A New Era: How Garry Kasparov Changed the World of Chess 034540890X

Citation preview

A NEW ERA

A NEW ERA HOW GARRY KASPAROV CHANGED THE WORLD OF CHESS

Michael Khodarkovsky and Leonid Shamkovich

B A L L A N T IN E BO O KS

•

NEW YORK

Sale of th is book w ith o u t a fro n t cover may be unauthorized. If this book is coverless, it may have been reported to the publisher as “ unsold or destroyed" and neither the author nor the publisher may have received payment fo r it. Prologue © 1997 by Garry Kasparov C op yrig ht © 1997 by Michael Khodarkovsky and Leonid Shamkovich Material in A p pe n dices 4 and 5 co pyrig h t © 1997 by IBM A ll rights reserved under International and P a n-A m erican C opyright Conventions. Published in the United States by Ballantine Books, a division of Random House, Inc., New York, and sim ultaneously in Canada by Random House of Canada Limited, Toronto. h ttp://w w w .random house.com Library of C ongress Catalog Card Number: 97-93539 ISBN: 0-345-40890-X Cover design by Min Choi Cover photo (chess p ie c e )© Vera Storm a n/T on y Stone Images Cover background photo © Paul Epley/FPG International Interior design by A n n Gold Manufactured in the United States of Am erica First Edition: June 1997

10

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In 1996, before the first Kasp arov -De ep Blue match in Philadel­ phia, when Garry Kasparov and I met with Monty Newborn, one of the organizers of the event and the chairman of the A C M C o m p u te r Chess Committee, Garry introduced me as his old friend, then added, “ who used to work for me and still does.” I was very proud that Garry had introduced me as his friend; pos iti on s such as coach, second, manager, and agent come and go. But frie nds hip is a permanent state. Th is book is about my friend, W o r ld Champion Garry Kas­ parov, w h o m I have known more than fifteen years because master Rostik Korsunski, my teammate in comp etition s in the Soviet Union in the early 1980s and the man who first int ro ­ duced me to Garry, had been Garry’s neighbor in their native city Baku (the capital of the former Soviet Republic Azerbaidjan) and had accompanied Garry to the Baku chess club. Since then Garry and I have been friends; even now, despite the fact that we live in different countries, he in Russia, I in the United States. Unfortunately, a few mon ths ago I received the news that Rostik, just 38, had died. The death of our friend was one of the first th in gs Garry and I spoke about when he returned to the U.S. for the Deep Blue rematch in 1997. T h is book is ab out my friend Garry Kasparov as I know him. Many readers will un doub tedly find parts of this acco unt unduly

V

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S

su b je c tiv e , even c o n tr o v e r s ia lly so. O b v io u s ly , th e reade r is free to a c c e p t as a c c u ra te and h o n e s t w h a te v e r th e reade r w is h e s ; my goa l is to s h o w G arry K a s p a ro v fro m my p o in t o f view, th r o u g h a p rism

m o ld e d

by th re e h is to r ic events: th e 1995

W o r ld C h a m p io n s h ip m atch , and th e s e n s a tio n a l 1996 a nd 1997 e x h ib itio n m a tc h e s a g a in s t I B M ’s Deep B lue s u p e r c o m p u te r , a

vi a

w h ic h s y m b o liz e d a new era n o t o nly in ch e s s , b u t in th e e v o lu ­ tio n of h u m a n ity. It w a s no s u r p r is e to me th a t K a s p a ro v c h o s e to a c c e p t th is u n u s u a l ch a lle n g e , beca u se he has alw ays c h o s e n to be th e s y m b o l of a new era: G arry K a s p a ro v is w e ll-k n o w n as th e best c h e s s player in th e w o rld , b u t to d a y m any p e o p le f o r g e t th a t he w as a ls o th e s y m b o l of a new era in c h e s s in th e early 1980s and th a t he w a s a s y m b o l of a new era in S o v ie t p o litic a l and s o c ia l life in th e later 1980s. A t tw e n ty - tw o years old th e y o u n g e s t W o r ld C h a m p io n in c h e s s histo ry , G arry K a sp a ro v f o u g h t f o r p e rs o n a l and in te lle c ­ tu a l fre e d o m a g a in s t th e C o m m u n is t regim e; a bit old e r, w ith p re m a tu re ly g ra y in g hair, G arry K a s p a ro v helped to save th e lives o f re fu g e e s w ith in th e ru in s o f th e c r u m b lin g

S o vie t

e m p ire and helped to im p ro v e c o n d it io n s fo r d is a b le d c h ild r e n in Russia; as a th ir ty - fo u r - y e a r - o ld g e n tle m a n , G arry K a s p a ro v has c h a n g e d th e w o rld of chess. T h is b oo k has been e n ric h e d by G arry K a s p a r o v ’s p ro lo g u e , and his analyses, and I w is h to th a n k him f o r th e c o n t r ib u tio n s . It was a joy fo r

me to

w o rk w ith

g ra n d m a s te r

L e o n id

S h a m k o v ic h , w h o s e vast e x p e rie n ce (m o re th a n sixty years in c h e ss!) and deep u n d e r s ta n d in g of c h e s s and life are e v id e n t in all parts of th is book. I’d a lso like to th a n k th e o th e rs w h o helped me in th is endeavor: M ichae l Z a d o ro z n y , P re s id e n t o f th e N a tio n a l S c h o la s tic C h e s s F o u n d a tio n , w h o , w ith his e x c e lle n t k n o w le d g e o f c h e s s and c o m p u te r system s, w a s th e p e rfe c t p e rso n to a c t as e d ito -

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S

rial liaison fo r th is project; Frederic Friedel, one of the fo u n d ers of C hessBase, Inc., w ho equipped me with all versions of C hessBase and Fritz (all games and analyses in th is book were made using Fred’s C hessBase 6.0 fo r W in d o w s , and Mega DataBase ’97); and Terry Phoenix, fo rm e r D ire cto r of Public R elations of the A s s o c ia tio n fo r C o m p u tin g Machinery (A C M ), fo r p ro vid ing m aterials on the 1996 K a sp aro v-D e ep Blue e xh ib i­ tio n match in P hiladelphia. Thanks also to A lex Eydelman, w ho worked on tra n s la tin g p o rtio n s of G a rry’s prologue. I also wish to thank the entire team at Ballantine Books fo r its su p p o rt, especially Sheila Phelan, V ice -P re sid e n t and D irector of c irc u la tio n , and Owen Lock, V ic e -P re s id e n t and Editorat-Large, w ith o u t w hom th is book w o u ld n ’t be possible. On the staff of VP and Executive M anaging Editor Betsy Elias, Use S chrynem akers and A le xan d ra K rijgsm an and th e ir freelancers provided excellent co p yed itin g assistance and nearly instanta­ neous tu rn a ro u n d of a m a n u sc rip t that I am sure had them talking to them selves at tim es. In the P ro d uctio n Department, A le x Klapwald and Roger Sperberg w restled with and defeated several th o rn y p roblem s involving the m ating of co m p uter sys­ tem s th a t were never intended by God to meet one another! Special thanks to my best frie n d s and su p porters: my wife Lily, a talented chess player before our marriage and now also a talented c o m p u te r scientist; and my father, w ho ta u g h t me to play chess. T h is book is dedicated to my family. Michael Khodarkovsky, New Jersey, 1997.

v ii

CONTENTS

Foreword

1

by Garry Kasparov

S y m b o ls Used in the C om m entaries

18

P A R T ONE HUMAN VERSUS HUMAN

The W orld Chess C ham pionship, 1995 Garry Kasparov versus Viswanathan A n a nd

19

PART TWO H U M A N V E R S U S M ACHINE

Garry Kasparov versus IB M ’s Deep Blue, 1996

117

P A R T THREE THE REMATCH

Garry Kasparov versus IB M ’s Deep Blue, 1997

173

ix

C O N T E N T S

A P P E N D I X ONE BEFORE A N D A F T E R

Garry Kasparov versus Viswanathan A nand Before and A fte r Their W orld C ham pionship M atch

235

In tro d u ctio n

X

by Leonid Sham kovich

237

Linares Grand Master T o u rn am e n t, 1991

239

T ilb u rg , 1991

240

Reggio Emilia, 1991

243

Linares Grand Master T o u rn am e n t, 1992

244

D ortm un d , 1992

245

Linares Grand Master Tou rn am e n t, 1993

245

Linares Grand Master Tou rn am e n t, 1994

248

Riga, T a l’s Memorial, 1995

250

A m ste rd a m , 1996

252

Dos Hermanas, 1996

255

Las Palmas, 1996

258

Linares Grand Master Tou rn am e n t, 1997

265

APPENDIX TW O W O R L D C H A M P I O N S IN C H E S S H I S T O R Y

269

A P P E N D IX THREE ACM COMPUTER CHESS EVENTS

273

A P P E N D I X FOUR GARRY K A S P A R O V

279

A P P E N D I X FIVE T H E IBM DEEP BLUE T E A M

283

FOREWORD by Garry Kasparov, World Chess Champion

W h e th e r or not I have been able to bring ab ou t a new era in chess d u rin g my reign as W o rld C ham pion is fo r others to say. Certainly, chess has been very good to me and I wanted to give back to th is art and s p o rt its rich deserts. I have tried to p o p u ­ larize chess th ro u g h m e d ia -im p o rta n t events, and, certainly, the m atches with A n a n d and Deep Blue broke all records for media coverage. The creation of the P rofessional Chess A s s o ­ ciation (P C A , see below ) was an attem pt to reform the interna­ tio n al chess w orld and bring the same kind of corporate s p o n s o rs h ip to chess as exists in other sports. A n d , w ith o u t a doubt, we are now in a new era of chess grow th due to both the expanded media coverage and the influence of the Internet. My website, C lu b Kasparov (w w w .clu b k a s p a ro v.co m ), w hich w ent live d u rin g the Deep Blue rematch, hopefully will induce m il­ lions to take up our w o n d e rfu l game. Now, at the end of the m illennium , we have to look to the new era to come. W h a t can we create and w hat can we leave to the next generations? I th in k we have to participate in any scientific experim ents that will be useful fo r mankind. The developm ent of new te c h n o lo g ie s will, I am sure, produce s ig n ific a n t progress in all areas of human activity. Therefore, I was very proud to have been offered participation in such experim ents as the exhi­ bition matches with the Deep Blue su p e rco m p u te r developed in

1

A

NEW

ERA

the labs of IBM. I agreed to play because I felt it was very im p o r­ tant to all of us w ho live on th is planet. W e definitely have to separate science and sp o rt when we are talking about th is kind of c o m p e titio n . O f course, I d o n ’t want to lose any co m p etitio n and I played th o se m atches very seriously. But fo r me, they w e re n ’t s p o rts events; rather they were research into human abilities. A fte r the firs t match in

2

Philadelphia, w hich I won, I felt that I had done a great job fo r mankind. I felt myself to be an explorer; therefore, I was w illin g to play again to co n tinu e the experiment. U nfortunately, the rematch in New York had a different sp irit than the match w hich took place a little more than a year ago in Philadelphia. For IBM, it was so im po rta n t to win the match that the science involved was overshadowed. I w a s n ’t ready p ysch olo g ica lly fo r such a change in attitude. I was no longer a partner with them in a s c i­ entific experiment; I was a man w hom their m achine had to beat. By the tim e I realized that, it was too late to change my “ mental gears” because, as I said, I w a s n 't ready fo r a sp o rts com p etitio n . I realize now that, I was naive, and I there fo re lost. I’m not afraid to say th a t it was my fault. T h is match showed that a n tic o m p u te r strategies are a th in g of the past. It was my fault that I fo llo w e d such a strategy in the second match with Deep Blue. To me it’s clear righ t now that I have to play as best as I can, w ith o u t braking my style. I have to be myself. Certainly, I will need preparation; and no less im p o r­ tant, I will need physical and p sychological stability to sustain the highest level of concen tra tio n . But, playing under c o n d i­ tio n s w hich will permit that, I’ m sure I will be able to defeat even so powerful a co m p uter as Deep Blue. I’m ready to play a third m atch— a decisive one. I th in k IBM owes it to me and to all of mankind to accept my challenge to a rematch. Some people have asked me, " W h a t are you g oing to do if IBM declines to play you one more tim e ? " A s W o rld Cham pion, I have the re sp o n s ib ility fo r developing chess as

PROLOGUE

one of the most popular of human activities and as an im p o r ­ tant educational tool. These developments are only possible if new te c h n o lo g ie s are used to foster them. That is why I made the fo llo w in g statement: I will continue to participate in any sci­ entific experiments on behalf of chess or of future generations, with or w it h o u t the involvement of IBM. So, it is now time for IBM to decide whether or not to continue this experiment. A n y discovery in science has to be provable and repro­ ducible. If Deep Blue is able to repeat again not only the highest level of com put ati on but also the highest level of chess u nderstanding, where human beings have always felt superior to machines, I will be the first to congratulate IB M ’s scientists on their achievement. But until then, I’m going to treat them as a very hostile opponent, in order to be ready for the toug hes t challenge of my life.

How We Missed the Opportunity to Reform Chess in 1989 The need for an organization that could run self-supporting professional chess to u rn am e n ts was already obvious in the 1970s. Chess could no longer prosper under the old organiza­ tional form ats so a search was underway for new ones. The emergence of the Grandmasters A s s o c i a t io n ( G M A ) 1 was, in fact, an attempt to create such a new organization and deal with the very widespread dissatisfaction among grandmasters. The main problem co n fr o n t in g competitive grandmaster chess was the bureaucratic ineptitude of the International Chess Federa­ tion (FIDE), which prevented corporate s p o ns o rs from s u p ­ porting new c o m p et it io n s that would greatly promote chess worldwide. 1. T he Grandm asters A s s o c ia tio n came into existence during the Dubai Olym piad held November 14-December 2, 1986. Kasparov played a lead role in its e stablishm ent.— Ed.

3

A

NEW

ERA

The first step taken in form ing the G M A was not commercial but political: A union of grandmasters was formed. By the end of the 1980s, the G M A had united practically all of the leading chess players in the world, and it had become the organization with the p o w e rto actually strip FIDE of its position of world leadership. A s Jan Tim m an has correctly written, FIDE was our com m on enemy. A t that moment, only one more step remained to be taken:

4

W e had to put the organization on a com m ercia l fo o tin g . W e had to tra n sfo rm the grand m a ste rs' union into an in s tru m e n t th a t could exert com plete influence over the o rganizing and fina ncin g of chess to u rn am e n ts. However, that did not happen. The reason this most im portant step was not taken is certainly well understood: Com mercialization unavoidably entails a loss of bureaucratic control. The emphasis of the organization and even its own internal structure w ould have had to radically change if sponsors, television, the press, and p ublishing houses were to become involved. The system w ould have expanded and the G M A ’s procedures and rules of co n du ct could no longer have been dictated by Bessel Kok, technical director of S W IF T (the banking com puter network based in Brussels), w ho actively assisted the G M A from his kitchen with a clique of elite g ra nd ­ masters such as Jan Timman, but rather by the commercial s p o n ­ sors. Bessel Kok tried to pull off the impossible: to attract private funds on the one hand, while, on the other, preserving the inert bureaucratic G M A structure, which was just as d ifficu lt for sponsors to work with as FIDE had ever been. In 1994, Jan Tim m an accused me of having made a deal with C am pom anes.2 I had to remind him of 1989 when Bessel Kok, along with the G M A C ongress, urged the G M A C o u n cil to make deals with FIDE. Kok negotiated with FIDE; I directly opposed such a move. If the G M A had not proceeded dow n the path of co m p ro m ise with FIDE in 1989, the history of the profes2. Florencio Campomanes, fo rm er FIDE president.— Ed.

PROLOGUE

sionalization of chess m igh t have turned out quite differently. The political strength of the G M A on its own was so im posing th a t FIDE w ou ld have been unable to do anything to oppose it. Because it accom m o d a te d FIDE, the G M A lost its influence and its battle fo r leadership in the chess world.

My Relationship with Campomanes It m ig h t appear that my rela tio n sh ip with Cam pom anes has been inco n siste n t, but an internal logic was always present. The c o n flic t started in 1983, before the Pasadena match, in w hich I d id n ’t have a chance to play.3 It was very clear that the match was directed not ju s t by C am pom anes but also by the S oviet o ffic ia ls w ho were using him as a vehicle for their plans.4 My total co n fro n ta tio n with FIDE began in 1985. But, after 1986, C am p o m a ne s was trying to get our relationship on the rig h t track. A n d the real war began after the creation of the G ra n d m aste rs A s s o c ia tio n . C am pom anes and I talked about

3. The 1983 match between Kasparov and Korchnoi was initially scheduled for Pasadena, California, home tow n of Bobby Fischer, W o rld Chess C hampion, 1972-75. Based on co nside ratio ns of security, the USSR Federation deemed the site unsuitable and refused to allow Kasparov to travel to the match. On A u g u s t 6, the start date for the match, Kasparov was not in Pasadena and the match was automatically awarded to Korchnoi. Pressure from the chess world forced a rescheduling of the match, w hich took place in London starting on November 21. Kasparov won the match by a score of 7-4. 4. Kasparov’s storm y relatio nship with FIDE and C am pom anes continued when, on February 15, 1984, Cam pom anes canceled the W o rld C ha m p ion ship match between Karpov and Kasparov. The decision by C am pom anes was seen by many as an attempt to rescue Karpov who, despite having a 5-3 lead in the match, was apparently wearing down to a physical breakdown by the time the match reached an unprecedente d length of fo rty-e igh t games after five m onths of play. Both players objected to C am pom anes's decision: Karpov wanting a substantial break; Kasparov wanting to co ntin ue the match.— Ed.

5

A

NEW

ERA

the dem olition of the old bureaucratic system, w hich I was attacking very stro n g ly and he was trying to defend. U n fo r tu ­ nately, due to Jan Tim m a n and Bessel K o k’s policies, the G M A c o u ld n ’t take over the w orld c h a m p io n s h ip from FIDE. A n d at that moment, I c o u ld n ’t do anything anymore to be in o p p o s i­ tion with FIDE. A fte r this, the G M A ’s re la tio n sh ip with FIDE stabilized. But even th o u g h the G M A and FIDE w e re n ’t ene­

6

mies, they d id n ’t have any financial co n ne ctio n s. C am pom anes worked very hard; he also to o k a very hard policy tow ard me. In spite of that, I su pported his election as president of FIDE in 1994. W e at the P rofessional C hess A s s o c ia tio n felt that he was the only one w ho was experi­ enced in fin d in g s p o n s o rs and co lle ctin g money fo r chess at FIDE. W h a t happened was this: A n idea arose to s u p p o rt Makroupolos as a candidate fo r president of FIDE. But after the Chess Olym piad failed in Greece, it was o b vious that M a krou p o lo s was not a very strong political figure. (It was only because of my and A n d re i Makarov’s [p re s id e n t of Russian Chess Federation and FIDE vice president] involvement that the chess Olym piad was saved.) FIDE then looked to elect Kouatly as the president of the organization, w ho represented K arpov’s line of o p p o s itio n to the P C A . The P C A wanted to prevent his election as president since Kouatly was strongly opposed to th is organization.

The Kasparov-Karpov Match as a Mirror of an Unfinished Revolution W ith the com ing Kasparov-Karpov match slated fo r late 1990, FIDE opened the bidding. Everyone knew that the system fo r fu n d in g the W o rld C h a m p io n s h ip match was sick, but they wanted to keep that inform ation to themselves. The stru ctu re fo r fina ncin g the match was not viable and ultim ately the system w ould collapse. It did not do so im m ediately since it

PROLOGUE

d id n ’t matter how th is match turned out— the prize fu n d s had increased and, fro m a purely form al point of view, there were no p ro ble m s on FID E ’s side. The match was not com pletely privately funded; if one may use such an expression, it was a “ state ch a rity ” performance. On the one hand, there was money from Lyons, France, while, on the other hand, Ted Field, a m u ltim illio n a ire chess enthusiast, c o n trib u te d money because it pleased him to do so. (He liked me, we g o t along well together, and then he made that beauti­ ful gesture.5) The match was grandiose, and behind that beau­ tifu l facade, it was not apparent th a t FIDE was term inally ill. D urin g the bidd ing , I th o u g h t that I could persuade my new A m e ric a n frie n d s to fig h t against FIDE and that we w ould be able to c o n d u c t m atches with private funds. But the best that I was then able to do was to agree to C am p o m a n e s’s getting a bid fro m M orocco. T h is bid was b ro u g h t by Kouatly, and it was p robably meant only to increase the size of the prize fund offered by the A m e rica n organizers. (U nfortunately, I was unable to stop myself and could not stop my friends.) Once again, it seemed that everything was going along beautifully, that the re la tio n sh ip with FIDE was normal, and it was as if that org an iza tion were so m e ho w divesting itself of com m ercial re sp on sib ility. Eventually, my euphoria began to subside. I suddenly noticed that there was no real money for the next W orld C ham pionship match. In 1992, the light dawned on me: I became aware that the system of fu n d in g fo r the match w ould be its downfall. Three m illion dollars? N othing of the sort! God grant that any money co u ld be fo u n d . It became obvio u s that even the greatest honor of the chess w o rld — the W o rld C h a m p io n s h ip m atch— was

5. The 1990 Kasparov-Karpov match was divided between New York City and Lyons— twelve games in New York, then twelve games in Lyons. The entire fu n d in g fo r the New York segm ent o f the match came from Ted Field.— Ed.

7

A

NEW

ERA

losing its m onetary value: The political elem ent had d is a p ­ peared with the collapse of the Soviet U nion and a nother Kasparov-Karpov was not going to happen.6 From the p o in t of view of public interest, the value of the match began to drop. But th a t was not only a problem fo r me, it was also a problem for FIDE, because, you see, FIDE had lived on m oneys allocated to cham pionship matches. FIDE did manage to collect the half

8

m illion paid out by the A m e ric a n s as co m p e n s a tio n fo r the match, w hich had not taken place in the United States. These fu n d s then w ent fo r the K a rpov-T im m an match. Thus, in 1993, the K a sp aro v-S h o rt match encountered the initial problem th a t no real fu n d s were available.7 Later, M an­ chester, England, and Channel 4 T V subm itte d bid s8 because the challenger was English, but the basic problem of gener­ ating substantial bids was never resolved, and new so u rces of money were needed. A n d then, when C am pom anes accepted the bid from Manchester, w orking only for h im self and fo r FIDE, a rebellion took place.

6. A n atoly Karpov had been eliminated by Nigel Short in the semifinal C an di­ dates Match.— Ed. 7. Initial bids were submitted on February 8, 1993, fo r the 1993 Kasparov-Short match. One bid for 1 million Swiss francs came from Santiago de Com postela in Spain; at that time the rum or was circulating about a supposed bid from Jezdimar Vasilievich of Belgrade. Kasparov, however, was u nw illing to play a match for money that came from Vasilievich.— Ed. 8. On February 22, 1993, FIDE received tw o bids: one from the city of M an­ chester, England, in excess of 1 million pounds; the other from Channel 4 T V (Lo nd on ) for a slightly larger amount.— Ed.

i

PROLOGUE

The P C A Rebellion or “ Kasparov’s Private O rganization” On February 28, 1993, Florencio Campomanes, president of FIDE, accepted the bid from Manchester w itho u t consulting me or Nigel Short. Both of us refused to participate in the FIDE W o rld Chess C ham pionship. On February 2 6 , 1993, we announced the creation of the Professional Chess A sso ciatio n (P C A ) through which the W o rld Chess C ham pionship was to be run. C am pom anes and FIDE announced that they w ould stage an alternate “ FIDE W o rld C h a m p io n s h ip ” to rival the T im e s /P C A m atch.9 The tw o co n te sta n ts fo r the FIDE match were Jan T im m a n and A n a to ly Karpov, both defeated by S h o rt en route to w in n in g the r ig h t t o challenge me. A n d so, what did we create in 1993? The Professional Chess A s so c ia tio n , a n o n p ro fit organization, was created in the state of Delaware. N o n p ro fit status does not mean that a profit cannot be made but rather that the profits cannot be distributed since there are by definition no shareholders as in a fo r-p ro fit corporation. T h is is especially true fo r the officers and board of directors of a n o np ro fit: O fficers may receive a salary but it cannot vary to reflect changes in profitability, and board members are almost always volunteers. A s is custom ary with nonprofits, none of the d irectors of the P C A was paid. No one controlled the PC A, including me. W e d id n ’t have a president; we created a board in w hich my voting rights were equal to those of any of the other fo u r members. Never, not for one second, was there a “ President K asparov” in the n o n p ro fit corporation, and there has never been anything but a board of directors.

9. On March 22, The Times of London won the bid to sp o n so r the match with Channel 4 T V o btaining exclusive television rights. On September 7, the T im e s /P C A match started. On O cto b er 21, Kasparov decisively defeated Short by a score of 12.5 to 7.5.— Ed.

9

A

NEW

ERA

T h e o rg a n iz a tio n started w ith tw o d ire cto rs: m y se lf and Nigel S h o rt. A t the b e g in n in g , B o b Rice w a s th e c o m m e r c ia l d i r e c t o r , a n d t h e n he j o i n e d t h e b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s , b e c o m i n g the third director. T h e n we e x p a n d e d — the fo u rth

dire cto r

w a s D a n - A n t o in e B la n c -S h a p ira and th e fifth w a s Frederic F r ie d e l. T h e n , a f t e r w e ran i n t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d i f f i c u l t i e s in C o l o g n e , N i g e l S h o r t , f e e l i n g t h a t he w a s n ’t i n v o l v e d in a s i g ­ 10

n i f i c a n t w a y, le ft t h e b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s , s a y i n g “ G u y s , I lo v e y o u all, b u t I’ m re a lly n o t d o i n g a n y t h i n g ; s e e y o u s o m e t i m e . ” W e h e ld m e e t i n g s by c o n f e r e n c e ca ll, a n d w e l i n k e d u p by p h o n e in H a m b u r g , P a r i s , N e w Y o r k , M o s c o w , a n d L o n d o n t o d is c u ss our c o m m o n problem s. W e were a c o m ple tely m o bile organization. A t th is p o in t we need to clarify certain s ta te m e n ts m a de a b o u t th e P C A rebellion. Nigel S h o r t and I have talked a b o u t t h i s a h u n d r e d t i m e s , b u t it m u s t be r e p e a t e d b e c a u s e t h e s t o r y is b e i n g d i s t o r t e d . W h a t ’s b e e n w r i t t e n a b o u t t h i s r e b e l l i o n is b a s i c a l l y a b o u t m y w i l d i n t r i g u e s : It h a s b e e n s t a t e d t h a t I a p p r o a c h e d S h o r t , n o t t h a t he in i t i a l l y a p p r o a c h e d m e a b o u t b r e a k i n g a w a y f r o m F ID E. In fact, S h o r t c a lle d m e in L i n a r e s , a n d h is c o a c h at t h a t t i m e , g r a n d m a s t e r K a va le k, p u t h i m u p t o it. It is a l s o s a id t h a t o u r r e b e l l i o n d i d n o t o c c u r at an o p p o r ­ t u n e t i m e . M a y b e n o w I w o u l d n ’t b e h a v e t h e w a y I d i d ; t h e id e a was absolu tely correct, but the m o m e n t w as poorly ch o se n . W e im m edia tely to o k up on ou rselves the w o rld c h a m p io n s h ip . A n d we gave the e x tre m is t c o m p o n e n t s of FID E th e o p p o r t u n it y to c o n d u c t a “ parallel” c h a m p io n s h ip . W e w e n t o u t to c o m p e te a g a i n s t t h e m w i t h o u t e v en h a v i n g a n y m o n e y f o r o u r s e l v e s . A t t h a t m o m e n t b e g a n t h e p e r i o d o f m i s f o r t u n e t h a t , in t h e fi n a l analysis, b r o u g h t us to total ruin. W e had to t h r o w aw ay a heap of m o n e y to create a s tru c tu re fo r the w o rld c h a m p io n s h ip th a t h a d a b s o l u t e l y n o c o m m e r c i a l v a l u e f o r us. W e h u n g t h a t b u rd e n a ro u n d ou r o w n necks, instead of w o rk in g ou t a lo n g ­ t e r m p r o g r a m b e f o r e h a n d a n d t h e n p r e s e n t i n g it.

PROLOGUE

W e were drawn into a war, and, in that war, we had to take unavoidable steps: FIDE c o n du cted a tournam ent, so we c o n ­ ducted the same kind. T h is war practically ruined both o rg a n i­ zations, and we will feel the results of that ill-considered step fo r a long time. The creation of the P C A was a drastic move, but I felt that we had to do som ething.

P C A :T h e Intel Era A fte r the match with Short, the P C A broke into the world of co rp ora te s p o n s o rs h ip when it entered into a $6.5 m illion c o n ­ tract with Intel, the A m erican com puter company. This develop­ ment, new in the w orld of professional chess, put the P C A in the lead po sitio n of co rp ora te s p o n s o rs h ip of chess. Under the s p o n s o rs h ip of Intel, Grand Prix events were held in Moscow, M unich, New York, Paris, and London. The best players in the w orld participated in these events, and the public was treated as never before to exciting, top-level grandm aster play in a b rand-new form at. A u d ie n c e s could hear expert analysis by the highly e n tertaining duo of M aurice A s h le y and Danny King w hile viewing the game on a sta te -of-the-art com puterized d is­ play board. The Intel Grand Prix c irc u it certainly was a success; h o w ­ ever, Intel did not renew its co n tra c t with the P C A . Many fa cto rs c o n trib u te d to th is decision. Primarily, our problem s stem m ed fro m the fact th a t FIDE declared war on me and u lti­ mately declared war on the P C A . The P C A had to fig h t back and attract players with big prize-fund tournam ents. A s a result, the P C A wasted money on prize fu n d s instead of b u ild ­ ing a stro n g m anagem ent infrastructure. W e sim ply could not use financial resources from Intel to build an organization. I have no d o u b t th a t back in 1993 we needed a five-year plan, and then we probably co u ld have strengthened our relationship with Intel. But we c o u ld n ’t afford that. W e had to have large

11

A

NEW

ERA

prize fu n d s and a m oney-w asting parallel w orld c h a m p io n s h ip cycle. The co rp o ra tio n d id n ’t like that, and I understand why it d id n ’t; I d id n 't like it either. So, the P C A lost Intel. However, I feel I should bring up a nother factor: Intel d id n ’t have a great deal of experience in international s p o n s o rs h ip of any kind. They have more or less a m o n op o ly in th e ir field, and they p rohibited the P C A fro m having any re la tio n s— or any potential relations— with s p o n s o rs in the same field. I th in k th a t 12

Intel was not very fair in doing th is to us, especially to me. I was not very happy with their p ro h ib itio n , and that p ro h ib itio n came to a crisis over my match with the IBM Deep Blue com puter. Finally, there have been in tim a tio n s that the Intel fu n d s were im properly allocated. The above-m entioned $6.5 m illion repre­ sented the exact a m o un t th a t was spent on chess. T h is sum covered the co st of the w orld ch a m p io n sh ip , the International Grand Prix, and other classic to u rn a m e n ts that were run by the PC A . To arrive at that sum, sim ply total the prize moneys spent on to u rn am e n ts and matches that the P C A co n du cted , plus the operating expenses. W ith the exception of M oscow , w hich paid the larger share, all the rem aining co m p e titio n s were paid out of s p o n s o rs ’ money; and s p o n so rs carefully track where, how, and fo r w hat purpose their fu n d s are expended. A n d if people w ant to try to calculate the a m o un t spent— even G randm aster Valery Salov or Rustam Kamsky, the father of A m e rica n G ra n d ­ master Gata Kamsky— they should take out th e ir calcu la to rs and start pu nch in g keys to learn how much it costs to put on one tournam ent. W e have no external debts from that period; the only people we haven’t paid in full are those regular associates w ho worked th r o u g h o u t the duration of the Intel Grand Prix. C on sid e rin g the “ w artime fo o tin g ” on w hich we fo u n d ourselves in past years, there could be no co m p en sa tio n of any type: Everyone worked essentially w ith o u t pay fo r the good of the organization.

PROLOGUE

In the near future, I hope w e ’ ll be able to com pensate all those w ho su p p o rte d us.

The PCAToday— A New Organization T h e P C A has made big changes in recent m onths. The name rem ains the same fo r now, but in effect we have canceled the old organization and created a new one, w hich is based on a d iffe re n t fo u n d a tio n . It has n othing to do with players, nothing to do with the political situ a tion inside the w orld of chess. The new P C A is m uch more interested in laying the fo u n d a tio n s of a stro n g , w ell-fo cu sed , and w ell-m anaged organization. T h e o rg a n isa tion is now in the hands of Owen W illia m s, who is the head of Masters International in the U S A . Masters is a w o rld w id e o rg a n isa tion with experience in g o lf and ten n is and many o ther sports. Owen W illia m s has extensive experience in o rg a n isa tio n b u ild in g , having served, am ong other th in gs, as the first-ever to u rn a m e n t d ire ctor of the U.S. Open tennis c h a m p io n s h ip — one of the big fo u r c h a m p io n s h ip s in tennis. He is now d oing the same th in g with the P C A . I believe that w ith in the next tw o years, w e ’ll be able to build the heart and guts of a new profe ssio n a l w orld of chess. U nder our new setup, there is no rela tio n sh ip between the P C A and FIDE. R ight now, we d o n ’t see any way to w ork with FIDE, and I d o n ’t th in k th a t we actually need FIDE because FIDE is losin g its base and its co n stituency. I th in k that the fu tu re of the w orld of chess will have very little to do with FIDE because, with the Internet taking more and more ground, the need fo r an o rganization like FIDE will be less and less. The bureaucrats of FIDE never imagined that they w ould ever w ork in a com m ercial environment. It is probably not entirely their fault since their strategy is not based on understanding the reality of the modern world. FIDE is w orking from the great belief

13

A

NEW

ERA

that if there’s a W o rld C ha m p ion sh ip match, it m ust be u n d e r the FIDE umbrella and sp onsors will flock to pay money fo r such an event. FIDE’s new president, Kirsan llyumzhinov, has big plans, makes grand pronouncem ents, but has established no sound foundation. He feeds the expectations of FIDE members, who are waiting for a miracle, but has no real s p o n s o rs h ip behind him. FIDE’s chances of getting the kind of s p o n s o rs h ip the P C A is trying to attract are zero. 14

The P C A , on the other hand, is busy attracting serious com m ercial s p o n s o rs — with solid television packages. I do ac­ knowledge th a t great d iffic u ltie s exist in attracting the righ t kind of s p o n s o rs h ip ; chess is not in a p o sitio n to demand more than it is w orth today. A n d I understand that all of th is will take very serious work; but with Masters International in charge, we hope to see the P C A become the sym bol of the very best in p ro ­ fessional chess to u rn a m e n ts w orldw ide.

The P C A Today— The P C A ’s Trademark: Rapid Chess10 In 1994, when we finally unde rsto o d that ru n nin g a single W o rld C h a m p io n sh ip match was not enough to ju stify the existence of the P C A , D a n -A n to in e suggested we try to organize a rapidchess to u rn a m e n t circuit. R apid-chess to u rn a m e n ts were soon established as the basic form of P C A activity; they became our organizational trademark, and they were very su ccessful. The road tow ard ra p id-chess to u rn a m e n ts began in 1987 when I played a rapid-chess match with Nigel S h o rt11 on the

10. Rapid chess allocates tw e nty-five m inutes to each player. A n entire game therefore lasts no more than fifty m inutes.— Ed. 11. From February 4-5, 1987, Garry Kasparov played in a six-gam e rapid m atch against Nigel S h ort (final result: Kasparov won by a score o f 4-2) organized by Tham es T elevision and C hannel 4 in London, England.— Ed.

PROLOGUE

stage of the Lo nd o n rock-cafe H ipp odr om e. W e recorded it on tape and sh owe d it in Brussels in the headquarters of the G M A . Silence fell; everyone was sitting watc hing the cassette. A ft e rw a rd , Bessel Kok co m me n ted in a somber, strained voice: “ T h i s isn't chess; it’s p r o s ti tu ti o n .” One way or another, that po in t of view divided those who were present. A l m o s t every­ thi ng a b ou t the idea was too new and no one knew what might be developed from it. Then D a n - A n t o i n e put on rapid-chess to u r n a m e n ts in Paris. Talk of “ p r o s t i t u t i o n ” was immediately for g o tte n when, in 1991, Jan T im m a n won $70,000 in prize money in fo u r days. It was very d if fi c u lt to raise objections against such money, which was obviously given by the s p o n ­ sors because of the excellent publicity opportunity. A t that time,

it was already becomi ng

obvious that this form

of

chess was much more attractive for television and for publicrelations purposes. W e ’ve got a marketable pr o du ct for which s p o n s o r s are quite eager to pay good money: T h a t's rapid chess. For th is reason— today— o u r organization unam biguously de­ clares that rapid chess is o u r p rio rity activity! Under our new management structure, the P C A will c o n ­ d u c t a nu mber of rapid-chess Grand Prix events every year.

The P C A Today— The P C A and the World Championship A s far as the world ch a m p io n sh ip cycle is concerned, we have relegated it to the background. Certainly my 1995 match with A n a n d 12 was necessary because it confirmed the legitimacy of my title. But from the point of view of the future, the money we used to c o n d u c t that tou r n a m e n t was thr ow n away. 12. Kasparov played Visw anathan A n a n d for the W o rld Chess C ha m p ion ship at the W o r ld Trade Center in New York from September to O ctober 1995. Kas­ parov won the match 10.5-7.5.— Ed.

15

A

NEW

ERA

Y o u see, t o d a y it is o b v i o u s t h a t o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n ( o r a n y oth er org anizatio n for th a t matter) c a n n o t c o n d u c t o p e ra tio n s as if t h e r e w e r e n o d i r e c t i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e b e t w e e n p r i z e m o n e y , m o n e y f o r o r g a n i z i n g e v e n t s , a n d p u b l i c i n t e r e s t s , i.e., s p o n s o r s a n d t e l e v i s i o n . W e h a v e p a id a h i g h p r i c e f o r t h e s y s t e m e s t a b ­ l i s h e d by B o t v i n n i k a n d u s e d f o r a l m o s t f o r t y - f i v e y e a rs . It c o m ­ bined th e se e d in g of players fo r th e w o r ld c h a m p io n s h ip w ith 16

e l e m e n t s o f a m a t e u r o p e r a t i o n s . In e s s e n c e , 99 p e r c e n t o f t h o s e t a k i n g p a r t in t h e s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s h a d n o real c h a n c e o f playing a m a tch fo r th e w o rld c h a m p io n s h ip . N o o n e a r g u e s w i t h m e w h e n I s a y t h a t t h e real c h a l l e n g e r s w h o ar e a b l e t o p la y c h a m p i o n s h i p m a t c h e s t o d a y c a n be c o u n t e d o n t h e f i n g e r s a n d t h u m b o f o n e h a n d . T h e y are: K a r p o v , K r a m n i k , I v a n c h u k , T o p a l o v , a n d A n a n d . If w e m a k e a s e l e c t i o n , t h e n it s h o u l d o n l y be f r o m a m o n g t h e s e five. T h e r e s h o u l d be a b s o l u t e l y n o n e e d t o e x p l a i n t o s p o n s o r s w h y a n y ­ o n e o t h e r t h a n t h e s e fi v e p e o p l e s h o u l d p la y f o r t h e w o r l d c h a m p i o n s h i p in an e l i m i n a t i o n t o u r n a m e n t , w h e n w e all k n o w f u l l w e l l t h a t o n l y o n e o f t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d fi v e w i l l c e r t a i n l y win. A s I m e n tio n e d , I do k n o w a b s o lu te ly w it h o u t fail th o s e c o l l e a g u e s w h o ar e c a p a b l e o f t h r o w i n g c h a l l e n g e s at m e ( l e t ' s a s s u m e i t ’ ll be K a r p o v o r K r a m n i k ) , a n d t h e y p r e f e r t h e id e a o f an e l i m i n a t i o n t o u r n a m e n t a m o n g t h e fi v e o v e r t h e id e a o f s i m p l y c o l l e c t i n g m o n e y in an a n t i q u a t e d s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s . In P a r i s in N o v e m b e r o f 1995, w e m a d e a p r o p o s a l t o F I D E t h a t s o u g h t t o u n if y t h e P C A ’s a n d F I D E ’s W o r l d C h e s s C h a m p i o n ­ s h i p c y c le s. A t t h a t t im e , I b e li e v e d t h a t it w o u l d be i m p o r t a n t f o r FIDE and the P C A to p re se n t a united fro nt, especially so tha t m a j o r c o m m e r c i a l s p o n s o r s w h o w e r e i n t e r e s t e d in p r o m o t i n g the w o rld c h a m p io n s h ip but w h o were unfam iliar w ith the c h e s s w o r l d w o u l d n o t be c o n f u s e d o r p u t o f f by o u r i n t e r n a l m is u n d e rs ta n d in g s . U n fo rtu n a te ly, FIDE rejected o u r p ro p o s a l o u trig h t, and s in c e th e n w e have had no re la tio n s h ip w ith th e m .

They w en t ahead and elected Kirsan llyum zhinov and his castles in the sky. In reality, the w orld c h a m p io n s h ip can be played anywhere— with or w ith o u t FIDE, the P C A , or fo r th a t matter any governing board fro m the w orld of chess— as long as it has strong c o m ­ mercial s p o n s o rs h ip , m ajor television coverage, and public awareness. W h e n we are ready, we will probably have to squeeze the world ch a m p io n sh ip cycle into a very simple two-event show: ju s t several of the top-rated players in the world in a double ro u n d -ro b in candidate to urnam ent follow ed by the W o rld C ham ­ pio n sh ip match. The match w ould co n sist of sixteen games, four games a week, held in the space of one month. The cham ­ p ionship match w ould take place every eighteen months. Ideally, with the right sp onsorship, the scenario I have just described can be implemented. I d o n ’t know yet w hat system will be in use but whatever it may be, I w ill defend my title against a legitimate challenger.

17

A

NEW

ERA

S Y M B O L S U S ED IN T H E C O M M E N T A R I E S

18

! !

very good move

for W h ite

?

bad move

very good position

??

very bad move

!?

possible move

±

?!

doubtful move

T

A

with the idea

T

initiative

N

innovation

-»

with attack

□

only move

16.Bg2 Ne7 ( 16...Na5? 17.Rd4! Bc6 18.Rhd1! ± {A n a n d } Rxd4 19.exd4 Qf6 20.d5±) 17.Qd3 Qc7 1 8 .Q d 6 ± ] 16...Ne7 17.Qd3!

8

7

6 39

5 4 3 2

1 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

[ A n unexpected decision: if 17...Bc6, 18.Qd8 Rd8 19.Rd8 Kc7 20.Rhd1 Nd5 21.R8d5!! ed5 22.Rd4! and W h ite is rather better.]

Qc7! 18.Qd6

Bc6 19.Qxc7+ Kxc7 20.Rhe1 R xd1+ 21.Rxd1 Rd8 22.Rxd8 Kxd8 23.Kd2 Nc8 24.Kd3 Nd6 25.Kd4 b6 [25...Ne4 26.Nxe4 Bxe4 is also playable fo r Black (A n a n d )]

26.b4 Ke7 27.f4 h6 28.a4 f6 29.a5 Bd7 [D ra w agreed, as Black co ntro ls all the ways to invasion, e.g., 30.axb6 axb6 31.e4 fxe4 32.Nxe4 Nxe4 33.Kxe4 Kd6= (A n a n d ).]

V2-V2

G A M ES Sicilian Defense T h is game co u ld have b ro u g h t glory to A n a n d . They quickly repeated the firs t eleven moves fro m game 1, then A n a n d departed fro m the script, playing 12.Bd3, w hich showed that he w a s n ’t happy with the result of the opening in the starting game, and th a t he wanted to go in some other direction in the

A

NEW

ERA

Scheveningen V a riation. T h is choice w a s n ’t unexpected fo r Kasparov, but he accidentally placed his b ish o p on square c6, 14 . . . Bc6? Then he was so upset, that he made an oth er m is ­ take very soon after, 17 . . . Nc5? These mistakes co u ld have co st him the game. A n a n d definitely was su rp rise d th a t he then had an excellent o p p o rtu n ity to create a stro n g attack. He began to calculate the different variations. His c a lcu la tion s took more than fo rty m inutes, all of w hich 40

Kasparov spent in the back room. (Each player had his own room, where he could sit w hile his o p p o n e n t th o u g h t over his moves. The ro o m s were identically fu rn ish e d and each was equipped with a m o n ito r that displayed the cu rre n t p o s itio n on the board. Kasparov was in the habit of w atch in g the p o s itio n s from his back room.) There he analyzed the situ a tion and saw that A n a n d had an incredible chance to win. A n a n d was in the play booth alone, deep in th o u g h t, and finally pushed his k in g ’s pawn o nto the fifth rank, 19.e5! It was aggressive and absolutely the rig h t move, w hich sh o uld have been the start of a b rillia n t co m b in a tio n . Kasparov had no illu ­ sions about his p o sition: it was lo s in g — if his o p p o n e n t also saw the way to win. W h a t was Black’ s best response? T h a t question hung over the pressroom . Garry rapidly returned to the booth and his response was immediate, 19 . . . Rf8 (D iagram 2). He made the move so con fide n tly and quickly that it m ust have convinced A n a n d that Kasparov had analyzed the po sitio n very well and that he had some good arg um e n ts if V ishy wanted to sacrifice his bishop on h7. But the attitude Garry displayed was all bluff! A n a n d "b e lie ve d ” Garry at th is poin t and played 20.Bc5?, m issing a great chance to finish the game in his favor. Later, at the postgame press conference, Kasparov adm itted th a t he d id n ’t know how he w ould have defended his po sitio n if A n a n d had played 20.exf6 Bxf6 21 .Bxh7 + I! (see analysis).

HUMAN

VERSUS

HUMAN

But, after the move that W h ite did play, Black had a position with good chances for counterplay, and that led to another draw.

8

7

6 17. Bd4

5

41

4 3 2

1 a

b

c

d

e

f

g h

A n a n d -K a s p a ro v [B85] W C C (3) 1995

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 e6 7.0-0 Be7 8.a4 Nc6 9.Be3 0-0 10.f4 Qc7 11.Kh1 Re8 12.Bd3 Nb4 13.a5 Bd7 14.Nf3 Bc6? [T h is “ natu ra l” move leads to problem s fo r Black. Correct was 14...Rc8-games 5, 7] 15.Bb6 Qc8 16.Qe1! Nd7 17.Bd4

Nc5? [T o o o p tim istic. 17...Nf8 is bad because of 18.Qg3, but both 17...Bf6 18.e5 dxe5 19.fxe5 Nxd3 20.cxd3 Be7 and 17...Bf8 seem playable fo r Black.] 18.Qg3 f6 [V ery risky, but 18...Bf8 19.f5! gives W h ite a strong attack as well (19...Ncxd3 20.Bxg7! ± ± ] 19.e5! Rf8

A

NEW

ERA

8

7

6 5 4 42

3 2

1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g h

[T h e critical position of the battle has appeared. Now W h ite could win alm ost by force, playing 20.exf6 Bxf6 21.Bxh7+!! (It's very interesting that no com puters, including GENIUS and PENTIUM, indicated th is in tro ­ duction to the follo w in g brillian t com bination.) The capture of the e5 pawn allow s the same bold attack: 19...fxe5 20.Bxh7+! Kxh7 21.Ng5+ Bxg5 22.fxg5, threatening 23.g6+ (if 23...Kg6 24.R f6 + ! cru sh ing ); 19...dxe5 20. Bxh7+! (not 20.fxe5 f5!n=) Kxh7 21.Ng5+! fxg5 22.fxg5 Bxg2+!? (attempting counterplay) 23.Kxg2 Q c6+ 24.Kg1 Kg6 25.Rf6+! gxf6 26.gxf6+, w inning]

20.Bxc5? [T he question is why A nand played 19.e5 if he did not see the follow ing pretty and decisive com bination? W e aren’t sure he really con­ sidered this possibility seriously. The follow ing fantastic com bination could lead to a total defeat of Black’s position (see previous diagram): 20.exf6! Bxf6 (20...Rxf6, indicated by FRITZ 3, is really less trouble, but not enough fo r equality after 21.Bxf6 Bxf6 22.Rfd1 Qc7 23,Ng5) 21.Bxh7+!l (This complex action is quite normal strategy, as Black has transferred its forces mostly to the queenside.) Kxh7 22.Ng5+ Bxg5 (22...Kg6 23.f5+! exf5 24.Nge4+ Kh7 25.Nxf6+ gxf6 2 6 .R f4 + -) 23.fxg5

HUMAN

VERSUS

HUMAN

8

7

6 Analysis 21.Bxh7l!

5 4 3

43

2 1 a

b

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

8 7

6 Analysis

5

23.fxg5

4 3 2

1 c

d

e

f

g h

A ) 23...Kg6 24.Rf6+! + - ; B) 23...Rxf1+ 24.Rxf1 Kg6 25.Qxd6! + - ; C) 23... Rxf1 + 24.Rxf1 Qe8 25.Qh4+ Kg6 26.Bxg7!; D) 23„.Rh8 24,g6+ Kg8 25.Rf7 e5 26.Bxc5 Bxg2+ 27.Qxg2 Qxc5 (27...dxc5 28.N d5! N xd 5 29.Q xd5 Q c6 30.Q xc6

b xc6 3 1 .R c 7 + ~ ) 28.Rxb7; E) 23...e5 24.g6+ Kg8 25.Qh4 Rf5 26.Qh7+ Kf8 27.Qh8+ Ke7 28.Qxg7+ Ke8 29.Bxc5 dxc5 (2 9 ...B xg 2 + 30.K xg2 Q c 6 + 31.Kg3

R g 5 + 3 2 .K h 4 R g 4 + l? 3 3 .K h 5! R g 5 + 3 4 .K h 6 + ~ ) 3 0.Q U 8+ Ke7 31.Qh4+ Ke8 32.g7! + - ; F) 23...Qe824.Qh4+ K g625.B xg7!-^]

A

NEW

ERA

The game continued: 20...dxc5 21.Bc4 Bd5 [21 ...Bxf3 22.Rxf3 Nxc2 23.f5 Nd4 24.fxe6 Nxf3 25.Nd5! Qd8 26.exf6 Bxf6 27.e7! Bxe7 28.Nc7+ Kh8 2 9 .N e 6 + -; 21...f5!] dxc3 12.Nxe6 fxe6 13.bxc3 Qd3 14.Nf3 [14,Bc2! Qxc3 15.Nb3-> Kasparov-Anand, game 10] 14...0-0-0!

[14...Qxd1 = Karpov-Korchnoi, 10, Baguio (m.) 1978 15.Bxd1 (17.b4 h6!)] 15.Qe1 Nxb3 16.axb3 Kb7 17.Be3?! Be7 18.Bg5 h6!? [18...Rhe8!? 19,Bxe7 Rxe7 20.Ng5 Qd2 = (Anand)] 19.Bxe7 Nxe7 20.Nd4 Rxd4 21.cxd4 Qxb3

A

NEW

ERA

8

7

6 5 4 54

3 2

1 a

b

c

d

e

f

g h

[T h e key p o sitio n of the game. Does Black have s u ffic ie n t co m p en sa ­ tio n fo r the exchange ? Here were tested 22.Qa5 and 22.Qc1! (w ith the idea 23.Rxa6!, if 22...Nd5 or 22...Nc6 23.Rxa6). P.Benko has offered 22...Qb4, where 23.Rxa6 d o e sn 't w ork since 23...Kxa6 24.Qxc7 Qa3!, but 23,Rd1! (23.Qc2 ?! Qxd4 24.Qa2 Qb6 favors Black - A n a n d ), keeping the tension, is better: 23...Rd8 24.Rxa6! Kxa6 (24...Rxd4 25.Ra7+) 25.Qxc7 Qa4 26.Rf 1 Rxd4 27.Qxe7 w ith su p e rio rity in view of the Black k in g ’s bad position and the double threat of 28.Qxe6 and 28.Qxg7; if 23...Nc6 24.Rxa6! also. However the careful 23...Ra8! is playable fo r Black, e.g. 24.Qc2 c6! 25.Rab1 Qa5 =. Interesting but d u b io u s is 23...Nd5!? 24,Rxa6! Nc3!? 25.0a1 Nxd1(or 25...Na4 26.Rb1 + - ) 26.Ra7+ Kc6 (or 26,..Kc8) 27.Qxd1 (exposing the Black king). A fte r 22.Qc1 Seirawan considered

22...Ra8 rig h t away, fo llo w in g

by 23.Qc5 Nc6 24.Rfc1 Qd5, but the sim ple

23. Qxd5 exd5 24.Rc5 Ne7 25.f4! apparently favors W h ite, e.g., 25...Rf8 26.Rf1 c6 ( 26...Nf5 27,Rfc1! + / - ) 27.g4 + /- . W e have to note also th a t the attractive 22...Qd5? loses to 23.Qa3!, and 22...Nd5? 23.Rxa6! Nc3 24.Qa1 Na4 25.Rb1 loses instantly (A n a n d ). A nyh o w , keeping a queen on the board should give W h ite some su pe rio rity. The text (22.Qe3 ) leads to an even more com plicated and unclear gam e.] 22.Qe3 [22.Qc1!? Qb4 23.Rd1 Ra8 24.Qc2 c6! 25.Rab1 Qa5 26.Qc5 Qc7 ] 13.fxe5 dxe5 14.Bb5+?!

A P P E N D I X

o n e

:

b e f o r e

a n d

a f t e r

[14.Ndb5! axb5 15.Bxb5+ A ) 15...Bd7 16.Bxd7+ Nxd7 17.Bxc5 Qxc5 (17...N xc5 1 8 . N b 5 + - ) 18.Rxf7H— ; B ) 15...Ke7 16.Bg5 h6 17.Bh4 Be3

18.Ne4 Bg5 (18...Bf4 19.Rxf4 exf4 20.Qd4 e5 21.Bxf6+ gxf6 22.Q b 4+ K e 6 23.g4H fxg3 24.Rf1 + ~ ) 19.Nxg5 hxg5 20.Bxg5±] 14...axb5? [14...Kf8!D

15.Rxf6! A ) 15...exd4 A1) 16.Bh6? dxc3! (16...gxh6? 17.Qh5!; 16...axb5? 17.Q h 5 dxc3 18.Raf1 K e 8 1 9 .B x g 7 ! + ~ ) 17.Qf3! (17.Q h5? Bd4!) 17...Bd4

18.bxc3! Bxf6 19.Qxf6 Rg8! 20.Rd1 gxh6D 21.Rd8+ Qxd8 22.Qxd8+ Kg7 23.Qd4+ f6 24.Bd3°°; A2) 16.Bf4!? 16...Qe7 (16...Qb6 17.Rxf7+! Kxf7 18.Q h5+ g6 19.Qf3! K g 8 2 0 . B e 5 + - ) 17.Ne4 axb5 18.b4!? ( 18.Bh6? gxh6! 19.Qh5 R g 8 20.Bxh8±)

20.Raf1

R g 7 21.N xc5 b 6 T ;

18.Bg5?! gxf6

18...Bxb4 (18...gxf6 19.bxc5 e5 2 0.B h 6+

Ke8

19.Bxf6 Q c 7 2 1 .B g 7 + ~ )

19.Qxd4± A 19...Bc5 20.Nxc5 Qxf6 2 1 .B e 5 + - ; B ) 15...Bxd4 16.Rxf7 + ! Qxf7 17.Bxd4 exd4 (17...axb5 18.Bc5+ + ~ ) 18.Qxd4 Kg8 19.Rf1 Qe7 20.Bc4±] 15.Ndxb5 Q c6 16.Bxc5 Q x c 5 17.Nd6+ K e 7 18.Rxf6! gxf6 19.Nce4 Qd4 [ 19...Qc7 20.Qh5 Rf8 21.Qh6! f5 ( 21...Q xc2 22.R c1 Qxb2 2 3 .R c 7 + + ~ ) 22.Nxf5 + ! exf5 23.Qf6+

Ke8 24.Nd6+ Kd7 2 5 .N b 5 + -]

20.Qh5 Rf8 21.R d 1 ! [ 21.Qh4?! Kd7± ] 21...Qe3 22.Qh4 Qf4 23.Qe1 R a 4 D 24.Qc3 Rd4 25.Rxd4 Qf1 + 26.Kh2 exd4 27.Qc5! [27.Q c7+? Bd7

28.Qc5 Qf4 + ! 29.g3Oe5 30.Nf5+ Kd8 31.Qxf8+ Kc7 32.Nfd6 Qh5oo ]

8

7

6 5 4 3 2

1 a

b

c

27...Kd728.Nb5! Qf4+ 29.g3 1-0

d

e

f

g

h

241

A

NEW

ERA

A n a n d -K a sp a ro v [B82] T ilb u rg , 1991

[Kasparov, G]

53/215 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f4 e6 [ 6...Nbd7 -

53/(215)] 7.Bd3 Nbd7 8.0-0 Qb6 9.Be3 Qxb2 10.Ndb5!

[ 10.Qd2 N g 4 ^ ] 10...axb5 11.Nxb5 Ra5! N [11 ...Qb4? - 29/356] 12.Rb1!

242

[12.a4 d5 ( 12...Rxb5 13.axb5 Qc3~>) 13.Rb1 Qa2 14.Ra1=] 12...Rxb5D [ 12...Qxa2 13.Nc3 Qa3 1 4 .R b 3 + ~ ] 13.Rxb2 Rxb2 14.Qa1 Rb6D

15.Bxb6 Nxb6 16.Qc3! [16.Rb1? Nbd7 A N c 5 + ] 16...Be7 17.Rb1 Nfd7! [17...Bd8 18.Qd4 Nfd7 19.Qxd6±] 18.Qxg7 Bf6 19.Qh6 Ke7? [19...Rg8 20.Bb5 (20.e5dxe5 21.Rxb6e4!) 20...Ke7 - 19... Ke7]20.Bb5? [20.g4!! Rg8

(20...Bd4+? 21.Kf1 Nc5 2 2 .R b 4 + -; 20...Nc5? 21.e5 dxe5 2 2 .g 5 + -) 21.g5 Bg7 22.Qh4 (22.Qxh7?? Bd4+ A R h 8 -+ ) 22...e5! 23.Kh1 exf4 A ) 24.g6 + ? Bf6 25.gxh7 Rh8 26.Qh5 Be5! 27.Qg5 + Nf6! 28.Rxb6 Rxh7 29.Rb5! (29.Be2

f3 30.Bxf3 Rxh2+ 31.Kg1 Rxc2^>) 29...Rh5 30.Rxe5+ dxe5 31.Qg1 Bd7! 32.Q c5+ Ke8 33,Bb5 Bxb5 34.Qxb5+ Kf8 35,Qxb7 Kg7°°; B) 24.e5! 24...dxe5 (24...Bxe5 25.g6+ Ke8 26.gxh7 Rh8 27.Rb5!\ W o lff,P ; Na4

28.Rxe5+ dxe5 29.Qg5+ - ) 25.g6+ Bf6 26.gxh7 Rh8 ( 26...Rf8 27.Qh6 Nd5 28. Rg 1 Bh8 29.Rg8 N5f6 30.Rxf8 Nxf8 31.Qg5 Ng6 32.Bxg6 fxg6 33.Qxe5+ + ~ ) 30.Rb6+ + - )

27.Qh5 28,Rg1

Na4

(27...Nd5

28.Bc4

Ne3

Nac5 29.Bc4 Ne6 30.Bxe6!

29.Qxf7+

Kd6

Kxe6 3 1 .R g 8 + - ]

20...Rg8? [ 20...e5! 21.Rf1 ( 21.a4 Nc5 22.a5 Nbd7) 21...Rg8 22.fxe5 Bxe5 23.Qxh7 Rg7 24.Qh4 + N f6 + ] 21.Rd1! e5? [21...Nc5?l 22.e5! dxe5 23,fxe5 Bxe5 24.Qe3 Nbd7 (24...Bd6? 25.Qd4! Nd5 2 6 . C 4 + - ) 25.Bxd7 Nxd7 26.Rxd7+ Bxd7 27.Qxe5 Bc6 28.g3±; 21 ...Rg4! 22.e5! ( 22.g3? e5! 23.a4 exf4 24.a5 fxg3 25.axb6 gxh2+ 26.Kh1 Be5+) 22...dxe5 23.Qh3 Rxf4 24.Qa3+ Ke8 (24...Kd8? 25.Qf8+ Kc7 26.Qd6+ + ~ ) 25.Qc5 Bd8 26.a4 e4 (26...Rf5l?) 27.Rf 11 (27.a5? Rf5 28.Qb4 Nd5 29.Qc4 N e7+ ) 27,..Rg4! 28.h4! (28.a5 Rg5 29.Qf2 /& T A 30.c4 Na8) 28...f5 29.a5 Kf7 30.Bxd7 Bxd7 31.axb6 Be7

3 2 .Q e 5 R xh4oo]

22.f5 Nc5? [22...Rd8 23,g4 Nc5 (23...Rg8 2 4 .h 3 + - )

24.g5 Nxe4 25.gxf6+ Nxf6 26,Qe3! (26.c4?! Rg8+ 27.Kf1 Bxf5 28.c5 dxc5

29.Qe3 Nbd7°°; 26.Rf1 Rg8+ 27.Kh1 R g 4 !^ ) 26...Nbd5 (26...Nbd7 27.Qa7! Nc5 28.Rxd6! Rg8+ 29.Kf1 Kxd6 30.Qb6+ + ~ ) 27.Qb3 Nc7! (27...Nf4 2 8 .Q c 4 + -) 28.Qc4 (28.Bc4 Rg8+ 29.Kf1 Rg4 ) 28...Nxb5 29,Qxb5 R g 8 + ± ]

23.Rxd6+ — Bg5 24.Qxh7 Nxe4 25.Rxb6 Rd8 [ 25...Be3+ 26,Kf1 Rg4

A P P E N D I X

o n e

:

b e f o r e

a n d

a f t e r

27.f6+ Kf8 ( 27...Kd8 28.Qxf7) 28.Ke2 ] 26.Bd3 Be3+ 27.Kf1 Bxb6

28.Bxe4 Rd4 29.c3 1-0

K a sp a ro v -A n a n d [C07] R eggio Emilia, 1991 [Anand, V] 53/258 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 c5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.dxc5 Bxc5 6.Ngf3 Nf6

7.Bd3 N [ 7.Bc4 - 4/213] 7...0-0 8.Qe2 Nbd7 [8...Nc6 9.Ne4 Be7 10.0-0+] 9.Ne4 b6! 10.Nxc5 Qxc5 [ 10...Nxc5 11.Bc4 Qf5 12.Be3 Bb7 ] 11.Be3 Qc7 12.Bd4 Bb7 13.0-0-0 [13.0-0? Ng4 14.Bxh7+ Kh8!] 13...Nc5! 14.Be5 [ 14.Bxf6 Q f4+ (14...gxf6 15.Qe3Kg7) 15.Kb1 gxf6!? ] 14...Nxd3+ 15.Rxd3 [ 15.Qxd3 Qc6 ] 15...Qc4 16.Nd4 [16,Bxf6 Qf4 + ; 16.Nd2 Qg4! (16...Qxa2 17.Bxf6 gxf6 18.Qg4+ Kh8 19.Qh4 Rg8 20.Qxf6+ Rg7 21.Rg3±) 17.f3 Qg6 A 18...Ba6, 18...Rac8] 16...Be4! [16...Qxa2!? 17.Bxf6 A) 17...Qa1+ 18.Kd2 Q a5+ 19.b4 Q xb4+ A1) 20.Kc1 gxf6 21.Qg4+ Kh8 22.Qh4 (22.Rh3 Rg8 23.Rxh7+ Kxh7 24.Qh4+ Kg6!=) 22...Rg8 23.Qxf6+ Rg7 24.Rg3=; A2) 20.c3! 20...Qb2+ 21.Nc2 gxf6 22.Qg4+ Kh8 23.Qh4 Rg8 24.Qxf6+ Rg7 25.Re1!— B) 17...gxf6! ] 17.Re3 Qxa2! 18.Bxf6 [18.Rxe4? Qa1 + 19.Kd2 N x e 4 + - + ] 18...Bg6! 19.Ra3 Qd5 20.h4 [20.Be5 f6!; 20.Qe5 Qxg2! + ( 20...gxf6 21.Qxd5™)] 20...gxf6 21.h5 Qxd4 22.hxg6 hxg6 23.Rah3 f5

24.Rh4 f4 25.Qf3? [25.g3! Kasparov,G 25...Rac8 (25...e5 26.Qg4^>) 26.gxf4 A ) 26...Qf6 27.Qe5 ( 27.Qe3 Rc5 28.Qh3 Qxh4! 29.Qxh4 Rh5=) 27...Qxe5 28.fxe5 g5D 29,Rh5 Rfd8=; B) 26...Rc5 27.f5 Qf6 28.fxg6 fxg6 29.Rh8+ Qxh8 30.Qxe6+ Kg7 31,Qe7+ ( 31.Qd7+ Kg8 ) 31 ...Rf7= ] 25...Rac8

26.Rxf4 Qc5 27.c3 Kg7? 28.Rhh4 [28.Rfh4! Q g5+ 29.Kc2 Q f5+ 30.Qxf5 exf5! (30...gxf5 31.Ra4 Rc7 32.Rha1 a5 33.b 4 ^ ) 31.Rd4? (31.Ra4 Rfe8!) ]

28...Qe5 29.g3 Q e1+ 30.Kc2 Rcd8 31.Rd4 Qe5 32.Rhf4 Qc7 33.Qe3 e5 34.Rxd8 Rxd8 35.Re4 Rd5 36.g4?! [ 36.f4!? ] 36...b5 37.g5 Qd6 38.f3 a5 39.Qe2 Qe6 40.Qh2 Qf5 41.Qg3 [ 41.Qh6+

Kg8 42.Kb3 R d 4 - +

(4 2 ...R d 2 -+ ) ] 41...Qd7 42.Qe1 b4! 43.cxb4 [43.Rxe5 Q a4+ 44.Kc1 b x c 3 - + ; 43.b3+ □ ] 4 3 ...Q a 4 + -+ 44.b3 [44.Kc1 axb4 45.Rxe5 R d 8 - + ; 44.Kc3 Q c6+ 45.Rc4 axb4H----- f ] 44...Qa2+ 45.Kc3 a4 46.bxa4 Qa3+

47.Kc2 Q xa4+ 48.Kc3 Q a3+ 49.Kc2 Rd3 0-1

243

A

NEW

ERA

K a s p a r o v - A n a n d [C18]

L in a r e s , 1992 [Kasparov, G]

54/273 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 B x c 3 + 6.b xc3 Ne7 7.h4 Nbc6 8.H5 Qa5 9.Bd2 cx d 4 10.cxd4 Qa411.Nf3! N [ 11 Bc3 - 50/(323)]

□

11...Nxd4 12.Bd3 N ec6 [12...Nxf3+ 13.Qxf3 Qd4 14.0-0 Qxe5 15.Rfe1

Of6 16.Qg3^] 13.K f 1! A Rh4 [13.0-0? Nxf3+ 14.Qxf3 Qh4!«*>] 13...Nxf3?! 244

14

[13...b6?

14.Rh4

Ba6

15.Nxd4

Nxd4

16.Bc3

Bxd3+

1 7 .Q x d 3 + -;

13...Nf5!?] 14.Qxf3 b6? [14...Qd4 15.Re1 Nxe5 16.Qg3 Nxd3 17,cxd3±

T]

15.h6!± [15.Qg3 Ba6 16.Qxg7 0-0-0 17.Qxf7 Rde8!±] 15...Ba6! [15...g6

16.Qf6 Rg8 17.Rh4 d4 18,Kg1 Ba6 1 9 .B e 4 + - ] 16.hxg7 Rg8 17.Bxa6! [17.Rxh7? Nxe5! (17...Q xc2 18.Bxa6 Q x h 7 19.Bb5 Q h 1 + 2 0.K e2 Qxa1 2 1.Bxc6+ K d 8 22.Qf6+ K c 7 23.Bxa8+ - ) A ) 18.Rh8? Nxf3 19.Rxg8+ Kd7

20.Rxa8 A1) 20...Bxd3+ ? 21.cxd3 Qd4 22,Rxa7+ Kd6 (2 2 ...K c6 23.Rc1 + K b 5 24.a4+ + ~ ) 23.Bb4+ Kc6 24.Rc1+ Kb5 2 5 .g x f3 + -; A2) 20...Qd4!!

21.Rxa7+ Kc6 22.Bxa6 A2a) 22...Q xa1+? 23.Ke2 Ng1+ 24.Kd3 Qxg7 25.Bb7+

Kc7 (25...K d6 2 6 .B b 4 + ) 26.Bxd5+

Kd6 27,Be4±

T;

A2b)

22...Nxd2 + ! 23.Ke2 Qxg7+; B ) 18.Qf6 B1) 18...Nxd3? 19.Rh8 Nf4+ 20.Kg1 Ne2+ 21.Kh1 Kd7 22.Bb4! (2 2 .Q x f 7 + ? K d 6 2 3.Bb4+ Q x b 4 ! - + ) 22...Qxc2

23.Qxf7+

Kc6

24.Qxe6+

Kb7

25.Qf7+

Qc7

(2 5...K c6

2 6 .R h 6 + + ~ ) 26.Qxc7 + ! ( 2 6 .Q x d 5 + ? Q c6= 2 7 .Q x c 6 + ? K x c 6 28.Bf8 B c4)

26...Kxc7 27.Bf8!H— ; B2) 18.,.Bxd3+! 19.cxd3Qd4 20.Re1 Qxd3+ 21 .Kg1 Qxh7 22.Bb4 ( 22.Bg5 K d 7 23.R c1! R g e 8 24.Qxe5 R a c8 25.R xc8 R x c 8 26.Bf4! K e 8 27.Qg5= ) 22...Nf3+ (22...Ng6 2 3 .R xe6 + fxe6 2 4.Q xe6+ K d 8 2 5 .Q d 6 + = ) 23.Qxf3 0-0-0! (23...Q xg7? 24.Qxd5 R c 8 25.Qb7 R c 7 26.Qa8+ K d 7 2 7 . R d 1 + + ~ ) 24.Rc1+ Kb8 25.Qf4+ Ka8 26.Qc7 Qxg7 27.Qc6+ Kb8

28,Bd6+ Rxd6 29.Qxd6+ Ka8 30.g3 Qf8= ; 17.Qg3?! Bxd3+ 18.cxd3 Qc2 19.Bf4 Qc3 20.Re1

Q xa3oo

] 17...Qxa6+ 18.Kg1 Rxg7! [ 18...Nd4? 19.Qf6

Ne2+ 20.Kh2 A B g 5 + - ] 19.Qf6 Rg8 20.Rxh7 Qb7 21.Bg5! [ 21.c4!? Rd8 (21...dxc4 22.Bg5 A Rd1 + ~ ) 22.Bg5 Qe7 23.Rh8 Kd7D (23...Rxh8 24 .Q xh 8 + K d 7 2 5 .Q x d 8 + + ~ ) 24,cxd5! Q x f 6 25.dxc6+

Qxe5 27.Rxd8+

Kc7 28.Rad1

Qxg5 29.R8d7+

Kc8! 26.Rxg8!

Kxc6 30.Rxa7± - l ]

21...Nd4! A N e 2 -c 3 -e 4 [21...Qe7 22.Qf4 Qf8 ( 22...Rxg5 2 3 .R h 8 + K d 7 24.Rxa8 R f5 2 5 .Q g 3 + - ) 23.c4! d4 24.Rd1 Rh8 25,Qf3 Rc8 26.Rxd4!! Nxd4

A P P E N D I X

o n e

:

b e f o r e

a n d

a f t e r

(26...Rxh727.Qxc6+ + ~ ) 2 7 . Q b 7 + - ] 22.c4! [22.f4!? Nf5 A Qe7 (22...Rc8 2 3 .c4 !+ ~ ) 23.Qxe6+ fxe6 24.Rxb7 Rg7! 25.Rxg7 Nxg7± - l ] 22...Ne2+

23.Kh2 Nc3 24.Rh8 R xh8+ 25.Qxh8+ Kd7 26.Qh7! [ 26.Qf6?! Kc6 27.Qf3 (27.Rc1 Ne4 28.cxd5+ K b 5 ! ) 27...Ne4 28.cxd5+ exd5 29.Rc1 + N c 5 ± 30.Q f6+ Kb5 31.a4+ Nxa4! ( 31...Kxa4? 32.e6! fxe6 33.Qb2 Nb3

34.Rb1 + - )

32.Rb1 +

K a 6 °o ]

26...Rf8 27.Bh6 Re8 28.Qxf7+

Re7

29.Qg6?! □ [29.Qf3? Rh7! 30.Qxc3 Rxh6+ 31.Kg1 Qc8! 32.Qf3 Qh8 33.g3 Q x e 5 o o ; 29.Qg8! Qc7 (29...Qc8 30.Qxc8+ Kxc8 31.cxd5 Rh7 32.R c1+~ ) 30.f4 Qxc4 31.Bg5 Ne2 (31...Qe4 32.Bxe7 Qxf4+ 33.Qg3 Qxg3+ 34.Kxg3 Kxe7 3 5 .K f4 + ~ ) 34.Kh3H—

32.Rf1!

Ng3

(32...Nd4

3 3 .R f2 + ~ )

33.Rf3

Nf1 +

] 29...Qb8! 30.cxd5 Nxd5! [30...Q xe5+ 31.f4! Qh8 (31...Qxd5

3 2 .B g 5 + ~ ) 32.dxe6+ Rxe6 33.Q g7+ + - ] 31.Rd1? [31.f4! Qh8 32.Kg3! (32.Kg 1? Rh7 33.Bg5 Nxf4! 34.Bxf4 Rh 1+ 35.Kf2 Q h4+! 36.g3 Qh2+ 37.Kf3 Rxa1 38.Qf7+=) 32...Rh7 33,Bg5 Rg7 34.Rh1! (34.Qe4 Qh5) 34...Qg8 35.Qe4H—

] 31...Qxe5+ 32.f4 Qh8 33.f5 Qe5+ 34.Kh1 [34,Kh1 exf5

35.0g8 Qe6 36.Rxd5+ Kc6 37.Qxe6+ (37.Qa8+ Rb7 ) 37...Rxe6 38.Rxf5 R x h 6 + = ; 34.Kg1 exf5 35.Qg8 Re6=]

1 1

^ 2 1 2

K a s p a ro v -A n a n d [D19] D o rtm u n d , 1992 54/(369) 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.e3 e6 7.Bxc4

Bb4 8.0-0 0-0 9.Q e2N bd7 10.Ne5 Re8 N [ 10...h6 - 48/506 ] 11.Rd1 Qc7 12.Nxd7 Qxd7 13.f3 Nd5 14.Na2 Bf8?! [ 14...Bd6 o K asparov,G ] 15.e4 Bg616.Qe1±f5?? 17.exd5 1-0

K a sp a ro v -A n a n d [D18] Linares, 1993

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.e3 e6 7.Bxc4 Bb4 8.0-0 Nbd7 9.Nh4 Bg6 10.h3 0-0 11.Nxg6 hxg6 12.Qc2 Rc8 13.Rd1

245

A

NEW

ERA

Qb6 14.e4 c5 15.d5 Ne5 16.Be2 exd5 17.Nxd5 Nxd5 18.Rxd5 Nc6 19.Bc4 Nd4 20.Qd3 Rcd8 21.Be3 Rxd5 22.Bxd5 Rd8 23.Qc4±

8

7

6 246

5 4 3 2

1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g h

Rd7 24.Rc1 Qf6 25.Rd1 Ne6 26.Qb3 a5 27.Rd3! [ W ith the idea of 28.Bxe6 Rxd3 29.Bxf7+! w in n in g ] Nf4?! [27...Nd4!?] 28.e5! Qf5 [28...Qxe5? 29.Bxf7+ Rxf7 30.Rd8+ Kh7 31.Qxf7 + - ] 29.Bxf4 Qxf4 30.e6!+- Rd8

31.e7! Re8 32.Rf3Qc1+ 33.Kh2 Rxe7 34.Bxf7+ Kh735.Bxg6+!

8

7

6 5 4 3 2

1 a

b

c

d

e

f

g h

A P P E N D I X

:

o n e

b e f o r e

a n d

a f t e r

Kh6 [ 35...Kxg6 36.Qd3+ Kh6 37.Qd6+ + - ] 36.Qd5 Qg5 37.Bf5 g6 38.h4! Qf6 39.Bd3-> Qe5+ 40.Qxe5 Rxe5 41.Rf6 c4 42.Bxc4 Be7 43.Rb6 Bc5 44.Rf6 Re4 45.Bd3 Rg4 46.Kh3 Be7 47.Re6 Rxh4+ 48.Kg3 Rd4 49.Rxg6+ Kh5 50.Bf5 Bd6+ 51.Kf3 Bc5 52.g4+ Kh4 53.Rh6+ Kg5 54.Rg6+ Kh4 55.Be4! Rd6 56.Rg7 Rf6+ 57.Bf5 Rb6 58.Rh7+ Kg5 59.Rh5+ Kf6 60.Bd3 Bd4 61.g5+ Kg7 62.Rh7+ Kf8 63.Bc4R xb2 64.Rf7+ Ke8 65.g6 247

8

7

6 5 4 3 2

1 a

b

c

d

e

f

g h

T h is m odest pawn move now decides the game. Black resigned.

1-0

A

NEW

ERA

K a sp a ro v-A n a n d [B85] Linares, 1994

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 d6 3.Nge2 Nc6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Nf6 6.Bc4 Qb6

8

7 248

6 5 4 3 2

1 a

b

c

d

e

f g h

[T h e fashionable move in order to stop W h it e ’s regular plan in the Sozin A tta c k.] 7.Nb3 e6 8.Bf4! Ne5 9.Be2 Be7 10.Be3 Qc7 11.f4 Nc6

12.Bf3 a6 13.0-0 0-0 14.a4+

8

7

6 5 4 3 2

1 a

b

c

d

e

f

g h

A P P E N D IX

o n e

:

b e f o r e

a n d

a f t e r

[ A well known Scheveningen position, but with the knight on b3 Black is deprived of the exchange ... Nxd4. Therefore Kasparov starts a m ethodical attack.] b6 15.g4! Rb8 16.g5 Nd7 17,Bg2 Re8 18.Rf3 Nc5

1 9 .R h 3 ^ g6 20.Qg4 Nb4 21.Qh4 h5 22.Bf3 Bf8 [If 22...Nxc2?, 23.Bxh5!, c ru s h in g .] 23.Bxh5! [A n y w a y !] gxh5 24.Qxh5 Bg7 25.Bd4 e5 26.f5!

8

7

249

6 5 4 3 2

1 a

b

c

d

e

f g h

Nxe4 [ If 26...exd4, 27,Qh7+ Kf8 28.f6! mating.] 27.Qh7+ Kf8 28.Nxe4 Bxf5 29.Qxf5 exd4 30.Nf6 Qxc2 31.Nxd4 Qxb2 32.Rd1 Re5 33.Nd7+ Ke7 34.Nxe5 Bxe5 35.Qe4

1-0

A

NEW

ERA

K a sp a ro v-A n a n d [C51] Riga, T a l's Memorial, 1995

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4!?

8

7 250

6 5 4 3 2

1 a

b

c

d

e

f

g h

[T h e Evans G am bit is a rare guest in modern practice. Kasparov so m e ­ times successfully revives classical o p e n in g s.] Bxb4 5.c3 Be7?! [T h e modern, but d u b io u s recom m endation. The old move 5...Ba5 is pref­ e ra b le ] 6.d4 Na5 7.Be2! exd4 8.Qxd4! Nf6 9.e5 Nc6 10.Qh4!

A P P E N D IX

o n e

:

b e f o r e

a n d

a f t e r

8

7

6 5 4 3

251

2

1 a

b

c

d

e

f g h

Nd5 11.Qg3 g6 12.0-0 Nb6 13.c4 d6 14.Rd1 Nd7!? 15.Bh6!!

8

7

6 5 4 3 2

1 a

b

c

d

e

f g h

[ A cla ssica l s a crifice in o rd er to keep the Black king in the ce nter.]

Ncxe5 16.Nxe5 Nxe5 17.Nc3! [17.Bg7 Bf6! 18.Bxh8 Bxh8] f6 18.c5 Nf7 19.cxd6 cxd6 20.Qe3! Nxh6 21.Qxh6 Bf8 22.Qe3+ Kf7 23.Nd5! Be6 24.Nf4 Qe7 25.Re1! A b rillia n t game in the style of the old masters.

1-0

A

NEW

ERA

K a sp a ro v-A n a n d [B14] A m sterda m , 1996

[Shamkovich, L]

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 [T h e P a n o v -B o tv in n ik A tta c k w hich is very popular at the present tim e.] Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5

252

8

7

6 5 4 3 2

1 a

b

c

d

e

f

g h

e6 [6...Be6!?; 6...Qa5?!] 7.Nf3 Be7 8.c5!? h6 [8...Ne4!?] 9.Bf4! Ne4 10.Bb5 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Bd7 12.0-0 0-0 13.Rc1 Re8 14.Re1 Bf6 15.Rb1!

A P P E N D I X

o n e

:

b e f o r e

a n d

a f t e r

8

7

6 5 4 3

253

2

1 a

b

c

d

e

f g h

[P ro te c tin g the bish op on b5 against the threat 15...Nxd4! 16.Nxd4 e5 T ] b6 16.Ba6 Bc8 17.Bb5 Bd7 18.Ba6 Bc8 19.Bd3!

8

7

6 5 4 3 2

1 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

[ A pawn sacrifice fo r the attack— G arry’s long-used, dynamic method, w hich has succeeded many tim e s.] bxc5 20.Ne5 Bd7 21.Rb7! Bxe5 □

22.dxe5

A

NEW

ERA

8

7

6 5 4 254

3 2

1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g h

[Kasparov has achieved a strong attack against the deceptively safe p osi­ tion of the Black king. A nand does everything to save his m onarch.]

22___ Rb8 23.Rxb8 Qxb8 24.Qg4! Kf8 25.Re3! Qd8 [25...Ke7 26.Qh4+ Kf8 2 7 .B x h 6 + ~ ] 26.h4 Qa5 27.Rg3 [W h ite ’s attack is very dangerous. T he cool-headed A n a n d trie s to evacuate his kin g .] Ke7

28.Qxg7 Kd8 29.Qxf7 Qxc3 30.Bb5 Qa5 31.Rg7 [T h e attack has not ceased.] N e7[31...R e7 32.Qf8+ Re8 33.Qd6 + - ] 32.Bxd7 K xd7 33.Qf6

d4 34.Bxh6 c4 35.Bg5 Qc5 36.Rxe7+!

8

7

6 5 4 3 2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g h

A P P E N D I X

ONE:

BEFORE

AND

AFTER

[B la ck resigned because o f 36...Rxe7 37.Qxe7+ Qxe7 38.Bxe7 Kxe7 39.Kf 1! Kf7 40.h5, w in n in g the pawn e n d in g .]

1-0 A n a n d -K a s p a ro v [B81] D os H erm anas, 1996

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6 7.g4!? [A variety o f the Keres A tta c k (5...e6 6,g4).] h6 8.f4 [8.h4 e5!?] e5!? 9.Nf5

8

7

6 5 4 3 2

1 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Nc6!? [ 9...g6!? 10.fxe5 dxe5 11.Qxd8+ Kxd8 12.g5 Nxe4 13.Bb6+ Ke8 14.Nxe4 Bxf5 15.Nf6+ Ke7 1 6 .N d 5 + ^ ] 10.Qf3!? [10.fxe5!? Nxe5 1 1 .h 3 ± ] 10...g6 11.0-0-0!?

255

A

NEW

ERA

8

7

6 5 4 256

3 2

1 a

b

c

d

e

f

g h

gxf5 12.exf5 e4!? [ 12...Bg7 1 3 .B c 4 ^ ] 13.Nxe4 Nxe4 14.Qxe4+ Qe7 15.Q d30 ~ Bg7 16.Bd2 0-0 17.g5!? [ 17.Bc3 Qh4oo ] 17..,hxg5 18.fxg5 Qe5!

8

7

6 5 4 3 2

1 a

b

c

d

e

f

g h

19.f6 Bf5 20.Qg3! Rfc8! [A tim ely counterattack. If 20...Qxg3 21.hxg3, W h ite 's threats along h -file w ould be very d a n g e ro u s.] 21.Bc3 Nb4!

22.Bxe5 [22.fxg7? Nxa2+ 23.Kd2 Nxc3 24.bxc3 Qxg3 25.hxg3 Kxg7 + ; 22.Qxe5! dxe5 23.fxg7 Nxa2+ 24.Kd2 Nxc3 25,bxc3 Kxg7 26.h4=]

A P P E N D I X

:

o n e

b e f o r e

a n d

a f t e r

8

7

6 21. ...N b 4 !

5 4 257

3 2

1 a

b

c

b

c

d

e

f

g h

22...Rxc2+ 23.Kb1

8

7

6 5 4 3 0 i—I

1

a

d

Re2+ 24.Ka1 Nc2+ 25.Kb1 Na3 + V2- V 2

e

f

g

h

A

NEW

ERA

K a sp a ro v-A n a n d [B92] Las Palmas, 1996

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 [T h e N a jd o rf variation is the m ost popular opening system at present— both players using it w ith W h ite and B lack.] 6.Be2 [T h e cla ssica l line, w h ich is m ore q uiet than the aggressive 6,Bg5 and 6.Bc4.] e5 [T h e alternative 6...e6 leads to

258

the S cheveningen fo rm a tio n .] 7.Nb3 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Kh1 [G o o d a lte r­ natives are 9.a4 and 9.Be3.] b5 10.a4 [10.Nd5 Nxd5 11.Qxd5 Ra7 12.Be3 Be6

13.Qd2

Rd7°°

(S zn a p ik-B u kic,

Lubliana

81,32/349)]

10...Bb7

[10...b4 11.Nd5 Nxe4? 1 2 . B f 3 + - ] 11.Nd5!?N [A fte r 11.ab ab 12.Rxa8 Bxa8 13.Qd3 Nbd7 (V o g t-S u e tin , Leipzig 1980 ) the game is even. K as­ parov creates a new line w ith a pawn sa crifice .]

bxa4!? [A n orig in a l idea. By th is move Black keeps the extra pawn, but at the cost of some lack of developm ent.] [ 11...Nxd5 12.exd5 b4 (12...bxa4 13.Rxa4 Nd7 14.Na5) 13.a5±; 11...Nxe4l? 12.axb5 axb5 13.Rxa8 Bxa8 14.Be3 Nd7 15.Bxb5 N e f 6 ^ ] 12.Rxa4 Bc6 13.Ra3 Nxe4

8

7

6 5 4 3 2

1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g h

[D o e s W h ite get s u ffic ie n t com p en sa tion fo r the pawn? K asparov uses p osition a l play to gain co n tro l over the key square d5.] 14.Na5

Nf6 15.Nxc6 Nxc6 16.Bc4! Nd4 17.Rh3! [P la yin g on both sides o f the board. Kasparov is fo rc in g weaknesses on the kingside. The th re a t is

A P P E N D I X

:

o n e

b e f o r e

a n d

a f t e r

18.Qd3.] g6 18.Qd2 [T h re a te n in g the sim ple 19.Qh6 w ith a m ating a tta ck.] Nf5 19.Nxf6+ Bxf6 20.Bd5 [ 20,g4! Qc8 21.Rc3 Qb7 + 22.Bd5 0 b 5 23.Rd1 Nd4 24.Bxa8 R xa 8 ^; 20,g4 Qc8 21 .Bd5! Nh4 22.Rg1!!

8

7

6

259

5 4 3 2

1 a

b

c

d

e

f

g h

g5 23.Rxh4 gxh4 24.g5 Bg7 25.g6!

8

7

6 5 4 3 2

1 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

A ) 25...Qf5 26.gxf7+ Kh8 27.Bxa8 Rxa8 (27...e4 28.Qf4 Qxf4 29.Bxf4 Rxa8 30.Bxd6 h6 31.Rxg7 Kxg7 32.f8Q+ Rxf8 33.Bxf8+ Kxf8 34.Kg2 Kf7 3 5 .K h 3 + ~ ) 28.Qd5!

A P P E N D I X

ONE:

BEFORE

AND

AFTER

8

7

6 5 4 3

261

2

1 a

b

c

d

e

f g h

[N o w Black has full com p en sa tion fo r the exchange. The point is if 26.Qxd5 Rd6! w in n in g .] 26.Ra5 d4 27.cxd4 exd4 28.b4 Nh4 29.f3 Qxb4 [B lack has a pawn fo r the exchange and a strong centralized position. T he game is practically even.] 30.Rxa6 Rxa6 31.Qxa6

8

7

6 5 4 3 2

1 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Bg7 32.Qd3 Nf5 33.Bf4 Qb2 34.g3 Kh7 35.Rd2 Qb7 36.Qe4 Qb5 37.Qd3 Qb7 38.Qe4 Qb5 39.Kg1 Qa5 40.Qd3 Ne7 41.Rd1 Nd5 42.Bd2 Qa7 43.Re1 Qd7 44.Kg2 Qa7 45.Kg1 Qa2 46.Re2 Qa1+ 47.Re1 Qa4

A

NEW

ERA

48.Rc1 Nc3 49.g4 [ A last try to open up Black's k in g ’s p o s itio n .] Qa5 50.Re1 Qc5 51.h3 Bf6 52.f4 h4!

8

7

6 5

262

4 3 2

1

a

b c

d e

f

g h

53.Qf3 Qb5 54.g5 Bg7 55.Re7 [ 55.Qg4 Kg8 56.Qxh4 Ne2+ 57.Kh2 d 3 ~ ] 55...Qb1+ 56.Qf1 Qf5 57.Qe1 Qxh3 58.Rxf7 Q g4+ 59.Kh2 h3! 60.Qf1 Ne4 61.Be1 d3 62.Qxh3+ Q xh3+ 63.Kxh3 d2 [64.Bxd2 Nxd2 65.Kg4 Nc4 66.Re7 Nd6 is a draw]

V2-V 2 A n an d -K asp aro v [E92] Las Palmas, 1996

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 [T h e N ajdorf system has been extremely popular in tournam ents, with good results fo r Black ] 6.Be2 e6 7.0-0 Be7 8.a4 Nc6 9.Be3 0-0 10.f4 Qc7 11.Kh1 Re8

12.Bf3 [In modern practice this line is often met— a fam ou s chess "ta b ia " (“ battle array" in A ra b ic ). But here Kasparov plays an in n ova ­ tio n .] Rb8!N

A P P E N D I X

o n e

:

b e f o r e

a n d

a f t e r

8

7

6 5 4 3

263

2 1

a

b

c

d

e

f g h

[In game 9 of the m atch w ith A n a n d , Kasparov played 12...Bd7, but a fter 13.Nb3 Na5 14.Nxa5 Qxa5 15.Qd3! met se rious problem s. By the text K asparov is preparing 13...Nxd4 14.Bxd4 b6.] 13.g4!? [T h e fam ous attack, w hich here is not to o dan g erou s.] Nxd4! 14.Bxd4 e5 15.fxe5 dxe5 16.Ba7 Ra8 17.g5!? Rd8! [ 17...Rxa7? 18.gxf6 S cheveningen

Bxf6 19.Nd5 Od8 20.Nxf6+ gxf6 21.Qe1-» ] 18.Qe2 Ne8 19.Be3 Be6= [B la ck c o m fo rta b ly p ro te cts the critic a l square d5. The game is even.]

20.Qf2 Rdc8 [20...Qc4 21.Bb6? (21.Nd5 Bxd5 22.exd5 f5 23.gxf6 Nxf6 SeirawanJ 21...Rdc8 22.Be3 Bc5 T o p a lo v-K a sp a ro v, O lym piad 1996, Y erevan] 21.Rad1 [ 21.Bb6l? Qc4 22.a5 Qb4