf1 'iVh1+ 32 We2 'iVf3+ 33 Wd2 'iVxf2+ 34 Wd1

This move allows Black to free g4 for his bishop and loses quickly. White is also lost after 34 Wc3 .l::!.h2, and if 35 .l::!.bc1 'iVd2+ 36 Wc4 as, threatening

M ag n us Carlsen (1 990-)

both 37 ... 'iVb4 mate and 37 ... .ta6+. Black clearly has too many game­winning threats in this position, and White would only have prolonged his agony by playing this way. 34 ... f4!

Now White has no chance. If 3 5 'iVxf4 .ltg4+ wins at once. 35 'iVc3 fxg3 36 .txe4 .ltg4+ 37 Wc1 .l::i.c8 0-1

Carlsen progressed reasonably surely after gaining the grandmaster title, but he still had much to do to reach the top-rank. His rating was suf­ficient to obtain an invitation to play in the 2004 F IDE knock-out world cham­pionship, but he was no match for one of the favourites to win the event, Levon Aronian, and crashed out against him in the 1st round.

Carlsen played well on top board for Norway at the 2004 Chess Olympiad, but then suffered a relative setback with a sub-par performance over the t�ew year, in Drammen. His result, in the B Group, at Wijk aan Zee 2005, was

1 9 1

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classica l Ch ess

much better, but far from outstanding despite the above game. Carlsen's rat­ing actually dipped from 2581 to 25�8, in the period October 2004 to July 2005. But Agdestein noted that "for those standing close to him, this hadn't been a worry." Carlsen was still, after all, only 14 years-old. Agdestein consid­ered that his relative decline had been due to a combination of "experimental openings ... a bit of bad luck [and to] pushing limits."

Carlsen's results began to improve again from about the middle of 2005. Typically he seemed to play himself into form through a series of strong tournaments. By the end of the year he had finished 10th in the elite F IDE knock-out World Cup event. This result gained him a qualification place in the next round of world championship Candidates' matches and a 2625 F IDE rating.

Early in 2006, Carlsen was the youngest of three players - the other two were Hikaru Nakamura and Pen­tala Harikrishna - placed in the spot­light by Viktor Korchnoi in an article in New in Chess on the new generation. Korchnoi typically looked for uncom­promising attributes in their play. Korchnoi settled mainly on a search for evidence of "boundless love of chess as an art, an effort to play in an uncon­ventional manner ... searching for and finding fresh, brilliant ideas ... human creativity [as] against the dominance of the computer [and] hack work."

1 9 2

Happily h e reported that h e had found that. He rated Magnus Carlsen's "fight­ing personality" most highly.

In Game 31, Carlsen battles hard with Black in another Sicilian Sveshnikov that is far less overtly tacti­cal than Game 30. The close middle­game balance requires both sides to shadow box cagily. Carlsen boxes bet­ter than his opponent and then ex­tracts just about every last ounce from a resulting initiative as humanly possi­ble.

Carlsen shared 1st place, with Rus­sia's Alexander Motylev, in this tour­nament, achieving an impressive 2741 rating performance.

Game 31 J.Smeets-M.Carlsen Wijk aan Zee 2006

Sicilian Defence

1 e4 cs 2 'bf3 'bc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 'bxd4 'bf6 s 'bc3 es 6 'bdbs d6 7 Jtgs a6 8 'ba3 bs 9 'bds

Playing this move allows White to steer the game into less overtly un bal­anced and tactically complex lines than after 9 Jtxf6. Black probably has no bet­ter reply than the quiet bishop move he uses. If he tries to avoid this path, by playing 9 ... Jte6, White plays 10 i.xf6 gxf6 11 c3, and if 11 .. .f5 12 exf5 Jtxf5, gaining a tempo on one of the main lines after 9 Jtxf6. 9 ... ..te7 10 .i.xf6 Jtxf6 11 c3 ..tgs

This is the starting point for the main line of the 9 'Llds variation. Black retains the bishop-pair and clears the path for an eventual .. .fs. White's main focus tends to be on gaining ground on the queenside and keeping a firm grip on the d-file. It is, however, also some­times possible to adopt plans, based on h4 (either without or by delaying king­side castling), that seek to make gains on the kingside. 12 'Llc2 'Lle7

Black seeks to simplify his defensive task, by exchanging knights. He can also retain more pieces on the board, by playing 12 ... 0-0, and after 13 a4 bxa4 14 Mxa4 as 1S ii.c4, White may have a slight pull, but play remains complex and full of possibilities for both sides. 13 'Llcb4

White can also play for an edge with 13 a4 or 13 'Llxe7 'ii'xe7 14 a4, but the text-move, aiming to keep a knight on dS, is very natural . 13 ... 0-0 14 a4 bxa4 15 MXa4

This is a typical picture in this line.

Magn us Carlsen (1 990-)

White has partially undermined Black's queenside, tenaciously hangs on to dS and eventually hopes to mobilize his b­pawn, which may become passed. Black's reply isn't forced but is usually played to ensure that his potentially vulnerable a-pawn doesn't become a real target on a6 and to gain queen side space.

White can also conduct operations with his queen on a4, as in G.Kamsky­M.Carlsen, Khanty Mansiysk 200S, which continued 1S 'ii'xa4 as 16 ii.bs 'Llxds 17 'Llxds .i..e6 18 .i..c6 Mb8 19 Ma2 'ii'c8 20 o-o ii.d8 21 b4 <J;>h8 22 Md2 'ii'a6 23 bs ! , with a clear space advan­tage for White, who went on to win. Black later improved on this, in V.Anand-M.Carlsen, Linares 2008, which saw 1S ... 'Llxds 16 'Llxds ii.d7 17 'ii'a2 as 18 ii.d3 .i..c6 19 0-0 'iVb8 20 .i..c4 <J;>h8 21 b3 fs 22 exfs 1/2-%.

It may also be possible to interpo­late the moves 1S h4!? .i..h6 before re­capturing on a4. -lS . . . as 16 'Llxe7+

White developed attacking chances

1 9 3

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Class ica l Chess

in a relatively old game in this line, 21 .. J::tb8 22 Vi'c2 'it>h8 23 l:tfa1?! A.Motylev-G.Agamaliev, Bydgoszcz 1999, after 16 �bS ! ? �d7 17 'Lixe7+ �xe7!? 18 'Lic6 i..xc6 19 il.xc6 l:tb8 20 J:ta2 'i:Vb6 21 il.ds g6 22 h4! 'it>g7 23 h s fs 2 4 Vi'd2 g s 25 g3 'it>h6 2 6 exfs l:txfs 27 0-0!, and White went on to win. No doubt Carlsen had improvements. 16 ... iVxe7 17 iLc4 i.d7 1S 'Lids Vies

White retains his grip on ds and has some queenside prospects, but Black is well developed, and well placed for queenside defence. By placing his queen on e8, Black leaves d8 for his dark-square bishop, from where it de­fends as and frees his queen's rook for development. Longer-term, Black also has potential kingside play, based on an eventual . . .fs. 19 l:ta2 .idS 20 o-o

Around here, White's play loses its incisiveness and he begins to drift into increasing passivity. White can't claim to have achieved much from the open­ing, but more robust may have been 20 b4, trying to make something of his queenside advantages before Black can close him down on that flank, by play-ing ... a4. 20 ... l:tcS 21 �b3

White is clearly concerned about maintaining control of a4, but in so doing, he allows his queen, rooks and bishop to get into slightly awkward postings on the queenside. Perhaps he should just have allowed Black to play . . . a4, preferring the simpler developing move 21 �e2.

1 94

White plans to offer an exchange of bishops on a4, but he takes his eye off the kingside, where Black has a dy-namic counter that cuts across his plans. White should have played 23 'Lie3, keeping an eye on fs as well as ds, although Black's game is fine after 23 .. . i..e6, and if 24 i.ds i.b6 ! 23 . . .fs! 24 i.a4

White sticks to his original plan to exchange bishops. If he takes time out either to exchange pawns on fS or al­low Black to exchange pawns on e4 after playing 24 f3, Black will be able to retain the bishop-pair and switch his queen to a promising post on g6, with good prospects. 24 ... i.xa4 25 l:txa4 fxe4!

But this move emphasises that Black is now pressing. White can't re­gain his pawn immediately, as 26 l:txe4? allows the forking reply 26 .. . 'i:Vbs. White must go over to careful defence . 26 l:t4a2 Vi'f7!

Black's game brightens with virtu-

ally every move. After White's reply, Black's rook makes a surprise entrance into the game on b3, shortly followed by his bishop on h4, with all of Black's pieces suddenly beginning to converge on White's kingside. 27 c4 Itb3 28 Ite1

Keeping his nerve. Not, of course, 28 �xb3?? �xf2+ and mate in two. 28 ... ..ih4 29 g3!?

White has some difficult choices. This weakens f3, creating a square that can be used by Black's queen's rook But the alternative 29 Ite2?! , even if not en­tirely clear, may be even worse after possible lines, such as 29 ... Itd3 30 Ita1 Itd4, and if 31 Itxas? �xf2+! 32 Itxf2 Itd1+ 33 �xd1 �xf2+ and mates, or 29 ... e3 30 f3 (if 30 tt:Jxe3? Itxe3) 30 ... �f2+ 31 <;;i;>h1 Itfb8, and if 32 Itxas?! �g6 33 Ita2 �xc2 34 Itxc2 Itd3 35 g4 Itd1+ 36 <;;i;>g2 Itg1+ 37 <;;i;>h3 Itf8 wins. 29 ... Itf3! 30 b3

And not 30 gxh4? Itxf2 31 �xe4 Itf1+ 32 <;;i;>g2 �f2+ 33 <;;i;>h3 Itf3+ 34 <;;i;>g4 �g2+, and mates. 30 ... i.d8 31 Itxe4 hs!

M ag n us Carlsen (1 990-)

White has defended well, but Black still has some shots in his bow. He plans . . . h4, opening more lines for at­tack against White's king. White must not attempt to block this, by playing 32 h4?, against which Carlsen had planned the explosive follow-up 32 . . . g s ! 33 hxgs i.xgs, with his brilliant main line running 34 �e2 (or if 34 <;;i;>g2 h4 3 5 gxh4 �e6 ! 36 hxgs 'iY113+ 37 <;;i;>g1 Itg3+ 38 fxg3 Itfl mate) 34 ... h4 35 gxh4 'iYhs 36 hxgs �xgs+ 37 <;;i;>fl 'iY116 38 Itg4 (or 38 We1 Itxf2 39 �xf2 'iY111+ 40 <;;i;>e2 Itxf2+ 41 <;;i;>xf2 "iVh2+) 38 .. . 'iY113+ 39 Itg2 Itg3! , and wins. 32 Ite2 h4 33 Itb2 g6 34 <;;i;>g2?

Finally, the pressure gets to White and he makes a decisive error. Possibly he overlooked Black's 35th move.

White should have played 34 �d2 <;;i;>g7 3 5 Ite3, seeking to exchange a pair of rooks. Black remains active, but White can still fight. Play might go, for example, 3S ... hxg3 36 hxg3 Itfs 37 g4!? Itf3 38 �e2 Itxe3 39 �xe3 (or 39 tt:Jxe3 :'tb6 40 tt:Jds �d4) 39 ... Ith8, and if, say 40 �e4 Ith3 41 b4! ? (or 41 cs? ! dxcs 42

1 9 5

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Ch ess

'fixeS+ �h7) 41 . . . a4 42 bs a3 43 Ita2 i::tb3, and the struggle still has a long way to go. 34 ... hxg3 35 hxg3 Itxg3+!

This abrupt sacrifice effectively ends White's resistance. Black wins a pawn, but more importantly, all of his pieces now swarm into the attack, first driv­ing White's king into the middle of the board and then catching it there.

If now 36 �xg3 'iif3+ 37 �h2 �g7! , followed by .. . Ith8 and mates. Or if 36 fxg3 'iifl+ 37 �h2 �g7 38 Ite4 Ith8+ 39 .l::th4 i.xh4 40 gxh4 Itxh4+ 41 �g3 Ith3+ 42 �g4 'iif3+ 43 �gs Iths mate. 36 �f1 'iif3 37 'iie4 'iihs 38 tt:Je3 i.gs 39 �e1 Itgf3 40 ctJf1 i.c1!

The final act fittingly involves Black's erstwhile "bad" bishop, which now swings decisively into play on the "active" side of Black's previously re­strictive e-, d- and a-pawns. White must give up his b-pawn now, for if 41 l:tb1 i.a3! , followed by .. . i.b4+, will force a winning queen check on hl or the win of White's f-pawn. 41 Ita2 Itxb3 42 ctJg3 'iih6 43 'iig4 Itxg3

1 9 6

The final sacrifice, and this time a simple one. If 44 fxg3 'iih1 mate. 44 'iixg3 'iih1+ 0-1

The year 2007 was to lead to a fur­ther impressive leap forward for the now 16 year-old Norwegian superstar. It started off with a stutter, with a rela­tively poor 2610 performance in Carl­sen's first outing in the elite Corus A Group, at Wijk aan Zee. He made too many unforced errors and confessed afterwards that he was "not a perfect player at all, I have to improve almost everything."

But the Carlsen team's capacity to learn from experience and to bounce back again soon put matters right. Carlsen finished joint 2nd immediately after Wijk, in the equally strong More­lia/Linares tournament. This time his tournament rating for the event worked out at 2782. World champion, Anand, who won at Morelia Linares, considered that this was something of a breakthrough for Carlsen, adding, "Clearly he is growing very fast."

From January 2007 to January 2008, Carlsen improved his rating from 2690 to 2733 and his standing in the world rankings from 24th to 13th . This was achieved by a series of excellent results in a slew of strong tournaments in 2007, including an outstanding 1st place at Biel (2753 performance), and reaching the semi-final of the F IDE World Cup, in December 2007, where he was only knocked out by the even­tual winner Gata Kamsky.

During this period, Carlsen's play was beginning to show markedly in­creasing maturity and dependable power. His technique was improving along with his ability to put increasing pressure on players. At the beginning of 2008, it was clear that he was now a fully accepted member of the world's elite players and on the verge of estab­lishing himself in the world top ten.

In the spring of 2007, the new, im­proved Carlsen gave world top-five player, Levon Aronian, a huge scare in the first round of the F IDE Candidates' matches. The outcome was only de­cided in a blitz finish, after a tight, 3-3 draw at normal time rates and 2-2 in the rapidplay tie-break. Aronian had to delve deep into his reserves of skill and experience to defeat his young oppo­nent. Carlsen was now capable of play­ing really great chess consistently, as evidenced by the exceptional quality of his endgame technique, in winning Game 3 of his match against Aronian. Endgame artistry like this bears com-

Magnus Carlsen (1 990-)

parison with the achievements of all the great players in this book, all the way back through to Rubinstein.

Game 32 M.Carlsen,.L.Aronian

3rd matchgame, Elista 2007 English Opening.

1 'Llf3 'Llf6 2 C4 b6 3 g3 C5 4 .ig2 .ib7 5 0-0 e6 6 'Llc3 j_e7 7 .l:re1 dS

While Aronian was clearly prepared to enter the main lines of the Hedge­hog Defence, after 7 d4 cxd4 8 ifxd4 d6, like many Hedgehog players, he has a healthy regard for White's chances in the sharper play that occurs after 7 .l:re1 d6 8 e4 a6 9 d4 cxd4 10 'Llxd4 "ifC7 11 .ie3, followed by .l:rc1. Hence the text­move, which turns the game into a form of Queen's Indian Defence.

Apart from 7 .. . d5, Black often also plays 7 ... 'Lle4. White doesn't find it easy to obtain an edge against either of these two tough defences. A particu­larly critical try after 7 ... 'Lle4 is the com­plex and unbalanced line 8 d4 'Llxc3 9 bxc3, and now:

a) V.Topalov-M.Adams, F IDE World Championship, San Luis 2005, contin­ued 9 ... j_e4 10 .if1 d6 11 h4 'Lld7 12 d5 o-o 13 a4 h6 14 .ih3 exd5 15 cxd5 .if6 16 .l:ra3, with complications that even­tually worked out in White's favour.

b) Bu Xiangzhi-S.Sulskis, Gibraltar · 2008, went 9 ... 'Llc6 10 d5 'Lla5 11 e4 'Llxc4 12 .if4 g5 13 i.c1 b5 14 j_f1 0-0

1 9 7

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

15 l::tb1 exd5 16 exd5 tt'lb6 17 d6 i!.f6 18 tt:Jxg5 i!.xg5 19 �g4 f5 20 �xg5+ �xg5 21 i.xg5, when White's bishop-pair and extra space gave White good chances. 8 cxds

With this move, White hopes for 8 .. . exd5 9 d4, transposing into a varia­tion of the Queen's Indian Defence that, while solid for Black, offers White a more fluid range of options.

Earlier in the year, V.Topalov­M.Carlsen, Linares 2007, had gone 8 d4 dxc4 9 dxc5 i!.xc5 10 �a4+ tt'lbd7 11 �xc4 0-0 12 l:.d1 J::tc8 13 �4 i..e7 14 �3 �e8 15 tt:'ld4 i!.xg2 16 �xg2 tt'le5 17 �7 ii.c5 18 i!.g5 tt'lfg4 19 h3 tt'lc6 20 hxg4 ii.xd4 21 tt'lb5 V2-V2 (25). s . . . tt:Jxds 9 d4!?

The older main line used to go 9 e4 tt:Jxc3 10 bxc3 0-0 11 d4 cxd4 12 cxd4 tt:Jc6 13 i.b2, which gives White some­thing to work on, due to his good pawn centre and freer development, as in B.Damljanovic-V.Gashimov, Bled Olym­piad 2002, in which Black defended poorly in all sectors, after 13 ... tt'la5 ! ? 14 tt'le5 ! l::tc8 15 l:.c1 �d6 16 �e2 f6? ! 17

1 9 8

tt'lg4 �d7 1 8 tt:'le3 'i!th8 19 h4! J::txc1 20 J::txc1 l:.c8 21 l:.d1 �a4 22 d5! e5 23 ..lth3 l:.d8 24 � 5 g6 25 �f3 l:.f8 26 h 5 ! g 5 27 l:.c1! ii.d8 28 �f5 �4 29 l:.c2 �e7 30 �e6 �xe6 31 ..txe6 and White won.

Of course, Black can improve on that, but nowadays, 9 ... tt'lb4! 10 d4 cxd4 11 tt'lxd4 tt'l8c6, and if 12 tt'lxc6 �xd1 13 J::txd1 ii.xc6, which seems to come close to virtually dead equality, has become more popular. It isn't at all clear that White can achieve very much. B.Damljanovic-Y.Pelletier, French League 2008, continued 14 i!.f4 g 5 15 i!.d6 ..txd6 16 J::txd6 l::td8 17 l:.xd8+ 'i!txd8 18 a3 tt:Ja6 19 b4 v2-v2.

After Carlsen's 9th move, the inter­mezzo 9 ... cxd4 10 �a4+! slightly dislo­cates Black's development. It gave White a very slight pull, due to his more active pieces, in L.Aronian-D.Jakovenko, Khanty Mansiysk 2007, which saw 10 ... tt'ld7 11 tt:Jxd5 ..txd5 12 tt:Jxd4 i!.xg2 13 'i!txg2 o-o 14 tt'lc6 tt'lc5 15 �5 �d7 16 i..e3 'i!th8 17 tt'ld4 �xb5 18 tt:Jxb5 a6 19 tt'ld4 i..f6 20 J::tac1 l:.fd8 21 l:.c4 b5 22 l:.xc5 i!.xd4 23 i!.xd4 l::txd4 24 l:.ec1 g6 25 l::tc7, with continuing endgame chances. 9 ... tt:Jxc3 10 bxc3 i!.e4!?

Aronian remained determined to avoid transposition into older lines, after 10 .. . 0-0 11 e4 cxd4 12 cxd4 tt'lc6. But after White's strong reply, he loses control of e4 and White establishes a stable pawn centre. While Black man­ages to exchange the light-square bishops, the simplification obtained does not quite fully offset the tempo

expended to achieve this, leaving Black with some difficulties completing de­velopment.

In passing, it is worth noting that White is also thought to have an advan­tage after 10 ... 0-o 11 e4 tt'ld7 (interest­ing is 11...tt'lc6!?, although Black didn't last long, in S.Savchenko-S.Fedorchuk, Alushta 2000, after 12 d5 tt'la5 13 i..f4 exd5 14 exd5 .llf6?! 15 tt'le5! .l:.e8 16 �5 g6 17 �f3 h5 18 .llg5 ! .l:.xe5 19 .llxf6 .l:.xe1+ 20 .l:.xe1 �d6 21 .l:.e7 .l:.f8 22 �f4! �xf4 23 gxf4 .l:.d8 24 d6 .llxg2 25 'it>xg2 g5 26 f5 tt'lc6 27 .l:.c7 1-0) 12 .llf4!, in no small part due to White's success in V.Kramnik-V.Anand, Las Palmas 1996:

M ag n us Carlsen (1 990-)

12 .. . cxd4 i3 cxd4 tt'lf6 14 tt'le5 .il.b4 15 .l:.e3 .l:.c8 16 dS exds 17 exds .td6 18 tt'lc6 i..xc6 19 i..xd6 .il.a4 20 .ii.xf8 .llxd1 21 .lle7 �c7 22 .l:.xd1 tt'ld7 23 .ii.h3, and White went on to win a fine attacking game. Earlier, V.Anand-S.Tiviakov, Wijk aan Zee 1996, had gone 12 .. . tt'lf6 13 �d3 cxd4 14 cxd4 .llb4 15 tt'ld2 .l:.c8 16 .l:.ec1 .l:.xc1+ 17 .l:.xc1 �a8 18 f3 .l:.c8 19 tt'lc4 i..a6 20 .llf1 .l:.d8 21 �3 .llf8 22 .lle3 .l:.c8 23 .l:.c2 �7 24 .lld3 �e7 2 5 �a4 .llxc4 26 .l:.xc4 .l:.xc4 27 .llxc4, and White won with his better pawns, extra space and bishop-pair. 11 tt'les i..xg2 12 'it>xg2 o-o 13 e4 �c8

White has a good pawn centre and a comfortable space advantage, and that extra tempo counts. Black doesn't find it easy to challenge White's domi­nant knight, as playing his knight to d7 would concede c6. White also has good play after 13 .. . .tf6 ! ? 14 tt'lg4 cxd4 15 .lla3 (Carlsen). Play might then con-tinue 15 ... .l:.e8 16 tt'lxf6+ �xf6 17 �a4!, and if 17 .. . .l:.d8 18 cxd4 tt'ld7 19 .l:.ac1, with a clear advantage. 14 �g4 .tf6?!

Carlsen didn't like this move, which clearly allows White to develop a king­side attack. Black should instead con­tinue with natural development and challenge White's knight, by playing 14 ... tt'lc6, after which Carlsen intended to play 15 .th6 .if6 16 tt'lxc6 �xc6 17 'it>g1 'it>h8 18 e5 which, while still un­clear, he nevertheless thought should

· still favour White. 15 tt'lf3 'it>h8 16 h4! tt'lc6 11 .igs!

1 9 9

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Class ica l Chess

Black has finally managed to de­velop his knight, but White has clearly made ground in the meantime. Of course, not now 17 .. . i.xgs? 18 hxgS, and White has opened a lethal line of attack along the h-file. 17 ... exd4 1S .txf6 gxf6 19 exd4?!

Here, Carlsen got it wrong - he called his thinking at this point a little bit "lazy". White has a clear advantage after the more accurate 19 �f4! �d8 20 cxd4, and if 20 ... tt:lxd4?! 21 �ed1! es 22 tt:lxes wins a pawn for White, but here Carlsen had only considered 21 �ad1? tt:lxf3 ! and looked no further. White also stands well in this line after 19 .. . dxc3 20 �xf6+ 'it>g8 21 �xc3, due to Black's shattered kingside pawns and porous kingside. 19 ... es 20 �xeS �axeS 21 ds tt:las 22 hS!

In spite of the simplification, White still has slightly the better chances here, due to his better pawns and par­ticularly to the poor position of Black's king, which is far from the central ac­tion. White plans to entomb Black's

2 0 0

king even more, by playing h6 and tt:lh4-fS. 22 ... tt:le4 23 ti:lh4 ti:Jd6 24 h6 �e3?!

Aronian starts to slip around here, although to be fair to him, he must still negotiate numerous, often deeply hid­den and very distant difficulties in this tricky endgame. Black correctly takes the c-file, but should have preferred 24 .. . �c4!, hitting the e-pawn. Then, af­ter 25 �ac1 �fc8 26 �xc4 �xc4 27 tt:lfs, he can play 27 .. . tt:lxe4!, and if 28 d6 tt:lcs, with continuing defence possible with Black's knight covering d7. White must probably prefer 27 'it>f3, but this gives Black a tempo enabling him to play 27 .. . 'it>g8, aiming to get his king quickly back into play in the centre, after say 28 ti:lfs tt:lxfs 29 exfs 'it>f8. 25 �ae1

2S ... �feS? Aronian apparently played this

move instantly, indicating that he hadn't yet realized the strength of White's 27th move. Now Black appears to be lost.

Instead Black might still have re-

sisted, by playing 2S .. . lbxe4, and if 26 .l:.xc3 lbxc3 27 d6 bS !, intending to an­chor his knight on c3, if need be, by playing ... b4. This would make it much more difficult for White's rook to pene­trate to support his d-pawn. Carlsen, who had missed 27 ... bs , thought that this should probably be enough to save Black. 26 .l:.xc3 .l:.xc3 27 lbfs! !

Clearly White can make no progress without this move, but Carlsen de­serves great credit for creating the conditions in which such a move works. White must, of course, break Black's blockade on d6, freeing his passed pawn to advance, to have any winning chances. The black king's entombment on the king side proves the decisive fac­tor. 27 ... lbxfs 28 exfs �g8

Black's king makes a run for the centre. Purely passive defence, say, by playing 28 ... .l:.c7 only allows White's king to join the action, after 29 �f3, with d6, winning control of the c-file, followed by �e4-d5, a game-winning

M ag n us Carlsen (1 990-)

threat. Also hopeless is 28 .. . bs 29 .l:.b1 a6 30 a4, and if 30 .. . �cs 31 axbs axbs 32 d6, and wins.

After the game, Carlsen's computer came up with the clever 28 ... �c4, cover­ing what proves to be the critical e4-square, but it also supplied its brilliant refutation. White wins after 29 d6 �g8 30 .l:.d1 .l:.c8 31 g4! �f8 32 g S ! .l:.d8 {or if 32 .. .fxgs 33 d7 .l:.d8 34 f6 followed by .l:.c1) 33 d7 �e7 34 g6 ! fxg6 3 5 fxg6 hxg6 36 h7! , followed by .l:.c1. 29 .l:.e4!

The key to victory is White's use of this square to transfer his rook to g7. Aronian afterwards confessed that he hadn't foreseen the full force of this wonderful idea. We can sympathise with him. With an active rook in con­trol of the c-file, a 2-1 queenside pawn majority and his king apparently head­ing for the centre, it would seem that Black almost "ought" to have good drawing chances. But the tactics, some of them fiendishly hard to foresee, now

· go decisively against him. If now 29 . . . �C7 30 .l:.g4+ either

2 01

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

transposes back into the game con­tinuation, or wins quickly after 30 .. . �h8 31 d6 .l:!.d7 32 .l:!.c4 .l:!.d8 33 d7. ·

29 ... �f8 30 .l:!.g4 .l:!.c7 Black is also lost after the more

mundane 30 ... .l:!.d3 31 .l:!.g7 .l:!.xdS 32 .l:!.xh7 �g8 33 .l:!.g7+ �h8 (or 33 . . . �f8 34 .l:!.g4) 34 .l:!.xf7 - Carlsen. 31 .l:!.g7 bs 32 .l:!.xh7 �g8

But this is the kind of move that really breaks a defender's heart. Having worked so hard to get back into the centre again, Black finds that his king has to run back into the corner. Bad news! Black loses trivially, though, if he

· doesn't play this way, after say 32 .. . b4 33 .l:!.h8+ �e7 34 h7, and White's h­pawn queens. 33 .l:!.g7+ �h8

Or if 33 .. . �f8 34 .l:!.g4, and White's h­pawn triumphs again. 34 d6 .l:!.d7?!

According to Carlsen, 34 .. . .l:!.b7 would have demanded cleverer play by White. But he can apparently still win, by allowing Black to queen, after the forced continuation 35 �f3 b4 36 �e4

202

as 37 �ds a4 38 �c6 b3 39 axb3 axb3 40 �xb7 b2 41 d7 b1�+ 42 �c7, and now 42 ... �c1+ 43 �d8 �xh6 44 .l:!.xf7 or 42 ... �c2+ 43 �d6! followed in both cases by �e7 ensures that White's d­pawn queens . 35 �f3 b4

If 3 S ... .l:!.xd6 36 .l:!.xf7, White follows up with �e4, as in the game. 36 �e4 .l:!.xd6

Or if 36 ... as 37 �ds a4 38 .l:!.g4, halt­ing Black's queenside pawns and win­ning. 3 7 .l:!.xf7 .l:!.a6 38 g4!

Black has put up the most stubborn defence possible, but now White's pawns effect the decisive break­through. Black's poorly placed king soon finds itself ensnared in a series of mating nets, such as after 38 ... .l:!.xa2 39 .l:!.xf6 b3 40 gS b2 41 .l:!.f8+ �h7 42 .l:!.b8, threatening .l:!.b7+, followed by g6. 38 ... �g8 39 h7+ �h8 40 gS!

This is a delightful finish. 40 ... fxgs 41 f6! 1-o

Black cannot defend against White's threatened �fS-g6, followed by

.Uf8 mate, except by scurrying back with his rook to complete and com­pletely hopeless passivity after 41 .. . .Ub6 42 WfS as 43 Wg6 .Ub8 44 .Ua7 -breathtaking !

In early 2008, things moved fast for Carlsen. From 13th in the world at the start of the year, he moved up to sth (rated 2765), by April . This jump came as a result of two consecutive elite tournament successes. Carlsen first tied for 1st with Aronian, at Wijk aan Zee (a 2830 performance), and then followed this up with a strong 2nd place, behind Anand, at More­lia/Linares (a 2808 performance). The year continued in much the same vein. Carlsen, as usual , played in very many events, only this time they included no real failures and two further 2800+ performances, at Baku and in the Aerosvit tournament, at Foros. In purely rating terms, Carlsen's win at Foros was his best ever result (a 2881 performance).

With results like these and a solid place in the top half of the world top ten, there could now be no remaining doubts about the young man's talent. At 17, the only remaining question was how much further he might go. Could Carlsen eventually hope to establish himself clearly as world number one?

Even the perennially protective and cautious Carlsen "camp" was beginning to think the unthinkable. While at Wijk aan Zee in 2007, Carlsen had dwelt on

Magnus Carlsen (1 990-)

reasons for his various unforced errors, a year later, his increased confidence was patent. In an interview with New in Chess, Carlsen even felt able to say, "Fischer was very good at making his wins look simple, by playing ostensibly normal moves. I think I can sometimes do that too." The Fischer comparison is not inappropriate. After all, along with Carlsen, he is one of the five great classi­cal players I have chosen to represent in this book. At their best, all of these play­ers play fearlessly, subtly, artistically, fundamentally soundly and with con­siderable power. Not hidebound by tra­dition, they are able to rely on their own resources when need be and create their own trends.

The average chess fan often fall s into the trap of assuming that top players not only know just about every­thing, but that they remember it all too. In reality, even top players often get caught out or simply forget things. This happened to Carlsen, against Kramnik, in Game 33 . Caught out in the opening, his normally very clear memory bank turned into horrible soup.

The mark of a good player in such situations is that he or she can retrench and still put up a battle. It takes grit, determination, sound moves and original plans to do this. Do this suc­cessfully and even world champions can become upset. After losing the

· early opening thread, Carlsen compli­cates against Kramnik, stays lively and

2 03

Ch ess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

does all the simple things well . Unable to find any chink in his opponent's ar­mour, Kramnik gets snatchy and falls . ·

Game 33 "�Kramnik..:M.Carlsen

Wijk aan Zee 2008 English Opening

1 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 2 C4 e6 3 lt:Jc3 cs 4 g3 b6 5 .ig2 �b7 6 0-0 .ie7 7 d4 cxd4 8 Vi'xd4 d6 g l:td1 a6

Carlsen sets up the typically spiky row of pawns along his third rank that characterizes Hedgehog defences, and invites White to come at him. White now chooses an old line that seeks to exchange the light-square bishops and (ideally) a knight, rather than one of the more full-blooded and critical lines based on systems involving an early e4. In this way, White hopes to reduce Black's counterattacking potential and ability to defend his d-, b- and c-pawns and the weakened square, c6. 10 tt:Jgs i.xg2 11 'lt>xg2 lt:Jc6 12 �f4 o-o

2 04

Many of the key games in this line go back to the 1970s and 80s, before Carlsen was born, and it has hardly been fashionable since then. Indeed, after the game, Carlsen candidly con­fessed that he couldn't remember any of the line's detailed theory, so he was already to a degree theoretically on his own.

Fortunately, as this is an essentially positional line and perhaps not the most critical test of the Hedgehog, Black can afford to play without too much precise preparation. But, of course, to be able to do this success­fully, the defender must understand the ideas behind the variations. In this regard, Carlsen proves himself to be well prepared and he manages to think his way through the problems superbly well over the board. 13 li:Jce4

There are no quick kills . White can bring a lot of early pressure to bear on d6, but Black can defend the pawn, while continuing with normal devel­opment. Black has dependable replies against other moves too, for example:

a) T.Nyback-A.Beliavsky, German League 2004, continued 13 b3 Vi'b8, with plenty of play for both sides, after 14 lt:Jge4 ktd8 15 �a3 lt:Je8, as in 16 lt:Jg5 .txg5 17 Vi'xg5 b5 ! .

b) l . lvanov-S.Shipov, Guelph 2005, saw 13 lt:Jf3 ii'c7 14 b3 l:tfd8 15 i.b2 Vi'b7 16 lt:Je4 lt:Jxe4 17 Vi'xe4 b5 ! , and Black had no cause to be concerned with his chances.

c) H .Hoeksema-M.Marin, Dutch League 2007, developed in Black's fa­vour, after 13 tt:lge4 tt:le8 14 b3 .l:i.a7 15 .ib2 f5 ! 16 tt:ld2 �g5 17 �f3 tt:le5 18 �5 i..f6 19 �3?! g 5 ! 20 �g1 g4 21 �g2 h5 22 .l:i.ab1 h4 23 e3 .l:i.h7 24 tt:le2 tt:lf7 25 .ixf6 �xf6 26 tt:lf4 tt:lg5, with good play. 13 ... tt:le8!

It is possible to exchange knights on e4, but the text-move is thematic and stronger. The Black knight's retreat se­curely protects d6 and, with ... .l:i.a7 to follow, and perhaps ... �a8, raises the prospect of obtaining good counter­attacking prospects, with three minor pieces on the board, based on a .. . b5 break.

White must now attend to the plight of his awkwardly-placed knights, particularly the knight on g5 , which is now essentially striking at thin air. Both knights may be pushed back, by ... h6 and possibly .. .f5. It is, however, important to note that the latter ad­vance cannot be undertaken by Black unless he can thereby sustain a signifi-

M ag n us Carlsen (1 990-)

cant initiative or it may simply result in grave weakness. 14 b3 .l:i.a7 15 i..b2 .l:i.d7

An older game in this line, A.Wojtkiewicz-L.Ftacnik, Budapest 1993, continued 15 ... b5 16 tt:lf3 �a8 17 .l:i.ac1 h6 18 tt:Jed2 .l:i.d7 19 �g1 �7 20 �e4 bxc4 21 �xc4 .l:i.c7 22 �d3 d5 23 �1 tt:lf6, with unbalanced play and rough equality. 16 .l:i.ac1

16 ... tt:lc7!? An even older game, P.Van der 5ter­

ren-5.Kindermann, Munich 1988, had also successfully employed the stan­dard plan used by Ftacnik in the previ­ous note, and gone 16 .. .'i!Va8 17 �g1 b5 18 tt:lf3 bxc4 19 .l:i.xc4 d5 20 tt:lc5 .l:i.d8 21 .l:i.cc1 tt:lf6, with chances for both sides.

Carlsen, having forgotten the the­ory, comes up with an original plan. It is more ambitious than seeking queen­side counterplay, based on ... �a8 and .. . b5 ideas. Having played the text­move, Black more or less has to follow -through with a double-edged pawn rush on the kingside.

205

Ch ess Secrets: Heroes of Class ical Ch ess

Carlsen's (declared) thought proc­esses were revealing. In notes to the game in New in Chess Magazine, he wrote that he rejected 16 .. .'�a8, with ... bs in mind, because he "wasn't sure whether .. . bxc4, bxc4 would really im­prove (his) position." But, having been caught out in the opening, perhaps, deep down, his decision to play the text-move was less grounded in a purely technical assessment than in some more basic instinct to seek out a struggle, in which both players had to fight on a level-playing field. 17 4Jf3 fs

Whatever may or may not have been going at a subconscious level, Carlsen had by now come to the prag­matic and undoubtedly correct conclu­sion that "going for ... fs and ... g s was just following the demands of the posi­tion." 18 ct:Jc3 gs 19 1i"d2

Kramnik draws back from what ap­pears to be a risky pawn grab. After 19 1i"e3 g4 20 ct:Jd2 .igs 21 't!Uxb6, Carlsen had intended 21...'�a8 22 f3 ct:Jes (or

2 0 6

perhaps 2 2 ... .J:i.b8 23 1i"f2 ct:Jes), with good compensation. 19 ... g4 20 ct:Je1

Neither player liked the look of 20 4Jd4?! .igs 21 e3 ct:Jes, which leaves White's knight strangely inert on d4, tied to the defence of f3 and blocking any obvious prospects of queenside play or play on the d-file. 2o ... .igs 21 e3 .l:!.ff7

Black plays very precisely. With his previous move, he forced a significant weakening of White's kingside and central light squares. The text-move connects Black's rooks and prepares to switch his knight on c7 back to f6, planning to occupy e4. 22 �g1 ct:Jes 23 ct:Je2 4Jf6 24 ct:Jf4 �es 25 �c3 .l:!.g7

Black could have played his knight to e4 on the previous move. But White can hardly stop it reaching that square anyway, except perhaps by exchanging his strong bishop for it on f6, which seems a rather doubtful transaction.

At this stage, Carlsen considered very level-headedly that the position was "equal or maybe slightly better for White." White has limited room to ma­noeuvre and significant light-square vulnerabilities, but Kramnik still wished to push a little and spots one possibility on the queenside. 26 b4 ct:Je4 27 �b3 llge7 28 �a4?!

Unfortunately, Kramnik miscalcu­lates, fatally seduced by the chance of a dubious pawn grab. The only move that might get somewhere was Nigel

Short's later suggestion 28 h4, and if 28 ... gxh3 29 tt:Jxh3 i.f6 30 i.xf6 tt:Jxf6 31 ctJf4 tLle4 32 tLlf3. White relieves some of the pressure on his light squares in this line, but it is still hard for him to make real progress. Here Black might also consider 28 ... i..f6.

28 ... tt:Jes 29 'ifxa6? White had to retreat, having lost

two tempi, by playing 29 'ifh3, leading to a position that Carlsen now assesses as slightly in Black's favour. Black is also much better after 29 cs? tt:Jc4!. 29 . . J�a7

Magn us Carlsen (1 990-)

Kramnik that after 30 'irxb6? l:.eb7 31 'ifd4 i.f6 Black threatens both . . . ctJf3+ and ... ctJd7, winning material. Kramnik offered a draw, which Carlsen declined, as he can now enter a clearly advanta­geous endgame. 30 ... 'ifxbs 31 cxbs l:.xa2 32 l:.c8+ r:Ji;f7 33 tt:Jfd3

White is in serious difficulties. His king is pinned down on the kingside, his b-pawns are weak and his pieces are hopelessly uncoordinated. Black has a vicious grip on the kingside light squares and potentially game-winning pressure on the seventh rank.

White's problems persist after 33 i.xes dxes 34 tt:Jfd3 i.f6, threatening . . . tt:Jgs, followed by ... e4. White instead seeks to exchange a pair of knights on es, but this also fails to enliven his chances. 33 ... i.f6 34 tt:JxeS+ dxes 35 l:.c2 l:.ea7 36 r:Ji;g2 tt:Jgs 37 l:.d6 e4 38 i..xf6 r:Ji;xf6 39 r:Ji;f1

White's chronically poor king posi-30 'ifbs tion proves to be the decisive weak-

Only now did it become clear to ness. There may have been slight im-

2 0 7

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Class ica l Chess

provements here and there for White over the last few moves, but it is hard to believe that any should save him: White's king simply can't find any es­cape from Black's angrily swarming pieces and can obtain no real counter­play. White loses at once, for example, after 39 l:.xb6 l:.a1, followed by . ..lbf3. 39 ... l:.a1 40 �e2

After this move, White can no longer defend against Black's threat to double his rooks on the eighth rank, without losing both his b-pawns. But after 40 l:.cd2 l:.b1 41 l:.dl l:.xb4, and if 42 l:.xb6 l:.b2, Black decisively doubles rooks on the seventh rank.

40 ... l:.b1 41 l:.d1 l:.xb4 42 lt:Jg2 l:.xbs 43 'bf4 l:.cs 44 l:.b2 bs 45 �fl l:.ac7 46 l:.bb1

All Black needs to do is shepherd his b-pawn towards the queening square. Eventually White will have to take it, losing control of either or both of his first and second ranks, with resultant mating threats.

White's rooks cannot expect to pose any real threat to Black's b-pawn, as,

2 08

for example, after 46 �g2 l:.c1 47 l:.xcl l:.xcl 48 l:.xbs 'bf3 49 lt:Je2 l:.e1 so l:.b2 �gs, followed by ... es and the advance of Black's h-pawn - Carlsen. 46 ... l:.b7 47 l:.b4 l:.c4 48 l:.b2 b4 49 l:.db1 CtJf3 so �g2 l:.d7 51 h3

Or if 51 l:.xb4 l:.xb4 52 l:.xb4 l:.d1 53 'be2 CtJe1+ 54 �f1 'bd3+, and wins. 51 ... es 52 lt:Je2 l:.d2 53 hxg4 fxg4 54 l:.xd2 lt:Jxd2 55 l:.b2 'bf3 56 �f1 b3 57 �g2 l:.c2 0-1

According to Jan Timman, writing late in 2008, in New in Chess, "Carlsen is a strikingly all-round player [who] plays many different types of games and seems to feel at home in all of them." That seems to me to sum up the uni­versality of Carl sen's classically direct style of play quite clearly. Carlsen is an extraordinarily difficult opponent to face, who, even if you catch him out, as in Game 33, is likely to find ways to battle through all sorts of complica­tions.

In part, this universality must be due to the fact that Carlsen is a child of

the computer age. He has absorbed a depth and breadth of chess informa­tion that older players couldn't hope to match without the aid, in their youth, of today's silicon friends. Timman puts it this way, "he belongs to a different generation ... he has grown up with the computer, which means that he can operate efficiently under all kinds of conditions and is not hampered by [old] prejudices." I maintain, however, only "in part", because there remain great players, such as Anand, who have managed to overcome their historical disadvantage, by themselves fully em­bracing the new computer age in mid­career. As Anand asserts, computers have not spelt the end for creativity in chess. Computers aside, outstandingly gifted players like Carlsen and Anand still simply play the game in ways that make them "different".

On matters of style, Timman goes on to say about Carlsen, " I think he is at his best in technical positions." I would readily agree that this view points to an important truth about Carlsen. I am sure that Timman is here referring to that "rare, supreme technique" identi­fied by Bronstein and applicable, in their best games, to all five of our great classical heroes.

Carlsen's technique scales great heights in Game 34, his first-ever win against Anand at normal time rates. He creates a slight structural weakness in Anand's position, early on in the game, and worries away constantly at it, into

Magnus Carlsen (1 990-)

a lengthy, extremely tight endgame. On the whole, Anand's defensive tech­nique is also impressive and he misses a chance or two to save the game. This heavyweight technical battle, which eventually goes Carlsen's way, is no triumph of a merely mechanical na­ture, but one of deep insight, superb tactics, total commitment and un­abashed passion.

Game 34 M.Carlsen .. V.Anand

. Linares 2009 Semi-Sia�t Defence .

1 d4 ds 2 c4 c6 3 lt:Jc3 lt:Jf6 4 e3 e6 s lt:Jf3 lt:Jbd7 6 'i/Uc2 i..d6 7 g4

This sharp gambit is a good alterna­tive to entering the main lines of the 6 'i/Uc2 Anti-Meran. White makes a bold bid to gain space before Black has time to strike out boldly on his own, either on the queenside, in Meran style, with

· ... dxc4 followed by ... bs, or in the cen­tre, based on getting in ... es.

2 09

Ch ess Secrets : Heroes of Class ical Chess

Accepting the pawn is clearly criti­cal, but Black also has a range of rea­sonable ways to decline the gambit: These include the sensible reply 7 ... h6, as in A.Morozevich-B.Gelfand, Russian Team Championship 2008, which con­tinued 8 h3 dxc4 9 e4 (or 9 .itxc4 bs 10 .ite2 .itb7 11 e4) 9 ... es 10 .itxc4 exd4 11 lZ'lxd4 lZ'les 12 .ite2 lZ'lg6 13 ..te3 ..tf4 14 ..txf4 lZ'lxf4 15 o-o-o l!Vas 16 'i;�Vd2 gs 17 h4 ..txg4 18 .itxg4 lZ'lxg4 19 lZ'lxc6 bxc6 20 l!Vd7+ Wf8 21 l\Vxg4, with double­edged play. 7 ... lZ'lxg4 8 l::i:g1 l!Vf6

Most defenders tend not to try to hold on to the extra pawn, rather than risk falling behind in development, as in A.Dreev-J.Geller, Sochi 2004, which continued 8 ... lZ'lxh2 9 lZ'lxh2 .itxh2 10 l::i:xg7 l!Vf6 11 l::i:g2 ! ? .itd6 12 .itd2 b6 13 e4 .itf4 14 cxds exdS 15 exds .itxd2+ 16 l\Vxd2 ..tb7 17 o-o-o cxds 18 l::i:e1+ Wd8 19 l::i:g s l::i:c8 20 .ith3, with good play for White. 9 l::i:xg4 l!Vxf3 10 l::i:xg7 lZ'lf6 11 h3 'Y;IVfs!?

Previously L.Aronian-A.Morozevich, Linares 2007, had gone 11 ... h6 (White

2 1 0

can perhaps retain a slight pull after 11 .. . dxc4, by playing 12 ..td2) 12 ..td2 es 13 l::i:g3 l!Vhs 14 cxds exd4 15 lZ'le4 lZ'lxe4 16 l\Vxe4+ liVes 17 l\Vxes+ .itxes 1� l::i:f3 cxds 19 .itbs+ We7 20 exd4 ..td6 21 c.t>f1 ..te6 22 l::i:e1 l::i:ac8 23 .itd3 l::i:c6 24 l::i:fs l::i:b6 25 b3 .itb4 26 .itxb4+ l::i:xb4 27 l::i:xds Wf6 28 l::i:d6 We7 29 l::i:ds Wf6 v2-v2 .

Anand doesn't wait for a Carlsen improvement, playing his own first. But allowing his central pawns to be broken entails some risk. Black hopes that his solid centre proves to be com­pletely impregnable in the ensuing endgame. 12 l\Vxfs exfs 13 cxds cxds 14 lZ'lbs .itb4+ 15 .itd2 i.xd2+ 16 Wxd2 We7 17 i.d3 ..te6 18 lZ'lc7

But this clever tactic keeps a tiny edge for White. With his rook still on g7, White can exchange this knight for Black's bishop, without allowing Black to straighten out his pawns by recap­turing with his f-pawn on e6. Black's broken d- and f-pawns then remain fixed on light squares, all potential tar­gets for White's excellent bishop, which is therefore a little stronger than Black's purely defensively-placed knight. Black's game may not be lost, but White has something. 18 ... l::i:ag8 19 lZ'lxe6 Wxe6 20 l::i:xg8 lZ'lxg8

Carlsen was more afraid of 20 ... l::i:xg8, and if 21 l::i:c1 l::i:g2 22 We2 l::i:h2, with sufficient play against White's h- and f-pawns to hold the bal-

ance. Instead, as in the game, White should probably prefer 21 �e2, and if 21 ... �c8 22 �f3 �C7 23 a4, or if 21 ... 'Lle4!? 22 �c1, or 21 ... �g2? ! 22 �f3.

21 �e2 'Lle7 22 �f3! Black's position remains a little un­

comfortable. He can only passively wait to see how far White can increase the pressure on his game. From f3, White's king raises the possibility of an even­tual �f4, attacking Black's f-pawn. 22 ... �c8

23 a4! Now White's a-pawn heads for as,

gaining queenside ground. It is useful to constrain Black's a- and b-pawns,

Magnus Carlsen (1 990-)

leaving Black's pawn on b7 a possible, long-term target and denying Black's rook access to b6 and possible play against White's b-pawn. 23 ... �c7 24 as h6 25 h4!

White's h-pawn speeds to hs . From there, it will deny Black's knight access to g6, making it easier for White to play his king to f4 without problem. It also means that if White were later to cap­ture Black's pawn on h6, White's result­ing passed h-pawn would be far ad­vanced and potentially threatening. 25 ... �f6 26 hS

White has made definite progress and threatens �f4. Black can't respond to this by playing 26 ... �g5 27 �g1+ �xhs??, as this walks into the comical mating net 28 �f4 'Llg6+ 29 �xfs 'Llh4+ 30 �f4 'Llg6+ 31 �xg6+ fxg6 32 �h1 mate.

Anand decides that his best chance now lies in playing his knight from e7 to d6. 26 . . . CL'lc8 2 7 �f4 'Lld6

Black must go through with his plan. After 27 .. . 'Lle7?! 28 f3, White's

2 1 1

Ch ess Secrets : Heroes of Classical Chess

position improves, with dangerous e4 breaks in the air that will free White's d-pawn and open Black's king to at· tack. Play might, for example, continue 28 .. J:tc8 29 .l:.fl .l:.c7 30 e4 fxe4 31 fxe4 dxe4 32 �xe4+ �e6 33 .ltb1 ! f5+ 34 �d3 tt::ld5 - 3 5 .ia2 .l:.d7 36 J:.g1!, and if 36 ... 'it>d6 37 .l:.g6+ �c7 38 i.xd5 .l:.xd5 39 .l:.xh6 .l:.xa5 40 .l:.f6, with a winning rook and pawn endgame.

28 .l:.g1 .l:.c8 29 f3 �e6?! With his knight on d6, Black has

more problems defending against pos­sible penetrations by White's rook on the g-file. But with the text-move, Black allows White's rook access to g7 with­out a fight at all.

Carlsen suggested that 29 ... a6 might have been better, continuing the battle to prevent White's rook from reaching either g7 or g8 (with Black's h­pawn in serious danger). White might then still be able to press after 30 .l:ta1 .l:.C7 31 .l:.a4, and if 31 ... .l:.c1 32 .l:.b4 .l:.h1 33 .l:.b6 �e7 34 �e5, when 34 .. .f4 seems to fail to 35 exf4 .l:.xh5+ 36 f5 f6+ 37 �xds tt::lxfs 38 .l:.xb7+ �d8 39 i..xa6.

2 1 2

Note, however, that 3 1 .l:.d1 .l:i.c6! 32 .l:i.g1 .l:i.c8 !, only repeats the position af­ter 29 ... a6.

If instead 29 . . . tt::lc4?! , White can play 30 .ltxf5, followed by e4-e5+, with dan­gerous attacking threats. 30 .l:.g7 .l:.h8 31 .1tc2

With Black's rook temporarily forced to adopt a temporarily defensive role on h8, White's bishop now switches to b3. This pins Black's d-pawn awk­wardly, raising the prospect of an even­tual e4. 31 .•• .l:.c8 32 i..b3 .l:.h8 33 .l:.g1 .l:.c8 34 .l:.g7 .l:.h8 35 .l:.g2 .i:i.c8 36 .l:.g1 tt::le8!

White's last two moves have put Black in zugzwang. Black can no longer prevent e4 and this is the only move that keeps him in the game, other than 36 . . . a6, which leads to essentially the same situation after 37 .l:.g7 .l:.h8 38 .l:.g2 .l:.c8 39 .l:.g1. Much worse for Black would be 36 ... .l:.h8? ! 37 .l:.c1 .l:.c8 38 .l:.c5 ! , and if 38 .. . .l:.xc5 39 dxc5, followed by e4.

White must now avoid the trap 37 .l:.g8?? tt::lf6 38 .l:.xc8 tt::lxh5 mate, but

with his actual reply, White ensures that he keeps the advantage. 37 e4 fxe4 38 fxe4 'Llf6 39 es

39 ... 'Lle4 Black can't allow 39 .. . 'Llxh5+? 40

We3, threatening 41 ..ltd1, as well as the strong secondary threat �h1. 40 We3 b6 41 axb6 axb6 42 Wd3 !

Winning is still far from easy. This move begins a clever triangulation to lose a move. White would like to play 42 �g4, threatening �xe4, and if 42 ... 'Llgs 43 �f4, followed by �f6+, but 42 ... �c1! defends. Now Black's knight must move, or if Black's rook moves, White's rook either seizes the c-file or reaches g8. 42 ... 'Llf2+ 43 We2 'Lle4 44 We3 f6

Fast running out of good defensive moves, Black makes another good prac­tical decision, gambiting one of his pawns for counterplay. Black might also have tried 44 .. . 'Llgs, and if 45 l:!.a1 f6, although post mortem analysis in­dicated that White probably still has winning chances after 46 exf6 'Lle4 47 �a6 'Llxf6 48 �xb6+ WfS 49 .ltd1. In this

M ag n us Carlsen (1 990-)

line, much worse for Black is 4S .. . 'Lle4?! 46 l:!.a6 .:i.b8 47 l:!.a7 'Llg3 48 i..d1, with a clear advantage. 45 �g6 �c1 46 �xh6?!

Both sides begin to show signs of fa­tigue around here and commit some inaccuracies. According to Carlsen, White should have played 46 exf6!, and if 46 ... �e1+ 47 Wd3 'Llxf6 48 ..ltxdS+ WfS 49 ii.f3, or if 48 ... Wxds 49 l:!.xf6 �d1+ 50 Wc3 l:!.xd4 51 �xb6, retaining winning chances. 46 ... l::i.h1 47 i..c2 �h3+?

As a result of White's error, Black might now have saved the game, by playing 47 . . . l:!.e1+. Carlsen had then intended 48 Wf3, but overlooked 48 ... l:!.f1+ 49 Wg4 �g1+, or 49 We2 .Uf2+ so Wd1 �f1+ and White's king can't escape a draw by perpetual check, 48 Wf4 l:!.h4+ 49 Wf3 'Lld2+ so We2?

White again puts the win in jeop­ardy. Carlsen should have played so Wg3 ! , and if so ... �xd4 51 �xf6+ Wxes 52 l:!.fs+ We6 53 h6 �c4 54 Ji.d3 l:!.d4 ss h7 l:!.xd3+ 56 Wg4, or i f 54 .. . �c8 55 h7 �h8 56 �gS 'Lle4+ 57 .ltxe4 dxe4 58

2 1 3

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Class ical Ch ess

.l:!.h5, in both cases winning. 50 ... .l:!.h2+ 51 �d1 tLlc4 52 .l:!.xf6+ �e7 53 .tg6 .l:!.d2+ 54 �c1 .l:!.xd4 55 b3 lLlxes 56 .l:!.xb6 .l:!.h4 57 .tf5 iLlf3?

Anand makes the final, game-losing mistake. Black might still have salvaged the half-point, by resolutely playing 57 ... .l:!.h1+!, and if 58 �b2?! tLlc4+! 59 bxc4 .l:!.xh5, reaching a theoretically drawn rook versus rook and bishop endgame. Black can also fight after 58 �c2 tLlf3 (Carlsen). 58 h6 tLld4 59 h7!

Perhaps Anand simply missed this move. Now he must lose an exchange, reaching a theoretically lost rook and pawn versus knight and pawn end­game. 59 • . • iLlxf5 6o .l:!.bs ttJd4

Or if 60 ... .l:!.xh7 61 .l:!.b7+ �d6 62 .l:!.xh7. 61 �b2 �d6 62 hS'i¥ .l:!.xh8 63 .l:!.xh8

Black's forces are unusually well placed, so that White still has some careful technical work to do. However, the win is not really in doubt in the long term. White must eventually sue-

2 1 4

ceed in separating Black's pieces from his pawn and winning it, while safe­guarding his own pawn.

63 ... �c5 64 .l:!.h5 lLlc6 65 .l:!.h4 iLlb4 66 �a3 d4 67 .l:!.h5+ tLld5 68 �b2 �c6 69 �a3 �c5 10 .l:!.h4

White's main problem is how best to get his pawn into play and his king back into the centre to link up with his rook in a final attack on Black's d­pawn. It is still possible for White to go wrong, as, for example, after the rash 70 b4+? �c4 71 b5 d3 72 �b2 d2 73 �c2 tLlc3 74 �xd2 ttJxb5, with a theo­retically drawn game. 70 ..• tLlb4 71 .l:!.h8 ttJc6

Now White is able to force Black's king to retreat, push his own pawn one square and rush his king towards Black's pawn, with a relatively easy win. 72 .l:.hS+ 'it>d6 73 b4 d3 74 .l:.h3 ttJes 75 '>t>b3 d2

Or if 7S . . . 'it>ds 76 'it>c3 'it>e4 77 .l:.h4+ 'it>e3 78 .l:.d4, and wins. 76 'it>c2 tiJc6 77 .l:.h4 'it>ds 1-0

In November 2009, after another good year, Carlsen achieved a 2800+ rating for the first time and second place in the world rankings. Topalov was placed top (with a 2810 rating), but Carlsen (on 2801) was only 9 rating points behind Topalov. Third to fifth places were taken respectively by An­and (2788}, Aronian (2786} and Kram­nik (2772). This jump from world num­ber four, at the start of 2009, was in large part due to Carlsen's 1st place at the Nanjing Pearl Spring Tournament, in the autumn. Carlsen won, at Nan­jing, by an extraordinary 21/2 point margin over second-placed Topalov, achieving an unusually high 3002 per­formance rating. Earlier in the year, he and Topalov had tied for 1st in the MTel Masters, in Sofia. These two clearly have issues at hand.

According to Kasparov, interviewed mid-year by the Norwegian newspaper VG, Carlsen now clearly had it in him to become world number one. Kasparov had just announced that he had signed a one year training contract with Carl-

M ag n us Carlsen (1 990-)

sen, and said, "With so many victories coming relatively easily to his immense talent and fighting spirit, the final cru­cial ingredient of relentless work will guarantee his place in history."

There is therefore no mistaking the ambition. Kasparov vies only with Fischer in staking a claim to have been the world's greatest-ever chess-player and has seen virtually everything. Espen Agdestein, Simen's brother, who is helping to put the training contract in place and drum up sponsors, stressed that Kasparov "is training just one person in the world, and it is Carl­sen, because he believes Carlsen is the player with the most talent."

Well, look out Topalov, Anand, Aro­nian, Kramnik & co. That's an awfully big one! Interesting years would seem to be ahead in the chess world. It won't be easy for Carlsen, or indeed anyone to grab and hold on to the world num­ber one spot for any length of time. Any bets either for or against Carlsen?

Carlsen's all-round classical style seems to be a good one against Topa­lov. At any rate, he has beaten the Bul­garian on several occasions, with White, in the last few years, including once each in 2009 at Sofia and Nanjing. Topalov is possibly the world's greatest attacking player, but universal players, like Carlsen, can often cope well with aggression. They frequently play as well in defence as in attack and pack dangerous counter-attacking potential.

Perhaps in deference to Topalov's

2 1 5

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classica l Chess

great attacking flair, Carlsen avoids the .ixc4 g6 10 0-0 .ig7 11 e4 sharpest lines of the Semi-Slav in Game 3 S, preferring instead to follow a qui­eter positional course. Topalov initially reacts well, but seems unable to tame his attacking instincts sufficiently to maximise safety. He rather mistimes his central break for equality, ceding Carlsen too much space and manoeu­vring potential for his pieces.

In this game, Topalov blinks first and Carlsen mercilessly strikes when he obtains an advantage. But Carlsen and Kasparov can be certain that Topalov will be working hard on repairing his own game in a bid to preserve his own place in the future world order.

Game 3S M:.Cartsen·V�Topalov

sofia 2009: Semi•Siav Dfifence

1 d4 ds 2 c4 c6 3 'Llf3 'Llf6 4 'Llc3 e6 5 .tgs h6

Black usually chooses this 5th move if he wishes to play the fashionable modern variation 6 .ih4 dxc4 7 e4 g5 8 .ig3 b5. He must, however, also be prepared to meet the Moscow Varia­tion, after an exchange on f6, as in this game.

If Black wishes to play the older, ul­tra-sharp lines of the Botvinnik Varia­tion, he can reach these directly, by playing 5 ... dxc4, and if 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6. 6 .ixf6 'i'xf6 7 e3 lbd7 8 i.d3 dxc4 9

2 1 6

This is an important main-line posi­tion. White has a little more space; Black has a solid game and a long-term asset in the bishop-pair. If permitted, White will play e5, aiming to restrict Black further and exert some dark-square pressure. Black can now either block this advance, by playing 11 ... e5, or, as he plays in the game, he can con­tinue with his development and allow it.

Complex endgames can arise after 11 . . . e5 12 d5 'Llb6 13 .ib3 .ig4 14 l:.c1 0-0 15 h3 i..xf3 16 'i'xf3 'i'xf3 17 gxf3 . M.Carlsen-S.Karjakin, Nice (blindfold) 2009, had earlier continued 17 .. . l:.fd8 18 l:.fd1 i..f6 19 dxc6 bxc6 20 l:.xd8+ l:.xd8 21 'bd1 l:.d6 22 l:.c5 'it>f8 23 'it>fl h 5 24 'Lle3 'it>e7 2 5 'it>e2 .il.g7 26 'Llc2 i.h6 27 l:.a5 l:.d7 28 l:.xe5+ 'it>d6 29 l:.a5 SLg7 30 f4 i.xb2 31 e5+ 'it>e7 32 'Llb4, with some advantage. Earlier still, A.Graf-G.Spiess, Leipzig 2007, saw a slightly different approach for White. That game varied 13 dxc6 bxc6 14 i..e2 o-o 15 'Lla4 .ig4 16 'Llc5 l:.fd8 17 'iVc2

i.xf3 18 i.xf3 �d4 19 ctJb3 �d6 20 a4 �ad8 21 aS ctJd7 22 �a4 h S 23 �c4 tt:Jf8 24 �d1 �xd1+ 25 i.xd1 i¥d6 26 .te2 �c8 27 tt:Jcs tt:le6 28 tt:Jxe6 i¥xe6 29 b4, with a pull for White. 11 ... 0-o 12 es i¥e7 13 i¥e2 bs

Topalov typically chooses an ambi­tious and lively plan. Black can also prepare the queenside ground for a potentially . successful .. . cs break in more restrained fashion, based on .. . b6 ideas. It is, of course, important that Black develops his queenside pieces effectively before playing ... cs, other­wise White's better developed forces are likely to dominate.

Black's early play was successful in N .Pert-A.Dreev, Gibraltar 2005, which continued 13 ... b6 14 �fe1 a6 15 .td3 .ltb7 16 .te4 �fd8 17 �ac1 bs 18 h4 �ab8 19 i¥e3 �dc8 20 tt:le2 cs 21 .txb7 �xb7 22 tt:lf4 c4 23 dS exds 24 tt:Jxds i¥e6 25 �cd1 �e8 26 i¥f4 iYfs, when White's pawn on es presented a target and Black's 3-2 queenside pawn major­ity offered good long-term endgame prospects.

Magn us Carlsen (1 990-)

Black also had no cause for concern, in I .Naumkin-N.Vitiugov, Cappelle la Grande 2008, after 13 ... �b8 14 a4 b6 15 �fe1 i.b7 16 �ad1 �fd8 17 h4 i¥h4 18 h S g S 19 ctJe4 bS 20 i.a2 bxa4 21 i.b1 i¥e7 22 i¥c2 cs, when White's control of the b1-h7 diagonal proved insuffi­cient to rattle Black.

However, the game J.Rowson­P.Schlosser, French League 2006, saw White win well after 13 ... a6 14 .td3 b6 15 h4 .tb7 16 .te4 �ab8 17 �ac1 bS 18 �fe1 �fc8 19 hs gs 20 tt:lh2 cs 21 .txb7 �xb7 22 tt:lg4 �bb8 23 ds exds 24 tt:Jxds i¥e6 2 5 �cd1 �d8 26 tt:lc7 i¥c6 27 tt:lxa6 i¥xa6 28 �d6 i¥xa2 29 �ed1 c4 30 e6 c3 31 �xd7 �e8 32 exf7+ i¥xf7 33 �xf7 �xe2 34 �dd7 1-0. 14 .ltd 3

14 ... i.b7 Topalov avoids the premature

14 . . . b4?! 15 tt:la4 cs, which led to a diffi­cult game for Black in A.Graf­M.Kraemer, German League 2006, after 16 �ac1 cxd4 17 i¥e4 �b8 18 �c7 i¥d8 19 �fc1 tt:lb6 20 tt:Jxb6 axb6 21 �a7 iYds 22 �ce7 i¥xe4 23 .ltxe4 .th8 24 g3

2 1 7

Ch ess Secrets : Heroes of Class ical Chess

b5 25 lt:Jxd4! .i.xe5 26 lt:Jc6 .i.xc7 27 .l:i.xc7 .l:i.b6 28 lbe7+ Wg7 29 lt:Jxc8 .l:i.a6 30 b3 .l:i.xa2 31 lbd6 .l:i.b2 32 .i.c2, anti White won. 15 .i.e4 .l:i.fd8?!

Carlsen didn't like this move, con­sidering that Black's rook really be­longed on c8. So perhaps Black might improve, by playing something like 15 .. . a6, and if 16 .l:i.ac1 .l:i.ab8 17 .l:i.fd1 (or 17 .l:i.fe1) 17 ... .l:i.fc8 18 h4 .ia8, saving a move on Black's eventual game-plan.

Black should probably, though, avoid 15 ... .l:i.ab8 16 .l:i.ac1 c5? ! 17 .i.xb7 .l:i.xb7 18 d5! , and if 18 ... exd5 19 lt:Jxd5 �e6 20 �e4, after which White stands well. Z.Gyimesi-N.Firman, Miskolc 2004, continued 20 ... .l:i.fb8 21 l:.fe1 g5 22 b3 g4 23 lbh4 .ixe5 24 lbf5 Wf8 2 5 lt:Jde7 h 5 26 lt:Jc6 .ib2 27 �xe6 fxe6 28 l:.c2 l:.a8 29 l:.xe6 .if6 30 lbd6 l:.b6 31 lt:Je4 .l:i.e8 32 .l:i.xe8+ Wxe8 33 lt:Jxa7 .id4 34 ll:Jxbs, and White won. 16 .l:i.ac1

Of course, not 16 lt:Jxb5? ! lt:Jxe5! ,

White plans h 5, weakening Black on the kingside light squares. This stan­dard idea usefully strengthens White's game, while he essentially waits for Black to take the plunge and play ... c5. Black's development still can't ade­quately support that freeing move and he would again be in trouble after the post mortem line 18 . . . c5? ! 19 .i.xb7 .l:i.xb7 20 �e4 .l:i.bb8 21 d5, and if 21 ... exd5 22 lbxd5 �e6 23 lbf4 �xa2 24 e6 lbf6 25 .l:i.xd8+ .l:i.xd8 26 �7 fxe6 27 lt:Je5 .l:i.f8 28 .l:i.e1, with a winning game. 18 •.. .i.a8

which is good for Black. 19 .l:i.c2?!

16 • . . .l:i.ab8 17 .l:i.fd1 a6 18 h4 White also needs some high-class

2 1 8

waiting moves, but it isn't easy to de­cide on the correct placement of his own rooks. After the game, Carlsen consid­ered that he should simply have contin­ued 19 h 5 g5 20 ltJh2, and if 20 ... c5 21 ii.xa8 .l:.xa8 22 ltJg4, with an edge.

It is arguably already a moot point whether White's king's rook is better placed on el or dl. On el, it offers more support to White's pawn on e5, which can become an object of attack. In the given position, however, it cer­tainly seems questionable whether doubling White's rooks on the c-file greatly benefits White. White's ma­noeuvre aims to prevent .. . c5, but Carl­sen may have missed Black's uncon­ventional and very clever 20th move, which strengthens Black's support for this critical pawn break. 19 . . . .l:.dc8 20 .l:.dc1 �f8!

This unexpected move gave Carlsen a bit of a jolt. White's rooks prevent the immediate 20 ... c5?, which leads to a nasty pin in the c-file, after 21 ii.xa8 .l:.xa8 22 ltJe4, and if 22 ... c4 23 b3 ltJb6 24 ctJd6, winning a pawn. But after the

M ag n us Ca rlsen (1 990-)

text-move, reinforcing support for ... c5, Carlsen was unsure what to do.

White's actual reply isn't best. It is, however, also too late for 21 h5? ! gS 22 ltJh2 c5! , with good play for Black. Per­haps 21 �e3 c5 was best, with chances for both sides. 21 a4?! cs?!

Apparently both players overlooked Black's best reply, 21 ... b4! 22 ltJb1 c5! , with an excellent game. After 23 itxa8 .llxa8 24 dxc5 .l:.xc5 25 ltJbd2 .l:.xc2 26 .l:.xc2 .l:.c8, Black may even be a little better, due to White's potentially weak e- and a-pawns. 22 axbs cxd4 23 ctJxd4 ii.xe4?

In the heat of battle, Topalov goes se­riously wrong. Despite his slip on the 21st move, he could still have secured rea­sonably good counter-attacking chances, by playing 23 ... axb5 24 ii.xa8 .l:.xa8, and if 25 f4 �d8, due to the open position of White's king and possible resources, such as ... ltJxe5 and ... g5 {Carlsen). Possibly T opalov missed or underestimated the danger involved in allowing White's knight on d4 to reach c6.

2 1 9

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

24 tt'lxe4 .l:ixc2 25 .l:ixc2 axbs Black can no longer prevent White's

reply and is struggling now. Whife wins material after 2S ... .txes 26 tt'lc6 .l:lxbs 27 .l:id2 'fia8 (or if 27 ... 'ib'e8 28 tt'lxes .l:ixes 29 tt'lf6+) 28 tt'le7+ �f8 29 .l:ixd7, and the simpler 26 .l:id2 may be even better (Carl sen) . 26 tt'lc6 .l:ib6 27 f4

White has a crushing grip. Black can't exchange White's powerful knight on c6, by playing 27 ... tt'lb8, because of the amusing refutation 28 tt'la7!, fol­lowed by .l:ic8. Black therefore tries to evict the knight from c6 by other means, but this only allows White to develop an overwhelming kingside attack.

27 ... 'ib'a8 28 tt'le7+ 'it>h7 29 hS! White has achieved a frightening

preponderance of force on the king side and this further softening up of the kingside light squares proves decisive. Black's relative lack of defenders means that his position is ripe for sacrifices. For example, after 29 ... 'ib'd8 30 hxg6+ fxg6 31 lt:ixg6! , and if 31 ... �xg6 32 'iid3 ! �f7 33 .l:id2 �e7 (or 33 . . . .l:ib7? 34

2 2 0

tt'ld6+) 3 4 tt'lc5, White wins material and remains with a powerful attack. 29 ... .l:la6 30 hxg6+ fxg6

31 .l:ic7! With the rook's arrival on the sev­

enth rank, White should win by force. After 31 ... 'fid8, White plays 32 'iid3!, and if 32 .. . 'fixe7 33 tt'lg5+ hxg5 (or 33 ... �h8 34 ctJf7+ �h7 3 5 'ib'xg6 mate) 34 'ib'xg6+ �h8 3 5 'iih5+ and mates.

Black also loses after 32 ... 1Vxe7 33 J:xd7 .l:ial+ (or i f 33 .. . 'iif8 34 tt'lf6+ �h8 3 5 'ib'xg6 and mates) 34 �f2 'iih4+ 35 �f3, which transposes back into the game continuation. 31 ... .l:la1+ 32 �f2?

But White now gives Black another chance. White should have played 32 'it>h2 ! and i f 32 ... iVd8 33 iVd3 ! iVxe7 34 lt:lf6+!, or i f 33 ... iVxc7 34 'Llg5+, as in the previous note.

Carlsen had apparently miscalcu­lated the line 32 ... lt:Jxe5, which in fact loses by force after 33 lt:lf6+ 1Lxf6 34 lt:Jd5+ 1Lg7 35 iVxe5 iVf8 36 l:i:.xg7+ 'i�Vxg7 37 lt:lf6+ 'it>h8 38 'iVh8+. 32 ... iVd8?

White is lucky. Instead 32 ... l:i:.a4 might still have caused some confu­sion. White retains much the better chances after the virtually forced reply 33 'Llc6, but there is no immediate win­ning line. Instead Black defends after 33 lt:lf6+? lt:Jxf6 34 exf6 l:i:.xf4+ 3 5 '>t>g3 l:i:.xf6. 33 'i�Vd3!

It's all straightforward again. We have already seen the mating con­tinuation after 33 ... iVxc7 34 lt:Jg5+! in the note to White's 31st move. Having Black's rook on a1 and White's king on f2 (rather than respectively on a6 and

M ag n us Carlsen (1 990-)

g1) makes no difference to the out­come of the game.

33 .•• iVxe7 34 l:i:.xd7 White can also win by playing 34

lt:lf6+. 34 ... iVh4+ 35 'it>f3 iVhS+

Or if 35 ... 'it>h8 36 l:i:.xg7 'it>xg7 37 lt:lf6 l:i:.a7 38 iVd8, and mates. 36 'it>g3 1-0

Black has run out of checks and can only parry White's threatened 37 lt:lf6+, by moving his king to the back rank and allowing 37 l:i:.xg7 'it>xg7 38 'i�Vd7+ 'it>f8 39 lt:lf6, either winning Black's queen or giving checkmate.

2 2 1

Figures refer to page numbers.

Alekhine's Defence 130 Bogo-lndian Defence 79 Caro-Kann Defence 153, 183 English Opening 75. 197, 204 Four Knights Opening 38 French Defence 27, 63, 147 Grunfeld Defence 53, 68, 98 Nimzo-lndian Defence 103 Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack 116 Queen's Gambit 1 7 Queen's Gambit Declined 45 Queen's Indian Defence 59 Ruy Lopez 109 Semi-Slav Defence 1 71, 209, 216

Semi-Tarrasch Defence 85 Slav Defence 178

Sicilian Defence 93, 123, 140, 159, 1 65, 187, 192 Tarrasch Defence 14, 21, 32

2 2 2

Index of Players

Figures refer to page numbers. Bold type indicates that a player had the black pieces.

Anand 140, 147, 153, 159, 165, 171, 1 78, 209

Aronian 197 Botvinnik 63, 68 Browne 79 Byrne 98 Capablanca 21 Carlsen 183, 187, 192, 197, 33, 204, 216

Cheparinov 187 Ernst 183 Euwe 53 Fischer 93, 98, 103, 109, 116, 123, 130

Karjakin 159 Kasparov 140 Keres 59 Kramnik 171, 204 Liberzon 75 Mecking 116 Miesis 17 Morozevich 165

2 2 3

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classica l Chess

Petrosian 1.23 Ponomariov 1.53 Portisch 103 Ribli 85 Rotlewi 14 Rubinstein 1.4, 1 7, 21, 27, 32, 38, 45 Schlechter 27 Shirov 147 Smeets 192

Smyslov 53, 59, 63, 68, 75, 79, 85 Spassky 130 Spielmann 38 Stein 1.09 Takacs 45 Tal 93 Tarrasch 32 Topalov 21.6 Wang Vue 1.78

2 2 4