White can take aim at various loosely defended points in Black's position, but on the other hand his centre is in danger of crumbling: 15 ±d3 (15 exf6 &xf6 favours Black owing to the weakness of White's d-pawn; the natural follow-up would be ...0-0 and ...£ie4) 15...0-0!? (15...£ft>4! is better, because it eliminates any hope that White has of attacking) 16 exf6 (16 ®c2 looks strong, but 16...fxe5 17 ±xh7+ <&h8 18 dxe5 £idxe5 gives Black sufficient counterplay) 16...^xf6 17 ±d6 2d8 18 ±.c5 ©c7 19 £ie2 £ie4 20 &a3?! (20 #c2 b6 21 Ab4 &bl is dynamically equal) 20...e5 21 dxe5 £>xe5 22 £ixe5 Axe5 (22...®xe5! looks more promising) 23 2c 1 Wb6 24 ®gl Wh6 25 2c2 kf5 26 g4 %7 27 We3 2e8 28 Wf3 &dl 29 ¿hf4 &c6 30 ¿hh5 Wh6 31 h4 <ih8 32 g5 2g8 33 £ig3 ®g6 34 2el ±xg3 35 ®xg3 £>xg3 36 ±xg6 hxg6 37 <£xg3 V2-V2 Yudasin-Moskalenko, Sverdlovsk 1984.
Here 13...^c4 is also possible.
A traditional-looking position has arisen in which White has two active bishops and control over e5. Black's king has nowhere to go whereas White's is relatively safe. But there is one other consideration:
By this original manoeuvre, the bishop puts direct pressure on White's only weakness: his
An excellent illustration of the themes in our d-pawn. The g7-bishop also covers e5, so that main game is 11 h3 gxf4 12 jk,xf4 f6 13 ig2 an incursion on that square can be met by ex-JLf8! (hitting b2, organizing a fianchetto to changes.
intending fih6) 27 1x3 d4 28 Sxd4! is everything White could have wished for.
Both sides underestimated 25 Sxd5! with the idea 25...&e6 (25...exf4 26 Hxd7 <£e5 27 Sxb7 f3+ 28 2xf3 £>xf3 29 lfxf3 Wxg5 30 h4) 26 Sxe5! £>xe5 27 Wxe5 with two pawns, the dark squares, and an attack for the exchange. That should be easily enough to win with.
Black has grabbed back the initiative and threatens to eliminate White's attack permanently by .. Jkx2.
This move prepares ..JLa4 or, if the situation more effective.
presents itself, .. JLb5. But it also takes pressure
off d4. Instead, 18...0-0 is the natural way to get 31 #xg6+ fxg6 32 Sxf8+ <È>xf8 33 ±e3 Ôf5!
developed before undertaking operations; e.g.,
19 JLe2 ^a5!? 20 &e5 ±a4! 21 ±xg7 &xg7 and White will have to give up the exchange for active play. That will probably not be sufficient compensation.
After 34 jtxa7 d4, moves such as ...e4 and ...Bxb2 are threatened, whereas 35 Bb3 e4 36 g4 loses to 36...d3 37 fixb7 d2 38 Sd7 i>e8 39 Sd5 £>e7 40 Sd6 £k8. 34...e4! 35 Hb3 5^xe3 36 Bxe3 <4f7 37 &g3
Sacrificing the dark squares and bishop-pair 4>e6 38 h4 Sxb2 39 h5 2c2 40 hxg6 Sc7 0-1
for the sake of a centre pawn. This is risky at best, and probably just bad, so preferable is 19...JLa4 20 Scl Sxcl (20...0-0!?) 21 Sxcl &c6 or 19...1b5 20 ±bl!? £>g6. In both cases Black has full-fledged chances.
20 £>xd4 Wxd4 21 We2 £>c6 22 Axhl %7 23±bl 0-0 24 Shfl!
This seems to encourage Black's expansion in the centre, but the two bishops will also have their say in things.
24...Sfe8 is the move that Shfl anticipated.
Then 25 *fh5 e5 26 &d2 e4 (26...&e6 27 Sf6!
The end might be 41 &f4 5g7 42 Eh3 Sxg6 43 2h7 Hg8 44 Sxb7 Sf8+ and Black wins.
The subjects of good-versus-bad bishops, opposite-coloured bishops, and wandering/retreating bishops could consume a whole book, so I'll stop here. In this limited section we have seen that assessing the quality of a bishop and its role in development by employing abstract considerations is practically impossible. The role of bad bishops protecting good pawns has received some further attention, and it will be referred to elsewhere in this book.
Was this article helpful?