11,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: Batsford
- Kategorie: Lebensstil
- Sprache: Englisch
Mind-bending analysis and instructive comment from a man who has participated in world chess at the very highest levels. World championship candidate and three-times British Champion Jon Speelman annotates the best of his games. He is renowned as a great fighter and analyst, and a highly original player. This book provides entertainment and instruction in abudance.
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Seitenzahl: 503
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2014
Ähnliche
Jon Speelman’s Best Games
Jon Speelman
Contents
Introduction
Part I Growing up as a Chessplayer
Juvenilia
1 JS-J.Fletcher, British U-14 Ch., Rhyl 1969
2 JS–E.Warren, Thames Valley Open 1970
3 A.Miles–JS, Islington Open 1970
4 JS–Hanau, Nice 1971
5 R.O–’Kelly–JS, Cambridge–Middlesex 1971
6 JS–J.Nunn, British U-21 Ch., Blackpool 1971
7 JS–G.H.Bennett, Islington Junior A 1971
8 J.Mestel–JS, Hastings Challengers 1971/72
9 Holtzl–JS, Hastings Challengers 1971/72
10 M.Basman–JS, British Ch., Brighton 1972
11 JS–Schauwecker, Hastings Challengers 1972/73
International Titles
12 JS–T.B.Bennett, Lloyds Bank, London 1977
13 JS–J.Fedorowicz, Hastings 1977/78
14 JS–H.Ree, Lone Pine Open 1978
15 JS–M.Stean, London 1980
16 JS–G.Sosonko, London 1980
17 JS–V.Kovacevic, Maribor 1980
18 JS–A.Kuligowski, Maribor 1980
Seven Days in London
19 JS–N.Short, London (1st matchgame) 1988
20 N.Short–JS, London (2nd matchgame) 1988
21 JS–N.Short, London (3rd matchgame) 1988
22 N.Short–JS, London (4th matchgame) 1988
23 JS–N.Short, London (5th matchgame) 1988
Part II Four Themes
Skirting the Precipice
24 M.Chandler–JS, British Ch., Edinburgh 1985
25 L.Psakhis–JS, Hastings 1987/88
26 G.Kasparov–JS, Linares 1992
‘Reginicide’
27 J.Levitt–JS, British Ch., Torquay 1982
28 JS–A.Martin, British Ch., Torquay 1982
29 JS–V.Knox, British Ch, Torquay 1982
Prelate Power
30 JS–G.Sax, Thessaloniki Olympiad 1988
31 JS–M.Petursson, Novi Sad Olympiad 1990
32 JS–J.Ehlvest, Linares 1991
Blood on the Board
33 JS–A.Miles, British Ch., Morecambe 1975
34 V.Korchnoi–JS, Brussels World Cup 1988
35 Zsu.Polgar–JS, Dutch League 1993
36 JS–Z.Azmaiparashvili, Spanish Team Ch., Menorca 1994
37 P.van der Sterren–JS, Moscow Olympiad 1994
38 J.Hjartarson–JS, Copenhagen (Politiken Cup) 1996
Bibliography
Chess for Children Raymond Bott and Stanley Morrison (Collins, 1982)
The Chess Apprentice Raymond Bott and Stanley Morrison (Collins, 1982)
London 1980 Stewart Reuben and William Hartston (Pergamon, 1980)
The Pirc for the Tournament Player John Nunn (Batsford, 1980)
The Pirc Defence Raymond Keene and George Botterill (Batsford, 1973)
Developments in the Pirc and Modern Systems 1984–87 Nigel Davies (TUI Enterprises, 1987)
The English Defence Raymond Keene, James Plaskett and Jon Tisdall (Batsford, 1987)
Informator
The Chess Player
British Chess Magazine (BCM)
New in Chess Magazine
Die Schachwoche
Introduction
When, more than five years ago, a book of my games was first mooted, I realised at once that this would be a serious project. A professional, even then, for a decade and a half – now more than two decades – I wanted to incorporate not only my (more or less) mature output: but also some indication as to how the apparently somewhat ‘vegetarian’ adult animal developed. Some of this material dated back as far as 1969. There was no way that the traditional chronological approach could do justice to such a body of work.
Unwilling immediately to commit myself to such a large undertaking, I turned to ‘masterly inactivity’; failing actually to sign a contract for the work until a few weeks before I finally delivered it and initially taking refuge in a long succession of lists.
Eventually I decided on a mixed approach, including some chronological material but also several chapters devoted to particular themes. As with most such books, the material wasn’t written in the order in which it finally appeared. I began with the games against Tony Miles (Game 33) and Zsuzsa Polgar (Game 35), worked my way through the match with Nigel Short, ‘Prelate Power’ and ‘Reginieide’ and only towards the very end took in ‘Juvenilia’ (my thanks to my editors – I’d always assumed the third vowel was an ‘a’) and ‘International Titles’ before a final burst of ‘Blood on the Board’.
While the initial material was written extremely episodically, the body of the book only took shape over the last year. During this time, despite certain residual Luddite tendencies (as an enthusiastic if very occasional Linux user, I’m certainly not a huge Windows fan) I moved on from using Chessbase 4.0 in DOS and a DOS text editor to the more integrated environment of Chessbase for Windows and eventually even Microsoft Works for Windows, so that I could see the diagrams embedded in the text. I hope both that this has provided for smoother analysis and that the excellent editing has homogenised the text so that the older material isn’t too readily apparent.
Nowadays, I try to analyse – if not to play – chess in a fairly episodic way. Quite long tracts of play involve natural moves, which one could perfectly well find in a five-minute game; but then there will be moments which require deep investigation. These can occur when a plan has to be chosen, complex tactics have to be negotiated or on the cusp between results as the game passes from a draw to a win or vice versa. These are always the most tense moments of a game, in which one’s body exhibits the most stress; and have tended to call forth a torrent of analysis as I’ve sought, even away from the cordite, to lay the game to rest. I realise some of these analyses are obsessive; and beg the reader’s indulgence for the product of sleepless nights.
There are many people I should like to thank for spurring me on. Firstly, everybody at Batsford and in particular the present incumbents Dave Cummings and Paul Lamford who’ve guided the book through its final moments. Byron Jacobs and Andrew Kinsman of First Rank Publishing who did the editing and typesetting. John Nunn for his gentle chivvying when he was a Batsford adviser. Bob Wade for endless encouragement and the use of his wonderful library. And last, but far from least, Lindsay and Lawrence who had to endure several months of a rather less domesticated animal than I would usually wish to present at home.
Jon Speelman
London
August 1997
1 Juvenilia
I was taught chess at the age of six on Boxing Day 1962 by my teenage cousin. Naturally I immediately wanted to play a game; and equally naturally I succumbed to scholar’s mate – the one where the queen lands on ‘bishop two’ (presumably he let me start, so it was f2).
Despite this outrage, I was fascinated. I saw the game as a very hard puzzle; and to some extent continue to do so to this day. My first chess book was Chess for Children by Bott and Morrison, soon followed by their sequel The Chess Apprentice – retitled years later, with crashing mundaneness, More Chess for Children.
I pestered my mother into buying a fairly decent chess set and on the same day also obtained my first ‘real’ chess book: Bob Wade’s account of the 1963 world championship match in which Petrosian defeated Botvinnik. Although this was many years too advanced for me, it is a lovely book and I still treasure it.
In order for a player to become really strong at chess, there should be some period of his life in which he (or she) is in love with the game. It doesn’t have to last; you can’t expect somebody who’s been a professional player for twenty years to feel the same devotion as a child. But it is only through this obsession that one can suck the essence of the game into one’s very being.
For me this lasted right through my childhood, from soon after I learnt the moves right up to my early teens. In common with quite a lot of strong players, I lost my father extremely young – in my case just fifteen months – and my obsession with chess to some extent filled the emotional void left by his absence. (Many years later, I developed a much better understanding of this after reading The Ego Ideal and Creativity and Perversion both by the splendidly named French Post-Freudian, Janine Chasseguet-Smirgel.)
So chess definitely had an emotional significance far beyond its substantive value during my childhood – indeed, I had only learnt to read properly through Chess for Children, though in my defence I was already reasonably numerate – and, as with most of my colleagues, it continues to resonate enormously. You only have to observe somebody just after they’ve lost even a relatively unimportant game to see rivers of emotion way beyond a nought on a tournament table.
My very first chess tournament, at the age of seven or so, was a knockout at the local library. Things went smoothly until the final when I opened 1 e4 (of course it was 1 P-K4 in those days), but the cad to my horror replied 1...e6, defending the bishop two (f7) square, against the obvious continuation. Shocked by what I would later learn is called prophylaxis, I soon fell into difficulties. Nevertheless, I rallied against adversity and eventually succeeded in winning.
In the mid sixties, junior chess was only very loosely organised in the UK. As a southerner, there were the London Junior Championships after Christmas, the British Championships, then as now in August, and junior county matches. Coaching was practically non-existent, so youngsters developed infinitely slower than later generations. But this was also a great boon since without the constraints of a formal structure you have to develop your own ideas. This has been of great value in the creation of the highly heterodox ‘English Chess School’ – if such exists.
While my memory of the tournament in the library is pretty clear, things then become something of a blur. There were several London Junior Championships, none of which I won, including an Under-12 from which I had to withdraw with chickenpox. Then there were junior county matches; and I joined Hampstead Chess Club.
Over the years I played many games there with George Stone, an elderly gentleman, now long dead, of about 200 (2200) strength, who specialised in squeezing wins out of almost equal endings. From him I learnt to appreciate small advantages – indeed probably even to overvalue them; and this is a trait I’ve retained to this day. (Bob Wade tells me that in fact he was originally known as George Stachstein, a German refugee who played in British Championships round about the War.)
My first tournament away from home was the British Under-14 Championship at Rhyl 1969. My mother had arranged for me to be looked after by some slightly older boys; so apart from the rigid timetable of the tournament, I was to some extent on my own.
Compared to the incredibly strong juniors today, I was a beginner. But so was everyone else and this was my first seriously good result: I took first place with 10/11. Although the games are fairly execrable, they at least display the rudiments of the vicious attacking style of my youth. So here, warts and all, is a double rook sacrifice from that tournament.
Game 1
J. Speelman–J. Fletcher
British U-14 Championship, Rhyl 1969
Two Knights Defence, Fried Liver Attack
1
e4
e5
2
f3
c6
3
c4
f6
4
g5
Playing for the ‘Fried Liver’, with which I did well at the time; though John Nunn used to amass a frightful score with the Traxler (Wilkes-Barre) 4...c5 and if 5 xf7 xf2+.
4
...
d5
5
exd5
xd5?
6
xf7
Initiating the Fried Liver Attack.
6
...
xf7
7
f3+
e6
8
c3
b4
9
d4?
9 e4 c6 10 a3 is the correct way to play.
9
...
c6
10
e4
f7!
11
a3
a5?
11...exd4! would have refuted White’s play.
12
axb4
xa1
13
xd5?
Too much! 13 0-0 e6 14 xd5 cxd5 15 xd5 a6 16 xb7 c4 17 f3+ g8 18 xa8 wins.
13
...
xc1+
14
e2
xh1
14…g4+ 15 f3 xh1 was also plausible; but in those happy days people still generally took any material on offer.
15
c7+
e7
16
xe5+
d7??
Blocking the bishop’s diagonal. After 16...d8 17 xa8 g4+ 18 d3! f1+ 19 c3 xf2 20 b8+ e7 21 e5+ it is perpetual check.
17
xa8
xg2
18
c7+
1-0
Black resigned in view of mate next move.
As with physical growth, chess development is a highly non-linear process: there are periods of sharp improvement interspersed with plateaux and even sometimes small slips backwards.
Competence is achieved in certain areas, but there are extensive badlands in-between in which the intermediate player is only groping. The same applies, for that matter, to grandmasters or the world champion himself but of course the stronger you are, the more territory is already mapped and the greater your confidence in your instinct when faced with the unknown.
I see improvement mainly as a knitting together of the areas of competence so that gradually one learns more and more to sustain good play until there will be whole games without serious error; and even coherent games in which one can discern a single underlying intelligence.
Coherence is the single elusive quality which I most prize, either playing through my colleagues’ games; or with a suitable strength adjustment, when examining games by less exalted players. This is the quality which I’ve also searched for in my own juvenilia. I have no wish to bore either the reader or myself with more than a very few examples from my youth, but the ones which follow were chosen most of all according to that criterion.
Although I played plenty of games during the next year, none of them is particularly memorable. The same could be said of those at the next British Championships, in Coventry 1970. I shared first place in the Under-16s with Jonathan Mestel. But my strongest memories are of a boy only a few years older than us drinking a very considerable quantity of vodka – more than half a bottle I think. (He survived, thank heavens.) And of the gamelet against a fairly strong opponent who had prepared the Marshall Gambit against me (I shan’t be so unkind as to name him).
Very quickly we rattled out 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 b5 a6 4 a4 f6 5 0-0 e7 6 e1 b5 7 b3 0-0 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 10 xe5. In the heat of the moment, he now played his intended second move first: 10... f6?? 11 xc6 1-0.
The Thames Valley Open was held just a few weeks after the British in the last weekend of August 1970. I had a good result, drawing three games and winning three to reach 4½/6; and have included my last round win since it flows rather nicely. But the tournament is most memorable for a remark made by one of my opponents (Brian Hare, I believe) after the final game.
I’ve always been tall and by this time was quite large enough to get into a pub, at least for a soft drink. I popped in a local hostelry with him but soon had to get some change to phone home. ‘Have you got a worrying wife?’ he asked.
Game 2
J. Speelman–E. Warren
Thames Valley Open 1970
Queen’s Gambit Declined, Chigorin Defence
1
d4
d5
2
c4
c6
The Chigorin Variation has never been terribly respectable – at least since the end of last century – but some slightly eccentric players have embraced it from time to time; notably Morozevich in the mid nineties. Of course, I must have known next to nothing about it then. I remember first seeing the game Pillsbury-Chigorin many years ago; though surely later than this.
3
f3
g4
4
cxd5
xf3
5
dxc6
xc6
6
c3
f6
Chigorin’s idea was to play 6…e6. After 7 e4 he played 7…f6 and got squashed by Pillsbury in their second match-game in St. Petersburg 1895. But two games later, he found a way to attack the centre with 7…b4 8 f3 f5. Pillsbury reacted with 9 e5, allowing Black a fine blockade – it is similar to some modern lines of the Queen’s Gambit Accepted except that Black has successfully negotiated ...f5 without this being taken en passant. That game continued 9...e7 10 a3 a5 11 c4 d5 12 a4+ c6 13 d3 b6 14 c2 a6 15 d1 c4 16 f4 0-0-0 17 e3 d5 18 d2 b6 19 c2 xd4 already winning a pawn – Chigorin won in 38 moves.
Nowadays, however, I believe that the gambit 9 c4 (instead of 9 e5) 9...fxe4 10 0-0 is supposed to be good for White.
7
f3
e5
8
dxe5
xd1+
9
xd1
0-0-0+
10
c2
d7
If Black wants to put the knight on d7 then he should probably do so without exchanging queens – ...h4+ may be annoying sometimes and the black queen can attack the e5-pawn from e7.
After the exchange of queens 10…d5 is more dangerous. But although the submissive xd5 xd5 leaves Black extremely active, 11 e4 may be good because 11...b4+ 12 b3 c5 13 g5 looks favourable for White and after 11…xc3 12 xc3 (not 12 bxc3 a4+) 12...d1 13 c2 e1 14 b3 White is only one move away from co-ordinating his pieces. The only way to put a spanner in the works is 14…b5 15 b2 xf1!? (or 15…xa1 16 xa1 xf1 17 xf1 with a big advantage for White), but 16 xe1 xg2 17 hg1 xf3 18 g5 is very good for White.
11
f4
White could have achieved a clear edge with 11 e6!? fxe6 12 e4.
11
...
e8
This is somewhat ‘cack-handed’. Black would prefer to keep this rook on the d-file, but lines like 11...c5 12 e4 he8 13 c4 xe5 14 xe5 xe5 15 xf7 look pretty dubious: Black has the two bishops and active rooks, but White’s centre is solid.
12
e4
xe5
13
b5
c5
14
b4!
Gaining space on the queen-side.
14
...
b6
15
a4
a6
16
c3
a5
17
bxa5!?
White could also have gained space with 17 b5 d7 18 d5, but it is better to open the queenside if possible. The question is whether Black can maintain the blockading bishop on a5 after
17
...
xa5
18
b5!
Creating the ‘threat’ of xe5 followed by xc6.
18
...
xc3?!
A move that I feel could only be played by a strong or a relatively weak player. The strong player would decide that all other options are worse and so simplify, surrendering the two bishops to the opponent but limiting White’s attacking options; while a weaker player might not be too concerned about the bishops. Intermediate players, however, would probably be too concerned about the prelates.
Black would like to wait with for example 18...f6. Now 19 xe5 xe5 20 xc6 c5 21 xb7+ xb7 22 a3 does seem good for White; but Black can simply play 20...bxc6 when he has a bad pawn structure but the knight isn’t very happy. I also thought of trying to improve on this with 18...h5 so that the rook can come out via h6 to intensify the ‘pressure’.
If he is totally unwilling to play one of the lines above then 18…d7 was also perfectly sensible, threatening ...c6. If 19 xd7+ xd7 the crude 20 b5 is met by 20...c5!, coming to e6, and something like 20 hd1 c6 21 ac1 can’t be too terrible for Black.
19
xc3
f6
20
hc1
e6
21
b3
d7?
This is walking into trouble. Relocation with 21...e8 was better.
22
c5
c8?
Black’s idea is to give up the e5-pawn for activity, but...
23
xe5
fxe5
24
xc6+
xc6
24…bxc6 keeps material parity, but in a rotten position.
25
xe5
h6
26
c4!
This kills Black’s counter-play since if 26...xh2 27 d1+ c6 28 e6 is mate!
26
...
b6
27
b5
d6?
28
f4
c5
29
d1+
c7
30
e7+
b8
31
dd7
1-0
In December 1970, I played in my first Islington Open – the sixth such. This tournament, organised by Islington Chess Club, was the very first to employ the now highly traditional format of six games in a weekend – one on Friday night, three on Saturday and two on Sunday. The first, in December 1965, attracted just twenty-four entrants. But by 1970 there were about 400 players in the various sections; and a year later it had risen to nearly 500.
In the early years, with English chess relatively backward, these weekend tournaments had been easy prey to foreign ‘mercenaries’. I still have the bulletin to Islington 1970; and in the introduction Stewart Reuben records how in 1967 they got a £50 grant (think of it in 1997!) from the council to invite Bojan Kurajica over: he romped home. But this rigorous format soon toughened up the ‘natives’ so that even by the early seventies the invaders often went home empty-handed. And it acted as the springboard from which English chess could quickly develop following the Fischer-Spassky match in 1972.
I had a particularly good tournament in 1970, garnering 5/6 – a year later I could manage only 3½. Perhaps my best game was against Tony Miles – who was much stronger than me at that time – and whom I managed to down with a haymaker. While I have no wish to include too many games against my English colleagues, this one is of particular interest since I wrote notes to it for the bulletin. I’ve reproduced it as is with various inserts marked ‘JS 1997’.
Game 3
A. Miles–J. Speelman
Islington Open 1970
Sicilian Defence, Löwenthal variation
1
e4
c5
2
f3
c6
3
d4
cxd4
4
xd4
e5
5
b5
a6
6
d6+
xd6
7
xd6
f6
8
d1
ge7
9
c3
0-0
Too passive. Better is 9…g6 and 10...d5. JS 1997: Rather simplistic and far from obviously true; but I was very much into the big heave-ho.
10
e3
d6
11
e2
g6
Black has to get some counterplay – how else?
12
d2
If now 12...xg2 then 13 0-0-0 must win quickly.
12
...
f5
13
f3
13 exf5 looks better to me – Black’s pawns are so weak.
13
...
f4
14
b6
e6
15
xd6
If 15 0-0-0 c8 and now:
a) 16 c7 f7 wins. JS 1997: Certainly this is true after 17 xd6? d7, but 17 d5 d4 18 a5, while nice for Black, is far from over.
b) 16 a4 and Black seems to have a lot of pressure because of the bad position of the bishop on b6.
15
...
c8
16
c5
xb6
17
xb6
ad8
18
e2
If 18 xb7 c4 and now:
a) 19 d5 xd5 20 exd5 d4 wins for Black.
b) 19 c1 d4 20 e2 xe2 21 xe2 xg2 is also winning
c) JS 1997: But in the supposed rush for White to get castled, I had missed the best reply: 19 b3! Although the black attack is extremely dangerous, White’s position is still intact and he has a trump card in many positions of d5. After a couple of hours’ analysis, I still can’t find anything wonderful. The most natural line is 19…b8 (19...d4 allows the king to slip over to the queen-side with 20 0-0-0; and 19...f7 20 xa6 is a lot of pawns) 20 d7 fd8 21 g4
(see following diagram)
and now:
c1) If 21...d6 22 d5 xd5 23 exd5 e4 (23...b4+ 24 f1 d4 25 e4 leaves the bishop very well placed) 24 xe4 b4+ 25 f1 xe4 26 dxc6 xc2 and although Black has a strong initiative, by the time he has taken the annoying c6-pawn White should be able to get organised.
Instead Black can mobilise the knight with tempo to either b4 (variation c2) or d4 (variation c3).
c2) 21...b4 22 c1! (not 22 bxc4 xc2+ 23 e2 c6 24 c5 xa1 25 xa1 xc5 hitting both the knight and f2 with a winning attack) 22…d6 23 d5! xd5! 24 exd5 xa2! (if 24…e4 25 xe4 e8 26 f3 xd5 27 0-0 e3 28 h4 g6 29 fe1 the knight is huge on e3, but White does have two extra pawns) 25 a1 b4+ 26 f1 c3 27 e6+!? (to remove the dangerous e-pawn; instead 27 xa6 b5+ 28 e2 xe2 29 xe2 xd5 30 a1 e4 gives Black a very powerful attack) 27...h8 28 xe5. Now if 28...e8 29 f5 defends but Black can take the vital d-pawn with 28...xd5! 29 xd5 b5+ 30 g1 (not 30 e1 e8 and Black wins) 30...e2+ 31 f1 with a perpetual check.
c3) 21...d4 allows White to castle, albeit into a very dangerous attack, viz. 22 0-0-0 and now:
c31) The most natural sequence is 22...c6 23 bxc4 xc4, but 24 d3! defends since if 24...xc2 25 xd8+ xd8 the vicious intermezzo 26 g5!! disrupts Black’s coordination. The queen is hitting both the rook and the e5-pawn and 26...e8? allows 27 xc2, so Black must try 26...c8 27 xe5 d4 (27...b4 28 b1 d3+ 29 a1 c2+ 30 b2 d4 31 c1 defends) 28 d5+ xd5 29 exd5 when the powerful d-pawn gives White good chances.
If instead (22…c6 23 bxc4) 23…b6 24 d5 xd5 25 exd5 b2+ 26 d2 xc2+ 27 e1 b2 forces White to take perpetual starting with 28 c8+ (28 e2 doesn’t defend in view of 28...f3!).
c32) 22…b6 may be better though, since if 23 d5 xd5 24 exd5 a5 25 b1 (25 xd4 exd4 26 b1 d3 27 cxd3 c3 looks quite good for Black) 25…xc2 26 e6+ h8 27 xe5 a3+ 28 a1 xb3 29 c1 Black has the wonderful b1+!! (if 29...db8 30 e4 defends) 30 xb1 c2+ 31 b2 c8 when White must jettison the queen with 32 e8+.
18
...
c4
19
c3?
If 19 c5 xe2 20 xe2 d4+ 21 f1 e6 is probably winning, but this loses at once.
19
...
d4!
20
c7
If 20 xg6 c2+ 21 f1 xa1! wins nicely.
JS 1997: My aesthetic demands have gone up a bit since then.
20...c2+ 21f1c8 22xe5xa1 23 b3cd8 24 g4h6 25g2xe2 26xe2 f3+ 27xf3f3 28xf3h3+ 29g3d3+ and Black won in a few more moves.
Immediately after the Islington Open there were various closed tournaments, including two for juniors. Junior A was won jointly by Robert Beilin and the Italian IM Sergio Mariotti; while I won Junior B outright with 7½/9, adding a magnificent £5 to the £33 15 shillings I’d won in the Open. (I’m not complaining; it is just that the figures seem so extraordinary today.) Although I made lots of points, my play was still very erratic. As Stewart Reuben put it with typical trenchancy: ‘Jonathan Speelman won Junior B extremely convincingly. At 14, though, his play is still extremely immature and crude. He seems to sacrifice incessantly and then win against inferior defence.’
These good results had important long-term consequences, since I believe that it was in Hastings just after this tournament that five of us – Tony Miles, John Nunn, Michael Stean, Jonathan Mestel and myself – were chosen by the BCF for special training. Even more importantly, we were also given preference in tournament selection – an avowedly elitist policy which eventually yielded 5/5 grandmasters; though it presumably had a less beneficial effect on the rest of our generation.
My first international junior tournament was in Nice in April 1971. I travelled with Tony Miles and there were also a couple of Scottish guys: David Bentley who I lost to in the first round; and Ian Sinclair – a problemist with a liking for keys involving queen retreats all the way down the long diagonal – who, some years later, would be (in)famous for his last round game in the C or possibly the D final of the European Junior Championship in Groningen.
Ian, although he was quite a strong player, had somehow contrived to find himself in the bottom section after the qualifying rounds. Two points clear going into the final round, he faced the weakest player in the tournament (whom it would be unkind to name). After a serious night’s drinking Ian turned up and the game started something like 1 b3 e5 2 d3 d5 3 d2 f6 4 c3 c6 5 b2, after which White naturally won in fine positional style!
I remember how before the tournament started I had spent a day worrying about what I’d do when the fearsome opponents I was to meet refuted my then favourite Sicilian Najdorf. In fact, this didn’t arise: the only opponent who didn’t play 1 d4 against me was Bentley in the first round – and that was a 2 c3 Sicilian. But it does contrast wonderfully with the fourteen-year-olds today. (And as it happens I’m writing this the day after fourteen-year-old Etienne Bacrot qualified for his GM title.)
I followed the loss in round one with a further defeat by Frenchman Aldo Haik who, if memory serves, came very close to winning the tournament in the end. [In fact Miles and Werner Hug were first equal on 7/9, while Haik was third equal with Barle (Yugoslavia) on 6½.] But even after a further loss in round four I eventually reached plus one with the game below and finished on 5/9.
Game 4
J. Speelman–Hanau
Nice 1971
Queen’s Gambit Declined, Exchange variation
I like this game for my unusually calm approach. My opponent made it very easy for me by allowing the forced exchange of queens, but there is still a real feeling of a plan being formed and executed, which was not so common at a time when my main strength was the haymaker. I’m also interested today in the status of the rook ending which arose; and so have included quite detailed notes which have nothing to do with my thoughts at the time.
1
d4
d5
2
c4
c6
3
f3
f6
4
c3
e6
5
cxd5
exd5
6
c2
e6
Slightly passive. If Black doesn’t want to play the most trenchant move, 6...g6, then 6…d6 or 6... g4 are normal.
7
f4
d6
8
xd6
xd6
9
e3
0-0
10
d3
bd7
11
d1
Very odd normal is to castle short and start a minority attack with ab1 and b4.
11
...
ac8
12
h3
It is useful to deny the enemy pieces the g4-square, but this move is also slightly weakening and increases Black’s chances of creating a kingside attack.
12
...
c5!?
Encouraged by my time wasting, my opponent opens up the queenside; but this creates an isolated d-pawn for indeterminate compensation.
13
dxc5
xc5
14
d2
e5
15
xe5
xe5
16
0-0
h5
17
e2
Although Black has a bad pawn structure, the weakening of h3 gives him some counterplay. Now 17...g6 looks right, threatening ...xh3.
Now 18 h1 may look natural but has the significant disadvantage that ...xh3 is left in the air. So Black can play 18…e4! 19 d4 xc3! 20 xc5 (20 bxc3 b6 leaves the c3-pawn at least as weak as the one on d5) 20...xe2 (20...xd1 21 xd1 c8 will surely leave White with an edge), winning material but trapping his own knight. This would be losing with the white king on h2, but here Black will gain a tempo through the threat of ...xh3, e.g. 21 fe1 h5 22 h2 (22 f3 g3+ 23 h2 f5) 22…e5+ 23 f4 xb2, freeing c3 for the horse’s escape.
18…h2 is therefore better, as 18…e4 19 d4 xc3 20 xc5 xe2 21 b5 g4 (21… h5 22 d2 g4 23 xd5 h6 is also bad) 22 xd5 leaves the horse stranded. Black has no attack while White can easily annex some more queen-side pawns; and should always be able to win both minor pieces for a rook when he so desires. But at worst Black can play something like 18...fc8 19 d4 a6 instead of 18...e4.
17
...
h4?
A blunder, allowing White to force the exchange of queens, after which White’s position almost plays itself.
18
d4!
xd4
19
xd4
fc8
20
fd1
f8
21
f3
a6
22
f1!
White shouldn’t hurry but first centralises the king. If 22 xd5? xd5 23 xd5 xd5 24 xd5 xd5 25 xd5 c1+ 26 h2 c2 is at least equal.
22
...
e7
23
e2
b5
He can’t defend the d-pawn since if 23...d6 24 e4.
24
xd5+
xd5
25
xd5
xd5
26
xd5
xd5
27
xd5
e6
28
d2
f5?
28…c1! 29 d3 a5 creates much better chances. A very similar position arose in the third game of the Ribli-Adorjan match in Budapest 1979 to determine third place in the Riga Interzonal and thus who would qualify to the Candidates.
Ribli-Adorjan
Budapest (match) 1979
Ribli eventually won the game, though it was a very hard fight and, while it is nothing to do with the present game, his approach is very interesting.
33 c2 d1+ 34 c3 a5 35 d2 c1+ 36 b2 g1 37 g3 e6 38 c3 e5 39 d3 h1 40 c2 d5 41 e4+ d6 42 h4 e1 43 d4 d1+ 44 e3 a1 45 f4 e6 46 f3 d6 47 g2 e6 48 d2 b4 49 c2 d6 50 g2 d1 51 g4 h1 52 gxh5 xh4+ 53 g4 xh5 54 xg6 e6 55 g2 (After considerable manoeuvring, Ribli has created a haven for his king menacingly near to the enemy forces.) 55…h4+ 56 e3 h1 57 c2 e1+ 58 f4 a1 59 h2 (Decisive zugzwang.)
Ribli-Adorjan
59…f7 60 f5 c1 61 h7+ g8 62 a7 1-0.
29
d3
This ending presumably ought to be winning, though there is still plenty of work to do. Generally speaking, White seems to have at least two good possible plans:
a) He can aim to set up a passed e-pawn on e4 with the king sheltering behind it. Black would like to defend with his king on e6, but White can stretch the enemy defences further by first taking the c-file, after which the defence will be much harder to co-ordinate since only on d6 can the king control the main entry points on the queenside. I could have embarked on this plan immediately by taking control of the c-file with 29 d1 (instead of 29 d3) followed by 30 c2; and later I reverted to it, but only after trying the second plan.
b) To penetrate with his king on the queenside. Black will have some potential counterplay against White’s abandoned kingside pawns, but by judicious play White ought to be able to eliminate the entire kingside. Unfortunately, if he is left with an a-pawn then the resultant king, rook and pawn vs. king and rook ending will sometimes be drawn.
29
…
d8+
30
c3
c8+
31
b3
c6
32
c2
d6
33
b4
d7
34
a5
g6
35
b4
A surprisingly sophisticated change of tack which quickly bore fruit. I presume that I would have been very reluctant to take this decision, but there is some justification for it. A normal plan would be to keep the enemy king cut off on the d-file and try to create enough action to exchange one of the kingside pawns in return for setting up a passed pawn on the queenside. In principle, this should be a b rather than an a-pawn; since then almost all rook and pawn against rook endings will be winning. However, if White at some point plays 1 b4 and then 2 a4, 2...bxa4 3 xa4 d1! may be very annoying. Black is rather near to zugzwang so it may well be possible to achieve this after the rook has moved; otherwise White may have to settle for an a-pawn.
Presumably, Black will try to attack on the kingside himself, and, whilst this will create weaknesses, the result certainly isn’t a foregone conclusion. A sample line goes 35 h4 h6 36 b3 g5 37 hxg5 hxg5 38 f3 g4! (38...e6 39 a4 bxa4 40 bxa4 g4 41 fxg4 fxg4 42 f2! transposes to the note below) 39 fxg4 fxg4 40 a4 (not 40 f2 g3! and if 41 f3 d2) 40...bxa4 41 bxa4 g3 (if 41...e6 42 f2! e5 43 f4 g6 44 g3 d5 45 b4 c5 46 b8! looks over) 42 e4 d4 43 c3 xe4 44 xg3 c7! (not 44...e6 45 a3! or 44...e6 45 g7+) 45 g7+ (45 b3 is met by 45…g4 46 g3 g6) 45...d6 46 g4 e6 47 g6+ (maybe 47 g5) 47...f7 48 xa6 xg4 49 d6 e7.
My first impression was that this would be winning since the black king is so far cut off. But in fact it is quite drawn and Black can even waste some time before undertaking the correct defence. The point is that in order to keep the black king cut off, the rook must retreat down the d-file. Then Black can confine the white king to the a-file – otherwise it has no shelter. The position a8, a7 and d1 (say) vs. e7 and b2 will be reached; and this is dead drawn since by the time the white rook gets to b8 to free the king, the black king will already have reached c7. This theoretical position is extremely well known (and of course I was well aware of it when reaching the diagram above, but imagined that White could somehow arrange to avoid it). However, if the king is cut off one file further on f7 then White does win.
35
...
h6
36
c3
c6+?!
Making life easy for White. 36…e6 looks slightly more resilient.
37
d3
d6+
38
e2
e6
39
c7
f6
40
b3
g5?!
Creating serious weaknesses on both f5 and h6. If he wants to move a kingside pawn then it ought to be 40...h5.
41
g4
f4?
41…fxg4 42 hxg4 was very bad, but now he goes down instantly.
42
exf4
gxf4
43
c5
1-0
In contrast, here is some hackery from a county match just a couple of months later; a game which, although I blundered in the early middlegame, is memorable for the spectacular if somewhat obvious sacrificial attack which I was able to whip up after he let me back into the game just after the first diagram.
The main line, which Rory O’Kelly avoided, involved a queen sacrifice leading to a very pretty mate (see the ‘aesthetic diagram’). While I regret not having seen the sacrifice further in advance I thought it was sufficient to justify inclusion.
Game 5
R. O’Kelly–J. Speelman
Cambridge–Middlesex 1971
King’s Indian Defence, Fianchetto variation
1d4f6 2 c4 g6 3 g3g7 4g20-0 5c3 d6 6f3c6 7 0-0 a6 8 h3 e5 9 d5e7 10 c5d7
10…e8 is very possible, intending to recapture on d6 with the knight.
11cxd6 cxd6 12 e4 h6 13e1 f5 14 exf5 gxf5 15h2g6?
This blunder loses a pawn and should have led to a decisive disadvantage.
16h5!h7 17f3!
It was a very long time ago, but I think I must have seen his previous move but missed this switchback when playing 15...g6?
17...e8 18g5+g8 19e6f6
20
xg7?
Letting Black back into the game. Instead 20 xf5! would have led to a large safe advantage, albeit after a slightly complex series of captures: 20…xd5 (20...f7 21 d3 xd5 22 xf8 is simple) 21 xg7 xf5 (or 21...xg7 22 h5 f6 23 xh6+ f7 24 e4 etc.) 22 xe8 xc3 23 xd6 d3 24 bxc3! xf1 25 xf1 xf2+ 26 g1 f3 or c2 27 e4! and Black is squashed flat.
20
…
xg7
21
xh6+
f7
22
e3
h8
23
b6
f4!
24
xd6
Black is now able to launch a vicious sacrificial attack, but sadly at this point I hadn’t yet seen the possible queen sacrifice. So while my instincts were good, I’m somewhat baffled as to what I intended!
24
...
xh3!
25
xh3
xh3+
26
xh3?
This leads to forced mate, so he had to try 26 g2! My original instinctive reaction was to dismiss this out of hand as ‘grim’; but while this must surely be correct it turns out that White can still put up quite a good fight for at least a few moves since he also has some trumps.
One problem for Black is that he must always watch out for e6+ in the midst of tactical lines; and it is also most important to avoid driving the white king into the centre without good reason, since White’s central preponderance may afford His Majesty quite good shelter.
After 26 g2 Black has three plausible ways to continue the attack:
a) If 26...h4+ 27 xh3 h8 gives White enormous latitude so that it would be very surprising if he didn’t have at least one reasonable continuation. 28 e6+ is obvious to escape …f5+ and now for some reason my first reaction was 28…g6 (rather than to g7) when:
a1) 29 e4!? f5+ 30 g2 f3+ 31 xf3! (not 31 g1 d4 32 xf6+ xf6 33 xf6 e2+ and mates) 31...d4+ 32 g2 xe6 33 h1 xh1+ 34 xh1 xe4 35 dxe6 looks about equal.
a2) But 29 h1, and if 29…e8 30 gxh4!? xe6 31 g1+ when the good f5-square is taboo in view of g5 mate, looks even better. This line would also be effective with the king on g7.
Since Black is playing for the advantage, these lines are quite enough to put him off 26…h4+.
b) 26...h2+ 27 xh2 h8+ 28 g1 (not 28 g2? transposing back to the game) 28…h5 might just work, though again White has a lot of choice:
b1) If 29 e4 xe4 White gets some checks, but after 30 d7+ g8 31 e6+ h8 32 g4 h3 33 xf4 (33 g5 h4 34 g2 f3+ 35 xf3 f8+ is also hopeless) 33...exf4! Black will soon deliver mate.
b2) If 29 c7+ e7? (hoping for 30 d6?? h8 31 xe7+ g6) 30 xf4! h8 31 g2! defends; but conceivably Black can afford to block the back rank with 29...g8 with the slow but nasty threat of ...f3 followed by ...h3 or ...g4.
In any case, in the real world any sane Black would obviously meet 26 g2 with:
c) 26...h8! 27 g1! (27 e6+? only helps Black since after 27...g7 28 xh3? is impossible in view of ...f3+) when:
c1) My first idea was 27…h5 28 f1 fxg3, when White can try 29 b6, defending against immediate disaster since if:
c11) 29...gxf2? 30 e6+ g7 31 e7+ with a perpetual.
c12) 29...g2+ 30 xg2! (not 30 xg2 h1+ 31 g1 h3+ 32 e2 xg1 33 xb7+ e7 and wins) 30...xc3 (30...f3+ 31 f1 d3+ 32 e1) 31 e6+! g7 32 bxc3 e8 33 h1 h4+ 34 xh4 xh4 35 f5 and White survives.
c13) But 29...h1 30 fxg3 h3+ 31 f2 g4+ 32 f3 xg1 33 xg1 f8 is extremely frightening for White.
c14) And so is the restrained 29…e8, protecting e6 before striking; for example, if 30 e3 g4 is most unpleasant.
c2) Realising that Black needs to prevent e6+, I then wondered whether it is even better to commit the rook first with 27...e8 rather than play ...h5, which is often not the best square for the queen. And indeed this looks strong, e.g.
c21) If 28 b6 fxg3 29 fxg3 h2+ 30 f1 h3+ 31 e1 f4 wins.
c22) I was slightly put off by 28 c7+ e7 29 c4, but 29…b5 is very pleasant to annoy the queen and if, for example, 30 b3 fxg3 31 d6+ e6 32 fxg3 h2+ 33 f1 h5 wins.
c23) White can try 28 f1, but after 28...h1 29 xh1 xh1+ 30 e2 g2! he does not get far, e.g. 31 c7+ e7 32 c4 fxg3 33 d6+ e6 34 e3 f4+ 35 d2 b5 36 c7+ g6 37 d7 gxf2 and wins.
26
...
h8+
27
g2
h4+
28
g1
For if 28 gxh4 g8+ 29 h3 xh4+! 30 xh4 h8+ 31 g5 h5 mate!
The aesthetic diagram
A ‘pure mate’ (if I understand the definition correctly), in that all the white king’s flight squares are attacked once and once only. Indeed, if one removed the pawns on a6, b7 and f4 then it would be a ‘model mate’, since all the other black pieces are contributing.
28
…
f3+
29
g2
h2+
0-1
In view of 30 xf3 h5+ 31 g2 f3+ 32 g1 h8 mating.
At the British Championships in August, I played in the Under-21s. I started badly with an abysmal first round loss following my adoption of 1 b3; the only time I’ve ever played this in anger in my life, unless you count an important five-minute play-off game against Nick De Firmian in the GMA rapidplay tournament in Brussels 1992. But I rallied with a good series of wins and draws marred only by a loss in the sixth round to Mike O’Hara. This game had, from my point of view, just two interesting moments:
M. O’Hara-J. Speelman
British U-21 Championship (round 6), Blackpool 1971
The game had started as a Sämisch King’s Indian. Here I remember still being so naive as to be surprised by the transition to an ending with 18d4+! Surely White was supposed to play for mate in the Sämisch?
After various adventures we reached this position:
And here there was general surprise that after 45 ...xd5 46xd5xd5+ Black is unable to defend against the a-pawn; but an endgame database confirms that there is indeed no defence in this particular position. 47b6d1 48 a6b1+ 49c7d5 50c6a1 51b7a2 52b6c5 53 a7h2 1-0
My best game of the tournament was against John Nunn. And while I’m not too keen to include examples against my friends, and quake to offend the mighty doctor, here it is: one of my very first games against a really good player to maintain aesthetic integrity throughout – albeit I didn’t have to do so for many moves.
Game 6
J. Speelman–J. Nunn
British U-21 Championship (round 9), Blackpool 1971
English Opening
1
c4
e5
2
c3
f6
3
g3
c6
Like 2 c3 against the Sicilian, this can lead to some very sharp lines. Since I haven’t been involved in it for years, I was quite interested when annotating this game in May 1997 to find out what the current state of play is; though of course it has no bearing whatsoever on our game in 1971.
4
f3
4 g2 is hardly ever played since 4...d5 5 cxd5 cxd5 6 b3 c6! 7 xd5 d4 8 xf6+ gxf6 9 d1 c7 gives Black a very dangerous initiative though it isn’t absolutely clear.
4
...
e4
5
d4
d5
6
cxd5
b6!?
This is Paul Keres’s move which he introduced when the more obvious 6...cxd5 was shown to lead to difficulties. Black’s problem is that after 7 d3! he is unable to maintain the centre, and theory still quotes a game Ivkov-Kozomora, Sarajevo 1967, which continued 7…c5 8 b3 b4 9 dxe4 xe4 10 d2 b6 11 xe4 dxe4 12 xb4 xb4+ 13 d2 c6 14 g2 f5 15 xb4 xb4 16 0-0 e6 17 d4 d7 18 f3 exf3 19 xf3 0-0 20 b3 a5 21 a3 c6 22 xb7 xd4 23 xd7 and White went on to win in 62 moves.
Black can also play 5...b6 a move earlier, introducing a quite different set of complications. Obviously, White would like to play 6 b3, but 6...a5 is a serious nuisance, intending to meet 7 d3 a4 8 e3 b4 9 d2 with 9...a3! – though 7 a4 b4 8 d4 is very unclear.
I was rather surprised to discover that ‘theory’ gives 6 e3 as best against 5...b6, continuing with the rather ‘Basmaniac’ 6…d5 7 c2 d7 8 a3 e7 9 b4 0-0 10 b2 a6 11 c5 c7 12 f3! exf3 13 xf3 ae8 14 d3 b8 15 0-0 when White was indeed better in Najdorf-Rossetto, Buenos Aires 1968. However, this is hardly sufficient basis to dismiss 5…b6.
7
b3
cxd5
8
g2
f5
I found this game difficult to annotate, since a fairly reasonable-looking position for Black disintegrated in just a couple of moves. My feeling is that the whole line is a little shaky.
6…b6 gained a tempo since the knight had to retreat, but the queen is somewhat misplaced on b6 in the long term, since she is very likely to get hit by e3. Of course 8...f5 shouldn’t be too bad; but it seems to make more sense to try to press with ...a5 either now or on the previous move. Neither is supposed to be particularly good, but the evidence of two old Botvinnik games isn’t necessarily decisive:
a) 7...a5 8 d4 cxd5 9 g2 e7 10 0-0 0-0 11 g5 d8 12 e3 a6 13 f3 exf3 14 xf3 e6 15 e2 c7 16 c5 xc5 17 a4 b4 18 xc5 g4 19 f2 ce8 20 a3 b5 21 e4 dxe4 22 xe4 a6 23 d5 h6 24 c3 d7 25 f4 h3 26 ad1 xg2 27 xg2 c7 28 xc7 xc7 29 d2 e8 30 e1 f6 31 d4 d6 32 de2 b5 33 xb5 xb5 34 e8+ xe8 35 xe8+ h7 36 d3+ g6 37 xb5 c2+ 38 e2 b3 39 d8 h5 40 h4 a4 41 h3 f3 42 xf3 xf3 43 a8 d3 44 xa4 xd5 45 a7 1-0 Botvinnik- Alexeev, USSR 1968.
b) 7...cxd5 8 g2 a5 9 d3 a4 10 e3 b4 11 d4 a3 12 c2 xb2 13 d4 b4 14 xb4 xb4 15 xf6 gxf6 16 0-0 e6 17 c1 c6 18 dxe4 dxe4 19 xe4 xa2 20 d6+ f8 21 xb7 e5 22 c5 b8 23 a6 b3 24 xb4 xd1 25 fxd1 xb4 26 a1 b2 27 f1 g7 28 xa3 c8 29 e4 e8 30 a4 e7 31 f5 c7 32 h4 h6 33 a4 c5 34 h3 c4 35 d3 e5 36 e4 c4 37 d3 e5 38 e4 c4 39 e1 e5 40 ad4 c3 41 1d2 c1+ 42 d1 c3 43 f4 f5 44 xf5 c4 45 4d3 cc2 46 g4 a2 47 b3 g6 48 f2 d2 49 e3 c4 50 b3 d2 51 e3 c4 52 e8 d2 53 e5 f6 54 f5+ g6 55 e5 f6 56 h5 c3 57 h4 c4 58 f3 cc2 59 d5 a4 60 f3 aa2 61 e1 a4 62 h5 c3 63 g2 c2 64 d1 a3 65 d5 a4 66 e1 d4 67 g2 b3 68 xd4 xd4 69 f2 e6 70 e4 b2 71 f5+ g7 72 d5 f6 73 f3 1-0 was the game Botvinnik-Tal, World Championship (9th matchgame), Moscow 1961.
9
d3
9
...
exd3?
Somewhat lagging in development and with a centre to defend, Black has very little leeway; and this very bad move renders matters critical. With 9…exd3 Black surrenders his centre, reactivates the enemy bishop on g2, leaves his d-pawn under immediate fire and opens the e-file, which turns out to be a serious problem since White is able to gain a significant lead in development while the d5-pawn is being defended. Black had hoped to gain compensation by kicking White around in the short term. It isn’t even clear that this works after the obvious recapture, but White can do even better.
9…b4 was the correct way for Black to continue. Then 10 0-0 xc3 11 bxc3 0-0 isn’t very cheery for Black but does seem reasonably playable: 12 e3 c7 13 c1 c6 14 c4 ad8 15 d4 xd4 16 xd4 and here Keres got into serious trouble against Reshevsky at Los Angeles 1963 after 16…exd3 17 cxd5 d7 18 xf6 dxe2 19 xe2 gxf6 20 b2 g7 21 d4. However, 16…e7! is better: 17 cxd5 xd5 18 a4 b6 19 xf6 gxf6 20 xe4 a5 21 c2 xe4 22 dxe4 e8 23 fd1 xe4 ½-½ Jezek-Sapundzhiev, Correspondence 1973.
10
0-0!
Of course it is nice to get the king safe, but in fact the simple recapture 10 exd3 is also good:
a) The main point is that the obvious 10...d4 loses the pawn to 11 xd4! when 11...xd4? 12 xb7 b4 13 0-0! gives White a winning material advantage
b) 10...c6 11 0-0 transposes back into the game.
c) 10...g4! is mildly disruptive since if
c1) 11 xd5? e6+! 12 e3 (12 d2 xd5 13 xd5 b4+) 12…xd5! wins.
c2) 11 d2 is a fairly silly square.
c3) But 11 c2 is fine, e.g. 11…c6 12 0-0 e7 13 g5 0-0 and now if 14 xf6 b4! 15 xd5 xc2 16 xb6 xf6 17 xa8 xa1 18 xa1 xa8 Black should survive; but 14 d2! d4 15 xf6 xf6 16 d5 d8 gives White a very pleasant edge.
10
...
c6
If 10...dxe2 11 xe2+ e6 12 b5+ d7 13 e1+ e7 14 g5 is very unpleasant, while 10…b4 11 exd3 xc3 12 bxc3 0-0 reaches the same position as after 9...b4, but with the difference – very favourable to White – that Black has been induced to exchange on d3. There is now no question of a black space advantage to compensate for the two bishops and the d5-pawn is a little weak.
11
exd3
It is quite possible to defer capture for another move. Polugayevsky-Jongsma, Amsterdam 1970, continued just eight more moves: 11 g5 0-0-0 12 exd3 e6 13 c1 b8 14 d4 e7 15 a4 c7 16 bc5 h6 17 e3 c8? 18 f4 d6 19 b3 1-0.
11
...
d4
11...e7 12 e1 d8 13 g5 is foul.
12
e1+
e7
13
d5
xd5
14
xd5
b4
15
f3!
g6?
Of course the black position can’t stand 15...e6? 16 xe6 fxe6 17 g4 f7 18 xd4! f6, trying to end up with a knight fork on c2, since 19 xe6 xd4 20 e4 xd3 21 xb4 is simple and 19 xe6 c2 (19...xd3 20 g5+ f8 21 e3) 20 g5+ xg5 21 c4+ is even better.
But he should have tried to bail out with 15...xd5 16 xf5 d8 when White can easily win a pawn, for example by 17 d2 d6 18 xd4 0-0 and now perhaps 19 b5, when White has a large advantage but Black can certainly fight.
16
g5!
This is already winning by force.
16
...
f6
If 16...xd5 17 xd5 f6 then the variations play themselves. Both 18 d2 f8 (18...f7 19 e4; 18...d8 19 xe7+ xe7 20 e1+ f8 21 b4+ xb4 22 xd8+ f7 23 d7+ f8 24 e2 g8 25 e7) 19 xe7 xe7 20 e1+ f8 21 c5 f7 22 d7+ g8 23 xb6 xd5 24 xa8 and 18 c5! c7 (18...d8 19 xe7+ xe7 20 e1+ or 18...d8 19 xb7 fxg5 20 xe7+ xe7 21 xa8+) 19 e6 (or 19 f4 d8 20 e6) are quite decisive.
17
e6
d8
If 17…c7 18 f4 d7 19 d6 xd5 20 xd5 f7 (or 20 ...d8 21 xe7+ xe7 22 b5+ d7 23 e1+ f7 24 d5+) 21 xe7+ xe7 22 b5+ d7 23 e1+ d8 (23...e6 24 xe6+ d8 25 d5) 24 e7+ xe7 25 xe7 xe7 26 xb7+.
The queen sacrifice 17…xd5 was comparatively best, but 18 xb6 xb6 19 e1 (or 19 f4) 19...fxg5 20 xb7 0-0 21 xe7 f7 22 xd4 is obviously winning.
18
xb7
0-0
19
f4
d7
20
xe7!
1-0
I also won in the penultimate round, as White against Roger Webb, which left me just half a point behind Tony Miles going into the last round. But Tony coped with me admirably; I thrashed around against the 2 c3 Sicilian and lost a large pawn. When he confirmed his tournament victory by offering a draw after 23 moves, it was already an act of charity. Still, I was second by myself on 8/11 – a very good result at the time.
As usual, the Islington Open took place just before Christmas. After my 5/6 the previous year I bombed out this time, scoring just 3½/6. The junior internationals followed, and since I had won the B group the previous year, I was promoted to the big boys.
Clearly, I was overawed since I lost to all the top four finishers – Hans-Joachim Hecht, Bojan Kurajica, Robert Bellin and Andrew Law – but I did score three wins against the rest, including this one, which, although it was extremely onesided, I like for the ‘protected passed bishop’ which I established in the early middlegame. I found my old notes in the Islington bulletin only after annotating it recently; and have added a few additional comments as ‘JS 1971’.
Game 7
J. Speelman–G. H. Bennett
Islington Junior A 1971
Veresov Opening
1
d4
f6
2
c3
d5
3
g5
f5
4
e3
It makes more sense to carry out the ‘threat’ by doubling the pawns with 4 xf6.
If 4 f3 c5! 5 e4 cxd4 6 xf6 dxc3 7 xc3 dxe4 8 xd8+ xd8 9 0-0-0+ ‘and Black has won a pawn’ – JS 1971.
4
…
bd7
5
f3
h6
6
h4
e6
7
d3
xd3
8
cxd3!?
c6
Playable but not best. In 1971 I criticised it, recommending instead 8...c5 or 8...e7.
9
e4
b6
9…e7 is sensible, and if 10 b3 only then 10…b6.
10
e2
e7
11
0-0
Although White’s structure is slightly deformed, he has some very short-term pressure since the obvious 11...0-0?? drops a piece to 12 e5.
11
...
d8?
But this is a little cooperative. Black could simply have retreated 11...d8. Then 12 c2 is mildly irritating, intending to meet 12...0-0 with 13 b3 to try and force a weakening on the queenside. Still, 13...b6 14 a4 a5 15 e5 (15 e5 fd7 defends his colleague) 15…a7 defends.
And after 11…d8 12 c2, 12…a6 is even possible, intending 13 b3 a7, which reminds me forcibly of this move in a currently fairly trendy line of the Slav.
12
g3
0-0?
If 12...c7 13 a4 a5 14 b4 xb4 (14...xa4 15 xc7 0-0 16 d6 is rather unpleasant) 15 xc7 xa4 16 d6 and White has dangerous play for the pawn; but 12...e7 was quite playable, intending to castle next move.
13
d6!
e8?!
13…dxe4! 14 dxe4 e8 and Black has some chances – JS 1971.
14
e5
h7
15
a4
a5
15…a6 looks better, preparing to retreat to b7 after…b6.
16
c5
xc5
17
dxc5
The ‘protected passed bishop’ radiates power.
Black would like to play 17…b5, so as to close the queenside after which he could try to play round the prelate. But White can react with 18 a4, when 18...bxa4 19 c2 is tremendous and 18...b4 19 d2 g5 (19...a6 20 xb4 xd3 21 b7 wins for White) 20 d4 a6 21 f4! h7 22 xb4 wins at least a pawn.
So the best looks to be 17…g5!, trying to disrupt White before he gets organised, as 18 b4 xf3+ 19 xf3 a4! (not 19...xb4? 20 ab1) isn’t too bad at all. So perhaps 18 d4; but then ...f6 prepares to return the knight to f7.
17
...
e7?!
18
b4
d8?!
18…xb4? 19 ab1 is awful, but 18...a4! is a conceivable way to try and annoy White by blockading the queenside.
19
fc1
f5?
After this Black is quite lost – JS 1971; a judgement I concur with today, though the ‘quite’ seems a little excessive.
20
a4
f8
21
b5
This must already be winning, since if Black waits, penetration down the b-file will surely be decisive, while capturing on d6 is obviously disastrous.
21
...
xd6
22
exd6
c8
23
d4
d7
24
e5
xe5
25
xe5
d7
26
ab1
f7
27
b3
ed8
28
h4
28
…
cxb5?!
Hastening the end. 28...b6 29 h5 is just as horrible as the game, so I suppose Black should try 28...g6. However, there must be lots of ways to win since Black has serious weaknesses all over the board – e6, b7 and h6 to name the three most obvious. Indeed White can almost win (after exchanging on c6) on the b-file alone with the following plan: play a5 and put rooks on b1 and b5 and the queen on b2. Presumably Black will defend with rooks on b8 and d7 and the queen on c6. Then play 1 a6 and if l...xa6 2 a1 c6 3 xa7. 1...b6 may be messier, but 2 axb6 should be sufficient to win in nearly all circumstances..
Black could prevent this by putting the queen on a6 rather than c6, but then White wins at once by moving the queen with tempo to e3 where it hits both h6 and e6. Only the b8-rook can defend both of these two pawns but that would leave b7 en prise.
In practice, White would probably choose to try and win somewhat less thematically. There isn’t too much point adducing variations since they will all be more or less the same – attack the various weaknesses until Black loses co-ordination and then strike at a suitable moment. But here is one fairly aesthetic one: (28...g6) 29 bxc6 xc6 (‘threatening’ ...xd6; if 29…xc6 30 a5 – to fix the b7-pawn – 30...b8 31 cb1 and Black has insufficient time to manoeuvre the c6 rook to the second rank before the white queen reaches the b-file) 30 e1 d7 31 eb1 b8 32 a5 c6 33 e3 h8 and here White can short-circuit the defence at once with 34 a6 when he is winning in each of the following variations:
