Calculate Like a Grandmaster E-Book

Daniel Gormally

• Herausgeber: Batsford
• Kategorie: Lebensstil
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 446

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2013

Beschreibung

• Learn the calculation secrets of the world's best attacking players • First book from one of the UK's biggest chess stars • Illustrated with a wealth of examples from top-level chess games This first book from one of the UK's top grandmasters is a penetrating and detailed (though engaging and friendly) study of typical games played by the most exciting chess players of the modern era, those that are renowned as 'attacking' players, from Mikhail Tal, pioneering hero of the ultra-modern attacking style, to Magnus Carlsen, teenage leader of the 'new wave' of deadly attackers, via the immortal Bobby Fischer, 'boa constrictor' Anatoly Karpov and 'King Garry' Kasparov. The author has tried to get into the heads of these stellar players, revealing the secrets of how they choose their decisive moves and succeed in delivering such awesome attacks. This inspiring book encourages you to play more imaginatively and copy the grandmasters' thought processes in your own game.

Leseprobe

First published in the United Kingdom in 2010 by

Batsford Old West London Magistrates’ Court 10 Southcombe Street London W14 0RA

An imprint of Anova Books Company Ltd

Copyright © Batsford 2010

Text copyright © Daniel Gormally

The moral right of the author has been asserted.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.

First eBook publication 2013 eBook ISBN: 9781849940962

Also available in paperback Paperback ISBN: 9781906388690

This book can be ordered direct from the publisher at the website: www.anovabooks.com

Contents

Introduction

Chapter 1 Tal and the tree of plenty

Chapter 2 Self Handicapping

Chapter 3 Simply Shirov

Chapter 4 Topalov and the age of computers

Chapter 5 The magic of Moro

Chapter 6 Vishy Anand – Speed Superstar

Chapter 7 Bobby, the two K’s and Les Enfants Terribles

Chapter 8 My own experience

Index of Games

1 Y. Averbach – M. Tal

2 E. Chukaev – M. Tal

3 B. Spassky – M. Tal

4 M. Bobotsov – M. Tal

5 M. Tal – P. Benko

6 M. Tal – E. Geller

7 M. Tal – L. Polugaevsky

8 M. Tal – V. Smyslov

9 A. Shirov – V. Akopian

10 V. Korchnoi – A. Shirov

11 A. Shiirov – A. Chernin

12 E. Bareev – A. Shirov

13 A. Shirov – J. Timman

14 A. Shirov – P. Leko

15 V. Topalov – J. Polgar

16 M. Adams – V. Topalov

17 V. Topalov – G. Kasparov

18 V. Topalov – V. Kramnik

19 A. Morozevich – J. Polgar

20 A. Miles – A. Morozevich

21 J. Piket – A. Morozevich

22 A. Morozevich – L. Van Wely

23 A. Morozevich – M. Gurevich

24 C. Lutz – A. Morozevich

25 A. Dreev – V. Anand

26 V. Anand – I. Rogers

27 V. Anand – G. Serper

28 G. Kamsky – V. Anand

29 V. Anand – A. Khalifman

30 R. Fischer – B. Spassky

31 G. Kasparov – V. Anand

32 A. Karpov – V. Milov

33 M. Carlsen – E. Inarkiev

34 M. Carlsen – T. Radjabov

35 D. Gormally – A. Norris

36 D. Gormally – M. Ulibin

37 P. Wells – D. Gormally

38 D. Gormally – E. Sutovsky

39 D. Gormally – A. Dreev

40 D. Gormally – I. Gourlay

41 E. Bacrot – P. Leko

42 D. Gormally – S. Collins

Meaning of Symbols

+ Check

White has a slight advantage

White has a great advantage

White is winning

Black has a slight advantage

Black has a great advantage

Black is winning

∞ unclear position

Introduction

I am often approached by people who ask me the question, “How do I study?” or “What must I do to improve my chess?” Interesting questions to which there is no easy reply. I normally fob them off by giving them the stock response, “I study master games, my own games etc.”, whilst not really knowing the answer myself.

One of the first books that attracted my attention when I was first getting into chess was Alexander Kotov’s classic Think like a Grandmaster. Here was a book that got down to the nitty gritty of how top players actually analyse and calculate in a way that had probably not been done before, or at least not very well. It introduced the ‘tree of analysis’ into the public chess domain, breaking down the thought processes that go into selecting each move.

It seems to me that such books, which delve into the methods that grandmasters use in identifying candidate moves, are surprisingly few and far between. Of course top players are not always keen to give away their secrets, the secrets of their success, for fear that by giving their methods away the general chess public will be more easily able to elevate themselves to their level – and thus the mythical ‘golden key’ (sorry I just made that up) to chess success remains hidden. Not that there really is a key, a system, to chess improvement. There is no easy solution to the problem of how to improve, such a question can only possibly be answered through hard work and application.

Therefore the analysis by grandmasters in chess magazines and publications tends to be watered down a little, with the notable exception in recent years of the Dvoretsky books, which stand out in both the quality of their analysis and their honesty. As a friend of mine once said, serious study of those books will add between 100 and 200 points to your Elo rating (incidentally, with this book I’m looking for 300).

One of the things that constantly surprises me is how even very strong chess players are so staid and complacent when it comes to subjecting their chess weaknesses to thorough scrutiny, trying to ‘think outside the box’ so to speak. What characterises the truly great players in any sport or competitive activity is a willingness to take risks, to take the hard road to achievement, to play without fear, so to speak. When a Roger Federer or a Tiger Woods makes a mistake, that mistake is magnified a million times, but it is precisely their willingness to take risks, to play without a safety net, that brought them to the pinnacle of their sport in the first place.

With this book I have firstly selected the games of Mikhail Tal, as I believe he paved the way for the new generation of attacking players, the Shirovs, the Morozevichs and of course Kasparov and Anand. And of course he ideally fits the criteria identified above, of competing without fear of failure. Laying scrutiny to these games will hopefully give you a closer insight into the workings of these great attacking geniuses. I believe that without thorough discipline in analysis and calculation it is impossible to fully utilise your chess potential. I hope this book can go some way towards achieving that discipline.

Chapter 1 Tal and the tree of plenty

Mikhail Tal was a breath of fresh air in the chess firmament of the late fifties and sixties. Until his arrival reinvigorated the chess scene, it was dominated by the likes of Botvinnik, whose scientific and rigorous approach took some of the passion out of the game, and Smyslov, whose mastery of the endgame had enabled him to defeat Botvinnik and become world champion, only to lose the title in a rematch.

Tal, from Riga in Latvia, succeeded in becoming the youngest player ever to hold the world chess crown, when he defeated Botvinnik in a famous match which sent shock waves around the chess world. A hardened drinker and smoker, he was to die an early death brought on by illness resulting from his unhealthy lifestyle, but he will always be remembered by chess fans for the dashing attacks and sacrificial flair that shone like a bright beacon through the drab, positional and materialistic chess of the Soviet era that was more attuned to getting results than entertaining the chess public.

Tal evoked memories of the days of Morphy, where players would attack without fear of losing, and it was considered ungentlemanly not to accept a sacrifice. Sweeping through the chess scene like a hurricane, grandmasters rooted in the iron discipline of Botvinnik were unable to contain his enormous flair for combinations, and his willingness to provoke a maelstrom of wild complications, and were simply swept away in a tide of chess imagination and brute force calculation. In this chapter I will attempt to discover some of the secrets behind Tal’s extraordinary calculating abilities, although this will be no easy task, I hope to be able to work my way through the labyrinth of variations with the help of the aforementioned tree of analysis.

1

Y. Averbakh – M. Tal

USSR Championship, Riga 1958

Modern Benoni Defence

1 d4 f6 2 c4 e6 3 c3 c5

The Modern Benoni – Tal’s preferred choice of opening in his early career against 1 d4, although he also scored many potent wins with the King’s Indian. Nowadays many Benoni players prefer to play the opening against the Queen’s Indian move order, with 3 f3, fearing the dreaded ‘flick knife’ attack, which White can launch with his knight on c3.

4 d5 exd5 5 cxd5 d6 6 e4 g6

7 e2

7 f4 g7 8 b5+!? is the flick knife, a move order that isn’t possible if White has already committed his knight to f3. No less a player than Garry Kasparov scored a famous win against John Nunn in this variation. Nowadays this move order tends to frighten Benoni players to death, so that they prefer to play a Nimzo Indian with 3…b4 in reply to 3 c3.

Then 8…d7 (8…bd7 9 e5! dxe5 10 fxe5 h5 11 e6 h4+! 12 g3 xg3 13 hxg3 xh1 14 e3 leads to unfathomable complications that would have been right up Tal’s street; nowadays the last word on the variation is supposed to be 14…xc3+ 15 bxc3 a6 16 exd7+ xd7 17 xd7+ xd7 18 b3! as Sokolov used to defeat Topalov. Or 8…fd7 9 a4 h4+!? 10 g3 e7) 9 a4. In general this variation only became popular after Tal’s heyday, it would have been fascinating to see how he would have dealt with it in his prime. Not surprisingly, Averbakh chooses a more sedate variation. But it was very difficult to restrain Tal!

7…g7 8 f3 0-0 9 0-0 e8 10 c2

10 d2 is perhaps more highly regarded by theory; White intends to reinforce the centre with f3, rather than with pieces; play may continue 10…a6 11 f3 c7 12 a4 b6 13 c4 a6 14 g5 h6!? ∞ (14…d7?).

10…a6 11 f4 b4 12 b1

12…xe4?!

“You gotta be kidding!” – ?!!!?? would be a more appropriate notation! It is easy to underestimate the psychological shock which Averbakh must have experienced on seeing this daring sacrifice. A remarkable conception, though, in this day and age of super strong computers that have the ability to refute any risky sacrifice, probably flawed. But in a practical sense Tal’s adventurous spirit was richly rewarded! What is most remarkable is that it hasn’t been repeated since! 12…h5 is the ‘normal’ but far more boring move! Then might follow 13 g5 f6 14 d2 f5∞.

13 xe4 f5 14 fd2 xd5

15 xd6?

The critical position. Now let’s consider what would have happened if Averbakh had made the more testing retreat. I think the conclusion we can draw from this dense tree of variations is probably the same that Averbakh came to in the game, that the sheer complexity of the lines after the critical reply 15 g3! was overwhelming, which persuaded him to play the ‘safe’ reply 15 xd6? – but this was a mistake! As we can see, 15 xd6? led to his later defeat, whereas 15 g3! would have kept the game unclear. He would have been better off throwing himself into the morass of complications.

In fact there is, I believe, an inherent ‘justice’ in chess – that those who are brave and willing to dive headlong into the abyss, are favoured over those who err on the side of caution, always looking for the easy route. I believe that Tal intuitively felt that the sacrifice xe4 was risky, but in a practical sense he would be able to out-think Averbakh, and in any case he didn’t have to prove the soundness of the sacrifice, as Averbakh avoided the most criticial line. Such was the intimidation factor with Tal!

But the reader has a right to ask, how to go about calculating all this in a game? After all, it is one thing to be able to calculate and identify four or five candidate moves in a sedate position, but it is quite another to do the same thing in such a complicated one. Of course the reason we love chess so much is the beauty that lies in its complexity and that the human mind cannot master the game. It is only through practice and thorough study of such complex games that we can improve our calculating abilities and approach each game with confidence. After all, we will never have a perfect calculating brain, and mistakes and oversights will always be made, but in a competitive sense, it is only important to see more than your opponent, who is after all faced with the same problems of complexity himself!

Although I believe Tal’s style would have scored very badly against computers, in a practical game, against flesh and blood opponents, with the ticking of the clock and the inherent tension involved, he didn’t do too badly! So much of Tal’s play was intuitive, and of course he was disposed towards sacrifices and attacking play. But he allied this to a razor-sharp calculating ability which meant that any ‘refutation’ (assuming there was one) of his play was by no means easy.

15 g3!

What would Tal have done now? In fact, at the point where he considered the sacrifice, he would have had to visualise this position and consider what moves he had available. Of course we have the luxury of being able to jump forward and just consider this position. Now we have to identify the candidate moves and ‘build our tree’ – the four candidate moves we can easily identify are 15…e7, 15…b4, 15…f6, and the best one, 15…h6! Let’s just imagine, for a moment, that Averbakh did indeed play the brave g3, and put ourselves in Tal’s shoes. How would he have gone about trying to prove the correctness of his sacrifice?

A) 15…e7 “looks natural, ganging up on the e-file, what does he do then?”

A1) 16 xd6 xe4 17 xe4 (17 xe7 xb1 18 axb1 xe7 “and I’m clearly better”) 17…xe4 18 xe4 xe4 19 f3 e6 (19…d4 20 xc5 d2 21 ad1 “is irritating”) 20 xc5 f6 21 xb7 b8 22 f3 xb2 23 xa7 a6 “just about burns out to equality”;

A2) 16 d3 instead, then 16…b4 17 xd6 e6 “is annoying for him, a lot of his pieces are hanging, I’m going to get some material back (on 17…d8 “he has the annoying 18 b5”; and 17…d7 18 a3 xd3 19 xd3 “isn’t convincing”) 18 xc5 xd3 19 xd3 xe4 20 xe4 xe4 21 xe4 xe4 “only seems to offer equality, but Black might be be slightly better due to the pressure on the b-pawn.”

A3) 16 f3! “is annoying”;

A3a) 16…f6 17 xf6+ (17 e1 d5 18 xf6+ xf6 19 d1 xb2 “I have a lot of pawns and I’m threatening to win the exchange, looks okay”) 17…xf6 18 e4 xb2 (“But not 18…xe4 because of 19 xe4 xb2 20 xb2 xb2 21 xd6 xa1 22 xe8 d4 23 c7 c8 24 b5 and I probably don’t have enough to hold this endgame.”);

A3a1) 19 xf5 xd2 (19…xa1 20 xa1 xa1 21 d3 e5 “and with so many pawns I must be happy.”);

A3a2) 19 xb2! xb2 20 ab1 “and if the b7 pawn wasn’t dropping I’d be happy, but unfortunately it is.” 20…c3 (20…xe4 21 xe4 xe4 22 xb2 “doesn’t seem to be a lot of fun either, although he still has a bit of work to do after 22…b6 23 xd6 d8”) 21 xf5 xd2 (21…gxf5 22 c4) 22 d7 (“Maybe 22 c2 is more sensible, I’m bound to lose either the b7 pawn or the d pawn, when it’s an uphill struggle for the draw.”) 22…e7 23 xb7 d8 24 c6 “and even here I can fight on with 24…xb7 25 xb7 c4 26 d5 c8! and the c-pawn should devour one of his bishops” 27 e4 d5! “That’s a nice trick” 28 c2 (28 xd5 c3) 28…d4 29 d1 c3;

A3b) 16…h6 17 d1! “Hmmm, I’m not getting anywhere.”

B) 15…b4 “is an interesting idea, I’m threatening …d5. Can White escape?” 16 a3! “Unfortunately he can” (“He won’t play 16 d3 as it loses to 16…xd3 17 xd3 d5.”) 16…c6 17 d3 “and it doesn’t look like I have sufficient compensation, so I can dismiss b4.”

C) 15…h6!

“This is much more like it!” and this is the move that I believe that Tal would have played. Now the tree diverges into another branch; White now has no less than six(!) credible candidate moves: 16 c4, 16 d3, 16 d3, 16 f4, 16 d1 and finally 16 b5.

C1) 16 c4 b4! 17 xf7+ (17 b5 “That’s another interesting try. So many bishop moves!” 17…e6 “and he doesn’t seem to have solved the problem of the pin”; 17 f4 d5! gets the piece back with interest.) 17…xf7 18 xd6+ xd6 19 xf5+ (19 xd6 xb1 20 xb1 “Now I have a killing shot” 20…c2) 19…gxf5 20 xd6 xd2 “and I’m winning”;

C2) 16 d3 b4! “Again forced, otherwise the whole idea is stupid, but now he has a serious problem as I’m threatening …xd3 and …d5. 17 b5 e6 transposes to the above variation. So d3 doesn’t seem to solve his problems.”

C3) 16 d3

“Trying to get out of the pin by brute force. As we can see in many variations, the root cause of many of White’s problems is the passive nature of the queen on b1.”

C3a) 16…b4 17 f3 d5 18 d6 xd2 19 xf5 (19 xe8 xe8 “looks good for me, his queen looks funny and again I have two pawns for the exchange”) 19…gxf5 20 xf5 g5 “and Black is certainly not worse, so we can conclude that d3 is not really dangerous”;

C3b) 16…f6!? 17 h4 g5! 18 xd6 xe4! “looks good for me, even if I’m walking a fine line, but when am I not?”;

C3c) 16…xd2? 17 xd5 xe4 18 xd2 “won’t do”;

C4) 16 f4

“The most ambitious. He’s trying to hold as much material as possible even if f4 looks like a horrible move from the positional point of view. Okay, what alternatives do I have then? f6, b4, g7, e7 and e3, hmmm… let’s analyse.”

C4a) 16…f6 17 d3! “doesn’t seem much different from a similar variation, f6 is too passive”;

C4b) 16…b4 17 a3 d5 18 axb4 dxe4 19 c4 d4+ 20 h1 cxb4 “is a bit messy, hmmm, hard to assess but I guess a piece is a piece after 21 d1”;

C4c) 16…g7 “looks a bit slow, can I really afford to waste time like this?” 17 h1 (17 d3 b4! “and I’m mixing it up”) 17…e3 18 f3 d4 “transposes to that other variation, does he have anything better? possibly not”;

C4d) 16…e7 17 f3 (17 d3 b4! “and I can’t see a good reply for him, I’m threatening too much action.”) 17…xf4 (17…e3 18 e1 d5 19 xe3 dxe4 20 xe4 g7 21 f2 d4 22 e2 “and I don’t see anything convincing for me here.” But maybe 17…xf4 “and I’m rocking, three pawns for the piece and quite active.”) 18 d1 ad8 “Okay, e7 looks like a good reply to f4”;

C4e) 16…e3?! “worth a look!”

17 f3

C4e1) 17…xg2 18 xg2 d5 19 d3 “This is too much, White is on top”;

C4e2) 17…g7;

C4e3) 17…g7! “a nice switchback” 18 h1 (18 xe3 d4 19 d3 d5) 18…d4

C4e31) 19 b5 d5? (19…e6! keeps up the pressure.) 20 xe8 xe8 21 xe3 xe3 22 f6+ “Oops”;

C4e32) 19 d3

C4e321) 19…c4!? “Keep the tricks coming.” 20 xe3 xe3 21 xc4 xe4 (21…d4 22 exd6 xd3 23 xd3 “also looks worryingly strong for White”) 22 xe4 d5 23 xe3 xe4 (23…dxe4 “doesn’t look totally clear, although the dark squares around my king may come back to haunt me.”) 24 d3 “and White is on top”;

C4e322) 19…g4

C4e3221) 20 xe3 xe3 21 c4 d4 “This may well be best play, I have two pawns and a rook for two pieces but he’s immediately winning one back…” 22 cxd6 e6 (22…f8 “may be safer.”) 23 h3! h5 24 f5!;

C4e3222) 20 f2 f5! 21 f1 d5 22 f2 xg3+ 23 hxg3 e2 24 xe2 xe2 “and I’m winning”;

C4e4) 17…d5?! 18 xe3 dxe4 “and he’s survived the first wave, but his pieces are very passive and I’m immediately threatening his knight, and if

C4e41) 19 xe4 then 19…g7! “is a powerful reply.” 20 f2 d4 21 d3 xe3 22 xe3 xe4 23 xe4 e7 “a nice variation!”;

C4e42) but 19 c1 “looks annoying.” 19…g7 20 h1 d4 21 b3 or just simply 21 b3 b6 “but do I have enough for the piece? I doubt it, but it’s not completely clear.”);

C5) 16 d1 xe4 17 xe4 xe4 18 f3 d4 “looks quite simple”;

C6) 16 b5 “an interesting shot.”

C6a) 16…e6 17 c4! “is very perplexing, I don’t want to run into a pin myself”;

C6b) 16…e7 “I could try this move, though it looks risky.”

C6b1) 17 xd6!? xd6? (17…e6! 18 xc5 xd2 “looks good.”) 18 xd6 xb1 19 xb1;

C6b2) 17 c4! “That move again. Mucho irritato.” 17…b4! “The only move, but a strong one.” (17…b6 is nothing, he has 18 d3) 18 h4 (18 a3 xd2 19 axb4 xe4 “is good for me”; 18 xd6 d7! “and all my pieces are co-ordinating, whilst many of his are hanging.” 19 xc5 xd2) 18…xd2! 19 xe7 xe7 “is similar to that other variation, I have two pawns for the exchange and I’m doing very well”;

C6b3) 17 h4 xd2 18 xe7 xe7 19 d1 xe4 (19…h6 “trying to keep the two bishops” 20 xc5 c7! “is another nice trick”) 20 xd2 c7 “and I’ve got two pawns for the exchange, hmmm, doesn’t look too bad, so e7 is okay”;

C6c) 16…xd2 17 xe8 xe8 18 xd6 (18 f3 “is meek, I already have two pawns for the exchange.”) 18…xb1 19 xe8 “now it’s important to find the right move”

C6c1) 19…xa2 20 xa2 xe8 21 xa7 “looks bad”;

C6c2) 19…d3? 20 fd1 “doesn’t help” (20 c7);

C6c3) 19…c2! “I’ve got to keep the two bishops to have a chance to make something of my queenside pawns” 20 d6 (20 c7 d8 “looks less clear, my bishops are controlling the white rooks.”) 20…b6 21 c4 h6 22 fe1 “and it would appear that I am worse, but I have some holding chances”;

D) 15…f6

“looks tempting, but I can quickly dismiss it on account of 16 d3! (16 xf6+ xf6 17 d3 xb2 18 xf5 xd2 “looks a bit messy, hmmm, not so bad.”) 16…xe4 17 xe4 xe4 18 xe4 “and I don’t seem to have enough, for example 18…xb2 19 xb2 xe4 20 xb7 “and I have only two pawns, hmmm.”

15…f6!

Now Black is on top, and White cannot hold on to the extra material.

16 f3

16 xc5 xe4.

16…xe4 17 xe4 xe4 18 xe4 xd6 19 c2 e7

Black is simply a pawn up, and for a player of Tal’s class, the technical task isn’t particularly difficult.

20 f3 ae8 21 ad1 d4!

The bishop is very powerfully placed on d4, where it aims at the f2 pawn. White is already objectively lost.

22 a4

22 g3 b6 23 g2 h5 24 h4 would have been a better try at defence, but you suspect that Tal would have broken through eventually after 24…e5.

22…b6 23 b3 e5 24 d2 h5 25 e2 xe2 26 xe2 h4!

Further increasing his influence on the dark squares and making it impossible for White to play g3.

27 h1 f4 28 g3 f6 29 d1

29 g2 c6+ 30 f3 h3+!

29…d8

29…xf2? 30 g2 d8 (30…h3+ 31 xh3 d4) 31 c2 c6+? (31…h3+ 32 xh3 d4) 32 f3 h3+ 33 xf2.

30 g4 xf2 31 e2 d2!

Of course, Tal would never miss a tactical shot that hastens the winning process.

32 e8+

32 xd2 c6+ 33 f3 xf3 mate; while 32 e4 hxg3 33 hxg3 h8+ 34 g2 g1+! 35 e2 (35 f3 c3+ 36 f4 d4) 35…h2+ 36 f3 h5+ 37 g4 d5+ is a nice winning line.

32…g7 33 gxh4 d4!

Centralisation, always!

34 h3

34 f3 d3.

34…d3

35 g2?

35 e5+! was a much better try. The last moves give the impression they may have been played in a time scramble. 35…h7 Now White has a choice between four candidate moves. 36 f4, 36 f6, 36 c7 and 36 e7. All pretty similar queen moves, huh, likely to be little difference between them? Wrong! Let’s look at each move in turn.

(i) 36 f4

(ii) 36 f6 e4+ 37 g2 xg2+ 38 xg2 xh4+ -+;

(iii) 36 c7 xb3 37 f4 d5+ -+;

(iv) 36 e7 d5+ 37 g2 xg2+ 38 xg2 xh4+ 39 h3 xe7 40 xf7+ h6 41 xe7 a5 42 e3 d4; 36 f6) 36…d5+ (36…xh3 37 xf7+ h6 38 f8+ h5 39 h8+ g4 40 c8+ xh4 41 h8+ g4 42 c8+ is a miraculous draw) 37 g2 xg2+! 38 xg2 e3+ 39 h3 xf4 40 xf4 g7 looks winning for Black, but at least would have offered some possibilities to go wrong.

35…d1

Now it’s all over.

0-1

So what have we learnt from this game? After all, the variations following 15 g3 are extremely complex, and the tree of analysis gets very dense very quickly. How to prune it down? For example, after 15 g3, if we remember Black had four credible replies to that move. But some investigation will help us to pare it down to the main branch, that move being 15…h6. Simply by the process of elimination a strong player will be able to eliminate the other replies and concentrate on 15…h6, therefore with some analysis he can play that move.

Of course it is logical that once the player realises 15…h6 is the best move, he should play it immediately, and leave his opponent to ponder which of the six candidate moves he should play in the game. Then he can utilise his opponent’s time by considering a reply to each candidate move. I’m not sure how deeply Tal saw into the positions after 15…h6 when he played the sacrifice …xe4 in the first place, but it’s quite possible that he simply assessed the positions as unclear, and regarded it as a practical choice. One that paid off!

The above ‘conversation with Tal’ may seem to the reader somewhat bizarre, but I want to convey to the reader the possibility of internal verbalisation during the game, that by putting your thoughts into words you add clearer meaning to your inner game logic.

I also recommend writing down afterwards the thoughts that you had during the game, so that the memory of the thoughts that you had at the time isn’t lost – possibly including a graph of the calculations and variations that you analysed – all this is useful to build a more accurate picture of your strengths and weaknesses at this part of the game. Another useful and simple thing to do is to write down the time spent on each move – so that you know how much time you used on critical decisions. For example English grandmaster Jon Speelman seemed quite unhappy when I mistakenly took his score sheet, on which he had written the time he had spent on each move – and of course, as is usual for my clumsy nature, I managed to lose it all together. Sorry Jon!

But really, it’s difficult to communicate how important calculation is. While a player may be obsessed with the ability to calculate long and lengthy variations, as this seems much more of an achievement, it’s also a mistake. It’s far more important to get the basics right. Calculate four or five candidate moves at a time. Look for strange, funny moves that don’t appear obvious at first glance. Get the first couple of moves correct. Once you have mastered the basics, then you can move on to the more demanding stuff of calculating lengthy variations.

2

E. Chukaev – M. Tal

USSR Championship, Semi-Finals, Tbilisi 1956

King’s Indian Defence

1 d4 f6 2 c4 g6 3 c3 g7 4 e4 d6 5 e2 0-0 6 g5

The Averbakh variation – of course named after Tal’s last vanquished opponent!

6…c5!

The exclamation mark is more for the style of the move than whether it is objectively stronger than the main alternative 6…a6 7 d2 e5 8 d5 e8. But this is a more solid choice – Tal remains faithful to his aggressive style!

7 d5 e6 8 d2

8 f3 is the other main move, Black can reply 8…exd5 9 cxd5 h6 10 h4 g5 11 g3 h5 12 d2 xg3 13 hxg3 d7!? as Fischer once played with success.

8…exd5 9 exd5

9 cxd5 a6 would transpose into a sort of Benoni position, in which, as we have already seen, Tal felt most comfortable.

9…b6 10 f3

10…f5

10…g4 is an important, and possibly more solid alternative. 10…f5 is the more ambitious move, which of course is why it was Tal’s choice, as Black intends to occupy the e4 square with his pieces. 11 0-0 bd7 12 h3 xf3 13 xf3 ae8 and Black has a nice Benoni game, although both sides have their pluses. The reason that Tal was so fond of the Benoni is because it suited his style perfectly; the flexibility of the opening, the fluid piece development and tactical chances that could abound gave full flight to his incredible chess imagination. May I add for the same reasons Bobby Fischer was a fan of this opening as well! In fact Bobby and Tal were firm friends, so perhaps it was Tal’s influence that encouraged Bobby to adopt this opening? Black’s play in the Benoni tends to be very thematic, and suits a hard worker, as the same plans and ideas pop up time and time again.

11 h4 e4 12 xe4 xe4

13 0-0-0

Castling into it! A bold and probably rash decision against such a notable tactician as Tal. White steps into the full glare of Black’s raking bishops, which in combination with the black queen, already aimed at the enemy queenside, become an unstoppable force. The critical test of Black’s idea, and a variation that has been tested many times, was 13 f3! xb2 14 c1! Now Black has two alternatives:

A) 14…h6 15 xh6 xd2+ 16 xd2 f6 17 g3 Now again the path diverges. 17…g5 I believe that Black should try and retain the dark-squared bishop whenever possible in the Benoni; that bishop has much more influence over the game than the light-squared one in this opening – for example, once that bishop disappears, the pawns on d6 and c5 become much more vulnerable (17…f5; or 17…xh4 18 gxh4 f5 has been tried many times, but it seems White has the better chances after, for example, 19 f4 d8 20 g1) 18 fxe4 gxh4 19 f4 d7 20 xd6 fe8 21 d3 hxg3 22 hxg3 e5 and Black had sufficient compensation for the pawn in the shape of his grip on the dark squares, and in particular e5, to hold on in the game Polugayevsky – Gufeld, USSR Championship 1966;

B) 14…xd2+ 15 xd2 (15 xd2 f6!) 15…xd5!? is an interesting idea; Black already gains two pawns for the piece, and hopes to win a third as d5 is then chronically weak. (15…f5 has been tried with success before – after 16 xf5 gxf5 17 d3 Black’s game looks ugly, but the knight quickly gets to e5 or b6 from where it will pressurise the weak c-pawn) 16 cxd5 e8!? (16…d7 may well be an improvement, Black avoids the problems with b1) 17 b1!? with a fairly unclear position, although this is not supposed to be an opening book, so I have deviated from the path somewhat! But what I have tried to demonstrate is the difficulty that a player is confronted with when faced with an opening of which he has little experience. Presumably Chukaev was unaware of these variations, didn’t feel comfortable with dropping the pawn on b2, and chose his own path. This was to prove fatal.

13…a6!

Remarkably, White is already defenceless! He cannot prevent the threatened incursion of the knight to b4, after which his queenside is torn asunder by the combined power of Black’s army. We can do a simple mathematical calculation here: Black is attacking with four pieces, the queen on b6, the knight on a6, the bishop on g7 and the bishop on e4. White is only defending with only one, the queen. A poor contest!

14 f3

14 a3? will not do, because of 14…b3! 15 f3 (15 d3 xd3 16 xd3 xb2 mate) 15…a2 16 fxe4 a1+ 17 c2 xb2+ 18 d3 xa3+ 19 c2 b4+ 20 b1 a1 mate and White is slain in his bed, a variation that I doubt took Tal more than a couple of seconds to calculate. 14 f3 b4! (14…fe8 and 14…xf3 are also not bad, but once you see the strength of b4 it is not necessary to look for alternatives.) 15 xe4 xa2+ 16 c2 (16 b1 c3+ 17 c2 xe4-+) 16…xb2+ 17 d3 b3+ 18 e2 c3+ -+.

14…b4!

This kind of combination is child’s play to Tal.

15 fxe4 xa2+ 16 b1

16 c2 xb2+ 17 d3 b3+ 18 c3 xc3 mate.

16…c3+ 17 c1

17 c2 would have been considered by White. 17…xe4 18 c1 xg5 19 xg5 xb2+ 20 d3 d4+ (20…c3+ is also a lot of fun) 21 c2 c3+ 22 b1 b2 mate is a nice demonstration of the power of Black’s bishop on g7! Basically – don’t castle queenside in the Benoni!

17…xe4 18 c2 xg5

Now we can see that White is hopelessly lost. Not only is he two pawns down (which would be enough in itself) but he has yet to solve the problem of his king’s safety, which is still threatened by the latent power of the bishop on g7.

19 f3 xf3 20 xf3 a5! 21 d3

Alternatives are hard to come by.

21…a4 22 e1 b4 23 e7 fe8

23…a3 is very powerful as well. Essentially, everything wins.

24 xe8+ xe8 25 b1 b5!

Opening up the game still further, a natural impulse for an attacking player.

26 a3

26 cxb5 c4 27 a3 (27 d1 e3) 27…e1+ 28 d1 xd1+ 29 xd1 xb2 mate.

26…e1+ 27 a2 xa3+ 0-1

A nice little game, though on the surface nothing special. But the reason I wanted to show this particular encounter is that it demonstrates how important it is to be switched on right from the start of the game. White lost because of one mistake; he castled queenside, after which it was impossible to find a defence. Probably this was due to lazy calculation. Rather like the previous game, White rejected the complications of 11 f3 in favour of a move he regarded as ‘safe’. This is an easy mistake to make in the opening, the phase of chess I regard as probably the most important, as it defines the contours of the game. It’s very easy to think “I only need to start calculating and thinking in the middlegame, it’s the opening, I can’t take too long, I know all this stuff.” Mistake! One wrong turn can lead to defeat in the opening, especially in this day and age of super strong computers and specialised preparation.

3

B. Spassky – M. Tal

USSR Championship, Riga 1958

Nimzo-Indian Defence

Boris Spassky was one of the great champions and, like Tal, an attacking player par excellence. In fact I remember I was first entranced by chess when I saw the James Bond film with Sean Connery From Russia with Love on TV as a boy (I was born more than 10 years after the film came out, in 1976.). There the Spectre agent Kronsteen overwhelms his Canadian opponent, Adams, with a finish that was based on one of Spassky’s games – a famous King’s Gambit that he used to defeat David Bronstein. “Wow, what an amazing combination!” I thought, and immediately fell in love with the game (oh, and James Bond movies of course). The fact that Kronsteen was later killed by a female agent working for Blofeld (who bore more than a passing resemblance to some of the less attractive East European women FMs) was by the by. Chess is very rarely portrayed well in films – a clear exception being the excellent The Luzhin Defence with John Tuturro and Emily Watson, based on the book by the famous Russian writer Vladimir Nabokov, who also wrote Lolita. The film follows the tragic life of the fictional eccentric Russian grandmaster Alexander Luzhin, played by Tuturro, who falls in love with with Natalia, played by Watson, and struggles to reconcile the possibility of a normal existence outside of chess with his obsession for the game.

Boris Spassky is the only world champion that I’ve faced in an over-the-board encounter (I’ve also played a few blitz games against David Bronstein, who narrowly missed out on the world championship title against Botvinnik.). I played Boris in a French league match a few years ago. The game was fairly uneventful until Boris opined “would you like a draw?” – words delivered in a heavy booming Russian accent, so loud that the whole room was able to hear (and it was a large room). I declined but was so torn by the idea of trying to defeat my hero that I made him a reciprocal offer a few moves later!

1 d4 f6 2 c4 e6 3 c3 b4 4 a3

The Samisch variation. In those days it was relatively popular, but has subsequently fallen out of favour somewhat, as several methods of playing have been worked out that give Black at least equality.

4…xc3+ 5 bxc3 c5 6 e3 c6 7 d3 e5 8 e2 e4

8…d6 is an important alternative, but as usual Tal plays the more aggressive and ambitious move, already trying to target the weak pawn on c4.

9 b1 b6! 10 g3 a6

11 f3

11 xe4 xe4 12 xe4 xc4 13 d3 xd3 14 xd3 d5 and Black is fine. This line would not have suited Spassky, who was always looking for ways to give his fantasy full flight.

11…xc4 12 f5

12 fxe4 d6 13 f3 0-0 14 e5 dxe5 15 xc6 exd4 was the typically crazy continuation of one of the games of grandmaster of disaster ‘gentleman’ Jim Plaskett, who is now enjoying his retirement in Spain after netting a quarter of a million on the quiz show Who wants to be a millionaire? – nice work if you can get it! Not sure chess pays quite as well! Black has good compensation for the piece, as White’s king is stuck in the centre.

12…0-0

13 d6!

This is Spassky’s idea. Exchange the bishop on c4 and make it possible to castle. Though he doesn’t castle for another ten moves anyway! Doubtless Spassky saw many of these variations, after all it would be surprising if he didn’t at least consider 13 fxe4, but probably rejected the move on general grounds, as the move he played in the game at least ensures his king will not remain stuck in the centre. Sometimes it’s not possible to calculate everything and you have to trust your intuition!

13 fxe4 – why did Spassky reject this obvious move? After all, his centre looks quite imposing. Let’s take the line on a few moves to find out why.

13…d5 – Black counterattacks in the centre immediately, the drawback being that it gives White a powerful outpost on d6 for the knight after he plays e5 (13…d6! is the sensible choice. Black keeps the white king restrained in the centre. 14 f3 e8) 14 e5 e4 15 g4 g6 16 xe4 dxe4 17 d6.

When he rejected fxe4, Spassky would have had to consider the two realistic candidate moves that Tal seems to have at his disposal here, 17…d3 and 17…f5.

A) 17…d3 18 xe4? (18 h4! looks quite strong. White tries to launch a crude attack, but with his knight rooted to d6 it’s quite a powerful one. The e4 pawn is irrelevant, taking it only helps Black to exchange the knight and free his position. Then 18…f6 19 h5 fxe5 20 e6+ g7) 18…f5! 19 exf6 xe4 20 xe4 xf6 and with White’s king stuck in the centre, Black’s initiative is formidable.

B) 17…f5!?

B1) 18 g3 f4 19 g4 (19 exf4 cxd4 20 xc4 d5 21 d6) 19…d3 20 h4 with an attack;

B2) 18 h3 – the problem with …f5 is it’s very inflexible; Black leaves White’s imposing pawn chain, c3, d4, e3, e5 unmolested and the knight on d6 casts a malevolent eye over Black’s position.

13…d3

13…a6? 14 xe4

14 xd3

14 xe4 xe4 15 xd3 (15 fxe4 h4+ 16 g3 xe4-+) 15…h4+ will not do for White.

14…exd3 15 xd3 cxd4 16 cxd4

16…e8!

Tal immediately tries to eject the knight from d6. 16…e7?! 17 f5 e6 18 e4? (After 18 g3! d5 19 0-0 fe8 20 d2, in general White has won the opening battle, as he has got rid of his weak pawn on c4, the cause of so many headaches for him in so many lines, and has a strong centre, so possibly we have to go back and find improvements for Black earlier on.) 18…d5 19 e5 xe5-+.

17 f5 d5 18 a4!

A very fine idea from Spassky, he immediately hits on the best diagonal for the bishop.

18…d6?!

18…g6! 19 g3 (19 h6+ g7 20 a3 d6 is fine for Black; 19 a3 gxf5 20 xf8 xf8 21 xf5 f6) 19…f5 20 0-0 f6 21 d2 d7 looks a better try, playing in true Nimzo-fashion, trying to restrain White’s centre!

19 xd6 xd6 20 a3 b4 21 b3 a5 22 0-0 fc8

White’s advantage lies primarily in his greater preponderance in the centre. He will try to exchange all the pawns on the queenside where he will be left with an extra pawn on the other side, while Black is still left with a weak pawn on d5. The opening has gone wrong for Tal, and at this point he was surely hunkering down for a long defence.

23 ac1 e6 24 xb4 axb4 25 f2!

Spassky involves the king! In fact there was no other good way of covering the e-pawn. 25 e4? dxe4 26 xe6 fxe6 27 fxe4 xc1 28 xc1 xa4 29 c6 b3 30 xb6 xd4 31 xb3 xe4.

25…d6 26 h3 f8

27 c2!

White prepares to double rooks, after which all of Black’s pawns will drop off like ripe apples. White’s advantage has already taken on ominous proportions.

27…xc2+ 28 xc2 g6 29 c1 d7

29…f6 30 g3 and it’s not clear how Black has improved matters.

30 c6! xc6 31 xc6 a6 32 a5

Spassky calculates a long variation, at the end of which it is clear that he is the one pushing for the win. 32 g3 e7 33 f4 d7 34 f6?? b3! 35 xf7+ e6 36 c7 b2; 32 e2 e7 33 d3 xa4 34 xb6 a2 35 g4 h2.

32…b3 33 axb6 b2 34 b7 b1= 35 c8+ g7 36 b8=a2+ 37 g3 e1+ 38 h2 xe3 39 g8+ f6

Black’s king has been uprooted and despite the level material it is clear that Black is very close to defeat. But can he be tipped over?

40 d6+

What alternatives did Spassky have here? Presumably this was the sealed move, as in those days they had the dreaded adjournments. 40 d8+ e7 41 xd5 c7+ 42 e5+ xe5+ 43 dxe5+ xe5 won’t do; 40 f4 will not do either – as Black can immediately make a draw with 40…xg2+ (40…xd4 41 d8+ f5 42 d7+) 41 xg2 e2+ 42 g1 e1+ 43 g2 e2+ 44 g3 e3+ 45 g2.

40…e6 41 f4+ f5

42 d6+

What about the immediate 42 g3? Spassky (and Tal of course) would have to analyse this as well. However it would seem that the queen is better posted on f5 than on e6, for example, 42…a6 (42…d2!?) 43 d8 and Black can even go into a theoretically drawn endgame after 43…g7 44 e5+ xe5+ 45 dxe5 f6 46 d7+ h6 47 xd5 fxe5 48 xe5 g5. I think this is one of the hardest things about chess: you can play extremely well, win a pawn in the endgame and it’s still a draw! No wonder Tarrasch said all rook endgames were drawn. Perhaps there should be a points system whereby the ‘moral’ winner gets an extra quarter of a point if the game ends up in a draw? Okay, I jest somewhat.

42…e6

43 g3!

Tightening the noose. White now threatens h4, when h6 will not do because after f4+ White can simply capture the h-pawn.

43…e3 44 h4 e2

44…a4 45 d6+ e6 46 d8+ e7 47 xd5 c7+ 48 h3+-.

45 d6+ e6

46 f4+

The tempting winning try 46 d8+ e7 47 xd5 is refuted by 47…xg2+! 48 xg2 e2+ 49 g3 e1+ 50 f4 d2+ and the much maligned black king helps to ensure that his white counterpart can’t escape the perpetual. xg2 is a recurring idea.

46…f5 47 h6!

Spassky changes course, and a new phase begins.

47…e7!

47…e7 – of course it takes a brave man to leave the king on f6 – 48 d8 (48 g4? xf3 49 g5+ e6) 48…e2 49 f8!

48 f8+ f6 49 g7+ e7 50 a8! d7

50…f4+ 51 h3 f5+ 52 g3 doesn’t change matters.

51 f8+ f6

What candidate moves suggest themselves? 52 a6+, 52 h8+ 52 d8+ and 52 d8.

52 a6+?

Spassky shows the first signs of fatigue. I’m curious to know why he didn’t play the extremely strong 52 d8! after which a fine game would have been concluded in his favour. Black cannot contain the simultaneous threats to the d-pawn and his king. Presumably all the to and froing of the rooks and queens was having a confusing effect. Oversights and blunders often happen deep into games, where the emotional and physical investment starts to catch up with the players. But that’s why it’s so important to keep your discipline at all times and keep looking for candidate moves. Keep to the basics. Of course in this game they would have had breaks, because of the adjournments, but no doubt Spassky was extremely tired, as up until this point he was well on course to win the title – but in those days tournaments took on a torturous quality compared to the holiday events of today, often lasting several weeks, and in some masochistic examples, months.

A) 52…f5 53 h8+ e7 54 e8+ d7 55 xe2+-;

B) 52…e7 53 h8+ f5 54 xd5+ f4 55 b8+ e3 56 e5+;

C) 52…b5 Black tries to keep on the e8 square 53 d6+ e6 (53…f5 54 xf7 mate) 54 d8+ g7 55 xe6 fxe6 56 e7+ +-;

D) 52…c7+ 53 h3; 52 h8+ e7 53 xh7 d6+ 54 h3 e6+ 55 g4 h2+ 56 xh2 e2+ 57 g3 e1+ 58 f4 d2+ 59 e5 e3+ 60 xd5 xf3+; 52 d8+ Black can simply exchange queens, as the ending is a theoretical draw.

52…e6

Now he has to win the game all over again and, desperate to do so, he overstretches and even loses.

53 h8+ e7 54 a8

54…e1!

Of course, Tal is alive to the danger. 54…e2 would have allowed Spassky to transpose back into the winning position after 55 f8+ f6 56 d8.

55 g3

Now 55 f8+ f6 56 d8 will not do, as after 56…c7+ 57 h3?? (57 d6+ leads to a drawn endgame, as we saw earlier) 57…h1+ 58 g4 h5 is mate.

55…h5 56 f2

Spassky tries to push that irritating rook away.

56…e6 57 c8 d6 58 f8+ f6 59 e8 e6 60 h8+

60 d8 b5.

60…f5 61 h6 f6 62 h8+ f5 63 d8 c6

63…b5!? 64 h6 e2+ 65 g3 e1+ 66 h3 h1+.

64 c8

64 g7 e7.

64…a6 65 g3?

Spassky is really pushing the boat out. 65 h6 is correct.

65…d6+ 66 h3

66 f2 f4.

66…e1

67 g3

67 g4+ hxg4+ 68 fxg4+ f4! 69 h6+ e4 70 e8+ (70 g2 e6 71 g5 xc8 72 e5+ d3 73 xe1 xg4+ -+) 70…f3! Maybe this was what Spassky missed when he played 65 g3? Calculating such a variation is easy for a player of Spassky’s class when fresh, but at the end of a long battle…

67…g1 68 f4

Now White’s pawns are fixed on unfortunate squares, but the game is still not over…

68…e1

69 c2?

An exhausted Spassky finally succumbs, no doubt frustrated by his inability to put the game away against Tal’s obdurate defence. 69 f8 is met by 69…e6! 70 c6 h1+ 71 g2 e4+; 69 e8! is the only move to stay in the fight, but it was hard to switch to defence after pushing for a win for so long: 69…e4 70 e5+ xe5 71 dxe5 e6 72 b8 e4+ 73 g2 d4 74 b1+.

69…e6!

A startling transformation has taken place! Now Spassky is unable to save himself.

70 f2

70 c8 xc8 71 xc8 e4 72 c7 f6.

70…h1+ 71 g2 e4+ 72 f3 g4 73 c8+ f5

0-1

A remarkable game, a true battle! This defeat must have shattered Spassky. I often feel that chess is like a form of mental boxing, not only because the contenders tend to feel battered and bruised after the contest (in the case of chess it’s more mental and emotional than physical) but also because you can play a great game for six or seven hours, and after those many hours of mental and emotional investment, lose your concentration for a vital moment and get knocked out at the end! This is what happened to Spassky in this game. He lost concentration at some point and it led to his tragic defeat. Chess can be a cruel game!

It is easy to criticise Spassky for the way he overstretched. In that game it backfired horribly, but the truth remains that kind of fighting attitude gained him more victories than losses and paid off in the long run. Really it is only the players who are willing to take these kind of risks that can attain the kind of heights that Spassky was able to reach. The kind of player who doesn’t fight, who agrees to a draw every time it looks like the game is heading for equality, won’t progress very far in the long run. Not only that, but it creates a kind of fear in your opponent’s mind if he knows he has to scrap to the bitter end in order to gain a result. Fischer took this kind of fighting spirit to its extremes, he detested easy draws and fought on until only the kings were left, or he had extracted every last drop out of the position. With this kind of competitive attitude of playing on until the death, not only will you learn more about this great game, but you will learn more about yourself, and your own limitations and abilities. Having said all that Spassky agreed a 6 move draw in his next game! (sorry, I joke.)

4

M. Bobotsov – M. Tal

Student Chess Olympiad, Varna 1958

King’s Indian Defence

1 d4 f6 2 c4 g6 3 c3 g7 4 e4 d6

Tal wasn’t a great King’s Indian theoretician like Fischer, but he felt very comfortable in the complex tactical middlegames that would evolve from this opening.

5 f3 0-0 6 ge2 c5 7 e3 bd7 8 d2 a6 9 0-0-0 a5

9…c7 is a perfectly reasonable alternative, if Black doesn’t wish to enter the complexity of the game continuation. Then 10 b1 e6!?.

10 b1

10…b5!

Black must strike while the iron is hot, as White intends the manoeuvre c1-b3, after which he will have a strong grip on the centre and the queen excursion will look somewhat silly. But Tal must have calculated this well, as it involves a queen sacrifice! Nowadays this kind of sacrifice is meat and drink to King’s Indian players but at the time this game was played it was quite groundbreaking. Just for the sake of argument, and even though this position is now well rooted in theory (Black nearly always plays …b5 in this position) let’s just have a look at what happens if Black plays an alternative. Dear reader, I want you again to imagine some candidate moves!

10…cxd4 11 xd4 c5 – Black intends …c8-d7, followed by b5.

A) 12 b3!? xb3 13 axb3 e8 (13…b4 14 a2 b5 15 d5 xd5 16 cxd5 xd2 17 xd2 d7 18 g5) 14 a4 xd2 15 xd2.

B) 12 d5!

B1) 12…xd5 13 xa5 (13 cxd5) 13…xe3 14 d2;

B2) 12…d8 13 h6 looks like a pleasant advantage for White. So the slightly ‘slow’ idea of cxd4 and c5 won’t work.

10…b8 11 c1!

A) 11…b5 12 b3 c7 (12…b4 13 d5 xd5 14 cxd5 xd2 15 xd2 c4 16 a5) 13 dxc5;

B) 11…cxd4 12 xd4 c5 13 d5 is similar.

10…e8 11 d5 xd5 12 cxd5

So do none of the other moves apart from 10…b5 work? Well, not exactly, but it is surprisingly hard to find counterplay with the alternatives. Grandmasters like Tal understood the value of the saying ‘time is money’ – basically every move counts. When I see games played at a lower level, they are often littered with what I would call ‘little’ moves, i.e. slow, considerate moves. Tal played big, booming moves that screamed at his opponents! And when you are Black you should fight for the initiative! And this is exactly what Tal does in this game.

11 d5!?

11 dxc5 tends to be what White does these days. 11…dxc5 (11…b4 12 d5 xd5 13 xd5 xc5 14 xa8 b7 15 a7 a8 16 xc5) 12 d5