Improving Calculation and
Resourcefulness in the Endgame
by
Mark Dvoretsky
&
Oleg Pervakov
Foreword
by
Jan Timman
2009
Russell Enterprises, Inc.
Milford, CT USA
Studies for Practical Players:
Improving Calculation and Resourcefulness in the Endgame
by
Mark Dvoretsky & Oleg Pervakov
ISBN: 978-1-888690-64-4
© Copyright 2009, 2011
Mark Dvoretsky & Oleg Pervakov
All Rights Reserved
First Printing 2009
Second Printing 2011
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.
Published by:
Russell Enterprises, Inc.
P.O. Box 3131
Milford, CT 06460 USA
http://www.russell-enterprises.com
info@russell-enterprises.com
Cover design by Janel Lowrance
Translated from Russian by Jim Marfia
Printed in the United States of America
Foreword by Jan Timman
Introduction by Oleg Pervakov
Part 1: International Composing Tournament
Chapter 1
Mark Dvoretsky: Studies From My Notebook
“A Small Genre”
Endgame Studies
A Difficult Choice
Playing Out Studies
Two-Sided Play-outs
Chapter 2
Oleg Pervakov: Tournament Results
Prizes
Special Prizes
Honorable Mentions
Commendations
Part 2: Two Study Themes
Chapter 3
Oleg Pervakov: Left Bank, Right Bank
Chapter 4
Oleg Pervakov: Ours among Strangers; A Stranger among Us
Part 3: Training
Chapter 5
Mark Dvoretsky: Studies by Wotawa
Solutions
Chapter 6
Mark Dvoretsky: Challenge to a Duel
Sacrifice – or be sacrificed!
Accurate calculation
Strategic Studies
Endgame Studies
Cooked Studies
Part 4: From Steinitz to Morozevich
Chapter 7
Oleg Pervakov: Studies by Practical Players
At the Summit of Olympus
Wilhelm Steinitz
Emanuel Lasker
Jose-Raul Capablanca
Alexander Alekhine
Max Euwe
Mikhail Botvinnik
Vassily Smyslov
Mikhail Tal
Anatoly Karpov
Grandmaster Study-Composers
Siegbert Tarrasch
Oldrich Duras
Richard Réti
Aron Nimzovich
Nicholas Rossolimo
Paul Keres
David Bronstein
Yuri Averbakh
Igor Zaitsev
Pal Benko
The Polgar Sisters
Jan Timman
Daniel Stellwagen
John Nunn
Jonathan Speelman
Valery Salov
Alexei Shirov
Vladimir Akopian
Alexander Morozevich
Duets
Alexander Beljavsky/Adrian Mikhalchishin
Boris Gelfand / Emil Sutovsky
Index
Romanticism is in part an escape from modern realities. And if chess can be considered a romantic game, then endgame studies may be thought of as an escape within an escape. To put it another way, the world of endgame studies is a separate area in a secluded world, the game of chess.
In practice, chess mistakes are unavoidable. In chess studies, mistakes are not allowed.
Richard Réti’s definition of endgame studies was: “Endgame studies are endgame positions with extraordinary content.” This of course is a very general definition. It is characteristic of an endgame study that White’s moves should be forced in the main line, whereas Black may have attractive alternatives, while at the same time White’s play should be flawless in the effort to win or draw.
In practical play, one is accustomed to thinking ahead, taking into account the various directions in which the play may develop. Composing an endgame study is conducted in a different thinking environment: the composer starts with the final position that should contain hidden beauty. Then he starts thinking backwards about how the position might have arisen. This is called “retrograde analysis.” In addition, endgame studies will have both scientific and artistic elements.
Unlike chess problems, endgame studies have definite value for the practical player. Nowadays, the study of endgames in general has been neglected. Most emphasis is on the openings.
Still, it is important to know what you are doing in the endgame. Studies for Practical Players by Mark Dvoretsky and Oleg Pervakov is of invaluable help in this respect. Dvoretsky is a renowned trainer, Pervakov a very skilled composer. They have one thing in common: They both are more than able to comment on endgame studies in a lucid, instructive way.
In this book, they have made a careful selection of studies. You will find hidden beauty revealed by technical tour de force. Both authors display a high level of analysis. They do not give too many variations that could scare the reader off. The influence of computers has made its impact: a lot of brilliant studies from the past have been proven to be incorrect.
In general such studies are discarded nowadays. In Studies for Practical Players, a different approach has been taken. Five incorrect studies are analysed, mainly because of their rich content. It is reasoned in a very clear way that these efforts by the composers are not fruitless. They just prove the richness of chess: the refutations of the studies are pieces of art in their own right.
The final chapter of the book deals with studies by world champions and strong grandmasters. Most of this material has additional practical value; over the board players like natural positions. And special attention us given to Smyslov who still composes studies, not being disturbed by his loss of sight. I was also impressed by the studies of relatively young grandmasters like Salov and Morozevich.
Among the various endgame study books that I have read, Studies for Practical Players is one of my favorites. I have spent countless hours studying the material and it has inspired me to compose new studies. The reader is well advised to take his time going through the book. After every diagram new finesses can be seen. The best way to study the material is to stop after seeing the diagram, trying to figure out what is going on. This will help your understanding of endgames in a significant way.
It is clear that the interest in endgame studies is not fading away...
Jan Timman
Amsterdam, July 2009
Back in 1910, the classic study composer Alexei Troitsky wrote: “A study is the more valuable, the more complex it is – the richer in ideas. The most attractive aspect of chess is the struggle. This is what one must strive chiefly to depict, by leaving the defeated side as many defensive resources as possible in the course of the solution.”
There are studies which are so close to actual play that it seems we are observing the ending of some actual game. Such studies have special value, and are rightly reserved a place in chess manuals. Their characteristic form makes them easier to remember; and in them, one may find together a whole row of interesting ideas and positions with great practical value.
Today’s generation of chessplayers no longer knows what an adjourned game is. As a consequence, they no longer have the opportunity of thoroughly analyzing the endgame they have reached (middlegame positions do not often remain on the board for 40 moves) in a quiet setting. Now, when the outcome of a game is not infrequently decided under the constraint of extremely limited time, the ability to orient oneself unfailingly in the endgame has become practically a priceless quality for the chessplayer.
How do we develop habits of endgame play? There are lots of manuals, but this may be the first in which a famous practical player, a trainer with a world-renowned name, and a study composer with an International Grandmaster of Composition’s title share their views in one and the same book.
Mark Dvoretsky has employed studies in his trainer’s career for more than 30 years. Many grandmasters have achieved considerable success in their careers thanks to his methods. Oleg Pervakov came to the field of composition through practical play, whose principles he has always striven to follow in his creative work.
The impulse for writing this book was given by the article, “Studies From My Notebook,” and the international composing tournament, “Studies For Practical Players,” dedicated to Mark Dvoretsky’s 60th birthday. The tournament was a success: 25 notable compositions were annotated by the arbiters, among whose ranks were the authors of this book.
The book itself consists of several chapters, united by the title, “Studies For Practical Players.” Examples that most closely resemble “battlefield conditions,” where both sides must resolve interesting tasks, are provided to serve as exercises for your own solving, or for playing out. Separate chapters are devoted to the creative work of the famous Austrian study-composer Alois Wotawa and to that of practical players, including the world champions.
Oleg Pervakov
Moscow, July 2009
The notebook of exercises of which I make constant use for training sessions with my students, as well as for writing books and articles, contains more than a thousand selected studies. I would like to talk a bit about my criteria for selecting these studies – a practical player/trainer’s system of preferences. On the whole, “there is no accounting for taste.” My tastes are mine alone, and might not be the same as those of other chessplayers and trainers – to say nothing of professional study-composers. But I really ought to talk about them, now that I have invited chess composers to participate in my own composing tournament, “Studies For Practical Players,” in which I shall sit as judge, together with the noted composer Oleg Pervakov. And although Pervakov will undoubtedly not let a gifted composition slip by, even though it might not agree completely with the criteria set out in this article, nevertheless, my own tastes will more than likely have some influence on the process of judging excellence.
“A Small Genre”
Any chessplayer is bound to derive great pleasure from short studies with a clear and unusual idea. Here are a few examples.
A. Wotawa 1960
Win
The opening moves of the solution are obvious.
1 f8Q! R×f8 2 gh+ Kf7
But here, instead of the obvious 3 R×f8+ K×f8 4 Rf1+ Kg8 5 h6 (the endgame after 5 Ke7 h6 is drawn) 5...gh 6 Ke7, allowing Black to save himself by 6...h5! 7 Rg1+ Kh8 8 Kf7 h6, there comes an unbelievably quiet move, whose equal I cannot recall:
3 Rh8!! R×h8, and only now does White play 4 Rf1+ Kg8 5 h6! gh 6 Ke7, with inescapable mate.
I. Schultz 1941
Win
White cannot win by “normal” means, which would grant Black enough time to attack the a-pawn with rook and king. For example: 1 Bc8 Kd3 2 Bb7 Ra1 3 Nf4+ Kc4, or 1 Bd7 Ra1 2 Bb5+ Kf3 3 Nh4+ Ke4, or 1 Nh4 Ra1 2 Bc8 Kd3 3 Nf5 Kc4.
The solution is an unexpected knight sacrifice.
1 Nf4+!! R×f4 2 Bd7!
Our enjoyment here comes not so much from White’s play, as from the paradoxical nature of the resulting situation. The rook has two full tempi to get to either the a-file or the eighth rank, but on an open board, it is unable to do this, as all roads are blocked (2...Rf3 3 Bg4; 2...Rf1 3 Bb5+; 2...Rf6 3 a7 Ra6 4 Bb5+). (D)
These kinds of studies are most useful to chessplayers, since they develop an important habit: the ability to keep a close eye on the opponent’s intentions.
R. Réti 1922
Win
Stopping the pawns would appear to be simple enough – in fact, it looks as though White could do so in several different ways. For example: 1 Kc4 b3 2 Nd5 b2 3 Nc3. But here, White is in for a nasty surprise: 3...b1Q!! 4 N×b1+ Ka4, and any retreat of the bishop is stalemate.
Another try: 1 Ne4 b3 2 Nc3, and on 2...b2?, 3 Ke4! wins. But Black has 2...Kb2!, followed by 3...Kc2, and Black is safe.
There is only one move-order to neutralize every clever trap prepared by Black, and that is: 1 Ke4!! b3 2 Nd5 b2 (2...Kb2 3 Kd3!) 3 Nc3 Kb3 4 Kd3.
I do not know if studies such as these could win a modern tournament of composition, but in our tournament, they would probably win one of our special prizes.
Endgame Studies
Many studies have furthered the development of endgame theory in their time. Today, such a thing would be practically impossible – that is, if you mean those areas of theory which are of interest and use to practical players.
Let us suppose that a definite result was achieved in the study of a situation where there are two minor pieces battling a rook and piece or three minor pieces – so what? I have never faced such a balance of forces in my own practice, and the same goes for the overwhelming majority of chessplayers. And even if it should occur once or twice in one’s lifetime, this is still not enough of a reason to immerse oneself in the corresponding theory (which is most likely fairly complex) – there is a lot to study, and not enough time for all of it.
(And by the way, it is precisely because of their practical uselessness that pawnless studies – or, say, studies based upon various nuances of the Troitsky “two knights vs. pawn” position, would not be very attractive to me.)
But showing a chessplayer important aspects of contemporary endgame theory, clearly formulated to help him better understand them – this is something study-composers do even today. And most often, the goal is achieved via paradox: the unexpected exception to a well-known rule.
For me, one of the sharpest impressions I have received in the last few years has been my acquaintance with the following study. (D)
As in the Wotawa study, the first few moves are obvious enough.
1 h7 Ra2+ 2 Kb3 Rh2 3 K×a4 Kg2!
Among study composers, it is accepted practice to lengthen the play as much as possible. When I put such studies in my notebook, sometimes I will simply eliminate this kind of introduction, and offer the critical position for solving. Apropos of this, I remember that the famous study by the Sarychev brothers, (1 Kc8!!) also had introductory moves, which no one today even knows about.
H. van der Heijden 2001
Draw
However, my experience with the van der Heijden study was something I related in detail on the www.ChessCafe.com website, in an article entitled “Paradox.” I shall repeat this story here, with minimal changes. (D)
The first move is undoubtedly 4 Kb5. It is easy to see that 4...R×h7 5 a4 gives White a draw with no trouble. The immediate king march to the queenside is far more dangerous.
4...Kf3 5 a4 Ke4 6 a5 Kd5, and 7 a6 will lose, in view of 7...Rb2+! 8 Ka5 (8 Ka4 Kc4!) 8...Kc5! 9 Ka4 Rh2 (9...Rb8 would be simpler still) 10 a7 Kb6!. And on 7 Kb6, Black wins by 7...Kc4! (an important endgame technique: “outflanking”!) 8 a6 Rh6+ 9 Ka5 R×h7 10 Kb6 Rh6+ 11 Kb7 (11 Ka5 Kc5) 11...Kb5 12 a7 Rh7+ 13 Kb8 Kb6 14 a8N+ Kc6.
Where can we improve White’s play? Clearly, we need to make use of a well-known endgame technique: the “shoulder-block.” Instead of 6 a5, White could play 6 Kc5!?, and Black’s king no longer has the d5-square.
It is an attractive conclusion – but alas, it is refuted. Black responds 6...Rh5+! 7 Kb6 Kd5 8 a5 Kc4! (another outflanking) 9 a6 Rh6+ – we have already seen this position. And 6 Kc6 Kd4 7 a5 Kc4 8 a6 Rh6+ 9 Kb7 Kb5 does not help, either.
So that must mean that the starting position is lost – for have not we examined all the possibilities?!
No – in fact, we have only examined all the natural possibilities. We have operated in accordance with the usual rules of such positions: we have advanced our king as quickly as possible, while shoulder-blocking the enemy king. It turns out that, in this concrete situation, White should reject both those rules.
The key to the solution is the paradoxical conclusion that, with the kings at b5 and d5, the pawn on a5, and the rook on h2, we reach a position of mutual zugzwang. And in order to avoid falling into zugzwang, White must begin play by losing a tempo.
4 Kb4!! Kf3 (4...R×h7 5 a4) 5 a4 Ke4 6 a5! (but not the “shoulder-block” 6 Kc5? Rh5+!) 6...Kd5 7 Kb5
We already know how White loses when it is White’s turn to move in this position: 8 a6 Rb2+! or 8 Kb6 Kc4!. But now it is Black to move, so what should be done?
The a6-square is free now, so Black gets nowhere with 7...Rb2+ 8 Ka6 Rb8 9 Ka7 Rh8 10 Kb6! (here is where White does need to employ the “shoulder-block”) 10...Kd6 11 a6 Rb8+ 12 Ka7 Kc7 13 h8Q R×h8 – stalemate. This is the study’s main variation.
If 7...Kd6, then 8 Kb6 (the outflanking via c4 is no longer possible) 8...Kd7 9 Kb7 Kd8 10 a6 R×h7+ 11 Kb8! Rh1 12 a7 Rb1+ 13 Ka8.
It is amazing that Black cannot find a waiting move for the rook. On 7...Rh1 8 a6 Rb1+ 9 Ka5, 9...Kc5?? does not work: 10 h8Q, and the a1-square is controlled. The drawback of 7...Rh3 shows up in the line 8 a6 Rb3+ 9 Ka4! (Black no longer has the reply 9...Kc4) 9...Rb8 10 a7 Ra8 11 Kb5 Kd6 12 Kb6 Rh8 13 Kb7. And finally, 7...R×h7 leads to a drawing finale which has been seen many times in practice: 8 a6 Kd6 9 Kb6 Rh1 10 Kb7! (but not 10 a7? Rb1+ 11 Ka6 Kc7 12 a8N+ Kc6 13 Ka7 Rb2, and the knight is lost) 10...Rb1+ 11 Kc8! (the “shoulder-block”) 11...Ra1 12 Kb7 Kd7 13 a7 Rb1+ 14 Ka8!.
The paradoxical nature of this position certainly does not stem from the fact that White needs to lose a tempo in order to avoid zugzwang himself and put his opponent into zugzwang – we have seen this technique in the endgame often enough. What amazes us is the mere possibility of zugzwang in an endgame with this kind of material (I do not know of any other examples – this one is unique). In the battle of rook-versus-pawn, it always comes down to one question: who will win the race, who will achieve his goal first. Well, now we have one more illustration of the theme: “never say never” (or, as in this instance, “never say always”) – there is no such thing as an absolute rule in chess!
Van der Heijden’s study considerably enlarges a chessplayer’s horizons, simultaneously helping one to remember several standard techniques for playing rook-versus-pawn endgames.
Here, we should touch on a delicate question. I am certain that this unique endgame position was discovered with the help of the well-known Thompson endgame database. Is this a “fault” which reduces the study-composer’s achievement?
Yes, a database is an instrument, which in our day is available to everyone. From it, one may undoubtedly extract many more amazing constructions – there are some chess composers who do so regularly. The criterion for evaluation here ought to be the result that is achieved. Thus, miracles based upon complex computer analysis, and containing no clear composition of ideas, are probably only interesting to a few aesthetes.
Had van der Heijden’s position arisen in the course of a practical game, I think that not even the world champion could have found the saving line. He simply would not have even begun thinking about it, and automatically played 4 Kb5?. At the same time, the solution’s clear-cut logic is entirely understandable even to average players.
D. Blundell 1995
Win
Of course, the fantastic first move, 1 Na1!!, serves to embellish this study: instead of sending the king, or at least the knight, after the pawns, White sends the piece in the diametrically opposite direction.
In my Endgame Manual, I laid out a number of considerations which can lead us to this solution.
First, let us look at White’s most natural plan: getting the king closer to the pawns.
1 Kc1? Kg4 2 Kd2 f3 3 Ne3+ (3 Ke3 f2! 4 K×f2 Kf4) 3...Kf4 4 Kd3 f2 5 Nf1 Kf3 6 Nd2+ Kf4!
This is the most important position of this ending: one of mutual zugzwang. Black to move would lose: 7...Kg3 8 Ke2. But it is White to move here, and 7 Ke2 is met by 7...f1Q+! 8 K×f1 Ke3 9 Ke1 Kd3 10 Kd1 Ke3 11 Kc2 Kd4, with a draw.
Let’s try 1 Na3? f3 2 Nc4. Now, the natural 2...Kg4? leads to a loss: 3 Kc2 Kg3 4 Kc3! (zugzwang) 4...Kg4 (4...f2 5 Nd2 Kf4 6 Kd3; 4...Kf4 5 Kd3 f2 6 Nd2) 5 N×e5+! Kf4 6 Kd4.
White succeeded, but only because, with the king at c3, the e5-pawn was captured with check. Black can avoid this by playing 2...Kg5(h4)!! 3 Kc2 Kg4! 4 Kc3!? Kg3! (4...Kg5!? could also be played, for example: 5 Kd2!? f2 6 Ne3 Kf4 7 Kd3 Kg3! 8 Nf1+ Kf3! 9 Nd2+ Kf4). Here we have yet another position of mutual zugzwang, this time with White to move. On 5 Nd2, Black plays 5...Kf4 6 Kd3 f2 (the main zugzwang); equivalent lines are 5 Kd2 f2 6 Ke2 Kf4 7 Nd2 (7 Nd6 Kg3) 7...f1Q+!, or 5 Kd3 f2 6 Nd2 Kf4!.
By the way, this variation we just examined brings us to a surprising conclusion: both players must maneuver so as to avoid being the first to approach the other. Should White play Nd2 or Kd3, White falls into zugzwang; and if Black is too hasty with the moves f2 or Kf4, then the zugzwang position arises when it is Black’s move. So we are dealing here with “mined squares” (a technique we studied in Chapter One of my Endgame Manual – the chapter on pawn endings). But this is the only example I know of in which squares are mined for four pieces at once, instead of the usual two.
And now, to the solution. We must act similarly to the last variation, but place the knight on b3, instead of c4, leaving the c4-square open for the king.
1 Na1!! f3 2 Nb3 Kg4 3 Kc2 Kg3 4 Kc3! Kg4 5 Kc4!
The point! Black cannot wait any longer: on 5...Kg3, White wins by 6 Kd5 f2 7 Nd2 Kf4 8 Nf1. So Black must be the first to set foot on the mined square, which of course leads to zugzwang.
5...Kf4 6 Kd3! (6 Kd5? Ke3; 6 Nd2? Ke3) 6...f2 7 Nd2 (zugzwang) 7...Kg3 8 Ke2 (8 Kc4 Kf4 9 Kd5? would be a mistake, in view of 9...Ke3 10 Nf1+ Kf4) 8...Kg2 9 Nf1 Kg1 10 Ne3
Blundell’s study is quite complex. But still, in my view, its complexity does not overstep the boundary after which a difficult calculation, but one which is, in principle, within the capabilities of a strong player, turns into the analytical foundation of the correctness or incorrectness of some continuation. Nevertheless, if it were not for this study’s brilliant introduction, it would probably have been taken as purely analytical, and would not have made such a strong impression.
There are some articles and books dedicated to composition in which you will find the assertion that practical players “love” complicated endgame analyses, and therefore, analytical studies are meant primarily for them. Nothing could be further from the truth! Excess complexity and overly detailed analysis only frighten people away, and reduce the aesthetic impression left by the study to a considerable extent. Chessplayers find it interesting to solve tasks similar to those they have to resolve in a practical game (sometimes a little more complex, and if possible, a little prettier).
A Difficult Choice
The difficulty of the examples seen above was that you had to uncover an unusual, well-hidden basic idea. There is a different type of problem, no less valuable for the practical player: to choose the only correct path from two or more tempting continuations.
O. Pervakov 1997
Win
I must say right off that such a position is a pleasant one to solve, because everything in it is natural. Just as in a practical game, the white king is located in the lower half of the board, the black king in the upper half; and both the pawn structure and the material balance are absolutely normal. White waged an assault on the short-castled position, sacrificed an exchange, and must now show that he can get more than equal chances out of his attack.
On 1 Bc2? K×h6 2 fg Kg7 3 Qc3+ Rf6, his opponent keeps the pawns securely blockaded – which means chances are about even.
But 1 fg+ Q×g6 (1...K×h6 2 Qh4+ clearly does not work) 2 Bc2! looks attractive, even considering the possible counterblow 2...R×f4+! – since White does not have to take the rook.
If this were the only promising line, a practical player would take it without immersing himself in calculations (let me repeat: in a training session, there is no sense in trying to solve problems which we would not spend time thinking about in a practical game). But still, before making a move, we ought to cast an attentive eye on the position, to see whether or not we have missed anything substantive. Such an approach reveals one of the most important principles of calculating variations and making decisions: the “candidate-moves” principle.
We see an interesting tactical try: 1 Ba4. The bishop is taboo, but we find the defense 1...b5, when 2 B×b5?? is impossible, as the bishop would be recaptured with check. On the other hand, if we return the bishop to c2 or continue with 2 fg+ instead, we reach familiar positions, but with a black pawn at b5. For now, it is unclear whether the Black pawn structure on the queenside will be of any significance, with the major events occurring on the other side of the board. Nevertheless, White now has a choice – which means we cannot make a move yet. We need to calculate the variations, remembering that, if we choose, the pawn can be on either of two squares.
1 Ba4!! b5! 2 fg+! Q×g6!
2...K×h6 would be altogether bad: 3 Qh4+ Kg7 4 Qh7+ Kf6 5 g7 Rg8 6 Bc2 R×g7 7 Qf5#.
2...Kg8 leads to a more complex variation: 3 g7! R×f4+ 4 Q×f4 ba. Here, the position of Black’s pawn at b5 worked against us; but this is not a reason to reject 1 Ba4, since White can still eke out a win: 5 Qf5! a3 6 h7+ K×g7 7 Qf7+ Q×f7 8 ef.
3 Bc2! R×f4+! 4 Kg1!
The only way to keep playing for the win (4 Kg2?? Q×c2+; 4 Ke1? Re4+; 4 Q×f4? Q×c2 5 Qf7+ K×h6).
4...Rf6! 5 Qg5!
White parries the threat of 5...K×h6. If 5...Kh8 now, then 6 Q×g6!.
5...R×e6!
6 Kf1!
Time to get the king off the g-file, otherwise the rook on the sixth rank can attack White’s bishop in perpetuity. Black can only defend against the threat of 7 B×g6+ by chasing the enemy king.
6...Rf6+ 7 Ke1 Re6+ 8 Kd1 (8 Kd2? Re2+!) 8...Rd6+ 9 Kc1! Rc6! 10 Qc5!!
And here, finally, is the reason why White had to induce b6-b5: so the queen could occupy the c5-square! After 10...K×h6 11 B×g6 R×c5+ 12 bc K×g6 13 c6, the white pawn goes on to queen.
Not a simple calculation; still, it was all quite within reach, considering the small number of variations aside from the main line.
Playing Out Studies
How can a trainer make use of studies in which it makes no sense (and is sometimes downright impossible) to calculate the variations all the way to the end? By insisting on complete calculations, the trainer is, in effect, impressing upon the student an irrational algorithm for decision-making, leading inevitably to terrible time-scrambles, in which important points will be lost.
Such studies should not be solved, but played out: under a time-limit, students should resolve the tasks that come up, making one move after the other for White, and taking the opposing side’s responses from the text of the book or the article (this works even better when the player faces the trainer, or a friend, who knows the solution).
I have used this training method regularly, and have seen practical proofs of its enormous effectiveness (owing, to a great extent, to its resemblance to the realities of tournament play). I shall demonstrate a few studies I like which would be suitable for playing out.
V. Smyslov 1938
Win
Once again, the naturalness of the starting position gladdens the eye. Clearly, White is striving for advantage here, with hopes resting on the passed pawn at c6. But there is nothing in the straightforward 1 c7 Rc8 2 Rd8+ Ke7; and 1 B×c4 B×c4 2 c7 Re8 3 f5 (3 Rd8 Be6) fails to 3...a5!?.
After trying a few other things, we find the only way to set problems for our opponent.
1 f5! gf 2 Bh3
Black cannot take on e4, in view of the exchange of bishops, followed by c6-c7. Nor can 2...Rc8 be played because of 3 ef. This is not a bad outcome for White – having nothing better – should play this, without making things more difficult by further analysis.
2...Re8
Black prepares to retreat the bishop to c8. Now we see that on 3 c7? Bc8 4 B×f5 Ke7!, or 4 ef f6!, White achieves nothing; however, capturing on f5 immediately retains more of those resources which could make trouble for the opponent.
3 ef Bc8
But here, we should stop and think a while. Once again, we see that after 4 c7? f6!, Black defends successfully. So we have two gambit lines to consider: 4 f6!? and 4 Rd7!?. Now we cannot proceed without accurate calculation. We must either find a clear-cut refutation of one of them, making sure that the other one retains winning chances (the “exclusionary method,” by whose aid we selected our first moves), or having guessed the correct continuation, we must calculate it through to a win.
Smyslov, in his annotations, did not look at 4 Rd7, although it is very difficult to cast doubt on this move. 4...B×d7? is hopeless: 5 cd Rd8 6 f6 Kg8 7 Bf5! – and Black’s pieces are restricted to the eighth rank, while White’s king advances unhindered.
The move 4...Kg7? meets an interesting refutation. White continues 5 c7! Re1+ (5...B×d7 6 f6+ K×f6 7 B×d7) 6 Kd2 Rh1 7 Bg4! (7 Rd8? is a mistake: 7...c3+ 8 Kc2 Rh2+, and the king cannot advance to the third rank; 7 f6+? also leads to a draw after 7...Kg6! 8 Bg4 Rh4 9 Rd8 B×g4 10 Rg8+ K×f6 11 R×g4 Rh8=) 7...Rg1 (7...Rh4 8 Rd8) 8 f6+! (8 Rd8!? is also strong) 8...K×f6 (8...Kg6 9 Rd8 B×g4 10 Rg8+ K×f6 11 R×g4) 9 R×f7+ K×f7 10 B×c8, and wins.
After 4...f6?! 5 Rc7 a5 6 a4, White keeps a sizable advantage. This would probably not be a proper conclusion for a study-composer: he would need a more definite assessment; but for the practical player, this is often sufficient basis for choosing a variation.
Black can only gain a secure draw by 4...Re3! 5 Rc7 (5 f6? does not work, because of 5...Ke8!) 5...R×h3 6 R×c8+ Ke7.
4 f6!! B×h3 5 c7 a5
If 5...Bf5, then 6 Rd8 c3 7 Kd1 (or 7 a4 a5 8 Kd1) 7...a5 8 a4! c2+ 9 Kc1! c4 10 Kd2, and Black is in zugzwang. This is the kind of zugzwang that was White’s main goal in undertaking the bishop sacrifice. But there is more work to do, in order to ensure that when the zugzwang position is reached, it will be the opponent’s turn to move.
6 Rd8
White must restrict the mobility of the enemy pieces: 6 Kb2? would be a mistake, owing to 6...Re2+, followed by 7...Kg8. 6 a4? is also inaccurate: 6...Kg8 7 Rd8 Rf8 (or 7...Kf8) 8 Kc2 Bg4 9 Kc3 Be6, when it is White who has fallen into zugzwang.
6...a4
7 Kb2!
But not 7 Kc2? a3.
7...Be6 (7...Bf5 8 Kc3 Be6 9 a3) 8 Kc2! Bf5+ (8...a3 9 Kc3) 9 Kc3 Be6 10 a3
Zugzwang now costs Black his pawns, after which the invasion of the White king is decisive. (D)
This appears to be a normal endgame, where White will have no trouble achieving material superiority – although it will be a much more complicated task to hold on to it. There is an important choice to make on the very first move. White can win a piece, not only by taking the bishop, but also by means of 1 Rc5, which threatens 2 d6+. White can hardly calculate the correct path all the way to the end; he would have a better chance to refute one of those continuations in the process of testing them out. Let’s begin with the bishop capture.
Y. Bazlov 2003
Win
1 fe+ K×e4 2 Rc5 (2 Ke6 Kd4+ 3 Re3 R×c1 would be useless) 2...Kd4 3 Ra5 Kc4 (of course not 3...R×c1? 4 K×e7)
White can ward off the threatened 4...Re5 by playing either 4 Bf4 or 4 Bb2. But in either case, any attempt to make progress leads to the loss of the d5-pawn, which means the game would then be a positional draw!
a) 4 Bb2 Re2 5 Bg7 Re1 6 Bf6!? Re2! 7 B×e7 Re5;
b) 4 Bf4 Re4 5 Bc7 Re1 6 Bh2 Re2 7 Bg1 Re5 8 Rc5+ Kb4 9 Ke8 Re1 10 Bf2 Re2 11 Rc7 Re5.
1 Rc5!! B×d5+!
The only defense to the deadly threat of 2 d6+.
2 R×d5+ e5
3 Bd2!
The seemingly equivalent 3 Rc5? would allow Black to save himself by 3...Re3!! 4 f4 (4 B×e3 is stalemate) 4...Re1, and White is in zugzwang.
On 5 Ke7, 5...R×c1! 6 R×c1 ef 7 Rf1 Ke5! is a mutual zugzwang position, known since Richard Réti’s famous 1928 study, in which Black’s king “shoulder-blocks” its rival, preventing it from getting close to the pawn: 8 Kf7 (8 Kd7 Ke4 9 Ke6 f3) 8...Kf5! 9 Kg7 Kg5!. And after 5 Bd2 Re2, White can extract nothing, either from 6 Rd5 R×d2! 7 R×d2 ef 8 Rf2 (here it is Black to move, but this is of no importance, since the rook at f2 is too close to the king) 8...Ke4 9 Kg6 f3 10 Kg5 Ke3, or from 6 Ke7 R×d2 7 fe Ra2! 8 e6+ Kg6 – this position is drawn, since Black’s rook controls the “long side,” and is ready to begin checking from the side.
The analysis of this variation was based on some endgame ideas – and these are not exceptions, but basic rules, of importance to every chessplayer. So we are training not just your calculation, but also your knowledge of endgame theory.
Let’s examine one more false lead, the move 3 Bh6?. Black replies 3...Ra1!, and the rook now occupies the “long side,” allowing it to give many checks; this will also prove handy in a rook endgame, if it comes to that. After 4 f4 Ra7+ 5 Ke8 Ra8+ 6 Kd7 Ra7+ 7 Kd8 Ra8+ 8 Kc7, the simplest is 8...Kg6 9 fe K×h6, although Black could also play 8...Ra7+ 9 Kb6 Re7 10 Kc5 Re8.
3...Re3!! (3...Re2 4 Rd6 is just bad) 4 f4 Re2
Threatening 5...R×d2.
5 Bc1!
With the king at f7, 5 Ra5? R×d2 6 fe does not work, in view of 6...Rd7+.
5...Re1 6 Rc5
With the same position as after 3 Rc5? – this time, however, it is Black to move, so he is the one who falls into zugzwang.
6...Re4
After 6...R×c1 7 R×c1 ef 8 Rf1, we reach Réti’s position with Black to move, and he is forced to give way to the opposing king: 8...Ke4 9 Kg6(f6) or 8...Kg4 9 Ke6(f6).
7 Ke7! Re1 8 Bd2!
8 Kd6? is a mistake: 8...Rd1+ 9 Kc6 (9 Ke7 R×c1! 10 R×c1 ef 11 Rf1 Ke5!, and now, in the Réti zugzwang position, it is White to move) 9...Re1 10 Bd2 (10 Kb5 Ke6) 10...Re2 11 Rd5 Ke6!.
8...Re2!
9 Ra5!!