Andersson-Tal, 2Nd Match-Game, Malmo 1983
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
(The annotations to this game, by M. N. Tal, are from Shakhmaty (Riga) (№ 8, 1983). The translation from the Russian is by Douglas Griffin.) Having an effect on my spirits at the time of the 2nd game, undoubtedly, was the fact that the day before I had – I admit, completely by chance – achieved victory. On the one hand, this did not put me in a particularly fighting mood; on the other, I understood perfectly well that to play for simple equality against Andersson, agreeing to the simplification of the position, was sufficiently thankless and risky. The point is that the style of play of the Swedish grandmaster is original, and this is particularly noticeable in those cases when he plays with White. We may enumerate some variations from his opening repertoire. As an example, in the King’s Indian Defence after the moves 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.d4 0–0 6.Be2 e5 in one hundred percent of cases Andersson, without thinking, continues 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.Qxd8 Rxd8 9.Bg5, and moreover, irrespective of whether a draw suits him or not. The examples may be continued. More than one game Andersson has begun with the variation 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.dxc3. Ulf Andersson is known as the World Champion in play without queens. And indeed, positions of an endgame type with a good deal of symmetry, but with a minimal initiative, he plays artistically. During preparation for the match – although, frankly speaking, there was almost no time for this – we took account of the fact that in positions filled with tactics the Swedish grandmaster feels less confident. Based on this, we decided to employ a variation that is encountered rather rarely. Andersson – Tal 2nd match-game, Interzonal 3rd-place Playoff, Malmö, 3rd January 1983 1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 Nc6 The first nuance. From the introduction one may put together a picture of Andersson’s tastes. In reply to 2...Nf6 one could expect from him 3.g3, and in reply to 3...d5 – 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Bg2 Nc6 6.d4 cxd4 7.Nxd4 Ndb4 8.Nxc6 Qxd1+ 9.Kxd1 Nxc6 10.Bxc6+ bxc6, and although objectively the position does not go beyond equality, you would not find many wishing to play this endgame against the Swedish grandmaster. Instead of 6...cxd4, 6...Nb6 and 6...Bf5 have been tried against him, but these have not brought success. In the present case (with 2...Nc6 ), after 3.g3 Black can re-organise along the lines of the English Opening with 3...g6. But Andersson, as a rule, continues 3.d4 here; so it occurred in this game. 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Ndb5 In recent years this move has supplanted 6.g3, which had been considered almost obligatory. After 6.Ndb5 L. Polugaevsky, in the match with V. Korchnoi (Buenos Aires, 1980), managed as a rule to achieve equality, continuing 6...Bb4 7.Bf4 0–0, but in this variation ways to improve White’s play have now been found. Beside, I did not want to agree to a position with prospects of equality. Black chooses a much sharper continuation. 6...d5 Seemingly, this move was first encountered in the game Bronstein-Geller from the Zonal tournament of 1964. Black proposes the sacrifice of a pawn, but even a running glance at the position after 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Nxd5 exd5 9.Qxd5 Be6 is sufficient for one to be convinced in the futility of accepting this offer. In the 11th match-game Hübner-Portisch (Abano Terme, 1980), in which the Hungarian grandmaster had to win, he nevertheless played 6...d5. R. Huebner, who was happy with a draw, chose the simple 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.e4, but after 8...Nxc3 9.Qxd8+ Kxd8 10.Nxc3 Bc5! the initiative was already on the side of Black.Perhaps the only attempt to try to place doubt on this variation is the principled 7.Bf4, as the Swedish grandmaster played. 7.Bf4 The next few moves are forced. 7...e5 8.cxd5 exf4 9.dxc6 bxc6 10.Qxd8+ Despite the exchange of queens, the resultant position is of a middlegame character, since the strategic balance has been disrupted. Black has many pawn islands, but on the other hand the half-open b-file is at his disposal and for the time being he still has the two bishops. Besides, in some cases the pawn at f4 can be a ‘stake’ (in the terminology of draughts players) in White’s position. 10...Kxd8 11.Rd1+ It is a matter for theorists to clarify whether 11.Rd1+ or 11.0–0–0+ is stronger, but I think that after 11.0–0–0+ Bd7 12.Nd6 Bxd6 13.Rxd6 Ng4, in a number of cases the vulnerability of the f2–pawn tells. 11...Bd7 12.Nd6 XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-mk-vl-tr0 7zp-+l+pzpp0 6-+psN-sn-+0 5+-+-+-+-0 4-+-+-zp-+0 3+-sN-+-+-0 2PzP-+PzPPzP0 1+-+RmKL+R0 xabcdefghy This position has been met with fairly often. Nor was it new for Andersson. Most often encountered here is 12...Bxd6 13.Rxd6 Kc7 or 13...Ke7, but the resultant endgame appears more promising for White. Admittedly, in the last Olympiad in Lucerne (1982) in the game H. Ólafsson-Sosonko Black easily equalised the game, continuing 12...Bxd6 13.Rxd6 Ke7 14.Rd2 Nd5. But all the same this endgame is of a technical character, and as the reader has already guessed, it is precisely this that I did not want to permit. J. Timman, against Andersson in the tournament in Bugojno (1982) made use of the recommendation of Azeri chess-players and chose 12...Rb8. After 13.Nxf7+ Ke8 Ulf did not go into the study of the variations after 14.Nxh8 Rxb2 15.Rd2 Bb4, but played simply 14.Nd6+ Bxd6 15.Rxd6 Rxb2 16.Rd2, and subsequently, somewhere around the eighth hour of play, he managed to show that the c-pawn is weak... But I did not want to sacrifice a rook, and moreover in a way that was already known to the opponent. I decided to make use of an interesting idea, which had been employed by the Yugoslav grandmaster D. Velimirović in a game against J. Rubinetti from the 25th Olympiad in Lucerne. Supporting my intention was the circumstance that for many this game had remained unnoticed. 12...Kc7 13.Nxf7 Rg8 XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-+-vlr+0 7zp-mkl+Nzpp0 6-+p+-sn-+0 5+-+-+-+-0 4-+-+-zp-+0 3+-sN-+-+-0 2PzP-+PzPPzP0 1+-+RmKL+R0 xabcdefghy At the cost of a pawn Black has retained the two bishops, and in addition White requires time in order to bring the f7–knight into play. In the above-mentioned game Rubinetti solved this problem in overly-direct fashion: 14.Ne5 Rb8 15.Nxd7?! Nxd7 16.Rd2 Ne5! 17.e3 fxe3 18.fxe3 Bb4 19.Be2 Bxc3 20.bxc3 Rb1+ 21.Rd1 Rb2, and it is clear that Black, as they say, is clearly not worse. Having analysed this game during the period of preparation, V. Bagirov and I paid attention to the move that was played by Andersson, incidentally, I should say, without lengthy consideration. 14.g3 White strives to immediately rid himself of the f4–pawn and to complete development. 14...Rb8 Obviously, 14...fxg3 15.hxg3 would only activate the white pieces. 15.Rd2 (Translator’s note: In the game Griffin-Swan (Scottish Rapid Championship, Glasgow 1991) White immediately returned the extra pawn, so as to castle: 15.Bg2?! Rxb2 16.0–0. After 16...fxg3 17.hxg3 Rc2? 18.Rc1 Rxc1 19.Rxc1 Be7 20.Ne5 Rb8 21.Na4! White already had a clear advantage. However, after 16...Bb4! 17.Rc1 Bxc3 18.Rxc3 Re8! Black stands better.) 15...Bb4 16.Bg2 In reply to 16.gxf4 White must reckon with the moves 16...Nd5 or 16...Be6 followed by 17...Nd5. Instead of the move in the text, which was played fairly quickly, deserving attention is 16.Ne5. In this case, in the variation 16...Bxc3 17.bxc3 Rb1+ 18.Rd1 Rb2 White could play 19.Bg2. As soon as the white king hides in a safe place, the chronic weaknesses on Black’s queen’s flank begin to tell. In reply to 16...Nd5 quite good is 17.Bg2, and the endgame after 17...Bxc3 18.bxc3 Rb1+ 19.Rd1 Rxd1+ 20.Kxd1 Nxc3+ 21.Kc2 looks favourable for White. I intended to continue 16...Bxc3 17.bxc3 Rb1+ 18.Rd1, and then either 18...Rgb8 or 18...Rxd1+ 19.Kxd1 Ne4 20.Nd3, with a fairly sharp position within the limits of equality. The move chosen by Andersson leads to difficulties for White. 16...Bxc3 Black has no right to delay, since after castling, irrespective of whether or not he regains the pawn, the assessment of the position will be unequivocal. 17.bxc3 Rb1+ 18.Rd1 This position we had studied on the eve of the game and as a result of a fleeting analysis came to the conclusion that after 18...Rb2 Black stands not at all badly. Possibly, this assessment is correct, but at the board it seemed to me that it was possible to try to achieve more. Having thought for 30 minutes, Black went in for sharper play. 18...Rxd1+ 19.Kxd1 Ng4 XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+-+r+0 7zp-mkl+Nzpp0 6-+p+-+-+0 5+-+-+-+-0 4-+-+-zpn+0 3+-zP-+-zP-0 2P+-+PzPLzP0 1+-+K+-+R0 xabcdefghy This looks fairly direct, not to say primitive, but after this move Ulf deliberated for 45 minutes.