Edmar Mednis How To Be A Complete Tournament Player 1991

0 -------
How To Be a
Complete
Tournament Player
.1
:o
MAXWELL MACMILLAN CHESS

MAXWELL MACMILLAN CHESS SERIES
How to Be a Complete
Tournament Player
MAXWELL MACMILLAN CHESS BOOKS
E11ecutive Editor: Paul Lamford
Technical Editor: Jimmy Adams
Russian Series Editor: Kenneth Neat
Some other books in this series:
ADAMS, B. & M . LIVSHITZ, A.

Michael Adams: Development Test Your Chess IQ, Books 1 & 2
of a Grandmaster
MEDNIS, E.
ALBURT, L. From the Middlegame into the Endgame
Test and Improve Your Chess From the Opening into the Endgame
ALEKHI NE, A.A. POLUGAYEVSKY, L.

On the Road to the World Grandmaster Preparation
Championship 1923-1927 Grandmaster Performance
The Sicilian Labyrinth Volumes 1 & 2
ALEXANDER, C.H.O'D. & BEACH, T.J.
Learn Chess: A New Way for All POLUGAYEVSKY, L. & DAMSKY, I.
Volume 1: First Principles The Art of D efence in Chess
Volume 2: Winning Methods
PRZEWOZNIK, J. & PEIN, M.
AVNI, A. The Blumenfeld Gambit
Creative Chess
SHEKHTMAN, E.
BASMAN, M. The Games of Tigran Petrosian
The Killer Grob Volumes 1 & 2
CLOAD, R. & KEENE, R. SHERESHEVSKY, M & SLUTSKY, L.

Battles of Hastings Mastering the Endgame Volumes 1 & 2
SUBA, M.
GELLER, Y.
D ynamic Chess Strategy
The Application of Chess Theory
SUETIN, A.S.
KARPOV, A. Three Steps to Chess Mastery
Chess at the Top 1979-1984
VUKOVIC, V.
The Art of Attack in Chess
KASPAROV, G.
London-leningrad Championship Games WATSON, J.L.
New World Chess Champion Play the French
The Test of Time
WEBS, S.
Chess for Tigers
KASPAROV, G., GELLER, E., LEIN, A.
& C HEPIZHNY, V. WINTER, E.G.
Kasparov v. Karpov 1990 World Chess Champions
A full catalogue Is available from:

Muwell Macmlllan Ch ess, London Road, Wheatley, Oxlord, OX9 1YR.
How to Be a Complete
Tournament Player
by
Edmar Mednis
International Grandmaster
MAXWELL MACMILLAN CHESS

MAXWELL MACMILLAN INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING GROUP
EUROPE/ Maxwell Macmillan International,

MIDDLE EAST I AFRICA Nuffield Building, Hollow Way, Cowley,
Oxford OX4 2YH, England
Tel: (0865) 748754 Fax: (0865) 748808
USA Macmillan Publishing C ompany,

866 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 702-2000 Fax: (212) 605-9341
CANADA 1200 Eglinton Avenue East,

Suite 200, Don Mills, Ontario M3C 3N1, Canada
Tel: (416) 449-6030 Fax: (416) 449-0068
AUSTRALIN L akes Business Park, Building A 1,

NEW ZEALAND 2 Lord Street, Botany, NSW 2019, Australia
Tel: (02) 316-9444 Fax: (02) 316-9485
ASINPACIFIC 72 H illview Avenue, *03-00 Tacam House, Singapore 2366

(Except Japan) Tel: (65) 769-6000 Fax: (65) 769-3731
LATIN AMERICA 28100 US Highway 19 North,

Suite 200, Clearwater, FL 34621, USA
Tel: (813) 725-4033 Fax: (813) 725-2185
JAPAN Misuzu S Building 2F, 2-42-14 Matsubara Setagaya-ku,

Tokyo 156, Japan
Tel: (81) 3-5300-1618 Fax: (81) 3-5300-1615
Copyright 1991 Edmar Mednis
AllRights Reserved. No part of this publication may be

reproduced, stored in a retriflval system or tr ansmitted in
any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic,
m agnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
othflrwise, without permission in writing from the publisher.
First Ed iti on 1991
Li brary of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Applied for
A catalogue record for this book

is available from the British Library
ISBN 1 85744 018 8
Cover by Pintail Design

Printed in Great Britain by BPCC Wheatons Ltd. Exeter
Contents
Training Programme for Significant

Improvement in Chess Ability l
2 Starting to Think Like a Grandmaster 11
3 How to Select Your Opening Repertoire 23
4 Move Orders in the Opening - the Modern Master's Tool 30
5 How to Prepare for a Tournament Game 42
6 How to Play the Game 60
7 What to Do After the Time Control Has Been Reached 71
8 How to Analyse Adjourned Games 90
To
My goddaughter Daina
Preface
This is a book for the_ tournament player who wants to score more
points. It is written by a tournament player for the tournament player.
The book is based on my more than forty years of tournament experience
as well as over ten years of training experience. I have been doing training
work with more than one hundred of the most promising American
youngsters both in my capacity as the Grandmaster-Trainer of the
American School of Chess and as a private trainer. Additional training
activities have included work with the Puerto Rican Olympiad Team and
with top Dutch and Norwegian youngsters.
This is a practical book. It discusses both what works under the
pressure of tournament play and what is bound to fail. As the reader will
note, many of the failures discussed will be those that came out of my own
hide. Yet it is true - though unpleasant - t hat each of us can learn much
from our failures. A trainer must strive for complete objectivity as far as
his own experiences are concerned. This has always been one of my main
tenets, though of course it is only my own students who know how well I
have - or have not - succeeded . Anyway, to the best of my ability, in this
book I reveal everything important that I know about the subject matter.
Some of the material in the book has appeared before in various
publications, but most of it appears in print for the first time. Of course,
the previously published material has been enlarged and adapted to fit
the book's primary objective: to help the reader become a complete
tournament player.
Compared to my previous books, this one has a new valuable feature:
at the end of each chapter there is a questons and answers section on the
subject matter. For the reader/student this helps to round out the study
material; for the trainer this provides additional valuable material for his
work. I am indebted to Mr Paul Lamford, Executive Editor, Maxwell
Macmillan Chess, for this excellent suggestion.
In general, the following standard sources have been utilised in the
preparation of this book: personal knowledge, personal contacts, leading
chess periodicals and chess books. When appropriate, direct credit is
given in the text.
To ensure that the reader and the author are on the same wavelength
regarding the meaning of the question and exclamation marks as they are
used in the characterisation of moves, these are the presently accepted
meanings:
a strong move
!! =
a very strong move; a fantastic move
? a bad move; a weak move
?? =
a horrible move; a blunder
!? an enterprising move; a move worthy of consideration
?! a dubious move, for theoretical or practical purposes
As always, my deepest gratitude goes to my wonderful blonde wife,
Baiba, not only for typing the entire manuscript but also for never-ending
physical and moral support.
In an undertaking of such scope, some errors are almost inevitable.
The author accepts responsibility for all of these. Your assistance in
bringing them to my attention will be appreciated.
Edmar Mednis
New York, 199 1
1 Training Programme For Significant
Improvement In Chess Ability
The overall purpose of the training programme presented here is to

increase your chess ability so that you can become a more successful
competitive player. Maximum progress will be shown by those who are
most talented and have the time and capacity for hard work. In other
words, success in chess -just as in other professions - requires time, effort
and dedication. B ut I am convinced that anyone who conscientiously tries
to follow this programme will find his chess ability increasing steadily.
The three elements of the programme are tournament play, a thorough
review of games played and an ongoing programme of chess study.
1. Tournament Play
You must play in tournaments ( 1 ) to retain your competitive sharpness,
(2) to keep retesting your mettle and (3) to try to apply the chess wisdom
gained in the study programme. You will learn most from competition at
your own or higher level. Of course, there is nothing wrong in playing
some relative "weakies", but too much of this will succeed in stretching
only your ego and not your mind!
How often and how many games should you play? Well, so much
depends on your particular make-up. Mikhail Tal is only happy when he
is playing almost continually . Sammy Reshevsky gets tired "if he plays
more than a few tournaments a year" . For me the ideal cycle is a
tournament followed by about six weeks of rest, review and continuing
study. For most people about 50 games a year is sufficient both to retain
their sharpness and to be able to improve their skills. If you have lots of
time, then do play more - but only if this does not detract from your study
programme.
Everyone gets tired if they play too much. Chess simply demands so
much nervous energy. It may be useful to compare chess with the
Japanese game Go. Japan has an established group of professional Go
2 How to Be a Complete Tournament Player
players and it is absolutely unthinkable for them to be playing more than

30-40 games a year. No one can play chess successfully if he plays
continuously. If you start noticing that during a series of games your
mind has stopped functioning normally, with moments of blindness and
inexplicable moves being the norm of your play, then you are .. over
chessed". Take a break of at least two weeks.
To add a personal note: for me the telltale sign of being over-chessed
is when I start to overlook ..simple tactics". Apparently the mind
retains sufficient knowledge to avoid any problems with undertaking
"grand strategy". However, the mind is supposed to be able to calculate
simple tactics automatically and when it is too tired, it apparently cannot
perform this .. automatic function".
2. Thorough Review of Games Played

But, by itself, playing brings little progress. A review of the .. Most
Active" lists published in Chess Life shows no particular relationship
between activity and progress. Most of us are familiar with regular
players in various types of chess locales who play and play and never
improve. Playing without a concurrent critical review of one's skills will
simply get you nowhere. I can give an example from my experience with
swimming. I learned to swim at the age of ten but have taken no steps to
improve myself and up to now haven't shown a speck of progress.
As Mikhail Botvinnik has pointed out, there is no single activity with
as high a potential for reward as carefully analysing your own games.
Quite appropriate here is what Garry Kasparov says in the preface to his
book The Test Of Time: "By strictly observing Botvinnik's rule regarding
the thorough analysis of one's own games, with the years I have come to
realise that this provides the foundation for the continuous development
of chess mastery." The number of eye-opening discoveries that you will
make will be nothing short of a revelation. It is safe to say that all of the
top grandmasters analyse their played games very carefully. Robert
Hi.ibner of West Germany has always published his exceedingly detailed
analysis in the Chess Informant and the young Czech GM Lubomir
Ftacnik is now following suit. I also analyse my games quite
thoroughly, though I must admit I don't have the patience and
dedication of Hi.ibner. But of course, there is no question regarding
which one of us is much the stronger player!
Another example from the highest level is worth giving. About six
months after losing to Bobby Fischer in 1972, Boris Spassky was asked in
Training Prog ramme for Signific ant Improv ement in Ch ess Ability 3
an interview how he had been spending his time. His reply: " I've been
carefully going over the match games and have made so many
discoveries. During the play, neither player realised much of what was
possible and the analysts have also ignored much. " (Unfortunately
neither Spassky nor Fischer has seen fit to write about the match and thus
to start unlocking its secrets.)
It is quite obvious that a review of your games will lead to some
conclusions and perhaps revisions in the opening variation(s) you have
chosen. Middlegame strategy and some unexpected tactical possibilities
will emerge. Endgames will offer opportunities for both applications of
general principles and specific know-how. Psychological factors should
be considered: were you feeling up to the game and how did your feeling
change as the game progressed? And all other special factors should be
considered: time pressure (your own or your opponent's), moments of
carelessness, physical or mental tiredness etc. Not only will a review bring
much specific insight, it will also improve your overall analytical
ability.
Each game should be analysed from a personal "I" viewpoint. After
all, you are doing it strictly for your own future benefit. And don't play
more games than you have time to carefully review. Otherwise the
playing will just tire you out and will not be productive.
H ow much time should you spend on each game? Well, this depends
both on its complexity and on your own temperament. Your goal should
be to obtain a clear understanding of all its major phases. I don't
think that a nything worthwhile can be accomplished in one hour or less.
In general, you should plan to spend a minimum of two hours on each
game. I should also add that periodically there will be positions which
will appear to you to be unsolvable. In such cases, stop hitting your head
against the wall. Stop your analysis and go on to other parts of your study
programme . As your chess skills increase, you will fin d that such
unsolvable positions will become much rarer.
3. Study Programme
The science of chess is inexhaustible and forever advancing. For
anyone wishing to become, and remain, a good player there is
unfortunately no substitute for work. The explosion of knowledge means
that all of us must run harder just to stay even. Even so I'm glad that I'm
in chess rather than swimming. It appears that to become a champion
swimmer you must start spending ten hours or so in a pool from the age
of five onwards. By the time you are twenty-two or so, you are so wet and
tired of training that you decide to retire. Chess is both more comfortable
and provides greater longevity !
An o ngoing programme should consist of the following three parts:
openings, endgames and what I call "learning chess".
A. Opening Study
The game starts with the opening and it is imperative that you obtain a
reasonable position for the coming middlegame play. I feel that the best
single source of reliable opening information is the Encyclopedia of Chess
Openings series. The best way to keep up with developments in the
opening of interest to you is to refer to the Chess Informants or the recent
New I n Chess volumes.
These sources do have the disadvantage that everything is in symbols
and therefore new concepts may be difficult to understand. An excellent
way to gain a basic understanding of various openings is to study the
Understanding The Chess Openings series put out by RHM Press. (So far
three books have been published: Open Games (except the Ruy Lopez),
Caro-Kann Defence and Queen's Indian Defence.) Also, for a more
general understanding of what modern play is about I recommend my
book How To Play Good Opening Moves (David McKay Co, Inc). As
always, comments by leading grandmasters in various chess magazines
will give much valuable current information. New In Chess Magazine,
published in the English language in Holland is outstanding for the
serious student. It is both professionally rigorous as well as pleasantly
readable. For up-to-date information - particularly for readers in the US
- excellent is GM Yasser Seirawan's magazine Inside Chess. Additional
outstanding English language magazines are Maxwell Macmillan Chess
and British Chess Magazine.
I must also add that studying openings does not mean at all
"memorising opening variations" . As a matter of fact, such memorising
is generally a waste of time and is often counter-productive. The first and
most important objective is to truly understand what the opening
variation is about. Only then should you try to start recalling
(memorising) the specific lines and variations. In strategic variations the
amount of blind memorising that is required is relatively small. However,
when we get to "ambiguous tactical" variations such as the Najdorf
Sicilian with White playing 6 i.c4 or 6 i.gS, then the memorising
required can become rather brutal .
Training Prog ramme for Significant I mprovement in Ch ess Abili ty 5
B. Endgame Study
Formal endgame study is important not only because so many games
are concluded in the endgame but also because the principles of endgame
play are so radically different from those of the opening and middlegame.
The amount of points that can be gained (and saved! ) by correct endgame
play is enormous, yet is too often u nderestimated by youngsters and
amateurs.
The following sources of endgame information are highly
recommended:
From The Middlegame Into The Endgame by Mednis
Practical Endgame Lessons by Mednis
Practical Rook Endings by Mednis
Question s and Answers on Practical Endgame Play by Mednis
Strategic Themes In Endgames by Mednis
Practical Bishop Endings by Mednis
Rate Your Endgame by Mednis and Crouch
A Pocket Guide To Endgames by Hooper
All endgame books by A verbakh
The Practical Endgame (syndicated column by Mednis)
Benko's Chess Life columns
Endgame articles by grandmasters in magazines
I hope the reader will forgive me for recommending so many of my
own books. You can be sure that you will learn much from all strong
grandmasters - that is why my list above ends with "Endgame articles by
grandmasters in magazines".
A kind word must also be said about Fine's Basic Chess Endings. The
passage of time has brought about many re-evaluations of Fine's specific
examples. Yet he remains excellent in presenting the basic principles
involved in endgame play.
C. "Learning Chess"
Chess is an extremely complicated and demanding game and only
those of the very highest level have succeeded in unlocking a portion of
the secrets of chess. It is therefore only from the top players and thinkers
that the rest of us can learn a lot. Unless a player has an "understanding
chess" rating of at least 2400, the amount of significant knowledge that he
can impart to others is limited. Your chess knowledge will gain
significantly from any and all of the following sources:
My Best Games by Karpov

Chess A t The Top by Karpov
The Test of Time by Kasparov
Garr.y Kasparov New World Chess Champion (Kasparov's book of the
1985 World Championship match; 98 pages of text)
London-Leningrad Championship games (Kasparov's book of the
1 986 World Championship match; 1 4 1 pages of text ! )
Grandmaster Preparation b y Polugayevsky
King Power In Chess by Mednis
My Best Games (Vols 1 and 2) by Alekhine
Life and Games of Mikhail Tal by Tal
My 60 Memorable Games by Fischer
The Art of Chess Analysis by Timman
Any book by a famous grandmaster
Tournament books of strong tournaments with notes by
grandmasters
It is my firm opinion that you can learn a great deal from any serious
work by any good quality grandmaster. Yes, in some particular
variations there may be an error in analysis - chess is just too
inexhaustible to eliminate such errors altogether. But every piece of
writing will serve to illuminate your mind. Conversely a minor master
can well come up with a correct or new move in an opening variation. Yet
the insight that he will be able to provide will generally be
inconsequential and very often it will be misleading or even wrong.
H ow should such a study programme be divided? In giving the
following numbers, I am assuming that the student already has an
elementary acquaintance with all phases of the game. Capablanca once
stated seriously that "Chess should be learned starting from the
endgame". Well, this advice does make sense for the strong IM trying to
become a GM. However, I question its relevance for anyone else. What
good is endgame expertise if you are mated every time right out of the
opening? Therefore, for the general novice, emphasis on basic opening
play is the overriding need. For everyone else, the following use of time is
suggested:
50% openings
25% endgames
25% "learning chess"
It is very important to understand correctly what I mean by saying
"50% of the studying time should be spent on openings". This study is to
Training Programme for Signif icant Improv ement in Chess Ab ility 7
include everything relevant to the opening variation. For instance, if the

characteristic middlegames flow naturally from the opening variation,
then of course these also must be studied very carefully. If we consider,
for example, the Yugoslav Attack variation in the Sicilian Dragon, we see
that the middlegame is entered so smoothly from the opening that there is
really no particular dividing line between them. Moreover, often the
characteristic endgame structure is set already in the opening and for
such variations it is also necessary to study the characteristic endgames
that result. A useful aid for this aspect of preparation is Shereshevsky
and Slutsky's recently published two-volume work Mastering the End
game. It is even possible to go directly from the opening into the
endgame, essentially bypassing the middlegame. My book From the
Opening into the Endgame takes an in-depth look at eleven such
opening variations. In such a case, the study of the whole book is
considered "studying openings"!
How much time should you spend studying? Well, it mostly depends
on how much time you have available. It is impossible to learn everything,
yet there is much to learn. Karpov has stated that for doing original,
creative research, three hours a day is about all that the body can take.
This is true, of course, but everything that you will be working on will not
be so demanding. A youngster on a summer vacation should spend at
least five hours a day on various aspects, including a review of his games.
A businessman or a youngster in school has, of course, much less available
time. Still, the key to ultimate success is the determination to progress
day by day. Assuming that you can allocate seven hours each week to
chess, it is best to spend one hour each day on it. One hour may not sound
like much, but it is a lot more than nothing. And over a year's time this
works out to more than 360 hours. I guarantee that you'll learn a lot in
360 hours!
Questions and Answers

Question 1
You don't have much opportunity to play in tournaments. Suddenly a
chance appears: You can play in two tournaments ! Yet the "catch" is that
the first one requires playing nine games in seven days (no byes allowed ! )
and the next one starts the very next day and requires a three-hour trip to
get there. That tournament has nine rounds in eight days. Should you
accept this opportunity? If so, what is the best "method" for achieving
good results?
Answer
If you like to play in tournaments and have not had many
opportunities lately, you might as well accept. Otherwise you will just be
kicking yourself for a long time to come. The average player (the
Kasparovs, Karpovs etc excepted) simply must make do with what is
available. Waiting for the ideal tournament may mean waiting forever.
Do realise, however, that the schedule will be murderous: to play 1 8
games in 1 5 straight days would be considered inhuman in any other
competitive sport. The main problem is not physical tiredness (though
this is real enough), but the burden on the nervous system. You simply
have to give it some respite. This means a few well-placed quick draws.
The best time, I believe, is after a two-round day. Your system can really
use a day off then. Following this recommendation will give you three
more or less "free days" in a 1 5-day period- not so much, but a lot more
than nothing! Playing a quick draw in a two-round day is not so useful,
because the other "full" game will be exhausting enough and thus you
will not get the important "free" day.
It is easier to achieve the desired quick draws if you are White or if your
opponent is considered weaker than you. If you are White, play an
opening that you are good at (and have confidence in) and offer the draw
at around move I 0- 1 2. Do the same when you are Black. Don't get greedy
(because you are White or the opponent is "weak") when you arrive at the
board. Remember that you have to get through 1 8 games !
Question 2
You are a businessman who can only play in weekend tournaments.
These generally run from Friday to Sunday, with one game on Friday
evening and two each on Saturday and Sunday. When you are at work
you must concentrate every moment. What, if anything, can you do to
improve your chances for a good result in such a tournament?
Answer
The particular problem is the Friday evening game. After a strenuous
day in o ne activity you rush off to participate in another strenuous one.
There is simply no reason to expect that you can be anywhere near your
best in such circumstances. The best solution is not to play on Friday
evening and take the half-point bye. If this is not available , consider
Training Prog ramme for Significant Improvement in Chess Ab ility 9
taking the afternoon off from work. Go home after lunch and relax the
rest of the day. You will be surprised how fresh and "hungry" you will be
at the time of the game.
Question 3
A friend of yours says: "I played a horrible game; I know what I did
wrong - there is no point in going over the game." Is he right?
Answer
No, absolutely not! Or perhaps, to say it in a more "diplomatic" way,
most likely he is quite wrong. Of course, if he left his queen hanging on
move 4 or something similar, then there is no particular need to review
the game. Yet, even here, it is very important to understand how such a
horrible tragedy could occur, so that a reoccurrence of it is prevented
once and for all.
Lost games are very unpleasant for everyone, including world
champions. It is therefore very easy to try to ignore them. Yet this is quite
wrong. However, it is perfectly reasonable to postpone the start of your
definitive analysis for a day or two. By then the pain has lessened and it is
easier to be objective. As you do the analysis, you may well discover, that
you did not play so badly after all and that it was just a single error that
was the problem. On the other hand, you may find that you did do
"everything wrong". In either case, you will know what not to do again.
Also, in the first case, you will obtain the valuable information that many
of the things that you were unsure of were actually correct -again valuable
information for the future .
Question 4
You like sound, straightforward variations. A friend has suggested
that you play 4 e3 against the Queen's I ndian Defence (1 d4 lL!f6 2 c4 e6 3
lL! f3 b6). This sounds good to you . How should you go about learning
this variation thoroughly?
Answer
The first step is to get hold of a good "verbal" discussion of the
variation . This can be from an article about this variation or from a book.
The writer must be a strong player (at least 2400 in "understanding
chess") and the explanation in words must be clear enough so that you
understand what the main themes and objectives are. One good source is
Understanding the Queen's Indian Defence by Soltis, Mednis, Keene and
Grefe, published by R . H . M . Press.

The second step is to become familiar with all the important variations.
I feel that the best source for this is the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings
(ECO). In this case, the volume is "E' , and the code E 14. You will find a
total of 1 5 columns and an additional 8 1 notes. Select those
continuations for White that get a good theoretical rating and that you
are comfortable with . Since the publication date ofthis volume is 1978, it
is dangerous to accept the final evaluations as the absolute truth. Yet
you will have acquired valuable background information and made key
decisions appropriate to your style.
The final "learning" step is to consult the Chess Informants published
since ECO 'E', so as to get all the later "known" information which has
been made available. Ideally, you want to review all the Informants since
ECO 'E', but if this is impossible, checking over the last six volumes will
be a reasonable compromise.
These steps - understanding the themes/objectives, selecting and
learning .. your" variations, checking for the latest theoretical
developments - will enable you to play this variation with confidence and
success. Of course, for a proper understanding of the application of the
opening variation (s) to the further course of the middlegame you do want
to go over the whole game. A large number of the opening variations
presented in the Informants are parts of full games.
2 Starting To Think Like a Grandmaster
Grandmasters leave a legacy of deeds (games) and words (writing). In

my comments on establishing a complete training programme I pointed
out the great value of becoming familiar with the grandmasters'
thoughts. You will not start thinking like a grandmaster until you have
absorbed a lot of grandmaster wisdom. In the examples that follow I shall
show how to do this and how to make further use of the wisdom gained.
1. Learning from Fischer

Because of his universal style and fantastic fighting qualities, Robert
J. Fischer's games are a gold mine of valuable information. Lev Psakhis,
who burst upon the chess sky, unheralded, to become USSR eo
Champion in both 1 980/8 1 and 1 98 1 182 proudly admits that he has very
carefully studied every one of Fischer's games .
Let us assume that you have done the same with all of the Ruy Lopezes
that Fischer has played - an opening in w hich he was an acclaimed
virtuoso. (Primary sources of Fischer's games are My 60 Memorable
Games by Fischer and Bobby Fischer's Chess Games by Wade and
11
12 How to Be a Complete Tournament Playe r
O'Connell.) In Fischer's time, a familiar type of Ruy Lopez position

resulted after 1 e4 eS 2 lDf3 lDc6 3 .ibS a6 4 .ia4 lDf6 S 0-0 .ie7 6 liel bS 7
.ib3 d6 8 c3 0-0 9 h3 lDa5 10 .ic2 c5 1 1 d4 'fi'c7 12 lDbd2 .id7 13 lDfi Iife 8
14 lDe3 g6 15 dxe5 dxe5 (diagram). See, for example, F ischer-S hocron,
Mar del Plato 1 959 and F ischer-U nzicker, Zurich 1959 - Games 6 and lO
in this book.
A mechanical evaluation would show that Black is ahead in
development, has greater central influence and that White's KB has little
scope. But none of this is of any consequence! All that matters is that
Black has a potential hole on d5 whereas d4 is inaccessible to Black's
pieces. Therefore all the chances are on White's side - as Fischer
demonstrated time after time. (Note: of course, after a while methods
were developed which eventually lead to laborious equality for Black.)
Now let us consider the position that resulted from the Giuoco Piano
of Game 8, Karpov-Korchnoi, 1981 World Championship match: 1 e4 e5 2
ltlf 3 ltlc6 3 .ic4 .ic5 4 c3 ltlf6 5 d3 d6 6 ltlbd2 a6 7 0-0 0-0 8 .ib3 .ia7 9 h3
.ie6 10 .ic2 dS 11 lie1 dxe4 12 dxe4 ltlh5 13 ltlfi 'fi'xd1 14 lixd1 liad8 1S
.ie3.
This game was televised in the US (PBS's Shelby Lyman World Chess
Championship 198 1 programme) and this and the upcoming positions
discussed at length by the various experts taking part. The evaluations of
the younger and less experienced participants were of one mind: White
has nothing. (One 2200 rated person even thought that Black was better
because " White's KB is inferior to Black's QB"). But the heart of the
matter (and this is what you should immediately be grasping) is
Starting to Think Like a Grandmaster 13
completely different: the only item of significance is that White's chances

for access to d5 are bright, whereas d4 is unavailable to Black. Therefore
it is only White that has prospects for an advantage. Karpov comments as
follows (Chess A t The Top, p . 65) about this endgame: "The exchange of
queens condemns Black to a dubious search for equality."
In the game White obtained a clear edge after 15. .. f6 16 i.xa7 lt::l x a7 1 7
ltJe3 ltJf4 18 h4! .if7 1 9 ltJel lt::l c8 2 0 f3 lt::l e 6 21 lt::ld3 lit d7?! (Better is 2 1 .. .
lt::le7 - Karpov) 22 .ib3! lt::le 7 23 lt::ld5! lt::lc6 24 .ia4! (Maybe even stronger
is 24 g3, followed by 25 f4 with the threat of 26 f5 to chase Black's knight
away from e6 - Karpov) 24 .. . b5 25 .ic2 llfd8 26 a4. With Korchnoi in
severe time pressure (he had only one minute left for his last ten moves)
Karpov's prospects were most bright. However, by rushing his moves he
failed to play the best ones and Korchnoi finally squeezed out a draw on
move 80.
2. L earning from Karpov about the F rench D efence, Tarrasch Variation

After 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 White must make a basic decision on how to
proceed. A strategically healthy way is Tarrasch's 3 lt::l d2. Listen to
Karpov's (My Best Games, p.29) evaluation of it: "The point is that it
leads to a small but lasting advantage for White - and I stress lasting."
The theoretically most reliable response for Black is 3 ... c5 and the
resulting current main line is 4 exd5 exd5 5 lt::lf3 lt::lc6 6 i.b5 i.d6 7 dxc5
.ixc5 8 0-0 lt::lge7 9 ltJb3 .id6. Karpov-U hlmann, Madrid 1973 (Game 36)
continued 10 .ig5 0-0 1 1 .ih4, with Karpov commenting as follows.
"The idea behind this move is simple. White's edge in this position is
linked to Black's being saddled with an isolated d-pawn. To take

advantage of this weakness, simplifying exchanges should be
undertaken. The minor pieces will be removed from the board and, at
the first opportunity, the dark-square bishop, which holds the squares
around the pawn on d5. "
The inevitable passage of time has modified some of the specifics and
in fact after the time-wasting 1 1 j_h4 Black can equalise with 1 1 ... 'it'b6!
as demonstrated by Vaganian and Gulko. Therefore White's strongest
plan is now considered to be 10 :1Ie1 0- 0 1 1 j_ g5. But the overall strategy
remains intact: White wants to exchange the dark-square bishops and
any exchange of a pair of minor pieces is in White's interests. This insight
allows White to formulate a number of logical middlegame
continuations - even if his theoretical knowledge ends right here.
Now let us see how we can apply this information to the following line,
starting with 3 . . . lbf6: 4 e5 lbfd7 5 c3 c5 6 j_ d3 lbc6 7 lbe2 cxd4 8 cxd4 f6 9
exf6 lbxf6 10 0- 0 j_ d6 1 1 lt:l f3. Now White "threatens" 1 2 j_f4, saddling
Black with weaknesses on the dark squares. This factor, when added to
White's superior white-square bishop, Black's weakened kingside and
his weak e-pawn, will give White a very pleasant advantage. Therefore,
Black's normal response now is 1 1 . . . 'ti'c7. But, instead, in the game
Jarecki- Remlinger, New York (March CCA) International 1 982, Black
continued differently: 11 ... 0- 0?! 12 j_ f4! j_ xf4 13 lbxf4 'i& h8 14 li:i: e1!.
Now Black's "rational" move is 1 4 . . . 'ti'd6, but playing a less experienced
opponent he essays 14 ... lbg4?!.
The only compensation that Black has for his various weaknesses is the
half-open f-file. But if White now simply completes his mobilisation with
the straightforward 15 1!Vd2 ! , then Black's problem would soon come
home to roost.
Instead, White greedily played 15 lLlxe6? i.xe6 16 llxe6 and found
himself defenceless after 16 ... 1!Vc7!. White's lesser evil now is to lose the
exchange in the "best" way with 1 7 i.e2! 1!Vd7! and now not 1 8 lLlg5?
because of 1 8 . . . li:lxf2 19 1!Vc2 lLle4, but either 1 8 lLle5 or 1 8 llxc6. Worse
are 1 7 g3? 'if7! , 1 7 h3? lLlxd4 ! , or the game continuation 17 i.b5? llxf3!
18 g3 1!Vf7 19 i.xc6 bxc6 20 llxc6 lLlxfl White resign s.
White's basic problem was that he thought that his overriding
objective is to capture Black's weak e-pawn. But in fact his initial goal is
to establish a dark square grip on the position. Other gains will then start
accruing "normally" enough.
3 Sicilian Najdorf, Polugayevsky Variation

In my writings I have often made the point that the Najdorf Variation
in the Sicilian is only suitable for those who are able to devote an
inordinate amount of time to independent analysis. It is perfect for
Fischer and his enthusiastic followers; it is suicidal for the majority of
players.
A very sharp and demanding line for Black is the Polugayevsky
Variation ( 1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 a6 6 i.g5 e6 7 f4
b5). Within it, for a number of years, a critical line was the following one:
8 e5 dxe5 9 fxe5 1!Vc7 10 exf6 1!Ve5+ 11 .i.e2 "iV xg5 12 0-0 lla7 13 '@d3 lld7
14 lLle4 '@e5 and now 15 lLlf3!.
It is very instructive to read what Polugayevsky has to say about this

position specifically and his variation in general. I quote from his
excellent book Grandmaster Preparation:
" As often happens in chess, the most modest move in the position, 1 5
ltJf3 (blocking the f-file, along which White i s attacking, offering the
exchange of queens etc), proved to be the strongest. And I decided to
study the position resulting from this, in which the black queen retreats to
c7, although it too did not appear particularly promising. As for the
move 15 ... 'ixb2, at heart I immediately condemned it as suicidal, and
did not bother to reinforce this feeling with variations.
Here it would seem appropriate for me to give my approximate train of
thought, which caused me to reject completely 1 5 . . . 'ixb2.
The point is that, in choosing the variation, to a certain extent Black
acts contrary to the basic laws of chess, which demand rapid mobilisation
in the opening. I ndeed, in the position after 1 5 ltJf3 practically all of
Black's pieces are still on their initial squares, the black queen has already
moved four times, and a further raid into the opponent's position cannot
fail to tell against him.
What's more, the basic strategic idea of the variation is not to gain
material but, by creating threats, to develop the pieces with gain of
tempi, and if possible to force White to assist this (e.g. by the capture
fxg7). Black can gain tempi both by attacking the knight at e4 (by . . .
i.b7), and b y attacking the white king (by . . . i.c5+ ). And a n y deviation
from this strategic idea, any material -grabbing, makes the variation,
which is already risky for Black, too reckless.
It is interesting that subsequent tournament practice (of other players,
of course, since I simply could not act counter to my own logic, and did
not once play 1 5 . . . 'ixb2) fully confirmed the correctness of my
judgement. The overwhelming majority of games played with the capture
on b2 by the queen ended in a rapid and crushing defeat for Black. It is
noteworthy that, while many grandmasters could not resist the
temptation to employ the variation, if only once or twice, the move 1 5 . . .
'ixb2 was nevertheless made only by players o f lower class, who had
evidently not grasped the strategy of the variation so deeply.
This once again confirmed an ancient truth: first and foremost it is
essential to understand the essence, the overall idea of any fashionable
variation, and only then include it in one's opening repertoire . Otherwise
the tactical trees will conceal from the pia yer the strategic picture of the
wood, in which his orientation will most likely be lost."
S tarting to Think Like a Grandmaster 17
Thus a lot of the reasoning behind the Polugayevsky Variation has

now been divulged to you. The work ahead still is very tough, of course,
but your chances of coming up with the correct move, both in play and in
home analysis, have increased markedly because now you will be looking
in the right direction.
4. Learning the Ruy Lopez from Karpov

Karpov-Andersson, World Junior Championship, Stockholm /969,
opened with the Ruy Lopez: 1 e4 e5 2 lt:lf3 li:J c6 3 .i b5 a6 4 .ta4 li:J f6 5 0-0
.i e7 6 l:i e1 b5 7 .i b3 0-0 8 c3 d6 9 h3 lt:la5 10 .i c2 c5 11 d4 'fi/ c7 12 li:J bd2
.tb7.
Here Karpov comments (My Best Games, p. 82): "One of the oldest
continuations in the Chigorin Defence, now rarely encountered. Even
then it is seen only after the preliminary 1 2 . . . cxd4 13 cxd4, with counter
play along the open c-file . Now White immediately locks the centre and
the bishop must lose two tempi to get to d7, a square to which it now
heads. It has been said that a loss of time has no significance in closed
positions. Of course, it is more costly in open positions, but even in positions
like this one it should not be wasted." (My italics.)
The game continued 13 d5 .i c8 14 li:J fl .i d7 15 b3.
Again let's listen to Karpov: " With the idea of restraining the black
knight. In many openings, Black generally has some difficulty developing
a particular piece ; for example, Black's "problem" bishop in the French
Defence or the Benoni. In our game we have the "disgraced Spanish
knight" , looking for a place to go. This move deprives him of c4, and if
Black advances his c-pawn, then b3-b4 drives the knight back to b7,
where it also has no good prospects. (A similar idea associated with the
queen's knight is found in the Yugoslav Variation of the King's Indian
Defence - it is not a new idea.)"
Do note the perceptive freshness associated with the comment about
restraining the queen's knight. This is a very important factor in the
variations where White closes the centre with d5 . This basic
understanding allows us to follow much better a whole series of Karpov
games, e.g. Karpov-U nzicker, Nice 1974 ( 1 2 . . . lbc6 13 d5; Game 37) and
Karpov-U nzicker, Milan 1975 ( 1 2 . . . .i.d7 13 lbfl llfe8 14 d5; Game 42).
The theme through much of the coming play is that Black's QN can never
find a comfortable home, and in fact when Black is defending the
queenside the QN often gets in the way.
BUT, but, but - despite all of the above, do not accept what
grandmasters do just on faith alone. Check to make sure that it makes
real chess sense. Without any questions, GMs do understand chess
principles perfectly. Yet by far the bulk of what could be called aM
errors" occur because we think we have discovered an exception to the
principles. It is apparently a human trait to look for exceptions to normal
rules and regulations. In chess, exceptions to principles occur far less
frequently than we in our enthusiasm tend to think. Here I would like
to give the following two examples.
In the Yugoslav Attack against the Sicilian Dragon (I e4 cS 2 lbf3 d6 3
d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 lbf6 S lbc3 g6 6 .i.e3 .i.g7 7 f3 lbc6 8 'ft' d2 0- 0), White
started scoring heavily from early 1956 onwards with the move 9 .i.c4.
Black tried a whole series of defences: 9 ... lb xd4 10 xd4 e6, 9 ... a6,
9 ... lba5, 9 . . . lbd7 followed by . . . lbb6, 9 . . . a5 - all to no avail. It was only
after about six years of devastation that interest turned to 9 i.d7. Isn't...
that really by far the most logical 9th move? Black completes the
development of his minor pieces in a normal way, retains good central
influence and gets ready for counterplay along the half-open c-file.
But it was only the singular lack of success with the other moves that
led to the interest in 9 . . . d7. Apparently Black players were so mes
merised by the power of the c4 that they wanted to neutralise it as
quickly as possible. Sound principles of development were relegated
to a subordinate role.
The second example comes from the Polugayevsky Variation of the
Sicilian Najdorf. In the game Bronstein-Polugayevsky, USSR Championship
1961, after the normal 1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 lbf6 5 lbc3 a6 6
g5 e6 7 f4 b5 8 e5 dxe5 9 fxe5 'ic7 10 exf6 'ti' e5+ 11 e2 1!fxg5,
Bronstein surprised his opponent with the new 12 1!fd3.
At the board Polugayevsky decided on the response 1 2 . . . l!h4+ 1 3 g3

1Wxf6 and equalised easily enough . However, subsequently it was found
that White can gain the advantage with 14 llfl 'ti'e5 1 5 0-0-0 lla7 1 6
lbf3 ! . This put a big cloud over the whole variation for about ten years. It
was only in 1 973 that Polugayevsky himself discovered that Black is
perfectly fine if he plays the immediate 12 ... Wxf6, since then after 13 li[fl
1!Ve5 14 0-0-0 lla7 15 lbf3 Black has 15 .. . Wf4+ ( 1 6 lbd2 1!fe5; 16 'i!lb l
lld7).
Polugayevsky's comment in this connection is very interesting also:
"Such is the unusual logic of chess. I am convinced that if the position

after White's 1 2th move were shown to a beginner, he would without
thinking play 12 . . . 'it'xf6. Black in fact wins a pawn,and in doing so does
not spoil his pawn formation ! But for us to reach this truth, more than ten
years, alas, was required! "
Start thinking like grandmasters - but never forget about the
unalterable basic principles of chess !

Question 1
Evaluate the position reached after the following moves: 1 e4 e5 2 lbf3
lbc6 3 .i b5 a6 4 .b 4 d6 5 c3 .i d7 6 d4 lbge7 7 .i b3 h6 S 0-0 lbg6 9 lbbd2
.i e7 10 lbc4 .i g5 1 1 lbe3 .i xe3 12 -'.xe3 0-0 13 h3 lieS 14 lbh2 e7 15
dxe5 dxe5. Who, if anyone, is better? Give reasons. If you were White,
how would you continue?
Answer
Black has full equality. White can't hope to exploit, in the forseeable
future, d5 because he has the wrong piece on e3 (the QB instead of a N)
and his only remaining knight is offside o n h2. On the other hand Black
has completed his development in a sound way and has nothing to fear.
White has two reasonable approaches. He can try to hold on to the
bishop pair with 16 .i c2 lba5 17 b3 in the hope of making some use of it
later on. Or he can forget about saving the KB from an exchange and
work to improve the positioning of his pieces. For this, 16 lbf3 or 16 lie1
followed by 1 7 lbfl and 1S lbg3 makes sense.
The above position arose in F ischer-Pachman, Mar del Plata 1959.
Fischer chose the unmotivated attacking move 16 'ifb 5?, quickly got the
worse of it after 16 ... lba5! 1 7 .i c2 lbc4 1 S .i c 1 lbf4 and lost in 56 moves.
Question 2
Compare the Ruy Lopez position of Section 4 (diagram p. 17) with the
one resulting after 1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 -'.b5 a6 4 -'.a4 lbf6 5 0-0 -'.e7 6
lie1 b5 7 -'.b3 d6 S c3 0-0 9 h3 eb bS 10 d4 lbbd7 1 1 lbbd2 -'.b7 12 .i c2 lieS
13 lbfl 14 lbg3 g6 15 a4 c5 16 d5 c4. In which position is Black better
off? Give reasons.
Starting to Thi nk Like a Grandmaster 21
An swer
Black is much better off in the above position. The two reasons are: ( 1 )
His kingside forces have been favourably regrouped (the secondary
reason) and (2) the QN, located centrally on d7 , has a much more
favourable location than on aS (the primary reason). The net result is that
in the second position Black just has the normal slight disadvantage after
the opening. White's advantage derives from the space advantage due to
the pawn on dS.
Question 3
Near the end of Section 4 Karpov refers in a parenthetical remark to
the misplaced Black QN on aS in the Yugoslav Variation of the King's
Indian Defence. The type of position that he is referring to is the following
one : 1 d4ltJ f6 2 c4 g6 3ltJ c3 .i g7 4ltJ f3 d6 5 g3 0-0 6 .i g2 c5 7 0-0ltJ c6 8 d5
ltJ a5 9ltJ d2 a6 10 'it' c2 JibS 11 b3 b5 12 .i b2. What are the features of the
position which could be expected to lead to some advantage for White?
What should be Black's approach to try to overcome White's existing
advantages? 'Can you suggest a logical move-by-move variation for
Black?
An swer
White has a clear central advantage because of the dS pawn. Moreover,
unless the ltJa5 can be activated, Black will be saddled with an offside
minor piece. In particular, if White is able to start an attack on the
kingside then Black's chances for a successful defence are poor because
the QN will not be helping out.
A large number of GM games have shown that Black cannot afford "to
do nothing" about the above two factors by just relying on prospects
along the open b-file. A characteristic example is W.Addison -E.Medn is,
US Championship 1962163: 12 ... .i d7 1 3 lltb 1 'it' c7?! 14ltJ ce4!ltJ xe4?! 15
.i xe4 .i xb2 16 :!I xb2 bxc4 17 bxc4! Jixb2 18 'iV xb2 :!I b8 19 \!t' c3 llb4 20 a3
:!I b7 21 h4 h5 22 .i c2! tib6 23 :!I b1 'it' d8 24 llel ! 'if b6 25 .i d3! 't!V d8 26 f4
.i g4 27 :!I fl 6 28 f5 gxf5 29 .i xf5 .i xf5 30 Jixf5 f6 31 :!I xh5 csW8 32 'it' d3
e8 33 Jih8+ Black resign s.
The unpleasant experiences with such passivity led to the conclusion
that Black must aim for active play. However, it was many years before
the right specifics were discovered. The overall approach must be to
make use of the pressure that the ltJa5 applies against c4 to gain some
central space to neutralise White's advantage there. These objectives are
achieved by (e.g.) the following well-researched variation: 12 .. bxc4 13
bxc4 i.h6! 14 f4 e5! 15 dxe6 i.xe6 16 tD d5 Itxb2! 1 7 't! xb2 i.g7 18 'ft' c2
tD xd5 1 9 cxd5 i.xa1 20 nxa1 'ti'f6! 21 litd1 'ti'd4+ 22 Wh1 .if S with
equality , Kir.Georgiev-Piket, Amsterdam /I 1985.
3 How To Select Your Opening
Repertoire
The game of chess starts with the opening. Obviously, you must have at
least adequate knowledge about this phase. Of course, for ultimate
success in chess it is impossible to do without a knowledge of endgame
principles and middlegame strategy and tactics. Still, first things should
come first and it is clearly advantageous to start offthe game on the right
foot. Everyone - whether a promising youngster or an experienced
oldster - should establish a sound and appropriate opening repertoire.
There are two parts to this. The first is the selection of the particular
openings and variations/sub-variations. The second - and exceedingly
important also - is the establishment of the most exact move order for
achieving your desired variation. This very important topic will be
covered in detail in the next chapter.
The opening repertoire that you select must agree with your chess
interests, playing style and work habits. If you enjoy sharp tactics, have
the time and interest to follow opening theory developments worldwide,
possess an excellent memory and like doing complicated independent
analysis - then the " Fischer b-pawn" variation in the Najdorf Sicilian (1
e4 cS 2 lt:Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 lbf6 S lbc3 a6 6 .tgS e6 7 f4 1Wb6) is for
you, whether with White or Black ! If main line strategic play is your
interest, then for either White or Black, you will feel comfortable in the
Orthodox Defence of the Queen's Gambit Declined (1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 lbc3
lbf6 4 lbf3 .te7 S .tgS). But someone who, though strategically inclined,
prefers to be on less analysed ground, will choose as White in the QGD S
.tf4 rather than the standard 5 .tg5 . Greatest success will come
when one is true to oneself. If there is a choice between playing something
which you like and something which you dislike but feel that your oppo
nent will dislike even more, stick to your likes! Your practical results
will improve when you play what you know, like and have confidence in.
As a very broad generalisation it can be stated that those who like
23
sharp tactics will do better with 1 e4 openings, whereas strategists should

choose closed openings (1 d4, 1 c4, 1 ltJf3). However, also important is to
choose the particular variations or sub-variations that agree with you.
There are innumerable strategically sound openings in the open games
"book" and many ways of playing closed openings sharply. As one
example, consider the repertoire of the long time American champion
Frank J. Marshall, one of the greatest attacking players in history.
Though his favourite first move was 1 d4, it was no handicap in having
the fur start to fly soon thereafter.
It may be of interest to compare the evolution of the opening repertoire
with the White pieces of World Champions Anatoly Karpov and Garry
Kasparov. Kasparov became famous as an attacking player who
invariably opened with 1 e4. Yet even well before his twentieth birthday
he had mostly switched over to 1 d4. When I asked him in London in
December of 1983 "Why", his response was: "I have found that after 1
d4 there are more opportunities for richer play". Karpov also started out
with 1 e4 and remained true to it well into the 1980s. Yet the variations
that he chose were invariably strategic in nature. When in an interview in
early 1 989 Karpov was questioned as to whether he prefers open or closed
positions, he replied: ''I like I e4 very much, but my results are better with
I d4". This makes abundant sense to me since deep strategy has always
been Karpov's special strength.
At this point let us take a look at a very important practical question. It
deals with how many defences (variations, openings) a player should
have both for White and Black. Usually it is phrased something like:
"For Black (or for White) how well should I know one opening before
I start learning another?". To me this kind of question sounds like
"Should I know one variation well or two variations poorly?". My
answer is always on the side of quality : it is much much more important
to know one opening well than two (or ten ! ) poorly.
Still, it is not enough for the aspiring player just to play one variation.
There are two reasons for this:
( 1 ) This makes it much too easy for the opponent to prepare for you.
One of the major objectives of successful opening play is to try to surprise
your opponent. Conversely, you don't want to be put in the position
where it is you who is always unpleasantly surprised.
(2) Periodically a variation runs into a theoretical problem and this
then leaves you without a reliable opening.
Therefore once you know your present opening well enough, it is time
How to Select Your Opening Repertoire 25
to expand your repertoire. There are three approaches to doing this:

( 1 ) Learn a completely new opening system. If for instance, your
response to 1 e4 is the French Defence (1 ... e6), you now choose to also
play 1 ... e5. Or if you respond to 1 d4 with 1 ... d5, you now decide also to
play the Grtinfeld Defence (1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 g6 3 lLlc3 d5). The advantage of
such an approach is that by learning something new you are considerably
increasing your overall chess knowledge. We can perhaps call this a
"mind-stretching" approach. Of course, the disadvantage is very
obvious: a tremendous amount of time and effort is required since none
of your previous knowledge is directly applicable. But even here there are
ways to save study-time. For instance , currently there is much less to be
known about the Caro-Kann Defence (1 e4 c6) than about the 1 e4 e5
complex and thus those who select the Caro-Kann have much less
studying to do than those who select 1 .. e5 . .
(2) Learn a sister opening. An important example of this approach is for

those w ho play the King's I ndian Defence against 1 d4 (1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 g6
followed by . . g7 and . d6) to select the Pirc against 1 e4 (1 e4 d6 2 d4
. ..
lLlf6 3 lLlc3 g6) or of course vice versa. The actual learning of the
variations will be quite different, but there are two clear advantages: ( 1 ) it
will be easier to do because you already understand the general idea
behind the opening, and (2) because you understand the basic approach
of the opening system, your early practical play will more likely be more
successful.
An even closer sister opening pair is the Pirc and the Modern ( 1 e4 g6 2
d4 i.g7). There are even a number of transpositional possibilities that
turn the Modern into the Pirc.
(3) Learn an adjunct variation. Let us assume that you play the
Najdorf Variation in the Sicilian (1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 lLlf6 5
lLlc3 a6) as your defence to 1 e4. This means that of necessity you have to
know how to handle all of the move 2 variants for White (including the
Closed Variation), how to play against 3 i.bS+, how to cope with 4 'fi'xd4
(instead of 4 lLlxd4) etc.
If you decide to also play the Dragon Variation (5 ... g6), you don't
have to learn anything else up to here. All that you have to do is to learn
the specifics of the Dragon. This is a tremendous time-saver because you
are already utilising perhaps up to 113 of your Sicilian knowledge.
This kind of approach is probably not sufficient for the young hotshot
who wants to become a super-grandmaster with a 2600 Elo rating. But it
is very appropriate for the professional person whose time is rather
limited.
Let me now share with you the thinking and approach that I used in the
early 1970s to expand my opening repertoire against l d4. Thanks to
Bobby Fischer, in late 1972 it was possible for me to become a full-time
chess professional. Up to then against 1 d4 I played both the King's
Indian and the Nimzo-Indian/Queen's Indian complex (1 d4 lL!f6 2 c4 e6
3 lL!c3 .i.b4 or 3 lL!f3 b6). I decided that for good chess reasons I needed
another defence. After careful deliberation I decided on the Slav Defence
( 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6) because it combined basic solidity with chances for
counterplay. But a further major question was what to play against
White's main line: 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lL!f3 lL!f6 4 lL!c3 dxc4 5 a4.
The "main main line" has Black playing 5 . .. .i.f5, but I was reluctant to
start with this because there was a lot to know here and I was afraid that
my opponents would know more than I. So I selected the less usual 5 ...
.i,g4 and h ad excellent success with it. B ut around 1976 it became very
popular and major improvements were found for White. So starting in
1 977 I switched to 5 ... lL!a6, an "old" move by Smyslov, and again had
excellent results. Again this soon became very popular and White found
many improvements. Thus finally (in 1 980) I also learned the main line
5 ... .i.f5 variations. But by then, this was all I had to learn: all the byways
and by-byways were already clear. So now I play all three moves (5 ...
.i.g4, 5 ... lL!a6, 5 . . . .i.f5) - depending on my opponent and the latest up
to-date theoretical status of each move.
Let us now actually select a broad opening repertoire, one
encompassing both open and closed systems. Assume that you are White,
don't mind some opening study, like clear strategic positions and feel
How to S elect Your Opening Repertoire 27
much more comfortable with the queens off the board. A suggested list is
the following one, which I have called "Opening Repertoire for the
Sensible Strategic Player". A comprehensive discussion of these
variations and the endgames that result from them form the core of my
book From the Opening into the Endgame.
Suggested Opening Repertoire for the Sensible Strategic Player
1 . Ruy Lopez: Exchange Variation

1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 i.b5 a6 4 i.xc6 dxc6 5 0-0! f6 6 d4 exd4
7 lbxd4 c5 8 lbb3 1Vxd1 9 li[xd1
2. Sicilian Defence: Dragon Variation

1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 ll:lf6 5 lbc3 g6 6 .ie3 .ig7
7 f3 lbc6 8 '@d2 0-0 9 g4 lbxd4 10 .ixd4 .ie6 1 1 0-0-0 't!Va5 12 'ittb 1
l:[fc8 13 a3 l:[ab8 14 g5! lbh5 15 ll:ld5! 't!Vxd2 16 nxd2
3. Sicilian Defence: Accelerated Dragon

1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ll:lxd4 g6 5 c4 ll:lf6 6 lbc3 ll:lxd4
7 "@xd4 d6 8 .ig5! .ig7 9 f3! 0-0 10 '@d2 .ie6 11 net 'ifa5 12 b3
li[fc8 13 i.e2 a6 14 lba4! 1!Vxd2+ 15 'ittxd2
4. French Defence: Tarrasch Variation

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 lbd2 c5 4 exd5 exd5 5 i.b5+ i.d7 6 't!Ve2+
'@e7 7 i.xd7+ lbxd7 8 dxc5
5. Pirc Defence: Normal Variation

1 e4 d6 2 d4 lLlf6 3 lbc3 g6 4 lbf3 i.g7 5 .ie2 0-0 6 0-0 .tg4
7 .ie3 lbc6 8 '@d2 e5 9 dxe5 ! dxe5 10 l:[adl
6. Modern Defence: Averbakh Variation

1 e4 g6 2 d4 .ig7 3 c4 d6 4 lbc3 e5 5 dxe5! dxe5 6 '@xd8+
'ittxd8 7 f4!
7. King's Indian Defence: Normal Variation

1 d4 ll:lf6 2 c4 g6 3 lDc3 i.g7 4 e4 d6 5 lbf3 0-0 6 i.e2 e5 7 dxe5!
dxe5 8 '@xd8 nxd8 9 i.g5!
8. Gri.infeld Defence: Modern Exchange Variation

1 d4 lbf6 2 c4 g6 3 lbc3 dS 4 cxd5 lbxd5 5 e4 lbxc3 6 bxc3 c5
7 lbf3 .i_g7 8 .i.e3 followed by 9 net
9. Queen's Indian Defence: Normal Variation

1 d4 lbf6 2 c4 e6 3 lbf3 b6 4 g3 .i.b7 5 .i.g2 .i.e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 lbc3
lbe4 8 lbxe4 .i.xe4 9 ll:\h4 .i.xg2 10 ll:\xg2
1 0. English/Reti Opening: Mutual Double Fianchetto

1 c4 c5 2 lbf3 lbf6 3 g3 b6 4 .i.g2 -'.b7 5 0-0 g6 6 b3 .i.g7 7 .i.b2
0-0 8 ll:\c3 d5 9 lbxd5! lbxd5 10 .i.xg7 Wxg7 11 cxd5 'fi'xd5 12 d4!
cxd4 13 "it'xd4+ ti'xd4 14 lbxd4 .i.xg2 15 Wxg2
1 1 . English Opening: Andersson-Book Line

1 c4 lbf6 2 lbc3 d5 3 cxd5 lbxd5 4 lbf3 g6 5 e4 ll:\xc3 6 dxc3
ti'xd1 + 7 Wxd1

Question 1
What should be the opening repertoire for White of former World
Champions Tigran Petrosian and Mikhail Tal?
Answer
The late GM Petrosian was a consummate manoeuvring strategist.
There is no question in my mind that he should always have opened with
the closed complex (1 d4, 1 c4, 1 lbf3). I am not aware of a single
tournament game where he played 1 e4 after becoming a grandmaster.
GM Tal - as he has become older - has adopted a "play everything"
approach: 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4, 1 lbf3. Yet my strongly felt opinion is that he
should mostly stick to 1 e4 - that is where he truly is world champion
strength. When playing closed systems, he is "only" a very strong
grandmaster.
Question 2
You are successfully playing the Caro-Kann Defence ( 1 e4 c6 2 ci4 d5).
What is a logical sister opening against 1 d4?
How to S elect Your Opening Repertoire 29
Answer
I suggest playing the Slav Defence ( 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6), because there are
many strategic similarities:
- If White exchanges pawns in the centre, then after . . . cxd5 Black's
central pawn formation is the same in both defences.
- If White does not exchange in the centre, then in the main line
variations, Black will himself have to exchange and play . . . dxc4. This
again will lead to the same central pawn formation for Black as in the
Caro-Kann.
- Because Black's e-pawn is not moved in the early play, Black is able to
develop the QB via its original diagonal.
- In the main line variations Black will have somewhat less central space.
However, his position will be inherently sound and solid. Any
precipitous attacks by White will give Black excellent prospects for
successful counterplay.
Of course, the specific variations of the Caro-Kann and Slav are quite
different. However, Black's central pawn structure is often the same, the
QB is developed similarly, and the overall strategic approach the same.
Those knowing how to handle the Caro-Kann for Black will have an
excellent feel for handling the variations of the Slav Defence.
Question 3
What would be an adjunct variation to 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 lt:Jc3 dxe4 4
lt:Jxe4 f5?
Answer
There are two possibilities: 4 ... ltld7 and 4 ... ltlf6. In either case Black
is playing a variation which in its specifics is completely different from
4 . . . f5 . Yet Black is saving a very considerable amount of learning time
- I estimate about 50% - when compared to learning a new opening. That
is because he/she is already familiar with all the important move 2
variants (2 d3 and 2 ltlc3 d5 3 lt:Jf3) as well as the very important alter
natives for White on move 3: 3 exd5 cxd5 4 c4 or 4 d3 and 3 e5 f5 4 lt:Jc3
followed by the rapid advance of the kingside pawns.
4 Move Orders in the Opening
the Mod ern Ma ster' s Tool
A long time ago the chess player had it both easier and simpler. This
was so because there was only one correct way and this was well known.
All knowledgeable players of 1 00- 1 50 years ago knew that in order to win
you had to attack as soon as possible. Therefore 1 e4 was "obviously" the
only correct move for White and the equally open and developing 1 . . . e5
was the only correct response, with mutual attacks forming as quickly
and directly as p ossible. In the 1920s and the 1930s by far the strongest
move was considered to be 1 d4 and the best reply 1 . . . d5. But now things
are much more difficult: we know that a tremendous number of
openings, their variations and sub-variations are all equally good. It is
absolutely impossible to know and play everything. But how can you
ensure that you reach the opening with its sub-variation that you know
and like best, while preventing your opponent from steering the game
into something that you are u ncomfortable in? The modern master's tool
for this is the sophisticated use of move orders and this new science is the
most important single development in current opening theory. The
establishment of the most exact move order for achieving your desired
variation is an absolute pre-requisite for successful opening play. You
must be able to handle a wide variety of move orders during the first 5-6
moves - otherwise you'll find yourself "tricked'' time and time again.
The champion opening moves for maximum flexibility and
deviousness are 1 c4 and 1 ltlf3 , a fact that is well recognised on the
current chess scene. However, a considerable amount of perceptive
transpositions can also occur from 1 e4 and 1 d4 openings and I shall look
at some of these first.
(The Encyclopedia of Chess Openings series is absolutely outstanding
for the wealth of valuable material that it presents. Yet there is a practical
problem in applying its variations to actual play: only one move order is
given to reach each variation. But what if the opponent doesn't
cooperate?)
30
Move Orders in the Opening - the Modern Master's Tool 31
1 e4
First of all, I want to show what I consider grotesque examples of how
easily Black can wind up in I e4 openings unless he is careful from the
very first move onwards. Thus, if Black responds to 1 f4 with From's
Countergambit (1 . . . e5), White by playing 2 e4 transposes into the King's
Gambit; if Black plays the immediate 1 ... c5 against White's 1 lt::l f3, he
risks a standard Sicilian after 2 e4; after 1 c4, B lack players aiming for
a Slav Defence with 1 . .. c6 (2 d4 d5) can be sabotaged with 2 e4, bringing
about a Caro-Kann, with the most likely variation being the Panov Attack
(2 . d5 3 exd5 cxd5 4 d4). Of course, objectively speaking there is nothing
..
wrong with any of these openings for Black - but he had better be ready
to face them!
Most of the time your emphasis should be on ensuring that you achieve
the variation/sub-variation desired. Assume that you like to defend the
Hanham Variation of Philidor's Defence (1 e4 e5 2 li::l f3 d6 3 d4 li::ld7).
Unfortu nately modern theory has demonstrated that after 4 c4! Black
has no fully satisfactory continuation, with the lesser evil being the
clearly inferior endgame after 4 ... c6 5 0-0 e7 6 dxe5! dxe5 (6 . . . lLlxe5? 7
lLlxe5 dxe5 8 \i'h5!) 7 lLlg5! xg5 8 WitS g6 9 \i'xg5 !Vxg5 t O xg5.
Therefore Black must first play 3 . . . lLlf6 (and know how to handle 4 dxe5
lLlxe4 5 !Vd5) and only after 4 lLlc3, 4 ... lLlbd7. Then Black reaches the
satisfactory main lines of the Hanham.
Grandmaster Bent Larsen likes the Vienna variation resulting after
1 e4 e5 2 lLlc3 lLlf6 3 c4 lLlc6 4 d3. Yet there is a big practical problem on
the way to reaching it: Black can play the sharp 3 . lLlxe4! 4 'Wh5 lLld6 5
. .
b3 lLlc6, forcing very sharp and generally unclear complications onto

White after 6 lLlb5 g6 7 "t!f3 f5 8 't!fd5 We7 9 lLlxc7+ 8 10 lLlxa8 b6.
This is absolutely contrary to the sophisticated strategical game that

Larsen is looking forward to in this variation. Therefore he starts off as
with the Bishop's Opening - 2 .tc4 - and after 2 ... lLJf6 3 d3 lL!c6
transposes into what he wants with 4 lL!c3.
The main lines in the Sicilian start with 1 e4 cS 2 lL!f3 followed by 3 d4.
Yet often, particularly after 2 . . . d6, White first plays 3 lL!c3. If Black is
planning the Dragon then 3 . . . g6 is without fault, or if he plans systems
with ... d6/ lbc6 then 3 ... lbc6 is foolproof. But what should he play now
if he wants to reach the Najdorf? If now 3 ... lL!f6, White can change the
complexion of the game with 4 eS; if 3 ... a6, White can transpose into a
Closed Sicilian with 4 g3 - a system used by GM Biyiasas, in which White
tries to show that 3 . . . a6 amounts to a lost tempo. Objectively speaking,
Black is OK in either of these cases, yet the character of the play is vastly
different from the anticipated Najdorf.
Generally the immediate 2 lL!c3 in the Sicilian is the initiation of the
Closed System (3 g3), with the purpose of White's second move being to
prevent the immediate liberation of Black's position via an early ... d5.
However, 2 lL!c3 can also be used for transpositional purposes. As
already mentioned earlier, White can follow up with 3 lbf3. Some players
even choose the eccentric looking 3 lL!ge2 - particularly if Black has
played 2 . . d6. White's purpose usually is just to get Black thinking, after
.
which White simply transposes into main lines with 4 d4. H owever,
White can also continue with the immediate fianchetto 4 g3, after which
the game can lead to either open or closed play - depending on whether
White can/wants to play d4.
Even though 2 lL!c3 serves a valid purpose in the Closed Variation, it
also has a clear demerit: the d4 square goes over to Black. Therefore some
White players try to do without it and play the immediate 2 g3. If Black
continues routinely (e.g. 2 ... g6 3 .i.g2 .i.g7 4 lL!e2 lL!c6), White can
achieve his immediate central and development goals with S c3!. Not that
this guarantees White the advantage, but Black would need to continue
very perceptively, as otherwise he can easily wind up in a situation with
no prospects. I think that Black should immediately take the bull by the
horns (after 2 g3) and play the thematic 2 ... dS!. The unbalanced position
that results after 3 exdS 't!fxdS 4 lL!f3 .i.g4! S .i.g2 'ie6+ 6 cMt lL!c6 is fully
satisfactory for Black.
Do remember that there is always a good reason for any move order
that GMs choose! Let us consider the following two move orders in the
Normal Variation of the Pirc Defence (1 e4 d6 2 d4 lL!f6 3 lbc3 g6 4 lbf3
Move O rders in the Opening - the Modem Master's Tool 33
.tg7): ( I ) 5 .te2 0-0 6 h3 and (2) 5 h3. Both of these move orders appear in
games of "less accomplished players", yet GMs only use the second (5 h3)
method. The point is that after 5 h3 0-0 6 .te3! c6 7 a4 .!t:Jbd7 8 aS e5?! 9
dxe5 dxe5 10 .tc4!
White has saved a whole tempo compared to the variations where he

first plays i.e2 and then .tc4. By comparison, 6 h3 after 5 .te2 has no
perceptive point at all - it is just "an h3 move".
1 d4
If White is the direct, main line type - opening with I d4 followed by
2 c4 - then the mutual opportunities for move transpositions are slight.
Yet they do exist. A simple example is from Spassky-Fischer, 3rd match
game 1 972 : 1 d4 .!Df6 2 c4 e6 3 .!Df3 (With a two-point lead, Spassky avoids
the sharper 3 lbc3 of Game I and is content to play against the Queen's
Indian after 3 . . . b6 or the QGD after 3 . . . d5 . But . . . ) 3
... c5!? and
Spassky - no doubt surprised - accepted the challenge to enter the Benoni
with 4 d5. However, Fischer was excellently prepared for this and won in
convincing style on move 4 1 .
The opportunities for transposition increase significantly when White
eschews 2 c4. Let's assume that after 1 ... lt:Jf6 he plays the standard
enough 2 lt:Jf3. H ow should Black respond? Of course, he can play 2 . . . d5,
but what if he wants something which unbalances the game more yet
without the fianchetto of his KB? So 2 .. e6 is obvious enough. Black
looks forward to the Queen's Indian after 3 c4 b6 and in particular the
presently popular 4 g3 .ta6 variation. But White plays the modest
J4 How to Be a Complete Tournament Player
looking 3 g3. Without a c4 for White, the . . . i.a6 idea for Black is
pointless, so that Black instead of the Queen's Indian Defence, now
chooses to transpose into the Catalan with 3 ... d5. Against the standard
Catalan ( I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 d5 4 i.g2 or 4 lLlf3) Black likes the sharp 4
. . . dxc4, a variation which was Anatoly Karpov's favourite in the early
1970s. Black now anticipates 4 c4 dxc4, yet White fails to oblige and
continues 4 i.g2, leaving Black nothing better than 4 ... i.e7 5 0-0 0-0 and
only now does White play 6 c4. Black's choices in the Catalan have been
severely reduced and are only 6 . .. lLlbd7, keeping the position closed, or 6
... dxc4. Though each of these moves is playable, the variations are
distinctly different from those of 4 . . . dxc4 and unless Black knows them
well, he will experience real difficulties. Yugoslav GM Sahovic used this
move order against me at Nis 1 977 and left me very unhappy since I was
prevented from sharpening the opening play under my terms. To do so
what should Black play after 2 lt:lf3 e6 3 g3? There .is no simple answer,
but one possibility worth serious consideration is the unbalancing 3 ..
b5!?, something tried, for example, by Bronstein and Miles.

Let's now assume that Black always plays the King's Indian. White
opens with 1 d4 and after 1 ... lLlf6 Black is happy. Yet White now plays 2
g3. Can Black obtain the KID after this? Let's see: 2 .. g6 3 i.g2 i.g7
(All's well), but now comes 4 e4! d6 5 lt:lc3! 0-0 6 lt:lge2 and White has
transposed into a currently well-thought-of variation against the Pirc. Of
course, Black can get a Grtinfeld with 3 . . . d5 or can aim for Benoni
positions with 2 . . . c5 or Catalan with 2 . . . d5 - but he is prevented from
the King's Indian Defence.
What I particularly want to emphasise in connection with the last two
examples is the danger of being just a single defence or single variation
player. If a perceptive White knows this, by using the proper move order
he can prevent you from achieving your goal. In such cases, you must be
able to have a satisfactory variation to "fall back" on.
In the previous examples, the opportunity for move transpositions
came quite early. Yet the thinking player will always be on the look-out
for a possible favourable moment - no matter how late in the opening this
could be. A marvellous example of how a top GM does this is shown from
the game J.Hjartarson-R.Byrne, Reykjavik 1 982. The game opened with a
variation of the Nimzo-lndian which has long been part of GM Byrne's
repertoire: 1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:lc3 i.b4 4 e3 0-0 5 i.d3 c5 6 lt:lf3 d5 7 0-0
lLlc6 8 a3 i.xc3 9 bxc3 't!fc7 10 cxd5 exd5 1 1 lLlh4 lt:le7 12 g3.
The usual/normal move - as given in opening books - is the immediate

12 . . . c4. But n ote that this "forces" White to play his bishop to the correct
diagonal/square: .ic2 or .ib l . Therefore Byrne first played 12 ... .ih3!
13 lii:e 1 and only then 13 ... c4. This gave White a choice. He thought a
while and instead of the correct 14 .ic2 ;!;; , selected the inferior 14 .iO?.
Black thus was able to exchange off his strategically inferior bishop with
14 ... .txn 15 :ii xfi and already had the edge after 15 ... lLle4 16 .ib2 r5 +
and won in 55 moves.
1 c4
True or false: " 1 c4 is the English Opening"? Well, the correct answer is
both. About half the games are truly English and the other half transpose,
usually of course into 1 d4 openings. The English ( 1 c4) is used almost
routinely by some GMs as a method of getting their variations of Queen's
Pawn games, while at the same time preventing their opponents from
achieving theirs. If Black responds with 1 .. . e5 , then the chances are
exceedingly high that the result will be the most thematic main lines of the
English. But any other response leaves lots of opportunities for
transposition and I shall now discuss a cross-section of the important
possibilities.
If Black responds with 1 ... c5, he must watch out that he doesn't get
involuntarily transposed into the Maroczy Bind variation against the
Sicilian Defence's Accelerated Dragon: 2 lLlf3 g6 3 e4! lLlc6 4 d4! cxd4 5
lLlxd4 (the "normal" move order here being 1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
lt:lxd4 g6 5 c4). Many famous strategists, including GMs Portisch and
Smejkal, love this position for White, but of course would never "risk"
playing 1 e4 to try to achieve this. So they play 1 c4 and have their eyes
open for the above transposition. If Black doesn't want to allow this, he
must hold off playing 1 . . . c5 and first play 1 ... g6 and 2
.. .ig7. But of
course White can then easily ensure himself a Queen's Pawn opening by
playing d4 on either the second or third move.
Of course, most of the transpositions are much less drastic and consist
of reaching a desired Queen's Pawn position. Many GMs (including me)
like the so-called Main Line position in the Catalan which results after 1
d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 d5 4 .ig2 .ie7 5 lLlf3 0-0 6 0-0. H owever, in this normal
move order Black has the option of playing 4 ... dxc4, a variation - which
as I pointed out earlier - was Karpov's preferred method against the
Catalan in the early 1970s. It is my opinion that the early . . . dxc4 capture
gives Black rather comfortable play if White on his part has played an
early d4. Therefore I delay d4 as follows: 1 c4 lLlf6 2 lLlf3 e6 3 g3 d5 4
.ig2 .ie7 5 0-0 0-0 and only now do I play 6 d4 reaching the desired
-
position, but without having to "worry" about an early . . . dxc4.

Many players as White like to play against the Tarrasch Defence to the
Queen's Gambit Declined by fianchettoing the king's bishop: 1 d4 d5 2 c4
e6 3 lL!c3 c5 4 cxd5 exd5 5 lLlf3 lLlc6 6 g3. I find this position pleasant to
play for White, but do not want to "risk" 1 d4 because I have little interest
in coping with the, to me, static-looking variations of the Orthodox
defences to the Queen's Gambit Declined. The typical solution: start off
with 1 c4 and hope to transpose! This is how White reached the desired
position in Mednis-Padevsky, Kragujevac 1977: 1 c4 c5 2 lL!f3 lL!f6 3 lL!c3
e6 4 g3 d5 5 cxd5 exd5 6 d4 lL!c6 7 .ig2 .ie7 8 0-0 0-0 9 .ig5 -
- and White, happy to get what h e wanted, went o n t o win in good style
in 25 moves.
Very often 1 c4 is used to prevent a whole slew of Queen's Pawn
defences. Do you like to play the Nimzo-Indian/Queen's Indian
complex? You'll never have a chance against East German GM
Wolfgang Uhlmann! Uhlmann's opening move order invariably is 1 c4
ltJf6 2 ltJc3 e6 3 ltJf3. Now 3 ... b6 allows 4 e4!, whereas 3 ... i.b4 is
nowhere as annoying as the Nimzo-Indian since there is no pin and no d
pawn to attack and White obtains a nice, risk-free position after 4 @c2.
Therefore, Black's most normal reaction in the centre is 3 . . . d5, which
leads after White's 4 d4 to the Queen's Gambit Declined. There is
absolutely no disadvantage to Uhlmann's way of reaching the Queen's
Gambit Declined, apart from the very small factor that with the early
development of ltJf3, the Exchange Variation (cxd5) is now rather
harmless.
1 c4 is also a favourite tool of those who dread having to play against
the Griinfeld Defence ( 1 d4 ltJf6 2 c4 g6 3 ltJc3 d5). After 1 ... ltJf6 2 ltJc3
d5 3 cxd5 ltJxd5 White has two logical choices: ( 1 ) A pure English with 4
g3 g6 5 .ig2, or (2) Aiming for a slightly favourable endgame with 4 ltJf3
g6 5 e4! lbxc3 6 dxc3!. Black players who enjoy the typical middlegame
complications of the Griinfeld will usually feel very uncomfortable in this
endgame.
If Black wants to respond with the most flexible 1 ... g6, White can stop
all "Griinfeld dreams" with 2 e4!. Usually this leads to King's I ndians
after an early d4. But do note that 2 ... c5 3 ltJf3, followed by 4 d4 will
again transpose to the Accelerated Dragon. The only slight risk in
playing 2 e4 is that White must have sufficient theoretical knowledge to
handle the unusual variations which result after Black's possible 2 ... e5!?.
As an example of the dangers of lack of knowledge, I can cite the game
Holmov-Sax, Budapest 1976. The Soviet GM wanted to prevent Sax's
Griinfeld by playing 2 e4, but, as he admitted after the game, he was not
at all familiar with 2 . . . e5!? and went down to a resounding defeat in less
than 20 moves!
1 ltjf3
An absolutely perfect and flexible opening move is 1 lL!f3, which can
very easily lead to transpositions into the other main openings ( 1 e4, 1 d4,
1 c4). As a matter of fact, in a majority of cases the significance of 1 ltJf3
simply disappears into other openings.
There are, however, three main independent points behind 1 lLlf3.
Firstly, Black is prevented from employing the "pure English", l c4 e5.

Some masters look upon this as a Sicilian Reversed and do not want to
play a Sicilian Defence even with an extra move. Thus they defer playing
c4 until move 2. Secondly, White can simply choose the King's Indian
Reversed (1 lbf3, 2 g3, 3 .tg2 , 4 0-0, 5 d3), or, much less frequently, a QB
fianchetto offshoot of this a la Nimzowitsch, starting with 2 b3. And
thirdly White can aim for the Reti Opening with 1 lbf3 d5 2 c4. Again,
however, even this sequence is used most of the time to transpose into a
Queen's Pawn (in particular a Queen's Gambit) variation, without
however "risking" a Griinfeld or other .. undesirable" responses to l d4.
A thematic transpositional course developed in H.Oiafsson-Mednis,
Reykjavik 1 982: 1 lbf3 lbf6 2 c4 c6 3 d4 d5 4 lbc3 dxc4 5 a4 .tf5 - and we
have the main line in the Slav Defence!
My favourite example of skulduggery, used to arrive at this main line
Slav position, was pulled off by GM Robert Hiibner against Viktor
Korchnoi at the Chicago 1982 International. Korchnoi was White and
opened with 1 lbf3. After 1 .. d5, White transposes into a likely Queen's
.
Gambit opening with 2 d4 a nd it did become such after 2 . . lbf6 3 c4.

.
Here Hiibner seemed to enter the Queen's Gambit Accepted by playing 3

... dxc4. K orchnoi quickly responded with 4 lbc3 -
- looking forward to the sharp gambit line 4 . . . a6 5 e4 b5 6 e5 lbdS 7 a4,

something that he had prepared. But Hiibner crossed him up with 4 ...
c6!, transposing into the Slav Defence. After 5 a4 .tf5 the main line of the
Slav ensued, Korchnoi was uncomfortable in it and Hiibner scored an
impressive 4 1 move win. The sophisticated point of H iibner's move order
is that he knew that Korchnoi doesn't like and doesn't allow the main line
in the Slav. I nstead after 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lbf3 lbf6, he plays 4 e3, giving
Black the choice between staying in the Slav with 4 ... i.f5, playing 4 ...
i.g4, or heading for the Meran with 4 e6.
..
1 lbf3 is also a very effective tool in reaching a delayed Catalan,

thereby preventing Black from employing the defences with an early
(meaning on move 4) . . . dxc4. The Yugoslav GM Vukic has been very
successful with this approach against those who like a classic defence (as
used here meaning one based on . . . d5 and . . . e6). This is how he opens: 1
lbf3 lbf6 2 g3 d5 3 i.g2 e6 4 0-0 i.e7 and only now 5 c4!. Then after 5 .. .
0-0 6 d4 we have the Main Line in the Catalan. Moreover, after 5 .. .

dxc4?!, White recovers the pawn very comfortably with 6 lba3!, as
demonstrated by the game Vukic-Mednis, Manhattan Internationa/ 1976.
What this means to those who don't like the inherent passivity of the
main line Catalan for Black (and this includes me) is that they need a
different set-up to cope with Vukic's move order. As one example, I have
added the following system to my opening repertoire: 1 lbf3 lbf6 2 g3 d5 3
i.g2 c6 4 0-0 i.g4, followed by e6 and . lbbd7 (or sometimes the
... . .
reverse order, depending on White's play). Compared to the Catalan,

Black's queen's bishop is now developed much more actively.
I will end my discussion of closed openings with the following
guidelines. If Black wants to achieve the most flexible King's Indian type
of positions against closed openings, these are the first moves he should
play:
Against 1 d4: 1 ... lbf6 (prevents 2 e4)
1 c4: 1 ... g6
1 lbf3: 1 ... lbf6 ( If 1 . g6, 2 e4)
. .
1 g3: 1 ... g6
My final subject matter will be at the same time "light", yet serious. As
Black, what should you play after 1 lbc3? Well, it depends on your normal
opening repertoire . If you play the Sicilian , then 1 ... c5 is fine; ifthe Caro
Kann, then 1 ... d5 2 e4 c6 is in order; if you play Philidor's Defence
against 1 e4, then here 1 ... e5 is foolproof. B ut don't play the "logical" 1
... lbf6, unless you are looking for the Pirc Defence or 1 e4 e5 positions or
Alekhine's Defence. The point is that after 2 e4, Black's only reliable
responses are 2 ... e5, 2 ... d6 3 d4 g6 (Pirc) and 2 ... d5 (Alekhine's). Don't
assume that White plays 1 lbc3 because he wants some offbeat variation.
Most likely, he wants to trick you into abandoning your normal opening
repertoire.
You have now received a considerable exposure to the use of move
orders both to help you and bother your opponent. By employing these
thoughtfully and creatively you will be forging a very valuable modern
master's tool.

Question 1
As Black you like to play the Najdorf Variation in the Sicilian: 1 e4 c5 2
lLlf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 a6. Yet you are always unhappy
when, instead of 4 lLlxd4, White plays 4 'ti'xd4. Is there a viable solution?
Answer
Yes, perhaps even two solutions. The first is, in a sense, obvious: do a
lot more work learning the potential responses to 4 'ti'xd4 ( 4 ... lLlc6, 4 ...
a6, 4 ... .id7) and perhaps you'll become satisfied with the position(s) you
get after 4 !Vxd4. If you have a better understanding and learn a lot more
specifics about a variation, your liking for it usually increases
significantly because your results are better.
H owever, if this approach does not appeal to you, then the solution is
through the "magic" of move orders. After 3 d4, play first 3 ... lLlf6 - as
the Romanian grandmasters have been doing. If White responds with the
normal 4 lLlc3, then 4 ... cxd4 5 lLlxd4 a6 transposes into the Najdorf.
Instead of 5 lLlxd4, 5 'it'xd4 is less "threatening" than the same capture on
move 4, because after 5 .id7 and 6 ... lLlc6 White's Queen will be forced
..
to give up her central location. Note that after 4 'it'xd4 .id7 White can
strengthen the centre by 5 c4 and after 4 a6, White has both 5 c4 and 5
..
.ie3, the latter to try to take advantage of the weakness on b6.

Of course, 3 . . . lLlf6 does not get "something for nothing" and Black
does have to learn how to handle 4 dxc5 and 4 .ib5+. However, most
international players feel that these variations are less "annoying" for
Black than 4 "@xd4.
Question2
You are planning to play the Slav Defence against I d4. yet your
opponent opens with 1 c4. Is 1 lLlf6 a safe response?
...
Answer
No. After 2 liJc3 c6 3 e4! Black lacks a fully satisfactory plan, since 3 ...
d5 4 e5! gives White a greater opening advantage than usual.
If Black is aiming for the Slav, the only correct reply to 1 c4 is 1 .. c6.
.
Then 2 liJc3 d5! leaves White with nothing better than an early d4.
Moreover, after 2 e4 d5! , the best that White has is the transposition into
Caro-Kann positions by either 3 exd5 cxd5 4 cxd5 or 4 d4. Theoretically
these positions are satisfactory for Black. Yet note that "Slav players"
must learn these variations for Black, as otherwise they will be tricked
time and time again into having to play something which they are
unprepared for.
Question 3
You play the French Defence against 1 e4 and you like to play against
1 d4 when White uses irregular/unusual second or third moves. Your
opponent opens with 1 liJc3. How should you respond?
Answer
The correct move is 1 d5. Then after 2 d4 the game has transposed
...
into a Queen's Pawn opening where White has immobilised his c-pawn
early on. As long as Black is theoretically prepared for it, then he has
"nothing to fear".
If White plays 2 e4, then after 2 e6 Black has transposed into the
...
French. White can then choose a main line French with the usual 3 d4 or
play a secondary line with 3 liJf3. I n either case the French player has
transposed into his favourite " French" .
5 How To Prepare For A Tournament
Game
You should prepare for each game that you play. All top masters d o so.
How much time you can spend on this depends on the circumstances, of
course. A match gives each player lots of time. In a swiss Open you often
find out your opponent and colour just an hour or two before the start.
In a round robin tournament you will know the pairings as soon as the
drawing for num bers is made. This will mean that for your pairings in
later rounds you will have considerable time to prepare; less so for earlier
rounds.
No matter. You should make it an invariable policy that you will
prepare for each game as well as is possible in your particular
circumstances. Playing a tournament game is a most demanding and
difficult activity. To ensure maximum success, you have to start your
work already before the game.
You will gain the following advantages if you prepare for each game:
( 1 ) You will start the game with increased confidence.
(2) You will start the game with increased knowledge.
(3) If the opponent plays one of the openings that you have prepared
for, you will be able to play this part of the game quickly and thus
will save a considerable amount of time on the clock. This extra
time will then be available for later crucial middlegame play. It is of
utmost importance to play the opening not only well but also
relatively quickly. Bobby Fischer started off each game with a
great advantage: after the opening he had used less time than his
opponent and thus had more time available later on. The major
reason why he never had serious time pressure problems was that
his rapid opening play simply left sufficient time for the
middlegame.
(4) Because of the previous three items, the odds in your favour of
winning the game have now been considerably increased.
42
How to Prepare for a Tournament Game 43
Please do not expect that your opponent will always fall in with your
plans. After all, his goal is just the opposite: always to try to cross you up.
As far as immediate specific use is concerned, only in about 50% of my
games has preparation been of value. Though at first blush this may seem
disappointing, in point of fact it is perfectly alright. All of us need a
realistic outlook for our chess life as well as the ability to look ahead.
Viewed from such a perspective we can be happy that:
( 1 ) Despite our inability to ever read the opponent's mind, in half the
games we were still able to start off with significant advantages.
(2) We have gained chess knowledge/wisdom which can prove useful
at any time.
The following example well illustrates this last point. In the Nis 1 977
International Tournament I was due to be Black against the Romanian
GM Victor Ciocaltea. I knew that he opened with 1 e4 and I had decided
to play the Sicilian against him. Based on some previous research of his
games I determined that I must be ready to cope with the following
variation: 1 e4 cS 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 lbf6 S lbc3 d6 6 .i.c4 e6 7
.i.b3 .i.e7 8 .i.e3 0-0 9 0-0 a6 1 0 f4 lbxd4 1 1 .i.xd4 bS 1 2 eS dxeS 13 fxeS
lbd7 14 lbe4 .i.b7 15 lbd6 .i.xd6 16 exd6 'irgS 17 lifl.
The theoretical moves here were 1 7 . . .i.d5, 17 e5 and 1 7 . a5. But

. . . . . .
when playing over the variations, I decided that I did not like any of
them. Therefore, I started to look for alternatives and it was not long
before the logical 17 ... llad8 caught my eye. After some research I
decided that it was fine and that I would play it.
Well, I didn't get my chance against Ciocaltea because he varied

already on move 3 with 3 i.b5. However, I knew those positions quite
well for Black and had no difficulty in getting a good game.
Yet the chance did come - and quite unexpectedly - about a month
later at the New York (GHI) International l977. I was due to play Black
against the young Icelandic IM (now GM) Helgi Olafsson. Just a year
earlier - at the Manhattan Chess Club lnternational l 976 - he had played
1 d4 and crushed my King's Indian. So this time I very carefully prepared
a defence against 1 d4. But he crossed me up completely by opening with
l e4!. And soon what did we arrive at but what I had prepared for
Ciocaltea! I was ready with my innovation 1 7 . . . llad8! and after the
further moves 18 '@dl! ( 1 8 1We2?! i.d5 !) 18 xdl 19 llxdl l0f6! I
...
soon equalised and the game was drawn on move 24. To add a technical
footnote: my "invention" (and the whole game) is part of the main line in
this important variation and appears in the "ultimate" note in the
Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, Volume 2 (Revised), B 88, column 1 5,
note 75.
Yes, and quite obviously so, the preparation against Ciocaltea was not
in vain!
We are now ready for a step-by-step look at how to prepare for a
tournament game.
S tep 1: Decide on a Realistic Objective for the Game

Obviously enough no one wants to lose the game. However, a number
of other rational goals are perfectly possible. If you can get a clear idea of
your goal before you commence play, this will help both in preparing for
the game and playing it. The following is a list of possibilities:
(a) Only a win will do
The most common example is the last round of a major money swiss
system tournament, where the winner of the game gets thousands, while a
draw is worth peanuts. But please remember that this is your
interpretation of the need for a win. Your opponent - for his own
reasons, good or bad - may be satisfied to draw. Therefore the pressure is
squarely on you to get the required win.
A similar situation can exist in the last round of any tournament, where
, -> only a win will give the necessary result - be it 1st prize, qualification for
something, a prize etc.
However, this kind of an "only a win will do" situation is both very
demanding and extreme. lt will put you under tremendous pressure. Only
put yourself under such pressure if it is truly necessary!
The major effect of this situation on your preparation is with Black.
You must select a variation which is sufficiently unbalanced to provide
winning chances. In particular, you must avoid slightly inferior
endgames. If you are White, the task of preparation is easier. Any
variation giving a slight advantage (as long as it is meaningful) is fine, as
are complicated variations offering equal chances.
(b) A win is very important, but not critical
The most common example of this is playing a weaker opponent in a
round robin tournament. For a good result in such a tournament, you
must defeat the weaker participant(s). However, such players do know
how to play, so do not take stupid risks. I mean, there is no point in
committing suicide! The critical part here for preparation is not to allow
with Black a variation where White can simplify the position so that dead
eye equality results. Equally unpalatable is the slightly inferior
endgame which forces you to aim for an equality that will again leave no
play in the position.
It should be added that just as you don't want to look for dead-eye
equality variations in your preparation, so you also want to avoid them
once the game is played. The following example is instructive in this
regard. In Round 7 of the Lugano I nternational 1985 I was Black against
the strong Swiss master Bruno Schwagli. I had just lost in Round 6 and
thus only had a 4-2 score. A win was most important, though not
absolutely critical since two more rounds remained after this one. I had
decided to play the Pirc Defence against 1 e4 and had generally prepared
the sharpest variations possible for Black. However, after l e4 d6 2 d4
lbf6 my opponent quickly played the quiet 3 lDd2. And after the normal 3
.
... g6 4 lbgf3 i.g7 5 .i.c4 0-0, he just as quickly played 6 0-0. B lack can, of
course, now play the standard exchanging method 6 ... lbxe4 7 lbxe4 d5
and after 8 .i.d3 dxe4 9 .i.xe4 c5 he is pretty sure of full equality. But how
can he win the rather dynamically barren position that results?
Here I s hould add the observation that the strong masters of Europe
have developed very solid techniques for drawing with the White pieces
against GMs. It has become very very difficult to defeat these masters
with Black. Many of the European GMs simply have "given up" trying to
win with Black against such masters and they readily acquiesce to a draw.
I was quite concerned that if I play the "normal" 6 lbxe4, my opponent
. . .
will know quite well how to hold the resulting position for the draw.
Therefore I decided to explore the position after 6 0-0 to see if there is

not a dynamically unbalancing way of handling it. After 1 5 minutes of
thought I came up with : 6 . . . ll'lfd7!, which appears to be both a
theoretical novelty and in no way chessically inferior to 6 . . ll'lxe4. .
Immediately after 6 ...ll'lfd7 my opponent started to use a considerable

amount of time, thus showing that my move was new to him. After the
following course of play - 7 c3 c5 8 llel ll'lc6 9 dxc5 ll'lxc5 10 ll'lb3 ll'la4! 1 1
.tb5 ll'lb6 12 .te3 't!Vc7 1 3 't!Vd2 .tg4
- a nice, complicated, probably fully equal position had arisen, where

Black's practical winning chances are bright. Eventually I won an
unbalanced, complicated endgame.
(c) A win is nice to have, yet a draw is perfectly satisfactory
This is the most common situation. It occurs when playing your peers
in a round robin or in the early to middle rou nds in a swiss. Prepare and
play normally - let the position be the boss in your decision making.
(d) A draw is 100% satisfactory
The above is the most lovely situation that you can have. You have
played so well that only a draw is required to clinch, for example, 1 st
prize, match victory, qualification etc. Wonderful!
Unfortunately there is no known method to ensure this . The only top
player who has had an uncanny ability to get the required draws is
Sammy Reshevsky. And even he hasn't been perfect. After losing with
White against GM Kavalek in the 1 972 US Championship he explained
the result as follows: "I knew I should never have played for a draw. It is
incorrect strategy to play for a draw."

Nevertheless, you do want to do things the right way so that your
chances for the desired draw increase. The most important thing is not to
"play for the draw" since this usually means taking the "safest" way, even
when this is not the best. Your emphasis should be on solidity and
soundness, both in preparation and play. When preparing, select sound,
slightly superior variations for White - and if you can enter a slightly
superior endgame, so much the better. With Black, a sound, slightly
inferior, variation is fine and if it leads to a slightly inferior ending, this is
fine too. Remember that your total objective is to reach full equality and
a draw.
The above can be well illustrated by the following example. In the Los
Angeles 1 974 I nternational Tournament I had an excellent start and two
rounds from the end needed only one draw to clinch my third IM norm
and with it the IM title. In the last round I was due to be Black against
GM Gligoric so that the last round was a very "iffy" situation. Therefore
the immediate objective was to draw with White against GM (then I M
to-be) James Tarjan. GM Tarjan at that time was playing exclusively
the Sicilian against 1 e4, and in particular the Dragon and Accelerated
Dragon Variations. Against the Dragon move order (1 e4 c5 2 lL!f3 d6) I
was intending to play 3 .ib5+ and against the Accelerated Dragon (1 e4
cS 2 lL!f3 lL!c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lL!xd4 g6) the Maroczy Bind, S c4, followed by a
queen exchange sequence. This in fact occurred: 5 ..lL!f6 6 lL!c3 d6 7 f3
lL!xd4 8 1!Vxd4 .ig7 9 .ie3 0-0 10 'fi'd2 .ie6 1 1 litcl WaS 12 b3 litfc8 13 .ie2
a6 14 lL!d5 Wxd2+ 1 5 ad2 lL!xdS 16 cxdS .id7 1 7 :S.xc8+ llxc8 18 litc1
Draw.
(Since I lost in the last round to Gligoric, this draw was the key to the
IM title.)
There is one more important point to be made with regard to the above
example. In crucial games always play the move/opening/variation you
know best. Already in 1 974 I was playing both 1 e4 and 1 c4 for White. By
any objective standard 1 c4 is the safer of the two moves. But since my feel
for and experience with 1 e4 was so much greater, this was the only move I
considered when needing "just a draw" .
And now a word about how to play the game to achieve the desired
draw. To the best of your ability, do play the best move. But let solidity be
your method throughout. When there is a choice between two equally
"good" moves, select the one which is sounder, simpler and can lead to
exchanges.
A special case is the situation where a draw is equally beneficial for
both players. There should be no practical problem in achieving it: an
early draw offer does the trick . Whether to already offer the draw before
the game is a moral/ethical question and I cannot really offer advice on
it.
A comment also is in order regarding how the top players in general,
and those from Eastern Europe in particular, look at the "colour
question". For team events in particular, but also usually for
tournaments, the code is invariable: you should try to win with White,
whereas with Black a draw is 100% satisfactory. Of course, this applies
only for games between equals.
Step 2: Find Out as Much as Possible about Your Opponent

Under this heading there are two areas to research:
(1) Your opponent as a chess player
His rating, age, how long he has been playing chess, health, character,
psychological make-up, chess progress, playing style, chess strengths
and weaknesses.
(2) Your opponent's opening repertoire in as much detail as possible
It is logical to assume that if you know everything about your
opponent's opening repertoire then your preparation will be fruitful, i.e.
the variation that you prepare for will actually be played. Chances are
good that the observant club member will know the opening repertoire of
other active club players. Of course, all players in major international
tournaments leave a record of their play which appears in the official

tournament bulletins. The practical problem is simply how to get hold of
this information. For an American, this has been quite a problem . GM
Kavalek in preparing for the 1 978 US Championship (and Zonal) and the
1979 Interzonal purchased a complete set of tournament games played
over the previous three years by his prospective opponents. He won the
1978 US Championship in great style and subsequently said that this
information was of major help. Needless to say, players from Eastern
Europe have no problems in getting such information. Their federations
and chess clubs consider it part of their duties to assist their players so
that they are more successful in tournament play. GM Lev Alburt tells
the story that when GM Tarjan played in the Odessa 1 976 International,
the local club provided each Odessa player with a complete print-out
of all of Tarjan's openings - in great detail - going back many years.
For those active in international play the relentless technological
advances have simplified matters. If you have a computer and money,
you can purchase computer disks which contain recent games by GMs,
IMs and other strong active players. By far the best known system is that
of ChessBase.
The most common situation is where you know something about your
opponent's openings but quite obviously not everything. Well, simply
prepare for what you know and don't worry about what you don't know.
There is also the extreme case where you don't know a thing about
what your opponent plays. Should you therefore "take it easy" before
the game and not prepare? ABSOLUTELY NOT! For such cases, I offer
the following intelligent guesses:
a) If the opponent is old, expect the Ruy Lopez, Queen's Gambit or
other classical (conventional) openings.
b) If the opponent is young, expect the Sicilian, Benoni, Griinfeld
or 1 e4 as White .
A personal example is appropriate here. At the Barcelona
International 1980 I was to be White in Round 1 against Felipe Tosan,
the Champion of Catalonia. I knew nothing about him except that he was
23 years old. I had decided to play 1 e4 and felt the odds were he would
play 2 d6 in the Sicilian, as this can lead to both the Najdorf and
. . .
Dragon Variations as well as t he Classical (5 .. lbc6) Variation. But since

.
I didn't have a clue which one he would play, I prepared the following
line: 1 e4 cS 2 lbf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 and now 4 1!Vxd4. Then I reviewed both a) 4
... a6 S e3 lbc6 6 'flb6, and b) 4 ... lbc6 5 bS d7 6 xc6 c6. Here I
j(J How to Be a Complete Tournament Player
decided to play the strategic 7 c4 lLJf6 8 lbc3 g6 9 0-0 i.g7 10 't!rd3 0-0 1 1
.td2!.
In point of fact this variation came about. He was unprepared for it,
used large chunks of time in the opening and I won quite decisively in 26
moves.
Step 3: Decide Before The Game What You Will Play

If you only play a single opening/variation, whether you are White or
Black, then of course there is nothing to decide ! However, most players
do have more than an absolutely minimal opening repertoire and thus
have decisions to make. Make as many decisions as possible before the
game - this will save you valuable time once the game starts! There is
nothing more stupid or less excusable than a player already taking time
on his clock for his very first move!
If you are White, decide :
( 1 ) Whether you will play 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4, 1 liJf3 or whatever.
(2) Which line(s) you will play.
If you are Black, decide:
( 1 ) What opening (and variation within that opening) you will play
against both 1 e4 and 1 d4.
(2) What opening system you will play against 1 c4, 1 lbf3, 1 g3.
These three moves offer very many transpositional possibilities both for
White and Black so that you cannot be sure that you can actually achieve
your desired opening/variation. The best that you can do often is to
select the system: Hedgehog, King's Indian, Griinfeld, Classical ( l . e6 ..
followed by ... d5), queen's bishop fianchetto (aiming for the Queen's
Indian Defence ) etc. The one pure choice that Black has is the various
traditional lines in the English ( I c4) if he responds with 1 . . . e5.
In all of your decision making, follow these two principles:
( I ) Go into as much detail as possible, since this will make your actual
preparation both easier and more efficient.
(2) Base your decisions on the principles discussed for steps I and 2.
When you make your decisions, as a general principle avoid those
variations/openings which as far as you know, your opponent knows well,
likes and is very good at. I n other words, try to avoid playing into your
opponent's strength .
In Barcelona 1 980 my mind was sharp in every way and I won the
tournament. Earlier I gave the example of my successful preparation
against Tosan. Here I would like to briefly describe two examples of
successful decision-making based on the previous principle:
( I ) I was White against the very strong Italian IM Tatai. I didn't play
I e4 against him because over the previous two years he had analysed,
written about and played the Schliemann Defence to the Ruy Lopez (3 .
f5). I played 1 c4 and had a fairly peaceful draw. Later GM Sigurjonsson

did allow 3 . f5 and lost.
. .
(2) Yugoslav GM D. Rajkovic is a fine strategist who likes and handles

well as White the 4 a3 variation against the Queen's Indian. Therefore
against him I played the Slav Defence, where we were on equal terms and
a well-played game ended in a draw on move 4 1 .
I n the area of decision-making before the actual preparation starts, my
experiences with the Yugoslav GM Milan Matulovic provide textbook
examples of what to do and what not to do. The three incidences (in
chronological order) were:
( I ) Kragujavec I 977: I was Black and I knew that against the Classical
Variation in the Sicilian (1 e4 c5 2 f3 c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 xd4 f6 5 c3
d6) he always played the Richter-Rauzer (6 i.gS). So I prepared the less
usual 6 ... .id7. The preparation can be called, in a sense, "partially
successful" . Matulovic was surprised and used up large amounts of time
in the opening. The result: he obtained a large advantage but got into
severe time pressure and allowed me to escape with a draw.
(2) Nis 1 977: I was again Black and since I was not able to "fix" the 6 . . .
.id7 variation used above, I had to try something else. I knew that
J2 How to Be a Complete Tournament Player
against the French he always played the Tarrasch (3 lDd2) and after 3 ...
lDf6 4 e5 lDfd7, the 5 c3 c5 6 d3 set-up. I decided to employ the less
common 6 ... b6 variation . He was not familiar with it and again used lots
of time, but on this occasion without coming up with the strongest
moves. I easily equalised and the game was drawn on move 1 8.
(3) Smederevo 198 1 : I was Black again. I, of course, knew that in the
main Richter-Rauzer lines after 6 ... e6 7 1!.Vd2 a6 8 0-0-0 .i.d7 he always
played 9 f4, which is the most active move. Then after 9 . . . b5 he played 1 0
xf6 (successfully); after 9 . . . e7 10 lDf3 b5 h e played 1 1 xf6 and less
successfully, as shown by his published games in the Informants. In
particular, Matulovic-Deze, Yugoslavia 1 9 79 had gone 1 1 ... gxf6 12 f5
1!.Vb6 13 b1 0-0-0 14 g3 8 15 fxe6 fxe6 16 .i.h3 c8 17 1!,Ve1 1!.Vc5 18
lDe2 d5 19 exd5 lDb4
20 lDed4 =; Black won on move 56. In his notes to that game Deze also
considers 20 lDc3 , 20 Wc3 and 20 c3 - all are fine for Black. I knew that
Matulovic has a reputation for very conscientious and careful preparation
in what he considers "his lines". Still, the attraction of quickly playing
twenty moves and winding up with a good position was too tempting not
to try. When looking at the position after Black's 1 9th, the question as to
what happens if White plays the other knight to d4 (i.e 20 lDfd4) did pass
through my mind and I didn't see anything so clear against it. But why
worry, I told myself - there must be something! Well, in the game we soon
reached the position after Black's 1 9th and White quickly played 20
lDfd4! and after 20 ... 't!Vxd5? 21 .i.xe6!! xe6 22 lDc3. The position is
hopeless for Black and White won easily in 4 1 moves. (Even after the
better 20 . . lLlxd5 2 1 lLlb3 't!Vb6 22 lLled4 Black's position is unpleasant.)

.
As a result of the above experience, I am an even greater believer in the

following most important principle: only play into a variation in which
your opponent is strong if you have your own personal novelty ready!
Step 4: D o the Actual Preparation

You should plan to spend from 1 -2 hours preparing for each game.
Less than one hour will not give you enough wisdom and more than two
hours will start tiring you out. The ideal situation is: be wise, confident
and fresh!
The time of preparation should be shortly, though preferably not
immediately, before the game. For a morning game, the previous evening
is best; for an afternoon game, the morning is correct; for an evening
game, the early afternoon is ideal. You want the work to be recent enough
for you to be able to remember everything. However, you don't want your
mind already to be tired at the start of the game.
The method is simple enough: play over the variations selected from
your reference sources - personal notes, Informants, ECOs, etc. Try to
remember whatever seems essential: move order(s), ideas (strategic or
tactical), actual variations etc. Throughout the preparation, please be
realistic. I mean, you cannot expect to learn everything about the Sicilian
Defence in two hours ! In other words, do not bite off more than you can
chew. A lways stress quality over quantity. Two variations well prepared
are of infinitely greater value than ten variations quickly skimmed over.
As you do your preparation, questions will arise and they will generally
involve tactical matters or strategic ones. I will consider these separately
as follows:
(1) Tactical matters
All variations should be checkedfor tactical errors. These are of two kinds:
(a) Typographical. These can occur frequently enough to be annoying.
Sometimes, they can even be dangerous. As an example, in annotating
the game Timman-S.Garcia, Orense 1976, in The Chess Player, after 1 d4
lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lLlc3 b4 4 g5 h6 5 4 c5 6 d5 d6 7 e3 g5 8 .i.g3 lLle4 9
'@'cl 't!Vf6, Timman gives the following variation: 10 '@xe4 xc3+ 1 1 'it'dl
.txb2 12 litb1 d7! 13 d3 lLla6 +
(diagram)
14 dxe6 xe6. The question is: what does Black do after 15 1Vxb7 when
three of his pieces are en prise? Of course, Timman never suggested 14 .. .
i.xe6?. That simply is a typo in place of the correct and winning 14 .. .
i.c6.
(b) Analysis. There can always be a tactical error in analysis. It is
important to catch these for two reasons: first, you surely don't want to
be victimised yourself and lose a game as a result of this, and second, it is
great if your opponent falls into such a hole!
(2) Strategic matters
My key advice here is: make sure that the line or lines given are in
accordance with the idea of the opening!
Here I would like to give the following four examples to illustrate the
above very important principle:
(a) Ruy Lopez for Black (1 e4 e5 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 i.b5)
You are Black and expect your opponent to play the Exchange
Variation (3 ... a6 4 bc6 dxc6 5 0-0). A draw is perfectly satisfactory for
you and therefore you don't mind defending the slightly inferior
endgame resulting after 5 ... f6 6 d4 exd4 7 lbxd4 c5 8 lbb3 l!Vxdl 9 lixd l .
(diagram)
Your refer to the 1 974 Edition of ECO ' C' and see the line 9 .. i.e6 10.
i.f4 i.xb3 11 axb3 i.d6 12 i.xd6 lidS 13 lba3 ::!:: . What should you
think about this? The active 9 . . . i.e6 looks OK, but you should ask
yourself: how can exchanging off your valuable bishop with I 0 . . i.xb3?!
.
be the right idea? When Spassky considered this question he came up

with 10 . . . c4! and after the obvious 11 lbd4 ( 1 1 lba5! ::!:: ), 1 1 ... 0-0-0!
gives Black equality, e.g. Spiridonov-Spassky, Sochi 1973.
(b) Nimzo-lndian for Black (1 d4 f6 2 c4 e6 3 c3 .i.b4)

You like Nimzowitsch's original plan against the Rubinstein Variation
( 4 e3) - 4 ... b6 5 .i.d3 .i.b7 6 f3 e4 - and expect your opponent to play
the cautious and routine 7 1rc2. Main line play then goes 7 ... .i.xc3+ 8
bxc3 f5 9 0-0 0-0 and after the usual 10 d2 Black plays 10 .. !Vh4 and has
.
equality ( 1 1 f3 xd2 etc). But what if White retreats the knight to e 1 (10
e1)?
You see that in both Sznapik-Keene, Tiflis 1974 and Atlas-Presser,

USA 1976 Black played 1 0 Wh4?! unsuccessfully. But why should Black
. . .
play 10 ... 1!fh4? The queen doesn't help its knight remain on e4! Correct
is the simple development 1 0 ... c6 and after 11 f3, 11 ... d6 with
pressure on c4. In such variations White's knight is poorly placed on e 1 .

(c) Nimzo-Indian for Black
The same situation exists as in (b) except you expect that your young
and knowledgeable opponent will play the modern and more accurate 7
0-0 ! (instead of 7 't!Yc2). You decide that you don't like 7 . . f5 because of 8
.
lt::le 5. To accept the offered pawn sacrifice is also unattractive so you must
play 7 ... .i.xc3 8 bxc3 f5. But how to proceed against 9 lt::le 1 0-0 10 f3?
Clearly 10 . . . lt::lf6?! gives White too much space and after the more
.
consistent 1 0 ... lt::ld 6, Taimanov in ECO IV (E) gives 1 1 .i.a3 c5 12 dxc5

bxc5 13 .i.xc5 t (etc). In preparing for my game against the very strong
Hungarian IM (now GM) Lukacs at Budapest 1978, I came up with 11 ...
l:U6!, with the dual ideas of unpinning the knight and being in a position
to attack on the kingside with . . . l:th6 and . . . 't!Vh4. If White plays 12 c5,
Black has 12 . lt::lf7. This in fact was to be the game course; the game was
. .
over on move 16 when in a very unbalanced position my opponent

offered me a draw.
(d) Queen's Indian for Black
Against the 4 g3 variation you play 4 . . . .i.a6. It is autumn 1 980 and you
consult the latest Informant (29) to find the game Tatai-Seirawan, Malaga
/980, annotated by IM Tatai: 1 d4 lt::l f6 2 c4 e6 3 lt::l f3 b6 4 g3 i.a6 5 b3
.i.b4+ 6 .i.d2 .i.e7 7 .i.g2 c6 8 0-0 d5 9 \Wc2 lt::lbd7 (9 . . . lt::le4!?) 10 l:tcl ! N
0-0 1 1 a4
(diagram)
1 1 ... :Sc8 12 lba3 lbe4 13 .iel f5 14 b4 .ib7 1 5 "i!Vb2 a6 16 c5 b5 1 7 lbe5

.if6 18 f3 lbg5 19 .id2 lb7 20 i.J4 lbfxe5 and now instead of 2 1 dxe5?!
(0- 1 in 60), correct is 21 .ixe5! .ixe5 22 dxe5 t.
I was reviewing this game when preparing for Gonzales-Mestres at
Barcelona 1 980. Two things about the above game "bothered" me:
( I ) Black was handling the position more like a Dutch Defence rather
than a Catalan Opening, into which the opening had, in effect, transposed.
(2) Tata i's plan seems to refute the lines with 4 . . . a6. But why should
moves such as 10 :Sc l , 1 1 a4 and 1 2 lba3 be so strong?
My preparation was not in vain . With a different move order (7 "i!fc2 c6
8 .ig2 d5 9 0-0 lbbd7 10 :Sc l 0-0 1 1 a4) the Gonzales Mestres-Mednis
game transposed into Tatai-Seirawan . But now I played, consistently
with the Catalan Opening, 1 1 ... c5! 12 lba3 .ib7! 13 "i!Vb2 lbe4. Black has
full equality and White's queen here looks rather stupid on b2.
Question I
Before the last round you and your opponent are tied for first place
with 6 points. Four followers have 5 !h . The prizes are $ 1 0 ,000, 5000,
3000, 2000, 1 500 , 1 000. You are White and your rating is 50 points higher
than your opponent's. What should be your objective for the last round?
How should you try to achieve it?
Answer
I think the answer to the first question depends mostly on what kind of
a player you are , i.e. are you a risk-taking fighter or are you a "bird-in
the-hand" type? If you are satisfied with a guaranteed substantial amount
of money, you should offer a draw in the early opening. This ensures you
$5000. But if you are a hungry fighter, you should play for the full
$ 1 0,000. After all, you are White and outrate your opponent.
Yet, in playing to win, there is no reason to take silly chances. Select a
sound and solid variation from your repertoire. If you have an opening
advantage, work carefully to build on it. Continue to play with
confidence and care for the win. However, if you should feel that the
advantage is slipping away through your fingers - play it safe and offer
the draw.
Question 2
It is Round 2 in an international swiss Open . Your opponent is an
unrated young Swede about 20 years old. Both of you have won your first
game. The pairings were posted at l O am and the round starts at 2 pm.
You are White and there is no way in the time available to learn what
your opponent plays as Black. You usually open with 1 c4. What should
you expect your opponent to play?
Answer
Since you know nothing about him and have no opportunity to learn,
the best that can be done is to use some rule(s) of thumb. The key here is
that he is Swedish . A large number of Swedish international players
employ against 1 c4 what I have started calling the "Swedish Variation":
1 c4 c5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 (or 3 g3) 3 ... e5 followed by g6 and lLlge7. Pia
...
Cramling plays it, Harry Schiissler plays it, Thomas Ernst and Ferdinand
Hellers play it etc. The result is that a large number of the young Swedish
players also play it. You might as well assume that your opponent will do
so too .
Question 3
How should you prepare for the situation of Question 2?
Answer
Please realise that you are basically completely in the dark as regards
what your opponent might play. Therefore, you should first do some
research on whatever variation or sub-variation you are least sure of at
that moment. This is important work in general and will give you
knowledge and confidence in case this variation pops up soon in one of
your games. (It may even happen today! )
Then do some work o n the "Swedish Variation". See what you have
with you in in your personal notes. Select a line and move order that
seems attractive to you. Check this against the latest information
available in the current Chess Informant. If it is April 1 990, the latest
Informant is 48. Looking under A 37 you will see two complete games and
two games-within-games. If you are planning early castling, then the
course of game 57 is an important one: 1 c4 c5 2 lt:lf3 lt:lc6 3 g3 e5 4 .ig2
g6 5 0-0 (This is the move order that you would be using. The actual game
course was I lt:lf3 c5 2 g3 lt:lc6 3 .ig2 e5 4 0-0 g6 5 c4) 5 .ig7 6 lt:lc3 lt:lge7
..
7 a3 d6 8 b4! and after 8 ... .ie6?!, strong is 9 lt:lg5!.

6 How to Play the Game
OK, you are well prepared and confident. It is time to make use of your
knowledge!
The first, preliminary, point is: avoid wasting time when playing the
opening. Aim for the following guideline:
5 moves in 5 minutes
1 0 moves in 1 0 minutes
Of course, when the game develops as planned and the early opening
moves are very routine, you can and should play faster than the above
speed. The main point is not to waste time by playing slower.
This question is often raised: I have prepared a complete surprise for
my opponent. If I play too quickly, won't he become suspicious? Yes,
perhaps. If you are worried about this, don't "blitz" your moves. A
deliberate manner of playing '' 1 0 moves in 1 0 minutes" should not arouse
suspicion in anyone.
The three possible courses the game can take are:
(1) The Game Develops as Analysed ("Everything is normal")

Be happy, play with confidence . At some point the need will come for
independent thinking, but by then you should have a good position and
a good time reserve.
It should be helpful now to describe my preparation for and play in one
of the most important games of my life. It is the 1978 US Championship
and Zonal. There are only three qualifying places for the Interzonals.
Two rounds from the end it is certain that GMs Kavalek and Tarjan have
qualified. But for the other spot the fight is fierce: GM Shamkovich is
ahead, but closely following are Byrne, Lein, Weinstein and myself. I
have just defeated Rogoff with Black to reach + I . In the next to last
round I am to be White against IM Zuckerman and in the last will be
Black against GM Benko. Most clearly at least one more win is needed to
have a real chance. Therefore the objective is clear: win with White v
60
How to Play the Game 61
Zuckerman. In my preparation I spent about 75% of my time on the

Naj dorf Sicilian, since at that time this was Zuckerman's main defence
against 1 e4. But the rest of the time I decided to spend on the 3 . . . c5
variation in the Ruy Lopez, since my opponent used this on a
"sometime" basis, but had never employed it against me. First I reviewed
my notes and then turned to Informant 24, where I found a note within
game 266, Kavalek-Spassky, 4th match game, Solingen 1 977. The
note gave the early course of Kavalek-Spassky, 6th game, as follows: ( 1 e4
eS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 bS cS 4 c3 lLlf6 S 0-0 0-0 6 d4 b6) 7 .igS h6 8 4 d6 9
a4 aS 10 't!Vd3 exd4 1 1 .i.xc6! bxc6 1 2 lLlxd4 gS?! ( 1 2 .. .i.d7) 1 3 g3 a6
.
14 c4 dS? ( 1 4 ... '@d7 1 5 lLlf5 ; 14 . . . xd4 1 5 't!Vxd4 lLld7) 1S lLlxc6! .i.xc4

16 't!Vf3 dxe4 1 7 '@'fS e6 18 l!Ve5 lLld7 19 lLlxd8 lLlxe5 20 lLlxe6 .
When comparing this to what I had in my notes, I saw that the idea of
combining 'ird3 and a4 is new. I saw no reason to think that it is better
than the conventional lines with li: el . But I also didn't think that it
should be any worse. I decided to employ this idea, mainly because IM
Zuckerman's theoretical knowledge is legendary. I was sure that he
would know all the "old stuff'. Even though I couldn't expect him to
not know the above note, I felt that the chances were good that he hadn't
done any independent analysis to discover Black's best defence(s) and
thus could have to solve these problems over the board . Therefore I saw a
favourable risk/reward situation for myself: much to gain, nothing to
lose. To my 1 e4, 1 ... eS was the quick response and Zuckerman seemed
surprised when I didn't seem surprised. The game took a "matter offact"
course: 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 bS c5 4 c3 lLlf6 S 0-0 0-0 6 d4 6 7 gS h6 8 .i.h4
d6 9 a4 aS 10 'fi'd3 (I had used 5 minutes up to now) 10 ... exd4 11 .txc6

bxc6 12 lDxd4 (8 minutes to here) 12 ...ta6 13 c4 ( 1 0 minutes to here) 1 3
... g S 1 4 i.g3 d S (Zuckerman had taken 3 0 minutes for moves 1 2 1 4) 1S
-
lDxc6 .txc4 16 1!f3 (I took some time on this and the next move to see if
Black had some surprise, but couldn't find anything) 1 6 ... dxe4 17 'tiffS
(35 minutes used) 1 7 ... i.e6 18 \!VeS (45 minutes) 18 ... lDd7 19 lDxd8 lDxeS
20 lDxe6 fxe6 21 .txe5 (50 minutes). My first independent thinking only
came after 21 ... e3. The resulting problems were not difficult to solve and
I won the game in good style on move 43.
(2) Variation is as Prepared, but Somewhere Later Opponent Plays a

Theoretical Novelty
Here we have to differentiate between a strategic novelty and a tactical
one.
(a) If the novelty is a strategic one, play a "good" move without
expending too much time.
Example: For my game with the black pieces against Polugayevsky at the
Riga Interzonal 1979, I had prepared defences against a number of "non
sharp" lines. The game was to be played three rounds from the end and
Polugayevsky was very close to qualifying for the Candidates matches.
Of course, he wanted to win with White, but it was also clear to me that he
would not take unnecessary chances right in the opening. Thus after 1 c4
lDf6 2 lDc3 e6 3 lDf3 dS 4 d4 c6 he avoided the "super-sharp" S .tgS and
settled for S e3, and after S ... lDbd7 the Meran Variation was reached.
Here too, after 6 i.d3 dxc4 7 .txc4 bS 8 .td3 .tb7, White played the
"quiet line" 9 0-0 (instead of the active 9 e4) and the play continued
"theoretically" through 9 ... b4 10 lDe4 .te7 11 lDxf6+ lDxf6 12 e4 0-0 13
eS lDd7. This position was rated by "theory" as equal, yet now came the
TN 14 .te4!. (After the game Polugayevsky told me that he had
discovered this move when preparing as Black for his 1 977 Candidates
match against Korchnoi. He was surprised that Korchnoi did not employ
it.) I responded fairly quickly with the logica1 14 ... 't!tb6! (why not?) but
after 15 .tgS!?
(diagram)
came the second moment of truth. I decided on the safe 1 5 . . . liUe8?! but
after 1 6 .txe7 Ii:xe7 1 7 1!fc2 h6 1 8 a3! White is better, though I drew in 4 1 .
The key line after 1 5 .tg5, obviously, was 1 5 ... .i.xgS 16 .txh7+ !? ( 1 6
lDxg5 h6 is nothing) 1 6 . .. h7 1 7 lDxgS+ 6! (forced). During the
game, I decided to "trust" Polugayevsky on this, but later analysis (at

home ) showed that White has nothing more than a draw. (Of course, as
far as the theoretical "dispute" is concerned, my analysis could hardly be
expected to be the final absolute answer. I n fact Dobosz in his notes to the
game Grigorian-Dobosz, Erevan 1 980 (Informant 30, game 575) shows
that White retains a slight edge in one very complicated variation.)
(b) If the novelty is a tactical one, then all reasonable variations must
be examined carefully.
Example: Almost any of the Najdorf Sicilians with 6 i.g5, e.g. in Wedberg
Novoselski, Kladovo 1 980 (see Informant 29, game 394) after 6 ... e6
7 f4 1Wc7 8 'ift'3 bS 9- .i.xf6 gxf6 10 eS .i.b7 1 1 WitS b4 12 ll:lxe6 Black played
the TN 12 . .. Wc8!. The correct response, found after much thinking, is
the game's 13 ..ibS+ !.
(3) Opponent's Opening is a Complete Surprise

This obviously means that your specific opening preparation is out
the window.
The first thing to do is to rethink your total preparation to see if some
of the conclusions are still usable.
Part of the time they will be. Here is an instructive example:
In the last round of the Lugano International Tournament 1985 I was
to be Black against the strong West German master Theo Rieke. A win
was a must to have a chance to tie for second place and thereby obtain a
good money prize. I knew nothing about Rieke except his games from
this tournament. In reviewing his games, I noted that with White he
opened with tt:Jf3, then played 2 c4 and invariably fianchettoed the KB. I
decided to play the King's Indian Defence, because I wanted to sharpen
the game and because in my opinion the king's bishop fianchetto does not
present undue dangers for Black. My specific preparation lasted about
one hour (the pairings are posted at l l am and rounds start at l pm). The
immediate opening was "according to plan": I tt:Jf3 lDf6 2 c4 g6. Now I
expected 3 g3 or 3 d4 with g3 to follow. I nstead came 3 tt:Jc3 and I
immediately became concerned because this is hardly the move order if
the plan is the king's bishop fianchetto. Still, I saw no reason not to
continue with the King's Indian and played 3 ... i_g7. After 4 e4 it was
clear that my specific opening preparation was for nought; after 4 d6 5 ...
d4 0-0 6 e2 by transposition we had reached the Normal Variation.

Black's usual move is, of course, 6 ... e5 or if he wants to prevent the
endgame resulting after 7 dxe5 dxe5 8 'ti'xd8 llxd8 9 g5 , he can first play
6 tt:Jbd7 and then 7 ... e5. Yet I was reluctant to enter either variation. In
. ..
the first place , I was not going to allow a somewhat inferior endgame and
most importantly , I had not at all reviewed any of the very complicated
variations that can arise. I nstead, I quickly decided to play the less usual
variation with 6 ... i.g4 (diagram).
This was my thinking:
( 1 ) Since his basic opening repertoire consists of the king's bishop
fianchetto, the chances are good that the addition of the Normal
Variation is something fai rly recent.
(2) He can be expected to know the usual main lines in the Normal
Variation.
(3) But since he probably does not have much experience with the
"Normal", he may not have any sophistication about how to handle 6 . . .
i.g4 even if he has "memorised" the main line within it.
,
My supposition was perfect. Rieke took 30 minutes for his 7th move
and after the game admitted to me that he had known nothing about 6 . . .
i.g4. The game course gave m e a quick decisive victory: 7 0-0(?!) lDfd7 8
lDe1(?!) i.xe2 9 lDxe2 c5 10 i.e3?! tbc6 1 1 b3 a6 12 :ilc1 \!VaS! 13 a4?! :ilfc8
(better is 13 ... cxd4!) 14 d5?! lbb4 15 lDd3 lDxd3! 16 'ti'xd3 b5! 17 'ti'd2?!
'ti'xd2 18 i.xd2 bxa4 19 bxa4 :ilab8 White resigns
If no information is "usable", be very very careful.
The best general advice is: play a good sound line with which you are
basically familiar.
Moreover: Avoid a complicated sharp line unless you have recently
analysed/prepared it in depth.
A perfect example of what not to do is demonstrated by the game
Mednis-K.Burger, New York (Burger) International 1980. I had prepared
for 2 . . . d6 in the Sicilian (aiming for the Naj dorf) and was quite ready.
However, Burger completely surprised me (after 1 e4) with 1 ... g6.
After 2 d4 d6 3 lDc3 i.g7 I had to decide which variation to play. Since I
was unprepared for all of them, I should have played the simple 4 lDf3.
However, this was already Round 7, I had a poor start and was - 2 and
I was "counting" on a win against Burger to improve my standing.
Therefore I decided on the sharp 4 f4, which I had analysed and even
published 8 months earlier. It was this analysis that Burger was prepared
for.
After 4 ... lDc6 5 i.e3 lDf6 6 i.e2 0-0 7 lDf3 a6 8 e5 lDg4 9 i.g1 b5 10
tb g5
he improved with 1 0 lLlh6! (in place of 1 0 . . . f6). After 1 1 .tf3 .i.d7 my

...
faulty 12 e6? (correct is 1 2 'ie2) led to a better position for Black and a
subsequent win for Burger. Thus, not surprisingly, my "reward" for
ignoring the sound principles presented in this section was a third loss!
You have now learned the basic principles of how to prepare for the
game and how to utilise this preparation in actually playing the game.
Prepare hard, play hard and you will win! Good Luck!

Question 1
You are to be Black against an opponent who lately, after 1 d4 lLlf6, has
been playing 2 .i.g5. It is January 1990 and you consult the latest Chess
Informant (47). The course and analysis of game 88, Hodgson-Rogers,
Wijk aan Zee 11 1989, looks very attractive to you: 1 d4 lLlf6 2 .tg5 e6 3 e4
h6 4 ..txf6 'ifxf6 5 lLlf3 d6 6 lt:lc3 lt:ld7 7 'it'd2 c6 8 0-0-0 e5
(diagram)
After Black's last move GM Rogers calls the chances equal, attaches ?!
to White's 9 h4 and, instead, gives 9 'ti'e3 and 9 b l as equal. You feel
confident and prepared .
In your game the first eight moves are played quickly, and then your
opponent just as quickly plays 9 dxe5. What should be your reaction?
Answer
Your initial reaction should be one of a combination of amazement
and perplexity. 9 dxe5 is just such an amazingly anti-positional move
(White completely gives up his central superiority if Black responds with
the centrally indicated 9 . dxe5) that you must be at least somewhat
..
suspicious. Please check out the position after 9 dxe5 carefully to make
.
sure that there are no unpleasant surprises.

Otherwise, you will feel that a brick has landed on your head. This
happened to me in the game Hodgson-Mednis, Stavanger 1 990. I couldn't
grasp what White was doing, for a fleeting moment considered the
possibility that 10 lDb5 could be played, just as quickly rejected it - and a
few seconds later saw myself faced with 10 lDb5 ! ! . Since 1 0 . . . cxb5 loses
to 1 1 .txb5 '@e6 12 lDxe5 1!Vxe5 13 .txd7+ <tie7 14 .txc8, I played 10 ...
<;i;>d8 and after the ..automatic" 1 1 W'c3? cxb5 12 .txb5 .td6 Black is fully
OK and I went on to win the game. However, the zwischenzug 1 1 Wa5+!
b6 12 Wc3 would have led to a forced win for White ( 1 2 ... cxb5 13 .txb5
i.d6 14 'irc6; 12 . . . a6 1 3 lDd6! .txd6 14 1!Vxc6).
Once you start considering 9 . dxe5 , you should fairly quickly see 1 0
..
lDb5! ! - I mean, what else can White have? I f you don't find a n adequate
defence (with hindsight we know that it doesn't exist) then you just have
to play the positionally unattractive 9 ... lDxe5. White is still vastly better
after 10 lDd4! - but, at least, you are still breathing.
Question 2
You are a 1 c4 player. You have a good tournament standing, but your
next opponent is rated about 1 00 points higher than you . However, as
"consolation" you will be White. You look up your opponent's recent

games and conclude that he will choose a system with . . . c5. You prepare
some lines where you run no risk of losing even if your opponent plays the
currently highest rated moves. Something to gain, nothing to lose is how
you feel as you sit down to play.
Yet after 1 c4, Black totally surprises you by playing 1 . b6. It has been
. .
many years since you reviewed the very sharp lines which aim at a
refutation. What should you do?
Answer
You probably should do little. In any case, you might as well play the
normal 2 d4 quickly. Then after, e.g, 2 ..e6 you have to make a more
fundamental decision: whether to go for a "refutation" or just enter a
"normal" type of position where Black has fianchettoed his queen's
bishop. I think that the latter course will bring better results. Continue
with 3 lt::lf3 and after 3 ... i.b7 with 4 g3. At the worst you will have a
standard Queen's Indian. If your opponent wants to keep the game in less
usual channels , he will have to try something dubious in a situation where
your development is normal and sound . Under such conditions, there is
no reason not to feel confident that you will be able to find good moves.
The risk in going for a "refutation" is great because you can easily
overrate your psychological and chess strength. This is what happened to
me in the game Mednis-L.Psakhis, Amsterdam 1 989. The game opened
1 c4 b6 2 d4 e6. Before the game I felt no great urge to risk a loss in the hope
of a win. But now I felt that a golden opportunity was at hand and played
3 e4. However, already after 3 ... i.b7 4 i.d3 f5 I felt confused. I "knew"
that the refutation starts with 5 exf5! xg2 6 1Wh5+.
Black then continues 6 ... g6 7 fxg6 i.g7, whereupon White builds up a

fantastic attacking position at the cost of the king's rook. I was happy
about this prospect, but suddenly a frightful thought entered my mind:
I must be confusing positions, because instead of 6 . . . g6 Black can play
6 ... <tle7. Being unprepared both chessically and psychologically, I didn't
bother to look further and thus couldn't see that 6 ...<tle7?? loses to
7 'ifg5+ .
Since my eight-minute "thinking" effort had determined that 5 exf5 ! is
"not playable", I "had to play" 5 d5??, stood considerably worse after
5 . . . fxe4 6 i.xe4 Wh4 and already on move 1 1 managed to lose my
queen.
Question 3
You always open with 1 e4 and your opponent "always" responds to
1 e4 with 1 . . . e5. He is a serious, studious player and comes well prepared
to every game. You consider his strength and yours to be approximately
equal. However, you are White and expect the game to take a normal
course. You come to the game well prepared for 1 ... e5 .
Therefore, 1 . . e6 comes as a shock. There is no question in your mind
.
that your opponent knows that your line against the French is 2 d4 d5 3
ltJc3 and he has prepared something in some sub-variation that you
usually play. How should you respond to his "provocative" 1 . . . e6?
Answer
It depends mostly on how broad your opening repertoire is against the
French. I f you only know something about the 3 ltJc3 lines, you should
play that. Moreover, if in some sub-variation you have been research
ing a new move or idea and have confidence in its quality, this would be
a good time to use it. The chances are good that your opponent will have
increased difficulties against it, because of his general lack of expertise
with the French. If all that you know is "3 ltJc3" and you don't have
anything new to show, you should still play 3 ltJc3. Even though your
opponent will pull something new on you, you will be on generally
familiar ground. Under such circumstances your chances of finding a
proper response are good.
In the game V.Zhuravlev-Y.Klovan, USSR 1972, Black - an inveterate
1 . . . e5 player - surprised his opponent with the French. White, sure of a
prepared line after 2 d4 d5 3 ltJc3, decided to play the safer 3 ltJd2. He
reasoned that his knowledge of 3 lLld2 would not be inferior to Black's and
that it was a sensible approach to prevent Black from using his innovation.
In the game, White chose to enter a slightly superior endgame after 3 cS ..
4 exdS xdS 5 lLlgf3 cxd4 6 .tc4 't!fd6 7 0-0 lLlf6 8 lLlb3 lLlc6 9 lLlbxd4 lLlxd4
by 10 't!fxd4 ''xd4 11 lLlxd4
He went on to win in good style after 1 1 .td7 12 i.f4 li:i:c8

..
13 i.el! i.c5 14 lLlb3 .tb6?! 15 c4! 0-0 16 llfd1! etc ( 1 -0 in 38).

7 What to Do After the Time Control
Has Been Reached
For maximum success in tournament play you must know both that
you have in fact reached the time control (e.g. move 40) and the instant
when this occurs. Otherwise you will be risking one of the following most
unpleasant situations:
(I) Losing on time because of wrongly assuming that the time control has
been reached
A tragic example of this occurred in the game E.Geller-L.Portisch,

Portoroz Play-Off 1973, Round 5. The diagram shows the position after
Black's 86th move . As GM Geller was playing his next move (87 f3) his
flag fell. How could he overstep in such a simple position? The
explanation is a simple one: he had marked move 84 (instead of the
correct 88) on his score sheet as the end of the time control. Thus with
"the time control over" , he paid no attention to the clock! This missing
half point prevented Geller from reaching the 1974 Candidates matches.
71
(2) Blundering after the time control because of hasty play caused by
fear that the time control has not yet been reached
The diagram shows the position from J.Mestel-W.Browne, Lone Pine

1978, after White's 47th move. The time control was at move 45, yet both
players were oblivious of the fact. The position is completely drawn, with
Black's simplest plan being 47 . . . Wg4! (Browne). Instead, there occurred
the "instantaneous" 47 ... 'i!?xh4?? and after 48 Wf3! there was nothing for
Black to do except resign since next comes 49 llh 1 mate.
The single most common cause of inadvertently overstepping the time
limit (or the less serious case of playing an extra move) is an error in score
keeping. The pressure of a tournament game is so great that many people
(GMs included) have problems keeping the score. Reversing White's and
Black's moves, writing the same move twice, forgetting to record a move,
and writing down a move where there is no space intended for it are the
more serious errors that occur. A particular error point is when a new
column on the scoresheet is to be started . I have come to the conclusion
that errors in keeping score are inevitable. Therefore the key point is to
catch and correct them before they damage you. Several times during the
game review your scoresheet to make sure that it is correct.
The approaches that can be used in time trouble to ensure you know
how many moves are left before the time control are the following:
( 1 ) Use check marks rather than writing down the actual moves
(2) Write only your move
(3) Next to the move number on the score sheet, write also how many
moves are left to be made before the time control at (e.g. ) move 40. For
What to Do After the Time Control Has Been Reached 73
instance, next to move 35, write ''6"; next to 36, write .. 5" etc. Of course,
you still have to also put in the move space a physical or ''mental" check
mark.
Please remember that trying to keep a neat, "perfect" score when short
of time is extremely hazardous to your ''point health". For instance, US
Grandmaster William Lombardy has impeccable nerves during extreme
time trouble and has no difficulty in keeping a meticulous complete
score. And yet, I have seen that far too often his flag falls as he is writing
down the move . . .
It is absolutely imperative that you yourself know that the time control
has been reached. You cannot rely on anyone else.
You cannot rely on your opponent for the following three reasons:
( l ) He honestly will not know or honestly be in error.
(2) He will try to prevent you from knowing what he knows by hiding
his score sheet etc.
(3) He will intentionally try to cheat you.
I am convinced that a maj ority of players are honest. Robert J. Fischer
was known for his impeccable behaviour at the chessboard. When I am
asked if the time control has been reached and my score sheet says so, I
respond by saying ''I think so". I can even give a personal example where
my opponent bent over backwards to demonstrate exceptional sports
manship.
In round 5 of the preliminaries of the 1 955 World Junior Championship

in Antwerp, Belgium, the position shown in the diagram arose in the
game E.Mednis-M. Van Hoorne, after White's 55th move. I played my last
move ( 1U2-g2+) with confidence and went to the bathroom because my

score sheet showed that I had made move 56, i.e. the time control. But I
had made a score-keeping error and in fact only move 55 had been
reached. After playing his move (55 . 'iMS) my opponent informed the
..
arbiter of t his and the arbiter got me out of my "booth" just in time for me
to rush to the board to play 56 :S:b2 and win the game after 56 . :!Ic4 57 b6
..
lieS 58 b7 JibS 59 \t>e6.

Just as you cannot rely on your opponent, so neither can you rely on
anyone else to be safe. Why assume, for instance, that the people who are
putting the moves on the demo board are keeping an accurate move
count when the players are in time trouble and blitzing away? As one
example, Korchnoi had a poor tournament at Wijk aan Zee 1 983 (6 out of
1 3), but what really made it look even worse was what happened in the
last round game, V .Korchnoi-V.Hort. Korchnoi was ready to seal his
41 st move - see the diagram - in a position where White has a slight yet
nice and clear endgame edge. Both players had assumed that they had
made move 40, because the demo boardsaidso. B ut, in fact, only 39 moves
had been made ! Therefore, White, who was on move, had overstepped
the time limit and was, of course, forfeited.
Please be very very sure that you have reached the time control before
you start acting as if you had. Never, never start filling in your score sheet
with your clock running unless you are 1 000% sure that time control has
been reached. Otherwise you risk a most devastating loss. There really is
no more wasteful and unnecessary a loss than inadvertently overstepping
the time limit. A most unhappy example from the 1960 World Student
Championship in Leningrad occurred in the game Madler-A.Saidy.
The diagram s hows the position after White's 40th move - though
neither player realised it was move 40 since they had been blitzing for the
past 15 moves ! At this point, Tony Saidy started to fill in the moves on his
score sheet and was doing this most meticulously until suddenly his flag
dropped as he had just filled in Black's 39th move. Since we were at that
time in a close fight with the USSR for first place, this Round 8 accident"
was most unfortunate as it gave East Germany its only score in the match.
(The USA won the Championship with 4 1 points ahead of the USSR 's
39 Y2.)
Even when you realise that the time control has been reached, there is
one situation where you want to act as if it has not: when your position is
absolutely lost. If your only hope is blunders by your opponent, do play
on in the hope that he will also do so. Playing without thinking increases
the risk of a blunder and this is what you are counting on when by blitzing
you try to force" your opponent to also do so.
Sometimes this approach can also be justified when you think that you
are losing. An instructive example is shown in the next diagram, E.Mednis
K.Commons, 1975 US Championship, after Black's 40th move. I had
stopped keeping score after my 33rd move and Commons had also
stopped about that time. At the point shown in the diagram we didn't
have a clue regarding exactly how many moves had been played. Earlier
on (starting on move 3 1 ) I had horribly misplayed a superior endgame
and at this point I felt that my position was hopeless: Black has two
connected passed pawns for the exchange, these are ready to march
forward decisively and where is my counterplay to come from? I decided

that for better or worse I must continue blitzing: 41 Ii.a8 b4 42 Ii.h8!
(Active rooks = counterplay! ) 42 ... llJc3?? (Loses by force. Some
reasonable move would surely draw.) 43 Ii.h7+ c,t>g6 44 Ii.xe7 Ii.xe2+ 45
'i!n1 b3 46 Ii.xe6+ (At this point I was 100% sure the time control had
been reached . But I played this quickly to induce a hoped-for error.) 46 ...
h5 (As hoped. But 46 . . c.t>f7 47 Ii.b6 also wins for White.) 47 Ii.h8 (But I
.
took plenty of time before playing this - since I wanted to make 1 000%
sure it wins.) Black resigns.
Apart from the above case, as soon as you are sure that the time control
has been reached , it is time to take stock of the situation on the board.
Your specific follow-up will be different depending on whether the game
is to be continued until the next time control or adjourned once the
required playing time limit is reached.
I THE GAME IS TO BE CONTINUED
With the advent of the "40 moves in 2 hours to be followed by a second

time control of 20 moves in one hour" time limit, more and more games
are currently being continued beyond the first time control, as compared
to the situation that existed just a few years ago. This means that it is
extremely important to be able to cope with the psychological pressures
that can occur when the first time control is reached.
A tremendous natural letdown usually occurs when the time control
has been reached. This is especially so if you have just come out of time
pressure. Now that the danger point is over, the body feels that its job is
done and it can take a break. This is an exceedingly dangerous situation.
The number of unnecessary" errors that have been committed on move
41 are legion. You have to mobilise your system anew in this situation.
Absolutely never rush your 4 1 st move! To get yourself in the required
careful mood, it may be a good idea to get up from the board after the
time control has been reached and walk around a bit. When you return to
your board you should then be ready again for normal" concentration.
11 THE GAME IS TO BE ADJO URNED
Whether the game is to be adjourned after move 40, move 60 or

whenever - the following principles apply:
(A) It is in your interest to get your opponent to seal

The most important reasons why it is to your advantage that your
opponent has to seal are:
( 1 ) You don't risk making an error on your sealed move.
(2) You don't have to make a fundamental decision if you don't have
to seal.
(3) If your opponent has to seal, he has to decide on the correct plan if
the position is complicated.
(4) If your opponent has to seal, he may seal a poor or stupid move.
The last point is a very important one. A player very often is
psychologically under stress when he has to seal. He becomes unsure of
the position, is worried about real or imagined ghosts etc. During the
period leading up to the time control, the mind concentrates hard, but
as pointed out a bit earlier, once time control is reached the mind tends
to relax. This also can very easily be the situation when you seal. Here
I would like to present a few of what seem to me ridiculous sealed moves:
( I ) The diagram shows the position in H. Van Riemsdyk-E.Mednis, Riga

lnterzonal 1979, after Black's 46th move. Earlier on I had squandered a
large advantage and was now only a bit better. Here White had to seal
and my analysis showed that after the sensible 47 f3 and reasonable play
thereafter, Black's winning prospects were scant. I even considered
calling the game a draw without resumption, but decided that I should at
least make some effort. Upon resumption of play White's sealed move
was revealed to be 47 f4+?? (Riemsdyk explained the reasoning for the

move as follows: he thought that the endgame after 47 f3 was lost and that
therefore he should play for ..complications". Yet it is only after the text
that White is lost) 47 ... gxf4+ 48 2 h3! 49 lla7 ltJg5 50 lla3 d5 51 lla5!
'itte4 52 lla6 We5 53 lla5 <Gt>e4 54 lla6 and now instead of 54 ... liJf3? 55
llxf6 ltJxh2 56 lle6+ eMS 57 lld6! <Gt>e5 58 lld8! and White was able to
stop all of Black's pawns for a 73 move draw, winning is 54 . . . f5 55 llg6
ltJf3 ! , e.g. 56 lle6+ ltJe5 57 llh6 f3+ 58 <Gt>d2 d4! 59 llxh3 d3 ! and there is
no defence to 60 ... f2.
(2 ) The diagram shows the position i n V.Zaltsman-E.Mednis, New York

(Burger) International / 980, after Black 's 40th move. Black's queen +
Wha t to Do After the Time Control Has Been Reached 79
bishop exert some pressure on White's position, yet White can keep the
chances equal with 4 1 't!Yb5! 't!Yc2 42 'ie2! since 42 . . . l!Vc 1 43 liJb5 ! a6 44
liJd6 gives White full counterplay. However, White had to seal his 4 1 st
move and feeling generally uncomfortable with his position, decided
after 20 minutes thought that he must immediately go for counterplay via
the direct 41 'it'f3?. After 41 ... 'it'xb2 42 'it'f6+ 'it'g8 43 1!fd8+ g7 44 'it'f6+
g8 45 'ild8+ i.f8 46 liJe4 'ixe5! 47 liJf6+ 7 48 'ifxf8+ xf6! 49 1!Vh8+
'it'f5 50 'it'xh7 'id5+ Black had won a sound pawn and he won the game
after 51 'it'h2 W6! 52 'ti'h8+ e7 53 'YWb8 'ia5 54 'it'c7+ f6 55 't!fd8+ 7
56 l!Vd4+ e5 57 'ti'e4 'ic5. Here White sealed 58 Wf3 and resigned without
continuing the game.
(3) The diagram is E.Mednis-L.Barczay, Szolnok 1975, after Black's

40th move.Black is a pawn up and has two connected passed pawns on
the queenside. Theoretically speaking I felt rather queasy about the
position but its complicated nature gave me confidence for the practical
play to follow. It was obvious to me that White's chances must come
from an attack along the g- and h-files. Therefore I quickly played 41
Wg2! since I wanted my opponent to have to seal in this complicated
position. Thematic plans for Black included 4 1 ... b5 or 4 1 . . . a5, in each
case mobilising his passed pawns. Instead Black had sealed 41 ... liJf6?!
unexpected and a rather strange move. Why remove the knight from its
powerful location on e4? The further course of the game was equally
strange : 42 li[hl h7 43 lil:3bl liJg4 44 liJd7 lil:xd7?! 45 cxd7 't!Yxd7 46 lil:hcl
liJf6? (46 . .. lil:c8) 47 Wc6 Wf7 48 lil:xb6 'ifb5+ 49 'it'd3! lbb6 50 @xb6 liJe4
51 @xe6 liJxfl+ 52 c4?! (52 Wc3! ) 52 ... 't!Ye2+ 53 'iW5 Wb5+ 54 lil:c5
.,3+ 55 Itc4 'ib5+ 56 Itc5 't!fb3+ Draw, offered by White ! Maybe Black
has a draw after 57 Itc4 1!Vb5+ 58 \t>d6 llJe4+ 59 <Jile7 llJf6!, yet that hardly
is a reason for White to rush and offer it!
Of course, despite the above examples, you have no right to expect a
"silly" sealed move. Yet, if the position is sufficiently unclear, then the
chances are excellent that your opponent will not be able to solve the
theoretical problem in the limited time that he has for his sealed move. In
the following examples I was greatly at fault for not "forcing" my
opponent to seal:
( 1 ) The diagram shows the position from E.Mednis-A.Adorjan, Riga

/nterzona/ 1979, round 7, after Black's 40th move (40 . . . d5xe4). Over the
previous ten moves I had totally ruined a "won" endgame and by now I
fully realised that my prospects were bleak. The reason is very
straightforward: in positions where there are passed pawns on both sides
of the board , the long-range bishop is far superior to the short-range
knight. Because 4 1 llJxe4?! is not reasonable since Black's king obtains
routes for infiltration into White's position, the only move is 41 fxe4. I
sealed this, but I should have played it on the board immediately. I mean,
White must play 4 1 fxe4, but Black has a crucial choice to make.
Moreover, due to an unbelievable series of "quirks", the game remained
adjourned for 1 1 days and this had a crucial bearing on the actual final
result of the game. During the first ten of these days Black was going to
play the wrong move. Only in the evening before resumption of play, did
he notice a devilish trap that White had in the position. These were
Black's choices:
(a) 41 ... i.d6?

Black immediately goes after White's kingside. He leaves the a-pawn
on a4 so that White's king does not get access to b3. 42 lbxa4 is hopeless,
as is the routine 42 lbe2. But White has a wonderfully creative defence.
42 eS! ! fxeS 43 dS+ <MS 44 hxg5 Drawn!
Black has no way of progressing. After 44 . . . a3 White plays 45 lbe4! ! ;
after 44 . . . i.e7 White first plays 45 ll:l xa4 and then the knight gets back to
cope with the kingside. GM Adorjan told me that he and his second, IM
Tompa, were incredulous when they finally noticed this possibility. They
then had relatively little time to work out the definitive variations after
the "forced":
(b) 41 ... a3!
Preventing White's "trick" and allowing the "justice" of the position to
ultimately prevail. Now 42 'itlb3 is refuted by 42 . . . a2! ! 43 ll:lxa2 i.e l . The
interesting course of the game was:
42 ll:le2 i.d6 43 'itlb3 g4 44 'itla2 e7 45 'it>b3 'it>d7 46 a2 'itlc7 47 ll:lc3
i.xg3 48 lLldS+ b7 49 ll:lxf6 i.xh4 SO ll:lxh5 Wb6 51 xa3 xb5 52 Wb3
g3 53 ll:lf4 i.gS 54 ll:lg2 aS 55 eS i.e7 56 dS a4+ 57 a2 i.c5! 58 d6 Wc6 59
ll:let 7 60 wb2 i.b4 61 ll:lf3 g2 62 a2 'it>e6 63 Wd3 'it>d5 64 d7 i.e7 65
wc3 'itle4 66 ll:lgl xe5 67 lbe2 we4 68 'it>c4 'it>e3 69 lbgl d2 70 ll:lf3+
Wet 71 wc3 'it>bl 72 ll:ld2+ a2 73 ll:lf3 i.f6+ 74 'it>c2 'itla3 75 lbgl 'it>b4 76
lbf3 a3 77 bl gl W+ White resigns
=
(2) The diagram shows the pos1tton after Black's 40th move in
E.Mednis-L.Ljubojevic, Riga Interzonal 1979. Compared to the previous
example, I had been in trouble earlier on and it was only now that I was
confident that I stood well. Therefore I decided to seal my next obvious

move here, although it would have been more perceptive to play it on the
board, since all the difficult choices are on Black's side:
41 I!d8+ .ifS
Of course, Black could seal this forced move. But perhaps he would
continue to play? In any case, White should confront Black with this
decision.
42 lL:lxd5 lL:lxd5 43 l:i:xd5
The previous five "half moves" were obvious. But if Black had been
forced to seal now, he would have had to do some real thinking. The only
correct move is the game continuation.
43 ... lld6!! 44 lld4! rM7 45 l:U4+ Wg8! !
After 45 . . . <;!te8? 46 l:i:e4+ followed by 47 g4 White has good winning
chances. After the text move, neither side has anything better than a
repetition of moves .
46 lld4 rM7 47 lU4+ Draw
Therefore, the principle is clear: you want the opponent to seal. But
how to achieve it? There is no foolproof method, but the best approach is
to wait until just before the end of the playing session and then play your
move. If you are playing with digital clocks you should be able to come
easily within 1 5-30 seconds of the end of the session in your planning.
Thus if your next move is a forced one or very obviously the only good
move, wait until just before the end of the session and then play it. Your
opponent will then have no choice but to seal.
Yet, please always remember the point of this manoeuvre: to increase
your winning chances while decreasing your losing chances. Never
"blitz" your move, j ust to get your opponent to seal. Your most
important objective should be to make good moves, not fast ones.
B) If you have a winning position, adjourn immediately

I have already previously discussed the risks that exist if one continues
playing on after the time control is reached. By not playing on, you ensure
that your advantage remains "overnight". Many experienced grand
masters make it an iron-clad rule to adjourn as soon as they are sure that
they have reached a " won" position. For instance, The Bulgarian GM
V. Inkiov plays quite rapidly and thus reaches the time control with lots
of time to spare. If the position is "normal", he continues playing
"normally". Yet as soon as the position becomes in his mind won, he asks
the arbiter for the sealed move envelope and seals his next move - be it on
move 45 , 55, 65, whenever. If you come out of time pressure with a won
position, seal immediately - e .g. move 4 1 (or move 6 1 ) - whether you are
White or Black.
When sealing, the following three guidelines apply:
1) With a material advantage in a routine position: seal a simple,
sound non-committal move.
2) Always - if possible - seal a move which ensures a repetition of the
position. This way you do not have to make a decision at all.
3) I n more complicated, forcing positions: seal the next obvious move.
The first two guidelines speak for themselves. A good example of the
third guideline is shown from the diagram, E.Mednis-B.Amos, Siegen
Olympiad 1 9 70, after Black's 40th move. I had made excellent use of
White's initiative throughout the earlier play, including the time pressure
phase. But suddenly, I now felt very tired. I saw that with a properly
timed b4 I could win a piece. My team mates also saw this and had
accordingly informed the team captain. He should have told me to seal
my 4 1 st move. Of course, I should have "known" to do that myself, but as
I have already described earlier, strange things can start happening once
the time control has been reached. The game continued as follows:
41 f6+
This obvious, winning move should have been sealed.
41 .. 'i!;>g8
.
4 1 . . . 'it>h7 does not change matters. In either case, White wins a piece
and the game with the obvious 42 b4! . But in my temporarily muddled
state, I decided to "first repeat the position" . . .
42 @g5??
Of course, Black is not "forced" to respond with 42 ... Wg7??. Instead
he sealed the correct .. .
42 ..lbg4!
Black's chances are now at least equal to White's.
Black safeguards the f6 square and prevents all immediate threats. It is
White who now has to worry about weaknesses, e .g. the pawns on e4 and
h4. The game was drawn on move 103, but White had to fight for the
draw.
C) Seal voluntarily if you are confident of your position and want to stop
the play for analysis
Continuing the play always runs the risk of error or the sudden
appearance of a decision point. Immediately stopping the play removes
these risks. The following two examples show the successful application
of this principle.
( 1 ) The diagram is L.Polugayevsky-E.Mednis, Riga Interzonal 1979,

after White's 4 1 st move. With two rooks for the queen White has a
material advantage of approximately one pawn. Nevertheless, the
activity of my queen coupled with the drafty situation of White's king
made me feel quite secure that with the proper queen manoeuvres I could
create sufficient counterplay for a draw. Therefore, it seemed in order to
stop play and start analysis. After ten minutes of thought I sealed:
41 .. 'tWdl ! Draw
The draw was offered next day by my opponent. He had also come to
the same conclusion as me: the active queen negates White's slight
material advantage.
(2) This position occurred in D .Rajkovic-E.Mednis, Barcelona 1980,

after White's 4 1 st move. A wonderfully unbalanced position has arisen
after the time control. The prospects are excellent that with mutually best
play, each side's play and counterplay is sufficient to hold the balance.
But what is to be the best play? The only way to really find out is to
provide time for analysis.
White is threatening 42 l::t e 7+; if 4 1 . . . f6, 42 l::tb 8 and Black has to
decide whether he wants/needs to play 42 . . . b5. What should Black do
now? Seal!
41 . M6 Draw
..
The playing schedule called for a first session of 40 moves in 5 hours,

followed by a two hour dinner break and then an additional four hours of
play. During analysis, both of us had come to the conclusion that after 42
l::t b8 b5 Black is fine; GM Rajkovic had decided to head thereafter for a
drawn Q + P endgame with 43 l::t h 8 l::t c4 44 l::t h 4. Therefore, before
resumption of play we agreed on the draw.
D) If you must seal in a position that requires independent thinking, try

to act in accordance with the following guidelines:
( 1 ) Relax so that you are able to start concentrating.
(2) G et a hang of the position.
(3) Seal a good move, but do not take more than 30 minutes for it.
To relax right after the time control, you may want to get up from
the board and walk around for a few minutes . Though (2) is obvious to
the strongest players, those less experienced tend to skip it and start
analysing concrete moves. Needless to say, if you do not understand what
the position is about, your chances of coming up with a correct sealed
move are poor.
The last guideline is meant to help you act rationally in sealing your
move. Once you understand the theme of a position, very few logical
moves come into consideration. Yet some positions require so much
analysis that a complete job will require much more time than the
maximum one hour allowed for sealing. Nothing is gained if in such
situations you spend 59 minutes on your sealed move. You may still not
seal the best one and, in any case, will have put yourself in the practically
untenable situation of having to play 19 good moves in less than a
minute. It is much better to spend no more than 30 minutes when
selecting a logical (good) move and hope that your choice is a good one.
Questions And Answers

Question 1
You are White in the position shown in the diagram. The second time
control has been reached after Black's 60th move. The game is about two
minutes short of the six hour playing limit before adjournment will take
place. You are very tired. It is Round 1 and the playing session started
quite late. Moreover, the game up to now has required from you almost
six hours of solid effort. The playing schedule calls for resumption of play
at 10 pm after a 1 \12-hour dinner break. What should you do now?
Answer
"Nothing" is the correct answer. You should get up, clear your head
and wait for the arbiter to tell you to seal your move.
Except for the presence of the c- and d-pawns this would be a standard
Lucena position, routinely winning for White. The presence of the pawns
gives Black a bit of hope, but does not affect White's thematic play. What
you want to do is seal the normal move for White, 61 'i!i>g6, and then
analyse the position at your relative leisure. It will soon become clear that
Black's o nly chance and the main line is 61 ... l:tg1 + 62 f7 lid1 63 f6
b6 64 e7 l:te1 + 65 f8 l:td1 66 f7 cJ, but now 67 'i!;>g7 is a clear win.
But it didn't happen so in the game, E.Mednis-S.Nemirovski, Cannes
1 989, after Black's 60th move. I didn't want to adjourn, because I didn't
want to come back at l O pm, as that "would make me even more tired". I
somehow hoped that my opponent would resign in lieu of adjournment.
The next thing that I realised was that from the diagram my king was
standing on e7, as I " apparently" had played 61 'i!i>e7???. There was
nothing left to do but agree on a draw - hardly the outcome I had
expected when deciding not to adjourn immediately!
Question 2
You are White in the diagram. After Black's 60th move the time
control has been reached and the game is about a minute from being
adj urned. In the previous play you were triangulating with your king so
that it can get to h3 at that moment when Black's king is on g7. What is
your correct strategy now?
Answer
You want to play 61 h3 on the board as quickly as possible, to force
Black to seal because Black has a crucial decision to make. Should he
play 61 . . . W6 or 61 ... h6? It turns out that 61 . . . Wh6? loses while 6 1 . . .
6 draws:
( 1 ) 61 . . . h6? 62 f4 gxf4 63 lbd3!! f3 64 lbc5 g5 65 lbxa6 f4 66 g4!
.ig6 67 lbc5 .ie4 68 a6 g6 (68 . . . f2 69 lbxe4+ fxe4 70 g2 etc.) 69 lbxe4
Black resigns, E .Mednis-L. Schandorff, Silkeborg 1 988.
(2) 61 ... f6! 62 lbd3 (62 f4 gxf4 63 gxf4 g7 64 h4 h6 =) 62 ...
.id7 63 f4 .ie6 64 fxg5+ xg5 65 lbf4 .if7 66 2 4 67 fl g5 68
6 69 lbd3 .ie6 70 cM4 .id7! =. White stands "great" , but can never
gain the necessary tempo to penetrate.
I should add that I "tucked out" here. That is, I didn't play 6 1 h3
quickly enough and thus had to seal it. But IM Schandorff in his analysis
had assumed that line (2) after 65 lbf4 "must be lost" and thus chose the
trickier (and inferior) 6 1 . . . h6? after resumption of play.
Question 3
You are Black in the diagram. Because your opponent has played so
quickly, White's last move was his 5 1 st. The first session was to be for
four hours with a time limit of 40 moves in 2 hours, with the adjournment
after four hours of play. There are still some six minutes before
adjournment. Black's obvious move is 5 1 . . . lhh4. Should you save time
and play 5 1 . . . lhh4 immediately?

Answer
Absolutely not. Black wants to seal 5 1 . . . llxh4 because he is
"comfortable" in that position and wants to work out during analysis the
best approach for trying to realise his material advantage.
The play from the diagram, J.Hodgson-E.Mednis, Stavanger 1990,
after White's 5 1 st move, continued as follows: 51 ... llxh4 (Sealed move.
White's response is forced) 52 ll::lf2 i.f5 ! ! ( It is crucial to first place the
bishop on its best diagonal; the best square for t he rook is not yet certain.)
53 llg3? (Only the paradoxical looking 53 llf6 ! and if 53 ... llf4, 54 ll::le 4!
llf3 55 ll::l d 6! offered some chances for resistance) 53 ... ll::l c 6! 54 ltJd3
i.xd3! 55 cxd3 ll::l b 4! 56 cl llh2 57 d4 llc2+ 58 bl lld2 59 b3 llxd4 60
b2 lld3 61 llg4 ll::lc6 62 2 llh3 63 2 ll::l a5 64 a3 ll::l xb3 65 <MJ4 b6
White resigns
8 How to An alyse Adjourn ed Games
Adjourned games are an inherent part of tournament play. It is true

that the " FIDE" time limit of 40 moves in 2 hours, immediately followed
by 20 moves in one hour has considerably decreased the number of
adjournments compared to five years ago. Still, adjournments are here to
stay. Basketball, ice hockey, football etc. have halftimes or periods for
rest and rethink of plans. Even "sudden death" provisions call for first
having rest periods after regulation time. It is just ridiculous to think that
it is somehow logical or "fair" that a tournament game, once started,
must continue to conclusion without any break at all - no matter whether
it takes 5, 7 or 1 7 hours! Chess players are human beings and just plain
decency requires that provision(s) be made for rest, food and drink, going
to the bathroom etc. The length of adjournment usually takes in the
following three typical time periods a) 2 hours, b) overnight, c) several
days up to one week.
In all cases, the correct analytical approach consists of the following
two parts:
( 1 ) Discovering the correct plan.
(2) Establishing the correct variations for achieving the plan.
The first priority must be to determine what must be done: kingside
attack, pawn capture on the queenside, promoting a passed pawn etc.
This requires both time and, perhaps even more importantly, skill. The
rapid discovery of the correct plan is particularly crucial where the time
before resumption of play is short, i.e. in the 2 hour" period. The length
of the first adjournment period in the Olympiads has been 2 hours since
1 980 and was introduced mainly so that the Russians or other strong
teams with their powerful squad of analysts wouldn't have an unfair
advantage" etc. But in fact the results have been the opposite.
Grandmasters can quickly spot the correct plan , but weaker players
can't. As the captain of the Cyprus team complained to me at the 1 980
Malta Olympiad: To find the correct plan takes us the whole night. In
two hours we find nothing. The new FIDE regulation just makes it
90
How to Analyse Adjourned Games 91
tougher for us."

Once the correct plan is established, how to achieve it becomes critical.
The key requirement for success is work. The amount of analysis that can
be done in 2 hours is of course severely limited and what you particularly
want to ensure is that the opponent does not surprise you with some
tactical shot.
I will divide t he subject matter into two parts: ( 1 ) where the
adj ournment time is two hours or less, and (2) where it is overnight or
longer.
I ADJOURNMENT TIME IS TWO HO URS OR LESS
This category is becoming the increasingly important one. I will look in

turn at analysing superior, equal or u nclear, and inferior positions.
A) Superior positions
( 1 ) The diagram shows the position in E.Mednis-A. Weindl, Lugano

1985, round 4, after Black's 40th move. The time control has been
reached and White is ahead by the h-pawn. I decided to seal here and
took 8 minutes on 41 c2. I wanted to seal so that I could make the
following two decisions at relative "leisure":
a) After Black's . . . a3 where to put the QB.
b) Exactly how to use the h-pawn for winning purposes.
While gulping my dinner I made the following decisions:
a) After e.g. 4 1 . . . a3, 42 a l is correct so that the bishop is kept as
active as possible.
b) The h-pawn must be advanced as quickly as possible to start tying
down Black's pieces. At the very worst, the h-pawn will be exchanged for
Black's f-pawn.
Of course, I also played through some sample lines with the above
guidelines. The game continuation upon resumption was generally as
expected: 41 . a3 42 al ! d5 43 h4! 44 h5! i.d6 45 i.d4 i.e5 46
..
c5 c3 47 'ii?g3 f5 48 Wf4 f6 49 i.d6 n 50 dl 'ii?e6 51 c7 i.f6 52

h6 i.c3 53 i.d8 'ii?d7 54 b6 e6 55 d4 i.g6 56 i.e2! i.xd4 57 c4+
6 58 exd4 h7 59 d5 g8 60 d6! xc4 and Black resigned without
waiting for 6 1 d7 'iife7 62 h7.
(2) This diagram shows the posttlon in E.Mednis-J.G.Nicholson,

Lugano 1 985, round 2, after Black's 4 1 st move. I was happy enough to
seal 42 i.c6+ and then work out a specific winning plan during dinner. It
was easy enough to see that the first key position will occur after 42 'iW8
..
43 lid7. White's plan is rather clear: he will play his king to cS to break
the blockade and then will start pushing the b-pawn. If Black looks for
counterplay with . . . e5 , White's king may also infiltrate Black's kingside
via e6. Again I played through some sample lines and felt quite
confident of winning the game. The game resumed as indicated above
and then Black played 43 ... litb8 44 'ii?c4 f6 45 c5 d3!? (This was
totally unexpected. Black voluntarily sacrifices a pawn to either gain a
tempo for defence or to devalue White's pawn formation in case of 46
exd3. After close to 20 minutes thought I decided to take with the rook.)
46 litxd3 i.e7+ 47 4 Wr7 48 litd7 6 49 b7? ( After only 3 minutes
thought I decided to get the b-pawn going. Unfortunately White's

kingside pawns become vulnerable to B lack's bishop. Correct is 49 f3 .) 49
... lld8! 50 i.c6 ( 1 4 minutes thought showed that 50 llxd8 only draws.
But now also Black could draw with 50 . . . llxd7 ! .) 50 ... llb8? 51 f3 f4 52
gxf4 gxf4 53 i.b7! llg8 54 b6 llgl 55 i.e4 llcl + 56 b5 llc5+ 57 a6
llc3 58 b7 llb3 59 llxe7! <tixe7 60 Wa7 lla3+ 61 Wb6 llb3+ 62 Wc7 llc3+
63 i.c6 Black resigns.
B) Equal/unclear positions
( l ) The diagram is E.Mednis-T.Georgadze, Lugano 1985, Round 8 ,

after Black's 40th move . I t seemed clear t o me that White's best move i s
4 1 lld2! (guarding the second rank, doubling rooks on the d-file) and I
sealed it quickly (in less than 10 minutes). During analysis I decided (with
the help of GM Nunn) that I didn't want to play fxg4. The most forcing
line for Black was 4 1 . . . gxf3 42 gxf3 llg2, but after 43 lt::l b 5! 'ti'g3 44 llee2
White is clearly better. And otherwise, White works to menace the d
pawn with lt::lb 5 and the a-pawn with 't!fc3 . My analysis convinced me that
I was surely not worse. When my sealed move was revealed, Georgadze
seemed surprised and eventually played 41 ... g3 and offered me a draw.
After 20 minutes thought I accepted. Black can defend after 42 lt::l fd l llh6!
43 lt::lb 5 i.b7 44 lt::l dc3 lla8: if 45 lledl lla6; if 45 lt::l d5 ti'f7 followed by 46
. . . i.xd5 .
(2) The next position is B.Schwagli-E.Mednis, Lugano 1985, round 7,

after Black's 40th. Black has a passed protected pawn on d4 but it looks
to be permanently stopped. In the meanwhile White is ready to mobilise

his queenside with 4 1 a4! . So, during dinner analysis, the question came
to be: how could I get counterplay along the g-file while keeping White's
queenside pawns at bay? I simply decided to play the most logical moves
- and whatever will be, will be. I was not quite certain that my position was
100% sound, but felt that my practical chances were ample.
White had sealed the logical 41 a4! and after 4 1 .. gxf3 42 gxf3 llg7 he
took time out for the defensive 43 .tel . (I had also to consider the
immediate 43 a5.) After 43 . .. .ie7 44 aS llc6 45 b4 llc8 White should
have avoided the immediate 46 b5?! .id8 47 b6 axb6 48 axb6 since Black
blockaded the b-pawn with 48 ... llb7. White now blundered with 49
llg2?? (" Going for counterplay" - Schwagli. I nstead 49 llb5 holds.)
After 49 ... llxb6 50 llg6+ d7 51 llxb6 .ixb6 52 llh6 .i.c5 53 llh7+
6! (53 . . . e6? 54 .i.h4!) B lack had a winning endgame and won: 54
.ia5 .ib6 55 .ixb6 xb6 56 llxh5 lla8! 57 h4 lla3+ 58 e2 c5 59
llh8 d3+ 60 f2 l:Ia2+ 61 <M1 l:Ial + White resigns.
C) Inferior positions
The diagram shows the position after Black's 40th move in E.Mednis
R.Hiibner, Houston 1974, round 4. From the diagram we see that the
earlier action must have been rather intense, because both king positions
look rather loose. Around the 35th move Black began to make some
progress, which gained further pace due to inaccuracies by White on
moves 38-40. White had to seal his 4 1 st move. The situation is most
Ho w to Analyse Adjourned Games 95
unattractive: White must at least lose his h-pawn, Black's knight is very
powerful and he also has a passed protected e-pawn. After about 20
minutes thought I decided on my move:
41 Wa7!
White's only hope is the partially exposed position of the Black king
and, to exploit this, active queen play is a must.
Some notes regarding the playing schedule should be of interest here.
The regular rounds were from 3.30 pm-8 .30 pm and then, quoting the
official programme, "after a l Yz hour pause for rest and refreshment"
adjourned games would be resumed at l O pm and played on for another
two hours. "Rest and refreshment" for whom? For the tournament direc
tors, other tournament staff members, spectators? Most likely ! For the
players? Ha, ha, ha! Where is the time for resting when there is barely an
hour available to unearth the secrets of the adjourned position? The
result of the game is always important, whether the player's ultimate goal
is prize money, IM norms, GM norms, or honour. How can the player
"rest" when it is incumbent upon him to do his best upon resumption of
play! And who is standing by to offer him "refreshment" while he
frantically analyses away? Before resuming play, Hiibner and I compared
notes on "refreshment" and found them identical: one apple each.
41 ... Wet + 42 'i!fhl 1!Vxh4+ 43 'iflgl ltJg3
Black could enter a Q & P endgame with 43 . . . We l + 44 'i!?h2 '@xd l 45
1!Va8+ 'i!?g7 46 Wxe4, also - of course - with fine winning chances. With
Black's knight clearly superior to White's bishop, it is quite logical,
though, to retain the minor pieces. D uring my brief analysis I had

considered the text move as the "main line".
44 1Va3+
Near t he end of my "rest hour" I had discovered the stalemate
possibility introduced by this and the next move. The concept is deep,
though not all that surprising if we consider the position from the
practical standpoint. Obviously White's only hope for a draw is to check
Black's king, and Black could be expected to escape to the kingside. Now
if White can get the black king either to e3, e2, or e l and in the meanwhile
get rid of his own bishop + queen, then it's stalemate. The human mind is
quite capable of such creativity. But how can a computer ever be
programmed to come up with it? I must admit that I really didn't expect
Htibner to allow it, yet was happy that at least such a possibility existed.
And where there is hope . . .
The text move came as a surprise to Black who had spent his time
analysing the possibilities after 44 '@d7 !?. He had concluded that the
endgame after 44 .. '@d4+ 45 1Vxd4 exd4 46 \t>f2 l'De4+ (46 . . . l'Dxf5?! 47
.
c2 is an easy draw) cannot be won for Black because ofthe weakness of

the h-pawn. However, I had concluded - somewhat superficially no
doubt - that it must be lost and was interested in keeping the queens on.
Htibner stated that he had decided to continue after 44 't!fd7!? with 44 ...
h5.
44 000g7 45 c2 h6?
Being on u nfamiliar ground, Black walks right into White's
combination. It was essential to release the stalemate configuration with
45 . l'De2+ 46 Wfl l'Dd4. White's drawing chances then are scant.
.o
46 't!ff8+
Now the position is a forced draw.
46 g5 47 't!fg8+ 6 48 ''f8+ Wg5 49 ''g8+ f4 50 't!fc4+ e4 51
.. o
't!fc7+ xf5!
By now B lack has appreciated the dangers and is making it harder for
White to achieve his goal . Quite pretty would be the end after 5 1 . . . e3
52 1Vc3+ e2 53 d3+ ! ! exd3 54 '@e l +! ! wxe 1 stalemate!
52 't!fc8+ wg5! 53 't!fg8+ wf4 54 't!fb8+
Black's sequence of king moves has forced White's queen to operate
from longer range, but the draw is still there.
54 ..owe3 55 'it'b3+ wd2 56 'ifb4+!!
An unusual echo of the manoeuvre given in the note to Black's 5 1 st
move.
56
... c;t>cl
Black again sidesteps the main line which runs: 56 . . . c;t>xc2 57 Wc4+
d2 58 1!fd4+ e2 59 1We3+! ! 'i!?xe3 stalemate; 59 . . . c;t>d l 60 1!fd4+ with
perpetual check. If instead 58 . . . c;t>e l , W hite continues checking with 59
'it'f2+ ! c;t>d l 60 1!fd4+ etc. Thus the only choice that Black has is whether
to allow the draw by perpetual check or stalemate.
After the next move, the time control was reached and White
contemplated his sealed move. I sealed:
57 a4
A silly move. And I spent over an hour on it, thus leaving myself only 3
minutes for the remaining 1 5 moves until the next time control at move
72. That was stupid! That is the penalty that one sometimes has to pay if
one sees "too much".
It was quite obvious to me that I can continue the checks after 57 Wb l +
c;t>d2 58 '@b4+! , etc. But isn't there something better? And after a while I
found 57 d3 ! ! . If then 57 . . . 1Wh l+ 58 'i!lf2 exd3 White has a most
elementary perpetual check after 59 '@c3+ etc. But I discarded 57 d3 ! !
because of 5 7 . . . c;t>d l and White has "nothing better" than to again enter
the "long complicated" checking with 58 c2+! . (Of course, there is not a
thing wrong with this - but the mind can play such tricks.) Then I noticed
the intriguing text move. White himself now threatens to mate Black,
starting with 58 Wc3+, so does Black have anything better than giving
perpetual check himself? By the time I discovered that the situation is
more complicated than I originally envisaged, I was almost out of time. I
had to seal quickly - and decided on my latest creation: 5 7 a4.
57 ... li:Je2+ 58
My initial (at the board) analysis considered only the draw after 58 ...
li:Jg3+. After 58 ... g3 White does not have to enter the complications
of 59 c,t(xe2 xg2+ but has the simple 59 xe4 and because of the mate
threat on c2, Black has nothing better than 59 ... t!ff4+ 60 t!fxf4 li:Jxf4. But
the ending after 6 1 .ie8 is an easy draw. However, Black can complicate
with:
58 . . 'intl + 59 c,t(f2 'i!Vgl +! 60 c,t(xe2 'i!xg2 +
.
So White has been forced to allow the complications. The position is a

draw, though White must be careful that the pawns do not become too
strong. I had ample time for home analysis and after several pages of such
analysis was quite confident that I would be able to come up with the
right answer at the required clip of 1 2 seconds per move.
61 we3 't!Vf3+
After 6 1 . . . 'it'g l + , 62 We2 is sufficient.
62 4 Wd3+ 63 wc5 't!Ve3+
There is no way Black can win, no matter what he does, as long as
White defends accurately. The detailed analysis is not really all that
interesting and I will omit it.
64 5 f5 65 We5! f4
Or 65 . . 't!Vf3 66 1!fel + c,i;>b2 67 .idl .
.
66 1!fxe4 Wd2 6 7 W5! f3 68 tWxe3+ c,!;>xe3 6 9 c,t>g5 Draw
II ADJOURNMENT TIME IS O VERNIGHT OR LONGER
Overnight or longer analysis can and should be rather exhaustive.

Chess is generally inexhaustible and the longer you analyse the adjourned
position, the closer you will come to the ultimate truth. A grandmaster
who spends 1 5 hours analysing will know a lot more than the
grandmaster who satisfies himself with 4 hours of work.
A good example of the above is the diagram position, F.Gheorghiu
L.Polugayevsky, Petropolis Interzonal 1973, after Black's 40th move.
Events associated with this are wonderfully described by GM
Polugayevsky in his marvellous book Grandmaster Preparation (pp. l l 5-
1 1 8).
Just before adjournment both sides had traded blunders and now
White had to seal. At first glance things looked bleak for Black, but
analysis of the adjourned position with his second GM Bagirov - lasting
more than 15 hours - convinced Polugayevsky that he is just a shade away
from victory. The game resumed as follows:
41 llxe5 't!ffl+ 42 'it>g4 lld8!!

This strong retreat was a huge surprise for White who had only
expected the immediate 42 ... l:tg2+ or 42 ... @g l + . Not surprisingly,
White fails to come up with the correct move.
43 c.t>xf4?
This loses, as do:
a) 43 Wg5?: 43 . . . lii xg6 44 l:txh7+ c.t>xh7 45 lle7+ c.t>h8 46 Wxg6 't!fg2+
when White is mated or loses his queen.
b) 43 Wf5?: 43 . . . l:txg6+ 44 c.t>xf4 't!fc l + 45 lite3 <t>g8! (intending 46 . . .
l:tf8) 46 llxh7 c.t>xh7 4 7 'iff7+ <t>h6 or 46 't!fc5 l:tf8+ 4 7 ct>e4 l:te6+.
c) 43 liit h l?: 43 . . . lixg6+ 44 'it>xf4 Wc4+ 45 lii e4 liif8+ 46 <t>e3 Wxc3+
47 <t>f2 lih6 ! ! 48 Wxh6 Wxf3+ 49 <t>e l 'fi'xe4+ 50 <t>d2 lii d 8+.
But no win could be found after the paradoxical looking 43 <l;g5 ! ! :
- 4 3 . . . lii f8 : 44 't!t'xh7 + ! ! lhh7 45 lixh7+ <l;g8 46 h6! with perpetual
check.
- 43 . . . 1Vg2+: 44 <t>xf4 and Black does not have check on c l .
- 43 ... 't!t'g l + : 44 lig4 'i!Vc l 45 Wh2! ! and after 45 . . . lixg6+, 46 Wh5.
Now back to the game:
43 ... Wet+ 44 <l;g3
Or 44 c.t>e4 't!fxc3 .
44 ... lixg6+ 45 lig4 't!t'gl + 46 <t>h3
Also 46 Wf4 lixg4+ 47 fxg4 Wf2+ wins for Black.
46 ... l:txg4 47 'i!Vxg4 'i!Vhl+ 48 Wg3 llg8 49 lig5 'i!Vgl+ 50 Wf4
50 c.t>h3 lixg5 .
50 ... 'i!Vcl + 51 <MS lif8+ 52 <t>e4 't!t'xc3 53 lieS Vel+ 54 <t>d5 lld8+ 55
<t>e6 lieS+ White resigns
It is my strong feeling that it is those who strive for the truth who will be
the most successful. Thus also in playing off adjourned games you should
select the "best" variation. I can only think of two instances where it can
ever be justified to do otherwise:
( 1 ) In a very unpleasant, close to "lost", position an objectively un
sound tricky line with a well hidden "point" can be worthwhile.
(2) Where you know your opponent so well that you can be sure of his
characteristic responses. For instance, he is under psychological pressure
believing that he " must play for a win" or you know that he becomes
afraid when you attack his king.
The above points lead to the in practice important question: should I
resign a "lost" adjourned position? Positions which do not give any
"practical" chances should, of course, be resigned both to save you time
and energy and not to insult your opponent. But where coming in to play
off the game is not a great burden on you (do not be concerned with your
opponent - in case of success he will be rewarded with a full point) do
continue to play. No points are scored by resigning! J ust make sure that
there is something to play for in the position! .
A very painful - for me - illustration o f what can happen in a winning

position is shown from the diagram, J.Cross-E.Mednis, New Jersey 1959,
round 4, after B lack's 40th move . Theoretically speaking, White is quite
lost: not only is he a pawn down, but B lack's passed d-pawn is very
powerful and his own attack is by far the more dangerous. Yet in his
analysis White had noticed one captivating tactical possibility and this
factor convinced him to resume play. On the other hand, I, in my
How to Analyse Adjourned Games /01
superficial analysis, had sought no evil and seen no evil . . .

41 2 litel 42 lig2 'iff3 43 1ft'f5 lie3 44 g5 h5 45 g6
To me this looked like a random attacking move, yet it is an inherent
part of White's swindling plan.
45 .. d3 46 .ibl lie2 47 1t'g5
In this position White does not even have a threat and Black can easily
win by e.g. 47 . . . lhg2+ 48 't!Vxg2 1t'e2 or 47 . . . 1Vxg2+! 48 't!Vxg2 .id5 . But
since I was oblivious of why White was continuing to play on, I "chose"
47 ... d2???
and was forced to resign after
48 l!nt6+ ! ! (48 . . . gxh6 49 g7 mate).
Some positions are simple enough to analyse to a certain mathematical
conclusion. An endgame can simplify to a forced theoretical win or draw.
A middlegame can allow a straightforward tactical sequence that wins by
force. Even complicated positions at times offer clear answers. A good
example is the next diagram, P.Szekely-N.Weinstein, Budapest 1976,
round 6, after Black's 40th move. I n a totally winning position Black on
move 40 had blundered a piece and White's sealed move was to be 4 1
llxc7. Szekely was even intimating that Black should resign. I nstead,
after dinner, Weinstein " went to work" and by 5 .30 am had found a
forced win in every variation ! The game continuation :
41 llxc7 e3 42 lixd7 llxd7 43 fxe3 1Vxe3+ 44 <M1 lid4! 45 .ic6 f4!

46 l!Vxd4 1fxd4 47 gxf4 't!Ve3 and Black won ( 48 b6 Wxb6 49 .if3 'ire3 50
'it>g2 1!Vxf4 51 a4 't!fxa4 52 lhd2 'it>g5 53 lle2 h5 54 lie4 Wc2+ 55 'it>g3
1t'c3 56 'it>g2 't!fd3 57 'it>g3 58 lif4+ 'it>e5 59 lla4 g5 60 lla5+ cM6
61 lidS 'it'e3 62 :1Id6+ e7 White resigns).

But unfortunately, the majority of your adjourned games will not
fall into this welcome category. Even many ..apparently simple"
positions will turn out to be not so simple after all. The amount of time
that you have is always limited and your position will keep appearing
"limitless" . This makes it imperative for the player to continually make
certain practical decisions as he analyses. I will now discuss how a GM in
real life tackles such a situation. I am setting up the board (diagrams)
from Black's point of view because this is the side from which I did my
analysis and I want you also to follow the coming play from that side.
The diagram shows the position from K.Commons-E.Mednis, US

Championship 1978, after White's 34th move. The time control (and
adjournment) is after move 40 and Black is obviously looking forward to
it. With good play earlier he has won a sound pawn, a pawn for which
White has no compensation. B lack's immediate general goal is to reach
the "safe haven" at move 40 in no worse condition than he is now.
The specific evaluation of the position shows that the kingside pawn
formation is symmetrical and on the queenside Black has an unopposed
passed a-pawn. Theoretically, the position should be won for Black, yet
this will not happen by itself. As always, Black must expect that care and
accuracy will be required for the full point. The start is easy enough:
34 ... :1Ia2!
Activating the rook and making room for the a-pawn's run.
35 f3 lLlc3 36 :1Ib3 lLldS 37 lLld6
As there is no time for slow defensive manoeuvres - e.g. 37 g3 a5 ! 38 e4
a4! allows Black to mobilise his a-pawn too quickly, while 37 e4 allows 37
. . . lbf4 - White tries to create some attacking chances with his rook and
knight. This is the best practical approach.
37 ... aS! 38 h4 a4 39 litb8+ 'i!i>h7 40 lbxf7
The only logical move. Clearly inferior is 40 e4? lbe3 and Black is a
tempo ahead of the game, i.e. Black is one move closer to queening the a
pawn and White is a move behind in his attack. These factors completely
overshadow the existence or non-existence of White's e-pawn.
40 . lDxe3 41 g4
. .
White played this quickly to force Black to seal. The obvious move for
Black now is 4 1 . . . a3 and that is what I considered for about 10 minutes
prior to sealing. The main forcing line seemed to be 42 h5 g5 43 litb7
litg2+ ! 44 'i!i>h l litb2 45 lita7 a2 46 lDxg5+ g8 47 lita8+ g7 48 lbxe6+
6 and now White is defenceless against the threat of 49 . . . litb l +
followed b y 50 . . . a l = W. Therefore with confidence I sealed . . .
41
... a3
Returning to my room I quickly confirmed that 42 h5 indeed holds no

dangers for Black since he can safeguard his king whilst also safeguarding
his a-pawn. But chess is so inexhaustible and I started considering other
reasonable plans for White. My attention was immediately drawn to 42
lita8 ! , thereby placing the rook in the very active "behind the passed
pawn" position - see Diagram 3 . The kind of thinking and analysis that
I went through in deciding on Black's best theoretical and practical plan
should be of value to less experienced players in their adj ourned game
analysis.
To start off, I felt in my bones that if there is "justice" in chess, then the
position in Diagram 3 must be won for Black. After all, Black is an
advanced passed a-pawn ahead and White's king is confined to the first
rank. It soon became apparent, however, that there are also negatives for
Black: his king is in some danger and his rook is awkwardly placed in
front of his passed pawn. Therefore I started to feel that instead of many
roads to Rome, there may well only be one winning line. It was up to me
to find it! There were to be two main lines as follows:
( 1 ) The most forcing approach is to get the a-pawn going and I looked
at this first: 42 . . . l:lg2+ 43 'it>h1 a2 44 h5 g5 (There is no other way to
prevent mate. ) 45 hxg6 e. p.+ 'it>xg6 (Unfortunately Black must capture
because 45 . . . 'it>g7?! 46 lt:Je5 with the threat of 47 liia 7+ gives White a
certain draw.) 46 lt:Je5+ g5 47 lt:Jc4 (Thanks to the tempo gained by
checking, White's knight has got back in time and immediately exposes
the momentarily unsatisfactory placement of Black's rook and knight.)
4 7 ... lii e2 48 lt:Jxe3 liie 1 + (I was most reluctant to part with the a-pawn in
any analysis and explored at some length 48 ... f4. However, after 49
lt:Jg2+ g3 White defends with 50 f4! and even the better 49 .. . 'it>xf3
offers nothing close to a win.) 49 g2 a 1='fi' 50 lii xa l lii xa l 5 1 g3 ! .
H ow to correctly judge the position i n Diagram 4? Black of course
has a significant material advantage, yet there are many pluses in White's
situation: material is severely reduced, White's king, knight and pawns
are well placed defensively, Black's pawns are scattered and weak rather
than strong. Despite relative simplicity, such a position does not appear
in any of the reference works on the endgame and thus independent
judgement and analysis is required. Black can readily make one step
towards simplification by exchanging his h-pawn for White's g-pawn.
Yet that would seem to clearly lead to the drawn positions discussed on
pages 1 29- 1 32 of Averbakh's Rook v. Minor Piece Endings. Some analysis
of Diagram 4 convinced me that though Black has good practical
winning chances, White also has good practical drawing chances. The
major question, however, was: is it a theoretical win for Black? I couldn't
come to a firm decision and felt that at a minimum 10 hours of solid
analysis were required to get at the truth. My intuition was that there was
perhaps a 70% probability of the position being a win. What to do -from
the standpoint of practical play? I could, of course, have spent the night
and early morning analysing away in order to find the truth. B ut what if
the ultimate truth was unfavourable, i.e. the position is drawn? For the
endgame theoretician such a conclusion is fine, but surely not for the
practical player who is trying to win from Diagram 3! And note that this
conclusion would have absorbed all of Black's available time, including
both analysis time and sleeping time.
Even now I am not really sure of the correct evaluation of Diagram 4.
After the game Commons said that his analysis showed this type of
position to be lost. But I am unsure as to whether he was not being too
pessimistically inclined. Also after the game I asked GM Pal Benko - an
excellent endgame analyst - to comment on the position. His feeling was
similar to mine: a tremendous amount of analysis is required, with the
winning prospects only somewhat higher than 50%.
Everything must always be put into perspective. From a run-of-the-
mill somewhat favourable middlegame or endgame, Black has every

reason to feel happy at getting to Diagram 4; after all, he has good
winning chances and no risk of losing. It is just that the passed a-pawn in
Diagram 3 looks so powerful that it didn't seem worth trading it for
anything which wasn't a sure thing. Therefore I started looking at
variations which retain the pawn.
(2) The other logical approach is to free the king, starting with 42 . . .
g6. White's best then i s 4 3 lLle5+ (Both 4 3 lla7 and 43 ll f8 were quickly
shown to be unsatisfactory.) and Black responds with 43 . . . Wf6. Here
three tries for White came into consideration:
a) 44 lLld3. After 44 . . lLlc4 I decided that with both Black's king and
.
a-pawn safe, the win is fairly routine.

b) 44 f4. This threatens 45 lla7 with unavoidable mate on f7. Yet the
obvious 44 . . . g5 undermines the knight position for a certain win.
c) 44 lLlc6.
This turned out to be most annoying. My initial reaction was 44 . . .

llg2+ 4 5 h l a 2 46 lLlb4 e5! a n d no matter how White captures the a
pawn, Black's king will penetrate via ... f4 and defoliate White's
kingside. But in looking further for tactical tries for White I noted the
surprising 46 g5+!? (instead of 46 lLlb4) . lf now 46 ... Wf5 47 gxh6 gxh6 48
lLlb4 and compared to the previous note, White has exchanged off one
pair of pawns and thus has less to lose. A nd the tactical point of 46 g5+!?
is that after 46 ... hxg5 White plays 47 h5 and threatens mate with 48 llf8.
This is where my preparation for the resumption of play ended. I had
analysed at night, slept fairly well for 5-6 hours and analysed again in the
morning, with the total analysis time being about 12 hours. I had decided
to play this second line for several reasons. Most importantly, I felt that it
was theoretically stronger. In addition, line ( I ) was of a rather forced
character and my opponent was fairly sure to have found it. However,
the "best" moves in this second line were based rather more on judgement
and there was the more realistic hope that he would be making choices
other than what I considered to be the best. Thus I went to play off the
adjourned game in a confident frame of mind, but not 100% certain of a
theoretical win. If he were to play perfectly and if in fact the chess goddess
had decreed that there was no theoretical win from Diagram 3 - well,
that's life .
A n afterthought i s in order here. Looking a t the position after 4 7 h5 in
the quiet of my home, it seemed that after the routine 47 ... <it>f7 Black had
every reason to expect both a theoretical and practical win. In exchange
for the a-pawn, Blac k should win the other two pawns and then the three
pawn advantage must in due course be decisive.
When the game was resumed, Commons quickly played:
42 hS?!
His analysis had convinced him that the position was lost and he felt
that this led to "trappier" play. For my part I was delighted to see it since
I was sure that I now had a certain theoretical win.
42 . . gS 43 l:lb3
.
43 hxg6+ <it>xg6 just serves to free Black's king; 43 l:lb7 was

discussed i n the note to White's 4 1 st move.
43 ... lb c2!
The last key move. The knight covers the a-pawn's queening square
and thus ensures success.
44 l:ld3
White took a long time on this move, looking for a possible trap for
Black to fall into.
44 ... l:lb2 45 l:ld7 a2 46 lbxgS+ <it>g8 47 l:ld8+ <it>g7 48 l:ld7+
The last try. 48 . . . 'i!?g8 repeats the position while 48 .. 'i!?f8?? allows
.
49 lbh7+ 'i!?e8 50 lbf6+ <it>f8 5 1 lbh7+ with a perpetual check - note how
White's rook on d7 cuts off the Black king from an escape route (the
point behind White's 44th + 45th moves! ).
48 ... Wf6 White resigns

Question 1
You are Black in the diagram. By being "too careful", you allowed
White to consolidate before the time control and you realise that your
"easy win" is gone. Your sealed move was 4 1 . . . Ii. (g3)-g8 . The game is to
be resumed in less than two hours. What should you give your attention
to in the very limited time available?
Answer
You are a pawn up in the form of a protected passed f-pawn. If White
has no tactical shots, Black, with opportunities both on the queenside
and kingside, will win in due course.
Therefore, the immediate need is to look for any tactical possibilities
White has in the diagram. The first "tactics" that hit the eye should be 42
.txd5!? exd5 43 'Wxd5. For the moment Black's pieces stand awkwardly
and White threatens 44 'ti'f7. Because 43 . . . Ii.g7? fails to 44 e6, Black
needs a different way of protecting f7. Since the Ii.b8 is doing "nothing"
there, the logical choice becomes 43 ...Ii.bf8 ! . Then Black has to consider
the following White plans:
( 1 ) 44 e6: Black then has to decide between being satisfied with some
winning chances in the endgame after 44 . . . i.c6 45 t'bxc6 'Wxc6 46 Ii.xf5
'ti'xd5 47 Ii.xd5 or risking the middlegame after 44 . . . i.e8 .
(2) 44 Ii.dl : Black seems to have 44 . . . Ii.g4 ! , when discovered attacks
along the d-file can be parried since 45 t'bxf5 is met by 45 ... i.xf5+ 46
Ii.xf5 'Wg6! .
How to Analyse Adjourned Games 1 09
The diagram comes from the game M.Lanzani-E.Mednis, Lugano 1 988

after Black's 4 1st move. I felt pretty confident in case of 44 lldl llg4!, but
had not decided before resumption of play whether to play 44 ... c6 or
44 ... e8 after 44 e6. Yet I didn't have to do any further "worrying"
because my opponent resigned the game and quit the tournament before
play was to be resumed.
Question 2
You are White in the diagram. After a 5-hour session stretching into the
late evening the game was adjourned and you sealed the flexible, non
committal 5 1 llc6+. The game is to be resumed at 9 am. What should be
your approach to analysis in order to ensure the win?
Answer
While it is true tht you have a whole night for analysis, the position
appears to be simple enough not to "deserve" that kind of effort. After
all, there is the regular round game to be played in early afternoon and
you do not want to be "dead" for that.
In the diagram Black's king has to retreat, e.g. to g7 , and then White
needs a convincing way of continuing. What square in White's part of the
board is under attack and can be used as a further springboard for
Black's pieces? If White asks this correct question, the answer will lead to
the right approach. The answer is "f4", e.g. 52 f5?! lbf4! . How to
smoothly protect the f4 square? "52 llc4" is the obvious answer. Then
White can start working on the decisive advance of the h-pawn.
This position resulted from the game E.Mednis-A.Druckenthaner, Graz
110 How t o Be a Complete Tournament Player
1987, after White's sealed 5 1st move. The game continuation

demonstrated the correctness of White's approach: 51 ... <t;g7 52 lilc4!
'i!lg6 53 lid4! lbf2 54 'i!lg2 lbd3 55 h4! lbel+ 56 WO. lbf3? (Overlooking
White's threat, but Black is lost anyway.) 57 f5+ Wf7 58 xe3 lbxd4 59
xd4 xh4 60 <t;e2 d8 61 <tJf3 g5 62 h3 e7 63 <t;g4 b4 64 M!
a3 65 c4+ <t;C8 66 g5 cl + 67 <t;g6 a3 68 f6 Black resigns
Question 3
As Black you have been struggling very hard to try to defend a minor
piece endgame where you are a piece down for two pawns. Over the
previous 1 5 or so moves you have been able to prevent meaningful
progress by White. After six hours of intensive play the game is
adjourned with White sealing his 63rd move in the diagram. You are very
tired. What should be the bench-marks for your analysis?
Answer
The first clear risk comes from being tired. If the mind feels tired the
risk is great that it will function like a vegetable rather than a human
head. I mean, it just won't function! What to do? Perhaps a walk in the
fresh air can help clear it. Or perhaps a snooze for an hour or two is in
order. What is clear is that if you start analysing with a "tired head" , you
may have too many blind spots (even one blind spot can be one too
many!).
Black's objective from the diagram must be to prevent White from
penetrating into his position, because such a penetration will inevitably
lead to the capture of decisive material. The immediate 63 xf6 is not to
be feared since after 6 3 . . . i.xb4 the connected passed pawns provide

good compensation for drawing purposes. How can White devalue the
quality of Black's pawns prior to playing i.xf6? If this question is asked,
63 b5! becomes the move Black should be concerned about. (In the game
GM Csom sealed it after 30 minutes thought.) What to do after that? 63 . . .
lL:lxb5? looks patently hopeless after 64 i.xb5 cxb5 65 i.xf6 since the split
pawns are nothing but a weakness. Better is 63 . . . cxb5, keeping the
knight on the board, but the position after 64 i.xf6 is still bleak because
the split pawns are j ust so weak.
Can Black do anything else? Well, B lack must try other defences
because the captures on b5 are just so strategically wrong. Using this kind
of approach, it is easy to see that 63 ...lbe4 is worth considering.
The diagram resulted from I.Csom-E.Mednis, Silkeborg 1 988. After
the game, my opponent said that he had not found a forced win after
63 . . . lbe4 and had considered the main line thereafter to be 64 b6 .tf2+!
65 d3 i.xd4. But I didn't play 63 .. . lbe4! because I never
considered it! My mind was just too tired when I started analysing and
therefore couldn't function normally. Instead, I chose 63 ... cxb5? as the
"lesser of two evils" and resigned on move 86.
0 ------
How To Be a
Complete
Tournament Player
------ 0
In this thoroughly practical chess handbook, E dmar
Mednis shares his knowledge and experience of forty
years of c ompetitive p lay to help tournament players
become more effective and score more points.
After detailing an improvement training programme

the author reveals how Grandmaster methods can be
incorporated into one ' s own p lay. He also stresses the
importance and subtleties of move orders from the very
first move and advises how to select a suitable opening
repertoire or to expand an existing one with the
minimum of effort. The tournament p layer is shown
how to prepare for every game and how to set realistic
obj ectives . Advice i s also given on how to cope with
surprises when things do not go as planned , how to
handle the pres sure of time control , and the sealed
move .
A chapter on the best ways to tackle adj ourned games

c oncludes this book, which is packed with sound
advice that will enable the reader to become a wiser,
more successful, and complete tournament p layer.
n ----=-=--=-----:--=::::==--=-:=--'-- -----
ISBN 1 85744 0 1 8 8
9 7 8 1 8 5 7 4 4 0 1 88

Edmar Mednis How To Be A Complete Tournament Player 1991

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Edmar Mednis How To Be A Complete Tournament Player 1991

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

0 -------

MAXWELL MACMILLAN CHESS

Some other books in this series:

ADAMS, B. & M . LIVSHITZ, A.

ALEKHI NE, A.A. POLUGAYEVSKY, L.

CLOAD, R. & KEENE, R. SHERESHEVSKY, M & SLUTSKY, L.

A full catalogue Is available from:

MAXWELL MACMILLAN CHESS

EUROPE/ Maxwell Macmillan International,

USA Macmillan Publishing C ompany,

CANADA 1200 Eglinton Avenue East,

AUSTRALIN L akes Business Park, Building A 1,

ASINPACIFIC 72 H illview Avenue, *03-00 Tacam House, Singapore 2366

LATIN AMERICA 28100 US Highway 19 North,

JAPAN Misuzu S Building 2F, 2-42-14 Matsubara Setagaya-ku,

Copyright 1991 Edmar Mednis

AllRights Reserved. No part of this publication may be

First Ed iti on 1991

Li brary of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book

ISBN 1 85744 018 8

Cover by Pintail Design

Training Programme for Significant

The overall purpose of the training programme presented here is to

players and it is absolutely unthinkable for them to be playing more than

2. Thorough Review of Games Played

My Best Games by Karpov

include everything relevant to the opening variation. For instance, if the

Questions and Answers

Grefe, published by R . H . M . Press.

Grandmasters leave a legacy of deeds (games) and words (writing). In

1. Learning from Fischer

O'Connell.) In Fischer's time, a familiar type of Ruy Lopez position

completely different: the only item of significance is that White's chances

2. L earning from Karpov about the F rench D efence, Tarrasch Variation

linked to Black's being saddled with an isolated d-pawn. To take

3 Sicilian Najdorf, Polugayevsky Variation

It is very instructive to read what Polugayevsky has to say about this

Thus a lot of the reasoning behind the Polugayevsky Variation has

4. Learning the Ruy Lopez from Karpov

At the board Polugayevsky decided on the response 1 2 . . . l!h4+ 1 3 g3

"Such is the unusual logic of chess. I am convinced that if the position

Questions and Answers

sharp tactics will do better with 1 e4 openings, whereas strategists should

to expand your repertoire. There are three approaches to doing this:

(2) Learn a sister opening. An important example of this approach is for

Suggested Opening Repertoire for the Sensible Strategic Player

1 . Ruy Lopez: Exchange Variation

2. Sicilian Defence: Dragon Variation

3. Sicilian Defence: Accelerated Dragon

4. French Defence: Tarrasch Variation

5. Pirc Defence: Normal Variation

6. Modern Defence: Averbakh Variation

7. King's Indian Defence: Normal Variation

8. Gri.infeld Defence: Modern Exchange Variation

9. Queen's Indian Defence: Normal Variation

1 0. English/Reti Opening: Mutual Double Fianchetto

1 1 . English Opening: Andersson-Book Line

Questions and Answers

b3 lLlc6, forcing very sharp and generally unclear complications onto

This is absolutely contrary to the sophisticated strategical game that

White has saved a whole tempo compared to the variations where he

b5!?, something tried, for example, by Bronstein and Miles.