H if Pi

An excellent idea in a near-desperate position. White attempts to capitalize on his only asset: his central pawn structure. At the time of this game, I felt very secure in the idea that Black was vastly superior. Much later I found out that some analyses, including one by Keres, purported to show that White is better. I find that truly amazing. Black is clearly better according to all System principles. He has the two bishops, excellent play for his minor pieces against a doubtful white centre, and there are prospects of winning a centre pawn. All he need do is to avoid some premature win of material instead of pursuing the attack on the centre. Of course, the published analysis seemed to think Black should play to win material. Now, we show how Black gets a winning advantage.

18 &e5 &xel 19 Wxel ®c7 20 ®e3, when White's potent centre will make it difficult for Black to use his rooks effectively. The destruction of the centre must have first priority. It is the ability to discern such things that makes for great play. Nothing in this book (except possibly this example) can prepare you to make such decisions. It should be apparent though, that in the line above, White has a very good centre, and Black's rooks will be subjugated for some time. That should be enough to be wary of winning an exchange, when the win of a pawn is at hand.

18 Se5 f6!

£>a6 Black gets good play against the e-pawn. White's next move is virtually forced.

19 d6 exd6

20 cxd6

20 £>d4 does not work because of 20...®d7 21 £>e6+ <&g8, when White is over-extended.

21 Sb5 b6

Where does the knight go?

Black must decide where to retreat his knight.

This strange-looking move is the best of the game. Its full ramifications will not be apparent for another ten moves. Suffice it to say that study convinced me that the knight needed a secure anchoring point, which it can achieve at c5 but not from c6. For instance, after 22...£}c6 23 Sd5 ®e6 24 ®a4 to be followed by 25 Sel, Black's position is very loose. However, the move does involve a planned return of the pawn, in order to get a position where White's pieces will be tied up, while Black's roam freely.

23 Sd5 We7

The first point of 22...&a6; White can have the c-pawn if he wants it. 24...£>c5 25 b4 is no good for Black.

Iii !

llil 11

m m

m i- i

fii.ll IF

M- im- A

A '

W A A "

Since 25 ®a4, all moves have been forced for both sides. Possibly White has been congratulating himself on re-establishing material equality; however, such joy should be short-lived. The point of giving up the c-pawn now becomes apparent; the a 1-rook will be trapped and the exchange will eventually be lost.

29 Sabl Af5

30 Wb5

I had spent most of my time working out the ramifications of 30 ®xe7+ Sxe7 31 £>d3, when 31...!d8! 32 &b4 Sde8 33 &d3 (33 &cd5 Sf7 34 5M3 Sd7 35 &5f4 Sed8) 33...&c5 34 £ki5 JLxd3 wins. The important thing is to avoid 31...&c5 32 &d5, when the rook has no safe square, e.g., 32...Sf7 33 £>xc5 Axbl 34 But the text-move is no salvation either.

31 &d3 Sad8 Black threatens to win material with 32...±xd3 33 Sxd3 a6! 34 ®xa6 £>c5. So White must finally part with the exchange.

33 Sxbl Se5

35 ®xd7+ Sxd7 White played on for another 17

moves, but he could have resigned here. A game full of interesting strategic decisions that involve chunks and their interaction.

The Board-Control Strategy

Another defensive strategy for Black that has become very popular due to the post-war influence of the Soviet players is playing the King's Indian Defence in order to control the dark squares as the game goes on. This hypermodern strategy is always useful, and is certainly advocated when playing Black and under no obligation to control the whole board. The following games give examples of how one side takes control of the squares of one colour and uses his ability to own one-half of the board to gradually take over the whole board.

Prague - Moscow match 1946

This is one of the original 'board-control smashes' that put the new way of playing the King's Indian Defence on the map. Black's play is magnificent, although by today's standards, White plays rather ineptly in his attempt to deal with what was then a brand new opening.

1 c4 e5

White starts out in a non-Sys-temic way, and Black prevents his getting back in.

Now it is too late to worry about controlling e4. The position is heading for a non-board-controlling situation.

5 g3

This is the same mistake as in Game 9, Evans-Berliner. The bishop does not belong on the long diagonal if White is going to have to block it by e4. The more modest development by JLe2 is much better.

0 0

Post a comment