The classical heritage
‘In general, it is useful for a chess player to have a good memory, because often he will not need to find the best move himself, but can choose something from the store in his memory. But every memory has its limit.’ – Viktor Kortchnoi
Studying the play of masters is an indispensable component of improvement. But whilst the play of contemporary grandmasters is a living thing in which young players have considerable interest, the games of the kings of past generations are something with which the majority of young players have a fairly lukewarm relationship. Thirty or so years ago, when I was growing up, children, when ignoring the classics, often justified this by claiming that the older generations of masters did not play as well as modern GMs and the opening variations met with in their games were hopelessly old-fashioned.
In this regard, I remember a speech by Tigran Petrosian, at the jubilee evening of the Polytechnics Museum in 1979. By tradition, the master finished his appearance by taking questions, and my father asked the ex-World Champion: ‘How should a young player perfect his strategic mastery?’ The ninth World Champion’s answer was highly instructive and has subsequently been quoted in many different sources. Tigran Vartanovich recommended studying the classical heritage of the great players, precisely because there was a considerable gulf in class between them and their opponents. Imagine, for example, that Alekhine is playing Tartakower. Alekhine comes up with a strategic plan and is able to carry it out to the letter, as Tartakower does not sense the danger and fails to prevent his opponent’s ideas. Thanks to this, the entire plan is laid out like a model before the reader. On the other hand, in games of the modern-day top players, it is much harder to follow a clear plan in pure form, as their opponents know very well what is threatened (thanks to having seen the classical games!) and take steps to prevent the opponent’s ideas.
Studying the classics can happen in two forms. Firstly, by playing through the game and the accompanying annotations, we can try to find our own improvements on the play and notes. In this way, we improve our analytical abilities. With this aim, it is useful to work in the manner of Nimzowitsch, playing one side in the game and trying to guess the player’s moves. Secondly, we can take into our arsenal surprising strategic ideas and plans, many of which have become typical in our day. In this way, we enrich our understanding of the game and enlarge our baggage of typical ideas.
I will offer a couple of simple, but memorable fragments, in which I managed to find corrections to the conclusions of annotators.
Isaak Boleslavsky
Vladimir Makogonov
Moscow ch-URS 1940 (14)
In time-trouble, the game ended quickly:
34…gxh5? 35.♗h6+! ♔g6 36.gxh5+!
And Black resigned.
In his book Grandmaster Boleslavsky, Alexey Suetin wrote:
‘There is only one correct defence. Thus, it seems that 34…♖f8 was simple and natural, but then there follows the combinative blow 35.♖xe5! fxe5 36.h6+! winning. Also insufficient is 34…g5? 35.h6+ ♔g6 36.♕h3!. Only by playing 34…♕e7 can Black retain a sufficiently solid position.’
What happens after 34…♕e7?
The move 34…♕e7 is refuted with the help of a simple combination: 35.hxg6 hxg6 (or 35…♔xg6 36.♖h1 ♖h8 37.♗h6) 36.♗h6+! ♔xh6 37.♖h1+ ♔g7 38.♕h3 ♘f7 39.♕h7+ ♔f8 40.♕xg6 (with the threat of 41.♖h8+! ♘xh8 42.♕g8#) 40…♕d7 41.♖h7, and White wins.
I was proud of this discovery and, in my youthful way, jumped to a categorical conclusion about the impossibility of defending the black position. Nowadays, I see that by means of 34…♘f7! Black can defend his vulnerable points and retain approximate equality.
Isaak Boleslavsky
Alexander Kotov
Moscow 1944 (4)
How should White develop his initiative? Give some possible variations.
In the game there followed
30.♖ad1!
30…♘b3 31.♖xd6 ♕xd6 32.♖d1 ♕b6 33.♖d5
With a large advantage to White. In reply to 30…♖ed8 Boleslavsky gives the variation 31.f6! ♖xf6 32.♖xd8+ ♕xd8 33.♖d1 ♕e8 34.♖d7
Analysis diagram
34…g6 (or 34…♘c6 35.♕d1 ♘d4 36.♖a7 ♘c6 37.♖b7 g6 38.♖xb5) 35.♕d1 ♔g7 36.♕d5 with a decisive breakthrough.
However, by playing 34…♖f4!, Black emerges intact, since after 35.♕d1? (35.♖e7! ♕d8 36.♖d7 ♕e8 37.♖e7=) 35…♖xe4 36.♖d8 there follows 36…♖e1+!. White has to settle for the modest 34.♖d5 (instead of 34.♖d7) 34…g6 35.♕d1 ♔g7 36.♖d8 ♕e6, and Black manages to cover the entry squares.
Therefore, back at the position of the first diagram, it was more accurate to play 30.♖ed1!. Now on 30…♖ed8 there follows 31.♖xd6 ♖xd6 32.f6, and 32…♖xf6 is impossible because of 33.♖xa5!
, whilst after 32…g6 33.♗xg6 ♖xf6 34.♗c2+ ♔f8 35.♕e4! White has a large advantage.
It may be that these examples will raise a smile from the reader – after all, in these days of computer checking, it would be hard to find such naïve mistakes in annotations. Does this fact reduce the value of working with old books?
I remember one session of the Smyslov school, when I shared a room with Alexey Dreev. Every day, as soon as he got a spare minute, the future strong GM was studying David Bronstein’s famous book on the 1953 Zurich Candidates tournament. With great delight, Alyosha told me that, on the advice of his trainer Mark Dvoretsky, he was deliberately using the first edition of the book, because it contained more analytical mistakes and was therefore a better way of training oneself in independent analysis!
Here is an example from my first more or less serious analysis of a GM game. I became interested in a game, which was the subject of a lively discussion in the chess press, and was characteristic of Alekhine’s splendid imagination.
Queen’s Gambit Accepted
Alexander Alekhine
Eero Böök
Margate 1938
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.♘f3 ♘f6 4.e3 e6 5.♗xc4 c5 6.0-0 ♘c6 7.♕e2 a6 8.♘c3 b5 9.♗b3 b4 10.d5 ♘a5 11.♗a4+ ♗d7 12.dxe6 fxe6
13.♖d1!
‘The starting move of a complicated combination, which results in the complete tying up of the entire black force, albeit at the cost of a rook!’ (Alekhine)
The World Champion’s idea was greeted with general acclamation, but once the strongest defence was found for Black, its purely chess value was somewhat shaken. Mikhail Tal and Leonid Shamkovich wrote: ‘Alekhine refrains from the relatively quiet continuation 13.♘e5, which after 13…♗xa4 (13…bxc3 14.♘xd7 ♘xd7 15.♕h5+ g6 16.♕e5! or 15…♔e7 16.♖d1 ♖a7 17.e4! favours White) 14.♘xa4 ♕d5 15.♘g4 gives White an obvious positional advantage. Objectively, this was the strongest continuation, placing in doubt Black’s opening plan with 9…b4.’ However, I am not convinced that after the tempting 14…♗d6 (instead of 14…♕d5) 15.♘c4 ♘xc4 16.♕xc4 0-0 White’s positional advantage is all that obvious.
13…bxc3 14.♖xd7! ♘xd7 15.♘e5 ♖a7
White to play. Suggest ways to develop the initiative.
In the game, there followed 16.bxc3 ♔e7? 17.e4! ♘f6 18.♗g5 ♕c7 19.♗f4 (White’s attack is already irresistible) 19…♕b6 20.♖d1 g6 21.♗g5 ♗g7 22.♘d7 ♖xd7 23.♖xd7+ ♔f8 24.♗xf6 ♗xf6 25.e5, and Black resigned.
As well as 16…♔e7?, Alekhine also considered the variation 16…♗d6 17.♕h5+ (17.♘xd7 ♖xd7 18.♕xa6 0-0! 19.♗xd7 ♕xd7 20.♕xa5 ♗c7!) 17…g6 18.♘xg6 hxg6 19.♕xh8+ ♗f8 20.e4, assessing the position as better for White. Later we will return to this analysis.
Later, Böök pointed out Black’s strongest defence: – 16…♕b8!
Analysis diagram
17.♘xd7 (17.♕h5+ g6 18.♘xg6 hxg6 19.♕xh8 ♔f7) 17…♖xd7, and if 18.♕xa6 there follows the counterblow 18…♕d6! with advantage to Black. Instead of 18.♕xa6 Shamkovich recommended 18.♗a3 ♗d6 19.♖d1 ♔e7 20.♗xd7 ♔xd7 21.♗xc5 with compensation for the sacrificed pawn, but Black did not face any special danger here.
Trying to rehabilitate my chess hero’s idea, I looked at different ways to develop the attack, from the last diagram:
A) 16.♕h5+ g6
16…♔e7? 17.e4
17.♘xg6 hxg6 18.♕xg6+ ♔e7 19.e4 ♗h6! 20.♗xh6
20…♖xh6
The computer points out 20…♕g8 21.♗g5+ ♔f8 22.♗h6+ ♖xh6 23.♕xh6+ ♕g7 24.♕f4+ ♕f7 25.♕h6+ with perpetual check.
21.♕g7+!
Equality results from 21.♕xh6 ♕f8! 22.♕h7+ ♕f7 23.♕h4+ ♕f6 24.♕h7+ ♕f7 etc.
21…♔e8 22.♕xh6 cxb2 23.♕h8+ ♔f7!
Weaker is 23…♔e7? 24.♕xb2 ♔f7 25.♖d1 ♘c4 26.♕e2 ♘cb6 27.♕h5+ ♔e7 28.♕g5+ ♔e8 29.♕xc5 ♕c7 30.♕h5+ ♔e7 31.♕h7+ ♔e8 32.♕g8+ ♔e7 33.♗b3 ♘c5 34.h4 ♘xb3 35.axb3.
24.♕h7+
24.♕xb2 ♕f6
24…♔f8 25.♕h6+ ♔e8 26.♖d1 ♖b7!
And White has to settle for perpetual check.
B) 16.e4!
Later, I found out that this had been pointed out by Suetin, who had restricted himself to the brief variations 16…cxb2 17.♗xb2 and 16…♕f6 17.♘xd7 ♖xd7 18.♕xa6 – in both cases, White retains strong threats.
B1) 16…♕b8
‘16…♕b8 also solves the defensive problem after 16.e4’ – Shamkovich.
17.♘xd7 ♖xd7 18.♕xa6
B11) 18…cxb2
18…♕d6? 19.♕c8+ ♔e7 20.♗g5+
19.♕xe6+ ♗e7 20.♕xd7+ ♔f7 21.♕d5+ ♔f8
22.♗xb2
The computer suggests a more convincing path: 22.♕f5+ ♔g8 (or 22…♗f6 23.♗xb2 ♕xb2 24.♖d1 with irresistible threats) 23.♗d7 bxc1♕+ 24.♖xc1 g6 25.♗e6+ ♔g7 26.♕f7+ ♔h6 27.♕xe7 winning.
22…♕xb2 23.♖d1
With a strong attack for the sacrificed material.
B12) 18…♗d6 19.bxc3! ♕c7
19…0-0 20.♗xd7 ♗xh2+ 21.♔h1 ♖xf2 22.♗e3
20.e5! 0-0
20…♗xe5? 21.♕xe6+ ♔d8 22.♗g5+
21.♗xd7 ♗xe5 22.♕xe6+ ♔h8 23.♗e3
In reply to 16.e4! I also looked at another defence:
B2) 16…♗d6, which after 17.♕h5+ g6 18.♘xg6 hxg6 19.♕xh8+ ♗f8
20.bxc3 transposes to a position of which Tal wrote: ‘White has two pawns for the piece and strong pressure; for example, if 20…♕e7, then 21.♗h6 ♘c4 22.♖b1 with decisive threats.’
The following small analysis does not support the World Champion’s opinion: 22…♔f7! 23.♕h7+ ♔f6 24.♗g5+!? (equality results from 24.♕h8+) 24…♔xg5 25.f4+ ♔xf4 26.♕xg6 ♕g7! 27.♕xe6 ♘e3!, and the black king escapes, e.g.: 28.♖b2 (the silicon assistant strengthens White’s play by means of 28.g3+! ♔g5 29.♖b6! ♕f6 30.h4+ ♔h6 31.♗xd7 ♕xe6 32.♗xe6, but even here Black is not risking anything) 28…♘e5 29.♖f2+ ♔xe4 30.♗c6+ ♔d3.
However, White has a more convincing refutation of 16…♗d6: 17.♕h5+ g6 18.♘xg6 hxg6 19.♕xh8+ ♗f8 20.♗h6! ♕e7 21.♗xf8 ♕xf8 22.♕xc3 ♘b7 23.♖d1, and the black position collapses.
B3) The attempt to prevent the white queen appearing on h5 by means of 16…g6 is also insufficient because of 17.♕f3 ♕e7 18.♘xd7 ♖xd7 19.♕xc3! ♗g7 20.♕xa5.
In my opinion, this analysis shows that Alekhine’s concept was justified not just psychologically, but in a pure chess sense.
B4) It remains only to add that the computer recommends meeting 16.e4 with 16…h5!?,
defending against the check on h5. This move did not enter my head, because of its obvious static drawbacks, but I have not found a clear path to an advantage for White here, for example:
B41) 17.bxc3 ♗d6 18.♘g6 ♔f7 19.♘xh8+ ♕xh8 20.♕d3 ♘b6 21.♕xd6 ♘xa4 22.♕f4+ ♔g6 23.♕g5+ ♔f7 24.♕f4+ with perpetual check;
B42) 17.♕d3!? ♗e7 18.bxc3 ♗f6 19.♘xd7 ♖xd7 20.♗e3 ♕c7
Preparing the knight’s retreat to c6. 21.♕xa6 ♔e7 22.♗xd7 ♔xd7 23.f4 with full compensation for the sacrificed pieces, and the initiative, but Black’s position remains fully defensible.
Now let us discuss the direct influence of classical ideas on the taking of decisions during the tournament battle. I became acquainted with the following game when a third-category player. Black instructively exploits the strength of a knight outpost on an open file.
George Thomas
Alexander Alekhine
Baden-Baden 1925 (10)
13…♘d5!
‘This move forces the exchange of three minor pieces, and in the simplest way, increases the positional advantage Black has already achieved (Alekhine).’
14.♘xd4 cxd4 15.♘xd5 ♕xd5 16.♗f3 ♕d7 17.♗xb7 ♕xb7
18.c4
‘Otherwise White is left with an incurable weakness on c2.’ (Alekhine)
18…dxc3 19.bxc3 ♖ac8 20.♗b2 ♖fd8 21.♖f3 ♗f6 22.d4
‘Positional capitulation, after which Black obtains a relatively easily winning position, thanks to his total control of the light squares (Alekhine).’
22…♕d5 23.♕e3 ♕b5 24.♕d2 ♖d5 25.h3 e6 26.♖e1 ♕a4 27.♖a1 b5 28.♕d1 ♖c4
The pawn structure has changed (the backward c2-pawn has become the hanging pawns on c3-d4) and the hanging pawns blockaded.
The game is memorable for this final, extremely beautiful blockade position. The theme of a knight outpost on an open file could have been learned from other games (e.g. Mieses-Chigorin, Ostend 1905), but I first saw it in this game of Alekhine. Remarkably, within just days, I managed to use the same idea in a tournament of third-category players.
V. Zykov
Alexander Kalinin
Moscow 1976
The structure reached is very similar to Thomas-Alekhine (the subsequent commentary in inverted commas is from my schoolboy notebook).
13…♘d4
‘Also possible is 13…♘f5.’
14.♘xd4 cxd4 15.♘xd6 ♕xd6
‘As a result of the knight exchange, Black has obtained a positional advantage, consisting in more space, the exclusion of the ♗b3 from the game and the open c-file, with the backward pawn on c2.’
16.♕e4 ♖b8 17.♖fe1 ♗b7 18.♕e5 ♕c6 19.♕e4 ♕xe4 20.dxe4
‘Exchanging queens does not remove the positional defects of White’s position.’
20…♖fd8 21.♖ad1 ♔f8 22.f3 e5 23.♖d2
23…a5
‘It was more accurate first to play 23…♖bc8, taking control of the c-file.’
24.a3
‘White could have exploited his opponent’s inaccuracy by 24.a4, and if 24…b4, then 25.♗c4. In that case, I would have had to play 24… bxa4 25.♗xa4 ♗a6, retaining the advantage.’
24…a4 25.♗a2 ♔e7 26.♔f2 ♖bc8 27.♖ed1 f6 28.c3?
‘White wants to free himself, but commits an inaccuracy.’
28…dxc3 29.♖xd8 ♖xd8
And White’s position collapsed, because 30.♖xd8 is impossible due to 30…c2.
After this case, I no longer needed any convincing of the value of studying the classics!
The following game (which Flohr regarded as one of his favourites) I first saw when I was about ten years old. The manoeuvre carried out by Black made an unforgettable impression on me!
Movsas Feigins
Salo Flohr
Kemeri 1937
What would you play?
17…♘b8!
Intending a ‘long march’ of the knight to e4!
18.♘d2 ♘d7 19.♗f3 ♘f6 20.♕d3 ♘e4
And Black obtained a dominating position in the centre.
In the following game, it was already easy for me to find the correct plan.
A. Minsky
Alexander Kalinin
Moscow 1984
What would you play?
White has an extra pawn on the queenside, but Black’s doubled pawns in the centre also have their plusses, keeping control of the squares d5 and d4 (I should add that I was aware of the useful role of such doubled pawns from some of Botvinnik’s games). The ‘long march’ by the knight from f6 to d4 almost played itself.
18…♘d7! 19.♘f3 f6
Strengthening the e5-square and hinting at a possible …g7-g5.
White plays without a plan and allows his opponent to realise his idea fully.
21…♘c6 22.♘b3 a5 23.♕e3 a4 24.♘d2 ♕c5 25.♕xc5 bxc5 26.♘f3 ♖fd8
With an obvious advantage to Black.
The strategic device used in the following game was placed into my memory by Tal’s excellent preface to Nimzowitsch’s classic book Chess Praxis.
Francis Lee
Aron Nimzowitsch
Ostend 1907 (22)
Tal:
‘Nimzowitsch gives a surprisingly deep note to the move 22…♘e7 “After carrying out its work (and the knight has worked) it is useful to change its location. The knight is heading to f5.”
And in the first game of my match with Larsen, the following position arose:
Bent Larsen
Mikhail Tal
Eersel 1969
Strategically the two positions are similar (with colours reversed, of course). Larsen kept his knight on d4 for a long time, but no real siege of the isolated pawn ever emerged. Yet after the game, he said that it was better to blockade such a pawn than to win it?!
I managed to use Nimzowitsch’s idea in the following game.
Alexander Kalinin
N. Besedin
Podolsk 1981
18.♗f3 ♖ad8 19.♕b3 ♗e5 20.♘c2!
Having fulfilled its blockading function, the knight is included in the attack on d5. In the process, White also creates the threat of 21.♗b6.
20…♕d6 21.♖ad1 ♗c6 22.♘b4 a5
With White threatening to double rooks on the d-file, Black decides to drive the enemy knight from its attacking position.
23.♘d3 ♗f6
Leads to material losses. On the other hand, 23…a4 24.♕b4 ♕xb4 25.♘xb4 a3 fails to 26.♗b6.
24.♗f4 ♕d7 25.♗g4 ♗a4
Nor is 25…♘f5 any better, in view of 26.♘c5 ♕c8 27.♕c2 g6 28.♗xh6.
26.♗xd7 ♗xb3 27.♗xe8 ♗xd1 28.♗xf7+ ♔xf7 29.♖xd1
And the upshot is an extra pawn for White in the endgame, with Black’s pawn weaknesses remaining.
Alexander Kalinin
V. Maidla
Tallinn 1984
What would you do?
Black’s position is held together by the ♗e6, which defends d7 and thus protects the knight, which in turn covers the weakness on b6.
19.♗b3!
By accepting doubled pawns, White exchanges off the main defender of the enemy position.
19…♗xb3 20.axb3 ♘f6 21.♕d3 ♕e6 22.♘b6 ♘h5 23.g3 ♕g4 24.f3 ♕g5 25.♕d2 ♕e7 26.b4
And White dominated the key lines on the board.
It is worth mentioning that, while I was thinking over the move 19.♗b3, I recalled the association with the following game.
Mikhail Botvinnik
Nikolay Sorokin
Moscow ch-URS 1931
What would you choose?
Black is ready to solve the problems of developing his queenside by means of …♗g4 or …♗e6.
20.♕e3!
‘This far from obvious move is the strongest in this position. With the exchange of queens, which cannot be avoided by Black, the weaknesses in his position become more noticeable. With his development lagging, Black is already unable to oppose the pressure on the d-file. The pawn on e5 is very weak. To defend it, Black is forced to exchange bishop for knight on f3, after which he weakens not only his queenside, but also the square f7. Meanwhile, the doubled e-pawns are of no real significance.’ (Botvinnik)
20…♕xe3 21.fxe3 ♗g4 22.a5 ♘c8
After 22…♘bd7 Botvinnik gives the variation 23.h3 ♗xf3 24.gxf3 ♘c5 25.b4 ♘e6 26.♗xe6 fxe6 27.♘a4! and 28.♘c5 with a dominant game.
23.♖c1
23…♗xf3
‘On 23…♖e8 it was possible to play 24.h3 ♗h5 (24…♗e6 25.♗xe6 ♖xe6 26.♖d8+) 25.♘h4!, and the threat of g4 is very unpleasant.’ (Botvinnik)
24.gxf3 ♘e7 25.♘d5 ♘c6 26.♘xf6+ gxf6 27.♖d7 ♖ab8 28.♔f2! ♘xa5 29.♖cc7 ♖bc8 30.♖xf7 ♖xc7 31.♖xc7+ ♔h8 32.♗d5
And White obtained a decisive advantage.
Later I found an exact predecessor game of Botvinnik’s.
Mikhail Botvinnik
Isaak Boleslavsky
Moscow 1945 (11)
What should White play?
23.♗b3!
Preparing the advance c4-c5 and forcing the exchange of light-squared bishops, after which Black has to cede his opponent control of the open d-file. And again, we note that the doubled pawns are not a significant factor.
23…♖xd2
‘Alas, Black cannot defend the open file, since the Bg7 must defend the e5-pawn.’ (Botvinnik)
24.♕xd2 ♗xb3 25.axb3 ♕e6 26.c4 ♗f6 27.c5 ♘c8
‘The continuation 27…♖d8 28.♕xd8+ ♗xd8 29.♖xd8+ ♔g7 30.cxb6 is hopeless for Black.’ (Botvinnik)
28.♕d7 ♕xb3 29.♕xb7 ♗g5 30.♘xg5 hxg5 31.♕xa6
and White achieved a decisive advantage.
Vasily Prokofiev
M. Gelin
Leningrad 1982
This game was played in a match between the school teams of Moscow and Minsk. Vasily and I played on adjacent boards and I was able to follow the development of events in his game.
1.e4 c5 2.♘f3 ♘c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.♘xd4 g6 5.♘c3 ♗g7 6.♗e3 ♘f6 7.♗c4 d6 8.f3 ♕b6
The Dragon Variation is often seen in junior events. The many tactical possibilities, together with its strategic clarity, make this opening very attractive to young players. Black’s last move takes the game into less explored territory.
9.♗b5 ♕c7 10.♘d5 ♘xd5 11.exd5 a6 12.♘xc6 axb5 13.♗d4 0-0
The alternative is 13…bxc6 14.♗xg7 ♖g8, and Black straightens out his pawn structure, but pays for this with his king being in the centre in the middlegame.
14.♗xg7 ♔xg7 15.♕d4+ ♔g8 16.♘b4 ♕c4
17.c3!?
When this subtle move was played, I liked it very much. If the queens are exchanged on d4, then at the cost of doubled pawns, White gets the chance to play on the c-file.
In the game Stefansson-T.Ernst (Copenhagen 1991) there occurred 17.0-0-0 ♕xd4 18.♖xd4 f5 19.♖e1 ♔f7 20.a3 ♗d7, and White did not find it easier to exploit the enemy weaknesses on the queenside.
17…♕xd4 18.cxd4 ♗f5 19.♔d2 ♖fc8 20.♖hc1 ♖c4?
A serious mistake. The transformation of the pawn structure that this move produces turns out not to be in Black’s favour.
21.♖xc4
First White doubled his own pawns, and now he undoubles his opponent’s! But the c4-pawn now becomes a convenient object of attack. A great deal of importance in what follows attaches to the activity of the white king.
21…bxc4 22.♔c3 ♖c8
Or 22…b5 23.♘c6 ♔f8 24.♔b4, and Black’s position is bad.
23.a4 ♗d7 24.♘c2 ♔f8 25.♘e3 e6 26.a5 ♗b5 27.♔b4 ♗a6 28.♖c1 exd5 29.♘xd5 ♖c6 30.♘b6 ♔e8 31.♖c3 ♖c7 32.♘xc4 ♗xc4 33.♖xc4 ♖e7 34.♔b5
And White soon won.
When Vasya played his 17th move, I immediately remembered the following game:
Vasily Smyslov
Mikhail Tal
Bled/Zagreb/Belgrade ct 1959
What would you play?
The white pawns on a5 and d5 are ready to set up a bind on the black queenside, but Black’s pieces are very actively placed. For example, he threatens …e5-e4.
There followed the unexpected
15.♕d3!! ♖fc8 16.♖fc1 ♕xd3 17.cxd3 g6 18.♖c3 ♖xc3 19.bxc3 ♖c8 20.c4
And White developed strong pressure on the queenside.
At the end of the round, Vasya Prokofiev confirmed my associations, saying that while he was thinking about 17.c3 he also remembered the Smyslov game!
Incidentally, the advantages of studying the classical heritage are not limited only to the mechanical reproduction of remembered devices and plans in specific positions. The acquisition of knowledge in this way also widens the thinking of a chess player, enriching his understanding of the game and enabling him to play better in original positions too.
The well-known Mexican grandmaster Carlos Torre, who had a meteoric career in the 1920s, said the following: ‘In acquiring a knowledge of the devices and plans used by the great masters of the past, we should not worship them or blindly and unthinkingly copy their ideas. We cannot do this, because we will never be able to re-live exactly the same psychological process which leads a player to play in this or that fashion, and we should not, because in that case, chess would be transformed into a dry and pointless exploitation of memory.’
The following example enabled me in my time to learn that the assessment of events on the board often depends on barely perceptible nuances of the position.
Sicilian Defence
Alexander Kalinin
Boris Alterman
Yaroslavl 1983
This game was played between two first category players in a junior event. My opponent was Boris Alterman from Kharkov, who is now a well-known Israeli grandmaster.
1.e4 c5 2.♘f3 ♘c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.♘xd4 g6
Even as a child Boris was known among his contemporaries as a Dragon expert, and he later became one of its leading practitioners. But in this last round game, which saw us fighting for third place, a draw suited Boris and so he put his faith in the quiet accelerated variation of his favourite system, allowing the Maroczy Bind.
5.c4 ♗g7 6.♗e3 ♘f6 7.♘c3 ♘g4
This knight jump, introduced into practice by Breyer, aims at exchanging a pair of minor pieces, which suits the side with less space.
8.♕xg4 ♘xd4 9.♕d1 e5
A rare move, introduced by Botvinnik. In weakening the d5-square and the d-pawn, Black counts on being able to shelter these behind the ♘d4.
10.♗e2
In the old ECO, grandmaster Filip gave the variation 10.♗xd4 exd4 11.♘d5 0-0 12.♗d3 d6 13.0-0 ♗e6 14.♕d2 ♗xd5 15.exd5 ♕d7, assessing the position not with =, but 
. This far from impressive recommendation has some significance in what follows, however. Therefore let us take a slightly closer look at the final position. The queenside pawn advantage (a2, b2, c4, d5 against a7, b7, d6 – the pawn on d4 does not count) is hard to exploit, because the flexible position of the pawns on a7 and b7 prevent White from opening lines in that section of the board.
Theory considers the main reply to 9…e5 to be 10.♘b5, with possible complications after 10…♘xb5 11.cxb5 d5!?. I only knew the fact of this recommendation and so decided not to go in for such an unfamiliar enterprise.
10…a6
Cutting out once and for all the possibility of a knight jump to b5.
11.0-0 0-0
Having completed development, I thought for a while about the subsequent plan. Theory (of which I was totally unaware) quotes the game Lein-Gipslis (Tbilisi 1966), in which there followed 12.♕d2 (logical – White wants to drive the knight from d4 by means of ♘c3-e2) 12…d6 13.♖fd1 ♗e6 14.♗f1 ♕a5 15.♘e2 ♕xd2 16.♖xd2 ♗xc4 17.♘xd4 exd4 18.♗xd4 ♖ac8 19.♗xg7 ♔xg7 20.♖xd6 ♗xf1 21.♔xf1 ♖c2, and the activity of the black rooks gave sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn.
However, my attention was seized by another idea.
12.♘d5 d6 13.♗xd4 exd4 14.♗d3 ♗e6 15.♕d2 ♗xd5 16.exd5 ♕d7
And we have reached a position similar to that analysed by Filip in his notes to White’s 10th move.
White to move. Which plan would you choose?
However, there is one significant difference between the two positions – here the black pawn is on a6, rather than a7! As a result, White has a concrete plan of attack on the queenside – he plays a2-a4-a5 and then b2-b4-b5, exploiting the target on a6 to open the b-file.
I would observe that, had I known of Filip’s recommendation in ECO, I would never have thought up the idea I found at the board, thanks to my ignorance!
17.a4! ♖ae8
Black could stop the a4-pawn with 17…a5 and fix his opponent’s pawn structure on the same colour squares as the ♗d3. However, in this case White would retain the possibility of creating an initiative on the queenside. With the manoeuvre 18.♖a3 followed by ♖f1-a1, ♖a3-b3-b5 and, finally, b2-b4, he could create strong pressure on the b7-pawn. Of course, Black could regroup with …♗g7-f6-d8 and …b7-b6, but then the d4-pawn would be in need of defence.
I should point out that this rook manoeuvre, like a slalom skier, along the a- and b-files and deep into the heart of the enemy position, was one used by Geller in similar Sicilian structures. But in my mind, this manoeuvre is associated with the following game, which once seen is never forgotten:
Isaak Gunsberg
Mikhail Chigorin
Havana 1890
Note also the knight on e6, ideally placed behind the protection of the enemy passed pawn. Chigorin seems to have been the first master to deliberately create positions with such a blockading knight.
There followed 25…♖h6! 26.♕a5 ♕b6 27.♕e1 ♖g6! 28.c4 ♖g4! 29.♗c1 ♕c6 30.♖g1 ♖h8 31.♖b2 ♕f3 32.♘f2, and now the rook transfer to g4 allowed an effective breakthrough – 32…g5!! 33.♘xg4 hxg4 34.♕f1 ♖xh4+! 35.gxh4 g3+ 36.♖xg3 ♕xf1, and Black won.
Let us return to our game.
18.a5 ♖e5 19.b4
White ignores the doubled enemy rooks on the open file, and keeps his major pieces for active operations on the queenside.
This classical idea I knew from the notes to the following game, in the classic New York 1927 tournament book.
Milan Vidmar
Aron Nimzowitsch
New York 1927 (5)
19…♖ae8!
‘Black’s playing for a win deserves particular credit for the fact that it involves ceding the open file, a decision which many tried and tested fighters would shy away from. I, for example, from experience in recent years know of several first-class masters who, without any thought at all, would put both rooks on the d-file and exchange them off, and… then complain that chess is approaching its draw death.’ (Alekhine)
And now once again we return to the text.
19…♖h5?!
The attempt to create counterplay on the kingside is hardly a good one, because the black rook could prove out of play.
20.♖ae1?!
Whilst Black has voluntarily ceded the only open file, White declines to occupy it. Incidentally, on 20…♖e5 there would follow 21.♖b1, winning a tempo.
Even so, the immediate 20.f4 was stronger, shutting the ♖h5 out of the game, and on 20…♗h6 there follows 21.♕d1, preventing 21…♖e5.
20…♗h6 21.f4
In the event of 21.♕b2 ♗f4 22.h3 ♖g5 23.♔h1 ♖h5 the game could end in a repetition of moves.
21…♗g7?
A serious mistake, leaving the ♖h5 out of play. It was essential to play 21…♖e5!, which, with White having lost pawn control of e3, would ensure Black counterplay and equal chances.
22.♖e4 ♗f6 23.♖fe1
If 23.♖b1 (preparing b4-b5) it seemed to me that the consequences of 23…g5 were unclear, e.g. 24.♕e2 (or 24.♗e2 ♕f5 25.♕d3 ♖h6) 24…♖h6 25..fxg5 ♗xg5 26.♖xd4? f5 with threats of 26…♖e8 and 26…♗f6. Therefore, I decided for the moment to put the rook on the open file and see what my opponent would do.
23…♔g7 24.♖b1
Noticing how the position has changed after the king moved to g7, White now has no objection to 24… g5.
24…g5 25.♕e2 ♖h6
After 25…g4 the black rook on h5 remains offside.
26.fxg5 ♗xg5 27.♖g4 f6?
Black could resist longer with 27…♕d8 28.♖f1 ♔h8 29.♖xd4, though Black’s position is cheerless.
28.h4!
Now after 28…♖xh4 White wins with 29.♖xh4 ♗xh4 30.♕h5, landing a double attack on h4 and h7.
28…♖e8 29.hxg5
29.♕d1 is also possible, because after 29…♕e7 (with the idea of 30.hxg5?? ♕e3+ 31.♔f1 ♖h1#) the move 30.g3 is sufficient for a win.
29…♖xe2 30.gxh6+ ♔xh6 31.♗xe2 ♕e7 32.♖b3 1-0
One can not only draw valuable lessons from the classical heritage or modern super-tournaments. If you look around you attentively, you can find a great deal that is interesting and instructive!
In the spring of 1986, I was a participant in a friendly match between the sports societies Burevestnik and Zenit, over 100 boards. My attention was caught by the game Dokhoian-Andrianov, which had a highly interesting course. I no longer remember the position precisely, and below is just an approximation, which conveys the essence of what happened:
Note the knight on b4, placed beautifully but ineffectively. More than that, it could prove to be completely out of the game. In the subsequent course of the game, the white pieces gradually drifted towards the kingside where the real battle was taking place, White having effectively an extra piece. Andrianov managed to draw, but that is by the by – what matters is that the strategic idea proved clear and memorable.
Within just a month or so, I managed to draw this example from my memory and use it myself.
Sicilian Defence
Alexander Kalinin
Yuri Piskov
Moscow 1986
My opponent in this game was master (now grandmaster) Yuri Piskov. Yuri can justifiably be described as my oldest friend.
We studied together in the 22nd Moscow school, I in the junior class, he in the senior. Our school had two chess teams, a main one and a ‘development’ side, destined to replace the main team. The younger team proudly looked on their heroes from the seniors, who had already won the ‘White Rook’ junior event, and later the Pioneer Palace event sponsored by newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda. Our main team was certainly strong – as well as Piskov, we had Mikhal Krasenkow, who became a well-known GM, and Sergey Sergienko, who is now an IM.
1.c4 e5 2.♘c3 ♘c6 3.g3 g6 4.♗g2 ♗g7 5.e3 d6 6.♘ge2 h5
We have a Closed Sicilian with colours reversed. Exploiting the fact that White has lost control of h4 by developing his king’s knight to e2, Black takes the chance to push his h-pawn.
7.h4 ♗g4 8.d3 ♘ge7 9.♖b1 ♖b8 10.b4 a6
Black’s last two moves are aimed at his opponent’s plans to expand on the queenside. Now after 11.a4 (insisting on the advance b4-b5) there follows 11…a5! 12.b5 ♘b4 13.♗a3 c5. A similar manoeuvre (again with colours reversed) was used in the game Spassky-Larsen (Malmö 1968). I knew about this, but, as you may have guessed, my attention was seized by the position of the knight on b4.
11.a4 a5 12.b5 ♘b4 13.♗a3 c5
I would hardly have chosen this line if I had been aware that in his recently-published book on the English Opening, Bagirov had written of this position: ‘White should be very careful with the move 11.a4?, not forgetting that this is met by 11…a5! 12.b5 ♘b4! 13.♗a3 c5.’ The grandmaster then refers to the game Pfleger-Nunn (Germany Bundesliga 1985/86), in which White was crushed horribly: 14.♗xb4 axb4 15.♘d5 ♘xd5 16.♗xd5 0-0 17.♕c2 b6 18.♘c1 ♗e6 19.♘b3 ♗xd5 20.cxd5 e4! 21.dxe4 ♗c3+ 22.♔f1 ♕e7 23.♔g2 ♖be8 24.♔f3 f5 25.exf5 c4 26.♘d4 ♗xd4, and White resigned. Fortunately, I only found out about this after the game.
14.♕d2
Undoubtedly the move 14.♗xb4?, played by Pfleger, runs counter to Dokhoian’s idea of playing on the opposite side of the board, exploiting the offside ♘b4.
14…0-0 15.0-0 b6 16.♖be1
Thus, all the white pieces are gradually moving over to the kingside. I was far from claiming any great advantage for White, but it is always easier to play when you have a concrete plan of action.
16…♗h6 17.♕d1 ♗e6 18.e4
The advance …d6-d5 must be prevented.
18…♔h7 19.♗b2 ♕d7 20.♔h2 ♘g8 21.♘d5 f5 22.f4
The position in the diagram clearly illustrates that in the battle in the centre, White effectively has an extra piece.
22…♗xd5 23.cxd5 fxe4 24.dxe4 ♘f6 25.♗h3 ♘g4+ 26.♗xg4 ♕xg4 27.fxe5 ♕xe4 28.♘f4 ♕c2+ 29.♕xc2 ♘xc2 30.♖e2 dxe5 31.♖xe5 ♖b7 32.♖e2 ♘d4 33.♗xd4 cxd4
Black finally solves the problem of the ♘b4, but the weakness appearing on d4 allows White to continue to fight for an advantage.
34.♖e4 ♗g7
The d4-pawn drops after 34…♗xf4, but now the white tandem ♖+♘ turn out to be stronger than Black’s rook and bishop.
35.♖fe1 ♖d8 36.♖e7 ♖xe7 37.♖xe7 ♖d6
Black is also in a bad way after 37… d3 38.♘xd3 ♖xd5 39.♘f4 ♖d2+ 40.♔h3 ♔g8 41.♖e6 etc.
38.♘e6 ♔h8 39.♖e8+ ♔h7 40.♘g5+
Black resigned.
I will finish this chapter with the most surprising example in my career of ‘borrowing’ a strategical idea.
Alexander Kalinin
Heico Kerkmeester
Wijk aan Zee 1996
Here White has a tempting possibility – 17.f4 ♕h6 18.♗xe4 fxe4 19.h4, blocking the opponent’s activity on the kingside, and remaining with a good knight versus bad bishop. The fact that the black bishop can execute the march e8-g6-f5-g4-f3 is of no real significance, as the bishop would be unsupported by other pieces.
I refrained from this line because of the following considerations:
A) The plan of a4-a5 followed by b3-b4-b5 will not be so effective, because White will not be able to force b4-b5;
B) This means White will have to forgo the closure of the centre with c4-c5 and attack by means of b3-b4, a2-a4 and b4-b5. But once the game opens, the weakness of the light squares around the white king might have its say. In this regard, one cannot rule out the possibility of a black piece sacrifice on e5.
Consequently, I decided not to part with my light-squared bishop.
17.♖ae1 ♗g6 18.f3 ♘f6 19.c5 ♕h6 20.h4 ♗e8 21.♕d2 ♘d7
The advance 21…g5? is refuted by means of 22.e4!.
22.♘xd7 ♗xd7 23.f4 ♕g6 24.♔h2
White has a good bishop versus a bad one, plus the superior pawn structure and space advantage on the queenside. But is his advantage enough to win? The centre and kingside are blocked, so will White be able to win by a breakthrough on the queenside alone?
24…♕f7 25.♖b1 ♖fb8 26.b4 a6 27.♖b3 ♕e8 28.♖fb1 ♖a7 29.♗f1 ♖ba8 30.a4 ♔h7 31.♗e2 ♔h6 32.♕d1 g6
It seems that the game is going to end in a draw. As soon as White plays b4-b5, Black will obtain counterplay on the a-file, and the main source of his woes, the light-squared bishop, will be exchanged. Even so, White has a plan to play for a win. It consists of the following:
A) Regrouping his major pieces on the a-file with ♖a3, ♖a2, ♕a1;
B) Transferring the king to his queenside, in anticipation of developments there;
C) Playing the break b4-b5, which will lead to the exchange of all the rooks and the light-squared bishops;
D) Breaking into the enemy camp with the king and queen via the dark squares, exploiting his space advantage and the strong pawn on c5.
I hardly need to say that I had this plan in 22.♘xd7 and 23.f4, because I had seen it all before! I had learned this plan from the Moscow master Vladimir Baikov. Playing against him in the semifinal of the Moscow championship in 1988, I suffered greatly in a similar position as Black and only made a draw with great difficulty.
33.♔g2 ♕d8 34.♔f2 ♕c7 35.♕c2 ♕d8 36.♔e1 ♗e8 37.♔d2 ♗d7 38.♖a3 ♗e8 39.♕b3 ♗d7 40.♖ba1 ♗e8 41.♔c2 ♗d7 42.♕b2 ♔g7 43.♖1a2 ♗e8 44.♕a1 ♔f7 45.b5 axb5 46.axb5 ♖xa3 47.♖xa3 ♖xa3 48.♕xa3 cxb5 49.♔b3 ♗c6 50.♔b4 ♕c8 51.♗xb5 ♗xb5 52.♔xb5 ♕c6+ 53.♔b4 ♕c8 54.♕a7 ♔f6 55.♕b6 ♕a8 56.♕d6 ♔f7 57.♔b5 ♕a7
White to play. What would you do?
Black is holding his last line of defence, not allowing the white king into b6. Zugzwang comes to White’s aid. The most surprising thing is that the final winning manoeuvre is one I found when analysing my adjourned position against Baikov!
58.♕d7+! ♔f6 59.♕d8+! ♔f7 60.♕d6!
Since 60…♔f6 is impossible due to 61.♕f8#!, Black finds himself in zugzwang and is forced to allow the enemy king into his camp.
60…♕a3 61.♕d7+ ♔f6 62.♕xb7 ♕xe3 63.♕c8 ♔g7 64.♕c7+ ♔f8 65.♕e5 ♕b3+ 66.♔c6 ♕xg3 67.♕f6+ ♔g8 68.♔d7 ♕xf4 69.c6
And Black resigned.
It transpires that, when playing his 23rd move, White saw the final zugzwang in the queen ending at move 60. A record for length of plan!
And now to acquaint you with the source game.
Dutch Defence
Vladimir Baikov
Alexander Kalinin
Moscow 1988
Vladimir Baikov, a player with a subtle positional style, was a colourful figure amongst Moscow masters. Working in a car factory, he managed to find time to work out original opening and middlegame plans in his favourite opening schemes, in the style of Rubinstein, with a single thread running through the entire game. One of his examples is before you.
1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5
I remember that, when preparing for this game, I paid attention to a game Baikov-Piskov, from the previous year’s Moscow championship. Yuri Piskov had won a beautiful game in the Stonewall system, and I decided to follow his example. But this was to be the first and only time in my life that I played the Stonewall!
3.g3 ♘f6 4.♗g2 c6 5.♘f3 d5 6.0-0 ♗d6 7.b3 ♕e7 8.c5 ♗c7 9.♗f4 ♗xf4
I knew that in such positions, Black should take on f4 himself (since otherwise he loses his dark-squared bishop ‘free of charge’), so as later to obtain counterplay with the help of the advance …g7-g5.
10.gxf4 0-0 11.♘bd2 ♗d7 12.b4 ♗e8 13.a4 ♘e4 14.♖a3!
The rook is simply superbly placed on the third rank!
14…♔h8 15.♘e5 ♘d7 16.♘xd7 ♗xd7 17.♘f3
And here I happily played the programmed advance …g7-g5.
17…g5 18.fxg5 ♘xg5 19.♘xg5 ♕xg5 20.f4! ♕f6 21.♖g3
But now I realised that I had no counterplay at all, and faced a tortuous defence.
21…♖g8 22.♕d2 ♖g7 23.♖xg7 ♕xg7 24.♖f3 ♖g8 25.♖g3 ♕f6 26.♕e3 a6 27.♔f2 ♖g7 28.♔e1 ♔g8 29.♔d2 ♔f8 30.♔c3 ♖xg3 31.♕xg3
The exchange of rooks, this time on the b-file, leads us to the same type of ending as in the previous game. White will try to break through on the queenside, where his king is already stationed.
31…♗e8 32.♗f3 h6 33.e3 ♗d7 34.♗e2 ♔f7 35.b5 cxb5 36.axb5 ♗xb5 37.♗xb5 axb5 38.♕e1 ♕d8 39.♕a1 ♕c7 40.♔b4 ♕c6 41.♕a5 ♔g6 42.♕xb5 ♕c8 43.♔a5 ♕d8+ 44.♕b6 ♕a8+ 45.♔b4 ♔f6
Here the game was adjourned and White sealed his move.
I still have my notebook with my adjournment analysis, which is reproduced below: 46.♕a5 (not yet allowing the black queen any scope) 46…♕c8 47.h4 h5 (it is dangerous to allow the white pawn to advance) 48.♕a4 (forcing the black queen to cover the entry squares on the a4-e8 diagonal and preparing to attack the h5-pawn from d1) 48…♔g6! 49.♕a1 (now the white queen comes to the g-file with check) 49…♕c6! (it is essential to activate the queen to the maximum, exploiting the chance he has; 49…♔f6? is bad because of 50.♕g1) 50.♕g1+ ♔f7 51.♕a1 (if 51.♕g5 ♕a6 52.♕xh5+ ♔g7 Black has sufficient counterplay) 51…♔f6 52.♕a8 ♔g7!, a very important position of reciprocal zugzwang (52…♔f7? loses because of 53.♕a4! ♕c8 54.♕d1!, and White wins a decisive tempo, threatening to take the h5-pawn with check):
Analysis diagram
53.♕a4! (53.♕d8 ♔f7) 53…♕c8 54.♕d1 ♕a8 55.♕xh5 ♕a6 56.♕d1! ♕c4+ 57.♔a3 ♔h6 58.♕b3 ♕a6+ 59.♔b4 (or 59.♔b2 ♔h5) 59…♔h5, and Black holds the balance.
After this small analytical diversion, the finish of the game becomes understandable.
46.♕d6 ♕a2 47.♔b5 ♕a7 48.h4 h5
The white pawn cannot be allowed to h5, because this cramps the black position decisively.
Compare this position with that which arose after Black’s 57th move in the previous game. They would be identical if we added white and black pawns on g3 and g6 respectively! This detail stops White playing for zugzwang, because now the move ♕d6-f8 is only check, not mate! Therefore, after several preparatory moves, Baikov tries to attack the h5-pawn.
49.♕d8+ ♔f7 50.♕a5 ♕b8 51.♔b4 ♕c8 52.♕a1 ♕d8 53.♕e1 ♕a8 54.♕e2 ♔f6 55.♕xh5 ♕a6 56.♕d1 ♕c4+ 57.♔a3 ♕c3+ 58.♕b3 ♕a5+ 59.♔b2 ♕d2+ 60.♔b1 ♕e1+ 61.♔a2 ♕xh4 62.♕xb7 ♕f2+ 63.♕b2 ♕xe3 64.c6
The last desperate attempt to play for a win. White sacrifices all his pawns, placing all his hopes on the passed c6-pawn.
64…♕xf4 65.♕b7 ♕d2+ 66.♔b3 ♕d3+ 67.♔b4 ♕xd4+ 68.♔b5 ♕d3+ 69.♔b6 ♕e3+
As often happens in such situations, diagonal checks come to the rescue of the defending side. The white king cannot escape perpetual.
70.♔c7 ♕g3+ ½-½
I would add that I have since seen Baikov lure several opponents into the same plan and win, like Baron von Munchausen shooting down an entire group of ducks with a single shot!
Creative associations play a great, if often unconscious role in decision-taking at the board. We will meet this theme again in the following pages of this book.