I
invite you to test you r strength by i ndependently seeking the replies to q uestions which the players faced in the open ing stage of one qu ite old game.I found this game in a splendid book publ ished in 1 979 Het groot analysebook Jan Timman, which in translation from the Dutch means 'Jan Ti mman's Big Book of Analyses'. I studied Ti mman's analyses with great interest and benefit to myself, a n d , of course, I found many mistakes i n them. When a commentator does not restrict hi mself to general remarks , but tries to analyse a game in real depth , mistakes are inevitable in view of the complexity of the problems facing the analyst. Many of the mistakes poi nted out by readers of the book were corrected i n its English edition The Art of Chess Analysis. And i n 1 989 Ti mman presented me with a new, French edition - L'art de L'analyse.
Ti mman's book comprises commenta ries to games, written by him in various yea rs and publ ished in the Dutch chess magazi ne. The game which you will see is one of the fi rst in the book, and is perhaps annotated less wel l than t h e others. T h i s is a vivid illustration of the fact that in his youth Timman was a n ind ifferent analyst - su bseq uently, after gaining experience, he began analysing much better.
The time you have for the solving of the problems (with some of which even the commentator did not cope) will not be long: from 5 to 15 min utes. But don't be afraid - you will be helped by lead ing questions, outlining the problem more specifical ly. Exercises offered in competitions usually have completely clear-cut solutions - for
example, a forcing combination or an end game that can be accu rately calculated . Our competition is a not altogether sta ndard one. Many of the problems a re open to discussion . Sometimes it will be hard to demonstrate this 'th is' is better than 'that' . You will have to trust in you r general perception of the position, you r intuition. Calcu lation of variations is also req u i red , of cou rse, but it will be more importa nt to see all the resou rces both for you rself, and for the opponent, and to evaluate correctly the resulting situations.
The questions will be purely practical and they should be answered from the position not of an analyst, but of a practical player. You r objective is to find in a restricted time the most important, most sign ificant varia tions for the taking of a decision , and to g uess the opti mal way of combining calcula tion of variations with evaluation of position.
Polugayevsky - Mecki ng Mar del Plata 1 97 1 Semi-Slav Defence 1 c4 c6 2 lt:lf3 d5 3 e3 lt:lf6 4 lt:lc3 e6 5 b3 lt:lbd7 6 �b2 �d6 7 d4 0-0
Had Wh ite now played 8 �c2 , this would have transposed into a well-known position from the Mera n Variation (1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lt:lf3 lt:lf6 4 lt:lc3 e6 5 e3 lt:lbd7 6 'i'ic2 �d6 7 b3 0-0 8 ..tb2), in which the light-sq uare
A Practical Exercise 85
bishop is usually developed on e2. But Lev Polugayevsky deviates slig htly from the usual set-up.
8 �d3 �e8 9 Vi'c2
And now - the fi rst q uestio n .
1 ) Suggest for Black t h e m a i n candidate moves ( 1 0 min utes).
So, nearly all of you correctly determi ned the main ideas for Black. You even sug gested some which I did not have in m i n d , but also deserve consideration . I thought that here there are th ree main possibil ities:
1) 9 . .. dxc4 1 0 bxc4 e5 - the standard plan in
such positions, although when the bishop is on e2 - with the bishop on d3 it looks weaker;
2) the i mmediate 9 . . . e5 - each time in such cases you must consider whether you should allow the exchange on d 5 ;
3) the preparatory move 9 . . . 'it'e7; t h e i d e a of it will be explai ned a l ittle later.
Vadim Zviagintsev suggests a completely different pla n : the completion of Black's development by . . . b7-b6 and . . . �b7. I am not prepared to comment on this sugges tion, since I have not analysed it. But it looks sensible, sometimes Black plays this way i n similar positions, and therefore i t receives an extra point.
Now rega rd i ng preference. 9 . . . 'it'e7 is the move that I l i ke most. Here, of cou rse, I ca n not demonstrate anything - I ca n only explai n . What is the idea? Let's investigate . Why d id n 't Wh ite castle j ust now? Because of the reply 9 ... e5 ! . He does not have time to
captu re on d5 in view of the fork 1 O .. . e4 , and
so he has to exchange on e5 in a situation advantageous to Black. 9 'ii'c2 was played in order to take control of the e4-square, and in the event of 9 . .. e5 to be able to exchange
on d5. And now comes a rather refined reply - 9 . . . 'it'e7. In itself it is usefu l in such positions, but in add ition Black renews the th reat of a fork after . . . e6-e5.
Only Vasya Emel in chose this move , for which I have also given him an extra point. 9 . . . 'it'e7 was not made in the game or indicated in the notes. In effect this is an open ing novelty, and not a bad one. This is how they a re devised : one only needs to carefu lly analyse a game or o pen ing varia tio n , to delve i nto its latent ideas . . .
As candidates , Yan Tepl itsky suggested nearly all possible moves up to an including 9 ... c5 - this is rather excessive. With such
an abundance of possibil ities it is hard to hit the target, and it demands too much time. Endeavour with the help of evaluation to somehow restrict the list of ca ndidate moves .
9 . . . 1 0 cxd5
eS cxdS
In such positions there is sometimes the typical move tLlb5, but, of course, not here because of the check on b4 .
1 1 dxeS 1 2 ttJxeS
1 2 .. . .l:i.xe5 !? is more active . 1 3 tLle2
ttJxeS �xeS
Polugayevsky aims to simpl ify the position , to exchange the da rk-sq uare bishops. Black again faces a com m itting decision .
2) How should Black conti nue? ( 1 0 minutes)
With qu iet play Wh ite gains a slight but enduring positional advantage. Therefore in the fi rst instance one should look at moves which disru pt the ' normal' course of play. The first try is 1 3 .. .'ir'a5+ 1 4 j_c3 j_xc3+ 1 5 'i¥xc3 'i¥xc3+ 1 6 tbxc3 , and now 1 6 .. . d4 , because otherwise Wh ite has the more pleasant endgame. After 1 7 lbb5! B lack has to sacrifice the exchange: 1 7 .. . dxe3 1 8 tbc7 exf2+.
Nearly all of you reached this position in your calculations, but not everyone was able to accu rately calculate the variation to the end. However, in the fi rst edition of his book Timman also went wrong , attach ing an exclamation mark to 1 9 �d2?, which is in fact refuted by 1 9 .. . l:i.d8 20 tbxa8 j_f5 . Of course , 1 9 'it>xf2 tbg4+ 20 �g 1 .l:!.d8 2 1 tbxa8 .l:!.xd3 2 2 h 3 i s correct. This position could have been u nclear in view of the bad placing of the wh ite king (imagine if the black rook were on d 2 ! ) , but here Wh ite is alright: 22 .. . tbf6 23 �h2 or 22 .. . tbe3 23 'it>f2 . For the exchange there is no real compen sation.
This enti re variation subsequently occu rred in the game Makarychev-Chekhov ( Mos cow 1 98 1 ).
Since the exchange sacrifice is incorrect,
the check on a5 also has no particular point. Another active try is more interesting - 1 3 .. . d4! ? .
If 1 4 f4? or 1 4 .l:td 1 ?, then 1 4 .. .'ii'a5+ is strong. In reply to 1 4 exd4 one of you suggested 1 4 .. . j_d6!? with the idea after 1 5 h3 'ii'a5+ 1 6 Si.c3 'ili'g5 of developing pressu re on Wh ite's kingside. Clever! But Wh ite can simply castle , and the bishop sacrifice, u nfortunately, does not work: 1 5 0-0? j_xh2+ 1 6 �xh2 tbg4+ 1 7 'it>g 1 'ii'd6 ( 1 7 .. .'it' h4 1 8 'ii'c7! ) 1 8 tbg3 'ii'h6 1 9 l!fe 1 'ifh2+ 2 0 'iitf1 . However, the simple 1 4 . . . j_xd4 is qu ite sufficient for equal ity.
The critical reply is 1 4 e4 ! , and it is on this that the evaluation of 1 3 .. . d4 depends .
3) What does 1 4 .. . t2Jxe4 lead to? (5 minutes)
Absol utely all of you gave the correct evaluatio n . After 1 5 j_xe4 d3 1 6 ..txd3 Si.xb2 White should play not as suggested by Tim man - 1 7 .l:i.d 1 ? 'ii'a5+ , but simply 1 7 Si.xh7+! 'it>h8 1 8 'ii'xb2 'it>xh7 1 9 0-0, and Black has no compensation for the sacri ficed pawn.
What then should Black do? Wh ite's pawn structu re is better, and he is th reatening to play f2-f4 . The endgame after 1 4 .. .'iVa5+ 1 5 'ii'd2 i s clearly i n Wh ite's favou r. Black must play as energetically as he can , and I think
A Practical Exercise
ctJ
87that the only serious option is 1 4 .. . tt:Jg4 ! . But how to reply to 1 5 h 3 ? It is possible to prevent the opponent from castl i n g , but after 1 5 . . .'i'a5+ 1 6 Wf1 the advantage is with White. 1 5 .. . ii'h4 is stronger. Now if 1 6 0-0 there is the g uerri l l a raid 1 6 .. . lt:Jh 2 ! , when all kinds of sacrifices a re in the a i r: . . . ..txh3 or However, by playing 1 6 g 3 , Wh ite sudden ly reminds Black that for a long time his d4-pawn has been en prise. But Black too does not lose heart, since after 1 6 .. .'i!t'h6 17 tt:Jxd4 'ir'b6 or 1 7 .. . .l:.d8 the turmoil on the board does not end. You don't know, by chance, how this fi nal position should be evaluated? In analysis I found this entire series of moves, by looking at and rejecting other continuations. It is clear that B lack has the right to play this way. It is risky for h i m , for h e remains a pawn down , b u t for Wh ite too there is a risk, since his kingside is weakened and h i s king is stuck in the centre . Thus we have established that Black had a not very successfu l queen check at a5 and a tempting attempt to in itiate complications by 1 3 . .. d4!?. But Mecking chose another move.
1 3 . . . 'ir'd6
I n order to g ive it an objective eva luatio n , another question must fi rst b e answered .
4) Comment on the series of moves made in the game (1 5 min utes)
14 ..txe5 'ir'xe5 15 0-0 ..td7 16 lt:Jd4
(see diagram)
First let's evaluate the resu lting position . After the exchange o f the dark-sq uare bishops White has retained a slight positional advantage , that is obvious. It is determi ned by the isolated d5-pawn and the opponent's passive lig ht-square bishop. It is not clear whether Wh ite can win , but at any event he will be able to press for the entire game. Could Black have avoided such a fate?
- position after 1 6 tt::ld4 -
Some of you suggested captu ring on e5 not with the queen , but the rook. I will not give any poi nts for this move , because I don't see any pa rticu lar virtues in it. Wh ite repl ies 1 5 lt:Jd4, not fea ring 1 5 .. . 'ii'b4+ 1 6 'ir'd2 'i!Vxd4 ?? 1 7 ..txh7+, and planning .i:!.c1 and then pos sibly 'ir'c7. He ca n also consider 1 5 llc1 d4 1 6 e4 .
After 1 4 .. .'�'xe5 1 5 0-0 the recommendation 1 5 .. . tt:Je4 is unconvincing. Wh ite places his rook on c 1 and his knight on d4, and at an appropriate moment he can even exchange on e4 , leaving h i mself with a strong knight against a passive bishop. Black's position retains the same d rawbacks as in the game. On the other hand, 1 5 .. . tt:Jg4! gives Black reasonable counter-chances, and enables him to sharpen the position . Of course, d u ring the short time available you would have been u nable to calculate the variations exactly, but you r positional feeling correctly suggested to many of you that Black should have decided on this move . Log ic, typical of such situations, operates: before accepti ng the need to spend the entire game defend ing passively, you should fi rst seek active resou rces, which may change the u nfavou r able cou rse of the play. And if a move such as 1 5 .. . tt:Jg4 is not refuted d i rectly, and it leads to unclear situations, it should be made.
However, Wh ite in tu rn could have played more strongly, and not allowed an u n neces sary sharpening of the play. 1 5 �c3! was a good prescri ption, instead of 1 5 0-0? ! . Many of you poi nted this out. It is importa nt to dislodge the black queen from its excellent central square. The position after 1 5 .. . 'i&'xc3+ 1 6 lt:Jxc3 is already known to us from the 1 3 .. . 'ii'a5+ variation - it was not in va in that we calculated it. As you will remember,
1 6 .. . d4 1 7 lLlb5 gives White the advantage. And if the queen moves, Wh ite can castle or first play 16 'i!fd4 .
You suggest that 1 5 'it'c3 should be an swered by 1 5 .. . �g5 ? Wel l , I can castle, si nce 16 ... �h3 is not dangerous in view of 1 7 lt:Jf4 . And meanwh ile Wh ite is planning �d4 followed by 'jVf4 , or, even more active 'it'c7. At any event, the cou nterplay which flared up after 1 5 0-0?! tt:lg4! is not obta ined here.
Volodya Balkan suggested the variation 1 5 "iic3 "it'h5 1 6 0-0 lt:Jg4 1 7 h3 tt:le5. You know, after 1 8 lLlf4 Wh ite is sti l l a l ittle better, si nce the d5-pawn is weak. Also I am not obl iged to castle, but can play 1 6 ir'd4 or 1 6 ir'c7 . But in genera l , this is the correct approach Black must somehow try to sharpen the position . I have given him an extra point for his attempt to analyse 1 5 'it'c3 .
Now we ca n give an objective evaluation to the move 1 3 .. ."it'd6. It leads to a rather inferior, passive position . The more dynamic
13 . . . d4!? should have been preferred . I have given the maximum score - 1 0 points - to those who indicated the idea of 1 5 .. . lt:Jg4! , giving Black cou nterplay, and 1 5 'i!fc3 ! for Wh ite instead of castl ing. I n two cases I gave a score between five and ten , when the reply was based on the correct premise, that Wh ite needs to devise some th ing, since after 1 5 0-0 there is the strong rejoinder 1 5 .. . lt:Jg4! , but 1 5 ii'c3 was not suggested . I gave the fewest ma rks to Yan Tepl itsky (I warned h i m ! ) , si nce, as in the
fi rst exercise , he again suggested a mass of possibilities, including some that were cor rect, but he did not indicate any clear preference. You should not be afra id to express you r opinion . Of cou rse, it may be mistake n , but you learn from you r mistakes. After a l l , the a i m is not to score the most points in the competition. We a re train ing you r approach to the taking of decisions, which you will be able to use in practical games. There , in the end, you will be obl iged to d raw a clear concl usion , as to which you move you l i ke less, and which you l i ke more. But now we will carefu lly analyse the varia tion 1 5 0-0 lt:Jg4 ! . How to defend agai nst the mate? The fi rst try is 1 6 g3 'i¥h5 1 7 h4.
5) What should Black play? (5 min utes) Here Black has the powerfu l move 1 7 .. . g5! , which gives h i m an excellent position with a strong attack. The th reats a re . . . gxh4 and in some cases . . . lt:Je5. You analysed 1 8 'it>g2. 1 had in mind 1 8 .. . gxh4 1 9 .l:!.h 1 h3+. I n one of the replies it is written that 1 8 .. . gxh4 is bad because of 1 9 lt:Jf4 . I don't th i n k so - after 1 9 .. . h3+ 20 'it>h 1 "it'h6 Black is wel l placed . However, it is possible that 1 8 .. . l1xe3 is even stronger. The one who suggested this receives an additional point.
The only d ifficulty of the exercise is that there is another tempting move 1 7 .. . lt:Je5, which is not so easy to refute . This was the
A Practical Exercise
ctJ
89one recommended by Timma n . But if the variation is conti nued : 1 8 tt:)f4 tt:)f3+ 1 9 'it>g2 'i'g4 (the piece sacrifice 1 9 .. . tt:)xh4+ is also insufficient: 20 gxh4 'ii'g4+ 21 'it>h2 'ii'xh4+ 22 'it>g 1 'ii'g5+ 23 tt:)g2 i.h3 24 f4 'ii'xg2+ 25 'fxg2 i.xg2 26 'it>xg2 .l:txe3 27 l:tf3 or 27 l:iad 1 with a difficult endgame for Black) 20 l::th 1 with the extremely u npleasant th reat of 21 i.e2 (or even 20 i.e2 tt:)xh4+ 21 'it>h 1 ), it becomes clear that the position should be evaluated in favour of Wh ite .
Let us conti nue looking at the defences against the mate th reat after 1 5 0-0 tt:)g4. The second try is 1 6 tt:)g3. Here, there is really not even anything to ask - it is clear that Black plays 1 6 .. . h 5 ! . And then , say, 1 7 .!:Ife1 h4 (there is also 1 7 .. . tt:)xh2!?) 1 8 tt:)f1 h3 1 9 g3 'ii'f6 followed by . . . tt:)e5. Black begins an attack on the l ight squares; h i s position is better.
Timman recommends 1 6 tt:)f4 and comes to an amusing conclusion: after 1 6 .. . tt:)f6 (in tending 17 . . . d4) 1 7 tt:)e2 tt:)g4 1 8 tt:)f4 the result is a draw. But does the knight have to retrace its steps? Black has two active moves: 1 6 .. . g5 and 1 6 .. . d4.
In the first, Dutch edition of his book, Tim man considered both moves to be bad, i n the English edition - o n l y o n e o f them , a n d only in the French edition (taking account of an article of mine in the magazine New in Chess, poi nting out the mistakes in his book) was the correct evaluation g iven - both moves secu re Black an excellent game. I will g ive one variation now, and you can try
to find the second you rselves.
16 ... g5 17 h3 gxf4! 18 exf4 Wxf4 1 9 hxg4 ixg4 with advantage to Black. If White regains the pawn by captu ring on h 7 , Black will attack along the h-file. Where could Timman have gone wrong here? He was carried away by an attempt to win a paw n : 1 7. . .tt.Jxe3? 1 8 fxe3 'ifxe3+ 1 9 'it>h2 gxf4 20 l:if3, after which it is Wh ite who builds u p a powerful attack.
The second variation is 1 6 .. . d4 1 7 i.xh7+ 'it>h8 1 8 h 3 .
6 ) What position s h o u l d Black go i n for? (1 0 min utes)
Black has n u merous tempting conti nua tions. There a re variations that a re rather sharp and complicated , and i n 1 0 m i nutes of cou rse, you will not calcu late them all
:
The a i m is not so much to calcu late , as to assess and sense where you will sta nd better, where you r position will be more secu re. Let's try.Timman exa m i nes th ree variations.
The fi rst: 1 8 .. . tt:)xf2 1 9 'ii'xf2 dxe3 20 1i'h4 g5 21 'ifh6 'ii'g7 22 'ii'xg7+ 'it>xg7 23 tt:)h5+ 'it>xh7 24 tt:)f6+ , and Wh ite wins.
The second: 18 . . . tt:)f6 1 9 i.g 6 ! ! (the f7-pawn is awkward to defend) 1 9 .. . dxe3 20 i.xf7 'ifxf4 2 1 i.xe8 tt:)xe8 . Black has won two p ieces for a rook, but with such a king he ca nnot survive : after 22 fxe3 ! 'iVxe3+ 23 'it>h 1 Wh ite's th reats a re i rresistible. I nciden tal ly, instead of 21 . . . tt:)xe8? it is fa r stronger to play 21 . . . i.f5 ! 22 'ifc5 e2 23 1i'f8+ tt:)g8 24 l:.fe 1 1\Ve s .
And , finally, the th i rd : 1 8 . . . dxe3 1 9 hxg4 exf2+ 20 Wxf2 ! 'it>xh7 2 1 J:tae1 .
But why does Black commit hara-kiri , by h imself opening l i nes for the wh ite rooks? I n
this last variation he has the simple 1 9 .. .'�i'xf4! (instead of 1 9 .. . exf2+?) with bri l l iant pros pects.
Thus we see that in the event of 1 6 lt:Jf4 Black is by no means bound to ag ree a d raw - he straight away has two tempting possibilities.
What then should Wh ite do? Did the inaccu racy 1 5 0-0?! really lead to an inferior position for him? I don't th ink so. We must consider one other conti nuatio n : 1 6 .txh7+ 'lt>h8, and only now 1 7 lt:Jg3. Evidently Black should win the bishop for th ree pawns: 17 . . . g6 18 ii.xg6 fxg6 19 'ili'xg6, and the n , most probably, 1 9 . . J1g8 20 �h5+ �xh5 2 1 lt:Jxh5.
When solving studies, if you are fortunate enough to find a series of best moves, the evaluation of the final position usually does not present any difficu lty - it is either a wi n , a draw, or a loss . A practical game is far more complicated . Here forcing variations very often end in completely u nclear positions. I don't know how to evaluate this position ; if