Technical Decision

Making in Chess
by

Boris Gelfand
with invaluable help from Jacob Aagaard

Quality Chess
www.qualitychess.co.uk
 Contents
Key to Symbols used & Bibliography 4
Publisher’s Foreword 5
Introduction 7

1 Akiba Showing the Way 13

2 Turning Points 29
3 Passive or Active Defence? 59
4 A Bad Plan is Better than No Plan 77
5 Long Games with Increment 95
6 When is the Right Time to Run? 127
7 Choosing the Right Transformations 159
8 Karjakin 181
9 Stalemate 197
10 Stalemated 235
11 The Relevance of Endgame Studies 265
12 Geometry 279
13 Endings with Opposite Coloured Bishops 299

Name Index 318

Game Index 320
Publisher’s Foreword
This is the third book Boris Gelfand and I have written together. Like the two previous books,
Boris and I would debate the games over Skype. I would record the conversations and continue
to analyse the games on my own, to see if I found any additional details. I would then return the
games to Boris, fully annotated, and he would make further corrections. We then showed many
of the examples to our students, who came up with many interesting suggestions. This is the case
even more so with Decision Making in Major Piece Endings, which is published simultaneously
with this volume. We would like to thank our students for their contributions.

The authors would also like to thank Alexander Huzman for his great contribution and discoveries.
Throughout the book, including in the index, you will find him referred to either as Huzman or
simply as Alex – he deserves to be mentioned twice!

Alex distinctly unimpressed – St Petersburg 2018

6 Boris Gelfand – Technical Decision Making in Chess

This book also includes a small collection of photos. We would like to thank the photographers
who allowed us to use their work. Their kindness and friendship is deeply appreciated; credits are
given on page 2.

At the beginning of every chapter we have placed up to eight diagrams that will give you the
chance to “think along” with Boris and the other players. These are not exercises in the traditional
sense, so they will not always have a clear and single path to success. If you feel that the later text
about these positions does not answer all your questions, this is an excellent chance to go deeper
and analyse the position for yourself to learn even more. These chances should never be missed.

Endgame books are usually not big sellers, and there are many club players who find endgames
boring. I tend to believe this is because they are struggling to understand what to look for in
them. My general thinking is that everything in life is interesting if you dive deep into the subject.
Maybe with the exception of cleaning...
We hope that this book will spread the fascination we feel for this area of chess, which in our
opinion is no less rich than any of the others. It just takes a bit of extra effort to access.

This book and Decision Making in Major Piece Endings have been a long time in the making. The
first game in this book was originally analysed by us in 2014. There are many reasons for this.
First of all, we are both busy with many other commitments. Then these books were particularly
challenging to write. The analysis of the endings was at times excruciating. And then this analysis
had to be presented in a context where it made sense to the reader. (Hopefully, we did not
completely fail on that part). But the main obstacle was this co-author’s entirely. This seems like a
good moment to thank Boris for his support, understanding and patience over the last few years.
I hope the books were worth the wait.

Jacob Aagaard
Glasgow, August 2020
Introduction
I have always liked endgames. When I was young I was especially fond of rook endings and studied
them over several periods of my childhood, first with Eduard Zelkind, who was my trainer from
age 6 to 11. He was a very strong local player at the time, but did not have opportunities to play
in strong tournaments. Thus, he reached his peak rating of 2325 in 1996, at the age of 54, by
which time he was living in the US.

I have many vivid memories of Zelkind explaining various rook endgame positions to me. For
example, with three pawns each on the kingside and an a-pawn.
Also, he showed me many pawn endgames. Most of which I cannot remember accurately, of
course, but there are still small images in my head, as of the end of the following game:

Robert Wade – Viktor Korchnoi

Buenos Aires 1960

Ç    
Æ   
Å   
Ä 
Ã  
Â   
Á    
À    

ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ
White won the game after 38.a5!. I remembered it as if Wade had missed the win, but the
position I recognized immediately.

The inspiration from my favourite player, Akiba Rubinstein’s handling of the endgame is obvious
and has stayed strong with me for more than four decades. We will talk a bit about this in
Chapter 1 where we shall see one of his less famous games.

This is the third volume in this series on decision making, with Positional Decision Making in Chess
and Dynamic Decision Making in Chess preceding it and with the fourth volume, Decision Making
8 Boris Gelfand – Technical Decision Making in Chess

in Major Piece Endings, accompanying it. The I know that a lot of other players have found
goal of this series is to give the improving player, 100 Endgames You Must Know by Jesus de la
as well as the average chess fan, a look into the Villa helpful. From the kindness people have
decision process of a grandmaster. In this book shown me based on the first two books of this
we shall cover positions of a technical nature. series, I have grown to appreciate the wisdom
This is a somewhat obtuse term, so we have of the reader and am happy to pass on this
decided to bend it according to the material, recommendation, even though I have not
rather than stick too rigidly to one definition. personally looked at this book yet.
However, a definition we do have, which is: I strongly recommend that the reader consult
positions where the main goal is the conversion these volumes and choose his own selection of
of a static advantage. (A static or long-term positions and ideas to memorize. Relying on
advantage can be anything from weaknesses to a single source will be risky and none of the
better pieces to an actual material advantage.) books eclipse all of the others.
The flip side is included in this, meaning when
it is the opponent who is trying to convert an While we have allowed the material to dictate
advantage and we are trying to resist. the structure of the book, rather than finding
There is often a focus on the endgame when material that fits in with chosen themes, it still
talking about technical play, but this is not makes sense to me to go through some of the
necessarily the case when discussing a technical main themes of this book to ensure that the
approach to a position. Although we mainly reader will recognize them when he encounters
have focused on the endgame in these books. them later.
Where we have allowed ourselves to bend
the theme and title a bit are in situations where Decision making vs analysis
dynamics is used as a defence against technical
play. For example, in the chapters on stalemate. There are many ways of improving in chess.
The most popular ones are working on
I want to state clearly to any potential and openings and solving exercises. Far less
actual readers that this book is not an popular, but equally important, is analysing
instructional manual. The goal of it is not games to understand them on a deep level. It is
to deliver a general theory of technical play. especially important to do this with your own
There are plenty of good books published games. How are we supposed to improve our
that cover this subject. My own favourites decision making if we do not understand when
include Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual by Mark it was flawed?
Dvoretsky and Endgame Strategy by Mikhail Still, it is my impression that a lot of young
Shereshevsky, but they are by no means the players, many of them now rated higher than
only good books out there. Other popular me, will maybe just look at the evaluations of
books include Excelling at Technical Chess the engine briefly after the game, to see if they
and Grandmaster Preparation – Endgame missed anything of importance.
Play by my co-author Jacob Aagaard, and a It seems to me that computers have made
number of books by the always interesting deep analysis easier – and at the same time less
German endgame specialist, Karsten Mueller. likely to happen. When I was growing up we
I specifically found some positions from had to find everything on our own and would
Understanding Rook Endgames, co-written with analyse our games at length with our coaches,
Yakov Konoval, fascinating. opponents and friends.
 Chapter 10 – Stalemated 237

Vidit Gujrathi – Boris Gelfand 

Poikovsky 2018
Ç 
Æ 
This game was played against a young Å  
rising Indian star in the 19th edition of the
tournament held yearly in celebration of Ä    
Anatoly Karpov. It is amazing that they have à   
managed to keep a tournament going in the
middle of Siberia for so long, and can in
Â   
this way be compared to the Wijk aan Zee Á  
tournament, which is held in a Dutch seaside
village and has an even greater tradition.
À  
This was the first time I played in Poikovsky. ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ
It was one of the strongest fields yet in the 8.d4
tournament and I was very excited to play, Strangely, this move is the less popular
especially with a great mix of young and option.
experienced players. In the end I shared
2nd-3rd place with Nepomniachtchi, half a After 8.h3 I played a lot of games with 8...d5
point behind Jakovenko. This was half a point and 8...f5, with a lot of dynamic play.
ahead of Vidit, so this game can be said to have Even 8...c4 is interesting, intending to
been crucial for my good finish. sacrifice the pawn for dynamics. For example,
9.£a4 ¦b8 10.£xc4 d5 with big complications
Vidit is a strong player as you will see in Oparin – Dubov, Moscow 2018. Stockfish,
in the game. He has a classical style and who does not know about psychological
good technique, like his friend and I think pressure and does not make tactical mistakes,
sometimes analytical partner Anish Giri. Not thinks White is better. In practice things are
many players add to opening theory in a less obvious. Dubov won the game.
consistent way, but Vidit is one of them.
8...cxd4 9.cxd4 d5 10.e5 f6
1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 g6 4.¥xc6 bxc6 
This is how I prefer to play this position.
Ç 
4...dxc6 is of course perfectly playable, and can Æ   
also be considered safer.
Å  
5.0–0 ¥g7 6.¦e1 ¤h6 ­­ Ä   
Most people became aware of this move
when Boris Spassky played it in his match
à    
against Fischer in 1992. However, Dautov had Â   
already played it a year earlier. Á  
7.c3 0–0 À  
ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ
238 Boris Gelfand – Technical Decision Making in Chess

11.£c2!?

This was Vidit’s innovation for this game. It Ç  
was an interesting way to pose new problems. Æ   
The idea is prophylactic, preventing Black Å  
from taking control of the e5-square, as is the Ä   
main plan. Ã    
I had some previous experience in this line: Â   
11.exf6 exf6 12.¤bd2 ¦e8 13.¤b3 ¤f7 Á  
 À    
Ç ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ
Æ   20...£e2! 21.£xe2 ¦xe2
Black was better in Inarkiev – Gelfand,
Å   Magas (rapid) 2016.
Ä   
à     
Â   Ç 
Á   Æ   
À    Å  
ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ Ä   
14.¤c5?!
This move allows Black to seize the initiative, Ã    
forcing White to find some defensive moves. Â   
14.h3 was more prudent, when the chances
are probably balanced. Á 
14...¥g4! À   
Stockfish running for long enough pretends
that the position is equal. It would be more
ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ
11...¥g4
prudent to say that accurate play would have
The key idea behind Vidit’s novelty comes
allowed White to keep the balance.
after 11...fxe5 12.¥xh6! (12.¤xe5 ¤g4! would
15.¦xe8† £xe8 16.h3
work out for Black. The key line is 13.£xc6
16.¥e3!?
¥xe5! 14.dxe5 e6 with the threats ...£h4
16...¥xf3 17.£xf3 £e1† 18.¢h2 ¤g5 19.£e3
and ...¤xf2. The rook on a8 is not hanging,
19.£g4 £xf2 20.¥xg5 fxg5 21.£e6† ¢h8
as White has no time to take it. White would
22.£xc6 would have kept the balance,
thus be relegated to a desperate and probably
something that is not easy to verify during
unsuccessful defence.) 12...¥xh6 13.¤xe5
the game. For example: 22...¦g8 23.¤e6
¥xd4 24.¤xd4 £xd4 25.¦d1! gives a lot
of counterplay – or a perpetual. To both see
this and trust it is not without difficulty.
19...¦e8 20.¥d2
 Chapter 10 – Stalemated 239

 14.hxg4 ¤xg4

Ç 
Æ    
Å   Ç  
Ä    Æ   
à     Å  
Â     Ä   
Á 
À    Ã   
ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ Â   
This position would favour White. Black has Á 
a lot of weaknesses and no clear scope for the
bishops. Probably the knight duo will outshine À    
the bishop pair here. ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ
15.¤c4!?
But 11...£b6 was also possible. I also This is a clever move, but I was not
considered 11...¥f5!?. In the end you can concerned.
choose only one move.
I mainly considered:
12.¤bd2 £b6 13.h3 15.£b3
 I was planning to play:
15...exd4
Ç   One of the things I looked at for Black was
Æ    to play 15...e4, but I felt that we would reach
Å   the following endgame by force: 16.¤xe4
£xb3 17.axb3 dxe4 18.¦xe4 ¤h6
Ä    
à    Ç  
Â   Æ   
Á  Å  
Ä    
À     Ã   
ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ Â  
At this point I decided to sharpen the game, Á   
rather than to enter into a passive defence.
À    
13...fxe5!? ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ
Changing the character of the game entirely. 19.¥xh6 ¥xh6 20.¦xe7 ¦fb8 21.¦exa7
¦xa7 22.¦xa7 ¦xb3 23.¦c7 ¦xb2 24.¦xc6
It was perfectly possible to play 13...¥xf3
14.¤xf3 ¤f5, when I felt Black was slightly
worse.
240 Boris Gelfand – Technical Decision Making in Chess

 16.¦xe7 d3 17.£xb6 axb6

Ç    I was not sure about this position at all. It
Æ    is not so easy for White to get his pieces
Å   into the game. If he manages, Black would
Ä     certainly be in trouble, but first he would
à     have to achieve this.
Computer analysis suggests that Black has
Â    reasonable compensation after:
Á    18.a4 c5 19.¦b7
À     
ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ Ç  
I believed that Black should be able to make Æ  
a draw with accurate defence, but had no
intention to go for it. Who wants to end up Å   
in such a position straight from the opening? Ä   
You are only playing for a draw and there is Ã  
no guarantee that you would make it. And Â  
this is relying on there being nothing you Á   
have overlooked.
À    
Actually, it turns out that White has another ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ
tempting option in the above variation. 19...¦a6!
I thought that Black would have enough 19...¦ae8?! looks active, but after 20.¤f1
counterplay after 19.¦xe7 ¤f5 20.¦exa7 White is ready for a4-a5 with an advantage.
¦xa7 21.¦xa7 ¦d8. It is quite possible that there is some way
for White to pose problems for Black, but he
 would have to find it first. And I did not think
Ç    it was that simple. And in later analysis with
Æ    engine assistance, it also does not come easily.
Å   But it is one thing to prove at home that
Ä    there is an advantage, it is another to prove it
à     at the board. I am not sure that a human alone
or the engine alone can prove an advantage,
Â   but combined it is likely.
Á   
À     After the game the computer showed a very
ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ counter-intuitive idea: 15.£d3!! The concept
But apparently this is not the end of the is that White wants Black to play ...e4 and
line. White can play 22.¥e3!, when taking there is not really anything else he can do.
with the knight on d4 loses to an elementary
tactic, and the endgame after 22...¥xd4
23.¤xd4 ¤xd4 24.¦c7 is very unpleasant
as well.
 Game Index
Robert Wade – Viktor Korchnoi, Buenos Aires 1960 6
Semen Khanin – Changren Dai, Shanghai 2019 10
Richard Reti – Akiba Rubinstein, Gothenburg 1920 15
Vasyl Ivanchuk – Boris Gelfand, Wijk aan Zee 2012 31
Kasimdzhanov – Kramnik, Tromso (ol) 2014 33
Boris Gelfand – Wang Yue, Sochi 2008 39
Boris Gelfand – Yannick Pelletier, Biel 2001 61
P.H Nielsen – Baramidze, Plovdiv 2008 62
Gelfand – Vallejo Pons, Monte Carlo 2004 63
Boris Gelfand – Pentala Harikrishna, Wijk aan Zee 2014 79
Boris Gelfand – Rinat Jumabayev, Moscow 2016 97
Ki. Georgiev – Leko, Cacak 1996 98
Boris Gelfand – Boris Grachev, Moscow 2016 109
Gelfand – Kramnik, Internet 2020 110
Aronian – Anand, Moscow Candidates 2016 110
David Navara – Boris Gelfand, Prague (1) 2006 129
Gelfand – Topalov, Nice (rapid) 2008 130
Sargissian – Adams, Merida 2008 130
Korchnoi – Karpov, Moscow (21) 1974 131
Grischuk – Adams, Calvia 2007 131
Fabiano Caruana – Boris Gelfand, Amsterdam 2010 161
Caruana – Almasi, Reggio Emilia 2009 162
Boris Gelfand – Kiril Georgiev, Plovdiv 2010 179
Boris Gelfand – Sergey Karjakin, Nalchik 2009 183
Eljanov – Movsesian, Sochi 2012 184
Pavel Ponkratov – Etienne Bacrot, Berlin (rapid) 2015 199
Boris Gelfand – Yuri Balashov, Minsk 1986 202
Dmitry Jakovenko – Boris Gelfand, Khanty-Mansiysk 2015 205
Levon Aronian – Boris Gelfand, Nice (blindfold) 2008 213
Boris Gelfand – Vladimir Kramnik, Sanghi Nagar (6) 1994 219
Vidit Gujrathi – Boris Gelfand, Poikovsky 2018 237
Oparin – Dubov, Moscow 2018 237
Inarkiev – Gelfand, Magas (rapid) 2016 238
Boris Gelfand & Mikhail Zinar, Memorial Tournament for Mark Dvoretsky 2017 267
Sergey Tkachenko & Boris Gelfand, Memorial Tournament for Mark Dvoretsky 2017 269
Boris Gelfand – Shakhriyar Mamedyarov, Nice (rapid) 2008 273
Shakhriyar Mamedyarov – Boris Gelfand, Pamplona 2004 281
Alexander Onischuk – Leinier Dominguez Perez, Biel 2008 281
Boris Gelfand – Wang Yue, Dagomys 2010 284
Konstantin Sakaev – Boris Gelfand, Jurmala 2015 288
Boris Gelfand – Levon Aronian, Moscow 2009 292
Miroshnichenko & Pervakov, 2016 301
Peter Leko – Boris Gelfand, Dortmund 1996 303
Boris Gelfand – Alexei Shirov, Bazna 2009 311
Rasmus Svane – Erik van den Doel, Batumi 2019 316