Modern Chess Self-Tutor_Bronstein

DAVID BRONSTEIN

CADOGAN CHESS BOOKS

The Modern Chess Self-Tutor

CADOGAN CHESS BOOKS

Chief Advisor: Garry Kasparov Editor: Andrew Kinsman Russian Series Editor: Ken Neat

Other titles in this series include:

BRONSTEIN, D. & FURSTENBERG, T.

The Sorcerer's Apprentice

GELLER, Y. The Application of Chess Theory

KASPAROV, G. Garry Kasparov's Chess Puzzle Book

LIVSHITZ, A. Test Your Chess IQ

Books 1-3

POLUGA YEVSKY, L. Grandmaster Achievement

POLUGA YEVSKY, L. Grandmaster Performance

POLUGAYEVSKY,L. The Sicilian Labyrinth Vols. 1 & 2

POLUGAYEVSKY,L. &DAMSKY, I.

The Art of Defence in Chess

SHEKHTMAN, E. (Compiler) The Games of Tigran Petrosian

Vols. 1 & 2

SHERESHEVSKY, M. Endgame Strategy

SHERESHEVSKY, M. & SLUTSKY, L.

Mastering the Endgame Vols. 1 & 2

SMYSLOV, V. Smyslov's 125 Selected Games

SUETIN, A. Three Steps to Chess Mastery

TAIMANOV, M. Taimanov's Selected Games

TAL, M. & DAMSKY, I. Attack with Mikhail Tal

VAINSTEIN, B. David Bronstein: Chess Improviser

For a complete catalogue of CADOGAN CHESS books (which includes the former Pergamon Chess and Maxwell Macmillan Chess list) please write to:

Cadogan Books, London House, Parkgate Road, London SW11 4NQ Tel: (0171) 738 1961 Fax: (0171) 924 5491


by

David Bronstein

Translated and Edited by Ken Neat

CADOGAN chess

LONDON, NEW YORK

CADOGAN BOOKS DISTRIBUTIO:N ... OK/EUROPE/ AUSTRALASIA/ AFRICA Distribution: Grantham Book Services Ltd, Isaac Newton Way;·: Alma Park Industrial Estate, Grantham, Lines NG3 1 9SD Tel : 01476 67421; Fax: 01476 590223

USA/CANADA/LATIN AMERICA/JAPAN Distribution: Paramount Distribution Center, Front and Brown Streets, Riverside, New Jersey 08075, USA Te1: (609) 461 6500; Fax: (609) 764 9122

English Translation Copyright © 1995 Ken Neat

First published 1995 by Cadogan Books plc, London House, Parkgate Road, London SW 1 1 4NQ

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system or transmitted in any form of by any means: electronic,

electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording or

otherwise, without prior permission in writing from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 1 85744 136 2

Cover design by Brian Robins

Typeset by Ken Neat, Durham

Printed in Great Britain

Contents

To the Reader 1 1 A Shelter for the King 6 2 The Strength of the Pieces 11

Why do the pieces need pawns? 13 The struggle at the equator 16 The bishop 21 The knight 41 The rook 51 The queen 62

3 The Deployment of the Pawns 76 4 The Strength of the Pawns 86 5 The Deployment of the Pieces 92 6 Crossing the Equator 109 7 The Coordination of the Pieces 117 8 Defence 124 9 Attack 129

10 The Strength and Weakness of a Position 133 Index of Players 147

To the Reader

A self-tutor i s a book that helps you to learn without a teacher. But don't expect miracles. You can only really learn something if you do not simply read this book, but turn to it as to a living person, asking it again and again if something remains not understood. And here I would advise you to investigate unclear questions not on your own, but with a friend, with a group of friends, or with your playing partners when analysing games played.

Yes, analysis is essential. Record the games you play - if not in full, then at least as far as move 1 2 . Endeavour to give an evaluation to the position reached by this time . If the opinions of you and your colleagues differ, play six games starting from this position, look for your mistakes and note the successful ideas and strong moves of your partners - the position will become clearer, and the truth will be found.

This book is not addressed to those who cannot play chess at all. It is assumed that you at least know the moves of the pieces, the rules of the game, and chess notation. Many textbooks have been published, but far fewer self-tutors, because the self-tutor is a difficult genre, for both the author, and the reader. This self-tutor differs from others, in that

it examines the game of chess as a system, as an orderly series of elements and the relations between them. What are taken as elements are the successive positions, arising after the moves of the two players. The relationships between these positions (the elements of the game) are determined by the rules of the moves and by the move actually made . Such is the form of moving from one position to another. In essence, the relationships between the elements of the system are determined by the ideas, plans and aims, inherent in the given move and in the sequence of moves - in a manoeuvre or combination.

A systematic approach to chess assumes the existence of a previously set aim and the development of ways of achieving it. The aim of a game of chess, as is known, is to give mate to the opponent' s king, i .e . to attack the king such that it cannot be defended by any of the permitted ways: by capturing the attacking piece, by blocking (closing the line of action of the attacking piece), or by moving out of the attack, i .e . by taking the king to a safe square.

Now that you know the ultimate aim of a game of chess, I would ask you to forget about it for a long time. There is a good reason for my

2 The Modern Chess Self-Tutor

making such an unusual request. The point is that less than one per cent of chess games end in checkmate. The end usually comes much sooner, when one of the players gains a significant advantage in force, sufficient to give mate. This means that the aim of giving mate is replaced by the aim of gaining a significant advantage, which is also not simple. It can be achieved as a result of a blunder by the opponent, which is unlikely, or as a result of skilful, logical play, for which time is required. The point is that a game of chess is not simply a system, but a confrontational system. The opponent also has his aim - to give mate to your king, and, as you will notice, this aim by no means coincides with your own.

Thus at the start of the game you should not be thinking either about mate, or about rapidly gaining a big material advantage. A systematic approach consists in proceeding to one ' s aim in stages, and since the system is confrontational, you must all the time reckon with your opponent 's ideas and counter-actions, and should be concerned not only about giving mate, but also about ensuring the safety of your own king.

If you have understood these two features of a chess game as a system - the stage-by-stage achievement of the aim and the need to reckon with the confrontational situation - you,

the reader, have already to some extent become a strategist. And this is a big step in understanding the essence of chess .

Let us make the next step, and introduce the concept of the 'chess resource' . Your resources, as the ' supreme commander' of a chess army, are the pieces and space on the chess board. Your task is to make a good study of these resources, to understand all their practical possibilities - each piece in isolation and different pieces in coordination, and then arrange these resources as well as possible, deploy them and aim . . . At what? At giving mate to the opponent' s king? No ! At the achievement of stage-by-stage aims.

Now is the time to define what are the basic stages of a chess game. First you must build a shelter for your king. No, not a palace, but rather a pillbox. And not even a pillbox, since the king will not fire from there, but a securely defended command post.

Then you must come to a decision about arranging your pawn chains, which form the backbone of your entire position. Will this be a wedge on the light or the dark squares, or will you opt for a trench-like line on your 2nd or 3rd rank, or finally, will you go in for pawn clashes and exchanges in the frontier zone, clearing lines for your pieces.

Depending on the pawn formation adopted, you will also arrange your

To the Reader 3

mobile resources, gradually deploying your knights, bishops, rooks and queen on the positions that best accord with their disposition and your intentions.

After this phase too has been completed, you should prepare to 'cross the equator' . The point is that you comparatively rarely win a game if your resources are deployed in your own half of the board and are not aiming to eliminate or weaken the opponent's resources. It cannot be ruled out, of course, that the opponent himself will launch an attack, and you, by successfully defending, will so weaken him, that after counting up the forces remaining he himself will admit defeat. We wi l l call such a phase 'active defence ' .

But there will often come a moment when logic demands that you decide to break through the pawn chain, seize space, attack weak pawns or advance your pawns with the support of your pieces. It is here that a secret thought again comes to light, one which has never left you - there is after all a rule, that the winner is the player who g ives mate to the opponent's king !

Now we can put in order the stages of achieving the main aim, the basic phases of the game, and at the same time also the arrangement of this little book: a shelter for the king; the arrangement of pawn chains; the deployment of the pieces; crossing the equator; active

defence; the attack on the king. This all looks logical, but the

question may occur to you: what will your opponent be doing, since he has his own aims and has the right to reply to each of your moves with his own move, aiming to disrupt your plans?

Here there are two possibilities: (a) he will conduct the game within roughly the same logical framework as you, or (b) already at an early stage of the game he will go in for seizing the centre, pawn exchanges and rapid piece development, aiming for a direct attack on the king.

You must be prepared for each of these possible decisions. Intermediate strategies are also possible : first the opponent occupies the centre and then gradually develops his pieces, or he plays actively not on the kingside, but on the queenside. He will almost certainly construct a shelter for his king, but perhaps not one as secure as your own. You must be ready for any decision. To help you in this, the self-tutor will reveal to you the entire diverse strength of the chess pieces - each one in isolation and especially in coordination. Hence the chapters on resources : 'The strength of the pieces ' , 'The strength of the pawns' , 'The coordination of the pieces ' , and 'The strength and weakness of a position' .

This last chapter may appear the most interesting to you. It describes


how in chess, as in mechanics, there are both active forces and reactive, inertial forces. A sensible deployment of the resources will impart stability to your position, i .e . an ability to oppose external, disruptive forces. If the opponent wishes to displace your position, to move it in the direction that he desires, he will have to overcome the ' starting torque ' . This demands the enlisting of significant forces, and it is not easy to assemble and direct them. If he is aiming to break up your king' s shelter, he will have to find the key to the entire position and then try to smash it, and even to approach it is not very easy. His attacking pieces willy-nilly move far away from base, whereas your position stands on its own territory.

This potential strength of a position is something that many players do not understand and appreciate, not only players of average strength, but even masters . How many games have been lost by attacks foundering on solid defences ! The problem is that on the board, as on a diagram, one sees only the outward aspect of the position - the placing of the pieces - and the interconnections between them are concealed from view, they are open only to our mind.

So, each time, when it is your turn to move, you are obliged to make a single choice out of many possibilities . In so doing you will rely on your basic information -

your knowledge and experience, suitably systemised, and on the current information - the position on the chess board, and the series of preceding moves. You will be guided by your ideas, tastes, intuition, and, of course, calculation a few moves ahead. But not too many moves. Do not believe those who talk about calculating ten moves ahead. This applies only to strongly forcing variations, where to each move there are effectively only one or two replies. Branched variations do not usually lend themselves to direct calculation. One of the greatest chess thinkers, Richard Reti, to a question about how far he calculated vanatwns, replied: 'One move ahead' . By this, in aphoristic form, he expressed an idea which in modem terminology would be stated roughly as follows : 'The range of possibilities in chess is endless, the range of reality is unambiguous, and in such conditions the choice of a move cannot be based on the calculation of variations alone . ' In the majority of lengthy and very lengthy combinations achieved by the author, the basis was not just calculation, but a belief in the logical strength of a position, in the readiness of resources, and in their harmonious coordination.

The choice of a move is a comparison of resources and aims . You must ask each piece what it can usefully achieve on its own, what help it requires from the other

To the Reader 5

pieces, and in what way it itself is prepared to help them. All this must be done as quickly as possible, in order to also use sensibly your resource of time.

After this introduction, I hope that you will better understand the logic of this self-tutor, and the decisive role that you can play in making the self-tutor useful to you.

1 A Shelter for the Ki ng

When the chess pieces and pawns come out onto their starting positions, they are always arranged in the same order, one which has not changed through the ages.

So that it should be easier for the reader to orient himself on the squares of the chess board, the author has decided to mark out the battlefield in his own way.

Since the 1 st and 8th ranks are fully occupied by pieces, we are justified in calling these the 'piece' ranks; the 2nd and 7th ranks are occupied by rows of pawns, so these are naturally the 'pawn' ranks; the 3rd and 6th ranks are at the very start of the game covered by such heavy piece and pawn fire, that we will be quite justified in calling them the ' fortified' ranks. The imaginary narrow line that separates the 4th rank from the 5th we will

call the 'equator' , and the ranks adjacent to this imaginary belt - the 'zone of important squares' .

piece rank

pawn rank

6 B fortified rank

- - - - - - - equator - - - - - - -

4 zone of important squares

3 B fortified rank . 2 B pawn rank � 1 B piece rank B

a b c d e f g h

I would ask you to accept my innovations, since with their help it is much easier to observe and analyse the development of chess events in individual games and in episodes taken from these games. The author does not intend to make any other changes in the generally accepted chess terminology.

In order to win, a player must cross the equator and overcome the opponent first in the zone of important squares, then on the fortified line and then . . . in the vicinity of the king.

And although the path to the command post of the opposing king is long and difficult, every player

A Shelter for the King 7

believes that with the help of imagination and knowledge, tenacity and steadfastness, boldness and caution, sooner or later he will enter the headquarters of the opponent's king and will be fortunate enough to utter the sacred words 'check and mate' .

So that misfortune should not strike your king, so that it should not hear the painful words of the triumphant enemy, and so that you yourself should not be concerned for your king, it is good at the very start of the game to think about constructing a secure shelter for it.

This does not mean that such a shelter should be built from the very first move, but the foundation for a solid dug-out should be prepared early in the game. If initially you do not have the time, defer the fortification work for some five to eight moves, but, while engaged in moving your other chess forces, at least mentally sketch the outline of your king's house. It can be said that, by

building a solid house for your king, you have thereby built a shelter for your chess headquarters : after all, the chess king himself does not wage ware, but is merely a symbol of successful or inefficient strategy.

It is for this reason that in chess there as though exist two aims - you can simply, step by step, methodically destroy the enemy communications and, without hurrying, carefully eliminate his military equipment (pieces, pawns), or you can quickly, elegantly, with one swift spurt, swoop down on the king 's square and force the capitulation of its army.

What can be done so that the king 's shelter should be secure and should not demand excessive chess forces to guard it? There is no clearcut answer. If, for example, your plans include a swift advance of your kingside pawns, it is hardly advisable to send your king into this region. And, of course, if the set-up chosen in the opening demands an energetic pawn attack on the queenside, it would be unwise to castle long; it would be better to restrict yourself to quiet kingside castling, removing your king from the tempestuous region.

But in chess there are no indisputable truths . Sometimes, in the course of a heated battle, when the kings have already castled, the need may arise to throw into the battle a rank of pawns, moreover those very pawns that are covering your


headquarters, your arsenal, the king itself. Not a moment 's hesitation -throw your pawns into the attack. When the pawns cramp the opponent and form a line in the zone of important squares, even in their new place they will excellently defend their monarch . And in the space vacated behind them your pieces will be free to manoeuvre. This is how the pawn chains operate in certain variations of the King' s Indian Defence and in many variations of the Sicilian Defence . But if we are talking about standard ways of constructing a royal shelter, then apart from ordinary castling, players who by nature are accurate and cautious can be advised to construct not a shelter, but a virtual palace with double pawn walls and a personal guard, assigning to the aid of the king their knight, bishop, rook and four pawns.

The diagram clearly shows all the virtues of such a fortress compared

with the usual castled position. Can such a royal castle in fact be constructed? Of course ! Moreover, it is the easiest and most accessible thing that can be mastered when studying the game. It is sufficient on the first move to advance your knight - 1 liJD, and nothing in this world can prevent the moves 2 g3 , 3 ..tg2 . . .

Basic ways of conducting a game of chess

Today the flood of chess information is so great that in the world there is an ever decreasing number not only of polyglots, who know all the opening variations, but also of grandmasters who have fully exhausted that mass of variations, which are sometimes presented to us as the code of opening theory. Meanwhile the game of chess is basically very simple.

The forces of the warring sides are deployed in their starting lineups completely identically. The aim of the game is to win; for the achievement of which you must organise an attack on the enemy camp. Elementary logic suggests that you do not need to attack the entire camp, but its most valuable part - the headquarters of the opposing king.

For the construction of a defensive line the chess king does not have so much material available - a few pawns, a knight, and a bishop. To assign more pieces to the

A Shelter for the King 9

defence is inadvisable and risky: you must also guard the distant and close approaches to the fortress !

Over the centuries chess experience has developed a whole series of prescriptions for constructing defensive lines. Here it should be said that in chess there are no impregnable fortresses, but the degree of difficulty that your opponent has in overcoming your defences will depend on how, and with what degree of solidity, you construct your defensive lines.

Only at that moment when the forces of the warring sides come into conflict can it be said that the chess battle has begun. All that comes before is simply manoeuvring, aimed at improving the coordination between the various subunits of the chess army. When carrying out planned manoeuvres you must all the time watch for the regrouping of the opponent 's forces and introduce small corrections into your actions too. The majority of chess players forget about this .

It should also be said that it is not everyone who likes keeping an eye on the opponent, and many players follow the actions only of their own pieces. In the initial stage of the game such tactics are quite acceptable, but only up to the point when the first enemy pawn or piece appears in your half of the board. Then you must think: where, what for? But while the armies stand on the two initial ranks, the player with

White, that is the one who begins the game, has a good choice of three equivalent plans : attack, manoeuvring, or defence.

In the initial stage you can attack only with pawns: the pieces are not ready for this, since they have no scope. An attack by pawns in one compact chain is best made in the centre : if you attack without piece support from the flanks, the opponent will easily take countermeasures - he will begin a counterattack in the centre and will break through the front line, seizing favourable observation points for his knights .

Against well-defended positions, pawns in the centre do not themselves mount an offensive, rather they provide a covering for their pieces, which can ' rest' here after a march and prepare for a new attack. Now we see that the great French player Phil idor was not so naive, when t-.� said that it is the pawns that form the basis of attack. Then too, 200 years ago, pawns did not move backwards, and when they were prevented from advancing the chains congealed as they do today, creating convenient avenues for their pieces. This does not mean that pawns in the centre are not dangerous . They are not dangerous at the given moment, and the credit for this goes to Black, who himself does not advance his forces to meet them, and does not create targets to attack, but awaits the pawn chain on his

1 0 The Modern Chess Self-Tutor

own defensive line. But in any case White, after placing his pawns in the centre, will bring up his pieces behind them, creating a powerful strike force, and preparing a new storm from close range.

A second way of beginning the game, the way of experienced players, is based on a knowledge of the main defensive positions of the enemy king. Mentally picturing not only the outline, but also the completed construction of the defensive fortress, White unhurriedly deploys his forces along the front, so as then to assail the fortress from afar and gradually assemble fresh forces, again under cover of the pawns, no longer moving at random, but along a precisely defined route, to a definite point, with clearly set aims. Such strategy is very difficult to oppose, because the attacker endeavours to exclude completely any possible weaknesses in his rearguard. And for a very long time Black must be on his guard, seeking the slightest target for a counterattack.

S ince players have accumulated considerable experience in the strategy of attack with pawns, and in the strategy of slowly developing the forces across the front, aiming to extend the pressure to all the squares of the battlefield, there are some experts who say: 'Why should we be in a hurry to attack? Why should we not be the first to begin the construction of defensive lines? We are not restricted by the number of moves, we also have ample time for thought, and there are reference books with all possible prescriptions - let us try beginning our construction work. ' And it is hard to argue with them - if Black, when it is the opponent who moves first, can manage to erect various forms of defensive constructions, why should we not make a fortress that is of even better quality, more secure, more 'fire-proof? And indeed, these bold players have been proved right: their fortresses are not only almost unbreachable, but they also require a lesser expenditure of chess building material .

2 Th e Strength of the Pieces

Since we have dwelt in such detail on the question of constructing a royal fortress, a question of a different type inevitably arises: has not the author overdone it, are the opponent ' s pieces really so strong that, with the game hardly started, you must already be thinking about defence?

Yes, indeed, the opponent' s forces, if they are allowed into your territory, can in a few moves smash everything in their path. It is sufficient only for the formidable rooks to intrude onto the pawn rank, and your king will promptly experience a slight indisposition . And if the rooks should invade the piece rank, here things can soon turn into the words ' check and mate ' .

And about the opponent 's queen there is no need to say anything: its appearance at the gates of the king 's residence is always fraught with difficulties for the defence, and the invasion of the queen into the zone of the enemy king is equivalent to the appearance of a bull in a china shop.

The bishops, who use only the diagonals for their movements, prefer to display their strength from afar, supporting the invasion of the rooks or the queen. If they do invade the enemy camp, the bishops usually fulfil one and the same function -

they create breaches m the defensive wall .

All the fears associated with chess knights are based on the unique way of moving, with which these pieces are endowed from nature. With its zig-zag jumping qualities, the knight causes panic among chess novices, but merely provokes a slight ironic smile when demonstrating its pirouettes to experienced players . If due attention is paid to the opponent 's actions, the knight' s move - two squares, like a rook, and immediately a leap, again rook-like, to the square on the right or left - is not so difficult to take into account. But what is difficult is to see a knight from afar, when this piece is only preparing for a deep raid into your defensive lines.

This happens because we usually devote our main attention to the long-range pieces (the queen, rooks and bishops), whereas we look seriously and with fear at the opponent 's pawns and knights only when they have already crossed the chess equator and have entered our zone of important squares. What evidently operates here is the same law as in life, which forces us when crossing the street to keep a constant look out for a speeding cyclist, in order to avoid having an accident. At the same time we boldly step


into the on-rushing stream of cars, assuming - not always consciously - that all the complicated calculations about our meeting point with them will be automatically made for us by the subcortex of our brain. Returning to chess knights, which have a small field of view and a rather restricted speed of movement, let us nevertheless consider how to safeguard ourselves against sudden cavalry attacks.

Rules for all possible eventualities do not exist, and here it is quite obvious that, provided you do not leave your zone of important squares uncontrolled, there will be nowhere for the knight to establish itself. Another task proves much more difficult - how to safeguard yourself against unexpected leaps by the enemy cavalry into the region of the fortified rank? The opponent 's knights can reach these places from their zone of important squares, which for you to control is difficult, and indeed not necessary. If the opponent wishes to direct a knight into your camp, he will do so, and your task is not to prevent this raid.

The attentive reader will long since have noticed a contradiction in the author' s reasoning: it is easy to defend the zone of important squares, but difficult to defend the fortified rank. This is very easily explained. As the chess forces are developed, but before there is direct contact between them, the weapons

of the two warring sides approach one another, and effectively the fortified rank is shifted one rank forward, and serves as a kind of forward defensive line, whereas the former fortified rank is often insufficiently covered, in particular against knight attacks, since knights alone can jump across their own and the enemy' s piece-pawn chains .

So that the author' s view on the restricted fire-power of the knight should be more understandable, I would ask the reader to look at the following diagram.

The warring pieces situated on their initial squares could immediately embark on a piece war, were it not for the pawn screens . The firepower of the queen, rook and bishop meets the demands of long-range weapons - tanks and machine guns, if one can compare chess pieces with the simplest offensive means of local warfare at the start of our century. And in future centuries

The Strength of the Pieces 1 3

only the pawns (the author firmly believes) will still always be associated with l iving people, because it is so desirable that on the chess board should be sensed not only the breath of war, but also the pulse of human thinking, and the beating of living hearts .

Returning from the future to the present, we can easily notice the difference in strength between the knights and the remaining pieces, and the difference in strength between the queen or rooks compared with that of the bishops . In order to reach the opponent's zone of important squares, the knight requires two moves, and from there a further two to reach the opponent' s piece rank. The bishops can penetrate in one move onto the opponent 's fortified rank, but they too require a second move to reach the piece rank. And only the queen and the two rooks -of course, not all simultaneously -are able in one move to invade the enemy piece rank. And even here the queen has a privilege, in that, from its initial square only it is able in one move to announce to the enemy camp a warning 'Check! ' . And moreover in three ways : one by making a move along the rank, and two along the diagonals.

Why do the pieces need pawns?

Were it not for the eight pawns in each of the chess armies, the pieces would not battle for long. After

hurriedly slaughtering one another, the queens, rooks, bishops and knights would cease to exist within some half a dozen moves, and the dumb-founded kings would have to agree a rapid peace. But chess kings do not want a rapid peace, they want to wage war. Therefore just as ancient warriors donned their armour, so chess kings have decided to screen their forces from the fire of the enemy long-range pieces . This screening of its army has been accomplished by the kings in regal fashion : by arranging in front a screen of obedient infantry.

We have therefore come to realise that the main actors in the game of chess are the pawns . Were it not for the pawns, there would be no game. You and I would also not have played chess : without pawns, how can there be any strategy, any creative, far-reaching plans, any defensive fortifications or mobile pawn ranks for offensive aims !


And this is only the very minimum of that for which pawns exist in chess, and the minimum of those tasks which you and I must resolve, before deciding which pawn to move when and where.

Naturally, on account of their great vulnerability, pawns should advance and carry out their tasks in a group, where the principle of interchangability should operate. Having praised chess pawns, it is now the time to talk about the very best of them. I should probably name the king 's pawn - it is the most important, it is known by everyone ! Even people who do not play chess always pronounce with pleasure the magic 'pawn to king's four' . But to be truthful, the best pawns in each military camp are the king ' s bishop ' s pawns, situated at f2 and f7. These pawns deserve this recognition for their courage and for the chess feats that they have to accomplish right at the start of the game, especially when two recklessly inclined players, without making any plan for the coming battle, vigorously and boldly open the game with the moves 1 e4 e5 .

From the following diagram it is well seen that these ritual introductory moves bring heaps of trouble to the f2 and f7 pawns. For the f7 pawn it is more difficult: its army is the second one to join the battle . And although only one move for each side has been made, it turns out that after these moves the entire

course of the subsequent play is no longer under the power of the chess army commanders, but is subject to the definite demands of the resulting conflict situation.

This was not slip of the author' s tongue - conflict situation. But does that mean that before the first moves there was no conflict? That's right. Before the chess armies began their advance, the headquarters were working and the commanders were thinking, plans were being outlined and the actions of the opponent forecast. Now the orange flare has soared into the air: a pawn detachment has occupied the rank of important squares, and the opponent has replied in similar fashion . Now you can no longer outline various plans in your mind. You must, after studying the resulting military situation, analyse the probable intentions and possibilities of your opponent and (I am talking now about the white camp) endeavour with


sensible and as active moves as possible to forestall your opponent, set him difficult problems, and force him to switch to defensive strategy. Thus can our plans be influenced by one single move.

But why after all are the 'best' pawns those at f2 and fl? Because at the moment when the chess pieces come onto the battlefield, the weakest squares in the positions of White and Black are those occupied by the pawn garrisons at f2 and f7.

From the squares c4 and h5 the white bishop and queen can in turn put the f7 square under fire. A coordinated attack on the f7 pawn is needed, combining the efforts of queen and bishop, so that when the zone of the black king is invaded, the king itself should be unable to display its fighting qualities and will be forced to capitulate .

Since the rules of chess do not allow consecutive moves, naturally, neither White nor Black is able to force this mate on the opponent. The rules of chess are strict but fair: the players must move in turn, and it thus stands to reason that attack will alternate with defence . And when we see that the tasty f7 pawn is for the moment beyond our reach, our attention switches, and we involuntarily see close to our camp the enemy pawn at e5 . Moreover, we not only see it, but also sense that, firstly, the pawn has nailed our pawn to the e4 square, and secondly, the e5 pawn has begun to

exert pressure on the squares d4 and f4, situated on this side of the chess equator, along our line of important squares.

And although with our first move 1 e4 we have also put under fire the opponent's d5 and f5 squares and have prepared to advance the pawn further, threatening the d6 and f6 squares, nevertheless on seeing the opponent's pawn at e5 we forget about our own actions. This is because we want to win and we regard our active moves as rightful, whereas the actions of the opponent, creating obstacles for us, we regard as. . . obstacles . Talking concretely about the e5 pawn, this is an obstacle that we would like to remove.

How can we combat the opponent's pawn? It can be blocked, it can be taken, it can be attacked, it can . . . no, at an early stage it is difficult to pin an enemy pawn; however the author has forgotten about the all-powerful strength of the queen. Thus in this last diagram the queen is capable of pinning the f7 pawn by �h5 . We have only just appreciated this, when we hear the voice of the king 's bishop: 'What about me?' In fact, by ..1b5 it can pin . . . the black d7 pawn. These two possibilities seem unimportant for understanding the situation in the diagram.

Perhaps this is so. But is it not important that, having the possibility of pinning the f7 and d7 pawns (or f2 and d2), knowing that the rule of the pin operates, we did not think


about this pin, did not see it, and did not try to employ it to our advantage? When in your own games, you make inaccurate moves and then try to justify yourself - saying that you did not see this and that - remember this example. Only a computer can take account of everything in chess. And even that is not quite so, since the mechanical part of the game is not chess; real chess, where you need to have sensations, can be played only by us, l iving people.

Let us return to the black pawn at e5 (it is now White ' s turn to move). Let us together give some thought as to how we can, if not eliminate this obstacle, then at least begin a battle against it, how to reduce its fighting potential or at least outline a plan of struggle with the pawn and the further development of the play. But with what should we fight in the first instance? Should we attack the pawn and physically eliminate it, or with the threat of elimination force the pawn to expend its energy and move to the square we require? There the pawn, although able to restore its fighting strength on its next move, is not able to carry out those plans with which it was entrusted from e5 . In order to simply capture the e5 pawn, White has available two moves with his pieces and two moves with his pawns. These moves should be arranged in order of seniority of the pieces employed: 'iih5, 4Jf3 , d2-d4 and f2-f4.

Now you will surely have

guessed why the author of this selftutor has talked at such length, so boringly and at times even tediously about almost one and the same thing. If even on the second move in chess there are a mass of possibilities, what about later? . . .

The struggle at the equator

When in a practical game you have to make a choice on the second move (whether to play 'it'h5 , 4Jf3 , d2-d4 or £2-f4) you should always be guided by a simple and easy rule - choose a move in accordance with your intended chess strategy, with your own plan of play and, last but not least, with your usual mood . . . as a living person, the seventeenth fighting unit. Eight pieces, eight pawns, and one person - the brain of the entire army.

Naturally, if we wish to force capitulation quickly we immediately make the most powerful move 2 'ii'h5, in the secret hope of 2 . . .rJiJe7 3 'ii'xe5 mate ! But who has managed to win in this way even once in his life? No one. This is also perfectly natural: no one will move the king on the second move. And the threat of concentrating fire on the f7 square will also be easily guessed. So you should also not hope for variations in the spirit of 2 . . . g6 3 'ii'xe5+ and 4 'ii'xh8 . For the moment the f7 pawn is not threatened, and Black has time to defend his e5 pawn with 2 . . . 4Jc6 or 2 . . . d6. But if


this is so, then was it worth using the fire-power of such a strong piece as the queen, in order to attack the eS pawn? Of course not.

Here it is time to think about the move 2 li:JD. I will say immediately, without hiding the fact, that nowadays all the best players in the world give preference to this attack, forgetting about waiting moves such as 2 li:Jc3 or 2 i..c4 and decisively rejecting the pawn advances 2 d4 and 2 f4 . Those wishing to learn as much as possible about these branches of the chess opening can easily find the necessary information in thick monographs and multitome encyclopaedias . The author' s task i s a different one - to substantiate the strength of li:JD and the weakness of the pawn moves d2-d4 and f2-f4 . I have to admit that this task is beyond my powers.

Firstly, the author himself has quite often played f2-f4 on the second move and has even won. Secondly, in itself the move d2-d4 is so good, that one cannot really find any fault with it. So why then is the move 2 li:JD preferable? Because the moves 2 f4 and 2 d4, just like the composite first move 1 e4 eS, immediately restrict the further paths available to the white pieces and pawns, to a considerable extent deciding the course of immediate events and forcing the army of pieces to act in a strictly determined way. And the opponent knows this.

On the other hand, by choosing the solid development of the king' s knight 2 li:Jf3 , you have not only made an important step in the direction of constructing a shelter for your king, but have also strengthened the moves d2-d4 and f2-f4 themselves, which will now constantly hang over the black eS pawn, but which will be made in circumstances when the appearance of the pawns at d4 and f4 will be judged useful not only for the pawns themselves, but also for the remaining pieces. Thus whereas the choice of 2 'ii'hS is based on a reckless desire to attack, burning your boats, and 2 d4 and 2 f4 are dictated by aggressive feelings against the black eS pawn, 2 li:JD unites all these feelings and in addition proves useful to the white king, by vacating for it the g 1 square.

Evaluating this sensible action by the king's knight, we can state that this step is the first stage of a definite plan, an important element of which is the coordination of the pieces and pawns with the aim of better fulfilling the major tasks set. And if the reader in his chess playing will always adhere to this main rule - to play with one piece for the benefit of all the pieces as a whole, he will be successful. Even in the event of a chance failure, he will never be left with the bitter aftertaste of a wastefully and impulsively conducted game. If you move a pawn or piece, always

IS The Modern Chess Self-Tutor

remembering not about the desires of this fighting unit, but of the demands of your entire army as a whole, you will be threatened with a loss only when your opponent carries out the same strategy, but somewhere, in some detail, he is able to surpass you. Well then, find your inaccurate decisions, think about your mistakes, learn, and try to ensure that in your next game these mistakes are not repeated. But after all, your opponent also has the right to make mistakes, which, I would venture to assert, we do not always notice . That means. . . That means that chess mistakes are not so terrible . The opponent may see them, but will not always be able to exploit them to his advantage. But you, on seeing your mistakes, can begin to correct them. Also an interesting occupation . For example, after I e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 we see that the unpleasant check . . .'it'h4+ is threatened. Then we either cover the h4 square with the familiar move 3 ti:'!£3, or we vacate for our king the convenient square fl with 3 j_c4, in passing and as though unwillingly aiming the bishop at the f7 pawn. If Black should hurry to give a check -3 . . .'it'h4+, then after 4 'it>fl .i.c5 5 d4 his attack will be vigorously suppressed, and although the black bishop and queen cannot be forced back to their initial positions, in the situation after 5 . . . j_b6 6 ti:'!f3 'i'h5 7 .i.xf4 Black, even with the right to move, is not to be envied.

And now who can say what mistake was made by White? None ! He simply played too boldly, this excited Black, and he . . . began attacking impulsively. On a brief glance at the diagram, the situation may not seem so catastrophic for Black.

Indeed, not one of the white pawns or pieces has crossed the equator of the battlefield, White ' s king has lost the right to castle, and he will have to spend a move on releasing the rook at hI from imprisonment. True, the white bishops are aimed at the c7 and f7 pawns, but the pawns are defended by the bishop at b6 and by the black king. In general, things for Black do not seem so sorry. This happens because, in seeing the defects in Black's position, we hope gradually to eliminate them, forgetting that the opponent will simultaneously aim to exploit our defects to his advantage. Without understanding this factor it is difficult to make

The Strength of the Pieces 19

progress in the study of chess. In life we can often do something more quickly one day, and more slowly the next. In chess, counting one move as one day, each of us, playing Black or playing White - it makes no difference - can in one move-day make only one chess action with one pawn or piece . Therefore, when planning in this position those moves which should, in Black' s opinion, correct his position, we must inevitably intersperse in them those moves by White, with which the opponent will endeavour to improve his position and simultaneously endeavour to prevent us from coordinating the efforts of our pieces and pawns. Speaking in understandable chess language, while Black is bringing his dormant forces on the piece rank close to the equator, White will have time to awaken his knight at b 1 .

On the development of his knight at b 1 White will spend just one move. Then, after slightly adjusting the placing of his queen, he will rapidly swing his rook at a 1 to one of the central files. These two actions will take a further two moves. That makes three moves in total . Black is unable to prevent his opponent' s actions, since White, by occupying a group of important squares in his zone, has practically driven the black battalions onto the piece rank, and now Black's dream is to somehow at least set up a screen along the fortified line. Let

us suppose that during those three moves Black manages to play . . . lt:Jc6, . . . d7-d6 and . . . lt:Jf6 . Not bad, but remember about White ' s moves lt:Jc3 , 'iid2 and l:le l . We then reach the following position.

Look again at the previous diagram . Try to evaluate the probable actions of the opponent and your possible actions during the course of these three moves.

Why? In order to find a mistake by you or your opponent and on another occasion, in a similar situation, to act better if possible . Strictly speaking, the life of chess armies consists in the art of switching from one position to another. And this is my and your task, when we take on ourselves the responsibility for the success of a chess encounter. And if we do not see a way to improve the positions of our pieces, then we must at least make sure than these positions are not worsened.


In evaluating Black's actions, beginning after 7 �xf4, where he is in a difficult position, it has to be said that he has played well : he has freed a path for his bishop at c8, and also for his king and king 's rook, and - this is the most important - he did not immediately develop his knight at f6, but first weakened the possible advance e4-e5, by placing a pawn cover at d6 . There was nothing more that he could have achieved.

And now let us evaluate the situation in the last diagram. The appearance of the white rook has prepared the e4-e5 breakthrough, and Black has only one way of avoiding the immediate rout of his chess army - by castling. Make the castling move and try to determine the best reply for White . This is not easy.

The white pieces are extremely active compared with Black's passive forces. In such situations one always begins looking for a spectacular concluding blow, whereas one should be seeking. . . simply a chess move. The move depends on the immediate aim for the sake of a general long-term offensive plan. The king blocks the path of the rook at h l to the f1 square, so let us move the king onto the pawn rank - II c,t>£2. But if White is intending to attack the black queen with his pawns, it is preferable to play h2-h3 , then �h2 and g2-g4 . You see, the rook does not always have to aim

for the useful square fl . In the event of castling, the rook ends up there at the will of the king, but here it may do what it wants, again not for its own narrow, selfish aims, but for the sake of successfully uniting the actions of all the units of the army.

In the given sample variation of the attack, to trap the black queen hardly proves possible, except perhaps in the variation I e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 .i.c4 'ifh4+ 4 'it>fl .i.c5 5 d4 .i.b6 6 tl:lf3 'ifh5 7 .i.xf4 d6 8 tl:lc3 tl:lc6 9 'if d2 tl:lf6 I 0 .Ue I 0-0 1 1 h3 .i.g4 I2 hxg4 'i'xh i + 1 3 'it>t2 tl:lxg4+ I4 �g3 . No, even here the queen can slip out to h5, although you may be able to drive it to the rook' s file on the queenside, to aS . There for a time you will be able to forget about the black queen and it will even practically cease to exist, because such a narrow zone is dangerous for the queen - at any moment it may be attacked by a pawn. But it is best to ignore the wishes of the a2 and b2 pawns, and not to go chasing the black queen.

My advice is this: after bringing up all your main forces into the region of important squares and setting up a flexible pawn chain, spend some time considering how you can organise the forcing of. . . the equator. It was for this, in order to successfully force the equator, so that the opponent' s resistance in the zone of his important squares was minimal, that you and I so painstakingly worked out a plan of attack


immediately after . . . the first moves l e4 e5 . But such a rapid opportunity of assailing the chess enemy with all our forces arose only because Black brought his main piece - his queen - into play too early. If, for example, after seizing with the pawn the f4 square - 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 - Black had replied to 3 .tc4 with the simple 3 . . . tbf6, attacking the pawn outpost at e4, an equal and tenacious struggle would have been in prospect, and it is altogether unclear who would have been the first to cross the central line of the chess battlefield, our imaginary equator.

But since 2 f4 is not obligatory, let us return to the more flexible attack 1 e4 e5 2 tbf3 .

The bishop is very strong in the struggle for diagonal roads, but

absolutely helpless in the struggle for files and ranks

The bishops - white and black - are very important weapons in chess. They are useful, or more correctly, irreplaceable, in conditions where most of the squares are filled with pawns, rooks and knights . And whereas for the knights the task of mounting distant artillery fire at the opponent is simply beyond their powers, the powerful rooks, if they are blocked in by their own, or sometimes by enemy men, may also be unable to fulfil their potential .

In such conditions, when all the

paths appear to be securely blocked, the wise commander calls on his bishops, which from distant shelters can mount long-range and unceasing fire on the opponent' s position. There are only two ways of countering such a bishop. The most effective is to attack the bishop with a knight and to eliminate it. But how is the opponent's knight to force its way into a well-guarded camp? The second way is simpler, and it is more often used - to directly oppose the enemy bishop with your own. As soon as the bishop opens fire, there follows an answering series of shells.

This artillery skirmish invariably ends with the bishops eliminating each other. Sometimes this fate befalls two bishops, and even all four, when the battle is being conducted by cautious players in accordance with all the rules of science. You don't have to look far for examples. Nowadays, not just in every tournament, but in every round of any international event, you can see this modem strategy of mutually safeguarding security at the expense of the bishops .

But after losing the support of the bishops, the advancing infantry immediately becomes less mobile. With no support from the rear, active rooks are deprived of many well-tried manoeuvres. The queen, if it is unprotected from behind, is unable to approach the king through breaches in the pawn defences and,


standing right next to the commander of the enemy army, proudly announce: 'Check and mate ' .

Now, for such a dream to be realised, a pawn must be brought up, but it moves slowly, it never retreats, and everyone sees it coming, so that such a plan of attack will easily be guessed - the hopes of realising it are faint. A knight might also help the queen, but can a knight really slip in here? It may slip in for an instant, but it will promptly be killed by superior forces. But a bishop, a bishop would have helped from afar. And if an attack on it was arranged, then, firstly, the opponent would have had to carry out a dangerous, lengthy raid, exposing his centre, and secondly, the bishop might escape from the pursuers and, after wandering through the white and black pieces, again emerge at a useful firing position. Therefore no genuinely aggressive player will simply exchange his bishops, even for an opponent 's rook, and he will not even consider exchanging one for an enemy knight.

As is the case in other walks of life, here too there are many reasons why we deviate from the strict rules undertaken. But these exceptions are rare, and it is simply a fact that a bishop, standing on a good, long diagonal aimed at the opponent' s king, is better than any rook or knight.

If bishops are so strong, why is so little said about them? The reply can

be formulated thus: more is said not about the pieces that are strong, but about those that are dangerous. For chess beginners the most dangerous piece appears to be the knight. Its path cannot be drawn geometrically on the board, at each step it changes the colour of its square, and even when the knight has made a move, it is never clear in which direction it is planning to move next.

A free knight in the centre of the chess board can move in any of eight directions, whereas a bishop in its most ideal position can move only in four.

But if one looks at the bishop from the viewpoint of the person, responsible for the outcome of the battle, where a rapid victory cannot be expected, where all our knight forks, ambushes and other childish tricks will be easily guessed, and where a lengthy battle is inevitable, when it comes to ubiquity and universality of employment, bishops are far superior to the fastidious, unwieldy knights.

And yet there are many players (the author, I am sorry to say, is among them) who often, early in the game, exchange their bishops for knights . The secret is, evidently, that in these concrete situations, while the board is blocked, knights can be more useful for the work immediately required. This happens rarely. About bishops one can talk indefinitely, and I am even surprised that I have not yet seen a


monograph about chess bishops. It is possible, even, that in the past bishops were the most important pieces .

Everyone playing a game of chess has two bishops. One moves on the dark, and the other on the light diagonals . The bishops appear to be equivalent, but their roles in the forthcoming battle are different. The king' s bishop is most useful in guarding the king 's fortress. And not surprisingly, even in those openings where the light-square bishop is carried away by an early attack - 1 e4 e5 2 liJf3 lbc6 3 .i.b5 -in the end the bishop either returns to f1 , or transfers to c2, in order from a distant, well-covered position to defend an important strong point of the king 's fortress - the e4 pawn. And irrespective of where you have placed the bishop - at e2, or g2, or kept in waiting at f1 - it is definitely a defensive fighter, and this must be clearly understood. In old-style openings the king ' s bishop rushed to attack the f7 pawn, but in principle this attack comes to nothing, and fairly quickly. And if in this way the white pieces achieve success, this merely indicates that they are being guided by a player who is more experienced than the black leader. But this does not testify to any virtue of the global strategy of early attacks with .i.fl -c4 .

Fischer - Bronstein Herzog Novi (blitz) 1970

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 lbc3 .ltb4 4 e5 b6 5 a3 .i.f8 6 f4 lbc6 7 liJf3 liJh6 8 .i.d3 liJf5 9 lbe2 h5 1 0 g3 .ltb7 1 1 c3 �d7 12 �c2 0-0-0 1 3 b4 f6 1 4 .i.d2 �b8 1 5 0-0 liJfe7 1 6 lifb 1 h4 1 7 lbxh4 g5 1 8 fxg5 fxe5 1 9 �fl exd4 20 cxd4 .i.g7 2 1 .i.c3 e5 22 l:tfl

22 . . . exd4 23 l:hg7 l::!.xh4 24 gxh4 �g4+ 25 lbg3 dxc3 26 'i!Vxc3 d4 27 'i¥d2 lbe5 28 llfl liJd5 29 .i.f5 lbf3+ 30 l;lxf3 'i!Vxf3 3 1 .lte4 'i!Vxa3 32 11ixd4 'ilt'c 1+ 33 �f2 lif8+ 34 liJf5 lbc3 35 .ltxb7 !t.xf5+ 36 ..tf3 liJd5 37 l:tg8+ �b7 38 'iie4 'i!Vd2+ 39 �g3 c6 40 'iixf5 'iie l + 4 1 �g4 lbe3+ 42 �f4 lbxf5 43 �xf5 'ti'xb4 44 �g7+ �c8 45 .lte4 'iif8+ 46 �g6 'i'e8+ 47 �f5 'i'f8+ Yz-Yz

There were more chess incidents in this game, than in many a serious, heavyweight, five-hour ' struggle ' . . .

A grandmaster i s probably right to talk to his chess pieces. I wish to give one piece of advance, to the queen ' s bishop: don't hurry either to


come into play, or to draw routine conclusions. Before a game one can outline an excellently detailed plan of campaign, but on being confronted with a real opponent, behind whom is seen the experienced hand and the mature mind of a knowledgeable person, commanding the chess pieces, invariably much will be disimilar to or not at all like what was planned. And possibly it is also intended that the queen' s bishop should wait at c 1 , but at some moment it seems more useful to make a sortie to g5 or a3 . Well, it should chance its arm.

Or suddenly - I am now talking to the readers - you will see that, by occupying b2 with the bishop, you can effectively fire at the black kingside pawn at g7. Don't hesitate for a moment - the queen' s bishop will never find a better target than the black g7 pawn. Only, it is a little annoying that this pawn can move to g6. Well, even here there is no need to despair: it is also useful to keep the h8 square under fire . Suppose that on the open h-file a white rook or queen were to break through to here ! What then would support the queen or the rook? The bishop !

And if the black king is at g8 together with a black pawn at f7, then - as happens in the happiest dreams! - no black piece, nor all of them together, however many there are on the board, will be able to revoke the 'check and mate' announced by the

bishop at b2 and the rook at h8 or the queen, which has two routes to the h8 corner . . . For the sake of such an aim it is worth waiting a long, long time at b2 .

To conclude this account of the functions of bishops in attack and defence, I should say that the black bishops have the same aspirations as White ' s, only at the start of the game it is early for them to be thinking about attack. They can dream, but the task of defending their lines is a more important matter.

The author has not yet said anything about those situations, where each of the players has one bishop and these bishops move on diagonals of different colour. Such pieces, naturally, are called opposite-colour bishops. I will say just a few words about them. In attack this type of bishop displays such power, that it scatters from its path not only pawns, not only rooks, but sometimes even queens - to oppose it with one 's own bishop of the same colour is impossible, and knights are incapable of battling against it.

Perhaps all that remains is to block the diagonal with a rook, but for the rook, as a rule, it is after all a pity: the attack may be parried, and the battlefield may clear - in such situations a rook can be very useful. And yet if a bishop, which has no opponent, is firing directly along an open diagonal, a rook will be happy


to offer itself in exchange. At the very end of the game,

when two players have left just a few pawns and bishops of opposite colour, one can also see a rare spectacle: traversing the board from edge to edge, the quick-moving 'opposite-colour' bishop can often cope successfully with dangerous passed pawns, since the other bishop cannot defend its pawns - in opposite-colour bishop endings each bishop can only attack, and is unable to lend any support on squares of the other colour. Here often the question 'who beats who?' is decided by the placing of the kings .

After all that has been said about each of the bishops individually, there is no need to sing the praises of the two bishops together. When in the height of the battle they gain space on two adjacent diagonals, their attack becomes extremely dangerous . If the bishops begin their destructive actions in the endgame, it is often difficult for a rook and knight to oppose them, and a knight and bishop always have problems. If in the opening the bishops succeed in provoking the opponent into an open duel, the outcome is always dismal for the army whose commander is attracted by material gains and has not taken any measures to guard his camp against the powerful long-range fire.

The coordination of the pieces is an essential feature of any chess formation. But as long as there is on

the board a mass of forces of different character, and when their interrelations are complicated, disputing the files, ranks, diagonals in the zone of important squares and close to the regions of the enemy castled positions, at such times it is difficult to distinguish clearly what is coordination, and what is simply the useful drawing up of reserves from the depths of the rearguard. But when part of the forces have left the battlefield, especially if the pawn chains are mutually blocking each other, it can be very convenient to ensure that the pieces help one another, for consistency in fulfilling the same general task.

Let us take an example.

With the pawn chains blocked, we must first evaluate their reserve strength. The base of the white pawn chain f5-e4-d3-c4 is in White ' s fortified zone and is in a place that it is difficult for Black to approach. The black pawn chain


d4-e5-f6, on the other hand, has a weak support - the f6 pawn, which is close to an important operational file and is liable to be attacked by the white bishop. Moreover, the bishop is already aiming at this pawn. Why is this black pawn such a temptation to the white bishop?

The white bishop is dreaming of reaching f6, in order to create a direct threat to the life of the black king at h8 . How can the remaining pieces render assistance to the bishop in fulfill ing this task? There are usually two ways in which this can be done . The first is to bring up forces to storm the given target. The second is to try to divert the attention of the opponent from the target being defended, which will enable the invasion point to be taken, without any additional weapons, by those existing forces that the attacking side has at the present moment.

In the above position the point in question is securely defended. Even if forces are brought up to attack the f6 pawn, the result may not be achieved, since Black has in reserve not only . . . �f7, but also . . . !taf8. The position is taken from the game Duras-Swiderski (Vienna 1 908).

Anticipating the massed storming of the f6 square, Black cleared the way for his rook from a8 to f8: 1. .•

i.b7. The game continued 2 'ifh6 �ti 3 l::tg6 �af8 4 llhgl d5, and Black repelled the first onslaught.

Had White employed the second attacking technique, endeavouring

to divert the black forces from the defence of f6, the finish (in the actual game White won, by withdrawing his queen from h6 and by switching his bishop from h4 to h6) could have come quite quickly: 3 l:tg7 :xg7 4 i.xf6 "iif7 5 �g l �ag8 6 l::tg4.

In this position Black can stop the clocks with a clear conscience, since the chess battlefield has arbitrary boundaries and the black king, with its back to the wall, has only one viable square - h8. And that not for long. Any move by Black is answered by the technically clear, even somewhat spectacular mate, based on the coordination of the queen, rook, bishop and f5 pawn: 7 'iixh7+ 'il;xh7 8 �h4 mate ! This win was found independently by the author, after barely glancing at the diagram after 1 . . .i.b7 2 'ifh6 :n (in some book), but there is nothing to boast of here: the method of invading with the rook at g7 is so


hackneyed and thoroughly studied that the only surprising thing is that Duras stopped his rook at g6 and did not play it to g7. And how did the author think of the move l:tgl -g7? He simply operated by the familiar method of trial and error. However, he did not poke about over the entire board, but immediately began searching where all the indications suggested that something might be found.

A bishop on the a l -h8 diagonal with the opponent 's king at h8 is a frequent motif of various attacks. For example, in the World Championship Match of 1 95 1 against Botvinnik the author gained his last win precisely with this technique.

This position was reached after both sides had launched attacks, and with time trouble imminent. It is White to move. The inclusion of the white bishop in the battle for the important e5 square immediately

decides the outcome. 1 �g3 �g7 2 'ti'xg8+ Black resigns.

Apart from the fact that the white bishop could not be taken by the bishop on account of 1 . . .�xg3 2 'ti'b2+, the white queen too could not be taken by the queen on account of 2 l:tf8+ 'ti' g8 3 �xe5 mate ! And the black bishop also did not have the right to move from e5, since it was at the intersection of the important a l -h8 and h2-b8 diagonals.

Now here is a more complicated instance. In the game NajdorfGolombek (Moscow Olympiad 1 956) the following position arose.

It is White to move. The eternally young, eternally sociable, highly effusive Argentine grandmaster boldly and vigorously went onto the attack: 1 �xh7 'ti'c6 2 l:td5 exd5 3 'ti'h5, but after Black 's brilliant defensive resource 3 ••• <&t>g7 he was obliged to force a draw. The secret of White' s failure was that the

' H '/he Modern Chess Self-Tutor

u l t c 1 1 1 pl to continue the attack by playing his bishop to c l would have unpinned the black pawn and allowed . . . f6-f5 . But had he not been in a hurry to celebrate a swift victory and had simply withdrawn his bishop into safety with 1 �b 1 , then Black ' s position would have collapsed of its own accord. To withstand the pressure of two united bishops on the adjacent a l -h8 and b l -h7 diagonals is beyond the powers of any grandmaster (the pawn at f6 is very weak) . Black's sole defence l . . .'iic6 could have been overcome by 2 f3 h6 3 'ii'h5 rJ;;g7 4 .:td4 .i.c5 5 rJi;g2 i.xd4 6 'if g4+ rJi;h8 7 .i.xd4 e5 8 'i'f5 exd4 9 'i'h7 mate ! Other variations on the same theme were also possible, but everywhere the decisive role would be played by the formidable bishop at b2, lurking behind its pawns. It stands to reason that in combination with the bishop at b 1 it became even better, and together such bishops are capable of piercing virtually any wall . In the given example it is also interesting that the bishop at e4 could freely concede the h l -a8 diagonal to the enemy bishop. The reason for this was the weakening of the black king ' s defences.

The reader can check the author' s assertion about the irresistible nature of two bishops, doubled on the a l -h8 and b l -h7 diagonals, from the following position.

A superficial glance may suggest that the prospects of the warring

chess armies are roughly equal : the central area is free of pawn elements and can be used equally for manoeuvres by both the white, and the black forces. The equatorial line, securely dividing the troops, guarantees a peaceful mobilisation of the forces for at least the next four to five moves, no concentration of offensive forces close to the castled positions is observed, and only a white knight and a black pawn have penetrated into the zone of the opponent' s important squares, but these forces are in no way able to influence the evaluation of the position as a whole.

I recall that my playing partner (the example is taken from the game Bronstein-Keres, played in 1 955 at Gothenburg during the FIDE Interzonal Tournament), thought for quite a long time on his previous move before capturing a pawn with a pawn ( . . . d5xc4). An attacking specialist such as Keres knew better


than anyone that such a move handed the turn to move to the opponent. But I think that he mainly examined the variations with the initial move 1 t2Jf5 , creating the threat of tbxh6+, opening up the black king' s defences for the two powerful white bishops. Therefore the actual implementation of the threat 1 .lixh6 both surprised Black, and to a certain extent vexed him . It turned out that the bishops did not need the help of the knight, and that from the initial positions they themselves could initiate an attack. In the event of 1 t2Jf5 l1e8 2 .lixh6 .lif8 chess time would have been lost, and the black bishop would have succeeded in occupying a prepared defensive position. But after 1 .lixh6 gxh6 2 'ii'd2 the white queen followed the bishop' s route in penetrating to h6, and created fresh and complicated problems for Black.

This position, taken from the game Kaplan-Bronstein (Hastings

1 975/6), illustrates the strength of the two bishops in a completely open position. Exploiting his turn to move, Black immediately attacked the white rook - l. .. .lig4 2 l1el, and when the defensive lines around the white knight had been weakened, he intensified the pressure on the knight, sending his bishop to the aid of his queen - 2 ... .lig5. From being difficult, White 's position was immediately transformed into a hopeless one. Because not only were the black bishops threateningly impending over the knight at d2, and not only was the rook at a8 ready to come to their assistance, but also the white queen' s effectiveness was amazingly low. And in the event of the offensive actions of the black bishops and rooks coming to a halt, there was also the reserve possibility of a queenside pawn advance . It is precisely this factor - the possibility of exploiting free reserves -that determines the overwhelming superiority of one side or the other.

White ' s last attempt to maintain material equality looked like this : 3 i.d3 - with the aim of diverting Black's attention from the move . . . l1ad8, by covering the knight at d2 . However, here the opponents had a mutual misunderstanding -White was concerned about his knight at d2, whereas for Black the attack on the knight was merely a diversionary manoeuvre, his plans being associated with an invasion at e 1 . The basis for such optimism by

1 0 nw Modern Chess Self-Tutor

l l l nd .. 1 � prov ided hy the motif of m 1 N i l'll1 l l �c : t he kn ight at d2 is h lo�k i ng its queen 's path to the square e I , wh ich is completely open lo i nvasion by the black rooks.

Therefore Black, although he might well have played 3 . . . c4 4 i.xc4 :adS, nevertheless preferred to follow his own plan of 3 .. J:t.ae8, luring his opponent into a trap : 4 h3 .l:he l + 5 �xe l 'ii'f2 6 :n :es 7 hxg4 l::te l + ! Although White was in time trouble, he saw through this ruse, and succeeded in turn, while avoiding the trap, in setting Black a problem: 4 .l::t.efl 'ii'e3 5 h3 .te2 6 lit'S.

A situation has been reached where the black queen must be attentive : White has created the threat of 7 i.xe2 't!Vxe2 8 .l::txg5 , and has prepared to pin the e2 bishop with l:.e l . The black queen solved its task worthily, ordering the g5 bishop to retreat to the h-file, avoiding the attack by the rook, but not removing the pressure on the knight at d2 . Here White saw that, after 6 .. . .th6, actively bringing his rook into play, as planned, by 7 :e 1 could lead to the familiar finish: 7 . . . 't!Vg3 8 .l::txe2 'iie l + !

After thinking for the few minutes remaining to the time control, the Ex-World Junior Champion decided to force the capitulation of his own king, for which he chose an elegant variation: 7 i.xe2 't!Vxc3 8 bxc3 .l::txe2 9 .l::td5 .l::txd2 10 .l::txd2 .l::td8 1 1 .l::tdl c4.

After exhausting all his pawn moves, like it or not White has to move one of his pieces. In this example the power of two bishops in an open situation revealed itself quite strikingly.

And now a more distant example, again on the theme of the power of the two bishops, on this occasion in a semi-closed type of position.

This fragment is taken from the game Bronstein-Siiwa (lnterzonal


Tournament, Gothenburg 1 955) . It is White to move.

Black had replied to White 's previous move 'iVb2-a3 with . . . lt'Jh5-g7, ignoring the threat of i.xd5, since he was counting on successfully parrying the attack with . . . lt'Jf5 . Even s o White, who in his preliminary calculations had taken account of the black knight' s manoeuvres, did not decline the duel and resolutely captured the black pawn - 1 i.xd5 tt'Jf5 2 i.eS .l::txc3 3 'ii'xc3.

Only here did my opponent realise that White ' s calculations had been more . accurate - the queen cannot take the bishop: 3 . . .'it'xd5 4 'ir"cS+ ! , the same mating motif as in the previous example. Black also did not take the e5 bishop with his rook on account of i.c6, but after 3 .. . lt'Jxe3 4 i.c6 he lost his knight and resigned a move or two later.

Quite recently, when examining anew this old game, I unexpectedly saw that Black could have resisted the pressure of the white bishops, supported by the rooks. He should nevertheless have taken the bishop -

3 . . . lixe5 and on 4 ii.c6 replied 4 . . . lt'Jxd4 5 exd4 'ir"a7 6 i.xa4 l!d5 .

What is interesting in this example is not so much the work of the bishops, as the energy of the white rooks, which suddenly come into play along the c-file after for a long time dozing behind the bold bishop at c7.

At the start of our acquaintance we examined the 'conflict' after I

e4 e5 . The fact that Black ' s defensive task here is not an easy one is best seen in the example of a complete chess game, played in some important international event. Let us examine the game KarpovUnzicker, which took place at the 1 974 Olympiad in Nice.

1 e4 e5 2 tt'Jf3 lt'Jc6 3 i.bS a6 4 i.a4 lt'Jf6 5 0-0 i.e7 6 .l::te1 bS.

It is difficult to believe that it is this pawn move that is the initial cause of Black's loss in this game. However, the cautious 6 . . . d6 is not to every player' s taste, and besides, the move of the queen' s pawn is also not without its drawbacks. In general, the author is glad to repeat that there are no ideal moves in chess, and it is excellent that there are not: one always has to take risks .

7 ii.b3 d6 8 c3 0-0 9 h3 tt'Jas 10 i.c2 c5 11 d4 'i!Vc7 12 tt'Jbd2 lt'Jc6.

Completing a complicated pirouette, the knight returns to c6. Perhaps grandmaster Leonid Stein was right, along with the Hungarian maestro Gyula Breyer, in reckoning that Black's best method of defence was the knight manoeuvre 9 . . . lt'Jb8 followed by . . . tt'Jbd7, . . . ii.b7 etc. , simultaneously keeping the queen' s bishop' s pawn on its original square . Why does the pawn stay on its original square? To have the possibility of attacking the d5 square? However, in the game the pawn was unable to cope with this task - pawns do not move backwards . So was IO . . . c5 also an over-


hasty move? Possibly. There are players who prefer 1 0 . . . �b7 or even 1 0 . . . ltJc4. In chess there are various ways to win and . . . to lose.

13 d5. And here a pawn crosses the

equator. Such a decision demands boldness, knowledge, and confidence in one ' s own creative powers. From d5 the pawn will have an excellent view of the military action, but no personal activity. Not true. There will be no personal mobility, but its activity will be considerable - squares on the opponent 's fortified rank come under the control of the pawn, and now none of the opponent' s pieces can move without fear to c6 or e6.

13 ... ltJd8 14 a4. Increasing the effectiveness of the

rook at a 1 , since after the exchange on b5 the rooks will come into open contact. The pawn cannot move from b5, since the character of the battle is such that the black army has entrusted this pawn with the task of on no account allowing the white cavalry to go to c4 . This pawn mistake - a symbolic crossing of the equator without the agreement of the pieces - led to a catastrophe for Black in the well known game Capablanca-Vidmar (New York 1 927): 1 4 . . . b4 1 5 ltJc4 aS 1 6 lLlfxe5 i.a6 1 7 i.b3 dxe5 1 8 d6 (this pawn may after all become mobile) 1 8 . . . i.xd6 1 9 'ifxd6 'ifxd6 20 tLlxd6 tLlb7 2 1 tLlxb7 i.xb7 22 cxb4 cxb4 23 f3 .:tfd8 24 i.e3 h6 25 l:.ed 1 i.c6

26 :ac l �e8 27 �f2 :xd1 28 :xd 1 :c8 29 g4 �d7 30 �b6 �e6 3 1 �xe6 fxe6 32 :d8+ :xd8 33 �xd8 ltJd7 34 �xa5 ltJcS 3 5 b3 tLlxb3 36 �xb4 tLld4 37 aS 1 -0 . Naturally, Unzicker did not want to follow in the footsteps of Professor Vidmar.

14 ... :bs 15 axb5 axb5 16 b4. A fresh pawn attack. While creat

ing tension on the pawn squares b4 and c5, White simultaneously fixes a target for possible attack - the b5 pawn - and expands the manoeuvring space available to his pieces, since what is important is not only the abstract strength of the longrange pieces, but also their possibility of easily regrouping to carry out different orders from the king 's headquarters. Now Black is faced with a new problem - what to do with the pawn at c5? It is evident that all these problems, like a thread from a ball, were drawn after itself by the impatient black king' s pawn, which rushed out onto the firing line at e5 . But we will not reproach the pawn, since the move is not in itself bad; the only question is whether or not Black knew what was awaiting him? Unzicker knew, since with White he himself very much likes to attack Spanish-style: 1 e4 e5 2 t2Jf3 tLlc6 3 �b5 .

But let us return to his game with Karpov, where it is now Black to move.

16 ... tLlb7 17 tLln i.d7 18 i.e3 .l:.a8 19 'iid2 llfc8 20 i.d3 g6 21


lbg3 i.f8 22 %:.a2 . Here Black gave up further at

tempts to support with the lone d6 pawn the two pawn garrisons - at cS and eS .

He played 22 ... c4, but after 23 i.bl 'ii'd8 24 i.a7 lbe8 he nevertheless found himself in a difficult position: 25 i.c2 lbc7 26 %:.eat 'ii'e7 27 i.bl i.e8 28 lbe2 lDd8 29 lDh2 i.g7 30 f4 f6 31 f5 g5.

That bishops operate well in open positions has been known for a long time. On the other hand, not without reason it was reckoned that in closed positions bishops are of little use .

But take a look at the above position. One white bishop is stuck somewhere in the depths of the queenside, and the second bishop is having a strange duel with the black rook, which cannot capture it, nor even properly attack it directly along the file. For the defence of the bishop, from the rear the rook is on

duty, for solidarity supported by its colleague. The centre is completely blocked by closed pawn chains.

It is more than obvious that, if White does not switch all his forces from the a-file to the kingside, and does not open the position by means of exchanges, it will be impossible to win the game. All this is what we see on a swift glance at the position.

But if we begin to think properly, we will see that the white rooks have occupied the only open file, that the black rooks wanted by exchanges to neutralise this advantage in space, but the timely bishop manoeuvre reduced the fighting potential of the black rooks and placed them in a state of complete inactivity. The pawn chains are by no means closed - they are stopped. But whereas White ' s motorised infantry divisions have taken full possession of the important squares dS and fS , from where they mount murderous fire on the squares of the opponent's fortified zone at c6, e6 and g6, the black pawn chain is completely defensively placed inside its own territory and thereby takes away the necessary manoeuvring space from its own pieces, which even without this are cramped. Yet another weighty demonstration of the fact that the resources of the chess game are not only the pieces and pawns, radiating energy in the form of chess lines of force, but also the playing squares themselves, which generate for their

1 · 1 '1'/w A/ode m ( 'hess Self-Tutor

1 1 1 1 1 1 \ l i l T '' I ' '" '' t nr l hl· l ll' l:essary t ' ' P. I " I I I I I I I W• n n d I hl• orKn n i snt ion of d 1 , , . , ., , . l l l ' l h rn � . As for the white h l ••h"p l h n l has st rayed onto the w h 1 1 ,· p l l'l' l' rank , it has gone there l l u ouKh necess i ty, vacating squares lor lhe other pieces. Now, when the t ime has come to seek a breakthrough point of the enemy front, it i s this bishop that will be entrusted with the role of first echelon. At first slowly creeping out of its shelter, and then with a rapid march, the bishop occupies the important h5 square, and under its cover White regroups his knights and queen so effectively, that Black's capitulation comes even sooner than it should have been expected. And the main marvel of all this work by the bishops is that the position nevertheless remains closed.

Without moving a single white pawn, the pieces alone (bishop in collaboration with the queen, queen in collaboration with the knights and the presence of the curious rooks and the proud bishop on the other side of the chess battlefield) are themselves able to pass through the narrow ravine f3-h5-f7 and, intensifying to the maximum the pressure along the files, ranks and diagonals, celebrate the crushing of the black army. It is easy to be enraptured by such strategy, but is it possible to repeat it in your own games? I think that in its entirety you will never manage to. Chess masterpieces, like all other produc-

tions of genuine art, also bear the stamp of inimitability, but the fact that, after studying the individual elements of White ' s plan, you will begin to play better, is undisputed. These elements, taken in isolation, are amazingly simple : space for your own manoeuvres, the minimum of space for the opponent - for this we advance with a broad pawn chain and stop only on the territory of the opponent, taking under lasting control a group of important squares. Next, we create only one open file, but keep it for ourselves, and do not even allow the opponent there. Further - we do not block the pawn chain entirely, but leave a narrow road for transporting our weaponry into the enemy rearguard, in order to support the infantry, that has long been dug in there deep in the opponent's defences and awaiting reinforcements .

And now let us see how all the above-listed elements were reflected in the concluding phase of the Karpov-Unzicker game.

After 32 .tc2 Black also decided to move his bishop: 32 ... .tf7.

The black bishop has nowhere further to go, whereas White' s bishop confidently climbs up the b l -g6 diagonal, only not directly -his own infantry at e4 and f5 are in the way - but in a roundabout manner.

33 lt:Jg3 lt:Jb7 34 .td l h6 35 .th5 'iie8 36 'ii'dl ti:Jd8 37 :a3 �f8 38 .l:.la2 �g8 39 ti:Jg4 �f8.


40 lt:Je3 �g8 4 1 .txfi+ lt:Jxti 42 'iih5 lt:Jd8 43 'iig6 �f8 44 lt:Jh5 Black resigns .

All White ' s pieces took part in the play; only his g2 pawn did not move, but defended the king against possible dangers .

When we talk about the power of two bishops in open positions, it stands to reason that other pieces, apart from the bishops, are also participating in the play. The bishops work effectively when their help is needed by other pieces. Thus, without even doing anything, by their presence alone the bishops remind the opponent: to open the position excessively is dangerous. But when the game is in progress, the bishops often have to carry out various functions. Let us look at the game Karpov-Gligoric (Leningrad Interzonal 1 973 ). This encounter is interesting for the fact that the leader of Yugoslav chess, who all his life has upheld the solidity of the defence 1 e4 e5 2 lt:Jt3 lt:Jc6 3 i.b5

a6 4 i.a4 lt:Jf6, all the same was unable to parry White ' s methodical attack. And I do not agree at all that the main heroes of the game were the white rooks after Black's 32nd move.

No, it was not them, nor the queen, which intruded into the fortified zone following the rooks, nor the knight, which deftly removed the support from the bishop at d7 -it was not these pieces that were the main heroes of the battle. All the main chess honours should go to the queen' s bishop, which, despite the fact that White ' s pawn chain was deployed for the bishop in the most favourable way, itself, without a second' s hesitation, went in for an exchange, in doing so eliminating the black knight. After this White could no longer pride himself on his two bishops, but Black too could no longer talk about his . . . two knights . Such moments, when a more valuable piece is exchanged for a less valuable one, are among the most

J 6 The Modern Chess Self-Tutor

difficult in a practical chess battle . But let us see those moves by White and Black, after which the white bishop accomplished its bold step.

5 0-0 �e7 6 l:te1 b5 7 �b3 d6 8 c3 0-0 9 b3 ti:Jb8 10 d4 ti:Jbd7 1 1 ti:Jbd2 �b7 1 2 �cl c 5 (Gligoric ' s patent) 13 d5 ti:Je8 14 ti:Jtl g6 15 �b6 ti:Jg7 16 ti:Je3 ti:Jf6 17 a4 �b8 18 b3 l:tb8 19 'i'e2 �c8 20 axb5 axb5 21 l:ta7 ti:Jg8.

It is sometimes difficult to understand chess players, even if they are grandmasters . White has opened a file, broken through with his rooks onto the pawn rank, and Black . . . begins a battle against a bishop that is quietly standing in the corner of the board . It was natural to expect that White would have prepared a retreat for his bishop, but. . .

22 �xg7+ �xg7 23 l:tea1 ti:Jf6 24 �d3 �d7 25 'i'a2 ti:Je8 26 'i'a6.

This is the point ! The bishop has been exchanged for the knight, in order to gain time for the absolute

concentration of heavy pieces on the a-file. This means that today too, and not just in the days of Paul Morphy's triumphs, time in chess has a meaning ! And not only a meaning, but also a significant strength. And when examining this game, you suddenly begin to realise that in closed positions time has even more significance than in closed positions. In the latter everything is very clear: whoever is the first to bring out his pieces onto open files, ranks and diagonals, will win comfortably. But here, in a closed position, the work is long and difficult. Nevertheless the player, who is the first to complete his manoeuvres and fortification work on the construction of an observation post for the king, can be the first to launch an assault on the fortified zone of the opponent.

In the game that we are now examining, White did not even bother breaking through the pawn front. He exploited the open a-file and, after invading the pawn rank, began diverting the defenders, clearing the a7-h7 highway. For such actions the exchange of bishop for knight was useful. But that is not al l . Soon White ' s knight also goes in for an exchange, and it unexpectedly transpires that the bishops, which Black so carefully preserved, in the given concrete situation are absolutely ineffective, since they only see the diagonals, but are unable to step onto them:


everywhere there i s a white pawn or rook. This demonstrates the complete triumph of the domination of one set of pieces over the other.

After 26 .. Jlb6 27 'ii'a5 �f6 28 �g4 l:.b8 29 �xf6 .li.xf6 30 'ii'c7

30 ..• 'ii'xc7 3 1 :.xc7 l:.fd8 32 l:.aa7 .li.e8 the position of the white rooks on Black' s pawn rank became extremely formidable. And the only surprising thing is that Gligoric managed to hold the game, adjourn it, and resign it only on the 63rd move. In the position depicted on p .3 5 , I myself would have capitulated immediately.

On one occasion I too was able to make use of this technique - the exchange of a good bishop for the benefit of the remaining pieces. Up to Black' s 1 3th move the game Bronstein-Lengyel (Tallinn 1 975) took the same course as the preceding game Karpov-Gligoric .

13 ... c4 14 �fl l:.e8 15 .li.e3 'ii'c7 16 g4 �c5 17 �g3 .li.f8 18 'i'd2 a5.

Black trusts in the security of his castled position and begins active pawn play on the queenside . It is not in the style of the author to passively await an opposing attack.

19 b3 l:.eb8 20 b4 axb4 21 cxb4 �a4 22 .li.g5 �e8 23 �e2 .li.c8 24 �h2 .li.d7 25 a3 I:.a6.

Black has established his knight at a4 and under its cover he is intending to put pressure on White's weak and backward a-pawn. But in doing so the Hungarian grandmaster failed to take account of the fact that it was White himself who made his a-pawn weak, that it was White who helped Black to open the a-file, and that for some reason the white knight had moved from g3 to e2 . If Black had paid more attention to the opponent's actions, he at any rate would not have made the superficial rook move from aS to a6 . Now White reveals his cards and plays his trumps.

26 .li.xa4. It is always a pity to give up such

a Spanish bishop, but the position demands it.

26 . . Jha4 27 �c3 l:.a6. Still believing in the strength of

his rook attack . . . 28 llebl 'ii'c8. Black begins some complicated

manoeuvres, defending against the breakthrough by a3-a4 and b4-b5 . By . . . g7-g6 and . . . �e8-g7 he could have strengthened the headquarters of his commander-in-chief.

29 �e1 �c7 30 �c2 'ii'e8 .

I K The Modern Chess Self-Tutor

The fi rst stage of White ' s plan is complete . By means of active defence, Black's pawn attack on the queenside has been halted.

Now it is time to look round, evaluate what has been done, weigh up the mutual possibilities, and count up the resources. If White persists in playing a3-a4, this will ease Black 's game: it is in this region that all his main forces are deployed. And if he goes through the centre . . . it is securely blocked by White ' s own and the enemy pawns and it is difficult to pass through, there being a lack of pawn reserves . So if White does not want to take a risk on the queenside, he has to take a risk in the region where the opposing kings are situated. But here too there appears to be no target to attack. If the g-pawn had not advanced, he could have switched his rook to g3 and opened direct fire on the g7 pawn. But now? Now he has to storm forward with his pawn units, with the aim of provoking the enemy' s fire and locating his weapon emplacements, and then launch a massed attack with the help of the remaining long-range bishop. It would be good to carry out such a plan, but with what should he begin? And here you see that Black's pawn bastion at e5 is not very strong. The knight is a long way from it, and the bishop too has preferred to occupy comfortable barracks close to the royal residence. So if White boldly attacks the e5

pawn, all that will remain of it will be a little puff of smoke. Decided -done. At the same time White should not forget about his bishop, whose constant shelling of the squares d8-e7-f6 is no longer required.

31 .lte3 l:taa8. As I now recall, Black thought

over this move for a whole hour. This is not surprising: he realised that his attack had not succeeded, and that he was not prepared for defence.

32 f4.

When I tried in every way possible to convince you that the moves d2-d4 and f2-f4 are good, but that they have to be used at the right moment, I wanted only one thing -to increase your confidence in your own powers, and to give precise prescriptions for action in middlegame positions. In other words, the aim was this: to convince the reader of the formidable power of the


attacking moves d2-d4 and f2-f4, but to dissuade him from making these pawn attacks before the complete transformation of the chess army from marching columns into an offensive military unit.

Let us return to the BronsteinLengyel game. In progress is an offensive by a broad pawn chain supported by pieces .

32 . • . f6 . The aim of this move can be ex

plained as follows : Black provokes f4-f5 and hopes to withstand the attack with g4-g5 etc. White could now have replied f4-f5 , but he has no reason to hurry with this move, since Black cannot take the f4 pawn - the white bishop gains the very valuable square d4, from where the entire d4-h8 diagonal is in full view. Therefore White has time to return one rook to the kingside, and also bring up the other. Since Black is pressed to the piece rank and experiences the influence of the advanced pawn at d5, he is unable to manoeuvre with the same ease as the white pieces. This is the weakness of the pawn triangle c5, d6, e5, or even the micro-chain d6-e5 with enemy pawns at e4-d5 . But if lines on the queenside had been opened and the black rooks had gained scope, on the contrary the white e4 pawn could have become a weakness, which the d5 pawn is unable to defend. Therefore in such situations White aims to keep both flanks blocked. An ABC of chess strategy.

33 l:tg1 /4.e7 34 .:an �h8 35 h4.

The ideal implementation of a simple idea - four white pawns have reached the equator and are ready to take the plunge. The black e5 pawn decides to join battle and to delay the attack for at least one move.

35 ... exf4 36 l:txf4 g5. The bold actions of the pawns

provoke respect, but this pawn should long ago have been at g6 and should not have budged.

37 l:tt3 h5 38 .td4 hxg4 39 'ii'xg5 'i'g8 40 'ii'h6+ 'ii'h7 41 l:txf6 .txf6 42 'ii'xf6+ �g8 43 .:.n 1-0.

Black lost because he played passively.

And now, for relaxation, let us remember how Paul Morphy managed his bishops nearly a century and a half ago. There is probably no chess primer where this game has not been given in whole or at least mentioned in passing. I consider that you can't have too much of a good thing, and therefore I wish to


give here in full the game of Paul Morphy against Count Isouard and the Duke of Brunswick. The game was played in 1 85 8 in a box at the Paris Grand Opera during a performance of Rossini ' s opera The Barber of Seville .

1 e4 eS 2 lbf3 d6 3 d4 ..tg4 4 dxeS .i.xf3 S 'iixt3 dxeS 6 ..tc4 lbf6 7 'ifb3 'iie7 8 lbc3 c6 9 ..tgS.

The first pin on a knight.

9 ... bS 10 lbxbS (to avoid wasting time) 10 ... cxbS 1 1 .i.xbS+ lbbd7.

The second pin on a knight. 12 0-0-0. Implementing the castling rule

with maximum effect: the king moves out of the way of the king 's rook, and the queen' s rook immediately joins the attack on the d7 knight. Note the nonchalant behaviour of the white queen: at b3 it does not appear to be needed; it is as though it had strayed there from curiosity.

12 ... l:.d8 13 l:.xd7.

Naturally, we say today after Morphy, that White must not waste time.

13 ... l;lxd7.

14 i:!.dl . Of course, we think following

Morphy that the black rook at h8 is shut in, and we must hurry to make use of our lines of force.

14 ... 'iie6 . Surely Black was not hoping for

the exchange of queen for queen? I personally cannot read thoughts, especially those of people from the last century. However, in all probably the Count and the Duke were expecting some variation on the theme of 1 5 .i.xf6 'iixb3 1 6 .i.xd7 mate ! Here too Morphy disillusioned them, of that there can be no doubt:

1S .i.xd7+. Diverting the knight from f6,

which engages the lines of force of the bishop at g5 . Did Morphy know about lines of force? Of course ! But


how he knew that the opponents would not take the bishop with his queen, that I do not know.

15 ... lt:Jxd7 16 'ii'b8+ lt:Jxb8.

-

.-

17 l:.d8 mate. An indisputable masterpiece of

chess thinking. Note the economic expenditure of pawn material by White - the e-pawn admitted one bishop, and then the d-pawn admitted the other bishop and the rooks, but the remaining pawns were as though sculptured out of marble. The reader can believe me, when I say that for nearly a century and a half all the best players in the world have measured and evaluated their creative efforts against this standard by Morphy. Very, very occasionally one succeeds in playing something remotely similar, but there is no need to dream of anything more. In this genre, the genre of a rapid, lively attack, it is difficult to surpass such an economic attack using a queen, two bishops and two rooks.

Sometimes at lectures I am asked: how would the champions of the last century play today? I think that, after making a hurried study of modern openings, and watching one or two tournaments, the champions of the last century, and indeed the century before that, would very quickly occupy the same place that they occupied when they were alive. If they were able to play brilliantly with zero information, then today . . .

The knight is easily attacked. On the other hand, when the knight itself attacks, pieces and pawns

run from it in all directions

The chess knight is the only piece that enjoys a royal privilege : none of the opponent's pieces can block its path.

The chess knight is known to everyone, and particularly by those who do not play chess. This is understandable. Chess players have enough bother with the other pieces, and considerable concerns about pawn chains, and about passed, isolated, strong, weak and doubled pawns etc. But people who do not play chess, only say: 'You're playing with knights again' .

In the following position White has placed his two rooks on the band e-files, but they have nowhere to expand. The pawn chain a7-b6-c5-d4 is sufficiently solid, and the bishop at e5, apart from the fact that it is securely covered by the knight

· 1 2 The Modern Chess Self-Tutor

and rook, can always move. In addition to this, it should be taken into account that for the sake of opening one file, in the opening White allowed his opponent to take the b2 pawn with his bishop. Exchanges of pieces, if Black should succeed in initiating them, are not a very pleasant prospect for White. It is not a matter of the pawn, but of the absence of any connection between the a2 pawn and the other white pawns. So that White, if he wishes to maintain the tension and think about victory, and if he does not want to lose on account of the absence of a single pawn, must get a move on.

Correctly evaluating the situation, the young English master played 1 lbd5, creating the threat of a piece breakthrough at b6 . Now on 2 %hb6 the rook cannot be taken on account of 2 . . . axb6 3 lbxb6+. Therefore Black (the example is taken from the game Crown-Kotov, Great

Britain v. USSR, London 1 947) played l . . .'i'd6, moving the queen away from possible attacks by the white knight.

Crown then changed his original idea and - fully in the spirit of Lasker' s advice - sacrificed his knight, so as not to slow the tempo of the offensive. White ' s attack could probably have been parried, but Black did not pay sufficient attention to White ' s latent resources, which led to his defeat after 2 lbxb6+ axb6 3 :xb6 j.b7 4 lleb1 l:.e7 5 'it'c1 :.dd7 (Crown recommended the defence 5 . . . l:.c7) 6 .i.f8 llc7 7 "i'a3 'i'e6 8 .i.xe7 "i'xe7 9 'ti'a4 lbd8 10 "i'b5 h5 1 1 a4.

Here is the resource that Black did not take account of in time; unexpectedly the a2 pawn proves to be highly energetic . ll . . . h4 12 gxh4 .i.d6 13 aS "i'd7 14 a6 .

14 . . . "i'xb5 15 axb7+ . Who could have expected such boldness of the solitary pawn? 15 . . • <it>b8 16 lllxb5


i.f4 17 l!a6 tbxb7 18 I:lab6 Black resigns.

It was suggested that l . . .i.c7 would have provided an adequate defence, but analysis does not confirm this viewpoint. For example, 2 llxe8 'iixe8 3 i.g5 ltd6 4 i.f4 tbe5 5 i.xe5 'iixe5 6 :e 1 'ii'h8 7 tbxc7 rt;xc7 8 lte7+ :td7 9 'iif4+. It is probable that Crown' s recommendation (Chess, November 1 947) is also sufficient: 3 lle 1 'iid7 4 i.g5 l!e8 5 tbf6 llxe 1 + 6 'iixe 1 'ii d6 7 'ii'e8+ rt;b7 8 i.f4 'ii'xf6 9 'iid7 etc .

S ince after kingside castling the rook immediately ends up on the f-file, it might be thought that the f-file is the main attacking file for the rooks and that all the squares on this file are useful to the rooks. This is not quite so. There is one square that both the white and the black knights are always aiming to occupy. The white knights dream of reaching f5 , and the black knights aim for f4 . What have the cavalry forces lost, that they dream of finding there? Knights on these squares to some extent replace bishops, which have not managed to take their place on the diagonals and put under fire the squares g7 or g2 respectively.

To some extent, knights at f5 or c5 (f4 or c4 for Black), or more rarely h5 or a5 (h4 or a4) replace their rook, for which the player has not managed to open the file for a direct attack on the opponent 's pawns at g7 or b7 (g2 or b2), or

more rarely on the pawns at h6, a6, f6 or c6.

If a knight occupies such a post for a long time, the opponent is forced to devote a certain amount of attention to it, and the army that sent the knight on a reconnaissance gains time to learn about the concentration of force in the corresponding sector of the battlefield, and even succeeds in bringing up to the aid of the knight certain forces and reserve units . One can find numerous examples where a knight in an advanced position served as the signal for the start of a general offensive.

In the game Samisch-Engel (Brno 1 928) after the introductory moves 1 e5 dxe5 2 .:th4 h6 3 .:txh6 all the white pieces began working like the mechanism of a Swiss clock. And the attempt by Black to exchange the obstinate white knight was elegantly rebuffed: 3 •.. tt:Jd6 4 tbe7+ 'ii'xe7 5 llh8+ rt;xh8 6 'ii'h5+ rt;g8 7 'ii'h7+ ct;n 8 i.g6 mate !

· 1 · 1 The Modern Chess Self-Tutor

More than a quarter of a century ago, when the variation 1 e4 c5 2 ltJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 lLlf6 5 ltJc3 a6 6 f4 e5 was only just coming into fashion, the game Averbakh-Bronstein ( 1 9th USSR Championship, Moscow 1 95 1 ) began as follows: 7 ltJf3 'ilic7 8 .i.d3 lLlbd7 9 0-0 b5 10 a3 .i.e7 11 �h1 0-0 12 fxe5 dxe5 13 lLlh4 .i.d8 14 �e1 ltJc5 15 .i.g5 .i.e6 16 ltJf5.

At f5 is our familiar cavalry outpost. For the moment the knight is on its own, and is not especially dangerous, but White has already opened the f-file and, naturally, is ready to bring up to forward positions pieces of different fighting properties.

Nevertheless, Black does not take the knight with his bishop and himself invites the white queen to occupy h4 - 16 ... ltJh5 17 'ilih4 lLlf4.

The situation looks very tense, and this indeed is the case. Here we have a clear clash of interests. White wants to break through at g7, while Black wants to land a counterblow at g2 . In what way? By using the technique of 'pinning' : 1 8 ltJxg7 ltJcxd3 1 9 ltJxe6 fxe6 2 0 cxd3 'if g 7 (see diagram). The white bishop cannot take the knight on account of . . . .i.xh4, nor can it take the bishop at d8 on account of . . . 'i/ixg2 mate.

A verbakh thought for a long time - he easily saw through Black's trap - but even so he was the first to fail to withstand the nervous tension, and he played 18 g3, forcing the

black knight to declare its intentions regarding both the d3 bishop, and the f4 square.

After 18 ... .i.xg5 19 'iixg5 f6 20 'i1Vg4 lLlfxd3 21 cxd3 g6 (Black too does not have nerves of steel) 22 lLld5 .i.xd5 23 exd5 �h8 24 ltJe3 f5 Black retained some initiative.

This development of events created the false impression that the system of attack, employed in the Averbakh-Bronstein game, was absolutely harmless, and see what occurred as a result in the game Ravinsky-IIivitsky, from the 1 952 USSR Championship Semi-Final in Riga. Grigory Ravinsky, a lover and professional master of home opening analysis, decided to check how well his opponent had studied the sharp position on which he had so quickly and readily embarked. White played 18 ltJxg7, and Black, relying on some commentary (not the author' s and not Averbakh' s ! ) trustingly played 18 • . . �xg7,


intending after 19 'ii'h6+ '.t>g8 20 l::txf4 exf4

to parry the 2 1 e5 attack by the recommended move 2 l . . .f5 . Great was the consternation of Ilivitsky, a highly experienced player of defensive style, when his opponent, without hesitating for a second, instead of 2 1 e5? played 21 ii.f6! The conclusion of the game leaves an indelible aesthetic impression.

21 . .. ii.xf6 22 e5 lt:Jxd3 23 exf6 lt:Jf2+ 24 '.t>g1 lt:Jb3+ (a familiar situation - should the king go to the right, into shelter, or to the left, to face a check?) 25 '.t>fl ! !

Bold play, even if the winning variation was analysed right down to the last detail at the desk in White' s comfortable study. The art of analysis, in the words of Botvinnik, is also the art of playing chess. In preparing for a game you must know a lot, and, most important, you must know where, what and why to analyse. In the given

example the efforts of Ravinsky, a specialist in polished opening preparation, not only brought him personally a win, but also afforded pleasure to true valuers of beauty.

25 ... .ltc4+ 26 lt:Je2 .ltxe2+ 27 '.t>e1 Black resigns.

The checks have run out, and mate follows.

To conclude this discussion about knights at f5 and f4, the author would like to invite you to examine another example from grandmaster play. At the international tournament in Mar del Plata, 1 955 , in the game Szabo-Pilnik the opening did not herald any dangers for White. Deploying his forces on four ranks, he has created the fine- looking pawn chains a2-c4 and g2-e4, and has established contact between them with his centralised pieces -the bishop at d4 and, aiming at d5, the knight at c3 .

Often in such cases, by accurate defence Black forces the exchange


of many pieces and, with the pawn advance . . . b7-b5 (while the pawn is at c4) or . . . e7-e6 (when the pawn has moved to d5) frees his rooks, which up till then have been standing without any prospect of occupying a file. Here things took a different course.

It all began with the fact that the opponents did not understand each other' s intentions ! White began a complicated regrouping plan with the aim of forcing the exchange of the dark-square bishop guarding the black king ' s shelter, and Black forestalled his opponent by himself offering to exchange his bishop for the white bishop occupying the key central square .

1 'ilb2 lbb5 2 i.xg7 lbxg7 3 !tacl l:ic7 4 <iitbl 'ile5.

What have the two players achieved? White has attained his aim - he has exchanged the bishops. Black has eliminated the bishop at d4 and established his queen at e5 . The exchange of bishops should have weakened the black king's residence, but a l l the white pieces are too distant. White ' s plan has not achieved anything.

Black, on the other hand, can be content. The absence of the bishop from d4 has allowed his queen to occupy an important observation post right on the equator, and, situated in the centre, it exerts influence in various directions . At the same time, the f4 square has passed into Black 's possession. Why? Firstly,

because the excellently arranged white pawns are fit for a parade march, but are absolutely unsuitable for the defence of the weak dark squares. Secondly, the bishop at e2 is aimlessly wandering about in its own camp and dreaming about being exchanged. But the black knight does not want to exchange itself, it has its own ambitious plans, and it is difficult for the white bishop to meet the one at e6. As yet the black knight has not reached f4, but chess players must also think long-term (in the event of i.e2-fl and lbc3-e2) : if White simply keeps control of the f4 square, the black knight will be done too great an honour. The white knight too is preparing to make a leap to d5, where, in all probability, it will be exchanged for the second black bishop. And the white bishop will be entrusted with the defence of the g2 pawn. An easy task, but how can a lone bishop cope with it, if it has no pawn support from the rear?

5 'it' a3 lbb5 6 lbd5 i.xd5 7 .flxd5.

After 7 cxd5 l:r.ec8 8 Itxc7 l;lxc7 9 l::tc l l;lxc l + 1 0 'it'xc 1 'ild4 1 1 g4 'iff2 all the same the knight penetrates to f4 .

7 . . .'it'f4 S l:r.cdl . White realises that it was a mis

take to take the queen over to the side, and he hurries to offer the exchange by 'i'c l . We should not be surprised that this aim was not achieved: time in chess is greatly


valued, and each move may create new and difficult problems for the opponent. And here the black queen immediately decides the entire game with a brilliant manoeuvre. And in just one move.

The position illustrates not only the diverse playing functions of the queen, but also the helplessness of a bishop restricted by pawns, and the uselessness of a lone rook on an important square beyond the equator. On the other hand, the black knight. . .

8 . . • 'i!Vh6. There is the threat of 9 . . . liJg3+ 1 0

�gl 'ili'e3+, and so White has only one reply. Then Black gains an additional move for building up his attack.

9 �g1 'i!Ve3+ 10 �fl liJf4 1 1 .l:15d2 l:tc5.

Black ' s pieces - queen, knight and rook - are in total command in the white camp. How useful now for White would be a bishop at, for

example, g l or e l ! But White improvidently exchanged this darksquare bishop, and his remaining bishop is only capable of controlling its 32 squares - such are the rules of the game.

Now hanging over the white king is the threat of immediate ruin: 1 2 . . . liJh3 1 3 gxh3 l'::tgS 1 4 �e 1 l'::tg 1 mate. Therefore the queen no longer hurries to c 1 for an exchange, but to d4, so as in the event of . . . liJh3 to guard the g 1 square through the black queen at e3 . This technique is worth remembering. In a game in 1 953 at the Candidates Tournament in Zurich, Smyslov could have defeated Petrosian with the help of this technique, but he missed his chance.

12 'iib2 liJxg2 . Just as Capablanca was in a

game with Alekhine (St Petersburg 1 9 1 4 ), so 40 years later Pilnik is impatient to capture the g2 pawn with his knight.

In this position Capablanca

· I X The Modern Chess Self-Tutor

played the hasty l . . . lt:Jxg2, and won only with difficulty after 2 �xg2 'ii'g4+ 3 �fl 'ii'h3+ 4 �e2 l':.xe3+ . . . At the same time the two-move manoeuvre l . . . 'ii'g4 2 f3 'ii'e6 would have removed the support from the bishop at e3 , and if he really wanted to sacrifice the knight it would have been better to play l . . .'ti'c4+ 2 �gl lt:Jxg2 3 �xg2 l:tg5+ 4 i.xg5 'ii'g4+.

Times change, chess openings change, but the tastes of chess players are unchanging: quickly, quickly, quickly, forward towards the opponent ' s king, a handshake, and . . . a new, intense battle. During his chess career the author has many times sacrificed pieces, in order to open a diagonal for a bishop, a file for a rook, a rank for a queen, or to weaken a square for a knight.

Therefore, when once idly playing through the Szabo-Pilnik game, it occurred to me that the knight sacrifice at g2 was rather hasty: the knight was by itself, and on such a well reinforced square ! Why not complete the ' rook zig-zag' , why not play 1 2 . . . .U.g5 instead? In the event of 1 3 g3 ( 1 3 i.d3 l:.xg2) 1 3 . . . lt:Jxe2 1 4 l!xe2 "iVxf3+ Black would have gained a valuable pawn, although there is also another attacking possibility: 1 3 . . . l:lh5 14 'iid4 'iixd4. But despite all the author' s doubts, the knight sacrifice is the most spectacular continuation of the attack.

The game concluded: 13 l:td5 l:.xd5 14 lbd5 e6 15 %1xd6 'ii'f4 16

l':.d7 'ii'xh2 17 'ii'f6 l:.f8 (here the second rook comes into play) 18 c5 li:Jf4 19 i.c4 (the bishop shows signs of life; it has become ashamed of its unusual passivity) 19 . • . 'ii'g2+, and a few moves later, when time trouble had ended, White resigned.

Here is another example on the theme of piece coordination.

In view of the threat of an attack on his pawn bastion at d6 (the white knight from g3 has occupied the important attacking square f5) Black decided to begin active defence and with his reply he has captured the white pawn at e4 with his knight from f6, simultaneously defending the d6 pawn with his knight. What should be done in such a situation?

First of all one should calmly carry out an analysis of the forces standing in expectation of a battle on both sides of the equator. We soon see that the most solid point of Black 's position is the strong square e5, where the black knight,


supported by pawn and rook, completely neutralises the active white bishop at d4 . From our own experience and that of other chess encounters, we know that the open g-file for the rook will not give the desired effect, if the vertical fire of the rook is not combined with a massed attack on the g7 square along the diagonal . But can the e5 square be taken by storm? By the method of trial and error we establish that there is some hope: 1 .!i:Jxe4 lhf5 2 .!i:Jxd6 i.xg2 3 .!i:Jxb7 and then 4 i.xe5 . However, the material losses in chess strength are not compensated by the goal achieved, and so more complicated, possibly roundabout, ways must be sought. And here we notice that the g7 pawn is pinned by the white queen and is not able to display its strength. This means that we can confidently play the knight to h6 . Mentally correcting the position, we move the knight to h6 and the black king into the corner at h8. Once again by the method of trial and error we try the variation .!i:Jxe4 etc. , and only here do we begin to understand that we are on the right track. What we will find is not clear, but the fact that the search itself is promising becomes obvious. We switch on our ability to see a little way ahead, and if we are able to look beyond the horizon of the immobile initial position, we begin to see the contours of possible events in roughly the following light: 1 li:Jh6+ �h8 2 .!i:Jxe4 gxh6.

A sharp piece battle now commences.

3 .!i:Jxd6 i.xg2 4 .!i:Jxb7 i..xh1 5 .!i:Jxd8.

The goal of the operation is achieved, the knight at e5 is deprived of all support, and in addition it is attacked and pinned. It remains to check our losses - they are not significant, the main point being that it is the passive rook at h 1 that has been lost, and the active rook at e 1 has been retained. The example is taken from the MoscowLeningrad Match, 1 965 . This game (Bronstein-Furman) continued 5 . . .

�g8 6 i..xb5 .!i:Jd3+ 7 �d2 .!i:Jxe1 8 i..c4+ .l:.ti 9 i..xti+ �f8 10 i.c5+ .l::te7 1 1 i..h5 li:Jt3+ 12 �c3, and Black resigned.

An open file for a long-range rook attack is a powerful offensive measure . The following diagram illustrates the situation in a game from the last round of a training tournament in Kiev in 1 944.


The white pieces were being commanded by Tolush, and the black by Flohr.

Here Black castled queenside, and after 1. .. 0-0-0 2 tLleS White threatened to eliminate the black queen, standing in reserve but always dangerous at c6. Will White have time to carry out his threat? For this he needs to spend one tempo-move, and we know that this tempo-move may in fact not be found. This happens during intense chess battles, when one has to take account of pawns, and pieces, and time - in short, all the factors of the modem chess battle .

The Tolush-Flohr game continued 2 ... .l:.xg2+ 3 'lt>fl 'i'c3 4 'ili'xh4. Here the players embarked on a time scramble, and the game ended in a draw.

After the game Flohr demonstrated a variation, for which he had hastily played 2 . . . .l:.xg2+, and earlier, before 2 tLle5 , he had castled

queenside. The grandmaster captured with the rook on g2 with check because of the wonderful mating theme - 3 �h I tLle3 4 tLlxc6 tLlf3 5 ..5i.xe3 llh2 mate ! About the move 3 �fl Flohr, in his own words, simply forgot. Therefore, said the grandmaster, Black should not have castled, but should have gone in for the variation I . . .tLlf6 2 tLld6+ �d8 3 tLlxf7+ �c7 4 ..5i.f4+ �b6, when the threats to the g2 pawn are irresistible . It is no laughing matter - it is attacked by queen, rook and knight ! Later Flohr repeated his opinion in a commentary published in one of the issues of the magazine Chess towards the end of I 944 .

You and I are not in time trouble, and we can study the situation on the chess board calmly and unhurriedly. And then, possibly, our opinions . . . will diverge in two directions .

Some readers will suggest that Flohr could have also won after 2 . . . l:.xg2+ 3 �fl 'ifb5+ 4 tLlc4 ( 4 'ii'd3) by then playing 4 . . . lldg8 5 'ifxh4 tLlc3 6 f4 .l:tgi + 7 �f2 .l:t8g2+ 8 �e3 tLld5+ 9 �d3 tLlb4+ 10 �e3 tLlc2+ ! , while others, quite probably, will insist on the move 2 . . . tLle3 , having in view Flohr's variation: 3 tLlxc6 l:ixg2+ 4 �h i tLlf3 . I agree in advance with all who have agreed together with me to spend time on the study of this position, but if you wish to know my opinion, I am for 2 . . . tLle3 2 tLlxc6 tLlf3+!


The author has to confess that he found this possibility - 2 . . . lt:Je3 -very recently, although he took part in the tournament in 1 944 and was a witness to the incredible time scramble. With my practical intuition and grandmaster experience I was unwilling to be reconciled to the idea of a draw . . .

The rook i s inferior in strength to the queen, because it cannot move

diagonally

From ancient chess books we know that in the 1 6th century Italian players proposed an innovation -castling by the king with the rook on its side of the board. It is curious that nowhere - in these books or in others - is it said when castling with the queen' s rook appeared. It was probably not immediately, and that is natural . But if you never think up anything, then in particular. . . you should not be playing chess.

Therefore, although the pieces hurry to join the battle as quickly as possible, the waiting of certain pieces is also dictated by the very nature of the battle, when forces in reserve positions come into contact with the opponent only at the last moment of the assault, but this moment will be a bitter one for the enemy and a triumphal one for its troops. And so while chess commanders at any level are considering their plans, launching an attack with pawn units, one piece usually waits in the zone, where it is invulnerable, but whose fire may crush the enemy at any instant.

This piece is the queen' s rook. This piece is so well placed in the corner that it is a pity for it to move away from there, even to the centre. Once I myself saw how Bobby Fischer played his rook away from the centre: l:f.d 1 -al . Unable to bear such a violation of basic chess rules, I asked :

'Is that really playable? ' The reply was instantaneous: 'If Tal can, why not me? ' Everyone knows which piece so

frightens the black king - the white queen' s rook, awaiting its hour in the corner.

Apart from the invasion of one rook onto the back rank, a very strong weapon is the invasion of two rooks onto the pawn rank, their starting point, the place where the infantry forces are deployed. If you do not initiate a direct battle, but


prepare a gradual turning movement of your army, such that your left flank approaches the black king 's rearguard from the side, then the a1 rook is in the right place and has no need to hurry anywhere. When the pawns have moved some distance away, the rook itself will decide or the queen and king will suggest to it, whether it should wait on its square or move slightly onto the adjacent file, assisting the advance of the knight 's pawn.

The attacking possibilities of a rook in the corner were demonstrated in the following situation.

The forces of both sides are arranged in their own halves of the board. Only the black king' s rook' s pawn has crossed the equator and has come into contact with the white g3 pawn. This tension on the squares g3 and h4 favours Black, since he can always exchange pawns, whereas for White to take on h4 and split up his pawn group is

dangerous. However, in the collision region of these pawns there are at the moment no other forces. Nevertheless, exploiting the fact that, not long before the diagram position was reached, Black with an analogous advance across the equator of his other rook' s pawn opened the file for his rook, he now begins an assault on the white position and concludes the offensive by invading with his queen along the currently invisible route b6-f2. From the diagram it is evident that the excellent coordination of the black pieces not only ensured the breakthrough of the queen to the walls of the white king 's camp, but also included in the attack the advanced pawn at h4, which for a long time had been awaiting its moment.

After the moves t. .. :xal 2 :xal .txd4 3 :xd4 tL!xb3 4 :xd6 'ifxfl White was forced to restrict himself to the move 5 :al, since after 5 'ifxb3 Black would have had a pleasant choice : 5 . . . 'ifxg3+ and 6 . . . 'iixd6, o r 5 . . . hxg3+ 6 �h 1 .txh3 7 :g 1 i.xg2+ 8 :xg2 'iffl + 9 :g 1 'ii'h3 mate !

When the author played this, perhaps his best-known game (against Ludek Pachman in the PragueMoscow Match, 1 946) he was only 22 years old, and then he would undoubtedly have chosen the second variation with the spectacular mate, but today . . . today I would have taken the rook at d6. Time changes not only a person' s appearance, but


also his character, tastes and inclinations, and casts doubts on aesthetic categories . On the other hand, how pleasant it can be, in spite of everything, to play sometimes in the good old style ! But here too the law of life is severe - this happens rarely.

The invasion of a rook along an open file is a powerful weapon. Especially if, moreover, the rook can create threats to the enemy king and, moreover, the king has no defenders.

Here we have precisely such an instance . To defend against the direct bombardment, the black king hurries to take shelter on the queenside, but on the way it becomes clear to it that the aim cannot be realised: against all expectations, the white queen crosses the equator at a narrow point and in coordination with the rook quickly concludes the battle :

1 :cs+ �f7 2 'ii'h5+ �e7 3 'ii'e8+ �d6 4 :c6+ �d5 5 'ii'd7+ Black resigns.

The alternate moves of the white queen and rook make an impression, but quicker would have been 4 'ifd8 mate ! This move was not planned, since the f5 pawn was not entrusted with covering the e6 square. This function was taken on by the queen, and it was afraid of moving off the e-file (Bronstein-Giigoric, Moscow 1 967).

Theoretical discussions about the benefit of an open file for a rook sometimes find their practical embodiment in preparations for the next tournament game. Hundreds of games have been begun with the well-known variation of the CaroKann Defence 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 lt:Jc3 dxe4 4 lt:Jxe4 ti:Jf6 5 lt:Jxf6+ gxf6.

In the 32nd USSR Championship (Kiev 1 964/5) the author in a game


wi th N.Bakulin succeeded in pract ice i n realising the idea of . . . l:th8-g8-g l .

6 it.e3 it.f5 7 �d2 e6 8 li:Je2 li:Jd7 9 li:Jg3 it.g6 10 it.e2 �c7 11 0-0 h5 12 l:tfd1 h4 13 li:Jfl h3 14 g3 0-0-0 15 c4 c5 16 d5 e5 .

Black has allowed his opponent to create a protected pawn garrison beyond the front line, reckoning that pawn garrisons do not themselves open fire and, if they are not touched, they are often quite harmless. Only with the exchange of the main forces do such pawns acquire strength. But Black has no plans to make exchanges. Here the black pawn avoids the exchange, since it is hurrying to reach the white piece rank as quickly as possible. Will the pawn succeed in its dream? Let us watch as the events unfold.

17 llac1 f5 18 b4 it.d6 19 f3. White has set up a barrier along

the fortified line, in order to hinder the breakthrough of the black pawns. But in reality he has only helped the black pawn units . And since this is so, the time has come for Black to bring up his reserves into camouflaged firing positions.

19 ... f4 20 it.f2 ltde8 21 'iti>h1 lihg8 22 lte1 e4 .

The pawn units force the equator and come into direct contact with the opponent.

23 St.xc5 li:Jxc5 24 bxc5 �xc5 25 it.dl .

White manoeuvres, opening the rank for his queen.

25 • • • it.c7. From a study of the position,

Black has observed in the white king' s camp an insufficiently protected square at g 1 (in exactly the same way that, in his analysis of the situation in the Veresov-Bronstein game on p. 7 1 , Black succeeded in finding a weak square at b 1 , also in the immediate vicinity of the white king). It was in order to create a united queen-bishop battery that Black made his 25th move.

26 gxf4. Aiming to parry the threat by

playing the knight from f1 to g3 , including the rook at e 1 in the defence of g 1 . Black must attack with great speed, so as not to allow White to carry out his consolidating defensive manoeuvres.

26 . . . e3 27 �e2 .

It is bad to take the pawn with the rook on account of 27 . . . it.b6, or with the knight on account of 27 . . . it.xf4. And to move the queen


away from the pawn to b 2 i s dangerous on account of 28 . . . e2 29 .l:.xe2 .ltb6 or 29 .ltxe2 'i'f2. Therefore the queen acts correctly, personally taking upon itself a function which is unnatural for a queen - the blockade of a far-advanced enemy pawn.

27 ... .ltd3 . At that moment of the battle,

when a semblance of calm falls on the firing line - it is precisely at such moments that the outcome is very often decided by sharp pawn breakthroughs or bold individual actions of the pieces. This is because these individual actions seem harmless to the opponent, and he does not include them at the proper time in his calculations . But the other player, as a rule, only in fact examines those squares on the other half of the board, to where the advanced forces can be sent, a local battle initiated, and, exploiting the element of surprise, he can accurately carry out a mathematically precise final attack.

28 'i'xd3 Itgl+. The inevitable has happened ! The

rook, for which at one time the file was opened by 5 . . . gxf6, exploits it in the most economical fashion. It leaves the battlefield, but leaves as a hero. The rook sacrifices itself for the sake of the pawn move . . . e3-e2, and the pawn hurries to e2 in order to give its queen access to f2. What we are seeing is the technique of 'piece coordination' .

29 �xg1 e2+ 30 ltJe3 l:.xe3 .

The second rook also finds work on an open file .

31 'ilf5+ l::te6+ 32 �h1 'iifl White resigns.

A good example of concerted, harmonious work by the black pieces and pawns. And although the black king also stood next to an open file, it did not even sense this, since White ' s counter-offensive was restrained by the swift attack of the black pieces. Attack is also an unusual form of defence.

The long-range rooks also like middle-distance routes. Very often the mere crossing of the chess equator by a rook causes the opponent unexpected difficulties, which cannot always be solved satisfactorily.

This is a position from the game Bronstein-Smyslov ( 1 4th USSR Championship, 1 945). With 1 l:.d5 White created a number of problems, which Black could have partially solved by I . . .ltJf7, exploiting the unmasking of the black queen,

'/'he Modern Chess Self-Tutor

s i u�:c ou 2 'ilfx fH I there would have l i 1 l lowcd 2 . . . 'ilfxf8 . As long as the kn ight was at d6, the black queen was not exerting any influence on the f8 square. In this case, where the attention is focused on the squares d5 and g5, the possibility of connecting the f8 rook with the queen can be seen, only if one maintains a calm nervous system and a clear head.

White ' s move I lld5 and the reply l . .liJfl illustrate also the mutual understanding of the opponents and the coordination of chess pieces of various absolute strengths . The rook could not be taken by the pawn on account of 1 . . .exd5 2 "it'xg5+ cj;;fl 3 .i.xd5+ �e8 4 .i.fl+ l:txfl 5 �xc5, or 2 . . . �h8 3 'iie5+ �g8 4 .i.xd5+ !ifl 5 .i.xfl+ l:iJxfl 6 "it'xc5 . It was quite possible that these micro-variations, which once flashed through his mind, forced Smyslov 1 3 years later - in one of his match games with Botvinnik - to pay heightened attention to checks by a queen at e5 and a bishop at e6 (cf. p. 1 40).

This position arose during the 1 956 Moscow Olympiad in the game Rojahn-Agnastopolus. It is White to move. Exploiting the e6 square that has been left without pawn control in Black ' s fortified zone, White directs his cavalry reserve there.

1 l:iJe6 .i.xe6 2 ..txe6+ l:iJf7, and after the elimination of the artillery battery at fl, which was controlling the d5 high-point, he brings into the battle his tank reserve - the rook at d I . Using the technique of the ' rook zig-zag' along the files and ranks, White forces the g6 pawn to abandon its post. When the sacred square for every white knight - f5 near the castled zone of the black king -becomes free for invasion, White does not dally, but despatches there his last cavalry detachment. In the language of chess, the plan of the Norwegian master Rojahn looks as follows:

3 .:td5 "it'd8 4 .:td4 l:iJg7 5 .:th4 l:iJh5 6 .:txh5 gxh5 7 l:iJf5 , and there


1 s no defence against the mate by "ikg7 .

In the actual chess life, events developed even more swiftly: 3 ... "ikc3 4 :.b5, and Black resigned on account of 4 . . . "ikxal + 5 Wg2 gxh5 6 lt:Jf5 .l:.c8 7 lt:Jxe7+.

The study of chess games that are in some way similar often reinforces our conviction that in chess by no means everything under the sun is new. But by appreciating the danger lying in wait for the g7 pawn, the reader - who can know beforehand ! - will possibly begin building fortresses that are more solid . . .

The main problem, on which many of our optimstic chess plans founder, is to make our actions benefit all the pieces, and not only that one, the move of which or the breakthrough of which has now for some reason appealed to us. The following situation, for example, often occurs in practice. The opponent 's king is covered by a weak line of three pawns. If you can direct heavy forces into this region, you can initiate a favourable battle and breach the king' s defences. But the immediate approaches to Black 's defensive lines are covered by the fire of the fortified zone. It would be good to attack the king' s camp from a distance with rooks, but our own king is covered by a chain of pawns and there are no open files . What to do? In such cases there is only one solution -seek a by-passing way, endeavour-

ing to break through with the rook onto the necessary file, by-passing not the enemy pawns, but your own. Here the well-known 'rook zig-zag' technique may always come in useful.

Here is an example from the game Bronstein-Kotov (Moscow Championship 1 946):

1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 lt:Jc3 dxe4 4 lt:Jxe4 lt:Jd7 5 lt:Jf3 lt:Jgf6 6 lt:Jc3 e6 7 i..d3 i..e7 8 0-0 c5 9 "ike2 cxd4 10 lt:Jxd4 0-0 1 1 i..g5 lt:Jc5 12 lladl .

White has planned the exchange of his valuable bishop for a weak knight, but in doing so he imperceptibly completes his preparations for the switching of his rook to an important file in front of his pawns.

12 ... lt:Jxd3 13 l:.xd3 "ikc7 14 lt:Jdb5 "ikc6 15 llfd1 b6 16 lt:Jd4 "ikc7 17 :g3 .

The rook has completed its manoeuvre to the given square. Black must pay heightened attention to the pawn at g7. The history of chess events has left us with an enormous number of striking examples, of how one incautious move led to disaster in the region of the b2, g2, b7 or g7 pawns .

17 ... 'it>h8. The black king is equal to the oc

casion. In the corner it will be cramped, but on the other hand the g7 pawn will not be pinned by the need to cover the king from the fire of the rook at g3 .

18 lt:Jcb5 "ikb7 19 "ike5. The queen occupies an important


squurc in the opponent' s zone, creat ing the false impression that Wh ite is preparing the invasion of a cavalry division at d6. In fact the queen is looking to either side in both directions - at b8 and at h8.

19 . . . a6 20 lt:Jc3. The invasion 20 lt:Jd6 is parried

by 20 . . .'iid5, but not 20 . . .'iid7 2 1 lt:Jc6 iixc6 2 2 .ltxf6 .ltxf6 2 3 'ii'xf6 gxf6 24 lt:Jxt7+ l;lxt7 25 l':.d8+. Now Black, having parried the attack on the queenside, hurries to repel the piece offensive on the kingside.

20 ... lt:Jd7.

21 .th6 Black resigns. In the majority of cases the inva

sion of two rooks onto the opponent 's pawn rank brings success. Here is a typical example.

This is a position from the game Lasker-Eiiskases from the 3rd Moscow International Tournament of 1 936 . In view of the threat of l':.xg7 and l':.xh7+, Black, naturally,

did not make use of his resource -the advance of the a7 pawn towards the queening square.

Instead he preferred the sedate l. .. ltg8, and the game of pawns, rooks and kings concluded as follows : 2 l':.xa7 h6 3 h4 b4 4 l':.ab7 b3 5 'oitb2 lld2 6 l':.xb3 l':.e8 7 l':.bb7 l:txd3 8 l':.xg7 l':.d8 9 l':.h7+ 'oitg8 10 l':.xh6 l:te3 1 1 l:tbh7 d4 12 l':.hd7 l:.ee8 13 h5 d3 14 h6 l':.xd7 15 �xd7 :e6 16 :xd3 Black resigns.

Immediately after the game Dr Lasker demonstrated a draw for Black, which could have been achieved by the bold advance of the pawn: 1 . . . a5 2 l':.a7 l:tc8 3 l':.dc7 l':.e8 4 h4 a4 5 l':.xg7 a3 6 l':.xh7+ 'oitg8 7 l':.hg7+ 'oith8 9 h5 a2. The two rooks give perpetual check, since if 9 h6, erecting a mating construction (cf. also the game Zilberstein-Bronstein on p.60), then Black has time to include his newly-fledged queen in the play - 9 . . . l':.b 1 + 1 0 'oith2 a1 ='if.


If one of your rooks has penetrated onto the opponent's pawn rank and there are no obstacles in the rook' s line of fire, then if you have another rook you should always aim to double the fire power, by doubling rooks on the pawn rank. This is what Rubinstein did in the following position, although he did not manage to win.

The secret is that his opponent was Capablanca - the position is taken from the tournament in Berlin ( 1 928). And when the white rook at fl headed for d7, Black did not look for a way to exchange this rook - he immediately began advancing his outside passed a-pawn towards the queening square, and its march was very opportunely supported by the rook at a8 that had delayed moving to the centre.

The conclusion of the game was very interesting: l. .. a5 2 �d1 a4 3 l:dd7 a3 4 lixti a2 5 .l:lxg7+ with a

draw by perpetual check, since . . . al ='ii'+ cannot be allowed.

Situations also sometimes occur where one rook alone wreaks havoc on the opponent's pawn rank. When we see such moves, we invariably experience a mixed feeling of surprise and admiration. For example, in the well known game Botvinnik-Portisch (Monte Carlo 1 968) the rook manoeuvre .l:Ifl -c 1 -c2-c7-f7 prepared the ground for the concluding attack by the other pteces.

1 c4 e5 2 �c3 �f6 3 g3 d5 4 cxd5 �xd5 5 i.g2 i.e6 6 �f3 �c6 7 0-0 �b6 8 d3 i.e7 9 a3 a5 10 i.e3 0-0 11 �a4 �xa4 12 'ii'xa4 i.d5 13 Itfc1 l:te8 14 :c2 i.f8 15 :ac1 �b8 16 l':txc7 i.c6

17 lt1xc6 bxc6 18 l:.xti h6 19 ltb7 'ii'c8 20 'ii'c4+ Wh8 21 �h4 'iixb7 22 �g6+ Wh7 23 i.e4 i.d6 24 �xe5+ g6 25 i.xg6+ Wg7 26 i.xh6+ Black resigns.

(J( ) The Modern Chess Self-Tutor

Black - the author, WhiteZilberstein. This game was played in the 1 974 USSR Championship 1 st League in Tbilisi . After 1 .l:.fdl .l:.h7 there instantly followed 2 ..txh6+ <ittg8.

The dream of any rook has been achieved - it has broken through onto the opponent ' s pawn rank. But the destructive energy of the piece has been extinguished by the defensive action of the opponent, who

took account of the possible invasion and has halted the further movement of the rook by exploiting the technique of pinning. And yet Black 's position remains difficult. In addition it is now White ' s turn to move. It stands to reason that White brings his second rook into the battle. While defending the d7 rook from behind, helping it in its attack on the d8 square, at the same time the rook at d 1 relieves the white queen of its customary defensive duties . White could have, but did not exploit this factor in the course of the subsequen:15change of fire. The secret is that in hess you can only choose one cou se of attack, you cannot try both this and that. And if the planned method of overcoming the defence looks sufficiently strong and convincing, there is no reason, and often no time, to look for something better.

3 l:.xh7 "it'xa4 4 %:.dd7. My playing partner was cheer

fully eyeing the resulting situation, although I sensed that White' s confidence was slightly shaken, when he did not achieve the desired effect with the unexpected 3 l:txh7, since he flinched slightly after the equally rapid reply 3 . . . "it'xa4 . However, my opponent was an experienced player, and he knew that I was a wily old bird. So that the speed did not yet mean anything. And what else could Black do? So that White had more than sufficient grounds for optimism. But I too did not feel l ike


losing - I myself had gone in for a sharp opening ( 1 d4 liJf6 2 c4 b6 3 lDc3 i..b7 4 'ifc2 d5). I had partially achieved my aim, by obtaining two splendid bishops on wonderful diagonals, but what use are bishops if events are developing along the pawn rank? And suddenly - this was before the initial position on p.60 was reached - suddenly I saw a defence. How I saw it, I do not know. Only I did not believe what I had seen, so fantastic did it all seem -the bishops come to the aid of the king and save it from the attack by the rooks. But when I had already put the defence into practice, again I had serious doubts. Pretty variations often have flaws in some microconstructions, in some branches, in some nuances, which at first sight have no logical basis. But as soon as Black played 4 . . . i..f8, after 5 i..xf8 i..c6

my opponent himself offered a draw.

It was only some time later, in one of the issues of the Riga magazine Shakhmaty, that I learned with a mixed feeling of bitterness and joy that White did after all have a win. Zilberstein in his commentary indicated the following way to victory: 1 l:.fd 1 l:.h7 2 i..xh6+ �g8 3 l2Jg5 l::txh6 4 'iff4. And I did not even bother to study the possible variations - as it is, with his queen close to the black fortress White clearly has a win.

Chess is an amazing game! Look at the following position.

After sacrificing his rook' s pawn, Black has acquired use of the h-file and has posted his heavy artillery at h8 and h5 . But White ' s forces are attentively controlling the actions of the g7 pawn, by not allowing it to advance to g5 . Therefore the calm pawn advance 1 h3 immediately neutralised the efforts of the black rooks. But the most curious was yet to come. Soon it was the white


rooks that came out into the space ahead of their pawn detachments.

And here Black was not even helped by the king itself, which returned to its headquarters at e8 . These two amusing positions occurred, as is not difficult to determine, in one game - Bronstein-Bisguier (Tallinn 1 97 1 ) .

In the normal course of events the strongest piece is the queen, since

it operates in any of the three chess directions: horizontally,

vertically and diagonally

On a chess diagram, which is nothing other than a battle map, one can see only the outer shell of the various military units . The queen constitutes an exception to this rule. On the orders of the king, the queen takes over his command and the fulfilment of his duties. After we have depicted in such detail the strength of pawns marching against

the enemy, there is no longer any need to say that such a plan can break up any defensive formation, and the queen, whose task it is to direct the battle and to c� out inspection trips, does better stay as far away as possible fro the enemy pawns - in the very h art of its own camp. Occasionally one can allow the queen to go out into the fortified zone, and sometimes even to show itself in the region of important squares. But at the start of the game the queen does best not to go any further: it will not find anything there, it will not frighten anyone, and it can very easily be lost. Or get tangled up among the minor forces and strong points of the opponent.

In 1 9 1 1 , in a match by telegraph with the help of underwater cable between the USA and England, the interesting game Barry-Waltuch was played: 1 e4 e5 2 lbt3 lbc6 3 .ltb5 a6 4 .lta4 lbf6 5 d4 /Le7 6 0-0 0-0 7 .l:.e1 b5 8 dxe5 lbg4 9 !Lb3 ..1c5 10 �fl lbgxe5 l l lbxe5 lbxe5 12 'Vi'h5.

This last move, it must be assumed, was carefully considered. Without going into details, concealed behind this favourite move of beginners (the author is also very fond of this queen move and even, when playing Black, happily plays . . . 'Vi'h4 ), let us set ourselves a difficult problem : surely in a game by telegraph it wasn't difficult to see the elementary move 'i'd5, with a


simultaneous attack on three enemy units? If we begin carefully looking into the smoke from the fire, which is hindering visibility, we gradually discover that such a move, although it appears tempting, in actual fact cannot be considered correct. If it were possible to capture the e5 knight or the c5 bishop, then, possibly, the danger to the queen would not be so great. White ' s camp is close, and the queen can easily return to a safe place. But to move the queen to d5 in order to devour the rook in the corner - this is nothing but reckless daring. Rational players never act like that. And not because the queen in the corner turns out to be cut off from its forces and will perish in the encircling net. In such situations one can fight (the queen will parry the direct fire, and all the remaining pieces will try to force their way through to help it) . No, circumstances can be even more dismal - simply no one will pay any attention to the queen. The opponent 's queen in the corner of the board does not interest anyone, provided only . . . that the events are developing on the other side of the battlefield. The danger region for the white king is the right lower quarter of the chess board and the left upper quarter, largely filled with black pieces, and there, somewhere in the corner, the white queen is no danger to Black, and is of no use to its own pieces, since situated on the possible defensive line a8-g2 (and

badly situated, thinks the white queen) is a white pawn. Having outlined all these circumstances that are painful for White, we must make on our military map the moves which can lead the white queen into the corner - 1 2 'ii'd5 d6 1 3 'iixa8, and at the same time realise, that, on top of all White ' s misfortunes, Black has that which is valued most in chess warfare - the turn to accomplish some action harmful to the enemy - the right to move. Our basic knowledge tells us that, if there is no secure defence of the defensive pawn line of the castled position, it can be very useful to quickly bring up into the vicinity the strongest attacking piece. And our glance falls first on the move . . . li'd8-h4. Looking at the board, we see an instructive picture, as if from an ancient fairy-tale : the good queen and the bad queen.

It will be useful for the reader to display some initiative : take a sheet


of paper and, using coloured penc i ls , unhurried ly draw a map depicting the chess battle, adding your own signs, making it easier to see the possible and most probable movements of the white and black forces. This is useful, because the situation that we have obtained on our map, by enlisting a little imagination, reflects, as in an enormous astronomical mirror, those aims for which we should strive, and those about which we should forget, as being exceptionally harmful. White was wrong to take his queen to the other end of the world, whereas Black has opened fire on the f2 and h2 pawns at just the right time. Moreover, his queen was not the first piece to come out into the firing line, drawing the attention of the opponent, but arrived at the very last instant, when the enemy, if he in fact realised his error, could no longer do much for the defence of his king' s position.

But let us nevertheless try something. In reply to 1 3 . . . 'ilih4 the knight move 1 4 tDd2 contains a grain of sense - 1 4 . . . tDg4? 1 5 tDf3 ! , and Black' s first assault i s parried . On the other hand, if the bishop hurries to the aid of the black queen - 14 . . . .i.g4 1 5 'ilid5 .i.e2 ! , then the problem cannot be solved by bringing up the knight.

Perhaps belatedly, but nevertheless acknowledging his mistake, White can return his queen to the centre? 1 4 'ilid5 .i.h3 1 5 'ilid2 'ilig4

1 6 'ilig5? Alas, the simple knight check 1 6 . . . tDf3+ dots all the ' i ' s . Let us try finding an improvement for White - 1 5 'ii'd l immediately. Then\ after 1 5 . . . .i.g4 1 6 'ii'd2 tDf3+ 1 7 , gxf3 .i.xf3 1 8 'ilig5 or 1 8 'ii'f4 \

I

Black's attack comes to a halt. So what does this mean? Contrary to all sensible evaluations of the overall situation, does White nevertheless have a simple way to save the game, or even win it? No. He does not. Salvation might have been possible in a situation where the balance had been only slightly disturbed, but here . . . One only has to find the variation 14 'ii'd5 .i.b7 1 5 'ii'd2 'ii'xe4 1 6 'ilig5 tDf3+ 1 7 gxf3 'ifxf3 or 1 5 'ilixb7 tDg4 1 6 .i.f4 .i.xf2+ 1 7 � h 1 tDxh2 1 8 g3 'ilih3 , and all White ' s hopes are dispelled. The most inquisitive readers will note that the e4 pawn was to blame, or more correctly, the rook, which went 1 0 �fl ? instead of 1 0 �e2 ! , and they will be right. With the rook at e2 the defence 1 6 'ii' d5 tDg4 I 7 .i.f4 'ilif6 1 8 tDd2 is possible.

But much more recently, in the winter of 1 977, at a tournament dedicated to the memory of Paul Keres, I played a game with the candidate master G.Pokhla. I was Black. By the eighth move we had reached a position from the match . . . USA-England, about which we have talked above .

My opponent avoided the sharp variations and played 8 .i.b3 . Intuitively I sensed that the white


queen had no right to end up at a8 . Evidently my opponent shared my point of view. It is curious that half a move before the conclusion of the game it was the black queen that was standing at a8 .

After l . . .'ifa6 what can White do? He resigned.

So that no one should imagine that nowadays the moves 'i'h5 and . . . 'i'h4 do not occur in the games of players that are the slightest bit good, I will give only one example.

This is a position from the game Fischer-Tal from the 1 95 8 Interzonal Tournament, where Tal gained a draw only with difficulty after a sortie to h5 by Fischer's queen very early in the game.

Those who like curiosities may remember this variation that can be found in any textbook: 1 e4 e5 2 ltJc3 i.c5 3 ltJa4 i.xf2+ 4 �xf2 'i'h4+ 5 �e3 'i'f4+ 6 �d3 d5 7 <iifc3 'i'xe4 8 �b3 ltJa6 9 a3 'i'xa4+ 1 0 �xa4 ltJc5+ 1 1 �b4 aS+ 1 2 <ita>xc5 ltJe7 1 3 i.b5+ �d8 14 i.c6 b6+ 1 5 <ittb5 ltJxc6 1 6 <ittxc6 i.b7+ 1 7 <it>a4 i.a6+ 1 8 <ittc6 i.b7+, and so on ' for ever' . Perpetual check? ! No, this is not yet perpetual check. White, 'although' he may not wish to, can still play his king to a4 . But if the position with the king at b5 or c6 with the same side to move is repeated three times, each of the players has the right to claim a draw .

This position is well known in chess literature. The game


Alekhine-Book from the 1 93 8 tournament in Margate is a classic example of an attack on a king stranded in the middle of the board, and to a significant degree is a creative development of Morphy' s brilliant miniature from Philidor's Defence. Today every schoolchild will say that Black's position is hopeless, but will he promptly be able to give a clear-cut way to win?

Alekhine played 1 .i.f4 and won quite easily. In such instances chess games are rarely analysed critically, since no one wishes to spoil the aesthetic effect of an irresistible offensive. Therefore the author of this book was recently surprised to find in one of the old chess magazines a mention of the fact that back in 1 93 8 someone was bold enough to try and improve on Alekhine ' s play. The most surprising thing is that, knowing Brinckmann' s move I �h5, you are in absolutely no doubt that that is how you would have played, had you managed to reach the position in the diagram with White. On seeing the queen move, you can completely forget about the knight at e5 - so tempting is the prospect of giving a check at e8, of inviting the black king to d6, and with l::.d 1 of including the impatient rook in the battle . But to see the variation 1 'i'h5 'ii'xe5 2 'iie8+ \t>d6 3 'ti'b8+ .l:lc 7 4 .l:Id 1 + tiJdS 5 'ti' d8+ l:.d7 6 �xd7 mate is rather difficult, at any event in a practical game. Alekhine' s play in the game with

Book is above all praise, but even so we are not indifferent to the queen at h5 or h4 . And if Alekhine had seen this child' s move, he would have played it instantly.

This position is crystal-clear - a duel between two major commanders is in progress.

The black queen has crossed the equator and has established itself at a4, in order to pin down the a3 pawn and not allow the white bishop to go to a3 and onto the a3-f8 diagonal . In reply White sends his queen right up to the equator line and, by threatening the g7 pawn, asks Black - 'the life of the pawn or the weakening move . . . g7-g6?' Black' s reply is neither the one nor the other, and to convince its team the king itself goes to f8. White ' s queen, having attacked the g-pawn along the file, is very pleased with Black' s move. And it voluntarily returns to its starting position, not allowing the white king to play to d l . In chess


language this sounds as follows : 1 'i'g4 'it>f8 2 'i'd1 . Knowing that the black king will not quickly reach aS, White can now bring his king' s rook into play with h2-h4.

This illustrates the same technical device. The white queen comes out to g4 and aims at the g7 pawn. Black does not want to defend the pawn with his king, nor to play 1 . . . g6, so after 1 'i'g4 he chooses l . . . f5. Now White releases a second trial balloon - 2 'iih5+, allowing Black the former choice : to move a pawn or his king, but also, taking account of a new possibility - the queen. But Black does not want to play his queen from c7 to Il, since the black queen is aspiring to the squares c3 and c2, and so he decides nevertheless to move his pawn, but. . . wrongly. After 2 . . . g6 3 'i'dl the attack h2-h4-h5 by the white pawn gains significantly in strength . In addition, Black did not even want to make use of the chess time that

he had gained at the cost of the weakening of his king' s pawn screen: 3 . . . cxd4 4 cxd4 'i'c3+ 5 i..d2 'i'xd4 6 lbf3 'i'a4, since White obtains a strong position.

This example is taken from a real game Bronstein-Khasin (Moscow Championship 1 96 1 ).

It is well known that, at the height of a middlegame battle, the king is obliged to keep well away from the exchange of fire, and its strength is revealed only when the other pieces are tired and retire from the battlefield. Then, together with the pawns, sometimes a rook, sometimes a minor piece, the king emerges from its shelter and first carries out an inspection, and then itself joins the battle as an attacking piece.

But how many times must the author repeat, although he himself sometimes forgets about this, that chess is too diverse to make such bold generalising conclusions.


Once, after sacrificing a bishop in a game with Lutikov (27th USSR Championship, Leningrad 1 960) I saw to my surprise that in one of the variations I would win only if my king moved forward - across the equator and even into the fortified zone .

1 i.xti+ l:txti 2 tt:'lxc6 i.xc6 3 .l:ld8+ i.f8 4 tt:'lxe5 bxc5 5 i.h6 c4 6 'i'xb7 :bxb7 7 tt:'lxti :xti 8 :xc8 i.xg2 9 %:tg1 i.b7 10 %:txf8+ %:txf8 1 1 i.xf8 �xf8 12 %:tg5 Black resigns.

After 2 . . . 'i'xc6 White was planning to win by 3 tt'lg5 i.e8 4 c!Dxf7 i.xf7 5 l:.d8+ i.f8 6 i.h6 'i'e4+ 7 'i'e3 (not 7 �d2 'i'd4+) 7 . . . 'i'b1 + 8 'ite2 'i'c2+ 9 �f3 tt:'le7 1 0 l:.xb8 i.d5+ 1 1 �g4 i.e6+ 1 2 �h4 c!Df5+ 1 3 �g5 .

Or take the situation that suddenly arose in my game with Ljubojevic (lnterzonal Tournament, Petropolis 1 973 ) .

1 �e2 i.c5 2 c!De4 tt:'l8d7 3 %:tc1 'ii'c6 4 l:.xc5 tt:'lxc5 5 tt:'lf6+ 'ath8 6 'iWh4 'ir'b5+ 7 �e3, and White went on to win.

I would never have played �e2-e3 , had I not once been charmed by a well-known three-move problem by Sam Loyd, dedicated to Steinitz, where the king itself runs the gauntlet of fire along the route �fl e2-e3 . . .

The main solution is : 1 �e2 f1 ='i'+ 2 �e3 , and all seven


possible checks by the black queen are met by a capture or interposition by the bishop at b5 or rook at f6.

Millions of dangers await chess kings during a tense battle . But if we come down to earth and count not in millions, but in simple units, then among the first ten dangers will always be the threat of coming under attack along an open file, or the danger of being adjacent to a file that is completely open and wholly occupied by the opponent 's heavy pieces - queen and rooks. It is rare for any chess king to be fortunate enough to retain its crown in such situations that are so critical for the chess forces as a whole. And yet chess history knows of such occurrences. Firstly, an important role is played, as we know, by the turn to move. Secondly, being adjacent to an open file does not yet signify a direct threat to the king, since the opponent must find a free and insufficiently defended square to give a warning check. And if it is your move, you may strengthen the guard on this square . And also - extremely rarely - incredible situations occur, where the king, after receiving the warning check, itself begins to move away from the attacking forces, moving along its own file . . . towards the opponent aggressor. You don't believe it? I too would not have believed it, except that once - in a game with Unzicker (lnterzonal Tournament, Gothenburg 1 955) - the black king, for

whom I was responsible, moved away from checks by a white rook in precisely this way. The following diagram shows the initial situation.

The rook at e8 is tied to its piece rank, since it cannot allow the white rook to go to g8. But nevertheless there followed l..J�e2 2 lig8+ 'i!th7 3 lig7+ 'i!th6. White resigns: 4 "ii'g5+ is not possible, and the g6 square is guarded against a check by the rook.


This position is taken from one of the Labourdonnais-McDonnell matches (Paris 1 834). After 1. . •

.i.xe4 White played 2 'ii'g3, creating two threats - l:tg8+ and :h7+. In order not to lose immediately, Black employed the complex procedure of ' interference plus unmasking' . By playing 2 ... .i.g6, Black weakened White ' s influence on the squares g8 and h7: 3 l:th7+ 'iitg8; 3 l:1g8+ lhg8 or 3 . . . 'iitxg8 . Trying at all costs to break up the black king 's defences, White took the bishop with his pawn - 3 hxg6, but after 3 . . . 'ifel+ he failed to find the elegant win that was shown to his schoolboy pupils in the distant years of Alekhine' s reign by that great lover of old chess books, and all sorts of other books as well, Alexander Konstantinopolsky: 4 li:Jb 1 �xg7 5 gxf7+ 'i'xg3 6 fxe8=li:J+ 'iitf8 7 l:txg3 . The line chosen in the game by White, 4 'i'xel .l:hel + 5 l:ixel li:Jxel, led to his inevitable defeat, since mate by . . . li:Jc2 can be delayed, but not prevented.

Later it was even suggested that Black had made a mistake (before 2 'i' g3) when he took the white pawn ( 1 . . . .i.xe4 ), and that it would have been better to take the pawn with the knight. Taking with the knight is probably better, if only for the reason that the diagonal is opened for the black queen to give a powerful check to the white king. But the most surprising thing is that, even after the moves actually made,

l . . . .i.xe4 and 2 'ii'g3 , Black was not obliged to suppress the force lines of the white pieces in the direction of g8 - it was sufficient to put the g7 square under guard. With 2 . . .'iif6 he would have eliminated the threat of 3 l:th7+ and simultaneously (the g7 square is guarded by the black queen) he need not have feared the invasion of the white rook at g8. In the event of 3 .l:lg8+ the black king could have boldly advanced: 3 . . . 'iith7 4 .Ug7+ 'iith6 4 'iie3+ li:Jf4 -the knight is also included in the defence. This is a typical instance of active defence. While aiming along the f6-a 1 diagonal towards the position of the white king, at the same time the black queen defends its king and attracts the aid of the knight. Moreover, not that knight which was idle, but the knight in the most important fighting position in the fortified zone of the white camp. How can it be shown that the knight at d3 was in a more important position that the one at c3? This cannot be done - both knights were important and proud of their positions. But even so in the variation 2 . . . 'i'f6 3 l:ig8+ \t>h7 4 'i!Vg7+ 'i!Vxg7 5 lil 1 xg7+ �h6 6 l:txe8 li:Jb4 (or 6 . . . li:Je 1 ) 7 li:Jxe4 the mate to the white king is announced by the former d3 knight - 7 . . . li:Jc2 !

It remains to add that, were it not for the defence 2 . . . 'i!Vf6, White ' s move 2 'ti' g3 could be considered a mistake : 2 'i!Vg4 looks more accurate, especially in the variation


2 . . . .tg6 3 hxg6 'ti'e l + 4 lbb l lbb4 5 .l:.h7+ etc . , but the move 2 . . . 'ti'f6 immediately dispels all illusions. Why has the author discussed this move in such detail? In order to instil in the reader the confidence that there is no such thing as a hopeless chess position, and as long as you have at least one interesting idea, you should boldly continue fighting. In doing so you should engage in an open battle, entrusting your defence to . . . the king. Even so, to allow three heavy pieces onto a file is dangerous.

Despite the author' s assertion that logic does not always help in finding this or that move, it nevertheless does exist in chess. For example, if a pawn has reached the piece rank and all that remains is to decide what it will become, then, in the absence of direct indications to the contrary - for example, mate is threatened, and you are forced to promote to a knight in order to give check - it is logical to promote to a queen, increasing to the greatest extent your chess resources. It looks equally logical to assume that, after building a fortress on one the flanks, it is there that you should shelter your king.

And so this position from Veresov-Bronstein (Moscow 1 960) somewhere lacks a logical basis. In White ' s camp there is an excellent royal castle - pawns at e2, f2, g3 , h2, lbf3 and .tg2, but the castle is empty, and no one is living there.

There is also no king nearby, and the king is not expected to castle here. Because, to judge by the entire picture, the white king hurried to castle on the other side. What was this, an experiment or a simple violation of the basic rules of chess strategy? Neither the one, nor the other. Our conclusions are based on a lack of knowledge of the preceding events.

Sharp double-edged play at the very start of the game forced the white king to leave the centre. The king 's residence was not yet ready, and the king was obliged to evacuate its headquarters in the direction of the queenside. And when the construction of the residence was complete, it was too late to march to the kingside. And so the king was left to spend the winter at c 1 . Is it well placed there? Hardly. The black knight that in leisurely fashion has made its way forward to the important square b4 has provoked a


pnw 1 1 rl· i u fon:cmcnt - the pawn I I I OVl' . . . n7-n5 and w i l l not now be i n n h urry to move away. The prl�scncc of the knight close to W h i t e ' s headquarters forces him to devote all his attention to the c2 square, to where with luck the black queen may proceed. True, White has a strong open file and an additional pawn unit, but the pawn has no targets to attack or a file for a solo advance, and the rooks have no useful square for invading the enemy position. In addition it is Black to move. And he. . . did not in fact prepare an invasion at c2 . He perceived there, deep in the white camp, a solitary and undefended square at b 1 . And he promptly regrouped his forces for a decisive offensive.

l . . . ii.e4 2 l:thdl h6 3 ii.b3 ii.b7.

4 l:td7 l:tfe8 5 �d2 (the king acknowledges its mistake) 5 ••• ii.f5 6 'ii'c3 1Lxh3 7 'ifxf6 gxf6 White resigns.

The reader will no doubt have noticed that if the king had persisted in its desire to go to g 1 , then there would have followed 6 iLxfS 'ifxfS 7 �e 1 tl:Jc2+!

When one remembers about chess pawns, various terms come to mind, such as 'chain' , 'wedge' , 'phalanx' , 'promotion' , 'capture en passant' and ' double move from the initial square' . We forget that the pawn itself can attack, assuming that this is the duty of the pieces alone. But in chess, not only do instances not infrequently occur, where the pawns themselves, alone, without the pieces, go in for a breakthrough of the opponent 's piece set-up, but it can also happen that a lone, bold pawn, crossing the chess ' equator' , causes such a commotion there, that it can well be envied by all the remaining pieces.

Here we have a typical example, where the heroic actions of a single lone pawn enabled its pieces to


make a breakthrough. In the game Uitumen-Miagmasuren (Mongolian Championship 1 976) this tense situation arose. With his last move Black attacked the most dangerous, from his viewpoint, white piece -the queen at e5 - and not unreasonably he was reckoning, in the event of the exchange of queens, on setting up a firm defence, relying on the potential possibilities of his two bishops. And here an extraordinary event occurred: from the main army headquarters of the white king an order was received - don't worry about the queen, give the move to the advanced white pawn. Orders are orders, and in chess too they have to be carried out. And the pawn made the breakthrough - 1 g6 .

The effect of this blow was so great that Black decided to eliminate the pawn immediately, forgetting about the queen at e5 . Indeed, the following variation is unattractive : I . . .'it'xe5 2 gxf7+ �f8 3 .l:tg8 mate !

But after l. .. fxg6 the white queen managed to move from e5 to its favourite square h5 .

2 'i*'h5 e5. And now, again suddenly, the

rook, which just now had been helping its pawn, itself broke through the opponent' s pawn defences: 3 llf7, creating a situation that was completely hopeless for the h7 pawn. The game concluded 3 ... �xf7 4 'it'xh7+ �f8 5 .l:.xg6 (the white pieces arrive at the centre of

events as if by a mutually agreed time-table) 5 ... 'it'xg6 6 'it'xg6 Ji.d8 7 i.h5 (all the pieces want to distinguish themselves in the offensive, and it is the modest little pawn that is to blame ! ) 7 ... .l:.e7 8 liJd5 Black resigns.

The functions of the queen are so extensive and boundless that even if he only wanted to mention casually its most effective mechanisms, the author would have to compose a separate 'Treatise about the queen ' . Let u s examine a few tests o f the queen' s ability.

It is well known that the pawn does not greatly fear the queen. But the queen too does not always react to pawn attacks .

Rubinstein-Spielmann San Sebastian 1911

Black replied to 1 b4 with 1 ... i.xe4. It transpired that the pawn could not take the queen, but Spielmann was not counting on that.

7tl The Modern Chess Self-Tutor

But a lso a lter 2 lhe4 �fl+ 3 il.xfl l::r.x fl + 4 �g2 'ii'f2+ 5 Wh3 .l:lhl Bluck won by a direct attack. All the pieces did well, but the queen especially so, in that it tempted the b2 pawn by playing before this .. .'i'f2-c5 !

A queen may also pin down a pawn on its original square. Not every pawn likes this, and the king's pawn can be especially offended.

This position is taken from the game Appel-Bronstein (Ukrainian Championship, Kiev 1 940).

1 :.et b6 2 l:.a3 'it'e6 3 il.b4 tt'lc4. Seeing that the knight was intend

ing to replace the queen, the pawn grew even more angry: 4 e4 tt'lxa3 5 d5, but the queen calmly moved to e5 and soon helped its pieces to win.

The following example is from the game Karpov-Portisch (Portoroz!Ljubljana 1 975) . The black queen could have exploited the absence of pawn support for the pawn at f3 .

White played 1 �dl , and Black mistakenly failed to reply l . . .�ad8 -following the example of Morphy and Chigorin, Andersen and Nimzowitsch, in other words, not giving up a file to an enemy rook. The variation 2 il.e3 tt'ld5 3 il.d4, which so frightened Portisch, was not so terrible, since after 3 . . . 'it'f4 it is bad for the e4 pawn to take the knight.

Why can't the knight be taken? Because of the calm reply 4 . . . �xd5 .


Now, apart from the threat of .. .'i'xf3+, a second danger for White has appeared - the doubling of the black rooks on the d-file. In the event of 5 .ltg1 Black carries out a favourable exchange: 5 . . .'i'xf3+ 6 'i' g2 'i'xd 1 7 Iixd 1 Iixd 1 8 lbc3 .ltxc3 9 bxc3 l:.ee 1 followed by 1 0 . . . Iixg l + 1 1 'ii'xg 1 ltxg1+ 1 2 �xg1 f5 , most probably winning. Therefore after 3 . . . 'i'f4 White must continue 4 'ii'f2 lbb4 5 lbxb4 .i.xb4 with equal chances.

The following curious position was reached in the double-edged game Janosevic-Bronstein (Sarajevo 1 97 1 ) .

The strong knight in the centre and the threat of Iih3 force Black to be cautious.

Nevertheless he played l ... l:taf8 .

After 2 .:th3 lhf2+ White decided against running with his king to the

queenside and preferred 3 �gl , which led to a swift finish: 3 ... Ii fl + 4 �g2 l:I8f2+ 5 �g3 l:lf3+ 6 lbxf3 �xf3+ 7 'iitg2 'ii'xh3+ 8 'i'xh3+ l:txh3 9 �xh3 �g8 White resigns.

But why not, after all, 3 �e 1 ? Because then the end would have come even sooner: 3 . . . .l::te2+ 4 �d1 .l::Ifl mate ! Miracles do occur . . .

3 The Deployment of the Pawns

Today it i s hard to believe that the words of Fran9ois-Andre Philidor from his treatise about chess: ' I wish to propose to the public an innovation - play with the pawns' were indeed an innovation in 1 7 49. It is probable that the aim and point of the game of chess for enthusiasts of that time consisted not in cramping the opponent by logical movements of the chess army and forcing his capitulation, but of using bold moves with the individual pieces to cause confusion in the ranks of the enemy' s forces, after which, on ending up in a difficult situation, they would display inventiveness, resourcefulness and steadfastness. At that time chess was only a game, and this left its stamp on the chess moves themselves, on the aims of the players themselves, and on the tastes of the few spectators.

In order to to be able to employ in your own games the various playing possibilities of each piece in isolation or the strength of all the pawns as a whole, it is not only useful, but also completely essential to know which first moves are considered the best. Here it is highly appropriate to remember Lewis Carrot ' s immortal creation A lice 's Adventures in Wonderland. To our search for the best moves in the opening, there is no better epigraph than:

'Which way ought I to go from here?'

'That depends a good deal on where you want to get to . '

The strength of a move lies i n its economical simplicity

Chess is boundless only in the overall number of possible combinations of moves by White and Black. In any particular game the number of real possibilities is much smaller. And the stronger the player, the more restricted his choice at each step, since too many possibilities for him are taboo - the results of their actions can easily be predicted as giving a negative result. Let us test our assertion in the most complicated chess position - the starting position, when the two side ' s forces have only just l ined up.

In order to expand the scope of our pieces and simultaneously to prevent the opponent from easily occupying the central zone of the board, it is perfectly natural to begin the game with one of the central pawns - by advancing it two squares . Now Black is faced with problem No. l - what should he fear in the first instance, what should he prevent, and to what should he not pay attention? First of all this question must be discussed: should he

The Deployment of the Pawns 77

allow a second white pawn into the centre? A third? A fourth? Without declaring either ' for' or 'against ' , let us make this supposition: in order not to allow a second pawn into the centre, you must have the right to make several pawn moves in succession. No one is granted such a right, and therefore it is impossible to prevent a second pawn from moving into the centre. But to hinder the formation of a pawn pair is possible, and for this Black often replies to 1 e4 with 1 . . .e5 or 1 . . .c5 .

If then White plays 2 d4, placing a second pawn alongside the first, Black can take this pawn with his own. And only in the event of 1 e4 c5 2 f4 can White set up a pawn pair, but not in the centre of the front line. The desire of players from the past to have a strong pawn pair was so great, that many hotheads did not begrudge sacrificing a pawn - after 1 e4 c5 2 b4 or 1 e4 e5 2 f4 - drawing the black pawn to the side and gaining the opportunity for the queen' s pawn safely to occupy the central square d4.

Again after White ' s first move 1 d4 Black must decide whether or not to react to White ' s intention to place a second pawn alongside. It is always possible to ignore White' s plans, but such play will sooner or later lead to defeat - the opponent has to be reckoned with, although once or twice you can ' show off . So what should Black do here? The

most natural thing is to reply symmetrically with l . . . d5, attacking the squares c4 and e4; the move l . . . .!iJf6 solves this problem only partially. Here are two examples of currently fashionable opening set-ups after the initial moves 1 d4 .!iJf6 :

So, due to the fear of two pawns in the centre, Black is seriously restricted in his choice of first move. But are such pawns really so strong? Cannot we await their appearance in the centre and only then

7 X The Modern Chess Self-Tutor

at tm:k them? Today chess theorists consider that th is is indeed possible. Therefore there are devotees of l . . . e6 and 1 . . . c6. When White replies 2 d4, Black is the first to land a blow - 2 . . . d5, creating for White the difficult problem of what to do with his central pawn.

It is quite understandable that, after achieving success in the battle against two pawns, many masters decide to go further - to see whether or not the formation of a chain of three pawns can be allowed. It turns out that it can. Thus there arose those set-ups where the initial moves are the pawn moves 1 . . .d6 and 1 . . . g6 . However, here Black does not always succeed in effectively attacking White ' s pawn centre, and often he has to engage in a lengthy trench warfare from a distance. Chess beginners should without fail experience the force of such play, but should also remember that success will not be on their side : in the hands of an experienced player a pawn centre is a highly formidable weapon, and the ability to withstand it comes only as a result of lengthy experience. The game of chess was conceived for people who are endlessly searching, and therefore it would be strange if one did not find those ready to allow even more pawns into the centre - let us stop at four. When a player is not afraid of four enemy pawns, arranged in a line along the fourth rank, that player knows how to attack them

effectively from both flanks. Such a player may well begin the game as follows: 1 e4 d6 or l . . . g6, and after 1 d4 - in the same way or with 1 . . . tbf6 . The following development of events is possible : while White is engaged in constructing an offensive phalanx - 1 d4 tbf6 2 c4 g6 3 tbc3 J..g7 4 e4 d6 5 f4 0-0 6 tb£3 cS 7 dS e6

- Black prepares a defensive screen and step-by-step takes aim at White ' s central pawns.

Which strategy is best? The answer is - that which is personally most to your taste. Your chess taste does not arise out of nothing - it has long been formed by your individual attachments . Only, you must correctly understand your chess desires and endeavour to play in a way that you find pleasant. There are those who like to set up pawn phalanxes, while there are others who happily sit tight and lie in wait for the incautious pawns. The outcome of the


battle is in any case decided not by the strategy of the struggle itself, but by the ability to adapt to the details of the position, just as a driver of a motor vehicle adapts to a wet and slippery road surface. And just as the driver knows what may threaten him in this or that typical road situation, so a player should know what threatens his king in various typical instances, in what way individual chess pieces and pawns are dangerous, and what groups of pieces in their customary positions can threaten . For a player this is not difficult to know in general, since normally he will alternate the colour of the pieces from game to game. Even so, it should be remembered that three central pawns in a row are a rather formidable force; hiding behind the pawns, the pieces can take up good offensive positions and hinder Black's counterattack.

Therefore you cannot look at such a l ine of pawns for long; it is better to make some haste and in the aims of prophylaxis strike at the centre with . . . e5 or . . . c5 .

The attacking functions of pawns

By advancing a pawn one square or two, we can exploit its defensive capabilities to different degrees, as necessary. But by forcing the opponent to take our pawn, we often achieve a directly contradictory aim : we unmask our pieces and enable them to mount direct fire on the opponent' s pieces and pawns. The advance of such a pawn is considered to be the most successful, when to take it is undesirable, but to tolerate it at the occupied point is unbearable.

Whereas one pawn constitutes a certain strength only in the vicinity of its file, two pawns, standing on their initial squares or advancing

MO The Modern Chess Self-Tutor

toget her, considerably raise both the ir indiv idual importance, and the importance of their neighbour. For example, for two pawns advancing together, there are no longer any blind spots, before which they must stop: if one pawn cannot advance, the other pawn comes to its aid and with oblique fire eliminates the obstacle. This simple truth is forgotten, when it is asked why pawns are strongest when they stand side by side on the same rank.

Bronstein-Rojahn Moscow 1956

1 e4 e5 2 .!i:Jf3 .!i:Jc6 3 .i.c4 .!i:Jf6 4 .!i:Jg5 d5 5 exd5 .!i:Ja5 6 d3 h6 7 .!i:Jf3 e4 8 dxe4 .!i:Jxc4 9 'i'd4 .!i:Jb6 1 0 c4 c5 1 1 'i'd3 .i.g4 1 2 .!i:Jbd2 .i.e7 1 3 0-0 0-0 1 4 .!i:Je5 olth5 1 5 b3 .!i:Jbd7 1 6 .i.b2 .!i:Jxe5 1 7 .ltxe5 .!i:Jd7 1 8 .ltc3 .i.f6 1 9 �ae 1 �xb3 20 'i'xc3 'i'f6 2 1 e5

21 . . . 'i'f5 22 f4 oltg6 23 .!i:Je4 �ab8 24 'i't3 olth7 25 g4 'i'g6 26 f5 'i'b6

27 'i'g3 f6 28 e6 .!i:Je5 29 h4 <ith8 3 0 g 5 �bc8 3 1 <ith1 'i'd8 32 g 6 i..xg6 33 fxg6 b5 34 d6 'i'b6 3 5 d7 .!i:Jxd7 36 exd7 �cd8 37 .!i:Jxf6 'i'c6+ 3 8 'i'g2 1 -0 .

Sometimes an enemy pawn may place itself under attack, with the aim of either removing your pawn from the file it was occupying, or of forcing it to advance, removing the fire from some square, which the opponent for one reason or another considers desirable.

In order not to allow this, you must be able to anticipate the threat and know how to avoid it. In the given case you should forestall the opponent and yourself advance the pawn, the blockade of which the opponent wanted to carry out. In this way you are often able not only to retain the mobile chain of three pawns, but also to markedly cramp the opponent, by putting under fire one or two squares in his half of the board. This defensive procedure is especially good when you have a line of three pawns along the fourth rank - you should move either of the outside pawns. But if you sense a threat to a group of two pawns, see whether or not a forestalling step by one of them will prove beneficial .

Pawn groups are the chess player' s main fighting units, at any event in the opening stage of the game. But even when play goes into the middlegame stage, pawn configurations of this or that group exert a definite influence on the

The Deployment of the Pawns 8 1

development and the result of the actions of the pieces.

To systemise exactly all the offensive and defensive functions of pawn groups is impossible, but something must be said about the most necessary ones. In the vicinity of their king, pawn groups fulfil the role of covering, and it is desirable not to advance these pawns very far. On the other hand, if you are able to shelter your king on the opposite wing from where the opponent's king is , then the pawns aimed at the opposing king 's fortress not only can, but even must at the first convenient opportunity boldly advance up to the equator and beyond, driving the opponent 's pieces from their comfortable positions and breaking up his pawn screens, and opening files for your rooks and diagonals for your bishops. Naturally, the opponent will not wait for such a ruinous development of events . In good time he will begin taking defensive measures against the advancing pawn ranks . So that in an ideal version you will be able to carry out such a pawn storm only once or twice in your life, not more.

Aloni-Bronstein Moscow 1956

1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 g6 3 lLlc3 J..g7 4 e4 d6 5 f3 e5 6 liJge2 0-0 7 Jle3 liJbd7 8 'ii'd2 a6 9 g4 exd4 1 0 lLlxd4 c5 1 1 lLlc2 lLle5 1 2 i.e2 Jle6 1 3 lLla3 liJfd7 1 4 0-0-0

14 . . . b5 1 5 cxbS axbS 16 lLlcxb5 c4 1 7 'i'xd6 'i'aS 1 8 i.d4 l:.fc8 1 9 Jlc3 lLld3+ 20 Jlxd3 Jlxc3 2 1 lLlxc3 cxd3 22 l:.xd3 lLle5 2 3 l:.e3 l:.d8 24 'i'e7 l:.d7 25 'i'f6 'i'cS 26 lLlc2 liJd3+ 27 :xd3 l:.xd3 28 a3 ._,f2 29 l:te l :d2 0- 1 .

However much we discuss this problem of attack and defence, sooner or later we come to the conclusion that any advance of a pawn chain will be halted. Having acknowledged this fact as an inevitable reality, we must pass to an examination of a perfectly practical situation : both chains are mutually stopped and are tensely waiting. What are they waiting for? Quite possibly, piece attacks. Or pawn attacks . Both means of attack come into a chess player' s arsenal . But there is a significant difference : pawns attack a rigid chain from the side, but pieces invariably attack from the rear. From the rear a chain always has one weak point, from the


front - two. But it can also happen that a pawn chain is invulnerable to the enemy forces: if the pieces are unable to pass through to the rear, and if at the given moment the opponent does not have any pawns, capable of landing blows from the side.

The heightened attention to pawns, displayed by the author, is explained very simply: today every chess game, in one way or another, sooner or later, in the opening, middlegame or endgame, inevitably reaches a position where the initially mobile pawn ranks, on encountering the enemy pawns, become rigid, and staunchly wait until someone remembers about them. Without fail we must also say something about the role played by outwardly passive pawn chains.

Firstly, about their positive significance. A rigid chain does not allow the opponent' s pawns to advance, halting them at certain points . This reduces the concern of all the time taking into consideration the possible step of this or that enemy pawn, which is now blockaded in the chain. Secondly, rigid pawns by their placement on these or those squares prevent their pieces from occupying those squares, which are often excellent points for beginning an attack. In addition, being on the intersection of various files, ranks and diagonals, the pawn chains prevent their own pieces from penetrating into the opponent's

camp by routes that are often very tempting. And a last, but also important factor: even a rigid chain possesses fire-power, since a piece cannot approach close to it - to do so is dangerous, and it is not every day that one can go in for such a risk.

Tolush-Bronstein 13th USSR Championship, 1944 1 d4 tbf6 2 c4 d6 3 tbc3 e5 4 e3

tbbd7 5 tbf3 g6 6 i.e2 i.g7 7 b3 0-0 8 i.b2 .:.e8 9 'i'c2 c6 1 0 0-0 'i'a5 1 1 .l:tfd 1 tbf8 1 2 a3 e4 1 3 tbd2 i.f5 1 4 b4 'iic7 1 5 tbfl d5 1 6 cxd5 cxd5 1 7 �b3 l:ted8 1 8 l:tdc 1 'ilie7 1 9 a4

1 9 . . . h5 20 aS h4 2 1 i.a3 h3 22 g3 tb8h7 23 tbd2 tbg5 24 b5 'i'e6 25 tba4 i.g4 26 'i'd 1 'iif5 27 i.e7 i.xe2 28 'it'xe2 .l:Idc8 29 i.xf6 i.xf6 30 tbc5 b6 3 1 axb6 axb6 32 lha8 .l::lxa8 33 tba6 i.e7 34 �fl l:tc8 3 5 'i'd 1 �xc 1 36 'iixc 1 �g7 3 7 'iic7 i.f6 38 tbb4 tbt3 39 tbxf3 'i'xf3 40 �e 1 'iih 1 + 41 �e2 0- 1 .


And now it can be asked, to whom, to which side is a rigid chain favourable? The answer may seem simple, but it will be completely true and sincere - to that side whose chain has advanced further, leaving behind itself more space for its pieces. It is more difficult to answer this question : what about the situation when on the battlefield there are two pawn chains, let us say, one on the kingside and the other on the queenside? Here the decisive factor in the evaluation of the situation is the placement of the kings. It is better for the king that is behind the far-advanced chain, and worse if its own chain of pawns is pressing the king to the back rank. A paradox? No. When a king has more squares around it, it is easier for its pieces to defend it. This rule does not apply when there are ranks of advancing pawns, but with blocked chains the situation is just the opposite .

Defending the pieces from a frontal attack

Here the main attention should be paid to the creation of a screen around the position of the king. Over the course of many long years it was assumed that three pawns, arranged in a row in front of the kingside castled position, were in principle sufficient for a reliable defence. Today doubts have been cast on this principle and in the games of the best players in the

world it rarely occurs in pure form. The reason is that, during a persistent and at the same time skilful attack, the opponent' s minor pieces are free, with the help of the pawns or alone, to make breaches in the wall, breaking up the three pawns. In the resulting breach either the queen intrudes, or the rooks open destructive fire along the file that has been opened from one camp to the other. In such a difficult situation it is rare for any chess king to remain unharmed.

Bronstein-Trifunovic Amsterdam 1954

1 d4 li:Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 li:Jc3 �b4 4 e3 b6 5 li:Jge2 �b7 6 a3 �xc3+ 7 li:Jxc3 0-0 8 �d3 c5 9 d5 exd5 1 0 cxd5 a6 1 1 0-0 d6 1 2 e4 li:Jbd7 1 3 a4 'iic7 1 4 li:Je2 1He8 1 5 li:Jg3 c4 1 6 �c2 b5 1 7 �e3 b4 1 8 .l:ic 1 aS 1 9 �d4 �a6 2 0 li:JfS �e5 2 1 �d3 �xf5 22 exf5 li:Jxd5 23 �e4 'iic6 24 'i'f3 �b7

K · l 'I hi' Modern Chess Self-Tutor

.' 'l l h lll·K 26 .Jit.xh7 t �xh7 27 � h 'l t ·�·�K 2 M fxg7 f6 29 'ti'xe8+ ·�· x�7 lO llxc4 'iVxc4 3 1 'ti'xd7+ •J..g6 3 2 'iVg4+ �t7 33 b3 1 -0 .

Therefore, as a rule, today a parallel chain of three pawns does not guarantee the safety of the king ' s fortress .

The queenside pieces, in contrast to the king, are not tied down by the need to hide behind the pawn chain. But in the period when the forces are being developed, it is hard to overestimate the help of the pawns. As long as the pawns stand on their second rank, the pieces, although well protected from the front and from the flank, are cramped, and are unable to display or even show their strength. During the course of many years, or possibly even centuries, generations of chess players blindly copied from one another an unchanging method of play - competing with the opponent to rapidly bring out the minor pieces beyond the line of pawns, in this way solving at least partially the problem of deploying the offensive units along the front.

But back in the 1 920s this principle of rapid development was called into question, together with the benefit of advancing the two central pawns. Gradually the games and theoretical writings of the leading players confirmed the idea, that the principle of the rapid development of the pieces, in the form in which it had been transferred from

book to book, was no longer correct. And if from this viewpoint one examines many games of the best modem grandmasters, it can be seen that the leading competitive players are those who have managed to reject from their arsenal the obsolete dogma of 'the rapid development of the pieces ' .

Was there here an element of miraculous inspiration, or were there objective reasons? Both the one and the other. Bold performers, as well as a mass of practical material, were needed to test the hypothesis. And there was one more factor: when the chess pieces moved short distances, no one knew the principle of development, but when the pieces were given enormous strength, then naturally the one who won was the first to approach the opponent 's camp and to frighten him. Today you will no longer overcome anyone by fright - you need to be able to plan and calculate accurately.

Rejection of the principle of rapid development by no means repudiates that undisputed rule, that the pieces must be brought into a state of full military preparedness . Therefore today the leading players in the world employ the principle of creating manoeuvring space for pieces situated in good initial positions. Naturally, the task of expanding your territory can and should be decided only by the pawns on the queenside. In the majority of cases that is what the


players do . By systematically advancing (depending on the counteractions of the opponent) their pawns in front of the queenside pieces, the players endeavour first of all to create scope for the long-range pieces - the queen, rooks and bishops, and also to expand the zone of free movement within their camp for both knights . In this new approach to the development of an offensive plan by White, and of a campaign of active defence by Black, there is nothing unnatural .

Covering fire by the pieces helps

their pawns to keep control of the immediate approaches to their camp. If this fire needs to be adjusted slightly, it is sufficient for a rook or bishop to move one step to a new position, and the piece again becomes an active offensive or defensive participant. It stands to reason that from the initial positions it is not possible immediately to destroy the opponent' s fortress, but who today makes such illusory plans? First you need to occupy the front and bring up the remaining reserves.

4 The Strength of the Pawns

During the past few centuries the role of the pawn offensive on the left flank has been underestimated. The blame lies . . . on the missing games of Philidor, the proponent of pawn strategy, and . . . the distrust of players in a simple truth, clearly expressed some fifteen hundred years ago by the well known military theorist Vegetius : ' . . . in battle order the commander should have been on the right flank between the infantrymen and horsemen, leading an envelopment of the opponent 's right flank with the aim of gaining his rear. ' Later: 'The first assistant of the commander used to take his place in the centre of the battle order of infantry and directed its actions . ' And finally: ' The second assistant was on the left flank, which was the most vulnerable place . ' These mil itary comparisons are quite reasonable, since modem chess is nothing other than a model of ancient battles between medieval armies.

There is also another, mundane explanation of why the strategy of enveloping the opponent 's flank does not appeal even today. The point is that when a player with White rapidly throws forward his king' s pawn, and the player with Black equally readily answers in l ike fashion, he. . . commits a rash

step. The author is far from from the idea of calling this step a mistake, and the advance of the black king ' s pawn by two squares has been, is, and always will be in the offensive arsenal of all the strongest players in the world. But here ' s the catch: the strongest players can permit themselves this move, because they are playing weaker players, whereas inexperienced players, meeting stronger opponents, should not play this way.

Looking through the old books, we can easily find thousands and thousands of chess encounters, which proceeded in one and the same fashion : to the opening move of the king' s pawn Black replied in the same way, White promptly attacked the black pawn - with his queen, with his knight, with his pawns - Black was forced to defend it and against his will was drawn into a close-range fight in unfavourable circumstances. On account of the fact that the chess battlefield has an axis of symmetry through the centre for each camp, but not a diametrical axis from camp to camp, when Black's central pawn is attacked he brings into play not those pieces that are really needed for the defence of his camp, but those which are needed for the defence of his pawn and the weaknesses arising

The Strength of the Pawns 87

in connection with this defence. At the same time White attacks with those forces that can be conveniently regrouped for a future attack on the black king's headquarters. And therefore for him the attack on the e5 pawn is a favourable transitional tactical episode, whereas for Black its defence is virtually the main battle of the game.

So why did the strongest players play l . . .e5 ? Well, they knew that the weak players would not act in the best way, and often the course of the game confirmed these assumptions . Bogged down in the first attack, White lost the initiative, after which Black calmly regrouped and landed a powerful counter-blow. These victories came to an end when other strong players began playing differently, by not placing the white king 's pawn in the centre with 1 e4 .

The formation of stable pawn structures

From what has been said above, the soundest offensive chess strategy consists in the preparation and formation of stable pawn structures, capable of standing in place for a long time and fulfilling defensive functions: guarding the pieces that are carrying out regroupings along the front line or at the rear, and having the possibility of flexibly changing the pawn phalanxes, in

order to surround enemy pawn groups or destroy lone pawns for the sake of a rapid offensive on a nearby piece. At the same time pawn structures should be prepared for general defence, and also for the fact that after the exchange of all the pieces the pawn phalanxes will be the main forces, and they should be able either to ensure the breakthrough to the queening square of your own pawns or. . . not to allow the opponent's pawns to queen.

And throughout all this it should always be remembered that at the final stage of a lengthy battle, when the forces have been exhausted to the limit and only the kings and pawns remain on the battlefield, the pawn structures must themselves guard against an attack by the enemy king, so that. . . your own king should not be tied down by this aim.

It is difficult to fulfil all these tasks. But you should always be ready to fulfil them, and for this aim there are simple and almost reliable pawn structures . All that has been said is most easily demonstrated in games taken from various years.

Here, for example, is the game Bronstein-Levenfish ( 1 7th USSR Championship, Moscow 1 949). It is interesting for the fact that the struggle over the entire board was conducted consistently from the opening to deep into the endgame. After gaining the two bishops by an accurate manoeuvre, White endeavoured to create more scope for

H H '111l' Modern Chess Self-Tutor

t he m , and by exchanging everything possible he achieved his aim.

I e4 c5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 liJf6 5 liJc3 d6 6 i.e2 e5 7 liJb3 i.e7 8 0-0 i.e6 9 f4 exf4 1 0 i.xf4 0-0 1 1 'it>h l d 5 1 2 e 5 ltJe4 1 3 i.d3 f5 1 4 exf6 liJxf6 1 5 'i'e l 'i'd7 1 6 liJa4 i.fl 1 7 ltJac5 'i'c8 1 8 i.g3 i.xc5 1 9 ltJxc5 .l:.e8 20 'i'f2 ltJe5 2 1 i.f5 'i'c6 2 2 �ae l liJeg4 2 3 'i'd4 b6 24 liJd7 'i'c4 25 liJxf6+ liJxf6 26 i.e5

26 .. .'ii'xd4 27 i.xd4 tt:'Je4 28 'it>g l i.g6 29 i.d7 �e7 30 i.a4 lif8 3 1 l:.xf8+ 'it>xf8 32 i.c6 liJf6 33 %he7 �xe7 34 c3 'it>d6 3 5 i.b7 i.b l 36 a3 i.d3 3 7 'it>t2 i.e4 38 h3 tt:'Je8 39 g3 i.f5 40 g4 i.e6 41 i.e3 'it>c7 42 i.a6 liJd6 43 i.d3 g6 44 i.c2 ltJc4 45 i.c l 'it>d7 46 'it>g3 'it>e7 47 'it>f4 'it>f6 48 h4 i.d7 49 b3 ti:Je5 50 c4 'it>e6 5 1 i.b2 liJfl 52 cxd5+ 'it>xd5 53 i.e4+ 'it>d6 54 i.g7 i.e6 55 b4 'it>e7 56 i.d3 liJd6 57 h5 i.fl 58 'it>g5 gxh5 59 gxh5 i.g8 60 h6 b5 6 1 i.d4 ltJc4 6 2 i.c5+ 'it>e6 63 a4 a6 64 a5 'it>e5

65 i.f8 liJe3 66 i.g7+ 'it>d6 67 i.e4 liJd5 68 i.f8+ 'it>c7 69 'it>f5 ti:Jc3 70 i.c2 liJd5 71 'it>e5 tt:'Je3 72 i.e4 ltJg4+ 73 �f5 ti:Jt2 74 i.c2 i.c4 75 �f6 i.d3 76 i.xd3 Black resigns.

The creation of deep gun-ports for bishops in a chain of pawns

For the long-range attack on the opponent' s pawn screen it is very useful to create slots in your chain of pawns and to place your bishops in them. But such engineering work cannot be begun without preliminary measures. The task will prove impracticable, the moment the opponent advances two central pawns against your bishops.

This elementary defensive procedure significantly reduces the pressure of the sheltering bishops. Of course, the opponent 's pawns themselves will come under attack. But it was not for the sake of the pawns that the gun-ports were

The Strength of the Pawns 89

created, but for the sake of the pawn screen, which is by no means one and the same thing. The pawn screen at the very start of play is the pawns in the region of probable castling by the opponent, and it is also possible that after castling the pawns will remain in their initial positions .

Therefore, when you want to begin action with the preliminary placing of the bishops on the flanks, first take control of one of the main central squares at the chess equator. If you are planning to place your bishop on the long light-square diagonal, then first advance your queen' s bishop' s pawn two squares forward. And if your intentions are associated with arranging your queen' s bishop in a gun-port, then first move your king' s knight towards the centre. Both of these methods of opening the game, of course, cannot prevent the opponent from erecting a screen against the fire along the diagonal, but his defensive actions will help you to gain time for attacking and will often even suggest changing the place for landing the preliminary blow, since in the process of constructing the screen, other weaknesses may be created in the opponent's position.

That the defence against such bishops demands attention is well illustrated by the game Konstantinopolsky-I.Zaitsev, played in the 1 966 Moscow Championship. It is very instructive to observe how

Alexander Konstantinopolsky, a long-time devotee of the opening 1 lt:Jf3, one of the prize-winners at the 1 Oth USSR Championship and a USSR Correspondence Champion, with subtle, imperceptible manoeuvres wins against a player of sharp combinational style, essentially . . . without crossing the equator. A rarity!

1 lt:Jf3 lL'lf6 2 b3 g6 3 i.b2 i.g7 4 g3 d5 5 c4 c6 6 i.g2 0-0 7 0-0 lL'lbd7 8 d3 b5 9 cxd5 cxd5 1 0 lt:Jc3 b4 1 1 lt:Ja4 i.b7 1 2 :c l i.h6 1 3 e3 aS 1 4 lt:Je5 l:lc8 1 5 lL'lxd7 lt:Jxd7 1 6 :txc8 'ii'xc8 1 7 'ii'g4 lL'lf6 1 8 'ii'd4 'ii'c2

1 9 'ii'c5 'ii'xc5 20 lL'lxcS i.aS 2 1 i.h3 i.g7 22 .Uc l e6 23 i.xe6 d4 24 i.xd4 Black resigns.

And more recently, in the first round of a major international tournament in memory of the leader of English chess players C .H.O'D. Alexander (Teesside 1 975), I played the following game. In it the white

' 10 ll11 · 11 loth•m ( 'lit' ss ,\'elf-Tutor

q • u· , ·n p1 1 1 V l'd 1 t �>L· I I so wel l , t hat at t i ll' l' ouc l us iou o f t he tournament a spl'l· i n l j ury j udged the entire game tu he t he best and the most brilliant of a l l those played. And then the experts awarded it third place for quality of play in Chess lnformator - the official publication of the International Chess Federation. I was not disappointed by third place, since I always remember the saying by the incomparable Spanish nobleman Don Quixote, that the first prize is given for personal qualities, and the second for l iterary qualities, and so in a l iterary competition the second prize always in effect becomes the first. . . Besides, the 'top ten' evaluations differed strongly, and it was evident whose tastes I did not please . . .

Bronstein-Keene

1 c4 I did not make this move, but

merely announced it, since at my request the pawn was advanced by the well-known English Master Milner-Barry, a school-mate of Alexander and his long-standing friend.

l. .. liJf6 2 d4 e6 3 g3 d5 4 .ig2 liJbd7 5 liJd2 .ie7 6 liJgf3 0-0 7 0-0 b6 8 b3 .ib7 9 .ib2 c5 10 e3 l:c8 1 1 :et l:.c7 12 �e2 �a8 13 l:.fe1 l1fc8 14 cxd5 .ixd5 15 e4 .ib7 16 d5 exd5 17 exd5 .if8 18 lDe4 lDxe4 19 �xe4 .ixd5 20 �f5

20 ... g6 21 'ilf4 f6 22 licd1 c4 23 lDg5

23 • • • .tic5 24 :xd5 I;lxd5 25 bxc4 fxg5 26 �g4 .:.f5 27 .ixa8 :!xa8 28 �e4 l:.d8 29 �d4 �f7 30 g4 Black resigns.

Had Black played 20 . . . h6, then he could have incurred check and mate after 2 1 lDgS g6 22 .ixdS gxf5 23 .ixf7 ! And instead of 23 lDgS White could also have played less brilliantly: 23 llxdS �xdS 24 liJgS

The Strength of the Pawns 9 1

'ifc5 2 5 b4 fxg5 26 bxc5 gxf4 27 i.d5 mate ! It is on this pivotal variation, as on an axis, that White' s entire complicated plan rests.

The subsequent attack is also interesting, but the methods of conducting it are well known - you must open diagonals for your bishops and aim that your rooks should not only control the open files, but that they should be able to invade Black 's rearguard with the intention of landing a decisive blow along the rank.

Thus after 23 lDg5 Black could have taken the bishop with his bishop - 23 . . . .i.xg2. But he rejected this: after 24 l:.xd7 he did not see how to organise a defence of the h8 square, on the long dark-square diagonal . If the white queen should reach there, and with the support of the bishop from long range, it will be an obvious symptom of the imminent death of the black king.

At the same time White is threatening to take Black's rook' s pawn with his knight, and in addition (misfortunes do not arrive singly) not on the sly but publicly to announce check to the king. Therefore on account of 25 lDxh7

the move 24 . . . 'ifc6 does not work, but even the best decision in the given situation - blocking the gunport of White 's dark-square bishop - helps only partially: 24 . . . l:.xd7 25 'iixf6 c3 26 'i'e6+ <it>h8 27 'ifxd7 'iib7 (weaker is 27 . . . i.g7 28 .i.xc3 :txc3 29 :te8+, with ' check' to the king and 'gardez' to the queen, although this isn't normally said today) 28 i.xc3+ %hc3 29 'iid4+ 'ii'g7 (the good position of the white knight prevents Black from utilising the virtues of his bishops in the variation 29 . . . �g8 30 'ifxc3 .i.h 1 3 1 fl) 3 0 'ifxg7+ �xg7 3 1 lit>xg2 -White has a clear material advantage : a pawn in an endgame, where Black has no outside passed pawn, and his pieces are no more actively placed than White 's . Of course, Keene was obliged to go in for this optimal variation, but, as he himself said, he was confused by the move 23 lDg5 .

If one makes a professional analysis of the game, the most difficult move was 1 3 .l:.fe 1 , preparing the breakthrough in the centre - this move allowed White, at the cost of a pawn, to open diagonals for his bishops and both files for his rooks.

5 The Deployment of the Pieces

I t would not be wrong to say that the present self-tutor was conceived by the author for chess fanatics, who themselves are ready to play for days on end and are ready to spend hours watching the moves of other players . And with these people it would be pleasant for the author to establish an emotional chess contact, in order to converse on the same wavelength, and to use understandable chess concepts . Intuition suggests to me that this should be done as soon as possible, before the author and the reader interpret various familiar terms in different ways.

If one takes as a basis the well known saying 'Business before pleasure ' , then chess, without doubt, should be regarded as a means of relaxation. Nevertheless, just as a fascination with guitar playing does not reduce the interest in tours by famous guitarists, so chess enthusiasts analyse with excitement the games of players who are experienced in their professional mastery - grandmasters . What do enthusiasts look for in these games? What do they hope to find in them? What do they wish to learn from these examples from international chess? And to what extent are their expectations, aspirations and hopes realised? What in the end do they

manage to learn, and which grandmaster ' secrets ' still remain a closed book?

And yet it seems to me that, the more an enthusiast looks at these games, the more he becomes afraid of the enormous amount of necessary information. And no one will say aloud that this information is ephemeral and that for playing chess it is simply not needed. For playing chess one needs a minimal, but sound knowledge of the strengths of the individual pieces and their roles in mutually aiding one another, one needs a strong nervous system, accustomed to constant opposition, and one needs a certain ability to be able to see a position one move ahead, and with the skill to picture possible branches two moves ahead. With such abilities one can achieve enormous practical successes. Only how difficult this is - to picture clearly to yourself the consequences of two moves for White and two for Black !

As a rule, an enthusiast plays for relaxation after a working day, when he is tired, his mind is crammed with various trifles, and he is not capable of using his memory: chess for him is merely a means of nervous release, when he can take an important decision, often take it hastily, and in doing so not be afraid

The Deployment of the Pieces 93

of any real losses, since the actions of chess players do not extend beyond the conflict between the white and black pieces and pawns.

Mathematicians, I think, consider chess to be interesting, only when there is a complicated problem, demanding for its solution a profound and well organised mathematical apparatus . For example, the position below may seem simple to mathematicians, but to enthusiasts it is incomprehensible: the player who begins wins.

Every enthusiast and every grandmaster looks for and finds for himself a certain narrow repertoire of initial moves, and along this channel he himself swims and he tries to force his opponent to swim. And often - this is what is strange ! - he succeeds in imposing his will on his opponent. This is explained by the fact that the initial moves determine the almost obligatory plans by the

two sides, and experience brings valuable knowledge about which branches should be feared, and which moves avoided.

Therefore chess enthusiasts should not be afraid of this game 'with complete information ' , since for you and me it, this information, is needed only in minimal doses, that part of it which touches on our favourite paths in the opening, and here we do not need the moves themselves - they are often very similar - but only the main ideas, the defensive props, the attacking constructions, the pawn clashes by the equator, and the ways of breaking through the pawn chain with the pieces.

Here are two in some ways similar examples.

The first is a position from the Muzio-Polerio Gambit, and the second shows a once fashionable variation of the Modern Benoni.

, , I n,, . A lt �tlt'm Chess Self-Tutor

Some practical advice on how to obtain a position to your taste and

how to avoid a rapid loss in the opening

It was not so long ago that every grandmaster was quite familiar with the fashionable opening set-ups, could give a lecture on a set topic, and was able to conduct theory lessons and take part in a dispute about this or that fresh theoretical variation. Today things are different. Now even chess grandmasters have become narrow specialists in their small opening field. Back in the late 1 920s there was published in our country a popular opening guide by Nenarokov, which covered in general terms the main theoretical problems. Today books of similar size are devoted to one opening, and there are already such books devoted to one variation of some opening, or even to one move.

All the best players in the world choose their openings not by whether they have a good or poor theoretical evaluation, but in accordance with their individual chess tastes, their ability and willingness to invest the maximum effort in this or that strategical plan, which, whether we want it or not, is organically linked with the initial moves and depends significantly less on my and your chess desires . Therefore the best players in the world very carefully select for themselves a narrow opening repertoire, but they study it in such detail, perfect it to such brilliance, know in it so many pitfalls and hidden whirlpools, that if they themselves were to publish books on their openings, in size they could easily eclipse all the fashionable FIDE encyclopaedias. This is how all the remaining players in the world should act, and that is how the author also advises his readers to act.

Now that we have examined so many examples of the functions of the chess pieces in various circumstances, each of us will have already compiled for himself his mould of an ' ideal chess style' which he would like to imitate. Therefore now there is nothing easier and nothing simpler than to select for your personal practice an opening to your taste.

So that it should be absolutely clear to the reader what the author


wishes to say, he himself is prepared to act as the first such trained robot.

I always l ike it when my pawns are not frozen in an immobile chain, but as it were comprise part of a living, mobile mechanism. Therefore when playing White I very often used to begin the game with 1 e4, and then, against each of the initial replies by Black, I would choose a variation leading to an open position with direct threats for both sides . Here I acted imprudently - nowadays players avoid affording their opponent counter possibilities, and prefer to constrain the opponent with well known technical procedures, rejecting hopes of an attack if it means allowing the opponent to obtain freedom of movement over the entire board.

But you, the readers, cannot play like that - you are not professionals, and if you imitate the worst features of the austere modem style of the super-champions, then simply . . . you will lose all your partners - no one will want to play with you. Therefore in reply to 1 . . . e5 you can boldly play the King' s Gambit, which will give enough pleasure for your entire life. Or choose the ancient Italian Game, which has now been virtually forgotten - all the books mention it only in passing, so that you will also have scope for searchings - and as Black choose Chigorin ' s counter-attack, the Two Knights Defence.

The Italian Game is familiar to every enthusiast. Now White, who still retains an additional resource in the form of the turn to move, can choose a path to his taste. Either sharp variations along the lines of 4 c3 l2Jf6 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4 i..b4+ 7 l2Jc3 l2Jxe4 8 0-0 i..xc3 9 d5 i..f6 1 0 kte I 0-0 1 1 l1xe4 etc . , or the quiet development of the pieces with 4 l2Jc3 lDf6 5 d3 d6 6 i..g5 h6 7 i..xf6 'it'xf6 8 l2Jd5 'iid8 9 c3 l2Je7 I 0 l2Je3 etc. , or, finally, and this will be the

' )h ' Hu• Modern Chess Self-Tutor

1 1 1ost coned dec is ion, he can go in for winn ing another additional move, by choosing for this the immortal gambit of Captain Evans.

Since the time when, in 1 824, the inventor of tri-colour maritime lighting, the English Captain William Davies Evans, invented the move 4 b4, there has been no player in the world whose name has occurred so frequently in chess literature, since his gambit appealed to everyone and was employed by the most famous players of the 1 9th century.

What is the point of the gambit 1 e4 eS 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 .tc4 .tcS 4 b4 .txb4 5 c3 etc .? Without losing time, White succeeds in advancing both his bishop' s pawn and his queen' s pawn. Since, for the evacuation of his king into shelter Black still needs to find two moves, White justifiably hopes that by energetic action he will be able to further activate his pieces, with the intention of attacking the king not only in the centre, but also in its shelter. If the author of the self-tutor was obliged to give only one opening recommendation to enthusiasts, then, without hesitating for a second, I would say: play the Evans Gambit. The secret is that in this opening set-up you constantly have to parry mutual threats and create new ones, invent moves and endeavour to guess your opponent's plans. It initiates such a sharp battle, that, even knowing which threats

are imminent, tt ts impossible to predict exactly which precise threat will be used by the opponent in this or that case. For light, friendly games there is no better opening in chess. And there is no need to fear that in this opening Black immediately appears to gain an advantage in force. The Evans Gambit is not a variation, it is a style of conducting a chess game. And those who wish to achieve successes in tournaments cannot ignore these basics of chess strategy. The King's Gambit 1 e4 eS 2 f4 is also wonderful, but in it the white king comes into play too soon. There is not this drawback in the Evans Gambit. Here the black king also succeeds in castling . . . although not always.

In what way does the Evans Gambit differ from the Italian Game, where the first moves are the same? The difference seems insignificant - here Black has to move his bishop, whereas there after 4 c3 Black has time for the move 4 . . . liJf6. Is this really so important? Very much so ! Strictly speaking, the main aim of such strategy in chess consists in not allowing the opponent the possibility of making some concrete move. It is around this that the struggle also proceeds in the King' s Gambit and similar openings.

If in reply to 1 e4 they played against me the French Defence -l . . .e6, I usually chose 2 d4 dS 3 liJc3 , expecting the replies 3 . . . dxe4,


3 . . . lLlf6 and 3 . . . i.b4. Occasionally I also played 3 lLld2 and, it can be said, I never chose the nevertheless quite reasonable variation 3 e5 . I cannot even reply why; it is most probable that I did not see any dangers for the pawn at e4 and I did not want to take the pressure off the d5 pawn, since moves such as e4-e5 always facilitate the flank counter advance of the pawn to c5 .

In the variation 3 lLlc3 i.b4 the author, following fashion, usually played 4 e5 c5 5 a3 i.xc3+ 6 bxc3 lLle7 7 a4 etc . , and two or three times - not more - he tried the double-edged 7 'ii'g4, which resembles sailing without rudder or sail, but occasionally earlier he diverged and attacked the bishop with the pawn back on the 4th move : 4 a3 i.xc3+ 5 bxc3 dxe4 6 'it'g4 . In this variation White ' s position, with two attractive bishops, definitely appeals to me. The following line, say, is possible: 6 . . . lLlf6 7 "ilxg7 l:tg8 8 'ii'h6 c5 9 i.b2 lLlc6 I 0 f3 etc. Why f2-f3 ? White has acquired two strong bishops and is aiming to open the diagonals to the maximum, and in passing also the files, so that the rooks should help the bishops in the attack.

Passing on to the currently fashionable Sicilian Defence, I should say that it. . . has never left the chess scene and therefore each generation of players runs here into certain theoretical problems. At first in reply to 1 e4 c5 I used to choose the

so-called Closed Variation - 2 lLlc3 lLlc6 3 g3 , only not in this move order, but beginning with 2 g3 , so as to retain the c3 square for the pawn. Why does the pawn need the c3 square? In order to support the queen' s pawn, when it moves out to the equator to d4 . However, this theme is well known to us from the Open Games. But also in the SemiOpen Games it is not bad to have two pawns side-by-side in the centre. What is good is always good. On the other hand, when after 2 tLlf3 they played against me 2 . . . d6, 2 . . . lLlc6, or 2 . . . e6, I did not hurry to automatically play 3 d4 . It was always rather a pity to exchange a strong central pawn for a weak flank pawn. Although I realised that in so doing I was also obtaining my own trumps: an additional tempo for the movement of my knight into the very centre of the action . Therefore after 2 tLlf3 I sometimes did not play 3 d4, but 3 i.b5 or 3 c3 , and a few times the Wing Gambit - 3 b4 .

Over the course of many years, Black in the Sicilian Defence did not move his pawns further than the fortified rank, and this made it much easier for White to mount an attack. Even today there are those who like to sit it out behind a pawn wall : 1 e4 c5 2 tLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 d6 etc . White can calmly concentrate his forces in the centre, or can immediately go in for an attack on the f6 knight with the energetic move 6 g4 !

1 ) 1( '/ 1u• Modern Chess Self-Tutor

< >n the other hand, this defensive position is much more solid, when Black lures the white pawn to c4, where it stands helplessly, all the time awaiting a blow from two sides - . . . b5 or . . . d5 . I e4 c5 2 lt:Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:Jxd4 lt:Jc6 5 lt:Jb5 d6 6 c4 lt:Jf6 7 lt:J 1 c3 a6 8 lt:Ja3 i..e7.

9 i..e2 0-0 10 0-0 b6 1 1 i..e3 etc . The difficulty for White in this variation is that with piece moves alone Black ' s fortress cannot be taken, but to advance the f- and gpawns is dangerous - the black bishop may unexpectedly come into play on the a8-h l diagonal . And that is what happens in practice : White first marks time, and then advances the pawns in front of his king, whereas he should immediately take a decision - pawns or pieces. It is even better if this decision is taken before . . . the move 5 lt:Jb5 . The quiet development of the frequently delayed queen' s knight forces Black to stick to the usual variations. White

does not waste a tempo, and there remains that additional resource of speed for other useful actions (the author is discussing variations with the move 5 lt:Jc3).

The resource of speed is not an abstract category. The basis of a chess position is the tempo at which events develop. As in music, chess players are familiar with harmony, melody and rhythm. Similarly, it can be said that a chess position should have harmoniously placed forces, and one clear, melodic aim. And the intended plan should be carried out in a rapid, constantly increasing tempo. Those chess games from the classical heritage, which we regard as the standards of chess art, possess harmony, melody and rhythm .

Due to the speed factor many players have suffered bitter defeats in the variation 1 e4 c5 2 lt:Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:Jxd4 lt:Jf6 5 lt:Jc3 i..b4 6 e5 lt:Je4 7 'if g4 lt:Jxc3 8 'it'xg7 �f8 9 a3 etc . Black lacks one tempo-move to guard his important e5 square. This example is typical of the opening as a whole. From the very first move there is a fierce struggle for tempo-moves, as attempts are made to divert the opponent from one road and . . . to seize this road yourself.

Today the main problems of the Sicilian Defence are nevertheless not to be found here. Players are engaged in searching for this miracle move in the long variation 1 e4


c5 2 liJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 lDf6 5 lDc3 a6 6 ii.gS e6 7 f4. It is evident that the white bishop has been developed early, control of the a7-gl diagonal has been lost, and the b2 pawn has been left undefended.

Can Black exploit this? Yes. Only in so doing he will have to. . . lose several tempi. And a player begins thinking along roughly the following l ines : ' I will now play .. .'iib6, take the b2 pawn, then .. .'iib2-b6, and return home to d8. I will win a pawn, but will lose four tempi. No, no, and once again no. ' And whoever thinks l ike that, thinks correctly. But others think differently: 'I will play .. .'ii'd8-b6xb2, attack the knight or the rook, they have to be defended, the tempo count will be 2- 1 , not so terrible, and on the other hand I will break up White' s pawns and practically eliminate the possibility of him castling queenside. ' That i s good. Who then i s right - the first or the second? The one who is right is the third, the player with the white pieces. Because it didn't cost anything to imitate this course of reasoning of his opponents. And he nevertheless played f2-f4. This means that White has in mind his own melody, his own chess song.

Therefore, without yet making his seventh move, Black continues to think as follows : 'But perhaps he won't give me the b2 pawn, and in that case the queen will have moved in vain to b6? What will be said by the b7 pawn, which was all ready to

move to b5 under the protection of the a6 pawn? What will the king himself say? No, I am not going anywhere. ' And with a sigh and regrets about the time wasted, and without any great hesitation, a move such as 7 . . . ii.e7, 7 . . . b5, 7 . . . liJbd7, 7 . . . ii.d7 or 7 .. .'iic7 is made. Five moves. These moves are all similar looking, but are altogether different. After 7 . . . ii.e7 White can calmly play 8 'iif3 and 9 0-0-0, whereas after 7 . . . b5 he must immediately consider that at any moment Black may carry out a pawn raid on the white knight.

But this move need not be feared : your opponents will not play this. After 8 e5 dxe5 9 fxe5 'iic7 such complications result, and they must be known so precisely by heart, that in magnitude this work is equivalent to learning by rote a telephone directory. For such an activity no one will find either the time, or the desire. Here it is also important that


White can play in various ways, but Black in each case must follow just one path, learned by heart. Do you want to try memorising this? I would not advise it. Your memory will come in useful in your everyday activities, whereas what we are playing is just a game.

After 7 . . . tDbd7 8 'ii'f3 'ii'c7 9 0-0-0 Black can play 9 . . . b5, when . . . b5-b4 is threatened.

This move the author advises you to employ and especially to remember. Were it not for this constant threat of . . . b5-b4, how many tempi could be economised for the attack! But in practice it turns out that the advance of the pawn from b7 to b4 is in fact Black 's most potent weapon. During his lengthy personal experience the author has attempted to combat the pawn in all conceivable ways. He has tried both the simplest - played his pawn from a2 to a3 , and in a degree of desperation he has even given up a minor piece for the a6 and b5 pawns.

Sometimes it helped, sometimes not. Probably the reader will not complain if I give the most amazing case of all that I have ever seen : the black b7 pawn made its way to b4, took a knight, took a bishop - in this way it squeezed through the pawn group a3/b3/c2, and then, after waiting a little, the pawn demanded that it should be made a queen with all the powers of the senior piece. A model of persistence to the white pawns.

Bronstein-Kamyshov Moscow Championship 1946

1 e4 c5 2 t2Jf3 lDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tLlxd4 lDf6 5 lDc3 d6 6 lDde2 e6 7 g3 a6 8 i..g2 'ii'c7 9 0-0 i..e7 1 0 b3 0-0 1 1 i..b2 b5 1 2 a3 l:td8 1 3 'ii'd2 i..b7 14 l:tad 1 l:.ac8 1 5 h3 d5 1 6 exd5 b4 1 7 'iie3 bxc3 1 8 dxc6 �xd 1 1 9 .l:.xd 1 cxb2 20 cxb7 l:td8

2 1 l:Ixd8+ 'ifxd8 22 lDc3 i..xa3 23 lDb 1 'ild l + 24 \t>h2 i..d6 25 lDc3 'ilxc2 26 'it'd4 lDd5 27 i..xd5 exd5

The Deployment of the Pieces 1 0 1

2 8 'i'b6 i..xg3+ 29 �xg3 'i'xc3+ 3 0 �g2 h6 3 1 b8='i'+ �h7 3 2 'i'6d8 b 1 ='i' 33 'i'g8+ �g6 34 'i'd6+ 'i'f6 35 'i'xf6+ '1txf6 36 'i'd8+ �e6 37 'i'e8+ �d6 3 8 'i'd8+ �e6 39 'i'e8+ �d6 40 'i'd8+ �e6 4 1 'i'e8+ Yl-Yl

Probably a few words should also be said about how best to set up a promising position when White does not hurry with e2-e4. During his chess career of more than fifty years the author has mainly employed two defences - the King' s Indian and the Dutch, and has occasionally, without great success, tried his hand in the Grtinfeld Defence.

Strangely enough, things went much better for me in the NimzoIndian Defence and in such an ordinary opening as the old-fashioned Queen' s Gambit. However, there is an explanation for this . In the days of my youth it was not done to separate players by style : romantics, classics, neo-romantics, neo-classics, spontaneous performers and representatives of the competitive tendency . . . We simply endeavoured fully to exhaust both the resources of the position, and our personal resources of ability. But today such a division has become habitual . When players were not evaluated by their Elo number, then it was sti ll possible to learn that Morphy' s active attacking style was at first understood only by Steinitz, and Steinitz himself became understandable to us only with the help of Tarrasch . In a word, all in this vein - a chain of

names, displaying interest in similar chess problems. Of course, these chains also exist today, but now they are less talked about. And when at the age of twelve I had only just joined the chess club at the Kiev Palace of Pioneers, our teacher A.M.Konstantinopolsky immediately told us about both Steinitz, and Tarrasch, adding that he himself was the trainer of the master V.Rauzer, and that Rauzer was a follower of Tarrasch. We became interested in what Tarrasch was famous for.

The only thing that we understood was that the defence 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 liJc3 liJf6? was no use at all, whereas his - Tarrasch - Defence 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 liJc3 c5 ! was wonderful. And so I. .. became interested in a poor defence . It turned out that our teacher also . . . liked this poor defence. Therefore if on rare occasions I did in fact play the Queen' s Gambit as Black, it was not through inspiration, but with a knowledge of what was involved. I should also say this : I studied the most fashionable variations from cover to cover, but did not always employ them. I liked to follow a slightly unusual and slightly risky path. Those of the readers who like unexplored paths in chess can try this method of play, but it is better first to play more restrainedly. With White it is easy to choose a variation, but it can be difficult when playing Black.

Our best players have long since


decided tor themselves this problem of 'colour incompatibility' . And whereas in the last century, in many events during the time of long matches they drew for colours not just for the first game, but for the entire match, present-day grandmasters have gone much further and have found a way of avoiding in defence those positions which they themselves attack when playing White.

Let us take this imaginary possibility. If the Fischer-Karpov match had after all taken place in 1 975, we would have seen the following picture. In all the games where Fischer played 1 e4 (and he hardly ever played differently), Karpov would have invariably replied l . . .c5 . And this is not all . Just as instantly there would have followed 2 ll:Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ll:Jxd4 ll:Jc6 5 ll:Jb5 d6 6 c4 ll:Jf6 7 lLJ 1 c3 etc . And this way game after game, day after day, if one talks about Fischer 's white days. And on his black days? Here too there is no great secret. Then we would have seen the set-up 1 e4 c5 2 ll:Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ll:Jxd4 ll:Jf6 5 ll:Jc3 a6 6 �e2 e5 7 ll:Jb3 etc. Why is the author so sure? Because no one is in a position to refute him - these players always played this way.

Even so, although at that time they both always played 1 e4, could they, for the sake of variety, have used a different opening move, 1 d4 for example? No, Fischer would not have played this. Robert Byrne said

that his second youth began after Fischer in a moment of good humour had said: 'Why do you make this weak move 1 d4? Play the pawn to e4 ! ' 'And I believed him, ' added Byrne. On the other hand, Fischer could have played 1 ll:Jf3 - as at the beginning of his career - or 1 c4 -as at the end of it.

In both cases Karpov would have played 1 . . . ll:Jf6 and 2 . . . e6, and then, according to circumstances, would either have pinned the knight at c3 with his bishop from b4, or would have developed his queen' s bishop at b7. Why? Because that is how he constantly plays. And what would Fischer have done in reply to 1 d4? He too would not have had any major problems. Fischer used to employ this defence: 1 d4 ll:Jf6 2 c4 g6 3 ll:Jc3 �g7 4 e4 d6 etc . However, here I have slightly lost the thread. Sometimes - I don't know on what this depended -Fischer instead of 3 . . . �g7 used to play 3 . . . d5 .

And is that all? That' s all . But in these 'outwardly simple ' variations are dozens, hundreds, thousands of branches. Karpov and Fischer knew all these branches by heart. That is not all ; every day they would seek new paths, reject old ones, check that which had been repeatedly checked. And most importantly -read chess encyclopaedias only on those pages where something was said about their own 'personal ' variations.

The Deployment of the Pieces 1 03

Not all the players in the world have such a narrow repertoire with Black, but taken all together their opponents play practically everything. So that both Karpov and Fischer knew their first move in every detail and were prepared to smash any defence, any prepared variation. For example, I am sure that if anyone had incautiously chosen against them the variation of Emanuel Lasker, which at the time was fashionable, then . . . they would never have played the variation again: they would have lost. And Lasker is in no way to blame for this; he himself played the line by inspiration only once or twice, but since the variation is an intricate one, theoreticians were glad to name it after Lasker.

Here is a theoretical position from Lasker' s Variation of the Sicilian Defence: 1 e4 c5 2 lt::\£3 lt::lc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt::lxd4 lt::lf6 5 lt::lc3 e5 6 lt::ldb5 d6 7 ii.g5 a6 8 ii.xf6 gxf6 9 lt::la3 b5 1 0 lt::ld5 f5 .

It is White to move. His problem is to make effective use of his actively placed knight in the zone of important squares of the black centre . Using the principle of the coordination of different pieces, in one move White can immediately both improve the position of his king ' s bishop and find employment for his king ' s knight, which events have taken to the edge of the board. Playing in the style of Morphy v . The Allies, 1 1 lt::lxb5 axb5 12 ii.xb5 ii.d7 1 3 exf5 , White acquires three valuable units beyond the imaginary horizon and creates a complicated situation that has not yet been fully resolved.

It is clear that for examples I endeavour to give positions which, in my view, are of aesthetic interest and artistic value, and I endeavour to give advice on the opening by echoing my personal memories, which have always helped me to find my way in any position . In the end we all always come to the conclusion that we have the key to a rational understanding of the conflict, but due to extreme circumstances and personal participation in the conflict 'for one side ' we are not always able objectively to take all the main factors into account. Therefore grandmasters themselves are grandmasters not only because they are able to understand a position, but because they are capable of doing this quickly and constantly.

And there is no need to be


annoyed that in a practical game first here and then there not the best solutions are found. They sometimes do not exist, these best solutions . If in a chess conflict situation there was a very 'best solution' , it means that there would be no conflict !

For example, you are due to play grandmaster A. It is well known that he usually begins the game with 1 c4 . You have prepared the defence l . . .c5 and you calmly arrive at the tournament hall . And suddenly you see that your opponent has played 1 e4 . Usually you reply 1 . . . e6 . Should you also play this today? I do not know the answer.

If you follow 'Fischer-Karpov' , then you should instantly play your favourite variation and wait: somewhere there must be a surprise in store, since the opponent had never before played 1 e4 ! Or you can follow 'Botvinnik-Bronstein' and think a little, enter into the psychology of the opponent, understand the reasons for the unexpected move and, if you can, play not the move that he was definitely expecting, but a move which he was also expecting, but with a very small degree of probability. Because a tournament game is not an argument, but a keen struggle.

And it is here that the conflict lies, in the attitude to the problem of the two opponents, and not in the pieces and pawns themselves (their rules of movement have today been

quite well studied). How otherwise could grandmasters and masters play five- or three-minute chess games of not such poor quality (bearing in mind how ultra-rapidly they have to orient themselves in transient situations) and give rapid simultaneous displays, to say nothing of phenomenal records of blindfold play, on 30, 40, 50, 55 etc . boards? ! An accidental mistake here does not spoil the overall result, and in this is the secret of rapidity.

In order to facilitate the reader' s understanding of the modern grandmaster approach to the opening stage of the game, the author specially gives in this section various opening positions, which occur very often in practice . Is there here anything unclear with regard to the long-term strategical plan? No. The plans for the two sides are well known and studied. Is there here anything unclear regarding through which squares the opponent intends to cross the equator? No. Is there in these standard positions anything unclear regarding which forces and in which order they are intending to cross the equator at the planned invasion points? No.

All this is well known by the players, all this has long ago been systemised by the theoreticians, and all this has long been studied in books on the middlegame. But if this is so, then why do grandmasters think so seriously? Why do they get so nervous? Why do they become


tired and make inexplicable moves? For one elementary reason. It is not enough to know and see all this : you must also be able to implement everything that needs to be implemented. And the two sides are obliged to implement their plans in the complete haze of a confrontation. But chess enthusiasts do not need to get nervous. Plans can easily be studied in books, the main attacking groupings are also not a secret, the main points of conflict are known, and where to launch a breakthrough can be learned in the books.

Here is a theoretical variation of the Sicilian Defence: 1 e4 cS 2 ti:Jf3 ti:Jc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ti:Jxd4 ti:Jf6 5 ti:Jc3 d6 6 .i.e3 e6 7 f4 .i.e7 8 'it'f3 .

It is Black to move. His task is not to allow White freely to castle long, after which it will be difficult for him to oppose the massed advance of the white pawns on the kingside. But it is difficult for him to solve fully his defensive

problems. The blame for this lies in his excessively passive initial moves, during which his forces have been modestly deployed on three ranks, conceding to White important positions by the equator itself. For example, the exchange of knights at d4 merely strengthens White ' s attack, since the knight i s replaced by a powerful bishop. It is also dangerous to move the king's pawn: 8 . . . e5 9 ti:Jxc6 bxc6 1 0 fS l::tb8 1 1 0-0-0 'iiaS 1 2 .i.c4 dS 1 3 exdS .i.a3 1 4 bxa3 'i'xc3 1 5 .i.xa 7, and Black's attack peters out. And even a sharp breakthrough such as 8 . . . 0-0 9 0-0-0 ti:Jxd4 10 .i.xd4 eS 1 1 fxeS dxeS 12 .i.xeS 'i' aS turns to the clear advantage of the white pieces after 1 3 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 1 4 ti:JdS .i.eS 1 5 'iihS f6 1 6 ti:Je7+.

Here is another theoretical position from a variation of the Sicilian Defence : 1 e4 cS 2 ti:Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ti:Jxd4 ti:Jf6 5 ti:Jc3 a6 6 .i.e2.

It is Black to move. His task is to take a decision regarding the


structure of his defensive pawn screen. Should he restrict himself to advancing his pawns onto the fortified rank, or by attacking the white knight gain an additional tempo for the completion of his kingside development? The tempo move will be gained, or more precisely, regained, but it should not be forgotten that in this game the e5 pawn will be unable to return to e7, or even to e6. And this means that the important d5 square will have to be defended by pieces. Here once again different players have their own opinions: some play 6 . . . e5, others 6 . . . e6. The readers can themselves choose the alternative that suits them . Only do not play 6 . . . b5 on account of Fischer' s strong reply 7 ltJd5 ! (My 60 Memorable Games - the game with Najdorf: 6 h3 b5 7 ltJd5 ! ) .

Here is another theoretical position in the Sicilian Defence : 1 e4 c5 2 ltJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 ltJf6 5 ltJc3 g6 6 JLe3 .i.g7 7 f3 0-0 8 'iid2 ltJc6 9 0-0-0.

It is Black to move. His task is to make an effective counter against White ' s direct threat of opening the h-file by the advance of his rook's pawn: h2-h4-h5xg6. For a long time it was thought that by first countering with 9 . . . d5 Black could completely solve this problem, but inquisitive grandmaster thinking discovered the defects of this plan: 1 0 exd5 ltJxd5 1 1 lbxc6 bxc6 1 2 .i.d4 e5 1 3 .i.c5 .lle6 1 4 ltJe4 l!e8, and now nevertheless 1 5 h4 !

So. . . don't read the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings at night. Remember only: all openings are divided into four main types -Open, Semi-Open, Semi-Closed and Closed. In each section prepare for yourself a favourite variation and then . . . off you go !

With White play 1 c4, and until you find for yourself a good attack in the various replies after 1 e4, for the time being don't touch your king 's pawn. In this way you will save a mass of time: you will not need to study for White either the Ruy Lopez, or the Sicilian, French, Pirc, Alekhine, Caro-Kann and Centre-Counter Defences. And if you nevertheless want to play these openings as White, then act boldly, uninhibitedly. Advance your pawns away from the pawn rank, give your pieces scope, regroup you pieces for an attack in the chosen direction and stop at nothing.

Would you like to see an example after 1 c4?


Capablanca-Milner-Barry Margate 1936

1 c4 e5 2 �c3 �c6 3 g3 g6 4 .ltg2 .ltg7 5 d3 �ge7 6 h4 h6 7 i.d2 d6 8 l:tb 1 0-0 9 b4 �d4 1 0 e3 �e6 1 1 �ge2 c6 1 2 'i'b3 .ltd7 1 3 0-0 'iic7 1 4 l:tfc 1 l::tfc8 1 5 a4 l::tab8 1 6 'i'a3 i. f8 1 7 �e4 f5 1 8 �f6+ rt;fl 1 9 �xd7 'i'xd7 20 .ltc3 .ltg7 2 1 'i'b2 'i'c7 2 2 d4 �f8 2 3 dxe5 ii.xe5 24 �d4 �d7

25 e4 .ltxd4 26 .ltxd4 �e5 27 'i'd2 fxe4 28 .ltxe4 �f5 29 .lta1 .Ug8 30 h5 l:tbf8 3 1 c5 d5 32 .ltxd5+ cxd5 33 'iixd5+ 'iitf6 34 f4 'iic6 35 i.xe5+ 'iite7 36 .ltd6+ 1 -0

Brilliant strategy ! It was as though Capablanca had peeped into the next century. Today we have not yet learned to play with such easiness, artistry, inhibition, and confidence in the success of our strategical ideas and controlling tactical calculations .

But when you have to play Black, also boldly improvise, aim to put

your plan into effect, without even particularly preventing your opponent 's actions. And indeed how can they be prevented? Perhaps by the more rapid implementation of your planned attack? Sometimes you may not succeed. But look at this game, taken not from a recent tournament, but played a hundred years ago.

Burn-Pollock Hastings 1895

1 d4 c5 2 d5 g6 3 e4 i.g7 4 f4 �a6 5 �f3 �c7 6 c4 d6 7 i.d3 e6 8 0-0 exd5 9 cxd5 �f6 1 0 �c3 0-0 (in our day these moves are made at the very start of the game: 1 d4 �f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e6 4 �c3 etc.)

1 1 'i'c2 l:te8 12 i.d2 i.d7 1 3 l:tae 1 b 5 1 4 1Wb 1 b4 1 5 �d1 aS 1 6 � f2 �b5 1 7 i.c 1 l:tc8 1 8 �d2 �d4 1 9 �c4 i.b5 20 .ltd2 .l::Ia8 2 1 'ild1 l:ta7 22 b3 a4 23 i.e3 axb3 24 .ltxd4 cxd4 25 axb3 .ltxc4 26 .ltxc4 l:ta2 27 'ii'f3 �d7 28 �d3 'ilb6


29 eS l2Jf8 3 0 fS dxeS 3 1 d6 �h8 32 f6 i.h6 33 lhe5 i.e3+ 34 �h l �ea8 3 5 �e7 l::!.8a5 36 �xf7 ifxd6 37 ltg7 hS 3 8 'ili'b7 1 -0 .

An amazing game! In this old encounter, as in the mirror of a giant telescope, are focused many modem strategical ideas and tactical nuances . Is this possible? It is, because these ideas are classical, and they came to us from our past. Sometimes, carried away by new, modem opening variations, we forget about the need to make a careful study of grandmaster games from the late 1 9th and early 20th centuries.

I was once considerably amazed to learn from one of the Candidates for the world chess title that he had never ' studied any national championships in which he himself had not played' , i .e . he had not looked at the games that had given him his knowledge . And I recall how everyone was surprised by the

announcement that Fischer had looked through all the games from the last century and had even proposed his version of the 'top ten ' . Arguments began - why that ten, and not this one, although what should have been done was simply to take the example of the talented young player and urgently look at what he had in fact. . . looked at, what he had seen, what he was surprised by, and what he had adopted.

I remember well how, during a joint trip to a tournament in South America, Boris Spassky, on seeing an old chess library that had miraculously appeared in a bookstall, acquired it all, looking with especially joyful eyes at 500 games of Anderssen and a four-volume edition of Steinitz 's creative heritage. What did the author do? Alas, I bought a book, but not a chess book, but my very favourite one - the first South American edition of Cervantes 's immortal creation Don Quixote, with wonderful engravings and a luxuriously printed text.

I also bought a chess book -Harold Murray's A History of Chess. It was probably here that my path and that of Spassky diverged. Great competitive feats awaited him, whereas I busied myself with the preparation of various chess books, the publication of which I myself delay. Why? Because I also want to play chess . . .

6 Crossing the Eq uator

It is not especially difficult to demonstrate that, if you want to build on your own territory a reinforced fortress for your king and to regroup the forces of your left flank for a future offensive, no one can stop you. It is merely a question of what quality of fortress you build and of how successfully you deploy your forces.

But when the moment comes to attack, when the time comes not only to approach the chess equator, but also to cross it, here rather complicated problems arise. Such as, which piece should give the signal for the start of the overall offensive? Or should this be done by a central pawn? Or perhaps by a wing pawn, a rook ' s pawn?

And what if you send your queen on a lengthy journey? - all roads are accessible to it, and in two moves it can turn one way and then the other, and bring the headquarters valuable information.

Or send a knight on a reconnaissance? The knight is an unusual piece: it can jump in various directions, avoiding both its own, and the enemy pawns, and return home. But those pawns of the opponent that have driven away the knight are unable to move back and patch up the weak points formed, and here we immediately will see where is the

most shaky place in the oppponent' s set-up, and will direct there the main blow of our forces.

This all sounds fine and on paper it also looks good. But in a real chess situation all this advice is useless. Firstly, there is too much of it. Secondly, it is all extremely vague - it is unclear where to jump, how far to jump, and so on.

And the main thing is that this excellent-sounding advice is unrealisable, either for beginners, or for experienced tournament die-hards. Because in chess the entire position is visible to both players, and all our tricks and ruses merely lead to a situation where, as soon as we begin to make reconnaissance raids with our cavalry, the opponent himself, on noticing the absence of the cavalry from a certain region, will be the first to land there an appreciable blow with all the forces at his disposal .

The opponent has as much chess force as you have. And it is not the presence or absence of a pawn that determines the strength of a chess position !

For example, in the position below the win of a pawn is unfavourable, since after 1 i..xc6 i..xc6 2 lbxe5 i..e8 there is no longer a bishop to post at g2 .

1 1 0 The Modern Chess Self-Tutor

The strength of a position is determined by two factors . You must have a flexible and mutually well guarded camp, where the pawns guard the invasion zone, and the pieces possess freedom to manoeuvre along the front. That is one. And the second - all possible points of attack in your camp should be securely covered by the fire of your pieces and pawns.

If you have managed to fulfil both these conditions, if makes no difference to you precisely what setup the opponent has adopted on his own territory, and you must only display interest in the front line, which extends on both sides of the chess equator - for Black and for White.

Remember: the piece rank, the pawn rank, the fortified rank - they are yours, here you can regroup to your heart' s content. But when you want to advance a piece or pawn to the rank of important squares right

by the equator, you must without fail look to the left and to the right: your piece is after all advancing to the front line. Here they shoot from close range, and for this you must be prepared.

Here is an example. When in reply to 1 tbf3 Black plays l . . .g6, there is no question of this pawn being attacked. On the other hand, after the reply 1 . . .d5 the pawn can be attacked by 2 e4, 2 tbc3 or 2 c4, and for this turn of events the pawn must always be prepared.

But at the same time, the knight which comes out to c3 must remember that the black pawn can attack it, and the e- and c-pawns, on advancing to the front line, know that they can be taken.

Thus when preparing the forces for an offensive, you must devote primary attention to the coordination between your pieces, whereas on crossing the equator you must primarily find that point in the opponent 's set-up, a blow at which can disrupt or even for an instant weaken the coordination between the opponent's pieces .

Since even this advice is frighteningly simple, let us together analyse the qualitative state of our offensive forces: do we really have so many pieces and pawns, ready for a dashing attack across the front line, does in general the game of chess really know so many attacking methods?

Chess beginners, captivated by the all-powerful queen, never miss a

Crossing the Equator 1 1 1

chance to mount an attack not so much with the queen at the head, as directly with the queen alone, making the move 1 e4 precisely for the sake of 'iih5 . At the next stage beginners notice : since the queens have moved away from d 1 and d8 (Black always copies White' s actions), it would not be bad to make the knight fork tL'lxc7+ or . . . tL'lxc2+. This desire explains the highly common knight routes tL'lb8-c6-b4 and tL'lb l -c3-b5 .

Then this love passes, mainly because, even after carrying out their idea (tUb l -c3-b5xc7xa8 or tL'lb8-c6-b4xc2xal ) players discover to their surprise that, although the force in their possession has become greater, their real fighting units have become less, since the passive rook at al or a8 is not worth those several moves and those efforts, spent by the knight on its distant raid into the corner of the chess battlefield. Besides, there is no way back for the knight, so that even materially the gain is not great, whereas the absence of the knight from its own territory is often the cause of a swift catastrophe.

When this truth has been assimilated, simultaneously beginners do not so readily exchange their bishops for knights (the latter gradually lose their halos of omnivorous monsters, whereas the long-range fire of the bishops becomes attractive) . Now comes the turn of an opening such as the famous gambit

of Captain Evans - the romantic opening, one can say, of all the champions of the 1 9th century.

But the fascination with the Evans Gambit also passes. And Captain Evans would not be offended - his gambit always attracts novices, although even on grandmasters it can spring surprises. No, here it is not a matter of the opening itself and not even of the prescription of Emanuel Lasker, given in his book Common Sense in Chess. 'There is no necessity for Black to accept the offer of the pawn. On the contrary, if he retires with his bishop to b6 in reply, he will, as White ' s last move has in no way furthered his development, gain a small but distinct advantage in position' . Here one is more inclined to agree with Anatoly Karpov, who in a magazine article in 1 975 expressed the opinion that nowadays there is no need, as in the past, to accept any challenge by a chess opponent; today it is not shameful to step to one side, if it is favourable to do so.

After suffering many a fiasco in the defence of Black's position, chess beginners start to look reproachfully at the e5 pawn - and to where, my dear, were you going in such a hurry? And, without yet guessing about the Caro-Kann Defence, where a cover against the dangerous bishop at c4 can be erected at d5 , experienced players simultaneously switch to set-ups


with the first move 1 . . .e6, immediately demonstrating to the white king 's bishop that on the c4-f7 diagonal there will be nothing for it to attack.

The story goes on for a long time, but sooner or later the former beginners, by now hardened chess wolves, come to the bold idea, that there is no need to hurry even with the move . . . e7-e6, as long as there is no direct need to defend the f7 square against the pretensions of the fl bishop (it is a pity to make this move, when the tempo may be used more rationally) . And since their own bishop is unable to put effective pressure on f2, the searching process results in a philosophical construction such as . . . g7-g6 and . . . i.g7.

Black does not hurry with . . e7-e6, he eliminates the fearsome move 'ii'hS, and simultaneously he very comfortably deploys his dark-square bishop, the task of which is to watch with the aid of a telescope and to wait, wait, and wait. Today such a fianchetto of the bishop has again become fashionable.

In view of the small size of this self-tutor, and since it is realised that the reader will not expect the author to give all-embracing advice about all possible cases, I think it will be advisable to restrict our analysis to one defensive construction only. That is, not to study in general where, when, and with what forces to cross the equator, but to

examine these questions as applied to a defensive construction that includes the moves l . . .g6 and 2 . . . i.g7.

This is especially necessary, since many of the best modern players, as the basis of their opening repertoire as Black, place their pawn at g6 and bishop at g7, and correspondingly as White play their pawn to g3 and bishop to g2 . Here, sooner or later, a close-range fight develops.

Here - this means in the vicinity of the bishop, covered by the three pawns. But how to approach this region? How to bring up the forces to it? Which divisions should be held in reserve? And, most important, the most difficult thing in chess: to which precise concrete goal should one aim - what should be considered a concession on the part of the opponent, what a major achievement, and what can be regarded as direct capitulation by the opponent? Of course, there are more questions than answers.


In order to maximise your attacking possibilities, you must attack with harmonious forces, consistently and in rapid tempo. For an attack on the bishop hidden behind its pawns the following techniques are employed:

1 . Penetrate with your bishop of the same colour to h6 (h3), lure out the enemy bishop and safeguard the entire long diagonal, at the same time creating a good square at h6 (h3) for invasion by knight, pawn or queen.

2 . Do the same along the long diagonal, but this works only against poor defence.

3 . Give check with a knight at h6 (h3 ), which may provoke the rash exchange of bishop for knight, to the advantage of the attacker.

4. A simple attack by a knight on the concealed bishop. If for various reasons the bishop cannot move away, then by the exchange of knight for bishop the defences of the king 's fortress will be seriously weakened.

5 . The bishop is lured out of its shelter by some bait and then either cut off from the square g7 (g2), or simply exchanged for the rook. The rook does not participate directly in the attack on the g7 bishop, so that this exchange is very dangerous for the three pawns, which have lost a protector and their defensive aid.

6. By the advance of an armada of pawns the bishop is driven into the corner, and when the war switches

to the opposite flank, the opponent is short of one valuable piece.

7. The rook's pawn alone marches forward in order to latch on to the g6 pawn and by exchanging to open the file for the rook at h 1 . And although the bishop at g7 defends the h8 square perfectly well, and although in case of necessity the king can even permit itself an unprecedented luxury - a check by the white queen at h7, even so the open file is a very important element in the attack on the black king' s fortress. For example, the rook itself may advance to h7 and attack the bishop, or the second rook may move onto the open file, and the rooks tripled with the queen will take the h8 square by storm. When there is an open file there are many possibilities, and a number of players, in the situation after h5xg6, endeavour to avoid the complete opening of the h-file, by replying with the intricate . . . f7xg6 .

8 . If he desires or needs to attack the fortress with the fianchettoed bishop without advancing his hpawn, White should switch to the hfile (usually to h4) his most powerful attacking piece - the queen.

The queen at h4 is rarely disturbed. From this post it creates a number of strategical threats . For example, to play the knight to g5 and, after evicting by various techniques the black knight from f6, thus weakening the h7 square, to give check or mate to the black

1 1 · 1 ' HII ' Modem ( 'he ss Self-Tutor

k i nj.l, . < )r , a f ter t im:ing the advance o f the h7 pawn, to summon fresh forces to the attack on this pawn. And that case where the bishop from c l to h6 blocks the h7 pawn has already been considered. Such a bishop can still be tolerated, but if to the aid of the queen and bishop comes a white knight - for example, at g5 - the defence will be difficult.

It stands to reason that, if the centre is open, when concern about the important central key points draws the attention of many pieces, to mount an attack on the g7 bishop and the h7 pawn is difficult. Those wishing to attack the ' small royal palace' usually operate in one of two ways. Sometimes, by a rapid advance of the central infantry group, they set up the central wedge c4-d5-e4, and then switch to an attack on the right flank, perhaps displaying some pseudo-activity on the left flank. In other cases - and this strategy is more cunning in its seeming inoffensiveness - it is useful not to advance the central pawn group at all, arranging the pawns in the form of an anti-cavalry 'hedgehog' . In this case Black has to spend a certain amount of time in initiating a battle in the centre of the board. And during this time you and I, not worrying about weakened key points on the c-, d- and e-files, can immediately after the introductory opening moves begin a systematic siege of the enemy fortress.

But what is to be done by the

player who has had the boldness to fianchetto his bishop, and is seemingly defenceless against such a number of different attacks? Against such a number of attacks not even a world champion can defend, but in a real chess game only one plan of attack will work at any one time. And since you immediately guess the type of attack that the opponent has planned, you can easily take measures required for defence.

Here is such an instance: the white bishop is ready to exchange itself at h6. But you move your rook from f8 and in reply to .th6 you play . . . .th8. It happens - rarely, but it does happen - that this move . . . .th8 is also good with the rook at f8. If Black begrudges giving up his bishop for a white rook, he should not begrudge giving up his rook for the white bishop.

Or else you . . . do not hurry to castle, which makes the opening of the h-file less effective. Or you yourself begin a strong attack on the opposite flank, forcing White to alternate active moves with defensive ones . Again things are not so terrible for you: the attack develops slowly, and there is time to take various concrete defensive actions.

Conditions essential for crossing the equator with pawns and pieces

Since the chess pieces move very quickly and since pawns on their own rank can in one move approach


the equator, there is no doubt that for a pawn or piece to cross this line is not difficult. But our task is a different one - to find out when a pawn (or pawns) or piece (or pieces) can cross the equator not for the sake of a single shot or salvo, but for the sake of a powerful cannonade, a concentrated attack on the forces in the zone of important squares, in order to crush these forces and break through right to the fortified rank. It should be said that in this ideal form the task can never be solved: the opponent will not only stir himself, and not only defend, but also attack. So that all the time you have to carry out your plans in opposition to the enemy actions.

Let us return to the initial moves 1 e4 e5 2 ltJf3 . Most probably Black will reply 2 . . . ltJc6 . Why? The point is that the pieces, on their initial squares, select for themselves individual opponents, with which they immediately engage in a secret artillery duel or prepare to encounter on squares designated beforehand. Thus the rook at al is opposed by the rook at a8, and the rook at h 1 by the rook at h8 . The queens begin with hyper-sensitive radar equipment to probe each other along the d-file, White ' s king ' s bishop points the muzzle of its gun in the direction of Black' s queen' s bishop, and the latter, of course, deploys its firepower in the direction of White 's king's bishop. In exactly the same

way, the bishop at c l prepares to engage in a duel with the bishop at f8, White ' s queen' s knight selects for its skirmish with the g8 knight the central squares d5 and e4, and Black' s queen' s knight waits impatiently for the white g 1 knight to come out to d4 or e5 .

And only the chess kings in their shelters are engaged otherwise, and in fact they are not allowed to come into fighting contact with each other. The kings merely lead out their forces onto the battlefield, direct the actions of the pieces, and accept capitulation or themselves capitulate . Much less wil lingly the kings sign peace agreements, but this is precisely that one day when two chess kings peacefully dine at the same table. Otherwise - no contact at all !

The reader who had the patience to read the start of this self-tutor will now clearly understand why masters and grandmasters so easily and quickly give simultaneous displays on many boards, why they so confidently play five-minute games, and why they keep a level head in the difficult conditions of a time scramble. Because, just as in the initial position the pieces of the two camps are connected by invisible threads of mutually conflicting interests, so in any other dynamic chess situation the pieces of the two camps always conduct a struggle for the same, but. . . diametrically opposed aims.


What you must not do is to plan beforehand some individual attractive move, pretty from your point of view, and try without fail to carry it out. This is the reason why thousands of chess games are lost. For the sake of the rapid and most effective fulfilment of a general plan you must be able to act with blocks of moves, and here your pretty move may come in useful at the required moment.

After 1 e4 e5 2 ti:Jf3 the black move 2 . . . ti:Jc6 is useful . On seeing the black knight, the white bishop promptly hurries to cross the equator: 3 i.b5 ! Again there is a threat to the e5 pawn, again one hears the melody of the eternally young opening of Ruy Lopez, and again Black has to think about defence.

And what is surpnsmg is this. The opening 1 e4 e5 2 tlJf3 tlJc6 3 i.b5 was suggested to the world by the Spanish priest Ruy Lopez more than four hundred years ago, yet even today players do not know which third move for Black is the most reliable. Masters and grandmasters either go to extremes and play 3 . . . f5 , or return to the classical reply 3 . . . i.c5 . Or suddenly they all to a man begin playing 3 . . . ti:Jf6, or equally unanimously they pose White a question with 3 . . . a6 : 'Where to? Back to the left, back to the right, or exchange bishop for knight? ' And again one should not be surprised here: the wise Emanuel Lasker played 4 i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 at the end of the last century. Szymon Winawer also played this, but players did not want to imitate him -they begrudged giving up a bishop for knight. But it only required Bobby Fischer to win a series of pretty games with the help of this exchange variation, and the move 4 i.xc6 became highly popular. Fashion ! But whatever the transient fashion in openings, the Spanish Game itself is always in fashion. Because of all the ways known in chess theory of crossing the equator, this one - 1 e4 e5 2 ti:Jf3 ti:Jc6 3 i.b5 - is the best.

7 Th e Coord in ation of the Pieces

After the reader together with the author has examined techniques used in attack and in defence, the time has come to look jointly at some extracts, and also several complete games, to learn how grandmasters in practice, from the first move in the opening to the last move in the endgame, find their way through all this diversity, and how they decide when one thing is good and another is bad.

We must not forget that, until recently, the play in tournaments took place daily, with each player being allowed two and a half hours for the first 40 moves. Then, if after these 40 moves the game was not finished, for the subsequent play the time control was of equal severity -an hour for 1 6 moves, and so on until a result was achieved, even if it should take 500 moves!

Of course, in the opening it immediately becomes evident what course the opponent's strategy is taking, and it becomes clear what would be good to oppose it. Here one or two nuances have to be remembered, but there are others that may be forgotten. In life we very much like stereotypes, which help us to save our personal time and energy for other matters . In the same way, chess grandmasters, if they reach a complicated middle-

game position, l ike stereotypes, which help them to save time and energy for . . . everyday life .

Therefore, out of a l l the well known techniques, in the initial moves of a game grandmasters make use of only the very important ones: they do not determine the role of their central pawns, they hide their bishops, develop their knights behind their pawns, and prepare first the defence of the zone of important squares . They then deploy the pieces in the vicinity of the pawn rank, and at the first opportunity aim to advance their pawns to the equator, and if possible to cross it. Here the opponent has absolutely no choice - either to capitulate, or to stop at all costs the opponent's pawns. During the ensuing pawn battle, either cracks are formed, into which bishops, knights, rooks and the queen itself penetrate, or else the pawn front becomes blocked. Then the side, that at the rear has more space for manoeuvring, hurries to regroup his offensive forces, and seeks - and usually finds - a breakthrough point. After concentrating on this key square the massed fire of light cavalry and long-range artillery, the role of which in chess is performed by the bishops, the attacking forces finally break through the front at the required square.

I I M The Modern Chess Self-Tutor

Coordination

It is probably the breakthrough that is the most characteristic feature of chess piece coordination, and at the same time it emphasises the lack of mutual understanding among the opponent' s pieces. Which pieces participate in the breakthrough? Usually all to some extent take part in the united actions; some actively lead the storming of the point of conflict, some wait in the second or third echelon, while others have tasks that are no less important - the defence of the king. This is why the author believes that it is a sharp, forcing, rapid breakthrough that is the best example of chess piece coordination . Now, having made the acquaintance of the different functions of the individual pieces, the reader himself will find it easier to understand the examples of breakthroughs given below - they are taken from the games of the author and other players .

• • ••• . . . ...

.if. � 1; • - - - - -� .

• •

•

This situation is taken from the 1 1 th game of the CapablancaAlekhine match ( 1 927). The black queen has broken through onto White ' s piece rank, but it is alone there. Black played l. .. 'it>h7 with the aim of safeguarding his king against a rook check along the piece rank. Black's idea is not hard to guess, but is difficult to picture: 2 'ii'xc3 'iif2+ 3 'it>h 1 .l:d8 4 'ii'e 1 'it'f3+ 5 'it>h2 :d 1 (Alekhine : My Best Games of Chess 1924-193 7). The World Champion probably felt sorry for the readers, myself included, and did not give the variation to the very end: 6 l:!e3 'ii'dS 7 :es 'ii'a2+ 8 l:te2 'iib 1 9 'if f2 :h 1 + 1 0 'it> g2 'ii'b 7 + 1 1 'iif3 , and the rook gives check at h2 or g l . Very pretty, although this variation is strictly forced. But what happened in the game? Capablanca was used to divining much more difficult tricks - he did not take the black pawn. The game has been included hundreds of times in various books, so that we will part with it here . The result? It was won by Alekhine.

However, it is not the result that is important, but something else. If even such an apparently simple variation is difficult to follow mentally to the end, then how much more complicated it is to find your way in a situation where alongside your king there are several fighting units of various types, operating, moreover, in different directions.

The Coordination of the Pieces 1 1 9

Black has arranged four pawns on the fortified rank, hoping to create an impenetrable barrier against the white pieces. But the knights take this barrier in one leap.

l l£ld5 exd5 2 exd5+ �d8 3 i.g5 l£lbd7 4 'ife2 �c8. Now that the black king has decided on the place for its headquarters, the white pawns stormed forward: 5 c4 etc. Soon Black conceded defeat. ' Soon' is a relative concept, since these events occurred in the 1 950 USSR Correspondence Championship in the game Konstantinopolsky-Gilman.

The next position (V elimirovic-Ljubojevic, · Yugoslav Championship, Belgrade 1 972) is a typical example of modem dynamic play.

White ' s knight boldly broke through the chain of black pawns with 1 l£Jd5. If 1 . . . exdS 2 l£lf5 with a fierce attack. In the game Black replied l ... l£Jxd5 2 exd5 i.xg5, but then a breakthrough was unexpectedly made by the white rook: 3 l1xe6+ fxe6 4 l£lxe6, and instead of

the planned fS square the white knight gained good prospects at e6.

Alatortsev-Boleslavsky Moscow 1950

The white pawn has incautiously attacked the queen, weakening the piece rank. Black's bishop creates the conditions for a breakthrough by the rook at e8 .

l . • . i.xfl 2 fxg5 lbe2 3 'ifc3 i.g2 4 'ifd3 i.f3 5 :n l:tg2+ 6 �hl i.c6 7 l:txf8+ �xf8 8 'iffl+ l:ttl+ White resigns.

I .!0 The Modern Chess Self-Tutor

We have here a familiar picture -the coordination of bishop and rook. And for the omnidirectional queen there is no place to hide .

Bird-Morphy London 1858

Of interest here is not only the position, but also the history behind it. Black has just played . . . .l:.b8, and in reply White castled long. Paul Morphy, who flashed l ike a meteor across the Old and the New Worlds, actively participating in international and American events, during a period of just two years ( ! ! ), from 1 857 to 1 859, succeeded in presenting to the chess world a number of vivid masterpieces. Morphy' s genius also shone in all its brilliance in this game: l. .. l:.xf2 2 .i.xf2 'ii'a3 .

Can such a wonderful conception be repeated? This is unrepeatable. Just now we had a situation with the black queen cut off on the kingside. And suddenly - lightning, thunder, and the queen is right in the thick of

things, at the walls of the white king 's fortress. And the king was unable to resist, it capitulated:

3 c3 'ii'xa2 4 b4 'ii'al+ 5 �c2 'ii'a4+ 6 �b2 .i.xb4 7 cxb4 .l:.xb4+ 8 'ii'xb4 'ii'xb4+ 9 �c2 e3 10 .i.xe3 .i.f5+ 1 1 .l:.d3 'ii'c4+ 12 �d2 'ii'a2+ 13 �d1 'ii'bl+ White resigns.

The author of this book knows that White could have played better - 6 �c 1 , but for him what is important is not some detail, but the beauty of the global idea.

Certain middlegame ideas sometimes find their continuation. . . in opening investigations by masters and grandmasters . Morphy' s idea to switch the queen from one region to another in one move along the rank - to some extent prompted investigations in this opening situation, for example:

1 d4 tiJf6 2 c4 g6 3 liJc3 d5 4 cxd5 liJxd5 5 e4 ltJxc3 6 bxc3 c5 7 .i.c4 .i.g7 8 tiJe2 cxd4 9 cxd4 liJc6 1 0 .i.e3 'ii'a5+ 1 1 .i.d2 'ii'a3 1 2 .l:.b 1 0-0 1 3 d5 ttJe5 1 4 .i.b4.

The Coordination of the Pieces 1 2 1

The black queen i s lost. But - we play along the rank - 1 4 . . .'i'f3, and it is unwise to take the queen on account of 1 5 gxf3 l2Jxf3+ 1 6 'it>fl il.h3 mate ! That 's what you call a breakthrough !

The following diagram (an ancient position that I have known from early childhood, and one that I love madly) is from the game Mason-Winawer (Vienna 1 882).

Both white rooks are aiming for a breakthrough. Together with them

both the white bishop, and the white queen will participate in the events.

1 .l:.xg5 hxg5 2 'i'h7+ l2Jd7 3 i.xd7 'ii'g8

4 l:tb7+ 'it>xb7 5 il.c8+, and White wins easily, since, in creating the conditions for the stratagem of 'double check with bishop and queen' he has simultaneously disrupted Black' s communications and the coupling of his pieces along the line b8-g8 . As a result of his energetic actions White surrounds and captures the black queen.

Maroczy-Romih San Remo 1930

(see diagram next page)

The e7 pawn has not only been stopped by the king, but it is also not guarded by anything. However . . .

1 .l:e1 .:td2 2 'i'h5 Black resigns, since after

2 . . . .:txh5 3 l:.g8+ 'it>d7 4 e8='i'+ the lone white pawn makes a brilliant step up in its career.


For the development of a number of purely professional chess qualities it is useful from time to time to play training games with a significantly shortened time control . Sometimes in such friendly encounters situations of amazing beauty occur.

Here is one such light-hearted game.

Bronstein-Muchnik Moscow 1962

1 e4 e5 2 tbt3 tbc6 3 .tb5 a6 4 .ta4 tbf6 5 0-0 .te7 6 l:te1 b5 7 .tb3 d6 8 c3 0-0 9 h3 tba5 10 .tc2 c5 1 1 d4 "ikc7 12 lbbd2 cxd4 13 cxd4 .tb7 14 tbfl !lac8 15 .tb1 �fd8 16 d5 tbc4 17 b3 lbb6 18 .tb2 tbfd7 19 tbe3 .trs 20 'i'd2 tbc5 21 .td3 tbxd3 22 'i'xd3 tbd7 23 'ii'd2 tbc5 24 tbf5 a5 25 l:tacl b4 26 'ii'g5

Now in one move Black could have killed two birds: after 26 . . . f6 the white queen would have lost its menacing post in the zone of enemy squares, and the black pawn at e5 would have been over-protected. In addition the turn to move would have remained with Black. However . . .

26 ... 'i'd7 27 .txe5 tbxe4 28 lbb6+ �h8 29 .l:lxe4 l:txcl + 30 "ikxcl .txd5 31 l1d4 .txt3 32 l!xd6 .txd6 33 .txg7+ �xg7 34 'i'g5+ �f8 35 'i'g8+ �e7 36 'i'xti - check and mate to the black king .

This game, played with the time control 'five minutes each for the entire game' to a considerable extent answers the question as to why all players are so happy to play a series of lightning games - it is interesting. Also interesting is the fact that 27 l:txc5 would have won.

The Coordination of the Pieces 1 23

Bronstein-Vasyukov Kishinyov 1975

In open positions it is the speed of the offensive that is decisive. Here Black only needs to play his rook from h8 to g8, and . . . .:txf2 will become a real threat. Therefore White looks for a way to break through quickly. He first gives a check to find out - where is the black king heading?

1 :et+ �d8 It would have been more difficult

to force the opening of lines after l . . . �b8 . But now White puts into action his planned mechanism of piece coordination.

2 l:.xe6 dxe6 3 'ifd6+ lLld7 4 l:c7 :n 5 :b7 �e8 6 i..xb5 and . . . the rook from d l breaks through to b8.

Brzozka-Bronstein Miskolcz 1963

The position looks drawn: the pawns have clashed heads and there is no point where Black can break through. Surely the knight can't do this?

l . .. lLlc7 2 i.dl lLla6 3 i.c2 lLlb4 4 i.bl :a6 5 l:dl lLlxd5+ 6 :xd5 :xb3+! ! 7 �xb3 :b6+ 8 �cl l:b2+ 9 �cl l:e2, and after devastating the white pawns, Black won. Of course, every player encounters such situations only once in his life, but here I was especially fortunate : a witness to all these incredible events was the magician of the chess board himself, Mikhail Tal, who took part in this tournament, and won it.

8 Defen ce

If the opponent has pushed back your forces, you have no choice but to go onto the defensive and prepare a counter-blow. Here is an example of active defence.

Osipov-Konstantinopolsky Kiev 1938

Black ' s pieces are huddled together on the back three ranks . White ' s strong point - the d5 square - is completely under his control . But Black has noticed an important detail : White has to spend a move on castling. And the knight at c6 initiates a breakthrough: l. .. lbb4! 2 0-0 d5! ! , and White ' s centre collapses.

The following position was reached in two games: ZitaBronstein (Prague 1 946) and Brachman-Filip (Prague 1 94 7).

The first game went 1 h3 l:txa1 2 l:txa1 lbxf2 3 I;le3 lbxh3+ 4 �h2 lbfl etc.

In the second game events developed differently: 1 b4 lbd3 2 c5 dxc5 3 bxc5 'ifxc5 4 lbb3 'ifxf2+ 5 'i'xf2 lbgxf2 etc.

Barcza-Bronstein Moscow 1949

Defence 1 25

Instead of tying Black to the f7 pawn using the principle of active defence, which could, it is true, have led to a draw after l . . .�e2+ 2 -.tifl �g3+ 3 '.ttg 1 �e2+ etc. , White offered the exchange of queens - 1 'i'e4 �xd3 2 'i'xf5, in doing so overlooking the breakthrough by the black knight - 2 • . • �xel .

I t turns out that the bishop at g7 and the two pawns splendidly protect the black king against the rook along the rank and the queen along the diagonal . At the same time the white queen cannot move from f5 on account of the threat of . . . �f3+ - double check and mate. After 3 -.tifl �c2+ 4 .licl l:bcl + 5 <it>e2 �d4+ 6 <it>d2 �b3+ White resigned.

In some ways the outline of the following position resembles a fragment from the Morphy-Allies battle . There the white pieces broke through via d7, whereas here they are aiming for e6.

Boleslavsky-Flohr Moscow 1950

1 1Lxe6 fxe6 2 l:.xe6+ .lie7 If the king flees to f7 White wins

with the brilliant 2 . . . �f7 3 :xf6+ gxf6 4 'i'h5+ Citg8 5 'i' g4+ �fl 6 'i'c4+ '.ttg6 7 'ii'e4+ -.tifl 8 .i..a5 .lih6+ 9 Citb 1 l::tad8 1 0 'i'c4+ Citg7 1 1 'i'g4+, or 8 . . . 'i'c5 9 :d7+ .i..e7 1 0 .lib4.

3 :tdel �d5 If 3 . . . 0-0 4 :xe7 �d5 5 :xg7+

<it>xg7 6 .lic3+ �xc3 7 :e7+ �h6 8 'ii'xc3 .

4 .lig5 0-0-0 5 1Lxe7 etc.

Palatnik-Bronstein Tbilisi 1973

(see diagram next page)

The white pawn has incautiously attacked the queen, to the aid of which the bishop hurries. All the pieces together organise a breakthrough, the results of which in the final stage are exploited by the rook at aS .


l. .. .txg4 2 hxg4 tt:Jxg4 3 .tf4 .td6 4 .txd6 l::txd6 5 l1fel l1g6 6 ti:Jc3 'ifh2+ 7 �fl ti:Jf6 8 .te4 'i'h3+ 9 <it>e2 tt:Jxe4 10 tt:Jxe4 l1e6 1 1 �d2 l1d8+ White resigns.

Here is an episode from an encounter between two masters from the last century.

It is hard to believe that such an attractive knight breakthrough, as the invasion at f4 with the threat of mate by the queen at g2, can be met

by an even stronger threat -

l. .. ti:Jf4? 2 ti:Jb6+. To think up such situations is impossible. Emanuel Lasker was right, when he said that it is the real life of the pieces that provides them . . . (Mieses-Wolf, Monte Carlo 1 903).

The moment when various exchanges of pawns and pieces have to be made is considered in chess to be very critical and therefore difficult. The chess forces do not operate in an empty space, since the strength and weakness of a chess army is directly connected with those potential possibilities that the opponent's army possesses. In chess there are no reserve armies, which can suddenly appear from behind a mountain range on the enemy' s right flank and cause panic there.

In chess all the available reserves immediately come out into the open, and every captured piece retires from the battlefield for ever. Therefore you must carefully weigh up the consequences of each pawn exchange, even the most modest one : the simple reflex exchange of even a weak pawn on the left flank may ricochet across to your right flank, since the opponent 's pawn, in moving, may have opened a horizontal path for a rook.

If you do not hurry to exchange pawns, this can ease your problems, since the move spent on the exchange can be used for . . . transferring an idle rook to an active position. If a rook can be placed in

Defence 1 27

an active position, you must not hesitate, you must hurry. Exceptions occur, when you can give up a rook' s file, if all possible invasion squares on it are defended; this procedure always makes a due impression, but with such play caution is also needed.

Each piece exchange, even more than an exchange of pawns, introduces new nuances into the already very subtle evaluation of a position. If in your opponent 's camp there are many visible points for invasion by the heavy pieces, and we voluntarily exchange just one pair of rooks, then by this his position is often strengthened. Because it is easier to watch one invasion point than two, and easier to mask your aims when there are two targets to attack, than when the point of your invasion is clear to the opponent.

But it can also happen the other way round. If your opponent is completely on the defensive (your pawn chain has occupied very favourable attacking lines, cramping the enemy infantry), it can be useful to exchange one rook - in a narrow defile you will all the same be unable to expand. Although the final aim of the manoeuvre by the remaining rook may be clear, the opponent will be unable properly to prepare for defence - when you are cramped there are also plenty of other problems. And what is important is that, when there is a lack of manoeuvring space, each weak

point has to be defended by one definite piece. By exchanging one of these defenders, you can almost without losses take by storm the desired strategical point. In such conditions the opponent is usually unable to change the pattern of the defence or to carry out even one change of guard.

And if as a result of lengthy defensive actions your opponent has lost a fair amount of the king 's pawn protection, in such concrete conditions should you agree to the exchange of queens? No, of course not. After all, for the final attack this is the most appropriate piece.

And yet it can often happen that players will happily go in for the exchange of queens - in a case where the material forces of the two sides have become equal, but the opponent 's dishevelled kingside itself looks so pitiful and helpless, that there is no need to attack the king, one can simply and easily, by the ordinary invasion of a rook onto the piece rank, capture the enemy army. The exchange of queens saves Black from a mating finish, but at the same time makes it easier for White to gain overall victory.

Of course, if beyond the front line, in the opponent' s camp, there is an important strategical point that you would like to occupy with a knight, and this point is directly or indirectly controlled by the opponent' s bishop, look around - is there not a piece which you can


exchange for the opponent' s bishop? If the point, which can be occupied by the knight, is in the centre of the board, it promises the knight maximum fire-power at the enemy territory, and if none of the opponent 's pawns will ever be able to attack this point, and if you see that your knight on this square will be of benefit to your army, then you should not begrudge either a bishop or a rook for the right to establish your knight on this important strategical node, from where it is convenient to launch all-round fire.

It stands to reason that, if you have in the centre - not far from the equator - such a knight, you should if possible avoid any exchanges: let the enemy pieces all the time trip over one another' s feet and manoeuvre under the fire of your formidable piece. Do not be in any doubt, he will not endure your knight for long; he will not give up his queen for it, but a rook . . . he will give up immediately.

Thus we have imperceptibly reached an answer to the question, what, when and for what to exchange? There is no clear-cut answer, but every exchange of an individual piece should bring an

appreciable benefit to the chess army, and help the other pieces and pawns to fulfil their duties in carrying out the intended strategical plan of campaign.

This truth does not demand confirmation, but how often do we witness such a chess game: having barely opened lines for his bishops, the player hurries with these bishops to pin the enemy knights, that is to send through them X-rays in the direction of the opponent 's king or queen, and then, without even waiting for the invitation - which is what . . . a7-a6 and . . . h7-h6 could be regarded as - on his own volition, even with joy, he takes the enemy knights with these bishops. He doesn 't stop for a second, doesn't think, and does not wish at this moment to reflect. And after taking the two knights, the player smiles contentedly - he won't have to suffer any more knight forks .

There will indeed be no more forks, but where do you then find a bishop, when an attractive long diagonal suddenly appears, leading directly to the camp of your chess enemy? In short, at least do not be in a hurry to give up a bishop for a knight. . .

9 Attack

When the forces of both sides have approached the equator, at this point an attack begins - sometimes impetuous and romantic, sometimes cold and mathematically clear.

Bronstein-Dobrzynski Ivonicz-Zdroj 1976

The situation does not look particularly tense. White ' s main forces are a very long way from the black king. He has occupied the only open file, but, in contrast to the situations in the Karpov-Unzicker and Karpov-Gligoric games examined earlier, the position is not tightly blocked and Black has various possibilities for active defence on different parts of the front line.

And yet White has an appreciable advantage. The secret is that he has not yet blocked not only the

queenside, but also the zone of important squares on both sides of the equator. This means that hanging over Black is the constant threat of the centre being opened as the result of an unexpected pawn engagement. In addition, the black bishops, deployed on the fortified rank, have no future, since they are firing at the backs of their own pawns, whereas the white bishops are free in their movements and very active.

After 1 .i.b3 J:.e8 2 ti:Jf5 .i.b8 3 'if a2 c4 4 dxc4 .i.xe4 5 tt:'!g3 bxc4 6 .i.xc4 .i.g6 the chess arena suddenly changed - open files and ranks appeared.

In such a situation the most important thing is the turn to move. If it were Black to move, he would play 7 . . . ti:Jf6 and create a solid defensive set-up. But it is White to move ! And, exploiting the unfortunate micro-connection ''ii'd8 and ti:Jd7' , by energetic play he mounts a breakthrough by the queen into the depths of Black's piece rank.

7 l:td1 "iic7 8 .i.b5 .:te7 9 "iia3 ti:Jf6

The knight has managed to move, but in doing so . . . it has lost control of the b6 square.

10 .i.b6 "iixb6 1 1 "iixe7 'ifxb5 12 .:td8+ �h7 13 "iif8 'ifbl+ 14 'iii>h2 .i.c2 15 .:txb8, and White soon won.


This game was judged to be the best in the tournament. The motif -'the most prolonged attack' .

Boleslavsky-Aronin Leningrad 1947

The g5 pawn has just crossed the equator. Exploiting the long-range power of his pieces and the open route f3-h5 for his queen, White mounted a breakthrough: 1 tL'lxe6 fxe6 2 i.xe6+ �h8 3 tt:'Jd5 'ii'd8 4 'ii'h5 tL'lc5 5 i.xc8 l:txc8 6 f5 i.xg5 7 i.xg5 with a quick win.

White ' s pieces are conveniently concentrated in the centre, his rooks are ready to make use of the files, and the queen is looking at h5 . In this theoretical position from the 1 970s White can make a breakthrough: 1 :g3 b4 2 tt:'Jf5 exf5 3 tt:'Jd5 'ii'd8 4 exf5 :es 5 'it'f3 i.f8 6 tt:'Jf6+ tt:'Jxf6 7 gxf6 :bs 8 i.d4 g6 9 'ii'h5 etc. with a comfortable win.

Bronstein-Krogius Riga 1958

Black has solidly barricaded himself behind his pawn chain. White began his assault with the pawn breakthrough 1 f4.

Subsequently the white pieces began to build on the successes of the pawn, putting the e5 square under fire, opening for the bishop the way to the black h5 pawn, and for the rooks - the f-file. By means of this one bold pawn move alone, nearly all the white pieces took an active part in the breakthrough - the bishop played i.xh5, one rook took

Attack 1 3 1

the bishop at g7 and the other eliminated the knight at f6. The knight took the e5 pawn, and to cap it all the knight devoured the black queen.

l. . . �ti 2 fxe5 dxe5 3 ti:Jd1 a6 4 �c3 l:.e8 5 a4 l:.gf8 6 l:.fl �g7 7 �xh5 axb5 8 axb5 lt:Jxb5 9 cxb5 c4 10 ti:Jb4 gxh5 1 1 l:.xg7 'itxg7 12 lt:Jc6 "it'd6 13 lt:Jxe5 ti:Jf6 14 l:.xf6 fixf6 15 ti:Jd7 Black resigns.

Ravinsky-Bronstein Moscow 1953

The black knight has just jumped from f6 to g4 . White should have replied 1 h4 lt:Je3 2 "fid3 lt:Jxfl 3 'iii>xfl with a fire-proof position. But he took the knight - 1 fxg4 hxg4 2 h4 gxh3 3 �xh3 "i'xg5+ 4 'iii>h1 'it>ti, and a few moves later Black won the game.

In a sharp variation of the King' s Indian Defence Black has sacrificed his queen for two bishops (see next diagram). The knight, after bursting in at e3 , is proudly looking around.

Alas, after 1 'iii>f2 lt:Jxc4 2 b3 ti:Jb6 etc. Black went on to lose (Spassky-Bronstein, Amsterdam 1 956).

After the game the author suggested sending the knight into the enemy camp, and this recommendation was used just a year later by Barden, who played 2 . . . lt:Ja3 and won at the tournament in Bognor Regis against Andersen.

Bronstein-Winiwarter Krems 1967


The pawn chains have become blocked. White has more space at his disposal than Black, but is this enough to give him hopes of a win? Of course, it was for this that the white pawns have crossed the equator at three points, al lowing forward a black pawn only in the region c5-c4 . And it was not by accident that White allowed this: he had a far-sighted breakthrough plan.

Using the space in his half of the board, White has regrouped his pieces around the black ' guest' at c4. And now comes the breakthrough:

1 �dxc4 bxc4 2 �xc4 jtb5 3 �b6 Jlxe2 4 ifxe2 jte7 5 �xc8 ifxc8 6 jta7 �d7 7 ifxa6. Of the chain of black queenside pawns not even a trace remains .

1 0 The Strength and Wea kness

of a Position

The most difficult moves of all are those by the kings: each king move frequently leads to a change in the fighting capabilities of the other chess pieces . Here are some examples.

In the 1 976 Interzonal Tournament, a few moves before the adjournment the game Polugayevsky-Hort reached the following position:

White ' s rook is on the seventh rank, which, all other things being equal, is an important plus. But a chess player, commanding his army, must in the first instance think about his king. Instead of this Polugayevsky decided to attack the f7 pawn and played 1 "ii'd7?? The Czech grandmaster, who was in

time trouble, reacted instantly to White ' s incorrect decision l ... .l:.el+! 2 �h2 .l:.cl ! , imprisoning the rook at c7, which the white king itself had deprived of its mobility.

Should one imagine that Hort specially lured the white rook to c7, hoping that his careless opponent would swallow the bait and himself set up a mortal pin on the lone rook? No, I simply think that, in this episode, Hort was extremely attentive to the slightest details of the chess battle, being in a state of the highest physical and intellectual tension. With his flag hanging, he was able to notice the error of the white king, which forgot about its first commandment - to keep and preserve, and if feasible, also to increase the mobility of its pieces, as far as possible transforming them from passive, defensive units, into active ones, aimed at the opponent' s space, and that means, also at his pieces and pawns, which use and move about in this space.

In the following example it was Polugayevsky who displayed his resourcefulness. In the 1 96 1 USSR Championship in Moscow (which was simultaneously a Zonal Tournament for the World Championship), after a splendidly conducted


attack it only remained for Boris Spassky to play 1 �f6, and Polugayevsky would have capitulated . . .

The author was a witness to this tragic episode: the chess king, assuming that all roads lead to Rome, made a mistake - 1 �h5. I will never forget the expression on Spassky's face when he saw the queen come flying over the board, to be deposited by Polugayevsky's hand on the square b5 . The spectators became incredibly excited, and some even believed that this ' cunning' queen check had been calculated and planned long before by Polugayevsky. Many wanted to find that distant transit point in the game, when Black had planned a way to draw: 1 . . . 'ifb5+ 2 e5 'ife8+ 3 �h4 Ji.e7+ 4 �h3 'iff7 5 �h2 �g8 6 'ifh3 'i'f4+ 7 �g 1 'ifc 1 + etc .

(The game in fact went 2 �h4 Ji.e7+ 3 �h3 'ii'g5 4 'i'xg5 .ltxg5 5 :xg5 l!d8, and Black eventually won - Translator 's note.)

Least of all do I want now to berate Polugayevsky for the fact that he nevertheless gave the check at b5, rather than gathering up the chess pieces, and saying with a smile: 'Lapsus manus, Boris Vasilievich, but the game of course is yours. Congratulations, your attack was brilliant' .

Once I found myself in exactly the same situation. In the tournament of Candidates for a match with Botvinnik in 1 956 in Amsterdam, on account of the presumptuous move . . . ttlf6-d7 I was obliged all evening to try and parry the deliberate, but all the more painful attacks by the pieces of Tigran Petrosian. It is not done to praise oneself, but an author should be objective - and the black king defended more than heroically.

Exploiting the fact that Petrosian exchanged the dark-square bishops at an early stage, the black king selected for itself a peaceful haven at h8, and directed the remaining pieces to engage in all-round defence. And the pieces fulfilled the command so well, that there was no possibility of arranging them better. But something had to be moved ! Having reviewed the situation, the king then selected from the pieces the youngest and strongest - a knight - and ordered it to prance around the king 's pawn, and not to be diverted by anything, ever, whatever the pretext. Thus the game was prolonged.

The Strength and Weakness of a Position 1 3 5

Petrosian manoeuvred with his rooks along the back ranks, trying to frighten Black with the threat of an invasion, but without achieving any effect. And this was not surprising -the black army, with its back to the wall, had exhausted all its reserves of mobility.

A player becomes afraid if he thinks that when he makes a move his position may worsen. But here there was such a rare situation, that I would have preferred not to move at all. I would have liked to look on lazily and await with idle curiosity, to see where the blow would fall, or where the white rooks would find a breakthrough point. Evidently my mood transferred itself to Petrosian. He began thinking more than usual, whereas for me there was no time to think - I had some thirty seconds left for ten moves. Suddenly my opponent tired of playing with his rooks - and he quickly moved his queen. Initially I did not even react, but, on seeing something new inside Black's camp, I decided to drive away this newcomer with my knight. Petrosian did not pay any attention to this threat, made by the black knight without any malicious intent, and, without wasting a second, made his prepared reply - he played his knight from e4 to g5 . I was beside myself. Up till then I had been calm, the game was objectively lost, and it was important only not to lose on time. But what to do here? There was nothing for it

but to move my knight. On the orders of the king - you haven't forgotten? - this knight on its own should have circled around its axis, like a discus-thrower, but in such extreme circumstances as time trouble I took the queen with the same resolution with which Petrosian promptly stopped the clocks.

(For the readers' benefit, here are the concluding moves of this game - Translator 's note.)

l . . .lbf5 2 .l:.ad1 lbd4 3 .l:.e l lbc6 4 'iia3 ltJd4 5 .l:.b2 lbc6 6 .l:.eb 1 lbd4 7 'iid6 ltJf5 8 lbg5 lbxd6 0- 1 .

The following position was reached in the game TarraschWalbrodt from the first Hastings tournament of 1 895 .

I t is Black to move. He can immediately attack the rook at f4 with 1 . . . ltJh5 , simultaneously intensifying the pressure on the g3 square, where there is a white pawn. Is there an adequate defence of this pawn?


This is precisely the sort of problem that constantly arises in a practical game. Not the presence of various technical ways of breaking through the defence, but the concrete outcome of a clash of ideas, the conflict of attack and defence . Here different players employ different ways of studying the situation, but they all begin with the tried and tested method of trial and error.

Here in the first instance one must study the forcing variation l . . . tt.'lh5 2 �xf5 tt.'lxg3 3 :txg5 .i.xg5 4 hxg3 .i.e3 . Why must one begin with this variation? Because we unexpectedly see that a piece standing in the background - the bishop at d8 - is included in the overall attack. It is evident that thanks to the timely arrival of the black bishop, the other bishop at d5 begins to see things in a better light - it is ready to support a check by the rook or the queen at h 1 . This is apparent to you and me, but during

the game, before the move l . . .tt.'lh5 , it was difficult to see. Here too different players are able to look ahead to different degrees, and this individual ability to a significant extent determines the style, manner and tastes of a player. Players usually used to pride themselves on their ability to look beyond the horizon, and so what were valued were boldness, enterprise, inventiveness, resourcefulness, audacity and risk.

The move l . . . tt.'lh5 probably involves a risk. Firstly, one has to believe that the variation from l . . .tt.'lh5 to 4 . . . .i.e3 is forced, and secondly, one has to look beyond the horizon and mentally follow the clash between attack and defence, beginning from the diagram position.

The reader will see that, for a player prepared to explore in chess, there is scope for individual creativity.

And when you are ready to play l . . . tt.'lh5 , you suddenly see that after 2 �xf5 tt.'lxg3 White has available the powerful knight check 3 tt.'lt7+. Your mood deteriorates, until you are able to make a sober assessment of this sudden obstruction. There are probably only a few players in the world who are able at such times to retain their self-composure and, after calmly fixing in their brain the position in the diagram, resolve the eternal question of the Danish Prince : 'To be or not to be?'

In this position the threat to the


black king has to be eliminated, for which Black should not begrudge his queen. But how do you come to the conclusion that the move . . . 'i'xf7 ! is beneficial? How do you see the advantages arising? The author does not know the answer. All that the author knows is the classical advice of Emanuel Lasker: a plan in chess must be carried out with iron persistence, even if on the way it encounters unforeseen obstacles . In our example the knight check is so strong, that this knight must without fail be taken out of the game. The action . . . 'i'xf7 itself does not yet lead to the loss of the black queen - White can take the queen, but in doing so he loses the right to move. Thus (this is often forgotten) the sacrifice is not a sacrifice in pure form. Here l . . .liJhS 2 �xf5 lLlxg3 3 lLlf7+ (or 3 �xg5 j_xg5 4 lLlf7) leads to Black retaining the right to make the next move. In chess there is essentially an eternal battle for the right to make a move.

In our example the reader will probably find himself in agreement with the author on two points : the queen sacrifice enables Black to retain the right to move, and secondly, to retain the knight, which with . . . ltJxg3 has taken up a threatening position with regard to the white king. In the diagram position let us again look at the position after the possible variation l . . . ltJhS 2 �xf5 lLlxg3 3 �xg5 j,xg5 4 lLlf7+ 'i'xf7 5 �xf7. It is Black to move. In calcu-

lations from afar, while the rook was at f2 and the bishop at d8, it was difficult, almost impossible, to see that the rook would be at f7 and the bishop would end up at e3 with check. Besides, you might again become the victim of a fright on account of the variation 5 . . . j,e3+ 6 'ii'xe3 dxe3 7 e6+ �g7 8 �f8 mate ! And again from afar it is difficult to foresee that the knight has the possibility of announcing a discovered check 6 . . . lLlf5+. Therefore White must return his rook from the enemy pawn rank to his own pawn rank - 6 l:tf2, and. . . here we can stop. The reader will agree, no doubt, that for such a position there was some point in going in for the audacious attack l . . .liJhS . Because, after the knight has occupied the corner square with 6 . . . lLlhl +, the game can continue: 7 <.itfl j_xf2 8 ltJf3 j,e3 etc .

We have deviated a long way from the initial position. Instead of the energetic move l . . .liJhS the young W albrodt, the opponent of the highly experienced Dr. Tarrasch, made a move that was passive, although in doing so he captured a white pawn: l. .. 'i'xe5. In the tournament book Hastings 1895 the winner Harry Nelson Pillsbury makes the following comment about Black's decision: 'The position admits of beautiful possibilities, and Black permits himself to be outgeneralled by his more experienced opponent. It was not wise to take


this pawn and it is a violation of principles to put one ' s king and queen on the same diagonal with an adverse bishop, and Black pays dearly for it. '

'But what in fact happened in the Tarrasch-Walbrodt game, ' the inquisitive reader will rightly ask. This is what happened. After 1 . . . 'ii'xe5 White played 2 li:Jxf5, and subsequently events developed as in a good adventure film: 2 ... li:Jh5 3 :xd4 li:Jxg3 4 li:Jxg3 :xg3+ 5 hxg3 :xg3+ 6 'itfl :xd3.

7 :g4 Black resigns. When we study the rudiments of

chess, we must also study at the same time those psychological difficulties that hinder us from improving the strength of our own play. These difficulties lie both in our underestimation of the apparently trivial problems faced by each chess piece, and also in the fact that we are wrong to imagine that a chess king is only a target for the opponent' s pieces. In fact the king is

always the main indicator of the health and mood of the forces as a whole, but we are not yet able to determine its mood in any scientific way.

In the 1 1 th round of the Staunton Memorial Tournament (England 1 95 1 ) the game GolombekTartakower reached the following position:

Events took place in a terrible time scramble, and we will not criticise the players for their errors. However, whereas Golombek, after missing a one-move win, nevertheless went on to record a victory, it was Tartakower who . . . lost this game. And the win was not only close, Black thought that he was already winning when he played his rook from g6 to g3 , capturing a white knight in the process, whereas he could have taken the d6 pawn with his rook. However at that moment the pawn, wandering to heaven knows where, did not seem dangerous to Tartakower. He had no

The Strength and Weakness of a Position 1 39

time to think about its influence on the c7 square, whereas the visible knight at g3 , guarding the approaches to the white king, was a tempting enemy unit to eliminate. Golombek' s reply seemed forced: his knight has been taken, and in reply he doesn't take the rook? Such a thing doesn't happen !

In the tournament bulletin Golombek tried to show that after l ... l:.xg3 2 'ifa5! Black was obliged to reconcile himself to a draw by 2 ... �b7 3 'ifc7+ �a6 4 'ii'c8+ �b6 4 'ii'b8+ �a6 5 'ii'c8+ etc. In his vexation Tartakower advanced his king (4 .. . �a5 5 1i'c7+ �b4) and lost the game. One feels sorry for this wise man, whom the goddess Caissa struck such an unjust blow in time trouble. One feels sorry not for the point in the tournament table, but for the intellectual effort that Tartakower spent, before he managed to obtain the attractive position in the diagram.

Often we do not pay attention to trifles, but if they have a decisive influence on the outcome of a game, we say with vexation: I didn't see such a trifle ! But these are not trifles . There are no trifles in chess. When Tartakower captured the white knight, he captured a piece close to the white king and moved his rook in the direction of the king, bringing up a fighting unit to the aid of such a strong attacking piece as the queen. And there was no way that Tartakower could have

expected that this strengthening of his ranks would not force the instant capitulation of the white fortress, guarded, it is amusing even to think, by the other knight alone. And when Golombek did not try to defend his king, but played his queen somewhere, far from the main events, far from his own king, Tartakower was dumfounded.

Yet, although 1 . .. l:.xd6 would have been the most prudent course, had Tartakower had time for thought, after l . . .l:.xg3 and the reply 2 'if aS he would have found the forced win 2 . . .'it'fl + 3 �d2 tbf3+ 4 �e3 tbe5+ 5 tbxg3

5 . . . 'ifd3+ 6 �f4 tbg6+ 7 �g4 .li.d7+ 8 �h5 'iff3+ 9 �h6 'i'f4+ 1 0 �g7 'ii'e5+ 1 1 �xf7 .li.e8+ 1 2 �g8 'ii'h8 mate ! In other lines mate comes even sooner.

When a rook invades the opponent 's pawn rank, this is always dangerous for the defending side. It is doubly dangerous if the path from


the invasion square to the residence of the enemy king is open and freed not only of pawns, but also of pieces guarding the king. The example that we will now examine occurred in one of the games from the Botvinnik- Smyslov Return Match for the World Championship (Moscow 1 95 8) .

The game subsequently ended in a win for White, but already here, in reply to Black 's last move . . . :cd8, White could have broken through with his rook to e7 and concluded the game with a quick win: 1 ti:Jd4 cxd4 2 i..d5+ �h8 3 :e7 ti:Jxe7 4 l:.xe7 'it'd 1 + 5 �g2 'it'h5 6 'it'g7 mate. However, White did not play this; after five minutes' thought he chose 1 i..h3, and after l. .. ti:Je5 2 tt:Jxe5 fxe5 3 f4 i..c6 4 'i'g5 Black in turn could have invaded the rank of the white pawns: 4 . . . :d2 5 i..e6+ :f7 6 i..xf7+ �xf7, and there is no defence against the fatal check . . . l:.g2+.

However, Black too did not play his rook into the depths of the opponent's position, and after ten minutes' consideration of the position he preferred 4 . . . l:.de8. What was the reason for these mutual mistakes? First of all, the enormous tension of a match for the World Championship. Secondly, the considerable degree of mutual trust, which arises of its own accord as a result of lengthy psychological contact. When two players are engaged in a battle not for a day and not for a week, but for some two months, they are constantly overcoming the obstacles erected by each other, and they simultaneously begin to sense that almost every plan will meet with a worthy reply. Therefore sometimes the participants in such a match are no longer opponents at all, but rather they to some extent make up a single calculating system, and, without themselves knowing it, they often trust not only their own,


but also the opponent' s calculations. Botvinnik trusted Black's move . . . .:.cd8, overlooking such an important nuance as the invasion of the rook onto the rank of the black pieces - 2 . . . .:.xd5 3 .:.es, rather than 3 .:.e7, which would not have led to the goal after the capture of the bishop by the rook.

When the queen went to g5, the first thing that Black saw was that the white queen could give check at e5 , if the king should move to h8. Therefore 4 . . . .:.de8 is not so much even to defend against the check .i.e6+, as to guard the important e5 square against the encroachment of the white queen. It is probable that Black, who for a long time had been conducting a difficult defence, did not even consider . . . :d2. Meanwhile, in a quiet situation we easily see it.

As this work draws to its conclusion, the author would like to show an example of how his ignorance of a complicated set-up helped him to carry out a very interesting idea. Had I known this set-up, I would never have decided on such an audacious plan. However, partially it was I who set myself a trap.

It was on a Saturday, in the second half of the day, in the Argentine resort of Mar del Plata, a few minutes before the start of the next round, in which I was due to play the Argentine Champion Bernardo Wexler, a strong and experienced international master.

Unexpectedly, our Ambassador in Argentina, Nikolai Alekseev, a passionate chess enthusiast, arrived in the resort. I was touched by his visit (he had covered 400 km. after a working day ! ) and in a kind of pregame excitement I incautiously said:

'Nikolai Borisovich, for the sake of such an enthusiast as you, I will sacrifice my queen today. '

'Oh, there ' s no need for that, ' the Ambassador said anxiously.

'I have given my word, now it' s already too late . . . '

Many years later I met Nikolai Borisovich, and the first thing that he asked me was:

'That queen sacrifice - how did that miracle occur? '

The black queen has taken up an active position via b6 and c5 and, after driving back the white rook from b4, it boldly stepped into the zone of White' s important squares, establishing itself at c4. White did not expect this, as his calculations


had been connected with the variation l . . . b4 2 .i.f2 'ilc4 3 .i.e2 'ilc8 4 .:txb4, and therefore, although he took into account the possible invasion of the queen at c4, he was nevertheless confident that he would drive away the queen by .i.e2 . And in principle Black' s position looks critical .

After choosing an opening variation favoured by Tal, of which I had no personal experience, in order to weaken the central white breakthrough e4-e5 I hurried to give up bishop for knight, then hid my queen in the corner, again fearing the e4-e5 breakthrough and the pawn advance d5-d6. As a result I lost time, and since I was forced to complicate the game in search of a happy alternative, I decided in addition to immure my rook at aS . Otherwise I would have been unable to drive the rook from c4 and reach c5 with my queen. To be honest, I was afraid that the white rook would not go to b4, but would invade at c6. In doing so I forgot that White had such a strong position, that he had no need to place his rook at c6, where it could be attacked in one move by a knight.

And so the situation depicted in the diagram was reached, where l. .. 'ilc4 was played.

Since Black has created the diversionary threat of playing his knight from d7 to c5, White is practically forced to parry this threat either directly or indirectly. He is

loath to give up his g3 bishop: after 2 .i.f2 lL'lcS 3 .i.xc5 'ilxc5 the e4-e5 breakthrough is still halted, and at the same time the second black knight is ready to go via d7 to c5 . Besides, White did not see anything bad for him in the variation 2 .i.e2 'ilc8 etc .

But in reply to 2 .i.e2 Black did not move his queen, but left it in place.

The time which he would have had to spend moving the queen, Black used as follows: 2 ... lbxe4, implementing the basic strategical idea of Tal ' s entire set-up. This is all the concrete knowledge that I had about the opening as a whole. White has to take the queen with his bishop: 3 .i.xc4. Now Black's set-up suddenly begins to demonstrate its latent strength: 3 ... lL'lxg3+ 4 hxg3 .:txe1+ 5 �h2 .

The rook at e8, which just now was helping to put pressure on the white pawn at e4, has managed by


itself to break through a series of barriers and to occupy White ' s piece rank. Now along the a-file the second black rook hastens to its aid. Strictly speaking, it was in order to connect the rooks and to coordinate them along White ' s piece rank that the black pieces undertook such a bold operation.

5 . . . .:laal 6 g4 l:acl Probably the most difficult move

for Black in the game. A paradox? I don't know. Of course, it is not every day that one gives up a queen, but it is also not often that one has to solve the following problem: which is the most accurate, precise and elegant way, with the least loss of material, to conclude an offensive operation that is already almost successful? One does not always find the answer, but that evening I was definitely lucky: 7 'ilff2 bxc4 8 l:b7 i..xc3 9 bxc3 (9 l:xd7 l:h 1 + 1 0 '.t>g3 i..e 1 ) 9 . . . l:hl + White resigns .

In the variation 7 'ilfd2 the knight would have joined the offensive : 7 . . . bxc4 8 :b7 i..xc3 9 bxc3 liJf6 1 0 l:b8+ '.t>g7 1 1 'ill d4 l:cd 1 1 2 'ilfxc4 ltJxg4+ 1 3 '.t>h3 lle3+. Even today the author is unable to contain his excitement when looking at these complicated positions - it is not often that a grandmaster sacrifices his queen to keep a promise ! . . .

Immediately after making your first move, or, better still, before it, you have your opinion about the obstacles that the opponent can place in the way of your plan of

attack. And you have your opinion about how you - slowly or quickly will overcome these obstacles. And when the opponent has made a move, your mind immediately switches on and, like a modern computer, works on only one question: 'Did we expect this move or not?' If it was expected, then what reply was prepared? If a reply was prepared - and the champions invariably have one - then the following command comes : 'Check short variations, in order to exclude accidents . ' There is no danger, and the command follows to make the move, but not only to make this move - making it automatically includes an analysis of the situation after any reply by the opponent for exactly one move. And here in a memory cell is stored the necessary next move. And thus it continues right through to the end of the game. If things go this way, you will hardly ever spend more than two minutes on a move.

But other situations occur. To the question: 'Did you expect this move?' comes the reply: 'No . ' After this comes the obligatory question: 'Why? - 'Because such-and-such a move would have been stronger . '

The control question follows: ' Stronger for whom?' A conversation proceeds with your own brain, tuned on to the chess wavelength : 'Was it stronger? ' If now to the question 'why was it stronger? comes the reply 'because now we


can without hindrance accelerate our main plan beginning with suchand-such a move, ' the command is immediately heard: 'Play it ! ' without any additional checking, since this entire complicated network of questions has involuntarily checked itself. But if to the question 'why? ' comes the reply 'we incorrectly thought that against our threat there was only that defence, but this one also works, ' then this is the reason why you suddenly seize your head in your hands and intensely stare at the chess battlefield.

When we study the chronogram of chess games by the best grandmasters in the world, it is these two or three moments of the game (when the opponent' s strategy has gone out of control) that are seen on the time graph; they are seen because the 1 0- 1 2 minute peaks stand out sharply, whereas the usual expenditure of time on one move is two minutes or less .

How the modem champion-stars so quickly find the right move to adjust their combat ideas, I do not know. But I can surmise that, during an intense battle, not for a second do they allow themselves to be diverted by the simple contemplation of pretty variations . During a joint analysis after a game their imagination conjures up hundreds of pretty moves, but during the game itself they look only at those that are the most necessary for the immediate plan or move. Probably my version

will not seem convincing to experts on chess psychology. But they have altogether no explanations of the reasons for constant chess successes, and this is much worse.

Coming down to earth, I should say that I have often observed how this method of champions is employed by enthusiasts, players of average club strength. Playing one another in the open air, these fanatics are also not interested in the plans of the opponent and, after making a move, they urge their partners 'Hurry up and move . ' I have often seen that they already have a second move ready; whether it is good, bad or average is not the point. Their aim is to carry out their idea on the board, and the final result . . . it is a long way off!

When we are considering a move, it is essentially not this move that we are considering. We are merely examining all replies by the opponent and are preparing responses to his reply, and if possible, using our tempo-move, to improve our position.

But this method demands exceptional concentration, otherwise our signalling system will somewhere very readily give out the wrong signals: it will not report on threats, and will not warn about dangers.

A typical instance occurred in the game Karpov-Taimanov (International Tournament, dedicated to the 60th Anniversary of the October Revolution, Leningrad 1 977).


After thinking for some fifteen minutes, Taimanov sharply moved his queen into the attack with l. . .'it'd4, to which Karpov instantly pushed his pawn - 2 b6.

If White had sensed the danger, he would certainly have withdrawn his rook to b 1 , but it seemed to White that his pawn at b6 was a panacea against all the ills of the 20th century. Meanwhile, on account of this pawn, a move later the white king suffered a 'cardiac arrest' . The reason was evidently this : White forgot that the g3 square

was now defended not three times, but twice, and by the method of trial and error, after seeing different variations, he would not . have agreed to the conclusion 2 ... l:Ll1 3 l::tbl tLlg3+.

White resigns. A very rare instance - one had to foresee the 'rook angle' l::ta1 -a8-h8. And I am not convinced that I too would not have lost in the same way. The only thing I am sure about is this : I would definitely have stopped to think, after the opponent had allowed my pawn to advance . . .

I n d ex of Players

Agnastopolus 56 Alatortsev 1 1 9 Alekhine 47, 65 , 1 1 8 Aloni 8 1 Appel 74 Aronin 1 3 0 Averbakh 44

Bakulin 53 Barcza 1 24 Barry 62 Bird 1 20 Bisguier 6 1 Boleslavsky 1 1 9, 1 25 , 1 3 0 Book 65 Botvinnik 27, 55, 59, 1 40 Brachman 1 24 Bronstein 23 , 27, 28, 29, 30, 37, 44,

48, 52, 53 , 55 , 57, 60, 6 1 , 64, 67, 68, 69, 7 1 , 74, 75, 80, 8 1 , 82, 83 , 87, 90, 1 00, 1 22, 1 23 , 1 24, 1 25 , 1 29, 1 30, 1 3 1 , 1 34, 1 4 1

Brunswick 40 Brzozka 1 23 Bum 1 07

Capablanca 32, 47, 59, 1 07, 1 1 8 Crown 42

Dobrzynski 1 29 Duras 26

Eliskases 5 8

Engel 43

Filip 1 24 Fischer 23 , 65 Flohr 50, 125 Furman 48

Gilman 1 1 9 Gligoric 35 , 53 Golombek 27, 1 3 8

Hort 1 3 3

Ilivitsky 44 Isouard 40

Janosevic 75

Kamyshov 1 00 Kaplan 29 Karpov 3 1 , 35 , 74, 1 44 Keene 90 Keres 28 Khasin 67 Konstantinopolsky 89, 1 1 9, 1 24 Kotov 42, 57 Krogius 1 3 0

Labourdonnais 69 Lasker 5 8 Lengyel 37 Levenfish 87 Loyd 68

1 48

Ljubojevic 68, 1 1 9 Lutikov 68

McDonnell 69 Maroczy 1 2 1 Mason 1 2 1 Miagmasuren 72 Mieses 1 26 Milner-Barry 1 07 Morphy 40, 1 20 Muchnik 1 22

Najdorf 27

Osipov 1 24

Pachman 52 Palatnik 125 Petrosian 1 34 Pilnik 45 Pokhla 64 Pollock 1 07 Polugayevsky 1 33 Portisch 59, 74

Ravinsky 44, 1 3 1 Rojahn 56, 80 Romih 1 2 1 Rubinstein 59, 73

Samisch 43 Sliwa 30


Smyslov 55 , 1 40 Spassky 1 3 1 , 1 3 3 Spielmann 73 Swiderski 26 Szabo 45

Taimanov 1 44 Tal 65 Tarrasch 1 3 5 Tartakower 1 3 8 Tolush 50, 82 Trifunovic 83

Uitumen 72 Unzicker 3 1 , 69

Vasyukov 1 23 V elimirovic 1 1 9 Veresov 7 1 Vidmar 3 2

Walbrodt 1 3 5 Waltuch 62 Wexler 1 4 1 Winawer 1 2 1 Winiwarter 1 3 1 Wolf 1 26

Zaitsev, I . 89 Zilberstein 60 Zita 1 24

T H E M O D E R N C H E S S

S E L F - T U T O R

This book by G randmaster David Bronstein, one of the most original and

i nfluential players of the post-war period, is not a self-tutor in the

conventional sense, where the basics of open ing, middlegame and

endgame play are dri ly explained. Instead, the author engages in a

frank conversation with the reader, discussing how strong players

decide on their moves, and covering topics such as:

• A shelter for the king

• The deployment of the pieces and pawns

• Attack and defence

• · The strengths and weaknesses of a position

... and much more.

A fu l l l ist of David Bronstein's chess achievements wou ld run to several

pages. Suffice it to say that he once d rew a match for the World

Championship, was twice Soviet Champion, and has won nu merous ;ni.a==>-tkm!>l.t1lJJ.roam�nts around J.he_w.orld. He remains an active

>pean circu it, where his

sti l l wins many friends.

an's Russian Series Editor.

Documents

Modern Chess Self-Tutor_Bronstein