The King’s Indian According to Tigran Petrosian : Igor Yanvarjov
International Master Igor Yanvarjov is a professional chess coach. He has been a coach at the Moscow Chess Club “Spartak,” and has been on the coaching staff of a number of chess schools, including those of Petrosian, Geller, Karpov and Garry Kasparov. Grandmasters he has worked with include Lembit Oll, Rustem Dautov, Yury Piskov, among others. He currently teaches chess at the Anatoly Karpov Chess School in Moscow.
Igor Yanvarjov with Tigran Petrosian
Tigran Petrosian, the ninth world chess champion was born to Armenian parents on June 17, 1929 in Tiflis Georgia. He was known as one of the deepest thinkers the chess world has ever seen. His handling of complex strategic positions was legendary. His play combined deft tactical awareness with an acute sense of prophylaxis, so that opponents had the greatest difficulty in laying a finger on him. For his own part, he often seemed content holding the margin of the draw rather than undertaking any heroics in pursuit of a win. In the analysis room, and in blitz games, Petrosian’s abundant tactical skills were apparent to everyone, but to the spectator of his tournament games, these were far from obvious, and he was regarded as dull. Petrosian responded to this criticisms by saying: “They say my games should be more ‘interesting’. I could be more ‘interesting’—and also lose.” Petrosian still remains one of the greatest players in the history of chess and if you were to consult the now defunct Chessmetrics Website, Tigran Petrosian was listed in the top 20 players of all time and was ranked at No 8 in the 20 year peak range category (1954 – 1973). He was an expert against the King’s Indian Defence and played the system that now bears his name (although he was far more successful with the Samisch variation).
This is the first book by Russian international master Igor Yanvarjov. He has put together a superb collection of virtually all the known games played by Tigran Petrosian – with both colours – in the King’s Indian Defence and other closely related Indian structures. He does this with the presentation of almost 300 deeply annotated, complete games. Although the material is organised by variations and tabias this is not an opening manual but it demonstrates the skill and nuanced handling of positions that Petrosian was known for. The author’s objective wasted reveal the richness of Petrosian’s chess world and to follow the strategic development of the King’s Indian Defence through the prism of Petrosian’s creative work.
The book is divided into three parts with each part being split into several chapters. preceded by a preface from Levon Aronian a forward from Igor Zaitsev and a note from the author.
They are as follows :
Part 1 Tabiyas (Tabia number in brackets)
Chapter 1 Classical Variation (A1 – A7)
Chapter 2 The Samisch System (B1 – B10)
Chapter 3 The Fianchetto Variation (C1 – C10)
Chapter 4 The Benoni (D1 – D10)
Chapter 5 Other Systems (E1- E10)
Part 2 Elements of Success
Chapter 6 Portrait of a Chess Player
Chapter 7 Lessons from Petrosian
Chapter 8 The Problem of the Exchange
Chapter 9 “Furman’s Bishop”
Chapter 10 “Pawns are the Soul of Chess”
Chapter 11 Playing by Analogy
Chapter 12 Manoeuvring Battle
Part III Experiments
Chapter 13 Realist or Romantic?
Chapter 14 The King’s Indian with Colours – and Flanks – Reversed
The bibliography in this book contains nearly 80 entries which will give the reader some idea of the amount of research that the author has carried out for the preparation of this book.
The games are all annotated to varying degrees of depth. Some have only light notes, whereas others have very detailed analytical variations. It is in this area Yanvarjov has done an excellent job. Many of the games contain quoted historical analysis or comments, whether by Tigran himself or his contemporaries. In addition the author goes into great analytical detail where it makes sense to do so. I also thought that IM Yanvarjov did an excellent job in getting the right balance between prose and variations to describe the action taking place within the positions. In some cases a verbal description is given which should be helpful to players of club level in particular.
The following game is considered to be one of Petrosian’s finest achievements
{[%evp 0,59,19,29,18,4,33,12,20,20,14,21,35,23,38,22,41,51,69,0,-15,-47,34,29,
73,38,85,59,44,37,37,40,11,17,8,1,24,32,19,40,85,43,54,-9,-9,98,96,111,236,218,
268,268,262,280,247,230,500,506,741,522,517,534]} 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 g6 3. c4 Bg7
4. Bg2 O-O 5. O-O Nc6 6. Nc3 d6 7. d4 a6 {It is worth noting that this game
was played at a tense moment in the match, when the candidate after losing the
seventh round, tried to even the score at all costs, hence the choice of the
aggressive opening variation. It was probably no surprise for Petrosian since
Spassky has already played it against Bronstein in the Candidates Tournament
in Amsterdam.} 8. d5 {There are other well-known continuations: 8 h3, 8 Qd3,
and even 8 Be3, but the text move is without a doubt the most fundamental
response to Black’s plan.} Na5 9. Nd2 c5 {Hindering the move 10 b4.} 10. Qc2 e5
{[#]} 11. b3 {As we have already mentioned, Botvinnik’s plan 11 a3 and b2-b4
also deserves attention. The calm continuation in the game is unassuming and
leads to a lengthy game.} Ng4 12. e4 {Otherwise with 12…f5, Black would
achieve a space advantage, while now after 12..f5, Black assumes certain
obligations. It is obvious that during the activity on the kingside which will
soon follow, he will greatly miss the a5-knight, which is “offside”.} f5 13.
exf5 gxf5 14. Nd1 {According to many annotators (grandmaster Suetin et al) 14
Bb2 is, if not a better move, more cautious. But I think that Tall was the
closest to the truth. He suggested that with his last move Petrosian
deliberately “drew the fire upon himself”.} b5 {The straightforward 14..f4 is
also possible, but in this case Black would definitely have to finish the game
with a direct attack because the weakening of the e4-square would have the
most serious consequences. Spassky does not want to burn bridges. After all,
by the standards of the Kings Indian Defence, Black has a decent position
after the two important conceptual advances …b5 and …f5. Here many
expected that White would still play 15 Bb2, so that after something like 15…
Rb8 16. f3 Nf6 17. Bc3 Bh6 (18. Re1 he could somewhat stabilise the position
(indicated by Issac Boleslavsky). Instead the “cautious” Petrosian suddenly
significantly complicates the game.} 15. f3 $5 e4 {Almost all annotators put
an exclamation point next to the move 15…e4. Oddly enough, Tal was the only
one who did not, noting that after the simple knight retreat to h6, playing
with White would be most unpleasant, because Black remained in control and can
then cause a crisis in a moment even more favourable for him.} 16. Bb2 {
Here riskier players suggested an exchange sacrifice: 16 fxg4 Bxa1 17. gxf5
Bxf5 (17…Bd4+!?) 18.Nxe4. But I think that White’s position is not bad
enough to resort to extreme measures.} exf3 17. Bxf3 Bxb2 {A controversial
exchange. As Tal pointed out, Black could have saved the bishops: 17…Ne5.
Then, after the inevitable opening of play (…f4) , Black’s kingside would be
better protected. However, according to Kasparov, it would not change the
nature of the fight. for example, 18 Bg2 Qg5 19. Nf2 f4 20. gxf4! Qf4 21. Nfe4
Qe3+ 22. Kh1 with advantage for White: 22…Bh3? 23. Bh3 Qh3 24. Rg1! or 22…
Bf5 23. Rae1 Qh6 24. Nf3, and after the exchange of a couple of minor pieces,
the remoteness of the a5-Knight begins to be important.} 18. Qxb2 Ne5 19. Be2
f4 $6 {In the same impassioned style! Of course, sooner or later Blacks would
have to make this move, so one of the white knights would not gain a foothold
on the f4-square. But it is still a long way from d2 or d1, so there is no
rush. A plan to transfer the queen’s rook to g7, recommended by Mikhail Tal,
looks rather good, for example: 19…Ra7 20. Ne3 Qf6! 21. Qc2 Rg7 22. Ng2 Ng6
23. Kh1 f4! 24. Nxf4 Nxf4 25. gxf4 Bh3, and now the exchange sacrifice,
similar to the text one, is not so strong, because the a1-hh diagonal is
controlled by Black. Instead of 21 Qc2 stronger is 21 Kh1! Re7 (21…bxc4 22.
bxc4!) 22.Rae1 followed by Ng2 and it is difficult for black to play …f4
Spassky’s impatience can be explained mainly by Petrosian’s lead. Also, all
the experts Petrosian’s lead. Also, all the experts unanimously advised the
candidate to drag Petrosian into a whirlpool of complications.} 20. gxf4 $5 {
A very bold idea for the world championship match. Probably 20. Rxf4 Rxf4 21.
gxf4 etc. was objectively stronger. (Garry Kasparov tried to prove this later.
The third volume of his book My Great Predecessors has a detailed analysis of
this position.) However, Petrosian undoubtedly took into account the
psychological state of his opponent and decided to create a trap. Later Tigran
Vartanovich admitted: “With this move I have paid tribute to Mikhail Tal, who
made psychological tricks fashionable. At the time of the match I already had
a clear understanding of my approach to problem solving, and I could bet that
Boris Spassky would respond with the dynamic and dramatic 20…Bh3, fully
understanding that 20…Rf4 was objectively stronger.”} Bh3 $2 {[#] Falling
into the trap! Black should have given up his ambitions and secured the
position of the e5-Knight: 20… Rxf4 21.Rxf4 (or 21. Ne3 Qg5+ 22. Kh1 Rxf1+
23 Ndxf1 Bh3, and Blacks chances are not worse – suggested by Alexey Suetin)
21…Qxg5+ 22. Kh1 Qxf4 23 Nc3 with a complicated fight with mutual chances.
However, if we take into account Spassky’s state of mind, this development
seems highly unlikely.} 21. Ne3 $1 {A forced yet correct sacrifice. After the
h3-bishop disappears and the e5-outpost is eliminated, all of the white pieces
become actively involved in the game. The bishop gets access to the e6, which
perfectly complements the queen’s activity along the long diagonal, the
knights occupy threatening positions on e3 and e4, and now White has an attack.
Incidentally, it is at this point that White has an attack. Incidentally, it
is at this point that it becomes clear that the knight’s position on a5 is
very unfortunate.} Bxf1 $6 22. Rxf1 Ng6 {The lesser of two evils was probably
22…Nf7, seeking to block the scary a1-h8 diagonal: 23… Bg4 Qf6!, was was
pointed out by many annotators. But even then White retains a significant
advantage via 23 Ne4 Qe7 24. Bd3} 23. Bg4 $1 {After 23 Ng4 Black would have 23
….h5 while now White decides the game in a few moves.} Nxf4 {[#] Desperation.
However, there was no good anymore. 23…Rxf4 24. Be6+ Kf8 25. Rf4+ Nxf4 26.
Qh8+ with mate on the next move. 23…h6 (Alexey Suetin) did not help either
because of 24. Be6+ Kh7 25. Nf5 Ra7 26. Ne4! (Gary Kasparov). The most
stubborn was 23…Qf6, which White could counter with 24. Be6+ Kh8 25. Qxf6+
Rxf6 26.f5 (Issac Boleslavsky) 26…Ne5 27. Ne4! (Gary Kasparov) with a
technically straightforward win.} 24. Rxf4 $1 {Petrosian had to sacrifice a
rook for a minor piece many times before. it is a well-known that in this
respect he was a great “connoisseur”. But two exchange sacrifices in the same
game! This is definitely a rare event, if I am not mistaken, something like
this happened in his games on only one instance, against Troianescu (Bucharest,
1953).} Rxf4 25. Be6+ Rf7 26. Ne4 {[#] “A picture perfect position. Black is
helpless despite the fact that he is up two exchanges. The knight on a5 is a
passive witness to the destruction of his army”. (Issac Boleslavsky)} Qh4 {
After 26…Raa7 27. Nf5 Qf8, the easiest is 26. Qf6 (Issac Boleslavsky)} 27.
Nxd6 Qg5+ {Or 27…Qe1+ 28. Kg2 Qxe3 29. Bxf7 Kh8 30. Qxh8 Ke7 31. Hf5+ kxf7
32. Qg7+ and 33 Nxe3 (suggested by Issac Boleslavsky).} 28. Kh1 Raa7 29. Bxf7+
Rxf7 {[#]} 30. Qh8+ $1 {A spectacular blow crowning the grand plan 30… Kxh8
would be followed by 31. Nxf7 and 32. Nxg5 Black resigned.} 1-0
[/pgn]
In my opinion this is a superb book, written as a labour of love to showcase the player who appears to have made the biggest impression on the author. It contains a splendid collection of annotated games that will have enormous appeal to King’s Indian players. Not only will it appeal to anyone who wishes to increase their strategic understanding of the game but also to anyone who wants a superb games collection from which any reader will derive a great deal of benefit and enjoyment.
Tony Williams, Newport, Isle of Wight, 17th April 2020
Tony Williams
Book Details :
Softcover : 424 pages
Publisher: Russell Enterprises, Inc. (June 17, 2019)
Leonid Kubbel’s Chess Endgame StudiesMattison’s Chess Endgame StudiesMattison’s Chess Endgame Studies, Whitworth, T. G., 01-12-1987. ISBN 978-0-900846-47-2., British Chess Magazine, Quarterly, Number 23The Platov Brothers : Their Chess Endgame StudiesTimothy George WhitworthThe Best of Bent, TG Whitworth
This was written about Peter aged 13 prior to the Spassky vs the BCF Junior Squad simultaneous display in 1979 :
” St John’s College and Portsmouth. Rating 174. British under-14 co-champion, 1978.”
and from chessgames.com :
“Peter Kenneth Wells was born in Portsmouth, England and became a FIDE Master in 1982, an IM in 1987, and a GM in 1994. He is also a FIDE Senior Trainer (2015).”
Peter Wells (between Harry Golombek and Ray Keene) takes part in the obligatory “Staring at the board” posed picture during the 1985 Varsity Match
{[%evp 0,81,19,29,55,19,46,14,24,16,13,18,24,30,17,19,2,20,27,18,-4,30,29,17,
17,38,43,46,55,26,32,16,25,21,7,14,14,42,30,-37,33,0,82,66,66,82,107,52,52,58,
39,72,87,40,82,-53,-19,-68,-31,-81,172,216,216,213,274,279,275,297,312,327,328,
336,553,561,559,559,641,862,945,960,1000,1334,1344,1572]} 1. Nf3 c5 2. c4 g6 $5
{Well, he certainly got his surprise in first. I half expected 2…Nc6 3 Nc3
e5 as we had already had in one quick-play game, or perhaps 2…Nc6 3 Nc3
Nd4!? which seems . I had never seen Chris playing the black side of a Maroczy
Bind before, although of course in the ‘pure’ Dragon he is a well known
specialist.} 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. e4 Nf6 6. Nc3 d6 7. Be2 Nxd4 8. Qxd4 Bg7
9. Bg5 O-O 10. Qd2 Be6 11. Rc1 {It is also possible to castle here, but I
think the text and white’s next two prophylactic moves form the most logical
set-up. White prevents tactical breaks ( notably those involving a quick …b5
) by solidly bolstering his c4 and e4 pawns. Most importantly since there is a
high probability of a queen exchange on d2 following black’s …Qa5,there is a
strong case for keeping the king in the centre for the ensuing ending ( or
more properly perhaps ‘queenless middlegame’ ).} Qa5 12. f3 Rfc8 13. b3 {
[%csl Yc4,Ye4][%cal Ga7a6,Gb7b5]} Kf8 $5 {At the time I was very struck by the
logic of this move – black also centralises his king, and prepares to answer
almost any Nd5 which white may care to throw at him by capturing with the
knight, without relying on a tactical defence to e7 ( compare the note on 13…
a6. ) Also white has to find a good move, since in the absence of a weakness
on b6, there is little mileage in attempting to head for the ending
immediately. There are two possible objections to black’s move: 1) White can
try to punish it in ‘middle-game’ terms – trying to prove that the king is
substantially more vulnerable on f8 and that this justifies a switch to direct
attack. This seems in principle a bit doubtful, although it is the course the
game eventually takes. 2) White can find a strong preparatory move for the
endgame. Since to create play black will have to play …a6 anyway, he may
have committed himself to a move ( 13…Kf8!? ) which while generally useful,
is not critical in the particular case. This should be a more serious question!
} (13… a6 {is the main line. White has two routes to provoke an endgame:} 14.
Na4 $5 (14. Nd5 {is now generally acknowledged to be less dangerous in view of}
Qxd2+ 15. Kxd2 Nxd5 $5 (15… Bxd5 16. cxd5 $14 Kf8 17. g4 Nd7 18. h4 Bb2 19.
Bh6+ Kg8 20. Rxc8+ Rxc8 21. Be3 Bc3+ 22. Kd1 Nc5 23. h5 Bf6 24. g5 Bg7 25. Bf1
$5 {[%cal Yh2c2,Gf1h3,Yh1h2]} Rc7 26. Rh2 Nd7 27. h6 Bh8 28. Bh3 $16 {1-0
Cifuentes Parada,R-Monell,C/Andorra op 1995/EXT 95op (41)}) 16. cxd5 Bd7 17.
Rxc8+ Rxc8 $11 {although the argument does rest upon black’s compensation after
} 18. Bxe7 $140 Bh6+ (18… Bc3+) 19. Ke1 $8 {Few white players have wanted to
test this, although it is not totally clear what is black’s best course.
Perhaps} f5 $5 (19… Rc2 20. Bxd6 Bb5 $6 21. Bxb5 axb5 22. Rf1 $14) (19…
Rc1+ 20. Bd1) 20. Bxd6 (20. exf5 Bxf5 21. Bxd6 Bb1 $1 $13 {[%cal Rb1a2,Ra2d5]})
20… fxe4 21. Kf2 (21. fxe4 $2 Rc1+ 22. Bd1 Bg4 $17) 21… e3+ 22. Kg3 Rc2
$132) 14… Qxd2+ (14… Qd8 15. c5 $1 $14) 15. Kxd2 Nd7 (15… Rc6 16. Nc3
Rac8 17. Nd5 Kf8 18. Be3 Nd7 19. h4 $1 {As we shall see, this genaration of
play on the king-side is white’s main strategy here.} Bxd5 20. exd5 R6c7 21. h5
Kg8 22. f4 $1 {[%cal Ge2g4]} Nc5 23. Bg4 Ne4+ 24. Kd3 f5 25. Bf3 b5 26. g4
bxc4+ 27. Rxc4 Rxc4 28. bxc4 Nc5+ 29. Bxc5 $1 Rxc5 30. h6 Bf8 31. Kc3 $16 {
[%csl Rf8] 1-0 Karpov,A-Kavalek,L/Nica (ol) 1974/Inf 17 (45)}) 16. h4 (16. g4
$5) 16… Kf8 $6 (16… f6 $1 {is the modern approach. One example:} 17. Be3 f5
18. exf5 gxf5 19. Bd3 Rab8 20. Nc3 Nc5 21. Nd5 Kf7 22. g4 Nxd3 23. Kxd3 b5 $132
{0-1 Vaisser,A-Antunes,A/Tilburg 1994/CBM 44 (39)}) 17. h5 h6 18. Be3 g5 19. g3
$1 $40 {[%cal Gf3f4]} Rcb8 20. Nc3 b5 21. Nd5 Bxd5 22. cxd5 b4 23. Rc7 Nc5 24.
Bxc5 dxc5 25. f4 Bc3+ 26. Ke3 Rc8 27. Rxc8+ Rxc8 28. e5 {1-0 Psakhis,L-Pigusov,
E/USSR 1980/Inf 31 (41)}) 14. h4 $1 {The appeal of this stage of the game is
that it is as yet unclear whether I have opted for strategy 1) or 2). In fact,
I have a suspicion it was none too clear to me either. Others fail to convince:
} (14. Rc2 a6 15. Na4 Qxd2+ 16. Kxd2 Nd7 17. g4 (17. h4 f5 $5) 17… Bd4 18.
Rhc1 Ke8 19. Be3 Bxe3+ 20. Kxe3 {1/2-1/2 Agrest,E-Andersson,U/Skelleftea 1999
(20)}) (14. O-O {Another way to switch to the direct attack approach, but
black’s counterplay on the queenside could come quite quickly.} a6 15. Be3 Rab8
$6 (15… b5 $1 $132) 16. f4 b5 17. f5 b4 18. fxe6 bxc3 19. Qxc3 Qxa2 20. Bd1
Qa3 21. Bd4 fxe6 22. e5 $40 {1-0 Eising,J-Westerveld,W/Amsterdam 1976/MCL.})
14… a6 {[%csl Rb6] So there we are – this move is critical to black’s
counterplay, despite the potential weakness of b6.} 15. h5 $5 {This probably
should be ‘?!’ but it is redeemed because it did provide a high level of
entertainment. Objectively better, and in my view fully vindicating 14 h4! is}
(15. Na4 $1 Qxd2+ (15… Qd8 $14) 16. Kxd2 Nd7 17. h5 {I had now expected} h6
18. Be3 g5 {considered 19 g3! clearly the way forward, but in ignorance of
Psakhis – Pigusov above, failed to comprehend quite how promising this was.})
15… Rc5 $1 {The point – suddenly there is no going back. White’s next move
is just about forced} 16. f4 {[%csl Re1,Re4] Reluctantly – this weakening of
e4 seriously adds to black’s counterplay, and emphasises the discomfort of
white’s king in the middle.} (16. Bxf6 $6 {hardly comes into consideration, and
}) (16. hxg6 $2 Rxg5 17. gxh7 (17. b4 Qxb4 18. Qxg5 hxg6 $17 {[%csl Rc4,Re1]
[%cal Gg7c3]}) 17… Rh5 $19) 16… b5 $6 {Maybe black in turn underestimates
his opponent’s resources.} (16… Rac8 $1 {was much safer, since after} 17.
hxg6 {black can capture with the h-pawn, preparing to answer} hxg6 $1 18. f5 $6
gxf5 19. Bh6 {with} Bxh6 20. Qxh6+ Ke8 {and with his rook protected the black
king can run to the queenside.}) 17. hxg6 fxg6 (17… hxg6 18. f5 gxf5 19. Bh6
$40 {[%csl Ra8] is now strong.}) 18. Bxf6 Bxf6 19. Rxh7 Bg8 {Andrew Martin, in
his entertaining comments on the Championship web site, here commented: ”
White is attempting a hybrid of the Maroczy Bind, Yugoslav Attack and the
Levenfish Variation, a marriage made in hell”. In fact after 15…Rc5 my
course of action was strictly limited, and the Levenfish element was
definitely involuntary. Still, the following sacrifice I was very proud of.
Retreat would clearly pass the initiative to black, but after…} 20. e5 $1 {
[%mdl 640] there is no way for black to avoid ceding good compensation for the
exchange.} dxe5 (20… Bxe5 $5 21. fxe5 (21. Rxe7 $5 Qd8 $1 $132) 21… Bxh7
22. exd6 $44) 21. fxe5 Bg5 $1 (21… Bxh7 22. exf6 Kg8 (22… exf6 $2 {[%csl
Rc5]} 23. Qd6+) 23. Qe3 $16 {[%csl Rc5,Rg8,Rh7]}) 22. Qxg5 Bxh7 23. Qh4 $1 {
[%csl Rc5,Re7,Rh7][%cal Yh4f2] An important resource which black had
overlooked.} Kg8 24. Qxe7 Rc7 $8 {[%cal Gc7g7] Here, sadly in appalling
time-trouble my play went to pieces. I had underestimated the extent to which
black’s basic defences would be held together by 24…Rc7, and although the
position still favours white it is not easy to prove.} 25. Qd6 Re8 26. Kf2 $5 {
Even now, when a little concern for the king would be quite understandable, my
main concern was to bring in the knight. White has two pawns for the exchange,
black’s bishop is out of the play ( although the possibility of …g5 is not
to be underestimeted ) and the dark squares around black’s king are weak.
Still, the e-pawn’s status as asset or weakness is still up for grabs, and the
whole thing is not as good as it looks!} (26. b4 $6 Qa3 27. Kd1 Rcc8 28. Nd5
Rcd8 {Simply gives white a new king problem.}) (26. Bf3 $5 bxc4 27. Bd5+ Kh8
28. b4 Qa3 29. Ne2 Rg7 30. Bxc4 $14) (26. Rc2 $6 g5 $132) 26… Rf7+ 27. Bf3 $2
$138 {[%mdl 8192] This self-pin is disastrous.} (27. Kg3 $1 {Seems the way to
confirm e-pawn as asset. Black’s countreplay is greatly curtaimed with …bxc4
no longer a problem.} b4 (27… Qc7 28. Qxc7 Rxc7 29. Nd5 Rf7 30. cxb5 Rxe5 31.
Bc4 $16) 28. Nd5 Qxa2 (28… Rd8 29. Qc6 $1 {[%cal Ye5e8]} (29. Qe6 Qxa2 30.
Rf1 Rdf8 $13) 29… Qxa2 30. e6 $16) 29. e6 Rff8 30. e7 Qxb3+ 31. Kh2 $16)
27… bxc4 28. e6 Rfe7 (28… Rf6 $5) 29. b4 Qc7 $4 $138 {He who blunders last
loses.} (29… Qa3 $1 30. Rc2 g5 $1 {[%csl Rc2,Rc3][%cal Gh7c2] would have
completely swung matters in black’s favour.}) 30. Qxc7 Rxc7 31. Nd5 $18 {
The rest presents no technical problems even in high time-trouble.} Rce7 32.
Nxe7+ Rxe7 33. Rxc4 Kg7 34. Rc6 Ra7 35. Be2 a5 36. b5 Ra8 37. Rc7+ Kh6 38. b6
g5 39. e7 Be4 40. Bf3 Bxf3 41. gxf3 {A great scrap, albeit marred by the
consequence of some mutually shocking clock handling.} 1-0
[/pgn]
Peter Wells (second from right) at a Lloyds Bank event.GM Peter WellsPeter Wells, Gary Lane, John Emms and David NorwoodThe Complete Semi-SlavPiece PowerThe Complete Richter-RauzerThe Scotch GameWinning with the TrompowskyChess Explained : The Queen’s IndianGrandmaster Secrets : The Caro-KannDangerous Weapons : Anti-SiciliansChess Improvement: It’s all in the mindset, Barry Hymer and Peter Wells, Crown House Publishing, 2020Chess Improvement: It’s all in the mindset, Barry Hymer and Peter Wells, Crown House Publishing, 2020GM Peter Wells
Genna Sosonko emigrated from the USSR to the Netherlands in 1972. For the past 20 years or so he’s made a career out of writing essays and books about chess in the Soviet Union, and interviewing many of the leading players from that period.
This, following on from books about Bronstein and Korchnoi, which will be reviewed later, is the third of a series of memoirs. Whereas Bronstein and Korchnoi were strong personalities who had controversial careers, Smyslov was a much more balanced character.
The word most associated with Smyslov is ‘harmony’. He sought harmony in his chess games, always seeking the most harmonious placing of his pieces. He was also a talented opera singer: harmony again.
In the first part of this book, Sosonko introduces us to his friend. The life of a chess player in the Soviet Union must have been a mixed blessing. While you were living in a totalitarian regime, chess was valued and its exponents respected – as long as they toed the party line. Smyslov, we learn, was a man of profound and sincere religious convictions: a member of the Russian Orthodox church. Beyond that, he was also, rather unexpectedly, interested in all things paranormal. He seemed to believe in astrology and the prophecies of Nostradamus, and was convinced that chess originated on Atlantis. It always intrigues me how many strong chess players, who excel at thinking rationally over the chessboard, have totally irrational views on other subjects.
Perhaps it was this fatalism, the belief that everything in his life was pre-ordained, which enabled Smyslov to ‘go with the flow’ during his chess career.
At the end of this part, we have eight pages of photographs, before moving onto part 2
Now we turn the clock back to the 1953 Candidates Tournament, and, specifically, this game, from round 26.
The tournament was approaching its end: Smyslov was leading but Bronstein still had a chance to win the prize of a title match against Botvinnik. The Soviet authorities instructed Bronstein to play for a draw, which, as you can see, he did, choosing the Exchange Variation of the Ruy Lopez, long before Fischer rehabilitated it as a winning try.
Bronstein never forgot this, and, nearly half a century later, published an article about match fixing in the 1953 Candidates Tournament which angered the usually placid Smyslov. Bronstein’s article and Smyslov’s reply both appear here.
Sosonko then moves on to discuss, in more general terms, the Soviet Chess School, offering revealing insights as to what life was like for grandmasters from the USSR.
The final third of the book returns to Smyslov, and is based on conversations with the great man during the last eight years of his life: from 2002 to 2010. I’ll have a lot more to say about this when I review Sosonko’s memoirs of Bronstein and Korchnoi, but I’m not sure how much this adds to our knowledge of Smyslov, or how much he would have wanted to be remembered for his declining years.
If you’ve read any of Sosonko’s other writing you’ll know that he writes well, and, very often, poignantly. He tends to throw in a lot of cultural references, which you might find helpful, but, on the other hand, you might just think is showing off. Me: I enjoyed the musical references but mentions of Russian literature often mean nothing to me.
It’s not quite true that there’s no chess in the book: there’s just one game, played when he was 14, which, although Sosonko doesn’t mention it, is spookily similar to the Famous Game Rotlewi-Rubinstein.
If you’re looking for a book that will improve your rating, then, you’ll want to look elsewhere. If you want to know more about Smyslov as a person, you’ll probably enjoy the first third of the book. If you’re interested in the history of chess in the Soviet Union, particularly in the years following the Second World War, you might want to read the second part, but you’ll need to bear in mind that the author is an compiler of memoirs and anecdotes, not a historian. It’s the final section that leaves me with mixed feelings. A moving testimony of the final years of a much loved and respected champion, or just voyeurism? I’m in two minds: maybe you should read the book and decide for yourself.
Richard James, Twickenham 15 April 2020
Richard James
Book Details :
Paperback : 199 pages
Publisher: Limited Liability Company Elk and Ruby Publishing House (5 Nov. 2018)
Colin Crouch by Cathy RogersRate Your EndgameHastings 1895 – The Centenary BookAttacking TechniqueThe Queen’s Gambit Declined 5.Bf4!Rate Your EndgameHow to Defend in ChessModern Chess Move by MoveMagnus ForceFighting Chess Move by Move
“Herbert William Trenchard (8 September 1857, Thorncombe – 15 April 1934, London) was an English chess master.
He took 11th and tied for 4-5th in London in 1886, shared twice 3rd at Cambridge 1890 and Oxford 1891, tied for 4-5th at Brighton 1892, took 2nd at London 1892 (B tourn), tied for 3rd-4th at Woolhall Spa 1893, and took 3rd at London 1896,[1]
He also participated at Vienna 1898 (Kaiser-Jubiläumsturnier, Siegbert Tarrasch and Harry Pillsbury won) and took 19th place there.[2][3]”
Peter Markland. Source: British Chess, Pergamon Press, 1983
BCN wishes a happy birthday to Peter Markland born on Friday, April 13th, 1951
From the rear cover of “Sicilian:…e5 :
“P.R. Markland is a British Master, and a member of many English international teams, including those at the 1972 and 1974 Olympiads, and is also a British correspondence international”
Peter first qualified to the British Championship in 1967 (Oxford) and obtained an IM and GM norm at Hastings 1971.
In 1984 he became a Grandmaster for correspondence chess (GMC).
Peter became a banker and lives in Woodbridge, Suffolk, IP13.
Following excellent recent work by Paul McKeown, the English Chess Federation made a request to FIDE to grant Peter the much overdue title of FIDE Master. This was awarded in 2021.
From British Chess (Pergamon Press, 1983) we have this contribution from Peter himself:
“1951 seems to have been a vintage year for chessplayers and although I cannot claim to count myself in the company of Andersson, Karpov, Ribli and Sax we do all share the same year of birth.
Although I learned the moves at the age of 5, I only took any real interest in the game at 13 when I began to play schools chess. Compared with such as Nigel Short I was a very late starter!
I was educated at Bolton School and played for Bolton and Lancashire in my early years. This was fortunate in that all three of these teams enjoyed great success in the late 1960s. In all three teams I played along side Martyn Corden who was to precede my rise to international level himself by playing in the Siegen Olympiad team in 1970. In 1967, I qualified for the British Championship at my first attempt and I was pleased to score 5/11. The following year the school team won The Sunday Times tournament playing without Martyn Corden in the finals.
Up to this time I had concentrated chiefly on junior teams and had won the NCCU junior titles. Over Christmas and New Year of both 1966-7 and 1967-8 I travelled down to play at the Devon Junior Congress at Plymouth but in 1968 I decided to try my luck at Hastings. This proved to be one of the turning points of my career.
I was placed in the Challengers Reserves for 1968-9 and after the first round loss (to the eventual winner) my play gained momentum and I qualified for the Challengers the following year. The intervening year passed quietly with a trip to Ireland in the Glorney Cup. I went up to Balliol College, Oxford in October 1969.
The Scottish Junior International, Glasgow, 1969. l-r: David Watt, Rene Borngässer, David Levy, Heinz Wirthensohn, Peter Markland. Courtesy of Chess Scotland
The Hastings Challengers tournament 1969-70 began when I met the same opponent as in the previous year in the first round. This time I managed to come out on top. By the time the last round came, I had played most of the leaders and had 6/8 including two pleasing wins with my favourite defence at the time – the Sicilian Pelikan variation.
Sicilian:…e5 by TD Harding & PR Markland, Batsford, 1976, ISBN 0 7134 3209 8
In the last round I was paired against de Veauce who had a reputation as a good strategist and whom I hoped to unsettle tactically. I had white and my plan failed. He outplayed me in the opening and middlegame and I sacrificed my isolated centre pawn to activate my pieces.
{[%evp 0,69,19,28,23,19,22,4,4,2,-2,37,-6,-19,2,2,14,45,42,29,26,28,28,32,32,
23,60,33,67,43,37,30,11,6,84,13,13,-24,1,-3,3,13,0,0,0,-12,-14,-12,-19,-15,-21,
0,0,0,-55,-37,-23,-31,-8,-16,0,0,0,-41,0,-25,-46,0,29993,29994,29995,29996]} {
From British Chess (Pergamon Press, 1983), pp158: In the last round I was
paired against de Veauce who had a reputation as a good strategist and whom I
hoped to unsettle tactically. I had white and my plan failed. He outplayed me
in the opening and middlegame and I sacrificed my isolated centre pawn to
activate my pieces.} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6.
cxd4 Bb4+ 7. Bd2 Bxd2+ 8. Nbxd2 d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Qb3 Nce7 11. O-O O-O 12.
Rfe1 Nb6 13. Bd3 h6 (13… Bf5 14. Rxe7 Bxd3 15. Rae1 Bg6) 14. a4 $6 a5 {[#]}
15. h3 $146 Nc6 16. Rac1 Qd5 17. Qxd5 $6 (17. Be4) 17… Nxd5 18. Nb3 Ncb4 19.
Be4 b6 20. Na1 Bd7 21. Nc2 Ra7 22. Nxb4 Nxb4 $15 23. b3 Be6 24. Re3 Rc8 25. Ne5
Rd8 26. Rd1 c5 27. d5 Bxd5 28. Bxd5 Rxd5 29. Rxd5 Nxd5 30. Rd3 Nb4 31. Rd6 {[#]
} {In the diagrammed position it is clear that a draw should result although
perhaps white has some chances of advantage after the fall of black’s b-pawn.
Instead the game continued} Re7 32. f4 {[#]} f6 $2 33. Ng6 {Now white has a
clear edge.} Rb7 $4 34. Rd8+ Kf7 35. f5 {and Black resigned.} 1-0
[/pgn]
So I then had to wait had to wait to see the other results before I could confirm a somewhat lucky place in the Premier.
In 1970 I had the opportunity to travel with the student team to the Olympiad in Haifa. My score of 5.5/7 was reasonably pleasing but the standard of opposition was far from good.
Peter Markland at Hastings 1970-71
At the end of the year came the Hastings Premier – a tournament which I can only describe as the highlight of my career. I began nervously and lost a nondescript game to Uhlmann in the first round. My confidence grew with two comfortable draws with Portisch (the eventual winner) and Keene. In round four I met the surprise leader, Mestrovic (who had 3/3) and perhaps partly due to the fact that this game was played on 1st January I won convincingly in 18 moves.
Peter Markland during his game with Portisch on December 30th 1970
The next four rounds brought an uneventful draw with Wade and three exciting encounters with Byrne, Krogius and Gligoric all of which after several reversals of fortune ended in draws.
Peter Markland at Hastings 1970-71
In the last round I was to play Hort who needed to to win to gain a share of first prize. He played a horribly passive opening and by move 14 I was already well on top. To try to compensate he snatched a queenside pawn and gave me the chance to play the type of move one can only dream about!
{[%evp 0,59,35,14,69,16,79,73,73,18,32,38,25,17,43,30,30,13,13,18,21,31,26,25,
66,55,79,54,99,70,93,58,82,75,141,147,149,144,153,103,106,106,85,130,100,-7,22,
-192,317,277,443,310,729,231,301,317,332,414,565,616,29993,29994]} 1. e4 c6 2.
c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. g3 e5 5. Bg2 d6 6. Nge2 Nd7 7. O-O Ngf6 8. d3 O-O 9. h3 Nc5
10. Be3 {[#]} a5 (10… Ne6) 11. f4 exf4 $6 12. gxf4 Qe7 13. Qd2 Rb8 $146 14.
Rae1 $18 Ncd7 15. Ng3 Ne8 16. d4 $16 Nc7 17. e5 dxe5 18. fxe5 Qb4 (18… c5 19.
Bg5 Qe8 20. Nce4 $16) 19. Bh6 Qxc4 20. Bxg7 Kxg7 21. Re4 $1 Ne6 22. Rh4 {
Crude but effective!} h5 {[#] Now pause the video as the saying goes….} 23.
Bd5 $3 {PRM : I remember that as soon as I played this move Hort’s face fell.
There was an also an eerie silence in the spectators – no doubt some felt I
had taken leave of my senses. The move is basically a square clearance with
gain of tempo. The piece cannot be accepted. So, the queen is lost and with
it the game.} Qxf1+ ({The peice cannot be accepted as} 23… cxd5 {loses to}
24. Nxh5+ $1 gxh5 ({or} 24… Kh8 25. Nf6+ Kg7 26. Rh7#) ({or} 24… Kg8 25.
Qh6 $1 {wins} gxh5 26. Qxh5 $18) 25. Qg2+ Kh6 26. Rf5 $1 $18 (26. Qg4 $4 Qxd4+
$1 $19) 26… Ng7 27. Qxg7+ Kxg7 28. Rg5+ Kh8 29. Rhxh5# {so, the queen is
lost and with it the game.}) 24. Kxf1 cxd5 25. Nxd5 b6 26. Nf4 Nxf4 27. Qxf4
Ba6+ 28. Kg1 Bd3 29. Qg5 Kh8 30. Qh6+ {and Black resigned.} (30. Qh6+ Kg8 31.
Rxh5 $1 $18) 1-0
[/pgn]
This victory meant an equal second on 5/9 with Gligoric, Hort, Krogius and Uhlmann and both a GM and IM norm.
As a result of this I became a regular member of the England side. During 1971 my results were erratic, possibly caused by too much play. I was pleased with my 3.5 score in my first Clare Benedict, although I lost my first game for England due to nervousness and I was first equal with George Botterill in the Slater Young Masters at Hastings (again). Here I declined a last round draw offer, blundered almost next move and lost to an up-and-coming junior by the name of Michael Stean! On the debit side my performances in the British Championship, The Oxford International Congress and the Robert Silk tournament left room for improvement.
Whilst playing with Bolton in the National Club Championship, we had never won the competition although we had reached the semi-finals many times. This year, 1971, playing for Oxford University, we won the tournament beating our old rivals Cambridge University in the final on board count.
The Hastings tournament of 1971-72 saw me firmly entrenched near the bottom. It is very difficult in this type of international tournament when one becomes marked as an out-of-form player. All the other players make extra efforts to beat you and this drains your strength further.
My main problem at Hastings was a lack of defence to 1.e4. I lost five games against this move. In the last round I had a very interesting struggle against Karpov who needed to win this game to tie first with Korchnoi who had beaten him in the previous round, but the strength of 1.e4 proved too much.
The summer of 1972 saw the advent of my University finals and thus I played very little for the first six months of the year – even I had to decline an invitation to the Teeside GM event. Later in the year I played in the student Olympiad in Graz and then in the Olympiad is Skopje.
In the preliminaries we had drawn Yugoslavia and Switzerland, who were the only other teams likely to qualify for the ‘A’ final. We missed qualification narrowly and I think that every team member had one poor result in the qualifying rounds – mine being a scraped draw against a Syrian team.
We won the ‘B’ final by beating the Israeli team in the last round and I felt pleased by my score of 11.5/16 with no losses. Indeed, in my last round game with Balshan I was quite rightly instructed to agree a draw in a winning position to secure the team’s first place.
I feel that this tournament from my point of view aptly demonstrates the difference in title norms in the early 1970s and today. I played five players who had no Elo ratings and only four titled players. Hence an IM norm would not have been available under any circumstances. The main reason for the lack of Elo ratings in 1972 was that the new system had only just been introduced and for many players this was their first Elo-rated tournament. In the last Elo list, all but one of the sixteen players are rated, there are now four GMs and five IMs amongst my opponents and the norm figures would be 10.5/16 and 12.5/16 for IM and GM respectively.
Here is my best game from the Olympiad. It is indicative of an early combination prevailing through into a winning ending.
In 1973 I was once more plagued by too many invitations and played indifferently throughput the year. The only bright spots were my score of 3/7 on boards 3 and 4 of the European Team Finals and second place in the Woolacombe International.
1974 was once again an Olympiad year. The England team won the Clare Benedict for the first time in Menorca and I was able to contribute 5/6 winning both a board prize and the best score prize. I was drafted into the Olympiad team as a late replacement and although we qualified easily enough for the ‘A’ finals this was in no way due to my efforts as I had a 50% score in the preliminaries.
We had qualified for the ‘A’ final with one round to spare and our last group match against the USE (from which the score was to be carried forward) began the final matches. It had been decided, as a tactical measure and in our view of our differing styles, that I should take black whenever we had this colour on the fourth board, so that Whiteley and Stean could utilize a greater proportion of whites. This worked to a limited extent and indeed, Stean obtained an IM Norm. Also, as it worked out I played in matches against seven of the top eight teams (being rested against Yugoslavia) and only three teams below us. In the end, I was pleased with my +3 =1 -4 with black in the finals to give overall a 50& score.
During 1973 and 1974 I was co-author of two books in the Batsford opening series, both with Tim Harding on Sicilian Defence variations.
The Sicilian Richter-Rauzer, TD Harding and PR Markland, Batsford, 975, ISBN 0 7134 2979 8Review Notice for The Sicilian Richter-Rauzer, TD Harding and PR Markland, Batsford, 975, ISBN 0 7134 2979 8
I also wrote a best game collection of Karpov which was by far the most interesting of the three books to write.
The Best of Karpov, PR Markland, Oxford University Press, 1975, ISBN 10: 0192175343
At about this time, I decided to embark upon a career in banking and to abandon that of a professional chessplayer. Since then I have concentrated on correspondence chess.
Having received master certificate, I entered a European and World tournament in both of which I finished first. The second of these two results qualified me for the world Championship Semi-finals. But first attempt in the eleventh championship ended in failure to qualify.
As a result of an invitation received by the BPCF I played in the Eino Heilimo Memorial Grandmaster event. I have , however, qualified as a postal IM by scoring the required seven points and had an outside chance of trying for first place at one stage.
{[%evp 0,80,14,12,86,19,14,12,34,21,21,17,24,18,20,17,23,15,15,14,14,12,21,14,
34,58,52,48,65,0,38,9,0,-43,-72,-73,-24,-101,-84,-84,-24,-24,-52,-149,-153,
-153,-19,-127,-35,-52,-27,-27,-2,8,50,-167,-165,-202,-25,-20,-20,-7,-191,-252,
-244,-240,-252,-252,-262,-263,-279,-281,-279,-281,-288,-323,-315,-388,-422,
-421,-336,-309,-288]} 1. Nf3 g6 2. g3 Bg7 3. Bg2 c5 4. e4 Nc6 5. O-O e5 6. d3
Nge7 7. Nc3 O-O 8. Nd2 d6 9. Nc4 Be6 ({Doctor Dunhaupt used this set-up
against Shamkovich in the BdF Jubilee 1970-74, when Black preferred 9…Nd4?
with the result that after} 9… Nd4 $2 10. a4 Be6 11. Nd5 Qd7 12. c3 Ndc6 13.
a5 Rae8 14. Qa4 {White had a considerable advantage.}) 10. Nd5 f5 (10… Qd7 {
Playing Forintos in the Eino Heilimo White once again achieved a good game
after} 11. a4 Kh8 12. c3 Ng8 13. a5 Rae8 14. f4 Qc8 15. Be3) 11. c3 Qd7 12. a4
Rae8 13. a5 Kh8 14. Qa4 $2 {[#] In this position this move leaves the queen
exposed in the forthcoming attack. It is interesting to note that Doctor
Dunhaupt has had some success with this set-up.} f4 15. gxf4 {This capture is
forced to prevent 15…f3} (15. f3 {loses a pawn on d5}) ({If} 15. Nxe7 {
Black can prepare the doubling of rooks with} Rxe7 ({of transfer his queen to
the kingside after} 15… Qxe7)) 15… Bh3 16. f3 ({After} 16. Qd1 Bxg2 17.
Kxg2 exf4 18. Nxf4 d5 $1 {Black still has a strong attack.}) 16… Bxg2 17.
Kxg2 exf4 18. Nxf4 {[#]} d5 $1 {To capture this pawn would allow the black
rook on e8 access to the e2 square with fatal consequences for White.} 19. Na3
{The problem with the knight retreat is that both d2 and e3 are excluded
because of the hanging knight on f4 whilst the retreat chosen leaves the queen
cut off.} ({For example,} 19. exd5 Nxd5 20. Nxd5 Re2+ 21. Rf2 (21. Kh1 Qh3) (
21. Kg1 Qh3) 21… Qxd5) 19… g5 20. Nh5 Ng6 $1 {White must accept the second
pawn because otherwise the threat of 21…Nh4+ is too strong.} 21. Bxg5 h6 22.
Be3 $1 {The only chance. This bishop heads for g1 to defend the weak h2 square.
} d4 23. cxd4 cxd4 24. Bg1 ({A further point is that} 24. Bf2 {is met by} Rxf3
$1) 24… Nh4+ 25. Kh1 (25. Kg3 Be5+ 26. Kxh4 Rg8 {wins quickly.}) 25… Qh3
26. Qc2 Rxf3 27. Rf2 ({The alternative defence of} 27. Rfd1 {could be met by
either} Ref8 {threatening 28…Rf2} ({or} 27… Be5 {and 28…Rg8})) 27… Ref8
28. Raf1 {[#]} Qxf1 $1 {This temporary queen sacrifice wins by force.} 29. Rxf1
Rxf1 30. Qe2 {the best chance to prevent 30…Nf3} ({After} 30. Ng3 Re1 31. Nc4
Nf3 32. Ne2 Nxg1 33. Nxg1 Rff1) 30… Ne5 {preventing 31.Qg4. Now the threat
of 31…Rc1 and 32…Nef3 cannot be prevented even by White’s next move.} 31.
Nxg7 Rc1 $1 32. Nf5 Nhf3 {the most accurate.} 33. Qf2 ({If} 33. Kg2 Rxg1+ 34.
Kf2 Rh1 35. Kg3 Rg8+ {wins. The rest is easy.}) 33… Rg8 34. Ng3 Rxg1+ 35.
Qxg1 Nxg1 36. Kxg1 Nxd3 37. Nc4 Rc8 38. Nd6 Rc1+ 39. Kg2 Nxb2 40. e5 Nd3 {
and White resigned.} 0-1
[/pgn]
We focus on the British Chess Scene Past & Present !
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are as essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
