[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "About this Publication"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ The battle for the World Chess Championship has witnessed numerous
titanicstruggles which have engaged the interest not only of the chess
enthusiastsbut also of the public at large. The chessboard is the ultimate mentalbattleground and the world champions themselves are supreme
intellectualgladiators. This magnificent compilation of play from the 1960s through to the1970s forms the basis of the third part of Garry Kasparov's long-awaiteddefinitive history of the World Chess Championship. Garry Kasparov, who isuniversally acclaimed as the greatest chess
player ever, subjects the playfrom this era to a rigorous analysis � the examination being enhanced by theuse of the latest chess software. This volume features the play of championsTigran Petrosian (1963-1969) and Boris Spassky (1969-1972). --- However, thisbook is more than just a compilation of play from the greats of this era.Kasparov's biographies of these champions place them in a fascinatinghistorical, political, and cultural context. Kasparov explains how eachchampion brought his own distinctive style to the chessboard and enriched thetheory of the
game with new ideas. } 1.--
{ Garry Kasparov is generallyregarded as the greatest chess player ever. He
was the thirteenth WorldChampion, holding the title between 1985 and 2000.
His tournament record issecond to none, featuring numerous wins in the world's major events, often bysubstantial margins. As well as his outstanding
successes, Kasparov hasconstantly promoted the game; he has done more than anyone to popularize chessin modern times. }
*
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Introduction"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ At the Junction of the Eras --- This volume is devoted to the lives and
gamesof two chess kings from the sixties and seventies of the last century
-Petrosian and Spassky, as well as their outstanding opponents - Gligoric,Polugayevsky, Portisch and Stein. --- In the introduction to the second
volumeI wrote that a genuine revolution in chess was accomplished by every fifthworld champion: Steinitz (1st) - Botvinnik (6th) - Fischer (11th). Steinitzcreated a school of positional play, and Botvinnik - a system of preparing forcompetitions and sharp opening set-ups, whereby Black, ignoring
classicalrules, immediately disturbs the positional equilibrium and strives to seizethe initiative. With the next four champions - Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian andSpassky - the theory of the game developed along the lines of the Botvinnikera, which thereby continued to the late 1960s. In the early 1970s the nextrevolutionary spurt was made by Fischer, essentially laying the foundation ofpresent-day professional chess. }
1.--
{ Nominally the Botvinnik era ended in1963, when the champion of many years
lost his match to Petrosian and optedout of any further contests for the
chess crown. Soon after this Botvinnikwrote in Chess World (1964 No.2): --- 'It seems to me that in chess the timeof geniuses has passed. In their time
Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca andAlekhine were definitely superior to their contemporaries, and in particularby talent. Nowadays with talent alone you cannot exist: also required arehealth, a strong-willed competitive character and, finally, specialpreparation. A few decades ago the natural
selection of the strongest playersoccurred among a comparatively narrow circle of people, and there were notmany such players - their names are known to everyone. But now the mass baseof chess is so great, that there are many very strong players - at present itis crowded on the chess Olympus. A good dozen grandmasters are distinguishedby striking talent, and enviable health, and fighting character, and deepspecial preparation. The importance of special preparation should especiallybe mentioned: sometimes it is intuitive, at other times it consists inreducing to the minimum the influence of the
opponent's preparation - aquality which is evidently typical of the new world champion. It can beasserted that, in the forming of the modern strong player, talent is no longerthe decisive factor.' --- One senses that Botvinnik's wounds had not yethealed after his heavy defeat. In fact, of course, he realised that he hadlost to a great player. Three years later he asked Spassky, who had just losta match to Petrosian: 'Were you able to guess his moves, Boris Vasilievich?''No, not always,' Spassky replied. 'I too was unable to guess them,' Botvinnikadmitted. In his way of speaking this was the highest praise for his opponent!Subsequently he also gave both Spassky and Fischer their due... }
( 1.--
{ However, in Botvinnik's evaluation there is an historic truth: the names
ofthe past champions were always shrouded in a romantic halo of
grandeur.However, the 1938 AVRO tournament, where Capablanca, Alekhine and Euwe madeway for the young, signified the ending of the heroic era of the
chess titans.Even so, thanks to his legendary victories in the 1940s, Botvinnik succeededin prolonging this era - not without reason was he called the Patriarch of theSoviet Chess School. Smyslov was rightly regarded as his great opponent, andTal as a vivid star, a meteor, 'the second
Morphy'. --- And suddenly at thesummit there appeared Petrosian and Spassky - seemingly ordinary, non-heroicchampions. But a detailed study of their games demonstrates the enormous scaleof the talent of these chess kings, and the time when they were on the thronewas an important stage in the accumulation of knowledge - something of aconsolidating period, when the basis of modern chess was laid. In these yearsChess Informator appeared, new opening schemes arose, the concepts of manymiddlegame positions were deepened, customary dogmas were reviewed (forexample, the
approach to positions with an isolated pawn changed) and so on.--- The second Petrosian-Spassky match (1969) already heralded the approachingchange of eras, which began with the arrival of Fischer. But that is a topicof the next volume. }
) ( 1.--
{ I should like to express my thanks tograndmaster Vladimir Belov and to
Honoured USSR Trainers Alexander Nikitin andMark Dvoretsky for their help
in preparing this volume for publication. ---Garry Kasparov, August 2004. } )
*
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Tigran the Ninth"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ In his best years Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian (17 June 1929 - 3 August
1984)used to lose so rarely, that each defeat of his became a sensation.
For thistruly legendary impregnability he was nicknamed 'iron Tigran', although onaccount of his very distinctive 'passive' style it was hard to
associate hisname with the proud conquerors of the chess throne. --- Meanwhile, Petrosianhad a complete mastery of the art of creating harmonious positions, full oflife, where behind the apparent absence of dynamics was concealed a colossalinternal energy (the slightest changes being immediately
taken into account inthe general strategy, which was not always understandable to the opponent). Asyet his games have not been studied as thoroughly and as comprehensively asone would like. He presented to the chess world what seem to be common truths,but it is they that essentially comprise the basis of chess creativity. Thedepth of Tigran Vartanovich's style is a consequence of the clarity of histhinking and his uncommon grasp not only of global chess problems, but alsoall the subtleties of tactics and strategy. }
1.--
{ 'Yes, perhaps I likedefending more than attacking, but who has
demonstrated that defence is a lessrisky and dangerous occupation than
attack? And are there so few games thathave found their way into the treasury of chess thanks to virtuoso defence?'said Petrosian. 'What I
value more than anything in chess is logic. I amfirmly convinced that in chess there is nothing accidental. This is my credo.I believe only in logical, "correct" play. ' --- He ascended to the throne inthe year I was born, 1963. The 'Botvinnik era', which had lasted through
ageneration of Soviet players and to many seemed endless, was concluding.Botvinnik's absolute superiority had evaporated back in the early 1950s, buthe had retained the world champion's crown, safely preserved not only by hisenormous match experience and ability to prepare effectively for any specificopponent, but also by the right of the return match - a diabolical test for anew king, which became an excessive psychological burden for both Smyslov andTal. And yet their accession to the throne was imagined by many to be a quitenatural
continuation of chess history: the crystal clarity of Smyslov's playand the incomparable magic of Tal's combinations seemed worthy landmarks inthe new chess world. But Petrosian?! }
*
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Not Just a Defender"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ Petrosian was born and grew up in Tbilisi, where he learned the rudiments
ofchess from the subtle positional master Arlich Ebralidze, a great admirer
ofCapablanca and Nimzowitsch. Tigran's progress was as measured and unhurried ashis style. In 1945 - champion of Georgia, in 1946 - USSR junior
champion (14out of 15!) and in 1947, at the very first attempt - the master title. Modest,as though limbering-up performances, in two USSR Championships (1949 and 1950),and a win in the championship of his second 'little motherland' - Moscow.Finally, his first major success - in the Zonal, 19th USSR
Championship (1951):after two initial defeats the young master gained eight wins with seven drawsand qualified for the Interzonal tournament! --- The scale of this triumph canbe assessed only by looking at the leading places: 1. Keres - 12 out of 17;2-3. Geller and Petrosian - 11�; 4. Smyslov - 11; 5. Botvinnik - 10; 6-8.Averbakh, Bronstein and Taimanov - 9� etc. It became clear that some newstars had appeared on the chess horizon. }
1.--
{ Petrosian was awarded aspecial prize for the best result against the
grandmasters. This strongdefender with good endgame technique, as the press
commented, 'manoeuvredexcellently, basing his strategic ideas on deep and accurate calculation, andtirelessly strove for the initiative.' And,
just imagine, he employed riskyopenings, boldly sacrificing material! A classic example is his duel withVasily Smyslov: even against one of the strongest players in the world,Petrosian was not afraid to play the sharp Tolush-Geller gambit. }
*
[Event "1. 19th USSR Championship, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1951.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Petrosian, T."]
[Black "Smyslov, V."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "D15"]
[EventDate "1951.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c6 5.e4 $5 b5 6.e5
{ Generally speaking,'Petrosian' and 'sacrifice' are not words that chess
players tend to associatetogether. } (
{ When it is a question of combinations and sacrifices, those whoare more
likely to be remembered are Alekhine, Tal and Spassky (who,incidentally,
instead of 6.e5 devised } 6.Qc2 $5
{ ), and of the present-dayfighters - Shirov. But, as we shall see many
times, Petrosian also did notavoid a sharp fight (especially if it was
imposed on him), but he alwaysproceeded from the demands of the position - and if the position demandedsacrifices, he was prepared to make them. }
) 6...Nd5 7.a4 e6 ( { If } 7...Be6 $6
{ there would probably have followed not } 8.axb5 ( { but } 8.Ng5 $1 Nxc3
9.bxc3 Bd5 10.e6 $1 fxe6 11.Bf4 { (Taimanov) with a dangerous initiative. } )
8...Nxc3 9.bxc3 cxb5 10.Ng5 Bd5 11.e6 fxe6 12.Qg4 h5 $1 13.Qf4 Qd6 $1 14.Qf7+
Kd7
{ with advantage to Black (Tolush-Smyslov, 15th USSR Championship,
Leningrad1947). } ) 8.axb5 (
{ In the opinion of the theoreticians, after the unhurried } 8.Be2 Bb7
{ , which was tried in two Geller-Smyslov games (18th USSR
Championship,Moscow 1950, and Budapest 1952) White's initiative risks
coming to astandstill. } ) ( { A more modern plan is } 8.Ng5 h6
{ (other replies are alsopossible) } 9.Nge4 b4 10.Nb1 Ba6 11.Qg4 $5
{ (the source game:Spassky-Mnatsakanian, Moscow 1959) } ( { or } 11.Nbd2 Nf4
$1 ( 11...c3 { has alsobeen played } ) 12.Qg4 Nd3+ 13.Bxd3 cxd3 14.Nd6+ $6 (
{ later they switched to } 14.O-O ) 14...Bxd6 15.Qxg7 Bf8 $1 (
{ instead of } 15...Rf8 $2 16.exd6 Nd7 17.Nf3 $1
{ Sosonko-Flear, Wijk aan Zee 1987 } ) 16.Qxh8 Qxd4 17.O-O Nd7 18.Nf3 Qg4 $1
19.Bxh6 Qh5 20.Bg7 Qxh8 21.Bxh8 Bh6
{ and Black has an excellentendgame (Fiorito-Smyslov, Buenos Aires 1990). } )
) 8...Nxc3 9.bxc3 cxb5 10.Ng5 Bb7 11.Qh5 g6 ( { After } 11...Qd7
{ , 'a move more in the spirit of Steinitzand Lasker' (Crouch), White would
probably have replied not } 12.Nxh7 $6 ( { but simply } 12.Be2 $1
{ , as in the game Furman-Lilienthal (Baku 1951). LaterI also played this
successfully against Petursson (Malta Olympiad 1980) } ) 12...Nc6 13.Nxf8 $2
{ (Kasparov-Kupreichik, 47th USSR Championship, Minsk 1979) onaccount of }
13...Qxd4 $1 { . } ) 12.Qg4 Be7 13.Be2 ( 13.h4 $5
{ Petrosian-Ignatiev,Moscow 1958 } ) 13...Nd7 ( 13...Bd5 $5 ) 14.h4 $6
{ But here this inclusion isdubious, although we should not find fault with
the initial moves in a gameplayed half a century ago, at the dawn of modern
opening theory. } ( { Moreproblems are posed by } 14.Bf3
{ (Geller-Unzicker, Stockholm Interzonal 1952),when the best is } 14...Qc8 $1
{ (Szabo-Petrosian, Budapest 1955). } ) 14...h5 $1 15.Qg3 Nb6 ( 15...Bd5 $5 )
16.O-O ( 16.Bf3 $5 { with the idea of Ne4 } ) 16...a5 $1
{ Smyslov apparently considered his position to be very comfortable and he
wasnot afraid of the breakthrough in the centre. } (
{ Otherwise he would havepreferred } 16...Bd5
{ , when White could have replied 17.Ba3, exchanging theimportant bishop -
the defender of the dark squares. } 17.Rb1 $2 ( { Now } 17.Ba3 $2
{ is bad on account of } 17...b4
{ , when it is unclear what compensation White hasfor the sacrificed pawn.
It is curious that this position was also reached inthe game Geller-Flohr,
played in the same round, in which White failed to finda good plan and after }
) 17...b4 18.f4 Qd7 19.Ra1 b3
{ he gradually lost: theoutcome was decided by Black's passed pawns on the
queenside and his controlof d5. --- Geller was always regarded as a sharper
player and one who, farmore often than Petrosian, resorted to tactics to further his aims. However,it was Petrosian, and not Geller, who made the
following incredible move! } ) 17.d5 $3
{ The best way of complicating the play as much as possible and
ofmaintaining White's fading initiative. This looks like a blunder, but in
factit radically changes the situation: White gets rid of his 'unnecessary' pawnon d4, which was allowing the opponent to keep the position
closed. But now itis opened, and since Black cannot castle kingside (on account of Bxh5), he hasto either leave his king at e8, or castle queenside - and in either case theopening of the d-file is to White's advantage. }
17...Nxd5 { 'An unexpected error,'wrote Petrosian soon after the game. } (
{ 'Black should have played 17...Bxd5,preventing the white knight from
occupying the post at e4.' However, in myview after } 17...Bxd5 18.Rd1 Qc7
19.Be3 $1
{ White has strong pressure:Black faces the same problem - what to do with
his king? } ( 19.Bf3 Bxf3 20.Qxf3 O-O { is inferior } ) ) 18.Rd1 Qc7 19.Ne4
O-O-O $1 ( 19...O-O 20.Bxh5 { is bad. } ) ( { Perhaps } 19...Kf8
{ would have been better, aiming for ...Kg7.' (Suetin) 'Queenside castling
entails considerable dangers, but it is alreadyhard to suggest a fully
satisfactory defence for Black.' (Petrosian) Even so,we shall try! } ) 20.Bg5
$1 { achieving the desired exchange of bishops } 20...Bxg5 21.Qxg5
{ The culmination of the battle, overlooked by the analysts right to
thevery end of the 20th century. White appears to have succeeded with at
leastone thing: ensuring the invasion of his knight at d6. Such a knight cannot betolerated for long, and a rook will have to be given up for
it, but this willopen additional opportunities for an attack. All this is true, but... }
21...a4 $2
{ The sudden change in the character of the play had clearly unsettled
Smyslov. } (
{ He makes a 'solid', passive move - and misses an opportunity, exploiting
hismaterial advantage, to change the situation in his favour: -- } 21...b4
22.cxb4 axb4 23.Rd4 $1 { (Crouch) } ( { or } 23.Nd6+ $6 Kb8 24.Nxb7 (
24.Nxc4 $2 Nc3 25.Rxd8+ Qxd8 $1 ) 24...Kxb7 25.Bf3 Qc5 $1 ) 23...f6 $1 (
{ not } 23...Nc3 $2 24.Nd6+ $1 ) 24.exf6 ( 24.Nxf6 $2 Nc3 ) 24...Nb6 $1
{ with a sharp, roughlyequal game; } ) ( 21...f6 $3
{ . This fantastic resource, which I discovered inthe late 1990s, disrupts
White's entire plan: after } 22.exf6 Nf4 23.Rxd8+ Rxd8 24.Bf3 Bd5 $1
{ he is deprived of his main trump - the knight at d6. Theposition is very
sharp, but the unpleasant threat of ...b5-b4 means that itcan be evaluated
in Black's favour. } ) 22.Qg3 f5
{ (after this Black has tosacrifice the exchange in less favourable
circumstances) } 23.Nd6+ Rxd6 24.exd6 f4 $2 { The decisive error. } (
{ 'Better saving chances were offered by } 24...Qg7 $1 25.Bf3 -- (
{ and now } 25...Rd8 26.Bxd5 $1 { . Although even hereafter } 26...Bxd5 (
26...exd5 27.Qe3 $1 ) 27.Rab1 { Black is in serious difficulties } ) (
{ and not } 25...Nxc3 $2 26.d7+ $1 { ' (Petrosian). } ) (
{ But for some reasonno one has noticed that } 25...Kd7 $5 26.Bxd5 Bxd5
27.Rdb1 Kc6 { is moretenacious } ) ( { and that } 25...Qf6 $1 26.Bxd5 exd5
{ with the idea of ...Rd8and ...d5-d4! is altogether unclear. } ) ) 25.Qxg6
Qxd6 26.Bf3 Bc6 27.Re1 Re8
{ During the last ten or so moves the picture has changed sharply.
Smyslov,famous for his ability to manoeuvre, and to defend, and to take
account of theslightest nuances in the position, proved unready for such a sharp change inthe events and ended up in a very difficult
position. Petrosian convincinglyconverts his advantage. } 28.Bxd5 $1
{ This exchange creates a very strongimpression. } ( 28.Rad1 $5
{ is also possible, but Petrosian is aiming for theendgame. } ) 28...Qxd5
29.Rad1 $1 Qf5 { forced } 30.Qxf5 exf5 31.Rxe8+ Bxe8 32.f3 $1
{ Restricting the opponent's counterplay. Despite the nominallyfavourable
material balance (bishop and two pawns for a rook - usually this ismore
than enough), Black's downfall is caused by the white king's march to thequeenside, after which the rook is activated and Black's hopelessly
weakenedkingside pawns are lost. } 32...Kc7 33.Kf2 Kb6 34.Ke2 Ka5
{ Smyslov has chosen theonly sensible plan - he has sent his king to the
support of his a- and b-pawns. } ( { After } 34...Kc5
{ there would also have followed } 35.Rb1 $1 { , forexample: } 35...a3 36.Kd2
b4 37.cxb4+ Kd4 38.Ra1 c3+ 39.Kc1 Ke3 40.Rxa3 Kf2 41.Rxc3 Kxg2 42.Kd2
{ and wins (Crouch). } ) 35.Rb1 $1
{ A cool manoeuvre, afterwhich it becomes clear that Black cannot break
through. But can White?!Usually in such endings the bishop is not inferior
to the rook, but here afine piece of tactics comes to White's aid, crowning his strategy. }
35...a3 36.Kd2 { (with the intention of playing Kc2) } 36...b4 ( { If }
36...Ka4 { , then } 37.Rb4+ Ka5 38.Kc2
{ followed by Kb1-a2xa3 and Rb1-e1 etc. } ) 37.cxb4+ Ka4 38.Kc3 a2 39.Ra1 Ka3
40.Kxc4 $1
{ An accurately calculated rook sacrifice. The black kingis forced offside,
and the poor bishop, tied to the passed b-pawn, is unableto defend the weak
pawns. } 40...Kb2 41.Re1 a1=Q 42.Rxa1 Kxa1 43.b5 Bd7 44.b6 Bc8 45.Kd4 Kb2
46.Ke5 Kc3 47.Kxf4 Kd4 48.Kg5 Ke5 49.Kxh5 Kf6 50.g4 Bb7 51.Kh6 $1
{ . --- The fact that Petrosian's success was no accident was alsoconfirmed
in the Interzonal tournament (Stockholm 1952), where the Sovietplayers
dominated: 1. Kotov - 16˝ out of 20; 2-3. Petrosian and Taimanov -13˝; 4. Geller - 13; 5-8. Averbakh, Gligoric, Stahlberg and Szabo - 12˝ etc.The
Candidates tournament (Zürich 1953) even had to be expanded, by admittingan additional three foreigners. This tournament was won brilliantly by Smyslov,while Petrosian took fifth place (not at all bad for the young debutant!) andfirmly established himself among the world elite. --- In Zürich he
employedfor the first time a hitherto unknown positional procedure. } 1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Favourite Sacrifice"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ Who has not heard of Petrosian's virtuoso skill in defence, his ability
toavert danger, exploiting imperceptible nuances in the position, and of
hisfavourite dish - the positional exchange sacrifice! It is the harmoniouscombination of such seemingly incompatible elements of strategy, as
theexchange sacrifice and unhurried manoeuvring, that evidently conceals one ofthe secrets of his enormous practical strength and deep penetration into thesecrets of chess. Since, by its nature, chess is exceptionally harmonious, andany procedures, even the most diverse - be they sacrifice of
material,creation of weaknesses in the enemy camp or elimination of one's ownweaknesses - have one and the same aim: to achieve harmony in one's ownposition and, on the contrary, to cause disharmony in the opponent's position.--- Petrosian very much liked to sacrifice the exchange positionally, and hewas able to do so like no one else. It has to be said that, with thedevelopment of chess, impressions of the comparative values of the pieces havechanged strongly. Thus, in an interesting article in 'New in Chess' (1999 No.5),Hans Ree gives an extract from an old game by Tarrasch
where White is theexchange up, and even years later he considered this position to be won forhim, whereas today any strong club player would unhesitatingly evaluate it infavour of Black! As an experiment the position was shown to several amateursfrom an ordinary Dutch club, and they all began vying with one another toassert that Black's position was virtually won. }
1.--
{ For such a revolutionto occur in the minds of chess players, many decades
were needed. And a keyrole in the reconsideration of the limits of the
possible employment of theexchange sacrifice was played by Petrosian. Many made sacrifices - one canname a whole galaxy of brilliant masters who have
demonstrated the triumph ofmind over matter. For example, Alekhine and Tal had a highly creative approachto the evaluation of the comparative strength of pieces on the board. But thecombinations of Alekhine and Tal are usually associated with the rapiddevelopment of the initiative or a direct
attack on the king. On occasionPetrosian would also sacrifice the exchange for the sake of concrete, visibleaims, but in the given instance we are talking about sacrifices of a quitedifferent type, about the most difficult thing in the understanding of chess- about the effect of long-term positional factors (we will return to thismany times). --- Petrosian introduced the exchange sacrifice for the sake of'quality of position', where the time factor, which is so important in theplay of Alekhine and Tal, plays hardly any role. Even today very few playerscan operate confidently at the board
with such abstract concepts. BeforePetrosian no one had studied this (except, in the most general form,Nimzowitsch - incidentally, 'My System' was the young Tigran's referencebook). By sacrificing the exchange 'just like that', for certain long-termadvantages, in positions with disrupted material balance, he discovered latentresources that few were capable of seeing and properly evaluating. --- I willillustrate what has been said with the famous game Reshevsky-Petrosian, playedat the start of the Zürich Candidates tournament in 1953. Although iteventually ended in a draw, it made an enormous contribution to developing anunderstanding of the depth of chess. }
*
[Event "2. Candidates Tournament, Zurich"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1953.??.??"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Reshevsky, S."]
[Black "Petrosian, T."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "E58"]
[EventDate "1953.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 O-O 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 c5 7.O-O Nc6 8.a3 Bxc3
9.bxc3 b6 $6
{ 'It is thought that this move gives Black a cramped game,but if this sort
of "cramped" game appeals to a player, he will achieve betterresults in it
than in a different "free" game,' writes Bronstein in his famousbook on this tournament. }
( { The main line is } 9...dxc4 10.Bxc4 Qc7 ) ( { or the immediate } 9...Qc7
{ , not allowing Ne5. } ) 10.cxd5 { (Black threatened ...Ba6) } 10...exd5
11.Bb2 (
{ In the 20th round, Taimanov, a great expert on theNimzo-Indian Defence,
played the energetic } 11.Ne5 $1 { against Petrosian, andafter } 11...Qc7
12.Nxc6 Qxc6 13.f3 Be6 14.Qe1 Nd7 15.e4 c4 $6 ( { according toBronstein, }
15...f5 16.e5 b5 { with the idea of ...Nb6-c4 was better } ) 16.Bc2 f5 17.e5
Rf7 18.a4 a5 19.f4
{ White gained a clear advantage and scored anexcellent win. --- 'Perhaps
it was this game,' Petrosian recalled in themid-1960s, 'that became the
starting point for the opening direction that Ilargely adhered to: not to allow the opponent to play his favourite schemes.In almost any position the
boundless possibilities of chess enable a new or atleast a little-studied continuation to be found.' }
) 11...c4 12.Bc2 Bg4 13.Qe1 $1 Ne4 $1 ( { 'In the event of } 13...Bxf3
14.gxf3 Nh5
{ White had thepossibility of systematically strengthening his position by
} 15.f4 $1
{ , f2-f3, Qf2, Rae1, Bc1, Kh1, Rg1, e3-e4 and so on. Therefore
Petrosiancontinues on the same logical course, reckoning that, since he has
not madeany moves that are dubious or disrupt the equilibrium, it should not lead to alost position.' (Bronstein) }
) 14.Nd2 Nxd2 15.Qxd2 Bh5 16.f3 Bg6 17.e4 Qd7 18.Rae1 dxe4 19.fxe4 Rfe8
20.Qf4 ( 20.a4 $6 Ne5 $1 { and ...Nd3 with anequal game. } ) 20...b5 21.Bd1
$5 Re7 22.Bg4 Qe8 23.e5 a5 24.Re3 Rd8 25.Rfe1 ( { After both } 25.h4
{ (Bronstein) } ) ( { and } 25.Bf3 { Black has the goodreply } 25...f6 $1
{ ; } ) ( { so Crouch suggests } 25.Ref3 $5
{ . At first sight, White'schances are preferable. He has the two bishops,
and although the one at b2 ispassive, it is free to come into play via c1.
Black's pawn majority on thequeenside is ephemeral (the move ...b5-b4 doesn't give anything in particular),whereas White is ready for activity in the
centre. He can first strengthen hisposition by the advance of the h-pawn, but Reshevsky's main aim is the e5-e6breakthrough. This threat is highly unpleasant and it is not altogether clearhow to combat it. But on a close examination of the placing of the blackpieces and the features of the position,
it will be noticed that itsevaluation could change if the black knight were able to occupy theimpregnable d5-square. Here the knight not only blocks the d4-pawn, but alsotakes away some good squares from the white pieces (for example, f4 from thequeen). --- However, it is not so easy for the knight to reach d5: for thisthe rook has to move from e7. For example, }
25...Ra7 $5 { - after } 26.e6 f6 27.Bf5 Ne7
{ everything is still far from clear; in any event, there is no apparentway
of forcibly exploiting the powerful passed pawn: Black retains control
ofthe light squares, and even if the pawn should advance to e7, the g6-bishopcan come to the rescue. But this would have been falling in with
White'splans! And Petrosian makes a move which many players, unfamiliar with thisgame, would consider a blunder and at which the computer would 'laugh itsheart out'. }
) 25...Re6 $3
{ 'This purely positional sacrifice (a quiet move,without any checks or
obvious threats!) made an indelible impression on me.' (Tal) The move is
indeed incredible: the rook simply places itself en prise.For the sake of what?! In order to block the advance of the e-pawn and also toopen the
way for the knight to d5. --- However, let us ponder over theposition and ask ourselves: why, in fact, should a rook be stronger than aminor piece here? After all, a rook requires open lines, it needs to havesomething to attack, whereas minor pieces require strong points and pawnsupport. In
the given instance there is a shortage of open lines, and it is nolonger possible to prevent the knight from reaching d5, where it will beimpregnable. In addition, from d5 the knight will be attacking the c3-pawn,and if the white bishop does not manage to switch to d2, it will remain'vegetating' at b2. It is practically impossible to break Black's light-squaredefences: White simply does not have sufficient resources to do so. --- Thus,when this staggering move is made on the board, we can understand perfectlywell the reasons that induced Black to give up the exchange, and we
can graspthe deep strategic sense of what has occurred. Nevertheless, I think that eventoday not everyone would have decided on such a sacrifice. And yet, possessingthe invaluable experience of Petrosian, and other outstanding grandmasters whocame later, and having in mind widely known ideas and games, it is far easierto make such moves. Even so, they do not cease to surprise! --- It wouldappear that Reshevsky was also slightly shocked: he decided to delay thecapture of the rook, thinking that all the same it would not run away. }
26.a4 $6
{ An attempt, by creating tension on the queenside, to open lines
andexploit the exchange advantage. } (
{ Although, in my opinion, the immediate } 26.Bxe6 { was better; } 26...Qxe6
$1 { is therefore correct. After the possible } (
{ and if, as in the game, } 26...fxe6 { , then: } 27.Rg3 $1
{ , White beginspreparing an attack on the king. For example: } (
{ less convincing is } 27.h4 Ne7 $1 28.Rg3 ( { or } 28.Rf3 Nd5 29.Qg5 Bd3 )
28...Nf5 29.Rh3 Bh5 ) 27...Ne7 28.Rf1 Nd5 29.Qg5 Qe7 ( { after } 29...Rd7
30.h4 Bd3 31.Rf2 { it is even harderto create counterplay } ) 30.Bc1 $1 Qxg5
31.Bxg5 Rb8 32.Bd2
{ (the bishop hasmanaged to switch to where it is needed) } 32...Bd3 33.Rf2
{ and Black has adifficult endgame. } ) 27.Rg3 Ne7 28.h4 Nd5 29.Qg5 Rd7 30.h5
h6 31.Qh4 Bd3
{ the problem of the b2-bishop cannot be solved immediately, but White
retainssome advantage: } 32.Bc1 Nxc3 33.Qf6 Qxf6 34.exf6 Ne2+ 35.Rxe2 Bxe2
36.Rxg7+ Kh8 37.Bxh6 b4
{ . So it would appear that the immediate 26 Bxe6 wouldhave promised him
more. } ) ( { But not } 26.h4 $6 Ne7 $1 { and ...Nd5. } ) 26...Ne7 $1
{ With the threat of ... Nd5. Soon it transpires that White has
clearlygained nothing from the opening of lines: the rooks remain passive
and tobring the bishop into play via a3, which Reshevsky was dreaming of, is notpossible. }
( { (for example, after } 26...b4 $6 27.d5 $1 Rxd5 28.Bxe6 fxe6 29.Qxc4 { ) }
) 27.Bxe6 fxe6 28.Qf1 $1 { Already planning to return the exchange. } (
{ 'If } 28.Qf2 { , then } 28...Nd5 29.Rf3 b4 { is unpleasant.' (Bronstein) }
) ( { Alsoafter } 28.Rf3 b4 $1 { (immediately) } (
{ it is possible to play } 28...Nd5 29.Qc1 $1 ( { Crouch's move } 29.Qd2
{ is weaker on account of the same reply } 29...b4 ) 29...b4 $1 30.cxb4 axb4
31.Qxc4 Qxa4 32.Ra1 Qd7 ( { or even } 32...Qe8 33.Ra7 Rc8 34.Qa6 h6 35.Rg3
Kh7
{ - objectively White stands better, but he hasno real winning chances.
What tell are the same long-term factors thatPetrosian was relying on: the
unopposed light-squared bishop and the eternalknight at d5 are together not inferior to the rook and the half-asleep bishopat b2, which is forced
to keep watch on the passed b-pawn. } ) ) 29.Ref1 Nd5 30.Qg5 Rb8
{ is stronger, and } 31.Rf8+ $2 Qxf8 32.Rxf8+ Kxf8
{ is unfavourablefor White. Here Black is altogether invulnerable: White is
unable to attackhis weaknesses and he has essentially lost the strategic
battle. So Reshevskydecided to return the exchange in good time, thereby admitting the correctnessof Petrosian's idea. }
) 28...Nd5 29.Rf3 Bd3 30.Rxd3 cxd3 31.Qxd3 b4 $1
{ 'Reshevsky's clever zigzags and Petrosian's iron logic make this game one
ofthe adornments of the tournament. Now White faces a difficult
psychologicalproblem: whether to exchange on b4, which will almost certainly lead to a draw,or to advance his pawn and drive back the knight, obtaining
chances of winning... and of losing. ' (Bronstein) } 32.cxb4
{ In time-trouble Reshevsky plays itsimple. } ( { 'After } 32.c4 Nb6
{ the white pawns would have been blocked,whereas Black's would have become
extremely dangerous: or } 33.d5 ( { or } 33.Rc1 Nxa4 34.Ba1 Qc6 ) 33...exd5
34.c5 Nxa4 35.Bd4 Rc8 36.Qf3 { ' (Bronstein) } 36...Nxc5 $1 { etc. } )
32...axb4 ( 32...Nxb4
{ was also possible. Now things quicklyend in a draw: White's extra pawn is
fully compensated by the powerful knightat d5. } ) 33.a5 Ra8 34.Ra1 Qc6
35.Bc1 ( { If } 35.a6 $6 { Black had } 35...Nf4 36.Qf1 (
{ it is no better to play } 36.Qd2 g5 ) ( { or } 36.Qf3 $6 Qxf3 37.gxf3 Nd3
38.Bc1 b3 { Crouch } ) 36...g5 { with the unpleasant threat of ...Qc2! } )
35...Qc7 $1 ( { Black is not tempted by } 35...Rxa5 $2 36.Rxa5 Qxc1+ 37.Qf1
Qe3+ 38.Kh1
{ (Bronstein), since here the vulnerability of his own king causes his
downfall. } ) 36.a6 Qb6 37.Bd2 ( { If } 37.h3 { (Crouch), then simply }
37...Nc7 $1 { , picking upthe a-pawn. } ) ( { Or } 37.Qc4 Nc7 $1 38.a7 Rxa7
39.Rxa7 Qxa7 40.Qxb4 Nd5 { with equality. } ) 37...b3 38.Qc4 h6 39.h3 b2
40.Rb1 Kh8 ( 40...Qxa6 $5 41.Qxa6 Rxa6 42.Rxb2 Ra4
{ and ...Rxd4 with a draw } ) 41.Be1 { The sealed move; } (
{ it was incorrect to play } 41.Bc3 $2 Qxa6 42.Qxa6 Rxa6 43.Bxb2 Rb6 { . } )
( { A draw was agreed without resuming in view of } 41.Be1 Rxa6 42.Qc8+ Kh7
43.Qc2+ Kg8 44.Qxb2 Qxb2 45.Rxb2
{ . Black's strategic idea fully justifieditself! } ) 1/2-1/2
[Event "3. 25th USSR Championship, Riga"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1958.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Tal, M."]
[Black "Petrosian, T."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "C97"]
[EventDate "1958.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ After Zürich, Petrosian became truly invincible, remaining undefeated in
twosuccessive USSR Championships (including the 22nd, a Zonal event) and
thenalso the Interzonal tournament of the new cycle (Gothenburg 1955). TheCandidates tournament in Amsterdam (1956) developed into another triumph
forSoviet players: 1. Smyslov, 2. Keres, 3-7. Bronstein, Geller, Petrosian,Spassky and the Hungarian Szabo. But chess life was so arranged that 'ironTigran' had to begin the next world championship cycle... from a semi-final ofthe USSR Championship. A confident victory there was the start of a
series ofbrilliant performances by Petrosian on the lengthy path to the world chesscrown. --- In the final of the Zonal, 25th USSR Championship (Riga 1958) he asusual went through undefeated, finishing second in a very sharp struggle -half a point behind Mikhail Tal, who overtook his rival only thanks to anincredible last-round win over Spassky (Game No.50). It need hardly be saidhow important was the Tal-Petrosian game, played in the middle of thetournament. In this fierce battle another classic positional exchangesacrifice took place. --- }
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3 d6
9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Qc7 12.Nbd2 Bd7 13.Nf1 Nc4 14.Ne3 (
{ A harmless alternative is } 14.b3 Nb6 15.Ne3 c4 16.bxc4 Nxc4 17.Nxc4 bxc4
18.a4 Rfe8
{ with equal play, as in the gamesKorchnoi-Petrosian (Curaçao Candidates
1962) and Velimirovic-Petrosian (Riode Janeiro Interzonal 1979). } ) (
{ Against Tigran Vartanovich I once tried } 14.d5 $5 Nb6 15.g4
{ (Banja Luka 1979). } ) 14...Nxe3 15.Bxe3 Be6 $6 (
{ It is moreaccurate to play } 15...Rfc8 $1
{ , Karpov-Petrosian, Milan, 1st matchgame 1975. } ) 16.Nd2 Rfe8 17.f4 $1
Rad8 ( 17...cxd4 18.cxd4 Rac8 19.Bd3 { is alsoadvantageous to White. } )
18.fxe5 dxe5 19.d5 Bd7 20.c4 Rb8 21.a4 b4 22.a5 $1 Rf8 23.Ba4 Bxa4 24.Rxa4
{ 'White has a great positional advantage. Heeffectively has an extra,
protected passed pawn at d5, and in the endgame itmay play a decisive role.
Black could have satisfied himself with passivedefence - ...Bd6, ...Nd7, ... f7-f6, ...Rf7, ...Rbf8 and so on, but againstgood play by White he
would sooner or later have ended up in a difficultposition. And here I managed to devise a rather interesting plan of defence.' (Petrosian) }
24...Rbd8 25.Qf3 Rd6 $1
{ the only chance is this unexpected switchingof the rook to the sixth rank
} 26.Nb3
{ The knight sinks its teeth into theweak c5-pawn, and White's storming of
the kingside seems only a question oftime. } 26...Nd7 27.Raa1 Rg6 28.Rf1 Bd6
{ I don't know if Petrosian was alreadyconsidering the possible exchange
sacrifice, but the ...Rb8-d8-d6-g6 manoeuvrehas at least given Black some
counterplay. In order to drive the rook from itsfavourable post, White has to advance his h-pawn, weakening his king'sdefences. }
29.h4 Qd8 30.h5 ( { If } 30.Qh3 { , then } 30...h5 $1 31.Rf5 Qc8 32.Qf3 (
32.Rxh5 $6 Nf6 $1 ) 32...Nf6 { is unclear. } ) 30...Rf6 31.Qg4
{ It onlyremains for White to play g2-g3 and exchange the audacious rook at
f6, afterwhich everything will go smoothly. 'I considered my position to be
won,'writes Tal. 'Indeed, White has prepared an attack on the kingside, while onthe queenside, instead of counterplay, Black merely has weaknesses. But
herethere was occasion to remember Nimzowitsch and his theory of blockade.' }
31...Rf4 $3
{ A brilliant move! And an already familiar idea: the rook places itself
enprise to a minor piece. The exchange sacrifice (for not even a pawn!)
enablesa radical reassessment to be made of the comparative values of the pieces. }
32.Bxf4 $6
{ This capture leads to the unexpectedly sharp activation of both theinert
bishop at d6 (which begins eyeing the h2-square) and the despondentknight
at d7 (which acquires the splendid e5-square). Now it is no longer thec5-pawn that is weak, but rather the pawns at c4 and e4. In addition,
ittranspires that the h-pawn has advanced too far and that the white king is apotential target. In short, a complete change of scene. }
(
{ 'Of course, if Talhad fully realised what the winning of the exchange
would lead to, he wouldhave been satisfied with the win of a pawn: } 32.Rxf4
$1 exf4 33.Bxf4
{ . I thought that this situation was better for Black than play with
equalmaterial, but in a very cramped position. ' (Petrosian) However, a
roughanalysis shows that here too White would have retained an appreciableadvantage: }
33...Ne5 ( 33...Bxf4 $6 34.Qxf4 Qe7 35.h6 $1 g6 36.Rf1 ) ( 33...Qe7 34.h6 g6
35.Qg3 ( 35.Bxd6 $5 Qxd6 36.Rf1 ) 35...Bxf4 $2 ( 35...Ne5 ) 36.Qxf4 f5 37.Re1
Ne5 38.Re2 Qc7 39.exf5 Rxf5 40.Qe3 { and wins } ) ( 33...Nf6 34.Qf3 Bxf4 $2
35.Qxf4 Nxh5 36.Qe3 $1 Qh4 37.Nxc5 Re8 ( 37...Ng3 38.Re1 ) 38.Rf1 Ng3 39.Rf3
Nxe4 40.Rf4 { and wins } ) 34.Qg3 Re8 35.h6 g6 36.Rc1 Qc7 37.Rf1 $1 Nxc4 $2
( 37...Qd8 ) 38.Bxd6 Nxd6 39.Rf6 Rd8 40.Qe5
{ and wins. Even so,Black would have retained some counter-threats, and
this might not haveappealed to Tal, who also, by his own admission, 'at the
time, on account ofmy youth, thought that one should always win the exchange.' }
) 32...exf4 33.Nd2 Ne5
{ The position has become much sharper and White must now playaccurately,
which is rather difficult. Any experienced player knows how achange in the
character of the play influences your psychological mood. Up tohere, individual moves did not play a decisive role and in the main they weremerely
aimed at implementing the plan in general form. But now concretecalculation is required, and although Tal did this brilliantly, the sharp turnunsettled him. In addition, Mikhail Nekhemevich did not like defending. }
34.Qxf4 $2 { A mistake. } ( { It was correct to play } 34.Qf5 ) ( { or }
34.Qh3 f3 35.Rf2 $1
{ , when White's advantage is undisputed. In this case the
exchangesacrifice would have proved insufficient - so difficult was the
initialposition for Black; } ( { but not } 35.gxf3 Nd3 36.f4 Nxf4 37.Qg4 Qf6
{ ,sharpening the play. } ) ) 34...Nxc4
{ (just one flippant move by White haschanged the evaluation by almost 180
degrees) } 35.e5 Nxe5 $1
{ Withouthesitation retaining an ultra-powerful position in the centre. } (
{ Possibly Talwas hoping for } 35...Nxd2 $6 36.exd6 Nxf1 37.Rxf1 h6 (
37...Qxa5 38.h6 ) 38.Re1
{ - the d-pawns are only nominally doubled, but they are in fact passed! } )
36.Ne4 h6 37.Rae1 $2 ( { After } 37.Nxd6 Qxd6
{ Black would have supported hisknight by ...f7-f6 and would have had an
impregnable fortress plus counterplaywith ...c5-c4. But, of course, White
should not have allowed that whichoccurred in the game. } ) ( 37.b3 $5
{ came into consideration. } ) 37...Bb8 $1 38.Rd1 c4
{ Threatening ...Ba7+ and ...Nd3 with a mating attack. Black's positionis
already better - that which was mentioned in the notes to White's 32nd
movebegins to come true. The white king is in danger of coming to grief. }
39.d6 $1 ( 39.Nf2 { was passive: } 39...Qxa5 40.d6 Qc5 $1 { . } ) 39...Nd3 (
{ In the timescramble it was hard to decide whether first } 39...Ba7+ $5
{ wouldn't havebeen better. Then there could have followed: } 40.Nf2 (
40.Kh1 Nd3 41.Rxd3 $1 ( { but not } 41.Qg4 $2 f5 { , as in the game } )
41...cxd3 42.Ng3 Qxa5 43.Nf5 { with sufficient counterplay } ) 40...Nd3
41.Qxc4 Nxf2 ( 41...Nxb2 $5 42.Qxa6 $1 ) 42.Rxf2 Qxa5 43.d7 Bxf2+ 44.Kxf2 Rd8
45.Kg1 Qxh5 ( 45...Qb6+ 46.Kh1 ) 46.Rd5 Qg6 47.Qxb4
{ and the powerful passed d-pawn guarantees White againstdefeat. } ) 40.Qg4
$2 { The last move before the time control, and evidently alosing one. } (
40.Qe3 { was essential, for example: } 40...f5 ( 40...Nxb2 41.Rd5 $1 Qd7
42.Nc5 Qc6 43.Rff5 $1 Bxd6 44.Qd4 ) ( 40...Qd7 41.Rxd3 ( 41.Kh1 $5 )
41...cxd3 42.Qxd3 Ba7+ 43.Nf2 ) 41.Qd4 $1 ( { it is dangerous to play }
41.Nf2 Qxd6 42.Nxd3 Qh2+ 43.Kf2 Qh4+ 44.Ke2 Qxh5+ 45.Qf3 Qe8+ ) 41...fxe4
42.Qxc4+ Kh8 43.Rxf8+ Qxf8 44.Qxe4 Ba7+ 45.Kh2 Nf2 46.Qe7 $1 Qf4+ 47.g3 Qf3
48.Qe8+ ( { or } 48.d7 { with a draw. } ) ) 40...Ba7+ 41.Kh1 f5
{ The sealed move.After the adjournment there were still some fascinating
events to come. } 42.Nf6+ $1
{ Of course, Tal does not miss a tactical chance. } ( 42.Rxf5 $2
{ was totally unsuitable: } 42...Rxf5 43.Qxf5 Qh4+ 44.Qh3 Qxe4 45.d7 Qe7
{ and wins. } ) 42...Kh8 ( { not } 42...Qxf6 $4 43.Qxc4+ { and Qxd3 } )
43.Qxc4 Nxb2 44.Qxa6 Nxd1 45.Qxa7 Qxd6 $2 ( { After } 45...Nc3 $1 46.Qe7 gxf6
{ Black would have hadexcellent chances of converting his extra piece,
although White could stillhave stirred up trouble: } 47.Rxf5 ( 47.Qe3 Rf7 $1
( { it is weaker to play } 47...Kh7 $2 48.Qd3 $1 Qd7 ( { or } 48...Ne4
49.Rxf5 Re8 50.d7 $1 Re7 51.Rd5 { with domination, ensuring a draw } )
49.Rxf5 Kh8 50.a6 $1 Qe6 51.d7 ) 48.a6 ( 48.Qxh6+ Rh7 ) 48...Qxd6 49.a7 Qd8
50.Qxh6+ ( { or } 50.Ra1 Qa8 51.Qxh6+ Kg8 52.Qe3 Rg7 53.Qf3 Ne4 ) 50...Kg8
51.Qe3 Rg7 52.Rxf5 Qa8 53.Rf3 Qxa7 54.Qe6+ Qf7 { , winning; } ) 47...Qxe7
48.dxe7 Re8 49.Rxf6 Kg7 $1 { (only this) } ( { and now not } 49...Rxe7 $6
50.a6 $1 Nb5 ( { or } 50...Kg7 51.Rg6+ $1 Kf7 ( 51...Kh7 52.Rb6 Nd5 $2 53.Rb7
Rg7 54.a7 $1 ) 52.Rxh6 Nb5 53.Rb6 Re5 54.a7 Nxa7 55.Rxb4
{ , eliminating all the pawns with a draw } ) 51.Rb6 $1 Re5 52.Rxh6+ Kg7
53.Rg6+ Kf8 54.Rg4 { with a draw. } ) 50.Rb6 ( { or } 50.Rg6+ Kf7 51.Rxh6 (
51.Rb6 Nd5 52.Rb5 Ke6 53.a6 Rxe7 54.Rb7 Re8 55.a7 Ra8 ) 51...Na4 $3
{ and ...b4-b3. It is this decisive knight manoeuvre (a non-human move!)
thatPetrosian might not have seen in his adjournment analysis. Otherwise it
ishard to understand why he didn't play 45...Nc3! } ) 50...Rxe7 51.Rxb4 Re5
52.g4 Rxa5 53.Rb7+ Kf6 54.Rb6+ Kg5 55.Rg6+ Kf4 56.Rxh6 Kg3 $1 { etc. } )
46.Qd7 $1
{ A very strong reply, after which in the end the resourceful Tal gains
adraw. But it is interesting to look at the further errors by the two
players:no one has seriously analysed this part of the game, and several importantmoments have remained off screen. }
46...Qxf6 47.Qxd1 Rb8 $1 ( { Not } 47...Qa6 48.Rf4 $1 Qxa5 49.Qd6
{ , picking up the b4-pawn. } ) 48.Rf3 $2 { A serious mistake. } (
{ Drawing chances would have been retained by } 48.Qd3 b3 49.a6
{ , aimingto exchange the a-pawn for the b-pawn. } ) 48...Ra8 $2
{ Returning thecompliment. } ( { After } 48...Rb5 $1
{ the sorry position of the white king wouldhave proved decisive: } 49.Qe1 (
49.Qa4 Qh4+ ) ( { or } 49.Rb3 Rxa5 50.Rxb4 Ra1 { etc } ) 49...Kh7 50.Rb3 Rxa5
51.Qxb4 Ra1+ 52.Kh2 Rf1
{ . But now anobjectively drawn endgame is reached with three pawns against
two on the sameflank, although the mistakes do not end here. } ) 49.Qe1 Rxa5
50.Qxb4 Re5 ( { Or } 50...Qe5 51.Rf1 Ra1 52.Rxa1 Qxa1+ 53.Kh2 Qe5+ 54.Kh3
Qe3+ 55.Kh2 Kh7 56.Qc4 { with a draw. } ) 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 $2
{ (for aninstant leaving the e3-square undefended) } 60...Rc2 $2 (
{ Again Petrosian could havewon, but for this a knowledge was required of
higher computer geometry, whichwas then unknown: } 60...Qe3+ $1 61.Kh2 Ra4 $1
62.Qd8+ Kh7 63.Rxf5 Rd4 $1 { (very pretty!) } 64.Rd5 Rg4 65.Rd3 Qe5+ 66.Kg1
( 66.Kh1 Qe2 67.Qd5 Rg5 ) ( 66.g3 Rg5 $1 ) 66...Qe4 $1 67.Qd5 ( { or } 67.g3
Rg5 68.Rb3 Rd5 ) 67...Rxg2+ 68.Kh1 Qxd5 69.Rxd5 Rg5 $1
{ and wins. All this was 'personally' verified by therigorous Junior and
Fritz. } ) 61.Qa8+ Kh7 62.Qf3 Rc1 $6 ( 62...Rc5 { wasnevertheless stronger. }
) 63.Rxc1 Qxc1+ 64.Kh2 Qc7+ 65.Kh3 Qe5 66.g4 $1 fxg4+ 67.Kxg4 Qg5+ 68.Kh3 Qf6
69.Qe4+ Kg8 70.Qe8+ Qf8 71.Qxf8+ Kxf8 72.Kg4 Kf7 73.Kf5 1/2-1/2
[Event "4. Varna Olympiad"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1962.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Petrosian, T."]
[Black "Gligoric, S."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[EventDate "1962.??.??"]
[FEN "5rk1/1pp5/r5bp/p1nPp1q1/2P2p2/2N5/PP1QBRPP/5R1K w - - 0 26"]
[SetUp "1"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ The following example on this same theme was prefaced by Petrosian with
thesewords: 'I repeat, that the first and main difficulty in making a
positionalexchange sacrifice is a psychological caution: after all, you have to give upa rook for a minor piece. The second difficulty is that the
exchange is givenup when this is not forced by circumstances. Therefore you must anticipatebeforehand, in good time, how events will develop and take the necessarymeasures.' --- }
26.Bf3 $1 { (a clever resource in a difficult position) } 26...Raf6 ( { If }
26...e4 { there follows } 27.Qd4 $1 { . 'The e4-pawn is attacked, and if }
27...Nd3 { White sacrifices the exchange. } ( { Or if } 27...Qe7 { , then }
28.Re2 { , with a very sharp, tense game.' - Petrosian } ) ) 27.Re1 $1
{ (the onlychance) } ( 27.Re2 $2 Bd3 28.Ne4 Nxe4 29.Qxd3 Ng3+ $1 ) 27...Nd3
28.Rfe2 Nxe1 29.Qxe1 Re8 30.c5
{ 'Black is a clear exchange to the good, but it is notfelt at all.'
(Petrosian) } 30...Rff8 31.Ne4 { . Draw agreed on Gligoric's proposal. }
1/2-1/2
[Event "5. San Antonio"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1972.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Portisch, L."]
[Black "Petrosian, T."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[EventDate "1972.??.??"]
[FEN "4rrk1/1bqnppbp/1pNp2p1/pPnP4/2P5/4BB2/P4PPP/1NRQ1RK1 w - - 0 24"]
[SetUp "1"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ I will give another instructive example, which, as Tigran Vartanovich
stated,was very interesting in the purely psychological sense. --- } 24.Bg5
$6 ( { It was more logical to increase the pressure by } 24.Re1
{ , then Bf4 or Bg5. } ) 24...e5 $3
{ A surprise! 'After my reply Portisch thought for about 10 minutesand all
this time he kept looking at me. He couldn't make out whether I
hadsacrificed the exchange or blundered. In the end he decided that I hadblundered, took the exchange and... ended up in a bad position.' (Petrosian)
} 25.Be7 $6 ( { or } 25.dxe6 fxe6 $1 { with a comfortable game } ) 25...f5
26.Bxf8 Nxf8
{ 'During the last two moves the situation has changed sharply. White hasa
rook for a bishop, but no active play, because all the lines are blocked
androoks are only worth something when they stand on open files. After ...e7-e5the knight at c6 looks very well placed, but that is all. In some cases
Blackwill have an extra piece in play.' (Petrosian) } 27.Be2 Bh6 $6 (
{ First } 27...h5 $1 { was better. } ) 28.Rc2 Bc8 29.Nc3 Nfd7 30.Re1 Nf6
31.Bf1 f4 $6 ( { According to Petrosian, a prophylactic move such as }
31...Kh8 $1 { would havebeen more unpleasant for White. } ) 32.Rce2 Rf8
33.Na4 Nxa4 34.Qxa4 Nd7 { (forestalling the c4-c5 breakthrough) } 35.Ne7+
{ (Black overlooked this simpledefence) } 35...Kh8 36.Nxc8 Qxc8 37.Qa3 Nc5
38.Qf3 Qf5
{ . --- Thus, thepositional exchange sacrifice was one of the prominent
elements of theinimitable Petrosian style. But what comprised its basis?
Let us see how the9th world champion handled the opening. } 1/2-1/2
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Miracles of Prophylaxis"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ Since the time of Botvinnik it had become evident that the initial stage
ofthe game demanded thorough study. Without solid opening preparation it
wasimpossible to count on any serious success in professional events, andpractically every leading player made his contribution to the development
ofopening theory. It is interesting to follow how much opening theory hasprogressed from the late 1940s to the present day - during this half centurytruly incredible progress has been achieved, and is still continuing today.--- Here Botvinnik can be safely called the pioneer. Although Alekhine,
Euweand Keres also did much fruitful work in the field of the opening, it wasBotvinnik who was distinguished by his large-scale, global approach. Hedeveloped systems and entire trends, along which chess thinking laterprogressed. Smyslov, although this has not received due recognition, was alsodistinguished by his highly non-routine approach, and many opening tendenciesare associated with his discoveries. }
1.--
{ Petrosian did not perhaps leavesuch a global mark on the development of
chess theory, like Botvinnik orSmyslov, but on the other hand he created
two systems, typical of his style,in the King's Indian and Queen's Indian Defences, linked by one thread - theidea of prophylaxis. It is in his
approach to the solution of opening problemsthat the features of Petrosian's chess ideology, his general positionalconceptions, are clearly seen. }
*
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Petrosian's King's Indian"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "E70"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ Petrosian's system in the King's Indian Defence, which to this day
remains arather unpleasant weapon in White's hands, is defined by an early
d4-d5 and,chiefly, by Bc1-g5, pinning the knight at f6. This move looks pointless and 70,60 or even 50 years ago it would hardly have enjoyed
the particular respect ofthe experts. But in the 1950s, views on chess, on opening theory, and ingeneral on basic chess reference points, changed markedly. It appears to benot so difficult for Black to eliminate the pin and carry out the key idea forthe given pawn structure: move the
knight from f6 (to e8, d7 or h5) andadvance ...f7-f5. However, in so doing he loses time and begins to experiencediscomfort: firstly, he has to weaken himself with ...h7-h6 and then eitherplay ...g6-g5, seriously weakening the light squares, for which he will haveto pay sooner or later, or else move his queen to e8 or d7, which somewhatdisrupts the coordination of his forces. --- Of course, after }
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d6 4.e4 Bg7 5.-- (
{ one can also mention the Averbakh Variation - } 5.Be2 O-O 6.Bg5 ) (
{ as well as } 5.h3 O-O 6.Bg5 ( { or } 6.Nf3
{ and Bg5) withroughly the same motifs; } ) ) (
{ but Petrosian's plan with } 5.Be2 O-O 6.Nf3 e5 7.d5
{ and Bg5 has proved to be far more popular and uncommonly enduring.Today,
thanks to the numerous games played and the development of system'stheory,
this idea of long-term prophylaxis against ...f7-f5 is now verystandard, but then, in the 1950s, it was a genuine discovery. --- Here is thesource
game, in which Petrosian, as he himself put it, 'was able todemonstrate in practice that the bishop sortie to g5 is full of venom.' Thisoccurred in 1954 on board 1 of the USSR Team Championship, where TigranVartanovich helped his native 'Spartak' to become champions of the country. }
) *
[Event "6. USSR Team Cup, Riga"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1954.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Petrosian, T."]
[Black "Suetin, A."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "E94"]
[EventDate "1954.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.e4 d6 4.d4 Bg7 5.Be2 O-O 6.Nf3 e5 7.d5 Nbd7 ( { Or }
7...Na6 { - Game No.9. } ) 8.O-O (
{ Later on the author of the variation beganplaying } 8.Bg5 h6 9.Bh4
{ , for example: } 9...a6 { (Fischer's plan) } ( 9...g5 10.Bg3 Nh5 11.O-O a5
12.Ne1 Nf4 13.Nc2 ( 13.Bg4 $5 ) 13...Nc5 14.Ne3 Nxe4 15.Nxe4 Nxe2+ 16.Qxe2 f5
17.f3 f4 $1 18.c5 fxe3 ( 18...fxg3 19.hxg3 $1 { and g4 } ) 19.Qxe3 Bf5
20.Rac1
{ with a slight but enduringadvantage (Petrosian-Suetin, 25th USSR
Championship, Riga 1958); } ) 10.Nd2 Qe8 11.O-O Nh7 12.b4 Ng5 13.Rc1 f5 14.f3
Qe7 15.Kh1 $1 Nf6 16.c5 Nh5 17.c6 $1 b6 18.exf5 gxf5 19.g3 $1
{ with a clear advantage (Petrosian-Gligoric,Yugoslavia Candidates 1959). } )
8...Nc5 9.Qc2 a5 10.Bg5 ( 10.Nd2 Bh6 $1 ) 10...h6 11.Be3
{ Here, having forced ...h7-h6, it is possible to retreat toe3. } 11...Nfd7
{ 'Suetin preferred a well-tried and, it has to be said,
routinecontinuation, with Boleslavsky's recommendation of 14...exf4 in
mind.' (Petrosian) } ( 11...Ng4 { is parried by the sharp variation } 12.Bxc5
dxc5 13.h3 Nf6 14.Nxe5 Nxd5 15.cxd5 Bxe5 16.f4 Bd4+ 17.Kh2 { . } ) 12.Nd2 f5
13.exf5 gxf5 14.f4 exf4 15.Bxf4 Ne5 16.Rae1 Bd7
{ Thus, we see before us the resultsof prophylaxis. After freeing himself
from the pin, Black has neverthelesscarried out the thematic ...f7-f5, but
chronic weaknesses have appeared in hisposition. However, it appears that the activity of his pieces should enablehim to equalise. --- The knight at
e5 is a fine piece, and the one at c5 alsostands well, whereas for the moment Black's weaknesses (the f5-pawn and thee6- and g6-squares) are not felt. And again we encounter an example, typicalof our previous theme: the correlation between long-term factors and theconcrete dynamics of the
position. It is useful and interesting to observe howskilfully and accurately the young Petrosian (who was then still only 25)begins to extinguish dynamics and change the evaluation of the position in hisfavour. }
17.Nf3 $1 { (first the e5-knight is eliminated) } 17...Qf6
{ 'Another small"but" is revealed. } ( { If the pawn had been at h7, }
17...Ng6 { would have beena good move. But now after } 18.Be3
{ Black does not have the attractiveadvance of the f-pawn on account of the
loss of a piece.' (Petrosian) } ) 18.Qd2 Rae8 19.Nxe5 $1
{ Unexpectedly changing the pattern of the position. It wouldseem to be a
pity to take on e5: now the white knight cannot go to d4, fromwhere it
would have attacked the f5-pawn and threatened to invade at e6. Butin fact the e5-knight was so strong, that White cannot get by withouteliminating
it. With such a knight still on the board, the aforementionedweaknesses would simply be mythical, since the black pieces are too welldeveloped. }
19...dxe5 20.Be3 b6
{ Instead of a weak, isolated f5-pawn, there arenow hanging e- and f-pawns.
What are they - a strength or a weakness? Andagain Petrosian made an
extremely subtle evaluation of the correlation betweentemporary dynamics and long-term weaknesses. Of course, the pawns look veryfine, but they only
seem to be so. It only needs one of them to advance, andobvious holes immediately appear: ...e5-e4 weakens the f4- and d4-squares andfacilitates the exchange of the dark-squared bishops, while ...f5-f4 is evenworse, since after Bxc5 the white knight occupies the e4-square. ThereforeBlack is
forced to defend passively, hoping that it will be hard for White tofind a plan to strengthen his position. }
21.Bh5 ( { As Petrosian pointed out,the immediate } 21.Bd1
{ was more accurate, but this is a minor point. } ) 21...Re7 22.Bd1 $1 Qd6
23.Bc2 { Pressing little-by-little on the hanging pawns. } 23...Ref7 (
{ It is very important that } 23...e4
{ does not achieve anything, sincethe d3-square is under control: } 24.Bf4
Be5 25.Ne2
{ , then Qe3, and Black'sweaknesses are very obvious. Therefore Suetin
waits. As does Petrosian - suchthings never embarrassed him. } ) 24.Kh1 Ra8
( { After } 24...Rf6 25.Qe2 $1
{ with the threat of a2-a3 and b2-b4 the mobility of the e- and f-pawns is
stillmythical; } ( { not immediately } 25.a3 { in view of } 25...a4 26.Bxc5
Qxc5 27.Qe2 Ra8 28.Qxe5 Qxc4 { . } ) ) (
{ And so Black makes the apparently strange move } 24...Ra8
{ , 'considering himself obliged to forestall a2-a3 and b2-b4: if } 25.a3
{ there follows } 25...a4 { ' (Petrosian) } ) 25.Re2 $1
{ (exploiting the deflection ofthe rook to a8, White intensifies the
pressure on the f5-pawn) } 25...Qf8 26.Ref2 { (with the threat of Qe2-h5) }
26...Nb7 ( { Again both } 26...e4 ) ( { and } 26...f4
{ are bad, and White's first achievement is seen: the knight is
forced'voluntarily', without the help of b2-b4, to abandon the c5-square
and switchto d6, in order to defend the f5-pawn. } ) 27.Qe2 Nd6 28.c5 $1 bxc5
29.Bxc5
{ But now White has broken up the opponent's pawn chain on the queenside,
andthe number of weaknesses in the enemy position begins to exceed the
acceptablenorm. However, the position is still far from simple: Black has some defensiveresources and slight play with his pieces. }
29...Rb8 30.b3 Qc8
{ Petrosiancondemned this 'inexplicable manoeuvre, removing the queen from
the main partof the battlefield'; } ( { and recommended } 30...e4
{ . However, after this Whitewould again have had the unpleasant } 31.Qe3 (
31.Nxe4 $2 Bb5 ) 31...Bf6 32.Ne2 Qg7 33.Nf4
{ with a clear advantage (here the weakness of the e6-squarealso tells). } )
( { Even after } 30...Qc8
{ I would not evaluate Black's positionas lost. It is extremely difficult,
of course, but it is still possible toresist. } ) 31.Qh5 Qa6 $6 32.g4 $1
{ At the appropriate moment! Petrosian'scaution was legendary, but when the
time came to make sharp, committing moves,he did not avoid them. That is,
he always played by the position. Judge foryourself: the queen at a6 and rook at b8 have clearly forgotten about theirking. }
(
{ 'Having lost the strategic battle, Black tries to save the
f5-pawntactically: } 32.Bxd6 cxd6 33.Bxf5 $2 Bxf5 34.Rxf5 Qxf1+
{ .' (Petrosian) } ) 32...f4
{ 'Forced, but now Black's seemingly powerful pawns are easilyblockaded.'
(Petrosian) } ( { I think that if } 32...e4
{ Tigran Vartanovich wouldhave played } 33.gxf5 $1 Bxc3 34.f6
{ with crushing threats. } ) ( { But after } 32...f4
{ the bishop at c2 joins the attack and Qg6 is a constant threat. } ) 33.Re1
{ A highly competent move. } (
{ The e4-square has been chronically weakenedand there is no need to hurry
with } 33.Qg6 $6 { : after } 33...Rf6 34.Qh7+ Kf7 35.Bd3 Qb7 36.Be2 Bf5 $1
37.gxf5 Rh8
{ the evaluation of the position could havechanged in Black's favour. } )
33...Qc8 34.Bxd6 $2
{ Petrosian attaches anexclamation mark to this move and explains: 'The
start of a forcing manoeuvreleading to the collapse of the black position.
In the opponent's time-troubleWhite quickly won.' The conclusion of the game is not annotated, but it ishere that some very interesting (and very
typical!) events begin. It is a pitythat many games of the great masters from the past remain not fully annotated,as otherwise we would have the good fortune to see many amusing adventures. }
(
{ There is no doubt that White has a strategically won position, and all
itsadvantages would have been retained by the quiet } 34.h3 ) (
{ or the moreresolute } 34.Rg1 $1
{ followed by g4-g5. On the other hand, the exchange on d6is hasty,
immediately allowing Black to create some counterplay. } ) 34...cxd6 35.Bg6
Rf8 36.Ne4 f3 $2 { A blunder. } ( { It is not clear why Suetin did notplay }
36...Bxg4 { . After } 37.Qh4
{ White has good compensation for the pawn,of course, but the outcome would
still have been totally unclear. } ) 37.g5 Rf4 ( 37...Bg4
{ did not work on account of } 38.Qh4 Rf4 39.gxh6 { . } ) 38.Rg1 $4
{ A blunder in reply, which could have changed the result of the game,
deprivingWhite of a deserved win! } ( 38.gxh6 Bg4 39.Qg5
{ would have won easily. } ) 38...Bf5 $4 { Here it is, time-trouble! } (
{ After } 38...Bg4 $1 { Petrosian would havefaced a difficult test: } 39.Qh4
( 39.Bf7+ Kh8 40.gxh6 ( 40.Qg6 $6 Bf5 41.Qxd6 Bxe4 42.gxh6 Bf6 ) 40...Bxh5
41.hxg7+ Kh7 42.g8=Q+ Qxg8 43.Bxg8+ Rxg8 44.Rxg8 Kxg8 45.Nxd6 Rd4 ) 39...Bh3
40.Qh5 ( 40.Qg3 $6 Rg4 41.Qxf3 Rxg1+ 42.Kxg1 Qc1+ ) 40...Bg2+ 41.Rgxg2 fxg2+
42.Kxg2 Rxf2+ 43.Nxf2 Qc1
{ , andin both cases it is not clear whether White could have saved the
game. It issurprising that these events were not reflected at all in
commentaries on thegame. } ) 39.gxh6 { (now everything is in place) }
39...Bxe4 40.Bxe4
{ . Despite themutual time-trouble mistakes, this is a very instructive
game. It signifiesthe triumph for the basic idea of the Petrosian Variation
- deep prophylaxis,based on the effect of long-term factors of the position against temporary,petering out dynamics. }
1-0
[Event "7. Candidates Tournament, Amsterdam"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1956.??.??"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Petrosian, T."]
[Black "Pilnik, H."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "A56"]
[EventDate "1956.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ The following 'Indian' game is also instructive, although it too does
notdemonstrate the idea of the variation in pure form, since Black
immediatelywent in for the blocking of the centre, by playing ...c7-c5 and ...e7-e5.Nowadays we know that this restricts Black's active
possibilities, but at thattime many thought that it was also possible to play this way and that Black,with his little centre (c5-d6-e5 against c4-d5-e4), has counterplay in theform of ...b7-b5 and ...f7-f5. At the amateur level this would be all verywell, but grandmasters of
Petrosian's class learned how to exploit theadvantage in space. Also with the help of prophylaxis. --- }
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e5 4.Nc3 d6 5.e4 g6 6.Nf3 Bg7 7.Bg5
{ Even so! Here this is evenbetter, because Black will no longer have a
knight at c5. } 7...Na6 ( { ' } 7...h6
{ was more subtle. At such an early stage White would hardly have given up
hisdark-squared bishop. The bishop at g5 considerably hinders Black's
...f7-f5.' (Petrosian) } ) 8.Be2 Nc7 9.Nd2 Bd7 ( 9...a6 $5 10.a4 b6 ) 10.a4
b6
{ Pilnikdoes indeed play the opening without any particular subtlety, as if
sayingthat for the present Black has a solid position, and let's see what
happens. } (
{ He was intending to go ...a7-a6, ...Rb8 and ...b6-b5 (if immediately }
10...a6 { , then } 11.a5 $1
{ ), but here he was suddenly taken aback by a non-routinemove. } ) 11.Nb5 $1
Bxb5 $2 { Black faces a difficult dilemma. } ( { In the event of } 11...Nxb5
$5 12.axb5 { he has an unattractive position; } ) (
{ and so Pilnikpreferred } 11...Bxb5 { , obviously expecting } 12.axb5
{ with an unclear gameafter the possible } 12...O-O 13.O-O a5 14.bxa6 Nxa6
15.Qb3 Nb4
{ - it is quitehard to break this fortress. But an extremely unpleasant
surprise awaits him. } ) 12.cxb5 $1
{ (vacating the c4-square; today such an idea has become typical,but then
it was a genuine revelation) } 12...O-O 13.b4 $1
{ Very strong! Ittranspires that Black has great problems. 'The capture on
b4 opens the c-file,on which White has an outpost at c6. Black will not
even be able to opposerooks, since the c8-square can be controlled by the white bishop. On the otherhand, bxc5 is also rather unpleasant for Black.
After ...bxc5 (?) White easilycreates a passed pawn on the queenside, while after ...dxc5 he places hisknight at c4 and combines the threat of a4-a5 with the advance of his passedd5-pawn.' (Petrosian) --- In short, White already has a strategically wonposition. But the win for him still demands
considerable effort - I shouldremind you that the game was played in a Candidates tournament for the worldchampionship! }
13...h6 14.Bxf6 $1 { A concrete approach! } ( { 'Weaker was } 14.Be3 Nd7
{ followed by 15...cxb4 and ...Nc5.' (Petrosian) } ) ( { Also after } 14.Bh4
{ in the future the black knight would have been able to go to d7 and,
after ...cxb4, to c5, blocking the c-file. That is, Petrosian subtly sensed
that in thegiven instance the knight at f6 was far more important than his bishop and ithad to be eliminated. Now Black will be unable to block
the c-file, since theknight at c7 is a very long way from the c5-square. In view of this, perhapsBlack should first have played 13...Nce8!? (instead of 13...h6), to try andsomehow approach c5 with his knight. However, this too looks ratherunimpressive. }
) 14...Qxf6 15.O-O Rfd8 16.Nc4 Bf8
{ It is quite conceivablethat Pilnik considered his defences to be
sufficiently solid. } 17.g3
{ 'Whitecan strengthen his position unhindered, and so Black, after
defending hisd6-pawn, takes on b4.' (Petrosian) } 17...cxb4
{ This is understandable: otherwisesooner or later (say, after Kg2, h2-h4
and Qb3) White would have taken on c5,and then - as in the note to 13 b4! I
think that Pilnik decided on ...cxb4 inthe hope that for the moment the weakness of the c6-square would not be fataland Black would be able to gain
counterplay on the kingside. } 18.Qb3 Kg7 19.Rfc1 ( { Also good is } 19.Ne3
h5 20.Nc2
{ followed by Nxb4-c6, but Petrosiancarries out his plan, thinking that it
is a rook that will be best placed onc6. In the given instance this is a
matter of taste; } ) ( { if } 19.Qxb4 $6 { , then } 19...Ne6 $1 20.dxe6 d5 $1
{ . } ) 19...h5 20.Ne3 Ne8 21.Qxb4 Rdc8 22.Rc6 Qd8 ( 22...Rxc6 $6 23.bxc6
{ with the threat of Ba6-b7 and a4-a5. } ) 23.Rac1 Nf6
{ Pilnik also carries out a definite plan. He has defended his d6-
andb6-pawns (in the event of him playing ...a7-a6), placed his knight at f6
andis threatening ... Nd7-c5, after which it will be not at all easy for White tobreach his opponent's defences. Petrosian prevents this. }
24.Bf1 $1 Rcb8 ( { Avoiding } 24...Nd7 $2 25.Bh3 Rxc6 ( { or } 25...Rcb8
26.Bxd7 $1 ) 26.dxc6 Nc5 27.Nd5 { and c6-c7. } ) 25.Bh3 a6 $1
{ What should White do next? Although allhis pieces are finely placed, for
the moment Black's weaknesses are defended.Without the move Nc4, putting
pressure on the pawns and completely restrictingBlack's forces, he cannot get by, but what to do with the e4-pawn? }
26.Re1 $3
{ A unique move - another triumph for the idea of prophylaxis! White
defendshis pawn in advance, through the knight. } ( { 'The obvious } 26.f3 $2
{ has thesignificant drawback of weakening the dark squares and the second
rank - after } 26...axb5 27.axb5 h4
{ Black gains serious counterplay. On the h3-c8 diagonal thebishop occupies
too strong a position for it to be switched to the modest roleof guarding
the e4-pawn.' (Petrosian) Of course, the rook at e1 is alsomodestly placed, but there is nothing else to be done. Fantastic logic! Thismove might
simply not be noticed, but when it is made you understand just howstrong it is. }
) (
{ Incidentally, the computer finds it very difficult here: itinsists on 26
f3, while } 26.Re1
{ , from its 'point of view' reduces White'sadvantage. It is beyond its
powers to remove a rook from an open file! } ) 26...axb5 27.axb5 Nh7 $6
{ Black should have 'marked time', but Pilnik flinched (ahuman always aims
for the initiative), decided to bring out his queen to f6and as a result
lost his b6-pawn. } ( { In my view, more tenacious was } 27...h4 28.Nc4 hxg3
29.hxg3 Kg8 30.Qb3 Ra7 31.Qe3 Ne8
{ , although even here theb6-pawn will most probably be lost. Black's
position is of course extremelyunpleasant, but to breach it immediately is
not so simple. } ) 28.Nc4 Ra2 29.Bg2 $1
{ Now ...Nd7 is no longer threatened, and the bishop can guard thee4-pawn,
in order to free the rook at e1 for the defence of the f2-pawn. } 29...Qf6
30.Rf1 Ng5 31.Qb3 Rba8 32.h4
{ The knight is driven back, and at thisBlack's attack comes to an end
(however, it never in fact began). } 32...Nh7 33.Rxb6 Ra1 34.Rc6 R8a2 35.Qe3
{ Parrying the threat of ... Qxf2+. The conversion ofthe extra pawn does
not present any great difficulty for Petrosian. As heliked to joke, 'you
have a pawn - brains are not needed!' } 35...Qd8 36.Rxa1 ( 36.b6 $1
{ (Petrosian) } ) 36...Rxa1+ 37.Kh2 Nf6 38.f3 (
{ Here the weakening of thedark squares can no longer be exploited: } 38.Bh3
$5 { . } ) 38...Qb8 39.Qb3 Nd7 40.b6 Nc5 41.Qb2 Ra4 42.Qb5 Ra2 43.Rc7
{ (threatening Na5-c6 and b6-b7) } 43...g5
{ Pilnik again flinches, and things end in a light-squared triumph for
thef5-knight over the bad f8-bishop. } 44.Ne3 $1 gxh4 45.Nf5+ Kg8 46.gxh4 Ra6
47.b7 Ra7 48.Rc8 Qxb7 49.Qe8 Nd7 50.Nxd6 1-0
[Event "8. Candidates Tournament, Amsterdam"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1956.??.??"]
[Round "11"]
[White "Bronstein, D."]
[Black "Petrosian, T."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[EventDate "1956.??.??"]
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/ppnn2b1/3p3p/2pP1p2/2P1pP2/P1N1B2N/1P2B1PP/R2QR1K1 b - - 0 17"]
[SetUp "1"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ Incidentally, when looking through the tournament book of that
Candidatestournament, I remembered another innovatory idea of the 9th world
champion. --- } 17...Bxc3 $1
{ A bold exchange of the 'King's Indian' bishop. This is also akind of
prophylaxis! 'This interesting strategic idea is a striking example ofa
concrete penetration into the position. Black eliminates the knight whichcould have played an active role in implementing the g2-g4 breakthrough
and,particularly important, White's dark-squared bishop is denied the opportunityof occupying the weakened a1-h8 diagonal.' (Aronin) }
18.bxc3 Nf6 19.a4 Kh8 20.Nf2 Rg8 21.Kh1 Qe8 22.Rg1 Qg6 23.Qd2 Bd7 24.g3 Rae8
25.a5 Re7 26.Rab1 Bc8 27.Rg2 Reg7 28.Rbg1 Nce8 29.h3 h5 $1
{ . Nipping g3-g4 in the bud. Drawagreed, although Black's position is even
slightly the more pleasant. } ( 29...-- ) 1/2-1/2
[Event "9. 26th USSR Championship, Tbilisi"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1959.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Petrosian, T."]
[Black "Yukhtman, Ya"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "E92"]
[EventDate "1959.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ Several important games for the Petrosian Variation were played in the
26thUSSR Championship (Tbilisi 1959), where Tigran Vartanovich, again
goingthrough the entire event undefeated, won the first of his four gold medals.Moreover, he finished a point ahead of Tal, who was already twice
champion ofthe country, not long before had won the Interzonal tournament, and was soonalso to win the Candidates tournament (in each of these last two eventsPetrosian finished third). --- }
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 O-O 6.Nf3 e5 7.d5 Na6 (
{ The alternative is } 7...Nbd7 { (Game No.6) } ) ( { or } 7...a5 8.Bg5 h6
9.Bh4 Na6 10.O-O Qe8 11.Nd2 Nh7 ( 11...Bd7 { - Game No.67 } ) 12.a3 h5 13.f3
Bh6 $2 ( 13...Bd7 $1 14.b3 Bh6 { is correct } ) 14.b4 $1 Bd7 15.Rb1
{ with the initiative (Petrosian-Kottnauer, Lugano Olympiad 1968). } ) 8.Bg5
h6 9.Bh4 g5 { An aggressive plan with the manoeuvre of the knight to f4. } (
{ The Petrosian-Lutikov game from the same event went } 9...c5 10.Nd2 Bd7 $6
( 10...Nc7 { was more accurate } ) 11.Nb5 $1 Be8 ( { we have already seen }
11...Bxb5 $2 12.cxb5 ) 12.a3 Qd7 ( 12...Nc7 13.Nc3 $1 a6 14.b4 $1 ) 13.g4 Nc7
( 13...Nh7 $5 ) 14.Nc3 a6 15.a4 Qc8 16.h3 $1 Rb8 17.Qc2 Bd7 18.b3 b6 19.Nd1
b5 20.a5 $1 { (a typical idea, restricting the knight at c7) } 20...Kh8 (
20...bxc4 21.bxc4 Rb4 22.Nb2 $1 Qa8 23.Nd3 { with the idea of Bg3 and f2-f4 }
) 21.Bg3 Ng8 22.Ne3 Ne7 ( 22...bxc4 23.bxc4 Rb4 24.Qc3 { and Nc2 } ) 23.Bh4
$1 ( 23.b4 $6 f5 $1 24.bxc5 f4 $1 { is unclear } ) 23...Qe8 $6 ( 23...Ng8
{ was better } ) 24.b4 $1 Nc8 ( 24...bxc4 25.bxc5 $1 ) ( { or } 24...cxb4 $2
25.c5 $1 ) 25.bxc5 dxc5 26.cxb5 { and White won on the 42nd move. } ) 10.Bg3
Nh5 11.Nd2 Nf4 12.O-O Nc5
{ The knights are quite nicely placed, and later games showed that Black
doesnot have a bad position. But accurate and energetic play is required of
him:the light squares are already weakened, and it may happen that his activitycomes to an end but the hole at f5 remains. In addition, White can
graduallyprepare an offensive on the queenside. } 13.Bg4
{ (exchanging the main defenderof the f5-square) } 13...a5 $6
{ A second-rate move. It would appear that Yukhtmandid not quite understand
what White wanted: the knight at f4 seems to beparalysing his entire game,
the hole at d3 is already yawning and it is stilla very long way to f5. } (
{ In later games Black employed the gambit continuation } 13...Bxg4 $5
14.Qxg4 h5 15.Qf5 h4 16.Bxf4 exf4 17.Nf3 Qf6 $1 18.Nxg5 Qxf5 19.exf5 Bxc3 $5
( { or } 19...Rfe8 20.Nb5 Re7 21.Rae1 Rae8 22.Rxe7 Rxe7 23.b4 Nd3 24.Nxa7
Nxb4 25.Rb1 Nd3 26.Nb5 { with a slight advantage } ) 20.bxc3 Rfe8 21.Rfe1 Kg7
22.Nf3 h3
{ with an unclear position - by breaking upthe white pawns, Black has
gained real counterplay. Now it is interesting toobserve how methodically,
although not without the help of his opponent,Petrosian exploits the weakness of the f5-square. }
) 14.f3 $1
{ 'The bishopwill move from g3, making way for the pawn. Black's knight
cannot bemaintained at f4, and without it he cannot hope for any activity.
By contrast,White's plan is simple: he must try to play a knight to e3, when it will beclose to the f5-square.' (Petrosian) }
14...Ncd3 15.Qc2 c6
{ This is what Yukhtmanwas hoping for - counterplay on the c-file. However,
it proves to be notquite sufficient. } 16.Kh1 $1 h5 17.Bxc8 Rxc8 18.a3 $1
{ A very important andinstructive move. It appears that here it is not
needed: all the same, b2-b4cannot be played. However, White's aim was a
different one: to create thethreat of Bxf4 and g2-g3. } (
{ After the immediate } 18.Bxf4 { there is theimportant interposition }
18...Nb4 $1 { , for example: } 19.Qb3 ( { or } 19.Bxg5 Nxc2 20.Bxd8 Nxa1
21.Be7 Rfe8 22.Bxd6 Nc2
{ with compensation for the exchangeand chances for both sides. } ) 19...exf4
{ with good counterplay } 20.a3 Na6 21.Qxb7 $2 Nc5 22.Qa7 Ra8 ) 18...cxd5 (
{ After } 18...h4 19.Bxf4 Nxf4 20.g3 Nh5 21.Kg2 Qd7 22.Qd3
{ Black constantly has to think about the weakness of hisf5, while if he
plays } 22...f5 $6 { , then after } 23.exf5 Rxf5 24.Nde4
{ the knightestablishes itself at e4 and the weakness of the light squares
becomestransparent. } ) 19.cxd5 ( { If } 19.Nxd5
{ then it is essential to play } 19...h4 $1 ( 19...b5 $5 20.Rab1 $1 ) 20.Bxf4
Nxf4 21.Qb3 ( { or } 21.Nxf4 exf4 22.Rad1 Re8 { with chances of equality } )
21...Nxd5 22.cxd5 Qc7 ) 19...Nc5 $2
{ Capitulation! Since Yukhtman has opened the c-file, it makes sense to use
thissomehow. } ( { After the sharp } 19...b5 20.Bxf4 Nxf4 21.Qb3 Rb8 22.Nd1
$1 ( 22.Nxb5 a4 $1 23.Qxa4 Qb6 ) 22...Ne2 23.Ne3 Nd4 24.Qd3
{ White would haveretained the advantage, planning 25 Nf5 Nxf5 26 exf5 and
Ne4 (weakness of thelight squares!). } ) ( { But after } 19...Qb6 $1
{ it would have been hard for himto find anything stronger than the modest
} 20.Bxf4 ( 20.Rab1 h4 ) 20...Nxf4 21.g3 ( 21.Rac1 Qd4 $5 ) 21...Ne2 22.Qd3
Nd4 23.Rab1 { . } ) 20.Bf2
{ (withthe threat of g2-g3; now things become very difficult for Black) }
20...g4 $6
{ Desperation. Such extraordinary measures are usually unsuccessful and
merelyaggravate the situation, by increasing the number of weaknesses.
Black'sactivity quickly evaporates. } 21.g3 Ng6 (
{ even so, it was preferable to play } 21...Nfd3 $5 22.Bxc5 Nxc5 23.fxg4 hxg4
24.Nc4 $1 { etc } ) 22.fxg4 hxg4 23.Be3
{ To some extent Black's pawn structure resembles a sieve. } 23...b5 $2
{ (alast-gasp try: White simply takes the pawn) } 24.Nxb5 Qb6 25.a4 $1 Qa6
26.Nc4
{ (the game is decided, and Yukhtman's desperate thrust does not
changeanything) } 26...f5 27.Rxf5 Rxf5 28.exf5 Qb7 29.Qg2 Nb3 30.Ncxd6 Qd7
31.Rf1
{ . --- Yukhtman's play was unconvincing, of course: for all his tactical
talent,he was rather weak in positional evaluation, although, like every
finalist inthe USSR Championships of that time, he had not at all a bad understanding ofchess subtleties. This makes even more impressive the
difference in classbetween the strong Soviet masters and grandmaster Petrosian, who had not yeteven achieved the height of his powers. --- 'Petrosian's style,' wroteworld champion Botvinnik after this tournament, 'to some extent resemblesthe style of Capablanca, Flohr and perhaps Smyslov.
Players of this type makeuse of their main strength - superiority in positional understanding;therefore they aim to obtain positions where the time factor and the tacticalelement are not of decisive importance, where they can formulate solidly-basedplans, leading with iron consistency to victory. Of course, if Petrosian wereonly an expert in the field of positional play and were not in addition aclever tactician, he would not have been able to gain such a convincingvictory in Tbilisi!' --- In Averbakh's opinion, such a description hardlyconveys the distinctiveness of Petrosian's
style and this lack ofunderstanding of his play also told in the Botvinnik-Petrosian match. TigranVartanovich himself said: 'It is asserted that my favourite player isCapablanca. They have even pinned a label on me: "follower of the Capablancastyle". In fact, for me there cannot exist any one idol in principle. Thusif I were to name a few names, I would give Nimzowitsch, Capablanca andRubinstein.' He knew from childhood the games of the first two, while hebecame acquainted with the secrets of Rubinstein's play in the late 1950s -and he came to the conclusion that 'no one previously had such a deeppositional style.' --- But what Petrosian definitely had in common withCapablanca was his extraordinary speed of thought. He, like the legendaryCuban, was one of the best blitz players in the world (along with Bronstein,Tal, Korchnoi, Fischer and, later, Karpov). When in the summer of 1958 the15-year-old Bobby Fischer arrived in Moscow, Petrosian, as he put it, 'wassummoned to the Central Chess Club, to deal with a youth who had defeated theMoscow masters in blitz play.' Tigran Vartanovich was a four-times winner ofthe popular blitz tournaments for the
prize of the 'Vechernyaya Moskva'newspaper, and in March 1971 he won the All-Union grandmaster blitz tournament,scoring 14˝ out of 15(!!). }
1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "The Saga of Svetozar"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ Once we have begun talking about the King's Indian Defence, it is
impossiblenot to mention a prominent expert on it, the outstanding Yugoslav
grandmasterSvetozar Gligoric (born 1923), who was among the contenders for the worldchampionship in the 1950s and 1960s. --- The Second World
War wiped out fouryears from the chess biography of the talented master, during two of which hefought against the Nazis as a member of Marshall Tito's partisan army. Afterthe victory Svetozar returned to his favourite game, not only competing at theboard and avidly reading chess
literature, but also founding a chess club inBelgrade and organising a championship of the capital, and then also of thecountry. He quickly became the No.1 player in Yugoslavia, one of the mostchess-avid countries in the world, where there was an abundance of top-classplayers throughout the 20th century: in place of Vidmar and Kostic came Pircand Trifunovic, then Gligoric, Rabar, Matanovic, Fuderer, Ivkov, Matulovic,Parma, Planinc, Ljubojevic... }
1.--
{ Gligoric became internationally knownafter his sensational triumph in
Warsaw (1947): 1. Gligoric - 8 out of 9; 2-5.Boleslavsky, Smyslov... - 6
etc. He was immediately considered a dangerousrival to the Soviet grandmasters, and for a time the USSR sports authoritieswere watchful about
sending them to tournaments where the young and ambitiousYugoslav was playing. Although, at that time he was not even a grandmaster: hewas awarded this title only in 1951. --- In the absence of the USSR, theYugoslav team, led by Gligoric, confidently won the first post-war Olympiad
(Dubrovnik 1950). This success and medal places at many of the subsequentOlympiads were a vivid indication of the extraordinary popularity of chess inthe country. Indeed, in the second half of the 20th century Yugoslavia becamea genuine chess Mecca: where else did so many international tournaments takeplace?! And, of course, it was no accident that it was here that therevolutionary idea of creating a kind of bible for qualified players was born- the periodical Informator and the five-volume 'Encyclopaedia of ChessOpenings', arranged in accordance with the famous Rabar
Index: A-B-C-D-E. ---I made my first acquaintance with Gligoric's play back in my youth, when Iread Bronstein's legendary book on the Candidates tournament in Zürich (1953).Especially engraved in my memory is the following fascinating game - ahighly complicated example on the theme of blockade: in order to deprive theenemy pieces of mobility, Black had to sacrifice two pawns. This proved a highprice and the outcome of the battle was unclear to the very end. }
*
[Event "10. Candidates Tournament, Zurich"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1953.??.??"]
[Round "25"]
[White "Kotov, A."]
[Black "Gligoric, S."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "E87"]
[EventDate "1953.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6
{ 'The numerous spectacular wins byBoleslavsky, Bronstein and Geller
induced me also to make my openingrepertoire sharper. After including in it
the King's Indian Defence, myresults with Black improved significantly. At the Interzonal tournament inSaltsjöbaden (1952) I employed it against
Geller himself - and won! Andthen for many long years I was faithful to this opening.' (Gligoric) }
5.f3 O-O 6.Be3 e5 7.d5 c5 { As it soon transpires, this move is premature. }
( { Blackavoids } 7...Nh5 8.Qd2 f5 9.O-O-O a6 ( 9...f4 $6 10.Bf2 Bf6 11.Nge2
Bh4 12.Bg1 $1 { (Geller-Gligoric, 11th round). } ( 12.-- ) ) 10.Bd3 c5 $5
{ , an attemptto combine both plans, is parried by } ( { if } 10...Nd7
{ Geller suggested } 11.exf5 gxf5 12.Nge2 ) 11.dxc6 $1 Nxc6 12.Nd5 Be6 13.Bb6
Qd7 14.Ne2 Rac8 15.Kb1 Qf7 16.Rhe1
{ with some pressure (Karpov-Kasparov, 21st matchgame, Lyon1990). } ) (
{ Therefore } 7...c6 $1 { is more active, for example: } 8.Qd2 cxd5 9.cxd5
Nbd7 10.Nge2 a6 11.Nc1 $6 ( 11.g4 { - Game No.85 } ) 11...Nh5 12.Bd3 f5
13.N1e2 Ndf6 14.exf5 gxf5 15.Ng3 e4 $1 { (following Gligoric!) } 16.Nxh5 Nxh5
17.fxe4 f4 $1 18.Bf2 Bg4 19.h3 Bd7 20.O-O-O Be5 $1 21.Kb1 Qf6 22.Be2 Ng3
23.Bxg3 $6 fxg3 24.Bf3 Rac8
{ .. 0-1 (Gheorghiu-Kasparov, ThessalonikiOlympiad 1988). } ) 8.Bd3 (
{ Two rounds later in the game Kotov-Najdorf animprovement was unveiled - }
8.g4 $1 { (depriving the knight of the h5-square) } 8...Ne8 9.h4 f5
{ , and later Tal suggested } 10.gxf5 $1 ( { instead of Kotov's } 10.exf5
gxf5 11.g5 ) 10...gxf5 11.exf5 Bxf5 12.Bd3 $1
{ , when thanks tohis control of e4 White has the advantage. It is
important that the followingdoes not work: } 12...e4 13.fxe4 Qe7 $6 (
13...Bc8 14.e5 $5 ) 14.exf5 Qxe3+ 15.Qe2 Qg3+ 16.Kd2
{ and wins (Tal-Boleslavsky, 25th USSR Championship, Riga 1958). } ) (
{ But after, say, } 8.Qd2 Ne8 9.Bd3 f5 10.exf5 gxf5 11.O-O-O
{ , the ...e5-e4 breakthrough may prove highly effective: } 11...a6 12.Nge2
b5 13.Rdg1 Nd7 14.cxb5 e4 $1 15.fxe4 fxe4 16.Nxe4 axb5 17.Bxb5 Rxa2
{ with excellentcounterplay for the pawn (Korchnoi-Boleslavsky, 24th USSR
Championship, Moscow1957). } ) 8...Nh5 9.Nge2 f5 10.exf5 gxf5
{ A tense position, typical of theSämisch Attack. White is not in a hurry
to determine the placing of his kingand now he has to take a very important
decision - choose a square for hisqueen. } 11.Qc2 (
{ It is also logical to play } 11.Qd2
{ (with control of thef4- and g5-squares): } 11...a6
{ (trying to frighten White with the threat of adiversion on the queenside)
while in the event of } ( { when Black can reply } 11...Nd7 12.Bg5 Qe8
{ with the idea of } 13.Nb5 e4 $1 14.fxe4 Ne5 15.O-O Nxd3 16.Qxd3 fxe4 17.Qe3
Qg6 18.Rxf8+ Bxf8 19.Rf1 Bd7 { (Pachman-Ivkov, Sarajevo 1964) } ( 19...-- ) )
12.Ng3 ( 12.O-O-O b5 $1 ) ( 12.a4 Nd7 13.Bg5 Qe8 14.O-O Ndf6 15.Bc2 Bd7
{ (Hort-Gligoric, Niksic 1978) } ( 15...-- ) ) 12...Qe8 $1 13.Nxh5 Qxh5
14.O-O-O { he can carry out the same blockading idea as in thegame: } (
14.O-O Nd7 15.f4 Rb8 16.a4 { is rather more solid } ) 14...e4 $1 15.fxe4 f4
$1 16.Bf2 Nd7 { and now } 17.g3 f3 18.g4 Qe8 19.g5 Ne5
{ withcompensation for the sacrificed pawn. } ) 11...e4 $1
{ A positional sacrificefor the sake of activating the g7-bishop and
occupying the e5-square, whereasWhite's pawn on e4 will restrict his
forces. } 12.fxe4 f4 $1 13.Bf2 (
{ Amodern grandmaster, armed with the experience of his predecessors and
fearinga blockade, might go in for such an extreme measure as a piece
sacrifice - } 13.e5 $1 fxe3 $1 { is stronger, although after } (
{ since after } 13...Bxe5 14.Bxh7+ Kh8 15.Bf2
{ White has an obvious advantage (Knaak-Velimirovic, Sombor1972). } ( 15.-- )
) 14.Bxh7+ Kh8 15.e6 --
{ Black is in danger: he has anentire flank shut out of the game. } (
{ He has to choose between } 15...Nf4 ) ( 15...Rf2 ) (
{ and two counter-sacrifices - } 15...Qh4+ 16.g3 Nxg3 17.Nxg3 Qxh7 ) (
{ or } 15...Nc6 16.dxc6 bxc6 { with a double-edged game. } ) ) 13...Nd7 $1
14.Ng1
{ With the intention of exchanging the knight at e5, although this doesnot
solve the problem of activating the Qc2 and Bd3 battery. } ( { Alas, } 14.e5
{ is too late on account of } 14...Nxe5 $1 15.Bxh7+ Kh8
{ . Bronstein evaluates thisposition as hopeless for White. I think that he
is being too categorical, butafter } 16.O-O-O Qg5 17.Kb1 Qxg2 18.Ne4 Nf6
19.Rhg1 Qf3 20.Nxf6 Rxf6 21.Nc3 Qh5 22.Be4 Bg4
{ Black's chances are indeed clearly better - largelythanks to his powerful
knight at e5. } ) 14...Qg5 15.Bf1 Ne5 $1
{ 'Black haswon the first battle, by pushing back the opponent's forces,
but he has notyet won the entire campaign. After regrouping, the white
pieces come out againto more active positions.' (Bronstein) } 16.Nf3 Qe7
17.Nxe5 Qxe5 18.O-O-O Nf6 19.h3 Bd7 (
{ 'Gligoric likes well-prepared breakthroughs. A more impatientplayer would
have been unable to refrain from } 19...a6 20.a4 $1 ( 20.Bd3 b5 21.cxb5 axb5
22.Bxb5 Ba6
{ with an attack along the a- and b-files and alongthe long diagonal.'
(Bronstein). } ( 22...-- ) ) 20...Bd7 21.Re1
{ is more solid,although, of course, after } 21...Nh5
{ Black has compensation for the pawn. } ) (
{ But an altogether impatient player would have been unable to restrain
himselffrom playing } 19...b5 $5 20.cxb5 a6 $1 { , forcing events: } 21.a4
axb5 22.Bxb5 Bd7 23.Rhe1 Bxb5 24.Nxb5 Nh5 { with unclear complications. } )
20.Bd3 a6 21.Nb1 $1 ( { With the idea of } 21.Nb1 b5 $6 22.Nd2 $1 { . } )
21...f3 $5
{ 'Fine play. White's planned manoeuvre Nd2-f3 could have led to the ruin
ofBlack's entire blockading strategy. Gligoric shows himself to be a
genuinechess artist, by giving up a second pawn in order to deprive the knight of thef3-square and expand the sphere of the blockade,' writes
Bronstein and heawards two exclamation marks to the move in the game. In my opinion, this isgoing too far. }
(
{ Gligoric's spectacular idea obliges him to play with extremeaccuracy (he
is after all two pawns down!), and meanwhile the implementationof the
Nd2-f3 threat was not so simple and the position allowed Black to makedo with therapeutic measures: -- }
21...Rae8 $5 22.Rde1 ( 22.Nd2 Ba4 $1 23.Qxa4 ( { or } 23.b3 Qa1+ 24.Nb1 Bd7
25.Rde1 b5 { with equality } ) 23...Nxe4 ) 22...Nh5 23.Nd2 Ng3 24.Nf3 Qh5
25.Rhg1 b5 { with counterplay; } ) ( { or even } 21...Be8 $5
{ (with the idea of ...Bg6 or ...Bh5) } 22.Nd2 Ba4 $1 23.b3 ( 23.Qxa4 Nxe4
{ is equal } ) 23...Qa1+ 24.Nb1 Be8 $1 { , when the attempt } 25.Be1 Nd7
26.e5 $5 { enlivens the play, but does not promise White any advantage - }
26...Bxe5 27.Bxh7+ Kh8 28.Bd3 Rg8
{ etc. Incidentally, in the aforementioned gamewith Gheorghiu I too did not
experience any difficulties, by retaining thef4-pawn. } ) 22.gxf3 Nh5 23.Nd2
Nf4 24.Bf1
{ 'A classic example of a blockadedposition. The immediate targets are four
white pawns, but the influence of theblockade is far deeper: the
light-squared bishop has been transformed into apawn, the knight's own pawns take away all its important squares, and inaddition the queen, such a
mobile piece, is almost completely constricted.' (Bronstein) } 24...b5 $1
{ The long-awaited breakthrough. 'One can only be surprisedat the potential
defensive strength of White's position and the skill of Kotov,who maintains
the balance, albeit with great difficulty.' (Bronstein) } 25.h4 Kh8 26.Rg1
Bf6 27.Nb3 Rab8 (
{ 'At the critical moment Gligoric does notdisplay the required resolve and
he continues systematically strengthening hisposition. Very strong was }
27...b4 28.Na5 Ba4 29.b3
{ when Black has atleast perpetual check, but can play } 29...Bd7
{ , continuing the attack.' (Bronstein) } ) ( { However, in the event of }
27...b4 { White could have set about evictingthe blockading knight from f4: }
28.Be3 $1 a5 29.Qd2 { . } 29...Bxh4 ( { Now it is nogood to play } 29...Be7
30.Nd4 $1 ) ( { and } 29...Bg7 30.Rg5 Qf6 ( 30...a4 31.Rxe5 Bxe5 32.Nxc5
{ and wins } ) 31.e5 dxe5 32.Nxc5 ) ( { and } 29...Ng6 30.Kb1 $1 ( 30.h5 Nh4
31.Bf4 Qxf4 $1 32.Qxf4 Bxb2+ 33.Kxb2 Rxf4 ) ( { or } 30.f4 Qxe4 31.Bd3 Qe8
32.Rde1 Qf7 { is unclear } ) 30...Nxh4 31.Be2 a4 32.Nc1 a3 33.Nd3 Qe7 34.b3
{ - this fortress cannot be breached, and White can calmlystrengthen his
position: } 34...Rg8 ( { or } 34...Bc3 35.Bg5 Qe8 36.Qxc3+ $1 bxc3 37.Bxh4 h6
38.Be1 $1 Kh7 39.Bxc3 Rg8 40.Rh1 Qe7 41.Bd2 Rg6 42.Rh5 Rf8 43.Rdh1 Rff6
44.Nf4 { etc. } ) 35.Bf2 Ng6 36.Rh1 Raf8 37.Rh5 Ne5 38.Rdh1 { . } ) 30.Nd4 $1
Ng6 $1 { is what remains: } 31.Be2 $1 { with complicated play: } (
{ it is weaker to play } 31.f4 Nxf4 32.Nf3 Nd3+ $1 33.Bxd3 Rxf3 ) 31...Bf6 (
{ or } 31...Nf4 32.Nc6 Qf6 33.Bf1 Ng6 34.f4 $1 Nxf4 35.e5 $1 dxe5 36.Bxc5
Rfe8 ) 32.f4 Qxe4 33.Bd3 Qxe3 34.Qxe3 Bxd4 35.Qd2 Nxf4 36.Rh1 Nxd3+ 37.Qxd3
Bf5 38.Qg3 Be5 39.Qe3 a4 40.Rdf1 a3 41.b3 { . } ) 28.Be1
{ Kotov has planneda similar way of breaking the blockade (true, as we will
see, an imperceptibleerror crept into his calculations). } (
{ The pawn must be induced to advance tob4: if } 28.Bg3 { , then } 28...bxc4
$1 29.Bxc4 a5 $1 30.Qh2 Bg7 31.Bxf4 Rxf4 32.Rg5 Qf6 { and Black is alright. }
) 28...b4 ( { The desperate counterattack } 28...bxc4 $6 29.Bxc4 Bb5 30.Bc3
Qxc3 $6 31.bxc3 Bxc4 32.Rd2 Rb5 33.Rg4 Be5
{ is refuted by the 'human+computer' tandem with } 34.Nd4 $5 cxd4 35.cxd4
Ne2+ 36.Rxe2 Bxe2 37.dxe5 $1 Bxf3 $1 38.Rg5 $1 Rc5 39.Qxc5 dxc5 40.e6 Bxe4
41.d6 $1 { and the white pawns are irresistible. } ) 29.Kb1 Ra8
{ (Black has wastedtime with his rooks and this should have been punished)
} 30.Bg3 Rg8 31.Qh2 $2
{ The desire to retain the h4-pawn diverts Kotov from the correct path. } (
{ After } 31.Qd2 $1 Rxg3 32.Rxg3
{ , Gligoric would have had to seek a way to savethe game after } 32...a5 (
{ the exchange } 32...Ne2 33.Bxe2 Qxg3
{ would haveactivated the congealed white pawns - } 34.f4 $1 { and e4-e5 } )
33.Nc1 $1 { , for example: } 33...a4 ( { or } 33...Ba4 34.Rg4 $1 Bxd1 35.Rxf4
Ba4 36.Rf5 Qe7 37.Qh6 Bxh4 38.e5 Bd7 39.Rh5
{ and Black is in great difficulties } ) 34.Rg5 $1 Bxg5 35.hxg5 Qxg5 36.Nd3
Rf8 37.Be2 $1 Qg3 38.Nxf4 Qxf4 39.Qxf4 Rxf4 40.Rg1 h5 41.Kc2 $1 Kh7 42.Kd3
{ . } ) 31...Rxg3 { (a forced exchangingcombination) } 32.Rxg3 Ne2 $1 33.Qxe2
Qxg3 34.Nc1
{ Here, in contrast to thevariations with 31 Qd2!, White's queen and bishop
are in each other's way, andBlack has time to defend against f3-f4 and
e4-e5. By this point both playerswere in time-trouble and were more concerned about the safety of theirdefences. }
34...a5 35.Nd3 Bd4 $1
{ (now e4-e5 loses its strength, and the powerfulbishop at d4 equalises the
chances) } 36.h5 Qh4 37.Bg2 Rg8 38.Rh1 Qg3 39.Bf1 a4 40.Kc2 $2
{ Pseudo-activity by the king! } ( { Even } 40.Kc1 { was better; } ) (
{ to say nothing of } 40.Qd1
{ and Be2. But the last few moves before the control,with the flag about to
fall, are subject to their own laws. } ) 40...a3 $2
{ Throwing away the advantage that has suddenly been acquired; } ( 40...b3+
$1 41.axb3 axb3+ 42.Kxb3 Qg7 { 'with winning chances' (Bronstein): } 43.Kc2
( 43.h6 Ba4+ $1 44.Ka2 ( 44.Kxa4 $2 Qb7 ) 44...Qa7 45.Kb1 Bb3 46.Nc1 Ra8
47.Nxb3 Qa2+ 48.Kc1 Qxb3 ) 43...Rb8 ( 43...Ba4+ $5 ) 44.Kb1 Ba4 45.Rh2 (
{ or } 45.Qg2 ) 45...Qa7 $1 { and White is in difficulties. } ) 41.b3
{ . The sealed move. Afteradjournment analysis the players agreed a draw. }
1/2-1/2
[Event "11. Dos Hermanas"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1996.??.??"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Ivanchuk, V."]
[Black "Kasparov, G."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "E86"]
[EventDate "1996.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ Later Botvinnik advised me to study the King's Indian Defence from the
gamesby the classic interpreters of this opening, including Gligoric. And
myattention was drawn to another original idea in the Sämisch Variation, whichwas conceived in the late 1950s. --- This, incidentally, was the
mostsuccessful and fruitful period in the Yugoslav grandmaster's career. Fivetimes in succession (and eleven in all) he became champion of his country, hefinished fourth in the Alekhine Memorial tournament in Moscow (1956), playedbrilliantly in the traditional Yugoslavia-USSR matches (defeating
Petrosian,Smyslov, Keres, Korchnoi, Taimanov...), shared 1st-2nd places in adouble-round tournament of eight grandmasters in Dallas (1957) and in thePortoroz Interzonal (1958), and at the tournament in Zürich (1959) he finishedonly half a point behind the phenomenal Tal, but ahead of Fischer, Larsen, andmany other famous players. Add to this his best score on board 1 (+9=6, aheadof Botvinnik) at the Olympiad in Munich (1958) and it will become clear whyGligoric's result at the Candidates tournament in Yugoslavia (1959) - ashare of 5th-6th places - was assessed by the press as 'a
score, not inaccordance with his consistently high achievements in recent years.' --- So,in his games with Tal and Sherwin (Portoroz Interzonal 1958) Gligoric employedthe counter ...h7-h5 in front of his king, which since then has become auniversal defence against the g2-g4 attack when there is castling on oppositesides (and not only in the King's Indian). This idea was tested by the expertsat the very highest level, then for a long time it faded into the background,but in the 1990s it was again seen in games of leading grandmasters. Toillustrate its wealth of content, I will give one of my own games. --- }
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 O-O 6.Be3 e5 7.Nge2 ( { After } 7.d5
c6 $1 ( 7...c5 { - Game No.10 } ) 8.Qd2 cxd5 9.cxd5 a6 10.g4 Nbd7 11.h4 { , }
11...h5 $1 { is even stronger: } 12.Bg5 Qa5 13.gxh5 Nxh5 { (with equality) }
14.Be7 $6 Re8 { (Tal-Gligoric, Portoroz Interzonal 1958), since } 15.Bxd6 $2
Qb6 $1 { is bad for White. } ) 7...c6 8.Qd2 ( 8.d5 $6 cxd5 9.cxd5 Ne8
{ - Volume 2,Game No.95 } ) 8...Nbd7 9.d5 cxd5 10.cxd5 a6
{ The modern move order, polishedby tournament praxis. } 11.g4 h5 $1
{ 'The only move that conforms to the logicof events. It exploits the
opponent's delay in developing his kingside andprobes the dark-squared
weaknesses, created by the move g2-g4, which was oncea fearful weapon in the Sämisch Variation.' (Gligoric) }
12.h3 (
{ This set-upunderwent a serious test in the 10th game of the Botvinnik-Tal
match (1960),where White employed the sharp plan with } 12.Bg5 $5 hxg4
13.fxg4 Nc5 14.Ng3 Bxg4 15.b4 ( 15.h3 Bf3 $1 ) 15...Ncd7 16.h3 Bf3 17.Rh2
{ and after } 17...a5 $6 ( { But } 17...Qb6 $1
{ and ...Rfc8 would have been better (Tal). } ) 18.b5 Qb6 19.Qf2 $1 Qxf2+
20.Rxf2 Bh5 21.b6 $1 { he gained the advantage. } ) ( { After } 12.g5 Nh7
13.Rg1 $5 { appeared at the end of the century: } ( 13.h4
{ , it is possibleto try both } 13...f6 ( { and } 13...b5 14.Ng3 Nb6 15.Bd3
Bd7 16.O-O-O Rc8
{ (Polugayevsky-Petrosian, 26th USSR Championship, Tbilisi 1959) } ) 14.gxf6
Rxf6 15.Ng1 b5 { (Szabo-Gligoric, Belgrade 1959) } ( { or even } 15...Rf4 $6
16.Bxf4 exf4
{ . In the opinion of Tal and Gligoric, 'Black's pluses are worth
thesacrificed exchange,' but the computer monster coldly replies } 17.Qxf4
{ and demands detailed evidence. I would not play this position against
amachine, but against a human - by all means. } ) ) 13...f6 14.gxf6 Rxf6 (
{ or } 14...Qxf6 15.O-O-O { (Karpov-Dolmatov, Groningen 1993) } ) 15.O-O-O (
15.Nc1 Qe8 $5 16.Be2 Nc5 ) 15...b5 16.b3 $1 Nb6 ( { Instead of 16...Nb6, }
16...Ndf8 $1
{ would appear to be more successful, forcing the f1-bishop to occupy
apassive position: } 17.Bg2 Bd7 18.Kb2 b4 19.Na4 Rb8
{ and Black's chances areat least equal (Campos Moreno-Comas Fabrego,
Catalonia 2000). } ) 17.Kb2 Bd7 18.Nc1 Be8 19.Be2 $1
{ (along with the b3-pawn - an important aid for White inthe struggle for
an advantage) } 19...b4 20.Nb1 a5 21.Nd3 Rf8
{ with a complicatedgame (Karpov-Topalov, 3rd matchgame, Varna rapidplay
1995). } ) 12...b5 $1
{ A novelty of the 1990s. The energetic move 12...b5!, beginning play over
theentire board, was the modernisation of the plan with ...h7-h5. } (
{ The pioneersplayed the immediate } 12...Nh7 13.Rg1 $1
{ is better (Timman introduced thismove back in the 1960s!) preventing the
occupation of g5. For example: } ( { with the idea of } 13.O-O-O h4 14.Kb1
Bf6 $1 { and ...Bg5 (Sherwin-Gligoric,Portoroz Interzonal 1958) } ) (
13.gxh5 $6 Qh4+ ) ( { while if } 13.h4 hxg4 14.fxg4
{ (Tal-Gligoric, Yugoslavia Candidates 1959), then } 14...Ndf6 $1 15.g5 Ng4
( 15...Nh5 $5 ) 16.Bg1 f6 { (Geller) } ( { or } 16...Bd7 { with equality. } )
) 13...h4 ( { or the somewhat passive } 13...hxg4 14.hxg4 Qh4+ 15.Rg3 Nc5
16.O-O-O Bd7 17.Rh3 Qe7 18.Ng3 Rac8 19.Kb1 f6 20.Be2 Rc7 21.Rdh1 Ng5
{ with chances ofequalising (Piket-Ivanchuk, Monaco rapidplay 1996). } )
14.Nc1 $1 ( 14.O-O-O b5 $1 ) 14...Kh8 ( 14...f6 $5 { and ...Ng5 } ) 15.Nb3
Bf6 16.g5 Be7 17.O-O-O f6 18.gxf6 Rxf6 19.Be2 Qf8 ( 19...Ndf8 $6 20.f4 $1 )
20.Kb1 { with advantage toWhite (Timman-Kasparov, Amsterdam 1996) } ) 13.Bg5
Qa5 $1 14.Nd1 ( { If } 14.Ng3 { there follows the thematic } 14...Nh7 $1
15.gxh5 ( { after } 15.Be7 Re8 16.Bxd6 { Black can play } 16...h4 17.Nge2 Qb6
18.Ba3 b4 19.Na4 Qf6 $1 20.Qxb4 Ng5 $1 21.Bg2 Nxf3+ 22.Bxf3 Qxf3 23.Rh2 Bh6
{ with a powerful initiative } ) 15...Nxg5 16.Qxg5 Bf6 17.Qh6 Bg7
{ ˝-˝ (Kramnik-Nijboer, Groningen 1991). } ) 14...b4 $5 (
{ A couple of months earlier the game Piket-Kasparov (Amsterdam 1996) went
} 14...Qxd2+ 15.Kxd2 Nc5 16.Nf2 Bd7 17.gxh5 ( { not venturing } 17.Ng3 Nh7
18.Be7 { on account of } 18...h4 $1 19.Bxf8 Kxf8 20.Ne2 Bh6+ 21.Ke1 Rc8
{ , which isprobably advantageous to Black } ) 17...Nxh5 $1 18.Be7 Rfc8
19.Bxd6 Nb7 20.Be7 f6 $1 21.Nd3 Kf7 22.Ba3 a5
{ with more than sufficient compensation forthe pawn. } ) 15.Ng3 (
{ The greedy } 15.gxh5 $6 Nxh5 16.Be7
{ might entice acomputer, but not a human: } 16...Bf6 $1 17.Bxf8 Bh4+ 18.Nf2
Kxf8 { followed by ...Nc5, ...Bd7 and so on. } ) 15...Nh7 $1 16.gxh5 (
{ Ivanchuk, like Kramnik,prefers the haven of a draw rather than the
unclear position after } 16.Be7 h4 $1 17.Bxf8 Kxf8 18.Ne2 Bf6 19.Ne3 Bg5
{ , when the dark-squared bishop isnot inferior to a rook. } ) 16...Nxg5
17.Qxg5 Bf6 18.Qh6 Bg7
{ . --- As we see,the 11...h5! idea proved perfectly viable, harbouring
reserves for improvement. } 1/2-1/2
[Event "12. Tel Aviv Olympiad"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1964.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Botvinnik, M."]
[Black "Gligoric, S."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "D83"]
[EventDate "1964.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ Of Gligoric's later successes I should mention his share of 3rd-5th
placeswith Keres and Petrosian, behind Tal and Fischer, in Bled (1961) and
hissplendid play at the Olympiads of 1960 and 1962. Here, notably, he twicedefeated Fischer, taking the score in his individual meetings with him
to+4-1=6 (the future world champion recouped his losses only in the early 1970s,gaining five successive wins). At the 1964 Olympiad the leader of the Yugoslavteam scored fewer points, but in the key match against the USSR with the blackpieces he inflicted the only defeat on the great
Botvinnik. --- This duel hada very curious psychological context. Gligoric was such an inveterate King'sIndian player that after opening 1 d4, his opponents, over the course of 25years, could anticipate exactly what position would arise on the board. 'Byrejecting the factor of surprise, I myself allowed my opponents theopportunity to demonstrate unexpected ideas' - that was Gligoric's credo.However, there are no rules without exceptions: against Botvinnik 'alreadyat the board I decided to deviate from my favourite King's Indian Defence,fearing some opening preparation by the
former world champion.' --- } 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 $5
{ Unexpected. 'Although I occasionally played thisopening, here I managed
to gain ten minutes on the clock: that was how longBotvinnik thought for,
in deciding which variation to choose.' (Gligoric) } 4.Bf4 Bg7 5.e3 (
{ 'I simply mixed up the move order, playing 5 e3 instead of } 5.Nf3 $1
{ , thereby allowing my opponent the opportunity to employ a variationthat
is advantageous to Black.' (Botvinnik) } ) 5...O-O ( 5...c5 { - Game No.29 }
) 6.Rc1 c5 7.dxc5 Be6 $1 ( { As is well known, } 7...Qa5 $6 8.cxd5 Rd8
{ is inferior due to } 9.Bc4 $1 { ; } ( { but not } 9.Qa4 Qxa4 10.Nxa4 Nxd5
{ (Capablanca-Reshevsky, AVRO tournament, Holland 1938) } ) ( { or } 9.Qd2
Nxd5
{ (Tolush-Botvinnik, 11th USSR Championship, Leningrad 1939) in each case
withequality. } ) ) 8.Nf3 Nc6 9.Ng5 $5 (
{ 'I made this move automatically,forgetting that e2-e3 and ...Nc6 had
already been played (without these moves,Ng5 or Nd4 is not bad),' explains
Botvinnik, who then gives the 'poor' } 9.Qa4 Ne4 10.Be2 Bxc3+ $5 11.bxc3 dxc4
{ with equality (Ragozin-Botvinnik, 8thmatchgame, Leningrad 1940) } ) (
{ and the 'best' } 9.Be2 { , although after } 9...Ne4 $1
{ Black has active play for the pawn (Lyublinsky-Smyslov, Moscow 1944/45).
} ) ( { Gligoric adds } 9.Nd4 Nxd4 10.exd4 dxc4 { with equality. } ) 9...Bg4
$1
{ 'I decided on this after 20 minutes' thought. I did not want to allow
Nxe6,and I didn't see any other way of exploiting the departure of the
white knightfrom the centre. At the same time, I didn't know what I was doing: fallingover a precipice or taking a brilliant decision that would
give me goodchances.' (Gligoric) } 10.f3 (
{ 'It was still possible to give preference tothe quiet } 10.Be2
{ ' (Botvinnik). But after } 10...Bxe2 11.Qxe2 ( { or } 11.Kxe2 d4 $1 )
11...e5 12.Bg3 d4 { White experiences some discomfort. } ) 10...e5 $1
{ Gambit play! 'Each time, when I found a successful reply to a prepared
novelty,the commentators asserted that this reply had been found at home,'
lamentsGligoric. 'Not without bitterness I remember such comments being made aboutthe piece sacrifice in my game with Botvinnik. In fact, such
decisions aredictated not by some "boldness", but by a feeling of extreme danger, therealisation that you may be completely outplayed - so you sacrifice, inorder that this does not happen.' --- Taking account the grandmaster'sglorious fighting past, here he probably felt more like a desperate
partisan,launching himself with a grenade against a tank. } 11.Bg3 $2 (
{ Botvinnik doesnot comment at all on this important moment, while Gligoric
writes: 'It isclear that } 11.fxg4 $2 exf4 12.cxd5 Nxd5
{ is advantageous to Black. } ) (
{ It was something else that I was unsure of: what would happen after }
11.cxd5 exf4 ( { but not } 11...Nxd5 $2 12.Qxd5 Bd7 13.Nxf7 $1 Rxf7 14.Bc4
{ and wins } ) 12.dxc6 ( 12.fxg4 $2 Nxd5 $1 ) 12...Qe7 $1
{ with strong counterplay for thesacrificed piece.' } 13.fxg4 $1
{ is stronger: } ( { Today it can be added thatafter } 13.e4 Rad8 14.Bd3 (
{ or } 14.Qc2 bxc6 $1 15.fxg4 $6 Nxg4 ) 14...bxc6 $1 15.fxg4 Nd7 $1
{ , Black does indeed have an excellent game (Dorfman-Tukmakov, 49th USSR
Championship, Frunze 1981); } ) 13...Qxe3+ 14.Be2 Nxg4 15.Nh3 $1 ( { not }
15.Rf1 Rad8 $1 16.Qc2 Nxh2 { Tukmakov } ) 15...Rad8 16.Qc2
{ with the idea of } 16...f3 ( { or } 16...Ne5
{ (Khalifman-Shipov, RussianChampionship, Krasnoyarsk 2003) } 17.c7 $1 Rd4 $1
{ (Shipov) with a very sharpstruggle } ) 17.gxf3 Ne5 18.Kf1 Nxf3 19.Bxf3
Qxf3+ 20.Nf2 Qxc6 21.Nce4 $1 { . } ) 11...d4 $1 12.fxg4 dxc3 13.Qxd8 Rfxd8
14.Rxc3 h6
{ 'White thought itbest to exchange queens, in order to safeguard his king,
which is caught inthe centre. For the moment he has a material advantage,
but his pawn formationis clearly worse than the opponent's. In addition, thanks to the fact thatBlack's pieces are well placed he soon regains
everything.' (Botvinnik) } 15.Nf3 ( { After } 15.Nh3 Ne4 $1 16.Rb3 Nxc5
17.Rb5 b6 { the rook would have founditself offside. } ) 15...Ne4 $1 16.Rc1
Nxc5 17.Be2 e4 18.Nd4 { (this is thelesser evil) } 18...Nxd4 19.exd4 Bxd4
20.b3 ( { 'If } 20.b4 { , } 20...Na6 $1 { , however,is a more forcing path: }
( { then } 20...Ne6 { with the unpleasant threat of 21...a5 (Gligoric). }
21.-- ( 21.-- ) ) 21.b5 ( 21.Rb1 $2 Nxb4 ) ( 21.a3 $2 Bb2 ) 21...Nb4 22.c5 (
{ or } 22.a4 Rac8 23.Bf2 Bb2 $1 24.Rd1 Nd3+ 25.Bxd3 exd3 26.c5 Bd4 )
22...Rac8 23.a3 Na2 24.Rc2 Nc3 { , winning a pawn and the game. } ) 20...Be3
21.Rd1 Rxd1+ 22.Bxd1 Rd8 23.Be2 a5 ( 23...Rd2 $2 24.Bf2 { with equality } )
( 23...Ne6 $5 { (Botvinnik) } ) 24.h4 Ne6 25.Rh3 Bc1 26.Be5 Nf4 ( { not }
26...Rd2 $2 27.Rc3 ) 27.Bxf4 Bxf4 28.c5 Rd2 29.Rc3 ( 29.a4 Rc2 ) 29...Rxa2
30.Kf2 Rb2 $1
{ and after a number of errors by both sides, Black won on the 78thmove.
--- } 31.h5 gxh5 32.gxh5 Kg7 33.g4 Bg5 34.Kf1 Rb1+ 35.Kg2 Bd2 36.Rc4 e3 37.c6
bxc6 38.Rxc6 Rxb3 39.Ra6 Rb8 40.Kf3 Rd8 41.Ke4 Re8+ 42.Kf4 Re6 43.Ra8 Rf6+
44.Ke4 Rf2 45.Kd3 Kf6 46.Rh8 Kg7 47.Ra8 Rf4 48.Rb8 Rf6 49.Ke4 Rc6 50.Ra8 Kf6
51.Ra7 Re6+ 52.Kf4 Bb4 53.Kf3 Re5 54.Kf4 Bd6 55.Kf3 Be7 56.Kf4 Bd6 57.Kf3 Kg7
58.Bc4 Be7 59.Be2 Bd8 60.Bc4 Be7 61.Be2 Kf6 62.Kf4 Bb4 63.Bc4 Re6 64.Kf3 Rc6
65.Rxf7+ Ke5 66.Bb5 Rc3 67.Rh7 Bf8 68.Rh8 Bg7 69.Re8+ Kd4 70.Re6 Rb3 71.Be2
Be5 72.Re8 Rb6 73.Kg2 Rb2 74.Kf1 Bf6 75.Rc8 Ra2 76.Rc6 Bg5 77.Rc8 Ke4 78.Rf8
a4 0-1
[Event "13. Rovinj-Zagreb"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1970.??.??"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Petrosian, T."]
[Black "Gligoric, S."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "E97"]
[EventDate "1970.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ In 1967 Gligoric performed successfully in the Interzonal in Sousse
(+7=14,share of 2nd-4th places) and again qualified for the Candidates
event. Afterstarting with a win in his quarter-final match with Tal (Belgrade), he wasleading 3-2 after five games. But then Gligoric's play
suffered apsychological slump, whereas Tal, by contrast, began playing with his formerstrength - and he won this difficult match (5˝-3˝). 'Naturally, thepublic supported their "Gliga" - that is how he is called by his friendsand numerous admirers in Yugoslavia. But the match atmosphere
- friendly andcordial - was equally favourable for both sides. And this was primarily tothe credit of my opponent,' Tal later recalled. --- From the late 1950sGligoric combined intensive chess appearances with professional journalism -for seven years he worked as a political commentator and reporter for aleading Yugoslav daily. He also had enough energy to take an active part inchess organisation (I think that it was no accident that the historic 'Matchof the Century', USSR v. Rest of the World, took place in Belgrade). Butafter the match with Tal he soberly
admitted that this was the limit of hispossibilities, and from then on, despite participating in a further twoInterzonal tournaments, he effectively opted out of the battle for the chesscrown and played simply for pleasure, while remaining a formidable opponentfor any grandmaster. --- This is shown by the following instructive game withPetrosian. The history of their individual meetings is quite bloodthirsty:+11-8=19 in favour of Petrosian, who went ahead only after three successivewins in the mid-1970s. The Yugoslav had an overwhelming score with White (+5),but suffered a disaster with Black (+3-11). However, on that April day in 1970it all turned out differently. --- }
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 O-O 6.Nf3 e5 7.O-O (
{ Petrosian avoided his favourite } 7.d5 Nbd7 8.Bg5
{ , because his opponent was very confident in his handling of the
variation } ( { a month earlier White had also achieved nothing after } 8.Qc2
$5 a5 9.Bg5 ( 9.O-O Nc5 { with equality } ) 9...h6 10.Be3 Ng4 11.Bd2 Nc5
12.h3 Nf6 13.Be3 Nh7 $1
{ with equality (Petrosian-Gligoric, Kapfenberg 1970) } ) 8...h6 9.Bh4 g5
10.Bg3 Nh5 { . } ) 7...Nc6 8.d5 Ne7 9.b4
{ Taimanov's energetic move, which iscurrently very popular. } 9...Nh5 (
{ At that time } 9...Ne8 ) ( { or } 9...Nd7
{ wasmore often chosen, but Gligoric preferred 'an active reply: Black
begins abattle on the part of the board where he is stronger.' } ) 10.Nd2
{ A novelty,devised at the board especially for his all-knowing opponent. }
(
{ Strangelyenough, the move 9...Nh5 was not known to Petrosian: yet many
games on thistheme had been played in the 'pre-Informator' era. Nowadays
games immediatelyappear on the Internet and thus the life of novelties is measured in hours.Modern professionals do not have the right to be
forgetful - it is 'lifethreatening!' The following has occurred many times: }
10.g3 f5 11.Ng5 ( 11.Ne1 $6 Nf6 12.f3 f4 $1 13.g4 g5 14.Nd3 Ng6 15.c5 h5
16.h3 Rf7 { Matulovic-Gligoric, Ljubljana 1960 } ) 11...Nf6 12.f3 f4 $1 (
12...h6 13.Ne6 Bxe6 14.dxe6 c6 15.b5 $1 { Taimanov-Gligoric, Santa Fe 1960 }
) 13.b5 h6 14.Ne6 Bxe6 15.dxe6 fxg3 $1 16.hxg3 Qc8 17.Nd5 Qxe6 18.Nxc7 Qh3
{ withequality (Pachman-Taimanov, Havana 1967). } ) (
{ Against Uhlmann (Zagreb 1965)and Gligoric (Lugano 1970) Larsen
unsuccessfully tried } 10.c5 $6 Nf4 11.Bxf4 exf4
{ . The drawbacks of this plan were also revealed in the
gameKamsky-Kasparov (New York rapidplay 1994): } 12.Rc1 a5 $1 13.cxd6 cxd6
14.Nb5 Bg4 15.Rc7 axb4 16.Qd2 Bxf3 $1 17.Bxf3 Be5 18.Rxb7 Qa5 { etc. } ) (
{ But inthe mid-1990s the main line emerged - } 10.Re1 $1
{ , becoming popularlargely thanks to some wins by Kramnik. However, here
too Black increasinglyoften achieves good play: } 10...a5 ( 10...f5 11.Ng5
{ is also at the centre ofattention } ) 11.bxa5 ( 11.Ba3 Nf4 12.Bf1 Bg4 $1
{ Kramnik-Gelfand, Dortmund1996 } ) 11...f5 $1 12.Nd2 Nf6 13.c5 Rxa5 14.cxd6
cxd6 15.a4 Bh6 16.Ba3 Bxd2 17.Qxd2 fxe4 18.Bb5 Bf5 19.h3 Ra8
{ with equality (Kramnik-Smirin,Moscow rapidplay 2002). } ) 10...Nf4 11.a4 (
{ If } 11.Bf3 { , Gligoricrecommended } 11...Nd3 ( 11...f5
{ with the idea of ...Kh8 and ... Ng8-f6 is good } ) 12.Ba3 a5
{ , having in mind something like } ( 12...c5 { is also interesting } )
13.bxa5 Rxa5 14.Nb5 Bd7 $5 ( 14...c6 $2 15.Nb3 $1 ) ( 14...Nc5 $5 15.Nb3 Nxb3
16.Qxb3 Bd7 17.Bb4 Ra6 ) 15.Nb3 Ra4
{ with a sharp struggle (Anand-Gelfand, Dortmund 1997). } ) 11...f5
{ The pawn chains erected by the twoplayers are about to collapse, and then
the bishops will display their power. } ( { Therefore the exchange }
11...Nxe2+ 12.Qxe2
{ would have been a minorvictory for Black, giving him a perfectly
acceptable game after } 12...f5 13.c5 fxe4 14.cxd6 cxd6 15.Ndxe4 Nf5 { . } )
12.Bf3
{ 'This move gave me a slightpsychological shock, which lasted some five
minutes. Perhaps this bishopshould have been exchanged? Having overcome my
confusion, I spent twentyminutes searching for the best reply at this critical moment of the battle.And I found what was evidently the only correct
move.' (Gligoric) Clearlybeing a follower of Tarrasch, the Yugoslav grandmaster firmly believed in theexistence of the best move in any position and in the fact that he was able tofind it. It was this confidence that helped him to defeat Petrosian, who wasracked by doubts and dissatisfaction. }
12...g5 ( { The exchange } 12...fxe4 $6 13.Ndxe4
{ would have included the e7-knight in the play - } 13...Nf5 { , but after }
14.g3 Nh3+ 15.Kg2
{ White would have driven the other knight offside and gainedan advantage:
} 15...Qd7 16.Bg4 Ne3+ 17.Bxe3 Qxg4 18.Qxg4 Bxg4 19.f3 Bf5 20.Nb5
{ . However, the move in the game also does not solve the problem of
White'sdomination of the e4-square. } ) ( { Perhaps, therefore, } 12...Kh8 $5
13.a5 Ng8 14.c5 Nf6 { was more promising, and only if } 15.Ba3 { - } 15...g5
$1 { . } ) 13.exf5 Nxf5 14.g3 $6
{ A weakening, provoked by the fully understandable desire toplay Nde4; } (
{ after excluding the variation } 14.Nde4 $6 Nh4 $1 15.Bxf4 ( 15.a5 $2 Nh3+
$1 ) 15...exf4 { , which would delight the black bishops. } ) ( { But }
14.Be4 $1
{ and Nb3 was more solid, maintaining White's influence on events inthe
centre and quite good prospects. } ) 14...Nd4 $5
{ After prolonged thoughtGligoric sacrifices a piece in the style of Tal! I
think that on this occasionit was Petrosian who got a shock: imagine
receiving such a 'gift' with theclock ticking away... } (
{ Of course, he expected } 14...Nh3+ 15.Kg2
{ . However,later the unexpected manoeuvre } 15...Qd7 $1
{ was found, giving Black sufficientcounterplay: } (
{ he was not afraid of the dashing attack } 15...g4 $6 16.Bxg4 Nxf2
{ in view of } 17.Kxf2 Nh6+ 18.Bf3 Ng4+ 19.Ke2 Nxh2 20.Nce4 Nxf1 21.Kxf1 )
16.Nb3 ( 16.Bg4 $2 Nxf2 $1 ) ( 16.Nde4 $2 Nd4 17.Bh5 Nf4+ $1 ) ( 16.Be4 g4 $1
17.Nb3 Qe7 { (Mannion-Smirin, Las Vegas 1997) } ) 16...Nd4 17.Nxd4 exd4
18.Nb5 c6 $1 19.Na3 Rxf3 20.Qxf3 g4 21.Qb3 Qe7 22.Ra2 Bf5
{ (Keene-Kavalek,Teesside 1975). } ) ( { Not } 14...Ng6 $2 15.Nde4 Nd4
16.Bxg5 $1 { . } ) 15.gxf4 { This condemns White to a difficult defence; } (
{ but there is nothing else: } 15.Bg4 $2 Bxg4 16.Qxg4 Nde2+ $1 17.Nxe2 h5
{ , trapping the queen } ) 15...Nxf3+ ( { After } 15...exf4 16.Be4 $6 (
{ apart from } 16.Nde4 Nxf3+ 17.Qxf3 g4 18.Qd1
{ , transposing into a position which could have arisen in the game } ) (
{ it isalso possible to play } 16.Bg4 f3 $1 ( { Geller's recommendation }
16...Bxg4 $6 17.Qxg4 f3 { is not good on account of } 18.Nde4 $1 Ne2+ 19.Nxe2
fxe2 20.Qxe2 Bxa1 21.Bxg5 ) 17.Bxc8 Qxc8 18.Kh1 $1 Ne2 19.Nxe2 fxe2 20.Qxe2
Bxa1 21.Ne4 $1 { with sufficient compensation for the exchange } ) 16...f3
17.Ra3 g4 $1 ) 16.Qxf3 (
{ According to Gligoric, it was more cautious to try } 16.Nxf3 g4 $1
{ immediately is more accurate, and if } ( 16...exf4 17.Bb2 g4 18.Kh1
{ ,'returning the piece in order to restore the balance' } ( { but } 18.Nd4
$5 { comes into consideration } ) 18...gxf3 19.Rg1 Kh8 20.Qxf3 Be5
{ with equality. } ) ( { not } 16...e4 $2 17.Nxg5 $1 Bxc3 18.Ra3 Bg7 19.Rg3
{ and wins } ) 17.Kh1 ( { However, here too after } 17.Nd2 $5 exf4 18.Nde4
{ Black still has to seekreal compensation for the piece } ) 17...gxf3
18.Qxf3 Bf5 19.Rg1 Bg6 20.Bd2 Qd7 21.Ne4 Rae8 { with equality (Smirin). } )
16...g4 $1
{ Gligoric's prettyidea, although it involves a risk, is psychologically
very effective. It isone of those 'Tal instances', when the opponent finds
a defence... after thegame. } 17.Qh1 $2
{ 'I did not expect such a passive reply. } (
{ However, suchmanoeuvres are typical of Petrosian's original style: in one
of his games (Zagreb 1965), with his king on h1 and pawns on f2, g2 and h2
he unexpectedlyplayed Qe1-g1, defending his h2-square and freeing his hands on the queenside,where he in fact decided the game in his favour,' writes
Gligoric, recommending } 17.Qd3 Bf5 18.Nde4 ( { however, } 18.Nce4 $5 exf4
19.Rb1 { and Bb2 comesinto consideration } ) 18...exf4 19.Bxf4
{ with the return of the piece: } ( 19.Re1 f3 20.Bb2 Re8
{ and ...Qh4 with equality } ) 19...Bxe4 20.Qxe4 Bxc3 21.Ra3 Qf6
{ with equality. --- I think, nevertheless, that 17 Qh1? was not the
fruitof Petrosian's original style, but the consequence of extreme
dissatisfactionwith his play. Upset by the unexpected turn of events, he was unable to forcehimself to solve some difficult (but perfectly
solvable!) problems. 'It isoften debated what is meant by a chess player's "poor form",' writes Petrosian. }
) (
{ 'I realised that by hiding my king in the corner I would come under
astrong attack, and yet rather than a probable draw after } 17.Qd3 exf4 18.f3
$1 Bf5 19.Nde4 gxf3 20.Rxf3 Bxc3 21.Qxc3 Bxe4 22.Rxf4 Qg5+ 23.Qg3 Qxg3+
24.hxg3 Rxf4 25.Bxf4 a5 26.bxa5 Rxa5 27.Re1 Bg6 28.Re7 Rc5 29.Bh6 Rxc4
30.Rg7+ Kh8 31.Rd7 Kg8 32.Rg7+ { I preferred an essentially certain loss. } )
(
{ Is it not such an unfortunate choice out of several possibilities that is
anindication of poor form?' It seems to me that } 17.Qd1 $5 exf4 18.Nde4
{ is more interesting (as has already been mentioned, this position could
alsohave risen by a different move order). However, Petrosian was hoping
toliberate his queen from h1 by advancing his h2-pawn, but a convenientopportunity for this was missed on the very next move and was no longerpresent
afterwards. } ) 17...exf4 18.Bb2 $6
{ 'A series of bad moves, once ithas begun, is sometimes hard to halt.'
(Petrosian) Of course, one wants toexchange the powerful bishop at g7 as
soon as possible, but the place for thebishop was at d2, where it could have defended the rook at e1 and given thequeen the opportunity to came
back into play. } ( { Petrosian thought that } 18.Ra3 { was best, but after }
18...Qh4 19.Nde4 Be5 20.Bd2 Bf5 21.Re1 Rae8
{ followedby ...Re7, ...Rfe8, ...f4-f3! and a move by the bishop from e5
White wouldhave had to find a way to avoid a catastrophe on the back rank
(the faultlying with the Kg1 and Qh1 'sweethearts'). } ) (
{ Therefore the immediate } 18.Nde4 $1 { is correct, and if } 18...Qh4 (
{ while if } 18...Bf5 19.Bd2 Qe8 { - } 20.Rae1 Qg6 21.h4 $1 gxh3+ 22.Kh2 f3
23.Rg1 Be5+ 24.Ng3 Bg4 25.Rxe5 $1 { and Nge4 } ) ( { or } 18...f3 19.Bd2 Qh4
{ and after } 20.Ng3 Be5 21.Rfe1 Bf5 22.Ra3 Rae8 23.Nd1 $1
{ White avoids the dangers by making use of the transitpoint e3 } ) 19.Bd2
Be5 { even } 20.f3 Bd4+ 21.Rf2 { is possible. } ) 18...Bf5 19.Rfe1 ( { If }
19.Nd1 $6 Bxb2 20.Nxb2 { , then } 20...Qf6 $1 21.Ra2 Qd4 { is unpleasant. } )
19...f3 { (the trap snaps shut) } 20.Nde4 { A difficult choice. } (
{ 'Blackwould also have had a strong attack after } 20.h4
{ ' (Gligoric). He evidentlyhad in mind } 20...gxh3 21.Nxf3 ( 21.Qxf3 $2 Qg5+
) ( 21.Nf1 Qg5+ 22.Kh2 Qf4+ ) 21...Bg4 22.Nd2 ( 22.Re3 Bh6 ) 22...Qh4
{ etc. } ) ( { It was also unattractive to play } 20.Nxf3 gxf3 21.Qxf3 Qh4
22.Nd1 Bxb2 23.Nxb2 Rf6 $1 { with the initiative; } ) ( { or } 20.Nf1 Qh4
21.Ne3 ( { this is better than } 21.Nd1 Bxb2 22.Nxb2 Qf6 $1 ) ( { or } 21.Re3
Bd4 22.Rae1 Rae8 $1 23.Nd1 Bxe3 24.Ndxe3 Bd3 25.h3 Bxf1 26.Kxf1 g3 ) 21...Bg6
22.Ra2 Rae8 { with excellent compensation for the piece. } ) 20...Qh4
{ 'Threatening a possible ...Qh3, shutting in the white queen forever.'
(Petrosian) } 21.h3 $2 { The direct route to the scaffold. } (
{ For somereason everyone has overlooked the move } 21.Nd1 $1
{ , which maintains theintrigue: } 21...Bh6 $5 { is a more cunning idea: } (
21...Bxb2 22.Nxb2 Qh3 { (killingthe resource h2-h3) } 23.Re3 Bxe4 24.Rxe4
Rfe8 25.Rae1 { and if } 25...Qh5 { , then } 26.h3 $1 ) ( { or } 21...Qh3
22.Bxg7 Kxg7 23.Ng3
{ and it is not apparent howBlack can exploit the stalemated position of
the queen at h1. } ( 23.-- ) ) 22.Bc1 ( { after } 22.Bd4 Bxe4 23.Rxe4 Rae8
{ , both } 24.Rxe8 ( { and } 24.Nc3 Bd2 25.Rd1 Bxc3 $1 26.Rxe8 Rxe8 27.Bxc3
Re2 ) 24...Rxe8 25.Ne3 Bxe3 $5 26.Bxe3 ( { or } 26.fxe3 Rf8 ) 26...Qf6 $1
{ are dangerous } ) 22...Rae8 $1 23.Bxh6 Qxh6 24.Ndc3 Re5 25.h3 $1 (
{ but not } 25.Re3 Rfe8 26.Rae1 Bxe4 27.h3 $2 g3 $1 28.Nxe4 Rxe4 29.Qxf3
gxf2+ 30.Kxf2 Rxe3 31.Rxe3 Rf8 { and wins } ) 25...Qg7 26.hxg4 Bxe4 27.Nxe4
Qe7 28.Qh6 Rxe4
{ with advantage to Black, although itis rather early to speak of him
winning. } ) 21...Be5 $1 22.Re3 ( { Also fatal is } 22.Nd1 Rae8 ) ( { or }
22.hxg4 Qxg4+ 23.Kf1 Bxc3 24.Bxc3 Bxe4 25.Rxe4 Qxe4 26.Qg1+ Qg6 { . } )
22...gxh3 23.Qxf3 Bg4 $1
{ The queen is again driven intothe corner, and the final agony begins. }
24.Qh1 h2+ 25.Kg2 ( 25.Kf1 Rf3 $1 ) 25...Qh5 $1 26.Nd2 Bd4 $1 27.Qe1 (
{ If } 27.Rae1 { Black mates with theelegant } 27...Bh3+ $1 28.Rxh3 Rxf2+
29.Kg3 Qg5# { . } ) 27...Rae8 $1 28.Nce4 Bxb2 29.Rg3 Be5 30.Raa3 Kh8 31.Kh1
Rg8 32.Qf1 Bxg3 33.Rxg3 $2 Rxe4
{ . A severepsychological defeat for Petrosian! --- Incidentally, at the
start of thistournament Gligoric also won a King's Indian duel against
Smyslov, and in theend he shared 2nd-5th places with Smyslov, Korchnoi and Hort, behind theirrepressible Fischer. Petrosian finished sixth, half a
point behind thequartet, after losing only one game in the 17 rounds (see above). So should hehave talked about his poor form? It was more probable that on that day he wassimply not ready for a fierce struggle - such a condition is familiar toprofessionals. }
0-1
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "I Play Against Pieces"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ After becoming an international arbiter in 1972, Gligoric
subsequentlycontrolled a number of events, including my matches with
Korchnoi (London 1983)and Karpov (Moscow 1984/85). Alas, during the days of the scandalousconclusion to the Moscow match, which was
terminated after numerous delays, hewas unable to oppose the dictat of the Soviet authorities and the FIDEPresident Campomanes. When, for the umpteenth time I demanded an explanationof what was happening, the Yugoslav grandmaster sadly lamented: 'You know,in this
matter I am no more than a doorkeeper.' Indeed, what could the chiefarbiter do here, if in Baguio (1978) even the FIDE President Euwe had beenunable to defend Korchnoi against Soviet aggression? In my view, this is oneof the troubles with modern world chess: genuine experts have been pushedaside by politicians. }
1.--
{ 'I Play Against Pieces' - this is whatGligoric called his book of
selected games, explaining: 'Chess is a strugglewith oneself. I never play
against the opponent, I play against his pieces.'The judgements of this chess fighter have not lost their value even today: ---'Chess has
entered a highly professional era. Every year hundreds of gamesthat are important for opening theory are played. Those who take partregularly in competitions are obliged to process the constantly expandinginformation and to spend an increasing amount of time at the board (now at
thecomputer - G.K.), analysing new games and preparing for coming encounters.Your way of life has to be completely subordinate to your chess activity. Butall the same you can't retain everything in your head, and therefore many tryto make life easier by restricting their opening repertoire. --- 'Nowadaysit is not often that one improvises at the board. Many aim to employ adefinite variation, well prepared for play against a specific opponent.However, no one is guaranteed against opening surprises. In this case one isforced to seek the best solution at the
board. On finding myself in such asituation, I would usually cope with the problems, by following the principleof "the decisive moment": you have to find the correct, sometimes even theonly correct move or entire plan, that will refute the opponent's idea.Usually I was helped by the conviction that novelties by my opponents invariations well known to me were unlikely to be positionally well-founded, andtherefore I could and should find their defects and their refutation.' }
( 1.--
{ I should add that Gligoric, on the basis of his own experience,
consideredthe optimal age of a chess player to be 33-36. But today, with
the appearanceof powerful computers and the Internet, chess is rapidly growing younger.There has been a revolutionary change, not only in the
process of preparation,but also in chess thinking itself: now there is little sense in relying, asbefore, on general evaluations of the type 'unclear' or 'withcompensation' - you have to think very concretely. Instead of deepreflection and philosophising at the board, what has
come to the forefront isthe ability to calculate intensively and to maintain extreme concentration ofthought throughout the game. Computer programs help young talents to quicklyacquire the necessary knowledge, since a tenacious young memory can store agreat amount of information, and deficiencies in positional understanding arecompensated by precise calculation and the ability to maintain the tension ofthe struggle. By contrast, the brain of a player older than thirty, tired outby the constant effort, gradually gets rid of the information that
isoverfilling it and increasingly, in the interests of self-preservation,suddenly switches off at the most inappropriate moment... --- At the time whenI am writing these lines, Svetozar Gligoric has already turned 80, but he isstill full of spirit and is respected throughout the chess world. }
) *
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "A Modest Little Pawn Move"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "E12"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ Let us now turn to another variation which also bears Petrosian's name -
inthe Queen's Indian Defence: } 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.Nc3 ( { or } 4.a3
$5 ) 4...Bb7 5.a3 $5
{ . His contribution here is possibly not so significant asin the King's
Indian, but in its time the plan with a2-a3 was a revolutionarystep. This
was also played by Simagin, but it was Petrosian who breathed lifeinto this idea and gave it wide international recognition. --- From theviewpoint
of classical chess, the move a2-a3 in the Queen's Indian Defencelooks completely senseless. In fact it incorporates a very deep prophylacticidea. By preventing ...Bb4, White maintains the pressure of the c3-knight onthe d5- and e4-squares - paradoxically, this is a struggle for the centre!As
for the bishop, which is accustomed to the route f8-b4xc3, Black is forcedto develop it differently. That is, it destroys the flexible construction with...Nf6, ...Bb7, ...Bb4xc3, ...d7-d6, ...Nbd7 and so on (Karpov and many otherleading players play this constantly: they simply like this flexible position).By deviating from the traditional Queen's Indian set-ups, White sharplychanges the character of the play, immediately forcing the opponent to solvethe problem of control over the central squares. --- Of course, during theintervening decades a number of ways of combating this
cunning, venomousvariation have been found, but even so to this day 4 a3 (or 4 Nc3 Bb7 5 a3) isno less popular than the classical 4 g3. Moreover, in the 1980s there was evena period when the Petrosian Variation practically supplanted the Nimzo-IndianDefence and the Queen's Indian with 4 g3. --- But we will focus on one of thefirst attempts, which was made during the Zonal 28th USSR Championship (Moscow1961) - Tigran Petrosian's second 'gold'. }
*
[Event "14. 28th USSR Championship, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1961.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Petrosian, T."]
[Black "Smyslov, V."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "E12"]
[EventDate "1961.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.d4 Bb7 5.a3 d5 { The most natural reaction. } (
{ It is inferior to play } 5...d6
{ (Simagin-Smyslov, 22nd USSR Championship,Moscow 1955). It is very
important that the variation's baptism of fire takesplace at the very
highest level: Black's position is upheld by the greatSmyslov! } ) 6.cxd5
Nxd5 ( { It is this capture, rather than } 6...exd5
{ , thatcorresponds with Vasily Vasilievich's chess philosophy. The capture
with thepawn is hardly any worse - it is simply slightly more passive and
creates adifferent structure, which is not to the taste of many players. } )
( { After theactive } 6...Nxd5
{ , on the other hand, White has the opportunity to create amobile pawn
centre. } ) 7.e3
{ The good old classical move. At that time itseemed the most fundamental
and White did not yet see the need to changeanything. } (
{ Other ideas emerged later on: -- 1) } 7.Bd2 Nd7 ( 7...c5 $6 8.e4 $1 Nxc3
9.Bxc3 Bxe4 10.Ne5 { with an attack } ) 8.Qc2 ( 8.Nxd5 $5 exd5 9.g3 ) 8...c5
( 8...N5f6 $5 9.e4 c5 { Tukmakov-Polugayevsky, Kiev 1984 } ) 9.Nxd5 $5 (
9.e4 Nxc3 10.Bxc3 cxd4 11.Nxd4 a6 ) 9...exd5 ( { or } 9...Bxd5 10.e4 Bb7
11.d5 $1 exd5 12.exd5 Bd6 13.O-O-O O-O 14.Bb5
{ (Dreev-Tiviakov, Dos Hermanas2003), } ) 10.dxc5 bxc5 11.e3 Be7 12.Bd3
{ (Kamsky-Karpov, 10th matchgame,Elista 1996) in both cases with tense
play. } ) ( { 2) } 7.Qc2 { (the most popular) } 7...Nxc3 $1
{ is the most accurate reply, for example: or } (
{ Here it is dubious to play } 7...Nd7 8.Nxd5 exd5 9.Bg5
{ (Kasparov-Karpov, 32nd matchgame, Moscow 1984/85) } ) ( { and } 7...c5
8.dxc5 $1 ( { after } 8.e4 Nxc3 9.bxc3 { Black fails toequalise by } 9...Nc6
( 9...Be7 $6 10.Bb5+ Bc6 11.Bd3 $1
{ , as in my games withMurey and Gheorghiu, Moscow Interzonal 1982 } ) (
9...Nd7 $1 10.Bd3 Qc7 $1
{ with equality, Kasparov-Sosonko, Lucerne Olympiad 1982 } ) 10.Bb2 $1 Rc8 $6
11.Rd1 $1 ) 8...Bxc5 9.Bg5 Qc7 10.Rc1 h6 11.Bh4 a5 12.Na4 Nd7 13.e4 $1
{ with the initiative (Kasparov-Van der Wiel, Amsterdam 1988). } ) 8.bxc3 (
8.Qxc3 Nd7 9.Bg5 Be7 10.Bxe7 Kxe7 11.g3 ( 11.e3 Rc8 12.Be2 c5 $1
{ withequality, Portisch-Karpov, Biel 1996 } ) 11...Nf6 12.Bg2 Qd6 13.b4 Rad8
{ with approximate equality (Bareev-Karpov, Belgrade 1996) } ) 8...Nd7 9.e4
c5 10.Bf4 Be7 11.d5 exd5 12.exd5 O-O 13.Rd1 { , and now } 13...Re8 ( 13...g5
14.Be3 g4 15.Ng1 f5 { Radjabov-Kramnik, Linares 2003. } ) ) 7...Be7 (
{ A more criticalalternative is } 7...g6 $5
{ - the modern interpretation: a hybrid of twodefences, the Queen's Indian
and Grünfeld. There can follow } 8.Bb5+ ( 8.h4 $5
{ Polugayevsky-Korchnoi, London 1984 } ) 8...c6 9.Ba4 $5 ( 9.Bd3 Bg7 10.e4
Nxc3 11.bxc3 c5 12.Bg5 Qd6
{ (Kasparov-Korchnoi, 1st matchgame, London 1983; myonly defeat against
Korchnoi!) } ( 12...-- ) ) 9...Bg7 10.e4 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Ba6 $1 12.h4 Qc7 13.e5
Nd7 14.Bf4 h6 15.Qc1 O-O-O 16.Qe3 c5 17.Nd2 Kb8
{ with sharp play (Kasparov-Timman, Amsterdam 1991). Largely because of
this newreply, White lost interest in 7 e3. But for Smyslov ...g7-g6 would
have beentoo revolutionary! Besides, what is the difference: why not play ...Be7 here? }
) 8.Bb5+
{ (it is important to create at least a little disorder in the blackranks)
} 8...c6 9.Bd3 c5
{ Not a bad move, although later Black began avoiding theresulting
positions. } ( { After } 9...O-O
{ White immediately seizes control ofthe centre by } 10.e4 Nxc3 11.bxc3
{ , which, however, is not so terrible. } ) ( { But the main tabiya is }
9...Nxc3 10.bxc3 c5 11.O-O { (Game No.45). } ) 10.Nxd5 $5
{ (an additional chance) } ( { if } 10.e4 { the simplest is } 10...Nxc3 (
{ althoughthere is also } 10...cxd4 $6 11.Nxd5 exd5 12.e5
{ with the initiative } ) ) 10...Qxd5 { A risky sortie. } (
{ It was more cautious to play } 10...exd5 11.b3
{ with a minimal advantage for White. } ) 11.dxc5 Qxc5 ( { Later } 11...Bxc5
12.Bb5+ Ke7 13.Qe2 a5 14.Bd2
{ was also tried, with an obvious advantage toWhite (Gheorghiu-Karpov,
Moscow 1981). The position looks almost symmetric,but in the placing of the
black pieces there is a barely perceptible lack ofharmony, and Petrosian begins methodically exploiting it. }
) 12.Bd2 $1 Nc6 13.Rc1 Qd6 $6
{ Smyslov makes the most 'solid' move on general grounds, failing tosense
all the dangers lurking in the position: a symmetrical structure oftenleads
to complacency. } ( { The only way to retain equalising chances was by }
13...Qd5 14.Qc2 Rc8 ( { after } 14...Rd8 $6 15.Be4 $1 Nb4 $1 16.Qa4+ Qd7
17.Qxd7+ Rxd7 18.Bxb7 Nd3+ 19.Kd1 $1 Rxb7 20.Rc8+ Bd8 21.Ke2 Nc5 22.Rc1
{ Black has an inferior endgame: } 22...Kd7 ( { or } 22...O-O 23.b4 Ne4
24.Be1 Bf6 25.R1c7 Rxc7 26.Rxc7 Ra8 27.a4 b5 28.a5 a6 29.Rc6 ) 23.Ra8 f6
24.Rd1 ) 15.Be4 ( { if } 15.Bc3 { , then } 15...Qh5 { and ...0-0 } ) 15...Qd7
16.Bc3 f5 17.Bd3 O-O 18.O-O Bd6 19.Rfd1 Ne7 { . } ) 14.Qc2 Rc8 15.O-O h6 (
{ Black has definite problems: } 15...g6
{ looks bad. Even so, perhaps this was the lesser evil, althoughafter }
16.Bc3 O-O 17.Rfd1 Qb8 18.b4 { White would have retained a stableadvantage. }
) 16.Rfd1 O-O 17.Bc3 Qb8 (
{ The white bishops, trained on thekingside, create obvious difficulties
for Black: } 17...Qc5 { (recommended byPetrosian) } 18.Bh7+ ( 18.b4 $6 Qh5
19.Bh7+ Kh8 20.Rd7 $2 Nxb4 $1 21.axb4 Bxf3 22.gxf3 Bf6 ) 18...Kh8 19.Rd7 Ba8
( 19...Nd8 $2 20.Be4 ) 20.Be4 Rfd8 21.b4 Qh5 22.Rcd1
{ with a great advantage, close to decisive. It followsthat this symmetry
is only apparent. Note the qualitative difference in theplacing of the two
sides' pieces. About the bishops it has already been said -Black's are clearly inferior to White's. The knight at c6 is rather passive,and it would
stand far better at f6. The black queen rushes about the board,not knowing where to go. It finally hides at b8, but here too White finds anelegant manoeuvre. }
) 18.Qa4 $1
{ 'A simple move, but one of murderous strength.The switch of the queen to
the kingside enables White to obtain anirresistible attack.' (Petrosian)
Nowadays this manoeuvre has become typical,classical. It is not altogether clear how Black should defend his king,although at first sight there are as
yet no direct grounds for concern. } 18...Rfd8 ( { If } 18...g6 19.h4 $5
{ (threatening h4-h5) is also very logical: } ( { Petrosian studied } 19.Be4
) ( { but it is also good to play } 19.Qg4 h5 20.Qh3 Rcd8 ( 20...Rfd8 $2
21.Bxg6 ) 21.g4 Rd5 22.e4 Rxd3 23.Rxd3 Qf4 24.Rcd1 Qxe4 25.gxh5 g5 26.Re3 )
19...h5 20.Qc2 Kh7 21.b4 Nd8 22.Qe2
{ , in both caseswith powerful pressure. It is evident that there are
already too manyweaknesses in Black's position. } ) 19.Qe4
{ (provoking more weaknesses) } ( { here too } 19.h4 $5 { was possible } )
19...g6 20.Qg4 h5 ( { if } 20...Kh7 $2 { , then } 21.Bxg6+ $1 fxg6 22.Qxe6
Rf8 23.Rd7 ) 21.Qh3 f5 $2
{ The decisivemistake, catastrophically weakening the e6- and g6-squares. }
( { The last chancewas } 21...e5 $5
{ , although it is most likely that this 'terrible' move wasnot even
considered by the two players: } 22.Bc4 $1
{ (I think that Petrosianwould have played this, increasing the pressure on
f7 and on the e-pawn) } ( 22.Bxg6 $6 fxg6 23.Qe6+ Kf8 24.Qxg6 ( 24.Bxe5 Rxd1+
25.Rxd1 Rd8 $1 26.Rc1 Qc8 27.Qxg6 Nxe5 28.Qh6+ Kg8 29.Rxc8 Rxc8 30.Qe6+ Kf8
{ is unclear } ) 24...Rxd1+ $1 ( { but not } 24...Qc7 $2 25.Qf5+ Kg8 26.Qe6+
Kf8 27.Bxe5 $1 ) 25.Rxd1 Rd8 26.Qh6+ { with only perpetual check. } )
22...Rxd1+ ( 22...e4 23.Nh4 $1 Rxd1+ 24.Rxd1 Rd8 25.Rd7 $1 ) 23.Rxd1 Rd8
24.Rd7 $1 Qc8 25.Qg3 $1 { and now thereonly remains } ( 25.Qg3 $1 Rxd7 $2 (
{ or } 25...Qxd7 $2 26.Qxg6+ Kh8 27.Qxh5+ Kg7 28.Qxf7+ Kh6 29.Bxe5 $1 )
26.Qxg6+ Kh8 27.Qxh5+ Kg7 28.Qxf7+ Kh6
{ and here the uncommonly paradoxical move } 29.Bb3 $3 { wins, for example: }
( 29.Qe6+ Kh7 30.Qh3+ Kg7 31.Qg4+ Kh6 32.Nxe5 Nxe5 33.Bxe5 Rd1+ 34.Qxd1 Qxc4
{ is unclear } ) 29...Nd8 $1 ( 29...Rd3 30.Bc2 Qd7 31.Nd4 $3
{ (a very prettystroke!) } 31...Nxd4 32.exd4 Qg4 33.Bd2+ $1 Rxd2 ( { or }
33...Bg5 34.Qf6+ Kh5 35.Qh8+ ) 34.Qh7+ Kg5 35.Qxe7+ ) 30.Qg8 Bxf3 31.Qh8+ Kg6
32.Qxe5 $1 Qc6 33.Bc2+ Kf7 34.Qg7+ Ke8 35.Bg6+ Nf7 36.Qxf7+ Kd8 37.gxf3 Rd1+
38.Kg2 Qb5 $1
{ Purely computer-like resourcefulness, unnerving for a human, but the
machinedoes not fear such counterattacks: after the continuation } 39.Bf5 (
39.f4 $5 ) ( 39.h4 $5 ) 39...Qf1+ 40.Kg3 Qg1+ 41.Kf4 Qxh2+ 42.Ke4 Qh6 43.Bg6
{ White'sking hides from the checks and the outcome is decided by his
passed pawns. } ) 25...Kf8 { , agreeing to a difficult defence after }
26.Rxd8+ ( 26.Rd5 $5 ) 26...Qxd8 ( { or } 26...Bxd8 27.h3 $1 Bf6 28.Ng5 )
27.h4 $1 Qd1+ ( 27...e4 $6 28.Qf4 $1 Qd1+ 29.Ne1 Nd8 30.Bb5 Bc6 31.Bxc6
{ and Qxe4 } ) 28.Kh2 e4 $5 ( 28...Bd6 { (f6) } 29.e4 { and Bd5! } ) 29.Qf4
$1 ( 29.Nd2 Qg4 $1 { is unclear } ) 29...Bd6 30.Ne5 Nxe5 31.Bxe5 Bxe5 32.Qxe5
Qd7 ( 32...Qc2 33.Qb8+ Kg7 34.Bxf7 $1 ) 33.b3 $1 a6 ( { if } 33...a5 ) (
{ or } 33...Bc6 { , then } 34.Qf6 $1 ) 34.a4 Kg8 35.Qf6
{ etc. --- It is surprising how quickly Black (and this was thegreat
Smyslov!) ran into very difficult problems: already a move such as
21...e5!? had to be made. In fact, as I have already said, what tells is White'senormous advantage in the placing of his pieces (say, the
c6-knight againstthe f3-knight : it is clear that one knight is restricted by the other and hasno future at all). In addition, Black has lost the battle for the centre. }
) 22.Bc4 Rxd1+ 23.Rxd1 Kf7
{ Black is still harbouring some hopes of a successfuldefence, but the
following energetic blow dispels this illusion. See howspectacular the end
of the game is - this is another refutation of the myththat Petrosian was not very confident in complicated, highly tacticalpositions. }
24.e4 $1
{ The situation demands a decisive blow, and Petrosian (Ithink, without
particular hesitation) lands it. } ( { In the event of the direct } 24.Rd7 $2
Rd8 $1 { the white queen at h3 would have remained out of play. } ) 24...Qf4
{ (not missing an opportunity to activate the queen) } 25.Re1 $1 (
{ It is probable that } 25.Rd7
{ was also good, but there is no longer any needfor this. } ) 25...Qg4
{ After this some simple tactics prove decisive. } ( 25...Bf6
{ was more tenacious, requiring White to calculate some more
complicatedvariations. I don't know how Petrosian would have played after
this, but the'human+machine' combination easily finds the pretty } 26.Bxe6+
$1 Kxe6 27.exf5+ Kf7 28.fxg6+ Kxg6 29.Bxf6 Kxf6 30.Qd7 Nd8 31.Qe7+ Kg6
32.Ne5+ Kh6 33.Qd6+ Kg7 34.Qg6+ Kh8 35.Nd3 { . } ) ( { For similar reasons }
25...Rd8
{ would also have lost, although here too White would have had to make
severalaccurate moves: } 26.exf5 $1 Qxc4 27.fxg6+ Kxg6 ( { or } 27...Ke8
28.g7 e5 29.Qg3 Kd7 30.Rd1+ Bd6 31.Bxe5 ) 28.Rxe6+ Kf7 29.Qf5+ Ke8 30.Qxh5+
Kf8 ( 30...Kd7 31.Rxc6 ) 31.Qg6 $1 Rd1+ 32.Ne1 Nd4 33.Qh6+ Ke8 34.Qh5+ Kf8
35.Qh8+ Kf7 36.Qh7+ Kxe6 37.Qg8+
{ . Now it all ends more quickly. It is probablethat by now Smyslov was
repulsed by the sight of his position. } ) 26.exf5 $1 Qxc4 27.fxg6+ Ke8 (
{ After } 27...Kxg6 28.Rxe6+ Kf7 29.Rxc6 $1
{ the whiteknight makes a highly effective fork at e5. } ) 28.g7
{ (the remainder is of nointerest) } 28...e5 ( 28...Kd7 29.Rd1+ Bd6 30.Qg3
Nd4 31.Ne5+ ) 29.Qxh5+ Kd7 30.Rd1+ Bd6 31.Bxe5 Nd4 32.Nxd4
{ . --- So, prophylaxis - this is the way thatPetrosian solved opening
problems. It is noteworthy that the above games wereplayed before he won
the title of world champion, that is in his years ofgreatest activity, when his creative credo was revealed most vividly. Healways aimed to place
his pieces ideally, do everything to restrict hisopponent's possibilities, and at the appropriate moment exploit the superiorplacing of his army. And he succeeded in this, even in battles with the mostoutstanding players of his time! --- After his victory in that USSRChampionship Petrosian
also performed successfully in the Interzonaltournament (Stockholm, January-March 1962), sharing second place with Geller,behind Fischer. 'He played with only one aim - to finish in the first six.This task proved well within the powers of the talented grandmaster. He, likeFischer, went through the tournament undefeated. "If Petrosian played moreboldly, he would be the strongest player in the world," Fischer said to me.Indeed, sometimes Petrosian suddenly forgets about caution, and then he isterrible to behold. One can only hope that in Stockholm he was completely"sitting on
the fence" and that on Curaçao he will be a genuine chess "tiger".' (Kotov) --- I don't know about a 'tiger', but in the marathon Candidatestournament on the island of Curaçao (May-June 1962) he again went throughwithout a single defeat, took first place and finally qualified for a matchwith Botvinnik. }
1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "How to Overcome Botvinnik?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "B33"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ Tigran Petrosian's skill in exploiting long-term positional factors is
wellknown, but for many, even quite strong players, the very concept
'long-termpositional factor' sounds vague - for them it is something non-concrete,without any precise mathematical basis. --- Of course, everyone
knows aboutconcepts such as pawn structure or the weakness of certain squares, but theirsignificance is often hard to evaluate. And in our age of dynamic chess it canhappen that no attention is paid to them at all, although it is quite obviousthat one should value both a good pawn
structure, and the possibility ofexploiting weak squares. But the most difficult, I think, even for a verystrong player, is the ability to correlate all these long-term factors withthe concrete dynamics of the position. Say, in the Chelyabinsk Variation ( }
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5
9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5
{ ) Black has a yawning hole at d5 plus a weakened pawnstructure, but in
compensation he has a mass of dynamic factors - how tocorrelate one with
the other? How to understand which is more important? It ishere that many players run into problems. --- Petrosian was perhaps one of thefirst who
learned not simply to exploit long-term factors, but also to subtlycorrelate them with the dynamic features of the position. He as though sensedwhere and when the opponent's initiative would in the end evaporate, whereasthe flaws of his adversary's position would remain. One of the
mostcharacteristic examples is the famous 5th game of his match with MikhailBotvinnik (Moscow, spring 1963). As Petrosian himself writes, it wasespecially memorable for him: it was his first win over Botvinnik in officialevents (the start of the match had gone in favour of the champion: +1=3), andin addition he managed to win, so to speak, from level ground. }
*
[Event "15. World Championship Match, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1963.??.??"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Petrosian, T."]
[Black "Botvinnik, M."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "D94"]
[EventDate "1963.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.c4 g6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.e3 O-O 6.Be2
{ It is interestingthat Petrosian should employ such a quiet, modest
variation against theGrünfeld Defence, in which Black has more than one way
to equalise. Botvinnikchose the most direct. } 6...dxc4 (
{ The challenger had also reckoned on the maintheoretical reply of that
time - } 6...e6 7.O-O b6 8.cxd5 exd5 9.b3 (
{ having prepared the improvement } 9.b4 $1 { with the possible sequel }
9...c6 10.a4 Re8 11.Ba3 { (Simagin-Osmanagic, Sarajevo 1963). } ) 9...Bb7
10.Bb2 Nbd7 11.Qc2 a6 12.Rac1 Rc8 13.Rfd1 Qe7 14.Qb1 $6 Rfd8 15.Bf1 c5
{ with an excellentgame for Black (Sokolsky-Botvinnik, Leningrad 1938) } )
7.Bxc4 c5 8.d5 e6 { Well of course! } (
{ 'If Black had wanted to obtain a complicated position, hecould have
played 7...Nfd7, transposing into Smyslov's interpretation of theQueen's
Gambit Accepted, or else } 8...Ne8
{ followed by ...Nd6. But in thatperiod of the match Botvinnik happily went
in for simplification, especiallywhen he was playing Black.' (Petrosian) } )
9.dxe6 Qxd1+ 10.Kxd1 Bxe6 11.Bxe6 fxe6 12.Ke2
{ As Petrosian admitted, during his preparations for the game hewas not
concerned about the prospect of this ending arising. 'The mostimpatient of
the press centre habitués began to get ready to go home. But theresulting endgame is very complicated. White's pawns create a more
favourableimpression, thanks mainly to the isolated black pawn at e6. Of course, it ishard to imagine that White will ever be able to create a serious threat ofwinning it. But the fundamental defect of an isolated pawn is not just that itmay become a target, but equally that the square or
squares in front of it maybecome strong points for the opponent's pieces. One of the white knights willoccupy an ideal position at e4.' (Petrosian) }
12...Nc6
{ The most natural move:Black assumes that rapid development and piece
activity will more thancompensate for the weakness of his e6-pawn. } (
12...Nd5 13.Ne4 ( { or } 13.Nxd5 exd5 14.Rd1 Rd8 15.Ng5 Na6 { with equality }
) 13...Nd7 { was recommended, } ( { or } 13...Na6 $5 { (the match bulletin) }
) 14.Rd1 { 'although even in this case } 14...Rad8 15.Nfg5
{ leaves White with a slight initiative.' (Petrosian). However, Ithink that
after } 15...Nc7 16.Nd6 Nb8 $1 17.Nge4 b6 18.Rb1 Nc6 19.Bd2 Nd5 20.Nc4 Rd7
{ and ...Rfd8 Black has no particular problems. } ) (
{ Rather than thegame continuation, I also prefer } 12...h6 $5
{ . Of course, it is hard todecide on such a non-developing, purely
prophylactic move, preventing theknight sortie to g5 (in fact this is an
illusory loss of tempo: after Ng5Black must all the same spend time on ...Re8, since after ...e6-e5 the lightsquares are conclusively weakened
and the g7-bishop becomes 'bad'). Forexample: } 13.Nd2 ( { or } 13.Ne5 g5 $1
14.Rd1 Nd5 $1 15.Nxd5 Bxe5 16.f4 exd5 17.fxe5 Rd8 { with double-edged play. }
) 13...Nd5 ( 13...Nc6 $5 ) 14.Nde4 Nd7 ( 14...Na6 $5 ) ( 14...b6 $5 15.Rd1
Rd8 { and ...Nc6 } ) 15.Rd1 Nxc3+ 16.Nxc3 Ne5
{ In short, after 12...h6!? Black maintains the dynamic balance
withoutdifficulty. But it is probable that Botvinnik did not even consider
such amove. Why should he? As it is, Black has a normal, solid position. It is outof such micro-inaccuracies that a defeat is sometimes
composed. } ) 13.Rd1 ( { A small plus would have been retained by } 13.Ng5 $5
Rfe8 14.Rd1 { , when itwas possible to play } 14...h6 15.Nge4 Nxe4 16.Nxe4 b6
17.Rb1 Rad8 18.Bd2 Rd5 19.Bc3 Red8 { etc. } ) 13...Rad8 (
{ A simpler alternative was } 13...Kf7 $5 { (Flohr,Petrosian) } ) (
{ or, as before, } 13...h6 $5 { , preventing the key manoeuvreNg5-e4. } )
14.Rxd8 Rxd8 15.Ng5 $1
{ (aiming, with gain of tempo, for thecherished e4-square) } 15...Re8
{ It transpires that the seizure of the d-file wasillusory. } ( 15...e5 $2
16.Ne6 { is bad. } ) 16.Nge4 Nxe4 ( { 'Preferable was } 16...b6 17.Nxf6+ Bxf6
18.Ne4 Bg7
{ (e7).' (Petrosian) I agree with this, butin any case it is already
apparent that Black's dynamics have evaporated.However, the most probable
outcome of the game still remains a draw: the gamecannot be won with only the one weakness at e6 and the good knight at e4. }
) 17.Nxe4 b6 18.Rb1
{ (unhurried preparation for Bd2 - it transpires that Black'spressure on
the long diagonal is also illusory) } 18...Nb4 $5 19.Bd2 $1 Nd5 (
{ 'It is clear that the variation } 19...Nxa2 20.Ra1 Nb4 21.Bxb4 cxb4 22.Rxa7
Bxb2 23.Rb7
{ would suit White: the opponent would be condemned to a prolongeddefence.'
(Petrosian) } ) 20.a4 Rc8 ( { After } 20...Nf6 $5 21.Nd6 Rd8 22.Nc4
{ White's chances are also slightly better. } ) 21.b3 Bf8 ( 21...Bf8
{ creates atactical threat to relieve the situation: by } 22.-- c4 23.Rc1
cxb3 $1 24.Rxc8 b2 25.Rc1 bxc1=Q 26.Bxc1 a6 { . } ) 22.Rc1 Be7
{ 'The commentatorsunanimously condemned this move. } (
{ But later Black could have achievedapproximate equality, whereas after }
22...Rc7 23.Ng5
{ it would be not soeasy for him to defend.' (Petrosian) For example: }
23...Re7 24.e4 $5 h6 $5 25.Nf3 ( { or } 25.Nh3
{ with the idea of Nf2-d3 and b3-b4 (Speelman) } 25...Nf6 26.f3 ) 25...Nf6
26.Rc4 Nd7 27.b4 { . } ) ( { It was more interesting to play } 22...a6 $5
{ (Tal), in order after } 23.b4 c4 24.b5 axb5 25.axb5
{ to create counterplayon the a-file and against the b5-pawn. Black has
nevertheless played hisbishop to e7, but the similar position after
16...b6!? (with the knight at c6and the possibility of ...e6-e5 and ...Kf7-e6) would have been better for him.That is, step by step he gives way
and little by little his problems increase.And yet the player with Black was not some average master, but the greatBotvinnik, and this was not the Moscow Championship, but a match for the worldcrown. The position is so complicated that finding the correct set-up at theboard proved
difficult even for the world champion! } ) 23.b4 $1
{ A committing,but undoubtedly correct plan of creating a second weakness
on the c-file.Petrosian decided on it only after great hesitation. } 23...c4
{ The advance of thec-pawn would appear to give Black counterplay, but this
cuts both ways: on theone hand the pawn is passed, but on the other hand it
is weak. } ( { If } 23...Kf7
{ the following line seemed convincing enough to Petrosian: } 24.bxc5 (
{ whereasin the event of } 24.Rc4 $1 h6 25.bxc5 bxc5 26.a5
{ , he would indeed havefaced a tedious defence } ) 24...bxc5 25.Kd3 Nb6
26.a5 c4+ 27.Kd4 Rd8+ $6 ( { although after } 27...Na4 $1 28.Rc2 (
{ but not } 28.Rxc4 $2 Rd8+ 29.Ke5 Nb2 { Speelman } ) 28...h6 29.Ra2 Nc5
30.Nxc5 Bxc5+ { Black gains a draw } ) 28.Kc3 Rd3+ 29.Kc2 Nd5 30.Rb1 (
{ I would add } 30.Kd1 $1 { . } ) ) 24.b5 Kf7
{ It isprobable that Botvinnik underestimated the following clever play by
Whiteagainst the c-pawn. } (
{ Serious consideration should have been given to } 24...Ba3 $5 25.Rc2 c3 $1
{ (Averbakh) } 26.Bxc3 Rc4 ( { if } 26...Bb4 $6 27.Kd2 Rc4 28.Bxb4 Rxe4
29.Bd6 Rxa4 { Petrosian was intending } 30.f3 $1 ) 27.Kd3 Rxa4
{ , for example: } 28.Ra2 ( 28.Nf6+ Nxf6 29.Bxf6 Kf7 30.Bd4 Bd6 $1 ) (
28.Bd2 Be7 $1
{ , and although in each case White has a minimal advantage, Black
wouldhave retained good drawing chances } ) 28...Rxe4 29.Rxa3 Nxc3 30.Kxc3
Re5 31.Rxa7 Rxb5 { (Petrosian) } 32.Rb7 Rc5+ 33.Kd3 b5 { . } ) (
{ Many commentatorsthought that } 24...c3 $2
{ was also acceptable, overlooking } 25.Nxc3 $1 Ba3 26.Nxd5 { , winning. } )
25.Bc3 $1 Ba3 26.Rc2 Nxc3+ ( { if } 26...Ke7 { , then } 27.Be5 $1 { and Nd2 }
) 27.Rxc3 Bb4 28.Rc2 Ke7 $2 { Probably the decisivemistake. } (
{ It was also hopeless to play } 28...Be7 $6 29.Nd2 c3 30.Ne4 Rc4 31.Nxc3 Rb4
32.Kd3 h6 ( { P-H.Nielsen; } 32...Bf6 $2 33.Ne4 $1 Rxa4 34.Rc7+ Be7 35.Ng5+ )
33.Ra2 Rb3 ( 33...Bf6 34.Ne4 $1 ) 34.Kc2 Rb4 35.Ne2
{ withchances of converting the extra pawn. } ) (
{ The only defence now was } 28...e5 $1 29.Nd2 c3 30.Ne4 Ke6
{ , for example: } 31.Kd3 ( 31.f3
{ but 'by retaining allthe pieces Black can resist' (Petrosian): } 31...Ba5
$1 ( 31...h6 $6 32.Kd3 Rd8+ 33.Kc4 Rd2 34.Kb3 Rxc2 35.Kxc2 Kd5 36.Kd3 $1 c2
37.Kxc2 Kc4 38.Nd2+ $1 Bxd2 39.Kxd2 Kb4 40.Kd3 Kxa4 41.Kc4
{ and wins (Tal), e.g. } 41...h5 $5 { (Speelman) } 42.h4 $1 Ka5 43.e4 $1 a6
44.bxa6 b5+ 45.Kd5 Kxa6 46.Kxe5 { etc. (Dvoretsky) } ( 46.-- ) ) 32.Kd3 Rd8+
33.Kc4 Rd2 34.Kb3 Rd3 35.Re2 Rd1 { with a draw. } ) 31...Rd8+ 32.Kc4 Rd2
33.Kb3 Rxc2 ( { not } 33...Kd5 $2 34.Nxc3+ Bxc3 35.Kxc3 Rxc2+ 36.Kxc2 Kc4
37.f3 Kb4 38.Kd3 Kxa4 39.Kc4 { and wins, as in variation A } ) 34.Kxc2 Kd5
35.Nxc3+ ( 35.Nf6+ Kc4 36.Nxh7 Be7 $1 37.f4 exf4 38.exf4 Kb4 39.g4 Kxa4
40.Kxc3 Kxb5 41.f5 gxf5 42.gxf5 Kc5 43.f6 Bxf6+ 44.Nxf6 Kd6 { with a draw } )
35...Kc4 36.Ne4 Be7
{ with sufficient compensation for the pawn(Speelman). Indeed, after } 37.g4
Kb4 38.Kd3 ( 38.Nc3 Kc4 ) 38...Kxa4 39.Kc4 Ka5 ( 39...g5 $5 { Dvoretsky } )
40.f4 exf4 41.exf4 a6 42.bxa6 Kxa6 43.f5 gxf5 44.gxf5 b5+ 45.Kd3 ( { or }
45.Kb3 Kb6 46.f6 Bf8 47.Ng5 h6 48.Nh7 Bd6 49.f7 Kc6 50.f8=Q Bxf8 51.Nxf8 Kd5
) 45...Kb6 46.f6 Ba3 47.f7 Kc6 48.Ng5 h6 ( { not } 48...Kd5 $2 49.Nxh7 Ke6
50.f8=Q Bxf8 51.Nxf8+ Kf5 52.Nd7 Kg4 53.Ne5+ Kh3 54.Nf3 { and wins } ) 49.Nh7
{ Black gains a draw: } 49...Kd7 $5 { (this is simpler) } ( 49...Kd5 50.f8=Q
Bxf8 51.Nxf8 b4 $1 ( { it is essential to advance thepawn to b3: } 51...Ke5
$2 52.Nd7+ Kf4 53.Ke2 b4 54.Nc5 Kg4 55.Kf2 { and wins } ) 52.Nd7 b3 53.Nf6+
( { or } 53.Nb6+ Ke5 54.Ke3 Kf5 55.Nc4 Kg4 56.Kf2 Kf4 { with a draw } )
53...Ke6 54.Ng4 h5 55.Ne3 Ke5 56.Nc4+ Kf4 57.Ke2 Kg4 58.Kf2 Kf4 59.h3 Kf5
60.Ke3 Kg5 61.Kf3 Kf5 62.h4 Ke6 63.Ke4 Kf6 64.Kf4 Ke6 65.Kg5 Kd5 66.Nd2 b2
{ with a draw; } ) 50.f8=Q Bxf8 51.Nxf8+ Ke7 52.Ng6+ Kf6 53.Nf4 ( { or }
53.Nh4 b4 54.Nf3 b3 55.Kc3 Kf5 ) 53...Kf5 54.Ne2 Kg4 55.Ng1 b4 56.Kc4 Kf4
57.Kxb4 Ke3 { with a draw. } ) 29.Nd2 $1 c3 (
{ Alas, the c-pawncannot be saved: } 29...Bxd2 30.Kxd2 Kd6 $6 ( { or }
30...Rd8+ 31.Kc3 Rd1 32.Kxc4
{ , although, in Petrosian's opinion, this rook endgame would have
givenBlack the opportunity for a tenacious defence. } ) 31.Kc3 Kc5 32.Rd2 )
30.Ne4 Ba5 31.Kd3 Rd8+ 32.Kc4 Rd1 ( 32...Rd2 33.Kb3 $1 ) 33.Nxc3 Rh1 $2 (
{ The lastchance was } 33...Bxc3 $1
{ , which is what Petrosian feared, since 'the rookendgame, although
apparently so unpromising, would offer Black his best savinghopes.' True,
after } 34.Kxc3 { , } 34...g5 $5
{ (Teschner) is a more tenaciousattempt, however, and the winning path is
still rather thorny. } ( { it isdubious to play both } 34...Rh1 35.h3 Kd7
{ (a recommendation of the matchbulletin) } 36.Kd4 $1 Ra1 37.Ke5 Rxa4 38.Kf6
{ etc } ) ( { and } 34...Kf6 35.Rd2 $1 Ra1 36.Rd7 Rxa4 37.Rxh7 Ra2 38.Rh3 $1
Rxf2 39.Rf3+ Rxf3 40.gxf3 { with a won pawn ending. } ( 40.-- ) ) ) 34.Ne4 $1
{ (Bronstein called this 'acourageous decision') } 34...Rxh2 35.Kd4 $1
{ (by returning the pawn, White hasachieved total domination: Rc7+ is
threatened) } 35...Kd7 36.g3 ( 36.g4 h5 37.Ke5 $1 hxg4 38.Nf6+ Ke7 39.Nxg4
Rh5+ 40.Ke4
{ (Petrosian) was also decisive, butin time-trouble the challenger played
as safely as possible and comfortablyconverted his advantage into a win. } )
36...Bb4 37.Ke5 Rh5+ 38.Kf6 Be7+ 39.Kg7 e5 40.Rc6 $1 Rh1 41.Kf7 $1
{ The sealed move. The adjournment session,which took place the following
day, did not last long. } 41...Ra1 ( 41...Rh5 42.a5 $1 ) 42.Re6 Bd8 (
42...Bb4 43.Rxe5 ) 43.Rd6+ Kc8 44.Ke8 $1 Bc7 45.Rc6 Rd1 ( { Or } 45...Rxa4
46.Ng5 { with the amusing variation } 46...Kb7 47.Ne6 Bb8 48.Nd8+ Ka8 49.Rc8
$1 { and Nc6 (Petrosian). } ) 46.Ng5 Rd8+ 47.Kf7 Rd7+ 48.Kg8
{ . --- In my opinion, this is a very significant example. After all,
thequality of the games we study should always be judged in conjunction
with thestrength of the players (it seems to me that this is often ignored). Justthink: such a 'simple' win over the world champion! How hard it
was to weighup those long-term factors in the position, if even Botvinnik thoughtbeforehand that he would gain a draw without any problems. --- The subsequentbattle in the match was very difficult. By also winning the 7th game,Petrosian took the lead, but then the initiative passed to
Botvinnik. Althoughthe opinion that Botvinnik exerted strong pressure seems to me to be anexaggeration. Nevertheless, in the 14th game (Volume 2, Game No.71) bystrength of will, so to speak, he broke Petrosian's highly tenaciousresistance and levelled the scores. Many observers must then have believedthat the deciding role would now be played by Botvinnik's colossal matchexperience and competitive character (although a careful analysis shows thathe did not have any substantial chances in this match). --- The turning pointproved to be the 15th game. I think it was the
fact that Petrosian immediatelytook the lead again that finished off Botvinnik. After that win, Botvinnikcould hardly have expected that in the very next game he would not simply bedefeated, but outplayed in every respect in a complicated struggle. }
1-0
[Event "16. World Championship Match, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1963.??.??"]
[Round "15"]
[White "Petrosian, T."]
[Black "Botvinnik, M."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "D81"]
[EventDate "1963.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Qb3
{ On this occasion, in contrast to the 5thgame, this is one of the most
double-edged and at that time little-studiedvariations, introduced by
Botvinnik himself in a game with Levenfish (8th USSRChampionship, Leningrad 1933). In the depths of his soul he was probablypleased at such a turn
of events, but he soon encountered unpleasant problems. } 4...dxc4 5.Qxc4 Bg7
6.e4 O-O 7.Be2 Nc6 8.Nf3 Nd7 9.Be3 Nb6 10.Qc5 ( 10.Qd3 f5 $5 ) 10...Bg4 11.d5
$5 ( 11.Rd1
{ would have transposed into a position fromthe sensational game
Botvinnik-Fischer (Varna Olympiad 1962), which continued } 11...Qd6 $1
{ (Volume 2, Game No.77). } ) 11...Nd7 12.Qa3 Bxf3 13.Bxf3 Nd4 14.O-O-O Nxf3
( { Many suggested } 14...c5 15.dxc6 Nxc6 { , but after } 16.Kb1 Qc8 17.Be2
{ White remains with the two bishops and an active plan with f2-f4 and
e4-e5.'Botvinnik likes more secure positions.' (Konstantinopolsky) } )
15.gxf3 Nb6 ( { if } 15...c6 { , then } 16.dxc6 bxc6 17.h4 $1 Re8 ( { or }
17...h5 18.f4 ) 18.h5 Qc7 19.f4 ) 16.Qb3 Qd7 $6 ( 16...Qc8
{ was more flexible, with the idea of } 17.h4 c6 $1
{ (an 'X-ray' on the c-file) } 18.d6 ( 18.h5 cxd5 ) ( { or } 18.Kb1 Bxc3 $1
{ and ...cxd5, in each case with equality } ) 18...exd6 19.Rxd6 { and here: }
19...Be5 $1 ( { not } 19...Qc7 $6 { (Konstantinopolsky) } 20.Rd2 ( 20.Bf4 $2
Nc8 $1 ( { but not } 20...Bh6 $2 21.Rxg6+ $1 hxg6 22.Bxh6 Rfe8 23.h5
{ with an attack } ) ) 20...h5 ( { or } 20...Rad8 21.h5 ) 21.Rg1 $1 Kh7
22.Rgd1 { with the initiativefor White } ) 20.Rd3 Qe6 { with equality ( }
21.f4 $6 Bxc3 $1 { ). } ) 17.h4 $1
{ Not so much even an attack, as an attempt to force a weakness. } 17...h5
{ Theattempt succeeded! } ( { White has the advantage after } 17...c6 18.h5
cxd5 ( 18...Bxc3 $5 ) 19.hxg6 hxg6 20.Bxb6 $1 axb6 21.Nxd5
{ (Konstantinopolsky) } 21...Qe6 22.Kb1 Rfd8 23.Qb4 Kf8 24.a3 $1 Qd6 25.Qxb6
e6 26.Qxd6+ Rxd6 27.Ne3 { with chances of converting his extra pawn. } )
18.f4 { With the obviousintention of continuing f4-f5. } 18...e6 $6 (
{ It is strange that the commentatorsdid not mention the other natural
undermining move - } 18...c6 $1 { . } 19.Rhg1 $1
{ is more venomous, for example: or } ( { The immediate } 19.f5
{ is parried by thebold 19...Bxc3! } 19...Bxc3 $1
{ (Black only needs to defend his g6-pawn, and forthis the bishop is not
necessary) } 20.Qxc3 ( 20.bxc3 cxd5 21.fxg6 fxg6 22.exd5 Rac8 23.Rhg1 Kh7
{ is weaker } ) 20...cxd5 21.Kb1 Qa4 ( 21...Rac8 22.Qb3 ) 22.Rd4 Qc6
{ without counterplay. } ) 19...Kh7 ( 19...Bxc3 $2 20.Rxg6+ $3 Kh7 21.Rg5 Bg7
22.Rxg7+ Kxg7 23.Rg1+ Kh7 24.Qd1 { and wins } ) ( 19...cxd5 20.Bxb6 $1 axb6
$1 ( 20...Bxc3 $6 21.Rxd5 Qc6 22.Rxg6+ $1 Qxg6 23.Rg5 ) 21.Nxd5 Qe6 22.Rde1 )
20.f5 cxd5 $1 ( 20...Bxc3 $2 21.Qxc3 $1 cxd5 22.Qe5 $1 { and wins } ) 21.Nxd5
Nxd5 22.Rxd5 Qc6+ 23.Qc2 { with a minimal, fadingadvantage. } ) 19.dxe6 Qxe6
20.Qxe6 fxe6
{ In the resulting endgame Black'spawn structure is roughly the same as in
the 5th game examined earlier.However, here it is more difficult to assess
the situation, since White'spawns are also spoiled - his advantage does not look so definite. But it isthis that comprises the skill of a player, to
accurately weigh up which of theweaknesses is more important! Black's weaknesses at e6 and g6 are highlyperceptible, and yet for the moment it is not altogether clear whether theyreally can be exploited. }
21.Rhg1 Kh7 ( 21...Bxc3 { is no longer so good: after } 22.bxc3 Kh7 23.Rg5
{ Black's position is unenviable. } ) 22.Nb5 $1 Rf7 23.Nd4
{ A familiar motif: Petrosian has devised the important manoeuvre of
hisknight via f3 to g5, in passing, incidentally, again attacking the
weake6-pawn. } ( { If } 23.b3 { , then } 23...Bh6 $1
{ (latching on to the f4-pawn) } 24.Kb1 Re8 $6
{ with equality (but not Bxf4 Bxf4 Rxf4 } 25.Nxc7 ) 23...Re8 $2
{ Effectively the decisive mistake. } ( 23...Bxd4 24.Rxd4 Raf8 $1
{ was moretenacious } ( 24...Re8
{ , as recommended in the match bulletin, is weaker onaccount of } 25.Rg5 $1
Rd7 $6 26.f5 $1 { . } ) ) (
{ Another interesting idea isthe attempt to gain counterplay, not
previously mentioned by anyone - } 23...Nc4 $5 24.Nxe6 $1 ( 24.b3 Nxe3
25.fxe3 Bxd4 $1 26.Rxd4 e5 $1 ) ( 24.e5 Re8 $1 25.Nf3 Bh6 26.Rg3 Nb6 $1 )
24...Bxb2+ 25.Kc2 Bf6 26.Bd4 $1 ( 26.Ng5+ Bxg5 27.Rxg5 Re8 28.f5 Nxe3+
29.fxe3 gxf5 30.Rxh5+ Kg7 { promises little } ) 26...Re8 ( 26...Bxh4 $2 27.f5
$1 gxf5 28.Rh1 Re8 29.Nf4 c5 30.Bc3 { and wins } ) 27.Bxf6 Rxe6 ( 27...Rxf6
$6 28.Rd7+ Kh8 29.Ng5 Rxf4 $2 30.Nf7+ ) 28.e5
{ , when White nevertheless retains the initiative: } 28...Re8 $1 (
28...Rexf6 $6 29.exf6 Rxf6 30.Rd7+ Kh6 31.Rxc7 Rxf4 32.Rxb7 Rxf2+ 33.Kd3 ) (
28...c5 $2 29.f5 $1 gxf5 30.Rd8 { is also unsuitable } ) ( 28...Rc6 $6 29.Kb3
Na5+ 30.Kb4 b6 ( { or } 30...Ra6 31.f5 gxf5 32.Rg5 Kh6 33.Rxf5 Nc6+ 34.Kb3 )
31.Kb5 Rc5+ 32.Ka6 Nc6 33.Kb7 Rc2 34.Rge1 ) 29.Rg3 $1 ( { if } 29.Rg5
{ Black is saved by } 29...Nd6 $1 30.exd6 ( { or } 30.Rdg1 Ne4 ) 30...Rxf6
31.Re5 Rd8 32.Re7+ Kg8 $1 33.Rxc7 Rfxd6 { with a draw } ) 29...Nd6 $5 30.Re3
$1 Nf5 31.Red3 Kg8 ( 31...Nd6 $2 32.exd6 Rxf6 33.dxc7 ) 32.Rd7 Rc8 ( { not }
32...Nd6 $2 33.Rxf7 Kxf7 34.exd6 $1 Kxf6 35.dxc7 Rc8 36.Rd7 Ke6 37.Rg7 Kf6
38.Rh7 ) 33.Kb3
{ etc. Nevertheless,this would have been better for Black than the game
continuation. It is rathersymptomatic : Botvinnik again proved
psychologically unprepared for a lengthy,painstaking defence of a slightly inferior ending. For him, a man of action,it was extremely hard to play
such passive and 'dull', technical positions. } ) 24.Nf3 $1 Bh6 25.Ng5+ Bxg5
{ (alas, this is forced) } 26.Rxg5
{ A familiarstructure has arisen (cf. the note to Botvinnik's 21st move),
but here Blackhas not even managed to give his opponent a weakness at c3,
and his positionis strategically lost. } 26...Nc4 $2 { (too late!) } 27.Rdg1
$2 ( { This is such anatural move, that both players missed the sudden }
27.f5 $3 { (Konstantinopolsky) } 27...exf5 28.exf5 Rxf5 ( 28...gxf5 29.Rdg1
$1 ) 29.Rd7+ Kh8 30.Bd4+ Ne5 31.Rxf5 gxf5 32.f4
{ and Black is crushed. But I think thatPetrosian would have found such a
tactical idea, if he had considered itnecessary to find it. } ) 27...Rg8
28.Kc2 $1 b6 ( { Konstantinopolsky's idea } 28...Nd6 29.f3 a6
{ followed by ...Rd7 and a possible ...Nf7 is hardly muchbetter } ) 29.b3 Nd6
( 29...Nxe3+ 30.fxe3 { would merely have supported thef4-pawn. } ) 30.f3 Rd7
31.R5g2 Rdd8 32.a4 $1
{ It is interesting to see howPetrosian consistently strengthens his
position. For a start he wants also togive Black a weakness on the
queenside. After all, White still has a bishopagainst a knight - an additional plus when there is play on both flanks, andbesides, his agile
rooks will be able to attack the vulnerable black pawns. } (
{ It is no less interesting to see what a computer would do in the
givenposition: here one observes the different playing styles of the
variousprograms! The 2000 version of Hiarcs and the more modern Junior found }
32.a4 $1
{ quite quickly, whereas Fritz persistently recommended playing the rooks
tothe d-file. } ) 32...Nf7 33.Bc1 $1 e5
{ Rightly fearing 34 Bb2! and f4-f5,Black gets rid of his weak e6-pawn,
although this is 'not to the taste' of themachine. Within a few seconds it
produces the reply: } 34.Be3 $1
{ 'IronTigran' plays with truly iron logic! But the computer shows how much
progresshas been made by...computers! Previously such a bishop pendulum
would havebeen beyond their powers! } ( { Fritz also analyses } 34.Rg3 { . }
) 34...exf4 ( { According to Konstantinopolsky, } 34...c5
{ was more tenacious. This is alsothe opinion of Junior, although this does
not change the overall picture (say,after } 35.a5 { ). } ) (
{ One of the versions of Fritz suggests } 34...a5 { , whenthere can follow }
35.Rd2 ( 35.Rg3 $5 ) 35...Rxd2+ 36.Kxd2 Rd8+ 37.Ke2
{ with the threat of Rc1-c6 (while after ...c7-c5 the weakness of
Black'squeenside is ruinous). } ) 35.Bxf4 Rd7 36.Rd2 $1
{ An important move, and againin synchrony with the machine! The exchange
of a pair of rooks is useful: nowit is easier to create the desired
additional weakness on the queenside. } 36...Rxd2+ 37.Kxd2 Rd8+ 38.Ke2 c5
39.a5 $1 { (an accurate continuation of the plan) } 39...Rd7 40.axb6 axb6
41.Ra1 Kg7 42.Ra6 $1
{ The sealed move, and also a 'machine'move, forcing the black rook to
occupy a passive position. One has to admire,of course, the progress of
computer technique, but even more so Petrosian'smathematical accuracy. It is this logic which can now be explained to acomputer: that is, all the
moves so fit into a common plan, that they areunderstandable even to the machine. On the resumption there followed: }
42...Rb7 ( 42...b5 $2 43.Rc6 ) 43.Ra8 Kf6 ( { 'The attempt } 43...b5 44.Rc8
c4 { wouldnot have saved Black in view of } 45.bxc4 ( { or } 45.b4 $1
{ with the threat ofe4-e5.' - Konstantinopolsky } ) 45...bxc4 ( 45...b4
46.Bc1 $1 ) 46.Rxc4 { etc. } ) 44.Rc8 (
{ Hiarcs suggests a dual solution - } 44.Rf8 ) ( { and Fritz - } 44.Rg8
{ , but the key idea is the same here, and the evaluations are identical. } )
44...Ne5 ( { Or } 44...Re7 45.Rb8 Re6 46.Bc7
{ and wins. And here a distinctionappears between the great player and a
machine... from the last century. } ) 45.Ke3 $1 { Without thinking! } (
{ For a human it is obvious that if White goeschasing a pawn by } 45.Bxe5+
Kxe5 46.Rc6 $2 { , Black gains counterplay - } ( 46.Ke3 $1 ) 46...Kd4 $1
{ etc. --- But an old version of Hiarcs spent a long timestruggling with
this problem: variations with gain of material were the mostdifficult test
for computers of the 1990s, and only an analysis of hundreds ofthousands of variations gradually brought 45 Ke3! into first place. Need it besaid
that the modern Junior and Fritz solve this little problem instantly! } )
45...Nd7 46.Rc6+ Kf7 47.e5 $1 ( { Only Hiarcs insisted on } 47.Bc7 { . } )
47...Nf8 48.Rf6+ Kg7 49.Ke4 b5 50.Rc6 Kf7 ( { or } 50...c4 51.bxc4 bxc4 52.e6
) 51.Rxc5
{ After winning a pawn, Petrosian easily converts his advantage into awin.
} 51...Ne6 52.Rd5 Ke7 53.Be3 Rb8 54.Rd6 b4 55.Ra6 Rb5 56.Ra7+ Ke8 57.f4 Kf8
58.f5
{ . --- After then winning the 18th and 19th games, Petrosian wonthe match
by a score of 12˝-9˝ and became the 9th world champion in thehistory of
chess. --- Botvinnik admitted that he had been unable to adapt tohis opponent's surprising, cautious and highly technical style. 'Petrosianpossesses a
distinctive chess talent,' he wrote later. 'Like Tal, he does notaim to play "by position", as it was understood earlier. But whereas Tal aimedto obtain dynamic positions, Petrosian created positions where eventsdeveloped as though in a slow-motion film. It is hard to get at his pieces:the
attacking pieces advance slowly and they get stuck in the bog thatsurrounds the camp of Petrosian's pieces. If you finally succeed in creating adangerous attack, you either have little time left, or fatigue sets in.' ---To the delight of the new chess king and all the contenders to the throne,from this cycle onwards FIDE abolished return matches. 'I consider thisdecision to be correct and fair,' Petrosian declared at a press conferenceafter the match. 'After all, the challenger is produced as the result of anobjective qualification process. Why after defeating the champion should
anadditional examination be arranged? If the challenger were to be producedwithout qualification, then the champion's right to a return match would haveto be retained.' How very true! }
1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "The Challenger's Mistake"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ After three years of peaceful rule, Tigran Vartanovich faced
anotherdifficult test - a match for the crown with the young and very
dangerouschallenger Boris Spassky (Moscow, April-June 1966). For a long time playerswere of the opinion that Petrosian played uncertainly
in positions that wererich in tactical resources. And Spassky based his match strategy on this: witheither colour he aimed to create complicated, double-edged situations, hopingthat here he would be able to outwit his opponent. But the first half of thematch quickly
demonstrated convincingly to the challenger that he was wrong. } 1.--
{ After six draws, in the 7th game Spassky decided to employ an idea,which
has nowadays become standard in matches for the world crown: he playedone
of the opponent's favourite openings - as Petrosian put it, 'in thehope that, in fighting against his own weapon, he would fight not only againstreal
dangers, but also against non-existent ones.' Alas, this plan suffereda complete fiasco. }
*
[Event "17. World Championship Match, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1966.??.??"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Spassky, B."]
[Black "Petrosian, T."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "D03"]
[EventDate "1966.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.d4 ( { For the first and last time in the match, the challenger avoided }
1.e4 { . } ) 1...Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 $5
{ A surprise! As Bronstein wittily commented:'Boris invited Tigran to play
in the yard of the house where the latter grewup.' In any event, this way
of avoiding the quiet Queen's Indian Defence isnot so harmless for Black. }
3...d5 ( { If } 3...c5 4.e3 Nc6 ( { then } 4...b6 $6
{ is weak on account of } 5.d5 $1
{ , as in the games Petrosian-Kozma (MunichOlympiad 1958) and,
surprisingly, Yusupov-Karpov (4th matchgame, London 1989) } ) ( { while if }
4...Qb6 $5 { he usually sacrifices a pawn - } 5.Nbd2 Qxb2 6.Bxf6 $1 (
{ not } 6.Bd3 d5 7.c4 Qc3 $1 { Spassky-Miles, Tilburg 1978 } ) 6...gxf6 7.Be2
{ with sharp play precisely in the style of Spassky! } ) 5.Nbd2 b6 6.c3 Be7
7.Bd3 O-O 8.O-O
{ is also quite good for White (Petrosian-Taimanov, Leningrad1960). } ) (
{ However, it is useful to include } 3...h6 $1
{ , as played long agoby Nimzowitsch (Volume 1, Game No.93), Alekhine,
Botvinnik and later Karpov.The retreat } 4.Bh4
{ expands Black's possibilities, } ( { while after } 4.Bxf6 Qxf6
{ he has a solid position: the two bishops compensate for White's
spatialadvantage } ) ) (
{ Karpov defended in this way against Korchnoi after a differentmove order
- } 3...b6 4.e4 h6
{ (Hastings 1971/72) or 2. Bg5 e6 3 e4 h6 (19thmatchgame, Moscow 1974), and
even despite these two failures he continued toemploy this flexible plan. } )
4.Nbd2 Be7 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 c5 7.c3 b6 ( { The alternative is } 7...Qc7 { ; }
) ( { whereas } 7...O-O $6 { is inaccurate onaccount of } 8.Ne5 $1 Nxe5
9.dxe5 Nd7 10.Bf4 $1 f5 ( 10...f6 11.Qh5 $1 ) 11.h4 $1 c4 12.Bc2
{ with an attack: } 12...b5 ( 12...Nc5 $5 { Petrosian-Bannik, Tbilisi1951 } )
13.Nf3 Nc5 ( 13...b4 14.Ng5 $1 ) 14.g4 b4 15.gxf5 ( 15.Nd4 $5 { Petrosian } )
15...exf5 16.Ng5 g6 $2 ( 16...h6 $1 ) 17.h5 $1 Nd3+ $2 18.Bxd3 cxd3 19.hxg6
( 19.Nxh7 $1 ) 19...hxg6 ( 19...Bxg5 20.Rxh7 ) 20.Qxd3 bxc3 21.bxc3 Bxg5
22.Bxg5 Qa5 23.Bf6 Re8 24.Qd4 Kf7 25.e6+ $1 Rxe6 26.Bd8 $1
{ 1-0 (Petrosian-Lyublinsky, 17th USSR Championship, Moscow 1949).
ThereforePetrosian is not in a hurry to castle kingside. Such play based on
nuances,the ability to determine the priority in the development of the pieces - it isthis that constitutes chess aerobatics! }
) 8.O-O Bb7 9.Ne5 Nxe5 10.dxe5 Nd7 11.Bf4 $6
{ 'Following a well-known course. But there is a very big "but":Black has
not yet castled, and this denies White the opportunity to use thee5-pawn as
an active weapon - on the contrary, it becomes a target,' writesPetrosian. }
( { 'More sensible was } 11.Bxe7 Qxe7 12.f4
{ , giving up anyambitious plans.' This is what White must play! After this
Black largelychooses between 12...0-0-0 followed by ...f7-f6 (Garcia
Pedron-Korchnoi, LasPalmas 1981) and the slow } 12...f6 13.Qh5+ ( { or }
13.exf6 gxf6 14.e4 O-O-O { (Spassky-A.Sokolov, Bugojno 1986) } ) 13...Qf7
14.Qe2 O-O $1 { (I.Sokolov-Ivanchuk, Biel 1989). } ) 11...Qc7 $1 (
{ 'More vigorous is } 11...g5 12.Bg3 h5 { , forcing } 13.h3
{ , when Black's position is highly attractive.' (Petrosian) } (
{ True, but } 13.f4 $1 h4 { (Klaric-Geller, Sochi 1977) } 14.Bf2
{ is less clear. } ) ) 12.Nf3 ( { Not } 12.Qg4 $2 g5 $1 13.Bxg5 ( { or }
13.Bg3 h5 { and wins } ) 13...Rg8 14.h4 h6 { . } ) ( 12.Qh5 $5 { (Crouch) } )
12...h6 $1 13.b4 $5
{ White is already forced to sacrifice a pawn for the initiative. } (
{ Incidentally, this was the actual game continuation, rather than } 13.Bg3
g5 14.b4
{ , as given in the first volume of Informator and in Colin Crouch'sbook
'How to Defend in Chess' (2000). } ) 13...g5 $1 (
{ Black also launches anattack, avoiding } 13...cxb4 $6 14.cxb4 Bxb4
{ in view of } 15.Nd4 $1
{ , and'for the moment Black's extra pawn does not play any serious role,
whereasWhite's attacking chances, involving Qg4 (h5), Rc1, Bg3 and
f2-f4-f5, are morethan real.' (Petrosian) Here Spassky would indeed have been in his element! }
) 14.Bg3 h5 15.h4 ( { 'After the natural } 15.h3
{ , in view of the inevitable,sooner or later, ...g5-g4 White would again
have been unable to hold hise5-pawn.' (Petrosian). Also possible is the
immediate } 15...g4 16.hxg4 hxg4 17.Nh2 (
{ Tal suggested a bold piece sacrifice - } 17.Nd4 $6 cxd4 18.cxd4
{ . AsSuetin put it, 'in a match for the world championship such an extreme
decisionwould not by any means occur to everyone.' And indeed, after }
18...Bxb4 19.Rc1 ( 19.Qxg4 Ba3 $1 ) 19...Qd8 20.Qxg4 Rc8 21.Qg7 Rf8 22.Bf4
Nb8 $5
{ and ...Kd7Black can repel the attack and remain with a decisive material
advantage. } ) 17...Nxe5 18.Bb5+ ( 18.Nxg4 Bd6 19.bxc5 bxc5 20.Nxe5 Bxe5
21.Bxe5 Qxe5 22.Qa4+ Kf8 $1 { is no better } ) 18...Kf8 19.Nxg4 Bd6 20.f4
Nxg4 ( 20...Nc4 $5 { Suetin } ) 21.Qxg4 f5 $1
{ and ...Qf7 with advantage to Black. } ) 15...gxh4 $1
{ Opening the g-file. } ( { After } 15...g4 { Petrosian did not like } 16.Ng5
( { but in addition White also has counterplay after } 16.Nd2 Nxe5 17.bxc5
bxc5 18.Bb5+ Kf8 19.e4 { - Suetin } ) 16...Nxe5 17.Bb5+ { . } ) 16.Bf4 (
{ but not } 16.Nxh4 $2 c4 17.Bc2 Bxh4 18.Bxh4 Qxe5 ) 16...O-O-O
{ 'Black fearlessly castlesinto the fire of the enemy batteries, rightly
assuming that his attack on thekingside will prove more rapid and
dangerous.' (Tal) } ( { An interestingalternative is } 16...h3 17.gxh3 (
17.g3 $2 h4 $1 ) 17...O-O-O 18.a4 ( 18.bxc5 bxc5 19.Qa4 $2 d4 $1 ) 18...f6 $5
19.exf6 Bd6 { (Crouch) with theinitiative for Black, for example: } 20.Bxd6
Qxd6 21.a5 c4 22.axb6 axb6 $1 23.Bc2 Nxf6 24.Qd4 Rdg8+ 25.Kh1 Ng4 $1
{ and wins. } ) 17.a4 $2 ( { The generalopinion was that } 17.bxc5 Nxc5 $1
{ would almost certainly have been his reply,since Black's attack on the
g-file is far more serious than White's occupationof the d4-square. For
example: } ( 17...bxc5 18.Rb1
{ was necessary, butPetrosian would have been unlikely to agree to the
opening of play on thequeenside; } ( 18.-- ) ) 18.Nd4 ( 18.Be2 $6 Rdg8 19.Kh2
Rg7 { , ...Rhg8 and ...Ne4 } ) 18...Nxd3 19.Qxd3 Qc4 $1
{ , then ...Rh(d)g8 etc. } ) 17...c4 $1
{ A procedure which has become standard. Black blocks the queenside, by
which henips the opponent's initiative in the bud and secures the safety of
his king,freeing his hands for play on the g-file (and in some cases also for ...Bf8-g7,winning the e5-pawn). Petrosian once again subtly realised
that White'spossession of the d4-square would not give him anything. The ability to weighup such factors of different scale is precisely what distinguishes greatplayers. }
18.Be2 { This leads to an unusual impasse; } ( { but the tactical stroke }
18.Bf5 $5
{ , recommended by many commentators, would also not have helped.'If Black
swallows the bait - } 18...exf5 19.e6 Bd6 20.Bxd6 Qxd6 21.exd7+ Rxd7
{ , he is already two pawns up, but after } 22.Nd4 $1
{ White's chances are inany event no worse; (this is questionable in view
of } ( 22.Nxh4 { and Qd4 is apparently more tenacious - G.K. } ) 22...h3 $1
23.gxh3 f4 { - G.K.) } ) ( { 'It iscurious that Spassky saw } 18.Bf5
{ and he pointed it out immediately after thegame. But he decided against
playing his bishop to h3 (if Black avoided takingon f5), where it would
have been not very aesthetically placed, resemblingsome kind of strange, large pawn. However, at h3 the bishop would havefulfilled the important
function of defending the g2-pawn.' (Petrosian) ---But things would not have come to this, had Black replied }
18...d4 $1 19.cxd4 ( 19.Nxd4 Nxe5 $5 20.Bh3 a6 ) 19...exf5 20.e6 Bd6 (
20...Qc6 21.exd7+ Rxd7 22.b5 Qd5 { is also not bad } ) 21.exd7+ Rxd7 22.Bxd6
Qxd6 { when 'Black dominates theposition' (Crouch), for example: } 23.Nxh4
Rg8 $1 24.Qxh5 ( 24.Rc1 Rg4 $1 25.Rxc4+ $2 ( { or } 25.Nf3 Qg6 $1
{ and wins } ) 25...Kd8 26.Nf3 Qd5 ) 24...Qc6 $1 { or } 25.d5 ( { or } 25.f3
Qf6 $1 ) 25...Qxd5 26.f3 Qe5 { etc. } ) 18...a6 $1
{ The point of Black's idea. After this move the opponent is unable to
create anattack, and the play is now all one way. } 19.Kh1 Rdg8 20.Rg1 Rg4
21.Qd2 ( { White also has a pitiful position after } 21.Nh2 { (Suetin) }
21...Rg6 22.Nf3 Rhg8
{ followed by ...Qd8-f8-g7 and the threat of ... h4-h3. } ) 21...Rhg8 22.a5
b5 23.Rad1 Bf8 $5
{ 'The challenger's position has become too alarming, and hedecides on an
extreme measure - to accept the exchange sacrifice, although itis well
known that Petrosian never sacrifices anything against anyone in vain.' (Tal) }
( 23...Bf8 { hints at the plan } 24.-- f6 25.exf6 e5 { . } ) 24.Nh2 Nxe5 $1
25.Nxg4 hxg4 26.e4 { (an attempt to at least somehow activate the rook) }
26...Bd6 ( 26...dxe4 $4 27.Bxe5 Qxe5 28.Qd8# ) 27.Qe3 Nd7 $5
{ 'Played inPetrosian's style: before launching the decisive attack, Black
strengthens hiscentre.' (Averbakh) 'A paradoxical manoeuvre. } ( 27...g3 ) (
{ or } 27...dxe4
{ suggests itself. Even so, Petrosian's decision is more original and
inpractice more unpleasant for the opponent. } ) (
{ Black believes in the strengthof his position.' (Suetin). Although, in
principle, Black would also have wonby both } 27...g3 28.fxg3 ( 28.f3 Ng4 $1
) 28...hxg3 29.Rgf1 f5 $1 30.exf5 ( { after Crouch's move } 30.Bxg3 { , }
30...Qg7 { is decisive } ) 30...Qh7+ 31.Bh6 Rh8 ) ( { and } 27...dxe4 28.Rxd6
$5 ( { desperation: } 28.Qd4 Bd5 $1 { and ...g4-g3 } ) 28...Qxd6 29.Rd1 Qc7
30.Qd4 f6 31.Bxe5 fxe5 { etc. } ) 28.Bxd6 Qxd6 29.Rd4 $6
{ 'This merely adds fuel to the fire. } ( { ' } 29.Rd2
{ was more tenacious,when Black would have developed his initiative by }
29...f5 { ' (Suetin) } ( { But in myopinion, } 29...Qe5 $1
{ is stronger here. } ) ) ( 29.f4 { was indeed moretenacious, after which }
29...f5 ( { or } 29...e5 $5 { is good } ) 30.e5 Qf8 31.Kh2 Qh6 { . } )
29...e5 $1 30.Rd2 ( { It is also hopeless to play } 30.Rxd5 Bxd5 31.Rd1 Nf6
32.exd5 Kb8 { (Suetin). } ) 30...f5 $1
{ An uncommonly picturesque position:Black has an exemplary Philidor
phalanx! 'Euwe once remarked that Petrosian isa great master of pawn play.
The present game is a good example of this and asplendid illustration of the ideas of the great Philidor.' (Averbakh) Herepawns truly are the
soul of chess... 'I don't know whether telepathy exists,but that evening the match participants were like artists, performing at therequest of the spectators.' (Tal) }
31.exd5 ( { Petrosian considered } 31.exf5 Qf6 $1
{ would also have won, however. } ( 31...Nf6 32.Qh6 $2
{ to be 'slightlybetter' , overlooking } ( { while if } 32.f3 { , then }
32...Nh5 33.fxg4 Ng3+ 34.Kh2 d4 $1 { (Tal) } 35.cxd4 e4 $1 36.Kh3 Nxf5
{ and White's position collapses } ) 32...Ne4 $1 33.Qxd6 $2 Nxf2+ 34.Kh2 g3#
{ (Crouch). } ) ) 31...f4 $1 32.Qe4 ( { After } 32.Qa7
{ , a stronger idea is } 32...g3 $1 ( { the reply } 32...e4
{ wasrecommended } ) 33.Rgd1 ( { or } 33.f3 Rh8 ) 33...h3 $1 { . } ) 32...Nf6
33.Qf5+ Kb8 34.f3 ( { Not } 34.Qe6 Qxe6 35.dxe6 Ne4 $1
{ with the threat of 36...Nxf2+and 37...g3 mate. } ) 34...Bc8 35.Qb1 g3
36.Re1 h3 37.Bf1 ( { Or } 37.gxh3 g2+ 38.Kg1 Qd7 $1 { . } ) 37...Rh8 38.gxh3
Bxh3 39.Kg1 ( 39.Bxh3 Qd7 $1 ) 39...Bxf1 40.Kxf1 ( 40.Rxf1 Qd7 $1
{ followed by ...Qh3 or ...Qa7+ } ) 40...e4 $1 ( { the final breakthrough: }
40...e4 41.fxe4 f3 $1 ) 41.Qd1
{ Here the game wasadjourned and Black sealed his next move. } 41...Ng4 $5
{ A human decision; } ( { instead of the machine-like } 41...Qd7 $1 ) (
{ or } 41...Qe5
{ . It is surprisingthat, with such an abundance of winning moves available
to his opponent,Spassky did not resign without resuming. } ) 42.fxg4 f3
43.Rg2
{ 'An ill-fatedrook,' Tigran Vartanovich sympathised. 'It did not in fact
bring any benefitto its army, and now in desperation it sacrifices itself,
without savinganything.' } 43...fxg2+ ( { Black resigned in view of }
43...fxg2+ 44.Ke2 Qf4 ) ( { or } 43...Rh1+ 44.Rg1 Qh6
{ with mate in seven moves. --- 'One of my best games.It demonstrates my
creative views - the utmost restriction of the opponent'spossibilities,
strategy over the entire board, the surrounding of the enemyking and the gradual tightening of the encirclement around it.' (Petrosian)--- A warning
signal for the challenger! However, as though nothing hadhappened, Spassky continued to draw his opponent into complicated, dynamicpositions with a wealth of unusual tactics. And I think it was only thelessons of the 10th and 12th games that helped him finally to draw up thecorrect match
strategy (however, there was no longer enough time forperestroika, and he succeeded in solving the 'Petrosian riddle' only in the1969 match). }
) 0-1
[Event "18. World Championship Match, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1966.??.??"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Petrosian, T."]
[Black "Spassky, B."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "E63"]
[EventDate "1966.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Bg2 O-O 5.O-O Nc6 6.Nc3 d6 7.d4 a6 8.d5 Na5
9.Nd2 c5 10.Qc2 e5 $5 ( { Nowadays the traditional } 10...Rb8
{ isfashionable again. At that time this variation was only just gaining
inpopularity, which reached its peak in the late eighties to early nineties
(although one often sees a knight at a5 even now). Its theory has now advancedvery far - to the 20th-25th move, and Black's tactical possibilities
usuallycompensate for the ugly position of his knight on the edge of the board. }
) ( { But at that time } 10...e5
{ was considered the most critical move: afterblocking the centre, Black
begins preparing ...f7-f5 and ...b7-b5. } ) 11.b3 ( 11.a3 $5
{ and 12 b4 is more active. } ) 11...Ng4 12.e4
{ 'Since on thequeenside White is sticking to defensive tactics, he must
seek counterplay onthe kingside.' (Boleslavsky) } 12...f5 13.exf5 gxf5 14.Nd1
$5 ( { 'Objectively thecautious } 14.Bb2
{ seems better (followed by Rae1 and Nd1 - G.K.). ButPetrosian's idea is
very interesting and is distinguished both by itsstrategic depth, and by
its far-sighted psychological intention of drawing theenemy fire.' (Suetin) }
) 14...b5 ( { 'Unsuitable is } 14...e4 15.Bb2 Bd4 $2 ( { but after }
15...Bxb2 16.Qxb2 b5 { Black has an acceptable game, for example: } 17.f3 e3
18.Nb1 Ne5 19.Nxe3 f4 { etc } ) 16.Bxd4 cxd4 17.b4
{ , when Whitewins a piece.' (Suetin) } ) 15.f3 $5
{ Although Black has managed to play both ...f7-f5 and ...b7-b5, White is
relying on the fact that he will neverthelesshave a definite advantage on
account of the bad knight at a5, and he makes adouble-edged move. } (
{ 'In the same provocative manner. From the standpoint ofrestricting the
opponent's counterplay, } 15.Bb2
{ was better,' state Suetinand Vasyukov, while Boleslavsky adds that 'after
the possible sequel } 15...Rb8 16.f3 Nf6 17.Bc3 Bh6 18.Re1
{ it is not easy for Black to find an active plan.' } ) ( 15.f3
{ reaches the critical position. If } 15...Nh6 16.Bb2 { , then } 16...f4 $6
17.g4
{ is to White's advantage - he gains the e4-square for a knight and the
secondknight will support it from f2. His position is the more active,
although thefact that it is half-open leaves Black with counter-chances. But Spasskybasically wanted to open up the game as soon as possible and
provoke a crisis,so that the following move is fully in accordance with his match strategy. }
) 15...e4 $6
{ 'Both during the game and immediately afterwards, it seemed thatthis
thrust was natural and strong. It would appear that White's
seeminglypassive play should allow Black to take the most vigorous measures,disregarding any weakening of his position. But the question is: is
notBlack's initiative illusory? The course of the game shows that it is farharder to breach White's position than it might seem. And it is this thatdemonstrates the world champion's great far-sightedness.' (Suetin) }
16.Bb2 ( { Of course, not } 16.fxg4 $2 Bxa1 17.gxf5 Bd4+ 18.Kh1 Bxf5
{ and White doesnot have sufficient compensation for the exchange. } )
16...exf3 17.Bxf3 Bxb2 ( { In the opinion of both Suetin and Burgess, }
17...Ne5
{ was better, retainingthe g7-bishop for the defence of the king against
attacks on the g-file (after...f5-f4 and gxf4). However, this does not
change the character of the play,for example: } 18.Bg2 Qg5 19.Nf2 f4 20.gxf4
$1 Qxf4 21.Nfe4 Qe3+ 22.Kh1 { with advantage to White: } 22...Bf5 ( { or }
22...Bh3 $2 23.Bxh3 Qxh3 24.Rg1 $1 ) 23.Rae1 Qh6 24.Nf3
{ and, after the exchange of a pair of minor pieces, theremoteness of the
a5-knight begins to play a decisive role. Therefore Spasskyhurries with his
counterplay, hoping for ...f5-f4 and ...Ra7-g7. } ) 18.Qxb2 Ne5 19.Be2
{ Now Black is practically forced to go in for extreme measures: ifhe
remains with the weak f5-pawn and White manoeuvres his knight via e3 and
g2to f4, the game will be strategically decided. } 19...f4 $2
{ It was on this thatSpassky was pinning his hopes: the game is opened up,
the possibility of ...Bh3 is created, and Black, exploiting his strong
knight at e5 and theremoteness of the white queen from the kingside, creates threats to the enemyking. And for the moment the offside knight at a5
would appear not to be felt; } ( { in contrast to the variation } 19...Bd7 $6
20.Ne3 Qg5 21.Ng2 Rae8 22.Rae1
{ , where the pressure on the c4-pawn is ephemeral, whereas the holes
inBlack's position are yawning. 'It is hard to refrain from such a
thrust,especially as Black's plan was apparently determined back on the 15th move. }
) (
{ Even so, it would have been more in the spirit of the position to build
upthe pressure with } 19...Ra7 20.Ne3 { As is also the case after } (
20.cxb5 axb5 21.Bxb5 Rg7 22.Kh1 ( { or } 22.Nf3 Ng6 $5
{ and ...f5-f4 - G.K. } ) 22...Bb7 ) 20...Rg7 { (Suetin) } ( 20...Qf6 21.Kh1
$1 ( 21.Qc2 Rg7 22.Ng2 ( 22.cxb5 axb5 23.Bxb5 f4 24.Kh1 Qh6 $1 { - G.K. } )
22...Ng6
{ , and the threat of ...f5-f4becomes much stronger. Tal gives the
variation } 23.Kh1 f4 24.Nxf4 Nxf4 25.gxf4 Bh3
{ 'with good counterplay.' (Suetin) } ) 21...Re7 ( 21...bxc4 22.bxc4 $1 )
22.Rae1
{ and Ng2 is better; after this it is hard for Black to play ...f5-f4 and
he continues to suffer with his knight on a5. } ) 21.Ng2 bxc4 22.bxc4 Ng6
23.Kh1 $1
{ . --- This was why Spassky played 19...f4 immediately. Thismove would
have been logical and good, had it not been for... a tacticalrefutation. } )
20.gxf4 $2
{ An error in reply, which, however, is alsoexcusable: to make the correct
choice between the two captures on f4 is hardeven for the most inveterate
tactician! Moreover, the champion is planning hisfavourite exchange sacrifice - in the words of Suetin, 'he deliberately playson the psychology of his
opponent and sets him a very subtle trap.' Petrosianhimself later admitted: 'I would attribute this move to the influence of Tal -to the various psychological tricks that are fashionable nowadays. }
(
{ At thatpoint of the match, my opponent's approach to the solving of
practicalproblems was already clear to me, and I was ready to bet that in
reply Spasskywould make the energetic and showy move 20...Bh3. Although I realised thatobjectively }
20.Rxf4 { was stronger.' I absolutely agree with this - after } 20...Rxf4
21.gxf4 { things would not have been easy for Black: } 21...Ng6 ( 21...Ra7 $2
22.fxe5 $1 ( { Tal recommended } 22.Ne3 Rg7+ $2 ( { but } 22...Ng6 $1
{ is moretenacious } ) 23.Kh1 Bh3 $2 24.fxe5 Qg5 25.Ng4 $1 Bxg4 26.Ne4
{ and wins } ) 22...Rg7+ 23.Kf1 $1 ( { but not } 23.Kf2 $2 Qh4+ 24.Ke3 Qg5+
25.Kd3 Bf5+ 26.Ne4 Qf4 27.Nc3 Qxe5 28.Bf3 bxc4+ 29.bxc4 Qd4+ 30.Ke2 Qxc4+
{ withperpetual check } ) 23...Bh3+ 24.Ke1 Rg1+ 25.Nf1 Qh4+ 26.Nf2
{ and White wins. } ) 22.Ne4 Nxf4 ( 22...bxc4 $2 23.Nf6+ Kf7 24.Nh5 ) 23.Ndf2
( { Suetin'srecommendation } 23.Ne3 Ra7 24.Nf6+ Kf7 25.Rf1 Qxf6 26.Qxf6+ Kxf6
27.Rxf4+
{ 'with clearly the better ending for White' is dubious on account of }
27...Ke5 $1 28.Rf8 Kd4 29.Kf2 bxc4 30.bxc4 Re7 { with equality } ) 23...Ra7
{ . Accordingto Boleslavsky, here 'Black has a good game', but this is not
so: } 24.Kh1 $1 Rg7 ( 24...bxc4 $2 25.Rg1+ Ng6 26.Nf6+ { and N2e4 } ) 25.Bg4
$3 bxc4 26.Bxc8 ( 26.Rg1 $5 ) 26...Qxc8 27.Nf6+ Kf8 ( { if } 27...Kf7
{ the 'X-ray' through thethree knights is decisive - } 28.Rf1 $3 { and N2e4 }
) 28.Nxh7+ Kg8 29.Nf6+ Kf8 30.Re1 Qf5 31.Re8+ Kf7 32.N2e4 Nb7 33.bxc4 Nh5
34.Re7+ $1 Kf8 $1 ( 34...Kxe7 35.Qxb7+ Kd8 36.Qb6+ Rc7 37.Qxd6+ Kc8 38.Qf8+
Kb7 39.Nd6+ { and Nxf5 } ) 35.Rxg7 Nxf6 ( { or here } 35...Nxg7 36.Kg1 )
36.Qxf6+ Qxf6 37.Nxf6 Kxg7 38.Ne4 Kg6 39.Kg2 Kf5 40.Kf3 Na5 41.Nd2
{ and White wins. --- There is nothingsurprising in this: after all, Black
is effectively a piece down! Incidentally,I also had some dismal
experiences with an offside knight at a5 in my youth:in 1976 I lost in this way to Nikolayevsky, in 1977 to Zaid, and in Tilburg1981 - also to Timman,
after which I gave up playing the variation with ...Nc6. } ) 20...Bh3 $6
{ 'Here it is, the psychological crisis. Almost withoutthinking, Black is
tempted by the planned sortie of his liberated bishop,forgetting for an
instant about concrete calculations. But without them, insuch a situation general considerations are quite useless! }
( { Correct was } 20...Rxf4 $1 21.Ne3 ( 21.Rxf4 Qg5+ 22.Kh1 Qxf4 ) 21...Qg5+
22.Kh1 Rxf1+ 23.Ndxf1 Ra7
{ was recommended by Boleslavsky and Vasyukov - in their opinion,here White
would altogether have faced 'a difficult defence' and 'a strugglefor a
draw,' but in my view it is Black who is more at risk after } ( 23...Bh3
{ and Black's chances are not worse.' (Suetin) Although White would
haveremained the active side: } 24.Qc3 Qf4 25.Ng3 Qf2 26.Bf1 Qf3+ 27.Kg1 b4
28.Qe1 Bxf1 29.Nexf1 Qf6 30.Nd2 ( 30.Ne4 Nf3+ 31.Kh1 Qd4 32.Qg3+ Kh8 33.Qxf3
Qxa1 34.Nxd6 Qg7 $1 { is unclear } ) 30...Nd3 31.Qe6+ Qxe6 32.dxe6 Re8
33.Nde4 Rxe6 34.Rd1 Nf4 35.Nxd6 Ne2+ { , gaining a draw. } ) 24.Qd2 Rg7
25.Ng3 { - once again on account of the ill-starred knight at a5. If }
25...Nb7 { White shouldplay } 26.Rf1
{ and Black's initiative gradually evaporates; } ( { but not } 26.cxb5 axb5
27.Bxb5 $6 { on account of } 27...Nf3 28.Qf2 Nxh2 $1 { . } ) ) 21.Ne3 $1
{ The first exchange sacrifice! } ( { There was no choice: } 21.Rf2 $2 Rxf4
22.Rxf4 Qg5+ { etc. 'Suddenly the picture changes sharply.' (Boleslavsky) } )
21...Bxf1 $2
{ Having begun something, one wants to continue in the same way. } (
{ Especially since with the knight at e3 the tactical stroke } 21...Rxf4
22.Rxf4 Qg5+ { is parried by } 23.Rg4 $1 ( 23.Kh1 Qxf4 24.Rg1+ Kh8 25.Rg3 Bd7
{ is not so clear } ) 23...Nxg4 24.Nxg4 Bxg4 25.Bxg4 Qxg4+ 26.Kh1
{ 'and theinitiative unexpectedly passes to White.' (Suetin) After the
forced } 26...Qd4 $1 27.Rg1+ Kh8 ( 27...Kf7 $2 28.Qc2 ) 28.Qxd4+ cxd4 29.Ne4
$1 { is evidentlystronger: } ( 29.Rg4
{ , Black has a very difficult endgame in Boleslavsky'sopinion, although
here I have managed to find a way to draw: } 29...bxc4 30.bxc4 Re8 $1 31.Rxd4
Re1+ 32.Kg2 Rd1 $1 33.Kf3 Nxc4 34.Rxc4 Rxd2 { . } ( 34...-- ) ) 29...Nb7
30.cxb5 $1 ( 30.Rd1 bxc4 31.bxc4 Rf8 32.Ng5 h6 33.Ne6 Rf2 34.a3 Rf3 35.Rxd4
Rxa3 36.Rh4 Kh7 37.Rg4 Rb3 { allows more drawing chances } ) 30...axb5 31.Rd1
Rxa2 32.Rxd4 { with the threat of Rb4!, and if } 32...Nc5 { , then } 33.Nxd6
Nxb3 34.Rd3 Nc5 35.Rc3 $1 Na4 36.Rg3
{ etc, although the limitedmaterial leaves Black with hopes of saving the
game. In any case this was amore tenacious continuation than that which
occurred in the game. But Spasskywas not yet even thinking about defence! Alas, very soon the bitterrealisation set in. }
) 22.Rxf1 Ng6 ( { After } 22...Nd7 { (recommended by manycommentators) }
23.Bg4 $1 { while if } ( 23.cxb5 $5 ) 23...Nf6 ( 23...Qf6
{ 'with possibilities of a resistance' (Boleslavsky), then } 24.Be6+ Kh8
25.Qc1 $1 { (Burgess) } 25...Qd4 ( { if } 25...Nb6 ) ( { or } 25...Rad8 { - }
26.Kh1 $1 ) 26.Nf3 $1 Qg7+ 27.Kh1 Nf6 28.Nf5 Qc7 29.Rg1 { etc } ) 24.Be6+
{ (Suetin) } 24...Kh8 25.Ne4 { White also has a very strong initiative. } )
23.Bg4 $1 ( 23.Ng4 $2 h5 $1 ) 23...Nxf4 $6
{ Confusion - quite probably, from a feeling of hopelessness; } (
{ it was bad to try } 23...Rxf4 $2 24.Be6+ Kf8 25.Rxf4+ Nxf4 26.Qh8+ Ke7
27.Nf5# ) ( { as was the more tenacious } 23...Qf6 24.Be6+ Kh8 25.Qxf6+ Rxf6
26.f5 { (Boleslavsky) } 26...Ne5 27.Ne4 $1 { , } ) ( { or } 23...h6
{ (Suetin) } 24.Be6+ Kh7 25.Nf5 Ra7 26.Ne4 $1 { . } ) 24.Rxf4 $1
{ (the second exchange sacrifice!) } 24...Rxf4 25.Be6+ Rf7 ( 25...Kf8 26.Qh8+
Ke7 27.Qxh7+ ) 26.Ne4
{ 'A picturesque position.Black is helpless, despite the fact that he is
two exchanges to the good. Theknight at a5 is a passive witness to the
destruction of its army.' (Boleslavsky) } 26...Qh4 ( { or } 26...Ra7 27.Nf5
Qf8 28.Qf6 $1 { (Boleslavsky) } ) 27.Nxd6 Qg5+ ( { It is no better to play }
27...Qe1+ 28.Kg2 Qxe3 29.Bxf7+ Kf8 30.Qh8+ Ke7 31.Nf5+ Kxf7 ( 31...Kd7
32.Be6+ ) 32.Qg7+ { and Nxe3 (Boleslavsky) } ) ( { or } 27...Ra7 28.Nef5 Qg4+
29.Kf2 bxc4 ( 29...Qh4+ 30.Kf1 Qf4+ 31.Ke1 ) 30.Bxf7+ Rxf7 31.Qh8+ $1 Kxh8
32.Nxf7+ Kg8 33.N7h6+ { and Nxg4. } ) 28.Kh1 Ra7 ( { or } 28...Qxe3 29.Bxf7+
Kf8 30.Qh8+ Ke7 31.Nf5+ Kxf7 32.Qg7+ { and Nxe3 (Suetin) } ) 29.Bxf7+ Rxf7
30.Qh8+ $3
{ . A spectacular concludingblow. The seconds of the two players,
grandmasters Boleslavsky and Bondarevsky,called this game the best of the
match. } ( { Black resigned in view of } 30.Qh8+ $3 Kxh8 31.Nxf7+
{ and Nxg5. --- The champion had warmed up! Petrosian wasleading by two
points, and the 12th game could already have essentially beendecisive, had
he managed to take his wonderful combination to its logical end. } ) 1-0
[Event "19. World Championship Match, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1966.??.??"]
[Round "12"]
[White "Petrosian, T."]
[Black "Spassky, B."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "A40"]
[EventDate "1966.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.Nf3 g6 2.c4 Bg7 3.d4 d6 4.Nc3 Nd7 5.e4 e6 $5 6.Be2 b6 7.O-O Bb7 8.Be3 Ne7
{ A rare, 'sideline' defence, which bears the name of the Czech
masterUjtelky. 'It seems to me that such an opening liberty in a match for
the worldchampionship contributes as much to the progress of chess as playing the mosttopical variation according to classic patterns.'
(Petrosian) } 9.Qc2 h6 10.Rad1 O-O
{ From the viewpoint of the modern player, Black's development israther
strange: nowadays this is mainly how they play against a computer. Butin
this match Spassky several times employed different variations of thedouble fianchetto, trying to take Petrosian away from theory and transfer
theweight of the struggle to a complicated middlegame. He thought that, even ifBlack's position were objectively worse, he would be able to outplay hisopponent in a struggle without clear positional guidelines. --- This delusioncost Spassky dearly! However, he learned a great deal and drew
some importantlessons from his defeat. It became evident to him that to become worldchampion, you have to play normal openings. And in the 1969 match thechallenger played only classical openings - the Queen's Gambit, the TarraschDefence. Not at all as in 1966! But at that time Spassky was still hoping thathis 'original' tactics would bring him success, since they would enable him toneutralise Petrosian's opening preparation and to launch a serious strugglewith a board full of pieces around the 10-15 move mark: look, the opponent isbeginning to get into time-trouble and in
the end he loses his way in thecomplications... } 11.d5 ( 11.Rfe1 f5 $5 )
11...e5 12.Qc1 Kh7 13.g3
{ Thechampion has hardly played the opening in the best way. Such set-ups
with themoves ...g7-g6, ...b7-b6, ...e7-e6 and ...d7-d6, if they are not
refuteddirectly, should at least promise White more of an advantage. But here it isnot easy for him to find a suitable plan and he has only a minimal
plus,associated with his spatial superiority and the passivity of the bishop at b7. }
13...f5 (
{ In the opinion of the experienced King's Indian player Bronstein,
thisshould have been prepared by } 13...a5 { , then ...Nc5 and ...Bc8. } )
14.exf5
{ As is evident, it is now too late for the traditional play with b2-b4
andc4-c5. Therefore Petrosian first defends himself against ...f5-f4 and
opensthe kingside, emphasising the remoteness of the bishop at b7. }
14...Nxf5 (
{ Itstands to reason that Spassky prefers to concede the e4-square,
avoiding theperceptible weakening of his position after } 14...gxf5 15.Nh4
{ followed byf2-f4 (immediately or after Qc2), and if } 15...f4 { , then }
16.Qc2+ Kg8 17.Bc1 { etc. } ) 15.Bd3 Bc8
{ ('the return of the prodigal son') } 16.Kg2 Nf6 17.Ne4 Nh5 $5 (
{ A quieter idea is } 17...Bd7 { with the idea of ...c7-c6; } ) ( { or }
17...Nxe4 18.Bxe4 Bd7 ( { but not } 18...Nxe3+ $6 19.fxe3 $1 { and Qc2. } ) )
18.Bd2 Bd7 19.Kh1
{ In the slow manoeuvring struggle that has begun, White hasretained a
definite advantage. } ( { The sharp } 19.g4 $6
{ did not achieve itsaim on account of } 19...Nh4+ $1 20.Nxh4 Qxh4 21.gxh5
Qh3+ $1 22.Kg1 Qxd3 23.hxg6+ Kh8 { etc. } ) 19...Ne7 20.Nh4 Bh3 ( { If }
20...c6 { there could havefollowed } 21.f3 cxd5 22.cxd5 Bh3 ( 22...Rc8 $6
23.Qb1 ) 23.Rfe1 Nf6 24.g4 { . } ) 21.Rg1 Bd7
{ Black's last two moves show that Spassky has not yet decidedexactly what
to do, and he manoeuvres in the hope of some mistake by theopponent. } (
{ It was no good to play } 21...Qd7 $2 22.f3 $1
{ with the threatof g3-g4 (for example, } 22...Bf5 23.Nxf5 gxf5 24.g4 $1
{ ). } ) ( { If instead } 21...Bg4 { then: } 22.Rdf1 $1 ( { not } 22.f3 $6
Bxf3+ 23.Nxf3 Rxf3 24.Be2 Rf8 25.Rdf1 Qd7 26.Bxh5 gxh5 27.Qc2 ( 27.Qd1 Qg4 )
27...Kh8 { with equality } ) 22...c6 ( { if } 22...Nf5 $2 23.f3 Bh3 { then }
24.Nxg6 $1 Kxg6 25.g4 Bxf1 26.gxf5+ Kf7 27.Qxf1 { is strong } ) 23.f3 Bh3
24.Rd1 $1 cxd5 25.cxd5 { with thethreats of Bb4 and g3-g4. } ) 22.Be3 (
22.f3 Nf6 ) ( { and } 22.Qc2 Be8 { are nobetter. } ) 22...Qe8 ( { If }
22...Nf5 $2 { White has the tactical stroke } 23.Nxg6 $1 Kxg6 24.g4 Kh7
25.gxf5 Bxf5 26.Ng5+ $1 hxg5 27.Rxg5
{ , regaining thepiece with an obvious advantage. } ) 23.Rde1 Qf7 (
{ After } 23...Nf6 { Black hasto reckon with } 24.f4 { . } ) 24.Qc2 Kh8
{ Another critical position. Black hasarranged his pieces quite
successfully and is now ready to play ...Nf5followed by ...Rae8. But here,
in my opinion, White made a very strong move: } 25.Nd2 $1 ( 25.Nc3 Nf5
26.Nxf5 gxf5 27.f4 { also looks quite good, with aminimal advantage: }
27...c5 ( { or } 27...e4 28.Be2 ) 28.fxe5 dxe5 29.Ref1 $5 Nf6 30.Bc1 (
{ not } 30.Bxf5 $2 Nxd5 $1 31.Bxd7 Nxe3 32.Rxf7 Nxc2 33.Rgf1 Ne3 34.Rxf8+
Bxf8 $1 { and ...Nxc4, winning a pawn } ) 30...e4 31.Be2
{ etc. ButPetrosian was hoping for more. } ) 25...Nf5 26.Nxf5 $1 (
{ Nothing was given by } 26.Nxg6+ $6 Qxg6 27.g4 Nhg3+ $1 28.fxg3 Qxg4 { . } )
26...gxf5 { A crucialdecision. } ( { After } 26...Bxf5
{ , White had a choice: } 27.Bxf5 { (moreenergetic) } ( 27.Ne4
{ with slightly the more pleasant game, although after } 27...Nf6
{ Black could have gained a draw with accurate defence; } ( 27...-- ) )
27...gxf5 ( 27...Qxf5 28.Qxf5 gxf5 29.g4 $5 fxg4 30.Rxg4 Nf6 31.Rh4 ) 28.g4
$1 ( 28.f3 b5 $1 ) 28...fxg4 29.Rxg4 { and Reg1 with the initiative. } )
27.g4 $1
{ Of course, Spassky took account of this obvious reply and was pinning
hishopes on the following pawn breakthrough: } 27...e4 $2
{ Strangely enough, this isalready the decisive error. } ( 27...fxg4 $2
{ fails to } 28.Bg6 { . } ) ( { It isalso hard to recommend } 27...Nf4 $6
{ - after the simple } 28.Bxf4 exf4 29.Bxf5
{ White has the f3-square for his knight and the chance of invading withhis
rook at e7, for example: } 29...Bxf5 30.gxf5 Qxf5 31.Qxf5 Rxf5 32.Re7 Bxb2
33.Rxc7 Re8 34.Nf3 Re4 35.Rd7 Rxc4 36.Rxd6 Rf6 37.Rd8+ Kh7 38.Rd7+ Kh8
39.Rxa7 Rd6 40.Nh4 $1 { and wins. } ) (
{ But if Black had foreseen what was awaitinghim, he would, of course, have
chosen } 27...f4 { , although after } 28.Bg6 Qe7 ( 28...Qf6
{ was given in the match bulletin, when White has } 29.Bxh5 fxe3 30.fxe3 Qh4
( { or } 30...Qf2 31.Qd1 $1 ) 31.Ne4 ) 29.Bxh5 ( 29.Bd4 $5 Nf6 30.f3
{ is also interesting } ) 29...fxe3 30.fxe3 Rf2 31.Ref1 Raf8 32.Rxf2 Rxf2
33.Rg2 $1 Qh4 34.Qd1 Rf8 ( { or } 34...Rxg2 $6 35.Kxg2 e4 36.Nxe4 Bxb2 37.Qf3
Qe7 38.Bg6 $1 ) 35.Ne4 { he has insufficient compensation for the pawn. } )
28.gxh5 f4
{ A picturesque position: both white bishops are en prise! Of course,White
can gain a material advantage by capturing with one of his pieces on
e4here, but then after 29...fxe3 his extra pawns are not felt: Black hassufficient compensation in the form of his two bishops (the g7-bishop
isespecially strong). But Petrosian finds a combinative refutation. } (
28...exd3 29.Qxd3 Rae8
{ , which was recommended soon after the game, is unattractive inview of }
30.Nf3 Qxh5 ( 30...c5 31.Bf4 $1 ) 31.Bd4 { , for example: } 31...Bf6 (
{ or } 31...Rg8 32.Rxg7 $1 Rxg7 33.Rg1 Rg8 34.Qc3 Qf7 35.Ng5 $1 Qg6 36.Qh3
{ and wins } ) 32.Rxe8 Bxe8 33.Bxf6+ Rxf6 34.Qc3 Qf7 35.Nd4
{ with powerfulpressure. } ) 29.Rxg7 $1 { A brilliant stroke! } (
{ Spassky's mistake was that,when he played 27...e4? 28 gxh5 f4 in the hope
of gaining good compensationfor the sacrificed pawns, he devoted all his
attention to } 29.Nxe4 ) ( { and } 29.Bxe4
{ , and considered 29 Rxg7! only in passing. } ) 29...Qxg7 30.Rg1 Qe5 (
{ Black would have lost after both } 30...Bg4 $2 31.Be2 $1 fxe3 32.Rxg4 Qd4
( 32...Qe5 33.Rxe4 ) 33.Nxe4 { ; } ) ( { and } 30...exd3 $2 31.Qxd3 Qxg1+
32.Kxg1 Rg8+ ( 32...fxe3 33.Qxe3 Kg7 34.Qc3+ { and Ne4! } ) 33.Kh1 fxe3
34.Qxe3 Rg5 35.Ne4 $1 Re8 36.h4 Rxh5 37.Qd4+ Ree5 38.Ng3
{ . --- But now the positionlooks highly confused: for the moment White has
a material advantage, but oneof his bishops will be lost and most probably,
if he does not do somethingextraordinary, Black will simply be better. Here it is appropriate to recallthe words of Petrosian himself: 'It is thought
that the strength of a playerdepends mainly on his evaluating capability. There exists the routineevaluation of a position. It easily lends itself to study and one can findnumerous players who possess this simple skill. But a player should evaluate aposition, taking account of seemingly insignificant
nuances. A deeppenetration into the secrets of a position - this is an indication of truestrength.' Now it is understandable how Petrosian found his next brilliantmove. }
) 31.Nf3 $3
{ Placing a third piece en prise! It is clear that, with thedisappearance
of the g7-bishop, the black king has suddenly become mostuncomfortable.
'Petrosian rightly considered that, firstly, the bishops hadnowhere to go, and secondly, with two arbiters watching, in one move Spasskywould be
unable to capture all three pieces simultaneously. Those who werehappy were the spectators. The auditorium began buzzing like an animatedbeehive.' (Bronstein) }
31...exd3 { (the only reply) } ( 31...exf3 $2 32.Bd2 $1 { and Bc3 } ) 32.Nxe5
$2
{ 'The finish of the game took place in severetime-trouble.' (Petrosian) A
highly vexing mistake, and not only because thewin was missed. What was
spoiled was a brilliant game, the value of which wasincreased many times by the ultra-high status of the event and the exceptionalstrength of the
opponent. } ( { The accurate } 32.Qxd3 $1 Bf5
{ would have led tothe same 'windmill' idea as in the game, but Black would
not have had a trumpin the form of the c2-pawn: } 33.Qe2 $5 ( 33.Nxe5 Bxd3
34.Bd4 $1 dxe5 ( 34...Be4+ 35.Nf3+ $1
{ - it was this simple knight retreat that Petrosianoverlooked! } ) 35.Bxe5+
{ (one recalls the famous game Torre-Lasker, Moscow1925) } 35...Kh7 36.Rg7+
Kh8 37.Rxc7+ Kg8 38.Rg7+ Kh8 39.Rxa7+ $1 Kg8 40.Rg7+ Kh8 41.Rg3+ Kh7 42.Rxd3
Rxa2 43.Kg2
{ with a decisive breakthrough by thed-pawn. A very pretty variation,
pointed out by Bronstein and many othercommentators. However, in the heat
of the rapture regarding the 'windmill',everyone overlooked the cold computer solution... }
) 33...fxe3 ( 33...Be4 34.Bd2 $1 ) 34.Nxe5 exf2 35.Rg2 Rae8 ( { or } 35...Be4
36.Ng6+ Bxg6 37.Rxf2 ) 36.Qxf2 Rxe5 37.h3 Kh7 38.Kh2 { and wins. } )
32...dxc2 33.Bd4 $1 dxe5 34.Bxe5+ Kh7 35.Rg7+ Kh8
{ It transpires that the 'windmill', on which Petrosian waspinning his
hopes, is no longer so effective: the rook is obliged to returnback to deal
with the c2-pawn. This pawn is far more dangerous than the bishopwas on d3 in the previous annotation: that was lost immediately, whereas herethe
f2-pawn prevents the rook from capturing on c2, and the position is not soclear. }
36.Rf7+ ( 36.Rxd7+ $5 ) 36...Kg8 37.Rg7+ Kh8 38.Rg6+ $6
{ Intime-trouble, vexed by his error, White repeats the position three
times. Arttruly demands sacrifices! } (
{ Petrosian was obviously stressed, otherwise withthe help of that same
'windmill' he would have easily taken the game to theadjournment - } 38.Rxd7+
Kg8 39.Rg7+ Kh8 40.Rxc7+ Kg8 41.Rg7+ Kh8 42.Rxa7+ $1 Kg8 43.Rg7+ Kh8 44.Rg1+
Kh7 { , and at home he could have calmly studiedthe consequences of } 45.Rc1
$5 { . For example: } 45...Rxa2
{ (the most obvious, andprobably the best reply) } ( 45...Rfe8 46.Bc3 f3
47.Rxc2 Re2 48.Rxe2 fxe2 49.Kg2 Rxa2 50.Kf3 Rxb2 51.d6 Ra2 52.d7 Ra8 53.Kxe2
Rd8 54.Bd4 Rxd7 55.Bxb6 Kg7 56.Be3 $1 Kf6 ( { or } 56...Rd6 57.c5 ) 57.Bxh6
Rh7 58.Bf4 Rxh5 59.Kd3 { and Black has to balance on the edge of the abyss. }
) 46.Rxc2 Rf5 47.Bc7 f3 48.h4 b5 49.Kh2 bxc4 50.d6 Rf7 51.Rxc4 Rxb2 52.Kg3
Rd2
{ , neverthelessgaining a draw. --- Thus, White would have retained
practical chances ofsuccess. But in such a nervy atmosphere Petrosian could
not even contemplate aposition where the c2-pawn remained 'alive', even for just a couple of moves.I can well understand this: in a match for
the world championship there isalways monstrous tension! } ) 38...Kh7 39.Rg7+
{ . --- The first half of thematch concluded with the score 7-5 in
Petrosian's favour. --- 'For the momentthe world champion is surpassing not
only Spassky, but also himself,' was MaxEuwe's intermediate summing-up. 'We know Petrosian well as a deep strategist,excellent defender and
expert on the endgame. But in this match we are alsoseeing a new Petrosian. He is sacrificing, counterattacking and attacking. Ina word, a highly dangerous tactician is emerging.' --- But the championhimself was seriously traumatised by the fact that he had missed a chance tocreate an
immortal masterpiece - unique for competitions of this level, wheresuch attacks usually do not succeed. He claimed a postponement and then lostthe following, 13th game (this was the first defeat in his career againstSpassky!) and the match situation became much sharper. After the 19th game thechallenger levelled the scores. However, through his closing efforts Petrosiansnatched victory in the match by 12˝-11˝ and retained his title. --- Inone of the interviews after the match he said: 'If it is true that a player'sstyle is his person, then everyone plays as he
is intended to by nature. I amnaturally cautious, and I altogether dislike situations which involve risk.But - and here lies the paradox - I have never complained about my combinativevision! In general I consider that in chess everything rests on tactics. Ifone thinks of strategy as a block of marble, then tactics are the chisel withwhich a master operates, in creating works of chess art. Perhaps it istactical mastery that makes me refrain from many combinations, since I findrefutations for my opponents.' --- Three years later, in 1969, Petrosiannevertheless wilted under Spassky's onslaught and conceded the chess crown tohim. By a twist of fate, the match concluded on the day of TigranVartanovich's 40th birthday. He had a house full of guests, among whom wereboth ex-world champion Euwe and the chief arbiter of the match O'Kelly. 'Wesat down at the table, and the mood was non-festive,' recalls grandmasterAverbakh. 'And suddenly Tigran said: "But why, in fact, are we upset?" And heswitched on some music. Seeing how he was enjoying himself, singing anddancing, Euwe and O'Kelly concluded: "He doesn't yet know what has
happened."Tigran objected: "No, I know what has happened, but now at least I will beable to breathe freely!" He never made a tragedy out of that defeat, althoughhe said with some regret that, if he had been prepared for the match as he hadin 1963 or 1966, he would not have lost the title.' --- Naturally, Petrosianwas not averse to returning to the throne. In the autumn of 1969 he againdemonstrated his enormous strength - in the Zonal, 37th USSR Championship:going through the entire tournament undefeated, he shared first place withPolugayevsky (14 out of 22). And then, in January 1970, he defeated him in aplay-off match for the title of USSR Champion - 3˝-1˝ (+2=3). }
1/2-1/2
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "The Lion Shows its Claws"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ ('Lev' in Russian means 'lion' - Translator's note.) } 1.--
{ It is time also to say something about Lev Abramovich Polugayevsky
(1934-1995),a participant in five Candidates matches and perhaps the most
outstandingtheoretician and analyst among the grandmasters born in the 1930s, a brilliantsuccessor to the traditions of the Soviet Chess School,
proceeding fromBotvinnik, Boleslavsky, Makogonov, Bondarevsky, Simagin, Furman, Smyslov,Averbakh, Bronstein, Geller and Taimanov. --- Polugayevsky announced himselfin the summer of 1953, when he took second place and exceeded the master normin a strong championship of the Russian
Federation. His game with Ilivitskywas annotated in the chess column of the magazine 'Ogonek' by none other thanthe world champion Botvinnik! In his first USSR Championships (1956 and 1958)Lev finished quite high: 5th-7th (with Tal and Kholmov) and 5th-6th (withSpassky). His talent was obvious, but at the same time it was mentioned in thepress that 'at times Polugayevsky cannot withstand the tension and at thedecisive moment, in a situation of sharp rivalry, his presence of mindsometimes fails him.' --- Imagine how hard it was to win a place under thesun, at a time
when there was a tremendous array of former and future worldchampions and long-standing contenders for the chess throne. However, from theearly 1960s Polugayevsky slowly but surely began assuming one of the leadingroles. }
*
[Event "20. 27th USSR Championship, Leningrad"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1960.??.??"]
[Round "14"]
[White "Polugayevsky, L."]
[Black "Petrosian, T."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "E53"]
[EventDate "1960.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 O-O 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 c5 7.O-O dxc4 8.Bxc4 b6
9.Qe2 ( { Nowadays they have come round to playing } 9.a3 $1 { . } ) 9...Bb7
10.Rd1
{ 'In those years it was easier to win the Soviet Championship than agame
against "iron Tigran". Even so, I decided to engage him in a fight,having
noticed that in those rare instances when Petrosian did lose orobtained inferior positions, it was when his opponents played directly andsharply,
because Petrosian, at times fearing something at the board, wouldavoid a critical dispute in the opening. It was this that gave rise to thedecision to play a variation that is rich in open, tactical play.' (Polugayevsky) }
10...Nbd7 $6 { This is dubious on account of White's sharp reply. } (
10...cxd4 11.exd4 Bxc3 ( { It is more solid to play } 11...Nbd7
{ with equality } ) 12.bxc3 Qc7
{ is also interesting, practically forcing White to sacrifice apawn - }
13.Bd3 $5 ( 13.Bb2 Bxf3 $1 { , when it is bad to continue } 14.Qxf3 $6 (
14.gxf3 { has to be played } ) 14...Qxc4 15.Qxa8 Nc6 16.Qb7 Nd5 17.Re1 Rb8
18.Qd7 Rd8 19.Qb7 h5 20.Bc1 $2 ( 20.Rac1 $1 ) 20...Na5 21.Qxa7 Qc6 22.Qa6 Nc4
23.Rb1 Nc7 { 0-1 Vladimirov-Kasparov, Batumi rapidplay 2001. } ) 13...Qxc3
14.Bb2 Qc6 $1 ( 14...Qc7 $6 15.d5 $1
{ Belyavsky-Kasparov, 4th matchgame,Moscow 1983 } ) 15.d5 exd5
{ with an unclear position. } ) 11.d5 $1
{ Thetheoreticians of that time did not consider this move to be dangerous
forBlack. } 11...Bxc3 12.dxe6 Ba5 ( { White has the advantage after }
12...fxe6 13.Bxe6+ Kh8 14.bxc3 Qe7 15.Bxd7 Nxd7 16.Ne1 Nf6 17.f3
{ and e3-e4; } ) ( { or } 12...Bxf3 13.Qxf3 Be5 14.exd7 Qc7 15.Qh3 $1 Rad8
16.f4 Bd6 17.Qf3
{ and e3-e4.'But after the move played the black bishop is out of play, and
this allowsWhite to take immediate action in the centre and on the
kingside.' (Polugayevsky) } ( 17.b3 $5 ) ) 13.exd7 Qc7 14.e4 $1 Nxd7 (
{ The e-pawn isimmune: } 14...Nxe4 $2 15.Ng5 Nxg5 ( 15...Nf6 16.Nxf7 Rxf7
17.Qe6 ) 16.Bxg5 { ; } ) ( { or } 14...Bxe4 $2 15.Bg5 $1 Bxf3 16.Qxf3 Nxd7 (
16...Qe5 17.Qxa8 Rxa8 18.d8=Q+ Rxd8 19.Rxd8+ Ne8 20.Bb5 ) 17.Bf4 Ne5 (
17...Qc8 18.Bd6 ) 18.Qg3 Rfe8 19.Rd5 { and wins (Polugayevsky). } ) 15.Ng5 $1
{ After a long think Whitediscovers a weak point in the opponent's position
- his f7-square; for themoment 16 Ne6 is threatened. } 15...Rad8
{ The natural reply. } (
{ Black's problems areillustrated by the following variations: -- 1) }
15...Nf6 $2 16.e5 Qc6 ( 16...Rae8 17.Bf4 ) 17.f3 Rae8 18.Bb5 { and wins; } )
( { 2) } 15...Ne5 16.Bf4 Qe7 ( 16...Rae8 $2 17.Qh5 h6 18.Nxf7 Rxf7 19.Bxe5
Rxe5 20.Qxf7+ Qxf7 21.Rd8+ ) 17.Bxe5 Qxg5 ( 17...Qxe5 $2 18.Nxf7 ) 18.f4
{ with a strong initiative; } ) ( { 3) } 15...Rae8 16.Bf4 $5 ( 16.f3 h6
17.Nh3 Ne5 18.Bf4 Qc8 19.Bxe5 Rxe5 20.Nf4 { is quieter } ) 16...Qxf4 17.Rxd7
Qxg5 18.Rxb7 Qe5 19.Qf3 Qxe4 20.Bxf7+ $1 Kh8 21.Bxe8 Rxf3 22.Bc6 Qe5 23.Bxf3
{ and Rd1 with a technically wonendgame; } ) ( { 4) } 15...Bc6 16.Qf3 $1 Ne5
( 16...Nf6 17.Bf4 ) 17.Qf5 g6 18.Qh3 h5 19.Bf4 Qe7 20.Bd5 Rad8 ( { or }
20...Bxd5 21.exd5 Rad8 22.Qg3 ) 21.Bxe5 ( 21.Qg3 $5 ) 21...Bxd5 22.Qg3 Bc6
23.Bd6 Qd7 24.Qf3
{ etc. 'It isnoteworthy that in all these variations the bishop at a5
merely plays the roleof a spectator.' (Polugayevsky) } ) 16.Bxf7+ $6
{ 'The decisive blow,' writesPolugayevsky, and he attaches an exclamation
mark to this move. } ( { However,the correct move was } 16.Qh5 $1 Nf6 17.Bf4
$1 Qe7 { , and only now } ( 17...Nxh5 18.Bxc7 ) 18.Bxf7+ $1 Kh8 19.Qh3 Bxe4
20.Bb3 Bg6 21.Ne6 Rxd1+ 22.Rxd1 Rg8 ( 22...Re8 23.Bd6 Qb7 24.Bf8 $1 Nh5 25.g4
) 23.Bd6 Qe8 24.Be5 $1 { with an overwhelming advantage. } ) 16...Rxf7 17.Ne6
Qc8 18.Nxd8 Ba6 $2 { 'The best chance. } ( { 'After } 18...Qxd8 $1
{ the advance e4-e5-e6 would havewon quickly.' (Polugayevsky) And,
strangely enough, Petrosian took theopponent at his word! But in fact after
} 19.e5 Qe8 20.e6 Rf6 $1 { a win forWhite is out of the question: } 21.e7 (
{ or } 21.exd7 Qxe2 22.d8=Q+ Rf8 ) 21...Rg6 $1 ( 21...Kf7 22.Bg5 Qxe7
{ is not so clear } ) 22.f3 ( 22.Rxd7 $4 Rxg2+ 23.Kf1 Rg1+ $1 { , mating } )
22...Kf7 $1 23.Qc4+ ( 23.Bd2 Re6 ) ( { or } 23.Qd3 Bc6 24.Qf5+ Nf6
{ and Qxe7 } ) 23...Kxe7 24.Bf4 ( 24.Bd2 Ne5 $1 ) 24...Nf8
{ followed by Ne6, and Black retains two pieces for a rook. } ) 19.Qe3 $1 (
{ After } 19.Qg4 $6 { Black had prepared a cunning trap: } 19...Qxd8 20.e5
Qe8 21.e6 Re7 $1 { . } ) 19...Re7 ( { Here } 19...Qxd8
{ no longer saves Black in view of } 20.e5 Re7 21.e6 Bc4 ( 21...Bc8 22.Qb3 )
22.Rxd7 Rxd7 23.exd7 Qxd7 24.h3 Qd1+ 25.Kh2 { . } ) 20.Qb3+ c4 21.Qa3 Nc5 (
{ or } 21...Qxd8 22.Bg5 Kf7 23.Qd6 Bc8 24.Bxe7 Qxe7 25.Qc7 Qe8 26.Qxc4+ Kf8
27.Rac1 Bb7 28.Qc7 Qxe4 29.Qd8+ ) 22.Be3 Rxe4 23.Bxc5 Qxc5 24.Qf3 (
{ Black resigned in view of } 24.Qf3 Re7 25.Ne6 $1
{ . 'Until that day I had enjoyed few such happy moments in chess.'
(Polugayevsky) } ) 1-0
[Event "21. Skopje"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1968.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Polugayevsky, L."]
[Black "Geller, E."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[EventDate "1968.??.??"]
[FEN "1Q6/5pbk/4b1p1/7p/8/8/5PPP/6K1 w - - 0 31"]
[SetUp "1"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ The general opinion was that Lev Abramovich was one of the strongest
mastersin the analysis of adjourned positions. 'And this includes positions
of themost varied type,' Tal explains in the foreword to Polugayevsky's book'Grandmaster Preparation' (1981). 'These may be very sharp positions,
andsituations in which there is practically no scope for calculation, which isreplaced by abstractions and strategic plans. Here a dogged game of chesspatience is played, until the cards - sorry, the pieces! - tally, and aposition planned beforehand is reached on the board. And here the
interest ofendgame theoreticians is aroused, as, say, after the conclusions of the gameswith Geller or Gligoric.' --- }
31.Qf4
{ 'Is the queen able to overcome theresistance of the pair of bishops,
which are capable in some cases of creatingan iron curtain around their
king? In principle, the more pawns there are onthe board, the harder it is for the weaker side to defend. But at the sametime the queen requires
space for manoeuvring, and at the moment Black has noweaknesses. And so I prepared the plan of h2-h3, g2-g4, Kg2-g3 and f2-f4-f5with winning chances.' (Polugayevsky) }
31...Bc3 32.h3 Kg7 33.g4 hxg4 34.hxg4 Bf6 35.Qe4 g5 $5
{ In opposing White's idea, Geller weakens his pawns somewhat. } ( 35...Bd8
36.Kg2 Bc7 { was more patient. } ) 36.Kg2 Be7 ( 36...Bd8 $6 37.f4 $1 gxf4 (
37...Bxg4 38.fxg5 ) 38.Qxf4 { and wins } ) 37.Kh3 Bf6 38.Qb4 Bd8 39.Kg3 Bf6
40.Qc5 Ba2 41.f4 $1 Bb1 ( { 'Correct was } 41...gxf4+ 42.Kxf4
{ with ahighly interesting endgame. White's plan would be to advance g4-g5
and toprevent the light-squared bishop from occupying the b1-h7 diagonal.
Then thequeen would go via the h-file to h6, to support g5-g6 at the appropriatemoment. Finally, an ending with queen against two bishops, without
pawns,could be reached, but with the black king cut off on the back rank. --- Theendgame would undoubtedly have been of theoretical importance.' (Polugayevsky)The modern computer, armed with the five-piece program TableBase, cracks this'highly interesting' little problem like a nut: }
42...Kg8 43.Qc8+ Kg7 44.g5 Be7 45.Qc7 Bf8 46.g6 $1 Kg8 47.Kg5 (
{ or, according to TableBase, } 47.gxf7+ { immediately } ) 47...Be6 48.gxf7+
Bxf7 49.Qb8 Kg7
{ , and here Black's defenceis destroyed by the fine manoeuvre } 50.Qg3 $1
{ (ambush) } 50...Be7+ 51.Kf5+ Kf8 52.Qb8+ Kg7 53.Qe5+ Kf8 54.Qh8+ Bg8 55.Kg6
{ etc. } ) 42.f5 { The sealed move. } ( { After } 42.fxg5 $6 Ba1 43.Kf4 Bg6
44.Qa5 Bb2 45.Qd2 Ba1 { Black would havecreated a fortress. } ) (
{ Polugayevsky imagined that it would be the same after } 42.Kf3 $1 Bh7 (
{ a piece is lost after } 42...gxf4 $2 43.g5 Bd8 ( { or } 43...Ba1 44.Qc1 )
44.Qd4+ ) 43.f5 Bg8
{ with the idea of ...Be5 and ...f7-f6.However, at home he discovered that
here there is no fortress: } 44.Ke4 Ba1 45.Qa3 Bf6 46.Kd5
{ , then Kd6-d7-e8, Qd6 and if ...Bc3 - Ke7 with theunavoidable f5-f6!. Now
the winning path is far more difficult, since thelight-squared bishop
remains on the a8-h1 diagonal and prevents the approachof the king. On the other hand, the result was an ending about whichPolugayevsky later said:
'This is possibly the most meticulous analysis in mycareer. During the resumption the white queen had to get through a tremendousamount of work, and it was necessary to find an accurate way of utilising herinexhaustible energy.' }
) 42...Be4 43.Kf2 Bh1 44.Ke3 Bb7 45.Qc7 $1 { (givingBlack the move) } (
45.Qd6 $6 Bg2 46.Kd3 Bf1+ 47.Ke4 Bg2+
{ and the white kingcannot break through. } ) 45...Bg2 46.Qd6 $3 Bb7 (
{ It transpires that Black isin zugzwang: } 46...Bf1 47.Qd5 $1 Bc3 (
47...Be7 48.Kf2 $1 Ba6 49.Qc6 Bd3 50.Qc3+ ) ( 47...Ba6 48.Qc6 Bf1 49.Kf2 Bd3
50.Kf3 $1 Bf1 51.Ke3 ) 48.Kf2 $1 Ba6 49.Qc6 Bd4+ 50.Kf3 Bf1 51.Qc2
{ and Ke4-d5, winning. } ) ( 46...Ba1 47.Kf2 $1 Be4 48.Qe7 { and Qxg5+. } )
47.Kd3 Bf3 48.Qg3 Bd5
{ Preventing Kc4 andhoping to set up a fortress by ...Ba1 and ... f7-f6. }
49.Qe3 $1 Kg8 $1 ( { After } 49...Ba2 50.Ke4 Be7 51.Qa7 Bb1+ 52.Kd5
{ the white king breaks throughthe line of fire. } ) 50.Kd2 $3
{ An uncommonly subtle manoeuvre! 'White vacatesthe d3-square for his queen
(so as to dislodge the bishop from its centralisedpost at d5) and prepares
a route for his king into the enemy position via thejumping-off square b3, exploiting a barely discernible nuance: thedark-squared bishop will be
temporarily undefended. } ( { The immediate } 50.Kc2
{ would not have achieved anything on account of } 50...Kg7 51.Qd3 Bh1 $3 (
51...Ba2 $2 52.Qb5 { , then Kd3-e4, Qb4 and Kd5, winning } ) 52.Kb3 Be5 $1
{ and ...f7-f6with a draw.' (Polugayevsky) } ) 50...Kg7 (
{ Otherwise the undefended state ofthe bishop will tell: -- } 50...Bh1 $2
51.Qh3 Ba8 52.Qh6 ) ( 50...Ba2 51.Qb6 Kg7 52.Qb5 ) ( 50...Bg2 51.Qg3 Bf1 (
51...Be4 52.Ke3 $1 Bc2 53.Qc7 Ba4 54.Ke4 ) 52.Qf3 Bb5 53.Qd5 Be8 ( 53...Bf1
54.Ke1 $1 ) 54.Ke3 { and wins. } ) 51.Kc2 Kg8 (
{ There has arisen, in the words of Polugayevsky, that position ofabsolute
zugzwang that White has been aiming for: -- } 51...Bd8 $2 52.Qe5+ ) (
51...Bc6 52.Kb3 Bd5+ 53.Kb4 ) ( 51...Bg2 52.Kb3 Kf8 53.Kc4 Be7 ( 53...Bd8
54.Kc5 Be7+ 55.Kb6 Bd8+ 56.Ka7 f6 57.Kb8 $1 Be7 58.Kc7 Bd5 59.Kd7 ) 54.Qg3
Bf1+ 55.Kd5 f6 56.Qb3 Kf7 57.Kc6+ Ke8 ( 57...Kf8 58.Kd7 ) 58.Qg8+ Bf8 59.Qg6+
Ke7 60.Qh7+ { and mate. } ) 52.Qd3 $1 Bc6 (
{ 'Other moves similarlyfail to save Black: -- } 52...Ba2 $2 53.Qa6 ) (
52...Bb7 53.Kb3 Be5 ( 53...Ba1 54.Qd8+ ) 54.Qb5 ) ( 52...Ba8 53.Kb3 Be5 $2
54.Qd8+ ) ( 52...Bg2 53.Qg3 Be4+ ( 53...Bh1 54.Kd3 ) 54.Kb3 Bd5+ 55.Ka4 Bc6+
56.Ka5 Be8 57.Qb8 $1 Kf8 58.Qd6+ Kg7 59.Kb6 ) ( 52...Bh1 53.Qd6 Kg7 54.Kb3
Bf3 55.Qg3 Bd5+ 56.Ka4 Bc6+ 57.Ka5
{ . It finally becomes clear why White needed to resort to thetriangulation
manoeuvre with his king: at the decisive moment its oppositenumber was
forced to retreat to g8 and the dark-squared bishop lost itssupport.' (Polugayevsky) }
) 53.Qd6 Be4+ 54.Kb3 Kg7 55.Kc4 Bf3 56.Qg3 Bh1 57.Qh3 Be4 58.Qe3 Bc6 59.Kc5
Bd7 60.Kd6 Bb5 61.Qb3 Be2 ( { or } 61...Be8 62.Qc4 Kg8 63.Qc8 Kf8 64.Kd5 Bb2
65.Qd8 ) 62.Qb4 Bf3 63.Qc4 $1 Kg8 64.Kd7 Kf8 65.Qc5+ Kg8 66.Ke8
{ . White has the dual threats of Qf8+ and Qc4. } 1-0
[Event "22. Amsterdam"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1970.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Gligoric, S."]
[Black "Polugayevsky, L."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[EventDate "1970.??.??"]
[FEN "8/1B6/8/5p2/5k2/8/3r1PK1/8 b - - 0 73"]
[SetUp "1"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ In the following ending, in the opinion of Tal, 'a good 90% of grandmasterswould simply have agreed a draw: after all, it is not even apparent how to setthe opponent any difficult problem, never mind place him on the verge ofcatastrophe!' --- }
73...Rd3
{ The sealed move. 'In books on the endgame I hadnever seen this exact
position. As I was leaving the tournament hall, I wasinclined to think that
it was a dead draw. But, on delving into the secrets ofthe position, I found subtleties of which I would never even have dreamed. Ittranspired
that if the black pawn were at f4, it would indeed be a "dead" draw:the bishop could not be driven off. But, by standing at f5, the pawn does notdeprive its own king of the adjacent square and it restricts the scope of thewhite bishop. ' (Polugayevsky) --- A lengthy analysis enabled a plan
ofplaying for a win to be found: Black must drive the bishop from the a8-h1diagonal and restrict it as much as possible by pursuit with the rook, and ata convenient moment advance his pawn ...f5-f4-f3. It is not at all easy forWhite to defend. }
74.Bc6 Rc3 { (giving the opponent the move) } 75.Bd5 ( { Also after } 75.Bb7
$5 Kg4 76.Bd5 Rd3 $1 ( 76...f4 $6 77.Be6+ Kg5 78.Bd5 ) 77.Bb7 Rb3 78.Bc6 (
{ or } 78.Bd5 Rc3 $1 79.Bb7 f4 ) 78...Ra3 $1 79.Bd5 ( 79.Bb7 Rd3 ) 79...Rc3
{ the bishop would be driven off the long diagonal. } ) 75...Kg4 76.Be6 Rc5
{ (beginning to restrict the bishop) } 77.Bb3 Kf4 78.Bd1 ( { 'After } 78.Be6
{ Gligoric was evidently afraid of } 78...Ke4
{ , when in view of thethreat of the pawn march ... f5-f4-f3, } 79.Bf7
{ was necessary. And as yet hedid not want to be in a situation where there
was only one move.' (Polugayevsky) } ) 78...Rc6 $1 79.Bh5 ( 79.Bf3 $4 Rg6+ )
( { After } 79.Be2 Rg6+ 80.Kf1 Ke4 81.Bd1 Rd6 82.Bh5 ( 82.Bc2+ $2 Kf3 )
82...Rh6 83.Bf7 $1 { , White holds on by a thread; } ( { if } 83.Bd1 Rh1+
84.Ke2 Kf4 ) ( { or } 83.Be8 $2 Kf3 84.Kg1 Re6 85.Bd7 Re1+ 86.Kh2 f4
{ and wins. } ) ) 79...Rh6 80.Bd1 ( { If } 80.Be8 ) ( { or } 80.Bf7 { - }
80...Ke4 $1 ) 80...Rg6+ 81.Kf1 Rd6
{ 'Very slowlytightening the noose.' (Polugayevsky) } 82.Bh5
{ (moving the bishop to c2, b3or a4 was bad because of 82...Kf3) } 82...Rd7
( { It was also possible to play } 82...Rh6 83.Bd1 ( { or } 83.Bf7 Ke4 )
83...Rh1+ { . } ) 83.Kg2 Rg7+ 84.Kf1 Ke4 85.Bd1 Rd7 86.Bh5
{ Again the only move. } ( 86.Be2 $2 f4 ) ( 86.Bc2+ $2 Kf3 ) ( { or } 86.Ke2
$2 Rc7 $1 { and White is in zugzwang. } ) 86...Rh7 87.Be8 (
{ It wasdangerous to continue } 87.Bd1 $6 Rh1+ 88.Ke2 Kf4 (
{ avoiding a trap - } 88...Rxd1 $2 89.Kxd1 Kf3 90.Ke1 Kg2 91.f4 $1
{ with a draw } ) 89.Ba4 Ra1 90.Bd7 Rc1 91.Be6 ( { with the threat of } 91.--
Rc2+ 92.Kf1 Kf3 ) 91...Ke5 { and ...f5-f4. } ) 87...Rh6 $5
{ 'Not seeing how to strengthen his position further,Black comes to a new
decision. Since he has "squeezed out" the maximum withhis rook on the
seventh rank, he switches it to the eighth rank. But first hereturns to the sixth rank, at the same time both masking his intention andlulling the
opponent's vigilance, and hoping, finally, to see how the bishopbehaves on its new diagonal.' (Polugayevsky) }
88.Ba4 Rd6 89.Kg2 Kf4 90.Be8 Rb6 91.Ba4 Ra6 92.Bd1 Rg6+ 93.Kf1 Rd6 94.Bh5 Rh6
95.Bf7 Ke4 96.Bb3 Rc6 97.Kg2 Rc1 98.Bf7 Rc7 99.Bh5 $1 ( 99.Ba2 $2 Rb7 $1
{ and 100...f4, winning } ) 99...Rg7+ 100.Kf1 Rg8 101.Bd1 Rd8 102.Ba4 $2
{ The fatal error. } ( { Apositional draw would have resulted from } 102.Bh5
{ (the only move) } 102...Rh8 103.Bf7 $1 { , for example: } 103...f4 104.Kg2
f3+ 105.Kg3 Rh6 106.Be8 { . } ) 102...Rc8 $1 103.Bd7
{ Alas, the bishop no longer has time to reach the e8-h5 diagonal. } (
{ White would also have lost after } 103.Bd1 f4 104.Kg2 Rg8+ 105.Kf1 f3 ) (
{ or } 103.Bb3 f4 104.Kg2 Rc7 $1 105.Bd1 Rg7+ 106.Kf1 f3 { . } ) 103...Rc5 $3
{ (ambush!) } 104.Ke2 ( 104.Be8 f4 $1 105.Bg6+ Kf3
{ and there is no check at h5; } ) ( 104.Kg2 f4 105.Bg4 Rg5 { . } ) 104...f4
105.Be8 f3+ 106.Kd2 Rd5+ 107.Kc2 Kf4 108.Bf7 Rg5 ( { In view of } 108...Rg5
109.Kd2 Rg2 110.Ke1 Rg1+ 111.Kd2 Rf1 { . } ) 0-1
[Event "23. 37th USSR Championship, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1969.??.??"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Polugayevsky, L."]
[Black "Tal, M."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "D41"]
[EventDate "1969.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ Two silver (1961 and 1965) and two gold (1967 and 1968) medals in
USSRChampionships, victories in international tournaments, splendid
performancesfor the USSR team in the World Olympiads - all these successes forPolugayevsky were overshadowed by his regular failures in
qualifying for theInterzonal tournaments. However, in the Zonal, 37th USSR Championship (Moscow1969) he finally broke the dismal tradition, by sharing first place withPetrosian, ahead of Geller, Smyslov, Taimanov, Stein and Tal. The tone forthis surge was set by the following
highly spectacular game, which gave apowerful impetus to the development of the theory of the Semi-Tarrasch Defence.--- }
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.d4 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4
Bb4+ 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 O-O 11.Bc4 Nc6 12.O-O b6 ( 12...Qd6 $5
{ Portisch-Polugayevsky, Portoroz 1973 } ) 13.Rad1 $1 ( 13.Rfd1
{ - Volume 1,Game No.145 } ) 13...Bb7 14.Rfe1 Na5 $5 (
{ The game Spassky-Petrosian (5thmatchgame, Moscow 1969), played not long
before, went } 14...Rc8 15.d5 $1 exd5 16.Bxd5 { (Game No.76). } ) (
{ 'Many commentators, including Tal, recommended theimmediate } 14...Na5 ) (
{ or } 14...Rc8 15.d5 Na5
{ ,' Polugayevsky recalls. 'Ofcourse, they were not to know that we had
analysed this very continuation inDubna, where Spassky was preparing for
his match with Petrosian, and I wassimultaneously preparing for my match with Alexander Zaitsev for the title ofUSSR Champion. On completing our
joint analysis, Boris and I agreed thateither of us had the right to employ it at the first convenient opportunity.' }
) 15.Bd3 Rc8 ( 15...Qd6 { comes into consideration; } ) (
{ as well as theprophylactic } 15...h6 { , although after } 16.d5 $1 exd5
17.e5 Nc4 18.Qe2 Qc7 19.Nd4 Rae8 20.f4
{ White has compensation for the pawn (Gulko-Yusupov, Riga1995). } ) 16.d5 $1
exd5 ( { If } 16...Qd6 $5 { White can fight for the initiativeby } 17.dxe6 (
17.Qg5 ) ( { and } 17.Qe3 { have also been played } ) 17...Qxe6 ( 17...fxe6
18.Bb5 $5 ) 18.Nd4 Qe5 19.Nf5 { (Dokhoian-S.Webb, Moscow 1989). } ) 17.e5 $1
{ An unexpected pawn sacrifice for an attack. It is important thatthe black
minor pieces are out of play and it is hard for them to come to theaid of
their king. } 17...Nc4 { A logical activation of the knight. } (
{ After otherreplies White usually maintains the better prospects: -- 1) }
17...h6 18.Qf4 $1
{ followed by 19 Qf5 g6 20 Qg4 and in some cases h2-h4 (-h5) and
Nd4,preparing the e5-e6 breakthrough. } ) ( { 2) } 17...Qe7 18.Qf4 f5 (
18...f6 19.Bf5 $5 Rcd8 20.Qh4 g6 21.exf6 Qxf6 22.Ng5 h5 23.Be6+ Kg7 24.Qg3
{ with theinitiative for the pawn } ) 19.Nd4 ( 19.Bxf5 g6 20.Qg5 Qxg5 21.Be6+
Kg7 22.Nxg5 Rc2 $1 { is unclear } ) 19...g6 20.h4 Nc6 21.Nb5 Qe6 $6 22.h5
Rcd8 23.hxg6 hxg6 24.Re3 Rd7 25.Bc2 $1
{ with pressure (Bagirov-Zhuravlev, Daugavpils1974). } ) ( { 3) } 17...d4
18.Ng5 $1 ( 18.Nxd4 Nc4 $1 ) 18...h6 19.Nh7 Nc4 20.Qf4 Nb2 { and: } 21.Nxf8
$1 ( { in the event of } 21.Nf6+ $5 Kh8 22.Rd2 Nc4 23.Bxc4 Rxc4 24.Rd3 Rc3 (
24...Bc8 $2 25.g4 $1 ) 25.Rxd4 { (Burgess) } 25...Qc8 $1 { Black can defend }
) 21...Nxd1 22.e6 Rc7 ( 22...fxe6 23.Nxe6 Qd5 24.Be4 $1 ) 23.Nh7 $1 Re7 (
23...fxe6 24.Rxd1 ) 24.exf7+ Rxf7 25.Qe5 { and White shouldwin. } ) ( { 4) }
17...g6 18.Qh6 { (Polugayevsky) } 18...f5 ( { not } 18...f6 $2 19.Bxg6 )
19.h4 $1 ( { nothing is achieved by } 19.exf6 Qxf6 $1 20.Ng5 Rc7 21.Ne6 Qxf2+
22.Kh1 Re7 ) 19...Qe7 20.h5 Qg7 21.Qg5
{ with long-term positionalcompensation for the sacrificed pawn. } ) 18.Qf4
{ The critical position of theentire variation. } 18...Nb2 $2
{ Allowing a brilliant combination. } (
{ 'Tal tries toexchange the dangerous white bishop, but what else could he
have done? If } 18...h6 { there follows } 19.Qf5 g6 20.Qg4 $5 ( 20.Qh3 Kg7
21.e6 fxe6 { (? - G.K.) } ( { however, after } 21...Qf6 $1
{ the outcome is unclear - G.K. } ) 22.Nd4
{ , when Black's position collapses.' (Polugayevsky) } ) 20...Kg7 ( 20...h5
21.Qg3 ) 21.Nd4 { should therefore be given consideration to. } ) (
{ InPolugayevsky's opinion, 'Black also loses quickly after } 18...Rc6 19.Nd4
$1 { is a better continuation: } ( 19.Ng5 h6 20.Bh7+ Kh8 21.Nxf7+ Kxh7
22.Nxd8 Rxf4 { And if } 23.Nxb7 { , then } ( 23.e6
{ .' But I do not agree with this: after } 23...Rf8 $1 24.e7 Re8 25.Nxc6 Bxc6
{ Black is quite alright. } ( 25...-- ) ) 23...Re4 $1 ( 23...Re6 24.Rxd5 Rf5
25.f4 $1 Rxf4 26.Nd8 Re8 27.e6 { is inferior } ) 24.Rxe4 ( 24.f4 Nb2 $1 )
24...dxe4 25.Nd8 Rc7 26.Ne6 ( 26.e6 Nb2 ) 26...Rc8 27.Rc1 ( 27.Rd7 Nxe5
{ with a draw } ) 27...Kg6 28.g4 b5 29.Nd4 Rd8 30.Nc6 Re8
{ with a drawn endgame. } ) 19...Rc7 { , and now not } 20.Bxh7+ $2 ( { or }
20.Nb5 Rc5 $1 { with equality } ) ( { but } 20.Re2 ) ( { or } 20.Bf5
{ with the idea ofe5-e6, retaining enduring compensation for the pawn } )
20...Kxh7 21.Rd3 Bc8 $1 22.Nf5 Re8 23.g4 ( 23.Rh3+ Kg8 24.Nxg7 Rxe5
{ and wins } ) 23...f6 24.Rh3+ Kg8 25.Nh6+ gxh6 26.Qxh6
{ (Spasov-Kostakiev, correspondence 1997) } 26...Bxg4 $1 { and wins. } ) (
{ Apart from 18...Rc6, unclear play results from } 18...g6 $5 19.Qh6 f5 20.h4
$5
{ is more promising here too, even with the knight on c4.Polugayevsky's
splendid win (over the great Tal!) undermined Black's belief inthis opening
variation, although, as an objective analysis shows, hisdefensive resources are quite considerable }
( { and if } 20.exf6 Qxf6 21.Ng5 Rc7 22.Ne6 Qxf2+ 23.Kh1 Re7 $1
{ (Burgess). } ( 23...-- ) ) ) 19.Bxh7+ $1
{ Polugayevsky struck Torre with a similar tactical blow in London 1984. }
19...Kxh7 20.Ng5+ Kg6 ( { After } 20...Kg8 21.Qh4 Qxg5 22.Qxg5 Nxd1 23.Rxd1
{ thetechnical phase begins: } 23...Rc2 $6
{ (Graeser-Eickhoff, correspondence 1986) } ( { or } 23...Rfe8 24.h4 $1
{ etc } ) 24.Qe7 $1 { . } ) 21.h4 $3
{ 'This prepared moveof fearful strength is the point of the combination!'
Tal thought for a longtime here. } ( { After } 21.h4
{ , 'there is the threat of } 21...-- 22.h5+ $1 Kxh5 23.g4+ Kg6 24.Qf5+ Kh6
25.Qh7+ Kxg5 26.Qh5+ Kf4 27.Qf5# { .' (Polugayevsky) } ) 21...Rc4
{ 'A forced reply. } ( { ' } 21...f5
{ would not have saved Black onaccount of } 22.Rd4 $1
{ with the same idea of } 22...-- 23.h5+ ( { or } 23.Qg3 ) ( { or } 23.Re3
{ - G.K. } ) ) ( { 'while if } 21...Qd7 { White would have won by } 22.e6
fxe6 23.Qg4 Rf6 24.Nxe6+ Kh6 25.Re5 g6 ( 25...Kh7 26.Ng5+ ) ( { or } 25...Qf7
26.Rh5+ $1 { and Qxg7 mate, Dimov-Tsolov, correspondence 1990 } ) 26.Qg5+
{ '. (Polugayevsky) } ) ( { Other moves have also been tried: -- 1) }
21...Nxd1 22.h5+ Kh6 ( 22...Kxh5 $2 23.g4+ ) 23.Ne6+ Kh7 ( 23...g5 24.hxg6+
Kxg6 25.Qg4+ Kh6 26.Qg7+ Kh5 27.Nf4+ Kh4 28.g3# { - Burgess } ) 24.Nxd8 Rcxd8
25.Rxd1 Rde8 26.Qf5+ Kg8 27.Qd7 Ba8 28.f4
{ 1-0 (D.Gurevich-Massana, New York 1985) } ) ( { 2) } 21...Qe7 22.Rd4 $1 (
22.Re3 $5 ) ( { the rook must be included in the attack:instead } 22.h5+ Kh6
$1 23.Nxf7+ Kh7 24.e6 Qf6 $1 25.Qxf6 gxf6 { is unclear- Burgess } ) 22...Kh6
( 22...Nc4 23.Rd3 $1 { and Rg3, winning } ) 23.Ne4+ Kh7 ( 23...g5 24.Nxg5 f5
25.exf6 $1 ) ( 23...Kg6 24.h5+ $1 Kh7 25.Ng5+ Kh6 ( { or } 25...Kg8 26.Qf5 )
26.Ne6+ Kh7 27.Qf5+ Kg8 28.Ng5 g6 29.hxg6 f6 30.exf6 $1 Qxf6 31.Qh3 Qxg6
32.Ne6 { and wins } ) 24.Nf6+ $1 gxf6 25.Qf5+ Kh6 26.exf6 $1 Qxe1+ 27.Kh2 Rg8
28.g4
{ ... 1-0 (Krenburn-Ninov, correspondence 1994-96).--- Of course, all these
colourful variations do not necessarily exhaustWhite's attacking resources.
} ) 22.h5+ ( { Later } 22.Rd4 $5 { was also played. } ) 22...Kh6 ( 22...Kxh5
$2 23.g4+ { and mate in three moves } ) 23.Nxf7+ Kh7 24.Qf5+ Kg8 25.e6 $3
{ White spent literally only a few minutes on these 25 moves.'Glancing at
this position, I could not believe my eyes: it had been reachedthat morning
on Polugayevsky's board in his hotel room! His analytical work inthis variation resembles the best examples of Botvinnik's work.' (Geller) }
25...Qf6 $1 { The only way of avoiding an immediate rout; } ( { such as }
25...Nxd1 $2 26.e7 Qe8 27.exf8=Q+ Qxf8 28.Nh6+ gxh6 29.Qg6+ Kh8 30.Re8 { , }
) ( { or } 25...Qe7 $2 26.h6 $1 { with the piquant threat of 27 h7 mate }
26...Rh4 27.Rd4 $1 Rxf7 ( 27...Rxh6 28.Nxh6+ gxh6 29.Rg4+ ) 28.exf7+ Qxf7
29.Qxf7+ { and Rxh4. } ) 26.Qxf6 gxf6 27.Rd2 $1
{ 'This slows the tempo of the attack. } ( { ' } 27.Nd6
{ was moreenergetic,' Polugayevsky writes, but in Informator Volume 8 he
adds } 27...Nxd1 ( { I think that } 27...Rh4 $5 { also does not lose } )
28.e7 Rc1 $1 { . Indeed, thisending is drawish: } 29.h6 ( 29.exf8=Q+ Kxf8
30.Nxb7 Nc3 31.Rxc1 Ne2+ 32.Kf1 Nxc1 ) ( { or } 29.Nxb7 Re8 30.Nd6 Rxe7
31.Rxe7 d4 ) 29...Rb8 30.Nxb7 Re8 31.Nd6 Rxe7 32.Rxe7 Ne3+ 33.Kh2 Ng4+ 34.Kg3
Nxh6 { (Naumkin-Nevanlinna,Jyvaskyla 1993). } ) 27...Rc6 $1 ( { Both }
27...Na4 28.Nd6 $1 ( 28.e7 $2 Kxf7 ) 28...Bc6 29.e7 Re8 30.Nxc4 dxc4 31.Rd6
{ ; } ) ( { and } 27...Rb4 { wereinsufficient: } 28.e7 $1 (
{ although not because of } 28.a3 { (Polugayevsky) } 28...Rb3 $1 ( 28...Nc4
$2 29.Rd3 $1 ) 29.Nh6+ ( { Burgess recommends } 29.Rd4 Rxa3 $2 (
{ but after } 29...Bc6 $1 { there is no win } ) 30.Rg4+ Kh7 31.e7 Re8 32.h6
{ and wins } ) 29...Kh7 30.Ng4 Kg7 31.Rc1 Nc4 32.Rxc4 dxc4 33.Rd7+ Kh8 $1
34.Rxb7 Rb1+ 35.Kh2 Re1 { with a draw } ) 28...Kxf7 29.exf8=Q+ Kxf8 30.h6 Na4
( 30...Ba6 31.a3 $1 ) 31.Rde2 Re4 32.Rxe4 dxe4 33.Rd1 $1
{ with the decisiveinvasion of the rook. } ) 28.Rxb2 Re8 $2 (
{ 'In severe time-trouble Black doesnot make use of his last chance - }
28...Bc8 $1
{ , when White would have hadto overcome a number of difficulties in
converting his advantage,'Polugayevsky considers, and here he indicates two
possible paths: } 29.Nh6+ $1 ( 29.e7 Re8 30.Nd8 { . Here, in my view, after }
30...Rc7 31.Rbe2 d4 $1 ( 31...Bg4 $6 32.Re3 Bxh5 $2 33.Rg3+ Kh7 34.Rh3 Kg6
35.Ne6 $1 ) 32.Rd2 { (what else?) } 32...Rexe7 33.Rxe7 Rxe7 34.Rxd4 Rd7 $1
35.Rxd7 ( { or } 35.Nc6 Rxd4 36.Nxd4 Bg4 ) 35...Bxd7 36.f3 b5 37.Kf2 b4
38.Ke3 a5 39.Kd4 Be8 $1 { Black eliminatesthe enemy pawns and gains a draw. }
) 29...Kh7 30.Nf5 Rxe6 31.Rc1 { . Thisdoes indeed retain the advantage - }
31...Kg8 32.Rd2 $1 ( 32.Rbc2 Re5 $1 ) 32...Rd8 ( { or } 32...Re5 33.Ng3 Rd8
34.Rc7 { although White still has much work to do. } ) 33.Nd4 Re7 34.f3 Rde8
35.Rc6 $1 { . } ) 29.Nh6+ $1 Kh7 30.Nf5 Rexe6 31.Rxe6 Rxe6 32.Rc2 Rc6 33.Re2
$1 Bc8 ( { If } 33...Rc7 { , then } 34.Re6 $1
{ (Polugayevsky), for example: } 34...Bc8 ( 34...d4 35.Nxd4 Kh6 36.Rxf6+ Kxh5
37.Rd6 ) ( { or } 34...Rd7 35.Rxf6 d4 36.Kf1 d3 37.Ke1 d2+ 38.Kd1 Be4 39.Nd6
Bxg2 40.Kxd2 Bf3 41.h6 $1 { with a victorious king march. } ( 41.-- ) )
35.Rxf6 Bxf5 36.Rxf5 { (the rook endgame is also bad for Black) } 36...Rc1+
37.Kh2 Rc2 38.Rf7+ Kh6 ( 38...Kg8 39.Rxa7 ) 39.g4 $1 Rxa2 40.Kg3 Ra1 41.Rd7
{ , when White'spassed pawns are superior. } ) 34.Re7+ Kh8 $6 (
{ Nevertheless, more tenacious was } 34...Kg8 35.Nh4 Rc1+ ( 35...f5 36.Rxa7
d4 37.Kf1 ) 36.Kh2 Rc4 37.f4 $1 Rxf4 38.Ng6 Rf5 39.g4 Rg5 40.Re8+ Kg7 41.Rxc8
Rxg4 42.Kh3 Ra4 43.Kg3 Rxa2 44.Nf4
{ , and the h-pawn, supported by rook and knight, decides the game. } )
35.Nh4 f5 36.Ng6+ Kg8 37.Rxa7 1-0
[Event "24. Interzonal, Palma de Mallorca"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1970.??.??"]
[Round "11"]
[White "Fischer, R."]
[Black "Polugayevsky, L."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "A11"]
[EventDate "1970.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ In his first Interzonal tournament (Palma de Mallorca 1970)
Polugayevskyfinished a point behind the qualifying 5th-6th places, although
the optimisticLarsen named him before the start as his opponent in... the final Candidatesmatch! Some consolation was provided by a
fighting draw as Black with thewinner of the tournament and the future world champion, the formidable BobbyFischer. --- }
1.c4 $5 (
{ 'My trainer, grandmaster Boleslavsky, and I realisedthat Fischer would
"throw himself" at me! We had no doubt that he would beginthe game with }
1.e4
{ , and that meant a Sicilian. I arrived for the game some30 seconds late
and sat down at the board. What's this? There's no Fischer,but on the board
the white pawn stands on c4. I thought that I must have goneto the wrong board. I stood up, looked at the demonstration board and thenrealised: all
my opening preparation had been in vain, since for virtually thefirst time in his life Fischer had played 1 c4. And this in spite of hisunbelievable attachment to his favourite opening schemes!' (Polugayevsky) }
) 1...Nf6 2.g3 c6 $1 3.Bg2 d5 4.Nf3 Bf5 $6
{ Aiming for the usual 'Lasker'set-up (Volume 1, Game Nos.71 and 108). } (
{ But with the given move order it isbetter to accept the pawn sacrifice -
} 4...dxc4 $1 { . The pawn cannot beimmediately regained: or } 5.a4 ( 5.Qc2
b5 6.a4 ( 6.b3 cxb3 7.axb3 Bb7 ) 6...Bb7 7.b3 cxb3 8.Qxb3 a6 ) 5...Na6 (
5...Qd5 ) ( { or } 5...Be6 { with an uncleargame } ) ( { but not } 5...b5 $2
6.axb5 cxb5 7.Nd4 $1 ) 6.Qc2 Qd5 { . } ) 5.Qb3 $6 ( 5.cxd5 $1
{ is correct and only after } 5...cxd5 ( { In this situation } 5...Nxd5 $6
{ is insufficient. In a training game played long ago with grandmaster
Bagirov (clock simultaneous, Baku 1975) I replied } 6.d3
{ and, as soon as the pawncentre began advancing, Black lost quickly } )
6.Qb3 { with advantage: } 6...Qc8 ( 6...Qb6 7.Qxb6 axb6 8.Nc3 Nc6 9.d3 e6 (
9...e5 $5 ) 10.Nb5 { (Portisch-Smyslov,Wijk aan Zee 1972) } ) 7.Nc3 e6 8.d3
Nc6 9.Bf4 Be7 10.O-O O-O 11.Rac1 Bg6 12.Ne5 Nd7 ( 12...Nxe5 $2 13.Nxd5 $1 )
13.Nxg6 hxg6 14.h4 $1 Nc5 15.Qd1 Qd8 16.d4 Nd7 17.e4
{ (Korchnoi-Karpov, 15th matchgame, Moscow 1974). } ) 5...Qb6 $1 6.cxd5 Qxb3
7.axb3 cxd5 ( { But here } 7...Nxd5 $1 { is better, for example: } 8.Nc3 $6
( 8.d3 { with equality } ) 8...Nb4 $1 9.Nd4 $2 ( 9.O-O e6 ) 9...e5 $1 10.Rxa7
( 10.Nxf5 Nc2+ ) 10...Rxa7 11.Nxf5 Nc2+ 12.Kd1 Na1 13.d3 g6 14.Be3 Ra6 15.Nh4
Nxb3
{ .. 0-1 (Sumiacher-Polugayevsky, Mar del Plata 1971). Thenuances of the
Réti, like many other openings, were only beginning to beprobed at that
time. } ) 8.Nc3 Nc6 9.d3 e6 10.O-O Be7 (
{ In the opinion of LevAbramovich, it was more active to play } 10...Bc5 $5
11.Na4 ( { or } 11.Bg5 O-O ) 11...Bd6 { ; } ) ( { but not } 10...Kd7 $6
11.Rd1 { with the threat of e2-e4. } ) 11.Be3 $1 Ng4 $1 ( { If } 11...O-O
{ Black did not like } 12.Nd4 $1 Nxd4 13.Bxd4 a6 14.e4
{ . 'It would have been particularly unpleasant playing such a
passiveposition against Fischer (say, } 14...Bg6 15.exd5 Nxd5 16.Nxd5 exd5
17.Rfe1 Rfe8 18.Re3 Rad8 19.Rae1 Kf8 20.b4 $5 f6 21.Rxe7 Rxe7 22.Bc5 Rd7
23.Rxe7 Rxe7 24.Bxd5 b6 25.Bxe7+ Kxe7 26.d4
{ etc.) - G.K. I sensed that I had to findsome means of disturbing the
balance, even at the cost of some irrational move.' (Polugayevsky) } ) 12.Bf4
O-O 13.e4 $5 ( 13.Rfc1 { is quieter, for example: } 13...Bc5 14.Nd1 Bb6 15.b4
$1 Rfc8 16.b5 Nd4 17.Rxc8+ Rxc8 18.Nxd4 Bxd4 19.h3
{ with a minimal advantage. } ) 13...dxe4 14.dxe4 Bg6 15.e5
{ Threatening 16 h3Nh6 17 g4, when the black knight is out of play. }
15...Bd3 $1 { The 'dead' bishophas come alive! A tactical skirmish begins. }
16.Rfd1 $1 ( { If } 16.Rfc1 { there would have followed } 16...Bc5 $1 17.Nd1
Bb6 18.h3 Nh6 19.g4 f6 { withequality. } ) 16...Bc2 17.Rdc1 ( { 'After }
17.Rd2 Bxb3 18.Rd7 ( 18.h3 g5 $1 ) 18...Bc5 19.Ne4 Bb6
{ with the threat of 20...Bd5 Black is alright.' (Polugayevsky) } ) 17...Bxb3
18.h3 { The culmination of the battle. } 18...g5 $1 ( { of course, not }
18...Nh6 $2 19.Nd2 $1 ) 19.hxg4 ( 19.Bxg5 $2 Bxg5 20.Nxg5 Ngxe5 ) 19...gxf4
20.Nd2 $1 ( { inferior is } 20.gxf4 Rfd8 $1 ) 20...f3 $3
{ 'Black plays in accordance with the favourite principle of Fischer
himself -to answer blow with blow.' (Polugayevsky) } 21.Bxf3 ( 21.Nxf3 $6
Rfd8 ) ( { or } 21.Nxb3 fxg2 22.f4 Rfd8 { with equality. } ) 21...Nxe5 22.Bg2
{ Forced; } ( { since nothing is achieved by } 22.Bxb7 Rab8 23.Bg2 ( 23.Rxa7
$2 Bc5 $1 24.Ra5 Nd3 25.Nxb3 Bxf2+ 26.Kf1 Nxc1 27.Nxc1 Be3 { and wins } )
23...Nxg4 { withequality, and again } 24.Rxa7 $2 { is bad in view of }
24...Bc5 $1 { . } ) 22...Bd5 23.Nxd5 ( { If } 23.Bxd5 $5 exd5 24.Nxd5
{ Black was intending } 24...Bd8 25.f3 f5 { 'with good counterplay'. } )
23...exd5 24.Rc7 ( 24.Bxd5 { loses to } 24...Rad8
{ (Polugayevsky). No, after } 25.Rc7 $1
{ White is not losing, but fighting for adraw: } 25...Ng6 ( 25...Rxd5 26.Rxe7
{ is equal } ) ( { as is } 25...Rfe8 26.Ne4 $1 Rxd5 27.Rxe7 Rxe7 28.Nf6+
{ and Nxd5 } ) 26.Be4 Rxd2 27.Bxg6 Bf6 ( 27...fxg6 28.Rxe7 ) 28.Be4 { etc. }
) 24...Bd8 $1
{ The manoeuvre of the bishop to b6discloses the weakness of the f2-square.
} 25.Rxb7 Bb6 26.Bxd5 Rad8 27.Ne4 Nxg4 28.Rd1 Kg7 29.Rd2 Nf6
{ Relying on the opposite-coloured bishops, whichherald a dead draw. }
30.Nxf6 Kxf6 31.Rd3 Kg7 $1 32.Kg2 Rb8 33.Rd7 Rbd8 34.Bc4 Rxd7 35.Rxd7 Kg6
36.g4 Rd8 $1 37.Bxf7+ ( 37.Rxf7 Rd4 $1 ) 37...Kg5 38.Rxd8 Bxd8
{ . 'Fischer was so upset by this, that he signed the score sheet
andquickly left the hall.' (Polugayevsky) A tense duel! --- It is not hard
toguess why, in such an important game, Fischer avoided his favourite move 1 e4.His opponent was an outstanding expert on the Sicilian
Defence, especially theNajdorf Variation - the favourite weapon of the American himself.Polugayevsky's contribution to the theory of this opening is probably evenmore significant than that of Fischer. The following examples provide evidence. }
1/2-1/2
[Event "25. Match-Tournament, Portoroz"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1973.??.??"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Geller, E."]
[Black "Polugayevsky, L."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "B96"]
[EventDate "1973.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 (
{ After Fischer'smove } 6.Bc4
{ the score in Polugayevsky's games was overwhelmingly in favourof Black! } )
( { It was not without reason that Karpov always preferred the quiet } 6.Be2
{ . } ) 6...e6 7.f4 Nbd7 $5 { Polugayevsky's patent move; } ( { along with }
7...b5 $5 { - Game No.26 } ) ( { Earlier, as he put it, after } 7...Be7 8.Qf3
Qc7 9.O-O-O Nbd7 10.g4 b5 11.Bxf6 Nxf6 ( { Fischer also tried } 11...gxf6 $6
{ - G.K. } ) 12.g5 Nd7 13.a3 ( 13.f5 $5 ) 13...Rb8 14.Bh3 ( { or } 14.f5
{ Blackcame under an attack, effectively without making a single mistake!
Thereforehe economises on a tempo in order to create counterplay on the
queenside } ) ) 8.Qf3 ( { If } 8.Bc4 { , then } 8...Qb6 $5
{ has quite a good reputation. } ) ( { Subsequently } 8.Qe2
{ was also tried, but without particular success: } 8...Qc7 9.O-O-O b5 10.g3
( 10.g4 ) ( 10.a3 ) ( 10.f5 ) 10...b4 11.Nd5 $5 exd5 12.Bg2 ( 12.exd5+ Be7
13.Nf5 Nc5 $1 14.Nxg7+ Kd8 { Yudasin-Gelfand, Manila Interzonal 1990 } )
12...Be7 13.Nf5 ( 13.exd5 O-O $1 ) 13...Nb6 ( 13...h6 $5 ) 14.Nxg7+ Kf8 (
14...Kd8 $5 ) 15.Bh6 Kg8 16.Nh5 Ng4 17.Bg7 Qc4 $1 18.Qxc4 Nxc4
{ ... 0-1 (Shirov-Gelfand, Dos Hermanas 1995). } ) 8...Qc7 9.O-O-O b5
{ The firstcritical position. } 10.Bd3
{ 'After the world championship match in Reykjavikthis move quickly gained
in popularity. True, Fischer did not play 7...Nbd7,but 7...Be7. But it can
readily be assumed that Spassky had prepared 10.Bd3against both methods of development for Black. And of course to Geller, whohad worked with Spassky
during the period of the match, these continuationsmust have been very familiar.' (Polugayevsky) }
( { Let us also consider otherideas: -- 1) } 10.a3 $6 Rb8 $1 11.Bxf6 Nxf6
12.g4 b4 13.axb4 Rxb4 14.g5 Nd7 15.f5 $6 ( 15.Qh3 ) 15...Ne5 16.Qh3 Qb6 $1
{ (the extra tempo makes itselffelt: Black has seized the initiative!) }
17.Nb3 Be7 $1 18.g6 fxg6 19.fxe6 Rxb3 $5 (
{ in my opinion, it is also strong to play } 19...Bb7 20.Bg2 O-O 21.Rhf1 Rxf1
22.Rxf1 a5 23.Nd2 a4 24.Qg3 Bc6 { with an attack for free } ) 20.cxb3 Qxb3
21.Qg3 ( { a more tenacious defence is } 21.Rd4 $5 Bxe6 22.Rb4 Qxb4 23.Qxe6
Qb7 24.Nd5 Qd7 25.Qxd7+ Kxd7 26.Bxa6 { with chances of saving thegame } )
21...Bxe6 22.Ne2 $6 ( 22.Nd5 Qa4 $1 { is sharper } ) 22...O-O $1 23.Qxb3 Bxb3
{ ... 0-1 (Bronstein-Polugayevsky, Moscow 1967); } ) ( { 2) } 10.e5 $5
{ (a critical attempt) } 10...Bb7 11.Qh3 dxe5 12.Nxe6 fxe6 13.Qxe6+ Be7
{ with thesequel } 14.Bxf6 ( 14.Nxb5 axb5 15.Bxb5 Be4 $1
{ (Kamsky-Gelfand, Linares 1993) } ) ( { or } 14.Bxb5 axb5 15.Nxb5 Qc6
16.Nd6+ Kd8 17.fxe5 Kc7 18.Qxe7 Rxa2 19.exf6 Ra1+ 20.Kd2 Qd5+ 21.Kc3 Qa5+
22.Kd3 { ˝-˝ (Nisipeanu-Shirov, LasVegas 1999); } ) 14...gxf6 15.Be2 h5
16.Nd5 Bxd5 17.Rxd5 Nc5 18.Qf5 Qc6 19.Qg6+ Kf8
{ and ...Qe8 with equality (Van der Wiel-Kasparov, Amsterdam 1991). } ) (
{ 3) } 10.Bxb5 $5 { (another sharp attempt) } 10...axb5 11.Ndxb5 Qb8 12.e5
Ra5 $1 13.exf6 gxf6 14.Bh6 $1 Bxh6 15.Nxd6+ Ke7 16.Kb1 Rd8 $1
{ immediately is moreaccurate, for example: } ( 16...Nb6 $6 17.Qe4 ( 17.Nce4
$1 ) 17...Rd8 18.Ndb5 $6 ( 18.Qb4 ) 18...Rxb5 ( 18...Qxf4 $5 ) 19.Nxb5 Nd5 $1
20.c4 ( 20.Qd3 $5 ) 20...Ba6 $1 21.cxd5 Qxb5 22.Rhe1 $2 ( 22.dxe6 Qd3+ $1 )
( 22.Rd4 $5 ) 22...Bb7 $1 23.Qxh7 Bxd5 24.Qxh6 Rb8 $1 25.Rd2 Bxa2+ $1
{ ... 0-1 (Balashov-Polugayevsky, Manila Interzonal 1976). } ) 17.Rhe1 Nb6
18.Ncb5 Ba6 $1 ( 18...Rxb5 $6 19.Nxb5 { Timman-Gelfand, Wijk aan Zee 2002 } )
19.Nf5+ ( 19.Qc3 $2 Rxb5 ) 19...Kf8 20.Qc3 $1 Rxb5 21.Qxf6 Rxb2+ $1 22.Qxb2
Nd5 23.Rxd5 $1 Qxb2+ 24.Kxb2 Bg7+ 25.Nxg7 Rxd5
{ ˝-˝ (Lutz-Gelfand, Dortmund 2002) inview of } 26.Nxe6+ fxe6 27.Rxe6 Bf1
28.g3 Rb5+
{ . --- Thus, theory is stillinclined towards the conclusion that direct
attacks do not win and that Whitedoes better to aim for at least a slight
advantage, by completing hisdevelopment with 10 Bd3. } ) 10...Bb7 11.Rhe1 Qb6
$5
{ 'A new move, preparedbeforehand. Of course, it is a risky experiment to
make a second move with thequeen while leaving the remaining pieces in
their places, but it was not easyto refute at the board. } (
{ In another game of mine with Geller (Kislovodsk1972) I played } 11...h6
{ , and after } 12.Bh4 ( { another dangerous try is } 12.Qh3 $1
{ , Timman-Polugayevsky, Hilversum 1973 } ) 12...Be7 13.Nd5 $5 Nxd5 14.exd5
Bxh4 15.Nxe6 fxe6 16.Qh5+ Kd8
{ White gained a strong attack, although Isucceeded in beating it off and
winning.' (Polugayevsky) } ) ( { After } 11...Be7 { there is both } 12.Nd5 $5
{ (Velimirovic) } ( { and } 12.Qg3 $1
{ , Spassky-Fischer,15th matchgame, Reykjavik 1972. } ) ) ( { Nowadays }
11...O-O-O { is usually played,for example: } 12.a3 ( 12.Qg3 b4 13.Nb1 Be7
14.Nd2 h6 15.Bxf6 Bxf6 { withequality (Kengis-Gelfand, Tilburg 1992) } (
15...-- ) ) 12...Be7 13.Qe2 $5 h6 ( { not immediately } 13...Nc5 $2 14.Bxb5
$1 axb5 15.Ndxb5 Qb6 16.e5 ) 14.Bh4 Nc5
{ (Adams-Gelfand, Wijk aan Zee 1994). } ) 12.Nxe6 $2
{ Efim Petrovich was amaximalist! 'On this move Geller thought for 90 (!)
minutes. } (
{ 'But he wasunlucky: I had analysed this tempting sacrifice at home.'
(Polugayevsky). Soonafterwards Spassky demonstrated a quiet and sure path -
} 12.Nb3 { (Game No.80). } ) (
{ However, Geller did not resign himself to the need to retreat his
knightand later he devised } 12.Nd5 $5
{ . Independently of him this spectacularstroke was invented by my
fellow-student, the Baku master Rostislav Korsunsky- and he showed the
variations to grandmaster Gufeld, the trainer of MayaChiburdanidze. After }
12...exd5 $2 { there follows } 13.Nc6 $1 Bxc6
{ was played inthe source game, Chiburdanidze-Dvoiris (Tallinn 1980), but
this too did notsave Black from a crushing defeat: } ( { and if } 13...d4
14.e5 { , then } 14...dxe5 15.fxe5 Nd5 16.e6 N7f6 17.Bxf6 Nxf6 18.exf7+ Kxf7
( { I remember that we alsolooked at } 18...Kd7 19.Bf5+ Kc7 20.Qf4+ Bd6
21.Re7+ Kxc6 22.Be4+ Kc5 23.Qf2 Bf4+ 24.Qxf4 Bxe4 25.Qe5+ Bd5 26.Rc7+ )
19.Bg6+ $3 { (Korsunsky's idea) } 19...Kxg6 20.Ne5+ Kh6 21.Nf7+ Kg6 22.Nxh8+
Kh6 23.Qh3+ { . A very pretty win! } ) 14.exd5+ Be7 15.dxc6 Nc5 16.Bxf6 gxf6
17.Bf5 Qc7 ( 17...Kf8 18.c7 ) ( 17...Ra7 18.Rxd6 Kf8 19.c7 $1 Qxc7 20.Rc6 )
18.b4 $1 Ne6 19.Qh5 Ng7 ( 19...Nf8 20.Qh6 Rg8 21.Qxf6 ) 20.Bd7+ Kf8 21.Qh6 d5
( 21...Qd8 22.Rd3 ) 22.Rxe7 $1 Kxe7 23.Re1+ { 1-0. } ) (
{ However, later it transpired that to } 12.Nd5 $5 { Black should reply }
12...Qxd4 $1 { with an unclear and interesting game after thepossible }
13.Bxf6 gxf6 14.Bxb5 Qa7 ( 14...Qc5 ) ( { or even } 14...Qxd1+ 15.Qxd1 axb5
{ . } ) ) 12...fxe6 13.Qh3 e5 $1 ( { If } 13...Be7 ) ( 13...O-O-O ) ( { or }
13...Nc5 { , then } 14.e5 $1
{ is strong, whereas now White is unable to buildup an attack that fully
compensates for the piece he has given up. } ) 14.Nd5 ( { or } 14.Bxf6 gxf6
15.Qe6+ Be7 ) 14...Bxd5 15.exd5 O-O-O $1 16.Bf5 ( 16.fxe5 dxe5 17.Rxe5 Bd6 $1
{ is unfavourable for White. } ) 16...Kc7 $1 (
{ In the eventof the 'greedy' } 16...exf4 $6 17.Bxf6 gxf6 18.Re8 $1 Rxe8
19.Bxd7+ Kd8 20.Bxe8 Qe3+ ( 20...Kxe8 21.Re1+ ) 21.Qxe3 fxe3 22.Bc6
{ White would haveescaped with a draw. } ) 17.Re3 $6
{ 'An indifferent move, since all the same ...b5-b4 came into Black's
plans. } ( { White should have played } 17.Bxd7 Rxd7 18.fxe5
{ , regaining one pawn with the prospect of winning another.'
(Polugayevsky). Although the position after } 18...dxe5 19.Rxe5 Bd6 20.Re6
Rf8 { is almost identical to one reached in the game. } ) 17...b4 18.fxe5
dxe5 $1 ( { Not wishing to remain with a bad bishop after } 18...Nxe5 19.Bxf6
gxf6
{ . Here White, as Polugayevsky put it, could still have attempted to
confusematters by } 20.Rb3 { . } ) 19.Bxd7 Rxd7 20.Rxe5 Bd6 21.Re6 Rf8 22.Kb1
$2 ( 22.Qh4
{ was more tenacious, but Geller was already in severe time-trouble. } )
22...Nxd5 $1
{ 'Eliminating the chief enemy. The remainder is simple.' (Polugayevsky) }
23.Qb3 ( { If } 23.Rxd5 { Black wins by } 23...Rf1+ 24.Bc1 Rxc1+ 25.Kxc1 Bf4+
{ (Polugayevsky). } ) 23...Rf5 24.Bh4 Qb5 25.Ree1 Re5 26.Bg3 Rxe1 27.Rxe1
Bxg3 28.Qxg3+ Kb7 29.a3 a5 30.axb4 axb4 31.Qf3 Qc6 32.Qf5 g6 ( 32...Ne3 $4
33.Rxe3 Rd1+ 34.Ka2 Qa4+ 35.Ra3 { with a draw. } ) 33.Qf3 Rc7 34.Qd3 Qc4
35.Qd1 Rf7 36.Qd2 Rd7 37.Qf2 b3 $1 38.cxb3 Qxb3
{ (time) --- Thanks largely to thiswin at the start of the additional
match-tournament, Polugayevsky qualifiedfor the Candidates event for the
first time. Later, having adapted to theInterzonals, he gained similar successes in 1976 and 1979. And when in spring1980 he was drawn against
Tal in the Candidates quarter-final match, LevAbramovich was not afraid to employ his 'Variation', his most risky inventionin the Sicilian Defence, demonstrating how much he trusted his own analyses.Psychologically this was a challenge to the great master of attack! }
0-1
[Event "26. Candidates Match, Alma Ata"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1980.??.??"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Tal, M."]
[Black "Polugayevsky, L."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "B96"]
[EventDate "1980.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ It should be said that Tal had lost the first game of the match with
Blackand, naturally, he was burning with desire to get even in the second.
However,the peak of his form, achieved in the Interzonal tournament in Riga, hadalready passed, and the former world champion looked a pale shadow
of himself.Whereas his opponent had prepared excellently for the match. --- }
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 b5 $5 (
{ Theultra-audacious 'Polugayevsky Variation', devised in the late 1950s,
is muchsharper than } 7...Be7 ) ( 7...Nbd7 { (Game Nos.25 and 80) } ) (
7...Qc7 { (Game No.81) } ) ( { or even } 7...Qb6
{ (Game No.41). Now the value of each move is veryhigh and it is not easy
for White to find his way in the resultingcomplications. } ) 8.e5
{ The main line. 'White immediately casts doubts on theopponent's queenside
activity and strikes a blow in the centre, exploiting thepin on the knight
at f6.' (Polugayevsky) } 8...dxe5 9.fxe5 Qc7 $1
{ The point ofthe entire variation. } 10.Bxb5+ $6
{ A novelty by the master Alvis Vitolins,Tal's second. Not long before the
match Tal and I had a short training sessionin Baku and the former world
champion casually let slip: 'You know, there isVitolins's idea 10 Bxb5+'. I remember suspecting that nothing good would comeof this. And in fact that
is what happened. } (
{ But first let us see howPolugayevsky responded to other moves: -- 1) }
10.exf6 Qe5+ 11.Be2 ( { aninferior alternative is } 11.Ne4 Qxe4+ 12.Ne2 Nc6
$1 13.Qd2 h6 $1 14.Be3 Bb7 15.Ng3 $6 Qe5 16.fxg7 Bxg7 17.Bd3 Nb4 $1 18.O-O
Nxd3 19.Qxd3 Rd8 20.Qe2 h5 $1
{ Nezhmetdinov-Polugayevsky, 29th USSR Championship, Baku 1961 } ) 11...Qxg5
{ and: } 12.Qd3 ( 12.O-O Qe5 13.Nf3 ( 13.Bh5 g6 14.Bf3 Ra7 15.Ne4 Rd7 16.c3
Bb7 { with equality, Kavalek-Polugayevsky, Bugojno 1980 } ) ( 13.Kh1 $5 )
13...Bc5+ 14.Kh1 Qxf6 15.Ne4 Qe7 16.Nfg5 O-O ( 16...f5 $5 17.Bh5+ g6 18.Nxh7
$1 Kf7 $1 19.Nhg5+ Kg7 20.Nxc5 Qxc5 ) 17.Nxf7 $1 Rxf7 18.Rxf7 Kxf7 19.Bh5+
Kg8 20.Nxc5 { (Belyavsky-Polugayevsky, Moscow 1979) } 20...Ra7 $1
{ and White'sadvantage here is only slight. } ) 12...Qxf6 13.Rf1 Qe5 14.Rd1
$1 ( 14.O-O-O Ra7 $1 15.Nf3 Qf4+ { and ...Rd7 } ) 14...Ra7 ( 14...Qc7 $2
15.Bh5 $1 g6 16.Bf3 Ra7 17.Nc6 { Belyavsky-Polugayevsky, Moscow 1981 } )
15.Nf3 ( 15.Ndxb5 $5 Rd7 16.Qc4 { Wolf-Polugayevsky, Groningen 1993 } )
15...Qc7 16.Ng5 $1 ( 16.Ne5 Be7 17.Nxf7 Qxh2 $1 ) 16...f5 17.Qd4 Qe7 $1
{ , to avoid these altogether wildcomplications, later became the main
line: } ( 17...h5 18.Rxf5 $5 ( 18.Qh4 ) ( 18.a4 ) 18...exf5 19.Nd5 Qd7 $1
20.Qh4 ( 20.Rd3 $5 { Van der Wiel } ) 20...Be7 21.Kf1 Bxg5 22.Bxh5+ Kf8
23.Qxg5 Rxh5 24.Qxh5 Qf7 25.Qh8+ Qg8
{ ... ˝-˝ (Tal-Polugayevsky, 4th matchgame, Alma Ata 1980). } ) 18.Bh5+ $5 (
{ or } 18.Nge4 h5 19.Nd6+ Qxd6 20.Qxa7 Qe5 $1 21.Qd4 Nd7 $1
{ (Am.Rodriguez-Polugayevsky, Biel Interzonal 1985) } ) 18...g6 19.Qxh8 Qxg5
20.Bf3 Nd7 $1 { with sharp play (Hellers-Polugayevsky, Haninge 1989); } ) (
{ 2) } 10.Qe2 Nfd7 11.O-O-O
{ (hoping to maintain the outpost at e5 and create an attack onthe king
caught in the centre) } 11...Nc6 $5
{ was successfully tried, however, inthe game Grünfeld-Polugayevsky (Riga
Interzonal 1979): } ( 11...Bb7 { (at onetime the main move) } 12.Qg4 Qb6 (
{ if } 12...Qxe5 { , the quiet } 13.Be2 $1 { is considered the strongest; }
( { although Morphy-style play is also possible: } 13.Bxb5 $6 axb5 14.Ncxb5
h5 $2 15.Nc7+ $3 Qxc7 16.Nxe6 Qe5 17.Nc7+ $1 Qxc7 18.Qe2+ Ne5 19.Qxe5+ $1
{ Berezyuk-Izhin, Lvov 1976 } ) ) 13.Be2 Nxe5 ( 13...h6 14.Qh3 $1 Bc5 $6
15.Nxe6 $1 ) 14.Qh3 $1 Nbd7 15.Rhe1 h6 16.Bh4 g6 $6
{ (Kavalek-Polugayevsky, Las Palmas 1974) } ( { or } 16...g5 $6
{ (Kavalek-Polugayevsky, Manila 1975), and it soon transpired that in both
cases } 17.Nxe6 $1
{ is strong. It appears that here too Tal would be in his element. } ) )
12.Nxc6 Qxc6 13.Qd3 ( 13.Ne4 Bb7 ) 13...h6 $1 14.Bh4 Bb7 15.Be2 Qc7 16.Rhe1
( 16.Rhf1 $5 ) 16...Nc5 17.Qh3 ( 17.Qd4 $5 ) 17...b4 $5 ( 17...Rc8
{ is more solid } ) 18.Nb5 $1 axb5 $1 19.Bxb5+ Bc6 20.Qf3 Nb3+ $3 21.Kb1 $2
( { the correct path is } 21.axb3 $1 Ra1+ 22.Kd2 Qd7+ 23.Ke3 Bc5+ 24.Kf4 g5+
25.Kg3 Rxd1 $1 26.Bxc6 Rxe1 27.Bxd7+ Kf8 28.Qf6 $1 Re3+ 29.Kg4 Re4+ $1
{ , maintaining the balance } ) 21...Na5 22.Rd4 Rc8 $1 23.Red1 g5 { 0-1. } )
10...axb5 11.exf6 Qe5+ 12.Qe2 Qxg5 13.Ndxb5 Ra5 $1
{ After spending about an hour,Polugayevsky found an acceptable defence. }
14.fxg7 Bxg7 ( 14...Qxg7 $6 15.O-O-O { is inferior. } ) 15.Ne4 Qe5 (
{ The counter-sacrifice } 15...Rxb5 $6 16.Nxg5 Rxg5
{ was something White could only dream of: } 17.O-O-O { etc. } ) 16.Nbd6+ Ke7
17.O-O f5 18.Rad1 Rd5 $1 ( { not } 18...fxe4 $2 19.Rf7+ Kd8 20.Nc4+ Rd5
21.Nxe5 Bxe5 22.Rxd5+ exd5 23.Qh5 ) 19.Qc4 Rxd1 $2
{ Black quitenaturally, but incorrectly strives to simplify the position. }
( { It was alsobad to play } 19...Bd7 $2 20.Qb4 $1 Rxd1 ( { or } 20...Nc6
21.Nxf5+ Kf7 22.Ne7+ { . } ) 21.Rxd1 fxe4 22.Nc4+ ) (
{ It is strange that no one mentioned themove } 19...Ba6 $1
{ , which promises Black the better chances: } 20.Qb4 ( 20.Qc7+ Nd7 )
20...Kd7 21.c4 ( 21.Nc5+ Kc6 22.Nxa6 Nxa6 23.Qb7+ Kxd6 24.Rxd5+ exd5 25.Qxa6+
Ke7 ) 21...Nc6 22.Qa3 Ra5
{ and the discovered checks do notpromise anything - } 23.Nb5+ ( { or }
23.Nf7+ $2 Qd4+ $1 24.Qe3 Ke7 $1 ) 23...Kc8 24.Qb3 Bxb5 25.Nd6+ Kb8 26.Nxb5
Ka8 27.Rd7 Qc5+ 28.Kh1 Be5 { etc. } ) 20.Rxd1 fxe4 ( 20...Bd7 $2 21.Qb4 $1 )
( 20...Qxb2 $2 21.Qc5 $1 ) 21.Nxc8+ Kf7 ( 21...Rxc8 $6 22.Qxc8 e3 23.Qb7+ Ke8
24.c3 e2 25.Re1 { is insufficient. } ) 22.Nd6+ Kg6 23.Nxe4
{ Now White has excellent compensation for the piece:three pawns and an
attack on the 'bare' king. } 23...Na6 { (completing hisdevelopment) } (
23...Rf8 24.Rd6 $1 ) ( { or } 23...Re8 24.b4 $1 ) 24.Nf2 ( 24.c3 $5 Rf8
25.Qd3 Nc7 26.Re1 { was also tempting. } ) 24...Nc5 (
{ It looksdangerous to play } 24...Nc7 25.Ng4 $1 Qg5 ( 25...Qf5 $2 26.Rf1 )
( 25...Qh5 $6 26.Rf1 Rf8 27.Qe4+ ) 26.h4 Qe7 27.Qe4+ Kf7 28.Qf4+ Kg8 29.Nh6+
Bxh6 30.Qxh6 { etc. } ) 25.b4 Na4
{ The turning point of the game and of the entire match. } 26.Ng4 $2 (
{ According to analysis by Lepeshkin, confirmed by the computer, } 26.Qd3+ $1
{ would have given White every chance of winning: } 26...Qf5 ( 26...Kf7 $2
27.Qd7+ ) ( 26...Kh5 $6 27.g4+ Kh6 28.Qh3+ Kg6 29.Rd7 $1 { - G.K. } ) 27.Qg3+
Qg5 28.Qb3 $1 { , for example: } 28...Nc3 ( 28...Rf8 29.Qxe6+ Bf6 ( 29...Rf6
30.Qe8+ Kh6 31.Rd3 Qc1+ 32.Nd1 $1 ) ( 29...Qf6 30.Qe4+ Qf5 31.Rd6+ Bf6 32.g4
Qxe4 33.Nxe4 ) 30.Ng4 $5 Qf5 ( 30...Kg7 31.Nxf6 Qxf6 32.Rd7+ Kh8 33.Qxf6+
Rxf6 34.Rc7 { - G.K. } ) 31.Qxf5+ Kxf5 32.Nxf6 Rxf6 33.Rf1+ Ke5 34.Rxf6 Kxf6
35.Kf2 ) 29.Qxe6+ Qf6 ( 29...Bf6 $2 30.Rd3 Qc1+ 31.Nd1 { and wins } ) 30.Qg4+
Qg5 31.Rd6+ Bf6 32.Rc6
{ and in the endgame, as in the above variations with28...Rf8, the role of
the pawns increases sharply. } ) 26...Qf5 27.Ne3 ( { if } 27.Re1 { , then }
27...Rf8 $1 ( { but not } 27...Re8 $2 28.Ne3 Nb2 29.Qc6 ) 28.Rxe6+ Kh5 29.h3
Bd4+ 30.Kh1 Qf1+ 31.Qxf1 Rxf1+ 32.Kh2 Nc3 { with a probable draw. } )
27...Nb2 $1 28.Qh4 Qe5 29.Qg4+ Kh6 30.Re1 $6 (
{ It probably made sense toforce a draw - } 30.Qh4+ Kg6 ( 30...Qh5 $2 31.Nf5+
$1 ) 31.Qg4+ Kh6 32.Qh4+ { . } ) 30...Bf6 31.b5 Rf8 32.b6 $2 Bg5 33.Qg3 Qxg3
34.hxg3 Kg7 $2 ( { In thetime scramble Black misses a certain win: } 34...Rb8
35.Ng4+ Kh5 36.Ne5 Rxb6 37.Kf2 Kh6 { . } ) 35.Ng4 Nc4 36.Rxe6 Rb8 37.Rc6 Nxb6
38.Rc7+ Kg8 39.c4 Na4 40.Kf2 Rb2+ ( 40...Rf8+ 41.Ke2 h5 42.Nh2 Nc3+ 43.Kd3
Nxa2 44.Nf3 { isunclear; } ) ( { but the computer prefers } 40...Nc3 $5 { . }
) 41.Kf3 Rxa2 ( { Here } 41...Nc3 { was no longer so tempting. } ) 42.Ke4 $2
{ The final error. } ( { White should have tried for a draw with } 42.Ne5 Rd2
43.Kg4 { , for example: } 43...Bf6 ( 43...Bd8 44.Rd7 $1
{ (without the rooks White has nothing to fear) } ( 44.-- ) ) ( 43...Be3
44.Rc8+ Kg7 45.Rc7+ Kf6 46.Nd7+ Ke6 47.Nf8+ ) ( { or } 43...Bh6 44.c5 $1 Bg7
$1 { (Polugayevsky) } 45.Rc8+ Bf8 46.c6 Nb6 47.Rb8 Nc4 48.Nd7 Rxd7 49.cxd7
Ne5+ 50.Kf5 Nxd7 51.Rb7 { . } ) 44.Rc8+ Kg7 45.Rc7+ Kh6 46.Rc6 Kg7 47.Rc7+
{ is no better. } ) 42...Re2+ 43.Kf5 Be7 44.Nf6+ ( { Or } 44.Ne5 Bd6 45.Rc8+
Kg7 { etc. } ) 44...Bxf6 45.Kxf6 Nb6 $1 46.g4 $6 ( 46.Kf5
{ was nevertheless more tenacious. } ) 46...Rxg2 ( 46...Rc2 $5 47.Rc6 Nd7+ )
47.Kg5 ( { It was also hopeless to play } 47.g5 Rc2 ( 47...Rd2 $5 ) 48.Rc6 (
48.g6 $2 Nd5+ ) ( 48.Rg7+ Kh8 49.Rb7 Rf2+ 50.Ke5 Nxc4+ ) 48...Nd7+ 49.Ke6
Nf8+ { . } ) 47...Rd2 48.c5 Nd7 49.c6 Rd5+ 50.Kh6 Rd6+ 51.Kg5 Ne5 52.Rc8+ Kg7
53.Rc7+ Nf7+ 54.Kf5 h6 55.Ke4 ( 55.Rc8 $2 Rf6+ 56.Ke4 Nd6+ ) 55...Kf6 (
55...Rg6 $5 ) 56.Rc8 Rd1 ( 56...Ng5+ $1 ) 57.Rf8 Rd6 $1 58.Rc8 ( 58.c7 Rc6 )
58...Ng5+ 59.Ke3 Ke7 60.Kf4 Nf7 61.Kg3 Rd3+ 62.Kg2 ( { If } 62.Kh4
{ Black would have won by } 62...Ng5 63.Kh5 Kf6 $1
{ (with the threat of ... Rh3 mate) } 64.Rf8+ Kg7 { . } ) 62...Rc3 63.Rc7+
Kf6 64.Rc8 Ne5 65.c7 Nf7 66.Rg8 { (the c-pawn was doomedin any case) }
66...Rxc7 67.Kg3 Rc1 ( 67...Rc3+ 68.Kh4 Ng5 $2 69.Rg6+ $1 ) 68.Ra8 Ne5
69.Rf8+ Kg7 70.Rf5 Rc3+
{ . --- Effectively the decisive game of thematch: the score became 2-0 and
Tal lost heart. --- It was Polugayevsky'sanalyses that discouraged many of
his opponents from playing 6 Bg5: herethings became too hot for White! His great services to the Sicilian wereworthily marked by the well-known chess
patron Joop van Oosterom, who on theoccasion of the grandmaster's 60th birthday organised a thematicsuper-tournament (Buenos Aires 1994) with the obligatory moves 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3and 3 d4. And what happened? Although the tournament was not officially ratedand it was possible to play riskily, without fear
of losing rating points, outof the 56 games the continuation 2...d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Bg5occurred only once: 6...e6 7 f4 Qb6 8 Nb3 etc. A unique instance in openingtheory: it would appear that only one player was capable of playing thevariation with 7...b5!? - the author himself, Lev Abramovich Polugayevsky... }
0-1
[Event "27. Candidates Match, Buenos Aires"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1980.??.??"]
[Round "12"]
[White "Polugayevsky, L."]
[Black "Korchnoi, V."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "A13"]
[EventDate "1980.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ In the summer of 1980 he battled in the Candidates semi-final match with
anold and difficult opponent - Viktor Korchnoi. It was the best of 12
games.After the 11th game Korchnoi was leading 6-5, so that in the next game only awin would do for Polugayevsky. And he applied all his mastery to
this game! --- } 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 b6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.O-O Bb7 6.d4 O-O 7.d5
$5
{ an attempt to disrupt the somewhat drowsy course of play, typical of
theQueen's Indian Defence; } ( 7.Nc3 { - Volume 1, Game No.94 } ) ( 7.b3
{ - Volume 2,Game No.62 } ) 7...exd5 8.Nh4 $1
{ An astounding novelty and a genuinerevelation! } ( { After } 8.Nd4 Bc6 $5
{ was Black's improvement in the 8th game: } (
{ in the 6th game there followed } 8...Nc6 9.cxd5 Nxd4 10.Qxd4 c5 11.Qd3 d6
12.a4 a6 13.Na3 b5 14.Bf4 b4 15.Nc4 { with a slight advantage to White; } (
15.-- ) ) 9.cxd5 Bxd5 10.Bxd5 Nxd5 11.e4 Nb4 12.Nc3 Bf6 13.Nf5 Re8 $1
{ and he converted his extra pawn on the 96th move. --- 'When preparing for
thedecisive 12th game, I spent many hours studying the position after
Black's13th move, but I was unable to improve White's play. I was forced to go back,and here I managed to find a completely new line in an opening
which hadapparently been thoroughly studied. Yet another demonstration of theinexhaustible nature of chess!' (Polugayevsky) }
) 8...c6 ( 8...Ne4 9.cxd5 Bxh4 10.Bxe4 Bf6 11.Qc2 g6 12.Nc3
{ favours White. } ) 9.cxd5 Nxd5 ( { or } 9...cxd5 10.Nc3 Na6 11.Nf5 Nc7
12.Bf4 { with some advantage } ) 10.Nf5 (
{ With hisknight on d4 White usually played } 10.e4
{ and 11 Nc3, but the forced leap tof5 is also not bad. } ) 10...Bc5 $6
{ In the new situation Korchnoi fails tomake the best move. } ( { After }
10...Nf6 11.e4 d5 12.Nc3 dxe4 { (Polugayevsky-Stean, Malta Olympiad 1980), }
13.Nxe4 $1 { with the threat ofBg5 is good. } ) ( { It is sounder to play }
10...Nc7 11.Nc3 d5 ( 11...Ne8 $5 { Timman-Karpov, Tilburg 1983 } ) 12.e4 Bf6
{ and then } 13.exd5 ( { or } 13.Bf4 Bc8 $1 14.g4 $5 Nba6
{ with sharp play (Kasparov-Karpov, 2nd matchgame, Moscow1984/5). } )
13...cxd5 14.Bf4 Nba6 15.Re1 Nc5 $1 ( 15...Qd7 16.Bh3 Kh8 $2 17.Ne4 $1
{ with an attack, Kasparov-Marjanovic, Malta Olympiad 1980 } ) ) 11.e4 Ne7 (
{ Subsequently both } 11...Qf6 ) ( { and } 11...Nc7
{ were tried, with variablesuccess. } ) 12.Nxg7 $1
{ An unexpected blow, which changes the picture. } (
{ Black was hoping for } 12.Nd6 Qc7 $1 13.Bf4 Ng6 14.Nxb7 Qxb7 15.Bd6 Re8
16.Nc3 Na6
{ with a solid position and an extra pawn. But White had preparedanother
fate for his king's knight! } ) 12...Kxg7 13.b4 $1
{ 'White regains hispiece and the opponent's dark squares on the kingside
are irreparably weakened.' (Polugayevsky) } 13...Bxb4 (
{ An interesting alternative is } 13...Ba6 14.Re1 ( 14.bxc5 $6 Bxf1 15.Bxf1
f6 16.Bb2 Ng6 17.Na3 { is really too daring } ) 14...Bxf2+ $5 (
{ Black fails to equalise by } 14...Bxb4 15.Qd4+ f6 16.Qxb4 c5 17.Qc3 Nbc6
18.e5 $1 Nf5 19.Bf4 Nfd4 20.Qd2 ) 15.Kxf2 Ng6
{ and the blackknights acquire the e5-square. I suggest } 16.e5 $5 (
{ after } 16.Bb2+ f6
{ White is unable to demonstrate the advantages of his position } 17.Kg1 d6
{ and ...Nd7 } ) 16...f6 17.Qh5 fxe5+ 18.Kg1 Kh8 19.Bg5 Qe8 20.Nc3
{ ,retaining an attack. } ) 14.Qd4+ f6 15.Qxb4 c5 (
{ Experience has shown thatWhite also has a dangerous initiative after }
15...d5 16.exd5 { . } ) 16.Qd2 Nbc6 17.Bb2
{ 'The check at h6 is unnecessary, since there is no point indriving the
black king out of the firing line. White's overall plan consistsin
organising the e4-e5 breakthrough, after which it will all be over.Realising this, Black tries by tactical means to hinder or at least delay
it.'(Polugayevsky) } 17...Ba6 18.Rd1 Ne5 19.Na3
{ (with the impending threat of f2-f4) } 19...N7c6 20.Qe3 $1
{ 'This modest move, over which I thought for more than half anhour,
performs the classic role of a cold shower, preventing Black fromconfusing
matters in variations; } ( { 'such as } 20.f4 Nd3 21.Bc3 $1
{ , true,would have retained the advantage; for example, } ( 21.e5 Nxb2
22.Qxb2 Nd4 23.Bxa8 Qxa8 { .' (Polugayevsky) } ( 23...-- ) ) 21...c4 22.Nxc4
Bxc4 23.Bf1 { . } ) 20...Qe7 ( { Black's problems are underlined by }
20...Nb4 21.Rd6 $1 { (withthe threat of Rad1) } 21...Nbd3 ( 21...Ned3 $2
22.Qg5+ ) 22.f4 Nxb2 ( 22...Ng4 $2 23.Qe2 $1 ) 23.fxe5 fxe5 24.Qd2 Nd3
25.Rxd3 Bxd3 26.Qxd3 { etc. } ) 21.f4 Nc4 $6 ( 21...Ng4 22.Qf3 ) (
{ while if } 21...Ng6 { , then } 22.e5 ( { or } 22.h4
{ , but this was the lesser evil. } ) ) 22.Nxc4 Bxc4 23.e5 fxe5 24.Bxc6 $1
dxc6 25.Rd7 $3
{ 'An explosive move. With his few remaining forces White begins adirect
attack, which is merely strengthened by the presence ofopposite-coloured
bishops.' (Polugayevsky) } 25...Qxd7 26.Qxe5+ Kf7 $6 ( 26...Kg6 27.Qg5+ Kf7
28.Re1 $1 { , as in the game } ) 27.Qf6+ (
{ White would have wonmore quickly by } 27.Re1 $1 Qe6 ( 27...Qg4 28.Qf6+ Kg8
29.Qh8+ Kf7 30.Qxh7+ { and mate } ) ( { or } 27...Be6 28.Qf6+ Kg8 29.Qg5+ Kf7
30.f5 ) 28.Qc7+ Ke8 29.Qxc6+ Ke7 30.Qb7+ { . } ) 27...Kg8 28.Qg5+ Kf7 29.Re1
Qe6 { (alas, this isforced) } ( 29...Be6 $2 30.f5 { and wins } ) 30.Qg7+ Ke8
31.Rxe6+ Bxe6 32.Bf6 Bf7 33.Bg5 ( 33.Qxh7 $5 Kd7 34.g4 Rae8 35.g5
{ would also have won easily,but White, by creating the threat of Qe5+,
also wants to win the exchange. } ) 33...Kd7 34.Bh6 c4 35.Qxh7 c5 36.Bxf8
{ (anxious play) } ( 36.g4 ) ( { or } 36.h4 { was simpler } ) 36...Rxf8
37.Qg7 Ke7 38.Qe5+ Kd7 39.g4 $6
{ Apparentlythe consequence of time-trouble. } ( 39.Qf6 ) ( { or } 39.Qg7 Ke7
40.g4 { wasclearly stronger. } ) 39...Re8 40.Qf6 Bd5 41.g5 Re2
{ Black has become active! } 42.h4
{ The sealed move. On the resumption there followed: } ( { If } 42.g6
{ there could have followed } 42...c3 43.Qxc3 Rg2+ 44.Kf1 Rxg6
{ . But even so, a queen is a queen and White has not thrownaway the win. } )
42...b5 ( 42...Rxa2 $2 43.h5 { and wins } ) 43.Qf5+ Kd6 44.Qf8+ Kc6 45.Qc8+
Kd6 46.Qd8+ Kc6 47.Qa8+ Kd6 48.Qf8+ $1 Kc6 49.a3 $1 Re3 (
{ The black pawns have been halted: } 49...c3 $2 50.Qf6+ { ; } ) ( { or }
49...a5 $2 50.Qa8+ { and Qxa5; } ) ( { while if } 49...Ra2 { , then } 50.Qf6+
Kc7 51.Qc3 { . } ) 50.h5 c3 51.Qf6+ Be6 ( { It was alsohopeless to play }
51...Kc7 52.Qg7+ $1 Kc6 ( 52...Kc8 53.Qf8+ ) 53.h6 Be4 ( 53...c2 $2 54.Qg6+ )
54.Qf6+ ( 54.h7 $2 c2 ) 54...Kd7 55.Qf7+ Kd6 56.Qf8+ Kd5 ( { or } 56...Kc6
57.Qe8+ Kd6 58.Qe5+ Kc6 59.Kf2 ) 57.Qg8+ Kd4 58.h7 Bxh7 59.Qxh7 b4 60.axb4
cxb4 61.Kf2 { . } ) 52.Kf2 $1 c2 53.Qb2 Rh3 54.Kg2 Bf5 ( 54...Rxh5 55.Qxc2 )
55.Qf6+ $1 { (transposing into a won queen ending) } 55...Kc7 56.Qxf5 c1=Q
57.Qe5+ Kb6 58.Kxh3 b4 ( { Or } 58...Qh1+ 59.Kg4 Qd1+ 60.Kf5 Qxh5 61.Qd6+
{ . } ) 59.axb4 cxb4 60.h6 Qh1+ 61.Kg4 Qd1+ 62.Kf5 Qc2+ 63.Kf6 b3 64.h7 $1
Qxh7 65.Qe3+ Kc6 66.Qxb3 Qh8+ 67.Ke7 Qh4 68.Qc4+ Kb6 69.Qb4+ Kc6 70.Qe4+ Kb5
71.Kf7 a5 72.g6 Qg4 73.Qe5+
{ . --- The 'normal time' ofthe match ended in a draw: 6-6. --- Then,
however, Korchnoi found in himselfthe strength to land the final blow.
Alas, at critical moments in both thisand his previous match with Korchnoi (1977), and in his match with Karpov (1974), Polugayevsky lacked not
the chess qualities, but rather the purelyfighting qualities to successfully oppose his tougher opponents. He could notwithstand the tension of the struggle! }
1-0
[Event "28. Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1981.??.??"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Polugayevsky, L."]
[Black "Torre, E."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "D44"]
[EventDate "1981.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ On the other hand, in all his matches Polugayevsky usually solved his
openingproblems very successfully. 'Playing White, he is a fearful opponent
forlovers of the King's Indian Defence,' wrote Petrosian, 'while with Black hehas in his armament the Nimzo-Indian Defence and any Queen's Indian
set-up (plus the Meran Variation - G.K.), but the main arrow in his quiver is theSicilian Defence.' This description was confirmed by the match with Tal, whileMecking was unable to equalise against Polugayevsky with either Black orWhite! Karpov and Korchnoi also frequently experienced
difficulties in theopening and succeeded only in the subsequent complicated play. --- Indeed, hisinnovatory contribution to modern opening theory is hard to overestimate. Takethe following memorable duel, which was judged the most important theoreticalgame in the 31st volume of Informator. At that time Polugayevsky's discoveryled to a revival of the move 5 Bg5 and of active attempts by White to refutethe Botvinnik Variation, which proved incredibly durable and as a resultbecame enormously popular at the turn of the 20th century. --- }
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 dxc4 6.e4 $1 ( 6.a4
{ - Volume 2, Game No.67 } ) 6...b5 7.e5 ( 7.a4 { - Volume 2, Game No.124 } )
7...h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.Nxg5 hxg5 10.Bxg5 Nbd7 11.exf6 ( { If } 11.g3
{ there can follow } 11...Rg8 ( 11...b4 $2 12.Ne4 ) 12.h4 Rxg5 13.hxg5 Nd5
14.g6 fxg6 15.Qg4 Qe7
{ with sharp play - forexample, here Kramnik defeated Belyavsky with Black
(Linares 1993) but lost toShirov with White (Monaco rapidplay 2002). } )
11...Bb7 ( 11...Qb6 12.g3 ) 12.g3 $1 ( 12.Be2 $6 { - Volume 2, Game No.68 } )
12...c5 13.d5
{ 'For roughly twoweeks, at the risk of wasting precious time, I analysed
this tabiya of theBotvinnik Variation when preparing for my match with
Mecking (1977). The riskjustified itself. One sleepless night, totally engrossed in the work, suddenlymy heart literally skipped a beat: I had seized
on an absolutely new idea. Inthe match it was not required and the piece of paper with my analysis stayedwith me for more than four years!' (Polugayevsky) }
13...Nb6 $2
{ After the game thisknight move was declared incorrect and was practically
discarded. } ( { Insteadthey played } 13...Bh6 ) ( { or } 13...Nxf6 14.Bg2
Be7 ( { or } 14...Bh6 15.Bxf6 Qxf6 16.O-O O-O-O 17.Nxb5
{ 1-0 (Kasparov-Ivanchuk, Linares 1994) } ) ) ( { but most often } 13...Qb6
14.Bg2 O-O-O 15.O-O b4 { and now: } 16.Rb1 $5
{ Uhlmann's old move, which sharply gathered pace after the
gameKasparov-Kramnik (New York rapidplay 1994). Later it was played by
Kramnik,Kamsky and Topalov. Here there is also great scope for creativity - and allthis is the heritage of the great Botvinnik! }
( 16.Na4 Qb5 ( 16...Qd6 17.Bf4 { ... 1-0 Kramnik-Ivanchuk, Novgorod 1996 } )
( { the alternative is } 16...Qa6 $5 ) 17.a3 { , and now: } 17...exd5 (
17...Nb8 18.axb4
{ (as I defeated Timoshchenko andDorfman in the 1981 USSR Championship) } (
18.-- ) ) ( 17...Ne5 $6 18.axb4 $1 cxb4 19.Qd4
{ ... 1-0 (Kamsky-Kramnik, 1st matchgame, New York 1994) } ) 18.axb4 cxb4
19.Be3 Nc5 20.Qg4+ Rd7 { and here even } 21.Qg7 $3
{ is possible - theevaluation of this mind-boggling variation fluctuates
from 1-0 (Ivanchuk-Shirov, Wijk aan Zee 1996) to 0-1 (Ponomariov-Shirov,
Wijk aan Zee2003). } ) ) ( { The current fashion is for } 13...Qc7 $5 14.Bg2
b4 15.Nb5 $6 Qb6 16.dxe6 Qxe6+ 17.Be3 ( { or } 17.Kf1 O-O-O $1 ) 17...O-O-O
18.Nxa7+ Kb8 19.Bxb7 Kxb7 20.a3 Qe4 21.Ke2 Bh6 $1 22.Qb1 ( 22.Nb5 Ne5
{ and wins } ) 22...Qxb1 23.Rhxb1 Bxe3 24.Kxe3 Kxa7
{ ... 0-1 (Onischuk-Obodchuk, Poykovsky 2003).White's rating was 200 points
higher, but in such wild positions thedifference in the strength of the
players is levelled out: one wrong move -and you can resign. Note there was a decisive result in all the gamesmentioned - this speaks for itself. ---
Therefore at that time they wereafraid to play 5 Bg5 (incidentally, also like the Polugayevsky Variation inthe Sicilian), since no one wanted to delve into such a wild jungle. ButPolugayevsky took up the challenge and made a serious step forward,demonstrating a new, modern approach to the opening:
if you want to gain anadvantage in critical variations, you have to take a risk, and play concretelyand sharply, move by move. This was already a prototype of my match duels withKarpov and of the opening battles of the 1990s. }
) 14.dxe6 $1 Qxd1+ ( { Laterthey tried to defend with } 14...Bxh1 15.e7 $1
Qd7 16.Qxd7+ Nxd7 17.Nxb5 Bxe7 18.fxe7 f6
{ , but without particular success, for example: } 19.Bf4 Kxe7 20.h4 Bf3
21.Bxc4 Rhc8 22.Rc1
{ with clear play against the weak c5-pawn (Ionov-Scherbakov, Rostov-on-Don
1993). } ) 15.Rxd1 Bxh1 16.e7 a6 ( { Of course,not } 16...Bh6 $2 17.Nxb5 Nd5
( 17...Rc8 18.Nc7+ $1 Rxc7 19.Rd8# ) 18.Bh3 $1 Nxe7 { otherwise 19 Nd6 mate }
19.Nc7+ Kf8 20.fxe7+ { with crushing threats. } ) ( { But } 16...Bc6 $5
17.Rd6 { is interesting, and now: } 17...b4 $1 ( { not } 17...Bd7 $2 18.Ne4
$1 { (Bagirov), } ) ( { or } 17...Rc8 $2 18.h4 Bh6 ( 18...b4 19.Bh3 $1 )
19.f4 $1 b4 20.Bh3 Rb8 21.Rxc6 bxc3 22.bxc3 { and wins (Burgess) } ) 18.Rxc6
bxc3 19.bxc3 $1 ( { after } 19.Rxb6 axb6 20.Bxc4 { both } 20...Kd7 ( { and }
20...Bxe7 { are quite good } ) ) 19...Rxh2 (
{ Black also does not have clear equality after } 19...Bh6 20.Bh4 $1 Rc8 (
{ or } 20...Kd7 21.Rxc5 ) 21.Rd6 $1 Bf4 22.gxf4 Rxh4 23.Bg2 $1 Nd7 24.Bc6
Rxc6 25.Rxc6 Nxf6 26.Rxf6 Kxe7 27.Rf5 $1 ) 20.exf8=Q+ Kxf8 21.Be3 $1
{ with considerable compensation for the exchange, but by nomeans a win. } )
17.h4 $3
{ Very fine! 'This innovation is perhaps the best thatI have managed to
find during the whole of my chess career.' (Polugayevsky) } (
{ Earlier they played the automatic } 17.exf8=Q+ Kxf8 $1 18.Rd6 Rb8 19.Be3
Rh5 $1 20.Be2 Re5 21.Nd1 ( { or } 21.Kd2 $6 b4 22.Nd1 Kg8 $1
{ (Plachetka-Bagirov,Berlin 1979) } ) 21...Kg8 22.Bf4 Ree8 23.Ne3 Be4 24.f3
Bg6 25.h4 Rb7 26.g4 Na4
{ (Belyavsky-Bagirov, Moscow 1981), and in either case Black has
goodcounterplay on the queenside. } ) 17...Bh6 18.f4 $3
{ by giving up a whole rook,White has created - directly in the spirit of
Philidor - a rare pawn chain,paralysing the opponent's kingside } 18...b4
19.Rd6 $1
{ 'This too is the result ofthat same home preparation (I have to admit
that the position was analysed asfar as move 30 of the present game). } (
{ After } 19.Nb1
{ Black would have beenalright, whereas now the knight gains the d1-square,
from where it canimmediately aim for the centre.' (Polugayevsky) } ) 19...Rb8
$1 { The best move,made after a long think. } ( { After } 19...bxc3 20.Rxb6
cxb2 ( 20...c2 21.Kd2 Kd7 22.Bxc4 Be4 23.Rxa6 $1 ) 21.Bxc4
{ and Rxb2 Black, according toPolugayevsky, loses on account of the
weakness at f7 and the amazinghelplessness of his rooks (say, } 21...Bc6
22.Rxb2 a5 ( { or } 22...Bd7 23.Bxa6 $1 ) 23.Rb5 $1
{ ); moreover, after placing his rook on the d-file, White can evenexchange
bishops and play a unique 'three-rook' endgame! } ) 20.Nd1 Bxg5 (
{ The consequences of } 20...Be4 $5
{ , which is not mentioned by thecommentators, should have been clarified.
For example: } 21.Ne3 c3 22.Bxa6 ( { not } 22.bxc3 $6 bxc3 23.Bxa6 Nd7 24.a4
Rb1+ 25.Kf2 Rb2+ ) 22...Nd7 23.Nc4 cxb2 24.Nxb2 Bb1 25.Rd1 $1 Bxa2 26.Bc4 $1
{ , and if } 26...b3 $2 ( { while if } 26...Bxg5 27.fxg5 b3 { , then } 28.Bf1
{ is good } ) 27.Bb5 $1 Rxb5 28.Nc4 { and wins. } ) 21.fxg5 Nd5 $1
{ Preventing Ne3 and planning the counter-sacrifice ...Nxe7. } (
{ Inferior is } 21...Bd5 22.Ne3 $1 Be6 ( { Black loses ignominiously after }
22...Be4 23.Bg2 $1 Bxg2 24.Nf5 Rg8 25.Ng7+ Rxg7 26.Rd8+ $1 Rxd8 27.exd8=Q+
Kxd8 28.fxg7 { - Burgess } ) 23.Bg2 Bd7
{ (otherwise Bc6+ and an exoticmate with the knight at d6) } 24.Be4
{ with the threat of Nf5 (Polugayevsky),while if } 24...c3 25.bxc3 bxc3
{ , then } 26.g6 $1 { is decisive. } ) 22.Bxc4 Nxe7 23.fxe7 Kxe7 24.Rf6 $1
{ 'It is much more important to prevent the rook at h8from coming into
play, than to go after the a6-pawn.' (Polugayevsky) } (
{ And indeed, the activation of his rook would have enabled Black to save
thegame: } 24.Rxa6 Rhe8 25.Rf6 Kf8+ 26.Kf1 $5 ( 26.Kf2 Re7 27.g6 Rd8 28.Ne3
Rd2+ 29.Ke1 Rxb2 30.Rxf7+ Rxf7 31.gxf7 Bf3 $1 ( { but not } 31...Be4 $2
32.Ng4 Bf5 33.Ne5 { - Burgess } ) 32.g4 Rh2 33.h5 Be4
{ , halting the passed pawns } ) 26...Re7 27.Nf2 Bb7 28.h5 Rbe8 $1 29.Kg1 (
29.Nd3 Rd8 $1 ) 29...Rd8 $1 30.h6 Bd5 { , also gaining a draw. } ) 24...Rhf8
25.Ne3 $1 Be4 26.Rxa6 Rbd8 27.Rf6
{ By this pretty pendulum manoeuvre with his rook, White has
restoredmaterial equality and retained an obvious positional advantage. } (
{ ' } 27.h5 { suggested itself: } 27...-- ( 27...Bd3 $2 28.Ra7+ ) ( 27...Rd6
28.Ra5 $1 ) ( { but atthe board I refrained from this on account of }
27...Rg8 { (? - G.K.) } 28.g6 fxg6 29.Bxg8 Rxg8
{ , when the conversion of White's extra pawn could haveproved a difficult
matter.' (Polugayevsky). Alas, this is an oversight: after } 30.Re6+ $1
{ (Burgess) Black can resign. } ( 30.-- ) ) ( { But after } 27...Rd4 $1
{ the conversion of the extra pawn would indeed have been difficult, for
example: } 28.g4 Re8 $1 29.Rf6 Kd8 30.Ke2 Re5 31.Rxf7 ( { or } 31.Bxf7 Rxg5 )
31...Rxg5 32.h6 Rd7 { with drawing chances. } ) ) 27...Rd6 28.Rf4 Rd4 29.h5
Bd3 $1 { (a desperate attempt to disentangle himself) } 30.Nd5+ $1 Kd6
31.Rxd4 cxd4 32.Bb3 $6 { Anxiety in the opponent's time-trouble. } (
{ It was simpler to play } 32.Bxd3 $1 Kxd5 33.h6
{ followed by the activation of the king: } 33...Rg8 ( { or } 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.Kxb4 Kg7 39.Kc4 { and wins (Polugayevsky). } ) 32...Bc2 $1 33.Bxc2 Kxd5
34.Bb3+ $2 (
{ Almost throwing away the win, which could havebeen achieved by } 34.h6 $1
{ , 35 h7 and the advance of the king. } ) 34...Ke5 35.g4 Kf4 $2
{ An error in reply. } (
{ Black fails to make use of a chanceopportunity - } 35...d3 $3 36.Kd2 (
36.g6 $1 fxg6 37.hxg6 Kf6 { (Polugayevsky)with a dead draw: } 38.Kd2 (
{ or } 38.Bf7 Rc8 39.Kd2 Rc2+ 40.Kxd3 Rxb2 ) 38...Rd8 ( { or } 38...Kxg6
39.Kxd3 Kg5 ) 39.Bf7 Rd4 40.g5+ Kg7 { etc } ) (
{ otherwisethings are bad for White: } 36.h6 Kf4 37.Bxf7 Ke3 $1 ) ( 36.Kf2
Kf4 $1 ) 36...Kd4 $1 37.h6 ( { or } 37.g6 $2 fxg6 38.hxg6 Rf2+ ) 37...Re8
38.Bd1 Re3 39.a3 bxa3 40.bxa3 Rh3 { and wins. } ) 36.g6 $1 Ke3 (
{ It is over: } 36...d3 37.Kd2 ) ( 36...fxg6 37.hxg6 Re8+ 38.Kd2 Re7 39.Bf7
$1 { (Polugayevsky) } ) ( { or } 36...Kg5 37.Bxf7 Kh6 38.g5+ $1
{ (Burgess). } ) 37.g7 Rc8 38.Kf1 $1 ( { ' } 38.h6
{ is also good enough.' (Polugayevsky). No, after } 38...Rc1+ 39.Bd1 d3
40.g8=Q d2+ 41.Kf1 Rxd1+ 42.Kg2 Rg1+ 43.Kxg1 d1=Q+
{ (Burgess) Black gives perpetualcheck. } ) 38...d3 ( 38...Kf3 39.Bd1+
{ and h6 } ) 39.Kg2 Kf4 40.h6
{ (time) ---Polugayevsky died in the summer of 1995 in Paris, where he had
lived for thelast few years, and he was buried in Montparnasse Cemetery,
not far fromAlekhine's grave. 'His prestige as a theoretician and teacher wasincontestable,' the magazine 'Shakhmaty v Rossii' wrote in memory
ofPolugayevsky. 'Chess character is usually a continuation of human character.With Lev Abramovich it was the other way round: while not being an heroicperson by nature, he became a veritable lion at the chessboard. It appearedthat he was fighting not only his opponents, but also with himself,
spendingadditional efforts on each of his numerous victories. Perhaps, therefore, onecannot help feeling that with his wealth of ideas, understanding of chess andthe creative content of his play, Polugayevsky could have hoped for evengreater successes.' }
1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "The Tiger Wakes Up"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ In his first cycle as an ex-champion, by defeating Hübner (+1=6)
andKorchnoi (+1=9), Petrosian reached the final Candidates match, where he
metthe phenomenal Robert Fischer (Buenos Aires, autumn 1971). The Americanresembled a hurricane: before this he had won 18 successive games:
6-0 at thefinish of the Interzonal, 6-0 in his match with Taimanov and 6-0 in his matchwith Larsen! And then in the first game of his match with Petrosian, afterrunning into a strong piece of opening preparation, he accurately exploitedhis opponent's uncertain play and gained his
19th successive win (cf. Volume 4). It appeared that he could no longer be stopped, but here a miracle occurred:the 'tiger' woke up! }
1.--
{ 'When Petrosian resigned the first game,' wroteViktor Baturinsky, the
leader of the Soviet delegation, 'the spectators stoodup and there was loud
and lengthy applause. At this unpleasant moment we stoodup together with the entire hall, experiencing bitterness and disappointment,on account not
only of the defeat, but also the 'wasted' excellent openinginnovation and the missed drawing chances in the endgame. But when, five dayslater, Fischer, pale and soaked in sweat, stopped the clocks and extended hishand to Tigran on the 32nd move, the ovation that burst out in the hallgreatly
exceeded in both strength and duration the one after the first game.'According to Petrosian, this was the greatest ovation he ever receivedanywhere... }
*
[Event "29. Candidates Match, Buenos Aires"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1971.??.??"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Petrosian, T."]
[Black "Fischer, R."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "D82"]
[EventDate "1971.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4 Bg7 5.e3 c5 ( 5...O-O { - Game No.12 } )
6.dxc5 Qa5 7.Rc1 Ne4 ( { Since my third match with Karpov (1986) } 7...dxc4
8.Bxc4 O-O 9.Nf3 Qxc5 { has been considered the simplest way to equalise. } )
8.cxd5 Nxc3 9.Qd2 { (a recommendation of Boleslavsky) } 9...Qxa2
{ (otherwise Ne2) } 10.bxc3 ( 10.Rxc3 O-O { with equality. } ) 10...Qa5 (
{ The experimental } 10...Qxd2+ 11.Kxd2 Nd7 12.Bb5 O-O 13.Bxd7 Bxd7 14.e4 f5
15.e5 e6 { is dangerous in view of } ( { or } 15...Rac8 16.c4 $1 Rxc5 17.Be3
Ra5 18.f4 ) 16.c4 Rfc8 17.c6 $1 bxc6 18.d6
{ (Karpov-Kasparov, 5th matchgame, London/Leningrad 1986). } ) 11.Bc4 Nd7
12.Ne2 ( { Subsequently White switched to } 12.Nf3 $5 Nxc5 13.O-O (
{ or immediately } 13.Be5 ) 13...O-O 14.Be5
{ , but after the exchange on e5 and...f7-f6 he rarely gained an advantage.
} ) 12...Ne5 ( { In later years therewere many games on the theme of }
12...Nxc5 $1 { , for example: } 13.O-O O-O ( 13...e5 $5 ) 14.Nd4 ( 14.f3 e5
$1 15.Bg3 b5 16.Ba2 Qb6 17.Kh1 a5
{ withequality, Rashkovsky-Mikhalchishin, USSR Cup 1984 } ) 14...Bd7 15.Ra1
( 15.Rfd1 Rfc8 ) 15...Ne4 $1 16.Qc2 Qxc3 17.Qxe4 Qxc4 18.Rac1
{ (Malisauskas-Peelen,Groningen Open 1990), and here } 18...f5
{ is the simplest way to equalise. } ) ( 12...Qxc5 13.Ba2 Nb6
{ is also interesting. } ) 13.Ba2 Bf5 $2
{ An over-optimisticand extremely dubious move; } (
{ especially against the background of the natural } 13...Qxc5
{ . However, one should take into account the fact that thiscomplicated
position, demanding deep analysis, was completely new at that time. } )
14.Bxe5 $1 { This is the whole point. } 14...Bxe5 15.Nd4 $1 Qxc5 (
{ 'Retreatingthe bishop with } 15...Bd7
{ would have allowed White a great advantage after } 16.c6 $1 bxc6 17.dxc6
Bc8 18.f4 Bg7 19.O-O { .' (Petrosian) } ) 16.Nxf5 gxf5 17.O-O
{ A critical point in the game. Black's position is rather unpleasant:his
kingside pawns are broken and he has obvious problems with his king. }
17...Qa5 $2
{ 'The losing moment,' writes Mednis is his book 'How to beat Bobby
Fischer'.'To voluntarily remove the queen from a good central square to a
meaninglessspot on the edge of the board, while losing a tempo to do it, is altogetherincomprehensible. Black's immediate problems were the
king's safety and theweak advanced f5-pawn. } (
{ A logical approach, then, was } 17...f4 $1 18.exf4 Bd6
{ followed by queenside castling. White stands better, of course, but
thewin is far out in the woods.' I agree: although after } 19.Rfe1 O-O-O
20.Re4 Kb8 21.g3
{ White has an obvious advantage, it is not so easy to breachBlack's
position. The main thing is that, at the cost of a pawn, he hasblocked the
white centre and defended himself against a direct attack. ---From the practical, purely playing point of view, this would have been themost
correct decision, but Fischer did not consider it to be forced! Afternineteen successive wins, Bobby's sense of danger was, naturally, dulled.Being absolutely confident in himself, he underestimated the difficulties ofthe resulting position with opposite-coloured bishops and heavy
pieces. Insuch situations, as is well known, the presence of opposite-coloured bishopsoften merely increases the attacking potential of the stronger side. }
) 18.Qc2 $1 ( { Of course, not } 18.Bb1 Rc8
{ ; now, however, the weak c3-pawn threatensto become incredibly active. } )
18...f4 ( { Both } 18...Bf6 19.Bb3 Rc8 20.c4 e6 21.c5 ) ( { and } 18...Rc8
19.Qxf5 Qc7 20.f4 Bxc3 21.d6 $1 exd6 22.Bxf7+
{ were unfavourable for Black. } ) 19.c4 $1 fxe3 $5
{ Again ultra-optimistic! } ( 19...b6
{ would appear to be more tenacious. However, after } 20.Qe4 $1 (
{ the idea was } 20.exf4 Bxf4 21.Rce1 Bd6
{ - this is similar to the variationin the note to 17...Qa5, but in a less
favourable version for Black; there isno immediate win, the king can go to
c7 and the bishop has a strong point,whereas in the game it is left practically without any squares and the kingcomes under the crossfire of all the
pieces } ) 20...Bd6 ( 20...Qxa2 $2 21.Qxe5 ) 21.Bb3 $1
{ , Black's defences begin to creak: } 21...Qb4 ( 21...fxe3 22.fxe3 $1 ) (
{ or } 21...O-O-O 22.Qf5+ Kb8 23.c5 $3 bxc5 24.exf4 Qb4 25.Bc4 Kc7 26.Qc2 $1
{ and Rb1 with a crushing attack } ) 22.Bc2 fxe3 ( 22...O-O-O $2 23.Ra1
{ and Rfb1 } ) 23.fxe3 Rc8 24.Qg4 $1 { . } ) 20.c5 $1
{ Apparently Fischer did notexpect such boldness from Petrosian. But the
latter always played by theposition, and in the given case White's attack
is obviously worth a pawn! Andwhatever Black does now, he is faced with difficult problems. }
20...Qd2 21.Qa4+ $1 Kf8 ( { 'Maybe } 21...Kd8
{ was better.' (Mednis). No, this loses by force: } 22.Rcd1 $1 exf2+ (
22...e2 23.Rxd2 Bxh2+ 24.Kxh2 exf1=Q 25.d6 ) 23.Rxf2 Qh6 ( 23...Bxh2+ 24.Kf1
Qh6 25.d6 exd6 26.Rxf7 ) 24.d6 Qxh2+ 25.Kf1 exd6 ( 25...e6 26.Qa5+ b6 27.cxb6
) 26.Rxf7 Qh1+ 27.Kf2 Bg3+ 28.Kf3 { . } ) 22.Rcd1 $1 (
{ 'It could well be that the positional } 22.Rc2
{ was more effective.' (Mednis)But after } 22...exf2+ $1 (
{ it is true for the variation } 22...e2 $2 23.Rxd2 Bxh2+ 24.Kxh2 exf1=Q
25.d6
{ - with such a mighty bishop as the one at a2, Whitewill usually give
mate; Tal would not even have bothered to examine such aposition } ) 23.Kh1
Qd4 24.Rc4 $1 Qb2 $1 ( { not } 24...Qd3 $2 25.Rxf2 ) 25.Re4 Rg8
{ , the situation is completely unclear. } ) 22...Qe2 23.d6 $1
{ 'The movewas much acclaimed by the chess world; } (
{ 'yet Petrosian himself laterrecommended } 23.g3 $1
{ ' (Mednis). Indeed, this restricts Black'spossibilities and after }
23...Kg7 24.d6
{ his position is unenviable. However, theimmediate breakthrough is also
strong. } ) 23...Qh5 ( { Black would have lostafter } 23...exf2+ $2 24.Rxf2
Bxh2+ 25.Kxh2 Qxf2 26.dxe7+ Kg7 ( 26...Kxe7 27.Rd7+ Kf8 28.Qc4 $1 { Kholmov }
) 27.Qg4+ Kf6 28.Bxf7 $1
{ etc. For 30 yearsa question mark was also attached to the move in the
game, based on ananalysis by the Moscow candidate master I.Loktev. } ) (
{ Fischer had supposedlyoverlooked } 23...Bxh2+ $6 24.Kxh2 Qh5+ 25.Kg1 e2
{ with chances of asuccessful defence: } 26.dxe7+ ( 26.Rd3 $2 Qh1+ $1 ) (
26.Qd4 f6 $1 ( { after } 26...exf1=Q+ $2 27.Rxf1 f6
{ White wins with the subtle } 28.Re1 $3 Re8 ( { and if } 28...e5 { , then }
29.Qd5 { with the threats of Qxb7 and Re3 } ) 29.d7 Rd8 30.Rxe7 $1 ) 27.Rd3
exf1=Q+ 28.Kxf1 Qh1+ 29.Ke2 Qh5+ 30.Kd2 Qg5+ 31.Kd1 Qh5+ 32.Kc1 Qg5+ 33.Kc2
Qf5 $1 { . Thus 23...Qh5 is in fact not worse,but better than 23...Bxh2?!. }
) 26...Kg7 27.Rd4 $3
{ (a human automaticallyplaces the rook on d5; after all, it attacks the
queen!) } ( 27.Rd5 { (? - G.K.) } 27...exf1=Q+ 28.Kxf1 Qg6 $1 29.Qd4+ f6
30.Rd8 h5 31.Qd7 Kh6
{ . It stands toreason that it is hard for a human to assess all the
consequences of thesewild complications. But one only has to switch on the
computer, and within acouple of minutes it finds a 'cast-iron' win... } (
31...-- ) ) 27...exf1=Q+ ( 27...Qh1+ 28.Kxh1 exf1=Q+ 29.Kh2 h5 30.Rf4 )
28.Kxf1 Qh1+ ( 28...f5 29.Rd7 ) ( { or } 28...Qe5 29.Rg4+ Kf6 30.Re4 Qxc5
31.Qb3 ) 29.Ke2 Qh5+ 30.Rg4+ Kf6 31.Qf4+ Kxe7 32.Qd6+ Ke8 33.f3 { and wins. }
) 24.f4 $1 e2 $2 { The finalmistake. } ( { 'After } 24...Bf6 $1
{ Black's defensive resources would still havebeen very considerable.'
(Kholmov) True, with } 25.Rd5 $1
{ (Mednis) Whitewould have retained a powerful attack, but literally
computer-like accuracywould have been demanded of him: } 25...Qg4 ( 25...Qh4
26.dxe7+ Kg7 ( 26...Bxe7 $2 27.Rf5 ) 27.Qd1 $1 Rhe8 ( 27...Bxe7 $2 28.Rh5 Qf6
29.Rg5+ Kf8 30.Qh5 ) 28.Rh5 e2 29.Qxe2 Bd4+ 30.Kh1 Rxe7 31.Qd1 Qf6 32.Bb1 $1
{ and wins } ) 26.dxe7+ Bxe7 27.Re1 Rg8 28.Qe4 Re8 ( 28...Qg6 29.Rf5 $1 Rg7
30.Rxe3 ) 29.Re5 $1 Rg7 ( 29...Rg6 $2 30.Qxb7 ) ( 29...Qg6 30.f5 Qc6 31.Bd5
Qxc5 32.f6 ) 30.g3 Qd7 31.Rxe3 f6 32.Be6 Qc6 ( 32...Qd2 33.Bb3 Qc1+ 34.Kg2
{ and Re2 } ) 33.Qf5 Rd8 34.Bb3 Rd2 35.Bd5 $1 Qb5 ( 35...Qxc5 36.Qxf6+ $3 )
36.Rxe7 Rd1+ 37.Re1 Qxc5+ 38.Kf1 Qb5+ 39.Re2 { and wins. } ) 25.fxe5 $1
exd1=Q 26.Rxd1 Qxe5 27.Rf1 $1 { A catastrophe on f7. } 27...f6 (
{ It is all over: } 27...Qxc5+ 28.Kh1 f6 ( 28...Kg7 29.Qe4 $1 ) 29.Qb3 Qh5
30.Qe6 { (Kholmov); } ) ( { or } 27...f5 28.Qb3 e6 29.Qxb7 Re8 ( 29...Qxc5+
30.Kh1 Re8 31.g4 $1 ) 30.Qxa7 Rg8 31.c6 Qe4 32.g3 { , and } 32...Qxc6
{ is not possible on account of } 33.Rxf5+ $1 { . What a rout! } ) 28.Qb3 Kg7
( { If } 28...e6 ) ( { or } 28...Ke8 { - } 29.Qxb7 ) 29.Qf7+ Kh6 30.dxe7 f5
( { After } 30...Rag8 ) ( { or } 30...Rhg8 { , the simplest is } 31.Bb1 { . }
) 31.Rxf5 Qd4+ 32.Kh1
{ . --- The scores in the match were now equalised. ---Fischer was clearly
disheartened! In the 3rd game Petrosian missed goodwinning chances (see
Volume 4), in the 4th and 5th he easily made two moredraws, but then, as he put it, he either 'cracked or became tired' - andsuffered four successive
defeats. Nevertheless, Botvinnik commented: 'Thatwhich Petrosian did in the first five games is a great achievement. He showedthat it is possible to play against Fischer. When Petrosian played likePetrosian, Fischer played like a very strong grandmaster, but when Petrosianbegan making mistakes,
Fischer was transformed into a genius.' } 1-0
[Event "30. Alekhine Memorial, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1971.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Petrosian, T."]
[Black "Spassky, B."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "D27"]
[EventDate "1971.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ Just a month after this very difficult match Tigran Vartanovich took
partin the Alekhine Memorial super-tournament (Moscow 1971): 1-2. Karpov
and Stein- 11 out of 17; 3. Smyslov - 10˝; 4-5. Petrosian and Tukmakov - 10; 6-7.Spassky and Tal - 9˝; 8-10. Bronstein, R.Byrne and Hort - 9; 11.
Korchnoi -8˝ etc. He conducted his game with the reigning world champion withparticular verve. --- }
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4
{ Spassky did not often play this.In the given instance he decided to force
the opponent to fight against hisown opening weapon. } 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 (
4...Bg4 { - Game No.46 } ) 5.Bxc4 c5 6.O-O a6 7.a4 ( 7.Qe2
{ - Volume 2, Game Nos.24 and 26; } ) ( { the modernfashion is for } 7.Bb3 $5
) 7...Nc6 8.Qe2 cxd4 9.Rd1 Be7 10.exd4 O-O
{ A tabiya of the Botvinnik-Petrosian match (Moscow 1963) . } 11.Nc3 (
11.Bg5 Nd5 { with equality } ) 11...Nd5 ( { The alternative is } 11...Nb4
12.Bg5 { or } ( 12.Ne5 b6 $1 13.Qf3 Ra7 $5 ) 12...Bd7 ( 12...Nbd5 13.Ne5 $1 )
( 12...Nfd5 13.Nxd5 Nxd5 14.Bxe7 Nxe7 15.Qe4 Nd5 16.Ne5 Nf6 17.Qf4 Nd5 18.Qe4
Nf6 { withequality (Reshevsky-Petrosian, Siegen Olympiad 1970) } ( 18...-- )
) 13.Ne5 ( 13.d5 $5 { Botvinnik-Petrosian, 10th matchgame, Moscow 1963 } )
13...Rc8 14.Re1 ( 14.Bb3 $5 ) 14...Be8 $1 15.Rad1 Nfd5
{ with level chances (Bareev-Ivanchuk,Linares 1994). } ) 12.Qe4
{ A novelty! } ( { A weaker alternative is } 12.Ne5 Nxc3 13.bxc3 Nxe5 14.Qxe5
Bd6 { with equality (Larsen-Spassky, Leiden 1970). } ) (
{ But it is interesting that White also avoided the tempting continuation }
12.Bd3 Ncb4 13.Bb1 b6 $5 { (this is possibly the reason why) } ( 13...Bd7
14.Qe4 g6 ( 14...Nf6 15.Qh4 $1 ) 15.Ne5 Bf6 16.Qf3 Bg7 17.Qg3 ( 17.Ne4 $5
{ Tal } ) 17...Be8 18.h4 $1
{ (Botvinnik-Petrosian, 16th matchgame, Moscow 1963). } ) 14.Qe4 ( 14.a5 bxa5
$1 ) 14...g6 15.Bh6 Re8 16.Ne5 ( 16.Qe5 Bf8 ) 16...Bb7 17.Qf3 f5
{ with an equal game (Nikolic-Petrosian, Vrsac 1981). } ) ( { Nowadays }
12.Bb3 $1 { is preferred, for example: } 12...Re8 ( { or } 12...Ncb4 13.Ne5 )
13.h4 $5 { (Kramnik-Kasparov, 6th matchgame, London 2000). } ) 12...Ncb4
{ 'In search of acomplicated struggle.' (Kholmov) } (
{ As was shown by later games, } 12...Nf6 $5 13.Qh4 Nd5
{ is sounder, when White has nothing better than to return to } 14.Qe4 Nf6
15.Qe2 Nd5 { and follow the lines indicated in the previous note. } ) 13.Ne5
$1 Ra7 ( { If } 13...Qd6 { , then } 14.Qg4 { is good. } ) (
{ 'Black can no longerdevelop normally: } 13...b6
{ is met by the unpleasant } 14.Nc6
{ ,' writesKholmov, who gives the following variations that are favourable
for White: } 14...Nxc6 ( { or } 14...Nxc3 15.Nxe7+ Qxe7 16.bxc3 Bb7 17.Qg4
Rfc8 $1 18.Bg5 $1 Qf8 19.Bxe6 Rxc3 20.Bd2 $1 ) 15.Nxd5 Ra7
{ I should add that the inferior } ( 15...Bb7 16.Nxe7+ Qxe7 17.d5 $1 ) (
15...exd5 16.Bxd5 Bg4 17.f3 $1 Nxd4 $6 18.Be3 $1 Bf5 19.Qxd4 { etc } ) 16.Nf4
$6 ( 16.Nxe7+ Nxe7 17.Bg5 Bb7 18.Qh4 $1 Bd5 19.Bxe7 Rxe7 20.Bxa6
{ , winning a pawn. } ( 20.-- ) ) ( 16.Bd3 $5 f5 17.Nxe7+ Nxe7 18.Qe2 )
16...Nb4 { allows Black equality, Milov-Spangenberg,Buenos Aires 1996; } ) (
{ and that after } 13...b6 { there is a more promisingline - } 14.Nxd5 $5
exd5 15.Qf3 Be6 16.Bb3 { (Rashkovsky-Kupreichik, Minsk1985). } ) 14.Bb3 (
14.Qg4 { has also been tried, trying to provoke } 14...f5 { . } ) 14...Nf6
{ Driving the white queen to a good attacking position. } (
{ 'For somereason Black avoids switching his rook along the seventh rank: }
14...b6 $5 15.Nxd5 exd5 16.Qf3 Rc7 ( { or first } 16...Be6 { - G.K. } )
17.Bf4 Be6 18.Rac1 Bd6
{ . White would certainly have retained some advantage, but how
significantwould it have been?' (Kholmov) } ) 15.Qh4 b6 16.Qg3 Bb7
{ This move wasseverely criticised, and wrongly so! } (
{ Kotov and Kholmov recommended } 16...Kh8
{ . However, in my opinion, after } 17.Be3 $5 ( { nothing is given by } 17.d5
$6 exd5 18.Nxd5 $2 Nfxd5 19.Bxd5 Nxd5 $1 { and if } 20.Nc6
{ there is thespectacular reply } 20...Nc3 $1 ) 17...Bb7 18.a5
{ , White would have retained somepressure: } 18...Nbd5 ( { or } 18...Bd5
19.Nxd5 Nfxd5 20.Bxd5 Qxd5 21.axb6 Rb7 22.Qf3 $1 f6 23.Nc4 $1 Qxf3 24.gxf3 )
19.Bxd5 Nxd5 20.axb6 Qxb6 ( 20...Nxb6 21.d5 $1 ) ( 20...Ra8 21.Na4 $1 )
21.Nd7 Qxb2 22.Nxd5 Bxd5 23.Nxf8 Bxf8 24.Rdb1 { . } ) 17.Bh6 Ne8 ( 17...Nh5
$6 18.Qg4 ) 18.Rac1 Kh8 $2
{ And this is indeed amistake, giving White a dangerous initiative. } (
{ It was essential to blockadethe d-pawn - } 18...Nd5 $1 19.Nxd5 Bxd5 20.Bxd5
$1 ( { after } 20.Nc6 Bxc6 21.Rxc6 Rd7 $1 22.Be3 Nf6
{ Black has a solid position } ) 20...Qxd5 21.Rc8 ( 21.Nc6 $6 Bd6
{ with equality } ) 21...Bf6 ( 21...Bd8 22.Rdc1 $1 ) 22.Ng4 Bd8
{ with possibilities of mounting a defence. } ) ( 18...Bh4 $6 19.Qg4 ) 19.d5
$3 { A brilliant breakthrough! } ( { If } 19.Be3 Nf6 20.d5 { , then }
20...exd5 21.a5 Bc5 { and the threat has been avoided. } ) 19...exd5 $2
{ Perhaps the decisive error. } ( { It was also bad to play } 19...gxh6 $2
20.dxe6 Nd6 21.exf7 $1 Bg5 22.Nc4 { and wins. } ) ( { The only chance was }
19...Nxd5 20.Nxd5 exd5 21.Be3 $1 Bd6 ( 21...Nf6 22.a5 ) ( 21...Ra8 22.Nc6 $1
) 22.a5 Qe7 { , although after } 23.axb6 $1 ( { this is clearer than } 23.f4
Nf6 24.axb6 Raa8 25.Bd4 ) 23...Bxe5 ( 23...Ra8 24.Bf4 $1 ) 24.f4 Bxb2 25.bxa7
Bxc1 26.Bxc1 { White has an obviousadvantage. } ) 20.Be3 $1
{ 'With the threat of a4-a5. A classic example ofAlekhine-like strategy. By
diversionary operations on the kingside Petrosianhas forced the black
pieces to take up unfavourable positions, and now thedecisive blow is landed on the queenside.' (Kholmov) }
20...Ra8 { Black's position isbeginning to collapse. } ( { If } 20...a5
{ , then } 21.Nxd5 $1 Nxd5 22.Bxd5 Bxd5 23.Nc6 { (Kholmov); } ) (
{ while after } 20...Nf6 21.a5 Bc5 { White has the verystrong move } 22.Nc4
$1 ( 22.Na4 $5 ) 22...Bxe3 ( 22...Ba8 23.Nxb6 ) 23.Qxe3 Re8 24.Qxb6 Qxb6
25.Nxb6 { etc. } ) 21.Nc4 $1
{ The weakness of the b6-square!Tigran Vartanovich unexpectedly and
prettily attacks on that flank where thereappeared to be nothing to attack.
White regains his pawn and achieves atechnically winning position: all his pieces are full of energy and coordinateideally with one another. }
21...Nd6 ( { If } 21...Bc5 { there could have followed } 22.Na5 $1 { ; } ) (
{ while if } 21...dxc4 { - } 22.Rxd8 Rxd8 23.Bxc4 Nd6 24.Be2 { and wins. } )
( { But perhaps better chances would have been offered by } 21...b5 $5 22.Nb6
Bd6 { and ...Rb8. } ) 22.Bxb6 ( { It was inaccurate to play } 22.Nxb6 $6 Nf5
$1 23.Qh3 Nxe3 { etc. } ) 22...Qb8 ( { 'Many thought that } 22...Qd7
{ wasstronger. I think that after this } 23.Ne3 $1
{ is the most dangerous, whenBlack remains a pawn down with insufficient
counter-chances: } 23...Rac8 ( 23...Qe6 24.Nexd5 $1 { - G.K. } ) 24.Nexd5
Nxd5 25.Bxd5 Bxd5 26.Rxd5 Qc6 27.Bd4 $1 { etc.' (Kholmov) } ) 23.Na5 (
23.Ne3 $5 { also came into consideration. } ) 23...Nf5 ( { 'By } 23...Rc8 $1
{ Black could have put up a tenacious resistance.' (Kholmov) But in my
view, after } 24.Qf4 $1 Bf8 25.Be3 { he has an extremelydifficult position. }
) ( { In fact, } 23...Bc8
{ was more tenacious, when Whitehas a choice of two good moves: } 24.Bc5 (
{ and } 24.Bd4 $5 Nf5 25.Qxb8 Rxb8 26.Be5 ) 24...Nf5 25.Qxb8 Rxb8 26.Bxb4
Bxb4 27.Nc6 Rb7 28.Nxd5 Bd6 29.Na5 Rb8 30.Bc2 { , and if } 30...Rxb2 $2
{ , then } 31.Bxf5 Bxf5 32.Nc4 { and wins } ) 24.Qxb8 Raxb8 25.Nxb7 Rxb7
26.a5 Bg5 27.Rb1 d4 ( 27...Ne7 28.Nxd5 Nexd5 29.Bxd5 Nxd5 30.Rxd5
{ and wins - Kholmov. } ) 28.Nd5 $1
{ Black's temporaryactivity has died out and now things are completely
hopeless for him. I shouldmention that, beginning with the move 19 d5!!,
Petrosian's play is practicallycomputer-like in character. } 28...Nc6 (
28...Nxd5 29.Bxd5 Rd7 30.Be4 $1 ) 29.Ba4 Rc8 30.f4 Nce7 ( { or } 30...Bd8
31.Rbc1 $1 ) 31.Rbc1 Rcb8 32.fxg5 Nxd5 33.Bc6 Rxb6 34.axb6 Nde3 35.b7 $1
{ By returning the exchange, White forces thewin. } 35...Nxd1 36.Rxd1 g6 (
36...h5 37.gxh6 $1 ) 37.g4 Ng7 ( 37...Nd6 38.Rxd4 Nxb7 39.Rb4 ) ( 37...Ne7
38.Bf3 Kg7 39.Rxd4 f5 40.gxf6+ Kxf6 41.Ra4 ) 38.Rxd4 Ne6 39.Rd7 ( 39.Rd7 Kg8
( { or } 39...Nxg5 40.Rc7 ) 40.Bd5 Nd8 41.Rc7
{ . --- A wonderful game, which in its time remained underrated. } ) 1-0
[Event "31. Alekhine Memorial, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1971.??.??"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Parma, B."]
[Black "Petrosian, T."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "B57"]
[EventDate "1971.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ In the same tournament Petrosian gained a fine win over Parma, by
employinghis well-tested weapon - the positional exchange sacrifice. This
game wasone of his favourites: 'In the Sicilian Defence an attack on the e4-pawnalong the fourth rank from b4, c4 or even d4 is a fairly common
phenomenon,but the idea that I was able to demonstrate here was of particular interest onaccount of its paradoxical nature.' --- }
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Qc7 5.Nc3 e6 6.Be3 a6 7.f4 b5 8.Nb3 d6
9.Bd3 Nf6 10.O-O Be7 11.Qf3 Bb7 12.a4 b4 13.Nb1 a5 14.N1d2 O-O 15.Kh1 Nb8
16.Nd4 Nbd7 17.Nb5 Qb8 18.Rae1 Rc8 19.Qh3 Nc5 20.Bxc5 Rxc5 21.Nb3 Rh5 $1
{ Although forced, this is avery cunning move: Black also intends to attack
the e4-pawn with the 'cut-off'rook from h4. } ( 21...Rc8 $2 22.e5 ) (
21...Rxb5 $2 22.axb5 ) 22.Qf3 $6 { Not guessing the opponent's idea. } (
{ The correct move was the immediate } 22.Qg3 $1
{ with a double-edged game, since in the event of } 22...e5 23.f5 ( 23.Nd2 $5
) 23...d5 24.Nd2 { White maintains his defences in the centre. } ) 22...e5 $1
{ (fixing the target of the attack - the e4-pawn) } 23.f5 $2 ( 23.Qg3 $1
{ was essential; } ) ( { whereas after } 23.Nd2 { , both } 23...Rh4 (
{ and the altogetherexotic } 23...Rf5 $5 { were good. } ) ) (
{ I should add that the attempt to solvethe problems by surgical means - }
23.g4 $2 Rh4 24.fxe5 { does not work onaccount of } 24...d5 $1
{ , when White's position crumbles: } 25.Qf5 $5 ( { or } 25.Qf2 Rxg4 26.exf6
dxe4 27.fxe7 exd3+ 28.Qf3 Bxf3+ 29.Rxf3 h5 $1 30.cxd3 Qe8 ) 25...Kh8 $1
26.Rg1 { (there is nothing better) } 26...dxe4 27.Be2 g6 28.Qf4 Nh5 $1
{ , and if the queen moves - 29...Qxe5. The rook at h4 is amazingly
hardworking! } ) 23...d5 $1 24.Nd2 ( 24.exd5 $2 e4 ) 24...Rh4 $1 (
{ 'Of course, not } 24...dxe4 $2 25.Nxe4 Nxe4 26.Bxe4 Bxe4 27.Qxe4
{ when White has a strongknight at b5, he is attacking the e5-pawn and the
rook at h5 is out of play.' (Petrosian) } ) 25.g3
{ (a fatal weakening of the long diagonal) } ( { but ifinstead } 25.exd5 $2
e4 ) 25...dxe4 26.Nxe4 Rxe4 $1 27.Rxe4 ( { After } 27.Bxe4 Nxe4 28.Rxe4 Bc6
{ and ...Qb7 Black, according to Petrosian, 'has strongpressure, the second
bishop comes out to c5 and White's exchange advantage isnot felt at all.' } )
27...Qd8 28.Rfe1 ( { If } 28.h3 { , then } 28...Rc8 { is againgood; } ) (
{ while if } 28.Kg2 { , then either } 28...Rc8 ( { or } 28...Qb6
{ and ...Rd8 } ) 29.Kh3 Bxe4 ( { but not } 29...Qd5 $2 30.Rxe5 $1 ) 30.Bxe4
Rc4 { and wins. } ) 28...Rc8 29.R1e2 $6 ( 29.c3 Qd5 $1 ) 29...Qd5 $6
{ The result of the timescramble. } ( 29...Rc4 $1 30.Bxc4 Qd1+ 31.Kg2 Nxe4
32.Rxe4 Qxc2+ 33.Qe2 Bxe4+ { would have won immediately. } ) 30.b3 h6 (
30...Bc5 $5 ) 31.Kg2 Qd7 32.h3 $6 Bc5 33.h4 h5 34.Kh3 Bb6
{ 'In my game with Portisch (Game No.5) it wasa knight at c6 that was out
of play, whereas here it is the knight at b5. Onthe decisive part of the
battlefield Black has an overwhelming advantage inforce.' (Petrosian) }
35.Kh2 { 'A time-trouble mistake,' explains Petrosian. } (
{ But what should White play? If } 35.Re1 ) ( { or } 35.Rg2 { , then }
35...g6 $1 { . } ) ( { It is also bad to play } 35.Qf1 Nxe4 36.Bxe4 Bxe4
37.Rxe4 Rxc2 38.Rxe5 Qd2 $1 { . } ) 35...g6 ( 35...Bxe4 $5 36.Rxe4 ( { or }
36.Bxe4 Qd1 ) 36...Qc6 37.Kh3 Rd8 { and wins. } ) 36.fxg6 Ng4+ 37.Kg2 (
37.Rxg4 Bxf3 38.gxf7+ Kxf7 ) 37...f5 ( 37...f5 38.Nd6 fxe4 39.Qf7+ ( 39.Bc4+
Rxc4 ) 39...Qxf7 40.gxf7+ Kf8 { etc. } ) 0-1
[Event "32. 41st USSR Championship, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1973.??.??"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Petrosian, T."]
[Black "Karpov, A."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "E14"]
[EventDate "1973.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ In the autumn of 1972, soon after the Fischer-Spassky match, the 20th
WorldOlympiad was held in Skopje. Petrosian led the USSR team, which once
againfinished first. Altogether he took part in nine Olympiads and on each occasionhe was a member of the winning team, playing four times on board
1! Forcomparison - Smyslov was a member of the winning team the same number of times(however, he never played on board 1), Tal and Kasparov each eight times,Keres seven, Botvinnik, Geller, Spassky, Polugayevsky and Karpov each six,Korchnoi five and Bronstein four. --- Incidentally, in Skopje
Petrosiansuffered his first and only(!) defeat in all these Olympiads - against Hübner,whom he had beaten in a tough and controversial Candidates match the yearbefore. He was so angered by this that, according to an eye-witness, 'in a fitof temper he almost knocked the chess clock off the table.' (Other reportssuggest that this was because he lost on time and thought the flag had fallenearly. - Translator.) --- In his next 73 games the ex-world champion lost onlyonce! Moreover, he shared first place in three successive internationaltournaments - in San Antonio, Las Palmas and
Amsterdam, and then he performedconfidently in the strongest USSR Championship of those times, the 41st (Moscow 1973): 1. Spassky - 11˝ out of 17; 2-6. Karpov, Korchnoi, Kuzmin,Petrosian and Polugayevsky - 10˝ etc. Here he inflicted the only defeat onone of his main rivals - the young Anatoly Karpov. --- }
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 b6 4.e3 (
{ This solid variation, leading to a complicated and non-forcingmanoeuvring
game, is not so popular as } 4.g3 ) ( { or } 4.a3 { . } ) 4...Bb7 5.Nc3 (
{ Or } 5.Bd3 d5 6.b3 { (Volume 2, Game No.142). } ) 5...Be7
{ An imperceptibleinaccuracy. } (
{ It is more appropriate to transpose into the Nimzo-IndianDefence - }
5...Bb4 { ; } ) (
{ while if Black is intending ...d7-d5, it is betterto play it immediately:
} 5...d5 6.cxd5 ( { if } 6.Bd3 { Black equalises by } 6...dxc4 $1 7.Bxc4 Nbd7
8.O-O c5 ) 6...exd5 7.Bb5+ c6 8.Bd3 Be7 9.O-O O-O 10.b3 Nbd7 11.Bb2 Bd6
{ etc (Gelfand-Karpov, 7th matchgame, Sanghi Nagar 1995). } ) 6.Bd3 d5 $6
{ (this does not altogether fit in with his previous move) } 7.O-O O-O 8.Qe2
c5 ( { Black's position is also slightly worse after } 8...Nbd7 9.e4 { . } )
9.dxc5 dxc4 ( { After } 9...bxc5 10.Rd1
{ White also retains some pressure. Ithink that Tal would certainly have
played 9... bxc5, but Karpov preferssimplification. } ) 10.Bxc4 Bxc5 11.e4
Nbd7 12.e5 $1 Bxf3 { A rather bolddecision. } (
{ True, there was not a great deal of choice: if } 12...Ng4 { , then } 13.Bf4
{ , and the weakness of the e5-pawn cannot be exploited - } 13...Qb8 (
{ but if this is so, the knight at g4 is badly placed and after } 13...Qc7
14.Nb5 Qb8 15.Rad1 a6 16.Nd6 { Black has a difficult position } ) 14.Rad1
Bxf3 15.gxf3 Ngxe5 $2 16.Rxd7 { and wins. } ) 13.gxf3 Nh5 14.Rd1 Qe7 15.f4 g6
16.f5 $1 { Very energetically played! } (
{ Perhaps it made sense to include } 16.a3 a5
{ , but in principle it is hard for White to achieve anything without the
f4-f5breakthrough - say, } 17.Ne4 Rfd8 { and Black somehow holds on. } )
16...exf5 17.e6 Ndf6 18.exf7+ ( { It was possible to win the exchange by }
18.Bh6 $5 Ng4 $1 19.exf7+ ( 19.Bxf8 $6 Qh4 $1 { with a counterattack } )
19...Rxf7 20.Qxe7 Bxe7 21.Bxf7+ Kxf7 22.Bd2
{ , although it is not easy for White to convert hisadvantage after }
22...Bc5 23.Be1 Ne5
{ . But Petrosian correctly calculated thatthe exchange would not run away
from White. } ) 18...Kg7 19.Qxe7 Bxe7 20.Nb5 $1
{ (this is an important manoeuvre) } 20...Rac8 21.Bb3 a6 ( 21...Bc5 $5
{ is aninteresting try. However, after } 22.Nd4 $1 (
{ the idea was to initiatecounterplay after } 22.Nxa7 Rcd8 23.Rxd8 Rxd8
24.Nc6 Rc8 25.Ne5 Ne4 26.Nd3 Bd4 ) 22...Bxd4 23.Rxd4 Rcd8 $1 24.Ra4 $1 (
{ only not } 24.Be3 $6 f4 25.Rad1 $2 fxe3 26.Rxd8 e2 { and wins } ) 24...Rd7
25.Be3 Rfd8 26.Re1 f4 27.Bd4 $1 Kf8 $1 ( { if } 27...Rxd4 28.Rxd4 Rxd4
{ the pretty } 29.Re8 $1 Nd7 30.Rd8 Nhf6 31.f8=Q+ Nxf8 32.Rxd4
{ is decisive } ) 28.Bc3
{ White would have retained theadvantage thanks to his two bishops and the
strong pawn on f7. } ) 22.Nd4 Rxf7 { (forced in view of the threat of Ne6) }
23.Be3 Ng4 24.Bxf7
{ After thisobvious capture White has to overcome certain technical
difficulties; } ( { whereas } 24.Ne6+ $1 Kh8 25.Bxb6
{ would have created an overwhelmingdomination. } ) 24...Kxf7 25.Rac1 Rc5
26.Kg2 $6 ( { White should have retainedhis bishop - } 26.Bd2 $1 Bh4 27.Be1
Nf4 28.Rxc5 bxc5 29.Nf3 { , hoping toconvert the exchange advantage after }
29...Bf6 ( { or } 29...Bxf2+ 30.Bxf2 Nh3+ 31.Kg2 Nhxf2 32.Rd7+ Ke6 33.Rxh7
Nd3 34.Ra7 ) 30.Rd7+ ( 30.b3 $5 Ke6 31.Kf1 ) 30...Ke6 31.Rxh7 Bxb2 32.Ra7
{ etc. } ) 26...Nhf6 $2 { The final mistake. } (
{ Only the elimination of the white bishop - } 26...Nxe3+ $1 27.fxe3 Nf6
28.Nc6 Rxc1 29.Rxc1 Bc5
{ would have offered chances of a successful defence. } ) 27.Bd2 $1 Rd5
28.Be1 a5 29.Nf3 Rxd1 30.Rxd1
{ This is now a technically wonposition. Petrosian has subtly exploited his
opponent's opening errors,playing creatively, with great force and
inventiveness, and now with an 'ironhand' he converts his advantage into a win. }
30...Ne4 31.Nd2 Nd6 32.b3 Ne5 33.Nb1 Ke6 34.Nc3 Nef7 35.f3 $1 Bd8 36.Bf2 Nc8
37.Nb5 Ncd6 38.Nd4+ Kd7 39.Bg3 Be7 40.Kf1 Bf6 41.Nb5
{ The sealed move. The conversion of the exchange for apawn demands refined
technique. } 41...Be7 42.h4 $1 Ke6 43.Nd4+ Kd7 44.Kg2 Bf6 45.Nb5 Be7 46.a4 h6
$6 ( 46...Ke6 { was somewhat more tenacious, although heretoo after } 47.Nc7+
Kd7 48.Nd5 Bd8 49.h5 { Black cannot save the game. } ) 47.h5 $1 gxh5 (
{ Or } 47...g5 48.Bf2 Kc6 49.Rc1+ { etc. } ) 48.Bf2 Bd8 49.Nd4 $1 f4 50.Ne2
Kc6 51.Nxf4 h4 52.Ng6 Nb7 53.f4 Bf6 54.Rc1+ Nc5 55.Kh3 Nd6 56.Bxc5 bxc5
57.Nxh4 h5 58.Nf3 Kd5 59.Rd1+ Bd4 60.Nd2 Ke6 61.Kg3 Nf5+ 62.Kf3 h4 63.Nc4 Bc3
64.Kg4 Bb4 65.Rd3
{ . --- A good game! 'The two players spentabout seven hours at the board,
not counting the time spent on analysing theadjourned position.' (from the
press) } 1-0
[Event "33. 44th USSR Championship, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1976.??.??"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Petrosian, T."]
[Black "Rashkovsky, N."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "A77"]
[EventDate "1976.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ Petrosian demonstrated his great class in three further USSR
Championships:he finished first in the 43rd (1975) and shared 3rd-4th
places withPolugayevsky in the 44th (1976) and 45th (1977). In the following fightinggame, which resounded throughout the chess world, he
employed his favouritevariation against the Modern Benoni and introduced a new word in what was thena highly topical opening discussion. --- }
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 c5 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nc3 g6 7.e4 Bg7 8.Be2 O-O
9.O-O Re8 10.Nd2 Nbd7 11.a4 $1 { The most accurate move order. } ( 11.Qc2
{ allows Black a wider choice: } 11...Nb6 $1 ( 11...Nh5 $5 12.Bxh5 gxh5
13.Nc4 ( { it is better to play } 13.b3 ) ( { or } 13.a4 { with the idea of }
13...Ne5 14.Nd1 $1 ) 13...Ne5 14.Ne3 Qh4 15.Bd2 ( 15.Ne2 $5 ) 15...Ng4
16.Nxg4 hxg4 17.Bf4 Qf6
{ with a double-edged game (Spassky-Fischer, 3rd matchgame, Reykjavik
1972). Incidentally, the plan with ...Nh5 and the spoiling of Black's pawns
after Bxh5 first occurred a monthbefore the match in the game Timman-Ljubojevic (Amsterdam 1972) }
) 12.Bb5 ( 12.a4 $6 Nfxd5 $1 13.exd5 Bxc3 ) ( 12.Re1 Ng4 $1 { and } 13.h3 $2
( { while if } 13.Nf1 { , then } 13...f5 { with equality } ) 13...Nxf2
{ is bad for White } ) 12...Bd7 13.a4 Bxb5 14.Nxb5 a6 15.Nc3 Nfd7
{ with equality (Polugayevsky-Mecking, 3rdmatchgame, Lucerne 1977). } )
11...Ne5 ( { Also after } 11...a6 { Petrosiansuccessfully played } 12.Ra3 $5
{ - against Quinteros (Lone Pine 1976) andLutikov (Moscow 1981): } 12...Rb8
13.a5 $1 { etc. } ) 12.Ra3 $5 { Petrosian's patentmove! } (
{ Another classic exponent of this variation, grandmaster Gligoric,used to
begin with } 12.Qc2 { , for example: } 12...Nh5 ( 12...g5 13.Nf3
{ - cf.Volume 4; } ( 13.b3 $5 ) ( 13.Ra3 $5 ) ) 13.Bxh5 gxh5 14.Nd1 $1 b6 $1
{ is better: } ( 14...Qh4 $6 15.Ne3 ( 15.Ra3 $5 ) 15...Ng4 16.Nxg4 hxg4
17.Nc4 Qf6 $2 ( 17...g3 $5 ) 18.Bd2 Qg6 19.Bc3 $1
{ with an obvious advantage (Gligoric-Kavalek, Skopje Olympiad 1972). } )
15.Ra3
{ (Gligoric-Taimanov,Leningrad Interzonal 1973) - it was for this
controversial position thatRashkovsky was aiming, having prepared an
interesting improvement. } ) 12...b6 $5 ( 12...Bd7 13.Qc2 Rc8 $2 14.f4 Neg4
15.Nc4 Qe7 16.h3 { favours White (Petrosian-Ljubojevic, Milan 1975). } ) (
{ Black also does not equalise by } 12...g5 13.Qc2 Nfd7 ( { or } 13...a6
14.a5 $1 { (Petrosian-Lukin, Ordzhonikidze 1978) } ) 14.Nd1 $1
{ (Petrosian-Rajkovic, Vrsac 1981). } ) 13.Qc2 Nh5 $5
{ (thisaudacious Fischer plan excited the minds of many players) } 14.Bxh5
gxh5 15.Nd1 $1
{ Play has nevertheless transposed into the Gligoric-Taimanov game. }
15...Ba6 $1 ( { The aforementioned game went } 15...f5 $6 16.exf5 $1 Ba6
17.Ne4 $1 ( 17.Re1 $2 Nc4 ) 17...Bxf1 18.Kxf1 Nf7 19.Rg3 $1
{ with a powerful attack. Nowthe exchange sacrifice looks more risky, but
nevertheless... } ) 16.Rh3 $1 { A novelty. } (
{ Before this another variation of the sacrifice had occurred - } 16.Ne3 Bxf1
17.Ndxf1 Kh8 18.Nf5 h4 19.Bf4 Rg8 20.Rh3 Bf6 21.Qe2 Rg6 22.N1e3 Qd7 $1
{ with a sharp struggle (Plachetka-Sikora, Czechoslovakia 1974). } ) (
16.Re1 $6 f5 $1 17.exf5 Nc4 $1 ) 16...Bxf1 17.Nxf1
{ Here Rashkovsky sankinto thought for 80 minutes! } 17...b5 $6
{ Black hurries to open lines for his rookson the queenside. } ( 17...h4
{ would seem to be better, although this pawn willall the same be lost,
when a white knight arrives at f5. } ) (
{ ThereforeAlexander Nikitin recommended } 17...f5 $5 18.exf5 h4
{ . However, it shouldbe mentioned that in any case the chronic weakness of
Black's kingside givesWhite excellent positional compensation for the
exchange. And this theme, aswe know, was Petrosian's favourite! } ) 18.Nde3
$1 ( { To f5 as quickly aspossible! After } 18.axb5 Rb8 19.Nc3 { , } 19...h4
$1 { is an acceptable reply. } ( { but not Kholmov's variation } 19...f5 $6
20.exf5 ( 20.Rxh5 $5 fxe4 21.Nxe4 { - G.K. } ) 20...Ng4 21.Rxh5 ( 21.Ne4 Qe7
) 21...Re1 { in view of } 22.Bd2 $1 Ra1 23.Qe4 ( 23.Rg5 $5 ) 23...Nf6 24.Qe6+
Kh8 25.Bg5 { with an obvious advantageto White } ) ) 18...bxa4 19.Nf5 Ng6
20.Rxh5 Be5 21.g3 Rb8 22.N1e3 a3
{ Black has such an unpleasant position that it is hard to say where he
couldhave improved his play. } ( { Yudovich suggests the 'unclear' } 22...Qa5
{ ,although after } 23.Nc4 Qe1+ 24.Kg2 Red8 { (the only move) } 25.Nh6+ Kg7
26.Bg5 Rd7 27.Ng4 { White has a very strong attack - say, } 27...a3 28.Ncxe5
dxe5 29.Bf6+ Kg8 30.bxa3 Rc7 ( 30...Rb1 31.Nh6+ Kf8 32.Qxc5+ ) 31.d6 Rd7
32.Bxe5 { and wins. } ) 23.bxa3 Qb6 24.Qd2 $1
{ A very strong reply, after which Blackcan probably no longer save the
game. } 24...Qb3 ( { ' } 24...Qb1
{ was essential,'writes Suetin, and Kholmov gives numerous variations,
trying to demonstratethat this would have given sufficient counterplay.
However, after } 25.Nc4 $1 Qxe4 26.Ncxd6 $1
{ , the black king stands very badly: } ( { Yudovich'srecommendation } 26.Qh6
$2 Rb1 $1 27.Qxh7+ Kf8 28.Qh6+ Kg8 29.Ncxd6 { is incorrect in view of }
29...Qxd5 30.Nxe8 Qd1+ 31.Kg2 Rxc1 32.Ne3 Qh1+ 33.Kh3 Nf4+ $1 34.gxf4 Qf3+
35.Kh4 Qxf2+ 36.Kg4 Rg1+ 37.Kf5 Qxe3 38.Rg5+ Rxg5+ 39.Qxg5+ Kf8 40.fxe5 Qd3+
{ with a spectacular draw } ) 26...Bxd6 ( 26...Qa4 27.Nxe8 Rxe8 28.d6 )
27.Qh6 Qe1+ 28.Kg2 Qe4+ 29.Kh3 { and wins. } ) 25.Ng4 Rb7 ( 25...Bb2 $2
26.Bxb2 Qxb2 27.Qxb2 Rxb2 { will not do in view of } 28.Nf6+ Kf8 29.Nxh7+ Kg8
30.Nf6+ { and Nxe8. } ) 26.Kg2 $1 Qc4 ( { If } 26...f6
{ I wouldsimply have played } 27.Nxd6 $1 ( { Yudovich suggests } 27.f4
{ , ignoring thereply } 27...Bc3 $1 ) 27...Bxd6 28.Nxf6+ Kf8 ( 28...Kh8
29.Qh6 Nf8 30.Nxe8 ) 29.Qh6+ Ke7 30.Qxh7+ Kd8 31.Qxg6 { and wins. } ) 27.Nxe5
Qxe4+ ( { It was equallyhopeless to play } 27...dxe5 28.Nd6 { ; } ) ( { or }
27...Nxe5 28.Qg5+ Ng6 29.Qf6 Qxe4+ 30.Kh3 Qe5 31.Nh6+ { . } ) 28.f3 ( 28.Nf3
Rb3 29.Qh6 $1 Qxf3+ 30.Kh3 { would also have won. } ) 28...Qxe5 29.Nh6+ Kf8
30.Rxe5 Rxe5 31.Ng4 Ree7
{ . --- A complete game, in which Petrosian's evaluation of a very
complicatedposition was deeper than his opponent's. --- When Fischer, after
becomingworld champion, decided to restore the 'Steinitzian' formula of matches forthe world crown - the first to win ten games (not counting
draws), TigranVartanovich greeted this without enthusiasm: 'As is well known, Alekhinepossessed an implacable chess character, but he had to play 34 games in orderto win just six. There were 25 draws. Some 15 years ago, in order to win 10games against me, you would have had to play
six months.' Yes, Petrosian wasable, like no one else, to extinguish the flame of the struggle, and his acutesense of danger was legendary. But what storms swept the chessboard, when the'tiger' woke up! --- Incidentally, at the insistence of Fischer, FIDE alsodecided that the Candidates matches should also be staged to a certain numberof wins: quarter-finals - three wins (but with a limit of 16 games),semi-finals - four wins (20) and final - five wins (24). The most intriguingand hard-fought of the 1974 quarter-finals was Petrosian's match with Portisch- the most
uncomfortable opponent for the ex-world champion. } 1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "The 'Hungarian Botvinnik'"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ On account of his strict positional style of play, the famous
Hungariangrandmaster Lajos Portisch (born 1937) was sometimes compared
either withCapablanca, or with Petrosian, but most often he was called the 'HungarianBotvinnik'. True, Botvinnik himself considered such a
comparison to be notaltogether appropriate and at a tournament in Monte Carlo (1968) heendeavoured to demonstrate who was who (Volume 2, Game No.80). Nevertheless,Portisch was a participant in ten Candidates matches as well as a prominenttheoretician, and his contribution
to the development of chess is inestimable.--- This is the right time to remember the rich traditions of the Hungarianchess school, the pride of which, beginning from the 19th century, comprisesnames such as Szén, Löwenthal, Kolisch, Gunsberg, Charousek, Maróczy andBreyer; from the 1930s - Lilienthal, Szabó and Barcza; from the late 1950s- Portisch (nine times winner of the national championship!) and after himRibli, Adorján and Sax; and then also the modern stars led by Judit Polgarand Peter Leko. Hungary has long been one of the most
important chesscountries in the world, and it was no accident that they won the first twoWorld Olympiads (1927 and 1928), as well as the 23rd (1978), breaking thelong-standing hegemony of the Soviet Union. In that tournament Portisch, thepermanent leader of Hungarian players, achieved the best result on his team- 10 out of 14. }
1.--
{ From childhood Lajos not only played chess, but alsostudied the violin in
a music school. Later he became interested in singingand he could certainly
have made up an excellent duet with Smyslov, and theideal accompanist for them would have been the well-known pianist Taimanov...But chess outweighed
music, especially since Portisch's chess capabilitieswere obvious. At the age of 14 he was successful against the great Keres in asimultaneous display, after which the latter said: 'In the future I will beobliged to play this boy one-to-one.' And he was not mistaken! --- In 1955Portisch became a
master, three years later - an international master, andafter three further years - a grandmaster. At that time he had already showedhimself to be a future top-class player, by gaining wins over Tal (Oberhausen1961) and Petrosian (Bled 1961). And soon there also began the unprecedentedepic of his battles to qualify for the Candidates: during the 31 years of hiscareer he did not miss a single one out of twelve Interzonal tournaments!After Amsterdam (1964), albeit through by-passing Stein and Bronstein (forwhich FIDE took the 'credit'), he became a Candidate for the first time,but lost his
quarter-final match to Tal. --- The strength of his playincreased literally not by the day, but by the hour, which is not surprising:he worked on chess for 6-7 hours a day. His outstanding capacity for workbecame legendary: it was said that Portisch analysed on free days, and onholidays, forgetting even about his beloved music. As his biographer JózsefHajtun writes, 'in this respect he is perhaps surpassed only by Fischer, whoonce said to Portisch: "I study chess so much that I am considered to be anidiot." But for Lajos such an evaluation would probably have sounded like acompliment.' }
( 1.--
{ In a strong tournament in Zagreb (1965) Portischfinished behind Ivkov,
Uhlmann and Petrosian, but ahead of Larsen, and hedefeated all four in the
individual games. Then came the double-roundsuper-tournament in Santa Monica (1966), where Portisch finished behindSpassky, Fischer and Larsen, but
ahead of Petrosian, whom he again defeated.He displayed his customary tact in explaining the champion's poor performance:--- 'Unfortunately, the critics forget: the world champion has not beentransformed into a machine, he is also a human being, and not always in hisbest form. Usually the
envious attack those whom they cannot even approach.But we chess players know that to become world champion is very difficult andthat it is even more difficult to retain this title. Few of the champions havedone this as convincingly as Petrosian recently did against Spassky. How toacquire one's best form at the time of a match is not known to us, butPetrosian succeeded in doing this. But after the match he, naturally, somewhattook his foot off the pedal... The event in Santa Monica can justly becompared with the AVRO tournament (1938). Then the same thing happened: theworld champion
Alekhine was unable to cope with his young opponents and hescored only 50 per cent. And yet many still regard Alekhine as the greatestchess player of all time. Petrosian's style - in contrast to Alekhine's -is unattractive to many, and possibly for this reason the critics want to seeanother champion "reigning over them".' }
) *
[Event "34. Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1967.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Keres, P."]
[Black "Portisch, L."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[EventDate "1967.??.??"]
[FEN "8/8/3k2pb/1pn1p2p/pNp1P3/P1P1NK1P/1P4P1/8 w - - 0 45"]
[SetUp "1"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ Lajos began the following year with a triumph in the Zonal tournament
inHalle (+12=7) and the first win in his career over Spassky in a friendly
matchbetween the Russian Federation and Hungary. His very high reputation was alsoconfirmed by the super-tournament in Moscow (1967), where
Portisch succeededin defeating Petrosian, Spassky, Tal, and Keres! The resumption of the last ofthese games, which was adjourned in a position that was difficult for Keres,was uncommonly fascinating and dramatic. --- At first sight White seems to belost: Black is threatening both the direct
...Nd3, winning the b2-pawn, aswell as ...Ne6-g5+ or ...Nb3-d2+, winning the e4-pawn. But Keres found astudy-like defence in his adjournment analysis: --- }
45.h4 $1 Nd3 46.Nd1 ( 46.Nxd3 $2 cxd3 { and ...Kc5, winning } ) 46...Bc1
47.Ke2 $1 Nc5 ( { It transpiresthat after } 47...Nxb2 $2 48.Nxb2 Bxb2 49.Kd2
Bxa3 50.Kc2 g5 ( { or, Whitehas a fortress: } 50...Bxb4 51.cxb4
{ and the remaining white pawns create animpenetrable barrier in front of
the black king } ) 51.g3 $1 Kc5 52.Na6+ Kb6 53.Nb4 gxh4 54.gxh4 Ka5 55.Nc6+
Kb6 56.Nb4
{ with a draw. It is interestingthat the computer does not see the draw and
evaluates the position as '-+'.The concept of a 'fortress' is unknown to
the computer, which simplyrecommends 47...Nxb2? Here we have one of the striking differences between ahuman and a silicon player! }
) 48.Kf3 g5 $1
{ Realising that the b2-pawn isimmune, Portisch begins carrying out a far
more long-term plan, involving thebreakthrough of the black king via the
kingside to the e4-pawn. } 49.hxg5 ( { not } 49.g3 $2 g4+ { and ...Nxe4 } )
49...Bxg5 50.Na2 Ke6 $1 ( 50...Nd3 51.Ke2 ) 51.Nf2 Kf6 52.Nd1 Nd3 53.g3 Kg6
{ Giving the opponent the move. } 54.Kg2 ( { If } 54.Ke2
{ Black would have won by } 54...Nc1+ 55.Nxc1 Bxc1 56.Kf3 Kg5 57.Kg2 h4 $1
58.Kh3 ( 58.gxh4+ { is met by } 58...Kf4 $1 ) 58...hxg3 59.Kxg3 Bf4+
{ , when heunavoidably advances his king to h4, pushes back the white king
from f3 andwins the e4-pawn: } 60.Kh3 Bd2 $1 61.Kg3 Bc1 62.Kf3 Kh4 { etc. } )
54...Bd2 55.Kf3 Kg5 56.Ke2 Be1 $1 57.Kf3 Bd2 58.Ke2 Be1 59.Kf3 Kf6 $1
{ Subtle play.After repeating moves to gain time on the clock, with the
help oftriangulation Portisch prepares ...Kg5, in order to play this move
only at amoment when White is forced to move his king to g2 in reply. }
60.Kg2 Kg6 $1 61.Kf3 Kg5 62.Kg2 ( { It is no better to play } 62.Nb4 Nxb4
63.cxb4 ( 63.axb4 Bd2 64.Ke2 Bc1 65.Kf3 Bxb2 $1 ) 63...Bd2 64.Ke2
{ in view of } 64...Bc1 65.Kf3 h4
{ (Black plays this as though it were a pawn endgame) } 66.Kg2 Kh5 67.Kh3
hxg3 68.Kxg3 Kg5 69.Kf3 Kh4 70.Ke2 Kg3 71.Nc3 Bxb2 72.Nxb5 Kf4
{ , for example: } 73.Nd6 ( { or } 73.Kd2 Kxe4 74.Kc2 Bd4 ) 73...Bxa3 74.Nxc4
Bxb4 75.Nb6 Bc5 $1 76.Nxa4 Bd4 $1 { (cutting off the knight) } 77.Kd3 Kf3
78.Kd2 Kxe4 { and wins.A veritable little study! } ) 62...h4 $1 63.gxh4+ Kf4
$2
{ For some reason thecommentators attached an exclamation mark to this
move. But it bothered me:why leave White with his h-pawn, the advance of
which gives him counterplay? } ( { Especially as } 63...Bxh4 $1
{ would have won - the black king would havepenetrated to f4 all the same:
} 64.Kf3 Ne1+ 65.Ke3 Kg4 66.Nb4 Ng2+ 67.Ke2 Nf4+ 68.Ke3 Bg5 69.Nc6 Nd3+
70.Ke2 Kf4 71.Na7 Kxe4 72.Nxb5
{ (regainingthe pawn does not save White - the weakness of the b2-pawn is
decisive) } 72...Nc1+ ( 72...Be7 $5 ) 73.Ke1 Kd3 74.Nf2+ ( { or } 74.Nd6 Kc2
75.Nxc4 Bh4+ 76.Kf1 Kxd1 77.Nxe5 Kc2 ) 74...Kc2 75.Ne4 ( 75.Nd6 Bh4 $1 )
75...Bh4+ 76.Kf1 Nd3 77.Ke2 Nxb2 { and wins } ) 64.h5 Kxe4 65.h6 Nf4+ 66.Kf1
Bh4 67.Nb4 Bf6 68.Ke1 Kf3
{ 'The white knights are helpless and Black can now win a pawn.' (Hajtun)
'Blackhas accurately calculated that he will be able to stop the h-pawn,
while theloss of the e4-pawn will be fatal for White.' (Shereshevsky) Well, let's see... }
69.h7 Bg7 { An important moment, which the analysts fail to mention. } (
{ It seems to me that, in view of the following comment, the best chance
was } 69...e4 $5
{ This would have been unlikely to win, but White would have had tofind the
correct defence: } 70.Nc2 ( 70.Kd2 Ne6 71.Nd5 Be5 72.Ne7 Nf8 73.Nc6 Bg7
74.Nd4+ $1 ( 74.Na7 $2 Nxh7 75.Nxb5 Bh6+ 76.Ke1 e3 77.Nd4+ Ke4 78.Ke2 Nf6
{ and wins } ) 74...Bxd4 75.cxd4 Nxh7 76.d5 Nf6 77.d6 e3+ 78.Ke1 $1 (
78.Nxe3 Ne4+ { and ...Nxd6 } ) 78...Ne4 $5 ( 78...Ke4 79.Nc3+ Kd3 80.Nxb5 Kc2
81.Nc3 $1 { with a draw } ) 79.d7 Nc5 80.d8=Q Nd3+ 81.Qxd3 cxd3 82.Nc3
{ with adraw. } ) 70...Ne6 71.Kf1 ( { inferior is } 71.Nde3 $6 Ng5 72.Nf5
Nxh7 ) 71...Ng5 72.Nd4+ $1 Bxd4 73.cxd4 Nxh7 74.d5 Nf6 75.d6 Nd7
{ (otherwise 76 Nc3) } 76.Ke1 $1 Nc5 77.Nc3 { , gaining a draw. } ) 70.Nc2 $2
{ An extremely passivemove, leading to the loss of the h-pawn and to defeat
(apparently Keres was intime-trouble before the control on move 72). } (
{ It is amazing that thisblunder was not noticed by any of the
commentators, and only Dolmatov inChessBase recommends the more tenacious }
70.Nc6 $1 Ne6
{ 'with advantage toBlack'. But if this variation is continued for a couple
of moves - } 71.Na7 $1 Nc7 72.Kd2 ( { or } 72.Nc6
{ , it transpires that the position is a draw. } ) ) 70...Nd5 71.Kd2 Nf6
72.Ne1+ Ke4 73.Nf2+ Kf5 74.Ng2 Nxh7
{ This nimble andvoracious knight is also intending to eat up its
'favourite' b2-pawn! } 75.Ne3+ Ke6 76.Ne4 Bh6 $1 77.Ke2 Bxe3 78.Kxe3 Nf6
79.Ng5+ Kd5 80.Kf3 Nh5 81.Ne4 Nf4 82.Nf6+ Kc6 83.Ke4 Nd3 84.Ng4 Kd6 85.Nh6
Nxb2 86.Nf7+ Kc5 87.Nxe5 Nd1 88.Nd7+ Kd6 89.Nf6 Nxc3+ 90.Kd4 Nb1 0-1
[Event "35. Interzonal Tournament, Sousse"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1967.??.??"]
[Round "19"]
[White "Portisch, L."]
[Black "Stein, L."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "E69"]
[EventDate "1967.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ There then followed a confident victory in the IBM tournament in
Amsterdam (+5=6). It need hardly be said that, after all these successes,
Portisch'schances in the forthcoming Interzonal tournament (Sousse 1967) were rated veryhighly. And he justified these hopes, playing evenly
over the entire marathondistance and finishing in a qualifying fifth place. --- One of the decisiveencounters was his meeting in the 19th round with another favourite, thewinner of the recent super-tournament in Moscow, Leonid Stein. The Hungariangrandmaster was in the leading group
on '+6', whereas Stein was a point and ahalf behind, and the competitive situation dictated that he should playdesperately for a win with the black pieces. --- }
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.g3 O-O 5.Bg2 d6 6.Nc3 Nbd7 7.O-O e5 8.e4 c6 9.h3
( 9.Be3 Ng4 { - Volume2, Game No.107 } ) 9...Qb6 10.Re1 ( 10.d5
{ (Volume 2, Game No.128) is thedream of any King's Indian player; } ) (
{ but the most critical attempt to refutethe queen move to b6 is } 10.c5 $5
dxc5 11.dxe5 Ne8 12.e6 fxe6 13.Ng5 { (Shirov-Kasparov, Linares 1993). } )
10...exd4 ( { The 2nd round game betweenPortisch and Fischer went } 10...Re8
11.d5 ( 11.Re2 $5 ) 11...Nc5 12.Rb1 a5 13.Be3 Qc7 14.Bxc5 $6 ( { but } 14.Nd2
Bd7 15.Bf1 { is better, Najdorf-Tal,'Match of the Century' 1970 } ) 14...dxc5
15.dxc6 bxc6 16.Na4 Bf8 17.Qb3 Nh5 $1 18.Qe3 Qa7 19.h4 Ng7 20.Kh2 f6 21.Bh3
Bxh3 22.Kxh3 Ne6 { with acomfortable game for Black. } ) 11.Nxd4 Re8
{ The traditional move. } ( { Thealternative is } 11...Ng4 12.Nce2 $1 ) (
{ or } 11...Ne8 $5 { (Smyslov). } ) 12.Nc2
{ An interesting continuation, preventing ...Ng4. } (
{ It is imprudent to play } 12.Rb1 $6 Ng4 $1 13.Nce2 Nge5 14.Qc2 ( 14.b3 $2
Nxc4 ) 14...Qb4 { (Bielicki-Polugayevsky, Mar del Plata 1962). } ) (
{ A complicated struggle alsoresults from } 12.Re2 Qb4 ( 12...Ng4 13.Rd2 Nge5
14.b3 Nc5 15.Rc2 $5 { Bagirov-Geller, Lvov Zonal 1978 } ) 13.Rc2 Nc5 14.Bd2
Qb6 15.Be3 a5 $1 { (Lengyel-Geller, Budapest 1969); } ) ( { or } 12.Nb3 Ne5
13.Be3 c5 $1 14.Bf1 Be6 15.Nd5 Bxd5 16.exd5 Ne4 17.Kg2 f5 18.Qc2 Nf7 19.Bd3
Re7 20.Re2 Rae8 21.Rae1 Qa6 22.Nc1 Nf6
{ with equality (Epishin-Kasparov, Moscow rapidplay 1995). } ) 12...Nc5 (
{ Black can also consider } 12...Ne5 $5 13.b3 ( 13.Be3 Qa5 ) 13...Be6 14.Be3
Qa5 { and ...Rad8 with approximate equality (Geller). } ) 13.b4 $1 ( 13.Rb1
$6 Ng4 $1 ) 13...Ne6 14.Be3 Qc7 15.Qd3 a5 16.a3 Nd7 17.f4 Nb6 $1
{ A subtle tactical resource. } ( 17...axb4 $6 18.axb4 Rxa1 19.Rxa1
{ would havebeen premature. } ) 18.Rad1 (
{ To avoid the following simplification Portischrecommended } 18.Red1 $5
{ 'with advantage to White'. Indeed, after } 18...axb4 19.axb4 Rxa1 20.Rxa1
{ he would occupy the a-file. However, on account of therook's departure
from e1, Black would have acquired another active possibility- } 20...f5 $1
21.Ra3 ( 21.exf5 Nxf4 $1
{ and ...Bxf5, advantageously regaining thematerial } ) ( 21.Rd1 fxe4 22.Nxe4
Nxc4 $1 23.Qxc4 d5 { with equality } ) 21...fxe4 22.Bxe4 Rd8
{ , for example: } 23.Kg2 ( 23.Bg2 d5 $1 24.cxd5 Nxd5 25.Nxd5 cxd5 ) (
23.Kh2 d5 $1 24.cxd5 ( 24.Bxb6 $6 Qxb6 25.cxd5 { is refuted by } 25...Qf2+
26.Bg2 Nxf4 $1 27.gxf4 Bf5 ) 24...Nxd5 25.Nxd5 cxd5 26.Bg2 d4
{ and the passed d-pawn gives Black considerable counterplay. } ) 23...Nxc4
$1 ( { but not now } 23...d5 $6 24.Bxb6 Qxb6 25.cxd5 { etc. } ) 24.Qxc4 d5
25.Bxd5 $5 cxd5 26.Qxc7 Nxc7 27.Bb6 $1 Bf5 $1 28.Ne3 $1 ( 28.Bxc7 Rd7 $1
29.Ne3 Bxc3 30.Rxc3 d4 31.Rc5 dxe3 32.Kf3 Bxh3 33.Kxe3 Bf5 { with equality }
) 28...Ra8 $1 29.Rxa8+ ( { if } 29.Rb3 $2 { there is the fantastic } 29...d4
$1 30.Nxf5 dxc3 31.Nxg7 c2 $3 32.Rc3 Ra2 33.Bf2 Nd5 34.Rc5 Kxg7 35.b5 Kh6
{ , winning } ) 29...Nxa8 30.Ncxd5 ( 30.Nxf5 Bxc3 31.Ne7+ Kf7 32.Nxd5 Bxb4
33.Bd4 Bd6 { withequality } ) 30...Be4+ 31.Kf1 Nxb6 32.Nxb6 Bf8 $1 33.Nbd5
Kf7 34.Ke2 Bxd5 $1 35.Nxd5 Ke6
{ , capturing on b4 with a draw. --- Some amazingly beautifulcomputer
variations, in which one black knight strikes a blow at f4, and theother at
c4. } ) 18...axb4 $1 19.axb4 Na4 $1
{ Only by sacrificing a pawn doesBlack 'retain sufficient chances to
maintain the balance.' (Geller) } 20.Nxa4 Rxa4 21.Qxd6 Qxd6 22.Rxd6 c5 $1
{ 'Stein has excellently managed tocomplicate matters. } (
{ 'He had to foresee that } 22...Bf8 { would not do onaccount of } 23.Rd2
Bxb4 24.Nxb4 Rxb4 25.f5
{ ' (Hajtun). This variation isalso given in Informator by Portisch .
However, after } ( { in my opinion, } 25.Rc1 $1
{ is morepromising, condemning Black to a gruelling defence } ) 25...gxf5
26.exf5 Nf8 $1 { White loses one of his pawns and his entire advantage. } )
23.f5 (
{ The commentators overlooked an interesting attempt to retain theextra
pawn - } 23.Rb1 $5 { . After this there could have followed } 23...Bf8 $1
24.Rb6 Ra2 25.Rc1 Ra4 $5 ( { it is dangerous to play } 25...Rd8 26.Bf1 $1 )
26.e5 $1 ( 26.bxc5 Nxc5 { with equality } ) ( 26.f5 gxf5 27.exf5 Nd4 $1
{ with sharpplay } ) 26...cxb4 27.Rb1 ( { or } 27.Rd1 h5 $1
{ (with the idea of ...h5-h4, ...b4-b3 and ... Rxc4) } 28.h4 b3 29.Rxb3 Rxc4
30.Na3 Ra4 31.Nb5 Nc5 32.Rb2 Bg4 ) 27...b3 28.R6xb3 ( 28.Na1 Rxc4 29.Nxb3 Rc3
30.Kf2 Rd8 $1 ) 28...Rxc4 29.Na3 Ra4 30.Nb5 Nc5 31.Nc3 Rc4 32.Bd5 Nxb3
33.Bxc4 Na5 { , neverthelessreaching the haven of a draw. } ) 23...Nd4 $1
24.Nxd4 cxd4 25.Bxd4 Bf8 $6
{ A not altogether understandable, nervy decision. } (
{ Stein rejects the easydraw after } 25...Bxd4+ 26.Rxd4 Rxb4 27.fxg6 ( 27.f6
b5 $1 ) 27...hxg6 28.e5 Be6 29.Rf4 ( 29.Ree4 Ra8 $1 ) 29...g5 30.Rfe4 (
30.Rf2 Rxc4 ) 30...Rc8 31.Bf1 Kg7 32.h4 Bf5 33.R4e3 ( 33.Rd4 b5 ) 33...Be6
{ , evidently aiming tocomplicate the play somehow, but now Black is
condemned to fighting only for adraw all the same. } ) 26.Bc5 $1
{ The exclamation mark is not so much forboldness (White is not risking
anything), as for psychological insight:although objectively this exchange
sacrifice does not set Black seriousproblems, Stein now has to engage in his least favourite occupation -painstaking defence! }
( { After the unsophisticated } 26.Rd5
{ Black couldevidently have held the game, despite being a pawn down: }
26...gxf5 ( { it is weakerto play } 26...Bxb4 $6 27.Rd1 ) ( { or } 26...Bxf5
$6 27.Rb5 Bc8 28.c5 ) 27.Rb1 Be6 28.Rb5 $1 ( 28.Ra5 Rxb4 ) ( { or } 28.c5 b6
$1 29.cxb6 Bxd5 30.exd5 Rxb4 { leads to equality } ) 28...Bxc4 29.Rxf5 h6 $1
30.Rf4 ( 30.Ra5 b5 ) 30...Be6 $1 31.Bc5 Bg7 { etc. } ) 26...Bxf5 27.e5 Bxd6
28.Bxd6 Bc8
{ It was for the sakeof this position that Portisch gave up the exchange:
the powerful whitebishops are ready to support the dangerous passed pawn
that is about to appearon the queenside. } 29.Rf1 ( 29.Rf1 { threatens }
29...-- 30.Bd5 Be6 31.Bxb7 { . } ) ( 29.g4 $5 ) 29...Ra2 ( { If } 29...Ra3
30.g4 $5 { is quite good. The move in thegame looks even more logical. } (
{ with the idea of } 30.Bd5 Be6 { with equality; } ( 30...-- ) ) ( { or }
30.Kh2 Ra2 $1 { (Hajtun) } ) ) 30.Rf2 ( { The attempt } 30.Bd5 Be6 31.Bxb7
{ can now be parried by } 31...Bxc4 32.Rf2 Rxf2 33.Kxf2 Rd8 34.Bc6 f6 $1
35.b5 fxe5 36.Bxe5 Bd5 { with a draw; } ) ( { while if } 30.c5 { , then }
30...Rb2 31.Bd5 ( 31.c6 bxc6 32.Bxc6 Rd8 33.b5 Bxh3 ) 31...Be6 32.Bxb7 Rxb4
33.Bg2 ( 33.c6 Rb6 34.g4 Bd5 ) 33...Rc4 34.Rb1 Rc8
{ and Black neutralises the c-pawn. } ) ( 30.g4 h5 $5 ) 30...Ra1+
{ Again playing for complications - surely Steinwasn't really thinking
about winning? } ( { A draw could have been achievedfairly simply - after }
30...Rxf2 $5 31.Kxf2 Kg7 32.Ke3 f6 $1 { (a timelyundermining move) } 33.Kd4
fxe5+ 34.Bxe5+ Kf7
{ he would have had to give uprook for bishop at a convenient moment: } 35.b5
( 35.Bd5+ Be6 36.Bxb7 Bxc4 37.Bc6 Rc8 38.b5 Be6 ) 35...Rd8+ 36.Kc5 Rd2
37.Bd5+ Rxd5+ 38.cxd5 Bxh3 39.Kb6 Bd7 { . } ) 31.Kh2 b6 ( 31...Rb1 $5 )
32.Bc6 ( 32.c5 bxc5 33.bxc5 Rc1 34.c6 Be6 { and ...Rc8 with a draw. } )
32...Rd8 33.b5 $5 ( { After } 33.c5 bxc5 34.bxc5 { again } 34...Rc1
{ is sufficient, for example: } 35.Be7 Rd3 36.Bg2 h6 37.Rb2 Kh7 38.g4 Re3
39.Bd6 Rec3 40.c6 Rxc6 41.Bxc6 Rxc6 42.Be7 g5 43.Bf6 Kg6
{ with adraw. As we see, although Black is squeezed by the bishops, the
position isstill drawish. However, here a severe time scramble interferes.
} ) 33...Be6 34.c5 ( { Portisch recommends the unhurried } 34.Rc2
{ 'with advantage' (Hajtunwrites that this move 'would have promised a
certain win'), but after } 34...Rb1 $1 { Black's defences are solid. } ) (
{ Also, nothing would have been achieved by } 34.Bc7 Rc8 35.Bxb6 Bxc4 36.Rb2
Re1 37.Bd4 Rd8 38.Bc3 Re3 39.Ba5 Rdd3 40.b6 Rb3 { . } ) 34...bxc5 35.b6 Rb1
36.b7 { The culminating moment of the battle. } 36...c4 $4
{ A time-trouble blunder. } (
{ There was even more than one way to gain asimple draw, for example: }
36...Bc4 { (Portisch) } 37.Bc7 Rf8 38.Be4 Rb3 39.Rc2 Ba6 { ; } ) ( { or }
36...Kg7 { (Fritz) } 37.Be4 Rb3 38.Bxc5 Rd7 { . } ) 37.Ra2 $1
{ (Stein obviously overlooked this rejoinder) } 37...Kg7 38.Ra8 $2
{ This obvious,self-apparent move is an error in reply. } (
{ White could have won by } 38.Be4 $1 Rb3 ( 38...c3 39.Bxb1 Bxa2 40.Bxa2 c2
41.Ba3 Rb8 42.Bd5 ) 39.Ra8 $1 Rb2+ 40.Kg1 Rg8 41.Rxg8+ ( 41.g4 $5 ) 41...Kxg8
42.b8=Q+ Rxb8 43.Bxb8 Bxh3 44.Kf2
{ etc. Now, however, Black unexpectedly gains counterplay and the
situationbecomes sharper. } ) 38...Rxd6 39.exd6 c3 40.Ra5 (
{ Of course, not } 40.b8=Q $4 Rxb8 41.Rxb8 c2 { and wins. } ) ( { After }
40.Ra3 { , as in the game, it is bad toplay } 40...Rb2+ $2 ( { so } 40...c2
$1 41.Rc3 c1=Q 42.Rxc1 Rxc1 { is essential } ) 41.Kg1 c2 42.Rc3 ) 40...Rb2+
$2 { The ill-fated last move before the time control! } (
{ It was essential to play } 40...c2 $1 41.Rc5 c1=Q 42.Rxc1 Rxc1 43.Be4 $1
{ is a stronger alternative: } ( { when } 43.Bb5 $4 { fails to } 43...Bd5 $1
{ (with thethreat of ...Rh1 mate) } 44.g4 Bxb7 ) ( { while } 43.b8=Q Rxc6
{ leads to an'unclear position' (Portisch), or more precisely - to a draw:
} 44.Qb2+ Kg8 45.g4 h6 46.Kg3 g5 $1 47.Qd4 Ra6 48.d7 $6 Bxd7 49.Qxd7 Re6
{ (a fortress!). } ( 49...-- ) ) 43...Re1 $1 ( { not } 43...Rc8 $2 44.bxc8=Q
Bxc8 45.Bc6 Kf6 46.d7 Bxd7 47.Bxd7 { , winning } ) 44.b8=Q Rxe4 45.Qb2+ Kg8
46.Qb5 $1 Kg7 ( 46...Rd4 $4 47.Qb8+ Kg7 48.Qb2 { , } ) (
{ but it is possible to play } 46...Kf8 $5 47.d7 Bxd7 48.Qxd7 Re6
{ with the same fortress } ) 47.d7 Bxd7 48.Qxd7 h6 $1 ( { but not } 48...h5
$2
{ on account of the fatal weakening of the g5-square withan impregnable
fortress and a draw. After missing this chance, Black can nolonger save the
game. } ) ) 41.Kg1 c2 42.Rc5 Rb1+ ( { After } 42...Kf6 $2 43.Rxc2 $1
{ the mechanism } 43...Rxc2 44.b8=Q Rxc6
{ does not work on account of the loss ofthe rook after } 45.Qb2+
{ and Qb5+. } ) ( { If } 42...Bf5 { White wins by } 43.Rxc2 ( { or } 43.g4 $1
) 43...Rxc2 44.Bb5 { ; } ) ( { while if } 42...h5 { - } 43.Bf3 Bf5 44.Rxc2 $1
{ . } ) 43.Kf2 c1=Q 44.Rxc1 Rxc1 45.Bb5 $1
{ With the king havingrun away from the 'mined' h2-square, this move is
decisive. This explains why40...Rb2+? was a mistake. } 45...Rc8 46.bxc8=Q
Bxc8 47.d7 Bxd7 48.Bxd7 Kf6
{ 'At first sight White wins without any problems, and when analysing
theadjourned position Portisch did not even imagine that the win and
hisqualification for the Candidates matches would hang by a thread. Confident ofan easy win, he was about to relax, but a sense of danger forced
him to renewthe analysis. And it transpired that the advantage could be converted only byvery accurate moves.' (Sarkozy) }
49.Be8 $1 { Preventing ... Ke5. } (
{ LaterAverbakh published an interesting analysis, showing what Stein could
havehoped for: } 49.Ke3 Ke5
{ To be fair, it should bementioned that White would also have won after } (
49...Ke7 50.Ba4 ) 50.g4 $1 ( 50.Bb5 { (? - G.K.) } 50...f5 51.Bd3 g5 52.Kf3
f4 53.g4 h5 $1 54.Bg6 ( 54.gxh5 Kf6 55.h6 Kf7 56.Bh7 Kf6 57.Kg4
{ , and here not } 57...Ke7 $2 ( { but } 57...Kf7 $1 { with a draw } ) 58.Bg8
$1 Kf6 59.Kh5 f3 60.Bd5 f2 61.Bc4 Ke7 62.h7 { , winning } ) 54...hxg4+
55.hxg4 Kd4 56.Ke2 Kc3 57.Bd3 Kd4 58.Kd2 Ke5 59.Kc3
{ (there is nothing better) } 59...f3 $1 60.Kd2 Kf4 61.Bf5 Kg3 62.Ke1 Kg2 $1
{ with a study-like draw (incidentally, for rather a long time the machine
does not understand this!). } ) 50...Kd6 ( 50...f5 51.g5 ) 51.Bc8 Ke5 52.h4
f6 53.Kf3 h6 54.Ke3 Kd6 ( 54...h5 55.g5 ) 55.Ke4 Ke7 56.Kd5 Kf7 57.Kd6 f5
58.g5
{ . As is also the caseafter the game continuation, Black is unable to
exchange pawns successfully. } ) 49...Ke7 50.Bb5 f5 ( 50...Kf6 51.Bc4 $1 ) (
{ or } 50...Kd6 51.Bc4 f6 52.Bg8 h6 53.Bh7 ) 51.Ke3 Kf6 52.Kd4 h5 (
{ After } 52...Kg5 53.Ke5 h5 { , Portischwould have played } 54.h4+ $1 (
{ Black is hoping desperately for } 54.Bd7 $2 h4 55.g4 fxg4 56.Bxg4 Kh6
57.Kf6 Kh7 { with a draw } ) 54...Kg4 55.Kf6 Kxg3 ( 55...f4 56.gxf4 Kxf4
57.Be2 ) 56.Kg5 $1 f4 57.Bd3 f3 58.Bxg6 f2 59.Bd3 { and wins; } ) (
{ whereas if } 52...g5 { , then (if there is nothing better) } 53.Be2 Ke6
54.Bd1 Kf6 55.Kd5 { and Black is in zugzwang } 55...f4 56.g4 { . } ) 53.Ke3
$1 h4 ( 53...g5 54.Kd4 $1 Ke6 55.Bd3 Kf6 56.Be2 h4 57.g4 fxg4 58.hxg4
{ and wins. } ) 54.g4 Ke5 55.Bf1 Kf6 56.Kf4 g5+ 57.Ke3 Ke5 58.Ba6
{ . --- Atense, nervy game, demonstrating, on the one hand, Stein's poor
form, and onthe other - Portisch's practical control, and his subtle
understanding of bothpurely chess, and psychological nuances. --- In his quarter-final Candidatesmatch he lost by the minimum score (4˝-5˝) to
Larsen, who was then verymuch in the ascendancy. Compensation was provided by his brilliant victory ina strong tournament (Skopje/Ohrid 1968): 1. Portisch - 14˝ out of 19; 2.Geller - 13˝; 3. Polugayevsky - 13; 4. Hort - 12˝ etc. }
1-0
[Event "36. Siegen Olympiad"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1970.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Portisch, L."]
[Black "Fischer, R."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "E45"]
[EventDate "1970.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ The Hungarian grandmaster again had to begin the next cycle from the
Zonalstage (Raach 1969), and he again overcame this barrier, this occasion
after anadditional match-tournament. The year of the Interzonal, 1970, was one ofalmost unbroken successes for him: victory in Hastings, a win
over Korchnoi onboard 3 in the 'Match of the Century' (2˝-1˝), and 'silver' at theOlympiad in Siegen. --- Here, in the penultimate round, which proved decisivein the battle for the medals, he met the formidable Fischer, who before thathad a score of +4=3 against him. In Siegen too the
American grandmaster wascrushing everyone in turn, and despite a loss to Spassky (Game No.79) he couldstill have overtaken him to achieve the best score on board 1, if he were ableto defeat Portisch with Black. But that day diamond cut diamond. --- }
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 b6 5.Ne2 Ba6 6.Ng3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 d5 8.Ba3 $1
{ An excellent novelty, prepared by Portisch after the failure in his game
withFischer in Santa Monica; } ( { which went } 8.Qf3 O-O 9.e4 dxe4 10.Nxe4
Nxe4 11.Qxe4 Qd7 $3 { (cf. Volume 4). } ) 8...dxc4 (
{ It is safer to go into a slightlyinferior endgame by } 8...Bxc4 9.Bxc4 dxc4
10.Qa4+ Qd7 11.Qxc4 Qc6
{ , but -and this could have been anticipated! - Fischer took the pawn. } )
9.e4 ( 9.Qf3 $6 Qd5 10.e4 Qc6 { is inferior } ) 9...Qd7 10.Be2 Nc6 11.Qc2
O-O-O 12.O-O h5 13.Rfd1 h4 14.Nf1
{ A very sharp situation has arisen, where White hasexcellent compensation
for the pawn. } 14...Nh5 $2
{ And Black immediately makes abad mistake! It seems to me that Fischer's
handling of such complicatedpositions, where the opponent had the
initiative, was not very successful.This was not his sort of play - too ragged and difficult for the developmentof a clear plan. }
15.d5 $1 { This breakthrough is effectively already decisive. } 15...Ne5 (
15...exd5 $2 16.Rxd5 { and wins } ) 16.dxe6 Qe8 (
{ Black would have losta piece after } 16...Qxe6 $2 17.Bxh5 { as } 17...Rxh5
$2 { is not possible on accountof } 18.Rxd8+ Kxd8 19.Qd1+ { and Qxh5. } )
17.Rxd8+ Qxd8 18.Bxh5 ( { As Portischpointed out, if } 18.Qa4 $2 { then }
18...Nf4 $1 19.Qxa6+ Kb8 { and ...Qg5! is strong. } ) 18...Rxh5 19.f4 $1 (
{ Again } 19.Qa4 $2 { is unfavourable, this time inview of } 19...Bb5 $1
20.Qxa7 ( 20.Qxb5 $2 Nf3+ { and ...Rxb5 } ) 20...fxe6
{ withapproximate equality. } ) 19...Nd3 ( { after } 19...fxe6 20.Qe2 $1
{ and 21 fxe5White should be able to convert his extra knight. } ) 20.exf7 c5
{ A veryresourceful defence, retaining a semblance of counterplay: for the
moment thebishop at a3 is offside, while the knight at d3 is very strong. }
21.Qe2 { This move does not spoil anything; } ( { but Fischer thought that }
21.e5 $5 { was stronger. And indeed, after } 21...Rh6 ( 21...Rf5 22.Qa4 $1 )
( { or } 21...Rh8 22.Qa4 Kb7 23.Ne3 { (with the threat of Nxc4) } 23...h3
24.Rd1 b5 25.Rb1 $1 ) 22.Qe2
{ followed by Qg4+ and e5-e6 White would have won; } ( 22.Qa4 b5 23.Qd1 $1
{ is also good. } ) ) (
{ An even more forceful alternative is the computer'srecommendation } 21.Qa4
$1 Kb7 22.Rd1 h3 $5 ( 22...b5 23.Rb1 $1 { , } ) ( { while if } 22...Rh8
{ , then } 23.Bxc5 $1 { is immediately decisive } ) 23.g3 Rh8 (
{ it is also bad to play } 23...g6 24.Ne3 { , } ) ( { or } 23...b5 24.Rb1 )
24.Bxc5 $1 bxc5 25.Rb1+ Nb4 26.a3 $1 ( { but not } 26.cxb4 $4 Qd4+ ) 26...Qd3
27.axb4 Qxb1 ( 27...Qxe4 28.Rb2 ) 28.Qd7+ Kb6 29.Qe6+ Kb7 30.Qe7+ Kb6
31.Qxc5+ Kb7 32.f8=Q Rxf8 33.Qxf8 Qxe4 34.Qxg7+ Kc6 35.Qh6+
{ and Qxh3 - Black canresign. } ) 21...Rh8 22.e5 Kb8 $1 23.e6 $1
{ The most accurate, since itbrings the pawn closer to the queening square
and restricts the opponent'scounterplay. } (
{ Portisch attaches a '?!' sign to } 23.Qg4 h3
{ is slightly moretenacious, but here too Black is lost after } (
{ and gives the variation } 23...Bc8 24.e6 ( 24.Qxg7 $2 Qf8 $1 ) 24...Qf6
25.f5 g6
{ 'with an unclear game'.But in my opinion, the white pawns are so strong
that almost any move wins -for example, } 26.Bc1 gxf5 ( { or } 26...Bxe6
27.Qxg6 $1 ) 27.Qg8 $1 { . } ) 24.Ne3 hxg2 25.e6 Bb7 ( { or } 25...Qf8 26.Rd1
) 26.Nxc4 Qf6 27.f5 { . } ) 23...Qf6 24.Re1 ( { It was simpler to play }
24.Qe4 $1 h3 ( 24...Bb7 25.Qxc4 Nxf4 26.e7 ) 25.Ne3 $1 ( 25.g4 Bb7 ( { or }
25...Nxf4 26.Re1 ) 26.Qf5 $1 Qe7 27.Ne3 g6 28.Nd5 $1 { is also possible } )
25...hxg2 ( 25...Bb7 26.Qf5 ) 26.Qf5 Qxc3 27.Rd1 $1 Qd4 ( 27...Bc8 28.f8=Q )
28.Rxd3 cxd3 29.Qe5+ Qxe5 30.fxe5
{ and wins.Such powerful pawns should win automatically, although it is
much harder todemonstrate this at the board, than in the quiet of one's
home with the helpof a computer. --- The psychological subtext of Portisch's decision isunderstandable to me: after employing a successful novelty
in the opening andquickly gaining a winning position, although one not yet without its sharpness,he became nervous (it's no joke - to beat the great Fischer!) and as a resulthe chose 'the safest way', which was the developing move 24 Re1. }
) 24...Bb5 $1 { Again the best chance. } ( { After } 24...Qe7 25.Rd1 h3
{ White wins by both } 26.g3 ( 26.Qg4 $1 hxg2 27.Ne3 { . } ) 26...Bb7 27.f5 )
( { and } 24...Nxe1 $2 25.Qe5+ $1 { (Portisch). } ) 25.Bxc5 $3
{ A brilliant stroke, radically solving theproblem of the a3 bishop. }
25...bxc5 $6 ( { A more tenacious defence was } 25...Nxc5 26.Qe5+ Qxe5
27.Rxe5 Rf8 ( 27...Nxe6 $2 28.Rxe6 Bd7 ( { or } 28...Rf8 29.Re7 ) 29.Rg6 Rf8
30.Rxg7 Be6 31.Rg6 Bxf7 32.Rh6 b5 33.a3 { and wins } ) 28.f5
{ 'with the idea of Nd2-f3-h4, winning' (Portisch). This requires
somerefinement: } 28...Kc7 $1 { and now: } ( 28...Bc6 29.Nd2 Nd3 (
{ no better is } 29...Kc7 30.Nxc4 { , } ) ( { or } 29...Nb7 30.Ne4 $1
{ with the threat of Ng5 } ) 30.Re3 b5 31.Ne4 Ne5 32.Ng5 { and wins; } )
29.Rd5 $1 ( { not } 29.Nd2 $6 Kd6 $1 30.Nxc4+ Ke7 31.Rxc5 ( 31.Ne3 Bc6 32.c4
Rc8 ) 31...bxc5 32.Ne5 Kf6 33.Ng6 Ra8 34.g4 hxg3 35.hxg3 Bc4 ) ( { or }
29.Ne3 $6 Kd6 $1 30.Rd5+ Ke7 31.Rxc5 bxc5 32.Nd5+ Kd6 33.Nf4 Be8 $1 34.Ng6
Bxf7 35.Nxf8 Be8 $1 36.Nd7 ( 36.Kf2 Ke5 ) 36...Bh5
{ with good drawing chances } ) 29...Bc6 ( 29...h3 30.Ne3 ) 30.Rd4
{ (threatening Ne3-d5+) } 30...g6 ( 30...Nb7 31.Rg4 $1 { ; } ) ( 30...h3
31.Ne3 hxg2 32.Nxc4 ) 31.fxg6 Nxe6 32.Rxc4 Kd6 33.Ne3 Bb7 34.Rxh4
{ and wins. I think thatafter the exchange of queens, despite the possible
pitfalls, Portisch wouldmost probably have found a sure way to win. } )
26.Rb1 a6 27.a4
{ For acomputer White's task is simpler here than after 25... Nxc5 26 Qe5+
Qxe5 27Rxe5 Rf8, but for a human it is more difficult, since with the
queens on heimagines that there are all sorts of threats. } 27...Nxf4 28.Qf3
$2
{ Portischnevertheless misses the win, by making the worst of the possible
queen moves. } ( { Later he pointed out } 28.Qe4 $1 Qg5 ( 28...Nxe6 29.axb5 )
29.Kh1 h3 ( 29...Nd3 30.Qf3 $1 ) 30.g3 Nd3 31.e7 $1 { , winning. } ) (
{ However, he could alsohave won by } 28.Qxc4 $1 Qg5 29.Qa2 c4 $5 30.axb5
Qc5+ 31.Kh1 h3 $1 32.bxa6+ Ka8 33.Rb2 $1 ( { but not } 33.Rb7 $2 hxg2+
34.Qxg2 Nxg2 35.e7 Qc8 $1 36.Rc7 $1 Qxc7 37.e8=Q+ Qc8 { with equality } )
33...Rd8 ( 33...Nxe6 34.Qa4 $1 ) 34.Qb1 $1 Qc6 ( 34...hxg2+ 35.Rxg2 Qc6
36.Qb7+ $1 ) 35.Ne3 hxg2+ 36.Nxg2 Nxe6 37.a7 { ; } ) ( { and even by } 28.Qd2
$1 { with the amusing variation } 28...Rd8 29.e7 Rxd2 30.f8=Q+ Ka7 31.e8=Q
Nh3+ 32.gxh3 Qg5+ 33.Ng3 Bxe8 34.Qxe8 { , forcing } 34...Qd8 35.Qxd8
{ and Ne4. } ) 28...Nxe6 $1 29.Qxf6 ( { It transpiresthat if } 29.Qc6
{ there is the defence } 29...Nc7 $1 30.axb5 axb5
{ with equality (Portisch). } ) ( { The machine also examines } 29.Qe4 Nc7
30.axb5 axb5 31.Qxc4 Qe5 $1 ( { it is dangerous to play } 31...Qf5 $6
32.Rxb5+ $1 Nxb5 33.Qxb5+ Kc7 34.Qe8 Qc8 35.Qe7+ Kc6 36.Ne3 ) 32.Qxh4 (
32.h3 Rf8 ) 32...Rxh4 33.f8=Q+ Kb7 34.Qf3+ Qe4 { with equality. } ) 29...gxf6
30.axb5 axb5 31.Rxb5+ Kc7 32.Ne3 Rf8 33.Ra5
{ Now White only has slightly the better endgame. } 33...Kb7 $1 34.Nxc4 (
{ Or } 34.Nf5 Rxf7 35.Ra4 ( 35.Nxh4 Rd7 ) 35...Rh7 36.Rxc4 h3
{ withequality. } ) 34...Rxf7 35.Rxc5 Nxc5 36.Nd6+ Kc6 37.Nxf7 Ne4 38.Nh6 (
{ Tired and upset, Portisch does not even consider } 38.h3 $5 Nxc3 39.Nh8 Kd5
40.Ng6
{ and Nxh4 with an extra pawn (however, here too a draw was the
mostprobable outcome). } ) 38...Kd5 ( 38...Nxc3 39.h3 ) 39.Nf5 h3 (
{ Draw, althoughit was still possible to try } 39...h3 40.Ne3+ $1 Ke5 41.Nd1
hxg2 42.Kxg2
{ - after all, White is a pawn up (for some reason no one has pointed out
thischance). --- Three months later Fischer won the Interzonal tournament
inMallorca in brilliant fashion, but Portisch, although he again drew with him,failed by half a point to finish in the cherished top six, sharing
7th-8thplaces with Smyslov. An additional match between them for the first reserveplace brought a draw (3-3), but Portisch was declared the winner, thanks to asuperior Berger score in the tournament. Alas, this did not give anything,since none of the pretenders for the supreme title declined to
take part inthe Candidates matches. } ) 1/2-1/2
[Event "37. Match-Tournament, Portoroz"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1973.??.??"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Polugayevsky, L."]
[Black "Portisch, L."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "D63"]
[EventDate "1973.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ For the next world championship Portisch aimed to arrive fully prepared,
asindicated by his striking successes in 1972: victories in Wijk aan Zee
and LasPalmas, an excellent result at the Olympiad in Skopje (+8=8-1), where Hungaryagain provided sharp rivalry to the USSR, and a share of 1st-3rd
places withPetrosian and Karpov in the strong tournament in San Antonio. --- 1973 wasalso a happy year for him: victory in the Vidmar Memorial, a share of 2nd-4thplaces in the Interzonal tournament in Petropolis and a confident victory inan additional four-round match-tournament for two places in
the Candidatesmatches: 1. Portisch - 5˝ out of 8; 2. Polugayevsky - 3˝; 3. Geller - 3.The outcome of this event was largely determined by the following game. --- }
1.d4 Nf6 (
{ Later the game Marshall-Rubinstein (Moscow 1925) will be referenced,which
went } 1...d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 Be7 6.Nf3 O-O 7.cxd5 exd5
8.Bd3 Re8 9.O-O c6 10.Qc2 Nf8 11.Rae1 Ne4 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.Bxe4 dxe4 14.Nd2 f5
15.f3 exf3 16.Nxf3 Be6 17.e4 fxe4 18.Rxe4 h6 $5
{ is moreaccurate in this particular variation: } ( 18...Rad8 19.Re5 $5 h6
20.Ne4 { with the initiative for White. } ( 20.-- ) ) 19.Rfe1 ( 19.Re5 Nd7 $1
) ( { or } 19.Ne2 Qb4
{ with equality (Timman-Yusupov, 8th matchgame, Tilburg 1986) } ) 19...Rad8
20.h3 ( { if } 20.Re5 ) ( { or } 20.R1e3 { Short has successfully played }
20...Qf7 ) 20...Qd6
{ with approximate equality (Yusupov-Kramnik, Vienna 1996). } ) 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3
d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 O-O 6.e3 Nbd7 7.Rc1 a6 (
{ I should remind youthat this variation was regularly employed by Alekhine
in his match withCapablanca (1927), whereas the latter, in turn, preferred
the traditional move } 7...c6 { . } ) 8.a3 $6
{ Allowing Black to carry out Alekhine's plan of theextended fianchetto. } (
{ In the 3rd cycle the two players contested the'Carlsbad' formation - }
8.cxd5 exd5 9.Bd3 c6 10.Qc2 Re8 ( 10...h6 { - Volume1, Game No.105 } ) 11.O-O
Nf8 12.Rce1 Ne4 13.Bxe7 Qxe7 14.Bxe4 dxe4 15.Nd2 f5 16.f3 ( { or } 16.d5 Bd7
{ with equality } ) 16...exf3 17.Nxf3 Be6 18.e4 fxe4 19.Rxe4 Rad8 20.Na4
{ (an attempt to exploit the weakening of the darksquares caused by the
move ...a7-a6) } ( { instead } 20.Re5 $5
{ is interesting -by analogy with the game Marshall-Rubinstein (Moscow
1925) } ) 20...Qd6 $1 21.Rfe1 Bf7 22.Rxe8 Rxe8 23.Rxe8 Bxe8 24.Nc5 b5 $1
25.Nxa6 Bh5 26.Qc5 Qg6 27.Ne1 Qb1 { ˝-˝. } ) (
{ Subsequently, in the 10th game of his match withPetrosian (Palma de
Mallorca 1974), Portisch himself improved White's play with } 8.c5 $5 c6
9.Bd3 b6 10.cxb6 c5 ( 10...Qxb6 11.O-O $1 Qxb2 12.Na4
{ Hort-Portisch, Madrid 1973 } ) 11.O-O c4 12.Bc2 Nxb6 $6 13.Ne5 Bb7 14.f4
Rb8 $2 ( 14...Nfd7 $1 15.Qh5 f5 ) 15.f5 $1 Nbd7 16.Bf4 Rc8 17.Qf3 exf5
18.Bxf5 Nxe5 19.dxe5 Ne4 20.Nxe4 dxe4 21.Qh3 g6 22.Rcd1 Qb6 23.Rd7 Rce8 24.e6
$1
{ ... 1-0. This important game practically put the move 7...a6 out of use.
} ) 8...c6 ( { It is more consistent to play } 8...h6 9.Bh4 dxc4 10.Bxc4 b5
11.Be2 { (Volume 1, Game No.128) } 11...c5 $1 { ; } ) ( { or immediately }
8...dxc4 9.Bxc4 b5
{ , as Csom, Portisch's second, played against Uhlmann (Berlin 1968): }
10.Ba2 c5 11.O-O Bb7 12.Qe2 h6 13.Bh4 Ne4 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.dxc5 Ndxc5 16.Nxe4
Nxe4 { ˝-˝. } ) 9.Bd3
{ A harmless move, transposing into positions from theprevious note. } (
{ Since the times of Alekhine and Euwe White has more oftencontinued the
struggle for a tempo by } 9.Qc2 { (Volume 1, Game No.120) } ) ( { or } 9.h3
h6 10.Bf4 { (Volume 2, Game No.19). } ) 9...h6 $1 10.Bh4 dxc4 11.Bxc4 b5
12.Ba2 c5 13.O-O Bb7
{ Having regained the tempo spent on ...c7-c6, Black hasfully equalised and
is now threatening ...c5-c4. } 14.dxc5 Nxc5 15.Nd4 Rc8 (
{ A simpler path was } 15...Nfe4 $5 16.Bxe7 Qxe7 17.Nxe4 Nxe4
{ with equality (Polugayevsky). } ) 16.f3 $5 { A double-edged undertaking; }
( { in avoiding thetedious } 16.Qe2 Nfe4
{ , White is trying to outplay his opponent literallyfrom nothing. } )
16...Qb6 17.b4 ( { 'If } 17.Qe2 Rfd8 { with equality is morelogical. } (
{ then } 17...Na4
{ with a good game for Black.' (Polugayevsky).Indeed, after } 18.Ne4 $5 Rxc1
( { it is inferior to play } 18...g5 19.Nxf6+ Bxf6 20.Bf2 ) ( 18...Nxe4
19.Bxe7 ) ( { or } 18...Bxe4 19.fxe4 ) 19.Rxc1 Qd8
{ he has a solid position. But why go in for such concessions? } ) )
17...Ncd7 18.Bf2
{ 'The impression is that White has achieved marked successes and that itis
not easy for Black to choose an acceptable plan.' (Polugayevsky). } 18...Bd6
$1
{ A splendid resource. By attacking the h2-pawn, Black provokes a
furtherweakening of the opponent's kingside. } (
{ It was inaccurate to play } 18...Ne5 $6 19.e4 Qc7 ( 19...Rfd8 $2 20.Nf5 $1
) ( 19...Qd8 20.Nxe6 $5 ) 20.Nd5 $1 { ; } ) ( { or } 18...Qa7 19.e4 Qb8
20.Bg3 $1 ( { Polugayevsky's move } 20.Nb3 { is parried by the simple }
20...Rfd8 { with equality } ) 20...Ne5 ( { if } 20...Qa7 { , then } 21.e5 $1
Nd5 22.Bxd5 Bxd5 23.Nxd5 exd5 24.Bf2 ) 21.Nxe6 $1 fxe6 22.Bxe6+ Kh8 23.Bxc8
Rxc8 24.Ne2 { with some advantage to White. } ) 19.e4 Qc7 $1
{ 'Portisch is not afraid of the opposition of queen and rook! During
thecourse of a long think over this position I couldn't help feeling that
Whitestood significantly better and that he should be able to find some decisivecontinuation.' (Polugayevsky). }
20.g3 Qb8 21.Qe2
{ 'I began to be beset bythe fixed idea of the knight sacrifice on e6. I
was not even put off by theexample of Geller, who two days earlier had
suffered a failure on this sameill-fated square (Game No.25),' writes Polugayevsky. }
( { 'Had I assessed thesituation soberly, I should have played } 21.Nb3
{ .' However, here too Blackhas no problems after } 21...Rfd8 22.Qe2 (
22.Na5 $2 Ne5 $1 ) 22...Be5 { . } ) 21...Ne5 $5
{ (aiming at White's weaknesses) } 22.Rfd1 ( { If } 22.f4 $2
{ , then Blackhas the very strong reply } 22...Neg4 $1 23.e5 Nxf2 24.Qxf2
Rxc3 $1 { (Gufeld) } 25.Rxc3 Ne4 26.Qe3 Nxc3 27.Qxc3 Bc7
{ , when the powerful bishops supported bythe heavy pieces give Black a
great advantage: } 28.Nf3 ( { it is bad to play } 28.Nc6 $2 Bb6+ 29.Kg2 Rc8
{ , } ) ( 28.Qc5 $2 Ba8 $1 29.Nc6 Qb7 ) ( { or } 28.h3 $2 Bb6 29.Kh2 Rc8
30.Qb2 Qc7 $1 { , winning } ) 28...Bb6+ 29.Kg2 Rc8 30.Qd3 Rd8 31.Qe2 Qc7
{ etc. } ) ( { 'It was not yet too late for } 22.Nb3
{ , althoughBlack has the reply } 22...Nc4 23.Rfd1 ( { when } 23.Nc5 Nxa3
{ is unclear, forexample: } 24.Rfd1 { (only this remains) } ( 24.Nxb7 Qxb7
25.e5 Bxb4 ) ( { or } 24.e5 Bxe5 25.Nxb7 Rxc3 { ' (Polugayevsky) } ( { or }
25...Bxc3 $1 26.Bc5 Rxc5 $1 27.Nxc5 Bxb4 { . } ) ) (
{ All these variations favour Black, as does } 24.f4 $6 Bxc5 25.Bxc5 Rfd8 )
24...Bxc5 25.Bxc5 Rfd8
{ and White can maintain thebalance, provided only that he does not play
f3-f4?! } ) 23...Nxa3 24.Bc5 Ne8
{ and again White must think primarily about how to equalise. --- All
thesedifficulties are the direct consequence of the series of weaknesses
beginningwith 16 f3, caused by White's excessively aggressive mood. Polugayevsky wasplaying sharply for a win! }
) 22...Rfd8 { The first critical moment of thebattle. } 23.Nxe6 $6
{ 'Since I still had thoughts of finding a decisivecontinuation, I went in
for a combination, involving great complications. } ( { If } 23.Nb3
{ , then } 23...Nc4
{ is now quite safe.' (Polugayevsky). But in any casethis would not have
been so dangerous for White, for example: } 24.Nc5 Bxc5 25.bxc5
{ with a roughly equal game, since if ...Nxa3, immediately or after
theexchange on d1, there is Qb2!. } ) ( { Again not } 23.f4 $2 Neg4 24.e5
Nxf2 25.Qxf2 Rxc3 $1 { . } ) 23...fxe6 24.Bxe6+ Kh8 (
{ Polugayevsky thought that } 24...Nf7 $6
{ was a stronger reply, but this would have given White better chancesthan
in the game: } 25.Qa2 $5 ( 25.Bxc8 Rxc8 ( 25...Bxc8 26.Bd4 $1 ( { but not }
26.f4 $2 Bg4 ) ) 26.f4 $5 ( 26.Bd4 Be5 $1 ) 26...Qa8 27.Bd4 $1 { , and }
27...Nxe4 $2 28.Nxe4 Rxc1 29.Rxc1 Bxe4 { is not possible on account of }
30.Qg4 $1 ) 25...Rf8 ( 25...Rc7 26.Bb6 Rf8 27.Bxc7 Bxc7 28.Kg2 ) 26.Bxc8 Rxc8
( 26...Bxc8 $6 27.f4 Bg4 28.Re1 ) 27.Bd4 Be5 28.Ne2 { etc. } ) 25.f4
{ 'It was this move,naturally, that White had in mind, when he sacrificed
the piece,' writesPolugayevsky; } ( { condemning } 25.Bxc8 Rxc8 $5
{ is possible, when the sharp } ( 25...Bxc8 26.f4 $6 { on account of } (
{ however, it is stronger to play } 26.Bd4 ) ( { or } 26.Bc5
{ with unclear chances } ) 26...Bg4 { . Indeed, after } 27.Qa2 Bxd1 28.fxe5
Bxe5 29.Nxd1 Nxe4 { Black has the advantage. } ) 26.f4 $6 (
{ White should also play } 26.Bd4 $1 ) 26...Nc4 27.e5 $2 { runs into } (
{ it is not yet toolate for } 27.Bd4 Be7 28.Nd5 ) 27...Bxe5 $1 { (Gufeld) }
28.fxe5 Nxe5 { with a crushing attack: } 29.Qb2 ( { or } 29.Bc5 Nf3+ 30.Kf1
Re8 ) 29...Nf3+ 30.Kg2 Qe5 { . } ) 25...Rxc3 $1
{ Black aims to get his blow in first. } ( { Portisch was not tempted by }
25...Nc4 26.Bxc8 ( 26.e5 $2 Bxe5 $1 27.fxe5 Nxe5 28.Bxc8 Rxc8 $1 (
{ Polugayevsky; } 28...Nf3+ $2 29.Qxf3 $1 ) 29.Qa2 Nfg4 30.Bc5 Nf3+ 31.Kg2
Qe5 { and wins; } ) 26...Qxc8 27.Bd4 Be7 28.a4 $5
{ with dynamic equilibrium. } ) 26.Rxc3 Nxe4 27.Re3
{ 'Five pieces in a row onone file - this does not often happen!' (Hajtun).
} 27...Nxf2 28.Kxf2 Nc4
{ 'Bothplayers deliberately went in for this position. I do not agree with
it beingevaluated in favour of Black: he loses another pawn and the white
rooks on thecentral files are very dangerous. } ( { In the event of }
28...Nc6 29.Bf7 $1
{ White would be threatening Rxd6.' (Polugayevsky). While if } 29...Be7
{ , then } 30.Rxd8+ Qxd8 31.Qd3 { with equality. } ) 29.Bxc4 bxc4 30.Qxc4 Rf8
$1 ( { After } 30...a5 31.Qb5 $1 axb4 32.axb4 Qc7 33.Rd4
{ the active rook plus two pawnscounter-balance the two powerful bishops.
Black's move provokes an immediatecrisis. } ) 31.Rd4 $2
{ 'Tired by the calculation of complicated variations,White commits a fatal
mistake, leading to defeat. } ( { 'After } 31.Ke1 $1
{ (this was the move that I was initially intending to make) the chances
wouldhave been roughly equal.' (Polugayevsky). Analysis confirms this
evaluation: } 31...Re8 $1 ( 31...Rf6
{ (with the threat of ...Bc6 and ...a6-a5 - Hajtun) } 32.Re6 Rxe6+ 33.Qxe6
Bf8 34.Qd7 { with equality } ) ( 31...Bc8 32.Qc6 { (Polugayevsky) } ( { or }
32.Qd3 $5 Bc7 33.Re7 ) 32...Qa7 33.Qc3 Bb8 34.Qc5 Qf7 35.Qe7 $1 Qg8 36.Rd2
Bf5 37.Kf2 { , in both cases with sufficient counterplay } ) 32.Re6 $1 Bf8
33.f5 { (Polugayevsky) } ( 33.Rd2 $5 ) 33...Rxe6+ 34.Qxe6 a5 35.f6 $1 axb4
36.fxg7+ Bxg7 37.axb4 Bf3 38.Rd4 Bxd4 39.Qxh6+ { , gaining a draw. } )
31...Be5 $1
{ 'The rook cannot leave the fourth rank on account of 32...Bxf4 andWhite
simply remains a piece down.' (Polugayevsky). } 32.Rde4 Bxe4 (
{ Themerciless computer instantly discovers } 32...Bc7 $1
{ (with the threat of ...Bxe4) } 33.Rd4 Bb6 { , winning. } ) 33.Rxe4 Qb6+
34.Kg2 ( 34.Qc5 Qxc5+ 35.bxc5 Bb2 36.Ra4 Rc8 37.Rxa6 Rxc5 { was no better. }
) 34...Bf6 ( 34...Bb2 $5 ) 35.Re6
{ In time-trouble, White tries to save himself by eliminating the a6-pawn.
} 35...Qb5 $1 { A technically accurate solution. } ( 35...Qd8 36.Rxa6 Qd2+
37.Kh3 Qd1 38.Re6 Bb2 39.Re3 { was not so clear. } ) 36.Qxb5 (
{ White cannot avoid theexchange of queens without losing material: } 36.Qe4
Bb2 $1 ) ( { or } 36.Qc2 Qd5+ { . } ) 36...axb5 37.Rb6 Ra8 38.Rxb5 Rxa3
{ This endgame is amazingly similarto the Portisch-Stein ending (Game
No.35): again there are three pawns againsttwo on the kingside and again
the bishop is of opposite colour to the queeningsquare of the h-pawn. } 39.h4
( { ' } 39.g4
{ was recommended, in order toexchange pawns as soon as possible,' writes
Polugayevsky, and he examines } 39...g5 { . } (
{ I prefer the computer method - } 39...Ra4 $1
{ followed by ...Be7 or ...Bc3. } ) ) ( { I should add that no better was }
39.Rb8+ Kh7 40.b5 Ra2+ 41.Kh1 ( 41.Kh3 Bd4 $1 { and ...Bg1 } ) 41...Rb2 ) (
{ or } 39.h3 Bc3 40.Rb8+ Kh7 41.b5 Rb3 { etc. } ) 39...Bc3 40.Rb6 ( { If }
40.g4 { , then Black has } 40...Bd2 41.f5 Bf4 $1
{ with the threat of ...Rg3+, and if } ( { but not Polugayevsky's move }
41...Be1 $2 { on account of } 42.Rb8+ Kh7 43.g5 $1 hxg5 44.hxg5 Rg3+ 45.Kf1
Bd2 46.f6 $1 { with a draw } ) 42.Kf2 { , then } 42...Bg3+ { and ...Bxh4. } )
40...Be1 41.Rg6 Bxb4 42.h5 Be1 43.Kh3 Kg8 44.Kg2 Kf7 45.Kh3 Re3 46.Kg2 Re6 $1
47.Rg4 ( 47.Rxe6 Kxe6 48.g4 Bd2 49.Kf3 Kd5
{ does not require any commentary. } ) 47...Ra6 48.Rh4 Ra2+ 49.Kh3 Bf2 50.Rg4
Ra5 51.Kg2 ( 51.Kh4 Rf5 $1 ) 51...Bd4 52.Rh4 Bf6 53.Rh1 Ra1 ( 53...Ra1 54.Rh3
Ke6 55.Kf3 ( 55.g4 Ra2+ { and ...Kd5 } ) 55...Kf5 56.g4+ Ke6 57.Rh2 Ra3+
58.Ke4 Ra4+ 59.Kf3 Rxf4+ $1 { . } ) 0-1
[Event "38. Candidates Match, Palma de Mallorca"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1974.??.??"]
[Round "12"]
[White "Portisch, L."]
[Black "Petrosian, T."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "D10"]
[EventDate "1974.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ By the luck of the draw, in the very first Candidates match in
1974Portisch's opponent was Petrosian, who over the course of 13 years had
not wona single game against him, and had lost four. However, on this occasion (afterfour draws) the ex-world champion won with White in the
5th game and, as hehimself later remembered, at last resolved the problem of the 'difficult'Portisch. --- You will ask: what was this problem? It would appear to be acertain lack of compatibility in the styles of the two players. Portisch'sstraightforward, 'correct', rigorously
positional style, with Black - adestroyer, with White - a creator, but in a strictly defined framework, wasunpleasant for Petrosian, with his deeply individual and clever manner of a'chess left-hander'. Nevertheless, in this match he was able to dismiss hisprevious failures. --- 'After the 9th game the score became 2-0 in Petrosian'sfavour. Victory, as they say, was just a stone's throw away,' writes Averbakh,'but the 44-year-old ex-world champion was already very tired, and at his ageit was not easy to restore his supply of nervous energy. ' In the 10th
gamePortisch finally opened his account, and the extremely distressed Petrosianquickly agreed a draw in the 11th. And then came the day of the 12th game,with the match situation tense in the extreme. --- }
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5
{ The dry and tedious Exchange Variation of the Slav Defence was
aformidable weapon in Portisch's hands. } 4...cxd5 5.Bf4 e6 ( { After }
5...Nc6 6.e3 Bf5 { Black has to reckon with } 7.Qb3 $5 { ; } ( 7.Nf3
{ - Game No.74. } ) ) 6.e3 Be7 (
{ The game Portisch-Petrosian (Moscow 1967) went } 6...Nc6 7.Nf3 Bd6 8.Bg3 $5
Ne4 $6
{ led to Petrosian later defeating Kupreichik with White (44thUSSR
Championship, Moscow 1976) after } ( 8...O-O 9.Bd3 Re8 10.Ne5 $1 Bxe5 $6
11.dxe5 Nd7 12.f4 Qb6 $6 13.O-O $1 Qxe3+ $2 { (over-optimistic) } ( 13...f5
$5 ) 14.Kh1 Qb6 15.Qh5 Nf8 16.Rf3 $1 Ng6 17.Bf2 $1 Qd8 ( 17...Qxb2 18.Rb1
Qxc3 19.Rh3 $1 ) 18.Nb5 Nce7 19.Nd6 Bd7 20.Bh4 Qb6 21.Rh3 h6 22.Bf6 $1 Nf5
23.Bxf5 { 1-0. An impressive rout! } ) 9.Nxe4 dxe4 10.Nd2 Bxg3 11.hxg3 e5
12.dxe5 Qa5 13.Qb3 $1 Qxe5 14.Be2 ( 14.Rc1 $5 ) 14...Qe7 15.Rc1 O-O 16.Nxe4
$1 Qxe4 17.Bd3 Qb4+ $6 ( 17...Qe5 ) 18.Qxb4 Nxb4 19.Bxh7+ Kh8 20.Bb1+ $1 Kg8
21.Rc4 $1 a5 22.Bh7+ Kh8 23.Bf5+ $1 { 1-0. } ) 7.Bd3 Nc6 8.h3
{ Preservingthe f4-bishop from attack by ...Nh5. With that splendid win in
1967 to hiscredit, Portisch as though says to his opponent: 'You were
unable to solveyour problems then - let's see if you can solve them now!'. }
8...O-O 9.Nf3 Bd7 (
{ In view of the fact that the pawn is already at h3, it possibly made
sense toplay } 9...Bd6
{ , despite the loss of a tempo. It is true that White couldhave replied }
10.O-O { , allowing } 10...Bxf4 11.exf4
{ , especially since Petrosiandid not like such cramped positions with the
opponent's pawns at d4 and f4. } ) 10.O-O Qb6 ( { or } 10...a6 11.a3 $1 )
11.a3 $1 ( { More energetic than } 11.Qe2 Rfc8 12.Rac1 Be8
{ with equality, Botvinnik-Smyslov, 20th USSR Championship,Moscow 1952. } )
11...Na5 ( { Of course, not } 11...Qxb2 $2 12.Na4 { ; } ) ( { while if }
11...Rfc8 { there could also have followed } 12.Na4 $5 { and thenb2-b4. } )
12.b4 { Here Portisch thought for 20 minutes. } (
{ White could haveconsidered } 12.Ne5 $5 Rfc8 13.Qe2 Be8 14.Rac1 Nb3 (
{ if } 14...Nd7 { , then } 15.Na4 $1 Qd8 { (b3) } 16.Nxd7 Bxd7 17.Nc5 )
15.Rc2 { , retaining someinitiative. } ) 12...Nc4 13.Ne5 Rac8
{ And this move took Petrosian half anhour. } ( { If } 13...Nb2 $2 { , then }
14.Bxh7+ $1 Nxh7 ( { or } 14...Kxh7 15.Qc2+ ) 15.Qc2
{ , remaining a pawn up. } ) 14.Bxc4 $5 dxc4 15.Bg5
{ A crucial decision:White believes his mobile centre is stronger than the
passed c-pawn, which issecurely blockaded by the knight. } 15...Qd8 16.Qf3
Bc6 17.Nxc6 Rxc6 18.Rad1 Nd5 $1
{ After obtaining the somewhat inferior game from the opening, Black
aimsfor simplification. } 19.Bxe7 Nxe7 (
{ Averbakh and Zaitsev, the ex-worldchampion's seconds, recommended }
19...Qxe7 $6 20.Nxd5 exd5 21.Qxd5 c3
{ 'with counterplay sufficient to save the game.' Averbakh adds:
'Petrosianthought that the need to resort to extreme measures had not yet
arrived, buton this occasion his positional feeling let him down. ' But in my opinion itwas just the opposite: what told was his famous
sense of danger, since after } 22.Rd3 $1 c2 23.Rc1 Rfc8 24.Qb3
{ White would soon have won the c-pawn andwith it the game. } ) 20.e4
{ Intending to create a passed pawn on the d-file. } 20...a6 ( 20...f5 $5
{ (Zaitsev) suggests itself, for example: } 21.b5 ( 21.e5 Nd5 22.Nxd5 Qxd5 )
( { or } 21.d5 fxe4 22.dxc6 exf3 23.Rxd8 Rxd8 24.cxb7 Rb8 { with equality. }
( 24...-- ) ) 21...Rd6 22.exf5 Nxf5 23.Qxb7 Nxd4 24.Kh1 $6
{ 'leads to a positional advantage for White', according to Zaitsev,
althoughafter } 24...Ne2 $1 ( 24...Qa5 $5 ) 25.Rxd6 Ng3+ $1 26.Kg1 Qxd6
{ it is actuallyBlack who has some advantage. } ) 21.d5 exd5 22.exd5 Rd6
{ Now each side has apassed pawn, but White's pieces are somewhat more
active and his d-pawn issomewhat stronger. } 23.Rd2 $6 (
{ Petrosian was seriously afraid of } 23.Rd4 { , although after } 23...Nc6 $1
{ (Hajtun) } ( 23...b5 $5 ) 24.Rf4 ( 24.Re4 f5 25.Re3 ( { or here } 25.Rf4
Ne5 26.Qe3 g5 $1 27.Rd4 Re8 ) 25...Nd4 ) 24...Ne5 25.Qe3 f6 26.Re4 b5
{ , nothing terrible for Black is apparent. } ) (
{ It looks morelogical to play } 23.a4 $5 Qd7 24.Rfe1 { ; } ( { if } 24.b5
{ , then Black has thepossibility of } 24...axb5 25.axb5 Nf5 $1 26.Rfe1 Rg6
{ and ...Nd6 with equality } ) ) ( { or immediately } 23.Rfe1 $1 b5 24.a4 Qd7
( { it is inferior to play } 24...bxa4 $6 25.Qe4 Re8 26.Nxa4 $1 Qc8 27.Nc3
Rdd8 28.Qd4 { with unpleasantpressure: } 28...Nf5 29.Rxe8+ Rxe8 30.Qc5 $1 )
25.axb5 axb5 26.Rd4 { , retaining aslight advantage. } ) 23...Qc7 $1
{ A subtle idea. } 24.Qg3 { White rises to theoccasion; } ( { the tempting }
24.Rfd1 Rfd8 25.Ne4 Rxd5 26.Ng5 { would have beenparried by } 26...Rxd2 $1
27.Qxf7+ Kh8 28.Rxd2 Rxd2 29.Qf8+ Ng8 30.Nf7+ Qxf7 31.Qxf7 c3 32.Qc7 c2
33.Kh2 Rxf2 { with a draw (Averbakh, Zaitsev). } ) 24...Qd7 $1
{ 'After this reply Portisch became anxious. To all appearances, he
hadoverlooked something.' (Zaitsev). } 25.Kh1 ( { 'If } 25.Ne4
{ Black had preparedthe devilish } 25...Rg6 $1 ( { but not } 25...Rxd5 $2
26.Nf6+ ) 26.Qf3 Nf5 $1 27.Qc3 ( 27.Nc5 $2 Nh4 $1 { ' (Averbakh) } ) (
{ Of course, a better continuation is } 27.Qf4 Nd6 28.Nxd6 c3 $1 29.Rd3 Rxd6
30.Rxc3 Rxd5 31.Rc7 Qb5 { with a probabledraw. } ( 31...-- ) ) 27...b5 28.Nc5
Qe7 { with equality. } ) 25...Nc8 $5 { The correct strategic idea. } (
25...Rd8
{ is also good, but Petrosianimmediately plays his knight to d6, knowing
full well that the knight is theideal blockading piece (in contrast to the
rook or queen - in view of theirvulnerability). } ) 26.Ne4 Rg6 27.Qf4 Nd6
28.Nxd6 ( 28.Nxd6 { hopes for } 28...Rxd6 $2 29.Qxc4 ) 28...c3 $1
{ 'Neither Portisch, nor any of the players present,anticipated this
intermediate move.' (Zaitsev). Here Petrosian was already insevere
time-trouble: he only had six minutes left for the next 12 moves. } 29.Rd3
Rxd6 30.Rxc3 Rxd5 (
{ White's advantage is purely symbolic and it was evenpossible to play }
30...b5 $5 { with the idea of } 31.Rfc1 ( { or } 31.Re1 ) 31...Rxd5 32.Rc7
Qd6 $1 33.Qxd6 Rxd6 { , also gaining a draw. } ) 31.Rc7 Qb5 32.Re1 g6 33.Kg1
a5 { Again aiming for simplification. } ( { Also acceptable was } 33...Rd7
{ (Averbakh, Zaitsev), gradually neutralising the opponent's
slightinitiative. } ) 34.Ree7 Rf5 35.Qd4 b6 36.Rb7 axb4 $2
{ A serious error withthe flag about to fall. } (
{ The commentators unanimously suggested } 36...Qc6 37.Rxb6 ( 37.Qxb6 Qc1+
38.Kh2 Qf4+ $1 ) 37...Qc1+ 38.Kh2 Qxa3
{ 'with adraw', not noticing that after } 39.Ra7 $1 Qa2 $1 40.f4 $1 Rd5
41.Qe3 { and Rba6! White retains an extra pawn and winning chances: } 41...a4
( { or } 41...Rd2 42.Qg3 a4 43.Rba6 ) 42.Rba6 Qb3 43.Qe4 $1 { and Rxa4. } )
( { In fact only } 36...Qa4 $1
{ (Hajtun) would have retained material equality and practically forceda
draw: } 37.Qc3 ( { or } 37.Qxb6 Qxa3 38.bxa5 Qxa5 ) 37...axb4 38.axb4 Qd1+
39.Re1 Qd6 { . } ) 37.Rxb6 Qd5 38.Qxd5 Rxd5 39.axb4 h5 40.h4 $6
{ 'A move ofdubious worth. From the theory of such rook endings it is well
known that theinclusion of the moves h4 and h5 is to the advantage of the
defending side.' (Zaitsev). } 40...Kg7
{ Thus, time-trouble is over, and the whole question is whetheror not White
can convert his extra pawn. } 41.g3 $6
{ The sealed move. 'Thenight was spent analysing intensively. } (
{ The strongest continuation was } 41.Rbb7 Rf5
{ (releasing the rook from f8) } 42.Re2 $1 Rd8 43.Rb2
{ writes Zaitsev,who gives the variation } 43...Rd1+ 44.Kh2 Rfd5 $1 45.b5
R5d2
{ with the words:'The analysis of this position deserves a separate
publication, but it isclear that Black's defence involves considerable
difficulties.' } ) 41...Ra8 42.Rbb7 Rf5 43.Re2 Ra1+ 44.Kg2 Rb1 45.Re3 Rb2
46.Rf3 Rxf3 47.Kxf3
{ 'With thepawn on the a-file this position is considered absolutely drawn.
Regarding theb-pawn, things are not completely clear. In 1951 Taimanov won
a similarendgame against Kopylov, although later Nikolai Kopaev showed that Black couldhave gained a draw.' (Averbakh). }
47...Kh6 $6
{ With the idea of creating a weaknessin the opponent's position after ...
f7-f6 and ..g6-g5. 'From Portisch's faceit was easy to read his thoughts.
At this moment he was genuinely dumbfoundedand he sank into thought for half an hour. For Portisch and his second, Csom,Black's counterplay on the
kingside came as a surprise.' (Zaitsev) } (
{ Later amethod of defence, guaranteeing Black a certain draw, was found: }
47...Kf6 $1 48.Ke3 Ke6 49.b5 Ke5 $1 50.b6 Ke6 51.Kd4 Rb1 52.Rb8 Kd6
{ (Kantorovich). } ) 48.Ke3 (
{ After the conclusion of the match Portisch and Csom suggested themore
energetic } 48.b5 $5 f6 49.b6 g5 50.Rb8 ( 50.Rb8 gxh4 51.gxh4 Kg6 52.Ke4 (
52.-- ) ) ( { or immediately } 50.Ke4
{ , although, as Zaitsev writes, 'itwould appear that also after this
continuation Black's counterplay achievesits goal. ' } ) (
{ These variations have been significantly improved by Dvoretsky.Firstly,
after } 50.Ke4 $1 gxh4 51.gxh4 Rxf2 52.Rc7 { (not the only move) } 52...Rb2
53.b7 Kg6 54.Kd5 Kf5 55.Rc5 Kg4 56.Kc6 { White wins. } ) 50...gxh4 51.gxh4
{ and now it is, secondly, stronger to play } 51...Rb4 $5 ( { instead of }
51...Kg6 ) 52.Ke3 Kg6 53.Kd3 Kf5 54.Kc3 Rb1 55.Kd4 Rb2 56.Kc5 Rxf2 $1 57.Rg8
( { or } 57.Rd8 Rc2+ 58.Kd6 Rb2 59.Kc7 Rc2+ 60.Kb8 Rc4 ) 57...Rc2+ 58.Kd6
Rd2+ 59.Kc7 Rc2+ 60.Kb8 Rc4 61.b7 Rxh4 62.Kc7 Rb4 { with a draw. } ) (
{ Moreover, after } 48.b5 f6 49.b6 { , Black has the possibility of } (
{ but White too, in turn, has the chance } 49.Ke4 $1 Rxf2 50.b6 Rb2 51.Rb8 )
49...Rb4 $5 ( { instead of } 49...g5 ) 50.Ke3 g5 { . } ) (
{ Therefore Dvoretsky's main recommendation after } 48.b5 $5
{ is the immediate } 48...Rb4 $1
{ , and here, 'in order to evaluate objectivelythe resulting positions, a
detailed analysis is required.' } ) 48...f6 49.Rb6 Kg7 50.Rb7+ Kh6 51.Rb8 $6
{ 'Another delay, after which Black could havesaved the game. } (
{ In Kantorovich's opinion, correct was } 51.b5 g5 52.Kd4 gxh4 53.gxh4 Kg6 (
53...Rb4+ $6 54.Kc5 Rxh4 55.Ra7 Rh1 56.Ra4 h4 57.b6 h3 58.b7 Rb1 59.Rb4 Rc1+
60.Kb6 ) 54.b6 Rxf2 ( { however, } 54...Kf5 $1
{ improves the defence and casts doubts on whether White can win.' -
Dvoretsky } ) 55.Ra7 Rb2 56.Kc5 Rc2+ 57.Kd6 Rb2 58.Kc6 Kf5 59.Ra4
{ and wins. } ) 51...g5 52.b5 gxh4 53.gxh4 Kg6 54.b6 Kf5 55.Kd4 (
{ 'White's last hope is to advancehis pawn more quickly than the opponent.'
(Averbakh) 'After } 55.b7
{ the whiteking is deprived of a shelter and this leads to a dead draw'
(Zaitsev), forexample: } 55...Rb4 $1 56.Kd3 Kf4 57.Kc3 Rb1 58.Kd4 Kf3 59.Kd5
Kxf2 60.Ke6 Rb6+ 61.Kf5 Kf3 62.Kg6 Kg4 { (Kantorovich). } ) 55...Rxf2 $6
{ The result of fatigue. } (
{ Back in his adjournment analysis Black had intended the simple } 55...Kg4
$1 56.Rg8+ Kxh4 57.Kc5 Rc2+ $1
{ (driving the king in front of the pawn, inorder to capture on f2 with
gain of tempo) } 58.Kd6 Rd2+ 59.Kc7 Rc2+ 60.Kb8 Rxf2 61.b7 Rb2 62.Kc7 f5
63.b8=Q Rxb8 64.Rxb8 f4 65.Kd6 f3 66.Ke5 f2 67.Rf8 Kg3 68.Ke4 Kg2
{ with a draw. 'But apparently, in this ill-fated gamePetrosian was
destined to drain the cup of bitterness.' (Averbakh) } ) 56.Ra8 $1
{ Black underestimated this reply. } 56...Rb2 ( { If } 56...Rd2+ $6 57.Kc4
Rc2+ { Zaitsev recommends } 58.Kb3 Rc6 59.Ra5+ Ke6 (
{ it is no better to play } 59...Kg4 60.Ra4+ Kh3 61.b7 Rb6+ 62.Rb4 ) (
{ or } 59...Kg6 60.Rb5 Rc8 61.b7 Rb8 62.Kc4 ) 60.Ra6 $1 { , winning. } )
57.Kc5 Rc2+ { 'The murderous Ra4 wasthreatened. } ( { For example: } 57...Kg4
58.Ra4+ Kg3 59.Rb4 Rc2+ 60.Kd6 Rc8 61.Ke6 { and White wins.' (Averbakh) } )
58.Kd4 Rb2 59.Ra5+
{ Having repeatedmoves after severe time-trouble (the second control was on
move 56), Portischcame to his senses and continued looking for winning
chances. } 59...Ke6 $6 (
{ 'It was possible to draw only in a study-like way - } 59...Kg4 $1 60.Ra4 $1
( 60.Kc5 Kxh4 ) 60...Kh3 $3 { (pointed out by Zaitsev) } 61.Kc5 f5 62.Rb4
Rxb4 $1 63.Kxb4 f4 64.b7 f3 65.b8=Q f2
{ . This is a well-known theoreticalposition, in which, thanks to his
control of g4, Black gains a draw.' (Averbakh). For example: } 66.Qf4 Kg2
67.Qg5+ Kh1 68.Qf5 Kg2 69.Qxh5 f1=Q
{ . It should still have been possible to find this saving
continuation!Incidentally, the machine altogether does not realise that
this is a draw, andgives check for a very long time, evaluating the position as '+-'. }
) 60.Kc5 Rc2+ $2 { The final error. } (
{ According to Zaitsev, 'Black would also have lostafter } 60...Kd7 61.Ra8 $1
{ but, as Dvoretsky has discovered, here Blackstill had a draw: } 61...f5
62.Rh8 $5 ( 62.Rf8 Ke6 $1 63.Kc6 Rc2+ 64.Kb7 Rh2 { and ...Rxh4 - K.Müller } )
62...f4 63.Rxh5 f3 $1 64.Rf5 f2 65.Rf8 ( 65.h5 Re2 $5 ) 65...Rc2+ $1 66.Kb5
Rb2+ 67.Ka6 Kc6 $1 68.Rf6+ Kc5 { . } ) 61.Kb5 Kd6 62.Ka6 Kc6 63.Ra1 Rc4 64.b7
Rb4 65.Rc1+ Kd7 66.Rc8
{ . --- A famous endgame,which appeared in chess publications right around
the world. --- The matchscore became 2-2, not counting draws, and now both
grandmasters were one stepaway from success (remember that the winner was the first to score three wins).It would be interesting to know what the
psychological condition of the twoplayers was at that moment. We will compare the observations of their seconds.--- Csom: 'Portisch levelled the scores after a grandiose, although far fromfaultless struggle, which lasted eight and a half hours. On seeing howincredibly tired Portisch was after the
game, I very much felt for him.Entering his hotel room, he collapsed on the bed and could only utter: "I'mfinished!" This explains his defeat in the 13th game!' --- Zaitsev: 'Thescores became level, and here a miracle occurred. Petrosian, who had beenquite unable to digest his first defeat, was suddenly, only a few hours later,suffering a second vexing loss. By contrast, Portisch, who had arisen like aphoenix from the ashes, was still under the influence of his recent successesand he arrived for the 13th game full of optimistic hopes.' }
1-0
[Event "39. Candidates Match, Palma de Mallorca"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1974.??.??"]
[Round "13"]
[White "Petrosian, T."]
[Black "Portisch, L."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "D53"]
[EventDate "1974.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Nc3 O-O 6.Rc1 $5
{ 'From this pointPortisch began thinking. Petrosian explained this, in
particular, by the factthat the Hungarian grandmaster himself likes to play
this way against theTartakower-Makogonov-Bondarevsky Variation.' (Zaitsev) }
( 6.e3 { is played moreoften - Game No.37. } ) 6...h6 7.Bh4 b6 (
{ Karpov's novelty } 7...dxc4
{ , whichhe said was devised by Polugayevsky (of course, in strictest
secret), will beanalysed in Volume 5. } ) 8.cxd5 ( { The idea } 8.Bxf6 Bxf6
9.cxd5 exd5 10.g3 $5
{ (Korchnoi-Karpov, 13th matchgame, Baguio 1978) is also discussed in
Volume 5. } ) 8...Nxd5 9.Nxd5 ( { A harmless alternative is } 9.Bxe7 Qxe7
10.Qc2 Ba6 $1 { , for example: } 11.Nxd5 ( { or } 11.g3 c5 12.Bg2 Nd7
{ (Uhlmann-Portisch,Siegen Olympiad 1970) } ) 11...exd5 12.e3 ( 12.Qxc7 $2
Nd7 $1 ) 12...Bxf1 13.Kxf1 Rc8 14.Ke2 ( 14.Qf5 Qd7 $1 ) 14...c5
{ (Portisch-Spassky, Budapest 1967). } ) 9...exd5 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.g3 $5
{ Uhlmann's move, which tries to justify 6Rc1. } 11...Ba6 ( { After }
11...Be6 { Uhlmann successfully played } 12.Bg2 c5 13.Ne5 $1 { . } ) (
{ However, in the East Germany-Byelorussia match (1971) Veresovstunned him
with the variation } 11...Re8 $5 12.Bg2 Ba6 13.Ne5 Nd7 $1 14.Rxc7 $6 Rac8 $1
{ , and it transpired that } 15.Rxd7 $2
{ is bad on account ofthe splendid counterblow } ( { while after } 15.Rxc8
Rxc8 { Black has acomfortable game } ) 15...Qb4+ 16.Kf1 Qxd4 $1 17.Nd3 Rxe2
$3 { (Petrosian). } ) ( { I don't know what Petrosian had prepared against }
11...Re8 $5 12.Rc3
{ perhaps, as Seirawan played against Karpov (London 1982; Hamburg 1982)
andGeller (Linares 1983). This last idea was the fruit of Korchnoi's
preparation (Seirawan was one of his seconds) for the match with Karpov in Merano (1981).--- Ultimately the rook move to e8 was deemed the most
accurate and, alongwith 7...dxc4!?, it has practically put the variation with 6 Rc1 out of use. }
( { Possibly } 12.Bg2 Ba6 13.e3 $5 ( { or } 13.Ne5 Nd7 $1 14.f4 $5
{ (Uhlmann-Kurajica, Sarajevo 1981) } ) 13...c5 14.Qa4 Rc8 15.Ne5 Qe6 16.Rc3
{ (Smyslov-Portisch, Tilburg 1984; Yusupov-Short, Madrid 1995) } ) ) 12.e3 $1
( { If } 12.Bg2 { , then } 12...Re8 $1
{ , transposing into variations already examined. } ) 12...c5 ( 12...Bxf1
13.Kxf1 { and Kg2 is advantageous to White. } ) 13.Bxa6 (
{ The critical, sharp reply is } 13.dxc5 $1
{ , as Korchnoi twice played againstKarpov in their 1981 Merano match: }
13...Bb7 $5 ( 13...bxc5 14.Bxa6 ( 14.Qxd5 $6 Bb7 ) 14...Nxa6 15.Qxd5 Nb4 (
15...Rab8 $5 ) 16.Qc4 Qf6 { (5th game) } 17.Qe2 $1 Rfc8 ( { after } 17...Nxa2
18.Rxc5 Rac8 19.Rxc8 Rxc8 20.O-O Nc1 21.Qd2 Nb3 22.Qb4 $1
{ White wins a pawn: } 22...Qxb2 23.Nd4 Rc3 24.Qb8+ { and Qxa7 } ) 18.a3 (
18.O-O Nxa2 { with equality } ) 18...Qxb2 $1 19.Qxb2 Nd3+ 20.Ke2 Nxb2 21.Rc2
Na4 22.Rhc1 Rc6 23.Ne5 Ra6 { , nevertheless gaining a draw; } ) 14.Bg2 (
{ not } 14.cxb6 $6 d4 $1 { , } ) ( { or } 14.c6 Nxc6 15.Bg2 d4 $1 ) 14...bxc5
15.O-O Nd7 16.Qb3 Rfb8 ( 16...Nf6 { (b6) } 17.Qa3 { ; } ) ( 16...Bc6 17.Nd4
$5 ) 17.Qa3 Qe6 18.Rfd1
{ with a slight but enduring advantage to White (7th game). } ) 13...Nxa6
14.O-O ( 14.Qa4 $6 Nb4 15.O-O Nd3 { (Zaitsev) } ) 14...Nc7 ( { After }
14...c4 { , which is usual in such cases, Black was concerned about } 15.b3
{ . } ) 15.b3 Rac8 16.Re1 $5 (
{ As in the previous game, White has not gained anythingspecial from the
opening } 16.Qd3 Qe4
{ with equality - Averbakh. But afterthis mysterious rook move, Portisch,
by his own admission, began to feeluncertain. 'I thought that Petrosian was
intending to follow up with Re2-c2,'he said at the conclusion of the match. }
) 16...Rfd8 17.h4 Ne6 ( { During thegame Petrosian considered } 17...Ne8 $1
{ and ...Nf6, and reckoned that hereBlack's chances are even slightly
better. Incidentally, Fritz finds thenatural manoeuvre ...Ne8-f6 very
quickly: the computer program is tuned tolooking for the best squares for the pieces. }
) 18.Qd3 Qf6 19.Kg2 cxd4 $6
{ 'My opponent raised his hand to make this, in general, poor move, but
thenreconsidered,' Petrosian recalled. 'I became agitated and got up from
theboard. Sensing my frame of mind, Portisch became suspicious and sank intothought, but fifteen minutes later he nevertheless decided on this
exchange.'--- Why? 'Petrosian is a great master of manoeuvring in such situations, andso Portisch's desire to clarify the situation is perfectly natural.' (Averbakh). }
(
{ Of course, it would have been better to maintain the tension in thecentre
- for example, by } 19...Rc7 { with equality. } ) 20.exd4 ( 20.Rxc8 Rxc8
21.exd4
{ followed by Re5 or Qa6 would have given a minimal advantage, but
nowPetrosian is aiming for more.' (Zaitsev) } ) 20...Rxc1 21.Rxc1
{ The keymoment of the game and of the entire match. } 21...Qf4 $6
{ 'Again an impulsive move.Black tries to solve his problems by tactical
means. In view of the threats of...Qe4 or ...Qg4 White is obliged to accept
the challenge.' (Averbakh) --- Thequeen move was condemned by all the commentators, and was even called'probably the most unfortunate move in
Portisch's career.' (Hajtun) However,from the purely chess viewpoint, it is by no means a losing move, and itshould be condemned only from the psychological point of view. }
( { The calmwaiting move } 21...Re8 { , and if } 22.Ne5 { , then } 22...Qe7
$1
{ , would havemaintained approximate equality and would not have given
White those chancesthat he unexpectedly acquired in the game. } (
{ but not } 22...Nxd4 $2 23.Ng4 ) ) 22.gxf4 $1
{ This essentially forced pawn sacrifice came as a surprise toPortisch. An
underestimation of the opponent's latent resources was always hisAchilles'
heel. } 22...Nxf4+ 23.Kg3 Nxd3 24.Rc3 Nb4 (
{ Petrosian and othercommentators recommended the 'drawing' } 24...Nb2
{ , assuming that White hadnothing better than to pursue the knight after
25 Rc2. However, in my view, itis stronger to play } 25.h5 $1 Re8 26.Ne5 f6
( 26...a6 27.Rc6 ) 27.Ng6 Re4 28.Rc8+ ( 28.f3 Rxd4 29.Rc2 $1 Nd1 30.Ne7+ Kf7
31.Nf5 Rd3 32.Rc7+ Kf8 33.Rxa7 { is also interesting } ) 28...Kf7 29.Rc7+ Ke6
30.Rxg7 Rxd4 31.Rxa7 { , regaining the pawn and retaining the initiative. } )
25.a3 Na6 26.b4 $1
{ According to Csom, it was this move that Portisch did not anticipate when
heplayed 21...Qf4?! He was intending to neutralise White's pressure on
thec-file by ...Rd7-c7, but now he was concerned about the threat of b4-b5. }
26...Nb8 $2
{ Psychology in action! 'The unexpected change in the situation
unsettledPortisch and he was unable to defend calmly.' (Averbakh) } (
{ Black had twobetter ways to continue: -- 1) } 26...Kh7 27.b5 Nb8 28.Rc7 Rd7
$1 29.Rc8 Rb7 { (Averbakh, Zaitsev) } 30.Ne5 Nd7 ( 30...g6 31.Rd8 ) 31.Nxf7
Nf6 32.Ne5 $1 a6 $5 ( { if } 32...Ne4+ 33.Kg2 Nd6 $6 34.Rd8 Nxb5 { , then }
35.h5 $1 { - with thethreat of Ng6 and Rh8 mate - } 35...g5 36.hxg6+ Kg7
37.Rxd5 Nxa3 38.f4 $1 { etc } ) 33.a4 axb5 34.axb5 Ne4+ 35.Kg4 ( 35.Kg2 Ra7
$1 ) 35...Nxf2+ ( { but not } 35...Nd6 $2 36.Rd8 Nxb5 37.h5 $1 { , winning }
) 36.Kf5 Ne4 $1 37.Rd8 ( { or } 37.Ke6 Nf6 ) 37...Re7 38.Rxd5 Ng3+
{ with drawing chances; } ) ( { 2) } 26...Rd7 $1
{ (in Petrosian's opinion, the best move) } 27.Rc8+ ( 27.b5 Nc7 28.Ne5 Re7
29.Nc6 Re1 { with equality - Zaitsev } ) 27...Kh7 28.b5 Nc7 29.Ne5 Re7 30.Nc6
Rd7 31.Nxa7 Ne8 $1
{ . This variation is given by all the commentators. Indeed,after } 32.Ra8 (
{ or } 32.Rxe8 Rxa7 ) 32...Nd6 33.a4 Kg6 $1
{ Black, byactivating his king, can count on a draw. --- Instead of this
Portisch triedto transfer his 'bad' knight to the centre, but as a result
he came undersevere positional pressure. } ) 27.Rc7 a5 ( 27...a6 $6 28.Ne5 f6
29.Ng6 { (Zaitsev) } ) 28.b5 $1 { Fixing the weakness at b6. } (
{ 'The only way! After } 28.bxa5 bxa5 29.Ne5 f6 30.Ng6 Na6 $1 31.Ra7 Nb8
{ Black succeeds in gainingcounterplay.' (Zaitsev) } ) 28...Nd7 29.Kf4 $1
{ White has more than sufficientcompensation for the pawn - all his pieces
are participating in the offensive!The tenacious defence of such a
dangerous and non-standard situation proves tobe beyond Portisch's powers. }
29...h5 $6 ( { The best chance was } 29...Nf8 { : } 30.Rc6 $1
{ is the correct plan, in my opinion: } ( { after the tempting } 30.Rb7 Rd6
31.Ne5 Ng6+ $6 ( { but } 31...Rf6+ $1
{ is more accurate, driving back the king } ) 32.Nxg6 Rxg6 33.Ke5
{ 'Black has a difficult game' (Zaitsev). } ) 30...Ng6+ $1 ( { not } 30...Rb8
31.Ke5 Rd8 32.h5 $1 { Zaitsev } ) 31.Kg4 { , for example: } 31...Rb8 (
31...Re8 $6 { (a desperate try for counterplay) } 32.Rxb6 Re4+ 33.Kg3 Ne7
34.Rb8+ Kh7 35.b6 Nf5+ 36.Kg2 Rg4+ 37.Kf1
{ and the outside passed b-pawndecides the outcome: } 37...Nxh4 ( { or }
37...Nxd4 38.Nxd4 Rxd4 39.Re8 $1 Rd1+ 40.Re1 Rd3 41.Rb1 ) 38.Ne5 $1 Rxd4
39.b7 Rd1+ 40.Ke2 Rb1 41.Nxf7 Ng6 42.Nd6 { ; } ) 32.Rd6 f6 $5 ( 32...Ne7
33.Ne5 $1 g6 34.h5 ) 33.h5 $1 ( 33.Rxd5 h5+ $1 ) 33...Ne7 34.Nh4 Kf7 35.Nf5
Rb7 36.a4 $1 { (a pretty position!) } 36...g6 ( { not } 36...Nxf5 $6 37.Kxf5
Ke7 38.Re6+ Kf7 39.Rc6 ) 37.Ng3 $1 { and Black has adifficult defence: }
37...gxh5+ ( 37...g5 38.Nf5 $1 ) 38.Nxh5 Ng8 39.Kf5 Ne7+ ( 39...Ke7 40.Rxd5
Rc7 41.Kg6 $1 ) 40.Kf4 Ng8 41.Rxd5 Rc7 42.Ke4 { etc. } ) 30.Ne5 $1 Nf8
{ Now Black is forced to play this, allowing the white knight to goto c6; }
( { since the exchange } 30...Nxe5 31.Kxe5
{ would have led to a lostrook endgame: or } 31...Kf8 ( 31...f6+ 32.Kf5
{ (threatening Kg6) } ( 32.Ke6 g5 33.Kxf6 gxh4 34.Rg7+ Kh8 35.Rg5
{ is also sufficient } ) 32...Kh7 33.Ke6 Kg6 34.Rc6 $1 ) 32.Rc6 $1 f6+ 33.Kf5
$1 Rb8 ( 33...Re8 34.Rxb6 Re4 35.Rc6 $1 { and b5-b6 } ) 34.Kg6 Rb7 35.Rc8+
Ke7 36.Kxg7 { . } ) 31.Rb7 f6 32.Nc6
{ 'Black's position is hopeless. Realising that things had taken an
irreparableturn, Portisch became rattled.' (Zaitsev). } 32...Ng6+ $6 (
{ After } 32...Re8 $1
{ (the last chance) White would still have had to avoid a number of
pitfalls - } 33.Kg3 $1 ( 33.Rxb6 Re4+ ) 33...Re2 $1 34.Ne7+ Kh8 $1 (
{ after } 34...Kh7 35.Nxd5 { the f6-pawn is under attack } ) 35.Nf5 $1
{ with threats on both wings: } ( 35.Nxd5 Ne6 $1 36.Nxb6 Nxd4
{ is not as good } ) 35...g6 ( 35...Ra2 36.Nxg7 Rxa3+ 37.f3 Rb3 38.Nxh5 Rxb5
39.Nxf6 a4 40.Rf7 $1 Rb1 41.Rxf8+ Kg7 42.Nd7 { and wins; } ( 42.-- ) ) (
35...Ne6 36.Rxb6 g6 37.Rb8+ Kh7 38.Rb7+ Kh8 39.Ne3 Nxd4 40.b6 $1 Rb2 41.Nxd5
Nf5+ 42.Kh3 { and wins } ) 36.Ne3 Ne6 ( 36...Rd2 37.Nxd5 { and Nxf6 } )
37.Nxd5 Nxd4 38.Nxf6 Nf5+ 39.Kh3 Re7 ( { or } 39...Ne7 ) 40.Rxb6
{ with an overwhelming advantage. } ) 33.Kg3
{ The rest is a matter ofstraightforward technique. } 33...Rd6 (
{ It is better to play } 33...Re8 { (Zaitsev),but here too after } 34.Rxb6
{ Black is unable to save the game: } 34...Re1 ( 34...Re4 35.f3 ) 35.Rb8+
{ and b6-b7. } ) 34.Rxb6 Re6 35.Rb8+ Nf8 ( 35...Kh7 36.Rd8 $1 ) 36.Ra8 Re1
37.Nd8 ( { 'White could also have won by } 37.b6 Rb1 38.Nb4 axb4 39.a4 b3
40.b7 b2 41.Rxf8+ { , but Petrosian prefers a more certain way.' (Zaitsev) }
) 37...Kh7 ( { Or } 37...Rg1+ 38.Kf3 Rb1 39.Ne6 { etc. } ) 38.b6 Rb1 39.b7
Nd7 40.Rxa5
{ . --- 'Petrosian played with the precision of a clockmechanism.' (Hajtun)
--- Thus Portisch was eliminated from the Candidatescycle, which in the end
was won by the 23-year-old Anatoly Karpov, who wasthen proclaimed world champion in the spring of 1975, when Fischer refused todefend his title. }
1-0
[Event "40. Final Match, Milan"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1975.??.??"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Portisch, L."]
[Black "Karpov, A."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "E54"]
[EventDate "1975.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ The difficult match with Petrosian unsettled the Hungarian grandmaster
for atime, but in 1975 he began to regain his previous form. In the winter
he tookfirst place at Wijk aan Zee, where, incidentally, he won four times (so far,the only others to have achieved this are Euwe, Korchnoi and
Anand - I beganplaying in Wijk aan Zee in 1988 and after three successive victories from 1999to 2001 I hope that this is not the limit). And at the end of the summer heperformed splendidly in the super-tournament in Milan - the city which hadbeen intending at that time to stage the
Fischer-Karpov match. --- This eventwith twelve grandmasters was held in two stages. First, an all-play-alltournament: 1. Portisch - 7 out of 11; 2-4. Karpov, Petrosian and Ljubojevic (ahead of Smejkal, Tal, Browne, Andersson, Gligoric. Larsen...). Thensemi-final matches Portisch-Ljubojevic (2˝-1˝) and Karpov-Petrosian (2-2,but Karpov had the superior tie-break coefficient). And in the end, a six-gamefinal: Karpov-Portisch. --- The young world champion took the lead, by winningthe 2nd game. But then, after two draws, he unexpectedly made a seriousmistake in the opening of the 5th
game, and Portisch was presented with a realopportunity to level the score in the match (and in the event of it finishing3-3 he would have been declared winner of the tournament). --- }
1.c4 ( { Timman-Karpov (referred to below) saw } 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5
4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Nf3 Be7 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Bd3 Nc6 9.O-O O-O 10.Re1 Nf6 11.a3
b6 12.Bc2 { , and now } 12...Ba6 $1 { . } ) 1...Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.d4 Bb4 4.e3 c5
5.Bd3 O-O 6.Nf3 d5 7.O-O cxd4 8.exd4 dxc4 9.Bxc4 b6 10.Re1 (
{ In the 1st gameBlack equalised after } 10.Bg5 Bb7 11.Rc1 Nc6 12.a3 Be7
13.Qd3 Rc8 14.Rfd1 Nd5 $5 15.Bxd5 ( 15.Bxe7 Ncxe7 { with equality } )
15...Bxg5 16.Nxg5 Qxg5 17.Be4 h6 18.Qe3 Rfd8 { . } ) 10...Bb7 11.Bd3 Nc6
12.a3 Be7
{ An openingtransformation typical of modern chess: from a Nimzo-Indian
Defence a tabiyahas arisen from the Tarrasch Defence Deferred in the
Queen's Gambit. } 13.Bc2 $5 ( { Here the usual } 13.Bg5 { is pointless: }
13...Rc8 14.Bc2 Re8 15.Qd3 g6 16.Rad1 Nd5
{ leads to equality, since White does not gain a tempo by attackingthe rook
with } 17.Bh6
{ . Therefore White wants first to play Qd3, provoking ...g7-g6, and then
to play Bh6 immediately. } ) 13...Re8 ( { An interestingalternative is }
13...Ba6 $1
{ , preventing Qd3. Karpov employed thiswell-known move against Timman
(Wijk aan Zee 1998), although this was via theCaro-Kann (see 1 e4 c6 above)
- it is psychologically easier to play ...Ba6with the undeveloped bishop from c8 than when it has been developed at b7. }
) 14.Qd3 Rc8 $2 { 'Overlooking White's threat. } ( { ' } 14...g6
{ was essential.' (Portisch) It is strange that Karpov repeated the same
mistake he had made (with his king's rook on f8) four years earlier in a
game with Smyslov (Volume2, Game No.117). For a certain period he was unfortunate when playing againstan isolated d4-pawn. }
) 15.d5 $1 exd5 (
{ From the practical point of view,possibly the lesser evil was } 15...Na5
16.Bg5 $1 Rxc3 $5 17.Qxc3 Qxd5 ( 17...Nxd5 $6 18.Bxe7 Qxe7 19.Qd3 Nf6 20.Rad1
{ is inferior } ) 18.Rac1 h6
{ withsome compensation for the exchange, although it is nevertheless
insufficientafter } 19.Be3 Qh5 20.Bd1 $1 { . } ) 16.Bg5 $1
{ Karpov had overlooked this move. } 16...Ne4 ( { 'If } 16...g6
{ White wins by } 17.Rxe7 $1 Qxe7 18.Nxd5 { (Portisch),although after }
18...Nxd5 19.Bxe7 Ncxe7 { he still has much work to do. } ) 17.Nxe4 dxe4
18.Qxe4 g6 19.Qh4 h5 20.Rad1 $5 { The obvious move; } ( { but } 20.Bb3 $1
{ would have won quickly, for example: } 20...Bxg5 ( 20...Qc7 21.Qe4 Kg7
22.Bxf7 $1 Kxf7 23.Bh6 $1 { (Portisch) } 23...Qd6 ( 23...Qd7 24.Rad1 $1 )
24.Qc4+ Kf6 25.Ng5 $1 Nd8 26.Qh4 $1 { ; } ) 21.Nxg5 Rxe1+ ( 21...Rc7 22.Qf4
$1 { Portisch } ) 22.Rxe1 Kg7 ( { it is no better to play } 22...Qd2 23.Rd1 )
( { or } 22...Ne5 23.Qf4 Bd5 24.Rd1 $1 Bxb3 25.Rxd8+ Rxd8 26.h3 ) 23.Bxf7 Qd2
24.Nf3 Qxb2 25.Bxg6 $1 Kxg6 26.Qg5+ Kh7 27.Re6
{ with a spectacular rout. --- 'Of course, I saw20 Bb3, but I did not
concern myself with the calculation of the variationsand after an hour's
thought I chose a "prettier", but also weaker continuation.' (Portisch) } )
20...Qc7 21.Bxg6 $1
{ 'It was this tempting sacrifice thatdiverted me from the correct course.
We were already both tired... Alas, atthe decisive moment I went wrong.'
(Portisch) } (
{ Incidentally, there was nosimple positional solution for White: if } 21.Be4
{ , then } 21...Bxg5 22.Qxg5 Na5 $1 23.Bxb7 Nxb7 { was adequate. } )
21...fxg6
{ Judging by Portisch's commentary,White has already missed the win, but
this is not so. Here is the realculmination of this dramatic game: } 22.Qc4+
$2 ( { 'If } 22.Re6 Red8 $1 ( { 'Black defends by } 22...Rcd8
{ ' (Portisch). However, the computer instantlyfinds the winning } 23.Rde1 $1
Rd6 ( { or } 23...Bxg5 24.Rxg6+ Kf8 25.Qxg5 Rxe1+ 26.Nxe1 Ne7 27.Qf6+ $1 Ke8
28.Qe6 $1 Kf8 29.Rf6+ Ke8 30.Rh6 $1
{ - this is pretty without any inverted commas! } ) 24.Qc4 $1 Rxe6
{ (there isnothing else) } 25.Rxe6 ( 25.Qxe6+ Kg7 26.Nh4 { is also decisive }
) 25...Kh8 26.Qc3+ Kh7 27.Qc2 Rg8 28.Rxe7+ { . } ) (
{ It was also hopeless to play } 22...Bf8 23.Rxg6+ Bg7 24.Bf6 Re7 25.Qg5 ) (
22...Kg7 $2 23.Qe4 ) ( { or } 22...Kh7 23.Rde1 $1 Nd8 24.Rxe7+ Rxe7 25.Bxe7
Bxf3 26.gxf3 Nf7 27.Qf6 Nh6 28.Bd6 Ng8 29.Qe6 Qb7 30.f4 { etc. } ) 23.Rde1 $1
Rd6 { , however, is more tenacious,and now: } 24.Bxe7
{ (all that remains for White) } (
{ (in contrast to thevariation with 22...Rcd8), it is wrong to play } 24.Qc4
$6 Rxe6 25.Qxe6+ ( 25.Rxe6 $6 Ne5 $1 ) 25...Kg7 26.Bxe7 ( 26.Nh4 Bxg5
{ with equality } ) 26...Nxe7 27.Qxe7+ Qxe7 28.Rxe7+ Kf6 29.Re3 g5
{ with good drawing chances. } ) 24...Rxe6 25.Rxe6 Nxe7 $1 ( { but not }
25...Ne5 26.Ne1 $1 Bd5 27.Bd6 $1 Qd7 28.Rxe5 Qxd6 29.Rxh5 $1 gxh5 30.Qg5+ Kf7
31.Qf5+ { and Qxc8, winning } ) 26.Rxe7 Qd6 27.Ne1 $1
{ with hopes of nevertheless converting his extra pawn. } ) 22...Kg7 23.Bf4
Ba6 $1 { 'This move caught me unawares. } ( { 'I had only reckoned on }
23...b5 { , which after } 24.Qc3+ Bf6 25.Bxc7 Bxc3 26.Rxe8 Rxe8 27.bxc3
{ would have given White a decisive advantage in the endgame, since the
blackpieces are idle.' (Portisch). However, even here the win would still
not havebeen easy. } ) 24.Qc3+ Bf6 25.Bxc7 Bxc3 26.Rxe8 Rxe8 27.bxc3 Be2 $5
28.Re1 ( 28.Rd7+ Kg8 $1 ) 28...Rc8 $1 29.Rxe2 Rxc7 30.Re6 Nd8 $1 (
{ The careless } 30...Na5 $2 { would have led to disaster: } 31.Ne5 Rxc3
32.Rxg6+ Kf8 33.f4 Rxa3 34.Rh6 b5 35.Rxh5 b4 ( { or } 35...Nc4 36.Nxc4 bxc4
37.Rc5 c3 38.Kf2 ) 36.Rh8+ Kg7 37.Rb8 b3 38.h4 $1 Ra2 39.Kh2 b2 40.h5
{ and the white pawnsare stronger. } ) 31.Re3 Kf6
{ 'White's extra pawn does not bring success, dueto the weakness of his
queenside pawns. Karpov gains a draw with theconfidence of a world
champion.' (Portisch) And... not without the help of hisopponent! As at the finish of his game with Fischer (Game No.36), thedistraught Portisch
begins to 'drift' and fails to exploit his remaining,albeit not very significant, winning chances. }
32.Kf1 ( { If } 32.Nd4 $5 { it is possible to play } 32...Rc4 33.Kf1 Ra4
34.Re8 ( { or } 34.Nc2 Ne6 ) 34...Nb7 35.Re6+ Kf7 36.Rc6 Nc5
{ , aiming for the exchange of the a- and b-pawns forWhite's a- and
c-pawns. } ) 32...Ne6 33.g3 g5 34.h3 Nc5 35.Nd2 (
{ Had the twoplayers exchanged places, it would have been interesting to
see how Blackwould have fought for a draw after } 35.Ke2 $1 a6 ( { or }
35...Na4 36.Nd2 $1 Kf5 37.Ne4 ) 36.Nd4 Na4 37.Kd2
{ . In such positions Karpov would torment hisopponents right to the last
chance. } ) 35...Rd7 36.Ke2 Rd5 37.c4 Rd4 38.Re8 h4 39.Rf8+ Ke7 40.Rh8 (
{ It was somewhat better to try } 40.Rf5 $5 g4 41.hxg4 hxg3 42.fxg3 Rxg4
43.Rf3 { , retaining an extra pawn on the kingside. } ) 40...hxg3 41.fxg3 Rd3
{ This last move was sealed. } ( { A draw was agreed on White'sproposal: }
41...Rd3 42.Rh7+ Ke6 43.Rxa7 Rxg3 44.Nf3 g4 45.hxg4 Rxg4
{ . --- Thus, Karpov nevertheless won the match (3˝-2˝), but this did
notgreatly distress Portisch, who declared: 'I am pleased that I am the
firstHungarian chess player to have played a match with a world champion, even ifit was not for the supreme title. I am not ashamed of my defeat.
The Milantournament was a major event in my life.' } ) 1/2-1/2
[Event "41. Match-Tournament, Varese"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1976.??.??"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Tal, M."]
[Black "Portisch, L."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "B97"]
[EventDate "1976.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ It was time for the Interzonal tournament in Biel (1976), where
threequalifying places for the Candidates matches were contested (as was
the casethree years earlier, FIDE held two Interzonal tournaments). Here Larsen wasvictorious, and Portisch again shared 2nd-4th places, this
time with Petrosianand Tal. In order to sift out the 'superfluous' one, an additional four-roundmatch-tournament between them was staged. --- The former world championsagreed a non-aggression pact: all four of their games lasted not more than17-20 moves. And since Portisch had
lost to Petrosian at the start, to allappearances it was he who had been assigned the role of victim. However, theseplans were upset by the following game. --- }
1.e4 c5
{ 'The firstmanifestation of activity - the Hungarian grandmaster rather
often defends theRuy Lopez.' (Tal) Incidentally, in that opening Portisch
lost to Tal in Bieland gained a very important draw with him in the 4th cycle of thematch-tournament. }
2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 (
{ In thegame Smyslov-Portisch (2nd matchgame, Portoroz 1971) White seized
theinitiative after } 6.Be2 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 $6 (
{ but then everyone reverted to } 7...Be7 $1 ) 8.f4 $1 { (a novelty!) }
8...Qc7 9.f5 ( 9.g4 $1 ) 9...Bc4 10.Bf3 a5 $6 11.a4 Nc6 $6 12.Bg5 Nb4 13.Bxf6
gxf6 14.Be2 $1 Bxb3 15.Bb5+ { . } ) 6...e6 7.f4 Qb6 $5
{ A surprise. 'I gained the impression,' writes Tal, 'that in the
entireperiod from Biel to Varese Portisch had been working on this sharp
variationand that he had guessed very successfully - since 6 Bg5 might not havehappened: in recent times I have preferred other moves. And
one more thing.The tournament situation (Portisch was trailing by half a point) did notdemand that his opponent should definitely play for a win, and did not forcehim to burn his boats. On the other hand, the score of my previous gamesagainst Portisch with White (+6=1) as though
obliged me to push hard. Byexcellently exploiting both these factors, Portisch skilfully lured hisopponent into a psychological trap - in the variation White has chosen he isobliged to act decisively, and there is no room for hesitation.' }
( { I shouldadd that previously Portisch had played only } 7...Be7
{ - this was also howhis later game with Tal (Niksic 1983) continued: } 8.Qf3
Qc7 9.O-O-O Nbd7 10.Qg3 Nc5 11.Bd3 h6 $1 12.Bh4 O-O 13.Rhe1 Nh5 14.Qg4 Bxh4
15.Qxh4 Nxf4 16.Qxf4 e5 17.Qh4 $6 exd4 18.Nd5 Qd8 19.Ne7+ Kh8 20.Rf1 ( 20.e5
Bg4 $3 ) 20...Bg4 $3 21.Rf6 $1 Kh7 $1 22.Rdf1 $1 Nxd3+ 23.cxd3
{ (threatening Rxh6+) } 23...Rc8+ $3 24.Nxc8 Qc7+ $1 25.Kb1 Rxc8
{ ˝-˝. A fighting draw! } ) 8.Qd2 ( 8.Nb3
{ is much safer and more pragmatic, as was later played against Portisch by
manyof his opponents, including Spassky (Tilburg 1979), and against me by
Topalov (Novgorod 1997) and Leko (Linares 2001). But could Tal really avoid the pawnsacrifice?! On the contrary, after 7...Qb6 it is probable that he
mentallychalked up another point, since he had already gained a number of spectacularwins in this variation. However - and it was this that Portisch had reckonedon! - the value of each move is now very high, and if White's attack shouldpeter out, things will be difficult for him without his 'base'
b2-pawn. } ) 8...Qxb2 9.Nb3
{ The fashion of those years, stemming from the Spassky-Fischermatch. } (
{ But the main line, known since the times of the games
Fischer-Geller(Monaco 1967) and Kavalek-Fischer (Sousse Interzonal 1967),
later became } 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.f5 $1 ( 10.e5 $6 { - Volume 2, Game No.121 } ) (
10.Be2 ) ( { or } 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Be2 { is more modest } ) 10...Nc6 11.fxe6
fxe6 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.e5 $5
{ etc. In these variations Portisch achieved a score of +7=4 with
Black,without any defeats! } ( 13.Be2 Be7 $1 ) ) 9...Qa3 (
{ Also possible is } 9...Nc6 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Be2 ( 11.Na4 Qa3 12.Nb6 Rb8
13.Nc4 Qa4
{ is stronger, as inAdams-Gelfand, 3rd matchgame, Wijk aan Zee 1994 } )
11...d5 $1 12.Na4 $6 Qa3 13.Nb6 d4 $1 14.O-O Rb8 15.Nc4 $2 Qb4 16.Qd1 b5 $1
{ ... 0-1 (Nunn-Portisch,Toluca Interzonal 1982). } ) 10.Bxf6 ( { Not }
10.Bd3 Be7 11.O-O h6 $1 { ,Spassky-Fischer, 7th matchgame, Reykjavik 1972. }
) 10...gxf6 11.Be2
{ One ofthe critical positions. This move occurred in some training games
of mine withMagerramov in the late 1970s to early 1980s, where I played
White (later thisunexpectedly came in useful when playing Black in my world championship matchwith Short). }
11...Nc6 (
{ The famous 11th game of the Spassky-Fischer match (Reykjavik 1972) went }
11...h5 12.O-O Nc6 13.Nb1 $1
{ and crushingZilberstein (Latvia-Russian Federation match 1973) Black also
fails toequalise with } ( 13.Kh1 Bd7 14.Nd1 ( 14.Nb1 $5 Qb4 ( 14...Qb2 $1
{ is better - into the lion's mouth! } ) 15.Qe3 d5 $6 16.exd5 Ne7 17.c4 $1
Nf5 18.Qd3 h4 $2 19.Bg4 Nd6 20.N1d2 f5 $2 21.a3 Qb6 22.c5 $1 Qb5 23.Qc3 $1
fxg4 24.a4 { ... 1-0. } ) (
{ Soon afterwards Tal twiceimproved on Spassky's idea, gaining the
advantage against Robert Byrne (Leningrad Interzonal 1973) by } 14.Qe3 $5 Rc8
( 14...Na5 15.Nd5 $1 ) 15.Nb1 $1 Qa4 ( 15...Qb2 $2 16.N1d2 b5 17.a3 ) 16.c4
Na5 17.Qc3 Nxc4 18.Qxf6 ) 14...Rc8 15.Ne3 Qb4 16.c3 Qxe4 17.Bd3 Qa4 18.Nc4
Rc7 19.Nb6 Qa3
{ is alsounclear, Short-Kasparov, 4th matchgame, London 1993. } ) 13...Qb4 (
{ after } 13...Qa4 14.c4 Qb4 15.Qe3 Bg7 $2 16.a3 Qa4 17.Qg3 $1 Kf8 18.Nc3 $1
{ . } ( 18.-- ) ) ( 13...Qb2 $2 14.a3 $1 ) 14.Qe3 d5 ( { or } 14...f5 15.exf5
d5 16.fxe6 fxe6 17.c3 Qe7 18.N1d2
{ (Robatsch-Korchnoi, Palma de Mallorca 1972) } ) 15.exd5 Ne7 16.Nc3 Nf5
17.Qd3 Qb6+ 18.Rf2 $1 Qe3 19.Ne4 $1 Qxd3 20.Bxd3 Be7 21.Re1 Kf8 22.dxe6 Bxe6
23.Nec5 { (Mecking-Tal, Las Palmas 1975). } ) ( { For this reason, after }
11...h5 12.O-O { , I prefer } 12...Nd7 $5 13.Kh1 h4 $1 14.h3 ( { or } 14.Bg4
h3 $1 15.Bxh3 Rxh3 16.gxh3 b5
{ with excellent compensation for the exchange } ) 14...Be7
{ with adouble-edged game (Short-Kasparov, Riga 1995). } ) 12.O-O Bd7
{ A usefuldeveloping move: Black tries to manage without ...h7-h5, not
fearing thestandard attack with Bh5. } 13.f5 $6
{ One senses a certain underestimation ofthe opponent, as well as an
overestimation of White's chances and the habit ofattacking on general
grounds. } (
{ Tal avoids repeating his game with Platonov (Dubna 1973), in which after
} 13.Bh5 $6 Bg7 $1 14.Rf3 O-O { (the bishop at h5merely hinders the attack) }
15.Raf1 $6 ( 15.Rd1 ) 15...Na5 16.Rh3 $6 Nxb3 ( 16...Rac8 $5 ) 17.axb3 Rac8
18.Kh1 f5 $1
{ , Black achieved excellentprospects (although in the end he lost). --- On
this occasion White firstwants to break up the enemy king's defences and
then play Bh5 with check.However, Black's knight acquires a convenient transit point at e5 and his kingsafely withdraws to the queenside. }
) ( { Therefore the waiting } 13.Kh1 { wasbetter, when } 13...h5
{ (cf. the note to 11...Nc6) } ( { or } 13...Rc8 { was possible. } ) )
13...Ne5 $1 ( { More energetic than } 13...Be7 { . } ) 14.fxe6 (
{ Lepeshkinrecommended } 14.Qd4 $6 Bg7 15.fxe6 fxe6 16.Bh5+ { , but after }
16...Ke7 $1 17.Rad1 a5 { and ...Qb4 Black has an obvious advantage. } )
14...fxe6 15.Bh5+
{ White cheerfully follows his plan, driving the king precisely in the
directionof where it is aiming - to b8 (after ... Ra8-c8). } 15...Kd8 $1
{ The triumph ofPortisch's preparation; he spent just seven minutes on
these 15 moves. } ( { After } 15...Ke7 $6
{ , Tal very much liked the spectacular } 16.Rxf6 $1 Bg7 $1
{ is, objectively, the correct path: } ( 16...Kxf6 $2 17.Rf1+ Kg7 18.Qg5+ Ng6
19.Qf6+ Kh6 20.Bxg6 Bg7 21.Qh4+ Kxg6 22.Qg4+ Kh6 23.Rf3 { and wins. } (
23.-- ) ) 17.Rf2 h6 18.Rd1 a5 $1 ( { but not } 18...Rhf8 $2 19.Nb1 $1 )
19.Qf4 Rhf8 20.Qg3 Bh8 21.Rdf1 Rf6 { with an unclear game: } 22.Nd4 $1
{ (threateningNd5+!) } 22...Qc5 23.Nf5+ $1 exf5 24.Nd5+ Ke6 ( 24...Kf8 25.Qh4
$1 { is dangerous } ) 25.Nf4+ Ke7
{ with a draw. However, the move in the game is both more logical,and
stronger. } ) 16.Rab1 ( { Now } 16.Rxf6 $6 { is unfavourable on account of }
16...Rc8 $1 { (Lepeshkin), for example: } 17.Qe3 ( { or } 17.Rf2 Qb4 $1
18.Qg5+ Kc7 19.Qe3 Bg7 ) ( { it is no better to play } 17.Nb1 Qb2 18.Rf2 Nc4
19.Qd3 Qe5 20.Be2 Bh6 $1 ) ( { or } 17.Ne2 $2 Nc4 $1 ) 17...Qb4 $1 18.Ne2 Be7
19.a3 Qa4 20.Qb6+ Rc7 21.Rf4 Qc6 { . } ) 16...Rc8
{ With the same threat of ...Qb4. } 17.Ne2
{ 'The knight aims for an attack on the vulnerable e6-pawn.' (Tal) } (
{ Therecommendation of } 17.Qd4 $6
{ , 'with good tactical chances' (Lepeshkin), isdubious in view of } 17...b5
18.Rbd1 ( 18.Ra1 $2 Rc4 19.Qf2 Bg7 ) 18...Rc6 19.Nb1 Qa4 $1 { . } ) 17...Be7
( { Another possibility is the immediate } 17...Kc7 $5 18.Rxf6 ( 18.Nbd4 Kb8
) 18...Bg7 19.Rff1 Rhf8 20.Qg5 Rg8 $1
{ with a comfortablegame, but for the moment Portisch is aiming to retain
his extra pawn. } ) 18.Nf4 Kc7 19.Be2 { The return of the 'prodigal son'. }
( 19.Nd4 { would also havemaintained the balance, for example: } 19...Kb8 (
{ or } 19...Nc4 20.Ndxe6+ Kb8 21.Qd5 b5 22.Qd4 Qe3+ ) 20.Nfxe6 { or } (
20.Be2 $5 Ka8 $1 ) 20...Qc3 { (Lepeshkin) } ( 20...Bxe6 21.Nxe6 Qxa2 22.Nd4
( 22.Qb4 b5 ) 22...d5 ) 21.Qf2 $5 Bxe6 22.Nxe6 Qxc2 23.Be2 $1 Ka8 24.Qb6 Qc6
25.Qb4 Rhe8 { . } ) 19...Kb8
{ Afterspending about an hour on his last four moves, Portisch has
achievedartificial queenside castling. } ( { If } 19...Ng6
{ , in order, at the cost ofthe exchange of the powerful knight, to reduce
the pressure on the e6-pawn,White would also have gained sufficient
counterplay by } 20.Nd4 { with thesequel } 20...Nxf4 ( { or } 20...Qc5 21.Kh1
$1 Nxf4 22.Rxf4 Rhg8 23.Rh4 { etc } ) 21.Rxf4 e5 $6 22.Rf3 Qxa2 23.Qb4 Kd8
24.Rb2 Qf7 25.Nf5 { . } ) 20.Na5 $2 (
{ Of course, the correct move (suggested by all the commentators) was }
20.Nd4 { , with a sufficient initiative to maintain the balance: } 20...Nc4
( 20...Ka8 21.Nfxe6 Qc3 $1 ) ( { not immediately } 20...Qc3 $2
{ on account of } 21.Qxc3 Rxc3 22.Bxa6 Bc8 23.Nfxe6 Ra3 $2 ( { or } 23...Ka8
24.Bd3 ) 24.Bc4 $1 ) 21.Bxc4 Rxc4 22.Nfxe6 $1 ( 22.Ndxe6 Rxe4 $1 23.Qd5 Qe3+
24.Kh1 b5 25.Rf3 Rb4 $1 ) 22...Qc3 $1 ( { now } 22...Qxa2
{ is dangerous in view of } 23.Nf4 $1 Rhc8 24.Kh1 ) 23.Qxc3 (
{ it is no better to play } 23.Qf2 Bxe6 24.Nxe6 Rxe4 ) ( { or } 23.Qd3 Bxe6
24.Nxe6 Rhc8 ) 23...Rxc3 24.Nf4 Rc4 25.Rbd1 Bc6
{ and the position is a draw. } ) 20...b5 $1
{ An indication of Tal's poor form; } ( { by his own admission,after }
20...b5 { he was planning } 21.c4 { , but he overlooked the reply } 21...Bd8
$1 { . } ) 21.Nb3 { (forced, alas) } 21...Bd8 $1 22.Kh1 Bb6
{ Thanks to the gift of acouple of tempi, Black has activated his bishop
and can look to the futurewith optimism. However, White's position is still
far from hopeless: hisknights are capable of displaying truly Chigorin-like agility. }
23.Nh5 $1 Rc7 $6 ( { Tal thought that } 23...f5 $1
{ was stronger. Indeed this would have givenBlack a more appreciable
advantage: } 24.exf5 exf5 25.Nf6 ( 25.Bd3 Rhf8 26.Ng3 Nc4 $1 ) 25...Be6 26.c3
( { the recommendation } 26.Nd5 $2 { is not good onaccount of } 26...Bxd5
27.Qxd5 Rxc2 28.Bd1 Rc3 $1 { , } ) ( { while if } 26.Bd3 { , then } 26...Rcf8
$1 27.Nh5 Bc8 ( { or } 27...Nc4 ) ) 26...Rhd8 $1 { and now: } ( { not }
26...Bd8 27.Nd5 $1 ) ( { or } 26...Rc7 27.Nd4 $1 ) 27.Nxh7
{ (at least regaining material) } ( 27.Nd4 Bf7 28.Nxb5 $6
{ (a desperate chance) } ( 28.Bxb5 $6 axb5 29.Rxb5 Ka8 $1 ) 28...axb5 29.Rxb5
Ka7 30.Rfb1 Rc6 $1 31.R5b4 Nc4 $1 32.Qe1 Na5 $1 33.Bf3 Qxc3 34.Bxc6 (
34.Qe7+ $2 Rc7 35.Qxd8 Qc1+ 36.Bd1 Qd2 { and wins } ) 34...Qxe1+ 35.Rxe1 Nxc6
36.Ra4+ Kb7 37.Nxh7 Ne5
{ and the two bishops aresuperior to the rook and pawn. } ) 27...Ng4 $5
28.Bxg4 fxg4
{ and Black has anexcellent attacking position, but the game is not yet
over. The move in thegame is more solid, but also slower. What can be done:
dynamic play was neverPortisch's forte. } ) 24.Nxf6 Bc8
{ Another important moment. } 25.Ng4 $6 (
{ In view of the immediate events, better chances of surviving were offered
bythe arrest of the black queen - } 25.c3 $1 Rd8 ( 25...Rf8 26.Rbd1 ) 26.Ng4
Nc4 ( { if } 26...Nxg4 27.Bxg4 Rc4 { , then } 28.Be2 $1 Rxe4 29.Nd4 $1
{ with theinitiative for the pawn } ) 27.Bxc4 Rxc4 28.Nf6
{ with the ideas of Rf3 and Nd4. } ) 25...Nc4 $1 { An unpleasant reply. }
26.Bxc4 ( 26.Qf4 $6 h5 27.Nf6 Ne3 28.Rf3 Rc3 ) 26...Rxc4
{ Black's rook and two bishops are very strong, and it onlyremains for him
to bring his queen back into play to achieve completehappiness. } 27.Nf6
{ Tal considered this move to be 'a mistake, perhapscomparable with 20
Na5?'. } ( { Beforehand he had been intending to play } 27.Rf7 $6 Qxa2 $1
28.Ra1 $2 ( 28.Rc1 Rd8 $1 ) 28...Qxc2 29.Qxd6+ Bc7 30.Rxc7 Rxc7 31.Rc1
{ , but just in time he noticed } 31...Rd8 $3
{ - the weakness of the backrank! } ) (
{ Therefore he recommended 'the only correct continuation' } 27.Ne3 $6 Rxe4
( { not } 27...Rc7 $2 28.c4 $1 ) 28.Qc3 Bd4 $1 ( 28...Rg8 $2 29.Qc6 $1 Bxe3
30.Qxe4 Bb7 31.Qxe3 Bxg2+ 32.Kg1 ) 29.Qd3 ( 29.Qc6 $2 Bb7 30.Qd7
{ was also suggested, but this is bad in view of } 30...Bxe3 31.Rf7 Bd5
32.Qc7+ Ka8 33.Rbf1 Rb8 $1 34.Rf8 Ba7 $1 { , winning } ) 29...Bb7 ( { not }
29...d5 $2 30.Nc4 $3 { and wins } ) 30.Rf7
{ - 'if I had then lost, it would not have been sodistressing.' (Tal). In
my view, after } 30...Ba8 $1 31.Rbf1 Rc8 32.Rf8 d5 33.Rxc8+ Kxc8 34.Ng4 $1
Rxg4 35.Qd1 Re4 36.Nxd4 Bb7 $1
{ , Black has everychance of converting his extra pawn. --- The variations
given by Tal typifyhis optimistic nature : he was accustomed to playing
instinctively, believingimplicitly not so much in the objective evaluation of the position, as in hisability to confuse the opponent and get at his
king. In fact the 'sluggish'move in the game, defending the e4-pawn, is still comparatively best, althoughafter Portisch's reply White's game begins gradually to go downhill. }
) 27...Qb4 $1 28.Qd1 { 'This makes things easier for Black. } (
{ 'Chances of resistingwere offered by } 28.Qh6
{ ,' writes Lepeshkin, since 'bad is } 28...Rxc2 ( { herecommends } 28...Rc7
) 29.Qg7 Rd8 30.Na1 Rb2 $2 ( { however, after } 30...Rf2 $1
{ (again the weakness of the back rank!) } 31.Nb3 Rxa2
{ White's position isunenviable } ) 31.Rxb2 Qxb2 32.Nd7+ { and Qxb2.' } )
28...Qc3 $1 29.Rc1 ( { It was not satisfactory to play } 29.Qxd6+ Bc7 30.Qe7
$2 ( { rejecting thedifficult defence after } 30.Qd3 Rd8 31.Qxc3 Rxc3 )
30...Qe5 31.g3 ( { or } 31.Ng4 Qxe4 { , winning } ) 31...Bd8 $1 (
{ but not Forintos's move } 31...Rxc2 $6 { on account of } 32.Qg7 Rd8 33.Qxh7
) 32.Qg7 Bxf6 33.Qxf6 Qxe4+ 34.Kg1 Bb7 { and wins. } ) (
{ A more lively alternative is the trappy } 29.a4 $5
{ (very muchin Tal's style) } 29...Rxa4 ( 29...bxa4 $2 30.Qxd6+ { ; } ) (
29...b4 $2 30.Qxd6+ Bc7 31.Qe7 $1 Qe5 32.Ng4 Qxe4 33.Nd2 { and wins } )
30.Qxd6+ Bc7 31.Qe7 $5 Qe5 32.Ng4 $1 { now this move is possible: } 32...Qh5
$1 ( { if } 32...Qxe4 $2 { White has } 33.Nc5 ) 33.Rf7 Rc4 34.h3
{ , although here too Black has a great advantage: } 34...Rd8 (
{ also not bad is } 34...h6 ) ( { or even } 34...Rxc2 35.Nd4 Rc3 36.Nf3 Qc5
$1 ) 35.Rxh7 ( { or } 35.Qf6 Rxc2 36.Nd4 Rc4 37.Nxe6 Rd6 ) 35...Qg6 36.Ne5
Qg3 { , and if } 37.Qxd8 Bxd8 38.Nxc4 { , then } 38...Bc7 $1 { . } ) 29...h5
$1 30.Rf3 ( 30.Qxd6+ { is again unfavourable, this time in view of } 30...Bc7
31.Qd3 Qe5 32.Qh3 Bd8 33.Qh4 Ka8 { , for example: } 34.Rf3 ( { or } 34.Nd2
Ra4 $1 ) 34...Bb7 35.Qf2 Bxf6 36.Rxf6 Rxe4 37.Rf8+ Rxf8 38.Qxf8+ Qb8 { etc. }
) 30...Qe5
{ After thecentralisation of his queen Black dominates the entire board:
White willalways have a bad endgame, but... an even worse middlegame! }
31.Qd2 Ka8 $1 { Essential prophylaxis. } ( { It was premature to play }
31...Bc7 $6 32.Na5 d5 33.g3 Bxa5 34.Qxa5 dxe4 35.Qb6+ $1 Ka8 36.Ra3 { . } )
( { Also not good was } 31...Bd8 32.Rcf1 Bxf6 $6 33.Rxf6 Rxe4 34.Qf2 $1 Bb7
35.Na5 Qc5 36.Qf3 Bd5 { on account of the unexpected } 37.c4 $3
{ with a powerful attack. } ) 32.Rd1 ( 32.Rcf1 Bc7 33.Na5 d5 $1
{ would have come to roughly the same thing; } ) ( { whilethe amusing try }
32.c3 Bc7 ( 32...Bd8 $5 33.Qf2 Rf8 34.Nxh5 Rxf3 35.Qxf3 Bg5 ) 33.Qd4 $5
{ otherwise 33...d5 } 33...Rxd4 34.cxd4 Qg5 35.Rxc7
{ would havebeen parried by } 35...Rf8 $1 36.Nd5 ( { or } 36.Kg1 Kb8 37.Nh7
Qh4 ) 36...Qh4 { . } ) 32...Bc7 { (preparing the decisive ...d6-d5) } 33.Na5
{ An ill-fated square forthe knight! } (
{ However, it was no longer any better to play } 33.Rdf1 d5 34.Rh3 Bd8 $1
35.Rhf3 dxe4 { . } ) 33...d5 $1 34.g3 Bxa5 35.Qxa5 Rxc2 36.Qb6
{ (in the time scramble Tal 'forgets' to resign) } ( 36.exd5 $2 Qe2 )
36...Qb2 ( 36...h4 $5 ) 37.Qg1 dxe4 38.Nxe4 Bb7 39.Re3 Rf8 40.a4 Qe5
{ . --- Theoutcome of the match-tournament was 1. Petrosian - 4˝; 2.
Portisch - 4; 3.Tal - 3˝. The Candidates quarter-final pairings were made
soon afterwards,and Portisch's opponent again, as in 1968, turned out to be Bent Larsen. Butwhereas nine years earlier the Danish grandmaster
had been favourite in thematch, now the situation had reversed. Portisch's fruitful analytical work andhis constant opening research enabled him (like both Korchnoi and Polugayevsky)to reach the summit of his career between the ages of 40 and 45, whereas thebrilliantly talented but
superficial Larsen had passed his peak several yearsearlier, more specifically - after his terrible defeat in the match withFischer (1971). }
0-1
[Event "Candidates Match, Rotterdam"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1977.??.??"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Larsen, B."]
[Black "Portisch, L."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "B25"]
[EventDate "1973.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ The change in the balance of power was already demonstrated in the 1st
game,in which to } 1.e4 { Portisch again boldly replied } 1...c5 $1
{ . Larsen did notfind anything better than } 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7
5.d3 d6 6.f4 e5 $5
{ (the prescription of Botvinnik, who played this against 6 Nge2 - Volume
2,Game No.108) } 7.Nf3 ( 7.Nh3 $1
{ , Spassky-Portisch, 13th matchgame, Geneva1977 } ) 7...Nge7 8.O-O O-O 9.Be3
Nd4 10.Qd2 { . After } 10...exf4 $1 11.Bxf4 Nxf3+ 12.Rxf3 Qb6 $1 13.Rb1 Be6
14.Bg5 $6 Nc6 15.Be3 $6 Ne5 $1 16.Rff1 Ng4 17.Bf4 c4+ 18.Kh1 cxd3 19.cxd3 Bd4
$1 { , Black gained an obvious advantage andwon on the 66th move. --- } 20.h3
Ne3 21.Rfe1 Nxg2 22.Kxg2 Qc6 23.Be3 Bh8 24.Rbc1 Qd7 25.Kh2 a6 26.Qg2 Rac8
27.d4 Qd8 28.d5 Bd7 29.Bf4 Qe7 30.Qd2 Be5 31.Rf1 Rce8 32.Rce1 f6 33.a3 h5
34.Ne2 g5 35.Bxe5 Qxe5 36.Nd4 h4 37.Rg1 Kf7 38.Nf3 hxg3+ 39.Rxg3 Qf4 40.Rf1
Qxd2+ 41.Nxd2 Rc8 42.Rxg5 Rh8 43.e5 dxe5 44.Ne4 Rc2+ 45.Kg1 Rh6 46.Rg3 f5
47.b4 b6 48.Ng5+ Ke7 49.Nf3 Kf6 50.Rg8 Rxh3 51.Rb8 f4 52.Rxb6+ Kf5 53.Rf2
Rg3+ 54.Kf1 Bb5+ 55.Ke1 Rxf2 56.Kxf2 Ke4 57.Nd2+ Kxd5 58.a4 Bd3 59.Rf6 Re3
60.Nb3 Re2+ 61.Kg1 Rb2 62.Nc5 Be2 63.Rb6 Kd4 64.Nd7 Bf3 65.Re6 Ke3 66.Rxe5+
Be4
{ . --- After a quickdraw in the 2nd game, Larsen was able to gain revenge
in the 3rd, but then thefollowing sharp clash seriously shook his belief in
a favourable outcome tothe match. } 1-0
[Event "42. Candidates Match, Rotterdam"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1977.??.??"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Portisch, L."]
[Black "Larsen, B."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "D35"]
[EventDate "1977.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.c4 (
{ Regarding the plan with 13 0-0-0!? (see 11...Bd6 below), this wasemployed
a century ago by Rubinstein - } 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 Be7
6.Nf3 O-O 7.Qc2 b6 ( 7...c5 $1 ) 8.cxd5 exd5 9.Bd3 Bb7 10.O-O-O
{ (Volume 1, Game No.60); } ) (
{ and after him Alekhine, who, incidentally,won a classic game against
Reshevsky (Pasadena 1932): } 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.d4 Nbd7 5.cxd5 exd5
6.Bf4 c6 7.e3 Be7 8.Bd3 O-O 9.Qc2 Re8 10.h3 Nf8 11.O-O-O $1 b5 $6 12.Ne5 Bb7
13.Kb1 N6d7 14.Nxd7 Qxd7 15.Rc1 $1 Bd6 16.Ne2 $1 Bxf4 17.Nxf4
{ and White does not need to play for mate - Black'sdownfall is caused by
the weakness of his queenside. It was on the basis ofthese ideas that other
variations of the Queen's Gambit with queensidecastling were also developed. }
) 1...Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.d4 Nbd7 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 Be7 7.e3 O-O 8.Bd3 c6
9.Qc2 Re8 10.h3
{ A clever plan,involving the manoeuvre Bg5-f4 and, as a rule, queenside
castling. } ( { The 2ndand 6th games saw the quiet } 10.O-O Nf8 11.Rae1 Be6
$5 { with the idea of ...N6d7. } ) 10...Nf8 11.Bf4 $5 ( { Avoiding } 11.O-O-O
Ne4 $1 { with equality. } ) 11...Ng6 $5
{ An old recommendation of the Soviet master Ravinsky - beforeexchanging
the dark-squared bishops by ...Bd6, Black plays his knight to g6with gain
of tempo. } (
{ True, here the knight may come under attack, andtherefore it is hard to
say how much worse is the immediate } 11...Bd6 12.Bxd6 Qxd6
{ , as Reshevsky played long ago against Flohr (Stockholm Olympiad 1937)and
Smyslov (Leningrad 1939). These games continued 13 0-0, whereas 13
0-0-0!?is more aggressive and dangerous for Black - the statistics of thiscontinuation are clearly in White's favour. I should remind you that a
similarplan was employed a century ago by Rubinstein and Alekhine (see the notes toWhite's first move above). --- In the given instance after }
13.O-O-O $5
{ numerous different attempts have been made to find a satisfactory
defence: } 13...Be6 $1 ( 13...b6 $6 14.g4 Bb7 15.g5 Ne4 $2 ( 15...N6d7 16.h4
$1 ) 16.Bxe4 $1 dxe4 17.Nd2 c5 18.d5 Rad8 19.Ndxe4
{ ... 1-0 (Eingorn-Belyavsky, 55th USSRChampionship, Moscow 1988); } ) (
13...b5 $6 14.Kb1 a5 15.g4 ( 15.Rc1 $5 ) 15...a4 16.Rc1 $1 Ba6 17.Ne5 N6d7
18.Nxd7 Qxd7 19.Ne2 $1 { (the familiarAlekhine plan) } 19...b4 20.Nf4 b3
21.Qxc6 { ... 1-0 (Chuchelov-Roobol, Gent 2000); } ) ( 13...a5 $6 14.Kb1 Be6
15.g4 ( 15.Ne5 $5 N6d7 16.Nxd7 Bxd7 17.Na4 { - Baburin } ) 15...Rac8 16.Ng5
b5 $6 { (Topalov-Piket, Linares 1997) } 17.Rc1 $1
{ and again White's chances are better; } ) ( 13...Bd7
{ (taking away this squarefrom the knight at f6) } 14.Kb1 ( { but } 14.g4 $1
{ is more energetic; } ) 14...Rac8 15.g4 c5 $1 16.dxc5 Qxc5 17.Nd4 Ne4
{ with equalising chances (Dreev-Malakhov, FIDE World Championship, New
Delhi 2000) } ) 14.Kb1 Rac8 { (the most natural plan) } 15.g4 ( 15.Rc1 N6d7
16.Rhd1 c5 ) 15...c5 ( { not } 15...Ne4 $6 16.Bxe4 $1 dxe4 17.Nd2 ) 16.dxc5
Rxc5 17.Nd4 a6
{ . It ispossible that White has a minimal advantage, but this is not easy
todemonstrate, for example: } 18.f3 N6d7 $1 19.Qh2 Qe7
{ with a double-edgedgame (Gabriel-Lobron, Bundesliga 1996). } ) 12.Bh2 Bd6
13.Bxd6 Qxd6 14.O-O-O $5
{ In the 1930s Reshevsky and Makogonov happened to play this, but in
modernchess it is undoubtedly Portisch's patent. Only after queenside
castling isthe knight likely to be worse placed at g6 than at f8. } 14...Qe7
$6 { Essentially awaste of a tempo. } ( { After } 14...b5 $6 15.Kb1 ( 15.Nd2
$5 ) 15...Bd7 ( 15...a5 16.Rc1 $1 ) 16.Nd2 $1 Qe7 17.Nb3 Ne4 $6 18.Bxe4 dxe4
19.Nc5
{ , Whitewins by purely technical means (Portisch-Ciric, Beverwijk 1968). } )
( 14...a5 15.Kb1 Qb4 $6 { is also dubious in view of } 16.g4 ( { or } 16.Rc1
) ( { but not } 16.Na4 $6 Ne4 17.a3 Qe7 18.Nb6 Rb8 19.Bxe4 dxe4 20.Nd2 Be6
{ with equality(Portisch-Krogius, Hastings 1970/71). } ) ) (
{ It is more logical, as in thevariation with the knight at f8, to develop
the bishop immediately - } 14...Be6 $1 { , for example: } 15.Ng5 ( { or }
15.Kb1 $5 { followed by Rc1, leaving g2-g4and Ng5 in reserve } ) 15...Nf8
16.Kb1 b6 17.g4 c5 18.Nxe6 fxe6 19.g5 N6d7
{ with equality (Portisch-Jimenez, Palma de Mallorca Interzonal 1970). } ) (
{ It is inferior to play } 14...Bd7 15.g4 $1
{ , Reshevsky-Monticelli, Syracuse1934. } ) 15.g4 Be6 ( 15...Ne4 $6
{ is incorrect in view of } 16.Bxe4 dxe4 17.Nd2 f5 18.gxf5 Bxf5 19.f3 Qe6
{ (otherwise Black is simply a pawn down) } 20.fxe4 Bxh3 21.Nb3 $1 Bg4
{ (Makogonov-Ilyin Zhenevsky, 9th USSR Championship,Leningrad 1934) } 22.Qh2
$1 h5 23.Nc5 { with an obvious advantage. } ) ( { If } 15...b6 { , then }
16.Rdg1 $1 { , planning g4-g5 and h3-h4-h5. } ) 16.g5
{ A crucial decision - an attempt to exploit the 'extra' move ...Qe7. } (
{ If } 16.Nd2 ) ( { or } 16.Ne5 { , then } 16...c5 $1 { is unclear. } ) (
{ After the prophylactic } 16.Kb1
{ Portisch may have been concerned about a possible ...Bxa2+, although
after } 16...Rac8 ( { or } 16...Ne4 17.Bxe4 dxe4 18.Qxe4 Bxa2+ 19.Kxa2 Qxe4
20.Nxe4 Rxe4 21.d5 $1 ) 17.g5 Ne4 ( { if } 17...Nd7 ) ( { or } 17...Nh5
18.Rdg1 $1 ) 18.Nxe4 dxe4 19.Bxe4 Bxa2+ 20.Kxa2 Qxe4 21.Qxe4 Rxe4 22.h4 Ne7
23.h5 { , White hasa somewhat better endgame. } ) 16...Ne4 $5 (
{ Not to Larsen's taste is } 16...Nd7 17.Rdg1 c5 18.h4
{ with the initiative for White, and he prefers to sharpenthe play by
sacrificing a pawn. } ) ( { After } 16...Nh5 17.Rdg1 $1
{ Black has tothink about saving his knight. } ) 17.Bxe4 ( 17.Nxe4 $2 dxe4
18.Bxe4 Bxa2 ) 17...dxe4 18.Qxe4 b5 { (threatening ...b5-b4 and ...Bxa2) }
19.h4 $1
{ Portisch does not cling to his material advantage, but accumulates
positionalpluses and threatens an attack on the king. } 19...b4 20.Na4 Qd6 $5
(
{ It stands toreason that Larsen did not give up the pawn in order to try
and gain a draw ina tedious, somewhat inferior endgame after } 20...Bxa2
21.Qxe7 Rxe7 ( 21...Nxe7 $2 22.Nc5 Be6 23.Ne5 ) 22.Nd2 Bd5 23.Rh3 { . } )
21.h5 $1 { White, inturn, sacrifices the exchange. } 21...Bd5 $1
{ The best chance. } ( { It is weak to play } 21...Nf8 $2 22.Qe5 $1 Qxe5
23.Nxe5 Bxa2 24.Kc2 Bd5 25.Rh4 { ; } ) ( { while the tempting } 21...Bb3
{ would only have led to a difficult struggle forequality: } 22.Qg4 $1 (
22.Ne5 $6 Bd5 23.hxg6 Bxe4 24.gxf7+ Kf8 25.fxe8=Q+ Rxe8 26.f3 ( 26.Rh4 Qd5 $1
) 26...Bg6 27.f4 Bf5 28.b3 Qd5
{ and the queen isnot inferior to the armada of white pieces. } ) 22...Bxd1
23.Rxd1 ( { thevariation } 23.hxg6 $2 Bxa4 $1 24.gxf7+ Kxf7 25.Qf5+ Ke7
26.Ne5 Qe6 { etc., is unfavourable for White } ) 23...Nf8 24.Nc5 $1 Re7 $5 (
{ and } 24...Ne6 $2 { is dangerous in view of } 25.Ne4 Qd5 26.Ne5 $1 Rf8 (
26...c5 $2 27.Nf6+ $1 ) 27.Kb1 $1 Kh8 ( 27...c5 $2 28.h6 $1 ) 28.Qf5
{ with a very strong attack: } 28...Rad8 29.h6 g6 30.Qf6+ Kg8 31.f3 Rde8
32.Rh1 Qd8 ( { the threat was } 32...-- 33.Qg7+ $3 Nxg7 34.Nf6+ { , mating }
) 33.Nxc6 { and wins. } ) 25.Nh4 g6 26.Ne4 Qe6 $1 27.Nf6+ Kh8
{ - after this, however, Black would have forced theexchange of queens and
could have counted on a draw, despite the great powerof the white knights.
} ) 22.Qg4 Nf8 ( { There is nothing else: } 22...Ne7 $2 23.Nc5 ) ( { or }
22...Be6 $2 23.Qg2 { . } ) 23.b3
{ We have now arrived at theturning point of the game. } (
{ Of course, not } 23.Kb1 $2 Be4+ 24.Ka1 Qd5 { . } ) 23...Qe6 $2
{ An unexpected lapse, typical of the later Larsen: Black suddenlyoffers
the exchange of queens, which he has only just avoided. } (
{ Meanwhile,he had two acceptable continuations: -- 1) } 23...Nd7 $5 24.Rhe1
( 24.Rh4 Rac8 $1 25.Kb2 c5 26.dxc5 ( { or } 26.Nd2 c4 $1 ) 26...Nxc5 27.Qxb4
Nxa4+ 28.Qxa4 Qc5 $1 29.Nd4 Re6 $1 30.Qd7 Qc3+ 31.Kb1 Bxb3 $1 32.axb3 Ra6
33.Qxc8+ Qxc8 34.Nc6 $1 Rxc6 35.Rhd4 Qf8 $1 36.Rd8 Rc5 37.Rxf8+ Kxf8 38.f4 h6
$1 { with a probable draw. } ) 24...f5 $5 25.gxf6 ( 25.Qh3 c5 $1 ) 25...Nxf6
26.Qf5 Rf8 27.Nd2 Nd7 28.Qg5 Rxf2 29.Rg1 Rf7 30.e4 Be6 31.Qe3 Raf8
{ with asomewhat inferior, but defensible position. } ) ( { 2) } 23...f5 $1
24.Qxf5 ( 24.gxf6 $2 Qxf6 25.Rh3 Be6 { is bad } ) ( { while if } 24.Qh3
{ , then } 24...Nd7 $1 { and ...c6-c5 with good counterplay } ) 24...Nd7 (
24...Be4 $5 25.Qh3 Qd5 ) 25.Qg4 Qf8 $1 ( { stronger than } 25...Qe6 26.Qxe6+
Rxe6 27.Rh3 Rf8 ) 26.Qxd7 ( 26.Rh3 Be6 ) 26...Bxf3 27.h6 g6 28.Nc5 Rad8
{ and then ...Rd5 with equality.Only with this kind of complicated play
could Black have justified his gambitidea. After missing the possibility of
...f7-f5, he comes under positionalpressure. } ) 24.Qf4 $1
{ The placing of the queens has changed to White'sadvantage. } (
{ He is no longer satisfied with the better ending after } 24.Qxe6 Nxe6
25.Rh3 Bxf3 { (at least regaining the pawn) } 26.Rxf3 Nxg5 27.Rf5 Ne4 28.Rg1
$1 Rad8 29.Nc5 Nxc5 ( 29...Nc3 30.Kc2 $1 ) 30.Rxc5 Rd5 31.Rg5 { etc. } )
24...Nd7 25.Rhe1 { With the threat of e3-e4. } ( { In principle, } 25.Kb2 $5
{ is more solid - not so much preventing the ...Bxb3 sacrifice as preparing
theimportant Rc1, directed against the undermining move ...c6-c5: } 25...Rac8
( { weakeris } 25...f6 26.Rhg1 ) ( { or } 25...f5 26.Rh4 $1 { and Rc1 } )
26.Rc1 c5 27.dxc5 $1 Bxf3 $1 28.Qxf3 Qe5+ 29.Kb1 Nxc5 30.Nxc5 Rxc5 31.Rxc5
Qxc5 32.Rg1 Rc8 33.Qe4 { , remaining a pawn up. } ) 25...Bxb3 $2
{ An attempt to confuse mattersin a difficult position, but objectively the
losing move. } ( { Of course, italso bad to play } 25...c5 $2 26.e4 ) (
25...f5 26.Nh4 ) ( 25...Be4 26.Kb2 { with the idea of Rc1 } ) ( { or }
25...Bxf3 26.Qxf3 c5 27.dxc5 Rac8 28.Rd5 Nb6 ( 28...Qe7 29.Qf5 $1 ) 29.Nxb6
axb6 30.Kb1 bxc5 31.Rc1 { . } ) ( { However, } 25...Rac8 $1
{ was much more tenacious; } 26.Nd2 $1 (
{ since White would not achieveanything with either } 26.e4 $6 Bxb3 27.axb3
Qxb3 28.Nb2 c5 $1 ) ( { or } 26.Kb2 Bxf3 ( 26...c5 $2 27.e4 ) 27.Qxf3 c5
28.h6 g6 29.Rc1 c4 $1 30.bxc4 Rxc4 31.Qb7 Rb8 32.Qxa7 b3 $1 33.a3 Rbc8
{ with equalising counterplay. } ) 26...c5 27.Nxc5 Nxc5 28.dxc5 Rxc5+ 29.Kb2
{ was recommended by the commentators,'retaining all the advantages of his
position', but after } 29...Rec8 30.Qxb4 ( 30.Rc1 Qc6 ) ( 30.Ka1 a5 )
30...Qe7 $1 { , these advantages could have provedinsufficient. } ) 26.axb3
Qxb3 27.Nb2
{ White quite easily parries theopponent's impulsive attack and then sets
about converting his extra piece. } 27...Qa2 (
{ It is hopeless to try both } 27...Rac8 28.Kb1 ( 28.Nd2 $5 ) 28...c5 29.d5 )
( { and } 27...a5 28.g6 $1 fxg6 29.hxg6 hxg6 ( 29...h6 30.Nd2 Qa2 31.Qf5 Qe6
( { or } 31...Nb6 32.Nbc4 Nxc4 33.Qf7+ { and Qxc4 } ) 32.Qxe6+ Rxe6 33.Rg1
Nf8 34.Nd3 { etc. } ) 30.Kb1 $1 Rf8 ( { or } 30...a4 31.Rd3 ) 31.Qg3 a4
32.Nd2 Qd5 ( 32...Qe6 33.Nd3 b3 34.Rg1 ) 33.Nd3 a3 ( 33...Rf6 34.Rc1 )
34.Qxg6 Rf6 35.Qe4 { . } ) 28.Qf5 $1 c5 $1
{ Black sacrifices a second piece; } ( { avoiding } 28...Rad8 29.Qb1 { . } )
29.Qxd7 cxd4 (
{ Forintos and other commentatorspointed out that it was also bad to play }
29...c4 30.Qa4 ) ( 29...Rac8 30.d5 Qa1+ ( 30...c4 31.Qa4 ) 31.Kc2 b3+ 32.Kc3
Qa5+ 33.Kd3 ) ( { and } 29...Qa1+ 30.Kc2 b3+ 31.Kc3 cxd4+ 32.Nxd4 Rec8+
{ ; By contrast, the pretty } ( 32...Rac8+ 33.Nc6 Qa5+ 34.Kxb3 Qb5+ 35.Ka2 )
33.Nc6 $1 { was condemned on account of } ( { however, here the 'winning' }
33.Kd3 Qxb2 34.Rb1 $2 Qc3+ $2 ( { althoughafter } 34...Rc3+ $1 35.Ke4 Qxf2
{ Black saves the game } ) 35.Ke2 { wasrecommended. } ) 33...Qa5+ 34.Kxb3
Rab8+ 35.Kc2 ( 35.Nxb8 $4 Rc3# ) 35...Qb5 { , although } 36.Rd6 $1 Qxb2+
37.Kd3 Rb3+ 38.Ke4 { etc wins easily. } ) 30.Rxd4 Rac8+ 31.Rc4
{ A useful exchange. } ( { The alternative is } 31.Kd1 Qxb2 32.Rd2 Qb3+ (
32...Qa3 33.Ke2 ) 33.Ke2 Qc4+ 34.Qd3 { . } ) 31...Rxc4+ 32.Nxc4 Qxc4+ 33.Kd2
Qa2+ 34.Kd1 Rf8 35.Qd2 Qa5 36.Ke2
{ By giving up the g5-pawn, Whitecreates certain technical problems for
himself. } ( { The machine advises the'greedy' } 36.Rg1 $1 { , for example: }
36...Rd8 ( 36...f6 37.Qb2 Qd5+ 38.Ke2 ) 37.Nd4 Qa1+ ( 37...Rd5 38.h6 $1 )
38.Qc1 Qa4+ ( 38...Qa2 39.Qc7 $1 ) 39.Ke1 b3 40.Qb2 Qa5+ 41.Ke2 Qa6+ 42.Kf3
Qb7+ 43.Kg4 Qe4+ 44.Kh3 { and wins. } ) 36...Rd8 37.Nd4 Qxg5 38.Qxb4 Qxh5+
39.Nf3 h6 40.Ra1 Rc8
{ The time control hadbeen reached and the game was adjourned here. } 41.Qb1
$1 { The sealed move,which combines defence with attack. } (
{ The computer, which does not know anyfear, gives preference to } 41.e4 $5
{ and examines the sharp variations with } 41...g5 $1 42.Ra5
{ . But a human player intuitively does not want to split up thef2 and e3
pawn pair, since every pawn is worth its weight in gold in suchpositions:
the game cannot be won with a knight alone! } ) 41...a5 42.Ra4 Qc5 ( { If }
42...Rc5 { White has the strong response } 43.Re4 $1 Rf5 ( { or } 43...Qf5
44.Re8+ Kh7 45.Qxf5+ Rxf5 46.Re7 $1 ) 44.Re8+ Kh7 45.Qe4 g6 46.Rd8 $1 a4 (
46...Rf6 47.Rd5 ) 47.Rd7 Kg7 48.Rb7 a3 49.Ra7 { ; } ) ( { but } 42...Qd5 $5
43.Qd3 ( 43.Nd4 Rc4 44.Ra1 Rb4 { is also not altogether clear } ) 43...Qc5 $1
{ came into consideration. } ) 43.Nd4 Qh5+ 44.Kd2 Qh4 45.Qf5 $1 Rb8 46.Ra2 h5
47.Qf4 $1
{ Solid play: by offering the exchange, which would be fatal forBlack,
White drives back the enemy queen. } (
{ Another decisive alternative wasthe computer solution } 47.Ke2 $5 g6 (
47...a4 48.Rxa4 Rb2+ 49.Kd3 ) 48.Qxa5 Qg4+ 49.Kd3 Qd1+ ( { or } 49...Qg1
50.e4 h4 51.Ke2 h3 52.Qe5 $1 Rd8 53.Qf6 Qg4+ 54.Ke3 ) 50.Qd2 Qf1+ 51.Qe2 Qb1+
52.Rc2 h4 53.Qf3 Rb2 54.Kd2 { . } ) 47...Qd8 ( 47...Qxf4 48.exf4 Ra8 (
{ or } 48...Rb4 49.Kc3 ) 49.Ra4 h4 50.Ke3 { and wins. } ) 48.Ke2 Qb6 49.Qf5
Qa6+ 50.Qd3 Qa8 51.Qc4 Qe4 52.Qc6 Qb1 53.Qc2 Qb6 54.Nf3 Rd8 55.Nd4 Rb8 56.Qd3
g6 57.Rc2 Qb1 { (intending ...Rb2) } 58.Nf3 $1 Qb7 ( { Now if } 58...Rb2 $2
{ White would win by } 59.Qd8+ Kh7 60.Ng5+ Kh6 61.Nxf7+ { . } ) 59.Ne5 Rc8 (
{ Black's last, desperate chance was } 59...a4 $5 60.Nxg6 $2 (
{ the correct plan is } 60.Nd7 $1 Ra8 61.Nf6+ ) 60...fxg6 61.Qxg6+ Qg7
62.Qxh5 a3 { with the desired draw. } ) 60.Rd2 h4 61.Qd5 $1
{ Persisting in offering the exchange of queens. } ( { Again the reckless }
61.Nxg6 $2 { would have unexpectedly led to a draw: } 61...h3 $1 62.Qd6 (
{ or } 62.Rd1 Qb2+ 63.Kf1 Qb7 $1 { and 64...h2 } ) 62...Qb5+ $1 (
{ this is simpler than } 62...h2 $2 63.Ne7+ Qxe7 64.Qxe7 h1=Q 65.Qg5+ Kf8
66.Qxa5 ) 63.Kf3 Qh5+ { . } ) 61...Qa6+ ( 61...Qxd5 62.Rxd5 { and wins } )
62.Kf3 Qf6+ 63.Kg2 Qf5 64.Nf3 $1 Qf6
{ Black's position is completely hopeless and it is largely through inertia
thathe continues to resist. } ( { Or } 64...Qg4+ 65.Kh2 Kg7 66.Rd4 $1 { . } )
65.Qxa5 h3+ 66.Kg3 Qc6 67.Rd8+ Rxd8 68.Qxd8+ Kg7 69.Qh4 f6 70.Qxh3 Qd6+
71.Kg2 Qd5 72.Qg4 Qc6 73.Kg3 Qc1 74.Qd7+ Kh6 75.Kg2 ( 75.Qd8 $1 ) 75...Qa1
76.Qe8 g5 77.Nd4 Qb1 78.e4 g4 79.Nf5+ Kg5 80.Ne3
{ . --- On this occasion thequarter-final matches were simply played to the
best of 12 games, and, bywinning three more White games with two draws as
Black, Portisch defeatedLarsen ahead of schedule by the score of 6˝-3˝ (also significant is thefinal outcome of their many years of rivalry: +26-14=15
in Portisch's favour).--- For the first time in his life the Hungarian grandmaster reached theCandidates semi-finals, where he met ex-world champion Boris Spassky in amatch of 16 games (Geneva, summer 1977). The times had long since passed whenSpassky was one of Portisch's most difficult opponents.
At this time they wereequally matched, and in fact Portisch twice took the lead, but at the veryfinish he nevertheless was second best (6˝-8˝). --- Three years later,after sharing 1st-3rd places with Petrosian and Hübner in the Interzonaltournament in Rio de Janeiro (1979), Portisch again clashed swords withSpassky, this time in the quarter-final (Mexico, spring 1980). This was themost hard-fought match of that entire cycle! It was the best of 10 games, andin the very first Portisch won, with Black moreover, in his opponent'sfavourite set-up - the Closed Variation of the Sicilian (cf. Game
No.72, noteto Black's sixth move). In the 9th game Spassky drew level and 'normal time'ended with the score 5-5. Four additional games also ended in draws - 7-7. AndPortisch went forward to the semi-final, thanks to the new and, to put itmildly, strange FIDE rule, by which preference was given to the player who hadgained more wins with Black. --- In the semi-final he lost to Hübner (4˝-6˝), but even after this setback Portisch did not give up hope of breakingthrough to the chess summit. He participated in three more Candidates events,qualifying for these from the Interzonal tournaments in Toluca (1982), Tunis (1985) and Szirak (1987). Amazing stability! --- Portisch's contribution toopening theory is reflected in the book on him by Hajtun. It only remains forme to add that outstanding researchers such as Portisch, Polugayevsky andKorchnoi (an account of whom will be given in Volume 5) effectively worked forfuture generations, by bringing closer the start of a new era in chess. }
1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Petrosian's Lessons"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ Two and a half months after his win over Portisch in the 1974
quarter-final,Petrosian lost his semi-final match to the rising Viktor
Korchnoi. Then on twofurther occasions, in 1977 and 1980, he tried his hand in the Candidatescycles, after confidently qualifying from the
Interzonal tournaments. But, asill luck would have it, both times, in the quarter-final, he found standing inhis path his former friend, but by then implacable opponent - the disgracedViktor Korchnoi. On one occasion, discussing the world championship match inBaguio (1978),
Petrosian said thoughtfully: 'If I had the same ambitions asKorchnoi, I would be the eternal champion.' --- But in an interview in 1977,to the question 'when did you play better - as world champion or now?'he replied: 'Of course, when I was the champion. But I played the strongestchess of my career in the period from 1958 to 1963, i.e. in the years when Iwas fighting for the chess crown. I was inspired by the struggle itself, butwhen a person has achieved his desire, his ardour cools. This is inevitable.As you grow older you become sated, and
the sharpness of your feelings isgradually erased.' } 1.--
{ I have included in this book the followinginstructive game from
Petrosian's period as champion, for the reason that itis the direct
forerunner of my game with Portisch, played 21 years later in astage of the World Cup in Skelleftea. It is a rare instance of the
completematching of the pawn structure, with identical material and... result! But themain point of this example is to show how chess ideas are passed on from onegeneration to another. --- In both cases there was the seemingly thoroughlystudied 'Carlsbad' structure, and both
times the player with Blacksurprised their peacefully-inclined opponent with effectively one and the sameplan. }
*
[Event "43. Lugano Olympiad"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1968.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Bobotsov, M."]
[Black "Petrosian, T."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "E10"]
[EventDate "1968.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nc3 c6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Qc2 g6 8.e3 Bf5
9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3 Nbd7 $1 ( { This is more subtle than } 10...O-O 11.Bxf6
Bxf6 12.b4 { . } ) 11.Bh6 { This move is hardly obligatory. } ( 11.O-O
{ is better,but in principle this is not so important, since in any case
the same kinds ofposition arise. Those interested in this topic can be
referred to the 2nd gameof my match with Andersson (Belgrade 1985). } )
11...Ng4 $1 12.Bf4 O-O 13.O-O Re8 14.h3 Ngf6 15.Ne5 Nb6 $1
{ An original and very deep positional idea.Black avoids the exchange of
the 'good' knight at e5, and moves his knight tothe 'bad' square b6. But in
fact, the knight is predatorily eyeing thec4-square, in anticipation of the standard minority pawn attack b2-b4-b5. Andin general, after the
exchange of the light-squared bishops, Black has playaimed at exploiting the weak light squares in the opponent's position. As forthe e5-knight, let it stand there for the moment... }
16.Bg5 $6
{ This merelyprovokes further exchanges, which, strangely enough, turn out
to favour Black. } 16...Ne4 $1 17.Bxe7 Qxe7 18.Qc2 Nd6 $1 19.Na4 Nbc4 (
{ It was simpler to play } 19...Nxa4 $1 20.Qxa4 f6
{ , immediately reaching the desired position. } ) 20.Nxc4 Nxc4 21.Nc5 Nd6
{ Now the structure in question has arisen. ---Surprisingly, Black already
has some positional advantage: White's usual playon the queenside - the
minority pawn attack - has come to a standstill (hecannot play b2-b4-b5, since Black always has ...a7-a6), whereas some ratherunpleasant tests await
him on the kingside. There is also a long-term factor:Black, paradoxical though it may seem, has the better pawn structure. Butwhy?! - both sides' pawns appear to be good. For the reason that it is mucheasier for him to build up an attack against the opponent's pawn base! Whereasusually in the
'Carlsbad' formation it is just the opposite, and it is Whitewho succeeds in generating an attack, which is why it is generally consideredthat the pawn structure is better for him. --- Petrosian demonstrates anoriginal exception to the rules. The key role here is played by the sentryknight at d6, suppressing any attempts with b4-b5. Under its watchful eyeBlack can calmly prepare an advance of his kingside pawns. }
22.Rac1
{ It ishard playing when you can't see a plan that is even slightly active.
} ( { Bobotsov begins marking time, avoiding the 'hole-forming' } 22.b4
{ and a2-a4.But I remember that when I was annotating the aforementioned
game withPortisch, I recommended the cumbersome manoeuvre of the knight to
c3, eventhough it involved losing a mass of tempi, in order nevertheless to be able toplay b4-b5. It is only with the break-up of Black's queenside
that White canobtain any real targets to attack. } ) 22...Qg5 $1 23.Qd1 h5
24.Kh1 Re7 25.Nd3 Ne4 26.Nc5 $6 ( 26.b4 ) 26...Nd6 27.Nd3 Qf5 28.Ne5 $6 f6
29.Nf3 Rg7 $1 { (with the threat of ... g6-g5-g4) } 30.Nh2
{ Completing the inglorious marchof this once powerful knight. In the
meantime Petrosian has unhurriedlystrengthened his position and his
advantage is now obvious. } 30...Re8 31.Kg1 Ne4 32.Qf3 ( 32.f3
{ also has obvious drawbacks. } ) 32...Qe6 33.Rfd1 g5 $1
{ An energetic pawn sacrifice, although in the given instance it was
possible tomanage without it. But this is again an instructive moment: the
'cautious'Petrosian gives up a pawn! This means that the position is already so ripe fordecisive action, that Black does not begrudge giving up
one of his infantrymen. } (
{ In contrast to modern computers, which consider such sacrifices to
beblunders, even at that time a strong player realised that preparatory
movessuch as } 33...Qf7
{ (followed by ...g6-g5), even though not bad, were nolonger necessary. } )
34.Qxh5 f5
{ A strong attack on the king now develops,with White's extra pawn not
playing any role. Bobotsov loses very quickly, butit seems to me that it is
already impossible to find a satisfactory defencehere. } 35.Re1 g4 36.hxg4
fxg4 37.f3 { After this move Petrosian flamboyantlytraps the queen. } (
37.Qh4
{ would seem to be more tenacious, but the'human+machine' tandem easily
discovers the elegant } 37...Rg6 $1 ( 37...Rf8 38.Rf1 ) 38.Rf1 ( { or } 38.f3
gxf3 39.Nxf3 Rh6 40.Qf4 Rf8 41.Qe5 Qg4 $1 ) 38...Kg7 39.f4 Nd6 40.Qe1 Nf5
41.Rc3 Rh8 $1 { with a mating attack; } ( 41...g3 $6 42.Nf3 Rh8 43.Ng5 { . }
) ) 37...gxf3 38.Nxf3 ( { Also bad was } 38.Qxf3 Rf8 39.Qe2 Rf2 $1 40.Qxf2
Nxf2 41.Kxf2 Qg6 { . } ) 38...Rh7 39.Qe5 Qc8 40.Qf4 Rf8 41.Qe5 Rf5
{ . --- Perhaps not the most outstanding game, but an instructive one:the
subtle and non-routine positional idea employed here enriched the
treasuryof strategic skills. Two decades later I was able to employ the same idea. }
0-1
[Event "44. World Cup, Skelleftea"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1989.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Portisch, L."]
[Black "Kasparov, G."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "D02"]
[EventDate "1989.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nc3 c6 6.Qc2 Na6 7.a3 Nc7 8.Bg5 g6 $5
9.e3 ( 9.e4 dxe4 10.Nxe4 Bg7 11.O-O-O O-O 12.h4 Bf5 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.h5 Re8
15.Bd3 Bg7 { is hardly dangerous for Black. } ) 9...Bf5 10.Bd3 ( 10.Qb3 Rb8 )
10...Bxd3 11.Qxd3 Be7 12.O-O O-O 13.b4 ( { Or } 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.b4 Qe7
{ with equality. } ) 13...Ne4 $1 14.Bf4 $1 ( 14.Bh6 $6 Re8 { , and now }
15.Nxe4 $2 dxe4 16.Qxe4 Bf8 17.Qf4 Ne6 { is bad. } ) 14...Nxc3 15.Qxc3 $2
{ Carelessplay. } ( { The correct path was } 15.Bxc7 $1 Qxc7 16.Qxc3
{ with equality. } ) 15...Bd6 $1 16.Bxd6 Nb5 $1 17.Qb3 Nxd6
{ A familiar picture. Portisch wasfaced with the same problem as Bobotsov:
what to play next? } 18.a4 a6 $1 ( 18...a5 $6 19.b5 cxb5 20.Qxd5 $1 ) 19.Ne5
$6 ( 19.g3 $1 { was correct. } ) 19...Re8 20.Rfe1 Qg5 $1
{ Following Petrosian! } 21.h3 $6 ( 21.g3 ) 21...Kg7 22.Qc2 Re6 23.Rac1 Rae8
24.Qb1 ( 24.Qd1 $5 ) 24...Qh5 $1 25.Qb3 f6 26.Nd3 (
{ The 'Bobotsov-style' attempt to return closer to the king - } 26.Nf3 g5
27.Nh2 { - would have made for a rather pitiful spectacle. } ) 26...g5 27.Qd1
Qg6 28.Qc2 R6e7 $1 29.Red1 ( 29.Nc5 ) 29...h5 30.Qb1 $6 ( 30.Ne1 Qh6 $1 )
30...h4 31.Qc2 g4 { Black's attack develops like clockwork. } 32.Nf4 $6
{ Fearing acollapse, Portisch seeks a queen exchange. } ( { If } 32.hxg4 Qxg4
33.Nf4 { , then } 33...Kh6 34.Kh2 Rg8 35.Rh1 Re4 36.g3 Nf5 $1 { . } )
32...Qxc2 33.Rxc2 g3 $1 34.Rd3 ( 34.fxg3 Nf5 $1 ) 34...Kh6 35.Kf1 Kg5 36.Ne2
( { Or } 36.Re2 Re4 $1 { , then ...Nf5 or ...Nc4. } ) 36...Nc4 $1
{ (and now the c4-square: White isunable to defend all his weaknesses) }
37.Rcc3 Nb2 38.Rd2 Nxa4 { The rest is amatter of straightforward technique. }
39.Rb3 Nb6 40.Ng1 ( { or } 40.fxg3 Nc4 ) 40...Nc4 41.Nf3+ Kh5 42.Rdd3 a5 $1
43.bxa5 Ra8 44.Rd1 Rxa5 45.Re1 b5 46.Re2 Ra1+ 47.Re1 Rea7 48.fxg3 Rxe1+ (
{ or } 48...hxg3 { immediately } ) 49.Kxe1 Ra1+ 50.Ke2 hxg3 51.Ne1 Ra2+
52.Kd1 Rd2+ 53.Kc1 Re2 54.Kd1 Rxe3 55.Rxe3 Nxe3+ 56.Ke2 Nf5 57.Nc2 Nh4 58.Nb4
( 58.Kf1 Kg5 59.Nb4 Kf4 60.Nxc6 Ke4 ) 58...Nxg2 59.Kf3 Nh4+ 60.Kxg3 Nf5+
61.Kf4 Nxd4 62.Ke3 Nf5+
{ . ---Studying these two games, you will see how hard things were for
White, whoended up in an unusual positional impasse. Bobotsov played
altogether withouta plan, simply not knowing what to do, but Portisch, a far stronger player,also experienced obvious discomfort. This is a
striking example of Petrosian'sskill in subtly noticing and effectively exploiting the long-term factors ofthe position. }
0-1
[Event "45. Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1981.??.??"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Kasparov, G."]
[Black "Petrosian, T."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "E12"]
[EventDate "1981.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ From the late 1970s onwards it became increasingly difficult for him to
playat full power, and he made many draws. But when circumstances obliged,
when hewas seized with the fervour of the struggle - Petrosian's true strength wouldmake itself felt. Since, with the years, natural positional
understanding doesnot disappear, and he was still capable of giving his all in two or threegames per tournament. --- At the age of 16 I was fortunate to play togetherwith Petrosian in my first international tournament (Banja Luka 1979). Helooked after me in a fatherly way and created a good frame
of mind. We talkeda lot, not only about chess, and analysed and discussed the games we played.As Alexander Nikitin, who was my trainer for many years, justly writes, 'thetournament brought together a youth and a highly-experienced ex-world champion,and over the next five years, while Tigran was still alive, Garry and Ilearned much from the wise Master, going to him for creative discussions.'Indeed, I derived much from Petrosian's very valuable experience, which Ifound useful in my battle for the chess crown. His deep philosophical approachto everything connected with chess helped to
develop staunchness of spirit,and to overcome the most tense situations. --- Tigran Vartanovich also taughtme some unforgettable lessons in our games, played in Moscow and Tilburg in1981. They vividly demonstrate Petrosian's amazing ability to defend crampedpositions and, unexpectedly for the opponent, switch to a counterattack. Andyet initially everything went very well for me! At 18 years of age I was akind of light-minded d'Artagnan, who was galloping eagerly towards Paris, butwho along the way suddenly encountered the hardened and cunning 'stranger fromMeung'... --- }
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.a3 { In the footsteps ofPetrosian! } 4...Bb7
5.Nc3 d5 6.cxd5 Nxd5 7.e3 Be7 8.Bb5+ c6 9.Bd3 Nxc3 ( { This is safer than }
9...c5 { (Game No.14). } ) 10.bxc3 c5 11.O-O O-O (
{ It ismore accurate to play } 11...Nc6 12.Bb2
{ (retaining a choice between e3-e4and c3-c4) } 12...Rc8 $1 13.Qe2 O-O
14.Rad1 cxd4 $1 ( { after } 14...Qc7 $6 { , Whiteshould play } 15.c4 $1
{ with the strong threat of d4-d5, Kasparov-Portisch,Niksic 1983 } (
{ rather than } 15.e4 Na5 $1 ) ) 15.cxd4 Bf6 16.e4 Na5
{ with adouble-edged game. In my youth, I always thought that White has on
obviousadvantage here, but games from the last few years have not confirmed
this. } ) 12.Qc2 $1 { (forcing Black to weaken his king's defences) } 12...g6
( { After } 12...h6 13.e4 Nc6 14.Bb2 Rc8 15.Qe2 Na5 16.Rad1 cxd4 17.cxd4
{ White also has someadvantage (Ribli-Hort, Germany 1991). } ) 13.e4 Nc6 (
{ The 10th round gamePolugayevsky-Petrosian went } 13...Qc7 $6 14.Qe2 Rd8
15.h4 $1 Nc6 16.Be3 Bf6 $6 17.e5 Bg7 18.h5 { with an attack. After } 18...Rd7
19.hxg6 ( 19.Rad1 $5 ) 19...hxg6 20.Rad1 cxd4 21.cxd4 Qd8 22.Be4 Ne7 $2 (
22...Rb8 { was more tenacious } ) 23.Ng5 Nf5 24.Qg4 $1 Bd5 25.Bxf5 $1 gxf5
26.Qh5 f6 27.Qh7+ Kf8 28.Nh3 $1 Qe7 29.exf6 Qxf6 30.Bg5 Qf7 31.Nf4
{ White soon won. } ) 14.Bh6 ( 14.Be3 $5 ) 14...Re8 15.Rfd1 Qc7 (
{ Possibly it made sense for Black to part with theexchange: the endgame
after } 15...cxd4 $5 16.cxd4 Nxd4 17.Nxd4 Qxd4 18.Bb5 Qxe4 19.Qxe4 Bxe4
20.Bxe8 Rxe8 21.Rd7 a5 22.a4 ( 22.Be3 b5 23.Rc1 $6 { is parried by }
23...Bxa3 24.Rcc7 Bb2 $1 25.Rxf7 h5 ) 22...Bc5
{ promises him everychance of a draw. } ) 16.Qe2 Red8 17.Qe3 $1
{ In connection with e4-e5 andh2-h4-h5, White's position looks menacing. }
17...e5 $1 ( { If } 17...Rd7 { , then } 18.Bf4 $1 Qd8 19.Bb5
{ is unpleasant. At the cost of positional concessions,Petrosian suppresses
the incipient attack. } ) 18.d5 { On this move I spent...58 minutes! } (
{ I very much wanted to exploit the opening of the a2-g8 diagonalby playing
} 18.Bc4 $6 exd4 19.cxd4 cxd4 20.Bxf7+ Kxf7 21.Qb3+ { , but after } 21...Ke8
22.Qg8+ ( 22.e5 Bf8 $1 ) ( 22.Rac1 Qd6 $1 ) 22...Kd7 23.Qxh7 Kc8 24.Qxg6 Bc5
{ nothing worthwhile would have come of it. A whole hour was wasted in
vain,and I soon had cause to regret this. } ) 18...Na5 19.c4 (
{ The weakening of thed4-square allows Black more significant
counter-chances than } 19.Ng5 $5 c4 20.Be2
{ , although here too it is not easy for White to gain any real advantage:
} 20...Bc8 21.Qg3 f6 22.Nf3 Nb3 $1 ( { it is inferior to play } 22...Bf8 $6
23.Bxf8 Rxf8 24.Nd2 $1 { and h2-h4-h5 } ) 23.Ra2 Nc5 24.Nd2 b5
{ with a complicatedstruggle - } 25.a4 Nxa4 26.Nxc4 a6 27.h4 Bf8 { . } )
19...Nb3 ( { Yusupov andDvoretsky suggest } 19...f6 $5 20.h4 Ba6 21.Nd2 Bf8
{ and a possible ...Nb7-d6 } ) 20.Ra2 f6 21.h4 Bc8 $6
{ Now White succeeds in keeping his initiativealive. } ( { The immediate }
21...Bf8 $1 { would have equalised (Yusupov,Dvoretsky). } ) 22.Rb1 $1 Nd4
23.Nxd4 cxd4 24.Qg3 { The thematic f2-f4 is nowon the agenda. } 24...Bf8
25.Bd2 $1 Bd6 26.Rf1 Qg7 27.a4 $6
{ A second front! Butin Petrosian's opinion, this is an inaccuracy: 'White
should not have madesuch a serious weakening of his queenside.' } (
{ However, after } 27.f4 { Blackhad the reply } 27...Bd7 28.fxe5 ( 28.Qh2 Rf8
29.Bb4 Qe7 $1 ) 28...Bxe5 29.Bf4 Rf8 30.Raf2 Rae8 { with a solid defence. } )
( { The correct solution was theparadoxical } 27.Bb4 $1
{ (Yusupov, Dvoretsky). By preventing ...Bd7, Whitecarries out f2-f4 in a
more comfortable situation: } 27...Ba6 ( { or } 27...Qe7 28.f4 $1 ) 28.Bxd6
Rxd6 29.f4 { etc. } ) 27...a5 $1
{ Fixing the weakness at a4. NowWhite's task is far more difficult, but I
realised this only later, whereasduring the game I was merely staggered by
the boldness of my opponent, since Iwas sure that Black would be unable to hold out against the combined pressureon the b-file and on the kingside.
At that time I used to think in concrete,tactical terms, whereas for Petrosian it was long-term, strategic... }
28.Rb2 $1 Bc5 ( 28...Rb8 $2 29.Rfb1 Bc5 30.Bxa5 { and wins. } ) 29.f4 Bd7 (
29...h6 { is also interesting, for example: } 30.Qe1 $5 ( { or } 30.h5 g5
31.fxg5 fxg5 32.Kh1 Rf8 { (Petrosian) } 33.Rxf8+ Kxf8 34.Be2 Bd7
{ with equality } ) 30...Ra7 $1 ( { not } 30...Bd7 $2 31.fxe5 fxe5 32.Qc1 $1
Ba3 ( { or } 32...Kh7 33.Bxh6 $1 ) 33.Bxh6 $1 Bxb2 34.Qg5 Qh7 35.Rf6
{ and wins } ) 31.Qb1 Rb7 32.fxe5 ( 32.Bc1 $5 ) 32...fxe5 33.Rb5 Kh7 $1
{ (Yusupov, Dvoretsky). } ) 30.h5 $1 Bxa4 $2 (
{ The more dangerous pawn should have been taken - } 30...gxh5 31.Qh4 Rf8 $5
{ , the idea of grandmaster Viorel Bologan, also comes into consideration:
} ( 31...Bg4 32.fxe5 fxe5 33.Bg5 Rf8 $1 ( 33...Re8 34.Bf6 $1 ) 34.Bf6 (
{ if } 34.Rbf2 Rxf2 35.Rxf2 { Black has a choice between } 35...Rf8 (
{ and } 35...Re8 36.Bf6 Qg6 $1 { recommended by Yusupov and Dvoretsky } )
36.Bf6 Rxf6 $1 37.Qxf6 Qxf6 38.Rxf6 Bd7 { with equality } ) 34...Qh6 35.Rbf2
Rae8 { with approximateequality: so White must play } 36.Qg3 (
{ it is wrong to play } 36.d6 $2 Bxd6 37.c5 Bxc5 38.Bc4+ Be6 39.Bxe6+ (
39.Rf5 $2 Bxc4 40.Rg5+ Qg6 41.Qxh5 Kf7 $1 { and wins } ) 39...Rxe6 40.Rf3 d3+
41.Kh2 d2 42.Rg3+ Qg6 ) 36...Qe3 37.Bxe5 Rxe5 $1 38.Qxe5 Bb4 $1 39.c5 Be1
40.Qg5+ $1 Qxg5 41.Rxf8+ Kg7
{ when heonly has perpetual check (Yusupov, Dvoretsky). } ) 32.Qxh5 Bxa4
33.fxe5 fxe5 34.Rxf8+ Rxf8 $1 35.Bh6 Qg6 36.Qxg6+ hxg6 37.Bxf8 Kxf8 38.Kf1
Bd7 39.Ke2 a4 { with sufficient compensation for the exchange. } ) 31.h6 Qc7
{ Petrosian wasrelying on the solidity of his position and was hoping
subsequently to exploithis passed a-pawn, but it turns out that White's
attack is too strong. } 32.f5 $6 { Tempting; } ( { but } 32.fxe5 $1 fxe5
33.Bg5 Rf8 34.Bf6
{ was correct -White's attack is irresistible, as shown by the following
analyses, by me,Timman, and Yusupov with Dvoretsky: } 34...Rae8 ( 34...Rxf6
35.Rxf6 Rf8 36.Rxf8+ Kxf8 37.Rf2+ $1 Kg8 38.Rf6 Bd6 39.Qg4 $1 { and wins. } )
( 34...Bd6 35.Rbf2 Rf7 36.c5 $1 Qxc5 ( { or } 36...bxc5 37.Bc4 Raf8 38.Bxe5
$3 Bxe5 39.Rxf7 Rxf7 40.d6 $1 ) 37.Bxe5 Rxf2 ( { or } 37...Bxe5 38.Qxe5 Re8
39.Qg5 { and Rf6! } ) 38.Rxf2 Bxe5 39.Qxe5 Qc1+ 40.Bf1 Qxh6 41.d6 $1
{ and wins (cf. New in Chess1986 No.4). } ) 35.Rbf2 Bd7 ( 35...Bd6 36.Rf5 $1
Bd7 37.Rg5 ) 36.Bg7 $1 ( { simpler than my suggestion } 36.Kh2
{ - cf. New in Chess 1987 No.5 } ) 36...Rxf2 ( 36...Rf4 37.Bxe5 $1 ) 37.Qxf2
Bc8 38.d6 $1 Bxd6 39.c5
{ and wins. --- Itwas impossible to calculate all these variations at the
board, especially whenin time-trouble, and I chose what seemed to me to be
a more forcingcontinuation. } ) 32...g5 33.Bxg5 $1 { There is nothing else. }
33...fxg5 $2 ( { In the event of the cool } 33...Kf7 $1
{ (I had underestimated this defence)White would have had to be satisfied
with a solid positional advantage after } 34.Bc1 $1 ( 34.Bd2 Rg8 35.Qh4 Ke7
36.g4 Be8 $1 37.g5 fxg5 38.Bxg5+ Kd7 39.Kh1 Bf7
{ is unclear - Yusupov, Dvoretsky } ) 34...Rg8 35.Qh3 $1 Ke7 36.g4 (
{ threatening } 36.-- { g5 fxg5 f6+ } ) 36...Raf8 ( { the threat was }
36...-- 37.g5 fxg5 38.f6+ ) 37.Rg2
{ with the unavoidable g4-g5 breakthrough (Bologan). } ) 34.Qxg5+ Kf8 (
{ not } 34...Kh8 $2 35.Qf6+ Kg8 36.Rf3 ) 35.Qf6+ $4 (
{ White'sentire preceding play demanded the } 35.f6 $1
{ breakthrough, and after } 35...Qf7 { (otherwise f6-f7) } 36.Qxe5 Re8 $1 (
36...Qg6 37.Rxb6 $1 Qxh6 38.Qe7+ $3 Bxe7 39.fxe7+ Kxe7 40.Rxh6 ) ( 36...Bd7
37.Rxb6 $1 Re8 ( { or } 37...Bxb6 38.Qd6+ Kg8 39.Qxb6 ) 38.Re6 $1 Bxe6
39.dxe6 Rac8 40.e7+ Kg8 41.Qg5+ Kh8 42.e5 Bxe7 43.Qg7+ $1 Qxg7 44.hxg7+ Kg8
45.c5 $1 h5 46.Bc4+ Kh7 47.Bf7 $1 d3 48.Rf5 { and wins } ) 37.Qg5 Qg6 38.Rf5
$1
{ , the pawn avalanche would have sweptaway everything in its path. The
computer supports this thesis with a seriesof colourful variations: }
38...Bd7 ( { not } 38...Ra7 39.e5 Rxe5 40.Rxe5 Qxd3 41.f7 $1 ) ( { or }
38...Qxg5 39.Rxg5 Kf7 40.Rg7+ $1 ) 39.Qxg6 hxg6 40.Rg5 Kf7 ( 40...a4 $2
41.Rxg6 ) 41.e5 Bf5 $5 { (an idea of grandmaster Vadim Zviagintsev) } (
{ if } 41...Rxe5 42.Rxe5 Kxf6 { White wins by } 43.Rbe2 a4 44.g4 $1 Bxg4
45.Re8 Ra7 46.Rg2 $1 Bf5 47.Re6+ $1 ) 42.Bxf5 d3+ $5 ( 42...Rxe5 43.Bxg6+
Kxf6 44.Rxe5 Kxe5 45.Re2+ $1 Kf6 ( { or } 45...Kf4 46.Re8 $1 ) 46.Re6+ Kg5
47.Bd3 { and wins } ) 43.Kh2 $1 { (Dvoretsky) } ( 43.Kf1 Rxe5 44.Bxg6+ Kxf6
45.Rxe5 Kxe5 46.Bxd3 Kd4 47.Ke2 Re8+ $1 48.Kd2 Rg8 $1 49.h7 Rxg2+ 50.Kd1 Rg1+
{ and ...Rh1 is unclear } ) 43...Rxe5 44.Bxg6+ Kxf6 45.Rxe5 Kxe5 46.Bxd3 a4
47.h7 a3 48.Rd2 Kd4 49.Bb1+ Kxc4 50.d6 { and wins. } ) 35...Ke8 36.Ra1
{ The point ofWhite's plan. Now, in the event of the bishop retreating, the
queen check willbe fully justified, but... the bishop is not obliged to
retreat! } 36...Qe7 $3
{ This brilliant defensive move was made by Petrosian almost without
thinking.White's attack peters out, since his rooks are stuck on the
queenside. } 37.Qe6 $6 ( { Realising that the endgame after } 37.Qxe7+ Kxe7
38.Rxa4 Rd6 39.g3 Rg8 $1
{ and ...Rxh6 was too depressing (although not altogether hopeless!),
Itried to confuse matters. } ) 37...Rd6 (
{ 'Petrosian is again equal to theoccasion: after } 37...Qxe6 38.fxe6 Bc6 $5
{ , I should add, is saved by } ( 38...Bd7 39.exd7+ Rxd7 40.Rf2
{ White would have managed to save the game,'I wrote immediately after the
game. But now after } 40...Rf7 $1 { I am not so sure:say, } 41.Rf5 Rxf5
42.exf5 Kf7 { followed by ...a4-a3, ...Kf6 etc. } ( 42...-- ) ) 39.Rf2 $1 (
{ it is bad to play } 39.dxc6 $2 Ke7 40.Rf2 Kxe6 41.Raf1 Rf8 ) 39...Ke7 (
39...Ra7 40.Rf5 $1 Ba8 41.Raf1 ) 40.Rf7+ Kd6 41.e7 Re8 42.Rf6+ Kxe7 43.Rxc6
{ . } ) 38.Qg8+ ( { Again ignoring } 38.Qxe7+ { . } ) 38...Qf8 39.Qg3 (
{ 'After the alternative } 39.Qxf8+ Kxf8 40.Rxa4 Rxh6 41.g3 Kg7 42.Rh2 Rxh2
43.Kxh2 Kf6 { White's defence is very difficult.' (Petrosian) } ) 39...Qxh6
( { In time-trouble Black avoids the anxious } 39...Bd7 $5 40.Qxe5+ Kd8 (
40...Kf7 $6 41.Qg3 $1 Rxh6 42.e5 { is inferior } ) 41.Qg7 Rxh6 42.Qxf8+ Bxf8
43.e5 Bc5
{ , which would have given him chances of converting his extra piece. Now,
onthe other hand, not a trace remains of White's attack. } ) 40.Rxa4 $4
{ At themost inappropriate moment! } ( { It was also hopeless to play }
40.Re2 Bb3 $1 41.Qxe5+ Kf7 { with the decisive inclusion of the rook at a8. }
) ( { However, } 40.Qg8+ $1 Qf8 ( 40...Kd7 41.Qxa8 Qe3+ 42.Rf2 Qxd3 43.f6
{ with equality } ) 41.Qxf8+ Kxf8 42.Rxa4
{ would still have allowed White to resist in an inferiorendgame. } )
40...Qc1+ { I simply overlooked this 'long' move. } 41.Kf2 ( 41.Kh2 Rh6+ )
41...Qxb2+ 42.Kf3 Kf7 { . The time scramble ended with a cold showerfor me! }
0-1
[Event "46. Tilburg"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1981.??.??"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Kasparov, G."]
[Black "Petrosian, T."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "D25"]
[EventDate "1981.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ Our duel in Tilburg followed a similar course. Prior to this game I had
lostwith White in a winning position against Spassky (Game No.84), but then
haddefeated Hübner in good style with Black. Naturally, I was now eager toretrieve my losses against the other ex-world champion. After creating
apromising position, I sacrificed a pawn to gain several tempi and build up anattack on the king. But I failed to find a clear-cut continuation in the timescramble, and again ran into an amazing defence by Petrosian. --- }
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 Bg4 ( 4...e6 { - Game No.30 } ) 5.Bxc4 e6
6.h3 Bh5 7.Nc3 a6 8.g4 Bg6 9.Ne5 Nbd7 10.Nxg6 hxg6 11.Bf1 $1
{ The variation chosen bymy opponent came as something of a surprise -
however, a pleasant one: Whitehas a spatial advantage and chances of an
attack. When I made the 'reverse'move with my bishop and stood up from the board, Spassky approvingly slappedme on the shoulder: a good manoeuvre!
} ( { A harmless alternative is } 11.g5 Nd5 12.Nxd5 exd5 13.Bxd5 c6
{ and ...Qxg5 with equality. } ) 11...c6 12.Bg2 Qc7 13.O-O Be7 14.f4 Nb6
15.g5 Nfd7 ( 15...Nfd5 $6 16.e4 { is inferior. } ) 16.Qg4 O-O-O
{ In search of at least some counterplay, Black must castle queenside; } (
{ if } 16...O-O $2 { , then } 17.h4 $1 { and h4-h5. } ) 17.Rb1 Kb8 18.b4 $5
Nd5 19.Na4 f5 $1 { Again a surprise; } (
{ when sacrificing the pawn, I had beenhoping for } 19...Nxb4 $2 20.Bd2 Nd5
21.e4
{ and White's attack developswithout any particular interference - even
after the best } 21...f5 { (Petrosian) } 22.gxf6 N5xf6 23.Qxe6 Nc5 24.Nxc5
Bxc5 25.dxc5 Rxd2 26.e5 Nd5 27.Qxg6 { . } ) 20.Qg3 ( 20.gxf6 gxf6 21.Qxe6
Rde8 $1
{ was unclear. I had to accept theappearance of an 'eternal' knight at d5.
} ) 20...Nxb4 21.Bd2 Nd5 22.Rfc1
{ White's strong pressure on the b- and c-files allows him to look to the
futurewith optimism, and, on a board full of pieces, Black's extra pawn is
not felt. } 22...Ka7 23.Qe1 Ba3 $5 24.Rc2 Qd6 25.Rb3 Qe7 26.Qe2 Rb8 (
{ In Petrosian'sopinion, } 26...Ra8 $5
{ was more accurate, with the same idea of ...Rhc8 and ...b7-b5. } ) 27.Qd3
Bd6 28.Nb2 $1 Rhc8 29.Nc4 Bc7 30.a4 $1
{ Here I wasalready anticipating placing my pawn on a5, then playing Rcb2
and Qb1, and...gaining convincing revenge for my vexing defeat in Moscow.
And indeed, it isnot clear what Black can do. } 30...b5 $5
{ This move staggered me. } (
{ It looks likea gesture of despair - otherwise White's threats snowball: }
30...N7b6 31.Na5 Bd8 ( 31...Bd6 32.Rcb2 ) 32.Bf1 $1 Qd7 $1 ( { not } 32...Ra8
$2 33.Nxb7 $1 Kxb7 34.a5 { , } ) ( { or } 32...c5 $2 33.dxc5 Rxc5 34.Nc6+ $1
) 33.Rcb2 c5 34.dxc5 Rxc5 35.Nxb7 $1 Rxb7 36.a5
{ with an attack, although Black retains drawingchances after } 36...Rb5
37.Rxb5 ( 37.Qd4 Rxb3 38.Rxb3 Qc6 $1 ) 37...axb5 38.Qd4 b4 39.axb6+ Bxb6
40.Ra2+ Kb8 41.Qe5+ Rc7 $1 42.Bg2 Bc5 43.Ra6 Kc8 $1 { , since is } 44.Rxe6 $2
{ is met by } 44...Ne7 $1 ) 31.axb5 cxb5 32.Ra2 $1
{ A strongrejoinder. It appears that the collapse of Black's defences is
now imminent. Iremember that I was very proud of my position and thought
that the game wasalready over. } 32...Kb7 $5
{ But this move staggered me even more: can such playreally go unpunished?!
} ( { Surely the opponent was obliged to go in for thevariation } 32...Bd6
33.Rxb5 Rxb5 34.Nxd6 Qxd6 35.Qxb5
{ with an obviousadvantage to White? Sensing that the win was somewhere
near, I started growingnervous. } ) ( 32...bxc4 $2 33.Rxa6+ $1 ) ( 32...Bxf4
$2 33.Na3 $1 ) 33.Bb4 $2
{ Strangely enough, this natural move, building up the pressure, is a
seriousmistake. I underestimated Black's defensive potential! } ( 33.Qb1
{ wasinteresting, but this too would not have solved the problems facing
White. Heshould not be circumventing, but attacking Black's fortifications
- at a6, b5and d5. This aim is served by the knight manoeuvre c4-a3-c2-b4. }
) ( { Idiscovered the grandiose move } 33.Na3 $1
{ immediately after the game. In mybook 'The Test of Time' (1984) I gave }
33...Bb6 34.Nc2 $1 Ra8 35.Nb4 Qd6 36.Rb1 $1
{ (with the help of the computer I was able to find this
accuratecontinuation) } ( 36.e4
{ (?) as the main variation, overlooking the spectacularrefutation, later
pointed out by Timman: } 36...Nc5 $3 ( { rather than } 36...fxe4 37.Qxe4 )
37.dxc5 Qxc5+ 38.Kh2 Qg1+ 39.Kg3 Qf2+ ( 39...Rh8 $2 40.Be3 $1 ) 40.Kh2 Qg1+
{ with perpetual check. } ) 36...Nb8 ( 36...Rc4 $2 37.Qa3 $1 ) 37.Qb3 Rc4 (
37...Rd8 38.Rc1 ) 38.Rc1 Rxc1+ 39.Bxc1
{ with an overwhelming advantagefor White. My computer friend also brought
some 'joy' in another direction. } ) ( { In my book I stated that after }
33.Na3 $1 { the reply } 33...Nb6 { would lose to } 34.Nxb5 axb5 35.Qxb5 Rh8
$1
{ , however, is stronger - here White has todisplay exceptional ingenuity
in his attack: } ( 35...Ra8 $4 36.Qxd5+ { and mate } ) ( { or } 35...Rd8
36.Bb4 $1 Qe8 ( 36...Qf7 37.Bc5 ) 37.Qa6+ Kc6 38.Bc5 Kd7 ( 38...Ra8 39.Rxb6+
) 39.Bf1 $1 { . } ) 36.Bb4 $1 ( 36.Rc3 $6 Kc8 $1 ) ( 36.Bxd5+ exd5 37.Rc3 Kc8
38.Ra7 Nc4 39.Qxd5 Nxd2 40.Rcxc7+ Qxc7 41.Rxc7+ Kxc7 42.Qa5+ Kd6 43.Qxd2 Rxh3
44.Qc1 Rbh8 45.Qc5+
{ and only a special analysis canestablish whether the queen and pawn will
overcome the resistance of the tworooks. } ( 45.-- ) ) 36...Qe8 37.Qa6+ Kc6
38.Bf1 $1 ( { but not } 38.Bc5 Kd7 39.Rab2 Qc8 $1 40.Qb5+ Kd8 ) 38...Nxb4
39.Rxb4 Qd8 ( { it also bad to play } 39...Qe7 40.Bb5+ Kd5 41.Qa3 $1 Rhc8
42.Bf1 ) ( { or } 39...Qc8 40.Qb5+ Kd6 41.Qe5+ Ke7 42.Qxg7+ Kd6 43.Qe5+ Ke7
44.Ra7 ) 40.Qb5+ Kd6 41.Qe5+ Ke7 42.Qxg7+ Kd6 43.Rc2 Nd5 44.Bb5 Rxb5 45.Rxb5
{ and wins. --- Thus, to find the narrow pathleading to a win for White,
many years and lots of megahertz of computer powerwere required. But at the
board, not suspecting any latent dangers, Icontinued simply building up the pressure. Such a general approach does notalways prove correct, as I
came to realise within literally a couple of moves. } ) 33...Qe8 $1
{ From here the queen indirectly defends the b5-pawn. } ( 33...Qd8 $2
{ was much weaker in view of } 34.e4 $1 fxe4 35.Qxe4
{ with irresistiblethreats: } 35...bxc4 ( { or } 35...Qe8 36.Qxd5+ $1 exd5
37.Bxd5+ Ka7 38.Rxa6+ $1 Kxa6 39.Ra3+ Ba5 40.Rxa5# ) 36.Qxe6 Nb6 37.Rb1 Qd7
38.Qxd7 Nxd7 39.Bxd5+ Ka7 40.Rba1 Rb6 41.Bc5 { and wins. } ) 34.Bd6 ( 34.Ba5
Qe7 { was of no use; } ) ( { but Petrosian's recommendation } 34.Nd6+ $5 Bxd6
35.Bxd6 Ra8 36.e4 { wasbetter, for example: } 36...Rc1+ 37.Kh2 fxe4 38.Bxe4
Rc6 39.Ba3 N7b6 40.Rf2 { and Bxg6 with the initiative. } ) 34...Ra8 $1 35.Qb1
$2
{ White again plays ongeneral grounds, hoping that an opportunity for him
to land some combinativeblow will present itself. } (
{ After the 'concrete' } 35.e4 fxe4 36.Qxe4 Qf7
{ , Black could have felt quite calm with his powerful knight at d5. } ) (
{ But } 35.Rb1 $1 Bb6 $1 ( 35...Kc6 36.Ba3 $1 { , and if } 36...Nb6
{ , then } 37.Na5+ Kd7 38.Rxb5 $1 ) 36.Ne5
{ would still have retained adequate compensation for the pawn. } ) 35...Kc6
$3
{ A fantastic defence! This move, which Petrosian madeinstantly, threw me
into complete confusion: how is it possible to move theking forward with a
board full of pieces?! After Steinitz, who had done such athing?! The psychological effect of the 30...b5!? thrust and the king march ...Ka7-b7-c6
was so strong, that I was unable to gather my thoughts and I quicklylost. }
36.Rba3 $2 ( { It was essential to play } 36.Bxc7 bxc4 ( 36...Kxc7 37.Nb2 Kd8
38.Qa1 $1 { and Nd3 with compensation for the pawn } ) 37.Rb7 $1 (
{ the over-optimistic } 37.Ba5 $6 cxb3 38.Qxb3 Rab8 39.Rc2+ { is refuted by }
39...Nc5 $1 40.Rxc5+ Kd7 ) 37...Rxc7 38.Rxa6+ Rxa6 39.Qb5+ Kd6 40.Qxa6+ Ke7
41.Bxd5 Rxb7 42.Bxb7 ( { not } 42.Qxe6+ $2 Kd8 43.Qxe8+ Kxe8 44.Bxb7 c3 )
42...Qb8 $1 { with a drawn endgame. } ) 36...bxc4 37.Rxa6+ Rxa6 38.Rxa6+ Bb6
39.Bc5 ( 39.Qb4 Kb7 40.Ra2 c3 $1 ) 39...Qd8 $1 40.Qa1 ( 40.Qb4 Kb7 $1 )
40...Nxc5 41.dxc5 Kxc5 42.Ra4
{ . --- In post-game analysis it was noticeable how much moredeeply my
opponent had evaluated the resulting positions. --- My games withthe 9th
world champion broadened my understanding of chess. Had it not beenfor these two defeats, I would possibly not have reached the top in chess. Isaw
how many latent defensive possibilities are often hidden in crampedpositions! And, of course, I was filled with boundless respect for Petrosian'stalent. --- No less worthy of recognition are his many years of journalisticand teaching activity. He splendidly commented on Botvinnik's matches
withSmyslov and Tal, and he was the author of some highly interesting andcontroversial articles. In the mid-1960s he edited the newspaper 'ShakhmatnayaMoskva' and in 1968, using his connections in the higher echelons of power, hecreated and for almost 10 years was in charge of the popular all-union weekly64. In 1977 he happily accepted the invitation of Alexander Nikitin toorganise a school for young Spartak players; moreover, he was never a merefigurehead, he did not miss a single session and, while his health permitted,he worked twice a year with the juniors. Among those
who studied in thisschool, named after Petrosian, were the future grandmasters Gelfand, Novikov,Matveeva and Dokhoian and dozens of future masters. }
0-1
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Finale"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ As you will remember, in his youth Tigran Vartanovich was quite prepared
tosacrifice. Now look at a game, played not long before his death, in the
50thUSSR Championship, which was to be his last. Over the course of 30 years hiscreative credo had hardly changed: one sees the same non-routine
approach tothe solving of opening and middlegame problems. And although overall thistournament was by no means the best one in Petrosian's career, the game withhis old friend and opponent, Lev Polugayevsky, was conducted as in his formeryears. }
1.--
{ In conclusion, as has now become customary, I give a selectionof
interesting opinions by the world champions. } ( 1.--
{ Euwe: 'If we lookin chess history for a "double" of Petrosian, we arrive
at Capablanca.Petrosian is not a tiger that pounces on its prey, but rather
a python, thatsmothers its victim, or a crocodile, waiting for hours for a convenient momentto land a decisive blow. Petrosian is an outstanding
strategist. If he shouldbegin to combine a little, he will be impossible to play against.' }
) ( 1.--
{ Botvinnik: 'Among all our grandmasters Petrosian possesses the
mostdistinctive and original talent: he places his pieces so astutely, that
allattacks on them prove very difficult. This is a subtle and rare style, towhich it is hard to adapt.' }
) ( 1.--
{ Smyslov: 'Petrosian masterfullycreated positions that demanded of his
opponents an ability to solveindependent problems at the board. His opening
preparation combined aknowledge of theory and a knowledge of human psychology. Players who cannottake a single step without Chess Informator were
ironically called by him"children of Informator".' } ) ( 1.--
{ Tal: 'Petrosian, of course, was aphenomenal chess talent; he played so
deeply and interestingly, that hesometimes found ideas for his opponents
that never even entered their heads.Petrosian had Capablanca's technique and Schlechter's sense of danger.' }
) ( 1.--
{ Petrosian: 'A strong player knows all the rules and laws of the game.
Atalented player knows everything that a strong player knows, but he also
seesexceptions to the rules. But major chess talents (we call them geniuses)gradually transform these exceptions into new rules. And so on ad
infinitum,since chess is inexhaustible.' } ) ( 1.--
{ Spassky: 'Petrosian was adistinctive, highly intelligent man, with an
excellent sense of humour. And aplayer with an amazingly subtle feeling.
Perhaps for a professional this is ingeneral the greatest talent. Of course, his was a colossal tactical talent. Ingeneral he was a strategist, but
a tactician by nature.' } ) ( 1.--
{ Fischer:'Petrosian has the ability to see and eliminate danger 20 moves
before itarises! I was staggered by Petrosian's ability, after achieving an
excellentposition, all the time to find manoeuvres that strengthened it.' } )
( 1.--
{ Karpov: 'Petrosian was able to make combinations no worse than Tal, but
herestrained his talent and played purely positionally.' } ) *
[Event "47. 50th USSR Championship, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1983.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Polugayevsky, L."]
[Black "Petrosian, T."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "A40"]
[EventDate "1983.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.Nf3 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.c4 d6 4.Nc3 e5 5.e4 Nc6 6.dxe5 Nxe5 7.Nd4 a6 8.Be2 c5
9.Nc2 Be6 10.Nd5
{ The opening has been played in a very original,creative manner, but we
will not dwell on it. } (
{ I think that objectivelyWhite has the advantage, only he should have
played } 10.Ne3 $1 { , nothurrying to occupy the d5-square immediately. } )
10...Bxd5 11.exd5 Ne7 12.O-O
{ Polugayevsky no doubt thought that such a structure with the two
bishopsguaranteed him an advantage. He often played (and won!) similar
King's Indianpositions. } 12...O-O 13.Rb1 Nf5 14.b4 cxb4 15.Rxb4 Qc7 16.Bb2
Rfe8
{ White hasplayed b2-b4, exploiting the early weakening 7...a6. But this
has turned outto be a double-edged decision, since a weakness has emerged
not only at b7,but also at c4. In addition, Black has acquired the c5-square. In suchpositions, with Petrosian you had to be very watchful: he would
always findopportunities to create strong points and exploit them with maximum effect. }
17.Nd4 Nxd4
{ It is logical that White should decide to exchange his c2-knightfor the
one at f5. } ( { Moreover, here there was an interesting trap: } 17...Qc5 $6
18.a3 $1 a5 19.Nxf5 $1 ( { and if } 19.Rb5 $2
{ Black could have sacrificedhis queen - } 19...Nxc4 20.Rxc5 Nxb2 21.Qd2 (
21.Nxf5 $2 Nxd1 22.Nxd6 Rxe2 23.Rxd1 Bf8 ) 21...Nxd4 22.Rxa5 Nxe2+ 23.Kh1
Rac8
{ , emerging from thecomplications with the advantage. However, White
himself could haveunexpectedly gone in for a temporary exchange
sacrifice... } ) 19...axb4 20.Nxg7 Kxg7 21.Bd4 Qc7 22.f4
{ , winning a piece. The passed a-pawn is easilyblockaded from a1, while
the black king is extremely weakened. I am sure thatPetrosian did not even
consider such continuations. He saw a clear-cut planfor Black: the exchange on d4 and ...Nd7-c5. }
) 18.Bxd4 Nd7 $1 19.Be3 Rxe3 $5
{ It is clear that White, to maintain the pressure, will avoid the exchange
ofthe dark-squared bishops. } ( { In the event of the 'normal' } 19...Nc5
{ Whitecould have played } 20.Qd2 ( { or } 20.Qc2
{ , or even captured on c5. But atthis instant Petrosian sharply changes
the character of the play with hispatent exchange sacrifice! Moreover, here
this sacrifice is even less forced,than in those games where Black was indeed threatened with serious problems (Game Nos. 2 and 3), and there were
no particular grounds for rejecting 19...Nc5. This emphasises the purity of Petrosian's idea. }
) ) 20.fxe3 Nc5
{ Blackhas achieved what he wanted: an 'eternal' knight at c5, complete
domination ofthe dark squares and a doomed pawn at e3 (Polugayevsky
realised that it couldnot be defended literally three moves later). } 21.Qc2
Re8 22.Rf3 Bh6 23.Qc3 Qe7 24.Rb6 $4 { Thus White cannot save his e-pawn. } (
{ After the correct } 24.Kh1 Bxe3 25.Rb1 Bg5 26.Bd3 f5
{ , Black has full compensation for theexchange. It would perhaps be more
interesting playing Black, who neverthelesshas some initiative. Moreover,
it is not clear how White can make any realprogress. But here Polugayevsky made an atypical blunder, losing the rookoutright. }
) 24...Na4
{ . --- It seems to me that, even without this blunder,White faced a
difficult defence and that Black would have been able to exploitthe
qualitative superiority of his pieces, which neutralises his nominalmaterial deficit. --- In the last few months of his life Petrosian
wasseriously ill and became terribly emaciated (as did his friend Tal a few yearslater). Nevertheless, in the spring of 1984 he agreed to help me prepare formy world championship match with Karpov, and we even met on a couple ofoccasions. --- I remember a reception in the Spartak
Sports Society chess clubin celebration of my win in the final Candidates match over Smyslov. Petrosianand Tal were among the honoured guests. When someone in the audience asked me:'What do you think of Fischer?', I replied: 'This question would be betteranswered by his opponents, the living legends who are present here!' Onhearing these words, the dozing Tal (who was slightly sedated) raised his headand muttered: 'Barely living legends...' Petrosian threw him an angry glance,but then registered his acceptance, gave in and began to laugh... --- In
Junehe reached the age of 55. He could still be seen in the USSR Central ChessClub on Gogol Boulevard, and dreamed of playing in the second 'Match of theCentury' (London 1984), preparing to travel with the team, refusing to believethat his illness was incurable. But, alas, his days were numbered. And twomonths later, on 13th August, Tigran Vartanovich passed away. }
0-1
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Boris the Tenth"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ While working on this chapter I unexpectedly discovered that the play
ofBoris Vasilievich Spassky (born 30 January 1937), in contrast to that of
hisimmediate predecessors (Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal and Petrosian), does not lenditself to a distinct division into any clearly expressed
components, making itunique and unrepeatable. With Spassky everything is somehow diffuse and misty- and this, evidently, confirms his image of a universal player. It isgenerally considered that the universal chess style, involving an ability toplay the most varied types of positions, stems
from Spassky. --- However, inmy view, this general conviction about Spassky's universality ignores the factthat from childhood he clearly had a leaning towards sharp, attacking play,and possessed a splendid feel for the initiative. These habits were, I think,cultivated in him by his first trainer Zak, and then developed andconsolidated by Tolush. And a liking for pretty attacks can be tracedthroughout Spassky's chess career. }
1.--
{ Therefore it is neverthelesspossible to pick out the main, dominating
features of the 10th worldchampion's play, which were mastered back in his
youth, as though at thegenetic level. Spassky liked in particular a strong, mobile centre and freedevelopment, and he was splendid at conducting a
direct attack on the king.Furthermore, he gradually also learned to manoeuvre subtly, defend inferiorpositions, and play the endgame with good technique. And he did everythingequally well, even with a kind of exaggerated indifference: well, if it's anattack - it's an attack, if it's an endgame
- it's an endgame. --- But atthe slightest opportunity Spassky would nevertheless demonstrate his innateability to find his way in complex positions, abounding in tactics and lackingcustomary guides. So that in his chess roots Spassky is in fact much closer toChigorin, Alekhine and Tal, than to Botvinnik, Smyslov or Petrosian. It isprobably this that explains why in his best years neither Tal nor Korchnoicould essentially play against him. Since their play, especially that of Tal,could be read by Spassky like an open book. --- 'I am sure that chess has asplendid future, because it
is an eternal struggle,' thinks BorisVasilievich. 'The computer age has arrived, and it influences everything:analysis, preparation, information. Now a different talent is required - theability to synthesise ideas. Here for the moment man is still in front.' }
*
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Riga Catastrophe"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ Spassky's career is not altogether typical of a world champion - it
aboundsin both vivid climbs and incredible falls. His start was perhaps one
of themost brilliant. At the age of ten Boris began studying with the well-knowntrainer Vladimir Zak, at 15 he made his mark in the adult
championship ofLeningrad (1. Taimanov, 2. Spassky, 3. Levenfish, 4. Korchnoi...), and at 16he excelled in a strong international tournament in Bucharest (1953), where hegained a memorable win over Smyslov in the first round and ultimately becamean international master. --- 'It is amusing,
but I was helped by the Sovietauthorities,' remembers Spassky. 'The tournament began with the Sovietplayers taking points off each other, and as a result the Hungarian LászlóSzabó took the lead. And here a telegram arrived from Moscow: 'Stop thisscandal, start making draws among yourselves!' Of course, it was good that Ihad already gained a point against Smyslov, but I think that it would not havebeen easy for me, given my youth and inexperience, to make draws withBoleslavsky and Petrosian. But as it was, we all submitted to the order fromthe Kremlin.' }
1.--
{ At the age of 18 Boris made a successful debut in the22nd USSR
Championship (1955), a world championship Zonal event. In finishingonly
half a point behind the winners, Geller and Smyslov, he shared 3rd-6thplaces with Botvinnik, Petrosian and Ilivitsky and qualified for
theInterzonal tournament. And from this he went straight to the Candidatestournament, after succeeding in becoming world junior champion along the way.--- In the Amsterdam Candidates tournament (1956) he was not really a seriouscontender for first place, but he nevertheless
shared 3rd-7th places,finishing only half a point behind Keres and two behind the winner - Smyslov.Vasily Vasilievich was of course, beyond comparison: he was then effectivelythe strongest player in the world (he won two successive Candidates cycles andplayed three matches with Botvinnik). And in this tournament Smyslov lost onlyone game - again to Spassky! This was also, incidentally, a highlycharacteristic game: after ending up in a strategically hopeless position asBlack, the young Spassky demonstrated amazing resourcefulness and managed
toconfuse his formidable opponent to such an extent that the latter was unableto gain even a draw. --- It appeared that later too Spassky's career would beequally successful. In the 23rd USSR Championship (1956) he shared first placewith Taimanov and Averbakh, finishing a point ahead of a new rising star, the19-year-old Riga master Mikhail Tal (and, incidentally, crushing him in theirindividual meeting). However, in the next USSR Championship (1957) the roleswere reversed: Tal became champion for the first time, while Spassky finished'the same' point behind. Thus a sharp rivalry developed between the twoleaders of the young generation. --- The following unusual game is typical ofthe style and creative mood of the Boris of that time. }
*
[Event "48. 24th USSR Championship, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1957.??.??"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Spassky, B."]
[Black "Kholmov, R."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "E30"]
[EventDate "1957.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Bg5
{ This currently half-forgotten openingvariation was inherited by Spassky
from his first trainer, Zak. Boris gainedseveral notable wins with it,
beginning with the aforementioned one overSmyslov (1953). However, this variation, which is called the Leningrad, hasnever become popular on account
of the obvious strategic defects that arise inWhite's position. In general White's results are not very favourable, with theexception of... Spassky's games: +17-1=11 (!). }
4...h6 ( { A slightly differentvariation goes } 4...c5 5.d5 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 e5
7.Nf3 ( 7.d6 $5 { Spassky } ) 7...d6 8.Nd2 h6 9.Bh4 Nbd7 10.e3 Nf8 11.Bd3 Ng6
12.Bg3 O-O ( { the immediate } 12...Ne7 $1
{ and ...Nf5 is more accurate, with equality } ) 13.O-O Ne7 14.f4 $1
{ with a lively battle (Spassky-Larsen, 1st round, 'Match of the
Century',Belgrade 1970). } ) 5.Bh4 c5 6.d5 Bxc3+ (
{ Smyslov defended against Spassky with } 6...exd5 7.cxd5 d6 8.e3 Nbd7 { ; }
) ( { Keres was unsuccessful twice with } 6...d6 7.e3 e5 8.Ne2 Nbd7 { ; } )
( { whereas Tal gained the only success withthe sharp } 6...b5 $5
{ (Volume 2, Game No.141). } ) 7.bxc3 e5
{ It was thisset-up that sharply diminished the popularity of the Leningrad
Variation. } (
{ True, one possibility with this move order is the sharp line } 7...e5 8.d6
$5 Nc6 { (Spassky-Timman, Tallinn 1973); } ) (
{ and, in order to exclude this, theyswitched to } 7...d6 $1 8.e3 Qe7 $5 (
{ or } 8...e5 ) 9.Bd3 Nbd7 10.Ne2 ( 10.Nf3 e5
{ Timman-Romanishin, Tilburg 1985 } ) 10...Ne5 $1 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.O-O Qh4 $1
13.Nf4 Nxd3 14.Qxd3 e5
{ with a comfortable game (Miles-Karpov,Tilburg 1986). } ) 8.Qc2 (
{ The alternative is } 8.e3 d6 9.Nf3 { and now, apartfrom } (
{ it is bad to play } 9.Bd3 $6 e4 $1 10.Bc2 ( 10.Bxe4 $2 g5 ) 10...g5 11.Bg3
Qe7 12.h4 Rg8 13.hxg5 hxg5 14.Ne2 Nbd7 15.Qb1 Kd8 $1 16.a4 a5 17.Ra2 Kc7
18.Rh6 Ra6 19.Qb5 Kb8 20.Rb2 Ka7 21.Qb3 Ng4 22.Rh1 f5 23.Kd1 Rb6
{ ... 0-1 (Williams-Karpov, Nice Olympiad 1974). } ) 9...Nbd7 { , } (
{ Black canplay both } 9...Qe7 10.Nd2 g5 11.Bg3 Bf5 12.h4 Rg8
{ (Spassky-Tisdall,Thessaloniki Olympiad 1988) } ) ( { and } 9...Bf5 10.Nd2
g5 11.Bg3 Nbd7 12.f3 Bg6 13.e4 Qe7
{ (Spassky-Short, Zürich rapidplay 2001). In this, the lastpublished game
by Boris Vasilievich using his favourite variation, White againwon! } ) )
8...d6 9.e3 Qe7 10.Nf3 Nbd7 ( { In Spassky's later games } 10...g5 11.Bg3 e4
12.Nd2 Bf5 13.Rb1 { occurred. } ) 11.Nd2 e4 $1 (
{ A reasonablealternative is } 11...g5 12.Bg3 e4 $1 { , for example: } 13.h4
Rg8 14.Rb1 Kd8 15.hxg5 hxg5 16.Rb2 Nf8 17.Qb1 Ng6 18.a4 Re8 19.Nb3 Qc7 20.Be2
Rb8 21.Kd2
{ ˝-˝ (Spassky-Sax, Solingen 1989). --- Black's solid bulwarks in thecentre
deprive the position of dynamism, which the white bishops so need,
andrestrict any possible activity by White to diversions on the h- and b-files.Nowadays the soundness of Black's set-up is known even to young players.
} ) ( { Only not } 11...O-O $6 12.Bd3 $1 { . } ) 12.O-O-O $5 { A surprise! }
( { Kholmovhad expected } 12.Be2 O-O 13.O-O { and was intending to play }
13...Re8 14.Rae1 g5 15.Bg3 Nf8 16.f3 exf3 17.Bxf3 Ng6
{ . But the centre is so blocked that bothkings feel relatively safe on any
part of the board, and their (oftenleisurely) movements are largely
dictated by the need to connect the rooks. } ) ( { Thus after } 12.Be2
{ it is also perfectly good to play } 12...g5 13.Bg3 Nf8 14.h4 Rg8 15.Rb1 Kd8
$5 16.h5 N8d7 17.Rb2 Ne5 18.Nxe4 Bf5
{ with equality (Rubinetti-Polugayevsky, Mar del Plata 1971). } ) 12...O-O $5
{ Only after thisnatural reply does the battle unexpectedly flare up. } (
{ It would all have beenquiet after } 12...g5 13.Bg3 Nf8 { , for example: }
14.h4 Rg8 15.hxg5 hxg5 16.Kb2 Bf5 17.Rb1 O-O-O
{ with level chances (Medina-Veingold, Ceuta 1993). } ) 13.g4 $1 g5 $1
{ Half a century ago such a move, away from the king, would havebeen made
only by the 'chosen' few, but in fact it is positionally quite sound:when
you have a strong centre, you don't have to fear flank operations by theopponent. }
14.Bg3 Ne5 $1 15.h3 ( { Of course, not } 15.Nxe4 $2 Nxe4 16.Qxe4 Bxg4 $1
{ . } ) 15...Ng6
{ By exploiting the fact that his central pawn wasindirectly defended,
Black has not only completed a useful regrouping, butalso forced his
opponent to make a 'superfluous' pawn move. } 16.Be2 Re8 17.Rdg1 Bd7 18.h4
Rab8 $6 ( { In Kholmov's opinion, } 18...a6 $1 { was better; } ) (
{ but not } 18...Bxg4 $2 19.hxg5 hxg5 20.Bxg4 Nxg4 21.Bxd6 $1 { . } ) 19.hxg5
hxg5
{ Both sides complete their final battle preparations, but Spassky is
thefirst to begin, and with a sudden combinative blow, the consequences of
whichare for the moment absolutely unclear. } 20.Rh5 $1 (
{ White is not tempted bythe routine } 20.Rh6 a6 $5 21.Rgh1 b5 { . } )
20...Nxh5 21.gxh5 Nf8
{ For whathas White given up the exchange? The answer is provided by a new,
altogetherunexpected sacrifice, taking the game into the world of
irrational materialbalances. } 22.Nxe4 $3
{ 'After lengthy thought Spassky finds a cleverpossibility. } (
{ The natural } 22.Bh4 ) ( { or } 22.Bf4
{ would not have achievedanything on account of } 22...f6 { ' (Kholmov). } )
22...Qxe4 23.Qxe4 Rxe4 24.Bxd6 Rbe8 ( { 'Hardly any stronger was } 24...Rc8
25.Rxg5+ Kh8 26.Be5+ Rxe5 27.Rxe5 Re8 28.Rxe8 Bxe8 29.e4 Nd7 30.f4 f6
{ , when the knight has to guard thee5-square. } ) (
{ 'Had the rook been at a8, } 24...f6
{ would have been possible.Of course, when he played 18...Rab8 Black could
not have anticipated such acascade of sacrifices.' (Kholmov) } ) 25.Rxg5+ Kh8
26.Bxc5
{ In just six movesthe position has altered beyond recognition, without,
however, changing fromthe evaluation 'unclear'. But the colourful spectacle
does not end at this. } 26...f6 27.Rg3 b6 28.Bd4 Nh7 29.Kd2 Rg8 30.Rg6 $1
{ With four pawns for a rook,White is even agreeable to an endgame! }
30...Be8 31.Bd3 $5
{ This new sacrifice ismerely the signal for further exchanges, made in a
highly original manner. } ( { According to Kholmov, after } 31.Bxf6+ Nxf6
32.Rxf6 Kg7 { Black could havegradually activated his pieces; } ) ( 31.Rxf6
$2 Rxd4+ $1 ) ( { while the computermeticulously studies the restricting }
31.Rxg8+ Kxg8 32.f4 $5 { . } ) 31...Bxg6 32.hxg6 Rxd4 33.cxd4 Nf8
{ The strict materialist Fritz evaluates thisoriginal 'single rook' endgame
in favour of White, but in situations with suchan unusual balance of forces
the computer cannot be trusted. In fact, over thelast 13 moves the adversaries have performed a scene, where rivers of bloodhave been shed, but where
the most logical outcome has all the time remained adraw. } 34.c5 bxc5
35.dxc5 Nd7 $1
{ This reverse movement of the knightenables the balance to be maintained;
} ( { whereas the greedy } 35...Nxg6 $2 { would have been punished by }
36.Bxg6 Rxg6 37.c6 Rg8 38.c7 $1 Kg7 39.d6 Kf7 40.d7 { etc. } ) 36.c6 Nb6
37.e4 $5 { Sharpening the play in time-trouble. } ( { The sound } 37.d6
{ would have secured a draw: } 37...Rd8 38.d7 Nxd7 ( 38...Na8 $2 39.Kc3
{ and wins } ) 39.cxd7 Rxd7 40.f4 f5 41.Ke2 Rd5 42.Bc4 Rd6 43.Bf7 Kg7 { . } )
37...Kg7 38.Ba6 (
{ Accuracy is also demanded of White - to avoid ablockade on the dark
squares, for example: } 38.Bb5 $6 Kxg6 39.d6 Rd8 ( { or } 39...Kf7
{ , and the threat of ...Ke6! forces the hopeless } 40.c7 Rc8 41.d7 Nxd7
42.Bxd7 Rxc7 ) 40.d7 Na8 $1 41.Bc4 ( 41.Ke3 Kf7 $1 42.Kd4 Nc7 43.a4 Ke7
44.Kc5 Ne6+ 45.Kd5 Rg8 46.Kc4 Kd6 { and wins } ) 41...Kg7
{ followed by ...Kf8-e7 and ...Rh8. } ) ( { The immediate } 38.a4 $5
{ is also interesting; however,after } 38...a5 ( { the idea was } 38...Nxa4
$2 39.d6
{ and 40 c7, exploiting thenuance that ...Kxg6? is bad on account of
e4-e5+! } ) 39.Bb5 Kxg6 40.Kd3 Kf7
{ , the black rook should be able to cope with the pawn avalanche. } )
38...Kxg6 39.a4 Kf7 ( { A simple draw would have resulted from } 39...Nxa4
40.c7 Nc5 41.c8=Q Rxc8 42.Bxc8 Nxe4+ 43.Ke3 Nd6 44.Be6 { . } ) (
{ A last problem could havebeen posed by } 39...Na8 $1 40.Kc3 Rd8 41.Bc4 Nc7
42.Kd4 Kg5 $1 ( { not } 42...Ne8 $2 43.f4 $1 ) 43.Kc5 Ne8
{ , but the unexpected manoeuvre } 44.Be2 $1 Kf4 ( 44...a5 45.Bd1 ) 45.Bh5 $1
{ would have maintained the balance: } 45...Nc7 46.d6 Na6+ 47.Kd5 Nb4+ 48.Kc5
Nd3+ 49.Kd5 Nb4+ { . } ) 40.a5 Na8 $1 ( { After } 40...Nc8 $2 41.f4
{ White would have been threatening both e4-e5, and Bxc8. } ) 41.Bc4 Rd8
{ . This last move was sealed. } ( { A brief analysis of the variation }
41...Rd8 42.f4 Nc7 { showed that after } 43.d6+ ( { while after } 43.Ke3 Ke7
44.Kd4 Ne6+ 45.Ke3 Nc7 { neither side can avoid the repetition of moves } )
43...Kg6 44.e5 fxe5 45.fxe5 Kf5 46.Kc3 Kxe5 47.dxc7 Rc8 48.Ba6 Rxc7 49.Bb7
{ , Black cannot drive back the white king (Kholmov). Therefore - a draw.
Abeautiful flight of fantasy by Spassky! } ) 1/2-1/2
[Event "49. 25th USSR Championship, Riga"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1958.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Spassky, B."]
[Black "Polugayevsky, L."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "B94"]
[EventDate "1958.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 Nbd7
{ A fashionableset-up at the time. Its drawbacks are the neglect of the
knight at d4 and theconstant danger of invasions by White at d5 or e6. In
1958 the extremely risky'Polugayevsky Variation' was not yet ripe for testing at such a serious level. }
7.Bc4 Qa5 8.Qd2 e6 (
{ In the famous 19th game of the Spassky-Petrosian match (Moscow 1969),
White won with a direct attack on the king after } 8...h6 $6 9.Bxf6 $1 Nxf6
10.O-O-O e6 11.Rhe1 Be7 12.f4 O-O 13.Bb3 Re8 14.Kb1 Bf8 15.g4 $1
{ , thereby making a decisive step towards the world chess crown. Thegame
concluded } 15...Nxg4 16.Qg2 Nf6 17.Rg1 Bd7 18.f5 Kh8 19.Rdf1 Qd8 20.fxe6
fxe6 21.e5 dxe5 22.Ne4 Nh5 23.Qg6 exd4 24.Ng5 { 1-0, as } 24...hxg5 25.Qxh5+
Kg8 26.Qf7+ Kh7 27.Rf3 { wins. } ) 9.O-O-O b5 10.Bb3 ( { After } 10.Bd5
{ Spasskyconsidered a strong reply to be } 10...b4 $1 11.Bxa8 bxc3
{ with good counterplay,and this evaluation is confirmed by analysis. } )
10...Bb7 11.Rhe1 Be7 ( { Activity before the completion of development - }
11...b4 $2 { - is punished bythe standard } 12.Nd5 $1 { ; } ) ( { but }
11...O-O-O $5
{ is possible,Sherwin-Reshevsky, New York 1959; Gulko-Petrosian, 44th USSR
Championship,Moscow 1976. } ) 12.f4 Nc5 ( 12...b4 $2
{ is again bad because of } 13.Nd5 $1 { , and after } 13...exd5 14.exd5 Kf8
15.Rxe7 $1 Kxe7 16.Nc6+ Bxc6 17.dxc6 { Black's defences quickly collapse. } )
13.e5 $2 { An inaccurate formulation ofan interesting idea. } ( 13.Bxf6 $1
{ is correct: } 13...Bxf6 ( { since here } 13...gxf6 $6
{ would have spoiled the pawn formation: } 14.Kb1 ( { not } 14.Bd5 $6 b4 $1
{ Strekalovsky-Polugayevsky, Sverdlovsk 1958 } ) 14...O-O-O ( 14...b4 $6
15.Nd5 $1 { Tal-Johannsson, Stockholm 1961 } ) 15.a3 $1 Kb8 16.f5 Nxb3
17.cxb3 { with advantage to White. } ) 14.e5 dxe5
{ would have transposed into a positionfrom the game; } (
{ it is hardly any better to play } 14...Bh4 15.g3 Bd8 16.exd6 O-O 17.a3 Bf6
18.Ba2 { , Korchnoi-Polugayevsky, Sochi 1958. } ) ) 13...dxe5 14.Bxf6 (
{ There is no choice: } 14.fxe5 { is unfavourable on account of } 14...Nfe4
$1 15.Nxe4 Qxd2+ 16.Bxd2 Bxe4 { . } ) 14...Bxf6 $2
{ An error in return, andthe source of all Black's later sufferings. } (
{ Without hesitation a moderngrandmaster would have replied } 14...gxf6 $1
15.fxe5 O-O-O $1 16.exf6 Bxf6 17.Qf2 Bg7
{ with the bishop pair and an excellent game. Such is the price ofa move in
the Sicilian - one inaccuracy leads to an instant change of scene! } )
15.fxe5 Bh4 16.g3 Be7
{ For complete happiness it only remains for Black tocastle, but here
Spassky finds a spectacular blow at the e6-point, beginningan immediate
battle. } 17.Bxe6 $1
{ The old comment by Spassky and the masterDmitry Rovner, who was then
helping him, makes interesting reading: 'One ofthose little combinations,
which are often a necessary addition to thecompletion of an attack. The move in the game emphasises the drawbacks of themove 6...Nbd7 (it does not
fight for the d4-square).' This categoricalassertion in the spirit of Tarrasch or Botvinnik is largely based on the factthat White won the game. A fascinating modern analysis with the help of acomputer shows that it is still a long way to the completion of the attack. }
17...O-O $2
{ Not everyone is capable of retaining their composure, on receivingsuch a
'gift'. And Polugayevsky decided to give up a pawn, if only to removehis
king from the fire. He even reconciled himself to a lengthening of theoperating diagonal of the opponent's light-squared bishop, although this
makesBlack's position more than difficult. } (
{ All the commentators mentioned onlythe helpless position of the black
king after } 17...Nxe6 $2 18.Nxe6 fxe6 19.Qd7+ Kf7 20.Rf1+ { ; } ) ( { or }
17...fxe6 $2 18.Nxe6 Rd8 ( 18...Nxe6 19.Qd7+ Kf7 20.Rf1+ ) 19.Nxg7+ Kf7
20.Qh6 { . } ) ( { It is no better to play } 17...b4 $2 18.Bxf7+ $1 Kxf7
19.Qf4+ Ke8 20.Nf5 Ne6 21.Nd6+ Bxd6 22.exd6 { ; } ) ( { or } 17...Rd8 $2
18.Bxf7+ $1 ( 18.Bb3 b4 19.Qf4 $1 O-O { , as in the game } ) 18...Kxf7
19.Qf4+ Ke8 ( 19...Kg6 $2 20.Qf5+ Kh6 21.Ne6 { and wins } ) 20.Nf5
{ with a powerful attack. } ) (
{ But a player without nerves - a computer -unexpectedly replies } 17...Qd8
$1
{ , defending the weak d7-square andcreating the threat of ...Bg5. White
has no particular choice - } 18.Bxf7+ $1 ( { not } 18.Qf2 $6 fxe6 19.Nxe6
Nxe6 20.Rxd8+ Rxd8 21.Qb6 Bc8 22.Qc6+ Bd7 $1 23.Qxa6 O-O
{ with excellent compensation for the queen } ) 18...Kxf7 19.Qf4+ Kg8 20.Nf5
$1 ( { little is promised by } 20.Ndxb5 Qf8 21.Qc4+ Qf7 22.Qxf7+ Kxf7 23.Nd6+
Bxd6 { with equality } ) 20...Qf8 $1 21.e6 $1 ( 21.Nd5 $6 Bxd5 22.Rxd5 Ne6 )
21...h6 22.h4 $1
{ (the only way), and suddenly a new hero burstsonto the scene - the
b-pawn: } ( 22.Nxe7+ Qxe7
{ gives only insufficientcompensation for the piece: } 23.b4 ( 23.Nd5 Bxd5
24.Rxd5 Rc8 ) ( { or } 23.Qf7+ Qxf7 24.exf7+ Kxf7 25.b4 Rhe8 26.bxc5 Rxe1
27.Rxe1 Rc8 ) 23...Nxe6 24.Rd6 $1 Bc8 25.Nd5 Nxf4 $5 26.Nxe7+ Kf7 27.Nxc8
Rhxc8 28.gxf4 Rc4 { , and a drawis the most probable outcome } ) 22...Kh7 (
22...g6 23.Nxe7+ Qxe7 24.b4 $1 Rf8 25.Qe5 Bf3 26.bxc5 Bxd1 27.Nd5 Qg7 28.e7
Qxe5 29.exf8=Q+ Kxf8 30.Rxe5 Bf3 31.c6 Bxd5 32.Rxd5 { and wins. } ( 32.-- ) )
( 22...Re8 23.b4 $1 Nxe6 24.Rxe6 Bxb4 25.Rxe8 Ba3+ 26.Kb1 Qxe8 27.Qc7 Qg6
28.Rd7 $1 Qxf5 29.Rxg7+ Kf8 30.Rd7 Kg8 31.Qxb7 { and wins. } ) 23.b4 $1 Bf6
24.e7 Qc8 $1 25.Nd5 $3 ( 25.Nd6 Nb3+ 26.axb3 Qxc3 27.Nxb7 Qb2+ 28.Kd2 Qc3+
29.Ke2 Qxc2+ 30.Rd2 Qg6 31.Rd6 Rhe8 { is unclear } ) 25...Bxd5 26.Nd6 $1 Nb3+
$1 27.axb3 Qc3 28.Qf5+ $1 g6 29.Qxd5 Qb2+ 30.Kd2 Qc3+ 31.Ke2 Bxe7 32.Ne4 $1
Qg7 33.Rf1 Rhf8 34.Qe6 Ra7 35.c3
{ and White should win. --- Thus, after the best move 17..Qd8 Whitewould
nevertheless have retained what is probably a decisive advantage, butthe
young Spassky would have had to find a whole series of brilliant moves. } )
18.Bb3 ( { The simple } 18.Bd5 $1
{ was also good, giving White a powerfulinitiative after } 18...b4 (
{ and a great advantage in the endgame after } 18...Bxd5 19.Nxd5 Qxd2+
20.Kxd2 Bg5+ 21.Ke2 ) 19.Nf5 Rae8 20.Ne4 Nxe4 21.Rxe4 { . } ) 18...Rad8
19.Qf4 b4 20.Na4 $5 (
{ In the book 'Boris Spassky's 300 Wins' thisspectacular move is
accompanied by two exclamation marks, although I wouldhave preferred the
simple } 20.Nf5 $1 { with an obvious advantage: } 20...Nxb3+ ( { if }
20...Rde8 { , then White has the decisive } 21.Na4 $1 Nxa4 22.Rd7 Nc5
23.Nxe7+ Kh8 24.Bxf7 $1 Nxd7 25.Ng6+ $1 hxg6 26.Qh4# ) 21.axb3 bxc3 22.Nxe7+
Kh8 23.Kb1 { etc. } ) 20...h6 $2
{ Completely knocked out of his stride by thecascade of sacrifices,
Polugayevsky again does not take the piece, althoughthis would have made it
harder for his opponent to win. } ( { 'After } 20...Nxa4
{ ,' write Spassky and Rovner, 'White was intending to reply } 21.Nf5 Rxd1+
22.Rxd1 Bd8 $1
{ is more cunning; even so, Spassky could have hoped to win, if hehad found
the no less worthy reply } ( { ' } 22...Bc5 23.Qg5 g6 24.Nh6+ ( 24.Qf6 gxf5
25.Rd7 { is also strong - G.K. } ) 24...Kg7 25.Ng4 { and wins. } ) ( { 'Or }
22...Bd8 23.Bxa4 { (? - G.K.) } 23...h6 $1
{ here, however, creates the threat of ...Bg5 (the same combinative motif
as with 17... Qd8!; a human may miss it, but amachine - never!) and gives
Black a highly important tempo; it is now Whitewho has to think of how to save the game: }
( { and } 23...Qxa4 $2 { fails to } 24.Rxd8 $1 Rxd8 25.Qg5 { .' } ( 25.-- ) )
24.h4 ( { or } 24.Rxd8 Rxd8 25.Bb3 Qb6 26.Nd6 Qg1+ 27.Kd2 Qg2+ 28.Ke3 Bd5 )
24...Qxa4 25.Qg4 g6 26.Nxh6+ Kg7 27.Nxf7 $1 Be7 $1 28.Nd6 Rf2 29.Qc4 Qc6
30.Qd3 Ba8 { . } ) 23.e6 $3 { . } 23...Nc5
{ remains,and then White has probably only one way to gain an advantage: } (
{ Now it isweak to play both } 23...fxe6 $2 24.Nh6+ $1 gxh6 25.Bxe6+ Kg7
26.Rd7+ { with mate } ) ( { and } 23...Bf6 $2 24.Nh6+ $1 Kh8 (
{ perhaps it is more practicalto play } 24...gxh6 25.Qxf6 Qg5+ 26.Qxg5+ hxg5
27.exf7+ Kg7 28.Bxa4 Rxf7 { with some drawing chances } ) 25.Nxf7+ Kg8 26.e7
Bxe7 27.Nd6+ Kh8 28.Nxb7 Qh5 29.Rd8 $1 Rxd8 30.Nxd8 Bg5 31.Nf7+ Qxf7 32.Bxf7
Bxf4+ 33.gxf4 { with apretty win. } ) 24.e7 $1 Nxb3+ 25.axb3 Bxe7 26.Nxe7+
Kh8 27.Qd6 $1 Re8 28.Qd7 Rb8 29.Kb1
{ etc. --- As is evident from the notes to White's 18th and20th moves,
there was no need for such excitement. Nevertheless, Spassky, anartist by
nature, simply could not deny himself (and the spectators!) thepleasure of playing more spectacularly. In the period of his ascent to thechess
heights he was notable for his phenomenal intuition, especially whenconducting an attack, and at times he did not trouble himself with precisecalculation. On this occasion too his intuition did not let him down. The gamewas judged the most brilliant in the tournament, apparently not only
onaccount of the stroke 17 Bxe6!, but also thanks to the unexpected leap 20Na4!?. }
) 21.Nxc5 $1 Qxc5 22.h4
{ The smoke over the field of this brief (allof five moves!) but fierce
battle has cleared. White is a pawn up with acontinuing initiative. }
22...Bd5 23.Nf5 Bxb3 24.axb3 Rxd1+ 25.Rxd1 Rc8 26.Qe4 Bf8 27.e6 fxe6 28.Qxe6+
Kh8 29.Qe4 Qc6 30.Qd3 (
{ The immediate exchange ofqueens would also have been decisive - } 30.Qxc6
Rxc6 31.h5 Rf6 32.g4 g6 33.hxg6 Rxg6 34.Rd8 Rg8 35.Kd1
{ etc, but for the moment Spassky strengthens hisposition. } ) 30...Re8 31.h5
Be7 32.Nxe7 Rxe7 33.Qg6 $1 Qe8 34.g4 Re1 35.Qxe8+ Rxe8 36.Rd4 a5 37.Kd2 Re5
38.c3 bxc3+ 39.bxc3 Rg5 40.c4 Kg8 41.Rf4 $1 g6
{ . Black sealed this last move, but resigned the game without resuming.---
It appeared that Spassky was guaranteed, if not the gold medal of
thechampionship of the country, then at least qualification for the Interzonaltournament. But apparently at this moment he was seized with a
passionatedesire to win his first Russian 'gold' at all costs (after all, in 1956,after the additional three-player match-tournament, he had finished only withthe 'bronze'). That is, the championship in Riga was to crown the start ofthe future world champion's star-studded career. --- And
here somethingincredible happened: Spassky collapsed, being unable to withstand the burdenof leading the tournament. In the next five games he gained only three drawswith two defeats - against Gurgenidze and Kotov (by no means the strongestplayers in the championship). And before the last round the situation was nowcompletely different: Tal and Petrosian were leading, with Bronstein half apoint, and Spassky and Averbakh a point behind them. Five contenders for fourqualifying places! Three of them agreed draws in their final games and (as illluck would have it!) there
remained only the Spassky-Tal battle. } 1-0
[Event "50. 25th USSR Championship, Riga"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1958.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Spassky, B."]
[Black "Tal, M."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "E26"]
[EventDate "1958.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ We shall now analyse this uncommonly dramatic game, which left an
indelibleimpression on Spassky's entire further career. The duel of the two
futurechess kings not only had enormous competitive importance, but also aconsiderable psychological implication. At that time Tal's star was
risingsharply and this, it seems to me, slightly unnerved Spassky, and provoked acertain jealousy in him - after all, not long ago he had been theunquestioned leader of the young generation! During the game it was thereforenot easy for him to evaluate the situation properly, and if
necessary 'withan iron hand' to make a draw (giving him the right to a play-off match forfourth place with Averbakh). Boris was eager to win! --- }
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 (
{ 'In our preparations for the game we considered } 4.Bg5 ) ( { and } 4.e3
{ , which are usually employed by Spassky. The Sämisch Variation cameas a
surprise, and so I decided to avoid the well-trodden paths.' (Tal) ---
Itseems to me that the Sämisch was fully in accordance with the creative viewsof the young Spassky: the two bishops, a solid centre and possibilities
ofcreating an attack - even if the weak c4-pawn should perish in the process! }
) 4...Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 c5 (
{ Later, in his matches with Botvinnik, Tal played only } 5...Ne4 $6 ) (
{ or } 5...b6 { - Volume 2, Game No.74. } ) 6.e3 Nc6 7.Bd3 e5 $6 (
{ Avoiding the classical } 7...O-O 8.Ne2 b6 9.O-O Ba6 10.e4 Ne8
{ (Volume 2,Game No.91). } ) 8.Ne2 ( 8.d5 e4 $1 ) 8...e4 9.Bb1 b6 10.Ng3 Ba6
{ Tal, togive him his due, had a splendid ability to create complicated,
atypicalpositions straight from the opening. Thus here he exchanges his
e-pawn for thec-pawn, immediately trying to gain play on the light squares. }
11.f3 $1 { An excellent move, opening lines for an attack. } ( { 'After }
11.Qa4 Na5 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 13.Bxe4 Rc8
{ Black re-establishes material equality, maintaining a goodposition. } ) (
11.Nxe4 Nxe4 12.Bxe4 Bxc4 13.f3 { was unclear.' (Tal) } ) 11...Bxc4 (
{ After } 11...exf3 12.Qxf3 Bxc4 13.Nf5 O-O 14.e4
{ White has apowerful initiative for the pawn. } ) 12.Nf5 $6
{ Deviating from the correctpath: now White cannot avoid simplification. } (
{ In my view, } 12.fxe4 $1
{ was the only way to fight for an advantage. For example: } 12...O-O (
12...d6 13.Ba2 $1 ( { much stronger than the line considered by Tal - }
13.Qf3 O-O $1 14.e5 $6 dxe5 15.Qxc6 exd4
{ with a dangerous attack for the sacrificed piece: } 16.cxd4 Rc8 17.Qa4 cxd4
) 13...Bxa2 14.Rxa2 O-O 15.O-O Re8 16.Raf2 ( { or } 16.Rf4 b5 17.Raf2 )
16...Nxe4 17.Nxe4 Rxe4 18.Rxf7 Re7 19.R7f5 { with unpleasantpressure; } )
13.e5 Nd5 14.Qg4 $1 ( { not } 14.Qh5 $2 g6 15.Qh6 f5 $1 16.e4 fxe4 17.Bxe4
Qe7 ) 14...g6 ( 14...Nxc3 $2 15.Nh5 $1 g6 16.Nf6+ { and 17 e4,winning } )
15.Bd2 d6 16.e4 Nxc3 $1 ( { if } 16...Nde7 { , then } 17.Nh5 $1 dxe5 18.d5 )
17.Bxc3 cxd4 18.Bd2 Nxe5 ( 18...dxe5 $2 19.h4 $1 d3 20.h5 Qd4 21.Ra2 $1 f5
22.Qh4 { and wins } ) 19.Qf4 Re8
{ with a double-edged game: Black hasgood play as compensation for the
piece. } ) 12...O-O 13.Nd6 Bd3 14.Bxd3 ( { Now } 14.fxe4
{ is not so effective: } 14...Bxb1 15.Rxb1 Ne8 $1 16.Nf5 Ne7 $1
{ ,evicting the knight from both d6 and f5. } ) 14...exd3 15.Qxd3 cxd4
16.cxd4 Ne8 $1
{ In principle the position is now equal: Black has counterplay on thelight
squares. } 17.Nf5 d5 18.a4 $1 { (with the threat of Ba3) } 18...Nd6 $1 (
{ If Black tries to occupy the c4-square by } 18...g6 19.Ng3 Nd6
{ , White canreply } 20.O-O Re8 21.e4
{ with prospects of an attack, although after } 21...Qh4 $1
{ it is not easy for him to exploit the weakness of the dark squares.
Forexample: } 22.Ba3 Nc4 23.Rac1 Rac8 24.exd5 Qxd4+ 25.Qxd4 Nxd4 26.d6 Red8
27.Rfd1 Ne6 28.d7 Rc7 29.Rxc4 $1 Rxc4 30.Be7 Rc7 31.Ne4 $1 f5 32.Nf6+ Kf7
33.Bxd8 Nxd8 { with a probable draw. } ) 19.Nxd6 ( { If } 19.Ba3 Nxf5 20.Bxf8
$2 { , then } 20...Qg5 $1 { . } ) 19...Qxd6 20.Ba3 Nb4 21.Qb3 a5 22.O-O Rfc8
23.Rac1 Qe6 (
{ 'In this position, which is fairly simple and equal, I offered a
draw,having calculated the variation } 23...Qe6 24.Bxb4 axb4 25.Kf2 Qd6
26.Kg1 Qe6 { .' (Tal). But he received a refusal. } ) 24.Bxb4 (
{ Nothing is promised by } 24.e4 dxe4 25.Qxe6 fxe6 26.fxe4 Nd3 27.Rxc8+ Rxc8
28.d5 exd5 29.exd5 Nc5 { with equality. } ) 24...axb4 25.Kf2 Qd6 26.h3 $5
{ Spassky's decision tocontinue playing, in my opinion, contained a
considerable amount of psychology- there is a hint of resentment 'at the
entire world': after all, just a fewdays earlier he was on the verge of becoming champion, and was two pointsahead of Tal. However, he had made
a mess of the finish and his opponent wasnow a point ahead. But it is well known that anger is a poor adviser, andSpassky had to pay dearly for his decision. On the other hand, in the purelychess sense it was not such a sin to carry on playing a little, seeing as inhis youth Tal did
not like dry, tedious positions and could well make amistake. Surprisingly, this is in fact exactly what happened! --- It is hardto say whether or not Spassky was right here. More probably, he was simplyunable to accept a draw. He was too ambitious to accept the fact that Talwould finish ahead of him in the final table for the second successive year!And he decided on principle to battle 'to the end' - to endeavour with all hismight to win or at least spoil Tal's festive mood (this event took place inRiga, and Tal's fans were impatient to record another success by
theirhome-town favourite). But nevertheless, strictly by position, White had nogrounds for refusing the draw. }
26...Kf8 $6
{ A routine move, made without properconsideration. It would appear that
the opponent's 'audacity' unsettled Tal:'Why?! After all, the position is
clearly drawn!' } ( { And indeed, after thesimple } 26...h5 27.h4 Rc6 $1
{ Black has not even a hint of any problem; } ( { but not } 27...Rxc1 $6
28.Rxc1 Qh2 29.Qxd5 Qxh4+ 30.Ke2 Rd8 31.Qe5 { . } ) ) 27.Rc2 $1
{ (promptly seizing control of the file) } 27...Rxc2+ 28.Qxc2 g6 29.Rc1 Qd7
30.Qc6 Qxc6 31.Rxc6
{ In the resulting rook endgame White has a slight (rather, even
hypothetical) initiative. } 31...Ra6 $6
{ Perhaps this is also theresult of vexation. } (
{ In Tal's opinion, it was more accurate to play } 31...Rxa4 32.Rxb6 Ke7
{ with equality. } ) ( { But even stronger was } 31...b5 $1 32.axb5 Rb8
33.Ke2 b3 34.Kd2 b2 35.Kc2 Rxb5 36.Kb1 Rb3 37.e4 Rd3
{ with adead draw. However, nothing in particular has changed for the
moment: 31...Ra6?! certainly does not lose the game, but merely leads to
the appearance oftwo new queens and a sharp intensification of the play. } )
32.a5 $1 b3 $1 ( { Not } 32...Rxa5 $6 33.Rxb6 Ra4 34.Rb5 Ke7 35.Rxd5 Ra2+
36.Kg3 b3 37.Rb5 b2 38.Kf4 { . } ) 33.axb6 b2 34.b7 b1=Q 35.Rc8+ Kg7 36.b8=Q
{ 'It is amusingthat the two pawns have queened on the same file.' (Tal) }
36...Ra2+ 37.Kg3 Qe1+ 38.Kh2 ( { not } 38.Kf4 $4 Rxg2 $1 ) 38...Qxe3 39.Rg8+
Kf6 $2 ( { In time-troubleTal misses an easy draw: } 39...Kh6 $1 40.Qf8+ Kh5
41.Qxf7 Rxg2+ $1 42.Kxg2 Qd2+ 43.Kg3 Qg5+ $1
{ with perpetual check. It is hard to say why he didn'tplay this: it would
not have caused him any difficulty to find such a simplesacrifice as
...Rxg2+. Perhaps he was attracted by the pretty variation with ...Rd2! (see the next note), or perhaps he thought that a draw could be achieved'as he
pleased'. However, it is from this point, or more precisely, after therepetition of moves and h4, that Black begins to face very serious problems. }
) 40.Qd6+ ( { Not } 40.h4 $2 Rxg2+ $1 { with a draw; } ) (
{ and especially not } 40.Re8 $2 Qxd4 41.Re2 Rd2 $1 42.Qh8+ Kf5 ( { or }
42...Kg5 43.Qd8+ f6 ) 43.Qc8+ Kg5 44.Qc1 Qf4+ 45.Kh1 Rd4 $1
{ with an extra pawn. } ) 40...Qe6 41.Qf4+ Qf5 42.Qd6+ Qe6 43.Qg3 Qe3 44.h4
$1 Re2
{ Tal attaches an exclamation mark tothis move, and later fails to comment
on a number of important, turning pointsin the game. } (
{ Possibly more resources would have been retained by } 44...Ra6 $5
{ (defending the sixth rank) } 45.Qb8 { but not } ( { or } 45.Qc7 ) 45...Qxd4
$2 ( { and } 45...h5 $1 { ; } 46.-- ( 46.-- ) ) 46.Qd8+ Ke5 47.Re8+ Re6
48.Qg5+ Kd6 ( 48...f5 $2 49.f4+ ) 49.Rd8+ { with a mating attack: } 49...Kc6
( { or } 49...Kc5 50.Qc1+ Qc4 51.Rc8+ Rc6 52.Qe3+ Kb5 53.Rb8+ Ka4 54.Qd2 $3
Qxh4+ 55.Kg1 ) 50.Qc1+ Kb7 ( 50...Kb5 51.Qb1+ ) 51.Qc8+ Kb6 52.Qb8+ Ka5
53.Kh3 $1 Rb6 54.Qa8+ Kb4 55.Rxd5 { and wins. } ) 45.Qd6+ Qe6
{ The adjourned position, which the twoplayers analysed with their helpers
all night. This 'night before the battle'has been absorbingly described by
many authors, in particular Viktor Vasilievin his story The Tal Enigma, and Yuri Averbakh in his article 'Mikhail Tal'shour of triumph' (Shakhmaty v
Rossii 1996 Nos.10-11). Analysing such adjournedpositions - both for White and for Black - is rather unpleasant: neither a win,nor a draw is obvious. According to some accounts, Boris did not find a clearway to win, but since Tal's king was constantly rushing about under the attackof the white
pieces, in the end he decided: 'Tomorrow I'll mate him! But nowit's time to sleep.' According to other reports, when Spassky sat down at theboard he looked exhausted, but... meeting Petrosian on his way to theresumption, he said with a smile: 'Today you will become the champion.'. }
46.Qf4+ $1 { This, the sealed move, is the strongest. } (
{ It is harmless to play } 46.Qd8+ Qe7 47.Re8 ( 47.Qxd5 Rxg2+ $1 48.Kxg2 Qe2+
49.Kg3 Qe1+ { withperpetual check } ) 47...Qxd8 48.Rxd8 Rd2 49.Rxd5 Ke6
50.Re5+ Kd7 51.Re4 f5 { with a draw. } ) 46...Qf5 ( { After } 46...Ke7 $6
47.h5 $1 { White acquiresadditional checks. } ) 47.Qh6 Ke7 ( 47...Qxf3 $2
48.Qg5+ ) 48.Qf8+ Kf6 49.Qg7+ Ke7 50.Ra8 $1 Qd7 ( 50...Qf4+ 51.Kh3 Qf5+
52.Kg3 { is bad.' (Spassky) } ) 51.Qf8+ Kf6 52.Ra6+
{ For the moment this is all more or less forced, and Borisplays accurately
(they evidently looked at this position at home). } (
{ Thefollowing was a false trail - } 52.Rd8 $2 Qc7+ 53.Kh3 Re1 54.Rd6+ Kf5 $1
{ (an unexpected breakthrough by the king) } 55.Rxd5+ ( { or } 55.g3 Rh1+
56.Kg2 Qc2+ $1 57.Kxh1 Qd1+ 58.Kg2 Qe2+ ) 55...Ke6
{ , with a draw after both } 56.Qd8 { (the key variation) } ( { and } 56.Rc5
Rh1+ 57.Kg4 f5+ 58.Kg5 Qg3+ 59.Kh6 Qxh4+ 60.Kg7 Qh6+ 61.Kg8 Qxf8+ 62.Kxf8 Rg1
) 56...Rh1+ 57.Kg4 Rxh4+ $1 58.Kxh4 Qh2+ 59.Kg4 Qxg2+ 60.Kf4 Qd2+ { . } )
52...Re6 53.Qh8+ Ke7 54.Ra8 Re1 $6 ( { The immediate } 54...h5
{ was better. } ) 55.Kg3 $1 h5 $1 (
{ 'The attempt togive perpetual check would have been unsuccessful: }
55...Qc7+ 56.Kf2 Qc2+ 57.Kxe1 Qc1+ 58.Kf2 Qd2+ 59.Kg3 Qe1+ 60.Kg4 f5+ 61.Kg5
Qe3+ 62.f4 Qg3+ 63.Kh6 Qxh4+ ( { or } 63...Qxf4+ 64.Kxh7 Qxh4+ 65.Kg8
{ , winning - G.K. } ) 64.Kg7 Qf6+ 65.Kxh7 Qh4+ 66.Kg8
{ . With the move in the game Black prepares arefuge for his king on f5.'
(Tal) And he takes away the g4-square from thewhite king. It would appear
that the 'magician of Riga' considered theresulting position to be drawn. } )
56.Kf2 { White must avoid ...Qc7+ and ...Qc2+ with perpetual check. }
56...Re6 57.Rc8 $1 ( { Not } 57.g4 $2 Qc7
{ . 'Now Blackcan move only his rook. His queen is tied to the defence of
the squares d5 ande8.' (Tal) } ) 57...Rd6 $2
{ This was thought to be forced, but in fact it isthe losing move. } (
{ The only chance was } 57...Rc6 $1 { . } 58.Qe5+ $1 (
{ According to Tal, this did not work on account of } 58.Qf8+ Kf6 59.Rd8 Qc7
60.Qh8+ Ke7 ( { or } 60...Ke6 ) 61.Re8+ ( { nothing is achieved by } 61.Qe8+
Kf6 62.Rc8 Rc2+ 63.Ke3 Rc3+ { - G.K. } ) 61...Kd7 62.Re5
{ 'and White carries out afavourable regrouping of his forces.' However,
after } 62...Re6 $1 { Black couldstill have fought for a draw, for example: }
63.Rxd5+ Ke7 64.Rb5 $1 ( 64.Re5 $6 Rxe5 65.Qxe5+ Qxe5 66.dxe5 Ke6 67.f4 f6
68.exf6 Kxf6 { draws } ) 64...Qc2+ 65.Kg3 Qc7+ 66.Re5 Kd7 $1 ( { but not }
66...Rxe5 $2 67.Qxe5+ Qxe5+ 68.dxe5 Ke6 69.Kf4 Kd5 70.g4 hxg4 71.fxg4 Ke6
72.Kg5 Kxe5 73.h5 { and wins } ) 67.Qg7 Ke7 68.Kh3 Rxe5 69.Qxe5+ Qxe5 70.dxe5
Ke6 71.f4 f6 { . } ) 58...Re6 59.Qg5+ Rf6 60.Ra8 $1
{ is possibly the only way to retain an advantage,transposing into the
attack, in the note to White's 62nd move, examined below.If this position
is indeed lost for Black, then his decisive mistake wouldhave been virtually 39...Kf6?, or perhaps 44...Re2. --- But let us return tothe
culminating point of the game, and indeed of the entire championship. } )
58.Qf8+
{ Annotating the game in the magazine 'Shakhmaty v SSSR' (1958 No.5),
Taldoes not comment on either this move, or White's next. } (
{ But it was here thatSpassky missed a certain win! Soon afterwards this
was demonstrated with someanalysis by the Leningrad master Vitaly Chekhover
in 'Shakhmatnaya Moskva': } 58.g4 $1 hxg4 ( { forced: } 58...Re6 59.g5 Rc6
60.Qf8+ Ke6 61.Re8+ Kf5 62.Re7 ) 59.Qf8+ Kf6 60.fxg4 Ra6 ( 60...Re6 61.Rc3 $1
Re4 62.Rf3+ Ke6 63.g5 Qe7 ( { if } 63...Rxd4 { White wins by } 64.Rf6+ Ke5
65.Qb8+ ) 64.Qc8+ Kd6 ( { or } 64...Qd7 65.Rf6+ Ke7 66.Rxf7+ ) 65.Qc5+ Kd7
66.Qxd5+ { , with a win after } 66...Ke8 67.Qxe4 Qxe4 68.Re3 Qe6 69.d5
{ etc. } ) ( { If } 60...Rc6 { , then } 61.Re8 $1 Rc2+ 62.Kf3 Rc3+ 63.Kf4
Qc7+ 64.Re5 $1 { etc. This is all correct, and Iwould merely add... } )
61.Kf3 $5 ( { not falling for } 61.Rd8 $2 Qc7 62.Qh8+ Ke6 63.Qe8+ Kf6 64.g5+
Kf5 65.Rxd5+ Kg4 { etc } ) 61...Ra1 62.Qh8+ $1 ( { again not } 62.Rd8 $2 Rf1+
63.Kg3 Rg1+ 64.Kf2 Rg2+ $1 65.Kxg2 Qxg4+ 66.Kf2 Qxd4+
{ with perpetual check } ) 62...Ke7 63.Kf4 Rf1+ 64.Kg5 f6+ 65.Kh6
{ and thecurtain can be lowered. } ) 58...Kf6 59.Re8 $2 (
{ Here too White could have wonby } 59.g4 $1 hxg4 60.fxg4
{ , transposing into the variations we have justexamined (it is surprising
that the idea of g2-g4 was not found in theadjournment analysis). Now,
however, things are considerably more difficultfor him. } ) 59...Re6 60.Qh8+
Kf5 61.Qh6 Kf6 ( { Of course, not } 61...Rxe8 $4 62.Qg5+ Ke6 63.Qe5# { . } )
62.Qh8+ $6 ( { As Tal correctly remarked, } 62.Rd8 Qc6 63.Qg5+ Kg7 64.Qxd5
{ would have allowed Black to seize the initiative: } ( 64.Rxd5 $2 f6 )
64...Qc2+ 65.Kg3 Qc7+ 66.Kf2 Qf4 { . } ) (
{ But no one haspointed out that } 62.Rg8 $1
{ would still have retained serious winningchances. For example: } 62...Ke7
63.Qg5+ Rf6 64.Ra8 $1 Qb7 65.Ra2 $1
{ (unexpectedly broadening the attacking front) } 65...Qc6 66.Qe5+ $1 Kf8
67.Ra5 Kg7 68.Rxd5 { and Black can hardly save himself by } 68...Qe6 69.Qxe6
Rxe6 70.Re5 Rb6 71.Ke3 Rb2 72.d5 $1 Kf6 73.Re8 { etc. } ) 62...Kf5 63.Rd8 $2
( { It was stillnot too late for } 63.Qh6 $1 Kf6 64.Rg8 $1 { . } ) 63...Qc6
$1
{ Black hasmanaged to become active and is threatening to launch a
dangerouscounterattack. } 64.Rc8
{ Tal attaches a question mark to this move; } ( { considering } 64.Kg3
{ to be essential. } ) ( { However, it was also acceptable toplay } 64.Qf8
Kf6
{ with a draw. Spassky continued playing for a win throughinertia, but he
suddenly noticed the opponent's unpleasant reply and,according to an
eye-witness, 'with a strangely changed voice offered a draw'. } ) 64...Qa6
{ With the words 'Let's play on a bit'. } 65.Kg3 $2
{ But this isindeed a step towards disaster! } ( 65.Qd8 $1 Qe2+ 66.Kg3
{ (Spassky) wouldhave led to a draw, for example: } 66...Qe1+ 67.Kh2 f6 $1
68.Qxd5+ Kf4 69.Rc1 $1 Qxh4+ 70.Kg1 Re1+ 71.Rxe1 Qxe1+ 72.Kh2 { . } )
65...Qd6+ 66.Kh3 ( 66.Kf2 $2 Qb4 $1 { and wins } ) 66...Re1 67.g3 $2 (
{ Good or bad, } 67.g4+ $1 Kf4 68.Rc3 hxg4+ 69.fxg4
{ was essential, when both kings are in danger. Whether Blackcould have
converted his extra pawn after } 69...Re3+ 70.Rxe3 Kxe3 71.h5 $1 Kf4 72.h6 f6
$1 73.Kg2 Qe7 74.Qb8+ Kg5 $1 75.h7 $1 Qxh7 76.Qb3 Qg8 $1
{ is aquestion that demands a separate study. } ) 67...Rg1 $6 (
{ According to Tal, } 67...Qa6 $1 { was unclear on account of } 68.g4+
{ , but in fact this wouldhave immediately forced mate : } 68...Kf4 69.Qh6+
Kxf3 70.Rc3+ Ke4 71.Kg3 Qf1 { . } ) 68.f4 Re1 69.Rc2 $2 (
{ Better practical chances were offered by thetransition into a difficult,
objectively lost queen endgame: } 69.Re8 Rxe8 70.Qxe8 Qe6 $1 71.Qa4 Ke4+
72.Kg2 Qc8 $1 73.Kf2 Qc3 74.Qe8+ Kd3 75.Qxf7 Qxd4+ 76.Kf1 Qe4 77.Kf2 Kd2
{ . Obviously Spassky was demoralised by the suddenreversal of roles: the
hunter had been transformed into the hunted! } ) 69...Qe6 70.Rf2 $2
{ Now White gets mated. } ( { He could have prolonged the resistance by }
70.Qc8 Qxc8 71.Rxc8 Re4 72.Rc7 f6 73.Kg2 Rxd4
{ , when Black should winthe rook ending. } ) 70...Rh1+ 71.Kg2 Qe4+ 72.Rf3
Kg4 73.Qc8+ f5 74.Qc3 Rh3 $1
{ . --- As a result of this game the 'devilishly lucky' Tal finishedhalf a
point ahead of Petrosian and was carried from the stage by his
madlydelighted supporters, while the 'emotionally unstable' Spassky, furtivelywiping away his tears, retired downcast behind the scenes. What drama -
toremain the 'unlucky fifth'! The collapse of all his hopes... --- Afterthis truly historic encounter the roads to the top of these friends and rivalsdiverged for a long time. Tal soared upwards like a comet: after winning theUSSR Championship for the second time, he brilliantly won the
Interzonal, andthe Candidates tournament, and the match with Botvinnik. Whereas Spassky, bycontrast, missed out on the battle for the world crown for six whole years,after suffering a similar failure at the finish of the next Zonal USSRChampionship, the 28th (1961). --- Two world championship cycles withoutSpassky looked rather strange, since his chess strength was unquestioned. But,as is well known, the components of chess success are not only strength andunderstanding of the game, but also psychological stability, and the abilityto compose oneself at critical moments.
Later on, in his best years, Spasskywas able to draw lessons from these catastrophes and would play very well indecisive games. But then, in the late fifties to early sixties, his nervoussystem was not yet ready for such severe tests. --- In later years Spasskydefeated Tal several times in tournaments, but he gained real revenge only in1965, by defeating his former tormentor in the final Candidates match. Duringthe years when he was in the shade, he learned much. And after his defeat inthe match for the world championship with Petrosian (1966) he was able torepeat Smyslov's feat: he won the next Candidates cycle and then pierced thearmour of 'iron Tigran' in 1969. }
0-1
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "In His Element"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ Boris Vasilievich was the only top-class player of his generation who
playedgambits regularly and without fear. Before then (and also during his
time)this weapon was often used by Bronstein, but it would appear that Spassky waseven more aggressive and successful. This inclination towards
gambits was tobe with him all his career, and his results here are simply staggering! Forexample, over a period of 30 years he did not lose a single game with theKing's Gambit, and among those defeated were numerous strong players of allgenerations, from Averbakh, Bronstein and Fischer, to
Seirawan. --- Moreover,Spassky played gambits not from a striving for originality or a desire torevive the spirit of past masters, but because the resulting positions wereclose to his heart. A strong, mobile centre, active piece play, the prospectof an attack on the king - here he was in his element. And even when he didnot gain a direct attack, and had to be satisfied with a positional advantage,he confidently gained wins thanks to subtle piece play and the skilfulexploitation of weaknesses in the opponent's position. }
1.--
{ It isnoteworthy that Spassky never in his life began a game with 1 Nf3 -
thisapparently seemed to him to be a 'half-move', whereas a normal move
wasonly one leading to an open battle. All these opening subtleties - avoidthis, don't allow that - sickened him. And usually he played the
openingrather straightforwardly, choosing 'frontal' set-ups, although in so doinghe had an excellent feeling for the psychology itself of the game. Spassky wasthe first of the great players who employed both 1 e4 and 1 d4 in equalmeasure and with identical success. His blending of these moves was
moreharmonious than with the other world champions (perhaps only I can be said tohave a similar blend). }
*
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Spassky's Attacking Style"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ In those years one was not required to work so purposefully on the
opening asone is today, and it was possible to play 'at sight', and it was
here thatSpassky's best qualities, his natural attacking style, displayed themselves.In gambits he had, so to speak, mirror interests: }
1.-- ( { he upheld both } 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ) ( { and } 1.d4 d5 2.c4 { - from }
2...e6 ( { to } 2...c6 3.Nf3 e6 4.g3 dxc4 5.Bg2 b5 6.O-O Bb7 7.b3 cxb3 8.Qxb3
Nf6 9.Nc3 Be7 10.Ne5 { (Spassky-Zinn, Marianske Lazne 1962) } ) 3.Nc3 c5
4.cxd5 exd5 $5 5.e4 dxe4 6.d5 f5 7.Bf4 Bd6 8.Bb5+ Kf7 9.Nh3 Nf6 10.Bc4
{ (Spassky-Bronstein, Leningrad1957). --- Often his positions from the
opening left something to be desired,and his opponents could have set him
difficult problems - as, for example,in his famous game with Fischer (Mar del Plata 1960) or the game with Pachmananalysed below. But here it is
appropriate to remember Capablanca's principle:'I always employ only those openings that bring good practical results,irrespective of the positions arising in the middlegame.' Thus Spassky feltconfident in these sharp positions and was able to achieve excellent results,demonstrating the
correctness of his choice. } ) *
[Event "51. Riga"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1959.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Spassky, B."]
[Black "Mikenas, V."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "D08"]
[EventDate "1959.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ The year after the 'Riga catastrophe', 1959, was a very successful onefor
Boris. There was the 26th USSR Championship (1. Petrosian, 2-3. Spasskyand
Tal), the Leningrad Championship (14 out of 17), the Central Chess Clubinternational tournament (1-3. Bronstein, Smyslov and Spassky), the best scoreon
top board in the USSR Team Championship (ahead of Botvinnik and Tal, whomhe defeated in their individual game) and a share of first place in thesemi-final of the 27th USSR Championship (11˝ out of 15). --- And then, atthe close of the year, triumph in the December international tournament inRiga (11˝
out of 13!). Again he defeated Tal (who not long before had won theCandidates tournament) and crushed Mikenas, who finished only half a pointbehind, in his best style. --- }
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 $5
{ I think that the highlyexperienced Mikenas, who had battled with Alekhine
back in the 1930s, washoping to use this rare, little-studied gambit to put
the young and ambitiousgrandmaster in the unaccustomed role of defender. }
3.dxe5 d4 4.e4 $5
{ But that's not what happened! 'An eye for an eye - cf. Black's 2nd move.'
(Spassky). } (
{ Black has free development and some initiative for the pawn, andWhite is
supposed to make unpretentious moves such as } 4.Nf3 Nc6 { and then } 5.a3 (
5.g3 ) ( { or } 5.Bf4 ) 5...Bg4 ( { Mikenas used to prefer } 5...Be6 ) 6.Nbd2
Qe7 7.h3 $1 ( 7.g3 Nxe5 8.Nxe5 Qxe5 9.h3 Bh5 10.Bg2 O-O-O
{ with equality...0-1 Niemela-Spassky, Riga 1959 } ) 7...Bxf3 ( 7...Bh5 $5 )
8.Nxf3 O-O-O 9.Qd3 h6 10.g3 g6 11.Bg2 Bg7 12.O-O Nxe5 13.Nxe5 Bxe5 14.b4 f5
15.c5 { ... 1-0 (Lasker-Alekhine, St Petersburg 1914). } ) 4...Nc6 5.f4
{ An unusualpsychological duel: who will be attacking whom?! White does not
want toconcede the initiative even for a short time. Of course, by seizing
space hecreates problems for himself with its defence (the dark squares have beenweakened and the opponent has acquired a passed d-pawn), but on the
other handnow the play is open - almost like in the King's Gambit. } 5...g5
$6
{ A well-known,tempting move, but one that is strategically risky and not
the most successful. } ( { The correct move is } 5...f6 $1
{ (Tarrasch-Caro, Vienna 1898) } 6.Nf3 ( 6.exf6 Nxf6 7.e5 $6 Bb4+
{ is dangerous } ) 6...fxe5 7.Bd3 ( { or } 7.a3 Bd6 8.f5 Nf6 9.Bd3 a5 10.O-O
O-O 11.Bg5 a4 12.Nbd2 Qe8 13.Qe1 Qh5 ) 7...Bb4+ 8.Nbd2 exf4 9.O-O Nf6 10.Nb3
O-O 11.Bxf4 ( { but not the excessively sharp } 11.c5 $2 Qe7 12.Qc2 Nd7
13.Bb5 Bxc5 14.Kh1 Bb6 15.Bxc6 bxc6 16.Nfxd4 Nf6 17.Bxf4 Qxe4
{ when White is in an extremely unpleasant situation,
Spassky-Lutikov,Kharkov 1963 } ) 11...Nxe4 12.Bxe4 Rxf4 13.Qd3
{ with a double-edged game.This particular game took place at the start of
that semi-final of the 31stUSSR Championship, with which Spassky began his
ascent to the summit. --- 'Wewere then planning a distant, stage-by stage journey towards the worldchampionship, overcoming all barriers,' recalls
grandmaster Bondarevsky, histrainer for many years. 'It was decided to adopt quiet tactics. It was assumedthat he should not lose, and that five wins in the tournament would be quitesufficient to qualify for the final. The plan almost suffered a disaster onthe very first day in the game with
Lutikov. By energetic play the talentedmaster gained a winning position, but he was unable to convert his advantagein the endgame.' After this draw Boris went through both the semi-final andthe final undefeated, and then overcame all the remaining barriers! ---Apparently from Spassky's point of view the cavalier thrusts 4 e4!? and 5 f4did not violate these quiet tactics, since he had a subtle feeling for thenuances of this fighting variation. However, in his first match with Petrosian(1966) such impulsiveness cost Boris dearly, and in order to surmount thislast, most difficult barrier he
had to carry out additional work on theharmonisation of his style. } ) 6.f5
$1 ( { In the old days they playedunpretentiously - } 6.Bd3 gxf4 7.Bxf4 Nge7
8.Bg3 Ng6
{ (Burn-Schlechter,Munich 1900), whereas a modern master unhesitatingly
gives up both a pawn, andthe e5-square. Mikenas wanted to hide his king on
the queenside, but now thisis difficult on account of the c8-bishop being restricted. Now, with his kingin the centre and yawning 'holes' on the
kingside, Black must defend withextreme care. } ) 6...Nxe5 7.Nf3 Bb4+ (
{ Another move order - } 7...Nxf3+ $5 8.Qxf3 Bb4+
{ allows the hardlystraightforward } ( 8...Bd6 9.Bd3 Qe7
{ is also acceptable } ) 9.Kd1 Bd7 10.Bd3 Qe7 11.h4 g4 ( { or here }
11...gxh4 $5 12.Qg4 Nf6 13.Qxh4 Bd6 14.Bg5 Be5 ) 12.Qg3 h5 $2 ( { true, }
12...Bd6 13.Bf4 Bxf4 14.Qxf4 O-O-O 15.Nd2 Bc6 16.Kc2 h5 17.Rae1 Nf6 18.e5 Nd7
{ promisesroughly equal chances } ) 13.Bf4 O-O-O 14.a3 Ba5 15.b4 Nf6 16.e5 $1
Ba4+ 17.Kc1
{ ... 1-0 (Petrosian-Mukhitdinov, 8th matchgame, Tashkent 1951). } ) 8.Nbd2
(
{ 'A questionable moment. The aim of the bishop check was to deprive the
whiteknight of the d2-square, in order to exclude it from the battle for
e5, forexample: } 8.Bd2 Nxf3+ 9.Qxf3 Bd6 { with equality. } ) (
{ 'However, } 8.Kf2 { was stronger: } 8...Nxf3 $1
{ is therefore the correct path: } ( { and if } 8...Ng4+ 9.Kg1 Bc5 { , then }
10.b4 $1 { with advantage. ' (Spassky) } ( 10.-- ) ) 9.Qa4+ ( { or } 9.Qxf3
Bd6 ) 9...c6 10.Qxb4 Ne5 11.Qc5 Qf6 $1 { with equality. } ) 8...Nc6 $2
{ Mikenas follows a familiar path, although wasting a tempo in such
aposition is an impermissible luxury. } ( { It was safer to play } 8...Nxf3+
{ (reducing the threat of the e4-e5 breakthrough) } 9.Qxf3 Nf6 $1
{ : It is more activeto play } ( { if } 9...Ne7 { , then } 10.a3 Bd6 11.c5 $1
{ and Nb3 is unpleasant } ) 10.Bd3 $1 ( { In the event of } 10.a3 Bd6 11.c5
( 11.Nb3 g4 12.Qd3 Qe7 $1 ) 11...Bxc5 12.Nb3 Bd6 13.Bxg5 Rg8 14.Bh4 Be5
15.O-O-O Qd6 ) ( { or } 10.Be2 Qe7 11.O-O g4 12.Qd3 Bd6 13.Nb3 c5 14.Bg5 Rg8
15.Bh4 Bd7 { Whitehas no advantage. } ) 10...Nd7 $1 11.O-O Ne5 ( 11...Bd6
12.c5 $5 ) 12.Qg3 f6 13.Nb3 Be7 14.Be2 c5 15.Bh5+ Kd7 16.Nd2 Kc7 17.b4
{ with some initiative,although Black's defences in the centre are solid
(control of the e5-square!),whereas the attacking front on the flanks is
very restricted. } ) 9.Bd3 $1 { A surprise! } (
{ The game A.Geller-Mikenas from a quarter-final of the 20thUSSR
Championship (Riga 1951) went } 9.a3 { and after } 9...Bd6 (
{ Mikenas wasprobably intending to improve Black's play with } 9...Bxd2+
10.Bxd2 g4 $1 11.Ng1 Qe7 $1
{ , but he did not have time; incidentally, the aforementioned gamewas
played in full view of the young Spassky and his trainer Zak, who
bothparticipated in that tournament } ) 10.c5 $1 Bxc5 11.Bb5 Bd7 12.Nb3 Qe7
13.Bxg5 f6 14.Qc2 Bb6 15.Bf4 O-O-O 16.O-O-O a6 17.Bd3
{ White could haveturned out to have the better chances. } ) 9...g4
{ If White now retreats hisknight, his attack will come to a standstill.
But Mikenas would appear to haveforgotten that a great master of attack was
sitting opposite him. Or else hesimply did not know about a game played by his opponent in this variation fouryears earlier (which would not be
surprising in that 'prehistoric' era ofchess bulletins and magazines). }
10.O-O $1 { (in the spirit of the MuzioGambit) } 10...gxf3 11.Nxf3
{ Of course, White has an excellent game, but he hasgiven up a piece, and
in contrast to the King's Gambit the situation is notaltogether clear: for
the moment there are no open lines or obvious targets toattack. On the other hand, there is solid positional compensation, associatedwith his growing
lead in development (it is not easy for Black to bring hispieces into play) and his mobile pawn pair: the breakthrough e4-e5!. Thebattle for control of the e5-outpost is the leitmotif of the entire game, andWhite is prepared to make great material sacrifices for the sake of dominationof this key
square. } 11...Bd6 { Only this move is new, but it is hardly animprovement. }
( { The little-known game Spassky-B.Belyavsky (Leningrad 1955) went }
11...Qe7 12.e5 $1 a5 13.a3 Bc5 14.b4 $5 axb4 15.Bg5 f6 $2 (
{ althoughafter } 15...Qd7 $1 16.e6
{ White 'only' has a dangerous initiative } ) 16.exf6 Qf7 17.axb4 Rxa1
18.Qxa1 Bxb4 19.Qa8 Kd8 20.Be4 $1 Qxc4 21.Ne5 $1 { with crushing threats. } )
( 11...f6 $5 { is more interesting. } 12.-- (
{ It wouldnow be pointless to play both } 12.Bf4 Bd6 13.e5 fxe5 14.Re1 Nf6 $1
) ( { and } 12.e5 fxe5 13.a3 Bd6 14.Re1 Qf6 15.b4 a6 $5 ( { avoiding }
15...Bxf5 16.c5 Be7 17.b5 ) 16.Bg5 Qg7 { etc. } ) (
{ 'I was intending to play } 12.a3 $1 Bd6 13.b4 { with the possible sequel }
13...Ne5 14.c5 Nxf3+ 15.Rxf3 ( { but in my opinion,it is better to play }
15.gxf3 $1 Bf8 16.Bc4
{ , when it is hard for Black tocoordinate his forces in order to parry the
impending storm - G.K. } ) 15...Be5 16.Bc4
{ followed by Rd3 and Bb2 with the aim of opening the d-file or in
somecases Rh3. Generally speaking, in practice White has good chances for
thesacrificed piece.' (Spassky) } ) ) 12.e5 $1 Nxe5 $6 (
{ Better chances ofresisting were offered by } 12...Bxe5 13.Nxe5 $5 (
{ Spassky gives only } 13.Re1 f6 14.b4 ) ( { or immediately } 13.b4 )
13...Nxe5 14.Re1 f6 15.Bf4 Qe7 $1 ( 15...Qd6 16.Rxe5+ $1 fxe5 17.Qe1 $1
{ and Bxe5, winning } ) 16.Qh5+ Kd8 $5 ( 16...Qf7 17.Qh4 $1 Qe7 18.Qg3 $1 Kf8
19.Bxe5 fxe5 20.Rxe5 Qf6 21.Rf1 $1 { with a decisive attack: } 21...Bd7
22.Re6 $1 Qg7 23.Qxc7 Bxe6 24.fxe6+ Nf6 25.Qd6+ Kg8 26.e7 ) 17.Qh4
{ (threatening 17 Rxe5 fxe5 18 Bg5) } 17...h6
{ , althoughhere too White has powerful compensation for the piece after }
18.c5 { . } ) 13.Re1 f6 ( { After } 13...Qe7 14.Bf4 $1 (
{ to Spassky's variation } 14.c5 Nxf3+ 15.gxf3 Be5 16.f4
{ there is the reply } 16...Qh4 $1 17.fxe5 Ne7 18.e6 fxe6 19.fxe6 b6 20.Be4
c6 21.Bd2 Bb7 22.Qb3 O-O-O { with equality } ) 14...f6 15.c5 $1 Nxf3+ 16.Qxf3
Be5 17.Qg3 $1 Kf8 18.Rxe5 $1 fxe5 19.Bxe5 Nf6 20.Re1 $1 Rg8 21.Qh4
{ , Black cannot hold out. Mikenas tries to set up a defensive ramparton
the e-file, clearly underestimating the opponent's murderous reply. } ) 14.c5
$1 Be7 ( 14...Bxc5 $2 15.Nxe5 fxe5 16.Rxe5+ Be7 17.Qh5+ Kd7 18.Rd5+ Bd6
19.Bb5+ c6 20.Bf4 { and wins. } ) 15.Nxe5 fxe5 16.Rxe5 Nf6 17.Bg5 O-O 18.Qb3+
Kh8 ( { If } 18...Kg7 19.Rae1 Re8 { the simplest is } 20.Bxf6+ Kxf6 21.Qd1 $1
{ and Qh5. } ) 19.Rae1 Bxc5 { Black is obliged to return the piece. } 20.Rxc5
$1 ( { 'After the tempting } 20.Re8 $6 Qd6 21.Qf7 { Black has the defence }
21...Ng8 $1 { .' (Spassky). For example: } 22.Rxf8 ( 22.Qh5 $2 Bxf5 )
22...Qxf8 23.Qxf8 ( { also unclear is } 23.Qxc7 Qg7 ( { but not } 23...Bd6 $2
24.Qc4 $1 Qg7 25.Re8 $1 ) 24.Qxc5 Qxg5 ) 23...Bxf8 24.Re8 Kg7 25.f6+ Nxf6
26.Bxf6+ Kxf6 27.Rxf8+
{ and White's advantage is by no means so great as in the game. } ) 20...Qd6
21.Rce5 Ng4 22.Bf4 $1 Bd7 23.Bg3 Bc6 $2 { (a blunder) } ( { but } 23...Qb6
{ wouldalso not have changed the result of the game: } 24.Qxb6 (
{ or immediately } 24.Rd5 ) 24...axb6 25.Rd5 { . } ) 24.R5e4
{ . --- This game reveals Spassky'screative credo: the objective evaluation
of the position concerned him lessthat the character of the resulting play.
If this character suited him, hefelt like a fish in water and, as a rule, was able to outplay his opponents.That was also the case here: even such a
battled-hardened fighter as Mikenas,who in addition was in excellent form, could do nothing to counter Spassky'spowerful assault, effectively creating a miniature. --- And there were anumber of such miniatures. Perhaps the most famous of his victories in theKing's Gambit (along with his win over
Fischer, where there was neverthelessmore psychology than actual chess) is the one over Bronstein in the 27th USSRChampionship (Leningrad 1960). This game, played not long before the finish,was judged the most brilliant in the tournament. }
1-0
[Event "52. 27th USSR Championship, Leningrad"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1960.??.??"]
[Round "16"]
[White "Spassky, B."]
[Black "Bronstein, D."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "C36"]
[EventDate "1960.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ Both players were performing indifferently, somewhere in the middle of
thetournament table. Boris Vasilievich told me that he was no longer
followingthe tournament results and so, when accidentally meeting Bronstein before thegame, he enquired: 'David Ionovich, how many points have you
got?' Itturned out that they were level, and this innocent question suddenly created acertain psychological tension around the game... --- }
1.e4 e5
{ Later,annotating this game in his book '200 Open Games' (which, by the
way, was oneof my first and favourite chess books), Bronstein sorrowfully
exclaimed: 'Whatthe devil possessed me to reply 1...e5 - ? I completely forgot that Spassky,like Spielmann in the past, very much likes to play the
King's Gambit.' } 2.f4 $1
{ Of course, Spassky did not hesitate here: it was impossible not to
playthis against Bronstein! The resulting positions were extremely
unpleasant forthe 'Black' Bronstein, irrespective of the absolute value of the gambit andthe objective evaluation of the position. After all,
'cunning Devik' would nowhave to defend, rather than attack, and he must have been constantly botheredby the thought: 'Suppose the opponent should create a masterpiece?' Amusingly,that is in fact exactly what happened. }
2...exf4 3.Nf3 d5 ( { The 14th round gameSpassky-Liberzon went } 3...Be7
4.Nc3 Nf6 5.e5 $5 ( { and } 5.d4 d5 6.exd5 (
{ later Boris Vasilievich tried, not without success, to improve White's
play: } 6.Bd3 $5 dxe4 7.Nxe4 Nxe4 8.Bxe4 Bd6 9.O-O
{ (Spassky-Najdorf, VarnaOlympiad 1962) } ) 6...Nxd5 7.Bc4 Be6 8.Qe2 Nxc3
9.bxc3 Bxc4 10.Qxc4 Bd6 { with equality. } ) 5...Ng4 6.d4 Ne3 ( 6...Bh4+
7.Ke2 $1 ) 7.Bxe3 fxe3 8.Bc4 $1
{ (Spassky-Kholmov, Moscow 1964), in both cases with a slight
initiative,but one that is not without venom. } ) 4.exd5 Bd6
{ With the intention of ...Ne7.According to Bronstein, he remembered this
ancient idea of Anderssen's at theboard. } (
{ The 8th round game Spassky-Sakharov went } 4...Nf6 5.Bb5+ c6 6.dxc6 bxc6 (
6...Nxc6 $5 7.d4 Bd6 { Hartston-Spassky, Hastings 1965/66 } ) 7.Bc4 Nd5 8.O-O
( 8.Nc3 $5 ) 8...Bd6 9.Nc3 $1 ( { it is inferior to play } 9.d4 O-O 10.Nc3
Nxc3 $1 { , Bronstein-Botvinnik, 20th USSR Championship, Moscow 1952 } )
9...Be6 10.Ne4 Be7 11.Bb3 O-O 12.d4 Nd7 13.Qe2 g5 $2 ( 13...c5 $1 ) 14.c4
N5b6 15.h4 $1 h6 16.hxg5 hxg5 17.Nfxg5 $1 Bxg5 18.Bxf4 Bf6 19.Rad1 Bf5 20.Be5
$1 { with a pretty win. } ) 5.Nc3 ( 5.Bb5+ $5 ) 5...Ne7 6.d4 O-O ( 6...c6
{ was also recommended. In any event it is easier playing White: his
firsttarget is the f4-pawn. } ) 7.Bd3 Nd7 ( 7...Bf5 8.O-O
{ with a minimal plus. } ) 8.O-O h6 $6 { A loss of tempo. } ( 8...Ng6
{ fails to equalise in view of } 9.Ne4 Nf6 10.Nxd6 Qxd6 11.c4 Bg4 ( { or }
11...b5 12.b3 { , } ) 12.Qb3 ( { or } 12.h3 ) ) ( { but } 8...Nf6 $1
{ suggests itself: } 9.Ne5 ( 9.Ng5 h6 $1 ) 9...Nfxd5 10.Nxd5 Nxd5 11.Qh5 $1
( 11.Bxf4 Nxf4 12.Rxf4 Qg5 { with equality } ) 11...g6 ( 11...Nf6 12.Qg5 Nd5
13.Nxf7 $1 Qxg5 14.Nxg5 Bf5 15.Bxf5 Rxf5 16.Ne4
{ withslightly the better endgame } ) 12.Qh6
{ , and here according to Spassky - } 12...Qf6
{ , and it is doubtful whether White retains any real advantage; } ( { not }
12...Qe7 13.Nc4 $1 { . } ) ) 9.Ne4 $1 Nxd5 10.c4
{ Beginning to build up aninitiative, although, of course, there is nothing
terrible as yet. } 10...Ne3 11.Bxe3 fxe3 12.c5 $1 Be7 (
{ It is dangerous to play } 12...f5 $6 13.cxd6 fxe4 14.Bxe4 cxd6 15.Qb3+ Kh8
16.Qxe3 Nf6 17.Bc2 { with an attack; } ) ( { and } 12...Bf4 $2 13.g3 f5
{ is totally bad on account of } ( { or } 13...Bg5 $2 14.Nfxg5 { and Qh5 } )
14.Nh4 $1 { . } ) 13.Bc2 $1 ( { This is far more cunning than } 13.Qe2 Nf6
14.Qxe3 Nd5
{ with an unclear game. Spassky clearly demonstrates tohis opponent that he
may soon have problems on h7. Objectively Black'sposition is still quite
defensible, but here psychology came into the picture:Bronstein did not like what was happening on the board at all - there is aweakness on h7, and
also one on f7... } ) 13...Re8 ( { It is worse to play } 13...f5 $6 14.Nc3 c6
15.Qe2 { ; } ) ( { while after } 13...Nf6 14.Qd3 Re8 $5 { (Burgess) } (
14...Nxe4 15.Qxe4 g6 { (or f5) } 16.Qxe3 { favours White } ) 15.Rae1 $1 Nd5
{ the same motif arises as in the game: } 16.Nd6 $5 ( 16.Nc3 { is quieter } )
16...Bxd6 17.Qh7+ Kf8 18.cxd6 { with an attack. } ) 14.Qd3 e2
{ An attemptto divert White from his plan. } (
{ It was also possible to play } 14...Nf8 15.Ne5 Be6 ( { but not } 15...f6 $2
{ on account of a highly spectacular finish: } 16.Ng5 $3 hxg5 17.Qh7+ $1 Nxh7
18.Bb3+ { and Ng6 mate } ) 16.Qxe3 f6 17.Nf3 c6 18.Bb3
{ - White stands slightly better, but there is still all to play for. } )
15.Nd6 $5 { It begins! } ( 15.Qxe2 $5 ) ( { After the natural } 15.Rf2 $1 Nf8
16.Rxe2 Be6 17.Rae1
{ White has the initiative, but Black has considerabledefensive
possibilities. Perhaps in this case too he would have lost the game,but
then we would not now be annotating it... Spassky's sudden, thunderousstroke sharply changes the situation. --- Again psychology played a
decisiverole in his decision: in a game with Petrosian or Korchnoi he would probablynot even have considered 15 Nd6!?. But against Bronstein he could not denyhimself the pleasure of landing such a blow. And this move, a second-rate onefrom the standpoint of chess truth and
clearly weaker than 15 Rf2!, led to aswift and brilliant win - simply because it threw his opponent into confusion!It was this effect that Spassky was counting on. }
) 15...Nf8 $2
{ Panic! Orperhaps also a feeling of contradiction: he sacrifices, but I
don't take it! } ( { After the calm } 15...Bxd6 16.Qh7+ Kf8 17.cxd6 exf1=Q+
18.Rxf1 cxd6 $1 ( { not } 18...Nf6 $2 19.Qh8+ Ng8 20.Ne5 Rxe5 ( { or }
20...f6 21.Bh7 $1 Be6 22.d7 $1 { followed by Bxg8 and Rxf6+! } ) 21.Bh7 $1 )
19.Qh8+ Ke7 20.Re1+ Ne5 21.Qxg7 Rg8 $1 22.Qxh6 Qb6 $1 23.Kh1 Be6 24.dxe5
{ , White would have gainedgood compensation for the exchange, but the
position would have remainedcompletely unclear. --- Paradoxically,
15...Nf8? finally ruins Black's game:those nightmares that Bronstein experienced after 2 f4! begin to occur in hisdaydreams. Psychology gives way
to concrete calculation. } ) 16.Nxf7 $1
{ (an unusual variation on the tragedy of the f7-square) } 16...exf1=Q+
17.Rxf1 Bf5 (
{ Black is a rook up and has many pieces around his king, but he is unable
todefend against White's domination of the light squares: } 17...Qd5 $5
18.Bb3 $1 ( { not } 18.N3e5 $2 Bxc5 $1 19.Nxh6+ gxh6 20.Bb3 Rxe5 $1 21.Qg3+
Kh7 22.Bxd5 Bxd4+ 23.Kh1 Be6 24.Qd3+ Kg8 ) 18...Qxf7 ( 18...Qh5 19.Nxh6+ )
19.Bxf7+ Kxf7 20.Qc4+ Kg6 21.Qg8 $1 Bf6 ( { or } 21...Be6 22.Ne5+ Kh5 23.Qxg7
{ , mating } ) 22.Nh4+ $1 Bxh4 ( 22...Kg5 23.Qd5+ Kxh4 24.g3+
{ and mate in twomoves } ) 23.Qf7+ Kh7 24.Qxe8
{ and wins. --- I have no doubt whatsoever thatSpassky would have found
this series of accurate moves: he was alwayssuccessful in pursuing the
enemy king. } ) ( 17...Kxf7 { loses in familiarfashion: } 18.Ne5+ Kg8 19.Qh7+
$1 Nxh7 20.Bb3+ { and Ng6 mate. } ) 18.Qxf5 Qd7 19.Qf4 Bf6 20.N3e5 (
20.Nxh6+ gxh6 21.Qxf6 { was also good. } ) 20...Qe7 (
{ Slightly better practical chances were offered by } 20...Bxe5 21.Nxe5 Qe7
22.Qe4 g6 23.Rxf8+ $5 ( 23.Bb3+ $1 Kh8 24.Qd5 Qg7 25.Rf7 { is simpler } )
23...Qxf8 24.Qxg6+ Qg7 25.Bb3+ Kh8 26.Nf7+ Kg8 27.Nd8+ Kf8 28.Qf5+ Ke7 29.Ne6
Qh8 30.Qe4 ( { or } 30.Qf4 Rad8 31.Qxc7+ Rd7 32.Qg3 ) 30...c6 31.Ng5+ $1
{ with the same outcome. It is most likely that at this moment Bronstein
was nolonger thinking about the result of the game: he was completely at
the mercyof the combinative hurricane. } ) 21.Bb3 $1
{ (immediately decisive) } 21...Bxe5 ( 21...Ne6 22.Nxh6+ ) ( 21...Kh7 22.Qf5+
) 22.Nxe5+ Kh7 ( 22...Ne6 23.Ng6 { and Qe4. } ) 23.Qe4+
{ . --- A crushing game and, for all its psychological ingredient,it was
not some 'boy off the street' whom Spassky defeated, but the
greatBronstein! Not without reason, Fischer remembered this masterpiece and his owndefeat in the King's Gambit, when he included Spassky in 'The ten
greatestmasters in history.' He mentioned the 'dynamic, individual style' andthe 'super-sharp openings' of the Russian player, forecast a great futurefor him and shared a very interesting observation: 'Spassky sacrifices withcomplete abandon... He sits at the board with the same
expression whether he'smating or being mated. He can blunder away a piece, and you are never surewhether it's a blunder or a fantastically deep sacrifice.' }
1-0
[Event "53. 28th USSR Championship, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1961.??.??"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Spassky, B."]
[Black "Polugayevsky, L."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "E12"]
[EventDate "1961.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ We will now analyse not a gambit, but an equally bold piece of play with
thevoluntarily loss of castling - one of the most tragic games (along with
GameNo.50) in Spassky's career. After nine rounds of the Zonal, 28th USSRChampionship (Moscow, February 1961) he was confidently leading the race
(7out of 9!) and appeared to have every chance of at last becoming nationalchampion, or at least of qualifying for the Interzonal tournament. 'One isimpressed by the courtesy of the other participants with regard to Spassky,'joked Flohr. 'They know that Boris has not been the champion, and on
thisoccasion they want to allow him to have his turn.' --- } 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6
3.Nf3 ( { There can be no doubt that Black was fully prepared for } 3.Nc3 Bb4
4.Bg5 { (Game No.48). } ) 3...b6 4.Nc3 Bb7 5.Bg5 Be7 (
{ In the 29th USSRChampionship (Baku 1961), Polugayevsky replied } 5...Bb4
6.e3 h6 7.Bh4 g5 8.Bg3 Ne4 9.Qc2 Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 d6 { , but after } 11.Bd3 Nxg3
( 11...f5 12.d5 $1 { Spassky-Gonzales, Havana 1962 } ) 12.fxg3 $5 g4 13.Nh4
Qg5 14.O-O $1 Qxe3+ 15.Kh1 Nd7 16.Rf4 Rg8 17.Raf1
{ Spassky gained good compensation for thepawn and won in a complicated
struggle. } ) ( { Usually his opponents began withthe useful inclusion }
5...h6 $1
{ , which is what Polugayevsky used to play,only... not in this game. } )
6.e3 Ne4
{ Polugayevsky's choice of thiscomparatively rare, simplifying variation
was no doubt dictated by strictlypsychological considerations - a desire to
surprise his formidable opponentand to dispel his fighting mood. } ( 6...O-O
7.Bd3 c5 8.O-O h6 $1 { is alsoquite acceptable; } ( { but not } 8...Nc6 $2
9.d5 $1 Nb4 10.d6 $1 Bxd6 11.Bxh7+ $1 Kxh7 12.Qxd6 Bxf3 13.gxf3 Ne8 $5
{ (Spassky-Larsen, 3rd round, 'Match ofthe Century', Belgrade 1970) } 14.Qxf8
$1 Qxg5+ 15.Kh1 Qh5 16.Rg1 Qxf3+ 17.Rg2
{ , when Black has insufficient compensation for the exchange
(Bondarevsky). } ) ) 7.Nxe4 (
{ The game Spassky-Lutikov (27th USSR Championship, Leningrad 1960)varied
with } 7.Bf4 Bb4 8.Qc2 O-O 9.Bd3 f5 10.O-O Bxc3 11.bxc3 d6
{ , whenWhite's play reached a positional impasse and he risked a
speculative pawnsacrifice: } 12.c5 $6 ( 12.Qb3 c5 $1 ) 12...Qe7 (
{ I think that a moderngrandmaster with his improved defensive technique
would have replied } 12...bxc5
{ , since it is not easy to find full compensation after } 13.Qb3 Qc8 14.Rab1
Ba6 15.c4 Nd7 ) 13.cxd6 cxd6 14.Nd2 Nxd2 15.Qxd2 e5 { with a livelygame. } )
7...Bxe4 8.Bf4 ( { The exchange } 8.Bxe7 Qxe7
{ usually signifies thestart of peace negotiations, but there are also
exceptions: } 9.Nd2 Bb7 10.Be2 Qg5 11.Bf3 Bxf3 12.Qxf3 Nc6 13.Qg3 Qxg3
14.hxg3 Ke7 15.g4 h6 16.a3 a6 $1 17.Ke2 Rhb8 18.Ne4 b5 19.c5 d5 $1 20.cxd6+
cxd6 21.f4 Rc8 22.f5 Na5 23.Kd3 $6 Nc4 24.Rab1 $2 d5 25.Nc3 ( 25.Nc5 e5 $1 )
25...Rc6 26.fxe6 fxe6 27.g5 hxg5 28.Rh5 Kf6 29.Rh3 Rac8 30.Na2 a5 $1 31.Rf3+
Kg6 32.g4 Nd6 $5 ( 32...e5 ) 33.Nc3 b4 34.axb4 axb4 35.Nd1 Rc2 36.Rf2 b3 $1
37.Ra1 Ne4 38.Re2 R8c6 39.Rb1 e5 40.Ra1 R6c4 41.Ra5 Nc5+ $1
{ 0-1 (Bogoljubow-Capablanca,Bad Kissingen 1928). } ) 8...O-O 9.Bd3 $1
{ 'This move gives the game anunusual direction. It would appear to be
advantageous for Black to prevent hisopponent from castling. However, for
Polugayevsky this outwardly favourablefactor played a psychologically damaging role: he began to believe in thepossibility of developing his
initiative, forgetting about the defects of hisown position.' (Aronin). }
9...Bb4+ $6
{ A dubious bishop sortie: after all, this isnot a King's Gambit, where a
couple of lost tempi are a small price to pay forthe chance of keeping the
enemy king in the centre. } ( { After the 'normal' } 9...Bxd3 10.Qxd3 ) (
{ or } 9...f5 $5 10.Bxe4 fxe4 11.Nd2 d5 12.Qg4 Rf6 13.O-O Nc6
{ with equality (Szabo-Miles, Amsterdam 1976), events would have
developedmuch more slowly - in the spirit of the chosen opening line. Now,
however, areal conflict arises and the drowsy troops receive the order to prepare forbattle! }
) 10.Kf1 $1 { Leaving the d1-h5 route open for the queen. } (
{ 'Anexcellent alternative is } 10.Ke2 Bxf3+ $5 11.gxf3
{ ', we read in the book'Grand Strategy: 60 Games by Boris Spassky'.
However, the g-file alone is notenough for the success of the attack , and
after } ( { incidentally, this is also the caseafter } 11.Kxf3 f5 12.h4 Bd6
13.Bxd6 cxd6 14.g3 Nc6 15.Kg2 e5 16.d5 Nb4 $1 17.Be2 a5 { and ...Na6-c5 } )
11...Bd6 12.Bxd6 cxd6
{ followed by...f7-f5 and ...Nc6 Black has no particular problems. } )
10...Bxd3+ 11.Qxd3 Be7
{ The bishop is obliged to beat a retreat, in order to parry the threats
ofc4-c5 and Ng5, but the following aggressive thrust forces Polugayevsky
todevise a defensive plan in conditions of sudden turmoil. } 12.h4 $1 f5
{ Black blocks the white queen's diagonal and also deprives it of the
e4-square,but in so doing he weakens his king's defences by creating the
grounds forg2-g4. } ( { The seemingly solid } 12...d5 { is met strongly by }
13.Ng5 $1 g6 ( { if } 13...Bxg5 $2 14.hxg5 g6
{ , then, if there is nothing better, } 15.cxd5 Qxd5 ( { or } 15...exd5
16.Rc1 ) 16.e4 ) 14.Nf3 $1 { with the threat of h4-h5. } ) (
{ The alternative is } 12...Nc6 { , for example: } 13.Rc1 (
{ a more energeticalternative is } 13.d5 $1 Nb4 14.Qd2 c5 15.a3 Na6 16.h5
{ , and White'schances are somewhat better } ) 13...f5 14.a3 Bf6 15.b4 d6
16.Bg3 Qe8 { (Korchnoi-F.Olafsson, Iceland rapidplay 2000) . } ) 13.Ke2 $5
{ Chess is amysterious game! White makes a second move with his king - and
his initiativemerely increases, since now the way is open for the queen's
rook to go to g1. } 13...d6 14.g4 $1 { (the start of a direct assault) }
14...Nd7 ( 14...fxg4 $2 { is bad dueto } 15.Ng5 Bxg5 16.hxg5 g6 17.Qe4 $1
{ . } ) 15.Rag1 fxg4 $6
{ The firstindication of slight panic: Black helps the opponent to develop
his forces. } ( { Perhaps he should have preferred } 15...Qe8
{ , taking control of the h5- andg6-squares, vacating d8 for his rook and
contemplating a counterattack with ...e6-e5. After } 16.h5 ( { or } 16.gxf5
Rxf5 { - from here it is not easy todislodge the rook } ) 16...Kh8
{ things are more difficult for White. } ) 16.Rxg4 Nf6 17.Rg5 $1
{ A far from trivial decision: the rook takes control of thefifth rank and
expedites the advance of the h-pawn. } ( { After } 17.Rg2 Nh5
{ Black would have had time to erect a first defensive rampart: } 18.Ng5 (
{ or } 18.Bh6 Rf6 19.Bg5 Rf7 20.Qe4 Qc8 ) 18...Bxg5 ( { but not } 18...Nxf4+
$2 19.exf4 Bxg5 20.hxg5 g6 21.Qe4 Qd7 22.Rgh2 Rae8 23.Qxg6+ $3 ) 19.hxg5 g6
{ , and } 20.Rxh5 gxh5 21.g6 { is not dangerous in view of } 21...Qf6 $1
{ etc. } ) 17...Qd7 ( { It would appear that } 17...Qe8 $6
{ is again possible, with the idea of } 18.h5 ( 18.Rhg1 Nh5 $1 ) 18...Rd8
{ , but then } 19.h6 g6 20.Nh4 $1
{ isstrong, with an inevitable combinative explosion after } 20...Kh8 (
20...Nh5 $2 21.Rxh5 $1 ) ( 20...e5 21.Nxg6 $1 ) 21.Rxg6 $3 e5 22.Rg7 $1 exf4
( 22...Rf7 $2 23.Qxh7+ $3 Nxh7 24.Ng6# ) 23.Nf3 $1 { , for example: }
23...Rg8 ( { or } 23...Rf7 ) ( 23...Rd7 24.Ng5 Bd8 25.Nxh7 $1 Rxg7 26.Nxf6
Rxf6 27.hxg7+ Kxg7 28.Qh7+ Kf8 29.Rg1 Qf7 30.Qh8+ Ke7 31.Rg7 ) 24.Ng5 Rxg7
25.hxg7+ Kxg7 26.Rxh7+ $1 Nxh7 27.Qxh7+ Kf6 28.Ne4+ Ke6 29.d5+ Ke5 30.Kf3
{ and the black kingperishes in the middle of the board. } ) 18.h5 Ne8 19.Rg2
{ How to guess whereto retreat the rook? Just in case, Spassky leaves the
path open for the bishopat f4; } ( { whereas } 19.Rg3 $5
{ would have relieved the king of the need todefend the knight at f3. } )
19...b5 $2
{ A nervy attempt to divert theopponent's attention from the attack on the
king. } ( { I think that after } 19...Rd8 $6 20.Rhg1 $1
{ (instead this, threatening Bh6) } ( { Black was not concernedabout } 20.h6
{ (there is no need to hurry with this move) } 20...g6 21.Rxg6+ $6 ( 21.Rhg1
Bf6 ) ( 21.d5 exd5 22.cxd5 c5 $1 { with equality } ) 21...hxg6 22.Qxg6+ (
{ or } 22.h7+ Kh8 23.Be5+ Ng7 $1 ) 22...Kh8 23.Be5+ Bf6 $1 ) 20...Bf6 (
20...Kh8 $2 21.h6 $1 g6 22.Rxg6 hxg6 23.Be5+ $3 Bf6 24.Nh4
{ with a terribleattack } ) 21.Ng5 Bxg5 22.Bxg5 { (and Bh6!) . } ) (
{ But the cool } 19...Rb8 { (or ...Rc8) } 20.Rhg1 Bf6
{ would still have maintained a defensible position. } ) 20.c5 $5 (
{ Not wishing to open a second front - } 20.cxb5 Rb8 21.a4
{ ,although after } 21...a6 ( 21...c6 $2 22.h6 g6 23.Ne5 $1 dxe5 24.Bxe5
{ with thedouble threat of Bxb8 and Rxg6+! } ) 22.Rhg1 $1
{ , Black would be unable toregain his pawn immediately: } 22...Bf6 (
22...axb5 $2 23.h6 $1 g6 ( 23...Bf6 24.hxg7 Bxg7 25.a5 $1 ) 24.Rxg6+ hxg6
25.Qxg6+ Kh8 26.Be5+ $1 { etc. } ) ( { It is also bad to play } 22...Rf5 $2
23.Bh6 $1 ) ( { or } 22...Kh8 $2 23.h6 g6 24.Rxg6 hxg6 25.Be5+ $1 ) 23.Ng5
Bxg5 24.Rxg5 h6 $6 ( 24...c6 { is moretenacious } ) 25.Rg6 axb5 26.a5 $1
{ and White has an obvious advantage. } ) 20...dxc5 $2
{ After lengthy and agonising hesitation Polugayevsky fatally weakensthe
e5-square. } ( { After } 20...Kh8
{ White would have had the choice of twounpleasant alternatives: } 21.Be5 $5
{ (more spectacular) } ( 21.Rhg1 Bf6 ( { with the thematic threat of }
21...-- 22.h6 $3 g6 23.Rxg6 hxg6 24.Be5+ Bf6 25.Nh4 ) 22.Ng5 Bxg5 23.Rxg5 )
21...Bf6 $1 ( 21...dxe5 $2 22.Nxe5 { and 23Ng6+! } ) ( 21...Rxf3 $2 22.h6 $1
) ( 21...Nf6 $2 22.cxd6 cxd6 23.Qg6 $3 ) 22.Qe4 Rb8 23.c6 Qe7 24.Bf4
{ , when Black is condemned to passive defence. } ) (
{ But Black could have considered } 20...Qc6 $5 21.Rhg1 { and now: } 21...Rf5
$1 ( { not } 21...Kh8 $2 22.h6 $1 g6 23.Rxg6 ) ( { or } 21...Qd5 $2 22.h6 $1
Rf7 ( 22...g6 $2 23.Rxg6+ $1 hxg6 24.Qxg6+ Kh8 25.Ne5 $1 ) 23.hxg7
{ , which is clearlyadvantageous to White } ) 22.h6 g6 23.cxd6 cxd6
{ , although after } 24.d5 $1
{ Black would still be facing a difficult struggle for a draw: } 24...Rxd5 (
{ if } 24...Qxd5 { White has the strong reply } 25.Nd4 $1 Rf8 $2 ( { or }
25...Rf6 26.Bg5 $1 ) 26.Rxg6+ $1 ) 25.Rxg6+ Kf7 $1 26.Rg7+ ( 26.Nd4 Qc4
27.Qxc4 bxc4 28.Rxe6 Bf6 29.Re4 Ra5 { with equality } ) 26...Nxg7 27.Rxg7+
Ke8 28.Nd4 Qc4 { etc. } ) 21.h6 Rf5 ( { The standard defence } 21...g6 $2
{ is no longer possible on accountof the 'hole' at e5: } 22.Rxg6+ hxg6
23.Qxg6+ Kh8 24.Ne5 Qd5 25.Rg1 { and wins; } ) ( { while } 21...c4 $2
{ would have been refuted by the attractive } 22.Qxh7+ $3 Kxh7 23.hxg7+ Kg8
24.Rh8+ Kf7 25.Ne5+ Kf6 26.Rxf8+ $1 Bxf8 27.gxf8=Q+ Qf7 28.Qxf7#
{ . The move in the game allows Black to hold on slightlyon the edge of the
abyss. } ) 22.Be5 $1
{ With such a powerful bishop, White'sattack is irresistible. In searching
for replies that are at least partlyacceptable, Black ends up in very
severe time-trouble. } 22...c4 23.Qe4 Qd5 24.Qg4 (
{ There was also another, prosaic way to win - } 24.Qxd5 $5 exd5 25.hxg7
{ etc. } ) 24...c3 25.b3 $1 b4
{ This pawn pair would be good in an ending, but thefact that Black might
survive to reach an endgame could be imagined only in anightmare! } 26.e4 $5
( { White again disdains the prosaic - } 26.Bxg7 $1 Qxf3+ ( 26...Qb5+ 27.Ke1
Bg5 28.Nxg5 Qd3 29.Qd1 ) 27.Qxf3 Rxf3 28.Kxf3
{ etc. Heis attracted by the idea of a king march. } ) 26...Qb5+ 27.Ke3 $1
Rf7 28.hxg7 Nf6 29.Bxf6 ( { Again there was a dual winning solution: } 29.Qh3
c2 30.Bxf6 c1=Q+ 31.Rxc1 Rxf6 32.e5 { etc. } ) 29...Rxf6 30.Rxh7 $5 (
{ Capablanca, Karpovand a computer would 'automatically' have played } 30.e5
$1 Rg6 31.Qh5
{ and wins. But Spassky rejects this 'boring' continuation and begins
theconcluding, pretty stage of the attack. At this point the flag on
Black'sclock was already hanging, whereas White still had roughly 15 minutes left. }
) 30...Rxf3+
{ This series of checks is the only way of deferring resignation. } 31.Kxf3
( 31.Qxf3 $4 Bg5+ { would occur only in a blitz game. } ) 31...Qd3+ 32.Kf4
{ Had White placed his rook at g3 back on the 19th move, the simple 32
Kg2would now have been decisive. However, as it is Black is in a
desperateposition. } 32...Bd6+ ( { After } 32...Qd2+ { the fairy-tale }
33.Ke5 $1 { would haveworked: } (
{ but Polugayevsky most probably avoided the queen check on accountof the
more earthly } 33.Kg3 Bd6+ 34.Kh3 Qd3+ 35.f3 ) 33...Bd6+ 34.Kxe6 Re8+ 35.Kd7
$1 Re7+ 36.Kd8 $1 { (Moiseev). } ) 33.Kg5 Kxh7
{ The sensible checkshave come to an end and all that remains is to take
the rook after all. Tojudge by the noise in the hall, many spectators had
already anticipated thelogical finish. } ( 33...Be7+ $2 34.Kg6 $1 ) (
33...Qb5+ $2 34.Kh6 $1 ) 34.Kh5 $4 ( { Had White carried out his planned }
34.Kf6 $3 Qxd4+ 35.Kf7 $1
{ , thiswould have been one of Spassky's best wins: such bold raids by the
king undera hail of bullets can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and
are part ofthe golden treasury of chess. Alas, Spassky suddenly imagined that after 34Kh5 the checks were at an end. Well, erratic thinking at moments
of terribletension, especially with the opponent's flag about to fall, occurs even withgreat players. }
) 34...Qb5+ $1
{ This unexpected queen jump plunged Spasskyinto shock, and he saw the rest
as though in a mist. } 35.Kh4 $2
{ An almostinstantaneous reply - and a second successive, virtually
decisive mistake! } ( { White instinctively avoided } 35.e5 $1 Qe8+ $1
{ , although Black would havehad to make five moves in literally seconds
after } 36.Kh4 { , in order not tomiss the draw: } 36...Kg8 ( 36...Be7+
37.Kh3 Qf7 ( { or } 37...Kg8 38.Kh2 $1 Qf7 $1 ( { but not } 38...c2 $2
39.Qxe6+ Qf7 40.Qh6 { and wins } ) ) 38.Kh2 $1 Kg8 39.Qh3 $1 Qf4+ 40.Kg1 (
40.Kh1 $2 Qh4 $1 ) 40...Qc1+ { with perpetual check } ) 37.exd6 c2 $1 38.Qf4
Qc6 39.Rg1 Qxd6 $1 40.Kg5 $1 Rd8 ( { or } 40...Qxf4+ 41.Kxf4 { and Rc1 } )
41.Qxd6 Rxd6 42.Rc1 Rc6 43.Kf6 { with a draw. } ) 35...Be7+ 36.Kh3 Qg5 $3
{ Here we have that extreme situation in time-trouble: Black again findsthe
only move, after which it is now White who has to fight for a draw! } 37.Qxg5
{ (forced) } ( 37.Qxe6 $4 Qh4# ) 37...Bxg5 38.Rxg5 Rd8 $1
{ The resultingrook endgame (the irony of fate - cf. the note to Black's
25th move) is highlyunpleasant for White: the g7-pawn demands constant
defence and merely tiesdown his rook, whereas the passed c3-pawn allows the black rook to becomeextremely active. }
39.f4 $2
{ In such an unusual situation, commentary isappropriate only for the sake
of establishing the chess truth. Remember themain rule of such endings:
activity above all else! The way for White to savethe game consisted in retaining and activating his central pawns, attemptingwith the aid of his king
to make one of them as powerful as the c3-pawn. } (
{ We will consider three plans: -- 1) } 39.Kg3 Kg8 $1 40.Rc5 Rxd4 41.Kf4
{ (pinning his hopes on the passed pawn) } 41...Rd2 42.Ke5 Rxf2 43.Rxc7 Rxa2
44.Kxe6 ( 44.Kf6 Kh7 $1 45.Kxe6 a5 { and wins } ) 44...Kh7 $1 45.e5 a5 46.Kd5
Rd2+ 47.Kc4 ( { or } 47.Ke4 Re2+ 48.Kd4 a4 49.bxa4 c2 50.Kd3 b3 51.Kxe2 b2
52.Rxc2 b1=Q ) 47...Rd7 48.Rc6 Rb7 $1 49.Kd3 a4 50.Kc2 a3 51.Kb1 Rxg7
{ and Blackwins. } ) ( { 2) } 39.g8=Q+ $1 { (less obvious) } 39...Rxg8 40.Rc5
Rg1 $1 41.Rxc7+ Kg6 42.f3 $1 Rd1 43.Rc4 a5 44.Kg4 Kf6 45.f4 $1 Rg1+ (
45...Rd2 { (or ...Ra1) } 46.e5+ { and f4-f5 } ) 46.Kf3 Ra1 47.e5+ Ke7 (
47...Kf5 $2 48.Rc8 Rxa2 $4 49.Rg8 $1 ) 48.f5 exf5 49.d5 Rxa2 50.Rc7+ Kd8
51.d6 Rd2 52.Kf4 a4 53.bxa4 c2 54.Ke3 $1 Rd5 ( 54...Rh2 $2 55.e6 ) 55.Rxc2
Rxe5+ 56.Kd4 Ra5 { with a draw. } ) ( { 3) } 39.d5 $1
{ (the least obvious chance of all) } 39...exd5 ( 39...c2 $6 40.Rg1
{ with a draw } ) 40.g8=Q+ $1 Rxg8 41.Rxd5 $1 Kg6 42.Rc5 Kf6 43.f4
{ (White hasretained his dangerous pawn pair, even if his king has been
temporarily shutout) } 43...Re8 44.Rc4 c5 { (trapping the rook) } 45.Kg4 Rc8
{ , and White is soonforced to advance one of his pawns: } 46.-- ( 46.e5+ $2
Ke6 47.Re4 { loses to } 47...c4 48.bxc4 c2 49.f5+ Ke7 50.Re1 Rxc4+ { . } ) (
{ On the other hand, } 46.Kf3 Ke6 47.Ke3 Kd6 48.a3 a5 49.axb4 axb4 50.f5 $1
Ke5 ( 50...Rh8 51.e5+ $1 ) 51.Kf3 Rd8 52.Rxc5+ Kd4 53.Rc4+ Kd3 54.f6 ) (
{ or the immediate } 46.f5 $1 Ke5 47.Kf3 Rd8 48.Ke3 Rc8 ( 48...Kd6 49.Kf4 Re8
50.f6 { with a draw } ) 49.Kf3 Rc6 50.Ke3 a5 51.Kf3 Rh6 52.Rxc5+ Kd6 (
52...Kd4 $4 53.Rd5# ) 53.Rc8 { leads to a draw. } ) ) 39...Kg8 $1
{ This practically ensures the win, since nowWhite has no serious
counterplay. } 40.Rc5 ( { if } 40.d5 { , then } 40...exd5 41.exd5 Rd7 $1
42.Re5 Rxg7 { is decisive. } ) 40...Rxd4
{ To judge by the quality of thelast seven moves, one would think that it
was not Black who had been intime-trouble, but White! } 41.Rxc7 Rxe4
{ The sealed move; the resumption didnot last long. } 42.Kg4 (
{ It was equally hopeless to play } 42.Kg3 a5 43.Kf3 Re1 44.Kf2 Ra1 45.Ke3
Rxa2 46.Kd4 Rg2 47.Ke5 Rxg7 48.Rc5 Rg3 49.Kxe6 a4 50.bxa4 b3 { . } ) (
42.Rxa7 c2 43.Rc7 Re3+ $1 { and ...Rc3 } ) 42...e5 $1 43.a3 (
{ As was shown by home analysis, after } 43.Kf5 Rxf4+ 44.Kg6 Rg4+ 45.Kh6 e4
{ White would not have saved the game by either } 46.Rc8+ ( { or } 46.Rxa7 c2
$1 47.Rc7 Rg2 48.Rc8+ Kf7 49.Rc7+ Kf6 50.Rc6+ Ke5 51.Rxc2 Rxc2 52.g8=Q Rh2+
53.Kg7 Rg2+ ) 46...Kf7 47.Rf8+ Ke6 48.g8=Q+ Rxg8 49.Rxg8 { in view of }
49...e3 $3 50.Re8+ Kd5 51.Rxe3 c2 $1 52.Re1 Kd4 53.Kg5 Kc3 54.Kf4 Kd2 55.Rh1
c1=Q 56.Rxc1 Kxc1 57.Ke3 Kb2 { etc. } ) 43...Rxf4+ 44.Kg5 a5 45.Kg6 Rg4+
46.Kf6 Kh7 $1 47.g8=Q+ ( 47.Kxe5 Rxg7 ) 47...Kxg8 48.Kxe5 Rg1 49.Kf6 Rf1+ (
{ If } 49...Rf1+ 50.Ke5 ( { while after } 50.Kg6 Kf8 51.axb4 axb4 52.Rc4 Ke8
53.Kg5 Kd8 54.Kg4 Rb1 { the last white pawn falls } ) 50...bxa3 $1 51.Rc8+
Kf7 52.Rc7+ Ke8
{ and the a-pawn queens. --- Nowadays no one remembers it, but
thisundeserved defeat cost the 24-year-old Spassky far more than the title
of USSRChampion. It shattered him and upset his creative mood, and Boris was simplyunrecognisable at the finish: after losing to both
Simagin and Korchnoi, andthen to Stein in the decisive game (Game No.57), he again failed to qualifyfor the Interzonal tournament. }
) 0-1
[Event "54. Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1967.??.??"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Spassky, B."]
[Black "Pachman, L."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "D43"]
[EventDate "1967.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ But now let us see how the future world champion performed one of the
mostcomplicated and risky openings - the irrational 'Anti-Moscow Gambit'.
--- } 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 h6 (
{ Black will avoid riskyBotvinnik Variation } 5...dxc4 6.e4 b5 7.e5 h6 8.Bh4
g5 9.Nxg5 { and remaina pawn up, apparently without any great problems. } )
6.Bh4 $5
{ Spassky wasvirtually the first to begin playing this sharp move, whereas
nowadays it isthe height of fashion; } ( { since after } 6.Bxf6 Qxf6
{ (the Moscow Variation),White's spatial advantage is offset by Black's two
bishops and the latentdynamics of his position. This type of position has
been the subject ofdebates since the time of the 11th game of the Capablanca-Alekhine match (Volume 1, Game No.125). }
) 6...dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5 9.Qc2 $6
{ This typeof position differs fundamentally from those that we saw in the
games withMikenas and Bronstein. Here White's compensation for the
sacrificed materialis not momentary, but long-term, strategic. The moves ...b7-b5 and ...g7-g5are encouraging for White: pawns cannot move backwards
and it is not easy forBlack to castle. However, very accurate and energetic play is demanded ofWhite, whereas Spassky operates somewhat on general grounds, thereby allowinghis opponent excellent counter-chances. And, despite White's ultimate successin this game, the outcome of this opening
duel discouraged many players fromtrying 6 Bh4 for a long time afterwards. }
(
{ Only, this did not apply toSpassky himself: in his game with Kostro
(Siegen Olympiad 1970) he did notmiss the chance to employ the gambit
again, playing } 9.Be2 $1 Bb7 10.O-O Nbd7 11.Qc2 ( 11.d5 $6 cxd5 12.exd5 Nxd5
$1 ( 12...Qb6 $2 13.dxe6 fxe6 14.Nd4 Bc5 ( 14...a6 15.Bh5+ ) 15.Ndxb5 O-O
16.Bf3 Bxf3 17.Qxf3 Rac8 18.Rad1 Qc6 19.Qe2 Nd5 20.Nd6 $1 Bxd6 21.Qxe6+ Kg7
22.Bxd6
{ with a spectacular rout.Later, it is true, when a serious study was made
of this scheme, a forciblerejoinder was found... } ) 13.Nxb5 a6 $1 14.Nd6+
Bxd6 15.Bxd6 Qb6 16.Bg3 Rc8 17.Rc1 c3 18.Ne5 cxb2 19.Rxc8+ Bxc8 20.Qc2 O-O
{ (Bareev-Dreev, 3rdmatchgame, Wijk aan Zee 1995) and another branch became
topical instead... } ) 11...Nh5 12.a4 a6 13.Rad1 Be7 14.d5 Nxg3 15.hxg3
{ etc } ) ( { Back in 1982,after } 9.Be2 $1 Bb7
{ , Timoshchenko and I found a quite different idea: } 10.h4 $5 ( 10.e5 Nh5
{ seemed to me to be not altogether reliable: Another tempting
continuationis } ( 10...Nd5 11.h4 $1
{ , which I tried against Tal (Moscow Interzonal 1982): } 11...Qa5 12.Rc1 g4
( 12...Na6 $5 13.hxg5 O-O-O ) 13.Nd2 c5 14.Nce4 cxd4 15.O-O h5 $6 ( 15...Nc6
$1 ) 16.a4 $1 a6 { , and here } 17.Bxc4 $1 ( { instead of } 17.b4 $2 Qd8 $1 )
17...bxc4 18.Nxc4 Qb4 19.f3 $3
{ (pointed out in analysis after the game byPetrosian - a romantic at
heart!) would have given White a terrible attack: } 19...Bc6 ( 19...Nc6
20.Be1 Qe7 21.Ncd6+ Kd8 22.Rxc6 $1 Bxc6 23.Ba5+ Nc7 24.Qxd4 ) ( { or }
19...Bh6 20.Ned6+ Kd7 21.fxg4 Bxc1 22.Be1 $1 Qc5 23.Rxf7+ Ne7 24.Qxc1 )
20.fxg4 $1 Bxa4 21.Ncd6+ Bxd6 22.Nxd6+ Kd7 23.Rxf7+ Ne7 24.Rxe7+ $1 Kxe7
25.Qf3 Rf8 26.Qe4 $1 ( { not } 26.Qxa8 d3 $1 27.Qa7+ Nd7 28.Rc4 Qb6+ )
26...Nc6 27.Qh7+ Kd8 28.Qg7 Re8 29.Qf7 Rh8 ( 29...Ne7 30.Be1 $1 ) 30.Be1 $1
Qb6 31.Ba5 $3 { - a problem-like win: both diversion - } 31...Nxa5 (
{ and decoy - } 31...Qxa5 32.Nb7+ ) 32.Qf6+ Kd7 33.Qg7+ { . } ) 11.a4 (
{ on account of } 11.Nxg5 $5 Nxg3 12.Nxf7 Kxf7 13.fxg3 $1 Kg8 $1 ( 13...Nd7
$2 14.Bh5+ $1 ) 14.O-O { , when it is bad to play } 14...Na6 $2
{ (a faultyrecommendation by Anand: the knight should stand at d7, guarding
the f6-square) } 15.Ne4 $1 Be7 ( 15...Nc7 16.Nf6+ Kf7 17.Bh5+ Ke7 18.Qg4 ) (
15...c5 16.Bxc4 $1 ) ( 15...Bg7 16.Bh5 $1 ) 16.Bxc4 $1 Rh7 17.Bxe6+ Kh8
18.Bf5 Rg7 19.Qh5 Bg5 20.Nd6 { and wins. } ) 11...a6 ( 11...b4 $5 12.Ne4 c5
{ is better } ) 12.Nxg5 $1
{ . In 1996 I showed this idea to Kramnik, and soon afterwards heemployed
it against Anand (Belgrade 1997) - after } 12...Nxg3 13.Nxf7 Kxf7 14.fxg3 Kg8
15.O-O Nd7 16.Bg4 Qe7 17.Ne4 Rh7 ( 17...c5 18.Nd6 cxd4 ( { or } 18...Bd5
19.Bf3 $1 Bg7 20.Nf5 $1 ) 19.Rf7 $1 ) 18.Nd6 Rb8
{ , White could haveretained an advantage by } 19.axb5 $1 ( { instead of }
19.b4 $2 ) 19...cxb5 20.Nxb7 Rxb7 21.Rxa6 Rb6 22.Rxb6 Nxb6 23.Rf6 { . } )
10...g4 11.Ne5
{ wasintroduced by some St Petersburg players, led by Khalifman, in order
to carryout Spassky's plan in an improved version after } 11...h5 ( 11...b4
$5 ) 12.O-O Nbd7 13.Qc2 { . However, after } 13...Nxe5 14.Bxe5 Bg7 15.Rad1
O-O { the chances areroughly equal: } 16.Bg3 ( 16.f3 Nh7 $1 17.Bxg7 Kxg7
18.fxg4 Qxh4 19.gxh5 Ng5 20.Qd2 Nh3+ $1 21.gxh3 Qg3+
{ with perpetual check (it is a surprisingparadox: how often do very sharp
variations fizzle out into a draw!) } ( 21...-- ) ) 16...Nh7 ( 16...Nd7 $5 )
17.e5 f5 18.exf6 Qxf6
{ with a complicatedstruggle (Kramnik-Akopian, Dortmund 2000). --- The
'Anti-Moscow Gambit' is anexcellent illustration of the rapid development
of chess thinking in the lastfew decades. Today the gambit has an extensive theory, and for the time beingthe results favour White. Like the
Botvinnik Variation, it has been analysedalmost to the endgame, and this frightens many players: it is not everyone whowants to step through a minefield, competing as regards length of computeranalysis or else relying only on their sense of danger. The times have passedwhen it was possible,
like Spassky, to plunge into a boundless jungle,intuitively hoping that a powerful centre and 'holes' in the opponent'sposition would bring White victory. The accuracy of play has improved sharply,and so complicated variations like this, as they are studied more and moredeeply, gradually disappear from serious grandmaster play and are replaced byothers. And so on ad infinitum! }
) 9...g4
{ Pachman is tempted by the d4-pawnand it is hard to reproach him for this:
nothing immediately decisive forWhite is apparent. I think that Spassky
gave up the second pawn freely, notburdening himself with the calculation of variations - simply in order to openlines for the attack! }
( { Sounder is the typical } 9...Bb7 10.O-O-O Nbd7 ( { or } 10...Qa5 11.Ne5
Bb4 $1 ) 11.Ne5 Nh5 12.Be2 Nxg3 13.hxg3 Nxe5 14.dxe5 Qb6 { . } ) 10.Ne5 Qxd4
11.Rd1 ( { It was possibly better to play } 11.Be2 Bb4 12.O-O Bxc3 13.bxc3
Qxe4 14.Qd2 Nbd7 { , and now not } 15.Nxg4 ( { but } 15.f3 $1
{ with quite good compensation for the missing pawns } ) 15...Nd5 16.Rfe1
{ ˝-˝ (Petrosian-Neikirch, Portoroz Interzonal 1958). } ) 11...Qb6 (
{ After } 11...Qc5 { , Black may have been afraid of the flashy } 12.Rd8+ $5
( { rulingout the variation } 12.Ng6 $2 fxg6 13.e5 Nd5 14.Qxg6+ Kd7 15.Qf6
{ in view of } 15...Rh7 $1 ) 12...Kxd8 13.Nxf7+ Ke8 14.Nxh8 Qg5 15.e5 Nd5
16.Ne4 Bb4+ 17.Kd1 Qg7 18.Ng6 $1 Kf7 $1 19.Nh4
{ , although here it is not at all easy for Whiteto develop his initiative.
} ) 12.Be2 ( { In 1982 Timoshchenko and I discoveredthe pretty stroke }
12.Ng6 $6 fxg6 13.e5 { , but then it transpired that after } 13...Kf7 (
{ the idea was } 13...Nd5 $2 14.Qxg6+ Kd7 15.Qf6 $1 Rh7 16.Qxf8 Qd8 17.Qd6+
Ke8 18.Be2 Qxd6 19.exd6 h5 20.h3 $1 ) 14.exf6 e5 $1
{ White no longerhas any attack: } 15.Bxe5 $6 Bf5 16.Qd2 Nd7 17.Bd4 Bc5
{ and wins. } ) 12...Nbd7 $1 ( { In the event of } 12...h5
{ White could now have sacrificed hisknight - } 13.Ng6 $1 fxg6 14.e5 Kf7
15.exf6 Bb4 ( { if } 15...Nd7 { , then } 16.O-O $1 Nxf6 17.Be5 ) 16.O-O Bxc3
17.Qxc3 a5 18.Bf4 Nd7 19.Kh1 Qc5 20.f3 $1 g3 $1 21.Bxg3 h4 22.Bf2 Qf5 23.Rd6
$1 Ra6 24.b3
{ with plenty of pressure,which fully compensates for the material deficit
(Aseev-V.Popov, Kazan 1995). } ) 13.O-O ( 13.Nxg4 $5 ) 13...Be7 (
{ Black has a perfectly defensible position (it is not apparent how White
can open lines) and more than one goodpossibility - say, } 13...h5 $5
{ ('Boris Spassky's 300 Wins'). He is, afterall, material up! } ) 14.Nxg4
Nxg4 15.Bxg4 Bb7 ( 15...h5 $5 { came intoconsideration, and if } 16.Be2 (
{ or } 16.Bf3 { , then } 16...e5 $1 { with a verycomfortable game. } ) (
{ But White could play } 16.Bh3 { , maintaining an unclearposition. } ) )
16.e5 $1 Nc5 { The normal reply. } ( 16...h5 $2 { was now bad onaccount of }
17.Bxe6 $1 fxe6 18.Qg6+ Kd8 19.Qxe6 Bc8 20.Ne4 c5 ( 20...Rf8 21.Qh3 ) 21.Nd6
$1 h4 22.Bf4 { and wins. } ) ( 16...O-O-O $6 { was recommended,but after }
17.Bh5 $1
{ , with the threats of Bxf7 and Ne4, White would haveseized the
initiative. } ) 17.Bh5 $1 Rd8 18.Qe2 Nd3
{ Black has exploited atrump typical of the given scheme - supported by the
c4-pawn, his knight hasoccupied the key d3-square. And it would appear
that, under the cover of suchan outpost, he is no longer under threat. I remember that, after the 16th gameof my second match with Karpov (1985), Keene
called such a knight an 'octopus'.Indeed, it extended its 'tentacles' over the entire board! }
19.Qf3 { Consistently continuing the plan of an attack on f7. } 19...O-O $1
{ An importantmove; } ( { after } 19...Rf8 $6
{ the king would have stood much worse at e8: } 20.Ne4 c5 21.Nf6+ Bxf6
22.Qxf6 { etc. } ) 20.Ne4 Qd4 $1
{ Black only needs to play...c6-c5, and White's activity will come to a
standstill. } 21.Rfe1 $1
{ A creative, unusual move: it is time to bring the rook into play - so
thismust be done, even if it means sacrificing! The threat is 22 Nf6+! and
Re4 (orRe3). Spassky is in his element - a chance of creating a direct attack on theking has appeared. }
( { Of course, it was no good to play } 21.Nf6+ $2 Kg7 22.Rd2 Ba8 $1 23.Rfd1
c5 ) ( { or } 21.Nd6 $2 Bxd6 22.exd6 e5 { and ...Rxd6. } ) (
{ But why not try to break up the formidable enemy pawns with the help of }
21.b3 { - ? } 21...Ba8 $1
{ and ...c6-c5, however, would have made things much moredifficult for him:
} ( { After all, in the event of } 21...c5 22.Nf6+ Bxf6 23.Qxf6 ) ( 21...Kh8
22.Nd6 $1 ) ( { or } 21...Nxe5 22.Nf6+ Bxf6 23.Qxf6 Nd3 24.Qxh6 Qg7 25.Qe3
{ White, by combining the attack on the king with theresolution of his
positional problems on the other wing, would have maintainedthe flame of
his initiative. } ( 25.-- ) ) 22.bxc4 ( 22.Nf6+ Kg7 $1 ) 22...c5 ( 22...bxc4
$5 ) 23.Nf6+ Kg7 24.Rxd3 Qxd3 25.Qg4+ Kh8 26.Qf4 Qd2 $1
{ withadvantage to Black. } ) 21...Kh8 $2
{ White's risky strategy justifies itself!Again we see psychology in
action: Pachman moves his king 'out of harm's way'; } (
{ since it was bad to play } 21...Ba8 $2 22.Nf6+ Bxf6 { (otherwise Re4!) }
23.Qxf6 c5 24.Re3 $1 ) ( 21...c5 $2 22.Nf6+ Bxf6 23.Qxf6 Rd7 ( 23...Qxb2
24.Qxh6 ) 24.Re3 $1 ) ( 21...Nxe5 $2 22.Nf6+ Bxf6 23.Qxf6 Nd3 24.Be5 $1 ) (
{ and } 21...Qxb2 $2 22.Nf6+ Kg7 ( 22...Bxf6 23.Qxf6 { and Re3; } ) (
22...Kh8 23.Re4 $1 Bc5 $6 24.Rf1 $1 { with the threats of Rxc4 and Rh4 } )
23.Re4 $1 ( 23.Bf4 $5 ) 23...Nc5 ( { or } 23...Qc2 24.Rh4 Nc5 25.Rf1 $1 )
24.Rg4+ Kh8 25.Bxf7 $1 { . } ) ( { But } 21...Kg7 $2
{ is also insufficient on account of } 22.Nd6 $1 Nxe1 23.Rxe1
{ , for example: } 23...Bxd6 ( 23...Ba8 24.Bxf7 $1 Qd2 25.Qg4+ Kh8 (
25...Qg5 26.Qxe6 ) ( 25...Bg5 26.Rd1 Qxb2 27.h4 $1 Rxf7 28.hxg5 ) 26.Rd1 Qc2
27.Bg6 $1 Qxb2 28.Bb1 $1 Bg5 29.h4 { and wins } ) 24.Qf6+ Kh7 ( 24...Kg8
25.Bxf7+ $1 ) 25.Bxf7 Qd2 26.Bg6+ Kg8 27.Qxe6+ Kg7 28.exd6 Rf6 29.Qe4 c5 (
29...Bc8 30.Bh5 $1 ) ( 29...Rdxd6 30.Qe8 Rd7 31.Bh5
{ , winning - 'Boris Spassky's 300Wins' } ) 30.Qxb7+ Kxg6 31.Qe4+ Kg7 32.h3
Rdxd6 ( 32...Rfxd6 33.Bxd6 Qxd6 34.Qb7+ { and Qxb5 } ) ( { if } 32...a6
{ , White has the decisive } 33.Qe7+ Kg6 ( { or } 33...Rf7 34.Be5+ ) 34.Re4
$1 ) ( { while if } 32...Kg8 ) ( { or } 32...Rf7 { , then } 33.Re3 $1 )
33.Bxd6 Qxd6 ( 33...Qxf2+ 34.Kh1 Rxd6 35.Qe7+ Kg8 36.Qe8+ Qf8 37.Qxb5 )
34.Qe8 $1 Rf7 35.Re3 $1 Qf8 36.Qxb5 Rxf2 37.Qxc4 { and wins. } ) (
{ Only the bold } 21...Nxe1 $1
{ would have relieved Black's suffering. After } 22.Qg4+ ( { if } 22.Rxe1 $2
{ the simplest is } 22...c5 ) 22...Kh8 23.Rxd4 Rxd4 24.Qe2 $1 c5 $1 25.Nd6
Bxd6 26.exd6 Nd3
{ , White would no longer have had to look fora mate, but a way of
maintaining the balance: } 27.Qd2 $5 ( 27.Be5+ Nxe5 28.Qxe5+ Kg8 29.h4 $1 (
29.Qxc5 $2 Rd5 ) 29...Ba8 ( 29...Rd8 30.Qf6 Rd7 31.Bxf7+ $1 ) 30.g4 a6
31.Qxc5 Rd5 32.Qc7 { with equality } ) 27...Kg7 28.Qa5 b4 ( 28...a6 29.Qc7 $1
Bc8 30.Qe7 ) 29.Be2 ( { not } 29.Qxa7 $2 Be4 $1 ) 29...a6 30.h3 { , and if }
30...f6 { , then } 31.Bh5 $1 Be4 32.Qc7+ Kg8 33.Qe7 { withequality. } )
22.Nd6 $1 Nxe1 ( 22...Bxd6 $2 23.Re4 $1 ) 23.Rxe1
{ Here theexchange does not play an important role, it being far more
important to getrid of the all-powerful knight at d3. The surviving white
rook joins theassault, whereas the black rooks are inactive. } 23...Rxd6 $2
{ This loses quickly,although it is also not possible to tolerate this
knight (White is threateningRd1 and Nxf7+, or immediately Nxf7+); } (
{ and the position without thedark-squared bishop after } 23...Bxd6 24.exd6
$1 ( 24.Qf6+ Kh7 25.Bxf7 Qd2 $1 { with equality } ) 24...f6 ( 24...Qd2 $6
25.Be5+ $1 Kh7 26.Rd1 Qg5 27.Bf6 ) 25.Rxe6 Qxb2 26.h4
{ (Dolmatov) is rather unpleasant, for example: } 26...Bc8 27.Re7 Qb1+ 28.Kh2
Qf5 29.Qe2 $1 Qd3 ( { or } 29...Bd7 30.Bf7 ) 30.Qe1 $1 { with an attack. } )
24.exd6 Bf6 ( 24...Bxd6 $2 25.Rd1 ) 25.h4 $6 (
{ Allillusions would have been dispelled by } 25.d7 $1 Kg7 ( { or } 25...Qxb2
26.Bxf7 Kg7 27.Be8 ) 26.Rd1 Qxb2 27.Bd6 Rd8 28.Be7
{ , winning. But Spassky againdoes not go into details, reckoning that in
any case the position is alreadywon, and he unhurriedly makes an escape
square for his king. } ) 25...Qxb2
{ Pachman almost certainly did not see his opponent's reply. } (
{ However, if } 25...Kg7 { White would have won by } 26.Rd1 $1 Qb6 ( { or }
26...Qxb2 27.d7 $1 ) 27.d7 c5 28.Qg4+ Kh7 29.Bd6 { . } ) 26.Bxf7 $1
{ A brilliant stroke, crowningWhite's aggressive strategy. } ( 26.d7 Qc3
27.Qxc3 Bxc3 28.Rd1 Ba5 29.Bd6 Rd8 30.Be7 Kg7 { was no longer so clear. } )
26...Rxf7 ( 26...Qc3 27.Re3 Qa1+ 28.Kh2 Rxf7
{ would appear to be more tenacious. However, after } 29.Qh5 $1 (
{ instead, after } 29.Rxe6 Qd4 30.Re8+ Kg7 31.Qf5 Rf8 $1 32.d7 Qd5 33.Rxf8
Qxf5 34.d8=Q Bxd8 35.Rxf5 { ('Boris Spassky's 300 Wins') } 35...Be7 $1
{ , Black'sstrong queenside pawns give him good saving chances } ) 29...Kg7
( 29...Kg8 30.Rxe6 ) 30.Bf4 $1 Kg8 ( 30...Qd4 31.Rg3+ ) 31.Bxh6 Qd4 32.Qg6+
Bg7 33.Bxg7 Qxg7 ( 33...Rxg7 34.Qxe6+ ) ( 33...Qxh4+ 34.Rh3 Qf4+ 35.Rg3 Qh4+
36.Kg1 ) 34.Qxe6 Kh7 35.d7 $1 Rxd7 36.Qf5+ { , the game is over. } ) 27.Be5
$1 Qc2 $6 ( 27...Qd2 $2 28.Bxf6+ Kh7 29.Qe4+ ) ( 27...c5 $2 28.Qxf6+ Rxf6
29.Bxb2 ) ( { In the time scramble Pachman misses the strongest defence: }
27...Bxe5 $1 28.Qxf7 Qc3 $1 { . Now there is only one way to win - } 29.Qf8+
Kh7 30.Rxe5 $1 Qa1+ 31.Kh2 Qxe5+ 32.f4 Qd5 $1 33.Qe7+ Kg6 34.d7 c5
{ , and here Whitewould have had to display exceptional ingenuity: } 35.f5+
$1
{ (back in 1996 Idiscovered this surprising resource) while after the best
move } ( { The crude attempt to queen the pawn - } 35.h5+ $2 Qxh5+ 36.Kg3 Qd5
37.Qe8+ Kg7 38.Kh4 { ends in perpetual check: } 38...Qe4 $1 39.d8=Q Qxf4+
40.Kh3 Qf5+ 41.Kg3 Qe5+ 42.Kf2 Qf4+ 43.Ke2 Qe5+ 44.Kd1 Qa1+ 45.Kd2 Qb2+ { . }
( 45...-- ) ) 35...exf5 { , } ( { Now if } 35...Qxf5
{ White wins with the fine quiet move } 36.Qd6 $1
{ , seizing control of the h2-b8 diagonal ( } 36...Qg4 37.Qg3 $1 { ). } ) (
{ It is alsounsuitable to play } 35...Kxf5 36.Qf7+ Ke5 ( 36...Kg4 37.Qf3+ )
37.Qh5+ { with the exchange of queens } ) 36.h5+ $1 { is now decisive: }
36...Kxh5 37.Qe8+ Kg4 38.Qg6+ Kf4 39.Qg3+ Ke4 40.Qf3+
{ and the pawn queens. It need hardly besaid that the latest Junior and
Fritz confirm the correctness of my analysisliterally in seconds. ---
Pachman's final mistake allows White to land athematic blow 'in memory of the 25th move'. }
) 28.d7 $1 { (weaving a mating net) } 28...Kg8 29.Qxf6 $1 Rxd7 30.Re3
{ . --- Some individual moves of Spassky in thisgame can be criticised, of
course, but on the whole it is very typical of hisplay. Firstly, it was one
of the most outstanding tournaments of those timesand sitting opposite him was not some run-of-the-mill grandmaster, but aprominent theoretician, a
participant in five Interzonals. But it was Spasskyalone who played chess, whereas Pachman was merely a spectator, unable toresist the enormous pressure! --- Secondly, we have once again seen how subtlyBoris Vasilievich sensed the dynamic and critical moments of the game. Here hewas perhaps even
superior to the other great players. In the 1960s his activepositional feeling gave him an advantage over his contemporaries, and whenSpassky played with full intensity he was practically unbeatable. But, whileexcellently seeing and understanding the picture as a whole, he frequentlyneglected details, 'trifles' and precise move orders. Which in the endcaused his downfall in the match with Fischer, who was, by contrast, just suchan accurate, concrete player... }
1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "A Burnt-Out Star"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ As I have already mentioned, the Riga catastrophe repeated itself at
theclose of the 28th USSR Championship (February 1961): Spassky was again
unableto cope with the nervous tension, and he lost to the Lvov master Stein, whowas making his debut, thereby allowing the latter to qualify for
theInterzonal tournament. However, losing to such an opponent was nothing to beashamed of: Leonid Zakharovich Stein (1934-1973) was one of the finest playersof those times. --- Unfortunately, his name has been almost forgotten in thechess world, especially outside of the former Soviet Union
(possibly becauseStein achieved his main successes - and what successes! - precisely withinthe territory of the USSR). I will try at least partially to fill this gap, byreminding the readers of the dramatic fate of the Ukrainian grandmaster. }
1.--
{ Stein began far more modestly than Spassky or Tal: not until the age of
13was he accepted into the chess club of the city's Pioneers Palace (his
firstteacher was the master Alexey Sokolsky), at 18 he became a candidate master,and at 24 - a master. 'Already then Stein was staggering for both
histalent and... the flippancy of his play,' recalls the well-known trainerViktor Kart. 'He would find his bearings in a position like a clairvoyant.Whereas, when an experienced player is considering his move, at any moment hesees only part of the board, Stein would "grasp" the entire
board,foreseeing in some way the resulting positions. When he began to demonstratethe variations that he had seen, the board would appear to move... And yet,while possessing such a priceless talent that was obvious to everyone, Steinwas highly impatient, quite incapable of forcing himself to think at the board,and he was constantly taking hasty decisions, which his experienced opponentswould exploit.' --- Yes, he was an impulsive, impressionable and vulnerableperson - but what a fearless fighter! An impression of Stein's style isgiven by the following game, which became, as it were,
his visiting card. Itproclaimed to the world that, following Bronstein and Tal, another subverterof the strict positional truths of the Botvinnik era had arrived into thechess arena. }
*
[Event "55. Ukraine-Russia Match, Kiev"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1960.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Krogius, N."]
[Black "Stein, L."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "E92"]
[EventDate "1960.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7
{ The favourite defence of Stein - a worthysuccessor to the Ukrainian
'King's Indian school': Konstantinopolsky,Boleslavsky, Bronstein, Geller...
} 4.e4 O-O 5.Be2 d6 6.Nf3 e5 7.d5 h6 $6
{ A somewhat artificial way of leading the opponent away from the
theoreticalpaths, by avoiding Petrosian's move Bg5. } (
{ Subsequently Stein resorted to } 7...a5 $1 { (Game No.67). } ) 8.O-O (
8.h3 ) ( { or } 8.Nd2 a5 9.Nf1 Nbd7 10.g4
{ is considered to be a good alternative. } ) 8...Nh7 9.Ne1 Nd7 10.Nd3 f5
11.f3 ( { Another good idea is the typical 'anti-King's Indian' method }
11.exf5 gxf5 12.f4 { (Euwe) } ) (
{ or even the immediate counter in the centre - } 11.f4 { . } ) 11...f4 12.b4
Rf7 $6 { Staking everything on his attack; } ( 12...a5
{ was morecautious. 'Black intends the following regrouping: ...Bf8, ...Rg7
and ...g6-g5-g4, with the h7-knight strengthening the attack by going to
g5.Therefore White forces events on the queenside.' (Stein). Classic King'sIndian intrigue! }
) 13.c5 $1 Ndf6 14.c6 $1 bxc6 15.dxc6 Be6 16.b5
{ For themoment Krogius plays correctly, and is clearly ahead of the
opponent in thedevelopment of his initiative. } ( 16.Qe1 $6
{ and Bd1-b3, recommended by Gufeldand Lazarev, is inferior, if only
because of } 16...a6
{ , when White is hindered bythe weakness of his c6-pawn. } ) 16...Bf8 17.Nb4
{ White has won the strategicbattle: he has a clear plan - to occupy d5,
exchange knights and light-squaredbishops, and then break through on the
queenside. If Black does not undertakesomething extraordinary, his position will quickly become critical. }
17...d5 $1
{ 'Beginning an exceptionally complicated combination, which does not
lenditself to precise evaluation.' (Polugayevsky). Correct or not, this
freeingsacrifice is Black's only chance! } 18.Nbxd5 ( 18.exd5 $5
{ also came intoconsideration. It would appear that after } 18...Bc5+ (
18...Bf5 19.Na6 ) 19.Kh1 Bf5 20.Nd3 ( 20.Qb3 $2 Nh5 ) 20...Bd4 21.Bb2
{ Black does not manage to create acounterattack: } 21...Nh5 22.Ne4
{ and if } 22...Bxe4 23.fxe4 Ng3+ 24.hxg3 fxg3 { Whiteis rescued by } 25.Bg4
Qh4+ 26.Bh3 Rxf1+ 27.Qxf1 Bxb2 28.Nxb2 Ng5 29.d6 Nxh3 30.gxh3 Rf8 31.Qg2
{ , winning. However, the move in the game poses noless serious problems. } )
18...Bc5+ 19.Kh1 Nh5 20.Qe1
{ This is what Krogiuswas counting on: although the black bishop has
occupied an attacking diagonal,no concrete threats are apparent. But it is
here that Stein's wild imagination,comparable with Tal's combinative enlightenment, displays itself. As regardsthe degree of risk in this game,
the Lvov player perhaps even surpassed the'Riga magician.'. } 20...Ng3+ $1
{ 'The compensation for this second sacrifice is notimmediately apparent.
The black queen does not give mate on the h-file. But itbursts into the
centre of events, and behind it, like infantry behind apowerful tank, the attacking reserves are brought up towards the white king,'write Gufeld and
Lazarev in their book Leonid Stein. } 21.hxg3 Qg5 22.g4 h5 23.g3 $1 hxg4
24.Kg2 Raf8 $1
{ It was for this position that Stein sacrificeda piece. Black still does
not have a single concrete threat, but he plays asthough nothing has
happened: he wants to move his queen and then advance theg-pawn. Somewhat abstract, wouldn't you agree? But on the other hand, verybold! }
25.Bd2 (
{ Gufeld and Lazarev attach a question mark to this move andrecommend }
25.Rh1 { , but it is doubtful whether this was stronger: } 25...Bd4 26.Rb1
Nf6 27.Nxf6+ Qxf6 ( 27...Rxf6 28.Na4 Be3 { is also unclear } ) 28.Ba3 (
28.gxf4 exf4 29.Nd5 Qg5 $1 ) 28...fxg3 29.Qxg3 gxf3+ 30.Bxf3 Qxf3+ 31.Qxf3
Rxf3 32.Bxf8 Rxc3
{ with a sharp endgame. As one delves into the labyrinth ofvariations, the
formal computer evaluation '+-' (materialism!) steadilyreduces... } )
25...Qh6 $1 { The tank makes way for the infantry. } 26.Rh1 $6 (
{ In my opinion, the correct move was the unexpected } 26.fxg4 $1 Ng5 27.Rh1
Qg7 { with two possible continuations: } 28.Bd1 $5 ( 28.gxf4 exf4 29.Bf3 $1
( { not } 29.Kf1 Qd4 ) 29...Qd4 30.Ne2 $1 Nxf3 ( 30...Qd3 $6 31.Rh8+ $1 Kxh8
32.Qh4+ Nh7 33.Bc3+ Kg8 34.Qh6 Re8 35.Qxg6+ Kf8 36.Nf6 { and wins } ) 31.Nxd4
$1 { , giving up a piece, but after } 31...Nxe1+ 32.Raxe1 f3+ ( 32...Bxd4
33.Kf3 $1 Rd8 34.Bb4 ) 33.Kf2 Bxd4+ 34.Be3 { obtaining a clear advantage. } )
28...f3+ 29.Kf1 Qh7 30.Rh4 $1 { , and if } 30...Bxg4 { , then } 31.Be3 $1 f2
32.Rxh7 fxe1=Q+ 33.Kxe1 Rf1+ 34.Kd2 Bxe3+ 35.Nxe3 Kxh7 36.Nxg4
{ and wins. --- This is merelyan illustration of White's resources: he
should probably have been able toparry the attack and gain an advantage.
But remember that for some reasonTal's opponents also found a way to win once the game was over! This indicatesthe great role of dynamics in
'human' chess: the great romantics were able tocreate such complicated, irrational positions, that their objective evaluationdid not play the decisive role, but became secondary. }
) 26...Qg7 { (with thefirst threat - ...f4xg3) } 27.gxf4 exf4
{ (intending ...g6-g5, then ...g4xf3+and ...g5-g4) } 28.Rd1 (
{ Complicated play would have resulted from } 28.Na4 $5 Bd4 29.Bc3
{ (driving away the bishop) } ( { if } 29.Rc1 { , then } 29...Bxd5 $1 30.exd5
Re8 31.Qd1 Ng5 32.Kf1 gxf3 33.Bxf3 Re3 34.Bg4 Qe5 { with an attack } )
29...Bxd5 30.exd5 Re8 $1 31.Qd2 ( 31.Bxd4 $6 Qxd4 32.Qd1 Qe5 33.Re1 Qg5 $1 )
31...Rxe2+ 32.Qxe2 Bxc3 33.Nxc3 ( { or } 33.Raf1 Be5 34.Nc5 Ng5 35.Ne6 Qf6
36.Nxg5 Qxg5 ) 33...Qxc3 34.Raf1 Kg7 35.Qe1 Qb2+
{ and it is by no meanseasy for White to convert his exchange advantage. } )
28...g5 $1
{ The positionbecomes sharper: as soon as the f3-pawn is destroyed and the
connected passedf- and g-pawns begin advancing, White's extra piece,
situated on the otherside of the board, will cease to have any importance. This entireunpretentious construction - Qg7, Rf8 and Rf7 - is able to
strike at the whiteking like a tight spring. } 29.e5 $1 { (diversion) }
29...Qxe5 ( { Here } 29...gxf3+ $2 30.Bxf3 g4 { is bad on account of } 31.Be4
f3+ 32.Kg3 f2 33.Qe2 Rf3+ 34.Kg2 Rh3 35.Nf4 { , winning. } ) 30.fxg4 $2 (
{ I don't know whether a human, intime-trouble and in such a wild position,
would be capable of finding thestudy-like machine move } 30.Rh6 $1 Re8 $1
{ is evidently the best reply; forexample: } ( { Now } 30...Bxd5 $2 31.Nxd5
Qxd5 32.Rg6+ { is bad for Black; } ( 32.-- ) ) 31.Bc4 $1 ( 31.Bd3 gxf3+
32.Kh1 Bxd5 33.Nxd5 Be3 34.Rg6+ Rg7 35.Nxe3 Rxg6 36.Bxg6 fxe3
{ with crazy play: } 37.Bxe8 e2 $1 ( { after } 37...Qxe8 38.Qg3 $1 Qh5+
39.Qh2 Qxh2+ 40.Kxh2 e2 41.Rc1 f2 42.Kg2 f1=Q+ 43.Rxf1 exf1=Q+ 44.Kxf1 Nf6
{ it is Black who has to find a way to save himself } ) 38.Rb1 (
{ the only move; } 38.Rc1 $2 Nf6 $1 39.Bc3 Qd5 $1
{ and the black pawns promote } ) 38...Nf6 39.Rb4 $1 Qxe8 40.Kg1 Ne4 41.Rxe4
Qxe4 42.Kf2 g4 43.Qa1 Qe7 44.Qg1 Qc5+ 45.Be3 Qb4 46.Bd2 { with equality. } )
31...gxf3+ 32.Kh1 Qf5 33.Qe4 Qg4 34.Rh2 $1 ( 34.Nxf4 Nf8 $3 35.Qe5 Rxf4
36.Qh8+ Kf7 37.Rh7+ Nxh7 38.Qxh7+ Kf6 39.Qh6+ Ke7 40.Qg7+ Bf7 41.Qe5+ Kf8
42.Qh8+ { with perpetual check } ) 34...f2 35.Ne2 Qf5 $1 ( { not } 35...Rd8
36.Bc3 Bf5 $2 ( { or } 36...Rd6 37.Rf1 ) 37.Ne7+ ) 36.Qxf5 Bxf5 37.Nec3 (
37.Ndc3 $2 Bg4 $1 38.Bxf7+ $2 Kxf7 39.Rxh7+ Kg6 { and wins } ) 37...Bg4
38.Nxc7 Bxd1 39.Nxe8 Bf3+ 40.Rg2 f1=Q+ 41.Bxf1 Re7 42.Bc4+ Kf8 43.c7 Rxe8
44.Be6 Bb7 45.Bd5
{ and White neverthelessretains the advantage. --- But, worn out by the
preceding blows, it wasextremely hard for Krogius to find his way through
these complications (inaddition, he was unnerved by the fact that he was quite unable to find a winwith his extra piece, and move by move the
psychology increasingly workedagainst him). It was this that Leonid anticipated! Enormous self-belief,intuition, the ability to take a risk at a critical moment and go in for verydangerous play with counter-chances for the opponent - it is precisely thesequalities that distinguish great
players. After White's mistake there followsanother flash of imagination by Stein. }
) 30...Qxe2+ $3 ( { Of course, not } 30...f3+ $2 31.Bxf3 Qxe1 32.Rhxe1 Rxf3
33.Rxe6 Rf2+ 34.Kh1 R8f3 35.Be3 $1 { and wins. } ) 31.Qxe2
{ After allowing such a stunning blow, it is hard tocompose oneself and
find the narrow path to a draw. } ( { 'After } 31.Nxe2 Bxd5+
{ a ruinous blaze flares up in the white king's residence: } 32.Kf1
{ In my opinion, } ( 32.Kh3 Nf6 $1 { with the threat of ...Rh7 mate; } (
32...-- ) ) 32...Bxh1 { is better, although after } ( { then } 32...f3 $1
{ is immediately decisive.' (Gufeld, Lazarev) } ) ( { However, after }
32...f3 $2 { White has the strongresponse } 33.Nd4 $1 Bxd4 ( 33...f2 $2
34.Qe5 ) 34.Be3 $1 f2 35.Qb4 Bxh1 36.Qxd4
{ and White is the one who is more likely to win. } ) 33.Bb4 $1 f3 34.Bxc5
fxe2+ 35.Kxe2 Re8+ 36.Be3 Bf3+ 37.Kd3
{ the queen should be able to helpWhite withstand Black's onslaught.
However, 31 Qxe2 is also not the losingmove. } ) 31...f3+ 32.Qxf3 Rxf3
33.Rhf1 $2 { Capitulation. } (
{ It would appearthat White could have saved himself by } 33.Be1 $1 Bxg4
34.Ne4 Ra3 35.Nxc5 Bxd1 36.Ne7+ Kg7 ( 36...Kh8 37.Ng6+ ) 37.Ne6+ Kf7 38.Nxf8
Bf3+ 39.Kg1 Nxf8 40.Rh2 Re3 41.Bb4 Rxe7 ( 41...Re4 42.Rb2 ) 42.Bxe7 Kxe7
43.Rd2 Ne6 44.Kf2 g4 45.Rd7+ Kf6 46.Kg3 Ke5 47.a4 $1 Bd5 48.Kxg4 Bb3 49.a5
Ba4 50.b6 axb6 51.axb6 cxb6 52.Rb7
{ with a draw. But I think by this point Krogius was nolonger in a
condition to control the situation on the board. } ) 33...Bxg4
{ (it is all over) } 34.Ne4 Bh3+ 35.Kh2 Rxf1 36.Rxf1 Bxf1 37.Nxc5 Rf2+ 38.Kg1
Rxd2 39.Nxc7 Bh3 40.a4 Rg2+ 41.Kh1 Nf6 42.a5 Ng4 43.Ne4 Re2 0-1
[Event "56. 28th USSR Championship, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1961.??.??"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Stein, L."]
[Black "Petrosian, T."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "C18"]
[EventDate "1961.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ Let us now see what the 26-year-old Lvov master produced early in 1961 in
hisfirst USSR Championship, where four qualifying places for the
Interzonaltournament were up for grabs. It appeared that the novice had little chanceagainst the dozen top-class grandmasters headed by ex-world
champion Smyslov.But step by step Stein adapted to the superstar company and even inflicted theonly defeat on the future tournament winner - the invincible Petrosian! --- }
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Ne7 ( 6...Qc7
{ - Volume 2, Game No.127 } ) 7.Qg4 Nf5 (
{ An old way of avoiding the sharpvariation } 7...cxd4 8.Qxg7 Rg8 9.Qxh7 Qc7
10.Ne2 { . } ) ( { Nowadays } 7...O-O $1 8.Bd3
{ and Black, in turn, is more inclined towards an early } 8...f5
{ (thehistory of this variation will be described in more detail in a later
volume). } ( 8...Nbc6 { is preferred, meeting } 9.Nf3 { with } (
{ therefore White has adopted } 9.Qh5 ) 9...f5 ) ) 8.Bd3 h5 9.Qf4 ( { If }
9.Qh3 { , Black had in mind } 9...cxd4 10.Nf3 ( 10.g4 Ne7 11.cxd4 Qc7 12.Ne2
Nbc6 13.O-O Bd7 14.gxh5 O-O-O { (Dubinin-Petrosian, Gorky 1950); } ( 14...--
) ) ( 10.Bxf5 exf5 11.cxd4 Nc6 { is quieter } ) 10...Qc7 $1 ( 10...Nc6 $2
11.g4 Nfe7 12.gxh5 $1 Qc7 13.Bf4 Ng6 14.Qg4
{ ... 1-0 Tal-Petrosian, 24th USSR Championship, Moscow 1957 } ) 11.Rb1 $6
dxc3 12.g4 Ne7 13.gxh5 Nbc6 14.Bf4 Ng6 $1 15.Bg3 Ngxe5
{ ... 0-1 (Tal-Korchnoi, 25th USSR Championship, Riga 1958) } ) 9...Nc6 $6 (
{ The sourcegame Bogoljubow-Flohr (Nottingham 1936) went } 9...cxd4 10.cxd4
Qh4 { , butafter } 11.Qxh4 $1 ( { instead of } 11.Nf3 Qxf4 12.Bxf4 Nc6 13.c3
Bd7 { withequality } ) 11...Nxh4 12.Bg5 Nf5 13.Ne2 Nc6 14.c3
{ White has the betterendgame. } ) ( { This is also the case after } 9...Qh4
10.Ne2 Qxf4 11.Nxf4 Ne7 12.Be2 h4 ( 12...g6 13.dxc5 $1 ) 13.Nh5 $1 Kf8 14.Bg5
cxd4 $6 15.cxd4
{ (Gligoric-Pachman, Munich Olympiad 1958); (Tal-Petrosian, 50th
USSRChampionship, Moscow 1983). } ) (
{ Petrosian wanted to outplay the debutant in acomplicated struggle, and
therefore chose to avoid the exchange of queens. But,as is shown by
modern-day praxis, } 9...Qc7
{ is more flexible (Short-Pelletier,Zürich rapidplay 2001;
Svidler-Pelletier, Biel 2001). } ) 10.Ne2 ( 10.Nf3 $5 ) 10...Nce7 (
{ White also retains the initiative in the event of } 10...c4 11.Bxf5 exf5
12.Qg3 ) ( 10...Nh4 $2 11.Qg3 $1 ) ( { or } 10...Nfe7 $5 11.dxc5 Qc7 12.Qg3
Qxe5 13.Bf4 Qf6 14.Bg5 Qe5 15.f4 Qc7 16.Bxe7 Qxe7 17.Qxg7 Rf8 ( 17...Qf8
18.Qxf8+ { and 19 c4! } ) 18.Qg5
{ (Stein-Lein, 32nd USSR Championship,Kiev 1964). } ) 11.Ng3 Ng6 $6 (
{ Black avoids the tedious } 11...c4 12.Bxf5 Nxf5 ( 12...exf5 13.Qg5 )
13.Nxf5 exf5 14.a4 { and Ba3 (Euwe) } ( { or } 14.Qg3 $5 ) ) (
{ In Stein's opinion, Black should have prepared queenside castling by }
11...Bd7 { , although, in my view, here too after } 12.O-O Qa5 ( 12...Qc7 $2
13.Nxf5 Nxf5 14.Bxf5 exf5 15.e6 { and wins } ) 13.Bd2
{ Black has an unattractiveposition. } ) 12.Qd2 Bd7 ( { If } 12...cxd4
{ Euwe gives } 13.cxd4 ( { but } 13.Nxf5 $1 exf5 14.cxd4 { is even better } )
13...Ngh4 ( 13...Nxd4 $2 14.Bxg6 ) 14.Nxf5 Nxf5 15.Bxf5 exf5 16.a4
{ and Ba3 (a typical 'French' motif). } ) 13.Rb1 $1
{ Now, as Panov wittily commented, 'the black king is forced to remain in
thecentre, since kingside castling, although possible, is undesirable,
whilequeenside castling, though desirable, is impossible.' Petrosian has lured hisopponent into a major battle - and the latter proves to be in his
element! } 13...Rb8 ( { If } 13...Qc7 { , then } 14.Qg5 $1 cxd4 15.Nxf5 exf5
16.cxd4 Qc3+ 17.Qd2 ( { or } 17.Kf1 Qxd4 18.Rxb7 { with a strong attack } )
17...Qxd4 18.Rxb7 Qxe5+ ( 18...Nxe5 $2 19.Bb2 ) 19.Kd1 { (Beim). } ) 14.O-O
c4 ( { It is dangerous to play } 14...h4 15.Nxf5 exf5 16.Re1 c4 $2 ( { or }
16...O-O 17.dxc5 ) 17.e6 $1 { . } ) 15.Be2 Nxg3 ( { 'After } 15...h4 16.Nxf5
exf5 17.Bf3 Be6 18.a4 $1 { White'sadvantage is obvious.' (Gufeld, Lazarev) }
) 16.fxg3 $1 { (opening lines for theattack) } 16...h4
{ Black rids himself of his h-pawn. } ( { If } 16...Ba4
{ thecommentators unanimously recommended } 17.h4 $1
{ , fixing the weakness at h5and threatening Qd1. } ) 17.Bg4
{ Gufeld and Lazarev attach an exclamation markto this move; } (
{ but a stronger alternative was the anti-blockading } 17.a4 $1 { (Ftacnik) }
17...hxg3 18.hxg3 Bxa4 19.Ba3 { with a powerful initiative. } ) 17...hxg3
18.hxg3 Qe7 $6
{ Continuing the series of not the best moves: thecharacter of the position
is such that it is not easy for Black to find thecorrect course. } (
18...Ba4 $1 { was essential - in Euwe's opinion, after } 19.Qf2 Qc7 $1
{ , secondly, Black's fortress is still perfectly defensible. ---This is an
interesting moment from the psychological point of view. It standsto reason
that such an experienced French player as Petrosian could not haveforgotten about the typical blockading manoeuvre ...Ba4 - it was simply thathe
underestimated the pawn sacrifice a3-a4, or, more likely, deliberatelyprovoked it, not believing in the strength of White's attack. }
( 19...O-O 20.Be3 { White would have retained the advantage; } (
{ but, firstly, } 20.Bh5 $1 { is more accurate } ) ) ) 19.a4 $1
{ The emergence of the bishop at a3 is far moreimportant than the pawn. }
19...Bxa4 ( { It is unfavourable to play } 19...O-O 20.Ra1 $1 Qd8 21.Ba3 Re8
22.Bd6 { etc; } ) ( { while after } 19...f5 20.exf6 gxf6 21.Qe2 { (Ftacnik) }
21...Kd8 22.Bh5 Be8 23.g4 { difficult trials await the black king. } ) (
19...f6 20.Qe2 ) 20.Ra1 b5 21.Ba3 Qd7 22.Rf2 Rb7 23.Raf1 Qd8
{ 'Itappears that Black has defended everything. } (
{ 'He would not have saved thegame by either } 23...Qc8 24.Qg5 $1
{ (with the threat of Qxg6) } 24...Rh6 25.Bh5 $1 { ( } 25...Qd8 26.Qg4 $1
{ - G.K.) } ) ( { 'or } 23...Nf8 24.Rxf7 (
{ in fact, it is evenbetter to play } 24.Qg5 $1 g6 25.Bxf8 Rxf8 26.Qxg6
{ - G.K. } ) 24...Qxf7 25.Rxf7 Rxf7 26.Bxf8 Rhxf8 27.Bxe6
{ .' (Gufeld, Lazarev) For example: } 27...Rf1+ 28.Kh2 Rh8+ 29.Bh3
{ with a technical win. } ) 24.Qd1
{ Previously this move wasaccompanied by an exclamation mark; } (
{ but, taking account of the followingcomment, grandmaster Valery Beim
suggested } 24.Qe2 $1 b4 $1 ( 24...a5 25.Bxe6 $1 ) 25.Bxb4 Qg5 26.Ba3 Qh6
27.Bh3 Qh5 28.Qe1 $5 Bc6 29.Qa1 { 'with a clearadvantage for White.' } )
24...Rh6 $2 { The decisive mistake. } ( { It was also badto play both }
24...Qc8 $2 25.Bh5 $1 ) ( { and } 24...Qg5 $2 25.Bc1 $1 Qd8 26.Bh5 $1 ) (
{ After } 24...a5 $6 25.Bxe6 $1 (
{ following Gufeld and Lazarev,Ftacnik recommends } 25.Rxf7 $2 Rxf7 26.Rxf7
Kxf7 27.Qf3+ Ke8 28.Bxe6 { missing } 28...Nxe5 $1 ( 28...Qc7 $2 29.Bd6 Qb7
30.Bxd5 { ; } ( 30.-- ) ) 29.Qf4 ( 29.dxe5 Qb6+ ) 29...b4 30.cxb4 axb4
31.Bxb4 Qb6
{ when Black wins. --- Afterdiscovering this counter-blow, Beim also
indicated the correct way... } ) 25...fxe6 26.Qg4 Ne7 27.Qxg7 Kd7 28.Rf8 Rxf8
29.Rxf8 Qxf8 ( { instead, } 29...b4 $5 30.Rxd8+ Kxd8 31.cxb4 axb4 32.Bc1 b3
33.cxb3 cxb3 34.Bb2 Be8
{ is moretenacious, but here too White has real winning chances after }
35.Qf6 Kd7 36.g4 ) 30.Qxf8 b4 31.cxb4 axb4 32.Bc1 { and wins. } ) (
{ In Beim's opinion, theonly defence was } 24...b4 $1
{ (diverting the bishop away from the c1-square) } 25.Bxb4 ( { after }
25.cxb4 Bb5 { 'for the moment Black holds on' } ) 25...Qg5 $1
{ , for example: } 26.Qe2 ( 26.Ba3 Qh6 $5 27.Bh3 Qe3 28.Qa1 Rxh3 $1 29.gxh3
( 29.Bc1 $2 Qxg3 30.Qxa4+ Kf8 ) 29...Qxg3+ 30.Rg2 ( 30.Kh1 Qxh3+ 31.Rh2 Qg4
$1 { with equality } ) 30...Qe3+ 31.Rff2 Nh4 32.Rxg7 Bxc2 ) 26...Qh6 $1
27.Bh3 Nf8 $1 28.Ba3 ( 28.Rf4 Ng6 29.R4f2 Nf8 { with equality } ) 28...Nh7
29.Rf4 Qg6 $1
{ 'with complicated play, not unfavourable for Black'. For this reason
24Qe2! is more accurate. } ) 25.Bc1 $1 Rh7 ( 25...Rh8 26.Bh5 $1 ) 26.Bxe6 $1
( 26.Bxe6 $1 Nh8 ( { or } 26...fxe6 27.Qg4 ) 27.Qf3
{ . Few players managed to crushthe great Petrosian so spectacularly and
quickly! --- After this game Leonidmoved up into the leading group and
gained several more important wins,defeating, among others, Geller, Bronstein and, in the final round, Spassky. }
) 1-0
[Event "57. 28th USSR Championship, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1961.??.??"]
[Round "19"]
[White "Stein, L."]
[Black "Spassky, B."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "C64"]
[EventDate "1961.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ I shall now analyse this in some sense historic duel, which decided the
fateof the fourth qualifying place to the Interzonal tournament (the first
threewent to Petrosian, Korchnoi and Geller). The two players were equal on points,and in the event of a draw would have had to meet again in a
play-off match.Therefore Spassky, like Petrosian in the previous game, tried to outplay hisless experienced opponent with Black, by choosing, in the words of Bondarevsky,'a tempting, but essentially bad opening variation.' --- }
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5
{ The rare 'Classical Variation'. Spassky adopted it from Tolush,while in
Stein's entire career it occurred only once - in this game! } 4.c3 (
{ After } 4.O-O { Spassky confidently played } 4...Nd4 5.Nxd4 Bxd4 6.c3 Bb6
7.d4 c6 8.Ba4 d6 { with equality. } ) 4...Nf6 ( { The risky } 4...f5 $5
{ justified itselfin Gligoric-Spassky (Amsterdam Interzonal 1964). } ) 5.d4
exd4 ( { Thealternative is } 5...Bb6
{ (Unzicker-Fischer, Leipzig Olympiad 1960;Belyavsky-Ivanchuk, Linares
1989). } ) 6.e5 Ne4 7.O-O ( { In the old days theyalso analysed } 7.Qe2 d5
8.exd6 O-O ( 8...Bf5 $5 ) 9.dxc7 Qd5 { ; } ) ( { whilethe history of the }
7.cxd4 Bb4+ { variation extends from } 8.Kf1
{ (Albin-Steinitz, Nürnberg 1896) } ( { to } 8.Bd2
{ (Jimenez-Fischer, LeipzigOlympiad 1960) } ) ( { and } 8.Nbd2 $5
{ (Short-Kamsky, 4th matchgame, Linares 1994). } ) ) 7...d5 8.exd6 (
{ At that time it was considered less promising to play } 8.Nxd4 O-O 9.Bxc6
bxc6 10.f3 ( { or } 10.Be3 Qe8 11.f3 Nd6 12.Bf2
{ (Gligoric-Keller, Zürich 1959) } 12...Nc4 $1 { (Euwe) } ) 10...Ng5 11.Be3
f6 12.Kh1 Bxd4 13.cxd4 fxe5 14.dxe5 Ba6
{ (Gligoric-Fischer, Buenos Aires 1960), withequality in each case. } )
8...O-O { This was played back in 1864 by Max Lange; } (
{ Black is prevented from castling after } 8...Nxd6 $6 9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.cxd4
Bb6 11.Bg5 $1 f6 12.Re1+ { . } ) 9.dxc7 Qf6 $2
{ Incidentally, 9...Qf6? was nota new move. It had already been employed in
correspondence tournaments, butStein learned of this only after the game. }
( { 'This is what Spassky hadprepared! Stein was ready for the usual }
9...Qxc7 10.cxd4 Nxd4 $1
{ (theimprovement that was already known by that time) } ( 10...Bd6 11.Nc3
Bf5 12.Re1
{ (Kupper-Paoli, Amsterdam 1954), reckoning that here Black does not
havesufficient compensation for the pawn,' wrote Gufeld and Lazarev. } (
12.-- ) ) ( { It is bad to play } 10...Rd8 11.Qc2 $1 Nxd4 12.Nxd4 Rxd4 13.Be3
{ . } ) 11.Nxd4 Qb6 12.Bd3 $6 ( 12.Qe2 Nd6 $1 ) ( { or } 12.Be3 Rd8
{ with equality } ) 12...Nxf2 $1 13.Rxf2 Bxd4
{ with a dangerous initiative for Black. --- It isstrange that Spassky
preferred a gamble that does not have any realcounter-chances. Apparently
this was a consequence of the crack that appearedin his play after the highly vexing defeat against Polugayevsky (Game No.53). }
) 10.Bxc6 ( 10.Qc2 $6 Bf5 11.Bd3 dxc3 12.Nxc3 Nb4 13.Nxe4 Bxe4 14.Qxc5 Nxd3
{ with equality, Salm-Nielsen, correspondence 1954/56 } ) 10...bxc6 11.cxd4
Bd6 ( { Euwe suggested } 11...Bb6 12.Re1 Bf5 { , in order after } 13.Nc3 (
{ however,it is stronger to play } 13.Bf4 $1 { and Nbd2 and if } 13...Ba5
{ , then } 14.Re3 ) 13...Rfe8 14.Nxe4 Bxe4 15.Bg5 Qd6 16.Bd8 Bxc7 17.Bxc7
Qxc7 { to try andhold out a pawn down. } ) 12.Re1 $1
{ 'At the board Stein finds an excellentplan, which with the help of some
elegant tactical subtleties casts doubts onBlack's shaky set-up.' (Gufeld,
Lazarev) } ( { This move was better than } 12.Nc3 Bf5 13.Be3 Bxc7 14.Rc1 Nxc3
15.Rxc3 Be4 $1
{ with the manoeuvre of thebishop to d5 and chances of equalising
(Schmid-Nielsen, correspondence 1954/56). } ) 12...Bf5 13.Nc3 Rfe8 14.Nxe4
Bxe4 15.Bg5 $1
{ Exploiting the strengthof the surviving pawn at c7, White achieves a
desirable simplification. } 15...Bxf3 ( { if } 15...Qg6 { , then } 16.Bd8 $1
Be7 17.Bxe7 Rxe7 18.Qe2 $1 Bxf3 ( { or } 18...Qg4 19.g3 ) 19.Qxf3 Rxc7
20.Rac1 { . } ) 16.Rxe8+ Rxe8 17.Qxf3 Qxf3 ( { Not } 17...Qxg5 $2 18.Qxc6
{ ; } ) ( { while } 17...Qe6 $6 18.Be3 Bxc7 19.Rc1 Bb6 20.h3
{ is also bad for Black. Spassky is hoping to save the rook and
bishopending. } ) 18.gxf3 Bxc7 19.Rc1
{ Thus, White is a healthy pawn to the good,and the whole question is
whether he can convert it into a win. } 19...Bb6
{ Proposing to force some pawn exchanges. } (
{ Black could also have consideredthe passive } 19...Re6 20.Be3 ( { or }
20.Bd2 Rd6 ) ( { not } 20.d5 $2 { on accountof } 20...Rg6 21.Rxc6 Rxg5+
22.Kf1 Bd8 { , winning } ) 20...Bb6
{ and ...f7-f5 withsome chances of a draw. } ) 20.Rxc6 ( { White avoids }
20.Be3 Re6 { , transposinginto the position just mentioned. } ) 20...Bxd4
21.Be3 Bxb2 22.Bxa7 Re1+ ( 22...g6 $5 ) 23.Kg2 Kf8 24.Rc7 Ke8 ( 24...g6 $5 )
25.Be3 Rd1 26.a4 Bd4 $1
{ Enterprising play: Spassky is aiming for a rook endgame, bearing in mind
theirdrawing tendencies. } 27.Bg5 $1 (
{ fearing that his advantage will besquandered after } 27.a5 Bxe3 28.fxe3 Ra1
29.Ra7 Ra3 ) 27...h6 28.Bc1 Bb6 29.Rc2 Rd5 30.Rb2 Bc7 31.Be3 Kd7 32.Rb5 $1
Rd3 $1 33.Rb4 h5
{ Despite hisdesperate defence, Black is unable to 'wriggle off the hook'.
} ( { It was hardlyany better to play } 33...Kc6 34.Rg4 $1 Be5 ( 34...g5
35.Rc4+ Kb7 36.f4 $1 ) 35.Rc4+ Kb7 36.f4 ( 36.Rb4+ $5 ) 36...Bf6 37.Kf3
{ etc. } ) 34.Rd4+ $1 Rxd4 35.Bxd4 g6 $6 (
{ One instinctively wants to place the pawn on a light square,but the
immediate } 35...g5 $1 { was better: } 36.Be3 $1
{ (in the few minutesremaining to the time control, Stein would have had to
find a subtle, almoststudy-like way to win) } ( { hoping for } 36.Bf6 $6 g4
( 36...Bf4 $2 37.h4 $1 gxh4 38.Kh3 Ke6 39.Bd4 Kd5 40.Be3 $1 Be5 41.Kxh4
{ and wins } ) 37.fxg4 hxg4 38.h4 ( 38.Bh4 f5
{ , aiming to fix the pawn at f2 } ) 38...gxh3+ 39.Kxh3 Kc6 $1
{ (to the a-pawn as quickly as possible!) } 40.Kg4 ( { if } 40.Be7 { , then }
40...Kd5 41.Kg4 Kc4 42.Kf5 Kb3 43.Kf6 Kxa4 44.Kxf7 Kb5 ) 40...Kc5 41.Bc3 Kc4
$1 42.Be1 ( { or } 42.Bd2 Kd3 ) 42...Kd3 43.f3 Ke2 44.Bb4 Ke3 ( { after }
44...f5+ $2 45.Kxf5 Kxf3 46.Ke6 { the black king cannot reach a8 } ) 45.Bc5+
Ke2 { with apositional draw. } ) 36...g4 37.fxg4 hxg4 38.h3 gxh3+ 39.Kxh3 f5
40.f3 $1 ( { but not } 40.Kh4 $2 f4 $1 41.Bd4 f3 $1 42.Kg4 Ba5 43.Kxf3 Be1 $1
{ and ...Bxf2 with a draw } ) 40...Ba5 41.Kh4 Ke6 42.Kg5 Ke5 43.Bf4+ Ke6
44.Kg6 Bb6 45.Bd2 Ke5 46.Kf7 Kd4 47.Ke6 Kd3 48.Bg5 Kc3 49.Kxf5 Kb4 50.Kg4 $1
( 50.Kg6 $2 Bc7 { with a draw } ) 50...Bc7 ( 50...Kxa4 51.f4 $1 ) 51.Bf4 Bd8
52.Bd2+ Kxa4 53.f4 Kb5 54.f5 Kc6 55.Bg5 Bb6 56.f6 Kd7 57.Kf5
{ . A veryinteresting ending! } ) 36.Bc3 Kc6 37.h3 Kc5 38.Kf1 Kc4 39.Bd2 Bd8
40.Ke2 g5
{ What else? 'Otherwise by the advance of his a4-pawn White diverts the
blackking away from control of the e4-square, moves his king there and
forces thef3-f4-f5 breakthrough.' (Gufeld, Lazarev). } 41.f4 $1 g4
{ The sealed move. Theposition is a textbook bishop endgame. } (
{ Black resigned without resuming thegame. Many considered this premature,
but home analysis convinced Spassky thatfurther resistance was hopeless: }
41...g4 42.hxg4 hxg4 43.a5 $1 Kd5 $1 ( 43...Kb5 44.Kd3 Bh4 45.Be1 f5 46.Kd4
{ , breaking through to the black pawns } ) 44.a6 $1 ( { not } 44.Kd3 $2 f5
$1 45.a6 Kc6 46.Be3 Ba5 $3 47.Kc4 Be1 48.a7 Kb7 49.Kd5 g3 50.fxg3 Bxg3
{ with a draw } ) 44...Kc6 45.f5 $1 Bh4 ( 45...Kb6 $2 46.Ba5+ $1 ) 46.Be3 g3
47.fxg3 Bxg3 48.Kf3 Be5 49.Ke4 Bg7 50.a7 Kb7 51.Kd5 Bf8 52.Bf2 $1 Be7 53.Bc5
Bg5 54.Kd6
{ and wins. --- Thus thedebutant immediately gained a bronze medal in the
national championship, agrandmaster norm, and a qualifying place to the
Interzonal tournament. Thefact that a bright new star had appeared on the chess horizon was confirmed inthe USSR Team Cup at the end of 1961, where
Stein spectacularly crushed thegreat Tal in a Sicilian Defence. } ) 1-0
[Event "58. Interzonal Tournament, Stockholm"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1962.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Stein, L."]
[Black "Portisch, L."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[EventDate "1962.??.??"]
[FEN "r4r1k/2qn1ppp/2p1b3/p1b1pNB1/2B1P3/8/PPP1Q1PP/3R1R1K b - - 0 18"]
[SetUp "1"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ At the Interzonal tournament in Stockholm (January-March 1962) Stein for
thefirst time experienced the effect of the discriminatory 'Botvinnik
rule':FIDE permitted no more than five representatives of one country (i.e. the USSR)into the eight-man Candidates tournament, and since two places
were alreadytaken by Tal and Keres, only three of the six vacancies were available for thefour Soviet participants in the Interzonal. --- Initially it seemed obviousthat the 'odd man out' of the four would be Stein: the debutant began with2 out of 7. But then he made an amazing spurt - 11˝ out
of 14! See how hedealt with one of his potential rivals. --- Gradually increasing hisinitiative, White has built up powerful pressure, and Portisch decided tosimplify the position: }
18...Nb6 $2 { Overlooking the opponent's murderousreply. } (
{ 'What can Black do? In the event of } 18...Bxc4 19.Qxc4 f6 20.Bh4 (
{ it would appear that } 20.Bc1 $1 Bb6 { (or ...Ba7) } 21.b3
{ and Ba3 is evenbetter } ) 20...Bb6 21.Rd6
{ he has a dismal position.' (Gufeld, Lazarev) } ) (
{ Typical panic on the ship! Although one doesn't want to leave his
opponentwith a strong light-squared bishop, Black would still have retained
a quitedefensible position after the cold computer move } 18...Bxf5 $1
{ and ... f7-f6. } ) 19.Nxg7 $3 { A knock-out! } 19...Bxc4 20.Bf6 $1 Be7
21.Qf3
{ . --- It was notoften that such a battle-hardened fighter as Portisch
lost in 21 moves! } 1-0
[Event "59. Interzonal Tournament, Stockholm"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1962.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Bisguier, A."]
[Black "Stein, L."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[EventDate "1962.??.??"]
[FEN "3rb1k1/1p1rqpp1/p3pn1p/8/7Q/bP1BPN2/P2R1PPP/B2R2K1 b - - 0 22"]
[SetUp "1"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ And in his game with one of the leading American grandmasters of those
times,Leonid demonstrated his unusual vision of the board, his ability to
findlatent resources in a position literally out of nothing. --- White hasmodestly simplified the position, not objecting to a draw, when suddenly
Blackprovokes the enemy fire! --- } 22...Bb4 $5 23.Bxf6 gxf6 24.Qxh6 f5
25.Ng5 { With the threat of Qh7+ and Qh8 mate. } ( 25.Ne5 $2 Bxd2 $1 )
25...Bc3 $3
{ An amazingly bold idea. Having defended the h8-square, Black is
threatening toplay ...Qf6 and then exploit the mortal pin on the d-file. }
26.h4 $2 { Whiteis rattled. } (
{ It was still possible to maintain the balance by } 26.Qh7+ Kf8 27.Qh6+ $1
Bg7 28.Qh4 $1 Qc5 $1 { (with the threat of ...Rxd3) } 29.Qh5 ( { or } 29.Qg3
Rxd3 30.Nh7+ Kg8 31.Nf6+ { (Moiseev) } ) 29...Qb4 30.Qe2 e5 31.e4 Bh6 32.Qh5
Bxg5 33.Qh8+ Ke7 34.Qxe5+ Kf8 35.Qh8+ { with perpetual check. } ) 26...Qf6 $1
27.Qh7+ Kf8 28.Qh5 Qh8 $5 ( { More elegant than the crude } 28...Ke7 { . } )
29.Nh7+ ( 29.Qxh8+ Bxh8 { was no better } ) 29...Kg8 30.Qg5+ Qg7 $1 (
30...Kxh7 31.Bxf5+ $1 ) 31.Rc2 Qxg5 32.Nxg5 Rxd3
{ . --- Before the final, 23rdround Stein was behind only Fischer, Geller
and Petrosian. But alas, by losingin a sharp skirmish to Olafsson, he
allowed Filip to pass him and, moreimportantly, also Korchnoi. And although he shared 6th-8th places, as thefourth player from the same country, his
way into the Candidates was closed.Nevertheless, there in Stockholm FIDE conducted one of the most absurdcompetitions in the history of chess - an additional three-manmatch-tournament for sixth place: 1. Stein - 3 out of 4; 2. Benko - 2˝; 3.Gligoric - ˝. The player who qualified for the
Candidates was... Benko! AndStein became merely the first reserve in the event of any of the Sovietparticipants dropping out. --- However, this cruel twist of fate was by nomeans the most terrible in his career. Leonid was only 27 years old, he hadachieved the grandmaster norm and he was fully aware of his enormous chessstrength. }
0-1
[Event "60. Yugoslavia-USSR Match, Lvov"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1962.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Gligoric, S."]
[Black "Stein, L."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[EventDate "1962.??.??"]
[FEN "3b1r2/pp5k/3P3P/1PP5/4p3/3p1p2/P4B1P/6RK w - - 0 43"]
[SetUp "1"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ Incidentally, following the example of Geller, Stein met Fischer in
Stockholmand became friendly with him. In their free time they frequently
played blitz,with alternating success. According to Geller, Bobby was staggered afterlosing the first two games: who is this Mr Stein? And in the
end Bobby wasfilled with genuine respect for him... --- Not without reason, Stein wascalled the 'second Tal' at that time. To that pair I would also addSpassky. This trio went beyond the bounds of Botvinnik-Smyslov harmony,expanding the limits of our understanding of the game, changing
ourimpressions of the correlation of material and quality of position, ofsituations with disrupted material and strategic balance - and created thegrounds for the emergence of modern, ultra-dynamic chess. These newdevelopments were also sharply advanced by Fischer. But, figuratively speaking,whereas Fischer's weapon was strangulation or the cudgel, these threemusketeers were virtuoso swordsmen, who also hurled daggers and fired from thecrossbow. With this trio intuition played the main role! Fischer revered rules,whereas for them it was exceptions, paradoxes. --- The
following example ofStein's sparkling play vividly recalls the famous game McDonnell-LaBourdonnais (Volume 1, Game No.1). In this King's Indian duel the advantagewas first with White, then with Black, and in a very sharp time scramble itagain passed to White. An uncommonly picturesque ending arose. Havingabandoned keeping a record of the moves, the two players did not notice thatthe time control at move 40 had been reached, and continued playing at blitztempo for several more moves. --- }
43.Be3 $2 (
{ In his haste Gligoric misses achance to show that his pawns are stronger:
} 43.c6 $1 bxc6 44.bxc6 Bf6 { (recommended by Notkin) } (
{ Here Gufeld and Lazarev, and after them Notkin inChessBase, give } 44...Bb6
{ whereas in fact } 45.Bxb6 $1 ( 45.c7 $4 { ,overlooking that after } 45...e3
$1 ( { instead of } 45...Bxf2 $4 46.d7 { and wins } ) 46.Bxe3 Bxe3 47.d7 f2
48.Rf1 Rg8 $1 49.Rxf2 Bxf2 50.h4 Rg1+ $1 51.Kh2 Bg3+ 52.Kxg1 Bxc7
{ it is not White who wins, but Black } ) 45...axb6 46.c7 f2 47.d7
{ is decisive. } ) (
{ It is easy to check that Black is unable to defendwith } 44...d2 45.Rd1 )
( { and } 44...Ba5 ) ( { or } 44...Rf6 { on account of } 45.c7 Bxc7 46.dxc7 )
45.Be3 $1 Be5 46.d7 d2 ( 46...Kh8 47.Bc5 ( { or even } 47.Bd4 ) 47...Rd8
48.Bd4 $1 ) 47.Bxd2 Bd4 48.Rg7+ $1 Bxg7 49.hxg7 Kxg7 50.Kg1 $1 e3 51.Bxe3 Rd8
52.Bg5
{ , winning. Now, however, the position has becomemuch more complicated. At
this point the game was finally adjourned and Stein,after some thought,
sealed his move. } ) 43...f2 $1 44.Rf1 Ba5 $1
{ Thebrilliant fruits of adjournment analysis. } (
{ 'Gligoric underestimated thismove, having mainly considered } 44...Rf6
{ with the aim of not allowing thecreation of two connected passed pawns. }
45.h4 $1 { was possible, then h4-h5and Kg2.' (Gufeld, Lazarev) } (
{ Then nothing is given by } 45.Kg2 { on account of } 45...Rg6+ { , when }
46.Kxf2 $4 { allows } ( { or } 46.Kh3 Rxh6+ 47.Bxh6 Kxh6 48.c6 bxc6 49.bxc6
e3 50.c7 e2 51.Kg2 Bxc7 52.dxc7 d2 $1 { , in memory of La Bourdonnais -G.K. }
) 46...Bh4# ) ) 45.c6 $2
{ 'One can understand Gligoric: it ishard to believe that such a powerful
advance not only fails to win, but eventhrows away the draw! } (
{ 'The correct move was } 45.d7 $1 Bd8 $1 ( { not } 45...d2 $2 46.Bxd2 Bxd2
47.Rxf2 $1 ) 46.Kg2 Rg8+ 47.Kh3 Rf8 $1
{ with a draw byrepetition.' (Gufeld, Lazarev). True, if } 48.Kg4 $2
{ , it is not possible torepeat moves: } 48...Rg8+ ( { but after } 48...Bc7
{ Black has a fortress: } 49.a4 Rf7 50.c6 bxc6 51.bxc6 a5 52.Bg5 Rf8 53.h3
Rf7 { etc } ) 49.Kf4 { . } ) ( { Perhapsit is better to play } 45.Kg2 $5 d2
46.c6 $1 ( 46.Bxf2 Rg8+ 47.Kh3 Rf8 { with a draw, Notkin } ) 46...bxc6
47.bxc6 Rg8+ 48.Kxf2 Rf8+ 49.Ke2 Rxf1 50.Bxd2 { , but here too after }
50...Rf6 $1 51.c7 Bxc7 52.dxc7 Rc6 53.Bf4 Rc4 { Black gains a draw. } )
45...bxc6 46.bxc6 Bb6 $1 47.Bxb6 ( { The motif } 47.c7 Bxe3
{ and ...Rg8! has already been seen in the note to White's 43rd move. } )
47...axb6 48.Rxf2 $1 { The last illusion. } 48...e3 $3
{ An amazingly beautiful,paradoxical move; } (
{ especially against the background of a prosaic win - } 48...Rxf2 49.d7 d2
50.d8=Q Rf1+ 51.Kg2 d1=Q 52.Qe7+ Kxh6 53.Qe6+ Kg7 54.Qe7+ Rf7 55.Qe5+ Rf6
56.Qe7+ Kg6 57.Qxe4+ Kf7 { , avoiding perpetual check. } ) 49.Rxf8 d2 50.c7
d1=Q+ 51.Kg2 Qg4+ { Now only accuracy is required of Black. } 52.Kf1 Qc4+
53.Kg2 e2 54.Kf2 Qe6 55.Ke1 Qxd6 56.Rh8+ Kg6 57.Rg8+ Kh5 0-1
[Event "61. Match-Tournament, USSR Championship"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1964.??.??"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Spassky, B."]
[Black "Stein, L."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "D86"]
[EventDate "1964.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ In the 30th USSR Championship (Erevan 1962) Stein finished only sixth
(+8-4=7), but he again defeated Spassky, for whom he became a difficult,
uncomfortableopponent over the next few years. --- The following national championship (1963) was for the first time a qualifying event not to the
Interzonal, butmerely to a double-round Zonal tournament. The Soviet Federation made lifedifficult for the chess elite, by deciding to stage a special event, to whichwere admitted the top six from the USSR Championship, ex-world championSmyslov and 'an outstanding grandmaster, who was either
unable toparticipate in the championship, or performed badly in it' (who turned outto be Korchnoi). --- Stein began the championship with eight draws, but thenmanaged a wonderful spurt (8 out of 10!) and was the sole leader going intothe last round. But here he suddenly lost to Bagirov - and was caught bySpassky and Kholmov. The championship finished on 27th December, and the Zonaltournament was due to start as soon as 18th February. Nevertheless from7th-17th January an additional three-man match-tournament for the title ofUSSR Champion was held in Moscow. --- The outcome of
this exhausting event, inwhich Spassky was considered the favourite, was largely determined by thefollowing game. --- }
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5
{ Stein's second openingafter the King's Indian Defence - also with the
bishop at g7 andcounterattacking possibilities! } 4.cxd5 (
{ A month earlier in the USSRChampionship the two players had tested } 4.Nf3
Bg7 5.Bg5 Ne4 6.cxd5 Nxg5 7.Nxg5 e6 8.Qd2 exd5 9.Qe3+ Kf8 10.Qf4 Bf6 11.h4 c6
12.O-O-O h6 13.Nf3 Kg7 14.e3 Be6 15.Bd3 Nd7 16.g4 Qb8 $1
{ (Stein's patent - the key method ofdefence in this variation) with
equality. } ) 4...Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4 O-O ( 7...c5
{ - Game Nos.70 and 79 } ) 8.Ne2 Nc6 { Simagin's idea. } 9.h4 $6
{ This risky attack was a favourite weapon of the young Spassky. } (
{ Shortlyafterwards in the Zonal tournament both he and Geller preferred
the variation } 9.Be3 Na5 10.Bd3 b6 11.O-O c5
{ against Stein, when Black had no particularopening problems. } ) ( 9.O-O $5
) 9...Na5 10.Bb3 ( { It is unfavourable to play } 10.Bd3 c5 11.h5
{ immediately is a better try: } ( 11.Be3 cxd4 12.cxd4 Nc6 13.e5 Qa5+ 14.Kf1
$6 ( 14.Qd2 ) 14...Rd8 15.h5 Be6 { (Spassky-Sajtar, Bucharest1953). } )
11...cxd4 12.cxd4 Nc6 13.hxg6 hxg6 { (Shabalov-Yandemirov,Leningrad 1989) }
14.Bh6 $5 Bxh6 15.Rxh6 Nxd4 16.Qd2 e5 $1
{ with a sharpstruggle (Yandemirov). } ) 10...c5 11.h5 ( { if } 11.dxc5
{ , then } 11...Qc7 12.Be3 Rd8 ) 11...Nxb3 12.axb3 (
{ Another harmless idea is } 12.Qxb3 cxd4 13.hxg6 hxg6 14.cxd4 Bg4 $1 15.f3
Be6 { , Berliner-Benko, New York 1962/63. } ) 12...cxd4 13.cxd4 Bd7 $1
{ A novelty! 'A recommendation by Kutyanin and Estrin, theauthors of a
monograph on the Grünfeld Defence (1959). By creating the threatof ...Bb5,
Black achieves comfortable play. } (
{ In the game Spassky-Suetin (25th USSR Championship, Riga 1958) after }
13...Bg4 $2 14.f3 Bd7 15.hxg6 hxg6 16.Be3 Bb5 17.Nc3 Qd7 18.Qd2
{ he ended up in a difficult position,since f2-f3 is a useful move for
White in view of the possibility of Kf2.' (Stein) } ) 14.hxg6 hxg6 $1
{ 'Not fearing the opening of the h-file. } (
{ A moretimid player might have played } 14...fxg6 $2
{ and ended up in an inferiorposition.' (Simagin) But now doubts are cast
on White's entire plan: histhreats on the h-file are ephemeral. } ) 15.Qd3 $6
{ 'A committing move, madeafter lengthy reflection. } ( 15.Be3
{ was preferable.' (Stein) } ) ( { ' } 15.Bh6 Bxh6 16.Rxh6
{ suggests itself, but it would have rebounded on White after } 16...Kg7
17.Qd2 Rh8 { ' add Gufeld and Lazarev, who probably had in mind } 18.Rxh8
Qxh8 19.Ng3 Qh2 $1 { . } ) 15...Qb6 $1 16.Bd2 (
{ Stein thought that White wasobliged to play } 16.Qg3 { , but after }
16...Rfc8 $1 ( { Spassky also did not like thequiet } 16...f5 17.e5 Bb5
{ and ...Rfd8 } ) 17.Qh4 Rxc1+ $1 18.Rxc1 Qb4+ 19.Kf1 (
{ but not Stein's recommendation } 19.Rc3 $2 { in view of } 19...Rc8 )
19...Bb5 { Black has a dangerous initiative for the sacrificed exchange. } )
16...Rfc8 17.Ra5
{ 'The aim of this unusual manoeuvre is to prevent ...Bb5 and to play
0-0,while if Black spends a tempo on ... a7-a6, White can block the c-file,
fromwhere his king faces the main dangers. ' (Gufeld, Lazarev). } 17...a6 $1
18.Rc5 $1 Rxc5 19.dxc5 Qc7 20.Bc3 e5
{ (avoiding the exchange of the important bishopat g7) } 21.b4 Rd8 22.Qg3 $2
{ It is now clear that White's venture has failed,but Spassky continues to
seek adventures; } (
{ not wishing to wage a cheerlessstruggle for a draw after } 22.O-O Bb5
23.Qe3 Qe7 $1 { . } ( { but not } 23...Rd3 24.Qg5 b6 $2 25.cxb6 Qxb6
{ on account of the pretty } 26.Bxe5 $1 Bxe5 27.Qxe5 Rd2 28.Rc1 $1 Bd7 29.Re1
( { or } 29.Qc7 Qxb4 30.Qc3 { with equality } ) ) ) 22...Bb5 23.f4 $2
{ (an irreparable weakening) } 23...Qd7
{ The start of a decisivecounterattack. } 24.Kf2 Bxe2 25.Kxe2 a5 $1
{ A logical 'human' move, breakingup the white pawns. } (
{ It was also not bad to play } 25...Qa4 { (Gufeld,Lazarev) } ) (
{ or the more complicated } 25...Qb5+ 26.Kf2 Rd3 27.Qh4 Rxc3 28.Qd8+ Bf8
29.Rh8+ $1 Kxh8 30.Qxf8+ Kh7 31.Qxf7+ Kh6 32.Qf8+ Kh5 33.Qh8+ Kg4 34.Qxe5
Rc2+ 35.Kg1 Rxg2+ $1 ( { but not Stein's suggestion } 35...Rc1+ 36.Kh2 Rh1+
37.Kxh1 Qf1+ 38.Kh2 Qxf4+ 39.Qxf4+ Kxf4 40.Kh3 Kxe4 41.Kg4
{ withdrawing chances } ) 36.Kxg2 Qe2+ 37.Kg1 Qe1+ 38.Kg2 Qd2+ $1 39.Kh1 Kf3
40.Qg5 Qc1+ { , transposing into a won pawn endgame. } ) 26.Kf2 (
{ White fails tosave the game by } 26.bxa5 exf4 27.Qh3 Qb5+ ) ( { or } 26.Qh4
Qd3+ 27.Kf2 Qc2+ ) ( { or } 26.Qh3 Qb5+ 27.Ke1 Qc4 $1 { etc. } ) 26...axb4
27.Bxe5 Bxe5 28.fxe5 Qd4+ ( 28...Qd2+ $1 29.Kg1 Qd4+ 30.Kh2 Kg7
{ was simpler. } ) 29.Kf3 ( 29.Qe3 Qxe5 { and ...Rd4! } ) 29...Qd3+ 30.Kf4
Qd2+ 31.Kg4 ( 31.Qe3 g5+ $1 ) 31...Rd4 $1 32.Rf1 Rxe4+ 33.Kh3 Qh6+
{ . --- The accuracy with which Stein refuted hisformidable opponent's idea
is impressive. --- Thus for the first time Leonidwon the USSR Championship
gold medal: 1. Stein - 2˝ out of 4; 2. Spassky - 2;3. Kholmov - 1˝. But still to come was the double-round 'eight-manbattle' for the four places in the
Interzonal tournament. The senseless,humiliating character of the qualifying system became especially apparent when,by the will of the Soviet authorities, one of the places was given to Smyslovwithout playing. The remaining 'magnificent seven' - all grandmasters ofthe highest class - now had to fight
for just three qualifying places. } 0-1
[Event "62. Zonal Tournament, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1964.??.??"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Stein, L."]
[Black "Spassky, B."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "C89"]
[EventDate "1964.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ The worn-out heroes of the recent national championship made a very
hesitantstart: Stein began with three draws, and Spassky with a draw and
two defeats.In the 4th round they met each other and, of course, both were eager to win.Bondarevsky, reassured his friends: 'Today will be the
turning-point. Borisis bound to win. This cannot go on any longer!' But things turned outdifferently. This famous game made an important contribution to the theory ofthe Marshall counterattack. --- }
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3 d5
9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 $1
{ The outpost at d5 plays an important role in the development of
Black'sinitiative. } ( 11...Nf6
{ is inferior, as Marshall played against Capablanca (Volume 1, Game
No.86); } ) ( { or } 11...Nb6 12.d4 Bd6 13.Bg5 $1 Qd7 14.Re1 Bb7 15.Nd2 Rae8
16.Bh4 { (Bertok-Stein, Stockholm Interzonal 1962). } ) 12.d4 (
{ Soon afterwards other ways also began to be tried: } 12.Bxd5 cxd5 13.d4 Bd6
14.Re3 Qh4 15.h3 Qf4 $5 16.Re5 Qf6 17.Re1 Qg6 18.Qf3 Be6 $1 19.Bf4 Bxf4
20.Qxf4 Bxh3 { with equality (Tal-Spassky, 7th matchgame, Tbilisi 1965); } )
( { or } 12.g3
{ , as Fischer played against O'Kelly (Havana 1965) and Spassky
(SantaMonica 1966), when } 12...Bd6 13.Re1 Qd7 14.d4 ( { while } 14.d3 Qh3
15.Re4 { leads to a modern day tabiya } ) 14...Qh3
{ is possible, transposing into aposition from the game. } ) 12...Bd6 13.Re1
Qh4 14.g3 Qh3 15.Be3 ( { If } 15.Re4 { (Tal-Stein, Moscow 1967), Black has }
15...g5 $1 16.Qe2 ( 16.Qf3 Bf5 { withequality } ) 16...f5 17.Bxd5+ cxd5
18.Re6 f4 $1 19.Rxd6 Bg4 20.Qf1 Qxf1+ 21.Kxf1 Rae8 22.Bd2 Bh3+ 23.Kg1 fxg3
24.hxg3 Re2 { with equality (Ponomariov-Anand, Linares 2002). } ) 15...Bg4
16.Qd3 Rae8 $1 ( { Things aremore difficult for Black after } 16...Nxe3
17.Rxe3
{ , as shown by the gamesSpassky-Geller (2nd matchgame, Riga 1965) and
Fischer-Donner (Havana 1965;Santa Monica 1966). } ) 17.Nd2 Re6 18.a4
{ This is one of the main positions inthe Marshall Attack. The two players
had made these moves in just one minute.But here Stein thought for 52
minutes! } (
{ Remembering two games from therecent USSR Championship (1963) - } 18.a4
bxa4 $5 { (a novelty) } 19.Rxa4 f5 20.f4 $2 Bxf4 $1 21.Bf2 $2 (
{ it was more tenacious to play } 21.gxf4 Rg6 $1 ) 21...Rxe1+ 22.Bxe1 Re8
{ 0-1 (Novopashin-Spassky) } ) ( { and } 18.Qf1 Qh5 19.a4 Bh3 $1 ( 19...bxa4
20.Rxa4 f5 21.c4 $6
{ (Suetin-Geller), he was intending tofollow the second of these, } (
{ where he had prepared the improvement } 21.f4 $1
{ , when he suddenly noticed... } ) ) 20.Qe2 Bg4 21.Qd3 Bf5
{ with a draw. Thushe had to change the move order. } ) 18...bxa4 (
{ The following year animprovement appeared: } 18...Qh5 $1 19.axb5 axb5 20.--
( 20.c4 $6 bxc4 ( 20...Nxe3 $5 ) 21.Nxc4 Bb4 22.Rec1 Be2
{ with equality (Tal-Spassky, 1st matchgame,Tbilisi 1965). } ) (
{ Today this is still considered the best defence, forexample: } 20.Ne4 Bf5
$1 21.Bd2 Rxe4 22.Rxe4 Nf6 23.f3 Qg6 $1 24.Qf1 Nxe4 25.fxe4 Bxe4
{ with level chances (Svidler-Kamsky, Groningen 1995). } ) ) (
{ In addition, Tal and Gutman analysed } 18...f5
{ in detail, which leads to aposition that could also have occurred in the
present game (cf. the note toBlack's 20th move) after } 19.Qf1 Qh5 20.f4 bxa4
21.Rxa4 { . } ) 19.Rxa4 f5 20.Qf1 $1 ( { instead of } 20.f4 $2 ) 20...f4 $6
{ 'Sensing something bad, Spasskyis the first to deviate from the familiar
path.' (Gufeld, Lazarev) } ( { Even so, } 20...Qh5
{ was possible, not fearing either } 21.f4 $1
{ , which later becamethe main continuation in both over-the-board and
correspondence play; } ( { or } 21.Rxa6 f4 $1 22.Bxf4
{ (Ivanchuk-Short, Riga 1995) } 22...Rxe1 23.Qxe1 Bxf4 { with equality. } )
21...Kh8 $5 (
{ From the mass of variations, we shall pick outthe following: -- } 21...g5
$6 22.Rxa6 gxf4 23.Bxf4 $1 ( 23.Rxc6 $6 fxg3 $1 24.hxg3 ( { if } 24.Qg2
{ , then } 24...Kh8 25.Bxd5 Bh3 $1 26.Qe2 { (or Qf3) Bg4 withequality } )
24...f4 $1 25.Bxf4 ( 25.Bxd5 $2 fxe3 26.Bxe6+ Bxe6 27.Qe2 exd2 28.Qxe6+ Kh8
29.Rxd6 d1=Q $1 { and wins, Lilienthal } ) 25...Bxf4 26.Rexe6 Bxd2 27.Qg2 Bf3
28.Qh2 Qg5 29.Qf2 Qh5 { with equality } ) 23...Bxf4
{ (Tal-Geller, 43rd USSR Championship, Erevan 1975) } 24.Rxe6 $1 Bxd2 25.Bxd5
cxd5 26.Qg2 $1 f4 ( 26...Bg5 27.Qxd5 ) 27.Qxd2 Bxe6 ( { if } 27...fxg3
{ , then White has the powerful } 28.Rf6 $1 Re8 29.hxg3 Re2 30.Qh6 Re1+
31.Rf1 Rxf1+ 32.Kxf1 Qf5+ 33.Qf4 Qd3+ 34.Kg1 Qxa6 35.Qxg4+ ) 28.Rxe6 fxg3
29.Re2 $1 { , calmly converting the pawn advantage; } ( { apart from }
29.hxg3 ) ) ( 21...Rb8 $6 22.Bxd5 cxd5 23.Rxa6 $1 Rbe8 (
{ it is hardly any better to play } 23...Rxb2 24.Qg2 $1 Rb5 25.c4 ) ( { or }
23...Qe8 24.Bf2 Qd7 25.Rxe6 Qxe6 26.b3 ) 24.Qb5 $1 Qf7 25.h3 $1 Bh5 $6 (
25...Bxh3 26.Nf3 h6 27.Ne5 Bxe5 28.Rxe6 $1 { and 29 dxe5 is more tenacious }
) 26.Qxd5 { ... 1-0 (Short-Pinter, Rotterdam1988) } ) ( 21...Rfe8
{ (Konstantinopolsky) } 22.Qf2 $1 ( { Gufeld and Lazarevrecommend } 22.Rxa6
{ , ignoring } 22...Rxe3 $1 23.Rxe3 Rxe3 24.Rxc6 Qe8 25.Bxd5+ Kf8 26.Ne4 (
{ or } 26.Rxd6 Re1 $1 ) 26...fxe4 $1 27.Rxd6 Rd3 $1 { with equality } )
22...g5 ( 22...Kh8 $5 ) 23.fxg5 $5 ( 23.Rxa6 { is unclear after } 23...gxf4
24.gxf4 Kh8 25.Bxd5 cxd5 26.Nf1 Bh3 ( { or } 26...Rg8 ) 27.Ng3 Qg4 28.Raa1 h5
{ Sanakoev-Boey, World Correspondence Championship 1994 } ) 23...f4 24.gxf4
Bh3 25.Nc4 $1 Bxf4 26.Ne5 Bxe5 27.dxe5 Rxe5 28.Qg3 $1 Qxg5 29.Rxa6 Qxg3+
30.hxg3 Be6 31.Bf2 Rxe1+ 32.Bxe1 Nc7 $1 33.Bxe6+ Rxe6 34.Ra1 Re2 35.b4
{ and Black faces a struggle for a draw. } ) 22.Bxd5 ( { not } 22.Nc4 $6 Bxf4
$1 23.Bxf4 Nxf4 24.Rxe6 Nh3+ $1 25.Kg2 Ng5 $1 26.Qf2 Bf3+
{ with a dangerousattack, Milvidas-Muravyev, Correspondence 1994 } )
22...cxd5 23.Rxa6 Rfe8 24.Qf2 g5 $1 25.Raa1 ( { Gufeld and Lazarev suggest }
25.fxg5 f4 $2 ( { overlooking } 25...Bxg3 $1 ) 26.gxf4 { and wins } ) (
{ while } 25.Rxd6 Rxd6 26.fxg5 Rde6 $1 { is also questionable } ) 25...h6 $1
{ and White's two extra pawns are not felt: or } (
{ Black fails to equalise by } 25...gxf4 26.Bxf4 $1 Re2 27.Rxe2 Rxe2 28.Qxe2
Bxe2 29.Bxd6 Bd3 30.Re1 $1 ) 26.Nb3 { (threatening Nc5-d3) } ( 26.b3 Bh3 $1
27.Nf1 ( 27.Nf3 $6 gxf4 $1 ) 27...Qg4 28.fxg5 ( 28.c4 gxf4 ) 28...hxg5 29.c4
f4 $1 ) 26...gxf4 $1 27.Bxf4 Re2 28.Rxe2 Rxe2 29.Qxe2 Bxe2 30.Bxd6 Bc4 $1
{ and ...Qe2 with a draw. } ) 21.Qxh3 ( { Of course, not } 21.gxf4 $6 Rg6 )
( { or } 21.Bxf4 $6 Qxf1+ 22.Rxf1 Bxf4 23.gxf4 Bh3 $1 { (Bondarevsky). } )
21...Bxh3 22.Rxa6 $1
{ 'A deeply calculated piece sacrifice, fully stemming from thefeatures of
the position.' (Gufeld, Lazarev). } 22...fxe3 ( { It is inferior to play }
22...Rc8 23.Rea1 fxe3 24.fxe3 Rxe3 25.Rxc6 $1 { ; } ) ( { or } 22...Kh8
23.Rxc6 fxe3 24.fxe3 Bxg3 25.hxg3 Rxc6 26.Bxd5 Rg6 27.Be4 $1 { and wins. } )
23.Rxe3 ( { 'After } 23.fxe3 Be7 24.Rxc6 $1 ( 24.e4 Bg5 $1 ) 24...Rxc6
25.Bxd5+ Re6
{ , White has four connected passed pawns for the piece, but Black's
bishops aredangerous and therefore he would have stood better.'
(Bondarevsky) --- However,the computer does not agree with this, evaluating the position after }
26.e4 $1
{ as clearly advantageous to White. In the light of a later discovery (cf.
thenote to White's 25th move), this line deserves closer attention. The
machine'sevaluation is, of course, purely mechanical: four pawns, which are all passed,are stronger than a bishop. Whereas a human will hope that
after the possible } 26...h5 27.Ra1 ( { or } 27.Nc4 ) 27...Kh7 28.Bxe6 Bxe6
{ , Black's two bishops androok will be able to put up a fierce resistance.
In short, the position is aplayable one, but objectively (if one possesses
a computer!) the chances arewith White. } ) 23...Rxe3 ( { 'Or } 23...Nxe3
24.Rxc6 $1
{ and Black is forced toreturn his extra material, remaining with his pawn
deficit.' (Gufeld, Lazarev)However, after the 'non-human' move } 24...Nf1 $3
{ things are far more difficult forWhite: Perhaps } ( { indeed, after }
24...Rd8 $6 25.fxe3 Kf8 26.Bxe6 Bxe6 27.Ne4 Ke7 28.Rxd6 Rxd6 29.Nxd6 Kxd6
30.e4 { the pawn avalanche is irresistible } ) 25.Nxf1 ( 25.Bxe6+ Bxe6
26.Kxf1 Bh3+ { is unclear } ) ( { and little ispromised by } 25.Rxd6 Nxd2
26.Bxe6+ Bxe6 27.Rxe6 Rb8 $1 28.b4 Rc8 29.Re3 Nb1 { with a draw } ) ( { or }
25.Ne4 Rb8 $1 26.Bxe6+ Bxe6 27.Nxd6 ( 27.Rxd6 Bf5 $1 ) 27...Nd2 28.b4 (
28.Ra6 $5 g5 $5 ( 28...Kf8 29.b4 Ke7 ) 29.b4 g4 { with sharp play } )
28...Nf3+ 29.Kg2 ( 29.Kf1 $6 Rxb4 $3 30.cxb4 Bh3+ 31.Ke2 Nxd4+
{ and ...Nxc6 } ) 29...Nxd4 { with a draw } ) 25...Rd8 26.Bxe6+ Bxe6 27.Ne3
{ is the only way to retain some advantage. } ) (
{ It seems to me that after } 23...Nxe3 $6 { the best is } 24.fxe3 $1
{ , for example: } 24...Kf7 ( 24...Rc8 25.Ne4 Be7 26.Nf2 $1 Kh8 ( 26...Rb8
27.Bc4 $1 ) 27.Nxh3 Rxe3 28.Kf2 Re4 29.Nf4 { with winning chances } ) 25.Rxc6
Ke7 ( 25...Be7 26.e4 ( 26.Nf3 $5 ) 26...Bg5 27.Bxe6+ Bxe6 28.Nc4 ) 26.Bxe6
Bxe6 27.Ra6 { and White still has his quartetof connected passed pawns. } )
24.fxe3 Be7 $1 ( { But not } 24...Rc8 $2 25.Rxc6 $1
{ . In a difficult position Spassky finds an excellent chance,
enablingBlack to create an unexpected counterattack. The most interesting
moment ofthe game is reached. } ) 25.Rxc6 $5 (
{ 'It is surprising that such a naturalmove proves not to be the
strongest,' write Gufeld and Lazarev, who give theexample of a game played
the following year, Parma-Spassky (Yugoslavia-USSRmatch, Vrnjacka Banja 1965): }
25.e4 Bg5 26.exd5 c5 $3
{ . The knight will notrun away - it is more important to eliminate the
irresistible passed c-pawn.After } ( 26...Bxd2 27.dxc6+ Kh8 28.Ra1 g6 29.Bd5
Be3+ 30.Kh1 Rf2 31.c7
{ with a winning advantage. And although Black managed to save himself by
somemiracle, the variation with 20...f4 was shelved. However, instead of
theautomatic 26...Bxd2, there is a quite phenomenal resource... } ( 31.-- ) )
27.d6+ Kh8 28.Nf3 ( 28.dxc5 $2 Bxd2 29.Bc4 Be3+ 30.Kh1 g5 $1 ) 28...Be3+
29.Kh1 g5 $1 30.Bc4 ( 30.Bd5 $2 g4 $1 ) 30...Rxf3 $1 ( 30...cxd4 $2 31.Nxd4
{ Mann-Kotzem, Correspondence 1981 } ) 31.Ra8+ Kg7 32.Re8 $1 ( 32.d7 $2 Rf2
{ ; } ) ( 32.Ra7+ Kg6 $1 33.Bd3+ Bf5 34.Re7 ( { or } 34.Bxf5+ Rxf5 35.d7 g4
$1 36.h3 Rf1+ ) 34...Bxd3 35.Rxe3 Rxe3 36.d7 Re1+ 37.Kg2 Re2+
{ with perpetual check,since } 38.Kf3 $2 { is not possible on account of }
38...g4+ $1 39.Kxg4 Rf2 $3 { , winning } ) 32...cxd4 33.d7 Bxd7 34.Re7+ Kg6
35.Rxd7 Rf2 $1 36.cxd4 Rxb2
{ , Black gains a draw. Thus, Stein's intuition did not betray him: the
prettymove 25 Rxc6!? is certainly no worse than 25 e4. But since in neither
casedoes White manage to win, his only hope remained 23 fxe3!? instead of 23 Rxe3. }
) 25...Bg5 $1 26.Bxd5+ Kh8
{ 'An amazing position. White has four extra pawns,but he is unable to
retain his advantage.' (Bondarevsky). } 27.Bg2 $1 ( { The greedy } 27.Nf3 $2
{ would have led to disaster: } 27...Bxe3+ 28.Kh1 Ra8 $1 { , winning. } )
27...Bxe3+ 28.Kh1 Bxg2+ 29.Kxg2 Bxd2 30.b4 g5 $1
{ A verycomplicated ending! 'Black makes a "long air vent" for his king and
intends toattack with ...g5-g4 and ...Be3. Since the white king is unable
to support thequeenside pawns, the chances are roughly equal.' (Bondarevsky). }
31.g4 ( { or } 31.h3 Be1 32.b5 Rf2+ 33.Kg1 Rc2 { with a draw } ) 31...Be1
{ 'A last attemptto play for a win.' (Gufeld, Lazarev). I must dispel a
myth here: White is theonly one who can think in terms of winning, whereas
Black is only thinking ofhow to give up his bishop for a couple of pawns. }
32.d5
{ With a time scrambleimminent, Stein thought it best to offer a draw, and
after some thoughtSpassky agreed. } ( { Or } 32.b5 Rf2+ 33.Kg1 Rb2 34.Kf1 Bd2
35.c4 Bf4 36.h3 Kg8 { with a draw (Bondarevsky). } ) (
{ There could have followed } 32.d5 Rd8 33.Rc5 ( 33.d6 Bd2 { ; } ) ( 33.b5
Rxd5 34.b6 Rb5 35.c4 Rb4 ) 33...Bd2 { (Bondarevsky) } 34.h3 ( 34.Kf3 Re8 $5 )
34...Kg8 35.Kf1 Kf8 36.Ke2 Bf4 37.c4 Re8+ 38.Kf1 Re3
{ with a draw. A lively, highly interesting game. } ) 1/2-1/2
[Event "63. Zonal Tournament, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1964.??.??"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Stein, L."]
[Black "Korchnoi, V."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "B84"]
[EventDate "1964.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ After nine rounds all the participants in the Zonal tournament
retainedchances of success: Bronstein - 4˝ out of 7; Korchnoi, Spassky and
Kholmov -4 out of 8; Stein - 3˝ out of 7; Geller and Suetin - 3˝ out of 8. In the10th round Spassky and Stein gained important wins: the
former attractivelydefeated Geller with Black, with a queen sacrifice, while the latter crushedKorchnoi - who at that time was already twice USSR Champion and aparticipant in the Candidates tournament in Curaçao (1962) - with White.--- Enraptured by his opponent's play, Korchnoi
annotated his defeat in themagazine Shakhmaty v SSSR (1964 No.6). Unfortunately, this famous gameremained unknown, since it did not find its way into the book Leonid Stein (after Korchnoi's defection to the West, his name was banned in the USSR). Andon the advice of Viktor Vasilievich I have included it in this book. --- }
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 e6 7.O-O Be7 8.f4 Qc7
9.Qe1 O-O 10.Qg3 $5 ( { After } 10.Be3 b5 11.Bf3 Bb7 12.e5 dxe5 13.fxe5 Nfd7
14.Qg3 Bxf3 15.Nxf3 ( 15.Qxf3 Nb6 16.Rae1 N8d7 ) 15...Bc5 $1
{ , Black doesnot experience any problems (Stein-Spassky, USSR Championship
play-off, Moscow1964). It was this that Korchnoi was aiming for, but on
this occasion Steintook into account a feature of his opponent's style - to snatch pawns, if noconcrete refutation was apparent. }
) 10...Qb6 $6 (
{ 'I decided to accept thepawn sacrifice,' explains Korchnoi, 'since I did
not want to play the mainline of the Scheveningen Variation - } 10...Nc6
{ ' (followed by } 11.Be3 Nxd4 ( { or } 11...Bd7 ) 12.Bxd4 b5 { ). } ) 11.Be3
Qxb2 12.Bf2 ( { If } 12.Qe1 { , then } 12...Qb6 $1 { , not fearing } 13.Nf5
Qc7 14.Nxe7+ Qxe7 { . } ) ( { Korchnoi also gives } 12.Na4 $2 Qb4 13.Nb6 Nxe4
$1
{ and adds: 'A small, but importantpsychological detail: contrary to his
custom, Stein thought for a long time inthe opening, and I decided that he
must have found the pawn sacrifice at theboard. Initially it even seemed to me that Stein had miscalculated. To judgeby the further course of the
game, I underestimated White's possibilities.' } ) 12...Qb4
{ The queen's risky journey to win a pawn and then return home hascost
Black precious time; } ( 12...-- 13.Rfb1 Qa3 14.Nd5 $1 { was threatened; } )
( { while if } 12...d5 $2 { , then } 13.a3 $1 { , winning. } ) 13.e5 $1 (
{ Thetempting pursuit of the queen, } 13.Rab1 Qa5 14.Nf5 $5 exf5 15.Bb6
{ , wouldhave led to an unclear position after } 15...Nxe4 $1 16.Nxe4 Qxa2
17.Bd4 ( { or } 17.Nc3 Qe6 18.Bf3 Nc6 19.Nd5 Bd8 { Korchnoi } ) 17...f6
18.Nc3 Qf7 19.Bf3 Nc6 20.Bf2 Kh8
{ . After all, White is now three pawns down. } ) 13...dxe5 14.fxe5 Ne8 (
{ 'Also after } 14...Nfd7
{ very accurate play would have been required toachieve equality: } 15.Nd5 $1
( 15.Nb3 Bg5 $1 16.Bd3 Bh6 17.Ne4 Nc6 { isunclear - G.K. } ) 15...exd5 16.Nf5
g6 17.a3 $1 Bh4 $1 ( 17...Qe4 $2 18.Nxe7+ Kg7 19.Bd3 Qxe5 20.Nf5+ Kg8 21.Bd4
{ and wins } ) 18.axb4 ( { if } 18.Nxh4 Qe4 { , and Black is out of danger }
) 18...Bxg3 19.Ne7+ Kg7 20.Bxg3 Nb6 21.Bf2
{ , retaining pressure in the endgame.' (Korchnoi). For example: } 21...Re8
{ (Damjanovic-Solak, Vrnjacka Banja 1996) } 22.Bxb6 Rxe7 23.Bc5 $1
{ followed by } 23...Re8 ( 23...Rc7 24.c4 $1 ) ( { or } 23...Rxe5 24.Bd4 f6
25.Bxe5 fxe5 26.c4 $1 ) 24.Bf3 Nd7 25.Bxd5 Nxc5 26.Rxf7+ Kh6 27.bxc5 Rxe5
28.c4
{ . I think thatBlack made the best practical choice in retreating his
knight to e8: it isbetter to seek counter-chances in a sharp middlegame,
than in such anunpromising endgame. } ) 15.Bd3 $6
{ White's sights are fixed on the enemy king. } (
{ But Korchnoi rightly comments that } 15.Nb3 $1
{ came into consideration,when the threat of a2-a3 would have forced }
15...Qa3
{ . Modern masters, especiallyafter the 11th game of the Spassky-Fischer
match (1972) are also not averse tochasing the queen: } 16.Be3 Nd7 $5 (
16...Nc6 17.Rf4 $1 Nxe5 ( 17...Qb2 $2 18.Bc1 $1 Qxc2 19.Bd3 Qxc3 20.Bxh7+
{ and Qxc3 } ) 18.Ra4 Qb2 19.Bd4 Nc6 20.Rb1 Qxc2 21.Bd3 Bh4
{ (B.Knezevic-Bistric, Banja Vrucica 1991) } 22.Qf3 $1 Nxd4 23.Rxd4 Bf2+
24.Qxf2 Qxf2+ 25.Kxf2 { with a clear advantage. } ) 17.Rf4 Bc5
{ is also interesting, but here too after } 18.Nxc5 $1 Qxc3 ( 18...Nxc5
19.Bd4 $1 ) 19.Raf1 Nxc5 ( { after } 19...Nxe5 20.Bh5 $1 Nd6 ( { or } 20...f5
21.Ne4 Qc6 22.Bd4 ) 21.Qf2 Ng6 22.Bd4 Qa5 23.Bxg6 hxg6 24.Bxg7 Kxg7 25.Qd4+
Kg8 26.Rh4 { Black comes under attack } ) 20.Rc4 Ne4 21.Qf4 ( { or } 21.Rxc3
Nxg3 22.hxg3 Bd7 23.Rd1 $1 Bc6 24.Bc5
{ and Bxf8 with chances of converting the extraexchange } ) 21...Qa5 22.Qxe4
f5 23.Qd4
{ , White has solid pressure. Thusoverall, despite the error he committed,
Stein correctly evaluated thepromising nature of the sacrifice of the
b2-pawn. } ) 15...Qa5
{ The queen isincluded in the defence and also in the attack on the
e5-pawn. } ( { Black wantsto avoid ...f7-f5, especially since } 15...f5 $6
16.exf6 Nxf6 17.Ne4
{ would have allowed White to continue the transfer of his forces to
thekingside. } ) ( { Korchnoi thought that } 15...Nd7 { was more accurate; }
16.Nb3 { is no longer effective on account of the thematic } (
{ since then neither } 16.Nxe6 $6 fxe6 17.Qh3 Rf5 18.g4 Qxc3 19.gxf5 Qxe5 )
( { nor } 16.Rab1 Qa5 17.Nxe6 $6 fxe6 18.Bxh7+ Kxh7 19.Qh3+ Kg8 20.Qxe6+ Rf7
21.Bb6 Nxe5 { wouldhave worked } ) ( { while after } 16.Ne4 Nc5 (
{ in my opinion, } 16...Qa5
{ is alsoacceptable, transposing into a position from the game } ) 17.Nxc5
Bxc5 18.Qh3 f5 19.exf6 Nxf6 { the chances are roughly equal. } ) 16...f5 $1
{ . } ) 16.Ne4 Nd7 17.Nf3 { The first critical moment of the battle. }
17...g6 $6
{ In striving toretain a complicated position and practical winning
chances, Blacksignificantly weakens his king's fortress. } (
{ Later Korchnoi regretted that hedid not play } 17...f5 $1 18.exf6 Ndxf6
{ . Now White would have had to seekcompensation for the sacrificed pawn: }
( { it is inferior to play } 18...Nexf6 $6 19.Qh3 $1 Nxe4 20.Qxe6+ Rf7
21.Qxe4 Nf6 22.Qe5 Qxe5 23.Nxe5 Rf8 24.Bc4+ Kh8 25.Rae1 Bb4 26.Rb1 ) 19.Bd4
$1 ( { not } 19.Nxf6+ Nxf6 20.Rae1 $2 Qxa2 21.Bd4 Qd5 22.Qh4 Bc5 $1
{ , Sigurjonsson-Sax, Amsterdam 1976 } ) 19...Nxe4 20.Bxe4 Bc5 21.c3 Nf6 (
21...Qxc3 $6 22.Bxh7+ $1 Kh8 23.Qh4 ) 22.Ng5 $1
{ with an initiative, sufficient for not more than a draw. } ) 18.Bd4 Ng7 (
{ 'Or } 18...Qd8 19.Qf4 Ng7 ( { after } 19...f6 20.Qh6 fxe5 21.Nfg5 Bxg5
22.Nxg5 Qe7 23.Bxe5 Nef6 24.Bg3 { White also has unpleasant pressure } )
20.g4 { with thethreat of Qh6.' (Korchnoi) } ) ( { I should add that }
18...b5 $6 19.Qh3 $1 Ng7 ( 19...b4 $2 20.Neg5 ) ( 19...Qd8 20.Qh6 f6 21.exf6
Ndxf6 $6 22.Neg5 e5 23.Nxh7 $1 ) 20.Nfg5 h5 21.Nf6+ Bxf6 22.exf6 Nf5 23.Bxf5
exf5 24.Qg3 $1
{ would have placed Black in a critical position (Rxf5 is not the only
threat): } 24...Bb7 ( 24...Qa4 25.c3 Qc4 ( 25...Bb7 26.Nxf7 $1 Kxf7 27.Qc7 )
26.Rfe1 $1 Nc5 27.Nxf7 $1 ) 25.Nxf7 $1 Kxf7 26.Qb3+ Ke8 27.Qe6+ Kd8 28.Rad1
{ withcrushing threats. } ) 19.Nf6+ Bxf6 20.exf6 Nh5 ( { In the event of }
20...Nf5 21.Bxf5 Qxf5 ( 21...exf5 $2 22.Qg5 ( { or } 22.Rfe1 { , winning } )
) 22.Ne5 { (Korchnoi) } 22...Qe4 23.Rf4 Qe2 ( 23...Qxc2 $2 24.Qg5 ) 24.Re1
Qd2 25.Nf3 $1 Qa5 26.Rh4 Re8 27.Ng5 Nf8 28.Qe3
{ , White has a decisive attack. } ) 21.Qh4
{ The second - and most important - critical moment. } 21...Qd8 $2
{ The decisivemistake! } ( { 'The previously planned } 21...e5
{ did not work in view of } 22.Qg5 { ' (Korchnoi). } 22...Qa4 $1 (
{ And indeed, } 22...h6 $2 23.Qxh6 exd4 { is bad onaccount of } 24.Bc4 $1
Ndxf6 25.Qxg6+ Kh8 26.Qh6+ $1 Nh7 ( { or } 26...Kg8 27.Rae1 ) 27.Rae1 Nf6
28.Re5 Qc7 29.Bd3 Bg4 30.Ng5 $1 Qxe5 31.Rxf6
{ ,winning. However, Black had an astounding defensive resource... } )
23.Bxe5 Nxe5 24.Nxe5 ( 24.Qxe5 Re8 { with equality } ) 24...Qd4+ 25.Kh1 Bf5
$1 { , forexample: } 26.Rad1 $1
{ is more cunning - Black again has to displayexceptional resourcefulness:
} ( 26.Rae1
{ . It appears that White is winning:he is threatening Rxf5, But after the
unexpected } 26...Rae8 $1 ( { if } 26...Bxd3 $2 27.cxd3 Qd5 { , then } 28.Re4
Rfe8 29.g4 $1 ) 27.Rxf5 h6 $1 28.Qxh6 ( 28.Qd2 gxf5 29.Qxh6 Qf4 $1 ) 28...Qh4
$3 { , the threat of ...Ng3+ forces } 29.Qxh5 $1 Qxe1+ 30.Bf1 gxh5 ( { or }
30...Qxf1+ 31.Rxf1 gxh5 32.Rf5 { with equality } ) 31.Rg5+
{ with perpetual check. } ) 26...h6 $1 ( { not } 26...Qxe5 $2 27.Rxf5 Qe6
28.Rdf1 Rfe8 29.g4 { and wins } ) 27.Qxh6 Bxd3 28.Qg5 $1 Rae8 29.Ng4 Re4 $1
30.Nh6+ Kh7 31.cxd3 Qe3 ( { another interesting idea is } 31...Re6 $5 32.Rf3
Qe5 $1 33.Nf5 Qxf6 34.Qh6+ Kg8 35.g4 gxf5 36.Qxh5 f4 ( { or } 36...Re2
{ withgood drawing chances } ) ) 32.Qxe3 Rxe3 33.Ng4 Re2 34.Rc1 ( { or }
34.a3 Rd8 35.d4 Re4 36.Ne5 Kg8 37.Rc1 $5 Rexd4 38.g4 Nf4 39.Rc7 Rd1 { etc. }
) 34...Rxa2 35.Ne5 Re2 $1 36.d4 Re4 37.g4 ( 37.g3 Rxd4 ) 37...Nf4 38.Rc7 Kg8
39.Rxb7 Rxd4
{ , gaining a draw. In general, --- it is harder for humans to
finddefensive resources than attacking ones. On reaching 24 Nxe5 in his
analysishe gives up calculating and evaluates the position: with level material Whitehas a powerful attack, and the 'wedge' at f6 promises
him a better ending. But,as Petrosian once remarked, chess is a game that is hard to predict: you onlyhave to move some unobtrusive pawn one square - and the entire evaluationchanges. In the given instance the move ...h7-h6 creates an amazing geometry,refuting our
traditional impressions of such positions. This is already a newlevel of chess understanding - the ultra-accurate play of the computer era. }
) 22.Rae1 $1 ( { not } 22.Ng5 $6 e5 ) 22...Ndxf6 ( { Or } 22...Nhxf6 23.Ng5
$1
{ . A rare instance, when Korchnoi was thoroughly betrayed by his sense
ofdanger: after capturing the f6-pawn, he was hoping gradually to defend
himself,but White's attack develops of its own accord. } ) 23.Ng5 (
{ 'Possibly evenstronger was } 23.Ne5 { with the idea of } 23...Nd7 $2 (
{ and after the improvement } 23...Ng4 24.Qxg4 f5 25.Nxg6 $1 fxg4 26.Rxf8+
Qxf8 27.Nxf8 Kxf8 28.Bxh7 { Black has a difficult endgame } ) 24.Nxf7 $1 Qxh4
25.Nh6# { .' (Mikenas) } ) 23...e5 ( { If } 23...Ng4
{ there would have followed } 24.Bc5 { (Korchnoi) } 24...Nxh2 25.Rf4 $1 { . }
) ( { In addition, } 23...h6 { would also not have saved Black in viewof }
24.Bxf6 hxg5 25.Bxg5 Qd6 26.g4 { . } ) 24.Bxe5 h6 ( 24...Ng4 $2 25.Qxh5 $1 h6
26.Qxg6+ $1 ) 25.Bxf6 $6 { Black's position is tragic. } (
{ 'Had Whiteplayed } 25.Rxf6 ) ( { or } 25.Nxf7
{ , the game would have lasted 15 moves less!'(Korchnoi) } ) 25...hxg5
26.Qxg5 Nxf6 27.Rxf6 Qd4+ 28.Kh1 Qg4 ( 28...Kg7 $2 29.Rxg6+ $1 ) 29.Qh6 Bf5
( { not } 29...Qh5 $2 30.Rxg6+ fxg6 31.Bc4+ ) 30.h3 $1
{ 'Stein nevertheless succeeds in creating decisive threats and
inconcluding the game with a direct attack.' (Korchnoi) } (
{ Another alternativewas the technical } 30.Bxf5 gxf5 31.h3 Qg7 32.Qh4 $1
{ . } ) 30...Qd4 ( { Or } 30...Qb4 31.Re5 $1 Bxd3 32.cxd3 Qb1+ 33.Kh2 Qxd3
34.Rg5
{ , and for histwo rooks White wins the queen and both kingside pawns.'
(Korchnoi) } ) 31.Rxf5 $1 gxf5 32.Re3 Qg7 33.Qh4
{ 'The remainder is clear. The black king is forcedto set off on its
travels, from which it does not return,' writes Korchnoi, asthough
forecasting his own fate. } ( { In fact, a more decisive choice was } 33.Qf4
$1 { (with the threat of Rg3) } 33...Qa1+ 34.Kh2 Rfe8 ( { or } 34...Rfd8
35.Rg3+ Kf8 36.Qb4+ ) 35.Rg3+ Kf8 36.Qd6+ Re7 37.Qh6+ { . } ) 33...Qa1+
34.Kh2 Rfe8 35.Rg3+ Kf8 36.Qh6+ Ke7 37.Re3+ Kd7 38.Bxf5+ Kc7 39.Qf4+ Kc6
40.Qc4+ Kd6 ( { or } 40...Kb6 41.Rb3+ ) 41.Qb4+ ( { The machine prefers }
41.Rd3+ Ke5 42.Bd7 $1 { . } ) 41...Kd5 42.Rd3+ Ke5 43.Qd6+ Kxf5 44.Rf3+ Kg5
45.Qf4+ ( 45.h4+ $1 ) 45...Kh5 46.g4+ Kg6 47.Qxf7+
{ . Mate is inevitable. --- Ultimately, thecherished qualifying places were
won by Spassky (7 out of 12), Bronstein andStein (6˝). 'The success of
Leonid Stein is no surprise; it isunderstandable and even necessary,' Vasily Panov wrote soon afterwards.'It would be unthinkable if the USSR Champion
did not qualify for theInterzonal tournament! He began the Zonal tournament in even more"spectacular" fashion than the championship of the country: five draws andthen a zero! And still he finished in the leading three. What confidence andself-control! With such stable nerves and belief in himself,
Stein's furthersuccesses are assured.' Alas, as we shall see, it was precisely stablenerves that he was lacking... }
1-0
[Event "64. Interzonal Tournament, Amsterdam"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1964.??.??"]
[Round "23"]
[White "Stein, L."]
[Black "Darga, K."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "C96"]
[EventDate "1964.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ In the Interzonal tournament that began soon afterwards (Amsterdam 1964)
thetask of the Soviet participants was even more difficult than it had been
twoand a half years earlier in Stockholm: for the same three out of sixCandidates vacancies, five world-class grandmasters were competing - thewinners
of the Zonal tournament plus Smyslov and Tal. --- 'By tradition'Leonid began sluggishly - 3˝ out of 8, but then he made a fantastic spurt -12 out of 13 (defeating, in particular, Gligoric, Benko, Evans, Ivkov andLarsen!) and burst into the leading group with a score of +10. But humanpowers are not
unlimited... A draw in the penultimate, 22nd round with one ofthe outsiders was not yet fatal: Stein was sharing 3rd-5th places with Tal andSpassky, half a point behind Smyslov and Larsen. A very tense finish! --- Onthe final day Tal and Spassky won 'to order' and caught up with theleaders, who drew with each other, but Stein was unable to defeat thetenacious Klaus Darga with the white pieces. Here is that half-forgotten game,which has not only historical, but also considerable theoretical importance.--- }
1.e4
{ (perhaps Stein should have chosen his reserve weapon - the closedset-up
with g2-g3) } 1...e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6
8.c3 O-O 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Nd7 $5
{ This variation, whichKeres introduced in Curaçao (1962), was unusually
popular at that time. Thisposition occurred ten times in Amsterdam. } 12.b3
$5
{ An interesting 'side'move, which Stein had reserved especially for a
decisive game. } ( { AgainstKeres in Curaçao, Fischer played both } 12.dxc5
dxc5 13.Nbd2 { after whichBoleslavsky suggested } 13...f6
{ and ...Nb6 with equality, Ivkov-Quinones, Amsterdam,14th round; } (
{ later Romanishin successfully employed } 13...Bb7 $5
{ with theunexpected idea of ...Nc4-d6 } ) ) ( { and } 12.d5 { , but after }
12...Nb6 { Black had noproblems: } 13.g4 $6 h5 $1 14.Nh2 hxg4 15.hxg4 Bg5 $1
{ etc. } ) ( { But the mainline is } 12.Nbd2 cxd4 13.cxd4 Nc6 14.Nb3 $1 (
14.Nf1 exd4 15.Nxd4 Nxd4 16.Qxd4 Ne5
{ with equality, Kholmov-Geller, Moscow Zonal 1964 and Spassky-Tal,4th
round; } ) ( { or } 14.d5 Nb4 15.Bb1 a5 16.a3 Na6
{ with equality,Spassky-Tringov, 2nd round and Suetin-Tal, 32nd USSR
Championship, Kiev 1964/65 } ) 14...a5 { with two possible continuations: }
15.Bd3 $1 ( 15.Be3 a4 16.Nbd2 $5 ( 16.Nc1 exd4
{ Tal-Keres, Curaçao Candidates 1962 } ) 16...exd4 ( { or } 16...Bf6 17.Nf1
exd4 18.Nxd4 Nxd4 19.Bxd4 Ne5 20.Ne3 { (Gligoric-Tal, 8th round) } ) 17.Nxd4
Nxd4 18.Bxd4 Ne5 19.Nf1 Be6 $5 20.Ne3
{ (Gligoric-Reshevsky, 21stround), in both cases with a minimal advantage
for White and... a draw. } ) 15...Ba6 $5 ( 15...Rb8
{ , when it is stronger to play } 16.Qe2 $1 ( 16.Be3 a4 17.d5 Nb4 18.Nc1 f5
$1 { Suetin-Stein, Moscow Zonal 1964 } ) 16...Ba6
{ , and againstLengyel in the 15th round Stein played } 17.Be3 (
{ while against Reshevsky Talplayed } 17.Bd2 $1 exd4 18.Nbxd4 Nxd4 19.Nxd4
Ne5 20.Rad1 Qb6 21.Be3 { with advantage to White } ) 17...a4 18.Nbd2 exd4
19.Nxd4 Nxd4 20.Bxd4 Ne5 { with equality. } ) 16.d5 $5 ( 16.Be3 a4 17.Nc1
exd4 18.Nxd4 Nxd4 19.Bxd4 Ne5 20.Bf1 Nc6 21.Be3 Bf6
{ with equality, Smyslov-Lengyel, 17th round, andGeller-Stein, Moscow 1964
} ) 16...Nb4 17.Bf1 a4 18.a3 (
{ it was only manyyears later that White found the idea } 18.Nbd4 $1 exd4
19.a3
{ (Shamkovich-Benjamin, New York 1976), which effectively buried the
variationafter a spectacular win by Anand over Piket (Wijk aan Zee 1999) } )
18...Nxd5 19.Qxd5 axb3 20.Bxb5 Nf6 21.Qd3 Bxb5 22.Qxb5 Qb8 23.Qxb8 Raxb8
24.Bg5 Rfc8 { with a slightly inferior ending (Ivkov-Pachman, 22nd round). }
) ( { And Black began fighting against } 12.Nbd2 { with } 12...exd4 $5
13.cxd4 Nc6 { (the Graf Variation) } 14.d5 Nce5
{ (Ponomariov-Belyavsky, Moscow rapidplay2002, and Anand-Ponomariov, Mainz
rapidplay 2002). } ) (
{ Now it will beunderstandable why Stein decided to deviate. Of the modern
attempts I shouldmention the 'strange' } 12.Kh1 $5
{ (Kramnik-Ponomariov, Linares 2003) with thecamouflaged positional idea of
} 12...Rb8 $6 ( { but Ponomariov played } 12...Bb7 13.d5 f5 $1 14.exf5 Nc4
{ with a sharp struggle } ) 13.d5 $1 Nb6 14.g4 h5 15.Rg1 $1 { . } ) 12...exd4
$1 { Darga intuitively makes the strongest move! } ( { After } 12...cxd4 $6
13.cxd4 Nc6 14.Nc3 exd4 ( 14...Nb4 15.Bb1 ) 15.Nd5 $1 Nde5 ( 15...Bf6
16.Nxf6+ Qxf6 17.Bg5 ) 16.Nxd4 Nxd4 17.Qxd4
{ , White achieves anappreciable advantage: } 17...Bxh3 ( { or } 17...Bf6
18.Kh1 $1 { (Kasparov-Ponomariov,Moscow rapidplay 2002) } ) 18.f4 $1 Nc6
19.Qc3 Bd7 20.Bb2 f6 21.Rad1 ( 21.Qd3 $5 ) 21...Rc8 22.Qd3 Bg4 23.Rd2 Re8
24.b4 { (Ivanchuk-Iuldachev, Hyderabad2002). } ) 13.cxd4 Nc6 14.Nc3 (
{ The later game Stein-Tal (Moscow 1964) went } 14.d5 Nb4 15.Nc3 Bf6 16.Bb2
Nxc2 17.Qxc2 Ne5 18.Nxe5 Bxe5 19.Ne2 Qf6 { ˝-˝. } ) 14...Bf6 $1 15.Be3 cxd4
16.Nxd4 Nxd4 17.Bxd4 Bb7
{ Unfortunatelyfor Stein, his opponent has found the only correct move
order. The situationhas been discharged and White has no real opportunity
to complicate the play. } 18.Ne2 ( { It is no better to play } 18.Bxf6 Qxf6
19.Re3 $6 Rac8 $1 { (Dely-Kozma, Pec 1964); } ) ( { or } 18.Rc1 Rc8 19.Bb1
Re8 20.Bxf6 Nxf6 { ˝-˝(Aseev-Graf, Kemerovo 1995). } ) 18...Re8 19.Ng3 g6
20.b4 d5 21.Bxf6 Qxf6 22.exd5 Rxe1+ 23.Qxe1 Bxd5 24.Bb3 Bxb3 25.axb3 Qe5
26.Qd1 Nf6 27.Rc1 Re8 28.Qf3 Ne4 29.Nxe4 Qxe4 30.Qc3 Qe5 31.Qc5 Kg7 32.Rd1
Qf6
{ . --- In theopinion of Gufeld and Lazarev, that day 'Stein was again let
down by hisnerves and he played too academically, even somehow
constrainedly.' But inmy view, it was simply that he tragically guessed wrong with his choice ofopening: after Black's accurate defence, there were no
winning chances howeverWhite acted. --- Incidentally, had he nevertheless won this game, anuncommonly idiotic competitive situation would have arisen: four such stars asSmyslov, Tal, Spassky and Stein would have had to play an additionalmatch-tournament for three qualifying places! ---
But even as it was, theresult of the Amsterdam Interzonal was highly significant: 1-4. Smyslov,Spassky, Tal and Larsen - 17 out of 23; 5. Stein - 16˝; 6. Bronstein - 16.The last two remained outside the eight-man Candidates event - Ivkov andPortisch, who finished seventh and eighth in the tournament, were admittedinstead. This was such a scandalous injustice that from the next FIDE cyclethe restriction on Soviet players was finally abolished. --- However, this didnot help Stein and Bronstein, and it was also a great loss for the chess worldthat they did not get to play
in the Candidates matches. I think that in 1965Stein was the only player who could have seriously rivalled the winner of thecycle, Boris Spassky. Soon afterwards he brilliantly demonstrated that he wasone of the strongest players on the planet - he performed splendidly for theSoviet team in two Olympiads (1964 and 1966), defeated Botvinnik with Black inthe Trades Union Team Championship (1965), and won two further successive USSRChampionships (1965 and 1966) as well as the grandiose grandmaster tournamentin Moscow (1967), ahead of the current, one future and two former worldchampions! }
1/2-1/2
[Event "65. 33rd USSR Championship, Tallinn"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1965.??.??"]
[Round "17"]
[White "Khasin, A."]
[Black "Stein, L."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "B84"]
[EventDate "1965.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ There was a dramatic race in the 33rd USSR Championship (Tallinn 1965).
Afterten rounds Polugayevsky was confidently leading, 1˝ points ahead of
Stein,his nearest rival. But in the 11th round, in a very sharp struggle and aftermutual mistakes in time-trouble, Leonid defeated the leader with
Black. Hethen gained two more wins, took the lead and remained in first place to theend. Here is the noteworthy finish to one of his games. --- }
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 e6 7.f4 Be7 8.Bf3 O-O
9.O-O Qc7 10.Kh1 Nc6 11.g4 Nxd4 12.Qxd4 Nd7 13.g5 b5 14.f5 Bb7 15.Be3 Ne5
16.f6 gxf6 17.gxf6 Bxf6 18.Bh6 Kh8 $1 { A surprise; } (
{ White was hoping for } 18...Rfd8 $2 19.Bh5 Qe7 20.Rf2
{ with an attack. 'Many times in his career Steindeliberately sacrificed
the exchange for a pawn, even without such obviouscompensation as here. He
had a subtle feeling for dynamic factors, and alwaysgave preference to them ahead of material considerations.' (Gufeld, Lazarev).Nowadays such
positional sacrifices have become typical methods. } ) 19.Bxf8 Rxf8 20.Rad1
Rd8 21.Bg2 Bg7 22.Qf2 Rg8 $1 23.Qh4 f5 ( 23...Nc4 $5 24.Rd3 Be5
{ would appear to be even better. } ) 24.Rde1 ( { If } 24.Ne2 { , then }
24...Ng6 25.Qf2 Be5 $1 26.Rg1 Qe7 { etc. } ) 24...Nc4 25.Rf2 Nxb2 $2
{ Allowing theopponent to complicate the play. } ( 25...Bd4 $1
{ was correct. } ) 26.Ne2 Nc4 27.Ng3 $2 ( 27.exf5 exf5 ( { not } 27...Ne3 $2
28.Nf4 ) 28.Nd4 Qf7 { wasinsufficient; } ) ( { but after } 27.Nf4 $1 Bc3
28.Ree2 { an unclear situationwould have arisen. } ) 27...Bd4 28.Rfe2 fxe4
29.Nxe4 Qg7 30.Ng5 $6 { Atime-trouble error. } (
{ However, White's position is also unenviable after } 30.Ng3 Bxg2+ 31.Rxg2
e5 { . } ) 30...Be3 $1 { 'A dagger blow! } ( { 'If } 30...Bf6
{ White had prepared } 31.Qxh7+ $1 Qxh7 32.Nxh7 Rxg2 33.Rxg2 Kxh7 34.Rxe6
{ and the endgame does not promise Black an easy win.' (Gufeld, Lazarev) } )
31.Bxb7 Bxg5 32.Qe4 d5 33.Qxe6 ( { Also after } 33.Bxd5 exd5 34.Qxd5 Ne3 (
{ or } 34...Be3 35.Rg2 Qxg2+ ) 35.Qe4 Bh6
{ Black would still have been faced withconverting his advantage. } )
33...Qxb7 34.Rg1 $2 ( 34.Rg2
{ was essential,retaining some drawing chances after } 34...Qa8 ( 34...d4 $2
35.h4 $1 ) 35.Re5 $1 Rg6 36.Qxd5 Qxd5 37.Rxd5 Be3 38.Rxg6 hxg6 39.Rd7 { . } )
34...d4+ 35.Rgg2 Rf8 36.h4 Rf1+ 37.Kh2 Bf4+ 0-1
[Event "66. Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1967.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Stein, L."]
[Black "Keres, P."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "C82"]
[EventDate "1967.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ Stein's victory in the 1967 Moscow international tournament, which
assembledall the strongest players in the world, with the exception of
Fischer,Korchnoi and Larsen, caused a genuine furore. By that time he had already wonthe USSR Championship three times (three gold medals in
four years - noother Soviet player had achieved this!), and this event became altogether the'tournament of his life'. Stein considered the following game to be one ofthe best in his career. --- }
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Nxe4
{ Apparently Keres wanted to surprise his opponent, by avoiding
hisfavourite closed variations. Let us see what came of this. } 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3
d5 8.dxe5 Be6 9.c3 Bc5 ( 9...Nc5 ) ( 9...Be7 { - Volume 1, Game No.65 } )
10.Nbd2 O-O 11.Bc2 f5 ( 11...Nxf2 12.Rxf2 f6 13.exf6
{ (Smyslov-Botvinnik, MoscowChampionship 1943/44) is no longer fashionable,
since it is difficult andtedious to demonstrate equal chances in the
endgame after } 13...Bxf2+ 14.Kxf2 Qxf6 15.Nf1 Ne5 16.Be3 { . } ) (
{ And the best move } 11...Bf5
{ , which occurred inthe Karpov-Korchnoi matches (1978 and 1981), will be
analysed in Volume 5. } ) 12.Nb3 Bb6 13.Nfd4 $1 (
{ Since the time of the Boleslavsky-Szabo game (Groningen 1946), the
strongest continuation was considered to be } 13.a4 { , but then they found }
13...Qd7 $1 ( 13...b4 $6 14.a5 $1 ) 14.Nbd4 (
{ subsequentlySuetin strengthened White's play with } 14.axb5 axb5 15.Rxa8
Rxa8 16.Be3 $1 { , but even here after } 16...Bxe3 17.fxe3 b4 18.Nfd4 bxc3
19.Bxe4 Nxd4 { , Blackshould make a draw with careful defence } ) 14...Nxd4
15.Nxd4 c5
{ withequality (Suetin-Nei, 34th USSR Championship, Tbilisi 1966). } )
13...Nxd4 14.Nxd4 Qd7 (
{ Keres avoids the main and, apparently, best variation for Black - }
14...Bxd4 15.cxd4 ( { which can be avoided by } 15.Qxd4 $5
{ (Short-Timman,12th matchgame, Spain 1993) } ) 15...f4 16.f3 Ng3 17.hxg3
fxg3 18.Qd3 $1 Bf5 $1 { (Volume 2, Game No.84) with unclear complications. }
) 15.f3 ( 15.Nxe6 $6 { is premature after } 15...Qxe6 16.Bf4 g5 $1 17.Bxe4
fxe4 $1 { . } ) 15...Nc5 16.Kh1 $1
{ A subtle prophylactic move, the point of which is not immediately
apparent. } 16...Nb7 $2
{ In hurrying to play the typical ...c7-c5, Black plays his knight toan
extremely passive position. } (
{ The opening intrigue would have beenretained by } 16...Rae8 $1
{ , for example: } 17.b4 ( 17.Bf4 ) ( 17.Re1 $5 ) 17...Na4 18.Qd3 c5 19.Nxe6
Rxe6 20.Bxa4 c4 $5 ( { this is better than } 20...bxa4 21.bxc5
{ Kieninger-Bogoljubow, Krakow 1941 } ) 21.Qe2 bxa4 { etc. } ) 17.Be3 $1 (
17.a4 { is not so dangerous in view of } 17...Bxd4 18.cxd4 c5 ( 18...b4
19.Be3 $1 ) 19.dxc5 Nxc5 20.axb5 Qxb5 21.Be3 Rfc8 22.Bd4 a5 $5 23.Ra3 a4
24.Rc3 Nb3 25.Bxb3 Rxc3 26.Bxa4 { , and now not } 26...Rxa4 $2 (
{ but simply } 26...Qxb2 $1
{ with equality, since it is not possible to exploit the pin on the rook: }
27.Bc6 Ra5 28.Qe1 Ra2 $1 29.Rg1 Rc1 $1 ) 27.bxc3
{ with an obvious advantage toWhite (Unzicker-Addison, Maribor 1967). } )
17...c5 18.Nxe6 Qxe6
{ A criticalmoment. 'For the moment it is still unclear what was bad about
the knight moveto b7,' write Gufeld and Lazarev. 'It would appear that
Black has gainedcounter-play: how should White defend his e5-pawn?'. } 19.a4
$1 { The first ofa series of very strong moves. } ( { After the natural }
19.f4
{ (as Simagin putit, this is what the overwhelming majority of masters
would have played) } 19...Rad8
{ , Black could have hoped to solve his opening problems. } ) (
{ 'Tarrasch onceremarked that a pawn sacrifice can sometimes be deeper than
a piece sacrifice.Stein's astounding move, } 19.a4
{ , as though illuminates all the defects inthe placing of the black pieces
and pawns. If } 19...Qxe5 { , then } 20.Re1 $1 Qd6 (
{ nothing is changed by } 20...Bc7 21.Bg1 $1
{ - this, it turns out, is where 16Kh1! comes in useful. In these
variations the knight at b7 plays a pitifulrole. } ) 21.axb5 axb5 22.Rxa8
Rxa8 23.Bxf5
{ and the white bishops developenormous energy.' (Gufeld, Lazarev) } )
19...Na5 20.Bf2 $1
{ Again subtleprophylaxis, sharply reducing the effect of ...Nc4. } 20...Kh8
{ It is also useful tohide the black king in the corner - to avoid problems
on the a2-g8 diagonal. } ( { 'If } 20...Nc4 { Stein had prepared } 21.b3 $1
Nxe5 22.axb5 axb5 23.Rxa8 Rxa8 24.Bxf5 $1 { is even stronger: } ( 24.Re1
{ (threatening f3-f4) } 24...f4 25.b4 $1 { ' (Gufeld, Lazarev) } ( 25.-- ) )
24...Qf7 ( 24...Qd6 25.Bg3 ) 25.Re1 Re8 26.Bb1
{ with an overwhelming advantage. } ) ( { If instead } 20...Qxe5 { , then }
21.Re1 $1 Qd6 22.axb5 axb5 23.b4 $1 cxb4 ( { or } 23...Bc7 24.Bg3 $1 f4
25.Bf2 cxb4 26.cxb4 Nc6 27.Bc5 { , winning the exchange and the game } )
24.Bxb6 Qxb6 { , and now immediately } 25.cxb4 $1 { , winning; } (
{ but not } 25.Qxd5+ $2 Kh8 26.cxb4 { (Dolmatov) on account of } 26...Qc6 $1
{ with an unclear game. } ) ) 21.Re1 Ra7 ( 21...d4
{ is insufficient in view of } 22.axb5 axb5 23.b4 $1 cxb4 24.cxd4 $1 b3 (
24...Rad8 $2 25.Rxa5 $1 Bxa5 26.Bb3 ) 25.Bd3
{ , when Blackcannot hold the position. } ) 22.Qe2 $1 b4 23.cxb4 cxb4 24.Bxb6
Qxb6 25.Rad1 Qc5 $2 { A mistake in a difficult position. } (
{ It was also bad to play } 25...Qe6 26.Qd2 $1 { (Dolmatov). } ) (
{ In my view, the last chance of setting up adefence was } 25...b3 $1
{ (trying to restrict the light-squared bishop with apalisade of pawns),
although even in this case White would have retained anenduring initiative
after } 26.Bb1 $1 Qe6 27.Qd3 Rd7 28.f4 { . } ) 26.Bd3 $1
{ The bishop starts to become violent. 'The black pawns resemble a jaw full
ofrotten teeth. Stein the dentist sets about extracting them.' (Gufeld,
Lazarev). } 26...Qb6 27.Bb1 $1 Qc6 ( { if } 27...d4 { , then White has }
28.Qd3 $1 Rd7 ( { or } 28...Nc6 29.Ba2 $1 g6 30.Bc4 ) 29.e6 Rd5 30.g4 $1
{ . } ) 28.Qd2 $1 Qxa4 29.Qxd5 Nc6 (
{ Black's resistance has been broken: it was no better to play } 29...Qb5
30.Qxb5 axb5 31.Bxf5 $1 ) ( { or } 29...Re7 30.f4 Nb7 31.Bxf5 $1 Rxf5 32.Qxb7
$1 { . } ) 30.Bxf5 $1 { (an elegant finish) } 30...Qb5 ( { not } 30...Rxf5 $2
31.Qd8+ $1 ) ( { or } 30...Ne7 { (or ...Nb8) } 31.Qc5 $1 ) 31.Qd6 Qb8 32.Qxc6
Rxf5 33.e6 Re7 34.Rd7 Re8 35.Rb7 Qc8 36.Rc7 Qb8 ( { If } 36...Qd8 37.e7 Qb8
{ it is too early for } 38.Rc8 $2 ( { but after } 38.Qd7 $1
{ Black can resign } ) 38...Rxc8 39.e8=Q+ { (Dolmatov) on account of }
39...Rf8 $1 { . } ) 37.Qd7 Rg5 38.f4 Rg6 39.f5 Rg5 40.f6 $1
{ . --- A highly publishable game! } 1-0
[Event "67. USSR Team Championship, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1967.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Petrosian, T."]
[Black "Stein, L."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "E92"]
[EventDate "1967.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ In this tournament Stein began a sharp King's Indian 'discussion' withthe
world champion Petrosian, which was continued a couple of months later
inthe USSR Team Championship. Ultimately this led to the creation of afundamentally new system of counterplay in one of the sharpest openingvariations.
--- } 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 O-O 6.Nf3 e5 7.d5 (
{ In the modern variation } 7.O-O Nc6 8.d5 Ne7
{ it was fashionable inthose days to play } 9.Ne1 Nd7 10.f3 f5 11.g4 Nf6
12.Ng2 c6 $1
{ (Leonidfound the correct method - unexpected play on the flank where
White usuallyattacks!) } ( { with the idea of a squeeze after } 12...h5 $2
13.g5 Nh7 14.h4 ) ( { or } 12...f4 $6 13.h4 { , denying Black counterplay. }
( 13.-- ) ) 13.Rb1 cxd5 14.cxd5 Bd7 { , for example: } 15.Bd2 ( 15.Be3 f4
16.Bf2 g5 17.Qd3 h5 18.h3 hxg4 19.hxg4 Kf7 20.Nb5 Bxb5 21.Qxb5 Rh8 22.Rbc1
Qg8 23.Be1 Qh7 { withequality (Portisch-Stein, Erevan 1965) ; } ( 23...-- ) )
15...Rc8 16.a4 Qb6+ 17.Be3 Qb4 $1 18.g5 Nh5 19.Bb5 Bxb5 20.axb5 Nf4 $1 21.Qd2
( { it is better toplay } 21.Nxf4 exf4 22.Bxa7 fxe4 23.Nxe4 Rf5 24.Qe1 $1
Nxd5 25.Qxb4 Nxb4 26.h4 Ra8 27.Bf2 Nd3 28.Rfd1 Nxf2 29.Kxf2 Rxb5 30.Rxd6
Rxb2+ 31.Rxb2 Bxb2 32.Kg2 { with equality } ) 21...Nh3+ 22.Kh1 b6 23.Ra1 Qc4
24.Qd1 Qc7 25.Qa4 f4 26.Bd2 $2 (
{ Black also has the initiative after the better } 26.Bf2 Ra8 27.Bh4 h6 $1
28.gxh6 Bxh6 ) 26...Ra8 27.Na2 Nxg5 28.Nb4 Qd7 29.Rac1 $6 Nf7 30.Rc4 $6 g5
31.Rfc1 Ng6 32.Na6 Qh3 33.Qd1 g4 $1
{ ... 0-1 (A.Nikitin-Stein,Kislovodsk 1966). } ) 7...a5 $1
{ Developed by Stein and Geller. } ( 7...Nbd7 { - Game No.6; } ) ( 7...Na6
{ - Game No.9; } ) ( 7...h6 { - Game No.55 } ) 8.Bg5 h6 9.Bh4 Na6 10.Nd2 (
{ A little earlier, in the Moscow international tournament,two important
games were played where White began with } 10.O-O { : } 10...Qd7
{ (original, but even so ...Qe8! is more natural) } ( 10...g5 $6 11.Bg3 Nh5
12.Nd2 Nf4 13.Bg4 Nc5 14.f3 $6 ( 14.Bxc8 Rxc8 15.a3 c6 16.b4 axb4 17.axb4
Ncd3 18.Qb3 { offers a small plus - Dolmatov } ) 14...c6 $1 15.Qc2 cxd5
16.cxd5 b5 $1 { (again play over the entire board!) } 17.a4 ( 17.Nxb5 $2 Qb6
) 17...bxa4 $2 ( { the correct move is } 17...b4 $5 18.Nb5 Ne2+
{ and ...Nd4 withexcellent counterplay } ) 18.Nc4 h5 19.Bxc8 Rxc8 20.Nxa4 Qc7
21.Ne3 $1 Qa7 22.Bf2 $6 ( 22.Nxc5 Rxc5 23.Qd2 Rb8 24.Bf2 Qc7 25.g3
{ is safer } ) 22...Ncd3 23.Qd2 Nxf2 24.Rxf2 g4 $5 25.Nf5 $2 gxf3 26.Kh1 $2
Qxf2 $1 27.Qxf2 fxg2+ 28.Qxg2 Nxg2 29.Kxg2 Rc2+ 30.Kf3 Rb8 $1
{ ... 0-1 (Gligoric-Stein); } ) 11.Nd2 c5 12.a3 Ne8 13.f3 Bf6 14.Bf2 Bg5
15.Nb3 Qd8 16.Nc1 Bd7 17.Nd3 Rc8 $1 18.g3 f5 19.exf5 gxf5 20.f4 Bf6 21.Be3
Bg7 22.Qd2 e4 23.Nf2 Nf6 24.h3 Qe8
{ with equality (Petrosian-Stein). --- This was the first occasion on
whichBlack was to demonstrate a deep idea, exploiting the drawbacks of the
bishop'sposition at h4. This plan was destined to have a long life, and in the end itreduced the popularity of the Petrosian Variation. }
) 10...Qe8 $1 11.O-O Bd7 12.b3 { An almost obligatory inclusion; } ( { if }
12.a3 Nh7 13.Rb1 { , then } 13...a4 $1 { is good. } ) (
{ Later there also occurred } 12.Kh1 Nh7 13.a3 h5 $1 14.f3 Bf6 $5 (
{ instead of the usual } 14...Bh6 ) 15.Bf2 $5 ( { or } 15.Bxf6 Nxf6 16.b3 Qe7
17.Qe1 Kg7 { with equality (Gulko-Kasparov, Novgorod 1995) } ) 15...h4 16.b3
Bg5 17.Rb1 Qe7 18.b4 axb4 19.axb4 Nf6 $1
{ (planning ...Nh5, ...Bf4, ...Qg5and a possible ...Ng3+) } 20.c5 dxc5 $1
21.Bxa6 cxb4 22.Bxb7 bxc3 $1 23.Bxa8 cxd2
{ and the strong pawn promises Black quite good counter-chances
(Golod-Mittelman, Beersheba 1998). } ) 12...Nh7 $1 13.f3 ( 13.Rb1
{ is not verysuccessful after } 13...h5 $1 { (threatening ...g6-g5) } 14.h3
Bh6 15.a3 Nc5 $1 16.b4 axb4 17.axb4 Na4 18.Nxa4 Rxa4 19.Qc2 b6
{ with equality (Bukic-Geller,Budva 1967); } ) ( { while if } 13.a3
{ there can follow } 13...f5 14.exf5 gxf5 $5 ( 14...Bxf5
{ has also been played with some success } ) 15.Bh5 Qc8 16.Be7 Re8 $1 17.Bxe8
Qxe8 18.Bh4 e4
{ with sufficient compensation for the exchange (Yusupov-Kasparov,
Barcelona 1989). } ) 13...h5 $1
{ (in order to get rid of thebad bishop by ...Bh6) } 14.Bf2 (
{ In the 1980s a different idea came to theforefront: } 14.a3 Bh6 15.Kh1 $5
Be3 16.Rb1 { with the idea of } ( { and thenalso } 16.Qc2 f5 17.exf5 gxf5
18.Bf2 $5 Bxf2 19.Rxf2 Nf6 20.Rg1 Kh8 21.Qb2 Nc5
{ (Kramnik-Gelfand, Linares 1994) } ( { or } 21...c5
{ (Kramnik-Bologan,Germany 1994) with double-edged play. } ) ) 16...Nc5 $6 (
{ but } 16...f5 ) ( { or } 16...Bc5 { is better } ) 17.Qc2 f5 18.b4 { . } )
14...Bh6 15.a3 Qe7 $1 { (withthe threat of ...Qg5 and ...Bh3) } 16.Qc2 h4
17.Rfd1 f5 ( 17...Bf4 $5 ) 18.Rab1 Qg5 ( { Here too } 18...Bf4 $5
{ is interesting. } ) 19.b4 axb4 20.axb4 Nf6 21.f4 $1
{ Sensing the danger and very well aware of his opponent's
attackingcapabilities, Petrosian forces a draw. } (
{ However, he could have launched intoa maelstrom of complications with }
21.c5 $5 h3 22.g3 f4 23.c6 bxc6 24.dxc6 Be6 25.b5 Nc5 26.Nc4
{ , for example: } 26...fxg3 27.hxg3 h2+ 28.Kh1 Nh5 29.Kxh2 Nf4 30.Bf1
{ etc. } ) 21...Qxf4 ( { not } 21...exf4 $6 22.Nf3 Qh5 23.Nxh4 Ng4 24.b5 Nc5
25.e5 $1 ) 22.g3 hxg3 23.hxg3 Qg5 24.Nf3 Qh5 25.Nxe5 Qh3 26.Bf1 ( { not }
26.Nxg6 $2 Be3 $1 ) 26...Qh5 27.Be2 ( { Avoiding the risky } 27.Nxd7 Nxd7
28.exf5 gxf5 29.Qe2 Qg5 30.Qe6+ Rf7 31.c5 Nf8 { . } ) 27...Qh3 28.Bf1 Qh5
{ . --- A very important contribution to the theory of the
'UkrainianVariation'. --- 'His recent successes,' wrote Alexander Kotov in
thesummer of 1967, 'have brought Leonid Stein to the very pedestal of the chessthrone. Many believe that in two year's time it is the
grandmaster from Lvovwho will be playing against Tigran Petrosian.' --- But no, on this occasiontoo he did not overcome the Interzonal barrier, although he was one of thefavourites for the tournament (Sousse, autumn 1967). His play differed clearlyfrom that which he
had displayed in Moscow. It would appear that the old'Stockholm-Amsterdam syndrome' made itself felt: constraint, anxiety...Leonid was so out of sorts that he lost to almost all his immediate rivals -Fischer (this zero, fortunately, was annulled), Larsen, Hort, Portisch andeven Gligoric, against whom he previously had a 7-0 score! Nevertheless, heshared 6th-8th places and was leading in the additional three-manmatch-tournament for sixth place (Los Angeles, February 1968), but he lost atthe finish to Hort, and things again ended in
a tie: 1-3. Hort, Reshevsky andStein - 4 out of 8. Through having the best Berger coefficient in theInterzonal tournament, the 56-year-old Reshevsky was declared the Candidate.--- Such chronic failures are capable of breaking anyone. After hissensational successes in the mid-1960s, Stein experienced a slump: his nervoussystem was unable to withstand the excessively cruel experiences of fate. Inthe next cycle he failed for the first time to qualify for the Interzonaltournament, finishing sixth in the very strong, Zonal 37th USSR Championship (1969). Although at times he was his former brilliant self - for example, inthe following game, where he refuted his opponent's dubious strategyirreproachably and with consummate elegance. }
1/2-1/2
[Event "68. 37th USSR Championship, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1969.??.??"]
[Round "18"]
[White "Stein, L."]
[Black "Furman, S."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "B43"]
[EventDate "1969.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Nc3 Qc7 (
{ Nowadays it is knownthat in the plan with an early ...b7-b5 Black should
not waste a tempo on ...Qc7 and that it is better to play } 5...b5
{ immediately, for example: } 6.Bd3 ( { or } 6.g3 Bb7 7.Bg2 b4 8.Na4 Nf6
{ with a double-edged game, Adams-Kasparov,Tilburg 1997 } ) 6...Qb6 $1
{ (an idea of the 1970s - to drive the d4-knightfrom the centre) } 7.Nb3 (
{ and so White began trying his luck with } 7.Be3 Bc5 8.Be2 ) ( { or } 7.Nf3
) 7...Qc7 8.O-O Bb7 { with a comfortable game for Black. } ) 6.g3 ( 6.Be2 )
( { or } 6.Bd3 { is another topic. } ) 6...b5 $2
{ It was thepresent game that showed that now this is bad, since after
...b5-b4 Whitealways has the reply Nd5! with a powerful attack. } (
{ It is safer to play } 6...Nf6 7.Bg2 { and here } 7...Nc6 (
{ or the transposition into a Scheveningen by } 7...Be7 8.O-O O-O 9.Be3 d6
{ - 'But this was well known to Stein, since it hadoccurred several times
in his games.' (Gufeld, Lazarev) } ) 8.O-O Nxd4 9.Qxd4 Bc5 10.Bf4 d6
{ (Fischer-Taimanov, 4th matchgame, Vancouver 1971 - we willanalyse this
classic game in Volume 4). } ) 7.Bg2 Bb7 8.O-O
{ Strangely enough,it is already hard to offer Black any good advice. }
8...Nf6 ( { After } 8...b4 { both the sharp } 9.Nd5 $5 ( { and the quiet }
9.Na4 Nf6 10.Re1 $1 Be7 11.c3 ) 9...exd5 10.exd5
{ are unpleasant for Black. } ) ( { And if Black plays } 8...Bc5 { then }
9.Be3 { is strong, to meet } 9...Nf6 $2 { by } 10.Ndxb5 $1 axb5 11.Nxb5 Qb6
12.Bxc5 Qxb5 13.Qd6 Nc6 14.b4 { ; } ) ( { while } 8...d6 9.Re1 $1 Be7
{ is badon account of the continuation } 10.a4 bxa4 11.Qh5 $1 g6 12.Qe2 Nc6
13.Rxa4 Nxd4 14.Rxd4 Rc8 15.Bd2 Nf6 16.Bh6 Qb6 17.Rd3
{ (Nunn-Sigurjonsson, London1975). } ) (
{ Finally, it is dangerous to play } 8...Nc6 9.Re1 Bc5 ( { or } 9...d6 $6
10.Nd5 $1 ) ( { and even after the resourceful } 9...Ne5 10.f4 Nc4 11.b3 Bb4
{ there can follow } 12.Nd5 $5 ) 10.Nb3 Bb6 11.a4 b4 12.Nd5 $1
{ . As we see,in many variations White's attack relies on the gambit
mechanism Re1 and Nd5!,which has long since become a well-known technique.
But at that time it was anovelty and Stein was one of the bold pioneers. } )
9.Re1 $1
{ Illuminating byX-ray the black king, which is caught in the centre. }
9...d6 ( { It is amusing that } 9...Nc6
{ would have led to a position from the ancient gameBlackburne-Paulsen
(Nürnberg 1883), which continued } 10.Bg5 $6 (
{ of course,in our day any club player would unhesitatingly play } 10.Nd5 $1
{ withouthesitation } ) 10...Nxd4 11.Qxd4 Bc5 12.Qd2 Ng4
{ with roughly equal chances. } ) 10.a4 $1 b4 ( { If } 10...bxa4
{ there can again follow } 11.Nd5 $1 exd5 12.exd5+ Kd8 13.Bg5 Qc5 14.c4 Nd7
15.Nc6+ { (Keitlinghaus-Kempinski, Pardubice1994). } ) 11.Nd5 $1 exd5 (
{ 'Furman too does not stop halfway, since therefusal of the sacrifice - }
11...Nxd5 12.exd5 e5
{ - would have allowed Whiteto gain a significant positional advantage
without risk by } 13.a5 $1 { .' (Gufeld, Lazarev) } ) 12.exd5+ Kd8 13.Bg5 Nd7
( { The kingside reserves cannotcome into play for the moment - } 13...Be7
14.Nf5 Re8 15.Nxg7 Rg8 16.Qd4 $1 { (Milic). } ) (
{ And it is no better to play } 13...Bc8 14.Bxf6+ gxf6 15.Qh5 $1 Ra7 16.Re4
Bg7 17.Rae1
{ with a decisive attack (Quinones-Higashi, SiegenOlympiad 1970). } ) 14.Qe2
( { It is also difficult for Black to hold out after } 14.Nc6+ $5 Bxc6 (
14...Kc8 15.Bxf6 ) 15.dxc6 Nc5 16.Bxf6+ gxf6 17.Qd4 Bg7 18.Qxb4 { . } )
14...Kc8 ( { It is hopeless to play } 14...Qb6 15.c3 $1 Ne5 16.a5 Qc5 17.Nc6+
$1 Kc8 18.Be3 Qb5 19.Bh3+ Nfd7 20.Bxd7+ Kxd7 21.Nxe5+ Kc8 22.c4
{ 1-0 (Smirin-Gelfand, Sverdlovsk 1987). } ) 15.c3 $1 (
{ White does notachieve his aim with } 15.Qe8+ $6 Qd8 ( { not } 15...Nxe8 $2
16.Rxe8+ Qd8 17.Bxd8 ) 16.Bxf6 Nxf6 $5 ( { or } 16...gxf6 17.Qxf7 Ne5 18.Qe6+
Kb8 19.Nc6+ Bxc6 20.dxc6 Ra7 { with equality } ) 17.Qxf7
{ , andalthough, according to Gufeld and Lazarev, 'Black's position is
unenviable,'he has nothing to fear after } ( 17.Bh3+ Kc7 18.Qxf7+ Kb8 )
17...Qd7 $1 { . } ) 15...b3 ( { Also after } 15...h6 16.Bxf6 Nxf6 17.cxb4
{ White's attack can hardly be parried. } ) 16.Nc6 $1 { Thematic; } (
{ although with the pawn on b3 White could now also have won by } 16.Qe8+ $1
Qd8 17.Qxf7 Ne5 ( 17...h6 18.Nc6 $1 ) 18.Rxe5 $1 dxe5 19.Bh3+ Kb8 20.Nc6+
Bxc6 21.dxc6 Qb6 ( { or } 21...Ra7 22.Qxb3+ Ka8 23.Rd1 $1 ) 22.Bxf6 gxf6
23.Qxf6 Rg8 24.Rd1 { . } ) 16...Bxc6 17.dxc6 Ne5 18.Ra3 $1 d5 ( { If }
18...Qb6 { , then } 19.c7 $1 { . } ) ( 18...Nxc6 $2 19.Bxf6 gxf6 20.Qe8+ ) (
{ Instead of this, Gufeld and Lazarev give } 18...Be7 19.Rxb3 Nxc6 20.-- (
20.Bxc6 $2 Qxc6 21.Qxe7 Re8 $1 ) ( 20.Qf3 d5 { (? - G.K.) } (
{ in fact, it is moretenacious to play } 20...Rb8 21.Qxc6 Rxb3 22.Qxc7+ Kxc7
23.Rxe7+ Kb8 24.Rxf7 Rxb2 25.Rxg7 Rb1+ 26.Bf1 Ne4 { with chances of a draw }
) 21.Bxf6 gxf6 ( 21...Bxf6 22.Bh3+ $1 ) 22.Qxd5 { and wins } ) (
{ But on the other hand, Whitehas the very strong } 20.a5 $3 d5 ( 20...Ra7
21.Be3 $1 ) 21.Rb6 Ra7 22.Bh3+ { , winning. } ) ) 19.Rxb3
{ Stein's conduct of the further conversion stage cannotbe praised too
highly. } 19...Bd6 20.Bxf6 gxf6 21.Bxd5 Nxc6 22.Qg4+ $1 (
{ Therewas a more complicated way to win, involving a queen sacrifice: }
22.Bg2 Ra7 23.Bh3+ Kd8 24.Qf3 Be7 25.Rd1+ Ke8 26.Qxc6+ $1 Qxc6 27.Rb8+ Bd8
28.Rbxd8+ Ke7 29.Rxh8 Qxa4 30.Re1+ { etc. } ) 22...Qd7 ( 22...Kd8 $2 23.Qf3 )
23.Qxd7+ $1 ( { This is simpler than } 23.Qc4 Kc7 24.Rd1 { and a4-a5. } )
23...Kxd7 24.Rb7+ Bc7 25.Bg2 $1 { With the murderous threat of Rd1+. }
25...Rad8 ( { But not } 25...Rhd8 26.Rd1+ Kc8 27.Rxd8+ Kxd8 ( 27...Kxb7 $2
28.Bxc6+ $1 ) 28.Bxc6 { etc. } ) 26.Bh3+ $1 ( { Now if } 26.Rd1+ $2
{ there was the reply } 26...Kc8 27.Rxd8+ Nxd8
{ , enabling Black to set up a defence - } 28.Ra7 a5 29.b4 Re8 { . } )
26...Kd6 ( 26...f5 27.Bxf5+ Kd6 28.Rd1+ Ke5 ( { or } 28...Kc5 29.Bd3 $1 )
29.Bd7 $1 { etc. } ) 27.Rd1+ Kc5 28.b4+ Kc4 29.Bf1+ ( { or } 29.Rb1 $1 Be5
30.Bf1+ ) 29...Kb3 ( 29...Kxc3 30.Rc1+ ) 30.Rxc7 ( 30.Rb1+ $6 Ka2 31.Rxc7
{ was inaccurate,since after the unexpected } 31...Ne5 $3 32.f4 $1 ( 32.Rc1
Kb2 ) 32...Kxb1 33.fxe5 fxe5 34.Bxa6 Kc2 35.a5 e4
{ the situation would have become sharper. } ) 30...Rxd1 31.Rxc6 Kxa4 (
{ Perhaps } 31...Rhd8 32.Rxa6 Kxc3 { offered more chances,although after }
33.b5 f5 ( { or } 33...Ra1 34.Kg2 Kb4 35.Rxf6 Rd7 36.Rh6 ) 34.Kg2 Kb4 35.Rf6
R8d7 36.b6 Kxa4 37.Ba6 Rc1 38.Rxf5 Rb1 39.b7
{ White wouldhave won all the same. } ) 32.Kg2 $1 ( { 'After } 32.Rxa6+ Kb3
{ there would stillhave been some technical difficulties, for example: }
33.Rxf6 ( { therefore itis correct to play } 33.Rc6 $1 Re8 34.Kg2 Ree1 35.Ba6
{ etc } ) 33...Kxc3 34.b5 Re8 35.Kg2 Ree1 $1
{ and the bishop is trapped!' (Gufeld, Lazarev) } ) 32...a5 { (desperation) }
( 32...Rhd8 33.Rxa6+ Kb3 34.Rxf6 ) 33.bxa5 Rhd8 ( 33...Kxa5 $2 34.Ra6# )
34.Rxf6 R8d7 35.a6 Rc1 36.Bd3 $1 Rxc3 ( 36...Rxd3 37.a7 $1 ) 37.Bxh7 Kb5
38.Be4 Ra3 39.Bb7 Kc5 40.h4 Kd4 41.Rf5 Re7 42.h5 Re5 43.Rf4+ Kc5 44.h6
{ . --- That same evening Leonid met the young Karpov, wholater recalled:
'My teacher Semion Furman introduced me to the famousgrandmaster, when they
were analysing their game. I watched with interest howthey approached the position in their different ways: Furman endeavoured togive generalising
evaluations, while Stein "fired out" a machine-gun-likestream of variations... He had a fantastic talent!' }
1-0
[Event "Belgrade"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1970.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Larsen, B."]
[Black "Stein, L."]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "E67"]
[EventDate "1970.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ At the end of 1969 Stein made the best score (+4=4) on board 1 in the
USSRTeam Championship, winning a memorable game against Yuri Nikitin with a
purelypositional sacrifice of the queen for a rook and the 'King's Indian'bishop. And in the spring of 1970 he almost created another masterpiece
in hisfavourite King's Indian Defence, playing Black against Larsen in the 4th roundof the 'Match of the Century' in Belgrade: --- }
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 g6 3.Bg2 Bg7 4.c4 O-O 5.O-O d6 6.d4 Nbd7 7.Nc3 e5 8.e4 exd4
9.Nxd4 Re8 10.Re1 $6 Ng4 $1 11.f3 $6 Nge5 12.b3 Nc5 13.Be3 f5 $1 14.Qd2 (
14.exf5 $2 Ned3 $1 ) 14...fxe4 $1 15.Bg5 Qd7 $1 16.Nxe4 Nxe4 17.Rxe4 -- (
{ Here, instead of the } 17...Nc6 $2 { that occurred in the game; } ) (
{ there was a simple win by } 17...Nf7 $1 { (Murey), for example: } 18.Rxe8+
( 18.Rae1 Bxd4+ ) ( 18.Bf4 Rxe4 19.fxe4 c5 ) ( { or } 18.Bh3 Rxe4 $1 19.Bxd7
Rxd4 20.Qb4 Bxd7 21.Qxb7 Re8 22.Qxc7 Bh3 ) 18...Qxe8 19.Be3 c5
{ etc. A typical lapse of the nervous system! } ) *
[Event "69. 39th USSR Championship, Leningrad"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1971.??.??"]
[Round "20"]
[White "Stein, L."]
[Black "Tal, M."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "E06"]
[EventDate "1971.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ In that same year, 1970, Stein shared 2nd-3rd places in a
stronginternational tournament in Caracas (where, incidentally, Karpov
achieved thegrandmaster norm) and finished third in the 38th USSR Championship (+8-1=12).In the next national championship he again
scored eight wins, but on accountof five zeroes only shared 5th-6th places. And yet he contrived to win the twogames - against Polugayevsky and Tal - that were judged the best in theentire tournament! --- These wins reflected the evolution of his style, whichwith
the years, like that of Tal, became increasingly solid, positional andtechnical, while retaining its sharp tactical content. Stein liked tofianchetto not only his f8-bishop, but also its opposite number at f1, andwith White he increasingly often played closed games - the King's IndianAttack, English or Catalan. In this way he brilliantly defeated, for example,Novopashin, Klovans (31st USSR Championship, Leningrad 1963) and Filip (Moscow1967), and now also Polugayevsky and Tal. Both games, as the magazineShakhmaty v SSSR
wrote, are noteworthy for their power of logic, ironconsistency in the implementation of strategic plans, and accuracy inconverting an advantage. Here is one of them. --- }
1.c4 Nf6 2.g3 e6 3.Bg2 d5 4.Nf3 Be7 5.O-O O-O 6.d4 c6 7.Qc2 b6 8.Rd1 Bb7 (
{ Modern praxis givespreference to variations with an attack on the c4-pawn
- } 8...Nbd7 9.b3 Ba6 ) ( { or } 8...Ba6 9.Ne5 Nfd7 { . } ) 9.Nc3 Nbd7 (
9...Na6 10.a3 Qc8 { has alsobeen played. } ) 10.b3 Rc8 (
{ Perhaps the immediate } 10...c5 $5 { is better. } ) (
{ Black fails to solve his problems with } 10...Qc8 11.Bb2 b5 12.c5 $1
{ (Smejkal-Hübner, Biel Interzonal 1976) } ) ( { or } 10...b5 11.c5 $1 { . }
( { but not } 11.cxb5 cxb5 12.Nxb5 Qa5 13.a4 Rfc8 $1 ( 13...Ne4 $6 14.Nd2 $1
{ Korchnoi-Spassky, Moscow 1971 } ) 14.Qa2 Ba6 15.Bd2 Qb6
{ with counterplay forthe pawn (Espig-Spassky, Tallinn 1975). } ) ) 11.e4 $1
c5 ( { The exchange on e4is considered to be favourable for White: -- 1) }
11...Nxe4 12.Nxe4 dxe4 13.Qxe4 b5 ( 13...Nf6 14.Qe2 ( { or } 14.Qc2 ) ) (
13...Qc7 14.Bf4 $1 Bd6 15.Bxd6 Qxd6 16.c5 $1 Qc7 17.b4
{ , Stein-Liberzon, 38th USSR Championship, Riga 1970 } ) 14.Bf4 bxc4 15.bxc4
Qa5 16.Qc2 $1 Ba8 ( 16...c5 $2 17.Ng5 $1 ) 17.c5 $1
{ (Salov-Spassky, France 1994). } ) ( { 2) } 11...dxe4 12.Ng5 $1 c5 $6 (
12...h6 13.Ngxe4 Nxe4 14.Nxe4 Nf6 15.c5 $1 { Belyavsky-Mitkov, Panormo 2001 }
) 13.dxc5 Bxc5 14.Bxe4 $3 { , and if } 14...Nxe4 ( { or } 14...Qc7 15.Bxh7+
{ ,Voitkevich-Ziyatdinov, Philadelphia 1998 } ) 15.Ncxe4 Bxe4 16.Qxe4 g6
{ Whitewins by } 17.Qh4 h5 18.g4 $1 Qf6 ( 18...Qe7 19.gxh5 Ne5 20.Kf1 $1 Nc6
21.Be3 { etc. } ) 19.gxh5 $1 Qxa1 20.hxg6 Bxf2+ 21.Qxf2 fxg6 22.Qd2 $1
{ with thethreats of Qxd7 and Bb2. } ) 12.exd5 exd5
{ An important opening divergence. } 13.dxc5 (
{ Soon afterwards against Lengyel (Moscow 1971) Stein improved White'splay
with } 13.Bb2 $1 Re8 $1
{ , but after this flexible move, White has theunpleasant } ( 13...Qc7
14.Nxd5 Nxd5 15.cxd5 Bxd5 16.dxc5 Bxf3 $4 17.Bxf3 Nxc5 18.Qf5 $1 Rfd8 $2
19.Be5 $1 { 1-0. } ) ( { it also insufficient to play } 13...a6 14.cxd5 $1
{ (Polugayevsky-Reshevsky, Lone Pine 1978) } ) ( { or } 13...dxc4 $6 14.d5 $1
{ - a recommendation of Polugayevsky, about which Black didnot know in the
game Kasparov-Kamsky (New York rapidplay 1989): } 14...Ne8 15.Nb5 a6 16.Na7
Rc7 17.Nc6 { , winning. } ( 17.-- ) ) 14.Nh4 ( 14.Ng5 $5 h6 15.Nh3 cxd4
16.Rxd4 Ne5 $1 { V.Mikhalevsky-Bigaliev, Berlin 1997 } ) 14...cxd4 15.Rxd4
Bc5 16.Rd2 { with the intention of Nf5. } ) 13...dxc4 ( 13...Nxc5 $2 14.Ng5
$1 ) 14.b4 $1
{ 'A clever pawn sacrifice of a purely positional nature. '
(Gufeld,Lazarev). } 14...bxc5 $6
{ It would appear that the 'Riga magician' became carriedaway by the
calculation of a grandiose combination (cf. the following note). } (
{ Otherwise he would have preferred the relieving } 14...a5
{ (Korchnoi), forexample: } 15.bxa5 ( 15.a3 axb4 $1 ( { simpler than }
15...bxc5 16.b5 Qb6 ) 16.axb4 bxc5 17.b5 Ra8 { with equality (Tal) } )
15...bxa5 $1 ( { not } 15...bxc5 $6 16.Ne5 Bxg2 17.Kxg2 Qc7 18.Nxc4
{ ... 1-0 Tal-Wedberg, New York 1990 } ) 16.Na4 { (recommended by Tal) }
16...Bd5 ( { or } 16...Qe8 { with a good game. } ) ) 15.b5 Qb6 $2
{ A fatal waste of a tempo. } (
{ Tal spent a very long time calculating apretty queen sacrifice - }
15...Bxf3 16.Bxf3 Ne5 $6 17.Rxd8 Nxf3+ 18.Kh1 ( 18.Kg2 $4 Ne1+ $1 )
18...Rcxd8 19.Qe2 $1 Rd3 20.Qxe7 Re8 21.Qxc5 ( 21.Qxa7 $4 Re1+ 22.Kg2 Rg1+
23.Kh3 g5 $1 { and wins } ) 21...Re5
{ . In post-gameanalysis Tal regretted that he hadn't gone in for this
continuation, but Steinasserted that here too he would have had winning
chances. The machine quicklyresolves the dispute in White's favour: } 22.Qc8+
$1 ( 22.Qxc4 $6 Re1+ 23.Kg2 Rg1+ 24.Kh3 g5 { etc } ) 22...Re8 23.Qf5 $1 Re5
( 23...Rxc3 24.Bb2 Rd3 25.Bxf6 gxf6 26.Qg4+ { and Qxc4 } ) 24.Qf4 $1 Re1+ (
24...Rxc3 25.Be3 $1 { ; } ) ( 24...g5 25.Qxf6 Re1+ 26.Kg2 g4 27.Bh6 $1 )
25.Kg2 Rg1+ ( 25...Rxc3 26.Bb2 ) 26.Kh3 Nd7 ( 26...h6 27.Ne4 ) 27.Bb2
{ and wins. } ) (
{ Alas, that is the fateof many of Tal's combinations in the computer era -
everything in its owntime! But, in rejecting the tempting sacrifice, Black
also missed thestrongest defence - } 15...Qa5 $1 16.Bd2
{ , when it was possible to play } ( { with the idea of } 16.Nd2 $6 Bxg2
17.Kxg2 Nb6 ) ( { or } 16.a4 Bxf3 17.Bxf3 Ne5 { and ...Nd3 with equality. }
( 17...-- ) ) 16...Qa3 ( { or even } 16...Bxf3 17.Bxf3 Ne5
{ with quite good prospects of equalising. } ) ) 16.Bf4 Rfd8 17.a4 $1 (
17.Qe2 Qe6 $1 { (Fridman-Gabriel, Dresden 1994) } ) 17...Qa5 $6 ( { After }
17...Nf8 { , the preparatory } 18.Re1 $1 { is good; } ( { instead of } 18.a5
$6 Rxd1+ 19.Qxd1 Qd8 { with equality (Liebert-Neikirch, Potsdam 1974). } ) )
( { And White alsohas a clear advantage in the event of } 17...a5 18.Qe2 $1
{ - } 18...Qe6 ( { or } 18...Re8 19.Qxc4 h6 20.Ra2 Nf8 21.Ne5 { etc } )
19.Re1 $1 Qxe2 20.Rxe2 Re8 21.Rae1 Bf8 22.Ne5 Bxg2 23.Nxd7 { . } ) 18.Nd2 $1
{ A 'little combination' in thestyle of Capablanca. } 18...Bxg2 19.Nxc4 Qb4
20.Na2 $1 Be4 21.Nxb4
{ ApparentlyTal had overlooked that the white knight defends the queen in
his preliminarycalculations. Now Black has a very difficult endgame with
minimal chances of adraw. } 21...Bxc2 22.Nxc2 Nb6 23.Rxd8+ Bxd8 ( { If }
23...Rxd8 { , then } 24.Ne5 ( { or } 24.Nxb6 axb6 25.Bc7 { . } ) ) 24.N2e3
Nxc4 25.Nxc4 Nd5 26.Rd1 Nb6 $6 (
{ It is doubtful whether Black would have been saved by the more tenacious
} 26...Nxf4 27.gxf4 Bc7 ( { or } 27...Kf8 { (Korchnoi) } 28.Rd5 Ke7 29.Kg2
{ and a4-a5 } ) 28.a5 Kf8 ( 28...Bxf4 $6 29.Rd7 Bc7 30.b6 $1 axb6 31.a6 $1
Bd8 32.a7 Ra8 33.Ne5 { and wins } ) 29.f5 Ke7 30.Rd5
{ and Kg2 followed by a breakthrough onthe queenside. } ) 27.Nd6 Ra8 28.a5
Na4 29.Nc4 $1 Nc3 30.Re1 Bxa5 ( 30...Bf6 31.b6 $1 ) 31.Nxa5 Nxb5 32.Re5 Nd4
33.Rxc5 { . --- A very clean win. } 1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Copying Stein"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "A00"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ Talking of Stein's liking for set-ups with Bg2, I recall in my youth how
Icopied from him for blitz play the amusing variation } 1.g3 d5 2.Bg2 Nf6 (
{ During my preparations for the 1979 USSR Team Championship I played
numerousblitz games with Bagirov and, after once finding himself in the
above set-up,he switched to } 2...c6 3.d3 Bg4
{ . All the same I tried playing } 4.h3 Bh5 5.g4 Bg6 6.f4 e6 7.e4
{ , but with the knight at g8 there is the reply } 7...dxe4 8.dxe4 Qxd1+
9.Kxd1 f5 $1 { . } ) 3.d3 c6 4.Nd2 Bg4 ( { After } 4...e5
{ I employedthe unusual arrangement } 5.e4 Bd6 6.Ne2 O-O 7.O-O
{ , then h2-h3 and f2-f4. } ) 5.h3 Bh5 (
{ At the tournament in Tallinn 1969, Böök played } 5...Bf5
{ againstStein, received the reply } 6.e4 { and was soon hopelessly placed. }
) 6.g4 ( { And now not } 6.Ngf3 Nbd7 7.O-O e5 8.e4 Bd6
{ with equality (Azmaiparashvili-Shirov, Dubai rapidplay 2002). } ) 6...Bg6
7.f4 e6 8.e4
{ , seizing the initiative thanks to the isolation of the g6-bishop. For
blitznothing more was required: it brought good results. } *
[Event "70. Alekhine Memorial, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1971.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Spassky, B."]
[Black "Stein, L."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "D87"]
[EventDate "1971.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ In the autumn of 1971 FIDE took the important decision to stage not one,
buttwo Interzonal tournaments and to personally invite the eight top
grandmastersat that time to participate (the composition of this eight was decided by acommission specially created for this purpose). Stein acquired
a real chanceof avoiding suffering again in the Zonal USSR Championship: he merely had toconfirm his high class. And he did not have to wait long for an opportunity.--- A super-tournament, similar to the tournament of 1967 - the AlekhineMemorial (Moscow, November-December 1971) became the
start of a new surge.Five rounds before the end Stein was confidently leading the race with 8˝ outof 12, a point ahead of Bronstein, Petrosian and Smyslov, 1˝ ahead of Karpov,Tal and Tukmakov, 2 ahead of Korchnoi, and 2˝ ahead of world champion Spassky.The latter was naturally eager to make up lost ground, and in the 13th roundhe engaged the leader in a decisive battle. --- }
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4 c5 (
{ not repeating } 7...O-O 8.Ne2 Nc6 { - Game No.61 } ) 8.Ne2 O-O 9.O-O Nc6
10.Be3 Qc7 11.Rc1 Rd8 12.h3 b6 13.f4 e6 14.Qe1 Na5 15.Bd3 f5 $1 16.g4 $1 Bb7
$5 ( { The famous gameSpassky-Fischer, played the previous year, went }
16...fxe4 17.Bxe4 Bb7 18.Ng3 { (Game No.79). } ) 17.Ng3 Qd7
{ The point of Black's novelty; } ( 17...fxe4 18.Bxe4
{ would have transposed. } ) ( { He could also have considered } 17...cxd4 $5
18.Bxd4 ( { or } 18.cxd4 Qe7 ) 18...Bxd4+ 19.cxd4 Qg7 { . } ) 18.gxf5 (
{ The source game Scheichel-Adorjan (Hungary 1971) went } 18.Rd1 $2 cxd4
19.Bb1 Nc4 ( 19...Ba6 $5 ) 20.Bxd4 e5 $1 21.fxe5 fxg4
{ with advantage to Black. } ) 18...cxd4 ( 18...exf5
{ is more accurate, for example: } 19.exf5 ( 19.Kh2 $6 fxe4 20.Nxe4 $2 Re8 )
19...cxd4 20.Bxd4 ( 20.cxd4 $2 Re8 ) 20...Bxd4+ 21.cxd4 Qxd4+ 22.Kh2 Re8
{ and Black's advantage is obvious.' (Kondratiev). In myopinion, this is an
optical illusion. As long as the black knight at a5 is outof play, White
retains somewhat the better chances: } 23.Be2 $1 Qd5 $6 24.Qf2 gxf5 25.Bh5 $1
Red8 26.Rg1 Kf8 27.Rcd1 { etc. } ) 19.fxe6 Qxe6 20.f5 $1
{ Thus, White has burned his boats - his centre has been destroyed and he
canonly rely on the strength of his attack. } 20...Qe7 { 'A turning point. }
( { 'Blackshould have played } 20...gxf5 21.cxd4 $5
{ (in reserve, White has this otherattempt to exploit his numerical
superiority on the kingside) } ( 21.Bg5 $6 dxc3 $1 22.Bxd8 Rxd8 { is weaker }
) ( 21.Bxd4 fxe4 $1 { is better, for example: or } ( 21...Bxd4+ 22.cxd4 Rxd4
23.Qc3 $1 { is an improvement, however: It is also insufficient to play } (
{ 'when } 23.Qe3 Rad8 24.Nxf5 Qg6+ 25.Kf2 Rxd3 26.Ne7+ Kg7
{ is to his advantage.' (Kondratiev). } 27.-- ( 27.-- ) ) 23...Rxd3 (
23...Qg6 24.Kh2 Qd6 25.Rxf5 h6 26.e5 $1 Qc6 ( 26...Qb4 27.Qc7 Qd2+ 28.Ne2 )
( 26...Qd8 27.Rd1 Rc8 28.Qd2 $1 ) 27.Qb2 Qg2+ 28.Qxg2 Bxg2 29.Nh5 $1 Rxd3
30.Rc7 $1 { , when Black is lost } ) 24.Qxd3 fxe4 25.Qe2 Qxh3 ( { or }
25...Qe5 26.Kh2 Kh8 27.Rf5 ) 26.Nxe4 Bxe4 27.Qxe4 Qg3+ 28.Qg2 { . } ) 22.Nf5
( 22.Bxe4 Bxe4 23.Nxe4 Qxh3 24.Bxg7 Qg4+ $1 ( 24...Kxg7 $6 25.Rc2 $1 ) 25.Kf2
( { or } 25.Kh2 Qh5+ 26.Kg2 Kxg7 { with equality } ) 25...Qh4+ 26.Ng3 Kxg7
{ with equality } ) 22...Bxd4+ 23.cxd4 Kh8 $1 24.Rc7 Rg8+ 25.Kh2 Rg6
{ withunclear play - } 26.Qh4 h6 27.Be2 Rag8 28.Bg4 e3 $1 { . } ) 21...fxe4
22.Be2 { . } ) ( { In addition, Black could have considered } 20...Qd6 $5
{ (Kotov) } 21.cxd4 ( 21.Bg5 dxc3 $5 ) 21...Bxd4 22.Rd1 Bxe3+ 23.Qxe3 Qd4
{ with chances ofequalising. But, as we will see, the move in the game is
also not so bad. } ) 21.cxd4 Rxd4 $2
{ This is the real turning point! It transpires that with hisprevious move
Stein was intending his favourite idea - the exchange sacrificefor
domination of the dark squares. } (
{ Kondratiev considered it to be forced,'since } 21...Bxd4 22.Bxd4 Rxd4
23.Qe3
{ (Kotov) is a more cunning idea: However, Blackis saved by the same
immediate centralisation - } ( 23.f6
{ is unsatisfactory for Black.' But in fact after } 23...Qe5 $1 24.Qe3 Rd7 $1
25.Be2 Rf7 { he has a perfectly defensible position. } ( 25...-- ) ) 23...Qe5
$1 ( { and if } 23...Rad8 $2 { , then } 24.f6 $1 { with a terrible attack: }
24...Qf7 { is better, but heretoo Black's position is unenviable after } (
24...Qe5 $2 25.f7+ $1 Kg7 26.Rc7 Rf8 27.Rf5 $1
{ (the start of a series of thunderous blows) } 27...Qd6 28.Nh5+ $1 gxh5 (
{ or } 28...Kh8 29.Rd7 $1 Rxd3 30.Rxd6 Rxe3 31.Rd8 $1 ) 29.Rg5+ Kh8 30.Qf2 $1
Qd8 31.Re7 $1 { and wins. } ) 25.Be2 $1 { : } 25...R4d7 26.Rf2 $1 Rc8 $6 (
26...Qxa2 $2 27.e5 $1 ) 27.Rxc8+ Bxc8 28.Nf5 $1 gxf5 29.Rg2+ Kh8 30.Qh6
{ with crushing threats. } ) 24.f6 Rd7
{ with an unclear game. This would havebeen far more acceptable for Black
than his dubious exchange sacrifice. } ) 22.Bxd4 Bxd4+ 23.Kg2 Be5 ( { If }
23...Qg5 { (Kotov), then } 24.Qd1 $1 { with theidea of Qg4 is good. } ) (
{ 'If Black were quickly able to bring his a5-knightinto play, he would
have sufficient compensation for the exchange, but } 23...Nc6 $2
{ is not possible in view of } 24.Bc4+ Kh8 25.fxg6 { ,' writesKondratiev. } )
( { 'However, } 23...Rd8 { was more accurate.' True, after } 24.Rd1 Be5
25.Qe2
{ (or Qe3) the position differs little from one that could haveoccurred in
the game. } ) 24.Qe3 Rd8 25.Rf3
{ 'White is threatening to launchan attack by 26 fxg6 hxg6 27 h4.'
(Kondratiev) } ( 25.Rcd1 $5 { was also good. } ) 25...Qh4 26.fxg6 Bxg3 $2 (
{ Black is tempted by an incorrect combination,although after } 26...hxg6
{ it would still not have been easy for White toconvert his advantage } )
27.Rxg3 Rxd3 28.Rc8+ $6
{ A time-trouble error inreply, which virtually throws away the win.
Kondratiev gives two paths to thegoal. } ( { The first, prosaic one - }
28.Qxd3 Bxe4+ 29.Kh2 Bxd3 30.Rc8+ Kg7 31.Rc7+ Kf6 32.g7
{ would supposedly 'involve technical difficulties,' but thisis not so: }
32...Qf4 $5 ( { or } 32...Bc4 33.Rxc4 Qxc4 34.g8=Q Qe2+ 35.Rg2 Qe5+ 36.Qg3
Qxg3+ 37.Kxg3 Nc4 38.Kh4 $1 { and Kh5-h6xh7 } ) 33.g8=Q Qxc7 34.Qg5+ Ke6
35.Qe3+ Qe5 36.Qxd3 Nc6 37.Qxh7 $1 { and wins. } ) (
{ The second, elegant pathcould have led to a mind-boggling position,
demonstrating the inexhaustiblebeauty of chess: } 28.gxh7+ $1 Kxh7 (
28...Kh8 29.Rc8+ $1 Bxc8 ( 29...Kxh7 30.Rc7+ Kh8 { - see below } ) 30.Qxd3
Kxh7 31.e5+ Kh8 32.Qg6 Qe4+ 33.Qxe4 Bb7 34.Qxb7 Nxb7 35.e6 ) 29.Rc7+ Kh8
30.Rf3 $3 { (a stunning blow) } ( { Kotov'svariation } 30.Qxd3 $2 Bxe4+
31.Rf3 Qg5+ $1 32.Kf2 Bxd3 33.Rf8+ { isinsufficient on account of } 33...Qg8
34.Rxg8+ Kxg8 35.Rxa7 Nc6 { with equality } ) 30...Bxe4 31.Kh2 $3
{ with a unique win, discovered a quarter of a centurybefore the invasion
of computers into the laboratory of chess analysis! } ) 28...Bxc8 29.gxh7+ $2
{ But this far from obvious mistake was overlooked by thecommentators. } (
{ A knowledge of higher computer geometry is required to findthe win: }
29.Qxd3 $1 hxg6 30.Qd5+ Kg7 31.Rc3 $1
{ It is hard to believe thatBlack is defenceless, but after } 31...Bxh3+ (
31...Ba6 32.Qe5+ $1 ) 32.Rxh3 Qg4+ 33.Rg3 Qe2+ 34.Kh3
{ the king escapes from the checks - } 34...Qf1+ 35.Kg4 Qe2+ 36.Kg5 Qh5+
37.Kf4 Qh4+ 38.Kf3 { etc. } ) 29...Kxh7 30.Qxd3 Qf6 $1
{ . It wouldappear that Spassky missed this defence. White's position is
slightly morepleasant, but the worst is over for Black. --- Thus the world
champion missedan opportunity to equal the score in his individual meetings with the Lvovgrandmaster. Incidentally, Stein had a positive score not
only against Spassky(+3-2=9), but also against Tal (+2-1=14), Keres (+2=6) and Polugayevsky (+3-2=3), plus an equal score with Botvinnik (+1-1=2), Smyslov and Petrosian (each +1-1=8). He also had a difficult opponent - his old friend Efim Geller,against whom, however, Fischer also experienced
problems. --- This miraculousescape enabled Leonid to remain in first place, and only in the very lastround did Karpov manage catch up with him. Soon FIDE included both of them inthe list of grandmasters who were personally allowed into the Interzonaltournaments. 'I will try my luck again,' declared Stein in an interview.'At the age of 38, possibly all is not yet lost?!' In the summer of 1973he was due to play in distant Brazil, and the time came to begin preparations.--- From the games of this period I should like to single out his win overSmyslov. Like the games with Keres and Tal
given above, it illustrates Stein'scolossal chess strength, and his distinctive and refined style of play. }
1/2-1/2
[Event "71. USSR Team Championship, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1972.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Stein, L."]
[Black "Smyslov, V."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "A17"]
[EventDate "1972.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.e4 Bb7 5.Qe2 $5
{ In the spirit of Chigorin'sold idea 1 e4 e6 2 Qe2!? - with the aim of
hindering ...d7-d5 andstrengthening the effect of e4-e5. } (
{ Soon afterwards Hübner and Romanishinwere to introduce the no less
unusual } 5.Bd3 $5 { with the idea of Bc2 andd2-d4. } ) 5...Bb4
{ Fighting for the e4-square. } ( { One alternative is } 5...c5
{ with the sequel } 6.e5 ( { or } 6.g3 Nc6 7.Bg2
{ (Uhlmann-Spasov, Cienfuegos1973) } ) 6...Ng8 7.d4
{ (Portisch-Matanovic, Erevan 1965, andKorchnoi-Petrosian, 3rd matchgame,
Odessa 1974). } ) ( { Another possibility is } 5...d6 6.d4 Be7 7.g3 O-O 8.Bg2
c5 9.e5 Nfd7
{ with equalising chances (Vaganian-Polugayevsky, 42nd USSR Championship,
Leningrad 1974). } ) 6.e5 Ng8 7.d4 ( { After } 7.g3 Nc6 8.Bg2 Nd4 9.Qd3 Bxf3
10.Bxf3 Nxf3+ 11.Qxf3 Ne7 12.O-O ( 12.d4 $5 ) 12...Nc6 $1 13.Qe4 O-O 14.Ne2
f5 15.exf6 Qxf6 16.d4 e5 $1
{ Black has an excellent game (Korchnoi-Portisch, 1st matchgame, Bad
Kissingen1983). } ) 7...d6 $6
{ On encountering a surprise, Smyslov makes a natural butinaccurate move.
This attack on the pawn chain at its most fortified pointdoes not achieve
anything. } ( { Instead } 7...Ne7 $1
{ with the idea of ...d7-d5is correct, as was finally demonstrated by
Karpov in his match with Korchnoi (1974), for example: } 8.Qd3 ( 8.Bd2 O-O
9.O-O-O d5 { (3rd game) } ) ( 8.a3 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 d5 $1
{ , and White must play } 10.exd6
{ or resign himself to aweakness on the light squares; } ( 10.-- ) ) 8...d5
9.exd6 cxd6 ( 9...Qxd6 $5 ) 10.a3 Bxc3+ 11.Qxc3 O-O { (7th game); } (
{ but it is even better to play } 11...Nd7 $1
{ and ...Rc8 with chances of seizing the initiative thanks to theweakness
of the light squares, especially c4 (Uhlmann-Karpov, Skopje 1976). } ) ) 8.a3
( { Subsequently it transpired that it is better to play } 8.Bd2 $1 dxe5
9.dxe5 Na6 10.O-O-O Qe7 11.g3 O-O-O 12.Bg2 Nc5 13.Bg5 f6 14.Rxd8+ Qxd8 15.Rd1
Qe8 16.exf6 gxf6 17.Bd2 Ne7 18.Ne4 $1 Nxe4 19.Bxb4 Nc6 20.Ba3
{ with an advantage (Korchnoi-Karpov, 1st matchgame, Moscow 1974). } )
8...Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Ne7 10.h4 $1
{ The start of a sharp plan, aimed at opening up the gamefor the pair of
white bishops. 'It appears that White is challenging theclassical rules:
his pieces are not yet developed, his centre is insecure, hisking is in the centre, his rooks are not connected, and the rook's pawn, likean
undisciplined soldier, sets off on a risky march.' (Gufeld, Lazarev). }
10...Nd7 ( { Here too } 10...d5 $5 { was preferable with the idea of }
11.cxd5 Ba6 12.Qc2 ( { or } 12.c4 exd5 ) 12...Bxf1 13.Kxf1 exd5 14.h5 h6
15.Kg1 O-O 16.a4 Nbc6 17.Qd3 Qd7 { with equality. } ) 11.h5 $1
{ A bold pawn sacrifice. } 11...Bxf3 $2
{ Black sticks to the intended plan of destroying the white pawn centre; } (
{ but it was essential to include } 11...h6 { . After } 12.Bf4 Bxf3 (
12...dxe5 13.Nxe5 O-O 14.Rh3 { favours White } ) 13.Qxf3 dxe5 14.dxe5 c6
15.Rd1 Qc7 16.Be2 O-O-O 17.O-O
{ White's position is better, but not so much as in the game. } ) 12.Qxf3
dxe5 ( { If now } 12...h6 { , then } 13.Qg4 $1
{ is strong, since thecounterattack } 13...dxe5 $6 ( { while if } 13...Nf5
{ , then } 14.Bd3 $1 { (Gufeld,Lazarev) with the sequel } 14...O-O 15.exd6
cxd6 16.Qf3 { and g2-g4-g5 with apowerful attack } ) 14.Qxg7 Rg8 15.Qxh6 Nf5
16.Qd2 exd4 17.cxd4 Rg4 { merelyincreases White's advantage: } 18.Bb2 Re4+
19.Be2 { . } ) 13.h6 $1 gxh6 $6
{ Even such a legendary figure as Smyslov fails to sense the dynamics of
thisunusual position. } ( { The lesser evil was } 13...g6 14.dxe5 O-O
{ and if } ( 14...Nxe5 $2 15.Qf6 ) 15.Bg5 { , then } 15...Nxe5 $1 16.Qf6 Nf5
17.Qxd8 Raxd8 18.Bxd8 Rxd8
{ with some compensation for the exchange and drawing chances. } ) 14.Bxh6 $6
{ Forcing the play; } (
{ but Black would have been set more difficult problemsby the pressurising
} 14.Bd3 $1 Ng6 15.Be4 Rb8 16.Bc6 Ne7 ( { if } 16...exd4 $6 17.cxd4 Ne7
{ , both } 18.Bf4 ( { and } 18.Be4 Ng6 19.Bxh6 Qf6 20.Qe3 { are good } ) )
17.dxe5 Nxc6 18.Qxc6 Qe7 19.Be3 $1
{ , and although the unaestheticmanoeuvre } 19...Kd8 $5
{ (intending ...Kc8) would have enabled him to avoid animmediate rout,
White has a clear advantage after } 20.Qe4 { . } ) 14...exd4 (
{ After the incautious } 14...Nf5 $6 15.Bg5 f6
{ Black would have come under acrushing attack: } 16.g4 $1 Nxd4 17.cxd4 fxg5
18.Rh6 Ke7 19.d5 exd5 20.Rd1 $1 d4 21.Bg2 { etc. } ) 15.Bg7 Rg8 16.Rxh7 Nf5
$2
{ After this move the dashingassault by the white pieces achieves a
stunning effect. } ( { Only } 16...Nf8 $1 17.Bxf8 Rxf8
{ would have maintained hopes of a successful defence: } 18.O-O-O ( 18.cxd4
Qxd4 { with equality } ) 18...c5 $1 19.cxd4 { is no better: } ( 19.Bd3 Rb8
20.Bc2 ( 20.Qf6 Qd6 { ; } ) ( 20.Qf4 Rc8 ) 20...b5 $1 { etc. } ) 19...cxd4
20.Rxd4 ( { or } 20.c5 Qd5 21.Bb5+ Kd8 22.Rxd4 Qxd4 23.Qxa8+ Nc8 ) 20...Qxd4
21.Qxa8+ Kd7 22.Qxf8 Qa1+ { . } ) 17.Bxd4 c5 18.g4 $1
{ (now the attack developsunhindered) } 18...cxd4 ( { If } 18...Nd6
{ , then } 19.Bg7 $1 Rc8 20.Qf4 $1 e5 21.Qh6 Ne4 22.Bg2 Ng5 23.Rh8
{ (Dvoretsky) } 23...Rxh8 24.Qxh8+ Ke7 25.Qh4 $1 Ke8 26.Qh5 ( { or } 26.O-O-O
{ etc. } ) ) 19.gxf5 e5 ( { It was no good to play } 19...exf5 20.O-O-O $1
Nf6 21.Rh3 Ne4 22.Qxf5 Qg5+ 23.Qxg5 Nxg5 24.Rg3 Ke7 25.cxd4 { . } ) (
{ The alternative } 19...Ne5 $2 { is also bad after } 20.Qe4 dxc3 21.Ra2 $1
( { apart from this move, which was pointed out by Stein, } 21.Rd1 c2 22.Rc1
$1 { is also possible } ) 21...f6 22.f4 $1 exf5 23.Qh1 $1 Nf7 24.Qb7
{ and wins. } ) ( { Yet another defensive try - } 19...Nf6 20.fxe6 fxe6
21.Rh6 dxc3 { - isrefuted by } 22.Qxc3 ( { or even } 22.Rd1 c2 23.Rc1 $1 )
22...Kf7 23.Rd1 Qe7 24.c5 $3 bxc5 ( 24...Rad8 25.Rxd8 Rxd8 26.c6 ) 25.Rxf6+
$1 Qxf6 26.Rd7+ Kg6 27.Bd3+ $1 Kg5 28.Qc1+ $1 Kg4 ( 28...Qf4 29.Qxc5+ e5
30.Qe7+ Qf6 31.f4+ $1 ) 29.Be2+ Kf5 30.Qxc5+ e5 31.Qc2+ Kg5 32.Qh7 $1
{ (Inarkiev). } ) 20.Qd5 $1 Rf8 21.cxd4 Rc8 22.Rd1 ( 22.c5 $5
{ Gufeld, Lazarev } ) ( 22.Ra2 $5 { Dvoretsky } ) 22...Qe7 23.Bg2 $1
{ Vacating the f1-square for the king. } 23...Rg8
{ Black alsovacates a square for his king, but this does not solve his
problems. } ( { This is also true after } 23...exd4+ 24.Kf1 Qc5 ( 24...Nf6
25.Qb5+ Qd7 26.Rh6 $1 Rc5 27.Qb2 $1 { Dvoretsky } ) ( 24...Qxa3 25.Rh4 $1 )
25.Qe4+ Kd8 26.Rxd4 Qxa3 27.Qh4+ Kc7 ( 27...Qe7 28.f6 ) 28.Qf4+ Kd8 29.Bd5
{ etc. } ) 24.Qb7 $1 Rxc4 ( 24...Rb8 25.Qxa7 ) ( 24...Rd8 25.dxe5 $1 ) (
24...exd4+ 25.Kf1 Qc5 26.Bd5 Rf8 27.Rxf7 $1 ) 25.dxe5 ( 25.Qa8+ $1 Qd8 26.Qd5
{ is more accurate,but the move in the game also does not throw away the
win. } ) 25...Qxe5+ 26.Kf1 Qb5 27.Kg1 $1 Qc6 (
{ Black's options become increasingly narrower and moredepressing: }
27...Rxg2+ 28.Qxg2 Qxf5 29.Qg8+ Nf8 ( 29...Ke7 30.Rxf7+ $1 ) 30.Rd8+ Kxd8
31.Qxf8+ Kc7 32.Rxf7+ { ; } ) ( { or } 27...Rcg4 28.Qc8+ Ke7 29.Rxd7+ Qxd7
30.Rxf7+ Kxf7 31.Qxd7+ Kf8 32.f6 { and the curtain comes down. } ) 28.Qxc6 (
28.Rh8 $1 ) 28...Rxc6 29.Rh8 $1 { The concluding tactical stroke. } 29...Rg6
30.fxg6 Rxh8 31.Bc6 Rg8 32.Bxd7+ Ke7 33.Bf5 fxg6 34.Rd7+ Kf6 35.Bd3
{ . --- Early in July 1973 Stein was due to fly with his colleagues to
theEuropean Team Championship, and then on to the Interzonal tournament in
Brazil(for which he had already been given the necessary vaccinations). But the teamwaited in vain for him at the airport: the grandmaster had
died of a heartattack... Stein was not yet 39 years old. His sudden death stunned the entirechess world. Even the world champion Fischer, who had disappeared from view,sent a telegram to Moscow: 'I am shocked by the untimely death of LeonidStein - a brilliant grandmaster and a good friend. I
express my sympathy tohis family and to the chess community.' --- His short biography is genuinelytragic, since this talented player had to face so many administrativeobstacles. It is a great pity that we did not see a match between Stein and,for example, Tal or Spassky. It is evident that he had one sure way ofqualifying for the Candidates events: he simply needed to move to anothercountry. But alas... --- I remember how at the international tournament inBaku (1980) Eduard Gufeld was effusively telling me about his new book 'LeonidStein'. At the end, after cautiously
looking around, he quietly whispered inmy ear: 'You know, in 1973 Stein was stronger than Karpov!' and promptlyhurried away. }
1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "The Hand of Bondarevsky"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ Thus, in 1961 Spassky again failed to qualify for the Interzonal
tournament.This was a very difficult period in the biography of the
talented young player,who found himself sidelined from the chess scene. 'Another might haveabandoned chess altogether, never mind abandon any
dream of the world crown,' Bronstein later wrote. 'But Spassky decided to proceed all over againalong the thorny path and set about implementing a deeply conceived trainingplan.' The experienced grandmaster Igor Bondarevsky became his long-termtrainer. --- This proved to be a
very successful tandem and operated for aboutten years - a rare example of such a fruitful and lengthy collaboration (comparable perhaps only with the Petrosian-Boleslavsky tandem). Here it isimportant that the trainer and his protégé should be psychologicallycompatible, and then all the teacher's unrealised playing potential, all hissecret ambitions, can be passed on 'by inheritance'. That is how it wasfor Spassky with Bondarevsky, an outstanding player who showed great promisein the 1940s. }
1.--
{ Igor Zakharovich dreamed of developing a champion -and he forced Boris to
work, although the latter had the reputation of being aluxury-loving and
lazy person. Spassky's disinclination to overstrain himselfwas legendary, but Bondarevsky managed to break it. And the day came whenBoris decided: it's
time to become world champion! This is how I picturethings - feeling in a good mood, he suddenly says thoughtfully toBondarevsky: 'What do you think, pater, isn't it time for me to become worldchampion?' (Spassky affectionately called his trainer 'pater' - thelatter was indeed like a father to him).
--- I think that this is how it allbegan. The 'pater', naturally, did not object: Spassky's natural strengthand talent were colossal - it only remained to organise his chess workcorrectly and competently regulate his strengths (both physical andpsychological) for a lengthy campaign. That was how his many years of ascentto the top began, the first few of which are described in Bondarevsky'sinteresting and instructive book 'Boris Spassky Sturmuet Olimp' (Boris Spasskystorms Olympus). }
( 1.--
{ The results of this titanic work were not long incoming. Spassky began
playing with much more stability and captured the 29thUSSR Championship,
thus passing, in the words of his trainer, hisschool-leaving examination. But Boris had to begin the next world championshipcycle from a semi-final
of the 31st USSR Championship. And he passedbrilliantly through the entire cycle - the longest in the history ofCandidates events! Spassky played 98 qualifying games on his way to a matchfor the world crown: the semi-final and final of the USSR Championship (bothwithout defeat), the Zonal
'tournament of seven', the Interzonal, and thenmatches with Keres, Geller and Tal. --- There was an especially dramaticfinish to the marathon Interzonal tournament in Amsterdam (1964), where, Ishould remind you, only three of the five outstanding Soviet grandmasterscould be among the six qualifiers for the Candidates. After scoring eightsuccessive wins(!) in the middle of the tournament, Spassky burst into theleading group. But his rivals did not drop back and when Boris lostunexpectedly to Larsen in the penultimate, 22nd round, the situation suddenlybecame much more complicated:
the following day, to finish ahead of Stein orTal, he had to win 'to order'. --- In the first Candidates match Boris waspaired with the most experienced and venerable opponent - Paul Keres. And,it seems to me, this clash already demonstrated that in the ultra-toughstruggle, typical of short matches, Boris had no equals. Although Keres wonthe first game with Black, there was no great battle in the match: aftermissing a win in the second game, Spassky then gained three successivevictories. Moreover, two of them were in his opponent's favourite opening -the Ruy Lopez (this had never happened to Keres before: to lose both withWhite, and with Black!). Then Paul Petrovich gained one point back, but in thelast, 10th game youth prevailed and the match concluded 6-4 in Spassky'sfavour. --- After this there followed a textbook crushing of Efim Geller:5˝-2˝. Yet at that time Geller was by no means a 'gift': in hisquarter-final match he had overwhelmed Smyslov by the same score. But Spasskydid not allow his opponent any chances! }
) ( 1.--
{ And then came the final -a difficult match with Mikhail Tal. The ex-world
champion's health hadimproved and he was again experiencing an upsurge. In
addition, he was clearlysuperior to Spassky in match experience. This was a very interesting match, agenuine battle of giants! After losing the second
game with White, Boris foundhimself in a difficult situation and step-by-step he began trying to changethe course of the match. He played every game to a finish, squeezing out everychance, holding on in slightly inferior positions and winning in slightlybetter ones. Psychologically, Bondarevsky had
prepared him excellently! ---Spassky suppressed White's activity, by playing the now fashionable -following his example! - Marshall Attack. A purely positional pawn sacrifice,simply in order to change the character of the play, to seize the initiative- here too one senses the hand of Bondarevsky. This was fatal for Tal: hewas forced to play on alien territory, where he felt much less confident. Inthe end he replaced 8 c3 with the 'sidelines' 8 a4 and 8 h3, but he alsofound this soul-destroying and suffered two defeats. --- In the middle of thematch there was a very tenacious struggle. Spassky held
his opponent at adistance, not allowing him to attack and imposing complicated strategic play.The turning point came in the ninth game, where Tal had some advantage, butthe position itself did not appeal to him, and when time-trouble set in helost the thread of the play. Spassky played very well in such 'Spanish'positions, and it was not very difficult for him to convert things into a win.It is probable that after this, overwhelmed by his opponent's patience andself-control, Tal no longer believed at heart that he could retrieve hislosses. It would seem that he lost his nerve. He suddenly began playing'without aim or direction', as in the good old 1950s. However, sittingopposite him now was a quite different player, against whom all this trickerydid not work. In the end Spassky won 7-4 and qualified for a match withPetrosian. --- But here the challenger committed a typical mistake (which hasalready been mentioned in the chapter on Petrosian). Apparently it is hard toappreciate that Candidates matches are one thing, but a match with the worldchampion is something quite different: the current champion is tougher thanthe strongest challenger! A similar mistake was also made, incidentally,
by mein 1984 and by Short in 1993. Alas, a realisation of the difference usuallycomes too late, when the score is already dismal... It seems to me that thesame thing happened with Spassky. While fighting worthily and showing himselfto be not inferior to his opponent chess-wise, he was nevertheless unable tofind the key to Petrosian, to breach his solid defence. }
) ( 1.--
{ After losinga match for the world championship at the age of 29, Boris
was forced to passthough another exhausting cycle, and he did this
brilliantly. But first, inthe summer of 1966, he won a super-tournament in Santa Monica, crushingFischer in splendid style (Petrosian scored only 50
per cent here). TheSpassky years were truly beginning! --- The collaboration with Bondarevskycontinued. He and his trainer were sure that they were following the rightcourse, and that the next match with Petrosian would be won. But first threeCandidates matches had to be won. Fischer,
incidentally, was not among them:the formidable American had pulled out of the Interzonal in Sousse (1967),when he had 8˝ out of 10. But, even had he qualified for the Candidatesmatches, it is unlikely that he would have been able to defeat the Spassky ofthat time, who still retained great energy and flexibility of thinking. ---Boris Vasilievich was again drawn against some difficult opponents: in thequarter-final - Geller, in the semi-final - Larsen, and in the final -Korchnoi. But, paradoxically, all of these matches were dictated by Spasskyand ended with an advantage
of three points! Such confident victories werebased on correctly constructed strategy. The trainer's recommendations andBoris's innate perception enabled him to play each match in a manner that wasthe most unpleasant for the given opponent. And since the opponents stronglydiffered from one another, everyone began talking about the universal natureof Spassky's style. }
) *
[Event "72. Candidates Match, Sukhumi"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1968.??.??"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Spassky, B."]
[Black "Geller, E."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "B25"]
[EventDate "1968.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ In the match with Geller (Sukhumi, April 1968) he played quite
differentlythan in 1965. On that occasion he had prevailed in a classical,
purelypositional style, whereas now he created tense, irrational positions with hissights set on the enemy king. It is here that the secret
of Geller's defeat isconcealed: he had spent a long time preparing for one opponent, butencountered a quite different one! As White, Spassky avoided opening disputesin fashionable set-ups (Efim Petrovich was a well-known openings expert),while with Black he accurately suppressed
his opponent's attacking impulseswith the help of the French Defence. --- With uncommon tenacity he played thenon-topical Closed Variation against the Sicilian and thereby conducted theopening duel on his own territory. He as though conceded the white pieceswithout a fight, but imposed on Geller, who liked concrete, calculatingpositions, play of a leisurely character that was unpleasant for him. And, asa result, Geller suffered a genuine tragedy, which surprised all the fans andeye-witnesses of the match: after achieving, at the cost of great
effort,winning positions in the second and fourth games, he both times fell victim toa mating attack. The subtle estimation of Bondarevsky and Spassky fullyjustified itself! --- }
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 d6 ( { In principle, a more radical wayto play is } 2...e6 3.g3
d5 4.exd5 exd5 5.Bg2 Nf6 6.Nge2 d4
{ with equality,as in the games Spassky-Korchnoi (5th matchgame, Kiev 1968)
andSpassky-Kasparov (Bugojno 1982). Although then White can transpose into
othervariations of the Sicilian by 3 Nf3 and 4 d4. } ) (
{ Geller was obviously aimingfor the variations with } 2...d6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.d4
cxd4 5.Nxd4 a6 ( { or } 5...Nc6
{ , with which he had twice defeated Fischer in 1967. } ) ) 3.g3 Nc6 4.Bg2 g6
5.d3
{ 'Although Boris had already tried playing the Closed Variation in
hismatch with Petrosian, this nevertheless came as something of a surprise
to me.' (Geller). 'I took account of the fact that Geller does not like defending.' (Spassky). }
5...Bg7 6.f4 ( { After } 6.Be3 { Black has a satisfactory choice between }
6...e6 ( { or } 6...Rb8 7.Qd2 b5 8.Nge2 Nd4 9.O-O e6 10.Nd1 Ne7
{ with equality (Spassky-Portisch, 11th and 14th matchgames, Mexico 1980).
} ) ) ( 6.Nge2 e5 $1 { - Volume 2, Game No.108 } ) 6...Nf6 (
{ In the 8th game Geller gained equalchances after } 6...e6 7.Nf3 Nge7 8.O-O
O-O 9.Be3 ( 9.a3 Bd7 10.Rb1 Rc8 11.Bd2 Nd4 12.Ne2 Ba4 13.b3 Bc6 14.c4 Nxf3+
15.Bxf3 d5 ) (
{ but Spasskycontinued the dispute in his next match with Larsen: } 9.Bd2 Rb8
10.Rb1 b5 11.a3 a5 $6 ( 11...f5 12.Be3 Qc7 { with equality, 7th game } ) (
11...Qd7 $5 { Spassky-J.Polgar, Monaco 1994 } ) 12.a4 $1 b4 13.Nb5 d5 14.c4
$1 { , killingBlack's counterplay (3rd game). } ) (
{ Years later the 10th world champion'sfavourite weapon misfired in
important games with Portisch: -- } 9.Rb1 b6 $5 10.Bd2 Bb7 11.Ne2 Qd7 12.g4
f5 13.gxf5 exf5 14.c4 Nd8 $1 15.Nc3 Ne6 $1 16.Ng5 Nxg5 17.fxg5 Rf7 $1 18.Qf3
$6 Raf8 19.Qh3 Qd8 $1 20.exf5 Bc8 $1 21.Ne4 Bd4+ 22.Kh1 Nxf5 23.Nf6+ Kh8 $1
{ ... 0-1 (1st matchgame, Mexico 1980) } ) 9...Nd4 10.Rb1 (
{ Spassky later switched to } 10.Bf2 ) 10...Rb8 11.Ne2 Nxf3+ 12.Bxf3 b6 13.g4
$6 f5 14.Ng3 Bb7 15.gxf5 exf5 16.c4 Qd7 17.Qd2 Rbe8 18.Rbe1 Nc6 19.Bg2 (
19.exf5 Nd4 $1 ) 19...Nd4 20.Kh1 fxe4 $1 21.dxe4 $6 h5 $1
{ ... 0-1 (Toluca Interzonal 1982) . } ) ( { At one time } 6...e5
{ was fashionable (Larsen-Portisch, 1st matchgame, Rotterdam 1977), but
then White demonstratedthe strength of the plan with } 7.Nh3 $1
{ , for example: } 7...Nge7 ( 7...exf4 8.Bxf4 Nge7 9.O-O h6 10.Rb1 O-O 11.a3
Be6 12.Be3 Ne5 13.Nf4 Bd7 14.Kh1 Rc8 15.Qd2 Kh7 16.h3 Bc6 17.g4 Qd7 18.Rf2
{ with the initiative (Spassky-Portisch, 13th matchgame, Geneva 1977); } (
18.-- ) ) 8.O-O Nd4 { , when both the sharp } ( 8...O-O $2 9.f5 $1 gxf5
10.Qh5 { with an attack } ) 9.f5 ( { and the quiet } 9.Rf2 $5
{ (Spassky-Timman, Buenos Aires Olympiad 1978) } ) 9...gxf5 10.Qh5 $5
{ (Spassky-Hort, Bugojno 1978) are possible. } ) 7.Nf3 O-O 8.O-O Rb8 (
{ Another idea is } 8...Bg4 $5 9.h3 Bxf3 10.Bxf3 Nd4 11.Bg2 Rc8
{ with equality. } ) ( 8...Ne8
{ and ...f7-f5 is more solid, but more passive. } ) 9.h3 $1
{ 'Naturally, the outcome of the opening in the 2nd game did not
satisfySpassky and Bondarevsky, and they found a new path. The increased
control ofd4 greatly hinders Black's counterplay on the queenside.' (Geller) }
( { In the2nd game after the direct } 9.Nh4 $6 Nd4 $1 10.f5 b5 11.Bg5 b4
12.Nb1 Nd7 13.Nd2 Ne5 14.Kh1 a5 ( 14...Bb7 $5 { with the idea of ...d6-d5 } )
15.Rb1 a4 16.Nhf3 Nexf3 ( 16...Ba6 $5 ) 17.Nxf3 Nb5 $1 18.Qd2 a3
{ , Black seized theinitiative: he has already laid bare the entire
queenside, whereas White hasno real attack; . --- At this critical moment,
Spassky complicated the play with anunexpected exchange sacrifice, which sharply changed the direction of the game,and was especially
unpleasant for Geller: } ( 18...gxf5 $5 19.Bh6 f6 20.Nh4 fxe4 21.Bxe4 d5
{ is alsonot bad } ) 19.bxa3 $1 Nxa3 20.Rbe1 $5 Bc3 21.Qf2 Bxe1 ( 21...Nb5 $5
) 22.Rxe1 f6 ( 22...Nb5 $5 ) 23.Bh6 Rf7 24.g4 e6 ( { apart from } 24...e5 )
( 24...Nb5 { and ...Ra8 was again good } ) 25.Nh4 g5 $6 ( 25...Qe8 26.Bc1 $1
) ( 25...Nb5 $5 26.fxg6 hxg6 27.Nxg6 Rbb7 ) 26.Nf3 exf5 27.gxf5 Kh8 28.h4 g4
29.Nh2 g3 $6 { (Geller was already in severetime-trouble!) } 30.Qxg3 Nxc2
31.Rg1 Bb7 $2 { a fatal error } ( { after } 31...Rbb7 $1 32.Bf3 Nd4 33.Bh5
Rfc7 { everything was still unclear } ) 32.Bf3 Qd7 33.Bh5 Re7 34.Ng4 Rg8
35.Qf2 Nd4 36.Nxf6 Rxg1+ 37.Qxg1
{ 1-0. --- One isimpressed by the calmness with which Spassky played a
clear exchange down,gradually increasing the pressure. White did not even
have any direct targetsto attack! This game showed that Geller found it difficult in positions wherehis king was in danger. So why shouldn't White
repeat the scenario, and in animproved version?! } ) 9...b5 10.a3 $1 (
{ but not } 10.Be3 b4 11.Ne2 Nd7 12.Rb1 Qa5 { with equality. } ) 10...a5
11.Be3 b4 12.axb4 axb4 13.Ne2 Bb7 14.Qd2 $6 ( 14.b3 $1
{ is more accurate, as in the 6th game. } ) 14...Ra8 15.Rab1 Qa5
{ Black again has an active position. } ( 15...Qc7 $5 { is also not bad. } )
16.b3 Rfc8 ( { Missing the amusing possibility } 16...d5 $5 17.e5 d4 18.Bf2
Nd5
{ . According to Geller, here Black has a positional advantage, but in
myopinion, there is a double-edged struggle in prospect after } 19.Ng5 e6
20.Ne4 { . } ) 17.f5 Qb6 $6 ( 17...Qd8 $1
{ at once was more accurate, with an excellentgame, for example: } 18.e5 $6
Nd5 $1 19.e6 fxe6 20.fxg6 hxg6 21.Ng5 Qd7 { etc. } ) 18.g4 Ra2 19.Nc1 Ra5
20.Qf2 $1 { (control of d4!) } 20...Qc7 21.Ne2 Ra2 22.Rbc1 Qd8 23.Nf4 (
{ If } 23.fxg6 hxg6 24.e5 { Black loses with } 24...Nd5 $2 ( { but after }
24...Nxe5 25.Nxe5 Bxg2 26.Nxf7 Qf8 27.Qxg2 Qxf7 28.Bd2
{ the situation is unclear } ) 25.Ng5 Nxe5 26.Qh4 Bf6 27.Qh7+ Kf8
{ on account of } 28.Bxd5 $1 ( 28.Bf4 Nxf4 29.Nxf4 Bxg2 30.Nxg6+ Ke8 31.Nxe5
Bxe5 32.Qxf7+ Kd7 33.Qf5+ Kc6 34.Kxg2 Qd7 { is inferior } ) 28...Bxd5 29.Nf4
e6 30.Nxf7 ) 23...Qe8 24.Ng5 $2 ( { 'Initially I was planning } 24.g5 Nd7
25.h4
{ withdangerous threats on the kingside. However, this seemed to me to be
too slow,and I began playing more "actively" and hastily, but this did not
achieveanything.' (Spassky) } ) ( { I also do not like 24 g5. Instead }
24.Qh4 $1 { looks stronger, for example: } 24...Nd4 25.Nxd4 cxd4 26.Bxd4
Rcxc2 27.Rxc2 Rxc2 28.g5 Nh5 29.Bxg7 Nxg7 30.f6 exf6 31.gxf6 Qd8 $1 32.Kh1
Ne8 33.Ne6 Qc8 34.Nf8 Nxf6 35.Nxg6 hxg6 36.Qxf6 { with sharp play. } )
24...Nd4 $1 { Now thec2-pawn begins to 'creak'. } 25.fxg6 hxg6 26.Nd5 $2 (
{ After a long thinkWhite makes another 'devious' move, having apparently
convinced himself thathe has no compensation for the pawn after the normal
attacking continuation } 26.Qh4 Rxc2 ( { but not } 26...Nxc2 $2 27.Rf2 ) (
{ or } 26...e5 $2 27.Nxg6 $1 Ne2+ 28.Kh2 fxg6 29.Rxf6 Bxf6 30.Qh7+ Kf8 31.Rf1
Nf4 32.Bxf4 ) 27.Rxc2 Nxc2 28.Bd2 Bc6 $1 ( 28...Nd4 $2 29.e5 ) 29.Nd5 Bxd5
30.exd5 Nd4 { . } ) ( 26.Bxd4 $2 Nxg4 $1 27.Qh4 Bxd4+ 28.Kh1 Nf6 29.Nd5 Bxd5
30.exd5 Kg7 ) 26...Nxb3 ( { It was far simpler to play } 26...Bxd5 $1 27.exd5
Nxb3 28.Rcd1 Nd4 { with a clear advantage. } ) 27.e5 $1
{ 'The only chance, but an excellent one,of confusing matters and
continuing the struggle.' (Geller). Black begins toimagine various traps
and dangers... } 27...Nxc1 $2 ( { It was bad to play } 27...Nxd5 $2 28.Qh4
Nf6 29.exf6 exf6 30.Qh7+ Kf8 31.Bf4 Rd8 32.Rce1 Qxe1 $1 ( 32...Qd7 33.Bxb7
Qxb7 34.Ne4 Rxc2 35.Bh6 { and wins } ) 33.Rxe1 Bxg2 34.Kxg2 Rxc2+ 35.Kg3 Nd4
36.Ne4 Ne2+ 37.Rxe2 Rxe2 38.Bh6 $1 ( { but not } 38.Kf3 $2 Rxe4 $1 39.dxe4 b3
40.Bh6 Bxh6 41.Qxh6+ Ke7 42.Qd2 Rb8 ) 38...Bxh6 39.Qxh6+ Ke7 40.Qf4
{ , winning. } ) ( { However, } 27...dxe5 $1 28.Nxf6+ exf6 29.Bxb7 Nxc1
30.Bxc1 Rd8 31.Ne4 Qe7 32.Bc6 b3 { would have retained a big advantage. } )
28.Bxc1 $2 { 'After this White's defeat was inevitable. } (
{ 'The correct move was } 28.exf6 $1 exf6 29.Nxf6+ Bxf6 30.Bxb7
{ with an intricate position. In anyevent, Black had a drawing variation: }
30...Ne2+ $2 ( 30...Rxc2 $1 31.Qxf6 Ne2+ 32.Kh2 Rc7 33.Bg2 Qxe3 (
{ but even better is } 33...Qe5+ $1 34.Qxe5 dxe5
{ with a clearly superior endgame - G.K. } ) 34.Qd8+ Kg7 35.Qf6+
{ with perpetualcheck.' (Geller) } ) 31.Kh1 $1 Bxg5 32.Bxg5 Rc7 $6 ( { and }
32...Rxc2 33.Bd5 ) 33.Bd5 Rxc2 34.Bf6 g5 35.Bxg5 Nd4 36.Qf6 Ne6 37.Re1 Ra7
38.Rxe6 fxe6 39.Bxe6+ Rf7 40.Kg1 $1 c4 41.Qg6+ Kf8 42.Qh6+ Kg8 43.Bf6
{ are bad - G.K. } ) 28...Bxd5 29.Bxd5 ( { or } 29.exf6 Bxg2 30.fxg7 Bxf1
31.Qh4 Kxg7 { and wins } ) 29...Nxd5 30.Qh4 Nf6 $1 31.exf6 exf6 32.Qh7+ Kf8
33.Ne4 Qe5
{ Parrying thethreat of 34 Bh6. 'Here I thought about resigning.'
(Spassky). } 34.Bf4 Qd4+ 35.Kh1 Rc6 $4
{ 'A terrible mistake in a winning position.' (Spassky) } (
{ 'Incomprehensible! In the opponent's time-trouble, with some 40 minutes
inreserve, Black rejects the simple } 35...Rd8
{ . After calculating the winningvariation } 36.g5 Ra1 37.Rxa1 Qxa1+ 38.Kg2
fxg5 39.Bxg5 Re8 { , } (
{ at thelast moment I "saw" that with the rook on c6 I could achieve even
more with } 39...d5
{ .' (Geller) Black's tragedy is that now he does not even have adraw!
However, in this there is some kind of higher justice, as shown also bythe
6th game, and indeed the entire course of the match... } ) ) 36.Bh6 $1 Bxh6
37.Qh8+ Ke7 38.Nxf6 Bf4 ( { 'The only way to save the game was by } 38...Bf8
39.Re1+ Qe5 { but even so it would not have saved Black in view of } (
39...Kd8 40.Qxf8+ Kc7 41.Qxf7+ Kb6 42.Nd7+ { - G.K. } ) 40.Nd5+ $1 (
40.Rxe5+ dxe5 41.Nd5+ Ke6 { .' (Geller). This is indeed more tenacious; }
42.-- ( 42.-- ) ) 40...Ke8 ( 40...Ke6 41.Qf6+ Kxd5 42.Qxf7+ ) 41.Rxe5+ dxe5
42.Qxe5+ Kd7 43.Nxb4 $1 Bd6 ( 43...cxb4 44.Qd5+ ) 44.Qf6 { . } ) 39.g5 $1
{ Both the onlymove, and sufficient! } 39...Ke6 40.Qe8+ Kf5 41.Qxf7 $1 Rc7
{ The sealed move. } ( { It is a paradox, but there is no defence: }
41...Kxg5 $2 42.h4+ Kxh4 43.Qxg6 { . Black is forced to give up a rook. } )
42.Qxc7 Kxg5 ( { 'In my adjournmentanalysis I saw that } 42...Ra1
{ , which had been planned on the 38th move,encounters a problem-like
stroke: } 43.Qc8+ Ke5 ( 43...Kxg5 44.Ne4+ Qxe4+ 45.dxe4 Rxf1+ 46.Kg2
{ and the bishop is lost } ) 44.Ng4+ Kd5 45.c4+ $1
{ andBlack loses his rook.' (Geller) } ) ( { Here } 42...Rxc2 43.Qc8+ Kxg5
44.Ne4+ Kh6 45.Qf8+ { does not help either. } ) 43.Qe7 $1
{ Successfully completing thepursuit of the king. } ( 43.Ne4+ Kh6 44.Qf7
{ was less straightforward due to } 44...Qe3 $1 45.Rxf4 Ra1+ 46.Rf1 Qxh3+
47.Kg1 Qg4+ 48.Kh2 $1 Qe2+ 49.Rf2 Qh5+ 50.Kg2 Qh1+ 51.Kg3 Rg1+ 52.Kf4 Qh4+
53.Ke3 { and wins. } ) 43...Qe3 44.Ne4+ Kh5 45.Qh7+ Bh6 46.Qd7 Bf4 ( { or }
46...Bg5 47.Qg4+ Kh6 48.h4 Bf4 49.Rg1 ) 47.Nf6+ Kg5 48.Nd5
{ . --- A quite incredible game, which decided the outcomeof the match.
Taken out of the context of the encounter as a whole, it createsan
incomprehensible and sad impression. It appears that White was simplyincredibly lucky. But if one remembers Spassky's match strategy,
everythingfalls into place. It is another matter than this strategy demanded an enormousself-belief and reserves of energy. Spassky was already full of thepsychological confidence, so necessary to a challenger, that in any case hewould become world champion: 'If I don't happen to win
this game, I will winthe next one!' Can one mentally withstand such pressure?! --- In the 6th gamethe shocked Geller wanted to improve Black's play, but Spassky got hisimprovement in first and inflicted an utterly crushing defeat. }
1-0
[Event "73. Candidates Match, Sukhumi"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1968.??.??"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Spassky, B."]
[Black "Geller, E."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "B25"]
[EventDate "1968.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 d6 3.g3 Nc6 4.Bg2 g6 5.d3 Bg7 6.f4 Nf6 7.Nf3 O-O 8.O-O Rb8 9.h3
$1 b5 10.a3 a5 11.Be3 b4 12.axb4 axb4 13.Ne2 Bb7 ( 13...Nd7 $5 ) 14.b3 $1 Ra8
{ 'An exclamation mark - for anticipation! Guessing that Blackwould stick
to the conventional move order, Spassky and Bondarevsky worked outan
exceptionally accurate arrangement of the forces. } (
{ 'Possibly I shouldhave changed plan: } 14...Nd7 $5 15.Rc1 e6 $1 16.g4 d5
{ with a good game.' (Geller) } ) 15.Rc1
{ by not wasting time on Rb1, White gains a tempo } 15...Ra2 16.g4 Qa8 $6 (
{ The queen should have been kept closer - } 16...Qc7 ) ( { or } 16...Qa5
17.Qe1 Qb5 18.Qf2 Rfa8 { with the idea of ...Nd7 and ...Ra1. } ) 17.Qe1 Qa6
$6 ( { In Geller's opinion, 'after } 17...d5 18.e5 Nd7 19.Qh4 e6
{ it was stillpossible to construct a defence.' } ) 18.Qf2 Na7 $6 ( 18...Nd7
{ was morecircumspect. } ) 19.f5 $1
{ 'The beginning of the end. White's attack developsso rapidly that Black
does not even have time to pick up the now superfluousc2-pawn.' (Geller).
As we see, White has achieved far more from the openingthan in the 4th game (to say nothing of the 2nd). }
19...Nb5 20.fxg6 hxg6 $2 { This loses by force. } (
{ According to Geller, ' } 20...fxg6
{ would not havechanged anything,' but in my opinion this would have made
things much harderfor White: } 21.Nf4 ( 21.Qh4 Nc7 $1 ( 21...Na3 $2 22.Ng5 $1
{ and Rxf6 } ) 22.Ng5 ( 22.Nf4 $6 e5 $1 { ; } ) ( 22.e5 dxe5 $1 23.Bxc5 Ne6
24.Bxe7 Rf7 ) 22...h6 $1 23.Nf4 ( { but not } 23.Nf3 $2 Rxc2 $1 24.Rxc2 Qxd3
) 23...hxg5 24.Qxg5 Nh7 25.Qxg6 Rf6 26.Qh5 { with sharp play. } ) 21...Bc8
22.e5 $5 dxe5 23.Nxe5 Ne4 $1 24.Bxe4 Bxe5 25.Qh4 Bxf4 ( 25...Bf6 $2 26.Bd5+
e6 27.Nxe6 $1 Bxe6 28.Rxf6 Rxf6 29.Qxf6 Bxd5 30.Qd8+ Kg7 31.Qe7+ $1 Bf7
32.Qe5+ { is bad } ) 26.Rxf4 Rxf4 27.Bxf4 Qf6 28.Bd5+ ( 28.Bg5 Qd4+ 29.Kh1
Nc3 30.Bf3 Ne2 $1 { is unclear } ) 28...Kf8 29.Qf2 $5 ( { if } 29.Bh6+ Ke8
30.Qxf6 exf6 31.Bc6+ Bd7 32.Bxb5 Bxb5 33.Be3 { , then } 33...c4 $1 34.dxc4
Bc6 35.Bc5 Be4 36.c3 bxc3 37.Rxc3 Rc2 38.Re3 f5
{ with sufficient compensation } ) 29...Nd4 30.Qe3 Rxc2 31.Rxc2 Nxc2 32.Bh6+
Ke8 33.Qxc5 Qd4+ 34.Qxd4 Nxd4 35.Kf2 Be6 36.Bxe6 Nxe6 37.Be3
{ with the better endgame. } ) 21.Ng5 Na3
{ This counterplay against thec2-pawn is clearly too late. In contrast to
the previous game, White has notburned his boats behind him - he has not
given up much material. } 22.Qh4 Rc8 ( { If } 22...Re8
{ White would have won by } 23.e5 $1 dxe5 24.Rxf6 $1 exf6 25.Qh7+ Kf8
26.Bxc5+ Re7 27.Bxe7+ Kxe7 28.Qxg7 fxg5 29.Qxe5+
{ , whereas nowthere follows an immediate exchange sacrifice. } ) 23.Rxf6 $1
exf6 24.Qh7+ Kf8
{ Again, as in the 4th game, the white queen breaks through at h7 -
thecharacter of the play is completely identical: pursuit of the king!
Moreover,on this occasion a spectacular blow proves decisive: } 25.Nxf7 $1
Rxc2 $2 { Ah, this ill-fated pawn! } (
{ Nevertheless it was more tenacious to play } 25...Kxf7 26.Bh6 Rg8 27.Nf4
Rxc2 28.Rf1 $1 g5 29.Qg6+ Ke7 30.Bxg7 gxf4 31.Bxf6+ Kd7 32.Qxg8 Qxd3 33.Qf7+
Kc6 34.Qd5+ Qxd5 35.exd5+ Kd7 36.Be4 { etc. } ) 26.Bh6 $1 Rxc1+ ( { or }
26...Qxd3 27.Qxg7+ Ke8 28.Rxc2 Nxc2 29.Nf4 ) 27.Nxc1 Kxf7 ( { If } 27...Bxh6
28.Nxh6 Ke8 { White wins by } 29.Ng8 Kf8 30.Ne7 { . } ) 28.Qxg7+ Ke8 29.g5 (
29.e5 Bxg2 30.e6 { was also good. } ) 29...f5 30.Qxg6+ Kd7 ( { or } 30...Kd8
31.Qf7 Qc6 32.g6 Qd7 33.Qh7 $1 Kc7 34.g7 ) 31.Qf7+ Kc6 32.exf5+
{ . --- The best game of the match. The final score was 5˝-2˝ - thesame as
three years earlier. It might be thought that Geller played below hisusual
strength. But this is incorrect: he played as well as Spassky allowedhim! The winner demonstrated a clear superiority in the psychology of matchplay.
--- 'Spassky's staggering calmness and composure enable him to find thebest practical measures at the most difficult moments of a game,' wrote Gellerafter the match. 'The amazing imperturbability and confidence, with which hesometimes makes moves that are not even the best, undoubtedly places
hisopponents in a false position. Several times I wasted precious time, trying todiscern that which in reality was not there! Spassky made several seriousmistakes, but his excellent tactical resourcefulness always helped him tocomplicate the play.' }
1-0
[Event "74. Candidates Match, Malmö"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1968.??.??"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Spassky, B."]
[Black "Larsen, B."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "D14"]
[EventDate "1968.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ Three months later, in the summer of 1968, came the semi-final match
withBent Larsen, whose star was then very much in the ascendancy (an
account ofthe outstanding Danish grandmaster can be read in Volume 4). And again acrushing defeat awaited Spassky's opponent! It all began with
the 'quiet', butpsychologically very important first game. Some interesting thoughts on thisgame, and on the match as a whole, were expressed by Euwe: --- 'Spassky isless aware of his strength than the majority of the great players, and in thisrespect he is the antipode of Larsen. The
Danish grandmaster firmly believesin himself, he aims for the initiative and he always plays for a win. His playsomewhat resembles that of Bogoljubow, who said: "When I am White, I winbecause I am White, when I am Black - because I am Bogoljubow." Larsen is notafraid of any positional complications and he goes in for rash tricks in orderto achieve his goals. "The king can defend itself," thinks Larsen, and he doesnot undertake any special precautionary measures to safeguard his own king.The duel of the antipodes, Larsen and Spassky, took an exceptionally tense
andfighting course. There was a clash, on the one hand, of Larsen's eagerness toseize the initiative at any cost, and on the other - of Spassky's deliberatelyrestrained strategy, which, however, in no way restricted his enormouspractical strength. --- 'In the first game Spassky chose the quiet ExchangeVariation of the Slav Defence, which usually leads to a quick draw. In thisway he allowed Larsen an opportunity to display his ambitions. The latterindeed did not wish to be content with a tedious role and tried to seize theinitiative in an almost lifeless position. But here, with the help of anaccurately calculated combination, the far-sighted Spassky created a suddenattack on the king. A splendid game, probably the best in the match!' --- }
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.c4 c6 { Larsen had hardly ever played this before! }
4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Bf4 Nc6 6.Nc3 Bf5 7.e3 e6 8.Bb5 ( { The variation } 8.Qb3 Bb4
$1 9.Bb5
{ (Botvinnik-Trifunovic, Moscow 1947), which has a drawish
reputation,acquired some new theory towards the end of the century, but its
evaluationremained unchanged. } ) 8...Nd7 $1 ( 8...Bb4 $6 9.Ne5 $1
{ - Volume 2, Game No.75 } ) 9.O-O ( { The modern line is } 9.Qa4 Rc8 (
9...Qb6 10.Nh4 $1 ) 10.O-O a6 11.Bxc6 Rxc6 12.Rfc1 Be7 13.Nd1 $5 (
{ against Sveshnikov, 44th USSRChampionship, Moscow 1976, Petrosian played
} 13.Ne2 { with the idea of } 13...Bd3 $6 ( { but } 13...Qb6 $1 14.Rxc6 bxc6
{ is more solid } ) 14.Rxc6 Bb5 15.Qxb5 $3 axb5 16.Rc7 ) 13...b5 14.Qb3
{ with some chances of an advantage. } ) 9...Be7 10.Rc1 ( 10.Qb3 $5
{ is more energetic, for example: } 10...g5 ( { or } 10...O-O 11.Rfc1 Rc8
12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.Qb7 { with a sharp struggle, Milov-Hübner,Switzerland 1998 }
) 11.Bg3 h5 12.h3 g4 13.hxg4 hxg4 14.Nd2 { (Milov-Sadler,Isle of Man 1994) }
14...a6 $5 { . } ) 10...O-O 11.h3 $6 ( 11.Qb3 $1 ) 11...Rc8 12.Bd3 $6 (
{ It was better to play } 12.Na4 Qa5 13.Bxc6 Rxc6 14.Rxc6 bxc6 15.Ne5 Nxe5
16.Bxe5 f6 17.Bg3
{ with equality. Why then did Spassky present hisopponent with so many
tempi? It is probable that, on encountering an openingsurprise, he decided
to avoid complications and stick to waiting strategy - inshort, to allow Larsen 'to play a bit'. As Botvinnik liked to say: 'Let thefellow make a
move!' } ) 12...Bxd3 13.Qxd3 Nb6 14.Qe2 a6
{ Black already has avery comfortable game: his knight will invade at c4,
and evicting it by b2-b3will weaken the queenside. White often loses such
positions, and he has toplay precisely and accurately to avoid this. } 15.Ne1
$1 Nc4 16.Nd3 Nb4 $6
{ The very first inaccuracy immediately leads to the loss of the
initiative. } ( { After } 16...Qa5 $1
{ Black's position would have been the slightly morepleasant. } ) 17.b3 Nxd3
18.Qxd3 Nb6 19.f3 Bd6 20.Ne2 Qe7 21.Bxd6 Qxd6 22.Qd2 $1
{ Preparing Nf4-d3. 'In equal positions Spassky usually plays verysubtly.'
(Gligoric) For the moment there is dead calm on the board, but thisis
clearly not to the ambitious Dane's taste! He does not want to reconcilehimself to a draw and begins looking for active moves - 'with his
customaryoptimism he wants to attack even there, where the position does not allow this.' (Spassky). }
22...Qa3 $6 { This move does not yet spoil anything; } (
{ but it wassimpler to play } 22...Rxc1 23.Rxc1 Rc8 24.Qa5 h5
{ with equality. } ) 23.Nf4 Rxc1 $6 (
{ Despite the loss of two tempi, 'Black should have admitted hismistake and
returned - } 23...Qd6
{ .' (Spassky) And again I remember Botvinnik,who reprimanded me for my
flippant play: 'If you "bungle" like this, you'll betransformed into a
Taimanov or a Larsen!' This did not sound too bad for ayoung candidate master in the mid-1970s, but today, when I look at this game,I feel ill at
ease at such a prospect. } ) 24.Rxc1 Rc8 25.Rxc8+ Nxc8 26.Qc2 $1
{ The white queen unexpectedly breaks into the enemy position, exploiting
thelack of harmony among Black's pieces: his queen is isolated, his knight
has nostrong-points, and in addition his king has no escape square. }
26...Ne7 27.Qc7
{ The character of the play has changed sharply: White has begun to
createconcrete threats, and Larsen has to defend. } 27...g6 $2
{ An inexplicable move. } (
{ Apparently the indefatigable Larsen wanted to leap with his knight to f5
and } 27...Ng6 $1 { seemed too simplistic to him. However, after } 28.Nxg6 (
28.Qc8+ Nf8 29.Nd3 $2 { does not work in view of } 29...Qxa2 30.Nc5 Qd2 $1 )
28...hxg6 29.Qc8+ Kh7 30.Qxb7 f6
{ , Black would easily have gained a draw due to theweakness of the white
pawns: } 31.Kh2 Qxa2 32.Qb6 a5 { . } ) 28.Nd3 (
{ It waspossibly stronger (but also more risky!) to play } 28.Qxb7 $5 Qc1+
29.Kf2 Nf5 30.Qb8+ Kg7 31.Qe5+ Kg8 32.Ne2
{ with an extra pawn. But Spassky subtlysenses the change in the situation
and calmly strengthens his position,probably hoping that Larsen's 27th move
will not be his last mistake. } ) 28...Nf5 29.g4 $1 { The only winning try. }
( { The immediate } 29.Ne5 { would havebeen parried by the simple } 29...Qe7
{ . } ) 29...Nh6 $2
{ White did not have to waitlong for the next mistake: realising that he
had to think not about activity,but about how to save the game, Larsen
became rattled! In my opinion, it wouldbe better to resign immediately than to retreat the knight to 'nowhere'. AsGligoric expressed it, 'now the
black king suffocates'. } (
{ Meanwhile, Black'sposition was still defensible, and he only had to find
the regrouping } 29...Nd6 30.Ne5 h6 $1
{ . The audacious black queen cannot be underestimated: itdefends the
knight and, crucially, ties down the white queen by the need tocontrol the
c1-square, from which saving checks can begin. In addition, withthe pawn on h6 White cannot plan the flight of his king to f4. The otherattacking
scheme does not work - } 31.Nd7 ( { while after the continuation } 31.Qc5 $1
Qxc5 32.dxc5 { the endgame is closer to a draw than to a win for White } )
31...Nb5 $1 { . } ) 30.Ne5 $1
{ White suddenly creates a mating attack, in whichhis king takes an active
part. } 30...Qb4 ( { It was no better to play } 30...Qxa2 31.Nd7 Qa3 32.Kg2
$1 Qb4 33.Kg3 b5 34.Qb8+ Kg7 35.Qe5+ Kg8 36.Kf4 $1 { etc. } ) 31.Nd7 $1 Qe1+
32.Kg2 Qe2+ 33.Kg3 Nf5+ ( { If } 33...Qe1+ 34.Kf4 $1 g5+ 35.Kxg5 Qxe3+ 36.f4
Kg7 { , then } 37.Qd8 $1 { is decisive. } ) 34.gxf5 Qe1+ 35.Kf4 $1 Qh4+
36.Ke5 Qg3+ 37.f4 Qxe3+ 38.Kf6
{ Such a victorious march by the kinginto the opponent's position always
creates a great impression. } 38...Qxd4+ 39.Ne5
{ . --- This purely psychological defeat so affected Larsen that the
subsequentplay was one-sided. He also lost the next two games and, in the
end, the match:2˝-5˝. Spassky again displayed a brilliant understanding of his opponent'spsychology. }
1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "The Storming of Olympus"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ Just two months later Spassky met Korchnoi (who had defeated Tal in
thesemi-final) in the Candidates final. Viktor Lvovich solved the problem
of theClosed Variation of the Sicilian, but this did not help him, since hisopponent outplayed him in a complicated and protracted struggle, also
withBlack. And with White, when his play with 1 e4 did not work out, Spasskysimply switched to 1 d4, and this proved unpleasant for Korchnoi. In the 7thgame, as though hypnotised, he chose the King's Indian Defence and was quicklycrushed in the Sämisch Variation. --- Recently Korchnoi and
I were discussingthose days, and he admitted that at that time it was been very difficult tocombat Spassky: 'Boris skilfully maintained the tension and made strong,unexpected moves at decisive moments. He complicated the play just beforetime-trouble, when I no longer had any time left...' We also mentionedBondarevsky: after all, it was he who made the talented young grandmaster intoa genuinely strong-willed match fighter. The outcome of that match withKorchnoi was 6˝-3˝ in Spassky's favour. Next in line was an encounter withPetrosian. }
1.--
{ Every match for the world championship has its mystery; asentiment that
Spassky in particular likes to repeat. In such duels there areindeed a mass
of hidden nuances that influence the decisions of the twoplayers. At times these are inexplicable even to those who have at some timefought for the
world crown themselves. And for others it is extremelydifficult to imagine the degree of nervous tension and the diverse motifs bywhich the participants in the battle are governed. --- I can picture thepsychological problems that Spassky and Petrosian encountered in 1969: aftertheir first match
they knew everything, or nearly everything, about each other.Spassky faced a very difficult situation. He was now stronger than Petrosian,having made a step forward in his chess evolution. However, chess strength ingeneral and chess strength in a specific match are by no means one and thesame thing. After all, Spassky had also been very strong in 1966, as indicatedby his brilliant victory in the super-tournament in Santa Monica (ahead ofFischer, Larsen, Portisch, Petrosian etc) just two months after the lost match.But however the various tournaments turned out for Petrosian, he was
anextremely dangerous match opponent. It was here that his qualities acquiredparticular value: his unique sense of danger, and his ability to avoid adirect confrontation and to deploy his pieces such that they restricted theopponent's possibilities. --- It is interesting to observe how Spasskybreached this wall. The match was rather uneven, but in the end the challengerwon the latent psychological struggle, in which he had been unsuccessful in1966. That previous match had also been a difficult one, but Petrosian haddominated psychologically: it seems to me that in the depths of his heartSpassky had not really believed that he would win, and at some point he hadlost the necessary confidence in himself. In a recent interview he admitted:'I was worn out by the qualifying competitions and, in addition, I was poor.And when a poor man becomes a king (and I hold monarchist views), this doesnot turn out well! In the first match I was helped by Smyslov: he fed me allthe time at his place, and by the end of the match I had actually put on sixkilograms! But when I played the second match I already had money, so I wasable to compensate my trainers: after all, I had won the first prize
of $5,000at the tournament in Santa Monica.' I should explain that in the late 1960s,especially in the USSR, this was a considerable sum of money! --- Of course,these were completely different matches (although there were some amazingsimilarities: for example, the 20th game of the first match with the 10th ofthe second match - two nightmarish defeats for the challenger in theNimzo-Indian Defence!). And, of course, in 1969 Spassky had learned from thelessons of the earlier match. But Petrosian too arrived fully armed for thesecond encounter. Being very aware of his opponent's weaknesses, he by nomeans considered himself to be doomed. And he even took a mysterious decision:not to avoid complicated, double-edged set-ups, and to take more risks thanusual. For the sake of this he sacrificed his solidity! His 'Black' openingswere markedly more aggressive than those of three years earlier, whereas his'White' openings were, as usual, aimed at gradual suffocation. }
( 1.--
{ In those times there was still great scope for creativity, and there was
notsuch rigorous and long-range opening preparation as, for example, in
mymatches with Karpov or even in the matches between Karpov and Korchnoi. Evenso, the second Petrosian-Spassky match was the first to feature
prolonged,critical opening duels, based on the deep development of entire systems. TheTarrasch Defence became a testing ground. Its employment by Spassky was one ofthe main revelations of the match (although he had also played it previously,on occasion). This was an audacious challenge to the
positional principles ofPetrosian, who liked playing by points, against some permanent weakness - forexample, against an isolated d5-pawn. --- But Spassky had no fear of the'isolani'. He deployed his pieces harmoniously and created tactical threatsvery resourcefully. If necessary he also calmly and patiently defendedslightly inferior positions (an area in which he had made obvious progresscompared with 1966). The theory of the Tarrasch Defence was virgin territoryin those days, and Spassky (along with his trainer, Bondarevsky) subtly sensedthat his opponent would play too
cautiously, avoiding committing continuationsand thereby allowing Black to solve his opening problems successfully. Alsopresent was a psychological implication, typical of Spassky: hypnotised by the'dubious' defence and the eternal weakness at d5, White might overstep themark. And, as we shall see, this judgment was fully justified. --- The matchbegan badly for Spassky. In the 1st game it was apparently anxiety that told:after reaching an excellent position from the opening (the Paulsen Variationin the Sicilian Defence), he delayed matters and found himself in a difficultendgame; during the resumption he found a study-like draw, but then blunderedand lost at the very last moment. In the 2nd game, employing the TarraschDefence, he quickly seized the initiative, forcing White to secure a draw. Inthe opinion of grandmaster Boleslavsky, Petrosian's second, 'this game had aserious influence on the further course of the match: Spassky realised thatPetrosian could be let down by his positional instinct and that in hisfavourite positions he was beginning to feel not altogether confident.' In thethird game there was a quiet draw - Spassky did not achieve
anything as White,employing the Maróczy set-up against the Accelerated Dragon. --- The 4th and5th games proved to be the turning point. When I came to annotate them, Ilooked through the splendid book on the match by Boleslavsky and Bondarevsky,which I received as a present back in my childhood. }
) *
[Event "75. World Championship Match, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1969.??.??"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Petrosian, T."]
[Black "Spassky, B."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "D34"]
[EventDate "1969.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.c4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5
{ An unexpected repetition of theopening in the 2nd game. Petrosian, who
did not rate the Tarrasch Defence veryhighly, had thought that it was
simply a one-off. } 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.O-O O-O 9.Bg5
{ The best plan; } (
{ although the 9th world champion hadpreviously played both } 9.Bf4 ) (
{ and } 9.Be3 { . } ) 9...cxd4 ( { After } 9...Be6 10.dxc5 Bxc5 11.Bxf6 $1
{ (according to Bondarevsky, 'nipping in the bud theopponent's striving for
active piece play') } ( 11.Na4 { - Volume 2, Game No.45 } ) 11...Qxf6 12.Nxd5
Qxb2 13.Nc7 Rad8 14.Qc1 Qxc1 15.Raxc1 b6 ( { or } 15...Bb6 16.Nxe6 fxe6
{ , Rubinstein-Schlechter, Vienna 1908 } ) 16.Nxe6 fxe6
{ (Petrosian-Spassky, 16th matchgame, Moscow 1969), Black has a
depressingendgame. And although he escaped the worst in both these games,
later practiceconfirmed the correctness of this evaluation. } ) 10.Nxd4 h6
11.Be3 Bg4
{ 'Petrosian had a sceptical regard for this move, and he was surprised
thatSpassky employed it a second time.' (Boleslavsky). } (
{ Since I also used toplay the Tarrasch Defence, I can add that the
mechanical siege of the d5-pawndoes not bring White any tangible gains.
What is required is energetic playand the accurate deployment of his forces, enabling him both to blockade thed-pawn, and to suppress Black's
piece activity. I successfully employed thisrisky defence in Candidates matches (1983-84), where after }
11...Re8 12.Rc1 ( { Belyavsky tried } 12.Qa4 ) ( { and } 12.Qc2 ) (
{ and Korchnoi and Smyslov - } 12.a3 ) (
{ but only in the match for the world crown was a comparatively
unpleasantplan found: } 12.Qb3 Na5 13.Qc2 Bg4 14.Nf5 Rc8 (
{ it is also possible to play } 14...Bb4 15.Bd4 Bxc3 16.Bxc3 Rxe2 17.Qd1 (
17.Qd3 $5 ) 17...d4 18.Nxd4 Rxf2 19.Qa4 Rxg2+ 20.Kxg2 Qd5+ 21.Kg1 Nc4 22.Qb5
a6 23.Qxd5 Nxd5
{ andBlack can hold the endgame, Kasparov-Illescas, Linares 1990 } ) 15.Bd4
Bc5 16.Bxc5 Rxc5 17.Ne3 $1 Be6 18.Rad1 Qc8 (
{ true, experience has shown that heretoo Black can put up a successful
fight: } 18...Qd7 $5 19.Qd3 ( 19.b4 Rc7 20.bxa5 d4 21.Rd3 Bf5 $1 ) 19...Nc4
20.Nxc4 ( 20.Qd4 Nxe3 $1 ) 20...dxc4
{ with equality (Lastin-Bezgodov, Moscow 1999). } ) 19.Qa4
{ with a slight butenduring advantage (Karpov-Kasparov, 9th matchgame,
Moscow 1984/85). } ) 12...Bf8
{ became the main continuation in the 1990s; for example: } 13.Na4 $5 (
{ or } 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Na4 Bd7 15.Bc5 Bxc5 16.Nxc5 Bg4 17.Re1 Qa5 18.h3 Bf5
19.Qd4 $1 Rab8 20.a3 { (Kasparov-Illescas, Linares 1994) } ) 13...Bd7 14.Nc5
{ (Kramnik-Illescas, Linares 1994) - in both cases with some advantage to
White.The Tarrasch Defence continues to be played to this day, albeit more
rarely.The theory of this opening has made great strides and it no longer has itsformer freshness and novelty: ways have been found for White to
neutralise theopponent's active counterplay... } ) 12.Nb3
{ As soon transpires, White had notyet prepared anything serious in this
variation. } ( 12.h3 Be6 13.Rc1 ( 13.Nxc6 $6 bxc6 14.Na4 Qc8 $1 15.Kh2 c5 )
13...Qd7 14.Kh2 Ne5
{ also promises himlittle (Korchnoi-Spassky, 24th USSR Championship, Moscow
1957). } ) ( { And onlyin the 12th game did he hit on an advantage after }
12.Qa4 $1 Na5 13.Rad1
{ (as, incidentally, I beat Palatnik in 1981), forcing Black to turn in the
18thgame to the more flexible 11...Re8!, which has been the main move ever
since (see above). } ) 12...Be6 13.Rc1 ( { If } 13.Nc5 { , then } 13...d4 $1
14.Nxe6 fxe6 15.Bxc6 dxe3 { is possible. } ) 13...Re8 $1 ( { 'The routine }
13...Rc8 { was inferior,since after } 14.Nb5
{ Black would have had to move one of his queenside pawns,which for the
moment does not come into his plans. ' (Boleslavsky) } ) 14.Re1
{ This is a novelty. } ( { The 2nd game went } 14.Nb5
{ (a pointless manoeuvre, madeon general grounds) } 14...Qd7 15.N5d4 Bh3
16.Nxc6 bxc6 17.Qd3 Bxg2 18.Kxg2 a5 $1 { with equality. } ) (
{ The alternative is } 14.Nc5 $5 Bxc5 15.Bxc5 { with a smallplus after both }
15...Qa5 ( { and } 15...Ne4 16.Nxe4 dxe4 17.Qa4 Qd5 18.Bxe4 Qxa2 19.Qxa2 Bxa2
20.f3 ) 16.Bd4 Nxd4 ( { or } 16...Ne4 17.a3 Rad8 18.e3 ) 17.Qxd4 Rac8 18.e3
Rc4 19.Qd3 Rec8 20.Rcd1 R8c5 21.a3 { . } ) 14...Qd7 15.Bc5
{ Played after 17 minutes' thought and again on general grounds - for the
sakeof the 'positionally advantageous exchange of dark-squared bishops'.
Thecommentators attach an exclamation mark to this move. } ( { However, }
15.Nc5 $5 { again comes into consideration here. For example, } 15...Bxc5
16.Bxc5 Rad8 ( { it is no better to play } 16...b6 17.Bd4 $1 ) ( { or }
16...d4 17.Nb5 Bxa2 18.Nxd4 Bd5 19.Nxc6 Bxc6 20.Qxd7 Nxd7 21.Bxc6 bxc6 22.Be3
Re6 23.Ra1 ) 17.Nb5 Ne4 18.Bxe4 dxe4 19.Nd6 b6 20.Ba3
{ is favourable for White; } ( { but not } 20.Nxe8 $2 Qxe8 21.Bd6 Na5 22.Rc7
Nc4 { . } ) ) 15...Rac8 ( 15...Rad8 16.Bxe7 Qxe7
{ is also acceptable. Here the harmonious development of Black's pieces
fullycompensates for the weakness of his isolated d5-pawn: } 17.e3 Bg4 (
17...Qb4 $6 18.a3 Qb6 19.Na4 Qb5 20.Nd4 Nxd4 21.Qxd4 { is inferior } ) 18.f3
Bf5 19.Nb5 Rc8 20.N5d4 Nxd4 21.Nxd4 Bg6 { etc. } ) 16.Bxe7 ( 16.Nb5 Bh3
17.Bh1 a6 18.Bxe7 Qxe7 19.N5d4 Ne4 { with equality (Bondarevsky). } )
16...Qxe7 $1 { (withthe intention of ...Red8 and ... d5-d4) } 17.e3
{ This took White 14 minutes. } ( 17.Nxd5 $6 Nxd5 18.Bxd5
{ was unfavourable on account of } 18...Rcd8 19.e4 Nb4
{ and the capture on d5. } ) ( { If } 17.Nb5 ) ( { or } 17.Nd4 { , then }
17...Qb4 { . } ) 17...Red8 18.Qe2 { (vacating the d1-square for the rook) }
18...Bg4 $1 { An unpleasant'left hook'. } ( { The hasty } 18...d4 $2
{ would have led to a difficult endgameafter } 19.Nxd4 Nxd4 20.exd4 Rxd4
21.Nb5 Rxc1 22.Nxd4 $1 Rxe1+ 23.Qxe1 { . } ) 19.f3
{ 'Driving back the audacious bishop and securely defending the e4-
andg4-squares. The e3-pawn is easily defended and it is not hard to
activate theg2-bishop. Even so, 19 f3 imparts to the game that sharpness which Petrosianusually endeavoured to avoid. }
( { 'A more flexible alternative was } 19.Qf1 $5 Ne4
{ , he has the one correct reply } ( { with the threat of } 19...-- 20.h3 Bh5
21.Ne2 { and Nf4. } ) ( { After } 19...Ne5 20.Nd4 Qb4 21.Qb5
{ White obtains thebetter endgame; } ( 21.-- ) ) 20.Ne2 $1
{ ' (Boleslavsky). --- A very interestingrecommendation. I should just like
to amend the last variation: } 20...Nb4 ( { ifinstead Black plays } 20...Na5
{ , then after } 21.Ned4 $1 Nxb3 22.Nxb3
{ he is also left with a fixed weakness at d5 } ) 21.f3 $1 Nd2 22.Nxd2 Qxe3+
23.Qf2 Qxf2+ $1 ( { but not } 23...Qxd2 $2 24.Rcd1 Qc2 25.fxg4 Nd3 26.Rxd3
Qxd3 27.Nf4 ) 24.Kxf2 Nd3+ 25.Kf1 Nxc1 26.Rxc1 $1 Rxc1+ 27.Nxc1 Bf5 28.Ncb3
$1 ( 28.Ndb3 $2 Rc8 29.Ne2 Bd3 30.Nd4 Rc1+ 31.Kf2 Bxe2 32.Kxe2 Rb1
{ isincorrect } ) 28...d4 ( { now } 28...Rc8 $6 { misses the mark: } 29.Nd4
Bd7 30.f4 Rc1+ 31.Ke2 ) 29.f4 b6 30.Kf2 { with somewhat the better ending. }
) 19...Bf5 20.Rcd1 Ne5
{ Although nominally White still retains a slight initiative, nowhe too has
weaknesses and a change in the play gradually begins to occur. Thisis no
longer that typically Petrosian-like play, 'coiling round' theopponent's weaknesses, where for a long time one can move here and there andsee what
happens. The position becomes increasingly double-edged and demandsconcrete action. --- Thus Spassky had won the psychological duel, by takingthe play onto territory where the opponent felt less confident. After all,Petrosian's strength was always in his anticipation of danger, and if hethought that
it was time to make a draw, he would do so. But here he playedfor a win with 19 f3 and... began to lose his objectivity! It seems to me thathe felt the need to demonstrate an advantage for White in the Tarrasch Defence,preventing him from modifying his play, which he would probably have done inanother opening. It was this that Spassky was trying to achieve. His idea wasthat the opponent would not realise the true danger of his position until itwas too late, seeking an ephemeral advantage and then having to engage in apainstaking defence and find the only moves. }
21.Nd4 { Occupying the d4-square. } (
{ It was not at all in Petrosian's style to play } 21.Nxd5 Rxd5 22.Rxd5 Nxd5
23.e4 Nd3 $5 ( { this is better than the struggle for a draw after }
23...Bxe4 24.Qxe4 Nc6 25.Qxe7 Ndxe7 26.f4 Kf8 ) 24.Qxd3 Nb4 25.Qb5 Be6
{ withexcellent play for the pawn. } ) 21...Bg6 $5
{ Another provocative move,allowing White to activate his bishop and
inviting him to seek an advantage. } ( 21...Be6 { was much more modest; } )
( { whereas } 21...Bd7 $6 { was bad on accountof } 22.f4 Bg4 23.fxe5 $1 Bxe2
24.exf6 Qxe3+ 25.Kh1 Qg5 26.Ndxe2 Qxf6 27.Nxd5
{ , when the three minor pieces are clearly stronger than the queen. } )
22.Bh3 Rc4 $1 { Of course, Spassky sharpens the play as much as possible! }
( { After the quiet } 22...Rb8
{ it is doubtful whether White has anythingsignificant, but Black too would
have been deprived of active play. 'Black isin danger of ending up in a
difficult position: the hanging position of hisrook may provide the theme for various combinations.' (Boleslavsky). However,White also has to take into
account a mass of tactical possibilities for theopponent. Petrosian thought for 12 minutes. }
) 23.g4 $5 ( { One would like toplay } 23.f4
{ immediately (in order to block in the bishop with f4-f5), butthen Black
has } 23...Bh5 24.Qf1 { and now: } 24...Nc6 $1 ( { not } 24...Rxd4 $2 25.exd4
Nf3+ 26.Qxf3 $1 Qxe1+ 27.Rxe1 Bxf3 28.Re7 Rb8 ( 28...b5 29.Rxa7 b4 30.Nb5 $1
Re8 31.Nd6 $1 Re2 32.Ra8+ Kh7 33.Nxf7 { is even worse } ) 29.Nb5 Kf8 30.Rc7
Ne8 31.Rc3 { with advantage to White } ) 25.g4 Nxg4 { (this forces a draw) }
26.Nxd5 Rxd5 27.Qxc4 Qh4 $1 28.Bxg4 ( 28.Qf1 $2 Nxe3 $1 ) 28...Qxg4+ 29.Kh1
Rxd4 30.Rxd4 Qf3+ 31.Kg1 Qg4+ { with perpetual. } ) ( { After } 23.Qf1
{ Bondarevsky recommended } 23...Qb4
{ . Now if play continues with the plausible } 24.Rd2 Bh5 $1 25.a3 Qa5 26.g4
Bg6 27.Red1 Re8 28.Qf2 { , I found a typicalexchange sacrifice: } 28...Rxc3
$1 29.bxc3 Nc4 30.Re2 Qxc3 { with more thansufficient compensation. } ) (
{ Perhaps } 23.a3 $5
{ and only then Qf1 would bemore cautious, but here too White constantly
has to reckon with the exchangesacrifice. --- Petrosian's move is
pretentious, and perhaps also the strongest:now 24 f4 and 25 Nxd5! is seriously threatened. Leading '+1', the worldchampion thought that he could
allow himself to play in a more risky, creativemanner, by weakening his kingside. I think that he did not even consider thepossibility of losing. }
) 23...Rb4 $5 { Yet another provocation! } (
{ Objectively,it was safer to play } 23...Qd7 $1 24.Qg2 Qc7
{ with a very complicated,roughly equal game. But Spassky makes a move that
is purely psychological, asthough to unnerve his opponent. Oh, this
hooligan-like rook! (Oneinvoluntarily recalls an old game between Tarrasch and Lasker - Volume 1, GameNo.54). Petrosian thought for a further 10
minutes, trying in vain to find ananswer to the question: 'How to punish Black for such provocative play?' }
) ( { But not } 23...Qc5 $2 24.f4 Nc6 25.Nb3 Qb4 26.Bg2 $1 Ne7 27.f5 Bh7
28.Nd4 { . } ) 24.b3 ( { 'The tempting move } 24.f4
{ does not bring any benefit in view of } 24...Nc4 $1 25.b3 Nd6 26.f5 Bh7
27.Bg2 Qe5 { ' (Bondarevsky) For example: } 28.Na4 Nde4 29.Rd3 h5 $1 30.a3
Rxa4 31.bxa4 hxg4 { and Black is perfectlyalright. } ) 24...Nc6 25.Qd2 Rb6 (
{ No one has mentioned the return move } 25...Ne5 $1 { , and if } 26.Kh1
{ , then } 26...Rb6 27.Bf1 Nh7 { with sufficientcounterplay. } ) 26.Nce2 $6
{ White begins to lose the thread and makes atactical oversight. } (
{ 'Tired out by the preceding struggle, Petrosianoverlooks that after the
active } 26.Na4 $1 { 'There would only remain } 26...Ra6 { , but then } (
{ Black cannot reply } 26...Nxd4 $2 27.exd4 Re6 { , since after } 28.g5 $1
{ he loses the exchange. } ( 28.-- ) ) 27.Bf1 Nxd4 28.exd4 ( 28.Qxd4 $6 Rc6
$1 ( 28...Re6 29.Qxa7 h5 $1 { is weaker; } ( 29...-- ) ) 29.Qxa7 h5 $1
{ is even better: } 30.g5 Ne8 31.h4 ( { or } 31.f4 f6 32.Bg2 Be4 ) 31...f6
32.f4 Be4 { - G.K. } ) 28...Re6 29.Nc5 Rxe1 30.Rxe1 Qc7 31.Re5
{ with a positionalsqueeze.' (Boleslavsky). And although after } 31...b6
32.Nd3
{ 'Black has aperfectly sound position without weaknesses,' (Bondarevsky)
it is neverthelessworse for him than in the game, and in any event White
would not have beenrisking anything here. } ) 26...Bh7
{ 'A cunning move!' (Boleslavsky) By movingthe bishop out of range of the
knight at f4, Black invites the opponent todeclare his intentions.
Petrosian spent a further eight minutes here... } 27.Bg2 $6
{ 'A serious turning-point in the course of the struggle has beenreached.
White's initiative on the kingside has completely evaporated, andonly
weaknesses and his bad bishop remain. This probably exerted a certainpsychological pressure on Petrosian's subsequent play, although in general
thechances of the two sides are equal.' (Bondarevsky) } (
{ Of course, a morelogical continuation was } 27.Nf4 Qa3 $5 (
{ it can hardly be advantageous toplay } 27...g5 28.Nfe2 h5 29.gxh5 Nxh5
30.Nf5 ) 28.Bf1 Nxd4 29.exd4 Rc6 { with equality. } ) ( 27.Bf1 $5 ) 27...Re8
28.Ng3 ( { Even after the better } 28.Nf4 g5 29.Nd3 Qa3
{ White's weaknesses begin to unnerve him. } ) 28...Nxd4 29.exd4 $6
{ Petrosian is still hoping for an advantage and makes a move ongeneral
grounds, not sensing the danger posed by the weakening of the f4-
andh4-squares. } ( { After } 29.Qxd4
{ the game would probably have ended in a draw. } ) 29...Re6 30.Rxe6 Qxe6
{ As we can see, Black has solved all his problems andhis experiment with
the manoeuvre ...Rc4-b4-b6-e6 has been a complete success.The d5-pawn is
now opposed by a pawn at d4, the e-file has been seized andWhite's minor pieces are passive (the knight is a long way from e5). But themain thing is
that here Spassky hits on a plan that his opponent discerns toolate. White urgently needed to exchange the queens or at least the rooks,retaining the theoretical hope of exploiting the weakness of the d5-pawn. }
31.Rc1 { (a so-so move) } ( 31.Kf2 $1 { is more accurate. } ) 31...Bg6 $1
32.Bf1 { Overlooking Black's reply. } ( { The commentators thought that }
32.Kf2
{ wasnecessary, but it seems to me that here too the plan with the
manoeuvre of theknight to e6 would have created definite problems for
White: } 32...Qd6 33.h4 Nd7 34.Bf1 Nf8 35.Bb5 Rd8
{ and ...Ne6. The queens and rooks are still on theboard and the weakness
at d5 is not felt, whereas the weaknesses at d4 and f4and the open position
of the white king are very sensitive. } ) 32...Nh7 $1
{ I think that after this move it became clear to Petrosian that he might
havemajor problems. The champion thought for nine minutes and ended up
inappreciable time-trouble. } 33.Qf4 ( 33.h4 Qf6 $1 34.h5 Ng5 ) 33...Nf8
{ A consistent continuation of the plan. } (
{ Many commentators recommended the'more energetic' } 33...Qb6 34.Rc5 Ng5
35.Rxd5 ( 35.h4 Ne6 36.Qe5 Rd8 37.Rxd5 Rxd5 38.Qxd5 Nxd4 39.Kg2 Nc2 40.Kh3
{ is unclear } ) 35...Qc6 36.Rc5 $1
{ (for some reason no one considered this) } ( 36.Qd6 $2 Qc1 ) ( 36.Rd6 $2
Qc7 37.Nf5 ( { or } 37.d5 Re5 $1 ) 37...Bxf5 38.gxf5 Nxf3+ 39.Kg2 Nh4+ )
36...Qxf3 37.Qxf3 Nxf3+ 38.Kf2 Nxd4 39.Rc7
{ with a quick draw. --- Now, however, Whitemust make an important
decision. } ) 34.Rc5 $2 (
{ Taking account of White'stime-trouble, it was essential for him to play }
34.Qe5 $1 { : } 34...Qxe5 $6 ( { effectively gaining a draw after } 34...Qd7
35.Qc7 Qe6 36.Qe5 ) ( { or } 34...f6 35.Qxe6+ Nxe6 36.Kf2 { ; } ( 36.-- ) )
35.dxe5 { would even have given him themore pleasant game: } 35...Ne6 (
35...Rxe5 $2 36.f4 Re7 37.f5 Bh7 38.Rc8 ) 36.Rd1 d4 37.Nf5 Bxf5 38.gxf5 Nc5
39.b4
{ . The move 34 Qe5 is an obvious one thatvery much suggests itself. But by
now Petrosian had lost control of thesituation, apparently tired out by the
tense struggle and the constantuncertainty: whether to play for a win, or make a draw... }
) 34...Bb1 $1 { (promptly exploiting the chance opportunity) } 35.a4 (
{ If } 35.Qd2 Qf6 $1 36.Qd1 { , then Black has the powerful } 36...Rd8 $1
37.Rb5 Bg6 38.Rxb7 Ne6 39.Rb4 Rc8
{ with a strong attack - it was this type of position that Spassky had in
mind. } ) 35...Ng6 36.Qd2 Qf6
{ White is now in considerable difficulties: the blackqueen is attacking
both the d4-pawn and the weakened kingside, and the knightis threatening to
leap to f4 or h4. } 37.Kf2 $2 ( { The last possibility of adefence was }
37.Rc1 $1 Nh4 38.Bg2 Bg6 39.Kf2 { . After } 39...b6
{ White's positionis unpleasant, but as yet by no means lost. Black's
knight would have stood ath4, whereas now it reaches f4 and his attack
becomes irresistible. } ) 37...Nf4
{ It is amazing how everything has changed literally in five moves! White
isleft with only weaknesses, whereas the black pieces have become
simply'savage', occupying ideal positions. } 38.a5 $2
{ Already in serioustime-trouble, Petrosian overlooks a tactical stroke. } (
{ The only move was } 38.Rc3
{ , although here too White would not have survived for long after } 38...Ne6
39.Ne2 h5 $1 { . } ) 38...Bd3 $1
{ This leads to an immediate finish. 'Such movesare rarely encountered in
matches for the world championship.' (Boleslavsky). } 39.Nf5 ( { or } 39.Qc3
Qh4 $1 40.Kg1 Bxf1 41.Rc8 Bb5 ) 39...Qg5 $1 40.Ne3 Qh4+ 41.Kg1 Bxf1
{ This last move was sealed. } (
{ Without resuming the game,White resigned due to } 41...Bxf1 42.Kxf1 (
42.Nxf1 Re2 ) 42...Qh3+ 43.Kg1 Rxe3
{ . --- A very important win! Spassky levelled the scores and seized
theinitiative in the match. 'He created - ŕ la Keres - positions with
activepiece play,' wrote Botvinnik, 'and patiently waited for the fifth hour of playto arrive, since from those events where Petrosian had
played it was evidentthat he was at his most vulnerable in the fifth hour of a game. Perhaps theonly exception was the 5th game.' Since in this game an opening catastropheoccurred. }
) 0-1
[Event "76. World Championship Match, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1969.??.??"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Spassky, B."]
[Black "Petrosian, T."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "D41"]
[EventDate "1969.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.c4
{ One of Spassky's virtues, which I have already mentioned, was that
hecould 'serve with either hand', and felt confident in the most varied
openings.At that time it was sufficient to have some idea up your sleeve or a specificimprovement in a popular variation, and you could already
consider yourselfready for the game. In the words of Boleslavsky, 'Spassky did not object to anEnglish Opening, but he had every justification for assuming that his opponentwould take the play into a set-up from the Queen's Gambit.' That is, to theSemi-Tarrasch Defence, where White
had something prepared. } 1...Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.d4 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4
$1 { A surprise! } (
{ Against Tal (Moscow 1963)and Langeweg (Sochi 1967) Spassky had played }
6.e3 Nc6 7.Bc4 { , notobjecting to } 7...cxd4 8.exd4
{ . Similar positions with an isolated d4-pawn arosefrom the Caro-Kann in
the 1966 match, and also from the Queen's GambitAccepted in the 1963 match,
and Tigran Vartanovich believed implicitly in thesolidity of Black's defences. --- 'Of course, Petrosian was expecting 6 e3,which had occurred
hundreds of times and for which he was fully prepared. The6 e4 variation is not considered dangerous for Black. Spassky had neveremployed it before and the world champion, naturally, did not remember aboutit during his preparations for the match. Even if Spassky had not found somesignificant
improvement, all the same the employment of this variation wouldhave been the kind of psychological surprise that is often more important thanthe objective strength of the chosen continuation. Especially since Petrosianhad just suffered a defeat.' (Boleslavsky) }
) 6...Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Bb4+ (
{ In the Spassky-Fischer match (9th game, Reykjavik 1972) Black succeededin
equalising by } 8...Nc6 9.Bc4 b5 $6 10.Bd3 (
{ but subsequently Whiteenjoyed some success with } 10.Be2 $1
{ , for example: } 10...Bb4+ 11.Bd2 Bxd2+ 12.Qxd2 Rb8 13.d5 $1 ) 10...Bb4+
11.Bd2 Bxd2+ 12.Qxd2 a6 13.a4 O-O { . } ) 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ (
{ The difficulties of the endgame after } 9...Qa5 $6 10.Rb1 $1 Bxd2+ 11.Qxd2
Qxd2+ 12.Kxd2
{ have been known since the time of the classic gameRubinstein-Schlechter
(San Sebastian 1912): } 12...O-O 13.Bb5 $1 a6 14.Bd3 Rd8 15.Rhc1 b5 (
15...Nc6 16.Ke3 ) 16.Rc7 Nd7 17.Ke3 Nf6 18.Ne5 Bd7 19.g4 $1 { ... 1-0. } )
10.Qxd2 O-O 11.Bc4 Nc6 12.O-O b6 13.Rad1 $1
{ It is surprisingthat such a natural move as 13 Rad1, which immediately
became standard, shouldhave been an unexpected novelty, based on one of the
longest openingpreparations in Spassky's career (those were the times, when such moves werenovelties!). Free piece play in a position with a mobile
d4- and e4-pawn pairwas undoubtedly to his taste, conforming with all the laws of harmony: quietdevelopment, then a blow in the centre and a powerful combinative explosion. }
(
{ At that time this position had not been explored very much, and one of
themain guides was provided by the old game Alekhine-Euwe (18th matchgame,
TheHague 1937): } 13.Rfd1 Bb7 (
{ but not long before the match, the game A.Zaitsev-Polugayevsky (36th USSR
Championship, Alma Ata 1968/69) went } 13...Na5 $5 14.Bd3 Bb7 15.Qe3 Rc8
16.Rac1 Qe7 { with equality } ) 14.Qf4 Rc8 ( 14...Qf6 $5 ) 15.d5 exd5 16.Bxd5
Qe7
{ . Later Black incorrectly exchanged on d5 andWhite, after successfully
avoiding the exchange of queens, could haveexploited the power of his
passed pawn (Volume 1, Game No.145). } ) 13...Bb7 ( { The move order }
13...Na5 14.Bd3 Bb7
{ rules out a variation that could haveoccurred in the game (cf. the note
to White's next move), although here too itis possible to play } 15.d5 $5
{ with chances of seizing the initiative: } ( { apart from } 15.Rfe1 ) (
{ and } 15.Qf4 { , Khalifman-Karpov, Dos Hermanas 1993 } ) 15...exd5 (
{ or } 15...Qe7 16.Rfe1 Rad8 17.Nd4 g6 18.Qh6 e5 19.Nc2
{ , Lautier-Kazimdzhanov, Wijk aan Zee 2002 } ) 16.e5 d4 $5 (
{ in the book 'BorisSpassky's 300 Wins' } 16...Bc8 17.Qf4 h6
{ is recommended, but after } 18.Nd4
{ and Rfe1 White has enduring compensation for the pawn } ) 17.Nxd4 $1 Qd5
18.Qg5 { (Lev-Onat, Haifa 1989). } ) 14.Rfe1 (
{ Another interesting idea is } 14.d5 Na5 15.dxe6 $5 ( 15.Bd3 { - cf. above }
) 15...Nxc4 ( 15...Qxd2 $2 16.exf7+ Kh8 17.Nxd2 Nxc4 18.Nxc4 Bxe4 19.Ne5
{ and wins } ) 16.exf7+ Kh8 17.Qxd8 Raxd8 18.Rxd8 Rxd8 19.e5 Rc8 $1
{ only remains, and after } ( { How to neutralise thewhite pawns? If }
19...Bxf3 $2 { , then } 20.e6 $1 { . } ) (
{ Instead, Boleslavskyconsidered } 19...Bc8 $6 20.Re1 g6 21.h4 $6 (
{ but White can win by } 21.Ng5 $1 Nxe5 22.f4 h6 23.Rxe5 Bd7 ( { or }
23...Rf8 24.Ne4 ) 24.Re7 hxg5 25.Rxd7 $1 ) 21...Rf8 $1 22.e6 Bxe6 23.Rxe6
Rxf7 { with a probable draw. } ) 20.e6 $1 Bd5 21.Ng5 Nd6 22.Rd1 Bxe6 (
22...Bxa2 $2 23.h4 { and wins } ) 23.Nxe6 ( { or } 23.f8=Q+ Rxf8 24.Nxe6 Rc8
) 23...Nxf7 24.h3
{ , Black is obliged to fightfor a draw in an inferior endgame, for
example: } 24...Kg8 25.Rd7 Re8 26.Rxa7 Rxe6 27.Ra8+ Nd8 28.Rxd8+ Kf7 { etc. }
) 14...Rc8 ( 14...Ne7 $6 { would not be toeveryone's taste after } 15.d5 exd5
16.exd5 Nf5 17.Ne5 $1 Nd6 18.Nc6 $1
{ (Petrosian-Korchnoi, 6th matchgame, Ciocco 1977); } ) ( { but } 14...Na5
15.Bd3 Rc8 ( 15...Qd6 $5 { Boleslavsky } ) 16.d5 $1 exd5 17.e5 $1 Nc4
{ was possible -cf. the note to Black's 15th move. } ) 15.d5 $1
{ An instant reply. WhereasPetrosian thought for 13 minutes: he had to make
a difficult choice here. } 15...exd5 $6 (
{ Of course, Tigran Vartanovich considered } 15...Na5 16.Bd3 $1 (
{ and sawthe draw after } 16.dxe6 $6 Qxd2 $1 ( { not } 16...Nxc4 $2 17.exf7+
Kh8 18.Qxd8 Rcxd8 19.Rxd8 Rxd8 20.e5 { and wins } ) 17.exf7+ Kh8 18.Nxd2 Nxc4
19.Nxc4 Rxc4 20.e5 Bc8 $1 21.e6 Bxe6 22.Rxe6 Rc7 23.Re8 Rxf7 24.Rxf8+ Rxf8
25.Rd7 a5 26.Rb7 Rc8 27.g3 Kg8
{ . But he also saw a sharp pawn sacrifice... } ) 16...exd5 (
{ Black fails to equalise after } 16...Qd6 17.dxe6 Qxe6 $2 ( { or } 17...fxe6
18.Bb5 $1 Qxd2 19.Rxd2 ) 18.Nd4 Qe5 19.Nf5 ) 17.e5 $1 Nc4 18.Qf4
{ , which did not appeal to him. And indeed, in the later game
Polugayevsky-Tal,Black suffered a swift catastrophe after missing the best
defence } 18...Rc6 $1
{ (Game No.23). In deciding to avoid these dangers, Petrosian goes from
thefrying pan into the fire. } ) 16.Bxd5 $1 (
{ White would also have retained someadvantage with } 16.exd5 $5 Na5 17.Bf1
Qd6 18.Ng5 Rcd8 ( 18...h6 19.Ne4 Qg6 20.Qf4 Rfd8 21.d6 ) ( 18...Qh6 $6 19.d6
) 19.Qd3 $1 Qh6 $1 20.Qf5 Bc8 21.Qf4 f6 22.Ne6 Qxf4 23.Nxf4 Rd6 24.Bd3 $5
{ . But the move 16 Bxd5! is moretempting: this bishop is so strong, that
sooner or later Black will almostcertainly have to take on d5, and then
White will acquire a passed pawn onthis square. For Spassky, playing such a position was sheer pleasure! }
) 16...Na5 $2
{ Now the knight is stuck on the edge of the board for a long time,
andBlack's position really becomes difficult. } ( { Korchnoi recommended }
16...Qe7 17.Qf4 { Boleslavsky suggested } ( { I would also check } 17.e5 )
17...Rc7 $5 { but he was afraid of } ( 17...h6
{ - according to Boleslavsky, this is hopelesson account of } 18.Nh4 $1
{ and Nf5-d6, although after } 18...Qc7 $1
{ White still hasto look for an advantage: } 19.e5 $1 ( 19.Qg4 Ne7 $1 ) (
19.Qxc7 Rxc7 20.Nf5 Ne7 { with equality } ) 19...Ne7 ( 19...Nd8 $2 20.Nf5 $1
) 20.Bb3 $1 Rcd8 21.Rd6 $1 { etc. } ) 18.h4 { , although after } (
{ the idea is } 18.Nh4 Qe5 ) 18...h6 ( 18...Nd8 $2 19.Nd4 $1 ) 19.h5 Rd8
{ Black can successfully defend. } ) (
{ Black could also have considered the immediate } 16...Qc7 $5 17.Qg5 (
{ or } 17.Rc1 Qe7 { - 'Boris Spassky's 300 Wins' } ) 17...h6 18.Qg4 Ne7
19.Nd4 $5 ( { little is promised by } 19.Bxb7 Qxb7 20.Rd7 ( { or } 20.e5 Rcd8
21.e6 Rxd1 22.Rxd1 Qc8 ) 20...Rc7 ) 19...Rcd8 $1 ( 19...Bxd5 $6 20.exd5 Rcd8
$2 21.Ne6 $1 ) ( 19...Nxd5 $2 20.Nf5 $1 Qc3 21.exd5 ) 20.Rc1 Qb8 $1
{ , and the tacticalstroke } 21.Ne6 $5 fxe6 22.Qxe6+ Kh7 23.Qxe7 Bxd5 24.exd5
{ only leads to adraw: } 24...Rfe8 $1 25.Qf7 Rf8 26.Qe6 Qf4 27.Rc2 ( 27.Rf1
Rd6 ) 27...Qd4 { and ...Qxd5. } ) 17.Qf4 $1 Qc7 ( { Or } 17...Qe7 18.Nd4 $1
{ . By this pointPetrosian had already spent more than an hour, and Spassky
- just 21 minutes. } ) 18.Qf5 $1
{ Avoiding the exchange of queens, by analogy with the Alekhine-Euwegame.
After 10 minutes' thought Black accepts the inevitable. } 18...Bxd5 19.exd5
Qc2 ( { 'After } 19...Nc4 { (to transfer the knight to d6) } 20.Ng5 g6 21.Qh3
h5 22.Ne4 Nd6 23.Nf6+ Kg7 24.Qg3 $1 { White's attack is decisive. } ) (
19...Qd6
{ is also unsuccessful (it has long been known that the queen is a
poorblockader) after } 20.Ng5 Qg6 21.Qxg6 hxg6 22.d6 $1 Nb7 23.d7 Rcd8 24.Re7
Nc5 25.Rd6 Nb7 ( 25...f6 26.Ne6 $1 ) 26.Rc6 ( 26.Rd5 $5 { - G.K. } ) 26...Nc5
27.Rc7 { , and if } 27...f6 { there follows } 28.Rxc5 $1 { (Bondarevsky). } )
20.Qf4 $5
{ Retaining the queens, even at the cost of the a2-pawn. Spassky spent
20minutes on this move. } (
{ He was, of course, hesitating: the technical solution } 20.Qxc2 $1 Rxc2
21.Re7 $1 Rxa2 22.Rxa7 Rc2 23.d6 { was good, for example: } 23...Rd8 (
23...Rcc8 $2 24.d7 Rb8 25.Nd4 { and wins (Boleslavsky) } ( 25.-- ) ) (
23...h6 24.Ne5 $1 ) 24.Ng5 $1 ( { not } 24.Ne5 Rc5 $1 25.f4 Nc6 ) 24...Nc6 (
24...Rc5 25.f4 $1 ) 25.Rc7 f6 ( 25...Nb4 26.Rb7 ) 26.Nf7 Ra8 27.g4 Nb4 28.Rb7
Nc6 29.d7 Nd8 30.Ra7 $1 Rb8 31.Nd6 h6 32.Re1
{ and wins. But he took a morecreative decision : by threatening an attack
on the king, it was possible towin even more quickly. } ) 20...Qxa2 (
{ In Geller's opinion, it was moretenacious to play } 20...Rce8 21.d6 Rxe1+
22.Rxe1 Qd3 { , although here tooafter } ( { not } 22...Qxa2 $2 23.d7 Qd5
24.Qc7 ) 23.Nd4 Nb7 24.h3 $1 { thingsare difficult for Black. } ) 21.d6 $1
Rcd8 22.d7
{ 'The passed pawn, afterreaching the seventh rank, ties down both rooks.
Black's position is hopeless.' (Bondarevsky). However, he still has some
practical chances. } 22...Qc4 ( { In theevent of } 22...Qc2 23.Rc1 $1 Qd3 $1
( { if } 23...Qb3 24.Qc7 Qb5 { White winsby } 25.Re7 $1 h6 ( { or } 25...Nb3
26.Rce1 ) 26.Ne5 ) 24.Red1
{ , Black'sposition is no better than in the game: } 24...Qb5 ( { if }
24...Qe2 ) ( { or } 24...Qb3 25.Qc7 $1 Qe6 26.Rd6 Qf5 27.Re1 $1 h6 28.Rdd1
{ (with the threat of Qxd8!) } 28...Qc5 29.Qxa7 { etc } ) 25.Rc7 $1 ( 25.Qc7
Qf5 26.Qxa7 { is slower } ) 25...a6 ( 25...Nc6 26.Qd6 $1 ) 26.Qe4 ( 26.Qd6 $5
) 26...Nb3 ( { if } 26...Qb2 { , then } 27.Ng5 g6 28.Qe7 $1 ) 27.Ne5 Nc5
28.Qd5 { and wins. } ) 23.Qf5 $1 h6 ( { After } 23...Qc6 24.Ne5 Qe6
{ , I prefer } 25.Qc2 ( { the cold-blooded } 25.Qxe6 fxe6 26.Rc1
{ (Fritz) was possible } ) 25...b5 ( 25...-- { the threat is } 26.Qc7 a6
27.Ng6 $1 Qxg6 28.Qxd8 ) ( { or } 25...Qf6 26.Qc7 Ra8 27.Re3 $1 Qd8 28.Qd6 )
26.Qc5 $1 Qb6 27.Qd5 { with an overwhelming advantage. } ) 24.Rc1 $1 Qa6 $6
( 24...Qa4 { was more tenacious, with the hope of } 25.Ne5 (
{ although after } 25.Rc7 $1 { things are essentially unchanged: say, }
25...a6 26.Qd5 Qb3 27.Qd6 Qb2 28.h3 { etc } ) 25...f6 $1 { . } ) 25.Rc7 b5
26.Nd4 $2
{ A seemingly natural move,which was passed over by many commentators or
even, as in Informator (No.7/488)and the book 'Boris Spassky's 300 Wins',
accompanied by an exclamation mark.In fact, this is a mistake that put White's victory in jeopardy! }
( 26.Re8 $1 Nb7 ( 26...Qd6 27.Rc8 $1 ) 27.Rc8 $1
{ would have been quickly decisive, forexample: } 27...Qa4 ( { or } 27...Qa1+
28.Ne1 Qd4 29.Qxb5 ) 28.h3 Qd1+ 29.Kh2 Qd6+ 30.Ne5 f6 ( 30...Qf6 31.Qe4 )
31.Qg6 $1 { , and } 31...fxe5 { fails to } 32.Rcxd8 $1 Qxg6 33.Rxf8+
{ and Rh8 mate. Here the difference between human thinking andcomputer
calculation is clearly seen: the human does not want to allow thecheck at
a1, and have to make the 'unaesthetic' move Ne1, whereas the machinesimply has no such qualms. }
) 26...Qb6 $2 (
{ Apparently already demoralised,Petrosian misses an unexpected saving
opportunity - } 26...Qd6 $1 27.Nxb5 Qd2 28.Rf1 Nb3 $1 29.Rxa7 Nd4 $1 30.Nxd4
Qxd4
{ , 'and it is still not easy forWhite to make use of his powerful pawn.'
(Boleslavsky, Bondarevsky). I wouldhave said - not at all easy (the
weakness of the back rank!): } 31.Rc7 ( 31.Rb7 Rb8 $1 ( 31...g6 32.Qb5 Kg7
33.Re1 $1 { is not so clear } ) 32.Rc7 ( { after } 32.Rxb8 Rxb8 33.Re1 g6
{ the d7-pawn falls even more quickly } ) 32...Rb6 33.Re1 Rf6 34.Qc5 Qxc5
35.Rxc5 Rd6 36.Rc7 Rd8 { with a draw } ) 31...g6 32.Qb5 Kg7 33.Re1 ( 33.Rfc1
f6 $1 ) 33...Rb8 $1 34.Qe2 ( 34.Rc4 Rxb5 35.Rxd4 Rd8
{ , then ...Rb7 and ...Kf6-e7 } ) 34...Rb2 35.Qf3 Rd2 36.g3 Rd8 37.Re7 Qf6
38.Qe3 Rd1+ 39.Kg2 R8xd7 $1 { . } ) 27.Rc8 $1 { Now there is no defence. }
27...Nb7 ( { It was totally bad to play } 27...Qxd4 $2 28.Rxd8 Rxd8 29.Re8+ )
( { or } 27...b4 28.Re8 $1 Qxd4 $2 29.Rxf8+ Rxf8 30.Rxf8+ Kxf8 31.Qc5+ $3
Qxc5 32.d8=Q# { ; } ) ( { while after } 27...g6 { the simple } 28.Rxd8 Qxd8
29.Qxb5 { is decisive. } ) 28.Nc6 Nd6 29.Nxd8 $1
{ (an elegant concluding stroke) } 29...Nxf5 30.Nc6
{ . --- And Spassky took the lead. --- 'After the game,' writes
Bondarevsky,'some masters asked me: "What do you think, where did Petrosian
make thedecisive mistake?" Such a question, in my view, is the best characterisationof Spassky's play. He won in excellent style.' This is
true, but after acareful analysis we can see that the game is not free of serious mistakes. Thefirst is 15...exd5?! (avoiding a critical opening duel), the second - 16...Na5?(a violation of Tarrasch's commandments), and the third, fatal one - 26...Qb6? instead of 26...Qd6!. In
turn, White could have avoided allowing theopponent this last chance, by playing 26 Re8!. }
1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "A Difficult Course"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ In connection with these striking victories, one recalls Spassky's
recentreply to the question as to what enabled him in the 1960s to defeat
all thestrongest players: 'My forte was the middlegame. I had a good feeling forthe critical moments of the play. This undoubtedly compensated
for my lack ofopening preparation and, possibly, not altogether perfect play in the endgame.In my games things often did not reach the endgame!' --- In my opinion, the4th and 5th games played a decisive role in the match, although, of course,Spassky still had numerous problems in later
games. After his win in the 8thgame he had an overwhelming advantage in the 9th, but let it slip during theresumption. As Boris Vasilievich told me, he suddenly ran out of energy: hefelt so tired, that he even offered a draw in what was still a clearlysuperior position. And then, feeling out of sorts, he lost two games in a row.The match score was now level and he had to start all over again. }
1.--
{ Things took a difficult course: in the 14th game the challenger went
wrong andonly saved himself by a miracle after the adjournment. And in the
13th and15th games after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Nxe5 d6 4 Nf3 Nxe4 Spassky chose theharmless 5 Qe2. 'The fact that he twice, playing White in the
PetroffDefence - an opening in which White can obtain active piece play -immediately exchanged queens, obtained a closed and dull position and drewboth games round about the 20th move, is a mystery that I cannot explain,'Botvinnik wrote at the time. But soon the mystery was explained by
Bondarevsky:'The depression that began with Spassky after the 9th game had not yetpassed. In such a state is there any point in going in for sharp variations?The time for the decisive battles had not yet arrived!' --- So, what was therole of the 4th and 5th games? It was that after these games Spassky realised:he could and should win the match. He acquired confidence: however difficultit might be, his time had arrived! The feeling of doom that Petrosiandisplayed from the 4th to the 9th games was already hanging over the stage.And the last third of the match proved simply
catastrophic for him: he lostthree 'Black' games one after another. So Spassky's superiority in thefirst third reflected the real balance of force. In the second third bothpsychology and reserves of energy had their effect, but when the tiredopponents reached the finishing straight, everything at once fell into place.--- And here is another mystery: why did Petrosian give up the PetroffDefence? I will remind you: in the 17th and 19th games he lost in the SicilianDefence, and in the 21st in a Ruy Lopez. That is, in openings that were notcharacteristic of him. Generally speaking, in this match there were astaggering number of Sicilians by Petrosian. This is indeed very strange!Where were his favourite French, Caro-Kann? A mystery, shrouded in darkness...Even so, let us try to open the curtain slightly. }
( 1.--
{ 'To expect thatSpassky would again go in for a harmless continuation
would have been toooptimistic,' writes Boleslavsky in his notes to the 17th
game, 'and thePetroff Defence is not one of those reliable openings that should be employedregularly. Petrosian decided to join battle and go in
for a complicated gamewith chances for both sides. He chose the Paulsen Variation, which hadoccurred in the 1st game.' --- This, it would seem, is the key tounderstanding the entire problem: the success in the 1st game had disorientedPetrosian! He thought that Spassky might somewhere delay,
lose the thread ofthe game, concede the initiative - that is, he decided that his opponent wasnot altogether confident in playing certain set-ups in the Open Sicilian. Hethought it was not without reason that, both in the 1966 match and in theCandidates matches, Spassky had played only the Closed Variation (of whichTigran Vartanovich was not at all afraid: Black obtained many chances there).It appears that this thought would not leave Petrosian in peace, and anincorrect match plan occurred to him: to try and win also with Black. --- ButSpassky brilliantly refuted this venture,
not allowing his opponent anychances. He won the match ahead of schedule by 12˝-10˝ and became the 10thworld champion. --- Thirty years later Boris Vasilievich recalled his battleswith Petrosian with his characteristic humour: 'In the first match I flew athim all the time, like a kind of young, "newly-fledged" tiger, but thatwas just what Tigran wanted. But in the second match I realised that with himyou had to act like a bear, and I now began pressing on him with my paws -he didn't like this. I think that he lost the match because he already sensedthat he was ruling but not holding power, and that it was time to give way tosomeone younger.' }
) *
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "The First 'Oscar' Winner"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ The International Association of the Chess Press (AIPE), founded in
1968,awarded the chess 'Oscar' to the best player of the year, as judged by
apoll of leading journalists, grandmaster writers and FIDE officials. It needhardly be said that the winner of the first two 'Oscars' (1968 and
1969)was Spassky. } 1.--
{ His convincing competitive victories were accompanied bystriking creative
achievements, as recorded several times in the list of'ten best games' in
the six-monthly Chess Informator. Spassky took firstplace in three successive volumes (7, 8 and 9) - thanks to the spectacularlycrushing defeats that
he inflicted on Petrosian (19th matchgame, Moscow 1969),Penrose (Palma de Mallorca 1969) and Larsen ('Match of the Century',Belgrade 1970, round 2). --- I have already mentioned the first of these games(cf. Game No.49), while the second continued the Bronstein-Tal combinativeline (Volume 2, Game
No.133) aimed at creating a pawn avalanche. } *
[Event "77. Palma de Mallorca"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1969.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Spassky, B."]
[Black "Penrose, J."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[EventDate "1969.??.??"]
[FEN "1Q2n3/1b1qn2k/3p3p/2pPp1pP/1pP1P1P1/1P2BBN1/6K1/8 w - - 0 37"]
[SetUp "1"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
37.Bxc5 $3 dxc5 38.Qxe5 Ng8 ( { After } 38...Qd6 39.Qa1 $1 ( 39.Qxd6 $6 Nxd6
40.e5 Nf7 41.Be4+ Kg7 42.d6 Bxe4+ 43.Nxe4 Nc6 $1 ( { but not } 43...Nc8 $2
44.d7 Ne7 45.Nxc5 { and wins } ) 44.e6 Nfe5 45.Kg3 Nd3 46.e7 Kf7 47.Nf6 Nxe7
48.dxe7 Kxe7 49.Ng8+ Kf8 50.Nxh6 Nc1
{ Black gets away with a slight fright. } ) 39...Kg8 40.e5 $1
{ , the avalanche of pawns is irresistible. } ) 39.Qb8 Nef6 ( { If } 39...Ne7
{ , then } 40.Kf2 $1 ( 40.e5 $6 Nxd5 { with equality } ) 40...Nc8 41.e5
{ etc. } ) 40.Nf5 ( { Of course, not } 40.e5 $2 Nxd5 $1 { . } ) 40...Ne7
{ Now there follows another pretty sacrifice. } 41.Nxh6 $1
{ The only way to win. } ( { The hasty } 41.e5 $2 { is refuted by } 41...Nxf5
42.gxf5 g4 $1 43.Be2 Nxd5 $1 { ; } ) ( { while after } 41.Nxe7 $6 Qxe7 42.e5
Ne8 43.Be4+ Kg7 44.Bg6 Nc7 45.Qxb7 Qxe5 ) ( { or } 41.Nd6 Bc8 $1 ( 41...Ba6
$6 42.e5 ) 42.e5 $6 Nxh5 $1 { , theoutcome is still far from clear. } )
41...Nexd5 ( 41...Kxh6 { also loses byforce after } 42.Qf8+ Kh7 43.Qf7+ Kh8
44.Qxf6+ Kh7 ( 44...Kg8 45.Qxg5+ ) 45.Qf7+ Kh6 46.e5 { . } ) 42.cxd5 Kxh6
43.Qf8+ Qg7 44.Qxc5 Nd7 45.Qd6+ Kh7 46.e5 $1 Kh8 ( 46...Qxe5 $2 47.Qxd7+ ) (
{ or } 46...Nxe5 $2 47.Be4+ Kg8 48.Qb8+ ) 47.h6 Qh7 48.e6 $1
{ The pawns sweep away everything in their path. } 48...Qc2+ ( { If }
48...Nf6 { White wins by } 49.Qb8+ $1 ( 49.Qf8+ Ng8 50.Kg3 Bxd5 $1 51.Bxd5
Qc7+ { is inaccurate } ) 49...Qg8 ( 49...Ng8 50.Qe5+ ) 50.Qxb7 { . } ) 49.Kg3
{ . There is no good reply. } 1-0
[Event "78. 'Match of the Century', Belgrade"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1970.??.??"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Larsen, B."]
[Black "Spassky, B."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "A01"]
[EventDate "1970.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ However, the greatest sensation of all was caused by Spassky's miniature
withLarsen, played not just anywhere, but on top board in the historic
'Match ofthe Century' between teams from the USSR and the Rest of the World. The courseof this game was watched by more than two thousand spectators.
--- } 1.b3 ( { After } 1.e4 { , Nimzowitsch introduced } 1...c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 $6
{ , for example: } 3.e5 Nd5 4.Nc3 Nxc3 5.dxc3 b6 $2 6.Bd3 $2 ( 6.e6 $1 ) (
6.Bc4 $5 ) 6...Bb7 7.Bf4 Qc7 8.Bg3 ( 8.Qe2 $1 ) 8...e6 9.O-O Be7
{ etc (Michell-Nimzowitsch, Marienbad1925). } ) 1...e5 (
{ Not long before this game Larsen had spectacularly defeatedKavalek
(Lugano 1970) after } 1...c5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.c4 e5 4.g3 d6 5.Bg2 Nge7 6.e3 g6
7.Ne2 Bg7 8.Nbc3 O-O ( 8...Be6 $1 ) 9.d3 Be6 10.Nd5 Qd7 11.h4 $1 f5 $6 (
11...h5 ) 12.Qd2 Rae8 $6 13.h5 b5 14.hxg6 hxg6 15.Nec3 bxc4 16.dxc4 e4
17.O-O-O Ne5 18.Nf4 Rd8 ( { if } 18...g5 19.Nxe6 Nd3+ { , then } 20.Qxd3 $1
exd3 21.Nxg7 Kxg7 22.Nd5+ Kg6 23.Bf3 { and wins } ) 19.Kb1 Bf7 $6 20.g4 $1
{ etc. } ) 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.c4 ( { It is hardly any better to play } 3.e3 Nf6
4.Nf3 $6 e4 5.Nd4
{ , as Larsen later tried against Parma and Ledic (Vinkovci 1970), inview
of } 5...Bc5 6.Nxc6 dxc6 7.Nc3 Bf5 { etc. } ) 3...Nf6 4.Nf3 $6
{ One sensesthe influence of Nimzowitsch (see the note with 1 e4 above). } (
{ But is itworth conceding so much space to the opponent? Soon afterwards
the followingline became fashionable: } 4.e3 $5 Be7 ( 4...d5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.a3
Bd6 { (Larsen-Spassky, Leiden 1970), } ) ( { or } 4...d6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Nf3 Bg7
7.d4 Bf5 { (Larsen-Portisch, Siegen Olympiad 1970) } ) 5.a3 $1
{ , as played by Fischeragainst Tukmakov and Andersson (cf. Volume 4). } ) (
4.g3 d5 { with equality } ) 4...e4 5.Nd4 Bc5 6.Nxc6 ( 6.e3 $2 Bxd4 7.exd4 d5
{ favours Black (Larsen).However, he already has a very comfortable game in
any case. } ) 6...dxc6 7.e3 ( 7.d4 exd3 8.Qxd3 Qe7 $1 ) 7...Bf5 8.Qc2 Qe7
9.Be2 ( 9.d4 exd3 10.Bxd3 Bxd3 11.Qxd3 Rd8 { etc. } ) 9...O-O-O 10.f4 $2
{ White's only serious mistake,which encounters a staggeringly accurate and
pretty refutation. } ( { In theopinion of Krogius, ' } 10.Nc3
{ followed by 0-0-0 was essential', althoughafter } 10...Rd7 $1 11.O-O-O $6
Rhd8 { Black has a clear advantage. } ) ( { Larsen'srecommendation } 10.a3 $5
{ is more interesting. } ) ( { After } 10.f4
{ , 'Larsenwas evidently hoping for } 10...-- 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Nc3
{ , but this idea was notrealised.' (Spassky) } ) 10...Ng4 $1
{ (immediately exploiting the weakening ofthe kingside) } 11.g3 (
{ It was no better to play } 11.Bxg4 Qh4+ { and ...Qxg4 (Larsen) } ) (
11.O-O Rxd2 $1 12.Nxd2 ( 12.Qxd2 Bxe3+ ) 12...Nxe3 13.Qc1 Nxf1+ 14.Kxf1 Qh4
$1 15.g3 Qxh2 16.Ke1 e3 { (Emms) } ) ( { or } 11.Bxg7 Rhg8 12.Bb2 ( 12.Qb2
Bxe3 $1 ) 12...Nxe3 $1 { (the simplest) } 13.dxe3 Qh4+ 14.g3 Rxg3
{ with crushing threats. } ) 11...h5 $1
{ 'Choosing the way that does not leaveWhite any chances,' writes Spassky.
} ( { ' } 11...Rxd2 { looked tempting, } 12.Qxd2 ( { but after } 12.Nxd2 Nxe3
13.Qc3 Rd8
{ Black's task would have been morecomplicated.' As would also be the case
after... } ( 13...-- ) ) 12...Rd8 13.Bxg4 Bxg4 14.Bd4 ( 14.Qc2 $2 Rd1+ )
14...Bb4 15.Nc3 c5 { etc. } ) 12.h3 ( 12.Nc3 Rxd2 $1 ) 12...h4 $1
{ By sacrificing a piece, Black penetrates into theenemy position. } 13.hxg4
{ 'Larsen thought over this move for about an hour. } (
{ But there was already no way to save the game: } 13.Bxg4 Bxg4 14.hxg4 hxg3
15.Rg1 Rh2 { (Larsen) is also possible; for example: } ( 15...Rh1 $1 16.Rxh1
g2 17.Rg1 Qh4+ 18.Kd1 ( 18.Ke2 Qxg4+ 19.Ke1 Qg3+ 20.Kd1 ( 20.Ke2 Qf3+ 21.Ke1
Be7 { with unavoidable mate; } ( 21...Bxe3 $1 { - G.K. } ) ) 20...Qf2 21.Qxe4
Qxg1+ 22.Kc2 Qf2 { and wins.' (Spassky) } ( { Here } 22...Bxe3 $1
{ also wins. } ) ) 18...Qf2 19.Qxe4 Qxg1+ 20.Kc2 Qf2 ( { or } 20...Bxe3 $1
21.Qf5+ Rd7 ) 21.Qf5+ Kb8 { etc (Emms) is a similar variation. } ) 16.Qc3 (
16.Rxg3 Qh4 ) ( 16.Nc3 { (or Na3) } 16...Bxe3 $1 ) 16...Qh4 17.Kd1 ( 17.Na3
Qxg4 ) 17...Rh1 18.Rxh1 Qxh1+ 19.Kc2 g2 20.Na3 Qxa1 21.Bxa1 Bxa3 $1
{ and ...g1Q (Emms). } ) 13...hxg3 14.Rg1 Rh1 $3
{ A brilliant concluding stroke. 'A thousand years may pass, and the
worldchampion's brilliant sacrifice will be for ever verdant in his laurel
wreath,'the Yugoslav press wrote at that time. } (
{ A quarter of a century later a dualsolution was discovered - } 14...Bxe3 $1
15.dxe3 Rh1 $1 { (I.Sukhin). } ) ( { 'After } 14...Qh4 15.Rg2 Qh1+ 16.Bf1
Bxg4 17.Qxe4 Rhe8 18.Be5 f6 ( { although after } 18...f5 $1 19.Qc2 Bh3
{ , his sufferings would also not havelasted long: } 20.d4 Bb4+ 21.Nd2 Bxg2
22.O-O-O Bxd2+ { etc } ) 19.Nc3
{ Whitecould still have resisted,' thinks Larsen. } ) 15.Rxh1 g2 16.Rf1 (
{ 'After } 16.Rg1 Qh4+ 17.Kd1 Qh1 18.Qc3 Qxg1+ 19.Kc2 Qf2 20.gxf5 Qxe2 21.Na3
{ , duringthe game I was captivated by } 21...Qd3+ (
{ the simplest way to win is } 21...Bb4 ) 22.Qxd3 exd3+ 23.Kc3 Bxe3 (
23...a5 $6 24.Nc2 $1 ) 24.dxe3 d2 25.Rd1 Rh8 $1
{ , promoting one of the pawns to a queen.' (Spassky) } ) 16...Qh4+ 17.Kd1
gxf1=Q+ ( { With the unavoidable } 17...gxf1=Q+ 18.Bxf1 Bxg4+ 19.Kc1 Qe1+
20.Qd1 Qxd1#
{ . White resigned, and there was a storm of applause in theauditorium. A
worthy continuation of the romantic traditions of the 19thcentury! --- A
month later the world champion won a four-playermatch-tournament in Leiden: 1. Spassky - 7 out of 12 (undefeated); 2. Donner -6; 3-4. Botvinnik and
Larsen - 5˝. } ) 0-1
[Event "79. Siegen Olympiad"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1970.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Spassky, B."]
[Black "Fischer, R."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "D86"]
[EventDate "1970.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ The crowning point of Spassky's period as champion was his win over
BobbyFischer at the Olympiad in Siegen (September 1970). Let us remember
whathappened. --- 'The USSR-USA match was awaited with great impatience andinterest: on the top board Spassky was due to play Fischer. In view of
theyoung American's impressive successes, his meeting with the world championacquired a special significance. Had it gone in Bobby's favour, many wouldhave been ready to draw far-reaching conclusions. The crucial nature of theclash between the two strongest players was obvious. Three
thousand chessenthusiasts arrived in Siegen to witness this exciting duel. Tickets to theSiegenlandhall were sold out long before the start of the round. Even thosefortunate enough to get into the tournament hall found it incredibly difficultto force their way through to the board where Spassky and Fischer were playing.The most energetic of them crowded round the board in picturesque, many-tiered,sculptural-like groups. A special hall, to where this game was relayed, wasjam-packed, and the organisers additionally had to set up four demonstrationboards in the foyer.'
(Taimanov) --- 'Fischer's admirers were sure of hissuccess and they ordered in advance a banquet in the winner's honour. In therestaurant of our hotel, tables were set out, awaiting only a mere "trifle" -the conclusion of the game. Apparently Bobby himself was also expecting to win;in any event, he had no thoughts of a compromise and I would even say that heavoided one.' (Korchnoi) --- 'Boris was obviously nervous before and duringthe game, and he smoked one cigarette after another, but he managed to controlhis nerves.' (Mednis) --- }
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4 c5 8.Ne2 Nc6
9.Be3 O-O 10.O-O Qc7 11.Rc1 Rd8
{ Thisopening tabiya, developed by Smyslov, was very familiar to both
players: ithad occurred in their game in the super-tournament in Santa
Monica (1966). } 12.h3 { Preparing f2-f4. } ( { If } 12.f4 Bg4 $1 { ; } (
{ for the more modest } 12...e6 { - cf. Volume 2, Game No.99 } ) ) (
{ Later they switched to } 12.Qd2 ) ( { and thenalso to } 12.Bf4 $5 { . } )
( { The Santa Monica game went } 12.Qe1 -- ( 12...e6 13.f4 Na5 14.Bd3 f5 $1
15.Rd1 $1 b6 16.Qf2 cxd4 ( 16...fxe4 $5 17.Bxe4 Bb7 ) 17.Bxd4 $1 Bxd4 (
17...Bb7 $5 18.Bxg7 Qxg7 19.Nd4 Qf7 ) 18.cxd4 Bb7 19.Ng3 Qf7 ( 19...Qg7 $5
{ Fischer } ) 20.d5 $3 fxe4 21.dxe6 Qxe6 22.f5 $1 Qf7 23.Bxe4 Rxd1 24.Rxd1
Rf8 $1 25.Bb1 $1 Qf6 26.Qc2 $1 Kh8 27.fxg6 hxg6 28.Qd2 $6 (
{ Spassky gives } 28.Nh5 $1 Qf7 $2 ( { or } 28...Be4 $1 29.Nxf6 Bxc2 30.Bxc2
Rxf6 31.Rd7 { with the better endgame } ) 29.Qc3+ Kh7 30.Qg3 Bc8 31.Rc1 $1
Bd7 32.Bd3 $1 Rc8 33.Rf1 { and wins } ) 28...Kg7 29.Rf1 Qe7 30.Qd4+ Rf6
31.Ne4 Bxe4 32.Bxe4 Qc5 33.Qxc5 Rxf1+ $6 ( { the correct continuation was }
33...bxc5 $1 34.Rc1 c4 35.Rc3 Re6 36.Bf3 Kf6 37.Kf2 g5 { with a draw } )
34.Kxf1 bxc5 35.h4 $1 Nc4 36.Ke2 $6 ( 36.Kf2 $1 ) 36...Ne5 $6 ( 36...Kh6 $1
37.g4 Ne5 38.Bf3 g5 $1 39.h5 c4 40.Ke3 c3 { with a draw - Averbakh } ) 37.Ke3
Kf6 38.Kf4 Nf7 39.Ke3 $6 ( 39.Bd5 g5+ 40.hxg5+ Nxg5 41.Bg8 $1
{ and wins - Spassky } ) 39...g5 $2 ( 39...Nh6 $1 40.Kd3 Nf5 41.Kc4 Ke5 $1
42.Bxf5 Kxf5 { with adraw - Gligoric } ) 40.h5 Nh6 $6 41.Kd3
{ and White won. } ) ( { 'Commenting onthat game, I drew attention to }
12...Qa5 $1
{ with good chances of equalising:it is hard for White to prevent ...cxd4
and the exchange of queens (forexample: } 13.Rd1 cxd4 14.cxd4 Qxe1 15.Rfxe1
b6
{ with equality - G.K.). Itis possible that Fischer went in for this
position with my recommendation inmind, and since I did not have anything
prepared, I was forced to seek newpaths. I thought for quite a long time over my 12th move. But, being apractical player and fearful of wasting
precious time, I chose a standard plan,which did not give me any advantage.' (Spassky) }
) ) 12...b6 13.f4 e6 14.Qe1 Na5 (
{ I should remind you that Gligoric-Smyslov (Kiev 1959) went } 14...Bb7
15.Qf2 $6 ( 15.f5 Na5 $1 ) 15...Na5 16.Bd3 f5 $1 17.e5 ( 17.Ng3 Qd7 ) 17...c4
18.Bc2 Nc6 19.g4 Ne7 { with advantage to Black (Volume 2, Game No.91). } )
15.Bd3 f5 $1
{ Following in Smyslov's footsteps! 'A typical move in suchpositions. Black
not only prevents f4-f5, but also reduces the activity of theopponent's
bishops. By blocking the f4-pawn, he restricts the e3-bishop, whilethe d3-bishop also runs up against a pawn.' (Bondarevsky). }
16.g4 $1
{ Anaggressive, although also risky course, significantly weakening his own
king'sdefences. } ( 16.Qf2 $6 Bb7
{ would have led to a position from theGligoric-Smyslov game. } ) (
{ It was hardly any better to play } 16.Rd1 Bb7 17.e5 c4 18.Bc2 Nc6
{ and ... Ne7. } ) 16...fxe4 ( 16...Bb7 { - Game No.70 } ) 17.Bxe4 Bb7 18.Ng3
Nc4 19.Bxb7 $6 ( { 'Worthy of attention was } 19.Bf2 Bxe4 20.Nxe4 $5 (
20.Qxe4 Nd2 21.Qxe6+ Kh8 22.Rfd1 Nf3+ 23.Kh1 Re8 24.Qd5 Qxf4 { favoursBlack }
) 20...Qxf4 21.Bh4 ( 21.dxc5 $6 Ne5 $1 ) 21...Qe3+ 22.Qxe3 Nxe3 23.Rf3 cxd4
24.Bxd8 { etc' (Bondarevsky). That is, } 24...Rxd8 25.cxd4 Bxd4
{ withsufficient compensation for the exchange. } ) 19...Qxb7 20.Bf2 (
20.dxc5 $6 Rd3 ) 20...Qc6 21.Qe2 cxd4 22.cxd4 b5 23.Ne4 $5 ( 23.Rfd1 Rf8 $1
{ was insipid.'Thanks to White's routine play, Fischer has gained good
prospects, andalready I am practically forced to sacrifice a pawn.'
(Spassky). 'Boris isable to maintain the balance in any position by tactical means, which isespecially valuable.' (Korchnoi) }
) 23...Bxd4
{ 'Fischer prefers to take thepawn. Why? Well, because he simply likes
having extra pawns. I noticed thislittle weakness of his a long time ago. }
( { 'Black should have considered } 23...Rf8 24.Nc5 Rae8
{ with the advantage.' (Spassky) 'But after } 25.a4 $1 a6 26.Nxa6 Qxa6
27.axb5 Qxb5 28.Qxc4 Qxc4 29.Rxc4 Rxf4
{ Black, although he standsslightly better, has no winning chances. It is
natural that Fischer should tryto find a better continuation.'
(Bondarevsky) } ) 24.Ng5 Bxf2+ (
{ 'Black isplaying for a win, otherwise he would have retreated with }
24...Bf6 { .' (Spassky). For example: } 25.Qxe6+ Qxe6 26.Nxe6 Rd3
{ with equality, and } 27.Nc7 Rad8 28.Nxb5 $2 { fails to } 28...Nd2
{ (Bondarevsky). } ) ( { But after Mednis'srecommendation } 24...Bb6 { , }
25.Nxe6 $1 ( 25.Qxe6+ Qxe6 26.Nxe6 Rd3 $1 ) 25...Re8 26.f5 { is unpleasant. }
) 25.Rxf2 Rd6 ( { ' } 25...Re8 { was stronger.'(Spassky). } 26.Ne4 $1 (
{ 'This did not satisfy Fischer on account of the lossof the central file
after } 26.Rd1 { ' (Bondarevsky). However, the continuation } 26...Rac8 (
26...e5 27.f5 $1 Rad8 28.Rxd8 Rxd8 29.f6 { is unclear } ) 27.Ne4 Red8 28.Nf6+
Kg7 29.g5 h6 { is more favourable for Black, than if White insteadplays... }
) 26...Rf8 27.g5 Rad8 28.Nf6+ Kh8 ( { or } 28...Kg7 ) 29.Re1 Rd6 30.f5 $1
{ , after which he would have retained tactical counter-chances, as inthe
game. } ) 26.Re1 Qb6 $1 { Fighting for the initiative. } (
{ A far more modestalternative was } 26...e5 27.fxe5 Re8
{ , holding the draw after } 28.exd6 $5 Rxe2 29.Rexe2 Nxd6 30.Ne6 $1 h6
31.Rf8+ Kh7 32.Ng5+ $1 Kg7 $1 ( { but not } 32...hxg5 $4 33.Re7+ Kh6 34.Rh8#
) 33.Ne6+ Kh7 { . } ) ( 26...Rd2 $6 { is nouse: } 27.Qxe6+ Qxe6 28.Nxe6 { . }
) 27.Ne4 $1 ( { 'This is significantly morecunning than } 27.Nxe6 Re8 28.f5
Rd2 29.Qf3 Rxa2 30.Rf1
{ with the threatof 31 fxg6 .' (Bondarevsky). Especially as after } 30...Rxf2
31.Rxf2 Qe3 $1 32.Qxe3 ( 32.Qb7 $2 Qe1+ 33.Kg2 Ne3+ ) 32...Nxe3 33.Nc7 (
33.Rf3 Nc4 ) 33...Re5 34.fxg6 a5 $1 { , Black has every chance of winning. }
) 27...Rd4 $6
{ 'Unfortunately for Bobby, the type of position that has arisen is one
where itis extremely difficult to calculate the consequences of this or
that variation.Meanwhile, Fischer requires accuracy and clarity. He has an exceptionally"pure" style of play and in positions that do not lend
themselves to concreteanalysis he feels unsure. After 27... Rc6 the game would probably have endedin a draw, but Bobby flinched, lost the thread of the game and began playingtoo nervily.' (Spassky) }
( { 'After } 27...Rc6 { , } 28.Nf6+ ( { possible are both } 28.Rd1 Rd8 29.Rd3
) ( { and } 28.Qf3
{ , in order to switch the queen to c3 orh4.' (Bondarevsky) } ) (
{ However, Black can exploit the pin on the rook at f2:after } 28.Rd1 $6
{ there is the strong response } 28...Rf8 $1 29.g5 ( 29.Kh1 Ne3 $1 30.Re1 Nd5
) 29...Ne3 $1 30.Rd7 Rc2 31.Qe1 Qc6 32.Nf6+ Rxf6 $1 ) ( { while if } 28.Qf3
$6 { then } 28...Rd8 $1 { with the threat of ...Nd2. } ) 28...Kh8 29.Nd7 Qd4
{ , White has nothing better than to fight for a draw in the double
rookendgame a pawn down after } 30.Ne5 ( 30.Rd1 Qe3 ) 30...Nxe5 31.Qxe5+ Qxe5
32.Rxe5 a6 33.Rfe2 Re8 34.Kf2 { . } ) 28.Nf6+ Kh8 $5 (
{ Ignoring the drawingpossibilities } 28...Kg7 29.Qxe6 Qxe6 30.Rxe6 Rf8 $1
31.g5 ( { or } 31.Ne8+ Kf7 ) 31...a5 32.Re7+ Rf7 33.Re8 Rf8 34.Rxf8 Kxf8
35.Nxh7+ Kg7 36.Nf6 b4 { . } ) 29.Qxe6 $1
{ It would appear that Fischer had overlooked something. } 29...Rd6 ( { If }
29...Qxe6 $6 30.Rxe6 Kg7 { White has the unpleasant } 31.f5 $1 { . } ) (
{ Alas, the planned reply } 29...Rd1 $2
{ would have been refuted by thebrilliant stroke } 30.Qf7 $3 Rxe1+ 31.Kg2
{ , for example: } 31...Ne3+ ( 31...Qc6+ $2 32.Kg3 Re3+ ( { or } 32...Rg1+
33.Kh4 Rxg4+ 34.Kxg4 Ne3+ 35.Kg5 Qc5+ 36.f5 ) 33.Kh2 Rxh3+ 34.Kxh3 Qh1+
35.Rh2 Qf1+ 36.Kh4 Qe1+ 37.Kg5 { and wins. } ) 32.Kf3 $1 ( 32.Kg3 $4 Nf1+ $1
( 32...Nf5+ $5 33.gxf5 Qe3+ { and ... Qe7 also wins } ) 33.Kh4 $2 ( { or }
33.Rxf1 Qe3+ { and ...Qe7; } ) 33...Qxf2+ 34.Kg5 Re5+ $1 35.fxe5 Qe3+ 36.Kh4
Qh6+ 37.Nh5 g5# { ! } ) 32...Qc6+ 33.Kg3 Rg1+ 34.Kh4 $1 Rxg4+ $1 35.hxg4 Qh1+
36.Kg5 Nxg4 $1 ( { not } 36...Rc8 $2 37.Qd7 $1 Rb8 38.Qd4 ) 37.Kxg4 Qg1+
38.Kf3 Qh1+ 39.Kg3 ( { or } 39.Ke3 Rd8 40.Ng4 $1 ) 39...Rd8
{ (analysis by Vasyukov and Speelman) } 40.Nd7 $1 Qg1+ 41.Rg2 Qe1+ 42.Kh3
Qh1+ 43.Rh2
{ and White, by nevertheless avoiding perpetual check, wins (Fritz). } )
30.Qe4 Rf8 $6
{ 'Through inertia Fischer continued playing for a win and didnot sense the
moment when his position became worse.' (Korchnoi) } (
{ It wassimpler to play } 30...Rad8 $1 31.g5 Rd2 ( 31...Rd3 $5 ) 32.Re2 (
32.Rf1 Qe3 ) 32...Rxe2 33.Qxe2 Qe3 $1 34.Qxe3 Rd1+ $1 35.Kg2 ( 35.Kh2 Nxe3
36.Re2 Rd2 $1 ) ( 35.Rf1 Nxe3 ) 35...Nxe3+ 36.Kf3 Nf5 { with equality. } )
31.g5 Rd2 32.Rf1 { With the threat of Qe7!. } ( { If } 32.Re2 { , then }
32...Rxe2 33.Qxe2 Qb7 { is equal. } ) 32...Qc7 $2
{ 'An indication that Black is completely rattled. } ( { 'After } 32...Nd6
{ it was still possible to defend.' (Spassky). However, then } 33.Qe5 $1 Nf7
( 33...Qd4 34.Qe7 $1 ) 34.Qc3 Rfd8 35.Nd5+ $1 Qd4 36.Qxd2
{ would have been decisive; } ) ( { whereas after } 32...Rxf2 $6 33.Rxf2 Qe3
34.Qxe3 Nxe3 35.Rd2 { Black has a bad ending. } ) ( { The only chance was }
32...Kg7 $1 33.f5 ( { another interesting idea is } 33.h4 $5 Qd4 $1 34.h5
Qxe4 35.h6+ Kh8 36.Nxe4 ) 33...Rxf2 $1 34.Rxf2 Qe3 35.Qh4 $5
{ (Bondarevsky) } 35...h5 $1 { with equality: } 36.fxg6 ( { or } 36.gxh6+
Qxh6 37.Qxh6+ Kxh6 38.Ng4+ Kg5 39.fxg6 Rd8 40.g7 Kg6 ) 36...Qe1+ 37.Kg2 (
37.Kh2 Qe5+ ) 37...Ne3+ 38.Kh2 Nf1+
{ ('Boris Spassky's 300 Wins'). --- The professional observation by
Korchnoi ishighly interesting: 'In the opening Fischer used to spend quite
a lot of time,but then he began playing easily and quickly. Bronstein once said to me thatsuch a manner of playing is very cunning. In the
opening it seems to theopponent that he too does not need to hurry and can spend an equal amount oftime as his "slow" opponent. But when in the middlegame the latter suddenlybegins playing quickly, it can be hard for a player who is unprepared for asuch a turn of events to readjust,
and he unexpectedly discovers that he is intime-trouble... But with Spassky such "tricks" do not work. Throughout thegame the world champion had a greater reserve of time than his opponent. Andwhen Fischer began to experience difficulties, he ended up in time-trouble.However, at that moment his position was already lost.' }
) 33.Rxd2 $1 Nxd2 34.Qd4 $1 Rd8 ( 34...Nxf1 $2 35.Ne8+ ) (
{ Black would also not have saved the gamewith the more tenacious } 34...Qb6
35.Qxb6 axb6 36.Rd1 $1 ( 36.Rc1 $5 ) 36...Rd8 ( 36...Nc4 $2 37.Rd7 ) 37.Kg2
Rd4 38.Re1 $1 { (Spassky) } 38...Kg7 39.Re7+ Kf8 40.Rb7 Rxf4 ( 40...Nc4
41.Nxh7+ Ke8 ( { or } 41...Kg8 42.Nf6+ Kf8 43.Nd7+ Ke8 44.Ne5 $1 ) 42.Rg7 $1
) 41.Nxh7+ Ke8 42.Nf6+ Kf8 43.Nd7+ Ke7 44.Ne5+ Kd6 45.Nxg6 Ra4 46.Nf8 Rxa2
47.g6 { . } ) 35.Nd5+ Kg8 36.Rf2 Nc4 37.Re2 $1 Rd6 ( 37...Qb6 38.Re8+ $1 ) (
37...Qd6 38.Re7 ) 38.Re8+ Kf7 39.Rf8+ $1 ( { In viewof } 39.Rf8+ $1 Kxf8
40.Qh8+ Kf7 41.Qxh7+
{ . --- A fight to the death! ---'Spassky's spectacular concluding move
provoked a storm of delight and for thefirst time the Siegenlandhall burst
into thunderous applause. The first tocongratulate the world champion, embracing and kissing him, was the USSRambassador in West Germany, who was
present at the match. In memory of thisgame the ambassador was presented with the chess set, which had just been the"battle arena" of the two outstanding players. Many of the grandmasters whowere in the vicinity autographed the board. Fischer declined to follow theirexample. He was very upset,
although he conducted himself well.' (Taimanov)--- 'Pale and upset, Fischer stood up from the board, after signing hiscapitulation. Everyone, absolutely everyone hailed Spassky's victory. Even theAmericans themselves were not too upset by the defeat of their leader. "Itwould not be bad if Bobby were to realise," they said, "that he is not such agenius as he thinks he is..." Spassky himself did not rate this game toohighly as regards its chess content: he considered that he had won a war ofnerves.' (Korchnoi) --- Spassky also had something to say about this: 'Asworld champion I
consider myself obliged to play constantly against thegrandmasters who are closest of all to the chess throne. Therefore I had notthe slightest hesitation about the advisability of playing Fischer at theOlympiad. This player has good reason to be challenging for the title of worldchampion, and from the viewpoint of my personal prestige I was obliged to joinbattle. I myself don't know how I succeeded, but before the game with FischerI experienced that special fervour, without which high achievements areunthinkable. It is possible that Fischer himself involuntarily assisted this:it is always pleasant for me to play against him. He reacted to his defeatvery steadfastly. He shook my hand and for some ten minutes he remained in thetournament hall, although at such moments a player always seeks solitude.Bobby did not discuss the game with me, and I did not offer to do this withhim, because I understood his frame of mind.' --- The score in the individualmeetings of the 10th and 11th world champions became 3-0 (with two draws) infavour of Spassky, who in addition achieved the best result on board 1. And hewould have won the 'Oscar' for the third time running, had
it not been forFischer with his run of successes and his phenomenal 18˝ out of 23 in theInterzonal tournament in Palma de Mallorca. --- It would very much appear thatafter this Boris Vasilievich rested on his laurels. A quarter of a centurylater he was to say: 'I was the strongest from 1964 to 1970, but in 1971Fischer was already stronger.' However, it is also clear that Spassky arrivedat the match with Fischer (Reykjavik 1972) in by no means his best form: hehad played too rarely in competitions, he did not over-exert himself attraining sessions, and the main thing, and this was a severe blow - he hadparted with Bondarevsky. }
) 1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "'Forward Kazimirych!'"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ When talking about the sources of Spassky's brilliant style of play,
oneimmediately recalls his previous trainer of many years (1952-1960),
theLeningrad grandmaster Alexander Kazimirovich Tolush, who was a famous masterof attack and an uncommonly cheerful, witty man. After a win he
would informhis friends: 'Dracula has been caught.' When his opponent dragged out ahopeless resistance, he would complain: 'The cannon-fodder is resisting.' Whenthe latter resigned, Tolush would proclaim: 'Amen to the pies.' And duringa blitz game and when analysing he would encourage
himself with the war-cry:'Forward, Kazimirych!' --- This became the motto of more than onegeneration of players; it was also liked by Paul Keres, with whom Tolushworked in the late 40s to early 50s. With Spassky himself, a liking fordashing attacks, for an unfettered, lively and liberal 'Tolush-like' styleof play was retained practically to the end of his chess career. 'Kazimirych(as Tolush was affectionately called by his friends) revealed to me the magicworld of combinations,' Boris Vasilievich recalled. 'This turning-pointproved exceptionally interesting and
useful for me. Tolush was a reckless,temperamental gambler, a gambler in the best sense of this word. He keenlyunderstood all the psychological nuances of the struggle in chess. And notonly in chess. In order to understand Tolush, you had to observe him during agame of poker. There are numerous amusing stories associated with the name ofthis inexhaustible wise-cracker.' }
1.--
{ However, Tolush's manners did notprovoke a positive reaction from
everyone. For example, Botvinnik did not likehim. And this was why: in the
13th USSR Championship (1944) Tolush matedBotvinnik on f7 with the disrespectful words: 'It's ma-ate, MikhalMoiseich!' From that time 'Tolush'
sounded almost like a swear word tothe ears of 'Mikhal Moiseich'. I remember, when I crushed Karpov in thefantastic 16th game of our 1986 match, Botvinnik looked at me severely andgave his verdict: 'You played this game in the style of Tolush!' At thattime I was not familiar with all
the nuances, but I realised from hisintonation that there was nothing positive about this evaluation. In fact thegame was an excellent one, but Mikhail Moiseevich, on seeing some wild,non-concrete sacrifices, immediately remembered about 'Kazimirych'. Later,in the foreword to my Russian book 'Two Matches' (1987), he even thought up anoriginal explanation for my failures in games 17-19: 'This occurred partlybecause of the 16th game, which Kasparov played extremely recklessly, in thestyle of Tolush, but gained a pretty win. Apparently after this he decidedthat he
could get away with anything...' --- In these words the Masterexpressed his great dislike of a 'non-serious', 'buffoon-like' styleof play. Botvinnik did not acknowledge anything accidental, and he would buildthe edifice of a chess game with iron methodicalness, stone by stone...Whereas Spassky, by contrast, was associated with the 'Tolush' style,which became evident to me in 1981, during the tournament in Tilburg. Larsenand I were analysing our recently completed game, in which, in a verycomplicated situation with castling on opposite sides, I preferred apositional continuation and obtained a better endgame, although I missed a win(cf. Volume 4). Boris Vasilievich, who also took part in the analysis,insistently suggested a thrust of the g-pawn on move 13, repeating: 'HereTolush would have played g4!' Hearing this, Larsen gave Spassky anunderstanding look and menacingly cried: 'Kaz-im-ir-ych!!' We all burstout laughing. It appeared that the fame of the St Petersburg master hadreached the Danish court... However, previously too Soviet grandmasters of theolder generation had often heard abroad the painfully familiar
'Vperyod,Kazimirych!' } ( 1.--
{ Of course, on this theme one could select a mass ofexamples from the
early Spassky, like those in the section 'In hiselement'. But I wanted to
emphasise the presence of the 'Tolush origin'throughout the career of the 10th champion, and I have chosen games by himfrom the truly star-studded
41st USSR Championship (October 1973) and theadjoining match with Robert Byrne (January 1974). --- Korchnoi recently saidto me that the 1973 USSR Championship was Spassky's swansong, perhaps the besttournament in his career. After all, this was the first Premier Leaguetournament that had
attracted all the strongest players of that time. Herethere were both the old diehards - Keres, Smyslov, Geller, Taimanov,Petrosian, Korchnoi, Tal and Polugayevsky, as well as the new stars - Karpov,Belyavsky and so on (not long prior to this Korchnoi and Karpov hadbrilliantly won the Interzonal tournament in Leningrad, and a year later theywere to meet in the final Candidates match). But Spassky played better thanall of them, simply splendidly! It appeared that he was completely restoredafter the defeat in his match with Fischer. --- His easy, elegant play is mostvividly
illustrated by two 'related' games - with Vladimir Tukmakov andNaum Rashkovsky, who chose (as it transpired, to their own misfortune) thepopular Najdorf Variation in the Sicilian Defence. }
) *
[Event "80. 41st USSR Championship, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1973.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Spassky, B."]
[Black "Tukmakov, V."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "B96"]
[EventDate "1973.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5
{ (at that time themost dangerous move) } 6...e6 7.f4 Nbd7 $5 ( 7...Qb6
{ - Game No.41 } ) 8.Qf3 Qc7 9.O-O-O b5 10.Bd3 Bb7 11.Rhe1 Qb6 $5
{ One of Polugayevsky's many bold Sicilianideas; } (
{ devised in an attempt to overcome the difficulties associated with }
11...b4 12.Nd5 $1 ) ( 11...h6 12.Qh3 $1 ) ( { or } 11...Be7 12.Qg3 $1
{ (Spassky-Fischer, 15th matchgame, Reykjavik 1972). } ) (
{ The alternative is } 11...O-O-O { . } ) 12.Nb3 (
{ A month earlier, on encountering the new move,Geller played } 12.Nxe6 $2
{ against Polugayevsky - Game No.25. } ) 12...b4
{ Not fearing the weakening of his queenside, Black hurries to drive the
knightaway from the critical d5-square; } ( { although } 12...Rc8 13.Kb1 b4
{ was alsopossible. } ) 13.Na4 $5 (
{ It is less in the fighting 'Sicilian' spirit to play } 13.Nb1 Be7 14.N1d2
Qc7 { , Ehlvest-Gelfand, Linares 1991. } ) 13...Qc7 ( { After } 13...Qc6 $6
{ there could have followed } 14.Na5 $1 Qxa4 15.Nxb7 Qxa2 ( { if } 15...Rb8
{ , then } 16.e5 dxe5 17.fxe5 Nd5 18.Bc4 $1 ) 16.e5 Nd5 17.exd6 g6 (
17...N7b6 $2 18.f5 $1 ) 18.Bc4 $1 Qxc4 19.Na5 Qa2 20.Qxd5 Qxd5 21.Rxd5
{ with an advantage. } ) 14.Nd4 Be7 (
{ The attempt to justify the advance of theb-pawn by } 14...Qa5 $6 15.b3 Nc5
16.Nxc5 dxc5 $2 { does not work in view of } ( { and after } 16...Qxc5
17.Bxf6 gxf6 18.Bc4 O-O-O ( 18...f5 $2 19.Bxe6 $1 ) 19.Kb1
{ , Black simply has an inferior position. } ) 17.Bxf6 gxf6 18.Nxe6 $3 fxe6
19.Qh5+ Ke7 20.e5 { with a decisive attack. } ) 15.Qh3 Nc5
{ Was it worthforcing the opponent to go in for a sacrifice, after which
White begins todictate matters, with practically no risk? } (
{ Black loses a piece after } 15...O-O $2 16.e5 dxe5 17.Bxf6 $1 Nxf6 18.fxe5
{ ; } ) ( { but } 15...O-O-O $1 { (Mecking), is quite acceptable, since if }
16.f5 { he has a choice between } 16...Qa5 { , when after } ( { and } 16...e5
17.Nf3 h6 { - Timman } ) 17.e5 $6 Nxe5 18.fxe6 $2
{ (Kotronias-Kr.Georgiev, Ano Liosia 1995) } 18...Nxd3+ 19.Qxd3 Qxg5+ 20.Kb1
fxe6 21.Nb6+ ( 21.Nxe6 Qa5 ) 21...Kb8 22.Nxe6 Qg6 23.Qc4 Rc8
{ , he parries theattack, retaining an advantage. } ) 16.Nxc5 dxc5 17.Nxe6 $1
{ It is probablethat Tukmakov glanced at this variation at home and
underestimated the knightsacrifice. In fact, it does not lead to a direct
deterioration in Black'sposition and is of a purely positional character. White gains a couple ofpawns and a long-term initiative for the
piece. Spassky very much liked suchsacrifices. } (
{ White essentially has no choice: after } 17.Nf3 $2 c4
{ Blackseizes the initiative. } ) 17...fxe6 18.Bc4 $1 ( { The crude } 18.Qxe6
$6 { would have been parried by } 18...Qc6 $1 { ; } ) ( { whereas } 18.e5 $6
Nd5 19.Qxe6 { did not work on account of } ( 19.Bg6+ hxg6 $1 20.Qxh8+ Kf7
{ - Geller } ) 19...Qc8 $1 { . } ) 18...Rd8 $2
{ In the Najdorf Variation, approximate play is not goodenough. } (
{ It was essential to play } 18...Bc8 19.Bxe6 Bxe6 $1 ( { and not } 19...Qc6
$2 20.e5 $1 Bxe6 ( { or } 20...Ng8 21.Rd6 $1 Bxe6 22.Rxe6 ) 21.exf6 $1 Bxh3
22.Rxe7+ Kf8 23.fxg7+ Kg8 24.gxh3 h6 25.gxh8=Q+ Kxh8 26.Bh4
{ with winning chances } ) 20.Qxe6 Qc8 21.Qc4 Rf8 { , for example: } 22.f5
Rf7 23.Kb1 Kf8 24.e5 Ng8 25.Bxe7+ Nxe7 26.g4 Qc6
{ and for the moment White'sactivity does not bring him in any real gains.
} ) 19.Qxe6 Rxd1+ 20.Rxd1 Rf8 21.Bxf6 Rxf6 22.Qg8+ Bf8 ( 22...Rf8 $4 23.Bf7#
) 23.g3
{ As we can see, theknight sacrifice has fully justified itself. Black's
position is already verydifficult: he has no way of opposing the opponent's
clear plan of a pawnoffensive. } 23...Bc8 ( 23...Qe7 24.e5 Rh6
{ also loses in view of } 25.Bf7+ $1 Qxf7 26.Rd8+ $1 Kxd8 27.Qxf7 Be7 28.Qg8+
$1 Kd7 29.Qxg7 Rxh2 30.f5 Re2 31.f6 Rxe5 32.Qxh7 { etc. } ) 24.e5 Rb6 25.Qxh7
( { Tal would have been unable toresist the pretty } 25.Rd8+ $1
{ , which promises success after } 25...Kxd8 ( 25...Qxd8 $4 26.Qf7# )
26.Qxf8+ Kd7 27.Qxg7+ Kd8 ( 27...Kc6 $2 28.Bd5+ ) 28.Qg8+ Kd7 29.Qxh7+ Kd8
30.Qh8+ $1 Kd7 ( 30...Ke7 31.f5 $1 Bxf5 32.Qg7+ Kd8 33.Qf8+ ) 31.f5 $1 Qd8 (
31...Kc6 32.f6 ) 32.e6+ Kc7 33.Qg7+ Kd6 34.h4 { etc. } ) (
{ Geller suggested } 25.e6 $6 { in the expectation of } 25...Qe7 $2 (
{ however, after } 25...Rd6 $1 26.Re1 Qe7 27.Qxh7 Kd8
{ , nothing resembling a win is apparent: } 28.Qf5 Qf6 29.Qxc5 Rxe6 30.Qa5+
Rb6 ) 26.Qf7+ Qxf7 27.exf7+ Ke7 28.Re1+ Be6 ( { or } 28...Kf6 29.Re8 ) 29.f5
{ with a technically won endgame. --- Inthe nervy situation just before
time-trouble, Spassky preferred calmly to pickup material, assuming that
there was no longer any need to calculatevariations. } ) 25...Be6 $6 (
25...Bg4 { was better. } ) 26.Qg6+ Qf7 ( 26...Ke7 27.Be2 Bf7 28.Qg5+ Ke8
29.Bg4 { and wins. } ) 27.Qe4 Qc7 28.h4 Bxc4 29.Qxc4 Qc6 30.b3 $1 g6 31.Qe2
Qe6 32.h5 Rb7 $2 { This hastens the end; } (
{ butWhite's advantage is also obvious after } 32...Be7 33.hxg6 Qxg6 34.g4
{ . } ) 33.Qe4 $1 Rg7 34.hxg6 Qxg6 35.f5 ( { If } 35.f5 Qh6+ 36.Kb1 Rxg3
37.Qd5 $1 { . } ) 1-0
[Event "81. 41st USSR Championship, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1973.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Spassky, B."]
[Black "Rashkovsky, N."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "B96"]
[EventDate "1973.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ A few rounds later came the meeting with Rashkovsky. He was reputed to be
oneof the leading experts on the Najdorf and he chose his favourite
variation. --- } 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4
Qc7 $5 { An interesting idea, which has every right to exist. } 8.Bd3
{ On encounteringan unfamiliar set-up, Spassky initially makes natural
developing moves. } ( { If } 8.Qe2 { , then } 8...Nc6 $1 9.O-O-O Nxd4 $1
10.Rxd4 Be7
{ (Ivanchuk-Kasparov,Tilburg 1989, and Ljubojevic-Kasparov, Belgrade 1989).
} ) ( { Nowadays Whitefights for an advantage either by the positional }
8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Qd2 Nc6 ( 9...b5 $5 ) 10.O-O-O Bd7 11.Kb1 h5 12.Bc4 $5 (
12.Be2 Be7 { Timman-Kasparov,Niksic 1983 } ) 12...O-O-O 13.Nxc6 Qxc6 14.Bb3
Kb8 15.Rhf1 Qc5 16.Qd3 h4 $2 ( { but } 16...Be7 17.f5 Rdg8 18.Qh3 Rg4 $1
{ (Leko) is better } ) 17.Qh3 Be7 18.f5 Qe5 19.Rde1 $1 Rde8 20.Ne2 Bf8 21.Nf4
{ (Topalov-Anand, Dortmund 1997); } ) (
{ or in the mind-boggling complications after } 8.Qf3 b5 9.O-O-O ( { or }
9.f5 b4 10.Ncb5 axb5 11.Bxb5+ Bd7 12.fxe6 Bxb5 13.Nxb5 Qc5 14.Bxf6 Qxb5
15.Bxg7 { etc. } ) 9...b4 10.e5 Bb7 11.Ncb5 axb5 12.Bxb5+ Nbd7 $1 (
12...Nfd7 $2 13.Nxe6 $3 fxe6 14.Qh3 Kf7 15.f5
{ with a decisive attack, Kr.Georgiev-Kasparov, Malta Olympiad 1980 } )
13.Qh3 b3 $3 14.Qxb3 Bd5 15.c4 Ne4 { etc. } ) 8...Nbd7 ( { Later, when }
8...b5 $1 9.Qe2 ( 9.a3 { loses a tempo } ) 9...b4 10.Nd1 Nbd7 11.Nf2 Bb7 $1
{ appeared, the number of supporters of 8 Bd3dwindled. Generally speaking,
driving away the knights from c3 and d4 is oneof Black's key ideas in the
variations with 6 Bg5. } ) 9.Qe2 $1
{ White takesthe opportunity to place his queen not on the usual square f3,
but at e2,where it no longer shuts in the bishop and helps him to quickly
carry out thethematic advance e4-e5. } 9...b5 $6 (
{ It is more solid to play } 9...Be7 10.Nf3 ( { or } 10.O-O-O h6 11.Bh4 b5 )
10...h6 11.Bh4 Nc5 12.O-O-O b5 13.e5 $1 dxe5 14.fxe5 Nd5 15.Nxd5 exd5 16.Bxe7
Qxe7 { and Black is close to equalising (Tal-Balashov, Moscow 1969). } )
10.O-O-O Bb7 ( { Now if } 10...b4 $6 { there isthe typical sacrifice } 11.Nd5
$1 exd5 12.exd5+ Be7 13.Rhe1 { with an attack. } ) 11.Rhe1 Be7 12.e5 $1 (
{ Here, according to an eyewitness, Rashkovsky got upfrom the board with a
contented appearance: previously he had achieved goodplay in a game with
Savon after } 12.Kb1 Nc5 $1 13.e5 dxe5 14.fxe5 Nd5
{ . But when Boris resolutely advanced his central pawn fifteen minutes
later,everyone realised that on this occasion Rashkovsky would not get off
lightly! } ) 12...dxe5 13.fxe5 Nd5
{ It would appear that now too Black's position issolid enough, although
his development is slightly retarded and he has notmanaged to play his
knight to c5. The time has come for a combinative blow!Again hovering over the board is the shadow of 'father Kazimirych'... }
14.Bxe7 $6 ( { Immediately after the game Spassky pointed out the stronger }
14.Nxe6 $1 Bxg5+ $1 ( 14...fxe6 15.Qh5+ { and then: } 15...g6 ( 15...Kd8
16.Nxd5 Bxd5 17.Bxe7+ Kxe7 18.Qh4+ g5 ( 18...Ke8 19.Bg6+ $1 ) 19.Qxg5+ Ke8
20.Qg7 Rf8 21.Qxh7 { with a powerful attack } ) 16.Bxg6+ hxg6 17.Qxh8+ Nf8
18.Bxe7 Qxe7 ( 18...Nxe7 $6 19.Rf1 Nf5 20.g4 Qg7 21.Qxg7 Nxg7 22.Rf6
{ and wins } ) 19.Ne4 { with aclear advantage. } ) 15.Nxg5 Nxc3
{ (both players also saw this more tenaciousline) } 16.bxc3 $1 (
{ in 'Boris Spassky's 300 Wins' } 16.Qf2 { is recommended,but } 16...O-O-O $1
( { if } 16...Nxa2+ 17.Kb1 { with an attack } ) 17.bxc3 Qxc3 18.Nxf7 Rhf8
{ is better instead, for example: } 19.Qf4 ( 19.e6 Ne5 $1 ) ( 19.Nd6+ Kb8
20.Qg3 Nxe5 ) ( { or } 19.Re3 Qa3+ 20.Kd2 Nxe5 ) 19...Qa3+ 20.Kd2 Bd5 $1
21.e6 Qa5+ 22.c3 Qxa2+ 23.Ke3 Rde8 24.Nd6+ Kb8 $1
{ , not fearing thediscovered check } ) 16...Qxc3
{ , when an uncommonly interesting position hasarisen. Three continuations
are possible - two daring king journeys and adagger-blow with the queen: }
17.Qg4 $1
{ . This recommendation of Keresrelieves White of any unnecessary anxiety:
} ( 17.Nxf7 Qa3+ ( 17...O-O $2 18.Bxh7+ $1 Kxh7 19.Qh5+ Kg8 20.Nh6+ gxh6
21.Qg6+ Kh8 22.Qxh6+ Kg8 23.Qg5+ Kh8 24.Qh4+ { and Rxd7 } ) 18.Kd2 Qa5+ $1
19.Ke3 Qb6+ 20.Kf4 O-O $1 21.e6 Qc7+ 22.Kg4 Nc5 $1 ( 22...Qxh2 $2 23.Bxh7+ $1
Qxh7 24.exd7 Rad8 25.Ng5 Qf5+ 26.Kh4 Qf4+ 27.g4 ) 23.Nd6 ( 23.Qe5 Qxe5
24.Rxe5 Nxe6 { with equality } ) 23...Bc8 $1 24.Nxc8 Qf4+ 25.Kh3 Qh6+
{ with perpetual check. } ) ( 17.e6 $5 Qa3+ 18.Kd2 Qa5+ 19.Ke3 $1 Qb6+ 20.Kf4
Qc7+ 21.Kg4 Nf6+ 22.Kh3 O-O 23.Nxf7
{ . Here Spassky was cautiously optimistic about this chances, and it
wouldappear that this was not without reason: } 23...Rae8 ( 23...Qe7 $2
24.Qe5 ) 24.Nd6 Bc8 25.Nxc8 $1 Qxc8 ( 25...Rxc8 $2 26.e7 ) 26.c4
{ and the unusual positionof White's king should not prevent him from
converting his extra pawn. } ) 17...Nc5 ( { or } 17...Qa3+ 18.Kd2 Qa5+ 19.Ke2
h5 $6 20.Qf5 Bd5 21.e6 $1 ) 18.Re3 $1 Qa3+ 19.Kd2 $1 Qa5+ 20.Ke2
{ (threatening e5-e6) } 20...Nxd3 21.Rdxd3 O-O 22.Nxh7
{ and wins. --- Of course, Spassky studied the sacrifice on e6 first
(howmany of them did he make in his career!), but he was attracted by
anothercombination - also risky, but even more colourful. And he was simply unable todeny himself the pleasure of performing it on the board...
I would wager thatin so doing he exclaimed to himself: 'Forward, Kazimirych!' }
) 14...Nxc3 ( { If } 14...Nxe7 $2 { the simplest way to decide matters is }
15.Bxb5 $1 axb5 16.Ncxb5 Qb6 17.Nd6+ Kf8 18.Qf1 Nf5 19.N4xf5 Rxa2 (
19...exf5 20.Qc4 $1 ) 20.Nc4 { etc. } ) 15.Qg4 $1
{ This unexpected and spectacular stroke utterly stunnedRashkovsky; } (
{ who was expecting only the 'normal' } 15.bxc3 Kxe7 16.Qg4 Bd5 17.Qg5+ Kf8
{ . White gives up 'half a set' of pieces, sharpening thesituation to the
utmost, and it is very hard to find the correct defensivecourse over the
board. } ) 15...Nxd1 ( { A later game went } 15...Kxe7 $2 16.Nxe6 $1 Nxa2+
17.Kb1 Nc3+ 18.bxc3 Qxc3 19.Qg5+ Ke8 20.Nxg7+ Kf8 21.e6
{ with acrushing attack. } ) ( { Also bad is } 15...Nxe5 $2 16.Qxg7 Nxd1 (
16...Kxe7 $2 17.Nf5+ $1 ) ( 16...Nxd3+ 17.Rxd3 Qf4+ 18.Rde3 Kxe7 19.Nxe6 $1 )
17.Rxe5 Nf2 18.Bf5 Qc4 ( { or } 18...Qxe7 19.Nxe6 $1 ) 19.Bd6 Qf1+ 20.Kd2
Qd1+ 21.Kc3 Rc8+ 22.Kb3 Qxd4 23.Rxe6+ $1 { . } ) 16.Nxe6 $1 Qc6 $2
{ The decisive mistake. } ( 16...fxe6 17.Bd6 Qb6 $1
{ was essential, although one could decide on thisonly after precise
calculation and a great belief in one's positional feeling- so alarming is
the position of the black king: } 18.Qxe6+ ( 18.Qg5 Nf6 $1
{ (Geller's idea) } ( 18...Qd8 $2 19.Qg6+ $3 ) 19.exf6 Qxd6 $1 ( 19...O-O-O
$6 20.fxg7 Rhg8 21.Be5 $1 h6 22.Qf4
{ , regaining the material and retainingthe initiative } ) 20.fxg7 Rg8
21.Rxd1 Qc7 22.Qh5+ Ke7 23.Qh4+ Ke8
{ andBlack is out of danger, although for the moment White too is not
riskinganything, since he has a draw ( } 24.Qh5+ { ). } ) 18...Kd8 19.Bf5 Bc6
20.Qe7+ Kc8 21.Qxg7 ( 21.e6 $2 Rd8 $1 22.Rxd1 Nf6 23.Qxd8+ Kxd8 24.Bc5+ Kc7
25.Bxb6+ Kxb6 { favours Black } ) 21...Rd8 22.Rxd1 Qe3+ 23.Kb1 Qe2 24.Rc1 Qd2
( 24...Qxg2 $2 25.Qxg2 Bxg2 { is bad on account of } 26.e6 Nf6 27.e7+ Rd7
28.Be5 Ne8 29.c4 ) 25.Qxh7
{ with a sharp dynamic equilibrium and an unusualmaterial balance
(Spassky), for example: } 25...Kb7 26.g4 Rh8 27.Qe7 Rae8 28.Qf7 Rd8 29.Be7
Rde8
{ etc. --- Thus it can be ascertained that in this verycomplicated
position, although he did not make the best choice on the 14thmove, Spassky
nevertheless set his opponent such problems that the latter wasunable to cope with them at the board. }
) 17.Nxg7+ $1 Kxe7 18.Qg5+ f6 ( { If } 18...Kf8
{ White finds a convincing set-up: } 19.Nf5 $1 Qg6 ( 19...Nc5 20.Qe7+ Kg8
21.e6 $1 ) 20.Qe7+ Kg8 21.Qxd7 Qg5+ 22.Kb1 $1 Qd2 23.Rf1 $1
{ and thecurtain comes down. } ) 19.exf6+ Kd8 20.f7+ Kc7 21.Qf4+ ( 21.Qf4+
Kb6 ( { or } 21...Qd6 22.Ne6+ ) 22.Re6
{ . --- A crushing win! And the fact that White'sfine combinative attack
proved to be not altogether correct, with an elementof bluff - this is the
best way of remembering Alexander Kazimirovich Tolush.--- As a result Spassky finished a point ahead of his nearest pursuers andbecame USSR Champion
for the second time. On the wave of this success, acouple of months later he crushed Robert Byrne in their Candidatesquarter-final match (+3 =3). The first of these three wins was gained withBlack in one of Spassky's favourite set-ups, with the aid of a brilliant queensacrifice. }
) 1-0
[Event "82. Candidates Match, San Juan"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1974.??.??"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Byrne, R."]
[Black "Spassky, B."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "C95"]
[EventDate "1974.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 O-O
9.h3 Nb8
{ Boris Vasilievich was an expert on the Breyer Variation (and onthe Ruy
Lopez in general), subtly sensing all the nuances of the resultingpositions
and achieving success both with Black, and with White. Therefore hedid not have great difficulty in refuting Byrne's opening experiment. }
10.d4 Nbd7 11.Nbd2 ( { It is harmless to play } 11.Nh4 exd4 12.cxd4 Nb6
13.Nd2 c5 { (R.Byrne-Spassky, Moscow 1971); } ) ( { or } 11.c4 c6 $1 (
{ but not } 11...Bb7 $6 { - Volume 2, Game No.96 } ) 12.cxb5 ( 12.c5 Qc7 )
12...axb5 13.Nc3 Bb7 ( 13...Ba6 $1 ) 14.Bg5 b4 15.Nb1 h6 16.Bh4 c5
{ (Fischer-Spassky, 29th matchgame,Yugoslavia 1992). } ) 11...Bb7 12.Bc2 Re8
13.Nf1 ( 13.b4
{ , Fischer-Spassky,10th matchgame, Reykjavik 1972 - cf. Volume 4. } )
13...Bf8 14.Ng3 g6 15.b3 (
{ Avoiding the thoroughly studied main variation } 15.a4 c5 16.d5 c4 17.Bg5
{ , where Spassky not only experienced difficulties with Black -
againstCiocaltea (Dortmund 1973), Kavalek (Montreal 1979) and Tal (Tilburg
1980), butalso gained an advantage with White - against Karpov (10th matchgame,Leningrad 1974) and Portisch (9th matchgame, Geneva 1977); }
( { if } 17.Be3 { , then } 17...Nc5 $1 { . } ) ) ( 15.Bd2
{ has also been played: } 15...Bg7 16.Qc1 d5 $1
{ with equality (Unzicker-Portisch, Santa Monica 1966) (and
Balashov-Spassky,Sochi 1973); } ) ( { as well as } 15.Bg5 h6 16.Bd2
{ (Fischer-Spassky, 1stmatchgame, Yugoslavia 1992 - cf. Volume 4). } )
15...Bg7 ( 15...c6 { is passive; } ) ( { whereas it is too early for }
15...d5 $6 { on account of } 16.Bg5 $1 h6 17.Bh4 dxe4 $6 18.Nxe4 g5 19.dxe5
$1 { with an attack (J.Polgar-Spassky, 8thmatchgame, Budapest 1993). } )
16.a4 $6
{ This move allows the freeing counter ...d6-d5 and therefore never
achieved acceptance: White must play morerigorously. } ( { However, after }
16.d5 $1 { (White's main weapon nowadays),'Kazimirych' suggests } 16...Nb6
{ The correct move is } ( 16...Rc8
{ has also been played, Anand-Van derSterren, Wijk aan Zee 1998 } ) 17.Rb1 $1
{ ('X-ray'!) } ( 17.Be3 $6 Rc8 18.Qe2 c6 $1 19.c4 cxd5 20.cxd5 Nbxd5 $5
21.exd5 Nxd5
{ withfine compensation for the piece (J.Polgar-Spassky, 10th matchgame,
Budapest1993). } ( 21...-- ) ) 17...c6 18.c4
{ (Unzicker-Donner, Leipzig Olympiad 1960,and Leko-Belyavsky, Bled Olympiad
2002). } ) 16...d5 $1 17.dxe5 ( { White getsnowhere with } 17.Nxe5 Nxe5
18.dxe5 Nxe4 19.Nxe4 dxe4 20.Qxd8 Raxd8 21.Bg5 Rd5 22.axb5 Rxb5 23.Bf6 Bxf6
24.exf6 Rf5 $1 ( 24...Re6 25.b4 Rf5 26.f3 { is inferior } ) 25.Rad1 Rxf6
26.Rd7 Rc8 { with equality. } ) 17...Nxe4 18.Bxe4 ( { ' } 18.Nxe4 dxe4
19.Bxe4 { could not satisfy Byrne in view of } 19...Bxe4 20.Rxe4 Nxe5 21.Qxd8
Raxd8 22.Nxe5 Rd1+ 23.Kh2 Rxe5 { ' (Balashov) } ) 18...dxe4 19.Bg5
{ It was this intermediate move that the American grandmaster was
countingon. } 19...exf3 $5 (
{ Of course, White can hardly achieve anything serious after } 19...f6
20.exf6 Bxf6 21.Bxf6 Nxf6 22.Nd2 ( 22.Qxd8 Raxd8 23.Nd4 c5 ) 22...Qd6 23.Ndf1
{ with equality; } ) ( { or } 19...Qc8 20.Nxe4 Nxe5 ( { but not } 20...Bxe4
$6 21.Rxe4 Nxe5 22.Nxe5 Bxe5 23.Qe1 Qf5 24.Bf4 ) 21.Nxe5 Bxe5 22.Nf6+ Bxf6
23.Bxf6 Qf5 24.Qd4 c5 25.Qd6 Qd5
{ with a probable draw. But Blackmakes a fearless move, sharply disturbing
the quiet course of the game. } ) 20.Bxd8 Raxd8
{ Spassky, like Lasker in his time, liked to sacrifice his
queenpositionally, but a sacrifice of the queen for just two minor pieces
is a rare,unusual matter. Few would have bothered to consider it seriously: after all,for the moment White's king is not too weakened
and his other pieces are moreor less normally placed. --- Paradoxically, it is Black, having given up hisqueen, who is relying on the dynamics of the position - in contrast, say, tothe 3rd game of my New York match with Karpov (1990), where I had colossalpositional
compensation for the queen and, on the contrary, it was my opponentwho tried to develop the dynamics. But here Black's compensation is not soobvious, although one can mention the pressure of the bishops along the longdiagonals and the potential threat of ...Nd7-e5-f3+. White will have to giveup a rook for the knight, after which, perhaps, a position of dynamic balancewill arise. }
21.axb5 $2 { Byrne clearly underestimated his opponent's threats. } (
{ White's difficulties are revealed by the variations } 21.Ne4 $6 Nxe5 22.Qc2
fxg2 23.Re3 Nf3+ $1 24.Rxf3 ( 24.Kxg2 Rxe4 $1 25.Rxe4 f5 ) 24...Bxe4 25.Qe2
Bxf3 26.Qxf3 b4 ) ( { and } 21.Re4 $6 Bxe4 ( { but not } 21...Nxe5 $6 22.Rd4
$1 ) 22.Nxe4 Nxe5 23.Qc2 fxg2 24.axb5 axb5 25.Kxg2 Nd3 $1
{ with excellentcompensation. } ) ( { And in the event of } 21.Nf1 fxg2
22.Nh2 { Black captures one5 immediately, or after the preliminary }
22...bxa4 { , and has a pleasant game withthe draw in hand. } ) (
{ In the variation } 21.Qd4 c5 22.Qe3 Nxe5 23.Red1 Rxd1+ 24.Rxd1 fxg2
{ the power of the b7-bishop guarantees Black a draw: } 25.Qxc5 Nf3+ 26.Kxg2
Nd2+ { . } ) ( { Evidently the best chance was Bondarevsky'srecommendation }
21.e6 $1 Ne5 { (there only remains this computer variation) } ( { if }
21...fxe6 $6 { , then } 22.axb5 Ne5 23.Qc2 fxg2 ( { if } 23...axb5 { , then }
24.Ra7 $1 Rb8 25.Ne4 ) 24.Rxe5 $1 Bxe5 25.bxa6 { is now good for White } )
22.exf7+ Kxf7 23.Qc1 fxg2 24.Qf4+ Kg8 25.Red1 ( 25.Ne4 Rf8 ) 25...Nf3+
26.Kxg2 Nd2+ 27.Kg1 Nf3+ 28.Kf1 Nh2+ { with perpetual check. } ) 21...Nxe5 $1
22.bxa6 $2 { Panic! } ( { Of course, } 22.Qc2
{ should have been played, although after } 22...fxg2
{ with the threat of ...Nf3+ the initiative is now clearly with Black: }
23.Rxe5 { (there is nothing better) } 23...Bxe5 24.bxa6
{ and here I discovered the verystrong move } 24...Bf3 $1
{ . White's position is rather unpleasant: the bishops arerampant over the
entire board and counterplay with the advance of the a-pawnis not dangerous
(the a8-square is securely controlled). For example: } 25.b4 h5 $1
{ (with the threat of ...h5-h4) } 26.h4 Bf6
{ and ...Bxh4 with anintensifying attack. } ) 22...Rxd1 23.Rexd1 Ba8
{ The power of the passeda-pawn proves to be mythical. } 24.gxf3 Nxf3+ 25.Kf1
Bxc3
{ The rest is notinteresting: Black has a decisive attack plus a material
advantage. --- } 26.Rac1 Nd2+ 27.Kg1 Ba5 28.b4 Nf3+ 29.Kf1 Nh2+ 30.Kg1 Nf3+
31.Kf1 Bb6 32.Rc2 Nh2+ 33.Kg1 Nf3+ 34.Kf1 Kf8 35.Ne2 Nh2+ 36.Kg1 Nf3+ 37.Kf1
Be4 38.Ra2 Nh2+
{ Boris Vasilievich liked to give checks to gain time on the clock. } 39.Kg1
Nf3+ 40.Kf1 Nh4 $1 41.Nf4 Bf3 42.Rd3 g5 43.Ne2 Bg2+ 44.Ke1 Nf3+ 45.Kd1 Ne5
46.Rc3 Bd5 47.Rd2 Bc4 48.Ra3 Ra8 49.f4 gxf4 50.Nxf4 Rxa6 51.Rxa6 Bxa6 52.Nd5
Bc4 53.Nxb6 cxb6 54.Rd6 b5 55.Kd2 Ng6 56.Ke3 h5
{ . --- Threegames - three vivid flashes of fantasy. Karpov was right, when
he said: 'inSpassky's amateurishness in the opening there was also a
danger: at the boardhe could devise something that you would not find in any book.' Especiallywhen the opponents were inferior in class to Spassky and
his play was verybold and relaxed, with a feeling of spiritual comfort. --- It was with such afeeling that I played in Wijk aan Zee 2000 (when I was in the middle ofworking on this chapter about Spassky). }
0-1
[Event "Wijk aan Zee"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2000.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Kasparov, G."]
[Black "Polgar, J."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "B90"]
[EventDate "2000.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ Before the final round I was leading my main rivals by a point, and a
draw asWhite with Judit Polgar would guarantee me victory in the
tournament. I nolonger wanted to play (in addition, the round began unusually early, at 12.30),but, on the other hand, it was somehow uncomfortable
to 'rest on my laurels'ahead of time. With these contradictory feelings I played }
1.e4 { , but after } 1...c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6
{ , I woke up: Polgar is playingthe Najdorf! I, of course, replied } 6.Be3
{ , Judit - } 6...Ng4 7.Bg5 h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.Bg3 Bg7 { , I - } 10.h3 $5
{ and she,after some thought - } ( { I was already tired of } 10.Be2 h5 )
10...Nf6 $5
{ . An interesting novelty. Although, ofcourse, I had examined this move
and considered the normal reply to be 11 Be2with a complicated game. But
here I remembered the triumphant call 'Forward,Kazimirych!' and, with a smile, I launched into an open battle: }
11.Bc4 $5 Qb6 12.O-O O-O 13.Nde2 $5 Qxb2 14.Bb3 Qa3 15.f4 $1
{ and after great adventuresI nevertheless got to the black king! --- }
15...Nc6 16.Kh1 Be6 17.Qd3 Rac8 18.fxg5 hxg5 19.Nd5 Rfe8 20.Rad1 Nb4 21.Qf3
Nbxd5 22.exd5 Bd7 23.c3 a5 24.Qd3 a4 25.Bc2 Qc5 26.Rxf6 exf6 27.Qh7+ Kf8
28.Nd4 Re5 29.Bxe5 fxe5 30.Ne6+ Bxe6 31.dxe6 Rc7 32.Bxa4 d5 33.Qf5 Qc4 34.Bd7
Qf4 35.Qb1 fxe6 36.Bxe6 Ke7 37.Bxd5 Rd7 38.c4 Qe3 39.Qh7 Kd8 40.Rb1 Qf4
41.Be6 Re7 42.Bg4 Rf7 43.Qd3+ Qd4 44.Qg6 1-0
[Event "83. Candidates Match, Leningrad"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1974.??.??"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Karpov, A."]
[Black "Spassky, B."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "B83"]
[EventDate "1974.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ In the spring of 1974 Spassky met the young Anatoly Karpov in the
Candidatesquarter-final match. Many were predicting a win for the spirited
37-year-oldex-world champion, and the very first game appeared to confirm these forecasts.--- }
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Be2 Be7 7.O-O O-O 8.f4 Nc6
9.Be3 e5 $5 ( { In this match Spassky also played } 9...Bd7 { (9thgame); } )
( { whereas } 9...a6
{ leads to a tabiya from my matches with Karpov (1984/85, 1985) and Anand
(1995) after } 10.a4 Qc7 11.Kh1 Re8 { . } ) 10.Nb3 (
{ It is harmless to play either } 10.Nf5 $6 Bxf5 11.exf5 exf4 12.Rxf4 d5 $1
13.Kh1 Re8 { with equality (Mecking-Spassky, Nice Olympiad 1974) } ) (
{ thesimplifying } 10.Nxc6 bxc6 ) ( { or the exotic } 10.Ndb5 { (Dolmatov) }
10...a6 11.fxe5 Nxe5 { . } ) (
{ The only try for an advantage is in the variation } 10.fxe5 dxe5 11.Nf5
Bxf5 12.Rxf5 { and if } 12...Qa5 { , then } (
{ usually Black solves his problems by } 12...Qxd1+ 13.Rxd1 g6 ) 13.Qf1
{ (Geller-Kasparov, Moscow Interzonal1982). } ) 10...a5 $6
{ Some old preparation by Spassky and Bondarevsky. } (
{ Subsequently this was replaced by the dynamic } 10...exf4 11.Bxf4 (
{ after } 11.Rxf4 { , apart from the obvious } 11...Be6 { , } (
{ the more creative } 11...Nd7 { and } ) ( 11...Ne8 { are also possible } ) )
11...Be6 12.Kh1 d5 $1 13.e5 Nd7 14.Nxd5 Ndxe5 15.c4 Bg5 $1
{ , as I played against Geller (Moscow 1981) and Kuzmin (49th USSR
Championship, Frunze 1981). } ) 11.a4 Nb4
{ The critical position ofthis variation. } 12.Bf3 $6 ( 12.Kh1 $1
{ is more accurate, retaining controlof the c4-square: } 12...Bd7 { , then }
( 12...Be6 $6 13.f5 $1 ) ( 12...d5 $5 13.fxe5 Nxe4 ) ( 12...Qc7 13.Rc1 $1 Be6
14.Nd2 $1 exf4 15.Nb5 Qd8 16.Bxf4
{ ... 1-0 (Geller-Spassky, Moscow 1974, and Kavalek-Spassky, Manila
Interzonal 1976). } ( 16.-- ) ) 13.Bf3
{ is now appropriate (transposing into the variation 9...Bd710 Nb3 a5 11 a4
Nb4 12 Bf3 e5 13 Kh1), followed by } 13...Rc8 ( 13...Bc6 $6 14.fxe5 dxe5
15.Qe2 Qc7 16.Qf2 Nd7 17.Rad1 { ... 1-0 Geller-Polugayevsky, Portoroz1973; }
) ( 13...Qc7 14.Rf2 Rfe8 15.Rd2 b6 16.Qg1 $1 ) ( 13...Be6 $5 { Geller } )
14.Rf2 $1 Rc4 15.fxe5 dxe5 16.Rd2 Qc7 17.Qg1 $1 Bd8 18.Rad1
{ ... 1-0 (Geller-Reshevsky, Palma de Mallorca Interzonal 1970). --- It is
this classicexample that Karpov tries to follow, but after the inaccuracy
committed byWhite he does not achieve anything and Black obtains a comfortable position. }
) 12...Be6 $1 { (the point) } 13.Kh1 ( { Now if } 13.f5 $6 { there is }
13...Bc4 ) ( { and in addition } 13.-- exf4 14.Bxf4 Nxc2 $1 15.Qxc2 Qb6+
{ is threatened. } ) ( { It is hardly impressive to play } 13.Nd2 exf4
14.Bxf4 Qb6+ 15.Kh1 Rac8 ) ( { or } 13.Rf2 exf4 14.Bxf4 d5 ( 14...Bxb3 $5
15.cxb3 d5 ) 15.e5 Ne4 16.Bxe4 ( 16.Nxe4 $6 dxe4 17.Bxe4 Bxb3 { and ...Bc5! }
) ( 16.Re2 Nxc3 17.bxc3 Nc6 ) 16...dxe4 17.Nxe4 Bxb3 18.cxb3 Nd3 19.Rf3 Nxf4
20.Rxf4 Qb6+ 21.Kh1 Qe6 { with equality. } ) 13...Qc7 ( 13...exf4 $6 14.Bxf4
d5 15.e5 $1 ) 14.Rf2 Rfd8 15.Rd2 Bc4 16.Nb5 $5
{ Played after half an hour's thought. One canunderstand Karpov's
motivation: he is unhappy with the outcome of the openingand tries to
sharpen the play, by beginning to chase the knight at b4. } (
{ In the event of } 16.Be2 d5 $5 17.fxe5 Nxe4 18.Nxe4 Bxb3 19.cxb3 dxe4
{ Black has no reason for complaint; } ) ( { as is also the case after }
16.Qg1 Nd7 { with the threat of ...Nxc2 } ) ( { or } 16.Nd5 $6 Nbxd5 17.exd5
e4 18.Be2 Rdc8 $1 { (Mikenas). } ) 16...Bxb5 17.axb5 a4 18.Nc1 d5 $1
{ Black is obliged to actenergetically. 'Using the classic (for the
Sicilian Defence) way of breakingin the centre, Spassky seizes the
initiative.' (Botvinnik) But it seems to methat the situation is still completely unclear and that this comment was made,as often happens,
under the influence of the result of the game. } 19.fxe5 ( 19.exd5 $2 e4 ) (
19.c3 $6 dxe4 20.fxe5 Qxe5 ) 19...Nxe4 20.c3 $1
{ Consistentlycarrying out his plan. } ( { It was not suitable to play }
20.Bxe4 $6 dxe4 21.c3 Rxd2 22.Bxd2 Qd7 $1 ) ( { or } 20.Re2 $6 a3 $1 21.Rxa3
( 21.c3 $2 axb2 22.Rxa8 b1=Q { and wins } ) 21...Rxa3 22.bxa3 Nc3 { etc. } )
20...Nxd2 21.Bxd2 ( 21.Qxd2 $2 d4 22.Bxd4 Nc2 $1 23.Qxc2 Rxd4 24.Be4 (
{ or } 24.b6 Qc4 25.Ne2 Rd7 { was much worse } ) 24...Rc4 25.Bxh7+ Kh8 26.Bd3
Qxe5 { . } ) 21...Qxe5 $1 22.cxb4 ( { Of course, it was bad to play } 22.Rxa4
$2 Rxa4 23.Qxa4 Bg5 $1 24.Qd1 Re8 { and wins. } ) (
{ 'In this sharp position, White could have caused hisopponent the maximum
difficulties by } 22.g3 { (suggested by Tal) } 22...d4 (
{ however,Black has the improvement } 22...Bf6 $1 23.Bf4 Qf5 24.cxb4 g5
25.Bd2 Bxb2 { and White's position is unenviable } ) 23.cxb4 Qxb5 24.Qe2 $1
{ (Botvinnik) Inthe opinion of Mikenas, after } 24...Qxe2 ( { or } 24...Qd7
25.Nd3 ) 25.Bxe2
{ withthe idea of Bd3 and Ne2 he would even have chances of gaining some
advantage. } ) 22...Qxb2 23.Nd3 Qd4 24.Ra3
{ 'Karpov made this move instantly, havingapparently overlooked Black's
reply in his calculations.' (Mikenas) } (
{ 'Passively played. A sharper alternative was } 24.Nc5 Bxc5 ( 24...a3
25.Nxb7 ) 25.bxc5
{ , when White's chances are better than in the game.' (Botvinnik).And
indeed, after: } 25...a3 ( 25...Qxc5 26.Rxa4 Rxa4 ( 26...Qxb5 27.Rb4 )
27.Qxa4 Qc4 $1 28.Qa1 $5 ( { after } 28.Qd1 Qxb5 29.h3
{ , as recommended by Mikenas, } 29...d4 { is unpleasant } ) 28...Qxb5 29.Be3
) 26.Bg5 ( { but not } 26.c6 $2 bxc6 27.bxc6 a2 $1 28.Qc1 Qxa1 29.Qxa1 Rdb8
{ and wins } ) 26...Qxd1+ 27.Bxd1 Re8 28.Kg1
{ , the two bishops evidently would have allowed White to hold the
position.But also 24 Ra3 does not yet spoil anything! } ) 24...Qb6 $1 25.Qe2
$6 { 'All in the same slightly passive style. } (
{ 'Here too White should have takena risk - } 25.Rxa4 { , not fearing }
25...Qxb5 26.Rxa8 Rxa8 27.Nf4 $5 ( { in view of } 27.Be2 Bf6 28.Nc5 Qb6
29.Nb3 { .' (Botvinnik) } ( 29.-- ) ) 27...d4 ( 27...Bxb4 28.Nxd5 $1 Bxd2 $2
29.Nc7 ) 28.h3 { is more interesting, however, when it isdangerous to play }
28...Bxb4 29.Qb1 Ra4 30.Bd5 ( 30.Nd3 Qa6 ) 30...Qc5 $6 31.Bxf7+ $1 Kxf7
32.Qb3+ Ke7 33.Bxb4 Rxb4 34.Nd5+
{ with a strong initiative.It would appear that 25 Rxa4! would have
retained the dynamic balance and thatit was wrong to criticise Karpov's
preceding moves. } ) 25...Re8 $1 ( 25...Bd6 26.Bxd5 Qxb5 27.Qh5 $1
{ was inferior. } ) 26.Bxd5 ( 26.Qf2 $2 Qxf2 27.Nxf2 Bg5 $1 28.Bc3 d4
{ and wins. } ) 26...Bxb4 27.Bxf7+ Kxf7 ( { ' } 27...Kh8 28.Bxe8 $1 (
28.Rxa4 $2 Bxd2 { and wins } ) 28...Bxa3 29.Ne5 $1
{ would have led tounfathomable complications.' (Mikenas) } ) 28.Qf3+ $2
{ Probably only this is areal mistake. } ( { In the sharp endgame after }
28.Qh5+ $1 Qg6 ( 28...Kg8 29.Bxb4 ) 29.Qf3+ Qf6 30.Bxb4 $1 Qxf3 31.gxf3
{ White should have been able togain a draw: } 31...Re2 ( 31...b6
{ (Botvinnik) } 32.Nb2 $1 ) ( 31...Re3 32.Bc5 $1 { (Mikenas) } ( 32.-- ) ) (
31...Rad8 32.Bc5 Rd5 33.Bg1 ) 32.Nc5 ( 32.Bc5 $5 ) 32...Rd8 33.Ra1 Rd4 34.Bc3
Rc4 35.Nxa4 { . } ) 28...Kg8 29.Bxb4 ( 29.Qd5+ Qe6 $1 30.Qxe6+ Rxe6 31.Bxb4
( { or } 31.Nxb4 $2 Rd8 ) 31...Rb6 { etc. } ) 29...Qxb5
{ Now Karpov's position is indeed lost: Black has two dangerous passedpawns
and active rooks, whereas White's minor pieces have no strong points. } 30.h3
Rad8 31.Bd2 Qd5 $1 32.Qf2 b5 33.Ba5 Rd7 34.Nf4
{ (an attempt tocreate counterplay) } 34...Rf7 $1 35.Rf3 ( 35.Rg3 Qc4 ) (
35.Qg3 Qd4 ) 35...Qc4 36.Bd2 b4 37.Qb6 b3 (
{ In the opinion of Botvinnik and Mikenas, } 37...a3 $1
{ would have won more quickly. I agree - Black would simply have picked
upmaterial: } 38.Qxb4 Qxb4 39.Bxb4 a2 40.Bc3 Rc8 41.Be5 Rc5 42.Bb2 Rb5 43.Bd4
Rb4 44.Be5 Rfxf4 { and wins. } ) 38.Kh2 Qc2 ( { Here } 38...Ref8 $5
{ wasrecommended (preventing the activation of the white bishop). For
example: } 39.Rc3 Qe4 40.Rf3 ( 40.Nd3 Rd7 $1 ) 40...Qc2 ( 40...Qb7 $1
{ is even better } ) 41.Qe6 $1 Qc8 $1 ( 41...Qxd2 $2 42.Nd5 $1 { ; } ) (
41...b2 $6 42.Nd5 $1 Qc5 43.Bb4 Qxb4 44.Nxb4 b1=Q 45.Nc6 Qb7 46.Ne5 Qc7
47.Kh1 ) 42.Qe4 Qb8
{ - theknight is pinned and the b-pawn cannot be stopped. } ) 39.Bc3 $1 Qe4
$1 { 'The threat of Rg3 has to be parried. } ( { 'After } 39...Rxf4 $2 40.Qb7
$1 { would have won, though. } ( 40.Qc7
{ it is White who unexpectedly wins.' (Botvinnik) In fact after } 40...Rf6 $1
41.Qd7 { things would probably have ended ina draw; } ( 41.-- ) ) ) (
39...a3 { was dangerous: } 40.Qb5 $1 { is the correctdefence: } (
{ on account of } 40.Rg3 { with sufficient counterplay.' (Mikenas)But after }
40...b2 { it is time for White to resign: } 41.Qd4 ( { or } 41.Qb5 Qe4 $1 )
41...Qxc3 $1 { . } ) 40...Ref8 ( 40...Rc8 41.Qd5 $1 ) ( 40...Rd8 41.Qc4 $1 )
41.Qd5 b2 42.Bxg7 $1 Qf5 ( 42...Kxg7 $2 43.Qe5+ ) 43.Rg3 $1 Qxf4 44.Bxb2+
Qxg3+ 45.Kxg3 axb2 46.Qb3 { with equality. } ) 40.Qd6 h6 (
{ According to Botvinnik, } 40...Qe7 $1 { was simpler; } ) (
{ but certainly not } 40...a3 $2 41.Qxa3 Rxf4 $2 42.Qa7 { and wins. } )
41.Bb2
{ Karpov has resisted with all his might andSpassky has created some
problems for himself - but he has not thrown away thewin. } 41...Qc2 $1
{ The sealed move. } ( { 'Spassky had to avoid some pitfalls: } 41...Ref8 $2
42.Rg3 $1 { , when White escapes from the pin.' (Botvinnik) The result- }
42...Qxf4 ( { or } 42...a3 43.Bxg7 $1 Rxg7 44.Ne6 Rxg3 45.Qxf8+ Kh7 46.Qf7+
{ with the same outcome } ) 43.Qxf4 Rxf4 44.Rxg7+ { with perpetual check. } )
( { In addition, after } 41...Rc8 $2 { White would have saved the game by }
42.Ne6 $1 ( { but not Botvinnik's } 42.Bxg7 $6
{ on account of Mikenas's reply } 42...Qc6 $1 ) 42...Rxf3 43.Qd7 $1 { ; } )
( { and if } 41...Ree7 $2 { then } 42.Ng6 $1 Re8 ( 42...Re6 $2 43.Rxf7 $1
Kxf7 44.Qf8+ Kxg6 45.Qxg7+ Kh5 46.g4+ ) ( 42...Qe6 43.Nxe7+ ) 43.Rxf7 Kxf7
44.Qd7+ { , forcing } 44...Re7 45.Nxe7 { etc. } ) 42.Qd5 ( 42.Qd4 Re4 $1
43.Qd5 ( { or } 43.Qd8+ Kh7 44.Nd3 Qc7+ ) 43...Qc4 44.Qa8+ Kh7 45.Rc3 Qb4
{ and wins. } ) 42...Qf5 ( { Avoiding a trap: } 42...Qxb2 $2 43.Ng6 ( { or }
43.Nd3
{ . Despite his time-trouble errors, in general Black confidently
convertshis advantage, strengthening his position step by step. } ) ) 43.Qc6
Qd7 44.Qg6 Ree7 45.Qa6 Qb7 $1 46.Qxa4 Re4 47.Qxb3 Rb4 $1
{ 'Spassky prefers to leaveWhite with the weaker piece - the knight.'
(Botvinnik) } ( { After } 47...Qxb3 $6 48.Rxb3 Rexf4
{ things would have been more difficult for Black. } ) 48.Qe6 Rxb2 49.Rg3 Rb6
50.Qe8+ Kh7 $1 51.Qe3 Rd6 52.Qc5 Qc7 53.Qb4 Qd7 54.Nh5 Rg6 ( 54...g6 $5
{ (Mikenas) } ) 55.Rxg6 Kxg6 56.Ng3 Qd3 57.h4 $6 Kh7 58.h5 Rd7 59.Qc5 Rd4
60.Qe7 Rg4 61.Qe5 Rh4+ 62.Kg1 Qd1+ 63.Kf2 Qd4+
{ . --- However, theex-world champion was unable to build on his success.
'We must be fair - itwas not Spassky's chess talent that suffered a defeat
in this match,' wroteBotvinnik. 'Spassky lost the match as a human being. He had favourableopportunities during play, but failed to exploit them. A
hard fight is nolonger to his liking!' I think that the win with Black in the first game didhim a disservice: he anticipated a favourable outcome and did not expect thatsubsequently his opponent would demonstrate such an extremely high standard ofplay. --- At the end of 1976 Boris Vasilievich
married a Frenchwoman, and theSoviet authorities, shocked by Korchnoi's recent defection to the West, made arare exception and allowed him to go and live with his wife in France. Butuntil 1984 he continued to appear under the USSR flag. }
0-1
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Spassky's Lessons"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ I first met Spassky at the board in the autumn of 1981 in Tilburg. This
wasmy first top-class tournament - a trial of strength, so to speak. All
thestrongest grandmasters were there, apart from Karpov and Korchnoi, who wereinvolved in their match in Merano, and also Tal and Polugayevsky (who
werehelping Karpov). I scored only 50 per cent but, in the opinion of the otherparticipants, I played in a very interesting fashion. Many grandmasters werealready able to evaluate my style of play and my potential. Public opiniongradually began to incline towards the fact that there would be
aKarpov-Kasparov match in 1984. --- Meanwhile, in Tilburg I established apersonal tournament record, which, fortunately, I have not yet broken: I lostthree games! With Black against Timman I was outplayed, but my defeats withWhite against Petrosian (Game No.46) and Spassky were very painful. In bothgames I gained the advantage, and in both I had excellent positions, but bothended dismally for me. I had insufficient of that experience, which is usuallylacking at the age of 18. }
1.--
{ Whereas this was not the first time I hadplayed Petrosian and, already
having some experience, I played with a slightcaution, I approached my duel
with Spassky without the slightest piety. I had2 out of 4 and I was in a fighting mood: I thought that I could score a lotmore points (and,
incidentally, not without reason: in all my games right tothe end of the tournament I had winning chances). Recently Boris Vasilievichreminded me that before the game I had cheerfully informed him how it wouldend: I prepared him for the worst, and in my usual, natural manner - even,it seems,
using not altogether literary language. To which Spassky, also inhis usual - 'Tolush-like' - manner, grandly replied: 'I beg you tocarry it out!' And although, as it seemed to me, Boris Vasilievich wasterribly afraid, he composed himself for the game. }
*
[Event "84. Tilburg"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1981.??.??"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Kasparov, G."]
[Black "Spassky, B."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "A56"]
[EventDate "1981.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 g6 4.Nc3 d6 5.e4 Bg7
{ Spassky always made subtlechoices in his openings. I was somewhat
startled that he should take the riskof playing a King's Indian set-up that
was very familiar to me. After somethought I decided to choose the Averbakh Variation - perhaps not the mostdangerous for Black, but one that
demands very energetic play and a detailedknowledge of opening subtleties (which the opponent probably did not have!). }
6.Be2 O-O 7.Bg5
{ Here Spassky hesitated and then decided to sacrifice a pawnin the sprit
of the Benko Gambit, hoping to seize the initiative and forceWhite to
defend accurately, i.e. to give the play a character that wasunpleasant for me. }
7...b5 $6 ( 7...h6 ) ( 7...e6 { - cf. Volume } ) 8.cxb5 a6 9.a4 $1 Qa5 $6 (
{ The first subtlety: it is better to continue } 9...h6 $1 10.Bd2 $1 e6
11.dxe6 Bxe6 12.Nf3 axb5 13.Bxb5 Na6 14.O-O Nc7 15.Re1 Nxb5 16.Nxb5 d5
17.exd5 Nxd5
{ with more or less sufficient compensation for the pawn, as Iplayed two
months later against Tukmakov (49th USSR Championship, Frunze 1981). } )
10.Bd2 $1 Nbd7 $2
{ Here play on general grounds is too passive: Blacksimply ends up in an
inferior version of the Benko Gambit; } ( { as is also thecase after }
10...axb5 $6 11.Bxb5 { . } ) ( { The only chance of confusing mattersis }
10...Qb4 $5 { . } ) 11.Ra3 $1 { Now Black's activity peters out. } 11...Bb7
12.Nf3 axb5 13.Bxb5 Qc7 14.O-O
{ White's position is already technically won: he isa healthy pawn to the
good, without any counterplay for the opponent. ThusSpassky's venture had
failed. However, he carried on playing as though nothinghad happened, with a completely unperturbed appearance (which, I remember,made me laugh
somewhat). } 14...Ng4 ( { It is completely hopeless to play } 14...e6 $2
15.dxe6 fxe6 16.Ng5 Rae8 17.Bf4 e5 18.Bc4+ Kh8 19.Nb5 Qb8 20.Nxd6
{ and wins. } ) 15.Bg5 { It is hard not to make this move; } (
{ although thecomputer suggests } 15.a5 { . } ) 15...Ngf6
{ A pragmatic decision by anexperienced contestant! Black must hold his
ground, be patient and wait - theopponent may overpress, or make a
second-rate move... } ( { The variation } 15...Nde5 { (or 15...Nge5) }
16.Nxe5 Nxe5 17.f4 Nd7 18.Bxe7 Rfe8 19.Bg5 h6 ( 19...Bxc3 20.bxc3 Rxe4 21.c4
{ and wins } ) 20.Bh4 Bxc3 21.bxc3 Rxe4 22.c4
{ would have led to a decisive advantage for White. } ) 16.Nd2 e6 17.Nc4 (
{ Also after } 17.dxe6 $5 fxe6 18.Nc4 d5 19.exd5 Nxd5 ( 19...exd5 20.Bxd7
dxc4 21.Be6+ ) 20.a5
{ , Black's position would have left much to be desired. } ) 17...exd5
18.exd5 Rad8 ( 18...Nb6 $2 { does not work on account of } 19.Nxb6 Qxb6
20.Qf3 $1 Nh5 21.g4 { and wins } ) 19.a5
{ An obvious plan for convertingthe advantage. To this day I don't
understand how I contrived to lose fromsuch a position! } 19...h6 20.Bh4 (
{ It is possible that } 20.Bf4 $5 { was better,and if } 20...Ne5
{ then either } 21.Nxe5 ( { or } 21.Bxe5 dxe5 22.d6 Qb8 23.a6 Ba8 24.Re1 e4
25.Qa4 ) 21...dxe5 22.d6 $1 Qxd6 23.Qxd6 Rxd6 24.Bxe5 Rd2 25.a6 Ba8 26.Na4
{ , with a winning position in both cases. The move in the gamedoes not
spoil anything for the moment, but Black acquires a hint ofcounterplay } )
20...Ne5 21.a6 Ba8 22.Re1 g5 23.Bg3 Nfd7 $1
{ Opening the wayfor the f-pawn. } 24.a7 $1 f5 25.Bxe5 Nxe5 26.Nxe5 dxe5 $1
{ The only way. } ( { After } 26...Bxe5 27.Qh5 Kg7 28.Ra6 $1 Bxc3 ( 28...Bb7
$2 29.Rxe5 $1 Bxa6 30.Re6 ) 29.bxc3 Bxd5 30.c4 Bf7 31.Qf3 Ra8 32.Rea1
{ , White would have wonwithout any trouble. Now too the a7-pawn should
decide the outcome, but atleast it is blockaded and Black still has hopes
of exploiting the power of hisdark-squared bishop. } ) 27.Ra6 e4 28.Bc4 (
{ The machine suggests the 'crude' } 28.d6 $5 Qf7 29.Qe2 { . } ) 28...Qf7 (
28...Qf4 29.Qe2 Be5 $2 30.g3 { is weak. } ) 29.Nb5 Kh7 ( 29...Bxd5 $2 30.a8=Q
Rxa8 31.Bxd5 { etc. } ) 30.Re6
{ Thesituation had crystallised and I began playing quite enterprisingly:
theknight has defended the a7-pawn and the rook has invaded at e6.
Thefinishing-off stage has been reached and Spassky was already in severetime-trouble (perhaps this was my undoing?). }
30...Qb7 $1 ( { Black is not tempted by } 30...Qxe6 $2 31.dxe6 Rxd1 32.Rxd1
Be5 33.e7 Re8 34.Rd8 { . } ) 31.Qh5 $6
{ The first move that deserves serious criticism. } (
{ I should have simplyattacked the e4-pawn by } 31.f3 $1
{ , and the game would have concludedquickly, for example: } 31...Rxd5 $6
32.Bxd5 Qxd5 33.Qxd5 Bxd5 34.Rd6 Ba8 35.fxe4 fxe4 36.Rf1 $1
{ . I am amazed that I did not play this. Commentary issuperfluous here...
} ) 31...Rf6 32.Rxf6 Bxf6 33.g4 $2
{ Whereas the queensortie to h5 was not so bad, here (in the opponent's
time-trouble!) I simply'twitched'. } ( { There was an elementary win by }
33.f3 $1 Qd7 34.fxe4 fxe4 35.Rf1 Qg7 36.Qg4 { . } ) 33...f4 $1
{ An instant reply! Black has acquired realcounter-chances for the first
time. } 34.h4 $5
{ With the opponent intime-trouble, this 'side' move is not a bad chance in
the unexpectedlysharpened situation. } ( { The hasty } 34.Rxe4 $2
{ would have led only to a draw: } 34...Rxd5 35.Bxd5 Qxd5
{ (the queen and bishop battery goes into operation againstthe exposed
white king) } 36.f3 Qd1+ 37.Kf2 Bxe4 38.Qf7+ Bg7 39.fxe4 Qd2+
{ with perpetual check. But how could White reconcile himself to such
anoutcome?! } ) 34...Kg7 $2 { With the flag about to fall! } ( 34...e3 $1
35.hxg5 ( { true, } 35.fxe3 Rxd5 36.Bxd5 Qxd5 37.e4 Qd3 38.Qf7+ Bg7 39.Qf5+
Kh8 { would still have forced a draw } ) 35...Bxg5 36.Qh1 Qe7
{ would have led to asharp, totally unclear position. } ) 35.Nc3 $2 (
{ Again missing astraightforward win: } 35.d6 $1 e3 36.f3 $1
{ (this is only apparentlydangerous) } 36...Rc8 ( { or } 36...Rf8 37.Nc7 $1
Qxf3 38.Ne6+ ) 37.Nc7 Rxc7 38.dxc7 Qxc7 39.Qe8 { . } ) 35...e3 $1
{ This leads to an abrupt sharpening of the play. } (
{ For some reason I had only reckoned on } 35...Qxa7 $2 36.Nxe4 Qe7 37.Kf1
Bxd5 38.Bxd5 Rxd5 39.Nxf6 Qxf6 40.Qe8 { , winning. } ) 36.Bd3 exf2+ 37.Kxf2
Qxb2+ 38.Re2 $2
{ A blunder - now in my own time-trouble. Indeed, White givesup his knight
for just a couple of checks! } ( { After the only correct move } 38.Ne2
{ , strangely enough, he would still have retained the advantage: } 38...Bd4+
$1 ( 38...Bxd5 $6 39.Qg6+ Kf8 40.Qxh6+ Ke7 41.Kf1 Kd7 42.hxg5 Bg7 43.Qg6
{ and wins. } ) ( 38...Rxd5 $6 39.Qg6+ Kf8 40.Bc4 Bd4+ ( 40...f3 41.Bxd5 Bxd5
42.Qf5 Qe5 43.Qxe5 Bxe5 44.Rd1 Bc6 45.Rd8+ Ke7 46.Rc8 Bb7 47.hxg5 hxg5
48.Rxc5 ) 41.Kf1 f3 42.Bxd5 fxe2+ 43.Rxe2 Qc1+ 44.Re1 Qf4+ 45.Ke2 Bxd5
46.a8=Q+ $1 Bxa8 47.Rf1 { and wins. } ) 39.Kf1 f3 40.Qg6+ Kf8 41.Qf5+ Kg7
42.Qxf3 Rf8 ( 42...Bxd5 $2 43.Qxd5 Rxd5 44.a8=Q { and wins } ) 43.Bf5
{ , andalthough Black is clearly worse, he can still fight on. } ) 38...Qxc3
39.Qg6+ Kf8 40.Qxh6+ Bg7 41.Qxg5 Qf6 $2 (
{ Had Spassky known that the time controlhad already been reached, he would
have stopped to think - and could have wonimmediately: } 41...Qd4+ $1
{ (driving away the king from f2) } 42.Kf1 Qf6 $1 43.Qxf6+ Bxf6 44.g5 Bd4
45.Bc4 f3 $1 46.Ra2 Re8 47.Ra3 f2 48.Kg2 Re1 49.Rf3+ Ke7 50.Rf5 Rc1 51.Be2
Rg1+ 52.Kh3 Ra1
{ . As it was, the game wasadjourned in a position where the limited amount
of material left White withgood drawing chances. The game was resumed the
same day, two hours later. Thesharp change of scene (instead of a win, I urgently had to find a way to draw!)had a dispiriting effect on me and I
squandered all my chances... } ) 42.Qxf6+ Bxf6 43.Bc4
{ I thought that I needed to retain the d5-pawn. } (
{ Both in mybrief analysis, and at the board, I did not see what was
probably the mostaccurate continuation: } 43.g5 $5 Bd4+ 44.Kf3 Bxd5+ 45.Be4
Bxe4+ 46.Kxe4 Be3 47.Ra2 Ra8 48.Ra4 c4 49.Rxc4 Rxa7 50.Kf3 Kg7 51.Rc6 $1
{ (pointed out bySpassky). This would ultimately have led to the endgame
with rook and bishopagainst rook, which, I hope, I would have held, despite
my depressed state. } ) 43...Bxh4+ 44.Kf3 Rd7 45.Ra2 $2
{ Another, this time irreparable mistake. } ( 45.Rh2 $1 Bf6 46.g5 $1
{ was essential, creating the greatest difficultiesfor Black, for example:
} 46...Bg7 ( { or } 46...Be5 47.Ke4 Re7 $6 48.Kf5 f3 49.d6 $1 Bxh2 50.dxe7+
Kxe7 51.g6 f2 52.g7 f1=Q+ 53.Bxf1 Kf7 54.Bd3 c4 55.Be4 Bg1 { with a draw } )
47.Ra2 Be5 48.Ke4 Bc7 49.Rb2 Rd8 50.Kf3
{ and it is notapparent how Black can win, White simply plays Kg4 or Rb3
etc. } ) 45...Bg5
{ Now White is unable to play g4-g5 and his position is lost. } 46.Ke4 Rf7 $1
47.Ra5 Kg7 $1 { An important moment. } ( 47...f3 $2
{ was incorrect an account of } 48.Rxc5 Rf4+ 49.Ke5 Rxc4 50.Rxc4 f2 51.Rc8+
Kg7 52.Rxa8 f1=Q 53.Rg8+ Kxg8 54.a8=Q+ { with a draw. } ) 48.Rxc5 Kf6 $6 (
48...Rxa7 49.Kf5 Be7 50.Rc8 f3
{ would have been immediately decisive, but even so a piece is a piece! } )
49.Rc8 ( { Or } 49.Ra5 Re7+ 50.Kd4 Bh4 51.Ra2 Kg5 { . } ) 49...Rxa7
{ It is all over and,after a desperate resistance, White loses: } 50.Rf8+ Kg7
51.Rc8 Kf6 $6 { (the second time-trouble) } 52.Rf8+ Kg7 ( 52...Ke7 $2 53.Rf5
) 53.Rc8 Bb7 $1 54.Rc7+ Kf6 55.Kd4 Bh4 $1 56.d6 Bf2+ 57.Kc3 Be4 $1 (
57...Ke5 $2 58.d7 Bh4 59.g5 $1 { with a draw } ) 58.Re7 ( { Both } 58.g5+
Kxg5 59.d7 Ra8 60.Rc8 Bb6 ) ( { and } 58.Bb5 Ke6 59.Rc4 Be1+ $1 60.Kb2 Bd3
61.Rc7 Bxb5 $1 62.Rxa7 Bg3 ( { or } 62...Bd7 { are bad. } ) ) 58...Rxe7
59.g5+ Kg6 60.dxe7 Bc6 61.Kb4 Bb6 62.Bb3 ( { Things are not changed by }
62.Bb5 Bxb5 63.Kxb5 Kf7 $1 { . } ) 62...Bd7 ( { Avoiding the last trap: }
62...f3 $2 63.Bd5 { with a draw. } ) 63.Bd5 Be8 64.Bc4 f3 65.Bd3+ Kxg5 66.Bb5
f2
{ . --- The enterprising and calm way in whichSpassky fought on in a
hopeless position created a great impression on me.Despite some
time-trouble errors, he splendidly exploited the resultingtactical chances and subtly sensed the psychological nuances of the struggle.He
outplayed me, in particular, psychologically. In such an ugly positionanother player would simply have lost heart, but Spassky fought to the bitterend under the motto: 'He is young and hot-tempered - this may tell somewhere!'And that is what happened. }
0-1
[Event "85. Niksic"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1983.??.??"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Kasparov, G."]
[Black "Spassky, B."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "E84"]
[EventDate "1983.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ In Bugojno (1982) Boris Vasilievich and I had an ultra-fighting draw,
andthen our paths crossed again in Niksic (1983). I was then in
'super-human'form (my thorough preparation for the match with Korchnoi was telling) andfrom the outset I crushed one opponent after another. My 2nd
round game withPetrosian, where for a long time I held the initiative, was adjourned in anunclear ending, where we each had a rook, bishop, knight and three pawns. Itwas due to be resumed immediately after dinner. Holding a sceptical assessmentof my winning chances, I decided not to
spend much time on analysis and wentdown to the restaurant. Sitting there were nearly all the tournamentparticipants and, as usual, they were discussing the games that had just beenplayed. Spassky asked me about my adjournment: 'Well, what do you think?' Ireplied: 'I appear to have thrown away my advantage.' But he suddenly said:'No, it's not so simple! The bishops are of opposite colours, and this is infavour of White: he can create an attack. You have a look! Petrosian hasn'tcome down for dinner - that means he doesn't like his position.' And I lookedat the
adjourned position with different eyes! The resumption lasted only ninemoves: Petrosian avoided passive defence, 'flinched' and came under anirresistible attack. Yes, it is probable that Spassky knew the habits of hishistoric opponent better than anyone in the world... --- Our own game camewhen I had 6˝ out of 7. Of course, I was burning with the desire to continuemy winning run. --- }
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7
{ Again a King's Indian -this is a challenge! Well, such a turn of events
suited me and I decided tochoose the Sämisch Variation, which I had looked
at around that time at mytraining sessions with Timoshchenko (albeit, from the black side). }
4.e4 d6 5.f3 Nc6 6.Be3 a6 7.Nge2 Rb8 8.Qd2 ( 8.h4 $5 ) 8...O-O ( 8...b5 $5 )
9.h4 b5 ( { After } 9...h5 { Spassky himself successfully played both }
10.O-O-O { againstKeene (Dortmund 1973) } ( { and } 10.Bh6
{ against Fischer (8th matchgame,Yugoslavia 1992) } ) ) 10.h5 bxc4 $6
{ Objectively a second-rate move; } (
{ butSpassky deliberately wanted to avoid the stronger } 10...e5 11.d5 Na5
{ . In the well-known game Timman-Kasparov (Bugojno 1982) White gained
anoverwhelming advantage here after } 12.Ng3 bxc4 $6 13.O-O-O Rb4
{ is obviouslystronger, although against Loginov (Manila Olympiad 1992) I
was able todemonstrate the pluses of White's position: } ( 13...Nd7 $2
14.hxg6 fxg6 15.Nb1 $1 { . } ( 15.-- ) ) 14.Bh6 Bxh6 15.Qxh6 Qe7 16.Be2 Bd7
17.Nf1 Rfb8 18.Rd2 c5 19.Bd1 Ne8 20.hxg6 fxg6 21.g4 { etc. } ) ( { But not }
10...Nxh5 $2 11.g4 Nf6 12.Bh6 { with an attack. } ) 11.g4 $1
{ The most energetic and useful move. Theknight at e2, in expectation of
...e7-e5, for the moment guards the d4-square. } ( { But after } 11.g4
{ , White is threatening } 11...-- 12.hxg6 fxg6 13.Nf4
{ andQh2!. Here Boris Vasilievich sank into thought... } ) (
{ The immediate } 11.hxg6 fxg6 12.Nf4 { is not so dangerous after } 12...e6
13.Bxc4 d5 14.Bb3 Rxb3 $1 15.axb3 dxe4 16.O-O-O exf3 17.gxf3 Ne7 $1 18.Nd3
Nf5 19.Ne5 Bb7 20.Bg5 Qe8
{ with good counterplay (Weih-Spassky, Germany 1983). } ) 11...Bxg4 $5 (
{ Havingseen that in the event of } 11...e5 12.d5
{ , followed by Ng3 and 0-0-0, Blackwould be deprived of any counterplay
(the g-pawn has advanced to g4!), Spasskyrealised that he had do to
something quickly, since otherwise he might besimply suffocated and quickly mated. And he took a decision which, from thepurely chess aspect, is
perhaps dubious (it is clear that the piece sacrificeis not fully correct), but from the practical, psychological viewpoint it isthe best, since it sharply changes the character of the play. White will nolonger have a direct attack, and he has to readjust to the conversion of amaterial
advantage, while Black acquires some counterplay. } ) 12.fxg4 Nxg4 13.O-O-O
$1 (
{ I think that Spassky had underestimated this reply and wasreckoning on }
13.hxg6 $2 Nxe3 $1 14.Qxe3 Rxb2 $1 15.gxf7+ Rxf7 16.Qh3 h6 17.O-O-O Qb8 $1
{ with a dangerous counterattack. White does not allow therook to go to b2
and Black begins to have difficulties. } ) 13...Nxe3 (
{ It isalso insufficient to play } 13...e5 { , when White should continue: }
14.hxg6 $1 ( { instead of } 14.d5 Nd4 15.Ng1 Nxe3 16.Qxe3 c5 $1 17.Bxc4 (
17.dxc6 $2 Qb6 ) 17...Rb4 18.b3 Qa5 { , when Black is still alive } )
14...fxg6 15.Bh3 Nxe3 16.Be6+ $1 Kh8 17.Qxe3 Bf6 18.Qh3 h5 19.d5
{ with an obvious advantage. } ) 14.Qxe3 e6 $6 (
{ A characteristic moment! After } 14...e5 $1 15.d5 ( 15.hxg6 fxg6 ) 15...Nd4
16.Nxd4 $1 exd4 17.Rxd4 Bxd4 18.Qxd4
{ Black's position is noteasy, but he has some counter-chances. Spassky,
however, chose a move which,though perhaps objectively indifferent,
maintains the tension and does notallow me a clear line of play: as if to say, go on, attack, and let's see whathappens... }
) 15.hxg6 hxg6 { Forced; } ( { since after } 15...fxg6 $2 16.Qh3 $1
{ Black is quickly crushed: } 16...Qg5+ ( 16...Qf6 17.Qxh7+ Kf7 18.Bg2 $1 Rh8
19.Rdf1 Rxh7 20.Rxf6+ Bxf6 21.Rxh7+ ) 17.Kb1 Rxb2+ $6 18.Kxb2 Rb8+ 19.Ka1 Nb4
20.Qxe6+ ( { but not } 20.a3 $2 Nc2+ 21.Ka2 Qa5 22.Nd5 exd5 23.Qxh7+ Kf7
24.Rh3 dxe4 25.Bg2 Nb4+ 26.Ka1 Nc2+ { with a draw } ) 20...Kh8 21.a4 $1 Nc2+
22.Ka2 Nb4+ 23.Kb1 Nc6+ 24.Ka1 Nxd4 25.Nxd4 Bxd4 26.Qxc4
{ . In taking withthe h-pawn, Black hopes that his g7-bishop will defend
him against mate - asin the 'Dragon'! } ) 16.Rd2 $2 (
{ It was necessary to begin with } 16.Ng1 $1 { and Nf3. } ) 16...Re8 $2 (
{ Missing a chance opportunity: } 16...Qf6 $1 17.Kb1 ( 17.Bg2 Nb4 ) 17...Rfd8
{ with not bad counterplay at all. It is interestingthat Spassky replied
quickly. Now it all reverts to the previous situation. } ) 17.Ng1 $1 d5 (
{ After } 17...e5 $6 18.d5 { the g7-bishop is idle. } ) 18.Nf3
{ It is evident that White has succeeded in unravelling his pieces, and
thatBlack has lost the initiative. Now the manoeuvre Rdh2 will be decisive:
Whitehas sufficient force to mate the enemy king. } 18...a5
{ Because everything else ishopeless. But here something incredible occurs.
} 19.e5 $2 (
{ Thinking that Icould win as I pleased, I did not even bother to calculate
} 19.Rdh2 $1 e5
{ . And it was only later, in a conversation during acommunal evening walk,
that it suddenly dawned on me: stop, } ( 19...dxe4 20.Nxe4 Nxd4
{ is refuted by } 21.Rh8+ $1 Bxh8 22.Rxh8+ Kxh8 23.Qh6+ Kg8 24.Nfg5 ) 20.Rh7
$1 { can be played. And indeed, after } 20...exd4 21.Rxg7+ $1 Kxg7 22.Qh6+
Kf6 23.Nxd5+ Ke6 24.Ng5+
{ White's attack is irresistible. --- I became terribly upset - Iremember
that Milunka Lazarevic said to me: 'You're just like Fischer: after agame
he also used to fret!' But how couldn't I be upset?! To miss such asimple win! It is staggering that I did not calculate this variation at
theboard... The Tilburg story repeated itself and the diagnosis became obvious: Ifailed to play with sufficient accuracy in winning positions. }
) 19...Ne7 $1
{ (it transpires that Black has some counterplay: ...c7-c5 and ...Nf5) }
20.Bh3 $2 ( { It was far more important to prevent ...c7-c5: } 20.Na4 $1 Nf5
21.Qf4 { , still with a considerable advantage. } ) 20...c5 $1 21.dxc5 Qc7
{ Thesituation has become much sharper. White's centre has been demolished
and itis not easy to him to create an attack. } 22.Qf4 Nc6 $1
{ Another strong move. } (
{ The 'base' pawn at e5 is under attack! Black would have lost
ignominiouslyafter } 22...Qxc5 $2 23.Qxf7+ $3 Kxf7 24.Ng5+ Kf8 ( 24...Kg8
25.Bxe6+ Kf8 26.Nh7# { mate } ) 25.Nxe6+ Kg8 26.Nxc5
{ , whereas now the situation iscompletely unclear. } ) 23.Re1 d4 $1 24.Rxd4
$1 { (forced) } ( { alas: } 24.Nxd4 $2 Nxe5 $1 ) 24...Nxd4 25.Nxd4 $1
{ This is still correct; } ( { since } 25.Qxd4 $2 Qb7 $1 26.Qf2 Bh6+ 27.Kb1
Red8 $1 28.c6 $1 ( { White loses after } 28.Na4 $2 Qb4 29.Nb6 c3 30.b3 Bd2 )
28...Qxc6 { is advantageous to Black. } ) 25...Qxc5 26.Nf3 Red8 ( 26...Qb6 $5
27.Re2 Red8 28.Bg4 { is also interesting. } ) 27.Ng5 $1 Qe7 $2
{ The start of a wild time scramble. } ( { After } 27...Rd7 $1
{ Whitewould have been unable to win even with the best move } 28.Bxe6 $1 (
{ but not } 28.Nxe6 $2 Qb6 29.Na4 Qb4 30.Rf1 Qxa4 31.Nxg7 Qxa2 32.Bxd7 Qxb2+
33.Kd1 Qb1+ ) 28...fxe6 29.Qh2 Bh8 30.Qh6
{ . The variations are complicated, but itwould appear that there is a draw
after both } 30...Qf2 ( { and } 30...Qc6 $5 31.Qxg6+ Rg7 32.Qh6 Rgb7 33.Rg1
$2 Qb6 $1 ) ( { only not } 30...Rb6 $2 31.Nge4 $1 Qxe5 32.Qxg6+ Kf8 33.Rf1+
Ke7 34.Rf7+ Kd8 35.Rf8+ Kc7 36.Qe8 { and wins } ) 31.Qxg6+ Kf8 32.Nxe6+ Ke7
33.Re2 Qf1+ 34.Kc2 Qa1 35.Qh7+ Kxe6 36.Qh6+ Ke7 37.Qh4+ Ke6 { . } ) 28.Qh4 $1
Rd3 29.Qh7+ $2 { 'Sad, sad...' Boleslavsky used tosay in such situations. }
( { Of course, } 29.Nce4 $1 { was correct: } 29...Bxe5 (
{ with a relatively straightforward win in the event of } 29...c3 $2 30.Rf1
$1 cxb2+ ( 30...Qb4 31.Nf6+ Kf8 32.Ngh7+ Ke7 33.Nd5+ ) 31.Kb1 Rb6 32.Qh7+ Kf8
33.Nxf7 $1 ) 30.Qh7+ Kf8 31.Rf1 Bxb2+ $2 (
{ it would not have been easy forBlack to find } 31...Rc3+ $3 32.bxc3 Qa3+
33.Kd1 Rd8+ 34.Nd2 Rxd2+ 35.Kxd2 Qxc3+ { with perpetual } ) 32.Kc2 f5 33.Qxg6
Bg7 ( 33...Ba3 34.Nxe6+ Qxe6 35.Rxf5+ $1 Ke7 36.Qg5+ Ke8 37.Rb5 $3 Qxe4
38.Re5+ ) 34.Nxe6+ Kg8 35.Nxg7 Qxg7 36.Nf6+ Kf8 37.Qxf5 { . } ) 29...Kf8
30.Nxe6+ $6 { Again I missed my way! } ( { Here too } 30.Nce4 $1
{ would still have retained a good game: } 30...Rxh3 $1 (
{ it not possible to play either } 30...Bxe5 $2 31.Rf1 ) ( { or } 30...Rxb2
$2 31.Nxe6+ fxe6 32.Rf1+ Ke8 33.Qg8+ Bf8 34.Rxf8+ Qxf8 35.Nf6+ Ke7 36.Qxe6+
Kd8 37.Qc8+ ) 31.Qxh3 Bxe5 32.Rf1 $1 Bxb2+ 33.Kc2 f5
{ . Here there is adivergence: } 34.Nc5 $1 ( 34.Qh6+ Bg7 35.Qxg6 Rb2+ 36.Kc1
Rxa2 37.Nxe6+ ( { or } 37.Nh7+ Kg8 38.Nhf6+ Kf8 ) 37...Kg8 38.Rf3 $1 fxe4
39.Rf8+ { is a draw. } ) 34...Kg8 $1 ( 34...Ke8 $2 { is bad after } 35.Ngxe6
Be5 36.Re1 Rb2+ 37.Kc1 Qd6 38.Qh6 Rg2 39.Nc7+ $1 Qxc7 ( { or } 39...Kf7
40.Qh7+ Bg7 41.Qxg7+ $1 ) 40.Qh8+ Kf7 41.Rxe5 Rg1+ 42.Kc2 Qd6 43.Qe8+ Kg7
44.Ne6+ Kf6 45.Qh8+ ) 35.Qg3 $1 Re8 $1 ( 35...e5 36.Nf3 Qd6 37.Rh1 $1 )
36.Ngxe6 Qf6 37.Rg1 Be5 38.Qxg6+ Qxg6 39.Rxg6+ Kf7 40.Rh6 Rg8
{ with a draw. --- In any event, playing Whitewould have been easier: the
opponent would have had to find the only moves tosave himself. But I wanted
to do everything with checks... } ) 30...fxe6 31.Rf1+ Ke8 32.Qg8+ Bf8
33.Qxg6+ $2 (
{ The most annoying thing is that even hereWhite could still have saved
himself with the fantastic study-like move } 33.Nd5 $3 { , for example: }
33...Kd7 $5 ( 33...exd5 34.Rxf8+ $1 Qxf8 35.Qe6+ Qe7 36.Qg8+
{ with perpetual check } ) 34.Nxe7 Bh6+ 35.Kc2 Rxg8 36.Nxg8 Rxh3 37.Rd1+ $1
Kc7 ( 37...Ke8 38.Nf6+ ) 38.Nxh6 Rxh6 39.Rd4
{ with a draw (I discoveredthis only later). } ) 33...Kd8 $1
{ . Here White overstepped the time limit. } ( { After } 33...Kd8 $1 34.Bxe6
Qb4 $1 ( { but not } 34...Rb6 $2 35.Qg8 Rxc3+ 36.Kb1 $1 Rxb2+ 37.Kxb2 Qb4+
38.Ka1 Rf3 { with a draw } ) 35.Na4 Be7 $1 36.Bf5 ( { or } 36.Qg8+ Kc7 37.Qh7
Rbd8 $1 ) 36...Rd4 37.Qc6 Qd2+ 38.Kb1 Rf4
{ he wouldhave lost. --- This was my only defeat in the tournament. Spassky
againdisplayed remarkable resourcefulness, and although he was inaccurate
in somedetails, on the whole he proved more cunning. I was told that immediatelyafter the game Boris Vasilievich joyfully telephoned his wife in Paris
andshouted into the receiver: 'Marina, I've beaten Kasparov!' As for me, Iangrily defeated Nikolic with Black the following day, and in the end tookfirst place with 11 out of 14 - three points more than my 'tormentor'. --- Ihad to wait quite a long time for my revenge. By beating Spassky in
Barcelona1989 and Linares 1990, I levelled our individual score: 2-2. It is amusingthat my tournament relations with Petrosian took a similar course: against himI also initially lost twice with White, and then twice, again with White,regained my losses. True, in our first meetings Petrosian obtained indifferent,but nevertheless playable positions, whereas Spassky's were mathematicallylost, and their conversion did not require use of the Binomial theorem. Butalas... }
) 0-1
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Tartakower Variation"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "D58"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ I should also say something about the influence of Spassky's ideas on
my'Black' opening repertoire in the mid-1980s. Being an inveterate
King'sIndian player, I had to master the classics on my approach to the summit. Iremember the pronouncement of one my helpers at that time,
grandmaster EvgenyVladimirov: 'The Queen's Gambit is the opening of world championshipmatches!' It was a question not only of the Tarrasch Defence (cf. Game No.75), but also the Tartakower-Makogonov-Bondarevsky Variation: }
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 O-O 6.e3 h6 7.Bh4 b6
{ . --- In studying thisvariation before my matches with Korchnoi (1983)
and Karpov (1984/85), we paidattention to a number of instructive games by
Spassky and Geller. } *
[Event "Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1967.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Uhlmann, W."]
[Black "Spassky, B."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "D58"]
[EventDate "1967.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 O-O 6.e3 h6 7.Bh4 b6 8.Qc2 (
{ The variation } 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.Rc1 Be6 12.Qa4 c5
13.Qa3 Rc8 14.Bb5
{ (Fischer-Spassky, 6th matchgame, Reykjavik 1972 - cf.Volume 4) went out
of use after } 14...Qb7 $1 15.dxc5 bxc5 16.Rxc5 Rxc5 17.Qxc5 Na6 $1
{ (Timman-Geller, Hilversum 1973). } ) 8...Bb7 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.cxd5 exd5
11.O-O-O { The most double-edged plan, which attracted me in my youth. }
11...c5 12.g4 ( { My game with Zaitsev (Baku 1980) went } 12.dxc5 bxc5 (
12...Nd7 $1 13.Nxd5 ( 13.c6 Bxc6 14.Nd4 Bb7 { with equality } ) 13...Nxc5
14.Bc4 ( 14.Qf5 Qc8 $1 ) 14...b5 15.Nxf6+ Qxf6 16.Bd5 Rac8 17.Kb1 Na4 18.Qe2
Bxd5 19.Rxd5 Rc4 $1 20.Rd4 Rfc8 21.Rhd1 Qg6+ $2 ( { the correct move is }
21...Rc2 $1 22.Qxc2 Rxc2 23.Kxc2 Qg6+ 24.Kd2 Nxb2 25.Rc1 Qxg2 26.Ke2 Nc4
{ with a good game,Ghitescu-Lputian, Berlin 1982 } ) 22.Qd3 Qxg2 23.Qf5 $1
{ .. 1-0. } ) ( { After } 12...Bxc3 13.Qxc3 Nd7 ( { also possible here is }
13...Qe7 $5 { Ovechkin-Bologan, Moscow 2003 } ) 14.c6 Bxc6 15.Kb1 Rc8 16.Qd4
{ , White isslightly better, Polugayevsky-Ivkov, Beverwijk 1966 } ) 13.Nxd5
Bxd5 14.Bc4 Nd7 15.Rxd5 Rb8 { is unfavourable on account of } 16.b3 Qe7 17.h4
$1 Nb6 18.Re5 $1 Qd6 ( 18...Bxe5 $2 19.Ng5 $1 ) 19.Re4 Nxc4 20.Rxc4 Rfd8
21.Nd2 Qe5 22.Rxc5 { and wins, Nikitin-Gergel, Vilnius 1980. } ) 12...cxd4
13.exd4 Nc6 14.h4 g6 15.g5 ( { Nothing is promised by } 15.h5 g5 16.Qf5 Nb4
17.Ne5 Bc8 18.Qf3 Bxe5 19.dxe5 Qc7 20.Kb1 Qxe5
{ with equality (Agdestein-H.Olafsson, Gjovik1985); } ) ( { but } 15.Kb1 ) (
{ or } 15.Bb5 { is more solid. } ) 15...hxg5 16.h5 $6
{ Too reckless, although fully in the spirit of the motto 'Forward,
Kazimirych!' } ( { It is stronger to play } 16.hxg5 Bxg5+ ( { after }
16...Bg7 17.Qd2 ( { or } 17.Rh4
{ White has far more attacking chances than in the game } ) ) 17.Kb1
{ withcompensation for the pawn in the form of open lines on the kingside.
} ) 16...Kg7 $1 ( { Of course, not } 16...g4 $2 17.hxg6 gxf3 18.g7 Bg5+
19.Kb1 Kxg7 20.Qh7+ Kf6 21.Rh3 $1 { and Black is in trouble: } 21...Ke6 (
{ or } 21...Ke7 22.Qf5 $1 Ke8 23.Re1+ Be7 24.Nxd5 Qd6 25.Bb5 Kd8 26.Bxc6 Bxc6
27.Nxe7 Bb7 28.Rxf3 $1 ) 22.Rxf3 Kd7 23.Rf5 Kc8 24.Rxd5
{ , winning the g5-bishop and the game.Now, however, White's direct attack
comes to a standstill and he has to switchto positional lines } ) 17.hxg6
fxg6 18.Bb5 $2 { A step towards defeat. } ( { After } 18.Qd2 $1
{ White would still have had compensation for the sacrificed pawn. } )
18...g4 $1 19.Qd2 ( { It was also bad to play } 19.Bxc6 Bxc6 20.Rdg1 (
{ or } 20.Ne5 $2 Bxe5 21.dxe5 d4 $1 ) 20...Bg5+ 21.Nxg5 Qxg5+ { etc. } )
19...gxf3 20.Qh6+ Kf7 21.Qh7+ $6 Bg7 22.Rh3 Rh8 $1 { The queen is trapped! }
( { Whiteresigned in view of } 22...Rh8 $1 23.Rxf3+ Qf6 24.Rxf6+ Kxf6
25.Nxd5+ Kf7
{ . For Spassky this was an easy little task; that evening, like Capablanca
onone occasion, he could well have been in time for the theatre. } ) 0-1
[Event "Belgrade"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1977.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Korchnoi, V."]
[Black "Spassky, B."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "D58"]
[EventDate "1977.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 O-O 6.e3 h6 7.Bh4 b6 8.Rc1 Bb7
9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.cxd5 exd5 11.b4 c6 $6 (
{ Spassky does not like forcingthe play immediately by } 11...c5 $1 12.bxc5
bxc5 { , although this is thesharpest response: } 13.dxc5 ( 13.Bb5 Na6 14.O-O
Nc7 15.Qa4 cxd4 16.Nxd4 Bxd4 17.exd4 Ne6 18.Ba6 $2 ( 18.Ne2 { is equal } )
18...Bxa6 19.Qxa6 Qg5 $1 20.Ne2 Rab8
{ with an excellent game for Black (Hoi-Geller, Malta Olympiad1980). I was
present at this game from the last, decisive round of theOlympiad, and Efim
Petrovich quickly gained a spectacular win. } ) 13...Nd7 14.Nb5 Rc8 $1
{ is more interesting: } 15.Be2 ( 15.Nd6 Rxc5 16.Nxb7 Rxc1 17.Qxc1 Qb6
{ with equality, Timman-Hübner, Tilburg 1979 } ) 15...Nxc5 ( 15...Rxc5 $5 )
16.O-O a6 17.Nbd4
{ with a complicated struggle (Akopian-Short, Linares 1995). } ) 12.Bd3 $1
{ An important improvement. } ( { Previously Korchnoi had played } 12.Be2
{ . Now he hit on an interesting idea with the manoeuvre of the bishop tob1
and then, after a2-a3 (a4), to a2 followed by e3-e4 or b4-b5 (cf. the
noteto White's 8th move in Timman-Spassky, Hilversum 1983). } ) 12...Re8
13.O-O Nd7 14.Qb3 Nf8 15.Rfd1 Rc8 16.Bb1 $1 ( 16.e4 Ne6 17.e5 Be7 ) 16...Ne6
17.a4 ( { After } 17.Qc2 g6 18.Ne5 { , as recommended by Stean, } 18...Qd6
{ is satisfactory. } ) ( { But } 17.a3 $5
{ is interesting, not weakening the b4-square. } ) 17...Ba8 18.Ba2 Rc7 $1
19.Qb1 $6 ( { It is more energetic to play } 19.b5 $1 c5 20.Nxd5 Bxd5 21.Qxd5
Rd7 22.Qf5 $1 ( { in my opinion, } 22.Qb3 cxd4 23.exd4 Bxd4 { is inferior } )
22...cxd4 ( 22...g6 23.Qd3 ) 23.Bxe6 Rxe6 24.Qd3 Rdd6 25.exd4 ( 25.e4 $5 )
25...Bxd4 26.Nxd4 Rxd4 27.Qxd4 Re1+ 28.Rxe1 Qxd4 29.Ra1
{ and although things are closer to a draw, it is nevertheless White who
isplaying for a win. } ) 19...a5 $6 ( { It is more solid to play } 19...Rd7
$1 { and only then ...a7-a5. } ) 20.bxa5 $6 (
{ Of course, the correct move is } 20.b5 $1 c5 21.dxc5 Bxc3 ( 21...Rxc5
22.Ne4 $1 Rxc1 ( { whereas here } 22...dxe4 $6 23.Rxd8 Rxd8 24.Bxe6 exf3
25.Rxc5 bxc5 26.Bb3 fxg2 27.Qc2 { is inferior } ) 23.Qxc1 ) 22.c6 $1 (
{ not } 22.Rxc3 Nxc5 23.Qc2 Qf6 24.Bxd5 Rd7 25.e4 Red8
{ with counterplay thanks to the powerful knight at c5 } ) 22...Bf6 23.Bxd5
Qe7 24.Nd2 Nc5 25.Qc2
{ with more than sufficient compensation for the piece. } ) 20...bxa5
{ Now Black's positional idea is justified: the white pawn on a4makes the
manoeuvre Na4-c5 impossible, the bishop at a2 is inactive, and theweakness
of the c6-pawn is counterbalanced by the weakness of the b4-square. } 21.Qb6
$6 { A fundamental mistake. } ( { After } 21.Qd3
{ , with the gradualreturn to life of the a2-bishop, it would have been
harder for Black toexploit the pluses of his position. } ) 21...Rb7 $1
22.Qxd8 ( 22.Qxc6 $4 Rb6 { and wins. } ) 22...Rxd8 23.Ne1 Rb6 24.Nd3 Rdb8
25.h3 $2 { Not sensing thedanger. } ( { Stean suggested } 25.Rb1 $1 Kf8
26.Rxb6 Rxb6 27.Rb1 Rxb1+ ( { but it is stronger to play } 27...Bd8 $1
28.Rxb6 Bxb6 29.Kf1 Bb7 30.Ke1 Ke7 31.Bb1 Bc7
{ and ...Bd6 with some advantage for Black } ) 28.Nxb1 Ke7 29.Nd2 Kd6 30.Nb3
{ with equality. } ) 25...Bb7 $1 26.Ne5 Bxe5 27.dxe5 Rb4 $1
{ It transpires that White now has a difficult position. } 28.f3 (
{ Thecommentators recommended } 28.e4 d4 ( 28...dxe4 $6 29.Rd7 ) 29.Ne2 Rd8
( { but in my opinion, it is better for Black to try } 29...Ba6 $1 30.Ng3
R8b6 $1 31.Nf5 Be2 $1 32.Rd2 d3 { when things are difficult for White: }
33.Bxe6 fxe6 34.Ng3 Rb1 35.Rxb1 Rxb1+ 36.Kh2 Rd1 { etc } ) 30.Bxe6 fxe6
31.Nf4 Kf7 32.Nd3 Rxa4 33.Nc5 Rb4 34.Rb1
{ with drawing chances (thanks to the strength of theknight at c5). } )
28...Ba6 29.Rd2 Bc4 30.f4 $2 ( { A more tenacious defence is } 30.Bxc4 Rxc4
31.Ne2 Rxc1+ 32.Nxc1 Rb4 33.Rc2 Rxa4 34.Rxc6 Rc4 35.Rxc4 dxc4 36.Kf2
{ with hopes of saving the knight endgame. } ) 30...Nc5 $1 31.Rd4 Nd3 32.Rd1
Nb2 $1 { A fine knight manoeuvre! } 33.Rc1 c5 34.Rxd5 ( { or } 34.Rd2 Bxa2
35.Nxa2 Rxa4 36.Nc3 Rc4 37.Rxd5 Na4 { and wins. } ) 34...Bxd5 35.Bxd5 c4
36.Ne4 Nxa4 ( { In view of } 36...Nxa4 37.Bxc4 Rb1 38.Rxb1 Rxb1+ 39.Kf2 Nb6
{ . This was the first of Korchnoi's four successive defeats in that
dramaticmatch. } ) 0-1
[Event "Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1981.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Kasparov, G."]
[Black "Karpov, A."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "D55"]
[EventDate "1981.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ In connection with this game, I recall one of my first meetings with
Karpov (Moscow 1981), where after } 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5
h6 6.Bxf6 Bxf6 7.e3 O-O 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.cxd5 exd5 10.Be2 Bf5 11.O-O Ne7 12.b4 c6
13.Rfc1 a6 14.a4 Qd6 15.Qb2 Rfe8 16.Qb3 Ng6 { , I played } 17.Ra2
{ and offered a draw, but Karpov instantly replied } 17...Be7
{ and suddenly, inviolation of the rules, said: 'Make a move!' Surprised, I
played } 18.b5 { and then Karpov, after thinking, agreed to the draw. } (
{ In analysis after thegame he remarked that } 18.b5 a5 $5 ( 18...axb5
19.axb5 { was indeed a draw; } ( 19.-- ) ) 19.bxc6 bxc6
{ was possible though, exploiting the weakness of theb4-square. And he
added something like 'That's how Spassky tricked Korchnoi.'That is, Karpov
had adopted Spassky's idea. however, in the given specificsituation, after }
20.Qd1
{ , with the idea of Bd3, Ne2 and Rac2, the weaknessof the c6-pawn is more
important, so that 18... axb5 is nevertheless better. } ( 20.-- ) ) 1/2-1/2
[Event "Hilversum"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1983.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Timman, J."]
[Black "Spassky, B."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[ECO "D58"]
[EventDate "1973.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 O-O 6.e3 h6 7.Bh4 b6 8.Be2 (
{ Korchnoi-Kasparov (10th matchgame, London 1983) went } 8.Qb3 Bb7 9.Bxf6
Bxf6 10.cxd5 exd5 11.Rd1 Re8 12.a3 $5 ( { after } 12.Bd3
{ there is a choice between } 12...c5 ( { and Geller's plan of } 12...Nc6
{ , ...Na5 and ...c7-c5 } ) 13.dxc5 Nd7 ) 12...c6 13.Bd3 Nd7 14.O-O g6 $5
{ or } ( 14...Nf8 15.e4 $1 ) 15.Bb1 ( 15.e4 c5 $1 ) ( 15.Rfe1 Nf8 16.Bb1 $1
( 16.e4 Ne6 17.e5 Bg7 { is unclear } ) 16...Ne6 17.Ba2 Qc7 $1 18.Qa4 $5 (
{ or } 18.e4 Rad8 19.exd5 cxd5 20.Qa4 Qb8 { withequality } ) 18...Rad8 19.b4
$1 Qb8 ( 19...a6 $5 ) 20.Qc2 $1 Qc7 $1
{ and Blackmaintained the balance with difficulty. } ) (
{ Attempts in the new century havenot been so dangerous: } 15.Rd2 $6 Nf8
16.Rc1 Ne6 17.Qd1 Qe7 { with equality (Piket-Kasparov, Wijk aan Zee 2001) } )
15...Bg7 16.e4 $6 Ba6 $1 17.Rfe1 Bc4 18.Qc2 dxe4 19.Rxe4 Rxe4 20.Qxe4 Bb3
21.Bc2 Nf6
{ ˝-˝ (Kramnik-Kasparov,3rd matchgame, Moscow 2001). --- Incidentally, in
his match with me Korchnoialso devised the move 12 a3!? against the
Tarrasch Defence. By working foryears on such strategic ideas and problems, he made a great contribution tothe development of opening theory. }
) 8...Bb7 ( 8...Nbd7 9.cxd5 exd5 10.O-O Bb7 11.Rc1 ( 11.Qb3 c5 $1 12.Bxf6
Nxf6 13.dxc5 Bxc5 14.Rfd1 Qe7 15.Nd4 Rad8 16.Rac1 Ne4 17.Bf3 Rfe8
{ with equality, Belyavsky-Geller, 47th USSRChampionship, Minsk 1979 } )
11...c5 12.Qa4 $5 a6 13.dxc5 bxc5 14.Rfd1 Qb6 15.Qb3 $1 Qa7 (
{ in the endgame after } 15...Qxb3 16.axb3
{ the weakness ofthe hanging pawns is more perceptible than the weakness of
the doubled b-pawns } ) 16.Bg3
{ (Karpov-Kasparov, 31st matchgame, Moscow 1984/85, andTopalov-Kasparov,
1st matchgame, Sofia rapidplay 1998) leads to more dynamicplay with hanging
pawns for Black, but with accurate play White retains someadvantage. } )
9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.cxd5 exd5 11.O-O ( 11.Qb3 c6 12.O-O Re8 13.Rad1 Nd7
{ comes to the same thing; } ( 13...Na6 $5
{ - the knight will be betterplaced at c7 than at f8 } ) ) (
{ while the variation } 11.b4 c5 ) ( { or } 11.O-O Nd7 12.b4 c5
{ became a tabiya of my matches with Karpov. } ) 11...Nd7 (
{ Havingsuffered a painful defeat after } 11...Qd6 $6
{ in the 11th game of his matchwith Karpov (1974), Spassky tried to find a
more accurate defence. } ) 12.Qb3 c6 13.Rad1 ( { After } 13.Rfe1 Re8 14.e4
{ there is the typical counter } 14...c5 $1 15.Nxd5 cxd4 16.Nxf6+ Qxf6 17.Qa4
Nc5 18.Qxd4 Qxd4 19.Nxd4 Rxe4 20.Nb5 Bc6
{ ˝-˝ (Timman-Spassky, Bugojno 1982). } ) 13...Re8 14.Rfe1 ( 14.Ne1 $6
{ is unsuccessful after } 14...Nf8 15.Nd3 Ne6 16.Rfe1 Qd6 17.Bf1 Re7 18.g3 $2
Bxd4 $1 19.exd4 Nxd4 20.Qa4 Nf3+ 21.Kh1 Nxe1 22.Nxe1 d4 23.Ng2 c5 24.Kg1 Rae8
25.Nb1 ( 25.Bb5 Qf6 $1 { and wins } ) 25...a6 26.Nd2 b5 27.Qa3 Qd5
{ .. 0-1 (Vaganian-Spassky, Moscow 1975). } ) ( 14.Bd3
{ also looks like the loss of atempo - Korchnoi reached this position
against me with his pawn already on a3 (cf. the note to White's 8th move).
} ) 14...Nf8 15.e4 $5 ( { Or } 15.Bf1 Ne6
{ with equality (Chandler-Spassky, Germany 1981; and Piket-Kramnik, Wijk
aan Zee1999). } ) 15...Ne6 ( 15...dxe4 $2 16.Bc4 $1 ) 16.e5 ( 16.exd5 cxd5
17.Bb5 Re7 { with equality. } ) 16...Be7 17.a3 { Another attempt by Timman. }
( { Before thisthere had occurred } 17.Rd2 Bg5 $1
{ (Hort-Tal, Montreal 1979) } ) ( { and } 17.Qc2 Qc7 18.Bd3 Rad8 19.Ne2 c5
{ with equality (Nikolic-Geller, Sochi 1982). } ) 17...Bf8
{ The two players begin manoeuvring and Black does this rather
moresuccessfully. } ( { Of course, not } 17...c5 $2 18.dxc5 Nxc5 19.Qa2 $1
{ . } ) 18.g3 Rc8 19.Rd2 ( 19.Bf1 $5 ) 19...g6 20.Bf1 h5 21.Bg2 Rc7 22.Qa2
Rd7 23.b4 ( 23.Red1 Bh6 24.Rc2 { is more solid. } ) 23...Qe7 ( 23...c5 $5
24.dxc5 bxc5 25.bxc5 Bxc5
{ was possible, but Spassky did not want to define the positionso quickly.
} ) 24.Rdd1 ( { Probably, } 24.Rb1 $5 { should have been played. } ) 24...a5
$1
{ The same unexpected undermining move, as in the game withKorchnoi
(Belgrade 1977). } 25.Na4 $6 (
{ In my opinion, there is a bettervariation that was not mentioned by
anyone: } 25.bxa5 bxa5 26.Qd2 $1 Ba6 ( 26...Qxa3 27.Ra1 Qe7 28.Rxa5 c5 29.Bh3
{ is unclear } ) 27.Rb1 Qd8 28.Qe3 { , maintaining a dynamic balance. } )
25...axb4 26.Nxb6 Rc7 27.axb4 Qxb4 28.Rb1 Qe7 29.Red1 Rd8 30.Rb2 $2
{ A serious mistake. Now the latent dynamics ofBlack's position are
revealed. } ( { After } 30.Na4 $1 Ba6 ( 30...c5 31.Nxc5 Nxc5 32.dxc5 Qxc5
{ was recommended 'with advantage to Black', but after } 33.Nd4 Bg7 34.f4
{ there is no advantage } ) 31.Bf1 ( 31.Qc2 c5 32.dxc5 Nxc5 33.Nxc5 Rxc5
34.Qd2 d4 ) 31...Bxf1 32.Kxf1
{ , White would hardly have encounteredany serious problems. } ) 30...c5 $1
31.dxc5 d4 $1 32.Qa3 $2 ( { It wasessential to play } 32.Nc4 Bd5 33.Nfd2 Qxc5
34.Bxd5 Qxd5 ) ( { or } 32.Nd2 Bxg2 33.Kxg2 Qxc5 34.Nbc4 Qd5+ 35.f3 Ra8
36.Qb3 Nc5 37.Qc2 Nd7
{ , and althoughBlack has the advantage everywhere, White is capable of
resisting. However, hegoes to pieces and loses in literally two moves. } )
32...Rxc5 33.Na4 $2 Rc1 $1 34.Qd3 ( { or } 34.Qb3 Bd5 35.Rxc1 Bxb3 36.Rxb3
Qa7 37.Nb6 d3 ) 34...Qa3 $1 35.Qf1 Rxd1 36.Qxd1 Bc6
{ . --- From the point of view of Black's plans, thisis also one of the key
games of this variation. } 0-1
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Finale"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2016.06.15"]
[SourceTitle "My Great Predecessors 3"]
{ And now, as usual, a few memorable phrases by the chess kings. } 1.-- (
1.--
{ Botvinnik: 'Spassky is a great player. He is a continuation of the
Laskerline - he is little interested in what others are doing, but has his
ownopinion... Spassky possesses enviable health, he is a good psychologist, andhe subtly evaluates the situation, his strengths, and the
strengths of hisopponent. He rarely gets into time-trouble, he is a splendid athlete, andnothing frightens him. Spassky is always in a good, cheerful frame of mind. Heplayed simply wonderfully in the second match with Petrosian, but he lost thematch to Fischer through stupidity: he
overrated himself.' } ) ( 1.--
{ Smyslov:'Spassky is a player of enormous practical strength, versatile to
thehighest degree. He prefers clear methods of play, but he feels very much
athome in complicated positions, full of tactical possibilities.' } ) ( 1.--
{ Petrosian: 'Already after my first match with Spassky (1966) I had a
feelingthat a new encounter with him was possible. I was staggered by his
tenacityand resourcefulness in defence, and his composure and endurance after a defeat.And, of course, to twice make such a difficult ascent to
the top is somethingthat few could have done.' } ) ( 1.--
{ Spassky: 'I would simplisticallydivide chess players into two categories:
believers and non-believers. In thechess sense, of course. There are laws
that demand respect, which players aimnot to violate. These are the "believers". To them I would assign theclassics: Botvinnik, Smyslov, Petrosian and
Geller. I too am a "religious"player. Korchnoi and Larsen (and also Tal - G.K.) belong to the atheists,who by no means always respect these laws.' }
) ( 1.--
{ Fischer: 'Spassky is,in fact, a sounder player than Tal, but Tal is more
brilliant. Spassky hassome weaknesses, but he makes it difficult for an
opponent to take advantageof them. He doesn't play closed positional chess very well. Still, he alwaysseems a little ahead of you on theory.' }
) ( 1.--
{ Karpov: 'Spassky was acomplete and absolutely universal player. He was
equally good at attacking,defending, and accumulating positional
advantages. It was he who created thefashion for universality, which is alive to this day.' }
) *