The Exchange Sacrifice
A Practical Guide
2016
Russell Enterprises, Inc.
Milford, CT USA
The Exchange Sacrifice
A Practical Guide by
Sergey Kasparov
ISBN: 978-1-941270-22-6
© Copyright 2016
Sergey Kasparov
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.
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
Translated from the Russian by Boris Gleyzerov
Editing and proofreading by Peter Kurzdorfer
Printed in the United States of America
Table of Contents
Signs & Symbols
Introduction
Part I: The Games of Two World Champions
Chapter 1 The Exchange Sacrifice in the Games of Tigran Petrosian
Chapter 2 The Exchange Sacrifice in the Games of Anatoly Karpov
Part II: Common Themes in Exchange Sacrifices
Chapter 3 Domination
Chapter 4 Fighting for the Initiative
Chapter 5 Trying to “Muddy the Waters”
Chapter 6 Utilizing an Advantage
Chapter 7 Simply the Best
Chapter 8 Launching an Attack against the King
Chapter 9 Reducing Your Opponent’s Offensive Potential
Chapter 10 Destroying a Pawn Chain
Chapter 11 Building a Fortress
Chapter 12 Activating Your Bishop
Conclusion
Exercises
Solutions
Game Index
Signs and Symbols
! |
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 |
# |
mate |
(D) |
See the next diagram |
Introduction
Dear Reader!
So, you have taken this book from the shelf in a bookstore to leaf through it and familiarize yourself with its contents, or you are considering purchasing online. Well, let me try and explain the subject as briefly as possible.
But, first allow me to introduce myself, though it is not impossible that we have already met each other on the pages of previous books and articles – or even during tournaments.
Working for you is grandmaster Sergey Kasparov from Belarus, an East European country and a former USSR republic. And now to chess.
We all have been told that every chess piece possesses an approximate strength measured “in pawns.”
A rook is roughly equivalent to 4½ pawns, a bishop – to 3 and a knight to 2½ pawns. For different chess manuals, those estimates may vary in the range of plus or minus a half-pawn. They are certainly rather arbitrary as the real strength of pieces changes depending on many different factors. For example, a rook’s strength increases in the endgames; in closed positions with strongpoints, it is knights that “build up their brawn,” etc.
Let us divide the general contents of the book into various topics. In every one of them, you will find several examples taken from games played by strong grandmasters, and also some fragments from the author’s personal experience.
As usual, I will be using many diagrams to give my busiest (or laziest ) readers a chance to do without an actual chessboard, making themselves comfortable with the book in a chair or sofa.
In the first two chapters you will find collections of examples taken from the games of Tigran Petrosian, the ninth world champion (1963-1969) and Anatoly Karpov, the twelfth world champion (1975-1985). The former was a universally recognized expert in exchange sacrifices, and the latter is one of the greatest all-time experts in positional play. It seems interesting to compare the games of those great champions and try to draw conclusions as to their views on our subject.
I hope that after reading this book you will be able to carry out promising exchange sacrifices (or, conversely, discourage them) with greater confidence.
In any event, I have always recommended to my students – and I have been working in a specialized chess school and now give online chess lessons – to employ this strategic weapon actively.
I am now going to reveal a small secret to you. While working on the book, I immersed myself in its principal subject more deeply as it may come in handy in my future chess practice. In this way I managed to mix business with pleasure. I do hope that my publishers remain ignorant about this…
At the end, you will be offered some positions for solving. I then take the liberty of estimating your real chess strength at this time based upon the number of points you score.
Just to give readers a chance to relax a bit, I am going to introduce some interesting “off-board” fragments from numerous tournaments somewhere in between the “dry chess” pages.
You are also welcome to email your questions, wishes and critique to the author at tkasparova@rambler.ru. I hope that your time spent with this book will turn out both pleasant and profitable.
Sergey Kasparov
Belarus
Chapter 1
The Exchange Sacrifice in the Games of Tigran Petrosian
I begin this book with a chapter on the creative work of the ninth world champion. I will hazard a guess that Tigran Vartanovich was the greatest authority on the subject of exchange sacrifice.
My friends, if some young beginners here do not have a clue about Petrosian, please find this name in the Wikipedia.
It will take you no more than three or four minutes as the net is now accessible from every corner of the planet called Earth. If you hold my book in your hands now, you almost certainly have access to the “worldwide web.” I will offer you several examples with detailed annotations. You will also find here the occasional excerpt taken from the comments of strong grandmasters of the previous century (the author is no match for them).
Some of their evaluations may have changed with the advent of computers; well, the more interesting it is to compare a “fresh outlook” with opinions of “mere mortals.”
Before switching to chess itself, I would like to remind you that Petrosian lived and played in the epoch when the tournament formats and time controls were radically different from our modern realities. Accordingly, the optimal playing style could be different as well.
Round robins with 16 to 20 (!) participants were really popular then. To reach the goal, it was often enough to beat five or six weaker opponents and to draw the remaining games. They played one game a day. After every four or five rounds, free days for rest or for the “resumption of the adjourned games” could be scheduled. Young players may not have even the slightest idea about what this means. Most time control were as follows: two hours for 40 moves, and after that, the game was adjourned to be resumed on designated days, as previously mentioned.
I am sure that spectators, both “live” and online, are more interested in shorter time controls than one in which, after 20 theoretical moves, another 20 are made – and then the game is interrupted.
First I offer you the “100% positional” exchange sacrifice carried out at the Zürich international tournament of 1953. I believe it to be the most famous sacrifice of its kind.
This game relates to chapter 11, “Building a Fortress.”
(1) Reshevsky – Petrosian
ct (2), Zürich 1953
Nimzo-Indian Defense [E58]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 c5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.a3 Bxc3 9.bxc3 b6 10.cxd5 exd5 11.Bb2 c4 12.Bc2 Bg4 13.Qe1 Ne4 14.Nd2 Nxd2 15.Qxd2 Bh5 16.f3 Bg6 17.e4 Qd7 18.Rae1 dxe4 19.fxe4 Rfe8 20.Qf4 b5 21.Bd1 Re7 22.Bg4 Qe8 23.e5 a5 24.Re3 Rd8 25.Rfe1 (D)
The American grandmaster is planning the e5-e6 breakthrough, his “backup plan” being to undermine the opponent’s defense with his pawn advance h2-h4-h5. Petrosian decides to prevent those developments in a radical way with his unexpected move 25…Re6!?.
However, I suppose that after studying this book, many readers would be able to employ similar resources in positions of this kind. The last move is multi-functional: (1) the e-pawn is mechanically stopped; (2) the e7-square is cleared for the knight maneuver Nc6-e7-d5; and (3) the f7-pawn is moved to e6 (the alternative 25…Ra7 26.e6 f6 27.e7 Nxe7 28.d5 fails to solve all the problems).
26.a4?! Refusing the Greek gift “on principle.” Chessplayers do that often: if my opponent wants something, I must prevent it… Bronstein recommended 26.h4; and the computer believes that the optimal answer is 26.Bxe6!? fxe6 27.Rf1 Ne7 28.Rg3 Nd5 29.Qg4. 26…Ne7!= 26…b4 27.d5 Rxd5 28.Bxe6 fxe6 29.Qxc4 27.Bxe6 fxe6 28.Qf1 Eyeing the c4-square; the queen indirectly hinders b5-b4 or b5xa4. 28…Nd5 29.Rf3 Bd3 with compensation. (D)
Here we can state that the insertion of a3-a4 was unsuccessful and Black now has excellent compensation for the exchange. His knight and bishop are both incredibly strong, while the white bishop on b2 is a real martyr…
Quite reasonably, Reshevsky decides it is time to return the exchange and to pick up an extra pawn with 30.Rxd3! cxd3 31.Qxd3 b4 The “metal intellect” recommends 31…bxa4=, but it looks somewhat suspicious to a human being, as this move may potentially lead to the creation of connected passed c- and d-pawns.
32.cxb4 A correct decision by chronically time-troubled Reshevsky. 32.c4? Nb6 is bad, as Black gets super-pair a- and b-pawns. 32…axb4 32…Nxb4!? 33.a5 Ra8 34.Ra1 Qc6 35.Bc1 Qc7 35…Rxa5?! 36.Rxa5 Qxc1+ 37.Qf1 Qe3+ 38.Kh1 is hardly reasonable. Black has the stronger game here as the white king does not feel safe on g8. 36.a6 Qb6 37.Bd2 37.Qc4!? 37…b3 38.Qc4 h6 39.h3 b2 40.Rb1 Kh8 Or 40…Rxa6 41.Qc8+ Kh7 42.Qc2+ Kg8 43.Qc8+ Kh7=. 41.Be1 The a- and b-passed pawns offset each other, and White’s extra pawn is canceled out by the black knight’s advantage over the opponent’s bad bishop (pawns on d4 and e5). ½-½
Now let me offer you a couple of examples related to chapter 8. Both of them are taken from competitions at the highest level. The first game was played against the Great Opponent himself. By that time, Robert Fischer had successively crushed both Soviet grandmaster Mark Taimanov and the Dane Bent Larsen in their candidate matches for the world champion’s crown with the same incredible score 6-0 (!!!). The American had also won the first game of his match against Petrosian, thus scoring 13 points out of 13 against opponents in the world’s elite!
Nevertheless, Tigran Vartanovich found the inner strength to regroup, and in the second game confidently dismantled his opponent’s defense with an exchange sacrifice.
(2) Petrosian – Fischer
cm (2), Buenos Aires 1971
Gruenfeld Defense [D82]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4 Bg7 5.e3 c5 6.dxc5 Qa5 7.Rc1 Ne4 8.cxd5 Nxc3 9.Qd2 Qxa2 10.bxc3 Qa5 11.Bc4 Nd7 12.Ne2 Ne5 13.Ba2 Bf5 14.Bxe5 Bxe5 15.Nd4 Qxc5 16.Nxf5 gxf5 17.0-0 Qa5 18.Qc2 f4 19.c4 fxe3 20.c5 Qd2 21.Qa4+ Kf8 22.Rcd1 Qe2 23.d6 Qh5 24.f4 (D)
In the pre-computer era, Edmar Mednis put an exclamation mark after this move; however, the engine “Houdini” believes that the best moves here are the prosaic 24.dxe7+, and 24.fxe5. 24…e2?! Now Tigran Vartanovich is able to carry out his plan. The f-file is opened, and the rook can join the attack. And yet, “after 24…Bf6!, Black’s defensive potential remains considerable.” Kholmov. 25.fxe5 exd1Q 26.Rxd1 Qxe5 27.Rf1+– (the only move) 27…f6 (the insertion of 27…Qxc5+ 28.Kh1 does not change anything) 28.Qb3 with a simple mating threat along the a2-g8 diagonal. The black rooks are unable to help their monarch: 28…Kg7 28…e6 29.Qxb7 Re8 30.c6 Rg8 31.c7, bringing the queen in for the defense of the g2-pawn. 29.Qf7+ Kh6 30.dxe7 f5 31.Rxf5 Qd4+ 32.Kh1 1-0
The second example is taken from an earlier world championship match against Boris Spassky. I hope that admirers of the Leningrad grandmaster will take no offense; the tenth world champion is certainly one of the greats as well. The final position is quite impressive.
(3) Petrosian – Spassky
wm (10), Moscow 1966
King’s Indian Defense [E66])
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.0-0 Nc6 6.Nc3 d6 7.d4 a6 8.d5 Na5 9.Nd2 c5 10.Qc2 e5 11.b3 Ng4 12.e4 f5 13.exf5 gxf5 14.Nd1 b5 15.f3 e4 16.Bb2 exf3 17.Bxf3 Bxb2 18.Qxb2 Ne5 19.Be2 f4 20.gxf4 Bh3?! (D)
Boleslavsky believes that 20…Rxf4!?, with the initiative, is relevant here. The computer does not agree, considering White’s position after 21.Rxf4 Qg5+ 22.Kh1 Qxf4 23.Nc3 preferable. 21.Ne3! Bxf1 22.Rxf1 Ng6 (Boleslavsky recommends 22…Nd7, but it is not all cakes and ale for Black either. For example, 23.Ne4 Qe7 24.Bd3 Qg7+ 25.Qxg7+ Kxg7 26.Nxd6, and he is in serious trouble, even without queens. Small wonder, as his knight on a5 is completely neutralized) 23.Bg4 (D)
I suppose everyone gets the idea now? The bishop aims at e6 and then the white cavalry will pounce on the opponent’s king. 23…Nxf4? This quickly. After 23…Qf6, (the only move) 24.Be6+ Kh8 25.Qxf6+ Rxf6 26.f5 Ne5 27.Ne4 Rff8, “White possesses a great advantage, but a long struggle is still ahead.” (Boleslavsky) 24.Rxf4 Another exchange sacrifice. 24…Rxf4 25.Be6++– Rf7 25…Kf8 26.Qh8+ Ke7 27.Qxh7+ Ke8 28.Qg8+ Ke7 29.Qg5+ Ke8 30.Qxf4+– 26.Ne4 The position is overwhelming. Black pieces are scattered across the board and uncoordinated. 26…Qh4 26…Raa7 27.Nf5 Qf8 28.Qf6+–. Another picturesque situation. 27.Nxd6 Qg5+ 28.Kh1 Raa7 29.Bxf7+ Rxf7 30.Qh8+ (D)
The culmination of the Armenian grandmaster’s strategy. 1-0
The next two games fall into chapter 11, “Building a Fortress.” With his sacrifice against Portisch, Petrosian prevents his opponent from opening any file. And how could the Hungarian cash in his material advantage after that?
(4) Portisch – Petrosian
San Antonio 1972
English Opening [A35]
1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 g6 4.e3 Bg7 5.d4 d6 6.Be2 cxd4 7.exd4 Nf6 8.d5 Nb8 9.0-0 0-0 10.Be3 Na6 11.Nb5 b6 12.Nfd4 Bb7 13.Bf3 Nd7 14.Qd2 Ne5 15.Be2 Qc8 16.Rac1 Nc5 17.b4 Ne4 18.Qd1 a6 19.Na3 a5 20.b5 Qc7 21.Nc6 Rae8 22.Nb1 Nd7 23.Bf3 Nec5 24.Bg5 (D)
The Hungarian grandmaster had achieved a positional advantage by planting a “Greek knight” into his opponent’s camp. The ex-champion of the world prefers a radical change of the pawn structure over prosaic moves such as 24…Ne5 or 24…f6. 24…e5!? The exchange is lost, but Black now has an extra pawn on the kingside. As for the queenside, the presence of the white superfluous c4-pawn is absolutely of no consequence here (24…Ne5 25.Be2 Bc8 26.f4, with the initiative. 25.Be7 f5 (25…Bxc6!? 26.Bxf8 Bxb5 27.Bxg7 Ba4 28.Qd2 Kxg7) 26.Bxf8 Nxf8 27.Be2 Bh6 In the absence of his counterpart, this bishop feels rather comfortable. 28.Rc2 Bc8 29.Nc3 (29.Nd2!?) 29…Nfd7 30.Re1 Nf6 31.Bf1 f4 (D)
Just like that! Were this move made by a player with the ELO-rating less that 2000, that would be a positional mistake, but for Petrosian it is a subtle solution! The obvious idea is to close the position as tightly as possible so that the white rooks are unable to penetrate the opponent’s camp. All the files are closed. 32.Rce2 Rf8 33.Na4 Nxa4 34.Qxa4 Nd7 The knight hurries to replace its perished comrade. The blockading c5-square must be occupied. 35.Ne7+ Kh8 36.Nxc8 Qxc8 37.Qa3 Nc5 38.Qf3 Qf5 39.h3 ½-½
Against Spassky in the ninth game of their second title match, things had not gone all that well. Petrosian had been on the verge of disaster for a long time, but managed to hold the position.
(5) Spassky – Petrosian
wm (9), Moscow 1969
Czech Benoni Defense [A56]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e5 4.Nc3 d6 5.e4 g6 6.Bd3 Na6 7.Nge2 Nb4! 8.Bb1 Bg7 9.h3 Bd7 10.Be3 0-0 11.Qd2 Na6 12.Bd3 Nb4 13.Bb1 Na6 14.a3 Nc7 15.Bd3 Rb8 16.b4 b6 17.g4 h5 18.g5 Nh7 19.h4 f6 20.0-0-0fxg5 21.hxg5 Bg4! (D)
“The position is most complicated and difficult for evaluation. I think that Black stands better. It has been argued that Black should trade on b4 now for possible play on the queenside. I have nothing to say against it, but the idea of operating solely on the kingside is also good enough.” (Bondarevsky) 22.Rdg1 Qe8 23.b5 Ra8 24.Kc2 Rf3 25.Ng3 a6 26.a4 axb5 27.cxb5 Qf7 28.Be2 (D)
With his 24th move, Petrosian had planted his rook in his opponent’s camp. He knew very well that this piece was doomed to perish, but his plan was to carry out a “kamikaze” operation in order to get a maximum compensation for it.
28…Rf4! As they say in the navy, it is better to take not a mere destroyer, but a cruiser with you to the ocean’s depth. Of two bishops, the dark-square one is obviously the strongest in this position. Besides, on Be3xf4 e5xf4 the “monster” on g7 is going to be liberated. 29.f3! Rxf3
“After long deliberation, Petrosian opts for an exchange sacrifice on f3. But now the situation is quite different from the one that would have ensued after taking on f4. It is much less advantageous for Black: his bishop on g7 remains blocked, White manages to retain his important dark-square bishop, and the g5-pawn is invulnerable.” (Boleslavsky) After 29…Bxf3 30.Bxf3 Rxf3 31.Nxh5, Black faces problems as well.
30.Bxf3 Qxf3 31.Rh2 Or immediately 31.Qd3!? Rb8 32.Nf1, intending Ng3-f1-d2-c4. 31…Qf8 32.Rf2 Qc8 33.Nf1 Ra7 34.Qd3 Qa8 35.Qc4 (35.Nd2 Qd8 36.Nc4; 35.Kb3!?) 35…Qd8 36.Nh2 Bd7 37.Nf3 Bg4 38.Qf1 Bd7 39.Kb3 Be8 40.Nd2 Nf8 41.Nc4 (D)
Here the game was adjourned (!), and “…analysis of the position showed that carrying out the a4-a5 break after proper preparation should lead to a decisive invasion of the white pieces into the opponent’s camp.” (Bondarevsky) 41…Nh7 42.Qg2 42.Nxb6 Nxb5 43.axb5 Qxb6 44.Ra2 Rxa2 45.Kxa2 is unconvincing. 42…Bf8 43.Ra2 Rb7 44.Kc2 Be7
The transfer Bg7-f8-e7 works well for Black. Pressure against the g5-pawn becomes stronger, and the additional defense of the d6-square cannot hurt as well. 45.Rb1 Qb8 (45…Rb8 46.a5 bxa5 47.Rxa5 Na8 is better) 46.Rab2?!
Bondarevsky is justified when he wonders about this delay in his comments. The situation calls for the natural 46.a5! bxa5 47.Nxa5+–. 46…Na8 47.Ra2?! 47.a5+– 47…Bd8 “Black is certain to reject the repetition of position. 48.Kd3 “Now on 48.a5 bxa5 49.Nxa5, he is able to organize his defense by trading his bad bishop for the ‘proud’ white knight.” (Bondarevsky) 49…Bxa5 50.Rxa5 Nb6) 48…Bd7 49.Rba1 Nf8 50.Kc2 Be8 51.Qe2 Bc7 52.Rf1 Bd8 53.Raa1 Nh7 (D)
It is the disposition of black knights that is interesting here. As for the bishops, they occupy perfect defensive positions as their “lines of force,” d8-a5 and e8-h5, hamper a breakthrough by his opponent. 54.Rg1 Nf8 55.Bd2 Nh7 56.Ra3 Nf8 57.Rga1 Nh7 58.a5 Now that the opponent has reinforced his fortress to the maximum, the efficiency of White’s attack considerably decreases. 58…bxa5 59.Nxa5 Bxa5 60.Rxa5 Nc7 61.Rb1 Nf8 62.Be3 Nd7 63.Qf2 Kg7 64.Kd3 Kg8 65.Qa2 Nb6 ½-½
“Trying to Muddy the Waters” is rather a vague concept but, begging your indulgence, I have chosen four examples of it in Petrosian’s play. By the way, in the game against Gurgenidze, it was Georgian player who had employed the sacrifice to successfully nullify his opponent’s advantage successfully.
(6) Petrosian – Gurgenidze
USSRch, Moscow 1957
King’s Indian Defense [E80]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 e5 6.Nge2 Nc6 7.d5 Ne7 8.Be3 c5 9.Qd2 a6 10.g4 Bd7 11.h4 h5 12.g5 Nh7 13.Nc1 f6 14.Be2 fxg5 15.hxg5 0-0 16.a4 Qa5 17.Ra3 Rae8 18.Nb3 Qd8 19.a5 Rf7 20.Nc1 Nc8 21.Nd3 Bf8 22.Kd1 Be7 23.Rg1 Ref8 24.Kc2 (D)
In terms of strategy, White’s position is better. Should his opponent adopt a passive stance, the breakthrough b2-b4 or f3-f4 (which is more logical) is possible. But, while the arrangement of the white forces is still not perfect (the rook on a3), the Georgian grandmaster strikes his blow (24.f4 exf4 25.Nxf4) 24…Rxf3! 25.Bxf3 Rxf3 26.Nf2 b5! Opening a second front. 27.axb6 (27.cxb5 axb5 unclear) 27…Nxb6 28.b3 a5! Breaking White’s fortress wall with a5-a4 is on the agenda, and after that the white king would feel extremely uncomfortable. 29.Ncd1?! (29.Qe2 is better) 29…a4 with compensation. (D)
Do you see a fundamental difference between this diagram and the previous one? Absolutely every black piece is taking part in the struggle. Even the knight on h7 “terrorizes” the g5-pawn and pins down his opponent’s forces (his queen in particular) 30.Nb2 axb3+ 31.Rxb3 Na4 32.Nbd3 Nb6 33.Nb2 Na4 34.Nbd3 Nb6 ½-½
Tal, Kortchnoi and Larsen – they all had a positional advantage. Tigran Vartanovich attempted to achieve counterplay for a small material investment. He managed to confuse his opponents in every case, but… in the game against Viktor Kortchnoi it was Petrosian who would make the last mistake. Mikhail Tal managed to escape after considerable emotional stress, and Larsen lost.
(7) Tal – Petrosian
USSR ch, Riga 1958
Ruy Lopez [C97]
Before we start talking about this game, let me say a few words about the eighth world champion. Mikhail Tal’s play was characterized not only by usually scoring very well, but also by his extremely aggressive style, rapid and correct calculation; risk-taking on the verge of bluff was one of his principles. All this made his games very interesting to watch.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d6 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Qc7 12.Nbd2 Bd7 13.Nf1 Nc4 14.Ne3 Nxe3 15.Bxe3 Be6 16.Nd2 Rfe8 17.f4 Rad8 18.fxe5 dxe5 19.d5 Bd7 20.c4 Rb8 21.a4 b4 22.a5! Rf8 23.Ba4 Bxa4 24.Rxa4 Rbd8 25.Qf3 Rd6 26.Nb3 Nd7 27.Raa1 Rg6 28.Rf1 Bd6 29.h4 Qd8 30.h5 Rf6 31.Qg4 (D)
Visually White possesses a long-term positional advantage based on several factors. Black’s liabilities are the “bad” bishop on d6 and the weak c5-pawn. Tal has a protected passed d5-pawn and activity on the kingside. His only reason for concern is his “vanguard” a5-pawn that is possibly too far advanced.
31…Rf4!? A completely justified attempt to change the situation. Every other continuation would doom Black to passive defense. 32.Bxf4
The grandmaster from Riga decides to act on principle. 32.Rxf4 exf4 33.Bxf4 Qf6 34.Bxd6 Qxd6 35.Rf1 is worth serious attention: an extra pawn and a fine blocker on b3 guarantee a considerable advantage for White. 32…exf4 33.Nd2 Or still 33.Rxf4!? Nf6 34.Qh4 Bxf4 35.Qxf4.
33…Ne5 More precise is 33…Be5, “opening doors” for the bishop. 34.Qxf4?! 34.Qf5 Nd3 35.e5 Nxe5 36.Rxf4 retains a considerable advantage. 34…Nxc4 35.e5 The move is correct, but its evaluation is already noticeably different. 35…Nxe5 35…Nxd2!? 36.Ne4 h6 37.Rae1?! After 37.Qg3, White’s chances are still somewhat better. 37…Bb8! 38.Rd1?!
With his rook’s unconvincing pendulum moves, Tal concedes the initiative to his opponent. 38.Qe3 Ng4 39.Qh3 f5 with unclear play. 38…c4 39.d6 Nd3 40.Qg4? Ba7+ 41.Kh1 f5 (D)
Compare this to the position that had been on the board ten moves earlier. Now it is White who faces considerable problems. It is really amazing that the Latvian grandmaster manages to pull the game out of this dive. 42.Nf6+ The only move. 42.Rxf5 Rxf5 43.Qxf5 Qh4+ 44.Qh3 Qxe4–+ is naturally bad. 42…Kh8 42…Qxf6 43.Qxc4+ Kh8 44.Rxd3+– 43.Qxc4 Nxb2 44.Qxa6 Nxd1 45.Qxa7 Qxd6 45…Nc3!? 46.Qe7! gxf6 47.Rxf5 Qxe7 48.dxe7 Re8 49.Rxf6 Rxe7. White still has to sweat to cash in his extra piece. 46.Qd7 Qxf6 47.Qxd1 Rb8 47…Qa6!? 48.Qa1 f4 48.Rf3 Ra8 Stronger is 48…Rb5, with real chances to win. 49.Qe1 Rxa5 50.Qxb4 Re5 No further comments are needed.
51.Qf4 Kh7 52.Kh2 Rd5 53.Rf1 Qg5 54.Qf3 Re5 55.Kg1 Rc5 56.Qf2 Re5 57.Qf3 Ra5 58.Kh2 Kh8 59.Kg1 Ra2 60.Qd5 Rc2 61.Qa8+ Kh7 62.Qf3 Rc1 63.Rxc1 Qxc1+ 64.Kh2 Qc7+ 65.Kh3 Qe5 66.g4 fxg4+ 67.Kxg4 Qg5+ 68.Kh3 Qf6 69.Qe4+ Kg8 70.Qe8+ Qf8 71.Qxf8+ Kxf8 72.Kg4 Kf7 73.Kf5 ½-½
(8) Kortchnoi – Petrosian
Moscow 1965
Nimzo-Indian Defense [E50]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 0-0 5.Nf3 c5 6.Be2 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 b6 8.Nd2 Bb7 9.0-0 d6 10.f3 Nc6 11.Nb3 Ne7 12.e4 Ng6 13.g3 Rc8 14.Rf2 Ba6 15.d5 Re8 16.Nd2 Qd7 17.a4 Re7 18.a5 b5 19.cxb5 Bxb5 20.c4 Ba6 21.Bb2 Qe8 22.Bf1 Rb8 23.Bc3 e5 24.Bd3 Bc8 25.Nf1 Reb7 26.Bc2 a6 27.Ne3 Nf8 28.Qf1 h6 29.Re1 N8h7 30.f4 Ng4 31.Nxg4 Bxg4 32.h3 Bd7 33.Qg2 f6 34.Ref1 Qd8 35.Ra1 Qe7 36.Kf1 Qe8 37.Ke2 Qc8 38.f5 (D)
White has a spatial advantage; Black’s position is passive, but solid. If the latter were to “tread water,” then the leisurely storm on the kingside (g3-g4 etc) would follow. Petrosian prefers activation “for a modest fee.” 38…Rb4!? 38…Ng5 39.h4 Nf7 40.Rff1 39.Bxb4 cxb4 40.Bb3 Qc5 It would be even more effective if the knight could occupy this square. 41.Kf1 The prophylactic 41.h4! hems in the martyr on h7 as the maneuver Nh7-f8-d7 is much too slow. It is still necessary to get the bishop out of the way, and to leave the g5-square unattended is dangerous. 41…Ng5 42.Re2 Qd4 43.Rb1 Qd3?!
In fact the Armenian grandmaster has succeeded in his efforts and now 43…Qc3!? 44.Rbb2 Be8 45.h4 Nf3, with compensation, makes his opponent’s life extremely difficult. 46.Kf2 Nd4 is impossible here as White cannot play Re2-e3 now because of the b2-rook’s vulnerability.
44.Rbb2 Be8 45.h4 Nf3 45…Nh7 46.Kg1 Nf8 is better. 46.Kf2! The only move, but it is quite sufficient. Now Viktor Lvovich wins with confidence. 46…Nd4 47.Re3+– Qc3 48.Rxc3 bxc3 (D)
A spectacular move that cannot save Black. The queen is still too strong a piece… 49.Rb1 Rxb3 50.Rxb3 Nxb3 51.Ke3 Nd4 52.Qa2 c2 53.Kd2 Bh5 54.c5 dxc5 55.d6+ Bf7 56.Qa4 1-0
(9) Larsen – Petrosian
Havana ol 1966
French Defense [C01]
1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.exd5 exd5 5.d4 c6 6.Bd3 Bd6 7.0-0 0-0 8.Ne2 Re8 9.Ng3 Nbd7 10.Nf5 Nf8 11.Nxd6 Qxd6 12.Ne5 N6d7 13.Bd2 f6?! 13…Nxe5 14.dxe5 Qc7 is better. 14.Qh5! (D)
15.Qxe8 and 15.Qf7+ are threatened. In spite of the heavy responsibility (team Olympiad), Petrosian opts for the risk of changing the character of the struggle in a most radical way. 14…Rxe5
“The sacrifice of the exchange is the best chance” – Boleslavsky. 14…Qe6 15.Bf5 Qe7 16.Bb4, with the initiative. The evaluation is practically the same as in the sacrifice of the exchange. 15.dxe5 fxe5 A sudden change of scene. “With this exchange sacrifice, Black practically deprives his opponent of any offensive opportunity. The Danish grandmaster should have become aware of this change in air and played against the e5-pawn. 16.f3 could be of help here, as after this move Black’s center is in danger” – Boleslavsky. 15…Nxe5 16.Bf4 Bd7 16.Rfe1 16.f3!?
16…e4 17.Bf1 Nf6 18.Qh4 Bf5 19.Qg3
“Black should avoid queen exchanges to prevent his opponent from utilizing his small material advantage” – Boleslavsky.
But the computer recommends the exchange. 19…Qe7 I personally am also of the opinion that the black king would be more comfortable with both queens off the board: 19…Qxg3 20.hxg3 Ne6 21.c3. 20.c3 Ne6 21.Be3 “White agrees to trade off his dark-square bishop. The decision is understandable as this piece has been most active in its struggle against enemy pawns.” – Boleslavsky. (21.Be2!?) 21…Ng4 22.h3?! It is unclear whether either player noticed the dagger blow 22.Bxa7!?. (D)
At any rate, it is not mentioned in comments… 22…h5 (22…Rxa7 23.Qb8++–) 23.Bb8 (the only move) 23…Qd8 (23…Qf8 24.Bc7) 24.h3; 22.Rad1 is better. 22…Nxe3 23.Rxe3 “The last few moves did much to strengthen White’s position, and now Larsen has to solve difficult problems. His dark-square bishop has been exchanged, and its light-square colleague has no future.” – Boleslavsky (Visually the pawn advance to e3, where it blocks the opponent’s center, looks more attractive.
In addition, the f-file becomes open: 23.fxe3!? Nc5 24.c4, trying to open up files in a conventional way. 24…Nd3 25.Bxd3 exd3 26.cxd5 cxd5 27.Rf1 (centralization of the bishop is bad) 27…Be4? 28.Rac1. Rooks are still stronger in the open lines than minor pieces! 23…Rf8 24.Qe5 Bg6 25.Rd1 Qf7 (25…b5!?) 26.Rd2 Nf4 “The knight aims at its ideal outpost – the d3-square. After White is forced to capture it, a strong passed pawn appears on this square, and White’s position becomes much worse.” – Boleslavsky 27.b4 h6 28.a4 Bh7 29.Qd4 (D)
“While White has no open lines that are necessary to make good use of his major pieces’ power, Black has everything ready for a counter-offensive.” (Boleslavsky).
I agree as I have been harping upon the importance of the open files for rooks for a very long time… Therefore the logical continuation would seem to be 29.b5!? Bg6 (29…c5 30.g3 Nd3 31.Bxd3 exd3 32.Qd6) 30.Qd6. That means that if Larsen had played correctly, he would still have retained his advantage. The white queen carries out deep-penetration raids against the opponent; see the author’s comments to Black’s move 19.
29…b6 30.Re1 30.g3 Nd3 31.Bxd3 exd3 unclear. 30…Qc7 31.Qe3 c5 32.bxc5 bxc5 33.g3?! Taking control of the b-file with 33.Rb1 is more logical. 33…Nd3 34.Bxd3 exd3 35.Qe6+ Taking into account the looming time pressure, this “plays with fire” and is rather risky. More accurate is 35.Rxd3!? Bxd3 36.Qxd3=, reconciling himself to a draw.
35…Qf7 36.Qxf7+ Kxf7 37.Rb2 c4 38.f3?! But was there any worthy alternative? 38.Rb7+ Kf6 39.Rd7 Be4 40.f4 Rb8 41.Rd6+ Kf7 (41…Kf5 42.Kf2. The king is in a hurry… but where to? It looks like the goal is e3-d4 with an incidental mating threat g3-g4; 41…Ke7 42.Rxd5) 42.Kf2 Rb3 There are still no visible chances to hold the center – d5+c4+d3) 38…d4! (D)
39.Rc1 Ke6 40.Kf2 Be4 41.f4 Re8 Paradoxically, it seems that if the c1-rook could be replaced with a bishop (Bc1-d2), the chances for an escape would increase (41…Bc6!?). 42.g4 Bc6 43.Re1+ Kd5 44.Rxe8 Bxe8 45.cxd4 c3 46.Rb8 d2 47.Rd8+ Kc4 48.Rc8+ Kd3 0-1
I found four examples for the “Domination” theme, chapter 3. Both Tigran Vartanovich’s victories over Kortchnoi and Spassky are logical enough and can be considered valuable examples for this theme.
(10) Petrosian – Kortchnoi
USSR ch, Moscow 1961
Grünfeld Defense (D83)
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4 Bg7 5.e3 0-0 6.Qb3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 Nbd7 8.Nf3 Nb6 9.0-0 Nxc4 10.Qxc4 c6 11.Be5 Bh6! 12.Rfd1 Be6 13.Qb4 b6 14.Qa4 Qe8 15.Rac1 Nd5 16.Nd2 Qd7 17.Qa3 Rac8 18.Ne2 a5 19.Nc4 Qa7 20.b3 Rfd8 21.h3 Qa6 22.Qb2 f6 23.Bg3 Bf7 24.Kh2 Rd7 25.Nc3 Nxc3 26.Qxc3 Rcd8 27.Rc2 e5 28.Rcd2 e4 29.d5! Bxd5 (D)
Here the computer already recommends ceding the exchange. 30.Qxf6 The immediate 30.Rxd5! cxd5 31.Qxf6 Re8 (31…dxc4 32.Qe6+ Kf8 33.Rxd7 Rxd7 34.Qxd7+– is no good) 32.Nd6 is tougher still. 30…Bg7 31.Qg5 Rf8 32.Qg4 Rdf7 33.Nd6 Re7 34.Rxd5!
Tigran Vartanovich still makes the obvious sacrifice even if the effect is somewhat less now: 34…cxd5 35.Qg5! 35.Rxd5 Qa8 36.Qd1 Qc6= 35…Bf6?! 35…Qa7!? 36.Qxd5+ Kh8 37.Nxe4 is more stubborn. 36.Qxd5+ Kh8 37.Nxe4 All else being equal, now the bishop is under attack. 37…Bg7 38.Nd6 Qa8 39.Qb5 Qa7 40.Nc4 (D)
And here Black exceeded the time limit. Let me remind you that they were playing without any increment then. White’s position is objectively won. Formal material equality must not mislead you, as the b6- and a5-pawns are potential “dead men.” 1-0
(11) Spassky – Petrosian
wm (7), Moscow 1966
Torre Attack [D03]
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 d5 4.Nbd2 Be7 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 c5 7.c3 b6 8.0-0 Bb7 9.Ne5 Nxe5! 10.dxe5 Nd7 11.Bf4 Qc7 12.Nf3 h6 13.b4 g5! 14.Bg3 h5 15.h4 gxh4 16.Bf4 0-0-0 17.a4 c4 18.Be2 a6! 19.Kh1 Rdg8 20.Rg1 Rg4 21.Qd2 Rhg8 22.a5 b5 23.Rad1 Bf8 24.Nh2 (D)
Black’s position is very good, but Petrosian prefers to solve the problem in a “surgical” way: 24…Nxe5! 24…f5 25.Nf3 (25.exf6 Rxf4 26.exf4 Nxf6) 25…R8g6= is less effective. 25.Nxg4 hxg4 Black has more than adequate compensation. 26.e4 Bd6 26…dxe4?? 27.Bxe5 Qxe5 28.Qd8#; also good enough is 26…f6!? 27.exd5 Bxd5 28.Qe3 Bb7. 27.Qe3 27.exd5 Nd3!–+ 27…Nd7?
An error that somewhat mars a beautiful picture. The correct continuation is prosaic 27…dxe4 28.Rd4 g3 29.Rxd6 Qxd6 30.Rd1 Qc7. 28.Bxd6 Qxd6 29.Rd4 Spassky could have created greater problems by trying to open the position for his rooks with 29.f4!? gxf3 30.gxf3 Rg3. 29…e5 30.Rd2 30.Rxd5 Bxd5 31.Rd1 Nf6 32.exd5 Kb8–+ is flashier but still does not help. 30…f5 (D)
This is not the strongest continuation, but I like it anyway. The idea is not to open files at any cost! Objectively, 30…Nf6 is better. 31.exd5 31.exf5 h3 32.gxh3 d4+ 33.f3 Kc7 34.cxd4 gxf3 35.Bxf3 exd4 is just as depressing. 31…f4 32.Qe4 32.Qa7 Kc7!–+. The queen feels rather uncomfortable in the black camp, 32…Nf6–+ 33.Qf5+ Kb8 34.f3 Bc8 35.Qb1 g3 Quite a picturesque position.
There is no promising file for the rooks, and the e2-bishop is also very much constricted in its actions. Now “all roads lead to Rome”: 36.Re1 h3 37.Bf1 37.gxh3 g2+ 38.Kg1 Qd7!–+ 37…Rh8 38.gxh3 Bxh3 39.Kg1 39.Bxh3 Qd7!–+ 39…Bxf1 40.Kxf1 e4 41.Qd1 Ng4 42.fxg4 f3 (D)
43.Rg2 fxg2+ 0-1
In the next game, Tal’s position is overwhelming, and his sacrifice correct. So it is rather strange that the “Wizard from Riga,” who was an expert at the offensive play and general tactics, could not take the game to its logical conclusion.
(12) Tal – Petrosian
USSR-ch, Leningrad 1977
French Defense [C16]
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 b6 5.Qg4 Bf8 6.Nf3 Qd7 7.a4 Nc6 8.Bd2 Nge7 9.Be2 Nf5 10.0-0 h5 11.Qf4 g6 12.Bb5 Bh6 13.Ng5 Nfxd4 14.Rad1 Kf8 15.Bxc6 Nxc6 16.Nce4 Bxg5 17.Nxg5 Ba6 18.Rfe1 Kg8 19.b4 Bc4 20.b5 Nd8 21.Bb4 Qe8 (D)
I suppose, you do not have to be a grandmaster to see that for a minimal cost of a pawn, White has obtained a great advantage in development. Black’s kingside is practically paralyzed. All White needs is to choose an optimal way to put his opponent out of his misery, as the latter’s fortress still looks solid.
22.Re4! I am sure that it was easy for Tal to find this move. There is a most banal threat of Rxc4 (the study-like 22.Qxc4?! dxc4 23.Ne4 Kg7 24.Nf6 c5!! 25.Nxe8+ Rxe8= is more beautiful, but weaker) 22…Bxb5 Or 22…Ba2 23.Re3 Bc4 24.Rc3 c5 25.Rxc4 dxc4 26.Ne4; but 22…dxe4? 23.Nxe4++– loses immediately as the black queen has no moves, and Ne4-f6 will follow. 23.axb5 dxe4 24.c4! Of course, it is necessary to secure the important outpost on the queenside first, the “deadman” on e4 has nowhere to go anyway. 24.Nxe4 Qxb5 is unclear. 24…c5 25.Nxe4 Qf8 25…cxb4 26.Nf6+ Kg7 27.Nxe8++– 26.Nf6+ Ftacnik appends “?!” here, but Houdini considers it best. A less convincing alternative is 26.Bc3. 26…Kg7 27.Bc3 More dangerous for Black is interference of the first rank (see comments to White’s 28th move) with a potential transfer of the bishop to the h4-d8 diagonal: 27.Be1! Nb7 28.Rd7 Na5 29.Ne4. 27…Nb7 28.Qf3! Now 28.Rd7 is impossible because of 28…Rd8! 29.Rxb7? Rd1+. 28…Na5 28…Rd8? 29.Nd7! (Tal) 29.Rd7 Rd8
Petrosian’s natural desire is to decrease his opponent’s offensive potential with exchanges or, at the very least, to activate his rook 29…Nxc4 30.Nd5 with an attack. 30.Rxa7 The insertion of 30.Nxh5+!? Kg8 31.Nf6+ Kg7 allows the opening of the h-file. 30…Nxc4 31.h4 31.Ne4 is tougher. 31…Ra8 (D)
32.Nxh5+? An unhappy decision; Ftacnik is correct to recommend 32.Rb7! with zugzwang: 32…Rb8 (32…Ra3 33.Ne4 Rxc3 34.Qf6+ Kg8 35.Nxc3+–) 33.Nd7+– (Tal).
32…gxh5 Black intends to bring out his rook by means of Rh8-h6-g6. 33.Qf6+ Kg8 34.Qg5+ Kh7 35.Qxh5+ Kg8 36.Qg5+ Kh7 37.Qh5+ Kg8 38.Qg4+ Kh7 39.Qe4+ Kg7 40.Qg4+ Kh7 41.Qe4+ ½-½
Meanwhile, I do not think that the sacrifice in the next game again Nukhim Rashkovsky was really necessary.
(13) Petrosian – Rashkovsky
USSR-ch, Moscow 1976
Modern Benoni Defense [A77]
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 c5 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nc3 g6 7.e4 Bg7 8.Be2 0-0 9.0-0 Re8 10.Nd2 Nbd7 11.a4 Ne5 12.Ra3 b6 13.Qc2 Nh5 14.Bxh5 gxh5 15.Nd1 Ba6 (D)
The position is complicated with chances for both sides. Tigran Vartanovich promptly concentrates his main attack force on the kingside. In principle, the plan looks topical as the black commander’s residence is compromised.
16.Rh3!? The computer does not regard this as the most precise move, although it looks logical to me (in case you are going to make an exchange sacrifice at all). Before the knight is brought out to e3, the rook rushes to the kingside (16.Ne3 Bxf1 17.Ndxf1 with compensation; nevertheless, 16.Re1 leads to “normal” play, so it is not impossible that the move is the best).
16…Bxf1 17.Nxf1 b5 It is probably connected with a standard desire of any rook possessor to open the files. In the same vein, it is possible to play on the other flank, 17…f5!? 18.exf5 h4 19.Nc3 Ng4 with unclear play. 18.Nde3 18.Rxh5!? bxa4 19.Nfe3 18…bxa4 18…h4!? 19.Nf5 Ng6 20.Rxh5 Be5 21.g3 (D)
21…Rb8 22.N1e3 a3 23.bxa3 Qb6 Black has achieved his aim and now he is ready to invade either on b1 or on b3. But Petrosian has succeeded as well: nothing can prevent the natural 24.Nc4 now.
24.Qd2 24.Nc4 Qb1 25.Qd2, and there is no 25…Qxe4? 26.Ncxd6 Bxd6, as 27.Qh6! Qe1+ (27…Qe5 28.Qxh7+ Kf8 29.Bh6+) 28.Kg2 Qe4+ 29.Kh3+– ends the battle. 24…Qb3? The right move is 24…Qa6, and Black is still in the game. 25.Ng4 (D)
White’s plan becomes clear. The c1-bishop covers the first rank, the queen goes to h6, the bishop on e5 is taken and mate with Qh6-g7 follows. 25…Rb7 26.Kg2 It is not impossible that time trouble was present, as in such situations, the usual tendency is to play more reliably. 26…Qc4 27.Nxe5 Qxe4+ 27…Rxe5 28.Nxd6+– 28.f3 Qxe5 29.Nh6+ Kf8 30.Rxe5 Rxe5 31.Ng4 Ree7 1-0
I do not know if you are impressed with Petrosian’s interpretation of the idea we examined, but the author has been definitely charmed with Tigran Vartanovich’s iron logic and has tried to imitate his idol in every possible way in his chess practice. There is an impression that sacrifice is mostly employed by a defending party and gives him good chances not only to defend successfully, but also to take over the initiative.