Zurich International Chess Tournament, 1953 [Illustrated] 1607966069, 9781607966067

Citation preview

Zürich 1953 15 Contenders for the World Chess Championship by

Miguel Najdorf Introduction by Yuri Averbakh Foreword by Andy Soltis

2012 Russell Enterprises, Inc. Milford, CT USA

1

Table of Contents I tr ducti

5

F rew rd

7

Tra s at r’s Preface

10

Fr

the Pub isher

12

Auth r’s F rew rd

13

Preface

15

The P ayers

19

Cr sstab es

54

R u d1

56

R u d2

73

R u d3

86

R u d4

101

R u d5

116

R u d6

136

R u d7

154

R u d8

168

R u d9

181

R u d 10

202

R u d 11

220

R u d 12

241

R u d 13

256

R u d 14

273

R u d 15

287

R u d 16

307

R u d 17

329

R u d 18

348

R u d 19

368

R u d 20

388

R u d 21

408

R u d 22

424

R u d 23

448

R u d 24

465

R u d 25

482 607

R u d 26

499

R u d 27

515

R u d 28

532

R u d 29

546

R u d 30

559

The T ur a e t i Review

571

The retica Survey

576

O e i g I dex by Na e

600

O e i g I dex by ECO C de

601

P ayer I dex

604

608

Introduction This book focuses on one of the most important chess competitions of the twentieth century, the candidates tournament for the world championship, held in Switzerland in the fall of 1953. In the spirit of a marathon, the tournament lasted about two months and consisted of 30 rounds. It was attended by the 15 strongest grandmasters in the world; one of them, Max Euwe, was a former world champion, and two others, Vassily Smyslov and Tigran Petrosian, were future champions. Four candidates, Max Euwe, David Bronstein, Gideon Ståhlberg, and Miguel Najdorf, wrote books about this signi cant event. Miguel Najdorf (1910-1997), the author of this book, belonged to the world chess elite for about 30 years and hardly needs any introduction. He was born in Warsaw, Poland, to a poor Jewish family. He was then called Moishe, and when he grew up, Mieczyslaw. He became interested in chess relatively late by modern standards, but by the mid-30s of the last century, he was among the strongest chessplayers in the country. In 1939, he made the Polish team and went to Argentina for the world chess Olympiad in September of that year. Soon afterward, the Second World War broke out. Poland was quickly occupied by German and Soviet armies, and Najdorf, like many other players, decided to stay in South America. In 1944, he became a citizen of Argentina. I met Najdorf in 1950 during the candidates tournament for the world championship in Budapest. I remember our rst conversation very well. He asked about my parents and I told him that my father was Jewish and my mother was Russian. He exclaimed, “That makes you a Jew, according to Hitler!” Back then it was a sore point for him. When he arrived in Europe, he discovered that many of his relatives and friends had perished in Nazi concentration camps. Being in South America during the war serendipitously saved Najdorf’s life. Curiously, Najdorf did not become a chess professional. In Buenos Aires, he opened an insurance company, made a fortune, and became independently wealthy. He was convivial and witty, and got to know people easily. I can say that, despite our age di erence, we established a warm friendship. By the way, Miguel could be regarded as a polyglot. He had equally good command of Polish, Russian, Spanish, and English. I remember, once we visited a casino together. He bought a few chips, placed them on a bunch of numbers, and – can you imagine! – he won. After that, he scattered the chips on the same numbers and won again. Once more, he scattered the chips on the same numbers. “Miguel, what are you doing?!” I could not help exclaiming, “Your luck cannot last forever!” “You’re right,” he said, “but I wanted to see how long it could last!” Back to the book. As you will see, quite a few spectacular, interesting, and informative games were played at this tournament, but, as it often happens, the tournament was not without curiosities. Two of them involved the American champion Samuel Reshevsky. In the game with Geller, in a winning position, he ran 5

Introduction

into a stalemate, and, in the game with Szabó, he could have been checkmated in two moves, but his opponent did not notice it. I would like to mention that there were many more good, instructive games at this event, however, as you will see for yourself. The main feature of the tournament is that there were no inferior players; everyone was well prepared and determined to win; everyone was dangerous. Smyslov’s success was well deserved. In 1954, the following year, he proved that the level of his play was not inferior to the world champion’s. Speaking of whom, Botvinnik, after drawing his match with Bronstein, even earlier, in 1951, admitted that he was not the only primus inter pares, which in Latin means “ rst among equals!” Among the participants who played well, I should mention the youngest, Tigran Petrosian. He took a respectable fth place, behind only Smyslov, Reshevsky, Bronstein, and Keres, foretelling a good future; he would become world champion ten years later. A little about myself. I must admit, I was hoping for more, but played at my level: winning mini-matches against Euwe, Keres, and Najdorf, and losing to Reshevsky, Kotov, and Gligoric and, more importantly, losing both games to the last place nisher Ståhlberg. Apparently the Swede was a di cult opponent for me. Out of the ve games that I played against him, I only managed a single draw! Overall, however, I always remember this tournament with great pleasure; it proved to be the most important competition of my life. Of the participants of this tournament, which took place almost 60 years ago, only three survive: Taimanov, Gligoric, and I. Yuri Averbakh Moscow January 2012

6

Foreword What makes a great tournament book – the notes or the games? Neuhausen-Zürich 1953 had more than twice as many great games as any other candidates tournament or match cycle. It is almost impossible to write a poor book about it. Both Miguel Najdorf and David Bronstein tried to capture the brilliance and depth of the 210 games and their vastly di erent works rival one another for the title of best tournament book ever. In today’s era, when super-GMs qualify for the world championship cycle on the basis of rating, “privileges” and a variety of other criteria, it’s worth noting how the 1953 entrants were chosen: Five players were seeded based on their results in the previous candidates tournament, Budapest 1950. (Only one or two players would be seeded in succeeding candidates.) The FIDE rules also stipulated that only ve players would qualify from the Saltsjöbaden 1952 Interzonal. But that created a problem. After the stunning Soviet successes at Saltsjöbaden, it turned out that nine of the seeded or qualifying ten players would be coming from Moscow or Leningrad. Neuhausen-Zürich was looking less like a world championship event than a second “Absolute Championship of the U.S.S.R.” FIDE took two controversial steps. First, it o ered “personal” invitations to Max Euwe (who had declined his invitation in 1950) and Samuel Reshevsky (who was barred by the U.S. State Department from going to Budapest because of Cold War tensions). Second, FIDE increased the number of interzonal quali ers to eight. This meant adding three non-Soviets – Svetozar Gligoric, Laszló Szabó and Gideon Ståhlberg. They had tied with Yuri Averbakh for fth place at Saltsjöbaden but had worse tiebreaking points than he did. As a result, Neuhausen-Zürich was by far the biggest, in terms of players and games, of any candidates tournament, and lasted an exhausting eight weeks. (The double-round 1950 version was over in six weeks, par for the course.) After the rst half was over, Vassily Smyslov led with 9½ points. Only Reshevsky seemed to be able to catch him. Rounds 22 to 25 – when Smyslov had three wins and a bye while Reshevsky scored 1½-2½; – proved decisive. But there was more to the story. In 2001 David Bronstein gave a detailed account in the Russian magazine 64 of how members of the Soviet delegation tried to stage-manage the nish to ensure that Smyslov and not Reshevsky would qualify to become the world championship challenger to Mikhail Botvinnik. Smyslov wrote a response calling Bronstein’s revelations “scandalous.” But he didn’t deny them. Now as to the books, Najdorf versus Bronstein: Fans who assume that grandmasters agree on the key moments of a game will be stunned when they compare the two texts. What one annotator considers crucial, the other sees as trivial. In game 38, for example, Bronstein wrote that he could not 7

Foreword

have passed up the surprising exchange sacri ce 24.R×e6. Najdorf made no comment. Three moves later Najdorf criticized 27...a6 as a poor way to defend. Bronstein ignored that move, indicating the game was over. Bronstein – or rather Bronstein and his un-credited co-author, spymaster Boris Veinstein – annotated in a style that was often brief and cryptic compared with Najdorf. The Argentine’s notes are frequently twice as detailed, such as in games 117, 120 and the blunder- lled 130. Bronstein is kind when it comes to mistakes. Najdorf, on the other hand, more than once called a blunder “incredible” and he awarded question marks to three straight Bronstein moves in game 61. Most readers who are familiar with Bronstein’s book will have seen a translation of the second Russian edition, which appeared well after Najdorf’s book. In it, Bronstein indirectly acknowledged how much he disagreed with the Argentine. For example, in game 32, Najdorf found 19.N×g6 inexplicable. Bronstein replied, “This exchange is explained by Euwe’s intention to give mate by opening the h- le.” Bronstein’s reluctance to use punctuation marks often leaves you wondering where the games were won or lost. Not so with Najdorf. In game 21 you know what he thinks of “15.d×e6!” and “19.Nf3!” or in game 48 about “19...Bf5?” His use of punctuation makes the outcome of several games, including games 85, 93, 103 and 104 much easier to understand than in Bronstein’s work. This is not just a matter of taste. The instructional nature of the work is a ected. Najdorf’s awarding of a question mark to 13...c4 in game 112 helps explain why it’s a classic example of prematurely closing the center. Bronstein’s comment on the move (“He should stick to waiting tactics and act in accordance with his opponent’s intentions.”) is hardly helpful. Enough carping. You can enjoy this book just by marveling at the games. Here you’ll nd, for example, Alexander Kotov’s greatest victory, game 96, featuring the ...Q×h3+! move that adorns his tombstone. Curiously Najdorf does not point out the faster win, 33...Ng4!, that mars the combination. But Najdorf has a lot to say about game 58, Euwe’s “immortal,” the sack-fest against Najdorf himself. The loser is full of praise, self-criticism and variations, while Bronstein, in general terms, emphasizes the intuitive nature of the sacri ce. Bronstein included his wins over Reshevsky, game 91, and Szabo, game 136, in one of his best-game anthologies and then added the draw with Euwe, game 39, in another. In collections of Paul Keres’ best games you’ll nd his wins over Ståhlberg, game 33, Tigran Petrosian, game 108, and Geller, game 155. The most commonly anthologized Petrosian victories from the tournament are his King’s Indian Attack wins over Ståhlberg, game 177, and Euwe, game 69. This wasn’t a good tournament for Gligoric but his win over Euwe, game 150, is a splendid example of how to win R+4Bs-vs.-R+3Bs. Averbakh’s textbook demonstration of the power of protected passed pawns is game 71. And Geller’s best-game collection included his victory over Euwe, game 114, and his positional crush of Najdorf, game 88 — which at the time seemed to raise doubts about whether the Najdorf Sicilian had been refuted by 6.Be2!.

8

Some of the very best games are draws: Geller’s miraculous save, two pawns down in a rook endgame against Reshevsky, game 167; the de nitive “Petrosian exchange sacri ce,” game 12, and the spectacular thrust-and-parry of KeresReshevsky, game 77, to name a few. What other tournament o ers amazing examples like that? And some of the games feature remarkable blunders. Szabó could have resigned after ve moves as White (!) against Keres, game 18. In his memoirs he revealed how he overlooked a mate in two against Reshevsky, in game 130, because the American moved so quickly. After he counter-blundered, “I just sat there, shook my head, unable to make a single move for a whole hour,” he wrote. There is a sharp di erence between the two books in how they treat some of the tournament’s famous incidents. Najdorf had a notoriously bad relationship with Reshevsky and you might detect it in game 17 and elsewhere. Yet he neglects to mention the drama of game 51 when, according to Bronstein, Reshevsky was stunned by Kotov’s 34...Qe2. He “grabbed his head, glanced anxiously at his ag, which was about to drop” and then spotted 35.Q×f8+ in time, Bronstein wrote. Reshevsky’s version, in his How Chess Games Are Won, was that he wasn’t surprised at all by 34...Qe2. “A super cial glance at the position might lead one to believe White is in trouble,” he wrote. “But I had a surprise for Kotov.” Or compare what the two books have to say about the verbal exchange in game 73. Najdorf said he asked Isaac Boleslavsky if he was playing for a draw. When he said no, Najdorf asked if he was playing for a win and got another no. In the end, Boleslavsky said he was just playing on because he liked his position. In Bronstein’s version Boleslavsky was talking solely about the move 8.Q×d8, and his nal comment was “I made the move that meets the requirements of the position.” Despite Boleslavsky’s celebrated lack of humor, Najdorf’s account sounds more plausible. What can we make of all this? Here’s a revisionist perspective: In the half-century since Bronstein’s work was published, it was hailed as the perfect tournament book. It is, of course, a classic. But it might be just the second-best book written about this tournament. Andy Soltis New York February 2012

9

Translator’s Preface

Translator’s Preface It has been a great pleasure to produce this rst English edition of grandmaster Miguel Najdorf’s 15 Aspirantes al Título Mundial. Originally written in Spanish descriptive notation and published in Argentina, it was Najdorf’s rst, and as it turned out, only book. Undeservedly, it has remained largely unknown outside the Spanish-speaking world, overshadowed by other books on the same tournament, among English and Russian speakers by Bronstein’s Zurich International Chess Tournament 1953, and among German readers by Euwe’s Schach-Elite im Kampf. Now not just a cionados de ajedrez, but also English-speaking chess enthusiasts can enjoy and learn from Najdorf’s rst-hand account of what he called, with little or no exaggeration, the greatest chess tournament of all time. This edition includes everything from the two-volume 1954 Spanish edition: the introductory chapters, the round-by-round accounts of the action, biographical sketches and photos of the players, all 210 games with Najdorf’s extensive notes, his concluding remarks, and his survey of the tournament’s impact on opening theory. Najdorf was a gregarious, outspoken individual with an exuberant personality, and a lively voice is heard in his prose. I have tried to preserve that voice in this English version, letting Najdorf’s wit, his love for chess, his a ection and respect for his colleagues, and his enthusiasm for life in general come through. This book is no mere dry assemblage of variations; it is a vivid account of a major chess event by a direct participant, who has put on the page not only chess moves and analysis, but also colorful and insightful portrayals of the men who made them, and the mise-enscène in which they fought their battles over the board. That made my work more interesting and enjoyable, but also imposed, I felt, a responsibility: to make sure that his color, wit, and enthusiasm were not lost in translation. While trying to preserve Najdorf’s spirit in this English text, some of the letter was necessarily changed. Various idiomatic expressions had to be translated nonliterally to English equivalents, as were certain terms, for example aguja (needle) or echita (little arrow) for a chess-clock ag. Certain oft-repeated standard phrases – e.g. “with better play for White” or “and an even game” – were changed to Informant symbols. Also Najdorf – like some other Spanish and/or Polish writers of my experience – sometimes showed a verbosity that bene ts from condensation, e.g. something like “In the game between Smyslov and Gligoric at the Warsaw tournament of 1947 the second player was seen to adopt as his move the continuation ...” reads better as simply “In Smyslov-Gligoric, Warsaw 1947, Black played ...”. Such elisions for the sake of brevity could be made without sacri cing Najdorf’s essential meaning. The original Spanish text, including chess moves, is commendably free of typographical errors, but a few were found and corrected, as were a few factual mistakes, such as the date of Averbakh’s rst important tournament and some

10

entries in the career records. Also the names used for certain openings were updated, e.g., a line Najdorf called a Réti Opening is today considered a King’s Indian Attack. The only other liberty taken was to add a few notes of relevant information not available to Najdorf in 1954, such as the ultimate resolution of the 3-way tie for 2nd place, and most importantly, some of Bronstein’s revelations about behind-thescenes Soviet machinations to ensure Smyslov’s triumph, a story not told until nearly 50 years later. These appear as footnotes or bracketed insertions. As a bonus, the reader can obtain an appendix of computer-assisted analytical corrections, additions and enhancements, compiled as I went through the games with Rybka 3. This is provided at no charge as a PDF that can be downloaded from the Russell Enterprises website: http://russellenterprises.com/excerptsanddownloads.html. Over the past fteen years I have worked on close to three dozen chess books. Of those, few, if any, have been more interesting than this one. Zurich 1953 was one of the greatest chess tournaments ever held, and with this diligent, unstinting and inspired labor of love, grandmaster Najdorf produced a book worthy of the event. Taylor Kingston San Diego February 2012

11

From the Publisher

From the Publisher Miguel Najdorf’s monumental work about the legendary Zürich 1953 Candidates Tournament is certainly one of the greatest tournament books ever written. Until now, it has never been available in any language except the original Spanish. With the release of Zürich 1953: 15 Contenders for the World Chess Championship, this has now changed. In this computer age, many chessplayers are interested in seeing what the “silicon monsters” have to say about “carbon-based” annotations. There are strong arguments for and against appending such computer analysis in a book. We have come up with what we think is a good compromise: Najdorf’s analysis has indeed been checked by one of the most powerful chess engines available, Rybka 3, but rather than include it as part of the text of the original work, we have created a PDF that is available free and may be downloaded at the Russell Enterprises website: http://russell-enterprises.com/excerptsanddownloads.html. Readers may avail themselves of the opportunity to see what the engine says, or not, as they wish. The publisher wishes to thank Peter Tamburro, Fred Wilson, Yuri Averbakh, Taylor Kingston and Andy Soltis for their assistance in producing this Englishlanguage edition of what surely will be recognized as Najdorf’s opus magnum. Enjoy... Hanon Russell, President Russell Enterprises, Inc. March 2012

12

Author’s Foreword I have long wished to write a chess book, and as good intentions are sometimes actually realized, that happy circumstance has just been presented by the great world championship candidates tournament. There exists a general opinion that chess is a very “di cult” game; but if one looks closely, that di culty is neither less nor greater than that of many other sports. The di culty, contrary to general belief, lies not in playing chess, but in learning to play well! Consequently, writing an instructive book entails a responsibility, in this case of annotating the chess work of the fteen greatest chess players in the world today – apart from the world champion – and together with that responsibility an implicit obligation: to raise one’s understanding to their level. We should recognize that the teaching of chess purely by technique and dogma, with an exaggerated emphasis on opening study over other facets of the game, has led us away from the need to think of a chess game as a harmonious whole. Accumulated memorization of variations may make the chess player a “well informed” person, but nothing else. One must also learn to think, to reason, to extract and combine ideas, to understand concepts of positional “universality.” “Chess is not a game of luck,” said Capablanca, “but rather of skill.” Nor, we may add, is it exclusively a matter of memory, though by combining something of each skill, the result would probably be the perfect chess player! My idea in writing this book has been to annotate the games in a manner both interesting and instructive, and to make them accessible to all chess players regardless of their level of strength; and if I have chosen to divide the games into two parts, it has been to gain time, because the painstaking analysis I proposed to do of the 210 games would have delayed publication of the book in a single volume, losing some of its undeniable immediacy and newsworthiness. [The original Spanish edition, unlike the present English edition, was released in two volumes.] Above all I have tried to o er the reader ideas and concepts. My thirty years as a professional in this incredible art of moving the chessmen have given me the necessary experience to know where the defects lie in the training of young chess players. A chess game has “life” when there exists in it an idea – even if it is only the idea of deliberately “doing nothing” – and when based on this idea is the plan; on the plan the overall strategy and in accordance with the strategy, the tactical details of the game. When we say that a master is a brilliant maker of combinations, or a grand strategist, or an excellent tactician, we praise only a single aspect of his chess personality, but in discussing and analyzing the 210 games of the fteen grandmaster candidates for the world championship we give the summary of all chess virtues par excellence! Each and every one demonstrated inexhaustible 13

Author’s Foreword

inspiration and perfect technique; knowledge and study of their e orts must leave indelible lessons. I have high hopes for this way of teaching. If chess enthusiasts learn, as is my intent and wish, to “be themselves” – fortifying their knowledge and play with rational principles – I will be able to say that the exhausting task of bringing to light the living thought of these fteen grandmasters, to comprehend and make comprehensible their subtleties; to give, in a word, the essence, the emotion, the life that they infuse into their work, this will not have been in vain. The readers have my word. Miguel Najdorf

Miguel Najdorf

14

Preface FIDE has taken de nitive control of all that pertains to the world chess championship. After the death of Alexander Alekhine, and to determine a successor, The HagueMoscow tournament of 1948 was contested, which enshrined Russian grandmaster Mikhail Botvinnik as the new world champion of chess. Two years later, in Budapest, a candidates tournament was played, the winner of which had the right to challenge Botvinnik. In this competition, a double round-robin, two Russian grandmasters also won: Bronstein and Boleslavsky (undefeated) with 12 points; third was Smyslov with 10; fourth, Keres with 9½; and fth Najdorf with 9, out of a total of ten competitors. Bronstein won a tie-break for rst place, and in the match with Botvinnik led and was within a point of seizing the crown, but the ght ended drawn and the champion retained his title. In any event, the ve leaders from Budapest 1950 had another opportunity to play in Switzerland, in the candidates tournament held in the summer of 1953. The remaining players, all recognized by FIDE as grandmasters, quali ed by the interzonal tournament of Saltsjöbaden 1952, which ended with the following result: rst, Kotov with 16½ points; then Petrosian and Taimanov with 13½ (all three undefeated); Geller 13; Averbakh, Gligoric, Ståhlberg and Szabó 12½;, among 21 participants. Only Reshevsky and Dr. Euwe were given special invitations by FIDE, on grounds that they had not been able to play at Budapest, the former because he could not obtain a visa to enter Hungary, and the latter because his duties as a teacher of mathematics in Amsterdam made foreign travel di cult at that time of year. During the 24th FIDE Congress, held at the Scha hausen Casino under the presidency of Dr. Folke Rogard, several days before the tournament, new regulations were passed which will govern future quali cation events and the next world championship candidates tournament. Those having the right to play will be: the loser of the world championship match – i.e., Botvinnik or Smyslov – and the runnerup from the present candidates tournament, to be decided by a triangular tie-break tournament between Bronstein, Reshevsky and Keres. [Translator’s note: as it turned out, this triangular tie-breaker was never held. – TK] To ll out the total roster of six, the remaining grandmasters will be the top four nishers from the interzonal, the nal event of the various zonal quali ers which will take place all over the world. The next candidates tournament will be a quadruple round-robin, and each participant will play, therefore, a mini-match of four games against each of his adversaries. [In fact this did not occur. The 1956 candidates tournament, held in Amsterdam, ended up being a ten-player double round-robin, rather than a six-player quadruple. – TK]

15

Preface

The nancing of this candidates tournament turned out to be quite costly; calculated at 100,000 Swiss francs, it obliged the Swiss Chess Federation to impose certain important economies, such as those concerning travel expenses for the grandmasters and their seconds, which were covered by their respective countries. The prizes o ered, though tempting, were not the most important in this tournament, where the main recompense is, without any doubt, the chance to challenge the world champion. Nevertheless, from the rst prize of 5,000 Swiss francs on down, every place was considered in the scale, down to the last three nishers who each received 500 Swiss francs. The rst to arrive at the most important chess occasion of all time was the formidable Soviet team, comprising some 25 persons, and the Argentinean representative Miguel Najdorf, with his second Julio Bolbochán. The Russians brought a strong group of young players who had systematically appropriated the top places in the most recent important tournaments. Along with them were some veteran grandmasters who had fought – although in another era and by other means – to come close to the throne of His Majesty the world Champion. There was, for example, Salo Flohr – in the opinion of Alekhine, at one time the most quali ed challenger – and other stars such as Lilienthal, Bondarevsky, Tolush ... If those grandmasters came as mere seconds, what does that say about the actual players! The Soviet delegation, headed by Mr. Postnikov, had its own doctor and various other assistants; among its provisions was abundant Russian chocolate, plus caviar, vodka, and cigarettes, even though by strict order the players were not to consume alcoholic beverages, and except for Geller, none of them smoked. Little by little the other masters arrived, and on Saturday the 29th of August, the day for the drawing of lots, a special concession was made for Reshevsky, allowing him a free day for his religious observances. The other participants tried their luck, resulting in the following order:           1.        Svetozar Gligoric (Yugoslavia)           2.        Mark Taimanov (USSR)           3.        Miguel Najdorf (Argentina)           4.        Tigran Petrosian (USSR)           5.        Yuri Averbakh (USSR)           6.        Laszlo Szabó (Hungary)           7.        Dr. Max Euwe (Holland)           8.        Gideon Ståhlberg (Sweden)           9.        Isaac Boleslavsky (USSR)           10.        Alexander Kotov (USSR)           11.        E m Geller (USSR)           12.        Vassily Smyslov (USSR)           13.        Paul Keres (USSR)           14.        Samuel Reshevsky (USA)           15.        David Bronstein (USSR)

16

Opening ceremonies. All the grandmasters participating – except Reshevsky and Bronstein – had their seconds, whose principal job consisted of analysis of adjourned games. Acting as Gligoric’s second was Dr. Trifunovic; for Taimanov, Flohr; Julio Bolbochán for Najdorf; Lilienthal for Petrosian; Beilin for Averbakh; van den Berg for Dr. Euwe; Sköld for Ståhlberg; Florian for Szabó; Sokolsky for Boleslavsky; Moisieyev for Kotov; Bondarevsky for Geller; Simagin for Smyslov; and Tolush for Keres. Before the start of the tournament there was an enjoyable opening banquet, with speeches by FIDE President Dr. Folke Rogard, Mark Taimanov on behalf of his comrades, and Miguel Najdorf on behalf of the western chess players. Grandmaster Smyslov sang, to general applause, an aria from Italian opera, and Taimanov, a prominent concert pianist in his country, played compositions by Tchaikovsky and Chopin. This sincere camaraderie raised the spirits of these men who had arrived from di erent lands, some very distant, with the sole intention of matching wits at the chess board. Political di erences were forgotten; on the contrary, friends old and new conversed animatedly on various topics and in various languages, though the word “checkmate” was perfectly understood by all! Yet those who laughed lightheartedly while dining turned serious very quickly, as they became absorbed in the many problems of their di cult art. Thus is chess... The great tournament begins on the afternoon of Sunday, the 29th of August 1953. Despite the fact that Neuhausen am Rheinfall is a rather small town, a huge number of spectators lls the great Kirchgemeindehaus [i.e., Church Community House, or Parish Hall – TK] where the games are to be played, anxiously awaiting the moment for the tournament director, problemist Alois Nagler, to give the order for play to begin. Well-known greats of the board, illustrious visitors, journalists from all over the world, photographers and lmmakers, all combine to create an atmosphere of historic importance. Who would think, on observing the nervous preparations, the babble of the crowd and their coming and going, that within a few minutes more this spectacle would proceed in absolute silence! Everyone is making predictions about each player’s chances, and talking about the one question of the day: Who will win the tournament? Of course, the general 17

Preface

opinion is that it must be one of the formidable Russian masters, but which one of them? Grandmaster Salo Flohr, journalist for several Soviet newspapers, opines that the most brilliant, without doubt, is Bronstein, but is not certain that he is in top form. The youngest of the grandmasters, Petrosian, is among his picks, but “there is one who every day plays at a higher level,” says Flohr, “one who since the previous candidates tournament has played at least a category higher: Boleslavsky” (!). Tolush, for his part, believes that either Keres or Smyslov will win, although he acknowledges that the performance of the former declined in the 1952 Olympiad and the last Soviet championship. Another interesting possibility is Kotov – also the Soviet delegate to the FIDE Congress – whose triumph at Saltsjöbaden 1952 was spectacularly out of the ordinary. A few other names are bandied about, besides those of Najdorf and Reshevsky. All the Russian veterans see in those two masters their principal rivals from the West; they are not worried about the senior citizens Euwe and Ståhlberg, or the inconsistent Szabó, or the young (and at times careless) Gligoric. Finally, the most widely held opinion, and certainly the most logical, is that winning this tournament should be much more di cult than coming out ahead in a match against Botvinnik. Which, of course, cannot be considered an easy task! Amílcar Celaya

18

The Players Vassily Smyslov Vassily Smyslov was born in 1921 and learned to play chess at age six under the guidance of his father, a strong player, who besides teaching him the principles of practical play, also instilled in him a love for problems and endgame artistry. Ten years later, Vassily was a strong competitor in rst-category tournaments, where several triumphs allowed him to enter the 1938 Moscow Championship. This was his debut in master-level tournament chess, and along with tying for rst prize, he earned the coveted title of master. He was then just 17!

In 1940 he distinguished himself in the Soviet championship, and the next year he ranked second behind Botvinnik in the Leningrad-Moscow championship tournament, [This is incorrect. In the 1941 “Absolute Championship” Smyslov came third, behind Botvinnik and Keres. – TK] gaining the title Grandmaster of the USSR, the youngest ever until the rise of Bronstein. Along with his chess studies, Smyslov is active in sports – swimming and skiing – and he cultivates his beautiful baritone voice. He enjoys singing so much that more than once he has indicated a desire to abandon chess as a profession and dedicate himself entirely to this art. Smyslov’s style is very uid and pleasing; gifted with great combinative ability, he plays with ease even in complicated positions, but he does not neglect to work on problems of strategy, and he has repeatedly demonstrated his ability to conduct a 19

The Players

game of maneuver in quiet positions. A knowledgeable expert on and composer of artistic endgame studies, Smyslov also dominates in this aspect of practical play, and in the eld of openings he has made several contributions to theory, the most important being in the Grünfeld Defense, a variation of which carries his name. From the competitive standpoint, Smyslov sometimes shows the defect of being overly in uenced by a loss, and he has sometimes gotten o to a slow start, losing too many points early on. Perhaps it was because of these aws that, until the current candidates tournament of 1953, he had never won rst prize in an international contest. But whether because he began this tournament well, or he has simply overcome his “complexes,” Smyslov won in indisputable fashion, and now stands at the threshold of the world championship. The principal tournament successes of grandmaster Smyslov are as follows: 1946 Groningen, 3rd place 1948 Hague-Moscow world championship, 2nd 1949 Soviet Championship, =1st -2nd 1950 candidates tournament, 3rd 1951 Soviet Championship semi- nals (Leningrad), 1st 1952 Soviet Championship, 4th 1952 Budapest (Maróczy Memorial), =3th-5th 1953 Zürich Candidates Tournament, 1st

20

David Bronstein David Bronstein was born in 1924, and at age 13 became interested in the game that would make him famous. [Bronstein’s autobiographical book The Sorcerer’s Apprentice says he learned chess at age 6, and showed serious interest before age 12. His rise from 5th category to master occurred over 1936 to 1940. It is unclear what 1939 tournament he is supposed to have won “against the strongest players of the Ukraine”; in that year’s Ukrainian championship Bronstein came =7th-9th, and in the Kiev Championship he was equal 2nd-4th – TK] His rst professor – a demanding man, a severe critic but a great teacher – was the master Kostantinopolsky, at the Palace of Pioneers in Kiev.

By 1938, Bronstein was already Kiev scholastic champion, and a year later won a tournament against the strongest players of the Ukraine. In the record time of just three years he had risen from the fth category to master! His play is characterized by great mastery of attack; he is inventive, ingenious and able to discover hidden tactical resources. Success followed success, and in 1944 he won the right to play in the nals of the Soviet championship. Although his debut was not a total failure – there was some consolation in his defeating Botvinnik – the severity of the test revealed some weaknesses in his play. Bronstein dedicated himself to serious study of the greats Chigorin, Alekhine and Botvinnik, in search of their secrets. His opening repertoire became wider, his strategies deeper and more accurate, and with verve and virtuosity he revived the King’s Gambit.

21

The Players

In 1945 he again entered the Soviet championship, and this time the goal was in sight: he placed third, ahead of such grandmasters as Smyslov, Kotov, Bondarevsky, and Lilienthal. The next year saw his rst success in the Moscow championship, taking rst prize with 11½; points out of 15 games, and in 1948 he played for the rst time in an international tournament, at Saltsjöbaden, where he went undefeated and won the title of international grandmaster. But his greatest triumph is, without doubt, the Budapest 1950 candidates tournament, a triumph not only of his redoubtable chess skill, but also his qualities as a ghter. He won the tie-break match with Boleslavsky – whom he overtook in the last round – and was then set to measure himself against Botvinnik. Though he did not take the highest title, because the match ended tied, he showed once again that there is scarcely any stronger master in the world. His style of play and the originality of his ideas have won the admiration of both the general public and connoisseurs. He seems to possess a mysterious gift for nding a way to win in the most di cult positions, taking command of tense situations by some hidden and unexpected blow. But having reached the top level, the arc of his career turned downward, perhaps as a psychological reaction to his partial failure in the world championship match. And thus his inclination to seek new paths in the opening, and his desire for victory at any price, have worked against him. But this unfortunate period seems already to have passed. Bronstein’s chief successes: 1940 Ukrainian Championship, 2nd 1945 USSR Championship, 3rd 1946 Moscow Championship, 1st 1947 Moscow Championship, =1st-3rd 1948 Saltsjöbaden Interzonal, 1st 1948 USSR Championship, =1st-2nd 1949 USSR Championship, =1st-2nd 1950 Budapest Candidates Tournament, =1st-2nd 1950 Match with Boleslavsky, 7½-6½; 1951 Match with Botvinnik (World Championship), 12-12 1953 Moscow Championship, 1st 1953 Zürich Candidates Tournament, =2nd-4th

22

Paul Keres Paul Keres, today a Soviet citizen, was born in Estonia in 1916. He learned chess from his father, a passionate player, at the early age of six, and when he had mastered chess notation he began to study avidly.

A few years of work on his own brought him good results, and at age 13 he reached rst category strength. Very important in his development was correspondence play, to which he dedicated himself with real enthusiasm, communicating with recognized masters. In 1929 Keres achieved his rst sporting triumph by coming in second in the championship of the city of Pärnu. A few more years of tenacious study and correspondence play, and the young Estonian became the premier player in his country, winning the national championship. His games from this period are typical of a young player: an exaggerated tendency toward attack and sacri cial combinations, but one could also discern his great virtues: the ability to calculate far and with great precision, sound reasoning, and will to win. Illustrative of his temperament was his extreme passion for the King’s Gambit and the Giuoco Piano, and with Black, the Budapest Defense and the Albin Countergambit. His rst travels outside his country resulted in easy successes against inferior competition, and for this reason his style remained one-sided. But in 1935, at the Warsaw Olympiad, he was pitted on rst board against some of the greatest masters in the world, and attained the surprising result of 12½; points out of 19!

23

The Players

In general, a chessplayer learns through his failures. However, Keres at age 20 was already su ciently self-critical to realize, without experiencing signi cant failure, that he needed to revise his concept of play. He began then to concern himself with positional play, and good results were not long in coming. In 1936 he attained a transcendent triumph, tying with Alekhine atop the Bad Nauheim tournament. Over 1936-37 he entered many international tournaments with success, gaining in the latter of these two years no fewer than ve rst prizes. His victory in the great tournament of Semmering-Baden was magni cent: he nished ahead of Capablanca, Reshevsky, Fine and Flohr. His style had become more profound, his opening repertoire richer, and he dedicated himself to analysis of endgames and composition of studies. In 1938, at age 22, he managed the feat of winning, co-equal with Fine, the great AVRO tournament, an invitational limited to the eight greatest masters in the world. Later he played in various great Soviet tournaments, and despite some early setbacks, he continued to work tenaciously and nally attained his goal, winning the Soviet championship in both 1950 and 1951. The most important successes of Keres’ chess career: 1930 Estonian Championship, 1st 1932 Tartu, 1st 1933 Pärnu, 1st 1934 Rakvere, 2nd 1935 Tallinn, =1st-2nd 1935 Tartu, 1st 1935 Tallinn, 2nd 1935 Helsinki, 2nd 1936 Tallinn, 1st 1936 Bad-Nauheim, =1st -2nd 1937 Tallinn, 1st 1937 Margate, =1st -2nd 1937 Ostende, =1st-3rd 1937 Prague, 1st 1937 Vienna, 1st 1937 Pärnu, =2nd -4th 1937 Semmering-Baden, 1st 1937-38 Hastings, 2nd 1938 Noordwijk, =1st -2nd 1938 AVRO (Holland), =1st -2nd 1939 Margate, 1st 1939 Buenos Aires, =1st -2nd 1941 USSR Absolute Championship, 2nd 1945 Estonian Championship, 1st 1946 Georgian SSR Championship, 1st 1947 USSR Championship, 1st

24

1947 Pärnu, 1st 1950 Budapest candidates tournament, 4th 1950 Szczawno-Zdroj, 1st 1950 USSR Championship, 1st 1951 USSR Championship, 1st 1952 Budapest, 1st 1953 Neuhausen-Zürich candidates tournament, =2nd -4th

25

The Players

Sam Reshevsky Samuel Reshevsky (originally Rseszewski) was born in 1911 in Ozorkov, Poland, under the dominion of the Tsar. He learned chess at a very early age, and with his natural talents he soon became the most extraordinary child prodigy in the history of the game. The European public could admire the incredible child-master when at age eight he made a tour of the continent, not only giving simultaneous exhibitions, but also playing single games against famous masters. After that, the Reshevsky family settled in the United States, where they were provided with every comfort and the young Polish boy was properly educated. As a precautionary measure he was kept away from chess for a while, to avoid any disagreeable eventuality due to his tender years.

The adult Reshevsky returned to the battles of the board, playing in the Pasadena 1932 tournament, which was won by the world champion, Dr. Alekhine. After his rst major success – the tournament at Syracuse, New York in 1934 – he traveled to England, where in 1935 he won tournaments at Margate and Yarmouth. In the rst of these, besides winning the event, he had the satisfaction of defeating the great Capablanca. In the United States his careers as a public accountant and chess player developed in parallel, and in the latter eld, with the star of the veteran Marshall dimming, he became involved in an ongoing rivalry with his perennial adversary, Reuben Fine. In 1936, once again champion of the United States, [Actually 1936 was the rst time Reshevsky won the US Championship. – TK] he traveled again to England to play in 26

the famous Nottingham tournament, where he nished tied for 3rd-5th places. He played more and more in Europe, and among other important accomplishments there shines his formidable success – tied with Flohr and Petrovs – in the tournament of Kemeri 1937. Back in America, he once again surpassed Fine in the tournament for the US Championship, then returned to Europe to take part in one of the strongest tournaments of all time, AVRO 1938, where after an unfortunate start he managed to recover in grand style. Before World War II, he played in Russia at the LeningradMoscow tournament, where he placed second to Flohr. During the war his chess play was restricted to the American scene; he won three tournaments and two matches for the title of U.S. Champion, con rming his superiority over all his rivals. Reshevsky’s reappearance in international play came at the world championship tournament of Hague-Moscow 1948, where his result was not all that was expected, perhaps in uenced by factors outside his true chess capability. In recent years, Reshevsky has had outstanding results in whatever tournament he entered, and has won two matches with Najdorf, which in the eyes of the chess public has made him “Champion of the Western World.” Reshevsky’s style is very sharp, and within it are re nements that give it a particular avor: the will to win, self-con dence, and courage in critical positions. At the board his attitude is one of complete concentration, and seldom does he take his eyes from it, but despite this dedicated, all-absorbing attention to his game, he nds himself almost always in nerve-racking time pressure, which he is able to handle with his extraordinary coolness and his acclaimed talent as one of the world’s best lightning chess players. In this candidates tournament Reshevsky was one of the constant contenders in the ght for rst, and his second-place nish – tied with Keres and Bronstein – can be considered one of his most signi cant results. Reshevsky’s principal successes are as follows: 1932 Pasadena, 3rd-5th 1933 Detroit, 2nd 1934 Chicago, =1st-2nd 1934 Syracuse, 1st 1935 Margate, 1st 1935 Yarmouth, 1st 1936 US Championship, 1st 1936 Nottingham, =3rd-5th 1937 Kemeri, =1st-3rd 1937 Semmering-Baden, =3rd-4th 1937 Hastings, 1st 1938 US Championship, 1st 1939 Leningrad-Moscow, 2nd 1939 US Open, 2nd

27

The Players

1940 US Championship, 1st 1941 Hamilton, 2nd 1941 Match with Horowitz, 9½-6½; 1942 US Championship, =1st-2nd 1942 Match with Kashdan, 7½-3½; 1944 US Open, 1st 1945 Hollywood, 1st 1946 US Championship, 1st 1948 Hague-Moscow World Championship, =3rd-4th 1950 Amsterdam, 2nd 1951 New York, 1st 1951 US Championship, 2nd 1952 Havana, =1st-2nd 1952 Match with Najdorf, 11-7 1952 Match with Gligoric, 5½-4½; 1953 Match with Najdorf, 9½-8½; 1953 Candidates Tournament, =2nd-4th

28

Tigran Petrosian Tigran Petrosian, one of the youngest Soviet masters, was born in Erevan (Armenia) to a working-class family in 1930. From the moment Petrosian rst began to learn the rudiments of scienti c play, his natural talents were evident. His progress was exceptionally rapid and despite his youth he began to enter many important competitions.

By 1945, Petrosian was already a complete player, and his good showings in the championships of the city of Tbilisi and the Soviet Republic of Georgia won him the title of candidate master. The next year he won the All-Russian Junior championship with 14 points out of 15, and also the Armenian championship, in which he gained the rst great success of his sporting career. In 1947 he tied for =2nd-4th places in that same event, behind the winner, grandmaster Bondarevsky. In the semi- nal of the 1948 Soviet championship he attained a score su cient to merit the title of master, and his star continued ascendant. In 1951 he attained a great triumph in the semi- nal of the Soviet championship, winning the Sverdlovsk group ahead of various grandmasters, and in the nal he came =2nd-3rd with Geller, behind the winner Keres. But in 1952 Petrosian distinguished himself with extraordinary success in international events: =2nd-3rd in the Saltsjöbaden Interzonal – which gained him the title of international grandmaster – and second prize at the Bucharest tournament. In 1953 he nished second to Bronstein in the Moscow rapid championship, demonstrating his great skill in that aspect of the game, so much so that in Russia he 29

The Players

is considered the best of all, including even Bronstein, compared to whom he presents an entirely contrasting image. In general Petrosian’s style of play is very sage and sound, recalling in some ways the great Capablanca. For the 1953 candidates tournament, where he took a meritorious 5th place, he was considered by some authorities as one of the probable winners, which only goes to show the real worth of the accomplishments to date of this youngest of the world’s grandmasters. Petrosian’s principal successes: 1946 Armenian Championship, 1st 1947 Armenian Championship, =2nd-4th 1951 Semi- nal of the Soviet Championship (Sverdlovsk), 1st 1952 Soviet Championship, =2nd-3rd 1952 Bucharest, 2nd 1953 candidates tournament, 5th

30

E m Geller E m Geller, born in 1925, is one of the Soviet Union’s new chess stars.

Like almost all of today’s young masters, Geller had to suspend his period of chess learning and development to take part in the war, serving in aviation. After distinguishing himself in some minor tournaments, he won the right to enter the USSR’s supreme test, the Soviet championship, which the Russians, perhaps with good reason, consider the strongest competition in the world. His rst important success was in the Soviet championship of 1949, where he already gave evidence of his exceptional talents. Geller began the tournament losing to Keres, but the defeat did not discourage him, rather it inspired him to stronger e orts, looking always for attack, and with the intense ght day after day he climbed up the standings, arriving at the last round a half-point ahead of his principal rivals. He lost the decisive game, risking too much, and he nished =3rd-4th, a half-point behind the joint winners, Bronstein and Smyslov. However, this success, despite being less than total, was outstanding for an almost unknown youth and promised a brilliant future. In fact, by 1952 Geller had arrived as a grandmaster of chess. In his personal ways, Geller is very likeable, natural and cheerful. He currently holds the chair of a Professor of Agriculture at the University of Odessa, where he has been studying. Also, Geller has found a useful hobby in the practice of light athletics. The characteristics of Geller’s play reveal an extraordinary gift for discovering resources in attack, creating beautiful combinations and complicating apparently simple positions. On the other hand, and surely because his play has not yet fully

31

The Players

matured, he is not at the same level when on defense, in a game of maneuvering, and in the techniques of capitalizing quickly on material advantage. Geller’s principal successes are these: 1946 Ukrainian Championship, =4th-6th 1949 Semi- nal of Soviet Championship, 1st 1949 Soviet Championship, =3rd -4th 1950 Ukrainian Championship, 1st 1950 Semi- nal of Soviet Championship, 3rd 1951 Semi- nal of Soviet Championship, 2nd 1951 Soviet Championship, =2nd-3rd 1952 Budapest, 2nd 1952 Saltsjöbaden, 2nd

32

Miguel Najdorf Miguel Najdorf was born in Warsaw in 1910, learning to play chess at age sixteen. He had the good fortune to be a student of the grandmaster Dr. Tartakower, whose priceless lessons greatly contributed to his development.

On several occasions he won the championship of his native city, and in 1935 he was chosen for the Polish team that played in the Tournament of Nations, held in Warsaw. Thereafter, he was the chief representative of Poland in the Olympiads at Munich 1936, Stockholm 1937, and Buenos Aires 1939. Following that visit to our country, Najdorf settled in Argentina, becoming a naturalized citizen in 1944; here he made his home and began a period of intense chess activity, reaching his peak as a player. He dedicated a large part of his e orts to “blindfold” simultaneous exhibitions, setting a new world record in 1943 in the city of Rosario, playing 40 games with a result of 36 wins, two draws and two losses. Two years later, at San Pablo, he surpassed his own record, playing 45 games, with 39 wins, 4 draws and only two losses. [These records later came into question for lack of proper monitoring, and today George Koltanowski’s 34-board simul at Edinburgh in 1937 is considered the legitimate record. Najdorf’s main purpose in playing these simuls was not so much to set an o cial record, as to gain publicity that might reach his family in Nazi-occupied Europe. – TK] Najdorf played rst board for the Argentinean team at the Tournament of Nations at Dubrovnik in 1950, and then at Helsinki in 1952. Among his best successes – apart from the Mar del Plata tournaments – are his rst places at Prague 1946, Venice 1948, Amsterdam 1950, Bled 1951, and Havana 33

The Players

1952, his second places at New York 1948 and 1951, his fourth place at Groningen 1946, and his fth place at the 1950 Budapest candidates tournament. A summary (necessarily incomplete) of his major successes: 1934 Warsaw Championship, 1st 1935 Warsaw Championship, 2nd 1935 Hungarian Championship, =1st-2nd 1935 Match with Dr. Tartakower, 2½-1½; 1937 Jurata, 3rd 1937 Rogaska Slatina (Yugoslavian Championship), 1st 1937 Warsaw, 1st 1938 Margate (Section A), 2nd 1939 Buenos Aires, =1st-2nd 1941 Mar del Plata, 2nd 1941 Buenos Aires, =1st-2nd 1941 Buenos Aires, 1st 1942 Mar del Plata, 1st 1942 Córdoba, 1st 1942 Buenos Aires, 1st 1943 Mar del Plata, 1st 1944 Mar del Plata, 1st 1944 La Plata, 1st 1945 Viña del Mar, 2nd 1945 Mar del Plata, 1st 1946 Mar del Plata, 1st 1946 Groningen, 4th 1946 Prague, 1st 1946 Barcelona, 1st 1946 Rio de Janeiro, 1st 1947 San Pablo, 2nd 1947 Mar del Plata, 1st 1947 Sextangular Buenos Aires-La Plata, 2nd 1948 Mar del Plata, 4th 1948 Buenos Aires-La Plata, 1st 1948 Saltsjöbaden, 6th 1948 Match with Grob, 5-1 1948 Venice, 1st 1948 New York, 2nd 1949 La Plata, 1st 1949 Buenos Aires, 1st 1949 Match with Dr. Fine, 4-4 1949 Match with Dr. Trifunovic, 6-6 1949-50 Match with Julio Bolbochán, 5½-4½; 1950 Bled, 1st

34

1950 Amsterdam, 1st 1950 Argentine Championship, 1st 1951 New York, 2nd 1951 Argentine Championship, 1st 1952 Match with Reshevsky, 7-11 1952 Havana, =1st-2nd 1953 Mar del Plata, 2nd 1953 Match with Reshevsky, 8½-9½; 1953 Candidates Tournament, =6th-7th

35

The Players

Alexander Kotov Alexander Kotov was born in Tula, Russia in 1913, and showed early on his great natural talent for chess. His progress was rapid and constant, and already in 1934 he was a rst-category player. Four years later he attained the title Master of the USSR, and earned the right to enter the national championship.

His rst great result, which won him great renown throughout his country, was the XI Soviet Championship in 1939, in which he arrived at the last round tied for rst place with grandmaster Botvinnik. Though Kotov lost due to the greater experience of his formidable rival and nished second, all considered him one of the true heroes of the tournament and he was awarded the title Grandmaster of the USSR, which until then had been a distinction given only to Botvinnik in 1935 and Leven sh in 1937. Up to that time Kotov had not corrected certain de ciencies in his play and had some contradictory results; in the 1940 Soviet Championship, for example, he nished as close to last as he had been to rst the previous year. Fortunately, the Russian master determined in time what the aws in his play were, where his strategic understanding was not at the level of his tactical skill and recognized mastery for creating and seizing the initiative. During the war years Kotov worked in a Moscow factory in his profession of engineering, and did not have the opportunity to test the value of his chess preparation. But in 1945, during the famous radio match with the USA, he shone, beating Kashdan in both games. And one of those is a model of chess strategy!

36

In the following years Kotov reached his full powers, and entered various important tournaments, not only in his own country but outside it. His most signi cant results were his triumphs in the XVI Soviet championship of 1948 (shared with Bronstein), at the Venice international tournament of 1950, and above all the most spectacular result of his chess career: Saltsjöbaden 1952, where he won, undefeated, and in a manner seldom seen against such great players. Kotov is a simple man, impulsive and jovial, who with his lively personality is always ready to come up with the right adage or witticism in any circumstance. In this tournament Kotov began by playing so badly that few thought he could recover. But he did, plus much more: he rea rmed his reputation as a “beheader of giants,” defeating Reshevsky and divesting Smyslov of his exalted undefeated status. Kotov’s major successes are the following: 1939 Soviet Championship, 2nd 1940 Moscow Championship, 1st 1941 Saltsjöbaden, 4th 1942 Moscow Championship, 3rd 1944 Ivanovo, 1st 1945 Baku, 1st 1945 Soviet Championship, 4th 1945 Tallinn, 2nd 1946 Moscow Championship, 3rd 1947 Pärnu, 2nd 1948 Saltsjöbaden, 4th 1948 Soviet Championship, =1st-2nd 1950 Soviet Championship, 5th 1950 Venice, 1st 1952 Moscow Championship, 2nd 1952 Saltsjöbaden (FIDE Interzonal), 1st

37

The Players

Mark Taimanov Mark Taimanov, whom many know as a great concert pianist, was born in Leningrad in 1926, and before dedicating himself to music or chess he was a precocious movie actor. His inclination toward the scienti c game superseded his cinematic activities, and he became a student of the master Sokolsky at the Palace of Pioneers in Leningrad, where in a few months he advanced to second category level in the national ratings. Under Leven sh and Botvinnik – who in 1939 directed the Palace’s School of Chess – the young Taimanov quickly reached the rst category. In 1940 he had already gained the title of Candidate Master, after winning the Leningrad collegiate championship, a triumph he would repeat the next year. Taimanov’s rst great success took place during the war, at the age of 17, when he tied for rst place in the tournament of Tashkent 1943, with grandmaster Salo Flohr. In 1944 he returned to Leningrad, after the siege, to enter the Faculty of the Piano Conservatory, but without abandoning the game. But becoming a professional pianist requires much hard work, and Taimanov felt himself obliged to renounce active chess play for some years. When he nally reappeared, he won for the rst time the championship of Leningrad and entered, also for the rst time, the nals of the Soviet championship.

This premiere was a complete failure and he nished last, but instead of becoming discouraged Taimanov dedicated himself to study of the aws in his play, seeking the path of perfection. The next year he placed =3rd-4th (tied with Geller), and suddenly he was among the top masters of his country! 38

In 1949 Taimanov left the conservatory and took the post of concert pianist for the Leningrad Philharmonic, thus ful lling one of his ambitions. However, his successes at the board were not few, and in such great tournaments as the 1950 Chigorin Memorial, Szczawno-Zdroj (Poland) 1950, Liverpool 1952 and Saltsjöbaden 1952, he gured always among the top nishers. Taimanov considers Alekhine and Botvinnik his models, and thanks to study of their games, and his friendship with Salo Flohr, his style of play has become stronger and more profound. His positional understanding is logical and sound, he plays with extraordinary quickness, he keeps a cool head and has enviable tenacity. As if this all this was not enough, Taimanov also has very extensive theoretical knowledge, and is considered an authority on the Nimzo-Indian and Sicilian defenses. His major chess successes are the following: 1943 Tashkent, =1st-2nd 1945 USSR Championship semi- nals, =3rd-4th 1947 USSR Championship semi- nals, 2nd 1948 Leningrad Championship, 1st 1949 USSR Championship semi- nals, 1st 1949 Lithuanian Championship, 1st 1949 USSR Championship, =3rd-4th 1950 Leningrad Championship, 1st 1950 Chigorin Memorial, =2nd-3rd 1950 Szczawno-Zdroj, =2nd-4th 1951 Leningrad Championship, 1st 1952 Liverpool, 1st 1952 Saltsjöbaden Interzonal, =2nd-3rd 1952 USSR Championship, =1st-2nd 1953 Match with Botvinnik, 2½-3½;

39

The Players

Yuri Averbakh Yuri Averbakh, one of the strongest Russian players of the new generation, was born in Moscow in 1922. The son of a chess-loving doctor, he became interested in the scienti c game at an early age, alternating the disciplines of elementary school with the challenges of the board.

Averbakh was a student at the Pioneer Chess Club of Moscow, where the good instruction he received enabled him to make rapid progress and reach the rst category at the age of 15, after his triumph in the USSR under-16 student championship in 1938. [The original Spanish text erroneously said 1932. We corrected this, based on Averbakh’s own memoir. This also required changing the time span mentioned in the next sentence from ten to ve years. – TK] Between this important event and his excellent showing in the Moscow tournament of 1943 – which earned him the title of master – was a span of about ve years. During this period he undertook a gradual and methodical study of the game and especially the openings, which his exceptionally logical judgment has always allowed him to navigate comfortably. In the years 1949 and 1950 he scored a double and praiseworthy triumph in the Moscow championship tournament, thus reaching the highest level of Soviet chess. In 1952 he nished =6th-8th in the national championship of the USSR, sharing honors with Bronstein and Taimanov, and once again calling the attention of connoisseurs to his serious and sound style of play. In the 1952 Saltsjöbaden Interzonal, where he quali ed for this candidates tournament, his good showing earned him the title of grandmaster, by which FIDE today distinguishes the 33 most exceptional chess players in the entire world. 40

But Averbakh’s greatest accomplishment is without doubt the 1954 Soviet championship, in which he gained the coveted title of Champion of the USSR, ahead of Kortschnoi and Taimanov. Averbakh – who studied at the Moscow Higher Technical School – actually conducts important scienti c work in his country, which however does not interfere with his dedication to chess study and practical play. This natural predisposition toward research and analysis has led him to produce important studies of the opening and endgame, and in the former respect he is – according to knowledgeable critics – the greatest theoretician of our time. Furthermore, his work has contributed greatly to confounding the blind faith many masters profess in the bishop pair; and in the area of endgames, his contributions have been particularly important in endings of rook vs. knight, and bishops of opposite colors. Averbakh’s major successes are the following: 1946 Vilna, 1st 1947 USSR Championship Semi- nal, 1st 1948 Moscow (Ryumin Memorial), 1st 1949 Moscow Championship, 1st 1950 Moscow Championship, 1st 1950 USSR Championship Semi- nal, 1st 1951 USSR Championship Semi- nal, =3rd-4th 1952 Saltsjöbaden Interzonal, 5th 1954 USSR Championship, 1st

41

The Players

Isaac Boleslavsky Isaac Boleslavsky was born in a small town in the Ukraine in 1919, and learned to play chess in his early years of school, demonstrating at an early age an imagination beyond the norm.

The rst link in the chain of his continuous progress was his triumph in the 1938 championship of the department of Dnepropetrovsk, which gave him the right to enter the very strong Ukrainian championship. And here the unexpected occurred! Though completely unknown, the young chess player won game after game, emerging as champion of the Ukrainian Republic, gaining at the same time the title of master. In the following years, Boleslavsky would repeat this success, which only con rmed the predictions of a brilliant future awaiting him. It was in 1940 that he rst entered the Soviet championship, and despite all the di culties a rst-timer could expect, he achieved an outstanding =5th-6th places – tied with Botvinnik! – which had to be considered a complete success for so young a master. Still greater successes followed: third in the next year’s Soviet championship, and second place in the one after that, demonstrating the solid and progressive growth of his chess strength. This last performance, in which he nished behind only Botvinnik, won him the title of grandmaster and the universal admiration of chess fans. But his greatest sporting success is, without doubt, his =1st-2nd places (shared with Bronstein) in the 1950 candidates tournament, where he played in notable form and did not lose a single game.

42

His creative style encompasses all aspects of the chess struggle, though his principal aim is the initiative. Constantly he tries to uncover the dynamic secrets of the position, and to this end he combines positional maneuvers with tactical threats disturbing to his adversary, trying always to augment the tension. Boleslavsky dedicates much original and patient work to the study of opening theory, and in those lines he prefers – the Ruy Lopez, the Sicilian and the King’s Indian – he is the author of extremely interesting innovations and important systems, such as the one bearing his name in the Sicilian Defense. Boleslavsky’s principle successes are as follows: 1938 Ukrainian Championship, 1st 1939 Ukrainian Championship, 1st 1940 Ukrainian Championship, 1st 1940 USSR Championship, =5th-6th 1941 Leningrad-Moscow, 4th 1942 Moscow Championship, 2nd 1942 Kuybyshev, 2nd 1944 USSR Championship, 3rd 1945 USSR Championship, 2nd 1947 USSR Championship, 2nd 1947 Warsaw, 2nd 1948 Kharkov, 1st 1948 Saltsjöbaden Interzonal, 3rd 1949 Odessa, 1st 1950 Gorky (Chigorin Memorial), 2nd 1950 candidates tournament, =1st-2nd 1950 Match with Bronstein: 6½-7½; 1952 USSR Championship, =4th-5th 1953 Bucharest, 4th

43

The Players

Laszló Szabó Laszló Szabó was born in Budapest in 1917 and began to play chess when quite young, guided from the start by his great imagination and fantasy. His successes in Hungarian tournaments elevated him to national prominence and in 1934, at the age of 17, he acquired the title of master. Just a year later he won his rst international tournament, demonstrating that he was already a chess player of the rst order. After playing in the chess Olympiads of Warsaw 1935, Munich 1936 and Stockholm 1937 as a representative of his country, his prestige was increased by an invitation to Hastings 1938-39, where with great success he nished rst. Szabó worked in Budapest as a bank employee, and occasionally was able to travel abroad to enter strong competitions. In 1939, for example, he played in the Kemeri tournament, with a very good result. [=2nd-3rd with Ståhlberg, one-half point behind Flohr, out of 16 contestants – TK]

In the last war Szabó was taken prisoner and was interned in a concentration camp for more than two years, which made him fear for his health and his chess talent. However, soon after the ghting ended he was freed and then once again dedicated himself to chess. His rst tries showed rather uneven results, but later his play settled down and showed again its old brilliance. Undoubtedly one of his best post-war results was at the 1948 Saltsjöbaden Interzonal, where he stood on the verge of winning, but su ered a setback in the nal round and ended up second. Szabó dedicates himself also to chess journalism, contributing to various magazines. As a player he is a great expert on the openings, although generally he adds to them a light, personal touch that gives them his own special character. 44

His style of play is intense and sharp; he loves the ght and in all his games he plays to win, which tendency often lands him in big troubles. His most evident shortcomings are his nervousness and the depression he su ers after losses; but no less certain is the lasting impression his best games make, as much for their impetuosity as their beauty. The list of Szabó’s greatest successes is as follows: 1935 Tatatovaros, 1st 1937 Hungarian Championship, 1st 1938 Yugoslavian Championship, 2nd 1938 Hastings, 1st 1939 Kemeri-Riga, =2nd-3rd 1945 Kecskemet, 2nd 1946 Zaandam, 2nd 1946 Groningen, 4th 1946 Hungarian Championship, 1st 1947 Vienna (Schlechter Memorial), 1st 1947 Hilversum, 5th 1947 Hastings, 1st 1948 Saltsjöbaden, 2nd 1949 Trencianske Teplitz, 2nd 1949 Venice, 1st 1949 Hastings, 1st 1950 Hungarian Championship, 1st 1952 Budapest (Maróczy Memorial), 6th 1952 Saltsjöbaden, =5th-8th 1953 Hungarian Championship, 1st 1953 Bucharest, 4th

45

The Players

Svetozar Gligoric Svetozar Gligoric was born in Belgrade in 1923, and learned to play chess at age 10 along with his classmates in elementary school. At age 16 he gained his rst success, winning a Zagreb amateur tournament, and from then on he won regularly until reaching the master category.

The full development of his talents was interrupted by the war, when despite his youth, he enlisted in the 5th Montenegrin Brigade of the new Yugoslavian Liberation Army, where he performed so meritoriously as to receive promotion to an o cer’s rank. Once demobilized, he returned to active chess competition, appearing in his country’s rst national championship. There he began to display his vigorous “guerilla style” and nished second, behind grandmaster Dr. Milan Vidmar. This was in 1945. The next year Gligoric participated in the Ljubljana tournament, and though this was his rst important contact with international masters, he won the contest undefeated. And in his next tournament, Prague 1946, he con rmed his stature in the nal standings among some of the greatest European players. But it was his brilliant and unexpected victory in the 1947 Warsaw Pan-Slavic Tournament – ahead of Smyslov and Boleslavsky – that truly put his name in lights. Since then, Gligoric has participated in various important tournaments, always with outstanding success: winning at Mar del Plata 1950 and 1953, the Staunton Centenary of 1951, and at Hastings 1951-52. And by virtue of his good performance at Saltsjöbaden 1952, he was awarded the title of grandmaster.

46

Gligoric lives in Belgrade, where he works as a journalist and chess editor of the daily Borla, while still maintaining an active chess-playing schedule. His great power of concentration and his extremely dynamic style full of imagination and optimism make him a dangerous adversary in the struggles on the board. Gligoric devotes great attention to the study of openings and has published various works, all of which demonstrates that he has transformed himself and advanced beyond his early “guerrilla style.” His principal chess successes are: 1945 Yugoslavian Championship, 2nd 1946 Ljubljana, 1st 1946 Prague, 1st 1947 Warsaw, 1st 1947 Yugoslavian Championship, 1st 1948 Budapest, 2nd 1948 Yugoslavian Championship, 1st 1948 Venice, 4th 1949 Yugoslavian Championship, 1st 1949 Match with Ståhlberg, 6½-5½; 1950 Mar del Plata, 1st 1950 Amsterdam, 4th 1951 Yugoslavian Championship, 1st 1951 Bad Pyrmont, 1st 1951 Staunton Centenary, 1st 1951 Hastings, 1st 1952 Havana, 3rd 1952 Hollywood, 1st 1952 Match with Reshevsky, 4½-5½; 1952 Saltsjöbaden, =5th-8th 1952 Yugoslavian Championship, 3rd 1953 Mar del Plata, 1st 1953 Montevideo, 1st 1953 Rio de Janeiro, 1st

47

The Players

Max Euwe Doctor Machgielis “Max” Euwe was born in 1901 near Amsterdam, and was taught to play chess at the age of ve by his mother. The young Dutchman’s progress – slow but steady – was based above all on active over-the-board practice in tournaments of the Amsterdam Chess Club, where he reached the rst category in 1919. In that same year he scored two important results: in the Dutch National Championship and in the rst-category event of the Hastings Victory Tournament, where he nished in fourth place. It is at that point that his name starts to be mentioned among the best European players, and even though from then on his talent was well recognized, his second place at Vienna 1921 still came as a pleasant surprise. But his time had to be shared with other disciplines no less demanding: his mathematical and philosophical studies, which culminated in a doctorate in 1924. For some time this represented one of his disadvantages, perhaps his greatest: his status as a true chess “amateur,” and occasionally, his lack of practice and preparation.

Objectively, Dr. Euwe’s greatest accomplishments began with the hard-fought match he conducted with Dr. Alekhine in 1926, in which the score was even up to the last game, which went against him. In 1931 something very similar occurred: after winning brilliantly at Hastings, ahead of Capablanca, a match was arranged between them, which again he lost only narrowly after a tenacious struggle. But if his great results in 1932 at Berne, Zürich, Hastings and several minor tournaments increased his fame, it was his victory in the world championship

48

match against Dr. Alekhine in 1935 that caused wonder and admiration throughout the chess world. Keeping his promise, Dr. Euwe agreed to a return match two years later, losing decisively, a circumstance that depressed his mood and caused him to doubt the soundness of his play and lose his self-con dence. This psychological process culminated in the calamities of the Second World War, during which he passed many bitter moments and lived in isolation from high-level chess. And when the title left vacant by the death of Dr. Alekhine was contested for in 1948, the ex-champion was in no condition to retake it. However, by dedicating all his powers and e orts toward chess – including becoming a professional player – he seemed to recover in several later tournaments, but the exhausting e orts of these severe struggles clearly a ected his quality of play, and he himself did not hesitate to admit that his age was the cause of certain failures. Clearly, in this candidates tournament – where Dr. Euwe has played some games with the verve and brilliance of his early years – one must recognize the fact that in the rst cycle he scored 7½; points and stood among the leaders, while in the second half he totaled only 4 points, and that only from eight draws! Dr. Euwe, who enjoys everyone’s esteem for his chivalrous nature and true love of the game that has given him universal fame, is, besides a grandmaster, one of the most eminent theoreticians of our time. Much of his e ort is devoted to the publication of chess works, and it can be said with almost complete con dence that he possesses the most complete library on openings and tournaments of anyone in the world. Dr. Euwe’s principal results and successes are the following: 1919 Dutch Championship, 2nd 1920 Bromley, 1st 1920 Göteborg (B), =2nd-3rd 1921 Scheveningen, 1st 1921 Vienna, 2nd 1921 Dutch Championship, 1st 1921 Match with Maróczy, 6-6 1923 Mährisch-Ostrau, 5th 1923 Scheveningen, 1st 1923 Hastings, 1st 1924 Weston, 1st 1924 Dutch Championship, 1st 1924 Match with Colle, 5-3 1926 Weston, 1st 1926 Dutch Championship, 1st 1926 Match with Alekhine, 4½-5½; 1928 Kissingen, 3rd 1928 Match with Bogoljubow, 4½-5½; 1928 Match with Colle, 5½-1½;

49

The Players

1929 Carlsbad, 5th 1930 Hastings, 1st 1931 Match with Capablanca, 4-6 1931 Hastings, 3rd 1932 Bern, 2nd 1932 Match with Flohr, 4-4 1932 Match with Spielmann, 3-1 1933 Dutch Championship, 1st 1934 Zürich, 2nd 1934 Hastings, 1st 1935 Match with Alekhine (World Championship), 15½-14½; 1936 Zandvoort, 2nd 1936 Nottingham, 3rd 1937 Bad Nauheim, 1st 1937 Match with Alekhine (World Championship), 13½-17½; 1938 Noordwijk, 4th 1938 Dutch Championship, 1st 1938 AVRO (Holland), 4th 1938 Hastings, 2nd 1939 Bournemouth, 1st 1940 Match with Keres, 6½-7½; 1942 Match with Bogoljubow, 6½-3½; 1945 Hastings, 3rd 1946 Zaandam, 1st 1948 Groningen, 2nd 1947 Mar del Plata, 5th 1948 Venice, 4th 1948 New York, 3rd 1949 Match with Pirc, 5-5 1949 Hastings, 3rd 1950 Beverwijk, 2nd 1950 Lucerne, 1st 1951 New York, 2nd 1951 Gijón, 1st 1952 Dutch Championship, 1st 1952 Zürich, 2nd

50

Gideon Ståhlberg Swedish grandmaster Gideon Ståhlberg was born near Göteborg in 1908, and learned to play chess in his home. At the age of twelve he had already acquired some technical knowledge, and ve years later began actively playing in local tournaments, from which he emerged in 1925 ready to play in his rst master competition.

Around this time the young Ståhlberg graduated from high school, enrolling then at the University of Stockholm to pursue studies in literature and history, subjects in which he has always demonstrated great interest and expertise. Already by 1927 the chess press began to remark on his good results, as when he co-won (with Stoltz) his country’s championship, going undefeated. Later, after his

51

The Players

triumph in the Great Pan-Scandinavian Tournament, Ståhlberg emerged as the strongest of all Swedish players. But it was his notable victory in a match with Nimzovitch that really launched his fame, and various successes in European master tournaments showed that he was on a par with the best players in the world. Ståhlberg – who for the last twenty years has been rst board on the Swedish chess team – arrived in Buenos Aires in 1939 as the captain of his country’s representatives in the Tournament of Nations, and here he stayed for many years, contributing his talents to the progress of chess in Argentina. His most notable triumphs have been the tournaments of Mar del Plata 1941, Buenos Aires 1941, and above all, the Sextangular Buenos Aires-La Plata 1947. Ståhlberg’s journalistic work is also very important, and besides his collaboration on specialty magazines, one should note his interesting work about the great chess masters [i.e. Chess and Chess Masters (1937) – TK], Classic Games of Capablanca (with Allas Monasterio), and his treatise The Queen’s Gambit, an opening on which he is the highest authority, as well as various important tournament books. Though perhaps he did not show it fully under the strain of such a prolonged campaign as this tournament was, Ståhlberg’s imagination and virtuosity have always distinguished him as a master of the rst order, and many of his games are models of pure logic combined with his distinctive brilliant resourcefulness. Ståhlberg’s principal successes are: 1927 Swedish Championship, 1st-2nd 1929 Pan-Scandinavian Tournament, 1st 1933 Match with Spielmann, 5-3 1934 Match with Nimzovitch, 5-3 1934 Bad Niendorf, 1st 1935 Helsingfors, 1st 1936 Margate, 3rd 1936 Dresden, 3rd 1936 Podebrady, 4th 1937 Polonian Championship, 2nd 1938 Lodz, 3rd 1939 Stockholm, 3rd 1939 Bad Harzburg, 2nd 1939 Buenos Aires, 3rd 1941 Mar del Plata, 1st 1941 Buenos Aires, 1st 1942 Mar del Plata, 2nd 1942 Buenos Aires, 1st 1942 Buenos Aires, 2nd 1943 Mar del Plata, 2nd 1944 La Plata, 2nd 1945 Mar del Plata, 2nd

52

1945 Buenos Aires, 2nd 1946 Mar del Plata, 2nd 1947 Viña del Mar, 1st 1947 Mar del Plata, 2nd 1947 Sextangular Buenos Aires-La Plata, 1st 1948 Mar del Plata, 2nd 1948 Buenos Aires-La Plata, 2nd 1949 Trencianske Teplitz, 1st 1950 Amsterdam, 3rd 1951 Staunton Centenary, 2nd 1952 Budapest, 3rd

53

Crosstables

Candidates Tournament Zürich 1953

54

55

Round 1

Round 1

Standings after round 1: Bronstein, Euwe, Geller, 1; Averbakh, Boleslavsky Keres, Najdorf, Petrosian, Reshevsky, Smyslov, Ståhlberg, ½;; Kotov, Szabó, Taimanov, 0; Gligoric. [NB: One player had a bye each round. So, in most instances (the only exceptions being the 15th and 30th rounds) at least one player’s total is based on fewer games played than other players.] At ve o’clock in the afternoon the clocks were set in motion and there, on the seven boards, the battles began. Perhaps “battles” is not quite the right term because, as often happens, the players’ nervousness and prudent, tentative style in this rst round resulted in four drawn games out of seven. The sensation of the day was the defeat of Kotov at the hands of Dr. Euwe. The Dutch professor, su ering from a bothersome sinus infection, looked like he might not play in this round; nevertheless he did, and in such a manner! Where did Dr. Euwe nd this youthful verve that won everyone’s admiration? Kotov played what looked like a prepared variation in the King’s Indian, but the refutation by the exworld champion demonstrated – most of all by the quickness and sureness of his replies – that not only Russians know this defense! Black sacri ced the exchange, obtaining the better game, but when he failed to nd the right continuation, Dr. Euwe recovered the initiative to the end. This defeat so impressed Kotov that he could not speak for some time afterwards, nor utter any of those amusing epigrams so pleasing to the Soviet master. Another much anticipated game was Najdorf-Reshevsky, in which these two great rivals of the western world met again after their last match in Buenos Aires. They resumed anew the same theme: the Nimzo-Indian, but this time with variations, and a dramatic ending. Reshevsky, in his habitual time trouble, found salvation in a masterful counter-blow on the queenside; and even though all were surprised when Najdorf’s draw o er was accepted, later analysis demonstrated the logic of this result. A game full of ups and downs was Taimanov-Bronstein. The latter raised eyebrows with an early pawn sacri ce. But the very nervous Taimanov lost the

56

thread and later had to return the material with interest, succumbing in the endgame. Ståhlberg and Boleslavsky played a classical and correct King’s Indian. Toward the end of the game the Swedish grandmaster made a pretty pawn sacri ce, but then immediately erred in accepting the draw. Analysis showed that while Black could have arrived at this result, it was only through a subtle, single line of defense! The contest between Szabó and Geller was a Catalan Opening in which Black committed several errors which were not capitalized upon. The game continued with a draw seeming likely, but Szabó, victimized by his own inconsistent optimism, refused the draw and committed a serious misconception, which proved decisive. The Ruy Lopez in Averbakh-Smyslov led to no major complications, while in Petrosian-Keres, aside from a pawn sacri ce used by White to restore equilibrium, there was nothing noteworthy either. (1) Taimanov – Bronstein Benoni Defense [A58] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 A fashionable move. A cross between the Benoni and the King’s Indian, in which Black attacks the center by c7-c5 rather than e7-e5, the di erence being that here c5 is occupied, whereas in the King’s Indian he may post a piece there to attack the opponent’s center. With the text move Black ventures a bit out of the ordinary, but great chess masters, Bronstein in particular, are always looking for new paths. Of all the fteen contestants Bronstein is the most adventurous, always trying to surprise his rivals with new ideas. And here we see that the new ideas are almost always good ones, because even if they are not correct, they have the virtue of surprising the opponent, leaving him unable to refute them with the limited time at his disposal. 3.d5 g6 Now the black bishop will have an active diagonal. 4.Nc3 d6 5.e4 b5!? An already known move which Bronstein himself had to “withstand” at Saltsjöbaden 1948 against Lundin, who made of it a strong weapon and even managed to beat Szabó. With the pawn sacri ce Black obtains a clear initiative with two open les on the queen’s ank, and at the same time he obliges White to turn his attention away from direct kingside attack. Despite all this, the sacri ce is very dubious, as an extra pawn in the hands of a grandmaster is worth something, even if he has to su er a bit of an attack and endure a strong initiative. 6.c×b5 Bg7 7.Nf3 0-0 8.Be2 a6 9.b×a6 B×a6 10.0-0 Qc7 Avoiding the central rupture 11.e5. 11.Re1 Nbd7 12.B×a6 R×a6 13.Qe2 Rfa8 Black has managed to develop all his pieces at the cost of a pawn, an advantage White cannot yet use because of the aggressiveness of Black’s position. 14.h3 If 14.e5 d×e5 15.N×e5 N×d5 16.N×g6 Re6, winning. 57

Round 1

14...Nb6 15.Bg5 Better was 15.a3, forgetting the idea of keeping this pawn in its current indefensible position. For example, 15...Nfd7 (if 15...Na4 16.N×a4 R×a4 17.Qc2) 16.Qc2 with the queen ideally posted and retaining the pawn. 15...Ne8 16.Bd2 Taimanov has lost an important tempo, in the process obliging Black to make a good move which opens a line of action for the black bishop. 16...Na4 Now Bronstein’s attack on the other ank is stronger in all variations. One can see that the proper place for the queen, as noted above, was c2, defending the ank where White stands worse. 17.N×a4 R×a4 18.Bc3 B×c3 Bronstein could now recover his pawn, but he is clearly playing to win, and will recover it only at the opportune moment, after further weakening the white pawns. 19.b×c3 Qa5 20.Qe3 Qa6 A move of dubious value. The black queen tries to penetrate the enemy camp via c4, but ... (D)

21.Qd2? Badly played. Undoubtedly, Taimanov has completely lost the thread of the struggle and is playing apathetically. White’s position is too solid to lose in this fashion; rather, being a pawn ahead he should try to break through in the center with 21.e5 R×a2 22.Rad1Qc4 23.e×d6 e×d6 24.Ng5, with various threats. Not possible was 21.Qh6 R×a2 22.R×a2 Q×a2 23.Ng5 Nf6 24.Re3 Qb1+ 25.Kh2 Ra1 26.Rf3?? Ng4+ winning the queen. 21...R×a2 22.R×a2 Q×a2 23.e5 Too late! The exchange of queens is welcomed by Black for the safety of his king; furthermore, the white pawns are weaker and easier to attack than Black’s. 23...Q×d2 24.N×d2 d×e5 25.R×e5 Kf8 26.Nb3? (D)

58

And Taimanov, badly pressed for time, continues to err. Now comes a fast-paced ping-pong series of moves, in which neither player can see very far into the subtleties of the position. 26...c4 27.Nc5 Ra1+ 28.Kh2 Nf6! 29.Ne4 Nd7 30.Rg5 Ra2 31.Rg4 f5 32.Rf4 Nb6 33.Ng5 N×d5 34.Rd4 (D)

And so Black, at rst a pawn down, has come out a pawn ahead. The time pressure is severe, ags are about to fall! 34...Nb6 35.Rd8+ Kg7 36.f4 h6 37.Ne6+ Kf7 38.Nd4 Na4 39.Rc8 N×c3 40.R×c4 Nd5 41.Nf3 R×g2+ 42.Kh1 Rf2 0-1 (2) Najdorf – Reshevsky Nimzo-Indian Defense [E59] Coincidence? An irony of destiny? I do not know. What is certain is that in all the competitions involving Reshevsky and myself, the drawing of lots has the same surprise for me: to have him as my rst-round opponent. And now, who will be my adversary of the day? My subconscious tells me that again on this occasion I shall confront Reshevsky in the rst round. Just as it happened at Dubrovnik 1950, Amsterdam 1950, at Helsinki 1952, so it would be 59

Round 1

today at this candidates tournament, Zürich 1953. And I was not mistaken! [Najdorf’s memory is mistaken. In his ve previous tournaments with Reshevsky, they had met in the rst round only once, at Amsterdam 1950. In the 1950 Dubrovnik Olympiad they met in the 3rd round, and at Helsinki 1952 they were in di erent prelim groups and did not meet until round 10. The others were round 11 at New York 1951 and round 9 at Havana 1952. – TK.] This game was also signi cant in that it was in e ect a continuation of our recent 18-game match [won by Reshevsky +6 -5 =7 – TK]: this was game 19. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 5.Bd3 0-0 6.Nf3 d5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.a3 B×c3 I had imagined that Reshevsky, three months after our last match, would have devised some improvement in the Nimzo-Indian, since in our two previous encounters with it, Black had been unable to equalize, always standing worse. Black has several times tried here 8...d×c4 9.B×c4 c×d4 10.e×d4 Be7. White has an isolated pawn, but in compensation controls more space, while it is hard for Black to develop his queen’s bishop. On other occasions, at San Salvador 1952 and Buenos Aires 1953, Reshevsky played 8...d×c4 9.B×c4 Ba5, and in our last match I determined that the best move here was not 10. Qd3, but rather 10.Bd3!. 11.a4 (D)

At the moment it is very di cult to say what the best move is. Usually in this opening White gets the bishop pair and a solid center. Now a very intense struggle begins. On one hand White will try, without losing a pawn, to open the position for his bishops, while on the other Black ghts for a semi-closed game better suited to his knights. The white bishops are not yet active. I played the text move because in the Buenos Aires match it always gave White the better position. Nevertheless, various other masters – among them Averbakh, whom Reshevsky would play later – believed that the best move here was 11.Re1, with the direct threat of e3-e4. Geller was partial to 11.Qc2, and Bronstein to 11.Bd3. I suppose it is very di cult to establish which of us is right; we have played many games, and that is the beauty of chess! Perhaps no one has yet found the solution to this problem! It is a question of style and fad. 60

11...b6 12.Ba3 Bb7 Finally Reshevsky shows his cards! As I said before, I knew my opponent would try to improve this variation. In earlier games, Reshevsky continued 12...e5 13.Qc2 Bb7 14.Be2! (not 14.Qf5 as in the fourth game of the match because of 14...e4 15.Nd2 Rad8 16.Qg5 Na5 17.Ba2 Rfe8 with the better position for Black) 14...e4 15.Nd2 Na5 16.d×c5 b×c5 17.c4 Rfe8 18.Rfd1 Rad8 19.Nf1 h5 20.Ng3! h4 21.Nf5 with the better position; 16th match game. In the fth game I had continued with 13...Bg4 instead of 13...Bb7 and Reshevsky answered 14.Ng5 Na5 15.Ba2 Bh5 16.f4, reaching the better game. 13.Be2 Chess recommends 13.Qc2 but I do not agree. The text move forces a clari cation in view of the threat of 14.d×c5, which before was impossible because of 13...Na5. 13...Rfd8 14.Qc2 Na5 15.d×c5 b×c5 16.c4 White is nally able to open the position for his bishops. 16...Be4 17.Qc3 Rab8 18.Rfd1 Better probably was 18.Nd2 Ba8 19.f3. 18...R×d1+ 19.R×d1 Bc6! 20.Qc2 Not 20.B×c5 because of 20...Ne4 21.Qd4 Nb3 22.Bd6 N×d4 23.B×c7 N×e2+ 24.Kf1 N2c3 winning, and if 21.Qa3 Rb3 22.Bd6 Qb7 23.Qa1 Nc3. 20...h6 21.h3 Nb3 22.Bb2 Nd7 23.Qc3 f6 24.Nh2 Nb6!! ½-½; (D)

Agreed drawn. Reshevsky, as often happens, is in time pressure, having to make here 16 moves in only four minutes! Nevertheless, the American master nds the exact move to save the game by speeding up the queenside action. But, what exactly is happening at this moment? I see that my attack will yield nothing more than a draw, even though the commentator of the magazine Chess, in an article of October 1953, is surprised that Reshevsky would accept my o er in a position winning for him. In my judgment that is hardly certain; on the contrary it is Reshevsky who must play with complete exactness to reach a draw. Commentaries immediately after the game inclined to the view that I had made a serious error in proposing a draw!

61

Round 1

I was thinking of playing 25.Ng4 with the following possible continuations: 25...N×a4 (not 25...e5 because of 26.Qc2 N×a4 27.Qg6) 26.N×f6+ g×f6 (not 26...Kf7 due to 27.Bh5+ g6 28.B×g6+ K×g6 29.Qc2+ winning) 27.Q×f6 N×b2 28.Bg4! when 28...N×d1 is best, as other continuations give White winning chances: (a) 28...Qg7 29.B×e6+ Kh7 30.Bf5+ Kh8 31.Rd8+ R×d8 32.Q×d8+ Qg8 33.Qf6+ Qg7 34.Q×c6 with the better game despite the piece minus; (b) 28...Re8 29.B×e6+ R×e6 30.Q×e6+ Qf7 (not 30...Kg7 31.Rd6) 31.Rd8+ Kg7 32.Q×c6, winning. After 28...N×d1 White forces the draw by 29.B×e6+ with perpetual check. (3) Petrosian – Keres English Opening [E01] 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 Lately 3.g3 is played for rapid development, and then d2-d4 only after castling. 3...c×d4 4.N×d4 e6! (D)

Keres varies from the well-trodden paths. Theory advises 4...d5 (not 4...Nc6 because of 5.Nc3 d5 6.c×d5 N×d5 7.N×c6 b×c6 8.Bd2 with better play) 5.c×d5 N×d5 6.e4 Nb4 7.Qa4+ N8c6 8.N×c6 N×c6 9.Be3 Bd7 10.Nc3 e6 11.Be2 Be7 12.0-0 0-0 13.Rad1 with the better game. Kmoch recommends for Black’s 6th move 6...Nf6 7.Nc3 e5 8.Ndb5 a6 9.Q×d8+ K×d8 10.Na3 b5 11.Nc2 Bb7 12.f3 Nbd7 with equality. However, Pachman has improved on this with 7.f3 e5 8.Nb5 a6 9.Q×d8+ K×d8 10.N5c3 with advantage for White. 5.g3 d5 6.Bg2 e5! Keres is one of the greatest experts on the English Opening, and he is demonstrating it here. 7.Nc2 If 7.Nf3 d4 as in the game, and if then 8.N×e5?? Qa5+. 7...d4 8.0-0 Nc6 9.Nd2 Bg4 Black has no di culties and threatens 10...d3. 10.Nf3 a5! He must prevent the counterstroke b2-b4. 62

11.Bg5 Bc5 12.e4 Petrosian recognizes that Keres has gained a slight advantage out of the opening, and for that reason tries to block the position. 12...h6 13.B×f6 Q×f6 14.Nce1 Qe6 It was probably better to castle. Petrosian now sacri ces a pawn and gets some counterplay. 15.Nd3 Be7 16.h3! B×f3 Not 16...Bh5 because of 17.N×d4. 17.Q×f3 Q×c4 18.Rfc1 Qe6 19.Qf5! (D)

A good move. White, considering the opposite-color bishops and his well-posted knight at d3, can aspire to a draw. 19...Bd6 20.Q×e6+ f×e6 21.a3 Kd7 22.Bf1 a4 23.Ne1 Ra5 24.Rc2 Rc8 25.Rac1 Na7 26.R×c8 N×c8 27.Bc4 Be7 28.Nd3 Nd6 29.f3 N×c4 30.R×c4 Bd6 31.Kf2 Ra6 32.Ke2 g5 33.Kd1 Ra8 34.Ke2 h5 35.Rc1 Rh8 Keres seeks fruitlessly to open a le. 36.Rh1 h4 37.g4 b5 38.Rc1 Rb8 39.Kd1 Rb6 40.Rc2 Rb8 41.Rc1 Rc8 ½-½; Analysis could demonstrate no way to force the play. (4) Averbakh – Smyslov Ruy Lopez [C97] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Qc7 12.Nbd2 (D)

63

Round 1

A typical move in this position, which prepares the transfer of the knight via f1 to e3 or g3, dominating the central points d5 and/or f5. 12...Bd7 Reviving an old reply. Currently 12...c×d4 is usually played followed by Na5-c6, or else the latter directly. Keres, an expert in this opening, would later play 12...Rd8. All these lines are correct, and though they play with di erent ideas, both sides aim at rapid development of their pieces and a quiet equality. 13.Nf1 Rfe8 Smyslov’s idea becomes clear. Black before has played 13...Nc4, to impede 14.Ne3 and provoke the knight’s eviction by b2-b3. Instead this new plan (Be7-f8-g7) not only prevents Nf5, but also gives the black king a perfect “bodyguard.” 14.Ne3 Bf8 15.Bd2 g6 16.Rc1 Nc6 17.d×c5 With 17.d5 White would have closed the position and deprived himself of any entryway. Furthermore, the terrible “Ruy Lopez bishop” must have its diagonal open. 17...d×c5 18.Nh2 Rad8 19.Qf3 Bg7 20.Red1 Smyslov was threatening 20...B×h3. 20...Be6 21.Bb1 Qe7 22.Nhg4 N×g4 23.N×g4 Na5 24.b3 Nc6 By this knight maneuver, Black can, after b5-b4, penetrate to d4. 25.Be3 R×d1+ 26.Q×d1 (D)

64

di

Precisely played; if 26.R×d1 b4. 26...Rd8 27.Qf3 Rd7 28.Rd1 b4 29.R×d7 B×d7 30.Nh6+ B×h6 Necessary. If 30...Kf8 31.B×c5. 31.B×h6 b×c3 32.Q×c3 Nd4 ½-½; The knight on d4 counter-balances the bishop pair. After 33.Bd3 Bb5 34.Be3 it is cult for either side to achieve anything worthwhile. (5) Szabó – Geller Catalan Opening [E03] 1.c4 Nf6 2.g3 e6 3.Bg2 d5 4.d4 d×c4 5.Qa4+ Nbd7 6.Nf3 a6 7.Q×c4 b5 8.Qc6 (D)

According to Fine (MCO) this move is an error. Black continues 8...Ra7 9.Bf4 Bb7 10.Qc1 c5 11.d×c5 B×c5 12.0-0 0-0 13.Nbd2 Qe7 14.Nb3 Bb6 15.Be3 Rc8 with the better position (Capablanca-Reshevsky, Nottingham 1936). Against Fine in the same tournament, Reshevsky preferred 8.Qd3 Bb7 9.Nc3 c5 10.0-0 c4 11.Qc2 b4 12.Nd1 Rc8 13.Bg5 Qa5 14.B×f6 N×f6 15.Ne3, White again standing worse, which demonstrates that in this variation Black equalizes easily. Correct is 8.Qc2.

65

Round 1

Play in the rst round gets underway. 8...Rb8 A strange move by Geller who, knowing the Capablanca-Reshevsky game, should have played 8...Ra7! and 9...Bb7 defending the c-pawn indirectly. 9.Bf4 Nd5 10.Bg5 Be7 11.B×e7 Szabó wisely trades bishops. To equalize, Black will have to play c7-c5 at the right moment, and by eliminating the bishop on e7, White weakens his support for that square. As a general rule it is inexpedient to trade a bishop that has moved twice for one that has moved only once, but in this case, as we have seen, it is justi ed. We would like the enthusiast to learn to think logically; it is not variations but concepts and ideas he should try to acquire in studying chess. The idea of this particular note will be useful to him not just in this opening, but in all similar positions. 11...Q×e7 12.0-0 Bb7 13.Qc2 c5 14.d×c5 N×c5 15.Rc1 Rc8 16.Nc3 Nf6? A fortunate error, in that White does not perceive it as such. Simple was 16...Ng4 17.Qd2 0-0. (D)

17.b4? He should have played 17.N×b5!! a×b5 18.b4 and now: (a) 18...Na4 19.Q×c8+ B×c8 20.R×c8+ Kd7 21.R×h8 Q×b4 22.Ne5+ etc.; (b) 18...Nfd7 19.b×c5 R×c5 (if 19...N×c5 20.Qb2) 20.Qd3; (c) 18...Be4 19.Qc3 0-0 20.b×c5 Nd7 21.Qb4 B×f3 22.e×f3! R×c5 23.R×c5 Q×c5 24.Q×c5 N×c5 25.Rb1 Rb8 26.a3! followed by 27.Bf1. 17...Na4 18.Qb3 N×c3 19.R×c3 R×c3 20.Q×c3 0-0 21.Rc1 Rd8 Not 21...Rc8 because of 22.Q×c8+ B×c8 23.R×c8+ Ne8 24.Ne5 and there is no way to avoid 26.Bc6; nor 21...Nd5 because of 22.Qc5. 22.a3 Nd5 23.Qd4 f6 24.Ne1 e5 25.Qc5 Q×c5 26.b×c5? Succumbing to the tempting prospect of a passed pawn, which however Black will blockade. Better was 26.R×c5. 26...Bc6 27.Rd1 Rd7 28.Bh3 Re7 29.Nc2 a5 30.Bg2 Rd7 31.Bh3 Re7 32.Kf1? (D) Here Szabó commits an enormous error, since his position is in no way superior and he should accept the draw by repetition. The fact that Geller is very short of time 66

tempts White yet again, but the Russian master plays both quickly and precisely, winning rst the c-pawn, then the game.

32...Kf7 33.Ke1 Rc7 34.Rd3 Bb7 35.Ne3 R×c5 36.Nf5 Bc6 37.Nd6+ Kf8 38.Bg2 g6 39.Kd2 Ke7 40.Ne4 Rc4 41.f3 f5 Geller exploits his pawn advantage in magni cent style. 42.Nf2 Ra4 43.Nd1 e4 44.f×e4 f×e4 45.Rb3 Rd4+ 46.Kc1 b4 47.Ne3 Black was threatening 47...Ba4. 47...Nc3 48.a×b4 N×e2+ 49.Kb1 Ba4 50.Rb2 Nc3+ 51.Kc1 a×b4 52.Rd2 R×d2 53.K×d2 Kd6 54.Ng4 Kc5 55.h4 Kd4 56.h5 g×h5 57.Ne3 Nb1+ 58.Ke2 Bb5+ 59.Kf2 b3 0-1 (6) Euwe – Kotov Benoni Defense [A64] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 The masters of the Soviet School often play this line. In the same round, Bronstein against Taimanov played 3...g6. 4.Nc3 e×d5 5.c×d5 d6 6.Nf3 g6 This position in the Benoni di ers from the usual in that the c5-square is occupied for Black, whereas the corresponding c4-square is open for White. When White can post a knight on c4, attacking d6, at that moment he will have the advantage. In compensation, Black has a queenside pawn majority and the better king bishop. 7.g3 Bg7 8.Bg2 0-0 9.0-0 a6 10.a4 Nbd7 11.Nd2! Seeking the stronghold. 11...Re8 12.a5 If instead 12.Nc4, then 12...Nb6. 12...b5 13.a×b6 N×b6 14.Nb3! (D)

67

Round 1

Euwe played this opening rapidly and admirably, with great positional understanding. Seeing the knight’s ideal c4-square covered, he aims for a5, threatening to penetrate at c4 and c6, which forces Black to defend exactly. 14...Qc7 15.Na5 Bd7 16.h3 An important move preventing Nf6-g4. 16...Bb5 17.Be3 Better seems 17.Re1. With the text move White will always have to look out for a sacri ce of the exchange. After 17.Re1 we have, for example, 17...Nfd7 (if 17...Nc4 18.N×c4 B×c4 19.Qa4 Bb5 20.N×b5 a×b5 21.Q×a8 R×a8 22.R×a8+ Bf8 23.Bh6 Nd7 24.Rea1+-) 18.Qb3!, with the following possible continuations: (a) 19...Nf6 19.Bf4; (b) 18...c4 19.N×b5 a×b5 20.Q×b5 c3! 21.Ra3 c×b2 22.B×b2 B×b2 23.Q×b2 R×a5 24.R×a5 Nc4 25.Rc1!. 17...Nfd7 18.Qb3 Nf6 19.Rfc1 It would not be good for White to give up his central pawn in exchange for Black’s b-pawn: 19.N×b5 a×b5 20.Q×b5 Nb×d5. 19...Bd7 20.Qd1? Since Euwe has already unnecessarily played 17.Be3, he should now have played 17.Bf4, maintaining the pressure. 20...R×e3!

68

The sacri ce appears justi ed because the white pawn structure is vulnerable to attack. In this position the loss of the exchange is of no importance from the standpoint of material, and on the other hand, it is the only way for Black to penetrate with his pieces. 21.f×e3 Bh6 22.Qd3 Re8 23.Kh2 If 23.Nd1 Bb5 24.Qd2 Ne4 25.Qe1 Qe7. 23...R×e3 24.Q×a6 (D)

24...Re5? An error. The correct move, which gave winning chances, was 24...Nh5!, with the following possibilities: (a) 25.Nc6 B×c6 26.d×c6 d5; (b) 25.Bf3 N×g3!! 26.K×g3 Qd8 27.Rh1 (if 27.Ne4 R×e4) 27...Bf4+! 28.Kg2 (28.K×f4 Qh4+ 29.K×e3 Qd4#) 28...Qg5+ 29.Kf1 Qg3 30.Nd1 R×f3+ 31.e×f3 Q×f3+ 32.Nf2 Bg3-+. 25.Rf1 Bc8 26.Qb5 Bd7 For the “tiger” of Saltsjöbaden 1952, it’s just not his day. Having erred earlier he now cannot nd any forcing moves to compensate for giving up the exchange. 27.Nc6 Kg7 28.Ra6 Euwe now gives Black not a moment’s peace, capitalizing precisely on his material advantage. 28...Nc8 29.Qb8 Q×b8 30.N×b8 Bf5 31.Rc6 Re8 32.e4! Bd7 33.e5! R×e5 34.N×d7 N×d7 35.R×c8 Re3 Being down a rook, Kotov would normally resign, but in this case his opponent was extremely short of time, and so he still nursed some slight hope. 36.Rc6 Ne5 37.R×d6 Rd3 38.Rd1 Re3 39.Rc6 1-0 Black resigns. A very interesting game of great theoretical importance. (7) Ståhlberg – Boleslavsky King’s Indian Defense [E69] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.Nc3 d6 6.Nf3 Nbd7 In several later games Black tried 6...c5 or 6...Nc6. 7.0-0 e5 8.e4 Re8 9.h3 e×d4 10.N×d4 Nc5 11.Re1 a5 12.Qc2! (D)

69

Round 1

Ståhlberg intends to play Bc1-e3, which requires adding another defender to the e-pawn. On the other hand, were Black to take said pawn now by 12...Nf×e4, there would follow 13.N×e4 B×d4 14.Bg5 Qd7 15.Nf6+ B×f6 16.B×f6 with much the better position for White. 12...a4 13.Be3 c6 14.Rad1(D)

A typical King’s Indian position. Who stands better? The theoreticians have not spoken the last word, but seemingly White, with his completed development and central dominance, is on top. Yet actual practice demonstrates the opposite! Various grandmasters prefer Black here and have made this line a fearsome weapon. What factors here favor Black? His queen bishop and queen rook are not in play, and his d-pawn is weak, but in compensation, and thanks to the a-pawn’s advance, White’s e- and c-pawns will be objects of attack. Meanwhile the strong knight on c5 dominates the center. Now ensues a struggle of strategic maneuvers intended to create exploitable weaknesses. 14...Nfd7 At this point Najdorf, in the 14th game of his rst match against Reshevsky, played 14...Qa5, which was followed by 15.Bf4!. (The threat was 14.N×c6! b×c6 14.B×c5.) 15.f4 Qa5 16.Bf2 Nb6 17.Bf1 Bd7 70

Black completes his development. Undoubtedly, it is di cult for either side to nd any breakthrough on these well-defended anks. 18.a3!? A move perhaps disagreeable (because it weakens the b3-square), but necessary. Ståhlberg feared 18...h6 19.b3 Na6 followed by ...Nb4. 18...Rad8 19.Kh2 Bc8 20.Na2 Nbd7 21.Bg2 Nf6 22.Nc3 Rd7 23.Nf3 Rde7 24.Ng1 Nfd7 25.Bd4 Nb6 26.B×g7 K×g7 27.R×d6 N×c4 28.Rdd1 Be6 29.Qf2 f6 He had to prevent the advance f4-f5-f6+. 30.Nf3 Bf7 31.e5! (D)

A justi ed pawn sacri ce, in exchange for stronger posting of his pieces, and consistent with the weakening of the dark-square diagonal by the earlier elimination of Black’s king’s bishop. 31...f×e5 32.N×e5 N×e5 33.R×e5 R×e5 34.f×e5 R×e5 35.Rf1 Rf5? Better 35...Qc7. 36.Qd4+ Solving one of White’s problems, the queen occupies the long diagonal. 36...Kg8 37.R×f5 g×f5 38.Qe5 Qb6 If 38...Bg6 39.Ne2 Qb6 40.Nf4. 39.Q×f5 Bg6 40.Qe5 Nd3 41.Qe6+ Kg7? 42.Qe7+ Bf7 43.Ne4 Q×b2 44.Nd6 Qf2 45.Ne8+ Kg8 46.Nf6+ Kg7 47.Nh5+ Kg6 48.g4 Nc5 ½-½; (D) It was a mistake for grandmaster Ståhlberg to accept the draw in this promising situation. Although objectively he could not win, it would have cost nothing to continue the game, since Black must reply with perfect precision to draw the ending.

71

Round 1

The move was 49.h4 (threatening 50.Qg5#) 49...Ne6! (not 49...h6 because of 50.Q×c5!! Q×c5 51.Be4+) 50.Ng3 h6! (not 50...Qf4 due to 51.Kh3 Qe3 52.Be4+ Kg7 53.g5 Qc3 54.Kg4 winning), and only if and when Black plays the one saving move 50...h6!, then accept the draw. For example, 51.h5+ Kh7 52.Nf5 Qf4+ 53.Kg1 Qc1+=, or 51.Nf5 Qf4+ 52.Kh3 h5 53.g×h5+ K×f5 54.Q×f7+ Ke5=.

72

Round 2

Standings after round 2: Euwe 2; Averbakh, Bronstein and Ståhlberg 1½; Geller, Najdorf, Petrosian, Reshevsky and Smyslov 1; Boleslavsky, Gligoric, Keres, Szabó and Taimanov ½;; Kotov 0. Those hoping for a confrontation of East vs. West had their opportunity in this second round. On six boards Russian masters played against western masters, an ad hoc team match arranged by the luck of the draw. The result was a resounding success for the western players, who did not lose a single game, while the Soviets would have to wait until round 17 for a chance at revenge. Once again it was Dr. Euwe who won the applause of the public and the gentlemanly Soviet masters by playing a spectacular game against Geller. In a Sämisch variation of the Nimzo-Indian, Black responded with an idea of O’Kelly’s, winning a queenside pawn which Geller had intentionally let go to launch an attack. However, the o ensive did not succeed, and with a few brilliant blows Dr. Euwe placed Geller in a tragic position where mate was inevitable. Kotov played with the evident intention of vanquishing Ståhlberg. After castling in an Orthodox Queen’s Gambit, instead of a minority attack on the queenside, White made the mistake of playing 12.g4?, creating more weaknesses than prospects. Ståhlberg thwarted the attack, and in an endgame played in the purest style, gaining a splendid victory. More unfortunate still was Keres’ game with Averbakh. In a completely equal position Keres committed an inexplicable error, losing a pawn and eventually the game. The Bronstein-Najdorf game was hard fought as expected. Najdorf stood worse in the opening (King’s Indian!), and later his di culties increased. However, he maintained his composure, and found salvation with a pretty tactical resource his opponent had not expected. Very interesting from the theoretical standpoint was the Nimzo-Indian seen in Reshevsky-Petrosian. White obtained an advantage and had the better chances when the young Petrosian made a striking exchange sacri ce to equalize the game with other compensations as well. Later Reshevsky returned the exchange, and though pressed for time, managed to seal the correct move to secure the draw. 73

Round 2

Smyslov and Szabó played a Zukertort-Réti Opening of no particular note until reaching the endgame, where Szabó, true to his temperament, sought unnecessary complications, though this time he was able to salvage a draw after some tight maneuvering. And nally, against a Nimzo-Indian Defense, Gligoric insisted on seeking new paths versus Taimanov. Black did not continue with his idea of kingside attack, and after successive exchanges the tension in the position eased, arriving at a draw in a colorful endgame. (8) Kotov – Ståhlberg Queen’s Gambit Declined [D35] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.c×d5 Played these days as preparation for a minority attack on the queenside. 5...e×d5 6.Bf4 Kotov has a marked predilection for this move, rather than the customary 6.Bg5. The idea is for White to retain the bishop. 6...c6 7.Qc2 g6 8.e3 Bf5 9.Bd3 B×d3 10.Q×d3 Nbd7 11.h3 Avoiding the exchange of his formidable bishop. 11...Nf8 12.g4? An error. This is a double-edged moved that gives a dramatic aspect to the game. Ståhlberg has resolved his opening problems very well and White, itching for a ght, risks weakening his pawns for the sake of an eventual attack, refraining from haste on the queenside. 12...Ne6 13.Bg3 Qa5 14.Nd2 0-0 Bb4 Black gets there rst! 16.Kb1 B×c3 17.Q×c3 Q×c3 18.b×c3 Ne4! (D)

After this Black will have no di culties. The e4-pawn will be an annoying wedge in White’s position. 19.N×e4 d×e4 20.Kc2 Rad8 21.a4 f5 22.g×f5 R×f5 Ståhlberg activates another piece. 23.c4 Rd7 24.Kc3 Ng7 25.Rd2 Kf7 26.Bb8 b6 27.Ra2 Ra5 74

Blockading, Black values the knight over the bishop. 28.Be5 Nf5 29.Rg1 h5 White was threatening 30.Rg4. 30.Bf4 Nh4 31.Rg5 It is very di cult to nd a good move. Black was threatening 31...Nf3 and 32...g5. 31...R×g5 32.B×g5 Nf3 33.h4 Not 33.Bf4 because of 33...g5 34.Bb8 Ke6. 33...N×g5 34.h×g5 Ke6 35.a5 h4 Despite material equality, White is lost. The pawn on e4 is worth those on e3 and f2 both together, and the passed h-pawn is extremely dangerous. (D)

If 36.a×b6 a×b6 37.Ra1 h3 38.Rh1 Rh7 39.Rh2 Kf5 40.Kb4 (if 40.d5 c×d5 41.c×d5 Ke5 42.Kc4 Rh8) 40...K×g5 41.c5 b5 (and not 41...b×c5+ 42.K×c5 Kg4 43.K×c6 Kf3 44.d5 g5 45.d6 g4 46.d7 Rh8 47.Kc7 Ke2 48.f4+ Kf1 49.d8Q R×d8 50.K×d8 Kg1 51.Ra2 h2 52.f5 g3 53.f6 h1Q 54.Ra1+ Kh2 55.R×h1+ K×h1 56.f7, draw). After 41...b5 there are two main lines: (a) 42.d5 c×d5 43.K×b5 Kf5 44.c6 Ke5 45.Kb6 Kd6-+; (b) 42.Ka5 Kg4 43.Kb6 b4 44.K×c6 (if 44.d5 c×d5 45.c6 b3 46.c7 R×c7 47.K×c7 b2 48.f3+ e×f3 49.R×b2 Kg3-+) 44...b3 45.d5 b2 46.Rh1 Kf3 47.d6 Kg2 48.Rb1 h2-+. 36...b×a5 37.Kd2 h3 38.Ke2 h2 39.f3 Rh7 40.Rh1 e×f3+ 41.K×f3 a4 0-1 (9) Geller – Euwe Nimzo-Indian Defense [E28] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 c5 5.a3 The Sämisch Attack, which was very much en vogue at Budapest 1950. White gets the bishop pair and a strong center, though his queenside pawns are doubled and weak. Black, with the maneuver Nb8-c6-a5, b7-b6, and Bc8-a6, will menace this weakness. 5...B×c3+ 6.b×c3 b6

75

Round 2

Recommended by the Belgian champion O’Kelly de Galway. After 7.Bd3 Bb7 White is obliged to play 8.f3 losing a tempo, since his plan should be Bd3, Ne2, e3-e4 and f2-f4. However, the Soviet school does not agree; the plan they advocate is based on Nc6, b7-b6 and Ba6, not Bb7. Another opening mystery to solve! 7.Bd3 Bb7 8.f3 Nc6 9.Ne2 0-0 10.0-0 Na5 11.e4 Ne8! Avoiding the pin 12.Bg5. 12.Ng3 It is obvious that Geller is not concerned about the defense of his c-pawn, and prefers to attack on the kingside. A race on opposite anks now begins. 12...c×d4 13.c×d4 Rc8 14.f4 N×c4 15.f5 f6! Avoiding 16.f6 N×f6 17.Bg5. 16.Rf4 b5!! (D) Well played by Dr. Euwe! As in the days when he was world champion, he judges the position coolly and sees very far. Super cially it appears that the threat of Rf4-h4 and Qd1-h5 will win for Geller.

17.Rh4 Qb6 18.e5 N×e5 19.f×e6 N×d3 20.Q×d3 If 20.e×d7 Qc6. 20...Q×e6 21.Q×h7+ Kf7 22.Bh6 If 22.Bd2 Qd5 and Black is better. 22...Rh8! 23.Q×h8 Rc2 (D)

76

24.Rc1? The threat was 24...R×g2 25.Kf1 Qc4+. Geller had thought for an hour, and before making the text move had arrived at the conclusion that he was completely lost, an opinion shared by the other players and the general public. This game was the one most watched on the demonstration boards, through which the spectators lived the emotions of an extraordinary struggle. Dr. Euwe, 52-years old, with his sympathetic and chivalrous bearing, was the “man of the moment,” after vanquishing the formidable Kotov in the rst round and seemingly having gured out how to play against the Russians. However, grandmaster Bondarevsky, Geller’s second, found in home analysis that it was possible to salvage this agonizing position with 24.d5!! B×d5 25.Rd1 R×g2+ 26.Kf1 Ra2 27Bd2. Euwe, for his part, in an article in Chess disagreed with this analysis, saying that instead of 26...Ra2 he would have played 26...g×h6 27.R×d5 Q×d5 28.Re4 Ng7 winning. The truth is that both appear to be mistaken! After 24.d5 B×d5 25.Rd1 R×g2+ 26.Kf1 g×h6 (if 26...Qb6 27.Rdd4! [not 27.Rhd4 R×h2] 27...b4 28.Rhe4!) 27.Q×h6 Ng7 28.Rd2 the position is very complex, so much so that it is di cult to say which side stands better. White is up the exchange, but at the cost of two pawns and a strong bishop on d5. The reader will forgive me if here (and in several other cases) I do not give a nal opinion on certain positions. And we must confess, in all honesty, that a chess master is, before anything else, a human being, who cannot arrive at infallible conclusions, even after days of analysis such as this di cult game demands. Chess is not a mathematical science that permits exact equations; it is rst of all a game, a very di cult game, in which precision and beauty pursue each other eternally. And often without either catching the other! 24...R×g2+ 25.Kf1 Qb3 26.Ke1 Qf3 0-1 (10) Smyslov – Szabó Réti Opening [A11] 1.c4 Nf6 2.g3 c6 3.Nf3 d5 4.b3 g6 5.Bb2 Bg7 6.Bg2 Qb6 7.Qc1 Black was threatening 7...Ne4 and 7...d×c4. 77

Round 2

7...0-0 8.0-0 Nbd7 9.c×d5 c×d5 10.Bd4 Qd6 11.Qa3 A typical move by Smyslov, whose clean and logical style resembles the technique of the great Capablanca. 11...Ne4 12.B×g7 K×g7 13.Q×d6 N×d6 14.Rc1 Although White has been able to dominate the open le, the black position is completely solid, and it is very hard to win against a position without weak points. 14...e6 15.Nc3 b6 16.d4 Ba6 17.Ne5 Smyslov aims to do something ... 17...N×e5 18.d×e5 Nb5 19.N×b5 B×b5 20.Rc2 Rfc8 21.Rac1 R×c2 22.R×c2 Ba6 23.f4 Rc8 24.R×c8 B×c8 25.Kf2 Smyslov has a slight advantage in the endgame because of his chain of pawns and centralized king. But it is not enough. 25...Ba6 26.Ke3 h6 (D)

The game is drawn with 26...h5 and centralization of the king on e7. No possibility for a dangerous breakthrough exists. 27.Bf3 f5 Unnecessary. As mentioned above, he needed to play h6-h5 and Ke7, keeping quiet. 28.e×f6+ K×f6 29.Kd4 g5 30.f×g5+ h×g5 31.e4 d×e4 32.K×e4 Bb5 33.h4 g×h4 34.g×h4 (D)

78

A simple technical endgame has turned into something else very interesting, in which White, with his more remote passed pawn and centralized king, seems to have certain chances. Szabó recovers in time, after having risked the fate of his game for no good reason. 34...a5 35.Kd4 a4 36.b4 a3 37.Be4 Be8 38.Bb1 Bf7 39.Kc3 e5 40.b5 Bd5 41.Kb4 e4 42.K×a3 e3 43.Bd3 Bf3 44.Kb4 e2 45.B×e2 B×e2 46.a4 ½-½; (11) Keres – Averbakh Nimzo-Indian Defense [E58] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 c5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.a3 B×c3 9.b×c3 b6 10.Ne5 Here Keres varies from the normal lines. Usual is 10.c×d5, against the threat of 10...Ba6. Later Taimanov, in his game with Petrosian, after 10.c×d5 e×d5 likewise played 11.Ne5. 10...Bb7 Best. Inferior would have been 10...N×e5 11.d×e5 d×c4 12.B×c4 Q×d1 13.R×d1 Ng4 14.f4 Bb7 15.h3 Nh6 16.Bd3 Rfd8 17.Bb2 Nf5 18.Kf2 with the better game. 11.f4 Na5 12.c×d5 Q×d5 13.Qe2 c×d4 14.e×d4 Nb3 Destroying the bishop pair. 15.Rb1 N×c1 16.Rb×c1 Rac8 17.Qb2 Qd6 Reluctantly, Averbakh removes his queen from the best square on the board, in anticipation of a c4-c5 thrust. However, worth considering was 17...g6 18.c4 Qd8. White has a space advantage, but also the weakness of “hanging pawns,” in a way that makes it hard to decide who stands better. 18.f5 e×f5 19.B×f5 Rc7 20.c4 Rd8 (D)

79

Round 2

21.Rf4?? An unbelievable error from a master like Keres. 21.Rfd1 would have maintained at least equality. 21...g5 Not only winning a pawn essential to White’s position, but also forcing the exchange of queens and creating a new weakness (the c4-pawn). The rest is a matter of routine technique which Averbakh executes precisely. 22.Rf2 Q×d4 23.Q×d4 R×d4 24.Rcf1 Rd6 25.h4 g×h4 26.Rf4 Rc5 27.Ng4 N×g4 28.R×g4+ Kf8 29.B×h7 Ba6 30.R 4 Rh6 31.Bd3 h3 32.g×h3 R×h3 33.Rd4 Bc8 34.Rd8+ Ke7 35.Rgd4 Be6 36.Kg2 Rg5+ 37.Kf2 Ra5 Not only does Black have a pawn more, but also a completely winning position by virtue of his more aggressive pieces. 38.Rb8 R×a3 39.Be2 Rh2+ 40.Ke1 Ra1+ 41.Rd1 R×e2+ 0-1 (12) Reshevsky – Petrosian Nimzo-Indian Defense [E58] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 c5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.a3 B×c3 9.b×c3 b6 10.c×d5 Keres in this same round played 10.Ne5 against Averbakh, who replied 10...Bb7. 10...e×d5 11.Bb2 As played by Najdorf in his last match with Reshevsky, and probably best. Taimanov, in his recent match with Botvinnik for the USSR championship, played here 11.a4, as did Szabó vs. Najdorf in this tournament. Finally, Taimanov tried 11.Ne5 with success against Petrosian. Anyway, the text move is interesting, as White will already have his c3-pawn defended after Nf6-e4. 11...c4 12.Bc2 Bg4 Here Reshevsky, in his second match with Najdorf, played 12...Ne7 13.Nd2! (better than 13.Ne5) 13...Bf5 14.f3 Re8 15.Re1 and White was better, but the correct move is 12...Ne4 13.Nd2 Bf5 14.f3 N×d2 15.Q×d2 B×c2 16.Q×c2 f5 17.a4 with even play. 13.Qe1! Ne4 14.Nd2 N×d2 Better still was 14...Bf5 blocking the center. 80

15.Q×d2 Bh5 16.f3 Bg6 17.e4 White’s advantage starts to become clear: his two bishops and their central dominance. 17...Qd7 18.Rae1 d×e4 19.f×e4 Rfe8 20.Qf4 b5 21.Bd1! Re7 22.Bg4 Qe8 23.e5 a5 24.Re3 Rd8 25.Rfe1 (D) 25...Re6!! With good reason Petrosian sacri ces the exchange to prevent 25.h4 h6 26.h5 Bh7 27.e6 f×e6 28.B×e6+ Kh8 29.d5 with the better game.

26.a4 Ne7 27.B×e6 f×e6 All the light squares are controlled by the second player, and the strong posting of the Nd5 compensates for the sacri ce of the exchange, which has also eliminated the strong white bishop. 28.Qf1 Nd5 29.Rf3 Bd3 (D)

30.R×d3 A forced return of material, since if 30.Qf2, there would follow 30...b4 with the superior game. 30...c×d3 31.Q×d3 b4 32.c×b4 a×b4 33.a5 Ra8 34.Ra1 Qc6 81

Round 2

And despite being a pawn down, Petrosian with his strong knight is better. 35.Bc1 Qc7 36.a6 Qb6 37.Bd2 b3 38.Qc4 h6 39.h3 b2 40.Rb1 Kh8 If 40...R×a6 41.Qc8+± 42.Qc2+. 41.Be1 ½-½; Reshevsky here sealed the best move (not 41.Bc3 Q×a6 42.Q×a6 R×a6 43.B×b2 Rb6-+), and the game was drawn by agreement. (13) Bronstein – Najdorf King’s Indian Defense [E70] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Bg5 Here Bronstein surprised me a little. He customarily plays 5.f3, or else 5.Nf3. Clearly the aggressive bishop move cannot be punished with 5...h6 because of the resulting weakening of the kingside. 5...c5 Premature. It was better to continue with the classical line 5...0-0, reserving the option of attacking the center with either e7-e5 or c7-c5 and wait for White to show his intentions. 6.d5 Na6 Better was 6...e6. If 7.d×e6 B×e6 8.Nb5 0-0 9.Q/N×d6 Nc6 with initiative for the sacri ced pawn. 7.Bd3 Nc7 With this maneuver I was seeking an opportunity for a queenside break with b7b5. 8.Nge2 a6 9.a4 Rb8 10.0-0 0-0 11.Qc2 Bd7 12.h3 If here 12.a5 then, as in the game, 12...b5 13.a×b6 R×b6 with pressure. 12...b5 Realizing the idea behind move 7. 13.f4 (D)

Beginning the perennial theme of this opening: kingside attack versus queenside attack. Every time White can enforce the advance e4-e5 he gets a space advantage and the better prospects. Therefore I played ... 82

13...Nfe8 14.a×b5 a×b5 15.Ra7 b×c4 16.B×c4 Ra8! (D)

17.R×a8 Bronstein does not play the seemingly attractive 17.Rfa1 because of the pretty variation 17...R×a7 18.R×a7 Qb8 19.R×c7 Q×c7! 20.B×e7 Ba4-+. 17...N×a8 18.Qb3 Preventing the knight’s reentry 18...Nb6 by the threat of 19.B×e7. Therefore ... 18...f6 19.Bh4 Qb6 I o er the exchange to divest Bronstein of his aggressive weapons, since he has an advantage in space and position. 20.Qa3 Nec7 21.b3 Nb5? Correct was 21...Re8 because it would have prevented the break e4-e5, which could then have been answered by ...f×e5. 22.N×b5 B×b5 23.f5! Bh6 This is necessary to prevent 24.Qc1 and the consequences of transferring the queen to the kingside. 24.f×g6 h×g6 25.e5! (D)

My rival plays all-out, and even though pressed for time he nds a magni cent attacking continuation that breaks open the black pawn blockade and at the same 83

Round 2

time opens the e4-square for the knight. 25...B×c4 26.b×c4 d×e5 27.Qd3 Kh7 It was very hard for me to establish whether this or 27...Kg7 was the better move. My decision was based on the desire to prevent (after Nc3-Ne4-Bf2-N×c5) the arrival of the knight at e6 with check. 28.Nc3 Qb3! The best reply; even with an extra pawn, my position is critical. Had I played 28...Nc7 Bronstein would have threatened 29.Rb1 Qa6 30.Ne4 with a winning position. 29.Rb1 e4 30.R×b3 e×d3 31.Rb7! Kg8 Once again, the only move. 32.Kf2 Obviously, it was not pro table to take the e-pawn, liberating the knight. 32...Bf4! 33.Kf3 If 33.Bg3 B×g3+ 34.K×g3 Rc8! 35.R×e7 Nb6 36.Re4 f5 37.Rf4 d2 38.Kf2, with advantage to Black. 33...Rb8 34.R×b8+ Taking the e-pawn could lead to a draw in the following manner: 34.R×e7 g5 35.Bf2 Rb3 36.Ne4 d2+ 37.Ke2 Rd3 38.Kd1 Nb6 39.N×f6+ Kf8 40.B×c5 Na4 41.Nh7+ Kg8 42.Nf6+ etc. Now the tension in the position relaxes considerably. 34...B×b8 35.Na4 Bd6 36.Bf2 Kf7 37.Ke3 Nc7 38.K×d3 Na6 39.Ke4 f5+ 40.Kf3 e6 41.Nb6 ½-½; After 41...e5 there is no way to force the play. (14) Gligoric – Taimanov Nimzo-Indian Defense [E13] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 b6 A good move, despite the fact that many masters prefer 4...c5 with the following main continuations: (a) 5.g3 Ne4 6.Bd2 N×d2 7.Q×d2 Qa5 8.Bg2 0-0 9.0-0 c×d4 10.N×d4 Nc6=, Rubinstein-Maróczy, London 1922; (b) 5.Qb3! (Ståhlberg) 5...Nc6 6.e3=. 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 Evidently, Gligoric is looking for a ght. In the match Euwe-Alekhine 1937 the continuation was 6.B×f6 B×c3+ 7.b×c3 Q×f6 8.e4 Bb7 9.Bd3 d6 10.0-0 e5 11.c5! 0-0 12.Rb1 Rd8 13.Qc2 Nd7 with equality. 6...g5 7.Bg3 Ne4 8.Qc2 Bb7 9.e3 d6 12.0-0N Nd7 13.Nd2 (D) 13...Ndf6 Since Black has decided to open up the kingside for counter-attack, he must continue with that idea. Preferable, though risky, was 13...N×d2 14.Q×d2 h5 15.h3 (if 15.f3 h4 16.Be1 h3) 15...h4 16.Bh2 Qf6 with aggressive play, since it is hard to break open the black center and give scope to the white bishops. For example, (a) 17.Rab1 e5; (b) 17.c5 b×c5 18.Bb5 c6 19.Ba4 e5 20.Rab1 Nb6 21.d5 Rc8 (if 21.d×e5 d×e5 22.c4 0-0). 84

14.N×e4 B×e4 15.B×e4 N×e4 16.f3 N×g3 17.h×g3 Qd7 18.a4 a5 19.c5! After trading o all the minor pieces it becomes clear that the black king is poorly guarded, and so, logically, Gligoric seeks to open the position. 19...b×c5 20.d×c5 0-0 21.Rfd1 Qc6 22.c×d6 c×d6 23.g4 Better 23.Rd4. 23...Rac8 24.g×f5 R×f5 25.e4 Rf7 Not 25...Rc5 because of 26.e5. 26.Rd3 g4 27.f×g4 Q×e4 28.Qd2 Q×g4 29.Re1 Rg7 30.R×d6 R×c3 31.Rd×e6 Rg3 32.R1e2 R×g2+ ½-½;

85

Round 3

Round 3

Standings after round 3: Averbakh, Bronstein, Euwe, Smyslov and Ståhlberg 2; Boleslavsky, Geller, Keres, Najdorf, Petrosian and Reshevsky 1½; Gligoric 1; Szabó and Taimanov ½;; Kotov 0. For the third time in as many rounds, the public surrounded the demonstration board showing Dr. Euwe’s game. Unexpectedly the main attraction of the tournament, the former world champion contested a complicated game with Smyslov, a Grünfeld Defense in which he essayed a prepared variation with success. White sacri ced the exchange and was in position for his third triumph against a Russian, however this time Dr. Euwe’s star did not shine, and at move 27 he committed an error leaving him in an inferior position with no attack. From that point on, Smyslov, with his re ned technique reminiscent of Capablanca, slowly but surely pressed home his advantage. The other major event of the round was the third consecutive defeat for Kotov, a player of extraordinary talent whose nerves often betray him. Certainly it should be noted that Boleslavsky conducted the game with exemplary precision, and gave a beautiful lesson in concept and technique. A very similar case is that of Szabó, who as early as the fth move committed an unbelievable error, losing a pawn against Keres, after which he could do no more than try desperately to delay defeat, which came anyway. Averbakh-Reshevsky was an interesting game in which White, in a classic position of the Nimzo-Indian Defense, played the novelty 11.Re1. Reshevsky did not nd the correct plan until, at the moment of adjournment, he hit on ... the o er of a draw! Which his rival accepted, to the amazement of the players and spectators. A poor game was Ståhlberg-Geller. White tried to play against the King’s Indian without dominating the center and, logically, Black equalized without di culty and later obtained the better game. Geller, a bit apathetically, failed to capitalize on several opportunities, and nally on a winning position, after which all ended in a draw. Petrosian and Bronstein played a short but interesting Catalan, noteworthy for the novelty 7...Bd7! introduced by Bronstein.

86

Finally, Najdorf and Gligoric played a monotonous game without major ambitions for either side, and ending peacefully drawn. With three rounds gone by, certain habits of the grandmasters can be observed. None of them consume alcoholic beverages, and only two of the fteen smoke: Reshevsky and Geller. The Russian master seems to have discovered the satisfactions of European cigarettes, preferring them to those of Russian provenance, which he will have time to smoke upon his return. In reality the biggest problem for the players is eating after the third or fourth hour of play. Almost all of them lunch frugally so as to be in good ghting form; some such as Dr. Euwe and Kotov consume great quantities of ham, while others savor with pleasure the exquisite Swiss chocolate. Usually, only seven players are seated at their boards. Those who have made their move get up and walk the room, or step out onto the balconies, trying to lessen the nervous tension that at times is evident in their gestures and expressions. (15) Najdorf – Gligoric Grünfeld Defense [E60] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 c6 4.Nc3 d5 5.c×d5 Bad would be 5.Nf3 d×c4 6.Bg2 Bg7 7.Ne5 Ng4! keeping the pawn. 5...c×d5 6.Nh3 Seeking to avoid symmetry, I made this move, which has been tried several times lately. In the games Ståhlberg-Kramer, Amsterdam 1950, and Botvinnik-Bronstein, wch 1951, Black in both cases played 7...B×h3 (after 7.Bg2), freely granting White the two bishops, which made themselves felt in the endgame. If instead 6.Nf3 Bg7 7.Bg2 0-0 8.0-0 Nc6 (or still better 8...Ne4), ReshevskyNajdorf, San Salvador 1952, with equality. 6...Bg7 7.Nf4 0-0 8.Bg2 e6 9.0-0 Nc6 10.e3 b6 11.b3 Ba6 12.Re1 Rc8 13.Bb2 Re8 14.Rc1 Bb7 15.Nd3 (D)

Suddenly I could not nd the right way to continue the game. I do not like the text move; on a more propitious day and in a better ghting mood I would have

87

Round 3

played 15.g4 instigating a kingside attack. If then 15...h6 16.h4. Here Black, with a solid position and seeing no danger, just waits. 15...Ba6 16.Ba3 Bf8 17.B×f8 R×f8 18.Nf4 Ne7 19.h4 h5 20.Qd2 Qd6 ½-½;

Najdorf and Gligoric preparing to start. (16) Petrosian – Bronstein Catalan Opening [E04] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 d×c4 5.Nf3 Petrosian enters the Catalan Gambit. The current move is 5.Qa4+ Bd7 6.Q×c4 Bc6 7.Nf3 Nbd7 8.Nc3 Nb6 9.Qd3 Bb4 10.0-0 0-0 11.Rd1! h6 12.Bd2 Qe7 13.a3 B×c3 14.Q×c3 Rfd8 15.Be1 Rac8 with even play, Smyslov-Keres, Hague-Moscow wch 1948. Another line would be 5...Nbd7 6.Nf3 a6 7.Nc3 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Q×c4 b5 10.Qb3 Bb7 11.Bf4 c5 with equality. 5...Bb4+ As I noted earlier in annotating one of his games, Bronstein looks for the most novel continuations, lines therefore more di cult to refute at the board. Most common here are 5...a6 or 5...Be7 (not 5...Nbd7 6.0-0 Be7 7.Qc2 a6 8.Nbd2! with the better game), and 5...c5 6.0-0 Nc6 7.Qa4 Bd7. 6.Bd2 Be7 7.Qc2 Bd7! (D) This is Black’s novelty! If now 8.Ne5 Nc6! 9.N×c6 B×c6 10.B×c6 b×c6 11.Q×c4 Qd5 equalizing easily. And if instead of 9.N×c6 White plays 9.Q×c4, then 9...N×e5 10.d×e5 Nd5! 11.B×d5 e×d5 12.Q×d5 Qc8! 13.0-0 Bc6 with the initiative for the sacri ced pawn.

88

8.0-0 Bc6 9.Q×c4 Bd5 10.Qc2 Nc6 11.Bc3 Be4 12.Qd1 0-0 13.Nbd2 Bg6 14.Nc4 Be4 15.Ncd2 Bg6 16.Nc4 Be4 17.Ncd2 ½-½; Despite being barely out of the opening and just into the middle game, it appears that both masters, having no immediate prospects, decided to save their energy. There are still 27 rounds to go! (17) Averbakh – Reshevsky Nimzo-Indian Defense [E59] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 c5 5.Bd3 0-0 6.Nf3 d5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.a3 B×c3 9.b×c3 d×c4 10.B×c4 Qc7 11.Re1 (D)

A position known to theory, one in which it is rather di cult to establish who stands better. In the rst round, game 2, Najdorf against Reshevsky played 11.a4, and in the 20th round, game 140, Geller against Kotov played 11.Qc2. Averbakh always plays 11.Re1, and apparently his opponent so liked this, that the North American master played it himself against Euwe in round 20. The idea is to threaten e3-e4 giving scope to the Bc1, but there exists doubt as to whether Black here chooses the correct line to equalize. 11...Rd8 For 11...e5 see the aforementioned game 137, Reshevsky-Euwe. 12.Qc2 e5 13.Ng5 Rf8 14.d5 Na5 15.Ba2 h6 89

Round 3

We would prefer 15...c4 and if 16.e4 Nd7, or if 16.Bb1 g6 17.e4 Nb3 18.Ra2 N×c1 19.Q×c1 Nd7 with good play. 16.Ne4 N×e4 17.Q×e4 Bd7 18.c4 White has come out of the opening nicely, getting a strong center and bishops with good prospects. 18...b6 19.Qd3 Rae8 20.e4 Qd6 21.Qg3! At last the queen is on the ideal square! 21...Re7 22.Bd2 Nb7 23.f4 Rfe8 24.Bc3 f6 (D)

25.f5!? This would appear to be a contradictory move, as White, who has been preparing an attack, suddenly closes the center! Certainly 25.f×e5 f×e5 26.Rf1 would give White excellent chances, were it not that Reshevsky’s unexpected reply to 25.f×e5 would be 25...R×e5! 26.B×e5 R×e5, and despite being down the exchange Black, with ...Qe7 and ...Nd6, would have good prospects. 25...Rb8 26.Bd2 Kh8 27.Bb1 Aiming for Bb1-d3 to prevent the break b6-b5. 27...Na5 If now 28.Bd3 Nb3. 28.Qd3 Ba4 29.Bc2 B×c2 30.Q×c2 Nb7 31.a4 Qd8 32.Ra3 Nd6 33.Rh3 Nf7 ½-½; This moment produces the worst error of the whole game! Averbakh, somewhat short of time, accepts Reshevsky’s draw o er, when with 34.g4 followed by Rh3-g3 and h2-h4 he had good possibilities of forcing an attack. Beilin, Averbakh’s second, was visibly upset at this turn of events, criticizing the actions of Reshevsky and the precipitous decision of the young Soviet master who, overly respectful of his eminent adversary, agreed to a draw in a clearly superior position. (18) Szabó – Keres Queen’s Gambit Accepted [D24] 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 d×c4 Another of Keres’ favorite variations. It is interesting to note that almost all the grandmasters play only variations which suit their style. For example, Keres never 90

plays the King’s Indian as Black, while Smyslov has the same principles, but instead prefers the Slav, Grünfeld or Nimzo-Indian. 4.Nc3 a6 5.Qa4+?? (D) An inexplicable move from such a grandmaster as Szabó, who attributed it to a momentary confusion. After White played 4.Nc3 it appeared he would continue with a deployment similar to the Tolush Gambit in the Slav Defense, where Black gets an extra pawn but White has a strong initiative. The game Bronstein-R.Byrne, Helsinki ol 1952, continued with 5.e4 b5 6.e5 Nd5 7.a4 N×c3 8.b×c3 Bb7 9.e6 f6 10.g3 Qd5 11.Bg2 Q×e6+ 12.Be3 c6, and White for his two pawns has tactical compensations.

5...b5 6.Qc2 Not 6.N×b5? Bd7. 6...Nc6 7.e4 Szabó, after his unfortunate loss of the pawn at move ve, seeks counter-chances by opening the game, as a last hope. 7...e6 Keres already has one pawn; taking a second would be a bit dangerous in view of the rapid development of White’s pieces. 8.Bg5 N×d4 Now matters are di erent: the queen’s bishop has already moved to g5, and would lose a tempo returning to e3. 9.N×d4 Q×d4 10.Rd1 Qc5 11.Be3 Qc6 12.Be2 Bb7 13.Bf3 e5 14.0-0 Bc5 With a two-pawn advantage Black seeks to simplify. 15.Nd5 B×e3 16.N×e3 0-0 17.g4 Pure desperation. Szabó has no choice but to play all out. 17...Rfe8 18.Nf5 Nd7 19.b3 Nb6 20.Qc1 c×b3 21.a×b3 Q×c1 22.R×c1 Rac8 23.Rfd1 g6 24.Nh6+ Kg7 25.g5 c5 26.Bg4 Rc7 27.Rd6 Nc8 28.Rf6 B×e4 Yet another pawn. 29.Rd1 c4 30.b×c4 b×c4 31.f3 Bd3 32.R×a6 Ne7 33.Rd6 Ng8 34.Rc1 Rb7 35.Bd7 Rd8 36.N×g8 K×g8 37.Bc6 R×d6 38.B×b7 Rb6 39.Bd5 Kf8 40.Ra1 c3 41.Ra8+ Ke7 091

Round 3

1 (19) Euwe – Smyslov Grünfeld Defense [D72] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 d5 5.c×d5 N×d5 6.e4 Nb6 (D)

Preferred by Smyslov. Very playable is 6...Nb4 7.d5 (not 7.Ne2 because of 7...B×d4 8.N×d4 Q×d4) 7...c6 8.Ne2 0-0 9.0-0 e6, as in Najdorf-Fine, match, New York 1949, or Najdorf-Filip, Helsinki ol 1952. As the reader can see, the idea of this opening is to force White to advance his pawns so as to attack them later, and at the same time obtain base squares for Black’s pieces to occupy. 7.Ne2 c5 8.d5 If 8.d×c5? Q×d1+ 9.K×d1 Na4. 8...e6 9.0-0 0-0 10.a4 (D) Dr. Euwe has much experience in this line, having played it against Pilnik at Amsterdam 1950. Then he played 10.Nc3, which in later analysis he considered an error, since after 10...Na6 11.Nf4 e5 12.Ne2 Nc4! 13.b3 Nd6 Black has no di culties. Later the studious Dr. Euwe reached the conclusion that the correct move was 10.a4, and if 10...Na6 11.Na3 e×d5 12.e×d5 Nb4 13.Nc3. He decides to apply that idea in this game.

92

However, Smyslov, knowing this analysis, does not hesitate to enter the variation. Keres, in the 19th round, game 129, reprised the same system, but it appears that by then Euwe had found the right move, 10.Nec3, which does not weaken the queenside. 10...Na6! 11.Na3 e×d5 12.e×d5 Bf5 13.Nc3 Nb4 14.Be3 Rc8 15.d6!? The beginning of great tactical complications. Euwe, in his “eternal youth,” cannot sit still! 15...Bd3 16.B×b7! (D)

A sacri ce which, if not correct in all variations, is very dangerous in practice. After the natural 16.Re1 would follow 16...Q×d6 with no di culty for Black. 16...Rb8 17.Bg2 B×f1 18.K×f1 Better probably was 18.B×f1, not exposing the king to eventual checks. 18...Nd7 19.Nc4 Ne5 20.N×e5 B×e5 21.B×c5 Qa5 22.Be3 Rfd8 Black has sacri ced his c-pawn, but will recover it with rapid development. 23.Ne4 B×d6 24.Nf6+! Not 24.N×d6 Qa6+. 24...Kh8 25.Bd4 A beautiful combination by Dr. Euwe who, in a critical situation, nds the way to save the game. 93

Round 3

25...Be5 (D)

26.Nd7!! f6 Smyslov, in an extremely dangerous position, wants to avoid a draw, and seeks to complicate the game even more. On 26...Qa6+ would follow 27.Kg1 B×d4 28.Q×d4+ f6 29.N×b8, or better 29.Qf4!, but with 26...B×d4 27.Q×d4+ Kg8 28.Nf6+ the game should end in a draw. 27.B×e5 f×e5 (D) 28.Qd2? What a pity that Dr. Euwe spoils all his e ort with this move. The correct continuation was 28.Qd6 with the better game. If then 28...Qa6+ 29.Q×a6 N×a6 30.N×b8, and if 28...Rb6 29.Qe7 Nc6 30.Qf6+ Kg8 31.Bh6.

28...Rbc8 29.Kg1 Qc5! Now past the critical moment, Black centralizes his pieces and consolidates his material advantage. 30.Bh3 Qe7 31.Qe2

94

Euwe-Smyslov about to start. More resistance was o ered by 31.Rd1. 31...R×d7 32.B×d7 Q×d7 33.Q×e5+ Kg8 34.Qe4 a5 35.h4 Qd5 36.Qg4 Rf8 37.Rd1 Qf3 38.Qc4+ Qf7 39.Qc5 Qf5 40.Qc4+ Qf7 After an exciting, fast-paced pingpong interlude, both adversaries breathe sighs of relief, especially Smyslov, who has victory within his grasp. The rest is merely a question of technique. 41.Qc5 Qf5 42.Qc4+ Kg7 43.Qd4+ Qf6 44.Qc5 Rf7 45.Rd2 Qe7 46.Qc3+ Rf6 47.Rd4 Nc6 48.Rd5 Qe6 49.Rc5 h5 50.b3 Kf7 51.Rb5 Qd7 52.Kg2 Qe7 53.Qc4+ Kg7 54.Qd3 Kh6 55.Rd5 Rf7 56.Rd6 Ne5 Finally the knight comes fully into play and decides the game. 57.Qe3+ Kh7 58.Rb6 Qc7 0-1 A beautiful game, rich in struggle and emotional swings. (20) Ståhlberg – Geller King’s Indian Defense [A49] 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.0-0 d6 6.Nbd2 (D)

95

Round 3

Although with the passive 6.Nbd2 White does not gain the upper hand in the center, he does retain in return the square c4, just as Black retains c5 in this opening. 6...Nc6 7.c3 e5 8.d×e5 d×e5 9.Nb3 Qe7 10.Be3 Rd8 11.Qc1 e4 12.Nfd4 Ne5 White has played the opening in a passive manner, and it is not surprising that the customary space advantage he often has in the King’s Indian should now belong to the second player. 13.Bg5 Nc4 Threatening 14...e6. 14.Nc2 c6 15.Ne3 Nd6 Well played: having a space advantage, he should not exchange active pieces. 16.Rd1 h6 17.Bf4 Nfe8 18.Nf1 Kh7 19.Qc2 f5 20.Be3 Be6 21.Bd4 Nf6 22.Bc5 Moving the bishop ve times in this opening cannot be good, all the more so since next move he exchanges it. 22...b6 23.B×d6 R×d6 24.R×d6 Q×d6 25.Rd1 Qc7 26.Ne3 c5 Better 26...h5 starting a direct attack. 27.Nd2 Rd8 28.Ndf1 R×d1 Geller trusts in his bishop pair and is determined to head for the endgame. However, short of time, he does not nd the correct path. White’s position is quite solid, despite the reduced space Ståhlberg has for disentangling his forces. 29.N×d1 Qf7 30.Nde3 b5 Not 30...B×a2? 31.c4. 31.a3 a5 32.Nd2 Nd5 An unnecessary exchange. Better 32...h5, and if 33.h4 Bh6 pressuring both anks. 33.N×d5 B×d5 34.e3 c4 35.Bf1 a4 Necessary against the threat of 36.a4. 36.Bg2 Qd7 37.g4 Ståhlberg, though surrounded, has resisted so well that at last he has some hope of counterplay! 37...Be6 38.g×f5 g×f5 39.Nf1 Qd3 40.Qc1 (D)

40...h5? 96

Geller, one of the most dynamic of Soviet players, is not on his best form. He has postponed making this move until just the moment it is no longer necessary, when instead there was a concrete winning possibility: 40...b4!! 41.a×b4 (if 41.c×b4 Qb3) 41...a3 42.b×a3 B×c3-+, or also 42...Q×c3 43.Q×c3 B×c3 44.Ng3 (if 44.f3 Be1) 44...Be5 45.N×e4 f×e4 46.B×e4+ Kg7 47.f4 Bc7 48.Kf2 Kf6 49.Bc2 h5!. 41.Ng3 h4 42.Nh5 At last White can breathe! With this move, forcing exchange of one of the bishops, he is able to equalize the game for the rst time, and fortunately for him, de nitively. 42...Bf7 43.N×g7 K×g7 44.Bf1 Qd8 45.Be2 Qg5+ 46.Kf1 h3 47.Qd1 Qg2+ 48.Ke1 Q×h2 49.Qd4+ Kh7 50.Bf1 Qg1 51.Qd7 Kg8 52.Qd8+ Kg7 53.Qd4+ Kg6 54.Qd6+ ½½; (21) Boleslavsky – Kotov Queen’s Gambit Accepted [D28] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 d×c4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.B×c4 c5 6.0-0 a6 7.Qe2 c×d4 A favorite move among American masters, especially Reshevsky and Fine. The idea is to isolate the d-pawn and at the same time keep the d- le closed. The main disadvantage for Black is that this variation allows White’s king’s bishop great mobility, and the white pieces’ rapid development can create a dangerous attack. 8.e×d4 Be7 9.Nc3 (D)

Worth considering was 9.a4 which, though it may create an endgame weakness, makes Black’s intended comfortable development (b7-b5) di cult for the moment, giving the edge to the rst player. In the game Najdorf-Fine, New York 1949, the continuation was 9...0-0 10.Nc3 Nc6 11.Rd1 Nb4 12.Ne5 Nbd5? 13.Rd3 Nb4 14.Rg3! with the better game. In the same tournament Euwe against Najdorf preferred 9.Rd1 b5 10.Bb3 Bb7 11.a4 b4 12.Nbd2 0-0 13.Nc4 Nbd7 14.Nfe5 a5 with equality. 9...b5 10.Bb3 Bb7 11.Bg5 White develops his pieces quickly, seeking to make his space advantage and initiative felt, because if he does not Black will have the opportunity to play against

97

Round 3

the isolated d-pawn, posting a blockader on d5 with a comfortable and risk-free game. 11...0-0 12.Rfe1 It could be that the way in which Boleslavsky treats the opening may be superior to the above-mentioned models of Najdorf and Euwe. The Russian master does not play 12.Rfd1 because according to his idea the proper locations for the rooks are e1 and d1, instead of the usual d1 and c1. 12...Nc6 If it is certain that Black should not play 12...Nbd7 because of 13.d5 N×d5 14.B×d5, then 12...b4 13.Na4 Nbd7 14.Rac1 Nd5 is indicated. 13.Rad1 Na5? A de nite mistake. Necessary was 13...Nd5 14.N×d5 B×g5 15.Nc3 Nb4. Inadequate instead is 13...Nb4 because of 14.d5! Nb×d5 15.N×d5 B×d5 16.B×d5 N×d5 17.B×e7 Q×e7 18.R×d5. 14.d5! N×b3 If 14...N×d5 15.B×d5 winning material. 15.d×e6! (D)

Although 15.a×b3 was very good, the text move is more profound. Boleslavsky has seen far and accurately, being in his favorite element: the combination. 15...Qb6 It would appear that Black, with 15...B×f3 16.e×f7+ Kh8! 17.Q×f3 Nd4 18.Qe3 Bc5, could have saved himself, or if 18.R×d4 Q×d4 19.R×e7 and Black maintains his material advantage. But there is a little nesse one must note: after 15...B×f3 not 16.e×f7+, but rather 16.Q×f3 Nd4 17.Qe3! (again not 17.e×f7+), (D) with the following continuations: (a) 17...Nc2 18.e×f7+ Kh8! (not 18...R×f7 19.R×d8+) 19.R×d8 N×e3 20.R×f8+ with material advantage; (b) 17...Bc5 18.e7 (this is the idea behind not taking on f7) 18...B×e7 19.R×d4; (c) 17...Ng4! (best) 18.Q×d4 Q×d4 19.R×d4 B×g5 20.R×g4 Bd2 21.Rd1 B×c3 22.e×f7+ with a pawn to the good, though the ending is di cult.

98

Probably Kotov, already engrossed in these dangerous machinations, should have entered into variation (c) which leads to a rook ending with drawing chances. Rook endings are always treacherous and have many surprises in store, even between masters. 16.a×b3 f×e6 17.Nd4 White wants to harvest the pawn at the moment it suits him. He does not need the pawn, but rather the e6-square. 17...Bd6 18.Q×e6+ Kh8 19.Nf3! The storm has passed. Black has defended actively and his well-posted pieces are now a danger to Boleslavsky. To realize his advantage White must switch from the o ensive to preventing the counter-attack that Kotov threatens, and only after that seeking to impose his material advantage. Not 19.Nf5 B×h2+ 20.K×h2 Ng4+ etc. 19...Rad8 20.Bf4! To take the sting out of Black’s counter-attack. 20...B×f3 Not 20...Rfe8 because of 21.R×d6 R×e6 22.R×b6 R×b6 23.Bc7!. 21.R×d6 R×d6 22.Q×d6 Q×d6 23.B×d6 Re8 24.R×e8+ N×e8 25.Be5! (D)

The third phase of the game, which can be summarized thusly: (1) Boleslavsky’s all-out attack succeeds in winning only a pawn against Kotov’s steely defense. (2) 99

Round 3

Immediately he must face a black counter-attack, and exchange pieces. (3) We arrive at this supremely instructive endgame with opposite-color bishops, which White plays with technical exactness. 25...Bc6 26.b4 h5 27.f3 Kh7 28.Ne2 Kf7 1-0 Despite the bishops of opposite color this ending is won, because of the awkward situation of the Ne8, which cannot come out without being exchanged. In that case, the ending of knight versus bishop is easily won for White with the extra pawn. 28...g5 29.Kf2 h4 30.g3 h×g3+ 31.h×g3 Kg6 32.g4 Bb7 33.Ke3 Bc6 34.Nc3 Bb7 35.Ne4 Bd5 36.Nc5 Kf7 37.N×a6 Ke6 38.Bc3 Ba8 39.Nc5+ Kf7 40.Ne4 Kg6 41.Be5 Bd5 42.Nd2 Kf7 1-0 Black resigned on making his last move. A game very well played by grandmaster Boleslavsky, capitalizing on his opponent’s inaccuracy in the opening.

100

Round 4

Standings after round 4: Smyslov 3; Averbakh, Boleslavsky, Bronstein, Euwe, Najdorf and Reshevsky 2½; Geller, Keres, Ståhlberg and Petrosian 2; Gligoric 1½; Szabó and Taimanov ½;; Kotov 0. For the rst time in the tournament drawn games were in the minority. The masters clearly enter the fray “with their blood up,” but given the parity of their powers, who can be surprised that these great players often split the point? Geller and Boleslavsky played a Queen’s Indian in which White, coming out of the opening, committed a positional error which was enough for Boleslavsky to work the position to a successful conclusion. Ståhlberg essayed a French Defense against Smyslov, as he had done at the previous candidates tournament, Budapest 1950. He fell into a cramped position. This was aggravated by two almost successive errors by Black, which were quite enough for the Soviet grandmaster to force the win. In the game between Keres and Dr. Euwe, a Nimzo-Indian, Black displayed some very interesting e orts to equalize the game and force exchanges which took away his adversary’s weapons. A draw was the just reward for Dr. Euwe’s earnest labor. Szabó against Reshevsky essayed a risky line of the Grünfeld. Reshevsky solved all problems well, ending up three pawns ahead and an advantage su cient to win. Undoubtedly, grandmaster Szabó made a mistake in arriving at the tournament hall at the customary hour, when his game – because of special considerations given Reshevsky – would not start until 9:00 p.m. For four hours Szabó followed the games on all the other boards, and it is not surprising that by the time for his own game arrived, he was fatigued and at a mental disadvantage for the ght. The games Bronstein-Averbakh and Gligoric-Petrosian slipped more or less tranquilly into draws, while in Taimanov-Najdorf – which ultimately would win the 1st brilliancy prize – the Yugoslav variation of the King’s Indian was played, which Najdorf had studied deeply since his experiences in the tournament of Mar del Plata 1953. The struggle quickly became sharp and when Taimanov, after several attempts, had to break o his queenside attack, the black forces descended on the white king with a victorious sacri cial attack and more, in the midst of a time scramble that made the nish all the more spectacular. 101

Round 4

(22) Geller – Boleslavsky Queen’s Indian Defense [E12] 1.d4 e6 An invitation to the French Defense, a favorite of Boleslavsky’s. 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 b6 4.Nc3 The most commonly played line is 4.g3 opposing the black anchetto. 4...Bb7 5.Bg5 Customarily 5.e3 is played, arriving at a Rubinstein system in the Queen’s Pawn Game. The idea of this move – which shuts in the queen’s bishop – is precisely to keep it behind the pawn chain so as not to have to exchange it. Many masters who prefer not to trade pieces prematurely play in this style. Others, like the great Capablanca, are not afraid to simplify and provoke exchanges, seeking subtle positional nesses. 5...h6 6.B×f6 If 6.Bh4 Black plays 6...Bb4 as in game 14, Gligoric-Taimanov. The chess fan may wonder that a master of Geller’s caliber would voluntarily surrender the much vaunted bishop pair. What is the reason? White gains tempi and rapidly dominates the center. Furthermore the black queen will be exposed to attack and will have to return to her original square. 6...Q×f6 7.e4 Bb4 Developing a piece and threatening the e-pawn. 8.Bd3 c5 9.0-0 c×d4 10.Nb5 Qd8 11.Nb×d4 0-0 12.Qe2 Nc6 13.Rad1 N×d4 14.N×d4 Bc5 15.Bc2 Rc8 16.e5 Qg5 (D)

17.f4? The aggressive Geller is looking for a ght. But since White has played 16.e5 to impede the advance of Black’s d-pawn, it was necessary to treat the game positionally. The correct move was 17.Be4 trading the inferior white bishop for the better black one, the latter being not only an attacking piece but also the defender of his queen’s wing. Another drawback to 17.f4? is that it allows the opportunity for a break by g7g5. 17...Qe7 18.Kh1 f5 102

Preventing 19.f5. 19.Nb5 a6 20.Nd6 B×d6 21.R×d6 Rc6 22.Rfd1 R×d6 23.R×d6 Bc6 We were right. Now the superiority of the black bishop is very evident, but it is too late to exchange it. 24.b4 Qh4! Boleslavsky seeks the aforementioned break, trying to open the g- le and move his rook there, with a strong attack. 25.Rd4 g5! 26.Kg1 Black was threatening 26...g×f4 and 27...f3. 26...g×f4 27.Qf2 Qe7 28.a3 Qg7 Boleslavsky maneuvers excellently, systematically aiming at the weak points. 29.R×f4 Q×e5 The reward for precise play: the win of a pawn. 30.Rd4 Rf7 31.Bd3 32.Bf1 Qf6 33.Rd2 b5 34.c5 Qa1 Allowing Black no respite! 35.Qh4 Qf6 36.Q×f6 R×f6 37.Kf2 e5 38.g3 White decides to sacri ce another pawn in order to destroy the dangerous black pawns and prevent the advance e5-e4-e3. All the same, there is no salvation. 38...f×g339.Ke1 Rf3 40.h×g3 R×g3 41.Rd6 Kg7 42.Bd3 e4 43.Be2 R×a3 44.Bg4 Rd3 1-0 Another exemplary game by grandmaster Boleslavsky, one highly instructive for the chess enthusiast. (23) Smyslov – Ståhlberg French Defense [C13] 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 d×e4 5.N×e4 Be7 (D)

Also playable is 5...Nbd7 6.Nf3 Be7 7.N×f6+ B×f6 8.Qd2! and if (a) 8...0-0 9.0-0-0 Qe7 10.Bd3 c5 11.h4, or (b) 8...b6 9.Bb5 B×g5 10.N×g5 Bb7 11.0-0-0 c6 12.Bd3 h6 13.Nf3 Qc7=, Richter-Brinkman, Cáchy 1935. 6.B×f6 B×f6

103

Round 4

More solid than 6...g×f6 7.Qd2 f5 8.Nc3 c6 9.0-0-0 Nd7 10.g3 b6 11.Bg2 Bb7 12.Nh3 Qc7 13.Qe2 with the better game, Euwe-Flohr, match 1932. 7.Nf3 Here Smyslov varies from his game with Dr. Katetov, Prague 1946: 7.c3 Nd7 8.f4 Qe7 9.Nf3 c5! 10.d×c5 N×c5 11.Nd6+ Kf8 with equality. 7...Nd7 8.Bc4 (D)

A new idea. An earlier game continued 8.c3 Qe7 9.Qc2 c5 10.d×c5 N×c5 11.Bb5+ Bd7 12.0-0-0 0-0-0=, Alekhine-Petrovs, Warsaw 1935. If at this point White plays 8.Bd3, it produces the lovely variation 8...c5! 9.d×c5 N×c5 10.Bb5+ Ke7 11.Q×d8+ R×d8 12.N×c5 Rd5 13.Na6! B×b2! 14.Rb1 R×b5 15.Nc7 Bc3+ 16.Ke2 R×b1 17.R×b1 Rb8 18.Na6 Ra8 19.Nc7, drawn. 8...0-0 9.Qe2 Nb6 10.Bb3 Bd7 11.0-0 Qe7 12.Rfe1 Rad8 13.Rad1 Smyslov’s position is clearly superior, while Black’s is somewhat cramped. 13...Ba4 14.B×a4 N×a4 15.Qb5 Nb6 16.c4 c6 17.Qb3 (D)

17...Qc7 Despite the fact that the threat was 18.N×f6+ and if 18...Q×f6 19.c5, this ank posting of the queen is harmful. Black had to consider 17...Rd7, even though he would still stand worse. And if 18.Nc5 Rc7 threatening 19...B×d4. 104

If 18.Ne5 B×e5 19.d×e5 Rfd8 20.Nd6 f6 and if here 20.Rd6 Nc8. 18.N×f6+ g×f6 19.Qe3! Kg7? White has moved from queenside pressure to a direct attack. Ståhlberg surely did not anticipate the reply that follows. He could have played 19...Kh8 20.Qh6 Nd7 with stronger resistance. 20.Ne5!! (D) The knight cannot be taken: 20...f×e5 21.Qg5+ Kh8 22.Qf6+ Kg8 23.Re4+-. White now threatens 21.Ng4.

20...Qe7 21.Ng4 Rg8 22.Nh6! Winning the exchange, since the rook cannot move because of 23.Nf5+. The text move is better than 22.Qh6+ Kh8 23.N×f6 Rg7 24.Re3 Nd7. 22...Qc7 23.N×g8 R×g8 24.b3 Kh8 25.Qh6 Rg6 26.Qh4 Nd7 27.Re3 With the advantage of the exchange and the better position, Smyslov has no di culties. 27...Qa5 28.Rh3 Nf8 29.Rg3 Q×a2 30.R×g6 N×g6 31.Q×f6+ Kg8 32.Qf3 Qc2 33.Qd3 1-0 (24) Keres – Euwe Nimzo-Indian Defense [E55] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 c5 5.Bd3 0-0 6.Nf3 d5 7.0-0 Nbd7 8.a3 d×c4 9.B×c4 c×d4 10.e×d4 Be7 11.Ba2 Another idea, perhaps better, is 11.Bb3 so as to play Bc2 when opportune, and not impede the rook’s mobility with Ba2-b1. 11...Nb6 12.Ne5 (D)

105

Round 4

The best move in this position, discouraging the development of the queen’s bishop with b7-b6, in view of the weakness that would create on c6. 12...Nbd5 13.Qf3 Were the bishop now on b3 White could have played 13.Qd3, preparing a “battery” with Bb3-c2. 13...N×c3 14.b×c3 Nd7 Euwe ascertains the plan and the move: White’s central pawns will be a liability in the endgame, but for the moment White has better development and attacking prospects. Quick exchanges are essential to reduce the pressure. 15.Ng4 Nf6 16.N×f6+ B×f6 17.Bf4 Bg5 Euwe insists. 18.Bg3 Bh4 19.Be5 Bf6 20.Rfe1 B×e5 21.R×e5 Qf6 22.Qe4 Further weakening of the kingside no longer interests White, for lack of pieces to exploit it. This con rms that Euwe’s plan of forcing simpli cation was correct: little by little White’s forces are exhausted. 22...Rb8 23.d5 Keres anticipates the maneuver Bd7-c6. 23...e×d5 24.B×d5 Bd7 25.Re1 Bc6 26.c4 g6 Making Luft, and reinforcing defense of the light squares. 27.g3 Rbe8 28.Kg2 R×e5 29.Q×e5 Q×e5 30.R×e5 B×d5+ 31.c×d5 Rd8 32.Re7 R×d5 33.R×b7 Ra5 34.Rb3 ½-½; (25) Reshevsky – Szabó Grünfeld Defense [D83] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4 Bg7 5.e3 Reshevsky plays according to his own preferences. There are various continuations here, with distinct ideas, which are also good: 5.Qa4+, or 5.c×d5 N×d5 6.N×d5 Q×d5 7.B×c7 Na6/Nc6, etc. 5...0-0 6.Qb3 More e cacious than 6.Nf3 because of 6...c5! 7.d×c5 Qa5 8.Qb3 Ne4 9.Be5 N×c3 10.B×c3 B×c3+ 11.Q×c3 Q×c3+ 12.b×c3 d×c4 with no di culties for Black, Boleslavsky-Gligoric, Warsaw 1947. 106

6...c5 7.c×d5 (D)

Best. We engaged in deep study of this variation in the published treatises on the Grünfeld. Black, who has already castled, sacri ces a pawn in order to break up the strong white center, after which he continues his development undisturbed. If 7.d×c5 Ne4! 8.c×d5 Qa5 9.Rc1 N×c3 10.b×c3 Q×c5 11.Nf3 e6!? with good play. 7...c×d4 8.e×d4 e6 Previously it had been customary to play 8...Nbd7 9.Be2 Nb6 10.Bf3 Bf5! 11.Rd1! (Black was threatening Bf5-d3-c4) 11...Qd7 12.h3! h5 13.Be5 Rad8 14.B×f6 B×f6 15.Nge2 Nc8 with an even game despite the pawn sacri ced. 9.d×e6 Nc6 10.e×f7+ Kh8 11.Nf3 Not 11.d5 because of 11...Nd4 12.Qd1 N×d5. 11...N×d4 He does not play 11...Bg4 because of 12.0-0-0 Rc8 13.Kb1. 12.N×d4 Q×d4 13.Be3 Qe5 This appears to be the product of study by Hungarian masters; nevertheless Reshevsky, with his characteristic calm, defends his dangerous position and maintains his material advantage. 14.Be2 Be6 15.Bc4 15.Q×b7? would be ridiculous due to 15...Rab8. (D)

107

Round 4

15...Bd7? Better was 15...B×c4 16.Q×c4 Rac8 17.Qd4 Qh5 18.h3 R×f7 (not 18...Nd5 19.N×d5 B×d4 20.B×d4+ Qe5+ 21.B×e5#). 16.h3 b5 17.Be2 Be6 18.Q×b5 Nd5 19.N×d5 a6 20.Qc5 Rac8 21.Qa3 B×d5 22.0-0 Grandmaster Reshevsky, having skirted all dangers, and with his king secure, can now dedicate himself to realizing his advantage. 22...R×f7 If 22...Q×b2 23.Q×b2 B×b2 24.Rad1 B×a2? 25.Rd2 Rb8 26.R×b2 R×b2 27.Bd4#. 23.Rfd1 Bb7 24.B×a6! Well calculated. If now 24...Ra8 25.Qb3. The balance sheet of the combat is telling: Szabó brought to the ght a well prepared variation, but despite its dangers, Reshevsky knew how to refute it adequately. 24...Qe4 25.B×b7 R×b7 26.Rac1 Re8 27.Rd2 Be5 28.Rcd1 Kg8 29.b3 Bc7 30.Qa6 Rb4 31.Qd3 Qe5 32.Qd5+ 1-0 (26) Bronstein – Averbakh Nimzo-Indian Defense [E43] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 0-0 5.Nf3 b6 6.Be2 Bronstein often plays this line, with an idea distinct from the usual 6.Bd3. At the right moment, after d7-d5, the bishop, after c×d5 e×d5, will occupy the f3-square, attacking the adverse d-pawn. An idea as respectable as any other. 6...Bb7 7.0-0 d5 8.c×d5 e×d5 9.Bd2 Bd6 Averbakh, as in game 147, Petrosian-Najdorf, enters into a Rubinstein System without di culty. The position is even because of the equivalent developments of the pieces; if the Bb7 is partly shut in, so too is the Bd2. 10.Rc1 10.Nb5 would be a loss of time; after Bd6-e7 and a7-a6 the knight must retreat. 10...a6 11.Ne5! With this move White gains space before Black opposes it with ...Nbd7. 11...c5 12.Ng4 Incorrect would be 12.f4, because it leaves the e4-square at Black’s mercy, while if White intends to install a knight on e5, it can be dislodged by f7-f6. 12...Nbd7 13.N×f6+ N×f6 14.d×c5 b×c5 15.Bf3 Bronstein carries out the idea mentioned in our note to move 6, attacking the “hanging pawns.” However, Black’s pieces are well developed and can conjure up all manner of danger. 15...Re8 16.Na4 Rc8 17.Qb3 Ba8 18.Rfd1 Ne4 19.Be1 Rb8 20.Qd3! Not 20.Qc2 because of 20...Ng5 21.Be2 Ne6 22.B×a6 d4! with the better game. After the text move, 20...Ng5 is prevented simply by 21.B×d5. 20...Qh4 (D)

108

Averbakh counter-attacks. The “hanging pawns,” which are a force in the middle game, will be a liability in the ending. 21.g3 If here 21.h3 d4! with the following continuations: (a) 22.e×d4 Qf4 23.g3 N×g3 24.f×g3 Q×f3; or (b) 22.Q×a6 d×e3 23.f×e3 Qf6 threatening ...Bh2+. 21...N×g3 22.h×g3 Q×a4 23.Bc3 Neither would 23.B×d5 B×d5 24.Q×d5 Be7 gain White anything. 23...Be5 Better than 23...Q×a2 24.Ra1. 24.B×e5 R×e5 25.R×c5 Q×a2 26.b4 Ree8 ½–½; A draw is wisely agreed upon; there might follow 27.Ra5 Qc4 28.R×a6 Q×d3 29.R×d3 R×b4 30.B×d5 with absolute equality. (27) Gligoric – Petrosian Benoni Defense [A62] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 e×d5 5.c×d5 d6 6.Nf3 g6 It appears that Dr. Euwe’s defeat of Kotov in the rst round did not impress Petrosian. Certainly he must have analyzed the game and seen that the opening was playable. 7.Nd2 As was noted in the commentary on game 6, Euwe-Kotov, White seeks to use the c4-square for his knight, which is considered to give him the better game. Furthermore, with the text, Gligoric reserves the option of developing his bishop at g2 or on the f1-a6 diagonal. 7...Nbd7 8.g3 Bg7 9.Bg2 0-0 10.0-0 Qe7 11.Nc4 Although this move is consistent with White’s plan, this was not the right time to make it, since Black with his reply 11...Ne5 is able to eliminate the strong knight and gain space. Correct was 11.a4, and if 11...a6 only then 12.Nc4, or else 12.h3! (very important) so that if 12...Ne5 13.f4. 11...Ne5 12.N×e5 Q×e5 13.a4 a6 14.a5 Re8 15.Bf4 Qe7 16.Qb3 Nd7 Black has no di culties. The game is equalized. 17.Rfe1 Ne5 18.Na4 Bd7 19.Nb6 Rab8 20.Bd2 Bb5 21.Bc3 c4?! 109

Round 4

Dubious and too routine. White’s queen was poorly posted and there was no reason to force her to a better square. Moreover the d3-square is adequately defended. The correct move appears to be 21...f5 immediately. 22.Qc2 f5 23.h3 Finally White decides to make the move which is always necessary in this opening! 23...Qc7 24.f4 Nd7 25.N×d7 B×d7 26.B×g7 K×g7 27.Qc3+ Kg8 28.Kh2 Qc5 29.e3 Preventing 29...Re3. 29...b5 30.a×b6 R×b6 31.Ra5 Qb4 (D) 32.Re2 Not 32.Q×b4 R×b4 33.R×a6 R×b2 34.R×d6 Bb5 35.Rb6 c3 36.d6 Bd3 37.d7 Rd8 38.Rd6 Be4 39.Rg1 Kf7 winning.

32...Q×c3 33.b×c3 Kf8 34.Kg1 Rb1+ 35.Kf2 Bb5 36.g4 Trying to activate his kingside pawn majority. 36...Rc1 37.Ra3 Kf7 38.Bf3 Re7 39.h4 Rd1 40.g5 Rd3 41.h5 g×h5 ½-½; (D)

At the moment for adjournment, Petrosian nds the right move, after which a draw was agreed without resuming play. Black was obliged to play 41...g×h5 because 110

otherwise would come 42.h6, followed by 43.e4 f×e4 44.R×e4 R×e4 45.B×e4 with winning chances (e.g., 45...Rh3 46.Bf3!). (28) Taimanov – Najdorf King’s Indian Defense [E99] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 (D) If 7.d×e5 d×e5 8.Q×d8 R×d8 9.N×e5 N×e4 10.N×e4 B×e5 11.Bg5 Re8 and either (a) 12.Bf6 Bf5 13.B×e5; or (b) 12.Nf6+ B×f6 13.B×f6 Nd7 14.Bc3 Nc5.

7...Nc6 Although this is not new (it was played in Taimanov-Bronstein, USSR ch 1951 and Spassky-Szabó, Bucharest 1952) it can be called the move of 1953! Later the Yugoslavian masters analyzed it deeply, and at Mar del Plata1953, Eliskases and myself were victims of this variation. Trifunovic and Gligoric, who presented the novelty, gained two and a half points out of three, which gave the line unprecedented prestige. The idea is very clear: the text obliges White to de ne his central position, by its threat to win a pawn in the following way: 8...e×d4 9.N×d4 N×e4! 10.N×c6 N×c3 11.N×d8 N×d1 12.N×b7 N×b2. Therefore ... 8.d5 In game 107, Reshevsky against me played 8.Be3, as did Taimanov against Boleslavsky in game 67 (see those commentaries). 8...Ne7 9.Ne1 Nd7 (D)

111

Round 4

10.Be3 It appears that my rival knows the game I played against Dr. Trifunovic at Mar del Plata 1953, which after 10.Be3 continued 10...f5 11.f3 f4 12.Bf2 g5 13.Nd3 Nf6 14.c5 Ng6 15.Rc1 Rf7! 16.c×d6 c×d6 17.Nb5 (better than 17.Rc2 as Taimanov played) 17...g4 18.Qd2 Bf8 19.Rc2 a6 20.Na3 g×f3? (correct is 20...b6!) 21.B×f3 Ng4 22.Nc4 N×f2 23.Q×f2 Nh4 24.Nb6 N×f3+ 25.g×f3 Bh3 26.N×a8 Rg7+ 27.Kh1 with the better game for White. This shows that the Soviet players, besides being the best in the world, are up-todate on theoretical news and knowledge. And it seems incredible, but even our own games are known and analyzed by them! Against Gligoric, not yet grasping the exact idea, my intuition told me that 10.Nd3 was the move. At the end of this game I will expound on what is, in my opinion, the correct way for White to play against the Yugoslav variation, which has made the King’s Indian such a fearsome defense. 10...f5 11.f3 f4 12.Bf2 g5 13.Nd3 Nf6 Better than the Russian idea of Rf8-f6-g6/h6. 14.c5 Ng6 15.Rc1 Rf7! The key move in this line of play, defending against (after 16.c×d6 c×d6) the intrusion 17.Nb5 and Nc7, and at the same time intending to open the g- le and place the rook there. 16.Rc2 Eliskases, against Gligoric, played 16.Qb3 g4 17.f×g4 N×g4 18.B×g4 B×g4 19.Q×b7 f3 20.Be3 Nf4, with a strong attack for Black. For my part, in this position I played 16.c×d6 c×d6 17.Nb5 as already indicated. 16...Bf8 17.c×d6 c×d6 18.Qd2 g4 19.Rfc1 g3! (D)

112

White is on the verge of starting a direct queenside attack, in such a way that I have no alternative but to attack violently on the kingside with all my troops. 20.h×g3 f×g3 21.B×g3 Nh5 22.Bh2 Better 22.Bf2 Ngf4 23.Be3. Even so, Black’s attack would still be dangerous. 22...Be7 23.Nb1 Bd7 Not 23...Bg5 because of 24.R×c8, since the white queen is defended. 24.Qe1 Bg5 25.Nd2 Be3+ 26.Kh1 Qg5 (D)

At this point the chess enthusiast may think that conduct of the attack was a matter of mathematical calculation or long variations. Quite the contrary! I simply tried to bring all my pieces over to the kingside, on the general principle that no position can resist assault by superior forces. 27.Bf1 Raf8 White prepares to meet the threat of ...Nh4 and ...Rg7, but now the last piece goes into action. 28.Rd1 b5 Nullifying White’s last hope of playing Nd2-c4, with a certain amount of counterplay. 29.a4 a6 30.a×b5 a×b5 31.Rc7?

113

Round 4

Always looking for counter-chances, but the more urgent priority was to keep g2 defended. 31...Rg7 32.Nb3 Nh4 33.Rc2 The return of the rook, or the beginning of the end. (D)

33...Bh3! Equally winning was 33...R×f3 34.Nd2 (not 34.g×f3 Qg1+) 34...Ng3+. 34.Qe2 If 34.g×h3 Qg1+ 35.B×g1 R×g1+ 36.Kh2 N×f3#. 34...N×g2 At this point I was extremely short of time, but lucky for me, I had everything already calculated! 35.B×g2 B×g2+ 36.Q×g2 Qh4 Threatening 37...Ng3+. 37.Q×g7+ K×g7 38.Rg2+ Kh8 39.Ne1 Nf4 40.Rg3 Bf2 41.Rg4 Qh3 42.Nd2 h5 43.Rg5 0-1 This was the sealed move, and White resigned without resuming play. Obviously there would follow 43...Rg8+ 44.R×g8+ K×g8 and there is no defense against mate after ...B×e1. This game had the good fortune to merit the 1st Brilliancy Prize, which consisted of a very ne briefcase, given to me by the famous publicist François Le Lionnais. And now the promised revelation: What is going on with this opening? Is it possible to so overturn sound chess principles that an attack as well developed as White’s can be suddenly overcome by Black’s attack? No. Clearly no. For some time I have labored to arrive at a solution to this question, and even though for reasons of self-interest I should not reveal my conclusions publicly to my fellow masters, I am going to tell what is, in my opinion, the exact path White should follow. (D)

114

Here, the move 10.Be3, made by me, Eliskases and others, appears to be the error. In the game with Gligoric I played 10.Nd3 based only on the intuition that it should be the correct move. Black continues with 10...f5 11.f3 f4 12.Bd2 – incredibly, the bishop is better situated on the e1-a5 diagonal than on g1-a7 – 12...g5 13.Rc1 Nf6 14.c5 Ng6 15.Nb5 Rf7 (if 15...a6 16.Na3 Rf7 17.c×d6 c×d6 18.Nc4!) 16.Ba5! (not 16.c×d6) 16...b6 17.c×b6 a×b6 18.Be1 with the better game. (Black cannot play 18...R×a2 because of 19.Na3 and 20.Qb3.) (D)

White threatens 19.Nb4, and his queenside attack arrives before Black’s on the kingside. Thus begins a new chapter in the Yugoslav Variation!

115

Round 5

Round 5

Standings after round 5: Smyslov and Reshevsky 3½; Boleslavsky and Keres 3; Averbakh, Bronstein, Euwe, Gligoric and Najdorf 2½; Geller, Petrosian and Ståhlberg 2; Szabó and Taimanov 1½; Kotov ½;. Little by little the masters have settled down to play and reveal all their triumphant ambitions. After this round – marking one-third of the rst cycle – remaining undefeated are only two Russian players: Smyslov and Boleslavsky, and three westerners: Gligoric, Najdorf, and Reshevsky. The game between the two great ghters Szabó and Bronstein was an Old Indian with 2...d6, in which Bronstein, a specialist in this defense, gained the upper hand. On the 18th move White o ered a dubious pawn sacri ce, riskily pursuing his rst win. The game, already complicated, became more dramatic still with the onset of time pressure, and various important omissions by both sides can perhaps be excused. Finally Szabó registered his rst win, after overlooking a simple mate in two. Petrosian, who had still not won, chose a risky maneuver against Taimanov, sacri cing two knights for a rook and two pawns, but he did not hit upon the right continuation. Taimanov then assumed the initiative and won a well-played endgame. Dr. Euwe and Reshevsky played a Nimzo-Indian in which White, at the 19th move, committed an inexplicable strategic error, spoiling his attacking chances. Reshevsky made a quiet move with his queen, and White, in a much inferior position, made a new error, which was decisive. The old rivals Ståhlberg and Keres played a Semi-Tarrasch Defense, in which the Swedish master committed various inaccuracies, resulting in an isolated d-pawn. Despite this, at the 27th move he had a clear continuation to force a draw, which he overlooked, entering instead into a long queen ending. Keres played with great precision and settled matters on move 67. One of the prominent features of the round was undoubtedly Kotov’s rst halfpoint. Against Geller’s Sicilian Defense he essayed a Richter Attack, with nothing noteworthy except the evident intention to avoid risks and say at least “I was here.”

116

Averbakh-Gligoric was a King’s Indian in which White played the opening in a very individual and interesting manner, gaining a positional advantage. Later, at move 26, Averbakh made a bad move with his queen, and Black was able to recover. Finally White, in time pressure, committed a new error, which gave Gligoric the chance to counter-attack victoriously. (29) Petrosian – Taimanov Queen’s Indian Defense [E14] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.Nc3 Bb7 5.e3 White does not play the classic kingside anchetto, but enters on a Rubinstein System, in which the game proceeds without su ering major material exchanges and retains some dynamic prospects. 5...d5 Preferable is 5...Be7 as in games 84 (Szabó-Euwe), 147 (Petrosian-Najdorf), and 156 (Kotov-Reshevsky), with the idea of waiting until White develops his king’s bishop and only then playing d7-d5. Against the text move Petrosian plays: 6.c×d5 e×d5 7.Bb5+! c6 Not 7...Nbd7 because of 8.Ne5 a6 9.Bc6. 8.Bd3 Despite the apparent loss of time, White has caused Black to obstruct the Bb7’s diagonal, and in this way he dominates the e4-square, discouraging a knight from jumping in there. 8...Be7 9.0-0 0-0 10.b3 Nbd7 11.Bb2 Bd6 12.Nh4 Re8 Black does not want to weaken his castled position, yet he fears the future action of the Bb2 when at an opportune moment the center is opened. Nevertheless, after 12...g6 13.Nf3 Re8 that plan does not look easy to realize. 13.Nf5 Bf8 14.Rc1 Ne4 15.B×e4 d×e4 16.Qg4 g6 17.N×e4!? (D)

Petrosian – the youngest of all the participants and in the opinion of his colleagues a serious candidate for rst place – has so far in the tournament been able to achieve only four draws, and in this game he seems to be looking anxiously for the coveted triumph. It is di cult to arrive at a clear verdict as to the correctness of this 117

Round 5

sacri ce (two knights for rook and two pawns) but at rst glance it looks sound. However, Black with his two bishops is well able to defend himself. 17...R×e4 18.Q×e4 g×f5 19.Q×f5 Bg7 20.e4 White’s position with its solid structure appears superior, nevertheless, even after deep analysis it is very di cult to decide who stands better. The text move – seemingly good for dominating the center and allowing the rook to be transferred kingside by Rc1-c3-g3 – also has its drawbacks, such as taking away support from the d-pawn. More adequate seems to be 20.h4, and if 20...Nf8 21.h5 denying Black the opportunity of playing ...Ng6. 20...Nf8 (D)

21.e5? The critical error. Petrosian tries to rush ahead with his pawn majority, but he forgets that at the same time he leaves the d5-square in his rival’s hands, something Taimanov seizes on immediately. Since White has decided to open up the center, the logical continuation should be 21.Rfd1, or even better 21.Rc3, continuing as follows: 21.Rc3 Q×d4 (if 21...c5 22.d5 B×c3 23.B×c3, and if 21...Ne6 22.Rh3) 22.Ba1!, (D) and Black has four possible paths: (a) 22...Qe5 23.Rg3; (b) 22...Qd7 23.Rg3; (c) 22...Q×c3 23.B×c3 B×c3 24.f4 c5 25.Rf3; (d) 22...Bc8 23.Qf3 with a strong attack.

118

21...Qd5 22.f4 c5 23.Qh3 The situation has changed completely: now White is on the defensive! 23...c×d4 24.Rcd1 Qe4 25.Rde1 Not 25.R×d4 Qc2, nor 25.B×d4 Rd8. 25...Qd5 26.Rd1 Rc8 27.R×d4 Qa5 28.Rc4 A sad necessity in view of the threat of ...Rc2. 28...R×c4 29.b×c4 Qc5+ 30.Rf2 Q×c4 31.Qb3 If 31.f5 Q×a2 threatening 32...Qb1+. 31...Qe4 32.Qc2 White insists on proposing the queen exchange to relieve the pressure. 32...Ne6 33.f5 Nc5 All Black’s pieces have become active and White is lost. 34.Qd2 Qb1+ 35.Rf1 Qd3 36.Qe1 Qd5 37.Qg3 Ne4 38.Qh4 Nc3 39.Qg4 h5 40.Qh3 Ne2+ 41.Kf2 0-1 White resigned as he made this move. There is no defense after 41...Nf4, a move which would have been equally e ective after 41.Kh1. (30) Averbakh – Gligoric King’s Indian Defense [E68] 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.d4 d6 6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.0-0 e5 8.e4 e×d4 9.N×d4 Nc5 10.f3 (D)

As we will see, Averbakh treats this opening in his own particular way, di erent from the ordinary. Though this move limits the scope of the Bg2, it defends the epawn and the g4-square, where otherwise the Nf6 might intrude. To serve the same purposes by other means, White must resort to two moves, Rf1-e1 and h2-h3. 10...a5 11.Be3 a4 12.Rf2 c6 13.Nc2 Qe7 14.Rd2 (D)

119

Round 5

A very interesting idea resulting from White’s plan is this transfer of the rook, aiming at the weakness on d6. 14...Nfd7 15.Rc1 Not 15.R×d6 a3. 15...Be5 16.Bf2 If 16.f4 B×c3 17.b×c3 Nf6! (dangerous would be 17...N×e4 18.B×e4 Q×e4 19.R×d6 Qe7 20.Qd4 with these continuations: 20...Nb6 21.c5 Nd5 22.Bd2, or 20...c5 21.Qd5 Nf6 22.Q×c5 and if 22...Ne4 23.R×g6+ or 22...Bf5 23.Bd4) 18.B×c5 d×c5 19.e5 Ne8 with good play for Black. 16...Re8 17.Ne3 White e ectively has the better game, but it is very di cult to realize his advantage. It will be necessary to maneuver with absolute precision. 17...Nf8 18.Ne2 Qc7 19.Rb1 It is clear that the Nc5 greatly interferes with White’s hopes of freeing his game; therefore he now threatens 20.b4. He still cannot play 20.f4 because after 21...Bg7 the e-pawn will be weak. 19...a3 20.b3 Not 20.b4 Na4. 20...h5 21.Qc2 Be6 22.Nc3 Nh7 Both White and Black “come and go” seeking a chance for a central break. 23.b4 With preparations for the o ensive completed, Averbakh begins driving back Black’s central pieces, his erupting pawns forcing their retreat. 23...Na6 24.f4 Bg7 25.f5! Averbakh continues the o ensive. Seemingly logical is 25.e5 d×e5 26.f5 g×f5 27.N×f5 with a very favorable position for the sacri ced pawn, but it turns out that Black would refuse the sacri ce by 25...Rad8! with absolute equality. 25...Bd7 (D)

120

26.Qb3? What a lamentable error White commits! Having played the whole game with great understanding of the position, Averbakh with this move undoes all he had achieved. This goes to show that to win at chess it is not enough to make twenty- ve good moves; all must be good to the end. Necessary was 26.f×g6 f×g6 27.e5! R×e5 28.Q×g6 Be8 29.Qc2 (not 29.Q×d6 Q×d6 30.R×d6 R×e3 31.B×e3 B×c3) 29...Nf6 30.Ne4!, and if 30...Qe7 31.N×d6 R×e3 32.Nf5. 26...Nf6 27.f×g6 f×g6 28.c5+ Be6 29.c×d6 B×b3 30.d×c7 Bf7 Black can breathe easy: once the queens are exchanged his king is no longer in danger, and he can now exploit the weaknesses in White’s position. 31.b5 N×c7 32.b×c6 b×c6 33.Rb7? Pressed for time, Averbakh loses the thread. 33.Bf1 was essential, with good drawing chances since White’s weakness at e4 is counterbalanced by Black’s at c6. 33...Rac8 34.Rc2 Na6 35.Bf1 Nc5 Black’s pieces get there rst! 36.R×f7 Desperation and time pressure. Why not 36.Ra7? 36...K×f7 37.Bc4+ Kf8 38.Nf5 Nc×e4 39.N×g7 K×g7 40.N×e4 R×e4 41.Ba6 Rd8 The advantage of the exchange should trump even the bishop pair. 42.h3 Rb4 43.R×c6 Ne4 44.Rc7+ Kh8 45.Be3 Rb2 0-1 (31) Szabó – Bronstein Old Indian Defense [A53] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 (D)

121

Round 5

A “mysterious” move which many years ago several masters – Dr. Euwe, Gligoric, some Argentinean players and the author himself – could not understand why it was often employed by Soviet chess players. If Black wishes to continue with a King’s Indian, this move appears inopportune because White is prematurely apprised of his intentions and may disregard the possibility of a Grünfeld, or lines based on c7-c5. But the Russian masters certainly have a solid basis for their theoretical conclusions. What then is the hidden idea behind this move? It was only recently in Zürich that the author, in a dream, glimpsed the reason for this simple yet profound move. The Soviet masters who play the King’s Indian enthusiastically, dislike very much the variation which follows on 2...g6 directly: 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3, and if the resulting position cannot be deemed disagreeable to Black, on the other hand it is a question of personal taste for those who play the King’s Indian. And it is precisely with 2...d6 that this variation is avoided! For example, 3.Nc3 e5 and now White must play 4.Nf3 (since if 4.d×e5 d×e5 5.Q×d8+ K×d8 with equality, or else 4.e4 e×d4 5.Q×d4 Nc6) and in this way the f-pawn cannot advance! It seems incredible that already on the second move such problems can be posed, which only goes to show how deeply the subtleties of today’s openings go. 3.Nf3 Nbd7 4.g3 e5 5.Bg2? White should play 5.Nc3 and if 5...c6 then 6.e4. 5...c6! 6.d×e5 Unable to play 6.e4, White exchanges pawns to prevent the advance e5-e4, which would later be supported by d6-d5. This illustrates the idea of our commentary above. 6...d×e5 7.0-0 Bc5 Bronstein – a great expert on the Old Indian – prefers this to the usual 7...Be7, nding it more in keeping with his style of play. 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Qc2 Qe7 10.Nh4 Re8 11.Na4 e4! Black gains space, not fearing the exchange of his bishop, as after 12.N×c5 N×c5 the Nh4 would have no retreat and would be exposed to capture by ...h6 and ...g5. 12.Nf5 Qe5 13.Bh3

122

Szabó does not shy away from the ght, even though with 13.N×c5 N×c5 14.Ne3 he would maintain a small positional advantage, especially by virtue of the bishop pair. 13...Bf8 14.Bd2 Here White thought a long time, and it appears he found the right move. Instead 14.Bf4 Qa5 15.a3 lets Black equalize easily, as Szabó demonstrated after the game: 15...Nb6 16.N×b6 Q×f5 threatening 17...g6. 14...Qc7 Anticipating the threat of 15.Bc3. 15.Bg2 The bishop returns so as not to leave the Nf5 pinned if Black moves his Nd7. 15...g6 16.Ne3 Qe5! Well played. Bronstein seeks to transfer his queen to the kingside at the right moment. In contrast, with the apparently logical move 16...Bg7 he could not do that, in view of 17.c5 and if now 17...Qe5, there follows the maneuver Ne3-c4-d6. 17.f4 Very well played, dislodging the queen and also strengthening the square e5. If now 17...e×f3 18.e×f3 and the queen’s rook will enter play on the newly opened le. Both masters have the same aggressive temperament and seek a wide-open ght, unconcerned about the constant dangers that threaten from all sides. 17...Qh5 18.h3?! (D)

Szabó – who up to now had scored only one half-point in the tournament – goes for victory at any price with this dubious sacri ce of the e-pawn. White threatens 19.g4 Qa5 20.Be1 Qa6 21.g5 winning a piece. 18...Q×e2 Accepting the challenge. 19.Rad1 Qd3? Why not 19...Nc5? If 20.Nc3 Qd3 21.Qc1 Qd8 keeping the extra pawn, and if 20.N×c5 B×c5 21.Qc3 Qd3 22.Q×f6 B×e3+ 23.B×e3 Q×e3+ 24.Kh2 Qc5. 20.Qc1 Qd6 21.g4 Qc7

123

Round 5

The wandering queen returns with a pawn as booty, but nevertheless White’s attack is dangerous and compensates for the sacri ced material. 22.Bc3 (D)

In e ect, White’s development counterbalances the lost pawn. The maneuvers of the black queen have cost too much time to be good. According to a principle of theory, losing three tempi is equivalent to losing a pawn. In this case the black queen has lost many more tempi, which means that even though Black has won a pawn, he has “lost” material. 22...Bg7 If 22...b5 23.B×f6 N×f6 24.c×b5. 23.g5! b5 Time pressure begins. Bronstein seeks counterplay, since after 23...Nh5 24.B×g7 N×g7 25.Ng4 (threatening 26.Nh6+), not only will he be obliged to return the pawn to keep the knight out of f6 and h6, but also after 25...e3 26.N×e3 Nb6 27.Nc3 Bf5 (White was threatening 28.Ne4) 28.c5 Nd7 29.b4 (threatening Nd4-d6) Black will be in a highly inferior position. 24.g×f6 Bf8 Not 24...B×f6 25.B×f6 and the Na4 can save itself on c5. 25.c×b5 c×b5 26.Nd5 Qc6 Both adversaries are now very short of time. This phrase, so often repeated in notes to grandmaster games, undoubtedly draws the reader’s attention, and we feel obligated to explain. Fourteen moves have yet to be made in this game, and both masters have less than ten minutes each to think. What is the cause? In games such as this a master “feels” his way through the position and wants to penetrate deeply into its possibilities; many pieces are “hanging” and must be attended to! At any moment one might easily lose material, or suddenly nd the forcing sacri ce that paves the way to victory. To be certain of nding the right plan or right move, the master must calculate an in nite number of possibilities, both his own and his opponent’s, and in this “mental fencing” he expends the major part of his energy and time – a lot of time! – during which the clock keeps ticking inexorably. It is not surprising then that toward 124

the end of the game there often appear those errors uncharacteristic of a grandmaster which undo all his labors and are almost always occasioned by fatigue and lack of time to think. 27.f5! (D)

A brutal blow that opens the f- le for the rook. Bronstein can no longer recover the piece; if 27...b×a4 28.f×g6 h×g6 29.Ne7+ B×e7 30.f×e7 R×e7 31.Qh6 Ne5 32.Rd8+ Re8 33.B×e5 winning. 27...Bb7 28.f×g6 h×g6 29.Ne7+ Opening the bishop’s diagonal as well. 29...B×e7 30.f×e7 b4 Not 30...R×e7 31.Qh6 Ne5 32.B×e5 R×e5 33.Nc3, nor 30...b×a4 31.Qh6. 31.B×b4 Q×a4 32.Bc3 R×e7 (D)

33.Qh6? Winning brilliantly would have been 33.R×d7! R×d7 (if 33...Q×d7 34.Qh6 f6 [not 34...f5 35.Qh8+ Kf7 36.Qg7+ Ke6 37.Qf6+ Kd5 38.Rd1+] 35.R×f6 Rg7 36.R×g6 R×g6 37.Q×g6+ Kf8 38.Bb4+) 34.Qh6 Rd4 35.Qf4 Qd7 (not 35...Rf8 36.Qf6, nor 35...f5 36.Qh6) 36.Qf6 Rd8 37.Rf4! Qc7 38.Ba5!! winning, since if (a) 38...Qc1+ 39.Kh2+-, or

125

Round 5

(b) 38...Q×a5 39.Q×f7+ Kh8 40.Rh4+ Qh5 41.R×h5+ g×h5 42.Q×b7 e3 43.Bf3+-, and if (c) 38...Rd1+ 39.Kh2 Qd6 40.Q×f7+ Kh8 41.Bc3+ Rd4 42.B×d4+ Q×d4 43.Rh4#.

33...Ne5 If 33...f6 34.R×d7 Q×d7 35.R×f6 Rg7 36.R×g6 R×g6 37.Q×g6+ Kf8 38.Bb4+. 34.Qg5 (D)

34...Qe8? Bronstein could have saved the game in the following way: 34...Rae8 35.Rd8! Re6! 36.Rf6 (if 36.Rfd1 Qb5, and if 36.R×e8+ Q×e8 37.Rf5 Nf3+ 38.B×f3 e×f3 39.Qh4 f2+!! 40.Kh2 Qb8+ 41.Rf4 f6) 36...R×d8 37.R×e6 Rd1+ 38.Kh2 f×e6 39.Q×e5 Qd7 40.Qh8+ with perpetual check. 35.Rf4 Rc8 36.Rh4 R×c3 37.Qh6? With 37.Qf6 it was mate in two! The error is explained by the fact that the ags were about to fall and Szabó was playing mechanically. 37...f6 38.b×c3 Rg7 Better was 38...Kf7, but White would still win with 39.Rd6. 39.Rd8 He saw it! 39...Q×d8 40.Qh8+ Kf7 41.Q×d8 g5 42.Rh6 1-0 126

Though full of errors by both sides, this game is a typical demonstration of aggressive temperaments. A struggle from start to nish! (32) Euwe – Reshevsky Nimzo-Indian Defense [E28] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 The reader may be surprised that the Nimzo-Indian should be employed so many times in this tournament, but as in all epochs, when an opening is in fashion, there are theoretical controversies over its pros and cons. In the Capablanca-Alekhine match the Orthodox Defense was played almost exclusively, and in the romantic era masters thought of nothing but the Giuoco Piano and King’s Gambit. 4.e3 c5 5.Bd3 0-0 6.a3 B×c3+ 7.b×c3 b6 More suitable is 7...Nc6 to prevent the advance e3-e4. 8.Ne2 Keres against Reshevsky played 8.e4, and on 8...Bb7 9.Bg5 taking advantage of his bishop pair. 8...Bb7 9.0-0 d6 10.Qc2 This move is not consistent with the main idea. Better was 10.Ng3, to advance with e3-e4 and eventually f2-f4. 10...d5 Preventing 11.e4 and gaining space. 11.c×d5 Q×d5 12.Nf4 Qc6 Black has no development problems, his pieces are well posted, and furthermore he threatens g7-g5. 13.c4 c×d4 14.e×d4 Nbd7 15.Bb2 Rfe8 If 15...g5 16.d5 e×d5 17.N×d5. 16.Rfe1 Necessary to prevent 16...e5. 16...Rac8 17.Rac1 Nf8 18.Bf1! Very well played! White has the initiative and his “hanging pawns” are as great a strength at this moment as they will be a weakness in the endgame. The move 18.Bf1! at once both defends g2 and liberates the knight. 18...Ng6 (D)

127

Round 5

19.N×g6? An inexplicable error. Now that White has played 18.Bf1 it appeared he was preparing to retreat the knight to d3, dominating the center. Furthermore the Bb2 would be a permanent threat to Black’s castled position, with the opportunity for a breakthrough by d4-d5. With this exchange, White reinforces Black’s kingside pawn structure, and the white attack loses strength. Also, the hanging pawns start to come under re. 19...h×g6 20.Re3 Red8 21.Qe2 Qd6 22.Rh3 Euwe continues with the idea of attack, but now after the exchange of knights the black position is very solid. Reshevsky, safe on the kingside, gets to work on the queen’s wing. 22...Qf4 23.Rd1 Ba6 24.Rf3 Qe4 25.Re3 Qg4 Black insists on exchanging queens, which would result in a favorable endgame. White logically refuses, but at the cost of weakening his pawns. 26.f3 Qf4 27.g3 Qh6 28.Rc3 Qg5 Reshevsky did not play this the move before because the reply would have been 28.Re5. Now the situation is di erent. 29.Qf2 Rd7 30.Rdc1 Rdc7 31.R1c2 Qa5 32.Bc1? (D)

128

The decisive error that loses the game. Even though White stood clearly worse, he should have played passively by 32.Rc1, after which would follow 32...Ne8 and 33...Nd6, attacking the hanging pawns. 32...Nd5 33.c×d5 If 33.Rb3 B×c4 34.B×c4 R×c4, and White, besides being a pawn down, is lost. 33...R×c3 34.R×c3 Q×c3 35.Bb2 Qb3 36.B×a6 Rc2 37.d6 Now, any move loses. 37...R×f2 38.d7 Qd5 39.K×f2 Q×d7 0-1 (33) Ståhlberg – Keres Queen’s Gambit Declined [D50] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 c5 5.c×d5 c×d4 An uncommon move in this position, however it was Keres’ preference in this tournament. Normal here is 5...N×d5 after which follows 6.e3 or 6.e4. The idea here is that in exchange for the isolated pawn, Black gains a tempo in development with an eventual ...Nc6 after 6.Q×d4. 6.Q×d4 If 6.N×d4 N×d5. 6...e×d5 7.Bg5 Much more active and better was 7.e4. See games 155 (Geller-Keres) and 208 (Najdorf-Keres). 7...Be7 8.e3 Nc6 9.Qd2 0-0 10.Be2 Much better was 10.Nd4! as in Najdorf-Gligoric, Helsinki ol 1952. The idea is to avoid having the king’s knight attacked after 10...Ne4 11.N×e4 d×e4. 10...Be6 11.0-0 Ne4 Black takes advantage of White’s failure to play 10.Nd4. 12.N×e4 If 12.B×e7 Q×e7 13.N×d5 Qd8. 12...d×e4 13.B×e7 Q×e7 14.Nd4 Rfd8! Black has no di culties whatsoever. If 15.N×c6 R×d2! 16.N×e7+ Kf8. 15.Rfd1 N×d4 16.e×d4 The situation has changed completely. Now it’s not Black who has an isolated pawn, but White! 16...Rd6 17.Qe3 Bd5 18.Rac1 Rad8 19.Bc4 h6 20.h3 a6 21.B×d5 R×d5 22.Rc4 f5 23.f3 b5 24.Rc6 Qd7 25.R×a6 e×f3 26.Q×f3 R×d4 (D)

129

Round 5

27.Rf1 Why not 27.R×d4 Q×d4+ 28.Qf2! (not 28.Kh1 Rd5 29.Qh5 Re5) 28...Q×f2+ 29.K×f2 Rd2+ 30.Kf3 R×b2 31.a4 b4 32.Rb6 with a draw? 27...Rd2 28.Ra8 If 28.Q×f5 R×g2+ 29.K×g2 Qb7+. 28...R×a8 29.Q×a8+ Kh7 30.Qf3 g6 31.Re1 (D)

If 31.Rf2 Qd4 32.Qb7+ Kg8 33.Qc8+ Kf7 34.Qc7+ Kf6 35.Qc6+ and the king escapes to g5. 31...R×b2 32.Qa3 Qd4+ 33.Kh1 h5 Incredible: it appeared this would be an ending with no advantage to anyone, but Keres has managed to come out a pawn ahead! 34.Qe7+ Kh6 35.Qf8+ Kg5 36.Qe7+ Kh6 37.Qf8+ Qg7 38.Qc5 Qf6 With a cautious maneuver Keres secures the safety of his king. 39.a3 Rb3 40.Rd1 f4 41.Rf1 (D)

130

Here the game was adjourned. It is supremely instructive to see how Black conducts the game to capitalize on his pawn advantage. 41...f3 Seeking the more di cult queen ending, because in the rook ending White would have excellent drawing chances. 42.R×f3 R×f3 43.g×f3 Q×f3+ 44.Kh2 45.Qe5 If 45.Q×b5? Qg3+. 45...Qf2+ 46.Kh1 Qf5 47.Qh8+ Kg5 48.Qd8+ Kf4 49.Qd2+ Kf3 50.Qd1+ Ke3 51.Qe1+ Kd3 52.Qb1+ Ke2 53.Qb2+ Ke3 54.Qc1+ Ke4 55.Qb1+ Kf3 56.Qd1+ Kf4 57.Qd2+ Ke5 58.Qc3+ Kd5 59.Qb3+ Kc6 (D)

Interesting is this maneuver of transferring the king to the queenside in order to escape checks. As soon as the a3-pawn falls the rest will be simple. 60.Qc3+ Kb7 61.Qg7+ Ka6 62.Qc3 The checks are over, and now Black strikes! 62...Qf1+ 63.Kh2 Qf2+ 64.Kh1 Kb6 65.Qc8? Though the endgame is very hard to save, this hastens defeat. If 65.Qd3 Qe1+ 66.Kh2 Qg3+ 67.Q×g3 h×g3+ 68.K×g3 Ka5 and Black queens rst. 65...Qe1+ 66.Kg2 Qe4+ 67.Kg1 Qd4+ 0-1

131

Round 5

The exchange of queens is inevitable, in the following way: 68.Kh2 Qd6+, or if 68.Kh1 Qd5+ 69.Kh2 Qd6+, winning. A laborious and instructive endgame by grandmaster Keres. (34) Boleslavsky – Smyslov Slav Defense [D19] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 Smyslov’s favorite defense. 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 d×c4 5.a4(D)

A classical continuation. The moves 5.e4 b5 6.e5 Nd5 7.a4 e6! give rise to the Tolush variation, in which White gives up a pawn for the initiative: 8.Ng5! Be7 9.Qh5. Another possibility is 5.e3 (preferred by Alekhine) 5...b5 6.a4 b4 7.Na2 (also very playable is 7.Nb1) 7...e6 8.B×c4 Be7! 9.0-0 0-0 10.Qe2 Bb7 11.Rd1 a5 12.Bd2 Nbd7 13.Nc1 c5 14.Nb3 Qb6 15.Be1 Rfd8, as in the game Reshevsky-Smyslov, USAUSSR radio match 1945. 5...Bf5 Theoretically best. Other variations are: (a) 5...e6 6.e4 Bb4 7.e5 Ne4 8.Qc2 Qd5 9.Be2 c5 10.0-0 N×c3 11.b×c3 c×d4 12.c×d4 c3 13.Bd2! Nc6 14.B×c3 B×c3 15.Q×c3 0-0 16.a5 and White is better (analysis by Dr. Euwe); (b) 5...c5 6.e4 c×d4 7.Q×d4 Q×d4 8.N×d4 e6 9.Ndb5 Na6 10.Be3 Bd7 11.B×c4 (not 11.N×a7 Nc5) 11...Rc8 12.Be2 Nb4 13.Rc1 a6 with an even game, Flohr-Smyslov, Moscow 1944; (c) 5...Bg4 6.Ne5 Bh5 7.g3 e6 8.Bg2 Bb4 9.0-0 0-0 10.N×c4 a5 11.h3 Nbd7 12.g4 Bg6 13.Bg5 Be7 14.e4 Ne8 15.B×e7 Q×e7 16.d5 with the better game for White, Najdorf-L.Steiner, Saltsjöbaden 1948. 6.e3 e6 Dr. Lasker’s variation 6...Na6 7.B×c4 Nb4 8.0-0 e6 9.Qe2 Be7 10.e4 Bg4 11.Rd1 00 12.h3 Bh5 13.Be3 gives the advantage to White. 7.B×c4 Bb4 8.0-0 Nbd7 9.Qe2 0-0 10.e4 Bg6 11.e5 Nd5 (D) 132

12.N×d5 Black, in a position known to theory, has obtained complete equality. If 12.Ne4 then 12...Qa5 13.Nfd2! a6 14.Nb3 Qc7 15.Bd2 B×d2 16.Nb×d2 N7b6 17.Bb3 Rad8 18.Nd6 Nc8 19.N×c8 R×c8 20.Nc4, Eliskases-Bogoljubow, match 1939. 12...c×d5 13.Bd3 a6 14.B×g6 f×g6 Much better than 14...h×g6. If Black’s e-pawn is truly weak, on the other hand White’s light-square bishop no longer exists to exploit it. Furthermore, the le is opened for the rook. 15.Be3 Qe7 16.Rfc1 Rfc8 17.Bd2 h6 ½-½; A fair result, since the position is solid and in equilibrium for both sides. (35) Kotov – Geller Sicilian Defense [B64] 1.e4 An unusual move for Kotov, who most of the time plays 1.d4. The reader may be surprised that various masters such as Kotov, Ståhlberg, Najdorf etc. always play 1.d4, while others invariably play 1.e4, but without doubt it is as much a question of taste as one of style. Spielmann, for example, played the king’s pawn opening looking to attack from the start, while Kotov – who is also an attacking player – instead likes a closed, positional game so as to launch an attack at the right moment, with all his pieces completely and logically deployed. 1...c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 c×d4 4.N×d4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bg5 e6 (D)

133

Round 5

7.Qd2 The famous Richter Attack. Other paths known to theory here: (a) 7.N×c6 b×c6 8.e5 d×e5 (also good is 8...Qa5 9.B×f6 g×f6 10.e×d6 Qe5+ 11.Qe2 B×d6 12.0-0-0 Rb8 13.Q×e5 B×e5) 9.Qf3 Be7! 10.Q×c6+ Bd7 11.Qf3 e4! 12.N×e4 N×e4 13.B×e7 Qa5+ with a good game (if now 14.c3 Qe5) Troianescu-Samarian, Bucharest 1940; (b) 7.Be2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Ndb5 a6 10.B×f6 g×f6 11.Nd4 Kh8 12.Kh1 Rg8 13.f4 Bd7, Smyslov-Botvinnik, wch Hague-Moscow 1948. Black is slightly better; (c) 7.Bb5 Bd7 8.0-0 h6 9.Be3 a6 10.Be2 Be7 11.Nb3 Qc7 12.f4 g5! 13.Bg4 g×f4 14.R×f4 Ne5, Alekhine-Foltys, Margate 1937. Black is slightly better. 7...Be7 On 7...a6 would follow 8.0-0-0 Bd7 9.f4 h6 10.Bh4! Be7 (if 10...N×e4 11.Qe1 Nf6 12.Nf5) 11.Nf3! Qc7 12.e5 d×e5 13.f×e5 Nd5 14.N×d5 e×d5 15.B×e7 N×e7 with even play. 8.0-0-0 0-0 For the continuation 8...N×d4 see game 60, Boleslavsky-Gligoric. 9.f4 If 9.Ndb5 Qa5 10.B×f6 B×f6 11.N×d6 (or 11.Q×d6 a6) 11...Rd8. 9...e5 (D)

134

10.N×c6 10.Nf3 o ered more prospects, but it appears that Kotov, after having the bye in the previous round and before that three successive defeats, wanted to break out of his rut and assure himself of his rst half-point in the tournament. 10.N×c6 b×c6 11.f×e5 d×e5 12.Q×d8 R×d8 13.R×d8+ B×d8 14.Bc4 Be7 15.h3 Bd7 16.Rd1 Be8 17.a3 Kf8 18.Be3 Nh5 19.Ne2 Nf6 20.Nc3 Nh5 21.Ne2 Nf6 22.Nc3 ½-½;

135

Round 6

Round 6

Standings after round 6: Reshevsky 4½; Keres and Smyslov 4; Najdorf 3½; Boleslavsky, Bronstein and Euwe 3; Averbakh, Gligoric, Szabó and Taimanov 2½;; Geller, Petrosian and Ståhlberg 2; Kotov 1. The grandmasters keep up their ghting spirit! Two more undefeateds – Boleslavsky and Gligoric – fell in this round; furthermore only two draws resulted from the seven games. But it was clear that a draw did not always mean a peaceful game, and that it was a mistake to infer from that result the content of the game. This was the case in the game between Bronstein and Dr. Euwe, where one did not know what to admire most: the ever-fresh genius of Bronstein, or the sangfroid of the Dutch professor. Once again there were theoretical novelties in the classical line of the Nimzo-Indian, which will be the subject of analysis by various masters. White played 11.Bd3, preparing 12.e4. The game immediately became complicated, and Bronstein was able to entice the black king to the center of the board with a beautiful sacri ce, but on move 31, already in time pressure, he overlooked a new sacri ce, and now Black stood better. However, Bronstein’s attack was not entirely spent, and he had enough left to reach a draw. Recalling the complications – both at the board and over the rules – of their game at the last Tournament of Nations – the encounter between Reshevsky and Ståhlberg drew enormous interest. A Swedish variation of the Tarrasch Defense was played, in which the American master, playing with deep insight, made an isolated pawn into a formidable weapon. In a critical position, Ståhlberg sacri ced a pawn and later, in time pressure, committed two errors which precipitated his defeat. [Of ReshevskyStåhlberg, Helsinki ol 1952, the January 1953 Chess Review reported “Playing the latter part of the game in terri c time pressure, neither side had kept score. Reshevsky claimed the position had been thrice repeated. When his claim was ruled out, he resigned.” – TK] Keres and Boleslavsky played a Queen’s Indian [sic; actually an Old Indian – TK] of great theoretical interest, in which Black essayed a disconcerting novelty: on the ninth move Boleslavsky sacri ced a rook and, only ve moves later, had absolutely no hope of counterplay. Kotov, with Black, in his favorite Sicilian Defense, gained the upper hand against Smyslov, who played the opening passively. However, Kotov made an untimely move 136

su cient to restore equality. Toward the end, Smyslov’s prospects were growing to the point that he had an opportunity to win, but missing this, the fair result was a draw. Another of the tournament’s few Ruy Lopez games was Gligoric-Szabó, in which Black put into practice certain debatable ideas and ended up in an inferior position. Incredible though it might seem, Gligoric by move 15 already had at his disposal a winning positional blow! But this move, and later others, were omitted, with the result that Szabó could recover in time and, capitalizing on the weaknesses in White’s position, managed to win the ending. And history repeated itself again! Gligoric never could beat Szabó, despite their having met in o cial games many times. [True. Against Gligoric up to 1953, Szabó had scored +3 -0 =3. Gligoric did not beat him until 1960. Their nal lifetime score was +7 -5 =25 in Szabó’s favor, according to Divinsky’s Life Maps of the Great Chess Masters. – TK] Averbakh, playing Black, tried the humorous (or very serious) psychological ploy of playing Taimanov’s own system in the Nimzo-Indian against him. But at the twelfth move he neglected to play ...Be4 to eliminate the strong white king’s bishop, after which White seized the advantage, systematically aiming at weak points and erupting in the center to win the game. Najdorf played an original system against the King’s Indian, involving the loss of a tempo and sacri ce of the d-pawn, in an attempt to conserve at all costs his bishop pair and a small but de nite space advantage. Petrosian made the mistake of depriving himself of the c5-square and became gradually disoriented, until he o ered a fatal exchange of queens, which sealed his fate. (36) Smyslov – Kotov Sicilian Defense [B92] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 c×d4 4.N×d4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 For the continuation 6.g3 see games 88 (Geller-Najdorf ), 120 (Gligoric-Najdorf) and 66 (Gligoric-Kotov). A more modern line is the Yugoslav variation: 6.f4 e5 7.Nf3 Qc7 8.Bd3 Be6 9.0-0 Nbd7 10.Qe1 Be7 11.Kh1 0-0 12.Nh4, Najdorf-Reshevsky, rst match, Mexico 1952. 6...e5 Black’s last two moves constitute the Najdorf system, as distinct from the Boleslavsky system, which entails ...e5 after ...Nc6 in place of ...a6. Najdorf’s idea, ...a6, is to prevent either the knight or bishop from going to b5, and to reserve the possibility of ...Nbd7 so as to recapture with the knight if White should play Bg5 and B×f6. In this way, the d5-square, otherwise weak, remains defended by a piece. 7.Nb3 If 7.Nf3 h6 8.Be3 Be6 9.0-0 Be7 10.Qd2 0-0 11.h3 Nbd7 12.Rae1 Qc7 with equality. 7...Be7 8.Be3 Nbd7 9.0-0 0-0 10.f3 Qc7 11.Qe1 Better was 11.a4, preventing the move that follows. 11...b5 137

Round 6

To this point the game had gone the same as Smyslov-Najdorf, Budapest 1950. Kotov improves the variation, not developing the bishop prematurely to e6, and securing control over the squares c4 and a4. 12.a3 Nb6 13.Qf2 Rb8 14.Rab1 The threat was 14...Nc4, and if 15.B×c4 b×c4 winning the b-pawn. 14...Be6 Black has gotten the better of the opening and even though his d-pawn is weak, he clearly dominates the queenside. Meanwhile White, contrary to the usual state of things, has not made any kingside attack felt. 15.Kh1 (D)

15...Nc4 We would have preferred 15...d5 16.e×d5 Nb×d5 17.N×d5 N×d5 18.Bc5 Nf4. 16.B×c4 b×c4 17.Nc1 Rb7 18.N1a2 d5? Now this is a mistake that loses the advantage gained from Smyslov’s passive play. 18...a5 was essential, not allowing the Na2 back into the game. Then, for example, 19.a4 Qb8 20.Nb5 d5 21.e×d5 N×d5 with the better game. 19.e×d5 B×d5 20.Nb4! As noted already, White with this move regains at least equality. Furthermore, Black is obliged to trade his good bishop for White’s bad knight. And if after 20...B×b4 21.a×b4 there follows 21...R×b4? then 22.Bc5. 20...B×b4 21.a×b4 Qc6 22.Bg5 Rd7 Not 22...R×b4 23.B×f6 g×f6 24.Qd2! Be6 25.Ne4. 23.Rfe1 Re8 24.Rbd1 Nh5 25.Qh4 g6 26.N×d5 R×d5 27.R×d5 Q×d5 28.Qe4 Little by little White has improved his position, and now has a small advantage due to his strong bishop and the isolated black pawns. 28...Q×e4 29.R×e4 f6 30.Be3 Rc8 31.g4 Ng7 32.g5 Kf7 33.g×f6 K×f6 34.Bd2 If 34.Bc5 Rd8 35.R×c4 Rd2 36.Kg1 Ne6. 34...Nf5 35.Bc3 Nd4 (D)

138

36.f4 If 36.B×d4 e×d4 37.R×d4 c3 38.b3 (if 38.b×c3 R×c3 39.Rd6+ Kf5 40.R×a6 R×c2) 38...Re8. 36...N×c2 37.Re2 Na1 (D)

38.R×e5? The correct move was 38.f×e5+ Ke6 39.Rd2 Rc6 40.Kg2 Nb3 41.Rd1 with good winning chances. 38...Kf7 39.Ra5 Nc2 40.R×a6 Rb8 41.Rc6 N×b4 42.Rc7+ Ke6 43.R×c4 Nd3 44.b4 Rf8 ½–½; A completely drawn position: after 45.Bd2 there would follow 45...Kd5 46.Rc7 h5. (37) Keres – Boleslavsky Old Indian Defense [A54] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nf3 Nbd7 5.Bg5 Once again Keres varies from the known lines 5.g3 or 5.e4 and 6.Be2. With the text move he practically prohibits the anchetto of the king’s bishop by the

139

Round 6

following variation: 5...g6? 6.d×e5 d×e5 7.N×e5 N×e5 8.Q×d8+ K×d8 9.B×f6+ winning. 5...h6 A logical move was 5...Be7. True, then Black is not playing a King’s Indian, but his position cannot be called unsatisfactory just for that. With 5...h6 Boleslavsky appears to be applying some home study, since he had played and continued to play the whole game – even further on in a very complicated position – with such ease and quickness that it justi ably drew the attention of the other masters and the spectators. What then happened that he lost so quickly? It is very possible that in his home analysis some important move escaped him, since even up to the later sacri ce of a rook, he moved with complete equanimity without showing any surprise or displeasure. 6.Bh4 g5 Risky. 7.d×e5 g×h4 If 7...d×e5 8.Bg3 Bd6 9.e3 and White, with no weaknesses, stands better. With the text move the complications we expected begin. 8.e×f6 Q×f6 If 8...N×f6 9.N×h4 Ne4 10.Qd5. 9.Nd5 (D

9...Q×b2? Boleslavsky, without an instant of doubt, made this move, which involves the sacri ce of the a8-rook, and which brings about his defeat. Much better was 9...Qd8, and if 10.Qd4 Ne5 with a very playable game, since if 11.N×e5 Bg7 12.N×f7 K×f7 13.Qf4+ Kg8 14.0-0-0 c6 15.Nc3 Qa5 with counterplay, or if 11.N×h4 Bg7 12.Qe4 c6 13.Nc3 Qf6 with compensation for the pawn. 10.Rb1 Q×a2 11.N×c7+ Kd8 12.N×a8 (D)

140

White is up a rook. What could Boleslavsky have thought he had seen in preparing this variation? 12...Nc5 Surely more dangerous to White was 12...Bg7, though with 13.Rc1 he defends himself perfectly. Clearly not 13.Qb3? Qa5+ 14.Nd2 Bc3 and ...Nc5. 13.Ra1 Qb2 14.Qd4 With his material advantage, White forces the exchange of queens and Black’s counter-attack is liquidated. If 14...Bg7 15.Q×b2, and not 15.Q×d6+ Bd7. 14...Q×d4 15.N×d4 Bg7 16.e3 Re8 17.Be2 B×d4 18.e×d4 Nb3 19.R×a7 N×d4 20.Ra2 h3 21.Rg1 Rg8 22.g4 1-0 One does not always win in chess solely by one’s own e orts; often the adversary lends a helping hand. (38) Reshevsky – Ståhlberg Queen’s Gambit Declined [D33] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.c×d5 e×d5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 c4 (D)

A variation of the Tarrasch Defense favored by Swedish players. The usual move is 6...Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.d×c5! d4 10.Na4 Bf5 11.Bf4 Ne4 12.b4!. 141

Round 6

7.Bg2 On 7.e4 the game would enter the following deeply researched line: 7...d×e4 8.Ng5 Be7 (if 8...Q×d4 9.Bf4) 9.B×c4! B×g5 10.Qh5 g6 11.Q×g5 Nf6 12.d5 h6 13.Qe3 Nb4 14.Bb5+ Bd7 15.Qe2 0-0 16.0-0 g5 17.B×d7 Q×d7 18.N×e4 N×e4 19.Q×e4 N×d5 (Cortlever-Stoltz, Beverwijk 1946), and White stands better (Pachman). 7...Bb4 Weaker is 7...Be7 8.0-0 Nf6 9.Ne5 0-0 10.Bg5 Be6 11.f4 with the better game for White, Rubinstein-Perlis, St. Petersburg 1909. 8.0-0 Nge7 Not 8...Nf6 9.Ne5. 9.e4 Other possibilities are (a) 9.Ne5 0-0 10.N×c6 b×c6 11.e4 Be6 12.Bg5 f6 13.Bd2= (Grünfeld-Ståhlberg, Folkestone ol 1933); (b) 9.Bd2 (probably best) 9...0-0 10.a3 Ba5 11.b3 c×b3 12.Q×b3 (Najdorf-Stoltz, Bled 1950). 9...d×e4 10.N×e4 0-0 If 10...Bf5 11.Ne5 N×e5 (if 11...Q×d4 12.Q×d4 N×d4 13.a3 B×e4 14.B×e4 Bc5 15.B×b7) 12.d×e5 Nc6 13.Bg5 Q×d1 14.Rf×d1 h6 15.Bf4 with the better game for White. 11.Qc2 (D)

Reshevsky varies from Pachman’s analysis, which continues 11.a3 Ba5 12.Qa4 Bg4! 13.Q×c4 B×f3 14.B×f3 N×d4 15.Bg2 Rc8 16.Qa4=. 11...Qd5 If 11...N×d4 12.N×d4 Q×d4 13.Rd1 would give White a strong initiative. 12.Be3 (D)

142

Reshevsky unveils a sweeping concept for dealing with the Swedish variation: even though he has an isolated pawn, his pieces are better developed and dominate the center. Black, in contrast, has not been able to post his pieces on advantageous squares. 12...Ng6 If 12...Nf5 13.Nfg5 with two continuations: (a) 13...Qb5 14.g4 N×e3 15.Nf6+ g×f6 16.Q×h7#; (b) 13...Nc×d4 14.B×d4 Q×d4 15.g4 h6 16.Nf3+-. 13.Nh4 Qb5 The threat was 14.Nf6+. 14.N×g6 h×g6 15.a3 Be7 16.d5! And the isolated pawn suddenly becomes a formidable weapon! 16...Na5 17.d6 Bd8 18.Nc3 Qa6 19.Rad1 Bg4 20.Rd4 Bf5 21.Qa4 Rb8 22.Rd5 Be6 23.Re5! b6 (D)

Not 23...b5 because of 24.R×b5 Bd7 25.R×a5, and if 24...R×b5 25.Q×b5 Q×d6 26.Bc5. 24.d7 b5 Both rivals were dramatically short of time. In this truly critical position, Ståhlberg wisely sacri ces a pawn, whereas a continuation like 24...Bf6 25.Rb5 Rfd8

143

Round 6

26.Rd1 would leave him with practically no moves at all. For example, if 26...B×d7 27.R×d7 R×d7 28.R×a5 b×a5 29.Q×d7 R×b2 30.Bd5 B×c3 31.Q×f7+ Kh7 32.Qg8#. 25.R×b5 R×b5 26.Q×b5 Q×b5 27.N×b5 a6? This is a major error. He had to play 27...B×d7 28.N×a7 Bf6 with excellent drawing chances. 28.Nc3 B×d7 29.Rd1 Bc8? Short of time, Ståhlberg continues to err. Better was 29...Bf5, and if 30.R×d8 R×d8 31.Bb6 Re8 32.B×a5 Re1+ 33.Bf1 Bh3. 30.Ne4 Be7 31.Bc5 B×c5 32.N×c5 Bf5 33.N×a6 Re8 34.Bf3 Nb3 35.Kg2 Bc2 36.Rd7 Bf5 37.Rd1 Bc2 38.Rd7 Bf5 39.Rd6 Be6 40.Nc7 Re7 41.N×e6 1-0 Obviously after 41...f×e6 42.Be2 wins quickly. A game of the highest interest and of great value to theory, very well conducted by Reshevsky, notwithstanding the errors by the Swedish grandmaster. (39) Bronstein - Euwe Nimzo-Indian Defense [E59] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 c5 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 0-0 7.0-0 Nc6 8.a3 B×c3 9.b×c3 d×c4 10.B×c4 Qc7 11.Bd3 Bronstein, as always, marches to his own drummer! For the continuation 11.a4 see game 2, Najdorf-Reshevsky, and its commentaries. The text move improves the location of the bishop, which was indirectly threatened by the queen, and at the same time prepares – like Averbakh’s idea 11.Re1 – the advance e3-e4 so necessary in this position. 11...e5 12.Qc2 (D) 12...Re8 If 12...e×d4 13.c×d4 c×d4 14.N×d4 and White has gained a clearly superior position. Best – according to Dr. Euwe himself – seems to be 12...Qe7. Interesting, although risky, was 12...Bg4 13.N×e5 N×e5 14.d×e5 Q×e5 15.f4 Qe7 16.c4 Rfe8 17.f5 Rad8 and the position is very complicated, as White threatens to capture the bishop by h2-h3 and g4-g5, while Black in turn has great counterplay.

144

13.e4 Bronstein is in his element! Certainly he must calculate precisely all Black’s possibilities, which are not few in number. 13...e×d4 14.c×d4 Bg4 (D)

15.Q×c5! Without doubt, Bronstein is currently the most ambitious and tenacious of all grandmasters. His own Soviet colleagues esteem him to the highest degree; they “adore” him for his prodigious talents and the inexhaustible wealth of ideas that pour out of every minute of his games. Although we ourselves fall victim many times [An exaggeration; Bronstein had beaten Najdorf only twice up to that time, with one draw. – TK] to his over owing fantasy, he is in our opinion the player who most “shakes the board,” making it come alive and turning the chess struggle into an emotional spectacle for the public. As commentators, we can only su er and work desperately to uncover his profound ideas and thereby show them to the reader. At this moment in the game, Bronstein thought for an hour and a quarter before deciding to take the pawn! What was it he saw during this time? Nothing less than these variations: 15.e5 B×f3 16.e×f6 N×d4 17.B×h7+ Kh8 18.f×g7+ K×g7 19.Bb2 (D) 19...Qf4 with the following continuations:

145

Round 6

(a) 20.g×f3? Re5! 21.B×d4 c×d4 threatening ...Rg5+ and ...Rh5; (b) 20.Qf5 Q×f5 21.B×f5 Bc6; (c) 20.Q×c5 K×h7 21.Q×d4 Q×d4 22.B×d4 with an extra pawn but also oppositecolor bishops and high probability of a draw. Or even better, 19...Qe5 (in place of ...Qf4) 20.B×d4 (if 20.g×f3 N×c2 21.B×e5+ K×h7) 20...c×d4 21.g×f3 (not 21.Qf5 Q×f5 22.B×f5 Be2 and the d-pawn advances) 21...Rh8 22.Qe4 Qg5+ 23.Qg4 (not 23.Kh1 R×h7 24.Rg1 R×h2+! 25.K×h2 Rh8+ 26.Qh4 R×h4#) 23...Q×g4+ 24.f×g4 R×h7 25.Rad1 Rd8 26.Rd3, draw. After so much analysis, Bronstein decides on ... another line of play (!) likewise very complicated, with the hope of better prospects. Such is the character of this formidable ghter. 15...N×e4 16.B×e4 R×e4 17.Ng5! Not 17.d5 because of 17...B×f3 18.g×f3 Rh4 19.f4 Qd7 20.d×c6 Qg4+ and mate. 17...Re7 If 17...R×d4 18.Bb2 Rd7 19.Qc2 g6 20.Ne4 winning. 18.Qc2 g6 An unfortunate but necessary weakening of the castled position. 19.Ne4 Bf5 20.Nf6+ Kg7 21.Qd2! (D)

No quarter given! The attack comes on the dark-square diagonals. 146

21...K×f6 22.d5 Rd8! Not 22...Qd6 23.Qh6 Q×d5 24.Bg5+ Ke6 25.Rfe1+, winning. 23.Bb2+ Ne5 24.f4 Qc5+ 25.Kh1 If 25.Bd4 Black saves himself with 25...R×d5! 26.B×c5 (if 26.f×e5+ Re×e5) 27.B×c5 R×d2 28.B×e7 K×e7 with a drawn position despite the imbalance of the exchange. 25...R×d5 26.f×e5+ If 26.B×e5+ Ke6 27.Qe1 Kd7. 26...Ke6 In a supremely dangerous position Dr. Euwe defends himself with great courage. Bad was 26...Kg7 27.Qg5, threatening 28.R×f5 or 28.e6+. 27.Qg5 Kd7 28.Rac1 Qb6 29.Bc3 Re8 30.Bb4 Re×e5 (D)

A risky move but, understandably, in such a position it is very hard to nd the right move, and even more so with the king in the middle of the board. 31.Qh4? Bronstein has used up almost all his time, and now he cannot fully analyze the sacri ce 31.R×f5! g×f5 (if 31...R×f5 32.Qe7#) 32.Qg8, with good winning chances. For example, 32...Qc6 33.Q×f7+ Kd8 34.Qg8+ Kd7 (if 34...Re8 35.Qg5+ Kd7 36.Qg7+ Kd8 37.Qb2) 35.Q×h7+ Kd8 (if 35...Ke8 36.Qh5+ Kd7 37.R×c6) 36.Qg8+ Kd7 37.Qg7+ Ke8 38.Qg5. 31...a5 32.Be1 h5 33.Bf2 Qa6 34.Bg3 Re4 At last Black can slip out of his di culties, and now it is White who must look for salvation. And Bronstein, despite having only seconds remaining, nds the way! 35.R×f5 R×h4 If 35...g×f5 36.Rc7+ Ke8 37.Rc8+ with at least a draw by perpetual check. 36.R×d5+ Ke6 37.Rcd1 Not 37.Rd6+? Q×d6 38.B×d6 K×d6 with a won ending. 37...Qc4 38.Rd6+ Ke7 39.Rd7+ Kf6 40.B×h4+ Q×h4 41.Rf1+ Kg5 ½-½; At move 39 Euwe proposed a draw, but Bronstein refused. Now, calmer, he accepts the result, since if 42.Rd5+ f5 43.R×a5, the chances are completely even.

147

Round 6

(40) Gligoric – Szabó Ruy Lopez [C83] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 N×e4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.d×e5 Be6 9.c3 Be7 (D)

10.Be3 Also playable is 10.Nbd2 0-0 11.Nd4 N×d4 (not 11...N×e5 12.N×e4 d×e4 13.B×e6 f×e6 14.N×e6 Q×d1 15.R×d1 Rfc8 16.Re1 winning) 12.c×d4 N×d2 13.B×d2 c5 14.d×c5 B×c5 15.Rc1 Rc8 16.R×c5 R×c5 17.Bb4 Qc7 18.Qd4 Rc1 19.B×f8 K×f8, KeresFine, AVRO 1938. 10...Nc5 Szabó varies from the usual 10...0-0 11.Nbd2 Bg4 12.N×e4 d×e4 13.Qd5 Q×d5 14.B×d5 e×f3 15.B×c6 f×g2 16.K×g2 Rad8 17.a4 b4 18.c×b4 B×b4. 11.Bc2 Bg4 12.Nbd2 Ne6 Not 12...N×e5 because of 13.B×c5, and if 13...B×c5 14.Qe1!. 13.Qb1 Because of Black’s dubious maneuvers (10...Nc5 and 11...Bg4) and his own rapid development, White has the better game; now he tries to realize his advantage. 13...Bh5 14.a4 b4 (D)

148

15.a5? A routine move. Correct was 15.c4!, after which Black would nd himself in great di culty. For example, (a) 15...d×c4 16.Be4 Qd7 17.N×c4; (b) 15...d4 16.Be4 Qd7 17.B×c6 Q×c6 18.N×d4; (c) 15...Bg6 16.B×g6 h×g6 17.Rd1 d4 18.Nb3. 15...Bg6 16.Nb3 b×c3 17.b×c3 Qb8 18.Qa2 0-0 19.B×g6 h×g6 20.Rab1? Another error. White could still have gained an advantage playing 20.Rfb1 and avoiding the move that now follows. 20...Qb5! 21.Qc2 Now it is clear that Gligoric played the wrong rook to b1, since if here he plays 21.Nbd4 Q×a5. 21...Qc4 Not 21...N×a5 22.N×a5 Q×a5 23.Nd4 N×d4 24.c×d4 and White is better. 22.Nfd2 Qg4 23.f4 Qf5 24.Q×f5 g×f5 (D)

Though he stood worse in the opening, Szabó has capitalized on several inexactitudes by his opponent and at this moment has the better position. The a5pawn is manifestly weak, and will be the theme of the game’s nal stage. 25.Nf3 Rfb8 26.Nfd4 Nc×d4 27.N×d4 N×d4 28.c×d4 Bb4 He begins to sense the weakness of the pawns on dark squares, within the reach of the black bishop. 29.Ra1 Rb5 30.Ra4 Rab8 31.Rfa1 If 31.Rc1 R×a5 32.R×b4 R×b4 33.Bd2 Rab5 34.B×b4 R×b4 35.R×c7 R×d4 winning. 31...Bc3 32.Rc1 Rb1 Simpler than 32...R×a5. 33.R×b1 R×b1+ 34.Kf2 Ra1 35.R×a1 B×a1 36.Ke2 Bc3 37.Kd3 B×a5 38.h3 Be1 39.g4 g6 40.Kc2 Kf8 41.Kd1 Bg3 0-1 After adjournment analysis White resigned without resuming play. The likely continuation was 42.Kc2 Ke8 43.Kc3 Kd7 44.Kb4 Kc6 45.g×f5 g×f5 46.Ka5 Kb7 47.Bd2 Bf2 48.Bc3 Be3. (41) Taimanov – Averbakh 149

Round 6

Nimzo-Indian [E52] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 b6 7.0-0 Bb7 It is extremely interesting that Averbakh employs this system, precisely because it was devised by his opponent, who now is obliged to play against it! 8.a3 In game 44, Szabó-Taimanov, 8.Qe2 was played. 8...B×c3 If 8...Be7 the game transposes to a Rubinstein System with an extra tempo for White (8.a3). 9.b×c3 d×c4 10.B×c4 c5 11.Bd3 Nbd7 12.Re1 Ne4 (D)

Necessary was 12...Be4, impeding the action of the strong white bishop. If then 13.Bf1 Qc7 14.Nd2 Bb7 followed by 15...e5 (not 15.e4 c×d4 16.c×d4 Qc3). 13.Bb2 Rc8 14.c4 Taimanov, with his bishops aimed at his adversary’s castled position, starts up the pressure. 14...Ndf6 15.Ne5 Rc7 16.a4 With good positional justi cation White presses on both anks. A very interesting theory one should always apply: Now on this ank, now on that, wherever the weaknesses are at! 16...Nd6 Anticipating eviction. 17.a5 Nd7 18.a×b6 a×b6 19.Qh5 (D)

150

Work on the queenside is now done, the a- le being opened and the b-pawn rendered weak. Now it is time to aim at the black king, although White might also play in the center: 19.d5 e×d5 20.c×d5 B×d5 21.B×h7+ K×h7 22.Q×d5 Nf6 23.Qb3. 19...g6 If 19...Nf6 20.Qh3 Be4 21.Be2 Bf5 22.g4 Bg6 23.f3 threatening Qh3-g3 and h2h4 with a strong attack. 20.Qh6 N×e5 21.d×e5 Ne4 22.B×e4 B×e4 23.Red1 Rd7 24.Rd6 Bb7 Not 24...R×d6 25.e×d6 f6 26.Ra7. 25.Rad1 R×d6 26.e×d6 f6 27.d7 Bc6 28.h4 B×d7 29.h5 g×h5 Better was 29...g5 30.f4 g4 (not 30...g×f4 31.e×f4 threatening Rd1-d3g3) 31.B×f6 R×f6 (if 31...Q×f6 32.Q×f6 R×f6 33.R×d7 e5 34.f×e5 Re6 35.Rd5) 32.R×d7 Q×d7 33.Q×f6 with the better game. 30.e4 e5 31.f4! (D)

Taimanov plays the game as a grand conception: rst he gains an advantage on the queenside, then he attacks on the kingside, and nally he makes the decisive rupture in the center. 31...e×f4 32.Rd6 Qe8 33.B×f6 Rf7 34.Rd5 1-0

151

Round 6

(42) Najdorf – Petrosian King’s Indian Defense [E62] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nf3 g6 4.g3 Bg7 5.Bg2 0-0 6.0-0 Nc6 Varying from the classical 6...Nbd7. The idea is to press directly on d4, even at the loss of a tempo, and tempt White into advancing his d-pawn which, besides blocking the Bg2, will leave the adjacent dark squares (c5 and e5) in Black’s hands. 7.Nc3 Bg4 An interesting idea. My opponent intends to trade o one of his bishops in order to remove a support for the d-pawn, and so oblige me to play d4-d5. 8.h3 B×f3 9.B×f3 Nd7 10.Bg2! (D)

The best continuation. Even with loss of time, I sacri ce my central pawn to preserve the bishop pair and the slight space advantage. If 10.e3 e5 11.d×e5 Nd×e5 12.Be2 Re8 13.f4 Nd7 and Black has no problems, or else if 10.d5 Nce5 when I must allow the king’s bishop to be exchanged. 10...N×d4 Not 10...B×d4 because of 11.B×c6; and if 10...e5 11.d×e5 Nd×e5 12.Qa4 and the king’s bishop would not be attacked. 11.B×b7 Rb8 12.Bg2 This position – which later would be repeated with Geller, game 193 in the 28th round – I consider favorable to White because of his bishop pair, which I greatly esteem, and for his space advantage. White has no major weaknesses, and Black cannot easily obtain dominating squares for his knights. 12...c5? It was essential to leave the c5-square open for a knight. Geller in the aforementioned game played 12...Rb4. 13.e3 Ne6 14.Qc2 The ideal square for the queen. 14...a5 15.Bd2 Ne5 16.b3 Qd7 17.Kh2 Nc6 18.Rad1 Ned8 My adversary, confronted by a solid position, appears disoriented and does not hit upon a plan, just making indi erent moves. 19.Be1 Kh8 20.Na4 Qc8 21.Bc3 152

To force the exchange of the king’s main defender. 21...B×c3 22.N×c3 Qf5? (D)

Here Petrosian errs seriously. Though White has a superior position and threatens Qc2-e4-h4 preparing the advance f2-f4-f5, I was well short of reaching anything concrete. In any event, I consider Black’s defensive task to be very di cult. 23.Q×f5 g×f5 24.Rd5 Ne6 25.R×f5 Nb4 26.Rh5 Ng7 27.Rh4 Nf5 28.Rf4 e6 29.Rd1 Rb6 30.Na4 Rbb8 Had Petrosian played 30...Ra6 there would follow 31.Bb7 Ra7 32.Be4. 31.Be4 Ng7 32.R×d6 N×a2 33.N×c5 1-0 Black resigns, since if 33...Rfc8 34.Nb7 f5 35.Bg2.

153

Round 7

Round 7

Standings after round 7: Reshevsky and Smyslov 5; Keres 4½; Najdorf 4; Boleslavsky, Bronstein and Euwe 3½; Averbakh, Gligoric, Szabó and Taimanov 3; Ståhlberg 2½; Geller and Petrosian 2; Kotov 1½;. In this round draws prevailed and only one game had a decisive result, speci cally, the one that allowed Smyslov to join Reshevsky atop the standings. For the best individual score over the rst seven rounds, a local factory had donated as a prize a beautiful gold watch, but sensing that it would be inappropriate to apply some sort of tie-break in these circumstances, the problem was resolved in the best fashion: by giving watches to both Reshevsky and Smyslov. At this stage in the tournament one could notice that several of the Soviet seconds were following Reshevsky’s games with particular attention, observing his reactions and behavior, and trying, it appeared, to draw useful conclusions. However, who knows if Russian psychology would be enough to make a diagnosis of such a “sphinx!” The draws in this round varied all over the spectrum with every gradation of color imaginable, from the ght between Dr. Euwe and Gligoric, to the peaceful “rendezvous” of Ståhlberg and Bronstein. Dr. Euwe unveiled a theoretical novelty against the King’s Indian, but the risks were high, and against a younger mind it was perhaps not advisable to ght on such complicated terrain. Gligoric gained a clear advantage, and at the opportune moment, instead of a winning knight sacri ce, he made one of the exchange – rather dubious, if not indeed bad – and there and then the attack was over. The game had one or two more twists, but nally Dr. Euwe, by masterful maneuvering, secured the draw. The Nimzo-Indian between Geller and Smyslov was characterized, theoretically, by White’s novel variance from game 9, Geller-Euwe, in which the c-pawn was sacri ced for the sake of a kingside attack. Here the pawn was defended, but it had to endure a hard siege. Which is the better plan for White? Later, Smyslov refused to take said pawn for no apparent reason, but his positional advantage grew, and when Geller’s ag fell at move 54, he was already lost. Kotov was chessically recovered, a circumstance everyone viewed with sympathy. In this round, against Keres, he made an early careless slip and stood 154

worse in the opening. However, unlike other occasions, Kotov did not lose the thread, and was able to escape his di culties and even gain the better position. But he could not nd the clincher, and after not accepting a “natural” draw by repetition, Kotov was later able to save himself only by a problem-like move. Boleslavsky and Reshevsky played a Ruy Lopez which resulted in a surprising draw, when White had de nite chances and should have continued the game. Averbakh-Najdorf was a brief game, important for King’s Indian theory, where Black’s nal advantage was insu cient. And nally, Szabó and Taimanov played a Nimzo-Indian in which equality was maintained to the end. (43) Averbakh – Najdorf King’s Indian Defense [E64] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.Nc3 d6 6.Nf3 c5 The very latest fashion in the King’s Indian. The line 6...Nbd7 7.e4, although good, is so restrictive that I prefer new paths; furthermore, I remembered that Averbakh, against Gligoric in game 30, had played against that line in a convincing manner. (D)

7.d5 This is the moment when White must make a decision, since Black is asking for clari cation in the center. The problem is whether to maintain, open, or close the center; three possibilities that each give a distinct physiognomy to the game. Unfortunately, the rst I cannot do: 7.0-0 Nc6 8.h3 (if 8.e3 d5 9.c×d5 N×d5 10.N×d5 Q×d5 11.Ne5 Qd6) 8...c×d4 9.N×d4 N×d4 10.Q×d4 Be6 with good play for Black, who threatens 11...Qc8. The second possibility would be 7.d×c5 d×c5 8.0-0 Nc6 9.Be3 Qa5 10.Qa4 Q×a4 11.N×a4 b6 with a good game, Böök-Szabó, Helsinki ol 1952 (if now 12.Ne5 N×e5 13.B×a8 Bd7 14.Bb7). The third is what is seen in the game, and there is yet a fourth possibility, as happened in game 126, Kotov-Boleslavsky: 7.0-0 Nc6 8.d5 Na5 9.Qd3 a6. Concerning other aspects of this opening, see games 152 (Reshevsky-Boleslavsky), 197 (Reshevsky-Gligoric), and 178 (Najdorf-Boleslavsky). 155

Round 7

7...Na6 8.0-0 Nc7 9.e4 Not feasible is 9.Nd2, the idea seen in games 6 (Euwe-Kotov) and 27 (GligoricPetrosian), so that after Black’s sortie Ra8-b8-b5 White continues with the maneuver Nd2-b3-a4. For example, 9.Nd2 Rb8 10.a4 a6 11.Qc2 (not 11.Nb3 because then Black would not proceed with his idea of 11...b5 but rather 11...e5, leaving the knight badly situated on b3) 11...b5 12.Nb3 (not 12.a×b5 a×b5 and Black dominates the important b5-square) 12...b×c4 13.Na5 Nc×d5! 13.Nc6 Nb4-+. 9...a6 10.a4 Rb8 Better than 10...Bd7 11.e5 Ne8 12.Bf4, Najdorf-Pilnik, Mar del Plata 1953. 11.Re1 If 11.a5 b5 12.a×b6 R×b6. 11...b5 12.a×b5 a×b5 13.e5 While Black makes haste on the queenside, White tries to open the center. 13...Ng4 14.e×d6 e×d6 15.Bg5 Nf6! Without obstructing the Bg7 by 15...f6. 16.Ne4 b×c4 17.Nfd2 Rb4 I cannot capture either pawn; after 17...R×b2 or 17...N×d5 comes 18.N×c4 with the better game. 18.Rc1 ½-½; Seeing that my possibilities, despite a slight advantage, would come to naught, I accepted the draw. For example, if 18...Ba6 19.Bf1 h6 20.N×f6+ B×f6 21.B×h6 Re8 22.R×e8+ Q×e8 23.N×c4 B×c4 24.B×c4 B×b2 25.Rc2, or even better 21.B×f6! Q×f6 22.Ne4 Qd8 23.Qd2 Kh7 24.Qf4 Ne8 25.Rc2. (44) Szabó – Taimanov Nimzo-Indian Defense [E52] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 b6 7.0-0 Bb7 8.Qe2 Against Averbakh in the previous round, game 41, Taimanov preferred 8.a3, clarifying the situation of the black bishop. 8...Nbd7 9.a3 B×c3 10.b×c3 c5 11.Bb2 d×c4 12.B×c4 Qc7 13.Bd3 Be4 Black, knowing that in that game Averbakh’s move Nf6-e4 was inferior, decides on the text move to trade o the strong white bishop and at the same time prevents e3-e4. 14.B×e4 N×e4 15.Qd3 Qb7 Better than 15...Ndf6, which would abandon control of the e5-square. 16.c4 Rac8 17.Rac1 h6 The position has arrived at complete equality, and Black has no move any more active. If White now plays 18.d5 e×d5 19.e×d5 Rfe8! followed by ...b5. 18.Rfd1 c×d4 19.e×d4 Rfd8 20.Qb3 Breaks such as 20.d5 are dangerous: 20...e×d5 21.c×d5 R×c1 22.R×c1 Ndf6 winning the pawn. 20...Nd6 The eternal theme of this kind of position: if White dominates the center and has a bit more space, in turn the “hanging pawns” will be a liability in the endgame. 156

21.Qb4 Nb8 22.d5 (D)

Szabó, a temperamental player, can’t wait any longer and decides on the central break. 22...e×d5 23.c×d5 R×c1 24.B×c1 Na6 25.Qh4 Re8 26.Bf4 Eliminating the blockader of d6, but in any event the game is still drawn. 26...Qd7 27.B×d6 Q×d6 28.Qa4 Nc7 ½-½; (45) Euwe – Gligoric King’s Indian Defense [E69] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.Nc3 d6 6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.0-0 e5 8.e4 e×d4 9.N×d4 Nc5 10.h3 Re8 11.Re1 a5 12.Qc2 a4 13.Be3 c6 14.Rad1 Nfd7 15.g4 (D)

Dr. Euwe’s novelty. A classic King’s Indian position which we have seen many times in recent years: Botvinnik-Geller, Budapest 1952; Reshevsky-Najdorf, rst match 1952; Ståhlberg-Najdorf, Budapest 1950; and Ståhlberg-Boleslavsky, game 7 of this tournament, where we gave our concept and analysis of this position. In that game, Ståhlberg played 15.f4, but it appears Dr. Euwe has his own ideas, and de nitely does not like leaving no possibility of supporting his e4-pawn.

157

Round 7

Concerning the value of the text move we have certain doubts, because it creates more weaknesses than advantages. The idea should be to provide a strategic square for the c3-knight (by Nc3-e2-g3), but as Gligoric demonstrates the idea is not at all dangerous, at least not to Black! 15...Qa5 Well played. Gligoric is not impressed by the advance of the g-pawn; on the contrary, he now eyes the blow h7-h5, intending to recapture with the queen, after moving the Nc5. If Dr. Euwe continues with his planned 16.Nce2, then 16...Ne5 17.N2g3 Qb4 18.Bf1 Ne6! 19.Kg2 N×d4 20.B×d4 Nf3! 21.K×f3 B×d4 with good play. 16.Bf1 Ne6 17.Kg2 h5 It is evident that Black has no di culties. His plan is clear and correct: there are so many weaknesses in the white position that by attacking just one of them – the most serious – the whole structure can collapse. 18.f3 h×g4 19.h×g4 Ne5 The knight occupies its ideal square and will not easily be dislodged. 20.Nce2 N×d4 21.N×d4 (D)

21...d5? But here the young and temperamental Yugoslavian master cannot control his impetuosity; he realizes that he stands better and needs a brutal blow to smash the white position. However, he could also prepare the attack with 21...Bd7, followed by ...Rad8 or ...Rac8 and later ...d5 or ...f5, although one still could not say White is then lost, and whether there might be a better way to realize Black’s advantage... If after 21...Bd7 22.Ne2, there would follow this pretty combination: 22...N×f3!! 23.K×f3 B×g4+ 24.K×g4 (if 24.Kg3 Qh5) 24...R×e4+! 25.Q×e4 (if 25.Kf3 Qf5+ winning the queen next move) 25...f5+. But youth is in a hurry! 22.e×d5 c×d5 23.Nb5 d×c4 24.Nd6 (D)

158

24...Be6? Gligoric, who up to now has conducted the game with great discernment, does not nd the right continuation. Winning was 24...N×f3!! 25.K×f3 (if 25.N×e8 N×e1+ 26.R×e1 Q×e1; and if 25.B×c4 N×e1+ 26.R×e1 Be6) 25...B×g4+!! 26.K×g4 Qh5+ 27.Kg3 Be5+ 28.Kf2 (not 28.Kg2 Qh2+; nor 28.Bf4 Qg5+) 28...B×d6 threatening ...Ra5 or ...Re6. If here White continues 29.R×d6 then 29...Qh2+ 30.Bg2 Q×d6 31.Q×c4 Qf6+ 32.Qf4 Q×b2+ 33.Re2 Qb1 with a winning position. In contrast, this sacri ce of the exchange Black carries out is not only very dubious, but also it eliminates all possibility of attack. 25.N×e8 R×e8 26.Qc3 Q×c3 Forced by the threat of 27. Bd4. 27.b×c3 Nc6 28.Bb6? (D)

White’s position, even with the advantage of the exchange, is very delicate because of the aggressive placement of Black’s pieces. The correct move was 28.Bc5, and if 28...B×c3 29.Re3 recovering the pawn, or if 28...Rc8 29.Re3, and if 29...Bh6 30.R×e6 f×e6 31.B×c4 Nd8 32.Bb4 R×c4 33.R×d8+ with the better game. 28...B×c3 29.Re4 On 29.Re3 there would likewise follow 29...Ba5. In this manner the error of move 28 is demonstrated; now the bishop retreats to a5 with gain of tempo, since if 159

Round 7

White takes the bishop, after 30.B×a5 N×a5 the c4-pawn is defended. 29...Ba5 30.B×a5 N×a5 31.Re5 The rhythm of the game changes once more. From a badly inferior position, Dr. Euwe – thanks to Black’s inopportune exchange sacri ce – gained some advantage, but erred later putting himself again in a delicate situation. Now he must play with extreme caution to salvage the game. 31...b6 32.Rb5 c3 33.Rc1 Rc8 34.Rb4! The only move. If instead 34.R×b6 B×a2 35.Rc2 Nb3 winning. 34...B×a2 35.R×a4 Bd5 36.Rb4 Nb3 37.Rc2 Na1 38.Rc1 Nb3 39.Rc2 Nd2 40.Be2 Bb3 41.R×d2 c2 Not 41...c×d2 42.R×b3 Rc1 43.Rd3. 42.R×c2 ½-½; (46) Ståhlberg – Bronstein Queen’s Indian Defense [E14] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.e3 Bb7 5.Bd3 Be7 6.Nc3 d5 7.Qa4+ More exible was 7.0-0 as in game 147, Petrosian-Najdorf. With the text move, even though White forces Black to play 7...c6, the exposed position of his queen will entail loss of time for him. 7...c6 Not 7...Nbd7 8.c×d5 e×d5 9.Ne5. 8.c×d5 e×d5 9.0-0 0-0 10.Qc2 c5 The two moves of the white queen (Qd1-a4 and Qa4-c2) compensate for this loss of time. 11.b3 Not 11.d×c5 b×c5, which would give Black a promising position where an opportune d5-d4 would enhance the value of the Bb7. 11...Nc6 12.a3 Preserving his bishop. 12...h6 13.Bb2 c×d4 This exchange is necessary to keep closed the d- le and the a1-h8 diagonal, now that White has completed his development. 14.e×d4 a6 15.Rfe1 b5 16.Qd1 Re8 17.Rc1 Bd6½-½; (D)

160

In this position neither side is better, and the real ght could now begin! But masters are not always in the mood; furthermore the major part of the tournament still awaits, and perhaps under those circumstances the decision appears justi ed. (47) Boleslavsky – Reshevsky Ruy Lopez [C99] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 c×d4 12.c×d4 Qc7 13.Nbd2 Nc6 14.Nb3 a5 (D)

Inferior would be 14...Rd8 15.Bd2 (not 15.d5 Na5! 16.N×a5 Q×a5 17.Be3 Bd7 18.Qd2 Q×d2=, Boleslavsky-Keres, Leningrad-Moscow 1941) 15...Qb8 16.d5 Na7 17.Na5 Bd7 18.Bd3 Rc8 19.b4 Bd8 20.Nb3 Bb6 21.Nh4 with the better game for White, Smyslov-Keres, Leningrad-Moscow 1941. 15.Be3 a4 If 15...Nb4 16.Bb1 a4 17.Nbd2 Bb7 18.a3 Nc6 19.Bd3 with the better game for White, Ragozin-Lilienthal, Moscow 1940. 16.Nbd2 Ba6 17.Rc1 Qb7 18.a3 The text move is superior to 18.Nf1 Bd8 19.Bb1 Re8 20.Ng3 g6 21.Bg5 Na5 22.d5 Qd7 23.Bd3 Nb7=, Luckis-Najdorf, Mar del Plata 1945. White threatens to x the 161

Round 7

queen’s ank with 18.b4. 18...Bd8 19.b4 a×b3 Black is obliged to capture, as otherwise his pieces would remain without prospects. 20.N×b3 Bb6 21.Nh4 g6 22.Bb1 ½-½; (D)

Here Reshevsky proposed a draw, and to astonishment of everyone, Boleslavsky accepted! In reality it was a position worth playing. The threat is 23.d×e5 d×e5 24.B×b6 Q×b6 25.Qd6, and this is not the only variation o ering good prospects, White’s position is so immensely superior. For example, if 22...Rfc8 (probably best; not 22...Rfd8 because of 23.Bg5) 23.d×e5 d×e5 24.Nc5 B×c5 25.B×c5 with a clear positional advantage and threatening Qd1-f3 and Bb1-a2. What could be the reason for the Russian master accepting the draw? Probably he took into account more than just the situation on the board: the great renown of his opponent. And this curious denouement occurred again several times in the tournament! Thus one sees that renown, the “trademark” of the player, is worth something. The only hard part is getting it ... (48) Kotov – Keres Grünfeld Defense [D71] 1.c4 Nf6 2.d4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.g3 d5 5.Bg2? Necessary was 5.c×d5 as in game 55, Najdorf-Szabó. 5...d×c4 6.Qa4+ If 6.Nf3 c6 7.Ne5 Ng4! keeping the pawn. 6...Nfd7! Black has already seized the initiative and threatens to keep his extra pawn. 7.e3 If at this moment 7.Q×c4 Nb6 winning the d-pawn; if 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.d5 Nb6, Guimard-Panno, Argentine ch 1953. The game Letelier-Pilnik, Mar del Plata 1953 saw 7.d5 0-0 8.Q×c4 c6 9.d×c6 N×c6 with good play for Black. 7...0-0 8.Q×c4 c5! Taking advantage of his superior development to break up the white center. 162

9.Nf3 Not 9.d×c5 because of 9...Ne5 and ...Nd3+. (D)

9...c×d4 Another alternative was 9...Nc6 10.d5 Nce5 (if 10...Nb4 11.0-0 b6 12.a3 Ba6 13.Qb3 Nd3 [not 13...B×f1 14.B×f1]) 11.N×e5 N×e5 12.Qe2 c4 13.0-0 Bd7 with equal play. 10.N×d4 If 10.e×d4 Nc6 threatening ...Nb6. 10...Ne5 11.Qe2 Nbc6 12.N×c6 Nd3+!? (D)

Keres has capitalized on White’s opening inaccuracy, gaining rapid development. Now he decides to sacri ce a pawn to gain an active bishop pair. With 12...b×c6 13.00 Qb6 14.Rd1 Ba6 15.Qc2 Rad8 Black would also have a positional advantage. 13.Kd2! N×c1+ 14.N×d8 N×e2 15.N×b7 N×c3 16.b×c3 Be6 Black optimistically sought this position, and despite the pawn minus, his two sharp bishops and his secure king appear to bear him out. However, Kotov defends himself very coolly, conceding nothing! 17.Rhc1 Rac8 18.Rc2 Rc7 19.Rac1 Bf5?

163

Round 7

The correct move was 19...Bc4 limiting the mobility of White’s pieces. For example, if 20.Na5 Rd8+ 21.Ke1 Bd3, or if 20.Rb2 Rb8 21.a4 Ba6, or 21.Rb4 B×a2. 20.Rb2 Rd7+ 21.Ke2 Rc8 22.Rb3 Bg4+

Kotov-Keres about to begin. Both sides are under great time pressure. 23.Bf3 B×f3+ 24.K×f3 Finally Kotov can escape the pressure. Now it is Black who must ght to draw! 24...Rdc7 25.c4 R×c4 26.R×c4 R×c4 27.Ra3 h5 28.R×a7 Even after winning Black’s a-pawn, it is very hard for White to win the game. If 28.h4 Rc7 29.R×a7 Kh7 30.a4 Bc3 preventing the a-pawn from advancing 28...g5 29.Na5 Rc2 30.Nb3 g4+ 31.Kg2 e6 32.a4 Bh6 33.Kf1 Rb2 34.Rb7 Rb1+ 35.Kg2 Rb2 36.Kf1 Rb1+ 37.Kg2 Rb2 38.Nc5? He had to accept the draw by repetition. 38...Rc2 39.Ne4 B×e3 40.Kf1 Bd4 41.Rd7 e5 42.Rd8+ Kg7 43.Rd6!! (D)

43...Ra2 A miracle move, the only one that saves the game. 164

If 43...f5 44.Rd7+ Kf8 (44...Kg6 45.Rd6+ Kg7 46.Rd7+) 45.Nf6! (D) and if 45...R×f2+ 46.Ke1 followed by Nh7+ and Nf6+ with perpetual check, or if 45...Rc6 46.N×h5 Rh6 47.Ng7 R×h2 48.Kg1 and not 48...R×f2 because of 49.Ne6+ Ke8 50.R×d4.

44.a5 R×a5 45.Nf6 Kf8 46.N×h5 Ke7 47.Rc6 f5 48.Ng7 e4 49.Rc7+ Kf6 50.Nh5+ Ke5 51.Rc2 Ra1+ 52.Kg2 Ra3 53.Nf4 Rf3 54.h3 g×h3+ 55.N×h3 Ra3 56.Nf4 Kf6 57.Rc6+ Ke7 58.Rc4 Ba7 ½-½; (49) Geller – Smyslov Nimzo-Indian Defense [E29] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 c5 5.Bd3 0-0 6.a3 B×c3+ 7.b×c3 Nc6 It is interesting to witness a battle which develops along the following lines: White, with a strong center and two good bishops, tries to attack directly on the kingside; Black, in contrast, prepares to play positionally against the weaknesses at c3 and c4, counter-attacking on the queenside. Smyslov, with his ductile style, gives the chess enthusiast a clear lesson, realizing this plan without neglecting the defense of his kingside. 8.Ne2 b6 9.0-0 Ba6 Contact begins ... 10.e4 Ne8 The pin 11.Bg5 must be prevented in this way, since 10...h6 would create a weakness. 11.Qa4 Geller does not use the same plan as against Dr. Euwe (game 9), in which he ignored c4 to go directly into attack on the king’s ank. 11...Qc8 12.Be3 d6 13.Rad1 Na5 14.d×c5 It is necessary to close the c- le so that Black cannot add to the pressure on c4. 14...d×c5 15.e5 Qc6 16.Qc2 If White accepts the exchange of queens he would have no chance of attack, and his weaknesses would become more serious. 16...f5 17.Qa2 165

Round 7

If 17.e×f6 N×f6, and even though White has the freer game, it would not compensate for the pawn he loses. 17...Qa4 The way in which Smyslov lays siege to c4 is truly noteworthy. 18.Nf4 Nc7 19.Bc2 Qe8 (D)

Better probably was 19...Q×c4, and if 20.Qa1 Qb5, but it appears that Black is no hurry to win the pawn, waiting for the right (?) moment. And now it is Geller who does not want to give it to him! 20.Bb3 g5 Bravely played. Smyslov has succeeded in tying White’s queen and light-square bishop down to a purely defensive task on an unimportant diagonal. Having those two pieces “out of focus” facilitates the attack begun by the text move. 21.Nh3 h6 22.f3 Qe7 23.Nf2 Rad8 24.Nd3 Qg7 25.f4 Rd7 26.Nc1 Rfd8 27.R×d7 R×d7 28.Qe2 Nd5 29.Bd2 N×f4 30.B×f4 g×f4 31.R×f4 (D)

31...Qg5 At this point only a few moves remained until adjournment, and both players had little time left on the clock. Smyslov tries not to commit himself with maneuvers requiring deep calculation, and seeks moves that do not substantially modify the 166

position. The Soviet grandmaster – like all the players – counts on the home analysis he will do with his second after adjournment, by which he will, almost without e ort and without risk, nd the winning line. This tendency is even easier to spot in closed positions, where masters can make one or several indi erent moves without, as a general rule, a ecting the strategic character of the position. With this in mind, the reader can understand the real signi cance of some maneuvers by grandmasters as they near the moment of adjournment, by which they avoid unnecessary risks after having fought tenaciously from the rst move of the game. In time pressure it was di cult to calculate the following combination: 31...Rd5 32.Nd3 R×d3 33.Q×d3 N×b3 34.Rf3 Kh7 35.Rg3 Qf7 36.Qd8 B×c4 37.Qf6 Q×f6 38.e×f6 e5 39.Rg7+ Kh8 40.R×a7 e4 41.Kf2 f4-+. 32.g3 Kh7 33.Kf2 Qd8 34.Qh5 Rg7 35.Qe2 Rd7 36.Qh5 Qg5 37.Qe8 Qe7 38.Q×e7+ R×e7 39.Ba2 Black still has not captured the beleaguered pawn he could have taken back at move 19, demonstrating that even the great masters, trying not to make the simple moves, sometimes commit errors. 39...Rd7 40.Ke2 Bb7 41.Bb1 Kg8 42.g4 f×g4 43.R×g4+ Rg7 44.Rh4 Rg1 45.Kd2 Kg7 46.Bd3 Bf3 47.Rf4 Bh5 48.Ne2 Rg2 49.Ke3 Rg5 50.h4 R×e5+ Making his advantage material. 51.Kd2 Nb3+ 52.Kd1 Re3 53.Kc2 e5 54.Rf2 e4 0-1 White exceeded the time limit, but he was lost all the same. If 55.Nf4 e×d3+ 56.K×b3 Bf7 57.a4 Re4 58.N×d3 (or 58.Nd5 R×h4) 58...B×c4+ 59.Kc2 R×h4.

167

Round 8

Round 8

Standings after round 8: Reshevsky 6; Keres and Smyslov 5; Euwe and Najdorf 4½; Boleslavsky, Bronstein, and Gligoric 4; Averbakh and Szabó 3½; Taimanov 3; Geller, Petrosian and Ståhlberg 2½; Kotov 1½;. This was the last round played in the great Kirchgemeindehaus of Neuhausen, and not without regret did the players prepare to leave this beautiful corner of the world, where every leisure minute meant a comforting encounter with nature. Walks, excursions, hikes and pleasant things without end, like the distant murmur of the falls of the Rhine, which had accompanied the silence of the playing hall. Reshevsky remained rmly in rst place, by virtue of his victory over Kotov and the bye given Smyslov. The game Reshevsky-Kotov, played in the morning hours, was characterized by a ght without quarter. White refuted an idea of Kotov’s in the King’s Indian, and later opened up the game, gaining a winning position. Reshevsky’s conduct of the game was simply masterful and a good model of his style, and to top it all o , it ended with a race against the clock, in which the nervousness of the rivals created a troublesome situation. Dr. Euwe, facing Taimanov, played a Nimzo-Indian, in which White introduced another novelty in the classical position at move 11. Taimanov may have overlooked the chance to advance his d-pawn and Black, taking quick advantage of his active knights, penetrated on the king’s ank and, aided by his adversary’s inexactitudes, won at the moment of adjournment. Ståhlberg, who appears to play less than his best against Gligoric, incurred several serious weaknesses in his French Defense, and his position could not resist the continuous pressure White imposed with mathematical inexorability. Geller began against Keres playing a King’s Indian, which surprisingly transformed into a Sicilian. Black’s position proved very sound, and a draw was the logical result. In the game Najdorf-Szabó, a Grünfeld, White lost the advantage right out of the gate, and later stood somewhat worse. However, he was able to reestablish equilibrium, and the game was agreed drawn at move 28. Bronstein-Boleslavsky was a very brief game, and even shorter still was Petrosian-Averbakh, in which White understood, having lost a valuable tempo in the 168

opening, that he had no reason to undervalue a draw. (50) Keres – Geller King’s Indian Defense [E61] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.Bg5 Keres, as we have already seen repeatedly, does not continue with the kingside anchetto against the classical line. 4...d6 5.e3 In this way White maintains a rm pawn center, but he also allows Black a comfortable development with no lack of space. 5...0-0 6.Nf3 c5 7.Be2 h6 8.Bh4 c×d4 (D)

White’s passive deployment has given Geller no di culties in the opening. The text move is very good, since if instead 8...Nc6 9.d5, and the knight has no good squares. Whereas with the pawn exchange, if after 9...Nc6 White plays 10.d5, Black can carry out the maneuver Nb8-d7-c5. 9.N×d4 Nc6 10.0-0 Bd7 Surprise! Suddenly we nd ourselves in a Sicilian Dragon where White has his pawn at e3 instead of e4. 11.Qd2 a6 12.Rfd1 Kh7 13.Nb3 Be6 14.Nd5 The position is rather solid for both sides, and White has no other recourse but this move, if he wants to attempt anything. 14...B×d5 15.c×d5 Ne5 16.f4 Ned7 And thanks to the opportune pawn exchange at move 8, the knight now has a life! 17.Bf3 Rc8 18.Rac1 R×c1 19.R×c1 Qb8 20.e4 If 20.Qc2 Nb6 21.B×f6 B×f6 22.Qc7 Na4, or even better 22...Na8. 20...Rc8 21.Bf2 Rc7 22.R×c7 Q×c7 23.Qc1 Ne8 24.Q×c7 N×c7 25.Na5 B×b2 26.N×b7 f5 ½-½; (D)

169

Round 8

After 27.e×f5 g×f5 28.Na5 Nf6 29.Nc4 Bc3 30.Nb6 Ba5 31.Nc4 Bc3 32.Nb6 it’s a draw. (51) Reshevsky – Kotov King’s Indian Defense [E95] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 As one can see, and as we already noted in game 31 (Szabó-Bronstein), this move enjoys almost unanimous approval among the Soviet masters. 3.Nc3 Nbd7 4.Nf3 g6 5.e4 e5 6.Be2 Bg7 7.0-0 0-0 8.Re1 (D)

White seeks an open game. Another continuation was 8.d5 a5 9.Nd2! (9.Ne1 Nc5 10.Bg5 h6 11.B×f6 Q×f6 12.Nd3 Qe7?, Ståhlberg-Najdorf, Buenos Aires, 1947; better 12...N×d3 13.B×d3 Qe7 with no troubles for Black.) 9...Nc5 10.Qc2=. Or also 8.b3 c6 9.Ba3 Re8!=, since if 10.B×d6 e×d4 11.N×d4 N×e4, or 10.d5 c5. 8...c6 Inferior is 8...Re8 9.d5. 9.Bf1 Ne8 An original idea in place of the usual continuations 9...Re8 10.Rb1 e×d4 11.N×d4 a5 (Reshevsky-Najdorf, Helsinki ol 1952), or 9...Ng4 10.Bg5 f6 11.Bc1 Nh6 (Reshevsky-Najdorf, second match, Buenos Aires 1953). 170

Kotov’s idea – apart from giving his Bg7 play – is the maneuver Ne8-c7-e6-d4. Or if White closes the center with 10.d5 then comes 10...c5, and Black will turn to rupturing the kingside with f7-f5. 10.Rb1 Reshevsky is, in our opinion, one of the masters who best handles the white side of the King’s Indian. It is typical of his style not to make committal moves that compromise his position. Once he does advance a pawn he does so with exact calculation because, as we know, a piece can return to its previous square, but a pawn, in contrast, can never go back. 10...Nc7 11.b4 White nds the right way to refute Kotov’s maneuver, taking advantage Black’s constricted position and threatening to open lines and secure strategic posts for his pieces. 11...c5 (D)

Kotov nds himself obliged to vary from his original plan, since he sees that after 11...Ne6 there would follow 12.d5, and if 12...Nd4 13.N×d4 e×d4 14.Ne2 c5 15.b×c5 d×c5 16.f4 and the threat of e4-e5 and Ne2-g3-e4 gives White a clear advantage. 12.d×c5 Understanding the position well, Reshevsky with his better developed pieces opens up the game. 12...d×c5 13.Ba3! (D)

171

Round 8

It seems incredible that this could be the best square for the queen’s bishop! 13...Ne6 If 13...c×b4 14.B×b4 Re8 15.Rb2 threatening 16.Rd2, and if 15...Ne6 16.Nb5. 14.b×c5 Re8 Not 14...Nd×c5, because of 15.Qd5 Qc7 16.Nb5 Qc6 17.N×e5. 15.Nb5 Nd×c5 16.Qd5 Na4 17.Rb3 Observe with what simplicity the American master plays: as Black threatens 17...a6 18.Nd6 Nc3, White not only prevents that maneuver but also improves the position of his queen’s rook. 17...Nb6 18.Qd1 Bd7 19.c5 If 19.Nd6 Ba4. 19...Nc8 20.Rd3 Nd4 21.Nb×d4 e×d4 22.N×d4 The triumph of good development and precise play. With an extra pawn and the better position, the rest is a matter of technique. Kotov’s last hope will be the inevitable time pressure which the American master must also endure. 22...Qa5 23.Nb3 Q×a3 24.R×d7 Ne7 25.R×b7 Q×a2 26.Bb5 The only idle piece gets into the action! 26...Red8 27.Qf3! Bf8 28.Bc4 Qb2 29.Q×f7+ Kh8 30.e5 (D)

If 30.R×e7? B×e7 31.Q×e7 Qc3 32.Rc1 Q×c4. 172

30...Qc3 31.Kf1 Also winning was 31.Re3. 31...Rab8 32.c6 Rbc8 33.Be6 Qd3+ 34.Kg1 Qe2 (D)

A last stab in the midst of a desperate race against the clock, during which neither player could record his moves. Black is completely lost. 35.Q×f8+ R×f8 36.R×e2 R×c6 37.R×e7 a5 Though it looks like a mirage, Black carries on two pieces down, since there remain only seconds before the ags fall. 38.h4 a4 39.Nd4 Rc1+ 40.Kh2 Rd1 41.Nb5 Rb1 42.Nd6 1-0 One of Reshevsky’s best games of the tournament, carried o in grand style, even without great errors by his opponent. (52) Bronstein – Boleslavsky Nimzo-Indian Defense [E22] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qb3 c5 Another very good continuation is 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 d5 6.e3 (if 6.a3 d×c4 7.Q×c4 Qd5!! 8.Q×b4 N×b4 9.N×d5 Nc2+! 10.Kd1 N×a1 11.N×c7+ Ke7 12.N×a8 Bd7 with a strong attack) 6...0-0 7.a3 d×c4! 8.B×c4 Bd6 9.Bb5 e5 10.B×c6 e×d4 11.e×d4 b×c6 12.0-0 Bg4 13.Ne5 c5 14.Bg5 Be6 15.d5 with an even game (analysis by Pachman). 5.d×c5 Na6 6.Nf3 If 6.a3 B×c5 7.Nf3 b6 8.Bg5 Bb7 9.e3=, Eliskases-Botvinnik, Moscow 1936. 6...0-0 7.Bg5 B×c5 8.e3 b6 9.Be2 Bb7 10.0-0 Be7 11.Rfd1 Nc5 12.Qc2 Nfe4 With this move Black equalizes completely. 13.B×e7 Q×e7 14.N×e4 N×e4 15.Nd4 d5 16.c×d5 B×d5 17.f3 Rfc8 18.Qa4 Nc5 19.Qa3 Bb7 20.Bf1 h6 21.b4 ½-½; (D)

173

Round 8

After 21...Nd7 22.Qb2 a6, or 22.Nb5 a5 23.Nd6 Kc7, there is no way to force matters. (53) Gligoric – Ståhlberg French Defense [C15] 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Bd3 A variation less common than 4.e5, 4.a3, 4.Bd2, or 4.Nge2. The text move seems aimed at rapid development, however, in our opinion, it has the drawback that Black, by successive threats, can force White to lose several tempi, which is contrary to the principles of sound development in the opening. 4...d×e4 Best. If 4...c5 5.e×d5 Q×d5 6.Bd2 B×c3 (not 6...Q×g2 7.Be4, or 6...Q×d4 7.Nf3) 7.B×c3 c×d4 8.B×d4 Q×g2 9.Qf3 Q×f3 10.N×f3 with good piece play for the sacri ced pawn. 5.B×e4 c5 (D)

Too routine. Since White has a space advantage, we consider it inexpedient to open up the position so quickly. We would prefer 5...Nf6 6.Bf3 (if 6.Bg5 h6) 6...Nbd7 7.Nge2 0-0 8.0-0 (if 8.Bg5 Be7, or if 8.Bf4 Bd6) 8...e5 with good play. 174

6.Nge2 Nf6 7.Bf3 c×d4 8.Q×d4 Q×d4 9.N×d4 a6 The exchange of queens has favored White because of his evident space advantage, while his Bf3 makes normal development of Black’s queenside considerably more di cult. No good was 9...B×c3+, which though it would double White’s pawns, leaves Black’s own dark squares without protection. 10.0-0 Nbd7 The same maneuver as recommended at move ve. Done then, it would have allowed Black to oppose the strong Bf3 with c7-c6. 11.Re1 Preventing 11...Ne5. 11...0-0 12.Bd2 Rd8 Better was 12...Bd6 immediately, intending the liberating ...Ne5, allowing development of his queen’s bishop. 13.a3 Bd6 14.Rad1 Bc7? (D)

Clearly, this is not usual for grandmaster Ståhlberg, who does not seem to be in top form. Ståhlberg by temperament is not a passive player; on the contrary, his typical mode is counter-attack! For this reason it is surprising that he does not play 14...Ne5, and if 15.Bf4 (15.Bg5 N×f3+ 16.N×f3 b5) 15...Nc4! (not 15...N×f3+ 16.N×f3 Be7 17.Na4 Nd5 18.R×d5 R×d5 19.Nb6 Rf5 20.Bg3 winning.) 16.B×d6 R×d6 with a defensible position; if 17.b3 N×a3 18.Ndb5 (18.Nf5 R×d1 19.R×d1 Bd7) 18...N×b5 19.N×b5 R×d1 20.R×d1 Kf8! 21.Nd6 Ke7. 15.Bg5 h6 16.Bh4 g5 17.Bg3 B×g3 18.h×g3 g4 19.Be2 Nb6 20.Nb3 Bd7 21.Na5 Black has weaknesses on both anks. Gligoric, who up to now has played impeccably, continues to press without pause. 21...Rab8 22.Rd6 Nc8 23.Rd4! Forcing a new weakness. 23...e5 24.Rd2 Re8 25.Ne4 (D)

175

Round 8

The decisive moment has arrived! 25...N×e4 26.R×d7 Nc5 27.Rc7 Ne6 28.R×b7 Nd6 29.Rd7 Rb6 30.b4 Nb5 31.Nc4 Rc6 32.N×e5 R×c2 33.B×b5 a×b5 34.N×f7 Kf8 35.N×h6 The weak points fall one by one. 35...Re7 36.Rd5 Nc7 37.Rf5+ Ke8 38.R×e7+ K×e7 39.N×g4 Ra2 40.Rc5 Kd6 41.Rc3 1-0 (54) Taimanov – Euwe Nimzo-Indian Defense [E59] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 c5 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 0-0 7.0-0 Nc6 8.a3 B×c3 9.b×c3 d×c4 10.B×c4 Qc7 11.Ba2 (D)

What a di cult game chess is! How many inexhaustible possibilities are contained within it! In a tournament as important as this, it is obligatory to plan serious openings, and make moves prepared by long analysis. In any given line of play the ideas keep coming inde nitely, according to the style and taste of each master, and that is why we are always nding novelties and innovations. As we have already seen in earlier games, in this position 11.Re1 (Averbakh), 11.Bd3 (Bronstein), 11.Qc2 (Geller), and 11.a4 (Najdorf ) have been played. 176

Taimanov’s idea, like that of Bronstein, is to remove the undefended bishop from the potentially opened le, but without losing its dominance of the a2-g8 diagonal. In our opinion, the text move’s major drawback is that the bishop is far removed from the kingside, an absence that will be felt later on. 11...e5 12.Qc2 (D)

Since White is considering playing d4-d5 we must calculate the possibility of doing it immediately: 12.d5 e4 13.d×c6 Bg4 (if 13...e×f3 14.Q×f3 Bg4 15.Qg3 Q×c6 16.c4 with the better game) 14.h3 Bh5 15.g4 N×g4 16.Qd7!!. If instead of 12...e4 Black plays 12...Rd8, then 13.e4. 12...Bg4 13.d5 Game 140, Geller-Kotov, arrived at this same position, where White played 13.N×e5. 13...Ne7 14.c4 B×f3 Euwe, it appears, does not fear to leave the bishop pair in his rival’s hands, as they are still out of action, while Black’s knights invade more quickly the opened position on the kingside. 15.g×f3 Qd7 16.Bb1 Ng6 Better than 16...Qh3 17.Bb2 Ng6 18.Qf5. 17.Qf5 Q×f5 18.B×f5 Nh4 19.Be4? (D)

177

Round 8

Taimanov enters the ending clearly inferior, perhaps lost. It was preferable not to exchange the bishop, and to give up the pawn as follows: 19.Bd3 N×f3+ 20.Kh1 e4 21.Be2. 19...N×e4 20.f×e4 f5 (D)

21.e×f5 Much more resistance was o ered by, for example, 21.f3 f×e4 22.f×e4 Rf3 23.R×f3 N×f3+ 24.Kg2 Ng5 25.Bb2 Re8 26.Rd1 N×e4 27.d6 Nf6 28.B×e5 R×e5 29.d7 N×d7 30.R×d7 R×e3 31.R×b7 R×a3 32.Rb5. 21...e4! 22.f4 White cannot permit ...Nf3+. 22...e×f3 23.e4 Rae8 24.Bg5 R×e4 25.B×h4 R×h4 26.R×f3 R×c4 27.Re1 If 27.Rd1 Rd8. 27...Rg4+28.Kf2 Rd4 29.Re7 R×d5 30.f6 R×f6 31.R×f6 g×f6 32.R×b7 a5 33.Rb5 a4 34.Ra5 Rd4 35.R×c5 Rd3 36.Ra5 R×a3 37.Ra7 Ra1 38.Kg3 a3 39.Kg4 a2 40.Kh5 f5 41.Kh6 f4 0-1 (55) Najdorf – Szabó Grünfeld Defense [D71] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.c×d5 N×d5 5.g3 5.e4, although more usual, has recently been the subject of many studies, with which I was not up-todate. The game Simagin-Ilivitsky, USSR ch 1952 continued 5.e4 N×c3 6.b×c3 c5 7.Bc4 Bg7 8.Ne2 0-0 9.0-0 c×d4 10.c×d4 Nc6 11.Be3 Bg4 12.f3 Na5 13.Bd3 Be6 14.d5 B×a1 15.Q×a1 f6 16.Qe1 Bf7 17.Nd4 Rc8 18.Qe2 a6 19.f4 b5 with good play for Black. 5...Bg7 6.Bg2 N×c3 7.b×c3 c5 8.e3 0-0 9.Ne2 Nc6 10.0-0 Qa5 11.Qb3 The best continuation I had at this moment was 11.a4 Rd8 12.Rb1 Qc7 13.Ba3 b6 14.Nf4 Ba6 15.Re1 Bc4 16.Qf3 Rac8 17.Red1, as in Taimanov-Ilivitsky, USSR ch 1952. 11...Bg4! (D)

178

12.Nf4 At this moment I realized that by not playing 11.a4 I had lost my opening advantage. On the contrary, Black has developed his pieces rapidly, and despite my pawn center being strong, he can always nd some way to break it up. It was apparent that Szabó already knew this variation, by virtue of its having been played several times in the last Soviet championship. For example, the game Ilivitsky-Kopylov continued with 12.f3 Be6 13.Qa3 (not 13.d5 c4) 13...Bc4 14.Q×a5 N×a5 15.Re1 Rac8 16.Ba3 b6 17.f4 Rfd8 and Black stands better. In the game I could not continue 12.Q×b7 because of 12...B×e2 13.Re1 Q×c3. 12...e5 13.d×e5 N×e5 14.h3 Without despairing, and assessing the situation exactly, I try to equalize the game. 14...Bf3 15.B×f3 N×f3+ 16.Kg2 Ne5 17.e4! This opportune advance allows me to develop the queen’s bishop and at the same time secure a support point for posting the knight on d5. 17...b5 18.Be3 c4 19.Qc2 Nd3 Szabó wants to use the power of his Bg7 and obtain a queenside pawn majority, which will be an advantage in the endgame. At the same time, he tries to eliminate my knight, which could become strong on the advanced outpost d5. 20.N×d3 c×d3 21.Q×d3 B×c3 22.Rad1 Rac8 23.Qd5! A very good move, which defends the queen’s ank and threatens – after Qb3 – to enter with the rook onto the seventh rank. 23...Rfe8 24.Qb3 Rc4 If 24...a6 25.Rd7 Rc4 26.f3 f5 27.Bh6 f×e4 28.f×e4 with good play for White. 25.Rd5 Undoubtedly 25.Rd7 was more aggressive. 25...a6 26.Q×c4 b×c4 27.R×a5 B×a5 28.Kf3 ½-½; After 28...c3 29.Rc1 Rb8 30.Bd4 Rb2 31.B×c3 B×c3 32.R×c3 R×a2 there is complete equality. (56) Petrosian – Averbakh Queen’s Gambit Accepted [D37] 179

Round 8

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.e3 Be7 5.d4 0-0 6.Bd3 (D)

Since White has chosen this line of play he should enter into the famous Rubinstein formation with 6.b3. This has been the preferred weapon of Rubinstein and of Najdorf over many long years. The idea is to maintain the center, and later by Bc1-b2 dominate the e5-square, and if next 7.Bd3 d×c4, then recapture with the pawn. 6...d×c4! With this exchange Black enters a line of the Queen’s Gambit Accepted with an extra tempo. The reason is that usually the king’s bishop recaptures from its initial square, while here having moved to d3 it must do so in two moves. So with the opening barely started it can be said that Black has no problems, since with an extra tempo “both sides are white.” 7.B×c4 c5 8.0-0 a6 9.d×c5 Petrosian immediately understands that he has lost a tempo, and wishing to avoid a full-on ght with that handicap he forces exchanges with a view to a draw. In our opinion, once committed such an error is not a cause for discouragement if it can eventually be remedied, even though here a draw is being sought prematurely. 9...Q×d1 10.R×d1 B×c5 11.a3 b5 12.Be2 Bb7 13.b4 Be7 ½-½; The possibility of a ght still exists, but two masters of equivalent strength may logically reach this result.

180

Round 9

Standings after round 9: Reshevsky 6½; Smyslov 6; Euwe 5½; Keres 5; Boleslavsky, Bronstein, Gligoric and Najdorf 4½; Taimanov 4; Averbakh, Petrosian, and Szabó 3½; Geller, 3; Ståhlberg 2½;; Kotov 2. The fteen grandmaster candidates for the world chess championship are now in Zürich. The tournament will be contested in the Salon of Music of the House of Parliament, where spectators will gather around the fteen to witness the games. The public’s interest is enormous, and while the number of spectators is limited by the size of the room, whoever has seen the crowds of people surrounding the demonstration boards cannot doubt for an instant that the 1953 candidates tournament is the greatest chess event of all time. Another undefeated ceased to be so in this ninth round; that is to say Najdorf, who, as is his wont, played the King’s Indian in his game with Dr. Euwe. White, as he has done during the entire tournament, embarked on the most ambitious continuation without regard for risks; later Black “helped” with two consecutive errors and the game turned very complicated. Finally, Najdorf committed a decisive error in a position which, properly played, promised at least a draw. The Kotov-Bronstein game was typical of the multiform style of the latter; in a closed position he lost several tempi to probe the adversary’s position, meanwhile speculating on future possibilities on one ank or the other. Both masters resolved to attack on opposite anks, but in time pressure, Kotov committed an error and was lost. The extraordinary thing was, that after adjournment, Bronstein, with three successive mistakes, let slip as many opportunities to win. This cannot be explained by the fact that Bronstein did not have a second – Konstantinopolsky had taken ill before the start of the tournament – since the position was quite clear enough for a grandmaster of his caliber. Smyslov and Keres returned to “discuss” an old theme from the previous candidates tournament of 1950, in the Queen’s Gambit Accepted. Keres was refuted in the opening, and could be said to have lost then and there. In a Queen’s Gambit, Tartakower Variation, Szabó and Petrosian both had chances, but White did not follow up correctly, culminating in two successive errors

181

Round 9

that put him in a pinned position and, logically, he lost. That the game lasted to move 39 was because Black failed to win earlier when he could have. The Queen’s Indian Defense in Ståhlberg-Taimanov was very interesting theoretically, but Ståhlberg, almost imperceptibly, soon fell into an inferior position. Taimanov – as is customary with the Soviet players – conceded not the least chance, and applied technique to win with minimal e ort. Boleslavsky-Gligoric was a game of great theoretical importance for the improvements Black found in the Sicilian Defense, in relation to lines seen earlier at Saltsjöbaden 1952. Finally, Geller and Reshevsky played a Semi-Tarrasch Defense where White sacri ced a pawn without later compensation, which obliged him to consider a draw a good result. (57) Szabó – Petrosian Queen’s Gambit Declined, Tartakower variation [D58] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Nf3 If White does not wish to enter the Tartakower line he may, for example, play 6.Rc1. Certainly one cannot say that move is better or worse than the text; simply that after 6.Rc1 the line does not have the same force. If 6...b6 7.c×d5 e×d5 8.Be2! Bb7 9.Bf3 Nbd7 10.Nge2 pressuring Black’s pawn center. 6...h6 7.Bh4 b6 One of the many theoretical ideas originated by grandmaster Tartakower. With it, though Black may have to play with “hanging pawns,” in return he will have good development with chances for counter-attack. To date, the Tartakower variation has remained theoretically and practically sound. 8.Bd3 In earlier times White would usually play 8.c×d5 here to close the diagonal the queen’s bishop is intended to occupy, but at the same time it opens another diagonal. Either move is perfectly playable. 8...Bb7 9.0-0 Nbd7 10.Rc1 More precise is 10.Qe2 so as later to play Rf1-d1. This idea is based on the following reasoning: to equalize Black must play c7-c5, in such a way that White will feel an annoying pressure on the c- le; meanwhile White reserves the option of c4×d5 and, opportunely, Bd3-a6, weakening Black’s queenside. 10...c5 11.Qe2 a6 Now we can see that having the king’s rook on d1 would be better. 12.c×d5 e×d5 Better than 12...N×d5 13.Bg3, pressuring the center 13.d×c5 b×c5 14.Rfd1 Re8 (D)

182

The rst phase of the game is over, and the resulting position has its pros and cons for both sides. While White can attack the weak pawns, Black has much more space than in a typical Queen’s Gambit and his pieces, which at the moment are on the defensive, can, with an opportune central break, become dangerous. 15.Bc2 Szabó must decide here on his plan for the middle game. Against the Bb1-Qc2 battery, Black can defend satisfactorily with ...Nf8. Therefore, he resolves to play not for direct attack on the kingside, but for a positional attack on the hanging pawns. 15...Qb6 16.Bb3 c4 Forced, and therefore the rst success of White’s plan: the d4-square has passed into Szabó’s hands. 17.Ba4 Bc6 18.B×c6 Q×c6 19.b3 Preventing the maneuver Nd7-c5-d3; however, this move greatly weakens the queenside. Preferable was 19.Rc2, maintaining the pressure. 19...Rac8 20.Na4 Another loss of time, since next move the knight must retreat. Better was 20.Nd4 and if 20...Qb6 21.b×c4 d×c4 22.Qc2 with at least equal play. 20...Qb5 21.Nc3 Qa5 22.B×f6 N×f6 23.b×c4 d×c4 Not 23...R×c4 24.N×d5. (D)

183

Round 9

24.Nd2? The wrong way, winning a pawn without calculating all the pins that follow. Correct was 24.Rd4 Bb4 (or if 24...Qb4 25.Ne5) 25.R×c4 B×c3 26.R1×c3 Q×c3 27.R×c3 R×c3 28.h3 and while one cannot say that White has a won game, neither is he lost. Szabó, who always tries to win, is taking an unnecessary risk. 24...Rc6 25.N×c4? A decisive error. With 25.Rc2 White could still have defended perfectly. 25...Qc7 26.Na4 Rc8 The triple pin and the white king’s lack of air decide the game. 27.Rd4 Ne8 Threatening 28...Nd6, and if 28.Nab2 Bf6. 28.e4 Bf6 29.e5 B×e5 30.Re4 Nf6 (D)

31.Nab6 If 31.R×e5 R×c4 32.R×c4 Q×c4 and for lack of air White loses a piece. Or if 31.Rh4 Bf4 32.Rc2 R×c4. 31...R×b6 32.R×e5 Rc6 Overly prudent. Why not 32...Q×c4, which wins immediately? 33.Re7 R×c4 34.Re1 If 34.R×c7 R×c1+ 35.R×c1 R×c1+ 36.Qf1 R×f1+. 34...Qc6 35.h3 By the time Szabó nally gives himself some air, the game is already decided. 35...Rc1 36.R×c1 Q×c1+ 37.Kh2 Qc4 38.Qf3 Q×a2 39.Ra7 Qd5 0-1 (58) Euwe – Najdorf King’s Indian Defense [E61] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.Nc3 c5 6.d5 e5 An idea of mine now seen repeatedly in recent tournaments. If instead 6...d6 there could follow 7.Nh3 e5 8.d×e6 f×e6 9.Nf4, whereas with the text move I discourage 7.d×e6 because of 7...d×e6 with even play, or 7...f×e6 with a ghting game. 7.Bg5?! 184

A move of doubtful value, since it seems illogical to trade a bishop for a knight, and furthermore give Black’s king’s bishop more scope. In the game NajdorfReshevsky, rst match, Mexico City 1952, White continued 7.e4 d6 8.Nge2 Nbd7 9.00 a6 10.a4 Nh5 11.Be3 f5 12.e×f5 g×f5 13.f4 e×f4 14.N×f4 N×f4 15.g×f4 Nf6 with better play for Black. The proper move seems to be 7.Nf3, as in game 173, StåhlbergNajdorf. 7...h6 More peaceful was 7...d6 8.Ne4 Qa5+, but White would surely play 8.Qd2 a6, with an even game. 8.B×f6 Q×f6 9.d6?! (D)

Once Dr. Euwe resolved to play 7.Bg5, it seemed logical to me that he would risk this later, since if he allows d7-d6, Qd8-e7 and f7-f5 he would stand worse. The text move is intended to gain space and make di cult the development of Black’s queen’s bishop. 9...Nc6 10.e3 If 10.B×c6 b×c6 and with Qd8-a5 Black has counter-play. 10...b6 11.Bd5! Kh8?

185

Round 9

Max Euwe Here I did not nd the right plan to follow. I should have played 11...Ba6 with the idea of Ra8-c8 and b6- b5, counter-attacking on the queenside, and if White plays 12.a4, then 12...Rc8 followed by...Nb4; meanwhile on the kingside there is no immediate danger. In making the text move I was thinking about the strong posting of White’s knight on e4 and was preparing to dislodge it with f7-f5. 12.Ne4 Qd8 13.h4 f5? Aggravating the position by opening lines near the king. There was still time to play 13...Ba6, and if 14.Ng5 h×g5 15.h×g5+ Kg8 16.Qg4 Nb4 17.Qh4 Re8. 14.Ng5! Bb7! 15.g4! (D)

186

Dr. Euwe courageously prefers direct attack to winning no more than the exchange by 15.Nf7+ R×f7 16.B×f7 Nb4 17.Bd5 B×d5 (or 17...N×d5 18.c×d5 Qg8) 18.c×d5 e4. 15...e4 If 15...Na5 16.B×b7 N×b7 17.Qd5; or else 15...Qf6 16.Nf7+ R×f7 17.g5 winning the exchange. 16.Ne2 B×b2 17.Nf4! (D)

17...Qf6 I could not take the rook: if 17...B×a1 18.N×g6+ Kg7 19.N×f8 Bc3+ 20.Kf1, and now if (a) 20...K×f8 21.g×f5 h×g5 22.Qh5 Qf6 23.h×g5 Q×f5 24.Rh4 Be5 25.Rf4, or (b) 20...Q×f8 21.g×f5 Q×f5 22.Rg1 Kh8 23.Qh5,winning. 18.g×f5 B×a1 If 18...g×f5 19.Qh5 followed by Rh1-g1, and if 18...Q×f5 19.B×e4. 19.N×g6+ Kg7 20.N×e4 Bc3+ If 20...Q×f5 21.Q×a1+ K×g6 22.Rg1+ winning. 21.Kf1 Q×f5 22.Nf4 Kh8 If 22...Be5 23.Ng3 winning the queen, or 22...Bf6 23.Rg1+ Kh7 24.Ng3+-. 23.N×c3 (D)

187

Round 9

23...Rae8? Very short of time – the one thing I needed most in this position – I make a bad move and lose the game. Despite Dr. Euwe’s ingenious play, I should not have lost with 23...Na5, when if (a) 24.h5 or 24.Rg1, then 24...Kh7; (b) 24.B×b7 N×b7 25.Nce2 Qe4 26.Rg1 (or 26.Ng3 Q×c4+ 27.Kg2 R×f4 28.e×f4 Rg8) 26...Rg8; (c) 24.Qa1 Qf6! (not 24...Kh7 25.Rg1 B×d5 26.Nc×d5 Rf7 27.e4!! Q×e4 28.Rg7+ R×g7 29.Nf6+) 25.B×b7 N×b7 26.Rg1 Rg8.

24.Nce2 Rg8 25.h5 Rg5 26.Ng3 R×g3 Forced, since if 26...Qg4 27.Bf3, or 26...Qf6 27.Ne4, or 26...Qe5 27.Ng6+. 27.f×g3 R×e3 28.Kf2 Re8 If 28...Ra3 29.Qe2+-. 29.Re1! Simple and good. White eliminates my active rook, capitalizing on the fact that my queenside pieces are out of the ght. 29...R×e1 30.Q×e1 Kg7 31.Qe8 Now I am lost beyond remedy. 31...Qc2+ 32.Kg1 Qd1+ 33.Kh2 Qc2+ 34.Ng2 Qf5 35.Qg8+ Kf6 36.Qh8+ Kg5 37.Qg7+ 1-0 After 37...K×h6 38.Bf7+,Q×f7 39.g4 is mate. Despite the fact that I committed several clear errors, it is proper to note that my gentlemanly rival played in a manner both elegant and inspired, worthy of a former world champion. Bravo, Dr. Euwe! (59) Ståhlberg – Taimanov Queen’s Indian Defense [E15] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 (D)

188

Nimzovitch’s old move, revived by the Soviet School, which was played several times in the XX USSR Championship of 1952. Although it looks illogical to cede the long diagonal it is, nevertheless, a very interesting idea, because c4 is attacked from the very outset, forcing White to dedicate himself to its defense. 5.Qa4 Later, in game 106, Bronstein played 5.Nbd2 against Taimanov. 5.b3 also appears su cient. In the game Goldenov-Borisenko, XX USSR ch [actually the semi- nals, Minsk 1952. – TK] there was played 5.Qc2 c5 6.Bg2 Nc6 7.d×c5 B×c5 8.a3 Rc8!, (D) with these main options:

(a) 9.b4 and (a1) 9...Be7 10.b5 (if 10.Bb2 Nb8 11.Nbd2 B×c4 12.N×c4 d5) 10...B×b5 11.c×b5 Nb4 12.Qb2 Nc2+ 13.Kd1 (if 13.Kf1 N×a1 14.Bd2 Nc2 15.Bc3 Nd5 16.B×g7 Bf6 17.B×f6 Q×f6 winning) 13...Ne4! (threatening 14...N×f2+ 15.Kd2 Bg5+)14.Q×c2 N×f2+ 15.Ke1 R×c2 16.K×f2 Bf6; analysis by Borisenko. (a2) 9...Bd4 10.Ra2 B×c4 11.Q×c4 N×b4 12.Q×b4 R×c1+ 13.Kd2 R×h1 14.B×h1 B×f2 15.Nc3 and Black has three pawns for the piece; analysis by Borisenko. (b) 9.0-0 Nd4 10.N×d4 B×d4 11.Nd2 Qc7 12.Qd3 Be5 with good play for Black. 5...Be7 Not 5...c6? 6.Nc3 d5 7.c×d5 e×d5 8.Ne5 Qc8 9.Bg5. 189

Round 9

6.Bg2 0-0 7.Nc3 c6 8.Ne5 Guimard-Rossetto, Argentine ch 1953, saw 8.Bf4 d6 9.0-0 b5? (correct was 9...Qe8). 8...Qe8 9.0-0 d5 The a1-h8 diagonal has been blockaded and the queen’s bishop remains active. (D)

10.Re1 In our opinion better was 10.c×d5 c×d5 (if 10...b5 11.Qb3 c×d5 12.e4 b4 13.e×d5 B×f1 14.K×f1 b×c3 15.d×e6) 11.Q×e8 R×e8 12.Re1 Nbd7 13.N×d7 N×d7 14.e4 d×e4 15.N×e4 Rac8 16.Bd2 with even play. With the text move Ståhlberg contemplates sacri cing a pawn, since after 10...B×c4 11.N×c4 b5 12.Qc2 b×c4 13.e4 he would have compensating play. 10...b5 11.c×b5 c×b5 12.Qd1 Very passive. Better was 12.Qb3. 12...b4 13.Nb1 Desperation. Despite the risk, he should play a move o ering better prospects: 13.Na4 Nc6 14.N×c6 Q×c6. 13...Nc6 Now Taimanov capitalizes on his better development and White’s cramp. 14.N×c6 Q×c6 15.Nd2 Slightly better was 15.Bg5. 15...Qb6! Well played. White does not have time for 16.e4, the only way to freedom he might try. 16.e3 Rac8 17.Bf1 Rc6 18.B×a6 Q×a6 This exchange leaves the light squares weak. 19.Nf3 Rfc8 20.Qb3 Ne4 21.Nd2 Rc2 Also winning was 21...R×c1 22.Ra×c1 N×d2, but in that line White could free himself at the cost of some material. Taimanov wants to win material without allowing Ståhlberg to relieve his cramped position. 22.N×e4 d×e4 23.a3 h5 190

Black is now ready for the nal blow. 24.d5 A last try to nd ... something. 24...R8c4 25.Rd1 If 25.d×e6 Q×e6 threatening 26...R×c1 27.Ra×c1 R×c1+-. 25...e×d5 26.Bd2 Qf6 27.Rab1 h4 Threatening a simple mate. 28.Qa4 Qf5 29.Q×a7 Bf8 If 29...h3 30.Q×e7 Qf3 31.Qd8+ Kh7 32.Qh4+ and ...Q×h3. 30.Qb8 g5 31.g×h4 g×h4 32.Qf4 (D)

Unfortunately, White is facing mate by Rc4-c6-g6, and must go into this lost endgame. 32...Q×f4 33.e×f4 d4 34.b3 Rc6 35.a×b4 f5 36.h3 Ra6 37.Rbc1 R×c1 38.R×c1 Ra2 39.Be1 Rb2 40.Kg2 R×b3 41.Rc8 Rb1 42.Bd2 e3 0-1 Although it is evident that Ståhlberg was below his usual form, this game has de nite theoretical interest. (60) Boleslavsky – Gligoric Sicilian Defense [B65] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 c×d4 4.N×d4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Qd2 For theoretical commentary on this opening, consult game 35, Kotov-Geller. 7...Be7 8.0-0-0 N×d4 For 8...0-0 see the aforementioned game 35. 9.Q×d4 0-0 10.f4 (D)

191

Round 9

10...h6! This opening was played often at Saltsjöbaden 1952, in which Gligoric participated, and as a result the Yugoslavian grandmaster has made a deep study of this variation, as can be seen from the text move. In the games Pachman-Barcza and Gligoric-Taimanov in that tournament, Black played 10...Qa5 instead of 10...h6, continuing 11.Bc4 (if 11.Be2 h6 12.B×f6? B×f6 13.Q×d6 B×c3 14.b×c3 Q×a2 15.Qb4 b5! with better play for Black; Dubinin-Veresov, Moscow 1941.) 11...h6 12.h4! e5! (of course if 12...h×g5? 13.h×g5 with a strong attack) 13.Qg1 e×f4 14.B×f4 Bg4 15.Rd3 Nh5? 16.B×d6 with the better game for White; Pachman-Barcza, Saltsjöbaden 1952. For his part, Gligoric, after 10...Qa5 11.Bc4 h6, did not play 12.h4 but rather 12.Bh4, continuing 12...e5 13.f×e5 d×e5 14.Qd3 Qc5 15.B×f6 B×f6 16.Kb1 Be6 17.B×e6 f×e6 18.Qd6 Q×d6 19.R×d6 Rad8 ½-½;. Now it is easy to understand Gligoric’s idea: by expediting the move 10...h6! he forces White to declare the queen’s bishop’s intentions, because if now 11.h4 h×g5 12.h×g5 Nh7 and White’s attack is halted. Furthermore, White’s king’s bishop is undeveloped and Black’s queen is better situated for defense. Likewise after 11.B×f6 B×f6 12.Q×d6 Qa5 13.e5 Rd8 14.Qa3,Q×a3 15.b×a3 R×d1+ 16.N×d1 Be7 and even though a pawn down, Black compensates with his bishop pair and better position. 11.Bh4 Qa5 12.e5 12.Bc4 would transpose to the above-mentioned Gligoric-Taimanov game. 12...d×e5 13.Q×e5! If 13.f×e5 Bc5 14.Qf4 (or 14.Qd3 Ng4 15.Qe4 Qb4) 14...Nd5 15.N×d5 e×d5 16.Kb1. (D)

192

13...b6 If 13...Q×e5 14.f×e5 Nd5 15.B×e7 N×e7 16.Bc4 Nc6 17.Rhe1 would lead to an endgame better for White. To this point, Gligoric made all this moves with a speed and con dence that denoted prepared study. Even after the exchange of queens and consequent doubling of pawns, White has no more than a tiny advantage 14.Q×a5 b×a5 15.Bd3 Bb7 16.Rhg1 Rfe8 A loss of time; he had to play immediately 16...Bc5 17.Rge1 Nd5 (not 17...B×g2 18.B×f6 g×f6 19.Rg1 B×g1 20.R×g1+-). 17.h3 Bc5 18.Rge1 Bb4 19.f5 e5 20.Bb5 Re7 21.Re3 a6 22.Ba4 Bc5 23.Re2 e4 24.Bb3 Rae8 25.B×f6 g×f6 26.Bd5 (D)

Boleslavsky tries to dismember Black’s bishop pair, obtaining at the same time the d5-square for his knight. However, the advanced e-pawn, which ties down a rook to stop it, compensates Gligoric for the weakness of his other pawns, and equalizes the game. 26...e3 27.B×b7 R×b7 28.Rd5 Bb4 29.Rd3 B×c3 Since White did not play Nc3-d5 when he had the chance, Black takes the opportunity to trade his less valuable bishop for the knight. 30.R×c3 Rbe7 31.Rd3 (D)

193

Round 9

If 31.Rc6 Kg7 32.R×a6 Re5 33.g4 h5 34.Rd6 h×g4 35.h×g4 Re4 36.Rd3 Kh6. 31...Re4 32.c3 Kg7 33.Kc2 R4e5 34.g4 h5 35.Rd6 h×g4 36.h×g4 Kh6 37.R×f6+ Kg5 38.R×f7 K×g4 39.Rd7 Kf3 40.Kd3 R×f5 41.c4 a4 42.Rd6 ½-½; Both kings are guarded by rooks that prevent incursions with check. (61) Kotov – Bronstein King’s Indian Defense [E68] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.Nc3 d6 6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.0-0 e5 8.e4 Re8 Black wants to keep his intentions hidden as long as possible: whether this will be an open game – exchanging the pawns – or a closed game with c7-c6 and Qd8-e7. 9.d5 Rendering the previous move practically useless by disallowing the opening of the e- le. However, since the position is closed and there are no direct threats, Black can a ord to lose a tempo, returning the rook to f8 and eventually – after Nf6-e8 – playing f7-f5. (D)

9...a6 A typical Bronstein move, disdaining the ordinary! Knowing that a closed, solid position allows him to go outside the routine, he tries to create problems early in the 194

game. With this move he intends to start queenside counter-play in an original manner, rather than the well-known a7-a5, Nd7-c5, Re8-f8, Nf6-e8 and f7-f5. 10.Ne1 Rb8 11.Nc2 Preventing 11...b5 by the threat of 12.Nb4. If 11.Nd3, intending the same purpose, then 11...c5; whereas now that move is impossible, since there would follow 12.d×c6 b×c6 13.Q×d6. 11...Qe7 12.b4 Rf8 Bronstein, seeing that his queenside threat has been warded o , seeks counterplay on the opposite ank. 13.Ne3 Ne8 14.Qc2 Ndf6 15.a4 We would prefer the immediate 15.Ba3, preparing the break with c4-c5. 15...a5 It is truly remarkable how Bronstein governs all his resources on the board! While preparing attack on the kingside he does not disregard opportunities on the other ank. With the text move he xes the b4-square and retains c5 for himself. 16.b×a5 Ra8 17.Ba3 Nd7 18.Bh3 If 18.Bb4 Nc5. 18...h5 The pieces come and go and Black keeps an eye on both anks. It is hard to create break points, and with this shifting tactical play we don’t even know which ank will be chosen as the battleground. 19.Ncd1 Kotov realizes his chances lie solely on the queenside, and to e ect this plan he must post a knight at d3. 19...R×a5 20.Nb2 Nef6 21.Bb4 Ra6 22.a5 Nh7 23.Bg2 h4 24.Nd3 Ndf6 25.c5 Ng5 The plans have crystallized: White attacking on the queenside, Black with kingside counterplay. 26.Qc4 Bh6 27.Bd2 Ra8 28.Rfc1 (D)

More e ective, because it would halt Black’s attack, was 28.Qb4, and on 28...Nh5 29.c×d6 c×d6 30.Nc4 Qf6 31.B×g5 with better play, and if 28...Bh3 29.c×d6 c×d6 195

Round 9

30.f4 e×f4 31.g×f4 B×g2 32.f×g5. 28...Nh5 29.c×d6 c×d6 30.Qc7 Qf6 Black has gotten there rst! His pieces are now poised on the kingside and his attack may be dangerous, whereas White, on the queenside, can at best win the bpawn, which is not of any importance here. 31.Ne1 h×g3 32.h×g3 Nh3+ 33.B×h3 B×h3 (D)

34.Ng4? In this critical position the retreat 34.Qc4 was necessary; if 34.Q×b7 N×g3 35.f×g3 B×e3+ 36.B×e3 Qf1+ 37.Kh2 Kg7, or 34.Nf1 N×g3 35.B×h6 Ne2+ 36.Kh2 Q×f2+ winning. 34...B×g4 35.B×h6 Rfc8 36.Q×b7 Rcb8 37.a6 g5 Much better than 37...R×b7 38.a×b7 Rb8 39.Ra8 Qd8 40.Rc8! R×c8 (not 40...B×c8 41.R×b8) 41.R×c8 B×c8, or 41...Q×c8 42.b×c8Q+ B×c8 43.Bd2 with an even game. (D)

38.Q×b8+ In view of his lost bishop, Kotov – desperate and short of time – cannot calculate that there was a bit more resistance in 38.Qc7, for example, 38...Q×h6 (if 38...Rb2 39.Rc2) 39.a7 Rd8 40.Rab1 Qf8 41.f3 Bd7 42.Rb8 Rd×b8 43.a×b8Q Q×b8 44.Q×d7 Qb6+ 45.Kg2 Qe3 46.Qc6 Ra2+. 196

38...R×b8 39.a7 Ra8 40.Rcb1 Kh7 If 40...Qd8 41.B×g5 f6 42.Be3 and even a queen down Black is compensated by his strong pawn at a7. 41.Rb8 Here the game was adjourned. 41...R×a7 42.R×a7 K×h6 43.Rbb7 (D)

43...Kg6? How surprising it is that Bronstein, after having two days to analyze the adjourned game, has not seen a clear way to win. In fact he had to play 43...Kg7! and if 44.f3 Bc8 45.Rc7 g4 46.R×c8 g×f3 47.Kf2 (if 47.Rc2 N×g3) 47...Qg5 winning (note that with the king on g6 here White would play 48. Rg8+). And if White continues 48.N×f3 Q×g3+ 49.Ke2 Nf4+and ...Qg2. 44.f3 Bc8? Bronstein would still win with 44...B×f3 45.R×f7 Qd8 46.N×f3 Qb6+ 47.Kg2 Qb2+ 48.Kh3 Qb1 49.Rf5 (if 49.Rf8 Nf6; 49.g4 Qf1+) 49...Qf1+ 50.Kg4 Nf6+ 51.R×f6+ K×f6 52.N×g5 (if 52.Rd7 Qe2) 52...Qe2+ 53.Kh4 Kg6+-. 45.Rc7 Qd8? One can only think that Bronstein was having one of his worst days. Still winning here was 45...N×g3 and if 46.R×c8 Qf4, or 46.Kg2 Qh8. 46.g4 Nf6 47.Kg2 Not 47.R×f7 Bd7. 47...Bd7 48.Nc2 B×g4 49.f×g4 N×g4 50.R×f7 Qb6 51.Rg7+ Kh5 52.Rh7+ Nh6 53.Rac7 Qb3 54.Kf2 g4 55.Ne3 Qd3 56.Nf5 Qf3+ 57.Kg1 Qd1+ 58.Kf2 Kg5 59.N×h6 Qd2+ ½–½; A strange game, admirably played by Bronstein in the rst half, but in the second by a Bronstein unrecognizable. This can only be explained by the game being played in two sessions, and masters, like other mortals, do not always have a good day! (62) Geller – Reshevsky Queen’s Gambit Declined [B14] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 c5 5.c×d5 N×d5 6.e3 197

Round 9

Another continuation is 6.e4 N×c3 7.b×c3 c×d4 8.c×d4 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 B×d2+ 10.Q×d2 0-0 11.Bc4 Nc6 12.0-0 b6 13.Rfd1 Bb7 14.Qf4 Qf6, Reshevsky-Fine, Hastings 1937-38. 6...Nc6 7.Bd3 (D)

Very playable also is (a) 7.Bc4 N×c3 8.b×c3 c×d4 9.e×d4 Be7 10.0-0 0-0 11.Bd3 b6 12.Qe2 g6 13.Bh6 Re8 (Botvinnik-Szabó, Groningen 1946), or (b) 7...c×d4 8.e×d4 Be7 9.0-0 0-0 10.Re1 with these continuations: (b1) 10...b6? 11.N×d5 e×d5 12.Bb5 Bd7 13.Qa4, Botvinnik-Alekhine, AVRO 1938; (b2) 10...Nb6 11.Bb3 Bf6 12.Be3 Na5 13.Bc2 Nac4 14.Bc1 with the better game for White; (b3) 10...Nf6 11.Be3 b6 12.Qe2 Bb7 13.Rad1 Nb4 14.Bg5 Rc8 15.d5 Qc7 16.Bb3 Ba6 17.Qd2, Opocensky-Foltys, match1941; (b4) 10...N×c3 11.b×c3 b6 12.Bd3 Bb7 with an even game. 7...c×d4 8.e×d4 g6 9.Bg5 Najdorf-Euwe, Buenos Aires-La Plata 1947, saw 9.0-0 Bg7 10.Be4 (still better is 10.Re1! as in Najdorf-Reshevsky, rst match, San Salvador 1952) 10...0-0 11.Qb3 Nf6 12.B×c6 b×c6 13.Rd1. 9...Qa5 10.0-0 Bg7 Clearly it would be bad to accept the pawn White o ers: 10...N×c3 11.b×c3 Q×c3 12.Bf6 Rg8 13.Ng5 with a strong attack. 11.Ne4 Because now Black was indeed threatening to take the pawn. 11...0-0 12.Bc4 Qb6 13.B×d5 e×d5 14.Nf6+ B×f6 15.B×f6 Na5 It was necessary to drive o the bishop immediately, since if 15...Q×b2 16.Rb1 Qa3 17.Qd2 Qd6 18.Qg5. 16.Be7 Re8 17.Bc5 Q×b2 18.Rb1 Qc3 Not 18...Qe2 19.Qa4. 19.Rc1 Qb2 20.Rb1 Qc3 21.Rc1 Qb2 ½-½; (D)

198

Lacking compensation for the lost pawn, White must accept the draw. (63) Smyslov – Keres Queen’s Gambit Accepted [D29] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 d×c4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.B×c4 c5 6.0-0 a6 7.Qe2 b5 8.Bb3 (D)

Pachman recommends 8.Bd3 Nc6 9.d×c5 B×c5 10.a3 Bb7 11.b4 Be7 12.Bb2 0-0 13.Nbd2 Qb6 14.Rfc1 Rfc8 with an even game, and if now 15.Nb3 a5!, or 15.Ne4 N×e4 16.B×e4 a5. 8...Bb7 9.Rd1 Nbd7 10.Nc3 Be7 11.e4 b4 (D)

199

Round 9

In the 1950 candidates tournament, Keres here played against Smyslov 11...c×d4, continuing 12.N×d4 Qc7 13.Bg5 b4 14.Na4 Qe5 15.B×f6 N×f6 16.Nb6 Rd8 17.Ba4+ Kf8 18.Bc6 Qc7 19.B×b7 Q×b7 20.Na4 g6. Three years later – as if in a novel – the same adversaries, in a similar tournament and in the same position, play the same variation. One can be sure that one or the other has found improvements on their previous game, and it is curious that in all the time between the two tournaments neither ever played this variation, hoping to use it in just such a circumstance such as this. Which one is right? Judging by the outcome of the game, undoubtedly Smyslov. But even so we should expect a new opportunity when – who knows? – Keres may have the last word. 12.e5 b×c3 13.e×f6 B×f6 14.d5! (D)

Is it possible that grandmaster Keres did not see this move during three whole years? 14...e5 If 14...c×b2 15.B×b2 B×b2 16.d×e6 winning, for example, 16...B×a1 17.e×d7+ Kf8 18.Qc4 Qf6 19.d8Q+. 15.b×c3 0-0 16.Nd2 Be7 17.Nc4 White’s advantage is clear. 200

17...a5 18.N×e5 N×e5 White was threatening 19.Nc6. 19.Q×e5 Bf6 20.Qg3 Besides his extra pawn, Smyslov also has a clearly superior position. 20...c4 21.Ba4 If 21.B×c4 Rc8. Now 22.Ba3 is threatened. 21...Qe7 22.Bf4 Rfd8 23.d6 Qe4 24.Re1 Qf5 25.d7 The way in which White capitalizes on his pawn advantage is noteworthy. 25...h5 26.Re8+ Kh7 27.h4 Ra6 28.Bg5 Better than 28.Bc7 R×d7 29.B×d7 Q×d7. 28...R×d7 29.B×d7 Q×d7 30.Rae1 Rd6 31.B×f6 R×f6 32.Qb8 Rf5 33.Rh8+ Kg6 34.Rd8 Qb5 35.Rd6+ Kh7 36.Rd8 Qc5 37.Re3 Bd5 38.Rh8+ Kg6 39.Qd8 Bf3 40.R×f3 R×f3 41.g×f3 1-0 A game of theoretical importance in which Smyslov played admirably, even though it could be said that his victory was obtained in the opening.

201

Round 10

Round 10

Standings after round 10: Reshevsky 7; Smyslov 6½; Euwe and Najdorf 5½; Boleslavsky, Bronstein, and Keres 5; Gligoric, Petrosian and Taimanov 4½; Averbakh and Szabó 4; Geller, 3½; Kotov 3; Ståhlberg 2½;. After the tenth round only the last places in the standings changed, as Kotov, winning his rst game, overtook Ståhlberg, whose unsteadiness became more marked with each round. The game so anticipated by everyone, Reshevsky-Smyslov, amounted to nothing more than cautious positional fencing, drawn in 19 moves. Evidently, both rivals respect each other! Petrosian, who is climbing in the standings, won a masterful game against Euwe. In a Réti Opening [actually a King’s Indian Attack – TK] where White had gained some advantage, Dr. Euwe committed a grave error on move 28, and even though later he managed to create an opposite-color bishop situation, Petrosian capped his labors with exemplary precision. Kotov, with Black, won his rst game, essaying the Sicilian Defense and postponing castling for several moves to deal with urgent problems of development. Once the game had been equalized, Gligoric committed a series of errors, hastening the end of the game. Najdorf and Ståhlberg played an Orthodox Queen’s Gambit, a specialty of the Swedish master. White accumulated small advantages, and while there were no serious errors by Ståhlberg, by adjournment an endgame was reached with many variations, all favorable to White. Najdorf won at move 55. The game Averbakh-Szabó was drawn in 27 moves, but showed real ghting spirit. White avoided entering a famous variation with which Smyslov defeated Reshevsky in the 1945 USSR-USA radio match, but Black sacri ced the knight all the same and the game turned complex and violent. Ultimately, and when there was no other course, Szabó played into a drawing variation. Taimanov and Boleslavsky played a King’s Indian, in which White confronted anew the problem of game 28, Taimanov-Najdorf, deciding to change his earlier 8.d5 for 8.Be3. Boleslavsky responded correctly, and within a framework of general equilibrium the game was agreed drawn at move 41. 202

The game Bronstein-Geller was a Sicilian in which White ignited a spark with one of his customary opening surprises. Geller did not enter into the presumptive complications, and a draw was agreed almost immediately. (64) Reshevsky – Smyslov Nimzo-Indian Defense [E43] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 c5 5.Bd3 0-0 6.Nf3 b6 7.0-0 Bb7 8.Bd2 The most cautious move, developing a piece and not provoking the doubling of pawns that comes after 8.a3, as was played in game 94, Najdorf-Smyslov. Another interesting idea is 8.Na4, as in game 163, Najdorf-Euwe. 8...c×d4 9.e×d4 d5 10.c×d5 B×c3 If 10...N×d5 11.Qe2 with a certain initiative for White. 11.b×c3 Q×d5 12.Re1 Nbd7 13.Qe2 Qh5 14.a4 a6 15.Reb1 White has managed to come out of the opening slightly better: greater command of space and the bishop pair. Since Black’s kingside is well defended, he tries to do something in the other sector. Smyslov defends himself very well. 15...Rfd8 16.Be3 (D)

As Reshevsky himself declared after the game, this move is weak for allowing the exchange that follows. Even though White’s position is better, it is not so easy to nd an adequate plan. The continuation 16.c4 – which looks good by threatening a4a5 and Bd2-c3 – could have its drawbacks: 16...B×f3 17.Q×f3 (or 17.g×f3 Qh4 threatening ...Nh5) 17...Q×f3 18.g×f3 Nc5. 16...Be4 17.Bf4 Qf5 18.B×e4 N×e4 19.Bd2 ½-½; Although there is still ght in the position, both adversaries, leaders in the standings, wish to avoid risking their privileged positions, and are satis ed with a peaceful splitting of the point. (65) Bronstein – Geller Sicilian Defense [B62] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 c×d4 4.N×d4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bg5 e6 7.g3 203

Round 10

It is interesting to note that in this position theory o ers no less than ve distinct possibilities: 7.N×c6, 7.Qd2, 7.Be2, 7.Bb5, and 7.Qd3. But it appears that Bronstein likes none of them, or his lust for originality is such that he takes account of no theory but his own. 7...Be7 8.Bg2 0-0 9.0-0 N×d4 10.Q×d4 h6 11.Bd2 Bd7 12.Rad1 Qc7 13.Qd3 Rac8 Black has no opening di culties and has equalized the game. 14.g4 (D)

A very good though dangerous move, which clari es the idea behind what has gone before. In “dead” positions Bronstein always nds some original blow that strikes a spark. If now 14...N×g4 there would follow 15.Qg3 h5 16.f4 Qb6+ 17.Kh1 Q×b2 18.h3 Nf6 19.e5 with a great attack. 14...b5 As can be seen, Geller prefers not to enter such complications, trying instead to create a more natural attack on the queenside. 15.a3 a5 16.g5 h×g5 17.B×g5 b4 18.a×b4 a×b4 19.e5 d×e5 20.B×f6 B×f6 21.Ne4 Rfd8 22.N×f6+ g×f6 23.Qf3 f5 24.Qg3+ Kf8 25.Qg5 ½-½; (D)

Here a draw was agreed, since if 25...Bb5 26.Qh6+ Ke7 27.Qh4+ Ke8 with perpetual check (if 27.Rfe1 e4), and if 25...Be8? 26.Qh6+,Ke7 27.Qh4+ and 28.Q×e5.

204

(66) Gligoric – Kotov Sicilian Defense [B91] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 c×d4 4.N×d4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.g3 e5 Reshevsky-Najdorf, Amsterdam 1950 continued 6...Bg4 7.Qd3 Nc6 8.N×c6 b×c6 9.Bg2 e5 10.f4 Bd7 11.h3 Be7 12.g4 0-0 13.f5 d5 14.0-0 d4 with good play for Black. But in the same tournament, Gligoric improved the variation against Ståhlberg in the following manner: 10.h3 Bd7 11.0-0 h6 12.Be3 Be7 13.Rad1 0-0 14.f4 e×f4 15.g×f4 Qa5 16.a3 with the better game for White. 7.Nde2 Be6 8.Bg2 b5! (D)

In Boleslavsky-Ciocaltea, Bucharest 1953, Black played 8...Be7 9.0-0? (better 9.a4) 9...Nbd7 10.h3 b5 11.a4 b4 12.Nd5 N×d5 13.e×d5 Bf5 14.f4 Qc7 15.c3 b×c3 16.N×c3 e×f4 17.B×f4 0-0 18.Kh2 Bg6 19.Rc1 Qb7? (better 19...Qb6) 20.Re1 Nc5 21.Re3 Rfe8 22.Qe2 with a winning position. 9.0-0 In game 120, Gligoric-Najdorf, White improved the system, playing 9.a4. 9...Nbd7 With this system White cannot employ the “bayonet attack” because the e5pawn is a con ning barrier, while Black in turn su ers from a weakness at d6 and must stay vigilant lest d5 be occupied by a hostile piece. However, it will not have the same importance if occupied by a pawn. 10.a4 b4 11.Nd5 N×d5 12.e×d5 (D)

205

Round 10

As already noted, having d5 occupied by a pawn does not cause problems for Black; rather it solves them. Now the annoying weakness at d6 is masked and the d5square ceases to be a worry. If Kotov manages to develop all his pieces in time, he will have the better prospects by playing Ra8-c8 or Nd7-c5 etc. But meanwhile, the initiative remains in Gligoric’s hands. 12...Bg4 Without loss of time. If 12...Bf5 13.f4 and the bishop will be in danger (e.g.,13...Bg6 14.g4). 13.Bd2 a5 14.c3 b×c3 15.B×c3 Qb6 16.h3 Bh5 17.Kh2 Be7 18.f4 B×e2 19.Q×e2 Bf6 (D)

20.Qc4? White has a space advantage, better development and the bishop pair, and it seems more logical to undertake something direct. For example, 20.g4 0-0 21.g5 Bd8 22.Qg4, or if 20...h6 21.Be4 0-0 22.g5 h×g5 23.f×g5 B×g5 24.Qh5 Bh6 25.Rf3 with a strong attack. 20...0-0 Black gets there in time! 21.Qc6 Rfd8 Everything is defended. 206

22.Rae1 Qb8 23.Rb1 Ra7 24.Qc4 Not 24.b4? Rc7 25.b×a5 Qc8. 24...Rc8 25.Qe4 Qb3 Now Black’s advantage is a fact. 26.f×e5 B×e5 27.Qf5 Rf8 28.Qf2 Raa8 29.Qf5 The talented Yugoslavian master is not having a happy day and, short of time, keeps on making aimless moves. 29...Q×a4 Kotov sees nothing better than winning a pawn without risk. 30.Rf4 Having lost a pawn, White now loses his cool. 30...B×f4 31.g×f4 g6 32.Qg5 Rae8 33.Rg1 Re2 34.Kh1 Qc2 35.Qg4 Nc5 36.Qh4 Ne4 37.Bd4 Nf2+ 38.Kh2 Ne4 39.f5 Qd3 40.f×g6 f×g6 41.Bb6 0-1 Gligoric resigned as he made this move, since there was no need to await the blow 41...Nd2, and if 42.Kh1 Nf3-+. (67) Taimanov – Boleslavsky King’s Indian Defense [E97] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nf3 g6 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.e4 e5 6.Be2 0-0 7.0-0 Nc6 8.Be3 Taimanov, after game 28 against Najdorf, still does not seem to have found the right way to proceed in this position, and repeats Reshevsky’s move 8.Be3, which had so much success in the second match with Najdorf in Buenos Aires. 8...Ng4 Boleslavsky in turn does not nd Black’s strongest continuation, which was later played in game 107, Reshevsky-Najdorf: 8...Re8, and if 9.d5 Nd4. 9.Bg5 f6 10.Bc1 (D)

Taimanov’s idea is clear: though losing tempi with the bishop, he manages to weaken Black’s pawn structure and at the same time diminish the black g7-bishop’s radius of action. 10...e×d4

207

Round 10

Here in the rst game of the second Najdorf-Reshevsky match was played 10...Nh6 11.d×e5 f×e5 12.Bg5 Qd7 13.Nd5 (better was 13.Qd5+ and 14.c5) 13...Kh8 14.b4 Nf7 15.Be3 Ncd8 16.Qd2 Ne6 with good play for Black. Or as in the third game of that same match: 10...Kh8 11.d5 Ne7 12.Ne1 f5 13.B×g4 f×g4 14.f3 with better play for White. 11.N×d4 N×d4 12.Q×d4 f5 13.Qd5+ Kh8 14.B×g4 f×g4 15.Be3 Qf6 16.Rac1 Worth considering was 16.f3. 16...Qf7 17.b3 Q×d5 18.N×d5 Rf7 19.f3 c6 Even though White has a space advantage, Black compensates with his bishop pair. 20.Nf4 g×f3 21.g×f3 Bd7 22.Rcd1 Be5 23.Ng2 Re8 24.f4 (D)

White opens up the position, eager to ght. 24...Bc3 25.R×d6 R×e4 26.B×a7 Bg4 With his active bishop pair Black also compensates for the lost pawn. 27.Rd3 Bf6 28.Re3 R×e3 29.N×e3 Bh3 30.Rd1 Be7 31.Ng2 Kg8 If 31...B×g2 32.K×g2 R×f4 33.Rd7. 32.Be3 Rf8 33.Ne1 Bg4 34.Rc1 Rd8 35.c5 Bf6 36.Kg2 Re8 37.Bf2 Bf5 38.Kf3 h5 39.h4 Bg4+ 40.Kg3 Bf5 41.Nf3 Re2 ½-½; Post-adjournment analysis demonstrated that there was no possibility of forcing play, and a draw was agreed. If 42.a4 Rc2, and if 42.Bd4 B×d4 43.N×d4 R×a2 44.N×f5 g×f5 45.Rd1 Kf7 46.Rd7+ Ke6 47.R×b7 Rc2 48.b4 Rc3+ 49.Kf2 Rc4 50.Ke3 Rc3+ 51.Kd2 Rc4. (68) Najdorf – Ståhlberg Queen’s Gambit Declined [D67] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Nf3 0-0 7.Rc1 c6 8.Bd3 d×c4 9.B×c4 Nd5 10.B×e7 Q×e7 11.Ne4 (D) Alekhine’s maneuver to avoid the normal 11.0-0 N×c3 12.R×c3 e5 13.d×e5 N×e5 14.N×e5 Q×e5 15.f4 etc.

208

11...e5!? Usual here is 11...N5f6 – not 11...N7f6 12.Ng3 Qb4+ 13.Qd2 Q×d2+ 14.K×d2 Rd8 15.Rhd1 Bd7 16.Ne5, Alekhine-Treybal, Baden-Baden 1925; nor 11...Qb4+ 12.Qd2 Q×d2+ 13.K×d2 Rd8 14.Rhd1 N5f6 15.N×f6+ N×f6 16.Bb3 Kf8 17.Ke2 AlekhineCapablanca, wch 1927, in both cases with better play for White – 12.Ng3 e5 13.0-0 e×d4 14.Nf5 Qd8 15.N3×d4 Ne5 16.Bb3 B×f5 17.N×f5 g6=, Alekhine-Lasker, Zürich 1934. I chose this line because knowing that grandmaster Ståhlberg regularly played the Orthodox Queen’s Gambit, I hoped after 11...N5f6 to continue not with 12.Ng3, but rather 12.N×f6+ Q×f6 13.0-0 e5 14.Bb3 e×d4 15.Q×d4 Q×d4 16.N×d4, and even though the resulting position looks equal, it is evident that White has a space advantage and that developing the queen’s bishop is a problem for Black. 12.0-0 Ståhlberg made his 11th move instantly, giving me to understand that he knew this opening deeply, and even though theory declared it dubious I resolved – not knowing well the details of its refutation nor wanting to lose time on the clock – to make the logical text move, as even in the worst case it would still give White at least equality.

209

Round 10

Gideon Ståhlberg The theoretically advisable move now is 12.d×e5 N×e5 13.B×d5 c×d5 14.Q×d5 (not 14.Nc3 Bg4 15.N×d5 Qd6 16.0-0? Rad8-+, Michell-Thomas, Edinburgh 1926) 14...N×f3+ 15.g×f3 Be6 16.Qe5 (if 16.Qa5 f5, Winter-Michell, London 1928) 16...Qb4+ 17.Qc3 Rac8 18.Q×b4 R×c1+ with complicated play, probably a draw. 12...e×d4 13.Q×d4 N7b6 14.Bb3 Bg4 15.Ng3 B×f3 16.g×f3 Qf6 17.Q×f6 N×f6 18.Nf5 Rad8 19.Rfd1 Nc8 20.Kf1 Rfe8 21.Ke2 Kf8 22.R×d8 Since I am contemplating abandoning the d- le, it becomes necessary to exchange a pair of rooks, to prevent Black from doubling his. 22...R×d8 23.Rg1 Ne8 24.Rg4 Ne7 25.N×e7 K×e7 26.Re4+ Very important for preventing the king from cooperating in the center. 26...Kf8 27.Ra4 a6 28.Rf4 With this move I force a weakening of the pawns and deny squares to the knight. 28...f6 29.Rh4 h6 30.Rh5 Not only are the light squares weakened, but also the g-pawn, and when at the right time the rook attacks on the g- le, Black will not be able to play the logical g7g6. 30...Nc7

210

Better was 30...Ke7 31.Rc5 Kd6 32.Rc1 c5, taking advantage of his queenside pawn majority, Black’s one remaining chance. The game would then probably have ended a draw. 31.f4 Ke7 32.Rc5 Rd6 33.Rc1 Better 33.f5. 33...b6 Black should have taken the opportunity to play 33...g5, eliminating the weakness at g7. 34.f5 c5 35.f4 Rc6 (D)

The struggle between the knight and the bishop will always be favorable to White as long as Black cannot block the bishop in the way he now intends, by b6-b5 and c5-c4, taking advantage of his queenside majority. Therefore I must take measures against Black’s plan. 36.a4! b5 37.Bc2 Now the reason for my previous move becomes clear: Had I played 36.Bc2 instead of 36. a4!, there would follow 36...c4 and on 37 Be4 Rc5. Whereas if now 37...c4 38.Be4 Rc5? 39.b4+-, and if 38...Rb6 39.a5 Rb8 40.b3. 37...Ne8 38.Be4 Rc7 39.Bd5 c4 40.e4 Suddenly, because of the ideal location of the bishop, the threats by the rook and the opportunity for invasion by the king, Black’s position becomes delicate. 40...Nd6 41.a×b5 a×b5 42.Ke3 Ra7 43.Rg1 Kf8 44.Kd4 Rc7 Obviously, Black cannot allow the king to invade. 45.Rc1! I had to prevent 45...b4. If 45.Ra1 b4 46.Ra8+ (if 46.Rc1 c3 47.b×c3 Nb5+) 46...Ke7 47.Rg8 c3 48.R×g7+ Kd8 49.R×c7 c×b2 50.Ba2 K×c7. 45...Nb7 46.Ra1 (D)

211

Round 10

At this moment the game was adjourned. In analysis I found that to win by force it was necessary only to calculate the right maneuver exactly. 46...Nc5 47.Ra8+ Ke7 48.e5! Not 48.Rb8 Na4! 49.R×b5 c3 50.b×c3 N×c3 with drawing chances, nor 48.Rg8 Nb3+ 49.Kc3 Kd6. 48...Nb3+ After 48...Na4 White wins with 49.Rg8 N×b2 50.R×g7+ Kd8 51.e×f6. 49.Kc3 (D)

49...Nc1 Here 49...Rc5 would occasion this nice twist: 50.Ra7+ Kd8 (if 50...Kf8 51.Rd7 Ke8 [or 51...f×e5 52.f×e5 Ke8 53.e6 Nc1 54.Be4+-] 52.e6 Nc1 53.Bf3 R×f5 54.Be4+-) 51.Be4! f×e5 (if 51...Kc8 52.e6+-) 52.R×g7 e×f4 53.f6 Ke8 54.Bg6+ Kf8 55.Rh7+-. Or if 49...f×e5 50.f×e5 Rc5 51.Ra7+ Ke8 (51...Kf8 52.Rd7 Ke8 53.e6 Nc1 54.Be4) 52.Bf7+ Kf8 53.e6 R×f5 54.Bg6 Re5 55.Rf7+ Kg8 56.e7+-. 50.Rg8 Ne2+ 51.Kd2 N×f4 52.R×g7+ Kd8 53.e×f6 Rd7 If 53...N×d5 54.R×c7 K×c7 55.f7. 54.R×d7+ K×d7 55.Bc6+ 1-0 (69) Petrosian – Euwe 212

King’s Indian Attack [A07] 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 d5 3.Bg2 Bf5 4.d3 e6 5.Nbd2 A system preferred by Petrosian, who with Black plays the King’s Indian, and in this position has an extra tempo. One notes that Black still has not occupied the c5square with a pawn, which is an advantage, as he will be able to post a piece there. 5...h6 6.0-0 Bc5 7.Qe1! 0-0 8.e4 (D) 8...d×e4? Better not to open the position, instead playing 8...Bh7 and not giving White the opportunity to trade his passive Nd2 for Black’s more active Nf6. If then 9.e5 Nfd7 10.Qe2 Be7 11.c3 c5 we would arrive at a sort of French Defense in which Black’s queen’s bishop is much better situated than in the French proper. With the erroneous 8...d×e4, White gains space.

9.N×e4! N×e4 Practically forced, since if 9...Be7 10.Nh4 Bh7 11.N×f6+ B×f6 12.B×b7. 10.d×e4 Bh7 11.b4 Be7 12.Bb2 Na6 13.a3 c6 14.Rd1 Qc8 15.c4 White’s advantage is clear: better development, an open le and space advantage; meanwhile Black’s knight has poor prospects. Despite it all, these details will not be enough if the black position incurs no weaknesses more serious. 15...Nc7 16.Qc3 Bf6 17.Ne5 Rd8 18.Bf3 Ne8 19.R×d8 Q×d8 20.Rd1 Qc7 21.c5 a5 22.Bg2 a×b4 23.a×b4 Rd8 24.R×d8 Q×d8 25.Qc2 For the moment, White has not obtained a direct kingside attack, and must content himself with his space advantage, better bishops and more active knight. 25...Nc7 26.Bf1 Nb5 27.f4 Kf8 28.Kf2 (D) 28...B×e5? An error that worsens the position, by leaving to White’s bishop the diagonal pointing at Black’s king. Though it was di cult to nd any comfortable continuation for Black, he should have played 28...Ke8, waiting on events, and it would not be easy for White to nd a de nite point of attack.

213

Round 10

29.B×e5 f6 30.Bb2 Ke7 31.Bc4 The other bishop gets into the action. 31...Bg6 32.Ke3 Bf7 33.g4 Qc7 34.e5 Qd8 35.e×f6+ g×f6 36.h4 In an exemplary and especially instructive fashion, Petrosian prepares the break that will open the position and maximize the power of his bishops. 36...Nc7 37.Qc3 (D)

37...Nd5+ 37...Qh8 o ered more resistance, though Black would probably still be lost. For example, 38.Kf2, threatening Kg3, g4-g5 and after ...h×g5, h×g5. If then (D) (a) 38...Nd5 39.B×d5 e×d5 40.Kg3, (b) 38...Qg7 39.g5, or (c) 38...e5 39.f×e5 f×e5 40.B×f7 Qf6+ 41.Qf3 Q×f3+ 42.K×f3 Nd5 43.Ke4 N×b4 44.Kf5.

214

38.B×d5 Q×d5 Dr. Euwe has managed to create an opposite-color bishop situation, but at the cost of a pawn and rendering his king’s position very delicate. Now begins a new phase of the game, which the young Petrosian conducts with the greatest precision and the con dence of an experienced master. 39.Q×f6+ Ke8 40.Qh8+ Kd7 41.Qg7 Ke8 42.Bf6 Qb3+ 43.Bc3 Qd1 44.Qh8+ Kd7 45.Qb8 (D)

45...Qc1+ If 45...Qg1+ 46.Ke4, when if 46...Qg2+ 47.Ke5 Qd5+ 48.Kf6, or 46...Bg6+ 47.Ke5 Qe3+ 48.Kf6 Q×c3+ 49.K×g6 winning. 46.Bd2 Qg1+ 47.Kd3 Qf1+ Not 47...Bg6+? 48.f5 e×f5 49.Qd6+ winning the bishop. 48.Kc2 Qa6 If 48...Qc4+ 49.Kb2 Qd4+ 50.Bc3 Qf2+ 51.Ka3. 49.h5 Fixing the h-pawn on a dark square. 49...Qa2+ 50.Kd3 Qb1+ 51.Ke2 Qe4+ 52.Kf2 Qd4+ 53.Be3 It is interesting how the king, maneuvering from one ank to the other, eludes perpetual check. 215

Round 10

53...Q×b4 54.Qf8 Qb2+ 55.Kg3 Qf6 56.Qd6+ Kc8 57.Bd4 Qd8 58.Q×d8+ K×d8 59.Bg7 And even with bishops of opposite colors, the win is easy. 59...Kc7 60.B×h6 b6 61.c×b6+ K×b6 62.Kh4 1-0 The king’s entry to f6 and the march of the white pawns will be irresistible. An admirable game by the young master Petrosian, who played with precision, capitalizing on his advantage in space and the better development of his pieces. (70) Averbakh – Szabó Ruy Lopez [C82] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 N×e4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.d×e5 Be6 9.c3 Bc5 (D)

Szabó thinks his opponent has prepared for 9...Be7, which he played in game 40, Gligoric-Szabó, and decides to vary, developing his bishop at c5. As we have said on other occasions, both lines are perfectly playable. 10.Nbd2 Another continuation is 10.Qd3 Ne7 (inferior is 10...0-0 because of 11.Be3 B×e3 12.Q×e3 Ne7 13.Bc2 Ng6 14.Re1! f5 15.e×f6 Q×f6 16.B×e4 d×e4 17.Ng5! Nf4 18.N×e4 Qg6 19.Qg3 Q×g3 20.h×g3 Nd3 21.Re2 with better play for White, PachmanTrifunovic, Prague 1946) 11.Be3 Bf5! 12.Qe2 (not 12.Nd4 N×f2!) 12...B×e3 13.Q×e3 c5 with an even game. 10...0-0 11.Bc2 If 11.Qe2 Bf5 12.N×e4 d×e4 13.Ng5 N×e5 14.N×e4 Qd3=. 11...f5 The game Bronstein-Flohr, Moscow 1944, continued 11...Bf5 12.Nb3 Bg4 13.N×c5 N×c5 14.Re1 Bh5 15.Bg5! B×f3 (if 15...Qd7 16.Be3 Ne6 17.B×h7+ K×h7 18.Ng5+) 16.Q×f3 Q×g5 17.Q×d5 with better play for White. Also interesting is Botvinnik’s variation 11...N×f2 12.R×f2 f6. For example, 13.e×f6 Q×f6 14.Qf1 Bg4 15.h3! with the better game, and not 15.Kh1 B×f2 16.Q×f2 Rae8 17.Qg3 Ne5 18.Bd1, Smyslov-Botvinnik, Moscow 1944.

216

And lastly 11...N×d2 12.Q×d2! (not 12.B×d2 d4) 12...Re8 13.Qf4 with good play for White. 12.Nb3 Another playable line is 12.e×f6 N×f6 13.Nb3 Ba7 14.Ng5 Bf7 15.N×f7 R×f7 16.Bg5 and White is slightly better. 12...Ba7 If 12...Bb6 there would follow 13.a4! b4 14.a5 Ba7 15.Nbd4 N×d4 16.N×d4 B×d4 17.c×d4 f4 18.f3 Ng3 19.Rf2 Qh4 20.Ra4! with the superior game, Boleslavsky-Szabó, Groningen 1946. 13.Nfd4 N×d4 14.N×d4 B×d4 If 14...Qd7 15.f3 Nc5 16.Kh1 Rae8 17.b4 Na4 18.Qd3 c5 19.N×e6 R×e6 20.B×a4 b×a4 21.b×c5 B×c5 22.f4 and White stands better, Kienninger-Bogoljubow, Krakow 1941. 15.Q×d4 (D)

Averbakh does wish to enter the classic line 15.c×d4 f4 16.f3 Ng3! 17.h×g3 f×g3 18.Qd3 (not 18.Re1 Qh4 19.Be3 Bg4!) 18...Bf5 19.Q×f5 R×f5 20.B×f5 Qh4 21.Bh3 Q×d4+ 22.Kh1 Q×e5 23.Bd2 arriving at a basic position, (D) from which various masters have pursued di erent paths: 23...Q×b2 (Smyslov-Reshevsky, USSR-USA radio match 1948), or 23...c5 (Boleslavsky-Botvinnik, Moscow 1942). Both lines are extremely interesting, giving chances to both sides, and theory still has not decided who stands better.

217

Round 10

15...c5 16.Qd1 f4 17.f3 Ng5 If 17...Ng3? 18.h×g3 f×g3 19.Qd3 Bf5 20.Q×f5 R×f5 21.B×f5 Qh4 22.Bh3, and the white pawn is not on d4 to be taken. Or if 19...Qh4 20.Q×h7+ Q×h7 21.B×h7+ K×h7 22.Be3 with better play for White. 18.a4 b4 19.h4 Nh3+!? With good reason Szabó decides to sacri ce the piece, since if 19...Nf7 20.B×f4 Q×h4 21.Qd2 White stands better. 20.g×h3 Q×h4 21.Rf2 Dangerous would be 21.Qe1 Q×h3 22.Qf2 Bf5. 21...B×h3 22.Rh2 Rae8! In such a position one is not interested in lost pawns, but rather in activating one’s pieces as fast as possible for attack. Szabó, a ghting player, understands this and launches all his forces. 23.Q×d5+ Kh8 24.Bd2 (D)

24...R×e5! With this move Black reconciles himself to a draw ... because the position will not yield more! If 24...Re6 – which appears to be a splendid attacking continuation – there would follow 25.B×f4!! (not 25.Kh1 Rh6 26.Rg1 Bf1!!). White threatens 26.Q×e6, and if 25...R×f4 26.Qa8+ and mate, or 25...Q×f4 26.R×h3+-. 218

25.Q×e5 Qg3+ 26.Kh1 Q×f3+ 27.Kg1 ½-½; A game of great theoretical value for this line of the Open Defense to the Ruy Lopez, with an electrifying nish.

219

Round 11

Round 11

Standings after round 11: Reshevsky 7½; Smyslov 7; Najdorf 6; Boleslavsky, Bronstein, Euwe, Keres and Petrosian 5½; Averbakh and Gligoric 5; Taimanov 4½; Geller, Kotov and Szabó 4; Ståhlberg 2½;. For the rst time in the tournament the American Reshevsky was in a truly critical position: in his game with Keres he essayed a awed form of Nimzo-Indian Defense, and White gained advantages to an alarming degree. At move 16 Keres thought for a long time on how to nish o the unguarded black king, and after giving a check, he rose, looking up at one of the balconies with a worried expression. This was undoubtedly the most important moment of the game. White could not realize his advantage and there ensued a tremendous ght. However, a quiet move would have won there, where everyone was thinking of direct attack! Kotov and Taimanov played a Zukertort-Réti Opening and very soon Black had a dilemma to resolve: his knight was badly posted and the white queen’s bishop which he tried to lock in sought new horizons. Meanwhile Kotov was increasing his advantage and nally won on time, in a position where Taimanov would have had to resign anyway. Dr. Euwe, against Averbakh, tried another innovation (11.Nd2) in a well-known position of the Nimzo-Indian. White’s attack in the center expanded perhaps more than it should have, and meanwhile Averbakh gained advantages on the queenside which could be decisive in the endgame. However, Dr. Euwe cut short the natural progress of the game with his error at move 28. It is worth noting that after the fourth hour of play all the players, and especially the oldest, su er a natural loss of energy in these demanding struggles, and thus errors become more frequent toward the end of the session. Smyslov and Bronstein played a Zukertort-Réti Opening, in which Black sacri ced a piece as early as move 12. Smyslov did not continue with the correct defense, and Black increased his advantage, gaining three pawns for the piece and refusing a perpetual check. However, at move 26 Bronstein committed a very strange error and the game, extremely complicated, ended in a draw. The diagram of the nal position gives some idea of the magnitude of the battle.

220

The game Boleslavsky-Najdorf was characterized by the line 5.f3 in the King’s Indian. A few moves later, when Boleslavsky chose a simplifying continuation, Najdorf asked his rival: “Are you playing for a draw?” “No.” “Then you are playing to win?” “Not that either.” Surprised and smiling the Argentinean persisted: “In that case you are playing to lose?” Whereupon Boleslavsky topped o the dialogue thusly: “No. I’m playing simply because I like my position!” Ståhlberg continued to commit errors in his game with Petrosian, and though later he defended as well as he could, Black had no di culty in realizing his advantage. The game Geller-Gligoric like the previous one was a King’s Indian, slow and heavy due to the semi-closed nature of the position. White patiently prepared a breakthrough on the queenside, when Gligoric found, just in time, a knight sacri ce on the kingside that assured him of saving counter-chances. (71) Euwe – Averbakh Nimzo-Indian Defense [E58] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 c5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.a3 B×c3 9.b×c3 b6 10.c×d5 e×d5 11.Nd2 (D)

Dr. Euwe makes a move little seen in this position. Up to now there had been played 11.a4 (see game 160, Szabó-Najdorf ), 11.Ne5 (game 134, TaimanovPetrosian), 11.d×c4 b×c4 12.c4 d×c4 13.B×c4 Na5! (game 13 of the second Reshevsky-Najdorf match), and 12.Bb2 (game 12, Reshevsky-Petrosian, where commentaries can be consulted). With the text White prevents the liberating move Nf6-e4, which after 11.Bb2 or 11.a4 would follow: 11...c4 12.Bc2 Ne4. A game of the 1953 Taimanov-Botvinnik

221

Round 11

match continued 11.a4 c4 12.Bc2 Bg4? 13.Qe1 Re8? 14.Nh4! Bh5 15.f3 Bg6 16.N×g6 h×g6 17.e4 d×e4 18.f×e4 Qd7 19.Bg5 with better play for White. This opening, as has been noted on various occasions, is a struggle between a pair of bishops – as yet inactive – on one side, and bishop and knight on the other. Once the moment arrives that White – after f2-f3 and e3-e4 – can fully use his bishops, he gets good play. For that reason the move 13...Ne4, supported later by f7f5, is intended to impede this breakthrough plan, with which White would assure himself the advantage. 11...Be6 12.Bb2 Since Black has not yet played c5-c4, White needs to support the d-pawn before he can realize his plan of advancing his f- and e-pawns. 12...c4 It’s di erent now, because White was threatening 13.d×c5 and 14.c4, opening diagonals for his bishops. 13.Bc2 b5 14.f3 14.f4 looked interesting, in order to threaten 15.f5 and 16.e4, forcing Black to open the center. 14...a5 (D)

It is evident that if White’s prospects in the center and on the kingside develop he will have the better game, but Black’s natural queenside attack is already well advanced. 15.Re1 This move by Dr. Euwe is a tacit admission that his plan of rapid central and kingside attack cannot proceed. For example, if 15.e4 Qb6 16.Kh1 (if 16.e5 N×e5) 16...b4!, and on 17.e5 Nd7 18.f4 f5 when White’s o ensive has arrived at a dead end, while Black retains all his queenside options, threatening among other things 19...N×d4 and 20...c3. 15...Qb6 16.Nf1 b4 17.Qd2 b3 18.Bb1 a4 19.e4 Ne7 20.Ng3? (D)

222

The panorama of the game is clear: in an endgame White would be lost because of his queenside disadvantage and, in consequence, he must try to impose at all costs his attack on the king’s ank. To counteract this, Black must – as occurs in the game – undertake a maneuver based on Kg8-h8, Nf6-g8, and f7-f5. Therefore the most logical continuation here would be 20.Ne3, and if then 20...Kh8 21.g4 (which now is prevented by the Ng3), and if 21...d×e4 22.g5. 20...Kh8 21.Re2 Nfg8 22.Nh5 f5 23.Qg5 Rf7 24.e×f5 White tries to open the position, knowing this is his only chance. 24...B×f5 25.B×f5 N×f5 26.Rae1 Qd8! Black, for his part, seeks simpli cation, so as to arrive at an endgame totally favorable to him. 27.Q×d8 It would have been interesting to decline the exchange with 27.Qd2!?, and if 27...Qh4 28.Nf4 N×d4 29.Q×d4 Q×f4 30.Q×d5, though Black would still retain the upper hand. 27...R×d8 (D)

28.Re8? This move precipitates the loss. The exchange of rooks only makes felt more sharply the weaknesses on the queenside, where the bishop plays the sad role of a 223

Round 11

pawn. The correct continuation was 28.Bc1, so as to play Nh5-f4, which cannot be done immediately because of 28...N×d4. If 28.Re6 – threatening various incursions – there could follow, for example, 28...Rc7! and if 29.Ra6 N×d4 30.c×d4 c3 31.B×c3 R×c3 32.Rb1 b2-+. 28...R×e8 29.R×e8 Re7 30.R×e7 Ng×e7 31.Kf2 Kg8 32.g4 Nd6 33.Ke3 Nb5 34.f4 Nc8 The superiority of the two knights over White’s bishop and knight is evident. 35.f5 Ncd6 36.Nf4 (D)

36...N×a3! 37.B×a3 Nb5 38.Bc1 N×c3 39.Ne2 If 39.Kd2 Nb1+ 40.Kd1 (if 40.Ke3 a3 41.N×d5 c3) 40...a3 41.N×d5 c3 42.B×a3 c2+ 43.Kc1 N×a3 44.Nb4 Nb5 45.d5 Nd4 46.Nd3 Kf8 47.Kb2 Ke7 48.Kc3 Kd6, winning. 39...Nb1! 0-1 Grandmaster Averbakh conducted the entire game admirably, and he nished the endgame in an elegant and precise manner.

a5

(72) Ståhlberg – Petrosian King’s Indian Defense [E68] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.Nc3 d6 6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.0-0 e5 8.e4 Re8 9.d5

For 9...a6 see game 61, Kotov-Bronstein. 10.Ne1 Nc5 11.Bg5 h6 12.B×f6 This exchange looks ill-conceived, as White voluntarily gives up the bishop that guards his dark squares. 12...Q×f6 13.a3? And this unnecessarily cedes b3 to Black. 13...a4 14.Rb1 If 14.Nd3 Nb3 15.Rb1 Bd7. 14...Bd7 15.h4 h5 16.Kh2 Rf8 17.Bh3? (D)

224

An unbelievable move from a grandmaster of Ståhlberg’s caliber. Clearly something has been happening to him, lowering the established quality of his play. To his admirers – who are not few – he is unrecognizable. The fact is this not only loses a pawn, but the entire plan here is inappropriate to the position. It is therefore not surprising that Black has so quickly gotten the better game. 17...B×h3 18.K×h3 N×e4 19.N×e4 Qf5+ 20.Kh2 Q×e4 21.Rc1 b6 22.Ng2 Qf5 23.Rc2 Qd7 Petrosian has won a pawn and is in no hurry to force the play. Still to be decided is on which ank he should seek the breakthrough that will make his advantage decisive. 24.Qd3 Rfe8 25.Re1 Rab8 26.Rce2 f5 27.f3 Kh7 28.Qc2 Ra8 29.Qd3 Bh6 30.Qc2 Qf7 31.Kh3 f4 Preparation being done, the moment for the breakthrough arrives. 32.g×f4 B×f4 33.N×f4 Q×f4 34.Rg1 Rg8 35.Qc3 Raf8 36.Rg3 Rf6 37.Re4 Qh6 38.c5 Irrevocably lost, Ståhlberg looks for some possibility of counterplay. 38...b×c5 39.R×a4 Qg7 40.Rc4 Black was threatening 40...Qd7+. 40...Qf7 41.Qd3 Rc8 42.b4 c×b4 43.a×b4 Rg8 44.Rc3 Rf4 45.Rg5 R×h4+ 46.K×h4 Qf4+ 47.Kh3 Q×g5 48.R×c7+ Kh6 49.Rc2 Black threatened 49...h4. 49...Rf8 50.Rg2 Qf6 51.Qe3+ Qf4 52.Re2 g5 53.Q×f4 R×f4 54.Rc2 R×f3+ 55.Kg2 Rb3 56.Rc6 g4 57.R×d6+ Kg5 58.Re6 R×b4 59.R×e5+ Kh4 60.Kf2 g3+ 61.Kf3 Rb3+ 62.Ke2 Rb2+ 63.Kf1 Rf2+ 64.Kg1 Rd2 0-1 Yet another game demonstrating the solid style of Petrosian: after winning a pawn in the opening he proceeded unhurriedly, realizing his advantage in a positive, risk-free manner. (73) Boleslavsky – Najdorf King’s Indian Defense [E85] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 225

Round 11

This variation, a favorite of various Soviet masters, can be avoided by 2...d6, as already mentioned in the notes to game 31, Szabó-Bronstein. However, I repeat again, it is very playable for Black, with nothing in particular the second player should nd disagreeable. 5...0-0 If 5...Nbd7 6.Be3 e5 7.Nge2! with good play for White. 6.Be3 e5 7.d×e5 (D) I was extremely surprised that Boleslavsky, seeker of complications, would choose this simplifying variation, exchanging queens. At rst, I must confess that I panicked, because (one never knows) at best I might be entering a line prepared by the new Soviet school. Even though the position is clear enough, I decided to proceed with all caution, and wait ... My opponent is not the kind to hand out easy half-points with White!

The continuation most often seen in the tournament was 7.d5, for example, games 75 (Geller-Gligoric), 100 (Kotov-Szabó) and 186 (Kotov-Najdorf ). But also playable is 7.Nge2 e×d4 (inferior is 7...Nc6 8.Qd2 Nd7 9.d5 Ne7 10.g3! f5 11.Bg2 f×e4 12.f×e4 Nf6 13.h3 b6 14.b3 Kh8 15.g4 with a superior game for White, BotvinnikAlatortsev, Moscow 1931) 8.N×d4 c6! 9.Nc2 Re8 10.Qd2 d5 11.0-0-0 Qa5 12.c×d5 c×d5 13.e×d5 with various continuations. (D)

226

For example, 13...Nbd7 14.Bd4 a6 15.Bc4 b5 16.Bb3 b4 17.Ne4 N×e4 18.f×e4 Ne5, Alatortsev-Smyslov Moscow 1942. Or also 13...b5 14.B×b5 Bd7 15.Bc4 Rc8 16.Bb3 Na6 17.Ne4! Nb4 18.Nc5!, Alatortsev-Kasljajev, Moscow 1945. 7...d×e5 8.Q×d8 R×d8 9.Nd5 If 9.Nb5 Na6, and if 10.N×a7 Nb4. 9...N×d5 10.c×d5 c6 It is evident that White stands a bit better, because of the open le, and his queen’s bishop being more active than Black’s king’s bishop, restrained by the e5pawn. Despite all that, the advantage is not enough by itself to force the triumph; in chess it is essential to win “by force of arms”; it’s not possible to win “on points.” 11.Bc4 c×d5 12.B×d5 Nc6 13.Rd1 (D)

No good was 13.B×c6 b×c6 14.Rc1 Be6 15.R×c6 B×a2 16.Ra6 Bc4 17.R×a7 R×a7 18.B×a7 Ra8 19.Be3 Ra1+. 13...Nd4 14.Kf2 If 14.B×d4 e×d4 15.Ne2 Be6 16.N×d4 B×d5. 14...Be6 15.B×e6 N×e6 16.Ne2 f5! I must play actively because my Bg7 has limited scope and White intends to post his knight on d5. 17.Nc3 f4 18.Bc1 Bf8 19.R×d8 R×d8 20.Rd1 Bc5+ 21.Kf1 Bd4 Despite having a certain initiative at this moment, I have to handle the endgame with much subtlety, since trading o the rook and knight will make obvious the weakness of my pawns, located on squares of the same color as the adverse bishop. 22.Nd5 Kf7 23.Bd2 Rc8 24.Rc1 R×c1+ As was said above, it was not expedient to trade rooks, but here I am forced to do it, so as not to cede the important c- le. 25.B×c1 g5 26.Ke2 h5 27.h3(D)

227

Round 11

27...Nf8 At this point – even though the text move looks simple, one that “the hand makes by itself” – I thought for no less than an hour and ten minutes! I was not trying to make moves – for then there are many of them – but rather to nd the procedure, the plan, that White would follow, and oppose it in time. Boleslavsky is planning to penetrate with the king to c4, and after b2-b3 and Bc1-a3 my situation would certainly be rather critical. With 27...Nf8 I begin the precise defense that gives me mathematical assurance of a draw. 28.b3 Ng6 29.Bd2 Ke6 30.Be1 Ne7 31.N×e7 K×e7 32.Kd3 b5 ½-½; The last detail of the plan worked out: with this last move I prevent the entry of the king and the draw is a reality. If 33.Bc3 B×c3 34.K×c3 a5, and not 35.a4? b×a4 36.b×a4 Kd6 and Black wins. (74) Kotov – Taimanov Réti Opening [A13] 1.c4 Nf6 2.g3 e6 3.Bg2 d5 4.Nf3 d4 (D)

228

The idea of 4...d4 in this opening does not seem so right after Black has played Ng8-f6. This pawn is already, from the rst moves, a permanent object of worry. In Reshevsky-Euwe, Hague-Moscow wch 1948, the Dutch master played the same opening with the knight on g8, in such a way that at an opportune moment he could play Ng8-h6-f5, giving this piece more play and solving the problem of the advanced pawn. More common is 4...d×c4 (game 111, Kotov-Euwe), or 4...Be7 5.0-0 0-0 6.b3 (6.d4 transposes to the Catalan) 6...c5 7.c×d5 N×d5 8.Bb2 Nc6 with an even game. 5.b4! A known move and a rather good one; apart from getting the queen’s bishop into play, if Black replies 5...c5, then 6.Bb2 Nc6 (of course 6...b×c5 is inferior, trading a central pawn for a ank one) and now 7.b5, dislodging the black knight. 5...c5 6.Bb2 Qb6 Logically, Black does not want lose a tempo by 6...Nc6 7.b5. 7.Qb3 Continuing to force Black to worry about the pawn; now 8.b×c5 is threatened. 7...Nc6 8.b5 (D)

8...Na5 Black must choose between a bad post for the knight and not allowing the diagonal of the Bb2 to open, or giving the knight a better square (e7) and allowing that diagonal to open. “To be, or not to be” ... it applies also to a chess knight! If 8...Nb8 9.e3, or 8...Ne7 9.e3 Nf5 10.Bh3. 9.Qc2 Bd6 10.e3 e5 The reader will now understand the entire basis of the game’s strategy: on one side, Black wants to shore up his advanced pawn with the consequent enclosure of the white queen’s bishop; but on the other, White will look for another useful diagonal for his bishop and will succeed, while the black knight out on the rim has no prospects at all. 11.e×d4 e×d4 12.0-0 0-0 13.d3 Bd7 14.Nbd2 h6 To prevent Nf3-g5-e4. 15.Rae1 Rae8 16.Bc1 R×e1 229

Round 11

An important moment: Taimanov does not nd the correct plan, which was to play Qb6-c7 and b7-b6, trying to liberate the knight. Now he will have no further opportunity to attempt it. 17.R×e1 Re8 18.R×e8+ B×e8 19.Nh4! a6 20.a4 Qa7 The game continues to be highly instructive: despite the exchange of rooks, and without a single serious weakness in his position, Black has a great problem with his knight out of play. 21.Nf5 Bf8 22.Ne4 N×e4 23.B×e4 b6 24.Qd1a×b5 25.a×b5 (D)

25...Bd7 Black’s rst chance to get the knight back in play, and he has to pass. If 25...Nb7 26.Qg4 Kh8 27.N×h6 g×h6 28.Qh5, or 26...Qa1 27.N×h6+ Kh8 28.N×f7+ Kg8 (if 28...B×f7 29.Qh4+) 29.Nh6+ Kh8 30.N×f7+ [sic] 30...B×f7 (if 30...Kg8 31.Nh6+ Kh8 32.Qf5+-) 31.Qf5 Q×c1+ 32.Kg2 Bg8 33.Q×f8+-. 26.Qh5 Be6 White threatened 27.Bd5, and if 27...B×f5 27.Q×f5 g6 28.Qc8 threatening 29.B×h6. 27.Bf4 Nb3 28.Qd1 Qa2 29.h4 Na1 Taimanov tries to bring the knight to life, which has been his problem throughout almost the whole game, but it is in vain. 30.h5 Nc2 31.Be5 With 31.Bc7 Qa7 32.B×b6 Q×b6 33.Q×c2 White could win a pawn, but his attack would thereby lose much of its strength. 31...Qb2 32.Bc7 Na3 33.Qg4 Qc1+ 34.Kg2 Nb1 If 34...Qg5 35.Q×g5 h×g5 36.B×b6, winning by advancing the b-pawn. 35.Bf4 Nd2? A serious error in time pressure, but the game was already decided anyway. 36.Qe2 1-0 Here Black exceeded the time limit and so lost. An excellent strategic production by grandmaster Kotov, the somewhat passive play of his opponent notwithstanding. A highly instructive and educational game for the studious chess enthusiast.

230

(75) Geller – Gligoric King’s Indian Defense [E87] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 e5 7.d5 For 7.d×e5 see game 73, Boleslavsky-Najdorf. (D)

7...Nh5 Undoubtedly grandmaster Gligoric has prepared this variation to combat White’s system, but in our opinion this is not the right move. If indeed Black nulli es White’s potential kingside attack, then White, safely putting his king away with queenside castling, can mount a decisive counter-attack on the queen’s wing. At this time theory advises 7...a5. For example, 8.Qd2 Na6 9.Nge2 Nc5 10.0-0-0 Ne8 11.g4 f5 12.g×f5 g×f5 13.Bg5 Bf6 14.h4=, Makagonov-Keres, XII Soviet Ch 1940. Or also 7...c6 8.Qd2 c×d5 9.c×d5 Ne8 10.0-0-0 f5 11.Kb1 Nd7 12.Nh3 a6 13.e×f5 g×f5 14.g4! f×g4 15.Ng5, Alekhine-Euwe, match 1926. And our opinion is substantially con rmed by the fact that in games 132 (Petrosian-Gligoric) and 100 (Kotov-Szabó) Black stood worse, and that later Gligoric improved the line for Black by some analysis with Najdorf, as can be seen in games 171 (Kotov-Gligoric) and 186 (Kotov-Najdorf ). 8.Qd2 f5 9.0-0-0 f4 Before making this crucial decision, it was advisable to play 9...Nd7, reserving the option of opening or closing the game, as appropriate. 10.Bf2 Bf6 11.Nge2 Bh4 12.Bg1 If 12.g3 f×g3 13.h×g3 R×f3. 12...Nd7 13.Kb1 Be7 14.Nc1 White stands better, and begins to prepare a break with c4-c5, opening the c- le. 14...Nc5 15.Nd3 15.b4 would be premature, weakening the castled position too much. 15...N×d3 16.B×d3 Bd7 17.Bc2 Qe8 White was hoping to trade o his bad bishop with 18.Ba4. 18.Bf2 a6 19.Rc1 Kh8 20.Bd1 Rf7 21.Bb3 In a secure position like this, where there are no direct threats from Black, White can feint on di erent fronts, looking for tactical chances and trying to discern his 231

Round 11

opponent’s intentions. White now threatens 22.c5. 21...Rf8 22.Ne2 b6 Black opposes the advance c4- c5, but creates a weakness at c6. 23.Nc3 Nf6 24.Qd1 Kg7 25.Qd3 At rst Geller intended to play 25.Ba4, but seeing that after 25...B×a4 26.Q×a4 Q×a4 27.N×a4 Black would obtain kingside counterplay with 27...g5, he decided rst to solve that problem. 25...Nh5 26.Rcg1 Kh8 27.g4 Nf6 28.h4 Kg7 29.Rc1! Mission accomplished! 29...h6 30.Ne2 Qd8 31.Rcg1 Nh7 32.Bc2 Be8 33.h5 g5 With this practically forced more, Black is reduced to passive defense on the queenside, but had he not wanted to close the kingside as this does, playing instead 33...Ng5, White would have penetrated with the maneuver Ne2-c1, Qd3-e2, and Nc1-d3-e1-g2-h4. 34.Qd1 Nf6 35.Ba4 b5 36.c×b5 a×b5 37.Bb3 Qb8 38.Qd2 Qb7 39.Rc1 Bd7 40.Rc2 Rfc8 41.Rd1 Ra6 42.Nc1 (D)

42...N×g4! Gligoric realizes just in time that playing passively, his position will worsen little by little; had he continued in this way, White would have played Nc1-d3-b4 and Rd1c1 with a winning position. Fortunately for Gligoric, with this sacri ce he gains counterplay and new hope. 43.f×g4 B×g4 44.Rh1 Bf3 45.Qe1 c5 46.d×c6 Ra×c6 47.Bd5 Interesting at this moment was 47.Rh3!? and if 47...R×c2 48.B×c2 Bg4 (not 48...R×c2 49.R×f3; equally if 48...g4 49.R×f3) 49.Rh2 Qc6 50.Bd3 Qe8 with an extremely complicated position. 47...B×h1 48.Q×h1 Qd7 If 48...R×c2 49.B×b7 R×c1+ 50.Q×c1 R×c1+ 51.K×c1 g4 52.Kd1. 49.R×c6 R×c6 50.B×c6 Q×c6 (D)

232

51.Nd3? Better, though not su cient to win, was 51.Qf3. For example, 51...Qc4 with three possibilities for White: (a) 52.Ne2 d5 53.e×d5 e4 54.Qc3+ Q×c3 55.N×c3 e3 56.Bg1 Bc5; (b) 52.Bb6 Kf7 threatening g5-g4; (c) 52.b3 Qf1 53.Qe2. 51...Qc4 52.Qf3 d5 53.N×e5 Qf1+! 54.Kc2 d×e4 55.Q×e4 Q×f2+ 56.Kd3 Qf1+ 57.Kc2 Qf2+ 58.Kd3 Qf1+ 59.Kc2 Qf2+ ½-½; (76) Smyslov – Bronstein Réti Opening [A12] 1.c4 Nf6 2.g3 c6 3.Nf3 d5 4.b3 Bf5 If 4...Bg4 5.Ne5 Bh5 6.Bg2 e6 7.Bb2 Be7 8.0-0 Nbd7 9.N×d7 Q×d7 10.d3 0-0 11.Nd2 Qc7 12.Rc1 Rfd8 with an even game, Réti-Capablanca, Moscow 1925. 5.Bg2 e6 Not 5...Nbd7 because of 6.c×d5 c×d5 7.Bb2 e6 8.Nc3 with a small advantage for White. 6.0-0 Nbd7 7.Bb2 Be7 (D) This may be considered the typical position of the Zukertort-Réti Opening. Black may develop his king’s bishop to e7, as here, or also at d6 or c5. For example, (a) 7...Bd6 8.d3 0-0 (if 8...e5 9.e4 d×e4 10.d×e4 N×e4 11.Nh4+-) 9.Nc3 Qe7 10.Re1 e5 11.c×d5 c×d5 12.e4 d×e4 13.d×e4 Bg4 14.h3 B×f3 15.Q×f3 Rac8 16.Red1 Rc6 17.Rac1 Rfc8=, Katetov-Tomovic, Yugoslavia-Czechoslovakia team match, Zagreb 1947; (b) 7...h6 8.d3 Bc5 9.Nc3 0-0 10.Qc2 Qe7 11.e4 d×e4 12.d×e4 Bh7 13.Qe2 and White is a little better, Pithart-Filip, Prague 1947.

233

Round 11

8.Nc3 0-0 9.Nh4 In Euwe-Kmoch, Leningrad 1934, the game developed peacefully with 9.d3 h6 10.Qc2 Bh7 11.e4 d×e4 12.d×e4 Nc5. 9...Bg4 10.h3 Bh5 11.g4 d4! 12.Nb1 B×g4! Pure Bronstein! A sacri ce full of salt and pepper. 13.h×g4 N×g4 (D)

A position where it is extremely di cult to draw de nite conclusions. Do Black’s possibilities compensate for the sacri ced piece? From one point of view the answer appears to be yes, not only for his two pawns, but also for the cramped nature of White’s position. 14.e4 The move indicated at this moment is 14.Nf3, with complicated play in which Black has attacking chances. For example, 14.Nf3 (if 14.e3 f5 15.Nf3 e5 16.e×d4 e4 17.Nh2 [not 17.Ne5 Nd×e5 18.d×e5 Bc5-+] 17...N×h2 18.K×h2 Bd6+ 19.Kg1 Qh4 20.Re1 Nf6 21.f3 Ng4-+) 14...c5 (we like 14...e5 less due to 15.e4) 15.e3 Bf6 with complex play. 14...N×f2 15.R×f2 B×h4 16.Rf3? He had to play 16.B×d4! B×f2+ 17.B×f2, lessening the intensity of Black’s attack and coming out with two minor pieces for the rook and two pawns. 234

16...Ne5 17.Rh3 Bg5! With this move the rst part of this violent opening concludes, and with three pawns for the piece Black retains a superior position. The text move prevents the comfortable development of the knight to d2 by threatening, after 18.d3, 18...Be3+ 19.Kh1 h5 followed by ...Ng4. 18.Na3 Ng6 Trying to improve even further the strategic posting of the knight. 19.Nc2 Nf4 20.Rh2 d3! 21.Ne3 Ne2+ 22.Kh1 f5 Bronstein could have had perpetual check, but with good reason he is not satis ed with that, because the position should yield more. 23.e×f5 e×f5 24.Bf3 Ng3+ 25.Kg1 Bf6 26.B×f6 (D) 26...Q×f6?? Bronstein, who up to now has conducted the game in magisterial fashion, commits an incredible folly that throws away all his previous labor. Why not 26...R×f6, bringing another piece to the attack while keeping good entry points for the queen? The following variations are very signi cant: (a) 27.Rg2 f4 28.Nf1 (if 28.Ng4 Re6 29.R×g3 f×g3 30.Kg2 Qg5) 28...Qd4+ 29.Rf2 Rg6-+, or (b) 27.Bg2 f4 28.Ng4 Qd4+ 29.Nf2 Re8-+, and lastly (c) 27.Nf1 Qd4+ 28.Kg2 Ne2.

27.Qe1 f4 28.Ng4 Qd4+ 29.Kg2 Rae8 30.Qg1 Qb2 31.Qc1 Qd4 32.Qc3 Now it is Smyslov who does not want to seek a draw by repetition! 32...Qd6 33.c5 Qg6 34.Qc4+ Kh8 35.Rh3 h5 Under enormous time pressure, Bronstein – who let his chance escape – has no recourse but to try to capitalize on his kingside pawn majority. 36.Kh2 Qh7 37.Nf2 g5 38.Qd4+ Kg8 39.Qc4+ Kh8 If 39...Qf7 40.Q×d3 g4 41.B×g4 h×g4 42.N×g4 Re2+ 43.Q×e2 N×e2 44.Nh6+. 40.Qd4+ Kg8 41.Rg1 ½-½; (D)

235

Round 11

Here the game was adjourned, and after analysis both masters agreed to the draw, surely tired from this tremendous ght. After 41...h4 42.Ng4, the situation for both remains as di cult as it is dangerous: 42...Qg7 43.Q×d3 Rd8 44.Qc4+ Kh8 45. Rg2 Rd4 etc. (77) Keres – Reshevsky Nimzo-Indian Defense [E28] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 c5 5.Bd3 0-0 6.a3 B×c3+ 7.b×c3 b6 Apparently, Reshevsky confuses this with the idea of the Belgian grandmaster O’Kelly, which was played in game 9, Geller-Euwe. In that position Black had not yet castled, and with the maneuver b7-b6 and Bc8-b7 he forced White to lose a tempo with f2-f3 (provided that White did not intend to bring the knight to f3). In this position the preferred move is 7...d5, or better still, 7...Nc6 as in game 49, GellerSmyslov. 8.e4! As we have already noted in other commentaries, in this opening the most di cult task for White is to open diagonals for his bishops. To be able to do it so soon must be considered a success. 8...Bb7 Better was 8...Ne8 and later f7-f5, avoiding the pin that now follows. 9.Bg5 h6 10.h4! (D)

236

10...d6 Clearly, if 10...h×g5 11.h×g5 N×e4 12.Qh5 winning. 11.e5 d×e5 12.d×e5 Be4 The only satisfactory defense. If 12...Qc7 13.e×f6 B×g2 (if 13...Qe5+ 14.Kf1 h×g5 15.Bh7+ K×h7 16.Qh5+ Kg8 17.h×g5+-) 14.f×g7 Qe5+ (if immediately 14...Re8 15.Qh5 B×h1 16.Bh7++-) 15.Kd2 Re8 16.Nf3+-. 13.Rh3 B×d3 14.R×d3 Qc7 15.B×f6 (D)

Interesting, and probably winning, was 15.e×f6 h×g5 16.h×g5 Qe5+ (if 16...Nc6 17.Qh5) 17.Kf1 Q×g5 18.f×g7 Rc8 19.Rg3 Qh4 20.Rh3 Q×c4+ 21.Ne2 Nc6 22.Qd2. 15...g×f6 16.Qg4+? Keres thought here for an hour on how to prosecute the attack, surrounded by a huge crowd of spectators who followed the game closely waiting to see what would happen. The Soviet seconds conversed excitedly, analyzing di erent possibilities for White and making predictions, while the anxious waiting went on. And in truth this position was worth the trouble! But the right move, the one that would have enabled Keres to win a brilliant miniature, was not played in the game, and is in our opinion 16.f4!. (D) Let us look at Black’s probable defenses:

237

Round 11

(a) 16...f×e5 17.Rg3+ Kh8 (if 17...Kh7 18.Qg4 f5 19.Qg6+ Kh8 20.Q×h6+ Qh7 21.Q×f8+) 18.Qh5+-; (b) 16...Nc6 17.Rd7 Qb8 (if 17...Qc8 18.e×f6) 18.Qg4+ Kh8 (or 18...Kh7 19.Q×e6) 19.Qh5 etc.; (c) 16...f5 17.Qh5 Kh7 18.Rad1; (d) 16...Kh7 17.Nh3! and: (d1) 17...f×e5 18.Ng5+ Kg7 19.Qg4+-; (d2) 17...Qb7 18.Ra2 Qe4+ 19.Re2 with a strong attack; (d3) 17...Rg8 18.Qh5 Nc6 19.e×f6 Rg6 20.0-0-0 Rd8 21.R×d8 N×d8 22.Ng5+ Kg8 23.R×d8+ Q×d8 24.Q×g6+ f×g6 25.f7+ Kh8 26.N×e6+-. 16...Kh8 17.Qf3 After the game, Keres showed that with 17.Nf3 Rg8 18.Qf4 it appears he would have won, but after 17...Nd7 18.R×d7 Q×d7 19.e×f6 Rg8 20.Qh5 Qd3 Black has defended himself. 17...Nd7 Not 17...Q×e5+? 18.Re3+-. 18.0-0-0 In post-game analysis, Reshevsky opined that 18.Rd6 was very strong, because if 18...f×e5 19.0-0-0 (as just now) 19...Rad8 20.Qd3, winning a piece. However, there are problems after 18...Kg7 (instead of 18..f×e5) 19.e×f6+ N×f6 20.0-0-0 Qe7!. 18...N×e5 19.Q×f6+ Kh7 20.Rd6 N×c4 While grandmaster Keres conducts a strong direct attack with great promise, Reshevsky defends himself with precision and coolness. 21.Nf3 If 21.Rd7 Qe5. 21...N×d6 22.Ng5+ Kg8 He saw that if 22...h×g5 23.h×g5 wins. 23.Q×h6 f6 24.N×e6 Qe7 25.R×d6 At this moment both masters had used almost all their time and only a few seconds remained to do the rest. Keres had perpetual check if he wanted it, but even with his ag about to fall and the perilous situation on the board, he preferred to go on. 25...Rf7 26.Qd2 238

If 26.Rd3 Rh7 defends. 26...Re8 27.f4? (D)

It is understandable that in the midst of terrible time pressure Keres does not make the right move. Even though down the exchange, White could maintain his chances with 27.g4, and if 27...Q×e6 28.R×e6 R×e6 and the ending is still favorable to him. 27...f5 28.Qd5 Kh8 29.Qe5+ Qf6 If 29...Rf6 30.g4!. 30.Kc2 c4 31.Kd2 Kg8 If 31...Q×e5 32.f×e5 Rfe7 33.Nf4 and White keeps his e-pawn. 32.Qd5 Q×h4 33.Q×c4 Qf2+ 34.Kc1 (D)

34...Qg1+ In time pressure, for all players, even grandmasters, checks are the easiest moves to see and make. At this moment, it can be said for the rst time in the game that Black is in the better position, and even had certain chances with 34...Kh8 (so as to play Rf7-h7) and if 35.Qd4+ Q×d4 36.N×d4 Rh7 followed by...Rh2, getting the rooks into action. 35.Kc2 Q×g2+ 36.Kb3 b5 37.Qd4

239

Round 11

Not 37.Q×b5? Rb7. 37...Qf1 38.Kb4 Qc4+ 39.Q×c4 b×c4 40.K×c4 Rc8+ 41.Kb5 ½-½; The game was agreed drawn after adjournment, since it is clear that Black’s extra pawn and centralized pieces compensate for the exchange. If 41...R×c3 42.Rd8+ Kh7 43.Ng5+. A game very interesting to theory, and dramatic in the middle game and ending, with the spectators and the masters themselves hanging on in suspense through its spectacular progress.

240

Round 12

Standings after round 12: Smyslov 8; Reshevsky 7½; Najdorf 7; Bronstein 6½; Boleslavsky, Euwe and Petrosian 6; Keres and Taimanov 5½; Averbakh and Gligoric 5; Szabó 4½; Geller and Kotov 4; Ståhlberg 3½;. After the twelfth round the top standings clari ed considerably, and thanks to Reshevsky’s bye, Smyslov retook rst place. The only “false” position is that of Bronstein, who has played one more game and could be overtaken by Boleslavsky and Petrosian. To this point, the youth contingent – Petrosian, Taimanov, Averbakh, Gligoric and Geller – have performed rather quietly, but in a tournament as exhausting as this, it is possible that the experienced veterans will not be able to retain all their privileged positions. Time will tell ... Najdorf defeated Kotov, beginning the game with some psychological speculation, and ending it in similar fashion. Kotov “smelled something” in White’s suspicious-looking 1.e4, and was careful not to answer with the Sicilian Defense; however, later he made the mistake of trying to win from an inadequate position, as a result of which Najdorf capitalized on Black’s weaknesses and won at move 41. Keres incurred a very serious positional error already at the fth move of his game with Bronstein. In e ect, an overly hasty attempt at counterplay on the queenside was refuted by White in an unhurried, mathematical fashion. Gligoric also committed a grave error, but in his case there seemed to be some logical justi cation. For three months prior to the tournament, Gligoric had been immersed in a study of his rivals’ openings and on the morning of his game with Smyslov, he imprudently continued studying for many hours, arriving for the real test very fatigued. The game between Ståhlberg and Averbakh marked a hoped-for break in the Swedish grandmaster’s misfortunes. Playing tenaciously, he won one of the longest endgames of the tournament. Taimanov and Geller played a King’s Indian, in which the latter, pressing as a result of his poor standing in the tournament, risked too much, getting into a bad position with all his pieces on the back rank. Logically, Taimanov’s victory was only a matter of time. 241

Round 12

Szabó and Euwe played to a draw in nineteen moves, in a Queen’s Indian where White allowed his opponent to equalize easily. For their part, Petrosian and Boleslavsky also played a brief game; White stood better, and it is possible that instead of accepting the draw, he should have continued play. (78) Bronstein – Keres Sicilian Defense [B25] 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 g6 3.g3 If 3.d4 c×d4 4.Q×d4 Nf6 5.Nd5 Bg7 6.Bg5 Nc6 7.Qc3 0-0 8.B×f6 e×f6 9.0-0-0 f5 10.Qc4 f×e4 11.Q×e4 d6 with good play for Black, Kasparyan-Keres, XV USSR ch 1947. 3...Bg7 4.d3 Nc6 5.Bg2 (D)

5...Rb8? Premature, and furthermore simply bad. This plan – a natural counter-attack on the queenside with b7-b5-b4 – is good once Black has completed his development, but not at this moment when he has the more urgent problem of mobilizing his pieces. The correct line was 5...e6 6.Be3 d6 7.Nge2 Nd4 8.Qd2 Qa5! (preventing 9.Nd1 by threat of 9...N×c2+) 9.0-0 Ne7 10.Kh1 Bd7 11.f4 Rb8 12.g4 h5 13.f5 Be5=, SmyslovKottnauer, Moscow 1946. 6.f4 d6 7.Nf3 e6 8.0-0 Nge7 (D)

242

9.e5! A move so typical of Bronstein that already puts the seal on the game. He tries to open the position so as to use his advantage in development, and to that end a pawn sacri ce is perfectly justi ed.

Paul Keres 9...d×e5 10.f×e5 N×e5 11.Bf4 White has capitalized on his opponent’s mistaken fth move in remarkable style, and the results are evident. 11...N×f3+ Another move allowing White to develop a piece, but there was nothing better. If 11...N7c6 12.N×e5 N×e5 (12...B×e5 13.B×c6+) 13.Qe2 Qd4+ 14.Kh1 and Black cannot defend himself against the threats of Nb5 and Rae1; or 11...0-0 12.N×e5 Qd4+ 13.Kh1 B×e5 14.Nb5 Q×b2 15.Rb1+-. 243

Round 12

12.Q×f3 Ra8 And after only twelve moves White has completely overcome Black, who once again nds himself forced to lose time. If 12...e5 there would follow 13.B×e5 B×e5 14.Q×f7+ Kd7 15.Rae1 Bd4+ 16.Kh1 with a winning position, since if 16...Re8 or 16...Qe8 17.Nd5!. 13.Be3! The simplest and best move, augmenting the pressure. 13...0-0 14.B×c5 Bd4+ Unfortunately, Black must give up his potent bishop to avoid worse evils. 15.B×d4 Q×d4+ 16.Kh1 Rb8 For the third time the rook swings back like a pendulum, and even if now it is justi ed in seeking liberation on the queenside, it is also certain that one cannot give a player like Bronstein the advantage of two extra moves. 17.Ne4 f5 (D)

18.Qf4! An excellent move, which seals up the positional advantage. If now 18...e5 19.Qh6 or Qh4, threatening 20.c3 and 20.Ng5. 18...Bd7 19.c3! This “modest” move decides the game. 19...Qb6 If 19...Q×d3 20.Nc5 Qb5 21.Qd6 winning a piece; if 19...f×e4 20.Q×f8+; and nally if 19...Qg7 20.Nc5 winning material. 20.Nf6+! With this nesse Bronstein caps his combination, winning the exchange. The rest is a matter of technique, imposing a material advantage. 20...R×f6 21.Q×b8+ Bc8 22.d4 Rf8 If 22...Q×b2 23.Rab1 and 24.R×b7. 23.Rf2 Nc6 24.Qf4 Bd7 25.Re1 Nd8 26.d5 Nf7 27.d×e6 B×e6 28.b3 Bd7 29.Qd4 The power of the exchange imposes itself slowly but surely. Keres could have resigned here without disgrace.

244

29...Bc6 30.Q×b6 a×b6 31.B×c6 b×c6 32.Re6 Rc8 33.Rfe2 Kf8 34.h4 b5 35.a4 b×a4 36.b×a4 Ra8 37.R×c6 R×a4 38.Rc7 Ra6 39.Rb2 h6 40.c4 f4 41.c5 f3 42.Kg1 Ra8 43.Rcb7 Ra1+ 44.Rb1 Ra6 45.Rd7 Ra8 46.Re1 Ra2 47.Re3 Ra1+ 48.Kf2 Ra2+ 49.K×f3 Rc2 50.Rc7 h5 51.Ke4 Nh6 52.Ra3 Re2+ 53.Kf4 Re8 54.Rh7 Kg8 55.R×h6 Kg7 56.c6 K×h6 57.Rc3 g5+ 58.h×g5+ 1-0 An excellent game by grandmaster Bronstein, in which Black might well have spared us the prolonged and pointless nale. It appears that the humorous dictum of Dr. Tartakower – “No game was ever won by resigning” – has been taken literally by the young. (79) Gligoric – Smyslov Queen’s Indian Defense [A30] 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.g3 b6 5.Bg2 Bb7 6.0-0 Be7 7.d4 c×d4 8.Q×d4! (D)

This variation is a specialty of the Yugoslavian masters, who have done special studies of it. The idea consists of not recapturing with the knight so as to avoid exchanging bishops, and even though there is loss of time after Nb8-c6, the queen will be well posted on f4, and later the rook on d1 to pressure the d- le. 8...0-0 9.Rd1 Nc6 10.Qf4 Qb8 With some transposition, Pirc-Sanguinetti, Mar del Plata 1950, continued 10...Qc8 11.b3 Rd8 12.Bb2 Qb8 13.Nb5 Q×f4 14.g×f4 Ne8 15.Ne5 Bf6 16.Rd2 Na5 17.Rad1 Bc6 18.N×c6! d×c6 19.R×d8 B×d8 20.N×a7! Bc7 21.N×c6 N×c6 22.B×c6 R×a2 23.Be5! 1-0. 11.Q×b8 Ra×b8 12.Bf4 Rbc8 13.Bd6 Better 13.b3 maintaining a small advantage. 13...B×d6 14.R×d6 Ne7 (D)

245

Round 12

15.Ne5? An unbelievable error, costing a pawn and later the game. The position was completely even and under normal circumstances the game would end a draw. Forced was 15.b3 and if 15...Nf5 16.Rd3. Asked after the game about the causes of this error, grandmaster Gligoric confessed that he had been preparing this variation the whole morning, and nally arrived at the playing hall very tired. Young masters should let this be a lesson, and understand that it is not always wise to fatigue one’s self overmuch studying theoretical possibilities when ve hours of continuous, hard ghting are still to be faced. 15...B×g2 16.K×g2 Nf5 17.Rd2 d6 18.e4 In search of complications, since retreating the knight loses the pawn with no compensation at all. 18...N×g3 19.h×g3 d×e5 20.b3 Rfd8 21.Rad1 R×d2 22.R×d2 Kf8 23.f3 Ke7 24.Kf2 h5 A pawn ahead, Smyslov capitalizes on his advantage in exemplary fashion and nishes the game in impeccable style. 25.Ke3 g5 26.Rh2 Rd8 27.Rh1 g4 28.f×g4 N×g4+ 29.Ke2 Nf6 30.Ke3 Rd4 31.Rf1 Ng4+ 32.Ke2 Kf8 33.Rf3 Kg7 Clean and clear is the king’s maneuver, preparing the advance f7-f5. 34.Rd3 Kf6 35.R×d4 e×d4 36.Nb5 Ke5 37.N×a7 K×e4 38.Nc8 d3+ 39.Kd2 Kd4 40.c5 Pre-resignation desperation. 40...b×c5 41.Nd6 Ne5 0-1 If 42.a4 c4-+. (80) Taimanov – Geller King’s Indian Defense [E95] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 0-0 5.Nf3 No good is 5.e5 because of 5...Ne8 6.f4 d6 7.Nf3 d×e5 8.d×e5 (if 8.f×e5 c5 9.d5 [9.d×c5 Qa5] 9...Bg4) 8...Q×d1+ 9.N/K×d1 f6!. 5...d6 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 Nbd7 246

For 7...Nc6 see games 28 (Taimanov-Najdorf ) and 67 (Taimanov-Boleslavsky). 8.Re1 c6 9.Bf1 Re8 10.d5 (D)

Another possibility, to avoid closing the position, is 10.Rb1, as in ReshevskyNajdorf, Helsinki ol 1952, which continued 10...e×d4 11.N×d4 Nc5 12.f3 a5 13.Be3 Nfd7 14.Qd2 a4, or also 14...Ne5 15.Red1 Qe7 16.Nb3, Filip-Tolush, Bucharest 1953. 10...c5 11.g3! With this move, preparing Nf3-h4 and Bf1-h3, White seeks to prevent any opportunity for the freeing move f7-f5. 11...Nf8 12.a3 The situation is clear: as in almost all such positions, White will get an advantage on the queenside, while Black will try to do the same on the other ank. Only here Black will nd it more di cult than in the classical King’s Indian to carry out f7-f5. 12...Ng4 White on one side, Black on the other ... 13.Nh4 (D)

13...a6?

247

Round 12

White tries to open the queenside and has no di culties; in contrast, Black at this moment cannot play 13...f5, because of 14.e×f5 g×f5 15.Bh3! Qf6 (White was threatening 16.N×f5) 16.Ne4! f×e4 17.B×g4. In view of the fact that the Nh4 impedes this maneuver, he should play 13...Bf6 and if 14.Ng2 Bg7. Surely Geller’s mood was a ected by his precarious position in the standings, and he sought to avoid a draw. 14.Bd2 h5 15.h3 Nf6 If 15...Nh6 16.Qc1 Kh7 17.b4 and now not 17...f5 18.Bg5. 16.b4 b6 17.b×c5 b×c5 18.Rb1 White gets there rst! 18...N6d7 19.Qa4 Bf6 20.Nf3 h4 21.Nd1 Not 21.Qc6 Rb8 22.Q×d6 Bb7 threatening ...Be7; but worth considering was 21.g×h4 B×h4 22.N×h4 Q×h4 and then 23.Qc6. 21...h×g3 22.f×g3 Nb8 23.Re3 (D)

Even though White still has no entry into the enemy camp, the location of the black pieces is remarkable: only Bf6-h8 is lacking to put them all on the back rank. It is obvious that such an arti cial position as this must eventually collapse. 23...Nh7 24.Reb3 Bd7 25.Qa5 Qc8 By no means should Black exchange queens and enter a lost endgame. After 25...Q×a5 26.B×a5, the invasions Ba5-c7 and Rb1-b6 would be decisive. 26.Nf2 Bd8 27.Qc3 Ba4 28.R3b2 Nd7 29.h4 Ra7 30.Bh3 Qc7 (D)

248

31.Ng5! Once again in keeping with the principle that one should play on both anks. With this move White gains space, and gets a direct kingside attack. 31...N×g5 32.B×g5 B×g5 33.h×g5 Kg7 34.Qf3 Qd8 35.Rb7 R×b7 36.R×b7 Kg8 Geller has no satisfactory move. If 36...Rf8 37.B×d7 B×d7 38.Qf6+ wins. 37.B×d7 B×d7 38.Ng4 Q×g5 If here 38...Re7 39.Nf6+ followed by 40.Qh1+-. 39.R×d7 f5 40.e×f5 Rb8 1-0 Black resigned as he made this move. Excellent positional play by Taimanov. (81) Najdorf – Kotov Caro-Kann Defense [B18] 1.e4 This was the only one of my fourteen games with White in which I opened with the king’s pawn. In this case the reason was very simple. I expected that Kotov would play his customary Sicilian Defense – to be precise the “Najdorf Variation” – against which I had prepared ... “something.” And great was my surprise when, after thinking for ve minutes (!), Kotov moved 1...c6, deciding on a Caro-Kann Defense. I cannot say that this upset me, but certainly it did not amuse me that with a single move – which had nothing to do with my home analysis – all that came tumbling down as if by magic. Now the situation is di erent, and not being conveniently prepared for this opening, I decided to employ the safe old line, rather than the modern 2.Nc3. 1...c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 d×e4 4.N×e4 Bf5 Lately the Soviet masters have usually played 4...Nd7 5.Nf3 Ngf6, which can lead to these continuations: (a) 6.Bd3 N×e4 7.B×e4 Nf6 8.Bd3 Bg4 9.c3 e6 10.h3 Bh5 11.Be2 Bd6 12.Ne5 B×e2 13.Q×e2 Qc7 14.f4 0-0 15.0-0 c5=+, H.Steiner-Flohr, Moscow 1946. (b) 6.Nc3 e6 7.Bd3 Be7 8.0-0 c5 (better 8...b6) 9.Qe2 c×d4 10.N×d4 0-0 11.Bg5 Nc5 12.Rad1 N×d3 13.R×d3+=, Bronstein-Kotov, Moscow 1946. (c) 6.Ng3 e6 7.Bd3 Be7 8.0-0 c5 9.Re1 b6 10.c4 c×d4 11.N×d4 Bb7 12.a3 0-0 13.b3 Nc5 14.Bc2 Qc7 15.Qe2 Rac8 16.Bb2+= (analysis by Pachman). 249

Round 12

5.Ng3 Bg6 6.Nf3 6.h4 and 6.Nh3 are considered slightly stronger than the text. 6...Nd7 Koblenc-Ratner, XIV USSR ch 1945, saw 6...Nf6 7.h4 Nh5! 8.Ne5 N×g3 9.f×g3 Nd7 10.N×g6 h×g6 11.Bc4 e6 with better play for Black. 7.Bd3 Ngf6 8.0-0 e6 9.Re1 Be7 10.c4 0-0 More precise is 10...Qc7 preventing Bc1-f4, which gains much space. 11.B×g6 h×g6 12.Bf4 Re8 While Black has no weaknesses, his position is rather cramped and the only prospect for liberation is to play c6-c5. 13.Qc2 c5 14.Rad1 c×d4 15.N×d4 Bb4! 16.Bd2 Kotov was threatening 16...e5. 16...B×d2 17.Q×d2 a6 18.b4 The rst phase of play is over. White stands better due to his space advantage and his queenside pawn majority. Black’s majority on the kingside is not of comparable value, due to the doubled pawn. 18...Qc7 19.Rc1 Rad8 20.Qc3 Nb6 21.Nf3 Impeding the advance of the central pawn. 21...Qf4 22.Qe3 Having an extra pawn on the queen’s ank, it suits me to go into a simpli ed endgame. 22...Q×e3 23.R×e3 Rc8 24.Rec3 Red8 25.Kf1 Kf8 26.Ke2 Ke7 27.a3 Rc7 28.R3c2 Rdc8 29.Kd3 (D)

A psychological move, since after 29...Rd8+ I would have to move the king back. This does not mean I was thinking about a draw by repetition – quite the contrary! Probably after 29...Rd8+ 30.Ke2 Rdc8 I would have played 31.Nd2, and if 31...Nfd7 32.Nf1 Ne5 33.Ne3, maintaining the advantage. The idea was to get my opponent to tip his hand; if Kotov had checked and played the rook back to c8, I would have determined that he intended to play for a draw, and if not – as occurred in the game – it also bene ted me to know that the Soviet master still had higher aspirations. 250

One can see that chess is not just a scienti c game of technical routines, but that it has much of art about it, and in the conduct of a game there enter various factors which are not strictly chess-related, but more a good dose of psychology to probe the opponent’s mind and discern his hidden intentions. 29...Nfd7 30.Nf1 f5 31.Ne3 e5 32.Nd2 e4+ Clearly, in advancing the pawns, Black creates weak squares. 33.Ke2 Ne5 Kotov keeps taking risks in his desire to win. Correct was 33...Nc6 and trying ... not to lose! 34.c5! Finally I can realize my positional advantage. 34...Nd3 35.Rd1 Nf4+? (D)

The losing move. He should have played 35...Ke6. 36.Kf1 Ke6 Now in this position there is not the least hope, and even after the better 36...Kf7 White has the decisive 37.g4! and if 37...Nfd5 38.N×d5 N×d5 39.N×e4. 37.N×e4 Nd7 If 37...f×e4 38.Rd6+. 38.Nd6 Rh8 39.g3 Nh3 40.Nd5 Rc6 41.Re2+ 1-0 If 41...Ne5 42.f4 and wins. (82) Petrosian – Boleslavsky English Opening [A26] 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 d6 3.g3 Nc6 4.Bg2 g6 5.d3 Bg7 6.Bd2 More active would be 6.f4 Nge7 7.Nf3 Bg4 (or 7...0-0 8.0-0 h6 9.e4 f5 10.Nd5 N×d5 11.e×d5 Nd4 12.f×e5 N×f3+ 13.B×f3+=, Alekhine-Tarrasch, Vienna 1922) 8.00 0-0 9.h3 B×f3 10.B×f3 Nf5 11.Kh2+=, Flohr-Euwe, match 1932. 6...Nge7 7.Nf3 0-0 8.0-0 Bd7 9.Rb1 Qc8 10.b4 Preferable was 10.Re1 to allow 11.Bh1 after 10...Bh3, avoiding the trade. 10...Bh3 11.b5 Nd4 12.a4 B×g2 13.K×g2 Qd7 14.Nd5 c6 15.N×e7+ Q×e7 16.N×d4 e×d4 17.Re1 Qd7 18.b×c6 b×c6 19.Qb3 Rfc8 20.Qb7 Qf5 21.Qa6 h5 ½-½; 251

Round 12

(D)

Petrosian proposed the draw, and even though his position looks superior in view of the rook’s impending entry at b7, in fact the good posting of the black queen is compensatory. If 22.Rb7 d5 23.R×a7 R×a7 24.Q×a7 d×c4 25.d×c4 h4. For that reason better is 22.h4, when would follow 22...Bf6 threatening 23...B×h4 with perpetual check. (83) Averbakh – Ståhlberg French Defense [C07] 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 c5 4.e×d5 Q×d5 Ståhlberg’s preferred move. Usual here is 4...e×d5 5.Ngf3 Nf6, but not 4...c×d4 because of 5.Bb5+ Bd7 6.d×e6! B×b5? 7.e×f7+ K×f7 8.Qh5+ winning. 5.Ngf3 c×d4 If 5...Nf6 6.Bc4, with two possibilities for Black: (a) 6...Qd8 7.Nb3 c×d4 8.Nb×d4 Be7 9.0-0 Bd7 10.Qe2 Nc6 11.N×c6 B×c6 12.Ne5+=, Czerniak-Benko, Buenos Aires 1941; (b) 6...Qc6 7.0-0 b5 8.Ne5! Qb6 9.Be2 Nbd7 10.a4 Ba6 11.a×b5 B×b5 12.B×b5 Q×b5 13.Qf3, Pachman-Richter, Prague 1946. 6.Bc4 Qd6 (D)

252

Ståhlberg, an expert on the French Defense, chooses from the four possibilities the one o ering the best chances, improving on these earlier games of his: (a) 6...Qc5 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Qe2 Nc6 9.Nb3 Qb6 10.Rd1 Bc5 11.a4 a5 12.N×c5 Q×c5 13.b3 Nd5 14.Ba3+=, Keres-Ståhlberg, Buenos Aires 1939; (b) 6...Qd8 (Averbakh-Ståhlberg, Saltsjöbaden 1952) 7.0-0 Nc6 8.Nb3 Be7 9.Qe2 Bf6 10.Rd1 a6? (necessary was 10...Nge7) 11.Nb×d4 B×d4 12.Be3. After 6...Qd8 there can also follow 7.Nb3 Nc6 8.0-0 Nf6 9.Qe2 Be7 10.Rd1 0-0 11.Nb×d4 Qc7 12.N×c6 b×c6 13.Bg5 Bb7 14.Ne5 with the better game for White, Pachman-Van Elden, Hilversum 1947. And nally, 6...Qh5 is also inferior, viz. 7.0-0 Nc6 8.Nb3 e5 9.N×e5 Q×d1 10.R×d1 N×e5 11.Re1 f6 12.f4, Tarrasch-Thorold, Manchester 1890. 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Nb3 Nc6 9.Re1 a6 10.a4 Be7 11.Nb×d4 N×d4 12.Q×d4 Bd7 13.Bf4 Q×d4 14.N×d4 Rc8 15.Bb3 Nh5 If 15...0-0 16.Nf5 Bb4 17.c3. 16.Be3 0-0 17.Nf3 Bc5 18.Ne5 Nf6 19.Rad1 Be8 20.B×c5 R×c5 21.c3 Bc6 22.f3 So far the game has been played correctly by both sides, and even though White, with his better development and queenside pawn majority, has a certain advantage, it is very di cult to make anything concrete of it, and the game should end in a draw. 22...Rb8 23.Rd4 Be8 24.h4 Kf8 25.f4 a5 26.Nd3 Rcc8 27.f5 e×f5 28.Re5 Rd8 29.R×f5 29.R×a5 was worth considering. 29...R×d4 30.c×d4 b6 31.Rf4 Rd8 32.Ne5 (D)

32...Nh5! 33.Rf3 If 33.N×f7 N×f4 34.N×d8 Ne2+ 35.Kf2 N×d4. 33...R×d4 Not 33...f6 34.g4. 34.B×f7 Nf6 35.B×e8 K×e8 36.Rb3 Re4 37.Nf3 Nd7 38.Ng5 (D)

253

Round 12

Averbakh is forced to lose material, since if 42.Ra3 Rb4 43.b3 Nc5. 38...R×h4 39.Re3+ Kf8 40.Ne6+ Kg8 41.Ng5 Kf8 42.Ne6+ Kf7 43.Nd8+ Kg8 44.Re7 Nf8 45.Rb7 Rh6 46.Nf7 Re6 47.Ng5 Rd6 48.Rb8 h6 49.Ne4 Rd1+ 50.Kh2 Rd4 51.Nc3 Rh4+ 52.Kg1 Rb4 53.Nd5 R×b2 54.R×b6 Ra2 55.Nc3 Rc2 56.Nd5 Rc4 57.Ra6 R×a4 58.Ne7+ Kh7 59.Nc6 Ra1+ 60.Kh2 a4 61.Nd4 Nd7 62.Ra7 Nc5 63.Nf5 Kg6 64.g4 Ne6 65.Ra6 Kf7 66.Nd6+ Kf6 67.Nc4 Ke7 68.Ra7+ Kd8 69.Ne5 Nc7 70.Nf7+ Kd7 71.Ne5+ Kc8 72.Nc6 a3 73.Ne7+ Kd8 74.Nc6+ Kd7 75.Nd4 Kc8 76.Kg3 Rd1 77.Nc2 Nb5 78.Ra5 Rc1 79.N×a3 Rc3+ 80.Kh4 g5+ 81.Kh5 Rh3+ 82.Kg6 N×a3 83.Kg7 Nb1 84.Ra6 Nd2 85.R×h6 R×h6 86.K×h6 Nf3 0-1 It is interesting to note that despite not playing well in this tournament, grandmaster Ståhlberg managed to beat Averbakh in both games, just as he did with Black at Saltsjöbaden 1952. (84) Szabó – Euwe Queen’s Indian Defense [E14] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.Nc3 Bb7 5.e3 For 5.Bg5 see game 22, Geller-Boleslavsky. 5...Be7 Better than 5...d5, which was played in game 29, Petrosian-Taimanov. 6.Bd3 c5?! (D)

254

We would prefer 6...d5 as in games 42 (Petrosian-Najdorf) and 156 (KotovReshevsky). After the text move White can take hold of the center. 7.0-0 With this move Szabó allows Black to equalize. Since 6...d5 was not played, it would have been interesting to see 7.e4, dominating the center and gaining space, with a ghting game. For example, 7...c×d4 8.N×d4 Bb4 9.e5 Ne4 10.Qc2, or 7...Nc6 8.Nc3. 7...c×d4 8.e×d4 d5 9.c×d5 A simplifying move that tends the game toward a draw. More ambitious was 9.Qe2 or 9.Re1. 9...N×d5 10.Bb5+ Bc6 (D)

11.B×c6+ If 11.Qa4 B×b5 12.Q×b5+ Qd7 13.N×d5 e×d5, or else 11...Qd7 12.Ne5 N×c3! 13.Qb3 N×b5 14.N×d7 N×d7 with three pieces for the queen and good play. 11...N×c6 12.Qa4 Qd7 13.N×d5 Q×d5 14.Be3 0-0 15.Rfc1 b5 16.Qa6 Nb4 17.Qa5 Nd3 18.Rc2 Nb4 19.Rcc1 Nd3 ½-½;

255

Round 13

Round 13

Standings after round 13: Smyslov 8½; Bronstein and Reshevsky 7½; Najdorf 7; Boleslavsky and Petrosian 6½; Euwe, Keres and Taimanov 6; Averbakh, Gligoric and Szabó 5½; Geller 5; Kotov 4½; Ståhlberg 3½;. In this thirteenth round the two strong western candidates Reshevsky and Najdorf succumbed in two long games, and the American grandmaster also lost his undefeated status. Reshevsky and Bronstein played a King’s Indian Defense, and one could see right from the outset their mutual disposition for a ght. White lost two tempi in the opening and later opened the center prematurely. The game became extremely complicated, but with his better and more harmonious development Black increased his advantage. Play was adjourned in a situation critical for Reshevsky. Upon resuming play, after an interesting maneuver, Bronstein won on time, though Reshevsky was already completely lost. Geller nally won his second game, in this very thirteenth round that proved fatal for others. In a Sicilian Defense, Najdorf employed his eponymous variation and – on the thirteenth move! – made the mistake of weakening his kingside, which gave him a very inferior position. However, Black still had the chance to complicate the game, but neglected to do so, and by adjournment he had not the least hope of salvation. Ståhlberg and Szabó contested a Yugoslav variation of the Grünfeld Defense, of much theoretical interest, in which White incurred some weaknesses that were well exploited by the Hungarian grandmaster. Boleslavsky-Averbakh was a Queen’s Gambit, Ragozin System, in which White obtained some advantages in the middle game, but Averbakh reestablished equilibrium with an elegant maneuver, and the game was drawn. Kotov played passively against Petrosian in an Old Indian. This allowed Black to equalize, and the game arrived at an interesting nal position where Petrosian left a rook on o er, and the game was agreed drawn. Very brief and correct was the Sicilian played by Smyslov and Taimanov. Black, at just the right moment, carried out the maneuver Ra8-b8 and b7-b5, which in game 78, Bronstein-Keres, was done too soon with fatal consequences. 256

Keres-Gligoric was also a Sicilian in which, by transposition, Black arrived at a Dragon variation with an extra tempo. Despite White’s initiative, the game ended justly drawn at move 39. (85) Ståhlberg – Szabó Grünfeld Defense [D99] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Qb3 d×c4 6.Q×c4 0-0 If 6...Be6 7.Qb5+ Bd7 8.Q×b7 Nc6 9.Qb3 Rb8 10.Qd1 Bf5 Black does not have su cient compensation for the pawn. (D)

7.e4 The modern continuation, the most active at this point. Other lines include 7.e3 b6 8.Be2 Bb7=, or 7.g3 Be6 8.Qd3 Qc8 9.Ng5 Bd7 10.Bg2 h6 11.Nf3 Bh3 12.0-0 B×g2 13.K×g2 c5=, Fine-Najdorf, match 1949. 7...Bg4 Also the most modern and probably best. If 7...b6 not 8.Bf4 c5 9.d×c5 Ba6 10.Qd4 Q×d4 11.N×d4 B×f1 12.R×f1 N×e4! with better play for Black, but 8.e5! Nfd7 9.Qd5 c6 10.Qe4 Bb7 11.h4 f5 12.Bc4+ Kh8 13.Qf4 b5 14.Bb3 c5 15.h5, BronsteinBogatyrev, Moscow 1947. Or also 8.e5 Be6 9.e×f6! B×c4 10.f×g7 K×g7 11.B×c4 with three pieces for the queen and better play, Kmoch-Prins, Amsterdam 1940. 8.Be3 Nfd7 9.Qb3 If 9.Rd1 e5 10.d×e5 Nc6. 9...c5! (D)

257

Round 13

The latest innovation, introduced in practice by the Yugoslavian master Janosevic. Earlier theory advised 9...Nb6 10.Rd1 (or 10.a4 a5 11.d5) 10...Nc6 (if 10...e5 11.d×e5 N8d7 12.Be2 Qe7 13.Bg5 Qe8 14.0-0 N×e5 15.Nd5 N×d5=, KeresSmyslov, Hague-Moscow wch 1948) 11.d5 Ne5 12.Be2 N×f3+ 13.g×f3 Bh5! (not 13...Bh3 14.Rg1 Qc8 15.f4 Bd7 16.h4+=, Bondarevsky-Ragozin, Saltsjöbaden 1948). 10.d5 If 10.Q×b7 Black can choose between these two continuations: (a) 10...B×f3 11.g×f3 c×d4 12.Q×a8 d×c3 13.Qd5 c×b2 with a powerful pawn on b2 for the exchange; (b) 10...Nb6 (threatening 11...Bc8) 11.Nd5 N×d5 12.e×d5 B×f3 13.g×f3 (if 13.Q×a8 B×d5 14.Q×a7 c×d4 15.Bd2 Nc6 with an excellent game) 13...c×d4 or 13...Nd7. 10...Na6 11.Nd2 e6! 12.d6! (D)

Ståhlberg must address the Yugoslav variation’s nesses which his adversary knows so well. Undoubtedly it is an enormous advantage to know the theoretical variations one plays from top to bottom, for aside from saving signi cant time on the clock, it gives one con dent optimism, while the opponent – forced to gure out the correct replies at the board – always plays with small, nagging doubts. And believe it or not, the chess grandmaster, like a painter or musician, does not know until the end of the game – his work in this case – whether he has worked well 258

and has solved satisfactorily all the problems posed by the position. At this point, for example, White must calculate: (a) 12.Q×b7 Nb4 13.Rc1 Ne5. (b) 12.h3 e×d5 13.e×d5 Bf5 14.g4 c4! and: (b1) 15.B×c4 Nac5 16.Qa3 Bd3! 17.B×c5 N×c5 18.Q×c5 Rc8 19.Qb5 a6 20.Qb4 Re8+ 21.Kd1 B×c4 22.N×c4 B×c3 with better play for Black. (b2) 15.N×c4 Ndc5 16.Qa3 b5 17.g×f5 b4; if 17.N×b5 Be4, and if 17.B×c5 N×c5 18.g×f5 Qe7+ 19.Ne3 b4 20.Q×b4? Nd3+. 12...Bd4! The opening’s nesses continue. White threatened 13.h3, and if Black plays 12...e5 it would only close the diagonal of his better bishop, while with the text move both problems are solved at the same time. If now 13.h3, then 13...B×e3 14.f×e3 Qh4+ and mate, and if 13.b×e3 f×e3 14.Nb5 e5. 13.B×a6 b×a6 14.Nc4 Rb8 15.Qc2 e5 16.Nd5 Qh4 Szabó continues playing energetically, since the white knights, though well posted, create no serious threat. 17.0-0 Be6 18.g3? Unnecessarily weakening the king’s position; we would prefer 18.Rae1 or Rad1. 18...Qh5 19.f3 Another weakening, but this time forced; Black threatened 19...Bh3 followed by ...Qf3. 19...B×d5 20.e×d5 Nb6 Eliminating the one well-posted white piece, which also defends the advanced pawns. 21.B×d4 e×d4 22.N×b6 R×b6 Also good was 22...a×b6, but Szabó, true to his temperament, prefers more active play even without winning the pawn. 23.Rac1 R×d6 24.Q×c5 R×d5 25.Q×a7 d3 26.Qe3 If 26.Q×a6 d2 27.Rcd1 Re8. 26...d2 27.Rcd1 Rfd8 28.g4 Despite material equality, the d2-pawn is a painful thorn in White’s position. If 28.Rf2 there could follow 28...Rd3 29.Qe2 Qc5 30.Kg2 Qc2. 28...Qh4 29.Rf2 Rd3 30.Qf4 Qe7 31.Qa4 Not 31.Rf×d2 R×d2 32.R×d2 Qe1+-+; and if 31.Kf1 R8d4 32.Qh6 Qb4 33.b3 Qc3+. 31...Qf6 32.Qb4 Qg5 33.Kg2 R3d4 34.Qb3 h5 35.h3 h4 36.f4 Qe7! 37.Rf3 Rd3! The beginning of the end. (D)

259

Round 13

38.R×d3 Qe2+ 39.Kg1 R×d3 40.Qb8+ Kh7 0-1 A game of high technical value, very well conducted by grandmaster Szabó. (86) Boleslavsky – Averbakh Queen’s Gambit Declined [D38] 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.d4 Bb4 (D)

5.c×d5 The move conducing to a simpler game. Other continuations would be: (a) 5.Qa4+ Nc6 6.Ne5 (if 6.e3 0-0 7.Bd2 a6 8.Qc2 d×c4 9.B×c4 Bd6 10.a3 e5 11.d5 Ne7 12.h3=, Reshevsky-Ragozin, Semmering-Baden 1937) 6...Bd7 7.N×d7 (inferior is 7.N×c6 B×c3+ 8.b×c3 B×c6 9.Qb3 d×c4 10.Q×c4 Ne4, Freyman-Ragozin, Leningrad 1934) 7...Q×d7 8.a3 (if 8.e3 e5, with two sub-variations: (a1) 9.d×e5 d4! 10.a3 B×c3+ 11.b×c3 d×e3 12.e×f6 e×f2+ 13.K×f2 Qf5+ 14.Ke1 00-0-+, and (a2) 9.a3 e×d4 10.a×b4 d×c3 11.b×c3 0-0 12.Be2 d×c4 with better play for Black, Colle-Alekhine, Hastings 1926) 8...B×c3+ 9.b×c3 e5 10.e3 0-0 11.Bd3 Rfe8 12.0-0 e4! 13.Bc2 d×c4 14.Q×c4 Nd5 15.Bd2 Na5 16.Qa4 Q×a4 17.B×a4, analysis by Alekhine. (b) 5.e3 0-0 6.Bd3 c5 7.0-0 transposing to the Nimzo-Indian. 5...e×d5 6.Bg5 h6 7.B×f6 260

If 7.Bh4 c5!. 7...Q×f6 If 7...B×c3+ Black would transpose to the Lasker variation of the Queen’s Gambit. 8.Qa4+ Nc6 9.e3 0-0 10.Be2 a6 (D)

It is well known that Black does not want allow his king’s bishop to be exchanged, and with the text he prevents White (after a2-a3 and Bb4-d6) from molesting it with Nc3-b5. But in reply, White cannot immediately play 11.a3 because of 11...B×c3+ (now yes) 12.b×c3 Be6, threatening b7-b5. 11.0-0 Be6 12.Rac1 Bd6 13.Qc2 Rfd8 14.Na4 Ne7 15.Nc5 Bc8 16.e4 The only move showing any ghting ambitions. Otherwise after 16...b6 and 17...Bf5 Black would have no problems. 16...Qg6! Anticipating White’s intention to gain a space advantage in the center. White cannot play 17.Bd3 because of 17...Bh3 and on 18.Ne1 Bf4 19.e×d5 Nf5. 17...Q×c2 18.R×c2 B×c5 19.R×c5 c6 20.Nd2 a5 Black avoids 21.b4 intending a2-a4 and the break b4-b5. Now if White plays 21.b4, after 21...a×b4 Black will have the open le at his disposal. 21.Rc3 Rf8 22.Re1 g6 23.Bd3 Bf5 24.Bf1 a4 25.h3 It is evident that White stands a bit better, since on the queenside – despite his pawn majority – Black is paralyzed, while in the other sector White has a space advantage as a result of his pawn at e5, which cannot be undermined by f7-f6 because opening the position would be to White’s advantage. However, Averbakh defends himself masterfully, handling this pre-endgame in a manner both precise and ingenious. 25...Bd7 26.f4 h5 27.Nf3 Kg7 28.Kf2 Rh8 Threatening 29...h4 and 30..Nf4. 29.g3 Kf8 30.Kg2 Nf5 31.Bd3 Ng7 32.Ng5 Be6 33.Bc2 Ke7 34.Ra3 Nf5 35.Nf3 b5 36.Rc3 Rac8 37.B×f5 B×f5 38.Rec1 Bd739.Ne1 Rb8! (D)

261

Round 13

He must not allow the maneuver Ne1-d3-b4. 40.Nd3 b4 41.Rc5 Bf5 42.Nf2 b3 43.a3 Bc2! Averbakh, activating his bishop with this elegant maneuver, quickly equalizes from what had been an inferior position. 44.Kf3 If here 44.R×c6 Rhc8 45.R×c8 R×c8 followed by ...Rc4, recovering the pawn with good play. And then not 46.Kf3?? Be4+-+. 44...Kd7 45.Ke3 Ra8 46.h4 Ra6 47.Nh3 Rb8 48.Ng5 Ke7 ½-½; What had been a “bad bishop” vindicates itself in this position, cutting o the action of the rooks and contributing to the draw. Although this was a quiet game, it is very instructive for the clarity of its maneuvers, and was well played on both sides. (87) Kotov – Petrosian Old Indian Defense [A55] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 Nbd7 4.e4 e5 5.Nf3 Be7 (D)

The preferred move of, among others, Dr. Tartakower, who has played this system not only in the queen’s pawn game, but also against the king’s pawn

262

(Philidor’s Defense). The di erence is in favor of the former system, since in e-pawn lines White has the c4-square available for his bishop, protected by a2-a4. The move 5...Be7 has its pros and cons. The bishop is not activated as e ectively as at g7, but in compensation the pawns of the future castled position remain intact. As we will see, Black does enter a form of King’s Indian, but with a desire to avoid as much as possible the usual lines. 6.g3! Kotov follows the correct plan, developing his bishop by anchetto, since he notes that Black’s strategy will be based on attacking his e-pawn, and he therefore takes precautions. Furthermore the text covers f4, where otherwise a black knight might jump in at an opportune moment. 6...0-0 7.Bg2 c6 8.0-0 a6 Najdorf-Tartakower, Dubrovnik 1950 continued 8...Qc7 9.b3 Re8 10.Bb2 Nf8 11.Qc2 Ng6 12.Nd1! c5 13.d×e5 d×e5 14.Ne3+=. 9.b3 Re8 10.Bb2 Bf8 11.Qd3 We would prefer 11.Qc2, followed by Ra1-d1. 11...b5 12.Nd2 Bb7 13.Kh1!? White wants to play f2-f4 (which right now is not possible: 13.f4 e×d4 14.Q×d4 d5 threatening ...Bc5), but this could be a loss of time. While White has played the opening passively Black has accomplished a rapid development, and with exchange of central pawns will have equality. 13...e×d4 14.Q×d4 c5 15.Qd3 Not 15.Qe3 d5!. 15...Ne5 16.Qc2 Nc6 The knight nds his point of entry at d4. 17.Nd5 Nd4 18.Qd3 If 18.B×d4 c×d4 19.Qd3 g6 as in the game. 18...g6 19.B×d4 c×d4 20.N×f6+ Q×f6 21.Kg1 Qe5 22.Rfe1 Bg7 23.Rac1 Re7 24.Nf3 Qc5 25.Bf1 h6 26.c×b5 Q×b5 27.Qd1 Qb6 28.Nd2 Rae8 29.Bd3 d5 30.e5 R×e5 31.R×e5 R×e5 32.Nf3 Re4 33.Qd2 (D) If 33.B×e4 d×e4 34.Nd2 e3 with serious danger for White. 33...a5 ½-½;

263

Round 13

Petrosian proposed a draw and Geller accepted immediately. The position – even with an extra pawn and strong bishop pair for Black – is di cult to force. After 34.Qc2 (threatening Qc5 or Qc7) White would have counterplay on the open le, besides having blockaded Black’s pawns and having a 2-to-1 majority on the queenside, all of which compensates for the material disadvantage. But by no means can he accept the rook: 34.B×e4 d×e4 35.Qf4 e×f3 36.Qb8+ Kh7 37.Rc7 Qe6 and wins. (88) Geller – Najdorf Sicilian Defense [B92] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 c×d4 4.N×d4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 Other satisfactory lines are 6.g3 (games 66, Gligoric-Kotov and 120, GligoricNajdorf), and 6.f4, the modern Yugoslav variation played in the rst ReshevskyNajdorf match in 1952. 6...e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.0-0 Nbd7(D)

Commenting on this game in El Ajedrez Argentino of November 1953, grandmaster Pilnik said this move is an error, but I do not agree. I have been playing this variation for many years, and I rmly believe that having played Bc8-e6 one should complement the system with Nb8-d7, for a simple reason: after e7-e5, Black has the problem of looking after his d5-square, on which White may post a knight dominating the center. And by this maneuver of playing 8...Nbd7, Black allows (after 9.Bg5 h6 10.B×f6 N×f6) for the replacement of the knight to continue defending that square. Instead Pilnik recommends 8...Qc7, and if 9.f4 b5!. But what happens if White plays 10.Nd5 at this moment? In my opinion, Black would then be clearly worse, for example, 10...N×d5 11.e×d5 12.f×e5 d×e5 13.Bh5 g6 14.Bf3 with the superior game for White, and if 10...b×d5 11.e×d5 Nbd7 12.a4 b4 13.g4 etc. 9.f4 Smyslov-Najdorf, Budapest 1950 continued 9.Be3 Nb6 10.f3 Qc7 (better 10...Rc8) with good play for Black. 9...Qc7 10.f5 Bc4 11.a4! Rc8 12.Be3 Be7 13.a5 h5? (D)

264

A mistake; I should have castled. I played this pawn here to prevent the advance 14.g4, but that attack was not so dangerous and I could have blunted it with 14...h6 (after 13...0-0 14.g4), and if 15.h4 B×e2 16.Q×e2 Nh7 17.Nd5 Qd8 with good play. Also bad was 13...d5 14.e×d5 Bb4 (if 14...B×e2 15.N×e2 Q×c2?? 16.Rc1) 15.Ra4. 14.B×c4 Q×c4 15.Ra4 Qc7 16.h3 h4 17.Rf2 To defend the c-pawn and liberate the Nc3, so as to answer 17...Nh5 with 18.Nd5. But the correct move – as Geller himself showed me after the game – was 17.Nd2, and if 17...Nh5 18.Rc4 Qd8 19.Nd5. 17...b5! (D)

In a badly inferior position, with little space and incomplete development, I look for active play even at the cost of a pawn. 18.a×b6 N×b6 19.B×b6! (D)

265

Round 13

A move worthy of a grandmaster such as Geller. It is notable that he gives up his powerful bishop to realize the advantage of his good knight vs. Black’s bad bishop. Instead 19.R×a6 Nc4 20.Bc1 Qb7 would give me great chances for counterplay. 19...Q×b6 20.Qe2 Ra8 21.Kh2 0-0 22.Rf1 Ra7 23.Rfa1 Rfa8 24.R1a2 Played to free the Nb3, but accomplishing the same purpose more actively was 24.Qd3 followed by 25.Nd2, and the b-pawn cannot be taken because of Ra1-b1. 24...Bd8 It is evident that I have no active moves and must await the decisions of my adversary. 25.Na5 Rc8 26.Nc4 Qc6 27.Ne3 Finally White can install a knight on the strong d5 square. 27...a5 28.Rc4 Necessary so as not to lose the c-pawn after Nc3-d5. 28...Qa6 29.b3 Bb6 30.R×c8+ Q×c8 31.Ned5 N×d5 32.N×d5 Qc5 Since committing the error at move 13, this is the best position I’ve had all game. And I now have some practical chances, as my opponent is very short of time. 33.Ra1 (D)

33...Qf2

266

In view of the anxious time pressure Geller was su ering, I should have gambled on complicating the game with 33..a5!?, since if 34.b×a4 R×a4. Corroborating this is the fact that Geller did not hit on the winning move on his next turn. However, I still would not have been able to save the game against correct play, for example, 34.b4 Qd4 (if 34...Qf2 directly then 35.Qg4 Bd8 36.Ra3) 35.c3 Qf2 36.Qg4! Bd8 (if 36...a3 37.f6 g6 38.Qc8+ Kh7 39.Qf8) 37.b5 a3 38.f6! B×f6 39.b6 Qg3+ 40.Q×g3 h×g3+ 41.K×g3 Ra8 42.R×a3! R×a3 43.b7 Rb3 44.Nb4 winning. 34.Q×f2? Decisive was 34.Qg4!, for example, 34...Bd8 35.Ra4 Ra8 36.b4 Q×c2 37.f6 g6 38.Q×h4+-. 34...B×f2 35.Rf1 Bd4 If here 35...Bg3+ 36.Kg1 a4 37.Ra1 a3 38.b4 a2 39.Kf1. 36.c3 Bc5 37.g4 h×g3+ 38.K×g3 Rb7 39.Rb1 f6 40.Kf3 Kf7 41.Ke2 Rb8 This was the sealed move. After analyzing the position I found no possibility of salvation, and can say I went to resume the game only for the sake of playing. 42.b4 g6 43.Kd3 Already winning here was 43.f×g6+ K×g6 44.b×c5 R×b1 45.c6 Rb8 46.c7. 43...g×f5 44.e×f5 a×b4 45.c×b4 Bd4 46.Rc1 Kg7 47.Rc7+ Kh6 48.Ke4 Kg5 49.Rh7 Bf2 50.Rg7+ Kh4 51.Kf3 Be1 52.Kg2 Rf8 Not 52...B×b4 53.N×f6 and mate. 53.b5 Ba5 54.b6 B×b6 55.N×b6 Rb8 56.Rg4+ Kh5 57.Nd5 1-0 (89) Smyslov – Taimanov Closed Sicilian [B25] 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 Nf6 6.Nge2 0-0 7.0-0 For 7.Be3 see game 103, Keres-Najdorf. 7...d6 8.Rb1 A plan distinct from the usual 8.h3 Bd7 9.Be3 Ne8 10.f4 Nd4 11.g4!. With the text, Smyslov wants to remove his rook from any indirect threats by the Bg7, and to anticipate Black’s natural plan of Ra8-b8 and b7-b5-b4. 8...Rb8! At just the right moment! Once Black is developed, this is the logical move and plan he should follow, but he must not rush it, as occurred in game 78, BronsteinKeres, where the results were fatal. 9.a3 b5 10.b4 c×b4 11.a×b4 Bd7 12.Nf4 e6 13.Bd2 Qc7 14.Nce2 Rfe8 15.Nc1 a5 Black uses his last opportunity to play this move, since White intended to prevent it with 16.Nb3. 16.b×a5 N×a5 17.Nb3 Nb7 18.c3 e5 19.Ne2 ½-½; (D)

267

Round 13

A draw? Just when the opening phase is over and the real game about to begin? Surely tired from their earlier e orts and without much ghting spirit, both masters are satis ed with a quick draw. (90) Keres – Gligoric Sicilian Defense [B70] 1.e4 c5 2.Ne2 A move introduced to master practice by Keres, who has made a whole system out of it. [Apparently Najdorf is referring to Keres-Capablanca, Semmering-Baden 1937, but 2.Ne2 was played in earlier games, e.g., Ilyin-Zhinevsky-Makogonov, USSR ch 1927; Capablanca-Yates, Kissingen 1928; and H. Johner-Bernstein, Le Pont 1930 – TK] One of its ideas is to prevent Black from entering the Boleslavsky-Najdorf variations, since if 2...d6 3.g3, and if 2...Nc6, this knight cannot go to d7 as in the Najdorf line. KeresKotov, Pärnu 1947 saw 2...d6 3.g3 b5? (better 3...d5) 4.Bg2 Bb7 5.d4 c×d4 6.N×d4 a6 7.0-0, with better play for White. 2...Nf6 3.Nbc3 d6 Clearly Gligoric avoids 3...Nc6 because he wants to reserve the option of entering the Boleslavsky-Najdorf variations, and furthermore White could continue with 4.d4, arriving at the classical position of this defense. Also not indicated was 3...d5 because of 4.e×d5 N×d5 5.N×d5 (not 5.g3 N×c3 6.N×c3 Bd7 7.Bg2 Bc6) 5...Q×d5 6.d4! c×d4 (if 6...e5 7.Nc3 Q×d4 8.Qe2 Nc6 9.Be3 Qd8 10.Rd1+=) 7.Q×d4 Q×d4 8.N×d4 a6 9.Be3+=, Keres-Kotov, Moscow 1947. 4.g3 Nc6 5.Bg2 g6 6.d4 c×d4 7.N×d4 N×d4! By transposition Black has arrived at a favorable form of the Dragon variation with gain of tempo, since White will be obliged to withdraw his queen after 8...Bg7. 8.Q×d4 Bg7 9.0-0 0-0 10.Qd3 Be6 11.Bd2 (D)

268

11...Qc7 Better was 11...Qc8, for example, 12.b3 (not 12.Nd5 N×d5 13.e×d5 Bf5) 12...Bh3 and Black has no di culties. 12.b3 a6 13.Rac1 Rfd8 14.Nd5 N×d5 15.e×d5 Bf5 16.Be4 Keres, with good reason, o ers to trade o his light-square bishop, since after the closing of the a8-h1 diagonal it is less active than Black’s. At the moment White has a small advantage on the queenside which he will try to capitalize on; meanwhile the d5-pawn paralyzes Black’s majority on the other ank. 16...B×e4 17.Q×e4 Bb2 18.Rce1 Bf6 19.c4 Rac8 20.Rc1 Qd7 21.Ba5 Re8 22.Bb6 Preventing 22...b5. 22...e5 23.d×e6 R×e6 24.Qd3 Rce8 25.Be3 Qe7 26.Rcd1 Bb2 27.Bd2 To prevent 27...Ba3 by 28.Bc3, threatening 29.b4. 27...Qc7 28.Rfe1 Ba3 29.R×e6 R×e6 30.Re1Bc5 31.R×e6 f×e6 32.b4 Bb6 33.Bf4 White’s advantage, if any exists, is so slight that it does not allow any serious undertaking. 33...e5 34.Bd2 Bd4 35.Be3 B×e3 36.f×e3 Qc6 37.Kf2 b5 38.c×b5 a×b5 39.e4 Kf7 ½–½; (91) Reshevsky – Bronstein King’s Indian Defense [E69] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.Nc3 d6 6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.0-0 e5 8.e4 Re8 9.h3 e×d4 10.N×d4 Nc5 11.Re1 a5 12.Qc2 c6 As noted elsewhere, the e-pawn may not be captured: 12...Nf×e4? 13.N×e4 B×d4 14.Bg5. For 12...Ng4, see games 131 (Averbakh-Bronstein) and 143 (StåhlbergReshevsky). 13.Be3 Nfd7 For the details of this deployment consult game 7, Ståhlberg-Reshevsky. 14.Rad1 a4 (D)

269

Round 13

15.Nde2? Reshevsky tries to pressure the d6-pawn without weakening his own position, but he does not reckon on the complications brought about by Black’s next move. The indicated move here was 15.f4, and if 15...Qa5 16.Bf2 Nb6 17.Nb1, as in Ståhlberg-Najdorf, Budapest 1950. 15...Qa5! 16.Bf1 The leap Nd7-e5, hitting the c4-pawn, now becomes a possibility, corroborating that 15.f4 was indispensable. If now 16.R×d6 Qb4. 16...Ne5 17.Nd4 And now White’s error is tangibly demonstrated, as he has lost two tempi. 17...a3! A move accomplishing three purposes: undermining support for the Nc3, securing b4 for Black, and increasing the potential power of the Bg7. 18.f4 Ned7 19.b3 Na6 20.Bf2 Ndc5 21.Re3 Nb4 22.Qe2 Bd7 (D) 23.e5? At this point one could say the position o ered chances for both sides, though the play is certain to be very complicated. The advance of the text move is premature. As Black is planning 23...Rad8 or 23...Re7, White had to take immediate measures, playing 23.g4 to enable 24.Bh4, and if 23...B×d4 24.R×d4 Ne6 25.R×d6 N×f4 26.Qf3.

270

23...d×e5 24.f×e5 Rad8 25.g4 Ne6 All Black’s pieces are harmoniously developed. 26.Bh4 Late. 26...N×d4 27.R×d4 Qc5 28.Rde4 Bh6 29.Kh1 (D)

29...Be6! Inadvisable is 29...B×e3 30.R×e3 with the subsequent strong posting of the knight at e4. 30.g5 If 30.B×d8 R×d8 31.Rf3 Rd2 followed by...N×a2. 30...Bg7 31.Rf4 Bf5 Clearly Black should not allow the knight to be posted on e4, where it would be White’s most aggressive piece. 32.Ne4 B×e4+ 33.Rf×e4 Na6 Having completed his mission on the queenside, Black looks for new prospects in the center. 34.e6 The last chance to open the position, before Black is able to blockade it with his knight on e6. 34...f×e6 35.R×e6 Rf8 36.Re7 Bd4 37.R3e6 Qf5 Black quickly redirects his attention kingside. Apart from the direct threat, the point of this move is to yield c5 to the knight. 38.Re8 Nc5 39.R×d8 N×e6 40.R×f8+ K×f8 41.Bg3 (D)

271

Round 13

Here play was adjourned. White’s position is critical, for despite having the bishop pair his weaknesses are evident, and Black is well able to capitalize. First a pawn falls, then even with bishops of opposite colors the exposed position of the white king allows decisive inroads. Furthermore, after an eventual exchange of queens, White will not be able to prevent the black king from marching to b2 to make a threat of the pawn on a6. 41...Q×g5 42.Q×e6 Q×g3 43.Qc8+ Ke7 44.Qg4 Losing immediately would be 44.Q×b7+ Kd8 45.Qa8+ Kc7 46.Qa5+ Bb6. 44...Qc3 Not yet winning is 44...Q×g4 45.h×g4 Kd6 46.Kg2 Kc5 47.Kf3 Kb4 48.Ke4 Kc3 49.Bg2 Bh8 50.Bf3 Kb2 51.Kd3 K×a2 52.Kc2. 45.Kg2 Qb2+ 46.Qe2+ Kd6 47.Kf3 Bc5 48.Ke4 Qd4+ 49.Kf3 Qf6+ 50.Kg2 Kc7 51.Qf3 Qb2+ 52.Qe2 Qd4 53.Kf3 h5 54.Kg2 g5 55.Kg3 Qf4+ 56.Kg2 g4 57.h×g4 h×g4 58.Kh1 Kb6 59.Kg2 Kc7 60.Kh1 Bd6 61.Kg1 Kb6 62.Qg2 Not 62.Qf2+ Bc5. 62...Bc5+ 63.Kh1 Qh6+ 64.Qh2 Qe3 65.b4 Desperation. If 65.Qg2 g3 and White is in Zugzwang. 65...Bd4 0-1 White exceeded the time limit, though he is lost in any event. A game worthy of these “giants of the board,” and the rst loss for the American grandmaster in the tournament.

272

Round 14

Standings after round 14: Smyslov 9; Reshevsky 8; Bronstein and Najdorf 7½; Boleslavsky, Euwe and Petrosian 7; Keres and Taimanov 6½; Gligoric and Szabó 6; Averbakh, Geller and Kotov 5½; Ståhlberg 3½;. Only Dr. Euwe and Kotov won in this round, but these games were true masterpieces, each in its own way. The Dutch master admirably conducted his game against the King’s Indian with which Ståhlberg confronted him, and one loss of tempo was enough for him to weave a beautiful positional combination that yielded signi cant advantages eight moves later. At the moment of adjournment, with material even, White had all the theoretical advantages in a rook-and-pawn endgame, which he won without di culty. Kotov is de nitely back! Averbakh made the probably hasty decision to close the center against the Old Indian Defense Kotov set up. Soon, White was surprised to see a beautiful queen sacri ce which took his king down a forced path to his doom. In Taimanov-Keres, a Semi-Tarrasch Defense gave quick equality to Black, and the middle game was very interesting, with a draw likely. Despite this, and pressed for time, Keres made some compromising moves and was at the point of losing the game. However, Taimanov did not look for the better rook ending, and the game ended drawn. The games Najdorf-Smyslov, Petrosian-Geller and Szabó-Boleslavsky were short and without major complications, save that in the rst Najdorf accepted philosophically the loss of the rst-move advantage and was satis ed with the drawn result. Gligoric-Reshevsky was a correctly played Ruy Lopez, with a nal queen sacri ce by Gligoric which Black, with good reason, did not accept. (92) Gligoric – Reshevsky Ruy Lopez [C97] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Qc7 Since in game 47, Boleslavsky-Reshevsky, Black came out worse with 11...c×d4, on this occasion he decides to play the classical variation. 273

Round 14

12.Nbd2 Bd7 Other playable continuations are 12...c×d4, 12...Bb7 and 12...g6. 13.Nf1 Rfe8 Now Reshevsky varies from the well-known and more usual 13...Nc4, when White can continue with 14.Ng3 or 14.Ne3, but not with 14.d×e5 d×e5 15.b3 Nb6 16.a4 c4! 17.a5 c×b3 18.a×b6 Q×c3! and Black has the better game, BoleslavskySmyslov, Groningen 1946. 14.d×e5 d×e5 15.N3h2 To get the queen into the game via f3. 15...g6 16.Ne3 Be6 17.Nhg4 N×g4 18.h×g4 Rad8 19.Qf3 Nc4 20.Nd5 B×d5 21.e×d5 Nb6 22.Be4 c4 23.Bd2 Both masters have played the opening correctly, without risking too much or weakening their positions. If 23.Be3 there would follow 23...Bc5 and exchanging would be unadvisable, because the ending of knight vs. bishop would favor Black. 23...Rd6 24.Rad1 Red8 25.Be3 Na4 26.Rd2 a5 27.a3 Nc5 28.g5! An active move that forces Black to declare himself. Gligoric’s plan is g2-g4, Kg1g2 and Re1-h1. 28...f5 29.g×f6 R×f6 (D)

30.B×c5! The move before, Gligoric had calculated far ahead, seeing the necessity of this queen sacri ce, since if instead 30.Qg4 there follows 30...h5. However, after 30.R×f3 there would come 31.B×e7! Q×e7 32.B×f3 and the strong d5-pawn, as well as the threat of 33.Rde2, would more than compensate for the queen. 30...Q×c5 31.Qe3 Qc7 32.Bf3 Bd6 33.Qh6 Qg7 34.Q×g7+ K×g7 ½-½; (93) Taimanov – Keres Queen’s Gambit Declined [B14] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bg5 c5 During the tournament, Keres frequently played this dubious variation of the Semi-Tarrasch, for which he had made suitable preparation. 5.e3 c×d4 6.e×d4 Be7 7.Nf3 274

Bb7

The game has transposed to the Panov variation of the Caro-Kann. 7...0-0 8.Rc1 b6 9.Bd3 Nc6 10.0-0 Nb4 11.c×d5! Nf×d5 12.B×e7 Q×e7 13.Be4

As a result of White’s passive play, Black has equalized the game. No attack exists for White, while in contrast Keres will have use of the central les for his rooks, and the isolated d-pawn as a target. 14.Re1 Rac8 15.Qd2 h6 16.a3 N×c3 17.B×b7 Q×b7 18.b×c3 Nc6 19.Qd3 Rfd8 20.h3 Rc7 (D)

21.Re4! Very well played. Taimanov does not continue his passive policy as then Black, doubling his rooks on the c- le, will have strong pressure on the pawn at c3. With the text move, Keres nds himself obliged to keep an eye on the kingside. 21...Na5 22.Nd2 Defending against the threat of Na4-b3-c5. 22...Qd5 23.Rg4 f5 White threatened 24.R×g7+ K×g7 25.Qg3+, or the direct 24.Qg3. 24.Rg3 Rdc8 25.Re3 With the rook maneuver Taimanov has been able to weaken the e6-pawn, compensating thereby for his own weakness on the queenside. 25...Nc4 26.N×c4 R×c4 27.Qd2 Black threatened 27...R×d4. 27...Qc6 28.Rce1 R×c3 29.R×e6 Qc4 30.Qf4 Rc1 31.Q×f5 Q×d4 32.R×c1 R×c1+ 33.Kh2 Qd7 34.Qe4 Rc8 35.f4 Rf8 36.Qe5 (D)

275

Round 14

36...Qd2? Short of time, Keres, in a very simple position, gives his opponent chances. Correct was 36...Qf7 and if 37.Re7 Q×f4+, or else 37.Kg3 Qf5, with the draw assured. 37.f5 Qa5? The anxious time pressure continues and so do the errors. Keres was indecisive; picking up his queen, he was about to set it on g5, when he suddenly saw that 38.Rg6 would win on the spot. Fortunately for him, he still had not released the piece and could make a better move with the text, which, however, is still not the correct move either. Black should have played 37...Rf7 and if 38.Re8+ Kh739.Qb8 R×f5 when although White can give many checks, none su ce to win. 38.Q×a5 b×a5 (D)

39.g4? Taimanov fails to grasp the opportunity. With 39.Re5 a4 40.Ra5 Rf7 41.g4 he would win a pawn, and though that would not assure winning the game, he would clearly have good chances. 39...Rb8 ½-½; In this position the draw was agreed, since the probable continuation 40.Ra6 Rb2+ 41.Kg1 Rb1+ 42.Kf2 Rb2+ 43.Ke1 Rb1+ 44.Kd2 Rb3 45.R×a5 R×h3 46.R×a7 Rg3 47.Ra4 g6! would assure it. 276

(94) Najdorf – Smyslov Nimzo-Indian Defense [E43] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 c5 5.Bd3 0-0 6.Nf3 b6 7.0-0 Bb7 8.a3 The classic continuation is 8.Bd2, or better still 8.Na4!. If I make this move it is not because I consider it better than the other two, rather it’s just the idea of getting away a little from the ordinary. At the time of this game, I did not know that the text move had already been tried several times by Soviet players in tournaments in their own country. 8...B×c3 9.b×c3 Be4! Very well played. My intention was to play 10.Qc2 with the idea of e3-e4, and if my opponent opposed that with d7-d5, then I could rid myself of the doubled pawns. 10.Be2 Now that I have a good pair of bishops I try to conserve them. I now threaten 11.Nd2, followed by f2-f3 and e3-e4, with the better game. 10...Nc6 11.Nd2 Bg6 12.Nb3? I had to play 12.f3, without fear of the attack on my c4-pawn by Nc6-a5 and Ra8c8. After the text move, I am late in opening the center. 12...Ne4! 13.Qe1 If 13.Bb2 Qg5 (preventing 14.f3) 14.d×c5 N×c5 15.N×c5 Q×c5 16.Q×d7 Rfd8. 13...Nd6! 14.Qd1 ½-½; (D)

Although the game had just begun, I realized that I had lost the rst-move advantage, and with realistic judgment I accepted the draw. For example, if 14.d×c5 b×c5 and Black recovers the pawn with better play, and if 14.f3 Nb7 15.d5 Nca5 16.N×a5 N×a5 17.e4 Nb3 18.Ra2 N×c1 19.Q×c1 f5 and Black equalizes easily. I recognized the true state of the position and accepted the fact that it is not justi ed to keep playing with the hope of realizing an advantage that does not exist. And least of all against a grandmaster like Smyslov! (95) Petrosian – Geller Queen’s Indian Defense [A30]

277

Round 14

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.g3 b6 5.Bg2 Bb7 6.0-0 Be7 7.d4 c×d4 8.Q×d4 0-0 9.Rd1 Nc6 10.Qf4 Qb8 11.b3 For 11.Q×b8 see game 79, Gligoric-Smyslov. 11...Rd8 12.Q×b8 Ra×b8 13.Bb2 a6 14.Nd2 ½-½; (D)

It appears that the grandmasters had agreed between themselves to a “rest day.” Though this is a completely even position, and the result is justi ed, the grandmasters playing in this tournament have great mutual respect, and the small advantages which in other circumstances would justify “trying something,” here are discarded as insu cient against adversaries of such caliber. (96) Averbakh – Kotov Old Indian Defense [A55] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nf3 Nbd7 4.Nc3 e5 5.e4 Be7 One always learns more from one’s lost games, or those with inferior positions – games where one analyzes in depth looking for what caused the loss or trying to nd better lines of play – than from all the games one wins put together. Petrosian had already played this line with Black against Kotov, and so much did the latter come to like it that, after due preparation, he played it in this game, with considerable success. (For our technical commentaries on the opening consult game 87, Kotov-Petrosian.) 6.Be2 In the aforementioned game, Kotov played 6.g3, which accomplishes a double mission: getting the bishop into play via anchetto, and keeping vigil on the important square f4, where otherwise Black might post a knight. 6...0-0 7.0-0 c6 8.Qc2 Re8 9.Rd1 Averbakh keeps on playing as if this were a King’s Indian, but here the circumstances are di erent, because the potentially weak pawn at d6 is defended by the Be7. 9...Bf8 10.Rb1! White understands that it will be very hard to carry out a kingside break, and therefore with this excellent move he prepares a break on the other ank (by b2-b4278

b5). For that reason, Black plays: 10...a5 11.d5?! A very important decision from the positional standpoint. Since Black’s position is closed (albeit very solid), and White has a space advantage, who knows if it serves Averbakh’s purpose to close the position as he does here. He could not play 11.a3 e×d4 12.N×d4 a4 and it’s clear that White should not take the a-pawn in trade for his e-pawn. However, in our opinion 11.Bg5 was interesting, reserving the possibility of playing a2-a3, and if 11...h6 12.Bh4 g5 13.Bg3 Black has weakened his position too much. 11...Nc5 12.Be3 Qc7 13.h3 How could Averbakh imagine that this good and logical move would later be the object of a marvelous combination? There still does not exist – even among the greatest grandmasters of the world like those in this tournament – a chess player who can foresee so far in advance the consequences of a move. 13...Bd7 14.Rbc1 Defending the queen, in view of the threat of 14...c×d5 15.c×d5 Nc×e4. 14...g6 15.Nd2 Rab8 Black prepares 16...Rec8 and ...c×d5, and if White responds 17.c×d5, then 17...b5, by which Black starts an o ensive on the queenside. Foreseeing all this, Averbakh tries to dominate the b5-square. 16.Nb3 N×b3 17.Q×b3 c5 18.Kh2 The start of a mistaken plan. Averbakh should not weaken his kingside as he does, but rather aim for a break on the queenside with a2-a3, Rc1-b1, Qd2-c2, and b2-b4. 18...Kh8 19.Qc2 Ng8 20.Bg4 Nh6 21.B×d7 Q×d7 22.Qd2 Ng8 (D)

23.g4? A psychological error. Often a player who sees a threat (in this case f7-f5) wants to defend himself against it immediately, and in his haste he incurs worse weaknesses than those he’s trying to avoid! But the idea is always the same: don’t give the opponent the satisfaction of doing what he wants. In this position, Averbakh should have counteracted the threat of 23...f5 by trying to counter-attack on the 279

Round 14

queen’s ank with a2-a3, Rc1-b1 and b2-b4. For example, 23...f5 24.f3, followed by the plan indicated. 23...f5 Black carries out this threat all the same, and now it can be said that the kingside attack has life. 24.f3 Be7 25.Rg1 Rf8 26.Rcf1 Rf7 27.g×f5 Averbakh loses patience. Better to await developments quietly with 27.Qe2 instead of looking for aggressive play. 27...g×f5 28.Rg2 Better 28.e×f5 to prevent ...f4 and at the same time make e4 available for the knight. 28...f4 29.Bf2 Rf6 30.Ne2 (D)

To arrive in time: if 30...Rh6 31.Ng1. But ... 30...Q×h3+!! A beautiful and correct queen sacri ce, which will be enshrined in the “Brilliant Combination Hall of Fame.” Without question, this is an exceptional opportunity that rarely presents itself in a tournament of such great masters. Though beautiful, this sacri ce is not di cult, and Kotov thought for no more than an instant before making it. All White’s important moves are forced, and despite being down a queen, Black runs no risk, because in the worst case he has perpetual check. The reader can imagine the buzz from the spectators as word got around the playing hall: Kotov sacri ced his queen for nothing! 31.K×h3 The forced moves begin; clearly if 31.Kg1 Rh6 wins. 31...Rh6+ 32.Kg4 Nf6+ 33.Kf5 If 33.Kg5 Rh5#. 33...Nd7 Threatening mate in three: 34...Rf8+ 35.Kg4 Rg8+ 36.Kf5 Rf6#. 34.Rg5 The only temporary defense. 280

34...Rf8+ 35.Kg4 Nf6+ 36.Kf5 Ng8+ As we see there can already be a perpetual check. 37.Kg4 Nf6+ 38.Kf5 N×d5+ Still two moves short of the rst control, Kotov, in extreme time pressure, cannot repeat moves again, as that will allow a draw by rule. To continue giving checks, he changes the position by eliminating the d-pawn. 39.Kg4 Nf6+ 40.Kf5 Ng8+ Kotov gets there in time. 41.Kg4 Here play was adjourned, and certainly it was not hard for Black to nd the winning procedure. 41...Nf6+ 42.Kf5 Ng8+ 43.Kg4 B×g5! (D)

De ning the situation. Black now threatens 44...Be7 and 45...Nf6+ winning (46.Kf5 Nd7+ 47.Kg4 Rg8+ 48.Kf5 Rf6#). White has no defense; although there are many possible variations, none can save him. For example, 44.Be3 Be7 45.B×f4 e×f4 46.N×f4 Rh4+ 47.Kg3 Rh×f4 and, though there is some ght left in the position, White is lost. 44.K×g5 Rf7 45.Bh4 Rg6+ 46.Kh5 Rfg7 47.Bg5 Averbakh must start giving back his whole army to avoid mate. 47...R×g5+ 48.Kh4 Nf6 49.Ng3 R×g3 50.Q×d6 R3g6 51.Qb8+ Rg8 0-1 Winning the queen or giving mate. White resigned. An interesting game with a beautiful, suddenly improvised combination that will pass into the chess literature of brilliant play. (97) Szabó – Boleslavsky French Defense [C08] 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 c5 4.e×d5 e×d5 For 4...Q×d5 see game 83, Averbakh-Ståhlberg. 5.Bb5+ Also playable is 5.Ngf3 which can be followed by 5...Nc6 6.Bb5=, or these two continuations: (a) 5...a6 6.d×c5 B×c5 7.Nb3 Ba7 8.Bg5 Nf6 9.Nfd4 0-0 10.Be2 Qd6 281

Round 14

11.0-0 Ne4=, Keres-Botvinnik, Hague-Moscow wch 1948; (b) 5...c4 6.c3 (if 6.Be2 Nc6 7.0-0 Bd6 8.Re1 Nge7 9.Nf1 0-0 10.c3 Bd7 with good play for Black, Prucha-Bartosek, Prague 1943).

Isaac Boleslavsky 5...Bd7 If 5...Nc6 6.Qe2+ Qe7 (6...Be7 7.d×c5 Nf6 8.Ngf3 0-0 9.Nb3 Re8 10.Be3 Ne4 11.00-0 N×c5 12.Bc4 N×b3+ 13.B×b3 Be6=, Florian-Katetov, Prague 1943) 7.d×c5 Q×e2+ 8.N×e2 B×c5 9.Nb3 Bb6 10.Bd2! Nge7 11.Bb4!+=, Euwe-Botvinnik, Hague-Moscow wch 1948. 6.Qe2+ Be7 (D)

Usually played here is 6...Qe7 7.B×d7+ N×d7 8.d×c5 N×c5 9.Nb3 Q×e2+ 10.N×e2 N×b3 11.a×b3 Bc5 12.0-0 Nf6 (also good is 12...Ne7 13.Rd1 0-0-0! 14.Be3 B×e3 15.f×e3 Nc6 16.c3 Rhe8 17.Kf2 Rd6=, analysis by Trifunovic) 13.Rd1 0-0 14.h3 Rfe8

282

15.Kf1 h6 16.Nd4 a6 17.c3, Foltys-Gligoric, Budapest 1948. Black then played 17...B×d4?, continuing 18.R×d4 Re4 19.Be3, but the correct move was 17...Rad8. 7.d×c5 Nf6 8.B×d7+ Nb×d7 9.Nb3 0-0 10.Nh3Re8 11.0-0 B×c5 12.Qd1 Bb6 13.c3 h6 14.Bf4 Ne5 15.B×e5 It was necessary to eliminate this knight to prevent Ne5-c4, which would be troublesome. 15...R×e5 16.Re1 R×e1+ 17.Q×e1 Qd6 18.Rd1 ½-½; (98) Euwe – Ståhlberg King’s Indian Defense [E67] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 c6 4.d5 c×d5 5.c×d5 (D)

5...d6 Pachman in his book on openings considers this line inferior for White, refuting it as follows: 5...Qa5+ 6.Nc3 Ne4! 7.Qd4 N×c3 8.b×c3 (if 8.Q×h8 Ne4+ 9.Kd1 N×f2+ 10.Kc2 d6-+) 8...Rg8 with better play for Black. So, knowing this analysis, what reason could Euwe have for risking this line? The answer is implicit in the fact that Ståhlberg did not follow Pachman’s counsel: the analysis is incorrect. After 5...Qa5+ 6.Nc3 Ne4! 7.Qd4 N×c3 White should not play 8.b×c3, but 8.Bd2! Q×d5 9.Q×c3 (threatening mate) 9...Nc6 10.Q×h8 Q×h1 11.Bh6 winning. Despite the fact that 4.d5 cannot be directly refuted, we do not consider it advantageous, as this pawn closes the diagonal of the anchettoed bishop. 6.Bg2 Bg7 7.Nc3 0-0 8.Nf3 Nbd7 9.0-0 Nb6 10.a4 A somewhat routine move to bother the knight. We would have preferred 10.h3 or 10.Nd4. 10...Bg4 11.Nd4 a6! White threatened a4-a5-a6 laying claim to the c6-square, to use it for his own knight. 12.h3 Bc8? (D)

283

Round 14

Ståhlberg loses an important tempo with the bishop, since next move he will have to put it on d7. The reason is that the Swedish grandmaster was hoping to induce his opponent to occupy b3 with a pawn, preventing the queen from going there, because he feared this variation: 12...Bd7 13.Qb3 Nf×d5 14.N×d5 B×d4 15.Bh6 Re8 16.Rfd1 (not 16.Rad1 B×a4) 16...Bc5 (not 16...e5 17.R×d4) 17.Qc3 e5 18.b4! N×a4 19.Qf3 Bd4 20.Nf6+ Kh8 21.R×d4 e×d4 22.N×d7+-. However, this continuation was not forced, and to 13.Qb3 Black could reply 13...Qc7! 14.Rd1 Rac8 15.Bf4 Nc4 16.Rac1 Qb6 with good play. 13.b3 Bd7 14.Be3 Beginning a lovely combination that culminates at move 22. If Dr. Euwe foresaw the entire maneuver, his profundity deserves our applause. Did he make this move after a complete analysis, or did he simply follow his feeling for the position? We leave it for the reader to decide. The strictly positional move here was 14.a5, dislodging the knight that pressures the d5-pawn. 14...Rc8 15.Qd2 Rc5?! (D)

Did Dr. Euwe also foresee this move, in his lovely combination? If now 16.b4, then 16...Nc4 and 17...N×e3, and if 16.Nc2 R×c3 17.Q×c3 Nf×d5. 16.Nc6 b×c6 17.B×c5 d×c5 18.d×c6 Be6 19.Q×d8 R×d8 20.Rad1 Rc8 21.a5 Na8 22.Na4! (D) 284

The nal point of the combination begun at move 14. If now 22...B×b3 23.Nb6!! B×d1 24.R×d1 Rf8 25.N×a8 R×a8 26.c7 Re8 27.Rd8+-. The balance sheet, after the nine moves of the combination, is a rook and a dangerous pawn on c6 for White, against Black’s bishop and knight.

22...Nc7 23.N×c5 Nfd5 If 23...Bd5 24.b4 B×g2 25.K×g2 Nfd5 26.N×a6 N×a6 27.R×d5 N×b4 28.Rc5 (better than 28.Rb5 N×c6 29.Rc1) 28...R×c6 29.R×c6 N×c6 30.a6 Bd4 31.e3 Ba7 32.Rc1+-. 24.N×a6 N×a6 If 24...Nc3 25.N×c7 N×d1 26.N×e6+-. 25.B×d5 B×h3 26.Bg2 Be6 If 26...B×g2 27.K×g2 R×c6 28.Rc1! Re6 29.b4! N×b4 30.Rc8+ Bf8 31.Rb1 Re4 32.f3 Rd4 33.e3 Rd2+ 34.Kg1+-. 27.Rb1 Bc3 28.Rfd1 Bb4 If 28...B×a5 29.Ra1, and if 28...B×b3 29.Rd3. 29.Rd4 Bf5 30.Rbd1 Bd6 31.Rc4 Be6 32.Bd5 B×d5 33.R×d5 Rb8 34.b4! N×b4 Not 34...R×b4 35.R×b4 B×b4 36.Rb5+-. 35.R×d6 e×d6 36.c7 Rc8 37.R×b4 R×c7 38.Ra4 Kf8 39.Kg2 Ke7 40.Kf3 Kd7 41.Ke4 (D) Here the game was adjourned, in the midst of an extremely interesting endgame. Even with equal material, White should win by virtue of his passed a-pawn, his active rook supporting it from behind, and his centralized king.

285

Round 14

41...Ra7 42.Kd5 h5 43.f4 Ra6 44.e4 f6 45.Ra2 g5 Black tries to create a passed pawn, since if 45...f5 46.e×f5 g×f5 47.Ra3 Ke7 48.Kc4 and 49.Kb5+-. 46.f5 h4 47.g×h4 g×h4 48.Kc4 Ra8 49.a6 Kc6 50.a7 h3 If 50...Kb7 51.Kd5 R×a7 52.Rh2. 51.Kd4 Kc7 If 51...h2 52.Rc2+! Kd7 (if 52...Kb6 53.R×h2 R×a7 54.Kd5+-) 53.R×h2+-. 52.Kd5 Kd7 53.Ra3 h2 54.Ra1 Re8 55.Rh1 Re5+ 56.Kd4 Ra5 57.R×h2 Kc6 58.Rh7 Ra4+ 59.Ke3 Ra3+ 60.Kf4 Ra1 61.Rf7 Kc5 62.R×f6 R×a7 63.Re6 Ra1 64.f6 Kc6 65.Kf5 Kd7 66.Re7+ Kd8 67.Ke6 1-0 A magni cent game in all its phases, probably Dr. Euwe’s best of the tournament.

286

Round 15

Standings after the rst cycle: Smyslov 9½; Bronstein and Reshevsky 8½; Najdorf 8; Boleslavsky, Euwe and Petrosian 7½; Keres and Taimanov 7; Kotov 6½; Averbakh, Geller, Gligoric and Szabó 6; Ståhlberg 3½;. With this round the rst part of the tournament concluded, and only one single undefeated player shone in the top spot in the standings: Smyslov! The great majority of the games was drawn, but still there was real ghting, and in some cases, such as Keres-Najdorf, only a lamentable accident deprived Black of a well-deserved triumph. A Sicilian Defense was played, with Keres’ favorite 2.Ne2. White tried to gain space in the center, but his plan was refuted in good style and Najdorf had a clear advantage. Later Black made the mistake of exchanging queens, giving the defender some relief, and two moves later, wasted a chance to win. As Keres too had erred, the situation stood as before, but the drama was not over. With only two playable moves at his disposal, Najdorf chose the one that did not win, and the game ended drawn. Kotov gained yet another victory, against Szabó, in a King’s Indian where Black had lost a tempo on the queenside, leaving evident weaknesses open to his opponent. Black launched a desperate counter-attack on the kingside, but when it was thwarted, he was forced to resign. Geller-Averbakh was another Sicilian, with 6.Bc4, a revival of the old variation. Black deliberately kept his king in the center so as not to lose any time with his kingside attack, but once White stopped this attempt, he had to deal with his incomplete development. Averbakh was able to force some exchanges, and with an opposite-color bishop ending assured himself of a draw. Here in this last round of the rst cycle, the tournament leader got a disagreeable surprise from the young Petrosian. In a Nimzo-Indian, Black improved on the continuation in game 12, Reshevsky-Petrosian, despite which Smyslov maintained his advantage and reached adjournment in an apparently winning position. No one supposed – not even Smyslov himself – that on resumption of play Petrosian would present him with a problem-like defense, beautiful and precise, that would lead to a draw!

287

Round 15

Reshevsky too, in time pressure, missed possibly two chances to win his game with Taimanov. After playing stupendously against a Nimzo-Indian and deserving to win, it turned out – thanks to making the correct sealed move! – he was able to draw. Dr. Euwe played the Boleslavsky variation of the Sicilian against its creator himself, and came o well from the opening. After securing for himself important strategic points Euwe arrived at adjournment with certain possibilities. However, in one of those chessic ironies, all his advantages were not enough to win the endgame and later, after an exhausting analysis lasting many hours, the two adversaries accepted that the game was a draw. Bronstein-Gligoric was a King’s Indian in which Black successively made a series of better moves, up to the point where he let himself be impressed by a non-existent attack, losing the thread of the game. Bronstein unhurriedly pressed his advantages and won an ending in which Black’s position o ered multiple exploitable weaknesses. (99) Boleslavsky – Euwe Sicilian Defense [B59] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 c×d4 4.N×d4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Be2 e5 It is interesting that Dr. Euwe elects to play the Boleslavsky variation ... against Boleslavsky. This line must be very good to test it against the author himself, and if it turns out to be bad, then Boleslavsky – becoming his own executioner – would, after the e ort of so many years, get only the meager prize of one point. 7.Nb3 Other possibilities are (a) 7.N×c6 b×c6 8.Qd3! Be7 (not 8...d5 9.e×d5 c×d5 10.Qg3 with better play for White) 9.0-0 0-0 10.Rd1 Qc7 11.Bg5 Rd8= (analysis by Pachman); (b) 7.Nf3 h6 8.0-0 Be6 9.b3 Be7 10.Bb2 0-0=. 7...Be7! Worse would be 7...Be6 8.Bg5 Be7 9.B×f6 B×f6 10.Nd5, or also 7...a5 8.a4 Be6 9.Bg5 Be7 10.B×f6 B×f6 11.Nd5 0-0 12.Bg4 Bg5 13.c3 Ne7 14.N×e7++=, O’KellyTartakower, Groningen 1946. 8.0-0 0-0 9.Be3 Be6 (D)

288

10.Bf3 We arrive at a classic position of the Boleslavsky Sicilian. If at this moment White plays 10.f3, there would follow 10... a5 11.Bb5 d5 12.e×d5 B×d5 13.N×d5 N×d5 14.Bf2 a4 15.Nc5 Nd4! 16.Nd7 a3! 17.B×d4 e×d4 18.Q×d4 Nf6! 19.b×a3 Rc8 20.Rad1 N×d7 21.Q×d7 Qb6+ 22.Kh1 R×c2=, Trifunovic-Marini, Mar del Plata 1950. Another continuation is 10.f4 a5 11.a4 Nb4! 12.Kh1 Rc8 13.f5 Bd7 14.Bg5 Re8 15.Bf3 Bc6 16.Qe2 h6 17.Bh4 Qc7 with good play for Black, Lokvenc-Gligoric, 1949. 10...Na5 11.N×a5 Q×a5 12.Qd2 Rfc8 Not 12...Rac8? 13.Nd5, but with this rook it’s di erent: 13.Nd5 Q×d2 14.N×e7+ Kf8 15.B×d2 K×e7. 13.Rfd1 Grandmaster Pilnik, an expert on this opening, after his experience with Taimanov at Saltsjöbaden 1952 (where he too made this move), preferred 13.a3 against Gligoric at Mar del Plata 1953. 13...Qb4 14.Rab1 h6! This move – the best at this moment – was introduced in practice by Marini against Pilnik at Buenos Aires 1953. Inferior is the continuation from PilnikTaimanov, Saltsjöbaden 1952: 14...a6 15.a3 Qc4 16.Bg5! Rd8 17.b3 Qc7 18.a4 Ne8 (Unzicker-Pachman from the same tournament saw 18...Rac8 19.B×f6 B×f6 20.Nd5 Q×c2 21.N×f6+ g×f6 22.Qh6 with good play for White.) 19.B×e7 Q×e7 20.a5!+=. 15.a3 Qc4 16.Rbc1 a6 17.Be2 Qc7 18.f3 Nd7 19.Bf1 b5 20.a4 b4 21.Nd5 B×d5 22.Q×d5 Nc5 23.b3 Bg5! (D)

With this move Dr. Euwe divests himself of the bad bishop, and by eliminating White’s dark-square bishop he secures for his knight the c5- and d4-squares. 24.B×g5 h×g5 25.Kh1 Not 25.Q×d6 Q×d6 26.R×d6 N×b3. 25...a5 Defending the b-pawn and at the same time putting his pawns on squares of opposite color from the adverse bishop. 26.h3 Rab8 27.Bb5 Rd8 28.c3 b×c3 29.R×c3 Qe7 30.Qc4 g6 31.b4 a×b4 32.Q×b4 Kg7 33.Qc4 Qa7 34.Rc2 Ne6 35.Qc3 Nd4 36.Rb2 Rdc8 37.Qd2 Kf6 38.Rc1 R×c1+ 289

Round 15

39.Q×c1 Qc5 40.Qd2 Rc8 41.Kh2 (D)

41...Qa3 ½-½; Black undoubtedly stands slightly better. Dr. Euwe stated that after adjournment he spent ten hours in analysis, trying to nd a way to realize his advantage, but in vain. For example, if 42.a5 Nb3 43.Ra2 (forced) 43...Qc5 44.Qd5 Q×d5 45.e×d5 N×a5 46.R×a5 Rc5 “and White,” says Dr. Euwe in the Deutsche Schachzeitung, “is tied down hand and foot, but there is no way I can win.” Or also (instead of 42...Nb3) 43.Ra2 Qb3 44.Bf1 R×f3 45.a6 R×f1 46.a7 g4 47.h×g4 Nf3+ 48.g×f3 Q×f3 49.Qg2 Qf4+ 50.Qg3 Qh6+ 51.Qh3 Rh1+ 52.K×h1 Q×h3+, and Black is forced to give perpetual check. In view of these variations, Dr. Euwe preferred to economize his e orts and, without resuming the game, proposed a draw, which Boleslavsky accepted. (100) Kotov – Szabó King’s Indian Defense [E87] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 e5 7.d5 Nh5 For comments on this move see game 75, Geller-Gligoric. 8.Qd2 f5 9.0-0-0 Nd7 For 9...f4 see also the aforementioned game. 10.Bd3 Nc5 11.Bc2 f4 Since Szabó has not yet closed the position with f5-f4 as Gligoric did in the game cited, he should have bided his time waiting for the right moment, which still was not this one. An adequate plan seems to be b7-b6 and a7-a5 followed by Bc1-d7. 12.Bf2 a6? Unnecessarily losing a tempo. 13.Nge2 a5 (D)

290

Now Szabó realizes that his plan of a break with 13...b5 is not playable in view of 14.c×b5 a×b5 15.B×c5 d×c5 16.N×b5 R×a2 17.Bb3 Ra1+ 18.Kc2 R×d1 19.R×d1 with much the better game for White. 14.Kb1 Bd7 15.Nc1 Rf7 16.Nd3 The strategy of the game is now de ned: White, little by little, will exploit the queenside weaknesses without fear of the typical black counterplay on the kingside. 16...b6 17.Rc1 Bf6 18.Rhf1 Bh4 19.B×c5 Eliminating Black’s most active piece. 19...b×c5 20.Ba4 The invasion begins: Kotov eliminates another active piece, to make the queenside light-square weaknesses more easily exploitable. 20...B×a4 21.N×a4 Qd7 22.Nc3 g5 23.h3 Nf6 24.Nb5 The good strategy is bearing fruit, and Kotov’s advantage is clear. In view of his irremediable queenside inferiority, Szabó plays entirely on the other ank, but his counter-attack does not arrive in time. 24...h5 25.Rh1 Rh7 26.Rc3 g4 27.h×g4 h×g4 28.Ra3 Bg3 29.R×h7 Q×h7 (D)

30.Nc1 The “race” runs its course, reaching a critical point: White still cannot play 30.R×a5 because of 30...R×a5 31.Q×a5 Qh1+ 32.Nc1 Q×g2. 291

Round 15

30...Qh1 Szabó goes all out, even abandoning the defense of his c7-pawn. If 30...a4 31.b3 and b×a4. 31.N×c7 g×f3 32.g×f3 Ra7 33.Ne6 Be1 34.Qd1 Rh7 35.Rd3 Against the threat of 35...Rh2 and 36...Bd2. 35...Rh2 36.a3 A little air never hurts. 36...Nd7 37.Qa4 A strong and well calculated move. 37...Qg2 38.Rb3 Bc3!? (D)

Szabó’s last hope. If 39.Q×d7?? Q×b2+ 40.R×b2 R×b2+ 41.Ka1 Rb7+–+. 39.Ne2! 1-0 A magni cent save that thwarts Black’s try and puts the nal exclamation point on the game. If now 39...Q×e2 40.Rb8+ N×b8 41.Qe8+ and mate in three. An excellent strategic game by Kotov. (101) Geller – Averbakh Sicilian Defense [B60] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 c×d4 4.N×d4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bc4 An old move comes back again to master practice. The idea is to avoid the Dragon variation, 6...g6, by 7.N×c6 b×c6 8.e5 Ng4 (obviously not 8...d×e5?? 9.B×f7+ winning the queen) 9.Bf4 (or 9.e6 f5 10.0-0 Bg7 11.Bf4 Qb6 12.Bb3 Schlechter-Lasker, wch match 1910) 9...Qb6 10.Qf3 Bf5 11.e×d6 e×d6 12.0-0±, Rödl-Engels, match 1930. At the same time White tries to avoid the Boleslavsky variation. 6...Bd7! Averbakh, a great expert on the white side of this opening, believes this is the better move, and not 6...e6 as in game 146, Averbakh-Taimanov, where our comments can be read. (D)

292

7.Bg5 Usual here is 7.f4 g6 8.N×c6 B×c6 (the reason for 6...Bd7) 9.e5 d×e5 10.Q×d8+ R×d8 11.f×e5 Ng4 12.e6 f5=+,Lipnitsky-Boleslavsky, XVIII USSR ch 1951. Or also 7.00 g6 8.h3 Bg7 9.Be3 0-0 10.Bb3 a6 11.f4 b5 12.a3 Rc8 13.Qf3 with a slight edge for White, Chistiakov-Taimanov, XVIII USSR ch 1951. 7...Qa5 Averbakh accepts the invitation to ght. 8.B×f6 g×f6 9.Nb3 Qg5 10.0-0 Rg8! 11.g3 h5 Black has a direct attack, and though his king is still in the middle of the board, this is not serious because of the solid pawn formation around it. 12.Nd5 Rc8 Deciding to play with his king in the center, since if 12...0-0-0 13.Nd4. 13.f4 Qg714.Qd2 Not 14.Q×h5 Bg4 15.Qh4 Rh8 trapping the queen. 14...h4 15.Rf3 (D)

At rst sight Black would seem to stand better because of his direct kingside attack; however, the position is even, because not all his pieces are developed and White has freedom of action and a space advantage. 15...Qh6 293

Round 15

15...Qh7 would have no point, since the e-pawn is defended by the threat of N×f6+ and Re1. 16.Bf1 h×g3 17.R×g3 So ends Black’s attack. Averbakh must now think about completing his development. 17...Rg6 18.Re1 f5 19.e×f5 B×f5 20.c3 (D) Even though White’s position looks energetic, it is hard to nd the best continuation. For example, 20.Na5 Qg7! with good play for Black (not 20...N×a5?! 21.Q×a5 R×c2? 22.Nc7+ Kd7 23.Q×f5+ K×c7 24.Q×c2++–).

20...Be6 21.Bg2 B×d5 Averbakh, playing for a draw, tries to trade pieces and reduce the pressure. 22.B×d5 e6 23.Nd4 Be7 24.Bg2 R×g3 25.h×g3 N×d4 26.Q×d4 d5 At last, Black nds some relief, and with bishops of opposite color the game is on its way to a draw. The threat is 27...Bc5. 27.b4 Rc4 28.Qe5 Qf6 29.Q×f6 B×f6 30.B×d5 R×c3 31.B×b7 R×g3+ 32.Kh2 Rg4 33.Re4 Ke7 34.f5 ½-½; (102) Smyslov – Petrosian Nimzo-Indian Defense [E58] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 c5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.a3 B×c3 9.b×c3 b6 10.c×d5 e×d5 11.Bb2 Smyslov follows the plan developed by Najdorf in two games of his second match with Reshevsky, and Petrosian, not convinced by his earlier experience in game 12, Reshevsky-Petrosian, repeats the same deployment until move 18. It is interesting that chess masters – like men of science or artists – do not admit defeat when faced by material di culties in the execution of their work. Again and again they keep trying di erent approaches and polishing their original idea, not from caprice or as a manifestation of extreme egotism, but rather as an expression of faith in their convictions. Though refuted in one game, they return to defend their ideas with new analysis, and so it is always. 294

The present case is very signi cant: Smyslov, playing this system, knows that Petrosian will answer with the system already employed against Reshevsky, which to him does not look good for Black. But of course, Petrosian has not forgotten the lessons of that game, and will try other moves. And thus, in the living struggle between grandmasters – with this endless exposition and critique of ideas – that is how light is shone on fundamental problems in opening theory. 11...c4 12.Bc2 Bg4 Advisable here was 12...Ne4, as recommended in the notes to the aforementioned game 12, Reshevsky-Petrosian. 13.Qe1 Ne4 14.Nd2 N×d2 15.Q×d2 Bh5 16.f3 Bg6 17.e4 Qd7 18.Rae1 (D)

18...f5 Here Petrosian tries to improve his system. In the Reshevsky game he played 18...d×e4 19.f×e4 Rfe8, which cedes the center and opens the f- le for White. Here, in contrast, he forces White to declare his intentions in the center. 19.e×d5 If 19.e5 Nd8 followed by ...Ne6. 19...Q×d5 20.a4 Drawing up a quick balance sheet on Petrosian’s new idea, we note that White stands a bit better as a result of his bishop pair and his strong passed d-pawn, while Black’s advantage – his queenside pawn majority – is not yet exploitable. 20...Rfe8 21.Qg5 Qf7 22.Ba3 h6 23.Qg3 R×e1 24.R×e1 Re8 25.R×e8+ Q×e8 26.Kf2 Na5 27.Qf4 The rook exchanges, the action of the bishops and the centralization of the queen all show a superiority for White, however, Petrosian resolves the problem very well: instead of defending passively, he seeks counterplay on the queenside. If 27...Qd7 28.g4; and if 27...Qf7 (always endeavoring to defend the f-pawn) 28.Qe5 f4 29.Be4. 27...Nb3 28.B×f5 B×f5 29.Q×f5 Q×a4 30.Qc8+ Kh7 31.Qf5+ Kg8 32.Qe6+ Kh7 33.Qe4+ Kg8 34.Qa8+ Kh7 35.Qe4+

295

Round 15

Trying to reach adjournment, so as to analyze the position carefully and nd the decisive maneuver. 35...Kg8 36.Qd5+ Kh7 37.Be7 Preparing to advance the d-pawn. 37...Nc1 The knight goes into action very opportunely. 38.Qf5+ Kg8 39.Qf8+ Kh7 40.Qf5+ Kg8 41.d5 (D)

The game being adjourned at this point, Smyslov, now with ample time, makes the move that seems to win easily now that his pawn is unblocked. However, Petrosian, after analysis with his second Lilienthal, nds a problem-like continuation that was a complete surprise to his opponent. 41...Qa2+ 42.Kg3 Qd2 43.d6 If 43.Qe6+ (to prevent check on e1) 43...Kh8 44.d6 Ne2+ 45.Kg4 Qf4+ 46.Kh5 (if 46.Kh3 Ng1#) 46...Q×h2+ etc. 43...Qe1+ 44.Kg4 Nd3! (D)

45.Qd5+ If 45.d7 h5+!! 46.K×h5 (if 46.Q×h5 Qe6+ 47.Qf5 Ne5+) 46...Q×e7 47.Qd5+ Kh7 48.d8Q (or 48.Qe4+ Q×e4 49.f×e4 Nf4+o) 48...Nf4+ winning.

296

45...Kh7 46.d7 Qe5!! (D) The key to the combination that saves the game. Black now threatens 47...Qf4+ 48.Kh3 Nf2# (or 48.Kh5 g6#). 47.Q×d3+ c×d3 48.d8Q ½-½;

After the obvious move 48...Qe2 would follow 49.Kh3 d2 50.Qd7 d1=Q 51.Qf5+ Kg8 52.Qf8+, or if 50...Kg6 51.Qe8+. An admirable game, in which the young grandmaster Petrosian showed his brilliant gifts, and with an endgame of such rare beauty that it seemed to be composed. [Alas, Petrosian’s gem is badly awed. 46...Qe5 actually deserves “??” instead of “!!”, as Smyslov could then have won with 47.Qd6. Black instead had to play 46...Ne5+, which should draw. Amazingly, none of the players in the tournament, all-time greats every one of them, nor anyone else, realized the worth of 47.Qd6 until months later when, says Bronstein, a Swedish amateur found it (though Euwe attributes it to a Dutch junior, K. Langeweg). For more on this game, see the analytical appendix. – TK] (103) Keres – Najdorf Sicilian Defense [B26] 1.e4 c5 2.Ne2 Commentary on this move may be seen in game 90, Keres-Gligoric. 2...Nf6 3.Nbc3 d6 4.g3 Nc6 5.Bg2 g6 6.d3 Keres varies from the aforementioned game, in which he played 6.d4 and Gligoric equalized easily, as indicated in our comments to Black’s 11th move. 6...Bg7 7.Be3 0-0 Not 7...Ng4, which would be a loss of time after 8.Bd2 followed by h2-h3. 8.h3 Ne8 My idea is to dominate the d4-square in order to occupy it with the knight, and after 9.Qd2 Nd4 White could not play 10.Bh6 due to 10...B×h6 and 11...N×c2+. 9.Qd2 Nd4 10.Nd1 Rb8 With this well-known maneuver I intend Black’s natural counterplay on the queenside: if 11.c3 N×e2 12.Q×e2 b5 followed by ...b4. 297

Round 15

11.Nf4? Keres should have played 11.N×d4 and 12.Bh6, or even 11.c3 immediately, but seeking greater advantage he plays the text in order to follow with c2-c3 and d3-d4, dominating the center. However... 11...Nc7 12.c3 (D)

12...e5! After this continuation – which must have escaped my opponent’s attention – one can say that Black has come out better from the opening. 13.Ne2 Keres thought for almost an hour on this move, and with it acknowledges his error, but it’s also certain that other continuations were no better. For example, 13.c×d4 e×f4 recovering the piece with the better game, and if 13.Nd5 N×d5 14.e×d5 Nf5 with the same positional advantages plus the bishop pair. Interesting was 13.N×g6 f×g6 14.c×d4 c×d4 15.Bh6 B×h6 16.Q×h6 Ne6, again with the better game. 13...N×e2 14.Q×e2 b6 I made this move with the idea of defending the c-pawn and making a central break with d6-d5. Another possibility was 14...f5 15.f4 with complicated play. 15.0-0 d5 16.c4?! Keres tries to force me into a decision on the center. If 16...d4 it’s obvious that I take this square away from the knight while also shielding White’s weakness at d3, and if to retain d4 I exchange pawns, to follow with Nc7-e6-d4, White can also get to d5 with a similar maneuver. 16...d×e4 17.d×e4 f5 Obtaining a clear advantage. 18.e×f5 With good reason, White prefers losing a pawn to being tied down by 19...f4. 18...B×f5 19.Re1 He must lose either a pawn or the exchange. 19...Bd3 20.Bg5 Though short of time, Keres, knowing his position is inferior, tries to complicate the game. If 20.Qg4 h5 21.Qg5 Qd6 with better play for Black, threatening ...Rf5. 298

20...Qd421.Qe3 B×c4 22.Rc1 (D)

22...Q×e3? With this trade I release the tension, and alleviate Black’s defensive task. Correct was 22...B×a2, and if 23.b3 Ne6 24.Q×d4 N×d4 25.Bd5+ Kh8 26.Re3 h6 27.Be7 Rfe8 28.Bd6 Rbd8 29.Bf7 R×d6 30.B×e8 B×b3 with three pawns for the exchange and a winning position. 23.N×e3 B×a2 24.Ra1 Bb3! Interesting, but hard to calculate for lack of time, was 24...Ne6 25.R×a2 N×g5 26.R×a7 Nf3+ 27.B×f3 R×f3 28.Nc4 Rb3 29.Re2, and Black has practical di culties in exploiting his advantage. 25.Ra3 Not 25.R×a7 Ne6 26.Be7 Rf7 27.Bd6 Rd8. (D)

25...Be6 Up to now I had conducted the game well, taking advantage of White’s mistake in the opening, but at this moment, two pawns ahead, I do not nd the right move. Winning was 25...Ne6 26.Be7 Rf7 27.Bd6 (not 27.R×a7 Re8) 27...Rd8 28.B×e5 B×e5 29.R×b3 Nd4. 26.R×a7 299

Round 15

Of course, Keres takes the pawn at the precise moment I cannot play ...Ne6. 26...Nb5 27.Re7 Nd4 28.Ng4 Black threatened 28...h6. 28...B×g4 29.h×g4 Nf3+ 30.B×f3 R×f3 31.Rd1 Rf7 32.R×f7 K×f7 33.Rd7+ Kg8 34.b3 b5 35.Rc7? An erroneous move that returns things to the status quo ante. Necessary, and o ering excellent drawing chances, was 35.Kf1, and if 35...c4 36.b×c4 b4 37.Bc1 Rc8 (if 37...e4 38.c5 [or 38...Rc8 39.Be3] 38...b3) 38.Rb7 R×c4 39.Bd2 Bf8 40.g5. 35...c4 36.b×c4 b4 37.Bc1 e4 38.c5 b3 39.c6 b2 40.B×b2 (D)

40...R×b2?? The fatal moment. In this simple position any chess player in the world – even knowing no more than how the pieces move – has the same chance as I of making either the bad move or the good one. One need only choose between two! Looking at this position as a game of chance – red or black! – one could say I had very bad luck, since the other move, 40...B×b2, wins easily: 41.Rb7 R×b7 42.c×b7 Be5; or else 41.Rd7 Rc8 42.c7 Bf6 43.Kf1 Kf8 44.R×h7 (if 44.Ke2 Be7 followed by ...Ke8–+) 44...Bg7–+; and nally 41.g5 Bd4 42.Kf1 Bb6 winning in all cases. Now there is no further appeal! 41.Rd7 ½-½; The threat of 42.c7 and 43.Rd8+ forces recovery of the piece, after which the position is drawn. (104) Reshevsky – Taimanov Nimzo-Indian Defense [E46] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 0-0 5.Nge2 d5 Euwe-O’Kelly, Groningen 1946, by transposition continued 5...b6 6.a3 Be7 7.d5 Bb7 8.e4! d6 9.g3 c6 10.d×e6 f×e6 11.Nd4 Bc8 12.Bg2 (better 12.Bh3 e5 13.B×c8 Q×c8 14.Nf5) 12...e5 13.Nf5 Na6 14.0-0 Nc5 15.Be3 Kh8 16.B×c5 b×c5 17.b4 Be6 18.Ne3 with the better game for White. 6.a3 Be7 7.c×d5

300

Other lines: (a) 7.Ng3 d×c4! 8.B×c4 c5 9.d×c5 Q×d1+ 10.K×d1 B×c5=, E. RichterPachman, Brno 1944; (b) 7.Nf4 c6 8.c×d5 c×d5 (not 8...N×d5 9.Bd3 Nd7 10.0-0 N×f4 11.e×f4 Nf6 12.Be3+=) 9.Bd3 Re8 10.0-0 Nbd7=, Rubinstein-Yates, Kissingen 1928. 7...e×d5 At AVRO 1938, Botvinnik played against Reshevsky 7...N×d5 8.N×d5 e×d5 9.g3 Nd7 10.Bg2 Nf6 11.0-0 Bd6 12.Nc3 c6 13.b4 a6 14.Re1 Re8=. 8.Ng3 Grandmaster Fine recommends here 8.g3, with this analysis: 8...Nbd7 9.Bg2 Nb6 10.Qd3 a5 11.a4 c6 12.0-0 Nbd7 13.f3! (not 13.Rd1 Nb8 14.b3 Na6 15.Na2 Re8 16.Bb2 Bd6 17.Re1 Qe7=+, Botvinnik-Lilienthal, XIII USSR Ch 1944) 13...Nb8 14.e4 d×e4 15.f×e4 Na6 16.Be3 Nb4 17.Qd2 Be6 18.h3 Qd7 19.Nf4 Bc5 20.Rf2 and White is better. 8...Re8 In game 122, Reshevsky-Averbakh, 8...Be6 was played here. Pachman recommends 8...c5 9.Bd3 (not 9.d×c5 B×c5 10.b4 d4 11.b×c5 [if 11.Na4 d×e3] 11...d×c3 12.Q×d8 R×d8 13.f3 Nbd7=+, Euwe-Alekhine, wch match 1937) 9...Nc6 10.0-0 c×d4 11.e×d4 N×d4 12.B×h7+ N×h7 13.Q×d4 Be6=. 9.b4 c6 10.Bd3 b5?! (D)

A move of dubious worth. Taimanov clearly intends the maneuver Nb8-d7-b6c4, but he should have been able to calculate that White would not give him the chance to carry this out. 11.Bd2 Nbd7 12.a4 Refuting Black’s plan; the queenside is now under attack and Black’s pawn formation will be under stress. 12...B×b4 Naturally, if 12...b×a4 13.N×a4 with control of the weak squares. 13.a×b5 c5 14.0-0 c415.Bc2 a5? Black worsens his position. He had to play 15...Bb7 to prevent an eventual central break by e3-e4. 16.b×a6 R×a6 17.R×a6 B×a6 18.Qa1 (D)

301

Round 15

White’s advantage is clear because of his greater mobility and control of space on the queenside, while Black has no useful squares for his pieces and cannot start a counter-attack. 18...Nb8 19.Qa4 Bf8 20.Rb1 Re6 21.Rb2! Black was thinking of 21...Rb6, but now that would be met by 22.Qa5, pinning the rook. 21...g6 22.Nge2 A typical Reshevsky move, always seeking the maximum performance out of his pieces. Since after Black’s last move the knight has no kingside prospects, it sets out for new horizons. 22...Bd6 23.Nf4 B×f4 Though by this Black gives up his good bishop, it was essential to eliminate the strong knight threatening his d-pawn. 24.e×f4 Nbd7 25.h3 Rb6 26.Qa5 Qb8 27.R×b6 Q×b6 (D)

28.Qa3? Reshevsky’s perennial problem: time pressure. Very strong here was 28.N×d5, when Black has three main continuations: (a) 28...Q×a5 29.N×f6+ N×f6 30.B×a5; (b) 28...N×d5 29.Q×d5 Qb2 30.Q×d7 Q×c2 31.Qe8+ Kg7 32.Qe5+ Kg8 33.Qb8+ Kg7

302

34.Bb4; (c) 28...Q×d4 29.Bc3 Q×d5 30.Q×a6 with a strong bishop pair and much the better game. 28...Nf8 29.Be3 Bc8 30.g4 Bb7 31.f5 g5 Well played, so as not to open the position for the powerful bishop pair. Now clearly not 32.B×g5? Q×d4. 32.Qe7 h6 33.Na4 Qc6 34.Nc5 Bc8 35.Qd8 Kg7 (D)

36.Bd2? Yet again, time pressure spoils Reshevsky’s chance. Correct was 36.Ba4, and if 36...Qa8 37.Bd2 (threatening Ba5-c7-e5 and winning easily by Zugzwang), For example, 37...Ne4 38.N×e4 d×e4 39.f6++–. If 37...Bb7 38.Qc7 Bc8 39.Bb4, and if 37...N8h7 38.Ba5. 36...Qb5 Capitalizing on Reshevsky’s omission of 36.Ba4,Taimanov quickly takes advantage of the situation and saves himself with this queen sortie. At this point Reshevsky had mere seconds for his next four moves, but Taimanov had more: one minute! 37.Q×c8 Qb2 38.Kg2 Q×c2 39.Bb4 Ne4 For the rst time in the game, Taimanov does not stand worse. 40.N×e4 Q×e4+ (D)

303

Round 15

41.Kg3 ½-½; After the nerve-wracking nale, Reshevsky seals the best move and gains a draw. On opening the envelope and seeing the sealed move, Taimanov proposed this result without continuing play, and Reshevsky accepted. In contrast, if 41.Kh2 Nh7 42.Qc5 Qf3 sweeping up the pawns. Or if 41.f3 Qe2+ 42.Kg3 Nh7 threatening 43...Qf1. If after the text move Black had tried 41...Qf4+ there would follow 42.Kg2 Nh7 43.Qc5, and there is no forcing continuation; the black queen cannot reach f3. (105) Bronstein – Gligoric King’s Indian Defense [E71] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.h3 A move characteristic of Bronstein, which should cause no surprise. It seems he can play just about anything, as long as he knows how to follow it up. Although this move is known as a sequel to 5.Nf3, Bronstein plans to play g2-g4 and Ng1-e2-g3. Makagonov-Boleslavsky, XV USSR ch 1947, continued 5.Nf3 0-0 6.h3 e5 7.d5 Nbd7 8.Be3! Nc5 9.Nd2 a5 10.Be2 Ne8 11.g4 f5 12.e×f5 g×f5 13.Qc2 Na6! 14.f3 Bh6! 15.g5 f4! 16.Bf2 B×g5 17.h4 Bh6 18.Nde4 Bf5 19.a3 Nf6 20.N×f6+ Q×f6 21.Bd3 B×d3 22.Q×d3 Qf5 23.Ne4 Nb8 and White has good counterplay for the pawn. For the also rare continuation 5.Bg5, see game 13, Bronstein-Najdorf. 5...0-0 6.Be3 e5 7.d5 Nbd7 8.g4 The battle begins ... 8...Nc5 9.Qc2 Since exchanging his better bishop for the knight would be an imprudent strategy. 9...c6 10.Nge2 c×d5 11.c×d5 Qa5 Gligoric plays with great understanding of the position. Without weakening his kingside he tries to be rst on the other ank, annoying White with direct threats. 12.Ng3 Bd7 13.Bd2 Rfc8! (D)

Black has calculated the queen sacri ce well. If now 14.b4 Q×b415.Nb5 Q×b5!! 16.B×b5 B×b5 and even with just two pieces for the queen, Gligoric would have a erce attack. 304

14.Rb1 Qd8 15.Qd1 a5 16.Qf3 Rab8 17.g5 Ne8 18.h4 (D)

18...f6? Gligoric, who up to now has played with great judgment and courage, suddenly becomes afraid of White’s kingside feint. He should have ignored for the moment the nonexistent threat and continued with his plan of b7-b5-b4 and Ne8-c7-b5. As a general rule it is prudent to defend one’s self, but there is no need to generalize that to the extreme of confusing preparation for an attack with the attack itself. 19.Be2 Nc7 20.Kf1 Qe7? Black keeps on seeing phantoms. There was still time to continue with the indicated plan. 21.g×f6 Q×f6 22.Q×f6 B×f6 23.h5 Rf8 Yet again Black could have played 23...b5. Evidently Gligoric, who is an excellent positional player, is having an o day. 24.h×g6 h×g6 25.Kg2 Bg7 26.Be3 b5 Too late ... 27.Rbc1 N7a6 28.Nd1 Rfc8 At this stage of the game one can see the e ect of the tempi Black has lost. 29.Nc3 a4 30.Rcd1 b4 31.Nb1 Bb5 32.B×b5 R×b5 33.Kf3 Bronstein wants to get his knight into play via d2, and his king will have the mission of preventing entry of Black’s knight at d3. 33...Rb7 34.Ke2 Rbc7 35.Rc1 Nd7 36.R×c7 R×c7 37.Rc1 R×c1 38.B×c1 Nac5 39.Be3 (D) We enter an instructive endgame, in which White’s advantages are clear: black pawns are on squares vulnerable to the white bishop, two of them are far advanced, and furthermore, the white king can penetrate via c4.

305

Round 15

39...Kf7 40.Nd2 Nb6 Trying, as much as possible, to thwart entry of the knight to c4. Now observe the uneven struggle between an active knight and a bad bishop, further aggravated by the passed d-pawn. 41.B×c5 d×c5 42.Kd3 The rest, especially after adjournment, is only a question of technique. 42...Kf6 43.Nc4 Nd7 44.Nf1 Kg5 45.Ke3 Bh6 46.Nh2 Kf6+ 47.Ke2 Bf4 48.Ng4+ Ke7 49.Kd3 Kd8 50.Nd6 Kc7 51.Nf7 a3 It is obvious that Black cannot defend all his weaknesses. 52.b×a3 b×a3 53.Kc4 Kb6 54.Kb3 Ka5 55.Nd6 Bc1 56.Nc4+ Kb5 57.Ng×e5 1-0 A bad day for Gligoric!

306

Round 16

During an o -day excursion, Averbakh examines a suit of armor in the medieval town of Stein am Rhein.

307

Round 16

Taimanov at the piano.

Left to right: Smyslov, Reshevsky, Taimanov, unidenti ed, Keres, Averbakh

308

The players and their seconds pose before the falls at Neuhausen am Rhein.

Smyslov sings!

309

Round 16

Kotov (left) in conversation with Najdorf

At the card table, left to right: Kotov (with back to camera), Taimanov and his second Salo Flohr, Boleslavsky (?). In background at center: Bronstein.

310

Left to right: Petrosian, Geller, Najdorf

The front cover of voloume one of the original Spanish edition. Standings after round 16: Smyslov 10; Bronstein and Reshevsky 9; Najdorf 8½; Boleslavsky, Euwe and Keres 8; Petrosian and Taimanov 7½; Kotov 7; Averbakh, Geller and Szabó 6½;; Gligoric 6; Ståhlberg 4. On Sunday, September 27th, with this sixteenth round in Zürich, there began the second cycle of the candidates tournament, and it was evident that in this second half of the lengthy event the physical stamina, the will and the nerves of the participants would, no less than their chess skills, all be put to the test. Something like a “marathon of the board,” in which these athletes of the mind could not retire from the race course, when a single loss could drop them several places in the standings, and too many draws could reduce their chances at an alarming rate! Of course these problems apply in particular to those marching in the vanguard; but also the rest of the eld, with new dreams and perhaps with new theoretical nds to bolster their hopes, re tted themselves for the ght. Who would not entertain, for example, the idea of avenging a sound beating, or despoiling Smyslov of his proud title of “undefeated”? Up to now, the superiority of the marvelous Soviet masters had su ced to seize the top two places in the standings – though second place was shared – but in a “normal” manner, without great di erences in the score that would make their pursuers lose all hope of overtaking them. To judge by the results in this round – six drawn games out of seven! – it would appear that the grandmasters had shied away from all risk in their eagerness not to lose points, but in reality the opposite happened, and including even the game 311

Round 16

between Reshevsky and Najdorf – drawn in 14 moves – all the games were of such importance from the theoretical standpoint that it more than compensated for their brevity. Reshevsky returned to his 8.Be3 line against the King’s Indian, with which he had such success in the Buenos Aires match; but Najdorf had discovered – at last! – the antidote, the simple 8...Re8!, a move so modest that Reshevsky, paying almost no attention, immediately replied 9.d5. Black rapidly gained equality, and seeing that there was no reasonable way to force the game, both adversaries concurred in the draw. It was also evident that Kotov thought to take revenge against Dr. Euwe: he sacri ced a pawn in the opening, seeking compensation in his better-developed pieces and command of space. Later, Euwe made the mistake of exchanging his king bishop, leaving his dark squares weak and augmenting White’s advantage; but White too erred in turn, missing the chance to increase his initiative. On move 24 Dr. Euwe proposed a draw, and Kotov, rm in his initial resolve, refused the o er, even though a pawn down! However, no other result was possible, and a few moves later White accepted splitting the point. Ståhlberg played a French Defense against Boleslavsky, a Winawer variation, the rst time this was played in the tournament. By subtle maneuvering White obtained positional advantages and prospects of kingside attack, while Black, by mistakenly closing the queenside, deprived himself of any chance of counterplay. Thus an unworried Boleslavsky launched an attack, but once again time pressure, a factor dramatically in uencing the course of these games, caused him to commit successive errors which not only lost his advantage, but left him in an inferior position when play was suspended. Whether Ståhlberg did not nd the way to exploit his advantage, or was too tired to continue the game, what is certain is that rather than resume play, he proposed a draw. Needless to say, Boleslavsky accepted. Keres and Petrosian played a King’s Indian in which Black made a dubious move and Keres gained a space advantage. Later the weaknesses in Black’s position began to make themselves felt and White, with good piece play, put himself in position to realize his advantages. Thus, after adjournment, Keres won in good style. Geller-Szabó was a Nimzo-Indian in which White, with 8.Qe2, sought to steer the game into less-traveled paths, and later sacri ced a pawn. Szabó did not hit on the correct plan and after several mistakes lay in a compromised position. But as so often happens, in time pressure Geller committed two successive errors, and instead of accepting a draw by perpetual check he still sought to win. Fortunately for him, after a long endgame he was able to retain the half-point! The Ragozin System of the Queen’s Gambit that Smyslov and Averbakh played ended up transposing to the Exchange Variation, in which Black had no opening problems. Once all the minor pieces had been exchanged, an even position was reached and a draw agreed. Bronstein-Taimanov was a Queen’s Indian in which Black developed his c8bishop to a6 already on move four. Despite some slight inaccuracies by Taimanov,

312

Bronstein’s space advantage was insu cient to overcome Black’s solid position and defense. Later, in an even position, the draw was agreed. (106) Bronstein – Taimanov Queen’s Indian Defense [E15] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Nbd2 For analysis of this opening consult game 59, Ståhlberg-Taimanov, where White played 5.Qa4. It is noteworthy that Bronstein, knowing that his opponent would play this system, and even having prepared for it especially, does not get any great advantage in the opening. This con rms the belief that the system is good – even with some unusual or unclassical moves – as long as the player does not stray from the original idea, and knows how to follow up correctly. 5...c5 Taimanov now asks for explanations in the center, forcing White to declare his intentions 6.Bg2 Nc6 7.d×c5 If 7.Ne5 Bb7 8.N×c6 B×c6 9.B×c6 d×c6 and White has gained nothing. 7...B×c5 8.0-0 0-0 Better 8...Bb7 and if 9.a3 a5. 9.a3 Bb7 10.b4 Be7 11.Bb2 for it especially, does not get any great Rc8 12.Qb3 By Taimanov’s omission of 8...Bb7 and ...a5, Bronstein has gained a small space advantage on the queenside, with a position similar to various games in the rst Najdorf-Reshevsky match (New York 1952), with the di erence that there the white queen knight was on c3. 12...Rc7 13.Rac1 Qa8 14.Qd3 h6 Protecting himself against the strong threat of 15.Ng5. 15.Rfd1 Rd8 16.e4 d6 (D)

A characteristic position of the Queen’s Indian and Nimzo-Indian, in which White, with his advantage in space, appears to stand much better. However, Black’s position is solid and his defensive resources su cient. 313

Round 16

17.Qe2 a5 18.Ra1 Inadvisable was 18.b5, because of the maneuver Nc6-b8-d7-c5. 18...a×b4 19.a×b4 Qc8 20.Bc3 Nd7 21.Nd4 N×d4 22.B×d4 Bf6 23.B×f6 N×f6 24.Qe3 d5 ½-½; (D)

Seeing that he has lost the opening advantage, and without a clear plan to force matters, Bronstein proposed a draw and Taimanov accepted. If 25.e5 (best; not 25.c×d5 e×d5 26. e5 d4 27.Qf4 Nd5) 25...d4 26.Qf4 Nh7 27.Rac1 B×g2 28.K×g2 Nf8 with an even game. (107) Reshevsky – Najdorf King’s Indian Defense [E97] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 0-0 6.Nf3 e5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.Be3 (D)

Reshevsky’s novelty from our Buenos Aires match of 1953, and which, unpleasant though it is to say, cost me two points. The idea of this move is to defend and support the center, opposing Black’s intent. The rst and third games of said match continued 8...Ng4 9.Bg5! f6 10.Bc1 and White is better, for example (a) 10...Nh6 11.d×e5 f×e5 12.Bg5? (better is 12.Qd5+ Kh8 13.c5); (b) 10...Kh8 11.d5 Ne7

314

12.Ne1 f5 13.B×g4 f×g4 14.f3+=; (c) 10...e×d4 11.N×d4 N×d4 12.Q×d4 f5 13.Qd5++=, game 67, Taimanov-Boleslavsky. 8...Re8! The reader may be surprised that such an enormously simple move as this did not occur to me during the whole month’s duration of the second Reshevsky match. But all masters keep working on our games and ideas, trying to improve our systems so as not to repeat the same mistakes. So well did this continuation work out that after the end of the game, Reshevsky told me “After your 8...Re8! I can’t play this variation anymore!” And so it has been: I have not seen the American grandmaster try 8.Be3 since. The reader will therefore understand how important it is for a master not only to nd the right moves in lines that are the subject of “practical discussions,” but also to nd them at the right moment! This move 8...Re8! that equalizes for Black – which is more than su cient for him in this variation – might have gone unnoticed in a short game, since such miniatures are generally considered unimportant, or even viewed with disfavor. Such is the inexhaustible profundity of chess! 9.d5 If 9.d×e5 d×e5 (not 9...N×e5 10.N×e5 d×e5 11.Qb3) 10.Q×d8 (D)

10...N×d8 (if 10...R×d8 11.Bg5 Be6 12.Nd5 B×d5 13.c×d5 Ne7 [if 13...Nd4 14.N×d4 e×d4 15.e5] 14.Rac1! c6 15.N×e5 c×d5 16.Rc7) and White has two continuations: (a) 11.Nb5 Ne6 12.Ng5 Re7 13.N×a7 Nf4 14.B×f4 (if 14.Bf3 Bg4) 14...e×f4 15.N×c8 R×c8 16.f3 Nd7 17.Rab1 Ra8 18.a3 Bd4+ 19.Kh1 h6 20.Nh3 g5 21.Nf2 Re6 and Black has compensation for the sacri ced pawn; (b) 11.Nd5 Ne6 12.Ng5 N×d5 13.c×d5 Nd4. 9...Nd4! The key to the whole system! 10.N×d4 Practically forced. After 10...N×e2 11.Q×e2 Ng4 12.Bg5 f6 13.Bc1 f5 it is obviously Black has no problems. 315

Round 16

10...e×d4 11.B×d4 N×e4 12.B×g7 K×g7 13.N×e4 R×e4N 14.Qc2 Re8 ½-½; Here we agreed to draw the game, as after Qd8-f6 and Bc8-f5 by Black, there is no way to force matters. (108) Keres – Petrosian King’s Indian Defense [E61] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.Nf3 d6 5.Bf4 As already noted, Keres always tries to stay away from normal positions of the King’s Indian, making moves like the text which allow him to avoid systems known to the Soviet players. 5...Nbd7 6.h3 (D)

To avoid exchange of his Bf4 after e2-e3 and Nf6-h5. 6...c5 Though one cannot call this an error – Petrosian wants to make White declare himself in the center, and give his king’s bishop better prospects – Black should take into account that by choosing the 5.Bf4 variation, Keres intends to maintain his pawn on d4, supported by e2-e3, assuring his command of the important c5- and e5squares. Therefore, we would prefer 6...c6, and if 7.e3 0-0 8.Be2 Qa5 with the threat of e7e5, and more importantly, retaining control of the d5 square, which after the text move he cannot do. 7.e3 0-0 8.Be2 b6 9.0-0 Bb7 10.d5 With this move the initial deployment concludes, and both opponents, well developed, have no signi cant weaknesses; however, White has a clear space advantage, while Black will have trouble devising a plan to break through. With 10.d5, Keres decides to close the other long diagonal, “strangling” the Bb7. 10...a6 11.a4 Ne8 12.Qd2 Ne5 13.Nh2 Once again the principle that with a space advantage it is wise to avoid piece exchanges. For example 13.N×e5 d×e5 14.Bg3 Nd6 with a comfortable game for Black. 13...e6 316

A risky move that permanently weakens the d-pawn, but Black seeks at all costs to free his position. 14.Rad1 Qe7 15.Qc2 Rd8 16.Qb3 White’s procedure here is very instructive, trying to place his piece on strategic squares and aim at Black’s weaknesses. 16...Qc7 17.Rd2 e×d5 With this move Petrosian acknowledges his inferiority, nding himself forced to concede the bishop pair and allow the siege of his weak d-pawn; evidently it was hard to nd anything better 18.N×d5 B×d5 19.R×d5 Nf6 20.Rdd1 Nc6 21.Bf3 Continuing the strategic plan he has already laid out, systematically improving the placement of his pieces. 21...Rfe8 22.Ng4 N×g4 23.h×g4! Very well played. With the opening of the h- le Keres intends g2-g3, Kg1-g2 and Rd1-h1, activating the last piece. 23...Nb4 24.Rd2 Qe7 25.Rfd1 Be5 (D)

26.g5! White could not immediately go ahead with his plan of 26.g3 because of 26...g5 27.B×e5 d×e5 and Black has eliminated his weaknesses. 26...a5 27.g3 Qe6 28.Kg2 Qe7 29.Rh1 Qe6 Here time trouble began for both players. Petrosian, standing a bit worse and disoriented, makes passive moves, waiting on events. 30.Rh4 Rf8 31.Qd1 Switching to a new theater of operations. 31...B×f4 32.e×f4 f6 33.Re2 Qf7 Not 33...Q×c4 34.f5 Qf7 35.R×b4 and 36.Bd5 winning the queen. 34.g×f6 Q×f6 35.Qe1 Rd7 36.Re6 Q×b2 37.Re7 R×e7 38.Q×e7 Qg7 39.Q×d6 Qf6 40.Qd7 Naturally in such a position White does not want to exchange queens. 40...Qf7 41.Qd6 (D)

317

Round 16

Here the game was adjourned, and despite material equality it is evident that White is in a much superior position: the black knight, marooned on the queen side, cannot move because of the threat of Bf3-d5. Also the defense of the b-pawn, which supports the whole black queenside pawn structure, is a constant worry for the second player. 41...Qf6 42.Qc7 Rf7 43.Qc8+ Rf8 44.Qd7 Qf7 45.Qd2 Even without direct threats, Black is hard pressed. Keres protects the rook’s passage between h1 and e1, and also has the option of an opportune Qd6, attacking the base of Black’s queenside pawns. Furthermore, the superiority of the bishop to the knight is ever more accentuated. 45...Qe6 Again, not 45...Q×c4 46.f5 Qf7 47.R×b4 a×b4 48.Bd5+–. 46.Rh1 Q×c4 47.Qd6 Qd4 Since the b-pawn has proven indefensible, Black seeks to invade with Nb4-d3 as a last resort. 48.Qe6+ (D)

48...Kh8 If 48...Kg7 49.Qe7+ Rf7 50.R×h7+ K×h7 51.Q×f7+ Qg7 (if 51...Kh8 52.Q×g6 Nd3 53.Qe8+ Kg7 54.Qe7+ Kh8 55.Be4 Q×f2+ 56.Kh3 Qf1+ 57.Kh4+–) 52.Qe6 Nd3 53.f5! 318

etc.

49.Q×g6 Qg7 50.Qe4 Better than 50.Q×b6, since it prevents the incursion Nb4-d3 and the consequent threat of ...N×f4+. 50...Na2 The knight looks for a better square, but in vain. 51.Qc4 Nb4 If 51...Nc3 52.Rc1. 52.Be4 Decisive. 52...R×f4 52...h6 o ered more resistance, but after 53.Qe6 Rf6 54.Qe5 Black’s position is unsustainable. 53.Qe6 R×e4 Forced. If 53...Rf6 54.Qe8+ Rf8 55.R×h7+ Q×h7 56.Q×f8+ Qg8 57.Qh6+ and mate. 54.Q×e4 Qd7 55.Qe5+ Kg8 56.Rh5 1-0 An excellent positional game by grandmaster Keres, who without any notable errors by his opponent gained a lucid victory. (109) Smyslov – Averbakh Queen’s Gambit Declined, Ragozin System [D38] 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.d4 Bb4 5.c×d5 For comments on this and other variations of this opening, see game 86, Boleslavsky-Averbakh. 5...e×d5 6.Bg5 h6 7.B×f6 Q×f6 8.Qb3 In the aforementioned game 86, White preferred 8.Qa4+. 8...Qd6 9.a3 B×c3+ 10.Q×c3 0-0 11.Rc1 c6 12.e3 Bf5 By transposition an Exchange Variation of the Queen’s Gambit has been reached, in which Black has come out better than in the normal line. There White is able to prevent this move by Bf1-d3. Furthermore, the typical white strategy of the minority attack will not be as strong in this case. 13.Be2 Nd7 14.0-0 a5! Anticipating the threat of 15.b4, which now would allow Black to open the a- le for his rook. 15.Ne1 Nf6 16.Nd3 B×d3! Averbakh, with good reason, eliminates the knight that intended to occupy strong squares. 17.Q×d3 Rfe8 18.Bf3 Ne4 19.B×e4 R×e4 20.Qb3 Qd7 21.Rc5 Rg4 22.h3 Rg6 23.Kh1 a4 24.Qb4 Rf6 25.Kg1 ½-½; (D)

319

Round 16

A position has been reached where trying anything – for example pawn moves – would do nothing but worsen it. The draw is, therefore, the logical and correct result. (110) Geller – Szabó Nimzo-Indian Defense [E53] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 b6 7.0-0 c5 8.Qe2 (D)

It is interesting to note yet again how – even in the old familiar Nimzo-Indian – the grandmaster’s investigative zeal can nd new continuations. Without trying to analyze for now the intrinsic merit of the text move, we repeat that, generally, the intention is to create problems for the adversary on terrain unfamiliar to him. Theoretical novelties almost always have a good “psychological impact,” and from the practical standpoint are a means by which the opponent is made to use much more time in the opening than he normally needs. The current normal move here is 8.a3, trying to clarify the position of the bishop; Black must decide whether to exchange it or, after 8...c×d4, retreat it to e7. Geller’s idea with 8.Qe2 is to free d1 for a rook, and in the event of 8...c×d4 9.e×d4 d×c4 10.B×c4 Bb7 11.Bg5 Be7 12.Rad1 to enter a form of Queen’s Gambit Accepted with advantage for the rst player. 320

8...Nbd7 Since Black has chosen 6...b6 and the white queen has lost a tempo, we would prefer 8...Ba6 with rapid equality. For example (a) 9.a3 B×c3 10.b×c3 d×c4 11.B×c4 B×c4 12.Q×c4 Qd5; (b) 9.d×c5 d×c4 10.B×c4 B×c4 11.Q×c4 B×c5 12.Rd1 Qc8; (c) 9.c×d5 B×d3 10.Q×d3 (the queen has had to move twice!) 10...B×c3 11.b×c3 Q×d5. 9.c×d5 Now 9...Ba6 is prevented. 9...e×d5 10.a3 Ba5? (D)

Szabó has not interpreted Geller’s idea (8.Qe2) correctly, losing the thread and missing the right move. Necessary was 10...B×c3 11.b×c3 Re8 12.Bb2 c4 13.Bc2 Bb7 14.Nd2 Qc7 reaching a position typical for this defense, quite playable for both sides. 11.b4! Geller takes immediate advantage, sacri cing a pawn and creating numerous di culties for his adversary. 11...c×b4 12.Nb5 a6? White threatened 13.Bd2. Though Black’s game was already compromised, more resistance was o ered by 12...Ne4 (not 12...b×a3 13.B×a3 Re8 14.Nd6 Re6 15.Ng5), advantageously returning the pawn: 13.a×b4 B×b4 14.R×a7 R×a7 15.N×a7 Bb7 16.Bb2 Qb8 17.Nb5 Rc8 18.Ne5 Ndf6 (not 18...N×e5 19.d×e5 Nc3 20.B×c3 B×c3 21.Nd6 Rc7 22.f4) although White would still retain the initiative. 13.Nd6 Nb8 If 13...b5 14.N×c8 Q×c8 (or 14...R×c8 15.a×b4 B×b4 16.R×a6) 15.Bd2. 14.N×c8 Q×c8 15.Bd2 b3 16.Rab1 Nc6 17.R×b3 The excellent move 11.b4! bears fruit. Geller recovers the sacri ced pawn with a great positional advantage on the queenside. 17...B×d2 18.Q×d2 b5 19.Rc1 Qd7 20.Rbc3 Rfc8 21.Ne5 N×e5 22.d×e5 (D)

321

Round 16

22...R×c3 If 22...Ng4 23.B×h7+! Kh8 (not 23...K×h7 24.Qc2+) 24.Bb1!, and if 24...N×e5 25.Qc2 winning. 23.Q×c3 Ne4 24.Qd4 Qb7 25.h4 Trying to trap the knight. 25...h6 Better 25...h5. 26.Rc2 Taking away the knight’s last escape square and again threatening f2-f3. 26...Rc8 27.R×c8+ Q×c8 28.Q×d5 Finally the superior position materializes; however ... 28...Nc3 29.Qd6 a5 (D)

30.f4? Both masters nd themselves in great time pressure. Geller, who up to this moment has played with great precision and gained great advantages, is carried away by his natural temperament and looks for direct kingside attack, without regard for the weaknesses this move creates. Simple and decisive here was 30.Qb6 b4 31.a×b4 a4 32.Qa7 Qd8 33.Bc4. 30...h5 31.f5? 322

Another lamentable mistake. All the middle game e orts are thrown away by this move, which voluntarily obstructs the bishop while the black knight is liberated for the defense against possible mates and becomes an active piece. Still winning for White was 31.Qd4 g6 (if 31...Nd1 32.Be2) 32.e6! f×e6 33.Qf6. 31...Nd1 32.e6 N×e3 33.Kf2 Anticipating the serious threat of 33...Qc1+. 33...Ng4+ 34.Kf3 Qc1 With no defensive worries, the queen penetrates. 35.e×f7+ K×f7 36.Qd7+ Kf8 37.Qd8+ Kf7 38.Qd7+ Kf8 39.Qd6+ Kf7 40.Qe6+ Kf8 41.Qd6+ Kf7 42.Qe6+ Kf8 (D)

43.B×b5? A psychological error at the moment of the sealed move! Geller, regretting his lost opportunities, keeps trying to win, precisely when his position is in no way superior. The correct course was to accept a draw by perpetual check, since now he must play a long endgame just to reach the same result, and thanks to the reduced material Szabó is unable to force a win. 43...Q×a3+ 44.Ke4 Qe3+ 45.Kd5 Nf6+ 46.Kc6 Q×e6+ 47.f×e6 Ke7 48.Bc4 Ne4 49.Kb6 a4 50.Ka5 Nd6 51.Bd5 Nf5 52.K×a4 N×h4 53.Kb3 Nf5 54.Kc3 Kf6 55.Bf3 h4 56.Kd3 K×e6 57.Ke4 Kf6 58.Bg4 Nh6 59.Bd7 Kg5 60.Kf3 Nf7 61.Bc8 Ne5+ 62.Ke4 Nc4 63.Kf3 Ne5+ 64.Ke4 Kf6 65.Kf4 g6 66.Ke4 g5 67.Ke3 Kg6 68.Ke4 Nc4 69.Kf3 Nd2+ 70.Ke3 Nf1+ 71.Kf2 Ng3 72.Kf3 Kf6 73.Kg4 Nf1 74.Ba6 Ne3+ 75.Kh3 Nf5 76.Bd3 Ng3 77.Kg4 Nh1 78.Bc2 ½-½; (111) Kotov – Euwe Catalan Opening [A13] 1.c4 Nf6 2.g3 e6 3.Bg2 d5 4.Nf3 d×c4 For 4...d4 see game 74, Kotov-Taimanov. Dr. Euwe accepts the gambit pawn, no doubt expecting his opponent to recover it immediately with 5.Qa4+, by which we would enter the normal variation of the Catalan Opening. However, it becomes clear that Kotov wants to avoid the well-known paths of the gambit variation, and is looking for complications and a ght right from the start! 323

Round 16

5.0-0 a6!? (D)

Dr. Euwe seems to override his own analysis from the treatise Theory of Chess Openings, where he recommends 5...Nbd7 with the following continuation: 6.Na3 Nb6 (not 6...B×a3 7.b×a3+=) 7.N×c4 N×c4 8.Qa4+ Bd7 9.Q×c4 Bc6 10.b3 Bd6 11.Bb2 0-0 12.Rac1 Qe7 13.Ne5 B×g2 14.K×g2 c6=, Réti-Kmoch, Budapest 1926. 6.Qc2 b5 7.Ne5 Nd5 Not 7...Ra7 8.a4 Qd6 9.d4! Q×d4? 10.Be3. 8.d3 White tries to get an advantage for the pawn in terms of better development and better piece location. The pressure of the anchettoed bishop, a knight on d3 and a rook on d1 can compensate for the gift at move four. 8...c×d3 9.N×d3 Bb7 10.Rd1 Qc8 11.a4 Nd7 The advance 11...b4 would cede c5 to White, where Kotov could post a knight. 12.a×b5 a×b5 13.R×a8 B×a8 14.Na3 (D)

14...B×a3 By this Dr. Euwe gives up the stronger of his two bishops, leaving domination of the dark squares in the hands of his opponent. Correct was 14...Qb8 and if 15.Qb3 c6 (not worrying about the temporary enclosure of his Ba8, which can be taken care of 324

once his development is completed) 16.e4 N5f6 17.Bf4 Qb6 retaining the material advantage. And not 17...e5? 18.N×e5!! N×e5 19.Nc4!! Nfd7 20.R×d7 K×d7 21.N×e5+ winning. 15.b×a3 0-0 If 15...c5 16.Qb2. 16.Nc5 N7b6 17.e4 Ne7 18.Bf1 Bc6 (D) 19.f3? After the mistake 14...B×a3? Kotov’s space advantage and control of the dark squares was becoming increasingly evident. Now he should have forgotten about his pawn minus, and rather than recover it, try to augment his initiative. Toward that object, the simplest and strongest move was 19.Bb2, after which might follow: (a) 19...Rd8 20.Qc3 f6 21.R×d8+ Q×d8 22.N×e6; (b) 19...Na4 20.N×a4 b×a4 21.Qc5 Re8 22.Bh3 with the strong threat of 23.Qe5; (c) 19...Nd7 20.N×d7 B×d7 21.Qc5! threatening 22.Qd4.

19...Rd8 20.Bg5 R×d1 21.Q×d1 Ng6 22.Qd8+ Be8 23.Q×c8 If 23.Na6 Ne5. 24...N×c8 24.Bd8 c6 Dr. Euwe, seeing that he could not advance his pawns, proposed a draw, even though he had a one-pawn advantage. However, Kotov refused the o er, perhaps wanting to take revenge for that dramatic game in the rst cycle. But he learned that chess is not governed by the inner desires of the players, but rather by the dictates of the position! 25.f4 e5 26.f5 Nf8 27.Kf2 Nd7 28.Nb7 f6 29.Ke3 Kf8 30.h3 Bf7 31.Ba5 Ke8 32.g4 Ndb6 33.Bb4 Bc4 34.Bg2 Ba2 35.Bf1 Bc4 36.Bg2 Ba2 ½-½; (112) Boleslavsky – Ståhlberg French Defense [C19] 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 For 4.Bd3 see game 53, Gligoric-Ståhlberg. 4...c5 5.a3 325

Round 16

The fashionable move, though there are other playable lines: (a) 5.Bd2 and: (a1) 5...Ne7 6.Nb5 B×d2+ 7.Q×d2 0-0 8.f4? Qb6 9.d×c5 Q×c5 10.Nf3 Bd7 11.Nbd4 Nbc6 12.Bd3 N×d4 13.N×d4 Nc6 14.Nf3 Nb4 15.c3 N×d3+ 16.Q×d3 Bb5=+, DubininBondarevsky, USSR ch 1947; (a2) 5...Nc6 6.Nf3 c×d4 7.Nb5 Bc5 8.a3 Nge7 9.b4 Bb6 10.Bd3 Ng6 11.Qe2 Bc7 12.Bg5 Qd7=+, Christo el-Botvinnik, Groningen 1946; (a3) 5...c×d4? 6.Nb5 B×d2+ 7.Q×d2 Nc6 8.Nf3 f6 9.Qf4 Nh6 10.Nd6+ Kf8 11.Bb5! Nf7 12.N×f7 K×f7 13.B×c6 b×c6 14.e×f6 g×f6 15.Ne5+ with better play for White, Fine-Capablanca AVRO 1938. (b) 5.Qg4 Kf8 6.Nf3 c×d4 7.N×d4 Qa5 8.Bd2 Nc6 9.a3 f5!=+, BogatyrchukBotvinnik Moscow 1927. (c) 5.d×c5 Ne7 (not 5...d4 6.a3 Ba5 7.b4 d×c3 8.Qg4!) 6.Nf3 Nbc6 7.Bd3 d4 8.a3 Ba5 9.b4 N×b4 10.a×b4 B×b4 11.Bb5+ Bd7! (not 11...Nc6 12.Ra4, Fine-Botvinnik, AVRO 1938) 12.Q×d4 B×c3+ 13.Q×c3 B×b5 with the better game for Black. 5...B×c3+ 6.b×c3 Ne7 Another continuation is 6...Qc7 7.Nf3 (if 7.Qg4 Ne7! 8.Q×g7 Rg8 9.Q×h7 c×d4) 7...Ne7 8.Be2 (better 8.a4) 8...Nbc6 9.0-0 f6 10.e×f6 g×f6 11.c4 Bd7=, RovnerBondarevsky, Moscow 1946. 7.a4 Also playable is 7.Qg4 Nf5 (if 7...c×d4 8.Q×g7 Rg8 9.Q×h7 Qa5? 10.Rb1 Q×c3+ 11.Bd2 Qc7 12.f4 Nbc6 13.Nf3 Bd7 14.Ng5 R×g5 15.f×g5 0-0-0 16.Q×f7 Q×e5+ 17.Kd1+=, Alexander-Botvinnik, UKUSSR radio match 1946) 8.Bd3 h5 9.Qf4 Qh4! 10.B×f5 Q×f4 11.B×f4 e×f5=. 7...Nbc6 If 7...Qa5 8.Bd2 Nbc6! 9.Nf3 Bd7 10.c4 (Bondarevsky recommends 10.Qb1) 10...Qc7 11.c×d5 e×d5=, Dubinin-Boleslavsky, USSR Ch 1947. 8.Nf3 Bd7 (D)

Pachman in Modern Chess Theory gives this move a question mark, recommending instead 8...Qa5 9.Bd2 c4 10.Ng5 h6 11.Nh3 Ng6 12.Qf3 Bd7 13.Nf4

326

N×f4 14.Q×f4 Ne7! 15.h4 B×a4 16.h5 Qb5! 17.Kd1 Rc8 18.Bc1 Rc6 19.Be2 Ra6 20.Kd2 0-0 21.g4 (if 21.Ba3 B×c2!!) 21...f6 22.e×f6 R×f6, Smyslov-Botvinnik USSR ch 1944. 9.Be2 Rc8 10.0-0 0-0 11.Ba3 b6 12.Ba6N Rc7 13.Bd3 The apparent loss of time can be transformed into a gain, since after the advance or exchange of the black c-pawn White would play Bc1-a3-d6. 13...h6 A necessary weakening. 14.Re1 Na5 15.Bc1 (D)

15...c4? Boleslavsky, with his precise maneuvers, has managed to weaken Black’s kingside – threatening now Nf3-h4 and Qd1-g4 – and Black nds himself in a somewhat compromised position. The text move has a “de ning” e ect on Ståhlberg’s queenside possibilities, since it closes the c- le to the rook, and the Na5 has no easy way back into the ght. Neither was 15...Nf5 correct, because of 16.g4 Nh4 17.g5!; and if 15...Ng6 16.g3 followed by h2- h4 with a strong attack. For all these reasons the indicated move seems to be 15...Nec6, preventing 16.Nh4 and at the same time threatening 16...c×d4 17.c×d4 Nb4 making his advantage in queenside development count. 16.Bf1 Ng6 17.g3 White, with no worries on the queenside, begins an attack on the other ank. 17...f6 18.e×f6 Q×f6 19.Bg2 Rcc8 20.Qe2 Rf7 21.h4 Nc6 To prevent the incursion 22.Ne5. 22.h5 Nf8 23.Nh2 Nh7 24.f4 White’s space advantage increases and Black sees himself ever more restricted. 24...Re8 25.Nf3 Qd8 26.Nh4 Nf8 27.Rf1 Ne7 28.Nf3 Nc6 29.Ba3 Bc8 30.Rf2 Nd7 31.Raf1 Ne7 32.Bh3 Nf5 33.Kh2 Nf6 34.g4 Nd6 35.Ne5 Rc7 (D)

327

Round 16

36.Bg2? Boleslavsky, having conducted the game with great positional sense, is now pressed for time and cannot nd the decisive blow that will nalize his advantage. In this, as in all such semi-closed positions, there comes a moment when it is necessary to use a brutal move that opens up the position – even at material cost – and allows the pieces to invade and exploit the space advantage. In other circumstances, and without time pressure, grandmaster Boleslavsky would probably have continued 36.B×d6 (eliminating the active knight) 36...Q×d6 37.g5 Ne4 38.Rg2, with a decisive attack. 36...Nde4 37.Rf3 Nd7 38.Ng6 Ndf6 39.Ne5? He could still have maintained the positional advantage with 39.Bh3. 39...Nd7 40.Kg1? With this third, almost consecutive error, Black no longer has any problems; on the contrary! Necessary was 40.Ng6, with which there was still time to reach the position indicated in the previous note, since if 40...Ndf6 41.Bh3. 40...N×e5 41.f×e5 Ng5 42.Rf8+ R×f8 ½-½; Ståhlberg sealed the best move, since after 43.R×f8 Q×f8 44.B×f8 K×f8, even though one can see no clearly decisive continuation, it is evident that Black – despite having given up the queen for rook and bishop – has the better prospects; and in fact, after the game Boleslavsky said he considered his position, if not lost, at least rather di cult. However, when the time came to resume play, Ståhlberg did something unexpected, o ering a draw (!), and needless to say, hard work of getting two di cult Boleslavsky accepted with pleasure! It is interesting to note that grand-master Ståhlberg spared his rival the hard work of getting two di cult draws, in both games they played in this tournament!

328

Round 17

Standings after round 17: Smyslov 10½; Bronstein and Reshevsky 9½; Najdorf 9; Keres 8½; Boleslavsky, Euwe, Petrosian and Kotov 8; Geller and Taimanov 7½;; Averbakh, Gligoric and Szabó 7; Ståhlberg 4. Except for those in rst place and last place – where the di erence between them and the rest of the eld is one point and three points respectively – the other players are separated among themselves by the minimum advantage of one half-point. From this one can deduce that winning or losing even a single game can make great changes in the standings for many of them. One could justly call this “the round of revenge.” The “match” between East and West was won this time by the Russian grandmasters, and as far as the individual aspect is concerned, Kotov and Geller – who in the rst cycle had been victims of Ståhlberg and Dr. Euwe – returned the favor in brilliant style, saving the honor of Soviet chess against the western masters. Kotov played the Old Indian Defense against Ståhlberg, who sprang a novelty with 9.b3 as compared to the model game 98, Averbakh-Kotov, but without getting better prospects and, on the contrary, later having the worse position. There came Black’s logical breakthrough in the center, and after sacri cing the exchange Kotov secured advantages that appeared decisive when, at the instant of making move 40 Ståhlberg, short of time, overlooked a chance to at least draw. After the adjournment, Black was able to exploit his advantages unhurriedly. Geller, in his game with Dr. Euwe, put up a King’s Indian Defense and quickly saw that White was not seeking complications, entering a tranquil, simplifying line. Geller assumed a growing initiative, and White, as a last hope, created a position of passive resistance, which his adversary besieged with complete calm and precision, nally forcing the white king out and executing him in the middle of the board. The game between Szabó and Smyslov developed along known lines of the Slav, in which Smyslov, a great expert on this defense, drifted surprisingly into a cramped position. Later, Black carried out a possibly premature break, and after overlooking a strong central pawn advance his situation was grave. Fortunately for Smyslov, Szabó overlooked a simple move that would have given him a decisive advantage, but even

329

Round 17

so, on accepting the draw, White’s position was superior and everything indicated that with a pawn to the good he should have continued the game. Petrosian once again essayed a King’s Indian with White – a specialty of his – this time against Reshevsky, who did not continue in the best way, falling into an inferior position. Petrosian sacri ced a pawn for a kingside attack and once again saw that Reshevsky, even in great time pressure, knew how to nd the right defense. However, in this game too the acceptance of the draw by White could be considered premature. Was this a psychological triumph for Reshevsky? Or was it just that the Soviet players preferred to eliminate any risks in their games with the North American grandmaster? Najdorf and Bronstein played a Nimzo-Indian Defense, in which Black carried out one of his typical individualistic opening moves, and at a certain point should have stood worse. However, Najdorf overlooked the line that would have given him the better game, and after refusing the draw Bronstein o ered at move 18 – based on his opponent’s time trouble – o ered a draw in turn, which was accepted three moves later. Taimanov-Gligoric was a Sicilian in which White – who had prepared the “surprise” of adopting a variation considered inferior – turned out to be the one who was surprised! Gligoric knew the antidote, and was able to use the pawn Taimanov sacri ced to exploit his advantage in an admirably played endgame. Finally, Averbakh and Keres played a Ruy Lopez, an opening scarcely used in this tournament, in which it became evident that White was trying to avoid all risk, arriving at a position where a draw was declared by repetition of moves. (113) Ståhlberg – Kotov Old Indian Defense [A55] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nf3 Nbd7 4.Nc3 e5 5.e4 For 5.Bg5 see game 37, Keres-Boleslavsky. 5...c6 6.Be2 Ståhlberg follows in the steps of game 96, Averbakh-Kotov. In this variation we would prefer 6.g3 to avoid the possible later maneuver Nf6-h5-f4, as in game 87, Kotov-Petrosian. 6...Be7 7.0-0 0-0 8.Qc2 Re8 (D) 9.b3 Against Kotov, Averbakh here played 9.Rd1 – which to us looks more e ective than the text, because it threatens to bring pressure by opening the d- le – and continuing 9...Bf8 10.Rb1! with the idea of b2-b4.

330

In this typical Old Indian position, Black’s kingside situation is solid, so much so that it is extremely di cult for White to penetrate that sector. Averbakh’s plan is positionally correct, trying to gain advantage on the more favorable ank, while Ståhlberg’s deployment does not o er similar prospects to the rst player. 9...Bf8 10.Bb2 Nh5 11.g3 White nds himself obliged to make this move, with the di erence that now the logical complement, Be2-f1-g2, will cost two extra tempi. 11...g6 12.Rad1 Nhf6 The black knight, having completed its mission of weakening the kingside, now returns to seek better prospects. 13.d5 Whether to close the center is always an important decision, but here a very necessary one, as White cannot permit 13...e×d4 14.N×d4 Nc5, when the weakness of his e-pawn will be felt. 13...c5 14.Nh4 Bg7 15.a3 Nb6 Preventing the queenside advance, since if 16.b4 there would follow 16...Bh3 17.Rfe1 Rac8. 16.Bf3 Rf8 17.Ne2 Bd7 18.Bc3 Having not selected the right plan, White – though his position is not bad – nds it very di cult coming up with anything concrete. 18...Ne8 19.Ba5 Qe7 20.Rde1 Rc8 21.Bd2 Qd8 22.Qc1 Bf6 It is clear that the only move o ering Black any chances is f7-f5, but Kotov prefers to prepare it down to the last detail, since with no direct threats from White he can take the necessary time. 23.Ng2 Be7 24.Bh6 Ng7 25.h4 f5 The right moment has arrived ... 26.e×f5 g×f5 27.Nc3 Be8 28.Bd1 Nd7 (D)

331

Round 17

29.B×g7 Since White intends to move the queen to e3, he rst takes the knight to discourage f5-f4, since if 29.Qe3 immediately, 29...f4 30.N×f4 (if 30.g×f4 Nf5) 30... Nf5 31.Ne6 N×e3 32.N×d8 N×d1. 29...K×g7 30.Qe3 Bf6 31.Bc2 Bg6 32.Qe2 If 32.h5? f4 33.Qe2? f3. 32...e4! 33.Nf4 Re8 34.Ne6+ R×e6 35.d×e6 B×c3 If 35...Ne5 36.N×e4 f×e4 37.B×e4 with good play for White. 36.e×d7 Q×d7 37.h5! Though very short of time. Ståhlberg instinctively “feels” that after 37.Rd1 Bd4 38.h5 Be8! he could not sustain the game, and therefore he prefers to give back the exchange. 37...B×e1 38.h×g6 Bc3 39.g×h7 Rh8 (D)

40.Qe3?? Once again bad luck bites Ståhlberg! With his limited time he could not see that with 40.Kg2 R×h7 (or if 40...Bd4 likewise 41.f3! e3 42.g4!) 41.f3! he would have had good play. 40...Kg6! 41.Rd1

332

This was the sealed move, and the best, but even so it does not save the game. Not 41.Q×c3? Q×h7. 41...Bd4 42.Qf4 Q×h7 43.Kf1 If 43.Q×d6+ Bf6! 44.Kf1 Qh1+ 45.Ke2 Qf3+ 46.Ke1 Qc3+. 43...Qh1+ 44.Ke2 Qh5+ (D)

45.g4 If 45.Kd2 Qg5 with a won ending. For example 46.Q×g5+ K×g5 47.Ke2 Rh2 48.Rf1 e3 49.Kf3 e×f2 50.Bd3 Rh8–+. And if 45.Kf1 Qf3! 46.Q×f3 (46.Q×d6+ Bf6) 46...e×f3 47.Kg1 Rh3!. 45...Q×g4+ 46.Q×g4+ f×g4 47.B×e4+ Kg5 48.Rh1 Re8 49.f3 b5 50.Kf1 b×c4 51.b×c4 g3 52.Rh7 Rb8 53.Bb7 Be5 54.Kg2 Kf4 55.Rf7+ Ke3 56.f4 B×f4 57.Re7+ Be5 58.Rf7 a5 59.a4 Kd4 60.Bd5 Rb2+ 61.Kf1 Ra2 0–1 (114) Euwe – Geller King’s Indian Defense [E67] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.Nf3 d6 6.0-0 Nbd7 7.Qc2! One of the soundest systems against the King’s Indian. The reader will note that this move delays development of the b1-knight, which is the current move in this position. However, the text has a profound idea: it frees d1 for the rook, and it defends the c-pawn. If now, as does occur, 7...e5 then 8.Rd1, but not 8.Nc3 e×d4! 9.N×d4 Nb6 10.b3 (the Nc3 obstructs the defense of c4) 10...c5! 11.Ndb5 a6 12.Na3 d5 or 12...Bf5 and Black is better. 7...e5 8.Rd1 Re8 Here Geller started to play the usual 8...c6, but realized in time that after 9.d×e5 d×e5 10.N×e5 he would lose material. 9.Nc3 c6 Now one notices, with regard to the commentary at move 7, that it would not be advisable to play 9...e×d4 10.N×d4 Nb6 because of the threat 11.c5, which also demonstrates the sudden e ectiveness of the rook on the d- le. (D)

333

Round 17

10.d×e5 A simplifying move, by which White seeks no more than a draw. The character of the position is of such theoretical importance that it is worthwhile examining a few lines. Stoltz-Kotov, Saltsjöbaden 1952 continued 10.b3 e4 11.Nd2 d5 12.c×d5 c×d5 13.Nb5 Re6 14.Qc7 Qe8 15.Nd6? Qf8 16.Ba3 Ne8 17.N×e8 Q×e8 18.Nf1 Rc6 19.Qf4 Nf6 with good play for Black. In our opinion the best move is 10.e4!, as played in Tchepurnov-Bronstein, USSR ch 1951, which continued 10...a6 11.h3 b5 12.d×e5 d×e5 13.Be3 Qe7 14.c×b5 a×b5 15.a4 Bb7 16.Nd2 b4 17.Ne2? Bf8 18.Nc4 Qe6 19.Nc1 Ba6 20.b3 B×c4 21.b×c4 Bc5 22.B×c5 N×c5 with much the better game for Black. However, White would have been in the better position after 17.Ncb1!, for example if 17...c5 18.Nc4 (threatening Nb1-d2-b3) 18...b3 19.Q×b3 B×e4 20.Nc3. 10...d×e5 11.Ng5 Qe7 12.Nge4 Nc5 After this move Black has no di culties in the opening, and on the contrary acquires a certain initiative. But Dr. Euwe believes that by gaining the bishop pair he can compensate for his lack of development on the queenside. 13.Nd6 Rd8 14.N×c8 R×d1+ 15.N×d1 R×c8 16.Bd2 Better was 16.Bg5, and if 16...Ne6 17.B×f6 B×f6 18.e3, with bishops of opposite color and the likelihood of a draw. 16...Nfd7 Preparing for occupation of the center by f7-f5 and e5-e4, restricting White’s mobility. 17.Bc3 f5 18.Ne3 Ne6 Black plays in line with the plan described, but no less certain is that White helps involuntarily, by putting up no concrete opposition. 19.b4 The only possible counterplay, though it cannot be considered compensation for his positional disadvantage. 19...Nd4 20.Qb2 The black knight is practically unassailable in view of the tactical possibilities that would follow from opening the long diagonal for the Bg7. 334

20...Qf7 Since the only way to dislodge the strong Nd4 would be by e2-e3, Black with this move ties down the Ne3 to the defense of the pawn on c4. 21.a4 Rf8 22.a5 f4 23.g×f4 Q×f4 24.Rf1 Nf6 25.c5 Dr. Euwe accepts abandonment of what would have been counterplay for the sake of at least gaining the square d6 for his knight. 25...Ne4 (D)

Forcing exchange of the king’s best defender by the threat of 27...N×c3 and 28...N×e2+ winning the queen. 26.B×e4 Q×e4 27.B×d4 White tries to reduce the pressure by trading o as many pieces as possible. 27...e×d4 28.Ng2 a6 29.Qb3+ Kh8 30.Qd3 Qe5 31.f4 With the idea of constructing a position of passive resistance. [i.e., a fortress – TK] 31...Qe6 32.Rf3 Re8 33.Kf2 Rf8 34.Kf1 Thus White arrives at the positioned envisioned, where despite Black’s evident advantage, it is very hard to break in. 34...Kg8 35.Kf2 Rf7 36.Kf1 Rf5 37.Kf2 Bf6 Placing his few pieces at positions of maximum e ectiveness. 38.Kg1 Rd5 39.Kf2 Kg7 40.Kf1 Rh5 41.Kg1 Rd5 Geller clearly has been trying to reach adjournment without making any important decision, to seek in quiet analysis the continuation that can realize his advantage, knowing that any break attempt entails risk. On the other hand, he has concluded that he cannot try anything forcing without rst making his king secure, and as much as the position allows, he undertakes to transfer it to the queenside. 42.h3 Kf7 43.Kf2 Ke7 44.Kf1 Kd8 45.Ne1 If we must die, let us die ghting! Within his limited options, Dr. Euwe decides to try maneuvering his knight toward better squares, since he understands that once Black puts his king in safety, a breakthrough will be decisive. 45...Kc7 46.Nc2 Kb8 47.Na3 Bd8 48.Nc4 Bc7 Paralleling White’s maneuver, Geller takes measures with his bishop. 335

Round 17

49.Nb6 Rd8 50.f5 White cannot wait any longer. 50...g×f5 51.Q×f5 Qh6 52.Qf7 Qc1+ 53.Kf2 Bh2! 54.Qg7 Bf4 55.Kg2 Be3 With this maneuver, Geller has gotten his bishop to its strongest square. 56.Rf1 Obviously if 56.Kh2 Qd2. 56...Qd2 57.Rf7 Q×e2+ (D)

58.Kg3 If 58.Kh1 Qd1+ 59.Kh2 Qc2+ 60.Kh1 (not 60.Kg3 Qg6+) 60...Qe4+ 61.Kh2 Bf4+ 62.Kg1 Qe1+ 63.Kg2 Qe2+ 64.Kg1 Qh2+ 65.Kf1 Q×h3+ 66.Kf2~ Qe3+ 67.Kg2 Qe2+ 68.Kg1 Be3+ 69.Kh1 Qh5+ 70.Kg2 Qg6+. 58...Qe1+ 59.Kf3 Qh1+ 60.Kg3 59.Kf3 Qf2+ 60.Ke4 Re8+ 61.Re7 If 61.Kd3 Black mates in two. 61...Qh4+ 0-1 A supremely instructive game, with clear maneuvers demonstrating the great positional understanding of the talented Soviet chess master. (115) Szabó – Smyslov Slav Defense [D19] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 d×c4 5.a4 For commentary on the Slav Defense consult game 34, Boleslavsky-Smyslov. 5...Bf5 6.e3 e6 7.B×c4 Bb4 8.0-0 Nbd7 9.Qe2 0-0 10.e4 Bg6 11.Bd3 Boleslavsky, in the aforementioned game, played 11.e5. 11...Qa5 12.Na2 Be7 If 12...Q×a4 13.b3 Qa5 14.N×b4 Q×a1 (if 14...Q×b4 15.Ba3) 15.Na2!. 13.Bd2 Qh5 14.Nc3 Rfd8 15.Bf4 c5 (D)

336

Smyslov, even with completed development, has a somewhat cramped position, and therefore he decides to try a central break. However, this plan must be premature; the correct move appears to be 15...Bf8, and only then continue with the text move. 16.d5! Very well played. After this move Szabó comes out nicely from the opening. Certainly Black, when playing 15...c5, did not see that after 16.d5! e×d5 White would not recapture with 17.e×d5, but play 17.e5. 16...e×d5 16...e5 would produce a dangerous encirclement of the black queen on the ank. 17.e5 B×d3 18.Q×d3 Ne8 19.N×d5 Now White’s advantage is clear, but as almost always happens: the hard part is making it count! 19...Bf8 20.Qb3 Qg6 21.a5 If 21.Q×b7 Rab8 22.Q×a7 Ra8 and a draw by repetition. 21...h6 So as to play the queen to e6 without being bothered by Nf3-g5. 22.Ne3 b6 23.Rfd1 Nc7 24.Bg3 b5 25.Bh4 c4 26.Qc3 f6 (D)

27.N×c4? 337

Round 17

While with this move White wins a pawn, he will have a hard time winning the game. Correct was the simple and strong move 27.b3, by which he would get the same material advantage plus a winning position, since if 27.b3 N×e5 28.N×e5 R×d1+ 29.R×d1 f×e5 30.b×c4 b×c4 31.Q×c4+ Ne6 32.Ng4!. 27...b×c4 28.Q×c4+ Qf7 29.Q×c7 N×e5 30.Q×f7+ N×f7 31.Bg3 a6 32.Kf1 Rac8 33.Rdc1 Bb4 ½-½; A resolution that from White’s point of view must cause a certain surprise. Why take a draw if by 34.R×c8+ R×c8 35.Ra4, (D)

Szabó would have an extra pawn and winning chances, and in any case could continue the game without risk? For example (a) 34.R×c8 R×c8 35.Ra4 Rc1+ 36.Ke2 Rc2+ 37.Kd1 R×b2 38.Kc1 Rb3 39.Kc2 Rc3+ 40.Kb2 Rc4 41.Kb3; or (b) 35...Bf8 (best) 36.Ne1, with winning chances for White. (116) Averbakh – Keres Ruy Lopez [C98] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d6 With 8...d5 we would enter the famous Marshall variation, in which Black sacri ces a pawn for a direct attack on the kingside. After many years of analysis the verdict is that the attack does not compensate for the material given up, so much so that Keres – one of the greatest experts on the Ruy Lopez and author of various books and studies on this opening – does not dare to try the Marshall Attack in such an important game as this. 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Qc7 12.Nbd2 Interesting is 12.Bg5 h6 13.Bh4 Nc4 14.b3 Nb6 15.Nbd2 Bb7 16.Bg3 Nfd7 17.Nf1 c4 18.Ne3! c×b3 19.B×b3 B×e4 20.d×e5 d×e5 (correct is 20...B×f3 21.Q×f3 N×e5) 21.N×e5 N×e5 22.Ng4, L.Steiner-Szabó, Saltsjöbaden 1948. 12...Bb7 For 12...Bd7 see game 4, Averbakh-Smyslov, and for 12...c×d4 game 47, Boleslavsky-Reshevsky. (D)

338

13.d5 Averbakh declines a complicated ght in the center, decidedly in uenced by the prestige of a specialist such as Keres in this opening. The variation of the Soviet master Panov is 13.Nf1 c×d4 14.c×d4 Rac8 15.Bd3 (better 15.Re2) 15...d5! 16.d×e5! (if 16.e×d5 e4 17.B×e4 N×e4 18.R×e4 B×d5 with good play for Black) 16...N×e4 17.Ng3! f5! 18.e×f6 B×f6 19.N×e4 d×e4 20.B×e4 B×e4 21.R×e4 Qc2 22.Qe2 h6 23.Ne1 Q×e2 24.R×e2 Rfd8 25.Bf4 g5 26.Be3 Nc4 27.Rb1 N×e3 28.f×e3 h5 with compensation for the pawn (analysis in the magazine Shakhmaty). 13...Bc8 Inferior is 13...Rfb8 as played by Averbakh against Szabó in the 1949 MoscowBudapest match, continuing 14.Nf1 Nc4 15.g4 a5 16.Ng3 a4 17.Kh2. 14.Nf1 Bd715.b3 g6 16.Bh6 Rfb8 17.g4 Bf8 18.Qd2 Kh8 Obviously the bishop on h6 could be bothersome, so Keres prepares Nf6-g8 to dislodge it. 19.Ng5 Kg8 20.Nf3 Kh8 21.Ng5 Kg8 22.Nf3 ½-½; (D)

A seemingly premature decision; however, in our opinion, White cannot permit Nf6-g8, consolidating the castled position. Once the Bh6 is traded o Keres would

339

Round 17

systematically prepare a break with f7-f5 and roles would be reversed, with Black’s attack arriving inexorably. (117) Petrosian – Reshevsky King’s Indian Attack [A08] 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 g6 3.Bg2 Bg7 4.0-0 0-0 5.d3 d5 6.Nbd2 Just as in game 69, Petrosian-Euwe, Petrosian plays a King’s Indian with White, with the di erence that, in that game, Dr. Euwe did not anchetto his bishop on g2, playing instead Bf8-c5. 6...c5 A move contrary to the concept already stated repeatedly, that the c5-square should be reserved for a minor piece. An interesting system against the King’s Indian Attack is provided by Eliskases-Taimanov, Saltsjöbaden 1952, which developed as follows: 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 d5 3.Bg2 e6 4.0-0 Be7 5.d3 0-0 6.Nbd2 b6 7.e4 d×e4 8.Ng5 Bb7 9.Nb×e4 N×e4 10.N×e4 Qc8 11.Be3 c5 12.Nd2 B×g2 13.K×g2 Nc6 with good play for Black. 7.e4 d×e4 We would prefer to maintain the center with 7...Nc6. 8.d×e4 Nc6 9.c3 h6 10.Qe2 Be6 Better 10...e5 to prevent White’s possible pawn advance to e5, freeing the diagonal of his Bg2 and at the same time opening e4 for his knight. 11.Ne1 Qb6 12.h3 Rad8 13.Kh2 Nh7 14.f4 Na5 15.Nef3 Bd7 16.Re1 Qc7 17.Nf1 b6 18.Ne3 Bc6 19.Ng4 Nf6 20.Nf2 Bb7 21.e5 Nh7 22.h4 h5 23.f5(D)

After Petrosian’s maneuvers, typical for a King’s Indian, it appears White has the better game because of his space advantage and better concentration of forces. The text move marks the start of his kingside o ensive, and at the same time opens the diagonal of his queen’s bishop. Clearly Black cannot accept the pawn sacri ce because there would follow 24.Nh3 and 25.Nf4, recovering it with the better game. Reshevsky, in good style and with his characteristic coolness, confronts the danger. 23...Qd7! 340

Forcing White to de ne the destiny of the f5-pawn. 24.e6 Qd5 25.e×f7+ Q×f7 26.f×g6 Q×g6 27.Ng5 An alternative was 27.Nh3 e5 28.Nhg5 (not 28.N×e5 B×e5 29.Q×e5 Rfe8–+) 28...N×g5 29.N×g5 B×g2 30.K×g2 c4. 27...B×g2 28.K×g2 e5 29.Qe4 Rf5 When in time pressure, a grandmaster may not see certain moves, but he never loses his overall concept of the position. It is clear that by exchanging queens Black, with his weak pawns, would fall into a very unfavorable endgame; therefore Reshevsky avoids the simpli cation. And since the white king’s position is also rather insecure, this disadvantage appears to be compensated for to a certain extent. 30.N×h7 K×h7 ½-½; (D)

As is his custom, Reshevsky o ers a draw in a position inferior for him, and once again has the luck to get his proposal accepted. It is interesting to note that Reshevsky never o ers a draw in an equal position and, even more interesting, that there are still grandmasters who keep accepting his “generous” o ers. This was the third game of the tournament which presented such a curious problem, which we will call psychological; the other bene ciaries were the Soviets Averbakh and Boleslavsky. Now it is the young master Petrosian who, for no reason, and with time pressure for his opponent but not for himself, accepts the draw in a promising position worth playing out. But we have one small doubt ... Might it be that Reshevsky, in the few seconds he had left at move 30, had seen this “simple” variation: 31.Nh3 (apparently the most promising continuation) 31...Bf6 (if 31...Nc6 32.Ng5+ Kh8 33.Be3 with the better game for White) 32.Bg5 (not 32.b4 c×b4 33.c×b4 Rd4! 34.Qa8 B×h4) 32...B×g5 33.N×g5+ Kg7 34.Rad1! R×d1 35.R×d1 R×g5 36.Rd7+ Kh8 37.Qa8+ Qg8 38.Rd8 R×g3+ 39.Kf2 Rg2+ 40.Kf3 (the king has no way to escape queenside) 40...Rg3+ 41.Ke4 Rg4+ 42.Kf5 Rf4+ 43.K×e5 Nc6+! 44.Q×c6 Q×d8 45.Qh6+ Kg8 46.Q×f4 Qc7+ with a draw, which perhaps justi ed his o er? (118) Najdorf – Bronstein Nimzo-Indian Defense [E43] 341

Round 17

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 c5 5.Bd3 b6 6.Nf3 Bb7 7.0-0 0-0 8.Bd2 In game 94, Najdorf-Smyslov, I played 8.a3, but anticipating that the Russian masters would have made a special study of that variation, I decide here on the tranquil and classic text move. Later on, against Dr. Euwe in game 163, I played 8.Na4. 8...d6 In game 64, Reshevsky-Smyslov, Black continued with 8...c×d4 and 9...d5, with the idea of preparing the queen’s bishop’s retreat after it’s put to the question by a2a3. 9.Qc2 (D)

Since Bronstein is looking for a ght, I accept the challenge. If 9.a3 then 9...B×c3 10.B×c3 Ne4 11.Rc1 with few prospects for White, for example, 11...Nd7 12.Nd2 N×c3 13.R×c3 d5.

342

David Bronstein 9...Nbd7? I was greatly surprised that Bronstein thought for fteen minutes only to end up making the simplest move on the board. In my opinion, this move is not consistent with the original plan, and may result in Black standing worse. More ambitious in fact was 9...B×f3 10.g×f3 c×d4 11.e×d4 Nc6 12.Be3 with many possibilities for both sides, for example 12...B×c3 (not 12...e5 13.Ne4) 13.Q×c3 and Black would have two continuations: (D)

343

Round 17

(a) 13...d5 14.c5 b×c5 15.Q×c5 Rc8 16.Rac1, and (b) 13...e5 14.d5 Ne7 15.Kh1 Rc8 16.Qd2 Nh5! 17.Rg1 f5. 10.a3 B×c3 11.B×c3 Rc8 12.Nd2 h6 13.Rac1? (D)

A completely unnecessary move. Having gained the bishop pair, I needed merely to reconsider the location of the queen – facing veiled pressure from the Rc8 – along with the standing threats of ...c×d4 and ...d5. The indicated move was 13.b4!, since if 13...c×d4 14.e×d4, and if here14...d5 15.c5. And if Black tries 14...e5 then 15.Qb2, augmenting the bishop pair even more, due to the imminent opening of diagonals. 13...d5 14.b3 d×c4 15.b×c4 Qc7 16.Rfd1 Better 16.Rfe1. 16...Rfe8 17.Nf1 c×d4 18.e×d4 Qf4 At this moment, already very short of time (!) Bronstein proposed a draw and I refused, more for reasons of the clock than for any prospects I might have on the board. 19.Ng3 h5 20.h3 h4 21.Nf1 Ne4 ½-½; (D)

344

Now it was I who o ered the draw, as after 22.B×e4 (necessary against the threat of 22...Ng5) 22...B×e4 23.Qe2, the game is absolutely even. (119) Taimanov – Gligoric Sicilian Defense [B52] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+ Bd7 Also very playable are (a) 3...Nc6 4.0-0 a6 5.B×c6+ b×c6 6.d4 c×d4 7.Q×d4 e5 8.Qd3 Nf6 9.Rd1 Be7 10.Bg5 0-0 11.Na3 Ra7 12.Nc4 Rd7 13.Ne3, SokolskyBotvinnik, Moscow 1946, and (b) 3...Nd7 4.c3 a6 5.Ba4 Ngf6 6.Bc2 b5 7.d4 e5 8.0-0 Be7 9.Nbd2 0-0 10.Re1 Qc7 11.Nf1 Re8 12.h3 Bf8 13.Ne3 g6, Canal-Najdorf, Venice 1948. 4.B×d7+ Q×d7 5.0-0 Nc6 6.Re1 Nf6 7.d4 Boleslavsky-Najdorf, Budapest 1950 saw here 7.c3 e6 8.d4 c×d4 9.c×d4 d5 10.e5 Ne4! 11.Nc3 N×c3 12.b×c3 Be7=. 7...c×d4 8.Bg5 (D) This move was tried in Lilienthal-Najdorf, Budapest 1950, continuing 8...Ng4 9.N×d4 h6 10.Bh4 g5 11.Bg3 h5 12.N×c6 b×c6 13.h3 h4 14.B×d6 N×f2 15.K×f2? e×d6 16.Nd2 0-0-0 with better play for Black. However Taimanov, knowing this variation, does not hesitate to enter it; surely he has prepared some improvement and looks for a chance to put it to the test.

345

Round 17

Instead of 10.Bh4 in the above line, White can play 10.Bc1 with the likely continuation 10...g6 11.N×c6 b×c6 12.f3 Nf6 13.c4 Bg7 14.Nc3 0-0 15.Be3 with the better game for White. But the story of this variation does not end here: it appears that Gligoric also knew it, since his reply 8...d5! came instantly, and the truly nal surprise was Taimanov’s! 8...d5! After this move Black has no problems in the opening; on the contrary, he has the better position with his extra pawn. 9.B×f6 g×f6 10.e×d5 Q×d5 11.Nc3 Qd7 12.Ne4 Although White’s development is complete, it does not compensate for the sacri ced pawn. 12...0-0-0 13.c3 f5 Not 13...d×c3 14.Qb3 with attack. 14.Nc5 If 14.Neg5 e5! 15.c×d4 (not 15.N×e5 N×e5 16.R×e5 f6, or 15.Qb3 f6 16.Nf7 Na5) 15...f6 16.Nh3 e4 17.Nh4 N×d4. 14...Qd5 15.c×d4 e5 16.Rc1 e×d4 Clearly there is no time for 16...Kb8 in view of 17.Qa4 e×d4 18.Na6+. 17.Nd3 Bd6 18.Nfe5 Rhe8 19.N×c6 R×e1+ 20.N×e1 b×c6 Reducing material, Gligoric has lessened the danger to his exposed king, and now, with his extra pawn, it is only a question of time and technique to make it count. 21.Qd3 Kb7 22.b4 Bf4 23.Rd1 Bc7 24.a3 Bb6 25.Nf3 Qe4 26.Ng5 Q×d3 27.R×d3 a5! (D)

346

Gligoric conducts the ending in grand style. 28.N×f7 Rd5 29.Kf1 a×b4 30.a×b4 Ka6 The black king comes forth to decide the game. 31.f4 Kb5 32.Ne5 Bc7 33.Rd1 Bd6 34.Ke2 B×e5 35.f×e5 R×e5+ 36.Kd3 K×b4 37.Rc1 Kb5 38.K×d4 Rd5+ 39.Ke3 c5 40.Rb1+ Ka4 41.Rb7 h5 42.Kf4 c4 43.Kg5 c3 44.K×h5 Rd2 45.g3 R×h2+ 46.Kg5 Rf2 0-1 An interesting game of theoretical value, very well played by Gligoric, who conducted the ending admirably.

347

Round 18

Round 18

Standings after round 18: Smyslov 11½; Reshevsky 10½; Bronstein 10; Najdorf 9½; Boleslavsky and Keres 9; Petrosian 8½; Euwe, Geller and Kotov 8; Gligoric, Szabó and Taimanov 7½; Averbakh 7; Ståhlberg 4½;. Except for Keres and Reshevsky, all the masters repeated their results from the rst cycle, and the erce games demonstrated that their ghting spirit and will to win continued unabated. Only in the case of Dr. Euwe did it seem that it would not be easy to maintain the same energy and much-praised combativeness he had evinced in the rst half of the tournament. It is understood, moreover, that this problem of physical endurance plays as important a role as the masters’ chess ability, and that time pressure – that recurring nightmare – is another decisive factor that in uences the outcome of the games. This was particularly true in almost all the games of this round, in which time, generally badly managed, augmented the nervousness of the players. However, for perhaps the only time in the tournament, Reshevsky was not among those who su ered from the little red ag and, to the contrary, was a calm spectator to the Zeitnot of Averbakh, who only rarely nds himself in such di culties. In this game they played a Nimzo-Indian in which White was accumulating small advantages and Black small mistakes. Apparently, Averbakh was not in good form, and after two or three serious omissions by Black, Reshevsky meticulously prepared a breakthrough and a winning attack. Boleslavsky employed the King’s Indian against Kotov and soon surprised him with an original and logical move of his knight to a5. Later he increased his initiative and gained an evident positional superiority, with e ective control over the d4square. Boleslavsky conducted the ending with exemplary workmanlike technique, and subdued his adversary at move 68. Keres and Szabó played a Sicilian Defense, which quickly became complicated and interesting. After a combination well calculated by both parties, Keres obtained two knights for a rook and two pawns, but made the mistake of entering the endgame, where the minor pieces are usually overmatched. And if White did not have the advantage, he showed that he could still get a draw after calculating very precisely the endgame complications. 348

The game between Smyslov and Dr. Euwe turned out to be as exciting and interesting as that of the rst cycle. The Soviet grandmaster played a Réti System, making a good pawn sacri ce to achieve rapid and e ective development of his pieces. Smyslov got what he aimed for but, playing positionally, he did not notice a promising direct attacking continuation, and later on another completely decisive possibility. These omissions obliged him to play a long technical endgame with its consequent worries and risks, but nally he prevailed. Gligoric-Najdorf was another Sicilian Defense. White played a novelty on move nine, precisely where, according to the Dutch master Kramer, White had a surprising and apparently decisive continuation. However, the game proved both complex and interesting, and ended in a position where despite his apparent inferiority, Black forced the draw. Finally, Bronstein and Petrosian played a King’s Indian in which White used Keres’ 4.Bg5. Black proceeded with good understanding of the position and, after making important decisions in the center, reached the endgame a pawn up. However, this advantage proved insu cient, and understanding this, both adversaries agreed to a draw. (120) Gligoric – Najdorf Sicilian Defense [B91] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 c×d4 4.N×d4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.g3 The continuation 6.Be2 can be studied in games 36 (Smyslov-Kotov), 88 (GellerNajdorf) and 123 (Keres-Szabó). 6...e5 For comments on this opening see game 66, Gligoric-Kotov. 7.Nde2 Be6 8.Bg2 b5! (D)

I repeat Kotov’s move from his game with Gligoric, even though I thought that my opponent would have searched for improvements in White’s system. My insistence was a result of the fact that, considering the position to be without danger, I could await possible novelties calmly. 9.a4!? 349

Round 18

So this is the anticipated novelty! After considering the position I decided to reply 9...b4, and I went for one of my usual walks around the playing hall, when Dr. Trifunovic passed by and said sententiously “Najdorf, you were lost!” The reader can easily imagine my surprise. What could be the decisive move lurking behind Dr. Trifunovic’s words? In what way could White force a win so soon? Naturally intrigued, after the game I analyzed the position and came upon the surprising move that Gligoric could have played, not just against me, but also against Kotov in game 66, where he had continued quietly with 9.0-0. The move in question – pointed out by the Dutch master Kramer, who was covering the tournament as a journalist – was 9.Nf4!?, and I confess that at the board, apart from the logical surprise, it would have made a lot of work for me. However, in my analysis I saw that the play was not absolutely clear, and that any success the move might have was above all psychological. E ectively, after 9.Nf4 e×f4 10.e5 Nbd7 11.e×f6 f×g3, there are two main continuations in which Black defends himself well: (D)

(a) 12.h×g3 N×f6 13.B×a8 (if 13.Bc6+ Nd7 14.B×a8 Q×a8 15.0-0 b4 16.Na4 Ne5 17.f3 h5) 13...Q×a8 14.0-0 b4 15.Na4 h5 16.Bg5 Ne4 17.Qf3 d5 with counterplay compensating for the exchange. (b) 12.f×g3 N×f6 and (b1) 13.B×a8 Q×a8 14.0-0 b4 15.Ne2 (if 15.Na4 Qa7+) 15...Bh3 16.Rf2 Ng4; (b2) 13.Bc6+ Nd7 14.B×a8 Q×a8 15.0-0 Ne5 and Black has counterplay. 9...b4 10.Nd5 N×d5 11.e×d5 Bf5 12.0-0 (D)

350

An extremely interesting position, in which White has developed his pieces more rapidly and I have various di culties: worrying about my weak d-pawn and keeping in mind that, after White castles, he could, with f2-f4 and fxe5, attack my Bf5 with his Rf1. In compensation is the fact that the white d-pawn blocks the diagonal of his Bg2, while mine on e5 prevents the maneuver Ne2-d4-c6. Gligoric’s move here is a bit too routine; more precise was 12.Bd2, after which I would have had to play very carefully not to fall into an inferior position. For example, 12...a5 13.c3 Na6! (if 13...b×c3 14.B×c3 Nd7 15.0-0 Be7 16.f4) 14.0-0 Qd7! 15.f4 f6. 12...Nd7 13.Bd2 Rb8 14.f4 Bg6 15.h3 f6 16.Kh2? Necessary was 16.a5. 16...Be7 17.a5 Qc7 18.c3 b3 19.f5 Obviously, Gligoric could not permit 19...Bc2. 19...Bf7 20.Ra4! (D)

Stopping the threat 20...Qc4. At this moment Gligoric o ered me a draw, but it seemed to me that I stood better and I did not accept. Later, on analyzing the game, I became convinced that my position did not justify such optimism, since even after 20...0-0 21.Nc1 Nc5 and: (a) 22.Ra3 Be8! 23.Be3 Bb5 24.Re1 Bc4 25.B×c5 Q×c5

351

Round 18

26.N×b3 Qf2; or (b) 22.Rb4! (best) 22...Q×a5 23.N×b3 Qc7 the resulting position is only slightly better for Black, con rming that I should have accepted the draw. 20...Nc5 21.Rg4 It is interesting to note that Gligoric could have gone, by transposition, into the above variation by 21.Rb4 0-0. However, with good reason, he prefers rst to weaken my kingside. 21...g6 22.Rb4 g×f5 23.Be3 Not 23.R×f5 because of 23...Bg6 and later ...Bc2. 23...0-0 24.Nc1 Bg6 25.N×b3 R×b4 26.c×b4 Ne4 27.Qe2 Qb7 28.Nd2 ½-½; (D)

This time I o ered the draw and Gligoric, very short of time, accepted immediately. The position is very complex. It may be that White is better, and even though his advantage does not appear easy to exploit, it is possible that in other circumstances and without time pressure, my opponent would not have accepted the draw. This is demonstrated by the following variations: (a) 28...Q×b4 29.N×e4 f×e4 30.Q×a6 Q×b2 (if 30...Bd8 31.Bh6! Re8 [not 31...Rf7 32.Rc1] 32.Qa7 Re7 33.R×f6!) 31.Qb6 Qa2 (if 31...Q×b6 32.a×b6 Rb8 33.Rb1 Rb7 34.Bf1+–) 32.a6. (b) 28...Rc8 29.N×e4 f×e4 30.Bb6 Q×d5 31.Q×a6 Rc2 32.Rf2. (c) But Black nds saving counterplay with 28...N×g3! 29.K×g3 f4+! 30.B×f4 e×f4+ 31.R×f4 f5, for example, 32.Qe6+ Kg7 33.Nc4 Qc7 (if 33...Bg5 34.Q×d6 B×f4+ 35.K×f4 with excellent chances for White) 34.Ne3 Bg5! 35.N×f5+ Kh8 36.Rf1 Bf6! 37.N×d6 Be7 38.Qe5+ Kg8 39.Nf7 Q×e5+ 40.N×e5 Bd6 41.R×f8+ K×f8 42.Kf4 Ke7 43.b5 Kf6 44.b×a6 (best) 44...B×e5+ 45.Ke3 Bb8 (D) and there could follow (c1) 46.b4 Ba7+ 47.Kd2 Be8 48.Bf1 Ke5 49.b5 B×b5 50.B×b5 K×d5 and draws; or (c2) 46.Kd4 Ba7+ 47.Kc4 Bh5 48.Bf1 Ke5 49.b4 Bf3 50.b5 B×d5+ 51.Kb4 Bf2.

352

(121) Bronstein – Petrosian King’s Indian Defense [A53] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 Nbd7 4.Bg5 Bronstein employs Petrosian’s favorite system. 4...h6 5.Bh4 g5 6.Bg3 Nh5 Even at the cost of weakening his kingside, Black eliminates the powerful white bishop. 7.e3 N×g3 8.h×g3 Bg7 9.Bd3 Nf6 10.Qd2 c6 11.0-0-0 Qa5 12.Kb1 Bd7 13.Nge2 e6 A necessary move since Black intends to castle long, which at the moment is not possible: 13...0-0-0 14.Nd5! Q×d2 15.N×e7+. 14.Nc1 0-0-0 15.Nb3 Qc7 16.Qe2 Rhe8 17.e4 (D)

17...c5! Petrosian, with wise discretion, seeks clari cation in the center, in view of White’s threat f2-f4 followed by e4-e5 and Nc3-e4. 18.e5 d×e5 19.d×e5 Ng8 20.f4 g×f4 21.g×f4 f6! Very well played. Now that his king is safe on the other ank, Petrosian decides to blow up the pawn chain to give his king’s bishop some life and to take measures 353

Round 18

against the threat of Nc3-e4. 22.Nb5 B×b5 23.c×b5 Kb8 The last threat was 24.Bg6 Rf8 25.N×c5. 24.Rc1 b6 25.Bg6 Rf8 26.Rhe1 f×e5 27.f×e5 Rd5 28.Be4 R×e5 29.Qc2 Rd8 30.Red1 R×d1 31.R×d1 Ne7 32.Nd2 ½-½; Though a pawn up Petrosian accepts the draw, since he sees no clear way to exploit the small advantage. After 32...Nd5 33.Nc4 Rg5 34.Bf3 complete equality is evident. (122) Reshevsky – Averbakh Nimzo-Indian Defense [E46] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 0-0 5.Nge2 d5 6.a3 Be7 7.c×d5 e×d5 8.Ng3 Commentary on this opening can be found in game 104, Reshevsky-Taimanov. 8...Be6 In the aforementioned game, Taimanov played 8...Re8 here. 9.Bd3 Nbd7 10.0-0 c6 11.Bd2 Re8 2.Qc2 a5 13.Nce2 (D)

A move characteristic of Reshevsky, always trying to give his minor pieces the greatest mobility. 13...Nb6? It is clear that Averbakh wants to leave f8 open for his bishop, but he should play 13...Nf8 without fearing 14.Nf5, because of 14...B×f5 eliminating the “good” knight with the “bad” bishop. 14.Nf4 Bd7 15.Rfe1 Bf8 16.f3 While Black continues his erroneous plan of development without nding adequate squares for his pieces, Reshevsky carries out, slowly but surely, his wellconceived plan of preparing a central break with e3-e4. 16...Bc8 Avoiding momentarily the threat of e3-e4, but the bishop’s value decreases even more. 17.Rac1 g6 18.Nfe2

354

The knight having completed its mission on the kingside, White transfers it anew to support the d-pawn and threaten the advance e3-e4, which Black now cannot prevent. 18...Bg7 19.h3 a4 20.e4 d×e4 21.f×e4 Be6 22.Be3 Bb3 23.Qd2(D)

23...Nfd7 The bad location of the Nb6 is now more evident than ever, since with it standing on f8, as we suggested, Black could now by 23...Qa5 reduce the pressure considerably. However, there was still time to consider playing 23...Nbd7 with the idea of allowing the queen to go to a5. After that there are two possibilities: (a) 24.Rf1 Qa5 25.Nc3 c5; and (b) 24.e5 Nd5 25.Ne4 N×e3 26.Q×e3 Qb6!. 24.Bg5! f6 This weakening of Black’s castled position is what White wanted to gain by the apparent loss of time of his last move. 25.Be3 Nf8 26.h4! Beginning the second phase of the middle game. Reshevsky, after creating exploitable weaknesses, initiates a direct attack. It is evident that the advantages gained by positional play are not always su cient to win the game; at times a forceful maneuver is necessary to break open the position and beat down the last resistance. 26...Bf7 27.h5 Ne6 28.Rf1 Bf8? An ill-fated day for Averbakh who is playing perhaps his worst game of the tournament. The text move must be criticized, as it does nothing but accentuate the very serious kingside weakness, instead of reinforcing the position. Still playable was 28...Nbd7 with the idea of ...Qa5. 29.Rf2 Nd7 Finally! 30.Rcf1 c5 31.d5 Nc7 32.h×g6 h×g6 33.Rf4 b5 34.Rh4 Ne5 35.Kh1 (D)

355

Round 18

The surprises in this game keep on coming! For the rst time the public and players do not see Reshevsky distressed by the hurrying hands of the clock ... but his opponent is! [Interestingly, Bronstein says Reshevsky was in time pressure. - TK] The text, though it appears to be merely a waiting move, has its drop of poison, since White is threatening 36.B×c5 B×c5 (now without check) 37.Qh6; and if 36...g5 37.B×f8 g×h4 38.Qh6 R×f8 39.Nf5 and mate. 35...Qd7? The decisive error in a very delicate, probably lost position. If 35...Qd6 36.Bh6 Be7 37.Bg7+–. 36.R×f6 Simple ... 36...Ng4 37.Bg5! Bg7 Obviously if 37...N×f6 38.B×f6 Bg7 39.B×g7 K×g7 40.Qh6+. 38.Rf4 Ne5 39.Bf6 Eliminating the guardian of the dark squares. 39...B×f6 40.R×f6 Kg7 41.Qg5 Rh8 42.Nf5+ This was Reshevsky’s sealed move at adjournment. It undoubtedly wins, but more e ective was 42.Rf6-f4. 42...Q×f5 43.R×f5 R×h4+ 44.Kg1 1-0 (123) Keres – Szabó Sicilian Defense [B92] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 c×d4 4.N×d4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 e5 7.Nb3 Be7 8.Be3 We would prefer the continuation in game 88, Geller-Najdorf: 8.0-0 followed by f2-f4. 8...Be6 9.0-0 Nbd7 10.f4 Rc8! Better than 10...Qc7, as played in the aforementioned game. 11.Kh1 Other playable lines include 11.a4 Nb6 12.f×e5 d×e5 13.Q×d8+ B×d8 14.Nc5 Nc4!, and 11.f5 Bc4 12.a4 Nb6 13.Bd3 d5! 14.a5 d4. 11...Bc4 12.Nd2 B×e2 13.N×e2 0-0 14.Ng3 d5!

356

White has transferred his queen’s knight intending to post it on the strong f5square, but at the same time Szabó reacts in the center, getting rid of his weak dpawn and activating his king’s bishop. This simple and logical move is also the start of a long variation well calculated by both parties. 15.f×e5 N×e5 Not 15...N×e4 16.Nd×e4 d×e4 17.e6. 16.Bd4! (D)

This is the move Keres saw when he allowed the knight’s liberation with 14...d5!, since if now 16...Nc6 there would follow 17.B×f6 B×f6 18.e×d5 Q×d5 (if 18...Nb5 19.c4 B×b2 20.Rb1) 19.Nde4!, with an ending favorable to White. Or else if 16...Ng6 17.e5 Nd7 18.Nf3, also with the better game. However, there is a pretty resource Keres has not foreseen. 16...Nfg4! Szabó prefers a valiant active defense, rather than a more tranquil continuation that might leave him in an inferior position. 17.Rf4 If 17.h3 Bc5 18.B×c5 R×c5, and if 19.h×g4 Qh4+. 17...Bc5! 18.B×c5 R×c5 19.R×g4 N×g4 20.Q×g4 R×c2 21.Nf3 d×e4 22.Q×e4 R×b2 (D)

357

Round 18

The tally shows a rook and two pawns for two knights, which in material terms can be considered equal. In the middle game the two pieces are preferable, but once in the endgame, the rook is superior. 23.h3 Re8 24.Qa4 Qc8 25.Nf5 Qc6 26.Qd4? (D)

It is evident that White should avoid the endgame where, as we said, the knights are inferior to the rook. Correct was 26.Qg4 Qf6 (not 26...Qg6?? 27.Ne7+) 27.Rd1. 26...Qf6 27.Q×f6 Now White is forced to take, since 27.Qg4 could turn out to be dangerous. For example 27...R×g2 28.K×g2 Q×a1 29.Nh6+ Kf8 30.Qb4+ Re7 31.Nf5 Q×a2+ 32.Kg3 Qe6 and Black has four pawns for the piece. 27...g×f6 28.a4 Reaching a very interesting endgame in which White appears to stand better, but in reality it is he who must play very precisely to get the draw. 28...Rb4 29.a5 Rf4 30.Nd6 Rb8 31.Rb1 Ra4 32.R×b7 R×b7 33.N×b7 Kf8 34.Nd2 Ke7 35.Nb3 Rb4 36.N3c5 f5 37.Kg1 Rb5 38.Kf2 Kf6 39.Nd7+ Ke6 40.Nb6 Ke5 41.Kg3 Rb3+ 42.Kh4 Rc3 43.Nc5 (D)

Keres calculates well the ne points of the pawn ending, in which both opponents queen at the same time, thus reaching a draw. 358

43...R×c5 44.Nd7+ Kd6 45.N×c5 K×c5 46.Kg5! Kb5 47.Kh6 K×a5 48.K×h7 Kb4 49.h4 a5 50.h5 a4 51.h6 a3 52.Kg8 a2 53.h7 a1Q 54.h8Q Qa8+ 55.Kh7 Q×g2 56.Qd4+ Kb3 57.Qd3+ ½-½; (124) Smyslov – Euwe King’s Indian Attack [A07] 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 d5 3.Bg2 Bf5 4.0-0 Nbd7 More to our taste is 4...h6 5.d3 e6 reserving the option of developing the queen’s knight at either d7 or c6, and if 6.Nbd2 Nc6 with equality. 5.d3 c6 Still possible was 5...h6, and if 6.Nbd2 Bh7. 6.Nbd2 h6 7.e4! (D)

A positional sacri ce both correct and interesting, intended to foster immediate development of all the pieces. 7...d×e4 8.d×e4 N×e4 If 8...B×e4 9.N×e4 N×e4 10.Re1 Nef6 11.Nd4 with a strong attack for White. 9.Nd4 N×d2 10.B×d2 Bh7 (D)

359

Round 18

11.Bc3? Up to here grandmaster Smyslov calculated correctly when making the pawn sacri ce at move seven, and with his ne positional sense he foresaw the strategic bene ts and the harmonious deployment of his troops. However – even though we agree with the basic concept – the time had come here to lay aside positional nesse and resolutely play 11.N×c6! b×c6 12.B×c6 Bf5 (if 12...Rc8 13.Ba5, and if 12...Qc8 13.Qf3 Rb8 14.Ba5!) 13.Qf3 Rc8 14.Bc3 with play that amply compensates for the sacri ced material. 11...Qc7 12.Qf3 e5 13.Rfe1 0-0-0 14.Nb3 f6 15.Ba5! Nb6 Naturally, Black does not want to weaken his castled position with b7-b6. For example 15...b6 16.Bc3 Nb8 17.a4 followed by 18.a5. 16.c4 Rd3? (D)

This move is a mistake that accentuates Black’s inferiority. He should have played 16...c5 and if 17.Rad1 Bd6 (if 17...Be7 18.Qg4+ and 19.Q×g7) 18.R×d6 R×d6 19.N×c5 Q×c5 20.Q×b7+ with complicated play. 17.Qh5 Qe7 Now 17...c5 would be imprudent due to 18.Bd5 and the rook has no retreat. 18.Bf1 g6 This move – though it weakens the ank pawns and obstructs the action of the Bh7 – is virtually forced, because the rook nds itself in a critical situation: if 18...Rd8 19.c5, and if 18...Rd7 19.Bh3 f5 20.B×f5 B×f5 21.Q×f5 N×c4 22.Rad1 (threatening 23.Nc5), when if 22...Qf7?? 23.Q×f7 R×f7 24.Rd8#. 19.Qe2 Rd7 If 19...g5 20.Bh3+ (not yet 20.Rad1 because of 20...R×d1 21.R×d1 Bg7 and if now 22.Bh3+ f5, a move which cannot be played after 20.Bh3+!) 20...Kb8 21.Rad1 R×d1 22.R×d1 Bg7 23.B×b6 a×b6 24.Rd7. (D) 20.Qe3! Certainly Smyslov could recover his pawn with 20.Bh3 f5 21.B×b6 a×b6 22.Q×e5 Q×e5 23.R×e5 Bg7 24.Re2, but with good reason he aims to get the maximum bene t from his positional advantage. 360

20...Kb8 21.Rad1 The pawns continue to have no interest for him. 21...Nc8? After the game, Dr. Euwe opined that more resistance was o ered by 21...Bg8 followed by ...Rh7, but his position would still have been very delicate. 22.Bh3 R×d1 23.R×d1 f5 Naturally Black cannot allow 24.Rd7. 24.Bb4! (D)

Smyslov’s plan is perfectly sequenced. First, he weakened the e5-pawn to give more force to this move, which raises the threat of Q×e5+. 24...Qf6 Better was 24...Qc7, on which would follow 25.B×f8 R×f8 26.Q×h6 recovering the pawn and retaining the better position. After the text, an interesting but apparently insu cient line is 25.Bc3 Bg7 26.Nc5 Rd8 27.R×d8 Q×d8 28.B×e5+ B×e5 29.Q×e5+ Qd6 30.Q×d6+ N×d6 31.Nd7+ Kc7 32.Nf6 Kd8 33.N×h7 Ke7 recovering the piece. 25.Bc3 Bg7 26.Nc5 Ka8 27.N×b7!! K×b7 28.Rd7+ Ka8 Not 28...Kb8 29.R×g7 Q×g7 30.B×e5+. (D)

361

Round 18

29.Qc5? Although this move wins, it is surprising that grandmaster Smyslov overlooked the immediately decisive 29.Bg2! threatening 30.R×g7 Q×g7 31.B×c6+ Kb8 32.B×e5+. If Black plays 29...Re8 30.B×e5 R×e5 31.Q×e5!! Q×e5 32.B×c6+ Kb8 33.Rb7+ Ka8 34.Rb6#. This omission cost Smyslov several hours of analysis and another long playing session, since now the game still requires a prolonged ending to reach a conclusion. 29...Nb6 White threatened 30.B×e5. 30.R×g7 Q×g7 31.B×e5 Qd7 32.B×h8 Kb7 33.Bd4 With this the middle game ends, during which Smyslov gained the advantage of a pawn and the bishop pair. Now he must employ his puri ed technique to secure the point. 33...Qe6 34.Bf1 Bg8 35.b3 f4 36.a4 f×g3 37.h×g3 Bf7 38.a5 Nc8 39.Bg2 Qd6 40.a6+ K×a6 41.B×c6 Q×c5 42.B×c5 Nb6 43.Kf1 Be6 44.Ke2 Nd7 45.Bd4 Ka5 46.Bc3+ Kb6 47.Be4 g5 48.Bd4+ Ka5 49.B×a7 Kb4 50.Bc2 Kc3 51.Bd1 Ne5 52.Ke3 Nc6 53.Bb6 g4 54.Kf4 h5 55.Be3 Na5 56.Ke5 Bc8 57.c5 N×b3 58.Be2 Na5 59.Bb5 Nc4+ 60.Kf4 Smyslov tries to avoid having bishops of opposite colors. 60...N×e3 61.f×e3 Kb4 62.Be8 h4 If 62...K×c5 63.B×h5. Black’s only practical chance is to reach the well-known ending of king, bishop and h-pawn against king, in which if the black king reaches h8 the draw is assured. But Smyslov calculates well. 63.g×h4 K×c5 64.h5 g3 65.K×g3 Kd5 66.h6 Bf5 67.Kf4 Bh7 68.Kg5 1-0 (125) Geller – Ståhlberg French Defense [C08] 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 c5 4.e×d5 e×d5 The continuation 4...Q×d5 can be seen in game 83, Averbakh-Ståhlberg. 5.Ngf3 Theoretical commentary on this opening is given in game 97, Szabó-Boleslavsky, which continued 5.Bb5+. 362

5...Nf6 6.Bb5+ Bd7 7.B×d7+ Nb×d7 8.0-0 Be7 9.d×c5 N×c5 10.Nd4 (D)

We arrive at a typical position of the French Defense in which White, having isolated Black’s d-pawn, obtains on d4 an ideal outpost for a piece. White will try to simplify to gain maximum advantage from this circumstance, while Black’s defense is in any case rather painful. However, and without failing to recognize the superiority that allows the rst player a comfortable initiative, we do not believe it su cient to prevail, without some serious error by Black. 10...0-0 11.Nf5 Re8 12.Nb3 Ne6 Ståhlberg does not like 12...N×b3, preferring the text to prevent 13.Bg5. 13.Be3 Qc7 14.c3 Rad8 15.Qf3 Ne4 16.N×e7+ R×e7 17.Rfd1 a6 18.Nd4 g6 19.h4 Ng7 20.g3 f5 If by this move Black further weakens his dark squares, in compensation his pieces will be usefully and harmoniously posted. 21.Kg2 Qe5 22.Rd3 Qf6 23.Rad1 Red7 24.Ne2 Qc6 25.Bd4 Ne6 26.Nf4 N×f4+ In this exchange, Ståhlberg with good reason chooses the piece that pressures his isolated d-pawn; even though the Bd4 has a dominating post, the knight was much stronger. 27.Q×f4 Re8 (D)

363

Round 18

28.Re3 Even in a superior position, Geller nds it somewhat di cult to nd the right breakthrough plan. Against the obvious continuation 28.h5, Black defends himself with 28...Qd6 29.Q×d6 (if 29.Qh6 Re6 – threatening 30...g5 – 30.h×g6 R×g6) 29...R×d6 30.h×g6 h×g6 with two possible continuations: 31.Rh1 Rd7!, or 31.f3 Ng5. 28...Qd6 29.Q×d6 N×d6 30.R×e8+ N×e8 31.Be5 Kf7 32.f3 Nf6 33.Kf2 Ke6 34.Bd4 Ng8 35.Ke3 Ne7 36.Kd3 Nc6 37.Re1+ Kf7 38.a4 Re7 39.R×e7+ K×e7 40.Ke3 Ke6 41.Bh8 h5 ½-½; (D)

Drawn with good reason. In this position, just as White cannot attack the pawns on light squares, neither can Black penetrate the enemy camp, making impossible any attempt to force the game. (126) Kotov – Boleslavsky King’s Indian Defense [E66] 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 c5 Boleslavsky has often shown a predilection for this move. 7.d4 Nc6 8.d5 (D) The moment of strategic decision for the whole game. White – as we have noted on another occasion – must decide between closing the game, as he has done here, or opening it up with 8.d×c5, or else maintaining tension with 8.h3 as in game 158, Ståhlberg-Gligoric.

364

In the second case play usually proceeds 8.d×c5 d×c5 9.Be3, but it turns out, apparently, that Black can equalize without di culty. An instructive example in this regard is Ståhlberg-Szabó, Saltsjöbaden 1952, which continued 9...Qa5 10.Qa4 Q×a4 11.N×a4 b6! 12.Rad1 (not 12.Ne5 N×e5 13.B×a8 Bd7) 12...Ba6 13.b3 Nb4 with good play for Black. 8...Na5! In chess, all principles are relative! Even though this knight is decentralized, it constitutes a constant worry for White, as a result of the force it exerts on the queenside in collaboration with the Bg7 and the b- le which, according to the plan, will be occupied by Black. 9.Qd3 a6 10.Nd2 Rb8 11.b3 b5 12.Rb1 b×c4 13.N×c4 N×c4 (D)

14.Q×c4 Kotov with good reason traded knights, and though it appeared that his was better than that of his opponent, we know that is not so. Now, from a desire to avoid major exchanges and make a ght of it, he recaptures with the queen, but that is not correct. Black’s position had no weaknesses and is in no way inferior. Kotov should have played simply 14.b×c4 to have an opportunity to dispute control of the open le, activating his rook, and in this case the game would have equalized: 14...R×b1 15.Q×b1 Bd7 16.Bd2 Qc7 17.Qc2 Rb8 18.Rb1. 365

Round 18

14...Ne8 From this moment it is noteworthy how Boleslavsky, with precise maneuvers, goes about gradually taking the initiative. With the text move he plans to post the knight on b5. 15.Bb2 Nc7 16.Nd1 Rb4 All the black pieces are developing their maximum o ensive power! 17.Qc2 B×b2 18.N×b2 Bf5! To force the advance of the e-pawn, thus gaining the d4-square. 19.e4 Bd7 20.Nd3 Rd4 21.Rfe1 e5! 22.d×e6 It is evident that White cannot allow the rook on d4 in combination with the threat of f7-f5. 22...N×e6 23.Rbd1 Bb5 24.Nc1 Preserving the knight to dispute the d4-square; otherwise the black knight will be installed there with no possibility of dislodging it. 24...Qa5 25.Bf1 Re8 The last inactive piece enters the game. 26.B×b5 a×b5 27.Ne2 At last Kotov has been able to rid himself of the bothersome rook on d4, but at the same time he has endangered his position, presenting serious, exploitable weaknesses. 27...R×d1 28.R×d1 Ng5 (D)

29.Kg2 Not 29.R×d6 Qe1+ 30.Kg2 N×e4–+. 29...N×e4 30.f3 Ng5 31.R×d6 Qa8 32.Rd3 Ne6 33.Qd2 b4! Boleslavsky keeps up the pressure with tactical threats, and unhurriedly touches on each of the weak points one by one. White must concern himself simultaneously with his a-pawn, with the knight tied down to observation of d4, and with a new enemy making its appearance: the clock! 34.Kf2 Qb8 35.Re3 Qa7 36.f4 Rd8 37.Qc2 Qd7 38.Ke1 Qd5 39.Ng1 Qd4 And after a series of precise maneuvers, Black is on the verge of penetrating the enemy position. (D) 366

40.Qe2

If 40.Ke2 Re8! 41.Qc1(if 41.Qd2 Q×d2+ 42.K×d2 Ra8) 41...Ra8 42.Qb1 c4!. 40...Qa1+ 41.Kf2 Kotov has managed to make his last moves within the time limit, but his position, even with the analysis he and his second will do, cannot be saved. 41...Ra8 Finally gaining a material advantage. 42.Qd3 R×a2+ 43.Ne2 Qd4 44.Kf3 Q×d3 45.R×d3 Kf8 46.Re3 Ke7 47.g4 f5 48.g×f5 g×f5 49.Ng3 Kf6 50.Re5 Nd4+ 51.Ke3 Rc2 52.Nh5+ Kg6 53.Ng3 h5 54.h4 Rc3+ 55.Kf2 Rf3+ 56.Kg2 R×f4 57.R×c5 R×h4 58.Rc4 Rg4 59.Kh3 N×b3 60.Rc8 Nd4 61.Rg8+ Kh6 62.Rh8+ Kg5 63.Rg8+ Kf4 64.N×h5+ Kf3 65.Rb8 Ne6 66.Rb5 Ng5+ 67.Kh2 Rh4+ 68.Kg1 Nh3+ 0-1

367

Round 19

Round 19

Standings after round 19: Smyslov 12; Reshevsky 11; Bronstein 10½; Najdorf 10; Keres and Petrosian 9½; Boleslavsky and Geller 9; Euwe 8½; Szabó, Kotov and Taimanov 8; Averbakh and Gligoric 7½;; Ståhlberg 5. The ght for rst place produced no change in the status quo. The masters in the top places husband their chances conscientiously and often prefer the modest but secure half-point to chasing problematic victories, where they run the risk of losing completely. In this way, from Smyslov, Reshevsky and Bronstein on down to Najdorf, Keres and Petrosian, they advanced step by step on the long 30-round road, maintaining interest in the still unknown nal result. The games of the 19th round were generally interesting and one in particular – Szabó-Reshevsky – kept an enormous number of spectators in suspense as they attentively followed the struggle in the playing hall or on demonstration boards. At times words fail to give a true impression of the collective spirit that gripped the public when Szabó – with more than ample time – went to pick up his queen to give mate in two moves. Reshevsky, having dramatically worsened his position with a decisive error, remained impassive. Suddenly, a general outcry gave vent to the emotions so long suppressed: grandmaster Szabó had overlooked the simple mate! The public and players alike could not shake o their amazement, as they conversed in low voices about Reshevsky’s incredible lucky star. Boleslavsky and Geller played a Sicilian of great theoretical value, which revised the assessment of a variation recommended in Pachman’s Modern Chess Theory. White chose a risky continuation, castling long, and later Geller made an opportune exchange sacri ce, which at least gave him a de nite initiative. However, all this would not have su ced if Boleslavsky had not precipitated matters with a serious error, after which the weaknesses in his position proved decisive. Also theoretically interesting was the game between Euwe and Keres, in which the Dutch grandmaster made an important contribution to the Grünfeld Defense which, truth be told, had already been played two years earlier in Argentina. Keres did not continue in accordance with the demands of the new plan, getting an

368

inferior position. But even so, and even though Dr. Euwe could have won a pawn, he preferred to assure himself of the half-point, accepting a draw. Gligoric employed a King’s Indian against Petrosian and, studious as always, essayed a new idea trying to accelerate the kingside break, despite the fact that White had castled queenside. The attacks developed on opposite anks, and after a series of errors – some prompted by time pressure when Black had a chance to win the game – Petrosian restored the earlier imbalance, imposing his advantage without di culty. Najdorf and Taimanov played a Nimzo-Indian in which White was eager to ght, until with a nonsensical move he ceded the initiative to Black. Later Najdorf made a marvelous pawn sacri ce – the only way to save the game – the aggressiveness of his pieces compensating for the material disadvantage, and reaching a simpli ed ending for the draw. In the games Ståhlberg-Smyslov and Averbakh-Bronstein it was evident that White – with both players of that color low in the standings and badly in need of points – above all pursued a careful policy aimed at avoiding risk and gaining at least the draw. (127) Boleslavsky – Geller Sicilian Defense [B76] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 c×d4 4.N×d4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.g3 A move seldom seen; in this position more customary are 6.Be2, 6.Bc4, or 6.Bg5 (the Richter Attack). 6...Bg4! Recommended by Pachman. The idea is to force 7.f3, with the aim of obstructing the diagonal the king’s bishop is to occupy. 7.f3 (D)

7...Bd7 Pachman in his book Modern Chess Theory recommends 7...N×d4 8.f×g4 Nc6 with, he says, good play for Black. However, Boleslavsky appears not to agree with

369

Round 19

this opinion and does not fear to enter the variation, and his reason may be the fact that Geller never follows Pachman’s advice either! In our opinion, the judgment of both masters is correct, since if 7...N×d4 White will not play 8.f×g4 but rather 8.Q×d4 B×f3 9.Bb5+ Nd7 10.0-0 (D) with these three possible continuations: (a) 10...e5 11.Qd5 Qb6+ 12.Rf2 Bh5 (White threatened 13.Na4) 13.Be3!! Qc7 14.Qb3 etc.; (b) 10...Bg4 11.e5 Qb6 12.Q×b6 a×b6 13.Nd5 etc.; (c) 10...Bh5 11.Qd5 Qb6+ 12.Rf2 Bg6 13.Be3!! Q×e3? 14.Q×b7 Rd8 15.Nd5+–.

8.Be3 g6 9.Qd2 Bg7 10.0-0-0 Boleslavsky decides here on the most risky line, as now Black will castle short, starting a veritable race on both anks. Who will get there rst? In reality, one cannot foresee exactly the development of the attacks, but it is possible that the open c- le gives Black better prospects. In any event, less risky for White was 10.Bg2, after which might follow 10...Ne5 11.b3 Rc8 12.h3 Qa5 13.Nce2 with an even game. 10...0-0 11.g4 The race begins ... 11...Rc8 12.Kb1 Ne5 The knight takes up a strong post, from which it is hard to dislodge without incurring weaknesses. 13.h4 b5! (D) 14.Bh6 With this move, Boleslavsky tries to eliminate the bishop that both defends the black king and also points dangerously at his own castled position, without taking into account that, after the trade of bishops, the restless Geller has the sacri ce ...R×c3!?.

370

It seems better to us to maintain the position with 14.h5! since White cannot accept the b-pawn, as is demonstrated by this lovely variation: 14.Nc×b5 Rb8 15.Nc3 N×f3!! 16.N×f3 N×e4 17.N×e4 B×b2!–+. 14...B×h6 15.Q×h6 R×c3 (D)

A sacri ce of a positional and psychological nature, which in our opinion is rather good, because it forces White to think about the defense of his king, and therefore to regroup his pieces. 16.b×c3 Qa5 17.Qe3 Qa3 18.h5? Interesting was 18.Nb3!? Rb8 19.Be2 with complicated play, for example 19...a5 20.h5? a4 21.Qc1 b4, or else 20.Qc1 Qa4. 18...b4 19.Qc1 Q×c3 20.Qb2 Rc8 21.h×g6 Q×b2+ 22.K×b2 h×g6 (D)

371

Round 19

23.a3?? The decisive error that costs the game. White, being up the exchange for a pawn, should play very carefully, for his pawns are weak and any ill-considered advance will aggravate this weakness. For example, 23.g5 Nh5 with holes at g3 and f4. The correct move was 23.Be2!, and if 23...Rc3 24.a3! R×a3 25.Ra1, but probably best for Black would be 23...a5 and if 24.a3 b×a3+ 25.K×a3 a4 and it is obvious that White does not stand worse. 23...b×a3+ 24.K×a3 N×f3 The base of White’s pawns falls and with it his game collapses. 25.N×f3 Rc3+ 26.Kb2 R×f3 27.e5 N×g4 28.Be2 Rf2 29.B×g4 B×g4 30.Rdf1 If 30.Rd4 Bf5. 30...R×f1 31.R×f1 d×e5 32.c4 Kf8 33.Ra1 Bf3 34.c5 g5 35.R×a7 g4 36.Ra3 Ke8 37.Kc1 f5 38.Kd2 f4 39.Ra6 g3 40.Ke1 Be4 0-1 (128) Ståhlberg – Smyslov Slav Defense [D19] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 d×c4 5.a4 Bf5 The commentaries on this opening can be found in game 34, BoleslavskySmyslov.

372

Vassily Smyslov 6.e3 e6 7.B×c4 Bb4 8.0-0 Nbd7 9.Qe2 Bg6 10.e4 0-0 11.Bd3 Ståhlberg repeats the move Szabó employed against Smyslov, in which game White got ample advantage in the opening. Boleslavsky, for his part, continued 11.e5. 11...h6! Smyslov, a great specialist in this defense, tries after his disagreeable experience with Szabó to improve Black’s system with the text move. 12.Rd1 Qe7 (D)

373

Round 19

13.h3 If 13.Na2 Ba5 14.b4 Bc7 (not 14...B×b4 15.N×b4 Q×b4 16.Ba3) 15.e5 Nd5 and Black has no di culties. 13...Rad8 14.e5 Nd5 15.N×d5 c×d5 16.B×g6 f×g6 17.Bd2 Nb8 18.B×b4 Q×b4 19.a5 Rc8 20.Qd3 g5 21.Qg6 Qe7 22.Rdc1 a6 23.Rc3 Nc6 24.Rac1 Qd7 25.Qc2 Qf7 26.Qd2 Qf5 27.b4 ½-½; (129) Euwe – Keres Grünfeld Defense [D72] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 d5 5.c×d5 N×d5 6.e4 Nb6 Commentaries on the Grünfeld Defense can be seen in game 18, Euwe-Smyslov. 7.Ne2 c5 8.d5 e6 9.0-0 0-0 10.Nec3 (D)

Dr. Euwe studied this position after losing his game with Pilnik at Amsterdam 1950, where he played 10.Nbc3. In his opinion, which has been supported by other recently published analyses, the correct move at this point is 10.a4. However, the Soviet masters do not agree with the Dutch professor’s conclusions, so much so that far from shunning this variation, they have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to enter it! 374

It was after the game with Smyslov that Dr. Euwe revised his analysis of this opening, arriving at the conclusion that the correct move is 10.Nec3. The idea is that in the variation 10.Nbc3 this knight is badly posted, whereas now it is quite the opposite. The Nb1 will come out to a3 when appropriate, to guard the important c4square, and in this way White will be able to develop his last minor piece, the queen’s bishop, to its logical square e3 without fear of Nb6-c4 by Black. 10...e×d5 Apparently, Keres misinterprets Dr. Euwe’s idea, since the exchange of pawns allows White to recapture with his e-pawn, leaving e4 open for a knight, which will automatically give him a positional advantage. In Najdorf-Renato Sanguinetti, Pergamino 1951, Black also played 10...e×d5? 11.e×d5 Na6 12.Ne4! Nc4 (if 12...N×d5 13.Bg5 Qd7 14.Qc1). The reader will note that Dr. Euwe’s idea had already been put into practice in our country two years earlier! 11.e×d5 N8d7 If 11...Na6 we could have reached to position indicated above. 12.Ne4! Nf6 13.Nbc3 Nbd7(D)

If 13...Nb×d5 14.N×d5 N×d5 15.Bg5 f6 16.Q×d5+ Q×d5 17.N×f6+ B×f6 18.B×d5+ Kg7 19.B×f6+ K×f6 20.Rfc1! winning a pawn. 14.d6 It is obvious that Dr. Euwe has a space advantage and the better piece development, as a consequence of Keres’ error at move 10. 14...Rb8 15.Bg5 h6 16.B×f6 B×f6 17.N×f6+ N×f6 If 17...Q×f6 18.Re1 and Black is hard pressed, with White threatening 19.Nd5. 18.Re1 Be6 19.Qf3 b5 20.Qf4 Kh7 21.Rad1 Rb6 Not 21...b4 22.Na4. 22.a3 Re8 23.Ne4 N×e4 24.R×e4 Qd7 25.Qe5 Rd8 26.Q×c5 R×d6 ½-½; (D)

375

Round 19

Dr. Euwe, who has conducted the game in grand style, now accepts a draw when he could have won a pawn and with it some winning chances. For example, 27.R×d6 Q×d6 28.Q×a7 Qd1+ 29.Bf1 and if 29...Bc4? 30.R×c4 b×c4 31.Q×f7+ winning, or else 29...Rd7 30.Qa5 Qc2 31.Re1! Q×b2 32.Q×b5 with a pawn to the good, since Black cannot play 32.Q×a3 because of 30.R×e6. (130) Szabó – Reshevsky Queen’s Gambit Declined [D42] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 c5 5.c×d5 N×d5 6.e3 For analysis of this opening see game 62, Geller-Reshevsky. 6...Nc6 7.Bd3 N×c3?! In this situation in the aforementioned game, Reshevsky played 7...c×d4 8.e×d4 g6 9.B×g6 (as he did also in the rst match with Najdorf, San Salvador, 1952), and since in neither case did he get a satisfactory position, he takes this opportunity to vary. However, this move also strikes us as dubious; the best example comes from Botvinnik-Flohr, Groningen 1946, where Black continued 7...c×d4 8.e×d4 Be7 9.0-0 0-0 10.Re1 Ncb4 11.Be4 Nf6 12.Bb1 b6 13.Ne5 Bb7=. 8.b×c3 Be7 9.Qc2! (D)

376

This move was used often by Hungarian masters, in particular Florian, Szabó’s second, who employed it regularly with success. The idea is very interesting, as it obliges Black to pay particular attention to his h-pawn, and after central pawn exchanges, White may be able to force new weaknesses – after Black castles – with the maneuver Qc2-e2-e4. 9...g6? Correct was 9...h6. 10.h4 Having a solid central position, White can allow himself a diversion on the ank, creating new weaknesses in Black’s kingside, while still reserving the option of castling 10...h5 11.Rb1 Rb8 12.Be4! Szabó takes energetic advantage of Reshevsky’s vacillation, giving his pieces maximum o ensive power. 12...Qc7 13.0-0 Bd7 Black tries to develop his pieces and at the same time delay castling as long as possible, because of his weakened kingside and the possibility of the dangerous sacri ce B×g6. 14.d5! Szabó is in his element! He understands that Black’s weaknesses are best capitalized on by fully opening up the game. The king’s bishop will occupy its best strategic square, and also the queen’s bishop (after c3-c4) will obtain its best diagonal (a1-h8). 14...e×d5 If 14...Ne5 15.N×e5 Q×e5 16.c4 followed by Bc1-b2. 15.B×d5 Bf6 16.Ng5 Another piece goes on the attack, expecting that Reshevsky cannot play 16...B×g5 because of the resulting weakness of his dark squares. 16...Nd8 17.c4 Bc6 18.Ne4 Bg7 19.Bb2 0-0 20.Nf6+ (D)

20...B×f6?? Yet again in time pressure, Reshevsky mechanically takes the checking knight without seeing the consequences. Clearly his position is dramatic and probably lost, 377

Round 19

all the more so when we take into account that Szabó has a long half-hour to think, and Reshevsky only one minute! But evidently, even after the only playable response 20...Kh8, White maintains his enormous positional superiority, for example 21.f4 Qe7 22.Qc3 B×f6 23.Q×f6+ Q×f6 24.B×f6+ Kg8 25.Be7 Re8 26.B×c5 winning a pawn. 21.B×f6?? Unbelievable!! Szabó, who up to now has conducted the whole game in an exemplary manner, misses the opportunity to win a lovely miniature. Surely infected by his opponent’s harrowing haste, the Hungarian grandmaster recaptures the piece, when he had more than enough time to see the simple mate in two: 21.Q×g6+ Kh8 22.B×f6#. With our experience of many years, we understand what happened to Szabó: a momentary confusion – the kind that, to one’s horror, suddenly arises, and of which one can never be entirely free – attributable to many complicated states of mind, especially in temperamental players. This writer recalls that in the game Najdorf-Rosselli, Munich ol 1936, White o ered to “exchange” a queen ... that was not defended! But this, extraordinary though it was, is not the most amazing part of the story: Rosselli, after thinking a long time, picked up his queen, and just when Najdorf expected him to take his own queen to sign his death warrant, the Italian player made a “defensive” move, declining the “exchange.” After Szabó made the text move, a gasp of surprise sounded throughout the hall and the Hungarian master then realized his mortifying error. It is not hard to understand that from there until the end of the game, Szabó played nervously and completely lost the rhythm of the game. 21...B×d5 22.c×d5 Qd6 23.Qc3 Q×d5 24.Rfd1 Qf5 25.e4 (D) 25...Qe6? So great is Reshevsky’s time pressure that he cannot calculate that he could yet save the game with 25...Q×e4, for example 26.Bg7 Ne6 27.B×f8 R×f8 with play that compensates for the exchange, and if 26.Bh8 f6 27.B×f6 Qf5.

26.Bg7 b6 (D) 378

27.B×f8?? Another lost opportunity! Winning automatically was 26.Bh6 f6 29.Qg3. 27...K×f8 ½-½; (D) Szabó, still in a superior position – though not so clearly as before – proposed the draw, because solving the problem of his nerves proved harder than solving the problems on the board. Furthermore, the possible entry of the knight by Nd8-c6-d4, would make it hard for White to realize his advantage. (131) Averbakh – Bronstein King’s Indian Defense [E68] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.Nc3 d6 For 5...c5 see game 173, Ståhlberg-Najdorf. 6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.0-0 e5 8.e4 Re8 9.h3 In game 61, Kotov-Bronstein, White played 9.d5 which was followed by 9...a6. 9...e×d4 10.N×d4 Nc5 11.Re1 a5 12.Qc2 Ng4!? Varying from the more usual 10...c6, as was played in game 91, ReshevskyBronstein. 13.Rd1 (D)

379

Round 19

We would prefer 13.Nb3 as in game 143, Ståhlberg-Reshevsky, in which White got the better game, since it forces exchange of the strong Nc5, and on recapturing by a×b3 the pawn on c4 is supported and no longer constitutes a problem. 13...Ne5 14.Nce2 c6 15.Be3 Qe7 White threatened 16. N×c6 and 17.B×c5. 16.b3 h5 17.Nc3 Both rivals are making tentative moves, and since White initiates nothing concrete, Bronstein waits on events and the game lacks emotion. 17...Ned7 18.Re1 Qd8 19.Rab1 Nf8 20.Red1 21.a3 Nfe6 22.h4 Nd7 23.N×e6 Q×e6 24.Na4 Bf8 25.c5 With this move the game leans de nitely toward a draw and Averbakh sees his purpose accomplished. 25...d×c5 26.N×c5 N×c5 27.B×c5 ½-½; (132) Petrosian – Gligoric King’s Indian Defense [E87] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 e5 7.d5 For 7.d×e5 see game 73 (Boleslavsky-Najdorf ) and the commentary in game 75 (Geller-Gligoric). 7...Nh5 Gligoric insists on this move – despite coming out worse in the aforementioned game with Geller, which also happened to Black in game 100, Kotov-Szabó – because through his own studies, he has been trying to improve the variation. However, it was not until later, in game 171 (Kotov-Gligoric), as well as game 186 (KotovNajdorf), that an important improvement was found with 7...c5. 8.Qd2 f5 9.0-0-0 f4 With good reason, Szabó against Kotov delayed this move – important from the strategic standpoint – to have the option of opening or closing the center, according to circumstances. 10.Bf2 Bf6 The good plan: Black envisions the exchange of his restricted bishop for White’s good one, which exerts strong pressure on the queenside. 11.Nge2 Bh4 12.Bg1 g5 (D)

380

Gligoric varies from his game with Geller with what must be the new idea produced by his analyses. In e ect, by not obstructing with 12...Nd7 the action of his Bc8, Black after the text move is already threatening the break 13...g4. There is another detail as curious as it is interesting: generally, in games with castling on opposite wings the attacks develop conversely, toward the enemy king. But in this case just the opposite occurs! 13.c5 g4 14.Kb1 Not only with the idea of making the king secure, but also opening the c1-square to future piece maneuvers, for example the plan of Ne2-c1-b3, activating the king’s bishop. 14...g×f3 15.g×f3 Na6 16.c6! (D)

16...Nf6 After 16...b6 17.a3 followed by b2-b4 the Na5 would have no prospects. Neither was 16...Qe8 any solution, viz., 17.Nc1 b×c6 18.d×c6 Q×c6? 19.Bb5 Qb7 20.B×a6 Q×a6 21.Qd5+ winning. Furthermore it is understood that 16...b×c6 was no good because of 17.d×c6 and White will utilize the strong d5-square to his great bene t. 17.c×b7 B×b7 18.Ng3?! Despite its attractive appearance, this move is a loss of time. The knight cannot occupy f5 as intended, and if after 18...Bc8 White plays 19.B×a6 – with the idea of 381

Round 19

penetrating with Ng3-f5 – there would follow 19...B×a6 20.Nf5 Ne8 followed by 21...Ng7. 18...Bc8 Clearly not 18...f×g3 19.h×g3 B×g3 20.Qg5+ etc. 19.Nge2 (D)

19...Nc5?? Though Black stood somewhat worse, with this move he falls into a lost position. Correct was 19...Nd7 to be followed soon by Na6-c5 and a7-a5 with a defensible position. 20.B×c5 d×c5 21.Nc1 Qe7 22.Nb3 The c5-pawn is irrevocably lost. The threat is 23.Na4. 22...Bd7 23.Qg2+! Kh8 24.Qg1 This maneuver to win the c5-pawn is as original as it is good! 24...Ne8 25.Q×c5 Nd6 Naturally, down a pawn, Gligoric refuses to trade queens and enter a lost ending. His only chance is counterattack. 26.Rc1 The immediate capture on c7 would be imprudent: 26.Q×c7 Rfc8 27.Qa5 Bf2 with very active play by the two bishops and chances for both sides on the open les. 26...Be8 27.Bh3 a5 Already a pawn down and his position clearly inferior, giving up another pawn is no problem. 28.N×a5 Bf2 29.Q×f2 R×a5 30.Rhg1 Bg6 31.Bf1 Rb8 32.Rc2 Nf7 33.h4 Nd6 34.Bd3 Rb4 35.Rgc1 Rd4 36.Bf1 Qd8 (D)

382

37.Ne2?? Having conducted the whole game in grand style, Petrosian, in time pressure, commits a serious error that could have cost him dearly. The correct move – as he realized later – was 37.b3. 37...Rda4?? The one chance, wasted! Gligoric not only could have salvaged his compromised position, but even had great winning chances with 37...R×e4!! 38.f×e4 N×e4 (threatening 39...Nd2+ 40.Ka1 R×a2+ 41.K×a2 Qa8+ and mate) 39.Qe1 Q×d5(D)

with the following variations: (a) 40.b3 Nd2+ and (a1) 41.Kb2 R×a2+ 42.K×a2 Q×b3+ 43.Ka1 Qa3+ 44.Ra2 Nb3#; (a2) 41.Ka1 N×b3+ 42.Kb2 R×a2+! 43.K×a2 N×c1+ 44.Ka1 Qa8+ 45.Kb1 Qa2+ 46.K×c1 Q×c2#. (b) 40.a3 Nd2+ 41.Ka1 Nb3+ 42.Kb1 (Black has perpetual check in hand) 42...N×c1 43.K×c1 and: (b1) 43.N×c1 Rc5-+, or (b2) 43.Q×c1 Qb3 44.Nc3 R×a3 winning by the threat of 45...B×c2+ and 46...Ra1+;

383

Round 19

(b3) 43...B×c2 44.K×c2 Qe4+ 45.Kb3 Rb5+ 46.Ka2 f3 47.Qd2 f×e2 48.Qd8+ Kg7 and Black will be able to elude the checks, winning. 38.Nc3 Rd4 39.b3 Lucky for him, Petrosian manages to see the move! And he does not repeat the fatal Ke2?? 39...Qb8 40.h5 B×h5 41.Qh4 1-0 After 41...Bg6 comes 42.Qf6+ and 43.Bh3, deciding. (133) Najdorf – Taimanov Nimzo-Indian Defense [E55] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 b6 7.0-0 Bb7 Taimanov has a marked predilection for this line of the Nimzo-Indian, with White as well as Black. 8.Bd2 In game 41, Taimanov-Averbakh, 8.a3 was played, and in game 44, SzabóTaimanov, 8.Qe2. 8...d×c4 9.B×c4 Nbd7 10.Qe2 (D)

Taimanov-Averbakh, USSR ch 1951, continued 10.a3 B×c3 11.B×c3 Ne4 12.Rc1 c5 13.Qe2 Rc8 14.Rfd1 N×c3 15.R×c3 c×d4 16.N×d4 Qe7 17.Rdc1 Nc5 18.b4 Ne4 19.R3c2=. Because this continuation does not provide the initiative I wanted, I switched to the text move, seeking more of a ght without provoking for the moment Black’s king’s bishop, which in its current position is not bothering me. 10...c5 11.Rfd1 c×d4 12.N×d4? This move, though solid, is certainly not consistent with my plan to ght. The correct move for that sentiment was 12.e×d4, reaching a position typical of the Queen’s Gambit Accepted, where in return for his isolated pawn White obtains a space advantage, and is favored by the fact that the Nd7 is badly developed. Certainly, Black’s position is very solid, but soon the real ght will begin, with possibilities for both sides. 12...Qe7 13.Rac1 a6!

384

Now it is Black who has the more active pieces, and logically he wants to prevent the simplifying maneuver 14.Ba6. 14.a3 Bc5 15.Be1 Now I must address the problem of actively developing my queen’s bishop, whereas had I played 12.e×d4, it would already be done. 15...b5 16.Ba2 Rac8 17.f3 Ne5 18.Bf2 Nfd7 19.Bb1 I do not play 19.e4, intending to reserve that square for a piece; also speculating that if Taimanov plays f7-f5 to prevent it, then Bb1-a2 would target the new weakness at e6. 19...Ba7 Better 19...Bb6, but not 19...Nc4 20.a4. 20.f4!? (D)

A very risky move, but it forces my opponent to make a decision. The threat of Ne5-c4 could prove bothersome later on, but at this moment it would be a mistake, e.g., 20...Nc4 21.Nc×b5! a×b5 22.N×b5. For this reason 19...Bb6 was better, as indicated in the previous note. 20...Ng6 21.g3 B×d4! With this move Taimanov refutes my risky 20.f4!?, but it is also evident that he is forced to do it, because otherwise with 21.e4 I would exert pressure. 22.e×d4 Nf6 (D)

385

Round 19

23.d5!! This pretty pawn sacri ce is the only move that saves the game, since after Black’s maneuver Bb7-a8 and Qe7-b7 my situation would be critical. 23...N×d5 If 23...e×d5 24.B×g6 Q×e2 25.B×f7+ R×f7 26.N×e2; and not 23...B×d5 24.B×g6 h×g6 25.N×d5+–. 24.N×d5 e×d5 Not 24...B×d5 25.R×c8 R×c8 26.B×g6 h×g6 27.R×d5+–. 25.Q×e7 N×e7 26.Bc5! Rfe8 27.Ba2 White’s position, with his highly aggressive pieces, compensates for the pawn. 27...h6 28.Kf2 Rc6 29.Bb4? Why not the direct 29.B×d5 N×d5 30.R×d5 Rce6 31.Rd2 with a certain draw? 29...R×c1 30.R×c1 Nc6 Now I cannot recover the pawn (if 31.B×d5 N×b4 32.B×b7 Nd3+) and therefore my position requires me to play very exactly so that Black cannot capitalize on his advantage. 31.Bd2 Nd4 32.Be3 Nf5 (D)

If 32...Nf3 33.Rc7! N×h2 34.Bd4 Bc8 (not 34...Ba8 35.Ra7) 35.B×d5 Be6 36.Bb7.

386

33.Ba7 Rc8 34.Bc5 Rc7 35.Rc3 h5 36.Bb1 Nh6 37.h4 Bc8 38.Bd4 Rc4 39.Bd3 R×c3 40.B×c3 Bf5 41.Be2 g6 42.a4 b×a4 43.B×a6 Bc2 44.Bc8 Kf8 45.Bb4+ ½-½; Here the game was adjourned, and seeing no possibility of avoiding bishops of opposite color, Taimanov o ered me a draw, which I accepted immediately.

387

Round 20

Round 20

Standings after round 20: Smyslov 12½; Reshevsky 12; Bronstein 11½; Keres 10½; Najdorf 10; Boleslavsky and Petrosian 9½; Geller, Kotov and Taimanov 9; Euwe 8½;; Averbakh, Gligoric and Szabó 8; Ståhlberg 5. With the 20th round, two-thirds of the games of this arduous tournament have been played, and even though Smyslov’s unhurried but unceasing march would appear to give him the highest probability of ultimate triumph, still Reshevsky remains on the lookout, as do Keres and Bronstein, striding purposefully, serious and tenacious enemies. Considering only the results in this second cycle, one sees that Keres and Reshevsky are at the fore, with 3½; points out of 5 possible, and that Dr. Euwe and Ståhlberg have gained only one-half and one point, respectively. Another signi cant fact is that Averbakh and Ståhlberg have not been able to win with White; signi cant and curious, but revealing of the di culties even in trying to capitalize on the traditional advantage of the rst move. The games of this round were ghting games, resulting in only two draws out of seven. In this respect Bronstein-Szabó undoubtedly deserves highlighting, a game in which White took satisfying revenge for that well-remembered encounter in the rst cycle. The opening was a Nimzo-Indian, and early on Bronstein played a surprise move of beautiful subtlety. It is truly extraordinary, the passionate eagerness of the Russian grandmaster to extract the most deeply hidden possibilities from every opening! Though Szabó’s response was perhaps not the best, he defended himself rmly, and White could only retain the advantage of the rst move and the bishop pair. But later on, when it seemed that Black had escaped all danger, Bronstein made a surprising pawn sacri ce which, in time pressure, his opponent accepted. After two successive errors by the Hungarian master the game was adjourned, in a position favorable to Bronstein despite his material disadvantage, and in fact, on resumption of play he prevailed at move 50. Taimanov came back to beat Petrosian in a splendid game that later deserved the Second Brilliancy Prize. White gained several advantages against the Nimzo-Indian, while Petrosian showed a certain indecisiveness and on move 23 committed a 388

decisive error. From that point to the nal move, Taimanov executed a series of the most exactingly precise moves – among them a queen sacri ce – that gave him a beautiful and spectacular triumph. The game between Reshevsky and Dr. Euwe was also a Nimzo-Indian, in which the American grandmaster applied the move 11.Re1 which Averbakh had played against him in game 17. Black varied from what Reshevsky had done on that occasion, but his attempt was duly refuted. From that point White gradually increased his advantage, prevailing in grand style. Ståhlberg turned again to the Orthodox Defense – so rare today in master tournaments – this time against Keres, and after losing a tempo, stood worse. Keres maneuvered with a clear positional understanding, and launched an attack in an interesting ending of queens and rooks. Time pressure caused both players to commit errors, above all Ståhlberg, who at move 31 had a defense as simple as it was sound. After that, the rst player was able to realize his advantage without trouble. Geller-Kotov was of theoretical importance: a Nimzo-Indian in which White lost a tempo in the opening for the purpose of preserving his bishop pair. This abetted Black’s development, and though even after a second error it could not be said that White was de nitely lost, the third error proved decisive. Gligoric and Averbakh played a Sicilian also of great theoretical interest, in which Black revived a continuation discarded by theory. Even though at a certain point Black did not make the correct move, Gligoric also overlooked the best continuation, and so the game slipped to a draw. Finally, the tournament leader, Smyslov, played passively against Boleslavsky’s King’s Indian, and seeing at a certain moment that the initiative was in his adversary’s hands, he tried to precipitate a draw. Sure enough, Boleslavsky somewhat hastily accepted this result, and despite his plausible point of view in conceding it, the nal position of the game was favorable to Black and justi ed a more ambitious policy. (134) Taimanov – Petrosian Nimzo-Indian Defense [E58] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 c5 5.Bd3 0-0 6.Nf3 d5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.a3 B×c3 9.b×c3 b6 10.c×d5 e×d5 11.Ne5 (D)

389

Round 20

One of the many ideas we have commented on earlier in this typical NimzoIndian position. We think it not idle to recapitulate the di erent continuations various masters have employed at this point: 11.a4 (Taimanov himself ), 11.Nd2 (Dr. Euwe), 11.Bb2 (Najdorf ), and also 11.d×c5 b×c5 12.c4 (Reshevsky-Najdorf, second match, Buenos Aires 1953). The idea of the text is to carry out as quickly as possible the plan of f2-f3 and e3e4, with the objective of dominating the center and at the same time getting the queen’s bishop into play. But since in this variation White, with his bishop pair, is obliged to attack, to permit the exchange of this knight considerably reduces his o ensive force. With this in mind, the plan of retaining the knight – though it retards the aforementioned pawn advance – appears more logical, as is well illustrated by the example of Najdorf-Reshevsky, second match, Buenos Aires 1953: 11.Bb2 c4 12.Bc2 Ne7 13.Nd2 Bf5 14.f3 Re8 15.Re1 with the better game for White. 11...Qc7 Since b7-b6 has already been played, we would prefer 11...Bb7 to dominate the long diagonal and thus make White’s possible e-pawn advance more di cult. On the other hand, very complicated is 11...N×e5 12.d×e5 Nd7 13.f4 c4 14.Bc2 Nc5 15.f5!? Re8 16.Qd4 Qe7 17.e6! f×e6 18.f6 g×f6 19.R×f6 with, we repeat, complicated play, but in White’s favor. 12.N×c6 Q×c6 13.f3 Be6 14.Qe1 Nd7 15.e4 (D)

390

With all the speed he had hoped for, Taimanov carries out his plan. 15...c4? Much better was the immediate 15...f5 – as is played later – without closing the queenside, retaining the option of opening up the game when appropriate and obtaining counter-chances. Petrosian must have made the text move fearing 16.c4, which appears to win a piece. However, Black can defend himself well: 15...f5! 16.c4 (if 16.e×d5 Q×d5 17.Be3 Ne5!) 16...f×e4 17.f×e4 (if 17.c×d5 B×d5 18.f×e4 R×f1+ 19.K×f1 Re8) 17...d×c4! 18.d5 Qd6 19.d×e6 (if 19.B×c4 Ne5 20.Be2 Bg4 21.Bb2 B×e2 22.Q×e2 Rae8 with good play for Black) 19...Q×d3 20.e×d7? R×f1+ 21.Q×f1 Qd4+o. 16.Bc2 f5 17.e5 Rf7 18.a4 a5 19.f4 b5 20.a×b5 Q×b5 21.Ba3 White’s advantage starts to become clear: while the a-pawn is Black’s only visible compensation, it is hard to advance it, whereas White’s attack on the kingside progresses slowly but surely. 21...Nb6 22.Qh4 Qe8 23.Rf3 Nc8?? (D)

The decisive error. Now Taimanov shines in an elegant nish that earned this game the Second Brilliancy Prize. Black should have at all costs played 23...a4, and even though White would have maintained his pressure, no clear plan to force the win is apparent, for example if 24.Rh3 g6 25.Qh6 Ra6! 26.Rg3 Nc8 27.h4 Na7 28.h5 391

Round 20

Rg7 and Black can defend the kingside while still maintaining good prospects on the other ank thanks to his passed pawn. 24.Ba4! This simple and beautiful move was surely unnoticed by Petrosian. Clearly he cannot reply 24...Q×a4 25.Qd8+, nor 24...Bd7 25.e6+–. 24...Rd7 25.Rb1! Taimanov is in no hurry to win the exchange, having seen farther. 25...Qd8 26.B×d7!! (D)

26...Q×d7 The queen sacri ce cannot be accepted in view of the following continuation: 26...Q×h4 27.B×e6+ Kh8 28.B×d5 Ra7 29.Rb8 Rc7 30.Bd6 Qd8 31.Be6 Rc6 32.d5+–. 27.Rg3 Na7 28.Be7 Bf7 29.Qg5 Bg6 30.h4 Nc6 31.Ba3 Nd8 32.h5 Ne6 33.Qh4 Bf7 34.h6 g6 35.Qf6 Qd8 36.Be7 Qc7 (D)

37.R×g6+!! h×g6 No good was 37...B×g6 38.Q×e6+ Bf7 39.Qf6 with mate inevitable. 38.h7+ 38...K×h7 39.Q×f7+ Ng7 40.Kf2 1-0 For this beautiful denouement, grandmaster Taimanov was awarded the Second Brilliancy Prize, given to him, as to Najdorf, by the distinguished journalist François 392

Le Lionnais. (135) Gligoric – Averbakh Sicilian Defense [B67] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 c×d4 4.N×d4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Qd2 a6 The various theoretical lines of this opening are discussed in game 35, KotovGeller. For 7...Be7 see also game 60, Boleslavsky-Gligoric. 8.0-0-0 Bd7 h6 10.Bh4 N×e4! (D)

Curious! Averbakh, who surely must have prepared to play this variation, uses a move discarded by the theoreticians, and it seems he is right. One can never pronounce a nal, de nitive verdict on a variation, even after it has been “archived” for many years, when many times the inextinguishable spark of the young masters will infuse it with new life and make it the great theoretical surprise of a tournament. This is a typical case. 11.Qe1! Recommended by theory. Tartakower-Najdorf, match 1935, continued 11.N×e4 Q×h4 12.N×c6 B×c6 13.N×d6+ B×d6 14.Q×d6 Rd8 15.Q×d8+ Q×d8 16.R×d8+ K×d8 17.Rg1 g5! with the better endgame for Black. 11...Nf6 12.Nf5 Qa5 If 12...Qb8 13.B×f6 g×f6 14.g3 e5 15.Ne3 Be7 16.Ncd5 with advantage. 13.N×d6+ B×d6 14.R×d6 0-0-0 15.Qd2 (D)

393

Round 20

Theory, in the wake of the game Richter-Szily, Stuttgart 1939, advises 15.B×f6 g×f6 16.Be2, believing White to have an advantage. However, Averbakh is of a completely di erent opinion. According to his analysis, after 15...Ne7 and 16...Bc6 as in the game, Black gains equality easily. In our opinion, the studious Soviet master is correct. 15...Ne7 16.Bd3 Bc6 17.R×d8+ R×d8 18.Rd1 Qh5 And Black’s equality is a fact! 19.g3 Nf5? A pity that this error spoils all his study! Correct was 19...Qc5. 20.B×f6 g×f6 21.Qf2? Interesting and better than the text was 21.g4! Q×g4 22.B×f5 Q×d1+ 23.N×d1 R×d2 24.K×d2 e×f5 with an ending clearly superior for White and good winning chances. 21...Nd4 22.Be4 If 22.B×a6 b×a6 23.R×d4 R×d4 24.Q×d4 Q×h2 25.Q×f6 Q×g3 and White gains nothing. 22...Qc5 23.Kb1 Black was threatening 23..Nb3+. 23...f5 24.B×c6 Q×c6 25.a3 Clearly not 25.R×d4?? Qh1+ 26.Rd1 Q×d1+ 27.N×d1 R×d1#. 25...Qf3 26.Qg1 Nc6 27.R×d8+ K×d8 28.Kc1 Kc7 29.Kd2 h5 30.Qe3 Q×e3+ 31.K×e3 Kd6 32.Nd1 f6 33.Kd3 Ne7 34.c4 h4 35.b4 h×g3 36.h×g3 b6 37.Ne3 Nc6 38.Nc2 a5 39.Kc3 a×b4+ 40.a×b4 Nb8 41.Nd4 Na6 42.Kb3 Nc7 ½-½; A just result, since equality is complete and obvious. (136) Bronstein – Szabó Nimzo-Indian Defense [E50] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 c5 For 4...b6 see game 14, Gligoric-Taimanov. 5.e3 0-0 6.Be2 Though this is a known move – which at rst looks less logical than the usual 6.Bd3, where the bishop is clearly more active – it has its basis, and a rather profound 394

one at that. The reader should always bear in mind that the chess master does not adopt – especially in the opening – just any move handy, but wants each move to be part of a plan, with a guiding idea behind it. So much so that even grandmasters may fall victim to their own overly risky convictions, continuing to play as if a new move has made no di erence in the position. What, in this case, for example, is the di erence between the active development of the bishop on d3 and the more passive on e2? Not just Szabó in this game but also the great theoretician Dr. Euwe (against Gligoric) fell victim to this simple move, mechanically playing 6...d5 and then 7.0-0 Nc6 8.c×d5 c×d4 (Szabó) and 8...e×d5 (Euwe). In the latter game White was able to transpose into a Queen’s Gambit Accepted with colors reversed and two extra tempi, since Black’s king’s bishop recaptured the white c-pawn after already having moved to b4, the other tempo coming from the fact of White moving rst. A very subtle detail, in one of the most commonly played openings today!

Lasló Szabó 6...d5 Per our comments above, we would prefer 6...b6. 395

Round 20

7.0-0 Nc6 8.c×d5! c×d4 For 8...e×d5 see the aforementioned game 150, Gligoric-Euwe. 9.d×c6 d×c3 10.Qb3! Qe7 (D)

Not 10...c×b2 11.B×b2 Qe7 12.B×f6 g×f6 13.Rab1+–. 11.Ne5! Bronstein prefers a positional advantage and better development to winning a pawn but giving up the initiative. For example 11.b×c3 Bd6 12.c×b7 B×b7 with good play for Black. 11...Bd6 12.Nc4 c×b2 13.B×b2 Bc5 With his ne maneuvers, White has achieved his aims, while Black is a bit behind in development as a result of making three moves with the king’s bishop. However, and despite the extreme di culty of the position, Szabó does not lose the thread and defends himself in the best manner. 14.Bf3 Nd5 15.Ne5 b×c6 16.e4 Bronstein harasses his opponent’s best-posted pieces! 16...Nf6 17.Rfc1 Bd7 18.Qc3 Bb4 19.N×c6 B×c6 20.Q×c6 Rad8 21.Rc4 To summarize: Bronstein has played the opening in a very original manner, and even against Black’s best defense, has managed to gain the initiative and the bishop pair. 21...Rd2 22.Bc1 Rd7 23.Be3 Bd6 24.Qa6 Rfd8 25.Rb1 Ne8 26.g3 Be5 27.Kg2 h6! Not just to give the king some air, but also with a deeper idea, as will be seen. 28.Rcb4 Kh7! 29.Rb7 Nd6 (D)

396

30.R×d7 Now we understand 27...h6! and 28..Kh7!, since if instead 30.R×a7 R×a7 31.Q×a7 Q×a7 32.B×a7 Ra8 recovering the pawn, whereas if the king were still on g8 then White would win with 33.Rb8+!. 30...R×d7 31.Bc5 Rc7 32.Ba3 Qd7 33.Rc1 R×c1 34.B×c1 Bd4 A very important move, to prevent 35.Be3. 35.e5!? (D)

Just when it looks like Black has navigated through all the dangers of his di cult position, Bronstein launches one of his trademark strikes, creating again the “climate of suspense” that charges almost all his games. 35...B×e5 Pressed for time, Szabó could not calculate this pawn sacri ce in all its details, but declining it was also interesting. For example 35...Nf5 and if 36.Qd3 g6 37.Be4 Qa4 38.B×f5 g×f5 39.Qd2 B×e5!=. 36.Be3 Nc8 37.a4 Bb8 White threatened 38.Bb7 Nd6 39.Bc6 winning. 38.a5 Nd6? An almost decisive error. It is a true pity that Szabó, famous as an aggressive player, should here, after having distinguished himself on defense in a very di cult 397

Round 20

game, spoil all his e orts. The correct line was 38...Ne7! and if 39.Bb7 Nd5 40.B×a7 B×a7 41.Q×a7 Qa4 with a draw, since 42.a6 Qe4+ etc. 39.Bf4 f6 40.Qd3+ Kg8? Better 40...Kh8 immediately. 41.a6 (D) A most curious position, worthy to represent this game, at the point where play was adjourned. At rst sight it appears that Black, with his material advantage, should not lose, but after deep analysis, not only Bronstein but his opponent said that it was very di cult for Black to keep up his resistance.

The white queen and light-square bishop will be able to penetrate, in e ect “shrinking” the adverse pieces, resulting in ample compensation for the small material disadvantage. 41...Kh8 42.Qb3 Qe8 Interesting was 42...Bc7!? 43.Be3 Qc8 44.Bb7 Qb8, but Black would have an extremely restricted position, in which nding a good move is no easy thing. 43.Bh5 Qg8 (D)

44.Bf7!! 398

1-0

This move escaped Black’s notice. 44...Q×f7 45.Q×b8+ Ne8 46.Qb7 Qh5 47.h3 Kh7 48.Q×a7 e5 49.Be3 e4 50.Qe7 A positional jewel by grandmaster Bronstein.

(137) Reshevsky – Euwe Nimzo-Indian Defense [E59] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 c5 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 0-0 7.0-0 Nc6 8.a3 B×c3 9.b×c3 d×c4 10.B×c4 Qc7 11.Re1 Reshevsky is very partial to this move, which Averbakh employed against him in game 17, and takes this opportunity to put it to the test. 11...e5? Here Dr. Euwe varies from Reshevsky’s 11...Rd8 in the Averbakh game, where Black’s inferiority resulted from later inaccuracies and not from that move. Dr. Euwe’s move, in our opinion, is an error, as Reshevsky demonstrates, refuting it in magni cent style. 12.d5! (D)

12...e4 If 12...Na5 13.d6! Qc6 14.N×e5 Qe4 15.d7 N×d7 (not 15...Q×e5 16.d8Q) 16.N×d7 B×d7 17.Bd5 with positional advantage for White. With this inferiority, it is possible that Black should have adopted Reshevsky’s plan against Averbakh, with 12...Rd8 13.e4 Na5 followed by Nf6-e8-d6. 13.d×c6 e×f3 14.Q×f3 Bg4 15.Qg3 Q×c6 16.e4! Bh5 If 16...Be6 as in Wexler-Shocrón, Argentine Ch 1953, there would follow 17.Bd3 Rfd8 18.c4 N×e4 19.B×e4 Q×e4 20.Bg5 Q×c4 21.Rac1 Qd5 22.B×d8 R×d8 23.Qc7+–. 17.e5 Nd5 18.a4! (D)

399

Round 20

Preparing 19.Qg5, and on 19...Bg6 20.e6! Nb6 (not 20...f×6 21.R×e6) 21.Bb5, followed by e6-e7. 18...a6 19.a5 White threatens 20.Bg5, after which Black would have enormous di culty nding a good move; for example 20...Bg6 21.Qf3. 19...b5 20.a×b6 N×b6 21.R×a6 Reshevsky calculates well, seeing that after this exchange, his king’s bishop will not be trapped. 21...R×a6 22.B×a6 c4 23.Qh4 Ra8 24.Be3! Using the opportunity to develop his last piece, since his Ba6 cannot be captured in view of the black king’s lack of air. 24...h6 25.Q×h5 R×a6 26.Bd4 Nd5 27.Qg4 Qe6 28.Qf3 Ne7 29.h3 Qd5 30.Q×d5 N×d5 31.g3 Nc7 32.Rb1 Ne6 33.Rb8+ Kh7 34.Rc8 It is worth noting with what simplicity and logic the American grandmaster goes about imposing his advantage. 34...Ra4 35.Be3 Ng5 36.Kg2 Ne4 37.Bd4 Nd2 38.e6! f×e6 39.Rc7 Kg6 40.g4 1-0 (138) Keres – Ståhlberg Queen’s Gambit Declined [D61] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Nf3 0-0 7.Qc2 c6 (D)

400

Grandmaster Ståhlberg, a great expert on the Orthodox Defense, chooses here a continuation often played but less usual than 7...h6 8.Bh4 c5 9.c×d5 N×d5 10.B×e7 Q×e7 11.N×d5 e×d5 12.d×c5 N×c5 13.Be2 Be6 14.0-0 Rac8= (analysis by Pachman). The text variation was tried out in the Alekhine-Capablanca wch match, Buenos Aires 1927. 8.Rd1! Very risky is 8.0-0-0!? Re8 9.Bd3 d×c4 10.B×c4 Nd5, or else 8...a6 9.Bd3 d×c4 10.B×c4 b5. 8...Re8 We would prefer 8...b6! or 8...a6. 9.a3 d×c4 It is still preferable to wait for White’s king’s bishop to move so that this move will gain a tempo, e.g., 9...a6 10.h3 Qa5 11.Bd3 h6 12.Bh4 c5! with a satisfactory game for Black. 10.B×c4 Nd5 11.B×e7 Q×e7 12.0-0 N×c3 13.Q×c3 b6 14.Ne5!(D)

14...Bb7 If 14...N×e5 15.d×e5 Bb7 16.Rd6 dominating the le. Black now stands worse, and the manner in which Keres goes about augmenting his advantage is very interesting and instructive. 401

Round 20

15.f4 N×e5 Now Black nds himself forced to trade this knight because of the strong threat of 16.f5. If White should play 16.d×e5 there would follow 16...Rad8, contesting the le, but Keres logically recaptures with the f-pawn, opening another dangerous le. 16.f×e5 c5 17.Qe1 Be4 Ståhlberg, who has come out worse from the opening, intends to bring this bishop over to g6 to reinforce his defenses. 18.Rf4 Bg6 19.h4 c×d4 20.e×d4 Rac8 21.Qe2 (D)

21...Rc7 Interesting was 21...Bh5!? 22.Q×h5 R×c4 23.Rd3! Rc7 24.Rg3 Kh8 25.Rfg4 Rg8 26.Rg5, when the threat is 27.Q×h7+ and mate, and if 27...h6 then equally 28.Q×h6+. But Black, by playing 26...g6, would maintain at least an equal position. 22.Rdf1 h5 23.R1f3 Rec8 24.Bd3 B×d3 25.R×d3 g6 26.Rg3 Kh7 27.Rg5 Threatening 28.R×h5+ g×h5 29.Q×h5+ Kg7 30.Rg4+ Kf8 31.Qh8#. 27...Qf8 28.Qe4! With the dual intent of playing 29.R×h5+ or supporting advance of the d-pawn and ridding himself of that weakness. 28...Qh6 A sad but necessary location for the queen. 29.d5 e×d5 30.Q×d5 Qf8 Ståhlberg has to nd “only” moves to deal with White’s direct threats. 31.e6? (D)

402

Both adversaries, short of time, commit serious errors. Keres, who up to now has conducted the game admirably, capitalizing on the small inaccuracies of the Swedish grandmaster, gives him with this move a chance to save himself. The indicated move was 32.Kh2!, getting away from possible check and avoiding the exchange of queens while leaving Black cramped, so as to nish him o later. 31...Qc5+ Time pressure, as much as bad luck! Salvation lay in 31...f5 (a move the hand should make by itself) and if 32.b4 Qf6 eliminating all risks. Probably, in that case, it would be Keres who seeks a draw with 32.Rf×f5 g×f5 33.R×h5+ Kg6 34.Rg5+ and perpetual check, since if 34...Kh6 35.Qf3. 32.Q×c5 b×c5 33.e×f7 The remainder, with an extra pawn, o ers White no di culties. 33...Kg7 34.f8Q+ R×f8 35.R×f8 K×f8 36.R×g6 c4 37.Rg5 Rb7 38.R×h5 R×b2 39.Rc5 Rc2 40.Kh2 Ke7 41.h5 Here the game was adjourned, and on resumption it took only one move for White to conclude matters. 41...c3 42.Rc6 1-0 If 42...Kd7 43.h6 K×c6 44.h7 R×g2+ 45.K×g2 c2 46.h8Q c1Q 47.Qc8+ winning. (139) Smyslov – Boleslavsky King’s Indian Defense [A48] 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Bf4 Chess masters are ever true to their style! Smyslov, who has his own personal line against the King’s Indian, systematically avoids the normal continuations, and moreover, with a one-point lead over his nearest rivals, he wants to avoid unnecessary risks. 3...Bg7 4.Nbd2 d6 5.h3 In accord with the system employed by White, this move is necessary, since if 5.e3 Black could trade o the powerful bishop with 5...Nh5. 5...0-0 6.e3 c5! In view of Smyslov’s passive play, Boleslavsky seeks to open the long diagonal for his king’s bishop, and in so doing Black will have no trouble immediately equalizing 403

Round 20

the game. 7.Be2 Nc6 8.Bh2 c×d4 9.e×d4 Bd7 10.0-0 Rc8 11.Re1 a6 12.Bf1 b5 13.c3 Na5 Little by little, Black has gained the initiative. 14.Ng5 Re8 15.Nde4 Understanding that his opponent has found the correct plan against his passive deployment, Smyslov sees no better alternative than to try to precipitate a draw. 15...N×e4 16.N×e4 Nc4 17.Rb1 ½-½; (D)

Undoubtedly a premature decision, and it is hard to understand how Boleslavsky, having obtained the better prospects, could accept the draw proposed by his opponent. Asked about this after the game, Boleslavsky replied “Although my position was somewhat superior, I considered it very di cult to realize anything from it, especially against a grandmaster like Smyslov, who is outstanding in inferior positions ...” So, an opinion at once reasonable and debatable! (140) Geller – Kotov Nimzo-Indian Defense [E59] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 c5 5.Bd3 0-0 6.Nf3 d5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.a3 B×c3 9.b×c3 d×c4 10.B×c4 Qc7 11.Qc2 e5 12.Ba2 (D)

404

With this move we arrive at a position from game 54, Taimanov-Euwe, in which White was bested in the opening. Very interesting, and apparently better, is 12.Bd3 as Bronstein played (with some transposition of moves) against Dr. Euwe in game 39. Black replied 12...Re8, after which came 13.e4!. In the notes to that game we mentioned Euwe’s opinion that the correct move was 12...Qe7, and ourselves suggested the possibility of 12...Bg4. To complement that analysis we append this variation: 12.Ba2 Bg4 13.N×e5 N×e5 14.d×e5 Q×e5 15.e4 Rfe8 16.f3 Be6 17.B×e6 Q×e6 18.c4 Nd7 19.Bb2 Nb6 20.Rac1 Rad8 21.a4 a5=. 12...Bg4 13.N×e5 N×e5 14.d×e5 Q×e5 15.e4 Rfe8 16.Bb1? (D)

As we indicated above, correct is 16.f3, but it is understandable that Geller wants to retain the bishop pair. A good policy, as a general rule, but this position does not allow it, and the loss of time occasioned by the text move will be the cause of future defeat. 16...Rad8 17.f3 Bd7 18.Bb2 Bc6 Kotov has developed his pieces more rapidly, and with good reason does not play the seemingly obvious 18...c4 to shut in the Bb2, because then the bishop will return to life anyway by the maneuver Bb2-c1-e3-d4. 19.Ba2?

405

Round 20

And Geller keeps on losing tempi ... In chess it is very important to recognize in time the consequences of a mistaken plan, without deceiving one’s self with the illusion of an advantage one has lost. Here White should play 19.c4, and on 19...Qg5 20.Bc1 Qe5 with a probable repetition of moves, or if Black tries 20...Qh5 then 21. Be3 with a satisfactory defense. 19...Nh5 20.Rad1 Nf4 (D)

21.Rd2?? Despite all White’s inexactitudes, it still takes a serious mistake like this to lose the game! In all these games, we try to explain to the reader that if one player wins, it is not only because he played well, but also that the opponent committed errors. This justi es in part the high number of draws in grandmaster tournaments, where the extraordinary skill of the participants reduces considerably the number of serious errors, and therefore the majority of games end without inclining to either side. In this position, clearly inferior for White, there still existed the saving resource of 21.R×d8 R×d8 22.Rd1 Re8 23.g3 Nh3+ 24.Kg2 Ng5 25.Bd5. But we do not believe this variation could have escaped Geller’s analysis, except that he wanted to seek more of a ght – in accordance with his aggressive temperament – without noticing his rival’s simple and strong reply: 21...Ba4! 22.Qc1 Qg5 With this Kotov wins a pawn, but more e ective seems 22...Nd3! 23.Qb1 (if 23.Qa1 c4 24.Bb1 Qc5+ 25.Kh1 Qe3) 23...c4! 24.Kh1 Qc5 25.Re2 Re6. 23.Bd5 If 23.Kh1 Nd3. 23...N×d5 24.e×d5 R×d5 25.R×d5 Q×d5 26.c4 While this move does liberate the bishop, on the other hand it puts the cpawn on a light square, where it will be exposed to attack by the enemy bishop. 26...Qd3 27.Re1 f6 28.R×e8+ B×e8 29.Qc3 Qe2 (D) Black still cannot exchange queens and enter an opposite-color bishop endgame, because his advantage will not be great enough to win; for example, 29...Q×c3 406

30.B×c3 Bf7 31.Be1 B×c4 32.Bf2 b6 33.Bg3.

30.Bc1 Bf7 31.Qd2 Qe7 32.Qe3 Kf8 Now yes. In this position the queen trade will be useful, because along with the material advantage the black king will arrive in time to defend the queenside. 33.h4 Q×e3+ 34.B×e3 b6 35.a4 Ke7 36.a5 B×c4 37.a×b6 a×b6 38.Kf2 Kd6 39.Bf4+ Kc6 40.Ke3 Bf7 41.g4 b5 42.h5 b4 0-1

407

Round 21

Round 21

Standings after round 21: Smyslov and Reshevsky 12½; Bronstein 12; Keres 11½; Najdorf 10½; Kotov and Petrosian 10; Boleslavsky 9½; Averbakh, Euwe, Geller and Taimanov 9; Gligoric and Szabó 8½; Ståhlberg 5½;. In this round there occurred what perhaps very few expected: the one undefeated player of the tournament su ered defeat, and at the hands of his own countryman! From a journalistic standpoint, it was perfectly understandable that the surprising headline was not “Kotov Wins!” but “Smyslov Loses!” Furthermore, from the sporting standpoint, this result would only increase the interest and excitement of the tournament, deepening the curiosity about the ultimate winner. It is logical that the spectator craves not only ghting chess – and on this score must consider himself amply satis ed – but also a ght in the standings, where the will to prevail over others demands that the player expend his full energies in the pursuit of success. At least four great masters – Smyslov, Reshevsky, Bronstein and Keres – now have virtually the same chance of winning the laurels of triumph, and therefore the last rounds of the competition promise to be exciting! The game in which Smyslov lost his undefeated status was in fact going in his favor until he committed two successive errors – the second truly inexplicable – after which Kotov, who had been able to equalize the game, found it only a question of routine technique to capitalize on his material and positional advantage. Boleslavsky played the Ruy Lopez against Keres, who presented an interesting novelty that made his opponent study the position for a long time. Boleslavsky solved the initial problems well, but several moves later made a mistake which allowed Black to consolidate his advantages, winning a pawn. This setback appeared to discourage White, who immediately committed a decisive error, resigning in the face of impending mate. Euwe-Bronstein was another interesting game. A Dutch Defense resulted in equal chances, and even though after some piece exchanges it appeared Black had a slight superiority, Dr. Euwe de nitively re-established equilibrium with two precise blows. 408

Averbakh was able nally to win his rst game with White, and in such a decisive manner that he even gave mate! The game has great theoretical importance since Averbakh – a tireless researcher into the secrets of the opening – applied an important improvement against the Sicilian in a line already known to Taimanov, who had played it in the 1951 Soviet championship. Besides his natural surprise, Taimanov could not solve all the practical problems presented by the strong innovation 11.Qf3! and had to accept his fate of checkmate. Szabó and Gligoric drew a long game which started as a King’s Indian and transposed to a Sicilian. [More accurately, this was Symmetrical English by transposition. – TK] Even though Black erred in the opening and later had to enter an inferior endgame, his position retained good possibilities of resistance. The game passed through a period of “testing” and soon after adjournment White decided to become aggressive. However, Gligoric was able to create an interesting drawing position which he exploited very well to assure himself the half-point. Najdorf played the Queen’s Indian against Petrosian, and by transposition the game arrived at the famous Rubinstein System of the Queen Pawn’s Game, in which the Argentinean master developed comfortably with the preferable position. But his physical condition at that moment was not at its best, and when the young Soviet master proposed a draw, he accepted to avoid any disagreeable eventuality. Finally, Ståhlberg-Reshevsky resulted in a draw when Black quickly gained equality with the King’s Indian, in a game without major complications. (141) Kotov – Smyslov English Opening [A13] 1.c4 c6 Smyslov invites transposition to a Slav Defense. 2.Nf3 d5 3.e3 Nf6 4.b3 Kotov chooses a continuation distinct from the already known line of KeresSmyslov, Hague-Moscow wch 1948, where White played 4.Nc3 g6 5.d4, entering the Schlechter System of the Grünfeld Defense. 4...g6 Smyslov adopts the best line against White’s system, resolving early the normal problems of the opening. 5.Bb2 Bg7 6.d4 0-0 7.Bd3 c5! Taking advantage of the fact that White has not yet castled, with this push Black gains a little space, and at the same prepares, after ...c×d4, to develop the queen’s knight at c6 or d7, depending on how White recaptures. 8.0-0 c×d4 9.N×d4 As we said: if now 9.e×d4 then 9...Nc6. 9...e5 10.Nb5 a6 11.N5c3 d×c4 12.B×c4 b5 13.Be2 Bb7 14.Nd2 (D)

409

Round 21

14...e4 As we see, Smyslov has obtained a splendid game without any problems in development, and if there is any positional advantage it is certainly on his side. But to arrive at the correct plan he had to think for a long time, in view of the threat 15.Bf3. If instead he had played the immediate 14...Qe7 to prevent the liberating move 15.b4!, then there could follow 15.Bf3, and it would be too late for 15...e4, as is shown by the continuation 15...e4 16.Nc×e4 N×e4 (if 16...B×e4 17.N×e4 N×e4 18.B×g7 K×g7 19.Qd4+) 17.B×g7 N×d2 18.B×b7 Q×b7 19.B×f8 N×f1 20.Bh6!. 15.b4! Kotov does not play passively, and just in time makes the move that restores equilibrium. While Black has played 14...e4 in order (among other reasons) to obtain the e5-square for his queen’s knight, White in turn, by activating his queen’s knight with the maneuver Nd2-b3-c5, will oblige Black to leave his knight on d7 to keep watch over that entry point. 15...Qe7 16.a3 Rd8 17.Qc2 Nbd7 18.Nb3 Rac8 19.Rfd1 (D)

19...Nd5? With the opening concluded, and his pieces all developed, it is very di cult to nd just the right plan for Black. The enduring threat of Nb3-c5 – which, as we said, 410

deters Black from continuing with Nd7-e5 – really cramps his style. Despite the fact that most analysts have recommended 19...Ne5 here, in our opinion the correct maneuver should be 19...Ne8, with the idea of continuing Ne8c7-e6 relieving the Nd7 from standing vigil over c5 and thus allowing it to go to e5. After the text move, Kotov has equality. 20.R×d5! B×c3?? An error both inexplicable and uncharacteristic of Smyslov, possibly caused by mental and physical fatigue here in the latter stages of the tournament. If in some game Smyslov was lost but did not lose, in this game he was not lost, but did lose! Correct was 20...R×c3 21.B×c3 (not 21.R×d7 R×c2 22.R×e7 R×b2 23.R×b7 R×b3) 21...B×d5 with complete equality. 21.R×d7 R×d7 22.B×c3 Bd5 23.Nc5 The game is decided, not only by the material imbalance, but also the positional advantage White has. 23...Rd6 24.Bb2 f6 25.Bd4 Qf7 26.h3 Re8 27.Rc1 h5 28.a4 f5 29.Bb2 Kh7 30.Qc3 Bc4 31.B×c4 b×c4 32.Q×c4 Rd1+ 33.Kh2 Q×c4 34.R×c4 Rd2 35.Bf6 R×f2 36.Rd4 f4 37.Rd7+ Kh6 38.h4 g5 39.B×g5+ Kg6 40.B×f4 1-0 Once again, Kotov has added to his fame as a giant-killer! (142) Boleslavsky – Keres Ruy Lopez [C97] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d6 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Qc7 12.Nbd2 Rd8 (D)

Keres, probably the world’s greatest expert on the Ruy Lopez and author of several books about it, still keeps looking for improvements in this opening, which rst saw the light of day no less than ve centuries ago. Hundreds and hundreds of variations have come and gone with the passing years, seeking the best possibilities for both White and Black. In this position we know that there are various classic moves: 12...Bd7 or ...Bb7, ...Re8, ...Nc6, ...c×d4 etc., but grandmaster Keres still brings a novelty to the ght. Good or bad, we must recognize this move’s depth and its venom, without also 411

Round 21

forgetting the factor of surprise, which disconcerts his adversary by dropping him in territory unknown. 13.Nf1 d5! (D)

14.e×d5 The most logical move. Other possibilities would be, as indicated in the Losbladige Schaakberichten of 1953: (a) 14.d×e5 d×e4 15.e×f6 R×d1 16.f×e7 Be6! (not 16...Q×e7 17.B×d1) and there is not su cient recompense for the queen sacri ce; (b) 14.N×e5 N×e4 (if 14...d×e4 15.Ng4!) 15.B×e4 d×e4 16.R×e4 Bb7 17.Re1 c×d4 18.c×d4 Nc6 19.Nf3 N×d4! 20.N×d4 Bc5 21.Be3 Qb6 with good play for Black. The reader may imagine the headache grandmaster Boleslavsky had in nding these and other variations at the board, and trying to decide which was the right one! 14...e×d4 15.c×d4 N×d5 16.Qe2 Bb7 17.Ng3 c×d4 (D)

18.N×d4? Up to here White has coped well with the exigencies of Keres’ novelty, but now we see the rst inexactitude. He had to play 18.Nf5! with, after 18...Bf6 19.Ng5!, the following possibilities:

412

(a) 19...Nf4? 20.B×f4 Q×f4 21.Ne7+ B×e7 22.B×h7+ Kh8 23.Q×e7+–; (b)19...Nb4 20.N×h7!! K×h7 21.Ne7+ Q×c2 22.Qh5#, or 20...Q×c2 21.N×f6+ etc., or else 20...Be5 21.Ng5 N×c2 22.Qh5+–. Therefore, we repeat, the best move was 18.Nf5!, and on 18...Bf8! (best; if 18...Bb4 19.Qd3 with extremely complicated play) 19.N3×d4 with good play for White. 18...g6! Though simple, this move a rms Black’s advantage, by denying any entry point to White’s pieces. 19.Bh6 Bf6 20.Nb3 Not 20.Rad1 Nb4. 20...Nc4 21.Ne4 B×b2 (D)

22. Bbc5? Boleslavsky, having lost a pawn, becomes completely discouraged and sacri ces material, thinking to obtain compensation by control of the dark squares, but he has not foreseen his opponent’s reply! Even with the pawn minus, his position was defendable with 22.Rad1, when Black must play very carefully to maintain his material advantage. For example, (a) 22...Nf4? 23.R×d8+ R×d8 24.Nf6+ Kh8 25.Qe8+ R×e8 26.R×e8#; (b) 22...Nc3 23.Nf6+ Kh8 24.R×d8+ Q×d8 25.Qe7; (c) 22...Bg7 (best) 23.B×g7 K×g7 24.Nbc5 with some compensation for the pawn. 22...B×a1 23.R×a1 f5! An excellent move typical of Keres, who with his enterprising style does not shy away from complications. Although at rst sight it makes a poor impression, this move marks the beginning of the end for White! 24.N×b7 Not 24.Ne6 Qe5. 24...Q×b7 25.Nc5 Qc6 26.Nd3 Nc3 27.Qe1 Qf6 28.f4 Ne4 29.Kh2 Qc3 30.Qb1 Ncd2 31.Qc1 R×d3 32.B×d3 Q×d3 33.Qc7 (D)

413

Round 21

33...Nf3+ 0-1 A game of great theoretical value, and one of the best, if not the best, of all Keres’ games in this tournament. (143) Ståhlberg – Reshevsky King’s Indian Defense [E68] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.Nc3 d6 6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.0-0 e5 8.e4 e×d4 9.N×d4 Re8 10.h3 Nc5 11.Re1 a5 12.Qc2 Ng4 13.Nb3 In game 131, Averbakh-Bronstein, White played 13.Rd1. (D)

13...N×b3 A better choice is seen in Lipnitsky-Boleslavsky, USSR ch 1952, which continued 13...Ne5 14.N×c5 d×c5 15.Rd1 Bd7 16.Nb5 Qc8 17.Kh2 a4 18.f4 Nc6 19.Be3 Nb4 20.Qc1 Bc6 21.Nc3 B×c3 22.b×c3 Na6 23.Qc2 Qe6 with good play for Black. 14.a×b3 Ne5 15.Be3 Nc6 16.Rad1 Nb4 17.Qc1 Better was 17.Qd2. 17...Bd7 18.Kh2 Qe7 19.f4 Bc6 20.Qd2 Qf8 21.Qf2 f5 Executing a precise maneuver, Reshevsky has obtained equality.

414

22.Bd4 B×d4 23.R×d4 Qf6 24.Rd2 Re7 25.e×f5 R×e1 26.Q×e1 Re8 27.Re2 R×e2 28.Q×e2 Q×f5 29.B×c6 b×c6 30.Qe7 Qf7 31.Qe3 Qf5 32.Qe7 Qf7 33.Qe3 Qf5 34.Qe7 ½-½; (144) Euwe – Bronstein Dutch Defense [A97] 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.Nc3 Qe8 (D)

Another very interesting system is seen in this analysis by the Soviet master Simagin: 7...a5 8.Qc2 Nc6 9.e4 f×e4 10.N×e4 e5! 11.d×e5 d×e5 12.Be3 Nb4 13.N×f6+ B×f6 14.Qb3 Qe7 15.a3 Nc6=. 8.Re1 A classic position of the Dutch Defense, in which White has various continuations. The text move is recommended as best by Dr. Euwe in his writings. Other possibilities would be: (a) 8.Qc2 Qh5 9.Re1 Nc6 10.d5 Nb4 11.Qb3 Na6 12.d×e6 c6! 13.e3 Ng4 14.Ne2 Nc5 15.Qc2 N×e6=+, Cortlever-Bronstein, Helsinki ol 1952; (b) 8.b3 a5 9.Qc2 Na6 10.a3 Bd8 11.Re1 e5=+, Furman-Simagin, Leningrad 1946. 8...Qg6 In Keres-Simagin, USSR ch 1951, Black played 8...Qh5 and there ensued 9.e4 f×e4 10.N×e4 N×e4 11.R×e4 Nc6 12.Bf4 Bf6 13.Qd2 Kh8 (not 13...e5 because of 14.d×e5 d×e5 15.N×e5 N×e5 16.B×e5 B×e5 17.Qd5+ winning a pawn) 14.Rae1 Bd7 15.c5 with the better game for White. 9.e4! N×e4 10.N×e4 f×e4 11.R×e4 e5 Of course if 11...Q×e4 12.Nh4. 12.Qe2 Inferior would be 12.Re1 because of 12...Nc6, and if 13.d×e5 Bg4!. 12...Bf5 13.Nh4 15.d×e5 d×e5 16.Be3 Rad8 17.Bc5 Despite the fact that White has the bishop pair, and the isolated e-pawn can also be seen as in his favor, the chances are equivalent, since Bronstein has developed all his pieces, and furthermore the white rook on h4 is practically out of play. 17...Rfe8 18.Bd5+ Kh8 19.Qh5 415

Round 21

Dr. Euwe, with good reason, seeks to force the exchange of queens (by the threat of 20.Bf7), trying to return the Rh4 to activity. 19...Q×h5 20.R×h5 g6 If 20...Bg6 21.B×c6. 21.R×f5 g×f5 22.Bf7 Re7 23.B×e7 N×e7 24.Bh5 Nc6 25.Rd1 Although Black appears to have a small advantage, Dr. Euwe, with two precise blows, equalizes de nitively. 25...Nd4 26.Re1 e4 (D)

27.f3! Nc2 If 27...N×f3+ 28.B×f3 e×f3 29.Kf2 Rd2+ 30.K×f3 R×b2 31.Re7 R×h2 32.R×c7 R×a2 33.R×b7 with a draw. 28.Rc1 ½-½; The result is logical: if 28...Rd2 29.f×e4 f×e4 30.Rd1. (145) Szabó – Gligoric English Opening [A36] 1.c4 Nf6 2.g3 g6 3.Bg2 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Ne2 0-0 6.0-0 c5 7.Nbc3 Nc6 8.d3 With transposition of moves, Guimard-Rossetto, Mar del Plata 1953, continued 8.d4 c×d4 9.N×d4 N×e4!. 8...Bd7 9.h3 Ne8 10.g4 Nc7 (D)

416

By transposition, we have gone from a King’s Indian [sic] to a Sicilian, the kingside anchetto variation so favored by Smyslov and Keres. The idea of this system di ers from the usual Sicilians: White holds back his central pawns, trying to attack on the king’s ank, while Black counterattacks on the other wing. 11.f4 Rb8 12.f5 b5 13.N×b5 N×b5 14.c×b5 R×b5 15.Nc3 Rb8 16.g5 (D)

16...Ne5? Better was 16...Nd4 forcing White to declare his intentions with the advanced fpawn. Then clearly not 17.Qg4? Nc2 18.Rb1 B×c3–+; best probably would be 17.Nd5 g×f5 18.Qh5 e6, and Black can defend his position. 17.Nd5 e6 18.f6 e×d5 19.f×g7 K×g7 (D)

417

Round 21

20.d4! An excellent move by Szabó, not only refuting the mistaken posting of the black knight – which on d4 would have prevented this advance – but also ridding himself of a weakness. 20...c×d4 21.Q×d4 Qb6 Though this gives him an inferior endgame, Gligoric must exchange queens, since without his king’s bishop his dark-square weaknesses could be dangerous in the middle game. 22.Q×b6 R×b6 23.e×d5 Bf5 24.b3 f6 25.Be3 Rb7 26.g×f6+ K×f6 27.Rac1 White’s advantage is clear, but “advantage” does not mean “forced win”! Here, despite his weaknesses, Black still retains the power to resist. 27...Re8 28.Rc3 Rbe7 29.Bd4 Kg5 30.Rg3+ Kf6 31.Be4 Rf7 32.Rc3 Kg7 33.Bg2 Kf8 34.b4 Rb8 35.a3 Rb5 36.Rd1 Re7 37.Re3 Kf7 38.Rde1 Rd7 39.Rc1 White “comes and goes,” waiting for the moment something concrete may be done, because his most obvious advantage – two pawns against one on the queenside – is, for the moment, paralyzed. On the other hand, winning a pawn would not have worked: 39.B×e5 d×e5 40.R×e5 a5. For all these reasons, Szabó prefers to make moves that do not substantially alter the position, so as to analyze at leisure after adjournment, to see if any forcing line is possible. 39...Nd3 40.Rf1 Ne5 41.Rc1 Nd3 42.Rc8 On resuming the game, Szabó tries to accomplish something, understanding that to do so he must surrender his strong bishop and win the pawn. But this idea also proves insu cient. 42...Ne5 43.B×e5 d×e5 44.R×e5 Kf6 45.Re3 Kg5 46.Rc5 Rb8 47.Kf2 h5 48.Rg3+ Kh6 49.h4 Rf8 50.Rf3 R 7 51.Ra5 Rc7 52.Kg3 Rc4 53.Bh3 Rg7 54.d6 Finally the game goes back to being a real ght! 54...Rd4 55.B×f5 g×f5+ 56.Kf2 f4 57.Ra6 Kg6 Though down a pawn, Gligoric has very active pieces, and this saves him. 58.d7+ Kf5 59.R×a7 Rd2+ 60.Ke1 Rgg2! (D)

418

An interesting position, one which makes up for the preceding passive play. Here White with his passed pawns – one of them on the verge of coronation – suddenly nds himself powerless to avoid a draw! The king and Rf3 are immobilized by the threat of perpetual check. 61.d8Q R×d8 62.Rf7+ Ke5 63.R3×f4 Ra2 64.Rf3 Rdd2 65.Rf2 R×f2 66.R×f2 R×a3 67.Rg2 If 67.Rb2 Rh3, and if then 68.b5 R×h4 69.b6 Re4+ 70.Kd2 Rd4+ 71.Kc3 Rd8. 67...Ra1+ 68.Kf2 Ra2+ 69.Kg1 Ra1+ 70.Kf2 Ra2+ 71.Kg1 Ra1+ 72.Kh2 Rb1 73.Rg5+ Kf4 74.b5 Kf3 ½-½; (146) Averbakh – Taimanov Sicilian Defense [B88] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 c×d4 4.N×d4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bc4 e6 (D)

Analysis of this line can be found in game 101, Geller-Averbakh, where Black continued 6...Bd7. A game of great theoretical interest is Lipnitsky-Taimanov, USSR ch 1951, where 6...e6 was also played, continuing 7.0-0 Be7 8.Bb3 a6! 9.f4 Qc7 10.Be3 Na5 11.Qe2 b5 12.f5 N×b3 13.a×b3 b4 14.Na4 e5 15.Nf3 Bb7=+. 7.0-0 a6 8.Be3 Qc7 9.Bb3 Be7 10.f4 Na5 11.Qf3! 419

Round 21

By transposition of moves, the game has followed the mold of LipnitskyTaimanov, but now White makes an important improvement, which confers extraordinary theoretical value on this opening. However, new analysis keeps on coming, and four months later, Taimanov demonstrated the correct plan for Black, in his game with Bannik in the 1954 Soviet championship! 11...b5 12.e5 Bb7 13.Qg3 (D)

13...d×e5 If 13...Nh5 14.Qh3 N×b3 15.c×b3 g6 16.f5! d×e5 (or 16...e×f5 17.N×f5) 17.f×e6 e×d4 18.e×f7+ Kf8 19.Q×h5!. 14.f×e5 Nh5 15.Qh3 (D)

15...Q×e5? Averbakh’s innovation 11.Qf3! has proven to be a surprise problem di cult for Black to solve, so much so that even without notable errors, he has fallen into an inferior position. If this was the moment where Taimanov failed to nd the right move and lost the game, later he discovered the refutation, and in the aforementioned game with Bannik he gave the following demonstration: 15...N×b3 16.N×b3 Q×e5 17.Na5 b4! 18.Nc4 Qc7 19.Q×h5 g6 20.Qe2 b×c3 21.b3 0-0 22.Rae1

420

Rad8 23.Bf4 Bc5+ 24.Kh1 Qe7 25.Be5 Bd4 26.Rf4 B×e5 27.Q×e5 Rd5 28.Q×c3 Qg5 and Black has the better game. 16.B×e6!! f×e6 17.N×e6 (D)

17...Bc8 Taimanov re ected for a long hour trying to save the position, but it is evident that White’s threats are many and cannot all be met. The most direct here is 18.Q×h5+ Q×h5 19.N×g7+. If (a) 17...Nf6 18.Bf4+–; (b) 17...Bf6 18.Bd4 Q×d4+ 19.N×d4 B×d4+ 20.Kh1 Nf6 21.Qe6+ Kf8 22.Qd6++–; or (c) 17...b4 18.Bd4 Qd6 19.Q×h5+ g6 20.Q×a5+–.

421

Round 21

Yuri Averbakh 18.Q×h5+ Q×h5 19.N×g7+ Kd7 20.N×h5 Nc4 21.Bd4 With two extra pawns and this excellent position, White has no problems winning. 21...Rg8 22.Nd5 Rg5 23.Nhf6+ B×f6 24.N×f6+ Kc6 25.N×h7 Rg6 26.Rae1 b4 27.b3 Na3 28.Re5 Nb5 29.Be3 Nc3 30.Nf8 Rg7 31.Rf6+ Kc7 32.Bh6 Rg4 33.Re7+ Kd8 34.Rh7 Rb8 35.Ne6+ B×e6 36.Rf8# 1-0 An extremely interesting game of great theoretical value. (147) Petrosian – Najdorf Queen’s Indian Defense [E14] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.Nc3 Bb7 5.e3 For 5.Bg5 see game 22, Geller-Boleslavsky. 5...Be7 I consider this move better than 5...d5, as played in game 29, PetrosianTaimanov, since after 6.c×d5 e×d5 7.Bb5+ Black is obliged to play 7...c6, and after 8.Bd3, the Bb7 has a dim future while White controls the black knight’s access to e4. 422

6.Bd3 d5 In game 84, Szabó-Euwe, Black played 6...c5, but I prefer the text which seeks to contest White’s freedom of action in the center. 7.0-0 0-0 8.Qe2 Nbd7 9.b3 a6! By transposition, we have arrived at a Rubinstein System, and it just so happens that this has been my workhorse opening for many years! One of the ideas of this system, learned from grandmaster Akiba Rubinstein, is for Black to delay as long as possible the advance c7-c5, since after an eventual Nf3-e5 there would follow Nd7×e5 and Nf6-d7, with the possibility of occupying c5, whereas after c7-c5 Black does not have that prospect. 10.Bb2 Bd6 11.Rad1 In game 156 (Kotov-Reshevsky) White played 11.e4, but all the same the defense proved rm. After the text I can think about taking the initiative. 11...Ne4 Now it becomes evident that this is possible because I avoided the move indicated in the note to Black’s fth move. 12.c×d5 e×d5 13.Ne5 Qe7 14.N×d7 Q×d7 15.Nb1 ½-½; (D) Naturally, this premature draw should cause some surprise, since having just come out of the opening smelling like a rose, the position justi ed my continuing to play with optimism. After a6-a5-a4 my advantage on the queenside would be clear; or also 15..Rfe8 followed by Re8-e6-h6, with attack on the kingside!

After the game, Petrosian himself conceded that I had evident chances with both maneuvers! However, I felt somewhat indisposed, and on sitting down to play I did not feel sure of my powers. Fortunately the game evolved into a system I know perfectly. This helped me to reach a good position, and when the young grandmaster Petrosian o ered me a draw I accepted, thinking that under the circumstances I should not take an unnecessary risk.

423

Round 22

Round 22

Standings after round 22: Smyslov and Reshevsky 13½; Bronstein 12½; Keres 12; Kotov and Najdorf 10½; Averbakh and Petrosian 10; Boleslavsky, Gligoric and Taimanov 9½;; Euwe, Geller and Szabó 9; Ståhlberg 6. Smyslov and Reshevsky won their respective encounters and continued down the road that leads to Botvinnik’s throne! Keres, in contrast, and above all Bronstein, had to accept the partial thwarting of their natural ambitions, being able to score only draws. All in all, the ght for rst place still appears to be far from being decided, and that permanent uneasiness of knowing that any and all of the rivals are capable of scoring an upset only increases the nervous anxiety of the players as much as it does the interest and expectations of the public. The game Smyslov won was very interesting. Geller found an original innovation in the King’s Indian, obtaining good prospects, but in his eagerness to win – at times a bit vehement – he misplayed his chance for a breakthrough, after which White stood better. Later, Black committed the decisive mistake in a complex position, even though the right move at that moment could be considered relatively simple, almost forced. Boleslavsky also played the King’s Indian against Reshevsky, quickly freeing his game, but two almost successive errors ruined his position. However, the last word was not yet said! Toward the endgame, Reshevsky, pressed for time, overlooked a simple winning move, and Boleslavsky in turned missed one that would have drawn. But in the end White found his way to victory. The Taimanov-Szabó game was intricate and charged with emotion. Black played a Dutch Defense. Szabó lost a tempo in the opening, but was able to recover later with a ne maneuver. Meanwhile play turned di cult, and time pressure added to the complications. The adjourned position was as complex as it was interesting, and even the deepest analysis seemed insu cient to reveal its secrets. This must have a ected the Hungarian grandmaster somewhat, since on resumption he overlooked a strong, probably winning move. Shortly thereafter the two rivals agreed to split the point they had so arduously disputed.

424

Keres-Kotov was a Catalan, in which Black erred by opening the position when his development was inferior. Thus Keres increased his advantage, and all indications were that his prospects were bright, when he in turn made several errors and Kotov, with a good maneuver, secured the draw. Bronstein and Ståhlberg played a Queen’s Gambit, in which White made a premature attacking gesture, already on move 10. Ståhlberg defended himself ably, but later made an evaluation error, getting an inferior position. But at a crucial moment Bronstein too erred, and roles were reversed! However, his exposed king position did not allow Ståhlberg to exploit his advantage, even though he fought for it tenaciously in a long ending. Dr. Euwe made the same mistake as Black did in game 136 (Bronstein-Szabó), by playing a Nimzo-Indian line that allowed Gligoric to transpose to a Queen’s Gambit Accepted in which White had two extra tempi. Black’s weak d-pawn was appropriately pressured and eventually White won the pawn. The game thus devolved into a rook-and-pawns endgame in which, despite all his disadvantages, past and present, Black could yet have drawn! Dr. Euwe did not nd an adequate resource, and then Gligoric, with seductive mastery, won the di cult nale of the game which is, possibly, one of the best of his career. Finally, Najdorf made mistakes in the opening of his game with Averbakh, and it was not surprising that Black quickly gained the better position. Undoubtedly White played with too much pessimism, and after missing at a certain moment a variation o ering resistance, he was reduced completely. (148) Najdorf – Averbakh Queen’s Indian Defense [E19] 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.g3 b6 4.Bg2 Bb7 5.0-0 Be7 6.d4 0-0 7.Nc3 Ne4 8.Qc2 N×c3 9.b×c3? (D)

With the idea of avoiding the beaten paths I make this move, inferior to the usual 9.Q×c3, and against none other than Averbakh – in fact one of the greatest of theoreticians – who now takes as his topic a demonstration of how to refute opening inaccuracies. 425

Round 22

9...Nc6 10.Ne5 In this variation I should have played 10.Nd2, and if 10...Na5 then 11.B×b7 N×b7 12.Nb3 as in Furman-Taimanov, USSR ch 1948. 10...Na5! 11.B×b7 N×b7 (D)

12.Qa4? I continue disconcertedly, de nitely having an o day. Averbakh has already overcome all his opening di culties, obtaining a position perhaps slightly superior. The correct continuation was 12.e4, even though by 12...Na5 13.Qe2 d6 14.Ng4! Qd7 Black will retain the better prospects. 12...d6 13.Nd3 If 13.Nc6 Qd7 14.N×e7+ Q×e7 and Black, after ...c5 and ...Qe8, is in a semi-closed position where his knight is superior to White’s bishop. 13...Na5 14.c5 Qe8! Well played. My opponent is happy to enter the endgame knowing that in the long run I will be forced to trade o the c5-pawn, opening the le, and in this way Black will exercise strong pressure on my c3-pawn, and furthermore his knight will have the strong c4-square at its disposal. 15.Q×e8 Rf×e8 16.Rb1 Rec8! 17.h4 I prepare to develop the bishop to f4 without allowing g7-g5. 17...d5 18.Bf4 f6 19.Nb4? My undue pessimism eases Black’s task! I should have “kept quiet,” waiting on my opponent’s decisions, when victory would not come so easily. For example, 19.Kg2 (intending Kg2-f3 to enable e2-e4) and if 19...b×c5 20.N×c5 e5 21.Be3 B×c5 (if 21...Nc4 22.Na6) 22.d×c5 with chances for resistance. 19...a6 Of course Averbakh avoids 19..b×c5 20.Na6. 20.c×b6 c×b6 21.Bd2? Here I should have played 21.Nd3, and if 21...b5 22.Rfc1. 21...Nc4 22.Be1 (D)

426

22...B×b4!! With this excellent move Averbakh capitalizes on all his advantages, demonstrating the superiority of a good knight over a bad bishop. From here to the end of the game he can boast of a truly admirable precision and elegance. 23.c×b4 Na3 24.Rb3 Nb5 25.e3 Rc2 26.a4 Nd6 27.a5 b5 28.Rc3 Rc8 29.R×c8+ N×c8 30.f3 Ne7 Better was the immediate 30...Nd6, but in this position Black has all the time in the world! 31.Bf2 Kf7 32.Rb1 Nf5 33.Kf1 Nd6 34.Rb3 Nc4 35.Kg2 (D)

If 35.Ke1 Nd2 36.Kd1 Ra2 37.Rc3 N×f3 38.Rc2 R×c2 39.K×c2 Kg6–+. 35...f5! After this move I have no moves! For example, 36.Rd3 Rb2, or 36.Kg1 Nd2–+, or 36.f4 Nd2 and 37...Ne4, or 36.h5 h6. 36.Rb1 N×e3+ 37.Kg1 f4 38.g×f4 Nf5 39.Kf1 g6 40.Rb3 Ke7 41.Rb1 Kd7 0-1 Here we adjourned the game, and I resigned without resuming play. The clearest winning maneuver was 42...Rc4, “cleaning up” the white pawns. (149) Taimanov – Szabó 427

Round 22

Dutch Defense [A84] 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.Nc3 Nf6 In Bronstein-Botvinnik, tenth game of the 1951 world championship, Botvinnik played 3...Bb4 4.Qc2 Nf6 5.e3 0-0 6.Bd3 d6 7.Nge2 c5 8.a3 B×c3+ 9.N×c3 Nc6 10.d×c5 d×c5 11.b3 Bd7 12.Bb2 Ne5 13.Be2 Bc6 with an even game. 4.e3 d5 5.Bd3 c6 6.f4 Arriving at a standard position of the Stonewall variation. 6...Be7 7.Nf3 0-0 8.0-0 9.Bd2 Ba6? This is undesirable – not only for the loss of time with the bishop’s immediate retreat – but also because it improves the position of the white queen. Fortunately for Szabó, in closed positions a loss of time is not so important, and not always exploitable. 10.Qe2 Bb7 11.c×d5 Since Black has lost a tempo and Taimanov has developed more rapidly, he should play 11.Rfc1 – as he does later – but without yet exchanging pawns. As we will see, after 11.c×d5 c×d5 Black can equalize with the maneuver Bb7-c6-e8, whereas with 11.Rfc1, White would make it much harder to gain equality. Taimanov exchanged immediately, thinking that after 11.Rfc1 Black would play 11...Ne4 and if later White decided to trade pawns then Black would have the option of recapturing ...e×d5, something he cannot do at the moment since the f-pawn would be undefended. 11...c×d5 12.Rfc1 a6 13.Na4 Ne4 14.Ne5 Bd6 15.b4 B×e5 16.f×e5 Bc6! The freeing move we mentioned earlier. Black, even with inferior development, gains equality thanks to the closed position, in which White’s bishops are still inactive. 17.Nb2 Be8 18.Rc2 Nd7 19.a4! White cannot allow the maneuver b6-b5 and Nd7-b6-c4. 19...Qg5 20.Rf1 (D)

20...b5! Szabó’s precise maneuvers have equalized the game. With this strong move he gets rid of his last queenside weakness – the a-pawn – deciding, after prolonged 428

study, that with this sacri ce he gets a promising game. For example 21.a×b5 a×b5 22.B×b5 Ra3! 23.Bd3 (if 23.Bc1 Nc3, or 23.Nd3 Nb6 24.B×e8 R×e8 with good play) 23...Bh5 24.Qe1 Rfa8 25.b5 Rb3 with satisfactory play for the sacri ced pawn. Therefore Taimanov plays: 21.a5 Bh5 22.Qe1 Rfd8 23.Rc6 Nf8 24.Bb1 Rdc8 25.R×c8 R×c8 26.Nd3 Nd7 27.Nf4 If 27.Nc5 Ne×c5 28.b×c5 Qe7 followed by Nd7-b8-c6. 27...Bf7 28.B×e4 f×e4 29.Qb1 Rc4 30.Rc1 Qf5 31.Ne2 Bg6 32.Rf1 Qg5 33.Nf4 Bf5 Despite the complexity of the position and shortness of time, Szabó prefers the most active move over the passive 33...Bf7, even though it is the most risky. 34.Be1 Nb8 35.Qb2 Nc6 36.Qf2 h6 White was threatening 37.N×e6 (if 37...B×e6 38.Qf8#). 37.N×d5 Correct! Though also under great time pressure, Taimanov does not shy away from a ght. We get one after all, from what had seemed to be just a quiet positional game! 37...e×d5 38.Q×f5 Q×e3+ 39.Bf2 Qg5 40.Qe6+ Kh7 41.Q×d5 (D)

The game was adjourned at this moment, and we can imagine the work Taimanov, Szabó and their seconds had in trying to fathom the countless variations presented by this position, with its in nite possibilities for both sides. The two white central pawns could be dangerous for Black, though he has compensation in the more aggressive disposition of his pieces. 41...Qg6 42.e6 N×b4 (D)

429

Round 22

43.Qd6 Even after adjournment, the complexities of the position are such that it must have been very di cult to calculate the rami cations of the seemingly obvious move 43.Qd7?!. We look at several continuations after 43.Qd7 e3: (D)

(a) 44.B×e3? Qe4! 45.Bf2 (if 45.B×h6 K×h6 46.e7 Qe3+ 47.Kh1 Rc1) 45...Nd3 46.e7 Nf4 47.Qg4 Ne2+ 48.Kh1 Q×g4 49.e8Q N×d4. (b) 44.Bg3 e2 45.Re1 Qg4! and: (b1) 46.Be5 Nd3! 47.B×g7! (if 47.h3 N×e1!! 48.h×g4 Nf3+) 47...Q×g7 48.e7 Rc8!!o. This exquisite variation shows that 43.Qd7?! is refutable! (b2) 46.Qf7 Q×d4+ 47.Bf2 (if 47.Kh1 Qd5 48.R×e2! [if 48.Qf3 Re4] 48...Rc2!! 49.Qf1 [if instead 49.Qf2 Qd1+ 50.Re1 R×f2 51.R×d1 Re2 52.Rd6 Kg6 53.Rb6 Kf5! 54.Rb7 R×e6 55.R×g7 Nc6] 49...Qd3 50.Re1 Q×f1+ 51.R×f1 Re2 52.Re1 R×e1+ 53.B×e1 Nd5) 47...Qd5! (not 47...Qe5 48.Bg3; and if 47...Qe4 48.e7 Rc8 49.Qf8 Qe6 50.Bd4!) 48.R×e2 Nd3! 49.Qf3 (if 49.Be3 Re4) 49...Rc1+ 50.Be1 N×e1!!o–+; (b3) 46.Bf2 Nd3! 47.h3 Qe4 48.e7 N×e1 49.B×e1 Rc1–+. 43...Nd3 If now 43...e3 44.B×e3 Qe4 45.Qe5 Q×e5 46.d×e5 Re4 47.Bc5 Nc6 48.Bd6 N×e5 49.e7 Ng6 50.Rf8 N×e7 51.Re8 Re6 52.B×e7 b4 53.Ra8 R×e7 54.R×a6, with a draw. 44.h3 430

Necessary air. If rst 44.Bg3 then 44...e3 45.e7 Q×d6 46.B×d6 (if 46.e8Q Q×d4) 46...e2!! 47.Re1 (if 47.e8Q e×f1Q+ 48.K×f1 Rc1+ 49.Ke2 Re1+ wins) 47...Rc8!!–+. 44...Rc2 45.Bg3 Ahead of the threat 45...e3. 45...e3 46.e7 Qe4 47.Rf3 e2 48.Qd7 (D)

48...e1Q+? It is interesting to note here the order and discipline of the Soviet masters, in a detail that reveals their perfectly organized way of handling adjourned games. Taimanov came to resume the ght after analyzing the game deeply, carrying a special notebook in which all variations were annotated. This allowed him to have at hand – of course we are referring only to the time before the resumption of play – all the nuances of painstaking analysis, which often might escape from memory. Despite this writer’s many years of master practice, this simple but telling episode captured my attention, for its demonstration of the order, focus and discipline of a true chess master. However, this episode is not without its humorous side, for the fact that Taimanov, after playing 48.Qd7, saw with understandable anxiety, that Black had at his disposal the strong reply 48...Nf4. Not just he, but his second Flohr and perhaps all the other Soviet masters, had failed to foresee this blow after analyzing the game for several days! But it soon became evident, with Black’s reply, that also Szabó and Florian had overlooked this move! The Russian method remains highly commendable, but even with it, errors of omission can easily be made, which might not occur if the most complex variations were not left exclusively to memory! The possible continuations after 48...Nf4 are: (D)

431

Round 22

(a) 49.e8Q e1Q+ 50.B×e1 R×g2+ 51.Kh1 Q×f3–+; (b) 49.Be1 Rc1 50.e8Q (if 50.Kf2 R×e1) 50...R×e1+ 51.Kh2 Rh1+ 52.K×h1 e1Q+ 53.Kh2 Q×e8–+; (c) 49.R×f4 e1Q+–+; (d) 49.Qf5+ Q×f5 50.e8Q e1Q+ 51.B×e1 (if 51.Q×e1 R×g2+ 52.Kf1 Q×h3–+) 51...R×g2+ 52.Kf1 (52.Kh1 Qc2) 52...Rh2 53.Qe5 Qc2–+. 49.B×e1 R×g2+ 50.K×g2 N×e1+ 51.Kf2 ½-½; A true battle of titans! We can imagine the exhausting e orts of those who analyzed the adjourned game, when we ourselves, to write these commentaries, had to analyze these variations for several days. Thus is chess: behind the innocent word “draw” there is often hidden a world of complications and an intense struggle without quarter! (150) Gligoric – Euwe Nimzo-Indian Defense [D32] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 c5 5.Nf3 d5 This developing move, which looks so natural, is actually inexact at this moment, as we pointed out in the notes to game 136, Bronstein-Szabó. The right way is to defer it, playing 5...0-0. After the text move Gligoric responds 6.Be2! trying to reach Queen’s Gambit Accepted with colors reversed and two extra tempi. (D) 6.Be2! 0-0 7.0-0 Nc6 8.c×d5 e×d5 For 8...c×d4 see game 136. 9.d×c5 B×c5 10.a3 (D)

432

We have arrived at a typical Queen’s Gambit Accepted position, with an exchange of central pawns, where the colors are reversed and White is two tempi ahead: one for having the rst move, and the other being Black’s third move, 3...Bb4. 10...a6 11.b4 Bd6 12.Bb2 Bg4 13.Rc1 Bc7 14.Na4 Gligoric rst sets about pressuring Black’s most serious weakness: the isolated dpawn. 14...Qd6 15.g3 Ne4 16.Nc5 N×c5 17.R×c5 Rad8? Better 17...Rfd8. 18.Nd4 B×e2 19.Q×e2 N×d4 20.B×d4 Bb6 (D)

21.Rd1! We see now the reason 17..Rad8 was incorrect. White is not obligated to retreat his attacked rook – which would allow 21...B×d4 22.e×d4, masking the weakness of the d5-pawn – and he has the time to support the bishop and eventually recapture on d4 with a piece. 21...B×c5 22.B×c5 Qe5 23.B×f8 K×f8 24.Rd4 Beginning the technical phase of the siege of the d5-pawn. Grandmaster Gligoric’s procedure is very noteworthy and instructive, precisely realizing his advantage in accord with the strategic theme of the opening. 24...g6 25.b5 a×b5 26.Q×b5 Qc7 27.Qb2 433

Round 22

Gligoric is not interesting in taking the d-pawn for the moment, since it would create a di cult and probably drawn queen endgame, viz. 27.R×d5 Qc1+ 28.Kg2 R×d5 29.Q×d5 Q×a3 30.Q×b7. 27...Kg8 28.Qd2 Qc5 29.a4 Qa3 30.a5 Rc8 (D)

Since his d-pawn is lost, Black prefers to avoid 31.e4, which would win more easily. That move was not possible a move earlier – in place of 30.a5 – because of the line 30.e4 Ra8 and on 31.e×d5 R×a4 32.R×a4 (not 32.d6?? Qa1+) 32...Q×a4 33.d6 Qd7. 31.R×d5 Qc1+ 32.Q×c1 R×c1+ 33.Kg2 Rb1 (D)

Dr. Euwe, knowledgeable in rook endgames, nds himself in a position similar to the classic game Capablanca-Yates, Hastings 1930-31, where there were no pawns on the queenside. Capablanca, in the analyses of this ending – which one can nd in all good treatises on endgames – demonstrates that by playing h7-h5 Black, despite his material disadvantage, prevents White from forcing a win! But unfortunately for Dr. Euwe, he is prevented here from playing 33...h5 by the reply 34.Rb5, with good winning chances for White! Now with 34.g4 White hastens to prevent that move. In Gligoric’s opinion the resulting ending is won, and the outcome of the game seems to validate him. However ... 434

34.g4 Kg7 35.h4 b6 36.h5 b×a5 37.R×a5 Rb7 38.g5 (D)

38...g×h5? Very short of time, Dr. Euwe commits the decisive error in a game which, despite Gligoric’s ne play and his extra pawn, does not give su cient advantage to win! A di culty typical of rook-and-pawn endings, which often turn out to be tasks not only thankless but treacherous, with twists that can spoil the e orts of an entire game. Here Black can draw easily by 38..h6!, and after two pawns are exchanged there remains an ending of two pawns to one, a theoretical draw. Now we observe a demonstration of high mastery by Gligoric in his conduct of this extremely di cult ending. 39.Ra6 Rb3 40.Rh6 Ra3 41.Kg3 Ra142.e4 Rg1+ 43.Kf4 Rh1 44.e5 h4 45.Kg4 Rg1+ 46.Kf5 Rh1 47.Kg4 Rg1+ 48.Kf5 Rh1 49.f4 h3 50.Kg4 Rg1+ 51.Kf3 Rf1+ 52.Kg3 Rg1+ 53.Kf2 Rh1 54.Rf6 White maneuvers to gain the time necessary to allow capture of the h-pawn at a moment when the black king is on g8. 54...Ra1 55.Kg3 Rh1 56.Kg4 Kg8 Black’s replies become more and more limited, and he has no other course but to enter the position Gligoric foresaw. If 56...h2 57.Kg3. 57.Rh6 Now 57...Rg1+ is not possible in view of 58.K×h3, and there is no danger in exchanging rooks because the black king is on g8. 57...h2 58.Kg3 Rg1+ 59.K×h2 White recovers his temporarily sacri ced pawn, concluding the rst phase of the endgame. Now begins a new phase of execution: the white king supports the advance of his aggressive pawns. 59...Rg4 60.Rf6 Kg7 61.Kh3 Rg1 62.Kh4 Rh1+ Black decides to let the white king out, realizing that in the long run he cannot prevent it. Gligoric planned the maneuver Kh4-h5 and Rf6-a6-a7, and whenever Black played ...Kg8, then f4-f5. 63.Kg4 Rg1+ 64.Kf5 Rf1 65.Rc6 Kf8 66.Rc8+ Kg7 67.Rd8 Rf2 68.Rd1 Rf3 69.Ke4 Rf2 70.Ke3 Ra2 71.f5! Rg2 72.Rd7! (D) 435

Round 22

72...R×g5 If 72...Kf8 73.f6 Ke8 74.Re7+ Kf8 75.Rb7 Ke8 76.Rb8+ Kd7 77.Rf8 Ke6 78.Re8+ Kf5 79.e6+–. 73.Kf4 Rg1 74.e6 Rf1+ 75.Ke5 Re1+ 76.Kd6 h5 77.R×f7+ Kg8 78.Ke7 1-0 An extraordinary demonstration by grandmaster Gligoric, which will surely become part of the game’s technical literature on the di cult art of rook endgames, as a model of concept and execution. (151) Bronstein – Ståhlberg Queen’s Gambit Declined [D36] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nbd7 5.c×d5 As we have already noted, this pawn exchange constitutes a system often used recently by masters of the Soviet School and also by Reshevsky. The idea is to avoid the normal variations of the Orthodox Defense and instead carry out – thanks to the c- le and with the maneuver b2-b4, a2-a4 and b4-b5 – the “minority attack” on the queenside. Black, for his part, will have some compensation in the other sector. Now grandmaster Ståhlberg, a great expert on the Queen’s Gambit, shows us a model procedure for Black in this line. 5...e×d5 6.Bg5 For 6.Bf4 see game 8, Kotov-Ståhlberg. 6...Be7 7.e3 c6 8.Qc2 Nf8 9.Bd3 Ne6 10.h4?! (D)

436

A move characteristic of the temperamental Bronstein and which, knowing his style, does not surprise me. The usual line is 10.Bh4 g6 11.0-0 Ng7 12.b4! a6 (not 12...B×b4, because of 13.N×d5 c×d5 14.Qa4+) 13.Rab1 (better than 13.B×f6 B×f6 14.a4 Bf5 15.b5 0-0 16.b×c6 b×c6 17.Rab1 Qd6=, Botvinnik-Keres, Moscow 1941) 13...Bf5 14.a4 B×d3 15.Q×d3 and White has a slight space advantage. The text move, in our opinion, is premature, since Black has not yet castled and with his reply 10..h6 forces White to determine the destiny of his queen’s bishop. 10...h6 11.B×f6 B×f6 12.0-0-0 Nc7! Disallowing 13.g4, by which White would have augmented his attack. 13.h5 Interesting was 13.e4 Be6 (not 13...d×e4 14.N×e4 0-0 15.Neg5! with a strong attack) 14.e5 Be7 15.Na4. 13...Bg4 14.Kb1 0-0 15.Ne2 Nb5 16.Ne5 B×e5 17.d×e5 Qb6 18.B×b5 If 18.Ka1 Rae8 19.f3 Bc8 20.B×b5 Q×b5 21.Nd4 Qb6 22.f4 f6!. 18...Q×b5 19.f3 (D)

19...Bf5? Ståhlberg – who up to here has conducted the game with precision, gaining rapid development of his pieces and a comfortable equality – now commits an evaluation error of a kind fairly common, even among masters. At rst glance it would seem 437

Round 22

advantageous for Black to trade his bishop for the knight; however, that is not the case! Correct was 19...Bd7 with the following possible continuations: (a) 20.g4 Rae8 21.Nd4 Qc4! 22.Qh2 f6; (b) 20.e4 Rae8 21.Nc3 Qc4 22.e×d5 (if 22.f4 Bg4 23.Rd2 d×e4) 22...R×e5. 20.Q×f5 Q×e2 21.Rhe1 Qf2 (D)

It’s understood that the g-pawn cannot be taken because of the threat of 22.Rg1 followed by Qf5-f6. 22.Qg4 Closing the ring around the black queen, but White lacks a piece with which to attack it! Also very strong was 22.g4, for example: (a) 22...Rae8 23.f4 f6 24.e6 Re7 25.e4 d4 26.Qc5! with the superior game, or (b) 22...Qh4 23.f4 Qe7 24.e4 Qe6 25.e×d5 c×d5 26.Rd4 with better play for White. 22...f5 23.Qh3 Rad8 24.f4 d4 25.e×d4 Q×f4 If 25...R×d4 26.Qb3+ Rf7 27.R×d4 Q×d4 (or 27...Q×e1+) 28.Rd1. 26.Qb3+ Rf7 27.d5 c×d5 (D)

28.e6?

438

Bronstein, who thanks to Black’s error 19...Bf5? had gotten the better game, errs himself, “returning the favor.” Probably winning here was 28.R×d5, on which could follow: (a) 28...Qh4 29.g3 Qe7 30.e6 R×d5 (if 30...R 8 31.Rd7 R×d7 32.e×d7+ Qf7 33.Re8+–) 31.Q×d5 Rf8 32.Re5 Rd8 33.Qb3 Rd6 34.a4; (b) 28...R×d5 29.Q×d5 and: (b1) 29...Qb4 30.Re2 Qb6 31.Rc2; (b2) 29...Qg4 30.e6 Re7 31.Rc1 Q×h5 32.g4!; (b3) 29...Qh4 30.g3! Qe7 (if 30...Q×g3 31.Rc1+–, and if 30...Q×h5 31.e6 Re7 32.g4! Qh4 33.Rc1 f×g4 34.Qf5+–) 31.e6 Rf8 32.Re5, arriving at variation (a). 28...Re7 29.R×d5 R×d5 30.Q×d5 Qh4 31.Qe5 In contrast to variations in the previous note, 31.g3 was now not possible, because after the advance of the pawn to e6, the black queen has f6 available. 31...Q×h5 Roles are now reversed and Ståhlberg, a pawn ahead, is the one trying to win! 32.Qb8+ Kh7 33.Qd6 Qg5 34.g3 Qf6 35.a3 h5 36.Ka2 g5 The only way to exploit Black’s advantage is to use the kingside pawn majority, but this entails its own evident risks because of the exposed position of the black king. 37.Qd5 Kg6 38.Qd8 Kg7 39.Qd6 Kg6 40.Qd8 Kh6 Both adversaries have been prudent in their last few moves, aiming only to reach the rst time control and later analyze the position. 41.Qd5 f4 42.g×f4 Q×f4 43.Re5 Qf6 44.Qe4 b5! 45.Qe2 a6 46.a4 b×a4 47.Qe3 h4 48.Re4 Kg6 49.Qe2 h3 50.Re3 Kg7 51.Qh2 Rb7! 52.Qe2 (D)

52...Re7? Despite having found the correct plan after adjournment, Ståhlberg, with this move, loses his chance to win. Correct was 52...Kf8! with these likely continuations: (a) 53.R×h3 R×b2+ 54.Q×b2 Q×e6+ followed by 55...Q×h3; (b) 53.Rf3 R×b2+ 54.Q×b2 Q×f3 55.Qb4+ Kg8. 53.Qh2 a3?

439

Round 22

Black still could have repeated the previous position, playing 53...Rb7, and if 54.Qe2 Kf8! entering the variations indicated. 54.K×a3 R×e6 55.Qc7+ Qf7 An interesting alternative, though insu cient to win, was 55...Qe7+, viz., 56.Q×e7+ R×e7 57.R×e7+ Kg6 58.Re8 (if 58.Re6+ Kh5) 58...g4 59.Rh8 Kg5 60.Ka4 Kf4 61.Ka5 Kg3 62.K×a6 h2 63.b4 Kg2 64.b5 h1Q 65.R×h1 K×h1 66.b6 and draws. 56.Qc3+Rf6 57.R×h3 Qe7+ 58.Ka2 Qe6+ 59.Ka1 Kg8 60.Rh1 Qc6 61.Qh3 Qa4+ 62.Kb1 Qe4+ 63.Ka1 ½-½; Black cannot exploit his pawn advantage because of the exposure of his king. A very intense and interesting game despite its errors. (152) Reshevsky – Boleslavsky King’s Indian Defense [E64] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.Nc3 d6 6.Nf3 c5 7.d5 For 7.0-0 Nc6 8.d5 Na5! 9.Qd3 see game 126, Kotov-Boleslavsky, where some transposition of moves occurred. 7...Na6 8.0-0 In game 197, Reshevsky-Gligoric, White preferred an immediate 8.Nd2, and on 8...Nc7 9.Qc2 with the idea of b2-b3 and Bc1-b2, adopting the plan of Dr. Euwe in game 189, Euwe-Szabó. 8...Nc7 9.Nd2 Better than 9.e4 as played in game 43, Averbakh-Najdorf. 9...Rb8 10.a4 With the idea of opposing the freeing move b7-b5, but Black also has the option of freeing himself in the center! Furthermore, the text move has the drawback of leaving certain queenside squares weak. 10...e6 11.d×e6 B×e6 12.Nde4! N×e4 13.N×e4 B×c4 14.Bg5 Qd7 15.Q×d6 Q×d6 16.N×d6 B×e2 17.Rfe1 Bd3 18.Be7 B×b2 19.Ra2 Bg7 (D)

20.Bf1! Incorrect would be 20.B×f8 because of 20...B×f8 21.N×b7 c4 22.Na5 Bb4 23.Nc6 B×e1 24.N×b8 c3 25.Bf1 Bb1. The text move forces Black to give up the bishop pair. 440

20...B×f1 21.K×f1 Nd5? (D)

The rst mistake. To this point the game has been played correctly by both sides, but after this move Boleslavsky has an inferior position. Necessary was 21...Ne6 and if 22.B×f8 (or if 22.Rb1 b6 23.a5 b×a5 24.Rc1 Rb2!) 22...B×f8 with two pawns for the exchange, and an even game. 22.B×f8 B×f8 23.Rae2! With his usual spark Reshevsky activates his pieces, giving them the greatest mobility possible. This is a characteristic of his style, manifest in almost all his games. (D)

23...B×d6? The second error, and a decisive one. It was essential for Black to play 23...Nc7, and on 24.Ne8 Ne6 25.Nf6+ Kg7 26.Nd7 Rc8 27.N×f8 K×f8 with good prospects. 24.Rd2 Bf8 Too late now for 24...Nc7 because of 25.R×d6 Ne6 26.Rd7 with the threat of 27.Rb1. 25.R×d5 c4 26.Re4 a6 If 26...Rc8 27.Rdd4 c3 28.Rc4.

441

Round 22

27.R×c4 b5 28.a×b5 a×b5 29.Rc7 b4 30.Rdd7 Ra8 31.Kg2 Ra2 32.R×f7 b3 33.Rb7 Bc5 34.Rf3 b2 35.Rd3 Bf8 36.Rdd7?? (D)

Winning easily was 36.Rd8. Reshevsky commits here an unbelievable error, which can be explained only by his habitual time pressure! Now, Boleslavsky has the unexpected chance to save his lost position! But ... 36...Bc5?? Why not 36...Ra7!! and suddenly it’s White who must sue for peace: 37.R×h7 b1Q 38.R×b1 K×h7=+. 37.Rd8+ Bf8 38.Rdb8 1-0 (153) Keres – Kotov Catalan Opening [E17] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 c6 7.b3 In Najdorf-Guimard, Mar del Plata Zonal 1954, White played 7.Qc2. After 7.Nc3 Black has the option of entering the classical line of the Dutch Defense with 7...Ne4, and if 8.Qc2 f5. Against the text move, in contrast, entering the Dutch with 7...Ne4 would be incorrect due to 8.Ne1 followed by f2-f3, forcing the knight to retreat, whereas after 7.Nc3 Black can trade pieces avoiding loss of time. 7...Nbd7 8.Bb2 b6 9.Nbd2 Bb7 10.Rc1 Rc8 11.e3! White plans to post the queen on e2 rather than the usual c2, where it would feel indirectly pressured by the Rc8. 11...c5 12.Qe2 c×d4? (D)

442

This can be classi ed as a violation of principle, since it is known one should never open the position when behind in development. Kotov could have delayed this move until he had his forces fully deployed. Although at rst glance the position may look symmetrical, there is one detail that can tell the reader the important di erence: while White’s queen is perfectly developed and cannot be molested, the black queen has not yet found its ideal square. Based on this, necessary in our opinion was 12...Rc7 so to play Qd8-a8 and Rf8-c8, and only then try to open the game. 13.N×d4! Nc5 14.Rfd1 Beginning exploitation of “the matter of the queen.” 14...Qd7 15.N2f3 Rfd8 16.Ne5 Qe8 17.c×d5 B×d5 18.Ndc6! (D)

18...R×c6 If 18...B×g2 19.N×d8 Ba8 20.b4, and if 18...B×c6 19.B×c6 Qf8 20.b4 Nce4 21.f3 Nd6 22.e4 and Black is cramped. 19.N×c6 Q×c6 Not 19...B×c6 20.R×d8 B×d8 21.B×c6 Q×c6 22.b4. (D)

443

Round 22

20.B×d5? Superior was 20.B×f6!, for example (a) 20...B×f6 21.e4 B×e4 22.R×d8+ B×d8 23.B×e4 Q×e4 24.Q×e4 N×e4 25.Rc8+–; (b) 20...B×g2 21.B×e7 Re8 22.B×c5 Bf3 23.Qb2! b×c5 (if 23...B×d1 24.Bf8) 24.Rd3 e5 (if 24...Bh1 25.f4) 25.e4 B×e4 26.Re3 f6 27.Qc3+–. 20...e×d5 21.b4 Nfe4 22.b×c5 b×c5 23.Qg4 g6 24.h4 Qe6 25.Q×e6 f×e6 Even though Black is down the exchange for a pawn, it is di cult for White to exploit this advantage. 26.Be5 c4 27.Rc2 Nc5 28.Rb1 Kf7 29.Bd4 Rd7 30.Rcb2? The error that nulli es White’s winning chances. By no means should White allow the advance that now follows, by which Black utilizes his strong pawn center. Obligatory was 30.f4! maintaining good chances of exploiting his material advantage, and with that in mind, the plan could be based on Rb1-b5-a5, or else Rb1b5 and the opportune advance of the a-pawn to a6. 30...e5! 31.B×c5 Not 31.B×e5 Nd3. 31...B×c5 32.Rc2 Rc7 33.e4 Ke6 Inferior was 33...d×e4 34.Rbc1 e3 35.Kf1. 34.Kf1 Bd4 35.f3 c3 36.Ke2 Rf7 37.Rf1 Kd6 38.Kd3 Kc5 39.Re2 Rb7 40.f4 d×e4+ 41.R×e4Rd7 42.Kc2 Kd5 43.Rfe1 Rb7 44.Kc1 Rb2 45.R4e2 If 45.f×e5 R×a2 46.e6 Kc4! 47.e7? Kb3. 45...e4 46.R×e4 R×a2 47.g4 Rg2 48.f5 g×f5 49.g×f5 Rf2 50.Re7 Kc4 51.R1e4 Kd3 52.R×d4+ K×d4 53.R×h7 a5 54.Rd7+ Ke4 55.h5 R×f5 56.h6 Rh5 ½-½; (154) Smyslov – Geller King’s Indian Defense [E94] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 c6 Geller varies from the usual 7...Nbd7. The idea behind delaying the queen knight’s development, as we will see, is to avoid obstructing the action of the queen’s bishop so as to support an opportune Nf6-g4. 8.Re1 If 8.d×e5 d×e5 9.Q×d8 R×d8 10.N×e5 N×e4 11.N×e4 B×e5 12.Bg5. 444

8...e×d4 9.N×d4 Re8 10.Bf1 Ng4 Carrying out the idea indicated at move seven. 11.h3! (D)

11...Qf6 If 11...Qb6 12.h×g4 B×d4 13.Be3 with superiority for White, e.g., 13...B×e3 14.R×e3 Q×b2?? 15.Rb1 Qa3 16.Nd5+–. 12.h×g4 Q×d4 13.g5! Nd7 If here 13...Q×d1 14.R×d1 B×c3 15.b×c3 R×e4 16.R×d6 and White stands better. 14.Bf4! Forcing the exchange of queens by the threat to win the pawn on d6. 14...Q×d1 15.Ra×d1 Be5 16.Be3 Nc5 An alternative was 16...Nb6 17.Bd4 Be6 with an even game. 17.f3 Be6 18.Rc1 a5 19.Rc2 Better was 19.b3 to prevent Black’s next move. 19...a4 20.a3 Necessary, since Black threatened 20...a3, and if in reply to that 21.b3 there would follow the maneuver Nc5-a6-b4. 20...Reb8 21.Rb1 h6? Geller has played the opening correctly, getting a good game, but now, looking to win, he does not nd the right plan to break through. Interesting, with the same ghting spirit and with good prospects, was 21...Ra5!, intending a break by b7-b5-b4. 22.g×h6 f5 23.f4! (D)

445

Round 22

This move, simple but very strong, must surely have escaped Geller’s attention when he decided to sacri ce his h-pawn. If now 23...B×c3 24.B×c5! d×c5 25.R×c3 f×e4 26.Re1 Bf5 27.Be2 followed by 28.g4 with the superior game for White. 23...Bf6 24.e5 Be7 25.e×d6 B×d6 26.Rd1 Bf8 27.Nd5! (D)

27...Rd8 Best. If 27...c×d5 28.c×d5 Rd8 29.B×c5 Rac8 30.Rdc1 B×d5 (if 30...R×d5 31.B×f8 R×f8 [not 31...R×c2?? 32.h7+] 32.Bc4 Rd6 33.B×e6+ R×e6 34.Rc7) 31.B×f8 R×c2 32.R×c2 R×f8 33.Bb5 Bb3 34.Rc7 Rf7 35.R×f7 K×f7 36.Be8+! winning. 28.Nf6+ Kf7?? A decisive error, after which Smyslov wraps up the game brilliantly. By no means should Black allow the maneuver Nf6-h7-g5, and with this in mind the correct move was 28...Kh8! creating a rather complex position. For example: (D) (a) 29.Bd4? Nb3–+; (b) 29.Rcd2? R×d2 30.R×d2 Nb3 31.Rd1 Be7; (c) 29.R×d8 R×d8 30.g4 f×g4 31.Rd2 Be7=; (d) 29.Re1! Be7! 30.Bf2 B×f6 31.B×c5 Bf7 32.Be7 Bd4+ 33.Kh1 Rd7 and even though White is slightly superior, it is di cult to exploit his advantage.

446

29.R×d8 R×d8 30.Nh7 Ne4 31.Ng5+ Kf6 32.g4! An excellent move which hastens the end of the game. Now 32..B×h6 is not possible because of 33.N×e4+ f×e4 34.g5+ winning. 32...Rd1 33.N×e4+ f×e4 34.g5+ Kf7 35.Kf2 Rd7 36.Rd2 R×d2+ 37.B×d2 Bc5+ 38.Be3 Bd6 39.Bd4 Kg8 40.Ke3 Bf5 41.c5 Bc7 42.Be2 Ba5 43.Bd1 Be1 44.B×a4 1-0

447

Round 23

Round 23

Standings after round 23: Smyslov and Reshevsky 13½; Bronstein and Keres 13; Kotov 11½; Najdorf 11; Averbakh, Gligoric and Petrosian 10½; Boleslavsky and Taimanov 10; Euwe and Szabó 9½;; Geller 9; Ståhlberg 6. The interest of all chess fans is concentrated once again on the various possibilities for rst place. Now odds are given and bets made on the last rounds, where the struggle is not just between two chess masters, but two opposing worlds! It was logical to predict (and even more so knowing his temperament) that Reshevsky would try to steal a march on Smyslov’s bye day. And so it was. Kotov found an interesting theoretical innovation against the Queen’s Indian played by the American grandmaster, and for a long time Black had to su er with a space disadvantage and inferior position. Finally, Reshevsky managed to equalize the game, but instead of accepting the draw o ered him, or at least choose a moderate continuation, he risked too much in a knight ending, thus losing the game. The public was astonished at Kotov’s vertiginous trajectory, which had raised him to fth place in the standings. And to think that at his point in the rst cycle, the Soviet grandmaster was in last place! If anything in this tournament can serve as a moral example, it is, undoubtedly, the ghting spirit of Kotov! The other victories in this round were posted by Black, by Gligoric and Keres against Ståhlberg and Geller, respectively. The game between the western masters was a King’s Indian very comfortable for Black, who took advantage of some inexactitudes by Ståhlberg, nally winning a pawn. Gligoric, playing in notable form in this second cycle, exploited his advantage with technically correct play. Keres played a Semi-Tarrasch Defense against his compatriot Geller, a variation so rich in possibilities that the position became extremely interesting. White committed an error – overlooking in his calculations a Zwischenzug by Keres – getting an inferior position, and though later he made another mistake, he was clearly lost before then. Boleslavsky-Bronstein started as an English Opening and Black, yet again, tried out one of his idiosyncratic ideas. However, Boleslavsky was not disconcerted, and found the correct way to maintain his space advantage. Finally, the game reached

448

equilibrium and both masters agreed to a draw in a very “Russian” position, that is to say, complicated. A theoretical novelty was seen in Euwe-Taimanov, the line 4.Qc2 formerly often employed by Capablanca against the Nimzo-Indian. Dr. Euwe got a good game, but in his eagerness for the ght – and for points! – he embarked on a rather dubious combination which eventually left him down a pawn. Taimanov then played super cially and gave his opponent the chance for some interesting counterplay, which forced the Soviet master to play very carefully to reach a draw. Szabó and Najdorf played a Nimzo-Indian of great theoretical interest for Black’s concept of preventing a central rupture. Szabó continued uncertainly at two opportunities, and at move 16 it could be said that Najdorf had good winning chances. However, both then and at several other points he missed the strongest move, until Szabó, with a brilliant queen maneuver, was able ultimately to save the game. Finally, Averbakh and Petrosian played a very correct Sicilian without major complications, quickly arriving at a draw. (155) Geller – Keres Queen’s Gambit [D41] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 c5 5.c×d5 c×d4 6.Q×d4 e×d5 7.e4! For 7.Bg5 see game 33, Ståhlberg-Keres. 7...Nc6 Julio Bolbochán-Maderna, Mar del Plata 1953 saw 7...d×e4 8.Q×d8+ K×d8 9.Ng5 Be6 10.N×e6+ f×e6 11.Bc4 Nbd7 12.B×e6 Bb4 13.Ke2 with the better game for White. 8.Bb5! N×e4 (D)

Against Najdorf in game 208, Keres played 8...a6. 9.0-0 This position is so rich in possibilities that there are other interesting continuations: (a) 9.N×d5 Be6!; (b) 9.Ne5 Bc5 (best) 10.Q×d5 (if 10.N×c6 B×d4 [not 10...b×c6 11.Q×g7] 11.N×d8+ K×d8) 10...Q×d5 11.N×d5 0-0 12.N×c6 b×c6 13.B×c6 Ba6!=+. 449

Round 23

9...Nf6 10.Re1+ At this point Najdorf prefers 10.Ne5; see analysis in game 208, Najdorf-Keres. 10...Be7 (D) 11.Qe5? Necessary was 11.B×c6+ b×c6 12.Qe5 Be6 13.Nd4 Qd7 14.N×e6 with an even game.

11...0-0! It becomes evident that Geller overlooked a detail: if 12.B×c6 Bd6. 12.Qe2 Re8 13.Bg5 Bg4 14.Rad1 h6 15.Bh4 If 15.B×f6 B×f6 16.Q×e8+ Q×e8 17.R×e8+ R×e8 and Black gets a favorable endgame much as in the actual game. 15...Ne4! (D)

16.Bg3 If 16.B×e7 N×c3 17.b×c3 R×e7. And not 16.R×d5? N×c3, or 16.N×d5? B×h4. 16...N×c3 17.b×c3 Bf6 18.Q×e8+ Q×e8 19.R×e8+ R×e8 20.R×d5 Rc8! Inferior is 20...B×c3 because of 21.B×c6 b×c6 22.Rc5. 21.Rd3? 450

The decisive error in a clearly inferior position, where even the best defense would not su ce. If 21.Rc5 Be7 22.Rc4 Be6 23.Ra4 a6 24.B×c6 R×c6 25.Be5 b5 26.Ra5 Bb4+–. 21...Nb4 22.Re3 N×a2 23.h3 B×f3 24.g×f3 N×c3 25.Bd7 Rd8 26.Bf5 g6 27.Bd3 Nd1 0–1 (156) Kotov – Reshevsky Queen’s Indian Defense [E14] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.e3 Bb7 5.Bd3 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Nc3 d5 8.Qe2 Nbd7 9.b3 a6 To this point Black has followed the same system as in game 147, PetrosianNajdorf, where relevant commentary can be found. 10.Bb2 (D)

10...Bd6 In view of the fact that in the aforementioned game Najdorf had gotten better play with this, Reshevsky repeats his move. But Kotov in his home analysis had found an important improvement which makes us think that that the text is premature. In fact, in our opinion better would seem 10...Ne4 (preventing e3-e4) and only when White plays Ra1-d1, then ...Bd6, reaching the same position as PetrosianNajdorf. 11.e4! With this opportune push, White gets a space advantage, though Black’s position is still solid. 11...d×e4 12.N×e4 N×e4 13.B×e4 B×e4 14.Q×e4 Qe7 15.Rae1 Rfe8 16.Re2 a5 17.Rfe1 Bb4 18.Rd1 Rad8 19.Rd3 f6!

451

Round 23

Alexander Kotov Although this move weakens Black’s pawn structure somewhat, in return the queen gains prospects of moving to the king’s ank, and the g5and e5-squares are adequately controlled. 20.Rde3 Qf7 21.g3 Bd6 22.Qc6 Nb8 23.Qb5 Nd7 White was threatening 24.c5. As may be observed, Kotov maintains his space advantage, but it is very di cult to nd a breakthrough point. Reshevsky defends his cramped position with his usual mastery. 23...Nd7 24.Kg2 Bf8 25.a3 Rc8 26.Qc6 Nb8 27.Qb7 Qd7 28.Qe4 Qf7 29.Qg4 h5 30.Qe4 c5! 31.Rd3 Nc6 32.Red2? c×d4 33.N×d4 Ne5! Tenaciously, Black has recovered lost ground, and now the struggle is equalized, with chances for both sides. 34.Rc3 Rcd8 35.f4 Ng4 36.Nf3 Necessary. If 36.Rcd3 or 36.h3, then 36...e5 with the better game for Black. 36...R×d2+ 37.N×d2 Rd8 In contrast, 37...e5 now would not have the same force, due to 38.f5. 38.Rd3 R×d3 39.Q×d3 Qb7+ 40.Qe4 (D)

452

40...Qd7 At the last move of the rst time control, with the red ag on his clock rising, Reshevsky “feels” more than analyzes that the exchange of queens could put him in an inferior ending. And he was right! To wit: 40...Q×e4+ 41.N×e4 a4 42.c5! b×c5 43.b×a4 Ne3+ 44.Kf3 Nc4 45.Bc3 N×a3 46.a5 Nb5 47.a6 Nc7 48.a7 Kf7 49.Ba5 Na8 50.Ke3 with the better ending for White. 41.Nf3 Bc5 In this position play was adjourned and Kotov, before resumption, o ered a draw, thereby returning one of the many “favors” Reshevsky had tendered the Soviet players during the tournament. However, since Reshevsky did not stand worse, he did not accept! 42.Bd4 B×d4 43.N×d4 Kf7 Also worth considering was 43...e5 44.f×e5 N×e5=, but apparently Reshevsky, expectantly eyeing his place in the standings, prefers to go all out. 44.h3 f5 45.Qd3 Nf6 46.Nf3 Q×d3 47.Ne5+ Ke7 48.N×d3 Ne4 49.b4 Kd6 50.Ne5 (D)

50...a4? Overly ambitious, Reshevsky risks the game in an even position, committing a decisive error. Necessary was 50...Nc3 and if 51.Kf3 Nb1 52.c5+ b×c5 53.Nc4+ Kc6 453

Round 23

54.b×a5 Nc3 with a draw assured. 51.Kf3 g5 52.Ke3 g4 If 52...N×g3 53.Nf7+ Ke7 54.N×g5 and the black knight cannot get back in the ght; if 54...h4 55.Nf3. 53.h×g4 h×g4 54.N×g4 Nc3 55.Ne5 Nb1 56.Kd3 N×a3 57.b5! N×b5 Black is lost, since White was threatening to take the trapped knight with the maneuver Kd3-c3-b2. If 57...Kc5 58.Nd7+. 58.c×b5 Kc5 59.Nf3 K×b5 60.Nd4+ Kb4 61.Kc2 e5 62.f×e5 Kc5 63.e6 Kd6 64.Kc3 b5 65.Kb4 Ke7 66.Kc5 a3 67.Kd5 1-0 (157) Boleslavsky – Bronstein English Opening [A21] 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 d6 3.Nf3 For 3.g3 see game 82, Petrosian-Boleslavsky. 3...f5 A personal system of grandmaster Bronstein’s against the English, with certain similarities to the Dutch Defense, of which he is so fond. 4.d4 e4 5.Nd2 c6 6.e3 Nf6 7.Be2 g6! Since White’s plan, after castling, is for a central break with f2-f3, Black hastens to develop his bishop to h6, aiming at the weakness said advance will create on e3. 8.0-0 Bh6 9.b4! Boleslavsky understands that Black’s maneuver nulli es his rst plan, and he therefore decides to seek a break on the other ank. 9...0-0 10.b5Re8 11.Nb3 Preventing 11...f4. 11...Nbd7 12.Qc2 Qc7 13.Bd2 Bronstein’s original and tricky play has not disconcerted his adversary, who has proceeded with his logical development and obtained the better game with good prospects. 13...c5 14.d×c5 d×c5 15.Nd5!(D)

454

With this move Boleslavsky gains more space and seeks to open the position. If now 15...N×d5 16.c×d5 b6 17.Nd4, and if 16...Qd6 17.Na5. 15...Qd6 16.Rad1 b6 17.f4! A good move which lessens the scope of the Bh6, and at the same time secures permanent dominion over the square e5. Not, however, the seemingly indicated move 17.Bc3 because of 17...Ne5, and if now 18.f4 e×f3 19.B×f3 N×f3+ 20.R×f3 N×d5. 17...N×d5 18.c×d5 Nf6 19.Bc3 Bb7 20.Qb2 Not 20.Be5? R×e5 21.f×e5 B×e3+. 20...Ng4 21.Qc1 Bg7 22.h3 B×c3 23.Q×c3 Nf6 24.Bc4 Rad8 25.Rd2 h6 26.Nc1 Kh7 27.Ne2 Qf8 28.Rfd1 Rd6 29.Qb3 Red8 30.Nc3 Qe7 31.Rf2 Bc8 32.Ne2 Be6 33.Nc3 The position is back in equilibrium, and with the d5-pawn well defended, Black should look for a way to break through on the kingside with g6-g5, but not forgetting the weakness this could create on f5. 33...Bf7 34.a4 Ne8 35.a5 Qf6 36.Ra2 g5 37.Rf1 Qg6 38.a×b6 a×b6 39.Ra7 R8d7 40.Ra8 Nf6 41.Qb2 Looking for fun on the h8-square. 41...g4 42.h×g4 Q×g4 Not 42...N×g4? 43.N×e4. 43.Rd1 Qh5 44.Qf2 Qg6 45.Rc8 Ng4 46.Qe1 Ra7 47.Rc6 Ra3 48.Rc1 Qf6 49.Be2 h5 ½-½; (D)

Although there would still seem to be ght in the nal position, the draw was the right decision, because the rigid pawn structure allows no way to break through. (158) Ståhlberg – Gligoric King’s Indian Defense [E65] 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.0-0 d6 6.d4 c5 7.h3 For 7.d5 and commentaries on the Yugoslav variation of the King’s Indian, see games 43 (Averbakh-Najdorf) and 152 (Reshevsky-Boleslavsky). The idea of Ståhlberg’s 7.h3 is to prepare development of the queen’s bishop to e3 without fear of 455

Round 23

Nf6-g4, but as Gligoric demonstrates in a remarkable way, Black develops comfortably.

It was for this reason that later, in game 178 (Najdorf-Boleslavsky), White played 7.d×c5 d×c5 8.Ne5! gaining a slight advantage. 7...Nc6 8.Nc3 Bd7 Another possibility was 8...c×d4 9.N×d4 N×d4 10.Q×d4 Be6!. 9.d×c5 We would have preferred 9.e3, combined with b2-b3 and Bc1-b2, properly supporting the pawns at d4 and c4. This opinion is con rmed by the fact of White’s later di culties with the besieging of his pawns on those central squares. 9...d×c5 10.Be3 Qc8 11.Kh2 Rd8 (D)

12.Qc1 If 12.B×c5 B×h3 13.B×h3 R×d1 14.B×c8 R×a1 15.R×a1 R×c8 with an endgame favorable to Black. Because of his apathetic treatment of the opening White now nds himself under pressure, but even so a playable game could be had with 14.N×d4 c×d4 15.B×d4 Ng4+ (or if 15...B×g2 16.K×g2 Q×c4 17.e3) 16.h×g4 R×d4 17.R×d4 B×d4 18.e3. 456

14...b6 15.Bg5 Even though his position is quite inferior, preferable was 15.Nc2. 15...B×g2 16.N×g2 Qe6! 17.Ne3 Ne4! Gligoric energetically takes advantage of every inexactitude. 18.N×e4 Q×e4 19.Nd5 Now, in order to save the bishop, White must give up a pawn. 19...Q×e2 20.Qe3 At last White is able to reduce the pressure a little by exchanging queens, but his material disadvantage will soon be felt. 20...Q×e3 21.B×e3 e6 22.B×d4 B×d4 23.Ne7+ Kf8 24.Nc6 Rd6 25.N×d4 R×d4 26.R×d4 c×d4 Now the passed pawn and kingside majority easily decide the game. 27.Rd1 e5 28.Kg2 Ke7 29.f4 f6 30.Kf3 Ke6 31.Rc1 Rd8 32.f×e5 f×e5 33.Ke4 Rc8 34.a3 a5 35.b3 Rf8 36.c5 Rc8 37.b4 b×c5 (D)

38.Rc4 If 38.b×c5 Rb8 39.c6 Rb3–+. 38...Kd6 39.b5 Rb8 40.a4 Rf8 41.Rc1 Rf2 42.Rb1 c4 0-1 Obviously if 43.b6 Re2+ 44.Kf3 Re3+ followed by 45...Rb3. A good production by grandmaster Gligoric. (159) Euwe – Taimanov Nimzo-Indian Defense [D37] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 How times, tastes, and ideas change! This move, originated by Capablanca, and the basis for a whole system against the Nimzo-Indian, has today practically vanished from master practice, as evinced by the fact that despite the Nimzo-Indian being played many times in this tournament, it appears here for the rst time! But of course, this “disappearance” has a reason, and it is that after 4...c5 5.d×5 00! Black quickly gains equality and, depending on White’s response, has the option of choosing the best way to develop his queen’s knight. For example, 6.Nc3 Na6

457

Round 23

followed by ...N×c5 with control of e4, or if 6.a3 B×c5 7.Nf3 Nc6 as in several games of the rst Najdorf-Reshevsky match in 1952. 4...c5 5.d×c5 0-0 6.Bf4 Here Dr. Euwe varies from the usual 6.Nf3 Na6 7.Bd2 (or 7.Bg5 N×c5 8.a3 B×c3+ 9.Q×c3 Nfe4 10.B×d8 N×c3 11.Be7 Nb3!) 7...N×c5 8.e3=, Najdorf-Keres, Helsinki ol 1952. 6...B×c5 7.e3 Nc6 8.Nf3 d5 9.a3 Qe7 We would prefer 9...Be7 10.Rd1 Qa5 with an even game. 10.Bg5 Rd8 11.Rd1 d×c4 12.R×d8+ Q×d8 13.B×c4 Be7 14.0-0 Bd7 15.Rd1 Qe8 (D) 16.B×f6?! If indeed White’s position is slightly superior because of his space advantage, there is no way for the moment to capitalize on it. It would appear that 16.Nb5 was the indicated continuation, but after 16...Rc8 17.B×f6 g×f6 18.Qd3 (if 18.Qd2 Ne5) 18...Na5! 19.Q×d7 N×c4 20.N×a7 Q×d7 21.R×d7 Rd8 22.R×d8+ B×d8 Black would gain equality.

With the text move – a rather anti-positional one, giving up the strong queen’s bishop – Dr. Euwe gives notice that despite the risks, he is looking for a ght! 16...B×f6 17.Ne4 Be7 18.Nfg5 White continues with his plan, but an adequate defense exists. 18...h6 19.Nd6 B×d6 20.Qh7+ Kf8 21.R×d6 h×g5 22.R×d7 Q×d7 23.Qh8+ Ke7 24.Q×a8 Qd1+ 25.Bf1 Qb3 (D)

458

With this move Taimanov gets the last word on White’s dubious combination. Now Dr. Euwe must “come back to reality” having lost a pawn! 26.h3 Q×b2 27.a4 Threatening 28.Bb5, which cannot be prevented with 27...a6 because of 28.B×a6. 27...Qb6? Unnecessarily reducing the queen’s scope. More active was 27...Qb1 and if 28.Qh8 g6 29.Qh6 Qf5 with winning chances. 28.Qh8 Kf6? Taimanov plays the ending super cially; the requirements of the position indicate that his king would be safer on the other ank. Necessary was 28...g6 and if 29.h4 g×h4 30.Q×h4+ Kd7 31.Qf6 Nd8 32.Bb5+ Kc8 with the better king position and an extra pawn. 29.h4 Qc5 30.h5! Taking advantage of Black’s inaccuracies, Dr. Euwe revives. 30...g4 31.h6 Qg5 32.h7 g3 And now it is Taimanov who must play with great care just to draw! 33.Qg8 g×f2+ 34.K×f2 Ne7 35.h8Q N×g8 36.Q×g8 Qh4+ ½-½; (D)

Short of time, both masters agree to a draw, even though at rst glance there appears to be some ght left in the endgame of the extra piece against three pawns, 459

Round 23

for example 37.Kg1 Q×a4 38.Qd8+ Kg6 39.Bd3+ f5 40.Qe7 Qd1+ 41.Bf1 Qd5. (160) Szabó – Najdorf Nimzo-Indian Defense [E58] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 0-0 5.Nf3 d5 6.a3 B×c3+ 7.b×c3 b6 8.c×d5 e×d5 9.Bd3 c5 10.0-0 Nc6 By transposition of moves, we have arrived at the classic position of the NimzoIndian, in the ...b6 variation. 11.a4 c4 12.Bc2 Ne4! (D)

Inferior was 12...Bg4 13.Qe1! as in Taimanov-Botvinnik, USSR ch 1953. 13.Qe1? A position of enormous theoretical interest whose secrets are probably unknown, even to grandmasters! Since White’s idea is to open the center at all costs by f2-f3 and e3-e4, with the move 12...Ne4! I do no more than anticipate that purpose, which appears to me the right path to equality in this line. With his move here, Szabó does not solve the problems of the position very well. In my opinion the most suitable continuation would be 13.B×e4 (if 13.Bb2 Re8 14.Nd2 Bf5 with good play for Black) 13...d×e4 14.Nd2 Qd5 (if 14...Re8 15.Qh5!) 15.f3 Bf5 16.Rb1 e×f3 17.Rb5 Qd7 18.e4 Bg6 with an even game. 13...Re8 14.Bb2 Bf5 15.Nd2 Qg5! White’s erroneous strategy has allowed me to reach a position with excellent prospects. 16.N×e4 (D)

460

16...B×e4? Trying to play positionally, I reject a strong attacking continuation that would have led to a winning position. Correct was 16...d×e4! 17.Qd2 (best; not 17.f4 e×f3–+) 17...Bg4! 18.Kh1 Re6 and: (D)

(a) 19.Bd1 Rh6 20.B×g4 Q×g4 21.Ba3 (if 21.f3 Qg3 22.h3 e×f3 23.R×f3 R×h3+ winning) 21...Rd8 22.f4 Rd5, or (b) 19.f3 e×f3 20.g×f3 Bh3 21.Rfe1 Rae8 22.Be4 (if 22.Bc1 R×e3, or 22.f4 Qg4 23.Bd1 Q×f4) 22...R×e4 23.f×e4 Qg4. But despite this omission, my game is so good that I still have good winning prospects. 17.B×e4 R×e4 18.Ba3 Rg4 19.g3 Re4 20.Rb1 Rae8 21.Rb5 Qd8 22.Qe2 a6 23.Rb2 Na5 24.Rfb1 R4e6 Premature was 24...Nb3 because of 25.R×b3 c×b3 26.Q×a6 with compensation for the exchange. 25.Kg2 h6 26.Qh5 Nb3 27.Re2 Qd7 28.Bb2 Kh7 29.h3 g6 30.Qf3 Re4 31.g4 (D)

461

Round 23

31...f5? Winning easily, without opening the position, was 31...Kg7. The pawn on a4 would fall without giving White any chance of counterplay. 32.g×f5 g×f5 33.Rg1 Rg8+ 34.Kh1 R×g1+ 35.K×g1 Re7 36.Kh1 Qe6 37.Qf4 (D)

37...Rg7? Here lack of time prevented me from seeing the beautiful variation my adversary would nd, by which he would secure perpetual check in spectacular fashion. It is evident that with the simple move 37...Qe4+ I could have forced a favorable ending with good winning chances. For example 38.Q×e4 f×e4 continuing with a plan of Re7-b7 and b6-b5, and when White plays a×b5, then ...R×b5 followed by ...Ra5. 38.Kh2 Qg6 39.Qg3 Qh5 40.Qf4!! A brilliant move that saves the game! If 40...Q×e2 41.Q×f5+ and there is no way to avoid perpetual check. 40...Qg6 41.Qg3 Qe8 42.Qf4 Qe4 43.f3 Qd3 ½-½; (D)

462

At the moment of adjournment I sealed this move, but without resuming play we agreed to a draw, since if 44.Rg2 R×g2+ 45.K×g2 Qc7+ 46.Kg3 and there is no way to avoid perpetual check. The same would occur playing 43...Qb1 44.Rg2! R×g2 45.K×g2 Q×b2+ 46.Kg3. However, Szabó thought that with 43...Q×f4+ 44.e×f4 Black would stand better, e.g., 44...Kg8 and 45.Re5 is no good because of 45...Nd2!. (161) Averbakh – Petrosian Sicilian Defense [B73] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 c×d4 4.N×d4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be2 Bg7 7.Be3 0-0 8.0-0 Nc6 9.Qd2 d5 (D)

Another continuation would be 9...Ng4 10.B×g4 B×g4 11.f4 Bd7 12.Rad1 Rc8 13.Nd5 N×d4 14.B×d4 B×d4+ 15.Q×d4 R×c2 16.f5 Bc6 when White has chances in return for the pawn sacri ced. 10.e×d5 Pachman recommends 10.N×c6 b×c6 11.e5 Nd7 12.f4 followed by Nc3-a4. However, Black need not retreat with 11...Nd7 and can play instead 11...Ne4, and if 12.N×e4 d×e4 with equality. 10...N×d5 11.N×d5 N×d4 12.c4 e5!

463

Round 23

Inferior was 12...N×e2+ 13.Q×e2 e6 14.Nc3 and even though Black retains the bishop pair, White has the advantages of greater space and the queenside pawn majority. 13.f4 Be6 14.f×e5 N×e2+ 15.Q×e2 B×d5 16.Rad1 B×c4 17.Q×c4 Qc8 18.Q×c8 Ra×c8 19.Rd7 B×e5 (D)

20.R×b7 If 20.Bh6 Rfd8 21.Rf×f7 R×d7 22.R×d7 Rc7 with complete equality. 20...Rb8 21.R×b8 R×b8 22.b3 ½-½; (D)

464

Round 24

Standings after round 24: Smyslov 14½; Reshevsky 14; Bronstein 13½; Keres 13; Kotov 12; Najdorf and Petrosian 11½; Gligoric and Taimanov 11; Averbakh and Boleslavsky 10½; Euwe 10; Geller and Szabó 9½;; Ståhlberg 6. Smyslov reappeared after his bye, winning a stupendous game against Keres, while Reshevsky – who could have won at not just one but several points in his uneven endgame with Geller – ceded a valuable half-point in the erce struggle for rst place. In fact, Smyslov’s advantage can be considered greater than it looks, or more accurately, has prospects of being so, since his three closest pursuers have not yet had their byes. Without doubt, the de nitive outcome of the tournament is expected in the next few rounds, not only because they are the last rounds, but also because the top four players will have to play several games against each other, probably decisive ones. The nale promises to be exciting! Great interest surrounded the game between Keres and Smyslov, not only because they are contenders for rst place, but also because of their styles of play, so rewarding for the spectator eager to see a ght and some chess “ reworks.” Certainly the game did not disappoint the public’s hopes, and even though Keres’ choice of the English Opening seemed to portend some quiet positional fencing, complications began when he erringly advanced a knight, seeing himself obliged to attack to avoid an inferior endgame. Smyslov defended with his proverbial calm, and since after the attack the white pieces stood misplaced, he had no di culties striking back victoriously. Reshevsky had little luck – or none – in his game with Geller, a Nimzo-Indian. After various subtleties White was able to transpose the game into a Queen’s Gambit, Exchange variation, intending to carry out a virtuosic demonstration of the minority attack. Geller failed to grasp the requirements of the position, losing two pawns and what was worse, missing a drawing line that would have produced the same nal result but saved both players many headaches! When the game was resumed, it was one surprise after another: Reshevsky, in an absolutely winning position, committed a series of errors so incredible that Black ultimately was able to exploit a stalemate position, securing the draw. 465

Round 24

Najdorf and Dr. Euwe played another Nimzo-Indian, in which White employed a new variation, compared to his earlier games. The play was consistently interesting, and even though Najdorf was able to create a passed pawn in the center, Black, by penetrating with a rook into the enemy camp, forced perpetual check. Taimanov essayed a Catalan against Ståhlberg, and thanks to certain inaccuracies by Black he soon gained positional advantages, ultimately winning a pawn. However, more than 50 moves were required before the Soviet grandmaster could make his small material advantage prevail, with every di culty imaginable, in a knight ending. The game between Petrosian and Szabó, an English Opening, was very important theoretically. Petrosian adapted an idea attributed to Keres, gaining advantages. Black, having aggravated his position with a decisive mistake, tried as a last desperate recourse to reach perpetual check, but in vain. The two other games – Gligoric-Boleslavsky and Bronstein-Kotov – concluded in draws scarcely out of the opening, which, in the latter case especially, can be considered justi ed. (162) Petrosian – Szabó English Opening [A34] 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 c5 3.Nf3 d5 In Keres-Smyslov, USSR ch 1947, Black continued 3...e6 4.g3 d5 5.c×d5 N×d5 6.Bg2 Nc6 7.0-0 Nc7? 8.b3 Be7 9.Bb2 e5 10.Rc1 f6 11.Na4 b6? 12.Nh4 Bd7 13.e3! 0-0 14.d4 with the better game for White. 4.c×d5 N×d5 (D)

5.g3 Another continuation, according to analysis by grandmaster Keres, is 5.e3 N×c3? (better 5...e6) 6.b×c3 g6 7.h4! h5 8.Bc4 Bg7 9.Ng5 0-0 10.Qe2+=. Or also 5.e4!? Nb4 6.Bc4 Nd3+ 7.Ke2 N×c1+ 8.R×c1 a6 9.d4 c×d4 10.Q×d4 Q×d4 11.N×d4 e6= (analysis by Botvinnik). But the young Soviet masters keep surpassing themselves in the study of opening theory, nding new and surprising nesses, as we shall see! 5...N×c3 466

If 5...g6, trying to enter the Grünfeld in a way favorable to Black, then 6.Qa4+! Nc6 (if 6...Bd7 7.Qc4) 7.Bg2 Bg7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Qc4 and White stands better. 6.b×c3 g6 We would prefer 6...e6!. 7.Qa4+! (D)

A stupendous move, contrary to all dogmatic principles against developing the queen prematurely at the expense of other pieces. However, it is permissible here, since Black has certain exploitable weaknesses. 7...Nd7 If 7...Nc6 8.Ba3 Qd5 9.c4, or if 7...Bd7 8.Qc4 b6 9.Ne5. 8.h4! With an obvious similarity to Keres’ plan in the note to White’s fth move. 8...h6 Szabó tries to keep watch over g5. 9.Rb1 Bg7 10.Bg2 0-0 11.c4! With the idea of opposing the Bg7 and removing the strongest defender from the adversary’s castled position. 11...e5 12.d3 (D)

467

Round 24

12...Nb6? A mistake that seriously aggravates Black’s di cult position. Better was 12...Qc7 (defending his weaknesses at b7 and c5) 13.Nd2 f5 14.Nb3 Rf6! followed by Ra8-b8 and b7-b6. We reemphasize a concept already mentioned several times: all opening systems and analysis, however ingenious they may be, always need the “collaboration” of the opponent to realize the objectives they pursue. 13.Qc2 Bd7 14.Be3 Qe7 15.Nd2 f5 16.Nb3 Rac8 17.B×b7 Finally Petrosian’s brilliant play and Szabó’s concomitant error yield their fruits! 17...Rc7 18.Bg2 f4 Down a pawn and in an inferior position, Black launches a desperate attack. This move cedes the important e4-square. 19.Bc1 Bc6 20.B×c6 R×c6 21.Nd2 f×g3 22.f×g3 Nc8 23.Rb8 Nd6 24.R×f8+ Q×f8 25.e4! A dual-purpose move: it xes the pawn that closes the black bishop’s diagonal, and at the same time it covers the f5-square. 25...Qc8 26.Nf1 h5 27.Ne3 Ra6 28.Nd5 Qg4 29.Qg2 N×c4 (D)

Trying one blind alley after another, Szabó exhausts his possibilities and now tries for perpetual check. However, Black’s defenses are adequate. 30.d×c4 R×a2 31.Q×a2 Q×e4+ 32.Qe2 Q×h1+ 33.Qf1 Qh2 34.Be3 Q×g3+ 35.Qf2 Qh3 36.Kd2 e4 37.Nf6+ Kh8 38.N×e4 Qe6 39.Kd3 Qd7+ 40.Ke2 Qe6 41.Nd2 1-0 A game of great value to theory, magni cently conducted by the young grandmaster Petrosian. (163) Najdorf – Euwe Nimzo-Indian Defense [E43] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 c5 5.Bd3 b6 6.Nf3 Bb7 7.0-0 0-0 8.Na4 A third line in relation to my earlier choices in this position: games 94 (NajdorfSmyslov) and 118 (Najdorf-Bronstein). 8...c×d4 9.e×d4 Qc7

468

Inferior is 9...d5, as played (with some transpositions) by Eliskases against me at the 1954 Mar del Plata Zonal, the game continuing 10.a3 Be7 11.c5 Nbd7 12.b4 b×c5 13.N×c5 B×c5 14.d×c5 e5 15.Bb5 a6 16.Ba4 Qc7 17.Re1 Rfe8 18.Bg5. 10.a3 Be7 11.Nc3 Here I varied from the line considered best by theory and recently very much in vogue in Russian tournaments: 11.b4 Ng4 12.g3 f5 13.Nc3 a6. 11...d5 12.c×d5 N×d5 (D)

13.N×d5 If 13.Qc2 N×c3 (not 13...g6?? 14.N×d5) 14.B×h7+? Kh8 15.b×c3 B×f3 16.g×f3 g6 17.B×g6 Rg8–+. 13...B×d5 14.Ne5 Qb7 15.Re1 Nc6 16.Qh5 f5 17.N×c6 Q×c6 18.Bf4 Bf6 19.Rac1 Qa4 20.Be5 B×e5 21.d×e5 Rac8 22.Qe2 Qf4 23.Qe3 Q×e3 24.f×e3 Rfd8 25.Ba6 R×c1 26.R×c1 Be4 27.Bc8 Rd2 28.B×e6+ Kf8 29.Rc7 R×g2+ 30.Kf1 R×b2 31.Rf7+ Ke8 32.R×a7 Rb1+ 33.Kf2 Rb2+ (D)

34.Kf1 If 34.Kg3 Rg2+ 35.Kh4 (or 35.Kh3 Rg4–+) 35...Rg4+ 36.Kh5 Bf3 winning. 34...Rb1+ 35.Ke2 Rb2+ 36.Ke1 Rb1+ 37.Kd2 Rb2+ 38.Kc3 Rc2+ 39.Kd4 Rd2+ 40.Kc4 Rc2+ 41.Kd4 ½-½; (D) 469

Round 24

We agreed to the draw, since my king cannot go to b5. For example 41.Kb5? Rc5+ winning; and if 41.Kb3 Rc5 42.Bd7+ Kd8 43.e6 Ra5! assuring the draw. (164) Taimanov – Ståhlberg Catalan Opening [A13] 1.c4 e6 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 d5 4.Nf3 d×c4 5.Qa4+ Nbd7 For the alternative 5...Bd7 see game 194, Taimanov-Smyslov. Theoretical commentary on this system can be found in games 5 (Szabó-Geller) and 16 (Petrosian-Bronstein). 6.Q×c4 a6 7.0-0 Bd6 With the idea of avoiding routine paths, but why not the classical move 7...b5, still the most favorable for Black? Since if 8.Qc6 Rb8 and because the d-pawn is unmoved, Black need not fear Bc1-f4. 8.d4 0-0 9.Rd1! Preventing the liberating move 9...c5. 9...Qe7 There was still time to play 9...b5 so as to develop the bishop on b7. 10.Qc2 Now the superiority of White’s position is evident. Black, with his opening inaccuracies, not only stands worse, but still has to resolve the serious problem of his queen’s bishop. 10...Rb8 Tacitly acknowledging that he has followed a awed plan, Black renounces the attempt to free his queen’s bishop with the e6-e5 break – seeing the inferiority of this move: if 10...e5 11.Nc3 – and tries to develop it at b7, as he already might have done without loss of time. Capitalizing on all these inaccuracies, Taimanov dominates the game with his initiative and space advantage. 11.Nc3 b5 12.e4 (D)

470

12...b4 A sad necessity, since if 12...e5 13.Bg5 Bb7 14.d×e5 N×e5 (if 14...B×e5 15.R×d7+–) 15.Nd4, with greatly superior play for White. 13.Na4 e5 14.d×e5 N×e5 15.N×e5 Q×e5 Not 15...B×e5 16.f4 Bd6 17.e5. 16.Bf4 16.f4 would not win a piece, viz.16...Qh5 17.e5 Bf5 18.Qb3 Be6 19.Qd3 Rfd8. 16...Qa5 17.R×d6 c×d6 18.B×d6 This move concludes the rst phase of the game, in which Taimanov has exploited well his opponent’s inaccuracies, nally winning a pawn. In his subsequent play, White will try to capitalize on this advantage. 18...Be6 19.B×f8 R×f8 20.b3 Rc8 21.Qd2 Bd7 22.Nb2 Be6 23.Nd3 B×b3 24.Q×b4 Q×b4 25.N×b4 Bc4 26.e5 Nd7 27.f4 g6 28.Rd1 If 28.Rc1 Rc5. 28...Nb6 29.Rd6 Na4 30.a3 Rb8 31.Bd5 B×d5 32.R×d5 Nb6 (D)

33.Ra5? Much better was 33.Rc5, since by conserving the a-pawn the task of winning would have been much easier. Black would be left practically without useful moves, for example if 33...Kf8 the white king would also go into action. 471

Round 24

33...Nc4 34.R×a6 N×a3 35.Nd5 Nc2 36.Ra4 Kg7 37.Rc4 Rd8 Clearly, Ståhlberg wants to eliminate the knights, since the rook ending of four pawns against three would be a theoretical draw. 38.Nf6 Ne3 39.Rc3 Nf5 40.Rc7 h5 41.Ne4 Here the game was adjourned in a di cult endgame which Taimanov, with precise technique, is able to decide in his favor after a lengthy process. 41...Re8 42.Kf2 Re7 43.R×e7 N×e7 44.Kf3 Kf8 45.Nd6 Nc6 46.Ke4 Ke7 47.f5 Nb4 48.f6+ Kf8 If 48...Ke6 49.Nb7. 49.Nb7 Na6 50.Kd5 Nc7+ 51.Kd6 Nb5+ 52.Kd7 Nd4 53.Nc5 Nf5 54.Kd8 Nd4 55.Nd7+ Kg8 56.Ke8 Ne6 57.Ke7 g5 (D)

Little by little White has been tightening the noose, and now Black has been forced to weaken his position, since any move by the knight would have been followed by 58.Nc5. 58.Ke8 Nc7+ 59.Kd8 Ne6+ 60.Ke7 Nd4 61.Nc5 Nc6+ 62.Kd6 Na5 63.e6 f×e6 64.Ke7 Nc6+ 65.Ke8 Ne5 66.N×e6 Nf7 67.Ke7 g4 68.Ng7 Nh6 69.N×h5 Nf5+ 70.Ke8 Nd6+ 71.Kd7 Nf5 72.Ng7 Nh6 73.Ke7 Nf7 74.Nf5 1-0 (165) Gligoric – Boleslavsky Sicilian Defense [B80] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 c×d4 4.N×d4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.g3 e6 For 6...e5 see games 66 (Gligoric-Kotov) and 120 (Gligoric-Najdorf ). 7.Bg2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.b3 Qc7 10.Bb2 Nc6 11.Nce2 Bd7 12.c4 Rac8 13.Rc1 Qb8 14.Ba3 Though Gligoric has gained a space advantage against the Scheveningen variation – which, for that matter, White usually does – Black’s position is solid enough, and free of vulnerable points. 14...Rfd8 15.Qd2 b5 16.c×b5 a×b5 17.Bb2 N×d4 18.N×d4 Qb6 Not 18...b4 19.Nc2. With his next move, Gligoric prevents that advance. 19.a3 ½-½;

472

The position is even and the outcome can be considered reasonable, especially on a day when ghting spirit is lacking! (166) Bronstein – Kotov Queen’s Indian Defense [A30] 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nf3 b6 3.g3 Bb7 4.Bg2 c5 5.0-0 e6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.d4 c×d4 8.N×d4 For 8.Q×d4 see games 79 (Gligoric-Smyslov) and 95 (Petrosian-Geller). 8...B×g2 9.K×g2 Qc8 10.Qd3 Nc6 Threatening 11...Ne5. 11.b3 0-0 12.Bb2 Rd8 13.Rac1 N×d4 14.Q×d4 Bc5 15.Qf4 Qb7+ 16.Kg1 d5 17.c×d5 ½-½; (D)

After 17...N×d5 18.N×d5 R×d5 19.Qg4 Bf8 the game would have arrived at a perfect equilibrium, which is anticipated by this drawn resolution. In such a paci c game, it is hard to recognize two grandmasters famous for their ghting spirit! However, at this stage of such an exhausting tournament, moods are not always inclined toward great battles. (167) Reshevsky – Geller Nimzo-Indian Defense [E35]

473

Round 24

E m Geller 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 d5 For 4...c5 see game 159, Euwe-Taimanov. 5.c×d5 e×d5 6.Bg5 Another continuation is 6.a3 B×c3+ 7.b×c3 c5 8.Nf3 Qa5 9.Nd2 Bd7 10.Nb3 Qa4 11.Qb2 Na6=, Najdorf-Botvinnik, Groningen 1946. 6...h6 7.B×f6 Q×f6 8.a3 B×c3+ (D)

474

Also playable is 8...Ba5 9.e3 Qd8 10.b4 Bb6 11.Na4 0-0 12.Nf3 Nd7 13.Bd3 c6 14.N×b6 N×b6 15.0-0 Be6 16.Ne5 Nd7=, Eliskases-Bogoljubow, match, 1939. 9.Q×c3 0-0 10.e3 c6 11.Ne2! (D)

Pure Reshevsky! With some transposition of moves, the American grandmaster has managed to enter a Queen’s Gambit, Exchange variation, in which he will be able to carry out a minority attack on the queenside, one of his specialties. Evidently, Reshevsky likes those variations where he can conserve even a small advantage ... rather than none! The text is much stronger than the usual 11.Nf3, because after 11...Bf5! 12.Ne5 Nd7 13.N×d7 B×d7 14.Be2 Qg6 15.0-0 Bh3 16.Bf3 Bg4 17.B×g4 Q×g4 18.b4 f5 the game is even (Foltys-Podgorny, Prague 1943). 11...Bf5 12.Nf4 Nd7 13.Be2 Rfe8N 14.0-0 Nf8 15.b4 (D)

The battle begins. 15...Ne6 We would prefer 15...Ng6, and if White continues 16.Nh5 then 16...Qg5 17.Ng3 Nh4! with counterplay. 16.Nh5 Qg6 17.Ng3 Rac8 18.Rac1 Ng5 19.b5!

475

Round 24

We would have preferred to prevent this advance momentarily with 18...a6, even though White, with the same idea, would respond 19.a4 and later b4-b5. However, between this variation and the game continuation there is the di erence that, after the exchanges on b5, Black’s weak a-pawn disappears, while in the game, as we will see, it is lost. 19...Ne4 Of course not 19...c×b5 20.Qb3, recovering the pawn with much the superior game. 20.Qa5 Now the weakness of the a-pawn becomes apparent. 20...c5 21.N×f5 Not yet 21.Q×a7 because of 21...Nd2 22.Rfd1 Nb3 23.Rc3 c4 and Black has counterplay. 21...Q×f5 22.d×c5 b6 23.Q×a7 b×c5 24.Bd3 c4 25.B×e4 Q×e4 26.Rfd1 c3 27.Qd4? Better 27.Rd4 and if 27...Qf5 28.Qa5. 27...Rc4 28.Q×d5 c2 29.Rd2 Q×d5 30.R×d5 Ra8 Though down two pawns, Black is able to slow the advance of White’s passed pawns, and has compensation in his own menacing c-pawn, which gives him practical counter-chances. 31.b6 (D) If 31.Rd3 Rb8 and White cannot play 32.Rb3? because of 32...Rd8.

31...Rb8? In time pressure both players fail to nd the best moves! Here Geller could have forced a draw with the pretty variation 31...R×a3 32.b7 Rb4! 33.Rd8+ Kh7 34.b8Q R×b8 35.R×b8 Rd3!! 36.Rbb1 c×b1Q 37.R×b1 with a theoretically drawn rook endgame. Now, however, Black is lost. 32.Rd6 Ra4 33.R×c2 R×a3 34.h3 Rb3 35.Rcc6 Rb2 36.e4 h5 37.e5 h4 38.Rd4 R2×b6 39.R×b6 R×b6 40.R×h4 Rb1+ 41.Kh2 (D)

476

In this position, one absolutely winning for White, the game was adjourned, but – incredibly! – Reshevsky could not win it! We can only explain this unexpected outcome with a reason, a very simple one, which perhaps because of its simplicity is often forgotten: even great grandmasters of chess, like all other human beings, can have a “bad day.” And truly for Reshevsky this one was bad indeed! 41...Re1 42.f4 Re3 43.Rg4 Kh7 44.Rg3 Re2 45.h4 Re4 46.Rf3 f6 47.e×f6 g×f6 48.Kg3? Winning was 48.g4, and if 48...Kg6 49.f5+. 48...Kg6 49.Ra3? Another opportunity lost. Winning was 49.f5+ Kh5 50.Rf4 Re3+ 51.Kh2 followed by g2-g3 and Kh2-h3. 49...f5 50.Ra6+? Still winning was 50.Kf3 Kh5 51.g3 Rb4 52.Ra8. 50...Kh5 (D)

51.Rf6?? Unbelievable! The last chance to win was 51.Ra8. After the text move, no winning positions exist. 51...Re3+ 52.Kf2 Ra3 (D)

477

Round 24

53.g3? Another error, which leads directly to a draw. Interesting was 53.R×f5+ K×h4 and even with two pawns more, White cannot win, viz., 54.Rg5 Ra2+ 55.Kg1 (if 55.Ke3 Re2+) 55...Ra1+ 56.Kh2 Rh1+, or if 54.Rf8 Kg4! 55.f5 Kg5 56.f6 Kg6. 53...Rf3+ 54.Ke2 R×g3 55.R×f5+ K×h4 56.Kf2 Ra3 57.Rg5 Rb3 58.Rg1 Kh5 59.Ke2 Ra3 60.f5 Ra5 ½-½; (168) Keres – Smyslov English Opening [E14] 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.e3 In other games in the tournament, with transposition of moves, there followed 4.g3 b6 5.Bg2 Bb7, entering the Queen’s Indian Defense. 4...Be7 5.b3 0-0 6.Bb2 b6 7.d4 c×d4 8.e×d4 d5 The game has transformed into the Rubinstein System of the Queen’s Pawn Game. 9.Bd3 Nc6 10.0-0 Bb7 11.Rc1 Rc8 12.Re1 (D)

Interesting was 12.Qe2 which could lead to rather complicated play: 12...Nb4 13.Bb1 d×c4 14.b×c4 B×f3 15.g×f3 Nh5, or 15...Q×d4 16.Nd5 Qc5. 478

12...Nb4 13.Bf1 Ne4 Ill-advised would be 13...d×c4 because of 14.b×c4 B×f3 15.Q×f3 Q×d4 16.Nd5!. 14.a3 N×c3 15.R×c3 Not 15.B×c3? Na2. 15...Nc6 (D)

16.Ne5? As Keres himself showed after the game, necessary was 16.c5 b×c5 17.d×c5 d4 18.Rc1 Bf6 19.b4, and White does not stand worse. 16...N×e5 17.R×e5 If 17.d×e5 d×c4 and Black gets the better endgame. 17...Bf6 18.Rh5? Knowing he will have a losing endgame, Keres decides to play all out for a direct attack. But Smyslov, with his characteristic solidity and calmness, disrupts rst this attempt, then later goes to work on the hanging pawns. 18...g6 19.Rch3 (D)

19...d×c4 A most curious position for the white rooks! Clearly, Smyslov cannot accept the sacri ce of one of them: 19...g×h5? 20.Q×h5 Re8 21.a4! with the following 479

Round 24

variations: (D)

(a) 21...d×c4 22.Q×h7+ Kf8 23.Ba3+ Re7 24.Rg3+–; (b) 21...Qd6 22.c5! and (b1) 22...b×c5 23.Qh6 Bg7 24.Q×h7+ Kf8 25.d×c5+–; (b2) 22...Qd8 23.c6 R×c6 24.Ba3 Rd6 25.Qh6 B×d4 26.Bd3 etc.; (b3) 22...Qf4 23.Rf3 Qg5 24.Rg3+– (analysis by Dr. Euwe). 20.R×h7 If 20.b×c4 g×h5 21.Q×h5 Be4!–+. 20...c3 21.Qc1 (D)

21...Q×d4! Not 21...c×b2?? 22.Qh6 Q×d4 23.Rh8+ B×h8 24.Qh7#. 22.Qh6 Rfd8 The evolutions of Smyslov’s pieces are as noteworthy as they are graceful, each arriving at just the right time with the only correct defense. After all the complications Black comes out a pawn ahead, which will be su cient to win as a result of the disorganization of White’s pieces. The destiny of the white queen and rooks is a sad one: all three are aimed at the black king, but they cannot kill him! 23.Bc1 Bg7 24.Qg5 Qf6 25.Qg4 c2 26.Be2 Rd4 27.f4 Rd1+ 28.B×d1 Qd4+ 0-1 480

A beautiful game reminiscent of the romantic days of chess, and a well-deserved feather in the cap of Smyslov, who maintained his calm in the midst of complications.

481

Round 25

Round 25

Standings after round 25: Smyslov 15½; Reshevsky 14; Bronstein 13½; Keres 13; Kotov and Najdorf 12½; Petrosian 12; Gligoric and Taimanov 11½; Averbakh and Boleslavsky 11; Euwe and Geller 10½;; Szabó 10; Ståhlberg 6. The game so eagerly awaited by all nally arrived! Smyslov and Reshevsky – two styles, two temperaments and, if you will, “two di erent worlds” – met to give a probably de nitive answer to the question still oating in the nervous air of the last rounds: who would win the greatest chess tournament of all time? The struggle began as an English Opening and quite soon Reshevsky, making an anti-positional move, surprised the cognoscenti; White, with better development, also had the bishop pair against his opponent’s two knights. But even more surprising was the fact that Black – con dent in his position’s impregnability – made no less than eleven waiting moves, marking time until Smyslov should declare his intentions! As can easily be imagined, the Soviet grandmaster, with his proverbial logic and calmness, nally hit on a plan to break through, and on emerging from his lethargy, Black lost a pawn. Still, at the time the game was adjourned one thought that Reshevsky had some chances for counterplay. However, his sealed move did not take the best path, whereupon Smyslov was able to capitalize on his advantages, winning by a mating attack. Also unfortunate for Bronstein was the result of his game with Geller: in a Queen’s Gambit he spoiled his position with a series of errors, obsessively playing for an attack at all costs. Geller refuted one after another of his inaccuracies and nally penetrated with his pieces into the enemy camp, decimating the defense. Ståhlberg and Najdorf played a long and interesting game which began as a King’s Indian, and where Black, with some originality, sought possibilities of a breakthrough on the kingside. Ståhlberg decided to press on the other ank, sacri cing the exchange for a strong initiative, and such was his pugnacity that he rejected a drawing continuation. Black quickly changed his plan and turned his pieces toward the queenside, where his knights wove a perfect web. Najdorf was nally able to break through and the game was adjourned in a position winning for 482

the Argentine master, so that later it was only a matter of time before his advantage prevailed. Kotov-Gligoric was another King’s Indian. Black played an important innovation with 7...c5, which gave the game great theoretical value. Kotov made the mistaken decision to open the game, and then Gligoric, with a correct positional pawn sacri ce, and later another, gained promising prospects. Sadly for him, he later lost an important tempo which changed everything: White was able to organize a defense and a draw was quickly reached. Boleslavsky conducted his game very well against the Queen’s Indian deployed by Taimanov, arriving at an interesting endgame of bishops and pawns, which he should have won. Later, both adversaries sacri ced their bishops and queened one of their pawns. In this new ending, Boleslavsky had the advantage of a passed h-pawn, and by advancing it at the precise moment he could have won the game. This new omission by White facilitated Taimanov’s defense, and thus he was able to secure the draw. The opening in Szabó-Averbakh was very interesting, as Black played a Sicilian Defense. Averbakh capitalized on a dubious move by his opponent, rapidly gaining an advantage in development, but by missing the correct continuation at the decisive moment, he was not able to avoid a draw. Dr. Euwe clearly intended to avoid risks in his game with Petrosian and his whole strategy was based on this. The game was correct but lacking in spirit, and thus peacefully eased into a draw. (169) Smyslov – Reshevsky English Opening [A17] 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4 4.g3 b6 5.Bg2 Bb7 6.0-0 0-0 By transposition we have arrived at a sort of Queen’s Indian, in which White has not played d2-d4 and Black has his king’s bishop on b4 instead of e7. 7.Qb3 B×c3 It is a bit strange that Reshevsky, who has an innate positional sense, should voluntarily surrender this valuable bishop. Clearly, in such a closed position, there was no harm in losing a tempo to retreat the bishop to e7, especially with the white queen on b3, a less-than-ideal square in this deployment. 8.Q×c3 d6 9.b3 Qe7 10.Bb2 c511.d4 Nbd7 12.Rad1 Be4 13.d×c5 N×c5 If 13...dxc5 14.Qe3 with greater freedom of action. 14.Qe3 e5 15.Bh3 a5 16.Nh4 Rfe8 17.f3 White cannot consent to Black’s liberating move d6-d5. Smyslov’s scheme of development is logical, and gives him the pair of bishops against two knights. Now he should try to open the position to give them the best prospects. (D) 17...Bg6 18.Rd2 Rad8 19.Rfd1 Qc7 20.N×g6 h×g6 21.Bg2 Nh5 22.Qc3 (D)

483

Round 25

22...Nf6? As we will see, Reshevsky considers his position impenetrable and indulges in a series of waiting moves, with the sole object of passing time until his adversary embarks on a concrete plan. However, one cannot give Smyslov such a prolonged, undisturbed opportunity to devise a breakthrough! The most active move at this moment was 22...f5, with some prospects of counterplay and more maneuvering space. We could indicate a series of variations here, but that would really do no more than what we have just said to illustrate the concept of the position and the idea motivating the two adversaries. 23.e4 Nh5 24.Qe3 Nf6 25.Bh3 Nh7 26.Re2 Nf6 27.Rf1 Nh5 The knight continues its dance. 28.Bg2 Qe7 29.Bc1 Qc7 30.Rd1 Kh7 31.Qf2 Nf6 32.Be3 Nh5 33.Rc2 f5? After eleven dilatory moves, waiting for Smyslov to declare his intentions, Reshevsky realizes that he must change his policy, as White threatens a break on the ank with a2-a3 and b3-b4. Predictably, Smyslov has found an adequate plan, and even though Black already had no satisfactory moves, the text loses a pawn immediately. 34.e×f5 g×f5 35.g4 Nf4 Not 35...f×g4? 36.Qh4+–. 36.B×f4 e×f4 37.Qh4+ Kg8 38.g×f5 d5!? Seeking better prospects for his queen. 39.c×d5 Qe5 40.Rcd2 Rd6 41.Rd4 (D)

484

In this position Reshevsky had to seal his move, and wrote down the queen check. However the Soviet analysts considered that best resistance was o ered by 41...Q×f5 42.R×f4 (if 42.Q×f4 R×d5) 42...Qc2 with complicated play. 41...Qe3+ 42.Kh1 Re5 43.Q×f4 Q×f4 44.R×f4 Re2 If 44...Re×d5 45.R×d5 R×d5 46.Bf1 Rd1 47.Kg1 Ra1 48.f6+–. 45.Rg4 Kf8 46.Rg6 Nb7 47.Re6 R×a2 48.f4 Rb2 49.Rde1 R×e6 50.d×e6 Nd6 51.e7+ Kf7 52.Bd5+ Ke8 53.Bc6+ Kf7 54.e8Q+ N×e8 55.B×e8+ Kf6 56.Bg6 1-0 The most unfortunate day of the tournament for Reshevsky, who after drawing the ending with Geller – adjourned in a position winning for Reshevsky – now had to resign this game, against the leader, when he was practically on the point of catching up with him! (170) Geller – Bronstein Queen’s Gambit Declined [D35] 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 d5 4.c×d5 e×d5 5.Nc3 c6 6.Qc2 Bg4 7.Bg5 Nbd7 8.e3 Imprudent would be 8.Ne5 because of 8...N×e5 9.d×e5 h6 10.Bh4 g5 11.Bg3 Nh5 followed by ...Bg7. 8...Bd6 9.Bd3 Qc7 10.0-0-0 h6? (D)

485

Round 25

Bronstein has gotten a good position, but he spoils it by seeking complications. Simple and good was 10...Bh5. 11.Bh4 Bb4 12.Kb1 B×c3? Continuing the mistaken plan. I can think of no reason for Bronstein to give up his valuable bishop (not to mention losing two tempi) except to gain control of e4, but that is not at all adequate compensation. 13.Q×c3 0-0 14.h3 Bh5 15.Qc2 Threatening 16.g4. 15...Ne4 16.B×e4 d×e4 17.g4 Bg6 18.Nd2 Nb6 19.Nc4 Nd5? Bronstein refuses to recognize that his position is inferior, and even plays to win! Preferable was 19...N×c4 20.Q×c4 Rac8 trying for a draw with the bishops of opposite color. 20.Bg3 Qd7 21.Ne5 Qe6 22.Qb3 Bh7 23.Rc1 Not 23.Q×b7? Nc3+. (D)

23...a5? The decisive error, deriving from the obsession to attack. Though Black would still stand worse, preferable was 23...Nb6 (and not 23...Qe7? 24.h4 f6 25.Nc4 Rad8 26.g5!). 24.Q×b7 Nb4 25.Nc4 c5 26.d×c5 Nd3 27.c6! f5 (D)

486

If 27...N×c1 28.R×c1 and the advanced c-pawn, along with the good placement of White’s pieces, would decide the game. 28.g×f5 B×f5 29.Rhg1 Bg6 30.Rc2 Rac8 31.Bd6! Rfe8 32.Qd7 Qf6 33.c7 Bf5 34.Qb5 B×h3 35.Bg3 Vacating d6 for the knight. 35...Be6 36.Nd6 Nb4 Completely lost, Black goes into his last throes. 37.N×e8 B×a2+ 38.Kc1 Qe7 39.Nd6 Nd3+ 40.Kd2 R×c7 41.Qe8+ In his haste, Geller does not see that 41.Qb8+ wins another rook! 41...Q×e8 42.N×e8 Rd7 43.Rc7 1-0 (171) Kotov – Gligoric King’s Indian Defense [E87] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 e5 7.d5 c5! (D) After his experiences in games 75 (Geller-Gligoric) and 132 (Petrosian-Gligoric), in which he played 7...Nh5, the Yugoslavian grandmaster nds the exact move for this position! As we have seen in the earlier games, White, after 0-0-0 and Kc1-b1, can launch a strong attack on the queen’s ank based on a2-a4-a5 and occupation of the c- le. It is for that reason that Black now anticipates and prevents that maneuver with the text move, while still retaining possibilities of attack on the kingside and counterplay on the queen’s wing.

In our opinion, Gligoric’s plan is correct, and two rounds later, Najdorf repeated this move against Kotov, in game 186. 8.Bd3 In the Kotov-Najdorf game, White played 8.g4 with the idea of avoiding the move that follows. 8...Nh5 9.Nge2 f5 (D)

487

Round 25

10.e×f5? It is evident that the aggressive Soviet master believes he can decide the game by direct means on the kingside. However, Black’s position is solid and after this move Black will have, at a certain moment, the opportunity to activate his king’s bishop. While it would be dangerous for White to castle – in view of the threat of f4-f5 and g6-g5 with a strong attack – preferable instead was 10.Qd2 with the idea of waiting to see the opponent’s plan, since if then 10...f4 11.Bf2 with the option of castling on either side, and if 10...f×e4 11.N×e4 with an even game and the possibility of a later break with b2-b4. 10...g×f5 11.Qc2 e4! (D)

A correct positional sacri ce, by which Black opens the diagonal for his Bg7 and at the same time obtains the strong post e5 for a piece. 12.f×e4 f4 13.Bf2 Nd7 14.Ng1 Qg5 15.Bf1 White has been forced into so many lost tempi that already Black has adequate compensation for the pawn. 15...Ne5 16.Nf3 Qe7 17.N×e5 Q×e5 18.0-0-0 Nf6 19.h3 Bd7 20.Bd3 a6 21.Nb1! The black queen, in combination with the Bg7, is a latent threat to White’s king, and therefore Kotov seeks to dislodge it with Nb1-d2-f3 or Bf2-e1-c3. 21...f3! 488

Gligoric gives up a second pawn to forestall the aforementioned knight maneuver, and despite the material de cit he retains the preferable position. 22.g×f3 Nh5 23.Nd2 Nf4 24.Bf1 b5 25.h4 Kh8 26.Rg1 Bf6 27.Nb3 (D)

27...Rab8? Until now Gligoric has conducted the game masterfully, but with this move he loses a very important tempo. The indicated move was 27...b4 (but not 27...a5 because of 28.c×b5 a4 29.Nd2 a3 30.Nc4 a×b2+ 31.Kb1 Qe7 32.e5), and if 28.Na5 then 28...Ba4! carrying out the same plan as in the game, but without loss of time. In the event of 28.Bg3 there would follow 28...Rg8 29.Qh2 R×g3 30.R×g3 a5 with a strong attack. 28.Be1 b4 29.Kb1 Ra8 Recognizing his error, but the two lost tempi cannot be recovered! 30.Bg3 Rg8 31.Qh2 Now White has the chance to save himself. 31...R×g3 32.R×g3 Ne2 33.Q×e2 Q×g3 34.Nc1 a5 35.Nd3 Bd4 36.h5 Qh4 37.Bg2 Rg8 38.Rh1 Qg3 39.Bf1 a4 40.Kc2 a3 41.b3 ½-½; (D)

Here the game was adjourned, and despite his two-pawn advantage, White has no forcing play. But neither can Black penetrate, for example, 41...Qg5! 42.f4 (not

489

Round 25

42.Bh3? B×h3 43.R×h3 Qg1–+) Qg3 43.Qh2 Qe3 44.Qe2 Qg3 45.Qh2. (172) Boleslavsky – Taimanov Queen’s Indian Defense [E19] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 For 4...Ba6 see games 59 (Ståhlberg-Taimanov) and 106 (Bronstein-Taimanov). 5.Bg2 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Nc3 Ne4 8.Qc2 N×c3 9.Q×c3 In game 148, Najdorf-Averbakh, White played 9.b×c3. 9...f5 (D)

A more active move than the usual 9...Be4. 10.b3 Another worthwhile continuation is 10.Be3 Bf6 11.Qd2 d6 12.d5 e5 13.Ng5 B×g5 14.B×g5 Qe8 15.e4 f×e4 16.Rae1 Nd7 17.R×e4 Qg6 18.Rh4 Nf6=, AlekhineBotvinnik, AVRO 1938. 10...Bf6 11.Bb2 Nc6 Pachman recommends 11...d6 12.Rad1 Qc8 13.Qd2 Be4 14.Ne1 B×g2 15.N×g2 Nd7 16.Qc2 Qb7 17.f3 Rae8 18.e4 f×e4 19.f×e4 e5 20.d5 Bg5!, Pachman-Kottnauer, Prague 1949. 12.Rad1 Qe8 More expeditious appears 12...Qc8! followed by Nc6-e7, preventing d4-d5. 13.Qc2 Nd8 14.d5 B×b2 If 14...e5 15.e4 (not 15.Q×f5? e4–+) 15...f×e4 16.Nd2 with the better game for White. 15.Q×b2 e×d5 16.c×d5 c5 17.d×c6 d×c6 18.Ne5 Rf6 19.f4 Preparing Rd1-d7, which at the moment is not possible due to 19...Re6. 19...Nf7 20.Rd7 N×e5 21.f×e5 Q×d7 Forced, since if 21...Rf7 22.R×f7 Q×f7 23.e4. 22.e×f6 Rf8 23.f×g7 Q×g7 24.Q×g7+ K×g7 25.e4! (D)

490

An excellent move by Boleslavsky, preparing for the endgame. White keeps his pieces and pawns mobile on the kingside where he has the better chances, while Black has a hard time activating his own bishop or advancing his queenside pawns. 25...f×e4 26.R×f8 K×f8 27.B×e4 h6 28.Kf2 Ke7 29.Kf3 White does not have time to play 29.b4 (to get his pawns on dark squares) because of 29...Kd6 30.Kf3 Bc8. 29...a5! 29...Kf6 would not serve in light of 30.Kf4 followed by g3-g4, h2-h4 and g4-g5, and the black king must keep watch on those pawns, while the white king penetrates decisively on the queenside. 30.Kg4 Bc8+ 31.Kh5 c5 32.K×h6 Kf6 33.Bf3 The only move allowing White to advance his kingside pawns. 33...a4! (D)

34.b×a4? Boleslavsky could have won this beautiful and di cult ending with 34.g4!. Some variations: (a) 34...a3 35.g5+ Ke5 36.g6 Be6 (if 36...Kf6 37.Bd5+–) 37.g7 c4 (if 37...B×b3 38.a×b3 a2 39.g8Q a1Q 40.Qg7++–) 38.Bd1+–; (b) 34...a×b3 35.a×b3 b5 36.g5+ Ke5 37.g6 and: (D) 491

Round 25

(b1) 37...Kf6 38.Bd5+–; (b2) 37...c4 38.b×c4 b×c4 39.Kg5 c3 40.Bd1+–; (b3) 37...Be6 38.Bd1 Kf6 (if 38...c4 39.b×c4 b×c4 40.Kg5) 39.g7 c4 40.b4! Bg8 41.h4 c3 42.Bc2 Kf7 43.h5 Kf6 44.Bg6! Bb3 45.Kh7 c2 46.B×c2 B×c2+ 47.Kh8 Bb3 48.h6+–; (c) 34...Be6 35.g5+ Ke5 36.Bd1 c4 37.b×a4 c3 38.g6 Kf6 39.g7 B×a2 40.Kh7+–. 34...c4 35.g4 c3 36.g5+ Ke5 37.Bd1 Bg4 38.Bc2 Bf5 39.g6 B×c2 40.g7 Bh7 (D)

If 40...Bb3 41.a×b3 c2 42.g8Q c1Q+ 43.Qg5++–. 41.K×h7 c2 42.g8Q c1Q 43.Qb8+ Kd5 44.Qb7+ Ke5 45.Qg7+Kd5 46.Qf7+ Ke5 47.h4 Qc2+ 48.Kg7 Q×a4 (D) If 48...Qg2+ 49.Kf8 and now not 49...Qa8+? 50.Qe8++–.

492

49.Qf6+? Winning was 49.h5, and if 49...Qg4+ 50.Kf8 Qc8+? 51.Qe8+ Q×e8+ 52.K×e8 Kf5 53.Kd7 etc. 49...Ke4 50.Qe6+ Kf4 51.h5 Now it is too late, because the black king is nearby! 51...Kg5 52.Qe5+ Kg4 53.h6 Qd7+ 54.Kf6 Qd8+ 55.Kf7 Qd7+ 56.Qe7 Qd3 57.Qe6+ Kh5 58.Ke8 b5 59.Ke7 b4 60.Ke8 Qg6+! ½-½; If 61.Q×g6+ K×g6 62.Kd7 K×h6 63.Kc6 Kg7 64.Kb5 Kf7 65.K×b4 Ke7 and the black king arrives in time! (173) Ståhlberg – Najdorf King’s Indian Defense [E64] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.Nc3 c5 6.d5 e5 For the idea behind this move, see game 58, Euwe-Najdorf. 7.Nf3 In that game, Dr. Euwe replied 7.Bg5?!. Ståhlberg’s plan is better than 7.e4 and Ng1-e2, as was played in Guimard-Najdorf, Havana 1952, and Reshevsky-Najdorf, rst match, Mexico 1952. 7...d6 8.0-0 Nbd7 9.Qc2 Better seems to me the idea of 9.e4 followed by Nf3-e1-d3, without deciding yet the square for the queen. 9...Qe7 10.e4 a6 Preferable was 10...Nh5 at once. 11.a4 Nh5 Were the white queen still on d1 I could not have made this move – intending f7f5 – since after e×f5 and ...g×f5 my knight would be left undefended. 12.Bd2 Kh8 (D)

493

Round 25

A move which at rst sight seems a bit obscure, but it has its purpose! The idea is to play Nd7-f6-g8 to arrive at the key move f7-f5, which at the moment is premature; for example 12...f5 13.Ng5 Ndf6 14.Ne6!, or simply 14.e×f5 B×f5 15.Nge4. 13.a5 Seeing that I am trying to transfer my queen’s knight to the kingside, White should wait for the continuation of that maneuver, and only then play a4-a5 to avoid the break that now follows. 13...b5! By no means can I permit 14.Na4 and 15.b4, by which White would get his queenside o ensive going rst, ahead of mine on the opposite ank. 14.c×b5 Aware of my plan to close the queenside with b5-b4 and counterattack on the kingside, Ståhlberg decides to sacri ce the exchange for a strong initiative. 14...a×b5 15.N×b5! Ba6 (D)

16.Na3? Looking for a ght, to be sure, but with losing the exchange he should content himself with a draw by 16.Nc7 B×f1 16.B×f1 Rac8 16.Nb5 Ra8 19.Nc7. 16...B×f1 17.R×f1

494

Better was 17.B×f1 so that the eventual advance of the a-pawn would be supported. 17...Nhf6 Now I must completely alter my earlier plan. First, it is necessary to bring pieces to the queenside to detain the passed a-pawn, and only once this is done then look for a breakthrough in the other sector. 18.Nc4 Ne8 19.Bh3 Ra7 20.Be3 Rb7 White threatened 21.b4. 21.Ra1 Nc7 Fortunately, I arrive in time! My knights, still poorly placed, have accomplished their rst mission: to prevent the advance of White’s a-pawn and the penetration of his pieces on the queenside. 22.Qa4 Nb8 23.Nb6 f5 At last, the break! 24.e×f5 g×f5 25.Qh4 Qf7 Though up the exchange, I cannot exchange queens and go into an endgame. For example 25...Q×h4 26.N×h4 and my passive pieces doom me! 26.Bh6 Nba6 27.Nc4 Nb5 Finally, my knights can move on from their defensive tasks and activate themselves bit by bit. 28.Ne3 (D)

28...f4! Not the seemingly good 28...Qg6 because of 29.B×g7+ R×g7 30.Qc4 followed by 30. Nh4. 29.B×g7+ If 29.Nf5 B×h6 30.Q×h6 Qf6 31.Qh5 Qg6 32.Qh4 R×f5 33.Qd8+ Kg7 34.Nh4 Rf8!. 29...Q×g7 30.Nf5 Qg6 31.Qg4 Q×g4 Now yes! With my pieces well placed, I gladly enter the endgame with the advantage of the exchange. 32.B×g4 Ra7 33.Nd2 Nb4 34.Nc4 Rf6 35.Rd1 Kg8 36.Bh3 Kf8 37.Kg2 Raf7 38.Nh4 f×g3 39.f×g3 Nd4 495

Round 25

Rf8.

Pressed for time, I do not see the reply 40.Be6!. Best was 39...Ke7 and if 40.Be6 40.Be6! Rf2+ 41.Kh3 (D)

41...Rf1 Fortunately, at the moment of adjournment, I put the best move in the envelope. Even though White has a chance with his passed pawn, my active pieces and material advantage su ce to win. 42.R×f1 If 42.B×f7 R×d1 43.Bh5 Ra1 44.N×d6 N×d5 45.Nb7 e4 46.N×c5 e3 47.Ng2 e2 48.Nd3 Nf6 49.Bg4 h5 50.Bc8 Nf3–+. 42...R×f1 43.N×d6 N×e6 44.d×e6 Ke7 45.Ne4 K×e6 46.N×c5+ Kd5 47.Na4 e4 48.Kg2 Ra1 49.Nc3+ Ke5 50.g4 R×a5 51.Nf5 Nd5 52.Nd1 Ra1 53.Nf2 Nf4+ 54.Kg3 Rg1+ 55.Kh4 Rg2 56.Nd1 R×h2+ 57.Kg3 Rh3+ 58.Kf2 Rf3+ 59.Ke1 h5 60.Nde3 h4 61.g5 h3 0-1 (174) Euwe – Petrosian Old Indian Defense [A54] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nf3 Nbd7 5.Bg5 Be7 For 5...h6 see game 37, Keres-Boleslavsky. 6.e3 Dr. Euwe declines to enter into complications, and appears peaceably disposed in the opening – an observation one can rarely make about the enterprising style of the ex-world champion! The reader will understand that at this stage of the tournament, the inevitable fatigue of so many battles leaves its mark on the body and spirit of the players, forcing them to conserve conscientiously their last energies. We cannot say that the text is a bad move; simply that it is not the most active. Currently fashionable is 6.e4 but Dr. Euwe contents himself with supporting his center. 6...0-0 7.Qc2 c6 8.Bd3 e×d4 9.e×d4 Re8 10.0-0 h6 11.Bd2 Maintaining control of f4. If 11.Bh4 Nh5. 11...Nf8 12.h3 Ne6 13.Rae1 We would have liked 13.Rfe1 leaving the queen’s rook free to take another le. 496

½;

13...d5 14.c×d5 c×d5 15.Qb3 Bf8 16.Re2 Qd6 17.Bc1 Why? 17...a6 18.Rfe1 b5 19.Bf5 Bd7 20.a3 Rac8 21.Qd1 Nc7 22.B×d7 N×d7 23.Ne5 ½A fair result, in view of the fact that neither player wanted anything else.

(175) Szabó – Averbakh Sicilian Defense [B31] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 Other known continuations: (a) 3...a6 4.B×c6 d×c6 5.h3 e5 6.0-0 f6 7.d3 Be6 8.a4! Qd7 9.a5 0-0-0 10.b3 g5 11.Na3 h5 12.Nc4 Qg7 13.Be3 g4 14.Nh4 g×h3 15.g3 with the better game for White, Simagin-Benkö, USSR-Hungary team match 1946. (b) 3...Qc7 4.0-0 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Re1 d6 7.d4 c×d4 8.Nd5! Qd8 9.N×d4 Bd7 10.Bg5! Be7 (if 10...e×d5 11.N×c6 b×c6 12.e×d5+ Be7 13.d×c6+–) 11.N×e7 N×d4 12.B×d7+ Q×d7 13.B×f6 g×f6 14.Nd5! with greatly superior play for White, RichterGroneberg, Berlin 1950. 4.0-0 Bg7 5.Nc3 If 5.c3 Qb6! (not 5...d5 6.Qa4! d×e4 7.B×c6+ b×c6 8.Q×c6+ Bd7 9.Q×e4 Nf6 10.Qh4 0-0 11.d4 with the better game for White, Tartakower-Boleslavsky, Groningen 1946.) 5...d6 6.d3 Bd7 7.Nd5?! Szabó tries to gain dominion over the center with c2-c3 and d3-d4, but the text move has the drawback that Black, by repelling the knight, gains a developmental tempo. 7...e6 8.Ne3 Nge7 9.c3 0-0 10.d4 (D)

10...N×d4 Averbakh, with his rapid development and this good continuation, gets the better game. 11.N×d4 c×d4 12.B×d7 d×e3 13.Q×d6 e×f2+ 14.R×f2 Nc6 15.Bf4 Qb6 16.Rd1 Necessary was 16.B×c6 with equality. 497

Round 25

16...Rad8 17.Qc7 Only seemingly good was 17.Bg5 in view of 17...Be5! and: (a) 18.Qd3 f6 19.Be3 R×d7-+; (b) 18.B×d8 R×d8 and (b1) 19.Qd2 Nb8–+; (b2) 19.Qd3 B×h2+ 20.Kf1 Ne5 21.Qh3 Qa6+ 22.Re2 Bf4-+; (b3) 19.Qa3 B×h2+ 20.Kf1 Qb5+ 21.Re2 Qh5-+. 17...Bd4 18.c×d4 Q×c7 19.B×c7 R×d7 20.Bg3 (D)

20...f5? The correct continuation was 20...Rfd8! (better than taking the pawn immediately), and even though after winning the pawn the strong white bishop will make it hard for Black to exploit his advantage, he will retain good winning prospects. In contrast, with the text, Black heads directly for a draw. 21.d5 e×d5 22.R×d5 Rdf7 23.e×f5 R×f5 24.Rf×f5 R×f5 25.Rd7 Rf7 26.Rd6 Kf8 27.a3 ½-½;

498

Round 26

Standings after round 26: Smyslov 16; Reshevsky 14½; Bronstein 14; Keres 13½; Najdorf and Petrosian 13; Kotov and Taimanov 12½; Averbakh 12; Boleslavsky, Geller and Gligoric 11½; Euwe 10½;; Szabó 10; Ståhlberg 6. The four tournament leaders played each other in this round. Before the start, magni cent things were predicted, and expectations were high that the clash of such sharp styles would give rise to erce battles. But in fact, there was no real ght, and from both a chessic and psychological standpoint one could say that all four players evinced a truly unexpected prudence and conformity. If this was understandable and even justi able on Smyslov’s part – the Soviet grandmaster wisely managed the last points – one could hardly say the same of his three closest pursuers, and especially of Bronstein, who chose against Smyslov himself one of the most innocuous variations of the Ruy Lopez. [Najdorf could not have known what Bronstein did not reveal until nearly 50 years later: that his draw with Smyslov was ordered by Dmitry Postnikov, head of the Soviet contingent at Zürich. The goal of course was to protect Smyslov’s lead over Reshevsky. See Secret Notes by Bronstein & Voronkov, Edition Olms, 2007, pp. 131-137. – TK] No more combative, though perhaps somewhat more interesting, was the short game between Reshevsky and Keres, a Nimzo-Indian. The nal position is rather complicated and it would be very di cult to say who stands better; however the rivals did not risk trying to resolve this question, and a draw was agreed at move 14. In the other games the ght was generally erce, and play was marked by errors and surprises. Geller, for example, was probably lost in his contest with Gligoric. The Yugoslav grandmaster played very well up to move 31, where, by an error, he lost all his advantage. Even so, it looked like White would at least draw, but a gross mistake in the ending dashed all his hopes. Najdorf found an interesting innovation against Boleslavsky’s King’s Indian and gained a superior position, but in the middlegame he missed a winning continuation and even though he remained a pawn up, it was a di cult rook-andpawn ending, impossible to win. Dr. Euwe played the Nimzo-Indian against Averbakh, improving on the system seen in game 39, Bronstein-Euwe, with 12...Qe7. Later he sacri ced a pawn and it 499

Round 26

looked like he was on the way to a draw, when in the endgame he committed a serious mistake, and had to resign yet another point. There can be no doubt that the former world champion has felt the e ect of the great e ort he has had to expend; in the second half of the tournament several games clearly show his fatigue. Even though Petrosian-Ståhlberg began as a Sicilian Defense, White transformed it into a reversed King’s Indian, which he plays often with much success. Petrosian, taking advantage of his opponent’s vacillation, got the better game, and from move 18 on, he implacably pressed home his advantages. Also grandmaster Taimanov played a positionally perfect game against Kotov, and capitalizing on weaknesses in Black’s position and certain concomitant errors, won a brilliant victory. (176) Averbakh – Euwe Nimzo-Indian Defense [E59] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 c5 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Bd3 d5 7.0-0 Nc6 8.a3 B×c3 9.b×c3 d×c4 10.B×c4 Qc7 11.Bd3 e5 12.Qc2 Qe7 Dr. Euwe improves on his own continuation from game 39, Bronstein-Euwe, where he played 12...Re8. In that game, after 13.e4, he could not resolve the central situation because of the poor location of his queen on c7, so now we see something di erent. 13.d×e5 Not 13.e4 as in the aforementioned game, since after 13...c×d4 14.c×d4 e×d4 there is no compensation for the pawn sacri ced 13...N×e5 14.N×e5 Q×e5 15.Re1! A positionally important move, since Black threatened 15...Ng4, and if 15.h3 to prevent it, then 15...b6 16.Bb2 Bb7 17.c4 Qg5 with good play for Black. 15...Bd7 16.Bb2 (D) 16...c4!? Dr. Euwe is true to his style! He prefers to sacri ce a pawn for the initiative, rather than allow 17.c4 when White’s bishops become very active and Black would be thrown on the defensive.

500

(D)

17.B×c4 Ng4 18.f4 Qc5 19.Qd3 Rad8 The pawn sacri ce appears promising, with Black getting active development.

20.Rad1 Here we would prefer 20.Qd4 and if 20...Qh5 (or if 20...Qc7 21.Bd5 followed by c3-c4) 21.h3 Nf6 (or 21...Be6 22.h×g4 R×d4 23.g×h5 R×c4 24.Rad1) 22.Qe5. 20...Qb6 21.Qe2 N×e3 22.Q×e3 Q×b2 23.Re2 Qb6 Of course not 23...Q×a3? 24.Ra2+–. 24.Q×b6 a×b6 25.Re7 If 25.Red2 Rc8. 25...Be6 26.R×d8 R×d8 27.B×e6 f×e6 28.R×b7 Rc8 29.R×b6 R×c3 30.Ra6 The only way to try for a win is to retain the passed pawn, since 30.R×e6 R×a3 creates a theoretically drawn rook endgame of three pawns vs. two on the same wing. However, even after the text move, the ending is not di cult and should also end in a draw. 30...Kf7 31.Kf2 h5 32.a4 Ra3 33.h4 Kf6 34.Ra5 g6 35.Ke2 (D)

35...Rg3?

501

Round 26

This grave error, which costs the game, plainly shows Dr. Euwe’s fatigue in the second half of the tournament. Clearly 35...Kf7 leads to a draw: if 36.Kd2 Ra2+, or else 36.Ra8 Kf6 with the same result. 36.Rg5! Now White can advance his passed pawn and at the same time bring the king over to the queenside, because the base of his pawns is suitably defended. 36...Ra3 37.a5 Kf7 38.Kd2 Ke7 39.Kc2 Kd7 40.Kb2 Ra4 41.g3 Kc6 42.Kb3 Ra1 43.Kb4 Rb1+ 44.Kc4 Ra1 45.Kb3 1-0 Black is in Zugzwang, since if 45..Rb1+ 46.Ka2 and the g6-pawn falls, or if 45...Kd6 46.Kb4,Rb1+ 47.Kc4 Rc1+ 48.Kb5 etc.

Tigran Petrosian (177) Petrosian – Ståhlberg King’s Indian Attack [A05] 1.e4 c5 2.d3 Petrosian’s favorite system, which we have seen in games 69 (Petrosian-Euwe) and 117 (Petrosian-Reshevsky). Here the Indian theme favors White in that c5 is

502

already occupied, whereas the corresponding square for White, c4, is open and a piece can be posted there. 2...Nc6 3.Nf3 g6 Very interesting as an example of how to meet this system is the game Pérez Alcócer-Najdorf, Mar del Plata Zonal 1954, where Black played 3...d5! 4.Nbd2 Nf6 5.g3 e6 6.Bg2 Be7 7.0-0 0-0 8.c3 b6 9.Qa4 Qd7!. 4.g3 Bg7 5.Bg2 d6 6.0-0 Nf6 7.Nbd2 0-0 8.a4 King’s Indian with colors reversed! With his previous move White intends to install the knight on c4. 8...Bd7 9.Nc4 Qc8 10.Re1 Ng4 More consequential would be a plan with 10...Bh3, and if 11.Bh1 h6 with a gain of space and no problems for Black. 11.c3 h6 Since Ståhlberg later plays f7-f5, it is apparent that he could have done it here, without creating more weaknesses around his king. However, f7-f5 looks a bit hasty to us in either case. 12.Qe2 Kh7 13.Nfd2 f5 14.f4 f×e4 15.d×e4 Nf6 16.Nf3 Bg4 17.Ne3 Bh3 Black is playing without much precision nor with any clear plan, giving Petrosian the opportunity energetically to refute his inexact and time-losing moves. This move by the bishop could have been done earlier under better circumstances, just like f7-f5, as already noted. 18.Nh4! With this move Petrosian seals his positional advantage, and little by little begins to work on Black’s weak points. 18...B×g2 19.Q×g2 e6 Another weakening, from the need to prevent f4-f5 and bring the knight to e7. 20.Qc2 Ne7 21.Nc4 Ne8 22.Bd2 Qc6 23.Re2 Rd8 24.Rae1 b5 25.a×b5 Q×b5 26.Ne3 Rb8 27.Bc1 Bf6 28.Nf3 c4 Black has no satisfactory moves and this is the only possible counterattack. 29.Kg2 Bg7 30.h4 Kg8 31.Rd1 Rc8 32.e5! (D)

503

Round 26

All preparations have been completed, and as always, a breakthrough is necessary to exploit the advantage in space and position. 32...d×e5 If 32...d5 (trying to close the game) there would follow 33.h5 g×h5 34.Nd4 and 35.Rd1. 33.Qe4! Rc5 Not 33...e×f4 34.Q×e6+ Rf7 35.Nd5 etc. 34.f×e5 Qc6 35.Nc2 Q×e4 36.R×e4 Even though with this exchange Black has managed to eliminate the direct attack on his king, he enters an inferior endgame, one certainly lost, because his cpawn must fall. 36...Nc6 If 36...Nd5 37.Na3 Nb6 38.Rdd4 (or 38.Be3). 37.Ne3 Na5 38.Nd2 Nc7 39.Ne×c4 Rd8 40.Rde1 N×c4 41.N×c4 Nd5 42.Nd2 Rb8 43.Ra4 Rc7 44.Nf3 Nb6 45.Rg4 Kh7 46.Nd4 Re8 47.Rge4 a6 48.R1e2 Nd7 49.Nf3 Rb8 50.Be3 Bf8 51.Ra4 Rc6 52.Bd4 Activating his last piece. 52...Rb5 53.b4 Bg7 54.Rea2 N×e5 55.N×e5 B×e5 56.B×e5 R×e5 57.R×a6 (D)

57...R×a6 Not 57...R×c3 58.Ra7+ Kg8 59.Ra8+ Kf7 60.R2a7+ Kf6 61.Rf8#. 58.R×a6 Kg7 59.c4 Kf6 60.b5 Re2+ 61.Kf3 Rc2 62.Rc6 Rc3+ 63.Kf4 Rc1 64.b6 Rb1 65.g4 Ke7 66.Ke5 Re1+ 67.Kd4 1-0 (178) Najdorf – Boleslavsky King’s Indian Defense [E60] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.Nf3 d6 6.0-0 c5 7.d×c5 d×c5 8.Ne5! (D)

504

Up to now Black has had no di culty equalizing in the games with this Yugoslav variation of the King’s Indian, as can be seen, among others, in games 126 (KotovBoleslavsky), 152 (Reshevsky-Boleslavsky) and 158 (Ståhlberg-Gligoric). The text move is the fruit of my special preparation, since I knew that Boleslavsky prefers and is successful with this line, and even though he lost the game with Reshevsky, the Soviet grandmaster got a good game in the opening. The idea of 8.Ne5! (wasting no time rst on 8.Nc3 so that Black cannot prevent my maneuver with 8...Nc6) is to unveil the anchettoed bishop, prohibit Black’s queen’s knight from developing at its ideal square c6, and nally retreat the knight if necessary to d3 to pressure the pawn on c5. 8...Qc7 Preferable seems 8...Nfd7 and on 9.Nd3 Ne5!= (if 10.N×c5 Qc7). 9.Nd3 Nc6 10.Nc3 Now the drawbacks of 8...Qc7 become apparent, as White can threaten an opportune Bc1-f4, Nc3-d5 or Nc3-b5. Not good was 10.N×c5 Ne5. 10...Bf5 11.Bf4 Qa5 12.Bd2! The black queen keeps trying (and failing) to nd the right square; meanwhile the weakness of the c5-pawn persists. Therefore Boleslavsky plays: 12...B×d3 13.e×d3 My space advantage and active bishop pair are ample compensation for the weak d-pawn. 13...Qc7 14.Be3 Rfd8 If 14...Nd4 15.Rb1 threatening 16.b4. 15.B×c5 Ne5 16.d4 N×c4 17.Qe2 Nd6 18.a4! (D)

505

Round 26

After long thought I nd the right plan! If Black is able to dislodge my Bc5 with Ra8-c8 and b7-b6, he will have the better prospects with his solid position and my weak d-pawn as a target. But since Boleslavsky cannot yet play 18...Rac8 without losing his a-pawn (19.B×a7 b6 20.Qa6 Ra8 21.B×b6!, but not 21.B×a8 R×a8 22.B×b6 Qc6) I undertake the rapid advance of my pawn to a6, capitalizing on that circumstance. 18...e6 19.a5 Nf5 20.a6 (D)

20...Nd5? It was necessary to sacri ce the exchange with 20...b6. For example 21.B×a8 b×c5 22.Bf3 c×d4 and Black has counter-play. 21.a×b7 Certainly I could have won a pawn with 21.Nb5 Qd7 22.a×b7 Q×b7 23.B×a7, but I preferred active piece play, disdaining the material gain. 21...Q×b7 22.N×d5 e×d5 23.Ra4 a5 24.Qd3 Rab8 Not 24...Q×b2?? 25.Rb1. 25.Rb1 Qb3 26.Q×b3 R×b3 (D)

506

27.R×a5? Here I missed the winning move 27.g4!. If (a) 27...Nh4 28.Be7, or (b) 27...Nh6 28.R×a5 (or simply 28.h3) 28...N×g4 29.B×d5 R×d5 30.Ra8+. 27...B×d4 28.B×d4 N×d4 29.B×d5 Rb4 30.Kg2 Now it is extremely di cult for me to do anything with the pawn advantage and I must enter a drawish endgame. 30.b3 would not serve due to 30...Ne2+ and 31...Nc3. 30...Nb3 31.B×b3 R×b3 32.Ra3 Rb4 33.Rf3 Rdb8 34.b3 R8b7 35.Kf1 Kg7 36.Ke2 R4b6 37.Kd2 Rb8 38.Kc2 Rc6+ 39.Rc3 Re6 40.Re3 Rc6+ 41.Kd2 g5!(D)

In this position the game was adjourned, in a di cult rooks-andpawns endgame. The one chance – admittedly improbable – I might have is that Black would allow the exchange of one pair of rooks, as only then could my king support advance of the passed b-pawn. The united black rooks are very strong: while the one on b8 blockades the potential advance of the pawn, the other, more active, can attack my kingside, trying to create weaknesses. 42.Re4 Rd8+ 43.Ke1 Rh6 44.h4 g×h4 45.g×h4 f5 46.Rc4 Re6+ 47.Kf1 Rd2 48.b4 Ree2 49.Rf4 Kf6 50.Rb3 Rb2 51.R×b2 R×b2 52.Kg2

507

Round 26

Now the exchange of rooks has not bene ted me, because my king cannot stray from the kingside; after an eventual ...Ke5 one of my pawns would fall. 52...Rc2 53.Rd4 Ke5 54.Rd7 Rc4 55.R×h7 R×b4 56.h5 Kf6 57.Kg3 ½-½; (179) Taimanov – Kotov Queen’s Gambit Declined, Ragozin System [D38] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 Commentaries on this opening can be found in games 86 (Boleslavsky-Averbakh) and 109 (Smyslov-Averbakh) 5.c×d5 e×d5 6.Qa4+ Nc6 7.Bg5 h6 8.B×f6 Q×f6 9.e3 0-0 10.Be2 Be6 11.0-0 a6 12.Rfc1! To this point play has followed the aforementioned game 86, in which Boleslavsky continued with 12.Rac1. The new plan here seems more appropriate, in that since White plans to bring the queen back with 13.Qd1, the rooks will stay connected. We observe again that this line of play is almost identical to the Queen’s Gambit Exchange Variation, in which White tries to attack on the queenside thanks to his open le, and Black seeks counterplay on the other wing. 12...Bd6 13.Qd1 Ne7 14.Na4 b6 Another satisfactory defense, though more passive, is 14...Rad8 15.Qb3 Bc8 16.Nc5 B×c5 17.R×c5 c6 followed by Ne7-f5-d6. 15.Nc3 Rfd8 16.Qf1 (D)

16...c6? Black creates too many queenside weaknesses, without getting the necessary counterplay on the king’s ank. Better was 16...Bc8!, to follow with ...Bb7, and though the bishop would not be as active there as on e6, in compensation it would defend the queenside and at the same time prevent and eventual, liberating e3-e4 by White. 17.Na4 Taimanov begins the siege of the weak queenside pawns. 17...Rdb8 18.Rc3 a5 19.Rac1 Bd7 20.a3 Ng6 21.Bd3 Qe6

508

Ill-advised would be 21...Nh4 due to 22.N×h4 Q×h4 23.g3 Qh5 24.e4! Bh3 25.Qd1 Bg4 26.Qd2. 22.Qd1 Bc7 23.Qc2 Ne7 24.Re1 Trying to open the position with e3-e4. 24...f5 25.b4 a×b4 26.a×b4 (D)

26...Bd6 Not 26...c5? 27.b5! c4 28.R×c4 d×c4 29.B×c4 Nd5 30.Nc3+–. 27.Rb1 b5 The advance 27...c5 would not serve here either because of the above variation. Black must weaken himself even more, because White was threatening 28.b5. 28.Nc5 B×c5 29.R×c5 Ra4 30.Ne5 Rba8 31.Qe2 Be8 32.Qf3 Taimanov “works” the position according to a grand scheme. First he took advantage of Black’s weaknesses on the queenside, and now he switches his o ensive to the other wing, in keeping with the principle that “it is always necessary to operate on both anks.” Practice shows that it is very hard to win by concentrating only on weaknesses in a single sector, and the present game is a good example. Even though Black has weaknesses on the queenside, no clear breakthrough point is evident by which White can realize his advantage there. 32...Ra1 33.Rcc1 R×b1 34.R×b1 g6 Yet another weakness, but since Kotov wants better scope for his knight, he feels obliged to defend the pawn on f5. 35.h4! Opening the second front! 35...Kg7 36.Qg3 Qd6? Since Black has already weakened his kingside with the idea of freeing the knight, he should continue that plan by 36...Nc8, and if 37.f4 h5 38.Rc1 Nb6, and even though White stands better there is no clear way to impose his advantage. 37.f4 h5 White threatened 38.h5. 38.Be2 (D) 509

Round 26

38...Ra4? Short of time and unable to analyze in depth, Kotov instinctively decides on an active defense. The threat of 39.B×h6 required 38...Kh7, and on 39.Qg5 Qe6! with a resistant position, for example 40.Rc1 Ra6 and White has no way to break through. 39.Bd1! R×b4 40.Ra1! A decisive move. All that was lacking was that this rook enter into action. Now all White’s pieces combine their strength against the weakened kingside. 40...Nc8 If 40...Kh7 41.Ra7! Rb1 42.Qg5+–. 41.Ra8 Qe6 42.B×h5 Kf8 43.B×g6 B×g6 44.N×g6+ Ke8 45.Ne5 Kd8 46.Qg7 Ra4 47.Rb8 c5 48.Rb7 1-0 A model game, one representative of Taimanov’s style, a positionally perfect e ort. (180) Gligoric – Geller King’s Indian Defense [E94] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 c6 In view of the success he had in game 154, Smyslov-Geller, Black repeats his moves here, the idea behind which is explained in the notes to that game. 8.d5 Here Smyslov played 8.Re1. 8...c5 9.Ne1 a6 10.Be3 Ne8 11.Nd3 f5 12.f3 f4 13.Bf2 g5 It is interesting to note that Gligoric, who always plays systems like this as Black, now confronts one as White! The di erence unfavorable to Black here is that his queen’s knight is not on e7, and he has already played his pawn to c5. We will see how the Yugoslav grandmaster defends himself. 14.b4 b6 15.b×c5 b×c5 16.Rb1 Rf6 Geller looks for quick counterplay on the kingside. 17.Na4 Nd7 (D)

510

18.g4! Before continuing his active plan on the queenside, White takes preventive measures on the other wing, since Black is already preparing a break with Rf6-g6, Ne8-f6 and g5-g4. 18...f×g3 19.h×g3 Rg6 20.Ne1! Seeking better horizons for the knight. 20...Ndf6 21.Nb6 Rb8 22.N×c8 With this exchange White eliminates a piece dangerous to his kingside, and gains a de nite advantage. 22...R×b1 23.Q×b1 Q×c8 24.Kg2 g4 25.Nc2 g×f3+ 26.B×f3 Bh6 27.Qb6 Qd7 Geller feels he must sacri ce a pawn in order to transfer his queen to the kingside, since there was no point in a passive defense in the face of White’s queenside advantage. 28.Q×a6 Qg7 29.Rh1 Bf4 30.Rh3 h5 (D)

31.Kh2? Gligoric, whose play has been exemplary to this point, here commits an error that lets the win slip away. Better was 31.Ne3! B×e3 32.B×e3 h4 (and if 32...Ng4 33.Bd2 h4 34.R×h4! with winning prospects) 33.Bf2 completely halting the black attack. 511

Round 26

31...Ng4+ 32.B×g4 h×g4 33.Rh5 Bg5 34.Qc8 Qf7 35.Kg1 Rg7 36.Rh2 Not 36.Qe6? Q×e6 37.d×e6 Nf6 winning the e6-pawn. 36...Qd7 37.Qa8 Qd8 38.Q×d8 B×d8 39.Ne3 Ra7 40.Be1 Nf6 41.Rb2 (D)

Here play was adjourned. Although White has dominated the proceedings, time pressure has caused him to play imprecisely entering the endgame, giving his opponent the chance to activate his pieces, which now attack vulnerable pawns! And it will be Gligoric who, even though a pawn ahead, must play precisely to avoid losing! 41...Bc7 42.Kf1 Kf7 43.Ke2 N×e4 44.N×g4 Kg6 45.Kd3 Preferable was 45.Ne3. 45...Ng5 46.Ne3 Ra3+ 47.Ke2 Bd8 Trying to activate his last piece. 48.Bd2 e4 49.Rb8 Bf6 50.Ng4 Nf3 51.N×f6 K×f6 52.Bf4 Nd4+ (D)

53.Kf1?? The mistake that costs the game. He should have played 53.Ke1, and if 53...e3 54.Re8 e2 55.B×d6 R×a2 56.Kf2 and White draws, or also 56.Be5+ Kf7 57.B×d4 K×e8 58.B×c5 with the draw assured. 53...e3! 54.Re8 e2+

512

Advancing with check, the pawn gains a decisive tempo. 55.Kf2 Rf3+ 56.Kg2 Rf1 57.Bd2 If 57.R×e2 R×f4. 57...Rd1 58.Bc3 Rc1 59.B×d4+? More resistance was o ered by 59.Bd2 R×c4 60.Kf2. 59...c×d4 60.R×e2 d3 61.Rf2+ Ke5 62.Kf3 Kd4 Kc3 64.Ke4 Re1+ 65.Kf5 d2 66.R×d2 K×d2 67.g5 Kd3 68.c5 d×c5 69.d6 Re8 70.d7 Ra8 0-1 (181) Bronstein – Smyslov Ruy Lopez [C68] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.B×c6 d×c6 (D)

5.Nc3 An alternative is 5.d4 e×d4 (if 5...Bg4 6.d×e5 Q×d1+ 7.K×d1 0-0-0+ 8.Ke1 Bc5 9.h3 Bh5 10.Bf4+=, Em.Lasker-Marshall, New York 1924) 6.Q×d4 Q×d4 7.N×d4 Bd7 8.Be3 0-0-0 9.Nd2 Ne7 10.0-0-0 Re8 11.Rhe1 Ng6 12.Ne2 Bd6 13.h3 f5=. 5...f6 If 5...Bc5 6.N×e5! Qg5 7.d4 Q×g2 8.Qf3 Q×f3 9.N×f3+=. Or also 5...Bb4 6.N×e5 Qg5 7.Nf3 Q×g2 8.Rg1 Qh3 9.R×g7 Bg4 10.Ng1 B×d1 11.N×h3 B×c2 12.f3+=, CelikovRabinovich,1924. 6.d4 e×d4 7.Q×d4 Q×d4 8.N×d4 Bd7 9.Be3 Inferior is 9.Bf4 0-0-0 10.0-0-0 Ne7 11.Nb3 Ng6 12.Be3 b6 13.f3 Ne5=+. 9...0-0-0 10.0-0-0 Ne7 11.h3 Ng6 12.Nb3 Bb4 13.Ne2 Rhe8 14.a3 Bf8 15.Nc3 Be6 16.R×d8+ R×d8 17.Rd1 R×d1+ 18.K×d1 Ne5 19.Bc5 Bd6 20.B×d6 c×d6 21.Nd4 ½-½; (182) Reshevsky – Keres Nimzo-Indian Defense [E45] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 b6 5.Nge2 Ba6 (D)

513

Round 26

Bronstein’s novelty from the 17th game of his match with Botvinnik, wch 1951. 6.Ng3 This direct continuation is better than the previously seen 6.a3 Be7 7.Ng3 d5! (with the bishop on b4 this is not possible due to 8.Qa4+) 8.c×d5 B×f1 9.N×f1 e×d5 10.Ng3 Qd7 11.Qf3 Nc6!=, from the game cited above. Another line would be 6.a3 Be7 7.Nf4! 0-0 8.b4 d5 9.b5 Bb7 10.c×d5 e×d5 11.Bb2 c5 12.Be2 c4 13.0-0 a6 14.a4+=, Botvinnik-Moisieyev, USSR ch 1951. 6...0-0 7.e4 d6 8.Bd2 c5 9.a3 Ba5 10.d5 e×d5 11.c×d5 B×f1 12.K×f1 Nbd7 13.h4 Re8 14.f3 ½-½; A draw? This is a position full of ght, where one would expect any result but a draw! It is very di cult to say who stands better; the game o ers chances for both sides, and if two such ghters as Reshevsky and Keres prefer the comfortable solution of splitting the point, it can only be with the idea of not risking their positions in the tournament.

514

Round 27

Standings after round 27: Smyslov 16½; Bronstein and Reshevsky 14½; Keres 14; Najdorf and Petrosian 13½; Kotov 13; Geller and Taimanov 12½; Averbakh, Boleslavsky and Gligoric 12; Euwe 11; Szabó 10½;; Ståhlberg 7. Except for Reshevsky’s bye – which allowed Bronstein and Keres to draw closer to him – the tournament moved along without any notable events regarding the ght for rst place. The three Russian masters drew their games, continuing their prudent policy of avoiding all risks. However, some spectators were not yet resigned to this, and wondered if this might be the calm before the storm! For the moment neither Keres nor Bronstein gave them any reason to think so, quickly drawing their game in 20 moves. Bronstein carried out a disconcerting maneuver with losses of time in the opening, and it can well be said that the public and even the players themselves do not know what to expect with his “ ights of genius.” For his part Smyslov against Gligoric, in another King’s Indian as before, also reached a draw in few moves, with a view to maintaining his privileged position in the standings. But in fact, ghting games are never lacking in a tournament with such great players! Geller, for example, whose style embodies every audacity imaginable, played a Ruy Lopez against Taimanov, who surprised everyone by responding with the antiquated Alapin Defense, almost completely abandoned today. Geller embarked on a double-edged maneuver to win a pawn, but Taimanov exposed his weak points and simpli ed to a probably winning position. However, the defense was di cult and to save himself Taimanov had to use much time. Beset with the urgency to nd adequate replies, he committed two successive errors that facilitated his opponent’s victory. There was also a ght and various surprises in the game Kotov-Najdorf, which began as a King’s Indian. Black, taking advantage of several weak moves by his rival, gained a greatly superior position, one at certain points completely winning. However, Kotov pro ted by Najdorf’s omissions and even though down the exchange, was able to exchange queens, which dispelled the worst dangers. Still, Black could have won even so, but he gave his adversary yet another chance, 515

Round 27

whereupon Kotov found a diabolical move – sacri cing another exchange! – and roles were reversed. Even though the game was adjourned with two rooks against two knights, it was Black who had to play with great care to salvage the half-point! And so it was that Najdorf found at the board the correct ploy, sacri cing his rooks for the menacing white pawns to reach an ending of two knights versus lone king, which can be lost only “voluntarily.” Once again Ståhlberg defeated Averbakh, in a good game typical of his style. White stood better against a Queen’s Indian, and after making a positional combination, exploited his advantages and some errors by his opponent to win a rook-and-pawns ending. Euwe and Szabó contested a theoretically interesting encounter. Here the former world champion improved on the system already seen against the King’s Indian in game 152, Reshevsky-Boleslavsky, playing an immediate 8.Nd2, and even though Black obtained an equally good game, Dr. Euwe’s play was somewhat passive and matters resolved to a draw. Finally, Boleslavsky and Petrosian played a Caro-Kann in which, though Black was a pawn up, his pieces were tied down to the defense of his weak e-pawn, and he could aspire to nothing more than splitting the point. (183) Keres – Bronstein King’s Indian Defense [E76] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 c5 6.d×c5 If 6.d5 e6! and Black, after the maneuver ...e×d5, ...0-0 and ...Re8, will have an active game. 6...Qa5 7.Bd3 Q×c5 8.Nf3 0-0 9.Qe2 Nc6 10.Be3 Qh5 (D) In this same position against Geller at Saltsjöbaden 1952, Gligoric played 10...Qa5 11.0-0 Ng4 12.Bd2 Nb4 13.Nd5! Qc5+ 14.Kh1 N×d5 15.c×d5 Bd7 16.h3 Nf6 17.b4 Qb6 18.Rab1=.

11.h3 Ng4 12.Bd2! (D)

516

12...Nf6 Much attention was drawn by this strange maneuver by Bronstein, which involves a serious loss of time in the opening. We cannot say that his aim was simply to force White to play 12.Bd2; we think that at rst Bronstein did not see that on 12...Nd4 there would follow 13.Qf1!, perhaps considering only the variation 13.N×d4? Bd4 (if 13..Qh4+ 14.Kd1 Nf2+ 15.Kc2 B×d4 16.Be1+–) 14.0-0-0 Nf2. And if instead of 14.0-0-0 White played 14.Nd1, then 14...Qh4+ 15.Kf1 Nf6 and ...Nh5. However, luckily for him, in certain positions a loss of time su ers no punishment, and this is one of them! 13.0-0 In a more combative mood, it is possible grandmaster Keres would have preferred to castle long, to take advantage of Black’s lost tempi and play for a kingside attack. Clearly, though, with Bronstein getting counterplay on the other wing, this would mean starting a risky race, and it would be hard to predict who would strike rst. For example: 13.0-0-0 Qa5 14.g4 Nd7 15.Kb1 Nc5, with very complicated play. 13...Nd7 14.Rad1 Qa5 15.Bb1 Qb4 16.Be3 Nb6 It is evident that Black cannot give up his Bg7, even for the sake of winning a pawn. 17.Nd5 Q×b2 18.Q×b2 B×b2 19.N×b6 a×b6 20.Rf2 ½-½; (184) Smyslov – Gligoric King’s Indian Defense [A48] 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Bf4 Bg7 4.Nbd2 One notes Smyslov’s predisposition to play a “simple” game, considering his comfortable position in the standings. 4...d6 5.h3 0-0 6.e3 c5 7.Be2 Nc6 8.Bh2 b6 We would prefer 8...c×d4 9.e×d4 Bd7 as in game 139, Smyslov-Boleslavsky. 9.0-0 Bb7 10.c3 Qd7 11.Re1 Rfd8 12.Qc2 Rac8 13.Rad1 c×d4 14.N×d4 d5 15.N×c6 Q×c6 16.Qb3 Qc5 17.Qb5 (D)

517

Round 27

Soliciting the draw with no false shame! 17...Q×b5 18.B×b5 Ne8 19.Bd3 Nd6 20.f3 Bh6 21.Bf4 ½-½; (185) Geller – Taimanov Ruy Lopez [C60] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bb4 The old Alapin Defense, which can be played with or without 3...a6 rst. The idea is to develop the bishop outside Black’s pawns before playing d7-d6, in contrast with the usual lines where it is closed in. Both this move and 3...Bc5 seek an active role for the king’s bishop, but in that case there is the chance that White would play 4.N×e5 N×e5 5.d4, while after the text, White can gain time chasing the bishop with pawn moves. 4.0-0 Another possibility is 4.c3 Ba5 5.Na3 Bb6 6.Nc4 d6 7.d4 e×d4 8.a4! d×c3 9.a5 Bc5 10.b4! B×b4 11.Qa4 Bc5 12.a6+–. 4...Nge7 5.c3 Ba5 6.B×c6 N×c6 7.b4 Bb6 8.b5 Na5 9.N×e5 Geller has won a pawn, at the cost of his valuable king’s bishop and some weakness in the pawn on b5. In our view, Black has compensation for the pawn in his bishop pair, as in similar positions of the Giuoco Piano and Four Knights’ Game. 9...0-0 10.d4 d5 11.Ba3 In search of complications. If 11.e×d5 Q×d5 12.a4 f6 13.Nd3 Bf5 followed by ...a6 and Black has play compensating for the pawn. 11...Re8 12.Qh5 f6 13.f4?! (D)

518

An audacious but dubious move, continuing the plan Geller began with his ninth move. Now he decides to complicate the game even more, sacri cing a piece, but the process is not entirely clear or correct. Evidently, the Russian grandmaster, inspired by his success in recent games and still hoping to be among the leaders, is looking for victory at all costs! 13...f×e5 14.f×e5 Be6 15.Nd2 d×e4 It was a good idea also to liquidate the strong white knight that threatens to in ltrate the kingside. For example 15...Nc4! 16.N×c4 (not 16.Nf3? Bf7) 16...d×c4 17.Kh1 c6 18.Rf4 Qd7 19.Raf1 Ba5 retaining a piece for two pawns, while White has no clear continuation. 16.N×e4 B×d4+ 17.Kh1 Not 17.c×d4? Q×d4+ 18.Nf2 Nc4–+. (D)

17...Bd5 It is impossible to calculate the innumerable variations that ensue after 17...Be3; for example: (a) 18.Rad1 Qc8 and: (a1) 19.Rd3 Nc4 20.Bc5 Bh6 (not 20...B×c5 21.Nf6+ g×f6 22.Rg3+ Kh8 23.Qh6+–) 21.Nf6+ Kh8! 22.N×e8 Q×e8 23.Rf8+ Q×f8 24.B×f8 R×f8 with three pieces for the queen and a favorable position; 519

Round 27

(a2) 19.Rf3 Bg4 20.Nf6+ and: (a2a) 20...g×f6 21.Rg3 f5 22.h3 Qe6 23.h×g4 f4–+ etc.; (a2b) 20.Qf7+ Kh8 21.Rg3 (if 21.R×e3 B×d1 22.Rg3 Rg8 23.Be7 Qe8 24.Ng5 Bh5– +) 21...Qf5 22.Q×f5 B×f5 23.R×e3 R×e5–+ etc. (b) 18.Rf3 Nc4 19.Rg3 Kh8 20.Rd1 g6 21.R×d8 g×h5 22.Be7! Bg5 23.Bf6+ Kg8 and: (D)

(b1) 24.R×a8 R×a8 25.h3 Bf5–+; (b2) 24.Rd7! Bf4 25.Rg7+ (if 25.Bh4 B×e5 26.h3 Nb6) 25...Kf8 26.R×h7 B×g3 27.Ng5 Be6 28.Rh8+ Bg8 29.e6 R×e6 etc. 18.Nf6+ g×f6 19.c×d4 Qd7! Best. Not 19...f×e5 20.Rf5 and now if 20...Qd7 21.Qg4+ wins, viz. 21...Qg7 22.Rg5, or 21...Kh8 22.Rf8+. 20.e×f6 Qf7 21.Rf5 Q×h5 22.R×h5 Bf7 At last Taimanov can breathe, since the white queen was a constant danger to his exposed king. Now he maintains his advantage of a piece for two pawns, and in our opinion, should win the game if he plays correctly. 23.Rg5+ Bg6 24.Be7 Kf7 25.Rc1 Rac8 Not 25...c6 26.Bb4!. 26.h4 (D)

520

26...Rg8? Taimanov, defending against Geller’s attack with admirable sangfroid, has so far managed to steer clear of danger though at a cost on his clock, but now he begins to err repeatedly in a position which he should by no means lose. The right move was 26...h5 followed by ...b6 and ...c6, and if 27.g4 h×g4 28.h5 Rh8. 27.Re5 b6 Now not 27...h5? 28.Bb4 b6 29.Re7+ K×f6 30.Rf1+ Bf5 31.Re5 etc. 28.g4 Bd3 29.g5 Rge8 30.Rc3 (D)

30...Bc4? Error! Taimanov still retained winning chances with 30...Bg6, for example 31.Bb4 R×e5 32.d×e5 Ke6 33.Bd6 c5 etc., or 31.d5 Nb7 32.Rce3 Nd6 33.B×d6 c×d6 34.Re7+ Kf8 etc. 31.Rg3 c6?? The decisive error, after which there is no hope of salvation. He still could have resisted with 31...Rg8 32.h5 Rce8. 32.h5 It becomes evident that due to the bad location of the bishop, Black cannot stop the avalanche of white pawns. 32...Rg8 33.Bb4 Rce8 34.Rge3 R×e5 35.R×e5 Be6 36.B×a5 b×a5 37.b×c6 Rd8 38.c7 Rc8 39.d5 Bg4 40.Re7+ Kf8 41.g6 h×g6 42.h×g6 1-0 With this game Geller continued his winning streak. (186) Kotov – Najdorf King’s Indian Defense [E87] 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.d4 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 e5 7.d5 c5 The move introduced by Gligoric in game 171, Kotov-Gligoric, where our commentaries can be consulted. 8.g4 In the earlier game, Kotov played 8.Bd3, which was followed by 8...Nh5. With the text move, White tries to prevent that maneuver (and succeeds), but on the other hand he weakens his position prematurely. 521

Round 27

8...Ne8 9.h4 f5 10.e×f5 g×f5 11.g5 (D)

11...e4! The game has not taken a positional tack, and will surely be decided by direct attack. A pawn or two is unimportant: the goal is to get the greatest piece activity and be the rst to hit the enemy lines. Therefore I chose the text, activating my Bg7, and if 12.f×e4 f×e4 all my pieces have good prospects for quick action against the weakened kingside. 12.f4? A “logical” – but mistaken! – move. White tries to prevent Black from posting a knight on e5, but at the same time he takes away important squares from his own pieces! Indicated instead was 12.Nh3 intending Nf4. 12...b5! 13.c×b5

522

Miguel Najdorf Preferable was 13.N×b5 B×b2 14.Rb1 Bg7 15.Qd2. 13...a6 14.Qd2 a×b5 15.B×b5 Ba6 16.B×a6 N×a6 17.Nge2 Nb4 18.0-0 If 18.a3 Nd3+ 19.Kf1 Qb6 20.Rb1 Nc7 and White’s position would be critical. 18...Nc7 With this move I complete my development, and I can say that the pawn sacri ce has proven correct! 19.Nc1 Again, if 19.a3 Nd3 20.Nc1 c4 and White is hard-pressed. 19...Qe8 20.a3 Qh5! With the idea of forcing 21.Rf2, so that this rook cannot go to d1 to aid in defending the d5-pawn. 21.Rf2 Qf7 White is lost. My threat is 22...Nb×d5, and after ...N×e3 the triumphant advance of the passed pawns. Kotov’s reply is forced. 22.a×b4 R×a1 23.b×c5 (D)

523

Round 27

23...d×c5? 23...B×c3 24.b×c3 N×d5 25.c×d6 N×e3 26.Q×e3 Qd5 would have won simply. 24.B×c5 Rd8 25.d6 (D)

25...Ne8? Another error! In the rst part of the game I was full of ideas and energy, so much so that I gained a completely winning position. But at the very moment that I should exploit my advantage, I begin to err, nding myself, later, having to play ... for a draw. Here the easiest way to win was 25...Ne6 26.Bb6 (if 26.Ba3? Bd4) 26...Rd7 27.Rf1 Ra6 28.Nd5 R×d6. 26.Kg2 Bf8 27.N1e2 N×d6 28.Qd5! Very well played. With his king in a bad situation, my opponent decides to exchange queens to minimize the dangers lurking about him. 28...Nb7 29.Q×f7+ K×f7 30.B×f8 R×f8 31.Ng3 (D) 31...Nd6?

524

Though my position was not as good as before, I could still have won with 31...Ke6 followed by Nb7-c5-d3. This was the last opportunity I had to win. From here on Kotov recovers, saving his game in a manner seldom seen. 32.Rd2 Ke6 33.Rd5 Rb8 (D)

34.R×d6+! A typically diabolical Kotov move! Now it turns out that even though two exchanges up, I cannot win! 34...K×d6 35.N×f5+ Kc6? Better was 35...Ke6 36.Nd4+ Kf7 37.N×e4 R×b2+ 38.Kf3 h5! with some chances. 36.N×e4 R×b2+ 37.Kf3 Rb4 38.Nfg3 Raa4 39.h5 Ra3+ 40.Kg4 Kd7 41.g6 (D)

525

Round 27

After some anxious moments, played under the nerve-wracking pressure of the clock, we adjourned the game. And now it is I – two exchanges to the good! – who must play with utmost caution to salvage the half-point! Kotov sealed a good move here; inadequate was 41.Nf6+ Kc6, and if 42.N×h7 Raa4 43.Ne2 Re4 44.Kf3 Re7! 45.g6 Ra3+. 41...h×g6 42.h×g6 Ke7 43.Nf5+ Ke6! 43...Kf8? has the minor di erence of losing the game: 44.g7+ Kf7 45.Ned6+ Kg8 46.Ne8+–. 44.Ng7+ Ke7 45.Nf5+ Ke6 46.g7 Ra8 47.Neg3 Rg8 48.Nh5 R×f4+ 49.K×f4 R×g7 50.Nh×g7+ ½-½; Draw!! A tragicomic game, up to and including the nal position! (187) Boleslavsky – Petrosian Caro-Kann Defense [B18] 1.e4 c6 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4 d×e4 4.N×e4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.Nh3 For the move 6.Nf3 and related commentary, see game 81, Najdorf-Kotov. 6...e6 Also playable is 6...Nd7 7.Bc4 (not 7.Nf4 e5! 8.N×g6 h×g6 9.d×e5 N×e5, Pachmann-Zita, Prague 1944) 7...e6 8.Nf4 Be7 9.Be3 Nb6=. 7.Nf4 Bd6 8.c3 Nf6 9.h4 Qc7 (D)

526

10.h5 Interesting and rich in complications was 10.Qf3 Nbd7 (if 10...Bc2 11.Bd2 h6 12.Rc1 Bh7 13.Ngh5 N×h5 14.N×h5 0-0 15.B×h6 g×h6 16.Qf6+–) 11.h5 Bc2 12.h6 g6 13.Bc4 (if 13.Be3 e5 14.d×e5 N×e5 15.Qe2 Ba4) 13...e5 14.Qe2 0-0-0!. 10...B×f4 11.B×f4 Q×f4 12.h×g6 f×g6 13.Qd2 Not 13.Qb3 Ng4! 14.Q×e6+ Kd8–+. 13...Q×d2+ 14.K×d2 Nbd7 15.Re1 Kf7 16.Bc4 Rae8 17.Bb3 c5 18.Ne4 N×e4+ 19.R×e4 Nf6 20.Re5 c×d4 21.c×d4 Re7 22.Rhe1 Rhe8 23.Kd3 h6 24.f4 ½-½; A draw properly agreed upon, since though Black is a pawn up, his pieces are tied down to the defense of his e-pawn. (188) Ståhlberg – Averbakh Queen’s Indian Defense [E18] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Be7 6.Nc3 Ne4 7.Bd2 A very old move, often played by Czech masters, and recently also by Ståhlberg. Since in this system the development of White’s queen’s bishop presents a problem, one can with good reason o er to exchange it for the knight, and if Black consents, then the rst player will have prospects of gaining space with e2-e4. As we see, it is not always best to retain both bishops! 7...f5 Another possibility is 7...d6 8.0-0 Nd7 9.Qc2 N×c3 10.B×c3 Nf6 11.d5 e5 12.N×e5 d×e5 13.d6 B×g2 14.d×e7 Q×e7 15.K×g2 0-0, Opocensky-Keres, Buenos Aires ol 1939. 8.0-0 0-0 9.Qc2 (D)

527

Round 27

Ståhlberg decides on this continuation of Alekhine’s, despite a prior experience in this opening at Mar del Plata 1944, where Pelikan as White played 9.d5 Bf6 10.Qc2 Qe8? 11.N×e4 f×e4 12.Ng5! e×d5 13.c×d5 B×g5 14.B×g5 B×d5 15.Q×c7+=. 9...N×c3 If 9...N×d2 10.Q×d2 Bb4! 11.Rac1 d6 12.a3 B×c3 13.R×c3 Nd7=, AlekhineLokvenc, Prague 1943. 10.B×c3 Be4 11.Qb3a5 12.Ne1 a4 13.Qd1 B×g2 14.N×g2 (D)

14...Bf6? Since White is better developed, Averbakh should not allow him to open the game with e2-e4. Therefore necessary was 14...d5, and if 15.Nf4 Qd7 with a good game for Black. 15.Qd3 Nc6 16.e4! f×e4 17.Q×e4 Now White’s superiority is evident: a space advantage, and his pieces occupying their strategically ideal squares. 17...Qe8 18.Rad1 Qf7 19.Ne3 Qg6 Averbakh recognizes that he has come out worse from the opening, and tries to trade o his opponent’s dangerous queen, in hopes of reaching a drawable endgame. 20.Q×g6 h×g6 21.Rfe1 Na5 22.Re2 Rfe8 23.Rc2 d6 24.Kg2 Kf7 25.Rd3 Ke7 Better 25...g5 impeding advance of the adverse pawns on the kingside. 528

26.h4 Kd7 27.f4 Nb7 28.Ng4 Na5 (D)

29.Ne5+ Ståhlberg at his best! If 29...d×e5 30.d×e5+ Ke7 31.e×f6+ g×f6 32.Rcd2 N×c4 (not 32...Rad8? 33.B×f6+) 33.Rd7+ Kf8 34.R2d3 with a great superiority for White. 29...Kc8 30.B×a5 d×e5 31.f×e5 R×a5 32.e×f6 g×f6 33.c5! Though the combination did not net any material gain, it weakened Black’s pawn structure, assuring White a great positional advantage in the coming rook endgame. 33...b×c5 34.d×c5 (D)

34...Rd8?? An irreparable loss of time! Averbakh, forced to make his last few moves very quickly, does not see that better resistance was o ered by 34...e5, and on 35.c6 only then 35...Rd8 36.Rf3 Rd6. If after 35...Rd8 White plays 36.R×d8+ K×d8 37.Rd2+ Kc8 38.Rd7 Rc5 39.Rg7 R×c6 40.R×g6 41.h5 Ke6 42.h6 Rc2+ etc. 35.Rf3 f5 Better 35...Rf8. 36.Re3 Re8 37.Re5 Kd8 38.Rce2 Rb5 39.Kf3 Rb4 40.c6 Re4 Desperation. Nothing can save him now! 529

Round 27

41.R2×e4 f×e4+ 42.R×e4 a3 43.Rd4+ Kc8 44.Ra4 1-0 An excellent game by grandmaster Ståhlberg, probably his best e ort of the tournament. (189) Euwe – Szabó King’s Indian Defense [E64] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.Nc3 c5 6.d5 d6 For 6...e5 and relevant commentary see games 58 (Euwe-Najdorf ) and 173 (Ståhlberg-Najdorf). 7.Nf3 Na6 8.Nd2 Dr. Euwe, after analyzing the system employed by Reshevsky against Boleslavsky in game 152, plays an immediate 8.Nd2 with the idea of developing the c1-bishop rapidly to b2. The immediate 8.b3 is not possible because of 8...Ne4. 8...Nc7 9.Qc2 Rb8 10.b3 e6 In game 197, Reshevsky-Gligoric, Black played 10...b5. In our opinion, a third continuation should be considered: 10...e5!, disrupting White’s plan and preparing the thematic maneuver Nf6-h5 and f7-f5. If 11.d×e6 B×e6 followed by d6-d5. 11.Bb2 e×d5 12.c×d5 b5 13.0-0 Re8 If 13...b4 14.Na4 Nc×d5 15.Nc4 followed by Ra1-d1, recovering the pawn with the better game. 14.e4 Ba6 15.Rfe1 Ng4 Szabó has gotten a good game against Dr. Euwe’s novelty, and even though White is well developed and maintains a strong center, he must play with great caution due to Black’s tactical threats. 16.Ne2 Ne5 (D)

17.Rab1 If 17.f4 Nd3! 18.B×g7 N×e1. 17...b4 18.Nc4 Nb5 Black’s last piece enters the action, but White’s defense is prepared. 19.f4 N×c4 20.b×c4 Nd4 21.N×d4 c×d4 22.Bf1 Rc8 23.Bd3 Qb6 Threatening 24...B×c4. 530

24.Qb3 Re7 (D)

25.Kg2? Too passive! Better was 25.a3, for example, (a) 25...Rb7 26.Ba1; (b)25...Rec7 26.Rec1 b×a3 27.B×a3 B×c4! (better than 27...Q×b3 28.R×b3 Bf8 [if 28...B×c4? 29.R×c4 R×c4 30.B×c4 R×c4 31.Rb8+ Bf8 32.B×d6+–] 29.e5 d×e5 30.d6! etc.) 28.R×c4 R×c4 29.B×c4 R×c4 30.Q×b6 a×b6 31.B×d6 d3! 32.Rd1 R×e4 33.R×d3 with a slight advantage for White. 25...Qc5 26.Qa4 Bb7 27.a3 a5 28.Bc1 (D) Another continuation, interesting but dangerous, was 28.Ba1 b×a3 29.Rb5 Qc7 30.Q×a5 f5! 31.Q×a3 f×e4 32.R×e4 R×e4 33.B×e4 Q×c4 34.R×b7 Qe2+ etc.

28...f5 29.a×b4 a×b4 30.Q×b4 Q×b4 31.R×b4 f×e4 32.R×e4 If 32.B×e4 Ba6! 33.Rb6 B×c4 34.R×d6 Rce8 35.Kf3 Bb3! 36.Re6 (Black threatened 36..R×e4 37.R×e4 Bd1+o) 36...R×e6 37.d×e6 R×e6=. 32...B×d5 33.c×d5 R×e4 34.B×e4 R×c1 ½-½;

531

Round 28

Round 28

Standings after round 28: Smyslov 17; Bronstein 15½; Keres 15; Reshevsky 14½; Petrosian 14; Geller, Kotov and Najdorf 13½; Taimanov 13; Averbakh and Boleslavsky 12½; Gligoric 12; Euwe and Szabó 11; Ståhlberg 7½;. The great tournament entered its last three rounds, and now the general consensus was that Smyslov, with his almost mathematical consistency, was assured of rst place. However, the erce battle for second place – which confers the right to enter the next candidates tournament – renewed the interest of chess fans, presenting an unresolved mix of possibilities. One could say that those involved were playing a smaller tournament within the great tournament, and it was in this round that Bronstein and Reshevsky confronted each other, thus closing out the series of games between the three contenders for the runner-up spot. The Soviet grandmaster turned again to the Ruy Lopez, this time in a more ambitious form, even sacri cing a pawn solely to obtain an active bishop pair. Playing as always in his ingenious but risky fashion, Bronstein later declined to recover the material, looking for “something more,” but Reshevsky defended himself precisely, and by move 30 had reached a position where a draw was assured. No one expected that Black, under great time pressure, would still try to win, but that’s what Reshevsky did! Twice in a row he found the best move, but at the end, just before adjournment, he committed a serious error, after which he could not save the game. Keres, the other contender for second place, was able to overtake the American grandmaster with his victory over Gligoric. He played an interesting Nimzo-Indian, in which the former Yugoslav guerrilla employed the Sämisch Attack, which incidentally has not been very propitious for White in this tournament. Gligoric ignored the defense of his c-pawn, trying to accelerate his kingside attack, but Keres not only won the pawn but got better play. Even so, his advantage was not enough to win until White made it easier with a serious mistake in his sealed move. Najdorf-Geller was a King’s Indian in which Black played the same system Petrosian used against Najdorf, introducing an improvement at move twelve. White still got a good position and could have forced an attack, but he committed several

532

errors – among others exchanging queens – after which the weaknesses in his position proved fatal in the endgame. Taimanov, playing White against Smyslov, traded every piece he could one after the other, quickly arriving at a draw. The games Szabó-Ståhlberg and Averbakh-Boleslavsky displayed correct and balanced development, with draws being the logical result, while Petrosian and Kotov, after missing certain nesses in the opening, likewise reached a peaceful conclusion. (190) Szabó – Ståhlberg Queen’s Gambit Declined [D36] 1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 d5 Ståhlberg, always faithful to his Orthodox Defense! 4.Nc3 Nbd7 5.c×d5 e×d5 Thanks to his profound knowledge of the Exchange Variation, the Swedish grandmaster did not lose a single game with it in this tournament. 6.Bg5 Be7 7.e3 c6 8.Qc2 Nf8 9.Bd3 Ne6 10.Bh4 For 10.h4 see game 151, Bronstein-Ståhlberg. 10...g6 11.0-0 0-0 Better than the immediate 11...Ng7, in view of 12.b4 as indicated in the notes to game 151. 12.Rab1 (D)

12...a5! Since White intends to play b2-b4, Black with good reason anticipates it, and if White insists on a2-a3 and b2-b4, then the exchange of pawns will open the a- le for Black’s rook. 13.a3 Ng7 14.b4 a×b4 15.a×b4 Bf5 16.b5 B×d3 17.Q×d3 Nd7 18.b×c6 b×c6 19.B×e7 Q×e7 20.Qc2 Nf5 21.Na4 Qd6 White has what he often aims for in this line of the Queen’s Gambit: a weak pawn on c6 as a target. But the fact that so many pieces have been traded o makes it very hard to exploit this small advantage. 533

Round 28

22.Nb6 N×b6 23.R×b6 Ne7 24.g3 If 24.Ne5 Rfb8. 24...Rfb8 25.Rfb1 R×b6 26.R×b6 f6 27.Kg2 Kf7 28.Nd2 Rb8 29.Qb2 R×b6 30.Q×b6 Qa3 31.h4 Qd3 ½-½; (191) Averbakh – Boleslavsky Dutch Defense [A96] 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.0-0 0-0 6.c4 d6 7.b3 Commentaries on the Dutch Defense can be found in game 144, Euwe-Bronstein, where 7.Nc3 was played. Averbakh plays 7.b3, reserving the option of developing the knight at either c3 or d2. 7...a5 8.Bb2 Qe8 9.Nbd2 Nc6 10.a3 Bd8 11.Ne1 White understands that he cannot prevent e6-e5 – by which Black will free his queen’s bishop – and tries quickly to transfer this knight to c2, to continue with his plan of a b3-b4-b5 push. 11...e5 12.e3 Bd7 13.Nc2 (D)

The modern move, typically played against this defense. Black, with the maneuver Qe8-h5 and Nf6-g4, tries to launch a direct kingside attack, while White, with b3-b4, hurries on the other ank. For this reason Boleslavsky, with his next move, prevents this maneuver by his adversary. 13...e×d4! 13...f4 would not serve here because of 14.b4 a×b4 15.a×b4 R×a1 16.B×a1 Qg6 17.b5 and White gets going rst. It is worth noting that the white queen, even though undeveloped, performs a defensive function on the kingside, preventing Qe8-h5. As a general rule, it is a good policy for White to play e2-e3 and wait until the last possible moment before developing his queen, thus preventing Black’s intended attack and continuing systematically with the plan of a queenside push. 14.N×d4 Not 14.e×d4 f4! followed by ...Qg6. 14...N×d4 15.B×d4 Bc6 16.Nf3 Be4 17.Ne1 b6 18.a4

534

White realizes that now his intended queenside attack would not have the same success, due to the complete development Black has obtained. 18...Nd7 19.Nd3 g5! 20.Nc1 Since a jump to f4 has been prevented, White tries to activate this knight by Nc1e2-c3-d5. 20...Ne5 21.B×e4 f×e4 22.B×e5 Q×e5 23.Qd5+ Q×d5 24.c×d5 Rb8 25.Rd1 b5 26.g4! Seeking the strong post g3 for his knight. 26...Bf6 27.Ra2 Be5 28.Kg2 Rf7 29.a×b5 R×b5 30.Ra4 Bb2 31.R×e4 ½-½; After 31...B×c1 32.R×c1 R×d5 a very even endgame would be reached. (192) Petrosian – Kotov King’s Indian Defense [E67] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nf3 g6 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.g3 0-0 6.Bg2 Nbd7 7.0-0 e5 8.Qc2 (D)

Grandmaster Petrosian is confused about the application of this move here; this system is usually played when the queen’s knight has not yet been developed. And why? We shall soon see. 8...c6? Played routinely, without perceiving the signi cance of his opponent’s transposition! Correct was 8...e×d4 9.N×d4 Nb6! (the Nc3 hinders defense of the cpawn) 10.b3 (if 10.Qd3 d5 11.c5 Nbd7 12.c6 Ne5 13.c×b7 B×b7=+) 10...c5! 11.Ndb5 a6 12.Na3 Bf5 13.Qd2 (if 13.e4 N×e4!) 13...d5 and Black stands better. 9.Rd1 After the omissions we have pointed out, White has managed to enter one of the better systems against the King’s Indian. 9...Re8 10.d×e5 A peaceable move. White forsakes a ght and aims for a draw, whereas with greater ambitions he could try the active continuation 10.e4, and if 10...Qa5 not 11.b3? as in recent Soviet tournaments, but 11.h3! with the idea of developing his bishop to e3. Other notes on this opening can be found in game 114, Euwe-Geller. 10...d×e5 11.Ng5 Qe7 12.Nge4 N×e4 535

Round 28

In the aforementioned game, Geller played 12...Nc5 directly, which seems better to us. 13.N×e4 Nc5 14.Nd6 Rd8 15.N×c8 R×d1+ 16.Q×d1 R×c8 17.Be3 Rd8 18.Qc2 f5 19.Rd1 ½-½; (193) Najdorf – Geller King’s Indian Defense [E62] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.Nf3 d6 6.0-0 Nc6 7.Nc3 Bg4 (D)

The rst surprise! My opponent enters the same line as game 42, NajdorfPetrosian, in which I got the better game. I immediately presumed that he had found some improvement for Black, and after thinking a long time, decided to go ahead and nd out! On the other hand, I knew that Botvinnik, in the same position, had played 8.d5 Na5 9.Qd3 c5 10.Bd2 with a good game, and that another old but very good idea was Capablanca’s 8.h3 B×f3 9.e×f3!. 8.h3 B×f3 9.B×f3 Nd7 10.Bg2! For comments on this and subsequent moves, I refer the reader to the aforementioned game 42. 10...N×d4 11.B×b7 Rb8 12.Bg2 Rb4 Here we see Geller’s novelty! In the other game, Petrosian played 12...c5, denying the strong post c5 to one of his pieces. 13.e3 I do not think that Geller’s innovation – despite being a good move – constitutes a refutation of White’s system. If Black has no weaknesses, neither does White, and instead of a space advantage, White has the bishop pair. 13...Ne6 14.Qe2 Ne5! A typically psychological move: Geller tries to provoke an advance of my pawns, with the illusion of gaining a kingside attack that actually would create exploitable weaknesses. 15.f4 Nd7 Not 15...N×c4? 16.a3. 536

16.Nd5 Rb8 17.Qc2! The queen goes to its best square, preparing the maneuver Ra1-b1, b2-b3 and Bc1-b2. Obviously I could not immediately play 17.Rb1? c6 18.Nc3? B×c3–+. 17...c6 18.Nc3 Qc7 19.Rb1 a5 20.Bd2 Nec5 21.Ne2 Qb6 22.Kh2? An error, the consequences of which will be seen later. Necessary was 22.Kh1, foreseeing that further on, after opening up the game, Black would then not have a check on the second rank. 22...Rfc8 23.Bc3 Taking advantage of Black’s removal of his pieces from the kingside, I try to trade o the strong guardian of his castled position, even though it means no longer having the bishop pair. 23...B×c3 24.N×c3 Qa6 25.b3 Rb6 26.Ne4! Threatening 27.Ng5 and 28.f5. 26...N×e4 27.Q×e4 Re8 28.f5 The moment has arrived for the kingside attack, without worrying about my own weak squares! 28...Ne5 29.f6 Qa7 30.Rbd1 Rb4! The right defense. Black wants to play a5-a4, which at the moment is not possible: 30...a4? 31.c5. 31.Qd4 c5 (D)

32.Qh4? The preceding move, 31.Qd4, was necessary to force my opponent to play 31...c5 (clearly not 31...Q×d4? 32.e×d4 and 33.B×c6+–), which leaves a very useful base for my bishop on d5. But now the correct continuation was 32.Qf4, leaving the black knight “up in the air” at a key moment, and preventing Black from proceeding as he does in the game. For example: 32.Qf4 a4 33.R×d6 e×f6 (33...e×d6?? 34.Qh6 and mate is inevitable.) 34.R×f6 a×b3 35.a×b3 R×b3 36.Bd5 Re7 37.Kh1 with a perfectly playable game. 32...a4 33.R×d6 a×b3 Obviously not 33...e×d6?? 34.Qh6. 34.a×b3 R×b3 35.f×e7 Q×e7 (D) 537

Round 28

36.Q×e7?? An incredible misconception! No way should I go into the endgame, with my pawn weaknesses and the good location of Black’s pieces. After the simple 36.Rdf6 R×e3 37.Bd5, even though Black is a pawn up, there is no clear way to exploit that advantage. 36...R×e7 37.Bd5 R×e3 38.Rd8+ Kg7 39.Rc8 Nd3 40.Ra8 Re2+ 41.Kg1 Rd2 42.Raa1 Nb4 0-1 If 43.Bf3 Re3 and no hope of salvation remains for White.

(D)

(194) Taimanov – Smyslov Catalan System [E02] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 d×c4 5.Qa4+ Bd7 6.Q×c4 Bc6 7.Nf3 Bd5 8.Qa4+

The only comment one can make about this game is to note that Taimanov is in quite a hurry to make a draw. Has he lost all ghting spirit?! 8...Qd7 9.Q×d7+ Nb×d7 10.0-0 c5 11.Nc3 Bc6 12.d×c5 B×c5 13.Bf4 0-0 14.Rad1 Rfd8 15.Bd6 B×d6 16.R×d6 Kf8 17.Rfd1 Ke7 18.R6d2 Nc5 19.R×d8 R×d8 20.R×d8 K×d8 21.Ne5 538

This piece still needs to be traded o . 21...B×g2 22.K×g2 ½-½; (195) Gligoric – Keres Nimzo-Indian Defense [E43] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 b6 5.a3 B×c3+ 6.b×c3 Bb7 Gligoric – whose fortunes were picking up in the second cycle – tries to recover the ground lost in his lamentable defeat by Geller, and playing all out he chooses the Sämisch Attack, which has not done well for White in this event (see games 9, GellerEuwe, and 49, Geller-Smyslov). Keres adopts the idea of the Belgian master O’Kelly de Galway (already noted in game 9) which forces White to lose a tempo (7.f3) to enable e2-e4. We repeat that White tries to obtain a strong kingside attack, at the cost of the weakness of his c4pawn, which in turn was the theme of Black’s counterplay in the games mentioned. 7.f3 Nc6 8.e4 Here Gligoric varies from Geller’s 8.Bd3, against which Black castled, so as to follow e2-e4 with Rf8-e8, retarding the advance of White’s d-pawn. Now, in contrast, Black cannot play 8...0-0, because there would follow the bothersome pin 9.Bg5. 8...d6 9.Bd3 Na5 10.Ne2!? (D)

By this continuation White dispenses with defending the c4-pawn, trying to proceed quickly with the kingside attack. And perhaps he is right, since if 10.Nh3 Ba6 followed by Qd8-d7-c6 and the pawn is lost all the same!

539

Round 28

Svetozar Gligoric 10...Qd7 11.0-0 Ba6 12.Ng3 B×c4 13.B×c4 N×c4 14.Qe2 Qc6 15.Bg5 h5! With this move the opening phase ends, Black a pawn up with a solid position. However, a clear plan of how to proceed is hard to nd. The text move was necessary, because White threatened 16.B×f6 and 17.Nh5. 16.Bh4 0-0-0 Fleeing from the kingside, where White would have launched his o ensive. 17.f4 Rdg8 18.B×f6 Gligoric recognizes the inferiority of his position and tries to recover the pawn, since after Black’s castling queenside it is hard to continue the attack. For example 18.f5 e5, or if 18.e5 Nd5 19.Ne4 Nde3. 18...g×f6 19.N×h5 f5 (D) 20.Ng3 Of course not 20.e×f5 R×h5–+; nor 20.Nf6 Rg6 21.e5 d×e5 22.f×e5 Ne3 23.Rf2 Q×c3 24.Re1 f4–+. 20...f×e4 21.N×e4 Rh3!

540

Threatening 22...Re3. With this move Keres forces the white knight to retire from its good post on e4. 22.Ng3 Rh6 23.Rf3 Rgh8 24.h3 f5 25.Nf1 Rg8 26.Rg3 R×g3 27.N×g3 a5 28.a4 Rg6 29.Kh2 Kb7 30.Ra2 d5 31.Qh5 Qe8 32.Re2 Nd6 33.Re5 Not 33.N×f5 R×g2+–+. 33...Qf7 34.Qf3 Qd7 35.Qh5 Qf7 36.Qf3 Both players are pressed for time, and neither wants to decide on a plan before move 40, after which they can analyze in depth. Though Black stands better as a result of his pawn structure and superior knight, this is not yet enough to tilt the game decisively in his favor. 36...Rh6 37.Re2 Qd7 38.Ra2 Qc6 39.Ra1 Qc4 40.Kg1 Qb3 (D)

41.Ne2? Time control has been reached, but now Gligoric makes a serious mistake with his sealed move. In this inferior position, he still could have saved the game with 41.Qd3, and if 41...Qb2 42.Re1 Qa2 43.Qd1 and as Keres said later, even though he would have had chances with the maneuver c7-c6 and b6-b5, he could not have done this without the danger of opening up his own king’s position. 41...Qc2 42.g4

541

Round 28

Desperation! Seeing himself lost on the queenside, White tries as a last recourse to get a passed pawn going on the other wing. 42...f×g4 43.h×g4 Rh4 44.Rc1 Qh7! Since the white king’s position is now opened, Keres is more interested in direct attack than the win of a pawn. 45.c4 Rh3 46.Qg2 Qd3 47.c×d5 Ne4! 48.d×e6 Qe3+ 49.Kf1 Rf3+ 0-1 An excellent positional game by grandmaster Keres. (196) Bronstein – Reshevsky Ruy Lopez [C93] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Qc7 12.Nbd2 Nc6 Reshevsky varies from his earlier games: 12...c×d4 in game 47 (BoleslavskyReshevsky) and 12...Bd7 in game 92 (Gligoric-Reshevsky) where, it appears, he was not satis ed with his position. A new idea appeared in game 142, Boleslavsky-Keres, where Black played 12...Rd8 and on 13.Nf1 d5. 13.d×c5 d×c5 14.Nf1 Rd8 (D) In his treatise Modern Chess Theory Pachman considers this an error, and advises instead 14...Be6 15.Ne3 Rad8 16.Qe2 g6 17.Ng5 Bc8 18.Bd2 Kg7 19.Rad1 h6 20.Nf3 Be6 21.a4 c4!= (but not 21...Qb8 22.Bc1 R×d1 23.R×d1 Rd8 24.R×d8 B×d8 25.a×b5 a×b5 26.Nd5+=, Euwe-Smyslov, Hague-Moscow wch 1948).

15.Qe2 Nh5 16.a4! Bronstein surprises with a clear improvement on Belavenets’ well-known analysis: 16.Ng5 Nf4 17.B×f4 e×f4 18.Qh5 B×g5 19.Q×g5 Qe5=. 16...Rb8 17.a×b5 a×b518.g3!(D)

542

Preventing the knight’s jump to f4, and if 18...B×h3 19.Ng5 B×f1 20.Q×h5 B×g5 21.B×g5 f6 22.Be3 Bd6 with initiative for White. 18...g6 19.Kh2 Be6 20.Ne3 c4 21.Rd1 R×d1 22.Q×d1 Rd8 23.Qe2 Qc8 24.Nd5! An interesting sacri ce, giving White two powerful bishops in exchange for a pawn. Clearly 24...B×h3 is impossible because of 25.N×e5. 24...B×d5 25.e×d5 R×d5 26.b3! (D) Bronstein seeks more than just recovering the pawn, which he could have done simply by 26.Be4, followed by B×c6 and N×e5.

26...Nf6 If 26...c×b3 27.Be4! Rd8 (or 27...Rc5 28.Ba3 R×c3 29.B×e7 N×e7 30.Ra8+–) 28.Q×b5. Or also after 26...c×b3 27.B×b3 Rc5 28.Be3 R×c3 29.Q×b5. 27.Ng5! Not 27.b×c4 b×c4 28.Q×c4 Rc5 29.Qb3 e4 30.Ng5 Ne5. 27...Nd8 28.b×c4 Q×c4 29.Q×c4 b×c4 30.Ra4 (D)

543

Round 28

Despite Bronstein’s ingenious and risky play, Reshevsky, thanks to his careful defense, has arrived at an even endgame. Clearly Black cannot retain his pawn plus, since if 30...Rc5 31.Ba3 Rc7 32.B×e7 R×e7 33.R×c4, and a draw is assured. But as Reshevsky was very short of time, we will lay aside the question of whether he did not see this simple continuation, or decided to take a risk in hopes of getting more than a draw! 30...Nd7 31.R×c4 Nc5 32.Ne4 Nde6 33.N×c5 N×c5 Also good was 33...B×c5. 34.Rb4 Nd3 (D)

Had he not been after more, Reshevsky could have entered a defensive line based on 34...Kg7 followed by Rd5-d7-c7, with a completely solid position. 35.Rb8+ Kg7 36.Be3 e4 37.Re8 Bf6 38.Rc8? (D)

544

Bronstein, seeing that his rival’s ag is about to fall and hoping for a timepressure mistake, is not content with 38.R×e4 B×c3 and a draw. This tends to con rm the words of Reshevsky, in reference to his perennial Zeitnot: “In reality, that problem does not worry me much; the worry and the nerves are for my opponents!” 38...N×f2! 39.c4 Ra5! Still with visions of victory! Su cient not to lose was 39...Rf5 (not 39...Rd7 40.Ba4) 40.Re8 h5! 41.B×e4 (not 41.Kg2 Nd3 42.R×e4 Ne1+; nor 41.c5 Rf3) 41...N×e4 42.R×e4=. 40.Bb3 (D) 40...Ra3?? And just at the last move, Reshevsky blunders! He had to play 40...Nd3 retaining the pawn plus with good winning chances, for example, 41.c5 Rb5 42.Bd5 Rb2+ 43.Kg1 Re2.

41.Bc5! Be7 The only move. If 41...R×b3 42.Bf8+ Kg8 43.Bh6+ Bd8 44.R×d8#. 42.B×a3 B×a3 43.c5 e3 44.c6 Ne4 45.Re8 f5 46.Bc4 Bd6 47.c7 B×g3+ 48.Kg2 B×c7 49.Re7+ Kf6 50.R×c7 f4 51.Kf3 1-0 An emotional struggle, in which the American grandmaster lost not only the game, but also any chance for rst place. 545

Round 29

Round 29

Standings after round 29: Smyslov 17½; Bronstein, Keres and Reshevsky 15½; Petrosian 14½; Geller, Kotov and Najdorf 14; Taimanov 13½; Averbakh 13; Boleslavsky 12½; Gligoric and Szabó 12; Euwe 11½;; Ståhlberg 8. The penultimate round con rmed the absolute triumph of Smyslov who, now two points ahead of the eld, is safe from any surprise. But a new emotion was added to the many produced during the tournament: Keres and Reshevsky caught up with Bronstein, and now the three, all having the same score, must wait until the last round for nal resolution! A dramatic nale, an “operatic” one if you will, but sometimes fate arranges things so, and the grandmasters must feel themselves somewhat subject to the caprice of luck. Smyslov continued imperturbably to avoid all risk, and even though he gained the better position in his game with Najdorf, he o ered a draw at move eleven (!), which was immediately accepted. This turned out to be the shortest game of the tournament, and one cannot say that Smyslov, in a competition with so many strong adversaries, is not allowed the luxury of such complacency at the end. Gligoric played the King’s Indian against Reshevsky, who decided on the same system as Dr. Euwe in his game with Szabó, 8.Nd2. Black chose an inadequate plan and quickly lost the thread of the game, slipping into an inferior position, but even so it was necessary for Gligoric to commit a more direct error for White to realize his advantages decisively. Keres and Taimanov played a Sicilian of great theoretical value, in which Black improved on his earlier continuation of game 146, Averbakh-Taimanov, gaining good prospects. And moreover, the fact of White’s doubled pawns gave Black practical chances in the queen-and-pawn ending, but Keres, with exact defense, secured himself from all threats and a draw was agreed. Petrosian, in a Nimzo-Indian, found the right maneuver to solve the problem Black had in game 150, where Dr. Euwe allowed White to transpose into a Queen’s Gambit Accepted with colors reversed and two extra tempi. The ght was very interesting and Black obtained the better game, but in the complications Petrosian consumed much time, and for this reason accepted a draw despite his better prospects. 546

Grandmaster Szabó, taking advantage of a certain apathy and inexactitude on Boleslavsky’s part, won a pawn in the opening. Later he entered a simplifying line where, though he returned the pawn, the advantage of his more active pieces and passed a-pawn set him on the road to victory. Averbakh employed an interesting approach in the Nimzo-Indian against Kotov, and even though he incurred an isolated d-pawn, he had in return rapid development which led to a comfortable equality. Finally, Ståhlberg played his last game of the tournament against Dr. Euwe, one in which there was nothing noteworthy, aside from its correctness and brevity. (197) Reshevsky – Gligoric King’s Indian Defense [E64] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.Nc3 d6 6.Nf3 c5 7.d5 Na6 8.Nd2 In game 152, Reshevsky-Boleslavsky, White played 8.0-0, and even though he eventually won the game, he did not get a better position. At this opportunity, Reshevsky adopts Dr. Euwe’s system from game 189, Euwe-Szabó. 8...Nc7 9.c2 Rb8 10.b3 b5 At this point, Szabó played 10...e6, but we repeat that our preference is for 10...e5 as noted in our comments to game 189. 11.Bb2 b×c4 If 11...b4 12.Nce4, or if 11...Ba6 12.c×b5 N×b5 13.N×b5 B×b5 14.Nc4. 12.N×c4 Ba6 13.Ne3! (D)

White wants to avoid the exchange on c4, as after 13...B×c4 14.b×c4 Ng4 and ...Ne5, his c-pawn will be the target of attack, and Black will dominate the open le. 13...Rb4 This has no point. Better 13...e5! with the idea of Nf6-d7 and f7-f5. If 14.d×e6 N×e6 15.Ncd5 Nd4, or else 15.0-0 Nd4 16.Qd1 (not 16.Qd2 Bh6) 16...Re8 with good play for Black. 14.0-0 Qd7

547

Round 29

In our opinion, Black’s attempt to double rooks on the b- le and play c5-c4 is not at all an adequate continuation. More logical, as indicated, was an attack on the king’s ank. 15.h3 Rfb8 16.Rab1 Qc8? (D)

Better 16...c4 17.b×c4 B×c4 18.Ba3 (if 18.a3 Bb3; or 18.N×c4 R×c4 19.Qd3 Rcb4 20.Ba3 R×b1 21.R×b1 R×b1+ 22.Q×b1=) 18...R×b1 19.R×b1 R×b1+ 20.Q×b1 Ba6. 17.Kh2? White should play 17.Ba3 immediately to prevent 17...c4. 17...Nce8? Missing the last opportunity to play...c4. 18.Ba3 R4b7 19.Rfc1 Preventing ...c4 for good. For example 19...c4 20.b×c4 B×c4 (if 20...R×b1 21.N×b1) 21.R×b8 R×b8 22.Ncd1+–. 19...Qd8 It is evident that Gligoric has lost the thread of the game and is making indi erent moves. 20.Na4 Trying to improve the posting of this knight, to c4 via b2. 20...Nd7 21.Be4 One of the many moves that bear Reshevsky’s personal seal! True to the principal of optimal activity for all pieces, he brings into active play the only piece that had lain passive. 21...Nc7 22.Bb2 Nf6 23.Bd3 Looking to trade this bishop for Black’s more active one. 23...Bh6 Gligoric now plays tactically, worsening his position. However, 23...Nf×d5 was not possible due to 24.N×d5 B×b2 (if 24...N×d5 25.B×g7!+–) 25.B×a6 B×c1 26.B×b7. 24.f4 Qd7 25.Nc3 (D)

548

25...e6? The decisive error! Even with Gligoric’s chaotic play, it is only through this mistake that Black loses the game! More logical was 25...Bg7 26.Rd1 B×d3 27.Q×d3 Nb5 28.N×b5 Q×b5 29.Nc4 and White stands better because of the threat of e2-e4e5. 26.Ne4! N×e4 The only move. If 26...Nfe8 27.Qc3 e5 (not 27...Bg7?? 28.Q×g7+! N×g7 29.Nf6+) 28.f×e5 B×e3 29.e6+–. 27.B×e4 f5 White threatened to win with 28.Ng4. 28.d×e6 Q×e6 29.B×b7 R×b7 30.Qc3 Up the exchange and with the better position, for White the rest is only a question of technique. 30...Ne8 31.Qd2 Re7 32.Nd5 Q×e2+ 33.Q×e2 R×e2+ 34.Kg1 Kf8 The threat was 35.Re1, and if 34...Bb7 35.Re1! R×e1+ 36.R×e1 B×d5 37.R×e8+ Kf7 38.Rh8 etc. 35.Re1 Rd2 36.Red1 Re2 37.Nf6! The coup de grace. 37...Bg7 If 37...R×b2 38.R×b2 N×f6 39.R×d6+–, and if 37...N×f6 38.R×d6+–. 38.N×h7+ Kg8 39.B×g7 K×g7 40.Ng5 Re3 Useless was 40...Bb7 41.Re1 Rg2+ 42.Kf1. 41.Re1 1-0 (198) Keres – Taimanov Sicilian Defense [B88] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 c×d4 4.N×d4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bc4 e6 Commentary on this line can be seen in games 101 (Geller-Averbakh) and 146 (Averbakh-Taimanov). 7.0-0 a6 8.Be3 Qc7 9.Bb3 Na5 (D)

549

Round 29

To this point the game has followed the same course as game 146, AverbakhTaimanov, which White won brilliantly. Now Black varies from his earlier 9...Be7, playing 9...Na5 immediately, and if White had insisted on the same plan as the earlier game with 10.f4 b5 11.Qf3, then after 11...Bb7 he would not be able to make the advance 12.e5. Later Taimanov deepened his analysis, nding the pawn sacri ce to be correct, demonstrating this in the 1954 Soviet championship against Bannik, as can be seen in the notes to game 146. Evident here is the process of improvement in the study of this variation, with Black losing the rst game, then with some improvements a draw, and nally, after nding the correct continuation, a brilliant victory for the enterprising Taimanov. 10.f4 b5 11.f5 Keres, noticing that he cannot break in the center with e4-e5, tries another way. 11...N×b3 12.c×b3 Be7 It would be imprudent, with his development incomplete, for Black to try to win a pawn, viz. 12...b4 13.Na4 e5 14.Ne2 N×e4 15.Nb6 Rb8 16.Rc1 Nc5 17.Nd5 Qd8 18.f6, with a decisive attack. 13.Rc1 Qd7 14.f×e6 f×e6 15.b4! Aiming to give his queen its best square on b3. 15...0-0 16.Qb3 Kh8 17.h3 e5 White threatened 18.Rcd1 and 19.e5, therefore Taimanov advances his own epawn, knowing that his bishop controls 18.Nf5 Bb7 19.N×e7 Q×e7 20.Bg5 h6 21.B×f6 R×f6 22.R×f6 Q×f6 23.Rf1 Qg6 24.Qd1 Rc8 25.Qf3 Rc4 Taimanov has come out of the opening well: his pieces are more active and he is practically a pawn ahead, since the two black queenside pawns are equivalent to White’s three, one of those being doubled. 26.Rd1 Kh7 27.a3 B×e4 If 27...Rd4 28.Re1 Rd2 29.Re2. 28.N×e4 R×e4 29.R×d6 Re1+ 30.Kf2 Q×d6 31.K×e1 (D)

550

Black has arrived at the anticipated endgame in e ect a pawn ahead, but this is not su cient to win, because advancing the passed pawn will make it harder to defend, plus the black queen must stay on guard against perpetual check.

31...Qg6 32.Kd2 e4 33.Qf2 Qg5+ 34.Ke2 Qd5 35.Ke3! Qd3+ 36.Kf4 g5+ 37.Ke5 ½-½; (199) Smyslov – Najdorf King’s Indian Defense [A49] 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.0-0 d6 6.b3 My great adversary adopts a “tranquil” variation, since he needed only a draw to clinch rst place. 6...e5 7.d×e5 Ng4 8.Bb2 (D)

8...Nc6? I should have played 8...Nd7, which is correct at this moment. 9.c4 Re8 10.Nc3 Ng×e5 11.N×e5 ½-½; Smyslov o ered the draw and, logically, I accepted, as in my position I could aspire to nothing more. After 11...d×e5 12.Nd5 the bad location of my queen’s knight

551

Round 29

becomes apparent; had it been on d7 then 12...c6 would be possible. And if instead I recapture with 11...N×e5, then 12.Qd2 followed by Ra1-d1, also with a clear superiority for White. (200) Geller – Petrosian Nimzo-Indian Defense [E50] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nc3 c5 5.e3 0-0 6.Be2 b6! Not 6...d5? 7.c×d5 entering a Queen’s Gambit Accepted with colors reversed and two extra tempi for White. See games 136 (Bronstein-Szabó) and 150 (GligoricEuwe). 7.0-0 Bb7 8.Qb3 Ståhlberg’s favorite move. 8...c×d4 Also interesting was 8...Nc6 and if 9.a3 Na5 10.Qc2 B×c3 11.Q×c3 c×d4 followed by ...Rc8; but White is better o playing 9.d×c5 B×c5 10.Rd1. 9.Q×b4 Nc6 10.Qa3 d×c3 11.Q×c3 Ne4 Black has surrendered the bishop pair, but in return he has gained several tempi chasing the white queen. 12.Qc2 f5 13.a3 Better to develop the queen’s bishop without loss of time by b2-b3 and Bc1-b2 followed by Ra1-d1. 13...Rf6 14.b4 Rh6 Black’s plan is very ingenious! 15.Bb2 d6 16.Rad1 Qe7 17.Bd3 a5! After his kingside preparations, and having retained his pawn center, Petrosian turns to the other ank with the idea of obtaining c5 for his queen’s knight. 18.b5 If 18.Bc3 a×b4 19.a×b4 Ra3. 18...Nb8 19.B×e4 Necessary, since after the maneuver Nb8-d7-c5, Black’s position would be too aggressive. 19...B×e4 (D)

552

If 19...f×e4 20.Nd4!, and if then 20...Nd7 21.Nc6 B×c6 22.b×c6 Nc5 23.Bd4 Qh4 24.h3 Rg6 25.Kh2 Rc8 26.B×c5 d×c5 27.g3±. 20.Qe2 Nd7 21.Ne1 Not 21.Nd2? Qh4 22.h3 B×g2–+, but after the text 21...Qh4 is not good because of 23.h3, and if then 23...B×g2 23.N×g2 Q×h3 24.f3! Qh2+ 25.Kf2 Rg6 26.Rg1. 21...e5 22.f3 Bb7 23.Qf2 Rc8 24.Rc1 Qe6 25.f4! (D)

25...e4! Because of his more active pieces, Black stands better, but at this moment, voluntarily closing his bishop’s diagonal appears nonsensical. Yet, it is not so! By 25.f4! Geller sought, with good reason, to open the long diagonal for his own bishop and the f- le for his rook, aiming at the weak black f-pawn. Petrosian’s logical response would appear to be 25...Be4, defending the f-pawn, since if instead 25...R×c4 26.R×c4 Q×c4 27.f×e5 d×e5 28.Q×f5 Rf6 29.Qd3. But after 25...Be4 there would follow 26.Nf3 and these likely continuations: (D)

(a) 26...e×f4 27.e×f4 B×f3 (if 27...R×c4 28.Ng5 Qd5 29.R×c4 Q×c4 30.Rc1 Qd3 31.Rc8+ Nf8 32.Rc7 Rg6 33.h4 h5 34.Qd4 etc.) 28.Q×f3 R×c4 29.R×c4 Q×c4 30.Qc6! Qc5+ 31.Kh1 Nf8 32.Rc1 etc.;

553

Round 29

(b) 26...R×c4 27.Ng5 Qd5 28.R×c4 Q×c4 29.Rc1 Qd3 (if 29...Q×b5 30.Rc8+ Nf8 31.N×e4 f×e4 32.f×e5+–) 30.f×e5 d×e5 31.Rc8+ Nf8 32.B×e5 Rg6 33.N×e4 Q×e4? 34.Qa2++–; (c) 26...Bd3 27.Rfd1 B×c4 28.f×e5 d×e5 (if 28...N×e5 29.Nd4) 29.Ng5 etc. 26.Nc2 Nc5 If 26...R×c4 27.Nd4 Qf7 28.R×c4 Q×c4 29.N×f5; and if 26...Q×c4 27.Nd4 Qf7 28.Qg3!! Rg6 29.R×c8+ B×c8 30.Qh4 Qf6 31.Q×f6 R×f6 32.Nc6. 27.Nd4 Qf7 28.Qg3 ½-½; (D)

Why not continue the game with 28..Rg6 29.Qh3 Nd3 30.Rc2 Rg4! and White is left without satisfactory moves? For example 31.Ba1 h5 32.g3 d5 (not 32...g6 33.Qg2 h4 34.Ne2 h×g3 35.h3 Rh4 36.Q×g3) 33.c×d5 R×c2 34.N×c2 B×d5 with a great superiority for Black. And if 32.Rd1 (instead of 32.g3) then 32...h4 33.g3 h×g3 34.h×g3 Qg6 and ...Kf7 with better play for Black. As Petrosian himself explained after the game, time pressure dissuaded him from trying to realize the evident advantages of his position, and he felt he had best content himself with a draw! (201) Kotov – Averbakh Nimzo-Indian Defense [E46] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 0-0 5.Nge2 d5 6.a3 For comments on this opening consult game 104, Reshevsky-Taimanov. 6...Be7 7.c×d5 e×d5 8.Ng3 Re8 After his experience in game 122, Reshevsky-Averbakh, where Black played 8...Be6, Averbakh decides on Taimanov’s continuation from game 104. 9.Bd3 Reshevsky replied 9.b4. 9...Nbd7 10.0-0 a6 (D)

554

Averbakh adopts an interesting system to equalize the game, not playing the routine 10...c6, but rather preparing c7-c5, and even though he will later have an isolated pawn, his freer game compensates. Furthermore, the text move prevents a white piece from venturing to b5. 11.Qc2 Bf8 12.Bd2 c5 13.d×c5 Black was threatening c5-c4 and b7-b5. 13...N×c5 14.Rad1 Bg4 15.Be2 Be6 With this maneuver, Black has gained control of e4. 16.Nf5 Rc8 17.Nd4 Bd6 We see now that an isolated pawn can be worth the trouble in exchange for rapid piece development. 18.Bf3 Nce4 19.N×e6 f×e6 20.Qb3 Nc5 21.Qa2 Qc7 22.g3 Qf7 23.Bc1 Be5 24.Ne2 Rc7 25.Bg2 g6 Black has obtained a perfectly satisfactory game and with the text move prevents any possibility of f2-f4-f5 by White. 26.Qb1 Nb3 27.Bd2 N×d2 28.R×d2 Rec8 29.h3 Rc4 30.Rc1 Qc7 31.R×c4 Q×c4 32.f4 Bb8 33.Nd4 Qc1+ 34.Q×c1 R×c1+ ½-½; (202) Boleslavsky – Szabó English Opening [A32] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.Nc3 Boleslavsky elects a tranquil continuation, denying his opponent the pleasure of entering complications with 4.d5, the currently fashionable move. After 4.d5 we would transpose to a Benoni, as in game 6 (Euwe-Kotov), or else a Blumenfeld Counter-Gambit, for example 4...b5 5.Bg5 e×d5 6.c×d5 h6 7.B×f6 Q×f6 8.Qc2 d6 9.e4 a6 10.a4 b4 11.Nbd2 Bg4 12.Be2 with a ghting game. 4...c×d4 5.N×d4 Bb4 (D)

555

Round 29

6.Qb3 A dubious move which strays from the line recommended by theory: 6.Ndb5 d5 7.Bf4 Na6 8.e3 0-0 9.Qc2? (better 9.a3) 9...Bd7 10.0-0-0? B×b5 11.N×b5 Qb6 12.Kb1 Rac8 13.Bd3 Nc5=+, Navarro-Keres, Madrid 1943. 6...Na6 7.e3 If 7.a3 B×c3+ 8.Q×c3 Ne4 9.Qc2 Qa5+. 7...Ne4! 8.Be2 Qa5 9.0-0 (D)

To get around his opening di culties White sacri ces a pawn, thinking that his bishop pair and better development will compensate. However Szabó, whose position is solid with two well-positioned knights, can accept the pawn without major inconvenience. Inadequate here would be 9.Ndb5 because of 9...Nac5 and 10...a6. 9...Nac5 10.Qc2 B×c3 11.b×c3 Q×c3 12.Q×c3 N×c3 13.Bf3 Ke7 14.Nb3 N3a4 15.Ba3 d6 16.Na5 Looking for some compensation for the pawn. 16...e5 17.Rfc1 17.Rab1 is no good in view of 17...e4 followed by ...Nc3. 17...Rb8!

556

Szabó prefers to maintain his good position, without worrying about keeping the material advantage. Inferior is 17...e4 18.Bd1 b6 19.Nc6+ followed by 20.Nd4. 18.Rab1 Bf5! (D)

19.R×b7+! A good move, albeit forced, since if 19.Rb4 e4 20.Bd1 Bd7 and 21...b6. 19...N×b7 20.N×b7 R×b7 Not 20...e4 21.B×d6+ Ke6 22.B×b8 R×b8 23.Bd1. 21.B×b7 Rb8 On making his 17th move, Szabó had already foreseen this position in which, though material is even, he has a clear advantage with his more active pieces, control of the open le, and the weak c- and a-pawns which can be attacked by his bishop. 22.Bc6 Better 22.Bd5 at once. 22...Nc5 23.f3 Rb6 24.B×c5 If 24.Bd5 Bb1. 24...d×c5 25.Bd5 Rb2 26.Rc3 If 26.Ra1 Bb1 27.a4 Ba2 and ...Rc2. 26...R×a2 27.Rb3 Bd7 28.Rb7 Kd6! 29.B×f7 Bc6 30.Rb1 a5 31.Bd5 Even though material is even, White is lost because he cannot stop the a-pawn. 31...B×d5 32.Rd1 a4 33.R×d5+ Kc6 34.h4 Rc2 35.R×e5 a3 36.Re6+ Kb7 37.Re7+ Kb6 38.Re6+ Ka5 39.Re8 a2 40.Ra8+ Kb4 41.Kh2 Kb3 42.Rb8+ K×c4 0-1 (203) Ståhlberg – Euwe Queen’s Indian Defense [E12] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.Nc3 Bb7 5.Bg5 Bb4 For 5...h6 see game 22, Geller-Boleslavsky. 6.Rc1 h6 7.B×f6 Q×f6 8.e3 0-0 9.Be2 d6 10.0-0 B×c3 11.R×c3 Nd7 12.Nd2 e5 13.Bf3 B×f3 14.N×f3 ½-½; In this position a draw was agreed. This was Ståhlberg’s last game of the tournament, and it was obvious that the Swedish grandmaster tried to arrive at a

557

Round 29

quick draw, since there was no possibility for him to improve his position in the standings.

558

Round 30

Final Standings: Smyslov 18; Bronstein, Keres and Reshevsky 16; Petrosian 15; Geller and Najdorf 14½; Kotov and Taimanov 14; Averbakh and Boleslavsky 13½; Szabó 13; Gligoric 12½; Euwe 11½;; Ståhlberg 8. Before starting the nal round the tournament was already decided, and yet the struggle for second place presented new and complex problems. For religious reasons, Reshevsky never plays on Friday nights, and yet Friday was the day when the much-disputed second place was to be decided! The American grandmaster therefore asked the organizers to arrange that the other contenders for this spot also play their games in the morning. In this way, neither Bronstein nor Keres would play with Reshevsky’s result already known. But as it turned out Gligoric and Najdorf – opponents for the two Soviet masters on this occasion – also did not want their rivals in the standings to know their results beforehand! And so it was that the three contenders for second place, equal in points, in the color they would play, and in the strength of their adversaries, had to “play their last card” at di erent times of day. Reshevsky, against Taimanov, played with great prudence, contenting himself with a safe draw, rather than risk everything. Bronstein, for his part, also acted “contentedly,” and though he made a few tries at getting somewhere, he realized that Gligoric’s position was very solid and agreed to a draw in 25 moves. Keres was the only one of the three who experienced di cult moments. Najdorf’s novelty against the Semi-Tarrasch forced him to think for a long time, as he could foresee serious danger to his king in the middle of the board. Even so, later analysis demonstrated that Keres’ defense was insu cient if White, instead of making an error that lost all his advantage, had continued his attack correctly. After all that, Keres had the better position, but having only a few minutes to make 25 moves, he prudently decided to accept the draw. Among the other games, noteworthy was grandmaster Szabó’s exceptionally ne strategy against Kotov, which produced perhaps his best game of the tournament, and Boleslavsky’s victory over Dr. Euwe, who, playing White, came out worse from the opening and resisted without hope until move 53. 559

Round 30

Averbakh, against Geller, put into practice an interesting system against the King’s Indian, in which, though he lost various tempi, White’s position turned out to be very solid, assuring at least a draw. Finally, Smyslov played another very brief game, this time with Petrosian, where a draw was agreed even before leaving the opening. (204) Euwe – Boleslavsky King’s Indian Defense [E67] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.Nc3 d6 6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.0-0 e5 8.b3 Re8 9.Qc2 c6 10.Rd1 (D)

Another line more in keeping with the plan of 8.b3 is 10.Bb2, and on 10...Qc7 11.Rad1 (not Rfd1) 11...e4 12.Ne1 and, for example,12...e3 13.f4, 12...d5 13.c×d5 c×d5 14.Nb5. 10...e4 11.Ne1 In Stoltz-Kotov, Saltsjöbaden 1952, White continued 11.Nd2 d5 12.c×d5 c×d5 13.Nb5 Re6 14.Qc7 Qe8 15.Nd6? Qf8 16.Ba3 Ne8 17.N×e8 Q×e8 18.Nf1 Rc6=+. 11...Qe7 Why is it that Black does not apply Kotov’s idea here, playing 11...d5 as in the example above? Simply, because after the same variation up to move 18, White can reply 18.Rac1! preventing 18...Rc6, since with his knight on e1, his d-pawn is perfectly well defended. 12.h3 a6 Preparing d6-d5 without fear that after the exchange of pawns White would play Nc3-b5. 13.a4 d5 14.c×d5 Another interesting plan is 14.c5, with a typical minority attack on the queenside, and counterplay by Black on the other wing. 10...e4 11.Ne1 In Stoltz-Kotov, Saltsjöbaden 1952, White continued 11.Nd2 d5 12.c×d5 c×d5 13.Nb5 Re6 14.Qc7 Qe8 15.Nd6? Qf8 16.Ba3 Ne8 17.N×e8 Q×e8 18.Nf1 Rc6=+. 14...c×d5 15.a5 b5! 560

Before deciding on any action on either ank, it is necessary to prevent Nc3-a4. 16.a×b6 N×b6 17.Qd2 Be6 18.Nc2 Qd7 19.Kh2 h5 20.Na4? It is notable that Black here has the space advantage (contrary to the usual King’s Indian lines), and this is a result of the strategy pursued by White. Dr. Euwe should try to develop his pieces rapidly with 20.Ba3 followed by Bc5, bettering his inferior position. 20...N×a4 21.R×a4 Qc7 Boleslavsky takes advantage of White’s lagging development to aim at weak points. He now threatens 22...h4 followed by Nf6-h5. 22.Kg1 Reb8 23.Na1 (D)

A sad necessity for the knight, to defend the weak pawn. No good was 23.b4 Qd7 winning the h-pawn, or 23.Rb4 Rc8 24.Ne3 Bd7! followed by 25...a5. 23...Kh7 Preparing, in the event of 24.Ba3, for 24...Bh6, and on 25.e3 h4 with a strong attack. 24.Qa2 Rb6 25.Bf4 Qd7 26.Kh2 Ne8 27.Rc1 Nd6 28.B×d6 Another sad necessity; White must give up his most active piece to prevent 28...Nf5. 28...Q×d6 After this move, and even without any material advantage, it is purely a question of technique for Black to win the game. 29.e3 h4 The assault begins. 30.b4 Bh6 31.Rc3 R×b4 32.Nb3 R×a4 33.Q×a4 Bd7 34.Qa5 Bb5 35.Nc5 Rb8 36.Qa1 Bg5 37.Qd1 h×g3+ 38.f×g3 f5 39.Qe1 Bc4 40.Kg1 Bd8 With simple but precise maneuvers, giving his pieces their greatest o ensive power, Boleslavsky exploits his advantage, allowing his adversary no quarter. 41.Rc2 Bc7 42.Bf1 (D)

561

Round 30

If 42.Kh2 Rb1! 43.Q×b1 Q×g3+ 44.Kg1 Qh2+ 45.Kf2 Bg3#. 42...B×f1 43.K×f1 Q×g3 44.Q×g3 B×g3 45.N×a6 Rb3 46.Ke2 g5 47.Nc5 Rb6 48.Ra2 f4 49.Ra7+ Kg6 50.Ra6 f3+ 51.Kf1 R×a6 52.N×a6 Bd6 53.Kf2 Kf7 0-1 (205) Szabó – Kotov Nimzo-Indian Defense [E53] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 c5 7.0-0 Nbd7 8.Qe2 Better is 8.a3 directly; see game 24, Keres-Euwe. 8...a6 9.a3 c×d4 (D)

Best here is 9...Ba5! as played in the seventh game of the second ReshevskyNajdorf match. White continued 10.Rd1 d×c4 11.B×c4 b5 12.Bd3 Bb7 13.Bd2 Bb6 14.d×c5 B×c5 15.Rac1 Qb8 16.Bb1 Rc8 17.h3 Ne5=+. The idea of 9...Ba5! against 9.Qe2 is to impede the development of White’s c1bishop, since if the queen were on c2 White could calmly play b2-b3 and Bc1-b2. Certainly the text move does enable Black to isolate the adverse d-pawn, but concedes in return a great advantage in space, plus Black will have no good squares for his queen’s knight. 10.e×d4 d×c4 11.B×c4 Be7 12.Ba2 562

Anticipating the strike 12...b5, which now would be inferior because of 13.d5. 12...Nb6 13.Bg5 A typical position in all such systems, where though White has an isolated pawn, he stands better out of the opening because of his more active pieces. 13...Nfd5 14.B×e7 N×c3 15.b×c3 Q×e7 16.c4! (D)

16...Na4? Even though Black would still stand worse, preferable was 16...Qc7 followed by Nb6-d7-f6. 17.Bb3 Bd7 18.Qc2 Nb6 19.c5 Rac8 20.Ne5 Rfd8 21.Qe4 Nd5 22.B×d5 e×d5 23.Qf4 f6 24.N×d7! Q×d7 25.Rab1 The simple and precise way in which grandmaster Szabó augments the pressure is highly instructive; even with no material superiority, and only by his advantage in space and control of the b- le, he decides the game in a style reminiscent of Capablanca! 25...Re8 26.f3 Re7 27.Rf2 Rce8 28.Rfb2 Re1+ 29.R×e1 R×e1+ 30.Kf2 Re8 Not 30...Re6 31.Qb8+. 31.Rb6 Qe7 32.Qd2 Rd8 33.Qe3 Q×e3+ It was better to adopt a wait-and-see policy without exchanging queens; but all the same, after h2-h3, Kf2-g3 and Qe3-f4 by White, Black would have trouble defending himself. 34.K×e3 Rd7 35.h4 Kf7 36.h5 g5 37.h×g6+ K×g6 38.Kf4 h5 39.g3 Rh7 40.Ke3 Re7+ 41.Kf4 Rh7 42.a4 h4 43.g×h4 R×h4+ 44.Ke3 Rh7 45.Rd6 Re7+ 46.Kd3 Kg5 47.R×d5+ Kf4 48.Rd6 f5 49.Rf6 Re1 50.Rf7 Rb1 51.a5 Rb3+ 52.Kc4 Rb1 53.Rf6 Rh1 54.Rb6 Rh7 55.Rb3 Rd7 56.d5 Ke5 57.d6 f4 58.Rb1 Rh7 59.Re1+ Kf6 60.c6 b×c6 61.Kc5 Rh2 62.Rd1 1-0 A magni cent game by Szabó, probably his best of the tournament. Kotov himself said “I do not lament losing, because he truly earned it. I only lament that today Szabó had such exceptional precision against me!” (206) Averbakh – Geller King’s Indian Defense [E68] 563

Round 30

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.Nf3 d6 6.0-0 Nbd7 7.Nc3 e5 8.e4 Re8 9.h3 e×d4 10.N×d4 Nc5 11.Re1 a5 12.Qc2 Nfd7 For 12...a4 see game 45, Euwe-Gligoric, and for 12...Ng4 see games 131(Averbakh-Bronstein) and 143 (Ståhlberg-Reshevsky). 13.Rd1 c6 14.Be3 a4 15.Rab1 Qe7 16.Re1 Anticipating the threat of 16...Nf6. 16...Ne5 17.b3 a×b3 18.a×b3 Ned3 19.Re2 Nb4 20.Qd1 Qc7 21.Rd2 (D)

A rambling rook! It has surely not escaped the reader’s attention that White has lost many tempi, yet without incurring the corresponding punishment one would expect. This is the main idea against the King’s Indian – of course, that is, if one is not trying to win – by which White tries to avoid weakness, and since his position is very sound, Black is powerless to gain any advantage from the tempi White has lost. One notes the great practical success Black has had with this opening, because White, almost always, tries to rush ahead against the weakness at d6, often pushing his pawns prematurely! However, Black’s position is as solid as White’s, and he resists ably! This procedure of Averbakh’s is the same “do-nothing” system we saw in game 131, Averbakh-Bronstein. 21...Qa5 22.Nde2 Bf8 Not 22...Be5 23.f4. 23.g4! Black was threatening 23...f5. Now that move will not serve, as White will reply 24.g×f5 g×f5 25.Ng3+=. 23...Ne6 24.Ng3 Qe5 25.Nce2 Ra3 26.Nd4 Qa5 Not 26...Nf4? 27.Nf3 Qf6 28.g5+–. 27.Nc2 N×c2 28.R×c2 Qb4 29.Bd2 Qb6 30.Be3 Qb4 31.Bd2 Qb6 32.Be3 Qb4 ½½; Both sides have a solid position and there are no points where a breakthrough is possible.

564

(207) Petrosian – Smyslov Slav Defense [D14] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.c×d5 c×d5 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bf4 Bf5 (D)

Other continuations are (a) 6...Qb6 7.Na4 Qa5+ 8.Bd2 Qd8 9.e3 e6 10.Bb5+=; (b) 6...Qa5 7.e3 Ne4 8.Qb3 e6 9.Bd3 Bb4 10.Rc1 (if 10.B×e4 d×e4 11.Nd2 0-0 12.0-0! B×c3 13.b×c3 f5=) 10...N×c3 11.b×c3 Ba3 12.Rb1 b6 13.e4!±, Botvinnik-Denker, USSR-USA radio match 1945. 7.e3 e6 If 7...Qb6 8.Bd3! B×d3 (not 8...Q×b2 9.0-0 Q×c3 10.B×f5) 9.Q×d3 e6 10.0-0 Be7=, Chekhover- Euwe, Leningrad 1934. If here 8.Qb3? Q×b3 9.a×b3 a6 10.Ne5 Rc8 11.N×c6 R×c6 12.b4 e5!!=+, Trifunovic-Troianescu, 1946. 8.Qb3 If 8.Bb5 Nd7! 9.0-0 Be7 10.Rc1 Rc8=. 8...Bb4! Dr. Trifunovic’s move. (D)

9.Bb5 If 9.a3 B×c3+ 10.b×c3 0-0! 11.Q×b7 Qa5!! 12.Qb3 Rab8!! 13.B×b8 R×b8 14.Qd1 Q×c3+ 15.Nd2 Rb2 16.Rc1 Rc2 17.R×c2 B×c2 18.Qc1 Na5!–+. And if at move 12 565

Round 30

White plays 12.Qb2 then 12...Rab8!! 13.B×b8 R×b8 14.Qc1 Rb3 15.Nd2 R×c3 16.Qd1 Rc2 etc. 9...Qa5 Botvinnik-Trifunovic, Moscow 1947 saw 9...0-0 10.0-0 B×c3 11.B×c6 B×b2 12.B×b7 B×a1 13.R×a1 Qb6 14.B×a8 R×a8=. 10.B×c6+ b×c6 11.a3 B×c3+ 12.Q×c3 Q×c3+ 13.b×c3 ½-½; (208) Najdorf – Keres Queen’s Gambit [D41] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 c5 5.c×d5 c×d4 6.Q×d4 e×d5 7.e4 For 7.Bg5 see game 33, Ståhlberg-Keres. 7...Nc6 8.Bb5 (D) Here I was surprised to see that my adversary – despite having reached the same position in game 155, Geller-Keres – thought for no less than an hour and twenty minutes (!) before deciding on his reply! And I found it all the more remarkable since he had played brilliantly in that game!

Doubtless Keres sensed that in repeating the same variation, I had prepared some improvement, and therefore, so as not to risk his probable second place in the tournament, he chose to proceed with great caution. And he certainly was right! After analyzing the Geller game in preparation for this last round, I had found a continuation which, in my opinion, was very good for White: On 8...N×e4 I (like Geller) would have played 9.0-0! Nf6 10.Ne5 with the following likely continuation: 10...Bd7 (if 10...Qc7 11.Bf4 Bd6 12.N×c6 b×c6 13.N×d5! N×d5 14.Q×d5) 11.N×d7!! Q×d7 (if 11...N×d4 12.N×f6+ Ke7 13.Nf×d5+ Kd6 [and if 13...Ke6 14.Re1+ Kf5 15.Bd3+ etc.] 14.Bf4+ Kc5 15.b4#) 12.B×c6 b×c6 13.Bh6! 0-0-0 (if 13...c5 14.Rfe1+ Be7 15.Qe5 0-0 16.Qg5) 14.Rac1 Kb8 15.Na4 with play that amply compensates for the sacri ced pawn. I do not know if Keres saw this variation; what is certain is that he replied: 8...a6 9.B×c6+ b×c6 10.Ne5! Bb7 Not 10...c5 11.Qa4+. 11.e×d5 N×d5 12.0-0 Be7 13.N×c6! B×c6 14.Q×g7 Rf8 15.Re1 Qd6 (D) 566

16.Ne4? ½-½; With this move I throw away all the good prospects the knight sacri ce might have brought! I had to continue 16.N×d5! B×d5 (if 16...Q×d5 17.Bf4! 0-0-0 18.R×e7 Rg8 19.Rc7++–) 17.Bg5 with, for example, these two continuations: (a) 17...f6? 18.Bf4 Qd7 19.Q×h7 etc.; (b) 17...Be6 18.Rad1 Qc5 19.Bh6 and (b1) 19...Rd8 20.Q×h7; (b2) 19...Qf5 20.Qg3! Qg6 (if 20...Rh8 21.Qc3) 21.Qf3!. With the bad text move the position changes completely; after 16...Qg6, Black stands better and I had no clear plan to continue the attack a piece down. But 25 more moves still had to be made, and since Keres had consumed a large portion of his time, he prudently decided to accept the draw I proposed. (209) Taimanov – Reshevsky King’s Indian Defense [E95] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nf3 g6 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.e4 0-0 6.Be2 Nbd7 7.0-0 e5 8.Re1 e×d4 9.N×d4 Nc5 10.Bf1 Re8 11.f3 Nfd7 12.Be3 c6 13.Qd2 a5 14.Rad1 a4 15.Nc2 Be5 Reshevsky chooses the system Najdorf played against him at the 1952 Helsinki Olympiad, with the one di erence that there the white queen’s rook was on b1 instead of d1.

567

Round 30

Mark Taimanov 16.Bd4 Ne6 17.B×e5 In the aforementioned game (with the rook on b1) White played 17.Be3, after which followed 17...Qf6 18.Ne2 B×b2?? 19.R×b2 Q×b2 20.Nc3+–. 17...d×e5 18.Qf2 Qe7 If 18...Qb6 19.Q×b6 N×b6 20.b4! a×b3 21.a×b3=. 19.g3 Nf6 (D)

568

Reshevsky, playing his last game of the tournament, treats the position cautiously, without risking too much. The text prevents 20.f4, which would be met by 20...Ng4 21.Qf3 Qc5+22.Kg2 Nd4 etc. Very risky was 19...Qc5 20.Ne3 and if 20...Nd4 21.f4 Nf6 22.f5!. 20.b4 ½-½; Though the ght has just begun, Reshevsky, for reasons already explained, proposed a draw, and Taimanov, having no higher aspirations, accepted. (210) Gligoric – Bronstein Nimzo-Indian Defense [E46] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 0-0 5.Nge2 d5 6.a3 Be7 7.c×d5 e×d5 8.Ng3 c5 For the rst time, Bronstein follows established theory! For 8...Re8 see games 104 (Reshevsky-Taimanov) and 201 (Kotov-Averbakh), and for 8...Be6 see game 122, Reshevsky-Averbakh. 9.Bd3 If 9.d×c5 B×c5 10.b4 d4! 11.b×c5 (if 11.Na4 d×e3!) 11...d×c3 12.Q×d8 R×d8 13.f3 Nbd7=+, Euwe-Alekhine, wch match 1937. 9...Nc6 10.0-0 (D)

569

Round 30

10...Re8 A novelty by Bronstein. The usual line is 10...c×d4 11.e×d4 N×d4 12.B×h7+ N×h7 13.Q×d4=. 11.d×c5 B×c5 12.b4 Bd6 13.Bb2 Be5 14.Na4 B×b2 15.N×b2 Bg4 16.Be2 B×e2 17.N×e2 Qd6 18.Nd3 a6 19.Rc1 a5 Black’s last try for anything, but White’s position is extremely solid. If 19...Ng4 20.Nef4. 20.b5 Nd8 21.a4 Ne6 22.Ng3 Qa3 23.Ra1 Qc3 24.Rc1 Qa3 25.Ra1 Qc3 ½-½;

570

The Tournament in Review The greatest tournament of all time has ended, and along with eulogies for Smyslov – the indisputable victor – it is right and proper to highlight the transcendent social importance of such a game as chess, in serving as the vehicle for this unforgettable celebration of international brotherhood. The struggle was very intense, and over the almost two-month duration of the tournament, each of the fteen participating masters gave his best in the pursuit of victory. For this reason, and for the fact that all competing here were very nearly equal in their powers, every place in the nal table should be considered outstanding, from the rst to the last. And in a tournament of fteen Smyslovs, one, perforce, had to occupy last place. From the start it seemed at times that the ght for rst place would be so erce that surely, of the fteen, the winner would be that master whose physical resistance and self-control were at least as great as his talent and theoretical preparation. This clearly was the case with Smyslov. The Soviet grandmaster won his rst international tournament by two points, losing only one game out of 28 and drawing the last ve in a comfortable, almost tepid denouement. His play demonstrated an adaptability perfect for the circumstances, and while he knew how to be aggressive and brilliant, also noteworthy were his precision and composure on defense. Perhaps from this formidable pedestal, the Moscow grandmaster will advance toward a glorious future as champion of the world! After various exigencies, Bronstein, Keres and Reshevsky ended up tied for second place, and it will have to be decided which of them will be seeded directly into the next candidates tournament. [As it turned out, none was. A three-man playo was to be held, but Bronstein and Keres declined to play. Thus Reshevsky quali ed for the candidates tournament automatically, but he declined to play. Bronstein and Keres did play in the candidates tournament, but only after qualifying from the 1955 Interzonal, rather than by direct seeding. – TK] Bronstein played in his risky style, full of complications and surprises, that often a ects the nerves of his opponents as much as the position on the board, but even though he was without doubt the most creative genius of the tournament, it can be said that his second place is attributable more to his talent than to his style of play. Keres played some good games, and in general his result can also be considered excellent. His revival in the second half of the tournament – in which he scored more points than anyone else – greatly increased the public’s interest in the ght for the top places. Reshevsky, for his part, demonstrated that he was perhaps unacquainted with the modern treatment of certain openings, and if we add to this his lack of a second, he can rest assured that his nal result is a complete success. In the second cycle, the American grandmaster tried to force several games with such bad luck that it 571

The Tournament in Review

nulli ed all his chances, whereas when he was no longer spurred by the need to retake rst place, he displayed perfect technique in the exploitation of his superiority. The young grandmaster Petrosian has developed a very quiet and circumspect style that seems unnatural for someone of so few years, however his notable place in the nal standings speaks implicit praise for his talent and style. It was Petrosian who, along with the tournament winner, had the best result against the western players. Geller put on a spectacular display in the nal stretch of the competition, and with his risk-taking style and great will to win, could well have been among the top nishers. Najdorf, in contrast, was somewhat unfocused in the second cycle, and while he clearly had persistent bad luck in trying to win from won positions, it is no less certain that fatigue in the fourth and fth hours of play also contributed. Kotov, the “phoenix” of the tournament, demonstrated his strength of will and his genius in surging back from last place – which he occupied for most of the rst cycle – and nally taking a noteworthy place in the standings. Furthermore one could say that Kotov wrought his usual “deviltry,” scoring the best average against the top nishers, and that of all the many combinations in the tournament, he pulled o the most spectacular. Taimanov’s performance can also be considered very good; he played some games of very high quality and was, along with Petrosian, the only master who scored the same in both halves of the tournament, which gives some idea of his consistency. Some, like the eminent violinist David Oistrakh, say that “one cannot do two things well at the same time,” and that Taimanov, a great concert pianist, “should dedicate himself completely to music.” However, does it not go without saying that the many admirers of Taimanov the chessplayer think exactly the opposite? Averbakh tried some very interesting theoretical experiments, and with his sure play and puri ed technique had one of the best results against the top four. Boleslavsky declined somewhat in the second cycle, and though he fell short of repeating his earlier performance at Budapest 1950, he produced some excellent games and was very close to a 50% score. Grandmaster Szabó, subject to a nervous condition, had an uneven performance; no sooner had he demonstrated something of genius than he would lapse into absurd errors. Gligoric’s play often su ered from excessive advance preparation, and he lost some games for that reason. Overall, he made some interesting theoretical contributions, and some of his games show him at his true strength. In the last two places were the former world champion Dr. Euwe, and the Swedish grandmaster Ståhlberg. If we take into account the point di erence between the Dutch veteran’s rst and second cycles, we can deduce the e ect the length of the tournament had on his play. However, his performance is very meritorious, and especially at the start we saw him show his best ghting spirit against the vigorous youth of today.

572

Ståhlberg was clearly passing through a bad stretch and perhaps not in the best physical condition, and even though he always fought with a will and all-out – even in inferior positions – it often did him no good. The theoretical/statistical result of the tournament indicates that White, with a score of +49 -43 =118, or 51.43%, upheld the traditional superiority of the rst move, out of the 210 games contested. The predominance of close openings (169) over open (41) was manifest: 80.48%. Within the close openings Black attained a marked success with Indian defenses, which can be attributed to their inherent subtlety and ongoing “lab work,” plus the modern tendency to look for immediate counterplay. Among the Indian defenses (the Grünfeld, Old Indian, Queen’s Indian, King’s Indian and Nimzo-Indian) Black scored a favorable 51.29% over 116 games, whereas in the other games were these defenses were not played – either because of White’s avoidance of them or Black’s declining to play them – the result was quite discouraging for Black: only 44.33%. Black broke even in other openings such as the English, Catalan, Dutch and Benoni, but was edged slightly in the Queen’s Gambit, both Accepted and Declined, except in the Exchange Variation and the Semi-Tarrasch which were favorable to Black, and in the Slav, where results were even. Black was bested more decidedly in the Réti System. In open games the general tendency was toward the Sicilian Defense, which was employed in over half the 41 games where White opened 1.e4, with a result favoring White by 52.17%. Also unfavorable to Black were the French and Caro-Kann defenses; only in the Ruy Lopez did Black score 50%, in a dozen games. Another interesting statistic concerns the number of moves per game. When the Russian masters played each other, the average number of moves was 35, while among the western players it was 39. However, in the games between Russians and western players, the average rose to 42 moves. This would indicate an unquestionable tendency for both groups to ght more intensely against the “other side” than among themselves. Of the 108 games between Russians and western players, the Soviet masters won twice as often as their opponents: +34 -17 =57, or 57.87%. Smyslov and Keres were the only undefeated players in these encounters, while Kotov – who lost ve games – was the Russian most often beaten. Finally, the highest average against the western players was obtained by Smyslov and Petrosian – 70.83% – while it was Najdorf who had the best percentage against the Russians, exactly 50%. The Closing Ceremony In the great hall of the Zürich Congress House, on the 24th of October, the nal act of the 1953 candidates tournament was observed, with a gala soirée in honor of the participants. In attendance were local dignitaries, many distinguished gures from the diplomatic and chess worlds, and a great number of journalists, both Swiss and 573

The Tournament in Review

foreign.

The top four nishers, left to right: Vassily Smyslov, Sam Reshevsky, Paul Keres and David Bronstein. After the opening speech by the President of the Swiss Chess Society, Mr. Karl Locher, the President of the Organizing Committee, Mr. Charles Perret, addressed in Russian the Soviet grandmasters, congratulating them on their exemplary sporting attitude and their extraordinary success, especially Smyslov, winner of the tournament. Mr. Dmitri Postnikov, chief of the Russian delegation, answered praising the perfect organization of the contest and the friendly reception and hospitality given the Soviet masters in Switzerland, and later he presented, on their behalf, a souvenir gift to Mr. Locher. Next, the chief organizer, Mr. Alois Nagler, announced the result of the tournament and nal standings of the participants, which were o cially con rmed by the arbiter, international master Karel Opocensky, who later addressed Smyslov, saying: In the name of FIDE I declare you challenger for the title of world champion, currently held by Mikhail Botvinnik, and I congratulate you on this magni cent victory. FIDE is certain that with this and other manifestations of your magni cent art you will serve the development of chess in the entire world, and that you will be a worthy adversary for world champion Mikhail Botvinnik. On the stage, decorated with the ags of all the countries represented by the players, Opocensky bestowed on Smyslov a crown of laurels, and amidst a warm 574

ovation, bathed in the lights of movie cameras and photographers’ ashes, the Soviet grandmaster smilingly acknowledged the words of congratulation. Then the vicepresident of FIDE awarded him the prize of honor. Following this the remaining prizes were distributed to the other players, as well as some special awards for the best games, which went to grandmasters Kotov, Euwe, Taimanov and Najdorf. Finally, Opocensky gave the closing address, saying among other things: This tournament was a test of the strength, the perseverance and the physical stamina of the participants. During the contest we have been able to maintain a spirit of friendship, understanding and cooperation among all the masters, and it is for this reason that the tournament has been an important means of fostering the peaceful cooperation of chess players throughout the entire world, and also an aid to the further development of the chess player’s art. With these words, in an atmosphere of wholesome joy and sporting brotherhood, the greatest chess tournament of all time came to a close: there, where they tested their ingenuity in unforgettable battles, were the 15 Contenders for the World Chess Championship.

575

Theoretical Survey

Theoretical Survey Catalan Opening 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 d×c4 5.Nf3 Bb4+ (D)

A novelty introduced by Bronstein, the idea being that since White, after castling, will try to recover the pawn with Nc1-d2, the text forces him to occupy d2 with the bishop, so that the pawn must be recaptured with the queen. 6.Bd2 Be7 7.Qc2 Bd7!! The key to Black’s system. 8.0-0 If 8.Ne5 Nc6! 9.N×c6 B×c6 10.B×c6+ b×c6 11.Q×c4 Qd5! =+. If 9.Q×c4 N×e5 10.d×e5 Nd5! 11.B×d5 e×d5 12.Q×d5 Qc8 13.0-0 Bc6=+. 8...Bc6 9.Q×c4 Bd5 10.Qc2 Nc6 11.Bc3 Be4=. Game 16, Petrosian-Bronstein. Queen’s Gambit After 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nbd7 5.c×d5 (Exchange Variation) 5...e×d5 6.Bg5 Be7 7.e3 c6 8.Qc2 Nf8 9.Bd3 Ne6 (D) the most common is 10.Bh4 g6 11.0-0 0-0! (better than the immediate 11...Ng7 because of 12.b4 B×b4 13.N×d5±) 12.Rac1 a5 13.a3 Nd7=, game 190, Szabó-Stahlberg. But Bronstein played:

576

10.h4?! h6! 11.B×f6 B×f6 12.0-0-0 Nc7 13.h5 Bg4 14.Kb1 0-0 15.Ne2 Nb5 16.Ne5 B×e5 17.d×e5 Qb6 18.B×b5 Q×b5 19.f3 Bf5?±, game 151, BronsteinStahlberg. Better is 19...Bd7 and: (a) 20.g4 Rae8 21.Nd4 Qc4 22.Qh2? (better 22.Q×c4 d×c4 23.Nf5! B×f5+ 24.g×f5 R×e5 25.e4 a5 with a very complex endgame) 22...f6=+; (b) 20.e4 Rae8 21.Nc3 Qc4 22.e×d5 (if 22.f4 Bg4 23.Rd2 d×e4) 22...R×e5=+. Grünfeld Defense After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 d5 5.c×d5 N×d5 6.e4 Nb6 7.Ne2 c5 8.d5 e6 9.0-0 0-0 (D) there had been played 10.Nbc3 (Euwe-Pilnik, Amsterdam 1950). In this tournament, Dr. Euwe tried two new continuations:

(a) 10.a4 Na6! 11.Na3 e×d5 12.e×d5 Bf5 13.Nc3 Nb4 14.Be3 Rc8 15.d6!? Bd3=, game 19, Euwe-Smyslov; (b) 10.Nec3! e×d5? 11.e×d5 N8d7 12.Ne4! Nf6 13.Nbc3 Nbd7 14.d6 Rb8 15.Bg5 h6 16.B×f6 B×f6 17.N×f6+ N×f6 18.Re1 Be6 19.Qf3 b5 20.Qf4+=, game 129, Euwe-Keres. Queen’s Indian Defense After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 (D) the continuations were (a) 5.Qa4 Be7 6.Bg2 0-0 7.Nc3 c6 8.Ne5 Qe8 9.0-0 d5 10.Re1 b5! 11.c×b5 c×b5 12.Qd1 b4 13.Nb1 Nc6=+, game 59, Stahlberg-Taimanov; (b) 5.Nbd2 c5 6.Bg2 Nc6 7.d×c5 B×c5 8.0-0 0-0 9.a3 Bb7 10.b4 Be7 11.Bb2 Rc8 12.Qb3 Rc7 13.Rac1 Qa8 14.Qd3 h6 15.Rfd1 Rd8 16.e4 d6=, game 106, Bronstein-Taimanov.

577

Theoretical Survey

King’s Indian Defense After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 (D) a theoretically interesting position is reached, where improvements for both sides were found.

(a) 7...Nc6 (a1) 8.d5 Ne7 9.Ne1 Nd7 (D) 10.Be3? Interesting is 10.Nd3! f5 11.f3 f4 12.Bd2 g5 13.Rc1 Nf6 14.c5 Ng6 15.Nb5 Rf7 (if 15...a6 16.Na3 Rf7 17.c×d6 c×d6 18.Nc4!±) 16.Ba5! b6 17.c×b6 a×b6 18.Be1+= (analysis by Najdorf ). 10...f5 11.f3 f4 12.Bf2 g5 13.Nd3 Nf6 14.c5 Ng6 15.Rc1 Rf7! 16.Rc2 Bf8 17.c×d6 c×d6 18.Qd2 g4 19.Rfc1 (D)

578

19...g3!-+, game 28, Taimanov-Najdorf. (a2) 8.Be3 Re8! (D)

Najdorf’s move, which forti es Black’s system. It has been common to play, for example, 8...Ng4 9.Bg5! f6 10.Bc1 e×d4 11.N×d4 N×d4 12.Q×d4 f5 13.Qd5+ with advantage to White, as in game 67, Taimanov-Boleslavsky. 9.d5 If 9.d×e5 d×e5 (not 9...N×e5 10.N×e5 d×e5 11.Qb3+=) 10.Q×d8 N×d8! with continuations (a2a) and (a2b) below. If 10...R×d8 11.Bg5 Be6 12.Nd5 B×d5 13.c×d5 579

Theoretical Survey

Ne7 (if 13...Nd4 14.N×d4 e×d4 15.e5+=) 14.Rac1 c6 15.N×e5 c×d5 16.Rc7+–. (a2a) 11.Nd5 Ne6 12.Ng5 N×d5 13.c×d5 Nd4=; (a2b) 11.Nb5 Ne6 12.Ng5 Re7 13.N×a7 Nf4 14.B×f4 (if 14.Bf3 Bg4) 14...e×f4 15.N×c8 R×c8 16.f3 Nd7 17.Rab1 Ra8 18.a3 Bd4+ 19.Kh1 h6 20.Nh3 g5 21.Nf2 Re6 and Black has compensation for the pawn. 9...Nd4! The key to the system. 10.N×d4 e×d4 11.B×d4 N×e4 12.B×g7 K×g7 13.N×e4 R×e4 14.Qc2 Re7=, game 107, Reshevsky-Najdorf. (b) 7...c6 (D)

Geller’s idea, instead of 7...Nbd7, so that the c8-bishop can support an eventual Nf6-g4. (b1) 8.Re1 e×d4 9.N×d4 Re8 10.Bf1 Ng4 (D)

11.h3! If 11.f3 Qb6=+, but not 11...Qh4 12.f×g4 B×d4+ 13.Q×d4 Q×e1 14.Bh6+–. 11...Qf6 Now not 11...Qb6 12.h×g4 B×d4 13.Be3 B×e3 14.R×e3 Q×b2? 15.Rb1 Qa3 16.Nd5+–. 12.h×g4 Q×d4 13.g5 Nd7 14.Bf4! Q×d1 15.Ra×d1 Be5 16.Be3 Nc5 17.f3 Be6 18.Rc1 a5 19.Rc2 (better 19.b3) 19...a4 20.a3 Reb8 21.Rb1 h6? Correct was 21...Ra5!. 22.g×h6 f5 23.f4!+=, game 154, Smyslov-Geller. (b2) 8.d5 c5 9.Ne1 a6 10.Be3 Ne8 11.Nd3 f5 12.f3 f4 13.Bf2 g5 14.b4 b6 15.b×c5 b×c5 16.Rb1 Rf6 17.Na4 Nd7 18.g4! f×g3 19.h×g3 Rg6 20.Ne1!+=, game 580

180, Gligoric-Geller. After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 (D) the usual moves are 5.f3 or 5.Nf3. Bronstein played:

5.Bg5 c5 Better is 5...0-0, reserving the option of e7-e5 or c7-c5. 6.d5 Na6 Better 6...e6 7.d×e6 B×e6 8.Nb5 0-0 9.Q×d6 (or N×d6) 9...Nc6=. 7.Bd3 Nc7 8.Nge2 a6 9.a4 Rb8 10.0-0 0-0 11.Qc2 Bd7 12.h3 b5 13.f4+=, game 13, Bronstein-Najdorf. Various games continued with: 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 e5 7.d5 If 7.d×e5 d×e5 8.Q×d8 R×d8 9.Nd5 N×d5 10.c×d5 c6 11.Bc4 c×d5 12.B×d5 Nc6 13.Rd1 Nd4 14.Kf2 Be6 15.B×e6 N×e6 16.Ne2 f5!=, game 73, Boleslavsky-Najdorf. (D)

Another position worthy of study! (a) 7...Nh5?! 8.Qd2 f5 9.0-0-0 f4 Also played was 9...Nd7 10.Bd3 Nc5 11.Bc2 f4 12.Bf2 a6? 13.Nge2 a5 14.Kb1 Bd7 15.Nc1 Rf7 16.Nd3 b6 17.Rc1 Bf6 18.Rhf1 Bh4 19.B×c5 b×c5 20.Ba4+=, game 100, Kotov-Szabó. 10.Bf2 Bf6 11.Nge2 Bh4 12.Bg1 Nd7 Later Gligoric improved this variation with 12...g5 (threatening 13...g4) 13.c5 g4 14.Kb1 g×f3 15.g×f3 Na6 16.c6 Nf6 17.c×b7 B×b7 18.Ng3!? Bc8 19.Nce2 Bg5?? (correct was 19...Nd7). 13.Kb1 Be7 14.Nc1 Nc5 15.Nd3 N×d3 16.B×d3 Bd7 17.Bc2 Qe8 18.Bf2 a6 19.Rc1+=, game 75, Geller-Gligoric.

581

Theoretical Survey

(b) 7...c5! Finally, Gligoric found the right move in this position, preventing White’s queenside attack, so as later to continue with his own on the kingside. (b1) 8.Bd3 Nh5 9.Nge2 f5 10.e×f5? (better is 10.Qd2) 10...g×f5 11.Qc2 e4! (D)

A correct positional sacri ce. 12.f×e4 f4 13.Bf2 Nd7 14.Ng1 Qg5 15.Bf1 Ne5 16.Nf3 Qe7 17.N×e5 Q×e5 18.0-0-0 Nf6 19.h3 Bd7 20.Bd3 a6 21.Nb1! f3! 22.g×f3 Nh5 and even though two pawns down, Black stands better. (b2) 8.g4 (to prevent 8...Nh5) 8...Ne8 9.h4 f5 10.e×f5 g×f5 11.g5 e4! (D)

12.f4? Best is 12.Nh3 followed by Nf4. 12...b5! 13.c×b5 a6 14.Qd2 a×b5 15.B×b5 Ba6 16.B×a6 N×a6 17.Nge2 Nb4 18.0-0 Nc7 19.Nc1 Qe8 20.a3 Qh5! 21.Rf2 Qf7–+, game 186, Kotov-Najdorf. After 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.d4 d6 6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.0-0 e5 8.e4 e×d4 9.N×d4 Nc5 (D)

582

Averbakh innovated with 10.f3 Defending the e-pawn and the g4-square with a single move. 10...a5 11.Be3 a4 12.Rf2 c6 13.Nc2 Qe7 14.Rd2 Nfd7 15.Rc1+=, game 30, Averbakh-Gligoric. After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.Nc3 c5 6.d5 e5 (D)

Najdorf’s move, already employed at other opportunities. (a) 7.Bg5?! h6 8.B×f6 Q×f6 9.d6?! Nc6 10.e3 b6 11.Bd5! Kh8? Better is 11...Ba6. 12.Ne4 Qd8 13.h4 f5? 13...Ba6 was still better. 14.Ng5! Bb7! 15.g4!+=, game 58, Euwe-Najdorf. (b) 7.Nf3 d6 8.0-0 Nbd7 9.Qc2 Better is 9.e4 immediately, intending Nf3-e1-d3. 9...Qe7 10.e4 a6 11.a4 Nh5 12.Bd2 Kh8 13.a5 b5=, game 173, Stahlberg-Najdorf. After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nf3 g6 4.g3 Bg7 5.Bg2 0-0 6.0-0 Nc6 7.Nc3 Bg4 (D) the usual continuation had been 8.d5 Na5 9.Qd3 c5=, Botvinnik-Geller, USSR ch 1953. In this tournament there was played 8.h3 B×f3 9.B×f3 Nd7 10.Bg2! N×d4 11.B×b7 Rb8 12.Bg2 (D)

583

Theoretical Survey

(a) 12...c5? 13.e3 Ne6 14.Qc2 a5 15.Bd2 Ne5 16.b3 Qd7 17.Kh2 Nc6 18.Rad1 Ned8 19.Be1 Kh8 20.Na4 Qc8 21.Bc3+=, game 42, Najdorf-Petrosian; (b) 12... Rb4 13.e3 Ne6 14.Qe2 Ne5 15.f4 Nd7 16.Nd5 Rb8 17.Qc2! c6 18.Nc3 Qc7 19.Rb1 a5 20.Bd2 Nec5 21.Ne2 Qb6 22.Kh2? (better 22.Kh1) 22...Rfc8 23.Bc3+=, game 193, Najdorf-Geller. After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.Nc3 d6 6.Nf3 c5 (D)

these continuations were seen: 584

(a) 7.0-0 Nc6; (a1) 8.d5 Na5 9.Qd3 a6 10.Nd2 Rb8 11.b3 b5 12.Rb1 b×c4 13.N×c4 N×c4 14.Q×c4 Ne8=+, game 128, Kotov-Boleslavsky; (a2) 8.h3 Bd7! 9.d×c5 d×c5 10.Be3 Qc8! 11.Kh2 Rd8 12.Qc1 Nd4 13.Rd1 Bc6 14.Ne1? b6 15.Bg5 B×g2 16.N×g2 Qe6=+, game 158, Stahlberg-Gligoric. (b) 7.d5 Na6; (b1) 8.0-0 Nc7 9.Nd2 Rb8 10.a4 e6 11.d×e6 B×e6 12.Nde4! N×e4 13.N×e4 B×c4 14.Bg5 Qd7 15.Q×d6 Q×d6 16.N×d6 B×e2=, game 152, ReshevskyBoleslavsky; (b2) 8.Nd2 Nc7 9.Qc2 Rb8 10.b3 e6 Another continuation is 10...b5 11.Bb2 b×c4 12.N×c4 Ba6 13.Ne3! Rb4 (better 13...e5! 14.d×e6 N×e6 15.Ncd5 Nd4=, or 15.0-0 Nd4 16.Qd1 Re8=) 14.0-0 Qd7 15.h3 Rfb8 16.Rab1 Qc8? 17.Kh2? Nce8? 18.Ba3 R4b7 19.Rfc1+=, game 197, Reshevsky-Gligoric. 11.Bb2 e×d5 12.c×d5 b5 13.0-0 Re8 14.e4 Ba6 15.Rfe1 Ng4=, game 189, Euwe-Szabó. After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.Nf3 d6 6.0-0 c5 7.d×c5 d×c5 (D)

Najdorf played 8.Ne5! Qc7 Better is 8...Nfd7 9.Nd3 Ne5!=. 9.Nd3 Nc6 10.Nc3 Bf5 11.Bf4 Qa5 12.Bd2! B×d3 13.e×d3 Qc7 14.Be3+=, game 178, Najdorf-Boleslavsky. English Opening After 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 c5 3.Nf3 d5 4.c×d5 N×d5 (D)

there are two main continuations: 585

Theoretical Survey

(a) 5.e3 N×c3? (better 5...e6) 6.b×c3 g6 7.h4 h5 8.Bc4 Bg7 9.Ng5 0-0 10.Qe2 (analysis by Keres); (b) 5.e4!? Nb4 6.Bc4 Nd3+ 7.Ke2 N×c1+ 8.R×c1 a6 9.d4 c×d4 10.Q×d4 Q×d4 11.N×d4 e6= (analysis by Botvinnik). Petrosian instead played 5.g3 N×c3 If 5...g6 (trying to transpose to a variation of the Grünfeld favorable to Black) 6.Qa4+! Nc6 (if 6...Bd7 7.Qc4+=) 7.Bg2 Bg7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Qc4+= 6.b×c3 g6 Better is 6...e6. 7.Qa4+! Nd7 If 7...Nc6 8.Ba3 Qd5 9.c4+=,or 7...Bd7 8.Qc4 b6 9.Ne5+–. 8.h4! h6 9.Rb1 Bg7 10.Bg2 0-0 11.c4!! e5 12.d3 Nb6? Better is 12...Qc7 13.Nd2 f5 14.Nb3 Rf6! followed by Ra8-b8 and b7-b6. 13.Qc2 Bd7 14.Be3 Qe7 15.Nd2, game 152, Petrosian-Szabó. After 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 c×d4 4.N×d4 (D)

theory recommends 4... d5 (not 4...Nc6 5.Nc3 d5 6.c×d5 N×d5 7.N×c6 b×c6 8.Bd2+=) 5.c×d5 N×d5 6.e4 and : (a) 6...Nb4 7.Qa4+ N8c6 8.N×c6 N×c6 9.Be3 Bd7 10.Nc3 e6 11.Be2 Be7 12.0-0 0-0 13.Rad1+=; (b) 6...Nf6 7.Nc3 (Pachman recommends 7.f3! e5 8.Nb5 a6 9.Q×d8+ K×d8 10.N5c3+=) 7...e5 8.Ndb5 a6 9.Q×d8+ K×d8 10.Na3 b5 11.Nc2 Bb7 12.f3 Nbd7= (analysis by Kmoch). Keres played 4... e6! (a) 5.g3 d5 6.Bg2 e5! 7.Nc2 If 7.Nf3 d4. 7...d48.0-0 Nc6 9.Nd2 Bg4 10.Nf3 a5!=+, game 3, Petrosian-Keres; (b) 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Qb3 Better is 6.Ndb5 d5 7.Bf4 Na6 8.e3 0-0 9.Qc2? (correct is 9.a3+=), Navarro-Keres, Madrid 1943. 6...Na6 7.e3 If 7.a3 B×c3+ 8.Q×c3 Ne4 9.Qc2 Qa5+=+. 7...Ne4! 8.Be2 Qa5 9.0-0 Nac5 10.Qc2 B×c3 11.b×c3 Q×c3 12.Q×c3 N×c3 13.Bf3 Ke7-+, game 202, BoleslavskySzabó. Nimzo-Indian Defense After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 c5 5.e3 0-0 6.Be2 d5? 7.0-0 Nc6 (D)

586

8.c×d5 With this move, White enters a reversed Queen’s Gambit with two tempi more! (a) 8...c×d4 9.d×c6 d×c3 10.Qb3! Qe7 If 10...c×b2 11.B×b2 Qe7 12.B×f6 g×f6 13.Rab1 with a much superior game for White. 11.Ne5! Bd6 12.Nc4 c×b2 13.B×b2 Bc5 14.Bf3±, game 136, Bronstein Szabó; (b) 8...e×d5 9.d×c5 B×c5 10.a3 a6 11.b4 Bd6 12.Bb2 Bg4 13.Rc1 Bc7 14.Na4 Qd6 15.g3 Ne4 16.Nc5 N×c5 17.R×c5 Rad8? Better is 17...Rfd8. 18.Nd4 B×e2 19.Q×e2 N×d4 20.B×d4 Bb6 21.Rd1!+=, game 150, Gligoric-Euwe. (c) The best system for Black is 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 c5 5.e3 0-0 6.Be2 (D)

6...b6! 7.0-0 Bb7 8.Qb3 c×d4 9.Q×b4 Nc6 10.Qa3 d×c3 11.Q×c3 Ne4 12.Qc2 f5=, game 200, Geller-Petrosian. After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 c5 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 0-0 7.0-0 Nc6 8.a3 B×c3 9.b×c3 b6 10.c×d5 10.Ne5 Bb7 11.f4 Na5 12.c×d5 Q×d5 13.Qe2 c×d4 14.e×d4 Nb3 15.Rb1 N×c1 16.Rb×c1=, game 11, Keres-Averbakh. 10...e×d5 (D) we reach a position which was the object of study by various masters, resulting in four distinct continuations: (a) 11.Nd2, (b) 11.a4, (c) 11.Be2, (d) 11.Ne5.

587

Theoretical Survey

(a) 11.Nd2 Euwe 11...Be6 12.Bb2 c4 13.Bc2 b5 14.f3 a5 15.Re1 Qb6 16.Nf1 b4 17.Qd2 b3 18.Bb1 a4 19.e4 Ne7 20.Ng3? Better 20.Ne3, and if 20...Kh8 21.g4 d×e4 22.g5. 20...Kh8 21.Re2 Nfg8 22.Nh5 f5=+, game 71, Euwe-Averbakh; (b) 11.a4 Szabó 11...c4 12.Bc2 Ne4! 13.Qe1? Better is 13.B×e4 d×e4 14.Nd2 Qd5 (if 14...Re8 15.Qh5!) 15.f3 Bf5 16.Rb1! e×f3 17.Rb5 Qd7 18.e4 Bg6=. 13...Re8 14.Bb2 Bf5 15.Nd2 Qg5! 16.N×e4 d×e4!=+ In game 160, Szabó-Najdorf, 16...B×e4? was played. The analysis can continue 17.Qd2! Bg4! 18.Kh1 Re6 and now (b1) 19.Bd1 Rh6 20.B×g4 Q×g4 21.Ba3 (21.f3 Qg3 22.h3 e×f3 23.R×f3 R×h3+–+) 21...Rd8 22.f4 Rd5 =+; (b2) 19.f3 e×f3 20.g×f3 Bh3 21.Rfe1 Rae8 22.Be4 22.Bc1 R×e3; 22.f4 Qg4 23.Bd1 Q×f4 22...R×e4 23.f×e4 Qg4–+; (c) 11.Bb2 Najdorf’s move, from the second Reshevsky match. 11...c4 12.Bc2 Bg4 Better is 12...Ne4 13.Nd2 Bf5 14.f3 N×d2 15.Q×d2 B×c2 16.Q×c2 f5 17.a4=. 13.Qe1 Ne4 14.Nd2 N×d2 15.Q×d2 Bh5 16.f3 Bg6 17.e4 Qd7 18.Rae1 with two variations: (c1) 18...d×e4 19.f×e4 Rfe8 20.Qf4 b5 21.Bd1 Re7 22.Bg4±, game 12, ReshevskyPetrosian; (c2) 18...f5 19.e×d5 Q×d5 20.a4 Rfe8 21.Qg5 Qf7 22.Ba3 h6 23.Qg3 R×e1 24.R×e1 Re8 25.R×e8+ Q×e8 26.Kf2±, game 102, Smyslov-Petrosian; (d) 11.Ne5 Taimanov 11...Qc7 11...Bb7= is better. 12.N×c6 Q×c6 13.f3 Be6 14.Qe1 Nd7 15.e4 c4? Better is 15...f5. 16.Bc2 f5 17.e5 Rf7 18.a4 a5 19.f4 b5 20.a×b5 Q×b5 21.Ba3 Nb6 22.Qh4±, game 134, Taimanov-Petrosian. After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 c5 5.Nf3 d5 6.Bd3 0-0 7.0-0 Nc6 8.a3 B×c3 9.b×c3 d×c4 10.B×c4 Qc7 (D) four continuations were put into practice: (a) 11.Re1, (b) 11.a4, (c) 11.Ba2, and (d) 11.Bd3. (a) 11.Re1

588

(a1) 11...e5 12.d5! e4 12...Na5 13.d6 Qc6 14.N×e5 Qe4 15.d7 N×d7 16.N×d7 B×d7 17.Bd5+= 13.d×c6 e×f3 14.Q×f3 Bg4 15.Qg3 Q×c6 16.e4+=, game 137, Reshevsky-Euwe; (a2) 11...Rd8! 12.Qc2 e5 13.Ng5 Rf8 14.d5 Na5 15.Ba2 h6? Better is 15...c4 16.Bb1 g6 17.e4 Nb3 18.Ra2 N×c1 19.Q×c1 Nd7=. 16.Ne4 N×e4 17.Q×e4 Bd7 18.c4 b6 19.Qd3 Rae8 20.e4+=, game 17, Averbakh-Reshevsky; (b) 11.a4 b6 12.Ba3 Bb7 13.Be2 Rfd8 14.Qc2 Na5 15.d×c5 b×c5 16.c4 Be4 17.Qc3 Rab8 18.Rfd1 Better is 18.Nd2 Ba8 19.f3+=. 18...R×d1+ 19.R×d1 Bc6! 20.Qc2 h6 21.h3 Nb3 22.Bb2 Nd7 23.Qc3 f6 24.Nh2=, game 2, Najdorf-Reshevsky; (c) 11.Ba2 e5 12.Qc2 Bg4 (c1) 13.d5 13...Ne7 14.c4 B×f3 15.g×f3 Qd7 16.Bb1 Ng6 17.Qf5 Q×f5 18.B×f5 Nh4=+, game 54, Taimanov-Euwe; (c2) 13.N×e5 N×e5 14.d×e5 Q×e5 15.e4 Rfe8 16.Bb1? 16.f3+= 16...Rad8 17.f3 Bd7 18.Bb2 Bc6 19.Ba2? 19.c4 Qg5 20.Bc1 Qe5=19...Nh5 20.Rad1 Nf4 21.Rd2?? Ba4–+, game 140, Geller-Kotov; (d) 11.Bd3 e5 12.Qc2 (d1) 12...Re8 13.e4! e×d4 14.c×d4 Bg4 15.Q×c5! N×e4 16.B×e4 R×e4 17.Ng5! Re7 18.Qc2 g6 19.Ne4Bf5 20.Nf6+ Kg7 21.Qd2! K×f6 22.d5+=, game 39, Bronstein-Euwe; (d2) 12...Qe7! 13.d×e5 13.e4 c×d4 14.c×d4 e×d4=+ 13...N×e5 14.N×e5 Q×e5 15.Re1! Bd7 16.Bb2 c4!? 17.B×c4 Ng4 18.f4 Qc5 19.Qd3 Rad8 with complicated play, game 176, Averbakh-Euwe. After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 c5 (D)

589

Theoretical Survey

(a) 5.a3 The Sämisch variation) 5...B×c3+ 6.b×c3 b6 O’Kelly’s move, which forces White, if he wants to advance his e-pawn after 7.Bd3 Bb7, to lose a tempo in preparation by 8.f3. 7.Bd3 Bb7 8.f3 Nc6 9.Ne2 0-0 10.0-0 Na5 11.e4 Ne8! 12.Ng3 c×d4 13.c×d4 Rc8 14.f4 N×c4 15.f5 f6! 16.Rf4 b5!! 17.Rh4 Qb6-+, game 8, GellerEuwe; (b) 5.Bd3 0-0 6.a3 The Sämisch Deferred 6...B×c3+ 7.b×c3 b6? (D)

Better is 7...d5 or 7...Nc6. Now O’Kelly’s idea is not as good, because with the bishop on d3 White can play e3-e4 immediately. (b1) 8.Ne2 Bb7 9.0-0 d6 10.Qc2 Better is 10.Ng3. 10...d5 11.c×d5 Q×d5 12.Nf4 Qc6 13.c4 c×d4 14.e×d4 Nbd7=, game 32, Euwe-Reshevsky; (b2) 8.e4! Bb7 Better is 8...Ne8. 9.Bg5 h6 10.h4! d6 11.e5 d×e5 12.d×e5 Be4 13.Rh3 B×d3 14.R×d3 Qc7 15.B×f6 with a great superiority for White, game 77, Keres-Reshevsky. King’s Indian Attack After 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 d5 3.Bg2 Bf5 4.0-0 Nbd7 4...h6 5.d3 e6 6.Nbd2 Nc6!= 5.d3 c6 Still preferable is 5...h6 6.Nbd2 Bh7. 6.Nbd2 h6 (D)

590

Smyslov made an interesting and correct positional sacri ce: 7.e4! d×e4 8.d×e4 N×e4 8...B×e4 9.N×e4 N×e4 10.Re1 Nef6 11.Nd4+= 9.Nd4 N×d2 10.B×d2 Bh7 (D)

And now not 10.Bc3 (game 124, Smyslov-Euwe), but: 11.N×c6! b×c6 12.B×c6 Bf5 If 12...Rc8 13.Ba5!, and if 12...Qc8 13.Qf3 Rb8 14.Ba5!, in both cases with a much better game for White. 13.Qf3 Rc8 14.Bc3+=. Semi-Tarrasch Defense After 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 c5 5.c×d5 c×d4 6.Q×d4 e×d5 (D)

591

Theoretical Survey

there usually followed 7.Bg5 Be7 8.e3 Nc6 9.Qd2 0-0 10.Be2 (better is 10.Nd4, Najdorf-Gligoric, Helsinki ol 1952, with the idea of avoiding 10...Ne4 11.N×e4 d×e4 attacking the knight) 10...Be6 11.0-0 Ne4=, game 33, Stahlberg-Keres. The best continuation is 7.e4 Nc6 7...d×e4 8.Q×d8+ K×d8 9.Ng5 Be6 10.N×e6+ f×e6 11.Bc4 Nbd7 12.B×e6 Bb4 13.Ke2+=, Julio Bolbochán-Maderna, Mar del Plata 1953. 8.Bb5 (D)

(a) 8...N×e4 9.0-0 Nf6 Now not 10.Re1+ Be7 11.Qe5? (better 11.B×c6+ b×c6 12.Qe5 Be6 13.Nd4 Qd7 14.N×e6=) 11...0-0!u, as in game 155, Geller-Keres. Rather 10.Ne5 Bd7 If 10...Qc7 11.Bf4 Bd6 12.N×c6 b×c6 13.N×d5! N×d5 14.Q×d5+–. 11.N×d7!! Q×d7 If 11...N×d4 12.N×f6+ Ke7 13.Nf×d5+ Kd6 (or 13...Ke6 14.Re1+ Kf5 15.Bd3+ etc.) 14.Bf4+ Kc5 15.b4#. 12.B×c6 b×c6 13.Bh6! 0-0-0 13...c5 14.Rfe1+ Be7 15.Qe5 0-0 16.Qg5+– 14.Rac1 Kb8 15.Na4 with compensation for the sacri ced pawn. (b) 8...a6 9.B×c6+ b×c6 10.Ne5! Bb7 11.e×d5 N×d5 12.0-0 Be7 13.N×c6 B×c6 14.Q×g7 Rf8 15.Re1 Qd6 (D)

592

16.N×d5! Not 16.Ne4?-+, game 208, Najdorf-Keres. 16...B×d5 16...Q×d5 17.Bf4 00-0 18.R×e7 Rg8 19.Rc7++– 17.Bg5 with these continuations: (b1) 17...f6? 18.Bf4 Qd7 19.Q×h7±; (b2) 17...Be6 18.Rad1 Qc5 19.Bh6 Qf5 (if 19...Rd8 20.Q×h7) 20.Qg3! Qg6 (if 20...Rh8 21.Qc3) 21.Qf3!±. French Defense After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 there was played the seldom-used 4.Bd3 (D)

continuing 4...d×e4 5.B×e4 c5 Better is 5...Nf6 6.Bf3 Nbd7 7.Nge2 0-0 8.0-0 e5=. 6.Nge2 Nf6 7.Bf3 c×d4 8.Q×d4 Q×d4 9.N×d4 a6 10.0-0 Nbd7 11.Re1 0-0 12.Bd2 Rd8 12...Bd6 at once is better. 13.a3 Bd6 14.Rad1 Bc7? 15.Bg5+=, game 53, GligoricStahlberg. Ruy Lopez After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 N×e4 (Open Defense) 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.d×e5 Be6 9.c3 Bc5 10.Nbd2 0-0 11.Bc2 f5 12.Nb3 Ba7 13.Nfd4 N×d4 14.N×d4 B×d4 (D)

593

Theoretical Survey

Averbakh played 15.Q×d4 c5 16.Qd1 f4 17.f3 Ng5 18.a4 b4 19.h4 Nh3+!? 20.g×h3 Q×h4 21.Rf2 B×h3 22.Rh2 Rae8! 23.Q×d5+ Kh8 24.Bd2 R×e5! 25.Q×e5 Qg3+ and a draw by perpetual check. After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 (Closed Defense) 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d6 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Qc7 12.Nbd2 (D) Keres tried a novelty: 13...d5! 14.e×d5! e×d4 15.c×d4 N×d5 16.Qe2 Bb7 17.Ng3 c×d4 18.N×d4? Better is 18.Nf5! Bf8 19.N3×d4. 18...g6! 19.Bh6 Bf6-+, game 142, Boleslavsky-Keres.

After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bb4 (the antiquated Alapin Defense) (D)

594

play continued 4.0-0 Nge7 5.c3 Ba5 6.B×c6 N×c6 7.b4 Bb6 8.b5 Na5 9.N×e5 0-0 10.d4 d5 11.Ba3 Re8 12.Qh5 f6 13.f4?! (D)

13...f×e5 14.f×e5 Be6-+, game 185, Geller-Taimanov. Sicilian Defense After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+(D) The most common continuations are: (a) 3...Nc6 4.0-0 a6 5.B×c6+ b×c6 6.d4 c×d4 7.Q×d4 e5 8.Qd3 Nf6 9.Rd1 Be7 10.Bg5 0-0 11.Na3 Ra7 12.Nc4 Rd7 13.Ne3=, Sokolsky-Botvinnik, Moscow 1946;

595

Theoretical Survey

(b) 3...Nd7 4.c3 a6 5.Ba4 Ngf6 6.Bc2 b5 7.d4 e5 8.0-0 Be7 9.Nbd2 0-0 10.Re1 Qc7 11.Nf1 Re8 12.h3 Bf8 13.Ne3 g6=, Canal-Najdorf, Venice 1948. In this tournament, Gligoric played 3...Bd7 4.B×d7+ Q×d7 5.0-0 Nc6 6.Re1 Nf6 7.d4 If 7.c3 e6 8.d4 c×d4 9.c×d4 d5 10.e5 Ne4! 11.Nc3 N×c3 12.b×c3 Be7=, Boleslavsky-Najdorf, Budapest 1950. 7...c×d4 8.Bg5 d5! Already known was 8...Ng4 9.N×d4 h6 10.Bh4 g5 11.Bg3 h5 12.N×c6 b×c6 13.h3 h4 14.B×d6 N×f2 15.K×f2? e×d6 16.Nd2 0-0-0=+, Lilienthal-Najdorf, Budapest 1950. But Black does not enter that line, because White can improve with 10.Bc1, and if 10...g6 11.N×c6 b×c6 12.f3 Nf6 13.c4 Bg7 14.Nc3 0-0 15.Be3+=. 9.B×f6 g×f6 10.e×d5 Q×d5 11.Nc3 Qd7 12.Ne4 0-0-0 13.c3 f5 14.Nc5 Qd5 15.c×d4 e5 16.Rc1 e×d4 17.Nd3 Bd6=+, game 119, Taimanov-Gligoric. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 c×d4 4.N×d4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bc4 An old move revived, with the idea of avoiding both the Boleslavsky and Dragon variations: 6...g6 7.N×c6 b×c6 8.e5 Ng4 9.Bf4 Qb6 10.Qf3 Bf5 11.e×d6 e×d6 12.0-0±, Rödl-Engels, match 1930. (D)

Averbakh played: (a) 6...Bd7! 7.Bg5 Usual is (a1) 7.f4 g6 8.N×c6 B×c6 9.e5 d×e5 10.Q×d8+ R×d8 11.f×e5 Ng4 12.e6 f5=, Lipnitsky-Boleslavsky, USSR ch 1951; (a2) 7.0-0 g6 8.h3 Bg7 9.Be3 0-0 10.Bb3 a6 11.f4 b5 12.a3 Rc8 13.Qf3 =, Chistiakov-Taimanov, USSR ch 596

1951. 7...Qa5! 8.B×f6 g×f6 9.Nb3 Qg5 10.0-0 Rg8 11.g3 h5 12.Nd5 Rc8 13.f4 Qg7 14.Qd2 h4 15.Rf3 Qh6 16.Bf1 h×g3 17.R×g3 Rg6 18.Re1 f5 19.e×f5 B×f5 20.c3 Be6=, game 101, Geller-Averbakh. (b) 6...e6 7.0-0 a6 8.Be3 Qc7 9.Bb3 (D)

9...Be7 (see b1 below) 10.f4 Na5 11.Qf3! The known continuation was 11.Qe2 b5 12.f5 N×b3 13.a×b3 b4 14.Na4 e5 15.Nf3 Bb7=+, Lipnitsky-Taimanov, USSR ch 1951. 11...b5 12.e5 Bb7 13.Qg3 d×e5 14.f×e5 Nh5 15.Qh3 (D)

15...Q×e5? (see b2 below) 16.B×e6!! f×e6 17.N×e6+–. (b1) Later, Taimanov improved the system with 9...Na5 10.f4 b5 11.f5 If now 11.Qf3 Bb7 preventing 12.e5. 11...N×b3 12.c×b3 Be7 13.Rc1 Qd7 14.f×e6 f×e6 15.b4! 0-0 16.Qb3 Kh8 17.h3 e5 18.Nf5 Bb7=, game 198, Keres-Taimanov; (b2) Taimanov eventually found the correct continuation, which is 15...Qh3 N×b3 16.N×b3 Q×e5 17.Na5 b4 18.Nc4 Qc7 19.Q×h5 g6 20.Qe2 b×c3 21.b3 0-0 22.Rae1 Rad8 23.Bf4 Bc5+ 24.Kh1 Qe7 25.Be5 Bd4 26.Rf4 B×e5 27.Q×e5 Rd5 28.Q×c3 Qg5=+, Bannik-Taimanov, USSR ch 1954. After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 c×d4 4.N×d4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.g3 e5 (Najdorf variation) 7.Nde2 Be6 8.Bg2 (D)

597

Theoretical Survey

normal was 8...Be7 9.0-0? (better 9.a4) 9...Nbd7 10.h3 b5 11.a4 b4 12.Nd5 N×d5 13.e×d5 Bf5 14.f4 Qc7 15.c3 b×c3 16.N×c3 e×f4 17.B×f4 0-0 18.Kh2 Bg6 19.Rc1 Qb7? (better 19...Qb6) 20.Re1 Nc5 21.Re3 Rfe8 22.Qe2+–, Boleslavsky-Ciocaltea, Bucharest 1953. Kotov played: 8...b5! (a) 9.0-0 Nbd7 10.a4 b4 11.Nd5 N×d5 12.e×d5 Bg4 13.Bd2 a5 14.c3 b×c3 15.B×c3 Qb6 16.h3 Bh5 17.Kh2 Be7 18.f4 B×e2=, game 66, Gligoric-Kotov; (b) 9.a4 b4 10.Nd5 N×d5 11.e×d5 Bf5 12.0-0 Better 12.Bd2 a5 13.c3 Na6! 14.0-0 Qd7! 15.f4 f6=. 12...Nd7 13.Bd2 Rb8 14.f4 Bg6 15.h3 f6 16.Kh2? Be7? Better is 16...a5 to prevent 17.a5, a move White should have made instead of 16.Kh2. 17.a5 Qc7 18.c3 b3 19.f5 Bf7=, game 120, Gligoric-Najdorf; (c) 9.Nf4!? The interesting idea of the Dutch master Kramer. 9...e×f4 10.e5 Nbd7 11.e×f6 f×g3 and now there are two main continuations: (c1) 12.h×g3 N×f6 13.B×a8 (13.Bc6+ Nd7 14.B×a8 Q×a8 15.0-0 b4 16.Na4 Ne5 17.f3 h5=) 13...Q×a8 14.0-0 b4 15.Na4 h5 16.Bg5 Ne4 17.Qf3 d5=; (c2) 12.f×g3 N×f6 13.B×a8 (or 13.Bc6+ Nd7 14.B×a8 Q×a8 15.0-0 Ne5=) 13...Q×a8 14.0-0 b4 15.Ne2 Bh3 16.Rf2 Ng4=, analysis by Najdorf. After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 c×d4 4.N×d4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Qd2 Be7 8.00-0 N×d4 9.Q×d4 0-0 10.f4 (D) the recognized continuation was 10...Qa5 11.Bc4 h6 and: (a) 12.h4! e5! 13.Qg1 e×f4 14.B×f4 Bg4 15.Rd3 Nh5? 16.B×d6±, Pachman-Barcza, Saltsjöbaden 1952; (b) 12.Bh4 e5 13.f×e5 d×e5 14.Qd3 Qc5 15.B×f6 B×f6 16.Kb1 Be6 17.B×e6 f×e6 18.Qd6 Q×d6 19.R×d6 Rad8 ½-½;, Gligoric-Taimanov, Saltsjöbaden 1952.

598

Gligoric played 10...h6! 11.Bh4 If now 11.h4 h×g5 12.h×g5 Nh7 =; or if 11.B×f6 B×f6 12.Q×d6 Qa5 13.e5 Rd8 14.Qa3 Q×a3 15.b×a3 R×d1+ 16.N×d1 Be7 =. 11...Qa5 12.e5 d×e5 13.Q×e5! b6 If 13...Q×e5 14.f×e5 Nd5 15.B×e7 N×e7 16.Bc4 Nc6 17.Rhe1+=. 14.Q×a5 b×a5 15.Bd3 Bb7 16.Rhg1 Rfe8 17.h3 Bc5=, game 60, Boleslavsky-Gligoric. After 1.e4 c5 2.Ne2 (an original move by Keres) 2...Nf6 3.Nbc3 d6 4.g3 Nc6 5.Bg2 g6 (D)

two continuations were employed: (a) 6.d4 c×d4 7.N×d4 N×d4! Transposing to a Dragon Variation favorable to Black. 8.Q×d4 Bg7 9.0-0 0-0 10.Qd3 Be6 11.Bd2=, game 90, Keres-Gligoric. The best continuation for Black here is 11...Qc8!, and not 11...Qc7 as played in that game; (b) 6.d3 Bg7 7.Be3 0-0 8.h3 Ne8 9.Qd2 Nd4 10.Nd1 Rb8 11.Nf4? Better is 11.N×d4 followed by 12.Bh6, or even 11.c3 immediately. 11...Nc7 12.c3 e5!=+, game 103, Keres-Najdorf.

599

Opening Index by Name

Opening Index by Name (All numbers refer to games) Benoni Defense: 1, 6, 27 Caro-Kann Defense: 81, 187 Catalan System: 5, 16, 111, 153, 164, 194 Dutch Defense: 144, 149, 191 English Opening: 3, 82, 141, 145, 157, 162, 168, 169, 202 French Defense: 23, 53, 83, 97, 112, 125 Grünfeld Defense: 15, 19, 25, 48, 55, 85, 129 King’s Indian Attack: 69, 117, 124, 177 King’s Indian Defense: 7, 13, 20, 28, 30, 42, 43, 45, 50, 51, 58, 61, 67, 72, 73, 75, 80, 91, 98, 100, 107, 108, 114, 121, 126, 131, 132, 139, 143, 152, 154, 158, 171, 173, 178, 180, 183, 184, 186, 189, 192, 193, 197, 199, 204, 206, 209 Nimzo-Indian Defense: 2, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 24, 26, 32, 39, 41, 44, 49, 52, 54, 63, 71, 77, 94, 102, 104, 105, 110, 118, 122, 133, 134, 136, 137, 140, 150, 159, 160, 163, 167, 176, 182, 195, 200, 201, 205, 210 Old Indian Defense: 31, 37, 87, 96, 113, 174 Queen’s Gambit Accepted: 18, 21, 56, 63 Queen’s Gambit Declined:           Orthodox Defense: 8, 68, 138, 151, 170, 190           Ragozin System: 86, 109, 179           Semi-Tarrasch Defense: 33, 62, 93, 130, 155, 208           Slav Defense: 34, 115, 128, 207           Tarrasch Defense: 38           Tartakower variation: 57 Queen’s Indian Defense: 22, 29, 46, 59, 79, 84, 95, 106, 147, 148, 156, 166, 172, 188, 203 Réti Opening: 10, 74, 76 Ruy Lopez: 4, 40, 47, 70, 92, 115, 142, 181, 185, 196 Sicilian Defense: 35, 36, 60, 65, 66, 78, 88, 89, 90, 99, 101, 103, 119, 120, 123, 127, 135, 146, 161, 165, 175, 198

600

Opening Index by ECO Code (All numbers refer to games) A05: 177 A07: 69, 124 A08: 117 A11: 10 A12: 76 A13: 74, 111, 113, 141, 164 A17: 169 A21: 157 A26: 82 A30: 79, 95, 166 A32: 202 A34: 162 A36: 145 A48: 139, 184 A49: 20, 199 A53: 31, 121 A54: 37, 174 A55: 87, 96 A58: 1 A62: 27 A64: 6 A84: 149 A96: 191 A97: 144 B14: 62, 93 B18: 81, 187 B25: 78, 89 B26: 103 B31: 175 B52: 119 B59: 99 B60: 101 B62: 65 B64: 35 B65: 60 B67: 135 B70: 90 601

Opening Index by ECO Code

B73: 161 B76: 127 B80: 165 B88: 146, 198 B91: 66, 120 B92: 36, 88, 123 C07: 83 C08: 97, 125 C13: 23 C15: 53 C19: 112 C60: 185 C68: 181 C82: 70 C83: 40 C93: 196 C97: 4, 92, 142 C98: 115 C99: 47 D14: 207 D19: 34, 115, 128 D24: 18 D28: 21 D29: 63 D32: 150 D33: 38 D35: 8, 170 D36: 151, 190 D37: 56, 159 D38: 86, 109, 179 D41: 155, 208 D42: 130 D50: 33 D58: 57 D61: 138 D67: 68 D71: 48, 55 D72: 19, 129 D83: 25 D99: 85

602

E01: 3 E02: 194 E03: 5 E04: 16 E12: 22, 203 E13: 14 E14: 29, 46, 84, 147, 156, 168 E15: 59, 106 E17: 153 E18: 188 E19: 148, 172 E22: 52 E28: 9, 32, 77 E29: 49 E35: 167 E43: 26, 64, 94, 118, 163, 195 E45: 182 E46: 104, 122, 201, 210 E50: 136, 200 E52: 41, 44 E53: 110, 205 E55: 24, 133 E58: 11, 12, 71, 102, 134, 160 E59: 2, 17, 39, 54, 137, 140, 176 E60: 15, 178 E61: 50, 58, 108 E62: 42, 193 E64: 43, 152, 173, 189, 197 E65: 158 E66: 126 E67: 98, 114, 192, 204 E68: 30, 61, 72, 131, 143, 206 E69: 7, 45, 91 E70: 13 E71: 105 E76: 183 E85: 73 E87: 75, 100, 132, 171, 186 E94: 154, 180 E95: 51, 80, 209 E97: 67, 107 E99: 28

603

Player Index

Player Index (All numbers refer to games. Boldface indicates player had White) Averbakh: 4, 11, 17, 26, 30, 41, 43, 56, 70, 71, 83, 86, 96, 101, 109, 115, 122, 131, 135, 146, 148, 161, 175, 176, 188, 191, 201, 206 Boleslavsky: 7, 21, 22, 34, 37, 47, 52, 60, 67, 73, 82, 86, 97, 99, 112, 126, 127, 139, 142, 152, 157, 165, 172, 178, 187, 191, 202, 204 Bronstein: 1, 13, 16, 26, 31, 39, 46, 52, 61, 65, 76, 78, 91, 105, 106, 118, 121, 131, 136, 144, 151, 157, 166, 170, 181, 183, 196, 210 Euwe: 6, 9, 19, 24, 32, 39, 45, 54, 58, 69, 71, 84, 98, 99, 111, 114, 124, 129, 137, 144, 150, 159, 163, 174, 176, 189, 203, 204 Geller: 5, 9, 20, 22, 35, 49, 50, 62, 65, 75, 80, 88, 95, 101, 110, 114, 125, 127, 140, 154, 155, 167, 170, 180, 185, 193, 200, 206 Gligoric: 14, 15, 27, 30, 40, 45, 53, 60, 66, 75, 79, 90, 92, 105, 119, 120, 132, 135, 145, 150, 158, 165, 171, 180, 184, 195, 197, 210 Keres: 3, 11, 18, 24, 33, 37, 48, 50, 63, 77, 78, 90, 93, 103, 108, 116, 123, 129, 138, 142, 153, 155, 168, 182, 183, 198, 208 Kotov: 6, 8, 21, 35, 36, 48, 51, 61, 66, 74, 81, 87, 96, 100, 111, 113, 126, 140, 141, 153, 156, 166, 171, 179, 186, 192, 201, 205 Najdorf: 2, 13, 15, 28, 42, 43, 55, 58, 68, 73, 81, 88, 94, 103, 107, 118, 120, 133, 147, 148, 160, 163, 173, 178, 186, 193, 199, 208 Petrosian: 3, 12, 16, 27, 29, 42, 56, 57, 69, 72, 82, 87, 95, 102, 108, 117, 121, 132, 134, 147, 161, 162, 174, 177, 187, 192, 200, 207 Reshevsky: 2, 12, 17, 25, 32, 38, 47, 51, 62, 64, 77, 91, 92, 104, 107, 117, 122, 130, 137, 143, 152, 156, 167, 169, 182, 196, 197, 209 Smyslov: 4, 10, 19, 23, 34, 36, 49, 63, 64, 76, 79, 89, 94, 102, 109, 115, 124, 128, 139, 141, 154, 168, 169, 181, 184, 194, 199, 207 Ståhlberg: 7, 8, 20, 23, 33, 38, 46, 53, 59, 68, 72, 83, 85, 98, 112, 113, 125, 128, 138, 143, 151, 158, 164, 173, 177, 188, 190, 203 Szabó: 5, 10, 18, 25, 31, 40, 44, 55, 57, 70, 84, 85, 97, 100, 110, 115, 123, 130, 136, 145, 149, 160, 162, 175, 189, 190, 202, 205 Taimanov: 1, 14, 28, 29, 41, 44, 54, 59, 67, 74, 80, 89, 93, 104, 106, 119, 133, 134, 146, 149, 159, 164, 172, 179, 185, 194, 198, 209

604