Do you know how to analyse?

This complicated position was cited by Alexander Kotov in his well-known book Think Like a Grandmaster. He wrote:

I once analysed in detail the apparently simple, but in fact very tricky position of the diagram. Then I asked the people in the group to study it and in the course of half an hour write down all the variations which they thought should be examined. They were not allowed to move the pieces. Then we examined the position together and so exhausted all the possibilities it contained. It turned out that it was far from simple to discover all the special features of the position. This can be shown by the fact that one strong master in his notes wrote that White would win by 1.e8Q and gave the beautiful variation 1...Rxe8 2.Qxg7+ Bxg7 3.Rxe8+ Qf8 4.Rxf8#. He also took account of the cunning reply 1...Rg1+ which fails to 2.Kh3 Qf5+ 3.Kh4. However, he failed to find the excellent rejoinder 1...Rd2+! and Black draws. Taking the rook is bad – 2.Qxd2 Rxe8 3.Rxe8 Qc6+ and 4...Qxe8. 2.Kf3 (or f1) loses to the reply 2...Qf5+, while after 2.Kh1 there comes 2...Rd1+ with perpetual. Black has a very fine win after 2.Kh3 viz. 2...Qf5+ 3.g4 Qf1+ 4.Kh4 Rxh2+ 5.Kg5 Rc5+ 6.Q(either!)e5 Qf6#.

That is the way to work on the second important factor in developing analytical ability – the ability to find the really important lines.

Good advice, but today we are going to turn the sword on Kotov and demolish his assessment of the test position.

After the initial moves

1.e8Q Rd2+ 2.Kh1

Black is not obliged to settle for perpetual check. He has another, much stronger idea:

2...Rxb2!!

For a small price Black destroys a key player in White's attack and transforms his pawn majority into a powerful force. This idea is somewhat counter-intuitive because it allows White to keep two queens on the board. However, it turns out that the “queen pair” is not very effective!

3.Qe6

There were many other choices:

a) 3.Qxc8? Qd5+ and mates;

b) 3.Qce5 Rxe8 4.Qxc5 Rd8 5.Qh5 Rdd2 6.Re1 Rxh2+ (6...c3 7.Rc1 Kg8 8.Qh3 Re2 9.Qh5 Rbd2 and White is helpless) 7.Qxh2 Rxh2+ 8.Kxh2 b4 and Black is winning;

c) 3.Qxb2 Rxe8 4.Rxe8 Qc6+ and wins;

d) 3.Qe4 Ra2 4.Qce5 Qxe5 5.Qxe5 b4 and wins;

e) 3.Qee5 Rb3 4.Qe1 Qxa3 and Black is winning.

3...Rf2 4.Qe1

If 4.Qee5 Qb6 5.Qe6 Rc6 6.Qe4 Rcf6 7.Qcd4 Bc5 8.Qa8+ Rf8 9.Re8 Qg6 10.Qxf2 Rxe8 11.Qxe8+ Qxe8 12.Qxc5 Qb8 and White can safely resign.

4...Rf6 5.Qe4 c3

and Black's pawns decide the issue; for example: 6.Kg2 c2 7.Qc1 Rd6 8.Re1 Rcd8 9.Qexc2 Qxc2+ 10.Qxc2 Rd2+ 11.Qxd2 Rxd2+ etc.

The search for important candidate moves has to be relentless!

Capablanca on Moscow 1925

The following interview with J.R. Capablanca was conducted by a Berlin newspaper in 1925. The World Champion had stopped while en route from the recently-concluded Moscow tournament.

...We were received in the capital of the Soviet Union with genuine Russian hospitality, straight from the heart, and the Soviet Government did everything to make the participants' visit to their country as pleasant as possible. During our entire stay in Moscow we were the guests of the government, and were at all times treated with great courtesy. For example, we were freed from all hotel expenses, even the most trifling ones, and accommodation in Moscow as well as the train trip to Russia and back was paid for by the Soviet Government on behalf of all the players.

All of the tournament participants were pleasantly surprised by the extraordinary enthusiasm for chess displayed by all levels of the Russian population. As is well-known, the competition was held in the magnificent Hotel Меtropol, and with such a weight of spectators that the enormous tournament hall appeared to be too small. It was constantly overflowing, and was made to contain three and even four times its capacity, while the tickets for each round were were sold out days in advance. For me this is an indicator of the Russians' genuine enthusiasm for chess, which one could even describe as a passion.

The Soviet Government gives chess a important place in its system. By way of illustration, a formal reception for the players was arranged by Mr Krylenko, the general public prosecutor of the USSR. Mr Krylenko, along with fulfilling his important duties in the field of justice, is also the head of the Chess Section for the entire Soviet Union.

Bogoljubow's victory was met with the greatest enthusiasm by his fellow countrymen. A crowd followed him through the streets, and everywhere he went he was met with deafening applause.

As to the techniques and methods of the Moscow tournament, I will refrain for the time being from making any judgements in this respect. I can only express the view that this tournament has confirmed once again the old assertion that in an international competition there can be no absolute, mathematical certainty as to its outcome. Even where the greatest players are taking part, there is still the possibility that a third party will overtake them. This is what happened in Moscow. In general, the strength of all the participants was well-known to everyone, and everyone had a full opportunity to display their abilities. In my case, I had already had the chance to cross swords with Bogoljubow, in London [1922] and New York [1924].

In any case, the young chessplayers of the USSR survived their baptism of fire in Moscow in excellent fashion, and showed that they are worthy of the hopes placed upon them for the future.

Torre, the youngest participant in Moscow, is improving from tournament to tournament right before one's eyes.

It is still not clear whether I will be able to play in the Semmering International Tournament, which is set to take place in March, 1926. But this tournament also promises to be very interesting, with such players as Alekhine and Tartakover in the lists...

Levenfish on Moscow 1925

Today we offer another extract from Grigory Levenfish's 1967 book Selected Games and Reminiscences.

...The Moscow International Tournament was set to begin on November 9^th. The organizing committee did not repeat the mistakes made in connection with the St Petersburg tournament of 1914. The preparatory work had already begun in April, and the entry consisted of 10 Soviet and 11 foreign masters. The committee managed to secure the participation of the world champion Capablanca, the ex-champion Lasker, as well as Rubinstein, Reti, Marshall, Tartakower, and Spielmann, so the entry was truly a strong one.

The Fountain Hall of the Hotel Metropol was chosen as the playing site. This hall is not directly connected to the outside atmosphere. The ventilation system had been designed for approximately 200 restaurant patrons, but during the tournament the number of spectators approached 1,000. The fountain only made the situation worse, and the “climate” can only be described as damp and tropical. Capablanca, who was used to the heat of Havana, told me he would not object if the participants were allowed to wear bathing costumes during play. The order was given to make the ventilation system more powerful, but that was going to take more than a week, and meanwhile the players had to tolerate the heat and the noise. Rubinstein and Spielmann in particular had trouble adapting to the conditions. On the other hand Bogoljubow felt fine, being the picture of health to start with. In the second half of the tournament I managed to acclimatise myself to some extent, but it was already too late. I finished the tournament in 15^th place, winning two prizes: one for the best result over the last five rounds, and the other for the best score against the foreign players.

I was amazed by Lasker's adaptability. At the age of 57 he played the whole tournament with great energy and ended up in second place.

All in all the tournament went extremely well. Every day a huge crowd of people would surround the booking office in search of tickets, and the mounted police had to be called in to maintain order.

In the end Bogoljubow achieved the very best result of his chess career. For some time he considered it necessary to go along with Soviet chess organisers, even though he had been living in Triberg continuously since 1914. But when the All-Union Chess Section suggested that Bogoljubow refrain from competing in certain events abroad, he refused to comply and was excluded from the ranks of Soviet chessplayers.

Earlier I referred to the extraordinary interest in the tournament shown by the public. In spite of the high admission price it was not easy to find tickets. However, among the spectators one could spot a number of flashily-dressed women – apparently the wives of new capitalists – who did not understand anything about chess, but who thought it important to make an appearance at such a popular and well-attended gathering. The hot-blooded Capablanca was especially popular with these women, and after the tournament he was able to relate more than one adventure reminiscent of The Decameron...

Levenfish on St Petersburg 1914

We offer without commentary an extract from Grigory Levenfish's 1967 book Selected Games and Reminiscences. Grandmaster Levenfish died in 1961 and his memoirs were published posthumously.

...The organizing committee managed to attract a very strong complement of grandmasters. The first to accept his invitation was Lasker, the World Champion, mainly because he was offered a special appearance fee. Next were the two challengers for the chess crown: Capablanca and Rubinstein. Then Tarrasch, Marshall, Janowski, Bernstein, the two winners of the preliminary masters tournament Alekhine and Nimzowitsch, and finally the veterans Blackburne and Gunsberg. Unfortunately, Duras, Maroczy and Schlechter declined their invitations. There were to be five prizes awarded.

Would the 45-year-old Lasker be able to compete with the young Capablanca, who had astonished all of Europe with his successes, and with Rubinstein, the winner of a series of strong international tournaments? These were the main questions stirring the interest of chessplayers throughout the world.

I assisted the organizing committee in finding accommodation for the players. Rubinstein arrived a week before the tournament and was given quarters in the European Hotel. After just two days he expressed dissatisfaction with his room, saying he was disturbed by the noise of the elevator. One of the Committee members then offered Rubinstein the choice of any room in his apartment. There were six rooms in all, and the host was a bachelor who lived alone. Rubinstein duly moved there, but again he was unsatisfied. He found the apartment so quiet as to be oppressive, and he had to be transferred back to the hotel. It was clear to me that Akiba's nervous system had become weakened, and this did not bode well for the future.

The Moscow lawyer O.S. Bernstein had been Rubinstein's main competitor in the Vilna tournament [1912] and in his playing strength he did not give anything away to his rivals. But Bernstein had not spent much time on chess and his theoretical preparation was manifestly inadequate. He lost the decisive game with Tarrasch right in the opening, and with White at that.

The Riga player Nimzowitsch had achieved a major success in the San Sebastian tournament of 1912, where he was in the running for first prize right up to the last round.

No one was placing any special hopes on Alekhine, as this was his first opportunity to cross swords with world-class grandmasters. In fact he achieved only a modest result against Lasker and Capablanca, but he played with great success against the other grandmasters. As it turned out, Alekhine was the only player from Russia in the group of finalists.

The play of Capablanca made an unforgettable impression on me. He too was making his first appearance in such a strong tournament, but even so he appeared to be playing quite effortlessly. In the preliminary rounds he won game after game. He played exceptionally well in his first encounter with Lasker. An amazing pawn sacrifice led to the win of material, and it was only a very deep defence that saved Lasker from defeat.

At this tournament I saw Tarrasch for the first time. After he lost his match to Lasker, his native arrogance had been knocked down somewhat; nevertheless his impertinent and self-assured manner made an unpleasant impression. His service to the cause of popularising chess is indisputable. Two whole generations have studied his books, and it is no coincidence that he was given the title Praeceptor Germaniae. His strategy was dogmatic, but his tactics were excellent. His game against Nimzowitsch took the first prize for brilliancy.

The Russian emigre Janowski had moved to France and was living in Paris. He was certainly the most elegant of the participants, both in appearance and in his manner of play. During the period from 1900 to 1907 he achieved his greatest successes; but his matches with Lasker and Marshall showed conclusively that his talent had declined. Janowski had become too enamoured with games of chance, and did not have the time or patience for chess.

Marshall's appearance did not correspond with one's image of the typical Yankee. It is possible that a dash of Indian blood was showing its traces. His credo was the attack, which he conducted with great energy and patience, often overpowering weaker opponents. In tournaments of mixed strength Marshall won a number of high prizes, but in grandmaster tournaments and especially in matches against the strongest players, where his ingenious combinations were seen off by sturdy defence, he was not able to achieve much success.

Blackburne, the “patriarch” of the tournament, possessed a similar style. It was no accident that in his heyday his comrades-in-arms had nicknamed him “the Black Death.” Blackburne won a number of prizes in tournaments, but was defeated by lopsided scores in matches against Lasker, Steinitz, and Zukertort. Despite his age, Blackburne fought hard for every point. He defeated Nimzowitsch brilliantly, and in an inferior endgame he outwitted Rubinstein himself and achieved a draw.

In the 1890s Gunsberg had a reputation as one of the strongest chessplayers in the world. He drew a match with Chigorin and lost narrowly to Steinitz after a dour struggle. But an extended break from practical play had had a sharply telling effect on his mastery, and he lost games without a struggle. One must remark upon Gunsberg's patience. It is not easy to endure a series of losses, but Gunsberg remained unruffled and politely congratulated each one who defeated him.

The sensation of the tournament was the complete failure of Rubinstein. In terms of quality, his play was quite unrecognisable. Against all expectations, Rubinstein did not qualify for the final group of five players. Capablanca took the lead easily and finished the first stage with 8 points out of 10 games. There was a bitter struggle for the remaining places. In the eighth round Lasker lost somewhat fortuitously to Bernstein, and in the ninth round he was on the edge of defeat against Tarrasch. The fate of Rubinstein could easily have overtaken Lasker as well. Tarrasch started a joke: while the five qualifiers were playing the final, Rubinstein and Lasker were going to play a match for the World Championship. But in the final rounds Lasker improved his standing, and together with Tarrasch, he finished in second place with 6½ points. The fourth and fifth places were shared by Alekhine and Marshall with 6 points.

In the final stage of the tournament Lasker demonstrated exceptional mastery. It is enough to recall that in 8 games against Capablanca, Alekhine, Tarrasch, and Marshall, he scored 7 (!) points and captured first prize. Capablanca was half a point back. The big surprise was Alekhine's third-place finish. It had become obvious that Alekhine was moving confidently into the first rank of grandmasters.

The tournament produced many fine specimens of chess artistry, and one can only regret that so far no collection of games from this first-class event has been published in Russian...

Seven Brutalities 7

My opponent in this game is a rated expert with an aggressive style of play who has victimised a number of masters, myself included. I decided to play the Scandinavian Defence because unless White knows some exact theory he can easily overreach himself. However it soon becomes evident that White is playing for a draw.

P.Burke - D. Scoones
Labour Day Open, Langley 2007
Scandinavian Defence B01

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nxd5 4.Nxd5?!

This ill-considered exchange gives Black's queen a central position from which she cannot be easily dislodged. More common is 4.Bc4 Nb6 5.Bb3 when Black must tread very carefully.

4...Qxd5 5.Nf3

If 5.Qf3 the best remedy is 5...Qe6+ 6.Qe2 Nc6 7.Qxe6 Bxe6 8.Bb5 Bd5! 9.Nf3 0–0–0 which favours Black after 10.Bxc6 Bxc6 11.d3 e5 12.Be3 Bd6.

5...Nc6 6.d4 Bg4 7.Be2 0–0–0 8.Be3

White's best try is 8.0–0 Nxd4 9.Nxd4 Bxe2 10.Qxe2 Qxd4 11.Rb1!? with some compensation for the pawn.

8...e5 9.0–0 exd4 10.Nxd4 Bxe2 11.Nxe2 (diagram)

Time for an assessment. Black has an edge in development and before it fades away he must try to turn it into something more concrete.

11...Qc4!?

The alternative 11...Qb5 12.Nc3 Qxb2 13.Nd5 Qe5 wins a pawn but this would give my opponent an open file against my king and some cheapo potential.

12.Bd2

If 12.b3 Rxd1 ( 12...Qh4!?) 13.bxc4 Rxa1 14.Rxa1 Ne5 with continuing problems for White.

12...Bd6 13.b3 Qh4 14.g3 Qh3 15.Kh1 Qf5

Also possible was 15...h5 16.Ng1 Qf5.

16.f3 Rhe8 17.a3 Bc5

Here Black can play 17...Bxa3!? with the idea of 18.Rxa3 Qd5 but as before I did not want to give my opponent any open lines against my king unless his queen is exchanged or at least driven to a passive position.

18.Nf4 Ne5

A preventive move directed against 19.Nd3, blocking the d-file.

19.Qc1 g5 20.Ng2 f6

Also possible was 20...Nxf3 21.Bxg5 Re2 22.Qf4 Qxg5 23.Rxf3 Qxf4 24.Nxf4 Rxc2.

21.Be3 Bxe3 22.Qxe3 Nc6 23.Qf2 Nd4 24.Ne3 Qc5

Time for another assessment. In order to meet Black's concrete threats White has had to make a number of pawn moves but that has not relieved the pressure. Black has a definite advantage but notching the full point will not be simple... unless White makes further mistakes...

25.b4?

Stronger was 25.Rad1 Qxa3 26.Rd3 Qc5 27.c4 with some counterplay for White. The text also gives up a pawn but has the added drawback of allowing an effective simplifying combination.

25...Qc3 26.Rfe1 Rxe3!

Black has a winning rook ending after 27.Qxe3 Qxe3 28.Rxe3 Nxc2 29.Rae1 h5 30.R1e2 Nxe3 31.Rxe3 Rd1+ 32.Kg2 Rd2+ 33.Kg1 Kd7. My opponent decided he had seen enough and stopped the clocks.

0–1

A late tactic

Here is rook and pawn ending of a type that occurs frequently in blitz chess. With both sides about to promote a pawn, the general result is a draw. One side will give up his rook for the opponent's pawn, and will then force his opponent to do the same.

I am White in the diagram position and my last move was 57.g7. Black has several ways to force a draw, the simplest of which is 57...Rh4+ 58. Kg8 b2 59.Rb8 Rb4 60.Rxb4 Kxb4 61.Kf8 b1Q g8Q and there is no play left for either side.

However, my opponent apparently believed there was absolutely no danger and that he could play anything he liked. That's how he came up with:

1...Kc4?

A golden opportunity for White!

2.Rf4+! Rxf4

Unfortunately forced.

3.g8Q+

Black is now on the horns of a dilemma. If 3...Kb4 then 4.Qb8+ picks up the rook with an easy win. The same goes for 3...Kc3 4.Qg3+. All other moves (except 3...Rf7) allow 4.Qxb3, and White reaches the winning ending of queen vs rook. There was nothing left for Black but resignation.

The lesson here is that no matter how harmless a position may appear, it is still possible to fall into a trap!

Petrosian vs Spassky, Leningrad 1960

The tenth world champion Boris Spassky has written very little about chess. No game collection -- just some contributions to the Santa Monica 1966 tournament book, a contribution to a book on the Sicilian Najdorf, a few articles in obscure Soviet magazines, and that's about it. In this context he once described himself as a “lazy Russian bear.”

While browsing through the 1960 Soviet Yearbook the other day, I came across a rare set of annotations by Spassky, these to his game with Tigran Petrosian from the 27th USSR Championship in Leningrad. The lazy Russian bear had come out of hibernation!

Curiously, this is one of only three decisive games between Spassky and Petrosian from tournament play. Petrosian won again at the 1971 Alekhine Memorial in Moscow, and Spassky took a measure of revenge at the 1975 USSR Team Championship in Riga.

From now on the comments are by Boris Spassky.

Petrosian,T - Spassky,B
27th USSR Championship
Leningrad 1960

Before this game the two opponents had met eight times and even though most of the games had featured a sharp struggle, each one had ended in a draw. This time both players again went for a win and finally managed to break out of the “vicious circle” of draws.

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3 0–0 5.e4 d6 6.Be2 e5 7.0–0

This was a bit of a surprise for me. In this position Petrosian usually plays 7.d5.

7...Nbd7 8.Re1 c6 9.d5

With this move White closes the centre and also significantly reduces the activity of his opponent's dark-squared bishop. This advance is usually connected with a pawn storm on the queenside. At the same time one should also note the negative aspects of the move. Because Black now obtains a comfortable post for his knight – the square c5 – and because the pawn tension around the square e5 has been released, Black can now advantageously prepare the advance f7-f5.

9...Nc5 10.Bf1 a5 11.Bg5

The beginning of a definite plan. By pinning the Black knight, White prevents his opponent from preparing the advance f7-f5. At the same time he intends to transfer his own knight from f3 to d2 and later to b3. And if Black drives the enemy bishop to g3 by playing h7-h6 and g6-g5, then White will be able to bring it back into play after f2-f3. However, in the present situation this plan does not turn out successfully because of Black's 13th move.

11...h6 12.Bh4 g5 13.Bg3 Bg4! 14.Re3

White prepares to move his queen out of the pin. If he does this immediately by playing, say, 14.Qc2, then 14...Bxf3 15.gxf3 is very unpleasant for White because the bishop on g3 is left out of play. However, the move in the game involves a loss of time and with his 14th move Black begins an active plan of attack against e4, the stronghold of White's position.

14...b5! 15.dxc6

The strongest continuation. After 15.cxb5 cxd5 16.Nxd5 (if 16.exd5 then 16...e4, etc.) 16...Nfxe4 Black obtains good play.

15...b4 16.Nb5

16.Nd5 is also not dangerous for Black because of 16...Nfxe4 17.c7 Qe8 with good play.

16...Nfxe4 (diagram)

A very complicated position has arisen, one that is not easy to assess. White has a passed c-pawn and a strong knight on b5 threatening the backward pawn on d6. Black for his part has compensation in the form of a pawn majority in the centre and the strong position of his minor pieces. In addition White has to reckon with the advance of the enemy f-pawn.

17.c7

It was better to play 17.Bd3 immediately, and if 17...f5 then to sacrifice the exchange with 18.Bxe4 fxe4 19.Rxe4 Nxe4 20.Qd5 followed by 21.Qxe4 with approximately equal chances due the strong position of the knight on b5 and the dangerous passed c-pawn.

17...Qe7?

A mistake, relinquishing Black's advantage. Correct was 17...Qd7! If White replies 18.Bd3 then there follows 18...f5. In this situation the exchange sacrifice is not good for White; for example 19.Bxe4 19...fxe4 20.Rxe4 Nxe4 21.Qd5+ Be6 22.Qxe4 d5! with advantage. Instead of 20.Rxe4 White can play 20.h3 but even then 20...Be6 (20...Bh5 21.Nxe5!) 21.Nd2 d5 would give Black the better game.

If White does not take on e4 but plays 19.Bc2, then 19...Nf6 is possible. In view of the threat of f5-f4 White would have to sacrifice a piece with 20.Qxd6 Qxd6 21.Nxd6. However, after 21...e4 and 22…f4 Black would get the advantage.

18.Bd3 Nxg3

The exchange of an active knight for a bishop that has no prospects appears to be illogical. On the other hand it is not clear how Black can fight for an advantage. For example, if 18...f5 then 19.Bxe4 fxe4 20.Rxe4 Nxe4 21.Qd5+ gives White satisfactory play. Or 18...Nf6 19.Nxd6! and the queen cannot take the knight because of 20.Bh7+.

With the move in the game I marked out a plan that was based on an incorrect assessment of the position.

19.hxg3 f5

Black overestimates the strength of his centre pawns. After the game Petrosian suggested 19...Rac8 followed by 20...Rxc7. In that case Black would have a pawn and two active bishops for the exchange.

20.Bc2!

Consolidating White's advantage. The attack on the d6-pawn is very unpleasant. What should Black do now? If 20...e4 then 21.Qd5+ Kh8 22.Nfd4 with the threat of 23.f3 and White stands better. Or 20...Ra6 21.Qd5+ Kh8 22.Nh2 f4 (22...Bh5 23.Bxf5!) 23.Nxg4 fxe3 24.Nxe3 with an excellent position for the sacrificed exchange.

20...f4 21.gxf4 gxf4 22.Re1 Ra6 23.Be4 h5?

This “active” move only worsens Black's position. It was time to think about how to get rid of the enemy pawn on c7. Deserving attention was 23...Bd7 with the threat of Bxb5 25.cxb5 Rb6. In that case Black could successfully carry on the struggle.

24.Qc2 Qf6 25.Nd2 h4

The advance of this pawn holds absolutely no danger for White.

26.f3 Bc8 27.Bd5+ Kh8 28.Ne4

White has established a blockade on the central squares, and as a result Black's forces are completely paralysed.

28...Qh6

Still laying some hopes on the h-pawn.

29.Re2 h3 30.gxh3 Rf5 31.Rh2 a4 32.h4 b3 33.axb3 axb3 34.Qd1 Rxa1 35.Qxa1 Black resigns (1-0)

White threatens 36.Nexd6. Black can only parry this threat with 35...Nxe4. Then 36.Bxe4 Rf8 37.Qd1 puts him in a completely helpless position.