The Break – Learn from Schlechter, Botvinnik and Kramnik – eBook

This week I published another book that summarizes my findings from many years of analysis and studying a specific chess topic.
 
This book presents the games of three positional geniuses and focuses on pawn play and pawn breaks. In this collection you will learn to use unexpected pawn moves for:

• Opening up files or diagonals
• Directly attacking opponent's king
• Gaining space
• Freeing up a square (e.g. as an outpost for a knight)
• Undermining opponent's pawn structure/chain
• Creating a passed pawn

The Break – Learn from Schlechter, Botvinnik and Kramnik is now available in the kindle store and on Kobo.

Here is the table of contents with the links to all the games and training exercises that are analyzed in this ebook:

 
 

Is there a similarity between the styles of Kramnik and Botvinnik?

Studying the games of two all time great players, Vladimir Kramnik and Mikhail Botvinnik, I find there are quite a few similarities in their opening selection, strategic methods, and overall styles of play.

The approach of studying openings deeply and both in terms of specific variation, as well as the skill of playing for subtle positional nuances that are prepared at home was first developed by Botvinnik and today has been taken up to the “machine” level by Kramnik with his razor sharp and deep opening preparation. The similarities are likely not accidental, as Botvinnik was the teacher of Kramnik in the late 1980s, so there is a personal connection.

Has anyone else made similar comparisons between Kramnik and Botvinnik in the past? Are there other chess champions who have been called out as very similar in style?

Here are a couple of games by Botvinnik and Kramnik in the same opening - Slav Exchange:

Classic Bishop Endgame by Botvinnik - video

This game is taken from my E-book about endgames with bishops of opposite color.
http://www.amazon.com/Bishop-Endgames...
The book is formatted for electronic readers and can be read on devices of various sizes, from tablets to phones. The free sample includes 3 thoroughly annotated games and the full book comes with dozens of training positions to help develop a good sense for positions with bishops of opposite colour.

In this game Botvinnik aimed for having 2 distant passed pawns that his opponent's bishop could not block from the same diagonal. At the same time he was not concerned about giving opponent passed pawns - as long as his own bishop could stay on the same diagonal while guarding them.
Modern computer engines have a hard time correctly understanding the position and finding Botvinnik's moves. A lot of his play is very conceptual and requires calculation deeper than 10 moves ahead, but can be described verbally by a human.

Training games for chess improvement – Botvinnik’s method

Mikhail Botvinnik was a big supporter of training games as a tool for the chess improvement.  He himself played a number of such games and later published some in the collection of his games. He showed how ideas developed in training games helped him to win the competitive games. In fact, Jan Timman published an entire book dedicated to Botvinnik’s training games.

As for myself, about 10 years ago I played a match of 10 training games against an opponent of roughly my strength. I lost the match by 1 point and overall it was a good experience. Both me and my opponent noticed that we were willing to take more risks than in usual tournament games. It also helped my opening repertoire to include the Open Sicilian.

Here is my analysis of one of Botvinnik’s training games: Part 1

Part 2

Introduction to Rook and Knight Endgames – General Principles

This blog post is taken from my old article and is intended as continuation of my articles about endings with each side having a rook and a bishop of opposite color, and the article about rook endings with 2 pawns vs. 1. The idea behind these series is the approach that Nimzowitsch used to call "a radioactive method" - selecting a rather narrow topic, and by learning a lot about it, understand chess much better in general. This time I would like to look at endings with rook + knight Vs. rook + knight. This material balance is also a quite frequent guest in tournaments, and some classical ideas and endgames have become well-known. Nonetheless, there is some lack of discussion of this topic in chess literature. Mikhail Botvinnik was well known for his great technique in this type of endings, and I would strongly recommend to the reader to study two famous endgames Botvinnik-Alekhine 1938, and Botvinnik-Levenfish, 1937. Instead of these, I included several less known examples from his career.

Morozevich Alexander (2625) - Volkov Sergey (2605)
Samara 73/309, 1998

32...Rc8 Let's look at a typical game with this material balance. In this position Black is suffering from a bad pawn structure and passive pieces. 33.Re6 Obviously White does not want to trade off his rook - the best piece to collect Black's pawns. [33.Rxc8 ? 33...Kxc8 gives Black a decent position] 33...Rc7 34.a3 !? a useful waiting move; now White can move the N from d3 and attack Pd4 with the King. 34...Ne7 [34...Re7 Black cannot insist trading rooks, as now it would cost him a pawn! 35.Rxe7+ Nxe7 36.Nf4 Nc6 37.Ne6 g6 38.Kd3] 35.Rd6 Nc6 Again, Black has to come back; White's active rook paralyzes his pieces. 36.Nf4 Rf7 37.Ng6

Threatening Rxc6 37...Rc7 38.h5 Pg7 and Pf5 are cut off from each other and White can threaten to pick them up at any point 38...a5 39.Rd5 Rf7 40.Nh4 f4 41.Rf5

Now! White got the pawn structure he wanted (b4 covered, g7 fixed) and himself offers the exchange of rooks. The knight endgame is a nightmare for Black, so keeping the rook is his only chance for any counter play. 41...Rd7 42.Rxf4 d3 Desperate sacrifice. White won in a few moves. 43.cxd3 Nd4 44.b4 a4 45.Ng6 Rd5 46.Rf7+ Ka6 47.Nf4 Rd6 48.Rxg7 Rc6 49.Nd5 Rc2+ 50.Kd1

   1-0 This victory was part of Morozevich's amazing rise to the chess stars during 1998.

The game illustrates typical themes for chess endgames with Rook + Knight:

• Pawn Structure - weak pawns are vulnerable
• Active Rook
• Timely Transition into Knight Endgame

Botvinnik’s 100 anniversary

Mikhail Botvinnik was born exactly 100 years ago today, on August 17, 1911. There are quite a few events this year to celebrate this. I probably studied more Botvinnik’s games than the games of any other chess player, so recently I also made a series of videos for my youtube channel to share some of the lessons I learned from his books – you can watch them below.

The themes that percolate through Botvinnik’s 3 volume collection of best games are very wide spread, but the following immediately come to mind:

• creating and exploiting weak squares in opponent’s position
• the importance of correctly evaluating exchanging of pieces
• fight for initiative in the opening from the very first moves, both with White and Black
• deep preparation of home-made opening systems
• playing training games to study typical positions
• learning from the analysis of your own games, and applying those ideas in future games
• psychology of chess as a sport
• professional attitude to chess preparation and competitions
• impact of chess on personality and vice versa
• good understanding of weaknesses and strengths of your opponents

The list could go on and on. My blog also has a series of posts about Botvinnik.

Chess Strategy - Bovinnik attacks against the strong center

 Chess Strategy - Botvinnik Attacks in Isolated Pawn position

Attacking Chess - Botvinnik Finds a New Plan in the Opening

The art of chess planning from Mikhail Botvinnik

Chess Preparation - key improvement in Panov-Botvinnik attack

Chess Strategy - Botvinnik exploits a key weak square

Chess Strategy - Central Domination illustrated by Botvinnik

A typical Botvinnik game, according to Fischer

 Chess Strategy - Exploiting weak isolated pawn (Botvinnik - Zagoryansky)

Botvinnik - Ragozin - an overlooked counter attack

Botvinnik - Ragozin - gaining opening advantage in a chess game

Improving position of pieces – play like Mikhail Botvinnik

Riumin – Botvinnik, 1935
  Black to move.

The 6th World Chess Champion was a great annotator, and his notes to his games tend to get to the heart of the position in very simple words. Mikhail Botvinnik’s explained his reasoning in this position as follows: “to ensure a successful attack Black must post his Bishop at h5. This can be achieved only with the Queen's cooperation. But the Queen is burdened by defence of the Queen pawn; hence” …

For the solution, and brief overview of the entire game - watch the YouTube video:

The whole game is an illustration of great piece coordination and strategic planning.

Botvinnik Creates Decisive Attack

Lisitsyn – Botvinnik, 1932

Black to move

White was playing without a plan, and by a series of well planned manoeuvres Mikhail Botvinnik built up the pressure against White's position. He has space advantage, pressure against the ‘e2’ pawn and his pieces are placed ideally. Now it is time to create decisive threats. Hint: g3 is a weak spot that Black should aim to undermine.

For the solution, and brief overview of the entire game - watch the YouTube video:

Strategic Approach to Exchanging pieces in Chess

Botvinnik – Donner, 1963

  White to move. Black just played 24… Rc8-a8. Should White exchange rooks?

A long time ago an experienced chess master gave me an advice on how to achieve better positional understanding: in every position – think about what pieces you want to keep on the board, which ones you want to exchange, and why. This example from one of Botvinnik’s books is a great illustration of that point.

The entire game is a great strategic display, you can see it in more details here:

Play Like Botvinnik – attacking on the entire board

In both games below, Botvinnik already has a dominating position, but has to find new areas of the board where he can put pressure on the opponent.

Botvinnik – Lilienthal, 1936
White to move. View the entire game here

The game is fully covered in this video:

Botvinnik – Zagoriansky, 1943
White to move. View the entire game here

I also made a YouTube video about the second game:

Attacking with An Isolated Pawn – Botvinnik’s trademark

Botvinnik – Batuev, 1931

 White to move

Mikhail Botvinnik was well known for his handling of positions with Isolated Queen’s Pawn. Here as well, he slowly built up the pressure and opponent faltered. Black had just played 17 …Ra8-c8?, exposing himself to an unexpected sacrifice. Botvinnik fully took advantage of his pieces being very active. Replay through the game here.

Mikhail Botvinnik in 1933

Play Like World Champion - Botvinnik vs. Alatortsev

Botvinnik – Alatortsev, 1934

 White to move

White delayed castling, and is putting pressure on h7. Botvinnik begins an attack with a manoeuvre that was novel at the time, but today became a standard practice, in this and in many other openings. See the complete game here.

ChessBase turning 25

In his annotations to the game against Smyslov from the 1958 match, Botvinnik noted that a younger grandmaster ignored a transposition to the Botvinnik-Smyslov game, and as a result – made a faulty comment on some game played in the 1970s. Botvinnik’s conclusion was: “young grandmasters don’t study games of older generation, but it is also clear that chess openings should be stored using computer software”. Yes, this is so true, and Garry Kasparov was one of the first chess players who picked up on this idea, and therefore got involved in the development and promotion of what now became ChessBase software. Here is the story: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7229. Time flies and ChessBase software is now the most popular one among chess players, and it has affected the development of the game quite profoundly.

The photo from the article comes with the caption “It was Kasparov who first recognized the power of the system and used it intensely”. Good point, but it feels like it was Kasparov’s teacher who was first to recognize the need for such software!

Years have passed, and Kasparov now is also inside the software!

Play Like Mikhail Botvinnik – free training course

Convekta has released a free course for their Peshka Training software. The course is easy to install and start using and consists of two main parts – Theory and Practice.

Theory mode consists of lightly annotated games played by Botvinnik.

Practice mode is probably the more useful part of this free offer

In practice mode you also get to see statistics – either per lesson, or overall

Percentage of correct moves - I have not solved a single exercise correctly

In practice mode you literally get to train to play like Mikhail Botvinnik – and test from your strategic skills to tactics. Around 10 years ago I thoroughly studied a collection of games by Mikhail Botvinnik and got a great deal of respect for his art of planning and brief and clear explanations that got to the essence of every position. This course is exactly what a chess student would want to have after going through such a collection. To summarize:

Pros of this course:

• It is free!
• A large number of examples
• Exercise format is well implemented – your time is tracked for every position, and you can see various metrics on your progress

Cons:

• I’d like to see more verbal explanations, especially given the nature of Botvinnik’s positional style

An overlooked counter attack from a Botvinnik game

In a classic, but underestimated training game Botvinnik – Ragozin, the following position arose after White’s 28. Re1-e3.

 Black to move. Can Black capture on c3?

The threat is to attack on the ‘h’ file, and in particular – to trap Black’s queen with Re3-h3-h7. In his notes, Botvinnik did not dwell too much on this position, but the capture on ‘c3’ is very thematic throughout this game, so I felt curious to check what happens if Black bravely ignores White’s idea, and carries on with his counter attack! Let me share some analysis.

Yes he can!! Yes he can take on c3. In fact, it would have led to a forced draw, and given that in the game Black went down after 28… Ng8 pretty fast, making a draw against the strongest player in the world was probably a great option (1947 was the only year in the twentieth century without a world chess champion). Play would continue:
29 . Rh3 Rxd4

Black carried out his plan of destroying the White center. Just two moves ago there were two White pawns on c3 and d4, now there are two Black rooks
30. Rh7 Rg4!!

When your opponent attacks your queen, you should hang your rook as well!! This is what you get when you analyse a game with a computer, but in reality this is a very harmonious development of Black’s ideas – he destroyed White's center so that his pieces could get some freedom, and now they have it - big time. White’s queen is guarding the knight, which is guarding the White rook, so if either one of them gets distracted, White’s whole plot falls through. He does have enough resources to get a draw though.
31. Nd7+ Ke8
32. Qxg4  Rc1+  (Bad was 32... Qxh7?? 33. Nf6+)
33. Bf1 Qa1!
34. Qe2 Nd5!
 Black is down a full rook for only a couple of pawns!!
35. Ne5 Nc3
36. Rh8+ Ke7
 now White has to scramble for a draw:
37. Nxg6+! fxg6
38. Rh7+ Kf8
39. Rh8+ Ke7
40. Rh7+
 draw by perpetual check

In the game Botvinnik won with a nice sacrifice, but I think this draw would have been a much more exciting finish to this game. This is probably one of the more interesting discoveries I ever made while analysing a grandmaster game from a book. Perhaps that’s because I had rarely analysed games from printed books with the help of a computer…

The End of the Soviet Chess School

Flipping through “Learning from the Champions” by L.B. Hansen, I came across his comments about Kramnik losing the 2008 World Championship to Anand and Russia not winning the Chess Olympiad in 2008 the third time in a row. The author seemed to correlate the recent lack of successes from the Russian players to the fact that the methodology of serious preparation and methodical study of various aspects of the game advocated by the Soviet Chess school is somewhat out of date. Hansen claims that calculated risk and specific preparation are the new extra components that are often the decisive factors. He does have a point that the old methods are no longer bullet proof, even thought I am not sure if using the Olympiad serves his argument well. In 2004 the winner was Ukraine, and 2006 and 2008 – Armenia. Both nations were parts of former USSR (Soviet Chess School had impact outside of Russia). However, world champion now is Anand, and highest rated player until recently was Topalov, and now is Carlsen. Topalov speaks Russian very well, but none of these 3 players ever lived in the USSR.

What happened? I think the recent decade and the rise of a Norwegian super player show one thing: the Internet and computers happened. Any player has access to so much chess information and strong opposition that the concept of a “school” no longer plays such an important role, in the sense that living in Moscow does not give too many advantages over living in a small town. Hansen emphasises concrete approach, but that’s what Soviet chess school has been all about – concrete preparation. In my opinion there was nothing wrong with the Soviet Chess school as far as the ideas behind how you should study chess are concerned, it’s just that computers have taken it all to the next level. While Botvinnik made a study of a pawn structure, such as French Winawer, and Botvinnik Variation in the Slav defence, Alexandra Kosteniuk now prepares a novelty around move 30 that a computer came up with – check out her video with an example. In this position, Alexandra's computer gave here a little hint during preparation, and 3 moves after it was played over the board, it was all over:
  Black to move r5k1/pbpn2pp/1p1pp1r1/5p2/2PP1P2/P2BPN1q/1P2Q2P/R1B2R1K b - - 0 18
Here are the things that computers allow you, and facilitate specific preparation without the need for a coach:
1) determine at least a rough evaluation of a concrete position, something that could take days before the mid 90s. The position may or may not be in the database, either way you have much better ability to get to its objective evaluation
2) store results of analysis and quickly retrieve it later, right before the game against the opponent who is likely to play it
3) play a ton of games against strong opposition without living in major city
4) practice a particular position against computer (even though it won't smoke cigarettes in your face, like Ragozin did for Botvinnik)

It is interesting that Kasparov, who always advocated the scientific approach to preparation, became even more stronger around 1999 –2001 when computer engines became very strong. Specific preparation with computers and calculated risk based on engine analysis were the exact logical extension of what Botvinnik came up with in the 30s, in his brochure about how he prepared for the match against Flohr. Some people would even claim that “Soviet Chess School” never existed. When I told this to a master from Saint Petersburg a few years ago, he laughed at me and asked: “Ok, then what kind of chess school existed? Maybe a Cuban chess school?”

Opposite Coloured Bishops – part 10

I am continuing the series of annotated games with endgames with bishops of opposite colours. More examples are here.

(12) Suetin Alexey S (RUS) - Botvinnik Mikhail (RUS)
Ch URS Moscow (Russia), 1952

45...Bxe4 ?! with two bishops and an extra pawn Black is clearly winning; now things become more complicated. After being removed from the USSR Olympic team in 1952 ''for poor results", the WC, Mikhail Botvinnik was anxious to win the 1952 USSR Championship, to prove that "he could still play chess". In the final round he needed a win to catch up with Mark Taimanov; as a result, this endgame becomes the struggle of nerves. [45...Rf3-/+] 46.Bxe4 d5 47.Bd3 Be5 ? ! [47...e5 Botvinnik recommends: 48.Rb6 e4 49.Rxb7+ Kd6 50.Bxa6 Rxc2 -1.22 in positions with rooks + bishops of opposite colours, it is important to have a strong pawn center that would reduce the scope of opponent's pieces, bishop in particular (note a similar idea in Alexander-Smyslov) . Even though the material gets reduced, White's pieces are disorganized. 51.b4 ?! For example: (51.Rb6+ !? seems to be better) 51...e3 52.Kb3 ? ! (52.a5 Rc4 ! 53.Rb6+ Ke7 54.Bxc4 dxc4 55.Rb7+ Kf6 -5.50) 52...e2 !] 48.Rg8 Kd7 49.b4 Bf6 50.Rg1 Diagram

50...Rh2 again, Botvinnik notes that the 'e5' pawn must be pushed as soon as possible [50...e5 !] 51.Kb3 Kd6 52.Rd1 Ke7 53.c4 Rb2+ 54.Ka3 dxc4 55.Bxc4 Rc2 56.Bb3 Bb2+ 57.Ka2 Rf2 58.Bc4 a5 59.bxa5 Bc3+ 60.Kb3 Bxa5 61.Bb5 b6 Diagram

now the position has simplified too much, and most spectators expected a draw to be the result 62.Kc4 Kf6 63.Kd4 Rf4+ 64.Ke3 Ke5 65.Rh1 Re4+ 66.Kd3 Rg4 67.Rh5+ Kd6 68.Rh8 Ke5 69.Rh5+ Kf4 70.Rh3 Rg8 71.Rh4+ Ke5 72.Rh5+ Kd6 73.Rh4 Rg3+ 74.Ke4 [74.Kd4 ! 0.00] 74...Bd2 Diagram

75.Bd3 ? now a small miracle happens. 75...Bg5 ! 76.Rh5 Kc5 Diagram

White has to give up material to avoid mate. Probably inspired by such a finish, Botvinnik went to on to win his 7th national title in the tie-break match against Taimanov. 0-1

Replay game in the viewer:

Positional Chess – Exploiting the Open File

This game, played 10 years ago still brings pleasant memories, and recollections of how easy it can be to a win a chess game if your opponent does not have a plan.
Lee – Jiganchine, 1999
 Black to Move

White played very passively in the Exchange Variation of the Slav Defence, and Black is in control. 26… Qc4! 27. Qxc4 dxc4! This transforms the advantage of an open file, into an advantage of a better pawn structure, where Black has a dangerous majority on the queenside. White’s queen was an important defender that was traded off, and White’s pawns on b2 and a3 now can be attacked by both Black bishop and rook.

Black is winning here already – due to the threat of c4-c3. Out of desperation my opponent played 28. Be5, dropping the f2 pawn and White Resigned a few moves later. Otherwise the game could have developed like this:

28. Kg1 c3! 29. bxc3 Rxc3

White can’t save the a3 pawn. 30.a4 bxa4 31. Rb8+ Kh7 32. Rb6 a3 33. Rxa6 Rc2 34. Kh2 a2 35. e4 Bb4 36. d5 Bc3 37. Ra7 exd5 38. exd5 a1=Q 39. Rxa1 Bxa1 -+

The position after 27… dxc4 however, reminds me of the Jurgis-Botvinnik, 1931

Black to move. The future world champion won beautifully by 1... Rc4!! 2. bxc4 Bc5 3. Kg2 Bxf2 4. Kxf2 b3 0-1

What if in my game against Jason Lee, Black also tried to win with 3 pawns and a bishop against the rook after the game move 28. Be5  ? The sac is completely unjustified, insane, but apparently Black might be able to hold a draw!

28... Rxb2 ?!?! 29. Rxb2 Bxa3
Just for fun, could Black sacrifice a rook?

  30. Rc2! a5 31. e4 a4 32. Kg3 f6 33. Bc7 Bf8 34. d5 a3 35. d6 b4 36. d7 Be7
Both sides have advanced their pawns, but Black has 3 of them!! They are so dangerous that White has to bail out with 37. Ba5!? b3
37. Ba5 b3 38. Bb4 bxc2 39. Bxe7 c1=Q 40. d8=Q+ Kh7 41.Qa5 e5 42. f3 c3 43. Bxa3 Qf4+ 44. Kf2 Qd2+ with a draw.

Replay the game in the viewer:

Opposite Coloured Bishops – Part 5

Continued from Part 4

(7) Kotov Alexander (RUS) - Botvinnik Mikhail (RUS)
Ch URS Moscow (Russia), 1955

25...Be4! Black's advantage is obvious: his bishop is much better than White's. 26.Qd2 Qg4 Black exerts pressure on 'g2'; his own pawns on f6 and g7 make similar ideas by White impossible. 27.h3 Qg6 28.Qf2 h5 29.Kh2 a5 Diagram

In these positions, it is important for the stronger side to have its pawns on the squares of the colour same as the opponent's bishop to limit its scope. 30.Ba3 b5 31.Bc5 b4 32.Rcc1 Rdc8 33.Bd4 Bc2 34.Rd2 Be4 35.Rdd1 Qf5 36.Qe2 Qg6 37.Qf2 a4 ! ? 38.Rxc8+ Rxc8 39.bxa4 Qe8 40.Rd2 Qxa4 41.Qh4 Rc2 Of course, trading rooks relieves White's defensive task, but there was no other way to win the 'a2' pawn. 42.Rxc2 Qxc2 43.Qg3 Qxa2 44.Bxf6 Qxg2+ ! 45.Qxg2 Bxg2 46.Bd4 Be4 Black won a pawn, but the position is very likely drawn. With great ingenuity Botvinnik confuses his opponent and pulls out a study-like win. 47.Kg3 Kf7 48.h4 g6 49.Kf2 Ke6 50.Ke2 Kf5 51.Kd2 Kg4 52.Bf6 White is defending according to the general principle: the king should block the passed pawn, while the bishop is defending his own pawns on the other flank. But he has to be very careful as both 'h4' and 'e3' require protection, and the 'b' pawn can be used to deflect one of defenders. 52...Kg3 53.Be7 Kh3 54.Bf6 Kg4 55.Be7 Bf5! Diagram

The bishop is being transferred to 'e6'. Notice that in the middlegame it would have been a passive square for it, but in the endgame the bishop is going to be very useful on the 'a2-g8' diagonal. 56.Bf6 Kf3 57.Be7 b3 58.Kc3 Be6 59.Bc5? Diagram

[59.Kxb3 d4+ 60.Kc2 dxe3 61.Kd1 Kf2 62.Bc5 Bb3+ 63.Kc1 Kf3 64.Kb2 Bd1 65.Kc1 Ba4 66.Bd6 Kg4 67.Be7 Kxf4-+; 59.Kd2 ! 59...b2 60.Kc2 Kxe3 61.Kxb2 Kxf4 62.Kc3= is given by Botvinnik] 59...g5 !! Shock. 60.fxg5 [60.hxg5 h4 61.f5 Bxf5 62.Kxb3 h3 63.Bd6 Kxe3] 60...d4+ ! The 'b' pawn must be saved. Material balance does not matter much as Black gets two distant passers, 'b' and 'h' pawns. White gets two passers too, but the bishop on e6 is acting according to the principle of one diagonal! It stops both White pawns and defends his own 'b3 pawn', along the a2-g8 diagonal. If White's pawn was on a4 instead of d4, he would not lose. 61.exd4 Kg3 that's why Black played 'g6-g5' - now the 'h4' pawn cannot be protected by the bishop from e7. 62.Ba3 Kxh4 63.Kd3 Kxg5 64.Ke4 h4 65.Kf3 Bd5+ Kf2 Kf4 and the king marches to c2. 0-1

Complexity vs. simplicity – a story about Lilienthal and Flohr

A director of a chess club in Moscow (who was also sometimes coaching me how to drop pieces less frequently) once told me a story about how chess players with different styles approach the same position. Back in the seventies – there were no computers, so to analyse a position one would have to spend hours looking for possible ideas, plans, and there tactical implications. A friendly grandmaster’s help would always be appreciated.

Salo Flohr and Andre Lilienthal both had interesting biographies, and at some point in the lives they were both Soviet citizens, and lived in Moscow. During that time my coach, who was on friendly terms with both with them, would sometimes ask them both to analyze the same position. A day later each would come back with the same assessment: the position is winning for White. Lilienthal would bring several pieces of paper with written variations proving his conclusion. Flohr would instead say a couple of sentences along the lines of “White wins by transferring the rook to the seventh rank via the c file. If Black attempts to cover all invasion squares, White breaks through on the kingside where his pawns are further advanced”.

That was matching their playing styles – Lilienthal was the one who defeated Capablanca with a queen sacrifices, and Botvinnik used to say that all Soviet masters should study Flohr`s games to improve their positional understanding. Variations are crucial for proving your point, but summarizing a position`s essence with a clear verbal assessment is also extremely valuable.