The Chess Mind

In the 2000 FIDE World Championships in New Delhi, India, Alexei Shirov and Alexander Grischuk played an extraordinary best of four semi-final match. The first game was won by Shirov in good style, and the 17-year-old Grischuk struck back in an excellent second game as well. Then came game 3.

After 23 reasonably normal moves, the fun began, as Shirov opted to sacrifice a piece for two dangerous central passed pawns. Grischuk was on the run, but a truly amazing counterattack featuring first a rook sacrifice and then a repeated bishop offer kept the result of the game, and accordingly the match, very much in flux.

Though it was dramatic and often brilliant, the game was not perfectly clean; indeed, it finished shortly after a Grischuk blunder in a balanced position. Nevertheless, its overall richness makes it a game deserving a close look, and that's just what will happen as I present it on the Playchess server this Monday night (9 p.m. EST) - I hope you'll join me then!

Directions for watching the show (either live or in the archives) can be found here, while a list of past shows can be found here. Meanwhile, to whet your appetite, the game can be replayed here.

In commemoration of Topalov's victory in the just-completed MTel Masters, we'll take a look at a notable game from early in his career, at a time when it seemed the successes he's now enjoying were going to happen within one or two years rather than eight or nine.

Our game for this week features the razor-sharp 6.Bc4 variation against Kasparov's Najdorf. Played in round 1 of the 1996 Amsterdam VSB tournament, in which the two players tied for first (1.5 points ahead of Short and Anand and 2 points ahead of Kramnik and Lautier), Topalov played in his characteristically savage fashion, acquiring a decisive advantage after a brilliant opening and middlegame. His technique wasn't perfect (and we can learn from that, too), but he brought home the point, showing the chess world that there was a new force to be reckoned with.

So join me this Monday, not only to see a fantastic game, but also for the opportunity to catch up on the theory of an always topical opening variation.

Directions for watching the show live (or later, in the archives) can be found here, while a list of past shows' games can be found here.

Here, to whet your appetite, is the game (sans notes):

Topalov,Veselin (2700) - Kasparov,Garry (2775) [B86]
Amsterdam VSB Euwe mem Amsterdam (1), 22.03.1996

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bb3 Nbd7 8.f4 Nc5 9.0-0 Ncxe4 10.Nxe4 Nxe4 11.f5 e5 12.Qh5 Qe7 13.Qf3 Nc5 14.Nc6 Qc7 15.Bd5 a5 16.Bg5 Ra6 17.Nd8 f6 18.Nf7 Rg8 19.Be3 g6 20.Ng5 Rg7 21.fxg6 Rxg6 22.Bf7+ Qxf7 23.Nxf7 Kxf7 24.Bxc5 dxc5 25.Rad1 Be7 26.Rd5 Bg4 27.Qe4 Kg7 28.Rfd1 Bxd1 29.Rxd1 Re6 30.Qf5 Kf7 31.Re1 b6 32.h4 Rg7 33.Kf1 Bd6 34.Kf2 Bc7 35.Kf3 Ke7 36.Re4 Kf7 37.Rg4 Re7 38.Ke4 Rxg4+ 39.Qxg4 Bd8 40.a4 Kf8 41.c3 Rg7 42.Qc8 Ke8 43.Qe6+ Kf8 44.g4 Rf7 45.h5 Rg7 46.h6 Rg6 47.Qd5 Be7 48.Kf5 Rxh6 49.Qb7 e4 50.Qb8+ Kf7 51.Qxb6 e3 52.Qe6+ Ke8 53.Qxe3 Rg6 54.Qe4 Rg5+ 55.Kf4 Kd7 56.Qb7+ Ke6 57.Qc8+ Kf7 58.Qc7 h5 59.gxh5 Rxh5 60.Qxa5 Bd6+ 61.Ke4 f5+ 62.Kd5 Be7 63.Qc7 Rh6 64.a5 Rd6+ 65.Ke5 Rf6 66.Qc8 1-0

On May 9, the subject of my ChessBase show was the technical masterpiece Andersson-Polugaevsky, Haninge 1990. Polugaevsky was a great player and a competent technician in his own right, but Andersson's gift was - and still is - to create positions where he's always at least maintaining the strength of his position while his opponents self-destruct, and that's just what happened in this case. Polu just assumed the position was a draw, played impatiently, and ultimately lost the game a little at a time.

One place where Polugaevsky did make the right defensive decision came in this position:



It's Black to move, and he chose the aggressive 20...e5, and after 21.axb4 exf4 22.Bxf4 Bxb4 23.Rc7 h6 24.Ra1 could probably have maintained equality with 24...a5.

Going back to the diagrammed position, however, it's reasonable to consider the obvious 20...Nd5. Polugaevsky, in his notes to the game in the Informant, dubs it interesting and says no more, while Jacob Aagaard develops the line in his Excellence in Chess:

20...Nd5 21.Nxd5 Rxd5 22.Rc7 Bf6 23.b4

Aagaard says "this might be a little unpleasant for Black because White has control of the c-file, which is clearly more glamorous than the d-file." He then adds that if Black goes on a fishing trip with

23...Bb2?

he will find himself either losing his bishop or suffering from a fatally weak king after

24.Rb1 Bxa3 25.Rb3 Rd1+ 26.Kg2 Ra1 27.Bd4 Ra2 28.Rf3



As proof, Aagaard finishes the line with the neat 28...Rf8 29.Bc5 Rc2 30.Rfxf7!

During the show, however, a viewer with the user name "Koan" wisely forgot to be cowed by either my or especially Aagaard's credentials and asked about 28...f6, not seeing a win for White after that move. Fortunately for me, there's a delay on the show (the CB programmers' best attempt to head off problems with viewer lag and synchronizing my voice with what's happening on the board), and the audience was thereby spared the humor and/or angst of seeing me try to figure out what in the world was wrong with 28...f6 or where Aagaard's line went awry.

The quick answer: nothing is wrong with 28...f6 - as far as I can tell, Black is probably equal after the move. White does win with the prosaic 28.Rcc3, though, so it was just a single-move lapse in Aagaard's analysis.

The lines after 28...f6 are quite interesting, so even though Black shouldn't have this chance to survive, it's worth our taking a look. Shredder 9's two main candidates are the materialistically driven 29.Rb3 and 29.Bc5, while my preference was to go headhunting with 29.Rf4. We'll consider each in turn:

(a) 29.Bc5 Bc1 30.Rd3 Rd2 31.Re3 e5 32.Bxa7 Ra2 33.Rxc1 R2xa7 34.Rc5 and White has only a nominal edge.

(b) 29.Rb3 a5 30.bxa5 Rxa5 31.Bc3 Ra8 32.Rxb5 Rxe2 33.Rbb7 Bf8 is fine for Black, as 34.Bb4 Rb2 leads to an endgame where White will have to prove the draw after 35.Bxf8 Rxb7 36.Rxb7 Kxf8 37.h4 etc.

(c) 29.Rf4 is the most dynamic way to play the position - if it doesn't work, then White has no way to even attempt to play for a win. Let's first look at Black's most obvious winning try:

(c1) 29...e5 30.Rg4 g5 31.Bxe5 h5 32.Re4 fxe5 (32...Re8 also bottoms out into a draw: 33.Rxa7 Rxe5 34.Rd4 Kf8 35.Rd8+ Re8 36.Rdd7 Rexe2 37.Rd8+ Re8 38.Rdd7 and Black has no better way to elude the threat of perpetual than by returning with 38...Ree2, when White repeats with 39.Rd8+ and so on) 33.Rxe5 Bxb4 34.Rxg5+ Kf8 35.Rxh5 Kg8 and although it's clear that White has a draw in the bag and a passel of pawns for the piece, Black's a-pawn will, practically by its lonesome, succeeding in giving Black adequately counterplay.

For example, if 36.Rg5+ Kh8 37.Rxb5 a5 with another fork in the road:

(c1a) 38.e4 Rf8 forces White to bail out with the draw: 39.Rh5+ Kg8 40.Rg5+ Kh8=

(c1b) 38.e3 Rb2 39.g4 a4 and it's time for White to grab the draw with both hands (or both rooks!) 40.Rh5+ Kg8 41.Rg5+ Kf8 42.Rh5 Kg8 43.Rg5+=

(c1c) 38.Rh5+ Kg8 39.Rg5+ Kh8 40.Rh5+= (40.Rc4 Ra7 41.Rh4+ Rh7 42.Rhg4 Ra7 43.Rh5+ Rh7=)

Draws aplenty, wins anone.

(c2) 29...h5 (instead of 29...e5 after 29.Rf4) is a more prophylactic way of handling the position - why allow the White rook to g4 in the first place? The respectable continuation is 30.Bc5 (protecting the pawn and clearing d4 as a stepping stone for the Rf4 to reach d7) 30...e5 31.Rf3 (heading for d3) 31...Bc1 32.Rd3 Rxe2 33.Rdd7 Bh6 34.Rxa7 Rxa7 35.Rxa7 and White will draw with Rb7xb5.

Is it necessary to be respectable though? If there is a viable "no" answer, it will begin with 30.Bxf6, trying to break through immediately. Then 30...gxf6 31.Rxf6 Bxb4 32.Rg6+ Kf8 33.Rh6 Ke8 34.Rxe6+ Kd8 35.Rb7 a6 36.Kf3 (36.Rg6 Rxe2) 36...Rd2 37.Rg6 Kc8 38.Rh7 Ba5 and if White can draw this, it will only be in virtue of discovering a near-miraculous resource. So to answer the question asked at the beginning of this paragraph: yes, this time playing it safe is playing it smart.

And so although 28.Rcc3 would have won easily, and would have been played in the game, had it come to that, "Koan" was right about 28.Rf3 f6! - Black is okay there. Good eye!

About a week ago, I received an email from "Daaim" suggesting I was perhaps unfair in my post on 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nf6! He writes:

You show the game Hikaru lost on the ICC, but that shouldn't be your rationale for saying "I told you so." He's played many games with 2.Qh5.

Of course, the article was in good part tongue in cheek (re-read especially the first sentence of the second paragraph), but not entirely. First of all, that was the only ICC blitz game where his opponent played 2...Nf6; second, it's not just the result but how easily it came: by move 7 he's already clearly worse! Third, 2...Nf6 isn't just some "trappy" line - the computer in all its materialistic glory likes the move and thinks it gives Black an edge.

In an earlier comment to my post "Saidy-Fischer; not a Brilliancy?", MNb proclaimed the end of the "Fischer gambit". I think that even if he's right, it doesn't affect my argument in that post, which is that (a) the standard "refutations" of the sac are of at best dubious value, (b) even if the sac is bad, it's not obviously bad, and (c) its unsoundness, even if granted, doesn't suffice to eliminate the game's deserved recognition from the Informant voters back in 1969.

That said, it's still worth considering MNb's claims.

(1) MNb refers to an alleged refutation of the following line of the Grand Prix Attack (GPA): 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Bc4?! e6 6.f5 Nge7 7.fxe6 fxe6 8.d3 d5 9.Bb3 with 9...b5. (His point is that this is equivalent to 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 f5 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.d3 [because the pawn gets to d4 in two moves, the resulting position is exactly equivalent [albeit with colors reversed] to that reached in the GPA line] Bc5 6.e3 f4 and now 7.Nge2 [instead of the game's 7.exf4] fxe3 8.fxe3 d6 9.d4 Bb6 10.b4)

Unfortunately, while Cor van Wijgerden may have refuted the variation, I can't assess the claim here: I don't have access to the magazine in question, and as it's a position that has occurred in dozens of games going back to 1969, a look at the databases isn't sufficient. As a discussion opener, here's how GM Dorian Rogozenko continues the GPA line in his 2003 Gambit book Anti-Sicilians: A Guide for Black, pp. 27-28: 10.O-O c4 11.dxc4 dxc4 12.Qxd8+ Kxd8 13.Nxb5 cxb3 14.axb3 Bd7 15.Ng5 Kc8 16.c3 e5, when the position is somewhere between White's having adequate compensation and Black's having an edge (my computer thinks Black has about a +.3 edge if White continues with 17.Be3).

Let's suppose the worst, that Black is slightly better. In some sense, that's a "refutation" of the line, as it's silly for someone to choose a variation with White that leads to a slight disadvantage. But recall that we're really considering the line with colors reversed, so it would be Black with the slight disadvantage. Perhaps that's not ideal, but it's not really a big problem, either. So more needs to be said before this line should be considered refuted.

(2) Returning to the game, after 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 f5 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.d3 Bc5 6.e3 f4 7.exf4 O-O 8.Nge2 Qe8 and now, instead of the game's 9.O-O, MNb suggests 9.h3, continuing 9...d6 10.Be3 exf4 ("[10...]Bxe3 is less strong now") 11.Bxf4 Nh5 12.O-O, which transposes (with colors reversed) to the game Glek-Gavrikov, Minsk 1983.

Two comments here: the first concerns the proposed analysis, the second its applicability to what I wrote and discussed on the program.

First, on his analysis: while the Glek-Gavrikov game wound up a very sharp draw, but I think he's objectively right about the position after 12.O-O - I think White is in very good shape there.

On the other hand, he might be underestimating 10...Bxe3. After 11.fxe3 exf4 12.exf4, the computer finds a very interesting move: 12...Nb4!? If White lets the steed remain, then Black may get good play with ...Qg6 or ...Bf5 - at best, White may get a very small edge with 13.O-O Qe3+ 14.Kh2 Qxd3 15.a3 Qxd1 16.Raxd1 Nc2 17.Nd5 Nxd5 18.Bxd5+ Kh8 19.Rd2 Ne3 20.Rc1.

The obvious question is this: why in the world White shouldn't just kick it away with 13.a3? The answer is that 13.a3 Nc6, White achieves nothing with the otherwise attractive 14.Qd2 (taking e3 away from the Black queen and preparing queenside castling), because of 14...Nd4, when 15.O-O-O?? Nb3+ reveals the point of inducing a3!

Unfortunately, White does get a good position with 14.Kd2!, when I was unable to find a foolproof way for Black to achieve adequate counterplay against White's plan of kingside expansion.

In sum, he's probably right about his analysis, but the next question is whether it's relevant to Fischer's gambit (as opposed to the way Fischer followed it up).

First, as I argued here, White can respond to 7...O-O(?) with 8.fxe5, when as far as I could determine, he achieves a large advantage. Second and more importantly, however, I think Black can improve on 7...O-O with 7...d6, and after 8.Nge2 O-O 9.h3, Black need not transpose to MNb's line with 9...Qe8 10.Be3, but can deviate with either 9...Bf5 or 9...Nd4 (for example). I think White has an edge here with accurate play, but I'm not at all persuaded we're in 1-0 territory.

(3) MNb proposes a third way for White: 7.gxf4 (instead of 7.exf4 as in the game, or 7.Nge2, heading for the GPA with colors reversed). He writes, "Black's best try seems exf4 8.d4 Bb4 as 7.gxf4 d6 8.Nge2 o-o 9.h3 Qe8 10.a3 is a GPA again; White has the useful extra move a3."

By way of reply: first, in the latter line, I think White has an edge but I'm not sure it's anything special. It's easy to overestimate the value of an extra tempo in a reversed opening - a line that's equal for Black rarely becomes clearly better by the addition of a single tempo. And second, his main line (7.gxf4 exf4 8.d4 Bb4) looks pretty healthy to me for Black - White is at best slightly better.

In sum, I think MNb has offered some good suggestions for White - not enough to win, as far as I can tell, but enough to make the gambit a dubious idea for postal chess or against a well-prepared opponent who can calculate well and play good defense.

Finally, three quick points about the variation. First, if Black plays the line with 3...f5, White should play 5.e3 instead of 5.d3. The point is to get in d4 in a single move - White might as well have an extra tempo if Black is going to head for a reversed GPA.

Second, after 5.d3, Black has good chances for equality with 5...Bb4. And third, after 5.d3(?!) Bc5(?!), it probably behooves White to flick in 6.a3, as the kneejerk response with 6...a5 weakens the b5 square. After White plays an eventual Nb5, d4 will be a well-supported positional threat to the Black position.

Ask most players to name an exemplar of wild, sacrificial chess, and they'll most likely come up with Alexei Shirov or Mikhail Tal. Both great choices, but tame by comparison with the star of this week's show, Rashid Nezhmetdinov (1912-1974).

A fearless and immensely talented tactician (witness his +3-1 record against Tal!), Nezhmetdinov's relatively one-sided style prevented him from achieving the highest competitive successes, but it also allowed him to produce a large number of sacrificial masterpieces.

This week's game is no exception. Playing White against Chernikov's Accelerated Dragon, Nezhmetdinov headed for a line generally played as an invitation to a quick draw after the following moves:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 O-O 8.Bb3 Ng4 9.Qxg4 Nxd4 10.Qh4 (10.Qd1 was and still is the main move) Qa5 11.O-O Bf6



Instead of acceding to the repetition with 12.Qh6 Bg7 13.Qh4 Bf6, Nezhmetdinov decided it was time to drag his opponent into the mire with 12.Qxf6!!?

Is it sound? Could Black have gained an advantage against this? And how did the game turn out? Good questions...to be answered this Monday night at 9 p.m. EST - tune in to the show and see!

As always, directions for watching the show (as well as archived shows) can be found here, while a list of games to be found in those archives can be found here.

In an effort to keep my ChessBase viewers on a healthy, balanced diet, we'll take a look this week at a typical technical masterpiece by Swedish great Ulf Andersson. For most of us, if we're playing a peer and major exchanges occur, a quick draw is the likely result.

Not so for Andersson. Even against the world's super-elite (a group in which he was included from the late 70s through the early 90s), exchanges were often not the prelude to a quick draw but the signal that it was time for his opponent to start suffering.

Case in point: his game with the late, great Lev Polugaevsky from 1990 event in Haninge. Andersson, with White, willingly trades off pieces - lots of pieces - and Black has no trouble equalizing. Nevertheless, "equal" does not mean "drawn", and Andersson was able, in his inimitable way, to keep making good moves while Polu drifted a little at a time until finally losing the ending.

So this Monday, we'll take a look and admire Andersson's work, but more than that we'll learn a number of important lessons both about proper technique and the psychology of the game as well.

Here's the game:


Andersson,Ulf (2630) - Polugaevsky,Lev (2610) [E18]
Haninge Haninge (8), 1990

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.d4 Ne4 8.Nxe4 Bxe4 9.Ne1 Bxg2 10.Nxg2 d5 11.Qa4 c5 12.Be3 cxd4 13.Bxd4 dxc4 14.Qxc4 Qc8 15.Rac1 Na6 16.Nf4 Qxc4 17.Rxc4 Rfd8 18.Be3 b5 19.Rc3 Nb4 20.a3 e5 21.axb4 exf4 22.Bxf4 Bxb4 23.Rc7 h6 24.Ra1 Bd6 25.Bxd6 Rxd6 26.Ra3 a5 27.Rb7 b4 28.Rxb4 Re8 29.Rxa5 Rxe2 30.Rb8+ Kh7 31.Rf5 Rd7 32.g4 g6 33.Rf4 Kg7 34.Kg2 Re5 35.h3 h5 36.b4 hxg4 37.hxg4 g5 38.Rc4 Re2 39.Rb5 f6 40.Rf5 Rb2 41.b5 Rb7 42.Rcc5 Rb4 43.Kf3 Rb3+ 44.Ke2 Rb4 45.f3 Ra7 46.Kd3 Ra3+ 47.Rc3 Ra5 48.Rc7+ Kg6 49.Rc6 Raxb5 50.Rcxf6+ Kh7 51.Rf7+ Kh8 52.Rxb5 Rxb5 53.Rf5 Rb3+ 54.Ke4 1-0


As always, instructions for watching the show can be found here, while a list of past shows can be accessed here.

When I do my ChessBase shows each Monday night, I do my best to offer comments that will be instructive to a wide range of spectators, but it's not possible to answer every question in advance or even during the show (in part because of the time delay, and in part because it will generally mess up the program's narrative flow - especially for those who listen afterwards in the archives).

In this post, then, I will answer two recent questions that weren't answered during the programs themselves. The first pertains to this past Monday's show, on the crazy Gabriel-Korchnoi game presented in a previous post.

Here's the position in question:



White is down a pawn and (much more importantly) severely bottled up by the f5-d3 pawn chain. He needs to decide whether to work around the pawns or chip away at them, and Gabriel chose the first option with 15.Na4. This was criticized by Korchnoi and other commentators, who thought that option two, by means of the dramatic-looking 15.g4, was the better try. In my view, 15.Na4 was probably okay - I think the key error came later - but are these the only two options?

Not according to one spectator, who offered a radical suggestion: why not 15.Nxe4? White gets to collect all three of the horrible pawns in return for the piece, after which his pseudo-bishop on f1 is reordained a chess piece while the Black kingside looks a little airy.

It's a very nice idea in theory, and sometimes that sort of sac works like gangbusters (for those who know the game, see Yudasin-Monokroussos for a dream-come-true version of a piece-for-two-pawns-and-a-big-pawn-center sac). Here, unfortunately, Black is well on top after 15...fxe4 16.Bxc5 Qxc5 17.Qxe4 Re8 18.Qxd3 Nf6 followed by ...Kf7, and Black is winning. His king is safe, his pieces are active, and White's central pawns are not at all likely to have the same effect Black's pawns had before the sac.

A second comment came via email to the old blog. [N.B. Readers, please send your questions to me here - just click on "Contact" on the right sidebar, and you'll be able to write me in that way.] Lee Prince asked about a game I did long, long ago, a Berlin Defense between Harmonist and the "Praeceptor Germaniae", Siegbert Tarrasch.

After the moves

Harmonist,Max - Tarrasch,Siegbert [C67]
DSB-06.Kongress Breslau (3), 1889

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 Nf5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.Bg5+ Ke8 10.Nc3 h6 11.Bf4 Be6 12.Rad1 Rd8 13.Ne4 c5 14.Rxd8+ Kxd8 15.Rd1+ Kc8 16.h3 b6 17.Kf1 Be7 18.a3 Rd8 19.Rxd8+ Kxd8 20.c3 Bd5 21.Nfd2 Kd7 22.Ke2 g5 23.Bh2 Nh4 24.g3 Ng6 25.f4 Ke6 26.Ke3 c4 27.Nf3 gxf4+ 28.gxf4 c5 29.Ng3 Nh4 30.Nxh4 Bxh4 31.Ne4 Be7 32.Bg1 Bc6 33.Bf2 Bd7 34.Bg3 Kd5 35.Nf2 h5 36.Kf3 Bf5 37.Ke3 b5 38.Kf3 a5 39.Ke3 b4

we reach this position:



The game continued 40.Kf3 Kc6 41.axb4 cxb4 42.cxb4 axb4 43.Ne4 Kd5 44.Nd6 Bxd6 45.cxd6 c3 46.bxc3 b3 and White resigned.

But perhaps White can improve? Prince asks, "What about (40.h4)? I'm a total novice but I let Fritz crunch on it and it seems ok for white. He can then get his knight in the game or force black to trade off the light square bishop. What do you think?"

In some positions, little finesses can make a difference, especially when the question of a win or a draw comes down to a tempo or two. In other positions, the static features predominate, and one side's chronic weaknesses will doom him - a tempo here and there won't make a difference.

This position is of the latter sort. Black is breaking through on the queenside, and White's options are essentially limited to determining whether Black's king comes in via d5 or b5. Here is a typical line:

40.h4 Kc6 41.Ne4 Kb5 42.axb4 (Forcing an immediate exchange with 42.Nd6+ Bxd6 43.exd6 allows Black to grab loose queenside pawns and win after bxc3 44.bxc3 Ka4 45.Kd2 Kxa3 46.Bf2 a4 47.Kc1 Kb3 48.d7 Bxd7 49.Kb1 Kxc3 50.Bxc5 Kb3 51.Bb6 Bf5+ 52.Ka1 c3 53.Be3 Kc2-+) 42...cxb4 43.cxb4 axb4 44.Nd6+ Bxd6 45.exd6 and now the same tactic from the game does the trick: c3! 46.b3 (Trying to save material in the short term with 46.bxc3 lets Black queen the b-pawn with b3 47.d7 Bxd7 48.Kd2 Ka4 49.Kc1 Ka3-+) 46...Kc6 47.Ke2 Be6 48.Kd3 Bxb3 49.f5 c2 50.Bf4 f6 51.Bd2 Kxd6 52.Bxb4+ Ke5 53.Kd2 Kxf5 54.Bc3 Ke6 55.Bb2 Ba4 56.Ke3 Kd5 57.Kd2 f5 58.Ke3 Kc4 59.Bc1 Bd7 60.Ke2 Kb3 followed by ...Ka2-b1, winning.

The lines are long and Fritz won't just "get it" right away (though it might find the lines one move at a time), and perhaps there are other defensive attempts White might try. A bit of patience and trial and error, though, and the solutions will come.

Happy analysis!

When a chess player ages, he often quits the game, and those who don’t quit typically play a far lazier and weaker brand of chess than they did in their prime. It’s only natural, right? We have less energy, we grow jaded and the passions subside.

That’s true for most of us, but not for the inimitable Viktor Korchnoi. He’s not as strong as he once was, of course, but even now, in his mid-70s, he is still in the world’s top 100, he still wins tournaments, and he continues to play a fighting brand of chess that ought to (but probably doesn’t) shame those quick-draw artists less than half his age.

One of Korchnoi’s many virtues as a chess player is his willingness to enter non-stereotyped, unbalanced positions, not fearing the possibility that he’ll tire coping with the new situation or worrying that his younger opponents will out-calculate him. That seeming fearlessness is on display in the game for this week’s show as well, a peculiar but extremely interesting battle with German GM Christian Gabriel played in Zurich in 1999.

The game features so many unusual imbalances that it beggars easy description: Korchnoi, playing Black, has a tremendous central pawn wedge but almost no development or activity. Gabriel, on the other hand, plays the whole game with a worthless and immobile Bf1 and without any central play; however, he starts off with a queenside initiative and threatens to develop one on the kingside as well. White's attempt to work around Black's central "fist" makes for a strategically and tactically rich game, and very entertaining one to boot, as you can see for yourself:


Gabriel,Christian (2578) - Kortschnoj,Viktor (2676) [A09]
Ehrat mem (SU-GER m) Zuerich (4), 16.08.1999

1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.b4 f6 4.e3 e5 5.c5 d3 6.Qb3 e4 7.Nd4 a5 8.Nc3 f5 9.Ne6



9...Qe7 10.Nxf8 Kxf8 11.b5 Be6 12.Qa4 Nd7 13.Ba3 Nxc5 14.Qd4 b6 15.Na4 Kf7 16.Nxc5 bxc5 17.Bxc5 Qg5 18.g4 Qxg4 19.Qe5 Rc8 20.h3 Qg5 21.Bd4 Nf6 22.Qh2 Rhd8 23.Rg1 Qh4 24.Rc1 Ne8 25.Rc5 g6 26.a4 Rd5 27.Rc6 Qd8 28.Bc3 Nd6 29.h4




29...Bd7 30.h5 g5 31.h6 Bxc6 32.Qh5+ Ke6 0-1


Join us this Monday at 9 p.m. EST as we try to bring clarity to the game. As always, directions for watching the show can be found here, and a list of previous shows' games can be seen here.