P D !

i l T I D I\I A L

CHE!i!i

H A I\I D B D D K
495 lnstructive Positions

f o rand st G ·

l&rael lielfer
POSITIONAL C H E S S

HANDBOOK

495 lnstructive Positions

from Grandmaster Games

Israel Gelfer

Translated by

Raaphy Persitz

DOVER PUBLICATIONS, INC.

Mineola, New York

 Copyright

Copyright© 1991 by Israel Gelfer

Ali rights reserved.

Bibliographical Note

This Dover edition, first published in 2001, is an unabridged republication of

the original edition published by B. T. Batsford Ltd., London, in 1991. A few

minor corrections have been made by the author.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Gelfer, Israel.

Postional chess handbook: 495 instructive positions from grandmaster

games / Israel Gelfer ; translated by Raaphy Persitz.

p. cm.

Originally published: London : B. T. Batsford, 1 9 9 1.

lncludes index.

ISBN 0-486-41949-5 (pbk.)

1 . Chess. 2. Chess-Collections of games.

GV1449.5 .G45 2001

794.1 '2---dc21

2001032355

Manufactured in the United States of America

Dover Publications, Inc., 3 1 East 2nd Street, Mineola, N.Y. 1 1 5 0 1

Contents

Preface 11

1 Introduction 1

Strong and Weak Pieces 7

2 A Good Bishop versus a Bad Knight 7

3 A Good Knight versus a Bad Bishop 18

4 Bishops-Same Colour 32

5 Bishops-Opposite Colour 41

6 Knights 49

7 Rooks 57

8 Two Bishops 69

9 A Rook versus Two Minor Pieces 76

10 Choosing an Endgame; Sorne Aspects of the Endgame 78

11 Key Squares-Strong Points 90

12 Strategic Advantages 106

13 Exchanges 119

14 Cramped Positions, Restricted Pieces 126

15 Pawn Structures 134

16 Pros and Cons 145

17 A c t i v eKing; Central Supremacy 148

18 Inducing Weaknesses 152

19 A Diagonal 157

20 Two Diagonals 171

21 Positional Sacrifices 183

Index of Players and Composers 208

Preface

This book is concerned with recognizing themes and patterns in the

middlegame and the ending. Its subject-matter spans sorne 130 years,

from the era of Paul Morphy in the 1850s to the era of Gary Kasparov

in the 1980s. The emphasis is on real situations, common to and arising

from practical over-the-board play. Mastering them should help the

reader in identifying the positional kernels of any given situation and

thus increase the likelihood of his choosing a plan that will best fulfil its

strategic demands.

When the same position is cited in more than one instance, that is,

when it is used to illustrate more than one theme, this is indicated by

cross-references.

I have avoided the systematic study of textbook endings, such as

rook and pawn versus rook, and have concentrated oh those arising in

practical, over-the-board play.

When available, the numbers assigned to the moves are those of the

actual games. Otherwise, moves stemming from the diagrams begin

with the number l .

Since a bibliography would have to enumera te hundreds of sources, I

have preferred to omit it.

Israel Ge/fer
1 Introduction

The evaluation of a given position Nudelman-Justo

falls under two headings: quant­ Women's O/ympiad, Malta, 1980

itative and qualitative. The for­

mer involves the simple counting

of pieces and pawns and, as such,

is fairly straightforward and

objective. The latter is concemed

with more abstract concepts like

mobility, control of space, colour

complexes, key squares, open

lines, co-ordination and the like.

It involves the judgement and

weighting of severa! elements.

What are weaknesses? How are Barring a pair of knights, no

they provoked? How are they pieces have yet been exchanged;

avoided? What is an ideal square neither side appears to have glar­

for a piece in a given situation? ing weaknesses; and it looks as

How does one go about captur­ though a long fight líes ahead.

ing, or controlling, squares, diag­ Black's last move, 21 . . . d5, seiz­

onals, files? In what positions is it ing the initiative in the centre and

desirable to seek exchanges? In opening the way to either . . . e4 or

what positions is it best to eschew . . . d4, seems natural enough. It

them? How can you ensure the turns out to be a decisive posi­

proper co-ordination between tional mistake.

pieces? Ali these, and others, are The game continued: 22 fxeS

the sort of positional questions �xeS 23 �xeS ttxeS 24 d4! fix­

that will occupy us in this book. ing the pawn on d5 and curtailing

Before acquainting ourselves the scope of the black bishop. 24

with those themes that recur over . . . ttc7 25 cxbS axbS 26 dxcS

and again, !et us look, by way of a clearing d4 for the knight. 26 . . .

general introduction, a t a few ran­ ttxcS. We have reached the next

dom positions where general posi­ diagram.

tional considerations manifest The material equilibrium has

themselves clearly. been preserved but, in the course

2 lntroduction

wi th the black pieces, in his first

lnterzonal tournament.

Instead of the simple 26 �c3!

.1 xc5 27 l. d 1 , taking control of

the d-file, not to mention the

square d5, Fuster, against his

better judgement, fell for 26

�xa7?, forfeiting all his advant­

age. An additional error on

White's part a few moves later

enabled Fischer to trap the stray

of the last four moves, White has
knight and win the game. A lucky
acquired a winning positional ad­
escape.
vantage: her knight will occupy

the central square d4, her bishop

is more active than its counterpart Nimzowitsch-Capablanca

and the e-file will be controlled by St. Petersburg, 1914

her rooks. This is what positional

chess is about.

27 �d4 b4 28 .; be l �a5 29

K el X c8 30 l. fcl l. xc2 31 .1 xc2

.!! a8 32 itf4 itb6 33 ite5 l. a7 34

h3 .i_f7 35 flhl .i_g8 36 h4 .i_f7 37

.i_f3 and Black's position soon

collapsed.

Fuster-Fischer

Portoroz, 1958

In the diagram, White is a pawn

up and his passed pawn is a force

to be reckoned wíth. One or two

inaccuracies on hís part, and

Black's píeces assume dominating

posts. Soon White is compelled to

make material concessions.

15 itd3? 15 trc4! prevents

Black's next move and conserves

Whíte's advantage.

15 . . . �e6! 16 f3 �d7! 17 .i_dl

Bobby Fischer, just under 1 6 at �e5 18 ite2 �c4 19 .1 abl .1 a8

the time, found himself in this Black's píeces occupy ideal

unpromising situation, playing squares. He threatens . . . .1 eb8.

 Introduction 3

20 a4 �xd2! The hallmark of a

6
great player: he knows when to
w
exchange an active piece for a

passive one (see also Fischer­

Petrosian, diagrams 280 and 281 ).

21 trxd2 *c4 22 Xfdl Keb8 23

*e3 � b4 24 *gS �d4+ 25 *hl

.!;!'..ab8

Here, in order to stave off im­

mediate disaster, Nimzowitsch

tried 26 � xd4, but after 26 . . .

mates. 3 *el!! .1 xe2 + 4 *hl
*xd4 Capablanca won without
and mates next move.
much difficulty.

Vikovicb
Keres

White takes advantage of the

White, a queen up, faces the
unfavourable disposition of the
unpleasant . . . b2 +. The only
black pieces and wins after 1
way to bring home his advantage
*f7 + *h8 2 �h6! *g8 3
is: 1 �al+! bxa2 2 �c6! and
�xg7+!! •xg7 4 tte8+ taking
Black is helpless against the threat
ali Black's pieces with a check!
3 �d4-b3(c2) mate.

Gusev-Awerbakb

Kremer USSR, 1946

White mates in five moves. This The awkward placing of

composition, and the next one, Black's king's rook and king

illustrate how one piece can over­ invites the spectacular queen-sac­

come numerically superior-but rifice: 24 *xeS! fxeS 25 X fl! after

misplaced-adverse forces. which, despite his enormous

1 l. c8 � xc8 2 � el! JI: xc2 + lf material advantage, Black is com­

2 . . . � f8 3 �c5 il g 8 4 �c8 and pletely tied up.

4 Introduction

precarious state of Black's king

and ties a noose around his neck.

21 .!;!xc7!! J_ x h l 22 .:E}xti After

22 1, e7 + Black's king may

escape. 22 . . . J. d5 23 e xd6 +
'1Jf8 24 JLg5 24 JLe7 + * g7 25

J,.g5 + etc. is quicker. 24 . . • 1, h8

25 J,.h6 + f¡g8 26 K g7 + '1Jf8 27

K�+ '11@ � e� J..O �

.l g 7 + '1Jf8 30 !i x b 7 + '1Jg8 31

I:l!. g 7 + '1¡ (8 32 l, x a 7 + f¡g8 33

25 . . . Kc825 . . . H x e 6 2 6 J,. c 4
• xa8 J,.xa8 34 .:E}d6! 1-0
leads to mate. 26 J,.dl � c4 27

J,.b3 b5 28 J,.xc4 bxc4 29 b3

Hort-Kagan
Creating a passed pawn, against
Siegen, 1970
which Black is helpless, his queen

being paralysed by the threat of

mate. 29 . . . a5 30 bxc4 fl¡e7 31

f¡g2 fl¡a3 32 l!i f2 fl¡e7 33 X f1 g5

34 X f5 g4 35 c5 and wins.

Kupferstisch-Andreasen

Denmark, 1953

White, with two bishops a n d a n

advantage in space, aims at open­

ing lines, but Black defends with

sang-froid: 49 . . . t,-xb5 50 cxb5

1, a5!! Thwarting a4-a5. 51 fJ O

.:E}fh6 52 f¡e2 �8a7 53 J,.c8 f5 54

JLa6 _15xa6 55 bxa6 fxe4 56 .1 b3

l. xa6 57·a5 1, xa5! 58 J,.xa5 bxa5

In the diagram, arrived at after Black is two exchanges down.

20 moves, White has a piece for However, in the semi-closed posi­

three pawns. The natural con­ tion, the two knights are scarcely

tinuation 2 1 �gl J,.c6 22 .:E}xh7 inferior to the two rooks. Indeed,

'1Jd7 enables Black to put up stiff after 59 11 xa5? e f5 Black is

resistance. White's next move, better. White is content to take a

sacrificing a rook, exploits the draw: 59 fxe5 .:E}xe5 60 f¡e3

 lntroduction 5

't.)hg4+ 61 *f4 c2if6 62 l{ b 7 + gxf3 32 gxf3 J,.bl and Black's

\fi'h6 t:t material advantage assured him

victory.
Bondarevsky-Smyslov

Moscow, 1946 Saidy-Fischer

USA, 1965

An instructive position. As the

game unfolds, Black's pieces At times it is possible to attain

occupy dominating outposts positional ends by sharp, tactical
whereas White's are gradually means. Thus, in the example
driven back. above, the continuation chosen by
12 . . . fS 13 eS 13 exfS J,.xfS Fischer, IS . . . exeS!, which
helps Black, but 1 3 J_gS is prefer­ undermines White's centre and
able. The text creates a passed leads to a winning ending for
pawn whose prospects are bleak. Black, necessitates close examina­
13 . . . "2ie6 14 .,td2 gS! IS 't,)e2 cS tion of severa! variations. After
16 j_c3 bS 17 b3 j_b7 Developing
the best moves for both sides, 16
his pieces, Black methodically �xd8 '2) x c 4 + ! 17 -«wxe8+
limits the scope of his opponent's �xe8+ 18 f¡ d l 't,)xd2 19 f¡xd2
pieces. 18 "2ig3 g4 19 't,)d2 j_e7 20 g e l + 20 'li c l � xf2, Fischer had

"2ihS -.n 21 en f¡g6 22 er6 foreseen that though an exchange

The knight occupies a seemingly up, White's position was hopeless.
strong outpost. In fact, it is out of The game proceeded 21 g3 J,.b7!

action. 22 . . . -ª ad8 23 11 adl 22 1: el J,.e4 and Black won fairly

ixdl 24 �xdl �d8 25 .lxd8
easily .
.1xd8 26 "2ie3 f4! 27 't,) d l A

forced retreat since capturing on Kushnir-Gaprindashvili

g4 costs a piece. 27 . . . J_xf6 28
Riga, 1972
exf6 !á_e4 29 J,.b2 An attempt to

improve the knight's mobility, When the stronger side's pieces

which Black forthwith nips in the are well-placed and well-co­

bud. 29 . . . b4! 30 f3 J,.xc2 31 't,)f2 ordinated, tactical possibilities

6 lntroduction

determined by the outposts they

occupy.

The correct move is 37 b6! a6

(37 . . . axb6 invites 38 l. b 1 ), lea v­

ing the black knight without a

move. Whether this leads to vic­

tory or not is another matter.

Larsen played 37 g6? where­

upon Torre could have brought

about a drawn ending by means

of a timely exchange-sacrifice 37
abound. At times, such possibilit­
. . . X xf5! 38 exf5 '2:)f6 sealing
ies are not immediately available,
the position. Instead, he played 37
but sooner or later they surface.
• • • 1, d7? relieving the knight
In the above example, White's
from protecting d6 but leaving its
pieces and pawns are so dominant
mighty counterpart unmolested
that a quick decision cannot be
on f5.
far away. lndeed, 45 b5! is con­
38 lit O •g8 39 a4 h5 Idea: to
clusive: 45 . . . axb5 (or 45 . . .
post the knight on g4. 40 \tifl
j_xb5 46 c6! j_xc6 47 l,xc6 etc.)
�f6 41 •e3 *f8 42 a5 l.d8 43
46 c6! bxc6 47 l. a3 The threat of
\tid3 Xd7 44 a6 b6 45 1. g l!
Xa7 compels Black to oppose
Threatening X g 5 and �g3, cap­
White's rook. 47 . . . 1, a8 48
turing h5. 45 . . . �g4 46 .1 xg4!!
Kxa8 ,¡jxa8 49 _id8 1--0
A pure positional exchange-sacri­

fice. While White's knight ties up

Larsen-Torre
Black's rook, his king mops up on
Brussels, 1987
the right wing. To use Larsen's

words: 'In this [closed] position, a

knight is not inferior to a rook.'

46 . . . hxg4 47 •e3 1, d8 48

•fl *g8 49 •g3 Xd7 50 •xg4

\tif8 51 *g5 *g8 52 h5 \tih8 53

h6 gxh6 + 54 '2:1 xh6 \ti g7 55

'2:)f5 + .f8 56 \tif6 1--0

Thus, by not sacrificing his

rook for White's knight, Black

missed an opportunity to draw;

whereas White, by a well-timed

This is an excellent example of sacrifice of his rook for Black's

how the relative value of pieces is knight, forced a neat victory.

 Strong and Weak Pieces

lntroduction to Chapters 2-9

A bishop o r a knight, we are taught, are worth three pawns (units) each;

a rook, five pawns; a queen, nine to ten pawns; and so on. Beyond such

rough approximations, the value of a piece corresponds above all to the

influence it exerts in a particular position. Clearly, a pawn on the sev­

enth rank, about to queen, may be worth more than a minor piece or

rook. Likewise, in sorne positions a bishop may be superior to a knight

while in others the reverse is true. Needless to say, in a given position, a

white rook a n d a black rook need not be equal to each other merely by

virtue of both being rooks. In sorne circumstances, a well-posted knight

or bishop may outweigh a rook or even a queen.

This is where positional understanding comes into play and where

the ability to assess the pros and cons of a position dispassionately can

come to our aid in determining the choice of a plan.

2 A Good Bishop versus a Bad

Knight

and White's bishop is all-power­

Grigoriev
ful.
1926
1 "1d2 �d8 2 "1d3 b6 3 .lf5 c5

An attempt to gain more space for

the knight with 3 . . . �b7 4 b4 a5

is answered by 5 a3. 4 .lc8 a5

Now the square b5 is available to

the white king. 5 g4 "1f7 6 _lf5

"1e7 7 "1c3 �b7 8 _lc8 �d8 9

"1b3 �f7 10 _le6 �h8 11 f5 Of

course, this move would be out of

place with the black knight on f7.

11 .. . "1d8 12 "1a4 "1c7 13 "1b5

Black has no apparent weak­ "1b7 14 a4 and Black is without a

ness, but his knight lacks space move.

8 A Good Bishop versus a Bad Knight

Grigoriev knight in an open position, des­

1931 pite the dearth of material.

35 h4 �c4 36 "1e2 �es 37 "1e3

"1f6 38 "1f4 �f7 39 "1e3 39 j_d5

is better. 39 . . . gS 40 hS Black has

rid himself of the weakness at g6

but his knight is restricted to

watching the passed h-pawn. 40

. . . �h6 41 "1d3 'IJeS 42 j_a8

"1 d6 43 "1 c4 g4 44 a4 � g8 45 a5

�h6 46 j_e4 g3 47 'IJbS �g8 48

j_bl �h6 49 "1a6 "1c6 SO j_a2

1-0

Stoltz-Kashdan
In the above ending, White is
The Hague, 1928
able to exploit the superior mo­

bility of his bishop over the black

knight by attacking Black's

kingside pawns from the rear.

1 j_ f3 a6 2 a4 "1c7 3 j_g4 �18

4 a5 inducing an additional weak­

ness. 4 . . . "1c6 S axb6 "1xb6 6

j_dl �d7 7 j_a4 �b8 8 j_e8 �c6

9 j_f7 � d 8 1 0 j_g8 �c6 l l j_xe6

and wins.

Spassky-Físeher

Santa Montea, 1966

A celebrated ending where the

existence of pawns on both wings

on an open board emphasizes the

bishop's superiority over the

knight.

1 . . . "1f8 2 "1fl "1e7 3 "1e2

"1d6 4 "1d3 'IJdS S h4 J.c8

Black's bishop helps push the

white king backwards, enhancing

the scope of his own king.

6 �f3 j_ a 6 + 7 "1c3 h6 8 �d4

g6 9 �el "1e4 10 �e3 fS 11 "1d2

f4 12 �g4 hS 13 �f6 + "1f5 14

Another case underlining the �d7 j_c8 15 �f8 gS 16 g3 gxh4

superiority of the bishop over the 17 gxh4 "1 g 4 1 8 �g6 j_fS 19 !Ji:Je7
 A Good Bishop versus a Bad Knight 9

A e6 20 b4 * xh4 and the passed

h-pawn carried the day.

Chekhover-Lasker

Moscow, 1935

f¡e7 30 f¡g3 The only way to seek

counterplay. 30 . . . "1d7 31 "1h4

•c6 32 'l;gS e4 33 g4 White

wishes to eliminate as many

pawns as possible. 33 . . . fxg4 34

�xe4 aS! Fixing the a-pawn. 3S

Here too, in an open position
f¡f4 J,.b3 36 f¡e3 J,.xa4 37 *d2
with pawns on both wings, the
h6 38 �(6 f¡xcS 39 �xg4 h5 40
knight is no match for the bishop.
�e3 f¡d4 The centralised king,
20 . . . •c7 21 *º bS! A pre­
together with the powerful
lude to his next move, 22 •et
bishop, ensure Black a comfort­
_lb2 23 a4 bxa4 24 bxa4 •c6!
able victory, notwithstanding the
Precise: 24 . . . f¡ b6-a5 allows the
paucity of pawns. 41 �fl •e5 42
white king to reach b3, via d i and
f¡e3 J,.b3 0-1
c2. 25 f1d2 f¡cS 26 �c3 *b4 27

�bS as 28 �d6 f¡xa4 29 •c2 Reti-Rubinstein

_tes 30 �xt7 ..txh2 31 �d8 eS 32 Gothenburg, 1920

'2ic6 J,.gl 33 f3 J,.cS 34 �b8 *bS

35 g4 J,.e7 36 gS Despair in a

hopeless position. 36 . . . fxgS 37

i2)d7 J,.d6 38 �f6 "1c4 0-1 39

�xh7 Ae7 traps the knight.

Uhhnann-Fiseher

Leipzig, 1960

Here again the presence of

pawns on both wings in an open

position gives Black a pro­

nounced advantage. The need to defend White's

26 . . . b6 27 a4?! In general, pawn on c2 compels the retreat of

such committal pawn moves are his knight, which facilitates the

best avoided. Preferable is 27 a3. infiltration of Black's king into

27 . . . J. e6 28 cS bxcS 29 bxc5 White's camp.

10 A Good Bishop versus a Bad Knight

29 �el •e7 30 •e3 •e6 31 g4 38 . . . *f6 39 *b3 *g6 40

to prevent . . . *f5 and . . . h5-h4. *ª3 *h5 41 h3 To prevent . . .

31 . . . *d6 32 h3 g6 33 *dl J,.d7 'li'g4, but on h3 the pawn is none

The bishop is to shine on another too safe. 41 . . . *g6 42 *b3 •g7

front. 43 'l;a3 *f6 44 *b3 J,.e8 45 �gl

34 �f3 •e7 Preparing . . . h5 If 45 �f3 J,.h5 46 �e5 J,. d l + 47

without having to worry about f,a3 'l;e6 48 �c6 J,.c2 49 �e5 h6

the retort g5 or �h4. 35 •e3 h5! places White in zugzwang (50 g4

36 �hl *d6 37 *el d4! Depriv­ .l d l ) . 45 . . . J,.h5 46 •el J,.el 47

ing the white king of the square e3 �el .lfl 48 �f3 48 h4 is defeated

and fixing White's pawns on the by the king's entry to g4, preceded

queen's flank. The accumulation by the transfer of the bishop to

of small advantages is typical of the long diagonal.

positional play. 38 cxd4 cxd4 39 48 . . . .lxh3 49 �g5 J,.gl 50

f,dl hxg4 40 hxg4 J,.c6! Halting �xh7 + *g7 51 �g5 'l;g6 52

4 1 c3 because of 4 1 . . . dxc3 + 42 *dl .lc6 53 •el J,.gl Easier

•xc3 J,.g2! and White is in zug­ than 53 . . . .lxa4, which invites

zwang. 41 f,el J,.d5 42 a3 b5 43 54 � f3-e 5 . 54 *dl *h5 55 �e6

�fl a5 44 �dl a4! The threat . . . 55 •e2 *g4 and 55 �f7 *g4 are

b4 looms. 45 �e4 + If 45 *d 1 g5! no better. 55 . • • 'l;g4 56 �c7

penetrating. 45 . . . .t xe4 46 dxe4 .,tc6 57 �d5 f¡xg3 58 �e7 .,td7

b4 47 *dl bxa3 48 •el g5 0-1 59 �d5 .lxa4 60 �xb6 .le8 60

Vintage Rubinstein. . . . .lc6 is faster. 61 �d5 'l;f3 62

�c7 .lc6 63 �e6 a4 64 �xc5 a3

Smyslov-Tal
65 �b3 al 66 'l;cl f¡xf4 and
Moscow, 1964
wms.

Rubinstein-J ohner

Carlsbad, 1929

In the following fragment, Tal,

who is renowned for attacking

ability and tactical wizardry, dis­

plays his mastery in a purely tech­ Rubinstein played 1 b4 Here,

nical ending. instead of keeping the position

 A Good Bishop versus a Bad Knight 11

blocked with 1 . . . a4 (answering 2 Bogatirchuk-Rabinovich

b5 with c5!), Black erred with 1 Leningrad, 1923

. . . axb4 + ? presenting White with

an outside passed pawn and faci­

litating the penetration of bis

king.

The game continued: 2 "1xb4

-,r¡c7 3 a4 '2:id7 4 a5 h6 5 .id3 "1h7

6 J..c2 '2:i b8 7 j_d3 �d7 8 g4 'IJC7

9 h4 �f8 10 .:tfl '2:id7 10 . . . '2:lg6

1 1 h5 transposes. 11 j_h3 �f8 12

h5 A r a r e situation where placing

pawns on squares of the same

colour as the bishop, although

contrary to accepted wisdom, is Black's last move was . . . "1c7,

actually desirable. 12 . . . f6 Other­ to which White replied 1 e4 with

wise comes g5! hxg5, h6, coupled the idea of continuing 2 e5, limit­

with j_g4-h5-f7-g8. The text ing the scope of the black bishop,

weakens the e6 pawn. 13 J..fl and relishing 1 . . . dxe4 2 �xe4.

�d714 J..c4 �f8 15 j_b3 �h7 16 What he overlooked was 1 . . . e5!

"1c5! Not 1 6 j_xe6? � g 5 . White's which turns the tables.

coming moves are designed to 2 fxe5 fxe5 3 dxe5 "1d7 4 b3

pave the way for the decisive entry "1e6 5 exd5+ "1xd5 6 �f3 c5!

of bis king. 16 . . . �f8 17 j_a2 Not 6 . . . "1e4 7 �d4 c5 8 �c6 a5

'2)d7 + 18 "1b4 �f8 19 a6! "1h6 9 c4. Depriving White's knight

20 a7 "1xa7 2 1 "1c5 "1h7 22 "1d6 and king of good squares is more

"1b6 23 "1e7 '2)h7 24 j_xe6 "1c7 important than immediate mater­

25 J..c4 Threat: "1f7-g6. 25 . . . ial gains.

�gS 26 "1xf6 "1d6 27 "1g6 1--0 7 "1d2 "1e4 8 "1e2 h6 9 �d2 +

The advanced pawn was doomed

in any case. 9 . . . "1xe5 10 "1e3

White has gained sorne space but

bis king is soon pushed back. 10

. . . j_d5 11 �bl "1f5 12 �a3 a6

13 �el "1g4 14 "1f2 "1f4! 15 �e3

j_f7 16 "1e2 b5 17 "1f2 j_e6 18

"1e2 "1e4 19 �g2 White is in

zugzwang: 1 9 '1Jd2 "1 f3 or 1 9 "1 f2

"1 d 3 .

19 . . . J.. g 4 + Here 19 . . . c4 is

already possible. But in such end­

ings, biding one's time is seldom

harmful. 20 "1d2 j_e6 2 1 �el c4!

12 A Good Bishop versus a Bad Knight

22 bxc4 If 22 b4 j1g4 and White passed pawn to the queening

has no good move. 22 . . . j¡_xc4 square. Strangely enough, the

23 a3 a5 24 '2¡c2 a4 25 <f:)d4 Or 25 game is ultimately decided on the

-2ie3 *f3, while on 25 ,f:ie l comes other wing. 32 . . . ,f:ie6 33 *h6

. . . * f 4- g 4- h
253 .. . . h5 26 �c2 *f8 34 J1f5 �g7 35 .:tc8 The

<fr f3 27 �e3 '1Jf2 28 ers *g2 29 bishop's superiority over the

h4 <fr f3 30 �e7 *g3 31 �g6 j_f7 knight is incontestable. 35 . . . b6

32 ,f:ie5 j_d5 33 �g6 J..e4 34 ,f:ie5 36 g6 d4 Trying for . . . c4 and . . .

•xh4 and the advance of the h­ d3. 37 b3 *g8 38 a4 Before

pawn decided the issue. manoeuvring his king to the

queen's flank, White takes c a r e t o

Capablanca-Corzo
s t o p . . . b5 and . . . c4.
Havana, 1901
38 . . . *f8 39 Ag4 '2!e8 40

*h7 �g7 41 *h6 ,f:ie8 42 j_e2

,f:ig7 43 j1c4 ,f:ie8 44 *g5 •e7 45

•r5 '2!g7 + 45 . . . *d6 46 J.. f7 .

46 •e5 -2Jh5 47 j¡_e2 -2Jg7 48 *d5

,f:ie8 49 *c6 Harvest time. 49 . . .

�g7 50 *b7 *d6 51 •xa7 •c7

52 <fra6 cE:ie8 53 j1 f3 ,f:ig7 54 j_d5

,f:ie8 55 J..f7 -2Jg7 56 *b5 �f5 57

a5 cE)d6 + (?) 58 * ª 6 bxa5 59 g7

1--0

Here, one error on Corzo's part Miles-Dzindzichashvili

at the outset enables the 1 2 year­ Tilburg, 1978

old Capablanca to set up a pawn

formation which renders his

bishop vastly superior to Black's

knight.

23 *f4 *f6 24 h4 White can­

not permit . . . g5 + . If now 24 . . .

h6 25 h 5 . 24 .. . g6 25 g4 h6? A

losing move. Correct is 25 . . .

fxg4. 26 g5 + hxg5 27 hxg5 + •e7

28 g4 To gain more space for his

bishop. 28 .. . fxg4 29 j_d3! <f:)f5

29 . . . •n 30 •xg4 .g7 3 1 .f4

'21 f7 is also insufficient, since White's last move, 41 �c7!,

White will eventually break severely restricts Black's knight,

through on the queenside. not to mention his king.

30 •xg4 '2!xd4 31 J¡_xg6 c5 32 41 . . . a5?! Hindering 42 a5 only

*h5 Threatening to escort the accentuates Black's liability on

 A Good Bishop versus a Bad Knight 13

the queenside. 42 1'1 f2 g5 This is

not entirely satisfactory, but

neither is passive defence. 43

hxg6+ ,¡t¡xg6 44 'f¡g3 'f¡g5 45 e4

h5 46 *h3 White must beware of

the blocked position which would

ensue, for instance, after 46 f4 +

9g6 and . . . h5.

46 . . . \tih6 47 'flh4 1'1g6 48

1Ld8 9h6 49 fJg3 'flg7 50 ,¡t¡h4

9h6 51 §Lc7 'f¡g6 52 g3 Accord­

latent weakness of the pawns on
ing to separate analyses by Miles
c4 and d 5 .
and Speelman, 52 g4 hxg4 53 fxg4
34 . . . §Lf5 35 I! el h5 36 1, c3
f5! is not advisable. Both appear
a4! 37 €\ d l If 37 €\xa4 K a8 and
to overlook the fact that after 54
the rook infiltrates after 38 . . .
exf5 + exf5 55 g5 Black is soon
.l. x a 2 + (38 �a3? §Lc2). Or 37
reduced to zugzwang.
:1 a3 :1 b8 38 €)xa4 .1 a8 and . . .
52 . . . 'flh6 53 g4! hxg4 54 fxg4
§Lc2. 37 . . . g5 38 €)e3 §Ld7 39
<8ig6 55 \tig3 Hindering 55 .. f5 in
'fle2 f5 40 'fld2 f4 Creating tar­
view of 56 gxf5 + exf5 57 'f¡f4!
gets on the king's flank. 41 gxf4
and the white king penetrates vic­
gxf4 42 €\ d l 'fl f7 43 €l f2 Xg8 44
toriously. 55 . . . 'f¡g5 56 'flf3 'flh6
•e2 � xg2 45 .l. el Af5 46 a3 h4
O_n 56 . . . e5 White wins elegantly
47 .1 f1 *f6 48 \tidl h3 49 'f1e2 h2
with 57 \tig3 'flg6 58 'flh4 'flh6
50 :1 al §L. d3 + 51 'f1 xd3 Il xf2. 52
59 li.d8 'flg6 60 g5 fxg5+ 61

Axg5 €\ b 8 62 .,td8 €ld7 63

* e4 * g5 etc. 0-1

.g4!.

57 *f4 'f¡g6 58 e5! Now the

Alekhine-Euwe

advance of the e-pawn decides. 58 Nether/ands, 1937

• • . fxe5 + 59 _t xe5 * f7 60 §L. c7

'flf6 61 g5 + 1'1 f7 62 'flg4 .g6 63

i.d6! 1--0 Zugzwang: the knight

has no moves; 63 . . . e5 fails

against 64 Ac7 e4 65 'f¡f4 e3 66

'f1xe3 \tixg5 67 \tie4; and king

moves lose to * h5-g6. A fine

achievement.

J acobsen-Nimzowitsch

Copenhagen, 1923

Black's advantage is based on 29 h4! Mobilizing the pawn

the
long-ranging bishop and the majority on the king's wing and
14 A Good Bishop versus a Bad Knight

dislodging the knight. 29 . . . '1Jd7 .1 h3 + 67 "1d2 .1 xb3 68 .1 xc5

30 *ª 0ie7 31 *º ti:Jd5 A mis­ .1 b8 69 .1 c6 + "1f5 70 X xa6 g4

take, permitting White to reposi­ White's bishop easily neutralises

tion his bishop. 31 . . . •e8 is the passed pawn.

more stubborn. 32 j_d3! h6 33 71 1, f 6 + "'1e4 72 .t_c7 ªb2+

J..f5+ wd8 34 *g4 0ie7 35 i_bl 73 "1c3 � b7 74 .i.h2 A long

\t,e8 36 "1h5 The king's active move, stressing White's absolute

participation is vital. 36 . . . "'1f7 control of the diagonal b8-h2. 74

37 J..a2 + Yet another illustration . . . Mh7 75 .i.b8 1, b 7 76 .,lg3

of the bishop's dexterity in mov­ .1 bl 77 g f4 + <lrie3 78 X f8 0ie7

ing from one diagonal to another. 79 a6 1-0

37 . . . "'1f8 38 "'1 xh6 .1 d7 39 J. e6

Fischer-Taimonov
g d 3 40 g4 Axc3 4 1 g 5 1 -0
Vancouver, 1971

Korchnoi-Karpov

Baguio, 1978

In the two endings that follow,

we see Fischer's bishop score at

Another case, with pawns on the expense of Taimanov's knight.

both wings and a pair of rooks on 25 .,l O ! Causing an additional

the board, where a bishop is weakness in Black's camp: the

manifestly superior to a rather square b5. 25 . . . � a8 <loes not

cramped knight. work beca use of 26 J. c4. 25 . . . a5

60 a4! 60 ll d 7 � f7 61 � x f7 26 j_c4 � f8 27 *g2 *d6 28 *º

"'1xf7 62 j}_xg5 gains a pawn but '2)d7 29 �e3 '2)b8 30 � d 3 + •c7

the exchange of rooks enhances 31 c3 Robbing the knight of d4.

Black's drawing chances. Korch­ 31 . . . '2)c6 32 Ae3 <1rid6 33 a4

noi's move keeps the rooks and '2)e7 34 h3 '2)c6 35 h4 h5? Fearing

maintains the siege of the black g3-g4, followed possibly by g4-

knight. 60 . . . "1f7 61 r!l d3 � e5 g5, Black further weakens his

62 wg4 <lrig6 63 a5 � e4 + 64 *º pawn formation.

11 f4 + ? More tenacious is 64 . . . 36 �d3+ *c7 37 gd5 f5 38

<lrif5 65 j_xg5 0ia7, mobilizing � d2 � f6 39 � e2 <lrld7 40 � e3 g6

the knight. 65 "1e3 1, h4 66 l. d5 (31)

 A Good Bishop versus a Bad Knight 15

41 §Lb5 ªd6 42 we2 *d8? creates a passed pawn which, with

Allowing White to exchange the bishop's support, soon becomes

rooks, after which the knight ver­ menacing. 44 . . . axb4 45 X c4

sus bishop ending is lost, owing to bxc5 46 .!íl: xc5 * g7 47 a5 l. e8 48

the vulnerability of the kingside Jt c l ! The rook belongs behind

pawns. 42 . . . •c7 had to be tried. the passed pawn. lf Black were

43 Jtd3! *c7 44 Xxd6 fixd6 given a chance to play . . . ,l e ! +

45 fid3 0Je7 46 §Le8 *d5 47 and . . . l. a 1 , his position would

§Lf7 + *d6 48 fic4 •c6 49 be defensible. 48 . . . .1 e5 49 l. al

§L e 8 + *b7 50 *b5 éjjc8 51 1, e7 50 *ª !jje8 Black is re­

§Lc6+ 51 J_xg6?? éi:Jd6 mate. 51 sourceless. His pawn advantage is

. . . wc7 52 j}_d5 0Je7 53 sn *b7 meaningless. 51 a6 l. a7 52 •e3

54 §Lb3 *ª7 55 j}_dl *b7 56 !jjc7 53 J_b7 !jje6 54 JI a5 *f6 55

§Lf3 + fic7 56 . . . *ª7 57 c4 *d3 *e7 56 *c4 *d6 57 1. d 5 +

leaves Black moveless. *c7 58 *b5! 1--0

57 fia6 éjjg8 58 j}_d5 éjje7 59

il..c4 éjjc6 60 sn !?:Je7 61 §Le8

Fischer-Tal
Zugzwang. 61 . . . wd8 62 Axg6!
Curacao, 1962
!?:Jxg6 63 wxb6 *d7 64 wxc5

ti)e7 65 b4 axb4 66 cxb4 !jjc8 67

a5 ti:Jd6 68 b5 !?:Je4 + 69 wb6 fic8

70 wc6 19b8 and Black resigned.

A textbook example.

Fischer-Taimanov

Palma de Mallorca, 1970

As in the 1971 game between

the same adversaries, the superi­

ority of the bishop o ver the knight

again asserts itself.

42 c5! l. xh4 + 43 *gl l. b4 44 In tbe following ending, pos­

1 xb4! A timely exchange. White sibly bis best, Fiscber utilizes bis
16 A Good Bishop versus a Bad Knight

superior king and the bishop's

long-range potential in exemplary

fashion.

27 .1 d3 :1 c4 28 K cdl! Sacrific­

ing a pawn to actívate his king. 28

. . . Xxc3 29 l,xc3 �xc3 30 X c l

1,c7 31 .if4 ,llc6 32 j_e5! Cent­

ralizes the bishop and clears the

way for the king's advance. 32 . . .

�d5 32 . . . �xa2 33 ,ll x c 6 +

bxc6 34 J. xg7 would underline

33 "1f3 f5 Now the exploitation of
the bishop's superiority over the
White's advantage is fairly easy.
knight in this kind of ending.
The next move ousts the knight
33 l. dl! Another super-class
from the battle scene and paves
move. With the black knight on
the way for White's king. 34 c4
d5, 33 l. xc6 + bxc6 34 j_ xg7 is
'2}b4 35 � g6 f;f7 36 � d6 .i!: b7 37
no Ionger effective. 33 . . . �f6 33
"1f4 f;e7 38 *e5 ,?ic2 39 l. e6 +
. . . .l c 5 34 J.xg7 "1d7-e6 ap­
"1 f7 40 i_ e 8 + ! * f8 41 j_g6 � e 7
pears a better defence. 34 "1f4! g6
42 J.xf5 l, x e 6 + 43 •xe6 Hin­
35 f3 �d7 36 J,.d6 1, c2 37 g3 l. e2
dering 43 . . . *e7.
37 . . . X xa2 38 "1g5 is worse. 38
43 . . . ,?i d 4 + 44 *e5 ,?ib3 45
"1g5 Xe6 39 .lf4 � f8 40 1.d6!
*d6 *e8 46 *c7 ,?ic5 47 j_c2
a5! 41 "1 h6! l. e2 42 l. d2 :1 e7 43
,?id7 48 h5 f;e7 49 f4 •es 50 J.e4
.id6 .1 h7 + 44 "1g5 .1 f7 4 5 1. b2!
*e7 51 j_c6 '2}f6 52 J_ f3 -E)d7 53
Putting Black in zugzwang. 45 . . .
g 4 1 -0
f4 46 j_xf4 :11 f5 + 47 "1h6 b5 Tal

fights back doggedly.

Spassky-Ljubojevic
48 J. d6 b4 49 g4 .; xf3 50 g5!
Montreal, 1979
Fischer's virtuosity is dazzling. 50

.. . �e6 51 "1xg6 l. d3 52 j_e5

l. e3 53 "1 f5 � f8 54 Xg2 l_ f3 +

55 _lf4 "1d7 56 g6 �e6 57 g7

l. xf4 + 58 f; e5 J. f8 59 gxf8( �)

�xf8 60 "1d5! a4 61 gg7+ *e8

62 "1d6 b3 63 a3! 1-0 An ending

which will repay deep study.

Gelfer-English

London, 1985

30 .ib5 l. b8? Passive. 30 . . .

l. xc3 promises Black counter­ 21 �hbl .lab8 22 i_c5 �hc8

play. 31 *g2 "1e7 32 1,c6 '2}d5 23 j_d6 The bishop occupies a

 A Good Bishop versus a Bad Knight 17

strong outpost whence it cannot l. a6 l. c8 34 'l¡e4 lit cc7 35 "1f4

be dislodged. 23 . . . � b7 24 a4 h6 36 "1e4 Now White prepares to

l2)d8 25 axb5 axb5 26 "1d2 f6 27 exploit the holes created in his

d4 By forcing White to play this adversary's camp on the king's

move, Black has created potential wing. 36 . . . g5 37 l. bal .1 c8 38

outposts for his knight on c4 and !! xe6! 11 xc5 or 38 . . . 'l¡xe6 39

d5. However, as the knight is l. a6 + and 40 'l¡xf5, coupled

unable to reach these squares, with the unstoppable advance of

White's pressure on the queenside the central pawns. 39 'l¡xf5 .1 xc3

proves conclusive. 27 . . . '2lfi 28 40 l. xh6 'l¡c7 41 � h7 + 'l¡b6 42

Jtb4 fxe5 29 fxe5 '2lh6 30 K a5 1, xb7 + "1xb7 43 e6 "1c7 44

�f5 31 f¡d3 g6 32 J..c5 I;icb8 33 �a7+ *b6 45 ,l a 8 1 -0

3 A Good Knight versus a Bad
Bishop

way a nimble knight can deal with

a hampered bishop.

1 gxh5 i_c2 2 '2:)d4 i_d3 3

'2:) e 6 + fr¡b8 4 '2:)f4! j_xc4 5 h6

i.g8 6 €1h5 i.h7 7 €1f6 j_g6 8

'2:)d7 + •xb7 9 '2:)f8! and wins.

Troitzky

1924

A study-like demonstration of

the knight's agility.

47 . . . '2:)e4! 48 d7 fr¡e7 49 a4 49

b4 '2:)c3. 49 . . . '2:)c5! 50 a5 '2:)b3 51

a6 '2:)d4 and Black forces a draw.

Troitzky

1931

1 frlh6 frth8 2 €1h4 fr¡g8 3 €1f3

frl h8 4 '21 e5 frl g8 5 '21 d7 frl h8 6

'2:)f8 and wins the bishop (6 . . .

j_g8 7 '2:)g6 mate).

Note how at no stage was Black

able to play . . . j_g8.

Romanovsky-Verlinsky

Moscow, 1925

The following amusing com­ In spite of the reduced material

position is fairly typical of the and ali the pawns being on one
 A Good Knight versus a Bad Bishop 19

creation of a passed pawn poses

no difficulties and wins presently.

1 h4 i_g7 To add insult to

injury, the pawn ending after l . . .

�e7 is lost for Black. 2 b4 J,.h8 3

e4! bxe4 4 b5 �g7 5 �e3 Freeing

d5 for the king. 5 . . . •e6 6 b6

*d7 7 *d5 e4! Hoping for 8

•xe4 •c6. 8 �b5! e3 9 b7 el 10

b8(yt) el("it) 11 ytxd6+ •es 12

it e6 + .b8 13 "iir b6 + •es 14

side, White's forces contrive to
�d6 + *d7 15 "iirb5 + 1--0 The
capture Black's only pawn. queen is lost.

1 •e3 *g5 2 g3 i_a4 2 . . . *g4

3 <&if2 and h3 + pushing Black's A verbakh-Panov

king backwards. 3 �h3 + *g4 4 Moscow, 1950

� f2 + <&ig5 5 h3 i_e6 6 h4+ *f6

7 *f4 i_e8 8 �dl i_d7 9 �e3

Ae6 10 �el i_f7 10 . . . i_c8

resists longer. 11 �a3 i_d5 12

�b5 i_ e 6 1 3 �d6 J,.d7 14 h5 i_e6

15 �e8+ •n 16 �e7 j_c8 17

*g5 �d7 18 �d5 *g7 19 �e3

and White won.

Ghinda-U ngureanu

Romania, 1975

In the above position the road

to victory is shorter.

1 g5! The king heads to f5. 1 . . .

• g7 2 *º •n 3 .g4 �e7 4

*f5 �f8 5 �f6 h6 6 gxh6 i_xh6 7

�e4 J,.f8 8 h6 J,.xh6 8 . . . �e7

loses neatly to 9 h7 •g7 1 0 •e6

i_f8 11 h 8 ( "iir ) + and 12 •f7. 9

�xd6+ •e7 10 �e4 i_e3 11

d6 + •d7 12 •xe5 1--0

Grigoriev

1931
White's advantage is colossal:

Black's central pawns are 1 �a4+ •e6 2 •a5 •b7 3

blocked, his bishop passive. The �e5+ '1Je7 On 3 . . . *ª7 4 •b5

20 A Good Knight versus a Bad Bishop

king, so as to reach d5 when

White's king is on e3.

4 �e2 •c6 5 •e3 *d5 6 'lfe2

�d6 7 •e3 "'2!b5 The knight cour­

ageously enters the lion's den. 8

j_d2 '2) a 3 9 j_cl I f 9 j_ e l � c 2 + !

1 0 "1d2 '2) x e l wins. 9 . . . '2)bl 10

j_b2 a3! 11 Ji..al "1d6 12 •e2

"1c6 13 f¡dl 13 "1e3 *d5 gives

zugzwang. 13 . . . 'lfd5 14 •c2

\lfe4 15 •xbl "1f3 16 j_b2! axb2

j_ e 8 + 5 *b4 j_f7 6 f¡ a 5 j_g8 7 Otherwise the bishop will stop the

"1b5 wins. 4 "1b5! j_ e 8 + 5 *ª6 g-pawn with j_xa3-c5 and d4--<l5.

j_ f7 6 '2)b7 j_e8 7 •a7! J..f7 8 17 a4 "1xg3 18 a5 *h2 19 a6 g3

'2)d6! j_g8 9 "1a6! Cat and mouse
20 a7 g2 21 a8(�) gl(*)+ 22
play. "1 xb2 �g2 + and Black went on

9 . . . • c 6 1 0 f¡a5 J..h7 11 :f:) f7 to win the pawn ending.

j_ g 8 1 2 '2)h8 j_h7 13 "1a6 "1c7 14

*b5 •b7 15 •c5 •c7 16 '2) f7 Burn-Alekhine

J.. g 8 1 7 '2)d6 j_ h 7 1 8 '2) e 8 + "1d8 Carlsbad, 1 9 1 1

19 '2)f6 and wins!

Hennenberg-Nimzowitsch

Winterthur, 1931

Amos Burn's only victory over

Alekhine, in a good knight versus

bad bishop ending, is virtually a

walk-over.

1 "1b2 Ji..a4 2 :f:)e3 "1e7 3 "1a3

In the above position, a good j_c6 4 "1b4 "1d7 5 "1a5 "1c7 6

player would sense that there :f:)c2 "1b7 7 -2) b4 j_d7 8 '2!a6 j_e8

'must' be a win somewhere. It is or 8 . . . Ji..c8 9 :f:)c5 + , accom­

not easy to find, but it exists. panied by the penetration of the

1 . . . '2)e4 2 'lfe2 'lfd5 3 "1e3 white king. 9 :f:)c5 + 'lfc6 10

"1d6! Black triangulates with his .f}xe6 J..d7 and White won.
 A Good Knight versus a Bad Bishop 21

Zubarev-Alexandrov

Moscow, 1915

breakthrough: 41 '2:)f3 jj_e8 42

Qie5 'tr d 8 43 * f3 •e7 44 f¡e3

*e6 45 *d4 f¡e7 46 '2:) d 3 *e6

47 '2:)b4! a5 48 '2:id3 jj_d7 49 a4

In the next example, the good
jj_e8 50 b4 and wins.
knight effortlessly asserts i ts as­
41 fxg5 jj_c8 42 *f4 a5 43 •e5
cendancy over the bad bishop.
jj_g4 44 *f6 J,.h5 45 f,e7 jj_g4 46

1 *fl •e7 2 •e3 *d8 3 *d4 a3 jj_dl 47 Qie6+ *b7 48 *d6

f,c7 4 •c5 The king having occu­
jj_xb349 '2:) d 8 + •c850 Qixc6a4
pied an ideal square, it is now the
51 '2:ie7 + and White won.
knight's turn to take over. 4 . . .

1J.c8 5 Qib4 jj_b7 6 g3 jj_c8 7 '2:id3

Flohr-Capablanca
jj_d7 8 '2:if4 g6 9 Qih3 h6 10 '2:if4
Moscow, 1935
g5 1 1 '2:)h5 jj_e8 12 Qif6 jj_f7 13

Qig4 h5 14 '2:)e3 The knight aims

at f4, so as to tie the bishop to the

defence of the pawns e6 and h5.

14 . . . jj_g6 15 h4! gxh4 16 gxh4

1l.e4 17 en 1l,_ f3 18 Qid2 jj_e2 19

'2:ib3 jj_g4 20 '2:)d4 jj_h3 21 Qie2

Af5 22 Qif4 jj_g4 23 b4! and wins.

Black is in zugzwang.

Averbakh-Lilienthal

Moscow, 1949

In this vintage ending, the In the position above, the isol­

knight's superiority over the ated queen's pawn makes White's

bishop is obvious. knight superior to Black's bishop.

40 g5! fxg5 40 . . . f5 renders the Flohr soon posted his king on d4

bishop totally inactive. Notwith­ and attempted to create weak­

standing the closed nature of the nesses with the aid of his knight.

position, White can engineer a Capablanca's task was by no

22 A Good Knight versus a Bad Bishop

means easy but by dint of careful pawns on the kingside. He must

defence, he succeeded in holding be on guard against threats like

the position. '2)h5-f6 (on . . . .t.d7, for ex­

ample) and '2)b4 Af7, '2)c6. The

move . . . a7-a5, to prevent '2)b4,

Belavenets-Rauzer
will not do, because of bxa6
Moscow, 1937
i_xa4, '2)xf5+ gxf5, g6. In other

variations, White can place his

knight on e5. These factors make

Black's position untenable.

Flohr-Pirc

Podebrady, 1936

The position above is almost

identical to the previous one.

However, unlike Capablanca,

Rauzer was not alive to its inher­

ent dangers and Jet White make

too much headway on both wings.

Sorne 20 moves later the dia­

gram below was reached:

From the diagram above

White, aided by Black's passive

play, succeeds in transforming a

Flohr-Capablanca-like defensible

ending into an indefensible one.

Here Black ought to prevent

the fixing ofhis b7 pawn by b2-b4

and a4-a5, by playing 3 1 . . . a5 or

31 . . . b6. Pire neglected to take

this precaution and 20 moves

later, the position below arose:

Now, in addition to the isolated Flohr broke through with 51

queen's pawn, Black is saddled e4! dxe4 52 i_xe4 '2)c7 52 . . . •c7

with other ailments: the scope of loses to 53 •d4 etc. 53 '2)xb7 +

his bishop is limited by White's � X � � �X� '2)� � �X�

queenside pawns and by his own '2)xf4 56 J,.c4 1--0

 A Good Knight versus a Bad Bishop 23

queens and wins the resulting end­

ing. 48 f5 J,.c8 49 f¡e5 J,.d7 50 e4

J,.e8 51 f¡d4? Correct is the

straightforward 5 1 f6. 51 . . . f¡f3

52 e5 g3 53 '2)e3 f¡f4? Tit for tat!

53 . . . J,.f7! and if 54 e6 J,.g8

draws. 54 e6 g2 55 '2) x g 2 + f¡xf5

56 '1id5 'lig4 57 '2)e3 + "1f4 58

'1id4! 1--0

Damjanovic-Fischer
Capablanca-Reshevsky
Buenos Aires, 1970
Nottingham, 1936

64 . . . '1ib5 65 '1id3 a4 66
Whilst the pawns a4, b5 and d5

restrict the scope of Black's bis­

bxa4 + . Even 66 f¡e3 does not

save White: 66 . . . a3! 67 '1id3

hop, the squares b4, c5 and d4 are
'lic5 and Black plants his knight
natural outposts for White's
on c3 or d4. For example, 68 f¡e3
knight and/or king.

37 '2)d3 g5 The best practical '2)e8 69 '1id3 '2)d6 70 J. d7 '2)c4!!

Accompanied by '2) b2--d I-c3 or

chance. Passive resistance with 37
the entry of the king to d4.
• . . 'lif7 38 '21 b4 and f¡e2--d3--d4
66 . . . f¡xa4 67 f¡c4 f¡a3 68
is gloomy.
f¡c5 f¡xa2 69 'lixb4 '1ib2 70 f¡c5
38 hxg5 Now the square e5 falls

into White's hands. 38 . . . fxg5 39 'lic3 71 '1id6 •d4 72 •e6 '2)xe4

73 'lirT <2lf2 74 "1g6 e4 75 'lixh6

iE:lb4 axb3 40 axb3 J,.b7 41 g4!
e3 76 'l/g7 e2 77 h6 e1(1t) 78 h7
Thwarting . . . h7-h5-h4. 41 . . .
1te7 + 79 f¡g8 '2)e4! 0-1
*g7 42 'lie2 '1ig6 43 '1id3 h5 44

gxh5+ "1xh5 45 "1d4 "1h4 46

Ujtumen-Geller
iE:lxd5 'lig3 47 f4 The ending has
Palma de Mallorca, 1970
taken a tactical tum. ·

47 . . . g4 After 47 . . . J,.xd5 48 Here the pawn configuration

•xdS g4 both sides queen, where­ allows the knight to domínate the

upon White forces an exchange of bishop.

24 A Good Knight versus a Bad Bishop

1 . . . f6 In order to make head­

way, Black must bring his king to

the centre. Exhaustive analysis

has shown that 1 . . . e4, to dis­

courage White's next move, is

more precise. 2 f4 '2}d7 3 \t>h3

exf4 4 gxf4 fxgS 5 fxgS Black has

captured the square e5 and wins

a pawn. 5 . . . '2)e5 6 \t>g3 6

jl b3 '2) f3 . 6 . . . �xc4 7 \t>f4 h4

Diverting the white king from the

41 . . . g6 42 *d3 hS 43 c3 The
centre. 8 jld3 h3 9 \t>g3 h2 Similar
only counter-chance: to create a
is 9 . . . '2)d2 (1 0 •xh3 '2) f3 11
passed pawn, be it at the cost of
\t>g4 -2) e 5 + ). 10 jle4 Or 10
another pawn. lf White does
'tl'xh2 '2)e5-f7. 10 . . . '2)a3 11
nothing, . . . g5 coupled with the
'tl'xh2 -2) x b 5 1 2 'tl'g3 '2)c3 Here 1 2
king's entry to f4 wins. 43 . . . bxc3
. . . '2) a 3 is quicker. 13 \t>f3 Lay­
44 •xc3 '2)xe4+ 45 •c4 �g3 46
ing a trap. 13 'ti' f4 is more ten-
jl f3 e4 47 jlg2 •eS! 48 b4 '2)f5
acious. 13 'tl'fl The pawn end-
49 bS '2) d 6 + 50 *cS '2)xb5 51
ing after 1 3 '2)xe4 is a draw. 14
•xbS *d4 52 $10 <l¡e3 53 jlg2
..tc2 bS 15 J,.b3 '2Ja4 16 'tl'e3 -2\ cS
\t> d 3 � 1
17 jlc2 b4 18 'tl'd4 b3 19 _tbl

-2)d7 Seeking a decision on the

Tseshkovsky- Tukmakov
king's flank. lt is amusing to
Erevan, 1982
watch the b-pawn repeat the

diversionary exercise performed

previously by the h-pawn.

20 'tl'c3 -2\eS 21 •xb3 � f3 22

'tl'c3 �xgS 23 'tl'd4 'tl'f6 24 •e3

�h3 25 *º 'tl'g5 26 J,.d3 �f4 27

jlc4 '2}h5 28 _tbS �f6 29 i_c4

*h4 30 *f4 � h S + 31 *e4 *g3

32 .,td3 �f6+ 33 'tl'e3 gS �1

Karpov-Kasparov

Moscow, 1984

In the above position, the ex­ Kasparov has just played 46 . . .

ploitation of the knight's superi­ gxh4? expecting a quick draw

ority is fraught with obstacles. We after the normal 47 gxh4, which

shall avoid delving into them too would leave White without entry

deeply and concentrate on the points. Karpov replied 47 �g2!!,

course of the game. a temporary pawn-sacrifice

 A Good Knight versus a Bad Bishop 25

. . . jj_ h l. 67 <E)f5 jj_g2 68 <E) d 6 +

*b3 69 �xbS *ª4 70 <E)d6 1-0

Kbolmov-V asyukov

USSR, 1971

designed to keep the h4 square

vacant. As we shall see, this sur­

prising rejoinder provided him

with distinct winning possibilities.

47 . . . hxg3+ 47 . . . h3 48 <E)f4

is worse. 48 •xg3 1"e6 48 . . .

11_g6 49 '2,f4 leads to similar posi­ Here, too, the clear superiority

tions. 49 <E)f4+ *fS 50 <E)xhS of the knight over the bishop

\tie6 51 <E)f4+ ,¡tpd6 52 ,¡tpg4 jtc2 affords Black excellent winning

53 \t/hS i_dl 54 *g6 ,¡tpe7 The chances.

ending after 54 . . . jtxf3 55 •xf6 44 . . . gS Black intends to post

is untenable: White's king and his king on e5 and takes steps to

knight will combine to outflank hinder g3---g4 after the removal of

the black king from d6 and there­ his knight.

after the d-pawn will fall. In this 45 Jte2 g4 46 Adl *e6 47 jtc2

event, exchanging Black's bishop <E)f3 48 Ad3 •es Now it is up to

for White's knight leads to a lost the knight to induce additional

pawn ending. weaknesses in White's position.

55 <tJxdS + •e6 lf 55 . . . wd6 49 Ac2 <E)d4 50 jj_ b l '2\e6 51 Ac2

56 -t:ic3! Axf3 57 1"xf6 intending <tJd8 In this type of position the

*e3 and the transfer ofthe knight knight is able to reach almost any

to c5. lf Black defends the pawn square; it is just a matter of time.

with . . . jtc8, White continues 52 A b l '2\f7 53 Ac2 '2\d6 54 Ad3

*e4, d5 etc. <E)b7 55 Ac2 '2\aS 56 A b l '2\c6 57

56 '2,c7 + *d7 56 . . . *d6 57 Ac2 '2\b4 58 Abl a6 59 a3

-2ie8 + ! *d5 58 f4! wins, as the f­ Unavoidable, but now b3

pawn gets through: Speelman and becomes a target. 59 . . . <E)c6 60

Tisdall. 57 <E)xa6 �xf3 58 •xf6 Jtc2 <E)a5 61 \l'd3 '2,c6 62 •e3

*d6 59 •rs .dS 60 •r4 Ahl 61 <E)d4 Paving the way for . . . f5 and

*e3 •c4 62 <E)c5 Ac6 63 <E)d3 the entry of his king into White's

A.g2 64 '2, e S + *c3 65 <E)g6 •c4 camp. 63 Adl f5! 64 exf5 <E)xf5 +

66 0ie7 ilb7 More tenacious is 66 65 *ª *d4 66 Ac2 <E)g7 67 \l'e2

26 A Good Knight versus a Bad Bishop

•e3 68 *dl �e8 While White is i_dl *d8 36 a4 bxa4? In his book

obliged to await events, Black im­ Judgment and Planning in Chess,

proves his position. Euwe considers the text move a

69 •et �f6 70 *dl �d7 71 mistake and analyses 36 . . . b4! as

i_g6 �f6 72 i_e2 *b2 73 *d2 leading to a forced win.

Better: 73 a4 �d7 74 *d2. 73 . . . 37 j}_xa4 •e7 38 i_e2 *b6 39

•xa3 74 •e3 b5 75 exb5 axb5 76 •e3 *b5 40 *b3 •e5 41 *ª4

i_g6 �d5 + 77 •el b4 77 . . . �e4 42 i_b3? Missing 42 j_ b l!

�e3 + 78 *d3 �fl only draws. �d2 43 i_d3, preventing . . . � fl ,

78 j}_xh5 e4! 79 j}_g6 exb3+ 80 when White's passed pawn saves

*d3 b2 81 *d4 �f6 82 i_bl �h5 the day. 42 . . . �d2 43 i_e2 �n

83 •e5 �xg3 84 •r4 �n! 84 . . . Now the game is over. 44 •xa5

�h5 + is not good enough. 85 �xg3 45 fla4 �h5 46 *b3 *d4

•xg4 �d2 86 i_d3 �e4! 87 •r4 The final phase requires precise

*b3 88 h5 �a3 89 h6 �el and calculation but the result is no

Black won. longer in doubt. 47 *b4 �f6 48

d6 g5 49 hxg5 hxg5 50 *b5 g4 51

Eliskases-Flohr
i_dl g3 52 _lf3 •e3 53 i_hl *f'2
Semmering, 1937
54 •e6 g2 55 j}_xg2 •xg2 56 d7

�xd7 57 •xd7 *f3 0-1

Keene-Miles

British Ch., 1982

White's central pawns require

protection and limit the scope of

his bishop; Black's knight is an

ideal blockader. However, the

realization of Black's advantage is In the next example, Black suc­

onerous and the final outcome ceeds in exploiting the awkward

uncertain. position of White's bishop.

Black first endeavours to 23 . . . �d6 24 i_a6 i_d7 does

mobilize the pawn majority on the not make much difference. 24 . . .

queenside. 30 . . . b5 31 *d2 a5 32 b5 25 b3 "118 26 a4 "1e7! 27 axb5

"1d3 "1f6 33 i_f3 •e7 34 h4? A The pawn ending after 27 j_xb5

serious weakening. 34 . . . h6 35 �xb5 28 axb5 is in Black's

 A Good Knight versus a Bad Bishop 27

favour. 27 . . . �e4! 28 b6 To free configuration has changed; and

the bishop. 28 . . . axb6 29 jtd3 with it, the course of the game.

'2)d2 Here the knight is more 31 a3 e5 32 g4 .;tg6 33 h5

effective than the bishop. More­ Again, the pawn ending after 33

over, White encounters difficult­ �xg6 is lost for White. 33 • • •

ies in the deployment of bis king. Jtbl 34 g5 This enfeebles the

30 b4 �f3 + ! 31 •ht Forced! 31 pawn on h5, but Black was threat­

. . . h6 32 .;te2 �d2 33 *g2 *d6 ening to penetrate with bis king.

34 b5 34 f4 loses to . . . �c4 35 34 . . . h6! 35 gxh6 gxh6 36 �e2 a4

f;f2 f;c6---b5. 34 . . . e5 35 jtdl 37 �g3 •e6 38 f4 •d5 39 •et

f;e6 36 f3 �c4 37 *f2 �d6 38 jtd3 In this type of ending, the

dxe5? 38 $la4 is necessary. 38 . . . knight is no match for the bishop.

f;xe5 39 (4+ •e6 40 $lb3 40 <lld2 .,;tbl 41 •et Jtd3 42

'2)e4 + ! 0-1 In view of . . . •d6--­ •d2 e4 43 •et e3 44 �hl

c5. White's pieces beat an abject re­

treat. 44 . . . •e4 45 �g3 *b3 46

bxe3 dxe3 47 (5 •xa3 48 (6 jte4

Matulovic-Korchnoi
49 � (5 Too late. 49 . . • *b4 50
Ohrid, 1972
�d4 a3 51 <llbl Jtf7 52 �e6+

•c5 53 �e5 a2+ 54 •at e2 55

<E:i d 3 + *d4 56 �el *e5 0-1

Fine-Botvinnik

Avro, 1938

If White were to place bis

knight on c5 (or d4), supported by

b2-b4, the knight would be better

than the bishop. But it is Black's

turn to move.

28 . . . Jtf5! Designed against

�d3--c5, the pawn ending after 29 The diagram was arrived at

fid2 a5 30 �d3 jtxd3! being after the following opening

untenable for White. 29 h4? White moves: 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 �e3 i_b4

ought to contain Black's pawns 4 e5 e5 5 dxe5 (Fine's prepared

with 29 b4. 29 . . . a5 30 *d2 d4! variation) 5 . . . �e7 6 �f3 �bc6

Within a few moves, the pawn 7 Jtd3 d4 8 a3 jta5 9 b4 �xb4 10

28 A Good Knight versus a Bad Bishop

axb4 jj_ x b 4 1 1 jj_b5 + ?! Now Bot­

vinnik, who expected 1 1 0-0 jj_xc3

12 � b l , went astray with 1 1 . . .

�c6? instead of 11 §¡_d7 12

�xd4 ll. x c 3 + and 13 §l.xb5,

which is good for Black.

In the sequel, Fine relentlessly

demonstrated the superiority of

his good knight over Black's lame

bishop: 12 i_xc6 + ! bxc6 13 � a4!

§l.xc3 + 14 i_ d2 f6 Black is posi­

basis for the opening of a second
tionally lost. His white-squared
front. 26 . . . h6 27 g4! This 'weak­
bishop is a mere spectator. 15 0-0
ening' attacking move involves no
0-0 16 i_xc3 dxc3 17 �el a5 18
risk. 27 . . . *b7 28 h5 �c6 29 g5
*xc3 _t a 6 1 9 A fa l ll.b5 20 .ld4
�xd4 30 �xd4 hxg5 31 '!l((xg5
�e7 21 14 d6 a4 22 *e3 � a7 23
'f}h7 32 � c3 * b4 33 � g3 a g8 34
�d2 a3 24 c4 §l.a4 25 exf6 -W,-xf6
�f3 The knight leaves d4 to take
26 ;¡;i xa3 � fe8 27 h3 � aa8 28
part in the final onslaught. 34 . . .
Qif3 �b2 29 �e5 �bl + 30 \tih2
axb3 35 axb3 �xb3 36 �el! '!l((a2
�f5 31 �g3 1--0
37 �g5 + 'f}h8 38 �xfi + 'f}h7

39 �g5 -W,-bl + 40 \tih2 1--0 Note

Karpov-Taimanov

Moscow, 1972
how the bishop remained idle

throughout.

Quinteros--Larsen

Manila, 1973

Here White's control of the key

square d4 is the determining fac­

tor.

21 M c 5 a 5 2 2 i1!!'. a c l a423 �bd4

Qla5 24 � xc8 + §l.xc8 25 b3 White's bishop is bad but his

§J.d7(63) pawn majority on the king's wing

26 h4! White's hold on the may become ominous. In the se­

blocked centre serves as a good quel, Larsen is quick to occupy c4

 A Good Knight versus a Bad Bishop 29

with his knight, which enables If 46 . . . _lc6 47 b5! exd4+ 48

hirn to launch a powerful attack \f¡xd4 .1 c 5 4 9 .1 xc6 + with a won

on White's king. pawn ending for White. 47 � e 6 +

20 . . . �a5 21 �d3 �c4 22 \tic8 48 �c5 J,.b5 49 .1 xg6 e4

j_d2 fxe5! 23 dxe5 23 fxe5 is an­ 50 11 g8 + \tic7 51 g6 Ji. xd3 52 g7

swered by . . . �g4. 23 . . . 11 ad8 1-0

24 j_cl b5 25 .!!i h e l .lfe8 26 "it'f3

c5 Whilst White's kingside pawns Avoer-Gelfer

are paper tigers, Black's queen­ Ramat-Gan, 1979

side infantry, shielded by his ad­

vanced knight, is menacing. 27

�d3 d4 28 .l ed l �a5 Switching

outposts. 29 g4 �b3 30 A e l c4 31

� ddl b4! 32 axb4 There is

nothing better. Black's attack

plays itself. 32 . . . d3 33 J,.d2 a3

34 bxa3 �d4 35 "it'f2 -.¡ta4 36 J,.c3

�e2 37 .§.b2 "it' c 2 + �1 38 •al

c3 39 .§. e l �d4.

Suetin-Cherepkov
Black's knight stands well, but
Kislovodsk, 1967
so do White's rooks. A hard

struggle might be expected-were

it not for the unfortunate position

of White's bishop, which Black

adroitly exploits to bring about a

won ending:

32 . . . 1, xe5! 33 dxe5 g5! For­

cing White's next move. Within

two moves, a seemingly double­

edged position has become de­

cidedly one-sided! 34 fxg6+ hxg6

35 J,.d8 White is a t a loss for good

moves. 35 . . . \t'e6 36 J,.b6 X f7

Here the knight's dominant
37 li_c7 d4 38 ll el \t'd5 39 J,.a5
position carries the day.
\t'xe5 40 li_d2 \t'd5 �1
41 b4 JI c3 Seeking counter­

play. 4 1 . . . .l c 8 is answered by 42
Flohr-Bondarevsky
.1 fl-f6, with � b3--c5 in the off­
Moscow, 1939
ing. 42 lI h8! J. e8 43 e6! fxe6 44

1 h7 + \t'd6 44 . . . .§.f7 fails Here White's good knight and

against 45 � f3 , threatening 46 active rook collaborate well m

'2\ e 5 . 45 B,xb7 e5 46 Hb6+ \t'c7 mobilizing his central pawns:

30 A Good Knight versus a Bad Bishop

68 ■ ■ , ,.
w " � J. � �
·--�,.
�,�.
!m_
..

..
. ..

�
- i
�

■,.
�
B t
�
■ ■ � .
i

im � im •

� � -
wa
n,
�-
■
�
�

�
.. •

11 �
� � � � �
-.---; � 'i6r .. ,

,. L-�iii..=
'ª'
=- "

20 f4! l.e7 When playing his

1 a5 ,ic7 2 1. h 6 + .tg6 3 .l h l
last move, White had to satisfy
.tf5 4 1, c l! The threat a5-a6
himself that the black rook had
forces Black's hand and prepares
no entry: 20 . . . l. e3 2 1 ,a,f2 d4 22
the ground for the next phase. 4
1, c d l winning the d-pawn. 21
.. . a6 5 .l h l .1.g7 6 X h 2 1,c7 7
.l. fel White now proceeds to as­
l. h6 + .t g6 8 l. h4! lt is time to
sert control of the key squares e3
advance the centre pawns. 8 . . .
and d4. 21 . . . .l. fe8 22 X xe7
.tf5 9 e4 dxe4 10 fxe4 .tg6 11
X xe7 23 ,a,f2! Next step: to sim­
Kf4+ ,a, e6 1 2 ,a,e3 Xg7 13 '2)d3
plify into a favourable knight ver­
,a,d6 14 '2)c5 The point of indu­
sus bishop ending.
cing . . . a6 becomes clear; the
23 . . . ,a,f7! A positional trap: if
knight is firmly entrenched on c5.
now 24 �el X x e l! 25 ,a,xel d4!
14 . . . Ke7 15 1. 18 ,a,c7 16 e5
26 '2)e2 ,a,e6! 27 '2)xd4 + ,a,d5
Xe8 17 1txe8 The rook has ful­
and Black has freed himself. 24
filled its task. 17 . . . .t x e 8 1 8 ,a,f4
Xdl Jie8 25 Xd2 h6 26 Xe2!
b6 19 '2)a4! Keeping the black
.1 b8 Exchanging rooks will no
king at bay and fixing his weak
longer do, since White can pre­
pawn at a6. Black's passed pawn
vent the black king's entry.
is useless. 19 . . . bxa5 20 bxa5
27 ,a,e3 Commencing the next
.tf7 21 '2)c5 .tc4 22 ,a,g5 .te2 23
phase: centralization of the king
,a,h6 ,a,d8 24 ,a,xh7 ,a,e7 25 ,a,g6
coupled with the advance of the
.t n 26 ,a, f5 .t h3 + 27 ,a, e4
queenside pawns. 27 • • . .1 b3 28
.tg2 + 28 ,a,e3 .tfl 29 ,a,d2 The
,a, d4 ,a, f6 29 '21 al X b8 30 b4 g5
king heads to c5. 29 . . . ,a,f7 30
Seeking counterplay. On 30 . . . a5
,a,c3 ,a,g6 31 ,a,b4 ,a,f5 32 '2lb7
White plays 3 1 bxa5 X a8 32 '2)c3
1--0
JI xa5 33 a4, together with .1 b2
. . '
wmnmg easily.
Botvinnik-Konstantinopolsky
31 g3 gxf4 32 gxf4 a6 33 '2)c3
Sverdlovsk, 1943
.lg8 34 a4 Jlg4 35 .l. f2 .te6 36

White's first task is to ensure b5 The rest is technique. 36 . . .

the confinement of Black's axb5 37 axb5 cxb5 38 '2)xb5 Jl g l

bishop. 39 '2)c3! Designed against . . .

 A Good Knight versus a Bad Bishop 31

� d I + . 39 . . . fin 40 A b2 JI f1 well-conceived exchanges, Here

41 '2ie2 � el 42 •e5 d4 Otherwise Black simplifies neatly into a good

comes 43 c6 coupled with X b7 + knight versus bad bishop middle­

and the king's march to d6. 43 game.

fjxd4 *g6 44 <E)c3 *h5 45 .l e 2 19 . . . <E)xf3 20 �xf3 �xb2 21

;¡ xe2 46 <E)xe2 f}g4 47 •e5 �c8 .1 xb2 e5! Limiting the scope of

48 �d4 h5 49 <E)xf5 �d7 50 <E)g7 the white bishop and gaining con­

j_a4 51 f5 *g5 52 <E) e 6 + 1--0 trol of the black squares. 22 X bl

22 f5 is necessary. Now Black can

Shaw-Keene
post his knight on e5. 22 . . . -h4
Brisbane, 1979
23 -fl exf4! The rest is tech­

mque.

24 <E)xf4 1,a2 25 Xcl <E)e5 26

*h2 1.fa8 27 Xg2 �c6 28 <E)d5

This plays into Black's hands.

However, White's position is be­

yond repair. 28 . . . � xd5! 29 exd5

h5! A neat point: if 30 gxh5 -f4 +

31 X g3 <E)xf3 + gains material. 30

X g3 hxg4 31 �xg4 *g7 32 -g2

l. al 33 .1 gl X x11I 34 trxgl K al

35 -bl .1 a3 36 i/!t'dl -f6 37 *g2

At times, it is possible to resolve -f4 38 -fl ..-d4 39 -fl -xd5 +

the strategic potential of a posi­ 40 �f3 - d 4 4 1 �e4 :l a 2 4 2 -d2

tion by resorting to a series of -c3�1

4 Bishops-Same Colour

Lasker

1932

making it easy. Fischer was 14

years and 4 months old when this

1 1l_c3 _;l_d6 2 'itle3 'itlfl 3 we4 game was played.

Toe capture of the key square e4 38 . . . *eS 39 c3 _;l_d7 40 1l_c4 f6

fixes Black's e5 pawn, prevents . . . 41 _;l_d5 Though seemingly well­

\ti d 5 and prepares the advance of entrenched, the bishop lacks pro­

the distant b-pawn. 3 . . . il/e6 4 b4 spects. 41 . . . jl_e8 4 1 . . . f5? 42

jl_c7 5 b5 \tif6. Otherwise 6 b6. 6 exf5 = . 42 c4? Ceding the import­

g4 'itle6 7 g5 g6 8 1l_b2 1l_d6 9 b6 ant square d4. 42 §J.b7 is correct.

1l_b8 or 9 . . . 1l_c5 10 b7 _;l_d6 11 42 . . . *d4! 43 wg4 §J.g6 44 *º

.ii_a3 1l_b8 1 2 §J.c5 *d7 1 3 *d5 e4 §J. h5 + 45 *f2 §[Link] Black makes

14 1l_e3. 10 §J. a3 'itld7 l l 1l_ f8 we6 the most of the scarce material. 46

12 §J.g7 1l_d6 13 1l_f6 §J. b8 14 _;l_d8 *g3? Speelman has shown that

and after the exchange of bishops even now White could draw with

White wins the pawn ending. 46 §J.b7! wxc4 47 jl_c8 (or 47

'itle3) 47 . . . 'it/d4 48 _;l_f5.

Elo-Físcher
46 jl_e2 47 c5 White is lost.
Milwaukee, 1957
47 •xc5 48 §J.e6 *d4 49 _;l_f5

•e3 0-1.
This ending is akin to Lasker's

position (70), except that in this

Averbakh
example the stronger side (in this
1954
case, Black) cannot boast of a

passed pawn. This lightens the A typical winning position in a

defender's task without, however, good versus bad bishop ending.

 Bishops-Same Colour 33

1 Jle2 Jl..g2 2 Jl_g4 Jl..e4 3 Jl_c8!

•c7 4 1le6 *d6 5 Jl..g8 h6 6 Jl.f7

h5 6 . . . •c6 7 •e5 is bad, but

after the text move ali Black's

pawns occupy White squares. 7

j}_e8 Jl_c2 8 JJ..f7 Jl_e4 9 f5! Jl_xf5 9

. . . gxf5 loses to 10 JJ..xh5. The

move chosen leads to zugzwang:

10 Jlxd5 _tc8 11 e4 Compelling

Black to cede space to White's

king. 11 ... we7 12 *e5 g5 13

The black pawns on h5, f5, d5 and
hxg5 h4 14 g6 h3 15 g7 h2 16
a6 are vulnerable and curtail
g8(1't) hl(�) 17 ·¡¡¡,f7+ *d8 18
Black's bishop's movements. To
iiit f8 + 1-0.
sea! Black's fate, ali White need do

is lose a move; that is, repeat the

initial position with Black to

Karpov-Hort
move. This may be accomplished
Budapest, 1973
as follows: 1 Jle2 Jle8 1 . . . Jl_g6 2

Ji..d3 JJ.. h 7 3 1l_fl leads to instant

zugzwang, be it after 3 . . . Jl..g6 4

11.g2 JJ..f7 5 JJ.. f3 , or after 3 . . .

11.g8 4 lle2 1l..f7 5 1l.. f3 . 2 ..§:. d3

11.g6 3 Jl_c2 JJ..h7 4 1lb3! 1l_g8 5

[Link] 1l..f7 6 JJ..fJ! and so on.

Polugayevsky-Mecking

Mar del Plata, 1971

This is the end of one of Kar­

pov's finest positional achieve­

ments on the road to the World

Championship. White's pawn

structure, on both wings, suits the

colour of his bishop whilst Black's

pawn structure, dispersed and

weak, makes his bishop 'bad'.

38 •e3 Toe conquest of d4 is

the key to White's strategy. 38 . . .

White's king and bishop are Jl..g439 Jl..d3 JJ.. e6 40 *d4 Jl..g441

superior to Black's, who suffers Jl_c2 Jl..e6 On 4 1 . . . Jl_e2, 42 f5!

from a weak pawn formation. underscores the feebleness of h7.

34 Bishops-Same Colour

42 J,.b3! A manoeuvre characteris­ 36 J..cl 36 j_c3 J,.d6 37 J,. e l f5 38

tic of good versus bad bishop end­ J..f2 e5! 39 dxe5 j_xe5 brings to

ings: the better bishop dictates to its light the weakness of a3.

weaker counterpart which diagonal 36 . . . j_d6 37 f4 Another

it will inhabit. 42 . . . J..f7 43 J..dl forced concession. 37 . . . gxf4 38

j_e6 44 J,.f3 J..f7 45 j_g4! 1-0. gxf4 j_e7 39 j_e3 j_h4 40 j_gl f5!

To forestan 46 J..c8, Black is 41 J,.e3 J,.g3 0-1

obliged to offer the exchange of

bishops, 45 . . . j_ e6, leading to a

Polugayevsky-Balashov
lost pawn ending after 46 J..xe6
Leningrad, 1977
'i1Pxe6 47 g4! 'i1Pd6 48 a3.

Akonia-Grau

Argentina, 1929

Black suffers from weaknesses

on f5 and a6. His king and bishop

also lack manoeuvering space.

49 f3 Paving the way for the

The vulnerability of the pawn king. 49 . . . exf3 + 50 'i1Pxf3 h5?!

on d4 and of the pawn configur­ This prevents 51 'i1Pf4 •g6 52

ation on the queen's wing affords j_xf5 + ! etc., leading to a won

Black a clear advantage. First he pawn ending for White, but

posts bis king on d5, and then creates an additional weakness. 50

attempts to create an additional . . . J,.d7 51 'i1Pf4 j_a4-b3, seeking

weakness on the king's wing. counterplay, may offer more

26 . . . 'i1Pf8 27 'ilPfl •e7 28 'i1Pe2 chances.

'i1Pd6 29 'i1Pd3 'i1Pd5 30 f3 Other 51 'i1Pf4 'i1Pg6 52 J_fl The pawn

pawn moves are no better. 30 . . . ending after 52 e4 J,.d7 53

h5 31 g3 On 3 1 h3 comes 3 1 . . . h4 j_xf5 + j_xf5 54 exf5 + cannot be

and . . . J,.g5. 31 . . . h4! 32 j_c3 Or won. 52 . . . J,.d7 53 J,.d3 J,.c8 54

32 gxh4 j_xh4 33 j_c3 j_g5. 32 J,.bl j_d7 55 J,.c2 Zugzwang. 55

. . . h3 . . . j_ xg3 is in the air. 33 . . . J,.c8 56 J,.a4 'i1Pf7 lf 56 . . .

J,.al g5 34 J,.c3 J,.g7 35 J,.b2 J,.f8 J,.b7 57 J,.d7. 57 'i1Pf3 A well

 Bishops-Same Colour 35

known strategy whose aim is to 1 b4! axb4 If 1 . . . J. xa4 2 bxa5

win the f-pawn. 57 . . . 'l¡e7 58 and * b2-a3-�5, or 1 . . . b6 2

'1Jf2 f4 Or 58 . . . 'll f7 59 'li e l ! bxa5 bxa5 3 J,.b5! 2 J,.c2 J,.c6 3

*g7 60 Ae8 '1Jh6 6 1 'li f2 Ab7 62 '1ib2 b6 4 *b3 *f8 5 •xb4 •e8

w f3 etc. 59 gxf4 Af5 60 '1Je2 6 a5! 1-0 After 6 . . . bxa5 + 7

wd8 61 '1id2 Simpler is 6 1 Ac6. 'l¡xa5 '1id8 8 * b6 J_e8 9 •c5!

61 . . . Ag6 62 Ac6 '1Jc7 63 'l¡e2 'l¡c7 IO A d3 Black is in zug­

f5 64 e4 fxe4 65 'lie3 '1Jc8 66 Aa4 zwang.

wd8 67 Adl! '1Je7 68 fS Axf5

Now the h-pawn becomes passed.

However, 68 . . . Ae8 69 'l¡xe4 Baslavsky-Kondratiev

'1Jf6 70 'l¡f4 A f7 71 Aa4 is Tallinn, 1947

equally hopeless.

69 AxhS '1Jf6 70 '1Jf4 Ah3 71

Ae2 Af5 72 Ag4 e3 72 . . . Ag6

fails against 73 Ac8, whilst 72 . . .

Axg4 73 'l¡xg4 'l¡e5 loses to 74

h5. 73 Ae2 Ad7 74 •xe3 '1Jf5 75

Ah5 '1Jf6 76 '1Jf4 AfS 77 Ae2

.:.lc2 78 '1Je3 Af5 79 Ad3 Ag4 80

J.c2 J.h3 81 Ah7 Afl 82 Ad3

J.h3 83 '1Jf4 Ad7 84 h5 J,.a4 85

h6 J.b3 86 h7 '1Jg7 87 '1Jf5 1-0

Estrin-Ivashin

Correspondence, USSR 1947

1 'lie3 •n 2 '1Jd4 J.e8 3 *c3

'l¡e7 4 *b3 '1id8 5 *ª4 •c7 6

'l¡a5 J_f7 Black cannot allow

'li b6 and is reduced to waiting

moves wíth hís bíshop. 7 J,.c4!

J,.g8 8 a4 J,.f7 9 ss axb5 10 axb5

J,.g8. On 10 . . . cxb5 11 J,.xb5

J,.g8 12 j_e8 wins forthwíth. 11

b6 + From now on Black has to

constantly guard against J,.a6,

which leaves White with a free

hand on the kíng's flank.

11 . . . '1id8 12 *b4 J,.f7 13

*c3 *d7 14 '1Jd4 *d8 15 •e3

The pawn chaín, wíth its spear­ *d7 16 f5! Elementary. 16 . . .

head at f6, cramps Black's two gxfS 17 *f4 J,.g6 18 *g5 J,.e8 19

pieces. *f6 f4 20 J,.e2 and wins.

36 Bishops-Same Colour

Kamishev-Shamaev majority on the king's wmg a

Correspondence, 1936 poten tia! trump. Moreover,

White's queenside pawns require

constant protection.

1 . . . g5 2 'lfe2 g4 3 'lff2 _te5 4

\t,e2 f4 5 hxg4 hxg4 6 'lffi 'lf¡e6 7

'lfe2 'lff5 8 'ttifi _td4!

Setting the stage for the final

act. 9 'lf¡e2 'lfe5 10 'lffi f3 l l gxf3

gxf3 12 _th6 \tid5 13 Af8 'lfe6 14

'lf el 'lfe5 15 'lffi 'lf¡f4 16 _th6 +

'lfg4 17 _lf8 _lb2 The fall of the

feeble a-pawn is fatal. 18 _tc5

_txa3 19 d4 'lff5 20 d5 a5 21 d6
White's bishop straddles the
f¡e6 and Black won.
long diagonal and ties down its

colleague to the defence of the b7

pawn.
Petrosian-Zeinaly
1 'lf fi g5 2 'lfe2 'lfg7 3 'lfxe3
Leningrad, 1946
\t,f6 4 'lfd4 h5 5 h3 \t,f5 6 _lf7!

This soon leads to zugzwang. 6 .

h 4 7 _lh5 'lff48 _lf3 'lfg3. lf 8 .

g4 9 hxg4 h3 10 gxh3 'lfxf3 11

'lfe5, presently annexing the

pawn on b7. 9 'lfe3! Zugzwang. 9

. . . 'lfh2 10 'lf f2 1-0 In view of 10

. . . '11 h1 1 1 g3 + '11 h2 12 gxh4

gxh4 1 3 .lg4!

Zatulovskaya-Chiburdanidze

L'vov, 1977

At first sight, it is not clear how

White can institute a break­

through. However, Black's col­

our-complex and the constricted

state of his king and bishop make

his defeat inevitable.

1 a6! Doubled pawns can be

useful! 1 . . . bxa6. On 1 . . . b6

White penetrates with 2 a4, 3

cxb6 +, 4 a5 + and \f¡¡ c 5 . 2 \f¡¡a5

Black's king is centralized, her 'lfb7 Or 2 . . . _tc8 3 h4 _ld7 4

bishop well placed, and her pawn _txa6 Jl e8 5 Ji_c8 Jl f7 6 JL. d 7

 Bishops=Same Co/our 37

*b7 7 a4 •c7 8 •a6! •xd7 9 Placing yet another pawn on a

*b7 and the a-pawn promotes. white square. 41 . . . g5 42 "1e2

3 1. x a 6 + "lric7 3 . . . "ltia7 4 a3. J¡_f5! 43 g4 43 h4 j_g4 + leads to a

4 1.c4 "1rib7 5 h4 "1c7 6 *ª6 lost pawn ending; but the text

kc8 + 7 "lria7 JJ..d7 8 a4 J_c8 9 a5 move constitutes a further weak­

.,ád7 10 §La6 JJ..e8 1 1 jJ_c8!! Such ening. 43 . . . .il,bl 44 "1f3 f5 45

resources may appear fortuitous. gxf5 wxf5 46 .f2 JJ..e4 47 .g3

In reality, they are typical of such f¡g6! The final phase, involving

positions. 11 . . . "1xc8 12 f¡b6 the advance of the h-pawn, thus

*b8 13 a6 f¡a8 Black's monarch fixing White's h-pawn.

has been cornered. 13 . . . j_d7 48 <lrif2 h5 49 *g3 h4 + The h3

would succumb to 14 a7 + *ª8 pawn is now fixed. 50 fi'f2 J_f5 51

1 5 "lric7 §Le8 1 6 <1rid8 etc. 14 "1c7 *g2 *f6 52 fi'h2 we6 0-1 After

• a 7 1 5 '1'id8 JJ.. f7 1 6 ft¡e7 J_g8 17 53 "1g2 •e5 54 *h2 i, b l 55

*d7! 17 "1f8 is less accurate: 17 "1g2 •e4 the invasion ofthe king

. . . JJ..h7 1 8 "ltig7 "lrixa6 1 9 wxh7 is lethal.

* b 5 . 17 . . . JJ.. f7 1 8 "lrixc6 J_ e 8 +

19 <1rid6 "lri xa6 20 c6 * b6 21 c7

Eliskases-Broyer
1'rb7 22 "ltie7 and wins.
Correspondence, 1933

Smyslov-Keres

Moscow, 1952

Here the battle revolves around

the control of the vital square f4. 1

g3! Now 1 . . . fxg3 + 2 •xg3 helps

Black's pawn formation makes White (2 . . . "1f5 3 J_h3 + )

his bishop better than White's. To whereas 1 . . . f3 2 *gl costs a

succeed in forcing the entry of pawn. Lastly, if 1 . . . i,e6 not 2

Black's king, sorne softening gxf4 "1f5 3 J.h3 + fi,f6 = ; but

up operations are called for. 2 "1g2! ftlf5 3 wf3 fxg3 4 J.d3 + ,

36 . . . J_bl 37 a3 a5! Fixing the winning the contest for f4.

white pawns. 38 i,dl wg6 39 Black tried 1 . . . j_g4 hoping

Wg2 "1f5 40 fi'f3 f¡e5 41 a4 for 2 gxf4 *f5 = , and White

38 Bishops-Same Colour

avoided the pitfall with 2 Ag2! Ah5 6 e6 Ae8 and Black had

There followed 2 . . . f3 2 . . . Ae6 many problems to overcome

3 gxf4! t¡l,f5 4 f¡g3 and Black's (White ultimately won).

king is denied the square e4. 3

Afl fif5 4 Ad3+ fie6 5 figl Suetin-Matanovic

fid7 6 fif2 f¡c6 7 Ac2 b6 7 . . . Be/grade, 1974

f¡b5 loses to 8 Ab3 Ae6 9 t¡l,e3!

(not 9 t¡l,xf3? fi b4! gaining time,

since White's bishop is unable to

retreat to d i ) 9 . . . fib4 10 Adl

and A f3 . 8 cxb6 fixb6 9 Adl

Ae6 10 Axf3 Af7 1 1 fie3 t¡1,b5

12 fif4 fib4 13 fie5 fic4 14 Ahl

Ag8 15 Ag2 Af7 16 Af3 and

wms.

Severa! years later, Eliskases

outplayed Capablanca in another

complex bishop-ending.

While White's advantage is

Eliskases-Capablanca
evident, it is not clear how he can
Semmering, 1937
make headway. Suetin forces the

exchange of the white-squared

bishops and proves that the

resulting ending is won for him:

47 g4! hxg4 48 Axg4 Axg4 49

'ljxg4! ,¡jd7 To forestall ,¡j e 6 + .

50 ,¡jxd7 + f¡xd7 51 t¡l,g2 f¡e8

The pawn ending after 5 1 . . . Af8

52 f¡g3 Ae7 53 fig4 fie8 54

Axe7 f¡xe7 55 f¡g5 f¡f7 is lost:

56 fih6 f¡f6 57 h4! fif7 58 fih7

f¡f6 59 fig8 etc. 52 f¡f3 fid7 53

f¡g4 fie8 54 h4 Af8 55 h5!

To conserve winning chances,
gxh5 + 56 fixh5 Ag7 57 f¡g6
White must avoid early simpli­
Af8 58 fif6 Ae7 + 59 fif5 Af8
fication and, if possible, keep the
60 f¡g6! 1-0. The need to prevent
pawns on both wings. Thus l
A d8 immobilized the black king.
Axa6 f¡b6 followed by . . . c5

constitutes a wrong approach, Karpov-Ribli

whereas 1 f¡d4 is the right one.
Bath, 1973
1 . . . f¡b6 Otherwise 2 f¡c5. 2

Ac4 Ag4 The pawn ending is In the position above, the pawn

los t. 3 e5 fxe5 + 4 fxe5 h6 5 h4 configuration is much in White's

 Bishops=Same Colour 39

favour; his bishop is free to attack 23 -.n J,.d7 24 a3 Thwarting

Black's pawns and to support an . . . b6-b5-b4. 24 . . . *f6 25 f¡,e2

eventual g4-g5; and Black's pawn •e7 26 •e3 b5? An elementary

at g7 is vulnerable. positional mistake, placing pawns

52 b5 axb5 53 l. xb5 •c7 54 on squares of the colour of one's

•e2 *b8!? 55 il.b4 JJ..c7? 56 a6! bishop. To be fair, the text move

Taking advantage of Black's inde­ should not lose. 27 b4! axb4 28

cision. 56 . . . b6 is to be countered axb4 g5 29 f4 f6 30 ,ig6 ,ig4 31

by 57 ll.xd6! JJ..xd6 58 l. xb6 + h3 !_d7 32 -.o * f8 33 f¡,g3 *g7

•c7 59 l. b7 + with three pawns 34 i_h5 i_c6 35 h4! The only

for the piece and good winning available winning attempt. 35 . . .

chances. 56 . . . *ª7 57 axb7 X b8 ll.d7 (88)

58 iL d2 1. xb7 59 l. xb7 + * xb7

60 g5! Preparing the king's jour­

ney. The superiority of White's

bishop stands out. 60 . . . hxg5 61

hxg5 JJ._d8 lf 61 . . . fxg5 62 ,ixg5

coupled with JJ._e7-f8. 62 *º

•c8 63 \t,g4 *d7 64 *h5 •e8 65

_ib4! The beginning of the end.

On 65 . . . !,.e7 66 gxf6 gxf6 67

*g6 and the f6 pawn is doomed.

65 . . . fxg5 66 $J.. xd6 $J.. f6 67 $J.. b4

•n 68 JJ..d2 JJ..e7 69 ll.xg5 J,.a3

36 J. f3 _¡t e6 37 .1 e2 .1 d7 38
70 !,.d8 J¡d6 71 *g5 1-0 There is
J¡h5 fl'f8? This loses. Correct is
no defence against 72 f6 etc.
38 . . . gxh4 + 39 f¡,xh4 f5, estab­

lishing a blockade. 39 hxg5 hxg5

Browne-Grefe
40 fxg5 fxg5 41 ll. f3 Here, and on
USA, 1975
White's 43rd move, .;tg4 is

Although roughly equal, we quicker. 41 . . . _ie6 42 .;te2 _id7

shalj see that this ending is by no 43 _¡t f3 iL e6 44 J. e2 _¡t d7 45

rneans dead drawn. .,;tg4! Assuring his king's entry. 45

40 Bishops=Same Colour

� c6 46 j'¡_ c8 * g7 47 * g4 'i!l,xe8 48 'Wfxc7 \'txe6 49 \'tc8 +

.g6 48 g3 .f6 49 .h5 j'¡_e8 + 50 and White won.

\tih6 j'¡_c6 51 *b7 Black is being

out-flanked. 51 . . . �e8 52 j'¡_g4 Gligoric-Alexaoder

�g6 + 53 «rg8 J'l..f5 54 J'l..e2 J'l..d7 Dublin, 1957

55 'li'f8 g4 55 . . . j'¡_c6 loses to 56

J'l..g4 jtb7 57 '1i'e8. 56 �fl jtc6

57 J'l..g2 J'l..b7 58 •e8 '1i'e6 59 <1id8

'1i'd6 60 �fl jtc6 61 j'¡_d3! 1--0 If

61 . . . \tie6 62 fgc7 and on 6 1 . . .

jtd7 62 �e2 wins a pawn and the

game.

Aloni-Kotov

Amsterdam, 1954

Superficially, Black's position

looks secure. However, White's

protected passed pawn on e5 is a

nuisance (the queen is n o t a n ideal

blockader); the pawns on d5 and

f5 are vulnerable; and the advance

g2-g4 cannot be prevented for

long.

26 i, d2 a5 27 j'¡_dl Piling up

pressure against the d5 pawn. 27

. . . �ad8 28 �f3 .!!ld7 29 \'tf2 b6

Here White's active pieces and 30 b3 White carries out his plan

the passed pawn on e5 are ample slowly and methodically. 30 . . .

compensation for a pawn. l!:ed8 31 'i!i'(h4! \'tf6+ and c4 are

40 �d3 �e8? 40 . . . 'i!i'(a7! is in theair. 31 . . . .1 18 3 2 '1i'h2 1,g7

essen tial. 41 � a6 1, c7 42 � b8 33 \'tg5 1,1,d7 34 K ed l 'lig7 35

•n 43 t;b6! Black's pieces have \'th4 h5 Delaying g2-g4, for a

been reduced to total inactivity. short while. 36 t;g5 •h7 37 a el

43 . . . •f8 44 e6! The winning g e8 38 g4! Decisive. 38 . . . hxg4

move: opening the a 1-h8 diag­ 39 hxg4 <f¡g8 49 •g3 E h7 41 c4

onal and further curtailing the White's strokes are not limited to

black bishop. 44 . . . t;e7 45 'i!lt"b2! one wing: proof of good strategic

•g8 46 t;e5 Black cannot avoid planning. 41 . . . fxg4 52 j'¡_xg4

material loss. 46 . . . h5 47 1' xe8 + 1-0

5 Bishops-Opposite Colour

Korchnoi-Botvionik

Moscow, 1960

another pawn. The idea is to lure

White's central pawns to d4 and

A simple ending, illustrating e5, thus establishing an impreg­

the power of connected pawns, nable blockade: 36 . . . a xc7 37

supported by a king (and bishop). fJ.xc7 b4!! 38 axb4 §J.a6 39 d4

31 g4 'fJg7 32 'fJg3 §J.c6 33 'fJh4 §J.d3! 40 e5 §J.c4, when White can

..;l.g2 34 'fJg5 JJ.h3 35 §J. b 2 + 'fJf'l make no headway .

36 a4! A pawn is sacrificed in Instead, Lasker's routine 36 . . .

order to divert the black bishop. 'll f'!? allowed White to mobilize

This will enable White to create his central pawns by means of 37

two mighty connected passed B. xe7 + "1xe7 38 j_d2! accom­

pawns. panied by "1 f2----e3 and d3---d4--d5

36 . . . i_g2 37 b4 §J.c6 38 b5 (not e4----e5), which led to an easy

gxh5 39 'fJxh5 fJ.xa4 40 f5 [Link] victory.

41 "1g5 b5 42 J..c3 1---0 Note how

black's unsupported isolated

pawns pose no threat. Kotov-Botvionik

Moscow, 1955

Bogoljubow-Ed. Lasker
1 . . . "1g3 (g4) 2 §J.e7 leads
New York, 1924
nowhere. Clearly, if he is to win

A pawn down, Black can force such a position, Black must resort

a clear-cut draw by sacrificing yet to a violent breakthrough. This is

42 Bishops-Opposite Colour

exactly what he accomplishes in a White must avoid 32 exf5. In the

study-like manner: next 25 moves we see White im­

59 . . . g5!! 60 fxg5 True, captur­ prove the position of his king and

ing with the rook's pawn is too advance his pawn to e7 before

costly since after 60 hxg5 h4 61 creating himself another passed

J_d6 J_f5 the only way to stop pawn by trading off his a-pawn

Black's h-pawn from queening for Black's c-pawn by means of 57

consists in giving up the g- and h­ a4.

pawns as well as the bishop, 32 . . . fxe4 33 fxe4 jJ_d7 34 *f2

whereupon Black's remaining 'f1Jf7 35 •e3 •e6 36 .ll..f8 'f1Jf7 37

material is just sufficient to win. jJ_d6 •e6 38 jJ_f4 jJ_e8 39 *d4

How is Black to proceed now? jJ_b5 40 •c5 *d7 41 e5 •e6 42

60 . . . d4 + !! Before capturing g4 g6 43 a3 h5 44 gxh5 gxh5 45 h4

White's h-pawn, Black first pro­ *f5 46 J.g3 *e6 47 .ll..h2 •e7 48

tects his b-pawn. 61 exd4 Like­ *d5 *d7 49 e6 + •e7 50 •e5

wise, on 61 J_xd4 f¡g3 Black's .f8 51 jJ_f4 .g7 52 jJ_g5 .g6 53

bishop controls ali the key *d5 *f5 54 e7 *g6 55 •c5 'f1Jf7

squares. 61 . . . *g3! 6 1 . . . *g4? 56 *b4 •e6 57 a4! jJ_c6 58 •xc4

would be careless, owing to 62 d5 jJ_xa4 59 •c5 *d7 60 c4 •c7 61

and 63 J_f2. 62 J_a3 •xh4 63 *d5 *d7 62 *e5 jJ_dl 63 *f6

*d3 •xg5 64 *e4 h4 65 *f3 •e8 64 c5 1-0 64 . . . a5 65 c6 a4

jJ_d5+ 0-1. 66 c7 J_g4 67 jJ_ c l jJ_c8 68 jJ_a3

.ll..d7 69 *g6 .ll..g4 70 .lJ.. b4 is

Rubinstein-Treybal zugzwang.

Carlsbad, 1929 It is instructive to compare the

respective roles of the two kings in

Here the presence of pawns on
this ending.
both wings, coupled with the vul­

nerability of the pawn on c4,

Evans-Shamkovich
affords White distinct winning
USA, 1980
chances.

31 . . . f5 32 f3! In order to In the next position, ali Black's

conserve any winning chances, pieces and pawns are better

 Bishops-Opposite Colour 43

White's advantage, consisting

of a more active bishop, is minimal

and should not suffice for victory

against best play. However, this is

one of those positions in which

the stronger side ought to play on,

at least for a while.

31 b3 ,¡tg7 More exact is 3 1 . . .

a5. After 32 a4 b4 33 cxb4 1,xb4

34 lt c4 Black has time to con test

the d-file with his rook with . . .

placed than White's and his pawn 1, b8-<i8. 32 a4 b4 33 cxb4 1, xb4

majority on the kingside is both If 33 . . . cxb4 34 1, c l --c 7 . 34 J.c4

mobile and menacing. a5 35 1, d l White has gained con­

32 . . . Jte3! 33 'ili'el *f6 34 trol of an open file and also eyes

f,dl Jtg5! Black's plan is to man­ the a-pawn.

oeuvre his king to b4 via e5, d4 35 . . . .1 b7 36 1. d5 f6 37 g5

and c5; and thereafter to force the fxg5 38 X xe5 lt f6 39 X d5

entry of his rook behind White's i_d4+ 40 f9e2 1,e7 41 ,¡td3

lines. Although, strictly speaking,

35 1,d3 Jte3! White's last move Black's resources should still

has thwarted the king's foray, but prove adequate to hold the game,

now the stage is set for a pawn White finally eked out a win on

advance on the other wing. 36 move 94(!).

fiel 'itg5! 37 fifl f9f4 38 Jtf3 g5

39 i_h5 1,e7 40 1, d l g4 41 hxg4 Bernstein-Mieses

fxg4 42 J¡_g6 f¡g3 43 l. el h3 44 Coburg, 1904

gxh3 gxh3 45 l. e2 X e5! 0-1

The passed h-pawn will cost

White a piece.

It is not always advisable to

steer blindly into an ending with

opposite-coloured bishops, es­

pecially when other pieces are pre­

sent. In the diagram, for example,

44 Bishops-Opposite Colour

in reply to 19 *d2, instead of Vilner-Romanovsky

exchanging bishops on d3, Black Moscow, 1925

opted for 19 . . . '2:)c4 + ? and soon

found himself facing an un tena ble

ending-despite, rather than

because of, the bishops of op­

posite colour.

20 !_xc4! !_xc4 21 a4! lt is

important to fix the pawn on a5.

21 . . . f;d7 22 b3 j¡_a6 23 .i_b6

White asserts his supremacy over

the black-coloured squares. 23 . . .

j¡_c8 24 'll'e3 � a6 25 Jl_c5 f¡c7 26

*d4 j¡_d7 27 1, h e l h5 28 � e 5 g6

29 � g5 i, g8 30 f¡e5 !_e8 31 � el
The following example is not
A a 8 (98)
devoid of instructional value. In­

stead of continuing 28 .zt.d3--c4,

with the better bishop, White

chose the positionally suicida] 28

c4?? which, apart from ceding the

square d4 to the black bishop,

voluntarily hemmed in his white­

squared bishop. The seque] was:

28 . . . � e6 29 � d3 Again, 29

c5 is mandatory, to clear c4 for

the white bishop. 29 . . . j¡_ f8 30

i, h d l j¡_c5 31 �el jld4 32 'libl

c5 The outcome is no longer in

doubt. 33 g f3 �d8 34 h4 �e7 35

The diagram speaks for itself.
� gl � f8 36 J1.d3 f¡h7 37 .1 fg3
White's pieces occupy dominating
� d6 38 .l lg2 f6 Black is about to

posts and as long as he avoids

penetrate through the f-file,

traps like 32 f¡xe6? j¡_d7 + , vic­ whereupon the qualitative dif­

tory cannot but be a matter of ference between the bishops is

time. bound to tell in his favour.

32 'f¡f6 j¡_d7 33 g3 11ae8 34 39 gxf6 .1 fxf6 40 A g5 -W,f7 41

j, ee5 White is in no hurry to gain .:t el .11 f4 42 11 h2 A df6 43 B. gg2

material. 34 . . . .1 h8 35 A xg6 jl_xf2 44 ll,dl Ad4 45 11cl l. fl

a h7 36 l. g7 l. eh8 37 l. xh7 46 'f¡c2 � 6f3 47 -W,d2 1, c3 + 48

� xh7 38 'f¡g6 g h8 39 'lig7 1, d8 'li bl -W,f3 49 X el 1! xb3 + 50

40 lo! xh5 and White won. axb3 -W,xb3+ 51 'f¡ c l -W, b 2 + 0-1
 Bishops-Opposite Colour 45

Liu-Ljubojevic

Lucerne, 1982

1 e4 e5 2 '2) f3 '2)f6 3 d4 '2)xe4 4

jl_d3 d5 5 '2)xe5 �d7 6 'i!!t'e2 '2)xe5

7 jl_xe4 dxe4 8 -;txe4 jl_e6 9 'i!!t'xe5

'i!!t'd7 10 0--0 0--0-0 1 1 jl_e3 jl_b4!?

1 e4 c5 2 '2) f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 To induce 1 2 c3, thus robbing the

'2) xd4 '2) f6 5 '2) c3 a6 6 jl_ e2 e5 7 knight of that square. 12 '2)c3 ?! f6

'2) b3 jl_ e7 8 0--0 0--0 9 jl_ e3 jl_ e6 13 'i!!t'g3 jl_xc3!

10 trd2 'f/Jc7 11 '2)d5 ..txd5 12 A pawn down, Black's pro­

exd5 '2) bd7 13 c4 a5! To hinder spects in the ensuing opposite­

b2-b4 after the exchange of coloured middle game are

knights on c5 and to gain control superior. The exchange safe­

ofthe black squares on the queen­ guards the outposts d5 and c4 for

side. the black bishop. Moreover,

14 trel �e4 15 f3 '2)ec5 16 White's a- and c2- pawns are

�xc5 '2)xc5 17 'í!!t'f2 f5 18 jl_xc5 potential weaknesses.

dxc5 (100) Black's prophylactic 14 bxc3 (101) 14 . . . h5 15 h4 g5!

measures have stymied White's Exploiting the fact that this pawn

prospects on the queen's flank. is immune to capture, Black im­

Black can now concentrate his proves the formation of his

efforts on the king's wing. 19 'í!!t'el pawns. 16 f3 .ldg8 17 l. f2 'i!!t'c6

J. d6 20 g3 .i f6 21 jl_ d3 :1 af8 22 18 jl_d2 g4 Forcing White's reply

1. d l h5! and Black's initiative on and thus accentuating the power

the kingside ultimately carried the of Black's bishop. 19 f4 jl_c4 Here

day. Larsen comments: 'White is

crushed, smashed and finished.

That the game !asted another 46

Karpov-Larsen
moves is neither here nor there.'
Tilburg, 1980
20 d5 A desperate try to gain

Rather than neutralize each more scope for White's bishop. 20

other, bishops of opposite colour • • • jl_ xd5 21 f5 1, e8 22 a3 • e4 23

frequently favour the attacker. l. el 1, he8 24 X xe4 .1 xe4 25

46 Bishops-Opposite Colour

'1fh2 ... c5 Black's positional ad­ �xh7+! f;xh7 47 '/i!i h 4 + and

vantage is bound to yield an ad­ mate next move.

vantage in material. 26 _tf4 � el

27 .,td2 Aal 28 ... e3 -W,-d6+ 29

� f4 b6 30 c4 _txc4 31 ... d4 -W,-xd4 Karpov-Mecking

32 1,xd4 i_b5 33 Ah6 ltxa3 34 Hastings, 1971

.,tg7 .,td7 35 llf4 Ma5 36 i_xf6

Axf5 and White finally resigned

sorne 30 moves later.

Botvinnik-Tal

Moscow, 1961

White controls the only open

file, and his bishop enjoys more

scope than Black's, which is ham­

pered by the need to preven t a

rook incursion to c7. With passive

play affording few chances of sur­

vival, Black decides to undertake

action on the king's wing. This

opens additional avenues for

Here White's advantage is White's pieces and facilitates a
manifest: strong bishop, posi­
mating attack.
tional pawn roller, open h-file. 23 . . . g5 24 fxg6 hxg6 25 •d3
35 _tc4! Disdaining the pawn •g7 26 h5 J..b6 26 . . . J.g5 allows
on b7. 35 . . . c5 36 b5 Imprisoning .1 c7, but now Black's king
the black bishop. 36 . . . _tf6 37 f4 becomes exposed. 27 X h3 J. c5 28
d3 A desperate attempt to free his
an f6 29 hxg6 •xg6 30 K tb l
bishop. Otherwise White proceeds
.1 be8 31 .1 h7 *g5 32 •e2 *f4
with 38 e5. 38 ,lxd3 Xxd3 39
33 .1 l h 3 J,.d4 34 X g 7 1 -0
.txd3 _td4 40 e5 g6 41 X h l The

final assault. 41 . . . •g7 42 "t!t"e4

b6 43 J,.c4 1-0. Karpov-Kasparov

A possible finish: 43 . . . *e7 Moscow, 1985

(43 . . . "t!t"d7 44 "t!t"c6 "t!t"xc6 45

bxc6 l. c8 46 e6!) 44 g5 (threat: 45 Here, in addition to having the

..-c6-f6 + ) X c8 45 f5 gxf5 46 better pawn formation (two

 Bishops-Opposite Colour 47

Karpov-Hübner

Montreal, 1979

islands against Black's three),

White succeeds in creating direct

threats along the bl-h7 diagonal.

In such positions, opposite-col­

oured bishops, far from being an White controls the open file; his

offsetting factor, are a dangerous bishop is superior to Black's.

weapon. Lastly, Black's kingside pawns

32 e4! Thematic. If 32 . . . d4 33 are none too solid. These factors

e5! 32 . . . .,tg5 33 11 c2 l. xc2 grant White good wmnmg

Otherwise 34 exd5 and 35 � e2. 34 chances.

..t xc2 trc6 35 tre2 trc5 36 l. n 35 e4! F ortifies his bishop on

trc3 37 exd5 exd5 38 _t b l 'itd2 39 d5, restrains the black bishop and

'lte5! The queen joins the attack. hinders . . . e5-e4, which would

The exchange of queens followed equalize. 35 . . . f4 36 'itd3 X b6 37

by 40 l. d 1 is clearly less promis­ .1 c8 U nderlining the difference

mg. between the respective roles of the

39 . . . l. d8? Better chances are adverse bishops. 37 . . . fxg3 38

afforded by centralizing the fxg3 'itd7? A mistake in a difficult

bishop: 39 . . . _tf6 (-d4). 40 'ltf5 position.

White's next task is to activate his 39 'ltc4? One of Karpov's rare

rook. 40 . . . •g8 Here the game lapses. With half an hour on his

was adjourned. dock, he fails to notice 39 .1 g8 +

41 'lte6 + *h8 42 'itg6 *g8 43 •h7 40 .l,xg6! (40 . . . •xg6 41

'ite6 + •h8 44 .i,f5 'ltc3 45 'itg6 _i f7 + ), or 40 'lte3! .i,d8 41

*g8 46 _t e6 + * h 8 47 ,if5 *g8 .1 h8 + ! with mate to follow. The

48 g3 •f8 49 *g2 'ltf6 50 'lth7 text move enables Black to rush

'itf7 51 h4 ,id2 52 l. dl _tc3 53 his rook to the defence of his king.

l. d3 X d6 54 .1. f3 •e7 55 'lth8! 39 . . . X f6! 40 .1.c7 'itd6 41 h4

d4 56 'ltc8 .1. f6 57 'ltc5 + •es 58 .l. f8 42 X a7 h5 43 'itc6 and after

lf4 'itb7+ 59 .1. e4 + *f7 60 the exchange of queens, White's

'itc4 + • f8 61 ,i h7 l. f7 62 'lte6 advantage proved insufficient for

'itd7 63 'lte5 1-0 victory.

48 Bishops-Opposite Colour

Braga-Karpov 29 . . . e5! Hitting White's weak­

Mar del Plata, 1982 nesses. 30 dxe5 � xdl + 31 � xdl

.a c5 32 e4 � xe5 33 J:l. d3 The

white bishop is passive and his

king is none too secure. 33 . . . h5

34 --W,-f3 h4 35 � O _1f6 36 b3 b5!

Aimed against .,1c4-<l5.

37 f;hl l!c5 38 �e2 �es 39

�f3 a5 40 a4 bxa4 41 bxa4 � c5

42 J:l.b5 �c3 43 --W,-f4 h3! Inducing

an additional weakening. Black's

advantage has assumed decisive

proportions. 44 � f3 On 44 g3

J:l.g5 45 �g4 f5! wins. 44 . . .

In this position, where Black hxg2+ 45 f;xg2 J:1.e5 Black's

enjoys a superior pawn formation pressure bears fruit. 46 �g4

(two islands against White's �c2+ 47 � f2 � x f2 + 48 'A'xf2

three), the opposite-coloured J:1.xh2 and White resigned sorne

bishops are certainly no impedi­ 20 moves later. He is a pawn

ment to the stronger side. down and his king is exposed.

6 Knights

To begin with, a few studies, to

illustrate the knight's extraordin­

ary agility.

Grigoriev

1938

fl = ( 'it ) 6 '2:) e 3 + . 5 '2:)e4 g2 6

'2:) d 2 + and 7 '2:) x f3 = .

Korolkov

1946

1 t;)c7 + "1c4 Best. 2 �e8!!

Only by dint of this paradoxical

move can the white knight stop

the black pawn from queening. 2

, . . b3 3 �d6 + "1b4 4 �e4 and

draws. Or 2 •es 3 'i)f6 "1d4 4

'2\e8! •es 4 b3 5 '2:)d6 b2 6

'2\ b 5 +-a3 = . 5 �c7! *d6 6

'de8 + ! and draws by repetition.

Chekhover 1 • c2 a3 2 '2:1 e3! • b7 3 '2:) g4

•c6 4 '2:)e5 + "1d5 5 '2:)fJ g4 6

1955
'2\ h2 Forcing the pawn's ad­

1 'de6! g4 2 '2\g7!! f4 3 ,2\h5 f3 4 vance=-and capture. 6 . . . g3 7

't)f6 g3 Or 4 . . . f2 6 ,2\xg4 '2:1 0 g2 8 '2\ e 3 + and 9 '2:)xg2.

50 Knights

Or 4 . . . 'l,c5 5 *bl f, b 5 6

'1,c2 'Ir b4 7 <E)g4 •c4 8 '2:)e5 +

and the knight stops the king

from cnossing over to the

kingside.

Bron

1948

knight is sufficient to nurse the

queen's pawn to its promotion

square.

1 . . . d3 2 *" �c3 3 •et *d4

4 ftd2 Black was threatening 4 . . .

•e3. 4 . . . <E)e4 + 5 *el <E)d6!

Thwarting 6 <E) b 5 . 6 ftd2 If 6

<E)c6 + • c3! 7 <E)e7 d2 + 8 *dl

<E)e4 9 <E) d 5 + f¡c4, followed by

. . . * d 3 . 6 . . . <E)c4 + 7 *el d2 +
Methodically, White ties the
8 fiel fie3 9 <E)b5 <E) a 3 + ! The
noose around the black knight.
final diversion forces instant capi­
1 *f7! <E)h6 + 2 *f8 <E)g8 3
tulation.
<E)g4 h6 4 _, 17 *h7 5 <E)e5 *h8

Black's moves are forced. 6 <E)c4

*h7 7 <E)d6 *h8 8 <E)e8 *h7 9 Chigorin-Marshall

•e6! Before manoeuvring his Carlsbad, 1907

knight to f8, White must lose a

move without letting the black

knight and/or king escape from

the corner.

9 . . . fih8 10 f¡d6 * h 7 1 1 *d7

*h8 12 fte6 fth7 13 flf7 *h8 14

<E)c7 *h7 15 <E)e6 *h8 16 <E)f8

and wins.

Barcza-Simagin

Moscow, 1949

White is a pawn up and can

boast of an outside passed pawn. White's passed pawn and cent­

In this case, however, the excel­ ralized king promise him vic­

lent placing of Black's king and tory-with a modicum of care.

 Knights 51

1 �dS! �d7 2 gS! h6 3 �f6 conquer, since 49 f¡d4 �f8! 50

�b6 4 h4 hxgS S hxgS f¡,f8 6 ficS �g5 �e6 + leads to a typically

�a4+ 7 fid6 fig7 8 f¡,c6 fif8 9 won pawn ending. 49 �gS �eS

b6 and White won. SO fid4 *d6 51 �h3 5 1 b3 first,

to halt . . . a4 and rob the black

Lasker-Nimzowitsch
knight of the square c4, offers
Zurich, 1934
stouter resistance.

51 . . . a4! 52 �f4 h4 53 �h3 b6!

Far superior to 53 . . . b5 54 �f4

�c6 + 55 f¡c3 and on 55 . . . f¡e5

56 �g6 + . 54 �f4 bS If now 55

f¡c3 �g6! 56 �h3 (56 �xg6 h3)

56 . . . f¡c5 putting White into

zugzwang. SS �h3 �c6 + 56 f¡e3

ficS 57 fid3 57 fif4 f¡,d4 58 �g5

�e5! 59 �e6 + f¡c4 60 f¡,xe5

(else 60 . . . �d3) 60 . . . h3 is

another nice variation on the

Here an outside passed pawn same theme. 57 . . . b4! Forcing

exists in the initial position, which White's response, as 58 �f4 loses

means that virtually all transitions to 58 . . . bxa3 59 bxa3 �e5 + 60

into pawn endings are anathema f¡c2 �c4. 58 axb4+ f¡xb4 59

to White. The way Nimzowitsch *c2 �d4+ 60 fibl Or 60 f¡,d3

converts bis advantage into vic­ �e6 61 f¡,c2 wc4! 60 . . . �e6!

tory is justly regarded as a classic Paralysing White's knight: 61

and will repay close study. �fl �g5 and the h-pawn ad­

35 . . . fi f1 36 "1cl fif6 37 f¡,d2 vanees,

fieS 38 f¡,e3 hS 39 a3 On prin­ 61 f¡a2 6 1 f¡c2 f¡,c4 62 �f2

cipie, in this kind of position �f5! 61 . . . f¡,c4 62 f¡,a3 f¡,d4! 63

pawn moves are best avoided. f¡xa4 f¡,xe4 64 b4 f¡,fJ 65 bS

However, after 39. �h3 �e6! 40 fig2 ! 0-1. 66 b6 (66 �f4+ �xf4

<2lf2 �f4 41 f¡,f3 h5 42 fie3 (42 67 b6 �e6 68 f¡,b5 �d8) 66 . . .

a4 �e6 43 f¡e3 �c5) 42 . . . b5 43 f¡,xh3 67 b7 �c5 + .

*f3 �e6 44 f¡e3 �c5 White will

have to give ground. 39 . . . aS 40

Schmidt-Kasparov
'2lh3 �c2 + 41 "1d3 �el + 42
Dubai, 1986
*e2 �g2 So that if 43 f¡,d3

'2lf4+ 44 �xf4 f¡,xf4 45 f¡,d4 h4 The following ending is akin to

46 e5 f¡,f5! 47 fid5 h3 Black the previous one. By winning it,

queens with check. the Soviet Union assured itself of

43 fifJ �h4 + 44 f¡,e3 �g6 45 first place in the Olympiad.

'2lg5 f¡,f6 46 �h7 + "1g7 47 �gS 38 . . . f¡,e7 39 �c4 a4 40 f¡,fl

"1f6 48 �h7 + f¡,e7! Stooping to f¡,e6 41 f¡,e2 f¡,dS 42 �e3 + f¡,d4

52 Knights

pawns on d3 and h3 are weak. A

breakthrough follows readily:

1 -tiel Cedes the square f4, but

on I *d2 Black manoeuvres his

knight to f4 with a winning pawn

endgame. 1 . . . *f4 2 *f2 ec6 3

.tig2 + s,f5 4 eel ee5 5 *g3

eg6 Heading for f4, the ideal

square for the knight. 6 *º 6

'2)g2 loses to 6 . . . '2) e 5 7 e e I a6 8

The black king has won the race b3 a5 9 *f2 '2)g6-f4, etc., as in

for central control. 43 S,d2 ee5 the game.

One of the significant advantages 6 . . . '2)f4 7 *g3 a5 The final

of an outside passed pawn is that precautionary measure (against

the opposite side can scarcely con­ b2-b3-b4). 8 *h2 exh3! Penet­

sidera transition into a pawn end­ ration. 9 "1xh3 *f4 10 "1g2 "1e3

ing (after . . . ec4 + , for ex­ 11 ef3 fixd3 12 "1f2 •xc4 13

ample). "1e2 \tib3 14 exg5 "1xb2 15 fid3

44 •c2 ed3 45 e d l eet + 46 \tib3 16 ee4 \tjxa4 and White's

*b2 ef3 47 h4 ee5 Better than knight is no match for Black's

47 . . . *d3 48 fja3 S,e2 49 four pawns.

ec3+ fjxf2 50 e e 4 + . 48 ,Ji a3

*e4 49 h5 Or 49 fjxa4 *f3 50 Alekbine-Andersen

*b5 eg4. 49 . . . gxh5 50 e c 3 + Folkestone, 1933

\ti f3 51 ed5 eg4 52 ee7 exf2

53 ef5 ee4 54 •xa4 exg3 55

eh4 + fje4 56 \tib4 ef5 0--1

Zichichi-Hort

Venice, 1969

Despite the symmetrical pawn

structure, White is able to create

an outside passed pawn.

1 � b3! Gaining access to the

Black's centralized king is key square c6, whether or not

superior to White's and the white Black plays l . . . b6. 1 . . . *f8 Or

 Knights 53

1 . . . ci:Je7 2 ci:J a 5 b6 3 ci:Jc6 � x d 5 This has the disadvantage of con­

4 '2)xa7, as in the game. lf, instead ceding the square f5. 38 fxg5 fxg5

of 2 . . . b6, Black captures on d 5 , 39 h5! Now the vulnerability of

then 3 '2) x b 7 :E)f4 4 '2) x d 6 � d 3 + the h6 pawn and the availability

5 1',c2 -2Jxf2 6 b4! *f8 7 a4 and of the square f5 to White's knight

on 7 . . . 1',e7 (7 . . . '2Jg4 8 b5 etc.) ensure Kasparov's victory. The

8 '2)c8 +. way he goes about attaining it is

2 '2)a5 b6 3 '2)c6 •es 4 *d2 instructive in its simplicity.

:E)e7 Otherwise comes •c3-b4, 39 . . . •e7 40 '2)c3 '2)c7 41

and on . . . a6, a2-a4--a5. 5 '2) xa7 '2J d l '2)e8 42 �e3 �g7 43 •e2

'2)xd5 6 '2)b5 *d7 7 '2Jd4 g6 8 a4 With the black knight immobi­

-2)c7 While the white knight re­ lized on the kingside- �f5 +

strains the movements of Black's cannot be allowed-White's king

king, White proceeds to mobilize is scot-free on the other wing. 43

bis queenside majority. 9 *c3 g5 . . . *d7 44 *d3 *c7 45 flc3

10 *b4 d5 11 '2Jf3 f6 12 �d4 •c8 46 b4 flc7 47 *b3 flb7 48

*d6?! 13 '2)b5 + Leading to an *ª4 *b8 On 48 . . . *ª6 49 �f5

easily won pawn ending. wins. 49 bxc5 bxc5 50 fla5 *b7

12 . . . •e7, instead of 12 . . . 51 *b5 •c7 52 *ª6 *c8 53 *b6

1',d6, is defeated by 1 3 a5 bxa5 + *d7 54 *b7 Zugzwang. 54 . . .

1 4 •xa5 *d7 1 5 b4 <lic8 1 6 *b6. '2)e8 55 �f5 The fruit of bis 37th

move! 55 . . . �f6 56 '2)xh 6 �xe4

57 '2Jf5 '2Jf6 58 h6 e4 59 flb6 '2Jh7

Kasparov-Hübner
60 *b5 1-0 The e4 pawn 1s
Hamburg, 1985
doomed.

Botvinnik-Kholmov

Moscow, 1969

Here White's advantage in

space and bis more mobile knight

afford him distinct winning

chances. Here too, White's more ag­

36 h4 h6? In time-trouble, Black gressively placed pieces soon ren­

facilitates White's task. 37 g4 g5 der Black ' s position untenable.

54 Knights

36 <E:! g5 f6 37 <E:! h7 f5 38 h4 50 <E:ixh7 <E:! f5 51 <E:! f6 <E:id4 + 52

Fixing the g-pawn. 38 . . . f4 39 *d3 f;xb3 53 <E:id7 <E:)e6 54 <E:ie5

<E:if8 b6+ 40 •d4 <E:if5+ 41 •e4 g5 0-1.

<E:ixh4 42 <E:)e6+ •e6 43 <E:)xf4

f;b5 44 g3 <E:if5 45 <E:ixg6 <E:ih6 46

Duz-Khotimirsky-Kan
<E:)e5! *ª4 47 <E:ie4 *b3 Or 47 . . .
Leningrad, 1933
b5 48 <E:)e5 •xa3 49 <E:ic6!. 48

<E:ixb6 •xa3 49 <E:id5 *b3 50 f4

•e4 51 <E:ie7 •xb4 52 <E:) x a 6 +

1--0

Smyslov-Sax

Tilburg, 1979

With a few forcing moves,

Black exploits the weakness of the

white pawn on b3 to obtain a

menacing passed pawn:

1 . . . g6! 2 <E:ie3 2 <E:ixh6 + ? *g7

As in the previous example, the 3 g5 f5 leaves the knight trapped.

pawn configuration is symmet­ 2 . . . <E:ixd4 3 <E:)xd5 a5! Clearly,

rical; again it is the better place­ the passed pawn on the queenside

ment of the superior side's (Black) is more important than the f6

pieces that decides the issue, albeit pawn. 4 <E:ixf6+ *f7 5 <E:ie4

by a hair's breadth. <E:ixb3 6 f4 <E:id4 7 *fl b3 This

30 . . . <E:id4! 31 <E:ie3 *d6 32 h4 pawn will immobilize a white

•e5 33 *º *b4 34 •et •e3 35 piece. 8 •e3 bl 9 <E:idl <E:ib3 10

f;dl e6 36 •et <E:if3 37 <E:ie4 f5 <E:ibl <E:ie5 11 *d4 <E:)xa4 12 •e4

His king and knight having occu­ <E:i b 6 + 13 •e5 <E:i d 'i + 14 • e 4 1 4

pied ideal posts, Black sets about • b5 ers 15 g5 h5 ! catches the

creating weaknesses in White's white king napping.

camp. 14 . . . h5! 15 gxh5 gxh5 16 •b3

38 <E:! bl f4 39 <E:! e4 <E:! d4 40 <E:! e5 •f6 17 •xbl •f5 18 •e3 •xf4

fxg3 41 fxg3 e5 42 a5 <E:ixel 43 19 •e4 *g4 20 *b5 •xh4 21

axb6 axb6 44 <E:id7 <E:id4 45 <E:ixb6 <E:ie3 *g4 22 <E:)d5 *f3! 23 <E:ie7

<E:iel + 46 •dt <E:ixg3 47 <E:id7 <E:if8 54 •xa5 h4 25 <E:)b5 <E:ie6

* b4 48 * el <E} t3 49 <E} f8 <E} xh4 0-1.

 Knights 55

Flohr-Jac. Bolbochan

Stockholm, 1937

30 �bl *f8 31 rtlfl •e7 32

•e2 rtJd6 33 rtJd3 •c6 34 �c3

Black's three pawn-islands are �e8 35 �a2 f6 36 f3 �c7 36 . . .

inferior to White's two and d4 will f5 cedes the square e5. 37 � b4 +

serve as a pivot for White's knight rtJd6 38 e4 First blood: a passed

and/or king. pawn. 38 . . . dxe4+ 39 fxe4 �e6

42 . . . •f7 42 . . . �e8-c7, to 40 •e3 �c7 41 rtld3 �e6 42 �d5

contest b5, is a better defence. 43 rtJc6 43 h4 �d8 44 �f4 *d6 45

�d4 rtJe7 44 •g3 h6 Weakening, �h5! The positional pressure is

but White can force this move by about to bear material fruit. 45 . . .

playing 'ti h4. 45 rtlf3 *d7 46 a3 �e6 46 •e3 *e7 47 d5 �c5

•e7 47 b4 axb4 48 axb4 rtJd7 49 Clearly, the pawn ending after 47

•e3 •e7 50 rtJd3 rtJd7 51 �b5 . . . g6 48 �xf6 is hopeless.

Threatening 52 �d6 and compel­ 48 �xg7 *d6 49 �e6! �d7 50

ling Black's answer. rtJd4 LP.:ie5 51 �g7 �c4 52 �f5+

51 . . . �e8 52 rtJe3 •e7 53 •c7 53 •c3 rtJd7 54 g4 �e5 55

*d4 rtJd7 54 f5! A timely thrust g5 fxg5 56 hxg5 �f3 57 rtlb4

which, despite the ensuing reduc­ �xg5 58 e5 h5 59 e6+ rtJd8 60

tion in material, enhances the rtJxb5 1--0

strength of White's king. 54 . . .

Tarjan-Torre
gxf5 55 gxf5 exf5 56 rtJxd5 �c7 +
Cleveland, 1975
Or 56 . . . h5 57 e6+ •e7 58 rtJe5

�g7 59 �d4. 57 �xc7 •xc7 58

Black's centralized pieces grant
*d4 b5 59 •e3 rtJd7 60 rtJf4 rtJe6
him a small advantage, but it is
61 h3 h5 62 h4 1--0
only because of White's collab­

oration that he contrives to con­

Botvinnik-Keres
vert it into victory.
Moscow, 1948
34 . . . *d5! 35 rtJe3 f5 36 g3

Black's doubled pawns are a �c6 37 h4? 37 �d3 is correct. The

serious impediment. In addition, text move allows Black to drive

White will soon take control of the white king away from the

the key square b4. centre, thus facilitating the pen-

56 Knights

ferable is 5 . . . b5, to prevent 'lrc4.

6 •c4 White's advantage is

obvious. 6 . . . �e8 7 �b4 b5 + 8

'li'c3 a5 9 �d3 fxe4 10 fxe4 •e7

11 �e5 �d6 12 *d3 Not 12

�xg6 + '1,[6. 12 . . . 'lrf6 13 �c6

With Black's king tied down to

the kingside, White is free to oper­

ate on the other wing.

13 . . . �c4 14 *c3 e5? 14 . . .

�xa3 is more stubborn. 15

etration of Black's king. 37 . . .
dxe5+ *e6 16 a4 �b6 17 axb5
f4+! 38 'lif2 fxg3+ 39 •xg3
a4 18 <A>b4 and White won easily
gxh4+ 40 'lixh4 *d4! The rest is
enough.
easy.

41 �e2 + •e3 42 �c3 •xf3 Klein-Reshevsky

43 a3 e5 44 b4 e4 45 b5 axb5 46 USA, 1935

�xb5 e3 47 �c3 �e7! 48 �b5

�f5+ 0--1

Andersson-Medina

Palma de Mallorca, 1972

The dominating posts of the

black knight and rook, together

with Black's superior pawn struc­

ture, render White's position

indefensible.

At first sight, Black's queenside 34 .ii! a l �c3 35 .1. e l •g7 36

majority appears to offer him �h3 �e4! 37 <E}f4 *h6 The

good prospects. Alas, in this case king's entry is all that is needed to

White's central supremacy ren­ clinch the game. 38 l. e2 l. dl +

ders it impotent. 39 tflg2 g5 40 �h3 <E}c3 41 ít c2

1 d4! Hindering . . . e5 and thus B: d 3 4 2 *ª •g643 <E}gl * f5 44

denying the sq uare e6 to the black �f3 Material loss is unavoidable.

knight. 1 . . . f5 2 f3 'llf7 3 'llf2 44 . . . �dl + 45 tf¡e2 f,l xe3 + 46

<tJe7 4 •e3 *d6 5 '1id3 g6 This •xdl i: xf3 and Black won a few

weakens the pawn formation. Pre- moves later.

7 Rooks

Bogoljubow-Thomas Alekhine-Alexander

Hastings, 1922 Margate, 1937

Need it be said that even in Other things being equal, con­

simplified positions, with little nected passed pawns are usually a

material on the board, care is more potent weapon than discon­

always advisable. In the above nected ones.

position, for example, White 1 �a5! � b 6 2 d 4 � b 3 + 3 f]f4

played 72 wc5, unpinning his c­ � b4 4 d5 g b6 5 � c5! Transfer­

pawn. Instead of responding with ring the rook to an ideal square,

72 . . . tl> d8 = , Black carelessly a7, whence it restrains the a-pawn

advanced his a-pawn 72 . . . a2? from the rear and controls the

and had to admit defeat after 73 seventh rank. 5 . . . � b4 6 .i c7 +

c7 � a 5 + 7 4 w b 6 � a 6 + 7 5 w c 5 *f8 7 jj a7! 1--0 White simply

�a5+ 76 f,c6 �a6+ 77 '1,d5 advances his pawns.

�a5+ 78 f,e6 �a6+ 79 wd5

�a5+ 80 wc4 �a4+ 81 wb3 Chigorin-Tarrasch

ia3+ 82 f,c2 �c3+ 83 wb2 Budapest, 1896

1--0 If 83 . . . �el 84 wxa2.

With a rook on the seventh

rank and one pawn chain versus

three islands, White is clearly

better. In such positions, one or

58 Rooks

two errors on Black's part are a

a lost pawn ending. 2 . . . •d5 3
luxury he can ill afford.
K d3 f5 4 h3 h5 Now White cannot
1 *º h5 1 . . . � a4, to cut off
avert the loss of a pawn, after
the white king (and if 2 h5 h6), is
which the outcome is certain.
also adequate. 2 l;lc7 X a 5 3 *f4

*f8 4 f3 *g8 5 ªª7 *f8 6 g4

Gligoric-Filip
Creating a passed pawn of his
Zagreb, 1955
own.

6 . . . hxg4 7 fxg4 I! al? Letting

the king traverse Black's fourth

rank spells disaster. 7 . . . *g8! 8

h5 Xb5! 9 �xa6 *g7 10 J: a 7 +

*g8 11 h6 gc5 12 .l g 7 + * f8 !

13 i g 6 *f7 14 h7 Kc8 15 .1. h 6

'frfg7 1 6 1, h l � a 8 ! draws.

8 * f 5 K fl + 9 * g 6 K f 4 1 0 g 5 !

fxg5 1 1 hxg5 1,a4 11 . . . l,g4 1 2

l;ixa6 1, g l 13 B, a 8 + f#je7 14

� g8 gi ves rise to a theoretically

lost position. 12 l. a8 + *e7 13

*h6 1-0
Whilst White's two pawns on

the queenside hold Black's three,

Marshall-Chigorin
threats of invasion with White's
Barmen, 1905
rook along the d-file, and with his

Theobvious 1 . . . B, c 3 + 2 •e4 king on the kingside, soon result

}!xa3 3 *d5 or 3 ,l c 2 renders the in the creation of a passed pawn.

win uncertain. Instead Black con­ 32 . . . K fi 33 *e3 •f6 34 h4

centrates on augmenting the posi­ h5 35 •f4! e5 + Forced: other­

tional pressure: wise the white rook and king can­

1 . . . *e6! 2 .1 b3 Forced. 2 not be prevented from penetrat­

*e4 f5 + 3 *d3 *d5 4 .1. b4 ing. But now White can create a

1, xb4 5 axb4 h6 6 h3 h5 results in passed pawn.

 Rooks 59

36 •e3 "9g7 37 g3 � e7 38 f4

exf4+ 39 gxf4 wf6 40 gd6+

f'¡g7 41 e5 'll' f7 42 fle4 flg7 43

f5! Simplest. 43 . . . gxf5 + 44

flxf5 1-0

Botvinnik-Tal

Moscow, 1961

beforehand, proceeds to weave a

mating net around the black king

by mobilizing bis own!

34 A xf5 gxf5 35 f1 g3! � xc3 +

36 flh4 l:;1 f3 36 . . . g e l 37 flb5!

37g6! �xf4+ 3 8 w g 5 ª e 4 3 8 .. .

,g xd4 39 * f6 leads to mate. 39

<A>f6 Note how the black pawn on

f5 shields White from . . . g f4 + .

Here the pawn on f6 is a thorn 39 . . . flg8 40 ,g g7 + flh8 41

in Black's ñesh and both White's � xc7 � e8 42 flxf5! Establishing

king and rook are far superior to material equality while maintain­

Black's. Tbe game concluded: ing bis positional advantage. 42

47 J.t bl! 'll' f8 48 � b6 wg8 49 . . . ªe4 43 wf6 �f4+ 44 we5

'1,f4! The hasty 49 'ª xa6 costs gg4 45 g 7 + ! flg8 46 � xa7 � g l

White bis pride: the pawn on f6 47 •xd5 1-0

(49 . . . '1,b7-g6). 49 . . . flh7 50

Capablanca-Eliskases
'lrg5 'ª g 8 + 51 fixh5 l4, g 3 Black
Moscow, 1936
has obtained sorne counterplay.

However, two of bis pawns are

still under attack.

52 h4 �e3 Or 52 . . . .i c 3 53

i xa6 � xc4 54 � xd6. 53 ª- xd6

�e5+ 54 •g4 •g6 55 flf4

i f5+ 56 f¡e3 � h5 57 g, xa6

lxh4 58 *d3 fif5 59 8 c 6 1 -0

Capablanca-Tartakower

New York, 1924

Black's prospects appear good,

but Capablanca, who had envis­ As in bis celebrated game

aged the position severa) moves against Tartakower (diagram

60 Rooks

132), Capablanca resorts to a

favourite strategem: activating his

king.

48 f5! exf5 48 . . . • f7 loses to

49 \t;f4 � e 8 50 � g 3 . 49 'f¡f4 �e6

50 'f¡xf5 !i g6 50 . . . *f7 is an­

swered by 5 1 . M g3-g5 51 e6! 1' g4

52 \t;e5 � e4 + 53 \t; d6 'ª xd4 54

M e 3 1--0

Tarrasch-Rubinstein
perpetua! check, from a precar­
San Sebastian, 1911
ious position.

29 . . . g5! 30 K xh7 X xa2 31

ªh6+ 'fie5 32 l,xc6 f,e4 33

l. xc5 f4! 34 exf4 "1f3! The black

king has sheltered himself behind

the white f-pawn and the threat of

mate obliges White to concede a

draw. 35 h3 Xal+ 36 "1h2

,1, a 2 + ½:½

Alekhine-Capablanca

Buenos Aires, 1927

Black is a pawn down and the

b6 pawn is under attack. Passive

defence with 1 . . . .i d6 or 1 . . .

� b8 is doomed to failure. Rubin­

stein grasps his only chance: to

mobilize his rook and king.

1 . . . 11 d2! 2 !,! xb6 + f,g5 3

f¡el 3 a4 f4 4 a5 f3! is more than

welcome to Black. 3 . . . 11 c2 4

� b5 'fi g4! 5 h3 + \tr xh3 6 Ji xf5

� xb2 and Black drew without

effort.

Alekhine won the 34th game of

the match-and with it, became

Lilienthal-Smyslov
World Champion-with 1 !!a4
Leningrad, 1941
The necessity of blocking the

Like Rubinstein before him, the passed pawn with the rook sever­

youthful Smyslov mobilizes his ely curtails Black's mobility.

king to force a draw, this time by Unlike Black, White has at his
 Rooks 61

disposal an endless reserve of White can resort to endless wait­

rook moves along the a-file. An ing moves with his rook along the

eventual zugzwang is inevitable: f-file. In the final stage, ali trans­

see Lasker-Rubinstein, the next itions into a pawn ending are lost

example, for an illustration of the for Black.

strength of a passed pawn sup­ 60 . . . � f7 61 f6 'it,d6 62 ftd4

ported by a rook from the rear. "9e6 63 l!I f2 ftd6 64 � a2! H c7

64 . . . .i, xf6 leads to a lost pawn­

ending. 65 .l!l a6 + ftd7 Now 66

Lasker-Rubinstein
frxd5 Xc3 67 ga8! K f3 68 f7!
St. Petersburg, 1914
l. xf7 69 li a7 + etc. is the short­

est way to victory. 66 !! b 6 1 --0 66

. . . !! c 3 67 �xb4 � f3 68 fte5

K fl 69 � f4 l:l xf4 70 f¡xf4 f¡e6

71 f7 f¡xf7 72 f¡ e 5 .

Botvinnik-Euwe

Groningen, 1946

57 f5 gxf5 58 gxf5 58 11 xf5?

1 g8 59 g5 is wrong: the rook

belongs behind the passed pawn.

58 . . . J. f6 59 .i.l, f4 b4 The threat

60 b4 + obliges Black to choose

between the text move and 59 . . .

d4, on which could follow: 60 Here, the particular formation

•e4 �d6 61 � f3 f¡c4 62 b3 + of pawns on the king's flank en­

* b4 63 � d3 •c5 64 *e5 .i d8 ables the weaker side (White) to

65 f6 .i e 8 + 66 frf5 *d5 67 f7 scrape a draw in the pawn ending

l f8 68 ftf6 f¡e4 69 .!! d i d3 70 which ensues after the exchange

*e7 .i h 8 71 f8 (�) � x f8 72 of rooks: a truly miraculous

•xf8 we3 73 *e7 d2 74 ftd6 and escape.

wins. 41 fte3 we5 42 .! c2! c3 43

60 b3 Whilst Black is about to *d3 1, d8 + Unlike the previous

run out of harmless waiting ending, White need not fear the

moves and will soon be obliged to pawn ending after 43 . . . l! c7 44

give ground with a rook move, 11 xc3! .1 xc3 + 45 •xc3 wxe4 46

62 Rooks

•c4 and draws by bringing his *f4 *d3 47 h6 e3 48 l. b3 + *d2

king to f6. 49 l. xe3 K xb7 50 .1 h3! 1-0

44 •e3 Simplest. 44 . . . .1 d4 A

last try. 45 .!!xc3 l{ x e4 + 46 *º Panno-Polugayevsky

�xh4 47 gc6 Xf4+ 47 . . . •f5 Petropolis, 1973

48 1, c 5 + etc. 48 •e3 .l e4 + 49

*º f;f5 50 .!! f6 +! •xg5 51

Í!Í X g 6 + ½:½

Korcbnoi-Timman

Hilversum, 1982

White's rook is more active

than Black's and his kingside

pawns are likewise the stronger.

25 1,a4 1,a8 26 .ld4 X b8 27

f;c2 .lb5 28 Jlc4 Ka5 On 28 . . .

J; b6 White marches his king to

c5. 29 a4 h5 30 *b3 h4 31 Kxc6

•g7 32 .ld6 ,le5 33 Xxa6 Xe3

Although material is even,
34 .1 d6 X xh3 35 X di! As usual,
White's passed pawn limits the
the rook belongs behind the
scope of Black's major pieces.
passed (a-) pa wn. 35 . . . 'li h6 36
Rather than defend patiently,
a5 .1 e3 37 a6 .1 e8 38 .I'. al h3 39
Timman offers to exchange
'1i b4 *g5 40 a7 h2 41 *b5 •xg4
queens-which leads to a hopeless
42 c4 •xf5 43 X h l 1-0
rook and pawn ending.

32 . . . itd6? 33 itxd6! .1 xd6 34 Resbevsky-Fiscber

b6 Xd8 35 b7 Xb8 36 *g2 *f6 Los Angeles, 1961

37 *g3 •e5 38 *g4 f6 39 h4

•d6 40 X b6 + ! T o prevent 40 . . . In this ending, Black spends

•c7. 40 . . . f¡e5 40 . . . •d7 41 f4 two tempijust in order to position

and h4-h5 is no improvement. 41 his rook at the rear of the white

13 •d5 42 f4! Black is without a pawns.

move and must concede White a 37 . . . l. e5!! 38 b4 l. e3! 39 a6

passed pawn. 42 . . . e5 43 f5 _g, a3 From now on, Black's

gxf5 + 44 •xf5 *d4 45 h5 e4 46 pawns, supported by both his

 Rooks 63

pawn-islands versus three and

Flohr's patience suffice to convert

his trumps into victory. Whether

they should prevail against an im­

peccable defence is another mat­

ter.

32 *e2 *e7 33 *d3 f1d6 34

l,a5 1.a8 35 *d4 f5 36 b4 Hb8

Smyslov and Levenfish have sug­

gested 36 . . . *c7, so as to free the

rook from its defensive duties,

king and rook, will be able to
continuing with 37 *c5 "1b7 38
advance more rapidly than
fid6 .1 e8 39 � a3 d4! 40 exd4
White's. 40 li c6?! Later analysis
l,í e 2 41 i: c 3 Jixg2 42 .1xc6
demonstrated that even the
.1 xh2 43 a4 g5!. Here it seems
superior 40 b5 does not suffice to that 38 a4 offers White a better

save White. 40 . . . g5 41 hxg5 + winning chance, e.g., 38 . . . Ke8

hxg5 42 b5 g4 43 � c8 * f5 44 b6 39 b5 cxb5! (39 . . . axb5 40 axb5

g3 + 45 *el A a l + 46 we2 g2 47 cxb5 4 1 gxb5+ and 42 *d4) 40

� f8 + *e4 48 � xf4 + f¡xf4 49 axb5 �xe3 41 bxa6+ *ª7 42

b7 gl + ( w ) 49 . . . *e4 decides �a2.

instantly. 50 b8 ('tt) + *f5 1--0 37 a3 � a8 38 e4! Enhancing the

(after White's checks were scope of his rook along the fifth

exhausted). rank. 38 . . . fxe4 39 fxe4 dxe4 40

f1xe4 j1a7 Smyslov and Leven­

Flohr-Vidmar fish recommend 40 . . . •c7-b6,

Nottingham, 1936 aiming at . . . a5 at an opportune

moment. 41 *f4 h6 42 h4 *e6 43

*g4 Xa8 44 h5! g5 44 . . . gxh5 +

45 wxh5 X g8 46 g4 is inad­

equate. After the text move, the

h6 pawn becomes an obvious tar­

get.

45 g3 Iía7 46 *º � a 8 47 "1 e4

1'. a7 48 wd4 wd6 49 *e4 *e6 50

l. e5 + ! Turning his attention to

the h6 pawn. 50 . . . *d6 51 l. e8

c5 52 :.I d8 + •c6 If 52 "1c7

53 � h8, answering 53 cxb4

with either 54 axb4 or 54 X h7 +

A celebrated ending. White's etc. 53 X c8 + *b6 54 .1 xc5 .1 h7

more active rook and king, the 55 Ke5 wc6 56 Xe6+ f1b5 57

frequently recurring theme of two *f5 � ti + 58 .1. f6 1--0

64 Rooks

Spielmann-Rubinstein cannot avoid the loss of a pawn:

St. Petersburg, 1909 52 •c2 (52 .1 e3 JI b7!) 52 . . .

!! e 2 + 53 .!! d 2 Ji x d 2 + 54 'li'xd2

'11 b3!.

52 . . . •xd4 53 a4 11 a7 54 I-1 a3

g a5! It is important to prevent

the passed pawn from advancing

too close to the queening square.

This way the king is also able to

keep an eye on it. 55 .1 al <11c4 56

f¡>e3 Or 56 'J! c l + •b3 57 1, c 7

g xa4 and . . . l. f4. However, in

this line (56 I;i c l ) , 57 .! bl + *ª3

(57 . . . '\t'xa4 58 •d3) 58 .1 b7

� xa4 59 .1 xg7 1, f4 60 'lt'e2 'Ir¡ b3

White's pawns are dispersed 61 � c 7 ! constitutes a better try.

and Black's king is closer to the 56 . . . d4+ 57 *d2 Kf5 58

centre of events. •el On 58 a5 Black captures the

40 . . . a a8 Going after a pawn pawn on f2 and returns with his

with 40 . . . lli1 b3 grants White rook to a8. 58 . . . •b4 59 •e2

counterplay: 4 1 � a2 lií!, d3 42 a4 41 wa5 Frees the rook. 60 JI a3 l. f4

X c3 On principie, both 4 1 ª c6 61 :!i a2 K h4 62 wd3 62 l. a3

'lr¡e7 42 l,l c 7 + wf6 (42 . . . we6 '\t' b4 62 . . . M xh3 + 63 •xd4

43 d5 + ) 43 �c6 'lr¡e6 44 'J! c 7 g h4 + 64 •d3 l!it xa4 65 1, e2

't! a 5 4 5 � b 7 ; a n d 4 1 Ma2 �a442 .!I f4 with a technical win. 0-1 A

'f¡g3, in order to push the a-pawn classic ending.

forward as soon as the black rook

Korchnoi-Tal
leaves a4, should offer White
Wijk aan Zee, 1968
more fighting chances than the

text move.

41 . . . � a4 42 .1 d3 'f¡e7 43

'f¡g3 'f¡e6 44 'flf3 White cannot

prevent the black king from occu­

pying d5: 44 d5 + f; e 5 44 . . . 'lr¡d5

45 'f¡e2 g5! It is too early to

capture the pawn: 45 . . . 1 xd4 46

'li' e 3 ! ; so Black quietly strength­

ens his position.

46 .l b 3 f6 47 'f¡e3 47 .!!! b 7

;¡ xa3 48 � xg7 l. xh3 is equally

unsatisfactory. 47 . . . 'f¡c4 48

¡, d3 d5 49 'fld2 a a8 50 'flc2 l. a7 With the a-pawn about to fall

51 *d2 l;le7 52 i, c 3 + White and the white king about to enter

 Rooks 65

f5, Black's position is beyond re­ 38 � b l ! � g8 39 b4 axb4 40 li( xb4

pair: M b8 With the black rook tied to

44 a a7 .1 b8 45 h5! F orestall- the defence of b7, White will be

ing 45 h 5 . 45 . . . 'fl'g8 46 � xa4 able to execute a breakthrough on

� b7 46 f5, to hold back 47. the king's wing.

'I, g4, fails against 4 7 1,l a5 E e8 48 41 a4 f¡e6 42 g5! fxg5 43 a5

e4. 47 'íli'g4 *g7 48 !! a2 'fl'h6 49 1;1 f8 + Or 43 . . . Ma8 44 Mxb7

'l,f5 .1 b6 50 e4 .!! c6 51 f4 exf4 52 � x a 5 45 M h 7 , demonstrating the

gxf4 �c5+ Otherwise 53 !!;a7- usefulness of 32 h5!. 44 '1,g4 Y n

f7. 53 'fl'xf6 1-0 Black has improved the position

of his rook, but the weaknesses in

Bronstein-Panno
his pawn structure are fatal. 45
Amsterdam, 1954
M b6! M c7 46 a6 bxa6 47 l;( xa6

'1, CT 48 li a 8 1 -0 If 48 . . . 'íli'g7, to

prevent 49 � h8. 49 � e8 or 49

'Ir f5.

Szabo-Kotov

Zurich, 1953

White's winning chances re­

volve around the possibility of

invading the light-coloured

squares on the kingside with his

king. As 30 'Ir h3 immediately is

answered by 30 . . . h5, he played:

30 h4 � e7? Correct is 30 . . . gxh4

3 1 gxh4 h 5 ! , to hinder the penetra­ The vulnerability of the b7 and

tion of the white king. d5 pawns proves fatal.

31 � d6 '1,CT 32 h5! Fixing the 35 h4 cll'CT 36 h5 g5 37 hxg6 +

pawn fonnation and preparing 'cli'xg6 Capturing with the pawn is

the ground for the king's entry to slightly better. 38 'l,f4 h5 39 g3

f5 via h3 and g4. 32 . . . g4! The ,1h7 40 '1,e3 g e 7 + 4 1 1; f 4 � h 7

only way to thwart White's plan. 42 a4 h4 43 gxh4 � xh4 + 44 'l,e3

33 fxg4 i, e6 34 � d8 The pa wn .ih7 45 � d 6 � e 7 + 4 6 1; d 3 'l,g5

ending is only a draw. 47 l! xd5 + '1,f4 48 � d6 f5 49

34 . . . i, e8 35 a, d2 '1,e7 36 '1, 0 �f6 1, e l 50 gn Kbl 51 a5

1 g8 White threatened 37 g5! fol­ Bh3+ 52 1;c4 ª' b l 53 :!!f6 ,i h l

lowed by 'Ir g4-f5. 37 .ll dl � g7 54 11 b6 � h7 55 Ji b3 .!i1 d7 56 d5

66 Rooks

t,e5 57 d6 f4 58 .l b l I.th7 59 for the World Championship

1, e l + •f6 60 c6 bxc6 61 •c5 where Korchnoi, after trailing 2:5,

-ª h2 62 l. dl 1--0 and crawling up to 4 : 5 , equalized

the score at 5 : 5 (only to lose the

Bronstein-Boleslavsky
32nd game, and the match).
Moscow, 1950
White's winning chances depend

principally on the possibility of

penetrating the queenside with his

king after a5-a6.

49 . . . .1 e8? S urprisingl y, the

Soviet laboratory errs. 49 . . . l. g 1

and 49 . . . 1. g 3 + 50 •b4 .l d 3 !

have been suggested. 50 JI d2 J. e4

Black's plight is not easy. If, for

instance, 50 . . . 1, e1 51 d5!

.!!I c 1 + 52 • b2! B. xc5 53 dxc6

with good winning chances. But

58 l. a3! The threat 59 a6 com­
now White penetrates with his
pels 58 . . . lit a6 and gains a tempo
king. Therefore, it is possible that
for White. 58 . . . Ji!'.a6 59 D,d3!
50 . . . •e7--d7 was comparatively
•n 59 . . . ª a7 is defeated by 60 better.
� d 6 1, b 7 + 61 • a 4 f 4 6 2 a 6 B. f7
51 •b4! •e8 52 a6! bxa6 53
63 *ª5 f3 64 � fl .
*ª5 *d7 54 f¡b6! 54 •xa6? f¡c7
60 � d6 *g7 61 ª d7 + *g8 62 is feeble. 54 . . . b4 55 d5 cxd5 56
*ª4 *f8 63 'ª b7 f4 Otherwise ,l x d 5 + ;t¡c8 57 1,d3! A multi­
comes X b6. 64 g b4 •e7 65
purpose move, stopping the b­
.!;lxf4 •e6 66 'ª f 6 + •d5 67
pawn and intending .1 g3. 57 . . .
• b4 1--0
a5 58 ]lg3 b3? 58 . . . Jlc4! may

still draw with best play.

Korchnoi-Karpov
59 •c6! •b8 60 1, x b 3 + *ª7
Baguio, 1978
61 1, b7 + *ª6 62 l. b6 + *ª7 63

• b5 a4 64 .1 xf6 � f4 65 .1 xh6 a3

66 :1 a6+ •b8 67 l,xa3 .1 x f 5 68

ªg3 Jtf6 69 1, g 8 + •c7 70

g g7 + ;t¡c8 71 � h7 1--0

Rubinstein-Alekhine

Carlsbad, 1 9 1 1

White's two pawn-clusters are

superior to Black's three; ali the

This is the ending from the dra­ more so, as the pawn on b5 re­

matic 3 1 st game in the 1978 match strains two pawns on a7 and b6

 Rooks 67

*f8 Il dl 71 f1e8 K e l + 72 f1d8

X fl 73 1, d 7 + ! Not 73 J4,e7?

1t a l! 74 .l d 7 + •e6 and Black

draws. 73 . • . f1c6 74 f1e8 Ji f4 75

1,e7 f1bS 76 J;!:c7! 1-0 The con­

clusion might be: 76 . . . K e4 + 77

wd7 af4 78 f1e7 ªe4+ 79 f1d6

.1 f4 80 f1xd5 .

P ossibly the nest

fi rook and

p awn ending ever played.

Cbarousek-Pillsbury

Budapest, 1896
and the pawn on d5 is a potential

liability.

46 f1e2! X f7 The pawn ending

after 46 . . . 1, c8 47 X xc8 * xc8

48 gxf5 gxf5 49 e4 * b 7 50 *f2 is

lost for Black. 47 f1f2 X f8 48

wg3 �e849 .lc3 � e 7 50 ., h 4 h 6

SI fS'g3 Having induced an addi­

tional weakness in Black's camp,

the king can return to d3 (threat:

gxf5 gxf5; X c6 � e6; l. xe6 * xe6;

e4). Another plan is to play * f2

and 1, g l (threat: gxf5). Black is

therefore compelled to seek active O n the kingside, White's two

counterplay. pa wns restrain Black's three, so

SI . . . hS 52 wh4! gh7 53 'A'gS White sets out making something

fxg4 S4 fxg4 hxg4 SS •xg4 1. h l out of his extra pawn in the

To the passive 55 . . . '11,. e 7 56 *g5 ce ntre.

::Ie6, White responds with *g5- 30 .lfS 1,de6 31 *f4 XeS

h6-g7-f7 when . . . I'. d6, to guard M ore stubborn is 3 1 . . . fi f7 32 c3

against � c7 + fixc7; fixe6, fails (32 e5 g5 + 33 hxg6 •xg6) 32 . . .

against 1, a3. S6 * gS l. bl 56 . . . Xd8 33 c4 a5 ! 34 1. bl X a8,

l. g l + 57 ,_f6 *d6 is answered which makes it more difficult for

by 58 l. c6 + coupled with fie5!. White to break through on the

57 1, a3 .1 xbS 58 .1 xa7 + *d6 59 qu eenside 32 c3! C onfronting

•xg6 JI b3 60 rs .1. xe3 61 f6 Black with a hard choice: on 32

l. g3 + 62 fih7 l. f3 63 f7 l. f4 64 . . . dxc3 comes 33 bxc3 and 34 d4;

fi'g7 l. g 4 + 65 f1f6 l.f4+ 66 on 32 . . . c5 33 cxd4 cxd4 comes

figS! an 67 *g6 1, g l + 67 .. . 3 4 1, cl and he rook

t pe netrates.

fi'e6 (67 .. . 1!t f4 68 l. a8) 68 .1 b7 There remains: 32 . . . l. xfS + 33

68 fif6 an + 69 •g7 .1 g 1 + 10 gxfS l. d8 34 c4! White can now

68 Rooks

operate on both wmgs, not to

mention the possibility e4-e5,

which he holds in reserve. 34 . . .

fi>fi 35 b4 fi,e8 36 a4 � d7 37

�al \t1d8 38 a5 While White's

initiative gains momentum, Black

is reduced to waiting tactics.

38 . . . fi,c7 39 axb6+ 'l}xb6 40

�a5 JJ,,e7 41 "1 f3 �e5 52 c 5 +

,trb7 43 ,tre2 1, e 8 44 \t1d2 M d 8 45

,trc2 a6 46 'l}b3 M d7 47 \t1c4 1, d8

the d6 pawn and ensures him a
48 �al .l d 7 49 -ª e l \t1c7 50 e5
comfortable win.
The beginning of the end. 50 . . .
38 . . . 1, a3 White can always
fxe5 51 1, xe5 "1 b7 52 .l1 e4 1, d5
bring about an exchange of rooks
53 !l e7 + 'f1 b8 54 1,í xg7 1, xf5 55
with JI b2-c2. 39 1, bc2 fi, f8 40

�g6 ªxh5 56 ªxc6 \fíb7 57

l,xa3 l, x a 3 + 41 \fíf2 Ib3 42
� b6 + 'f1a7 58 'l}xd4 1, hl 59
fl c6 :! xb4 43 1, xd6 fi,e7 44 1, c6
\t1d5 h5 60 d4 h4 61 1, h6! Com­
*d7 45 h5 Each white pawn plays
bining attack and defence. 61 . . .
its part. If 45 . . . h6, to stop h5-
Ji bl 62 1, h7 + \fíb8 63 fi>c6
h6, 46 f6! wins. 45 . . . JI b2 + 46
1, x b4 64 d5 Jl g 4 65 il h 8 + \fía7
\t1g3 1,l b l
66 d6 1--0
47 h6! Decisive. 47 . . . g6 48

fxg6 hxg6 49 .1 c2! According to

rule, the rook supports the passed

Karpov-Miles

Bugojno, 1978
pawn from the rear. 49 . . . 1, gl +

50 1, g 2 ;l a l 51 Kh2 .l a 8 52

White's advantage in space­ \f1g4 f6 53 1,b2! \t1c7 54 1, c 2 +

the protected pawns on d5 and \fíb7 If 54 . . . *d7 55 1,c6. 55 d6

f5-underlines the weakness of b5 56 d7 1--0

8 Two Bishops

Skold-Keres

Stockholm, 1966---67

40 ;g: xe4! fxe4 41 a6 � f6 + 42

*g2 �g6+ 43 *hl �c6 44 a7

.\t,c8 45 .A. c 4 + *g7 46 §td5 1-0

Gelfer-Ein-Dor

Israel, 1980
Mating threats generated by his

bishops dispense Black from

engaging in an otherwise tedious

technical struggle.

31 . . . .A,a4 32 .A,e2 a6! This

would follow in reply to 32 .A.c6

as well. 33 *g2 j}_xb5 0--1

D. Bernstein--Murey

Israel, 1980

Here the sacrifice of the

exchange is merely the most eco­ White's bishops paralyse the

nomic means of paving the way black knight.

for the advance of White's passed 35 �d2! it.f6 The alternative is

a-pawn, which will cost Black a 35 . . . '2l a 8 36 jj_a5. 36 j}_a5 §td8

piece. 37 f6 íti'g8 38 f4 1-0

70 Two Bishops

Spassky-Gheorghiu 36 a4 �6h7 37 J.J4 1-0 a4-a5 will

Moscow, 1979 saddle Black with an additional

weakness, irrespective of whether

he captures on a5 or not.

Korchnoi-Matanovic

Palma de Mallorca, 1968

To avoid the wrath of the

bishops, Black must endeavour to

keep the position as closed as pos­

sible. However, 14 . . . �c6 15

Jl..d3 e 6 1 6 J,.e4 ª c 8 1 7 1, d 6 �e7

18 Ji!'. hd 1 is useless (1 8 . . . � f8 19 Here again the two knights do

Jl..b7-a6---b5+). Nor is 15 . . . not stand a chance against the two

ªc8. to answer 16 J..e4 with 16 bishops .

. . . f5 entirely satisfactory in view 25 f3 A prelude to the mobiliza­

of 1 6 h4 (1 6 . . . h5? 1 7 e6). tion of the bishops and king. 25

Black's actual move, 14 . . . f5 . . . �d6 26 b5! Enhancing the

also allowed White's bishops too influence of his bishop on e l , con­

much scope: 15 exf6! �xf6 16 f5! taining the knight on d8 and pre­

�c6 The pawn is poisoned: 16 . . . venting . . . b5 coupled with . . .

gxf5 17 Jl..h3 e6 1 8 I1 d 6 "9n ( 1 8 �c4. 26 . . . 'f!Jf8 27 Jl_c3 f6 28

. . . 'f!Je7 19 1, h d l �bd7 20 J..g5 _ld3 h6 29 J.b4 "1e7 30 f4 "1d7

�e5 21 J_xf5!) 19 .1, h d l. 17 31 e4 �8f7 32 "912 g6 Trying for

fxg6 hxg6 18 J..g5 "9f7 19 h4 32 . . . e5, which does not work at

ª ad8 20 ª el .1 d6 21 g h2 �h7 once because of 33 f5 and the

22 _ld2 �f6 23 "9c2 J: e6 24 king's journey to g6. If now 33

Ji xe6 "9xe6 25 J.d3 fr¡rT 26 J_f4 'f¡e3 e5! 34 f5 gxf5 3 5 exf5 h5 and

�h5 26 . . . e6 and . . . �e7 is . . . �f6 resists.

more stubborn. 27 J.g5 �g3 28 33 e5! Opening lines. 33 . . . fxe5

Xh3 �h5 28 . . . �f5 29 h5! 29 f4 34 J_xg6 exf4 35 gxf4 e5 36 '1113

�f6 30 1,g3 1,g8 31 f5! Estab­ "1e6 37 a4 "1d5 38 h4 'lle6 39

lishing an outside passed pawn. Jl_c2 �f5 40 _lb3 + "1f6 41

31 . . . �e5 32 fxg6+ �xg6 33 fxe5+ �xe5+ 42 "1e4 �xh4 43

i,e3 � f8 34 _lf5 e6 35 _lh3 Xg6 J.c3 �g6 44 Jl..d4 h5 45 J_xb6

 Two Bishops 71

'2\d7 The race of the passed pawns hold on the square c3; on 30 ,a¡ e 1

on opposite wings is scarcely wc2 penetrates. 30 b3 J.c6 31 h4

even. 46 j_d4+ f;e7 47 a5 h4 48 White is pushed: 31 '2) f 4 + f¡c3

j_d5 h3 49 j_xb7 f;d6 50 j_ g l 32 f; c l g5 3 3 '2:l h 3 h6 34 f3 f; d 3 .

'2:)c5 + 51 wf3 '2:)e5 + 52 f;g3 h2 31 . . . f632 '2)f4+ f¡c333 f;c1

53 f;xh2 �xb7 54 a6 '2\ f3 + 55 g5! 34 hxg5 fxg5 35 '2)e6 j_xg2 36

'lrhl 1--0 55 . . . wc7 56 a7. '2)xg5 h5 37 f;dl Or 37 f4 h4 38 f5

h3 39 '2)xh3 j_xh3 40 f6 j_e6 37

.. . h4 38 ,t;e2 h3 39 f3 h2 40
Capablanca-Fine
'2) e 4 + f1b4 41 '2:if2 hl (�) 42
New York, 1931
'2l xh l [Link] 43 f;f2 f1c3 44 e4

,t;d4 45 a3 a5 46 a4 b6 47 f¡g3

f¡e3 48 e5 J.xf3 0--1

Cintron-Botvinnik

Munich, 1958

22 --E:)dc3 Preventing . . . j_b5

but permitting the black king to

advance. Here and his next move

White ought to usher his king to

the centre: 22 * fl-e l -d 2 . 22 . . .

Ji..g7 To play . . . ,t;d6 without

fear of --E:)e4 + . 23 --E::id4? ,t;d6 24

'lrfl f,c5 25 '2:)de2 Acknowledg­

ing the loss of two tempi, a luxury The knights are no match for

White can ill afford. the bishops in the position above.

25 . . . 'l;c4 26 ,t;el ,t;d3 27 33 f;fl b5! Swift action: on 34

'li'dl .A_xc3! One of the main ad­ axb5 j}_ x b 5 + 35 f; e l j_ b 4 + and

vantages of bishops over knights . . . _l fl is decisive. 34 '2\el j_a3

is, precisely and paradoxically, 35 '2led3 e5! Exploiting the inter­

the former's ability to elect the dependence of the white knights.

appropriate moment of renounc­ 36 '2)dl bxa4 37 bxa4 e4! This is

ing the bishop pair! 28 '2:)xc3 j_c6 even more telling than 37 . . . exd4

29 '2\e2 Protecting the pawn in­ 38 exd4 j_xa4 38 '2l3b2 j_h5!

directly: 29 . . . j_xg2? 30 <ti f 4 + . 29 Keeping the white king at bay. 39

• .. Aa4+! Weakening White's fiel j_ b4 + 40 ,t;fl f1b6 0--1

72 Two Bishops

Flohr-Botvinnik Fixing the black queenside pawns

Moscow, 1933 and creating the latent threat b4-

b5. Meanwhile the squares b6 and

c5 are out of bounds for the black

knights.

33 . . . Qibd7 34 jl_cl 'lld8 35

jl_b2 Qie8 36 *d2 Qic7 Waiting

tactics. Admittedly, the more

enterprising 36 . . . f¡e7, intending

. . . g6, . . . Qig7 and . . . f5, suffers

from the inherent drawback of

opening lines for the white

bishops. 37 •e3 •e7 38 jl_fl

Qib5 39 h4 Qic7 40 _lh3 Qie8 41 f4

f6

Both Flohr and Botvinnik state 42 jl_f5! This is clearer than 42

that the following ending should jl_e6 Qic7 43 jl_g8 (or 43 f5 Qixe6!

be tenable for the owner of the 44 dxe6 Qi b8 45 g4 g5!, blockad­

two knights=-with best play. In ing) 43 . . . exf4+ ! (otherwise f4-f5

practice, however, the task of the and g3-g4-g5 decide) 44 gxf4

defender is onerous and unenvi­ Qif8! 45 e5 Qie8, when the white

able. bishop finds itself stranded on g8.

25 'llf2 f¡e7 26 jl_e3 •d8 27 42 . . . g6 On 42 . . . h6 the white

f¡el 'lt/c7 28 *d2 <-E:ic5 29 b4 king penetrates via f3, g4 and h5.

Profiting frorn the fact that, for the 43 jl_h3 h6 So as to meet 44 f5

moment, the attempt to blockade (threat: 45 fxg6 hxg6 46 g4 and

the queen's flank with 29 . . . <-E:ia4, h4-h5, creating an outside passed

coupled with . . . b5, is unsatisfact­ pawn) with 44 . . . g5, when 45

ory, owing to 30 iJ.. d l b5 (if 30 . . . *º Qig7 46 hxg5 may be an­

<-E:i b6 3 1 f¡c3, followed by a3-a4- swered by 46 . . . hxg5 rather than

a5) 3 1 ,lxa4 bxa4 32 •c3 *b7 33 by 46 . . . fxg5 47 f6 + ! Qixf6 48

f¡c4 <-E:i d 7 34 b5 a5 35 b6 f¡a6 36 1J..c8. 44 jl_cl Qig7 Keeping an eye

b7 -E:ib8 (36 . . . •xb7 37 *b5 on the squares f5 and h5 and

etc.) 37 f4 f6 38 f5, accompanied lending support to an eventual . . .

by g2-g4-g5, after which Black's f6--f5.

kingside pawns will become vul­ 45 fxe5! Well timed! Black must

nerable to attack from the rear. recapture with the d-pawn since

29 . . . <-E:icd7 30 g3 If White the knight on d7 is required to

wishes to forestan . . . cE:i b6-a4, fend off 46 jl_c8 while 45 . . . fxe5

coupled with . . . b5, he can do so costs material to 46 *º h5 47

by playing 30 a3-a4-a5 30 . . . ,lg5 + <-E:if6 48 1J..c8 or 47 . . . •e8

Qi b6 31 'llc2 '21 bd7 Black lets this 48 j}_ h6, winning one of the

opportunity slip. 32 a4 <-E:ib6 33 a5 knights. 45 . . . dxe5 46 *f3 Not

 Two Bishops 73

46 *d3? 'ci h 5 47 g4 'cif4 + and better off than in the game. 55

the knight on d7 plants itself on jJ_xf5 'ciXd5 Black's knights have

e5. Likewise, 47 Jtxd7 'li'xd7 48 attained a measure of liberty, but

g4 'cif4 + squanders White's ad­ the unbalanced pawn configura­

vantage. tion and the existence of the out­

46 .. . h5 After 46 . . . g5 47 side passed h-pawn favours the

hxg5 hxg5 (47 . . . fxg5 48 Jtb2) bishops.

White immobilizes the knight on 56 Jtd2 'ci7f6 57 •c4 f,c6 58

g7 with 48 'li'g4 and proceeds with Jtg6 b5 + 59 't1i'd3 'cie7 60 A e4 + !

Jt fl and b4-b5, opening the More precise than either 60 h5

mighty a3-f8 diagonal for his 'cixg6, or 60 A f7 'ciÍ5. The end­

bishop. 47 J¡_e3 '1i'd6 48 J¡_h6 'cie8 ing resulting from 60 . . . 'cixe4 6 1

49 g4 hxg4 + Otherwise 50 gxh5 'if¡xe4 is an easy win, whereas on

gxh5, J¡_f5 and Jtg6. 50 J¡_xg4 'ciC7 60 . . . '81d6 (60 . . . 'f,c7 6 1 Jtg5)

50 . . . 'li'e7, suggested by Botvin­ 61 12. b 7 does the trick. 60

nik, is tougher to crack, since on 5 1 'cied5 61 Jtg5 'cih5 On 61 . . .

jle3 'cid6 52 jlc5 'cixc5 53 bxc5 'ciXe4 62 •xe4 'ciXb4 63 h5

'ciC4 draws; and after 5 1 h5 gxh5 52 promotes. 62 Jt f3 'cig3 63 Jtd2!

J¡_xh5 it is not so easy for White to 63 h5 'ci xh5 64 §¡_ xh5 'ci x b4 +

make headway. grants Black unnecessary

chances.
51 Jte3 'cib5 Thwarting 52 jle6
63 . . . \t1d6 Another trap: 64
•e7 53 12. c5 + ? beca use of 53 . . .
h5? e4 + ! 64 J¡_g4 'cif6 64 . . . e4 +
'ciXC5 and 54 . . . 'cid4 + . 52 'li'e2
65 '1i'd4. 65 Ac8 '1i'c6 66 Jtel e4 +
'ciC7 52 . . . 'cic3 + 53 *d3 'cixe4,
67 *d4 'cigh5 68 J¡_f5 More res­
hoping for 54 •xe4 f5 + 55 J¡_xf5
trained than 68 jlxa6 'ciÍ4 ( - g2).
'cif6+ !, fails against 54 J¡_xd7. 53
68 .. . '1i'd6 69 Jtd2 1--0 lf 69 . . .
f,d3 f5 This enhances the scope of
'cig3 70 J¡_f4 + .
the bishops and grants White an
An ending which will repay
outside passed pawn. However,
close study.
Black has little choice: if 53 . . .

<E\ b5 (to answer 54 '8¡c4 with 54

Botvinnik-Bronstein
. . . 'cia3 + ) 54 jle6 ( - f7) is
Moscow, 1951
strong, e.g., 54 . . . 'ci f8 55 A c5 + .

If the knight on d7 moves, 54 The lesson learnt from Flohr in

jJ_ c 5 + is mate (not to mention 54 the previous example stood Bot­

i.c8), while on 53 . . . 'li'e7 comes vinnik in good stead sorne 18

54 jJ_c5 + , accompanied by d.5--<16 years la ter, in the critica! 23rd

and f,c4-d5, invading. match game for the World Cham­

54 exf5 gxf5 Better is first 54 . . . pionship against Bronstein. By

<E\f6 55 Ah3 (55 A f3 gxf5 winning the ending, Botvinnik

56 -1 c5 + f,d7 57 'li'c4 'ci b5) 55 equalized the score and salvaged

· • . gxf5, when Black is a tempo his title.

74 Two Bishops

'2:)fxd4 59 .f¿xb6 etc.) 57 . . . '2}f5

58 .f¿xd5 '21 fxd4 59 .f¿e4 + "1 f7

60 "1c4 57 Ji.g5! 1--0 The end

could be: 57 . . . '2:)c6 58 Ji.xd5

'2)d6 59 li. f3 "1f5 (so that if 60

li,xh5 � e 4 + ) 60 Ji. e l ! b5 (60 . . .

*g6 6 1 li,f4 '2:)f5 62 d5) 6 1 li,xc6

bxc6 62 a5 and so on.

Uhlmann-Gligoric

Hastings, 1970-1
The fact that the h-pawn re­

quires the vigil of the black king

prevents the latter from assisting

in the defence of the pawn on d 5 .

Alas, because of the constant

presence of zugzwang, this is a

task which the knights are ill­

equipped to tackle on their own.

47 exd5 Eliminating 47 . . . dxe4

followed by . . . '2}e7--d5 + , when

it is difficult for White to make

progress. 47 . . . exd5 48 h4 '2}ab8

49 Ji.g5 + "1 fi 49 . . . <11e6 50

In the early 1970s, Uhlmann,
Ji.g6. 50 J¿f5 The white bishops
Gligoric and Polugayevsky,
domínate the board. 50 . . . '2}a7
among others, tested an ending
Defending against 51 Ji.c8 and
arising from a fashionable vari­
trying for . . . b6--b5. Against the
ation in the King's Indian
alternative 50 . . . t2Je7 White's

best is 5 1 Ji. h 3 ( 5 1 .f¿xe7 •xe7 52 Defence on severa! occasions. In

Ji.g6 '2'lc6 53 Ji.xh5 '2'l a 7 ! is less all cases the argument turned in

clear) 5 1 . . . '2:)bc6 52 Ji.g2 *g7 White's favour.

53 Ji.xe7 '2'l x e 7 54 *b4 '2'l c 6 + 55 White's first move from the dia­

<11b5 '2'i x d 4 + 56 <11xb6, queening gram, 22 a5, is essential to stop

the a-pawn. Black from blocking the queen­

51 li.f4 '2'ibc6 52 Ji.d3 '2'lc8 53 side with . . . a6--a5 and thus re­

[Link] "1g6 54 li,d3 + White re­ serve the possibility of b2-b4. 22

peats moves before the second .. . �e8 23 Ji.d2 h5 24 flfl Ji.d4

time control. 54 • . . <11f6 55 [Link] 25 b3 '2'lg7 26 [Link] '2'le8 27 '2'le2

f,g6 56 Ji.O '2'i6e7 Zugzwang oc­ .zl.b2 28 f3 '2'lg7 29 flf2 Ji.f6 30

curs equally after 56 . . . '2'i8e7 57 '2:)c3 i,d4 + 31 f,e2 f5 32 f4!

li,g5 (or 57 .f¿c7 ers 58 Ji,xd5 Denying Black the square e5 and
 Two Bishops 75

preparing the breakthrough *º Polugayevsky-lvkov

and g2-g4. Be/grade, 1969

32 . . . '2)e8 33 j_d3 J,.xc3 If

Black refrains from this capture,

White proceeds with •D, �e2,

g4 and, if necessary, <E:l g 3 . After

the exchange, White can operate

on both wings. 34 lí_xc3 <E:lef6 35

j}_el *fi 36 '1Je3 •e7 37 J,.c2

wfi 38 b4! cxb4 39 j_xb4 '2lc5 40

*d4 '2lfd7 41 Jl.,dl "'1e7 42 g4!

hxg4 43 hxg4 •f6 44 •e3 b6 A

concession, no doubt, but altern­

atives fail against the crossfire of lt took severa! games to con­

the bishops: (a) 44 . . . g5 45 vince theoreticians that the open­

ji c3 + • g6 46 A c2; (b) 44 . . . ing variation which leads to the

•f7 45 gxf5 gxf5 46 j¡_ h5 + •e7 diagram is unpromising for Black.

47 j¡_g6 •f6 48 J.. h 7 ! , with Against Ivkov, Polugayevsky

Jl_c3 + to follow, winning the f­ slowly ground down his opponent

pawn and the game. with 15 j_e2 a6 16 b4 •f8 17 a4

45 gxf5 gxf5 46 lt xc5! Once <E:ld7 18 a5 Jl.. b2 19 .1 c2 X xc2 +

again, the owner of the bishop 20 •xc2 j¡_g7 21 •b3 Xc8 22

pair is the one who determines ,ld2 j_d4 23 g4 *g7 24 g5 1,íc7

when the right moment has come 25 Mdl • f8 26 f4 i,g7 27 j_g4

to reno unce them. 46 . . . '2l xc5 A •e8 28 1. fl ,ld4 29 h4 Ag7 30

last try, since 46 . . . bxc5 47 j¡_a4 h5 Ad4 31 1l hl so 32 .1 h3 *f8

<E:lb8 (else 48 jib5!) 48 •f3-g3- 33 h6! Jl.,d4 34 � d3 Aa7 35 Ah3

h4, coupled with appropriate Jlgl 36 Jl.,c3 •e8 37 e5 i,h2 38

waiting moves along the a4--e8 exd6 exd6 39 .1 e3 + *d8 40 .1 e4

diagonal, will presently compel Agl? 40 . . . 1, c 8 holds out

Black to give ground by . . . *g7, longer. 41 j_xd7! 1-0 After 4 1 . . .

whereupon * g5 will win easily. •xd7 42 lí_f6 Black has no

47 axb6 Now while the bishop defence against 11 e7 + -e8-h8.

keeps an eye on the f5 pawn, the The careful advance of the white

white king will be free to march h-pawn to h6 has borne fruit.

towards the queenside. 47 . . . a5 Even more convincing was

48 j_c2 •e7 Despair. 49 •d2 Polugayevsky's victory over Osto­

•ds 49 . . . •f6 50 j_a4 or 50 jic from the same tournament: 15

ftc3-b2-a3 first. 50 j_xf5 <E:la4 51 Xxc8+! Kxc8 16 g3! 1,c7 17

b7 •c7 52 j_c8 '2)c5 53 f5 <E:l e 4 + J,h3 '2ld7 18 l. el .1. xcl 19 •xcl

54 •c2 •b8 55 f,b3 <E:ld2 + 56 '2lb6 20 •c2 *f8 21 b3 f,e8 22

fta4 <E:lxc4 57 f6 <E:le5 58 f,xa5 a4! f,d8 23 a5 '2lc8 24 JJ..xc8

1-0 f,xc8 25 j_xa7 and White won.

9 A Rook versus Two Minor

Pieces

Tarrasch-Mieses 31 Áal l2:i a 7 3 2 g 3 c 6 3 3 j, a 4 T o

Gothenburg, 1920 support c3---c4. 33 . . . -2:) b6 34

� a5 g6 35 c4 zibc8 36 M a l '2)d6

37 \tid4 -2:)dc8 38 \tic5 \fic7 39

.l e l l2:i b 6 4 0 �e7+ -2) d 7 + 41

.,

� x d 7 + ! 1--0

Grigorian-Tal

Moscow, 1967

14 -2:) x a 7 + ! *b8 15 '2J a c 6 + !

Not 1 5 '2J(either)b5, beca use of 1 5

. . . c6. 15 . . . bxc6 16 '2J x c 6 +

\ti c8 17 l2:ixd8 'if¡xd8 18 � adl +

Mobilizing all his pieces, the king

included. 18 . . . •e8 1 8 . . . \tic8 is

preferable. 19 *d3 + -2)e7 20

*c4 h5 21 1, d 3 '2Jb8 22 �de3

'2Jc6 23 b4 f6 24 f4 Preventing . . .

�e5 + in reply to b5.

24 . . . •n A trap: if now 25 b5 Here too Tal simplifies into a

'2J a 5 + 26 '1ib4 '2) d 5 + ! 27 'if¡ x a 5 ? clearly winning ending.

1, a 8 mate. 25 a4 g b8 26 c3 �d8 30 . . . -2)b4! 31 2xa8 -E}xa2! 32

27 .ll d 3 ! With pawns on both k e4 -21 xc3 33 � xc3 ,t xc5 The

sides of the board, a rook and passed a-pawn leaves White few

two pawns are usually superior to saving chances. 34 � e 3 � e l + 35

two minor pieces. 27 . . . .1 xd3 28 �el .ll d 8 36 'lifl .ll d 2 37 1. e 2

•xd3 f¡e8 29 a5 'lid7 30 a6 l2:id5 � d 4 38 kf3 � b 4 39 ¿l c 2 I,¡xc2

 A Rook versus Two Minar Pieces 77

40 '2)xc2 H b2 41 Ji. d i a5 42 •e2 Hübner-Karpov

a 4 4 3 . d 3 � b 3 + 44 ,t¡ c 4 llt b l 4 5 Tilburg, 1 9 7 7

j¡_e2 l1 gl 46 ;l. f3 ]! fl 47 *d3

.i x f2 48 j_e4 e5 49 <ite3 �f6 50

,f¡d3 � b6 51 *c3 f5 52 kd5 � bl

0--1

Hort-Hübner

West Germany, 1982

By exchanging two light pieces

for a rook and two pawns, Kar­

pov brings about an ending where

White is saddled with weak

pawns.

22 . . . _ilh6! 23 e3 Forced, since

on 23 1, fd 1 (23 f4? '2)e3 + ) comes

23 . . . :l;l x c l 24 J¡_xcl '2)c3 25

!! e 1 '2)a2 26 '2) b3 (26 e3 .1 c8 27

Ab2 �c2) '2)xcl 27 '2)xcl .l c 8 .

23 . . . jlxe3! 24 fxe3 '2lxe3+ 25

White's last move, 1 6 h4?, pre­ *º <E)xfl 26 <E)xfl .l x c l 27

sents Black with a nice oppor­ j_xcl ll c8 This is the position

tunity to launch a profitable com­ foreseen by Karpov five moves

bination: earlier.

16 . . . §txh4! 17 � x c 6 1 7 '2)xh4 28 _ab2 1,c2! Obtaining two

'2)xd4 gives rise to similar play. 17 passed pawns on the queenside.

.. . llxc6 18 '2)xh4 l, x c l + 19 This is far more convincing than

kxcl �a4 20 �g4 *h8 21 a3 28 . . . e5 29 '2) e 3 . 29 _ilxf6 l1 a2

�c2! 22 �f4 wg8 23 b4 1,c8 24 30 ,t¡e3 �xa3 31 '2)d2 b5 32 '2)e4

ke3 �di+ 25 *h2 �h5 26 g3 b4 32 . . . a5 is quicker. 33 wd4 a5

i!c3 27 a4 .ib3 28 wg2 28 ;l_d2 34 wc4 g a2 35 h4 wc6 36 i_d4

h6. )1e2 37 J¡_e5 l,í e l 38 J_f6 .l b l 39

28 . . . � xb4 29 a5 1:1 bl 30 �f3 J¡_e7 e5 40 g4 a c t + 41 wb3 *d5

� x f3 + 31 '2)xf3 b6 32 axb6 a5 33 42 ll._g5 ll b l + 43 ,t¡c2 1, h l 44

;l.g5 a4 34 J¡_e7 �xb6 35 --2:)el *b3 it h 3 ! 45 '2)f6+ wd4 46

.l! b2 36 Jl c5 h5 37 --2:i d3? a3! 38 --2:)xh7 � xd3 + 47 *c2 a4 48 ;l_e7

.kxa3 l1 b3 0--1 i; c 3 + 0-1

1O Choosing an Endgame; Sorne

Aspects of the Endgame

Larsen-Gligoric

Moscow, 1956

28 fltxf7 + ! lntroducing a series

of exchanges which lead to a won

pawn ending. 28 . . . �xf7 29

Ji.. xf7 + * xf7 30 .i xf8 + * xf8

31 'lixfl presently creating a

passed pawn on the queen's wing

1-0

Smyslov-Reshevsky
Here a timely transition into a
Moscow, 1948
good knight versus bad bishop

26 flth4! The offer to exchange ending ensures White's victory.

queens wins the d-pawn in all 30 JJ...xb5! axb5 31 e5! Complet­

variations, owing to Black's back­ ing the internment of the bishop.

ward development. 31 . . . •e7 31 . . . f6 should be

The game continued 26 . . . tried, although after 32 f4, or even

,¡td7 27 �d8 + 'i!fxd8 28 JJ...xd8 32 •e3, Black's prospects are

<E:id7 29 JJ...c7 with a won ending. gloomy.

 Choosing an Endgame; Sorne Aspects of the Endgame 79

32 "1e3 "1d8 33 "1d4 f6 34 b4!

Preferable to going after a pawn

with 34 exf6 gxf6 35 <E)e4 "1e7 36

"1c5 b4, releasing the bishop. 34

. . . fxe5 + 35 "1xe5 "1e7 36 f4 h5

37 g3 �d7 38 <E)b3! 38 <E)xd7? is

only a draw. 38 . . . J.,c6 39 <E)d4

�d7 40 h3 g6 41 h4 Now any

move will cost a pawn. Black

played 41 . . . "1f7 which lost to 42

<11d6.
36 <E)xc2 "1g6 37 "10 j_e8 38

<E)d4 "1f7 39 "1e3 j_d7 40 <E)e2

Spielmann--Nimzowitsch
"1g6 41 <E)g3 Preventing the
San Sebastian, 1 9 1 1
king's entry. 41 . . . J.,b5 42 d4

J.,e8 43 "1d2 "1g7 44 "1c3 "1g6 45

b3! axb3 46 "1 xb3 * f7 Otherwise

White breaks through with "1b3-

b4 and a3-a4--a5. 47 <E)h5 "1e7 48

<E)f6 J..f7 49 "1 b4 "1d8 50 "1b5

"1c7 51 a4 "1b7 52 a5 bxa5 53

"1xa5 "1c6 54 "1a6 h5 Black can

put up only token resistance

against the joint action of White's

knight and king. 55 <E)h7 J.,e8 56

'l/a5 "1b7 57 <E)f8 J..f7 58 "1b5

Black's bishops are both under "1c7 59 "1c5 J.,g8 60 h3 J..f7 61

attack. Which is the more valu­ <E)h7 J.,e8 62 h4! J..f7 63 <E)f6 J.,g6

able? Nimzowitsch played 20 . . . 64 <E) xd5!! The crowning point of

Jt.a3! 21 'f,xa3 �xc4 reasoning White's manoeuvres. 64 . . . exd5

that the white-coloured bishop, to 65 "1xd5 j_e8 66 e6 J.,a4 67 "1e5

be posted on d5, will be far more J..b3 68 d5 "1d8 69 d6 J..c2 70

useful than its counterpart on g3. "1f6 J.,d3 71 e7 + "1e8 72 d7 +

1--0
Pfeifer-Guimard

Dubrovnik, 1950 Kashdan--Reshevsky

USA, 1938
White steers the game to a

knight versus bishop ending, rely­ In this example, the American

ing on his superior knight and Grandmaster foresees that

centralized king. White's pawn on b3 is a potential

35 �c2! �xc2 Otherwise burden, notwithstanding the pres­

White exchanges queens himself ence of the white knight on c4. He

and eventually wins a pawn. begins by acquiring the 'minor

80 Choosing an Endgame; Sorne Aspects of the Endgame

exchange' (bishop versus knight) ll'xc2 •xd5 39 axb6 axb6 40 •c3

by means of a small combination: Jth5! Preventing counterplay

26 . . . �d2+ 27 1,xd2 Jt x g 2 + with � f3 , w h i c h would be the

28 •et .i xd2 29 •xd2 Jtd5 30 answer to 40 . . . f¡c5. Black's

*d3e5 3 1 e4 Jt e 6 3 2 Xc2 •e7 33 superiority is obvious and the b5

�d2 To free himselffrom the pin. pawn will not run away.

33 . . . Kxc2 34 •xc2 *d6 35 41 �b3 Jte8. Again, 41 . . .

*d3 f¡c5. f¡e4 grants White sorne chances

While White's knight must after 42 �d2 + * xe3 43 �c4 +

guard b3, his king must halt and 44 '2)xb6. 42 ll>b4 42 �d4

Black's king from entering d4. 36 costs a pawn after 42 . . . •e4 43

•e3 g6 37 *d3 f5 38 f3? More fld2 f4! 42 . . . •e4 43 �d2 +

chances are offered by 38 exf5 or •xe3 44 �c4 + •e2 Rather than

38 f4. 38 f4! 39 gxf4 Otherwise go after White's remammg

comes g5 threatening to create kingside pawns with 44 . . . *f2,

an outside passed pawn after . . . Black concentrates on promoting

fxg3, hxg3 h7-h5-h4 etc. On 39 g4 the f-pawn. 45 �xb6 f4 46 gxf4

a5 accompanied by . . . Jtc8-a6 + gxf4 47 �d5 f3 48 �c3 + f¡el 49

is simplest 39 exf4 40 h4 h6 41 �e4 f2 50 �xfl •xfl 51 •c5

a5 Despair. 41 Jtd7 42 •c2 Jtd7! 51 . . . Jth5 enables White

*d443 �c4 Jt e 6 44 �d2 •e345 to draw by approaching the h­

*dl *fl 46 f¡c2 •e2 47 f¡cl h5 pawn: 52 ll>d4! i_f3 53 •e5!. 52

48 e5 g5! 49 �e4 gxh4 and Black b6 Jtc8 53 *d6 h5 0-1

won.
Reshevsky-A. R. B. Thomas

Gheorghiu-Timman Hastings, 1937-8

Lucerne, 1982
Here the decision as to what

Here Black exchanges ali rooks, pieces to exchange is crucial:

to bring about a clearly won wholesale exchanges on e6 and d5

bishop versus knight ending. do not work since White's king is

34 . . . d5! 35 fxe5 + f1 xe5 36 too far away; similarly, exchang­

cxd5 l. xc2 37 11 xc2 JI xc2 38 ing just on e6 exposes White to . . .

 Choosing an Endgame; Sorne Aspects of the Endgame 81

Ought he to transpose into a rook

ending with 34 . . . �xe4? Or

ought he to bring about a knight

versus bishop ending with 34 . . .

ltd4?

34 . . . � d4? A serious error of

judgement: with pawns on both

wings, the long-ranging bishop is

far superior to the short-paced

knight. Instead, 34 . . . '2)xe4 35

.1 xe4 f5! leads to a tenable rook

zid5-{:3. Thus the most effective
and pawn ending.
way to make White's extra pawn
35 l. xd4 exd4 36 � d5 h6 37
tell is 36 �xd5! �xd5 37 "1f2 The
"1d2 hxg5 38 hxg5 f6 39 'f'Jd3 �f5
king heads to d4.
40 b4 It is not an equal fight. 40
37 . . . 'f'Je7 38 'f'¡e3 'f'¡d6 39
. . . fxg5 41 b5 !jje7 42 �g2 �c8
"1d4 'f'Jc6 40 -E)b7 With the white
43 •xd4 "1f6 44 "1c5 'f'¡e5 45 c4
king firmly entrenched in the
1-0
centre, he need no longer fear a

transition into a pawn ending. 40

.. . a4 41 '2) a 5 + fJd6 42 '2)c4+

1,c6 43 bxa4 �g8 44 '2)a5 + fid6 Panno-Keres

Los Angeles, 1963

45 <Bh3 �d5 46 a5 �b7 47 e3

_ia6 48 '2)c5 �e2 49 a6 �f3 50

<Bd3 'f'¡c7 51 "1c5 and wins.

Kavalek-Kaplan

Solingen, 1974

With White's knight so badly

placed, not to mention other posi­

tional deficiencies, Black simpli­

fies into a winning ending.

31 . . . d5! 32 cxd5 1, xd5 33

Black is faced with an awkward l. xd5 I! xd5 34 X xd5 tt-xd5 35

choice: Ought he to refrain from "1fl •e6 36 •el �c5 37 •f2

exchanges with 34 . . . !! c5? tt-d3 38 tt-b2 � e 4 + 39 •g2 �c3

82 Choosing an Endgame; Sorne Aspects of the Endgame

40 tt c l c5 41 h3 'l!)re2 + 42 whl �h2-g4 with the advance of the

'2:le4 0-1 h-pawn to follow. For example,

42 . . . wc4 43 '2:id2 + wc5 44

Reshevsky-Woliston
b4 + wc6 45 Q:i f3 Jtf8 (else Black
USA, 1940
must allow *d5) 46 g5! hxg5 47

Q:ih2 .i_g7 48 .E)g4 wd6 49 h6

Jih8 50 h7 li...g7 5 1 Q:ih6 we7 52

'tt,d5, winning the b-pawn. 43 a4

b3 44 '2:id2 flb4 45 a5 f¡xa5 46

Q:ic4 + 1--0

Koenig-Smyslov

Great Britain-USSR, 1946

In the following example, Black

makes White's task far too easy.

23 . . . f, f8 24 wn f¡e8 25 •e2

wd7 26 *d3 White's king hastens

to the aid o f h i s pawn majority. 26

. . . wc6 27 '2:le2 _tc5 28 f4 b5? An

elementary error which helps

White in the creation of a passed

pawn on the queen 's flank. Cor­

Here, unlike the previous ex­
rect is 28 . . . f5. 29 g4! Black's
ample, it is Black's pawn majority
failure to play . . . f5 has pennitted
on the kingside, well supported by
White to safeguard the square e4
his king and bishop, that is far
for his king, whence it will sup­
more potent than White's pawn
port the push f4-f5.
majority on the other wing. In­
29 . . . a6 30 we4 .lf8 31
deed, White resigned a few moves
'2:l d 4 + wd6 32 '2)b3 fi.e7 33 '2:id2
later.
fi.f8 34 c4! wc5 35 cxb5 axb5 36

.E) b3 + *d6 37 Q:id4 f¡c5 38 f5 e5

Obligatory. Now White is vir­

Lilienthal-Bondarevsky
tually a pawn up.
Moscow, 1940
39 Q:i f3 h6 40 h4 _le7 41 h5! 4 1

g5? only assists Black in Black's somewhat restricted

straightening up his pawns. 41 . . . bishop and his doubled b-pawns

li...d6 42 a3 b4?! This plays into give White something to play for.

White's hands. However, on other Victory in this last-round game

moves, White plays g4-g5! hxg5, enabled the winner to tie with the
 Choosing an Endgame; Sorne Aspects of the Endgame 83

23 fxg4 _txg4 24 �xb6 At last,

the positional advantage has

reaped material fruit. 24 . . . X f2

25 b3 .tdl 26 d5 •c7 27 a5 Jii dl

28 .l h 7 + *b8 29 d6 Another

way is 29 � h8 + •c7 30 d6 + !
mating or winning the black rook.

29 . . . .1 d4 + 30 •c5 X h4 31 d7

•c7 32 d8( •) + * xd8 33 1'. d7 +

1--0

loser as co-champions of the

Lev-Bruk
USSR in 1940.
Israel, 1985
1 h3 f6 2 �d3 g5 Black places

bis pawns on squares opposite to

the colour of bis bishop, enables

. . . jtf7-g6 and thwarts �f4. In

the ensuing phase, White aims to

gain control of the h-fíle by means

ofh3-h4 and Xhl.

3 f3 *f7 4 *f2 •e7 4 . . . h5

makes White's task more difficult.

5 f¡e3 *d6 6 gxc8 �xc8 7 h4!

White assumes control of h-file. 7

. . . h6 8 hxg5 hxg5 9 1. h l 1. e 8 1 0

fidl jtd7 11 1.h6 1. f8 12 �el

Having immobilized the black As in the preceding example,

rook, White proceeds to improve the pawn structure on the central

the position of bis knight, which file renders the white knight

enjoys more freedom than Black's superior to the black bishop. 18

bishop. *dl .1 ac8 19 b3 *f8 20 .1 bel

12 . . . •c7 13 �el l. f7 14 �e3 1,c6 21 �a4 _ldd6 2 1 . . . .t x c l

Ae6 15 •c3 The king is to play 22 l. xc 1 l. c8 is unplayable,

an active role on the queen's wing. owing to 23 �c5.

15 .. . *d6 16 *b4 J.d7 17 22 �c5 _tc8 23 a4 a5 Loosen­

�f5+ •c7 The rook ending after ing, but Black wishes to halt b3-

17 . . . A,xf5 1 8 gxf5 is untenable b4. 24 �d3 jtf5 25 �f4 l, x c l 26

owing to zugzwang: 1 8 . . . •c6 1 9 .1 xcl g5 To relieve the rook from

a4, and Black has no way of pre­ the protection of d5. 27 �d3

venting the entry ofthe white king J.xd3? Black is oblivious to the

or rook. dangers inherent in simple posi­

18 a4 _i e6 1 9 �g3 .td7 20 �h5 tions. After 27 . . . •e7 the

f5 21 �f6 fxg4 22 �xd5+ •b8 defence should hold.

84 Choosing an Endgame; Sorne Aspects of the Endgame

28 •xd3 •e7?! Missing 36 •e2 •g6 37 •d3 f5 38 •e2 f4

White's retort. 28 . . . 1, b6 looks 39 i_f2 -E)g7 40 h3 �f5 (182).

better.

29 b4! The winning move. 29

. . . axb4 30 l!l e7 + •e6 30 . . .

Xd7 31 .l x d 7 + f;xd7 32 •c2

leads to a lost pawn ending. 31

1,xb7 Jte6 32 1, x b4 �el 33

.1 b6 + f;f5 34 f3 h5 35 � d6 and

White won.

Saidy-Fisher

USA, 1964

41 'l]d3 g4! 42 hxg4 hxg4 43

fxg4 White cannot permit . . . g4-

g3. 43 . . . -2:ih6 44 jlel? 44 f;e2

�xg4 45 J..g 1 ! * f5 46 * f3 '2) f6

47 jth2! (not 47 g3? fxg3 48 'if¡xg3

'l]e4!) -E:) h5 48 a5 draws.

44 . . . '2)xg4 Now 45 'l]e2 'l]f5

46 'if¡ f3 (or 46 g3 fxg3 47 jj_xg3

f;e4) fails against 46 . . . '2) h2 + .

45 .zl.d2 'l]f5 46 .[Link] -E)f6 47 Ah4

If 47 g3 f3!. 47 . . . -E:)e4 48 jlel

'l]g4 49 'l]e2 '2\ g 3 + 50 f;d3 -E)f5

51 J..f2 -E:)h4 Fischer's masterly

Here, again, the particular plac­
manoeuvres are about to bear
ing ofthe pawns on the central file
fruit. White loses a pawn and
makes Black's knight a more mo­
soon, the game.
bile piece than White's bishop.
52 a5 52 j_xh4 'l]xh4 53 'l]e2
This factor is insufficient to tilt the
• g3 54 'li f1 f3 is hopeless. 52 . . .
balance in Black's favour, but as
�xg2 53 'l]e3 f;f3 54 J..gl 'l]e2
we shall see, it does make White's
55 ..it..h2 f3 56 1._g3 -2)e3 0--1
defensive task a deJicate one:

23 . . . �d7 24 f;fl �f8 25 f;e2

�e6 The best square for the Kasparov-Smyslov

knight. The next step is to activate
Vilnius. 1984
the infantry. 26 'l]d3 h5 27 i_e3

•h7 28 f3 •g6 29 a4 •f5 30 •e2 1 d4 d5 2 '2)f3 -2}f6 3 e4 e6 4

g5 31 -.a �d8 32 j_d2 'l]g6 33 'de3 e6 5 j_g5 'dhd7 6 e3 �a5 7

'l]e3 �e6 34 'l]d3 f;f5 35 jj_e3 f6 exd5 'dXd5 8 �d2 j_b4 9 � e l e5

 Choosing an Endgame; Sorne Aspects of the Endgame 85

Capablanca-Kostié

Havana, 1919

10 a3 j_d6 11 dxe5 '2)xe5 12

'2)xe5 j_xe5 13 b4 J'J..xc3 Now,

rather than enter the middle game

with 14 ,!xc3 i'K{b6, Kasparov

steers directly into the ending,

White's advantage is glaring.
with a view to benefiting from bis
To clinch the game, he need only
two bishops and more aggressive
force Black to cede the square g6
pawn formation.
to bis king. 61 l. d7 f¡e8 62 X d3
14 i'K{xc3! '2)xc3 15 bxa5 '2)e4
f¡f"/ 63 1,d5 We now have the
16 J'J..f4 0--0 (183) 17 f3 Step by
diagram with Black to move.
step, White's pawns and bishops
63 . . . I'. a3 Black is in zug­
assume control of the board.
zwang. 63 . . . J..f8 loses to 64
17 . . . '2)f6 18 e4 -ªe8 19 fif2
.! d 7 + j_e7 65 .l c 7 !. 64 .§Lxc5
a6 20 J..e2 J'J..e6 21 .l b l _i e 7 22
J'J.. xc5 65 g xc5 .! xb3 66 .1 c7 +
l,li hd 1 � ae8 23 � b2 .il. c8 24
f¡f8 67 f¡g6 Decisive.
� bd2 i!lt d7 25 � xd7 '21 xd7 26 g4
67 . . . .; f3 68 xn+ "1e8 69

With the pawn on a5 restraining

� xg7 .1 f4 70 h5 .1 xc4 The al­

Black's pawns on the queen's terna ti ve 70 . . . l. g 4 + 71 f¡xf6

wing, White proceeds to mobilize g xg7 72 f¡xg7 b3 gives rise to a

his own pawn majority. 26 . . . lost queen ending. 71 f¡xh6 f¡ f8

�c5 27 j_e3 '2)d7 28 g5 '2)e5 29 72 Xb7 Xg4 73 f3! g g 5 74 g x b4

J. d4 '21 g6 30 * g3 '21 f8 31 h4 A d8 * n 75 .! g4 .1, xf5 76 f4 .1 a5 77

32f4 ..i e 6 3 3 J'J..c3 A x d l 34 J'J..xdl X g7 + fi f8 78 X b7 f5 79 fig6

�d7 35 f5 Sooner or later, White l. a6 + 80 f¡xf5 Whilst in sorne

will create a passed pawn. instances the weaker side can

35 . . . J'J.. c4 36 h5 h6 37 gxh6 draw this type of ending, here,

gxh6 38 e5 '2)c5 39 fif4 ..id5 40 with the white rook controlling

J'J..c2 f6 41 e6 fig7 42 .il.b4 '2)b3 43 the seventh rank, Black is help­

fie3 c5 44 J'J..c3 fif8 On other less.

moves, 45 J'J..e4 is strong. 1-0 45 80 . . . }l a 5 + 81 *g4 K a 6 82

j}_e4 is simplest. f¡g5 xes 83 f5 fig8 84 f6 X c l 85

86 Choosing an Endgame; Sorne Aspects of the Endgame

H. g 7 + "1f8 86 h6 1-0 The h­

pawn is unstoppable.

Euwe--Capahlanca

Avro, 1938

28 *fl? h5! 29 '2)el g5 30 .1 c2

I'. al 31 "1e2 *g6 32 '2) f3 *f5 33

0id2 g4 Intending . . . � g l , which

<loes not work immediately,

owing to 34 � f3 K xg2 35 * fl . 34

'2) fl J_d4Zugzwang. l f 3 5 � e 3 +

•e5 36 éi::ifl f5. 35 �d2 � g l 36

The last encounter between the
0ib3 J_e5 37 0id2 � xg2 38 'li'fl
two World Champions and
�h 2 39 'li'gl � h 3 40 'ci fl h4 41
Euwe's only victory against
f,g2 hxg3 42 fxg3 •e4 43 � f2 f6
Capablanca.
44 � a 2 ;lh 8 0-1
25 . . . b5? Too loosening. 25 . . .

c6, coupled with . . . 0ic7, appears

more to the point. Now White can Rubinstein-Tarrasch

capitalize on Black's pawn weak­ Car/sbad, 1923

nesses by activating his pawn

phalanx.

26 1,c3 c6 27 f3! Liberating the

bishop and thus accentuating the

deficiencies in Black's pawn

formation. 27 . . . g6 28 fxe4 fxe4

29 a4! bxa4 30 � c4 * f6 31 1, xa4

c5 32 Afl winning a pawn and,

presently, the game.

Uhlmann-Geller

Palma de Mallorca, 1970

In the diagram, 28 g4! is imper­ White's bishop is superior to

ative. Instead White shifts his Black's knight. Moreover, Black

pieces aimlessly whilst Black con­ is vulnerable along the bl-h7 di­

stantly improves the position of agonal. These factors explain why

his forces. the position is far from drawish.

 Choosing an Endgame; Sorne Aspects of the Endgame 87

29 . . . �d7 30 Ka8 .1.dd8 31 2 . . . fxe4 On 2 . . . f4 3 �h3 is

i fl �d6 3 1 . . . 'li6'xfl + 32 -W,,xfl unpleasant. 3 <f)cxe4 a5 4 <f)e8

g xfl + is better. 32 .l. xf8 + Now White obtains the two

.1 xf8 33 f,g2 'iiií'b4 34 .. d3 f,h8 bishops and presently reveals

35 .la7 �b2+ 36 f,h3 White's their potential.

king is safer than Black's. 36 . . . 4 . . . f,f8 5 <f)xg7 <f)xg7 6

�b6 37 1, a 8 .ld8 38 .. c3 �d7 �a3+ f]g8 On 6 . . . c5 7 <f)xc5!

Too late. 38 . . . 'l!td6 is indicated. is possible. 7 <f)d6 <f)e6 8 �e8

39 .. c6! ,lxa8 40 .. xa8+ ,f)b8 flf7 9 <f) d 6 + f] f 6 1 0 <f) e 8 + fJf7

40 . . . .. b8 41 .. xb8 + <f)xb8 42 11 <f)d6+ f]f6 12 <f) e 4 + fJf7 13

f,g4 is the alternative. f]fl c5 14 <f)d6 + f]e7 15 <f)c8 + !

41 ftld5! Note how without f]d8 16 �xa8 f]xc8 17 �el In

rooks, White's threats have lost the race to promote, two knights

none of their venom. 41 f6 are seldom a match for two bis­

costs a pawn to 42 ftlb5! (42 . hops.

'/!lí'd6? 43 -W,,e8 + ). 41 . . . ftlc7 42 17 . . . <f)d4 18 h4 �f6 19 �g5

1.f5! Vintage Rubinstein: 42 . . . <f)e8 20 �d5! '2:)d6 21 �g8 h5 22

f/Je7 is countered by 43 �b5. 42 J..h7 a4 23 bxa4 �xc4 24 �xg6

. . . <f)c6 43 "l)lrc4 Mating threats <f)b2 25 �xh5 c4 26 �g4+ f]c7

loom both along the back rank 27 h5 1-0

and the bl-h7 diagonal. 43 . . .

Petrosian-Portisch
tr'd6 44 .. f7 .. d8 45 .. g6! 1-0
Palma de Mallorca, 1974

Yudovich-Bondarevsky

Tbilisi, 1937

That mobility counts for more

than material is demonstrated in

the following example. Black's

1 <f)d6 �a8 2 e4! The weaken­ last move, 2 1 . . . .. f4, attacking

ing of the square d4 is amply the white rook and intending to

compensated by the opening of assume the initiative after 22 .1 c2

the long diagonal and the weak­ or 22 Jlc6 with 22 . . . .. e4 (or 22

nesses in Black's pawn structure. .1, e l .. g4), is refuted brutally.

88 Choosing an Endgame; Sorne Aspects of the Endgame

22 gxf4! '2)xf4+ 23 Wg3 Qixd3 � xc5 .1, c7! dissipates White's ad­

24 l;i c3! � b4 Paradoxically, 24 vantage. 45 . . . f';e7 46 "1 f2 f6 47

. . . '2l b2 affords Black better "1e2 � a8 48 � c6 fxe5 49 � xc5

chances. 25 a3 �a6 26 b4! Black's -2)d6 50 �c7+ f';e6 51 -2)xd6 5 1

knight is offside and White li c 6 "1 d 5 !.

dominates the e-file. 51 . . . "1í'xd6 52 �xh7 � b 8 53

26 . . . Qib8 27 íi c7 a5 28 b5! � g7 ;.;i: b2 + 54 f'; fl e4 55

Qld7 29 "1f4 And now the white .i! xg6 + f¡e5 56 � xa6 � al 57

king joins the fray. 29 . . . h5 30 � a8 j;f4 58 a6 �al+ 59 "1e2

Qie5! Qif8 30 . . . Qlxe5 3 1 "1xe5 is '.:l al+ 60 "ilí' d l g xa3 61 a7 "1e3

no better. 31 l. b7 f6 32 '2\c6 62 h4 gd3+ 63 "1c2 ,li d 7 64 g4

Qi g6 + 33 "1 g3 ª d6 34 g xb6 i, c7 + 65 "1 b3 � d7 66 "1c3

_l e 6 35 Kb8+ Qif8 36 �a8 �el /il c7 + 67 "1 b4 � d7 68 f¡c5! 1-0

37 Qid8 wh7 38 b6 � bl 39 b7

c2ld7 40 � xa5 1-0

Ribli-Karpov

Amsterdam, 1980

Botvinnik-Levenfish

Moscow, 1937

White's small but persistent

advantage consists in the better

Here, the sight of White's pawns placement of his rooks and poten­

Ieaves something to be desired. tially active knight. Even if it

However, it is the advantageous should not quite suffice to force

position of his rook and knight victory, it is certainly sufficient to

that gives him a pronounced edge. cause Black severa) headaches.

41 ll d 7 �c7 4 1 . . . Qic7 loses 19 -E:)e5! 1i_xg2 20 "ilí'xg2 f6 20

nicely to 42 � d8 + "1 e 7 43 � d6!; . . . '4, c 7 21 -2) d 3 k,d6 22 '!1..xc7

or 42 . . . wg7 43 :ii'. c 8 ; or 42 . . . k,xc7 23 �el does not solve

Qi e 8 43 '2)d6. 4 1 . . . h 5 , to play 42 Black's problems. 21 -E:)f3 ii..f8 On

. . . f6, seems comparatively best. 21 . . . "1 f7 comes 22 �d7+ k,e7

42 � d8! "1 e7 43 .!l d6! ¡, a7 23 � cc7. 22 e3 g6 23 b3 An inac­

Forced. 44 �c6 i1rd7 45 l.b6! 45 curacy. More exact is 23 h 3 .

 Choosing an Endgame; Sorne Aspects of the Endgame 89

23 . . . _1 b4 24 h3 ,t,f8 25 '2id4 ability to play c3-c4 under

*fl 26 a4 bxa4 27 bxa4 _1c5 28 favourable circumstances that

J c4 §j_a3 28 . . . §j_xd4 leads t o a n tips the scales in favour of the

inferior ending after 29 ii cxd4 bishop.

l.! e8 30 � b4!. 29 � xc8 ;; xc8 30 22 -W,c5! � b8 Likewise, the im­

lbl �c431 �b7+ .1 e 7 3 2 Jll a 7 mediate exchange of queens is in

e5 32 . . . � xa4? 33 '2} c 6 . On other White's favour: 22 . . . -W,xc5 23

moves, 33 � xa6 is strong. 33 fxe5 dxc5 '2l b8 24 c4! dxc4 25 .1 ab l

fxe5 34 'd 0 Winning a pawn. 'dC6 26 .1. fc l. 23 � fb l -W,xc5 On

34 . . . � xa4 35 '2}xe5 + *f6 36 23 . . . .! ab6 24 1, xb6 .1 xb6 25

'2}c6 §J_c5 3 g xh7 g a2 38 *º a5 c4! is equally unpleasant. 24 dxc5

39 h4 a4 40 •e4! J¡_f8 lf 40 . . . f1 f8 25 g b5 g aa8 26 f1 f2 f1e7

� xf2 41 '2} e 5 , threatening 42 27 f¡e3 .1 f8 28 1, abl X fb8 29

g f7 + and/or 42 '2)g4 + /42 'l/d3 f¡d7 30 e3 f1e7 31 f1d2 1, c8

'2)d7 + . Now White transposes 32 _aO g6 33 _ae2 h5?! 33 . . . e5 is

into a won rook ending. 41 � a7 to be considered.

1._d6 42 f4 � h 2 43 Jll a 6 *fl 44 34 h3 l. g8 35 ;; b7 .1 gc8 36 g4!

'2)e5 + j_xe5 45 f1xe5 fr¡g7 46 hxg4 37 hxg4 '2)d8 38 1, 7b2 <tJfl

� a7 + fJh6 47 � xa4 :ii! xh4 48 39 g5 f1d7 40 c4! Opening lines

,t¡f6 � h5 49 e4 � h4 50 e5 K h5 51 for his bishop. 40 . . . dxc4 The

e6 � f5 + 52 'l!e7 f1g7 53 f1d6 strength of the bishop is illus­

� f8 5 4 �a7+ f1 f 6 5 5 .1, d 7 1 --0 trated in the following line: 40 . . .

c6 41 cxd5 exd5 42 e4!! dxe4 43

Bronsteln-Boleslavsky
§tc4 '2) d 8 44 Hhl 1, c 7 45 Jt h 6 !.
Moscow, 1950
41 §J.0! X a7 42 f1c3 c6 43

� h2 f1e7 44 §te2 f1f8 45 §txc4

ll e 8 46 .l b 6 1, c 7 4 7 K a 6 W h i t e ' s

pressure bears fruit. 47 . . . f¡g7

48 Il xa5 e5 49 .1 h3 JI d7 50 jtb3

exf4 51 exf4 .1 e4 52 l. a8 1, xf4

53 §J_xfl! Leads to a won rook

and pawn ending. 53 . . . J;t x fl 54

i, ah8 1, O + 55 1, xO f1 xh8 56

a5 White's king, rook and pawns

are ali superior to Black's. 56 . . .

g a7 57 'IJ b4 f1g7 58 .1 a3! For

The position above is not easy the final part of the game, see

to evaluate. In the seque!, it is his diagram 147.

1 1 Key Squares-Strong Points

Larsen-Fischer <E)e3 b4 16 �cdl J,.xfl 17 •xfl

Santa Monica, 1966 (194) Black's strategy, surrender­

ing the square f5 (and c4), is tan­

tamount to positional capitula­

tion. This is borne out by the

seque!.

Larsen played 17 i_b5. Fischer

responded with 17 . . . X d8. The

game continued 18 J. el ll e8 19

f3 with Black eventually winning.

17 . . . �f6 18 f3 <Elh7 19 ers
17 . . . i_d7?, in reply to 17
.-r6 20 hxg5 hxg5 21 <E)xg7
J. b5, would be a grave posi tional
Exchanging a good knight for a
mistake in that it would surrender
bad bishop, to break open the
the square f5.
king's defences. 21 . . . .-xg7 22

<E)e3 f6 23 <El f5 "i,'d7 24 *f2 a5

Gelfer-Pedersen
Despair. 25 "i,'gl l. a7 26 .l. h6
Israel, 1979
Ji ti 27 "i,'hl .1. a6 28 l. hl 1--0

1 d4 <E)f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e6 4 <E)c3
Balashov-Penrose
exd5 5 cxd5 d6 6 <El f3 g6 7 <El dl
Hastings, 1966-7
J,.g7 8 <E)c4 0--0 9 i_g5 h6 10 i_f4

<E)e8 10 . . . b6 11 i_xd6 1, e 8 12 1 d4 <E)f6 2 c4 g6 3 <E)c3 J,.g7 4

i_g3 <E) e 4 1 3 <E)xe4 ,l x e 4 1 4 e 3 b5 e4 d6 5 i_el 0-0 6 <E) f3 e5 7 d5

is a sharp line. 11 "i,'cl! g5 11 . . . <Elbd7 8 i_g5 h6 9 jlh4 g5 10 J,.g3

*h7 costs material to 1 2 <E) b 5 !. 12 <E)h5 1 1 h4 <E)xg3 12 fxg3 gxh4 13

i_dl b6 13 h4 i_a6 14 e4 b5 15 <E)xh4 .-g5 14 i_g4! <E)c5 (195)

 Key Squares+Strong Points 91

20 . . . .1,c7 21 <ciÍ5 a6 22 h4

<cih7 23 .1 gl *f8 24 •el 1. a7 25

a4 b6 26 *h5 *h8 27 1.g6 1.d7

28 lit agl .1 ab7 29 *g4 g bc7 30

Iil,g2 Xb7 31 *º A piece down,

White has all the time in the

world!

31 .. . 1. a 7 32 *gl K f7 33

�el .-es 34 f4 The alternative is

34 <cieg3 �f8 35 tth5 + <ci h 7 36

Here, rather than play the pro­ <ciXd6. 34 . . . b5 35 axb5 axb5 36

saic 15 <ciÍ5, White sacrificed a cxb5 .; ab7 37 h5 <ci f8 38 *h3

pawn with 15 jlxc8! and thus <ciXg6 39 hxg6+ *g8 40 gxf7+

conquered the square f5. Indeed, .f8 1--0

after 15 . . . íjxg3 + 16 *º
Chekhover-Alatortsev
.l,axc8 17 �f5 ítf4+ 18 .-o!
Leningrad, 1938
White won easily enough.

Kasparov-Chiburdanidze

Baku, 1980

A struggle between the sexes:

the future male World Champion

feels that the conquest of the

square f5 justifies more radical

measures than the pedestrian 17

.1g3 f5!.

17 <cie3!! From f5 the knight

will paralyse ali Black's pieces. In

addition, after 17 gxh4 the g-

file is opened. 17 gxh4 18 �f5

1Atd8 19 1Atg4 <cig5 20 <ciXh4 Black White gains control of the key

is helpless against <cif5, h3-h4 etc. square d5 by meaos of a forced

92 Key Squares-Strong Points

seq uence: 1 lJ.. xf6 '2'l xf6 2 '2'l a5! Boleslavsky-Lisitsin

� ab8 If 2 . . . b6 3 '2')c4 b5 4 '2') e 3 . Moscow, 1956

3 '2')c4 followed by '2')e3---d5.

Boleslavsky refrains from the

Here the conquest of d5 is
obvious 15 '2')c7, threatening 16
simpler: 1 ll..xf6 ll..xf6 2 ll..d5! and
J,. b 5 and 16 '2')xa8, since that
after the exchange of the white­
would allow Black counterplay
squared bishops, White will re­
after 15 . . . ,¡tc6! 16 '2')xa8 d5.
main with an all-powerful knight
Instead he sacrifices a pa wn, to
against a 'dead' bishop.
obtain a positional bind based on

his absolute control of d 5 .

Smyslov-Rudakovsky
15 c4! ll..xc4 16 '2')c3! �b3 17
Moscow, 1945
ll..xc4 ,¡txc4 18 ll..g5! and after

the exchange on f6, White's

knight occupied the dominating

square d5 with decisive effect.

Geller-Najdorf

Zurich, 1953

Smyslov obtains a winning

strategic advantage by gaining

control of the square d 5 .

13 f5! _i c4 More obstínate is 1 3

. . . lJ..d7 14 ll..g5 lJ..c6. 14 ll..xc4

'i!jxc4 15 _ig5! and after the

exchange on f6, White accom­ Capturing on a6 is not salu­

plished his plan. brious, owing to 19 . . . '2')c4 20

 Key Squares-Strong Points 93

J¡_ c l �b7. White's plan is to 29 �fi ! *ª8 30 g a5 .ll a7 31

bring about a good knight versus �hl + 1-0

bad bishop position and to station

a knight on d5.
Browne-Spassky
19 j}_xb6! �xb6 20 �e2 l. a8
Siegen, 1970
21 *h2 0-0 22 l. n 1, a7 23 l. fal

� fa8 24 ll la2 j}_d8 25 '2}a5 ,1 c8

To be considered is 25 . . . d5, to

hinder a knight's passage to d5, be

it at the cost of a pawn. 26 eic4

�c6 27 eie3 a5 28 l. c4 �a6 29

b3 i,b6 30 J; x c 8 + � x c 8 31

'2}ed5 eixd5 32 eixd5 and after

stiff resistance, Black resigned on

his 57th move.

Ljubojevic-Portisch

Lucerne, 1982
Here White's superior pawn

formation and the fine positioning

of his pieces are less significant

than Black's control of the key

square e5. True, in the game

White succeeded in salvaging a

draw with 1 j}_f2 (which is com­

paratively better than 1 j}_xg7).

Vasyukov-Ornstein

Erevan, 1976

Although this is a more com­

plex case than the preceding ones,

the underlying theme is identical:

to gain ascendancy of the central

white squares.

18 j}_c4! eixe4 19 j}_d5! eixg3

20 �xg3 f,b8 21 :i,hel ªc8 22

�g2! j}_xd5 23 1, xd5 '/tb6 24

� e4 lmperceptibly, as it were, the

black king finds itself denuded of

the protection of pieces. 24 . . .

'f!c7 25 '/tg4 f,a7 26 1, x b4 In contrast to diagram 204, it is

-;te3 + 27 f,bl h5 28 '/tdl .1 hc8 White who controls the key

94 Key Squares=Strong Points

squares b4, c5 and b6 on the from the vulnerability of the white

queen's wing. This meaos that he pawns on c2 and b2.

is in a position to mobilize his 23 . . . d5! 24 'ciXd5 24 exd5 is

pawn majority before Black preferable, although 24 . . . e4! 25

undertakes action on the king's 'ciXe4 J,.xb2 is advantageous to

wmg. Black. 24 . . . A_xd5 25 exd5 l,xc2

1 c5! dxc5 Virtually forced. 2 d6 26 b3 e4 and the passed e-pawn,

�c6 3 b4! g6 4 A_c4! Suddenly, coupled with the enhanced ac­

the white bishop comes to life. 4 tivity of Black's remaining pieces,

. . . f"lg7 5 bxc5 1, bc8 6 1, n The led to Black's victory, notwith­

opening of the a2-g8 diagonal en­ standing the opposite-coloured

ables White to exert unbearable bishops.

pressure in ali directions. 6 . . . f6 7

l,fel l,e8 8 A_d5 'i!/ltb5 9 c6! 1-0

Unzicker-Fischer
lt has taken White only nine
Varna, 1962
moves to win from the initial posi­

tion. Such is the dynamic propen­

sity of positions which undergo a

swift change in the nature of one

or more of their salient strategic

features.

Petrosian-Smyslov

Moscow, 1949

Superficially, the position

above has the bearings of a good

knight versus bad bishop plot.

However, the white knight on b3

is not within easy reach of the key

square d5; nor, as we shall see, is

the bad bishop doomed to idle­

ness.

The position above bears a 21 h3 Xc8 22 l,fel h6 23 *h2

strategic resemblance to sorne of J,.g5 24 g3? 'i!/lta7! 25 •g2 X al 26

the positions examined before. *º .1 xc3 0-1 On 27 .1 xa2 (27

But it is Black's turn and by a bxc3 'i!/ltf2 mate) 27 . . . 11 f3 + 28

timely pawn-sacrifice he can prise •e2 11 f2 + 29 •d3 'i!/jxa2 wins

open the position and benefit (note the usefulness of 22 . . . h6).

 Key Squares=Strong Points 95

Karpov-Polugayevsky

Moscow, 1974

entrenched though it may be, is

manifestly out of play.

Bogoljubow-Reti
In the above position, although
New York, 1924
the black knight is centrally

placed, the determining factor is

the white bishop's ability to sup­

port the advance of his queenside

pawn majority.

38 . . . f1d8? A mistaken plan.

On c7 the black king <loes not

contribute much to combat

White's imminent pawn storm. 38

. . . €lg6 is better. 39 c4 f1c7 40 b4

€lg6 41 b5 axb5 lf 41 .. . l. c 5 42

b6 + 'ltfc6 43 .§. d 1 and Black is

defenceless. 42 cxb5 l. c2 43 b6 +
Black has just played 16 . . . b5
'ltfd7 44 l. d2! l. xd2 45 X xd2
intending . . . b5-b4 . . . c7---c5 etc.
l,e5 or 45 . . . ,lxe4 46 .§.,b5 +
This gave White an opportunity
"1c8 47 .l c 2 + f1b8 48 a6! and
to pounce upon the newly created
wins. 46 a6 'ltfc6 47 l. b2 €lf4 48
weakness c5 with 17 b4! After 17
a7 l'.a5 49 .§.c4 1-0 50 .l a 2 fol­
. . . ,._b6 18 �c5, White's pawn
lows.
configuration contains Black's

pawns, which are liable to become

Gelfer-Gruenfeld
targets in the ending.
Israel, 1978

An impregnable outpost is not

Rubinstein--Salwe
necessarily a desirable objective in
Lodz, 1908
itself. Such is the case in the dia­

grammed position above, where 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 €lc3 c5 4 cxd5

the black knight on b4, well- exd5 5 �f3 �f6 6 g3 �c6 7 �g2
96 Key Squares-Strong Points

cxd4 8 '2)xd4 �b6 9 '2)xc6 One of hastens to advance it. This leads

the earliest examples of square to a different pawn configuration,

control. True, the exchange of which has its own drawbacks. An

knights bolsters the isolated d­ apposite example of the conver­

pawn, but this consideration is sion of one advantage to another.

outweighed by White's blockade 18 c4 dxc3 En passant captures

and domination of d4 and c5. 9 suffer no dela y! 19 bxc3 .1 ac8

. . . bxc6 10 0-0 9..e7 (211) On 10 Black induces White to play d3-

. . . Ae6 1 1 e4! is strong. d4, whereupon he will establish a

11 '2)a4! �b5 12 Ae3 White bind on the squares c4 and d5. 20

has gained absolute control of the 9..b2 .1 f d 8 2 1 .! f3 9..f6 22 d4 Aim

key squares c5 and d4. achieved (213).

12 . . . 0-0 13 JI el Ag4 14 f3

9..e6 15 9..c5 The exchange of

bishops strengthens White's hold

on the dark squares. On no ac­

count must Black be allowed to

play . . . c5 and . . . d4. 15 . . . ,le8

16 i, f2 '2)d7 17 9..xe7 l.xe7 18

ijd4 .lee8 19 Afl Hec8 20 e3

ijb7 21 '2)c5 '2)xc5 22 l. xc5 Now

Black is saddled with a bad

bishop. 22 . . . .1 c7 Hereabouts

Black ought to prevent b2-b4

22 . . . itd5 23 ije3 itb5 24
with . . . a5. 23 Jtfc2 ijb6 24 b4 a6
itd2 !! d 5 25 h3 e6 26 .l e l �a4
25 .l. a5 1, b8 26 a3 .1 a7 27 l. xc6
27 1, a l b5 28 �dl 1,c4 29 �b3
and White won.
l. d6 30 *h2 i, a6 31 JI ffl 9..e7

32 *hl l,cc6 33 l,fel 9..h4 34

Sir George Thomas-Alekhine
1, f1 ijc4 As in the previous ex­
Baden-Baden, 1925
ample, here too transition into the

Uncomfortable with the back­ ending is an effective method of

wardness of his c2 pawn, White pursuing one's advantage.

 Key Squares-Strong Points 97

35 �xc4 � xc4 36 a3 J¡_e7 37 of the c6 pawn led to immediate

� fbl JJ..d6 38 g3 -.rs 39 wg2 victory.

f¡e7 40 *f2 '1id7 41 •e2 •c6 42

a a 2 �ca4 43 J!;t b a l *d5 Black's Botvinnik-Zagoriansky

game almost plays itself. 44 *d3 Sverdlovsk, 1943

� 6a5 45 Jtcl a6 46 J¡_b2 h5

Threatening . . . h5-h4. 47 h4 f6!

48 J¡_cl e5 49 fxe5 fxe5 50 J¡_b2

exd4 51 cxd4 b4! 0-1

Portisch-Reshevsky

Palma de Mallorca, 1970

Black's pieces are ali tied down

to the defence of the d-pawn. The

time is ripe for opening another

front.

25 g4 "ijc6 26 g5 hxg5 27 "ijxg5

f6 28 "ijg6 J¡_ f7 29 "ijg3 f5 30 "ijg5

lte6 30 . . . itg6 costs the d-pawn.

Or 30 . . . itf6 31 "ijxf6 with

The cards are clearly stacked:
*h2-g3-f4 to follow. 31 *hl
good versus bad bishop, weak
ite5 32 !! gl X f8 33 "tth6 .1 b8
pawns on a7, c6 and d5.
On 33 . . . g6 (33 . . . X d6 34
29 . . . * f8 30 *d2 •e7 31 b4
K xg7 + ) comes h3-h4-h5. 34
*d6 32 h4 •c7 33 J¡_fl J¡_f5 34
l. h4 *f8 35 "tth8 + J,.g8 36 .1 f4
B. c3 *b6 35 JI a3 B. e8 36 J,.e2
JI bb7 37 B. g5 .1 f7 38 "tth5
a e7 37 .l. e3 Leading to a clear­
"ij a l + 39 *h2 g6 40 "ijxg6 and
cut ending, this constitutes the
wins.
most convincing winning method.

37 . . . 1, xe3 38 f, xe3 •c7 39 g4!

Taimanov-Karpov
J,. b l 39 . . . hxg4 40 fxg4 Ji.. b 1
Moscow, 1972
loses to 41 h5. 40 gxh5 gxh5 41 f4

fld6 4 1 . . . J¡_g6 42 f5 etc. White is about to advance his c­

42 J¡_xh5 •e7 43 a3 J¡_f5 44 pawn to c4. So Karpov makes a

*f3 JJ..d7 45 *g3 * f8 46 J¡_g4 f5 courageous and well-thought-out

47 J¡_e2 *g7 48 h5 *h6 49 *h4 decision: to block the pawn and

J,.e8 50 J¡_d3 J,.d7 51 J¡_a6 J,.e6 52 blockade the light-coloured

J¡_b7 J¡_d7 53 a4 J¡_e8 Zugzwang! square-be it at the cost of a

54 §tc8 J¡_xh5 55 J¡_d7 and the fall pawn.

98 Key Squares-Strong Points

scope is restricted by the presence

17 . . . I! c4! 18 )'txa7 )'tc6 19
of severa] of his pawns on white
)'ta3 X c 8 White's bishop is kept
squares. Seeking counterplay with
passive. 20 h3 h6 21 JI bl � a4 22
. . . f6 only makes things worse
)'tb3 �d5 23 1. d c l .i;í c 4 24 .i b 2
after l. e 1 , as <loes the ad vanee of
f6! Denying the square e5 to the
the f-pawn to f5, which augments
white knight. The square e6,
the effect of g3-g4. Black's con­
though theoretically weakened,
trol of the half-open e-file hardly
cannot be attacked.
counter-balances these disadvant­
25 1, e l *f"/ 26 )'tdl �f8 27
ages.
1,b3 �g6 28 )'tbl l:l a 8 29 1.e4
16 �e2 il_d7 17 '2)d4 � ac8 18
To be considered: 29 ,W,,d3 and if
'it, f2 14, c7 19 'itl e3 :1 e8 20 :1 f2 A
29 . . . X xa2 30 l. xe6!? 29 . . .
prelude to switching the bishop to
� ca4 30 l. b2 �f8 31 )'td3 .1 c4
d3. 20 . . . '2)b7 En route to c6, in
32 1, e l l. a 3 33 )'tbl �g6 Now
order to exchange the mighty
White ought to go in for 34 )'td3,
knight on d4. 21 Jl.0 �a5 22 b3
threatening 35 K xe6!?. On 34 . . .
Clearly, White cannot allow . . .
�xc3 35 i, b3 is strong. 34 Kcl
�c4. 22 . . . h6? Tarrasch and
�xc3 35 ,W,,d3 �e2 + 36 ,W,,xe2
other commentators in his wake
l. xcl + 37 Jl_xcl -W,xcl + 38
castigate Black for this move,
*h2 � xf3! 39 gxf3 �h4 and in
which assists White in opening
this precarious situation (40 . . .
lines on the kingside by means of
'Wf g5 and 40 . . . -W, f4 + are hard to
h2-h4-h5 and g3-g4-g5. How­
parry) White overstepped the
ever, to use Tarrasch's own
time limit.
words: 'When there are no good

moves, bad ones are easy to come

Tarrasch-Teichmann
by.'
San Sebastian, 1912
23 il_d3 �c6 24 �xc6 Jl_xc6 25

The pawn formation, stemming fld4 Henceforth the need to

from a French Defence, guaran­ guard against an eventual flc5

tees White an ideal outpost for a will tie down a black rook to the

piece on d4 and renders his bishop e-file. The respective parts played

more useful than Black's, whose by the kings are striking.

 Key Squares-Strong Points 99

25 . . . j_ d7 26 g4! Signalling the

imminent opening of a second

front. 26 . . . jl_c8 27 h4 g6

Defending against 28 g5 h5 29 g6!.

28 � h l *g7 29 h5! �h8 30 1:fh2

j_d7 31 g5! hxg5 32 fxg5? More

incisive is 32 h6 + ! *h7 33 fxg5,

with an overwhelming position.

32 . . . �xh5 32 . . . � h 7 33 h 6 +

confines the rook, whereas on 32

. . . J,e8 comes 33 hxg6 J,xh2 34

look forward to an ending where
gxf7!. 33 � xh5 gxh5 34 .l. xh5
White will be saddled with a bad
*f8 35 .1. h8 + •e7 36 g6 36 :;; h7
bishop. 4 €)fxe5 €)xe5 5 f3 b6 6
we8 37 g6 has been analysed
€)xe5 "ltxe5 Now e5 serves as a
exhaustively as leading to a forced
pivot for the queen. 7 'fkd2 Leven­
win. In this variation, 37 c3 (in­
fish recommends the more active
stead of 37 g6), accompanied by
7 b4 a5 8 a3 axb4 9 axb4 and on 9
,te2-h5, is another effective plan.
. . . l'.a2 10 .1,c2. 7 . . . j_d7 8 'fkc3
36 . . . fxg6 37 j_xg6 b4 37 . . .
1ífe8 9 'fkxe5 .l,xe5 Now, for the
.i_c8, inviting the exchange of
rook. 10 a3 a5 11 b3 *f7! And
rooks, results in a typically lost
now, it is the king who heads to
bishop ending: 38 Jl h7 + *d8 39
e5 .
.l,xc7 'l'ixc7 40 •c5 j_d7 41 J..f7
12 *f2 *f6 13 •e2 .1. h5 14
j_c8 42 j_e8 j_b7 43 b4 j}_c8 44
.i h l *e5 15 *d3 h6 1 5 . . . g5 1 6
J,c6 (zugzwang). 38 � h7 + '1'id8
h3 l. f8-f6-h6 is more accurate.
39 J,d3 Jiíc3? Hastening the end.
16 h3 Xg5 17 .1.h2 Kg3 Notice
However, after 39 . . . aes White
how Black constantly finds the
has the pleasant choice between
best available squares for his
either .1, h l (-al) and a3, and the
pieces. In a nutshell, this is what
somewhat more laborious shifting
chess is about. 18 h4 X g8 19 •e2
of his king to f6 (via e3, f4 and

g5), followed by .1 h8( + ), *f6-

g5 20 hxg5 hxg5 21 *ª g4 22

.1, h 5 + *d4 23 Xdl + *c3 24

e7 and ,1 h8-d8-d6. 40 a3 a5 41
.l. h7 gxf3 25 J..fl 25 .txf3
1,h8 + •e7 Or 41 . . . •c7 42
.l, x f3 + 26 •xf3 j_ g 4 + . 25 . . .
1,a8 *b6 43 ,i a 6 + . 1--0
•c2 26 .1, d3 j_h3 27 X x f3

.1 xf3 + 28 •xf3 j_xfl 0-1

Alatortsev-Levenfish

Tbilisi, 1937 Alooi-Matanovic

Te/ Aviv, 1966

The struggle revolves around

the central square e5. 1 d4 €)f6 2 c4 e6 3 €)c3 j_b4 4

1 . . . €)g6 Thwarting e4-e5. 2 e3 c5 5 a3 .txc3 + 6 bxc3 €)c6

1, el 'f/Je7 3 .l. el €)de5! Black can 7 j_d3 0-0 8 €)e2 b6 9 e4 €)e8 10

100 Key Squares=Strong Points

Korchnoi-Karpov

Moscow, 1973

j_e3 d6 11 f4 f5 12 0-0 �a5 13

'2ig3 g6 14 e5 j_a6 15 'iit¼'e2 (219)

White's handling of the open­

ing phase leaves a lot to be Here again, absolute control of

desired: by dint of three timely the key square d5, coupled with

exchanges, Black presently the glaring weakness created by

obtains absolute control of the g2-g3 and the lack of co-ordina­

white squares. 15 . . . cxd4! 16 tion of White's pieces, grant Black

cxd4 d5! 17 cxd5 $l_xd3 18 'i!lfxd3 more than sufficient compensa­

*xd5 White's bishop is passive tion for his material deficit.

and severa! of his pawns are 26 0,e3 0,xe3 27 'W(xe3 §txe2

potentially weak. With an unas­ The exchanges accentuate the use­

sailable outpost on d5 and a pawn lessness of White's bishop and the

majority on the queen's flank, the vulnerability of the white squares

outcome cannot be in doubt. in White's camp. 28 *xe2 l!1 c2 29

19 l, a c l .l f7 20 .1,c3 0,c7 21 �dl 'W(c6 30 h3? 30 d 5 ! , forcing

.1 bl �d7 22 0,e2 0,d5 Black's the exchange of queens (30 . . .

game almost plays itself. 23 � c2 '2ixd5? 3 1 0,d4), is White's only

1,c8 24 §td2 )!!xc2 25 �xc2 �c6 drawing chance.

26 'i!!fxc6 A voidance of exchanges 30 .. . 0,d5 31 *d3 *ª4 32

will allow the black pieces to infil­ tc,d2 li a 2 33 0,b3 ,E}b4 34 �bl

trate decisively. 0,d5 35 .1, c l �a8 36 1, c 8 +

26 . . . 0,xc6 27 f; f2 'f! c7 28 'W(xc8 37 �xa2 �c4 38 itbl ,¡jre2

!! b3 a5 29 g3 0,ce7 30 0,c3 � c4 The simplification has afforded

31 �xd5 0,xd5 32 [Link] d 3 'fl f7 33 White small relief. 39 -¡tcl? 39

f;e2 f;e7 34 ;i_e3 �c2+ 35 §td2 0,c5 or 39 'W( fl is a better defence.

1'l'd7 36 * d l ,ic4 37 §[Link] fic6 38 39 . . . §tg5 40 'li\rfl itf3! Black

1.d2 fib5 39 §[Link] fia4 40 §td2 b5 cashes in on his concentration of

41 §[Link] b4 42 axb4 axb4 43 §td2 forces on the kingside. 41 h4 0--1

b3 44 ;}_el � c2 45 §td2 fia3 46 4 1 . . . §t e 3 ! (41 . . . zie3 42 0,d2!)

Jl,cl + f;a2 47 li d2 M xd2 + 48 leads to a forced win both after 42

rf/'xd2 b2 0--1 't\ií'g2 and 42 fxe3.

 Key Squares-Strong Points 101

Botvinnik-Chekhover 39 l. c7 <E:,d3 40 e6 fxe6 41 fxe6

Leningrad, 1938 1-0

Botvinnik-Kan

Leningrad, 1939

The next two examples, bearing

Botvinnik's stamp, must have

appeared revolutionary in the late

1930s: White readily saddles him­

1 1 d x e 5 ! As in the previous ex­
self with doubled c-pawns which,

far from being a liability, control ample, the square d5 will fall

under White's control, whereas

the key squares d4 and d 5 .
the corresponding central square
16 dxc5! dxc5 17 lll adl J.t ad8
d4 is denied to Black's pieces. 11
18 lll d5! The threat of capturing
. . . dxe5 12 .zl,d3 h6 13 0-0 0-0 14
on c5 gains a tempo in the
f4 <E:,d7 15 f5 Restricting the scope
struggle for control of the open d­
of the black bishop.
file. 18 . . . b6 19 ;¡¡¡ edl <E:,a5 20 h3
15 . . . � f6 16 <E:,e4 'W!d8 17
-1 xd5 21 11, xd5 'Wfe7 22 .zl,g4 'Wfb7

23 .zl. f5! �b8 24 l! d7 l. d8 25

<E:,xf6 + 'Wfxf6 18 .zl,e4! Again, d5

is the ideal square for White's

�xe5! '2:,xc4 26 'Wfxb8 lll xb8
bishop. 18 . . . l! ab8 19 .1 adl b6
The white rook on the seventh
20 h3 .zl,a6 21 .zl,d5 b5 22 cxb5
rank, collaborating with his

strong bishop, guarantees victory.

ª- xb5 23 c4 l. b6 24 .1. bl

Thanks to his strong bishop,

With his next move, rather than
White won in 4 1 moves.
win a pawn, Botvinnik prefers to

enhance the scope of his bishop.

27 jl_ e4! <E} a3 28 jl_ d5 .1 f8 29 e4

Petrosian-Botvinnik
a5 30 c4 b5 31 cxb5 <E:,xb5 32 e5
Moscow, 1963
While Black is reduced to wait­

ing moves, White gradually 1 d4 <E:,f6 2 c4 g6 3 <E:,c3 d5 4

strengthens his position. 32 . . . a4 '2:,0 .§Lg7 5 e3 0-0 6 ll_e2 dxc4 7

33 f4 <E:,d4 34 *f2 g5 35 g3 gxf4 .zl,xc4 c5 8 d5 e6 9 dxe6 'Wfxdl +

36 gxf4 <E:,e6 37 1,e3 c4 38 f5 <E:,c5 10 •xdl .zl,e6 11 .zl,xe6 fxe6 12

102 Key Squares-Strong Points

play, White converted his mani­

fest superiority into victory.

Botvinnik-Flohr

Moscow, 1936

•e2 '2)c6 13 � dl � ad8 14 .1 xd8

1,xd8 (223)

In this innocuous-looking posi­

tion, rather than complete his de­

velopment with 15 Ad2 etc.,

White exploited the presence of a

pawn masking the e-file to p l a n t a

knight on e4: 15 '2:)g5! Although,

White attains a winning posi­
strictly speaking, Black's position
tion by planting his knight on d6.
may be deemed tenable with best
33 c5! The knight heads for d6.
play, in the game he was unable to
The surrender of the square d5 is
surmount the difficulties inherent
in significan t. 33 . . . a5 34 '2l bl
in it and lost in 48 moves.
ltf8 35 '2:l a3 Ad8 36 '2Jc4 Ac7 37

'2:)d6 g b8 38 11 bl White profits

Alekbine--Euwe from the fact that exchanging on

London, 1922 d6 will always give him a pro­

tected passed pawn on that

square.

38 . . . -itd8 39 b4 axb4 40 Ji xb4

Axd6 Not desirable, but there is

nothing better. 41 exd6 "tta5 42

A db3 Ji e8 43 "tte2 "tta8 44 X e3

•n 45 'f,c4 Simpler is 45 * h3.

45 . . . b5 46 "ttc2 46 axb5? fails

against a discovered check. 46 . . .

.1 xd6 Or 46 . . . bxa4 47 X xa4

�a7 48 l.ea3. 47 cxd6 c 5 + 48

*h3 cxb4 49 "ttc7 + wg8 50 d7

:1 f8 51 -itd6 h6 52 "ttxe6 + '#Jh7

An even more drastic precedent 53 "tte8 b3 54 "ttxa8 l. xa8 55

to such strategy occurred 4 1 years axb5 .1 d8 56 JI xb3 l. xd7 57 b6

earlier. By dint of methodical 1-0

 Key Squares+Strong Points 103

Bilek-Smyslov outpost on e4, to wit, the possib­

Polanica Zdroj, 1968 ility . . . '2)f6-e4. The presence of a

bishop on f3 does not quite solve

this problem since after an even­

tual . . . '2)f6-e4 jLf3xe4, d5xe4

will give Black a potent passed

pawn.

Olafsson-Karpov

Tilburg, 1977

Black's advantage 1s over­

whelming: White's queenside

pawns are weak, his bishop pas­

sive, his rooks uncooperating.

Exchanging bishops is futile since

it yields Black a mighty passed

pawn on d3. These factors, com­

bined with Black's control of the

b-file (note that the square bl is

denied to the white rooks), White has played the opening

ensured Black a comparatively somewhat insipidly and lags in the

easy victory. development of his pieces. Kar­

pov's conduct of the next phase is

Botvinnik-Lilienthal exemplary:

Moscow, 1941 13 . . . iLd6 14 b3 iLe5! An

original manoeuvre: if White cap­

tures on e5, he ends up with an

inferior bishop after 15 '2)xe5

'2)xe5 1 6 iL b 2 '2)d3 accompanied

by . . . '2) x b 2 and . . . e6-e5. By the

same token, 1 5 iL b2 is unpromis­

ing, in view of 15 . . . �xb2 16

•xb2 e5 coupled with the plant­

ing of the knight on d4.

15 X bl h6 16 '21ft iLd4 17

iLf4? Loss of time, but White's

posiuon is uncomfortable

In this position White has to enough. 17 . . . e5 Black's solidly

contend with Black's advanced entrenched bishop is a thorn in

104 Key Squares=Strong Points

White's flesh. Whíte resigned on

his 40th move.

Gligoric-Matanovic

Bled, 1961

24 . . . '2:)c2? lgnoring the fact

that the text move enables White

to occupy the vital a l-h8 diag­

onal. 25 X bl ,¡tc6 26 .$l.d2! The

roles played by the white bishop

and the black knight make an

amusing contrast.
In the diagram Black commit­
26 . . . ytxa4 27 .$l.c3 ytb5 28
ted the oft-repeated error of ced­
ytf3 .l a d 8 29 ytg3 ll d 7 30 1, d 6
ing the square d4 to a white piece:
JI fl7 31 .1 bdl f4 To foil a double
17 . . . c4? 18 [Link] •a5 19 e4
exchange of rooks followed by 34
i:e6 20 .$l.e3 Ka6 21 *b2 b6?
ytb8 + and 35 ,¡txb3. 32 exf4 a5
Black's concentration o f forces on
33 f5 a4 34 f6 g6 35 h4 1, xd6 36
the edge of the board grants
�xd6 h5 37 'W{e6 1-0
White a free hand in the centre. 22

.$l. d4! .$l. xa4 23 e5 '21 e8 24 e6 f6

Tal-Kupreichik
Comparatively best.
Moscow, 1969
25 .$l.e2 b5 26 .$[Link] •c7 27 jl_c2

'f¡e7 28 .$l.e4 '1,h8 29 'f!f2 g6 30 f4

'2)d6 31 f5 g5 32 jl_c2 '2)e8 33 'f!f3

Kd8 34 yth5 'l,g8 35 h4 gxh4 36

.1 e4 '21 g7 37 .1 g4 A ad6 38 jl_ xa4

.1 xd4 The last gasp. 39 cxd4 bxa4

40 .1 xa4 '1,h8 41 ,¡tf7 ytxf7 42

exf7 1-0 (in 66 moves).

Euwe-Alekhine

Bad Mannheim, 1937

Instead of the cool 24 . . . .1 ac8 White, who had sacrificed the

25 .$l.d2 JI c2, coupled with 26 . . . exchange, is slightly behind in

'2)a2, Black lets himself be enticed material but his well-placed pieces

by the possibility of planting his compensate for that:

knight on the alluring square c2: 24 .. . .1 d8 24 .. . ytxd7? 25

 Key Squares-Strong Points 105

ytxb2 is feeble. 25 Jl_e6 JJ..g7 26 31 Qi x fS + gxfS 32 *º wg6 33

JJ..d5 With Black's 'help', White 1, ed 2 ,! e 4 Note how the square

actually won. e4 has become a pivot for Black's

pieces. 34 .1 d4 .1 e4 35 *f2 *b5

Nimzowitsch-Capablanca 36 wg3 .lexd4 37 exd4 *e4 38

New York, 1927 wg2 b5 39 wgl b4 40 axb4 axb4

41 wg2 *el 42 wg3 *hl 43 :!! d 3

1, e l 44 )l f3 )l d l 45 b3 !, e l

Black's strategy has been crowned

with success. White is without a

move. 46 ll e3 l. fl 0-1

Ljubojevic-Hübner

Tilburg, 1985

16 g4? A strategic error, which

plays into Black's hands. 16 . . .

Qixe3 17 *xe3 h5! 18 g5 Surren­

dering the square f5. The lesser

evil is 18 h3, acquiescing in the

opening of the h-file.

18 . . . 0-0 19 Qid4 *b6 20 !. f2

)lfe8 21 a3 1, e 7 22 .l d 3 Qia5 23

.1 e2 .1 e8 24 wg2 Qi e6 25 ll ed2
1 e4 e5 2 Qi f3 Qie6 3 JJ_b5 a6 4
.1 ec8 26 1, e2 Qi e7 27 ll ed2 ll e4
Jl_a4 Qif6 5 0-0 Jl_e7 6 K e l b5 7
28 *h3 wg7 29 Jl f2 a5 30 1, e 2
JJ..b3 0-0 8 a4 JJ..b7 9 d3 d 6 1 0 Qie3
Qif5!
b4 1 1 Qid5 Qixd5 12 JJ..xd5 Qia5
Whatever he does, White can
13 JJ..xb7 Qi xb7 (234)
no longer prevent the infiltration
The exchange of two minor
of Black's heavy artillery into his
pieces has left the square d5 vul­
camp.
nerable. 14 e3! A difficult move to

meet: 14 . . . a5 is unsatisfactory

owing to 15 cxb4, creating a

passed a-pawn; whereas 14 . . .

bxc3 1 5 bxc3 presents White with

an open b-file and a target on a6.

14 . . . e5 15 exb4 exb4 16 *b3!

Qie5 17 *d5! And with the queen

securely ensconced in the centre

of the board, White won on move

42.
12 Strategic Advantages:
Creation of Good Squares

lmproving Piece Position

Sacrificing a pawn, or pawns, to

secure strategic outposts for one's

pieces is a common positional

theme. Here are a few examples.

Pilnik-Geller

Gothenburg, 1955

In the diagram, arrived at after

1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 �f3 �f6 4 �c3

e6 5 e3 �bd7 6 i_d3 dxc4 7 j_xc4

b5 8 J,.d3 a6 9 e4 c5 9 d5 e5 10 b3

J,.d6 11 0-0 0-0 12 a4 (235), White

aims at conquering the square c4

after 1 2 . . . b4? 1 3 � b l---d2--c4.

The indicated response to 22 . . . e4! 23 J. xf6 + ,¡j-xf6 24

White's 12th move is 12 . . . c4! 13 fxe4 f4! The white bishop is maní­

bxc4 b4 depriving White of the festly bad and the black kníght

square c4; gaining the strategic cannot be dislodged from e5,

square c5 for bis knight; and from where it exerts a marked

establishing a passed pawn on the influence. 25 X f2 Possibly White

queenside: ali in all, good value should avail himself of the last
for the investment of a pawn. opportunity of playing 25 e5

�xe5 26 i_e4.

25 . . . �e5 26 X dfl ,¡j-h4 27

i_dl l. f7 28 ,¡j-c2 g5 Note how

Black's mobile pawn majority on

 Strategic Advantages 107

the kingside is more significant

than White's extra pawn. 29 'W(c3

� af8 30 h3 h5 31 lJ.. e2 g4! The

beginning of the final phase. 32

� xf4 � xf4 33 .; xf4 'ª xf4 34 g3

'2) f3 + 34 . . . �xh3 35 gxf4 g3 is

even swifter. 35 *f2 �xh3 36

gxf4 g3 + 37 •xn g2 + 38 .f2

'W(h2 0-1

Polugayevsky-Tal More thematic, however, is the

Moscow, 1969
clearing sacrifice 26 e6! .l. xe6 27

'2Je5 l. xe5 Compulsory. 28 l. xe5

and White won rapidly.

Glaz-De-Lagron

Bad Lauterberg im Harz, 1985

16 d5! exd5 17 e5 The a8-hl

diagonal has been blocked; the

bl-h7 diagonal has been opened;

and the e5 pawn plays an import­

ant part in the coming onslaught:

Again, a strategic pawn sacri­
17 . . . '2Jc4 18 'W(f4 '2Jb2 Provok­
fice to clear the square d5 for the
ing the winning sacrifice that fol­
knight, followed by a mating sac­
lows, which decided the game
rifice.
sorne 1 5 moves later. In any case,
22 d6! J..xd6 23 '2:ld5 'W(d7 24
Black's position is untenable.
'2J f 6 + ! gxf6 25 i_xf6 b5 26 )'th5
19 .ztxh7 + ! 1-0 in 37 moves.
'2Je7 27 �g5 + 1-0

Ree-Beliavsky
Steinitz-Bardeleben
Lucerne, 1982
Hastings, 1895

The advanced central pawns, Black's 16 . . . c6? invites one of

supported by the white rooks, en­ the founding fathers of posítional

sure White's victory. The mun­ chess to make a devastating clear­

dane 26 'll!txc4 or 26 '2:ld4, coupled ing sacrifice (correct was 16 . . .

with f2--f4, should both suffice. •f7):

108 Strategic Advantages

'2)d4 \!!Í'Xe5 20 '2)f5 jtf6 During

the game, and for a while there­

after, Kasparov estimated that 20

. . . -2:i c4 2 1 'ii'f f1 was in his fa vour;

but on second thoughts, he

revised his opinion, which led him

to recommend 1 7 h4 instead of 1 7

d5!?.

21 �g4 � ce8? The losing

move. 2 1 . . . �c3 is correct. After

17 d5! cxd5 18 Q:id4 The idea 22 �e7 + ! Jj_xe7 23 _ld4, Black

behind 1 7 d 5 !. 18 . . . * ti 19 Q:ie6 can defend with 23 . . . �xd4 24

,l! hc8 20 'l!tg4 g6 White's forth­ �xd4 JJ6 25 �g4 _l x a l. 22

coming combination has become JJ.d2 �xal lf 22 . . . �c7 23

famous in chess history. 21 '2! h 6 + *h8 24 l, x e 8 l, x e 8 25

'2! g 5 + •e8 Hereabouts Black is �f5!. 23 ,l x a l j¡_ x a l 24 '2)xg7!

said to have left the playing hall in JJ.xg7 25 _lh6 1--0

disgust.

Steinitz announced mate after:

22 � xe7 + !! 'fi' f8 23 � ti + ! 'fi'g8 Lasker-Capablanca

24 l, g 7 + 'fi'h8 25 A xh7 + 'fi'g8 St. Petersburg, 1914

26 I1 g7 + 'fi'h8 27 t;,h4 + 'fi'xg7

28 'l!th7 + *f8 29 t;-h8 + •e7 30

'Wig7 + •es 31 t;-g8 + 'fi'e7 32

,w;fi + *d8 33 'l!tf8 + 'ii"e8 34

Q:i fi + *d7 35 -W,d6 mate.

Kasparov-N ajdorf

Bugojno, 1982

One of the earliest clearing sac­

rifices in the history of chess:

32 A h 3 32 � x d 6 '2)c4 ( - e 5 + )

grants Black counterplay. 32 . . .

�d7 32 . . . axe6 33 1, h 7 + !. 33

17 d5!? exd5 18 e5 Yet another 'f¡g3 In preparation for his 35th

example of the d4-d5 thrust, fol­ move, White distances his king

lowed by e4-e5. 18 . . . 'ii"e6 19 from the a8-h 1 diagonal. 33 . . .

 Strategic Advantages 109

'ttre8 34 Ii d h l Jl.b7 35 e5!! En­

ables the knight on c3 to occupy

the key post e4.

35 . . . dxe5 36 �e4 �d5 37

'2)6c5 Presently winning material

and thereafter the game. 1-0

Lilienthal-Flohr

Moscow, 1935

return for the sacrificed pawn. 1-0

in 39 moves.

Polugayevsky-Petrosian

Moscow, 1970

17 d5! exd5 18 '2)d4! The main

threat is 19 '2)f5 and � g 5 . 18 .. .

Jl_c5 19 e5?! The right idea, but 1 9

i x c 5 ! bxc5 20 �f5 d4 2 1 �g5 is

the correct way to go about it. 19

. . . '2)e4 20 f3 �e8! White had

counted merely on 20 . . . il.xd4

21 i_xd4 '2) c 5 22 j}_ x c 5 .

21 fxe4 �xe5 22 gel !,! e 8 23

19 . . . e4! Clearing the square e5
rl,hl dxe4 With three pawns for
for the knight. 20 j}_xe4 J¡_xe4 21
the piece and an eminently sound
dxe4 '2)ef6 The remainder of the
position.
game may be described as mop­

ping up. 22 '2)g2 !,! fe8 23 '2)d2

j}_xd2 24 �xd2 �xg3+ ! 25

Penrose-Tal
f,xg3 '2) x e 4 + 26 *f4 �xd2 27
Leipzig, 1960
l,fel '2)f6 28 I! x e 8 + �xe8 29

19 eS! dxeS 20 fS! The open f­ �el '2)de4 30 ¡,e2 fi f8 31 wf3

file, the cleared square e4 and the Or 31 -2\ e l '2) h 5 + 32 'il' f3 (32

passed d-pawn, not to mention "1g4 '2) e f6 + 33 f, f3 ¡¡¡¡ xe2 34

the denial of e5 to a black piece, wxe2 -2\ g 3 + and 35 . . . '2)xf5) 32

proved more than an adequate . . . -21 h g 3 . 31 . . . d3 32 ll e 3 gd8

110 Strategic Advantages

33 a et d2 34 g d l '2\g4! 35 �e3 shifted; Black mobilizes his forces

"2) ef2 36 .a c3 g, d3 0-1 rapidly:

28 �xe5 dxe5 29 �e3 l! h 8 30

ii-f2 � ag8 31 �n "ii'h6 32 h4

Bondarevsky-Lilienthal
'ii1(xh4 33 �xh4 � xh4 34 *f2 34
Moscow, 1941
� xe5 fails against 34 . . . J,.h3 35

� e2 � hg4 36 � ff2 b5! followed

by wholesale exchanges on g2,

with a won pawn ending. 34 . . .

� h2 35 � g3 J. h3 36 � xg8 * xg8
37 *g3 �xg2+ 38 \trxh3 J.g6!

39 .l h l b6 40 c4 *ti 41 gb3 f5

42 � g3! � h6 + ! 43 w g2 � h4 0-1

Pfleger-Domnitz

Te! Aviv, 1964

Black takes drastic measures to

rid himself of the awkward pin of

his knight on f6. This gives rise to

a fierce tactical skirmish, replete

with positional undertones.

18 . . . h6 19 .t.g2 19 �f3 is more

taxing for Black. 19 . . . exf4 20

gxf4 g5!? The idea behind 19 . . .

exf4. 21 fxg5 '2)g4 Now, on 22

iWd2 comes 2 1 . . . '2) e 5 , with . . .

'2)g6 to follow. 22 e5 The correct

reaction: with the e-file open, the

power of the knight on e5 is

diminished. Having moved his king, Black

22 . . . '21 xe5 23 "iifh5 hxg5 24 can no longer castle. White

i_xg5? Because of Black's knight, adroitly exploits this circumstance

a white kingside attack is doomed with 13 e5!, opening lines for his

to fail. Hence 24 "iif xg5 +, pieces and clearing the square e4

exchanging queens, is indicated. (--d6) for his knight. 13 . . . fxe5 14

24 . . . f6 25 i_h4 White can ill i_g3 '2)c5 Necessary, to stop

afford to ignore the black knight �e4. 15 j_xe5 i_xe5 16 �xe5

on e5. Necessary is 25 J_f4 or j_e6 17 b4 �cd7 18 �f3! Heading

even 25 1: xe5!? dxe5 26 1tg6 + for g5. 18 . . . •e7 19 �g5 � f8 20

'f,/tg7 27 �xf6. 25 . . . "iitg7 26 j_g3 '2)xe6 �xe6 21 .lg4 �d7 22

j_g4 27 'lth4 *ti! Toe scales have Xdel 1---0

 Strategic Advantages 111

Botvinnik-Pomar The clearing theme recurs.

Varna, 1962 Black sacrifices an additional

pawn, to secure a strong-point for

his knight. 22 gxf3 ..z¡h5 and after

. . . ._z¡f4 Black completed the

blockade and retained a marked

initiative.

Atanasov-Hort

Leipzig, 1973

12 e5! fxe5 13 f5 Whilst depriv­

ing the black pieces of the use of

e5, White's clearing sacrifice has

vacated the square e4 for his own

preces.

13 . . . J..f7 14 ..z¡e4 0-0-0 15

�-g4 with ample compensation

for the offered pawn.

1 . . . c4 + ! Clearing c5 for his

knight, from which square it eyes

Kotov-Gligoric
both the a- and e-pawns. Note
Zurich, 1953
that on other moves, White plays

2 �c4, saddling Black with a life­

less game.

2 '2lxc4 On 2 •xc4 '2l c5 ties the

noose around the white king. 2

* c2 '21 c5 3 l. a2 g4 is similarly

unappetizing. 2 . . . '2lc5 + 3 •c2

'itb8 4 '2id2 �xa4 5 l. bbl '2lc5 6

l. bdl g4 7 '2lc4 l. g5 8 l. h4 l. hg7

and Black's advantage is over­

whelming.

Shíshov-Bívshev
The same theme, with colours
Riga, 1954
reversed:

1 1 . . . e4 1 2 fxe4 f4 13 J.f2 '2id7 Black is a pawn ahead and can

14 '2l g l 'itg5 15 J,. O ee5 16 '2113 boast of a better bishop. How­

'tl!,e7 17 '2lxe5 'it x e 5 1 8 0-0-0 '2if6 ever, it is the irking influence exer­

19 h3 J..d7 20 J..d3 a6 21 '2i b l f3 cised by the solitary white queen

112 Strategic Advantages

Jí_e4 and Black will have little to

show for his material deficit.

45 d6! The crux of White's corn-

bination. On 45 cxd6 46 c5! is

murderous. 45 c5 46 j¡_e4 �d7

47 �h6 1-0 The end could be 47

. . . <21h7 48 j}_ d 5 + *h8 49 �g6

�d8 50 d7.

Ciocaltea-Barcza

Moscow, 1956
behind the lines that tips the

scales in White's favour!

43 f4! exf4 Otherwise 44 fxe5.

44 e5! dxe5 44 . . . 'tifxe5 lasts

longer. 45 '2)e4 'tlfh4 46 'tlfxe5

'2)h7 47 '2)xc5 f3 48 'tlfg3 'tltd4 +

49 'tlffl 'tlfxfl + 50 "1xfl 1-0

Material loss is unavoidable.

Alekhine-Johner

Zurich, 1934

White's pieces are disjointed

and his kingside littered with

weaknesses. Barcza takes immedi­

ate advantage of these circum­

stances:

23 . . . d5!! 24 cxd5 Capturing

the rook succumbs to 24 . . . dxe4

and . . . J,.c5 + . 24 . . . J,.c5 + 25

*h2 '2)d4! 26 '2\ g l On 26 '2)xd4

ttg3 + and 27 . . . j_xh3 wins

instantly. Strangely, even the text

A pawn down, Black is about move does not discourage . . .

to manoeuvre his knight to e5, j¡_ x h 3 .

with excellent prospects. 26 . . . J,.xh3! 27 '2)xh3 ttg3 +

44 e5! Strategy mingles with 28 *hl '2)xf3! 29 ttxf3 29 j¡_f4

tactics: the former demands to ttxf4! leads to mate, be it after 30

free the bishop; the latter makes it '2)xf4 '2)g3 mate, or after 30 ttxf3

possible. 44 . . . dxe5 lf 44 . . . fxe5 '2\ g 3 + 31 *h2 '2\fl + + 32 "1 h l

45 f6 11txf6 46 11txg4 + f'!fl 47 tth2 mate.

 Strategic Advantages 113

29 . . . �xel+ 30 fih2 j¡_ d 6 + the initiative. 31 'ii!(xe2 31 '2¡xe2

31 Af4 \txbl 32 Axd6 cxd6 33 fails against 31 . . . Axd5 + 32

_!xa8 The black rook has been en '1, h 3 (32 <1, fl f3 ! ) 32 .. . �f6 31

prise for the last ten moves! 33 . . . . . . f3 + 32 �xf3 � xf3 33 ª hfl

i xa8 34 .f}c6 \t e l 35 g4 'ii6'd2 + _!xg4 34 �e4 j¡_h3 + 35 '1,h2

36 '1, g l 'ii!(cl + 37 *g2 )'!lrd2 + 38 � x fl 36 I! x fl _!xfl 0-1

fi g l �g7 39 a4 lt e8 40 '2!f2 h5

0-1
Fischer-Spassky

Reykjavik, 1972
Krogius-Stein

Moscow, 1960

20 e4! d4 Capturing on e4 corn­

promises the black pawn struc­

White's initiative on the
' . ture. 20 . . . �f6 is comparatively
queen s wmg appears more
best. 21 f4 )'!lre7 22 e5! Restricting
menacing than Black's on the
the movements of the knight.
king's wing. Moreover, 18 '2!cd5
22 . . . .1 b8 23 j1_ c4 "1 h8 24
is in the air. Leonid Stein hits
'í!!í'h3 12) 18 25 b3 a5 26 f5 exf5 27
upon an extraordinary resource,
:1 xf5 12\ h7 28 11 cfl )'!lrd8 29 ltg3
freeing his passive king's bishop
'I, e7 30 h4 l. eb7 31 e6 l. c7 32
and launching a vicious attack:
lte5 White's position is over­
17 . . . d5!! 18 12)bxd5 j¡_c5 + 19
whelming. 32 . . . 'i!i,e8 33 a4 ltd8
fi'hl '2!h5 20 )'!lrel '2!g3 + ! 21

hxg3 )'!lrg5 22 g4 h5 23 g3 23 '2¡a4

34 .! lf2 'i!!í'e8 35 !! 2f3 ltd8 36

j¡_ d3 lte8 37 )'!lre4 '21 f6 38 .1 xf6!

is refuted by 23 . . . hxg4! 24 '2!xc5
gxf6 39 -ªxf6 \\,g8 40 jtc2 '1,h8
g3, when the king has no escape.
41 ltf4 1--0
23 . . . hxg4 24 'Ir g2 � af8 25

Ad2? 25 � h 1 is a better defence.

25 . . . )'!lrh6 26 �hl 'Wtg7 27

Capablanca-Duz-Khotimirsky
gxf4 exf4 28 Ii dl g5! 29 e5 'Wfxe5
St. Petersburg, 1913
30 fxg4 )'!lrxe2 + ! 30 . . . f3 + is

inadequate. The text move regains Black's knight is offside. A clear­

the offered piece while guarding ing sacrifice leads to a swift finish:
114 Strategic Advantages

e6!! f6 29 . . . fxe6 30 J..e5!. 30 'cifi

J..e7 31 J..f4 g5 32 J..d6 Xe8 33

�xe7 l,xe7 34 'cid8 �e8 34 . . .

I;I c 7 35 ¡¡i e l. 35 '2)xc6 1-0

Korchnoi- Tringov

Lucerne, 1982

25 e5! Threatening 26 ..-rs,

with a double attack. 25 . . . g6 26

e6! 11 f8 27 �g3 ,._b7 28 �f5!

fxe6 There is nothing better. 29

dxe6 ..-c7 30 ..-c6! ,._d8 31

'2)xe7 + ..-xe7 32 J..xb5 and

White won.

Fischer-Bisguier
Here too White is able to
USA, 1963
exploit the loose position of the

black knight on c7 to launch a

crushing manoeuvre:

22 '21 d4! 'f, h8 23 'ci c6 X a8 24

'ciXb4 and White won.

Korchnoi-Petrosian

Moscow, 1975

A small combination, involving

an intermediate check, enables

Fischer to clinch the vital last

round game in the US Champion­

ship:

24 '2)f5! Jit x h l 25 '2) d 6 + *f8

26 l. xhl With an active knight A timely thrust enables White

and control of the h-file, White to improve the position of his

has attained a winning position. knight on e3, which soon results

26 . . . b5 27 f4 *g8 28 f5 �f8 29 in material gain.

 Strategic Advantages 115

28 f5! exf5 Otherwise 29 f6. 29 queen's bishop before White has

�xf5 �f8 30 �d6 .1,xd6 Com­ time to consolidate.

pulsory. 31 exd6 *xd6 32 cxd5 32 . . . b4! 33 axb4 i_a4 34 .l. al

cxd5 33 *f4 and White even­ 34 .1. c l , to forestall . . . .il_c2-e4, is

tually won. defea ted by 34 . . . .l. xf4 + 35

'&l'xf4 .il_g5 +.
C. Torre-Fine 34 .. . .il_c2 35 .il_g3 i_ e4 + 36
Montreux, 1934
'&l' f2 h5 37 .l. a7 37 �e3 .l. 4g7 etc.

37 . . . jl_ xg2 38 X xg2 h4 39 jl_ xh4

Kxg2+ 40 *º l.xh2 41 jtxe7

l!!'. h3 + 42 w f2 .1 b3 43 .il_g5 +

*g6 44 ,le7 !t x b 2 + 45 *º
1,a8 46 ,l x e 6 + *h7 0-1

Karpov-Andersson

Madrid, 1973

By means of 21 . . . �c5! (22

dxc5 d4) Fine adroitly brings bis

knight into play.

22 J:cfl �d3 23 l.g2 �xe5!

N ow the clearing of the long diag­

onal can no longer be avoided. 24

dxe5 d4 0-1

Janowsky-Capablanca

New York, 1916

Before activating bis queenside

pawn majority, White nimbly

transfers bis bishop to a6, whence

it controls c8 and thus prevents

Black from contesting the e-file.

19 jtb7! ,lc7 20 .il_a6 .lc6 21

'\tb3 '\tb8 22 '\ta4 X c7 23 '\tb5

�f6 24 f3 d5 Otherwise comes e2-

e4, with mounting pressure on the

d-pawn. 25 c5! h5 26 a4 .le8 27

cxb6 axb6 28 a5 .1 xcl 29 ,1 xcl

llfe5 29 . . . bxa5 leads to a lost

With the aid of a neat clearing ending. 30 '\txb6 and White won

sacrifice, Capablanca activa tes bis quickly.

116 Strategic Advantages

Liberzon-Larsen queen and the game. 24 . . . A ae8

Biel, 1976 25 Qi e 6 + fifi 26 ,i a b l ;le5 27

�c4 .l c 8 2 8 �b3 ;l b 8 2 9 g 3 �d6

30 Qif4 Now it is the rook's turn

to occupy e6.

30 . . . JI ce8 31 l. e6 �d7 32

)! x e 7 + fixe7 33 �xb7 ;lxf4

The stage is set for a clearing

combination. 34 1, e l + ! $l_e5 35

d6+ ! f¡e6 36 �b3+ f¡f5 37

�d3+ 1ig5 38 �e3+ 1Ff5 39

tlí'e4+ f¡e6 40 �c4+ f¡xd6 41

!l d l + 1-0

Exploiting the pin along the b­ Botvinnik-Petrosian

file, Black transfers his bishop to Moscow, 1963

the long a8-h I diagonal.

27 . . . ;l c6! 28 b6 K d8 29 .1 c3

;le4 30 .1 b2 �c6 31 ;lb5 �a8 32

;ld3 a3! 33 Kbl !lxd3 34 !!xd3

c4 and Black won.

Capablanca-Zubarev

Moscow, 1925

30 h4 ;lfi 31 Kxe8+ ;lxe8 32

�e3 sn 33 g5! To gain control

of e5: first, for the knight; later

on, for the king. 33 . . . ;le6 34

Qif4 ;lfi 35 Qi d3 ;le6 36 gxf6

�xf6 37 �g5 �xg5 + 38 hxg5 a4

39 bxa4 .lc4 40 a5! To vacate c5

for the knight. 40 . . . bxa5 41 Qic5

Yet another Capablanca gem, ;lf5 42 f¡g3! Reaping the fruit of

which was awarded the first bril­ 33 g5!.

liancy prize: 42 . . . a4 43 f¡f4 a3 44 f¡e5

24 Qig5! The knight joins the l!l b4 45 Qid3 11 b 5 46 fld6 flfi 47

attack. Clearly, 24 . . . !! xe l + 25 f¡c6 ;lxd3 Obligatory. 48 .1 xd3

X xe 1 fxg5? 26 JI e7 + loses the l! b2 49 � xa3 JI g2 50 f¡ xd5

 Strategic Advantages 117

Xxg5+ 51 *c6 h5 52 d5 .i g 2 53

d6 1, c 2 + 54 rfid7 h4 54 . . . g5 is

more stubborn. 55 f4! .1, f2 56

rf¡c8 �xf4 57 .1, a 7 + 1--0

Fischer-Keres

Bled, 1959

one hand, it exposes Black's c­

pawn to attack by the white

cavalry, and thereby condemns

his bishop to the menial role of

guarding it from b5; on the other

hand, it hinders c3--c4 and builds

a cosy nest for Black's knight on

c5.

After 25 IE)d2 J..b5 26 IE)hfl

Keres wastes no time in mobil­
l. h8 27 IE)e3 .1. h4 28 rfig2 1: ah8,
izing both his knight and king:
Black's counterplay on the king's
44 . . . c4! 45 dxc4 12) xc4 46 Jg g7
front proved sufficient to divert
rfid6! 47 .1, xf7 IE)e3 + 48 'fiel
White's attentions from the c­
l'. x c 2 + 49 *bl 1,h2 50 1, d 7 +
pawn. Following severa! vicissit­
rf¡e5 and the penetration of the
udes, the struggle ultimately
king proved decisive. The game
ended in Black's favour on the
ended: 51 1, e7 + *f4 52 1, d7
73rd move.
IE) d l! 53 'fi e l 53 I;txd4 IE) c 3 +

loses the rook after 54 •el

Gruenfeld-Gelfer
IE)e2 + or the king after 54 *ª 1 Ramal Hasharon, 1980
.l. a2 mate. 53 . . . IE)c3 54 J..h7 h4

55 .1 f7 + •e3 0-1

Fischer-Keres

Curacao, 1962

In the diagram, one would

expect 24 . . . 1, h8, with the inten­

tion of doubling rooks along the

h-file; or 24 . . . f5. But Keres must

have felt unhappy about allowing

White to play the constricting c3-

c4 and preferred 24 . . . c4!?. A Black played 31 . . . h5, intend­

truly double-edged move: on the ing to plant a knight on f4 after 32

 118 Strategic Advantages

. . . h4!. Since 32 h4 relinquishes would be equally lost after 33 g4

the square g4, White tried 32 'itd8 (34 <E} x h 4 <E} x g 4 ! ) and . . .

ll ecl. There followed 32 . . . h4 33 <E} h 7 . 33 . . . <E} xh4 34 gxh4 <E} hS

<E}xh4 giving up the fi g h t for the (-f4), with a pronounced pull.

dark-coloured squares, which

13 Exchanges

1 d4 '2)f6 2 c4 g6 3 '2)c3 J,.g7 4

e4 d6 5 f3 0-0 6 J,.e3 e5 7 d5 '2)e8 8

'2)ge2?! (270) 8 ird2 is more ac-

curate. Now Black can play 8 .

J,.h6! answering 9 J,.xh6 with 9 .

ir h 4 + and 10 . . . 'iifxh6, with a

bind on the black squares. Sim­

ilarly, after 9 ird2 J,.xe3 10 'iifxe3

Black has rid himself of his bad

bishop.

Of course, White may refrain

from exchanging bishops with 9

A well-known position in the J,.f2, but meanwhile Black has

Dutch Defence. Positionally, the enhanced the scope of his bishop.

exchange of the dark-coloured

bishops is called for, be it by

means of 9 J,.a3, answering 9 . . .

Axa3 with 10 '2)xa3-c2-b4 ( e l }­

d3-f4; or by means of 9 J,.f4, not

fearing 9 . . . J,.xf4, which only

accentuates Black's dark square

weaknesess.

In the above position, also em­

anating from the King's Indian

Defence, the capture of Black's

knight on c5 is not recommended

since it yields Black control of the

black squares ( . . . J,.h6 will fol­

low). Should Black play . . . f5-f4?

in response to, say, J,.c2, then

 120 Exchanges

J¡_xc5 would be good, for then the 19 . . . �d6 20 � g2 "t!J'f7 21

black bishop on g7 would be "ite2 g6 22 fxg6 hxg6 23 � f3 g5!

hemmed in. Thwarting g4-g5 and tightening

Surprisingly enough, this dis­ his grip on f4. 24 1, f2 "t!J'e6 25

tinction was lost on Grandrnas­ '2) e l .1 h 6 2 6 b3 "t!J'e7 27 '2)d3 �e8

ters Kotov and Szabo in one of 28 J..g2 �c7 29 .1 el �e6 30 .1 f5

their encounters in the Candidates lll dh8 31 h3 '21 b4 32 :1 efl '21 xd3

tournament in Zurich, 1953 33 "itxd3 �f4! 34 j, lxf4 Despair.

where, in a similar position, White 34 . . . gxf4 0-1

omitted to punish a faulty . . . f4?

Botvinnik-Sorokin
with §l_xc5 and continued instead

§l. f2 .
Moscow, 1931

Savon-Spassky

Baku, 1961

20 "t!J'e3! Forcing the exchange

of queens (20 . . . "t!J'c7 2 1 �xe5).

20 . . . "t!J'xe3 2 1 fxe3 j_g4 22 aS!

�c8 23 aer §l_xf3 24 gxf3 �e7

25 '2) d5 � c6 26 � xf6 + gxf6 27

An example from actual play: l! d7 11 ab8 28 f,f2 � xa5 29

after White's last move, 1 3 f5?, the K cc7 .1 bc8 30 l. xf7 1, xc7 31

exchange on c4 becomes desir­ 1, xc7 + f,h8 32 §l.d5! Centraliza­

able: tion. lf 32 . . . rook moves (32 . . .

13 . . . §l_xc4! 14 dxc4 j_a5! �c6 3 3 I,t x b 7 ) , 3 3 )i f7 .

Black's two knights will be far 32 . . . b5 33 b3 .ld8 34 f,g3 f5

superior to White's knight and 35 f,h4 fxe4 36 fxe4! First things

bishop, because of the latter's in­ first: maintaining the bishop on

activity. 15 11 f2 If 1 5 J_ c l d 3 !. 15 d5 is more important than any­

.. . J..xd2 16 ,1,xd2 f,b8 17 "t!J'f3 thing else. 36 .. . 1,d6 37 f,h5

"t!J'c7 18 §1. fi �c8 19 g4 This Xf6 38 h3 .l d 6 39 h4 1, b6 40

further restricts the scope of his f,g4 40 J..f7 saves seven moves.

bishop and weakens the square f4: 40 . . . .lf6 41 1, a 7 1, b6 42

see Black's 33rd move. 1!!. e 7 Jld6 43 Xc7 43 1;t x e 5 or 43

 Exchanges 121

wf5 is also sufficient, but White

conceives a mating plan. 43 . . .

g f6 44 � a7 .! b6 45 K c7 K f6 46

wh5 1, d 6 4 7 J,.f7! If t h e king tries

to escape (47 . . . \tig7) 48 b4!

catches the knight.

47 . . . l1 f6 48 A g6! <El xb3 49

•xh6 H f8 50 Kh7+ \tig8 51

I.t g7 + \tih8 52 J,.f7 X xf7

Forced. 53 H xf7 \tig8 54 \tig6

'2\d2 55 i, d7 1-0 31 e5! j_xe5 Otherwise 32 e6!.

32 j_ x f7 + ! --W,-xf7 33 � a 8 + -t!)tf8

Lokvenc-Feigin 34 "f{d5 + �f7 35 �xe5 With his

Hamburg, 1930 queen centralized and Black's

queen handicapped by the need to

guard g7, White won easily

enough.

Makogonov-Botvinnik

Sverdlovsk, 1943

Not relishing 32 f3 �xe3, with

sorne counterplay, White opted

for the clear-cut 32 j_xe4! fxe4 32

. . . dxe4 33 �d2 +. 33 g4 J,.g6 34

'ii!,c5! --W,-xc5 35 J,.xc5 winning a

13 . . . j_xc3! The purpose of
pawn and, notwithstanding the
the exchange is to bring about a
bishops of opposite colours, the
position where the black knight
game.
on e4 will dominate White's

black-squared bishop. 14 bxc3

Polugayevsky-Padevsky
J,.f5! 15 ii_xf5 "f{xf5 and Black's
Havana, 1966
positional advantage is manifest.

The white h6-pawn, which

Timman-Hübner
serves to create mating threats on
Montreal, 1979
g7 and along the eighth rank,

plays a vital part in the simplifica­ 1 c4 '2)f6 2 d4 e6 3 '2)c3 j_b4 4

tion that follows: e3 b6 5 '2)e2 j¡_a6 6 a3 fi.e7 7 '2)f4

122 Exchanges

bxc3?! �a5 8 �e5 �d7 9 �xd7

j¡_xd7 10 cxd5 exd5 1 1 J..f4 (278)

11 . . . J.. b5! Discouraging 1 2 e3,

which would surrender c4 to the

black knight after the exchange of

bishops.

12 h4 0-0 13 K bl l!t'd7 14 X h3

:iife8 15 Xg3 �c4 16 _lh6 g6 17

l!t'cl �d6! 18 'i/lt'f4 _ta6 19 e3 An

admission of defeat, but there is

nothing better. 19 . . . �f5 20

d5 8 cxd5 j¡_xfl 9 f]xfl �xd5 10
j¡_xa6 bxa6 21 X b7 l. ab8! 22
�cxd5 exd5 1 1 l!t'h5 c6 12 �e6 g6
,lxc7 ;l b l + 23 fJe2 l!t'a4! 0-1
13 l!t'e5 j¡_f6 14 �xd8+ j¡_xe5 15

�xfi 15 �xc6 �xc6 16 dxe5

�xe5 17 j¡_d2 is slightly in Karpov-Spassky

White's favour. Moscow, 1974

15 . . . f1xfi 16 dxe5 (277) 16

. . . �d7 Now Black will either

regain the pa wn after 17 j¡_ d2

�xe5 1 8 j¡_c3, or plant his knight

on e4 after 1 7 f4 �c5. The game

ended in a hard-fought draw on

move 59.

Lipnitsky-Smyslov

Moscow, 1951

Black's previous move, 18

�f6-d7?, intending . . . j¡_c5 (and

on 19 -W,-c4, lit' a6), invites Whi te to

exchange his somewhat passive

bishop with 19 j¡_g4! leaving

Black with an unenviable post­

tion. 1-0 in 35 moves.

Fischer-Petrosian
A shattering example of white­
Buenos Aires, 1971
square strategy:

1 d4 �f6 2 c4 e6 3 �c3 J..b4 4 16 J.. c5! 1 6 �c5 is playable, but

l!t'c2 �c6 5 �f3 d5 6 a3 J..xc3+ 7 the exchange ofbishops is more in

 Exchanges 123

Najdorf-Averbakh

Zurich, 1953

the spirit of the position. 16 . . .

ª f e 8 1 7 J,.xe7 � x e 7 1 8 b4! Fast­

ening his grip on c5. 18 . . . *f8 19

-2)e5 J,.e8 20 f3! Denying squares

Black exchanges on b4, to at­
to the black knight and making
tain a classic good knight versus
room for his king. 20 . . . � ea7 21 bad bishop ending.

ª e5 J,.d7 22 . . . i_xb4! 23 exb4 23 g, xb4

b5 is just as grim. 23 . . . <2l a3 24

g b3 <21 b5 25 e3 .i! el 26 a4 <2ld6

27 a5 b5 and Black won without

much difficulty.

Smyslov-Tal

Moscow, 1969

22 <21 xd7 + ! This surpnsing

exchange of a good knight for a

bad bishop bears the stamp of a

great player. 22 . . . J. xd7 23 gel

ªd6 24 ;i e 7 �d7 25 g e l g6 26

f;f2 The last piece joins in-and

induces weaknesses in Black's

camp. 26 . . . h5 27 f4 h4 28 *º! Static pawn weaknesses are the

f5 29 '1Pe3 White's play is exem­ best of targets. Here a timely

plary. 29 . . . d4+ 30 *dl <2lb6 31 exchange by White creates such a

i!i ee7 <2ld5 32 � f7 + •e8 33 .i\l b7 weakness. Thereafter it becomes,

zixb4 34 J..e4 1-0 as they say, a matter oftechnique:

124 Exchanges

14 i_xc6! bxc6 15 �f3 f6 16 Last but not least, White's queen­

�d2 X f d 8 1 7 �e4 An alternative side has been weakened.

is 1 7 c4. 17 • . . c4 18 �c5 i_f5 19 21 .1 adl itb3! and Black

f3 i_c2 20 K x d 8 + Xxd8 21 ,¡t¡fl notched the point sorne 20 moves

,¡t¡TT 22 b4 i_f5 23 ,¡t¡el e5 24 la ter.

�b7! Kd7 25 �a5 c5 Comparat­

ively best. Fischer-German

26 bxc5 xas 27 �b7 Kd7 28 Stockholm, 1962

�d6 + ,¡t¡e7 29 g4! i_e6 30 K bl

,g, c 7 3 1 �b7 K x b 7 3 2 � x b 7 ,¡t¡ d 7

33 �d6 h6 34 ,¡t¡fl •c6 35 ,¡t¡e3 a5

36 �e8 f5 37 �g7 i_d7 38 gxf5

gxf5 39 f4! The final blow. 39 . . .

e4 40 *d4 is hopeless. 39 • . . ,¡t¡d5

40 c6! i_c8 41 c7 f,d6 42 h4 1--0

Jiménez-Larsen

Palma de Mallorca, 1967

A clever tactical exchange neut­

ralizes Black's counterplay:

21 i_b5! .lxb5 22 �xa4 .l b4

23 'ciC3 Having secured the safety

of bis king, White went on to

exploit his advantage in the centre

and on the king's flank.

Larsen was justly proud of

the following well-conceived ex­

changes: 14 . . . _lxe5 15 dxe5 d4!

16 jth6 .lfd8 17 i_xe6 fxe6 18

l1 fel 11 d5 19 _lf4 .1 f8 2 0 g3 1, f5

The exchanges have resulted in

the disappearance of the white­

squared bishops and in the open­ In the above position, most

ing of the d- and f-files. The White players would proceed to

doubled e-pawns are shielded by exchange both pairs of rooks (1

the white e5-pawn (which ham­ 1, xe8 .1 xe8 2 .1 xe8), or perhaps

pers the action of his bishop ). wait for Black to do so (1 . . .

 Exchanges 125

li xe2 2 .!l xe2 .1 e8). A deeper

examination reveals that a more

promising plan involves the

exchange of but one pair of rooks:

1 .1 xe8 1i xe8 2 K bl! Planning

b2-b4, without fearing the con­

sequences of Black's control of

the e-file, since the squares e 1 , e2,

e3, and e4 are well guarded.

Reti-Carls
27 . . . �h 8 28 Kh 3 Kbg8 29
Baden-Baden, 1925
K bhl 'll!td8 30 �d5! Faced with

Lastly, a case where it is clearly the threat 3 1 *g3, coupled with

desirable to refrain from exchang­ 32 ._,h2 and 33 hxg5 (answering

mg: 33 . . . hxg5 with 34 l;'i h7 + and 33

27 �c3! A White knight on d5 . . . fxg5 with 34 K xh6), Black

is more valuable than its counter­ chose 30 . . . gxh4 31 � xh4 *f7

part on d4. Hence, he is right in 32 *f2 'll!tf8 33 gxh6 �xh6 34

avoiding the exchange of knights. � xh6 ._,g7 35 'll!ta5! 1-0

14 Cramped Positions,

Restricted Pieces

The first two positions, emanat­

ing from Euwe, are extreme ex­

amples of pieces resembling dead

wood: Black's pieces are denied

access to useful squares by

White's pawns as well as by his

own.

Clearly, White will at ali costs

refrain from the aggressive f3-f4??

which, after . . . exf4, cedes Black

the key square e5 and grants un­

deserved freedom to no less than

three black pieces.

The black knight is without a

move and the mobility of Black's

king leaves something to be

desired. White's threat of march­

ing his king to b7 and c8 compels

the black king to rush over to the

queenside, whereupon <Eih4xg6 or

<Eid4-e6-f8 decides.

In the diagram-a somewhat

less blatant case than the preced­

ing one-Black is badly cramped

and White's advantage in space Here too the paralysis of the

and force will easily overcome ali black bishops guarantees White a

resistance on the queen's flank. walk-over: after 1 i_d2 i_f6 (h6) 2

 Cramped Positions, Restricted Pieces 127

J.. h 5 or first 2 J.. e 3 , the g-pawn is Schlechter-J anowsky

doomed. París, 1900

Miles-Ribli

Tilburg, 1978

Here the lamentable placing of

the black bishop and rook on the

queenside enables White to

launch a deadly onslaught on the

Black's last move, 1 4 . . . M.fc8?,
opposite wing, where he enjoys a
permits White to sea! the fate of
free hand:
his white-squared bishop.
31 e6! dxe6 32 �e5! -W,e7 33 g4
15 a6! Aa8 16 M acl e6 17 _la3
� b4 34 flg3 � b6 35 h4 �g8 36
-E}e4 18 -E}a2! Exchanging on e4
h5 gxh5 37 �xh5 1ª b8 38 �e5
vacates the square d5 for a black
fi b6 39 g5 h5 40 g6+ ! f¡xg6 41
piece and gratuitously resuscitates
tl' g 5 + flh7 42 �xh5+ f¡g8 43
his lame bishop. 18 . . . e5 19
�g5 fl f7 44 ª- d 8 �e7 45 � h 5 +
A xc7 Il xc7 20 l.! el exd4 21 exd4
1-0
-E} f8 22 � xc7 "Wfxc7 23 g3 23

jlxf8 appears more logical: with

Capablanca-Menchik
the black bishop imprisoned on
Moscow, 1935
a8, every exchange favours White.

23 . . . -E}e6 24 ll..b2 -E}d6 25

-2i b4 "WJd7 26 -E}c2 -E}c4 27 eie3

'2)xb2 28 "Wfxb2 "WJd8 29 "WJc3 h6

30 -E}g4 -E}c7 31 -E}ge5 '2)e8 32

*e3 eid6 33 j_d3 Y!/C7 34 �f4

*e7 35 *g4 *e8 36 h4 eie4 37

'l!!if4 h5 38 *g2 A f8 39 eig5 f6 40

-E}xe4 dxe4 41 _l c 4 + wg7 42

'2lf7 *h7 43 "Wfxf6 ll..g7 44

'2lg5+ wh8 45 �e6 1-0

After 45 . . . e3 + 46 f3 (not 46

d5? "Wfxe6 47 -E}xe6 e2!) the bishop White has an advantage in

on a8 is still out of play! space but what counts in the

128 Cramped Positions, Restricted Pieces

above position is the (well-engin­ jl xg4 34 hxg4 l. d7 35 l2:i f5 'itd8

eered) availability of an immedi­ 36 jlxd6 1-0

ate breakthrough:

24 g5! fxg5 25 hxg5 h5 Black Bronstein-Pilnik

appears to have a verted the worst. Be/grade, 1954

However: 26 l2)f5! "1f7 27 l2:ih4

'W¡e7 28 'W/h2 €ic7 29 M O "1e8 30

f4! exf4 31 jlxf4 "1d7 An error,

but on 3 1 . . . jle5 32 jlxe5 'W/xe5

33 'W¡xe5 + dxe5 34 l. f6 l! g8 35

jle2, with 36 l2)xg6 or 36 1, hfl to

come, highlights Black's predica­

ment. 32 jlxd6 1-0

Tarrasch-Munchoff

Berlin, 1880

The position looks totally

blocked, but the banished bishop

on g7 allows White to break

through forcefully:

34 b4!! axb4 35 a5! l. c8 36 axb6

'ttxb6 37 'W¡a2 jld7 38 'W¡a7 'W/d6

39 l, g c l B,c7 40 'W¡a6 l. b8 41

jlc2 j}_f8 42 jlb3 "1g7 43 \lig2

Being virtually a piece up, White

is in no hurry. 43 . . . j}_c8 44 'W¡a2

jl d7 45 'it f2 l. b6 46 .l. a8 X a6 47
A cursory glance suggests that
1, cal X a3 48 1, lxa3 bxa3 49
the diagram must be won for
X xa3 'itb6 50 'tta2 .l. b7 51 \lif3
White. His first step. 22 b6!, is
X b8 52 j}_dl 'itb4 53 jld2 'itbl
designed to prevent . . . l2)c7, unit­
54 'W/xbl .1. xbl 55 \lje2 \li f7 56
ing the black rooks. Moreover,
j}_e3 and with the fall of c5, the
both black knights are without
outcome was clear. 1-0
moves.

22 . . . a6 23 l2)ef5 'W!f7 24 jl e2!

Petrosian-Fischer
Jtg8 25 jlh5 '/tf8 26 '/tcl 1, d 8 27
B/ed, 1959
'W¡a3 jlc8 28 jle3 K d 7 29 )i a c l

Xd8 30 X ed l jld7 31 l2)xd6! With the aid of a tactical twist,

White pounces on the soft spot in White imprisons the black bishop:

Black's camp, which is forever 16 f3 l2)g5 17 c6! b6 To forestall

present in such positions. 31 . . . jlc5. On other moves, 18 b5 is

l2)xd6 32 jlxc5 jlc8 33 jlg4 equally powerful. 18 b5 a6 19 a4

 Cramped Positions, Restricted Pieces 129

e5 A bid for freedom, which

White ignores. 23 f3 .§le6 24 b3 a5

25 g4 h5 26 g5 .§lh3 27 *f2 While

Black is reduced to waiting

moves, White's king marches to

the queenside unmolested. 27 . . .

.1,1 f8 28 *e2 � g8 29 a4 and

White won without difficulty.

Psakhis-Romanishin

Irkutsk, 1986
With Black's bishop and rook out

of play, White won easily.

Ubilava-Timoshenko

Chelyabinsk, 1974

White is not content with the

small advantage resulting from 1 8

,1 6 d 2 d6 and fastens his grip on

the black squares with 18 c5!.

Only after Black rejected the

Black's last move, 1 3 . . . .§le5?,
exchange sacrifice with 18 . . . a5
invites an Exchange sacrifice,
(rightly fearing 18 . . . �xd6 19
after which his remaining pieces
cxd6+ *f7 20 �c5 a5 2 1 b 3 with
are left with little scope for man­
a disagreeable bind), did White
oeuvre:
retreat his rook to d2. 1-0 in 42
14 �xe5!! dxe5 15 1/í xd8 +
moves.
'lvxd8 16 .§l g 5 + *e8 If 16 . . .

'lv c 7 1 7 .§lf6 and 1 8 .§l x e 5 + . 17

Petrosian-Lutikov
.§lf6 � g 8 18 �dl .§ld7 19 �a4!
tuu«, 1959
� b4 Black <loes his best to neut­

ralize the white rook without, While former World Champion

however, resolving the problem of Petrosian was not averse to

his own incarcerated rook. defending cramped, 'hedgehog'

20 �c5 �d4 21 ,lxd4 2 1 aet positions, his expertise in accumu­

� c4 is weaker. 21 . . . exd4 22 h4! lating special advantages and

130 Cramped Positions, Restricted Pieces

driving them home was second to keeping the black bishop incarcer­

none. In the following position, a ated. 1 . . . f6 amounts to much the

powerful pawn-thrust serves to same thing. 1-0

pin-point the awkward placing of

the black knights.

Winter-Capablanca
24 b4! '2:)c8 After 24 . . . cxb4 25
London, 1922
c5 Black is hard-pressed to pre­

vent 26 c6, since 25 . . . dxc5 fails

against 26 d6, attacking both

knights.

25 bxc5 dxc5 26 cxb5 '2:l xb5 27

ll_xb5 K xb5 27 . . . ll_xb5 is

slightly better. 28 0-0 Castling late

( or not castling at ali) was another

characteristic of Petrosian. 28 . . .

f5 29 O l. f7 Hereabouts Black

loses time. 29 . . . h5 forthwith is

essential. 30 '2:)dc4 X b4? 30 . . . f4

holds out longer. 31 ll_ e l! The

White has just played insou­
bishop is transfered to the a l-h8
ciantly 10 '2:)d5? and after 10 . . . g5
diagonal, with tempo. 31 . . . l. b7
11 '2:)xf6+ '/!itxf6 12 ,ig3 ,ig4 13
32 .i c3 h5 33 gxf5 gxf5 34 exf5 e4
h3 ,ixO 14 '/!itxO '/!itxO 15 gxO
35 *h2 35 fxe4 is also good. The
was left with a caged bishop on g3.
opcning of the g-file led to Black's

resignation 6 moves later.

Wolf-Alekhine

Balshan--Gutman Car/sbad, 1923

Ramat Hasharon, 1980

White's last move, 16 g3?, fur­

Two pawns down, Black hopes nishes Black an opportunity to

to release his bishop with . . . e7- incarcerate the bishop on b2.

e6. Therefore White played 1 e6!, 16 . . . ll_xd3 Compelling White

to answer 1 . . . fxe6 with 2 e5, to recapture with the pawn (17

 Cramped Positions, Restricted Pieces 131

302

"i!rxd3? X xe2 18 'itxe2 d3! or 17

"i!rxc5?, allowíng Whíte to follow
l. xe8 i_xfl 18 X xf8 + •xf8 19
up with 1 5 dxc5 .zi c4 1 6 f4, bloc­
•xfl i_xd2), thus encirclíng the
kíng the path of the bíshop on g7.
whíte bíshop.
Correct was 14 . . . 'itd5! and
Sorne 15 moves Jater, the fol­
only íf 1 5 .zic3 (relínquíshíng the
Jowíng position was reached
square f4), l5 . . . "i!rxc5 1 6 dxc5
(303):
f4!.

The game ended 16 . . . I;l f d 8 1 7

303
J,g2 .zixe3 18 fxe3 .zib4 Else 19
B
J,xc6 and .zid4. 19 _txb7 K a b8

20 c6 f1 n 21 <E:i d4 e6 22 <E:i b5 <E:i d5

23 X xdS! exd5 24 .zi xc7 K dc8 25

j_ xc8 :g xc8 26 <E:i xd5 K xc6 + 27

*d2 *e6 28 .zic3 1-0

Karpov-Unzicker

Nice, 1974
Although Whíte's king and

pawns are well placed, his luckless

bishop is stíll out of play. Thís

factor determines the result:

31 . . . h5! 32 fxg6 + On 32

JI g 1 X g8 is strong. 32 .. . * xg6
33 gxh5+ *n! 33 . .. •xh5? 34

*f5! is feeble. 34 h6 Or 34 *f5

.; h8 35 * g4 •e6. 34 . . . *e6! 35

Jl g l Ah8 36 Ag6 i.18 0-1

Smyslov-Botvinnik

Moscow, 1957
Before undertaking action on

After 14 e5 Botvinnik ex­ the kingside, White first avoids

changed erroneously on c5, 14 . . . simplificatíon: 24 _ta7! <E:ie8 25

132 Cramped Positions, Restricted Pieces

jic2 tcic7 26 � eal ,W,e7 27 Jlbl the text move prepares dxc5

jie8 28 tcie2 tcid8 29 tcih2 j_g7 30 coupled with d3--d4 in response.

f4! Presenting Black with a diffi­ 9 . . . tcid7 10 tcic3 �b6 11

cult choice. 30 . . . f6 30 . . . exf4 tcice2 c5 12 dxc5 J_xc5 13 d4

gives Black more leeway. 31 f5! J1. b4 + 14 *" J!c8 15 Jle3 Jlf8

Constriction. 31 g5 32 Jlc2 En Black's development cannot pro­

route to h5. 32 J..n 33 tcig3 ceed smoothly: 1 5 . . . tcie7? 1 6 a3

tcib7 Black's preces lack etc. 16 1. c l '2)e7 17 1t x c 8 +

manoeuvring space. 34 Adl h6 35 '2)xc8 18 "tfcl "tfc6 19 �xc6 bxc6

i._h5 *e8 36 "ttdl tcid8 37 Xa3 20 f4 (306) Despite the exchanges,

'l)>f8 38 1. la2 'l)>g8 39 tcig4 'l)>f8 40 Black's pieces are cramped and

tcie3 *g8 41 i._ x n + tcixn 42 his rook badly out of play. 20 . . .

,W,h5 The queen's entry is decisive. f5? Preferable is 20 . . . c5. 21 *ª

42 . . . tcid8 43 ttg6 *f8 44 tcidb6 22 tcifl tcic4 23 Jlcl Jle7

tcih5 1-0 The loser, a leading 24 *f3! 0-0

Grandmaster, is said to have 25 g4! Exploiting his advantage

made the following comment in space. 25 . . . fxg4+ 26 •xg4

here: "Only against a World c5 Late! 27 tci fg3 '2)4b6 28 b3

Champion is one entitled to reach tcid7 29 Jle3 tcicb6 30 f5 cxd4 31

such a miserable position." J1. xd4 J1. c5 32 fxe6 J. xd4 33

tcixd4 '2)xe5+ 34 *h3 ti:id3 35

.1 g 1 tci f2 + 36 f1 g2 '21 e4 37 '21 gf5

Spassky-Liberzon
tcic8 38 'l)>h2 tcig5 39 .1 el! tcib6
Rostov, 1960
40 e7 Xe8 41 tcib5 1-0

Fischer-Kagan

Netanya, 1968

In the following example, Black

is punished for neglecting the de­

velopment of his king's rook.

1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 Jlf5 4 '2)e2 With most pieces on the board,

e6 5 .:E:)g3 Jlg6 6 h4 h6?! 7 h5 Jlh7 Black's hopes lie in blockading ali

8 Jld3 Jlxd3 9 cxd3! Black's lines and diagonals. However, in

counterplay hinges on . . . c6--c5; the long run, he cannot prevent

 Cramped Positions, Restricted Pieces 133

White from engineering a

breakthrough with b2-b4:

15 • • • f5 16 Yltg2 g6 17 h6 'it'b8

18 f4 .1 fe8 19 e5! Further cramp­

ing Black. 19 . . . Ac5 20 vlrO

�c8 21 j_g2 'it'c7 22 �e2 �b8

The knights present a sorry pie­

ture. 23 c3 'it'd7 The only chance

was 23 . . . d4, with 24 . . . �e7-d5

in rnind.

24 j_d2 �a6 25 l. fbl J_f8 26

b4! axb4 27 cxb4 Axb4 28 a5 tlfc5

29d4 Ylt f8 3 0 j_xb4 � x b4 3 1 llt"c3

�a6 32 1, x b 7 + �c7 33 �el

Destination: c5 33 . . . l. e7 34 a6

1-0

Hort-Ciocaltea

Budapest, 1973

Only two moves are required to

immobilize the black knight and

pave the way for the victorious

march of the white kíng to the

deserted queenside:

1 g5! J.c8 2 g4! Black's position

is ripe for resignation.

 15 Pawn Structures

Euwe Whereas White's kingside pawn

majority is mobile and he exerts

pressure on the e-file, Black's

pawn majority on the queen's

wing is worthless, his c-pawn

backward, and the hole on c5

glaring. Verdict: lost for Black.

24 g4 c6 25 X ecl X ac8 26 i!tc3

X e6 27 *h2 *h8 28 t¡,a3 t¡,b7 29

i!tg3 f5 He cannot allow f4--f5. 30

t¡,f3 t¡,d7 31 *g3 JI f'8 32 t¡,a3

X a8 33 t¡,c3 X c8 34 'ltc2 *g8 35

*º' fxg4+ Obligatory: White's

The correct procedure is l g5
last move simply threatened to
hxg5 (forced). 2 hxg5 with a swift
capture twice on f5.
victory in sight, e.g., 2 . . . '2:)xg5 3
36 hxg4 t¡,f7 37 •e3 Not hast­
'2:)xg5 J_xg5 4 tl'h5.
ily 37 f5? gxf5 38 gxf5 tl' h 5 + 39
l h5? would be completely out
*e3 t¡,g5 + 40 •e2 JI h6, turning
of place, inviting Black to estab­
the tables. 37 • . . X f'8 38 .1 fl
lish an impregnable blockade on
t¡,d7 39 t¡,g2 t¡,e7 40 K fcl X ef6
the dark squares.
41 X fl * h8 42 ti' el t¡,e8 43 i!t h2

Capablanca-Salwe t¡,e7 44 J; f3 .l e6 45 *ª a5 46 f5!

Lodz, 1913 No more cat and mouse

manoeuvring. 46 . . . gxfS 47 gxfS

t¡,g5 48 t¡,f4! .1 xf5 The last gas p.

49 t¡,xf5 t¡,d2 + 50 *º Jl g6 51

t¡,f'8 + JI g8 52 t¡,f6 + Jl g7 53

.1 f3 1--0

Pillsbury-Gunsberg

Hastings, 1895

The last phase of the last-round

game which gave Pillsbury the

 Pawn Structures 135

(l ) 1 1 "fyc2 !El c 6 1 2 dxc5 b x c 5 1 3

b3 a5! (313) and the imminent . . .

a5-a4 will leave Black with a

superior pawn formation ( one

chain against White's two

islands ). Of course, 14 a4, to

hinder . . . a5---a4, enfeebles the

square b4 and renders the pawn

on b3 backward. Keres-Karpov,

Moscow, 1973.

first prize. If Black's knight were

on c6, his queenside majority

would be a menace. As things

stand, White can engineer a dra­

matic central breakthrough:

27 f5!! So that if 27 . . . gxf5 (27

. . . -21c6 28 -21f4!) 28 gxf5 exf5 29

-2)f4 wins. Black stops 'i)f4, but

succumbs to a brilliant diversion.

27 . • . g5 28 -21 b4 a 5 2 9 c6! <1id6 30

fxe6 -E)xc6 31 'i)xc6 <lixc6 32 e4!

(2) 1 1 b3 ..tf6 12 ..tb2 'i!!fe7 13
with a winning pawn ending (32
,W,d2 -21c6? 14 d5! exd5 15 Axf6
. . . dxe4 33 d5 + etc.). ,W,xf6 16 '/!ij'xd5 (314) with advan­

tage to White. Ivkov-Najdorf,

Wijk aan Zee, 1 9 7 1.

B ■ �-· i
� ... � .,, ,,�

r,,,,� � � �

,�.�� �'": ■
½ ,,% :;,;.,,,� ¼,,. ,�

�� m �
■ ■ 'it ■ •
• ¿ • • ■
� gJ, n-. � �
■ ¿ ■ ■�n
¿ ■
-
� ¿ Rjtf¾
- � ®},,

'"� ■ 11 ■ ; " ;,
1 d4 -21f6 2 c4 e6 3 -21 f3 b6 4 g3

Ab7 5 ]l.g2 JJ_e7 6 -21c3 0-0 7 0-0 (3) 11 b3 j_f6 12 j_b2 ,W,e7 13

-E)e4 8 �c2 -2)xc3 9 'i!:f"xc3 c5 10 'll!'{d2 -E)a6 14 !Elel Ií ad8 15 e4

� d l d6 (312) cxd4 16 J¿xd4 (315) with chances

The above position may give for both sides, although White's

rise to a variety of pawn struc­ pawn structure is somewhat

tures: sounder. Ivkov-Korchnoi, 1968.

136 Pawn Structures

iEie4 8 'f!lc2 iEi xc3 9 'f!lxc3 c5 10

.l d l d6 1 1 b3 ll..f6 12 ll..b2 'f!le7

13 'f!lc2 iEic6 14 e4 e5 15 d5 iEid4

16 lJ_xd4 cxd4? (317)

A positional error. After 17

ll..h3! Black had to contend with

the inexorable advance of White's

queenside pawns (in this respect,

it is immaterial whether or not

Black exchanges bishops with . . .

lJ_c8), without being able to make

(4) 1 1 b3 ll..f6 12 ll..b2 'f!le7 13
something of his own pawn
'l!ltd2 li d8 14 't)el lJ_ xg2 15 't) xg2
majority in the centre.
't)c6 16 d5 exd5 17 cxd5 lJ_xb2 18

'f!lxb2 't)d4! (316) Filip---Korch­

Portiscb-Dzindzicbasbvili
noi, Siegen, 1970, with advantage
Buenos Aires, 1978
to Black.

Polugayevsky-Gulko At first sight, there <loes not

Moscow, 1976 appear to be much in the position.

However, White's next move pre­

pares for the mobilization of his

queenside pawn majority and ren­

ders the prospects of Black's light­

coloured bishop as bleak as can

be.

13 exd5! d6 14 0-0 0-0 15 b4

lJ_c8 Black's gestures hasten the

end. But if he chooses to do

nothing, White's queenside pawns

will start rolling. 16 a4 lJ_g4 17

'f!lc2 'f!ld7 18 wh2 f5 (?) A final

fling: one can hardly blame Black

 Pawn Structures 137

for despairing. 19 f3 f4 20 fxg4 action switches from one front to

fxg3 + 21 *gl .1 xfl + 22 Jt xfl another. 18 . . . <ll' x f7 1 9 't)c6 *g6

l, f8 23 trg2 trxg4 24 Jtg5 l, f2 20 a5 't)f6 21 a6 't)d5 22 a7 't)c7

25 tre4 trd7 26 l!txg6 1--0 23 't) xb4 23 •es is swifter. 23 . . .

Toe five positions that follow 't)b5 + 24 *c5 't)xa7 25 't) c6

stem from the Caro-Kann Defence. 't)c8 26 b4 •xh6 27 b5 e5 28

't)xe5 28 't)e7? fails against 28 . . .

Kamishev-Zagoriansky
e4!. 28 . . . <li'g7 29 't)C6 .f7 30

't)a7 't)e7 31 b6 't)g6 32 <1i'd6 1--0

USSR, 1928

Geller-Hort

Skopje, 1968

Here too the b3 pawn appears

vulnerable, but in contrast with

Kashdan-Reshevsky (172), White's

king is well placed and the pawn Black's bishop is hampered by

configuration on the king's wing is the c5 pawn and his kingside

in his favour. pawns are virtually fixed. White

1 h4 't)b7 2 h5! 't)c5 3 g5 't)b7 4 exploits these factors admirably.

<E)e4 *b6 5 <ll'c4 Not 5 't)d6? 27 l!tf4! Compelling the queen

't)xd6 6 exd6 f6! and Black wins. 5 to defend f7. 27 .. . l!td7 28 b3

. . . •c6 6 't)f6! 't)c5 7 't)e8 hxg5 8 Hindering . . . tra4 + in response

fxg5 't)e4 9 h6 gxh6 10 gxh6 't)g5 to <ll'c2. 28 . • . *d8 29 •el <ll'e8

White has created an outside 30 tre4! Centralization. Now

passed pawn and his e5 pawn con­ White is ready to advance his

tains two black pawns. pawns.

11 't)Í6 't)f3 12 't)g4 't)g5 13 30 . . . l!tc7 31 f4 j_e7 32 g4

*d4 f5 Otherwise 't)f6. 14 exf6 Jth4 33 f5 Jtg3 34 fxe6 fxe6 35

*d6 15 't)e5 't)h7 16 't)c4 + <ll'd7 tr g 6 + *f8 36 trxe6 Jtxe5 37

17 f7 • e 7 1 8 't)xa5 It is typical of *d3! Threatening •e4-f5-g6. 37

such endings that the scene of . . . Jtg3 38 *e4 Jth2 39 *f5

138 Pawn Structures

i.g3 40 i,d2 i,h2 41 i.c3 -W,f7 + Kristol-Wu

and Black resigned, in view of 42 Malta, 1980

-.,xf7 + •xf7 43 •e4---d5 etc.

Karpov-Miles

Amsterdam, 1985

Wíth Whíte's pawn configura­

tíon superior to Black's, any ínac­

curacy on Black's part is likely to

prove fatal.

31 -.,o! i,f6 32 i,d2! Exchan­

gíng bíshops díssipates Whíte's

A similar pawn formatíon to
advantage. 32 . . . .:2ld6 33
that in previous examples, with
-.,xc6+ •xc6 34 f3 b5? 35
only rooks on the board. Black's
cxb5+ .:2lxb5 36 *d3 .:2id4 37
position may not be lost, but in
*e4 .:2lb5 38 *d3 *d5 39 .:2ic2
practíce his task is strewn wíth
.:2ld4 40 '2le3 + •c6 41 *e4 .:2lb5
dífficultíes.
42 .:2lc4 .:2lc7? 42 . . . .:2ld6 + is
48 f4 g6 48 . . . a6? invites the
more obstínate, although ultí­
whíte kíng to b6. The text move
mately White's queenside pawn
leads to the weakeníng of the
majority ought to win.
pawn on e6. 49 hxg6 fxg6 50 *d4
43 '2l e 5 + ! Givíng rise to an
h5 51 •e4 *f7 52 � b3 b6? Here
ending with pawns on both wings,
the passíve 52 . . . JI b8 is prefer­
where a bishop is usually superior
able.
to a knight. 43 . . . i,xe5 44 •xe5
53 JI d3 •e7 54 JI d6 bxc5?
f6+ 45 *e4 .:2l e 8 46 i,b4 *d7 47
And now 54 . . . 11 c8 offers stíffer
i,f8! a6 48 *d4 1-0
resístance. 55 11 xc6 .1 b8 56

l. xc5 l. xb2 57 A c7 + *f8 58

Iixa7 Jlc2 59 *º *g8 60 a4

Ljubojevic-Karpov
l. a2 61 a5 *f8 62 a6 •g8 63
Linares, 1981
Xa8+ •g7 64 a7 J; a 3 + 65 •e4

1-0 The reader is advised to work In this ínnocuous-lookíng posí­

out the way to victory. tíon, the former World Champíon

 Pawn Structures 139

28 .1 xd3 l. a8 29 �g3 J.c8 30

323

B b4 a5 31 a3 axb4 32 axb4 A a4 33

.1 b2 X e8 34 � c3 J. d7 35 c5 This

may be regarded as the winning

move. However Black captures,

or does not capture, he is left with

weaknesses. 35 . . . X ea8 36 cxd6

cxd6 37 �f5 Forcing Black to

exchange facilitates X c6. 37 . . .

§¡_xf5 38 gxf5 Ka3 39 ,lc2 *IS

40 l,xa3 l, x a 3 + 41 *fl ,1 b 3 4 2
played 28 . . . g6! with the aim of
.l c6 For the conclusion of the
gaining the key square f5 for his
game, see diagram 1 5 1 .
knight. 29 g4 gxh5 30 gxh5 � f5

being of no use, White tried 29

Afek-Gelfer
hxg6 but after 29 . . . fxg6 30 a3
Te! Aviv, 1980
a5! halting b2-b4, 31 b3 h5 32

tte4 �f5 33 J.f2 •d7 the sup­

remacy of Black's knight over

White's bishop was evident.

Karpov-Miles

Bugojno, 1978

324

White's position appears sound

enough. In reality, he is posi­

tionally lost, since there is little he

can do against the combined

minority attacks on both wings.

The first minority attack, . . .

Black has to contend with the h7-h5, prevents h2-h3 and g3-g4

eventual breakthrough c4-<:5. and prepares for . . . h5--h4 at a

27 . . . �xd3? The white knight propitious moment (h2-h4 leaves

being the more valuable piece, it the g-pawn hopelessly backward).

would have been better to The other minority attack, . . . b7-

exchange on e2. The text move b5, . . . a7-a5 and . . . b5--b4, sup­

lets Karpov display his superb ported by rooks, is bound to lead

technique. to a decisive opening of lines for

140 Pawn Structures

the entry of a black rook, or 31 . . . '2}d2 32 l. el X hd8 33

rooks. Acl d3! 34 cxd3 34 Axd2 cxd2 35

X xd2 dxc2 36 .! xd8 1, xd8 and

Bogoljubow-Reti
the c-pawn queens. 34 . . . JI xd3
Mahrisch-Ostrau, 1923
Or 34 . . . "E:\ x b 3 . 35 Axd2 .l x d 2

36 .l a l f¡e6 37 f¡O X x f2 + ! 38

•xf2 c2 39 J; c l f¡d5 40 f¡e3

X c3 + 41 "1d2 "1d4 42 h4 On 42

X xc2 .1 xc2 + and the king pen­

etra tes on e3. 42 . . . X d3 + ! 0-1

43 f¡xc2 (43 f¡e2 f¡c3) 1, c 3 + 44

f¡d2 Xxcl 45 f¡xcl f¡ c 3 , pur­

loining both b-pawns.

Capablanca-J anowsky

New York, 1913

The dominating factor here is

Black's central pawn mass. White

fails to contain its lust to expand

and is made to suffer accordingly.

16 . .. c5 17 '2}e2 "1f7 18 f3

'2}d6 19 b3 e5! 20 Aa3 l,ac8 21

:1 adl d4 22 '2\cl? Aiming at

'2} d 3 , but inviting the black

knight to settle down on e3. 22 c3

(22 f4 e4) 22 . . . '2\f5 23 A c l Ab5

24 c4, accompanied by Aa3 and

'2}cl-d3, is a tougher defence. 22 Black's doubled pawns mean

. . . .!E:l f 5 2 3 1, f2 '2} e 3 2 4 Jl e l c 4 2 5 that he is 'half' a pawn down and

b4 25 c3 (25 bxc4 11 xc4 etc., sheds that a king and pawn ending is

the c-pawn) 25 . . . cxb3 26 cxd4 unlikely to be tenable for him.

"E:\ c2 loses mate ria!. For his part, White will mount up

25 . . . Aa4 26 Jlee2 '2\ d l 27 pressure against Black's kingside

ªº '2}c3 28 1.ef2 '2\ b l The pi­ pawns and try to activate his cen­

rouettes of the knight are both tral pawns.

attractive and profitable. lt has 27 g4! A typical minority at­

gone out of its way to reach the tack. After g4-g5 the central

original square of White's queen's pawns will become mobile. 27 . . .

knight. 29 Jl.b2 c3 30 '2}b3 On 30 b6 28 b4! Thwarting . . . c6---c5. 28

Aal '2} a 3 (d2) decides. 30 . . . . f¡b7 29 "1f2 b5 30 a4! Prevent­

Axb3 31 axb3 3 1 cxb3 c2 and . ing counterplay by . . . a6-a5 and

d3. . . . f¡a6. If 30 . . . bxa4 3 1 g a l.

 Pawn Structures 141

30 . . . .l d 4 31 �bl � e 5 32 we3 minority attack on the kingside.

1, d7 32 . . . .1 xf5 33 gxf5 g d7 34 31 �hl it d 4 + 32 fie2 K g 8 33

d4 is clearly in White's favour. 33 ¡, d3 !! a4 34 !! hd 1 Facilita tes . . .

a5 Now White is free to divert his g4. However, on a king move,

attentions to other fronts. Black gains space with . . . c6 and

33 . . . X e6 34 l. bfl .1 de7 35 g5 . . . d 5 . 24 . . . g4 Opening another

fxg5 36 l. xg5 .1 h6 37 .11 g3 l. he6 fron t. 35 hxg4 hxg4 36 fi e3 .1 h8!

38 h4 g6 39 1, g5 h6 Otherwise 37 .1 b3 37 fxg4 is answered by 37

White plays 40 h5 40 :1 g4 I!I g7 41 . . . .11 g8 38 '1¡ [3 1, f8 + 39 •e3

d4 'f,c8 42 � f8 + fib7 Forced, !tf4.

due to the vulnerability of the a6 37 . . . .1 h2 38 li d2 l. d4! 39

pawn. 43 e5 g5 44 fie4 ,1 ee7 45 �e2c640 � c 3 g 3 4 1 1, d 3 ? 4 1 f4

hxg5 hxg5 46 .1 f5 •c8 47 .1 gxg5 is essential, immediately. 41 . . .

l. h7 48 JI. h5 * b7 49 l. xh7 .1 xh7 1, h l 42 f4 ll fl 43 f5+ fif6 44 c3

50 X f8 1-0 l. xd3 + 45 fi xd3 d5! The central

pawn phalanx is overpowering. 46

Kan-Capa blanca
b3 c4 + 46 . . . 1, a 1 is simpler. 47
Moscow, 1936
bxc4 bxc4 + 48 fie3 .1 a l! 48 . . .

,i c l ? 49 I.t a 2 !. 49 *f3 l,xa3 50

'l¡xg3 lf 50 lI e3 .1 b3, coupled

with d5-<l4.

50 l, x c 3 + 51 fih4 .l c l!

Hindering g2-g4-g5 ( + ). 52 g4

.l h l + 53 'lig3 d4 54 f;l a 2 d3 55

fig2 1, el 56 * f2 1, xe4 �1

Model play by Capablanca.

Foltys-Fine

Margate, 1937

Unlike the previous example,

here Black's doubled pawns con­

stitute an advantage in that they

are an integral part of a powerful

pawn phalanx. With accurate

play, White should draw, but his

task is not easy.

23 . . . b5 24 lit fd2 c5 25 fi f2

1, a4 26 fie2 fif7 27 l. d3 'l¡e6 28

'l/d2 11 b8 29 11. c3 g5 30 h3 h5 As

he did when playing White in the

preceding example, Capablanca Black's central pawn phalanx,

centralizes his king and prepares a his united chain of pawns (against
142 Pawn Structures

White's two pawn islands) and his occupy the wrong-coloured

centralized king give him a clear squares. A neat breakthrough fol­

edge. lows:

28 f3 28 '2) d 5 at once is more 1 . . . f4!! 2 ll, e4 2 gxf4 suc­

tenacious. 28 . . . l. b4 29 '2)d5 cumbs to 2 . . . ll, g 4 + 3 wd2

Otherwise . .. . 1:1 d4, . . . g6 and . . . '2)xd3 4 wxd3 .;l d l! when White

f5. 29 . . . Jlxd5 30 X xd5 f5 31 c3 is helpless against 5 . . . _¡l x b 3 !.

g a4 32 l. el fxe4 33 fxe4 X al+ 2 . . . fxg3 3 '2)g2 Jlg4 + 4 wd2

34 'itid2 l. xel 35 wxel 1. n '2) x c 4 + ! 5 bxc4 b3 6 .;lbl J,,f5! 7

Black has created weaknesses in wc3 _¡l x b l 8 wxb3 *e5 9 wxa3

the white pawn structure. lf now Jle4 10 '2) e l g2 0-1

36 g3, to thwart 36 . . . l. f4, 36 . . .

Spassky-R. Byrne
ª f3 .
San Juan, 1974
36 'itie2 l. f4 37 'itie3 l. xh4 38

�d2 1.g4 39 wf3 Ií f 4 + 40 'itie3

h4 41 A di g5 42 g3 hxg3 43 l. gl

g4 44 X xg3 c4! 45 A gl 'iti b5 46

lit{ hl g3 47 .1 gl l. f2 48 .1 xg3

.l x b 2 49 gg8 1, c 2 50 l. b8 +

'itia6 51 l. a8 + wb7 52 l. a3 'itic6

53 1, a 6 + 'itid7 54 1, a 3 'iti e6 55

*º 'itif6 56 'itig3 'itig5 57 *º

'itih4 58 l. a6 Or 58 'itie3 'iti g 3 . 58

. . . l! xc3 + 0-1

Minev-Portisch In the ending above, the pawn

Halle, 1967 formation is again the determin­

ing factor. Sooner or later, the

advanced pawns on b5 and a6,

supported by White's better

bishop, will assure White of a

clear edge.

Simisch-Alekhine

Dresden, 1926

Black can boast of one compact

pawn chain as against White's

three pawn islands. In the absence

of other factors, this advantage is

White's extra pawn is more often decisive.

than negated by the advanced 30 . . . .!il a3 + 31 •e2 If 3 1 � b3

state of the black pawns, coupled 'ª- da8 32 l. xa3 � xa3 + 33 •e2

with the fact that his own pawns � c3 and so on. 31 . . . ;¡ c3 32 a4!
 Pawn Structures 143

17 b4! If now 17 . . . cxb4 18

Jl,b6 coupled with 19 c5. 17 . . .

l. ac8 18 '1,i!rb3 Jl,d6 19 .1 fdl '1,i!re7

20 bxc5 Jl,xc5 21 Jl,xc5 1, xc5 22

1, a l 1,d8 23 � a 4 A prelude to

�b4.

23 . .. Jl. f5 24 l. b4 Jl. c8 25

la b6 .1 d6 If 25 . . . .1 xa5 26 d6

and 27 Jl,f3 26 'flb4 "ilfc7 27 .1 xd6

'jjxd6 28 ¡g bl 'f!c7 29 'l,i!ra4 i,d7

Ji a 3 Avoiding 32 . . . ªxc4 33 30 'l,i!ra3 Ji xa5 31 A xb7 '1,i!rxb7 32

� a2, with counterplay. 33 ¡!\ b7 + 'l,i!rxa5 The connected passed

11 d7 34 :1 db2 1, xa4 35 1, xd7 + pawns are unstoppable.

'f'ixd7 36 1, b 7 + wc6 37 �xg7 32 . . . g6 33 h3 'flbl + 34 '1ih2

ª xc4 E ven though White pre­ Jl,f5 35 'jjc3 �e4 36 Jl,f3 '1,i!rd4 37

sently re-establishes material �xd4 exd4 38 g4 il.,c8 39 c5 a5 40

equality, the ending is easily won c6 wf8 41 d6 1--0
for Black.

38 :!1I g6 wd5 39 .1 xh6 � c2 +

Polugayevsky-Tal
40 wfi c4 41 �h8 c3 42 h4 Or 42
Leningrad, 1971
Iií c8 f4! 43 exf4 wd4, shepherding

the pawn to queendom. 42 . . .

� d2 43 'fiel 43 � c8 c2 is worse.

43 .. . l. xg2 44 g c8 c2 45 h5 i, h2

46 h6 1,xh6 47 �xc2 .l h l + 48

'1id2 1, h2 + 49 '1id3 .; xc2 0-1

Geller-Físcher

Curacao, 1962

21 a4 'lif6? A curious slip for an

ex-World Champion. 21 . . . a5,

hindering White's next move, is

correct.

22 a5! a6 Obligatory, to stop 23

a6, but the resultant enfeeblement

A race between two pawn of the dark squares and the hole

majorities: White's is the more on b6 are lasting handicaps. 23

mobile. 'li b2 Jl. e6 24 'li c3 JI ac8 25 'li b4

144 Pawn Structures

h5 25 . . . c5 + , preventing •c5, l. f4 33 f3 33 •xb7 is more eco­

exposes the pawn on b7. nomical. 33 . . . e4 34 •xb7 •e5

26 .l f3 hxg4 27 hxg4 l. cd8 28 35 •xa6 *d4 36 l. xe4 + l. xe4

l. xd8 l. xd8 29 *c5 .l. d4 30 c4 37 fxe4 g4 38 * b7 g3 39 a6 g2 40

_txg4 31 _txg4 l,xg4 32 *b6 a7 gl (*) 41 a8(*) 1--0
16 Pros and Cons

Tal-Spassky

Sochi, 1973

variation 16 . . . bxc5 17 dxc5

.:Elxc5 1 8 -.,b4 -.,e7 19 l, a c l , win­

ning a piece. 16 . . . -.,e7 17 b4

18 .lhel? An instructive error, .1 fd8 18 i!t'c2 .:Elf6 19 .:Ele5 .:Eld5

ceding the key square c4 to the 20 a3 b5 Undesirable; but a better

black knight. This could, and plan is hard to come by. 21 J_e4

should, be averted by 18 .:Elxg6 g6 22 h4 a5 23 bxa5 .1 a8 24 a4 b4

hxg6, notwithstanding the ensu­ 25 jJ_ xd5 Remaining wi th a good

ing straightening of Black's knight versus a bad bishop.

kingside pawns. 25 . . . l. xd5 26 1, abl f6 27

18 . . . J_xd3 19 .1 xd3 b5 fol­ .:El g4 X ad8 28 l. xb4 j}_ c8 29 .:El e3

lowed by . . . .l h b 8 and . . . b5-b4 l. 5d7 30 .1 b8 e5 On other moves,

with a menacing attack (the game, White plays .:Elc4. Now he obtains

nevertheless, ended in a draw a mighty passed pawn. 31 d5! cxd5

after 57 moves). 32 c6 ,1d6 33 c7 X f8 34 1,xd5 f5

35 -.,c5 ,le6 36 -.,xe7 Xxe7 37

Portisch-Radulov
Xxc8 J;xc8 38 .l d 8 + Xe8 39
Moscow, 1977
l. xe8 + l. xe8 40 .:El d5! 1--0

The Hungarian Grandmaster

Gligoric-Tukmakov
played 16 c5!, ceding the outpost
Odessa, 1975
d5 to hinder the freeing . . . c6--c5,

activating the bishop. The tactical The diagram was reached after

justification of 16 c5! lies in the 1 d4 .:Elf6 2 c4 g6 3 .:Elc3 d5 4 cxd5

146 Pros and Cons

Spassky-Petrosian
�xdS S e4 �xc3 6 bxc3 .lg7 7
Moscow, 1966
J..c4 c5 8 �e2 �c6 9 J..e3 0-0 10

0-0 �as 11 .id3 cxd4 12 cxd4 b6

13 l. el e6 (337)

Here, deviating from the cus­

tomary 1 4 f3, 1 4 *a4, or 1 4 *d2,

Gligoric deliberately opened up

the long diagonal for his oppon­

ent's bishop and acquiesced in the

immobilization of his pawn

formation in the centre by playing

14 eS!?.

The idea behind this anti-posi­

tional move is to mount a

kingside attack after 14 . . . .ib7

with 15 �f4 *e7 16 *g4 �c6 17 Petrosian voluntarily surren­

h4 and the black knight will find it
dered the key square d4 with 17
difficult to reach d5.
. . . c4!, thus neutralizing White's
Although Black actually suc­
attacking chances on the queen­
cumbed in 24 moves, the double­
side. After 18 .i_e2 116! Black was
edged position offers chances to
ready to answer a4-a5 with . . .
both sides.
b6--b5 and b4-b5 with . . . a6--a5.

Thereafter he was free to pursue

his operations on the other flank

Bertok-Fischer
unmolested.
Stockholm, 1982

Fischer played 17 . . . c4!,

Botvinnik-Smyslov
voluntarily ceding the key square
Moscow, 1957
d4 to the white knight, for the

sake of increasing the pressure This position was reached after

along the b-fíle. 26 moves in the first match game

 Pros and Cons 147

Hort-Ljubojevic

Montreal, 1979

for the World Championship in

1957. Correct is 27 c4 (not fearing

17 . . . tl-f3), to hinder . . . c4 and

White's queenside pawn major­
deprive the black pieces of the use
ity counterbalances Black's con­
of dS. Instead White played:
trol of eS. After 30 *g l the game
27 X d2? X xd2 + 28 .i xd2 c4!
should end in a draw. Instead
and had to cope with . . . f7-f6
White embarks upon an inauspi­
and . . . e7-e6, accompanied by
cious transaction.
. . . _i f8 . The surrender of d4
30 c4? '2)xb4 31 X bl '2id3 32
turns out to be but a minor Ií xb7 '2)c5 The disappearance of
concesion. 29 _ie3 f6! 30 .id4 the b-pawns has furnished the

*r, 31 ti-dl a4! Fixing the white knight an unassailable post. 33

pawns on the queenside. 32 tl'e2

1,c7 h5 34 *gl *f8 35 *ª X b8

�d5 33 *gl .if8 34 t3 Despair, B l a c k ' srook, soon joined by bis

in anticipation of fxeS coupled king, infiltrates easily into White's

with . . . e6. 34 fxe5 35 fxg6 + camp. The difference in the roles

hxg6 36 ..txe5 e6 37 tl-f2 + fle8 played by the respective kings,

38 ti-f6 _txa3 39 tl'xg6 + *d7 40 rooks and minor pieces is glaring.

ti-f'f+ ..te7. 36 X c6 •e7 37 x c 7 + •r6 38

Botvinnik sealed 41 _tf6 and •e3 K b 3 + 39 *d2 Kb7 40 Xc8

resigned, realizing that after 41 . . . •e5 41 flc3 X b3 + 42 •c2 fld4

tl'c5 + and 42 . . . a3 the a-pawn is 43 X c6 X c3 + 44 *d2 11 a3 45

unstoppable. •c2 .1, a 2 + 0-1

17 Active King;

Central Supremacy

Tal-Lisitsin * xc6! €) xcS 39 * xcS X e6 40

Leningrad, 1956 •xdS X b6 41 b4 axb4 42 axb4

*e7 43 •es .lf6 44 Xd4! Cut­

ting off the black king.

44 . . . xrs+ 45 •b6 xr6+ 46

•c7 X rs 47 X e4 + The further
the black king from the passed

pawn, the better. 47 . . . *f6 48

•c6 X f2 49 g4 hS The last gasp.

50 gxhS *gS Sl bS fS 52 X b4! f4

53 b6 f3 54 b7 1--0

Keres-Eliskases

Prague, 1937

Having sacrificed a pawn to

weaken Black's pawn formation

and block his bishop, White's

king infiltrates Black's camp via

the black squares.

25 *d2! €)g3 26 •c3 f4 Free­

ing the bishop. 27 *d4 The first

station in a long career.

27 . . . � f S 2 8 1i d 2 ,l e 6 2 9 €:)cS

Jl h6 30 •eS! i,xd3 31 cxd3

.1 x h 4 3 2 *d6 .1 h6 + 33 * c7 The
active king more than compens­

ates for White's material deficit, Black's knight and queen are

which is only temporary. 33 . . . inferior to White's bishop and

€:)fS 34 *b7 €)d4 Threatening to queen. However, as no immediate

create a passed pawn with . . . breakthrough suggests itself,

l. h2 and . . . f3 . 35 ll f2 aS 36 White must mobilize his king to

JI xf4 €)e6 37 I.l g4 + *f8 38 create winning chances.

 Active King; Central Supremacy 149

31 •f2 •g7 32 •e3 *f6 33 .1, e 8 + *f3 40 Xel _ld4 41 b4

*d3 �f7 34 •el *h4 35 *b3! *g4 42 .l d l .tf2 43 Xd5 .1 f7 44

lgnoring the kingside, White's •el f4 45 * d l f3 46 a4 _lg3 47

king penetrates behind the lines l. d4 + *h3 48 _te3 f2 49 .txf2

on the other wing. .txf2 0-1

35 . . . *xh2 36 *ª4 �h4 37

*b5 �d8 38 _lh3 g5! The best Gelfer-Manievich

chance: securing the square e5 for Jerusalem, 1985

his knight. 39 •e6 gxf4 40 •b7

�e5 41 e5 bxe5 42 bxe5 �d7 43

*d4+ 43 _txd7 *xd7 44 c6 is

insufficient, owing to 44 . . . *f7,

threatening to advance the f­

pawn.

43 . . . *f6? A blunder. 43 . . .

•g6 should draw. 44 *gl + •f8

45 _txd7 dxe5 46 *xe5 + *d6 47

*xd6+ 1�

Kavalek-Rogoff

USA, 1975
40 _l e6 + ! �xe6 41 dxe6 ,lxe6

The sacrifice has cleared a path

for the white king. 41 . . . c6 would

not do, owing to 42 b5!. 42 *d5

1,e7 43 •e6 •g7 44 � f2 X e4 45

l. el .1. e7 46 b5 *f6 47 X al l. e4

48 • xe7 K xe4 + 49 • xb6 d5 50

*ª7 d4 51 b6 •e5 52 b7 X b4 53

b8 ( *) + l. xb8 54 • xb8 d3 55

•e7 •e4 56 •d6 •e3 57 •e5 d2

58 .1, a l •el 59 *f6 dl (�) 60

l;xdl •xdl 61 *g7 1�

32 . . . f6! Compelling White's

Lombardy-Ree
reply (33 _txf6 j_d4 34 .l e 6 +
Haifa, 1976
•d5 etc.) and thus enabling

Black's king to advance towards White's next move, opening

the centre, to support the passed avenues for his king, transforms a

pawn on f5. barren position into a dynamic

33 !t e 6 + •d5 34 )lxf6 •e4 one.

35 11 f7 'A e7 36 ,;, f8 .t e5! Oblig­ 50 d4! 1.f6 51 1. h 7 + 1, f7 52

ing the white rook to cede the f­ !1 h5 exd4 53 * d3 * d6 54 * xd4

file. 37 ». f6 _ld4 38 X f8 .lg7 39 X f6 55 1: g5! a6 56 .1, h5 •e6 57
150 Active King; Central Supremacy

..-xdl + 16 "1xd2 0-0 17 J_xg7

•xg7 18 �d4 (347)

Evaluation: White's central

control is more relevant than

Black's queenside pawn majority.

Kasparov-Natsis

Malta, 1980

.lh8 *d6 58 X d 8 + "1c7 59 1.d5

a5 60 a4 •c6 61 c5 bxc5 + ? Cor­

rect is 6 1 . . . b5. 62 l. xc5 + *b6

63 .1 b5 + f¡a6 64 "1e5 l. c6 65

ll d5 .1 c4 66 X d6 + ! "1h7 67

l:d4! aer 68 "1xf5 •c6 69 "1e5

"1c5 70 X e4 1--0

Amos-Martz

Mayagüez, 1971 The struggle revolves around

White's central pawns. If he can

maintain them, they will prove a

more potent weapon than Black's

majority of pawns on the queen's

flank.

17 "1e3 b6? 1 7 . . . e6 1 8 j_c4 (or

18 dxe6) 18 . . . X b8 (trying for

. . . b5), though hardly satisfact­

ory, sets White more problems. 18

.l bc l e6 If 18 . . . i_d7 (1 8 . . .

1, d 7 1 9 i.b5) 1 9 J_ a 6 and 20 A c 7

or I 9 l. c7 first. 19 i_c4 e5?! Con­

ceding White a protected passed

1 d4 �f6 2 c4 g6 3 �c3 d5 4 pawn. Admittedly, even after 19

cxd5 �xd5 5 e4 �xc3 6 bxc3 . . . *f8 20 1. h d l •e7 21 e5!

J..g7 7 J_c4 c5 8 �el �c6 9 J..e3 Black is pushed: 21 . . . exd5 22

cxd4 10 cxd4 b5!? 11 i.d5 11 J..xd5 Xb8 23 Kc7+ Xd7 24

i_xb5 ..- a s + 1 2 �c3 is drawish. .1 xd7 + i_xd7 25 i_xf7.

1 1 . . . j_d7 12 J_xc6 1 2 .l c l is a 20 j_b3 j_d7 21 1.c7 a5 22 d6

viable altemative. 12 . . . J_xc6 13 b5 23 f4! Creating a supported

d5! j_d7 1 3 . . . J_ x a l costs mater­ passed pawn and opening the f­

ial. 14 i.d4 ..-a5 + 11 ..-dl file. 23 . . . exf4 + 24 "1 xf4 l. a6

 Active King; Central Supremacy 151

25 e5 a4 26 �d5 a3 27 an
Ka4+ 28 •e3 �e6 29 �xe6

fxe6 30 � ffi 1--0

Romanovsky-Stahlberg

Moscow, 1935

Black's isolated pawns require

protection and there is not much

he can do about the forward

march of the white king. 4 *(5 fllxg3 5 fllxc5 + *g8 6

1 . . . itb2 + The reader is ad­ itc4 + * h8 6 . . . * h 7 is prefer­

vised to work out White's winning able. 7 fllg4 fllel 8 *g6! fllcl 9

method after the passive 1 . . . itd7 itgl + 10 f,f7 *h7 11

fllc7. 2 •e3 fllcl + 3 *e4 fllel + fllí5 + g6 12 itd7 1--0

l8 lnducing Weaknesses

Euwe
351 � ■, ;, � . ! i•

B �
½,,,01. i -
-�
iB �
-W,J, j_ �Wií
iB mi � l
A

�1 i --
� ½ � � ½ , ,, e'i .

, , - iW , wt -

■ ¿ ■i■ ■
■
■
� �1/.
��
ij , � "n
�$. "'•
-

■,, ■ � E � B
�.,■-■ f1 ,�
� • -
-
� ,él, �/'0!. ,,

.._.....
- �__¡¡
m.;
'ª'
� z �

· · · 'ltf 4. 23 iE:ig2 ,i.c7 24 .1 fel h5

25 h3 iE:ih7 26 A xe8 + .1 xe8 27

l. e 1 I'. b8 28 'lt e1 iE:l g5 29 iE:l eS

� simple, . instructive example.
fxe5
.
30 '/txg5 e4 and Whit
1 e
'Yh1te establishes a winning posi­
resigned 6 moves later.
tion by means of direct threats: 1
Sel dom has a loss of time ( 1 8
'/td3 g6 l · · · f5 2 <E:le6 2 \'th3 h5 3
· · · J.h5-f7) proved so beneficial.
g4 If now 3 . . . '/td7 4 f5!; or 3 . . .

*g74gxh5 .1. h 8 5 h 6 + '

Hort-Dückstein
Alekhine-Lasker
Vese/y na Morave, 1968
New York, 1924

The vulnerability of the white

pawn on d4 enables Black to in­

duce lasting weaknesses in

White's kingside pawn structure

18 · · · jth5! 19 g4 Forced. 19

. . . jtf7 The dainty manoeuvre of

the bishop was designed to en­

feeble the b8-h2 diagonal: its

weakness is to be the mainstay of

Black's success. 20 bxc6 ¡, c8 21

'1th2 bxc6 22 f5 Otherwise 22 Not content with ¡ cxd6 j_xd3

iE:ie6. 22 · · · "itd6 Threatening ·23 2 l. fd l , or 1 jt xf5 iE:l xf5 2 iE:l a5

 Inducing Weakness 153

and so on, White cripples Black's 'l\lt'J'Xg2 + ! A harmonious conclu­

pawn structure with 1 j}_a6! bxa6 sion to a well-executed attack. 29

Forced. 2 cxd6. •xg2 .i d 2 + + 0-1 lt is mate in

three.

Polugayevsky-Ftacnik
Korchnoi-Fischer
Lucerne, 1982
Curacao, 1962

21 . . . Qib6! Black exploits the

The seemingly insignificant fact
absence of a white pawn from h2
that the white pawn stands on h3
to tempt White into 22 j}_a5,
instead of h2 affords Black a
which would be refuted by 22 . . .
chance to undermine the white
l. xa5 23 '21 xa5 dxe5, when
pawn on f4, after which White's
White's position crumbles.
position collapses.
Korchnoi played 22 h5 and the
19 . . . d5! 20 cxd5 The attempt
game ended in a draw on move
to keep the position blocked with
4 1.

20 e5 is answered by 20 . . . '21 e4

21 Qixe4 dxe4, and . . . h5-h4!. 20 Fine-Winter

. . . h4!! Anyhow! 21 Qixh4 Qlxh4 Nottingham, 1936

22 gxh4 �xf4 23 dxe6 fxe6 24 e5

White's position is shaky: 24 . . .

l. xc3 coupled with 25 . . . Qixe4 is

one of severa) black threats. The

text move, however, unveils the

long diagonal, of which Black

takes brilliant advantage.

24 . . . j}_ c 5 + 25 *hl Qih5!

Diverting the white queen, so as

to play . . . �g3 with tempo. 26

�xh5 �g3 27 Qid5 On 27 Qie4

simply 27 . . . j}_xe4. Or 27 �g4 In the following example White

j}_xg2 mate. 27 . . . .1 xd5 28 .1 f1 obtains ample material for his

154 Inducing Weakness

sacrificed bishop. More to the

point, the abandoned bishop en­

ables him to wreak havoc on

Black's uncastled king.

20 A. xa6! bxa6 20 . . . l. a8 2 1

"itb3!. 21 "itxc6 ,a,d8 22 "itxe6

and White won sorne 10 moves

la ter.

Rubinstein--Maroczy

Gothenburg, 1920
latter case, 3 e4 is of no avail,

owing to 3 . . . <E)d4 4 l. d2 c3.

Kevitz-Capablanca

New York, 1931

Black has no apparent weak­

ness but White's domination of

the queen's file and the ideal plac­

ing of his pieces make possible a

lightning attack on the adversary

king.
The pawn on a2 is a liability,
29 h4! f6 Both 29 . . . h5 30 "itf5
but Capablanca's next move,
and 29 . . . h6 30 h5 result in the
assuming control of the black
Ioss of a pawn. 30 "itd5 + wh8 31
squares, reveals that White's king
h5 <E) f8 32 h6 <E)g6 33 "ite6! 11 f8
is vulnerable as well.
34 X d7 gxh6 35 A_h4! 1---0 35 . . .
32 • • . g5! 33 "itf2 This loses,
<E) xh4 36 "ite7.
but 33 f5 or 33 fxg5 "ite5 + is just

as bad: 34 ,a, h l (34 w g l 1. c l +

35 .i_fl .i_c4; or 35 1. d l "it d 4 + )

Grefe-R. Byrne
34 . . . Xcl + 35 1. d l "itb2 36

1 . . . f4!! A devastating stroke: "itel 1, x d l 37 "itxdl .i_xa2 33 .. .

after 2 exf4 or 2 gxf4 <E)f5 the "itxf2 34 l. xf2 gxf4 35 X f3 There

passed c- and d-pawns soon is no time for 35 l. xf4 .i_xa2,

become mobile. Note that in the after which the a-pawn promotes.
 Inducing Weakness 155

35 . . . 1, a8 36 A f2 f3! The idea f]b7 38 A ti + f]a8 39 g f8 +

behind this desperado offer is to *b7 40 b4 The noose tightens. 40

win the a-pawn, be it after 37 . . . -ªxg4 41 g ti + *ª8 4 1 . . .

1, xf3 1l. xa2, or after 37 §J. xf3 f]c8 (41 . . . f¡a6? 42 §J.b8) is met

� b8-b2, when the presence ofthe by42 §J. e 5 c 5 4 3 .!!I c 7 + fJ d 8 4 4

bishop on f3 bars the rook from .i,t xa7 42 fJc2 h5 42 . . . b5 43 c5 is

that square. There remains: somewhat more tenacious. 43 a4

37 [Link] 1, b8 38 � xf3 11 b2 + h4 43 . . . 1, g8 lasts a little longer.

Revealing the third merit of 36 . . . 44 fJd3 €)g5 45 X f8 + \t1b7 46

f3 ! : the removal of the white 1: b 8 + fJa6 47 §J.d2! .1. g 3 + 48

bishop from his second rank f]c2 1--0

makes it possible for Black's rook

to enter b2 with check, thus dis­

Botvinnik-Alekhine
pensing him from defending the a­
Avro, 1938
pawn with 38 . . . 1, a8 and enab­

ling him to capture the coveted a­

pawn. 39 f] g 3 l: x a 2 4 0 �c3 � a l

0- 1 4 1 §J.c4 §J.xc4 42 Jlixc4 a2 43

1,a4 1, g l +.

Karpov-Pomar

Nice, 1974

White's control of the only

open file will suffice for victory­

provided he can induce an addi­

tional weakness in Black's pawn

structure. This is precisely what

he sets out to achieve with:

27 h4! €)d7 On 27 . . . \t1f7 (27

Whereas Black's rook and . . . gxh4 28 €) f3 ) comes 28 €) f3 g4

knight are ineffectual, White's 29 €)e 1 fJe6 30 €) d 3 fJf5 31 g3

rook, bishop, pawns and king col­ \t}e4 32 €) f4 28 'iJ. c7 X ti 29 €) f3!

laborate harmoniously to weave a g4 Or 29 . . . l. g7 30 hxg5 fxg5 3 1

mating net around the black mon­ €)xg5 30 €) e l f5 31 €)d3 f4 Halt­

arch. ing 32 €)f4 and hoping for 32

35 §J. a 5 + ! b6 35 . . . f]d7 (d6) €)b4 f3 or 32 €)xf4? l. xf4 33

allows 36 Kd8+ f]e7 37 1, a 8 a6 l. xd7 X xd4. However, after the

38 1, a 7 36 §J.d2 €)e4 37 1l.f4+ tranquil 32 f3! gxf3 33 gxf3 a5 34

156 Inducing Weakness

a4 "1f8 35 JI c6 Black's position

was studded with holes. 1-0 (in 5 1

moves).

Barden-N.

Simultaneous game, 1971

Draw? Of course. But dead­

drawn positions are not impreg­

nable.

1 . . . e6? Gratuitously enfeeb­ pawn. 3 "1h3 e5 4 "1h4 Xe6? 5

ling both his second rank and the "1g5 �h7 + 6 "1h6 1-0

black squares. 2 "1g2 h5? Weak­ This is how the bulk of simul­

ening the square g5 and the g6 taneous games are decided!

19 A Diagonal

Bianchetti, "irxh4 5 <E:if7 mate. 5 �xh7 +

1925 �xh7 6 <E:if7 mate.

Troitzky,

1930

After 1 J,.b2 Black cannot

avoid the loss of his rook: 1 . . .

1. f8 2 1, d 7 + * g 8 3 .1. g 7 + *h8

4 •a2! Zugzwang: 4 . . . .l. a8 + 5 1 �r6+ •hS 2 �rs+ •h6 3

.l. a7 +. J,. e 3 + *g7 4 �gS+ *f8 5

1 . . . 1,h6 2 1, g 4 + *h7 3 J,. c S + J_d6 Black's moves are

.l. g 7 + *h8 4 *bl! is a parallel. forced. 6 �eS! A double pin,

which wins the bishop. 6 . . . *g8

7 J,.xd6 �d8 8 �g3 + *h8 9

J,.eS + f6 10 �gS! and wins.

Smyslov-Bisguier

Moscow, 1955

In the following examples

Black's blocked bishop has no say

in the battle of long diagonals:

30 . . . l. cd8 31 1i1 xd8 .1. xd8 32

�b6 � c 8 3 3 h 3 .l. d 5 34 �b4 �e8

1 <E:! xe4! <E:¡ cxe4 2 .l. xe4 <E:¡ xe4 35 J,.d4 J,.b536 Jl c l .1. d 8 3 7 �cS

3 l.xe4 �xe4 4 <E:¡g5! �g6 4 . . . �d7 38 �gS 1--0

158 A Diagonal

moment . . . J,. h l can be adequat.

ely met with f2-f4, but as we shall

see, Black's chances should not be

underrated.

19 .1 el More active is 19 a3
'
intending dxc5 and b3--b4. 19 . . .

ltc8! 20 ltc3? Wrongly distanc­

ing the queen from the square

fl -in response to an eventual . . .

lth3, threatening mate on g2.

Correct is 20 e4 fxe4 21 .1 xe4

J,.g5!? (21 . . . J,.xe4 22 ltxe4

favours White) 22 ,l e 3 !. Or 21 . . .

e5! 22 1, e 3 e4 23 l,xe4 lth3 24

ltxf3 and 25 l,xe7, with a draw

by repeti tion after 25 . . . X f7 26

l. e8 + l. f8 27 X e7 20 . . . X f6 21
a3? 2 1 ltd3, with e3--e4 in mind, is

essential. 21 . . . lte8! Hereafter

Black's mating threats prevail. 22

dxc5 lth5 23 h4 Defending

against 23 . . . lt h2 + !. 23 . . . ltg4

Here too, after 1 ltel! the white 24 fth2 bxc5 25 .l h l Xg6 26

ftgl J,.xh4 27 lta5 h6 �l

queen soon infiltrated behind the

lines, with disastrous conse­

Terres-Alekhine
quences for Black.
Seville, 1922

Smyslov-Kasparov

Moscow, 1981

The unveiling of the long diag­

onal spells instant disaster for the

Kasparov has sacrificed the white king.

exchange to gain absolute control 24 . . . d4! 25 cxd4 25 J_ g l lasts

of the long diagonal. True, at the a little longer. 25 . . . cxd4 26

 A Diagonal 159

J. xd4 � xd4 27 .;, xd4 l. xd4 28 18 . . . '2!4g5 19 exf4 '2¡xf4 20

'2¡xd4 \'txh3! 29 gxh3 '2!f2 + + 30 Ke3 '2! x e 2 + 21 •xe2 '2¡ x f3 + 22

,wgl '2!xh3 mate. gxf3 \'tg5 + 23 f; hl l. xf3 24

K x f3 \'tg4 0-1

Lasker-Reshevsky

Nottingham, 1936
Gelfer-Grinberg

Te/ Aviv, 1984

Lasker, in bis mid-sixties,

misses a tactical twist.

19 . . . '2!g5! 20 axb5 axb5 20 . . .

'2!xf3 + 21 -W,xf3!. 21 J..xb5??

Overlooking the ensuing com­

27 l. xd5! cxd5 28 K f6 -W,e8 29
bination. The lesser evil is 21 '2!e 1
�d4! 1-0 30 e6 is devastating.
'2! h 3 + 22 f; h l '2!f4 21 . . .

'2! x f3 + 22 gxf3 -W, g 5 + 23 f; h l

-W,g4! 0-1 Alexander-Szabo

Hilversum, 1947

Laurentis-Keres

Tallinn, 1937

Here the pressure along the a8-

h l diagonal yields immediate re­ 21 '2!f6+ ! gxf6 2 1 . . . *h8 22

wards. '2!g5!. 22 -W,g3 + *h8 23 exf6

160 A Diagonal

.zl_xf6 24 'i)e5! .zl_xe5 25 .zl_xe5 + lvkov-Larsen

f6 26 l. xf6! 1-0 On 26 . . . l. xf6 Beverwijk, 1964

comes 27 � g 5 .

Keene-Kovacevic

Amsterdam, 1973

By means of an original

exchange sacrifice, which White

must accept, Black creates annoy­

ing threats along the al-h8 diag­

onal.

20 . . . K c5! 21 .zl_xc5 dxc5

Black's position appears solid Threat: 22 . . . ..-e5 22 ,1d5 Ifnow

enough. Yet Keene contri ves to 22 . . . b6 23 e5! .zl_xe5 24 *d7. 22

undermine it with a few subtle . . . e6! 23 ií' xc5! 23 1, xc5 * g3 is

strokes. weaker. 23 . . . *g3 24 J; g5

18 f5! exf5 Otherwise White ií'f4 + 25 'lrlc2 f5 Cutting off the

exchanges on e6 and proceeds to white rook.

win the e6 pawn by means of 26 exf5 exf5 27 Itl d 1 b6! 28 ..-e7

.zl_h3, <2id4 and, if necessary, l. e l. Guarding against 28 . . . ..-e5

19 <2id4 ií'd7 20 .zl_h3! Here and which is why he avoids 28 ií'xb6

on his next move the pedestrian ..-e5 29 A d8 .zl. f6 30 .l. xf8 +

'i)xc6 etc. is playable. The text if¡ x f8 . 28 . . . ..-xh4 29 I;td7? Time

move compels Black to weaken pressure. 29 ..-e3 is neces­

the long diagonal. sary, acquiescing in an inferior

20 . . . g6 21 .zl_xf5! A combina­ ending after 29 . . . .zl. h6. 29 . . .

tion, exploiting the potential of .zl_f6 30 ..-e6+ f,h8 31 *d6

his pieces to the ful!. 21 . . . gxf5 ..-n + 32 iti d l ..-n + 33 itic2

22 Ila7! ..-xa7 23 '2¡xc6 23 '2!xf5 �e2 + 34 'lrl c l ií'b2 + 35 iti d l

is probably more accurate. Now ..-hl + 36 f,e2 Ke8+ 37 'lrlf2

Black should avail himself of the ..-el mate

surprising resource 23 . . . .zl_a3!. As Larsen points out, if, in the

23 . . . *d7? 24 '21 xe7 + * g7 25 initial position, the white king had

*h5! 1-0 stood on b l instead of on c l , he

 A Diagonal 161

could find refuge on a2 and Shrentzel-Shvidler

Black's exchange sacrifice would Te! Aviv, 1985

not have worked.

Geller-Euwe

Zurich, 1953

Black takes advantage of the

pinned white knight on e5 to

unmask the a8-hl diagonal:

16 . . . IE) xg4!! 17 fxg4 JI xh2!

With the idea: 18 \tixh2 A_b4!

White has the makings of a
coupled with . . . •h4 etc. 18 IE)e4
kingside attack. Cool defence
On 18 €1d5?! either 18 . . . 11 xc2
with 22 . . . JI c4 may be object­
or 1 8 . . . A_xd5 (1 9 *xh2 A. b4!) is
ively best, but the former World
adequate; but not 18 . . . A_c5 + ?
Champion boldly sacrifices a
19 •xc5 •h4-owing to 20
rook, diverting the white queen
-W,xf8 + !, when it is Black who is
from the square c2 and launching
mated. With the white knight on
a dangerous counter-attack based
e4, 18 . . . t.c5 + ! would have
on the long-range rays exuded by
crowned Black's efforts. For ex­
his bishop on b7.
ample, 19 •xh2 •h4+ 20 *g2
22 . . . JI h8!?! 23 • xh8 l!I c2
t.xe4 + ; or 1 9 •xc5 •h4 20 IE) f3
The threat is 24 . . . 1, xg2 + 25
1, h l + 21 *g2 •h3+ 22 fi f2
*fl -w,c4+ etc. 24 !,el? Auda­
A_xe4!.
city pays! Later analysis revealed
In the game Black chose 18 . . .
that 24 d5! was White's only
JI xc2? and won after a hard
defence. If then 24 . . . • b6 + 25 struggle.
\ti h l • f2 2 6 K g l A_ x d 5 W h i t e i s

saved by 27 JI e4!. Or 24 . . . A_xd5

Zukertort-Blackburne
25 :l d l! l, x g 2 + 26 \tifl gxh6 27
London, 1883
•xh6!, agam with savmg

chances. Black's threats along the e-file

24 . . . 1, xg2 + 25 \tifl .b3 26 look dangerous. Zukertort

•et •fJ 0-1 chooses to ignore them.

162 A Diagonal

bring it home by mea ns of a pleas­

ing rook sacrifice, creating a

deadly battery along the al-h8

diagonal.

23 e5! fxe5 24 J.xc6 dxc6 25

g d7!! ..-xd7 26 ..-xe5 + •n 26

. . . *g6 is more tenacious, for

now 27 .l e l! would spare White a

great deal of effort. 27 ..-r6 +

•g8 28 *g5+ •ti 29 A e l •e6
29 . . . ll.e6 (29 . . . Ag8 30 ..-r6

25 fxg6! 1,c2 25 . . . jtdS, keep­ mate) 30 fS. 30 *g7+ •es 31

ing the long diagonal closed, is K xe6 + 1--0 (in 73 moves).

indicated. But who can blame

Black for overlooking the remark­ Tal-Spassky

able combination which follows? Tilburg, 1980

26 gxh7 + *h8 27 d5 + e5 28

*b4!! Idea: 28 . . . ..-xb4 29

J. x e S + •xh7 30 Ii( h 3 + *g6 3 1

�g3+ *h6 32 lí f 6 + fJhS 33

�fS+ fJh6 34 J.f4+ and mate

next move.

28 . .. ª 8c 5 2 9 X f8 + fJ x h 7 30

..-xe4+ 'lig7 31 Jl.xe5+ f¡xf8

32 J_ g 7 + ! fJg8 33 •xe7 l--O

Polugayevsky-Korchnoi

Buenos Aires, 1980

A surprise knight-sacrifice en­

ables White to undermine Black's

hold on eS, thus opening the b l ­

h7 diagonal for his bishop.

32 �xh5!! gxh5 33 1: f5 ..-es 34

e5! dxe5 34 . . . <EixeS 35 ll.f6. 35

J.h6 .1 a6 36 d6 Cutting off the

rook on a6 and threatening 37

•gS 36 . . . f6 37 Jl.xg7 •xg7 38

:; g 5 + ! •n 39 ll. g 6 + 1--0

Panno-Tempone

Buenos Aires, 1980

White's positional advantage is 27 ..-c3 at once is premature,

so pronounced, that he is able to beca use of 27 . . . ll.f6 but after 27

 A Diagonal 163

•e8 23 trxg6+ sn 24 j_xe4

fxe4 25 J_a3 1-0

Geller-Velimirovic

Havana, 1971

�xe4! disaster along the long

diagonal can no longer be

averted:

27 . . . Xe8 28 'ijc3 'ije7 29

�xg5 hxg5 30 e4! �e5 Or 30 . . .

f4 3 1 gxf4 gxf4 32 l. xf4! etc. 31

l. xf5! A xf5 32 l. xf5 � g6 33

l. xgS trh7 34 l. h5! 1-0

At first sight, the fianchettoed

Vogt-Casper
Indian bishop on g7 appears to be
East Germany, 1979
in control of the long diagonal ( 1 3

'ijxg4 J_xc3 and . . . J,.xf5). How­

ever, Geller's interrnediate 13 f6!

'2)xf6 14 '2)dxe4!! cornpletely

alters the course of events.

14 . . . '2)xe4 15 '2)xe4 j_xal 16

J..g5 J_f6 Otherwise 17 'ijxal

wins easily. 17 '2)xf6+ 1;1.xf6 18

tral *r, 19 .ll e l The position

envisaged by White. Black's best

defence is 1 9 . . . h6, ternporarily

relieving the pinned rook.

19 . .. X b 8 2 0 X e3 b6 2 1 X f3

Black is behind in developrnent J,.f5 22 g4 'ijh8 23 J_xf6 Regain­

and vulnerable along the e-file. It ing the sacrificed material and

is scarcely surprising that he finds rernaining with a won ending

hirnself defenceless against the (note the estranged black knight).

opening of an additional front: 23 . . . trxf6 24 trxf6+ •xf6 25

the al-h8 diagonal. gxf5 gxf5 26 Xe3! Even better

18 �cxeS! J,.xe5 19 '2)xe5 than the obvious 26 j_h3. 26 . . .

J:xe5 20 trd4! Xe7 20 . .. �d7 �b7 27 1, e 6 + •n 28 J..f3

21 f4. 21 trh8+ *r, 22 'itxh7+ .l g 8 + 29 *fl *f8 30 Ah5 Xg5

164 A Diagonal

3 1 1, e 8 + f,g7 32 1, e 7 + f, h 6 3 3

11 xb7 1, xh5 34 � xa7 K xh2 35

ii d7 1--0

Alatortsev-Smyslov

Moscow, 1942

�d5 is devastating. 17 . . . exf618

�d5! f5 19 exf5 J..xf5 20 J..xg7

f,xg7 21 ,.-d4 + f6 22 g4 J..e6 23

�xf6! 1--0

N ajdorf-Keres

Los Angeles, 1963

Black is a pawn down, his

Indian bishop is neutralized and

White's d-pawn is menacing.

Smyslov overcomes ali these

hurdles at one fell swoop.

25 . . . X xc3! Now recapturing

with the pawn fails against 26 . . .

l. b8 + . So White must acquiesce

in: 26 ,.-xc3 �c4! 27 ,.-b4 a5 28

,.-b3 �xa3+ 29 bxa3 Or 29

,.-xa3 X b8 30 b3 ,.- x e 4 + . 29 . . .

,.-xe4 + 30 ,.-d3 X b8 + 31 f,cl

The rather pathetic state of the
Xc8+ 32 ,a,bl ,.-es! 0-1
bishop on b4 (it belongs on g7)
Triumph of the long diagonal.
contributes to the power exerted

by its counterpart on b2. Black's

Smyslov-Timman
last move, 12 . . . g6, which was
Moscow, 1981
unavoidable, further augmented

White takes advantage of White's prospects along the al-h8

Black's loss of time in the preced­ diagonal.

ing stage to launch an irresistible 13 f4! White wastes no time in

attack along the a l-h8 diagonal. exploiting the absence of a bishop

17 f6! Forcing Black's reply, from the al-h8 diagonal. 13

after which his position crumbles. <E)xf6 + immediately is less good

On 17 . . . J..xf6 1 8 :I! xf6! exf6 1 9 because of 1 3 . . . Xxf6 14 f4 X f7 !

 A Diagonal 165

threatening 15 . . . g d7. 13 . . . 16 . . . f5! 17 e5? 1 7 '2)g3 is more

'2) xd5 On 13 . . . e4 White re­ elastic. 17 . . . c4 18 A c2 '2) c6 19

sponds with 1 4 'i) xf6 + JI xf6 15 g4 '2)e7! 20 *h2 f!Jc6 21 '2)g3 b5

J_xe4! and so on, rather than with 22 a4 a6 23 Ji b l 1, a b8 24 .§.d2

1 5 .§.xf6 *xf6 16 ;1.c2 1, d 8 !. 14 bxa4 25 1, a l .§.a8 26 .§.xa4 f/Jc7

cxd5 .§.xd5 14 . . . *xd5? 1 5 J_c4. 27 X a2 .l. b6 28 gxf5 exf5 29 A el

15 fxe5 .§. e 6 1 6 '2)e2! f/Je7 17 '2)f4 '2)d5 This has been in the air for

'i)d8 18 f/Jf3 1, c8 19 .l. adl a6 20 sorne 10 moves. 30 '2)e2 a5 31

.§.c4! The next phase revolves .§.c2 l. b3! 32 .§.xb3 cxb3 33 ,1 a4

around White's attempt to clear .§.f8 34 .§.b2 '2)e3! The time has

the long diagonal, which Black is come to utilise the benefits of

unable to thwart. dominating the long diagonal. If

20 . . . .§.xc4 21 bxc4 '2\fi The now 35 f/Jxe3 f/Jc6 threatening

blockading attempt 21 . . . '2)e6 mate on g2 and the rook on a4.

fails against 22 l. d6!. 22 e6 '2)g5 35 X fal '2)c4 36 'i)g3 .§.e7 37

23 f!Jd5 Note the respective roles '2\fl "i!rc6 The immediate threat is

played by the bishops. 23 . . . l. c6 38 . . . .§.h4 38 l. xc4 "i!rhl +!

24 f/Je5 '2\ xe6 25 fli h8 + 'lf¡i ti 26 White had prayed for 28 . . .

f/Jxh7 + 'lf¡ie8 27 'ltxe7 + 'lf¡ixe7 "i!rxc4? 29 '2)e3 and so on. 39 *g3

28 '2\ xg6 + 1--0 h5! 0-1

Gligoric-Smyslov Petrosian--Donner

Kiev, 1959 Santa Monica, 1966

387

Smyslov's next move not only Here too domination of the

parries 1 7 f5 but also conceives a long diagonal and pressure along

long-term strategic plan, based on the a-file carried the day.

the domination of the a8-h I diag­ 20 c3! Making way for "i!ra4

onal and control of the white and preventing . . . '2)d4. 20 . . .

squares. .lfe8 21 )l a 6 Jle7 22 "íta4 1,c8

166 A Diagonal

23 A d5! If the knight moves, 24

J}.g5 and X a l is crushing. 23 . . .

lltb8 24 J}.xe6 Causing irrepar­

able damage to Black's pawn for­

mation (24 . . . ,lxe6 25 l,xa7). 24

. . . fxe6 25 lltdl .1 d8 26 lltg4

Black resigned on bis 55th move.

Petrosian--Ree

Skopje, 1972

d5 llth3 32 J.e4 [Zjg4 33 [Zj fi

lltxh4 34 J}.g2 J_a6 35 ,l e l [Link]

0-1 36 <1Pxfl [Zj h 2 + 37 *gl

lltg4.

Spassky-Tal

Tallinn, 1973

Rather than castle, Petrosian

sets about creating 'facts', by

gaining control of d5 and a8.

19 b5! axb5 20 axb5 c5 21 l. al

lltb8 22 0-0 .1 d8 23 l. xa7 lit xa7

24 lltal lltb8 On 24 . . . 1. d 7 25

lita 6, with X al to follow, is

strong. 25 llta2 [Zje7 26 l. al [Zjc8

27 llta8 lltc7 28 lltc6 llte7 29 l. a8

White threatens 30 lltxe6 +
*b7 30 [Zjd5 1--0
(not 30 l,xc5? lltxcl + ). 29 . . .

J}.d5? 30 lltb8 + will not do.

Nikolic-Ribli
However, White's king's position
Portoroz-Ljub/jana, 1985
is ripe for demolition:

An apt exchange sacrifice prises 29 J_ x f2 + ! 30 •xf2 lltf6+

open the long diagonal: 30 lltf5 + saves a few moves.

25 . . . l. xcl! 26 l. xcl [Zjf4 27 31 •et 31 *gl llt d 4 + . 31 . • •

lltg4 [Zjxg2 28 1, ed l [Zjh6! 29 llt e 5 + 32 •n J.a6+ 33 •gt

llte2 [Zjf4 30 lltd2 e5! Securing the lltd4+ 34 *g2 llt e4 + 35 •gt

knight on f4 and clearing the way J.b7! Establishing the deadly bat­

for . . . llth3. The end is near. 31 tery (36 .1 xc7 lit g2 mate). 36 h4
 A Diagonal 167

�hl + 37 'il'f2 J'. f7 + 38 we2 pawn; e.g., 16 .l e 3 €:)c6 17 �c3

�e4+ 0-1 l. ae8. But the weakness of the

long diagonal, caused by the

Bleiman-Cosulich premature advance ofthe g-pawn,

Nice, 1974 enables White to repulse the at­

tack and mount a destructive on­

slaught of his own.

16 �c3! �xf3 1 7 i!rd4! i!rg6 18

�xf3 €:)c6 1 8 . . . l,x f3 succumbs

to 19 'it h 8 + etc. 19 i!r d5 + i!Jf7

20 .1 e6! €:)e7 21 i!rd4 1-0

Bosboom-Afek

Netanya, 1987

In this delicately balanced posi­

tion White surprised Black with

the unexpected 59 'llta6!! quickly

turning the tables in his favour. If

now 59 . . . �xf6 60 i!f xf6 X g8 6 1

l!f e7+ and 62 � e l + . 59 .. . Kg8

60 irb7! 1-0 The end could be: 60

. . . Xg7 61 .i g 6 ! � f7 62 'itxd5

'lltxf5 63 1: g7 + .
Although a pawn down,

White's pieces are well placed and

Rechlis--Sheñ
his e6 pawn cramps Black's game.
Netanya, 1986
1 . . . � xf2? loses to 2 K fl.

After 1 . . . b6 White ought to

play 2 f4, with reciproca! chances.

Instead he chose the aimless 2

€:)c6?, exposing his king to 2 . . .

�b7! The seque! was 3 €:)xb8

1: xf2 4 .1 f1 4 i!rh3 l!ff3 . 4 . . .

J: g 2 + 5 *hl Kxg3+ 0-1

Stean-Filguth

ss. Paulo, 1979

Black's pressure on the pinned A diagonal-opening combina­

knight appears to afford him reas­ tion bares the black king to the

onable compensation for the merey of the white bishops.

168 A Diagonal

l. eS Petrosian defends gallan ti y,

but the odds are against him. 21

,¡jh6 ,¡jc7 22 1. g3 J. c8 23 _lxeS

dxeS 24 fxg6 fxg6 25 .lxg6 <E)g4

26 _lhS l. f6 27 ,¡jd2 .1 f4 28 d6

,¡jg7 29 d7! _lb7 30 ,¡jxf4 1--0

Bobotsov-Keres

Beverwijk, 1964

18 fS! gxfS 19 <E)d5!! <E)xdS 19

. . . exd5 20 exd5 is, if anything,

worse. 20 exdS _lxdS 21 KxdS!

exdS 22 J_xfS White's bishops

sweep the board. 22 . . . ,¡jcS + 23

\t, h l d4 24 ,¡jg4 + 1--0

Romanishin-Petrosian

USSR, 1975

The barren-looking position

conceals sorne extraordinary re­

sources. To begin with, Black

must <leal with the tactical 23

J.. e 6 !

22 . . . _lgS! Menacing the rook

on d2 and protecting f7, so that if

now 23 .l e6? l. xe6 24 .1 xd 7 l. e2

wins. On 23 .1 d3 (d4) .1 e2 24

l. fl J_f6 is unpleasant. Thus

Without . . . g6, the hedgehog White is induced to weaken the

formation erected by Black would a7-gl diagonal with 23 f4.

be perfectly viable. However, There followed: 23 . . . J_d8! 24

since by definition pawn moves .1 adl _laS Driving the rook off

are irreversible, the long-ranging the second rank: 25 l. c2 fails

laser rays unleashed by the white against 25 . . . .l b6 + 26 \t, g2

bishop from b2 are able to breach l. e3 27 l. c3 (27 'tl\rc4 l. c7) 27 . . .

the protective layers around the l! e 2 + 28 \t, h l (28 "1 fl K f2 + 29

black king. "1 e l 1. e 7 +) 28 . . . ,¡j h 3 . 25 1.d3

16 <E)d5!! exdS 17 exdS <E)xd4 18 l. e2 26 .l f3 J.. b6 + 27 ,¡j xb6

,¡jxd4 gde8 19 rs _ld8 20 ,¡jh4 After 27 * h 1 (27 "1fl l. f2 + ) 27

 A Diagonal 169

. . . Jxd3 28 �xd3 � e l + Black Bhend-Petrosian

mates or wins the white queen. 27 Zurich, 1961

• • . J. xd3! More exact than 27 . . .

axb6 28 jl_xe2. 28 �d8 + l. xd8 29

� xd8 + 'lig7 30 A_xe2 �e6 31

'lifl �xa2 and Black won easily

by advancing his queenside

pawns.

A model lesson in the art of

making something out of nothing.

Shabanov-Solobiov

Sverdlovsk, 1969

White's aggressive gesture, 14

g4?, invites the thematic response

14 . . . d5! 15 exd5 15 e5 �e4! 16

�xe4 dxe4 17 jl_xe4 �xe5! is

equally unappetizing. 15 . . . �b4!

16dxe6 jl_ x f3 + 17 l, x f3 �b7! So

that if 18 �g2 �xc2. 18 f9g2

�xg4 19 *e2 f5 20 � d l II f6 21

c3 JI g6 22 cxb4 �e5 + 23 'lif2

jl_h4 + 24 .1 g3 �g4 + 25 'ligl

jl_xg3 26 hxg3 *d5! 27 .11 a3 .! h6

28 �f2 '2l x f2 0-1

The best antidote to a wmg

attack is a central counter-attack.

Such a counter-attack opens diag­

Dzindzichashvili-Browne
onals and lines which can be util­

USA, 1984
ized against a king exposed by the

advance of his own pawns.

14 .. . d5! 15 exd5 e4! 16 jl_g2 16

'2lxe4 �xe4 17 jl_xe4 � f6 leads

to similar play. 16 . . . �xd5 17

'2lxe4 .i,ae8 Black threatens 18

. . . � 7f6 coupled with . . . �xe4

and . . . �f6.

18 g5 1l.d6 19 �h5 .1 xe4!! A

splendid prelude to a mating at­

tack. 20 jl_xe4 �5f6 21 gxf6

�xf6 22 *h3 �xe4 23 �d4 *c4

24 *d3 �d5 25 �b3 �c6 26 *º In the following example

*xc2 27 jl_d2 �c5 0-1 Black's control of the long diag-

170 A Diagonal

onal is subsidiary to the fierce which gives Black sorne salvation

attack White is able to unleash on chances.

the black king. 30 . .. *h7 31 ,._g3 .ild7 32

26 hS! gxhS 27 *h2 The g-file is � ael ..-e6 33 J..bS!! An original

White's main trump. 27 . . . ..-es interference, threatening 34

28 a e l! Xe7 29 :ll g l! �e4 30 � xe4, not to mention 34 f3. 33 . . .

�d6+! Disdaining 30 �e5+ ..-es 34 � xe4 ..-xbS 35 � e5! fxe5

�g6 31 Jl, x g 6 + ..-xg6 32 i¡ g ] 36 ,._g6+ \l'hS 37 ,._ h 6 + 1-0

20 Two Diagonals

White

1919

15 $}..xh7 + •xh7 16 'W{xh5 +

'f,g8 17 j}_xg7 'f,xg7 1 7 . . . f6 18

.l f3 !. 18 tyg4+ *h7 19 .l f3 e5

In the composition above, 20 X h 3 + tyh6 21 .! x h 6 + •xh6

White is 12 pieces down. How­ 22 tyd7 1--0

ever, the double-bishop battery,

abetted by the (intentionally) Kirillov-Furman

unfelicitous placing of ali Black's USSR, 1949

pieces, sets the stage for a forced

mate in 12 moves, commencing

with 1 X f2 + + 'f,e3 2 J; f3 + +

etc., and culminating with 12 lt a8

mate.

Lasker-Bauer

Amsterdam, 1889

The first known example of the

double-bishop sacrifice. The joint

hara-kiri of the bishops denudes A more modern setting, with

the black king of the protective Karpov's late trainer as Black.

layer of pawns and makes pos­ 19 . . . .;}.. x h 2 + 2 0 . x h 2 tr h 4 +

sible a winning attack by a queen 21 *gl .;}..xg2! 22 •xg2 .! c6 23

and rook. .;}..f4 tyxf4 24 11 hl .1 f6 25 11 h2

172 Two Diagonals

Another amusing line is: 25 1, h3 The dou ble-bishop sacrifice

(25 \l# d 2 '!¼ff3 + ) 25 . . . �xf2 + 26 figured prominently in the meet­

lfi h l �e2 27 �gl 'l!!l' f3 + ! 28 ing between one of the founding

g x f3 )f! h 6 + 29 ,¡wh2 ,ii e x h 2 + fathers of the hypermodern

30 'li g l j, hl + and wins. 25 . . . school and the leader of the clas­

�g6+ 26 lfi h l ]i e l + ! 0- 1 sical school.

18 . . . d4! 19 exd4? Furnishing

Miles-Browne his arch-rival an opportunity to

Lucerne, 1982 shine. 1 9 e4 �h4 20 g3, blocking

the a8-h 1 diagonal, is a dire

necessity. 19 . . . jlxh2 + 20 \'7xh2

t1{h4 + 21 lfi g l jixg2 22 f3 If 22

f,xg2 � g 4 + , 23 . . . ,1 d 5 and so

on. 22 . . . .1 fe8 23 '2!e4 � h l + 24

\'7f2 Jlxfi 25 d5 Seeking counter­

play along the al-h8 diagonal (25

J; x fl ? � h 2 + ). 25 . . . f5 26 �c3

Or 26 '2!f6 + \'7 f7 27 '2¡xe8 .! xe8,

with mate to follow. 26 . . . 'ik{g2 +

27 •e3 X xe4 + 28 fxe4 f4 + In

the heat of the battle, Tarrasch

Black's erroneous last move, 1 7 misses the faster 28 . . . � g 3 + 29

. . . � ad8?, falls victim to Lasker's \'7 d 2 �f2 + 30 <tl d 1 �e2 mate .

evergreen combination: 29 \'7xf4 lit f8 + 30 <tJe5 �h2 +

18 jlxh7 + ! f,xh7 19 �h5 + 31 f,e6 .1, e8 + 32 f,d7 jlb5

* g8 20 jl xg7! * xg7 20 . . . f6 2 1
mate.

�h8+ <tJ f7 22 Jtxf8 l, x f8 23

'tirh7 + . 21 -W,g5 + <l'/h8 22 'ik{f6 + Kuzmin-Sveshnikov

'i91g8 23 �c4 1-0 Moscow, 1973

Nimzowitsch-Tarrasch

St. Petersburg, 1914

The same idea, prefaced by a

preliminary decoying of a defend-

. .
mg piece:
 Two Diagonals 173

16 '2)b6! '2)xb6 17 JL.xh7 + .l el d5 27 i, d4! '21 d6 28 it g4

\t,xh7 18 �h5 + llrg8 19 jlxg7 '2)f7 29 _l x h 6 + ! \t,e8 29 . . .

lirxg7 20 �g4+ *h7 21 1'. f3 '2)xh6 30 �g7 + etc. 30 li...g7 1--0

j}_xc5 + 22 \t, hl 1--0 The h-pawn advances.

Kasparov-Andersson Alexandria-Kantor

Tilburg, 1981 Baile-Herculan, 1983

Black may get away with his A clear illustration of the power

eccentric opening play- 'develop­ wielded by two bishops. Faced

ing' the knight on a7 and switch­ with the inevitable loss of a piece,

ing the bishop from the a8-h 1 Black resigned.

diagonal to g6-if he succeeds in

making the move . . . d5, blocking Botvinnik-Reshevsky

the paths of the white bishops. Avro, 1938

But Kasparov strikes first with 14

d5!! which, among other things,

clears the a l-h8 diagonal and re­

strains the movements of the bis­

hop on f8.

The remainder of the game

vividly demonstrates the efficacy

of this conception: 14 . . . exd5 15

,ig2 c6 16 0-0 f6 17 JI el! ,ie7 18

�g4 \t,f7 19 h5 ,ih7 20 e4! dxe4

21 ,ixe4 ,ixe4 22 '2)xe4 '2)c8 On

22 . . . K f8 comes 23 JI ad 1 d5 24

'2)xf6! and on 22 . . . .! e8 23 Black's pieces are rather lame

�g6+ \t, f8 24 g4, coupled with while White's occupy ideal posts.

'2)g3-f5. Botvinnik concludes the game

23 JI adl JI a7 24 '21 xf6! gxf6 24 with a few sledge-hammer blows:

. . . 11.,xf6 25 'l!t g 6 + \t, f8 26 .txf6 25 <El xd6! .i e6 25 . . . cxd6 26 c7

gxf6 27 ª e 6 !. 25 �g6+ \t,f8 26 costs the exchange. 26 .i xe6!

174 Two Diagonals

More aggressive than the simple A b5 Á c7 38 frJfl 1-0 m 41

26 '2)c4. 26 . . . fxe6 27 <Eif5! 27 moves.

'itxe6 + ? * h7 lea ves the knight

pinned. Botvinnik's move aims at Gelfer-Czerniak

exchanging the g7 bishop, after Israel, 1980

which White's bishops will sweep

the board. 27 . . . t1te8 27 . . .

�xd 1 + 28 �xd 1 exf5 would

cross White's plans without, how­

ever, affecting the outcome.

28 Qixg7 •xg7 29 l. d7 + l. f7

30 j_e5 Thwarting . . . e5, in re­

sponse to 30 �f3, which is now

threatened. 30 . . . wg8 31 iI xc7

gxc7 32 J_xc7 1, a l + 33 frJh2

� a7 34 j_e5 'ti f7 35 c7 <Eid7 36

itc2! � f8 37 c8 (�) 1-0

24 d6! The main threat is 25

J..xf6, followed by 26 1, e7 + etc.

Reshevsky-Benko
24 . . . -ª he8 24 . . . cxd6 25
Los Angeles, 1963
� xd6 + frJc7 26 l. c5 + and so

on. 25 dxc7+ 'f1xc7 26 Xc5+

* b6 27 .1, b3 + * a6 28 1, xa5 +!
1-0 28 . . . •xa5 29 j_c5 mates.

Rotlevi-Rubinstein

Lodz, 1907

Giving up his d-pawn, Black

has lured the white rook deep into

his camp and looks forward to

drawing by perpetually harassing

the white rook, viz., 29 .1 d6 '2)e8

30 lt d 7 Qif6. Reshevsky has seen

a li ttle further: Rubinstein's immortal finish, in

29 ». x d 8 + ! ª x d 8 30 j_c3 '2)d7 which he throws ali his pieces at

31 � b3 f6 32 .1 b5 frJf7 33 b3! No the white king.

hurry! 33 . . . frJe7 34 J..xa5 b6 35 22 . . . .1 xc3! 23 gxh4 X d2! 24

J.. xb6 Qi xb6 36 g xb6 X d6 37 �xd2 J_ x e4 + 25 'tltg2 1,h3! �1

 Two Diagonals 175

Keres-Petrov White's next, a bombshell, por­

Moscow, 1940 trays the bishops at their dead­

liest.

30 *xg7 + !! 1-0 30 . . . ft¡xg7

31 <ciXd7 + and so on.

Keres-Geller

Moscow, 1962

Two pawns up, Black's king

stands no chance against the com­

bined fury of White's bishops

19 e6! <cid5 19 . . . j}_xe6 or 19

.... �xe6 (whether or not pre­

ceded by 1 9 . . . -2) xd3 + 20 cxd3)

succumbs to 20 *h6, accompan­

ied, if necessary, by � (any) g l.

Black's king lacks piece protec­
Or 19 . . . fxe6 20 � dfl etc. 20
tion and his knight on a5 and
exti + 'ª xti 21 j}_ c4!! An elegant
bishop on b4 are out of action.
coup: capturing the queen or bis­
Keres blasts open lines for both
hop leads to mate in two. 21 . . . c6
his bishops.
22 A xd5! *xc4 22 . . . cxd5 23
16 d5! exd5 Practically forced,
�e8 + A f8 24 j}_xd5 + and so
since on the immediate 1 6 . . . �e7
on. 23 � e 8 + 1-0
(1 6 . . . jlc3 1 7 j}_a3 1, e 8 1 8 j}_ b 5

costs the exchange) 17 �d4! (1 7

Keres-Spassky
. . . exd5 18 � f5) is strong. 17
Gothenburg, 1955
exd5 'W¡e7 1 7 . . . j}_xd5 loses to 1 8

'i!!fe5 f6 19 � h5, whilst on 17 . . .

.l e 8 1 8 �e5 already threatens 19

j}_xh7 + etc. 18 �e5! f6 Black is

faced with a choice of evils: 1 8 . . .

g6 19 <cig4!; 18 j}_d6 19 i!!th5

g6 20 �g4; on 18 h6 1 9 i!!tg4.

19 i!!th5 g6 20 �xg6! hxg6 21

j}_xg6 i!!tg7 22 .l d 3 §Ld6 23 f4

i!!th8 24 i!!tg4 j}_ c5 + 25 f!i hl l. c7

26 §L h 7 + •n 27 �e6+ •g7 28

Kg3+ 1-0
176 Two Diagona/s

lgnatieva-Zatulovskaya mating. 2 . . . j}_f43 ,¡ f2 Virtually

Suchumi, 1955 compelling Black to mate him. In

any case, the battery is lethal. 3

. . . 1. g 2 + + 4 *hl J: h 2 + 5

*gl l! h l mate

R. Byrne-Fischer

USA, 1963

White's gaping lag in develop­

ment calls for direct punishment.

17 . . . .lxe3! 18 fxe3 jlc5 19

'2)d2 1 9 '/te 1 1i,.xe3 + is futile. 19

. . . j¡_xe3 + 20 *hl 'ltf2 21 '2)e4

itf5 22 '2)d2 d4! Yet another epis­

ode of 'Murder along the Long

In what many consider
Diagonal'. 23 'ltf3 '/tc8 24 1i f1
Fischer's most inspired game, the
j_b7 25 '2)e4 f5 0-1
American Grandmaster had sacri­

ficed a knight for two pawns. At

Ujtelky-Pachman
this stage, everybody expected 18
Tranzianz-Tep/itz, 1953
. . . '2) x d l 19 ,l x d l , w h e n W h i t e i s

safe.

Fischer's next move, 18 . . .

'2) xg2!, removing the light­

squared bishop, reveals the real

point of the combination: from

now on, the black bishops sweep

the board.

19 •xg2 d4! 20 '2)xd4 1i_b7 +

21 rf, fl After 2 1 •gl j}_ x d 4 + 22

yj-xd4 1, e l + ! Black emerges (at

least) the exchange ahead, where­

l . . . 1i_f4 2 'ltxb6 .1 xg3! is as after 2 1 rf, f2 ttd7 (-h3) White

tempting; but with 2 I'. g l ! White will also be obliged to surrender

averts immediate danger. Black's material to stave off Black's man y

order of moves is more accurate. threats. 21 . . . ttd7!.

1 . . . .1 xg3! 2 '/txb6 On 2 rf,xg3 Here, while severa! experts were

comes 2 . . . ;lf4+ 3 •g4 '/td8! debating whether Black should

 Two Diagonals 177

lay down his arms, Byrne stopped Hort-Gligoric

his dock. 0-1 A bitter disappoint­ Amsterdam, 1970

ment for Fischer, who had

relished the likely conclusion 22

'it(f2 (22 €14b5 �h3+ 23 <lí' g l

j_ h 6 ) 22 . . . �h3+ 23 <lí' g l

� e l + ! ! 24 �xel j_xd4, with

mate to follow shortly.

Timman-Karpov

London, 1984

A second exchange-sacrifice

adds fuel to Black's onslaught and

presents White with insoluble

problems.

30 . . . A xb2! 31 .1 xb2 ;lxc3 32

'it(cl c4 33 d6 33 g4 ;ld7 34 *bl

;lxb2 35 ttxb2 ttxf3. 33 . . . j}_f6

34 X dl c3 35 .1 c2 A voiding 35

,i b 8 + *g7 36 'it(xa3 c2+ and

mates. 35 . . . 'it(a4 36 d7! Divert­

ing the bishop. 36 . . . ;lxd7 37

The bishop on a6 stops White

g4? Missing 37 l. xd7!: in this

from castling on the kingside.

position the bishops are stronger

Black's next moves are designed

than the rooks. 37 .. . ;le6 38

to prevent White from castling on

;! e l JJ..b3 39 ;!ee2 ;lxa2! 40

the other wing.

'it(xh6 j_ c 4 + 41 <lí' b l ;lxe2 0-1

17 .. . �h4 + ! 18 g3 'it(h5 19

.l c l \ti'a8! A profound move

Donner-Gligoric
neutralizing any attacking ideas

Ersel, 1968
White may have entertained, and

already envisaging the bishop's

passage to the c8-h3 diagonal! 20

h4 Trying in vain to hinder . . . g5.

20 . . . d5! 21 'it(e3 g5! 22 ;lxg5

JJ.. b 4 + 23 *f2 X h f8 + Fully

mobilizing his forces. 24 *g2

�xe5! 25 ttxe5 'it( f3 + 26 *h2

'it(f2 + 0-1 The usefulness of

Black's 19th move is manifest: 27

"1 h3 JJ.. c 8 +.
178 Two Diagonals

Black's next move, clearing the .g7 34 .f:)g4 't!!!i'C8 35 .h4 g 5 +

long diagonal for his Indian 0-1

bishop, is the prelude to a barrage

of blows, in which ali his pieces Euwe-Keres

participate harmoniously. Netherlands, 1939-40

21 . . . e4! 22 '2Jxe4 Else 22 . . .

Jí.. e 5 . 22 . . . Jí..h3 23 ;l e l Jí..e5 24

�e2 \tlh8 25 *h l lí.xf3! 26 �xf3

Jtg4 27 itf2 Jtf3 + Black's rak­

ing bishops are overwhelming. 28

*gl Jí..xh2 + 0-1

Schmid-Gligoric

Hamburg, 1965

White plans 23 f5, coupled with

24 '2Jf4 and 25 it h 5 . Keres's next

move clears the vital a 7-g 1 diag­

onal for his bishop, after which ali

his pieces participate in a scintil­

lating two-bishop attack on the

white king.

22 . . . d3! 23 .1 xd3 itxd3! 24

-W,,xd3 Jí.. d 4 + ! 25 )l f2 If 2 5 *hl

1, xe6, coupled with the doubling

The open position augurs well of rooks along the e-file and . . .

for the owner of the bishops. � e 2 . 25 . . . l,xe6 26 *º ,!!lae8!

However, after 24 g3 Jta6 25 27 f5 l,le5 Now the immediate 28

Jtxa8 the outcome would be in l. d2 fails against 28 . . . Jte4 fol­

doubt. Instead, White goes after lowed by 29 . . . ª xf5 + 30 .f:)f4

the exchange and lets the bishops g5-which explains White's next

feast at his expense. move.

24 f4? Jtxf4 25 g3 Jte3 26 28 f6 gxf6 A voiding 28 . . .

Jtxa8 Jí..h3 27 itd5 27 Jí..g2 Jí..xg2 Jtxf2 29 •xf2 1, e2 + ? 30 ttxe2

28 •xg2 �f3 + 29 * g l (29 *h3 .l x e 2 + 31 • x e 2 Jí.. x g 2 ? 3 2 f7 . 2 9

lt f5) 29 . . . Jí.. xf2 + 30 l'! xf2 Kd2 Jtc8! Nimbly relocating the

il'xf2 + 31 *h1 ite2 is clearly bishop to the even better c8-h3

unsatisfactory. 27 . . . i!'e2! 28 diagonal, unmasked by White's

�xd6 *g7! 29 � x f8 + Forced, in 28th move. 30 '2Jf4 Iie3 31 t¡,bl

view of Black's numerous threats. lí f3 + 32 *g2 1, xf4! 33 gxf4

29 . . . •xf8 30 Jtg2 J_xg2 31 �g8+ 34 f,f3 Jí..g 4+ 0-1 35

•xg2 i!'xb2 32 a4 i!'c2 33 *h3 •e4 1, e 8 + 36 *d5 Jtf3 mate.

 Two Diagonals 179

Torán-Tal Black's bishop on b7 is no

Oberhausen, 1961 match for White's bishop on b2.

White's next move not only

annexes an important pawn but

enables his light-squared bishop

to join the final assault:

22 J. xf5! * h8 22 . . . gxf5 23

'2)xf5 costs the queen after 23 . . .

�f7 or 23 . . . 'rii'g6; or Black gets

mated after 23 . . . "tth8 24 �h6 +

*g7 25 ,¡,g5 mate. 23 j_e6 j_a6

24 � fel -E}e5 25 f4! �d3 26

� xd3! ,i.xd3 27 g4 1--0 There is

no remedy against 28 g5.

White counts on drawing by

perpetua! check after 1 8 . . . * g8

Alekhine-Pachman
19 � h 6 + + *h8 20 � f7 + and
Prague, 1942
so on. Black's queen sacrifice is

reminiscent of the Euwe-Keres

game (422).

18 . . . 'iixti! 19 ,[Link] Ií d3! 20

�el ,i.xd4+ 21 *g2 �e5 With

four black pieces ominously train­

ing their guns on him, the white

monarch can hardly hope to sur­

vive. 22 � dl � e3 23 ttfl Or 23

'itd2 ,i.e4+ 24 *h3 � f3 . 23 . . .

,i.e4+ 24 *h3 J: f3 25 tte2

,i.(5+ 0-1

Bishops thrive on open lines:

Alekhine-Alexander
19 f3! exf3 20 _ixf3! �f6 Per­
Nottingham, 1936
haps Black need not lose after 20

. . . ,¡,xe3 + 21 * g2 �g7. In any

case, White's bishops make his

defensive task onerous. 21 .i_d4

�8d7 22 b4 �e4?! 22 . . . �e5 has

the merit of delaying the opening

of lines with g3-g4. 23 g4! fxg4 24

_ixg4 t,"g5 25 trg2 �f8 26 X f4

h5 27 h4! tth6 28 j_h3 1--0 The

knight is trapped in the middle of

the board.
180 Two Diagonals

Beliavsky-Kasparov

Moscow, 1983

�his presents Black with a pre­

cious tempo (1 9 . . . � d5) two

m�ves later. With the black rook

The thematic way of benefiting
still on d8, White ought to brave
from. th� prowess of the bishops
17 �xd4 (1 7 �xd4? �c5 costs
consists 1n 30 . . . §J_g5 3 1 �dS fS!
mat�rial) since now the bishop­
32 exf5 (32 .1, ae I 1, he8) 32 . . .
s�cnfice may not quite suffice to
Kxd5! 33 cxd5 §J_xd5 + 34 'f¡ g l
w1n: 17 . . . §J_xh2 + 18 'f¡xh2
ll.. e3 + 35 si f2 X xh5, when
�g4+ 19 'f1 g 3 (bad is 19 'f¡ g l
White's days are numbered. Kas­
�h4 20 �4f3 "tr x f2 + 21 'fi h l
parov's method, though some­
l. e 5 ! 22 §J_f5 �e3) 19 . . . -w,e5 +
what lengthier, never leaves the
20 f4 (20 'f¡xg4 �f6 + ) 20
issue in doubt:
t1,te3 + 21 �4f3 �df6 22
30 • • • ;lexh5 + 31 �xh5 +
ll..xh7 + .
Jí x h 5 + 32 'f1g2 f5 33 l, a e l fxe4
Tal, to whom we owe this
34 ll.. b 1 .l. c5 35 b3 b5 36 1, xe3
penetrating analysis, adds that in
Comparatively best. 36 . . . dxe3
reply to 17 �xd4, he had also
37 JI el bxc4 38 bxc4 ,1 xc4 39
envisaged 17 . . . �e5 18 �4f3
J:xe3 B. b4 ! 40 �b3e3+ 41 'f¡fi
"tr h 5 , with ful! compensation for
ll.. b 5 + 42 'f¡el a5 43 §J_e4 1,xb3
the pawn.
44 axb3 'f¡f6 45 'f¡dl g5 46 'f¡c2
17 · · · �e5 18 �xe5 §J_xe5 19
'f¡e5 �1 47 ll..d3 e2; or 47 §J_g6
�c4 White's pieces move away
'f¡d4.
from the scene of action. Admit­

tedly, after 19 en �d5 20 �g3

Spassky-Tal
�f4 2 1 ll.. fl h5 Black's initiative
Montreal, 1979
is menacing. 19 . . . .1 d5! Tempo!

Even the world's greatest 2º �d2 20 ll..a3 "tre6 merely

players are not immune to the drives the queen from the good

perils of the bishop sacrifice on d8-h4 diagonal to the good c8-h3

h7. Here we witness Spassky add diagonal without hindering . . .

his name to the list of its victims: ll..xh2 + ; e.g., 21 "trd2 ll..xh2 + !

15 • , • d4! 16 exd4 cxd4 17 t!,ta5? 22 'f¡xh2 1, h 5 + 23 'f¡ g l X h l + !

 Two Diagonals 181

mating in two moves. 20 . . . Kasparov-Portisch

� x h2 + ! 21 wxh2 �h5+ 22 Niksié, 1983

wgl �g4 0-1 The threat is . . .

-W,,h4. On 23 Iel � h l + ! forces

mate.

Timman-Karpov

Montreal, 1979

17 d5! Apart from fitting the

demands of the position, this

thrust enjoys the additional ad­

vantage of not involving any

material concession. The alternat­

ive to 17 . . . exd5, namely I7 . . .

Here it is a knight rather than a �xc4, results in a lost position

bishop which <loes the prelimin­ after 1 8 -¡je4 g6 1 9 j_xc4 -¡jxc4 20

ary demolition job for the bishops -W,,e5 f6 2 1 -¡jxe6 + .l. f7 22 X e1

with 15 . . . �xh2!. -W,,a6 23 d6.

Acceptance of the sacrifice with 18 cxd5 j_xd5 19 �xh7 +

16 •xh2 gives rise to the usual •xh7 20 l,lxd5 *g8 Providing

sequence 16 . . . -¡jh4 + I7 * gl against the threat 2 1 -¡je4 + * g8

�xg3 18 fxg3 -W,, x g 3 + 19 *hl 22 l. h5 21 j_ xg7!! Shades of

.iI e4! 20 .! f4 � h 3 . Lasker. 21 .. . •xg7 22 �e5

Timman's intermediate re­ .l. fd8 Black's king is too bare and

source, 16 c5, with the idea of his knight too distant to enable

diverting the black bishop, eli­ him to put up a successful

cited, after 16 . . . �xfl 17 cxd6 a defence. For example, 22 f5 23

counter-intermediate move from J,it d 3 'l'tc5 24 � d 7 . Or 22 Xh8

Karpov, 17 . . . �xg3!, validating 23 'it g4 + * f8 24 'it f5 f6 25 l. e l.

15 . . . �xh2!. 23 -¡jg4 + * f8 24 'ijf5 f6 25

The game ended: 18 fxg3 -¡jxd6 � d7 + l. xd7 26 .! xd7 -¡jc5 27

19 *f2 'l'th6 20 �d4 'l'th2 + 21 'l'th7 1, c7 28 -¡jh8 + ! Avoiding 28

'llel -¡jxg3+ 22 *d2 'l'tg2 23 l. d3? 'ijxf2 + ! 29 •xf2 �c5 + 30

�b2 j_a6 24 �d3 j_xd3 25 •xd3 *g3 ,l x h 7 , drawing. 28 . . . •f7

Kbd8 26 J..fl -¡je4+ 27 •c3 c5! 29 1,d3 �c4 30 H fdl �e5? After

28 � xc5 'it c6 29 * b3 11 b8 + 30 the comparatively better 30 . . .

"1a3 )le5 31 j_b4 -¡jb6 0-1 j_ d6 31 JI d5 (31 . . . -¡jxa3 32

182 Two Diagonals

A xd6) Black is virtually without 31 . . . €:)xd5! 32 j_c4 �e6 33

a move. 31 �h7 + *e6 32 'ijg8 + J,.c3 J,.c6 34 'l'!!f'b3 34 €:) h 5 €:)g4 35

•r5 33 g4+ •r4 34 g d 4 + *º h3 �ge3 holds no horrors for

35 � b 3 + 1-0 Black. 34 . . . •n 35 �b8 icig8!

Bodily obstructing 36 � h 8 . lf 36

N ajdorf-Fischer �xa7 + icige7, threatening . . .

Havana, 1966 �e3. 36 h3 icige7 37 �h8 �h6

Covering ali key points, Black

also threatens 38 . . . �xf4.

38 icie2 J,.xa4 39 �a8 Other­

wise the a-pawn marches on. 39

. . . J,.c6 40 �xa7 �e6 41 �al

�e4! The black queen has come

into its own. White must contend

with 42 . . . •g6 (e8) and 43 . . .

�xg2 + ! etc. 42 j_d2 •e8 43

icig3 'i/!Yd4 44 *h2 icie3! Liquidat­

ing a white bishop. Weaker is the

greedy 44 . . . iciXÍ4 45 Jt.f7 +

One of the hallmarks of a great •f8? 46 �e2! and White wins! 45

player lies in his ability to identify Jt.xe3 �xe3 46 j_g8 �xf4 47

exceptional cases where conven­ �n + \tid7 48 J,.xh7 J..e4 49

tional rules of good conduct may j_g6 �e5 The stage is set for the

be disregarded. Here Black boldly advance of the pawns. 50 jth5

snatches the loose d-pawn, sub­ jt d5 51 'l/!re8 + •c7 51 *gl �g7!

mitting his knight to an awesome 52 J,.dl Jt.c6! 0-1 Note how, on

pin. For a while he suffers; but in his last move, Black refrained

the end, the two central pawns from 52 . . . f4 53 Jt.g4 (a4), with

prevail. marauding chances.

21 Positional Sacrifices

Spa�ky-Tal

Moscow, 1971

wings and cannot be dislodged;

(3) to create a mobile pawn

majority on the queen's side,

which will divert Black's attention

from the other wing.

After 14 . . . �d7 ( 1 4 . . . �g4

1 5 J, g l ) 1 5 d4 White has the edge 28 . . . J,xc3 29 •xc3 cxd5 30

and will go about preparing the �d4 •d7 lf 30 . . . dxc4 3 1 � xf5!

while on 30 . . . e5 both 3 1 �xf5

push f4-f5 with g4. Tal's next

move shuffles the cards: d4 32 •d2 and 3 1 �b5 •es 32

X xe5 etc are good. 31 c5! �h7 3 1

14 . . . d4! 15 �xd4 �d5 In
. . . �g6 32 f4! 32 b4 a6 33 a4!
return for the pawn, the black
X c8 Or 33 . . . •xa4 34 c6! bxc6
bishop on b7 has acquired a free
35 �xf5! e5 36 X xe5 34 b5 axb5
diagonal. He will also exert sorne
35 axb5 X f8 36 c6 bxc6 37 bxc6
pressure along the d-file. The
.d8 38 X c l �f6 39 c7 .d7 40
game eventually ended in a draw.
•e3 40 �xf5 looks simpler. Now

Black must try 40 . . . �h7.

Spassky-O'Kelly
40 .. . � e4 4 1 f3 e 5 4 1 . . . �d6
San Juan, 1969
42 •gS + \tih7 43 •xhS + \tig8

The manifold purposes of 28 44 g4 fxg4 (44 . . . f4 45 •gs + ) 45

dS!! are: (1 ) to exchange bishops, X g2 f5 46 •g6 + prolongs bis

thus weakening Black's king; (2) agony somewhat. 42 fxe4 f4 43

to free the square d4 for bis gxf4 exd4 44 X g2 + 1-0 44 . . .

knight, whence it reflects on both 'lfph7 45 •f3 \tih6 46 X g 5 mates.

184 Positiona/ Sacrifices

Kasparov-Gheorghiu

Moscow, 1982

18 .1 xd7! J,.xd7 19 J,.d3 h6 20

�f4 Threatening both 21 ltf6

and 2 1 l. xg7 + etc. 20 . . . *f8 21

Kasparov's favourite weapon,
.1 xg7! f'¡xg7 22 trf6 + f'Jf8 23
14 d5! catches the black king in
J,.g6! 1--0 23 . . . l. e7 24 "it h8
the centre and gives him no res­
mate.
pite: 14 . . . exd5 1 5 exd5 J,.xd5 16

J,.b5 a6 1 6 . . . J,.c6 1 7 J,.f4! ltb7

Spassky-Arutiunian
18 J,.xc6 'iitxc6 19 1, e l is no
Moscow, 1965
improvement. 17 J,.f4! Not 17

J,. x d 7 + ltxd7 1 8 c4, owing to 1 8

. . . J..e4!. 17 . . . 'l"txf4 Equally,

after 17 . . . trb7 18 J,. x d 7 +

ltxd7 1 9 c4 ltg4 20 .1 xd5 '1°tf4 21

1, e I Black cannot castle.

18 J,.xd7 + •xd7 19 1, xd5 +

f'Jc7? 1 9 . . . •c8, with the idea of

. . . 1, a 7-c7, offers stiffer resis­

tence (Kasparov). 20 1, el íl_d6 20

. . . Xhe8 (20 . . . J,.f6 21 Xe4)

loses a piece to 2 1 .1 de5 '1°tf6 22

lte4. 21 l. f5 'l°tc4 A trap: 22

'2\ d2? !1 he8 !. 22 .1 e4! "it b5 23

White's double exchange-sacri­
l. xf7 + *b8 24 l. e6 l. d8 25 c4
fice (on the same square!) diverts
'1°tc6 25 . . . tra5 26 'l°te4 1, a 7 27
the dark-coloured black bishop
11 xd6!. 26 '2)e5 trc8 27 ltbl 1--0
from its guard duties on the

kingside.
Keres-Szabo
28 .1 xa5! J,.xa5 29 .1 xa5!
Budapest, 1955
.1 xa5 30 ;lxh6! Black's extra

Again, the offer ofthe exchange material is of little use to his

gets the most useful defender out denuded king: 30 . . . gxh6 31

of the way: ltf6.

 Positional Sacrifices 185

30 • . • '2Jh7 31 '2¡xg7 f5 Vainly

hoping for 32 )'tg3? f4. 32 exf5

Enabling the light-squared white

bishop to participate in the festiv­

ities. 32 • . . \lih8 33 '2!h5 .1,g8 34

f6 1--0

Lobron-Gruenfeld

Israel, 1982

However, by nimbly sacrificing

the exchange, Black can mount a

direct attack on the white king.

40 . . . *xc3! 41 j_xc8 *xd3 42

*xb6 hxg3 43 "ijd 8 + \lih7 0-1

On 41 hxg3 comes 41 . . . '2Jfb4 + ,

mating.

Kupper-Tal

Zurich, 1959

A typical exchange-sacrifice

wrecks Black's defences.

16 Ji xf6! gxf6 16 . . . Ji. xf6

invites another exchange sacrifice:

17 .lxf6 gxf6 18 Ji_d4 .lfd8 19

Ji_xf6, with an enduring attack. 17

Ji.d4 "ijd8 18 '2Jd5 Compelling

Black to capture and thus

unmasking the bl-h7 diagonal

for his bishop. 18 . . . Jlxd5 19

exd5 \li h8 20 "ij h3 .1 g8 21 Ji. d3

.lg7 22 Xel \lig8? Shortens his

Black lures the white king into
agony; but if 22 . . . .l. b8 23 *e3
space. To quote Tal: "I did not
Jlf8 24 "ijf4 J.,e7 25 *e4 Jlf8 26
calculate variations. It would be
-.,h4 J.,.e7 27 .l x e 7 ! wins. 23
strange if after the sacrifice White
l,xe7! 1--0
were able to find a defence against

Black's overwhelming attack".

Damjanovic-Dorfman

Vilnius, 1978 16 . . . '21 xb2! 17 * xb2 bxc3 +

18 \liXC3 0-0 19 .1, b l * a5 + 20

White envisages 40 . . . Xa8 41 \lid3 .1 ac8 21 "ijfl 2 1 X xb7 fails

.ib5, with 42 �e5 to follow. against 2 1 . . . it x e l , while on 2 1

186 Positional Sacrifices

.l e c ] comes 2 1 . . . e5 or 2 1

Jl_ x d 4 2 2 1, x b 7 Jl_ b 6 . 2 1 . . . Jl_a8!

22 .1 b3 22 g5 Jl. d8 23 :1 ec I offers

more resistance. 22 . . . e5! 23 g5

exd4 24 <El xd4 24 gxf6 .1 xc2 25

fpxc2 "itxa2 + 26 .l. b2 .lc8 + or

26 . . . Jl.xe4 + . 24 . . . j_xd4 �1

lf 25 tll'xd4 "itc5 + and if 25

"itxd4 the rook on el is loose.

Quinteros-Ribli
17 0-0 el 18 J,.xe2 <E)e3 19 tll'f2
Montilla, 1974
<E) x d l + On 19 . . . <E)xfl 20 e6!

decides, since after 20 . . . fxe6 2 1

X x d 7 , or 20 . . . "itxe6 21 J,. x fl .

20 .1. x d l "it b 6 + 21 J,.d4 "it e 6 2 2

b3 Intending 23 Jl_c4 and prepar­

ing his 24th move. 22 . . . Jl_c6 23

j_c5 "itf5 24 "itcl! Having secure­

ly fixed the black king in the

centre, the queen shifts to greener

pastures. 24 . . . .l d 8 25 J,.d6 �e6

27 "itg5 Kd7 28 j_f5 Xxd6 29

exd6 f6 30 "itg6 + "itf7 31 d7 +

The pawn on d4 is about to fall, J,.xd7 32 "itxf7 + 1-0

but Black's lead in development is

so great that he can unleash a

Keres-Westerinen
mating attack against the poorly
Tal/inn, 1973
placed white king by sacrificing

his queen for a rook and planting

a pawn on e3.

18 . . . dxe3! 19 X xd8 X fxd8 20

Jl. el .1 d2 White is completely

tied up. Note the constricting part

played by the pawn on e3. 21 g4

J,.d3 22 tll' fl <E)xe2 23 <E)xe2

Xxe2 24 fl' g l Kd8 �1

Nimzowitsch-Chajes

Carlsbad, 1911

The determining factor here is The straightforward gain of a

the plight of the black king, pawn wi th 1 6 j_ xc5 dxc5 1 7 .1 xc5

stranded in the centre. is not to Keres's taste since it

 Positional [Link] 187

affords Black an opportunity to Piatlekowsky-Smyslov

castle. Instead, he gives up the Helsinki, 1952

exchange in order to keep the

black king in the centre.

16 l. xc5! dxc5 17 d6! exd6 17

. . . 0-0 18 dxe7 costs material. 18

�xd6+ •f8 19 �xf7! A.e6 Cap­

turing the knight results in mate.

20 �g5! A.xa2 21 A.xc5+ *g8

22 b4 Black cannot avoid the loss

of a piece. 22 . . . A.b3 23 tfd3

A.f7 24 �xf7 tff4 25 �g5! The

knight is taboo and the game is

over. 25 . . . tfcl + 26 \tif2 tfb2 +

Vigorous play is required if
27 A e2 A f6 28 tf d5 + 111 g7 29
Black is to make something of the
�xb7+ wh6 30 � f7 + 1-0
awkward position of White's

uncastled king and bis retarded

Korchnoi-Spassky
development. 1 O . . . 0-0-0 (1 O . . .
Kiev, 1968
�xb2? 1 1 X bl) 11 0-0-0 is not

entirely convmcmg. Smyslov

uncovers a truly imaginative plan:

10 . . . e5! 1 1 dxe5 �g4 12 tfg3

0-0-0 13 h3 A e6! The point: on 14

hxg4 X xd2! is devastating.

White's ensuing contortions meet

with a similar fate. 14 X d l tfxb2!

15 hxg4 A.b4 16 1.h3 Kd4 17

tfe3 White is playing without bis

bishop on f1 . 17 • • . Xhd8 18 f4

A.xg4 19 .lg3 A.f5 20 X f3 j_a5

At this rather early stage, Black
20 . . . i_c2 at once is more direct.
conceives a superb positional
21 g4 i_c2 22 e6 fxe6 23 tfxe6 +
piece-sacrifice, which White must
*b8 24 1,d3 i_xd3 25 exd3 i_xc3
accept:
26 tfe5+ \tia8 0-1
12 . . . a5!! 13 axb4 Black

threatened 13 . . . c5 (-c4)!. Now

Tolush-Botvinnik
the a-file is opened and Black's
Leningrad, 1939
pawns start rolling. 13 . . . axb4 14

�bl c5! 15 g4 c4 16 tfe3 .1 a2! An exchange-sacrifice at an

It is doubtful if, with best play early stage takes advantage of

on both sides, White's position is White's undeveloped pieces on

tenable (in the game, Spassky the kíngsíde=-whose absence 1s

went astray and actually lost). sorely felt on the queenside!

188 Positional Sacrifices

11 . . . Xxd5! 12 �xd5 i_e6 In an attempt to exploit the back­

his notes, the ever self-critical ward development of White's

Botvinnik prefers 12 . . . �c6. 13 kingside.

•d2 � e 6 1 4 Iii d l A better way of 11 . . . �e4! 12 �xe4 dxe4 13

dealing with 1 4 . . . l. d8 is 14 1, c 3 *xe4 1 3 �d4 e5 14 �xc6 bxc6 1 5

i_xc3 (14 . . . l. d 8 15 .l d 3 ) 15 i_g3 � d8 is good for Black. 13

•xc3 i_xa2 16 � f3 . Black can . . . l. d8 14 'l!!te2? Subsequently,

maintain the initiative with 14 . . . the correct response, 14 c5! was

�b4 1 5 �f3 1. d 8 1 6 �d4 i_xa2 discovered, answering 14 . . .

(or 16 .. . Af5). 14 . . . ,1d8 15 �xc5 with 1 5 i. d3 f5 1 6 �c4 and

*el •a5+ 16 iíd2 1.d5! The 14 .. . e5 with 15 i_g3 f5 16

sortie of the second rook to d5 'l!!tc4+ *h8 1 7 �c3.

obliges White to surrender ali his 14 . . . e5 15 i_g3 e4! The pawn

queen's side pawns. must be captured, since on 16

17 �e2 Or 17 � f3 Jixc5 18 �d4 comes 1 6 . . . �xd4 1 7 exd4

*bl i_xa2 1 9 • a l 1,c2 20 i_d3 i_ g 5 . 16 �xe4 i_f5 17 'l!!tf4 1, xd2

l!l x b 2 . 17 . . . ;ixeS 18 �e3 i_xe3 18 �xd2 l.d8 19 e4 i_g4! Black's

19 bxe3 l. xe3 20 �b2 1, a3 21 lead in development is crushing.

'l!!tb5 'l!!te3 22 �b2 �e5 23 �bl 23 The immediate threats are: 20 . . .

'l!!txb7 leads to a swift débácle: 23 i_g5 and 20 . . . i_b4. 20 e5 �b4!

. . . � e l + 24 'lle2 i_ c 4 + 25 'llf3 21 f3 g5! 22 axb4 *ª1 + 23 •e2

*xd2 26 i_xc4 �e5 + 27 'llg3 gxf4 �1

111 xe3 + ! 28 f3 �c4 29 'l!!tc8 +

'llg7 30 *xc4 !t e 2 . 23 . . . i_xa2!

Schulten-Morphy
24 l. xa2 'l!!ta5 + 25 .1 d2 � al �1
New York, 1857
(in 37 moves).

Morphy's pawn-sacrifice, one

ofthe earliest known in the annals

Miles-Beliavsky
of the game, is still highly
Wijk aan Zee, 1984
regarded by modern theory. lts

In this theoretically known main purpose is to gain time for

position, Black offers a pawn in rapid development.

 Positional Sacrifices 189

'2)xe4 dxe4 15 J.f4 f5 Unable to

castle, the black king seeks refuge

on f7.

16 �c4! Obstructing . . . e6. 16

. . . c5 17 .1 adl Far superior to 1 7

•xc5 •e6 and w f7 . 17 . . .

•c6 Again, 17 e6 is unplay-

able, due to 18 •a4+ w f7 19

1, d 7 + . 18 f3! h 6 1 9 fxe4 •xe4 20

•xc5 e6 21 •c7 jie7 22 1,d7! 22

l. fe 1 l. d8 ! is less accurate. 22 . . .
6 . . . e3! 7 j_xe3 0-0 8 j_d2
il_d8 23 1, x d 8 + ! 1,xd8 24 •xg7
j_ x c 3 9 b x c 3 'ª e 8 + 10 _te2 jl_g4
1. f8 24 .. . •d4+ 25 •xd4
11 c4 The critica! line is 11 • f2 !
1, xd4 26 ji e5, forking both rooks
j'J_xe2 1 2 �gxe2. 11 . . . c6 1 1 . . .
and remaining a bishop up.
'Wfe7 is an alternative. 12 dxc6? 1 2
25 J..xh6 •d4+ 26 �xd4
h3 is necessary. 12 . . . �xc6 13
l. xd4 27 c3 l. d6 28 J_xf8 1-0 (in
*fl l,xe2! 14 �xe2 �d4 and
52 moves).
Black scored a brilliant victory

0-1
Spassky-Avtonomov

Leningrad, 1949
Keres-Schmid

Bamberg , 1968

Preoccupied with the battle

Black is about to complete his over the key d5 square, Black has

development with 1 2 . . . e6. How­ neglected to provide for the safety

ever, White succeeds in spiking his of his king. It is not without irony

wheels. that the initial thrust in White's

12 e6! •xe6 On 12 . . . fxe6 demolition plan should revolve

comes 13 �e5 and 14 j_f4. 13 around the very outpost which

�g5 •g6 13 . . . •d7, returning Black has taken so many pains to

the pawn, is more prudent. 14 control.

190 Positional Sacrifices

12 d5!! -2:i bxd5 12 . . . -2:i fxd5 The imrninent '2i d 5 leaves Black

and 12 . . . j_ x d 5 c o s t a piece to 13 without resource. 29 -¡te4 � e 7 30

a3. 13 kg5! Increasing the pres­ "/i!i'g4 + *f8 31 � h5 "\ig7 32 iih4

sure on d5. 13 . . . §¡e7 14 i_xf6 fre8 33 �d5 f5 34 ,2lxe7 1-0

gxf6 14 . . . k xf6 loses to i5

-tJ x d 5 . 15 eixd5 §¡xd5 16 §¡xd5 Karpov-Hübner

exd5 17 '2id4 So that if Black Tilburg , 1982

castles, 18 '2i f 5 , threatening 19.

'/!lí' g 4 + , snatches the bishop.

Likewise, 17 . . . \'l!,d7 18 Ael

,;: a 7 19 � a cl 0-0 (or 19 . . . w f8 )

20 � c 6 wins.

11 . . . wf8 18 eir5 h5 18 . . .

_i c 5 (18 . . . .l a 7 19 -¡t e 3 - h 6 + )

1 9 b4 _ib6 ( 1 9 . . . _ixb4 20 *g4)

20 � xd5!, as in the game. 19

l. xd5 *xd5 20 *xe7 + wg8 21

ijxf6 1-0 Spassky was 12 years

old when this game was played.

Karpov discards the obvious 24

Reshevsky-Fine
� xf6 li, x f6 25 -¡txf6 '/!lí' e 6 ! and
Detroit, 1933
prefers to pursue his attack:

24 � el '2id7 On 24 . . . '2i xh5

25 '2)f5 _f¡f4 26 �d5 �g7 27 1.f6

* h5 28 g4 is powerful. 25 l. xd7!

-¡txd7 26 ei f5 f6 26 . . . ijd3 + 27

f¡, a 1 ijd4 28 <El xd4 :1 xe7 leads to

a lost ending after 29 ltxe7 _ixe7

30 '2J f5, or 30 l. xe7 cxd4 3 1 * b l.

27 �d5 + ! � xd5 28 cxd5 j_ f4 29

g3 _ic7 30 wc2 The passed pawns

guarantee Whíte's victory. 30 . . .

b5 31 �xh6+ *h7 32 ers 1:g 8

33 d6 .t a5 34 � e6 l. g5 35 11!: xf6
A pawn up, Black's rooks are
l. xh5 36 d7 X h2 37 <Eie3 1-0
less influential than White's.

However, his knight is well placed

Benko-Keres
and . . . e4 is an annoying threat.
Los Angeles, 1963
With his next move, White nulli­

fies ali Black's trumps. 18 . . . l. xe3! 19 fxe3 ije8 The

27 .1 xf5! '2ixf5 28 X xf5 ijh6 sacrifice of the exchange has

The exchange-sacrifice has com­ further enfeebled White's pawn

pletely transformed the situation. formation and procured the key-

 Positional Sacrifices 191

18 Xd5! j_xd5 19 j_xd5 The

bishop reigns supreme. 19 . . .

:l d 8 20 j_c4 20 j_xb7 j_c5! gives

Black chances. 20 . . . j_ b4 21 c3

b5 21 . . . j_d6 22 trxb7. 22 j_e2

j_d6 23 'i!t'd5 More accurate than

23 j_ x b 5 + '11Je7. 23 . .. '11Je7 24

j_c5! j_xc5 24 . . . f6 25 1, d l. 25

trxe5 + '11Jd7 26 trxc5 1!t'c7 27

tyf5 + * e7 28 tr xe4 + * d7 29

trf5+ •e7 30 X e l Black's king

square e5 for the unmolested use
is under constant attack.
ofhis knight. Moreover, the pawn
30 .. . 1,d6 31 j_ c 4 + *d8 32
on e3 cannot be defended. 20 tyc2
j_xb5 a6 Or 32 . . . l. f6 33 trd5 +
trxe3 + 21 *hl '2)e5 22 l. n
•es 34 l. e7!, as in the game. 33
.1 e8 23 l. f4 f6 24 tye4 '2)g6 25
J.a4 g6 34 trf3 •es 35 le7!
trxe3 l. xe3 26 l. xd7 Compul­
X di + Capturing the rook allows
sory, since 26 ,1 f2 costs a pawn
mate in three or loses the queen.
after 26 . . . '2)e5, as does 26 JI f3
36 'IIJ xdl 1!t'xe7 37 1!t'a8 + •c7 38
,lxe2 27 1,xd7 '2)e5. 26 . . . �xf4
tra7 + *d6 39 trb6 + 1--0 39 . . .
27 gxf4 � xe2 28 JI xa7 X fl 29
'11Je5 (d5) 40 tyd4 mates.
Xb7 lxf4 30 lxb6 flxc4 31

Jtb3 *f7 0-1 Karpov-Hort

Bugojno, 1978

Karpov-Sax

Linares, 1983

Black's king is driven into the

centre of the board:

Black's extra pawn is meaning­ 17 JI xf5 + ! gxf5 18 tyxf5 +

less. It is the plight of his king, •e7 19 tye4 Jl e8 20 ,tf4 White's

stranded in the centre of the pieces rule the board and will be

board, and the inactivity of his presently joined by his remaining

rook on f8 that matter. rook. 20 • • • •d8 21 tre5 JI g8 22

192 Positional Sacrifices

0-0-0 g6 23 �el J..g7 24 'l!lt' b 8 +

f!le7 25 X xe6 + 1---0

Euwe-Carls

The Hague, 1928

by activating White's central

pawns and unveiling the a2-g8

diagonal for his bishop. 30 . . .

dxc5 31 d6 '/!lt'b6 32 J.. c4! X a7 32

. . . 1, xe4? 33 '/!lt'd5. 33 e5 a5 34

The immediate exchange-sacri­ '/!lt'd5 a4 35 d7 l. f8 36 .! dl .1 aa8

fice 20 l. xd6 exd6 21 'l!lt' xf6, 37 e6! fxe6 37 . . . '/!lt'xe6 38 ,¡txa8!.

though playable, <loes not pro­ 38 '/!lt'e5! f!l f7 39 l. d6 ,¡tc7 40

mise very much. White's next J.. x e 6 + f!le7 41 d 8 ( '/t ) + mfxd8

move 20 h4 induces Black to 42 J.. c 4 + 1---0 In view o f 4 2 . . .

weaken his g-pawn, after which f!lf8 43 �f6+ f!lg7 44 Ji f7 + , or

the sacrifice gains strength. 43 ,¡tf6 + f!le8 44 J.. b5 + .1 d7 45

20 . . . h5? 20 . . . 1. c5 (20 . . . !ii e 6 mate.

• g7 21 g4) is correct. 21 JI xd6!

exd6 22 '/!lt'xf6 .1 f8 22 . . . 1, a6 23
Bronstein-Olafsson
J..d5 (with the black pawn on h5,
Portoroz, 1958
J..d5 <loes threaten '/!lt'xg6 + ) f!l f8

24 Ií d3. 23 .l. xd6 'lt c5 On 23 . . .

,¡tb4 24 J..xh5 is possible. 24 J..d5

f!lh7 25 g4! 'l!lt'a3 26 gxh5 '/!lt'cl +

27 f!lh2 '/!lt'h6 28 ..©,.xf7! '/!lt'g7 28 . . .

l. (any)xf7 29 hxg6 + etc costs the

queen. 29 hxg6+ f!lh8 30 ,¡tg5

1---0 The end could be 30 . . .

1, 8 x f7 3 1 "lt h 5 + f!lg8 32 g x f7 +

'l!lt'xf7 33 l. d8 + f!I g7 34 '1!1t' h8 +

f!lg6 35 .l g 8 + and so on

Gligoric-Matulovic

Palma de Mallorca, 1967

As in the next example, White

30 l. xc5! The sacrifice of the coasts to victory by eliminating

exchange transforms the position Black's active knight:

 Positional Sacrifices 193

36 1, xe5! dxe5 + 37 * xe5 and exerts pressure along the c­

� e8 + The king's incursion can­ file. However, the Swedish

not be prevented. 38 \tif6 1,e3 A Grandmaster, who is noted for

forlorn foray. 39 \t}xf7 � b3 40 his su btle understanding of the

€) x g 6 1, x b4 4 1 €) e 5 + •c842d6 niceties of positional play, shows

� b2 43 *e8! », d2 44 €\ g6 \ti b8 that the vital factor here is the

45 g3 g dl 46 €)e7 1-0 power exuded by his long-ranging

bishop.
Merenyi-Capablanca
25 €)c3!! bxc4 25 . . . b4 26 '2)d5
Budapest, 1928
is no improvement. 26 b4! .1 c7 27

€)d5! Black must not be allowed

to release his bishop with . . . d5.

27 . . . '2)xd5 28 jtxd5 "i!!,'b8 29 b5

1, c5 This precipitates the end, but

Black's game is beyond repair. 30

b6 11 ec8 31 e4 g6 32 "i!!,' b4 X 8c6

33 1, bl 11 c 8 34 "i!!,'a4 1-0 lf 34 . . .

.! d 8 , to stop 35 "i!!,'d7, 35 "i!!,'a7,

while on 34 . . . 11 (any) c7 35 1, b4

is probably simplest.

The exchange-sacrifice is the

Polugayevsky-Petrosian
most convincing way of bringing
Moscow, 1983
home Black's advantage:

30 . . . II xd4! 31 exd4 + \ti xd4

32 g3 g5 33 b4 A last try. 33 . . . f4

34 c5 f3 + 35 \tifl e3 36 X e l bxc5

0-1

Andersson-Gruenfeld

Lucerne, 1982

Yet another exchange-sacrifice

from Petrosian's workshop:

19 . . . 1, xe3! 20 fxe3 '2)c5 21

"i!!,' c2 lt e8 22 l. f3 jl_ h6 23 "i!!,' c3

"i!!,'e7 Black has the upper hand.

Black's last move, 24 . . . b5, Polugayevsky commits a blunder:

rids himself of the isolated pawn 24 X b6?? '2) a4 0-1

194 Positiona/ Sacrifices

Levenfish-Keres

Moscow, 1939

squared bishops with 25 . . . ,ih6.

This conceals a positional trap:

should White attempt to discour­

age 25 . . . ,th6 with 25. g4? (to

The normal 21 . . . 1, e 8 gives
answer 25 . . . .ih6 with 26 g5), 25
White time to consolidate with 22
. . . ,ih6 would follow ali the
f4 (-e5), whereas 21 . . . eie5!? 22
same, refuting 26 g5 with 26 . . .
,ixf8 (or 22 1. d l eixf3 + 23 *g2
X xe3! 27 fxe3 ,ixg5, when Black
ei h 4 + 24 * h l ) ei x f3 + 23 *g2
has more than enough for the
eixel + 24 *xe 1 is not quite con­
exchange.
vincing for winning purposes.
In the game, White sidetracked
Black's next move, ignoring the
this possibility with 25 t,-d2.
threat on the rook, assumes con­

trol of the important squares on

Treybal-Spielmann
the king's side and is decisive­

whether or not the sacrifice of the

Exchange is accepted.

21 . . . ,ie5!! 22 ,ixf8 *h4!

Black's principal threat is 23 . . .

*h3. 23 ,id3 t,-xh2+ 24 •n

ei xf8 The knight joins the attack.

25 •el eie6 26 ,ic4 �f4+ 27

*dl .l d 8 + 28 ,id5 *g2 28 .. .

,ic3 first is quicker. 29 X d2

*xf3+ 30 •el eixd5 31 exd5

.ic3 32 Jle3 'it' f5 + 33 Xdd3

* x f2 + 0-1
White's last move, 21 e6?!, anti­

Gelfer-Kraidman cipates 21 . . . *xd5 22 t,-xg4.

Te/ Aviv, 1981 Spielmann's response, 21 . . .

,ixe6!, must have come as a sur­

Black played 24 . . . *f8, prise to him. In return for the

intending to exchange the dark- exchange, Black obtains a pawn

 Positional Sacrifices 195

and a firm grip on the light-col­ Bleiman--V ainger

oured squares. Moreover, while Israel, 1984

ali White's pawns are dispersed,

Black can quickly create a danger­

ous passed pawn on the queen's

flank.

The seque! was: 22 J. xa8 X xa8

23 'itc2 J,c4 24 X f2 J,d3 25 'itd2

b4 26 *hl b3 27 X g2 'itb7 28 f5

a3 29 f6 J,xf6 30 X xa3 l. xa3 31

bxa3 J,c2 32 1: gl 'itc8 33 a4 ..-r5

34 a5 'it f3 + 35 Xg2 h5 36 *gl

b2 0-1 After 37 'itxc2 ..-xe3 +

( e l ) the b-pawn queens.

35 �f5! The knight is sacrificed

Smyslov-Botvinnik
to conserve the advanced passed
Moscow, 1958
pawn and to further restrict

Black's already cramped pieces.

35 . . . gxf5 36 gxf5 tt'e8 37 ..-xe8!

White's material defícit does not

deter him from exchanges! 37 . . .

X xe8 38 l. g3 J,a5 39 •g2! Con­

templating the ending which fol­

lows. Curiously enough, Black is

defenceless. Even if he inserts 39

. . . X ea8, to avoid the ensuing

loss of the a-pawn, 40 •f3 *h8

41 J, x g 7 + X x g 7 4 2 .lxg7 •xg7

43 Jl b 7 + * & 8 44 Xd7ispainful.
In the diagram position White
39 . .. •h8 40 J,xg7 + .1 xg7
offered a draw, which Black ac­
41 l. xg7 •xg7 42 .1 b7 + •h6 43
cepted. In his notes to the game,
Jla7 J,d8 Despite his extra bis­
Botvinnik recommends: 16 . . .
hop, Black is curiously helpless.
l. xf31 17 gxf3 tt'c6! 18 'itdl J. d5
44 1.xa6 J...e7 45 l,a7 •K7 46 a4
19 l. h3 'ite6, when Black's dom­
•f8 47 a5 l. c8 48 a6 .1 c6 49
ination of thc white squares and
,l a 8 + • g 7 50 .l e8 .l c 7 5 1 .lb8!
attacking chances outweigh his
1-0
material deficit.

According to Botvinnik, he had

Yanofsky-Portisch
overlooked that in the event of 1 7
Stockholm, 1962
'itxc4 (instead of 17 gxf3), he had

the intermedia te 17 . . . l. xe3 + ! Black's rooks and knight are

at his disposal. distinctly superior to White's

196 Positional Sacrifices

lea ve his rook en prise and capita­

lize on his control of the long

diagonal.

27 � be2! J.. xd4 28 1, xd4 � ed7

29 •el .le6 30 �g2 J_xg2 31

J..xg2 � ae8 32 �e3 with ample

compensation for the exchange.

Hort-Petrosian

Kapfenberg, 1970

rooks and bishop. But how can he

make progress?

48 . . . l. xe4!! 49 t,-xe4 If 49

bxc4 Jii b4 and . . . •a6 is power­

ful. 49 . . . l. b4 50 t,-e3 "ita6 51

*f2 e4! The e-file is to serve as a

base for the final onslaught. 52

bxe4 .1 xe4 53 "ita3 •e8! Move

by move, Black's threats accumu­

late. 54 .1 d2 l. e3 55 "itb2 "ite4 56

*g2 �b3 57 _le2 '/!!t'd3 58 JI bel

�d4 The most logical. 59 *hl

"it h 3 + 60 1, h 2 "it f3 + 61 *g l
White's attack has reached its

"it g3+ 62 *º �f3! 0-1 peak: 2 1 . . . JI xd4? loses material

to 22 l, x g 7 + l,xg7 23 �f6+

Andersson-Larsen etc. Petrosian's exchange-sacri­

Stockholm, 1975 fice, forced though it is, is the

turning point of the struggle.

21 . . . g6! 22 �f6+ l.xf6 23

exf6 � f7 23 . . . l. xd4 is possible

but Black is intent on enhancing

the scope of his knights and is in

no hurry to gain material. 24 "itd2

l. xd4 25 1, d3 1, h4 26 l. h3 1. g4

27 *º �d6 28 J..e3 28 J_xd6 is

equally unpromising. 28 . . . �e4

29 •d3 �e5 30 '/!!t'dl Xe4 31 i_b2

b5 33 '/!!t'e2 '/!!t'd6 34 *gl �e4 35

l. d3 'l!!t'e5 36 l. el e5 37 '/!!t'e3 d4

38 'l!!t'e2 �xf6 39 Kddl �d5 40

Not relishing 27 l. 4d2 J..xe3 28 'l!!t'd2 e4 0-1 On 4 1 '/!!t'g5, simply 4 1

fxe3 �fg4, White preferred to . . . .!l xc2.

 Positiona/ Sacrifices 197

Smyslov-Trifunovic ªe7+ \'9h8 35 g5 or 35 j_ e l. 32

Zagreb, 1955 'W(e7! 'W(xe7 33 A xe7 .1 ae8 34

ll xe8 .l. xe8 35 f5 with a fairly

easy wm,

Vintage Smyslov.

Fischer-Hamann

Netanya, 1968

Trifunovic, who was known for

his drawing tendencies, must have

expected 24 J_xf6 �xd6 25 j_e7,

with a likely draw. 24 .1, d5 'W(e7

and 24 j_g3 also do not promise

White much. Smyslov has other

Black's thrust, 19 . . . d5, ap­
ideas:
pears to offer him counterplay (20
24 A xf6! gxf6 25 j_xf6 'W(h5
cxd5 'W(xc2). Fischer's exchange­
Apart from 26 j_e7, Black must
sacrifice neutralizes the black
guard against mating threats
bishop on b7 and sets rolling
along the al-h8 diagonal. On 25
an avalanche of pawns, against
. . . 'W(c6 26 'Wf b2 :1 fe8 27 X c l b5
which Black is helpless.
(hoping for 28 j_xf7 + ?} 28 Ah8
20 exd5! e4 21 'W(g3! 2 1 'W(xe4?
"1f8 29 J.. g 7 + \'9g8 30 i_h6 is
gives Black too much play along
overwhelming. 27 h3 'W(f5 28 Ac3
the e-file. 21 . . . 'W(xg3 + 22 �xg3
\'9h7 29 g4! The pawn storm en­
j_xal 23 Xxal f6 24 \'9fl .lfe8
ables White to regain the sacri­
25 .1 dl a5 26 c5 The glory
ficed material with interest. 29 . . .
belongs to the soldiering infantry.
'W/g5 29 . . . 'W(c2 30 Ad2.
26 . . . .1 ed8 27 c4 a4 28 b4! a3 29
30 f4 'W(h4 31 "1g2! Preparing
b5 a2 30 .l a l 1,a4 31 c6 j_c8 32
32 f5 J_xf5 33 'W( e 5 ! , which, if
J_b6 1-0
played at once, allows Black to

escape with a draw after 31 . . .

Olafsson--Fischer
.l,ae8 32 fxg6+ fxg6 33 J_e5 (33
Portoroz, 1958
'W(xe8 l. xe8 34 X xe8 'W(g3 + )

X xe5 34 -W,,xe5 'W(f2 + etc. 31 . . . White has ample compensation

.1, g8 Now 3 1 . . . .1, ae8 is defeated for the exchange in the form of a

by 32 'W(xe8 .1, xe8 33 JI xe8 f6 34 strong bishop, an active queen (to

198 Positional Sacrifices

be posted on e4 or e5) and above on d5, establishing a firm block­

ali, the insecurity surrounding the ade on the light-coloured squares.

black king and the weakness of Possibly White should decline the

his pawn on e6. exchange-sacrifice and continue

24 . . . X f6 25 'i!!fe4 X c8 26 J. b3 26 h4-h5, coupled with X g3. 26

�d7 27 Xdl 1, e 8 28 f4! Making a4 t¿;je7 27 j_xe6 fxe6 28 l!tfl

use of an additional trump: his t¿;jd5 29 .l f3 J_d3 Here the U.S.

pawn-majority 28 . . . 'i!!fh7 29 grandmaster decided it was pru­

�e5! l!tf5 30 g4! 'i!!fxe5 31 dxe5 dent to retum the exchange with

11 17 32 f5 JJ.c7 33 Xd6! 33 30 X xd3 and the game ended in a

j_xe6 + ? X xe6 34 fxe6 recovers draw 1 1 moves later.

the exchange but saddles White

with tripled isolated e-pawns and

Every-Gligoric
doubled, isolated g-pawns. 33 . . .
USA, 1971
,lc5 34 j_xe6+ •f8 35 J,.b3

.1 cxe5 36 X xh6 l. xe3 37 .1 g6

X 8e4 38 Xxg5 Xg3 39 Xg8+

•e7 40 g5 .l e 2 41 j_d5 •d6 42

J..f3 x x a 2 43 f6 •e6 44 ,l e 8 +

1-0 On 44 . . . •f7 45 j_h5 + is

mate. On other moves, the f-pawn

queens.

Reshevsky-Petrosian

Zurich, 1953

Black faces the unpleasant

threat 26 h4 h6 27 h5 j_h7 28 e6 Black's pieces spring to life fol­

fxe6 29 J.. x e 6 + . Clearly, he must lowing 21 . . . X f4! The exchange­

try and restrain White's central sacrifice cannot be declined,

pawns: owing to the threat on g5. 22

25 . . . Xe6! Vacating e7 for his j_xf4 exf4 23 t¿;jd3 'i!!fxg5 24 X c 2

knight which will ensconce itself 24 é¿;jxf4? (24 'i!!fxf4? j_xd3) j_h6.
 Positional Sacrifices 199

24 . . . � f8 25 *dl White's king Lyublinsky-Botvinnik

can find no safe haven: 25 0-0 Moscow, 1943

j¡_ d 4 + etc. 25 . . . a3! 26 <E) c l

j_ a4 27 <E) b3 J. b2 28 .1 xb2 28

� c6 j_xb3 + ! 29 axb3 "rte5! is

worse. 28 . . . axb2 29 "rtxb2 .1 b8

30 �d2 <E)f6 31 *el j_xb3 32

axb3 "rte5 33 f,bl g5 The advance

of the kingside pawns settles the

issue. 34 .1 el g4 35 .1 e7 <E) h7!

Stooping to conquer. 36 *ª2

<E)g5 37 "rte2 h4! 38 fxg4 � f8 39

_if3 "rtd4 40 1,e4 *e3 0-1

Polugayevsky-Romanishin
In this closed position, the
tuu«, 1978
black bishops Jack breathing

space. Moreover, the pawn on c5

is doomed to fall. Thus the sacri­

fice of the exchange that ensues is

virtually forced. It is also good.

25 . . . l. d4! 26 <E)e2? The

knight belongs on d3. Therefore

26 j_xd4 cxd4 27 <E)a4-b2-d3 is

appropriate. The same remark

applies to White's next move (27

j_xd4! cxd4 28 <E)cl-d3). 26 . . .

j_e8 27 <E)xd4? exd4 28 J..fl c5 29

X n f5 30 J..g3 j_d7 31 .1 ael f4

A typical pawn-sacrifice in the 32 J..fl g5 The initiative is firmly

Slav Defence, dating from the in Black's hands and White's next

1930's: move exacerbates his problems.

10 i.d3! j_xe3 10 . . . <E)xc3 11 33 g4? fxg3 34 A xg3 A h3 35

bxc3 j_xc3 Jeads to similar play. l. f2 h5 36 X d2 h4 37 J..fl l. f8 38

11 bxc3 <E)xc3 12 *c2 J..xd3 13 .ld3 Xf4 39 fphl fph7 40 .1. g l

*xd3 <E)d5 14 .1 bl b6 15 J..a3 j_d8 41 *e2 *t7 42 *dl Taking

.le8 16 Ilfel f6 17 e4 <E)f4 18 the sting out of 42 . . . g4-

*e3 <E)g6 19 h4 h5 20 e5 f5 21 because of 43 fxg4 .l. xf2 44

j_d6! White's pressure along the .;; x h 3 . If 42 j_el g4! 43 fxg4

half-open b- and e-files, combined j_xg4! 44 Jlxg4 Kxg4 45 *xg4

with his control of the a3-f8 diag­ *fl + 46 *gl *xd3 47 *g4

onal, more than compensates for *fl + 48 *gl *e2, annexing

the pawn. the e-pawn. 42 . . . *h5 43 �e3

200 Positional Sacrifices

Otherwise . . . g4. 43 . . . 'ii,xf3 + loss ofthe a-pawn. 34 j_xf8 •xe5

44 -.¡t xf3 A xf3 45 Jt xg5 l. xd3 35 Jtc5 1-0

0-1 (in 53 moves).

Botvinnik-Pachman
Fischer-Czerniak
Oberhausen, 1961
Netanya, 1968

Black has reckoned with 30 b4

In this position, Black played
axb4 31 axb4 �xe4 or 30 exf5
the obvious 17 . . . exd4 (1 7 . . . e4?
�xd4 3 1 j_xd4 j_xf5. Botvinnik
1 8 1, xe4) anticipating 1 8 'itxd5 +
surprises him with a positional
'itxd5 19 j_ x d 5 + •h8. Fischer
knight-sacrifice of the highest
responded with 18 �d3! .ld8?-
order.
18 . . . dxc3 is essential - 19 c4!
30 �xf5! gxf5 31 exf5 �g7 32
and obtained an enduring initia­
g4 "White's pawns are very
tive for the temporarily sacrificed
strong. The scattered nature of
pawn.
Black's pieces and the open posi­
The sequel was: 19 . . . dxc4 20
tion of his king make his game
'itxc4+ •h8 21 1,e6 'itb8 22
critical.": Botvinnik. 32 . . . 1,e5
1, ael 1,c8 23 j_xc6 .1 xc6 24
Trying for 33 �xf5, which
,lxc6 bxc6 25 'itxc6 'itc8 26
White foils. 32 �xf5 forthwith
'itxc8 Xxc8 27 *º j_h6? 27 . . . was the only chance.
g5 looks better. 28 1, c l Also good
33 Jt d4! X xel + 34 X xel .1 e8
is 28 f3, intending 28 1, e7 (e4).
35 X dl Jtc8 36 b4 axb4 37 axb4
28 . . . .1 xcl + Forced, but the
� a6 38 � e4! .1 xe4 39 J. xe4
weakness of the black pawns and
�xb4 40 'itd2 d5 41 cxd5 cxd5 42
the proximity of the white king
Jtf3 1-0
militate against him. 29 Jtxcl g5

30 b4 In addition. White has a

Petrosian-Smyslov
mobile pawn majority. 30 . . .
Moscow, 1961
•g8 31 b5 •n 32 J..a3 Jtf8 33

�es+ .e6 33 . . . •e8 34 j_xf8 Pressure along the e-file and

•f8 35 �c6 also results in the down the long diagonal enables
 Positional Sacrifices 201

18 . . . X xc3 19 bxc3 d5 20 *e2

Black to initiate a forcing se­
0-0 21 ,lxb5 axb5 22 *xb5 �c4
quence of moves, against which
23 *b4 *xb4+ 24 cxb4 �fl �1
White is helpless.

18 . . . X xc3! Tactically pleas­

ing though it may be, this com­ J ansa-Polugayevsky

bination, like most worthy com­ Skara, 1980

binations, is primarily posi­

tionally motivated.

19 ,lxc3 Xc8 20 *el �xc3 21

Xe3 �bd5 22 .le4 22 1. d 3 suc­

cumbs to 22 . . . �f4 23 X e 3 (23

l. xc3 X xc3!) �ce2 + coupled

with 24 . . . X c l. 22 . . . �xe4! 23

X xe4 � b4! Regaining the

exchange while maintaining the

attack. Note that if the black h­

pawn were on its original square,

24 X c l! at this point would

render Black's combination Black's first move from the dia­

unsound. gram can scarcely be termed a

24 Xxe6 fxe6 25 *xb4 ,lxf3 sacrifice:

26 gxf3 ..-xf3 27 *d6 *g4 + 28 13 . . . X xc3! 14 bxc3 �xe4 15

*º Xc4 29 Xel Xxd4 30 *el On 1 5 *º Black planned !5

..-xe6+ ..-xe6 31 Xxe6 Xa4 �1 . . . �xc3 16 a5 �bd5. 15 . . . �d5

16 ,lf3 �dxc3 17 �e2 ,lf6 18

,ld4 An attempt to lessen the

Ader-Fischer
pressure by exchanges: 18 . . .
Santiago, 1959
�xe2 19 ,lxf6. 18 . . . ,lxd4 19

White's desperate measures �xd4 f5 Establishing a strong­

save him from mate by . . . ..-xa3 hold for the knight, 20 ,lxe4 Else

and . . . �a4 but not from instant White will encounter difficulties in

defeat. developing his rooks.

202 Positional Sacrifices

20 . . . €) x e 421 'itb4 'itc7 22 24 J. xc4 bxc4 25 €1 f2 a5 26

l. abl J,.c8 23 J; bdl 'itc3 Black's l. el €)d7 27 f4 ll.c7 28 g3 €)c5 29

assets (the central pawns) and *gl .le8 30 .ldel j}_c8 31 '2)b5

White's liabilities (the isolated a­ j}_b8 32 zid4 J.d7 33 €)g4 f6 34

and c-pawns) come to the fore in €)e3 zid3 35 .1 n h6 36 f5 e5 37

the ending. 24 'itxc3 €1 xc3 25 €)e6 j}_xe6 38 fxe6 ll.a7 39 *gl

J;del "1r7 26 a5 J,.d7 27 �e3 §,)._xe3 40 l,xe3 a4 4 1 J; d l e4 4 2

J;c8 28 Jtfel €)d5 29 .1.b3 1.c7 l. el .1 xe6 43 *n f5 44 .1 el g5

30 g3 j_c8 Freeing the rook. 31 45 *el f4 0-1

X d l g632 'llgl 1, c 4 3 3 X a 3 €)c3

Padevsky-Botvinnik
34 .ld3 €)e4 35 c3 ll.d7 36 .1,e3
Moscow, 1956
J. a4 37 €1 f3 J. c6 38 .l. b3 .1 a4 39
€ld4 J,.d5 40 .1,bl €)c5 Not giv­

ing White the slightest chance.

White sealed 41 h3 and resigned

without resuming play.

Schubert-Georgiev

Groningen, 1978

White's assault seems ominous:

if the threatened knight retreats to

d7, the knight-sacrifíce on e6

suggests itself. By sacrificing the

Exchange, Black not only sub­

dues White's initiative but also

goes over to the attack himself.

13 . . . l. xc3! 14 bxc3 1 4 gxf6

Here although the trappings of .1 xe3 1 5 'itxe3 j}_xf6, conserving

the exchange-sacrifíce are slightly the e-pawn and keeping the a8-hl

different, its underlying ideas are diagonal closed, is preferable,

analogous. although even then Black's two

15 . . . d5! 16 'itxl. 7 X xc7 17 e5 bishops and the open position of

Expecting 17 . . . €)e8 18 f4 and the white king give him the edge.

€)d4. 17 . . . €)xe5! 18 ll.b6 .l,cc8 14 .. . €)xe4 15 'itg4 'itc8!

19 J,.xd8 J,.xd8 20 €ldl J,. b6 + 21 Planning to repulse 1 6 f5 with 1 6

'llhl €)e8 22 c3 €)d6 23 €)d4 . . . e5 17 €)0 €)xb3 18 axb3

€ldc4 Black's judgement has been 'itxc3 19 .l, a e l d5 and . . . j}_c5.

vindicated. 1 6 l!; f3 €)xb3 17 axb3 f5 18 'ith4

 Positional Sacrifices 203

Pursuing his abortive attack. On

1 8 gxf6 .1 xf6! ( threat: 1 9 . . . l. g6)

is bes t. 18 . . . e5! 19 1, h3 h6 20

'ith5 'ijxc3 21 1, d l exd4 22 ll_d2

23 J_xd4 'ijxc2 23 gxh6 �f6. 22

. . . 'itc6 23 gxh6 <E)g5! 24 .1 g3

'it h l + 25 "1f2 � e 4 + 0-1

Kudrin-Resbevsky

Lugano, 1985

sacrifice-studded assault, in which

the bishops figure prominently.

21 �d5!! cxd5 22 exd5 �d4 23

�xd4 exd4 24 d6 'itd7 To be able

to counter 25 'ijg6 with 25 . . .

'ijf5 25 l. xd4! Opening the long

diagonal. 25 . . . f3 25 . . . J. xd4

loses instan ti y to 26 ll.. xd4 .1 e8 27

'itg6! ,l x e l + 28 f,h2, and mate

is inevitable. But 25 . . . 'i/,if5 holds

out a little longer.

White fails to provide against
Here the Grand Old Man
the thematic exchange-sacrifice on
played 26 .lde4!? which proved
c3.
sufficient to win. The neatest way
14 ,¡tj b l ? Correct is 14 a3, when
of capitalizing on the bishops' im­
14 . . . X xc3 would be dubious in
mense joint prowess is 26 ,1 e7!
view of 15 'ijxc3 'ijxc3 16 bxc3
J_xe7 (26 . . . 'itf5 drops the queen
a n d i f l 4 . . . d 5 1 5 g 5 . 1 4 . . . l. x c 3
to 27 ll_d3) 27 dxe7 'ijxe7 28
Of coursel 15 'i/,ixc3 'ijxa2 + 16
.1 d6!, when even the radical 28
'f¡cl d5! 17 'ijxe5 0-0 18 �d4
. . . 'itxd6 (28 . . . .l f7 29 ,1 h 6 +
1,d8! 19 J_d3 h6 20 'itc7 dxe4 21
and mates in two) wards off mate
'ijxe7 l.xd4 22 fxe4 �xe4 23
only for a few moves.
'ij e 8 + '1Ph7 24 ll_xe4+ ,lxe4 25

'itd8 'it a l + 26 'f1d2 'ijxb2 27

Polugayevsky-Torre
'itd3 f5 28 l. bl 'ije5 29 1, bel
Moscow, 1981
'it aS + 30 c 3 ll_ c 4 3 1 'ijc2 .l f 4 3 2

fi d l 'it a l + 33 'itcl 'ija4 + 34

Until this game, the above posi­
'1id2 'it a 2 + 0-1
tion was considered roughly equal

in view of the continuation 17

O. Bernstein-Najdorf
e x f8 ( 'it ) + 'f¡xf8 18 1, d 6 Xb8 19
Montevideo, 1954
J_e3 .1 h5. Polugayevsky's inno­

Faced with the threat 21 . . . g4, vation obliged the theoreticians to

the 72 year old veteran launches a revise their assessment. A rook

204 Positional Sacrifices

41 .1 xd4! exd4 42 e5 "WJg7 43 e6

"WJf6 44 e7! Regaining the rook (if

44 . . . g e 8 45 .l e l and 46 d7 or

46 �e6) is the most advantageous

way and remairung with

the passed d-pawn, 44 . . . d3 45

exd8(\'t)+ \'t x d 8 46 ,g d l \'te847

'i!í'xd3 \'te5 48 ,1d2 48 d7? �xd7!.

48 . . . "1f8 49 -ª e2 "l'tf4 50 � e4

\'tcl 51 d7 \'tb2 + 52 "1f3 1-0

down, White abstained from cap­

Inkiov-Psakhis
turing the bishop and played:
Minsk, 1982
17 h4! _lh6 18 f4! The bevy of

white pawns keeps Black's rook

out of the game. 18 .. . b4 19 ,1 d6!

Vacating d i for his knight: 1 9 . . .

bxc3 misfires against 20 1, xb6

cxb2 2 1 .lxc4, when the need to

protect the pawn on f7 renders

Black curiously resourceless. 19

.. . l. b8 20 <E)dl _lxg5 21 fxg5

<E)d5 22 .lxc4 <E)xe7 23 fxe7

"1xe7 24 1, f6 1-0 in 40 moves.

White must act swiftly, lest

Csom-Yusupov Black complete his development

Lucerne, 1982 and initiate a kingside attack with

. . . g7-g5-g4. The bishop-sacrifíce

that follows, activating his central

pawns, is both positionally forced

and good.

19 _lxf4! exf4 20 e5 ith6 21 e6

<E)a6 22 .1 ael <E)c7 23 '/te2 23

'lta4 would save White a lot of

trouble. 23 • • • X ae8 24 'ltg4

_ixd5 Missing 24 . . . 'ltg6!, with

complications. 25 e7! _ie6 26

exf8('/t)+ 1-0

Krogius-Smyslov
With White's d-pawn about to
Moscow, 1967
fall, Black appears to stand well.

A rook-sacrifíce enables White to Black has concentrated ali his

create a rolling pawn mass: pieces against the pawn on e3. 32

 Positional Sacrifices 205

Why did he reject (wrongly) the

introductory 22 . . . b5?-Perhaps,

because he feared the positional

sacrifice 23 l. xc5! bxa4 24 1, xc7

'it e 6 2 5 1, x b 7 J; a c 8 2 6 X c 5 , with

daunting compensation for the

queen.

Pachman-Petrosian

Portoroz, 1958

'cif4 seems the natural move here,

although after 32 . . . h5 Black's

game is more comfortable. In­

stead, White played:

32 g4, hoping to drive back

Black's forces after 32 . . . �d6 33

h4. Smyslov is not impressed: 32

. . . �xe3! 33 h4 �xg2 34 hxg5

�xel The remainder of the game

illustrates the profitability of the

transaction. 35 'itg3 l. e3 36 'itf4

c5! 37 •ht l.e2 38 dxc5 bxc5 39

'itd6 d4 40 'itxc5 d3 41 'itd5 d2 42 Petrosian tempts White to win

'itd7 �xf3! 43 l,xf3 d l ( 'it ) + ! his queen for a rook and knight,

0-1 The rook ending arising from sensing that the combined activity

44 'itxd 1 X e1 + etc is lost. of his remaining pieces will more

than compensate for his slight

Smyslov-Portisch material deficit.
Tilburg, 1984
15 �b6?! 'itxdl + 16 •xdl

axb6! 17 a3 With his king caught

in the centre, White must tread

softly: 17 'itxb7 1,fd8 18 •el

�dc5 19 'itxb6 �a4 20 'itC6 e4 2 1

b3 'ciC3 22 a4 l. d 1 + 23 •c2

X ad8 with irresistible threats. 17

. . . �de5 18 'itc2 e4! While

Black's forces are attaining their

maximum efficiency, White's

bishop and rook are still on their

original squares.

Portisch played 22 . . . c4? 19 f3 ,lad8+ 20 •et �d4 20

which was instantly refuted by 23 . . . X fe8 and only on 2 1 f4 �d4,

l.xc4. is more precise. 21 J..xd4 J..xd4 22

206 Positional Sacrifices

fxe4 lf 22 f4 � fe8 threatening 23 has become an asset. 31 . . . <E) b8

. . . <E) d 3 + . 22 .. . <E)xe4 Again, 22 32 <E)c7 � f8 33 e3 <E)c6 34 a6

. . . J. fe8 is more accurate since '2)xd4 Despair. 35 exd4 J¡_xd4 36

now, by returning his queen with a7 �f6 37 g b8 � x f2 + 38 *h2

23 'ijxe4 l. fe 8 24 �xe8 .1 x e 8 + j_xa7 39 .1 xf8 + wg7 40

25 J..e2 j_ x b 2 26 a4, White could <E) x e 6 + 9(641 �n 1-0

give Black a hard time. 23 [Link]?

Smyslov-Liberzon
.1 fe8 24 l. f1 .1 e7 25 Á f3 .1 de8
Riga, 1968
26 �d3 J.. g l 27 h3 j_h2 28 ,i f3

,l g 3 + 29 #J d l <El f2 + 30 9d2

,lf4+ 31 •c3 'tJXd3 32 •xd3

�e3+ 33 *d4 _zlh6 34 c5 b5 35

il_xb7 Jl g 7 + 36 wd5 ,1 8e6 ! 0-1

37 . . . l. 3e5 mate is unanswerable.

The outcome of Black's queen

sacrifice in the initial position

might have been different had the

white c-pawn stood on c3 instead

of on c4. Vive la petite différence!

Reshevsky-Van den Berg

Black has sacrificed a knight for
Te! Aviv, 1958
two pawns. Smyslov is not satis­

fied with the obvious 27 �c2 or

490 27 �d3 and plunges into a combi­

w
native sequence where his two

bishops play a crucial part.

27 <E)xf5!! The queen is taboo:

27 . . . il_ x b 3 28 j_ x g 7 + •g8 29

'2)cxe7 + and Black will end

material down. The same is true

of 27 . . . 'tJXf5 28 �xd5 j_ x b 2 29

JI a fl . 27 . . . Jl xf5 28 j_xg7 +

•g8! Avoiding 28 . . . •xg7 29

The weakness of White's a­ 'itc3 + * g8 30 JI xf5 'itxf5 3 1 e4!

pawn appears to give Black the _lxe4 32 j_xe4 'ijxe4 33 1, e l !

edge. Reshevsky's clever sacrifice Now three white pieces are under

of his queen for a rook and bishop attack. 29 JI xf5!! White must

transforms the situation entirely. have foreseen the second queen

27 *xb7! .t,xb7 28 Jl xb7 itd8 offer when playing 27 <E:ixf5!! This

28 . . . <El b6 29 <E:ie4 (-f6 + ). Or 28 time Black has no choice (29 . . .

. . . <E:if6 29 <E:ie4 itd8 30 _l a 5 !. 29 'itxf5 30 'tJXe7 + etc) .

& lbl _lg7 30 <E:ib5 *h8 31 a5 29 . . . _lxb3 30 JI xg5 <El g6 31

From being a liability this pawn j_h6 With the deadly threat h4-
 Positional Sacrifices 207

h5 (31 . . . \tlf7 32 an + ). Did of compensation for the

Smyslov calculate everything exchange. Fresh battles remain to

when embarking on 27 �xf5!! or be fought out. Ultimately, White

did he play it intuitively?-What­ emerged victorious in 56 moves­

ever the answer, his combination which goes to show that "fortune

deserves the highest praise. 31 . . . favours the brave" (especially,

*e6 32 h4! �xe3 + 33 \tlh2 •e3 when they happen to be world­

34 :l fl J.e435 l. fl •et 36 l.gf5 class players).

J.xb5 37 j_d2! Even better than

37 h5. 37 . . . •bt 38 j_d5+ \tlh8

Gutman-Pavlov
39 J.e3+ '2:,e5 40 �xe5 dxe5 41
Netanya, 1983
J, xe5 1--0 A tour de force!

Spassky-Portisch

Budapest, 1967

With his next move, White

embarks on an intuitive exchange­

sacrifice, based on the potential

strength of his bishop along the

Spassky's 1 1 \tlgl!? constitutes al-h8 diagonal and his eventual

a remarkable positional ex­ occupation of the key-square d5.

change-sacrifice whose merits are 13 b3!? e5 14 �el j_xal 15

hard to evaluate. After 11 . , . �xal f6 Ought Black to risk 15

gxhl 12 Xxhl Xg8+ 13 'lfhl . . . •xa2 here? 16 �el � e 5 1 7 f4

Portisch accepted the gift with 13 �f7 18 �e3 _ie6 19 .ibl Con­

... •xhl+?!-13 . . . •g3 is crete threats-e.g. 20 �e3-d5-

more prudent-14 \tlxhl �g4+ are beginning to hatch.

15 •xg4 Forced, in view of 1 5 . . . 19 . . . <E\e7 20 <E\e3 ••5 21 a4

�e3+ or 15 . . . � f2 + , but in l. ad8 22 <E\ed5! lt is now evident

accordance with the plan initiated that White's positional gamble

by 1 1 '1Pg2!? 15 . . . _ixg4 16 �d5 has been profitable. 22 . . . _txd5

0-0-0 17 e3. 23 exd5 <E\e8 24 h4 �h6 25 g4

The dust has settled and it is �g7 26 g5 with a winning posi­

evident that White is not devoid tion.

208 Positional Sacrifices

Gligoric-Domnitz 28 c6 �h8 29 .lcl To neutralize

Te/ Aviv, 1966 . . . '2lf4 29 . . . �xg4+ 30 hxg4

'2lg7? 30 . . . '2if4 has to be tried.

31 '2i d l � b8 32 .lb2 The remain­

der is a matter of technique, 1-0

(47).

Doubtless, improvements for

Black may be found. But they will

hardly detract from White's orig­

inal long range conception.

Dzindzichashvili-Liberzon

Te/ Aviv, 1978

The rou tine 13. JI e 1 seems

compulsory. Gligoric, who vied

with Petrosian for the world title

when it carne to sacrificing

exchanges, ignores the attack on

his rook for the sake of gaining

ground on the queenside. 14

'2ih4!? _lxfl 15 .lxfl _l f 6 1 6 '2if3

'2lg7 Hereabouts 16 . . . c5, to

incorporate his knight on a6 into

play and combat the imminent

c4--c5, fails against 17 dxc6 bxc6

1 8 c5!. Black's last move, 18 . . . '2la4,

17 c5! dxc5 1 7 . . . '2l b8 1 8 c6! aims at easing the pressure after

paralyses the knight (18 . . . bxc6 19 '2lcxb5 '2ixb2, but White does

19 dxc6 '2lxc6? 20 ti'd5 + ). 18 not relinquish his bishop pair so

_lxa6 Parting with such a bishop easily.

is a painful decision. Paradox­ 19 '2lxa4! bxa4 20 _lc3! .lg4 21

ically, it does not diminish f3 .ld7 22 f4 l, a 7 A pawn up,

White's grip on the white squares. Black's position is disorganized.

18 . . . bxa6 19 bxc5 g5 20 '2id2! On 22 . . . '2ic6 White exchanges

The struggle is to be decided on twice on c6 with 25 1, d7 to fol­

the queenside. 20 . . . l. b8 21 low. 23 _lb4 A fine example of a

l.xb8 ti'xb8 22 .la3 ti'c8 23 g4 positional move. 23 . . . b6 24 e6!

Thwarting . . . ti'h3 and/or . . . g4. The breakthrough. 24 . . . .lxd4

23 . . . h5 24 h3 *r, 25 '2lc4 25 exf7 + l. xf7 26 l. xd4 e6 27

*g6 26 gxh5 + ! '2lxh5 27 ti'g4 f3 l. d6 b5 28 .1 edl 1-0

Index of Players and Composers
Numbers refer to diagrams

Ader 478 Bobotsov 396

Afek 325, 393 Bogatirchuk 24

Akonia 75 Bogoljubow 92, 126, 210, 326

Alatortsev 197, 2 1 8 , 383 Bol bochan, Jac. 121

Alekhine 28, 44, 1 1 6 , 127, 136, 149, Boleslavsky 147, 192, 201

2 1 2 - 2 1 3 , 224, 230, 252, 302-303, 332, Bondarevsky 11 , 67, 179, 1 8 8 , 246

3 5 1 , 360, 368, 424, 425 Bosboom 393

Alexander 90, 127, 372, 424 Botvinnik 6 1 , 68, 9 1 , 93, 102, 1 1 8 , 122,

Alexandria 407 13 1 , 1 3 8 , 1 5 8 , 159, 160, 190, 2 1 5 , 2 2 1 ,

Alexandrov 45 222, 223, 225, 227, 248, 265, 273, 276,

Aloni 89, 2 1 9 3 04 , 3 4 0 , 3 6 0 , 4 0 8 , 444 , 4 6 3 , 4 7 4 , 4 7 6 ,

Amos 347 481

A ndersen 116 Braga 106

Andersson 124. 262, 406, 458, 466 Bron 110

Andreasen 9 Bronstein 145, 147, 160, 192, 295, 456

Arutiunian 435 Browne 87-88, 204, 399, 403

Atanasov 250 Broyer 83

Averbakh 4 1 , 46, 72, 282 Bruk 180

Avner 66 Bum 44

Avtonomov 448 Byrne, R 331,357,417

Awerbakh 8

Capablanca 4, 25, 47, 52, 84, 1 3 2 , 1 3 3 ,

Balashov 76, 195
136, 157, 184, 185, 232, 233, 242, 256,
Balshan 300
2 6 1 , 264, 293, 3 0 1 , 3 10 , 327, 328, 358,
Banks 169
457
Barcza 1 1 1 , 253
Carls 287, 454
Bardeleben 240
Casper 381
Barden 361
Chajes 440
Baslavsky 78
Charousek 150
Bauer 401
Chekhover 19, 108, 197, 2 2 1
Belavenets 48-49
Cherepkov 65
Beliavsky 238, 426, 445
Chiburdanidze 80, 196
Benko 409,451
Chigorin 1 1 2 , 128, 129
Bemstein, D 153
Cintron 158
Bemstein, O 97-98, 483
Ciocaltea 253, 308
Bertok 338
Corzo 25
Bhend 398
Cosulich 391
Bianchetti 362
Csom 485
Bilek 226
Czerniak 410, 4 7 5
Bisguier 257, 365

Bivshev 251

Blackburne 377 Damjanovic 53, 437

Bleiman 3 9 1 , 464 De Lagron 239

210 Index

Domnitz 247 Hort I O, 74, 115, 166, 250, 308, 320,

Donner 387, 420 3 4 1 , 3 5 2 , 4 1 9 , 453, 467

Duckstein 352 Hübner 105. 117, 165, 166, 234, 277,

Duz-Khotimirsky 120, 256 450

Dzindzichashvili 26, 3 1 8 , 399

lgnatieva 415
Ein-dor 154
lnkiov 486
Eliskases 58, 83, 84, 1 3 3 , 343
lvashin 77
Elo 71
Ivkov 162, 3 1 4 , 3 1 5 , 374
English 34

Estrin 77
Jakobsen 27
Euwe 28, 138, 1 8 5 , 224, 230, 350, 375,
Jansa 479
422,454
Janowsky 2 6 1 , 292, 327
Evans 95
Jimenez 284
Every 472
Johner 23, 252

Justo 1-2
Feigin 274

Filguth 394

Filip 130, 3 1 6 Kagan I O, 307

Fine 61, 1 5 7 , 2 60 , 3 2 9 , 3 5 5 , 44 9 Kamishev 79, 3 1 9

Fischer 3, 12, 17, 20, 30, 3 1 , 32, 33, 53, Kan 120, 222, 328

71, 141, 181, 182, 1 9 3 , 207, 255, 257, Kantor 407

266, 267, 280, 2 8 1 , 285, 296, 307, 333, Kaplan 175

338,354,417,430,469,470,475,478 Karpov 29, 56, 62, 63, 74, 86, 10 1 , 103,

Flohr 47, 50, 5 1 , 58, 6 7 , 1 2 1 , 1 4 2 , 1 5 9 , 1 04 , 1 0 5 , 10 6 , 1 4 8 , 1 5 1 , 1 6 6 , 1 9 1 , 2 0 8 ,

225, 243 220, 228, 262, 279, 305, 313, 3 2 1 , 323,

Foltys 329 324, 359, 4 1 8 , 4 2 8 , 4 5 0 , 4 5 2 , 453

Ftacnik 353 Kashdan 18, 1 72

Furman 402 Kasparov 56, 104, 114, 1 1 7 , 183, 196,

Fuster 3 241, 348, 367, 406, 426, 429, 433

Kavalek 1 7 5 , 344

Gaprindashvili 13 Keene 59, 69, 373

Gelfer 34, 66, 154, 169, 194, 209, 268, Keres 5, 82, 96, 122, 152, 1 7 6 , 2 66 , 2 6 7 ,

325, 345, 3 7 1 , 410, 461 3 13 , 343, 370, 3 8 5 , 3 9 6 , 4 1 2 , 4 13 , 4 1 4 ,

Geller 54, 186, 202, 236, 320, 333, 375, 4 2 2 , 4 3 4 , 44 1 , 44 7 , 4 5 1 , 4 60

382, 4 1 4 Kevitz 358

Georgiev 480 Kholmov 57, 1 18

German 285 Kirillov 402

Gheorghiu 155, 1 7 3 , 433 Klein 125

Ghinda 40 Koenig 178

Glaz 239 Kondratiev 78

Gligoric 90, 130, 161, 167, 229, 249, Konstantinopolsky 68

337, 386, 4 1 9 , 4 2 0 , 4 2 1 , 4 5 5 , 4 72 Korchnoi 29, 60, 9 1 , 139, 144, 148, 156,

Grau 75 2 20 ,2 58 , 259, 3 1 5 , 3 1 6 , 332, 354, 378,

Grefe 87-88, 357 442

Grigorian 164 Korolkov 109

Grigoriev 15, 16, 42, 107 Kostic 184

Grinberg 371 Kotov 89, 93, 146, 249

Gruenfeld 209, 268, 436, 458 Kovacevic 373

Guimard 171 Kraidman 461

Gulko 317 Krerner 6

Gunsberg 311 Kristol 322

Gusev 8 Krogius 254, 487

Gutman 300, 493 Kudrin 482

Kupferstisch 9

Hamann 469 Kupper 438

Hennenberg 43 Kupreichik 231

 lndex 211

Kushnir 13 Pachman 416,425,476,489

Kuzmin 405 Padevsky 27 5

Panno 140, 145, 176, 380

Panov 41
Larsen 14, 64, 10 1 , 167, 193, 263, 284,
Pavlov 493
374,466
Pedersen 194
Lasker, Ed. 92
Penrose 195, 244
Lasker, Em. 19, 70, 1 1 3 , 137, 242, 3 5 1 ,
Petrov 412
369, 40 1
Petrosian 81, 1 8 9 , 2 0 6 , 2 2 3 , 245, 259,
Laurentis 370
265, 280, 2 8 1 , 296, 299, 339, 387, 388,
Lev 180
395,398,459,467,471,477,489
Levenfish 1 9 0 , 2 1 8 , 4 60
Pfeifer 171
Liberzon 263, 306, 491
Pfleger 247
Lilienthal 46, 96, 135, 179, 227, 243,
Pia tlekowsky 443
246
Pilnik 236, 295
Lipnitsky 278
Pillsbury 150, 3 1 1
Lisitsin 201, 342
Pire 50, 5 1
Liu 100
Polugayevsky 73, 76, 140, 162, 208,
Ljubojevic 35, 100, 203, 234, 323, 341
237, 245, 275, 3 1 7 , 334, 3 5 3 , 3 7 8 , 4 5 9 ,
Lobron 436
473,479,484
Lokvenc 274
Pomar 248, 359
Lombardy 346
Portisch 1 8 9 , 2 0 3 , 214, 3 1 8 , 330, 336,
Lutikov 299
429,465,488,492
Lyublinsky 474
Psakhis 298, 486

Makogonov 276 Quinteros 64, 439

Manievich 345

Maroczy 356 Rabinovich 24

Marshall 112, 129 Radakovsky 200
Martz 347 Radulov 336
Matanovic 85, 156, 2 1 9 , 229 Rauzer 48-49
Matulovic 60, 455 Rechlis 392
Mecking 7 3, 103 Ree 238, 346, 388
Medina 124 Reshevsky 5 2 , 1 2 5 , 1 4 1 , 1 6 8 , 1 72 , 174,
Menchik 293 1 7 6 , 2 1 4 , 3 6 9 , 4 0 8 , 409 , 44 9 , 4 7 1 , 4 8 2 ,
Merenyi 457 490

Mieses 97-98, 163 Reti 2 1 , 210, 287, 326

Miles 26, 59, 1 5 1 , 291, 3 2 1 , 3 2 4 , 40 3 , Ribli 86, 1 9 1 , 2 9 1 , 3 8 9 , 4 3 9

445 Rogoff 344

Minev 330 Romanishin 298, 395, 473

Morphy 446 Romanovsky 39, 99, 349

Munchoff 294 Rotlevi 411

Murey 153 Rubinstein 2 1 , 23, 94, 134, 137, 143,

149, 1 8 7 , 2 1 1 , 3 5 6 , 4 1 1

Najdorf 202, 241, 282, 314, 385,430,

Saidy 12, 1 8 1 - 1 8 2
483
Salwe 2 1 1 , 310
Natsis 348
Samisch 332
Nikolic 389
Savon 272
Nimzowitsch 4, 27, 43, 1 13 , 170, 232,
Sax 119,452
233, 404, 440
Schlecter 292
Nudelman 1-2
Schmid 4 2 1 , 44 7

Schmidt 114

O'Kelly 432 Schubert 480

Olafsson, 228, 456, 470 Schulten 446

Omstein 205 Seirawan 366

Ostojic 36 Shabanov 397

212 lndex

Shamaev 79 Torre, E 14, 123, 484

Shamkovich 95 Torres 368

Shaw 69 Treybal 94, 462

Sherf 392 Trifunovic 468

Shishov 251 Tringov 258

Shrentzel 376 Troitzky 37, 38, 364

Shvidler 376 Tseshkovsky 55

Simagin 111 Tukmakov 55, 337

Skold 152

Srnyslov 1 1 , 22, 8 2 , 11 9 , 1 3 5 , 1 6 8 , 1 7 8 , Ubilava 297

1 8 3 , 200, 206, 226, 278, 283, 304, 340, Uhlmann 20, 1 6 1 , 186
365, 367, 383, 384, 386, 443, 463, 468, Ujtelsky 416
477, 487, 488, 491
Ujtumen 54
Solo biov 397 Ungureanu 40
Sorokin 273 Unzicker 207, 305
Spassky 17, 35, 1 5 5 , 204, 255, 272, 279,

306, 3 3 1 , 335, 339, 3 7 9 , 3 9 0 , 4 1 3 , 427,

Vainger 464
431,432,435,442,448,492
Van den Berg 490
Spielman 143, 170, 462
Vasyukov 57, 205
Stahlberg 349
Velirnirovic 382
Stean 394
Verlinsky 39
Stein 254
Vidrnar 142
Steinitz 240
Vikovich 7
Stoltz 18
Vilner 99
Suetin 65, 8 5
Vogt 381
Sveshnikov 405

Szabo 146,372,434
Westerinen 44 1

White 400
Taimanov 3 0-- 3 1 , 32, 62�3, 2 1 6
Winter 3 0 1 , 355
Tal 22, 33, 102, 1 3 1 , 144, 1 64 , 2 3 1 , 2 3 7 ,
Wolf 302, 303
244, 283, 334, 335, 342, 366, 379, 390,
Woliston 1 77
423, 427, 4 3 1 , 438
Wu 322
Tarjan 123

Tarrasch 128, 134, 163, 1 8 7 , 2 1 7 , 294,

404 Yanofsky 465

Tartakower 132 Yudovic 188

Teichmann 217 Yusupov 485

Tempane 380

Thomas, A. R. B. 174 Zagoriansky 215, 319

Thomas, Sir G. 126, 2 1 2 - 2 1 3 Zatulovskaya 80, 4 1 5

Timman 139, 1 7 3 , 277, 3 8 4 , 4 1 8 , 4 2 8 Zeinaly 81

Timoshenko 297 Zichichi 11 5

Tolush 444 Zubarev 45, 264

Toran 423 Zukertort 377

Torre, C 260 Z vetkovic 36

GAMES/CHESS

PD!ilTIDNAL

CHE!i!i
[Link]\fWlaOOK
4g5 lnstructive Positions

from 6irandmaster 6iames

l!irael lielfer
A dramatic sacrifice mtght seem Hke the best way to achieve a

dazzling, come-from-behind victory; the outcome of most chess

matches, however, dependa on the participants' positlonal skills. The

ñrst player to establish a posilional advantage gains the best chance

of a successful direct attack.

This complete gulde, written by an Israelí grandmaster, offers valu­

able insights in developing a more powerful strategic game. lt spans

a century and a half of international cness. from the era of the leg­

endary Paul Mor¡>hy in the 1850s lo that ol the modern powerhouse

Cary Kasparov. The author recuses on common situations arislng

from practica! over-the-board play. Examples-on such themes as key

squares. bad bishops, and pawn structures-appear in ascending

difficulty. with ample cross-references.

Derived from the author"s own coaching manuals. these instructive

examples successfully assisted in training rsraers top juniors and the

champions of the Israelí women's national team. Chess players at

every leve] will beneñt from this opportunity to develop an intuitive

grasp of each concept and strengthen their posltional play.

Dover (2001) unabridged republication of the work publlshed by

B. T. Batsford, Ltd., Lonclon, 1991. lnclex. 495 black-and-while illustra­

Uons. vm�212pp. 5H x 8½. Paperbound.

See every Dover book in print al [Link]

ISBN-13: 978·0·486·41949-7
ISBN-10: 0-486-41949-S
j 5 1 1 9 5

$11-95 USA

PRINTED IN THE US.A.

•
f