Sadler’s Treatment of Queen’s Gambit Accepted

Apparently Matthew Sadler really enjoyed to play against White’s far advanced pawn on e5 in Queen’s Gambit Accepted, to the point where he would tease his opponent into advancing the e pawn… Here are three examples:

Lukacs, Peter - Sadler, Matthew D
   1993 , D27

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 a6 4. e3 Nf6 5. Bxc4 e6 6. O-O c5 7. Bd3 cxd4 8. exd4 Be7 9. Bg5 O-O 10. Nc3 b5 11. a4 b4 12. Ne4 Bb7 13. Nc5 Bd5 14. Ne5 Nc6 15. Rc1 Nxe5 16. dxe5 Nd7 17. Bxe7 Qxe7 18. Nxd7 Qxd7

Black is very solid here; e5 pawn is a liability as much as a strength.

19. Re1 Rfd8 20. Re3 Rac8 21. Rxc8 Qxc8 22. h3 g6 23. a5 Qc7 24. Qf1 Qxa5 25. Bxa6 Qa2 26. Qe2 Ra8 27. Bd3 Qa1+ 28. Kh2 Ra2 29. Be4 Rxb2 30. Qf3 Bxe4 31. Rxe4 Qa7 32. Kg3 Qc5 33. Qf6 Rd2 34. Qf4 Qc3+ 35. Kh2 Qc2 36. Rxb4 Rxf2 37. Qg5 Qe2 38. Rb3 Kg7 39. Qg3 h5 40. h4 Rf1 41. Rd3 Re1 0-1

---

San Segundo Carrillo Pablo - Sadler, Matthew D
   1997 , D27

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Bxc4 c5 6. O-O a6 7. Bd3 b6 8. Qe2 Bb7 9. Rd1 Nbd7 10. Nbd2 Be7 11. b3 O-O 12. Bb2 Qb8 13. Rac1 Rc8 14. Bb1 cxd4 15. Rxc8+ Qxc8 16. Nxd4 b5 17. e4 Nf8 18. N4f3 Qc7 19. a3 Rd8 20. b4 Ng6 21. g3 Ba8 22. Rc1 Qb7 23. Re1 Ne8 24. Nb3 Nd6 25. Nfd2 Qb6 26. h4 h6 27. Bd4 Qb8 28. h5 Nf8 29. Qg4 Ne8

in search for imbalance Black has done all he could to lure White into playing e5 and he is unable to resist.

30. e5 Nh7 31. Ne4 Qb7 32. f3 Qd5 33. Nbd2 Ng5 34. Kg2

34. ... a5

Black is counterattacking on both flanks all of a sudden.

35. bxa5 Bxa3 36. Re3 Bb4 37. Rd3 Qc6 38. Bb6 Rxd3 39. Bxd3 Bxd2 0-1

---

Khalifman, Alexander - Sadler, Matthew D
   1996 , D29

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 a6 4. e3 Nf6 5. Bxc4 e6 6. O-O c5 7. Qe2 b5 8. Bb3 Bb7 9. a4 b4 10. Rd1 Be7 11. Nbd2 O-O 12. Nc4 Nbd7 13. Nfe5 Qc7 14. e4 cxd4 15. Bf4 Qc5 16. Rac1

16. ... Qa7

The black queen is both escaping from lines of fire as well as keeping d4 guarded.

17. Na5 Bc5 18. Nxb7 Qxb7 19. Nd3 Rfc8 20. Rc4 Bb6 21. e5

( 21. Rxb4 Qxe4 )

21. ... Nd5 22. Qf3

22. ... a5 =+ 23. Rdc1 Rxc4 24. Bxc4 Rc8 25. Kf1 Rc6 26. Bd2 Bc7 27. Bxd5 Rxc1+ 28. Bxc1 exd5 29. Qe2 Qc6 30. f4 Qxa4 31. f5 Qc6 32. e6 fxe6 33. fxe6 Nf6 34. Bg5 Kf8 35. Bxf6 gxf6 36. e7+ Ke8 37. Qh5+ Kxe7 38. Qxh7+ Kd6 39. Qh8 Qc4 40. Qxf6+ Kd7 41. Qf5+ Kc6 42. Qg6+ Kb5 43. Ke2 Ka4 44. h4 Kb3 45. h5 a4 46. Qf5 a3 47. bxa3 bxa3 48. Qf1 Qc2+ 49. Kf3 a2 50. Nc1+ Kb2 51. Nd3+ Kc3 52. Nf2 Qf5+ 0-1

Kramnik in the Sveshnikov – The Breakthrough Style

The book of Vladimir Kramnik’s  games published in Russia in the end of the 1990’s was called the “Break”, and for a while it became my constant source of aesthetic pleasure. I did not understand back then why people talk about Kramnik as a boring or even solid player, and still don’t understand it now – from following most of the tournaments where he plays. This is a player with a very dynamic sense of pawn structure and of how pawns and pieces release their power in unexpected (to the opponent) moments of the game.

Merely looking through a collection of his games in B33 ECO classifications I immediately came across several examples (I had known most of them from before, but a couple were new to me!). These games were played against the top players of the world, with good results. While regretting that Kramnik stopped playing the Sveshnikov, I do understand that one has to switch repertoire from time to time – in part to develop one’s style, but also to avoid computer preparation as lines that Kramnik makes popular – get overanalyzed to death and become difficult to play for a win.

Lutz –Kramnik, 1995
  26…e3 ripped White’s position apart before queenside pawns could promote.

Polgar – Kramnik, 1998
  With unexpected 38… a4, Black undermined White’s knight and pinned 3 White pieces along the long diagonal.

Anand – Kramnik, 1998
After 13. Qf3, Black fought for initiative by sacrificing two pawns – 14…f5! 15. exf5 d5! getting enough counter play for the material.

Shirov – Kramnik, 2000
With 20…d5!! Black was able to transfer the b8 rook to the kingside via b6, and again – obtain enough counterplay.

Leko – Kramnik, 2000
with 36… b4, Kramnik puts more pressure on White’s tangled position, although in time trouble the game ended as a draw after Black missed a win.

Questions of Modern Chess Theory - Book Review

I heard about the book Questions of Modern Chess Theory a long time ago – back in the nineties, when I was still studying chess in Russia. Reading it today, I realize that this classic work, although it is very old – still reflects well on modern approach to chess strategy and opening theory. It covers the connection between calculation and assessment, explains how to strike balance between following rules and looking into the specifics of the positions, and gives examples of opening variations that to me – appear still relevant today – Botvinnik variation of the Slav, IQP positions and so on.
The chapter on modern approach to gambit play is also quite instructive. It echoes what books by John Watson and Kasparov talk about, except for it was written half a century before them, and should be given proper credit. No wonder that the young Bobby Fischer had lots to learn from this book by Lipnitsky!

As a quick example, I was particularly impressed by Lipnitsky’s explanation of this famous game, that appeared from a common IQP structure:
Botvinnik – Alekhine, 1938
  Black to  move. His position is strategically very difficult. He ended up losing the game.
I remembered that Black lost because he had troubles preventing White’s invasion on two open files, and that c6 square being weakened was part of the problem. But Lipnitsky explains this connection very clearly: with the pawn back on b7, Black would have been able to play Nb8-c6 and contain most of White’s initiative. As it is, White threatens to invade both to c7 and to e7, and that is too much for him to handle. From my experience, such strategic insights into details of each position are precious, especially if they shed a new light on a well known game.
Recommended: 9/10.

Karpov - Kramnik - blindfold game in Slav Defence

In this game Kramnik creates an instructive example where knights end up stronger than bishops because they manage to occupy key squares and invade White's weaknesses, especially on the light squares. White's bishops  remain passive throughout the game.

Chess Psychology - Prematurely Agreeing to a Draw

Jiganchine – Degtiarev, 1996

White to play.

Since I was not sure what I was supposed to do here, in this position I played 18. Ke2 and offered a draw, which was accepted.

Agreeing to a draw prematurely was a sin I was suffering from a lot during most of my years as an active chess player, especially in Junior tournaments back in Russia. How to do you assess the above position? I had just missed a winning line a few moves ago, and was disappointed by that. But looking at the position today, White still has several advantages:

• most importantly – White has extra space
• pawn tension on kingside is in his favour
• Black pieces on the kingside are dramatically tied up

Ironically, even today I did not think of it way it until I realized that a computer engine evaluates a position as +- without giving any direct winning ideas. I think White should:

• manoeuvre to improve placement of his pieces
• d5 is a potential weakness in Black’s camp
• prepare for either opening of the ‘h’ file, or opening the queenside with b2-b4 at the right moment
• transfer rooks and other pieces to wherever the play opens up. This transfer of pieces from one side of the board is what will give White and advantage since his pieces are more mobile than Black’s

I moved the pieces around, and arrived at this sample position:

White to move – b2-b4 opens up the game to White’s advantage in what is still a complicated position. If ‘b’ file opens up – White will be quick to double his rooks on it, and Black’s rooks will have a hard time defending ‘b7’.

In short, nothing is really indicating a draw here, White can play for a win without significant risk. Offering a draw can be explained by a combination of factors:

• chess factors – lack of understanding how White can play for a win
• psychological – disappointment after immediate break with h2-h4 failed to win
• outside influence – I was a tired kid, playing a game in the evening on the weekday after school

Karpov - Kavalek - the power of Maroczy bind

This instructive video shows Anatoly Karpov's ability to exploit small advantages, especially in endgames. It has now become the classic game for understanding White's strategy in this opening variation.

Pawn Breakthrough in the Sveshnikov Sicilian

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:

Pawn Structure Chess – when your Opponent Surprises you

DDT3000 – sgilroy, ICC 2011, 20 minutes per game
Black to move.
Here I expected 25…b5-b4, fighting for ‘d4’ square in the typical fashion for the Spanish game. But my opponent surprised me with a different pawn move, as he instead chose to fight for ‘d3’.
25…c4 I thought “Oh no, I’d better stop Ne6-c5-d3”, so I played
26. Bxe6
Black to move. Which recapture is best? My opponent surprised me again, and I must admit, I was so shocked that I blundered immediately and resigned within a couple of moves. Several positional considerations need to be considered:

• Black is eyeing f3 with his queen and knight, but for now it is well guarded
• White may later transfer his knight to ‘d5’ via ‘e3’ so ‘d5’ needs to be covered
• Black’s rooks currently don’t control any open or semi-open files, but they obviously would like to!

How would you recapture on e6?

Kramnik – Carlsen - annotated by Seirawan

Yasser Seirawan has annotated Magnus Carlsen’s victory over Vladimir Kramnik from the currently played Amber Chess Tournament.

Kramnik – Carlsen, 2011

Black to move. How can he fight for control over d5 to get a desired pawn structure?

Seirawan explains very nicely the positional goals of both sides as Kramnik is planning to play against the ‘d5’ outpost and wants to occupy it with a piece. It backfired as Carlsen fought to complete his development and control d5 with pieces as well. It struck me that such positional ideas that seem to be more common in Sicilian defence (for example – in Sveshnikov Variation that Kramnik himself plays) – can just as easily occur in closed openings.

Watch the video below to see it yourself:
 

Pawn Structure in the Closed Spanish – Geller vs. Smyslov

Following up on my previous post, here is another example from the collection of Efim Geller games “Application of Chess Theory”

Geller – Smyslov, 1970
position after 22.Nf3

The 7th world Champion Vassily Smyslov “agreed” on this pawn structure (by playing f7-f5), despite its several long term flaws:
1) light squares are weak, and in particular - White’s knights can occupy e4 and f5 squares
2) d6 pawn is weak
3) White controls the ‘a’ file
5) the b4 and d5 pawns restrict Black’s knights, and especially - the d8 knight has no good future prospects

However, commenting on static features of a position is much easier than exploiting them to your advantage against a strong opponent. Watch this video to see how Geller converted his positional trumps into a full point:

While Geller’s game serves as an argument against playing an early f7-f5 in Closed Spanish, delaying it may lead to White himself playing f2-f4-f5. The final position of Karpov – Unzicker, 1974, illustrates that idea:
White just played Ng3-h5 and Black resigned!

A game Nunn-Short, 1986 illustrates how Black can try to implement f7-f5, without giving up the e4 squares:

Black just played f7-f5, but White’s pieces are well prepared for complications;
watch the video to see who comes out on top: