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.

"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)

A week in the life...

One of the most useful parts of my training so far has been the fixed opening games I play weekly with my training partner Andreas, and how I've been preparing for them. We take turns picking an opening and try to play a 30+10 (or a couple of 20+5) games with it as often as possible. To prepare for these games I pick a couple of random games from middle game/positional/general chess books, and annotate them before we play. I haven't looked at a "pure opening" book in over 18 months and it's done wonders for my chess; I still have a strong idea of the openings and this type of theme-based study of critical points in certain setups has made it much easier for me to find the right middle game moves.

After the games we usually annotate them (unless one of us does something utterly stupid!) and take notes on the types of errors we're making. The benefits of talking about 15+ games with the same opponent is obvious.


This week it's the Sicilian, (I'm playing it against Andreas, my TeamLeague 45+45 opponent, and in a correspondence game VS Carl Gorka) so what better motivation to annotate a few games on it?! I'm going to study 3 particular games:

1) Wotulo - Larsen (Manila 1973), from Andrew Soltis' Pawn Structure Chess - from chapter 2 on the Sicilian/English formation.

2) Mcdonald - Bronstein, Wrexham 1995, from Mcdonald's book Planning after the opening.

and 3) Tolush - Kotov from Max Euwe & Kramer's book The Middlegame.

This approach of studying games rather than theory/move order is probably put to it's harshest test by the Sicilian, when white needs to know a few tricks in the opening to deal with the more direct black attacks - I am not too fussed about the results as I know that the study I'm doing will inevitably be part of my understanding of the Sicilian anyway.

My opinion on studying opening theory is this:

• First, you have to learn to beat players of your own level, and learning how to respond to un-theoretical moves in any given structure is far more important than knowing the rote-response to theory. Knowing theory usually only gets you a longer loss against a +2000 player if you're at my level, so- first, learn the fundamentals that will help you beat players of your own level.


• At under 2000 level, even under 1600 level it is sad to say that moves are usually played out in perfect move order/theory for the first 10-20 moves, but, if they're not, neither player has much idea of how to exploit the inaccuracy.

Anyway, enough babbling! I'll let you know if I get crushed in all three games. Below is my study:

1. N. Mcdonald - D. Bronstein, Wrexham 1995: White attacks the "Hedgehog" Structure. (From McDonald's book "planning after the opening")

A 71 year old David Bronstein comes up with some great defensive moves against an aggressive McDonald chasing a GM Norm.

(2) Wotulo - Larsen, Manila 1973: (First concepts in the Sicilian) White's inaccurate move order allows black to activate with tempo (From Andrew Soltis' Pawn Structure Chess).

What this game shows us is that white must take some steps to slow down the black counter-play against e4, in any opening you play you can't simply ignore what your opponent is doing and his plans. Part of any successful opening encounter is developing with threats that force your opponent into certain moves he might not want to make, and slowing down your opponents plans. In this game we can see that the absence of a white pawn of f4 takes away any threat of an e4-e5 push, this type of thing makes the black pieces more free: it is in small details like this that opening advantages are won and lost. In short: rather than 8. 0-0? White had to play 8. a4! Then he can think about the maneuver f4, Bf3 perhaps.




3. Tolush - Kotov, Moscow 1945. (From Euwe & Kramer's "The Middlegame")

This is a great book & I recommend it to anyone looking for a broad look at the themes and pawn movements in the Sicilian. If it's teaching on everything else is as good as it is for Sicilian (and I guess it is...) then it's a cracker.

I'll post the annotation of that one tomorrow!