The Chess Mind A Difference between GMs and IMs

Another quote from Jonathan Rowson's Chess for Zebras (p. 105), this time from Rowson himself:

I have the impression that I win most of my games against IMs primarily because they don't make use of resources that involve the sacrifice of material. It is not so hard to see immediate possibilities based on giving up material, but it is extremely difficult for most players, for example, not to think of the loss of the exchange as decisive. In my experience, most GMs now think of exchange sacrifices as mainstream - no more exciting than exchanging bishop for knight, but this hasn't yet trickled down into other levels of the game.

DM: Rowson doesn't mean that bishops, all things being equal, are as good as rooks. Rather, what he means is that exchange sacs aren't really that special - it doesn't have to be ...Rxc3 in the Sicilian or in return for what any experienced player would instantly recognize as good compensation.

As an illustration, Rowson cites the game Aronian-Rowson, French League 2005, which you can replay here. The game was drawn, but Aronian, despite sacrificing the exchange for no pawns or clear threats, was better and completely at ease about the sac.

(link)

Niv Palgi (mail):

In this recent game from the World Team Championship, Aronian demonstrates the opposite side of the coin – how to play against an exchange sacrifice. Rather than cling on to his material advantage, Aronian decides to sacrifice a side pawn on h3 in order to force a liquidation of the central pawns, and thus increase the scope of his rooks. I think that such a concept (at least during play) might be lost on players of lesser caliber. The resulting position, according to GM Genaddi Sosonko (who was providing live commentary) was “equal, though I would still prefer to play White”. After some very strong play by Aronian (33.b5!; 39.f4!), and some inaccuracies by Ivanchuk, the game was decided.

[Event "World Team Ch"]
[Site "Beer Sheva ISR"]
[Date "2005.11.3"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Aronian,L"]
[Black "Ivanchuk,V"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "E67"]
[Annotator ""]
[Source ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.g3 O-O 5.Bg2 d6 6.O-O Nbd7 7.Nc3
e5 8.h3 exd4 9.Nxd4 Nb6 10.b3 d5 11.c5 Ne4 12.Bb2 Nxc5 13.Ba3
Ne6 14.Nxe6 Bxe6 15.Bxf8 Qxf8 16.Rc1 c6 17.e4 Bxc3 18.exd5 Nxd5
19.Bxd5 Bxh3 20.Bg2 Rd8 21.Qf3 Bxg2 22.Kxg2 Bd2 23.Rc2 Rd4 24.Rd1
Qd6 25.Rc4 Rd5 26.Re4 Kg7 27.b4 Bg5 28.Rxd5 Qxd5 29.Re2 Qd7 30.Qc3+
Bf6 31.Qd2 Qc7 32.Re8 c5 33.b5 a6 34.a4 axb5 35.axb5 h5 36.Qd5
Qb6 37.Qd7 Bd4 38.Rb8 Qf6 39.f4 b6 40.Qd8 Qxd8 41.Rxd8 Be3 42.Kf3
Bg1 43.Rc8 c4 44.Rxc4 Kf6 45.Rc1 Bd4 46.Ke4 Bf2 47.Rc2 Bg1 48.Rc6+
Ke7 49.f5 gxf5+ 50.Kxf5 Bf2 51.Kf4 h4 52.gxh4 Bxh4 53.Rxb6 Bf2
54.Rc6 Kd7 55.Ke5 1-0

11.5.2005 9:32am

Jon Jacobs (mail):

Fascinating observation by Rowson. I recall from decades back the elevation of the Exchange sacrifice was considered a concrete accomplishment of the "Soviet school", which emphasized dynamic considerations over static ones -- i.e., piece ACTIVITY over standard piece VALUES. I'm not sure I agree with Rowson about the illustration he cites, though: a sac of material (whether a single pawn, or the Exchange) to eliminate an opponent's Kingside fianchettoed Bishop can't be such a novel theme, can it? In other words, it seems to me the possibility (even if it can't be directly realized) of setting up an unopposed Q+B battery on the long diagonal to the castled King, does represent the sort of "special compensation" which you and Rowson assert was absent in this example.
For my part, I've noticed lately (and have thought about writing about) the very special (and entirely irrational) reverence with which weaker players regard their Queen. In post-mortems or blitz kibitzing, I've heard people even turn thumbs down on moves that result in 2Rs vs Q, or R + B + N vs Q. Of course I'm not talking GMs vs IMs here, but more like 1600 or so, up through low Expert. See for instance my article in the October Chess Life, where my unnamed, 2000-rated opponent, was quoted saying in post-mortem, "I didn't think you could sac your Queen."

11.7.2005 11:32am

The Chess Mind

Contact

Categories

Subscribe

Archives

Blogroll