Chap ter 3

Deci d i ng G a m es

1 5. 1 6. 1 7. 1 8. 1 9. 20. 21 .

ttJe2-c3 t2Jc3-d5 c2-c4 a2-a4 ttJd5-c3 ttJc3-e4 l:f.f1 -e1

f8-e7 e7-d8 a7-a5 c7-c6 d8-e7 l:f.a8-d8

I
lahar Eflmenko

Malakhov has successfully resolved his opening problems and fully equalised the position. However, the match situa tion forced White to play for a win. Par adoxically, only waiting tactics offer chances of success. The active 2 1 .tLld6+ xd6 2 2 .exd6 f6 would only simplify Black's task . .
2 1 . ... 22. l:f.e1 xd 1 l:f.d8xd 1 t2Jg6-f4

2 2 . . . f5 ! ? .
23. b2-a3 24. ttJe4-d6+ b7-b6 e8-f8

9.

d8-e8

This is the most common move, al though the plan of evacuating the black king to the queenside also hasn't been refuted by anyone. Efimenko has great experience in this variation for both colours. At this Olympiad he 'd already beaten Ivan Saric with Black.
1 0. ttJc3-e2

Of course not 24 . . . xd6? 2 5 . Uxd6 d7 2 6 .e6 t2lxe6 2 7 .t2le5 with a deci sive edge for White.
25. 26. 27. 28. g1 -f1 a3-c1 c1 xf4 ttJf3-d 2 g 7-g5 f8-g7 g5xf4

The game against Saric went differently : 1 O .h3 b6 (recently Black more often chooses 1 O . . . hS) 1 l .l:f.d 1 b7 1 2 .f4 Uc8 and in a sharp struggle Zahar man aged to claim a victory.
1 0. 1 1 . h2-h3 1 2. b2-b3 1 3. c1 -b2 1 4. :a 1 -d 1 ttJf5-e7 ttJe7-g 6 h7-h6 c6-c5 c8-e6

Somewhere around this point it became clear that the fate of the match would
269

Mod ern C h ess P r ep a r a t ion

depend on the result of this game. Black's position is absolutely safe. It was possible to keep the bishop pair, but Malakhov's choice also wasn't bad.
28. e7xd61?

should have played 3 9 . . . .:.xd7 40 . l::[ xd7 xd7 . switching to the position men tioned in the previous note.
40. we1 -f2 wf6-e7

28 . . .f6 ! ?.
29. e5xd6 30. tbd2-e4 :th8-d8 f7-f5?

A mistake, though not an obvious one. It seems Black's winning the eS -pawn, but things aren't so simple. Better was 3 0 . . . fs 3 I .f3 f6 3 2 .:td2 Wf7 and it's impossible for White to improve his position.
31 . tbe4-c3 32. Wf1 -e2 33. d6-d7 wg7-t6 e6-f7 f7-h5+

This reflex check only helps White, but Malakhov's task was no longer as simple as it might seem at first glance. It turns out that in the line 3 3 . . . We6 34.f3 :txd7 3 S .l::!. xd 7 Wxd7 3 6 .Wd3 'it>e6 3 7 .lLle2 WeS 3 8 .Wc3 (intending tbc l ) 3 8 . . . Wf6 3 9 .h4 the pawn on f4 is lost. There's also a similar endgame after 3 3 . . . WeS 3 4 . f3 e6 3 S .h4 l::!. x d7 36 . .l:lxd7 xd7 3 7 .Wd3 . I won't claim it's unequivocally won for White, but he's certainly the one with chances.
34. f2-f3 35. we2-e1 1 wf6-e6 h5-f7

White has a serious and probably deci sive advantage, but it's very hard to maintain your composure under condi tions of incredible psychological pres sure, when each move can decide the fate of a crucial match. Efimenko's resil ience can only be admired. He didn't give his opponent a single chance.
41 . tbf4-g6+! we7-e6

An only move.
42. f3-f4 43. g 2-g4 1 44. tbg6-h41 l::[ d 8-b8 ..td7-e8

Stronger than the 'cultured' 44.lLleS . This way White forces the capture on g4.
44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. h3xg4 lbh4-f5 b3xa4 l::[ d 1 -d6+ l::t d 6xh6 f5xg4 b6-b5 b5xa4 l::t b 8-b4 we6-f7

3 S . . Jlxd7 3 6 .l::!. xd7 Wxd7 3 7 .lLle2.

36. 37. 38. 39. tbc3-e2 tbe2-c1 tbc1 -d3+ tbd 3xf4 we6-e5 f7-e6 we5-f6 e6xd 7?

The decisive mistake ! With rooks on the board Black's difficulties only grow. He
2 70

Again not a trivial decision. The c4pawn is indirectly defended, and now pushing the g-pawn decides matters.

Chap ter

Deci d i ng G a m es

49. 50. g4-g5 51 . lLlf5-d6

b4xa4 wf7-g8

Of course also winning was 5 1 .g6 xc4 5 2 .Wf3 but Zahar plays super-sol idly, so ' the team doesn't worry' .
51 . 52. ttJd 6xf7 53. f4-f5 54. wf2-f3 e8-f7 Wg8xf7 a4xc4

8. 9. 1 0. 11. 1 2. 1 3.

0-0 c1 -e3 lLlc3-d5 'ifd 1 -d3 e4xd5 'ii' d 3-d2

0-0 c8-e6 ttJb8-d7 e6xd5 ttJd 7-c5 b7-b6

1 3 . . . lLl fe4 1 4 .1i'b4 b6 1 5 . f3 lLlf6 1 6 J 1ad 1 was seen, in particular, in Short-Efimenko, Wijk aan Zee 2 0 0 9 , so the position was well-known to Zahar.
1 4. f2-f3 1 5. f1 -d1 1 6. ttJ b3xc5 1 7. c2-c3 1 8. e2-d3 lLlf6-h5 f7-f5 b6xc5 .te7-h4

The black pawns play no role whatso ever in this position.

54. 55. h6-h7+ 56. g5-g6 c4-b4 wf7-g8
1 -0

As a result of this victory Ukraine main tained the lead. The next test for Zahar came in the 9th round. For a long time our victory in the match against Azerbaijan hadn't looked in doubt but, as often happens, the situation changed dramatically in time trouble, and once again everything was decided by Efimenko's game. Mid way through he 'd had a big edge, but by the first time control he retained only faint winning chances.

1 8.

...

g 7-g6?!

The natural continuation of Black's plan was 1 8 . . .f4 1 9 .f2 xf2 + . exchanging the dark-squared bishops.
1 9. 20. b2-b4 c3xb4 c5xb4 h4-f6?1

[B92] Zahar Efimenko Eltaj Safarli

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. e2-e4 ttJg 1 -f3 d 2-d4 lLlf3xd4 lLlb1 -c3 f1 -e2 ttJd4-b3

Game 9 0

Khanty-Mansiysk Olympiad 2 0 I 0 (9) c7-c5 d 7-d6 c5xd4 tLlg8-f6 a 7-a6 e7-e5 f8-e7

Inconsistent. Here as well he should have played 2 0 . . . f4 2 1 ..tf2 .txf2 + 2 2 .'ifxf2 lLlf6 although after 2 3 .ac 1 White has the initiative.
21 . a 1 -b1

2 1 . ac 1 gives Black extra options in the variation 2 1 . . . e4 2 2 .fxe4 f4 2 3 .'2 gS as the c 1 -rook is hanging.
271

Mod ern C h es s P rep a r a t ion

21 .
An

...

e5-e4!?

interesting means of sharpening play.

22. f3xe4 23 . .ie3-f2 ! f6-e5

2 3 .exfS 'iYh4 led to unnecessary complications for White.

23 . ... f5-f4?!

27. 28. 29. 30. 31 . 32. 33. 34. 35.

... g4-f5 'iYh3xf5 a2-a4 l:id1 -e1 l:ie1 xb1 b4-b5 a4xb5 'iff5xf6+

tt:Jf6xe4 l:if8xf5! tt:Je4-c3 l:ia8-b8 tt:Jc3xb1 l:ib8-b7 a6xb5 'iYd8-f6

There was more hope of counterplay after 23 . . . tLlf4 24.exfS tt:Jxd3 2 S .'ii' x d3 l:ixfS or 2 3 . . . fxe4 24.xe4 l:ic8 .
24. d3-e2 25. 'ii'd 2-d3 tt:Jh5-f6 g6-g5

More chances remained after 3 S . 'iV e4 but the exchange of queens looks very tempting.
35 . ... 36. b5-b6 'it>g7xf6

K 8

8 .t . !il 8 8

26. 'ii'd 3-h3!?

An unexpected decision, preventing . . . gS -g4. In case of the natural 2 6 . l:.dc l g4 2 7 .l:ic6 the position would have be come extremely sharp : 2 7 .. .f3 ! 2 8 .gxf3 tt:Jhs .
26 . ... 'it>g8-g7

Due to the threat of 3 7 . l:ic l Black's po sition looks very dangerous , but he has an unexpected defence.
36. 37. l:tb1 -c1 38. 'it>g 1 -f1 39. :t.c1 -a1 e5-c3! c3-a5 'it>f6-e5

Or 26 . . . tt:Jxe4 2 7 .d3 tt:Jf6 2 8 .fs (28 .'it'fS ! ?) 2 8 . . . <1t>g 7 2 9 . l:t.dc l with an edge for White.
27. e2-g4?

By this moment all the other games in the match had ended, and those players - some in hope, some in fear - fol lowed what happened next.
39 . ... a5-b4

Letting almost all of the advantage slip. The composed 2 7 .l:idc l ! tLlxe4 2 8 .d3 tt:Jf6 2 9 .'ii' fs was very strong. 2 7 Jibc l was also good.
272

3 9 . . . .2.c3 was also worth considering. .

40. :t.a 1 -a7 l:.b7-b8

Chap ter 3

Deci d i ng G a m es

41 . l:ra7xh7 42. b6-b7

b4-c5 'it>e5xd5

45 . . . 'it>c4! 46.'it>e2 'it>bS White should continue 4 7 .e 1 ! (the rook ending arising after 4 7 .xeS dxcS 4 8 . 'it>d3 (or 4 8 .'it>f3 'it>c6 4 9 . l:!.xg5 l:!.xb 7 S O . 'it>xf4 'it>bS) 48 . . . 'it>b4 49 . 'it>c2 'it>c4 S O .l:th7 'it>b4 S l . 'it>d 3 'it>bS 5 2 . 'it> c 3 c6 5 3 . 'it>c4 l:r.d8 5 4 . l:!.h6+ xb7 5 5 .l:!.g6 f3 ! is drawn) and if 4 7 . . . c6 then 48 .c3 ! White's advantage is obvious, but is it enough to win? After the move in the game White 's task becomes sim pler.
46. 47. 48. 49. l:!.g 7-d 7 'it>f1 -e2 'it>e2xf2 'it>f2-e2 d3-e4 e3xf2 d6-d5 ..t>e4-e5

The first impression is that a draw is in evitable. At such moments it's particu larly important not to start panicking but to calmly continue to look for chances.
43. l:!.h7-c7!

Black's in zugzwang.
50. 51 . 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61 . 62. 'it>e2-d3 l:r.d 7-c7 l:!.c7-h7 l:!. h7-f7 l:!.f7-g 7 l:tg 7-e7 'it>d3-d4 l:!.e7-g7 l:!.g 7-g6+ d4xd5 g 2xf3 l:tg6xg5 f3-f4 e5-e6 'l.te6-d6 l:r.b8-f8 l:rf8-e8 d6-c6 .l:!.e8-f8 .l:!.f8-d8 l:r.d8-e8 c6xb7 f4-f3 l:te8-h8 l:r.h8xh3

It was this resource that left both Zahar and our team with hopes of success.
43 . ... 44. l:!.c7-g7 'it>d5-c4 'it>c4-d3?

A mistake when a draw was only a step away. Black took the step, but . . . in the op posite direction! It was essential to play 44 . . . \t>bS ! 45 . .l:.xg5 l:!.xb7 46 . .l:.f5 'it>c6 47 . .l:.xf4 (47 .hc5 dxcS 48.l:f.xf4 ds also promises nothing) 47 . . . l:tb 1 + 48 .e l dS and the activity of the black pieces guarantees a straightforward draw.
45. h2-h3!

The position now on the board is a the oretical win for White.
62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 'it>d5-e6 e6-f7 llg5-g 7 f4-f5 f5-f6 l:r.g7-g1 'it>b7-c7 l:th3-h6+ l:th6-h7+ .l:!. h 7-h6 'it>c7-d7 l:!.h6-h8
1 -0

It was this quiet move that Safarli had overlooked. Now he has to accept he's lost some tempi.
45 . ... c5-e3?

It's hard to admit your own mistakes , but it's always better than continuing on a false trail. After the correct

The favourable outcome of that game gave us a narrow win in the match.
273

Mod ern C h es s P r ep a r a t ion

Before the final round Ukraine was still in the lead, but our main rivals had also maintained good chances of success, as if the match points were level it was Rus sia who would become champions. A win against Israel would guarantee our team overall victory, while a draw in the final round would ensure silver, though it might also be enough for gold if the Russian players cracked against Spain. In such a tense situation the obvious choice was to go for solidity, but how can ade quate caution be combined with the ne cessity of playing for a win? Efimenko gave his own entirely con vincing reply. However, the game was cut off before reaching a logical conclu sion. A draw had been agreed in the Russia-Spain match and there was no need for another demonstration of technique.

( 1 0 . . . l:te8 1 l .lLlbd2 dS Efimenko-Fer guson, Isle of Man 2 0 0 7 ) 1 l .exd5 'it'xdS 1 2 .g5 tt:ld7 Efimenko-Short, Kerner 2 0 0 7 .
1 0. 11. 1 2. 1 3. 1 4. ttJb1 -d2 ttJd2-f1 ttJf1 -g3 d3-d4 b3-c2 ttJe7-g6 h 7-h6 l:tf8-e8 c8-e6 e6-d7

[C54] Zahar Efimenko Victor Mikhalevski

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. e2-e4 ttJg 1 -f3 f1 -c4 c2-c3 d2-d3 c4-b3 0-0 l:tf1 -e1 h2-h3

Game 9 1

A rare move. Black usually prefers 1 4 . . . c6 or 1 4 . . . ltJh7 . The latter, in particular, was seen in the game Efimenko-Adams , Gibraltar 2 0 0 7 : 1 4 . . . ltJh7 1 S .ltJfS ltJgS 1 6 .e3 exd4 1 7 .cxd4 c5 1 8 .ltJxgS hxgS and now in stead of 1 9 .'it'h5 it was worth consider ing 1 9 . dxc5 xe S 2 0 .xc5 dxc5 2 1 .lLld6 l:te7 2 2 .e5 with better chances for White. In general, the abundance of options gives Black the illusion of per fect safety. In reality, such outwardly simple positions conceal plenty of un derwater reefs. One of them emerged in this game.
1 5. c1 -e3 1 6. 'ifd 1 -d 2 1 7. e3xd4 d 7-c6 e5xd4 ttJg 6-e5

Khanty-Mansiysk Olympiad 2 0 1 0 ( 1 1 ) e7-e5 ttJb8-c6 f8-c5 ttJg8-f6 d 7-d6 a 7-a6 c5-a7 0-0

Only this move is a novelty. Kasimdzhanov against Bologan (Corsica 2 0 0 6) chose 1 7 . . . ltJd7 .
1 8. 1 9. 20. 21 . 22. 23. 'it'd2-e31 'ife3-c1 ttJf3xe5 d4xa7 tlfc1 -e3 l::r a 1 - d 1 ttJe5-c4 ttJc4-e5 d6xe5 l::r a 8xa7 l:ta7-a8

Efimenko loves to employ such unhur ried and apparently unpretentious ope ning systems.
9. tbc6-e7

The position has become even more simplified, but Black still has problems.
23 . ... 'it'd8-e7

Against Zahar people have played 9 . . . h6 1 O.ttJbd2 ltJhS (Efimenko-Negi, Mos cow 2 0 0 7 ) , and 9 . . . e6 1 0 .c2 dS 2 74

23 . . . ltJd7 ! ?.

C h ap ter

Deci d i ng G a m e s

24. tt:Jg3-f5 25. 'ii' e 3-g 3

'ife7-f8

32. 33. l::r e 1 -d 1 34. l::r d 1 xd5

h6xg5 l:td8xd5 l::r e 8-e6?!

.i 'i tt:J 'IV Jl 1:[

25 . ... g 7-g6?1

After the accurate 25 .. . 'h 7 with . . . g7 -g6 to follow it would have been more difficult for White to develop an initiative, but Mikhalevski , true to his active style, strives to provoke a crisis as soon as possible.
26. 'ti'g3-h41 g6xf5

The passive 34 . . . Wf8 ? would have made it possible to demonstrate the winning plan in its pure form: 3 S . Wfl f6 3 6 . l::r d 7 l::r e 7 3 7 . l:td 8 + l: e 8 3 8 . l::r xe8 + Wxe8 3 9 .We2 Wf7 40.Wf3 , and after creating a distant passed h-pawn White would win without difficulty. However, it's much stronger to play 3 4 . . . Wg7 3 S . Wfl 'tt> f6 3 6 .l::r d 7 l::r c 8 3 7 .We2 We6 3 8 . l::r d i l::r g 8 3 9 . Wf3 l::r h 8 and it's hard for White to improve .
35. Wg 1 -f1 Wg8-f8?1

Here it was also possible to switch to the plan mentioned above, though with a lost tempo : 3 S . . . Wg7 3 6 .We2 Wf6 3 7 .Wf3 l::r e 8 .
3 6 . Wf1 -e2 37. we2-f3 Wf8-e7 c7-c6

White would maintain an edge after 2 6 . . . tt:'lh5 2 7 J:td2 Wh7 2 8 . l:.ed l tt:lf4 2 9 .tt:'le3 .
27. 28. 29. 30. 'ii' h4xf6 c2-b3 'iff6-f5 .ib3-d5 f5-f4 'ti'f8-g7 l::r a 8-d8

Once more 3 7 . . . 'tt> f6 was possible, but White could up the pressure with 3 8 .c4 .l:.e8 3 9 .c5 'tt> e 6 40 .b4.
38. l::r d 5-d2 a6-a5

3 8 .. .f6 3 9 .b4! .
39. Wf3-g4 l:[e6-h6?1

Another possible plan for White was 3 0 .Wh2 l::r f8 3 I .g 3 but, as usual, Efimenko doesn't avoid simplifications .
30. 31 . l::r d 1 xd5 32. 'iff5xg5+ .ic6xd5 'ifg 7-g5

Now White's main trump is creating a passed pawn on the h-file. The other version of the rook ending 3 2 . l::r e d I 'ifxfS 3 3 .exf5 l::r x dS 3 4 .l::r x d5 l::r e 7 3 S .f6 l::r e 6 3 6 .l:td7 l::r xf6 3 7 . l::r xc7 b S 3 8 .l:.e7 l:td6 ! i s harmless for Black. 275

Mod ern C h es s P r ep a r a t i on

A typically impulsive time-trouble move ! However, after 39 . . .f6 40.g3 plenty of difficulties would also lie in wait for Black. At this moment the game was brought to an abrupt end at the behest of the captains. After the forced 40 . <itxg5 l:.g6+ 4 I . <itf5 l:.xg2 42.<itxe5 l:rh2 43 .<itxf4 l:.xh3 44.<itg4

:h i 4 5 . f4 White has decent winning chances or, in any case, much greater chances than in the two previous exam ples. In the given situation, however, a draw turned out to be even more pre cious as it guaranteed the team victory.
1f2-1f2

The above examples show that in team events an important role is played by quali ties that far from always bring success in individual tournaments. Under conditions of high anxiety and tension, open aggression often leads to miscalculations and blunders. Ambition and a drive to succeed in your own game need to be harmoni ously combined with solidity and caution. Good technique in conjunction with composure can sometimes bring amazing results. How then should you approach games which will determine your overall per formance at an event? As if they're turning points in your life or just a routine ele ment of a professional career? Of course, there's no universal recipe, and the author can't guarantee you'll succeed if you follow his recommendations. At the same time, it's essential to be aware of the magnitude of the task ahead of you in each specific case. Simulating a situation where the World Championship title is at stake is impossi ble. Such a game is a unique event in the life of any player, or rather, of those few chosen ones who are fated to face such a trial. It's hard to imagine creating such in human tension artificially. The deciding game of a rapid event or open, or a round-robin or mini-match, is a different matter entirely. Such trials are possible for anyone, and you have to prepare in advance. A phrase I once heard, ' convince yourself you're not a genius and try to live sensibly' , fits such situations perfectly. The problem is that the last game inevitably stands out from everything that pre ceded it. It alone often determines the success or failure of a whole campaign. It's very important to establish your individual emotional formula. It's fatal to be too calm and deliberately try to lower the significance of the deciding encounter. Even more dangerous, however, is to be over-excited, which can overwhelm a player. You need to find the best possible combination of those two states. The main difficulty is that determining optimal parameters for this excited com posure (or composed excitement) is impossible - it's all too individual. Just recall how your experienced author totally incorrectly evaluated the extreme anxiety of the young Kasparov. As it turned out, it was precisely that heightened state that al lowed Garry to maintain the necessary tension on the board. Or think of Spassky's apparently unjustifiably risky decision in his game against Keres. The future World Champion accurately evaluated his inner state, preferring complications to the strict containment dictated by the match situation. Anand's success against Karpov
276

C h ap ter

Deci d i ng G a m es

was also connected to an accurate choice of strategy for a deciding game. He staked everything not on the opening but the middlegame, into which his last remaining energy was thrown. It's hard to overestimate the significance of the opening in such trials. It should correspond as far as possible to the player's mental state and sporting goal, and it shouldn't provoke any inner discomfort. Here as well, general recommendations are out of place. While your author, for example, was helped in what were success ful encounters for him by extravagant variations with an element of bluff, Jussupow in his deciding game against Ivanchuk achieved success through a classi cal opening and aggressive determination in the middlegame. Kramnik in his game against Leko managed to give even what seemed to be a sharp position a technical character he was comfortable with. Opening surprises are very useful in such situa tions. Of course, real theoretical discoveries, like the one Polugaevsky used against Kortchnoi, are rare, but sometimes even an innocent transposition of moves can help. Extreme concentration and determination to achieve your goal - those condi tions go without saying. They're important in any game, while in deciding games you simply can't get by without them. There's also another factor, however, without which all the thoughts given above turn into empty words. In order to win any de ciding game you need, besides mastery and all the other qualities mentioned, LUCK. That crucial factor also can't be left to the mercy of 'blind chance' . You need to do everything possible to bring fortune over to your side. Believers pray and cleanse their sins. Atheists and agnostics believe, for a time, in miracles, adhering to rituals and superstitions that once helped them to succeed. There are no trifles in such an important matter. May your chess life, dear reader, include as many deciding games as possible - after all, their number defines the success of your career! That was the bravura note on which I originally wanted to end this book. But then I remembered what a difficult test these life-defining games were for me, what stresses and sleepless nights I suf fered due to the need to play for a win in final rounds. Is it right to wish such tur moil on your fellow man? I recall Tigran Petrosian, who as far as possible avoided extreme situations and relied exclusively on luck when they occurred. Or my nu merous colleagues who preferred a bad peace to a good fight. However, if you're genuinely ambitious, if your baggage always includes not only a computer but also a marshal's baton, then such trials aren't to be avoided.

277

Mod ern C h ess P r ep a r a t ion

Know you rself

Epilogue to Chapter 3

Deciding games are where the sporting component of chess comes to the fore, overshadowing other aspects - that's a thought that, one way or another, has shone through the commentary to all the games in this chapter. During World Championship matches the stress is, of course, immeasurably greater than in the last round of some modest club championship, but climbing Olympus is something very few are fated to do, while almost everyone finds themselves in situations where the whole fate of a tournament depends on a single move. There fore although you can't guarantee the required result you can at least guarantee the optimal conditions for achieving it. That applies equally to a game between leading grandmasters and a game between chess players known only in their own little town. Although in the latter case the outcome of the 'deciding ' game is far from a matter of life or death, it makes sense to take a closer look at the sporting situations that arise. The task gets a little easier when the desired outcome is a draw. Often that can be achieved simply by proposing it. Even if a peaceful outcome by no means guaran tees overall success, but just gives good chances of it, it might make sense to settle for a bird in the hand rather than two in the bush. After all, you'll recall a potential failure for months to come. If it turns out a draw agreement would have allowed you to achieve your goal that will just exacerbate the situation. Moreover, you'll preserve your precious nerve cells which, they say, don't regenerate. If as great a chess player as Tigran Petrosian ALWAYS adopted such an approach, then for a pure amateur it's probably a sensible approach. However, a diplomatic agreement in chess, as in life, is something that's far from always possible. There are cases when your opponent isn't in as peaceful a mood as you are. It's always good to counter aggression with calm and compo sure. As far as possible you should choose solid continuations , not embarking on dubious complications , while simultaneously avoiding the temptation to simplify the position at all costs. As we saw in the Kramnik-Leko game, such tactics can lead to failure even for such a wonderful defender as the Hungarian grandmaster. You also shouldn 't forget that the player going for a win often crosses the line of acceptable risk, so it's essential to be ready for such gifts of fate. Common sense and caution are by no means synonymous with faintheart edness and cowardice.
278

The goal is significantly complicated if a draw is equivalent to a defeat, while ulti mate success can only be guaranteed by winning that particular game. Here as well, however, there are options. Striving for the initiative from the very first moves, even at the cost of serious risk, is the most natural decision from a psychological point of view. Moreover, it's perfectly justified if the outcome of the game is irrelevant to your opponent. Such a situation occurs time and again in round-robin or team tournaments. In 'Swiss' tournaments, however, it's more common for a draw to suit neither opponent, and in such situations a reckless attack is far from the only weapon. On the contrary, persistence and self-control triumph more frequently. The main thing is to establish your own algorithm that's a perfect fit for your char acter, temperament and level of preparation. Incidentally, not a word has yet been said about the importance of opening prepa ration in deciding games. That's far from accidental, as the opening is the last thing you need to worry about in such situations. It's better, of course, to determine the choice of opening variation in advance while you're still working out the strategy for such an important encounter. Much more important, however, than an accurate move order or the search for a new continuation in a known position is to under stand yourself and get into the right mood for the struggle. The fate of such en counters isn't decided, as a rule, in the opening, but by the ability to display your best qualities in extreme conditions. And knowing yourself, your human flaws and virtues, is helpful for all chess players - regardless of age or ability.

279

I ndex of Players
Numbers refer to pages.
A

2 9 , 1 7 1 , 2 1 8- 2 1 9 , 274 Agzamov I I3 250 Alburt Alekhine 8, 2 3 , 29, 3 1 -3 2 , 3 4-3 7 , 3 9 -4 1 , 43-46, 49- 5 3 , 5 7 , 6 0 , 6 3 , 7 0 , 1 24 Alexeev 1 7 1 , 1 73 171 Almasi Anand 4 2 , 5 8 , 94, 9 6 , l i S , 1 2 6 , 1 3 1 - 1 3 7 , 1 3 9- 1 43 , 1 49 , 1 5 7 - 1 5 9 , 1 64, 2 1 8 -2 1 9 , 2 2 2 , 2 5 3 , 2 7 6 I 75 Apicella 230 Arbakov I 92 Areschenko Aronian 1 3 1 , 1 43 - 1 44, 1 46 , I S O , 1 64, 1 8 1 , 1 8 8 , 1 9 0 , 233, 235 Averbakh 47, 6 0 , 2 2 9
B

Adams

Brunner Byrne,R
C

1 18 71

Galkin Gashimov

Capablanca 8 , I S , 1 8 , 2 0 - 2 3 , 3 1 -3 2 , 3 9-40 , 5 7 , 1 1 7 , 1 2 3 - 1 24 29, 4 1 , Carlsen 1 06, 1 6 1 - 1 62 , 1 7 3 , 1 7 8- 1 80 , 2 3 3 Chandler 1 20 90 Chebanenko 1 46- 1 47 , Cheparinov 253 Chiburdanidze I 17 Chigorin I I , 1 3 - 1 4, 6 3 , 7 0 Colovic I 36
D

De La Rochefoucauld Delchev Dolmatov Dominguez Perez

E

46 1 88 1 15 1 78

1 75 Bacrot 87, 1 07 - 1 08 Bagirov 42 Balashov 1 53 Balogh,Cs 42 Barczay 1 30, 1 52- 1 5 3 , 1 62, Bareev 222-223, 253 1 28 Bartel 56 Belavenets 5 5 , 8 7 , 1 2 0- 1 2 1 Beliavsky 71 Berg 1 86 Berkes 1 16 Bobras 151 Bocharov 3 9 -40 , 1 2 1 Bogoljubow 80 Bolbochan Boleslavsky 60-6 1 1 76, 274 Bologan Botvinnik 8, 29, 5 3 -60, 63 -64, 6 9 - 7 6 , 7 9 - 8 0 , 8 5 , 1 24, 1 2 6- 1 2 7 , 1 9 6 , 1 9 9 , 222 6 0 - 6 2 , 64, 6 9 , Bronstein 1 24, 2 0 2

Efimenko 2 6 8 - 2 7 1 , 2 74-2 7 5 Eingorn I 0 5 - 1 0 6 , I 1 2 - 1 1 3 Ekstrom 1 63 Elianov 1 44, 1 5 3 , 1 8 6- 1 8 7 , 2 4 1 -242 , 244, 2 6 8 63 Engels 1 44 Esen 8 , 3 6-3 7 , 40-4 1 , Euwe 43-46 , 49- 5 3 , 5 7 - 6 0 , 7 1
F

1 44 1 8 1 , 1 83, 236, 239 Gelfand 1 3 9- 1 40 , 1 43 , 1 46 , 1 49- 1 5 0 , 1 5 2 , 1 6 1 , 1 84- 1 8 5 , 1 9 2 , 2 3 6 , 265-267 6 0 , 64- 6 5 , 80-8 2 , Geller 8 5 , 9 5 , 1 05 , 20 1 , 228 1 16 Georgiev,Kr 64, 6 6 , 7 1 , 7 6 , Gligoric 78-79 1 46 Golod 1 69 Go pal 213 Gorky 33 Grigorian,L 1 08, 1 28, Grischuk 265-267 152 Gritsak 25 Griinfeld 209 Guimard II Gunsberg 1 92 Gupta 1 44 Gustafsson 1 76 Gyimesi
H

Hansen,SuBe Hjartarson Hoffmann Holmberg Hou Yifan Hiibner

I

1 86 1 14 233 1 85 1 52 so. 2 1 2-2 1 3

1 73, 1 8 1 Fedorchuk 1 75- 1 7 8 Feller 2 74 Ferguson 117 Ferrar Fischer 8 , 2 3 , 3 9 , 64, 6 6 , 80-8 2 , 8 8 - 8 9 , 9 1 -9 2 , 1 27-1 28 Aohr 60 1 29 Forster 1 76 Fressinet 1 08, I l l Ftacnik

2I8 Ilyumzhinov I 87 Inarkiev Ivanchuk 1 3 9- 1 40 , 1 5 2 - 1 54, 1 6 1 , 1 68- 1 7 0 , 1 7 3 , 1 94- 1 9 5 , 2 1 5 - 2 1 8 , 2 5 3 , 2 5 6-2 5 8 , 2 6 8 , 2 7 7 J Jobava Jussupow

1 94- 1 9 5 1 1 5 , 1 20 , 2 1 5 , 2 1 8, 277
28 1

Mod ern C h es s P r ep a r a t i on
K

1 92- 1 93 , 26 1 , 2 6 3 - 2 64 1 2 8 , 1 44, I S O . Karjakin 1 5 4- I S S , 1 6 3 - 1 64, 1 68- 1 69, 1 7 1 , 1 8 1 , 1 8 6- 1 8 7 , 2 6 8 8, 30, 6 1 , 70, 89, Karpov 92-9 3 , 9 5 - 1 0 0 , 1 1 0 , 1 1 6 , 1 2 1 , 1 24, 1 2 7 , 1 7 3 , 2 0 2 , 2 0 8 , 2 1 8- 2 1 9 , 2 3 9 - 24 1 , 276 Kasimdzhanov 1 43 - 1 44, 1 46 , 1 48- 1 49 , 1 9 1 , 2 7 4 Kasparov 7 - 8 , 2 2 , 2 9 - 3 0 , 44, s o . 5 6 , 5 8 , 60-6 1 , 7 0 , 8 7 , 9 2 , 94, 98- 1 0 I , I l l , 1 1 6 , 1 24- 1 2 5 , 1 3 0 , 1 7 0 , 2 0 1 -2 0 2 , 2 0 5 - 2 0 6 , 2 0 8 , 222. 228-229, 232, 276 S S - 5 7 , 6 0 , 64- 6 5 , Keres I S O , 2 0 1 -204, 2 7 6 212 Khairullin 46-47 Kholmov 7 1 , 74, 7 9 Koblents 213 Kochiev 233 Korobov Kortchnoi 8 , 2 3 , 2 6 , 2 9 - 3 0 , 5 6 , 60, 64, 7 0 , 8 2 - 8 3 , 9 0 , 9 3 , 9 5 - 9 6 , 208-2 1 4, 2 2 6 , 233. 277 1 89 Kosintseva,T 56 Kotov 67-68 Kots 1 39 Kozul Kramnik 5 8 , I 0 8 , 1 2 5 - 1 2 6 , 1 3 0 , 1 3 2- 1 3 7 , 1 3 9 , 1 43 , 1 46 , 1 5 6- 1 5 9 , 1 7 0 , 1 8 8- 1 9 2 , 2 2 2 - 2 2 3 , 2 2 5 , 277-278 233 Kravtsiv Kamsky
L

222-223, 225, 23 2-23 3 , 235-236, 277-278 6 3 -64 Lenin 74 Lermontov 1 30 Levitov 250 Levitt 1 28, 250, 253 Lputian 47 Lutikov
M

Nikolic,Pr Nimzowitsch Nisipeanu Nogueiras Novikov

0 on

56, 1 2 1 2 3 , 3 5-36, 1 23 1 60- 1 6 3 26 1 1 0- 1 1 3

Macieja Makarychev Malakhatko Malakhov

1 89 liS 1 2 1 , 1 46 56, 1 73, 268-2 70 1 85- 1 86 Maletin Ill Marin 29-30 Maroczy Marshall 1 8 , 2 0 , 64 6 3 -64, 6 7 Marx 33 Maslov 181 Mastrovasilis 1 29 Matulovic 1 14 McCambridge 1 94 Mchedlishvili 1 76 McShane 86, 1 03 , 226 Mecking 28 Mieses 56 Mikenas 1 02 Mikhalchishin 9 6 , 2 74-2 7 5 Mikhalevski 212 Miles 1 16 Miton 1 36 Moiseenko Morozevich 1 45 , 1 5 2 , 1 7 3 , 1 75, 1 86 64 Morphy 244 Moskalenko IIS Motylev 1 18 Miiller
N

Onischuk Osmanagic
p

1 08, 1 20 1 47 1 29

1 88 Palac 66, 226 Panno 1 68 Papa 1 44 Pashikian 203 Pelikan 1 60 , 1 62 - 1 6 3 Pelletier 121 Perez Felipe Petrosian 8, 24, 2 9 , 6 0 , 64, 7 1 , 8 3 , 8 8 - 9 0 , 9 2 -9 3 , 1 0 2 - 1 0 3 , 1 2 7 , 205, 208, 239, 2 7 7-278 230 Petrosian,A 63 Petrov 66- 6 7 , 2 0 9 Pilnik 8 7 , 2 44 Plachetka 47, 67-68 Podgaets 1 6 1 - 1 6 2 , 244 Polgar,] Polugaevsky 8 2 - 8 8 , 9 0 , 9 6 , 1 03 , 1 07 , 20 1 , 208-2 1 3 , 226-228, 233, 2 7 7 56, 1 39, 1 73 , Ponomariov 1 75 , 1 8 1 - 1 83 , 1 88, 2 5 8-260, 268 I SO Popov,V 64, 8 3 , 2 1 2 , 2 2 6 , Portisch 228 1 13 Pribyl 1 1 7, 228, 232 Psakhis Q Quinteros
R

181 !'Ami 1 89 Lahno 2 0 5 - 2 0 6 , 2 1 2- 2 1 3 Larsen Lasker,Emanuel 8 , I S , 1 7 - 2 0 , 23, 3 1 -32, 1 1 7 233 Lautier Leko 4 2 , 1 3 0- 1 3 1 , 1 44, I 5 7 , 1 6 1 , 1 6 3 , 1 7 1 , 1 7 3 , 1 84,
282

Naer Naiditsch Najdorf Nakamura Navara Negi Neikirkh N epomniachtchi Nielsen,PH

1 44 212 65-66 71 1 06 , 1 45 274 54 1 94- 1 9 5 181

203

Radjabov Ragozin Razuvaev Reshevsky

1 39, 1 9 1 , 2 3 6- 2 3 9 58 26, 95, 1 07 77-78

Index of Pla yers

28, 1 23 Reti 1 63 - 1 65, 1 67 Riazantsev 1 29 Ricardi 5 5 , 1 02 Romanishin liS Roshal Rubinstein 8 , 2 3 - 2 9 , 3 1 -3 2 , 3 9-40
s

33 Sadler 27 1 , 273 Safarli 1 63 , 1 85 Sakaev 1 17 Salman 268 Sargissian 269 Saric 205, 2 1 3 Sax 24, 3 9 Schlechter 2 1 2 -2 1 3 Seirawan 21 Shamkovich 13 Shaw 1 0 8 , 1 3 1 , 1 5 6- 1 5 8 Shirov 56, 2 7 1 , 274 Short I l l , 1 47 Shulman 56 Simagin 54 Sliwa 1 08 Smagin 1 54 Smeets 1 86 Smirnov 8 , 6 0 , 69 Smyslov 256 So 1 89 Socko,M 1 50 Sokolov.I 84 Sosonko Spassky 8 , 24, 64-6 5 , 6 7 , 7 7 , 8 2 -8 3 , 8 8 - 8 9 , 9 2 , 2 0 1 - 2 0 3 ,

205, 229, 276 47 Stahlberg 6 3 -64 Stalin 212 Stean 2 1 2- 2 1 3 Stein,Emanuel Stein, Leonid 48, 7 7 . 7 9- 8 0 68 Steinberg 8, I I , 1 3 - 1 5 , 2 0 , Steinitz 23, 1 23 1 28 Stellwag en 47 Sue tin 1 07- 1 08 Sveshnikov 1 3 1 , 1 44, 1 64 Svidler 1 16 Swiercz
T

Uhlmann
v

2 3 9-24 1

1 1 6 , 1 84, 24 1 -242 1 28 Vag ani an 1 12 Van der Sterren 1 00 Van der Wiel 1 85 Van Oosterom 191 Van Wely I SO Vavrak 32, 1 2 1 Vidmar 247 Volke 1 2 7- 1 28, 1 9 1 Volok.itin 1 46 Volzhin Vachier-Lagrave
w

47, 60, 89 Taimanov 8 , 3 0 , 5 1 , 64, 6 9 - 7 9 , Tal 8 2-84, 1 2 7 - 1 2 8 , 2 0 5 , 207-208, 2 1 2 1 7- 1 8, 20, 23-25, Tarrasch 27. 1 23 IS Tartakower 35 Thomas 121 Timman 29 Tolush Topalov 9 6 , 1 2 6 , 1 3 9- 1 4 1 , 2 1 9 , 246-247 , 2 6 1 - 2 6 2 , 2 64 86 Torre 1 86 Tukhaev Tukmakov 3 3 , 3 9 , 47-48 , 6 8 , 1 0 8 , 1 1 0- 1 1 2 , 1 1 6- 1 1 7 , 1 2 0 , 2 1 3 , 2 2 9 , 244, 2 4 7 , 250

258 Wang Hao Wang Yue l 7 0- 1 7 2 , 2 3 6-2 3 7 , 239 244, 246 Wolff
y

Yakovenko Yudasin
z

9 6 , 1 49- 1 5 1 , 1 7 0- 1 7 1 , 1 8 6 , 2 3 6 1 1 6- 1 1 7

Zaitsev Zdebskaja Zhou Weiqi Zhu Chen Ziatdinov Zukertort

93 117 151 1 52 1 20 64

283

M o d ern C h es s P r ep a r a t i on

Game List

Isidor Gunsberg Wilhelm Steinitz Emanuel Lasker Siegbert Tarrasch Jose Raul Capablanca Akiba Rubinstein Ernst Griinfeld Akiba Rubinstein Akiba Rubinstein Milan Vidmar Alexander Alekhine Alexander Alekhine Max Euwe Max Euwe Alexander Alekhine Vladimir Tukmakov Alexander Alekhine Mikhail Botvinnik Paul Keres Mikhail Botvinnik David Bronstein Paul Keres Mikhail Steinberg Mikhail Tal Mikhail Tal Mikhail Tal Efim Geller Lev Polugaevsky Lev Polugaevsky Robert Fischer Anatoly Karpov Anatoly Karpov Anatoly Karpov Oleg Romanishin Efim Geller Yury Razuvaev Igor Novikov Viacheslav Eingorn
284

Wilhelm Steinitz Mikhail Chigorin Jose Raul Capablanca Emanuel Lasker Frank James Marshall Siegbert Tarrasch Akiba Rubinstein Siegbert Tarrasch Geza Maroczy Alexander Alekhine Aaron Nimzowitsch Max Euwe Alexander Alekhine Alexander Alekhine Max Euwe Alexey Suetin Max Euwe Alexander Alekhine Mikhail Botvinnik Max Euwe Isaak Boleslavsky Miguel Najdorf dsw Vladimir Tukmakov Mikhail Botvinnik Mikhail Botvinnik Svetozar Gligoric Robert Fischer Mikhail Tal Eugenio Torre Tigran Petrosian Viktor Kortchnoi Viktor Kortchnoi Garry Kasparov Tigran Petrosian Viacheslav Eingorn Vladimir Bagirov Vladimir Tukmakov Vladimir Tukmakov

New York Wch-m 1 8 9 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I Havana Wch-m 1 8 9 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 St Petersburg I 9 1 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 Germany Wch-m 1 9 0 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 New York 1 9 1 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 Carlsbad 1 9 2 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 Merano 1 9 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 Berlin 1 9 2 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 Hamburg 1 9 3 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9 San Remo 1 9 3 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 Bled 1 9 3 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 Netherlands Wch-m 1 9 3 5 . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7 Netherlands Wch-m 1 9 3 5 . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 Netherlands Wch-m 1 9 3 5 . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Netherlands Wch-m 1 9 3 5 . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Sochi 1 9 7 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7 Netherlands Wch-m 1 9 3 7 . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9 Netherlands AVRO 1 9 3 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 Leningrad/Moscow ch-URS 1 94 1 . . . . . 5 5 The Hague/Moscow Wch I 948 . . . . . . . 5 7 Moscow m 1 9 5 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 Gothenburg izt 1 9 5 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5 Kyiv ch-UKR 1 9 6 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8 Moscow Wch-m 1 9 60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0 Moscow Wch-m 1 9 60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3 Belgrade 1 9 6 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6 Curaao ct 1 9 6 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 0 Moscow ch-URS 1 9 69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3 Moscow 1 9 8 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6 Buenos Aires m 1 9 7 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9 Baguio City Wch-m 1 9 7 8 . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3 Merano Wch-m 1 9 8 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5 Moscow Wch-m 1 9 8 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9 Yerevan ch-URS 1 9 7 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 2 Riga ch-URS 1 9 8 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 5 Jurmala 1 9 8 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 7 Lvov ch-URS 1 9 84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I 0 Lvov ch-URS 1 9 84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I 2

Game List

Leonid Yudasin Artur Jussupow Andrey Volokitin Vladimir Kramnik Vladimir Kramnik Vladimir Kramnik Viswanathan Anand Rustam Kasimdzhanov Rustam Kasimdzhanov Dmitry Yakovenko Evgeny Bareev Sergey Karjakin Alexey Shirov Vishwanathan Anand Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu Alexander Riazantsev Vasily Ivanchuk Dmitry Yakovenko Alexander Morozevich Sebastien Feller Magnus Carlsen Ruslan Ponomariov Maxime Vachier-Lagrave Sergey Karjakin Levon Aronian Teimour Radjabov Boris Gelfand Vasily Ivanchuk Paul Keres Mikhail Tal Lev Polugaevsky Lev Polugaevsky Artur Jussupow Viswanathan Anand Vladimir Kramnik Lev Polugaevsky Vladimir Tukmakov Levon Aronian Teimour Radjabov Wolfgang Uhlmann Maxime Vachier-Lagrave Viktor Moskalenko

Vladimir Tukmakov Frunze ch-URS 1 9 8 1 . . . . . . . . . . Vladimir Tukmakov Minsk ch-URS 1 9 8 7 . . . . . . . . . . Smbat Lputian Calvia Olympiad 2 0 04 . . . . . . . . . Peter Leko Brissago Wch-m 2004 . . . . . . . . . Viswanathan Anand Bonn Wch-m 2 0 0 8 . . . . . . . . . . . Viswanathan Anand Bonn Wch-m 2 0 0 8 . . . . . . . . . . . Veselin Topalov Sofia Wch-m 2 0 1 0 . . . . . . . . . . . Levon Aronian Jermuk 2 0 0 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ivan Cheparinov Jermuk 2 0 0 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boris Gelfand Jermuk 2 0 0 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vasily Ivanchuk Havana 2 0 0 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan Smeets Wijk aan Zee 2 0 1 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . Vladimir Kramnik Wijk aan Zee 2 0 1 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . Vladimir Kramnik Wijk aan Zee 2 0 1 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . Yannick Pelletier Rijeka Ech 2 0 I 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sergey Karjakin Poikovsky 2 0 I 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sergey Karjakin Nice rapid 2 0 0 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wang Yue Elista 2 0 0 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ruslan Ponomariov Moscow 2 0 0 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manuel Apicella France tt 2 0 0 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lenier Dominguez Perez Wijk aan Zee 2 0 I 0 . . . . . . . . . . . Vugar Gashimov Astrakhan 2 0 I 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boris Gelfand Khanty-Mansiysk Olympiad 2 0 1 0 Pavel Elianov Khanty-Mansiysk Olympiad 2 0 I 0 Vladimir Kramnik Moscow 2 0 1 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vladimir Kramnik Kazan m 2 0 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gata Kamsky Kazan m 2 0 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baadur Jobava Khanty-Mansiysk Olympiad 2 0 1 0 Boris Spassky Riga m 1 9 6 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bent Larsen Bled m 1 9 6 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Viktor Kortchnoi Buenos Aires m 1 9 8 0 . . . . . . . . . . Viktor Kortchnoi Buenos Aires m 1 9 8 0 . . . . . . . . . . Vasily Ivanchuk Brussels m l 9 9 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anatoly Karpov Lausanne m 1 99 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . Peter Leko Brissago Wch-m 2 0 0 4 . . . . . . . . . Lajos Portisch Petropolis izt 1 9 7 3 . . . . . . . . . . . Garry Kasparov Frunze ch-URS 1 9 8 1 . . . . . . . . . . Peter Leko Nalchik 2 0 0 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wang Yue Astrakhan 2 0 1 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anatoly Karpov Skopje 1 9 7 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pavel Elianov Wijk aan Zee 2 0 0 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . Vladimir Tukmakov Wijk aan Zee 1 9 9 2 . . . . . . . . . . . .
.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 16 1 20 1 28 1 30 1 32 1 36 1 39 1 43 1 46 I SO 1 52 ! 54 1 56 1 58 1 60 1 63 1 68 1 70 1 73 1 7S I 78 181 1 84 1 86 1 88 191 1 92 1 94 202 205 208 212 215 219 223 226 229 233 236 239 242 244

285

Modern Chess Preparation

Veselin Topalov Smbat Lputian Vasily Ivanchuk Wesley So Wang Hao Veselin Topalov Boris Gelfand Zahar Efunenko Zahar Efimenko Zahar Efunenko Vladimir Tukmakov Vladimir Tukmakov Ivan Cheparinov Vasily Ivanchuk Ruslan Ponomariov Gata Kamsky Alexander Grischuk Vladimir Malakhov Eltaj Safarli Victor Mikhalevski Palma deMallorca 1992............ 247 T ilburg 1994.................... 250 Khanty-Mansiysk 2005 ............ 253 Khanty-Mansiysk 2009 ............ 256 Khanty-Mansiysk 2007 ............ 258 Kazan m 2011................... 261 Kazan m 2011................... 265 Khanty-Mansiysk Olympiad 20 I 0 .... 268 Khanty-Mansiysk Olympiad 20 I 0 .... 271 Khanty-Mansiysk Olympiad 20 I 0 .... 274

286

M O D E R N C H ESS P R E PA RAT I O N
Gett i n g Ready for You r O pponent i n the I nformation Age
Wi n n i n g sta rts with p l a n n i n g b efore the ga m e, teaches lege n d a ry ch ess coach Vl a d i m i r Tu kma kov. In this g ro u n d - b rea k i n g book he shows h ow ch ess p repa ration has beco m e a syste matic p rocess a n d h ow tod ay's t o p p l ayers m a ke t h e i r ga m e p l a ns. The m ost i m p o rta nt aim of modern prepa rati o n , b o t h for p rofess i o n a l s a n d for a m b it i o u s a m ateu rs, is to get a playa b l e positi o n that you u n d e rsta n d better t h a n yo u r o p p o n e nt. The ro l e of the com puter i n prepa rat i o n h a s g rown tre m e n d o u s ly a n d Tu kma kov exp l a i n s h ow top g ra n d m a sters use t h e i r 'Metal Fri e n d '. H e wa rns that p rofess i o n a l s should n ot put too m u ch trust in ch ess e n g i n es a n d s h o u l d a n a lyse m o re deeply themselves. Club p l aye rs, o n the oth e r hand, s h o u l d red u ce t h e i r t i m e i n front of the m a ch i n e to a minimum. Tu kma kov exp l a i n s what a m ate u rs s h o u l d d o i n o r d e r to a r rive at the b o a rd we l l -a rmed : study the classics, a n a lyse yo u r own games with o u t a co m p uter, a n d know you rself. A speci a l c h a pter i s d evoted to m u st-w i n situat i o n s : when the o utco m e of a to u rn a m e nt, a m atch o r even a whole l ife d e p e n d s o n a s i n g l e ga m e .

"Understa n d i ng the strengths and weak nesses of you r opponent and havi ng a sober awa reness of you r own shortcomings, will pay d ividends at any level, from beginners up to World Cha mpions:'
A former U k ra i n i a n champion, G ra n d m aster

Vladimir Tukma kov

(born 1 946 i n Od essa) won m a ny to u r n a m ents and ca m e seco n d in three Soviet cha m p i o ns h i ps. After his a ctive career h e beca m e an esteemed chess coach. H e was non-p laying ca pta i n of the U k ra i n e tea m that won gold at the 36th Ch ess Olym p i a d i n Calvia, 2004.

With lots of brilliant examples, inside information and amusing anecdotes, Modern Chess Preparation is not only highly instructive, but also a joy to read.

NEW iN CHESS

www. newi nchess.com

Games 1 Chess

$26.95 1 23,95