Test and Improve Your
Positional Intuition
by
Karsten Müller
Foreword by
Susan Polgar
2008
Russell Enterprises, Inc.
Milford, CT USA
The ChessCafe Puzzle Book 2
Test and Improve Your Positional Intuition
© Copyright 2008
Karsten Müller
All Rights Reserved. No part of this book may be used, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any manner or form whatsoever or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the express written permission from the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
ISBN: 978-1-888690-43-9
Published by:
Russell Enterprises, Inc.
PO Box 5460
Milford, CT 06460 USA
http://www.russell-enterprises.com
info@russell-enterprises.com
Cover design by Janel Lowrance
Printed in the United States of America
Foreword
Signs & Symbols
Introduction
1. Motifs
Good and Bad Bishops
Domination
Outpost
Undermining
Opening the Position
Blockade
Improving Piece Placement
Prophylaxis
A Second Front
Counterplay
Positional Exchange Sacrifice
Simplification
Weaknesses
Weak Color Complex
2. Tests
Test 01
Test 02
Test 03
Test 04
Test 05
Test 06
Test 07
Test 08
Test 09
Test 10
Test 11
Test 12
Test 13
Test 14
Test 15
Test 16
Test 17
Test 18
Test 19
Test 20
Exercise and Test Solutions
Score Chart
Bibliography
List of Other eBooks
This is a unique training program that aims to help intermediate and advanced players by offering a large number of examples carefully selected by the author, German grandmaster Karsten Müller. While there are many books and software programs available to assist chess players in improving their tactical ability, there are relatively few that focus on strategic and positional considerations. Working through these positions and exercises is a great way to improve your positional understanding. I recommend it!
Susan Polgar
New York, May 2008
1-0 White wins (Black resigns)
0-1 Black wins (White resigns)
½-½ draw agreed
+ check
# mate
! a strong move
!! a brilliant or unobvious move
? a weak move, an error
?? a grave error
!? a move worth consideration
?! a dubious move
= an equal position
+= White stands slightly better
± White has a clear advantage
+– White has a winning position
=+ Black stands slightly better
∓ Black has a clear advantage
–+ Black has a winning position
∞ an unclear position
∞̿ with compensation
↑ with the initiative
→ with an attack
∆ with the threat or idea of
⌓ better is
ol Olympiad
m match
ch championship
wch world championship
corr correspondence game
Why is it so much easier to find books that focus on tactical exercises rather than positional tests? One reason is that it is easier to locate suitable examples of tactical combinations – at least for me. Moreover, the computer can be used to check the accuracy and uniqueness of the solution. With positional exercises, different computer programs may favor different moves and completely disagree about the evaluation of a given position. This is, of course, never the case when a clear-cut tactical solution exists. In a way, this problem is similar for humans, making it difficult to find examples with unique positional solutions. Therefore, in the tests offered in this book, when I think that different moves also deserve points, I have mentioned these as well.
I suggest that you begin with the introductory chapters of motifs, but you can, of course, start with the exercises as a warm up. If you are able to solve them quite quickly, then you should turn to the tests. You cannot expect to solve the puzzles on positional grounds alone. Positional motifs do not exist in a vacuum and concrete calculation almost always plays a role. So use your intuition to judge how far you must calculate to get full scores. Sometimes it is sufficient to find the first move, at other times you must calculate several moves ahead to ensure that your idea really works. Themes like “counterplay” or “opening the position” tend to be more tactical of course, but do not make your decisions on these grounds alone. Always let your intuition be your guide in any given position. You should repeat the tests after some time to train your memory and to recognize the patterns more readily. I hope that after studying this book, you will look at positional matters afresh, e.g. evaluate each exchange of a piece carefully (this problem is extremely important, believe me), look at the plans and ideas of your opponent and add the positionally desirable move to your list of candidates before you start calculating variations.
Many thanks to Hanon W. Russell for adding many explanations, Susan Polgar for her foreword, Mark C. Donlan, Helene Romakin, Nikolas Lubbe and Steve Goldberg. Special thanks to Jacob Aagaard for testing the exercises.
I wish you plenty of fun with the puzzles and I hope that your overall performance improves!
Karsten Müller
Hamburg, May 2008
The bishop can only move on half the squares of the chessboard and this has many positional implications. If one bishop is exchanged, the other is also weakened, as the enemy pieces can find a safe haven on opposite color squares of the remaining bishop. So the bishop-pair is an important weapon and you should not give your opponent a strong unopposed bishop. This is especially true when an attack with opposite-colored bishops is possible (see Part B).
A) Bad Bishop
Trying to restrict and finally dominate minor pieces is an important part of chess strategy. Pawns are usually used to make the bishops “bite on granite.” In Hollis – Hovde, the d3-bishop bites on the f5-h7 pawn chain, while the e3-bishop is restricted by the d6- and c5-pawns. Conversely, Black’s a6-bishop cannot be similarly restricted. These pawn chains are the active strategy to restrict an enemy bishop. Of course, especially long pawn chains in the center can restrict the bishop. One famous example is the c8-bishop in the French Defense after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5.
In our first example, White’s dark-squared bishop is permanently bad, as the doubled c-pawns and the blocked f4-pawn form a cage. The light-squared bishop is only on a bad square, but it will get stuck protecting c4 if White does not play actively. So 16.B×f5!? is White’s best bet. Black is better after 16.Qa4 Na5 17.Bf2 Nf6 18.Rfe1 Ng4.
Hollis, Adrian Swayne (2606) – Hovde, Frank (2534)
Corr. 1991 (8)
16...g×f5 17.Qd5+ Rf7 18.Q×c6 Bb7!? This is more in the spirit of an attack with opposite-colored bishops than 18...B×c4. 19.Qa4 h5 20.Rab1 20.N×h5? is asking for trouble: 20...Qh4 21.Ng3 Rh7 22.Kf2 Q×h2 23.Rg1 Rg7–+. 20...Ng7 21.Rf2? Now Black’s attack gains momentum and White’s bishop will play no role. 21.Rfd1 was called for. 21...h4 22.Rfb2 22.Nf1 h3 23.g×h3 Be4 and Black’s attack is very strong. 23...Qh4?! allows the positional exchange sacrifice 24.R×b7!. 22...h×g3 23.R×b7 R×b7 24.R×b7
24...Qe8! This is the application of another positional principle: the more pieces that are exchanged, the higher the disadvantage of a bad piece. Black’s knight will reign supreme: 25.Q×e8+ R×e8 26.Bd2 Re2 27.Rb2 Nh5 28.h×g3 N×g3 29.Rb8+ 29.Bc1 R×b2 30.B×b2 Ne2+ 31.Kf2 N×f4 32.Kf3 Nd3 33.Ba1 this bishop is really ugly 33...Kf7–+. 29...Kf7 30.Be1 R×e1+ 31.Kf2 Re4 32.K×g3 R×c4 33.Rb7+ Ke6 34.R×a7 Kd5 35.a4 R×c3+ 36.Kh4 Ke4∓ and Black later converted his advantage.
B) Attack with Opposite-Colored Bishops
Pure opposite-colored bishop endgames have a very drawish nature (see Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual or Fundamental Chess Endings). However, when more pieces come into play, then the rule is that the side with the attack (resp. initiative) is favored by the presence of opposite-colored bishops, as the defending bishop cannot contribute to the defense:
Seidler – Ruiz
Buenos Aires, 1974
Black’s king is feeling the danger, but nothing can stop White’s attack on the long diagonal: 16.Nd5!? N×d5 17.e×d5 B×d5 18.Qd2! The point. 18.Qd4? can be met by 18...Qe5. 18...Rf5 19.f4 Qd7 19...Qb5 20.Rf2 Raf8 21.Qd4 R5f6 22.f5+–. 20.Qd4 Kf8 21.Rae1 21.g4 Rh5 22.f5 wins as well. 21...Bc6 22.g4 1-0 22.Qh8+ Kf7 23.Qg7#.
Even without queens such an attack is possible, as long as tactical elements are present and king safety is an issue:
David, Alberto (2487) – Plaskett, Jim (2525)
Mondariz zt 1.1 (10), 13.09.2000
White’s powerhouse on d4, combined with the attacking rooks, decides the issue: 26.Nd5! 26.Rg3? Ne8 27.B×g7 (27.Rg×g7+ N×g7 28.R×g7+ Kh8 29.Nd5 Rae8) 27...N×g7 28.Rg×g7+ Kh8 29.Rg5 R×f4 30.R×h5+ Kg8 31.h3 Rb8 and in both cases Black is still fighting. 26...Rf7 26...N×d5? 27.R×g7+ Kh8 28.Ra7+ Nf6 29.B×f6 + + –. 27.N×f6+ g×f6 28.R7e6! Black cannot defend the dark squares around his king. White wants to keep as much attacking potential on the board as possible, so he does not exchange pieces. 28...d5 28...Kg7 29.R×d6 Kg6 30.Re5 Bf5 31.Ra5 +–. 29.B×f6 d4 30.Rg3+ Kh7 30...Kf8 31.Be5! +–. 31.Rg5!? d3 31...Rd7 32.R×h5+ Kg6 33.g4 Kf7 34.f5 Raa7 35.B×d4 +– Ftacnik in CBM 79. 32.R×h5+ Kg6 33.Rg5+ Kh7 34.Bc3 Bd1 35.Re3 1-0
The next example shows a nice combination based on an attack with opposite-colored bishops:
Taimanov, Mark (2530) – Vitolinsh, Alvis (2415)
Jurmala (9), 1978
24...R×e4! 25.R×e4 d5 26.R×d4 26.c×d5? Q×d5 27.Rbe1 (27.Re8+? R×e8 28.Q×d5 Re2+ 29.Kh1 B×b1–+) 27...B×e4 28.R×e4 Q×b3–+. 26...c×d4 27.Rc1 Be4 28.Qd1 d×c4 29.R×c4 Ba8!
Black’s initiative is very strong, as White cannot block the long diagonal: 30.Qg1?! 30.Rc5 Qe7 31.b4 Qe4 32.Qf1 was more tenacious. 30...Qd5 31.R×d4 Qf3 32.Be1 Re8 33.Rd2 h5! Initiative is more important than material here. Black wants to undermine White’s shelter: 34.Rf2 Q×b3 35.Bb4 h4 36.f5 Re3 37.Bd6 g5 38.f6 Rd3 39.Bc7 Rd1 0-1
C) The Bishop-Pair
Two bishops are usually very strong. Jonathan Rowson describes this in The Seven Deadly Chess Sins (page 130) as follows:
“Although the pair of knights can be very effective, we don’t see them as ‘a pair’ because there is nothing one knight can do that the other can’t in principle... There may be something good about ‘the two knights’ in a particular position, but this is purely accidental, for there is no reason in principle why a pair of them should be more than the sum of their parts. On the other hand, one bishop makes up for the shortcomings of the other, and takes care of its own shortcomings in the process. So what happens when you capture the opponent’s bishop is not only that you remove one piece of value, but that you ‘weaken’ the other bishop too.”
A single bishop can operate on both wings simultaneously, so it is easy to understand that the bishop-pair are a tactical powerhouse (especially in open positions) and are a strong endgame weapon. Therefore, it is no wonder that many positional operations aim to obtain the bishop-pair:
Naiditsch, Arkadij (2524) – Lutz, Christopher (2643)
GER-ch Altenkirchen (9), 08.12.2001
In this typical Hedgehog structure, Black successfully undermines White’s overextended center and ultimately wins the bishop-pair. This is decisive in the resulting endgame: 28...e5! The weakening of d5 is not so important, since White can’t use it. 29.f5 29.f×e5 N×e5 30.Nd5? (30.Qe2 Qc7=+) 30...N×d5 31.c×d5 R×c1 32.Q×c1 (32.R×c1 Bg5 33.Be3 N×d3 34.Q×d3 B×e3 35.Q×e3 B×d5 – +) 32...N×d3 33.R×d3 Bg5 34.Be3 R×e4 35.B×g5 h×g5∓ Ribli in CBM 87. 29...Nf4 30.Nd5 30.Be3 N×d3 31.Q×d3↑. 30...b5! 31.Bb1?
The advantage of the bishops is larger than Black’s plus after 31.N×f4! e×f4 32.c×b5 N×e4 33.R×c8 Q×c8 34.Q×f4 Bg5 35.Qf1 Nd2 36.Qf2 Nc4 37.Qc2 a×b5=+. 31...b×c4 32.N×f6+ B×f6 33.Q×d6 Nd3 34.Q×b8 R×b8 35.B×d3 35.R×c4 Nb2–+ is the tactical justification. 35...c×d3 Black is winning because of the bishop-pair, combined with the light-squared weaknesses in White’s camp, and the passed pawn on d3. 36.Rc4 Rbc8 37.Bc5 Bc6 38.Nb3 Bb5 39.Rc3 Bg5 40.a4
40...Bc6! 40...B×a4? 41.Rc×d3 allows White some hope. 41.h4 B×h4 42.Na5 B×a4 43.Rd×d3 Be1 44.Ra3 Bc2 45.Rh3 Red8 46.Ra1 Rd1 47.R×d1 B×d1 48.Re3 Bh4 49.Nc4?! Bf2 50.Rc3 Be1! 51.Nd6 51.Rc1 B×b4 52.B×b4 Be2–+ and Black wins, despite the opposite-colored bishops, because of the many light square weaknesses in White’s camp. 51...B×c3 52.N×c8 Bc2 53.Nd6 Bd3 54.g3 Bb2 55.Be3? 55.Bb6 was more tenacious, but Black will ultimately prevail, e.g. 55...g6 56.f×g6 f×g6 57.Kg2 Bc3 58.Bc5 h5 59.Kf3 Bd2–+. 55...Ba3 0-1 Naiditsch resigned as ...a5 follows.
As a rule, the side with the bishops wants to control the position and then open it on their own terms. Usually it takes time to win the bishop-pair, so the opponent gets some dynamic compensation. This must be used to create weaknesses and outposts for the knights to use their dynamic potential before the bishops can control the position and restrict the knight’s activity:
Sturua, Zurab (2595) – Izoria, Zviad (2372)
Yerevan zt 1.5 (4), 10.06.2000
1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.e3 Bb4 5.Qc2 B×c3!? Black voluntarily cedes the bishop-pair. 6.Q×c3 Qe7 7.d3 Here’s one game that illustrates what can happen if Black does not follow up actively: 7.a3 0-0 8.b4 d6 9.d3 Bg4 10.Bb2 Rad8 11.Be2 Kh8 12.h3 Bc8 13.0-0 Rfe8 14.Rfe1 Nb8 15.Bf1 Nbd7 16.g3 Nf8 17.Bg2 Ng6 18.e4 c5 19.Rf1 b6 20.b5 Rf8 21.a4 Ne8 22.a5 Nc7 23.a×b6 a×b6 24.h4 h5 25.Nh2 f5 26.e×f5 B×f5 27.Qd2 Ne8 28.Ra6± and White’s bishops ruled in N.Ostojic-D.Kosic, Herceg Novi 2001. White has complete control and went on to win. 7...d5!
Black wants to open the position to generate active opportunities for his knights. 8.Be2 8.c×d5 N×d5 9.Qc2 0-0 10.a3 a5 11.b3 Bg4!? 12.Be2 Rad8 13.0-0 f5 14.h3 Bh5 15.Bb2?! (15.N×e5!? Q×e5 16.B×h5 f4! 17.Bf3 f×e3 18.B×d5+ Q×d5 19.B×e3 Q×d3= (Ribli in CBM 78)) 15...e4! and Black had good play in A.Chernin-S.Polgar, Budapest 1993. 8...0-0 9.0-0?! 9.c×d5 N×d5 10.Qc2 is more circumspect. 9...e4!? Black grabs the opportunity to create weaknesses on the light squares, where he has more firepower, as all his minor piece can operate there, while White’s dark-squared bishop cannot. 10.Nd2 10.Nd4 Ne5 11.c×d5 N×d5 12.Qb3 e×d3 13.B×d3 N×d3 14.Q×d3 Rd8=+. 10...Bf5 11.d×e4 d×e4 12.b3 Rad8 13.Bb2 Nb4
Now it is clear that Black’s light-squared strategy has succeeded. 14.f3?! This creates further weaknesses. 14.Rfd1 Nd3 15.Nf1 N×b2 16.Q×b2 Nd7=+ was the lesser evil. 14...e×f3 15.R×f3 15.N×f3 Bd3∓. 15...Bg6 15...Bg4? 16.R×f6 Q×f6 (16...g×f6 17.Ne4 +–) 17.B×g4± (Ribli). 16.Nf1 Rfe8 17.Ng3 Nd3 18.B×d3 R×d3 19.Qa5 R×e3 20.B×f6 g×f6 21.Qd2 Qc5 22.R×e3 R×e3 23.Qf2 Qe5 and Black later converted his advantage.
(E01) Short, Nigel (2677) – Gurevich, Mikhail (2667)
FIDE World Cup-B (5), 05.09.2000
How to continue White’s attack? (Five points) Solutions begin on page 153.
(E02) Bareev, Evgeny (2721) – Ivanchuk, Vassily (2710)
19th EUCup (6), 03.10.2003
White has many threats and is well-centralized. Can you find his Achilles’ heel? (Four points)
(E03) Suetin, Alexey – Botvinnik, Mikhail
URS-ch20 Moscow, 1952
How did Botvinnik neutralize White’s pressure? (Three Points)
(E04) Leko, Peter (2600) – Rodriguez Cespedes, Amador (2555)
Yopal (3), 22.06.1997
Both sides are attacking with opposite-colored bishops. But White’s whole army is better mobilized, so it is perhaps no surprise that he is winning. But how is this done? (Two points)
Restricting the scope of the enemy pieces is a very important positional strategy. Studying the games of players like Karpov and Kramnik will allow you to see this concept in action and give you a better understanding of it. There are different degrees of domination: zugzwang is when all the enemy pieces are restricted, but just one dominated piece can spell trouble, as we will see in Topalov-Leko. However, let’s first look at the general strategy:
Psakhis, Lev (2574) – Gustafsson, Jan (2542)
20th Andorra la Vella op (7), 12.07.2002
White has more space and the initiative. But how does he make use of these advantages? 20.Bh3! Right! By stopping the freeing advance ...e5, Psakhis ensures that Black’s queenside cannot be developed. Next, he will just centralize his army and make sure that Black cannot untangle. 20...Na8 21.Nca4 N×b6 22.N×b6 Re8 23.f4 Kf8 24.Rad1 Ke7 25.Kf2 Rd8 Black tries to relieve the pressure through exchanges, but his queenside remains problematic. 26.Ke3?! Psakhis could have increased the pressure with 26.R×d8 N×d8 27.e5! f6 28.Ke3 as 28...Nf7? is met by 29.Rc1 Bd7 30.Rc7+– (Psakhis in CBM 89 extra). 26...R×d2 27.R×d2 f6 28.a3 h5!? 29.Kd3 29.b4!? was more precise as Black’s queenside is now completely dominated, e.g. 29...g5 30.Bf1 e5 31.f5 Nd4 32.Be2! g4.
Now Psakhis’ suggestion 33.h3! to open a second front is convincing: 33...N×e2 (33...g×h3 34.Nd5+ +–) 34.K×e2 g×h3 35.Kf3 Ke8 36.Rh2+–. 29...Bd7 30.Kc4 Re8 31.b4
31...Na7? Now White’s monarch will enter with decisive effect. Black had to exchange his passive rook immediately: 31...Rd8! 32.R×d8 N×d8 (Psakhis) and Black can still offer tenacious resistance. 32.Kc5 Nc8 33.e5! Fixing the e6 weakness on a light square and restricting the knight on c8. 33...f×e5 34.f×e5 Bc6 35.Bg2 B×g2 36.R×g2
36...Na7 36...Ke8 37.Ra2!? Good prophylaxis. The following line shows why: 37...Na7 (37...Ke7 38.N×c8+ R×c8+ 39.Kb6 Rb8 40.Kc7 +–; 37...Kd8 38.Rd2+ Ke8 39.N×c8 R×c8+ 40.Kb6 Rc3 41.a4 Rc4 42.Rb2+–) 38.Kd6 Nb5+ 39.K×e6+–; The rook endgame after 36...N×b6?! 37.K×b6 is totally winning because of White’s activity, which is extremely important in rook endings in general: 37...Kd7 38.Rd2+ Kc8 39.Ka7+–. 37.Rd2 Now White’s superior activity decides the issue: 37...Kf7 38.Rd7+ Kg6 39.Kd6 Nb5+ 40.K×e6 N×a3 41.Ke7 Nc2 42.Nd5 Kf5 43.e6 Nd4 44.Kf7 Nf3 44...N×e6 45.Ne7+ Ke5 46.Rd5+ +– (Psakhis). 45.Ne7+!? Ke4 46.Ng6 Ng5+! 47.Ke7 Kf5 48.Nf4 h4 48...Kg4 49.Rd8 R×d8 50.K×d8 N×e6+ 51.N×e6 b6 52.Kc7 a5 53.b5+– (Psakhis). 49.Rd5+ Kg4 50.h3+ N×h3 51.N×h3 1-0
The following game is an ideal example of using pawns to restrict the opponent’s pieces. Nowadays most computer programs understand this, but Deep Blue seemed unaware of the problems until it was too late:
Kasparov, Garry (2795) – Deep Blue
Philadelphia m (6), 1996 [D30]
1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 c6 3.c4 e6 4.Nbd2 Nf6 5.e3 c5 6.b3 Nc6 7.Bb2 c×d4 8.e×d4 Be7 9.Rc1 0-0 10.Bd3 Bd7 11.0-0 Nh5? A very bad move, as it loses valuable time. 12.Re1 Nf4 13.Bb1 Bd6 14.g3 Ng6 15.Ne5 Rc8 16.N×d7 Q×d7 17.Nf3 Bb4 18.Re3 Rfd8 19.h4 Nge7
Now White mobilizes his pawns to restrict Black to the maximum. 20.a3 Ba5 21.b4 Bc7 22.c5 Black’s army makes a very poor impression. The white pawns dominate the board. 22...Re8 23.Qd3 g6 24.Re2 Nf5 25.Bc3 h5 26.b5 “Keene calls this ‘Kasparov’s strategy of strangulation’ and points out that 26.b5 doesn’t just attack the knight but establishes ‘a giant, crawling mass of white pawns, rather resembling a colossal army of soldier ants on the move.’” (Friedel in CBM 50) 26...Nce7 27.Bd2 Kg7 28.a4 Ra8 29.a5 a6 30.b6
30...Bb8?? Now Black’s bishop and a8-rook are out of the game. 30...Bd8 was absolutely necessary, when the e7-knight could go to c6 and the bishop to f6. 31.Bc2 Nc6 32.Ba4 Re7 33.Bc3 Ne5?! 34.d×e5 Q×a4 35.Nd4 N×d4 36.Q×d4 As more pieces are exchanged, the weakness of the dominated pieces is felt to a greater degree. 36...Qd7 36...Q×d4 37.B×d4 Rd7 38.Rb2 Rd8 39.c6 b×c6 40.b7 Ra7 41.R×c6+–; 36...Qc6 37.Bd2 Rd7 38.Bg5 and White’s attack on the kingside will win the game easily. 37.Bd2 Re8 38.Bg5 Rc8 39.Bf6+ Kh7 40.c6!? The decisive breakthrough. 40...b×c6 40...R×c6 41.Rec2 R×c2 42.R×c2 Qe8 43.Qc5 Kh6 44.Qc8+–. 41.Qc5 Kh6 42.Rb2 Qb7 43.Rb4!? 1-0 The Deep Blue team resigned as Black’s army is paralyzed, e.g. 43...Kh7 44.g4 h×g4 45.R×g4 Rg8 46.Qe3 Qc8 47.Qh3 Qe8 48.Rg5 Qf8 49.h5 Qh6 50.R×c6+–.
Just one dominated piece can spell trouble.
In the next example, White has only one pawn for the knight, but he can still offer extremely tough resistance.
Topalov, Veselin (2745) – Leko, Peter (2722)
Candidates final Dortmund (2), 19.07.2002
43.Rh6 Rf7 44.Qe6 Rf8 45.Qe4?! 45.Qf5!? Qe7 (45...Rf7 46.Qe6 Qf8 47.Rh4!∞̿) 46.Qd3 Qb7+ 47.f3! Nb2 48.Qc2 Qg7 49.Rh1 Rg8 (49...f5!? is probably Black’s best bet 50.Rb1 Na4 51.Q×a4 Rg8 52.g4 f×g4 53.f4! White must use Black’s g-pawn as a shield 53...Qb7+ 54.Kg1 Qe4 55.Qb3 and White is still fighting.) 50.g4 f5 51.Q×f5 Nc4 (51...Re8 52.Rc1∞̿) 52.R×h7+ Q×h7 53.Qf6+= (Rogozenko in CBM 90) is one line that shows White’s resources. 45...Qd7 46.Qf3 Kg7 47.Rh5
47...Nb2? The knight is not really much better on b2; improving the rook was necessary: 47...Rd8! 48.Qe4 h6 and it is hard to believe that White can hold this. 48.Rd5 Qe6 49.Rd4! Rc8 49...Nc4? 50.Qg4+ +–. 50.Re4 Qc6 51.Kh2 Kf8?! Now it is definitely drawn. 51...h5 was the last chance to play for a win. 52.Qf4! Kf7 53.Qf5 Rg8 54.Q×h7+ Rg7 55.Qh5+ Kf8 56.Qf5? Topalov even wants to win! But this is asking for too much: 56.Qh8+= was warranted. 56...Nc4 57.Re2 57.Re6 Rh7+ 58.Q×h7 Q×e6–+ (Rogozenko). 57...Rg5 58.Qh7 Ne5 59.Qh6+ Kg8 60.Q×g5+ f×g5 61.R×e5 Qf6 62.Re2 Qf3 63.Rd2 Kf7 64.a4 Qb3 65.Rd6 Q×a4 66.Rb6 Qa2 0-1
In the next example, Polugaevsky’s concept put Black’s whole setup under a cloud:
Polugaevsky, Lev (2620) – Torre, Eugenio (2550)
Moscow, 1981
17.h4!! 17.e×f8Q+? K×f8 18.Rd6 Rb8 19.Be3 Rh5 20.Be2 Re5 21.Kd2 b4 22.Nd1 Kg8! and Black was OK in J.Plachetka-V.Bagirov, Berlin 1979. 17...Bh6 18.f4! Black’s rook is dominated. 18...b4 18...Rb8!? may be worthwhile to avoid the advance ...b4, which weakens the light squares. 19.Rd6 Rb8 19...b×c3? 20.R×b6 c×b2 21.B×c4 Bc6 22.R×b2 and White wins, despite Black’s extra rook. 20.Nd1 B×g5 21.f×g5 Nd5? The idea of sacrificing the knight on e7 does not feel right, as White’s whole army gets very active, but it is already difficult to give Black good advice. 21...Bd5? loses outright: 22.Ne3 Be6 23.Bg2 Bd7 24.Bc6+–. 22.B×c4 N×e7 23.f×e7 K×e7 24.Rf6
White continues his strategy of restricting Black’s pieces. 24...Rhf8 25.Ne3 Be4 26.R×a6 Rbd8 27.Rf6 Rd6 28.Rf4 Rd4 29.h5 Bd3 30.Nd5+ Kd6 31.R×d4 c×d4 32.Bb3?! Polugaevsky went on to win, although he later showed that 32.B×d3 was called for: 32...K×d5 33.h6 Rg8 (33...Rh8 34.Kf2 Kd6 35.Kf3 Ke7 36.Kg4 f6 37.Kh5+–) 34.h7 Rh8 35.Kd2 Kd6 36.Kc2 Ke7 37.Kb3 Kf8 38.K×b4 Kg7 39.Kc4+–.
(E05) Radjabov, Teimour (2667) – Minasian, Artashes (2586)
Moscow Aeroflot op (3), 17.02.2005
How to use White’s space advantage? (One point) Solutions begin on page 154.
(E06) Ivanchuk, Vassily (2729) – Aronian, Levon (2752)
Morelia/Linares (2), 19.02.2006
White to move! (Two Points)
An outpost is a weak square that cannot be controlled by an enemy pawn, but which can be occupied by a piece supported by its own pawn. Especially the knight needs strong anchor squares:
Gurevich, Mikhail (2694) – Ivanov, Mikhail (2454)
France chT (5.2), 30.03.2001
White’s knight is the key to the position. When it manages to land on c4, then converting White’s material advantage will be just a matter of technique: 24.Ng1! Qa6 25.Nf3 Bg7 26.Qe2 Qb7 27.Rd3 Bh6! 28.Nd2
28...Qd7? White’s knight will dominate the position, while Black’s bishop will only hit empty squares. So 28...B×d2 was forced: 29.Rd×d2 (29.Rc×d2? c4 30.b×c4 R×c4 and Black’s counterplay makes White’s task very difficult.) 29...Qd7 30.Qf3 Re8 31.Re2±. 29.Nc4 Re8 30.Qf3 f5? This weakens Black’s king and gives White another outpost on e6. 30...Qe7 offered more resistance, e.g. 31.Rd1 Rbb8 (31...Rb7 32.Na5 Rc7 33.Nc6 Qf8 34.Re2+–) 32.a4 Rb7 33.Ra1 Qc7 34.Raa2 Qb8 35.Na5 Rc7 36.Re2+–. 31.Re2 Rbb8
32.Re6! And it is over: 32...R×e6 33.d×e6 Q×e6 34.R×d6 Qe4 35.Q×e4 f×e4 36.Re6 Ra8 37.a4 Rb8 38.a5 R×b3 39.a6 1-0
The following pawn structure occurs quite frequently:
Gershenzon, Sergey – Stisis, Yaacov (2403)
Israel ch-T (9), 28.04.2000
In the next example, White has a hole on d4, which may serve as an outpost for Black. White must also be careful not to allow a bind on the dark squares, as one weak square is often connected with a weak color complex. On the other hand, if he manages to get in c4-c5 and make use of the d6-outpost, he can easily be better.
12.h3? This helps Black in his fight for dark square control. 12.Be3 Nbd7 13.Rfd1 Qc7 14.Na4 was more to the point, as White must prevent a dark square bind. 12...B×f3 13.B×f3 Bc5 14.b3 Nbd7 15.Bb2 Bd4 16.Rad1 Qc7
17.Ne2? This allows another favorable exchange. Black’s dream scenario of knight vs. light-squared bishop is getting closer. 17.b4? is also wrong as Black can force the pawn to advance: 17...a5 18.a3 a×b4 19.a×b4 Qb6 20.b5 Nc5∓; 17.Bc1!? Nc5 18.Ne2 Ne6 19.Kh2 Rad8 20.Bg2 Bc5 21.f4 is one possible line that gives White counterchances. 17...B×b2 18.Q×b2 Nc5 19.Qc2 a5! Strengthening the bind on the dark squares. 20.Rd2 Rad8 21.Rfd1 R×d2 22.R×d2 Rd8 Exchanging rooks helps Black, as his queen cooperates well with the knights. 23.R×d8+ Q×d8 24.Bg2 Ne6 25.Kh2 Qd6 26.Qc3
26...Qc5?! This gives White unnecessary counterplay. 26...b6 27.f4 Nd7 28.f×e5 N×e5 29.Nf4 Nc5∓ was more precise. 27.f4 e×f4 28.g×f4? A tactical oversight. 28.N×f4 makes it quite difficult for Black. One possibility is 28...Ng5 29.Qd3 Qe7 30.Qc3 a4 31.e5 Nd7 32.h4 N7 33.Nd3 f6 34.e×f6 Nh×f6 with an initiative for Black. 28...N×e4! 29.Qd3 29.B×e4? Qf2+ 30.Bg2 Q×e2–+. 29...Nd6 30.Kh1 g6 and Black went on to win.
In the first two examples, the outpost squares were already there. Now we will have to create them:
Tiviakov, Sergei (2625) – Van den Doel, Erik (2583)
NED-ch Leeuwarden (3), 22.06.2002
White begins with a very strong move that restricts Black’s light-squared bishop and creates outpost squares on e6 and g6, both of which can be reached from f4.
18.f5! However, White is not that much better here, as Black’s bishop-pair is quite strong, especially the dark-squared one. 18...Bd6 19.g3 Re8 20.Ne2 Bd7 21.Nf4 c5
22.c4! This prevents Black’s counterplay and continues the strategy of restricting Black’s light-squared bishop. 22...a6 23.Kc2!? A nice endgame move that prepares to activate the king. 23...Bc6 24.Ne6 Re7 25.Rd2 Rae8 26.Rde2 R×e6?! This positional exchange sacrifice is very dubious. 26...Bd7 27.Nf4 Be5 28.Ng6 Rf7 29.g4, followed by h4 and g5 (Postny in CBM 90) is not that clear, e.g. 29...Bc6 30.h4 Rd7 31.b3 Rd4 and Black is not worse. 27.f×e6 Be5 28.Rd2 R×e6 29.c×b5 a×b5 30.a4! b×a4? This clearly goes too far. 30...c4 31.Bf1 Re8 32.a×b5 B×b5 33.Ra1 Rb8 (Postny) and Black can still fight tenaciously. 31.Bc4 White converted his advantage: 31...Kf7 32.B×e6+ K×e6 33.Rd8 Bd6 34.Rg8 Kf7 35.Rb8 Ke6 36.Kd3 Ke5? This makes it very easy. 37.Rg8 g5 38.Rh8 Bb5+ 39.Kc3 Ke6 40.R×h6 Be5+ 41.Kc2 c4 42.Rh8 1-0
Creating an outpost square with the following positional pawn sacrifice is quite typical in Benoni-like structures:
Tyomkin, Dimitri (2495) – Cao Sang (2501)
EUCup G6 Budapest (3.5), 13.10.1999
21.e5! d×e5 22.f5 White has created an outpost on e4 for one of his knights. 22...Ne8 It may seem illogical to exchange the superfluous white knight, but Black’s task is very difficult anyway. 22...Qh4 23.Nde4 Bh6 24.B×h6 Q×h6 25.Rf3 and White is for choice. 23.Nde4 Ndf6 23...g×f5 24.R×f5 Ndf6 25.N×f6+ N×f6 26.Rg5 Ne8 27.a5↑ (Tyomkin). 24.f×g6 f×g6 White now employs a typical undermining strategy that destroys Black’s queenside.
25.a5! Bg4 26.Qd2 N×e4 27.N×e4 Nd6 28.N×d6 Q×d6 29.b4! e4 30.R×f8+ R×f8 31.Rg1 c×b4 32.B×e4 Bc3 33.Qg2 Bf5 33...Bh5 34.a×b6 Qe5 35.d6 Q×d6 36.c5 Qe5 37.c6 Bf3 38.B×f3 Q×e3 39.Bd5+ Kg7 40.Rf1 Bf6 41.Qf2 Qe5 42.Rd1+–. 34.B×f5 R×f5 35.a×b6 Qe7 36.Bf2 Qf7 37.Bc5 b3 38.Rd1 b2 39.Bg1 Rg5 39...Bf6 40.Rb1 (40.Qe4? is met by 40...Be5 (40...Re5? 41.Qg4 Bg5 42.d6 Bc1 43.d7 b1Q 44.d8Q+ Re8 45.Rd7+–) 40...Qd7 41.R×b2 B×b2 42.Q×b2 and White’s passed pawns should win the game. 40.b7 Be5? 40...Q×b7 41.Q×g5 b1Q 42.R×b1 Q×b1 43.Qg4 Qd3 44.Kg2 Qd2+ 45.Bf2 a5 46.Qe4±. 41.Q×g5 Qf3+ 42.Qg2 Q×d1 43.Q×b2! 1-0
Sometimes an outpost is not as strong as it looks, especially when the knight is too far away to attack the king:
Balashov, Yuri (2555) – Tunik, Gennady (2470)
Russian Club Cup Maikop (5), 07.06.1998
In this next example, Black creates an outpost on c4, but this does not neutralize White’s advantage, as an attack against Black’s king lingers in the air:
20...a5 21.Nf4 a4 22.b4 Nc4 23.Qe2 Nb8 24.Ne1! Heading for the c5-outpost, where White’s knight contributes to the attack. 24...Bg5 25.Ned3 Bc6 26.Rc3
An important moment. Black had to exchange his proud c4-knight to prevent White’s b2-bishop from joining the attack! Such an exchange might seem odd at first glance, but you should not be blinded by your first impression. 26...Nd7?! 26...Qb6 27.Nc5 N×b2! 28.Q×b2 Nd7 was more tenacious. 27.Bc1! White simply plays around the knight, as it contributes nothing to the defense of the black king. 27...Re8 28.Ne1 Nf8 29.Nfd3 B×c1 30.Rd×c1 Nh7 31.f4 Re7 32.Nc5 Be8 33.Nf3 Rc6 34.Nh4 Rec7 35.Re1 Nf8 36.Qf2 Nd7
37.g4 Now White’s whole army attacks in earnest. 37...N×c5 38.d×c5 f6 39.Nf3 f×e5 40.N×e5 N×e5 41.R×e5 Rf7 42.Qe3 Rc8 42...d4 43.Rd3+–. 43.Qd4 Bd7 44.g5 White’s attack plays itself. 44...h×g5 45.f×g5 Qf8 46.h6 Kg8 47.c6 R×c6 48.R×c6 B×c6 49.R×e6 Bb7 50.g6 Re7 51.Qe5 1-0
Of course, bishops can also use outposts:
Gheorghiu, Florin (2485) – Kasparov, Garry (2760)
Thessaloniki ol, 1988
15...e4!? A typical pawn sacrifice to create a strong outpost on e5. Kasparov bides his time before occupying it: 16.N×h5 N×h5 17.f×e4 f4! 18.Bf2 Bg4 19.h3 After 19.Be2, Kasparov gives a dynamic line that reflects his style well: 19...B×e2 20.Q×e2 f3! 21.g×f3 Nf4 22.Qd2 (22.Qf1 Rc8 23.Rg1 Ng6∞̿) 22...Ng2+ 23.Kf1 Nh4 24.B×h4 Q×h4, Informant 46/802; 19.0-0 f3 20.Be3 Qh4 21.Qf2 Qe7 22.Rac1 Nf4∞̿. 19...Bd7 20.0-0-0 Be5 21.Kb1 Qf6 22.Be2 Ng3 23.B×g3?! 23.Rhe1 B×c3 24.Q×c3 Q×c3 25.b×c3 N×e4 26.Bd4 Bf5 27.Kb2 Rac8 is slightly better for White. (Kasparov). 23...f×g3 24.Bf3 Rac8 25.Ne2 Qg6 25...Rc5!? 26.Rc1 Rfc8 27.Bg4 B×g4 28.h×g4 Qg6 also gives Black very good compensation. 26.Rc1 R×c1+ 27.Q×c1 Rc8 28.Qe3?! Qf6 29.Qd2 Rc5 30.Nc1?
This allows Black’s whole army to join the attack. 30.Rc1 to reduce the attacking potential was called for, e.g. 30...b6 31.R×c5 b×c5 32.Nc1 B×h3 33.Nd3 Bd7 34.N×e5 Q×e5 and Black is for choice. 30...Bf4 31.Qb4 31.Qd3 Bb5 32.Qa3 Qd4 33.Nb3 Qd3+ 34.Ka1 Rc7 35.Qb4 Qc2 36.Qe1 Qf2–+. 31...Bb5 32.Nb3 Bd3+ 33.Ka1 Rc2 34.Rb1 34.Qd4 Be5 35.Q×d3 R×b2–+ (Kasparov). 34...Be5 35.Nc1 B×b2+ 36.Q×b2 Q×b2+ 0-1
(E07) Berkes, Ferenc (2617) – Erdos, Viktor (2480)
55th HUN-ch Kazincbarcika (8), 17.05.2005
How to finish Black’s development? (One point) Solutions begin on page 155.
(E08) Jackelen, Thomas (2392) – Kesseler, Heiko
Bundesliga Germany (3.7), 24.11.2001
How to win the fight for the important central files? (One point)
(E09) Timofeev, Artyom (2622) – Volokitin, Andrei (2679)
35th Sarajevo Bosnia (2), 20.05.2005
Where will the white knight ultimately land? (One point)
(E10) Anand, Viswanathan (2786) – Vallejo Pons, Francisco (2686)
Linares (12), 08.03.2005
What is the proper way to deploy Black’s blockading forces? (One point)
(E11) Gurevich, Mikhail (2620) – Balashov, Yuri (2505)
Deutschland, 1994
White to move! (Two points)
If the base of a pawn chain can be captured or forced to move, then it can weaken the whole chain:
Keene, Raymond – Quinteros, Miguel Angel
Orense, 1975
Black wants to exploit the fact that White’s h-pawn is no longer on h2: 19...h5 20.Ne2? It was necessary to deter the destruction of White’s pawn shield with 20.h4!. 20...h4! 21.g×h4 Qh6 22.Nfg3 Q×h4 23.Kh1 Kf7!?
White’s pawn shield is in ruins. Now Black uses the open lines for a decisive attack: 24.Rab1 Rh8 25.b4 Rag8 26.Rf1 b6 27.Bc3 Ng4 28.B×g7 R×g7 29.Qc3 Nf6 30.Rg1 Rhg8 31.Bf1 Ng4 32.Rb2 Nf2+ 0–1
Outposts can also be undermined:
Nikolic, Predrag (2640) – Spraggett, Kevin (2560)
Elista ol (8), 06.10.1998
In the next example, Black’s strong knight holds the position together, but not for long: 28.a4!? The normal 28.b×a6!? N×a6 29.Nb4 Nc5 30.Nd5! Qa7 31.N×b6 Q×b6 32.Q×c5 Qb2 is also much better for White, but Black has some annoying counterplay. 28...a×b5 28...a5 29.N×a5 Qa7 30.Nc4 N×a4 31.Ra+– (Avrukh in CBM 66 extra). 29.a5!! Na4 29...Qb7 30.Nb4 Be4 31.a6 Qa8 32.B×e4 N×e4 33.Q×b6±. 30.a6 Nc5 31.a7 Kh8 32.Qe5 1-0 Black resigned because if he avoids the exchange of queens, White’s queen will land on b8.
(E12) Iordachescu, Viorel (2609) – Hillarp Persson, Tiger (2533)
13th Sigeman & Co Copenhagen/Malmo (1), 15.04.2005
How to act on the kingside? (One point) Solutions begin on page 156.
(E13) Markowski, Tomasz (2548) – Hickl, Joerg (2600)
Bundesliga Germany (3.2), 24.11.2001
It seems that White’s initiative has come to a halt, but this is deceptive. How did he continue? (Two points)
(E14) Shabalov, Alexander (2615) – Baburin, Alexander (2600)
Mermaid Beach (3), 28.01.1998
How to convert the advantage of the two bishops? (Two points)
(E15) Gurevich, Mikhail (2634) – Espig, Lutz (2425)
Bundesliga Germany (5.5), 14.12.2002
How did Gurevich continue his undermining operation? (One point)
(E16) Nimzovitch, Aaron – Capablanca, Jose Raul
New York (3), 1927
Black to move! (Two points)
The most important way to exploit a dynamic advantage is to open the position, either by exchanging pawns, opening files or using pawn levers. Finding the right moment and means is often crucial, as opening the position is not an end in itself and you must ascertain that you profit from it rather than your opponent.
Movsesian, Sergei (2624) – Tibensky, Robert (2448)
SVK-ch Kaskady (6), 02.07.2002
Black’s king is not very safe and his army lacks coordination, so White opens the center to make way for his second rook: 18.c4! Bd6 18...d×c4? plays into White’s hand. One typical line runs 19.Rad1 b5 (19...Qc8 20.d5 e5 21.d6+–) 20.d×c5 Qc8 21.Nd4 e5 22.h6 B×c5 23.Qh5+ Kf8 24.R×e5 f×e5 25.Q×e5 Rg8 26.Qf6+ Nf7 27.Nfe6+ Ke8 28.Ng7+ R×g7 29.h×g7+–. 19.Qd2 Qc7 20.Nh3 d×c4 21.Rad1 White uses of all his forces to exploit the open files. 21...Rf8 White’s next move illustrates that it is important to prevent the black king from finding shelter on the kingside.
22.Re4! Kg8 23.d×c5 B×c5 24.Rg4+ Kf7 24...Kh8 25.Qh6 f5 26.Rg5 Rf7 27.Nf4 Q×f4 28.Rg8+ +–. 25.Qc2 Ke8 26.R×c4 Black is busted. 26...Qe7 27.b4 Bd6 28.Rcd4 Nb7 29.Nd2!? Nd8 30.Qd3 Nb7 31.Ne4 1-0
The following game illustrates the importance of opening the position when you have an advantage in development. It also shows a typical and very dangerous plan against the Hedgehog:
Rublevsky, Sergei (2634) – Mahjoob, Morteza (2366)
wchT Yerevan (2.2), 13.10.2001 [B40]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 b6 4.d4 c×d4 5.N×d4 Bb7 6.Nc3 d6 7.Bd3 a6 8.0-0 g6 9.Nb3 Nd7 Black wants to establish a solid Hedgehog formation with moves such as ...Ngf6, ...Bg7, ...0-0, ...Rc8, ...Qc7-b8, ...Ba8, ...Rfe8 or ...Rfd8. If he does so, then his position will be difficult to break down. But White can use his initiative immediately.
10.a4! The b6-pawn is very important in the Hedgehog pawn formation. 10...Ngf6 10...a5?! 11.Bf4 White holds all the trumps, as the important b5-square is firmly in his hands. 11.a5 Rc8 12.Be3 b×a5 13.N×a5 Ba8 14.Nb3!? Bb7
White has made tremendous progress, as Black’s queenside has been damaged and the a6-pawn is weak. But how does he increase his advantage? 15.c5!! Black has no time to consolidate, as the whole queenside is blown open. 15...N×c5 16.B×c5 White relinquishes the bishop-pair to increase the speed of his attack. 16...d×c5 17.Na5 Rb8 18.N×b7 R×b7
19.Qa4+? Surprisingly, this is a mistake. It is usually correct to keep the queen on the board when you are attacking the enemy king. But 19.B×a6! was called for: 19...Q×d1 (19...R×b2? 20.Bb5+ R×b5 21.N×b5+–) 20.Rf×d1 and White’s strong attack continues, even without queens: 20...Rc7 21.e5 Nd7 22.Bb5 Ke7 23.B×d7 R×d7 24.R×d7+ K×d7 25.Ra7+ Kc6 26.R×f7+–. 19...Nd7 20.Q×a6 Qb8 21.Bb5 Bg7 22.Bc6 Rb6 23.Qa4 Qc7 24.Bb5 Ke7 25.Rfd1 Rd8 26.Rac1 Qb7 White is only slightly better, but went on to win nevertheless.
(E17) Zelcic, Robert (2522) – Thorfinnsson, Bragi (2448)
15th EU-chT (6), 04.08.2005
How to open the position? (One point) Solutions begin on page 157.
(E18) Andersson, Ulf (2535) – Huguet, Bernard (2255)
Las Palmas (3), 31.05.1972
How to open the position in White’s favor? (One point)
(E19) Van Wely, Loek (2655) – Bacrot, Etienne (2729)
Dortmund (2), 09.07.2005
How to increase White’s pressure on the queenside quickly? (One point)
(E20) Erenburg, Sergey (2551) – Al Tamimi, Hamad (2210)
Gibraltar Masters (8), 01.02.2005
How to open lines on the kingside? (One point)
(E21) Korotylev, Alexey (2565) – Frolov, Denis (2401)
RUS-chT Sochi (9), 28.04.2004
How to use White’s advantage in development? (One point)
(E22) Sasikiran, Krishnan (2679) – Kasimdzhanov, Rustam (2668)
1st Samba Cup (3), 12.10.2003
White’s forces are well centralized, but how to make progress? (One point)
Nimzovitch pointed out the great importance of the blockade, as passed pawns must be stopped. The knight is usually the best blockader:
Jakovljevic, Vlado (2426) – Dizdarevic, Emir (2520)
BIH-chT Neum (5), 02.06.2004
22...e5 23.d5? A mistake. Black’s knight will be much stronger than White’s bishop. 23.d×e5 R×d2 24.Q×d2 R×e5 25.Rd1 Qc5 26.Bf3+= was called for, as White’s bishop feels more at home in an open position. 23...c5! 24.Re2 Rde7 25.Rfe1 Qd6 26.Bh3 h5 27.Qe3 Kg7 28.Kf1 b6
Black has established a strong dark-squared blockade on the queenside. 29.f4? This is fatal. White had to sit tight and let Black try to open lines of attack. As I said in the previous section: finding the right moment and means is often crucial, as opening the position is not an end in itself and you must ascertain that you profit from it rather than your opponent. 29...e×f4 30.Q×f4 30.Q×e7? R×e7 31.R×e7 f×g3∓. 30...R×e2 31.R×e2 Q×f4+ 32.g×f4 R×e2 33.K×e2 Ne4! 34.Ke3 Nd6 35.Bd7 h4 36.Kf3 f5 Black’s pawn majority is mobile, while White’s is blockaded. 37.Ke3 Kf6 38.Kf3 Ne4 Black applies the well-known endgame strategy: do not rush. 39.Be8 Nd6 40.Bd7 Ke7 41.Bc6 Ne4 42.Ke3 Nc3!? Provoking a weakness. 43.a3 Ne4 44.Bb5 Kf6 45.Ba4 Nd6 46.Bc6 g5 Black finally plays his trump. 47.f×g5+ K×g5 48.Kf3 a5 49.Bd7 Nf7 50.Bc8?
This allows the undermining of White’s queenside. 50.Be8 was more tenacious. 50...a4! 51.b×a4 Ne5+ 52.Ke3 N×c4+ 53.Kf3 Nd6! 54.Bd7 Kf6 55.Kf4 c4 56.a5 b×a5 57.a4 c3 58.Ke3 Ne4 0-1
(E23) Macieja, Bartlomiej (2618) – Dominguez, Lenier (2661)
Bermuda (7), 06.02.2005
Black to move. (One point) Solutions begin on page 158.
(E24) Gyimesi, Zoltan (2602) – Radjabov, Teimour (2667)
Aeroflot op Moscow (6), 20.02.2005
How to assess the position with Black to move? (Two points)
(E25) Smyslov, Vassily – Keres, Paul
URS Absolute-ch Leningrad/Moscow (1), 1941
Black to move! (Two points)
You can use different methods for finding candidate moves. You can ask yourself questions such as: what was the point of your opponent’s last move? What is your plan? Do you have any pawn breaks? etc. This chapter deals with improving the placement of your pieces, and one way of doing this is by talking to them:
Tisdall, Jonathan (2500) – Lechtynsky, Jiri (2435)
Osterskars op (9), 1995
Imagine you are White. Black has no threats, and it is a relatively quiet maneuvering position, so it makes sense to open a dialogue with the white pieces. The white king will tell you that it wants to be more centralized. The rook is already very happy on c2, as it can use its power on the second rank for defense and the c-file to restrict Black. The knight will say that it is already on a decent square, but that there are even greener pastures on c5. And, voila, you have unearthed the solution: 31.Nd2! Now Black loses a pawn by force. 31...Rb5 31...Rb6 32.Ne4 Na6 33.Nc3+–. 32.Ne4 Ke7 33.Nc5 Nd5 34.N×a4 Kd6 35.Ke2 b6?! 36.b4! and White went on to win.
The next important method is Makogonov’s rule, as quoted in Dvoretsky’s Positional Play: “In positions of strategic maneuvering (where time is not significant) seek the worst placed piece. Activating it is often the most reliable way of improving your position.” In a way, this is a special case of talking to your pieces:
Khalifman, Alexander (2650) – Romanishin, Oleg (2590)
Ischia, 1996
White’s d2-knight is not contributing much to the game at the moment. So let’s consider where it wants to be. What is the knight’s “dream square?” Khalifman concluded that b5 would be strong and regrouped accordingly: 24.Rbc1 h5?! 25.Nb1! Ne8 26.Nc3 Qe7 27.Nb5 The knight has arrived and Black’s position collapses: 27...a6?! 27...Ng6 28.a×b6 a×b6 29.Ra1±. 28.Nc3 b×a5 29.Q×a5! The c4-c5 break will open the position for White’s bishops. 29...Bf5 29...Nd7 30.Ne4 Ndf6 31.N×f6+ Q×f6 32.c5+–. 30.e4 Bg6 31.c5 d×c5 32.B×c5 Qc7 33.Qa3! White’s pressure is much stronger with queens. Understanding when to exchange pieces is very important, see the chapter on simplification. 33...Nd7 34.Bf2 Nd6? 34...Ra8 35.Na2 Qd6 36.Qa5 Rdb8 37.Rc6+–. 35.Nb1 1-0
Jacob Aagaard gives the following instructive example in Excelling at Positional Chess:
Hector, Jonny (2562) – Aagaard, Jacob (2359)
24th Politiken Cup, Copenhagen (3), 17.07.2002
How to improve Black’s position? Which is his worst placed piece? 24...Rae8!? A good prophylactic move. 24...Nh5? 25.Qh3 is one line where the hanging pawn on e6 is problematic. 25.Qe1?! Nfg4 Black has a very pleasant position and later won.
Finally, the next game illustrates the principle of improving all your pieces to the maximum before opening the position:
Istratescu, Andrei (2593) – Conquest, Stuart (2556)
4th EU-ch Istanbul (13), 13.06.2003 [A41]