Maneuvering: The Art of Piece Play

2016

Introduction

In the book Secrets of Positional Play: School of Future Champions 4 by Mark Dvoretsky and Artur Yusupov, the authors tell of positional operations, the elemental stitches from which the fabric of our game is woven. To a large extent, the level of any chessplayer’s skill depends on his or her ability to discover and evaluate such operations as quickly and correctly as possible. The following fragment demonstrates every major kind of positional operation.

Tatai – Christiansen

Torremolinos 1977

The position is difficult to evaluate. White controls more space but choosing a correct course of action poses a challenge for him. He can open the f-file with f2-f4, but at the same time this move clears the diagonal for the g7-bishop and cedes the important central e5-square to his opponent.

And what can be suggested for Black? He lacks a light-square bishop, so it is unfavorable to him to open the game with 14…f5?!. This move is met with 15.ef gf 16.f3 followed by Kh2 and Bd3 (16.f4?! e4 is worse). He can play a waiting game (for example, 14…a6!?), but passive play would enable his opponent to strengthen his position with Kg2, Bd3 and then perhaps Ne2-g3 – such development is rather unpleasant for Black psychologically.

14…Ng8!?

Larry Christiansen starts regrouping with an eye to exchange his bad dark-square bishop. He prepares Bg7-f6-g5. The computer does not believe in this plan and insists that by playing correctly his opponent achieves an advantage. Still, taking into account that Black’s position is constrained, the grandmaster’s idea looks quite logical. I suppose that many chessplayers would play the same way.

15.Kg2

An interesting attempt to frustrate Black’s plan is 15.h4!?. The pawn is poisoned: 15…Qxh4? 16.Kg2 Qe7 17.Rh1 with a crushing attack. On the other hand, the undermining move 15…f5 would become stronger because of the vulnerability of the h4-pawn. 16.ef gf 17.f3 (17.gf Ne7) is met with 17…Qxh4 18.Kg2 (or 18.Rf2) 18…e4! with mutual chances.

15…Bf6

. Black is hemmed in, so White has time to do something useful, for example, 20.Kf1!?.

Nevertheless, the move in the text is also not bad.

16.Bb5 Nb6

This decision is principled, but risky. Christiansen prevents his opponent from exchanging his bad bishop, but his own knight moves away from the e5-square, so the advance f2-f4 gains in strength. More secure is 16…a6!? 17.Bxd7 Qxd7∞. And if you insist on retreating with your knight, then it had better go to b8 followed by 17…a6.

17.a4! a5

Black had planned 17…a6, but this is thwarted by the possible reply 18.a5!. But now it would be already difficult to drive the bishop away from b5, from where it controls the important d7-square.

18.Ne2?!

Stefano Tatai fails to find a correct plan. After 18.f4! ef 19.Rxf4, neither black knight has any chance at all to get to e5, while White is going to exert pressure against the f7-square and then to transfer his knight to d4, maintaining unpleasant pressure. For example, 19…Bg5 20.Rf3 Bxe3 21.Qxe3 Nd7 22.Bxd7 Qxd7 23.Nb5, with advantage.

18…Bg5 19.Ng3

Now 19.f4 is already less dangerous: after 19…ef, the black knight manages to get to f6 in time.

19…Kg7?! (more precise is 19…Bxe3 and 20…Nf6, as 20.f4! is once again very strong) 20.b4?

White chooses to play in the wrong place, creating weaknesses on his queenside for no purpose.

20…ab 21.a5 Bxe3 22.fe (22.Qxe3!?) 22…Nd7

23.Qxb4?

A positional blunder! The knight on c5 will be much stronger than the enemy bishop, so the exchange on d7 was absolutely necessary. After 23.Bxd7! Qxd7 24.Qxb4 Ra7, Black’s position is preferable, but a struggle is still ahead.

23…Nc5 24.Rf3?! Nf6 25.Raf1? ) 25…Nh7

Things look ugly for White; there is a threat of 26…Qh4 and 27…Ng5.

26.Bd3 Qh4 27.Ne2 Ng5 28.Rg3

His opponent has been completely outplayed. Now the black rooks join in the attack.

28…b6! 29.ab Rab8?!

This choice seems a bit strange. 29…Rfb8! is much stronger, as the rooks now invade along both open queenside files. White simply does not have enough time to create a threat on f7 by trading knights by Ng1-f3. However, this inaccuracy by Black has no influence upon the evaluation of the position.

30.Ng1 Rxb6 31.Qc4 Ra6 32.Nf3 Nxf3 33.Rg:f3 h5!

White’s defenses get undermined on both flanks.

34.gh Qxh5 35.Rg3 Ra4 36.Qc3? allows White to hold out a bit longer) 36…Rxe4! 37.Bxe4?! Qe2+ White resigned in view of 38.Rf2 (38.Kg1 Nxe4) 38…Qxf2+ 39.Kxf2 Nxe4+.

Let us rewind the course of struggle and recall positional operations that both opponents have (or could have) carried out.

Improving pieces’ positions, maneuverings, regroupings. It all started with the regrouping of the black pieces aimed at the exchange of the dark-square bishops. Black carried out another regrouping on moves 24 to 27 which allowed him to increase his pressure on the kingside dramatically. White’s maneuver Nc3-e2-g3 was not very successful; the same can be said about doubling major pieces in the f-file. Black’s choice of a rook to be transferred to the b-file was not the best one.

Pawn play, creating an advantageous pawn structure. The move 17.a4! was fine, but we cannot say the same about White’s subsequent pawn moves. Instead of an advantageous advance of the f-pawn, he carried out b2-b4 and that was clearly unfavorable. His taking on e3 with a pawn is equally controversial. As for Black, he was quite right to reject the banal f7-f5 and to carry out two excellent breaks, b7-b6 and h6-h5, which allowed him to increase his advantage.

Exchanges. At first Black prepared an exchange of dark-square bishops, but was unwilling to trade his opponent’s light-square bishop for his knight. The latter decision was quite risky, so eventually he had to offer his knight for exchange anyway. His opponent should have agreed to it, but he did not – and was doomed because of this.

Some positional operations are prophylactic – for example, the a2-a4 advance that forestalls the black idea of driving the bishop away from b5 with a7-a6. We have also examined an attempt to prevent the exchange of dark-square bishops with h3-h4!. On move 16, this advance meant a positional sacrifice – first of a pawn, and later, perhaps, of an exchange! Positional sacrifices can be singled out in a class of their own, although in some cases they are, in effect, a particular kind of exchange or pawn play.

Every one of the types of positional operations can be carried out in most varied forms, and contains a great many of internal nuances and thus deserves a separate examination. We will focus our attention on the first of them only, namely, on piece play. However, should either instructive moments associated with other types of operations or interesting tactical problems arise in the course of our analysis, we will also discuss those.

Even decisions seemingly made from purely positional considerations always contain certain tactical overtones. It is necessary to see your own resources, to foresee your opponent’s reaction, perhaps to calculate some short variations. In many cases, strategy is closely interwoven with tactics, and tactics often dominate. The goals of maneuvers that we carry out are purely concrete and tactical.

Furman – Witkowski

Polanica Zdroj 1967 (D)

32.Re4!+–

Sometimes even in the endgame you can successfully play for mate. The rook is invulnerable: 32…Rxf7 33.Ng6+ hg 34.Rh4#. The line 32…Be7 33.Rexe7 Nxe7 34.Rxe7 is completely hopeless.

There followed 32…Bxf4 33.Bxg7+ Rxg7 34.Rxf8+ Black resigned.

Solving studies is always based on the search for unexpected moves and precise calculations of variations – in other words, on tactics.

Sh.Kozlowski

1931

1.Nd7+! Kc7 2.Nf8!

The only way to block the bishop on g8. However, the knight is also trapped, but White is not in the least embarrassed by this fact.

2…Kd8

If 2…Kd6, then 3.Kg4! Kd5 4.Kh5! (avoiding the minefield on g5) 4…Ke5 5.Kg5 (zugzwang) 5…Ke4 6.Kh6+–. Just as bad is 2…Kc8 3.Kf4 Kd8 4.Kg5 Ke8 5.Kh5!+–.

3.Kf4 Ke8 4.Kg5 Kxf8 5.Kh6

In view of zugzwang, Black loses first his bishop and then his pawn.

The art of maneuvering with your own pieces is very often associated with playing against badly placed enemy ones. The study we have just examined is a fine example of this theme which we are going to meet more than once in this book.

Defining the direction of a search for the best positional moves in a most generalized way, we can say that usually what we are looking for is an opportunity to activate our pieces and, at the same time, to limit the activity of our opponent.

Petrosian – Suetin

USSR ch, Riga 1958

28.Bd2!

Tying down the rook to the a5-pawn. White’s idea is simple: he is strengthening his position by transferring his bishop to c3 and his rook to e1, thus creating the threat of the unpleasant maneuver Ne4-g3-h5 (T.Petrosian).

In the actual game, the future champion of the world completely succeeded – partly as a result of his opponent’s weak resistance whose actions were passive and haphazard.

28…Rfd8?

More logical is 28…a4, immediately relieving the rook from the task of defending the pawn, to meet 29.Bc3 with 29…Rac8 (Black carries it out with a loss of an important tempo). But 28…g4! is even better, as this move allows Black to undermine the e4-knight and activate his pieces just a bit. After 29.fg Rxf1+ 30.Kxf1 Bxg4, White has only a slight edge.

29.Bc3 a4 30.Re1 Rac8 31.Rb7! Rd5

31…Rb8 is met with 32.Rxg7+ Kxg7 33.Bxe5+. If the white rook is on f1 (on the immediate 28…a4!?), the move Bd5! would become possible: the b5-pawn becomes invulnerable in view of the double attack Bc4.

32.Rb6 Bf7

32…Bd7 33.Rxh6! or 32…Re8 33.Nd6 is no better.

33.Nd6 Rd8 34.Nf5 Kh7 35.Rb7 R8d7 36.Rxd7 Rxd7 37.Nxg7 Kxg7 38.Rxe5 Kg6 39.Rxb5

White is left two pawns up. He went on to realize his material advantage confidently.

Every piece on the chessboard possesses its own features and therefore has its own ways of maneuvering, characteristic techniques and evaluations. You are going to meet many of those in the course of solving exercises. Here I will only mention some typical ideas briefly.

The knight’s most successful placement is near the enemy camp on a square where a pawn cannot attack it. Sometimes we call such squares outposts (although Nimzowitsch in his My System defines an outpost in somewhat different terms). It is equally sensible to transfer a knight to an outpost both during attack and defense of a worse position. Central outposts are especially valuable, but sometimes it is also worth paying attention to flanks.

Farago – Romanishin

Kiev 1978

Black’s position is preferable. Transferring the white knight to b5 seems to be the best way to achieve equality.

28.Nb1! Bf6 29.Na3 Ne5 30.Be2 Ra8 31.Nb5 Qd7 32.f4 Nf7 33.Bf1 Ba6 34.Ra2 Qc8 35.Qa1 Bb7 36.Rxa8 Draw.

The rook’s usual objective is to occupy an open file, and, according to Nimzowitsch, the ultimate aim of occupying an open file is rook penetration to either the seventh or eighth rank.

Keres – Botvinnik

Moscow 1947

White should have taken up the struggle for the control of the open c-file immediately by playing 25.Na2!. If 25…Bb5, then 26.Rxc7 Rxc7 27.Rc1!, holding the balance as a result of the exchange of the last pair of rooks.

25.e3? Bb5! 26.Rfe1 Kg8

(the rook invades the second rank along the open file). But on 27.Na2, the answer 27…Rc2?!, recommended by Botvinnik, is unfortunate because of 28.Nc3!, and 28…Rxb2? 29.Nxd5! is unfavorable (Yusupov). Thus, Black has to play 27…Bc4!.

27.f3 Bc4

Black is in no hurry to improve his knight’s position so that he may reply 28…Nh5 after 28.e4 (Botvinnik).

28.Bf1

28…Ne8!

is still worse) 30…fe 31.fe Rf7, retaining an advantage.

29.Bxc4 Rxc4 30.Kf2 Nd6 31.Ke2

In Artur Yusupov’s opinion, 31.Ne2 Rc2 32.b3 is more stubborn, but, of course, even this position remains quite unpleasant for White.

31…b5! 32.Kd3 b4

Just in time to prevent 33.b3. Now he inevitably loses a pawn, for example, 33.ab Rxb4 34.Rb1 Rcb8 35.Kc2 Nc4 (Botvinnik). The most stubborn defense is probably 33.Ne2 ba 34.ba Rxc1 35.Nxc1 (35.Rxc1 Rxc1 36.Nxc1 Nc4–+), as 35…Nc4 is now useless in view of 36.Nb3!. However, after 35…Rb8!, White’s position remains difficult.

33.Na2 ba 34.ba Ra4 35.Rxc8+ Nxc8 36.Nc3 Rxa3

A triumph of Black’s strategy. Perhaps, now Paul Keres should have tried the active move 37.e4, hoping for 37…Nd6 38.ed Nb5 (just what Botvinnik suggests as a refutation) 39.Kc4! Rxc3+ (39…Nxc3? 40.de Kf8 41.Kb4+–) 40.Kxb5 ed 41.Re5 with a likely draw. After 37…fe+ 38.fe Ne7, Black retains a great advantage.

37.Kc2 Nd6 38.Rb1 Kf7 39.Rb4 Ra1, and Black eventually won.

Among various techniques associated with occupying an open file and utilizing it, the restricted advance of a rook along an open file singled out by Nimzowitsch is worth mentioning. Usually it is carried out with the aim of transferring the rook to the opposite flank or to an adjacent file.

Larsen – Suetin

Copenhagen 1965

27.Re5!

The rook comes to a5. Black cannot help losing a pawn, for example, 27…Qb1+ 28.Kg2 Qb6 29.Qxb6 (29.Qc4!? followed by 30.Rc5) 29…ab 30.Rb5 Rb8 31.Rb4.

27…Qa6 28.Ra5 Rc8 (28…Qb6 29.Rxa7) 29.Qxf7+ Kxf7 30.Rxa6 Rc7

The easiest way to parry an attempt for counterplay – 30…Rxc2!? 31.Rxa7+ Ke6 (31…Kg6 32.Ra4+–) 32.Rxg7 Rd2 – is 33.g4 Rxd3 34.Kg2. As for 33.Bg4+ Nxg4 34.Rxg4 Rxd3 35.Kf1 Kd5 36.Rh4, suggested by Bent Larsen, apparently leads only to a draw after 36…Ra3.

31.Kf1 Nd7 32.Ra2 Nb6 33.Be4 g6 34.Ke1 Kf6 35.Kd2 g5 36.Ra5 Rf7 37.f3 h6 38.Rc5, and White won.

The bishop, even if it appears well-placed, sometimes becomes much more active after being transferred to another diagonal. An example of this can be found in the game Petrosian-Suetin, which we have already examined. The following case seems even more instructive.

Klimov – Fominyh

St.Petersburg 2002

26..Be8!

Transferring the bishop to the b1-h7 diagonal results in a decisive improvement of Black’s position.

27.b3 Bg6+ 28.Kb2 Bf6+ 29.Ka3 Rd3 30.Rde1 Rc3 31.c5 bc 32.Rf4 Rc2 33.Nc4 Bc3 White resigned.

The queen is the most mobile chess piece; it is capable of instantly moving from one edge of the board to the other. It has access to many squares at once, so occasionally it is not easy to determine where to place it. More often than not, the most effective queen moves are those that create two or more threats, either tactical or purely positional ones. The art of dealing such double attacks is a very valuable skill that can bring you many additional points.

Xie Jun – Galliamova

wch (women) (14)

Kazan/Shenyang 1999

In the game, 30…Qc7? 31.Rc1∞ Rg2? 32.Qxa6 Nf6 33.Rh3 was played, and White won after a long struggle.

Black would retain the advantage after transferring the knight to c4, but in the variation 30…Nd2+ 31.Ka1 Nc4 32.Rc1, the position remains quite complicated.

Meanwhile, the outcome could immediately be decided with 30…Qc8!! 31.Rc1 Qg4. From g4, the queen attacks not only the rook (and the g6-pawn, which is irrelevant), but also the enemy queen in view of the threat 32…Nc3+. Beautiful geometry indeed!

The following classic example is of a more positional character.

Janowski – Rubinstein

Karlsbad 1907

Black’s queen is thus far not useful. Where should he direct it?

29…Qd8!! 30.Qg4

David Janowski takes into account his opponent’s apparently manifest desire to play …Qg5. Indeed, 30.Ree1 would be followed by 30…Qg5 and then, perhaps, by 31…Rf4.

30…Qb8!!

It turns out that, being a great strategist, Akiba Rubinstein has provided another way of activating his queen, namely, via the queenside. Now we understand why he refrained from placing it on e7 on his previous