Excelling at Positional Chess a a The Seven Deadly Chess Sins, Jonathan Rowson (Gambit 2000) Think Like a Grandmaster, Alexander Kotov (Batsford 1994 ~ New edition) Training for the Tournament Player, Mark Dvoretsky and Artur Yusupov (Batsford) Understanding the Sarrfce, Angus Duanington Everyman 2002) Periodicals and Databases Chessbase Megabase 2002 Schacknytt Chess Informant The Week in ChessWhen I wrote Excelling at Chess about a year and a half ago I was sure that no- body would want to read it. It turns out I was wrong. The book is (thus far) clearly my best-selling work. I also suf- fered from other forms of insecurity. I had some ideas that I thought to be correct, but my beliefs in myself were limited and I had yet to test these ideas with substantial material. In other words, I was afraid of having adjusted the results to the ideas, instead of hav- ing drawn the ideas from the empirical material. This was one of the main cata- lysts in starting the positional exercises program. I wanted to pick a wide variety of examples of a positional or tactical nature and expose them to critical study. Over the more than a year that - the program ran I became sure that I was right in my ideas — even more so than I had believed. I could see it in my own games and in the games of my stu- dents. This book is a product of ‘post- Excelling’ thinking. In many ways it is a remake, and in many ways it is a quite different book. In Exxcelling at Chess 1 came with fundamental arguments and a number of different chapters focussed around thinking like a human instead of thinking like a computer, something I will discuss again below. In this book I have focussed on the method of ab- stract positional thinking. Most of the ideas ate borrowed from Excelling at Chess, but here they are explained and used in a practical framework. My main aim has been to show the method in practice — not that I suggest an algo- rithm for solving positional exercises at the board, but because I suggest that the development of intuition and the general ability to play good positional chess can be learned by solving exer- cises in the right way. Of course there ate many ways to study positional chess, and solving exercises is only one of them. My claim is that it is a smart method as you get used to thinking positionally. The exercises in this book should be enough for you to advance from struggling in the dark to making strong positional evaluations at the 7Excelling at Positional Chess board. But this is not just a workbook, of coutse. The chapters lead the way and the exercises are the path. In the exer- cises I have discussed issues that I felt required the most attention, being not the only considerations in positional chess, but nevertheless central — and not particularly well described in other sources. There are issues about which I could have written independent chap- ters — prophylactic thinking is one such example, but I feel that this is a rather complex concept and players ready to deal with this are also ready for the books by Dvoretsky/Yusupov (Pasi tional Play and Training for the Toumament Player in particular). And why repeat what Mark has written there? Addition- ally I could have included a chapter on ‘missing bishops’, a concept I have a great affection for, but I felt that it was too marginal compared with the rest of the book. There are three initial ways to deal with a chess position. The first is, simply, calculation. If 1 do this, then he does that. Then I an- swer thus and he will be shaking like a leaf in fear. The second is intuition: Okay, what do we have here? I don’t know, I think I will just play this. Finally there is ab- stract thinking: It seems like I should develop — where does this piece belong? Hmm, maybe my knight will get stuck on the edge of the board and not take part in the game for some time. Perhaps I should exchange rooks... OF course all three ways of thinking exist all the time in our minds. But to what degree? Some players are very in- tuitive. Tal and Capablanca were well known for this. They did not thor- oughly examine the positions but played on feeling and imagination. Tal’s sacti- fices wete often incorrect and players like Polugaevsky and Korchnoi made it a habit to find a flaw in Tal’s ideas through deep calculation. Alekhine found that Capablanca was a better chess player than he, and also found that when Capablanca was in his ele- ment, the endgame, he became lazy and stopped working, Consequently Alek- hine ended up beating Capablanca in the technical phase. Capablanca relied too much on intuition while Alekhine, who had no world class intuition, worked hard at the board and solved the problems with the aid of calculation and logic. The perfect chess player would have an adjustable balance between all these three facets of his talent. In complex tactical positions he would use some intuition and some logic to deduct the candidates moves, after which there would follow calculation. In technical positions he would take into account natural technical considerations and adhere to general guidelines, adjusted with short lines of blunder checks. This is what is normally called positional chess. A good example is the following game. Fischer-Ibrahimoglu Siegen 1970 Caro-Kann Defence 1 e4 c6 2 d3 dS 3 Dd2 g6 4 Agt3 &g7 5 g3 Ae 6 &g2 0-0 7 0-0 Sg4 8 h3 &xt3 9 Wxt3 Dbd7 10 éWe2 dxe4 11 dxe4 Wc7 12 a4 ZadB This is a position that is difficult to calculate. A general plan must be formed and executed. To do so one has to take all kinds of elements into con- sideration. For a strong player like Fischer, finding the key to the position was probably rather quick. But for the less experienced, juniors, club players and hopeless IMs like myself, a posi- tional analysis will be of great help. Here a comparison of pieces as well as a search for ideal squares will explain Fischer’s treatment. It turns out that the cl-bishop belongs on €3, that £2-f4 will not generate an attack but rather create weaknesses in the white camp; White’s knight would like to get to d6 at some point — if Black plays ...e7-e5. It appears that there is little scope indeed for Black to better his position. Only the knights can be improved and they need to use 5 as a trampoline on their way to e6 and d4 (the ideal square). As White’s knight is not ideal on c4, and as any rook to dl would serve only to invite the rook to leave £8, the following or- ganisation of White’s forces is logical: 13 Db3! This is, by the way, prophylaxis. Introduction Black has only one reasonable move, and it is prevented. Simultaneously White progresses with his own slow improvement of his position. 13...b6 14 £63 c5 15 a5 e5 Black is putting all his pawns on dark squates, inevitably causing the light squares to be severely weakened. Now White’s worst placed piece is no longer the bishop on ¢3, rather the knight. Therefore the manoeuvre aimed at d5 is very logical. 16 Dd2 DeB 17 axb6 axb6 18 Db1! Wb7 19 Dc3 Dc7 Black has organised a modest defence on the light squares and is about to gain counterplay of sorts with ..b6-b5. A quick comparison of pieces reveals that the knight is the least valuable of White’s minor pieces (the bishop on g2 has enormous potential from c4, d5 and h3) and that the knight on c7 is the most valuable for Black. Therefore an exchange is not illogical. At the same time the grip on the light squares and the prevention of ..b6-b5 are issues. Therefore Fischer played: 20 Abs!! From hete on it is pure power play. White’s knight might have been better than its counterpart on c7 but the supe- riotity of the remaining pieces is enor- mous, and that is what counts on the scoreboard. 20...We6 21 Axc7 Wxe7 22 Wd Ha8 23 c3 Bxal 24 Sxa1 Hb8 25 Ha6 218 26 2f1 dg7 27 Wad Hb7 28 &b5 Db8 29 BaB 2d6 30 Wd1 De6 31 Wd2 hS 32 Bh6+ Yh7 33 &g5 Bb8 34 Exb8 DAxbs 35 Lf6 Dc6 36 Wd5 Da7 37 Le8 &g8 38 Sxt7+ Wxt7 39 Wxd6 1-0Excelling at Positional Chess It is clear that calculation could not have brought you any success in this game, yet calculation is what many play- ers would have used to try to solve these problems. To learn to use the right tools at the right moment is an important part of excelling at chess. In this book the main part of the exercises are quite positional. We often find our- selves in situations where we need to solve positional questions, but where calculation plays an important part; we set positional goals and use tactics to implement them, or alternatively we have to look out for tactics in one way ot another. In modern day chess at the top a player’s mood tends to be aggressive, leading to a search for more compli- cated types of positions. In fact chess changed considerably when Kasparov arrived on the scene, and again when computers began to ‘comment’ on the clite players’ performances in analysis rooms and bedrooms all over the world. Kasparov introduced the initiative as a much more important part of positional chess than was previously understood, and the computers made us pay more attention to the benefits of concrete analysis. Some commentators, like John Watson, have made the ‘misassumption’ that this has made the lessons of yester- day to some extent irrelevant. His no- tion of rule independence seems to be a little flawed. In his book Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy he tries to argue that, in the old days, the top players followed some rules in a rigid way, whilst today they use calculation and the magic of intuition, which is a result of heavy ex- posute. Let us take an example from John’s book. White to play Here Yusupov played 8 Dh3. Wat- son writes: ‘Don’t put your knights on the rim! Well, knights are living on the edge these days, as we shall see in chap- ter 5. But the case before us is really simple. Neither side is about to make any dramatic pawn-breaks, so there is plenty of time to manoeuvre pieces to their best posts. In the case before us, that would involve the knight going to 3 via £2; where would it go from ¢2? As McDonald points out, Df2-d3 could be followed by Ad2-c4 and Bct-d2-c3 with a three-way attack on the forward e-pawn.’ Now what is wrong with this? Most of it is nothing but correct. It is clear abstract thinking, and very sound. The problem is this thing about knights on the rim. In his chapter 5, where the knights live on the rim, they only do so as long as there is a concrete advantage. When the advantage disappears the knights race towards the centre. The same goes for this example. The knight in no way lives on the rim — it is going 10Introduction towards the centre. I am sure that Tar- rasch, who was not an idiot, would have no problems with this. He was one of the greatest chess players of his age, coming actoss as dogmatic. There is a story about a man who had put his rook behind a passed pawn, as prescribed by Tarrasch. His friends had then laughed at him. He mailed the position to Tar- tasch and asked him whether or not he was tight in following his advice. Tar- tasch assured the man that the move played was good, and that in the future he would indeed do well to follow his advice. Only, in the given position, He8 checkmate was a stronger move! I believe that John is mistaken in his view on Tarrasch and the others as dogmatic people who did not think. Evidence (their games) suggests other- wise... The above diagram is a clear-cut situation of a knight not living on the edge but manoeuvring towards the cen- tre in the most flexible way. If you un- derstand the rule as not being allowed to put your knight on the edge of the board under any circumstances, then you are truly dogmatic, as well as stupid. And Tarrasch was not stupid. If, in- stead, we choose to understand it in terms of knights generally having less influence on the edge and greater power in the centre (which, according to Aa- gaard the linguist, is actually the most obvious semantic interpretation) then the above manoeuvre makes a lot of sense. We might have a different view on how to treat the past, but we try to solve positional questions in a some- what similar fashion. I have continuously praised Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy as a great piece of work which does treat the enormous evolution there has been in positional understanding since 1935. It would be strange if the petiod from 1876-1935 had greater leaps in understanding than 1935-2003. It would be strange if some of the observations made by the old masters were not mistaken. John pro- vided an excellent analysis of many new concepts in positional chess, and has been rightfully praised for it. But to claim that the paradigm of thinking has completely changed is going too far. Still, this is only one conclusion in John’s book. And if you make up your own mind and take from John and from Jacob what you find useful and relevant, T am sure that my two books and his book will be able to teach you some- thing. 1 mentioned earlier that the internet program had given my pupils and I some tools that proved useful in over- the-board play. Some of these can be seen in the different articles in the book, but I would like to give an example from my most recent game and from three games from Ivo Timmermans’ most recent tournament. Hoi-Aagaard Danish league 2003 Carsten Hoi is Denmark’s latest Grandmaster. Despite the fact that he could have received the title back in 1993, he was awarded the title only re- cently. The positions where I felt the usefulness of the line of thinking cur- rently under discussion began after 13 moves:Excelling at Positional Chess . Black to move Here I used 25 minutes, trying to choose between the plans ...Af6xe4 and .Ac5xe4, in both cases to make way for my bishop on c8. I was emotionally dissatisfied. I had the feeling that it had to be possible to play something less forcing, as both white knights have no- where else to go than e4. Why should I help my opponent by opening the king- side? Finally I used the ideal squares technique and came up with the follow- ing manoeuvre. 13...D6 14 We2 DnS! ‘The f4-square is the weakest point in White’s position. No pawn can ever control it (without Black's help) and the £2-pawn makes it inaccessible in similar fashion. Additionally the f4-square is a key factor in the fight for the light squares in White’s camp. Carsten now saw lines like 15 0-0-0 Df4 16 Bg3 @xe2 17 Axe2 WhS. It quickly turned out that after 18 Rdgi Hf7 19 2£6! this line would win for White, but it was equally easy to find 17...f4! 18 Bggi? Wh5 when Black wins a piece. White can apparently avoid losing material with 18 Ha3 Wh5 19 AB Acs 20 Degl, but his position does not make a positive impression. Carsten eventually came up with a strong move, defending the f4-square in return for conceding the initiative. 15 2g3 Lh8 16 0-0-0 Aba! Again unable to find something use- fal, I make a slightly unusual move. J did not approve of 16..0c5 17 b4l? xed for the reasons given above (even though it does make more sense here), so I decided to simply harass his well placed queen. The knight still has c5 as an ideal square, but .@c5 with tempo, followed by ...a7-a5, is nicer. Therefore after 17 Wb3 I simply returned with 17...Da6! a Carsten could also find nothing use- ful about having his queen on b3, so the game ended in a draw after 18 We2 Db4 %-% Ivo Timmermans is a 42 year-old doctor (single and handsome, girls) with an Elo tating that has hovered around 2200 for centuries (at least two). He followed the training program from start to finish, missing occasional weeks due to tournaments, a heavy workload or new episodes of Friends. In his last tournament, the Rilton Cup in Stock- holm, he illustrated much of the bene- fits gleaned from following the pro- gram, as well as the usefulness of solv- ing combinations for an hour every day during the month before the tourna- ment. The latter exercise is, in my opin- ion, an absolute must for the ambitious chess player. Not one hour per day, but a minimum of three to four sessions of 12Introduction half an hour each week. Even I do it to keep sharp, and I no longer consider myself to be an ambitious player. I see it as exercise for the head, which holds the chess player’s muscles, just as arms and legs carry the muscles of other ath- letes. Anyway, here are a few positions from Ivo’s games, annotated by the man himself: Gleizerov-Timmermans Stockholm 2002 Catalan 14 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Af3 D6 4 Ac3 e6 5 g3 dxc4 6 &g2 b5 7 DeS Dd5 8 a4 a6 9 axb5 cxb5 10 Dxb5 axb5 11 Bxa8 &b7 12 Ha7 After the game Gleizerov was disap- pointed not to have played 12 Hat with a near decisive advantage. 13...Wb6 13 Exb7 Wxb7 14 0-0 e7 15 e4 DFG 16 d5 We7 17 Dg4 - Later we found that 17 23! would have given White a clear advantage. It is all about the light squares. 17...Dbd7 18 Hel 0-0 19 &f4 e5 20 Dxt6+ Dxt6 21 2e3 Ivo explains: ‘The positional charac- teristics of the position ate typical. The pawn structure favours White, who has a defended passed pawn on d5. Black has dynamic chances because he has the pawn majority on the queenside; Black should be careful here as advancing the pawns can cteate weaknesses. The only open file is the a-file, White has the bishop pair yet the position is static and closed and the d6-square seems ideal for the knight. Black plans the manoeuvre w-Qe8-d6 but exchanging dark-squared bishops with ...2c5 is also an excellent idea, weakening the dark squares and making £2-f4 less attractive. The bishop trade also brings Black closer to the desired endgame of knight versus bad bishop (@g2). The disadvantage of ..Qe8-d6 is that it temporarily locks in the rook on £8, and by the time Black is ready to activate the rook White con- trols the a-file, e.g. 21..De8 22 Wa2 &c5 23 Hal with advantage. It is there- fore logical to start improving the posi- tion of the rook and only then the mi- nor pieces, thus prompting 21..Ba8. This gives White something on which to ponder — 22 Wd2 and 22 We2 can be met with 22...Ag4 or 22...Ba2.’ 21...2a8 22 £13 De8 23 We2 2c5 24 b3 Dd6 25 bxcd &xe3 26 Exe3 Wxc4 27 Wxc4 %-% The grandmaster offered a draw to avoid a worse fate. Timmermans-lvanov Stockholm 2002 French Defence 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Dc3 &b4 4 eS De7 5 a3 &xc3+ 6 bxc3 ch 7 DB b6 8 a4 Sab 9 Lxab Dxa6 10 0-0 13Excelling at Positional Chess h6 11 We2 Abs 12 £a3 DAd7 13 c4 dxe4 14 dxc5 bxe5 15 Wxc4 0-0 16 Hab1 Wc7 17 Hfe1 Hab8 18 3b3 fds ashe Y, In this position Ivo’s next move made his opponent look at him in sur- prise. A low rated amateur is not sup- posed to make such deep moves. I have to say here that the knowledge of this plan comes from previous knowledge of the opening, and not positional exer- cises alone. “After 18..Hfd8 White faces the choice as to what side of the board on which to play. Attempts to switch pieces to the kingside are frustrated be- cause the e5-pawn has to be defended. White has to find a way to strengthen his position without disturbing the co- ordination between the pieces, and none of the pieces can be improved right now.” 19 ha! ‘Squeezing Black on the kingside. White threatens h4-h5 (gaining space) and prevents all tricks connected with »Axe5 and Adi.’ 19...Ac6 20 He3! “A short move that puts pressure on c5. White has prevented ...a5 and, in return, threatens S&xc5. White has a small edge after 20...Acxe5 21 Axed Dxe5 22 Wxc5 Wxc5 23 Exc5. 20...Wa5 21 Be4 Bb1+ 22 &h2 Db4 23 Hb3 Bxb3 24 cxb3 Dds 25 HS Hb8 26 He2 We3 27 Hc2 Wxcd 28 Exc4 Exb3 29 &xc5 a5 30 246 ®Sb6 31 Be7 Hb2 32 Ha7 Bxt2 33 Exa5 Za2 34 2c5? 34 Ha7! Hxa4 35 Bxad Axad 36 g4 would still have made a draw. Now Black is better. 34...0xc5 35 Exc5 Exa4 36 og3 DdS 37 Hc8+ Lh7 38 Abs At4 39 Eb7 Dxh5+ 0-1 Despite losing to the strong Russian grandmaster, Ivo was very pleased with his effort. His goal was not to score as many points against these guys as pos- sible but to play as well as he could, enjoy playing and learn from stronger players. That this attitude will get him far in the long-term I have no doubts. The following game, from the sixth round, illustrates what he will be doing to his former equals in the not too dis- tant future. Johansson-Timmermans Stockholm 2003 Sicilian Defence 1 e4 c5 2 c3 D6 3 e5 Ads 4 d4 exd4 5 DF3 Dc6 6 cxd4 dé 7 Re2 g6 8 0-0 297 9 exd6 Wxd6 10 Dc3 ®xc3 11 bxe3 0-0 12 Dd27! Bas 13 Wb3 b6 14 &f3 2e6! Black has achieved the better open- ing. The white pawns are weak and dominated. 15 Wa4 £d5 16 £a3 We7 17 Bact? 14Introduction This rook move creates problems for White, although after 17 Bfe1 he would be worse. ‘Black has pressure against the pawns on c3 and d4, and if the pawns remain blocked for a while Black can play on the light squares c4 and d5. A solid move could be 17...Hac8, completing development. However, the solution to the problem should be easier to find if we ask which pieces Black wants to ex- change. In the most simplified version Black aims for a good knight versus bad (datk-squared) bishop ending. Hence Black wants to exchange light-squared bishops as well as the remaining bishop for White’s knight. Any exchange of heavy pieces is also welcome, of course. Here Black can force matters with a subtle move:’ 17...2h6 Threatening 18...2xf3 ensures that the right pieces are removed from the board. After the forced sequence 18 Ecd1 Qxd2 19 &xd5 Hxd5 20 Bxd2 Black can chose between 20...@e5 and 20...D)a5, gaining complete control over the light squares.” 18 Ecd1 &xd2 19 2xd5 Bxd5 20 Exd2 De5!? Later, when the initial excitement about this move faded, we discussed whether 20..2a5, with a permanent positional advantage, was a reasonable alternative to this little combination (which seems to win a pawn, but no mote). 21 #4? As so often happens White cracks under the pressure of repeatedly being faced with new and unforeseen prob- lems. The alternatives were as follows: Black wins after 21 He2 Af3+! 22 gxf3 Ho5t 23 Bhi Wr 24 Web Bhs 25 Wsxa8t+ g7, which leaves 21 Hel! Wxc3 22 &b4 We6 23 Wb3 (23 Wxco @®xc6 24 Qxe7 He8 25 Hde2 Exe? 26 Bxe7 Axe? 27 Hxe7 Hxd4 28 fl Hat and Black wins) 23....Ac4 24 Hc2 Exd4 25 Bxe7 a5 26 Bel He8 27 Hce2 Hxe7 28 Exe7 Bed 29 Hxed Wxe4 with a clear advantage for Black. 21...De4 22 £1 22 He2 Ha5 is the sad reality. 22...Dxd2 23 &xd2 e6 24 g4 Bes 25 £5 gxf5 26 gxfS BxfS 27 Ext5 exfS 28 Wc2 Wc6 29 Wa3 Wed 0-1 This book is about abstract thinking, about understanding chess consciously. Intuition might work for some people who are exposed to a lot of chess posi- tions, but I am of the belief that know- ing why you should do what you should do is just as important. And especially for people who have reached a certain level and cannot seem to improve de- spite working extensively with tactics and openings, trying to get a deeper understanding of the game might be the way forward. 16CHAPTER ONE Simple Truths In this chapter I want to talk about mis- takes that are often committed but so obvious that, when you realise you are guilty of making them, you tend to un- dexplay their importance. The first one is connected to simple evaluation tech- nique. I have a friend who is close to IM level; he is a really talented player with several notms and an ELO tating that is so close that two good games one day will make him an IM. Nevertheless he is violating one of the simplest rules of chess so often that even I noticed this as a weakness in his play. This is best illustrated with an example. In one game he had an ending with three extra pawns, a lead in develop- ment and a clearly superior pawn struc- ture, From then on he played rather carelessly. In order to exchange a few pieces he gave up a pawn, as well as the momentum of direct attack on the king. Later he just waited, resulting in his opponent gaining some activity for his pieces and, suddenly, a few threats. To protect himself my friend gave up an- other pawn and found himself in a rook endgame, which was still winning, He concentrated well but overlooked some- thing and the ending was drawn. After the game he would not hear of misplay- ing a winning position. He would have won had he simply made the correct choice on move 50! Well, I often see people drift from comfortable winning positions into dif- ficult winning positions when, suddenly, winning requires considerable effort. Chess becomes hard again. There are very few people in the world who talk about bad positions we know we can draw in the way Kramnik did after his match with Kasparov. Most of us know that we are susceptible to making errors. We misplay our win- ning and drawn positions again and again. So in order to make it easy for ourselves we tty to play accurately, even when we are three pawns up. We do not wait for the opponent to resign, but try to make him do so. Such an approach needs extra effort, but we get used to winning, rather than watching the op- 16ponent losing. And sometimes we get a full point quickly because our opponent realises that we are not going to gradu- ally let the victory slip away and, conse- quently, he tries something desperate. The main mistake my friend commit- ted was to decrease his level of concen- tration, Although he has sufficient pres- ence of mind not to blunder, he still made enough inaccuracies for his posi- tion to go from easily winning, to win- ning and to drawn. The following game is an antithesis to my friend’s performance, where I concentrate tight until to the end, mak- ing the most of my ability to concen- trate (although the game can be said to be over straight out of the opening). Greger-Aagaard Danish League 2001 Sisilian Defence 1 e4 cB 2 D3 Ac6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 DE 5 Dc3 e5 6 DAdbs dé 7 fg5 a6 8 DaB bd 9 Lxf6 gxfé 10 Dds 5 11 £d3 Ge6 12 WhS 297 13 ¢3 0-01? A sharp sideline but healthy enough. 14 exfS &xd5 15 £6 a4 16 fxg7 Hes Here White has a choice between e2 and &c2, but he completely over- looked my intended response to 17 Xxb5 and lost a piece. 17 &xb5?? He5! 18 Wh6 axb5 19 Dxb5 Lc4! 20 Da3 20 Dd4 Axd4 21 cxd4 Bg5! and «la5+ will decide the game on the next move. 20...2d3 21 h4 Whe 22 Wa2 So far it has been easy for Black. I Simple Truths concentrated only once and saw a two- move line, But now it is time to wrap up the full point and put it in the bag. Such a position might very well win by itself, but my lead in development should be enough to tear White’s posi- tion apart. Now I chose to force him to castle queenside because I had seen a more or less forcing win. 22...Hae8! 23 0-0-0 23 Hh3 3 24 Wxd3 exf2+ 25 dd2 Wrxb2+ 26 Ac2 Het, when Black wins everything, was the tactical basis of my line. But what now? How to proceed? 23...2b8! 23...2a8 would probably have been the choice of many, as the threat ...xa3 would force White into 24 We3, which loses the game after the exchange of queens. But I did not see any reason for my opponent to make it to an endgame. Not that I had any doubts whether or not I would win it, but I did not see it as the strongest option available for me. You can compare it to choosing be- tween winning a pawn and a piece. 24 Bh3 Ba5! 25 Bxd3 exd3 26 Dea W3! 26..fixa2, of course, wins immedi- ately, and then after 27 Wxd3 comes 17Excelling at Positional Chess 27.3! with a direct win, as can be seen in the game. But I was focused and saw another way to decide the game. 27 Wxd3 Bxa2 28 Het De5! 0-1 Obviously not a Beauty Prize game, although I am quite proud of it I played two very nice moves (23.8! and 26...Wb3!) and kept maximum concen- tration all through the game. However, it is not a game worth publishing any- where — White just blundered a piece, as a pupil of mine pointed out (it should be said that this pupil does have a ten- dency to draw his winning positions..). T once saw a game being played in Germany, Movsesian being White against Korchnoi in the final round of an open event. Movsesian had made 7'//8, while Korchnoi was on only 612 points. The advantage of the first move saw Movsesian obtain a small advan- tage, and then he systematically made poor exchanges, leading to an endgame which he knew was drawn and which he drew. I am always impressed with this kind of confidence and control, but I still find it foolish in 99% of cases. Recently a friend of mine had a win- ning knight(s) ending with a clear pawn up. Her king had a fast lane to the cen- tre and she had fewer weaknesses than her opponent. But she used a lot of time trying to calculate a variation until the end; she thought she had succeeded but, somewhere in one of her sub-lines, she had overlooked something, and the resulting pawn ending was then losing instead of winning. I have seen this mis- take being made many times, including in my own games. I have often tried to ‘simplify’ the technical task through exchanges — as we learn to do when we grow up — but instead found that the task becomes more difficult. The turn- ing point for me came in the following position in 1995 (after 42 Dd5). Jaksland-Aagaard Denmark 1995 Here I considered playing 42..2xd5 (as, I believe, many people would). The reasoning is simple: if the exchange is possible I have less pieces on the board and my pawn will count more. How- - ever, this is far from the truth. The real- ity is that the bishop on c6 is so much better than the knight on d5 that to trade these pieces would be terrible. White would also gain a passed pawn. To me this game was a kind of a break- through as I realised these things and afterwards saw them manifest them- selves quite clearly with an easy win: 42...Uxb3 43 Hg7+ &f3 44 Bh7 Eb1+ 45 @h2 Bb2+ 46 Sg1 Hg2+ 47 Sf1 Mc2 48 Bh3+ &g4 49 Hc3 Sixa4 50 Bxc2 &xc2 51 c5 &g3 52 Db4 Bad 53 &g1 Bb5 0-1 I did not really realise what kind of rule was working here, but I do now. Itis the same that counts in all the examples 18Simple Truths mentioned above. You see, normally we are talking about chess positions as win- ning, clearly better, slightly better, equal, unclear, slightly worse and so on. But there are no real definitions of winning — because what is a winning position? Is it one you win 100% of the time, as my first Coach Henrik Mortensen tried to convince me, ot is it a position where you can prove a win as I read it in In- formator? Well, if I was interested in opening theory as an independent disci- pline, and not as something that helps me in my practical efforts, I would per- haps still have the same definition as Informator. But I don’t. I believe Henrik is cortect. You should consider a posi- tion to be winning only when you have no doubt whatsoever that you are going to win it. In the first example of this sec- tion my friend went from a winning po- sition to great winning chances to draw because he did not realise one simple thing. The choice of moves should not be made on an exact verdict of the final position, but on whether or not your position has improved or worsened. This might seem obvious to the point of being naive, but for many players this ‘theory’ does not find a way into their practice. And for my friends above this would have saved them the embatrass- ment and pain of throwing away easily winning positions. ‘The mistake has its origin in forgetting that chess is a game in which we should use practical measures to assist us in making our decisions — not theoretical measures such as clear advantage, slight edge or winning positions etc. I think most players remember the day they real- ised that there are positions which offer a modest lead, which they do not like, and other ‘level’ positions which they do like. Once you appreciate that you should play the kinds of positions you like, then you have already made a great improvement of your understanding of practical chess. It is my claim that this kind of informa- vor evaluation in over the board analysis is one of the reasons why some people calculate too much. When there are forced variations you need to calculate to the end (funnily enough, most calulating players have a tendency to neglect this), but when you are consideting positional factors there seems to be a general agreement among leading instructors (Yermolinsky and Silman are the first to spring to mind) that you perform a blim- der-check but no actual analysis. Silman has his own ideas about how these posi- tions should be treated. He calls this the Silman thinking technique and uses some- thing he calls fantasy positions. This has some resemblance with what I would call the search for the ideal square for the pieces. The only difference is that I look at the individual piece and try to keep things as simple as possible. Silman has no problems working with three pieces for each player, but how about six of seven? Personally, I would get confused trying to juggle all these pieces in my head at the same time. Consequently 1 prefer looking at each individual piece. But the basic idea is good. Yermolinsky is more of a self-taught player and there- fore has no greater ideas or advice con- cerning thinking methods. But if I could offer one simple piece of advice it must be this — ask yourself at the end of a line: ‘Am I making progress? Is my task easier 19Excelling at Positional Chess or more difficult after my planned move? This advice is exactly what Svidler must have been following during the following (very instructive) game. Svidler-A.Sokolov Elista 1994 Sicilian Defence 1 e4 cB 2 D3 e6 3 Dc3 Dc6 4 d4 oxd4 5 Axd4 dé 6 £4 DG 7 Les 25 8 ATs Dga 9 Wd2 Dxe3 10 Wxe3 ext4 11 Wxt4 26 12 0-0-0 Se7 13 Dds 0-0 14 Sb1 Ecs 15 Se2 Was Here White has a structural advan- tage due to the control over the d5- squate but his pieces are still not ideally placed. His bishop needs to find a bet- ter square and it is not obvious yet how to activate the h1-rook. 16 Lcd! The most obvious improvement of the position, The control over d5 is strengthened and so is the king’s posi- tion. The idea is no/ to exchange on 6, but to guard the king from b3 and eliminate the pressure on the diagonal, as can be seen from the next move. 16...2fe8 After 16..WWeS White has a tactical advantage from the exchange on d6: 17 Dxe7H Dxe7 18 Bxe6 fKeb (note that this is highly different from 18...Eixe6 after 16..dlfe8 ~ see next note) 19 Wado! Wxc2+ 20 Bal and now both e6 and e7 ate hanging, when 20..c6 21 WreG+ Ph8 22 Ags ho 23 Ae7+ wh7 24 West dg8 25 ADxho+ Shs (25...gxh6 26 We6+ &h8 27 Bd7 De7 28 WahoH! Bg8 29 We5+ Shs 30 Hxe7 wins) 26 At7+ &g8 27 Wed! wins. 17 &b3! From a pure positional point of view this is the most pleasant move to play. By guarding the king it prepares for the attack on the weakness on d6. 17 Dxe7+1 is too greedy. After 17...Exe7 18 &xe6 Hxe6 Black is already freed somewhat from all his troubles, which should alatm White (he has not made as much progress as Black!) that perhaps ‘no pawn was worth this, And then after 19 Bxd6? We7 20 Hhdt (20 5 Axes! with the idea of 21 Bxe6 Wxc2+ 22 a1 Ad3! and Black wins) 20..Ad4!! Black wins material, 17..We5 With the logical idea of ..@a5-c4 (xb3) to fight for the control of d5. 18 Hd3! ; The piece that needs to be activated before the direct assault is the rook and, as the weakness White is attacking is the d6-pawn, the rook belongs on the d-file. Another good feature about the text is that it prevents ...2a5 (prophylaxis) while improving the pieces. This is what identifies a great move. - 18...b5 18..a5 19 Hc3! wins for White. 19 Hhd1 2019 Bc3?! makes no sense now. It is beter to play with all the pieces. 19...Aa5 20 Axe7+ Now, fully developed and organised, White can cash in, The rule is that you should develop fully before taking ad- vantage of permanent weaknesses. 20...Hxe7 21 Exd6! Axb3 22 Bd8+ He8 23 Bxe8+ Exe8 24 axb3 h6 25 2d4 Bc8 26 Wd2 &h7 27 b4? 27 h3! is necessary. 27...We7 28 b3 Ha8! 29 Bd6! a5 30 bxa5 Bxa5 31 e5 Wa7?! 32 Wada Wa8 33 Wd3+! g6 34 Wd4 a3 35 2d8 Wad 36 He8? 36 bs. 36...b4! 37 Dd2 Wa6? 37..Wb5. 38 Dc4! Ha2 39 BbB h5 40 Exb4 Rf5 41 De3 1-0 The note to move 17 is very impor- tant. The weakness is not running away; it is a static feature and White therefore uses his space advantage and freedom to manoeuvre to improve his position before beginning the attack on the weakness. This, of course, teflects another, very obvious, simple truth: Your attack will have greater strength if you irictease the number of pieces you include. In the Svidler game White organised first and only then attacked. Conse- quently Black did not gain any real com- pensation for the pawn as White did not lose anything important in terms of ac- tivity when he finally decided to try to win the pawn. Some might argue that there were tactics defending the pawn, and that was why White did not take it. These might include those who want to understand my ideas about conceptual thinking and the fact that I claim there Simple Truths are some transcendental rules in chess, as if I resist the validity of variations as proof. This is, of course, absurd, and I will not waste more time with it, other than to say itis not true. In the Svidler game I am unsute if he saw the 20..d4! combination at the end of 17 Axe7?, but I am pretty confi- dent that he felt Black was getting too much freedom too soon, and that it was thus a logical to be sceptical about 17 Dxe7 altogether. Any player with com- mon sense, regardless of whether he be- lieves thete are no truths in chess, should test his assumptions afterwards by ana- lysing the position. As Esben Lund told me: When I think am being clever I am being really stupid. The one who has no doubts about his view of the world is in danger of being more wrong than the one who believes in himself but is always open to the possibility that he might be wrong. We are never too smatt to learn more... Personally, when a truth becomes so complicated that I do not feel in com- plete control over all aspects of it, I get suspicious. I remember the Nobel Prize winner in Mathematics said that he felt he really understood a theory ot concept only if he could grasp it in one unifying idea. This is the reasoning behind the next chapter’s discussion of Primary Con- cepts as a possible way to penetrate many positions, But for now I will just wish you luck with improving your positions, your chances and your results. Explanation of Terms Informant evaluation. A theoreti- cal/scientific evaluation of a position mixed up with some practical considera- tions. Very useful for organising opening 21Excelling at Positional Chess © ~~ theory in ECOs and for cross-lingual annotations, but not a great help for de- cision making at the board. Calculating players. Players who turn on Fritz at once without first having more abstract thoughts about the position. Blunder-check. Just checking if you missed some threats before you play the move you find natural, based on posi- tional evaluation. Silman Thinking Technique. A five-step method that is meant to organise your thoughts so you pay attention to what is relevant. Probably good as a training method but, most likely, also unsuitable for peak performance at the board. Fantasy positions. When you move the pieces around in your head to set up some kind of preferable situation, with the hope you will at some point be able to create something similar. _ Ideal Square. Most pieces on the board have squares where they — in the given pawn formation — would be best placed. Primary Concept. A single unifying idea whose implementation would govern the fate of a position. Example: Lund-Hajnal Budapest 2002 In this position White blew-it with 19 exf5?. An abstract“ notion would look at the enormous lead in develop- ment White possesses and the need for an immediate attack; if not the static features such as the ruined pawn struc- ture will begin to count. The primary concept here is the exploitation of the lead in development to get the rooks connected on the seventh rank. As this would win the game immediately it takes priority over all other consideta- tions in the’ position. Therefore 19 cS! is the right move, preventing .Mle7. After this Black has no defence. Further Reading The Road to Chess Improvement (Alexander Yermolinsky) A wonderful book built around Yer- molinsky’s own games. The book pre- sents the notion of Trends and illustrates very well how a 2350 player managed to climb to the top board of the U.S. team simply by analysing his own games. Reassess your Chess (Jeremy Silman) Tam normally unhappy with books that preach fixed methods of thinking but, despite the Silman Thinking Technique, this is a wonderful book which I would recommend to everyone with an Elo rating under 1800. The book succeeds in delivering the absolute basics of chess, the basics of which a// of my pu- pils — and, at times, even players at in- ternational level — have too limited a knowledge. I like all books that verbal- ise what I assume | already know, so I can check it out... 22CHAPTER TWO Primary Concepts Mark Dvoretsky, Jeremy Silman and I have a lot in common, We have all writ- ten books about how chess should be studied and played — although, arguably, on different levels. We also have some- thing else in common — the belief that all positions have some kind of governing idea which is more important than all other ideas in the position. Dvoretsky writes about it in his book Asack and Defence, Jeremy Silman works with similar ideas in How to Reassess your Chess and I write about it in my book Enxcelling at Chess. oe Dvoretsky does not mention anything about how you have to find this govern- ing idea, only that it is good to use it when you do. For top players this is suf-_ ficient, but for lesser souls without a natural super-talent for chess Silman and I have different ideas to penetrate posi- tions. Silman works with his own system of imbalances. It is very useful as far as I can see, and I recommend anyone inter- ested in ways of thinking other than blind calculation to read his two main books, Reassess your Chess and The Reassess your Chess Workbook, These books are especially well designed for players under 2100, but my pupils above this level — and me, too — have all found some ideas therein useful, But let us return to the question of how to find the most important charac- teristic in a position. In a tournament game the way I normally try to do this is via candidate moves and some calcula- tion. After this I know much more about the position than I did in the beginning, and then I know what is important to achieve. In training situations 1 use some very naive methods based on cognitive psy- chology. The key idea is that pattern rec- ognition is easy if the pattern is present in the short-term memory. Some ex- periments in the US have shown that patterns with no other felations than structural are easily transferred from one area to another, strengthening the thought process and enhancing the abil- ity to solve complex problems. What this means in terms of solving a positional o8Excelling at Positional Chess situation is that by first identifying con- cepts and ideal squares for the pieces in a given position we can bring this to the forefront of our mind. Then when we finally calculate we will do so with an unexpected level of accuracy and speed. Of course we will calculate slightly less, but most oversights are performed in the first one or two moves in a given line, and this is where we should improve our calculation. Enough talk — let us look at a position. Borgo-Acs Charleville 2000 Sicilian Defence 1 e4 cS 2 Df3 dé 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4 D6 5 £3 e5 6 2b5+ DAbd7 7 D5 a6 8 &a4 d5 9 exd5 b5 10 &b3 D6 11 De3 Rc5 12 Wd3 0-0 13 Dc3 Bb7 14 Ad2 2d4 15 DH a5 16 a4 &xc3 17 bxe3 bxa4 18 Sixad 2xd5 19 De3 Dxa4 20 Bxad oak Y Mah aan Bas P ops ma In this position it does not take a long time to work out that Black has the advantage. The a5-pawn is a potential danger, the doubled pawns are obvious weaknesses and Black leads in devel- opment. Nevertheless there ate two things that 1 would normally consider doing here — comparing pieces and finding ideal squares. In this situation, in order to save space, I will just find the ideal squares for Black: the a8-rook is good right now, the knight might go to f4 but for now it is well placed, the bishop could hardly be better but might at some point go to 6, the £8-rook should probably be on d8 and the queen on b6. White has no good squares easily available for his pieces. The queen can- not improve and nor can the knight (on £5 it would be quite lonely), but the bishop might be better on g5, although this takes time, Meanwhile the queen’s took is simply miserable. Only the king’s rook and the king are easy to im- prove (castling is coming). About exchanges. White should seri- ously consider exchanging on d5, for with pawns on both sides of the board the bishop versus knight situation would be beneficial for him. The ex- change of queens might also be in White’s favour because it is more prob- lematic for White to find a good home for the queen than is the case for Black. So as Black we now know how to place the pieces and we know what we want to prevent. If we look at it from a static point of view the cortect move is 20...1Wb6. The reason is simple — this is how we want to place our pieces. This also prevents @xd5 for at least a few moves, homing in on the gl-a7 diago- nal. The only problem is the hanging piece. However, there is a rule called the 90% rule, which states that in 90% of all situations the move which is correct for posi- 24tional reasons works out tactically. Here it makes us curious to see if the move we would like to play can be played. It tutns out that it works just fine for Black. 20...Wb6! 21 0-0 After the double exchange on d5 there is a simple check on bl, winning the exchange and the game. Now Black easily exploited his advantages to win the game. 21...Bfd8 22 We2 &2c6 23 Bh4 a4 24 cA Bd4 25 Zh3 &d7 26 Bg3 @h5 27 Bg5 Af4 28 Wi2 £6 29 B93 Be8 30 c3 Hd3 31 Sh1 DhS 32 Dd5 Wxf2 33 Bxf2 Axg3+ 34 hxg3 Exc4 0-1 Pethaps it is not possible in these limited pages to do full justice to this idea. Although it has been fully explain- ed the transformation from an ideal to practical use is difficult. This is probably why Dvoretsky is more interested in building up his pupils’ intuition than in finding algorithms that work specifically for the club player. So the torch has been handed to the rest of us. For the time being I am satisfied with being able to make fire. Perhaps in the future I will attempt to create electric light... One of the primary concepts in a position most often seen is develop- ment, which (of course) occurs in all games. But remember that it is not meant in the sense that only develop- ment is important in a position, rather something along the lines oft if you ignore the need for development (or improving your worst piece) you will suffer as a consequence. The following game illustrates how this can happen. Primary Concepts P.Nielsen-Timman Sigeman & Co 2002 Slav Defence 1 d4 dB 2 cf c6 3 DF3 ALE 4 Ac3 dxc4 5 a4 215 6 Ded Abd7 7 Axed DbE 8B Deb ab 9 g3 In this position Black has two main concerns. 1) White is about to play &g2 and e2-e4, and this might be annoying. 2) Black needs to complete develop- ment. Timman, a truly creative player, does not pay sufficient attention to these points, while Heine, one of the top players of tomorrow (1 hope), ex- ploits Timman’s carelessness with a combination of rapid development and simple threats. 9... Dfd7? Perhaps Timman had seen that there was an earlier game with 10 d3 here. However, the best continuation is 9...e6 10 &g2 &b4 with a balanced game in Gurevich-Gulko, Salt Lake City 1999. 10 Dxd7! Gaining time. 10.,.Wxd7 11 e4 2g4? I do not like this move at all. At the moment White has no problem weaken- ing his kingside slightly thanks to bis 26Excelling at Positional Chess Jead in development. 11...2g6 12 &e3 is still better for White (the knight is exposed on b6). 12 £3 &h3? ‘This is just bad. Now White identifies a weakness on b7 (b6) and at the same time finishes his development. White has a clear advantage after 12..h5 13 Be3 because after 13...e6 there is 14 g4 &g6 15 d5!, opening up the position with tempo, exploiting his lead in de- velopment. 13 &xh3 Wxh3 14 Wb3! Developing the queenside with gain of time. 14...8a6 15 £e3 Wg2? Black continues to ignore both his weaknesses and his poor development. 15..We8 16 d5 Ad7 17 Hct is clearly better for White but there is still a game to be played. Now White wins. 16 0-0-0 Wxf3 17 Zhe1 g6 Tt was too late to save the game as the following line indicates: 17...c6 18 d5! &b4 19 dxe6 0-0 20 e7 Be8 21 &xb6 Exb6 22 a8 and Black loses. 18 d5 Black is finished. 18...297 19 &xb6 0-0 20 £44 xd4 21 Exd4 Wi2 22 Hed1 Wxh2 23 Wxb7 1-0 Tt is remarkable that a world class player like Timman can end up in such trouble by neglecting development and failing to identify a chief weakness. This is the danger of intuition and calculation alone. In the Chapter How intuition develops in his book Avack and Defence Dvoretsky describes a training method he calls in- tuition training (starting on p. 67). The idea is simple — you have about five simple positions, slightly different in nature, and you have to ‘solve’ them in fifteen minutes. This, of course, helps develop a number of different abilities but, most importantly, it provokes intui- tion in a way that can be compared to muscle development in weight training. Tam a keen supporter of this combina- tion of solving exercises and having a good discussion about the solutions — hence this book. When I started chess coaching as more than just a hobby I immediately understood that I needed some tools to help explain decisions based purely on positional considerations to players who are not blessed with natural, strong in- tuition. But wherever I looked for such tools I found only outdated ideas. Of course a good place to start is a Nimzowitsch classic, but the nature of positional chess seems to me to be far more complicated than the great father of the Danish chess tradition had envi- sioned. Nonetheless his main work, My System, is obligatory reading for anyone hoping to nail down those key chess concepts. The book was published in 261925, and since then there have been other major works. In the 1950s a Rus- sian named Lipnitsky published a book which can be translated as Problems of Modem Chess Theory, where various as- pects of chess ‘rules’ are dealt with. This book has, unfortunately, never been translated, but a Russian friend of mine explained the content to me and it seems that the book can be seen as a deeper version of my own book Excel- fing at Chess. In the 1990s we had the Mark Dvoretsky books. So far there are about 10 of them, but I must honestly say that I have lost count. Most impor- tant of these are Positional Play, Training for the Tournament Player and a recent book entitled School of Chess Excellence 3, Strategic Play. The others ate, of course, also great, but these three deal more with positional play, There are also some works by Euwe and Kotov that are worth studying. But neither Dvoretsky’s books nor any of the others mentioned here gave me the tools I needed to explain how very simple solutions were found, with the exception of the principle of the worst placed piece (see page 31), which is ob- viously a useful tool in positional consid- erations, Eventually T came up with some ideas that could be used to explain manoeuvring as something based on more than individual solutions to indi- vidual examples. The main notions are those of primary concepts (see chapter 1), comparing pieces and ideal squares. Comparing Pieces This is a simple exercise which can at times help to get a better understanding Primary Concepts of a position, I have taken an example from a recent book that I rather like, Can _you be a Positional Chess Genius? by Angus Dunnington. Ay os ou | “yy ey) ‘Ye Be White to move Let us try to compare the pieces and from this make some deductions. We should compare pieces that are likely to be exchanged, so here the e2-knight and c7-bishop are compatable, as are White’s bishop and its opposite number on e6 (as Black has no intentions of taking on 4), leaving (by means of elimination) the knights on c4 and £6. This might not be what happens in the game, but that is of less importance because the main idea behind comparing pieces is to get a good sense of both the position and of what exchanges ate likely to favour who. I always do this from the top but often you will find it useful to reduce the proc- ess to some important pieces and pay less attention to others. In this case, though, we consider the whole army. Kings first — principally Black has a safer king position as he has committed no pawns and thus not created weak- nesses. The difference is minimal but is present nevertheless and should there- 27Excelling at Positional Chess fore be included in the comparison. The queen is well placed on 2, attack- ing a potential weakness on £5, and there is no tisk of being disturbed. The other queen still has to find the right square, so I prefer White somewhat. White’s queen’s rook seems to have easier access to a good open file, while the potential queenside minority attack adding to its influence. This makes the rook superior to the one on a8. White’s other took also has mote possibilities than its opposite number. I prefer White’s light-squared bishop, especially in view of the respective pawn formations. For me it is obvious that Black favours an exchange of these two bishops due to the resulting weakened light squares around the white king (the exchange also trades a ‘bad’ bishop for White’s wonderful bishop). I believe White’s knight is a little bet- ter than the dark-squared bishop as the latter has no active possibilities of its own but can only hope for the exchange — White, on the other hand, can choose when (and if}. However, there is poten- tial for the bishop to become strong, so it is not a clear choice. Finally, neither the c4-knight nor Black’s knight are too well placed, so I prefer neither. Now, what did we learn from that? First we learned a little about who has the most room for improvement in the position, and we also learned something about what kind of improvement that might be. The most obvious exchange to seek for Black is that of his bad bishop for White’s good bishop, especially as this would create weaknesses around the white king, Actually in the diagram posi- tion Black is already threatening ...&d5!, which would be the choice after a move like 13 D4, e.g, 13...Rxf4 14 gxf4 2d51, when Black has fully equalised. So a natural conclusion will be to try to pre- vent ....&.e6-d5. We also learned that White has easier play and that he should probably try to play for an advantage in one way or an- other. This is apparent from the number of preferable pieces. Normally this is something you get a better feeling for after having performed this litle exer- cise. Even though you can carry out an overview of all the pieces at a glance, you will be able to increase the amount of possibilities and concepts you can see if you look at parts of the board individually. This example is typical. So is the next, where we come to finding ideal squares. Ideal Squares The subject of ideal squares is (again) not an exact science, rather it concerns how we get a better feel for the position. From the point of view of a coach dis- cussing a position with a pupil, this is an excellent indicator of positional under- standing ~ or the absence of it. I mentioned it briefly in Exxceling at Chess, where I called it the Christmas exercise. The key idea is that you ask your piece: ‘Where do you want to go my litde friend? What would you like for Christmas?” Remember that this does not refer to what you would like to do overall in the position — that would be a different exercise, which can also be use- ful. But I like to cut everything down to small pieces before I perform a full analysis. White’s king is fine and the queen is 28ideal, safe behind its own pawn chain and hitting the f5-pawn. White’s rook ‘would be better on cl but, in the case of a minority attack, might be perfect on bl, or even al. The king’s rook looks best placed on d1 but it is not so easy to decided just yet. The bishop is perfect on g2 and the king’s knight belongs on £4. And it is as simple as that. But what about the knight on c4? Imagine remov- ing this piece and being able to put it somewhere else on the board: Where would you place a White knight? Personally, I would prefer to place it on c5. From thete it disturbs the bishop ‘on 6 and attacks the weakest spot in Black’s camp, the b7-pawn. For Black it goes like this: The queen would be per fect on d5 after the exchange of bishops. The a8-rook belongs on d8, the other took on ¢8, the e6-bishop on d5 and the other bishop and the knight have no obvious good squares — an important observation. However, one should re- member that these last two are not par- ticularly poorly placed where they are, and they still have some decent squares at their disposal. The bishop has d6 and Primary Concepts the knight can hop into e4, but to call these squares ideal would be misleading. Nevertheless, things change, and these pieces are not that badly placed. So what can we do with this? Well, we can easily identify White’s worst placed piece as that which is furthest from its ideal square. Therefore a possible plan could be to redirect the knight to c5 in some way. Here it makes lite sense to go via cl and b3 as White would then be susceptible to any kind of opening up of the position. So Ae5-d3-c5 seems to be the right direction, and this also elimi- nates Black’s main idea of ..£2d5 in mote than one way. Incidentally, it was what White ended up playing in the game: McDonald-Lukacs Budapest 1995 Tromporsky Attack 1 d4 Df6 2 &g5 d5 3 Lxf6 exf6 4 03 c6 5 Dd2 Ld6 6 g3 0-0 7 Lg2 £5 8 De2 Dd7 9 0-0 ATE 10 64 dxc4 11 Dxc4 &c7 12 We2 2e6 This is the initial diagram position. 13 Des! The knight is on its way to ¢5, from where it can exert pressure on b7. At the same time the text gives the other knight the option of going to 4 without being removed by the enemy bishop. Other moves ptove to be insufficient, e.g. 13 b3 g6! and White will have to live with wdtd5, or 13 Df4? Qxf4 14 gxf4 Vdd! and Black is no worse. 13...Dd5? This move makes little sense as the knight has no business on d5 and the square is now unavailable to the bishop. 29Excelling at Positional Chess Angus Dunnington gives some analysis and some comments in his book but, unfortunately, he does not reach the depths of this position. I have taken the liberty of analysing some alternatives. Not very pleasant is 13..8xe5 14 dxe5 DdS (or 14..d7 15 We3! We7 16 f4 when White has a clear positional edge — Black can quickly find himself in trouble, e.g. 16...f67? 17 Dd4 Hac8 18 Axe6 Bxe6 19 245! and White wins) 15 Dad4 g6 16 4 fxe4 17 Dxe6 fxe6 18 Wrxe4, and although Black’s position is solid there seems little by way of future counterplay. If the queenside pawns start to move they will only become weak, and the knight is sitting pretty with no- where attractive to go. Simply bad is 13..Ad7? when White has the brilliant computer-like 14 Axc6l! bxe6 15 &xc6 Abs (after 15..b8 16 d5 White regains his piece with interest) 16 &xa8 Dxa8 17 Bfd1 and Black is quite uncoordinated. But more prudent than all this is a simple move like 13...WWe7!?, bringing the pieces into play, After 14 Dd3 (White cannot play 14 @f4 due to 14...8xe5 15 dxe5 Dgs 16 We3 Kc8! and Black will win a pawn for which White’s compen- sation is nothing special) 14..g6 15 Dc5 2.d6 and Black is only slightly worse and can hope for a successful defence. 14 Dd3! 96 15 Dc5 cB? The bishop should not be down here. If White wants to exchange it Black should not be disappointed. Try to com- pate the pieces; tty to look at ideal squares. Better was 15...28b8. 16 D3 D6 How obvious it seems now that Black did not play accurately. The game ended: 17 b4 a6 18 a4 2d6 19 b5 axb5 20 axb5 Exal 21 Exal We7 22 bxc6 bxc6 23 Wad Dd7 24 Dab &xa6 25 Wra6 Dbs 26 Wed hB 27 Dad h4 28 Dc5 hxg3 29 hxg3 Hc8 30 Hb1 We7 31 Bb7 We8 32 of 2xc5 33 dxc5 fxe4 34 xed Dd7 35 Ba7 De5 36 We3 Ed8 37 Hc7 Wes 38 &g2 Bd7 39 Hc8+ &h7 40 Wat Edt 41 Wxd1 Wxc8 42 Wh5+ 1-0 One Move from the Ideal Square I have often noticed that a piece is best improved to the point where it is just one move away from its ideal square. Only when our pieces occupy this posi- tion are they ready to be transformed into their perfect state. If you look at the diagram at the beginning of this chapter you will see that the e2-knight and both rooks ate all waiting, one move away from their ideal squares. Here is another example: Yj WZ, wt: Ya White to move In this famous position, from the game Lasker-Capablanca, St. Petersburg 1914, White’s knight on e6 is already ideal, but let us take a look at the rest of the pieces. The Hd1 wants to reach a7, 30Primary Concepts The other h7 and the king is better moving away from the same diagonal as the bishop - in the game Lasker chose the g3-square for the king, and that seems to be a wise choice. The other knight needs to find itself a good square, and in the game this leads to e4- €5 followed by Ac3-e4, from where it rules the world. But let us take a look at how the game went. 31 hxg5 hxg5 32 3h3! The rook is on its way to its ideal squate, h7, simultaneously vacating g3 for the king. But now after 32...8d7 33 93 ves White continues to improve his pieces slowly with 34 3Bdh1 2b7?! ‘Then comes the final breakthrough. 35 e5!! The pawn is of little importance. Control over the dark squares means eve a 35...dxe5 36 De4 Dd5 37 A6c5! ” Now Black is lost. Notice how the tooks have not rushed off to their ideal squares since they could do litle on their own. After 34...8b7 Black was lost in a sea of forks but it is still worth not- ing that White had prepared his pieces, one by one, to almost their optimum before finally slotting them into ideal squates all at once, so to speak. White now won easily. 37...208 38 Dxd7 Bxd7 39 Bh7 Ef8 40 Hal Sd8 41 Ha8+ 2c8 42 Dc5 1-0 It is my firm belief that intuition does not develop as random pattern recogni- tion, but rather the recognition of pat- terns previously investigated and under- stood. That is why looking through un- annotated games from a database or playing through the complete works of Averbakh will not seriously improve your chess. Instead we should work with annotated games and — even better — discuss positions with stronger players who know something about teaching. Analysing your own games in depth and trying to understand the reasons for the mistakes you commit is, obviously, also a part of this, It is my hope these simple tools will prove helpful for you in this task. Improving your Worst Placed Piece A student of mine informed me that in the recent book by Grandmasters Alex- ander Beliavsky and Adrian Mikhal- chishin, Secrets of Chess Intuition, there is a chapter entitled Improving your Worst Placed Piece. 1 immediately rushed off to buy the book since this is something I have been preaching to all my students for as long as I can remember. How- ever, the book was a major disappoint- ment, although the idea is not. They ascribe the concept to GM Makogonov, but I have a feeling that players have been aware of it all the way back to the beginning of the last century. In fact I cannot recall where I got the idea from but I think I actually pieced it together by myself, too. So I am sure thousands of other people who think at the chess- board have also done so. But enough talk. Let us jump to the first example. It is not squeaky clean but does demonstrate the practical use of the idea ina tense situation. The posi- tion is taken from my first ever victory over 2 2600-player. arExcelling at Positional Chess Black to move In this position Black has no imme- diate way to improve, Action on both wings seems currently to be unjustified, although Black is well organised. I must admit that I was completely lost in terms of finding a plan here. All I could see was that Jonny might attack my e6- pawn in some lines and that the rook on a8 was not really contributing to my game. So for that reason I played the innocent-looking 24...2ae8!? How the game continued is not really relevant for this chapter, but I can say that I did not at one moment regret the move, which is the kind of move one could imagine Petrosian and Karpov making. Instead of having to worry about tricks later I protect my only unprotected piece in the position while slightly improving my worst placed piece. It is not great logic, but good and healthy practical chess. Let me try to be semi-philosophical about the subject. We could look at the pieces in terms of points — as all of us did in our younger days — but count only those that are taking part in the action, We regard those with only po- tential as worth nothing in the short- term or as less valuable. This is what a computer does. Here is an example: Gelfand-Short Brussels 1991 Black to move This position is actually rather simple, yet at the same time highly complex. Black has some advantage but it is mainly based on time. If White had two moves (#2 and Hhet) he would have no problems whatsoever. Therefore for Black it is a matter of whether he wants to play for an advantage with an attack. The answer is, not surprisingly: Yes. So what is to be done? The key rule in at- tacking chess is that all pieces should join in the offensive. And here the least likely piece to play a part in the attack at the moment is the a8-rook. Thus the cortect plan is to get this rook into ac- tion in some way. 18...b5! 18..@xg3H? 19 hxg3 b5! is another way to play the same idea. It might give White more breathing space but still it seems dangerous. 19 Wxb5 Here comes the hard evidence for the 32supremacy of the ..b6-b5 thrust. 19 2 is the standard untangling move, but here Black wins time: 19..2e6 20 Wa3 Dgar! 21 fixed Wher 22 Bgl @yxg3 23 hxg3 Hae8 and the final piece enters the attack with deadly effect. After 19 Dxb5 Heo 20 Wa3 Axg3+ 21 bxg3 Bb8 22 Dc3 (22 Wa3 Was) 22.,.@g4! Black has a very strong attack. 19 Se5!? is the reason why ...2xg3 can be considered instead of 18...b5. Then 19...b4 20 @b5 Be6 21 Wad gt gives Black good attacking chances. 19...Dxg3+ 20 hxg3 Bb8 21 Wa3 Bxb2 Black has a clear advantage and went on to win as follows: 22 Bd2 Wb6 23 g4 Wh8! 24 Dd1 Wg3 25 Df2 Bb6 26 Zh3 Hbe6 27 Hd1 We7 28 Wid2 He3 29 Hc1?! Wia 30 Bd1 g6 31 91 og7 32 Wet He2?? (32...Ad7!, heading for c4, is the quicker route to victory) 33 Wxf4 Qxf4 34 Dd3 g5 35 a4 Ba2 36 g3 fxg3 37 Dc5? g2 38 Xg3 Hee2 39 ®b3 Heb2 40 Act Bxa4 41 Dd3 Bba2 42 Exg2 Exg2+ 43 xg2 Exd4 44 wf2 Dd7 45 we3-Bad 46 Ee1 Db6 47 Be7 DAch+ 48 ke2 Ha2+ 49 wel Ha3 50 Ye2 Ba2+ 51 del a5 52 £4 gxf4 53 Dxf4 De3 54 Ha7 a4 55 g5 a3 56 g6 Ag2+ 57 Dxg2 Exg2 58 Bxa3 fxg6 59 Ha6 Gh6 60 Hd6 Hg5 61 &f2 whS 62 2f3 dh4 63 Hae Sh3 64 Sf2 Big4 65 Ha3+ 2h2 0-1 In this example the rooks on a8 and hi had something in common in that they both lacked scope and therefore had little value. Black proved an advan- tage by improving his worst placed piece and, in doing so, found the ideal Primary Concepts placement (on the second rank) and how to implement the subsequent plan. This kind of treatment is presented by Mark Dvoretsky in Attack and Defence, Jeremy Silman in How to Reassess your Chess and myself in Excelling at Chess. We all explain it in a different way and have different methods of reaching this con- clusion but, in essence, we agree. But back to the worst placed piece. What I disliked about the Beliav- sky/Mikhalchishin book is that it is mainly just a collection of simple exam- ples. There are few ideas in the book and it feels like even fewer thoughtful annotations. In Chapter 12 (p. 103-107) they formulate the theory concerning this idea as follows: The late Makagonov (one of Kasparov's first trainers) was a strong positional player and formulated some useful general principles. The most famous of these is that, in balanced positions, when neither side has any direct threats or concrete plan, it is necessary either to relocate your worst placed piece to its best square, or to exchange it off. (p. 103). This description would perhaps fit well with my game, but the Short game does not really fall into the description of a balanced position with no threats, unless you choose to see this as a very superficial evaluation, of course. The main point in the Short game is that the absence of the hi-took from the pro- ceedings allows for Black to establish a kind of power play for some time, af fording him the possibility of obtaining a decisive advantage. Actually a devel- opment advantage is best understood with the help of a situation taken from ice hockey where, for a limited time, a team can have more players on the ice 33Excelling at Positional Chess than the opposition, a situation that must be exploited to the maximum. The final, most clear-cut, example of improving your worst piece is taken from the Beliavsky/Mikhalchishin book. Ivanov-Benjamin Jacksonville 1990 Black to move Here you could argue that the worst placed piece is the f8-rook as it has no scope and even no moves. This would, of course, be partly true, but as the pri- mary way for the rook to gain scope is by ...f7-65, it is not too bad. Moreover, how do we decide which piece is the worst placed? I have found that a good way to do this is simply by trying to find the ideal squares for all the pieces. In this case the only piece with which we would have problems is the bishop, which has no scope (as we cannot hope that White is kind enough to open up with £2-f4). Therefore we have to find a way for this piece to contribute to the action. Bishops tend to be better off being some way from the centre in or- det not to be disturbed (of course an untroubled bishop in the centre is great). It takes some thinking and a free mind to find the ideal square — or best square, as B & A call it. But I prefer to use the Christmas exercise — where would this bishop be placed if the wish were granted? The answer: b6! 14...2d8! 15 We2 c6 16 Bd1 2c7 17 h4 We7 18 g3 &g7 19 AF3 a4 20 h5 &a5 21 Hel Wd7 22 Efd1 Bae8 23 tg2 f5 24 exfS Bxf5 25 Dea Dxe4 26 Wxe4 Hef 27 Bd3 Exh5 28 Dh4 Exh4 29 gxh4 Bt4 30 We2 Wf5 31 c5 cxd5 32 cxd6 &b6 33 Bfl e4 34 Eg3 d4 35 Wd2 e3 36 Wel Wd5+ 37 Sh3 We6+ 38 bg2 Wd5+ 39 £3 Wxd6 0-1 After completing this chapter I was made aware of the following quote from Dvoretsky’s book, Positional Play: In positions of strategic manoeuvring (where time is not significant) seek the worst placed piece. Activating that piece is often the most reliable way of improving your position. Explanation of Terms Ideal Square (the Best square or the Christmas squaré;. The square from where a defined piece can have the greatest possible influence. Not defined by the possibility of getting there, but more formulated as an ambition. Undefended pieces: The cause of so much misery in the chess world today! Power play: A term from ice hockey, where a player is sent off the ice for two minutes (due to a penalty), The remain- ing six players against five is then the power play situation. In chess this can be applied to a position where a player has one or more pieces on the board not taking part in the actual struggle. 34CHAPTER THREE Defining Weaknesses All positional chess is in some respect related to the existence of weaknesses in either your or the opponent's position. However, it is surprising how many play- ets know little about defining weaknesses and how to relate to them. In this chap- ter I will provide some examples of what a weakness is, and some ground rules about how weaknesses can be defined. Take a look at the following position: Timoshenko-Chernov Bucharest 1993 This is a position where the defini- tion of weaknesses mainly concerns pawns, The three weaknesses are d4, c2 and b2, Black’s pawn being very weak. Due to the placement of the minor pieces Black is, in fact, already losing. The c2-pawn is not so weak thanks to the protection it receives from the bishop. Note that it is an important de- tail that this bishop is very well placed where it stands. In principle the b2- pawn is a little bit weak as it is without any defence. But here a main rule comes into play —A weakness is only weak if it can be exploited/ attacked. Here the weakness of b2 is not so important be- cause none of Black’s pieces is currently able to attack it. So both c2 and b2 could be weak according to theoretical definitions but, in practice, they are not. Only d4 is weak, and mainly so because so many white pieces are ready to attack it. As we shall see in the game Black also has some problems with his king- side in view of the two bishops pointing in that direction. White cannot justify an attack on the king at the moment but all weaknesses will count at one time or 35Excelling at Positional Chess other. In fact White undermined his opponent’s weaknesses. 16 eS Axe5 17 Exe5 De7? After this move White has an easy to way to simultaneously exploit both the weakness of Black’s king and the vul- nerable d4-pawn with the aid of a dou- ble threat. Of course only one target can be addressed. 18 We4! Bfd8 19 Wh7+ ef8 20 Wh8+ 2g8 21 Baet White’s attack is irresistible. After 21...a6 (or any other waiting move) White has the following decisive attack: 22 Bh7 Be7 23 Bxe6+! fre 24 Wgi+ etc, Instead Black tries to prevent this, intending to defend the knight on g8 with... £7-£6, With this in mind White reacts with a little combination 21...2d5 22 Bxd5! Wxds 23 Dc7 Wa7 24 2h7 1-0 In a more recent game Black de- fended slightly better: Bromann-Reetsky Denmark 2002 17...Dt6 18 Wa Bfd8 19 Bd1 294 ma a x 7 # a7 YEG, Yy 20 Ede1?! Here White could have exploited the weakness with 20 £3 &e6 21 Shi Shs 22 Sf1 and the d4-pawn is lost. 20.,.2e6 After 20..a6 21 Be7 Be8 Black tries to profit from White’s ostensibly weak back rank, but calculation proves that after 22 Bxe8 Hxe8 23 Bxe8 Wxe8 24 Asd4 Wel+ 25 Et Ded 26 We3 Black is a pawn down in the endgame without compensation, 21 Bd1 294 22 Ede1? Again 22 £3 would be good, winning the d-pawn. For some reason White chose not to weaken the diagonal down to his king, but exact calculation, as well as the absence of a dark-squared bishop in his opponent's arsenal, should have convinced him to take the pawn. Now the game went on for another 134 moves, with winning chances for both players... ‘This example mainly concerned weak pawns. Indeed technical positions often relate chiefly to the weakness of pawns. But we also saw the weakness of the back rank (a check was annoying in one line) and the weakness of the king (Wh7+ decided the first game). One thing is clear from all of this: Weaknesses are abvays defined according to the pieces that remain on the board. Nimzo- witsch pointed out many years ago that the domination of an open file has little importance if all pieces have been ex- changed. In the following example Black seizes control of the centre and eliminates one of his own weaknesses by accepting doubled pawns. This is an excellent example of how tactics and positional 36 esDafining Weaknesses goals can unite in a great display of chess. Videki-Hillarp Persson Budapest 1996 In this position the weakest spots in White’s camp are the pawns on b2 and 3, the latter being under direct pressure from the b4-pawn. It is important to note that the fall of the 3-pawn would ead to further losses for White. 12.04! Black needs to act quickly in view of the temporary nature of the weakness. Given the opportunity, White’s next move would have been 13 c4l, keeping the queenside pawn structure intact. This would be followed by b2-b3 (after moving the took away from the long diagonal), leaving the rest if the battle to be carried out on the kingside. 13 £02? 13 Bxcd bxc3 14 bxc3 (14 Wxed xed) 14...Bc8 can be very awkward for White because 15 $243 Dxd5! sees Black win at least a pawn. But White can try a move like 15 2b3!? with the idea of .Axd5 16 &xd5! and compensation p the queen. Overall White had to go Psomething like this, for he now faces positional ruin. 13...b3 14 2d1 Dc5 15 &xf6 exf6! After this slightly unusual recapture e4 is a weakness, and we have a good tca- son why black did not give a check on 3, 16 2e2 He8 17 &xcd Axe4 18 ®xe4 Hxe4+ 19 Se2 We8 20 Daa #5 21 Dc6 2h6 22 di ad 23 SF1 Exe2! Taking over the initiative and the two bishops. White seems to be lost here. 24 Wxe2 2a6 25 c4 Wxe2+ 26 xe2 2xc4+ 27 Sd1 Sf8 28 Add &xd5 29 £3 2e3 30 DbS AcB 31 Hel f4 32 a3 &b7 33 Exe3 fxe3 34 Se2 2a6+ 35 Sxe3 He8+ 36 Sd2 He2+ 37 &c3 Axg2 38 Abs Exh2 39 Ed1 Ge7 0-1 The next example has some similari- ties — which should be quite obvious. Feher-Titov Budapest 1990 Here Black is fully justified in recap- turing with the pawn — opening the e- file, getting a square for the c8-bishop with the break ...f6-£5 and, as a result, simultaneously eliminating White’s cen- 37an as , hy Excelling at Positional Chess ue. Again the weakness of White’s queenside is worsened by the introduc- tion of the bishops. At the same time d3 is exposed as a potentially weak square in the white camp. Notice that this square is weak only because of the well- placed knight on 5. Black won the game easily: 15...exf6! 16 0-0 f5 17 b4? Black was, of course, a lot better anyway, but after this move he is just winning 17...D)xe4 18 Wb3 De3 19 Hbe1 a4 20 Wed 2d7 21 WFa HcB 22 2d3 WEE 23 Act Abs 24 Ande Axd3 25 DxeB Bxc8 0-1 Weaknesses obviously have a major impottance in the middlegame, and this is indeed a book about the middlegame but, usually, their creation is in the mid- dlegame and their exploitation is in the endgame. One of these endgames is that of opposite coloured bishops, which people know remarkably litle about despite the fact that there is not so much to know. Opposite coloured bishop endings are all about weak- nesses, passed pawns and domination, as will be well illustrated by Black in the next example. Donoso Velasco-Silva Santiago 1994 Sivilian Defence 1 e4 c5 2 Af3 Ac6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4 g6 5 Dc3 £97 6 Db3 D6 7 Be2 0-0 8 0-0 dé 9 2g5 Le6 10 $h1 Hc8 11 f4 HeB 12 &f3 ad 13 a4 Wb6 14 Ad5?7! I do not like this move. After the ex- change not only does the d5-pawn e- strict the bishop but there are weak- nesses on the queenside that did not exist a move earlier. 14.,.2xd5! 15 exd5 Db4 16 c3? 16 Bct was a lot better. 16...2d3! 17 Wxd3 Wxb3 18 Wb5?! White has been careless for some moves and now he accepts a weak pawn on b5 which will cither be lost or, as in the game, the cause of much misery. Instead an admittedly unattractive move such as 18 Bfb1, intending 19 a3, was probably necessary. But this just shows how poor White’s prospects have be- come. Nevertheless, the solid nature of the position might still give White a chance to save the game. 18...Wxb5 19 axb5 b6 20 Za4 The rook is very much misplaced out here, although it is difficult to find an- other move. Now comes a very nice reply, the like of which is seen in many positions where there is nothing much going on. 20...8c5! Us 2 i oy w Black forces White to push the c- pawn, which creates new weaknesses that could prove problematic. Because these weaknesses will persist for a very long 22time they are called permanent (or static) weaknesses. Tt is often the case that one player will invest time in order to induce permanent weaknesses in the enemy camp, as Black does here with 20...2c5. 2104 Bc7 Here Black could also have played 21...Ad7 to prevent the exchange on £6 and transfer the knight to c5. White would be in a bad way after 22 b3 Hc7 23 Het Ac5 24 Ba3 SFB when his pieces are clearly not very well placed and his pawns are more susceptible to attack than Black’s, and therefore weak. 22 Bel of8 White elects to enter an opposite coloured bishop ending which, unfor- tunately, is close to losing, 23 &xf6?! 4 fA “ a ams a Bit ae 23 b3 Dd7 24 Ba3 Dc5 would have transposed to the note to Black’s 21st move. 23...exf6!! This recapture is probably rather ob- vious if we retrace our steps and look at the previous examples, but I am sure that most players would have played 23,..&xf6 on auto-pilot. The different advantages of the text will become ap- parent, one by one, as we progress Defining Weaknesses through the game. The immediate ad- vantage is the opening of the e-file. 24 Bxe8+ Sxe8 25 g3 In a fabulous article entitled From the Simple to the Complex in the book Tech- nique for the Tournament Player, Mark Dvoretsky explains that the side trying to win an opposite coloured bishop ending should try to place his pawns on the opposite colour of his bishop, while the side defending should try to place his pawns on the same colour as his bishop (p.89). The reason for this is that, effectively, the board is divided into two ‘camps’ of equal size: light and dark squares. To win the game you need to take over some enemy territory, and to advance @ pawn you need to cross just as many light as dark squares. A common defensive set-up in endings with opposite coloured bishops is that of a fortress. The idea is simple ~ the bishop and a limited number of pawns can be enough to gain full control of over half of the board and, in doing so, prevent the remaining pawns from ad- vancing. To win you have to avoid this situation and create passed pawns. The only way to do this is to fight the bishop. In this example 25 £5 Be7! 26 Bat He3 would give Black a winning posi- tion thanks to his well-placed rook. But after 25 gd! White would probably bé better off than in the game. The double thrust of the pawn is logical since it ad- dresses Black’s next, after which Black has a lasting positional advantage on the kingside. 25...f5 _The weaknesses in Black’s kingside pawn structure are £7 and h7, but there 39Excelling at Positional Chess is obviously no way for White to attack these, so Black can manoeuvre freely. ‘The same cannot be said for White, whose Achilles Heel is the h2-pawn. Note that Black’s pawn is far more use- ful on £7 than e7. 26 b3 Se7 27 b4? After this I have no faith White’s po- sition. Black gets a passed pawn and a passage for the king to penetrate the queenside. As we shall see it would probably be better to just lose the pawn. White could activate the rook with 27 Ha2! Bel+ 28 2 Bbt 29 He2+ bd7 30 Be3 Bd4 31 Hd3 &c5 when Black clearly has the advantage but still has to find a winning plan. 27...Be1+ 28 &g2 2c3 29 bxad bxaS 30 Za2 30 c5 dxc5 31 Hc4 Rd offers White no hope, 30...8d7 31 &f2 Hal! 32 Bxat Axal 33 2d1 2d4+ 34 de2 &c7 34..2gt 35 BEL Qxh2 36 Wg? is ob- viously too soon, but the white king can- not effort to step further away. 35 h3 hS My ee re aa yi zis sm Although level in terms of material the situation is beyond salvation for White. The weakness of the kingside as well as the passed pawn on the other flank combine to be decisive. The funny thing is that if there were a black pawn ‘on b6 the game would probably still be drawn because White would defend his weakness on g3 while infiltration by the king on the queenside is not possible. Black does have a plan involving ...f7- £6, ...g6-g5 and ...h5-h4 but whether this is enough to win the game is not clear. I would guess not, The position would not count as that of two weaknesses as the immobility of the king is also a weakness. As it is the position counts as one of two weaknesses — mote of this below. 36 &d3 291 36...2(2! was even stronger. But White lets Black create a passed pawn on the kingside anyway, so there was no reason to force him to do it. 37 g4 fxg4 38 hxg4 ha Two distant enough to win. 39 #5 g5 40 &c3 &b6 41 &b3 Sc5 42 a4 &b6 43 £F3 2da! Before infiltrating with the king Black improves his bishop to an ideal square. 44 &h1 2f6 45 292 2d8 46 2h1 &c5 47 Sb3 kd4 48 292 2b6 49 &h1 £6 50 292 %e3 0-1 passed pawns are Creation of Weaknesses ‘An important part of positional play is to create permanent weaknesses in the opponent’s camp. The idea is that in a position with many weaknesses the de- fending side will be so busy defending that the protection of the accumulated weaknesses will eventually prove impos- sible to catry out. This is why we often see strong players not uying 10 winDefining Weaknesses weak pawns immediately but instead allowing them to survive until they can be picked up without having to make concessions. The following examples are typical. Karpov-Lautier Dortmund 1995 1t anys as on sn By JA Nothing seems to be going on in this position. Now Karpov starts what is a standard plan in these kind of Queen’s Gambit positions — the ##inority attack. ‘The idea is really simple. By advancing his two pawns on the queenside White aims to create a weakness among Black’s pawn majority. In this way White can create a target on which to focus his offensive operations, while Black has problems creating anything on the kingside, where White is well represented 20 b4! Ag6é 21 a4 White is now threatening to create a weakness with a4-a5-a6, which will un- detmine the support of the ¢6-pawn. 1...a6 1...8c71? is a possible improvement. idea is that White wants to see what is doing before he selects a pawn ce. After 22 a5 Black would then have 22...a6!, blockading the pawns, whereafter b4 is a potential weakness. And 22 b5 would then be met with 22,..cxb5 23 axb5 2b6 with a playable position. 22 &c3 Wa5 23 2a! ‘Typical Karpov. Before he carries out his own plan he makes a slight im- provement to his position. Here he ex- ploits the enemy queen’s lack of breath- ing space to improve his pieces and ex- change Black’s only defender of the queenside, thus facilitating the execu- tion of the minority attack. 23...2xd4 24 Dxd4 2d5 25 e4 2e6 26 Df3 Wa 27 bs! Now it is time. After this break Black is doomed to finding himself with a weak pawn on the queenside. 27.,.axb5 28 axb5 DeS Probably Black should have changed the course of the game hete with 28... Rxh3!? 29 e5 Bxe2 30 Sxg2 Dxed 31 @xe5 Wxe5 with compensation for the sacrificed piece. I have a feeling that white is still slightly better, but I think that the came is quickly spiralling out of control for Black, and immediate action was needed. 29 DxeS5 WxeS 30 bxc6 bxc6 31 Bact The minority attack has been exe- cuted to perfection. Black is left with a weak c-pawn, to which his forces will be tied in defensive duties. Karpov makes the most of his advantage thanks to excellent technique. 31...4d6 32 Wc3 Dd7 33 Be2! ‘A forcing line, leading to problems for Black’s bishop. 33...Exd1+ 34 2xd1 Wxe3 35 Exc3 Bc8 36 £4 £6 37 De2lExcelling at Positional Chess Improving the worst placed piece. Black is probably lost already. 37...05 38 Dd4 £f7 39 &g4 Hes 40 DbS Abs 41 DAd6 Dad 42 Ba3 Ra8 43 5 Add 44 €6 1-0 Black resigned in view of 44...@f8 45 He3! Ba7 46 DcB etc, From one of my own games: Aagaard-S.B.Hansen Copenhagen 1997 ae o 2 Wi Wy ls, 4 In this position Black has just pushed with 29..b5?l, intending to generate counterplay on the kingside. This move is poor for two reasons. First thete is 30 Wa2I? with the idea of 31 We5, illustrat- ing how abandoning the g5-square has led to the weakening of the g7-square, thereby endangering the king. This is a weakness, of course, only in view of the well placed knight on {5, and probably not the worst downside to 29...h5. A bigger problem is that in the long run White will be able to create a passed pawn on the kingside. Consequently I played a move that, after the game, my opponent claimed was a mistake. A move he did not understand. However, as we shall see, my evaluation of the position was probably correct. I chose to exchange queens and go into an endgame, predicting the follow- ing pawn formation: Hete White will be able to create a second weakness in the enemy camp when he wants, for after g3-g4 he will either exchange on h5 to leave a weak pawn there or he will himself make an outside passed pawn, which, indeed, does count as a weakness. Actually I think the rule would be easier to under- stand if it was called the rule of two advan- vages. Here it is of great importance that the bishops remaining on the board operate on the light squares. If they were dark-squared the h4-pawn would be weak. The idea of the rule of two weak- nesses is that, in order to win in the endgame your opponent needs to have two weaknesses. I have said that this should be called two advantages be- cause having a passed pawn or an active king also counts. In fact everything that could be important seems to count. This makes the rule a bit fuzzy, but it still has great practical use. Of course one weakness is occasionally enough, but in the majotity of cases it is the right strategy to induce a second weakness in 42Defining Weaknesses the opponent’s camp before setting about exploiting the first. 30 Waa! Wxd4 Black has no good squares for the queen so the coming endgame is practi- cally inevitable. 31 DAxd4 £a4 32 Bc1 St8 33 £3 Dd7 34 &f2 Des 35 Afi &d7 36 Uxe8+ Hxe8 37 Hd1 Dad 38 Bd2 g6 39 £e2 Db6 40 h4 He7 41 &a3 S97 42 Dc2 He8B 43 De3 Ac6 44 Re2 Sf6 45 Hd4 Se6 46 2d1 Bas 47 2b3 Bd6 # Bs ace V a A White has now positioned his forces in the best possible way. The d5-pawn is under considerable pressure and Black must constantly watch out for the break with c3-c4. All of this makes it the appropriate time to create a second weakness, this time on the kingside. 48 g4! hxg4 49 fxg4 a5 Black is tired of waiting and secks ac- tive counterplay. In practice this makes a real difference, although it does not change the evaluation of the position. To alter the direction of play is essential for Black. 50 Sg3!? T allow Black to generate counterplay on the queenside at the cost of a pawn, as I did not believe that this would in any way be sufficient to counter the threats on the kingside and in the cen- tre. 50...a4 51 2c2 a3!? Otherwise the a-pawn might also be weak, sooner ot later. 52 bxa3 Hd8 53 2b3 Ba8 54 ho Exa3 55 h6 With the threat of 56 g5! etc. 55...95. 56 Xd1? Not throwing away all of the advan- tage but missing an easy win. After 56 Eb4! Dd7"57 cl Black has no good moves left and will soon find himself in a completely hopeless situation. 56...8a8 57 Bf1 Bh8 68 DS 247 43Excelling at Positional Chess 59 Sc2 $e5 60 Bh1? Another grim mistake. After 60 He1+ £6 61 Dg?! Be6 62 DhS+ Le7 63 Ebi Ad7 64 h7, as given by Donev, White still has a large advantage due to his passed pawn. I feel that Black does have genuine chances to save the game hete but this line was still the only win- ning try. 1 would have played it had I seen 61 Bg7!, obviously. 60...2xf5! 61 AxfS Dad 62 h7 Axc3 63 #F3 %-% Koneru-loseliani India 2002 SY, Vi, A eee GEG, 4 In this position White played the very strong 16 &f5! and claimed an advan- tage. Humpy Koneru writes the follow- ing in New In Chess: ‘Although all Black’s queenside pawns are on light squares, Black’s light-squared bishop is useful to protect the potential weakness on c6.” This simple point is the logic behind India’s strongest female player. She is indeed right, and won the game in com- forrable style. Permanent versus Temporary Advantages This heading could be the theme of a full book! Here I will just give a brief example of how these two kinds of ad- vantages contradict each other. Boe-Aagaard Denmark 1992 Scotch Game 1 e4 05 2 D3 DcB 3 d4 exd4 4 Dxd4 Lc5 5 2e3 WHE 6 c3 Dge7 7 &c4 b6 8 0-0 2b7 9 DbS 0-0-0 10 &xcS bxc5 11 Dd2 a6 12 a3 d5!? After this move Black’s pawn struc- ture on the queenside is in ruins but the lead in development is also important. 13 exd5 Dxd5 14 WH3 Des! 15 Wxf6 gxt6 Black has six (!) isolated pawns, two sets of doubled pawns and hardly any dark squares yet he might even be better here. The open files have no long-term value, neither has the threat of ..D£4, but at the moment these factors fully compensate for the weaknesses. In fact this is quite common ~ one player has the long-term advantages and the other the short-term advantages. The game now ended in a draw: 16 2xd5 &xd5 17 £3 2xa2 18 Ded Re6 19 Axc5 Hd2 20 Ht2 Bhd’ 21 Hxd2 Xxd2 22 Abs 2h3 %-% 44CHAPTER FOUR Squares - And How Pieces Exploit Them In this chaptet I will feature a few basic truths about positional chess — aspects of the game in which I have seen rather capable players fail from time to time. I do not intend to provide a complete picture as I expect that a number of readers understand most of this already, but as the points in this chapter are es- sential and rather uncontroversial truths, I feel that we all should know them, So please tead on when you feel I am insulting yout intelligence. Knights and Squares Es The knight is the weakest of the minor pieces for a specific reason — it has no long-range possibilities. As control of the centre is a main part of positional chess it has been said that ‘knights on the tim are dim’ because only when a knight is near to the centre can it con- trol squares in this busy area. Another characteristic of the knight that makes it weaker than other pieces is its silly walk (this is, of course, also its strength). Thanks to the way it moves around it can never take a piece that is threaten- ing it! This makes it more vulnerable than the rest of the pieces, and for this reason the knight usually needs a fixed - strongpoint somewhere in the centre, from where it can exercise maximum pressure on the opponent’s position. This kind of square is ideal if it is right in front of one of the opponent’s pawns — in this way the knight can use the opponent's pawn as a shield from rooks and queens. A good example of this is the following: Mohr-Volokitin Portoroz 2001 45Excelling at Positional Chess In this position Black played: 13...De5!? This move has both good and bad points. The minuses are that the long diagonal for the bishop gets closed and White gets a protected passed pawn on d5. On the plus side White has to give up his two bishops (or lose a tempo), and the newly vacated d6-square be- comes an ideal outpost for a knight, as can be seen in the next diagram. Which of these pluses and minuses is most important in this position is not obvi- ous, even after seeing the rest of the game. A quieter move was 13...We7. 14 &xe5 dxe5 15 a5! A strong positional move, designed fot so much to prevent ...b7-b5 (which could be difficult to achieve) but rather to isolate the c-pawn from the rest of the queenside pawns, and thereby make it weak. 15...De8 16 Wd2 Ad6 Here the black knight is as good as it gets. From dé it exerts pressure on e¢ and c4, as well as being able to help with the breaks ...b7-b5 and ...f7-f5. The game is probably somewhat balanced, with White, if anyone, a little berter due to the weakness of the c-pawn. 17 Dad XcB 18 Hac c4 19 Abe Hc7 20 Wb4 f5 21 ADxcd 2hE 22 BDe3 Excl 23 Excl fxe4 24 294 Bhs 25 Le6 Wh4 26 g3 Wd8 27 Hei Hf3 28 294 Hf8 29 2e6 HF 30 2g4 Bt8 %-% The d6-square was a very good post for the knight in this game, but it could have been viewed as a little passive as well. Take a look at the following ex- ample. Wells-Aagaard Copenhagen 1996 Queen's Indian Defence 1 d4 AG 2 D3 eG 3 c4 b6 4 a3 &b7 5 Dc3 dd 6 &g5 dxc4 7 e4 &e7 8 We2 Dc6 9 Hd1 Dad 10 De5 0-0 11 Axcd Axc4 12 Axed c5 13 d5 exd5 14 exd5 This was, at the time, a critical line in the Queen’s Indian, Later White found more aggressive ways to play the posi- tion, although I have a fecling that there is general equilibrium. In this position Black could play along the lines of the previous example with 14..Qe8?!, which I believed was the’ right move in the post-mortem 46Squares - And How Pieces Exploit Them analysis, but after 15 S23 Dd6 16 &d3 h6 17 0-0 I did not like Black’s position. The problem is that none of the pieces is sufficiently active. The knight might look pretty on d6 but, compared with the previous example, influence over e¢ and f5 has litle importance, while the absence of pawns on a6 and e5 makes it easier for White to remove the knight from dé (and thereby improve the value of the passed pawn — or at least tie more black pieces down to the blockade of the pawn). All in all not a promising position, But what else? 14..Ag4 is a suggestion of Fritz, but after 15 Bxe7 Wxe7+ 16 Re2 (16 We2 Wh4 and White has problems complet- ing development) 16...\We5 White has 17 We4! with an endgame advantage due to the strong passed pawn. Perhaps 16...Wh4!? is better, but I still prefer White. I believe the tight move must be 14...Db5I, eg. 15 Be} Bd6 16 Bed (16 0-02 Wh4 demonstrates the main prob- lem of having unprotected pieces — they tend to fall off the board...) 16..D£6 17 Asfo+ (17 Axd6 Wxd6 18 0-0 Axd5 offers White no — compensation) 17.. Wixf6 18 0-0 Had8 19 Bfet 25 and Black seems very close to being equal. Alternatively after 15 &xe7 Waxe7 16 We2 Wh4 White has continued problems with development, and in the event of 16 @e2 Had8 Black can always return the knight to quite an attractive square on £6, from whete it puts pres- sure on the d-pawn. The solution to the problem is that the knight is best placed on £6, and in some situations on £4. In the game I played anti-positionally. 14,..&d6? 15 2e2! ‘A true grandmaster move from my grandmaster opponent. Now the pin and the strong d-pawn become the most important aspects of the position. ‘And, importantly, the bishop finds a better square than c4, 15 0-0? &xh2H, winning a pawn for Black, was my simplistic threat. 15...2e5 16 0-0 a6 17 Ded &c8 18 d6 Ha7 19 Axc5 &xb2 20 De4 He8 21 Wxb2 Bxe4 22 £e3 Ad7 23 2f3 Be5 24 2d4 Hb5 25 We2 Ac5 26 &c6 Had 27 Efe1 De6 28 Wed Wxd6 29 &xb6 Wxc6 30 Bd8+ Ars 31 We8 Wxe8 32 Hexe8 hé Here something funny happened. My opponent had only ten seconds remain- ing with which to reach move 40 and, trying to make his move, he dropped his rook into my lap. When I tried to hand it back to him, he was already standing next to me, ready to search for the piece. After the game he explained that the fair play I had displayed was uncommon in Open tournaments on the European circuit, 33 Exf8+ @h7 34 &xad 1-0 Finally, thinking about knights, here is a little exercise on the theme. What should Black play after the following moves? Fagerstrom-Aagaard Sweden 2002 London System 1 d4 Df6 2 AF3 g6 3 &t4 297 4e3 d6 5 &c4 c6 6 0-0 0-0 7 h3 2d7 8 Dbd2 Dad 9 Le2 c5 10 Db3 cxd4 11 exd4 47Excelling at Positional Chess Black to move The solution is, of course, to take the light squares in the centre. The knight on £6 could be better placed because on £6 it hampers the bishop’s control overt the centre, while not having enough influence of its own. The best square is obviously 45. Black’s other knight would love to come to c4, of course. Therefore some of my juniors chose 11...8c8, which is quite a logical move. But after 12 @xa5 Wxa5 13 c4 the position seems to be a litde better for White. The right move must be: 11...b5! Aw ~. \ \\ ~ Ss \\ Rote Y nea) NN Black has a pleasant position and will be able to use the d5-squate for both the knight and the bishop (as happened in the game). A funny note is that after 12 Wd2 Ac4 13 Bxc4 bxe4 14 Had Black can exploit the d5-square to the maximum with 14...c3!, winning imme- diately. One of my juniors suggested 11...Ad5 12 &h2 b5 with the reasoning that on 11..b5 White has the possibility of 12 d5!?. [agree that it is possible, but the opening of the long diagonal for the g7-bishop makes up for the loss of the d5-square. And the pawn on d5 also seems to be a little weak. Again — pluses and minuses. I prefer 11..b5 as White needs to take care of the unprotected bishop on f4 and possibly lose a tempo. Alexander liked 11.,@d5 first. Posi- tional chess is about evaluating pros and cons — we don’t always come to the same conclusions and we don’t always agree that one is right and another wrong. The game continued 12 Dxa5 WxaB 13 Be’ with a complex struggle ahead. Bishops - The Archers of Chess While knights have to get close to their victims in order to hit them with a deadly blow, bishops have true long- range power. And because they go di- agonally across the board they can be compared to archers in a medieval bat- tle, shooting down their enemies while simultaneously staying out of harm’s way. Bishops are known as inferior to knights if their are pawns on only one flank, or if the position is closed. This is because their long-range abilities are then worthless. However, in open posi- tions with pawns on both flanks, bish- 7 48ops are generally superior to knights due to their ability to quickly shift their attention from one side of the board to the other, and even sometimes influ- ence both sides simultaneously. In the following position the white bishop is very strong, Fischer-Taimanov Vancouver 1971 ee a ae Taimanov wrote about this endgame: ‘In what followed I felt like Dr. Watson who could only play along and watch the resourcefulness and imagination of the great Sherlock Holmes.’ 25 Sti! Forcing Black to play ..a6-a5. Of course White would like Black to put his queenside pawns on light squares so the bishop would be able to attack them. 25...a5 26 £c4 Bf8 27 dg2 due 28 &f3 Dd7 29 He3 Abs 30 Bd3+ &c7 31 c3 Ac6 32 He3 wade If Black tries to do something about his pawns with 32...a4 he will just have an additional weakness on a4 after 33 a3l etc. 33 a4! The bishop really likes the outpost on c4 and with the text Fischer makes cer- tain that the knight cannot threaten the bishop. The pawn might be on a light square but the most important factor is that the rest of the pawns are on dack squares. 33...De7 34 h3 DAc6 35 h4 hdS It was very uncomfortable to let White play h4-h5 and g3-g4g5, but now White forces Black to put the king- side pawns on light squares. I believe that in both cases Black would have lost the game. 36 Hd3+ &c7 37 Ed5! #5 37..8h8 38 BgS and White wins. Black has no way to avoid weakening his position. 38 Xd2 Bf6 39 Be2 Sd7 40 He3 g6 Sooner or Jater this would have to be played. 41 &b5 Hd6 42 Se2 eds? This is considered to be the losing mistake but I doubt that Black would have been able to withstand the pres- sure forever. Even theoretically. 43 Ba3! Fischer executes the winning plan. ‘The bishop dominates the knight. 43...8c7 44 Exd6 &xd6 45 &d3 De7 46 eB Sd5 47 At7+ The bishop has the ability to lose a move, something the knight cannot do. Here White uses this to penetrate with his king. 47..8d6 48 &c4 ke6 49 Le8+ &b7 50 Sb5 AcB 51 Lc6+ Sc7 52 &d5 De7 53 &t7 Sb7 54 &b3 Fischer knows the old Russian trick of showing who is the master by repeat ing the position a few times. 54...8a7 55 2d1 &b7 56 Rf3+ e7 57 &aG AcB 58 dd De7 59 49.