PRACTICAL iN ale U Ny in A Systematic Method For Analyzing Mark Buckley _ USCF Senior MasterPractical Chess Analysis A Systematic Method for Analyzing Mark Buckley, Senior Master THINKERS’ Press, INc. Davenport, Iowa ioePractical Chess Analysis Copyright © 1999 by Mark Buckley All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced nor transmitted in any form nor by any means, electronic nor mechanical, including photocopying and recording, nor by any information storage nor retrieval system, except as may be expressly permitted by the 1976 Copyright Act or in writ- ing from the publisher. Included in these reserved rights are publishing on the Internet or in annotated databases. Practical Chess Analysis First printing: June 1987 Second printing: November 1989 Third printing: February 1999 ISBN: 0-938650-88-2 Requests for permissions and republication rights should be addressed in writing to: Bob Long, Editor-in-Chief Thinkers’ Press, Inc. P.O, Box 8 Davenport, IA 52805-0008 USA phone: 319-884-4027 e-mail: [email protected] Practical Chess Analysis CONTENTS Methodology ... Instead of a Preface Introduction .... One Training The Mind's Eye Two Developing Your Intuition .... Three Preparing to Analyze .. Four Pawn Structure... Five Placement of the Pieces Six Open Lines .. Seven Attack and Defense .... Fight Endgame... 9 135 Nine The Maneuvering Game..... Ten Study Hints «0... Index ....Practical Chess Analysis Methodology O n occasion I have been asked to describe my study meth- ods, how I look at a particular position, and so on. In trying to convey useful answers to these questions, 1 come back again and again to method. For only with a workable technique can a player hope to improve his analysis — the approach must be applicable to any particular position. This book is the result of my wish to share what I have learned about chess analysis: how to see ahead, how to judge a position, how to study. I have tried my best to present the es- sentials, the heart of the matter, trusting that you may apply these suggestions and develop your own analytic tools. As a result, my explanations may seem a bit uneven: here, detailed notes, there, a terse hint. This is deliberate, to keep you thinking. Over the board you are self-sufficient and cannot rely on the opponent to query poor moves. The analytic punctuation appears only after the game. So look upon my omissions as your chance to forge ahead with your own analysis. Mark Buckley Practical Chess Analysis Instead of a Preface hen I took my first steps in chess, I had no thought of method or system. Everything was new, and it did not occur to me that a systematic approach to mastery would be needed. But later, out of need — I had meantime discovered I wasn’t quite World Champion — I began to search for order on the board. I found that more experienced players were either unwilling or unable to give me any clues to guiding my further steps. And chess books, while interesting, seemed increasingly general and lacking any information on proper thinking. The key to using the chess literature eluded me. My solution to this problem seemed reasonable enough at the time: to study everything that I misunderstood or disliked. The all-around master was my model. I reckoned that if some- thing was mysterious, I would unravel it; if it was unpleasant, I would learn to like it. Because I disliked endgames (leftovers!) I paid special at- tention to them, and soon, aiming for the better ending be- came my favored strategy. Other weak spots were attacked similarly, with more or less success. For instance, if an anno- tator claimed that a certain attacking line should win, I would try all defenses that seemed plausible, seeking to refute the master. Only after every resource was exhausted would I ad- mit the notes were correct. In this way I learned what underlay the published analy- sis. By my tackling the tough questions and correcting my own misconceptions, the game slowly revealed some of its secrets. I still use the same approach today to further strengthen my game.Practical Chess Analysis Introduction: What Is Analysis? A game from the 1962 USSR Championship: 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Qb6 8. Qd2 Qxb2 9. Rb1 Qa3 10. Bxf6 gxf6 11. Be2 Nc6 12. Rb3 Qa5 13. Nxc6 bxc6 14. £5 exf5 15. 0-0 Be6 16. Rb7 fxe4 17. Rxf6. White’s forces dominate the open lines, while the two miss- ing pawns are hardly felt. Black’s uncastled King and back- ward development quickly lead to the conclusion that a crush- ing blow must soon fall. 17... 0-0-0 18. Rfxf7 Bxf7 19. Rxf7 d5 20. Kh1 Kb8 21. Nxe4 Qxd2 22. Nxd2 Re8 23. Bxa6 Rel} 24. Nfl Bc5 25. g4 Rf8 26. Rxf8 Bxf8 27. Kg2 h6 28. Kf3 Bd6 29. Bd3 Ral 30. Ne3 Bxh2 31. NfS c5 32. Nxh6 c4 33. Bf5 d4 34. g5 Be5 35. g6 Rxa2 36. Nf7 Bg7 37. Nd6 d3 38. cxd3 ¢3 39. d4 Bxd4 40. Bb1 c2 41. Bxc2 Rxc2 42. Nf5 Bf6, 0-1. Practical Chess Analysis Surprisingly, the diagrammed position (from Novopashin— Korchnoi) favors Black, whose free development and active Queen are just enough to avert the attack and bring the mate- rial plus to bear. But only a clear analysis of the game, as op- posed to intuition, could discover in time that Black stood bet- ter and allow Korchnoi to aim for this position. What Is Analysis? Essentially, analysis is an evaluation of the prospects for both sides in a given position. This evaluation may range from point- ing out a winning one-move threat to detailed suggestions regarding lengthy and obscure complications. An analysis should indicate general strategies, plans for executing those strategies, and most important, tactical lines. In short, analy- sis points out who stands better and what should be done about it. In the example above, White chose a sharp attacking sys- tem but missed the moves 15. exf5 and 17. Qd4. By failing to unpin his Knight, White doomed his attack; his Rooks alone were not enough to win. After 15. exf5 Korchnoi gives 15... Qe5 16. 0-0 d5 17. Bd3 Bc5} 18. Kh1 Be6 with unclear com- plications. And instead of White’s 17. Rxf6, he suggests 17. Qd4 Qe5 18. Qb6 Qxc3 19. Rb&t Rxb8 20. Qxb8} Ke7 21. Qc7} Bd7 22. Bg4 Bh6 23. Bxd7 Kf8 24. Be8 Kxe8 25. Qc8t Ke7 26. Qxh8 with a slight plus for Black. Such involved cal- culations are typical of this gambit variation of the Sicilian Defense. You may also have noticed the inaccuracies in this endgame. Perhaps because of time pressure, Black’s 24th (he should play 24... c5) and White’s 32nd move (32. Ne7!) were errors. Situations in which an obvious advantage fails to win tend to puzzle us. Why didn’t White’s superior mobility triumph? How did the position differ from many others that White has won using this Poisoned Pawn line? The answer is everything depends on the specific setting. True, this is not a very useful answer, but for White’s attack to win, all of Black’s resources must be destroyed. And whenever the balance of power is fairly level in a sharp position, analysis becomes the only way to tell who stands better. In order to understand what is involved a -Practical Chess Analysis here, let’s look at the more general question of what makes a good player-analyst. Differences Between Experts And Novices Studies show that the great difference between experts and novices lies with their intuitive judgment, the knowledge they bring to the board. The master sees numerous strategic and tactical patterns that the beginner misses. For example, in the Benoni Defense Black would be loath to offer the exchange Bg7xNc3 without substantial compensation, because of the Bishop’s special value; in contrast, the exchange Bb4xNc3 of- ten favors Black in the Nimzo-Indian Defense. The difference is in the pawn structure, a major element in any positional evaluation. Experts are adept at just such pattern recognition. You may recall, as a beginner, the unlimited number of moves that seemed plausible at each turn. With experience, you learned to discard most of these moves because you knew that they were wrong. Similarly, a typical master player has con- tested a vast number of quick games (five-minute and the like) in addition to his serious tournament battles. This experience develops the intuition because many common problems are seen and solved repeatedly. Over time, scores of games may be played focusing on the same theme, so the master tends to think in terms of ideas well known to him. As Fischer wrote (My 60 Memorable Games), referring to a win against Larsen’s Sicilian Dragon played at Portoroz 1958: “I'd won dozens of skittles games in analogous posi- tions and had it down to a science: pry open the KR-file, sac, sac ... mate!” GUE YU a ge Practical Chess Analysis From the diagram, the attack crashed through as expected: 16. Bb3 Rc7 17. h4 Qb5 18. h5 Rfc8 19. hxg6 hxg6 20. g4 a5 21. g5 Nh5 22. Rxh5 gxh5 23. g6 e5 24. gxf7} Kf8 25. Be3 d5 26. exd5 Rxf7 27. d6 Rf6 28. Bg5 Qb7 29. Bxf6 Bxf6 30. d7 Rd8 31. Qd6}, 1-0. Thus, refinement takes precedence over originality. The modern master is eclectic, borrowing schemes and adapting them to his purpose. Among world-class players, Capablanca, Fine, Reshevsky, and Fischer all derived invaluable benefit from their speed-chess apprenticeships. They mastered the principles of sound chess through actual play. The essence of this immersion technique is in directly con- fronting specific problems. When the player fails to grasp a particular endgame stratagem today, and loses, he will surely get another chance tomorrow. Considering the limited num- ber of themes (as distinct from settings), the active player soon sees most everything several times. And each time a familiar situ- ation is repeated, the determined student tries to perfect his mastery. Ambitious players also seek out new problems to round out their game: the quiet position player attempts some wilder, tactical chess, for instance. Herein lies the difference between the would-be master and the enthusiast who con- centrates solely on positions he enjoys. To parallel the development of a player who uses the in- tense immersion technique — constant play and analysis — without matching the great investment of time, the reader can take on specific faults and correct them. For instance, sup- pose you suffer from time pressure; how would you cure this trouble? Well, you could try Botvinnik’s suggestion, playing practice clock games with the primary goal of reaching the time con- trol. The training would continue (says Botvinnik) until you managed your minutes efficiently and played at your usual level of skill. Perhaps this rather mechanical method would work, but it a:Practical Chess Analysis might well produce unpleasant side effects. Rushing your moves can lead to superficial judgment, carelessness, and lack of confidence — problems just as serious as time trouble. A more subtle technique would seek the underlying causes. Does the trouble stem from inadequate preparation, lack of prac- tice, indecision, or something else? Maybe deeper opening study would allow you to reach a familiar middlegame with- out delays; perhaps you wait for the clock to goad you into action. In any case, Botvinnik’s proposal implies that the stu- dent cannot discover these causes for himself, but must sim- ply exert his will in order to alter the result. Errors And Action My premise is that the aspiring player must find the causes of his errors and take action. Learning from experience is fine, and nec- essary, but it is also time-consuming and costs many points on the tournament table. By looking at your past efforts, you will definitely see that most errors fall into categories. Ran- dom blunder is not the main cause of defeat. For instance, do you remember how many games in which you entered the endgame by playing a careless waiting move? If the advantage seems to disappear in the ending, maybe the “beginning of the end” is to blame. Noting such a weakness may well save some valuable points. Applying our confront-the-problem method to the general analytic process, we aim to improve the basic skills of fore- sight and judgment. The ability to see ahead depends on the clarity of the image held by our mind’s eye. By practicing in the funda- mentals of calculation, this image can be strengthened step- by-step. The specific exercises will be fully explored in the following section, “Training the Mind’s Eye.” Judgment in chess obviously constitutes the core of analy- sis. Because intuitive judgment is too vast a subject to be tack- led in full, we try to sharpen our thinking by degrees. Over time, these specific studies coalesce to improve our overall judgment. Suppose you have just lost a game in which the two Bish- ops figured prominently, and you want to hone your technique 10 Practical Chess Analysis using these pieces (or fighting against them). Start by looking through books and magazines and find three or four games that illustrate the power of the Bishops. Most any positions featuring the Bishops can be analyzed, but games annotated by masters work best. Then you have a guide for your trek. The task is to answer all pertinent questions about the two- Bishop stratagem, examining not only what was played in the games, but all the important alternatives. Focus on moves that puzzle you, because your questions are the crucial ones for learning — even if the annotator fails to address them. We call this study of related games the typical- position method and cover it in Chapter 2. Schematic Thinking A third skill brings together your foresight and judgment: schematic thinking. Aim to see the game in terms of multi- move sequences and plans in conflict. For, after all, chess is a battle of ideas. For example, the stock combination against h7 (Bd3xh7}, Ng5t, Qh5) is a scheme. Though hackneyed, it appears as a unit. We merely check to see whether the sacri- fice is “on.” yy ama In the diagram (Schlechter—Wolf, Vienna 1894), White wins: 1. NgS fxgS 2. Bxh7+ Kxh7 3. hxg5t Kg8 4. Rh87 Kf7 5. Qh5t. Other plans can benefit from similar treatment. Moreover, haphazard jumping from one idea to another, a common fail- ing in analysis, is avoided when you think schematically. Schematic thinking also helps you decide in advance if an laces acrea at 11Practical Chess Analysis idea is sensible, long before you must commit yourself to a specific tactical line. For example, a point that you can attack twice, but which is guarded three times, is probably not a likely target in the absence of a concrete reason to the contrary. If you believe that special reason exists, proceed with the analy- sis — but with a substantially narrower scope for the search. A more detailed study of this topic is given in the section on schematics, starting with Chapter 7. 1: Training the Mind’s Eye What is the essence of a chess master’s art? Funda- mentally it consists of the ability to analyze chess po- sitions. — M.M. Botvinnik pa the most baffling question to the beginning chess player (and not only to him) is “how do you see ahead?” There is great mystery in a skill that enables the expert to clearly see a situation that is far different from the one on the board. Even more amazing is blindfold chess, played without even looking at a board. Clearly, foresight cannot be mastered by reading about it. Practice is needed. Because calculation hinges on our skill in holding the chessboard’s image, we must somehow sharpen our mind’s eye. If, for instance, during lengthy calculation your pieces begin to stray from their squares, you know the problem. Sup- pose the combination you contemplate appears successful in gaining material. Yet an unpleasant doubt arises: you are not sure that your King is safe from counterattack; the picture in your mind is not quite clear enough. So you face a dilemma. Do you gamble boldly, holding that fortune favors the brave, or do you retreat in the belief that chess is not poker? In ei- ther event, you are relying on guesswork rather than calcula- tion. And while such situations cannot be avoided entirely, the range of your vision can be extended. Know The Board In order to predict what may happen on the board, you must be familiar with the ranks, files, and diagonals that form the chess terrain. The name and color of each square shouldPractical Chess Analysis be known without recourse to the board — yes, literally memorized. Otherwise, during analysis you will not be cer- tain where the pieces can move. Too much time will be lost in merely finding legal moves to consider. Therefore, reliable foresight begins with knowing the most permanent feature of the game — the board. To simplify the task of memorization, take the board one quarter at a time, starting with the al corner. Look at the long diagonal, the squares al, b2, c3, and d4. Think of them as a unit. Adjacent to this line are the short diagonals a3-b4 and cl-d2. Note also the crossing diagonals, a3-b2-cl and a5-b4- c3-d2-el. The grid of dark squares can be reinforced in your mind if you conduct a Bishop’s tour of these squares. On an empty board, place an imaginary Bishop on cl and mentally play the piece successively to a3, b4, a5, c3, al, b2, and cl. With practice, the interconnection of the squares will become etched in your memory. Use the same method to memorize the light-square diagonals, the ranks, and files. Incidentally, the great blindfold expert George Koltanowski recommends this memorization technique to anyone interested in playing without sight of the board. The Clarity Of The Mind’s Eye Once the board is committed to memory, each square can be named, identified by color, and located on the lines inter- secting it. For example, c5 is a dark square at the intersection of the a3-f8 and a7-g1 diagonals. The coordinate notation des- ignates the ranks and files, so we know that c5 is on the c-file and fifth rank. In practice, the clarity of your mind’s eye should rival your direct eyesight, functionally if not visually. This means that connections are precise: you know without look- ing that a Bishop on c7 strikes h2 and not g2. Because tourna- ment rules prohibit moving the men for analysis, when you look ahead you are effectively playing blindfold. You can still refer to the board, of course, but the future position must be held just as firmly in mind. After the board, we naturally consider the pieces and how they move. The novice player learns how to make legal moves 14 Training the Mind's Eye and soon does not bother about such elementary matters. What more is there to learn about how the men move? Well, to see ahead you first need to know the squares to which a piece may move. In your mind’s eye, these possible moves must be as obvious as when the actual position is set on the board. These potential moves enliven the piece, giving it an “aura.” The aura refers to the array of squares available to the piece. Beginners’ books indicate these to show how the pieces move. For example, the King occupies the center of a nine-square array. A Rook on d4 produces an aura on the d-file and fourth rank. The aura is unaffected by obstructions. Think of the piece as if it were on an open board. Try to fuse the piece to its aura. The idea is simply that potential moves determine the value of any piece, and the aura comprises just those moves. In the next example (Portisch—Karpov, Moscow 1977), the black Queen move to g5, which seemed so unlikely a few turns earlier, shat- ters White’s peaceful encampment. 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 b6 3. Bg2 Bb7 4. 0-0 e6 5. d3 d5 6. Nbd2 Nbd7 7. Rel Bc5 8. c4 0-0 9. cxd5 exd5 10. Nb3 Bb4 11. Bd2 a5 12. Nbd4 Re8 13. Rel c5 14. Nf5 Nf8 15. d4 Ne4 16. dxc5 Nxd2 17. Nxd2 Qg5 18. Nd6 Bxd2 19. Nxb7 Bxel 20. Qxel Rxe2 21. Qxe2 Qxcl} 22. Qfl Qd2 23. cxb6 Rc8, 0-1. The blocked, well defended square g5 proved useful after all. The point to note is that such squares cannot be ignored simply because they are presently unavailable. Let’s exercise your analytic ability without moving the pieces. Set up the board as in the next diagram, and imagine the con- tinuation 33. gxfS gxf5 34. Nxf5. Determine who stands bet- ter and write down your variations, starting with Black’s 34th move. Try to fix the future position in mind, first removing the captured pieces and adjusting the auras of the pieces that move. Let each new position soak into your imagination.Practical Chess Analysis 200 The diagrammed position is a possible variant from an ex- hibition game Larsen—Fischer, Stockholm 1962. Black wins af- ter 33. gxf5 gxf5 34. Nxf5 Qb77 35. R3 Qxf3t 36. Qxf3 Rb1t. Notice in particular the easily missed opening of the g-file: the Rook’s aura bursts forth there. Accustom yourself to find- ing such nuances by taking every opportunity to solve pub- lished chess problems and quizzes, emphasizing speed when solving the easy ones. When studying annotated games, it is a good practice to examine all the notes at least twice: first, without moving the pieces, critically follow the analysis; second, play through the note to check the accuracy of the analysis and the clarity of your mental image. Compare what you imagined on the first pass to the board position as you play out the moves. Make note of what you failed to see. For instance, it is quite easy to miss horizontal Rook moves because we are accustomed to the Rook traveling vertically until it reaches the seventh or eighth ranks. Be Aware Of Faulty Thinking For maximum benefit after tournament games, retrace your thinking to check your analysis of the critical points. You may discover that you imagined nonexistent dangers or overlooked some sharp tactic. Always be alert to patterns of faulty thinking. As you look ahead, the image of the future position becomes increasingly vague and renders judgment difficult. To extend the range of your “radar,” look at the board position and re- ae —16 5 : Traming the Mind's Eye trace the sequence of moves to the forward position. At each move, trace the auras of all the significant pieces and pawns that figure in the battle. This process sharpens the vision by fixing in mind any changes that occur. You don’t as easily for- get which pieces have been captured or moved. Tracing the auras can also strengthen your awareness of tactical surprises. Blindfold players practice the reinforcement technique by replaying the game mentally. After each move while the game progresses, they replay the game from the first move in order to keep the image fresh and accurate. (With practice, these replays can actually take only a few seconds.) You can borrow this idea when you analyze: run through your intended line several times until your mind’s eye retains a clear picture of the future position. Over time, you will get clear images with only one or two tracings of the move sequence. Then you are able to confidently assess the position that follows your in- tended line. Exercise Your Mind’s Eye Begin exercising your mind’s eye with moderately difficult problems. Steadily build your strength — like the weight lifter who gradually increases the weight of the barbell. Calculation need not be many moves deep (although that helps), but it should be practiced frequently. Korchnoi, the foremost expo- nent of play by calculation, has said that he requires 100 games a year simply to maintain this skill. He also suggests you study chess books without using a board, doing all the analysis in your head — excellent practice if you are up to it. And if this regimen seems excessive, consider by what other means the skill of calculation can be learned. Why not practice during home study and casual games, then show your tournament opponents what you have achieved?Practical Chess Analysis ‘a To get a feel for what is involved in training the mind’s eye, let’s examine a line of play from the diagrammed position (Landau—Fine, Amsterdam 1936) after Black’s 24th move. Black is a pawn up and trying to rip open a path to White’s King. White has all his forces developed, including the King, while Black is still backward in this respect. Therefore, the first player may have some chances for counterplay against Fine’s King. The position is sharp. In order to improve your vision, you may like to try follow- ing the analysis without moving the pieces. On each move, carefully examine the new position, noting changes such as newly opened lines, captures, and piece movement. (Speed in calculation is not important yet.) When the changes are fixed in the mind, analyze the possible moves. General characteris- tics in the position should be used to find specific variations. Let’s now return to the diagram. Fine’s analysis begins: 25. fxe3 N2xe3. Now the R/d1 is attacked; White can respond by moving the Rook or taking (26. Bxg4). For simplicity we look only at the obvious capture 26. Nxe3. Black has two recaptures, with the Queen or the Knight. Taking the Knight move first, Fine gives 26... Nxe3 27. Rdel Qg5. Do you see the veiled threats, Q/g5 vs. K/d2, and R/gl vs. Q/g5? Concentrate on these auras. 28. Ne4. A surprising discovery. If your mind’s eye is out of focus, run through the move sequence again from the dia- gram: 25. fxe3 N2xe3 26, Nxe3 Nxe3 27. Rdel Qg5 28. Ne4. Black’s Queen is attacked by the R/gl and the N/e4. The = a 18 ee : Training the Mind's Eye Knight also threatens in some cases to land on f6, winning the exchange. Thus 28. Ne4 is logical in that it prepares the most dangerous attack. Retrace the auras of Black’s Q/g5 and N/e3 as well as White’s Rooks and Knight. The next move is hard to foresee: 28... Nf1i. The double check saves the Queen and removes the defense of the R/g1. There follows 29. Kd1. Now the configuration of pieces is: White — K/d1, B/e2, R/el, R/gl, N/e4, and unmoved, Q/c3, Ps/a3, b4, c5, d4, with the P/f2 and N/fl captured; Black — Q/g5, N/f1, and unmoved, K/g8, B/c8, R/e8, R/a8, Ps/a6, b7, c6, d5, g6 with the N/g2 and P/e3 captured. Such bookkeeping helps maintain a clear image when you analyze. White’s Rook hangs, so 29... Qxgl is natural (although as an additional exercise you might study 29... Ne3{ 30. Kel). Fine gives 30. Rxf1 with an “attack which is not so easy to meet.” Let’s see: the Q/g] is under fire from the R/f1; more- over White intends Nf6} winning back the Exchange. If nec- essary, run through the move sequence from the diagram again to refresh the image: 25. fxe3 N2xe3 26. Nxe3 Nxe3 27. Rdel Qg5 28. Ne4 Nfl} 29. Kd] Qxgl 30. Rxfl. Who Is Ahead In Material? Count up the material. It is vital to know at all times who is ahead. In the diagram, Black was a pawn up. Meanwhile, a pair of pawns have been traded along with a pair of horses (e3); and the black N/f1 has been lost for the R/g1. So Black is now the exchange and a pawn up. When many pieces have been cap- tured, it is easiest to keep in mind only the material imbal- ance. That is, as soon as a piece is recaptured, consider the material even. Don’t bother keeping the entire list of exchanges in your head. When one side gains material, note only how much he is ahead. Analysis Continues Until The Position Is Quiet In general, analysis continues until a quiet position is reached. Evaluation is difficult while pieces stand attacked (unless all the loose pieces are on one side). In our exercise, it Se 19 — aePractical Chess Analysis is Black’s move and he must apparently hasten the Queen to either g2 or h2. Check to see that these are the only available flight squares: f2 and h1 are guarded by the R/f1, e3 by the Queen, g3 and g5 by the Knight, and g4 by the Bishop. On the reply 30... Qh2 there can follow 31. Nf6t. If the King protects the R/e8, then the discovered check 32. Ng4 (unveiling the R/fl) wins the Queen. If 30... Qg2 31. Nf6} Kf7 32. Nxe8 Kxe8 33. Qe3} Qe4 34. Qxe4} dxe4 35. Rh1 with a winning bind. If the position is clear enough, see whether Black can escape. Let’s return to Black’s 30th move. To stop both of White’s threats, 31. Rxfl and 31. Nf6f, Black has the logical 30... Qxflt 31. Bxfl Rxe4 repelling the attack with a winning advantage. A nice resource that begs the question: Can’t White play 30. Nf6+ before taking Black’s N/fl? Returning to the diagram once more, let’s consider the al- ternate capture on Move 26: 25. fxe3 N2xe3 26. Nxe3 Qxe3}. This is simpler than 26... Nxe3 because it’s more forcing. Fine concludes with 27. Qxe3 Nxe3 28. Rdel Nf5 and writes, “Blacks remaining difficulties are purely technical.” Note that now the pawns on d5 and g6 restrict the dangerous N/g3- R/g] battery. Black’s scheme could run as follows: ...Nxg3- Bf5-Kg7, and after forcing off a pair of Rooks on the e- or h-files comes the advance of the g-pawn. What To Do When The Image Is Too Vague In the attempt to follow written notes blindfold, the pos- sible moves (auras) of all involved pieces should be constantly traced in order to fix each new position in mind. When the image is too vague, advance the board position one move to- ward the desired forward position to help you analyze. Before leaving the subject of mind’s-eye training, another exercise in following published analysis may be useful. In the next case, we trace the thought of Mikhail Tal (White) in his 6th match game versus Larsen in 1965. 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. Nf3 dxe5 5. Nxe5 e6 6. Qf3 Qf6 7. Qg3 h6 8. Nc3 Nb4 9. a 20 Training the Mind's Eye Bb5{ c6 10. Ba4 Nd7 11. 0-0 Nxe5 12. dxe5 Qg6 13. QF3 QF5 14. Qe2 Be7 15. a3 Nd5. The Danish grandmaster has played in his usual provoca- tive style, tempting Tal to attack. A deep combination is launched with 16. NbS. Strategically, this move redeploys the Knight so that 16... 0-0 is answered by 17. Nd4 Qh7 18. c4 Nb6 19. Bc2. Therefore, the main variation begins with 16... exb5 17. Qxb5}. Now we can reject both 17... Kf8 18. Qe8 mate and 17... Bd7 18. Qxd7+, mentally playing 17... Kd8. Tal wants to clear the d-file, so his next threat is 18. c4. The Knight can flee to b6, c7, or f4. (On 18... a6, 19. Qa5t b6 20. Qd2 regains the piece with continuing threats.) If the Knight alights on c7, 19. Rd1f wins outright. And 18... Nb6 19. Qa5 leads to: 1) 19... Bd7 20. Be3 Ke7 21. 5; 2) 19... Ke7 20. c5 Kb8 21. cxb6 axb6 22. Qb5 Ra5 23. Qb3. with good winning chances, according to Tal. Nevertheless, Larsen should have tried this last line. Instead, he gave back the piece at once (18... Qxe5), after which White’s attack broke through. Our interest lies in the line beginning 18... Nf4. The obvi- ous continuation is 19. Rd1}t Ke7. A little reflection will lead you to conclude that 20. Rd7} is the only follow-up: 20... Bxd7 21. Qxd7} Kb8 (21... See 21 EePractical Chess Analysis Kb6 22. Be3} mates) 22. Qxe7. So far we have the line 16. Nb5 cxb5 17. Qxb5} Kd8 18. c4 Nf4 19. Rd1} Kc7 20. Rd7} Bxd7 21. Qxd7+} Kb8 22. Qxe7. Now 23. Qd64 threatens, hence 22... Qxe5 is the answer. White wants his other pieces in play, and 23. Be3 presages 24. Rd1-d8}; for instance, 23... {6 24. Rd] Qc7 25. Rd7. Tal’s analysis continues 23... Ng6 24. Qxf7 Qf6. From the dia- gram we have this line: 16. Nb5 cxb5 17. Qxb5} Kd8 18. c4 Nf4 19. Rdl} Kc7 20. Rd7} Bxd7 21. Qxd7} Kb8 22. Qxe7 Qxe5 23. Be3 Ng6 24. Qxf7 Qf6. The forced nature of the position aids our analysis. White now has a serious problem. His Queen faces eviction (25. Qd7 Rd8). Tal’s foresight (he had to see all of this before venturing 16. Nb5) uncovered 25. Be8. Observe that the Q/f7 is defended, the N/g6 attacked, and on 25... Ne5 26. Bf4 White’s Queen guards the Bishop. The threats are 27. Qd7 and 27. Rel. Black cannot escape by trading Queens, the usual defensive procedure, because 25... Qxf7 26. Bxf7 Nf8 27. Bf4t Kc8 28. Rd1 entombs his pieces. And on 25... Ne7, 26. Rd1 (not 26. Bf4t e5) leads to a position in which the Bishops dominate Black’s Rooks and Knight. One can marvel at the analytic skill necessary to unearth 25. Be8 ten moves in ad- vance. Finally, Tal gives 25... Qe7 (25... Qd8 26. Qxg6 Rxe8 27. Qxg7) 26. Qxg6 Rxe8 (26... Qxe8 27. Qxg7 with a material plus positional advantage). 27. Bc5 (yet another beautiful point: 27... Qxc5 28. Qxe8t Qc8 29. QF7 Qxc4 30. Qxg7) Qd7 28. Bd6t Kc8 29. c5. Tal says that the Bishop is stronger than a Rook. The freeing attempt 29... b6 succumbs to 30. Qe4 Qb7 31. c6. After 29. c5, White need only add his Rook to the fray. Retracing The Combination Now retrace the combination’s main line from 16. Nb5 and assure yourself of its soundness. Try any defense that seems plausible and, without moving the pieces if possible, find the proper continuation for White. If the image becomes too vague, simply advance the position on the board until your mind’s Training the Mind's Eye eye can retain a clear picture. The ideal is to hold the entire tactical operation in mind just as we did earlier with the stock combination Bxh7+, Ng5t, and Qh5. When you finish with the mental analysis, play the moves out on the board to clarify any unresolved points. You will probably find a few oversights. Strengthening the foresight takes time, so don’t despair! If you are able to see that all the moves of the combination are legal and reasonable, that will be a good first step. The exercise’s main object is to force an extra effort. In learning to calculate several moves deep, the first task is to follow lengthy notes, mentally recording the moves (as in Tal—Larsen). Later, you can trace the annotations more criti- cally, examining lines not considered in the notes and trying out possible improvements. By using the written notes as a crutch, you can gradually take on more of the analytic burden until you are analyzing on your own. The benefit to over-the- board creativity is limited only by the effort you expend on improving your analytic skill. Before we close this chapter, let’s look at two practical tips to sharpen the tools of analysis. Probably all players have ex- perienced the unpleasant feeling that they “saw” a surprise move that they somehow did not stop to examine; they just let it pass by without a critical look, only later realizing what was missed. As someone once said, in genius we see our own rejected thoughts. Obviously Unplayable Moves A simple technique can catch some of these slippery fish. First, as you look at the position briefly consider only the most bizarre and surprising moves: sacrifices, pawn breaks, and other desirable but “obviously unplayable” moves. If it seems that your Knight would be active on f5, analyze the move even ifit cannot be correct. You can discover many interesting ideas using this technique. Just a quick glance, looking for this kind of move, is required.Practical Chess Analysis The Doublecheck Our second tip comes into play when you look ahead to- ward an intricate position. Slow down your thinking and give “normal” moves a momentary double check. Maybe you don’t need that last preparatory move before your combination be- gins, maybe a sharper move will work better. The alertness that comes from the extra check is well worth the few seconds invested. Remember: beautiful themes often lie quietly in the most tranquil settings, waiting for the patient player to dis- cover them. Don’t cheat yourself with hasty analysis. Training the Mind's Eye EXERCISES it WJ Question: After 19. Qh5 Q£5 how does White continue? Answer: From Alekhine’s notes to Alexander—Tylor, Notting- ham 1936: 19. Qh5 Qf5 20. Re5 Qg6 [Ed.: This facilitates White’s quick win. 20... Qh7 is more troublesome. Then, 21. Rxg5 f6! slows White.] 21. Rxg5 Qxh5 22. Nf6+ mates. Question: After 10. Ng5, does ...Bg4 refute the attack? Answer: From Alekhine—Léwenfisch, St. Petersburg 1914: No, 11. Nxf7 Rxf7 12. Qc4 (not 12. Bxf7+ Kxf7 13. Qc4t Be6é 14. Qxc6 Bd5) wins the Exchange.Practical Chess Analysis Question: Why didn’t Black play the simplifying 27... Ne7? Answer: From Smyslov—Letelier, Venice 1950: 28. Nxd5 Nxd5 29. Rxe6 Rxc5 30. Rxf6 Rxc3 (30... Nxf6 31. dxc5 Nd7 32. Kd3-c4) 31. Rd6 with a pawn. Question: Analyze 23. Nxf7 and 23. Nc4. Which is stronger? Answer: From Tal—Hiibner, Montreal 1979: If 23. Nxf7 e5! 24. Nxh8 exf4 25. Rxf4 Rd8 26. Re4 Qd7 27. Ng6 Qd5 regains one pawn with active pieces and no real weaknesses. The game went 23. Nc4! Ne8 (23... e5 24. Bxe5 Re6 25. Bxc7 Rxe2 26. Nb6#) 24. Rg4 Qe7 leaving Black’s pawns weak. 2: Developing Your Intuition When I am trying to find the best move, I just look at the position, trying to find a general idea. I fol- low my intuition. After that, when I think that this is the best move, I start to calculate variations. You must calculate and you must also use your intu- ition. — B. Spassky he planning process draws heavily on your experience. As you look at the board, you know what opening system was used, where the main theaters of action lie, and can without doubt name half a dozen general principles that might apply to your situation. The question is: how do experience and intuition evaluate ideas over the board? And how cana stronger intuition be developed? Pattern Recognition Is The Answer The answer is in learning to see patterns — landmarks — such as isolated pawns, misplaced pieces, and stock combina- tions. Pattern recognition is the heart of intuition. The pattern rep- resents something familiar, something already evaluated. Be- cause the experienced player has often already studied a simi- lar position to the one set before him, he largely knows what to do without much thinking. His judgment is sound; he re- fines and confirms, in most cases, what the pattern tells him. This experience saves time and effort over the board and lets the player concentrate on the position’s unique features. For instance, the standard procedure for coping with the oppo- nent’s backward pawn is common property: keep the pawn from advancing, pile up pressure on the file, then win the pawnPractical Chess Analysis or switch fronts before the defense can react. Or, as Nimzo- vich putit, “restrain, blockade, destroy.” Similarly, if you know a stock combination such as Black’s c3 Exchange sacrifice in the Sicilian (Rc8xNc3), your play is stronger, more confident should the opportunity for this attack arise. How Do You Develop Your Intuition? To develop your intuition, analyze typical positions from your favorite openings and middlegames, as well as from com- mon endings. By typical positions, I mean those which fea- ture clearly one or more themes that govern planning: iso- lated d-pawns, bad Bishops, offside Knights, weak Rooks, and so on. For each theme, study three or four games to improve your understanding of the problems that occur. Consider the group of games to embody a strategic idea. For example, studying several games featuring the well-known two-Bishop sacrifice (Bxh7}, Bxg7) will quickly show you why this attack is a stock combination. The prerequisites for its success become obvious. We divide these study positions into two categories: 1) the dynamically equal situations where there are chances for both sides, and 2) positions that are known to be advantageous. Studying equal positions benefits your theoretical knowl- edge, understanding of pawn structure, and awareness of likely combinations. Studying advantageous positions improves your technique of winning the won game. You discover how to make use of material and how to neutralize counterplay. Because the number of strategic themes is limited, you can study problems that will certainly occur in future games. (An analogous idea is found in sports when teams practice prede- termined plays for a later game.) A look at the games of Petro- sian suggests that he has thoroughly mastered the ending Rook + Knight versus Rook + Bishop, especially those cases in which the Knight is the stronger minor piece. Think of the comfort this knowledge gave him when planning the game. He could enter the ending confident that all its problems were Ss Op a Developing Your Intuition known to him. And, of course, this endgame was not the only one he knew profoundly, it was merely one of his favorites. In the opening, a player has a deceptively easy time using his experience. The accepted moves and strategy are often widely published. Large numbers of games, played and ana- lyzed by top masters, do wonders for the self-confidence. But this trust in the ideas of others can lead to trouble. You may very well leave the opening certain of your advantage, yet lack- ing any idea of how to proceed. So examine the openings you play in connection with the ensuing middlegame. Recognize that omniscient theory is no more than a haphazard collection of lightly annotated games. The following position you may know as stemming from the Dutch Defense, Leningrad variation. In this game (Tai- manov—Tal, USSR 1969), White characteristically plays to ex- ploit e6. 1. c4 6 2. g3 £5 3. d4 Bg7 4. Bg2 dé 5.d5 5 6. Nh3 Nf6 7. Nc3 Na6 8. 0-0 Nc7 9. Bd2 0-0 10. Qc2 Rb8 11. a4 Bd7 12. Nf4 a6 13. a5 Qe8 14. Rb1 b5 15. axb6 Rxb6 16. b3 Rb8. VS Oe The game resembles a King’s Indian except for the advanced f-pawn. A typical struggle has arisen over the value of this advance: is Black’s extra control of e4 worth the weakening of 6? The continuation will confirm that Black has lost the battle here. On the queenside, Tal tried 14... b5 to create a weakness on c4 and open the b-file. This plan was frustrated because 13. a5 and 15. axbé6 indirectly guarded c4; thereafter the b3- —Practical Chess Analysis pawn was easily protected. A standoff in this sector meant that White could turn his attention to the center, where the primary target lay. Looking at the diagram, we see that an advance and ex- change of White’s e-pawn will clear the e-file and expose the backward pawn. The f5-pawn does not halt e2-e4, and a po- tential counterattack in the center is limited to ...e7-e6. But that push simply lays bare new targets after d5xe6. Hence Tal must remain quiet in the center. Finally, no serious plans come to mind for Black on the king- side. For instance, chasing White’s Knight with ...g6-g5 sim- ply increases the strength of the inevitable break e2-e4. Tal is left with the slender hope that Taimanov’s gradual prepara- tions and the remoteness of e6 might allow time for defense. Therefore, White has a free hand to set up the decisive blow. So what should Tal have done to avoid these problems? Other than choosing the Nimzo-Indian (his solid defense), he could have created a more reliable Dutch setup by reserving the c-pawn to pressure White’s center (c7-c6). By keeping the front fluid, Tal could distract attention from e6. A standard posi- tion is shown in the next diagram; White must play resolutely to maintain a slight initiative. Compare this to Tal’s rigid plan, in which he clarified the center and allowed Taimanov to se- cure the queenside. White was able to direct the gravity of the battle to the cen- ter, where he held the advantage. Especially important to White’s smooth development was the Knight on f4. Tal was so impressed by this maneuver that he subsequently avoided See 30 — ae Developing Your Intuition the Dutch fianchetto unless Ng1-f3 had already been played. Chief Differences In Positions Conclusion: The positions of Black’s c-pawn and White’s King Knight form the chief difference between the two diagrams, between a playable defense and disaster. When you study typi- cal positions, look for these crucial (and often subtle) differ- ences amid the obvious similarities. Study the concrete plans you might consider were you facing the same situation over the board. Understanding the source of each advantage is your oal. i: Returning to Taimanov—Tal, the remainder of the game sees imaginative tactical play from Taimanov in converting his po- sitional plus into material gain. 17. e4 e5 18. dxe6 Nxe6 19. Nxe6 Qxe6 20. Rbel Kh8 21. Bh3 Ng4 22. Nd5 Bd4 23. Bc3 Bxc3 24. exf5 Qxel 25. Rxel Bxel 26. Bxg4 Kg8 27. Qb2 Bxf5 28. Bxf5 gxf5 29. Nf6t Kg7 30. Nd7} and 1-0 in 44 moves. Depending on the depth of your preparation, a typical posi- tion from an opening may occur after (say) 10 or 15 moves. Better preparation pushes back the point at which concrete variations give way to general planning. At the highest levels, the endgames which might plausibly arise from openings are subject to intense study. For example, in preparing for the 1963 World Championship, Tigran Petrosian analyzed an end- game flowing from a Griinfeld variation Botvinnik was known to favor. That very ending appeared in Game 5 and brought Petrosian victory. Look Carefully At Book Verdicts To begin your own study, simply examine a point where your favorite opening monograph renders its verdict: +—, —+, ¥, £, or = (assuming there is anything left to analyze). Try to turn the promised advantage into something mate- rial. Or see if you can convert the opponent’s plus into oePractical Chess Analysis nothing. Work out specific plans. Look especially at those moves the book recommends hesitantly, citing many alter- natives. At those points you can find effective continuations that take the opponent into uncharted territory. If you challenge the book lines and test a few of them in quick games with a friend, you will familiarize yourself with the problems of the opening. Realize that merely memorizing the opening lines produces a brittle style easily upset by nonbook moves. Be thankful such a style is commonplace. A position typical of the Ruy Lopez, Open Variation, is found below. Not being sharp or critical, the position illustrates the opening all the clearer. White has a spatial plus (e5) and chances to dominate the dark squares (d4, c5); Black has fine development and queenside prospects if he can advance his c-pawn. Black to move considers two ideas: YD Black to move. 1) immediate queenside play with 12... Na5, and 2) bolstering the center with 12... Qd7. White naturally opposes any attempt to equalize. He can try to pressure d5 by 13. Rad] or attack h7 via 13. Bc2 and 14. Qd3. The h7 threat would encourage g7-g6 in reply, and the dark squares then might prove weak (Bg5 or Bh6). More subtle, after Black’s 12... Qd7, is the immediate exchange of Bishops with 13. Bg5 — subtle because no time is lost provoking g7-g6. Counterplay would have less time to develop. Let’s look at some specific lines. Developing Your Intuition 1) 12... Na5 13. Bc2 Nc4 (interesting is ...c5 14. Bh6) 14. Qd3 g6 15. Bh6 Re8 16. Qd4 f6. Black exchanges on e5 and seems to weather the attack. A position to be tested (e.g., 15... Nxb2 16. Qe2 Re8 17. Nd4). 2) 12... Na5 13. Nd4 Nc4 14. Bxc4 dxc4 15. f4 Bd7 16. f5 c5 17. £6 cxd4 18. Bxd4 Re8 19. fxe7 Qxe7. This position is ap- parently equal, though White’s 20. Rf3 poses some problems. Black can defend with 20... Rac8, intending ...Rc6-g6. 3) 12... Qd7 13. Rad] Rad8 14. Qd3 Rfe8 15. Rfel g6 16. Bg5 Na5 17. Bfé Nxb3 18. axb3 Bg4. Again the balance is not disturbed, and a characteristic late middlegame appears. 4) 12... Qd7 13. Bg5 Rad8 14. Rfel Rfe8 15. Nd4 Nad 16. Bxe7 Qxe7 17. f4 c5 18. Nxe6 Nxb3 19. axb3 Qxe6. In this line, the kingside pressure was nicely neutralized by the queenside expansion. By concentrating on what happens when the adversaries clash, the opening as a whole is clarified. One analytic session with several typical positions from an opening gives an excel- lent grasp of the tactical problems likely to arise in the game. In the example above, the positions following the four lines are the points of departure. Together they constitute typical positions that stem from the last diagram. The important point to remember is that comparisons must be made; otherwise, the typical position or positions become merely individual games unrelated to any specific theme or variation. A careful analysis of any position means knowing the past moves and the future possibilities: the position is simply a snapshot of an ongoing process. Landmarks such as bad Bish- ops or weak pawns are important only in that they suggest and shape future actions. These actions determine who stands better. In the last example, the “weak” square c5 should have beck- oned White. But just try finding a way to exploit that square. Not easy. On the other hand, White’s kingside chances may initially appear somewhat abstract. They become concrete if you analyze more deeply the first suggested line. When examining selected positions related to a certain theme, you refine your intuition because you actually see what = 33 oe =.Practical Chess Analysis typical advantages mean and how to exploit them. (Study of typical positions is a shortcut to general strategic understanding.) In an analogous way, most endgame books contain little more than analysis of typical endings. The player interested in find- ing where he went wrong looks up the appropriate chapter (say, Two Bishops v. Bishop & Knight) to discover the general plan to follow. The next time a similar ending arises, he knows what to do. The same approach can be applied to other phases of the game — the difference is that middlegames have not been catalogued like the ending; you must create your own catalog. Specific Landmarks The second kind of typical position involves one or more specific landmarks. These may include weak pawns or squares, misplaced pieces, passed pawns, and spatial advantages. The next example, from Smyslov—Denker, USSR—USA 1946, serves to clarify some of the mysteries of backward pawns and bad Bishops. 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. d3 e6 6. Be3 Nd4 7. Nce2 d6 8. c3 Nc6 9. d4 cxd4 10. Nxd4 Nxd4 11. Bxd4 e5 12. Be3 Ne7 13. Ne2 0-0 14. 0-0 Be6 15. Qd2 Qc7 16. Rfcl f5 17. c4 fxe4 18. Nc3 Nf5 19. Nxe4 Nxe3 20. eo h6 21. Rdl Rfd8 22. Racl Rac8 23. b3 6. a ORG Te o*a® a Smyslov’s first thought was probably, “Can I win the back- a Y A at See a oe Developing Your Intuition ward d-pawn?” No subtlety is required to find White's plan, a pile-up with the Rooks. Therefore: 1) 24. Rd3 d5 is a feeble “try”; 2) 24. Rc3 Rd7 25. Red3 Rcd8 26. Qd2 Bf5 27. Rxd6 Rxd6 28. Nxd6 Kh7 precludes a saving check on d5 and prepares ...Bf8 winning the wayward horse. So the direct attack fails. What next? Well, the pawn struc- ture fairly begs White to trade light-squared Bishops. d6 would be even weaker (no nettlesome threats to the Knight), and without hope of ...d6-d5 Black would be quite passive. Thus 24. Nc3 is a natural move, intending 25. Bd5 forcing off the Bishops. If Black resists the trade by 24... Kh7, the white Bishop goes to e4. Smyslov indicates two plans after 24. Nc3 Kh7 25. Be4 26. h4 with h4-h5 soon to come, and 26. Nb5 followed by 27. Qd3. In both cases, White combines threats to the kingside and center. Returning to the position in the diagram, Black has scant hope of avoiding the exchange of Bishops. Thereafter, he would be tied to d6 and unable to offer resistance to further pressure such as h4-h5 or c4-c5. To sidestep this throttling, Denker attempted counterattack, surrendering the d6-pawn for some freedom. Smyslov thus found himself in a well-known situa- tion: having lost the positional battle, the opponent sacrifices something, reluctantly turning the game into a sort of gambit. 24. Nc3 Qe7 25. Bd5 Kh7 26. Bxe6 Qxe6 27. Rd3 Rc7 28. Rcd1 Rf7 29. Ne4 Bf8 30. Rd5 Qgt. hse J, _ eR Wk £Y 35 ——_______..Practical Chess Analysis Again the d-pawn is dead but won’t lie down. | don’t think you will have much trouble refuting 31. Nxd6. Smyslov actu- ally played 31. R1d3 and gives the possible defense 31... Qe6 32. Qd2 Rfd7 33. c5 bxc5 34. Nxc5. As stated before, Denker has already decided on counterattack as the best chance, and he made a quiet move, 31... Be7, preparing ...Rdf8. Now White had to calculate whether taking the pawn would grant too much counterplay. If so, Smyslov would have to maneuver further, perhaps inflicting another weakness on Black (for in- stance, a4-a5) or driving back the active Queen (say, Kg2 and h2-h3). There is no sense in capturing a pawn if the opponent gets enough play to cloud the issue. Let’s now analyze the problem facing Smyslov: 32. Nxd6 Bxd6 — this time there is no choice — 33. Rxd6. Black can now play 33... Rdf8 or 33... Rxd6. The second line is simpler, we look at it first: 33... Rxd6 34. Rxd6; now 34... Qf5 35. Kg2 and 34... e4 35. Qd4 are clear. So Black must play 33... Rdf8, attacking f2. Smyslov can try the direct defense 34. Rd2 or the aggressive 34. Qxe5, intending to maintain the initiative. The reply must be (34. Qxe5) 34... Rxf2. Then comes 35. Rd7} R(either)f7 36. Rxf7+ Rxf7 37. Rd8 aiming for mate. Does Black have a check? No, White’s King is safe. Black must try 37... g5 or 37... Rg7. The first allows 38. Qh8} Kg6 39. Rd6t Kf5 40. Qc8t. The second defense is more stubborn: (37... Rg7) 38. Qe8 g5 39. Qh8} Kg6 40. Rd6+ Kf7 41. Qxh6. Now look carefully. (Try to analyze this second position in your mind’s eye with your chessboard set before White’s 32nd move. The sequence is 32. Nxd6 Bxd6 33. Rxd6 Rdf8 34. Qxe5 Rxf2 35. Rd7} (R)f7 36. Rxf7} Rxf7 37. Rd8 Rg7 38. Qe8 g5 39. Qh8t Kg6 40. Rd6+ Kf7 41. Qxh6.) Black must defend with 41... Qf5. Now the obvious 42. Qh5} Ke7 43. Rd is not so easy after 43... Rf7. But 42. Rdl Qc5} 43. Kg2 is fine. The checks are ended, and the second wave of attack can be prepared. All seems in order; the pawn can be taken. 32. Nxd6 Bxd6 33. Rxd6 Rdf8 34. Qxe5 Rxf2 35. Rd7} RE7 (cither Rook) 36. Rxf7} Rxf7 37. Developing Your Intuition Rd8 Rg7 38. Qe8 g5 39. Qh8t Kg6 40. Rd6+ K£7 41. Qxh6 QF5 42. Rdl Qc5t 43. Kg2 Qe7 44. Rf1} Kg8 45. Q£6 Qes. TTS ‘wey J Ok White must regroup his pieces to win. Extra material does not eliminate the need for planning, so Smyslov decides to put his Rook on e2 and Queen at e4. This setup defends the white King (especially along the a8-h1 diagonal) and allows threats such as Qd5j and Qe8+. Observe how Smyslov achieves his ideal configuration. 46. Qf5 g4 47. Rf2 Qe7 48. Qd3 Rg5 49. Re2 Qf8 50. Qe4 Rg7 51. Qd5+ QF7 52. Re6, 1-0. Black has not a single decent move — zugzwang. A Straightforward Method for Comparative Study We now examine some typical positions and a straightfor- ward method for comparative study. The following position, typical of the Semi-Tarrasch Defense, portrays White’s classi- cal development —a broad pawn center and centralized Rooks. Such a position in general form may also arise from other Queen’s Gambit variations.Practical Chess Analysis The center pawns will advance, creating kingside attacking chances or a passed pawn. Black’s prospects are longer term: his swift deployment aims to repel the attack, and his queenside majority can advance. Because the attackers are so active, the defender must play precisely in such positions — usually he knows before the game which plan he will try. So we will consider the diagram favorable to White even if theory claims equality. Our study therefore focuses on White’s plan. The tempo of attack (whether directed centrally or kingside) depends on the opponent's counterplay. If the defender can- not undertake anything, the attack may proceed slowly; oth- erwise, no time can be lost. Black’s Knight is heading for c4. Ideally for Black, this piece leads the queenside counterplay while covering e3 and e5. And if Bxc4 is played, simplification reassures Black’s King. Black would like to play 16... Nc4 17. Qf4 Nb2 18. Rd2 Nxd3 19. Rxd3 Rc2. White gains nothing on 16... Nc4 17. Qe2 b5. If White fails to attack with his impressive forces, a few exchanges will grant Black a comfortable game. A look at the defender’s plan gives White an idea of the limited time for preparing the attack. Let’s consider first White’s kingside chances. His Bishop, Queen, and Knight must bear on the target; hence, the e-pawn will advance. There are two means: e4-e5 directly, and d4-d5, e6xd5, e4-e5. The virtues of the pawn sacrifice include deny- ing d5 to Black, preventing Bb7xNf3, weakening f5, clearing d4, and opening the e-pawn’s path. It’s time for specific lines: Developing Your Intuition 1) 16. e5 Bxf3 17. gxf3 Nc4 18. Bxc4 Rxc4 19. d5 exd5 20. Qxd5 Qg5t 21. Kh] Re2 is fine for Black; 2) 16. d5 exd5 17. e5, and now: a) 17... h6 18. Nd4 (intending Nf5, e5-e6, or QF4) Nc4 19. Qf4 Qg5 defends — so sharper is 17... h6 18. Qf4 Nc4 19. Q£5 g6 20. Qh3 Kg7 21. e6. Compare 18. Nd4 and 18. Qf4 for a practical definition of “sharper.” b) 17... Ne4 18. Qf4 Nb2. Now 19. Rd2 is spine- less: 19... Nxd3 20. Rxd3 Rc4. 19. Bxh77 is the only way to test White’s setup. 19... Kxh7 20. Ng5{ Kgé6 (else 21. Qh4-h7 wins) 21. h4. Black can oppose the threat 22. h5t with: * 21... £6 22. h5¢ Kxh5 23. g4t Kh6 24. Qh2t Kg6 25. Qh5#. * 21... f5 22. Rd4 Rh8 23. g4 Qf8 24. h5t. * 21... Re4 with lasting complications. We follow the game Polugaevsky—Tal, USSR 1969. 22. h5} Kh6 (22... Kxh5 23. g4} Kh6 24. Qh2t) 23. Nxf7} Kh7 24. Qf5} Kg8 25. e6 QF6 26. Qxf6 gxf6 27. Rd2 (27. Ndé is probably bet- ter) Re6 (on 27... Rb4, 28. a3 angles for 29. Rd4-g4) 28. Rxb2 Re (here 28... Bc8 29. Nh6t Kh7 30. Nf5 Rxe6 31. Rc] is only slightly better) 29. Nh6+ Kh7 30. Nf5 Rcxe6 31. Rxe6 Rxe6 32. Rc2 Rc6 33. Re2 Bc8 34. Re7}+ Kh8 35. Nh4 f5 36. Ng6} Kg8 37. Rxa7, 1-0. Clearly, the latter stages of this combinative attack are hardly calculable from the diagram; the continuation must be esti- mated or prepared beforehand. Knowing Polugaevsky’s pen- chant for deep opening study, one must suspect he laid a snare 39 —__ —Practical Chess Analysis for Tal. The foregoing analysis of the diagrammed position is natu- rally not exhaustive. The 19. Bxh7+ combination contains many pitfalls and will repay study, especially in connection with the next game. Similar in strategy to the first game is Keres—Fine, Ostend 1937. The Estonian recommends 18. e5, with three branches: 1) 18... Nd5 19. Ng5 h6 20. Ne4 Nc3 (else 21. Nd6 or 21. Rd3) 21. Nfot; 2) 18... Bxf3 19. exf6 Bxd1 20. Qg5 Kf8 21. Qxg7t Ke8 22. Rxe6t; 3) 18... Nd7 19. Ng5 Nf8 20. Ne4 Bxe4 21. Qxe4 with advantage. Black can’t force a Queen trade and must allow d4-d5 in conjunction with f4-f5 or kingside Rook lift. Black’s queenside advance is too slow and his Knight is passive. Instead, the game continued 18. Re3 b5 19. Rlel a5 (19... h6!) 20. a& b4 (after 24... bxa4 21. Bxa4 h6 Black has a plus, ie., if 22. h3 then White’s long prepared for kingside attack is halted and Black can advance on the queenside: 22... Rb8 [intends ...Ba6/Ba8 and ...Rb4]. If 23. 94 Qf4 or 23. e5 Nd5 24. Re4 Ne7! [24... Nc3 25. Re is risky] 25. Rg4 Nf> defends while hitting d4. If White doesn’t attack, Black ad- vances the a-pawn later.) 21. d5 exd5 22. e5 (deja vu) Nd7 (Keres gives 22... Ne4 23. e6 fxe6 [Black should consider 23... f5!? as he isn’t lost yet MB] 24. Rxe4 dxe4 25. Ng5 Qc3 26. Bxe6} Kf8 27. Rfl as winning. However, White’s mate after SS ee Developing Your Intuition 27... Rb8 is not evident while Black’s b-pawn favors him in any ending.) 23. Ng5 Nf8 (On 23... h6 24. e6 hxg5 25. exf7t Kxf7 26. Re7f Keres gives two continuations: t After 26. Re7} (analysis) 1) 26... Kg6 27. Qd4 Qc3 28. Bc2+ [Ed.: Keres’ analytical (intuitive?) powers at times can be amazing. As proof, a possible con- tinuation: 28... Kh5 29. Qd1f g4 30. h3! Re4! 31. hxg47 Rxg4 32. R1e3 Qd4! 33. Rd3! and soon to mate.]; 2) 26... Kg8 27. Qxg5 Qc3 28. h4 Qf6 29. Bxd5t Bxd5 30. Qxd5f Kh8 31. Rxd7. [But, Black improves with 28... Rc5 so White should play 28. Bxd5¢ with at least a draw.—MB]) 24. Nxh7 Nxh7 25. Rh3 Qel 26. Qxh7+ Kf8 27. Re3 d4 28. Qh8t Ke7 29. Qxg7 Rf8 30. QFE} Ke8 31. e6 (now 31... dxe3 32. exf7{ Rxf7 33. Bxf7+ Kd7 34. Qe67), 1-0. Apply Selective Study To Any Group Of Positions Together, these games and notes give a good picture of White’s attacking chances in the Semi-Tarrasch. They also demonstrate kingside attacking techniques in general. You can apply the method of selective study to any group of positions. Find a problem that puzzles you, then collect a few similar specimens and analyze them as a group. Simply seeing the games together tends to reinforce your understanding of the themes in question. Before leaving this Semi-Tarrasch study, let’s not forget —— 4) ——Practical Chess Analysis White’s alternate strategy, the creation of a passed pawn. Rather than provide detailed analysis, we merely note the clas- sic instance of this plan, Spassky—Petrosian, Game 5, 1969. 1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. d4c5 5. cxd5 Nxd5 6. e4 Nxc3 7. bxe3 cxd4 8. cxd4 Bb4} 9. Bd2 Bxd2} 10. Qxd2 0-0 11. Bc4 Nc6 12. 0-0 b6 13. Rad1 Bb7 14. Rfel Rc8 15. d5 exd5 16. Bxd5 Na5 17. Qf4 Qc7 18. Qf5 Bxd5 (18... h6) 19. exd5 Qe2 (19... Nb7) 20. Qf4 Qxa2 21. dé Red8 22. d7 Qc4 23. QF5 h6 24. Rel Qa6 25. Rc7 b5 26. Nd4 Qb6 27. Rc8 Nb7 (27... a6 28. Re8 Qxd4 29. Rxf8} Rxf8 30. Rxf8t Kxf8 31. Qc5¥) 28. Nc6 Nd6 29. Nxd8 Nxf5 30. Nc6, 1-0. Look For Unique Tactical Elements In Each Attack Analogous games (see Alekhine—Euwe, 1937 in the supple- mental section) are readily available and have instructional value. These games differ markedly in execution, yet are stra- tegically similar. Study the unique tactical elements in each attack; the next time a roughly equivalent position confronts you, workable plans more readily spring to mind. The most practical study centers on typical positions from your opening repertory. If you find attack burdensome, ana- lyze thoroughly several attacking games featuring your favor- ite system. Test every defense that you think might refute the attacks. Leave no question unanswered. Afterwards, the com- binations will seem more coherent, more convincing. Deepen Your Attacking Technique If you fancy yourself an attacking wizard, try your hand at defending against the systems you favor. Find games in which the defender repels your pet attack. This uncompromising approach can only deepen your attacking technique — or force you to change systems! The study of endings can follow a procedure similar to that shown above. You gather examples of the theme or technique you want to examine and analyze them as a group. The next ee SS Se — Developing Your Intuition two examples concern the exploitation of an endgame weak- ness, a weak pawn. In both cases, Black has a vulnerable pawn on c5 and White maneuvers to increase the pressure. Note the preventive tacking that allows White to maintain his edge while he gains new advantages. Example 1: Alekhine—Zvetcoff, Buenos Aires 1939. VY) White’s formal assets include the more active Rook and Bishop as well as an obvious pawn target. The general plan begins with restraint of Black’s pieces (tethering them to c5) and pawns (preventing the formation f5, e5). 24. Rd1 Ke7 25. Na5 Be5 26. Rd3 Rc7 (26... Bxb2 27. Rb3 results in swapping the b-pawn for the a- pawn: bad business for Black) 27. Rb3 Nd7 28. f4 Bd6 29. Kf2 Nb6 30. Kf3 Kd7 31. Rd3 Ke7 (Black must watch for the combinative breakthrough b3-b4, c5xb4, c4-c5. Alexander gives 32. b4, but 32... cxb4 33. Rxd6 Kxd6 34. c5} Kd5 is good for Black. Ale- khine blocks the kingside before striking.) 32. g4 £6 33. h4 Na4 34. Rb3 Nb6 35. Rb5 Kd7 36. h5 Ke7 37. a3 (Now White protects the c-pawn with his King and renews the attack on a7 and c5 by bringing the Knight around to b5. Observe the inflexibility of Black’s forces in their attempts to guard the pawns. In particular, the Bishop cannot reach a more useful de- fensive square, b6.) Kd7 38. Ke4 Ke7 39. Kd3 Kd7 40. Nb3 Na4 41. Nd2 Kc6 42. b3 Nb6 43. Ne4 43Practical Chess Analysis Nd7 44. Ra5 Be7 45. Nc3 Rb7 46. Nb5 Kb6 47. b4 a6 48. Nc3 Kc7 49. Rxa6 cxb4 50. Nb5} Kd8 51. axb4 Bxb4 52. Rxe6 Bc5 53. Bd2 Nf8 (As an exercise, find and analyze the threat that forced this dismal retreat.) 54. Re6 Nd7 55. Ke4 Ke7 56. Kd5 Bgl 57. Bb4} Kd8 58. Ke6, 1-0. Example 2: Korchnoi—Karpov, Game 29, 1978. Y ay R7 ED LG GY , YG. Vi EY y. This ending holds some similarity to Alekhine—Zvetcoff. The significant differences lie in the kingside pawn array and the less active role for White’s Rook. Korchnoi therefore plays to open the kingside enough to mobilize his Rook. Black should not lose, although the defensive task is beset with difficulty, chiefly that there is no counterplay. 28. Kf2 Ke8 29. Ke2 g6 30. Nc3 a6 (Note the relative security of Black’s pawns in contrast to the pre- vious game.) 31. Na4 Rc6 32. Rh1 Bd6 33. Bf2 Nd7 34. g4 (The only reasonable pawn break; pre- paring b3-b4 would merely lead to the exchange of Black’s weakling.) hxg4 35. Rh8} Ke7 36. fxg4 g5 37. Be3 f6 38. Nc3 Kf7 39. Rh7} Ke8 40. Ne4 Be7 41. Rh6 (Probably more effective was the immediate 41. Bd2 [R. Keene] with the idea of tying the opposing minor pieces to f6 so that a later Rh8t cannot be parried by ...Nf8. In such a case, the Rook would reach its preferred square a7 without allowing the enemy Knight to settle on e5.) Kf7 42. Rh7} K£8 Developing Your Intuition 43. Rh8} Kf7 44. Bd2 (According to Keene, 44. Ra8 Ne5 45. Ra7 Ke8 46. Nf2 f5 47. Bd2 Bf6 48. Ba5 Nd7 is probably tenable for Black. So Korchnoi tacks about some more, hoping to provoke Karpov into weakening himself.) Nf8 45. Rh1 Kg6 46. Rdl f5 47. Nf2 Bd6 48. Bc3 Nd7 49. gxf5} exf5 50. g4 Nb6 51. Kf3 Be7 52. Ba5 Rf6 53. Kg2 fxg4 54. Nxg4 Re6 55. Kf3 Bf6 56. Nxf6 (Else the Bishop goes to d4.) Rxf6t 57. Kg4 Nc8 58. Bd8 Rf4} 59. Kg3 Rf£5 60. a4 (White is handicapped by having a Bishop of the “wrong” color for his Rook pawn. Black can sim- plify to a position of B+RP and still draw.) Kf€7 61. Rd3 Re5 62. Kg4 Kg6 63. a5 Re4} 64. Kf3 Rf47 (Keene gives 64... Kf5 65. Bxg5 Na7 and 65. Rd5} Re5S as drawing. Now the Knight never gets free.) 65. Ke3 Rh4 66. Rd5 Rh3} 67. Kd2 Rxb3 68. Rxc5 Rb8 69. Rc6} Kf5 70. Rxa6 g4 71. Rf6} Ke4 72. Be7 Rb2} 73. Kc3 Rb7 74. Bh2 Rh7 75. Bb8 Rb7 76. Bg3 Rb1 77. Rf4} Ke3 78. Rf8 Ne7 79. a6, 1-0. So Karpov need not have lost. The strain was just too much, apparently. Comparing both games once again, the importance of White’s active Rook becomes clear. Who would have thought the b3-pawn (in Korchnoi—Karpov) could reduce White’s winning chances? But when you consider Alekhine’s maneu- ver in the other game, such a difference is almost obvious. Simply playing through a series of similar games helps you understand them; closer analysis brings many subtleties to light. Typical Positions, Experience, and Planning As already mentioned, the endgame books contain typical positions from the main categories: Rook and Pawn, Bishop versus Knight, and so on. Over the board, knowledge of basic endings determines in part the depth of your planning. For instance, a novice knowing that two Bishops can force mate 45 ——Practical Chess Analysis might mistakenly play for the drawn position K+2N versus K. Admittedly primitive, this example makes the point: unless you know what is advantageous (especially where exchanges irrevocably alter the balance) in the ending, your planning is vague and hesitant. To give a more positive instance of endgame knowledge, let’s turn to the famous game Botvinnik—Fischer, Varna 1962. The World Champion is aware that the basic ending R+2 Rook pawns versus Rook is generally a draw if one pawn is blocked by the defender’s King and the other is attacked from behind. Hence Botvinnik’s problem is to destroy the b-pawn. 52. h5 Ra3} 53. Kg2 gxh5 54. Rg5t Kd6 55. Rxb5 h4 56. f4 Kc6 57. Rb8 h3} 58. Kh2 a5 59. £5 Kc7 60. Rb5 Kd6 61. £6 Ke6 62. Rb6+ Kf7 63. Ra6 Kg6 64. Rc6 a4 65. Ra6 Kf7 66. Rc6 Rd3 67. Ra6 a3 68. Kgl, 1/2-1/2.* Consider for a moment the confusion White would have faced if he lacked basic endgame knowledge. He would have had to either guess which setup of pawns was best or rely solely on over-the-board calculation. Neither choice is appeal- ing because of the uncertainty. No, in such endings, experi- ence and theoretical study must be used with calculation to ensure success. * [Ed. Note: Further information about Geller’s input and Botvinnik’s thoughts may be found in Botvinnik’s Achieving the Aim.] SS ag Developing Your Intuition Facing Smyslov (Black) in the 1951 USSR Championship, Keres relies on his experience to reach a winning position. He over- looks a sharp chance to dispatch Smysloy, but this error high- lights the value of intuition and knowledge: knowing the simple endgame is won, Keres steers “unerringly” for it, ig- noring, because of time pressure, some quicker, more compli- cated solutions. Black’s plan aims for a light-square Bishop ending that is won because White’s queenside pawns are weak and Black’s King can invade. The procedure is straightforward and sche- matic. First, by attacking the queenside pawns he ties down the enemy Bishop. Second, his King advances to the center. Third, after effecting a pawn exchange on the kingside, Black puts White in zugzwang. Fourth, the King invades on the flank, winning material. Again, the winning scheme for Black is commonly known. His problem over the board is twofold: 1) can the book endgame be reached? 2) is the ending really won using the standard scheme? For instance, even if the white Bishop can be tied down, the whole plan is useless if Black’s King is un- able to break through. Keres must see the entire process be- fore trading down to the endgame. In the diagram, 30... c5 wins for Black. Keres gives: 1) 31. Bxf6 Relf 32. Kh2 (32. Kg2 Ne3t) Rxd1 33. Bxd1 Qd2; 2) 31. Bb2 Relf 32. Rxel Qxelf 33. Kg2 Bd3 34. g4 Ne3t 35. Kh2 g5. Instead, the previously described ending arose. 47Practical Chess Analysis 30... Rel} 31. Rxel Qxel} 32. Kh2 (32. Kg2 Qd2) b6 (Again, 32... c5 33. Bxc5 b6 34. Bd4 Qd2 is faster.) 33. Qf4 c5 34. Be3 Nxe3 35. Qxe3 Qxe3 36. fxe3 Bb1 37. a3 a5 38. Bdl Kg6 39. Kg2 Kf5 40. Kf3 Ke5 (White can only move his King. Black intends “phase three,” the pawn-roll ...g5, ...5, ...f4, opening the royal road to d4 and f4.) 41. a4 g5 42. Ke2 Bf5 43. g4 Bbl 44. Kf3 f5 45. gxf5 Kxf5 46. Kf2 Be4 47. Kg3 Kg6 48. Kf2 (Keres notes 48. h4 h5 49. Kh3 Bd3 50. Kg3 with ...Bf5 zug- zwang.) h5 49. Kg3 h4} 50. Kf2 Bf5 51. Kg2 Kf6 52. Kh2 Ke6 (Now 53. Kg2 Ke5 54. Kh2 Bb1 55. Kg2 Ke4 56. Kf2 Kd3 wins, so ...), 0-1. Now retrace Black’s reasoning from the diagram and try to foresee the basic endgame. The idea is analogous to the tacti- cal tracing we did earlier; try to hold Black’s strategic line of play in mind. To summarize this chapter: Intuition develops from repeated experiences. Learning from those experiences and drawing correct conclusions helps re- fine your judgment. In order to concentrate and accelerate this refinement, learn to focus on specific problems that obstruct your progress. Set a definite goal for each study session. Mas- ter a particular attacking technique or study the situations that favor the isolated Queen’s pawn, for instance. After you explore the position, look at it again to see how your strategic judgment has changed. A thorough analysis should have pro- duced a fresher, more accurate impression of the position. 3: Preparing to Analyze In the art of chess, there are no unalterable laws gov- erning the struggle which are appropriate to every position; otherwise, chess would lose its attractive- ness and eternal character. — Vassily Smyslov Ams has certain prerequisites. We have already cov- ered two vital skills (in outline) that precede any calcula- tion at the board — foresight and judgment. Two other tech- niques are explained in this chapter: 1) how to avoid vague thinking and play by general principles, and 2) how to order your search for moves, beginning with the sharpest ideas, to swiftly reach the heart of a position. The first section, Linking the General and the Specific, examines the relation between specific variations and the gen- eral principles that describe a position. The idea is to encour- age a critical analysis of unsupported assumptions, delaying your final judgment when necessary until the evidence arrives. Our second section, The Threat Hierarchy, proposes a tech- nique for looking at the most significant themes. Essentially, this guideline suggests that you search for the strongest con- ceivable threats to gauge the relative sharpness of the posi- tion. Experience shows that it’s easier to first refute over-sharp plans before proceeding to analyze “natural” ideas. Linking the General and the Specific In the diagrammed position (Lilienthal—Boleslavsky, USSR 1941), White has just played 17. d5-d6. In notes to similar games we read comments such as “this pawn cuts Black’sPractical Chess Analysis position in two” or “White’s pawn thrust smothers the oppo- nent.” With statements like these, the annotators summarize their positional judgment. Rather than present lengthy variations as proof (which for many reasons is often difficult), they merely indicate conclusions. Serious readers then know where to in- vestigate, casual readers know what is happening, and editors Save space. Let’s now see the game continuation: 17... Qa5 (17... Qc6 18. Ne5 Qxa4 19. d7 Nxd7 20. Be7 Qb5 21. Nxf7 Re8 22. Nd6) 18. Qxc4 Bd7 19. Qh4 Bc6 20. Bb4 QF5 21. Nd4 Qd5 22. Nxc6 Qxc6 23. Ra3 a5 24. Be3 (24. Rg3 Ne4 25. Rh3 h6) Ne8 25. Bxa5 Rxd6 with advantage to Black. White has weak pawns and no attack. 26. Bb4 Rd7 27. Bc3 Rad8 28. h3 Rdl 29. Ral Rxflj 30. Rxfl Rc8 31. Bd2 Nf6 32. a5 Qd5 33. Qb4 h6 (33... Rxc2 34. a6) 34. Rb1 Ne4 35. Be3 Nd6 36. Qa4 Ne4 37. Bb6 Rc6 38. c3 f5 39. Rd1 Qe5 40. Rb1 (40. Qb4) Qxc3 41. Bd8 Nd2 42. Rd1 Qd3 43. Bb6 Rc4 44. Qal f4 45. Kh2 Kh7 46. Rel Re4 47. Rxe4 Qxe4 48. a6 bxa6 49. Qxa6 Qb1 50. g4, 0-1. A confusing game. In his annotations, Mikhail Botvinnik mentioned no major improvements for White. Apparently, the strong pawn conferred no advantage. So White’s bind never -- —— —— ~—50 Preparmg to Analyze existed? To answer this riddle, we must look into the relation- ship between particular chess positions and the generaliza- tions used to describe them. Many things are happening in the diagrammed position above. Starting with points favoring White, we list an advanced pawn, lead in development, and capture on c4 restoring mate- rial equality. Black’s assets include a compact pawn position and pawn targets (a4, c2) in the ending. The analyst must weigh these compensating advantages to determine which are most important. In the first parenthetical note (beginning 17... Qc6 18. Ne5), Black attempts to avoid the weak a4-pawn at once. The re- sulting line demonstrates White’s potential: the lead in development and the advanced pawn combine to refute 17... Qc6. Instead, Boleslavsky chose to catch up in development. Lilienthal regained the pawn, but remained with no attack. He was forced to exchange his active Knight and enter an in- ferior endgame. Finally, only Black’s structural plusses were left. In keeping with the prime tenet of positional play, Boleslavsky maintained those elements favorable to himself while neutralizing those useful to the opponent. Returning to the opening comments about the strength of d6, we see that Black wasn’t cut in half. His game was nicely coordinated, not smothered. Fairly simple analysis revealed the inaccuracy of these offhand conclusions. Yet a grandmas- ter misread the position, overestimating the strength of the pawn. (To be fair, Botvinnik’s notes indicate that the dia- grammed position does favor Black.) The problem of valuation centers on the linkage of specific variations with generalizations. Perhaps Lilienthal assumed that he could build up a kingside attack before Black’s rein- forcements arrived. Perhaps in his calculations he overlooked something. Whatever the cause, the point is clear: the only sure way to verify a generalization is to examine the lines that support it. The next game is a clear example of general play met with sharp tactics (Hiibner—Korchnoi, Solingen 1973): 51Practical Chess Analysis 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 96 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. g3 Bg7 6. Bg2 e5 7. 0-0 Ne7 8. d3 Nbc6 9. Bd2 0-0 10. Rcl Nd4 11. Nxd4 exd4 12. Ne4 h6 13. Qb3. Ye RA White starts a thematic queenside attack. He has open lines and several active pieces in that sector — promising a mild initiative at least. Korchnoi replied 13... b6, an extraordinar- ily provocative move based on a simple idea. Try to find the point of this move before proceeding. Obviously Hiibner thought that his Queen, g2-Bishop, and Knight (Ne4-c5) converging on b7 would force a passive move like 13... 6. We have all seen similar attacks succeed; but here, the “weakness” simply moves! Korchnoi calculated and found that White’s general scheme had a flaw — the Queen is un- safe on b3: 1) 14. Nf6+ Bxf6 15. Bxa8 Be6 16. Qa3 Qxa8 and the N/e7 cannot be touched; 2) 14. Nc5 bxc5 15. Bxa8 Be6 with ...Qxa8 to follow. The alert reader will note there are no quiet Knight moves on White’s 14th; the Knight must be sacrificed to get at the Rook. Black’s strategy with 13... b6 (actually starting a little ear- lier) is to repel the spurious attack while gaining space queen- side. Then his development is easy, and further advances are possible. The game continued: 14. Qc4 c6 15. Bb4 Bd7 16. Qa6 c5 17. Ba3 anes 52 - _ Preparing to Analyze Bc8 18. Qa4 a5 19. Qc2 (Mission accomplished?) Nd5 20. Rcel Re8 21. b3 Ra7 (The Rook is finally persuaded to move, not from fear but in search of op- portunity) 22. Bb2 Rae7 23. Qd1 f5 24. Nd2 b5 25. Bxd5} Qxd5 26. £3 a4 and Black won in 72 moves. Korchnoi evidently discovered 13... b6 because he noticed that his Queen could be unmasked if the c8-Bishop moved with sufficient threat; Bc8-e6 attacked the Queen, giving White no time to save his Bishop. It only remained for Korchnoi to examine possible counterthreats such as 16. Qa3-17. Qxe7 and determine their inadequacy. Only after finding this last point could one confidently state “White’s Queen is unsafe,” as if the fact were obvious. When annotators give general conclusions without accom- panying analysis, the reader is often misled: it appears that intuitive judgment alone solved the problem. The truth is that the generalization is probably the result of some tactical analysis — assuming that the annotations are done compe- tently. Following exploration of the tactics, the commentator looks for a common thread that links them, using phrases such as “the Knight is misplaced” or “the pawn is weak.” With the position solved, a bare-bones assessment is all the reader may get. In practical play, many planning decisions begin with a gen- eral idea which is then corroborated with specific lines. Your intuition suggests a move, and you analyze it. If you are writ- ing annotations, the phrase “Black is lost” may be the only part of the analysis that gets printed. In any case, failure to procure the tactical evidence can easily result in vigorous de- fense of an unsound strategy. An interesting dispute arose around the evaluation of the following position (Euwe—Smyslov, World Championship 1948):