Y
ou have to solve ten exercises, con nected with various aspects of positional play (manoeuvres, exchanges, prophylaxis etc.). Time for the taking of the decisions will be limited - from 5 to 1 5 minutes.In my view, this is quite sufficient - after all, you don't have to calculate any lengthy and complicated variations. You merely have to approach the position correctly: try to gain a feeling for it, recognise the main problem facing you , and quickly point out the promis
ing possibilities for you and your opponent.
When you solve a study or try to find a forcing combination, on verification it is not difficult to ascertain (if, of course, the exercise is correct) that the solution devised is the only correct one, and that other continuations are significantly weaker. With
1 . White to move (1 0 mins.)
positional examples things are more compli
cated - here the situation sometimes allows different approaches. In comparing their strength , we base this not on precise variations, but on general evaluation, about which arguments are possible. Even so, I hope that in the exercises offered to you there will be no particular arguments - they have been carefully checked and already solved earlier by many of my pupils.
For each correct reply you receive two points, and for an incorrect one you score zero. If the reply is only partially correct, and you fail to give some important variations, then you receive one point. I assume that in some cases I will have to use intermediate values: a half or one and a half points.
2. Black to move (5 mins.)
3. White to move ( 1 0 mins.) 4. Black to move (1 0 m i ns.)
5. White to move (1 0 mins.) 6. White to move (5 m i ns.)
7. White to move (1 5 mins.) 8. Black to move (1 5 m i ns.)
Positional Exercises
ctJ
639. White to move (1 0 mins.) 1 0. Black to move (1 0 mins.)
Sol utions
1 . Knaak-Geller (Moscow 1 982).
White has good attacking chances, but for the moment some of his pieces are not taking part in the activity on the kingside. He must first consolidate his position .
22 ..tc2!
An excellent regrouping . The bishop goes to b3, intensifying the pressure on the d5-point and simultaneously covering its own pawn on b2. Then the rook at b 1 will defend the d4-pawn from d 1 , after which the knight will occupy the very important f4-point, once again attacking d5 and at the same time approaching the enemy king . Black is u nable to oppose this plan of action. For example, in the event of 22 .. . llc4 there is the strong reply 23 l:.h4! followed by 24 ..tb3.
22 . . . i.f7 23 ..tb3 .l:.ce8 24 .l::!.bd1 lDg5
In the event of 24 . . . lle3 25 lDf4 'ifd6 White wins by 26 lDfxd5! l:ie2+ 27 lDxe2 l::txe2+ 28 lt>xe2 'i!i'xg3 29 lDe7+ 'iti>h8 30 ..txf7.
25 t2Jf4 'ii'd6 (25 ... l:te3 26 lDfxd5) 26 l:td3!
(intending 'ii'g4 followed by lDcxd5) 26 ... b5
27 'i'g4 l:td7
White has a decisive advantage. The con
cluding moves were made in severe time
trouble.
28 h6 (28 lDcxd5 was simpler) 28 ... g6 29 lDcxdS (29 lDxb5!?) 29 ... a5 (29 .. . 'iti>h7!?) 30 h7+ lDgxh7? (30 .. . 'iti>h8! was essential) 31 lDxg6 Black lost on time. His position is hopeless, as is apparent from the variation 31 . . . lDxg6 32 lDe7+ l:texe7 33 1i'xg6+ 'iti>f8 34 'ii'h6+ 'iti>e8 35 'ii'xh7 'iti>d8 36 ..txf7 l:.xf7 37 'ii'f5.
2. Zilberman-Taimanov (Moscow 1 979).
White is threatening to gain an advantage by advancing his c-pawn . This must be prevent
ed .
1 7 . . . �a6!
A good prophylactic move - it was suggested by nearly all the participants in the competi
tion ( 1 8 c5? is not possible in view of 1 8 .. . bxc5 1 9 dxc5 lllxc5!). But Black had to reckon with the following reply by the opponent: anyone who did not see it receives only half a point.
1 8 'i!t'a4
Now the plausible 1 8 .. . b5? is incorrect in view of 19 'it'b4! with a big advantage for White. Those who wanted to play this each lost a point.
Vova Baklan earned one and a half points:
he saw the refutation of . . . b6-b5, but he did not manage to find the correct course, which , unfortunately, was suggested only by Sasha Chernosvitov.
1 8 . . . i.b7!
The capture of the a7-pawn is dangerous the queen risks becoming trapped in the enemy position . White should reconcile himself to the roughly equal position arising after 1 9 'ii'b4 'Wic7 20 d5 (20 tt:'!f4? �xg2 2 1 'it>xg2 'ili'b7+ 2 2 'it>g 1 e5! ) 20 .. . tt:'!c5 2 1 l:.d 1 . I n the game there followed 1 9 'i¥xa7? �xg2 20 �xg2 ii'c6+ 21 d5 (21 'it>g1 l:ta8) 21 ... exd5 22 tt:'!d4 'ii'd6.
White is in serious difficulties, for example:
23 'iia4 tt:'!e5! 24 cxd5 Wxd5+ 25 f3 (25 'it>g 1 'ii'xd4) 25 . . . b5. He should probably have sought salvation in the variation 23 tt:'!b5 'ii'e6! 24 l:te1 'ili'c6 25 tt:'!d4 'ili'xc4 26 tt:'!e6!
(26 1i'xd7 'i!Vxd4 27 l:tad 1 'i!kc5 is less good) 26 .. . fxe6 27 'i!Vxd7.
23 l:td1 ? tt:'!c5! (threatening . . . l:tb7 or .. J:ta8;
it does not help to play 24 tt:'!b5 'ii'g6 25 'ilie7 dxc4) 24 tt:'!f5 'i!i'e5! 25 tt:'!e7+ 'ith8 26 Ite1 (26 tt:'!c6 'ii'e4+ 27 �g 1 l:tb7) 26 .. .'ii'd6 27 tt:'!f5 'ii'f6 White resigned .
3. Pinter-Adorjan (Prague 1 985).
17 tt:'Jxe4! dxe4
1 8 i.xb4!
1 8 i.xe4? �xe4 1 9 l:txe4 is much weaker;
Black can choose between 1 9 .. . 'ii'd5 20 'ilie2 tt:'!xa2 and 1 9 .. . tt:'!d3 20 l:tc3 tt:'Jxf2 21 'it>xf2 il.xd4+.
1 8 . . . exf3
1 8 .. . cxb4 1 9 i.xe4 leads to the loss of a pawn without any compensation .
The game went 1 8 ... e3 1 9 .l:.xe3 i.xf3 20 'ii'c2! g6 21 dxc5 �g5 22 .l:.d3 'ii'c8 23 'ii'c4+ 'itg7 24 'ii'c3+ 'ith6 (24 .. . i.f6 25 'ii'd2) 25 h4 Black resigned .
1 9 dxc5 'i!i'c8
1 9 .. . bxc5 20 il.xc5.
20 c6
Positional Exercises
ltJ
65This variation had to be calculated by White when he embarked on his operation. His position is won , for example: 20 ... .ltxc6 (20 .. .'i'h3 21 'ii'xf3) 2 1 'ii'c2 'ii'h3 22 'ii'xh7+
'fxh7 23 ..txh7+ <it>xh7 24 ..txf8.
Jozsef Pinter found a purely concrete way of achieving an advantage. Only by a great stretch of the imagination can this example be called 'positional' (White carried out a series of favourable exchanges). But equal
ly, White's solution cannot be called combi
native - after all, nothing was sacrificed . It would perhaps be more correct to call it tactical .
Tactics a re an immeasu rably broader con
ception than combinations. When we say that Emanuel Lasker was a great tactician , we don't mean that he was constantly sacrificing something. No, simply the world champion was excellent at finding the strong
est resources for both sides - accurate moves , precise variations.
Tactical skill plays an enormous role in chess, and by no means only in sharp combinative situations. With its help a player can tenaciously hold difficult positions, con
stantly erecting new barriers in the oppo
nent's path , or on the contrary, he can find the quickest way to convert an advantage.
Even the solving of purely strategic problems in quiet positions cannot be done without tactical elements - after all, our plans can only be carried out by means of specific moves, which have to be seen and, if necessary, calculated .
4. Lisitsyn-Tolush (Leningrad 1 938).
What does White want? Without exception, all the participants in the competition correct
ly decided that Black should be thinking not about the defence of his c7-pawn , but about parrying the threat of the queen exchange ('fg5). It is incorrect to play 1 8 .. . c6? (or 18 ... b6?) 1 9 'ii'g5! lt:Jg6 ( 1 9 .. .'i!i'xg5 20 fxg5 lt:ld7 2 1 tt:Jxe4) 20 'ii'xh4 lt:Jxh4 2 1 f5! .
But, unfortunately, most of you chose a resourceful , but not very successful way of parrying the opponent's main idea - 1 8 .. . b5?!
(for it only half a point is awarded ). After 1 9 cxb5! followed by 2 0 lt:Jc4 Black does not have sufficient compensation for the sacri
ficed pawn .
Less convincing is 1 9 'iixb5? ! , hoping for 1 9 .. . .l::tab8 20 'iig5 'ii'xg5 2 1 fxg5 l:txb2 22 gxf6 l:txd2 23 fxe7 .l:txe7 (or 23 . . . .l::txa2 24 .l::ta 1 ) 24 .l::tf2 , when in the rook ending the limit of Black's dreams is a draw. It is stronger to interpose 1 9 .. . lt:Jg4 ! , and only after 20 h3 - 20 .. Jlab8 (but not 20 .. . l:teb8?
21 'iig5 'ii'xg5 22 fxg5 .l:r.xb2 23 tt:Jxe4 ).
The reply 21 �a4? suggests itself, but it is prettily refuted by 2 1 . . .lt:Jf5! 22 hxg4 lt:Jh6!
with irresistible threats. White's position also looks anxious after 21 'ii'a5?! :xb2 22 hxg4 'ii'xg4 23 :f2 lt:Jf5! 24 lt:Jxe4 l:tb6 followed by 25 .. . l:th6. He is forced to play 21 'ii'g5! 'i!i'xg5 22 fxg5 l:txb2 23 tt:Jxe4! lt:Jg6 24 lt:Jc5 lt:Jh4 25 hxg4 or 24 . . . lt:Jxe3 25 .l:r.f2 with roughly equal chances.
The strongest is a cool-headed prophylactic move.
1 8 . . . h6!
After 19 'ii'xc7?! lt:Jf5 there is no satisfactory defence against the threat of 20 .. . lt:Jg4. For example: 20 l:!.e2 lt:Jg4 21 g3 lt:Jxg3 (2 1 . . . 'ikh3
also looks tempting, intending either to capture the e3-pawn with the knight, or to play . . . h6-h5-h4, or at an appropriate moment to nevertheless sacrifice the knight on g3) 22 hxg3 'ifxg3+ 23 'it>h 1 'ifh3+ 24 'it>g2 tt:Jxe3 25 .l:tff2 l:tac8 with advantage to Black.
After 20 h3 tt:Jg3 Georgy Lisitsyn had to accept the loss of the exchange, since if 2 1 l:.f2 there follows 2 1 . . . tt:Jg4! . 2 0 .. . 'i!r'g3!?, attacking the e3-pawn, also came into consideration.
Remember: a queen together with a knight (and the more so, with two knights) in the vicinity of the enemy king constitutes a powerful force!
5. Beliavsky-H erzog (Mexico 1 977).
White has an excellent position. It can be strengthened either by the quiet move 18 g3, or by 18 tt:Je2 or 18 'iot>h2(h 1 ), preparing g2-g4. This is all not bad , but rather slow. The position lends itself to more energetic meas
ures.
The only one to suggest the correct way was l lya Makariev.
1 8 g4!
19 tt:Jxe5 20 .txe5 21 .txh3
tt:Jf4 .txe5 tt:Jxh3+
21 'i!r'xh3 .l:f.xe5 22 f4 l:tee8 23 f5 (or 23 e5!?
h5 24 'i!r'h4!) was equally good .
21 . . . l:.xe5
22 f4 23 f5
(see diagram)
.:teeS
The exchanging operation has enabled White to begin a very dangerous pawn storm . The f5-pawn has restricted the mobil
ity of the opponent's bishop and knight.
Things are bad for Black - White is threaten
ing 24 f6 or 24 e5 followed by tt:Je4.
position after 23 f5
-23 ... f6 24 l:.d6 .tea 25 .l:txd8 (25 l:txf6?! is weaker in view of 25 . . . tt:Jd7 and 26 . . . tt:Je5) 25 ... l:txd8 26 e5 fxe5 27 'ilfxe5 'ilff7 28 tt:Je4 l2Jd7 29 'i!r'c3 gxf5 30 tt:Jg5 'i!r'd5 31 tt:Je6 tt:Jf6 32 'i!r'xf6 Black resigned .
Why did this example prove so difficult? The sharp transformation of the position carried out by Alexander Beliavsky is somehow not in keeping with our usual approach to such favourable situations - in them we prefer to manoeuvre quietly, gradually improving the placing of the pieces. And sometimes we will miss favourable concrete possibilities. Gen
erally speaking, the transformation of an advantage is a psychologically difficult pro
cedure, demanding at the same time both dynamic thinking , and subtle positional eval
uation .
Later the American player Maurice Ashley suggested another, also very concrete way of playing for White: 1 8 .tc4!?. The pressure on the f7 -point is rather unpleasant, and also the strategic threat 1 9 g4 tt:Jf4 20 tt:Jxe5 remains in force. The critical reply is 1 8 .. . ..te6.
Then follows the unexpected 1 9 ..txf8 ! .l:i.xd 1 20 .l:txd 1 ..txc4 (20 .. . ..txf8 2 1 tt:Jxe5 is no better) 2 1 ..txg7 tt:Jxg7 22 tt:Jxe5! :xe5 23 'ii'd4. However, this clever idea can be called into question by 20 .. .'it>xf8! 2 1 ..txe6 l:.xe6 22 tt:Jg5 (22 Il.d8+ 'iite7! , but not 22 . . . I!.e8? 23
Positional Exercises
lD
s1'i!i'd2) 22 .. . lle8 23 ltJxh7+ 'it'g8 24 ltJgS .i.h6, when the position remains unclear.
6. Hort-Karpov (Amsterdam 1 98 1 ).
Black obviously wants to play . . . b6-bS, supporting his c4-pawn and preparing . . . ltJe4 or . . . ltJb6. The same reply 1 4 .. . bS! follows both after the attempt to undermine the pawn chain by 14 b3, and after the tempting 1 4 tt:'le5.
1 4 a4!
An important prophylactic move. Now 1 S b3 and 1 5 ltJeS are dangerous positional threats for White.
Anatoly Karpov played badly and was soon in serious difficulties.
1 4 ... i.c6?! (in order to answer 1 S b3 with 15 .. . b5) 1 5 ltJe5 \!Vc7 1 6 ltJxc6 'i!i'xc6 1 7 i.f3
After the exchange of Black's bishop his dS
pawn has become weak. 1 8 ltJxdS is threatened . After 1 7 .. . .l:tfe8 White has the strong reply 1 8 i.xf6 ltJxf6 1 9 e4, while if 1 7 ... .l::!.ae8 , then 1 8 b3! bS 1 9 axbS axbS 20 'i'f5!.
1 7 ... i.b4? 1 8 ltJxd5! ltJxdS 19 �fS (but not 1 9 li'xc4? �xc4 20 l:txc4 in view of 20 .. . bS followed by . . . ltJ7b6) 1 9 .. .'il¥xa4 20 .i.xdS .l:!.ac8 21 b3! cxb3 22 l:lxc8 llxc8 23 'i!i'xf7+
'.t>h8 24 .i.xb3 'ii'bS 25 i.e6 l:.f8 26 i.xd7!
(not 26 'ii'xd7?! 'i!VhS!) Black resigned.
The solution that you are looking for does not necessarily lead to immediate success. lf the opponent also rises to the occasion and finds the best response, the outcome often re
mains unclear. That is the case here:
although 14 a4! was u ndoubtedly correct, if Black had replied 1 4 .. . ltJe8! he would have retained a defensible position. I ncidentally, 1 4 .. . ltJe4?! was weaker in view of 1 S i.xe7 'i!i'xe 7 1 6 ltJxe4 dxe4 1 7 ltJd2 bS 1 8 b3!.
7. Geller-Fischer (Curac;ao Candidates 1 962).
White has to reckon with the threat of 29 . . .'it'xaS. He doesn't want to put his rook on a 1 - this is too passive. Nothing is achieved by 29 'ii'b6 'i¥xb6 30 l:.xb6 (30 axb6 'ili>f8) 30 .. .'.ti>f8! (of course, not 30 .. . .l::!.xaS? 31 l:td6) 3 1 d6 .l::!.xaS 32 h3 .l:!.cS, and he is also unsuccessful with 29 l:td 1 'i!i'xaS 30 \!VxaS l:!.xaS 31 d6 i..d7 32 l:tb 1 bS.
But if he were able to play his rook to b6 . . . This would solve the problem of the aS
pawn , and Black's central blockade would prove insecure.
29 'ii'a4!
29 .. . 'it'f8 30 l:tb6.
30 \!Val!
i.d7
31 .l:.xb7 is threatened, and if 30 .. . i.c8 there follows 3 1 l:tb6 with a decisive positional advantage. Black is forced to capture the aS
pawn with his rook, allowing the cou nter
stroke on b7. 30 . . . 'ii'xaS 3 1 'ii'xaS .l:!.xaS 32 .l:!.xb7 is totally bad for him.
30 . . . .l:!.xaS
31 .l:!.xb7!
Diana Darchiya and Sergey Movsesian suggested 3 1 "ii'e7? ! , which is much weaker - because of this they each lost half a point.
The completely correct solution was found by Vova Baklan and Vadim Zviagintsev.
31 . . . 'i!i'xb7
31 . . . .l::!.xa3 is hopeless: 32 .l::!.xc7 .:a 1 + 33 .i.f1 i.fS 34 g4! (34 f3 hS 3S 'ittf2 l:ta2+ is far less
convincing) 34 . . . i.xg4 35 h3!? (35 'it>g2) 35 .. . .txh3 36 'it>h2 - after the exchange of bishops, the connected passed pawns in the centre decide the outcome.
32 'i\Vxa5
White has achieved a decisive positional superiority.
32 . . . 33 h3
34 �h2?
g6 'iVb1 +
As Garry Kasparov pointed out, 34 iLf1 ! was correct: 34 . . . 'iVb7 35 1!Vd8+ 'it>g7 36 "iile7 or 34 .. . ..l1Lf5 35 d6 i.d3 36 d7. The move in the game allows Black a saving chance.
34 ... i.f5?
34 .. .'it'c2 35 'iVd8+ �g7 36 't\Vxd7 't\Vxe2 was necessary. The variation by Braslav Rabar:
37 't\Vc7 a5 38 f4! a4 (38 .. . exf4 39 11Vxf4) 39 fxe5 a3 40 e6 a2 41 'iVxf7+ 'it>h6 42 'iVf6 contains many weak points. For example, instead of 37 .. . a5 Black can consider 37 .. .'iVe4!? 38 g3 1!Vd4 39 '.tg 1 e4, and on the next move 37 .. . 11Ve3!? gives a draw.
Finally, instead of the 'cooperative' 40 .. . a2?
there is 40 .. . 11Vf2! 41 e7 (4 1 'iVe5+ f6! ) 41 . . . "iile3, and Black saves the game,
35 "ifc3!
White has consolidated and his central pawns have become a powerful force.
35 . . .'i!Ve4 36 i.f3 �d4?! (36 .. . �d3 was more tenacious) 37 'ii'xd4 exd4 38 g4! ii.c8 38 .. . a5 39 gxf5 a4 40 d6 '.tf8 41 c5 or 38 .. . i..c2 39 c5 d3 40 c6 i.a4 41 d6 was no better.
39 c5 aS 40 c6 �f8 41 d6
Here the game was adjourned , and Fischer resigned : 41 . . . 'it>e8 42 i.d 1 , 41 . . . d3 42 d7 i.xd7 43 cxd7 'it>e7 44 i.c6 d2 45 i.a4, or 4 1 . . . . a4 42 c7 a3 43 i.c6 a2 44 d7 i.xd7 45 i.xd7 a 1 'iV 46 c8'ii'+.
8. Karpov-Lerner (Moscow 1 983).
Black is a pawn down . Should he exchange rooks? At first sight it may seem that his hopes of counterplay involve creating an attack against the white king , which is stuck in the middle of the board , which means that the rooks should not be exchanged . That is how Konstantin Lerner reasoned , in choos
ing 41 ... .l:te8? .
But after 42 .l:tg2! (42 .l:th2?! f6! was less accurate) there was the terrible threat of exchanging the queens: 43 'iVg4! . I n the rook ending White's extra pawn and centralised king would give him an easy win .
B u t if the exchange i s avoided , he is the first to begin an attack on the enemy king:
42 .. .'ii'd7 43 h5 �dB 44 hxg6 'ii'd4+ 45 '.tf3 'iVd1 + (45 .. . iVd5+ 46 'it>g4 '.tg7 was more tenacious) 46 l:i.e2 'it'f1 47 '.te3 f5 48 l:i.e1 'iVbS 49 'i!Vh3 'ii'c5+ 50 '.tf3 Black resigned . A similar picture arises after 4 1 . . . lta8? 42 l:th2! (better than 42 l:lg2 lta1 ! ) . If 42 . . . lta1 , then 43 h5, but otherwise White offers the advantageous exchange of queens: 42 .. .'ilt'h5 43 �f3 or 42 .. . lta2 43 11Vg5.
It turns out that the rooks should have been exchanged .
41 . . . ltxd2!
4 1 ... ltd5? is much weaker in view of 42 ltxd5 cxd5 43 'ii'g2! d4+ 44 'it>xd4 'ifxf4+ 45 'ii'e4, and White should win the queen ending. All his pawns are securely defended by the
Positional Exercises
ttJ
69queen, whereas the black b7-pawn is weak and will soon be won .
42 'iti>xd2 'ii'e4 43 'ii'e3
43 h5 'it'd4+ 44 'iti>e2 'ii'e4+ .
43 . . . 'ii'h1
After 44 'iff2 'ii'e4 (or 44 .. .'iti>h7) the material advantage is not felt in view of the activity of the black queen and the vulnerability of the white pawns. Black retains excellent drawing chances.
9. Korchnoi-Geller (Candidates Match , 7th Game, Moscow 1 97 1 ).
Black is more actively placed . I n particular White has to reckon with a pawn offensive on the queenside: . . . b7-b5-b4. How can this be opposed? The correct solution was found by Maxim Boguslavsky and Vadim Zviagintsev.
1 7 a3 ! !
A subtle prophylactic move. I f 1 7 .. . b 5 White intends 1 8 lt:Ja2 ! and then lt:Jb4, exploiting the weakness of the c6-square. At the same time he plans to evict the powerful knight from c4 by 'ii'a2, tt:Jce2 and b2-b3.
Yefim Geller was unable to devise an effective counter-plan, and as a result White soon completed the development of his pieces and seized the initiative. Black should have opted for a change of the pawn
structure, by advancing his e-pawn: 1 7 .. . e6!?
1 8 dxe6 fxe6 (recommended by Alexander Shabalov), or 1 7 .. . b5 1 8 tt:Ja2 e5! 1 9 dxe6 fxe6.
1 7 ... 'ii'c5 1 8 'ii'a2 .l:tc7 1 9 tt:Jce2! l:l.bc8 ( 1 9 . . . lt:Jxd5? 20 lt:Jb3) 20 b3 lt:Je5!? (20 .. . lt:Jb6 21 e4 with an obvious advantage to White)
21 ..ltd2 !?
With the opponent's pieces so active, White has to be extremely carefu l . I n the event of 2 1 f4?! 'ifb6(a7) the immediate capture of the knight is clearly bad - 22 fxe5? dxe5 (with the threat of the rook invasion at c2), while after 22 l1b 1 (or 22 'ili'b 1 ) 22 .. . ..te8 it also looks risky.
But 2 1 e4!? followed by 22 ..lte3 deserved serious consideration .
2 1 . . . ..lte8 (2 1 . . .tt:Jxd5? 22 b4) 22 l:tac1 'iib6 23 .l::!.xc7 .l::txc7 24 .tel ..tb5 25 'iid2 ..txe2 26 ..lta5! 'ii'a7 27 tt:Jxe2 .l::!.c8 28 .l:!.c1 'iib8 29 .l:!.c2 (29 .l:!.xc8+!? 'ifxc8 30 'ii'c1 ) 29 ... lt:Jed7 30 'ii'c1 .l:!.c5 31 .l:!.xc5 tt:Jxc5 32 'ii'c2 11i'e8 33 lt:Jd4, and White stands clearly better - he has the two bishops and more space.
An example typical of Victor Korchnoi's play.
He aimed for positions with a spatial advan
tage, even if this involved a certain risk. By cool-headed actions he usually managed to extinguish the opponent's activity and, by exploiting his strategic trumps, seize the initiative.
1 0. Gavrikov-Vitolins (Severodonetsk 1 982).
Black is a pawn down , and his opponent is intending f2-f3. He must act with the utmost energy. By resourceful play Alvis Vitolins succeeds in emphasising the insecure posi
tion of the enemy king .
1 7 . . . g5!
18 'it'h3
1 8 'ii'h6 is completely bad : 1 8 .. . g4 with the threat of 1 9 .. . l:lh5 20 'iWf4 e5.
1 8 . . . 1 9 �xg4 20 'i¥xg4+
g41 ltJxg4 l1g5
At the cost of another pawn , Black's bishop and rook have established coordination -they are both attacking the g2-point. But the calculation of the variation should probably be continued for a couple more moves.
21 'i!i'h3 'Ot>h8
22 f3 llfg8!
After 23 fxe4 .l:txg2+ Black retains a danger
ous attack. It is impossible to calculate all its consequences in advance, but it is clear that there is practically no risk of losing, whereas a win may well be found (although it also may not). I , incidentally, do not see one. Here is a possible variation : 24 'ii'xg2 �xe4 (24 . . . l:lxg2+!? 2 5 'Ot>xg2 'ii'g5+) 25 lDf3 (25 llf2;
25 'ii'g3!?) 25 . . Jixg2+ 26 <iii>xg2 'it'g5+
(26 .. . 'i!i'h4 27 h3) 27 <iii>f2 'iff5 28 <itg3 ! . The game concluded 23 g4? .ll5g6 (th reat
ening 24 . . . ltJg5) 24 'ii'h5?! (if 24 'ii'g2 Black would have replied 24 . . . 'ii'h4 or 24 . . . f5) 24 ... ttJf6 25 'it'b5 ttJxg4 26 fxg4 'ifh4, and White resigned in view of 27 'ii'xb7 l:lxg4+ 28
�h1 'ifxh2+!.
Let us sum up. The competition proved significantly more difficult for you than I expected . Only Vadim Zviagintsev correctly solved more than half of the exercises. By a large margin he took first place (with twelve and a half points). In second place was Petya Kirjakov with three points less, while Vova Baklan finished third .
As you see, taking a positionally correct decision in a limited time is no easier than finding a combination or accurately calculat
ing a long variation . Probably because here you simultaneously have to display both a correct evaluation of the resulting position, and a clear vision of the tactical resources.
The slightest mistake in either of these factors makes the search much more diffi
cult, demands additional expenditure of time, and in general takes you far away from the correct course.
71