The World Champions

Teach Chess

The World Champions ·

Teach

CHESS An anthology compiled by

Yakov Estrin Isaac Romanov

EDITED BY MICHAEL A YTON

A

&

C BLACK

·

LONDON

First published in the USSR English language edition published 1988 by A & C Black (Publishers) Limited

35 Bedford Row, London WC1R 4JH English language edition

© 1988 A

& C Black (Publishers) Limited

ISBN o 7136 5596 8 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy­ ing, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing of A & C Black (Publishers) Limited. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data The World champions teach chess. 1. Chess I. Estrin IA II. Romanov, Isaac III. Ayton, Michael 794. I

GV 1 44 5

ISBN 0-7 136- 5 5 96-8

Printed and bound in Great Britain by Ad.lard and Son Limited, Letchworth, Hertfordshire SG6 1JS

CONTENTS

Introduction to the English edition 7

WILHELM STEINITZ

8

Chess as a training of mind, and how to improve 9

EMANUEL LASKER On chess education 16 Attack and defence 19

15

JOSE RAUL CAPABLANCA

25

Style: ideal conduct of the game 26 On pawn structure 29

ALEXANDER ALEKHINE

33

On direct attack in the game of chess 34

MAX EUWE

43

How it all began 44 Preparation 46 , The first match 48 Between the matches 50 The return match 52

MIKHAIL BOTVINNIK

58

My methods of tournament preparation: tournament regime 59 Methods of chess preparation 63 How the chess player grows up 70 The Botvinnik school 74 On the eve of great events 81 Garry Kasparov's first three matches with Karpov 87

VASILY SMYSLOV 90 The first steps 91

In search of style 91 Difficult chess battles 94 New paths in the opening 95 The struggle for the World Championship 96 MIKHAIL TAL 102 The chess calculator's confession 103 TIGRAN PETROSIAN 113 My memorable games 114 The problem of a difficult opponent 119 BORIS SPASSKY 128 The decisive game 129 ROBERT FISCHER 140 The ten greatest masters in chess history 141 With new power to the truth 148 ANATOLY KARPOV 153 Summing up 154 GARRY KASPAROV 160 CORRESPONDENCE CHESS 172 YAKOV ESTRIN 174 The endgame study in practical play 184 V.B. MALKIN 192 Problems associated with the chess player's psychological preparation 192 ESTRIN THE CHESSPLAYER 204

A memoir by M. Botvinnik 204 Index of opponents 207 Index of openings 208

INTRODU CTION TO THE ENGLIS H EDITION

The World Champions Teach Chess was originally published in the Federal Republic of Germany in 1 979. Later, in 1 9 8 5 , it was republished in a considerably enlarged edition. The book met with an enthusiastic reception. It evidently answered chessplayers' demands - in other words, it 'hit the mark'. Now, thanks to the initiative of the publisher A & C Black, English-speaking readers can become acquainted with the book. The happy idea of creating a book in which chess lessons are given by those who over the last one hundred years have held the chess crown was the brainchild of the ex-World Correspondence Champion and ICCF grandmaster Yakov Estrin. Estrin took on the painstaking duties of edit­ ing and compiling the book. In preparing the second edition (from which the English translation was made) he was assisted by the well-known chess historian and writer Isaac Romanov, who wrote, for instance, the introductory notes to some of the chapters on the World Champions. 1 The idea was supported b y all the Soviet World Champions who contributed to the book. We must express our special gratitude to Mik­ hail Moiseyevich Botvinnik. The Patriarch of Soviet chess recently celebrated his seventy-fifth birthday. He is in good health and full of new plans and ideas, as an example of which, he contributed greatly to the preparation of this edition. The English edition is not a mere translation of the German book. The book has been enlarged and revised. Garry Kasparov has become the thirteenth World Champion, and we could not pass by this change in the chess world. Mikhail Botvinnik wrote the article 'Garry Kasparov's First Three Matches with Karpov' for the English edition. The best creative achievements of the new World Champion are given here along with his own annotations. The lively and active interest which the book, having no parallel in chess literature, met with in West Germany makes us hope that it will be given a warm welcome again.

1 In addition, the chapters on Capablanca and Alekhine were edited by Alexan­ der Konstantinopolsky, and that on Spassky by Viktor Khenkin. 7

WILHELM STEINITZ First World Champion ( 1 8 86-- 1 894) Steinitz's life and activities do not belong to any particular country. He was born in Prague in 1 8 3 6 into a very large and poor family. As a chessplayer he achieved his first victories in Vienna. Later he worked out and formulated the principles of positional theory by which he immor­ talized his name in chess history. Finally, he settled in New York, where he died in poverty in 1 900. The life that had begun in poverty ended in misery. In 1 866 Steinitz defeated Anderssen in a match and became uncrowned world champion. He won the official title twenty years later, having defeated Zukertort. Steinitz thus became the first World Champion, so opening the list of official World Champions, which in the next hundred years was filled by another twelve glorious names. In 1 889 Steinitz published his manual bearing the proud and meaning­ ful title The Modern Chess Instructor1. If we read a few pages from this 1This is not quite correct. Part I appeared in 1 889, and a section of Part II was published in 1 895, but Steinitz never completed the work: c.f. page 12. (Ed.) 8

WILHELM STEINITZ

9

book we shall see that, despite the tremendous progress chess has made in the last few decades, there is still a great deal we can learn from the great Steinitz.

C H E S S A S A TRAI N I N G O F MIND, A N D H ow T O IM P R O V E 1

The practice of our noble pastime is in no way influenced by any element of chance, excepting that of temporary individual dispositions, which after all forms a most important element of strength, and the results of chess contests are therefore strictly based on a scientific and logical foundation. Both parties are placed on a perfectly equal footing on starting, as regards the forces and their respective powers, and the same · rules regulate the movements or actions of the combatants. It is, therefore, purely a battle of the reasoning qualities that decides the issue in a game of chess, and the infinite variety of possible combinations in playing the game afford the widest scope for the exercise, and, therefore, the training, of the logical as well as of the imaginative faculties of mind. Since the introduction of our noble pastime in civilized countries a great number of the foremost thinkers, warriors and statesmen of dif­ ferent nationalities have been attracted by its charms, and some of them have devoted as much attention to the study and practice of chess as to the cultivation of art and literature. In our time the game is becoming more widely popular among intelligent people in different countries, and it is almost universally recognized as a healthy mental exercise, which in its effects on the intellectual faculties is akin to that of physical gymnastics on the conservation and development of bodily strength. Moreover, the cultivation of the game seems also to exercise a direct influence on the physical condition ofchess players and the prolongation of their lives, for most of the celebrated chess masters and authors on the game have reached a very old age, and have preserved their mental powers unim­ paired in some instances up to their very last moments. It is also computed that the average length of life of the general devotees of the game is the highest in comparison to any other class of men whose duration oflife has been systematically subjected to statistical observation. This can be no mere coincidence, and, incongruous as it may seem to connect longevity with the study and practice of chess, we believe the conclusion to be a sound one, which can be placed from experience on rational grounds. 1 This chapter is published here with some omissions. For example, we have omitted some of Steinitz's ideas concerning odds games (games at stakes), which are of no interest to the contemporary reader.

IO

WILHELM STEINITZ

It is also natural that men gifted with intellectual abilities will favour a mental pastime that exercises the highest qualities of mind, in a similar manner as men who are endowed with great physical powers will be attracted by recreations and amusements that develop and maintain their bodily strength. Once a chessplayer becomes initiated in the elements of the game he derives an extraordinary amount of entertainment and pleasure from pursuing it, and a healthy spirit ofemulation stimulates his ambition to become proficient in the noble pastime. He is then sure to learn by experience that any habits that are injurious to general health will also greatly disturb his capacity to do his best and to improve as a player, and that modes ofliving that are detrimental to a sourid condition of body must be rigorously checked or else his play deteriorates. On the old maxim, mens sana in corpore sano, it may therefore reasonably be assumed that as a general rule, with very few exceptions, ardent devotees of the game will be intelligent people, who are possessed of healthy organizations, and as the practice of our pastime is conducive to habits that are beneficial to the preservation of good health, it will also greatly influence the prolongation of life. Some of the foremost thinkers have spoken in the highest terms of the game of chess as an intellectual amusement and as a mark of great capac­ ity, and some of the greatest celebrities of different nations have devoted time and attention to the study and practice of its intricacies. Goethe in his translation of Le Neveu de Rameau, by Diderot, endorses the opinion of the celebrated French philosopher who describes it as 'the touchstone of the human brain'. 1 Prince Bismarck, in disparagement of mere rheto­ rical ability, once remarked that 'great orators, as a rule, can neither play a good game of chess or whist', which shows that this pre-eminent statesman thought more highly of the capacity for playing games of skill as a test of acumen than he did of the oratorial faculty. Buckle, the author of A History of Civilization in England, was one of the greatest chess­ masters of our age. Leibnitz, Voltaire, Lessing, Mendelssohn, Alfred de Musset, Frederick the Great, Napoleon I and William I were fond of the game and most of those famed men are reported to have acquired great skill as players. The literature of the game belongs to the oldest on record in many languages, and its rapid increase in our time has been greatly instrumental in reviving the general popularity of our pastime, as it has facilitated the study of the openings and of practical examples of play between masters. The spread of the game all over the civilized world is, however, chiefly due to the inauguration of international chess congresses and matches

1 Steinitz is wrong here. The words 'the touchstone of the human brain' belong to Goethe. They were pronounced by one of the heroes (or rather the heroine!) of his early drama Gotz von Berlichingen.

WILHELM STEINITZ

II

between experts, which from time to time are organized in the principal capitals of Europe and the American Continent. These public exhibitions of chess skill have been watched with the keenest attention by lovers of the game literally all over the face of the globe, for not alone the results of play but also whole records of games have been communicated through the medium of the newspaper press and the cable to the widest distances of our planet. Fresh talents have been constantly drawn out by those public tests of strength which have formed the training school for some of the greatest masters of our time, who have developed novel theoretical and practical ideas that greatly help students of the game to overcome the chief difficulties in mastering the intricacies of our pastime. These difficulties were in former days insurmountable, and proficiency in the 'art of human reason', as chess has been aptly termed by Gustavus Selenus (Duke Augustus of Brunswick), 1 was held to be the specific privilege of only a very few. But undeniable experience has shown that prominence and even excellence in chess may be acquired in a manner similar to that in which proficiency may be obtained in other accom­ plishments that require mental exertion, and that with proper training and study the large majority of learners may generally improve their chess strength up to a very high degree, at least, and sometimes to mas­ tery. At first sight the great variety of combinations that are possible on the chessboard may appear a most discouraging obstacle in the way of achieving success in the game. In this respect it will be interesting to mention that the first player has the choice of 20 different moves to start with, namely, the moves of the eight pawns one or two squares - and of each of the two knights to two different squares - whilst the opponent has the option of 20 different answers to each one of the first player's 20 moves. There are, therefore, 400 different ways of making the first move on each side without pro­ ceeding any further, and 400 is therefore the unit in the arithmetical progression for the purpose of calculating the number of combinations that are possible in playing the game. But it should be remembered that there is a like infinity, from the mathematical point of view, in the art of music which became popular, and it has been found that the talent for music, which is almost universal among civilized nations, can be cul­ tivated and extended by study and practice. We believe that this is also true of chess, and the knowledge of the game could be made even easier of acquirement by the great majority of people than it is now if rational 1 Duke Augustus of Liineburg, later Duke of Brunswick (1 57\)-1666), patron saint of knowledge and the sciences, published in r6r6 under the pseudonym of Gustavus Selenus the first German chess manual Schach- oder Konigspiel, which was considered for two centuries the best chess book written in German.

12

WILHELM STEINITZ

modes of improvement were to be adopted. The advice which we offer on the subject is, in the first place, that a learner should seek as much as possible to play on even terms with superior players. One thing that we would especially urge upon the chess students is that regularity of study and practice very much facilitates making rapid pro­ gress. The player by fits and starts will scarcely ever improve and it is much better to devote to chess one hour per day for six consecutive days than six hours one day in the week. In order to strengthen the powers of chess perception and memory, a good habit to cultivate is that of playing over from recollection one's own games, or more especially selected and well annotated published games played by masters. One great advantage of the published games is that when the memory occasionally fails it may be refreshed by reference to the publication. A very important point is to observe strictly the law of 'touch and move'. But the temptation to take back a move is very great with a beginner. In advance of a separate treatise on problems which we intend to publish in another volume of this work, 1 we may state that the study of this beautiful branch of our science is extremely useful for the purpose of developing and increasing strength in practical play. It is especially the faculty of precision which has to be exercised absolutely in the study of problems, whereas in the game the winning process may often be effected in many different ways. Yet quite as often it requires the greatest exac­ titude of calculation to make sure of a plan to be adopted in actual play, and the study of compositions, where the utmost power of the forces is to be employed in the fewest number of moves, is therefore a splendid training for the purpose. Some of the greatest players, like Morphy, Anderssen, Blackburne, etc., have devoted great attention to this subject, which has grown to almost a separate art, and it is especially noteworthy that a more brilliant style is usually acquired by masters who combine practice over the board with the study of problems. This is only natural, as the brilliant combina­ tions mostly occur in the direct king's-side attack, and the various beauti­ ful mating positions which are brought out in problems lead, therefore, to the conception of similar ideas in actual play. Around 1 980, Yugoslav television polled its viewers asking them to nominate the ten most brilliant games in chess history. The famous Steinitz-Bardeleben game from the historic Hastings tournament of 1 89 5 went to form part of this necklace of the pearls of chess creativity.

1 Steinitz did not fulfil his intention. His work remained incomplete.

The Modern Chess Instructor

WILHELM STEINITZ

13

Giuoco Piano W Steinitz-C von Bardeleben

1 e4 es 2 NfJ Nc6 J Bq Bc5 4 CJ Nf6 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4 Bb4 + 7 NcJ d5 8 exd5 Nxd5 9 0-0 Be6 1 0 Bg5 Be7 1 1 Bxd5 Bxd5 1 2 Nxd5 Qxd5 lJ Bxe7 Nxe7 1 4 Re1 f6 15 Qe2 Qd7 1 6 Rael c6. The pin on the e-file is quite unpleasant. Black cannot castle, so he tries to evacuate his king from the centre. But Steinitz is true to his principle: the side having the advantage must attack. He implements a grandiose idea. 1 7 d5! cxd5 1 8 Nd4 Kf7 19 Ne6 Rhc8 20 Qg4 g6 21 Ng5 + Ke8.

22 Rxe7+ !! An introductory move to the combination that makes this game im­ mortal. As can easily be seen, capturing the rook would be fatal for Black, e.g. 22 . . . Qxe7 23 Rxc8 + , or 22 . . . Kxe7 23 Rei + Kd6 24 Qb4 + Kc7 25 Ne6 + Kb8 26 Qf4 + . The exceptional complexity and difficulty of Steinitz's combination lies in the fact that Black may not capture the audacious rook. It is noteworthy that over the course of many moves practically all ofWhite's pieces are en prise and he is threatened with mate on the first rank. This element of tension and uncertainty makes this game from the aesthetic point of view unforgettable, and a supreme masterpiece of chess art. 22 . . . Kf8! 2J Rf7+ ! Kg8 24 Rv+ t Kh8 25. Rxh7 + ! In many books written b y noted authors one can read that at this moment Black resigned. Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas. In fact, Bardeleben, having deduced Steinitz's idea, left the playing hall and did not return that evening. In this ungentlemanly manner he avoided the necessity for resigning. Then Steinitz demonstrated to all those present the brilliant finale ofhis combination, which, willy-nilly, remained in the wmgs: 25 . . . Kg8 26 Rv+ t Kh8. If 26 . . . Kf8, then 27 Nh7 + Kxg7 and the queen can be captured with check! 27 Qh4 + Kxv 28 Qh7 + Kf8 29 Qh8+ Ke7 JO Qg1 + Ke8.

14

WILHELM STEINITZ

Black must reject both 30 . Kd8 3 I Qf8 + Qe8 3 2 Nf7 + Kd7 3 3 Qd6 mate and 30 . . . Kd6 3 1 Qf6 + . It is clear now why Steinitz did not exchange rooks on move 23 . Had he done so, Black's king could now withdraw to the c-file. 31 Qg8+ Ke7 32 Q f7 + Kd8 33 Qf8+ Qe8 34 Nf7 + Kd7 35 Qd6 mate. We see now that Steinitz's combination was 14 moves long! Bar­ deleben managed to deprive Steinitz of the possibility of making these moves over the board, but he failed to deprive him of the brilliancy prize which he deserved for his remarkable idea: the delighted arbiters at Hastings unanimously awarded Steinitz with the first of such special prizes. 1 This game was regarded as the pinnacle of combinative chess in the second half of the nineteenth century, and we are enchanted and fasci­ nated by its beauty even today. .

.

1 In fact, the first brilliancy prize was awarded to the English player Henry Bird at the New York tournament of I 876. The prize, a silver cup, was given by the proprietor of the Cafe International where the tournament was held, and at the time excited the comment: 'This spirited offer should have a marked influence in protecting us from the wearying round of French, Sicilian and irregular openings . '! (Ed.) . .

EMANUEL LAS KER Second W odd Champion ( 1 894-1 92 1 ) When in 1 894 the young Lasker defeated the aged Steinitz in a World Championship match, his contemporaries regarded this coup d'etat with scepticism. Lasker, however, maintained his title for 27 years. None ofhis successors on the chess throne could approach this achievement, and it is unlikely ever to be surpassed. Lasker (1868-1941 ) was a unique chessplayer. Sometimes it is said that he had no pupils, but it is difficult to agree with this. Lasker, as any chess genius, was too great and original an artist to be an ordinary chess teacher in the direct sense. But in his own way he was the greatest chess tutor there has ever been. He did not teach the ABC of chess: he was intent on teaching his pupils to work independently and to be creators. Lasker outlined his pedagogical and chess principles in the final chapter of his famous Manual of Chess. 'Chess education should be primarily aimed at teaching the young player to think independently' - this is the principal idea ofthe great chess thinker, one that still remains valid today.

15

r6

EMANUEL LASKER

ON C H E S S E D U C A T I O N

Chess education is still organized badly (I am saying this on the basis of my experience in the West; I have not got sufficient evidence concerning the USSR). Most chess amateurs slowly reach a low level of chess profi­ ciency and here they stay for many years. There are millions of chess­ players to whom the master can give the odds of a queen; there are probably a quarter of a million players who are superior to those just mentioned, and there are unlikely to be more than two or three thousand players to whom the master is unable to give any odds. If, however, we reckon up the intellectual work necessary for achieving this poor stan­ dard of play, we shall really be amazed: specialist literature, chess columns in newspapers, lectures, all sorts of tournaments and matches, simul­ taneous exhibitions - just, a terrific waste of energy! We cannot laugh off these facts. Of course, chess, in spite of its subtle and profound content, is merely a game and cannot be treated as seriously as science and technology, which meet the most essential social demands. Still less may chess be compared with philosophy and art. It is pointless, therefore, that the chess amateur, in order to increase and improve his skills, waste so much time which could be used for more serious purposes, and it is worth dwelling on the fact that in studying chess we expend so much effort and achieve so little. We have learnt how to organize factories; yet we are not economical in our intellectual work. You must not think that these are just my complaints; but I would like to show and explain, even though only kaleidoscopically, certain links between chess and life, for since its early days chess has been closely connected with life. Let us imagine that a certain master, having a perfect command of his trade, is eager to teach chess to some junior player who is practically ignorant about the game, and wants the young man to join the ranks of those two or three thousand players who play on a par with the master. How long will his education take? To answer this question, I offer you the following figures: Chess rules and exercises Elementary endings Some openings Combination Positional play Practical play with analysis

5 hours 5 hours IO hours 20 hours 40 hours 1 20 hours

Having spent 200 hours on the above, the young player, even if he possesses no special talent for chess, is likely to be among those two or three thousand strong chessplayers. There are, however, about a quarter of a million chess amateurs who annually spend no fewer than 200 hours

EMANUEL LASKER

17

on chess without making any progress. Without going into any further calculations, I can assert with a high degree of certainty that nowadays we achieve only one hundredth of what we are capable of achieving. Our education in all spheres suffers from an appalling waste of time and values. In the field of mathematics and physics, for instance, the relationship between what has been achieved and what can be achieved is even more deplorable than in chess. Chess education should be aimed primarily at teaching the young player to think independently. Chess ought not to be only a matter of memorization, because memorizing variations is not very important. If one takes pains to learn anything by heart, one should know why one is doing so. Memory is too precious a faculty to be wasted on trifles. Of the 68 years of my life, I have spent 40 years trying to forget what I had read or memorized, and since I have managed to do so I feel much more cheerful. Ifnecessary, I can increase my chess know ledge; if necessary, I can learn what I did not know before. I have stored very little in my memory, but what I have stored there is always to hand if needed. It is important, therefore, to keep the method, rather than the con­ clusions, in your memory. The method is elastic, and it can be used in the most diverse situations. The conclusions, since they are connected with definite individual conditions, are always frozen. The method gives rise to a multitude of conclusions; some of them remain engraved in your memory, but they should only be used for the explanation of the rules, which systematize and unite thousands of conclusions. The memory should occasionally be replenished with such useful and vital conclusions, which process is analogous to the intake of food and drinks compensating for the workings of the human metabolism. But these conclusions should be organically connected with the rules, which are discovered by the application of lively methods. In other words, the whole process should be full of life. Those who want to develop the ability to think independently should avoid all that is dead in chess: far-fetched theories based on the distortion of chess facts, the habit of playing with a weaker opponent, the habit of avoiding dangers, the habit of blindly imitating the variations employed by other players, self-conceit and the inability to admit mistakes and errors. In short, they should avoid all that leads to conservatism and anarchy. The programme for the development of individual abilities can be presented in a general form; specific chess features come to the fore, however, as soon as we think about the necessity for introducing the young chessplayer to Steinitz's theory. This theory has its own history, and each student must know it, be­ cause it sheds some light on the nature of the human character. It has a meaning which became manifest after a hard contest with competing

18

EMANUEL LASKER

theories and gained authority after the Steinitz/Zukertort match. It has a more hidden essence, which should be carefully explained to the c;hess student. And finally, this theory teaches the student to think indepen­ dently, so that he can build up a scale of relative values and keep it in order. It teaches him caution and boldness, energy and economy, and thus it represents a good example to be followed in all activities outside chess. This method of chess education requires good teachers - chess masters who possess a pedagogical talent. How should such teachers fulfil their task? They must help young chessplayers to become strong masters by giving them lectures by means of good books and by communicating with them at the chessboard. At the same time, it is necessary that they annotate the games played by their pupils, revealing their strong points and showing their mistakes, thereby facilitating their work, but not to the detriment of their independent thinking. The devices and techniques to be used by the teacher are ex­ tremely diverse. The chess world now faces the problem of training such teachers and upholding their aspirations. Lasker served his lofty aims in the course of his long chess career. He was one of the first to give public lectures on chess. The lectures delivered by Lasker in London in 1 89 5 formed the basis of his book Common Sense in Chess. Chessplayers, however, are unfamiliar with the lectures on chess which Lasker delivered in Buenos Aires in l 9 I O. They were found in an old Argentinian newspaper. Even today they have preserved their wis­ dom and the up-to-date spirit they had So years ago. Calling Anderssen and Steinitz (from 1 8 86) World Champions, Lasker proceeded from the actual state of things in the chess world. 1 As is known, this title was established officially only in I 886. Finally, citing the 'Immortal Game' from memory, Lasker transposed the moves. The actual move-order was: 8 . . . Qg5 9 Nf5 c6; 1 8 . . . Bxg 1 1 9 e s Qxa 1 + 20 Ke2. Naturally these minor corrections do not in the least alter the chess assessments of the great Lasker.

1 The German master Adolf Anderssen ( r 8r8---'79 ) is generally regarded as having been the strongest player in the world from 1 851 until 1 8 58 , when he lost a match to Morphy; and again (Morphy having retired from chess) from a little later until his defeat at the hands of Steinitz in 1866. The official World Championship was inaugurated in 1886 when Steinitz defeated Zuckertort in a match, the players having agreed beforehand that the winner would be individual World Champion. (Ed.)

EMANUEL LASKER

19

A T T A C K A N D D E F E N C E1

I. Paul Morphy: objective force Around 1 8 50 there existed among European players a certain way of thinking which still manifests itself outside of chess as a cult of heroes and geniuses. For the good of the royal game this philosophy was destroyed, Morphy being the one who triumphed over it. The genius theory, which was given validity then and even nowadays is accepted away from chess, credited certain extraordinarily gifted men with exaggerated qualities of personal energy. It was allowed that the common man was capable of this or that, and that many others had talent, but attributes of omnipotence were conceded to the genius. This was more or less the attitude of the admirer of genius. Considered as human emotion this idea is very attractive but it suffers from the obvious defect that it tends to create epigones. He who in the presence of a great deed simply exclaims that its author is a genius is thereby sacrificing thought and is declaring that he is satisfied to remain within an inferior category among men. He who attempts to make progress must, apart from his natural admiration for the genius, search in an objective manner for the reason for his success, extracting plain instruction from this study. Morphy did this work with the great chessmasters who were then his contemporaries. He discovered that the common belief that the master's brilliant move was the result of a sudden inexplicable inspiration was false. He made the discovery that this brilliant move, or that profound manoeuvre leading to victory, was taken as having its origin in the master's talent but was actually a property of the position of the forces in the game. Analysing this idiosyncrasy of the position, he made known a rule which can be put in this way: brilliant moves and winning manoeuv­ res are only possible in those positions in which one can oppose the antagonist with a surplus of active energy. And that kind of situation should always be perceived, and no conception of the adversary, subtle and profound though it might be, should be able to destroy the certainty of the favourable result which ought to obtain. Paul Morphy was born in New Orleans in the year 1 837. When scarcely twelve years of age he scored a victory over the master Lowen­ thal, who was visiting the city of Morphy's birth. After having trium­ phed in 1 8 57 in the New York tournament, Morphy moved on to Europe, where he defeated all of the most renowned masters. His most famous victory was that which he obtained against Anderssen, then World Champion. He defeated him in a match by the decisive score of 7 wins, 2 losses and 2 draws.

1

The title was given by the authors.

EMANUEL LASKER

20

(As a practical demonstration of the contrasting approaches to chess of Anderssen and Morphy, Dr Lasker explained the following two games, which we give with the champion's comments.) THE IMMORTAL GAME

King's Gambit

A Anderssen - L Kieseritzky 1 e4 e5 2f4 exf4 3 Bq Qh4 + 4 Kf1 b5 5 Bxb5 Nf6 6 Nf3 Qh6 7 dJ Nh5 8 Nh4 c6 9 Nf5 Qg5 1 0 g4 Nf6 1 1 Rg1 cxb5 1 2 h4 Qg6 13 h5 Qg5 1 4 Qf3 Ng8. White was threatening 1 5 Bxf4. 15 Bxf4 Qf6 1 6 Nc3 Bc5 1 7 Nd5 Qxb2 1 8 Bd6! Qxa1 + 19 Ke2 Bxg1 20 e5! An excellent move. 20 . . . Na6 . Defending against 21 Nxg7 + and 22 Bc7 mate. 21 Nxv + Kd8 22 Qf6 + Nxf6 22 Be7 mate. This mate, accomplished by three minor pieces against the entire Black army, is admirable. One can imagine how the impossible might seem feasible to a chessmaster who has been able to conceive of this sort of finish. Sicilian Defence P Morphy - A Anderssen

1 e4 . From the first move on, Morphy's style is the development of the pieces' intrinsic energy. Suddenly it gives a piece greater mobility than that possessed by those of the opponent. 1 . . . c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 e6 5 Nb5 d6 6 Bf4 e5 7 Be3 f5. Anderssen attacks even when he doesn't possess the advantage in development. 8 Nc3. Morphy rapidly increases his preponderance. 8 . . . f4. Anderssen continues his aggression and Mor­ phy continues with his decisive pressure. 9 Nd5 . This lets Anderssen reach his objective, consisting of capture of the bishop, but in exchange it assures a more important compensation. 9 . . .fxe3 1 0 Nbc7+ Kf7 1 1 Qf3 + Nf6 1 2 Bc4 Nd4. A subtle idea which does' credit to Anderssen, the master of complications. 13 Nxf6 + d5 14 Bxd5 + Kg6 15 Qh5 + Kxf6 1 6fxe3! This answer of Morphy ruins the German master's pretty variation. 1 6 . . . NxC2 + 1 7 Ke2 and Black resigns. 1 Objective force has obtained the victory. In spite of the defender's sharp subtleties and even brilliant manoeuvres, the energy - confident in K-its strength - attacks boldly and finally triumphs. This is the teaching which Morphy has bequeathed to us. 1 Black's fourteenth move was, in fact, a gross blunder. Also bad was 14 . . . Rxd5 1 5 N6xd5 + Nxf3 + 1 6 gxf3 exfa+ 17 Kxfa Bes + 1 8 Ke2 Rb8 1 9 b4!, and White should win; but 14 . . . Ke7! was much better, e.g. 1 5 Qh5 gxf6 1 6 Qf7 + Kd6 1 7 Nxa8 Nxc2 + r 8 Ke2 Qe7 ( 1 8 . .. Nxa 1 ? 1 9 Bb3 ! Nxb3 2 0 axb3 Kc6 21 Rd 1 with a winning attack) 1 9 Qxe7 + Bxe7 20 Rael Nd4 + 2 1 Kxe3 Bd7 22 Rc7 Rxa8 23 Rxb7 Bc6 24 Bxc6 Nxc6 25 Ro Nd8 26 Rdr + Ke6 27 Rc7 Rb8, when White has the advantage, but no forced win. Morphy could have won more easily by capturing the rook on move II. (Ed.)

EMANUEL LASKER

21

II. Wilhelm Steinitz We chessplayers know very well what attack is and what defence is. It is therefore unnecessary to define these terms. The attack demands that one change a certain state of things by force. The defence requires that these things be maintained in 'status quo' . Under this general aspect, what I have to say relative to attack and defence concerns not only the chess­ board but also all struggles for life. The profound significance that our investigations have thus acquired will help us in our task, furnishing us with examples for chess. 'Attack and defence have a reciprocal influence. ' If one period produces great attackers, the following one produces great defenders. If during a certain time a particular plan of attack is practised successfully, another period will surely follow it in which the offensive will be more easily resisted. The attack always came first because the man who first formulates a plan where there existed none before is the first to be successful. Afterwards, the losers learn to repulse offensive methods. They invent the defence. This happens to everything in Nature as soon as it lives, and especially in all the chessplayer's investigations. Morphy was the first player of this kind. Next came Steinitz. Steinitz was a great master; for 28 years he retained the World Championship. His name will be attached eternally to the general, or philosophic, theory of defence because he understood its importance. From his games and writings we can deduce a theory, of which I shall illustrate some features. Firstly: The good defender doesn't play against a person but against a thing called a 'plan'. Although this rule is clear, it is frequently violated. Many players ask: 'What is my opponent intending to do?' Few think about what might be the purpose of the position he is looking for. Secondly: The good defender finds out that plan before deciding to make a move. Otherwise he would be proceeding blindly and surely would be the victim of a skilful and resolute attacker. Thirdly: After this comes the most difficult task. With all the means at his disposal a defender can easily impede the prepared attack. Nevertlte­ less you must hesitate to grant yourself this inexpensive triumph. If you ask why I shall answer by referring to the history of war. Napoleon Bonaparte seldom resisted attacks by superior masses of men on parts of his army, for example a wing, by sending reinforcements there. His intention was to occupy a large body of enemy troops with a small portion of his own. Ifhe were to have sent reinforcements to the attacked wing he would have made a full-scale assault, but for this he preferred to use more reserve troops. In the event of a wing being continually harassed and suffering heavy losses for several hours, he had time to initiate an attack of his own wherever a swift success would bring him greater advantages than those obtained by the enemy on the wing. The good defender must therefore do the most that is possible with the forces at his

22

EMANUEL LASKER

disposal, and, figuratively speaking, must ask for reinforcements only in a case of extreme necessity. Fourthly: The defence attains its objectives in two ways: first, by the firmness of its positions, and next by means of withdrawal. The firmness of a positi�n is equal to the strength of resistance, for which reason one strives to distribute one's forces of resistance equally on all sides. Then the good defender waits until the attacker dislodges him, and then he takes up another position which naturally has less strength of resistance than the preceding one. This process is continued until the defender surrenders or is annihilated, unless in the meantime the counterattack on another side of the board has been successful. Consequently, in the first place the defender places his pieces on those squares which offer the greatest secur­ ity. In the second place he preserves for those pieces all the mobility possible - in order to be able to flee. I shall illustrate this with a simile. A cannon-ball destroys the soldier's hardest armour, but its tremendous force vanishes ineffectually should it strike against shifting grains of sand. The shifting sand is a better defence than hard but inflexible steel. (Dr Lasker explained Steinitz's method of defence, giving as an ex­ ample the following game, one of his most notable.) Scotch Game J Blackburne W Steinitz -

1 e4 e5 2 NfJ Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nxd4 Qh4. Provoking the attack but winning a pawn. 5 Nb5 Bb4 + 6 Bd2 Qxe4 + 7 Be2 Kd8. The king defends the pawn and takes up a position of relative security. 8 0-0 Bxd2 9 Qxd2 a6. The advanced enemy piece could cause damage, so it's driven away. 1 0 Nu3 Qe5 1 1 Na3 b5 1 2 Bf3 Nge7 13 Radi . Here the attacker wastes an opportun­ ity. He ought to attack immediately with 1 3 Rfe 1 in order to answer 1 3 . . . Qf6 with 1 4 Rxe7. The best plan for Black would then have been to oppose queens with 1 3 . . . Qd6, playing for a draw. 13 . . . Qfs 1 4 Rfe1 Rb8. The rook is looking for a safe square. 15 Qe2 d6. It's very interesting to see how, little by little, the defence now places its pieces for offensive action. 16 Ne4 Bd7. Threatening 17 . . . Re8 . 1 7 Qe3 f6. In order to avoid 1 8 Ng5, but 1 7 . . . Re8 would have been a little better, in order to respond to the Ng5 attack after it was made, not before. 1 8 g4 Qg6 19 Nxd6. Black was threatening to counterattack. In his desperation White persists in attacking, even at the cost of a piece. Well, it's certain that with this sacrifice he eliminates the existing obstacles in the path of his pieces. 19 . . . cxd6 20 Rxd6 Kq. A position of relative security. With this move he gives play to his bishop. 21 Bxc6 Nxc6 22 Qg3 Kc8 23 Red1 Rb7. In this way the rook is ready to block checks. With the pawns taken, the pieces remain ready for obstructive action. 24 Qg2 Nb8. Reinforcing the weakest point- the bishop on d1. 25 R1d4 h5 . The counterattack advances rapidly. 26 Qd5 Qg5 27 Qxg5 fxg5 , and with his advantage of a piece, Black wins rapidly.

EMANUEL LASKER

23

'The only true touchstone of a great talent is that it is perfected with years. If, however, the talent flashes up only while there is much passion and life, it is worthless and deceptive. ' These words are Leo Tolstoy's, and i t will not b e a mistake t o apply them to Lasker. In every tournament in which he participated, he dis­ played new depths and new features of his style, and thus he became a legend in his own lifetime. When he was 67, Lasker participated in the historic international tour­ nament in Moscow. The burden of years may have rested heavily on his body, but it could not triumph over his spirit, thought and fantasy. This tournament is considered as having been one of the most important chess events of the twentieth century. Lasker came in third, half a point behind the winners, Botvinnik and Flohr. Here, just as in Moscow IO years previously and in New York in 1 924, he experienced the joy ofleaving behind his historic rival and successor on the chess throne, Capablanca, whom he defeated in their personal encounter. 1 The imposing finale of this 1Heroic Symphony' was the last-round game in which Lasker de­ feated an opponent 3 9 years his junior! Sicilian Defence Em Lasker V Pirc -

Moscow 193 5 1 f4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nj6 5 Nc3 d6 6 Be2 e6 7 0-0 a6 8 Be3 Qc7 9 f4 Na5? One Soviet author annotating this game referred to a superstition which had arisen during the First World War: don't get a light from the same match three times! First light - the sniper takes a rifle. Second light - the sniper has taken aim. Third light - the sniper shoots. The knight move is the first inaccuracy. 1 0 f5! Nq? One mistake leads to another. 1 1 Bxc4 Qxq 1 2 fxe6fxe6? (See diagram 2 on next page.) The third and decisive inaccuracy. Black is justly punished - in a dy­ namic opening one should not waste so much time. To be fair, it should be noted that in case of the capture of the bishop, Black's position is also poor. 13 Rxf6!! gxf6 14 Qh5 + Kd8. Also useless is 14 . . . Kd7 1 5 Qf7 + Be7 1 6 Nf5 ! Re8 17 Nxd6 Kxd6 1 8 Qxe8; or 14 . . . Ke7 1 5 . Nf5 + ! exf5 ( 1 5 . . . Kd7 r 6 Qf7 + Kc6 1 7 Nd4 + Kb6 1 8 Nb3 + ) 1 6 Nd5 + Kd8 1 7 Bb6 + Kd7 r 8 Qf7 + Kc6 1 9

1 The Moscow 1 925 tournament was, in fact, won b y Bogoljubow. Lasker was second and Capablanca was third. (Ed.)

24

EMANUEL LASKER

Qc7 + Kb5 20 a4 + Qxa4 2 1 C4 + Qxq 22 Ra5 mate. 15 Qf7 Bd7. Look at another variation illustrating the precision ofLasker's play: I 5 . . . Be] 1 6 Nf5 ! (again!) 1·6 ... Qc7 1 7 Na4! (but not 17 Bb6 because the bishop is captured with check - a psychological trap into which White could easily have fallen) 17 . . . R.f8 1 8 Qxh7 Ke8 1 9 Bb6! Qd7 20 Qhs + Rf7 21 Ng7 + Kf8 22 Qh8 mate; and on 1 6 . . . Re8 there follows 17 Nxd6 Bxd6 1 8 Bb6 + Bc7 1 9 Rd1 + , mating. 1 6 Qxf6+ Kq 1 7 Qxh8 Bh6 1 8 Nxe6+ ! Qxe6 19 Qxa8 Bxe3 + 20 Khi . Black resigned.

JOSE RAUL CAPABLAN CA Third World Champion ( 1 92 1 -1 927) Capablanca ( 1 8 8 8-1942), with his Latin-American temperament, brought grace, elegance and ardency into the quiet and strict world of chess. The 'favourite of the gods', who could achieve everything without the slightest effort, he will remain a part of chess history for ever. Here we publish a little-known article written by Capablanca shortly after his New York triumph in 1 927 (we found this article in an old Uruguayan chess magazine) . The natural question arises, do we know Capablanca sufficiently well? Do we know what he thought about chess? Do we know how faithful he was to chess, the art to which he contri­ buted so much? We believe that he deserves, no less than Lasker whom he defeated, the epithet 'great chess thinker' . Very often chessplayers ask, who was the greatest chessplayer o f all time? Answers to this question vary, but here are two of the most auth­ oritative opinions. A. Alekhine: 'With Capablanca's death we have lost the greatest chess genius, whose equal we shall never see again.' M. Botvinnik: 'Capablanca was the greatest World Champion. He played by intuition. '

26

JOSE RAUL CAPABLANCA S TY L E : I D E A L C O N D U CT O F T H E G A M E

Each generation puts forward a set of masters who attract the attention of chess enthusiasts and critics. Such attention is particularly great in the case of the World Champions, and evaluations of their chess activities are extremely diverse. Most chess enthusiasts pay attention only to results: for them, there are no other criteria of the successful career of a champion. Only a very few (and these are chess connoisseurs, mainly ches masters) approach the problem differently, and formulate their opinions under the influence of factors having nothing to do with the immediate result of the game. Although there are many aspects to be taken into account, the judge­ ments of true connoisseurs are essentially based on these three factors: Depth, Combinative Gift, Style. By 'Depth' we understand the ability in a greater or lesser degree, to evaluate the possibilities in difficult position�: in other words, positional understanding. By 'Combinative Gift' we imply the ability to calculate a far-reaching combination, either making use of the available chance or preparing such a chance. And finally, by 'Style' we understand the general system of play - simple or complicated, slow or enterprising and sparkling with brilliant ideas. lf we regard chess as an exact science, then there must be some definite norm of the conduct of the game, and, consequently, one has only to find this norm. If, however, we regard chess as an art, then there must be different norms of the conduct of the game, and the choice between them totally depends on the individual features of the chessplayer. The chess­ player is obviously inclined to the type of play which is most fully in accordance with his character. Tracing back chess history from La Bourdonnais until today, we find that Morphy was the greatest master of style. It appears that La Bourdon­ nais was successful only in complicated positions, as a result of his direct and frequently superficial attacks. He was invariably striving for this type of play and hardly knew any other method. His style lacked clarity, and, as a matter of fact, energy. Anderssen, a born chessplayer, played mainly combinative chess. One or two of his games are considered to be the most brilliant chess master­ pieces of all time. But he, like his predecessor La Bourdonnais, failed to understand that this was not the only possible style of play in chess. As a result, Anderssen's style lacked the necessary scope. Steinitz in his early period had a better style than in his later years. He began his chess career playing brilliantly in open positions, but later he became the forerunner of the style inclined to extremely closed positions. Sometimes, though temporarily, he had to resort to some style lying between these two extremes, and he brought this style to perfection. It was Steinitz who formulated the basic principles ofchess strategy. He was

JOSE RAUL CAPABLANCA

27

also a 'pioneer' and one of the most profound analysts of problems in chess unfathomable by his contemporaries. For some time he handled chess openings excellently, but later his principles turned into eccentrici­ ties, and therefore he did not have much of a chance playing against strong opponents. Steinitz had an outstanding combinative talent. He was also a subtle master of the endgame, and one can hardly hope to become a World Champion unless one has strong technique in the end­ game. Steinitz was stubborn and persistent, and in his younger years, when he was in his prime, he was almost invincible. Lasker, a born genius known for his hard work in the early period of his life, has never stuck to any method of play which could be classed as a definite style. This has led some masters to think that Lasker had no style at all. True, if we tried to classify his style, we would have to choose the adjective 'indefinite'. It is believed that Lasker is an individualist, that he fights against the opponent and his weaknesses, rather than against the opponent's position. This is true, to some extent, of many players, and perhaps there is a great multitude of such players, but so far as Lasker is concerned this assertion should not be taken as an absolute truth. In recent years I have had the chance to see Lasker at the board, and I have noticed that he often alters his strategy, even when playing against the same opponent. The drawback of Lasker's play is that it does not accord with any norm. On the other hand, Lasker possesses outstanding qualities. He is very stubborn and persistent. He is a unique defender of difficult positions. In the course of his long career he saved and won so many difficult games that eventually this became his weakness because he believed that he could defend any position, even one which actually cannot be defended in case of the opponent's correct play. Inspired by the spirit of attack, Lasker could crush his opponent in a way that few masters could have done before him. As an endgame master, for many years Lasker enjoyed an unparalleled reputation. If he transposed into the endgame having a slight advantage, he was sure to win it. He missed very few wins in the endgame. On the contrary, ifLasker's position was inferior, his opponent could not afford to give him the slightest chance. Lasker's combinative gift in the middlegame was also great. Morphy was a great master of style. In the opening he strove to develop his pieces very quickly. This was his main principle. From the standpoint of style, this was absolutely correct. At that time nobody except Morphy understood positional chess, positional principles. All this gave Morphy a great advantage, and natur­ ally deserves praise. It may be said with good reason that Morphy anti­ cipated the principle of piece development in the opening. Morphy placed great emphasis on the study of chess openings, and he was so successful that in many games his opponents found themselves in inferior positions after the first six opening moves. This is also praiseworthy,

28

JOSE RAUL CAPABLANCA

because at that time he had only a few guiding principles at his disposal. Chessplayers at that time were keen on straightforward attacks and ad­ venturous combinations. They used to begin their combinations from the very first moves without paying attention to the development of their pieces, which was Morphy's greatest concern. His games show that his style of play was really superb. His style was simple and straightfor­ ward. Morphy did not seek for complex positions, but he did not avoid them, and this is really the only correct style of play. Morphy had a good technique in the endgame and he was a versatile master in defending difficult positions. Morphy's combinative gift was quite sufficient for his purposes at the chessboard, but this was not, as most chessplayers believe today, the chief weapon in his arsenal. This consisted in Morphy's style which, so far as we can judge, was perfect. We frequently hear it said that Morphy was the strongest chessplayer of all time. In my opinion such suggestions are out of place, since they are ungrounded and cannot be confirmed by facts. All we can do is to make comparisons based on the results of his matches. If we make such com­ parisons, we shall arrive at conclusions catastrophic for the admirers of this great chessplayer. You must not think that we intend to belittle the achievements of the famous American master. We shall deal only with well-grounded opinions and facts, without giving rein to our fantasy, which usually stems from ignorance and superficial thinking. Morphy was not only the greatest master of his time in the broadest sense of the word; he was a creator in chess and a forerunner of the contemporary style. As to his actual tournament and match record, there are various things we ought to bear in mind, one of which is not generally regarded. We mean that the great American master never played so­ called 'skittles' games just for entertainment. Morphy put all he knew even into such games; in other words, he treated any unimportant game as a serious encounter. We think that what we say may be applied only to Morphy, whom, naturally, we can judge only by his most important matches, in particular those with Anderssen and Harrwitz. A brief analysis of these two matches shows that there were hardly any brilliant combinations in them. Contrary to the common belief, Mor­ phy's greatest strength was not his combinative gift, but his positional play and superb style. Combinations arise only from certain typical positions. Morphy won most of the games in these two matches playing in a simple and straightforward manner, and the beauty of these games lies in his simple and logical method of play, if you consider it from the standpoint of the great masters. As to the suggestion, frequently repeated by Morphy's admirers, that he would have defeated all present-day chessplayers, I think it is totally ungrounded. On the contrary: if Morphy, with all the chess knowledge of his time, were alive today, he would certainly have lost to most chessmasters. It is logical to suppose, however, that Morphy would have

JOSE RAUL CAPABLANCA

29

quickly reached the high level necessary for competing with today's best masters, although whether he would be a success is anybody's guess. Undoubtedly, chess knowledge has made tremendous progress in the last sixty years. With every day that passes, chessplayers put up more stubborn defence and resistance against an attacker, and the requirements and conditions necessary for defeating other chessmasters are growing and becoming increasingly complex. Now I should like to say a few words about the ideal conduct of the game, which consists in the rapid development of the pieces to advan­ tageous strategic squares either for defence or attack, proceeding from the assumption that the two main principles are 'Time' and 'Position'. You should be cold-blooded in defence and firm in attack. Don't get carried away by the possibility of material gains: if you observe this commandment, you are most likely to win. You must play for complica­ tions only in exceptional cases, but you should not avoid complications. And finally, you must be ready to conduct any kind of chess struggle at any stage of the game, complex or simple, but you ought to strive for the latter, remembering the two basic elements: 'Time' and 'Position'. Capablanca, like all the World Champions, was an outstanding chess teacher. He wrote excellent chess books which have been studied by several generations of chessplayers. We have chosen for this book one of the sections of Capablanca's famous textbook Chess Fundamentals, first published in 1 92 1 . In it Capablanca outlines the method he had worked out for White in the open variation of the Ruy Lopez, consisting in the exploitation of the pawn majority on one of the flanks and the blockade of the backward pawn on the other flank. The Cuban grandmaster explains his method with unparalleled clarity. O N PAWN STRUCTURE

Some variations in the opening and manoeuvres in the middlegame are based on elementary principles. Let us look at the following example: 1 e4 ej 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 0-0 Nxe4 6 d4 b5 7 Bb3 d5 8 dxe5 Be6 9 c3 Be7 1 0 Re1 Nc5 1 1 Bc2 Bg4 1 2 Nbd2 0-0 13 Nb3 Ne6. So far, a very well-known variation of the Ruy Lopez. All these moves were made in the Janowski-Em. Lasker game played in Paris in 1 9 1 2. 1 4 Qd3 g6. Let us suppose that after some moves White, by placing one of his knights on d4, forces the exchange of both knights and both bishops. In this case we shall get the position (see the next diagram) which I got, playing with White, against Salwe and Allies in Lodz.

30

JOSE RAUL CAPABLANCA 4

The pawn on c7 is backward and cannot advance to c 5 . This position, theoretically speaking, is lost, and in practice a strong master will inevit­ ably win it against Black. (Ifl may be excused the reference, I will say that I won the above-mentioned game.) Some moves later the position in diagram 4 may easily be reached. Black's pieces are immobilized ('fixed'). If White plays Qc3, Black should reply. . . Qd7, or he will lose a pawn, and if White's queen returns to aJ , Black must again return to b7 with the queen or lose a pawn. Thus Black depends entirely on White's moves, and if the latter advances his pawns to f4 and g4, Black will have to play . . . f7-f5 , preventing f4-f5 , and finally we shall arrive at a position like this (diagram 5): 6

The game may continue: gxf5 gxf5 2 Qf3 Qd7. White threatened to win a pawn by 3 Qd5 . Black could not play 2 . . . Rf8 because of 3 Rxc6. 3 R5C2 Rg6 4 Rv Kh8 5 Rcgi Rcg8 6 Qh5 Rxv 7 Rxg2 Rxv 8 Kxg2 Qv + 9 Kh2 Qg6 10 Qxg6 hxg6 1 1 b4, and White wins. Let us imagine that in the preceding diagram it's Black's move, and he plays . . . Rf8 . In this case, White will protect his f-pawn by Qf3 , threatening Rxc6, and eventually he will put his king on gJ preparing for a decisive breakthrough as in the previous example. The position in diagram 6 could be reached. 1

JOSE RAUL CAPABLANCA

31

Black has to play . . . Rc8, but after White's moves Qc2 and Kf3 , Black will have to capture the pawn on g4, giving White an obvious advantage. A careful study of all these positions shows that, in addition to the advantage of freedom of manoeuvre, White has a formidable pawn on es, and the commanding position of this pawn, together with the possi­ bility of its advance after the exchange of all the pieces, makes up the leitmotiv of White's manoeuvres. I have deliberately given these positions without the preceding moves, so that the chess student can conjure up in his mind possible positions likely to occur in practice. In this way he will be able to create strategic plans and will make considerable progress towards chess mastery. Such exercises will be enormously beneficial for all chess students. Let us look at the game mentioned by Capablanca. Attention should be paid to White's strategic plans and the obstacles he has to overcome. J R Capablanca G Salwe and Consultants Lodz, November 1 9 1 3 -

1 e4 e5 2 NJJ Nc6 J Bb5 a 6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 0-0 Nxe4 6 d4 b5 7 BbJ d5 8 dxe5 Be6 9 CJ Be7 1 0 Nbd2 Nc5 1 1 BC2 Bg4 12 hJ Bh5 13 Rei Bg6 14 Nd4 Nxd4 15 cxd4 Ne6 1 6 NbJ Bg5 17 g3 Bxc1 1 8 Rxc1 0-0 19f4 BxC2 20 RxC2 g6 21 Nc5 Re8 22 Qd3 Nxc5 2J Rxc5 Qd7 24 g4 c6 25 Rec1 Rac8 26 QcJ Re6 27 Kh2 Kh8 28 Qa3 Qb7 29 QgJf5 JO QfJ Qd7 (White threatened Qxd5 !) 31 KgJ Rf8 J2 QaJ Ra8 3J QcJ Rc8 J4 Qc2 Kg8 (a trap: 3 5 gxf5 gxf5 3 6 Qxf5 ? Rg6 + ) 35 KfJfxg4 + 36 hxg4 Qf7 J 7 KeJ Rf8 3 8 Rj1 Qd7 J9 Qg2 Qe7 4 0 Rjc1 Ref6 41 Rf1 Kh8 42 Qc2 Qe8 4J Qh2 Qe7 44 RfJ Re6 45 Kf2 a5 46f5! gxf5 47 gxf5 Qg5 (feeble hope: 48 fxe6? Qd2 + 49 Kg3 Rg8 + or 49 Kg1 Qd1 + and Black wins) 48 Qf4! Rxf5 49 Qxf5 Qd2 + 50 Kf1 Rg6 51 Qf8 + Rg8 52 Qf6+ RgJ 53 RgJ. Black resigned: if 5 3 . . . Qd1 + , 54 Kg2 Qe2 + 5 5 Qfa Qe4 + 56 Qf3 . The same method was employed by Capablanca (White) in his game against E. Eliskases (Moscow 1936) , which we give here with Capablan­ ca's annotations. 23 gJ R4f7 24f4 Nf5 25 Nxf5 Rxf5. After 25 . . . exf5 the pawn structure is similar to that arising in the open variation of the Ruy Lopez. In my textbook I analyse the method of ex­ ploitation of this advantage in such positions. 26 h4f g6. Now Black is doomed to com­ plete passivity. He should have

32

JOSE RAUL CAPABLANCA

played 26 . . . g s ! For example: 27 hxg5 hxg5 2S Qh5 (2S Qg4 RSf7 followed by . . . Rg7) 2S . . . QxeS 29 QxeS Res 3 0 fxg5 Refs 3 1 Rxf5 Rxf5 32 Kg2 Rxg5 3 3 Rf3 c5! (not J J . . . Rg4 34 Rf4) , and Black should draw. 27 Kg2 Qq. Black cannot move his pawns on the Q-side for fear of creating new weaknesses. Therefore, he has to wait passively on both flanks. 28 a; Qg7. My opponent took a long time thinking over 2S . . . gs . In fact, after 2S . . . gs 29 Qg4 (White avoids opening up the h-file which can eventu­ ally be occupied by Black's rook) 29 . . . Qg7 JO RcfJ gxf4 J I Rxf4 Rxf4 J2 Qxg7 + Kxg7 3 3 gxf4 the rook ending is unfavourable for Black. 29 Rif3! Qq Now 29 . . . gs is met by JO fxg5 hxgs J 1 Rxfs Rxfs 32 Rxfs exfs J J Qhs ! gxh4 34 Qxh4 etc. JO QC2f

Hindering . . . c6-c5 and threatening g3-g4. 30 . . . Kv 31 g4 R5f7 32 Kh3 Qd7 33 b4 Rg8 34 Rg1 Kh8 35 Qd2 Rh7 36 Qf2 h5. Black tries to hinder f4-fs . 37 gxh5 Rxh5 38 Rg5 Qh7 39 Qg; Qh6 40 Qg4 Rv 41 Rg3 Kh7. The only move. In the event of 4 1 . . . Rh7 White, after the double exchange on hs , wins a pawn. 42 Rg2 Kh8 43 Kg3 Kh7 44 Rh2 Re7 45 Rh3 Kv? Facilitating White's win, but Black is helpless anyway. After 4S . . . Re8 46 Kf3 Re7 47 Rg3 ! Rxh4 4S Rxg6 Rxg4 49 Rxh6 + Kxh6 so Rxg4 Rg7 5 1 Rh4 + Kg6 S2 Rh8 White wins the rook ending. 46 Rxh5! Qxh5 47 Qxh5 gxh5 48 f5! exf5 49 Kf4 Re6 50 Kxf5 Rg6. No better was so . . . Kf7. The ending is lost for Black because he cannot advance his Q-side pawns. White will continue RgJ-gS etc. 51 e6! Rg4 52 Ke5 Re4 + 53 Kd6 Rxd4 54 Re3. Black resigned.

ALE XANDER ALE KHI N E Fourth World Champion ( 1 927- 1 9 3 5 ' 1 93 7-1 946) Highly instructive for every chessplayer are Alekhine's words: 'By means of chess I moulded my character. Chess teaches you to be objective. You can't become a great master in chess unless you understand all your mistakes and weaknesses - exactly as in life.' This was said in 1 926, and in 1 927 Alekhine ( 1 892-1946) accomplished what seemed absolutely incredible to the chess world: in a titanic struggle in Buenos Aires he defeated the 'invincible' Capablanca. We have witnessed many World Champions who, on reaching the summit of the chess Olympus, gradually fell downwards . . . This hap­ pened to Tal, Petrosian, Spassky. Fischer simply disappeared. After his triumph or, rather, heroic deed in Buenos Aires, Alekhine said that for him it was the beginning of a new epoch of chess activity - the epoch of new tasks and new responsibilities. Alekhine used the word 'new' three times in one sentence, and he kept his promise. His victory in Buenos Aires was followed by triumphs in San Remo and Bled. 'He makes short work of us as if we were little chickens! ' exclaimed A. Nimzowitsch. Alekhine was a genius in the field of chess combination. Later in his 33

ALEXANDER ALEKHINE

34

career, as a result of ceaseless work his style attained to absolute harmony. But in his heart of hearts, he remained faithful to his 'first love' until his death. As is fitting, in this book Alekhine, the only World Champion to have died in possession of the crown, will be represented by his article 'On Direct Attack in the Game of Chess' . The article was first published before the Second World War and it is still unknown to many chess readers.

O N D I R E CT A TTA C K I N T H E G A M E O F C H E S S

Two years before the First World War a number of European news­ papers published the game between the well-known chess composer W. Holzhausen and the famous D r Tarrasch. 1 W Holzhausen

-

S Tarrasch

1 e4 es 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bq Nf6 4 d4 exd4 5 0-0 d6 6 Nxd4 Be7 7 Nc3 0-0 8 hJ Re8 9 Re1 Nd7. This natural attempt (quite justified in other cases) at capitalizing on the a1-h8 diagonal leads to an immediate catastrophe (diagram 9) . 1 0 Bxf7 + !, Kxf7 1 1 Ne6!! Black resigned because of the mate in two moves after 1 1 . . . Ke6 12 Qd5 + and 1 3 Qf5 mate or the loss of the queen.2 When I saw this game I became interested in certain features of the combination. I tried to find some basic laws governing the mechanism of the opening phase of the chess struggle. Well, what are the charac­ teristic features of the double sacrifice accomplished by White? To understand this problem better, we shall use the comparison meth­ od. We shall recall some striking combinations involving sacrifices aimed at capitalizing on the opponent's king's position so as to gain a material advantage or mate the king. We shall see then that the great majority of these combinations are characterized by one, at least, of the following components: a) the position of the king under attack is compromised, owing either to 1 The game comes from a Simultaneous Display, given by Tarrasch in 1 9 I 2 . 2 Black resigned after I I . Nde5 1 2 Qhs + Kg8 1 3 Nxd8 Rxd8 1 4 Nd5 . . .

ALEXANDER ALEKHINE

35

inefficient pawn cover or to the remoteness of the other pieces which are thus incapable of defending the king; b) gradual accumulation of the attacking pieces, clearly proving the intention of the attacking player to increase the offensive. In the game given above, however, we can find none of these com­ ponents: White did not make any special preparations for the attack, and the position of the Black king was unexceptionable. Nevertheless, only one tactical mistake on Black's part was necessary in order to make possible White's crushing win. This, however, is all very simple if you know exactly where Black's most vulnerable square was after the fatal 9 . . . Nd7? Certainly this was not f7, because after the bishop sacrifice (a typical sacrifice in a great number of apparently similar positions) Black's king is still out of danger! It was only the second sacrifice that cleared up the situation. Because of the vulnerability of the e6 square, Black had to face the dilemma either of being mated or of losing the queen! Having established this fact, I realized, at first vaguely but later on quite distinctly, that this combination gave a whole new dimension to the theory of attack: a study of the vulnerability of the squares surrounding the king leads to a profound analysis being made of the sensitivity of the whole sector more or less remote from the king and directly controlled by the attacking pieces from the centre. It was not easy to study this new problem, because chess literature contained few examples of such com­ binations and it was extremely difficult to set up the same combination in a game. I succeeded in implementing the whole plan for the first time in a simultaneous blindfold exhibition in Tarnopol in 1 9 16. Here is the game, which incidentally was published in My Best Games 1908-1923. A Alekhine - M Feldt 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 exd5 Nxd5 5 Ne4 f5 6 Ng5! Be7 7 N5f3 c6 8 Ne5 0-0 9 Ngh b6 1 0 Bd3 Bb7 1 1 0-0 Re8 1 2 C4 Nf6 13 Bf4 Nbd7 1 4 Qe2 c5 (14 . . . Nf8 was better) . (See diagram IO overleaf.) 15 Nxf7!! Kxf7 1 6 Qxe6+ ! Kg6 1 7 g4!, and White mates next move. It is easy to see the striking analogy between this combination and that of Holzhausen: the same lack of typical preparations for the attack, the same principle of concrete domination over the central squares as the basis for the decisive move. The last act of this little drama proceeds on the squares f7 and, particularly, e6, and this fact is quite characteristic. On the other hand, the fact that the decision was reached immediately after the sacrificial combination may be regarded as more or less accidental. True, it took me about six years to encounter almost the same practical task in which the final combination required a more prolonged realiza­ tion, and this clearly proves how many unexamined possibilities this branch of attacking theory contains.

ALEXANDER ALEKHINE 11

Let us look at another game, which was played at a time which turned out to be the starting point in my evolution towards winning the world crown. A Alekhine - M Knight Simultaneous Display, Boston 1 924 1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 C4 e6 4 Nc3 c6 5 e3. Also good is 5 Bg5, followed after 5 . . . h6 by 6 Bxf6. 5 . . . Be7 6 Bd3 Nbd7 7 0-0 0-0 8 e4 dxq. You should not let your opponent have two central pawns on the fourth rank unless you can effectively attack them. Therefore 8 . . . dxe4 was preferable here, which, incidentally, is the usual play in such posi­ tions. 9 Bxc4 b6 10 Qc2 Bb7 1 1 Rei . It is often difficult to find the best squares for the queen and the rooks when, as is the case here, the main files are occupied by pawns and minor pieces. Here White could have chosen between the following forma­ tions: a) Qe2, Re1 , RfI . b) Qe2, Rd1 , Rf1 , which is quite effective in case of the eventual advance of the f-pawn. c) The text line, permitting White's queen, apparently worse off than on e2, to exert immediately (on the b 1-h7 diagonal or from the b3 square) a camouflaged pressure on the squares surrounding the enemy king. 1 1 . . . Rc8 12 Bg5 Re8. The freeing of the f8 square for the knight is quite correct; only the square ought rapidly to have been occupied by this piece. Black's set-up looks a little strange, but in fact it's not so bad as it might appear at first sight. It's only Black's next move that compromises his position. 13 Rad1 Rq 14 Ne5 Nh5 . With the laudable intention ofhindering the advance ofthe f-pawn ( 1 5 Be1 Bg5 etc.), but permitting an attack by means of the sacrifice we are concerned with. Black should have played 14 . . . Nf8 , with a tenable

ALEXANDER ALEKHINE

37

position. In this case, White might have tried to increase the pressure by i s f4 etc., with some chances of success. (See diagram 1 1 opposite.) 15 Nxf7! Considering this sacrifice resembles so closely those in the previously analysed games, the reader will probably be unaware of how difficult it was to prove its correctness. Actually, this sacrifice is merely the prelude to a far-reaching combination. 15 . . . Kxf7 1 6 Bxe6+ ! Kf8! The only move, because after 1 6 . . . Kxe6 Black is mated in four moves: 17 Qb3 + Kd6 1 8 es + Nxes 19 dxe5 + Kc5 20 Ne4 or Na4 mate. Now White's task becomes difficult. 1 7 e5!! (See diagram 1 2.) Besides this heroic act, there is no other way of activating the queen. 17 Bc1 could be met by 17 . . . Bgs 1 8 ds cxd5 19 exds g6, followed by . . . Kg7, with a sufficient defence. 1 7 . . . g6? Unfortunately Black goes to pieces, facilitating White's task, and the game is not completed normally. It is clear that Black should have played 1 7 . . . Bxg 5 , and after 1 8 Qfs + he could have chosen between three forms of defending his king: a) 1 8 . . . Nhf6. This is quite insufficient, because White recoups all his material after 1 9 exf6 Qxf6 20 Bxd7 etc., with an extra pawn. b) 1 8 . . . Ndf6 1 9 exf6 Qxf6 20 Qxh7! Rxe6 21 Ne4! Qg6 (2 1 . . . Qh6 22 Qfs + ! etc.) 22 Qh8 + K- 23 Nxgs + Qxg5 24 Rxe6 + Kxe61 25 Rei + Kds (2s . . . Kf6 26 Qd8 + ; or 2s . . . Kd6 26. Qf8 + etc.) 26 Res + Qxes 27 dxes , and if Black ifH R 12 � . BB !i!ii W,.. M . is 1mposs1 _ -� �-,·l::: ��:l - �� l::::HQJ. '= -�of the loss of a piece: 22 . . . Nxb2 23

• �- • • • • f!�, ••

.

Qxb2 g4. This means that White cannot get rid of the Nd3 (22 Be2? Ne4!) . 22 Bxd6. White should have played the sharp 22 h4, foreseeing the following forcing variation: 22 . . . g4? 23 Be2 Ne4 24 Qxh6! Bf8 2 5 . Qh5 Nxg3 26 fxg3 Bg6 27 Qxg4 Rq 28 Qf3 Ne5 29 Qfa Bh6! (threatening . . . RC2) 30 Nd2! Be3 3 1 Nxq Bxfa + 32 Nxfa, with excellent compensation for the queen. Black, however, has other, more promising, possibilities: 22 . . . Ne4 23 Bxe4 Bxe4 24 hxg5 (in the event of the transposition, 24 Bxd6 Qxd6 25 hxg5 , the game is decided by 25 . . . Nf4! 26 f3 Bxb 1 and . . . Re2; or 24 Qe3 Bf4! 2 5 Qd4 gxh4 26 Rxd3 hxg3) 24 . . . Bxg3 25 fxg3 Qxd5 26 gxh6 (26 Qe3 ? Bxg2! 27 Qxd3 Qxd3 28 Rxd3 Bxf1 29 Kxf1 Re i + ) 26 . . . Rc6! (26 . . . Re5 ? 27 Rf4!), with a strong attack. Also interesting is 22 . . . Nf4!? The knight leaves the d3 square, but the power­ ful concentration of Black's pieces on the K-side makes White's position most precarious, for instance: 23 hxg5 hxg5 24 Bxf4? Bxf4 25 Qxb4 Bd6! 26 Qd2 (26 Qb6 g4) 26 . . . g4 27 Be2 Ne4 and . . . Qh4. 22 . . . Qxd6 23 gJ. White cannot drive away the Nd3 ; in case of 23 Be2 Black launches a rapid attack: 23 . . . Nf4 24 Bq Ng4 25 g3 Rxq! 26 bxq Re2 27 c5 (27 Qd4 Be4) 27 . . . Qg6 28 gxf4 Qh5 ! , mating. Now it seems that White can play Na4-b2, but . . . 23 . . . Nd7! 24 Bg2. Missing the last chance to play Nb2. Analysis shows, however, that even after 24 Nb2 White could not save the game. Certainly it is not easy to choose the best line for Black since there are so many tempting continuations, for example: 24 . . . N7e5? 25 Bg2 Nxb2 (25 . . . Qf6 26 Kh1 !) 26 Qxb2 Bd3 27 Rfe 1 Qf6 28 Khi ! (28 Qd2 ? loses: 28 . . . Nf3 + ! 29 Bxf3 Qxf3 3 0. Rxe8 + Rxe8 3 1 Qxd3 Rei + ) 28 . . . Qf5 . Now Black's win is quite spectacular after 29 Qd2 Nf3 ! 3 0 Rxe8 + Rxe8 3 I Qxd3 Rei + 32 Bf1 Qh3 !, or 29 Nd2? Bc2! 30 Rei (30 Ra1 Nd3 3 I Rxe8 + Rxe8 32 Qd4 Re2 3 3 Nf3 Nxfa + 34 Kg 1 Be4 35 Rf1 Nh3 + 3 6 Bxh3 Qxh3 37

GARRY KASPAROV

Rfa Bxf3 etc.) 30 . . . Nd3 ! 3 1 Rxe8 + Rxe8 32 Qxc2 Rei + ! 3 3 Rxe1 Nxfa + 34 Kg1 QxC2; after 29 d6! , however, the whole situation is quite unclear. The decisive line is 24 . . . Qf6!! (instead of 24 . . . N7e5?) 25 Nxd3 Bxd3 26 Qxd3 (26 Bg4 Ne5 ! 27 f4 Nxg4 28 Qxd3 Qb6 + ) 26 . . . Ne5 , and White's queen is trapped in the centre of the board. A unique situation! Of no importance is the more stubborn 25 Nq, for example, 25 . . . N7e5 26 Nxe5 (26 Be2 Bh3) 26 . . . Nxe5 27 Be2 Bd3 ! (27 . . . Bh3 ? 28 f4!), or 27 Bg2 Bd3 28 f4 (28 Rfe1 Nf3 + !) 28 . . . Rc2! 29 Qe3 Bxf1 30 Rxf1 gxf4, and Black must win (3 1 gxf4 Qg6!) . 24 . . . Qf6! Now the b2 square is fully controlled and the game is effectively decided: White's pieces are hemmed in. 25 aJ as 26 axb4 axb4 27 Qa2 Bg6! Paralysing any attempt to get some freedom: if 28 Nd2 Re2! In case of 28 Bh3 the issue is simply decided by 28 . . . Reds, threatening 29 . . . N7e5 . 28 d6. Finally, Karpov decides to give up the extra pawn, trying at least to accomplish the modest aim of somehow developing his pieces: 28 . . . Qxd6? 29 Nd2. 28 . . . g4! This position is a perfect illustration of 'domination' - with virtually all the pieces on the board White is practically stalemated! 29 Qd2 Kg? 30 f3. In search of some air. 30 f4 is no better because of 3 0 . . . Bf5 ! 30 . . . Qxd6 3 1 fxg4. A bit more stubborn is 3 1 Qb2 + , although it could not change the situation. 31 . . . Qd4 + 32 Kh1 Nf6. Beginning the direct attack against White's king. 33 Rf4 . In case of 3 3 h3 I intended to play 3 3 . . . Re3 ! (weaker is 3 3 . . . Ne4? because of 34 Qxd3 Nfa + 3 5 Rxfa Bxd3 36 Rfd2) , and Black's powerful build-up in the centre crushes White's defence (34 Rf4 Qe5) . 33 Ne4 34 Qxd3. The knight which has brought so many misfortunes upon White per­ ishes. But it is quite fitting that White has to give up his queen for this knight. 34 . . . Nf2 + 35 Rxf2 Bxd3 36 Rfd2. It may appear, just for a moment, that White has pulled out, but the illusion is quickly dispelled. 36 . . . Qe3! 37 Rxd3 Rei !! (See dia­ gram 77.) ·

·

·

r68

GARRY KASPAROV

White's pieces, although there are quite a few of them, are absolutely uncoordinated. 38 Nb2 Qf2! Also winning was 3 8 . . . Rxd1 + 39 Rxd 1 Qxb3 , but the text move is more spectacular. 39 Nd2 Rxd1 + . 3 9 . . . Re2 would have ended the game one move earlier. 40 Nxd1 Rxe1 + . White resigned. The chessplayer remembers such games for a long time, especially ifhe has put all his heart and soul into them. In the past I have also carried out some beautiful combinations, sacrificed material and implemented in­ teresting strategic plans, but nothing I have played in the past can com­ pare with the grandiose conception of the 1 6th game. There is, however, another reason for my calling this game my greatest creative achievement. The value of each beautiful victory is enhanced according to the extent of the resistance put up by the op­ ponent. It is highly indicative that this victory was scored in a title match over such a superclass chess player as Anatoly Karpov. As for the return match, there is a diversity of opinions concerning the choice of Kasparov's best creative achievement. The World Champion, when asked which game was the best, said with confidence: 'The 1 6th is perhaps the best in all our encounters taken together. ' M.Botvinnik, on the other hand, criticized his pupil for this game. 'Personally', said Botv­ innik, 'I do not like his play in the 1 6th game. Kasparov played like Tolush rather than like Alekhine. He seems to have underestimated his opponent. ' On the other hand, Botvinnik held that the 22nd game had been brilliantly played by Kasparov: ' This game will find its place in the Golden Treasury of chess and will be part of chess history for ever. This game clearly proves that Kasparov is the real and genuine World Cham­ pion. ' I n any case, i t was in the 22nd game that the match was finally clinched and so we include it here. As Kasparov later confessed, after having lost three games in a row (games 1 7-19), making the match score even, he planned the following course: to draw the 20th game 'by force', to hold his own in the 2 1 st game, and to win the 22nd game. This plan was successfully accom­ plished. Queen's Gambit Declined

G.Kasparov - A.Karpov 22nd game of the return match, Leningrad, 3 October 1 986 (notes by Y.Estrin) 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 ds 4 Nc3 Be7 5 Bg5 h6 6 Bxf6 Bxf6 7 e3 0-0 8 Rei c6 9 Bd3 Nd7 1 o 0-0 dxc4 1 1 Bxq es .

GARRY KASPAROV

1 69

1 1 . . . cs proved to be not quite adequate in the 12th game. After 1 2 Qe2 a 6 1 3 Rfd 1 cxd4 1 4 Nxd4 Qe7 I S Ne4 Bes 1 6 Nf3 Bb8 1 7 Qd2, White siezed the initiative. 12 Nh3 exd4 13 exd4 Nb6. Karpov is cautious, avoiding 1 3 . . . cs as he had tried in the 10th game of the match. After 1 4 Ne4 (instead of the text move 14 Bb3 1) White would have an edge. 14 Bb3 Bf5 . After 14 . . . Re8 I S Rei Bfs 1 6 Rxe8 + Qxe8 17 Qd2 White secured a considerable advantage in the 23rd game of the l98S match. 15 Re1 as. Steering the game into new channels. After l S . . . Qd7 1 6 Nes Black still has some problems. 1 6 a3 Re8. 1 6 . . . Qd7 seems more prom1smg. Rashkovsky-Belyavsky (s3rd Soviet Championship, Kiev 1986) continued 17 Qd2 a4 1 8 Ba2 Rfe8 19 Qf4 Be6 20 Bxe6 Rxe6 2 1 Rxe6 Qxe6 2 2 Qc7 Qb3 23 Qxb7 Qxb2, with equality. 1 7 Rxe8+ Qxe8 1 8 Qd2 Nd7 19 Qf4 Bg6 20 h4. In the press room the grandmasters analysed the position arising after 20 Rei Qb8 2 1 Qg4! Nf8 22 Nes , rather than the continuation actually played. 20 . . . Qd8 21 Na4 hs 22 Re1 b5 23 Nc3 Qb8 24 Qe3. If 24 Ne5 Bxe5 2s dxes Nc5 , and, surprisingly, Black comes out on top. 24 . . . b4. Grandmaster Suetin suggested here 24 . . . Qf8 (both 24 . . . Qb6 and 24 . . . Qc7 can be strongly met by 25 Ne4!) 25 Ng5 b4 26 Na4 Rb8 27 Bq, and White's position, although very imposing, cannot easily be im­ proved. 25 Ne4 bxa3 26 Nxf6+ Nxf6 27 bxa3 Nd5 . This move enables White to establish his bind. After 27 . . . Ng4 28 Qc3 Qd6 29 Ba4 Rc8 Black would have a solid position. • .. 78 28 Bxd5 cxd5 29 Ne5 Qd8 30 Qf3 Ra6 • • 31 RCJ Kh7 32 Qh3 Rb6 33 Rc8 Qd6 � • �. 34 Qg3 a4 35 Ra8. • • Obviously, Black loses his a-pawn. . • • •.t.• 35 . . Qe6 . t .. • �ir· 1: If 3 5 . . . Rb3?, 36 Rh8 + ! �xh8 3 7 • H . H _ Nf7 + wms; 3 S . . . Ra6? fails to 3 6 "��" . ..� �-• .ft m Nxf7! (threat�nt_ �g mate) 3 6 . . . Bxf7 . • 3 7 Qd3 + , wmnmg the rook. • � • � " 36 Rxa4 Qf5 37 Ra7 Rb1 + 38 Kh2 Rci 39 Rb7!

!m

r�1

·

Wt.R.f£� Wt. Bw. ., 'II �-'·· 1Kasparov played (Ed.)

14

Bb3 , and the game was agreed drawn on move 44.

GARRY KASPAROV

Keeping Black's queen from b 1 . 39 . . . Rc2 40 f3 Rd2. (See diagram 78 on previous page.) At this moment, the scheduled playing session was over. Yuri Rost, a correspondent of the Literary Gazette, wrote: 'Kasparov sat thinking over his 4 1 st move which was to be sealed, while the press room was buzzing with excitement. Grandmasters and experienced chess commentators were pushing chessmen over the board, unable to discover lines which would ensure the World Cham­ pion reliable winning chances . . . ' "Looks like a draw after adjournment" - this is how the position was branded in the newspapers the next morning. 'Kasparov was deep in thought. Finally, he took the scoresheet and wrote something. After a while, he plunged into thought again. A rumour was circulating in the press room that Kasparov had at first written down an erroneous move, and then upon discovering some­ thing had decided on another line. 'Next day, the opponents arrived to resume the adjourned game. Kasparov was agitated, Karpov quiet. The Chief Arbiter Lothar Schmid was quite imperturbable, unsealing the envelope in an irre­ proachable manner. Karpov was scrutinizing the public and he was apparently not much interested in Kasparov's scoresheet, but finally he broke down and followed the arbiter's hands with his eyes. Schmid did not make Kasparov's sealed move, yet when Karpov saw, he knew. ' Kasparov's sealed move was in fact the best one, and h e had foreseen the possibility some moves before. 41 Nd7!! As for the legend of the rewritten move, Schmid explained laughing: 'No, he changed nothing - he simply went over the letters once again in order to make them more readable. Or perhaps he was checking up on himself, eliminating the possibility of an error.' Kasparov confessed that his first intention was to play 41 Nd7 over the board, since he had already seen the forthcoming combination. Perhaps the 'former' Kasparov would have done so, but the 'present' Kasparov, capable of controlling his emotions, managed to withstand the tempta­ tion. Kasparov expressed the opinion that the knight move was the best move of the return match. 'It seems to me that nobody saw the combina­ tion when I sealed the move. I thought 17 minutes over it, but I saw it at once. It cheered me up - the combination exists, and it is very nice indeed, being geometrical . . . The story seems long when told over, but the actual play took barely five minutes. 41 . . . Rxd4 42 Nf8 + Kh6. If 42 . . . Kh8, 43 Rb8 wins. '

GARRY KASPAROV

171

43 Rb4! Rq. After 43 . . . Rd1 44 a4 d4 45 Rb5 the mate cannot be prevented, but 43 . . . Rd3 would be more stubborn. In this case White would achieve nothing by 44 Qe1 Qc8 ! (44 . . . d4? 45 Qg3 ! and 46 Rb5), but he could get into a winning endgame by 44 Rb8 ! (threatening Nxg6 followed by Rh8 + ) 44 . . . Bh7 45 Qgs + Qxg5 46 hxgs + Kxg5 47 Nxh7 + . This line was indicated by grandmaster L.Schmid. The consequences of the exchange at b4 would be as follows: 43 . . . Rxb4 44 axb4 d4 45 bs d3 46 b6 d2 47 b7 d1 Q (Black has managed to queen first, but he still cannot parry the mating threats) 48 b8 Q Qd2 49 Nxg6 Qxg6 50 Qh8 + Qh7 5 1 Qgxg7 mate. Very nice! 44 Rxq dxq 45 Qd6! Precision to the end! After 45 Qc7 Qf6 White cannot take the pawn (46 Qxq? Qd6 + ) . 45 CJ 4 6 Qd4. Black resigned. After 46 . . . Bh7 47 Qxc3 gs (47 . . . Qf4 + 48 g3) 48 Qe3 f6 49 hxg5 + Black is helpless. This is how chess history is made! =

=

·

·

·

CORRESPONDENCE CHESS

The word 'chess' evokes the image of two rivals sitting opposite each other at the chessboard. There is, however, another kind of contest, where the opponents are separated by vast distances - towns, countries, continents, seas and oceans. The reader has probably guessed that we are referring to correspondence chess, which is usually effected by means of postal communication. Correspondence chess dates back to olden times, but only in the last few decades has it assumed the status of an independent creative sport. Great are the contributions that have been made to the promotion of postal chess by the German organizers and enthusiasts Dr Eduard Dyck­ hoff ( 1 880-1949) and Hans-Werner van Massow, who as far back as 1 928 set up the existing international organization of postal chess players. Today, just as half a century ago, van Massow is promoting with unre­ mitting energy postal chess throughout the world. Since 1959 he has been President of the International Correspondence Chess Federation (ICCF), the organization that means so much for the world chess family. The ICCF is mainly engaged in the regular organizing of World Correspondence Chess Championships. The idea of such championships was put forward by Alexander Alekhine in 1936. It was universally approved, but then war broke out and all the preparatory work was interrupted. After the war Alekhine's idea was successfully implemented. In 1953 the chess world got its first World Correspondence Cham­ pion, Cecil Purdy of Australia. Since then nine chessplayers have won this honourable title: Vyacheslav Ragozin (USSR) , Alberc O'Kelly de Galway (Belgium), Vladimir Zagorovsky (USSR), Hans Berliner (USA) , Horst Rittner (GDR) , Yakov Estrin (USSR), J0rn Sloth (Den­ mark) , Tynu Yim (USSR), Vytautus Palciauskas (USA) . It is interesting to note that all the World Correspondence Champions, as well as many other heroes of postal competitions, successfully combine correspondence chess with over-the-board play. Ragozin and O 'Kelly are 'double grandmasters' , having had the title conferred upon them both by FIDE and by the ICCF. We can also mention another 'double grand­ master', Lothar Schmid of the FRG. We may recall the wise words of Alexander Alekhine: 'Postal chess and over-the-board play are com­ plementary. '

CORRESPONDENCE CHESS

1 73

In this book Y akov Estrin will speak on behalf of all World Corres­ pondence Champions. This is what Estrin ( 1 923-1987) said of himself: 'I began to play by correspondence at the end of 1 945. I was immediately carried away by postal chess, and I began to play in a number of different tournaments and matches. I don't like unnecessary haste, preferring instead systematic work and analysis. Some chessplayers have, as a result of their playing postal games, become good practitioners at the chessboard. In my case, however, it was participation in over-the-board events, along with syste­ matic work on opening theory, that helped me to compete successfully in correspondence events. ' Estrin has conquered practically all the correspondence chess summits: USSR Champion, ICCF Grandmaster, World Correspondence Cham­ pion in 1 975- He is the 7th World Correspondence Champion (1975-1980) .

YAK OV E ST R I N World Correspondence Champion ( 1 97 5-1 989) In I 96 5 , World Champion Tigran Petrosian and I were making a tour of some West German cities giving lectures and simultaneous displays. The local press, radio and television gave wide coverage to our tour, the World Champion receiving a lot of publicity. One newspaper called me a 'Red commissar' attached to Petrosian, whilst another paper called me a 'TV Master' . The point is that in German the words 'television' (Fem­ seh) and 'correspondence chess' (Femschach) sound very much alike, so it's easy to understand this amusing mistake. What do we usually understand when we talk of 'postal chess' or 'correspondence chess'? It should be noted that correspondence chess is the wider term since it covers various types of contest carried on by radio, telegraph and even telephone. The most wide-spread form of correspon­ dence chess is that known as 'postal chess' . The move is sent to the addressee by post. The latter makes it on the board, thinks over his reply and sends it to his opponent by post. All the games in a tournament are played simultaneously. It should be pointed out that there is a strict time schedule in these competitions, and the players often get into time­ trouble and even lose on time. 174

YAKOV ESTRIN

175

The normal time-control is 3 0 days for I O moves (i.e. 3 days per move) . The time while the letter travels from opponent to opponent is not counted, and is determined by the postmark. Postal chess tournaments are entered both by chessplayers who have their regular jobs to attend to and who have no time for ordinary over­ the-board competitions, and by those who live in remote places and thus have no over-the-board opponents. Postal rules allow players to analyse positions using the full range of available chess literature. Participation in correspondence tournaments gives the chessplayer the necessary skills and habits of independent chess research, thereby enabl­ ing him to understand better the intricacies of various chess positions. A. Alekhine and P. Keres, who had played in correspondence tourna­ ments extensively and with success in their youth, pointed out that their postal experience helped them a great deal in over-the-board events. Actually, correspondence chess is a sort of adjournment after each move, with subsequent analysis of the adjourned position. The main advantage of postal chess is the great amount of time available for consideration of the moves and, consequently, the lack of nervous tension. True, there exists an opinion that the human mind and creative activity are sti­ mulated by nervous tension. How did postal chess originate? It is not easy to answer this question. Thomas Hyde ( 1 6 3 6-1 702), an English orientalist, believed that postal chess dated back to as early as 1 650, when Venetian and Slavic merchants, while exchanging various goods, also sent chess moves. The first known correspondence game was played between the chess players of The Hague and Breda in 1 804. In 1 8 3 7 the famous Russian chess master A. Petrov played a consultation game against the players of St Petersburg. In India, the birthplace of chess, correspondence games were also played. This is what grandmaster Y. A verbakh wrote in the magazine Chess in the USSR (No . 6, 1 976) : 'The most outstanding chess event in the history of the nineteenth century was the unusual correspondence match between Madras and Hyderabad, played in 1 828-9. The match was sponsored by Nizam of Hyderabad, one of the richest men in the world at that time. The match created tremendous interest and many bets were cast, amounting to thousands of rupees. 'The distance between Madras and Hyderabad is several hundred kil­ ometres. The moves were carried by an elephant. The envelope contain­ ing the chess moves was kept in a silver box. Day and night, regardless of the heat and rain, the elephant paced through the jungle. 'Two games were played simultaneously. Hyderabad was represented by Shah Sahib and Rau Sahib, and Madras by Ghulam Kassim and James Cochrane, the namesake of the strong master living in Calcutta. Ghulam Kassim is famous in chess history for his analysis of the Muzio Gambit

Y AKOV ESTRIN

which was later published in Bilguer's Handbuch. Unfortunately, very little is known about the chess players of Hyderabad except that Shah Sahib was not a young man, and gave the odds of a rook to Rau Sahib. 'Hardly had they started playing when Shah Sahib suddenly died. It is interesting that after his death all the sizeable bets were withdrawn . Rau Sahib put up a stubborn resistance, but finally he lost both games. Ac about the same time, matches involving the participation of their leading chess players were organized between A msterdam and Antwerp, Hamburg and Berlin, Paris and Budapest and other leading cities. The chess world is familiar with the two telegraph games played in 1 890-1 between Chigorin and Steinitz, which were brilliantly won by the great Russian master. Regular correspondence tournaments began at the close of the nine­ teenth century. They were usually organized by newspapers or magazi­ nes. The first big international correspondence tournament, with 29 participants, began in 1 902. Six years later, another big tournament, under the motto 'Across the Countries and Seas' and involving 28 chess players, was organized. Cor­ respondence events were becoming more and more popular. In 1924, the International Chess Federation (FIDE) was set up in order to unite the national federations of different countries. In their tum, correspondence chess players decided to organize their own international federation. And so on 2 December 1 928, almost 60 years ago, the Interna­ tional Correspondence Chess Union (ICCU) was set up in Berlin. The Union was later renamed the International Correspondence Chess Federation (ICCF) . OnJy six players participated in the fust tournament organized by the Union, which took place in 1 929. The tournament was won by Dr E. Dyckhoff, an outstanding correspondence enthusiast and organizer. He also took first place in the next two tournaments, with 1 0 players com­ peting. An interesting tournament was held in 1932. It was won by the Aus­ trian master Hans Miiller, and was described in the book The Great !CCU Correspondence Tournament, 1 932, by F. Chalupetzky. This was the first book in chess literature to be devoted to a correspondence chess event. ln 1 93 5 the ICCU tournament was won by Paul Keres, the future grandmaster from Estonia. In 1 93 6--7 the laurels went to the well-known Yugoslav grandmaster Dr Milan Vidmar. The first team tournaments were organized around this time for example the matches France-Hungary and Sweden-Spain . Then came the time to organize the European Correspondence Chess Olympiad. The first Olympiad, with i7 countries participating began in January 1 9 3 5 . The Hungarian team finished first. It should be recalled that Paul Keres was Estonia's top board.

Y AKOV ESTRIN

177

The ICCU was gradually gaining great authority in the world of chess. The official sessions of the Union were attended by outstanding chessplayers. It was Alexander Alekhine who at the Munich conference on 3 1 August 1 9 3 6 put forward the idea of organizing an individual World Championship. This proposal was adopted at the next con­ ference, which took place in Stockholm on IO August 1937. It was attended by the then FIDE President Dr Alexander Rueb and World Champion Max Euwe, the future FIDE President. Unfortunately, be­ cause of the outbreak of World War Two the individual championship didn't get started. By that time, 20 national federations had joined the ICCU. Preparation for the individual World Correspondence Championship was resumed at the end of 1 945, some months after the end of the war. In June 1 947, 77 chess players from different countries began playing in numerous qualifying events. Six years later, the final tournament of the first World Correspondence Championship was won by the Australian Cecil Purdy. The second World Correspondence Championship was won in 1959 by the Soviet grandmaster Vyacheslav Ragozin. In 196 1 the Belgian grandmaster Alberic O'Kelly de Galway became World Correspondence Champion, but three years later the crown re­ turned to the Soviet Union when the Championship was won by Vladi­ mir Zagorovsky, a Professor at Voronezh University. The American Hans Berliner won the fifth World Championship in 1 968, and the sixth Championship was won by the editor of Schach magazine (GDR), Horst Rittner, in 1 97 1 . The author of this article succeeded in becoming the seventh World Correspondence Champion, having scored 1 2 points out of 1 6 games. This Championship, which was particularly hard-fought, ended in 1975. For almost 4 1 months, 1 7 chess players from I O countries were exchang­ ing envelopes and postcards. The final outcome of the Championship became clear only after all the unfinished games had been adjudicated. I began playing by correspondence in 1 945, so it took me 30 years to win the World Crown! Nowadays, over 50,000 chess players take part in correspondence events, and the ICCF unites 62 national federations. Sessions of the Presidium or ICCF Conferences take place annually. An enormous con­ tribution to the work of the ICCF is made by its President of many years, Hans-Werner van Massow of the FRG. The ICCF organizes World Team Championships and Continental Team and Individual Championships. The eighth Chess Olympiad was won in 1 982 by the Soviet team. Women's correspondence events are becoming more and more pop­ ular. The first world championship was won by the former Women's World Champion Olga Rubtsova in 1 972, and six years later in 1 978 the

Y AKOV ESTRIN

title went to another Soviet chessplayer, L. Yakovleva. In 1984 L. Kristal (Israel) won the title. Correspondence events have won universal recognition as a distinct form of chess struggle and chess creativity. In 1 977 the First Telechess Olympiad for the FIDE-ICCF Cup began. Fourteen countries participated in this event. The final match between the USSR and the GDR, held on 2 December 1 978, ended in a 5-3 victory for the Soviet team. The same teams participated in the final of the second Telechess Olympiad in 1983 . This time the match was drawn 4-4, but due to the tie-break the coveted trophy went to the Soviet players again. The ICCF's activities contribute to the establishing of chess contacts and friendly ties between people of all ages, professions and views, serv­ ing the cause of peace and mutual understanding between nations. We shall now consider some games, and also two interesting end­ games, from correspondence events. It should be pointed out that one often comes across a great many interesting opening novelties in postal competitions. Frequently these novelties permit one of the sides to win the game quite easily. Grandmaster P. Keres was an active correspondence player in his youth. He liked analytical work and played about 1 50 correspondence games simultaneously, which he annotated. Albin Counter-Gambit

A Karu P Keres Correspondence tournament, 193 1-2 -

1

d4 d5 2 C4 e5 . I had played against Karn in many events, and I often resorted to the Albin Counter-Gambit. In my early games I used to strive for active piece play and complications right from the opening. 3 Nc3. Usually Kam preferred 3 dxe 5 . The text move is an experiment, and I think 3 dxe 5 is better. 3 . . . exd4 4 Qxd4 Nc6. Black could have gained good chances by the simple 4 . . . dxC4, but at that time I hated queen exchanges, especially in the early stage of the game. The pawn sacrifice gives Black sufficient counterplay, however. 5 Qxd5 Be6 6 Qb5 . The best move. After 6 Qxd8 + Rxd8 Black, threatening 7 . . . BxC4, 7 . . . Nb4 or 7 . . . Nd4, wins back the pawn. 6 . . . a6 7 Qa4. 7 Qxb7 would have been suicidal, because after 7 . . . Nd4 8 Qe4 Nf6 Black would have had a strong attack. Now Black wins back the pawn. 7 . . Bb4 8 Bd2. .

YAKOV ESTRIN

179

To be honest, I was banking on the incorrect 8 a3 ? After 8 . . . b 5 ! 9 cxb 5 N d4! I O bxa6 + c6 White has no satisfactory defence against I I . . . Bb3 . After the text move, however, White still has no difficulties. Incidentally, the same position had been reached in the game Marshall-Duras, Carlsbad I 907. After 8 e3 ! White got good play. 8 . . . Bxq 9 aJ b5! (See diagram 79.) - ·� · · �­ mt t • �· • • •t• · · • .

79

�� ' ll:J. a - • '0 " � l!..a.. d • :a If � l'M 8 8 �� �· - � � ;,:, �/ � � ��� � � � � · � .!!. U l1. U

��£ r�

�

� � l'M � ��:�4.J o

Seizing the initiative. In the event of I O QdI I would have replied I O . . . Nd4!, threatening I I . . . Bb3 . 1 0 Qc2 Nd4 1 1 Qe4 + Be7 1 2 NfJ? Again White should have played I 2 e3 taking care of his Q-side, because after I 2 . . . Nb3 I 3 RdI BxfI he could have defended by I 4 BCI ! Therefore after I 2 e3 I would have played I 2 . . . Bxf1 1 3 exd4 Bq 14 Qc6 + Kf8, with a slightly better position. 12 . . . c5! It is now too late for 1 3 e3 , since after 1 3 . . . Nf6 14 Qb 1 Bxf1 1 5 Rxf1 Nb3 White's rook would be out of play. Since 1 3 Qb 1 would be too passive, Kam hurries to develop his rook. Nevertheless, White is now hopelessly behind in development. 13 Rc1 Nf6 14 Qb1 Qd6. Hindering 1 5 e3, which could be met by 1 5 . . . Nxf3 + 1 6 gxf3 Rd8 . At the same time Black threatens 1 5 . . . Rd8 . White wants to exchange some pieces, but this is unlikely to improve his position. Black has a strong attack owing to White's inferior development. 15 Nxd4 cxd4 1 6 Nxe4 Qxe4. Now, not only is Black's rook en prise, but White threatens 1 8 Bb4, and it seems that Black cannot castle. 1 7 . . . 0-0! (See diagram 80.) A bitter disappointment for White. Now after 18 Bb4 I intended to play 1 8 . . . Qxb4 + 19 axb4 Bxb4 + 20 Kd1 Bb3 + 2 1 Rc2 Rac8 etc. In this variation White has a better move however: 2 1 Qc2, with a tenable position. Therefore 1 8 Bb4 should be met by 1 8 . . . Qh6! 19 Bd2 Bg5, and White loses owing to the backwardness of his K-side development. 1 8 Bf4 Qd8 19 Rd1 Bf6 20 Qf3. Bad was 20 e3 , because of 20 . . . Qa5 + .

r 8o

Y AKOV ESTRIN

20 . . . Re8 21 b3. White hopes to ease the pressure on e2. 2 1 e3 was still impossible because of 2 1 . . . Qa5 + , and after 2 1 e4 Qd5 Black could win a pawn. After the text move Black could play 21 . . . Bd5 and 22 . . . Rc8, but I decided to carry out a small combination. 21 . . . d3! Underlining the hopelessness of White's position. 22 e4. In case of 22 bxq Black would have won by 22 . . . bxq! 23 e4 Bc3 + 24 Bd2 Bxd2 + 25 Rxd2 c3 ! 26 Rxd3 C2! 27 Rxd8 Raxd8. Perhaps not the best, but still quite an amusing variation. 22 . . . Bc3 + 23 Bd2 Qd4! There is no defence against 24 . . . Rxe4 + . 24 Bxc3 Qxc3 + 25 Rd2 Rxe4 + ! White resigned because of 26 Qe4 Qc1 + 27 Rd1 d2 mate. This game is typical of my style at that time. My motto was: 'Not the best, but the most complicated and active continuation!' The following games may be o f some theoretical interest. French Defence

S Aarseth - H Rittner 6th World Correspondence Championship, 1 968-9 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 es c5 5 Qg4 Ne7 6 dxc5 Nbc6 7 Nf3? The question mark is fully deserved. Correct is 7 Bd2. 7 . . . d4! This move gives Black a definite advantage. In case of7 . 0-0 8 Bd2 fs 9 e:xf6 Rxf6 1 0 0-0-0 es I I Qh5 Rf5 12 Qh4 Bxc3 1 3 bxc3 Qa5 1 4 Kb2 (Pietzsch-Uhlmann, 1 963), the chances are equal. 8 Bb5. 8 a3 is met by 8 . . . Qa5 ! 8 . . . Qa5 9 Bxc6 + . (See diagram 8 1 .) 9 . . . bxc6! Theory considers only 9 . . . Nxc6 10 Qxg7, with advantage to White. The text move creates difficult prob­ lems for White. 1 0 Qxv. The postal game Klompus-Ken­ dernai, 1 967-8, continued: 10 Qxd4 Nf5 1 1 Qq Ba6! 12 Qb3 Qb5 ! 1 3 Bd2 Bxc3 1 4 Qxb5 Bxd2 + 1 5 Nxd2 Bxb5, and Black has an extra piece. After the game Klompus wrote that he had not expected 9 . . . bxc6! He had looked through various opening manuals and chess magazines, but .

.

Y AKOV ESTRIN

181

had not seen this move anywhere. 1 0 . . . Rg8 1 1 Qxh7 Ba6! 1 2 Ng5 Bxc3 + 13 Kd1 0-0-0 1 4 Nxf7 d3! White resigned, because if I 5 Nd6 + Rxd6! I 6 exd6 Qa4! I 7 bJ Qg4 + . Queen's Gambit

R Gorenstein - Y Estrin 5th USSR Correspondence Championship, I 96 I-2 1 d4 Nf6 2 C4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 Nf3 d5 5 Bg5 dxq 6 Qa4 + . White's idea is to invite Black to put a piece on c6, so as to deprive Black of counterplay based on . . . c7-c5. In the process, however, White loses two important tempi. 6 . . . Nc6 7 C4 Bd7 8 Qdi . A serious mistake. Better was 8 Qc2 h6 9 Bd2 Bq I O Bc3 bs I I a4! , with an active position for the sacrificed pawn. 8 . . . b5! In his book The Problems of Contemporary Chess Theory, I. Lipnitsky recommended 8 . . . h6. The text move, however, looks more energetic. 9 es h6 1 0 Bh4 gs 1 1 Ng5 Nd5! 1 2 Qh5. It seems that Black has difficulties in repulsing all the threats. Lipnitsky recommended I 2 . . . Qe7 I J Ne4! , with advantage to White. Black has a better continuation, however. 1 2 . . . hxg5! 13 Qh8 + Bf8 1 4 Bg3 Nd4 15 0-0-0 c5 1 6 Nq Qa5! Having sacrificed the exchange, Black has seized the initiative. The position is razor-sharp, however, and Black has to take care of his king. 1 7 Nd6+ Kq 1 8 Qg8 Qa2! Who will be the first to give mate? 19 Qgs + . White could have won the rook by 19 Qf7 + Kd8 20 Qf8 + Kc7 2 1 Nb5 + Bb5 2 2 Qc5 + Kb7 2 3 Qd4, but let us continue the variation: 23 . . . Rc8 !; threatening 24 . . . c3 , and White must resign. 19 . . . f6 20 exf6+ Kd8 21 f7 + Kq 22 Nc4 + Kb7 23 Na3. Now Black's king is safe, and he begins his counter-offensive. 23 . . . Qa1 + 24 Nb1 Nb4! 25 Kd2 Qb2 + 26 Ke1 Nbc2 + 27 Kd2 c4 28 Ru Ne3 + . White resigned. When the fifth USSR Correspondence Championship was practically over and all the games were either played or adjudicated, the Estrin­ Borisenko game was still going on. Who was to win the title depended on the outcome of this game. Both players had scored I I points from l 4

YAKOV ESTRIN

games, so the referees decided that the opponents should finish the game by telegraph. After Black's 7 1 st move the position in diagram 83 was reached. Although there is little material left on the board, Black (Borisenko) has the advantage. This is how the game continued: 72 h4f In the event of the tempting 72 Rd5 e3 73 g4!? Black would have replied 73 . . . Rg4! (not 73 . . . e2? 74 Rf5 + and 75 Re5) 74 Nh7 + (74 Rc5 Rg5 ! etc.) 74 . . . Kg7 75 Rc5 e2 76 Rc7 + Kg6 77 Re7 Rg 1 + 78 Kb2 e 1 = Q 79 Nf8 + Kf6 80 Rei Re 1 , with a winning position. 72 . . . e3 73 Rc8! The only defence. White must stop the pawn advance 7 3 . . . e2, which would be met now by 74 Rc6 + and 75 Re6. Ineffective was 73 Re8 because of 73 . . . Be7l, and White is defenceless. 73 . . . Kj5 74 Nf3 e2! But not 74 . . . Ke4 75 Ne1 , and Black has to reckon with the advance of the h-pawn. I have to confess that I had foreseen this position and was intending to play here 75 Ne1 , thinking that all my difficulties were behind me. I could not see how Borisenko could improve his position. Later, however, I discovered that 75 Ne1 could be met by 75 . . . Ke6! followed by 76 . . . Kd7 (or 76 Re8 + Be7), and the passed pawn on e2 becomes formidable again. So I had to choose another move. B orisenko played this endgame re­ 75 h5 Rc3(?) . sourcefully, and this is the only mis­ take he made. Naturally it was dif­ ficult to foresee that White would create an endgame study in actual play. Instead Black should have played 75 . . . Kg4! 76 Ne1 Rb4 + 77 KC2 Bfa, and White has to give up a piece. 76 Ne1 Bb4 77 Rxc3! Bad was 77 Re8 Rxg3 78 Rxe2 Rg 1 . 77 . . . Bxc3 78 Nd3. (See diagram 84.) This is the position my opponent was aiming for, believing that after 78 . . . e 1 = Q + 79 Nxe 1 Bxe1 he could win, since Black's king and bishop capture White's pawns and manage to protect their own pawn. In

Y AKOV ESTRIN

this variation, however, White has a unique drawing line: 80 g4 + ! : a) 80 . . . Kxg4 8 1 h6 Kh5 82 h7 Bc3 8 3 KC2! (the decisive tempo gain!) 83 . . . Bf6 84 Kb3 Kg6 8 s Ka4, drawing. b) 80 . . . Ke4 8 1 Kc2 Kds 82 gs Bb4 (Black's bishop cannot get to the c1-h6 diagonal, and 82 . . . Bh4 is met by 83 g6 Bf6 84 h6) 83 Kb3 Kc6 84 h6 Bf8 8s Kq! Kb6 86 Kds a4 87 Ke6 a3 88 h7 Bg7 89 Kf7 a2 (or 89 . . . Bh8 90 g6 a2 91 g7 al = Q 92 g8 = Q) 90 Kxg7 al = Q + 91 Kg8 , and Black cannot win. I thought now that I had saved the game, since after 78 . . . Ke4 79 Kc2 there is nothing to worry about, but Borisenko finds interesting possibilities. 78 . . . Bd2! The bishop is transferred to the C I-h6 diagonal, where it will blockade and prevent the advance of White's pawns, and keep White's king away from the e2 pawn. 79 KC2 Bh6 80 Ne1 Ke4 81 Kc3! White must control the d2 square. After 8 1 Kb3 ? Bd2 82 NC2 Kd3 the advance of the a-pawn is decisive. 81 . . . Bg5 82 Nc2 Be3 83 g4. White must be careful, for example: 83 Ne1 Bfa 84 Nc2 a4 8s h6 a3 86 h7 a2 87 h8 = Q? e 1 = Q + 88 Kq Qf1 + ! 89 Kb3 Qb 1 + 90 Qb2 Bd4! and Black wins. 83 . . . Bci 84 Ne1 a4 85 NC2 a3 86 Kb3 Kd3. Black has improved his position to the utmost, and White can only move his knight back and forwards between c2 and e1 . 87 Ne1 + Kd4 88 Nc2 + Ke4. (See diagram 8 5 .) What should White do here? 89 Ne1 is followed by 89 . . . Bxd2 90 N c2 Kxd3 9 1 h6 a2! and Black wins. 89 gs! Saving the game. 89 . . . Bxg5 90 Kxa3 Bd2 91 Kb3! Another finesse! Losing was 9 1 Kb2?, because after 9 1 . . . Kd3 92 Kb3 (92 Kb 1 Kc3) 92 . . . Bc3 93 h6 Kd2! 94 h7 Bf6 White is in zugzwang. 91 . . . Kd3 92 h6! The only move again! In the event of 92 Kb2 Kq 93 Na3 + Kd4 94 NC2 + Kd3 9S Kb3 Bc3 Black wins (see the previous note) . 92 . . . Bxh6. After 92 . . . Bc3 White could have drawn by 93 h7 Kd2 94 Ne 1 ! If White had played 89 h6 (instead of 89 gs) he would not now have had a pawn on the seventh rank, and Black could have won by 94 . . . Kxe1 9S Kxc3 Kd 1 96 g7 e1 = Q + . 93 Ne1 + Ke3 94 Nez + !

YAKOV ESTRlN

It is easy to see that White has to check the enemy king until it retreats to e4. Then after playing Kc3 White draws, because Black cannot transfer his bishop to the e 1 -a5 or e1-h4 diagonals. In fact, if White had played 94 K q ?, all his previous efforts would have been in vain. For example: 94 K c3 Bg7 + 95 Kc2 Be5 ! 96 Kb3 Bg3 97 Nc2 + Kd3 98 Kb2 Kd2! 99 Nd4 Be5!, or 95 Kb3 Be5 ! 96 Kc2 Bc7, followed by 97 . . . Ba5 etc. 94 . . . Kd3. After 94 . . . Kd2 White could force the draw by 95 Nd4! 95 Ne1 + Kdz 96 Ngz. Drawn. 96 . . . Kd3 is met by 97 N e 1 + , and if 96 . . . Be3 97 Kq, and Black cannot approach White's knight. THE ENDGAME STUDY IN PRACTICAL PLAY

I shall now demonstrate an ending I played in which an endgame study by the outstanding Soviet analyst N . Grigoriev occurred. In my game with N. Golovko (White) from the 5th USSR Correspondence Cham­ pionship, the following position was reached after White's 5oth move: Almost without thinking I sent my opponent the natural move 50 . . . Rc6?, which turned out to be a serious mistake. Also erroneous was 50 . . . Kxe5? on account of 5 1 Bxf4 + ! Bxf4 5 2 Rxb6, drawing. Instead of 50 . . . Rc6 Black should have played 50 . . . Bc5 !, and if 5 I e6, 5 I . . . Rc2! 52 Bxf4 Rfa + , with an extra piece. Ifl had sensed the danger, I would probably have found this line, but I thought that I had an easy win. Things turned out to be quite complicated however. 51 e6. At first I was going to reply 5 1 . . . Rxe6 52 Rb4 Ke5 ! 5 3 Bxf4 + Bxf4 54 Rxf4 Kd5, with a theoretical win. I had overlooked, however, that instead of 52 Rb4 White could play 52 Rbs + ! , drastically changing the character of the struggle. After 52 . . . Res 5 3 Rb4 bs (also no use is 5 3 . . . Ke6 5 4 Bxf4 Bxf4 5 5 Rxb6 + , drawing) 54 Bxf4 Bxf4 5 5 Rxf4 + Ke6 56 Re4! or 52 . . . Kf6 5 3 Bxf4, Bxf4 54 Kxf4 Ke7 5 5 Res ! White draws by forcing the exchange of rooks. So, I had to make another move. 51 . . . Kxe6 52 Bxf4 Bxf4 53 Kxf4 Kd5 54 Ke3. Later a computer showed that this move was White's last mistake. After 54 Rb 1 ! Rh6 5 5 Kg5 ! White could still draw. 54 . . . Kc4 55 Rb1 .

Y AKOV ESTRIN 88

After Black's mistake this position (diagram 87) is forced. It is easy to see that White draws after both 5 5 . . . Rd6 and 5 5 . . . b5 5 6 RCI + . At this juncture Golovko offered me a draw, but I turned down the offer. I tried to consult various books on rook and pawn endings. For instance, I read Grigoriev's article on some Cheron-type positions. The outstanding Soviet analyst put forward many interesting ideas concern­ ing this type of endgame. I began analysing the position and soon came to the conclusion that in addition to the natural 5 5 . . . Rd6 Black had another possibility, which would prevent White's king from approaching the b- and c-files. 55 . . . Rh6! Now White loses after 56 Kd2 Rh2 + 57 Ke3 b5 58 RCI + Kb3 5 9 Rb 1 + Rb2! etc. Black threatens 56 . . . Rh3 + . 5 6 RCl + Kb3 57 Rb1 + Kc2 58 Rb5 Kc3 59 Rb1 Re6 + ! This i s the idea of 5 5 . . . Rh6! Black has driven White's king away from the passed pawn. But he still cannot advance the pawn. 60 Kf4 Kq. Looking at diagram 88 one might think that Black cannot win. It seems that White can drive away Black's king by checking, and then blockade the pawn! But this isn't quite so! The point is that the position arrived at corresponds (with colours reversed) to an endgame study by Grigoriev, in which Black can win in an apparently paradoxical way. This is what Grigoriev wrote: 'In my experience, the demonstration of the solution to this study causes almost universal embarrasment - even masters are amazed by it.' The solution is extremely beautiful: it consists in the alternate advance and retreat of the Black king. Let us see how the game continued. 61 Rc1 + . In the event of 6 1 Kf5 Black would reply 6 1 . . . Rh6 62 Ke4 (62 Kg5 Rd6! is to Black's advantage - see the position after the 7 3 rd move; while after 62 Rei + Kb3 63 Rb 1 + Kc2 64 Rb4 Kc3 65 Rb 1 b5 ! Black wins easily) 62 . . . Rh4 + ! (but not 62 . . . b5? because of 63 RCI + ) 63 Ke3

1 86

Y AKOV ESTRIN

Rh3 + 64 Kd2 Rh2 + 65 Ke3 b5 and Black wins (see note to Black's 5 5th move) . 61 . . . Kd5 62 Rd1 + Kc6 63 Rci + Kb7 64 Rbi . (See diagram 89.) Now that the retreat is over, Black must concede the move to the opponent, putting him in zugzwang. It is necessary to 'push' the White king from f4. 90

64 . . . Re8! The attempt to win a tempo by triangulation is insufficient. After 64 . . . Kc7 65 RCI + KbS White's rook should not return to b 1 because of 66 . . . Kb7, but White can play first 66 Rh 1 ! , threatening 67 Rh7, whereupon 66 . . . Kb7 can now be met by 67 Rb 1 . 65 Kjj. The best defence. 6 5 Kf5 could be met by 65 . . . Kc6 66 Rei + Kd5 67 Rb 1 RbS ! 6S Kf4 Kd4 69 Kf3 b5 70 Ke2 Ke3 7 1 Kd1 b4; or 67 Rd1 + Kq 6S RCI + Kd3 69 Rb 1 RbS 70 Ke5 b5 7 1 Kd6 b4 72 Kc7 Kc2! 65 . . . Re5! Grigoriev and Bondarevsky point out that after 65 . . . Kc6 66 Rei + Kd5 67 Rb 1 Kc5 6S RCI + Kd4 69 Rb1 RbS 70 Ke2 Kc3 7 1 Rb5 Res + 72 Kd1 Re6 73 Rh5 ! Re4? 74 Rh3 + Kb2 75 Rh2 + Kb 1 76 Kd2! Rq 77 Rhs Rb4 7S Kc3 Rb2 79 Kq, Black cannot win. Nevertheless, Kopayev ha hown that after 73 . . . Rg6! (instead of 73 . . . Re4) 74 Rh3 + Kb2 7 5 Rh2 + Kb r 76 Rh3 Rd6 + 77 Ker Kb2 7S Rh2 + Kb3 79 Rh3 + Ka4 So Rh4 + Ka5 81 Rh5 + b5, Black wins. Also winning is 65 . . . Re7 as suggested by Levenfish and S m yslov. Grigoriev's line seems more logical, however. 66 Kf4 Re6! Now White is to move and he cannot save the game. 67 Kjj. Or 67 Kf5 ReS 6S Kf4 Kc6 etc. 67 . . . Kc6 68 Rc1 + Kd5 69 Rd1 + Kc4 70 Rc1 + Kd3 71 Rb1 (diagram 90) . That's the difference! White's king is on f3 , not f4, and White cannot play 7 1 Rd1 + because of7 1 . . . Kc2 72 Rds Kc3 73 Rbs Kq 74 Rb 1 b s , whereupon, since the White king is cut off from the pawn, Black wins easily.

YAKOV ESTRIN

71 . . . Rf6 + 72 Kg4 Kq. Look at the position after 5 5 Rb 1 (diagram 87). It has taken Black 1 8 moves to drive the enemy king two files further off from the passed pawn, thereby considerably improving his position. 73 Kg5. 73 RCI + could be met by 73 . . . Kd5 7 4 Rb 1 Kc6 75 RCI + Kb7 76 Rb 1 Rf8 ! , with a decisive attack after 77 Kg3 Kc6 78 Rei + Kd5 79 Rb 1 Kc5 80 Rei + Kd4 8 1 Rb 1 Rb& ! 82 Kfa bs 83 Ke2 Kc3 . 73 . . . Rd6! 74 Rc1 + Kb3 75 Rb1 + KC2 76 Rb5 Kc3 77 Kf5 Kc4 78 Rb1 b5 79 RCI + Kb4 80 Rb1 + Kc5 81 Rc1 + Kb6 82 Ke5 Rd2 83 Rb1 .

• • � � • � • • • • fl1 • • • II •

· � � •t• a • • . • � fl . R • BJ • •

• �- • • • .§. • •

91

Black's pawn is now on b5, and naturally White cannot save the game. 83 . . . Kc5 84 Ro + Kb4 85 Rb1 + Kq 86 Rc1 + Kb3 87 Rb1 + Rb2 88 Rh1 b4 89 Kd4 RC2. The rest is routine . 90 Kd3 Kb2 91 Rh8 b3 92 Rb8 Ka2 93 Ra8 + Kb1 94 Rh8 b2 95 Rh1 + Rc1 96 Rh8 Rc5 97 Kd2 Ra5 . White resigned.

Ruy Lopez ] Boey Y Estrin -

7th World Correspondence Championship, 1 972-5 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 0-0 Nxe4 6 d4 b5 7 Bb3 d5 8 dxe5 Be6 9 c3 Bc5 1 0 Nbd2 0-0 1 1 BC2f5 12 Nb3 Ba7 13 Nfd4 Nxd4 14 cxd4f4 15 f3 Ng3 16 hxg3 fxg3 1 7 Qd3 Bf5 1 8 Qxf5 Rxf5 19 Bxf5 Qh4. This super-sharp variation was known as far back as the nineteenth century. It was only in 1 942, however, that grandmaster I. Boleslavsky found the interesting queen sacrifice that seemed to ensure an advantage for White. In the 1945 USSR-USA radio match, V. Smyslov scored a brilliant victory over S. Reshevsky in this variation. Later, I suggested another plan for Black, and the whole variation was reappraised. After 20 Bh3 Bxd4 + 2 1 Nxd4 Qxd4 + 2 2 Kh 1 Qxe5 2 3 Bd2 Qxb2! 24 Bf4 a position is arrived at which was popular in the 1940s (dia­ gram 92) . In the above-mentioned Smyslov-Reshevsky game Black played 24 . . . c5, but White's attack was stronger. I managed to prove, however,

YAKOV ESTRIN

r88

that in the diagrammed position Black must strive to advance the d-pawn without bothering to defend his other pawns. On reching d2 this pawn will constrain the enemy forces and interfere with the coordination of White's rooks. The game S. Kogan Y. Estrin, correspondence 1 946, continued: 24 . . . d4 2s BxC7 dJ 26 BxgJ d2 27 Be6 + Kh8 28 f4 Rd8 29 Rad1 RdJ JO Bfa (Jo Rfa is better) JO . . . Qf6! J 1 fs g s ! J2 Bb6 g4 JJ Kg1 Qes J 4 a4 gJ J S as Rd4! J 6 Kh1 Rh4 + J 7 Kg1 Qe2! J 8 f6 Qhs ! J 9 BhJ RxhJ 40 gxhJ Qe2 41 Bfa gxfa + 42 Kg2 Kg8 4J f7 + Kf8 44 KgJ b4 4S Kp bJ 46 KgJ b2 47 Kg2 Qe i ! (See diagram 9J .) -

94

White resigned. Black's pawns look quite spectacular! 20 Be6+ Kh8 21 Bh3 Bxd4 + 22 Khi . Hardly the best. Black's bishop is undoubtedly superior to White's knight, so White should have played 22 Nxd4, transposing into the variation mentioned above. 22 . . . Bxe5 23 f4 Rf8 24 Nc5 g5! (See diagram 94.) 25 Nd7 Bv 26 Nxf8 g4 27 Be3 gxh3 28 Bc5 d4 29 Rae1 d3 30 Ne6 Qh5! An interesting position. White has more than sufficient compensation for the queen. The Black pawn on dJ , however, is quite dangerous, and White's king is unsafe. Black threatens to win at once by J 1 . . . d2 J 2 Rd 1 Qe2 J J Rg1 hxg2 + . 31 Ng5 h6 32 Nxh3 Qxc5 33 Re8 + ! Kh7 34 Rd8 Bd4! Black blocks the d-file, protecting his passed pawn. This is how the game ended: 35 f5 d2 36 Rd7 + Kh8! 37 Rd8 + Kv 38f6+ Kf7 39 Rd7 + Ke6 40. Rxd4 Qxd4 4 1 f7 Qd8. White resigned. This victory gave me 12 points out of 16 games, and so I became World Correspondence Champion. Boey, half a point behind, was second. This game, therefore, was decisive in the struggle for the gold medal.

Y AKOV ESTRIN

Y Estrin J Boey roth World Correspondence Championship, 1 978-8 1 -

White has an extra pawn. In addition he threatens to win Black's rook, thereby winning another Black pawn. Black decides to sacrifice the rook, intending to bring his king into play and eventually win the rook back. 28 . . . bxa2! I considered only 28 . . . Re8 + 29 Ne3 + Kc5 30 Re1 + Kb4 3 I a3 + Ka4 32 Rq Rg8 3 3 Rf7, threatening 3 4 Rf4 + and 3 5 Rb4. Black's unexpected move is undoubtedly of great interest. 29 Nb6+ Kc5 30 Nxa8 Kb4. Black's king has become very active. Now Black threatens to capture the pawn on b2, whereupon White will have to give up his rook for Black's passed pawn. In that case, the chances would be equal. 31 Nq Kb3 32 Kd2 g5 33 Ne6 g4 34 f4 gxf3 35 gxf3 Kxb2. It seems that Black has achieved his aim: there is seemingly no defence against 3 6 . . . a 1 = Q, winning White's rook.

The charm ofchess, however, lies in its total unpredictability. Evident­ ly Boey had overlooked White's next move. 36 Ra1 !! That's it! White returns the rook, leaving Black's a-pawn on the board. This pawn paralyses Black's king, which is stalemated in the comer after 3 6 . . . Kxa1 37 Ke1 ! 3 7 . . . Bq 3 7 Nd4 a5 38 f4. Black resigned.

YAKOV ESTRIN

After 3 8 . . . h5 39 f5 h4 40 f6 h3 41 Nc2 Bb3 42 Rf1 Bf7 (if 42 . . . Bxc2, 42 f7 Bb1 44 f8 = Q a1 = Q 45 Qf6 + Ka2 46 Qe6 + Kb2 47 Qe5 + , winning) 4 3 Rg1 a4 44 Rg7 Bb3 4 5 f7 Black is helpless. The chess game between myself and the readers of Prizyv, the news­ paper of the Vladimir region. Readers - Y.Estrin. 1 C4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 0-0 Bq 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 0-0 8 c3 d5!? The so-called Marshall Gambit, which has been popular for over 60 years . The pawn sacrifice was first employed by Marshall against Capa­ blanca in 1 9 1 8 . The famous Cuban succeeded in repulsing the attack of his talented opponent, although not without difficulty. New methods of attack have since been discovered for Black, and today the variation is quite frequently employed. 9 exd5 Nxd5 10 Nxe5 Nxe5 1 1 Rxe5 c6. The modem approach - Black defends his knight. The Capablanca­ Marshall game continued 1 1 . . . Nf6 1 2 d4 Bd6 1 3 Re i Ng4 1 4 h3 Qh4 1 5 Qf3 Nxfa! 1 6 Re2 (Wrong is 1 6 Qxfa? because of 1 6 . . . Bh2 + ! 17 Kf1 Bg3 , and White cannot play 1 8 Qxf7 + on account of 1 8 . . . Rxf7 + , while 1 8 Qe2 is met by 1 8 . . . Bxh3 ! 1 9 gxh3 Rae8 and Black wins), with a double-edged position. 12 Re1 Bd6 13 d4 Qh4 14 gJ Qh3 15 Be3 Bg4 1 6 Qd3 Rae8 1 7 Nd2 Re6.

A well-known position has been reached. Black has an initiative for the sacrificed pawn. 1 8 a4 Qh5. The usual move here is 1 8 . . . f5 , threatening 1 9 . . . f4 and 1 9 . . . Rfe8; the text move, however, also deserves consideration. The game Stein­ Spassky, 1 964, continued 1 8 . . . Bxa4 1 9 Rxa4 f5 20 Qf1 (but not 20 f4? because of 20 . . . Bxf4! 2 l Bfa Rxe l + 22 Bxe 1 Re8 and White resigned: Novopashin-Spassky, 1 963) 20 . . . f4 2 1 Qxh3 Bxh3 22 Rxa6! fxe3 23 Rxe3 Rxe3 24 fxe3 Be7 2 5 Rxc6 Bg5 26 Bxd5 + Kh8 . After many vicissitudes this interesting game was drawn. 19 axb5 axb5 20 Bxd5 .

Y AKOV ESTRIN

191

In the first game of the Tal-Spassky Candidates' match (1 965--6) , White played here 20 q, which could have been met by 20 . . . Nxe3 2 1 Rxe3 Be2! 22 Qc2 Rh6 2 3 h4 Bf4!, with dangerous threats. 20 . . . Qxd5 21 Qf1 (?) After the exchange on d5, the retreat of the queen to f1 can hardly be justified, since now White is forced to conduct a difficult and unpromis­ ing defence. Since my opponent had decided to exchange his 'Lopez' bishop, he should have played 2 1 q! bxq 22 Qxq, striving for simpli­ fication. After the text move Black's attack is irresistible. 21 . . . Rfe8 22 Qg2 Qh5 23 Ra6 f5 24 d5 . The only move, vacating d4 for the bishop. 24 Rxc6 would have been met by 24 . . . f4 2 5 gxf4 Rg6.

24 . . . Rh6! Strengthening the attack. The Be3 is pinned, and the threat of . . . f5-f4 is extremely unpleasant. 25 f3 Bh3 26 Qf2f4 27 Bd4 Rxe1 + 28 Qxe1 Bc8. Now both the rook and the h-pawn are attacked. 29 Ra8 Qxh2 + 30 Kf1 Qh3 + 31 Ke2 cxd5 . This unpleasant pawn must be captured first. 32 Kd1 Qd7 33 g4 b4! Black has an extra pawn and a strong initiative. 34 Ra7 Bb7 35 q? This loses at once, but what was White to do? 35 . . . dxq 36 Nxq Bc5 . White resigned.

V . B . MALK I N Doctor of Medical Sciences

' PR OBLEMS A S S O CIATED WITH THE C H E S S PLAYER S PSYCHOLOGICAL PREPARATION

The chess teacher ought not only to be a man in love with chess; he ought also to be a good psychologist and therefore he should know what influence chess may have upon a person's psychic health. Given that chess may exert an unfavourable influence on a child's health, systematic chess studies undertaken by children should be preceded by a thorough medi­ cal selection-process designed primarily to keep children who are ment­ ally unstable or who are suffering from diseases of the cardio-vascular system away from such studies. It should be remembered that chess is a form of sporting activity which can lead to great emotional and intellec­ tual stress, and, as a result, children with certain chronic diseases of the nervous and cardio-vascular systems may eventually find their condition aggravated. The point is that there must be systematic medical control of children attending chess schools, and especially of those children who devote a great deal of time to chess. Unfortunately, this control is as a rule 192

V. B . MALKIN

1 93

not maintained, and as a result, the care of the child's health is in practice entirely the responsibility of his chess teacher. How should children be taught to play chess? What should be done at the beginning? These are difficult questions, and here a knowledge of psychology and physiology obtained if need be at a university or college may be invaluable for the chess coach. He should know about the dif­ ferent stages of man's psychological development and about his intellec­ tual capacity. So far, none of these factors has yet been taken into account, even by FIDE, which, so it would seem, ought to proceed from scientifically well-grounded principles in organizing junior chess events. In one of the European Cadets' Championships (for children under 1 6), for instance, children of various age groups played in one event. At the end of the tournament a 1 2-year-old English boy lost all his games playing against 1 6-year-old opponents. That's almost the same as putting a 12-year-old in a boxing ring with a 1 6-year-old: the younger combatant will always be defeated. Quite often, even in pre-school years, children are carried away by chess. The problem of their chess education and instruction is far from being a simple one, and a solution to it ought to take into account the individual characteristics and peculiarities of children's psychological development. The best period for most children is from 9 to around 10-12 years of age. Certainly there are exceptions. We sometimes come across gifted children in the pre-school stage. Their chess instruction should proceed along strictly individual lines. Their playing regime and chess studies should not be unduly strenuous: in other words, they should not be exposed to mental and physical exhaustion. Up until now we have not had a scientifically-based system ofjunior chess instruction: we don't know how to begin chess education, we don't know the forms this education should take, and nor do we know how much time should be devoted to chess. To begin with, the child becomes acquainted with the chessboard and tries to remember the moves of the pieces. He watches over all his pieces attentively, fearing, first of all, to put them en prise. Gradually he becomes aware of the co-ordination of the pieces, and actually it is from this moment that he begins to play chess. He acquires certain skills and habits, his intuition develops and he enjoys the game more and more. One of the difficulties in teaching is that we lack the chess textbooks that are needed in order to teach children of pre-school and primary­ school age. The existing textbooks are mainly for grown-ups, and their authors, including such chess giants as Em. Lasker and J. R. Capablanca, had never planned them for children. It is therefore extremely difficult for children to study chess using these textbooks. For instance, G. Leven­ fish in the first lesson of his textbook asks the pupil the colour of the g4 square so that the pupil must call upon his memory and knowledge of the

194

V. B. MALKIN

chessboard. This task is extremely difficult and uninteresting for the child. If we set about teaching them in this way, children are likely to lose their chess enthusiasm. It should be remembered that children regard almost any activity as a game. Chess must therefore be made an equivalent for them of an ordin­ ary game. That way they will enjoy the game, and will not get so tired when absorbing new material. Besides enjoyment, in the process of their chess studies children should gain concrete knowledge. Children aged 1 1-12 should not play for a long time; their chess classes should be short and diverse. The teacher should show them chess open­ ings and the most typical opening traps (elementary two- or three­ movers) and, certainly, the children should play against each other. In addition the teacher should harness the children's imagination and creat­ ivity in demonstrating elementary strategic plans and illustrating typical mistakes. The chess textbooks being published nowadays, however, con­ tain hardly any critical analysis of games played by children. As a result many children, especially those with mediocre chess abilities, are not interested in reading classical chess textbooks, for instance Lasker's or Capablanca's. As a rule, they enjoy reading these books only when they make the norms of the 2nd or 3 rd categories. These books are for grown­ ups. If you are teaching children aged 1 3-1 5 who have reached the level of the 2nd-3rd categories and who can already call upon their chess ex­ perience, they should first of all understand that chess is a serious game with very strict rules. They should play tournament games with chess clocks, learn how properly to distribute their playing time and learn how to keep the score of their games. They should understand certain opening ideas, know how to seek for combinations and know the fundamentals of endgame technique. For them chess studies are inconceivable without serious chess literature. In the process of receiving chess education the young player should develop his intuitive and logical thinking, i.e. his capacity for intuitive and logical assessment of a position. What do we understand by the 'intuitive capacity' ? This is the ability of the chesspla yer, without wasting too much time, to assess the position and find the best move on the basis of his first impressions. Analytical ability is the ability to choose the correct move on the basis of a sequence oflogical thought-processes. By calculating concrete variations the chess­ player arrives at a c_onclusion as to which move is the best in a concrete position. The chessplayer must possess both intuitive and analytical abilities. Outstanding chessplayers have always possessed exceptionally highly­ developed intuitive and analytical abilities. Especially striking was the intuition of P. Morphy and ]. R. Capablanca. Intuition is a very impor­ tant quality, because it imposes limitations on the selection of the best move; clearly the chessplayer cannot calculate all possible variations. If a

V. B . MALKIN

195

chessplayer makes his move quickly it does not necessarily mean that he plays by intuition. In some cases an intuitive decision is accounted for by the difficulty that may attach to an analytical approach. Quite an interesting example of this is cited by ex-World Champion Mikhail Tal, who has always been regarded as an intuitive player: 'I shall never forget how, during one of the games in the USSR Championship, I was painstakingly trying to calculate variations involving a knight sacrifice. There was a great multitude of variations, just a chaos, so that while thinking I recalled Kornei Chukovsky's nursery rhyme: "Oh, it's not an easy job to draw a hippo from the dirt!" 'Suddenly I stopped thinking about chess. The spectators were sure that I was totally absorbed by the position on the board, but in fact I was trying, contrary to my humanitarian education, to solve a purely techni­ cal problem. In my thoughts I brought all the necessary equipment and even helicopters to the dirty swamp intending to get the "hip­ popotamus" out of it. But still, I left the hippo where it was. It disap­ peared as unexpectedly as it had appeared. I sacrificed the knight intuit­ ively and won the game! In the morning I was pleased to read in the newspapers that "after a long analysis Tal pondered carefully all the consequences of the sacrifice . . . " ' Intuitive abilities are not equally developed in the case of all chess­ players. There are some very capable intuitive players who play quickly and easily, and whose productivity at the board is therefore high. They don't get tired during the game. Nevertheless, insufficient adoption of the analytical approach to the selection of the move and assessment of the position results in a frequent inability on their part to evaluate the posi­ tion properly. When, after Capablanca's triumph in the 1 927 New York tourna­ ment, the whole chess world was convinced that the Alekhine-Capa­ blanca match would be a walk-over for the World Champion, it was only Em. Lasker who wrote that Alekhine's chances of winning the match were higher than Capablanca's. Lasker was right, because he was fully aware of Alekhine's psychologi­ cal approach to the game, his enormous capacity for work and his unique analytical talent. After the match Alekhine pointed out that Capablanca, although a chess genius, was relying too much upon his intuition. If such a player confronts positions where he has to calculate complicated variations, he quickly gets tired and is apt to make serious mistakes. The Alek­ hine-Capablanca match proved that the Russian Champion was right. If the chess player wants to develop creatively and successfully, he shouldn't confine himself exclusively to chess studies: i.e. the annotating of games, endgame analysis, opening preparation, etc. In other words, he shouldn't remain, figuratively speaking, 'inside chess'. It is important that the chess player should be an 'onlooker' too, so that he can make an

V . B . MALKIN

objective assessment of his own capabilities as well as of his opponent's. Therefore, in the process of chess education great emphasis should be placed, in addition to special preparation, on the problems apparently insignificant for chess creativity. These include such matters as physical and psychological preparation of the chessplayer, the social function of chess etc. Chess studies stimulate the development of man's intellectual abilities and enhance many different aspects of his personality. In the process of studying chess he improves his logical and intuitive thinking, his long­ term and operative memory and his capacity to concentrate and to alternate his attention. At the same time, chess studies improve the or­ ganization of thinking, the ability to select the decision (or move) and the ability consistently to assess various possibilities likely to arise both in man's everyday life and in his work. It is necessary while playing chess consistently to implement an already-taken decision - to make moves and carry out certain strategic plans: all this moulds the chessplayer's will-power, resolution and emotional stability. It is important that, through chess, the chessplayer becomes more self-critical. Almost all people, being to a greater or lesser extent egocen­ tric, are inclined, even when they make mistakes, not to admit to them. Sometimes people even justify their mistakes. Chess practice and the perfection of chess mastery are invariably linked with the necessity for profound analysis, revealing all one's mistakes so as not to repeat them in the future. Thus, chess helps man to develop the sense of self-criticism and even honesty towards himself and his actions, so that he can look at himself understanding the cruel necessity of admitting and correcting his mis­ takes. This is what Em. Lasker wrote: 'On the chessboard lies and hypo­ crisy do not survive long. The creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie; the merciless fact, culminating in a checkmate, contradicts the hypocrite.' Many chessplayers have found a resemblance between chess and science, or chess and art. Alekhine and Botvinnik believed that chess could be regarded as an art. Recently, in connection with the develop­ ment of chess computers and programs for them, there has appeared a tendency to regard chess as a science. Undoubtedly, as Em. Lasker poin­ ted out, chess incorporates the elements both of science and of art. Never­ theless, chess is referred to as a sport, even though it does not involve any muscular efforts. The reason for this approach to the game is that the ultimate purpose of chess is victory over the opponent. To defeat the opponent and to win the game - these are the basic tasks set by the chessplayer before the game. And these are purely sporting tasks. Therefore we can draw the conclusion that every chessplayer should by all means be a sportsman. He must strengthen his character and will­ power. It is highly significant that Anatoly Karpov has stressed more than

V. B. MALKIN

197

once that he considers himself to be primarily a sportsman. If the chess­ player is insufficiently prepared as a sportsman, even if he possesses a brilliant and original talent, he will never be able to achieve good results - in other words he will suffer, both as a sportsman and as an artist. Chess history has seen many gifted masters whose creative potential was much greater than is reflected in the results they achieved in com­ petitive play. Among Soviet masters we can mention V. Rauzer, V. Ragozin, P. Romanovsky, A. Sokolsky and V. Simagin, and among foreign chessplayers R. Reti and C. Torre. Lack of harmony between their creative and their sporting achievements prevented these outstand­ ing masters from gaining the high places in competitive events which they justly deserved. From all that has been said above, we can conclude that the creative potential of the chessplayer and his talent must necessarily be united with his sporting qualities. Consequently, chess preparation itself is only one side of the coin. The other, no less essential, side is sporting preparation. In the final analysis it is both of these which determine the sporting form or the real potential of the chessplayer. Sporting preparation includes many elements, primarily physical preparation, which determines both the state of the chessplayer's health and his ability to withstand severe emotional and intellectual stresses. Good physical preparation contributes to .the development of certain important sporting qualities, such as endurance, or the ability to resist mental and physical fatigue. Efficient physical preparation helps the chessplayer to keep fit, otherwise he cannot achieve good results in competitive events. Grandmaster R. Spielmann was quite right in say­ ing: 'If the organism does not function irreproachably, if the nerves are not sufficiently strong to cope with achieving the maximum he is capable of, all the chessplayer's knowledge and skills are of no value. A slight cold, a headache or toothache are regarded as trifles. But these trifles during a chess tournament may have serious and sometimes tragic conse­ quences. ' The important element determining the sporting form of the chess­ player is his psychological preparation. Psychological preparation should be aimed at solving two basic problems. The first problem consists in the perfecting of the chessplayer's psychological attributes such as emotional stability, the ability to concentrate for long periods, the development of long-term operative memory and high internal and external resistance to distractions. The second problem consists in the close study of the op­ ponent's psychology, his weak and strong points and his individual pecu­ liarities. To solve the first problem successfully, the chessplayer should be able to look at himself objectively. This is a difficult task. To accomplish this task, one should not only work thoroughly with chess material, analysing one's games and mistakes; it is also advisable to keep a diary reflecting information gained about one's physical condition, mood etc.

V. B. MALKIN

This may be of great benefit in eradicating psychological weaknesses and improving one's sporting form. Particularly important in this respect is work aimed at enhancing resistance to internal and external disturbances. External disturbances are all the factors which affect the chessplayer during the game and which prevent him from concentrating on his moves - for instance, noise in the tournament hall. Also into this category come disturbances which aim to upset or have the effect of upsetting the chessplayer during the game, for instance the opponent's frequently leaving the board, communicating with other players in the tournament as though he were consulting with them or behaving unusually at the board. Internal disturbances, which the chessplayer ought to learn to resist equally well, relate to feelings and emotions which are not directly connected with the game, and of which the chessplayer is frequently not fully aware. The fact is that every chessplayer has certain everyday problems con­ cerning his family, his work and, of course, the games he has played or adjourned. Information concerning these matters is constantly in the chessplayer's mind. All these things, however, seem to be outside the chessplayer's consciousness. Some chessplayers with a low resistance to disturbances experience this information invading their nervous mechan­ isms which are occupied with the processing of purely chess information. As a result, the normal thinking of the chessplayer over his next move is disturbed. Naturally this may be the cause of a great many errors. Another important problem is the avoidance of mistakes made as a result of fatigue. It should be noted that the processes of fatigue are different in the case of different chessplayers. Some players display characteristic signs of fatigue. The most typical case is when the chess­ player loses the ability to concentrate or has difficulty in calculating variations and so calculates the same variation several times. Some chess­ players lose confidence when choosing their moves. Others display ap­ athy: they lose any interest in the game, and they lack the necessary will-power when choosing a move. Many chessplayers do not feel fat­ igue during the game. They feel the way they usually do. Nevertheless, they play with less confidence and sometimes make blunders. It often happens that after the game they explain their mistakes as being the result of 'hypnosis' or other such influences. During the Karpov-Korchnoi match in Baguio, for example, the challenger tried to explain his mistakes as being caused by various telepathic effects. He could not admit that he made terrible blunders himself. Korchnoi did not understand or did not want to understand that these mistakes resulted from fatigue and emotional excitation. It should be pointed out that the idea that some chessplayers possess hypnotic powers which they employ during the game is utterly

V. B. MALKIN

199

unfounded. The chessplayer must be able to evaluate objectively the means employed by his opponent to exert psychological pressure; he must be able to evaluate the changes that take place in his own psychic system during the game. It is necessary to point out that chessplayers capable of serious self­ analysis find effective ways of preventing such mistakes. Grandmaster Y. Averbakh, for example, upon seeing that several of his opponent's moves are coming as a surprise to him, offers a draw, even when he stands better. It is known also that during the game there is a certain psychological interaction between the players. Thus in many cases a player feels quite strongly the nervousness and uncertainty of his opponent. This is most clearly seen when the game assumes an extremely tense character, say in mutual time-trouble, when for the players nothing in the world besides board and men exists, but when, in fact, the psychological interaction between them becomes particularly noticeable. Such a situation often occurs during 'blitz' games, for instance. One of the players blunders away a piece, but the other does not notice the blunder and goes on playing as if nothing had happened. The spectators cannot conceal their emotions and cannot keep silent, but upon the players themselves all their noise and laughter makes absolutely no im­ pression. But if the player who has blundered notices his error and registers this, say by holding his breath, his opponent in most cases senses the psychological change in his rival and discovers the blunder. What practical recommendations can be given to chess teachers for overcoming all these psychological difficulties? Let us consider first some methods of enhancing external resistance to disturbances which have been empirically tested through their adoption by outstanding chess­ players who have possessed the ability for intricate self-analysis and who have been capable of drawing important conclusions on the basis of this analysis. It is well known that enhanced sensitivity to noise is observed among chessplayers at those times when they are in bad sporting form, or as a result of the fatigue caused by an emotionally intense struggle. This is particularly manifest during the fourth or fifth hour of play. M. Botvinnik was very sensitive to noise. To overcome this weakness, he used a simple but effective technique. While preparing for chess tour­ naments, when he analysed variations or played training games he artifi­ cially created sound effects: he switched on the radio. In this way, he developed the ability not to notice noise during the game. A more important question is that of how to resist disturbances created by the opponent. In order to analyse this problem properly it is necessary to examine more closely the psychological interaction between chess­ players during the game. Not much attention has been given to this problem, although the regulations contain rules concerning the

200

V. B. MALKIN

behaviour ofthe opponents during the game. Naturally, these rules cannot fully embrace all the peculiarities of chessplayers' behaviour. For ex­ ample, the regulations have it that a player must not speak to his opponent or anybody else during the game. They do not state, however, that a player is not allowed to bring into the tournament hall various objects which will distract the opponent's attention from the game, or bring domestic animals in and walk them on the stage, or stare or smile at the opponent or read to his move with grimaces or physical gestures. These unethical actions very often distort the normal course of the game, and often lead to gross blunders being made. An interesting case was cited by F. Duz-Khotimirsky: 'Alapin liked to talk at the chessboard. In one of our games from the Prague international tournament of 1 908 the following position was reached (diagram 100) .

'In this winning position Alapin, while making his move I . . d2, exclaimed: " Soon your end will come!" 'After we played 2 Ra4 d I = Q 3 Ra5 I asked my talkative opponent: "Should I resign? Well, probably you will take the pawn on f3 . " 'Alapin looked at m e enquiringly and after ten minutes' thought he exclaimed: "Well, I'll take the pawn." He played 3 . . . Qxf3 ?, and after 4 Ra3 + he turned pale and became silent.' It is necessary to mention another kind of unethical behaviour: the habit of not resigning in hopeless positions. Ernest Hemingway wrote 'A man is not the one who is a good winner, but the one who is a good loser.' Some top-class chessplayers have not learnt how to lose, and it is prob­ ably due to this weakness that they often fail to achieve good results in sporting events. The position reached in diagram 1 0 1 in the game between grand­ masters Y. Balashov and M. Matulovic from the quarter-final match for the European Team Cup (Moscow, 1 979) . After 1 5 minutes' thinking, the Yugoslav grandmaster decided to continue the game and sealed his move, showing an absolute disrespect for himself and his opponent. It sometimes happens that having lost a game and being emotionally upset, a player suffers a great deal, cannot control his nerves and misbe.

V. B . MALKIN

20 1

haves towards his opponent. Such chessplayers are negatively affected by their losses and cannot play the next game well. Every chessplayer must devise his own methods for combating such a negative emotional charge, for bringing about rehabilitation of his emo­ tional and psychological state. This is extremely important, and, by way of example, we can mention no less a grandmaster than V. Smyslov. On the way to the World Championship he overcame a great weakness tendency to depression after a loss. We shall touch now upon the psychological approach to the op­ ponent's style of play. It should be noted that no matter how much the chessplayer is carried away by the game itself or says that in each position he tries to find only the optimal solution, as in mathematics, he is always to a greater or lesser extent a psychologist. Thus a chessplayer, according to whether he is playing against Smyslov, Bronstein or Tal, may in the same position often take different decisions taking into account the in­ dividual characteristics of his opponent: against Smyslov, who has fine endgame technique, he might avoid simplification, whereas against Bronstein or Tal, who are known as combinative players, he may try to simplify the position and to exchange more pieces. A chessplayer ought to take into account such individual characteristics. These characteristics can also be accounted for by the chessplayer's attitude to his opponent. Many years ago grandmaster Y. Averbakh, a young candidate master at that time, was playing against the well-known master I. Kan in the Moscow Championship. Having thought for about an hour, Averbakh offered a pawn sacrifice. He was somewhat excited and possibly alarmed when he made the interesting move. Kan, however, declined the sacri­ fice, almost without thinking. After the game A verbakh wanted to find out why Kan had avoided this continuation, and he demonstrated some interesting variations. Kan replied that he had simply believed his young opponent: he felt that A verbakh would not sacrifice a pawn for nothing. By declining the sacrifice, Kan made his choice of move much easier: his choice was based on the characteristics of his opponent rather than on those of the position on the board. Chess actually receded into the background. Such interac­ tion occurs in chess practice quite often. It is known that sometimes, especially in the case of a favourable turn of events, the chessplayer loses his nervous equilibrium - he may be overjoyed, and his opponent, if versed in chess psychology, may take advantage of the situation. To make your opponent lose emotional sta­ bility is to make him take the wrong decision. This task may be accom­ plished by taking advantage not only of negative emotional influences, but also of positive ones. One of the most spectacular examples is afforded by the Lasker-Ilyin­ Genevsky game, played in the Moscow international tournament of 1 9 2 5 . Ilyin-Genevsky, as he himself pointed out, was in good fighting

202

V. B. MALKIN

mood. Playing against Lasker, he got at least an equal position. He envisaged his strategic plan quite clearly, but suddenly Lasker made a mysterious queen move, and it was not clear whether he had sacrificed the queen or blundered it away. Ilyin-Genevsky captured the queen, giving up in exchange rook, bishop and pawn. Recollecting this episode, Ilyin-Genevsky wrote: 'In my game with Lasker, which I played on 19 November 1 92s in the Moscow interna­ tional tournament, the following position was reached after White's 1 3 th move.

'Instead of exchanging queens, Lasker unexpectedly played 1 3 . . . Qxa2 1 4 Ra1 Qxb2 I S Rfb 1 Qxb 1 + 1 6 Rxb 1 , exchanging his queen for rook, bishop and pawn. I have to confess that even now I don't under­ stand this combination, and agree with Bogoljubow who annotated this game that after the sacrifice Black has every chance oflosing. During the game, however, I thought that Lasker had simply blundered away the queen. The same opinion was shared by the other participants in the tournament, including Bogoljubow. Certainly I was excited. Yesterday I defeated Capablanca, and today I am winning against Lasker. Every­ thing is child's play to me now! And I began to play very fast. True, at that time I was in time-trouble . . . : 1 6 . . . Rfd8 17 C4 Ne8 1 8 f4 a6 1 9 Kh1 Nc7 20 Qe3 Rb8 21 Rd1 Nb4 22 Qc3 as 23 Ra1 b6 24 Qe3 ?? es and Lasker won the exchange and eventually the game. My last move was certainly a blunder, b ut in any case, by this time I had already spoilt my position. This is how excessive optimism is punished. ' After the game Lasker said that he had not blundered away the queen; the queen sacrifice was of a psychological character. What is the psychological key to this victory? What did Lasker hope to achieve by giving up the queen? First of all, his great experience indicated to him that many masters overestimated the queen's potential - they simply did not know how to play with the 'extra' queen. Second­ ly, they lost confidence in unfamiliar positions, and along with winning the queen these masters used to feel an emotional upsurge, so that it was difficult for them to find the right plan. This is just one of the methods worked out by Lasker on the basis of

V. B. MALKIN

203

his scientific discovery: a psychological approach to the chess struggle. While preparing for chess tournaments Lasker took into consideration the psychological idiosyncrasies of his future opponents. For many years his method remained an enigma for his opponents. They studied opening variations whereas Lasker studied people. In the course of the tournament he took decisions which seemed astonishing in purely chess terms, but which were quite justified psychologically . . . In order to maintain a good sporting form, it is important to develop a high degree of internal resistance to disturbances. During play the chessplayer should be totally absorbed in the game and all his troubles and misfortunes, cares and anxieties should not disturb him. To achieve this, one must organize one's tournament regime so that after a game all traces of the excitement felt during the game can be erased. After completion of a tense game, for example, despite fatigue, there arises a natural desire to analyse the game and go into a great many variations. This desire should to a certain extent be satisfied. For 20 or 30 minutes it is a good idea to consider some variations, analyse them, and in this way if possible to forget about the game for the time being. Otherwise, if the chessplayer does not do this, the game will inevitably remain in his subconscious. In this case he will not sleep normally; he will be haunted by the game, and he will be unable to play well the next day. Such internal distractions often arise after the adjournment, especially if there are a number of adjourned games to be played. Even if the chessplayer does not think about these games, still subconsciously he analyses them, which prevents him from playing the next game proper­ ly. The problems associated with psycho-physiological training aimed at enhancing internal resistance to disturbances have not been sufficiently studied. One thing, however, is clear: the solutions to these problems should always take into account the individual peculiarities of the chess­ player's psychological disposition. Mikhail Gromov, the outstanding Soviet pilot, wrote that if one wants to become a good pilot one must learn the art of self-control. These words may equally apply to chess and to every chessplayer.

E ST RI N T H E C H E S S P LAYE R

Y akov Borisovich Estrin, whose initiative and energy gave birth to this book, was not destined to see the appearance in print of the new English edition. On 2 February 1 987 a very serious illness, which had been undermining his organism for a long time, broke off the life of the remarkable grandmaster and outstanding chess writer. Estrin's books have been published in England, the USA, Denmark, the FRG, Spain, Italy, Bulgaria and Hungary. He can justly be called the plenipotentiary representative of Soviet chess literature. Y. Estrin's portrait has been sketched with profound feeling by M. Botvinnik. This brief memoir, which originally appeared in the mag­ azine 64, serves to complete a book which will undoubtedly enjoy, as will everything done by Estrin, a long and happy memory.

A MEMOIR B Y M . B OTVINNIK

Estrin was a lawyer b y training, but a chessplayer b y vocation. Estrin was interested in everything in chess: chess history and theory, funny episodes and scrupulous analyses, tournaments and chess pedagogics, lectures and simuls, books . . . He travelled a great deal and kept up an active corres­ pondence; he had many chess friends and amassed a large chess library. His enterprise knew no bounds. He invariably participated in interest­ ing chess events - for example, in 1 948 the 25-year-old Estrin didn't find it shameful to 'conduct' a brass band in Brest (when the participants of the World Championship match tournament were passing by there), and in the Hall of Columns he worked as a demonstrator. When on 9 May the cameramen wanted to shoot the decisive move b2-b4 which ensured that the world title went to a Soviet player, Estrin, being a demonstrator, offered his help at once (Botvinnik had already left . . . ) ! He was always ready t o help out in a n emergency. When difficulties arose concerning specialist chess studies at the Institute of Physical Cul­ ture, Estrin took charge of them. When the Moscow Region chess club faced difficult times, Estrin helped to find a director and the work went 204

V. B . MALKIN

205

on. When V AAP could not boast of publishing chess books abroad, Estrin found the authors and the publishers. He noticed that I seldom went on tours, and he organized my tours in the Krasnodarsk and Tyu­ men regions, Vladimir, Moldavia, the FRG . . . He performed a chess feat in becoming World Correspondence Champion. The final tournament of the Championship lasts three years, and besides, he had to go through the qualifying tournaments! Accom­ plishing this feat required quite a few years of his life. At the chessboard Yakov Borisovich was a bit old-fashioned. He liked lively, open positions, attacks and beautiful combinations. Here is part of a game he played in the 7th World Correspondence Championship, 1 972-5. 1 J Boey - Y Estrin

Quite a sharp position. Black's pieces are the more active, and White is behind in development. Black brings his remaining forces into play and launches an energetic attack. 23 . . . Rf8 24 Nc5 g5! The advance of this pawn destroys the White king's cover - Black does not baulk at material losses. 25 Nd7 Bg7. The bishop must be preserved. 26 Nxf8 g4 27 Be3 gxh3 28 Bc5 . Or 26 Ne6 hxg2 29 Kxg2 Qh2 + 30 Kf3 g2 and 3 1 . . . Qh3 + winning the knight. 28 . . . d4! Bringing the last reserve into action. This pawn decides the game. 29 Rael d3 30 Ne6. Or 30 Re8 hxg2 + 3 1 Kxg2 Qh2 + 32 Kf3 Qh5 + and 3 3 . . . Qxe8. 30 . . . Qh5 .

1

This game is published in full in the section 'Correspondence Chess' .

206

V. B. MALKIN

To be on the safe side, Black protects the e8 square, and threatens to clinch the issue after 3 r . . . d2 3 2 Rd r Qe2. 31 Ng5 h6. Now the loss of the piece is inevitable. 32 Nxh3 Qxc5. Black has both a material and a positional advantage. 33 Res + Kh7 34 Rd8 Bd4. Ensuring the further advance of the passed pawn. White tries in vain to activate his own passed pawn. 35 f5 d2 36 Rd7 + Kh8! Threatening 3 7 . . . Qcr , and White has no defence. 37 Rds + Kv 38f6+ Kf7 39 Rd7+ Ke6 40 Rxd4. (Or 40 f7 Kxd7) 40 . . . Qxd4 41 f7 Qd8, and White resigned. An elegant attack precisely conducted by Estrin - quite in his style. Every man has his strengths and weaknesses. The question is which of these prevail. But Estrin's weaknesses were harmless; they were not detrimental to anyone. For instance, he was always full of news, and without checking up, he willingly shared the news with his friends. Sometimes he saw life not as it is, but as he wanted it to be . . . In 1973, when we were in the FRG, he celebrated his fiftieth birthday in many cities, and upon his return to Moscow he went on celebrating for nearly a month! He just enjoyed life . . . Last autumn I hesitated for a long time - could I turn to Estrin with another request? He was already ill - was he as responsive as he used to be? I had to consult my friends Lothar Schmid and Hans Moyer (a Professor at Mannheim University) about a personal computer . . . and I don't know German. I asked Yakov Borisovich to call them, and he did so immediately. His illness did not tell on his personality. It is believed that in the process of life man grows accustomed to the idea of death. But Estrin's vivacious and joyful character defended him against gloomy misgivings. He called me from hospital asking about the computer. When I said that things were progressing, he was genuinely glad . . . Several days later the great chess enthusiast passed away.

INDEX OF OP PONENTS

Numbers in bold denote that the players in question had black Aarseth 1 80 Akshanov Alapin

200

l

20

Kasparov 72, 8 5 ,

55

178

Keres 64,

Kholodkevich

Balashov 200

Kieseritsky

Bardeleben

Knight

Benko

13

151

Borisenko Botvinnik

150

Larsen 1 3 4

205

l 82

64, 66, 99, 104, 1 14,

Brinck-Claussen

149,

Lasker 2 3 ,

202

Matulovic

200

105

Pachman Petrosian

Chigorin 3 8

Pire

31 Estrin 181 , 1 82 , 184, 187, 188, 190, 205

1 89,

41 180 Roizman 72 Reshevsky

Salwe

Spassky

124

l

108, 1 29, 134, 22, 38

13 6(2)

Steinitz 1 3 ,

Golovko 1 84 Gulko

31

Smyslov 99 , ro5

151

Gipslis ro5 Gorenstein

129

Rittner

Euwe 5 5

136 (2),

124,

Portisch 120

Eliskases

35

23

111 85, l 1 4 , 120,

Polugayevsky ro6

Duz-Khotimirsky 200

Fischer 4 1 ,

149

Morphy 20

Capablanca 3 l

Feldt

168

l57

Korchnoi

Bliimich Boey

162,

Kogan 1 8 8

Blackbume 22

40 1 87, 189,

20

36

168

162,

Karu 178

Alekhine 3 5, 36, 40, Anderssen 20,

157,

Karpov

50

8l

Tal ro4, ro5, Tarrasch

34

110

Holzhausen 34

Wade

Ilyin-Genevsky 202

Zhivtsov 66

207

106,

108, r r l

INDEX OF OPENINGS

Albin Counter-Gambit 1 7 8 Bogo-lndian Defence 8 5 Dutch Defence 5 5 Evans Gambit 3 8 French Defence 3 5 , 1 80 Giuoco Piano

I3

Griinfeld Defence 1 1 4, 1 24, 1 3 6 King's Gambit 20 King's Indian Defence 40, 99, 149 Larsen Attack 1 3 4 Nimzo-lndian Defence 64, 1 20, 1 50 Pirc Defence

I5

1

Queen's Gambit Declined r n 5 , 1 5 7 , 1 68, 1 8 1 Queen's Gambit, Semi-Slav Defence 3 6, 66 R..u y Lopez 29, 3 1 , 72 , 9 5 , 96, 1 8 7 , 190 Scotch Game 22 Sicilian Defence 20, 23, 4 1 , 1 29, 162 Two Knights Defence 34

208

ISBN 0-71%-5596-8

l|t

9 780713

655961