CONTENTS Contents

Symbols 6 Bibliography 7 Foreword 8

1 The Art of 9 1.1 The Sacrifice 9 1 Grishchuk – Hra†ek, Bundesliga 2002/3 [B32] 9 2 Grishchuk – Oral, Reykjavik 2000 Sicilian Defence [B32] 11 3 Vallejo Pons – Andersson, Baden-Baden 2004 Sicilian Defence [B46] 14 4 Short – Ye Jiangchuan, Taiyuan 2004 Sicilian Defence [B84] 16 5 Beliavsky – Strikovi‡, ¡a†ak 1996 ’s [E71] 20 6 Vallejo Pons – Cvitan, Plovdiv Echt 2003 King’s Indian Defence [E92] 22

1.2 The Sacrifice 25 7 Movsesian – Kasparov, Sarajevo 2000 Sicilian Defence [B80] 25 8 Shirov – Kramnik, Linares 1998 Sicilian Defence [B66] 29 9 Anand – Sadler, Tilburg 1998 Sicilian Defence [B90] 32 10 Adams – Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 2005 Sicilian Defence [B84] 35 11 Tseshkovsky – Browne, Manila 1976 Sicilian Defence [B84] 38 12 Lautier – Topalov, Elista OL 1998 Nimzo-Indian Defence [E42] 40 13 Korchnoi – Seirawan, Lugano 1986 [A25] 43

1.3 Exercises 46

2 Manoeuvring Play 49 2.1 The Art of Manoeuvring 49 14 Karpov – Yusupov, Tilburg 1993 Bogo-Indian Defence [E17] 49 15 Anand – Short, Merida 2001 [C76] 54 16 Smyslov – Romanishin, USSR Ch 1976 Sicilian Defence [B25] 58 17 Piket – Smirin, Leon Echt 2001 English Opening [A41] 60

2.2 The Second Weakness 63 18 Vallejo Pons – Tkachev, Biel 2002 ’s Indian Defence [E15] 64

2.3 Permanent vs Temporary Advantages 66 19 Short – Pogorelov, Gibraltar 2004 Sicilian Defence [B48] 67

2.4 Regrouping 70 20 Leko – Beliavsky, Bled OL 2002 Ruy Lopez [C95] 70 21 Leko – Short, Wijk aan Zee 2005 Ruy Lopez [C95] 72 4 WINNING CHESS EXPLAINED

22 Ivanchuk – Beliavsky, Lvov 2000 Ruy Lopez [C92] 75 23 Anand – Yusupov, Wijk aan Zee Ct (3) 1993 Ruy Lopez [C75] 78

2.5 The King’s Destination 82 24 Cvitan – Estrada Nieto, Aosta 2002 English Opening [A20] 82 25 Navara – McShane, Lausanne 2004 Modern Defence [B06] 84 26 Korchnoi – Gretarsson, Reykjavik 2003 Queen’s [D12] 86 27 Vaganian – Yusupov, Istanbul OL 2000 Réti Opening [A07] 88 28 Anand – Timman, Wijk aan Zee 2004 Sicilian Defence [B67] 91 29 Anand – Dreev, Linares 1997 Sicilian Defence [B67] 94

2.6 Exercises 96

3 Simplification 99 3.1 ‘Strange’ Exchanges 99 30 Karpov – Shirov, Biel 1992 Queen’s Gambit [D46] 100

3.2 The Queen Exchange 102 31 Torre – Ivanchuk, Istanbul OL 2000 Queen’s Gambit [D30] 104

3.3 Exercises 107

4 Pawns, the Soul of Chess 109 4.1 Surrendering Strong Squares to the Opponent 109 32 Kasparov – Nunn, Lucerne OL 1982 [A67] 109 33 Fischer – Unzicker, Siegen OL 1970 Ruy Lopez [C69] 112 34 Karpov – Adorjan, Lucerne Wcht 1989 Queen’s Indian Defence [E15] 115 35 Kasparov – Vallejo Pons, Linares 2004 Queen’s Gambit [D45] 117 36 Piket – Korchnoi, Groningen PCA 1993 Queen’s Indian Defence [E12] 120 37 Korchnoi – Ionov, Ohrid Ech 2001 Queen’s Indian Defence [E12] 122 38 Karpov – Korchnoi, Dortmund 1994 Queen’s Indian Defence [E12] 124 39 Cu. Hansen – Short, Skanderborg 2003 Queen’s Gambit [D58] .130 40 Timman – Short, El Escorial Ct (3) 1993 Queen’s Gambit [D58] 135 41 Short – Ko‰ul, Belgrade 1989 Sicilian Defence [B67] 139

4.2 Kasparov’s Pawn-Centre 141 42 Furman – Panno, Madrid 1973 Queen’s Indian Defence [E12] 141 43 I. Sokolov – J. Polgar, Hoogeveen 2003 Queen’s Indian Defence [E12] 145 44 Radjabov – Leko, Linares 2003 Queen’s Indian Defence [E12] 147 45 Malaniuk – Ehlvest, USSR Ch 1987 Queen’s Indian Defence [E12] 150

4.3 The French Pawn-Centre 153 46 Rozentalis – Vallejo Pons, Calvia OL 2004 [C03] 153

4.4 A Special Centre 156 47 Portisch – Kramnik, Biel IZ 1993 Queen’s Gambit [D13] 156 48 Gulko – Shabalov, Willemstad 2003 Queen’s Gambit [D13] 159 CONTENTS 5

4.5 The Central Breakthrough 162 49 Kasparov – Ponomariov, Linares 2003 Queen’s Indian Defence [E18] 162 50 Bruzon – Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 2005 Sicilian Defence [B40] 166

4.6 Exercises 168

Solutions to Exercises 171 Solutions for Chapter 1 171 Solutions for Chapter 2 175 Solutions for Chapter 3 179 Solutions for Chapter 4 184

Index of Games 189 Index of Openings 191 MANOEUVRING PLAY 67

Game 19 Nigel Short – Ruslan Pogorelov Gibraltar 2004 Sicilian Defence [B48]

1 e4 c5 2 Ìf3 Ìc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Ìxd4 Ëc7 5 but the position is not clear – Black should play Ìc3 e6 6 Íe3 a6 7 Ëd2 b5 8 0-0-0 Ìxd4 9 20...b4!. Instead, 16...Íf6? is punished by the Íxd4 Ìe7 thematic 17 Ìd5!, when after 17...Íd8 18 b3! This is an ambitious but risky line for Black, Ëxe4 19 Ëc6+ Êf8 20 Îhe1 (or 20 Ëxa8) who leaves his kingside somewhat unprotected White wins material. 17...exd5 18 Ëxf6 Îg8 and spends time on non-developing moves. 19 exd5 is no improvement, as White invades 10 Êb1 Ìc6 11 Íe3 Ìe5 (D) decisively down the e-file. r+l+kv-t r+l+kv-t +-wp+pzp +-+p+-zp W p+-+p+-+ W p+-+pz-+ +p+-s-+- +p+-+-+- -+-+P+-+ -+qVPZ-+ +-S-V-+- +-S-+-+- PZPW-ZPZ PZPW-+PZ +K+R+L+R +K+R+-+R

12 f4! 15 g4! White loses the -pair, which can be a A transformation of the advantage – by disadvantage in the medium and/or long term, means of this clear and strong continuation, the but in return Blacks lags behind in develop- lead in development turns into an attack against ment, which can be important in the short term. the opponent’s king, who will have no better If White makes the most of his activity, the de- solution than to castle so as not to perish in the lay in finding a safe spot for the black king will centre. result in White’s dynamism being more impor- Once a point of contact on g5 is achieved, tant in the present case. White heads immediately to open lines. This is The timid 12 Íf4 is acceptable, but worse much more direct than 15 e5 forcing 15...f5 than 12 f4. against which the opening of the g-file with a 12...Ìc4 13 Íxc4 Ëxc4 14 Íd4! timely g4 would have to be prepared. Delaying Black’s development or forcing 15...Íe7 16 g5 0-0 some concession. 14 e5 closes the game and is Of course, with the king in the centre, open- less consistent. According to Short, Black can ing lines is not an attractive prospect. After equalize with 14...Íb4 15 Ëd4 Ëxd4 16 Îxd4 16...fxg5 there would follow 17 Íxg7 Îg8 18 Íxc3 17 bxc3 Íb7 18 Îhd1 Íc6. Íe5 b4 19 Ìa4, with a great advantage for 14...f6 (D) White, due to the black king not being safe. Against 14...d6 Short states that White can 17 b3 play 15 Íe5 Íb7 16 Íxd6 Îd8 17 e5, with a Driving away the queen before taking on f6 slight edge, or the more complex 15 Íxg7, gives the king a , which can be use- when after 15...Íxg7 16 Ëxd6 the only move ful later on, although the immediate 17 gxf6 is 16...f5! and White has after 17 also has its points. exf5 Êf7 18 Îhe1 Íxc3 19 bxc3 Îe8 20 Ëe5, 17...Ëc6 18 gxf6 Íxf6 19 Îhg1 68 WINNING CHESS EXPLAINED

An important first step has been achieved, sound sacrifice that gives a winning attack. i.e., the opening of the g-file. Play could continue 23...Êxg7 24 Îg1+ Êh8 19...b4 (D) 25 f5 Íb7 26 Íxf6+ Îxf6 27 Ëg5 Îg6 (the only move to prevent immediate mate) 28 fxg6 r+l+-tk+ Ëxe6 29 gxh7 Ëf7 30 Ëe5+ Êxh7 31 Ëg5, +-+p+-zp and mate. W Another defence is 22...g6, which has to be p+q+pv-+ met by 23 f5! Îxf5 (or 23...dxe6 24 fxg6, win- +-+-+-+- ning) 24 Ëh6 and after Black’s best defence, 24...Îf6! (D), we arrive at a position deserving -z-VPZ-+ its own diagram. +PS-+-+- P+PW-+-Z r+l+-+k+ +K+R+-T- +-+pv-+p W p+q+PtpW 20 Ìd5!! +-+p+-+- A thematic, though always elegant, ‘Sicil- ian’ sacrifice – the absence from the play of the -z-V-+-+ a8- and the c8-bishop makes the sacrifice +P+-+-+- look good, although of course it is necessary to P+P+-+-Z analyse, the more so when there is a ‘natural’ alternative carrying no risks. +K+R+-T- Against 20 Ìe2? Black can play 20...Ëxe4! without problems – the queen comes to the de- The sacrifice of the rook on g6 is not con- fence of the king. 20 Ìa4 is interesting though, vincing: after 25 Íxf6?! Íxf6 26 Îxg6+?! since after 20...Ëxe4 (20...Îb8 is better, ac- hxg6 27 Ëxg6+ Íg7, White must take the cording to Short) 21 Íxf6 Îxf6 22 Ìb6 Îb8 perpetual, because he is too much material 23 Ìxc8 Îxc8 24 Îxg7+ Êxg7 25 Ëxd7+ down, and 28...Ëc3 is threatened. Êh6 26 Ëxc8 the black king is unsafe, and this Neither is 25 Îdf1 correct, for Black has the gives White a certain superiority, although this simple reply 25...Ëxe6. doesn’t seem to be a decisive advantage. The right way is to use the g1-rook by play- 20...exd5 21 e5 ing 25 Îgf1! in order to bring the other rook This is the idea behind the sacrifice – the into play on the e-file. Let’s see some unsuc- pawns will be used as rams to open more lines cessful attempts at defence: against the king, thus allowing the white major a) 25...Ëxe6 26 Íxf6 Íxf6 27 Îde1 Ëf7 pieces to show all their power along the g-file. (or 27...Íg7 28 Ëh4, winning) 28 Îxf6 Ëxf6 The subsequent course of the game shows 29 Îe8+ Êf7 30 Ëf8#. how ineffective the black queenside is, and even b) 25...dxe6 26 Íxf6 Íf8 27 Ëf4, with ma- the black queen cannot do much in helping the terial superiority and an attack. defence. c) 25...Íf8 26 e7! Íxe7 27 Îxf6 Íxf6 28 21...Íe7 Îf1 Ëe6 29 Îxf6 Ëe7 30 Ëg5!, with a win- 21...Íd8 is weaker because of 22 e6, when ning attack. Black cannot defend: 22...Îf6 23 f5 dxe6 24 23 f5! Ëg5, etc. If 22...g6 then 23 f5 followed by Ëh6 The pawn-storm continues, and once again wins, and if 22...Íf6 then 23 e7 Îe8 24 Íxf6 the way is opened for the white queen towards Ëxf6 25 Ëxd5+. the kingside. 22 e6 Îf6 23...dxe6 (D) Against 22...Íf6 the simple continuation Against 23...h6 the quiet variation 24 h4! 23 e7 Îe8 24 Íxf6 Ëxf6 25 Ëxd5+, winning, dxe6 25 Ëg2 gives White a winning attack. is enough. Also winning is 23 Îxg7+!! – a Short points out that this method is clearer than MANOEUVRING PLAY 69 the sacrifice 24 Îxg7+!? Êxg7 25 Ëg2+ Êf8 Îg7+ Êd6 30 Ëe7+ Êe5 31 f6 Ëc3 32 Îg5+ 26 Îg1 Êe8 27 Íxf6 Íxf6 28 Ëg6+ Êe7 29 Êf4 33 Îg1, with a big advantage) 29...Êd6 30 Ëf7+ Êd8 (29...Êd6 doesn’t work because of f6 Íd7 31 f7 Ëc8 32 Ëd4 a5 33 Îg8 Ëxg8 34 the nice tactic 30 e7 Ëc3 31 e8Ì+!, with a win- fxg8Ë Îxg8 35 Ëb6+ Íc6 36 Ëxa5, White ning attack) 30 Ëxf6+ Êc7 31 e7 Ëxf6 32 has the advantage in the endgame. e8Ì+, with a much better ending: his two pieces 27 Ëxf6+ Êe8 28 Îg8 Ëd6 29 fxe6 Ëe7 are active and the on f5 is worth The finish after 29...Íxe6 would come with more than Black’s doubled one. the crushing 30 Îxf8+ Ëxf8 31 Ëxe6+ Ëe7 32 Ëc6+. r+l+-+k+ 30 Ëh6 Îb8 31 Íf6 +-+-v-zp Short points out another winning path: 31 W Ëh5+ Êd8 32 Ëxd5+ Êc7 33 Ëe5+! Êb7 34 p+q+pt-+ Ëe4+! Êc7 35 Ëf4+. There are other winning +-+p+P+- moves, such as 31 Íg7. 31...Ëxe6 32 Îxf8+ Êd7 33 Ëg7+ Êc6 34 -z-V-+-+ Íe5 Îb7 35 Ëh8! +P+-+-+- Finishing all resistance – White threatens 36 P+PW-+-Z Îf6 and the capture of the c8-bishop. 1-0 +K+R+-T- This game, in which the temporary advan- tage clearly prevailed, teaches us many things. 24 Îxg7+! King safety is too high a price to pay for long- This sacrifice is now the only way to make term advantages. Although it is possible that progress. For instance, after 24 Ëg2 Black de- sometimes the attack can be endured, one has to fends with 24...g6 25 Íxf6 Íxf6 26 fxg6 Ëc3 analyse it very carefully. In this case the scar- 27 gxh7+ Êf7, and there is no convincing way city of defenders made the choice dubious. of continuing the attack. The sacrifice 20 Ìd5!! and the pawn-storm 24...Êxg7 25 Ëg5+ Êf7 26 Îg1 Íf8?! against the castled king’s position with 15 g4! This move gives back a great deal of the ma- are thematic, and the advances to gain space terial advantage. 26...Íd7 doesn’t hold either, with 21 e5, 22 e6 and 23 f5! are very nice. as it leads to mate after 27 Ëh5+ Êf8 28 Íxf6 This overwhelming infantry-assault sequence Íxf6 29 Ëxh7. may also be partly due to previous learning. I The most resilient was 26...Êe8 and after 27 see a certain similarity between this game and Íxf6 Íxf6 (or 27...Íf8 28 Ëh5+ Êd7 29 the one we are going to see next, which was one Ëf7+, with a mating attack without any material of Kasparov’s brilliant victories when he be- disadvantage) 28 Ëxf6 Êd7 29 Ëg7+ (also 29 came World Champion.

Garry Kasparov – Ralf Åkesson World Junior Ch, Dortmund 1980 Queen’s Indian Defence [E12]

1d4Ìf62c4e63Ìf3b64a3Íb75Ìc3d5 Kasparov is not satisfied by 27 e5 Íc3 28 6 cxd5 Ìxd5 7 e3 Íe7 8 Íb5+ c6 9 Íd3 Ìd7 e6, with compensation for the sacrificed mate- 10 e4 Ìxc3 11 bxc3 c5 12 0-0 cxd4 13 cxd4 rial and instead plays a speculative idea. 0-0 14 Ëe2 Îc8 15 Íb2 Ëc7 16 Ëe3 Ìf6 17 He resorted to sacrificing this bishop, which Ìe5 b5 18 f4 Ëb6 19 Êh1 b4 20 axb4 Íxb4 was going to be neutralized anyway, in more 21 Îab1 a5 22 Ëe2! Ëa7 23 f5 Ëa8 24 d5 convincing and overwhelming fashion (21 exd5 25 Ìg4 Ìxg4 26 Ëxg4 f6 (D) Íxg7!!) in the later game Kasparov-Portisch, 27 Íxf6?! Nikši‡ 1983.