Movsesian - Kasparov (2000), Rxc3 in the Najdorf

Movsesian - Kasparov (2000)
A game too good not to annotate!

I stumbled on this game the way any Najdorf player would: by typing in 'Kasparov 0-1' and clicking wildly. What really gets me about this game are two things:

1. After the Rxc3 exchange sac, what wins the game is typical Najdorf play- the exchange sac simply makes the usual themes stronger.  
2. The old cliché "use every piece in the attack" is demonstrated pretty damn well!
3. And... In every club you have players who pick "systems" against a range of openings. Against the Sicilian the most common approach of a player who wants to get by with as little opening theory as possible is to play f3, 0-0-0, Kb1, and g2-g4-g5. This game shows that against the Najdorf, "slow", unchallenging play can often see the black pieces come to life and take over the position. 

White's d2 knight and c1 Bishop defend key squares, but they also block white's Queen on e2 defending along the second rank and black's d1 Rook can't defend the open c-file. Black's play demonstrates how to take advantage of these weaknesses and use every piece in an attack.

The Theory - Najdorf (7. Nd7)

Unfortunately one of the most logical systems in chess is also one of the most theoretical. I say that because the Najdorf is a great system to play when white doesn’t play strict "book". In my experience, if white doesn’t play theoretical lines black inevitably takes over the position by playing fairly obvious moves, putting pressure on points he's set up to attack better than white is to defend. It reminds me of a comment that made me laugh on ozchess - a correspondence game was started with 1.e4 and Dave Beaumont said “positional mistake- the pawn’s under-defended.” The Najdorf is a system that often makes me think that statement is true!

Anyway- White has good chances in the sharp theoretical lines, as for the rest, even for an undercooked positional player like me – the position plays itself. I'll look at 6. Bg5 lines with a delayed Be7 for black, which makes sense because black rarely castles in the Najdorf anyway.

a) One nasty sideline with 10. Bxf6 & 11. e5
b) The horrible world of Nd5 sacs!
c) The Sozin setup with Bc4 - which deserves a post of it's own.

In the first sentence I distinguished between the theoretical and the logical, because that’s what it sometimes feels like for me. That’s slightly unfair to the theory though, so in this post I’ll try to show the logic behind the theory. Before you read this post on theory I'd recommend looking back at posts (1, 2, 3) to understand the themes of the Najdorf when white doesn't play accurately (if you don't already know them).


a) 10. Bxf6 sideline

What a tedious amount to have to learn for a sideline! I thought I'd try to show some logic behind these strings of moves, and though there are some typical Najdorf moves from both sides in there, I'm thinking more and more that it's just memory work. I haven't memorised an opening for many years and it's helped my chess (and my enjoyment!) a lot, but sometimes you have to take the good with the bad- below 2000 level the Najdorf is an opening you can play with common sense, but you have to be prepared for a guy who's had Fritz running on deep position analysis until his keyboard's melted too.

b)  Nd5 sacs

Black to play: Qb6!?, Rc8!?, Be7!?

You can't really stop a Nd5 sac if white wants to play one, and no matter what rating Rybka gives it, you have to be a great defender to stay alive. There are 3 possibilities:

1. Palliser gives Qb6! But only if you're able to play a tricky ending with 3 white pieces for your queen:

2. Rc8 - I'd love to make this move work. It develops, it ties up the d3 bishop a little bit, and I like the idea of provoking a move like Kb1 when black can get another tempo to coordinate/develop his pieces. The following is just me playing around with Rybka, it's amazing how black gets these +2, +3 positions which turn into losses with one inaccurate move.

(14. Bf4 is also pretty challening, black can give up an exchange and get a comfortable position. Qc4 is probably the move for black.)

3. Be7 is arguably safer, pushing the game into known waters as white really only has Qg3! to continue the attack. It's a simple attack to play and an extremely difficult defence which makes me not at all drawn to it.

I'll post a few annotated games in this line as I play them- tonight is fixed opening night at the MCC and I'm sure there'll be a few people keen to come and obliterate the Najdorf!;)

"This is where the theory begins..."

Said my opponent ominously. Before smashing me with black and white about 10 times. And he's dead right- This Bg5 line is what I come up against about 70% of the time I break out the Sicilian, and most players know this position really well. White usually plays f5 or Bh3, both designed to further weaken the vulnerable e6 or the light squares around the king (a6 is also common).

In the last post I mentioned I had such a tough time trying to crack this line as white, that I've started playing it as black occasionally! I'm so happy to report that, coming up against a ~2000 white player, it's just as hard for black to handle:)!! (and) I was happy to beat a 1900 player on the weekend with white- a nice bishop sac on e6.

Before we start i'll ask a simple question: What are white and black trying to achieve in the above position?

And from here, fireworks! The type of fireworks so often required from white to get an advantage against the Najdorf. That's what makes it such a great defense especially against a weaker player, if white wants an advantage he's usually forced to take a risk and show some decent knowledge of attack in the follow-up.

This is actually a fascinating position to analyse if
you want to do so before looking at the end of the game:
(white to move)

I'm not sure if 0-0-0 is common in the Bg5 najdorf- at move 9 I've seen b4 for black, when the continuation axb4, Qc4 is normal.

The next couple of games come from two icons, the late, great Bent Larsen and the brilliant Boris Spassky. For me, Larsen epitomises the pre-computer age and what was great about it. Anyone who gets the chance to read "Good move guide" (1982) should do it- you'll see the rational, logical foundation Larsen used to analyse positions, which in the computer/theory age so many players skip over.

Boris Spassky for me is everything that chess should be. Every time I've seen him he has had a smile on his face, he's a pure gentleman who loves the game. I loved his interviews with Judith Polgar at the candidates last year, when he was talking about why players persist in repeating a variation they've lost with- he described them as two bulls butting each other with their horns, and went on to give a visual demonstration much to the joy of photographers and press. What's great about these two is that they haven't shirked competition either- Larsen played a tournament 5 or so years ago and scored 0/9 playing untheoretical openings, and Spassky was playing head-to-head games with Korchnoi I believe before his illness.

And I'll annotate this one tomorrow:

The Najdorf & other Sicilians.

Position from Keres-Winter, 1935. Black to move,

notice the attacking potential & communication between white's pieces.

The Siclian is the toughest defence for an improving e4 player to play against. Black's play is obvious- press the weak e4 pawn, increase the pressure on the c-file, stop white pushing e5/f5 easily.

White's advantage however is based on much more elusive advantages for an improving player, like using a semi-open d-file, forcing black to weaken support for d5 then using it as an outpost, knight sacs on e6 followed up by checks on the h5-e8 diagonal displacing the black King, and in some lines- a time advantage. The following games I've picked out of positional/middle-game/general books, which is how I like to study the openings. The first 5 are atypical Sicilians with black doing something unusual and Paul Keres & co showing some thematic attacking ideas, games 5-10 show ideas for white in more usual contexts.

• Keres V Winter, 1935 (Art of Attack, Vukovic)
• Keres V Najdorf, 1955 (Tactics in the Siclian, Nijboer & van der tak)
• Suetin, Alexi (Theoretical) (A contemporary approach to the middlegame)
• Lombardy - Quinteros, 1973 (Maxims of Chess, Collins)
  
• Frericks - Essert, 1988 (Attacking Manual, Aagaard)
• Radjabov-Rowson, 2004 (My annotation, white plays 8. Qd3! in the "poisoned pawn")
  
• Tal-Gligoric, 1963 (The life & games of Mikhail Tal)

1. Keres - Winter, 1935. A really instructive game on weak points in the black camp and the coordination of Keres' white pieces. (From Vukovic's Art of Attack)

2. Keres - Najdorf, 1955. Another thematic Nd4 & Qh5+ linkup.

3. How openings develop: "The poisoned pawn variation",

• On the left (black to play, fxe6 is a mistake), white has exactly the sort of complicated position he wants at the cost of the pawn. On the right (white to play), black, by hitting the unprotected h4 bishop with tempo, forces white to make-a decision- pacifying the position.

4. Lombardy - Quinteros, Manilla 1973: Brilliancy Prize. A nice example of how to attack the King that can't castle.

A video on the game:

5. Frericks - Essert, 1988. There is a nice video on this game from Jacob Aagaard's "attacking chess manual" in the "attack the weakest point in your opponent's King position" section.

With the f6 knight removed, and black's dark squared bishop able to defend g7,
h7 is the weakest square around the black king.

6. Radjabov - Rowson, 2004: An instructive gameplan based on the light squares for white. The variation is a poisoned pawn Najdorf with 8. Qd3 for white.

8. Qd3 in the poisoned pawn Najdorf.
Radjabov based his strategy on weakening the light squares.

6. Tal-Gligoric, 1963 (The life & games of Mikhail Tal)

to be continued......................!

• Ehlvest - Kasparov, 1991 (How to play dynamic chess, Valeri Belim)
• Spassky - Petrosian, 1969 (More Simple Chess, John Emms)
• Fischer - Camara, 1970 (Planning in Chess, Janos Flesch)
• Leko - Svidler, 2007 (Planning after the opening, Neil McDonald)
• Borgo - Acs, 2000 (Excelling at positional chess, Aagaard)
• Anand - Leko, 2006 (The art of planning in chess, move by move, McDonald)